Peck Pedigree: new information on BL Add MS 5524
Nathaniel Taylor
all its manuscripts into named collections (Cotton, Harley, etc.)--which
all came in together as large sets, and all others are simply
'Additional', numbered consecutively from the early 1700s to the
present. Periodic catalogues have been printed, since 1782, listing the
manuscripts and describing them--and sometimes saying something about
their provenance.
The 1782 catalogue covered manuscripts through no. 5017. From 1835
forward, continuous volumes list all the MSS from no. 10019 through the
present (I think they're up above 80,000).
Unfortunately the period 1783 to 1835 (MSS nos. 5018 to 10018) does not
have a consecutive catalogue noting the manuscripts one by one, as is in
print for all earlier and later accessions. There is, apparently a
catalogue of them which exists as a manuscript itself, at the BL:
'Catalogue of the Additions made to the Department of Manuscripts since
the publication of Mr. Ayscough's Catalogue in 1782', 1829-1837. 24
vols. [Covers Add. MSS 5018-7079]
This is cited in:
M. A. E. Nickson, _British Library: Guide to the Catalogues and indexes
of the Department of Manuscripts_ (London, 1978).
However, there is a separate sort of work in print, uniquely for the
period 1783 to 1835: a subject index, published in 1849, listing
individual items found in those manuscripts, often down to the page
level. This work is:
_Index to the Additional Manuscripts with those of the Egerton
Collection preserved in the British Museum and acquired in the years
1783-1835_ (London: Trustees of the British Museum, 1849).
Under the heading "Peck, family of" it lists "Pedigree: [Add. MS] 5524,
ff. 152, 152b, 153, 153b, and 154." and "Arms: [Add. MS] 5524, folio
221."
While it is not a catalogue as such, and so does not contain a
volume-level description or provenance, the numbering suggests that Add.
MS 5524 was probably acquired around 1790 to 1810, and that the Peck
pedigree was in it before 1849. Browsing the index also gives clues
about the nature of the MS. On the same page of the index there are
references to --
Peche, family of (co. Suff.)
Philipott, family of
This suggests that the MS volume as a whole is an authentic antiquarian
MS of at least the 18th century--perhaps specializing in Suffolk
pedigrees--acquired by the BL at the end of the 18th century. Google
Books returns a few references to this MS showing that it seems to focus
on Norfolk and Suffolk families. This information rules out the
scenario that the pedigree exists in a set of papers donated in the
mid-19th century, and makes it nearly impossible that the whole thing
was concocted by Somerby.
Another possible scenario had been that the Suffolk branch might have
been interpolated at a later point (i.e. by Somerby): this is also
unlikely if the MS is specifically focused on Suffolk families (thus it
only should be there in the first place because of the Suffolk
connection). At any rate, whether it is interpolated or altered (e.g.
if the fifth page were added later) should be easy to discern looking at
the original, in person (reviewing the nature of the binding, colors of
the ink, comparisons of the hands, etc.).
The handwriting still raises some flags. Is it really from 1620? The
whole thing may an eighteenth-century copy of an earlier pedigree
(attestation and all): there are many 18th-c genealogical MSS floating
around the British library, for example the prolific copywork of Edward
Hasted, the Kentish antiquary, in the Harley MSS. On this pedigree, the
first two heralds' names (Henry St. George, Richmond Herald, and Henry
Chitting, Chester Herald) look like they're written in the same hand, so
the whole could be a later copy of a pedigree with their attestation
copied as well. Philpott's name appears written as a signature, though
this too may not be original. There are characteristics of the hand
which do not match the early 17th century (capital C and lower-case h,
for example). On the other hand, many pedigrees, even sixteenth-century
ones, appear to have used italic lettering as a way to distinguish them
from every-day script.
But even if the MS is physically 'authentic', we still must assume no
link between the Beccles & Wakefield Pecks: the chronology is impossible
and the sons of John Peck of Wakefield here do not match his will or the
Yorkshire visitations. So where did the impetus for this fraudulent link
come from? Who was responsible for first grafting the Beccles family
onto Wakefield? If the document really comes from the pen of Philpott
or one of his confreres, it most likely was done for Nicholas Peck,
brother of the emigrant. He is said to have married an heraldic
heiress; his son is the only person of the next generation noted, and
there is a six-quarter achievement (incorrectly so, as the fourth
quarter, the bend with three mullets for Hatham of Scarborough, is not
in the alleged direct line above the Suffolk Pecks) representing the
young William. Nicholas is the 'person who matters' in the last
recorded generation, who is invariably the person for whom the pedigree
was originally compiled.
If it was made for him, it is surprising that the Suffolk Pecks did not
make it into the Visitation of Suffolk in 1634/5. I would consult Joan
Corder's _Dictionary of Suffolk Arms_ (1965) to see whether any use of
these arms by the Suffolk Pecks is found, anywhere other than in this
MS.
To repeat: it is still important to examine the original MS, and its
context & provenance, but I am inclined to absolve Somerby of the charge
of physical forgery of this leaf, unless other red flags are raised or
sustained on physical inspection. If no interpolation or alteration is
obvious, this is most likely to be an authentic 17th-century document or
an 18th-century copy of a 17th-century document. Then the fraudulent
association of the Suffolk and Yorkshire families probably was concocted
for Nicholas Peck around 1620.
Someone suggested simply asking the College of Arms for copies of
whatever they may have on this; it is the obvious next step after
looking at this BL manuscript. Unfortunately the heralds' official
assistance might be rather costly, even for a memorandum simply listing
the manuscripts they hold which treat the Wakefield and (if any) Beccles
Pecks. With a photo of the BL manuscript, they might be in a position
to authenticate or reject the signature of, say, Philpot.
Nat Taylor
http://www.nltaylor.net
Nathaniel Taylor
<nltaylor-11A580...@earthlink.vsrv-sjc.supernews.net>,
Nathaniel Taylor <nlta...@nltaylor.net> wrote:
> ... Browsing the index also gives clues
> about the nature of the MS. On the same page of the index there are
> references to --
>
> Peche, family of (co. Suff.)
> Philipott, family of
Those entries are for things within Add. MS 5524 itself, I should
clarify.
> This suggests that the MS volume as a whole is an authentic antiquarian
> MS of at least the 18th century--perhaps specializing in Suffolk
> pedigrees--acquired by the BL at the end of the 18th century...
Nat Taylor
http://www.nltaylor.net