Page images
PDF
EPUB

the middle to fit the injured vellum, and made fast by transparent paper, gummed to the edges of the paper and the vellum; the MS. can, therefore, be easily read on both sides. It is now bound in two large folio volumes. Sir Frederic Madden tells us that twenty-five folios are lost since Wanley described it. The first small fragment of this MS. now remaining is from folio 26, which Sir F. Madden has marked as part of St Mark vii. 22. Such a note deserves the best thanks of all who consult the MS., as it saves much of their time. The fragments increase a little in size from folio 26 to 38. St Luke is nearly complete, and occupies fol. 39-93. St John fills fol. 95-135, and is nearly perfect, especially in the latter part. There are not any rubrical directions, and only a few badly formed capital letters of a dingy red colour in this MS." It is unnecessary to describe the other contents of this MS., as Wanley explains that they have been brought together by a bookbinder, though written by different hands and at different times. But it may be observed that between the Gospels of St Luke and St John is inserted a charter relating to Aldhelm, abbot of Malmesbury in Wiltshire, who was afterwards bishop of Sherborne, in the time of Ine of Wessex, about A.D. 7051 This hint may serve to connect the MS. with the locality of Malmesbury, whilst its internal evidence connects it with the Corpus MS. written at Bath, and even still more closely with the Bodley MS. It is supposed to be coeval with the Corpus MS. In connection with the present work, it is obviously of great importance to explain in full how much of St Mark is left. The following fragments of parts of verses and passages can be read with tolerable ease.

[merged small][ocr errors][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][ocr errors][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small]

Fol. 32 b. Fr. of C. xii. v. 10-16.

Fol. 33. Fr. of C. xiv. v. 17-25.

[All the foregoing are mere fragments, with hardly a single complete line.]

C. xiv. v. 27 and 28 complete, but hardly legible in some places. Two words of v. 29: Da sæde.

Fol. 33 b. Fr. of C. xiv. v. 30-38, whole of v. 39, part of v. 40.

Fol. 34. Fr. of C. xiv. v. 41—48, whole of v. 49 and 50, part of v. 51.

Fol. 346. Fr. of C. xiv. v. 53-62, whole of v. 63, part of v. 64.

Fol. 35. Fr. of C. xiv. v. 65–72 (the last verse nearly

whole); C. xv. v. 1, nearly whole.

Fol. 35 b. Fr. of C. xv. v. 2—15.

Fol. 36. Fr. of C. xv. v. 16—25 (verse 20 is nearly whole); v. 26-28 whole; part of v. 29.

Fol. 36b. Fr. of C. xv. v. 30-32; whole of v. 33; fr. of

v. 34 and 35; verses 36-39 nearly whole; beginning of

v. 40.

Fol. 37. Fr. of C. xv. v. 40—xvi. 2.

Fol. 37 b. Fr. of C. xvi. v. 2—11.
Fol. 38.

1 Beda, Eccl. Hist. lib. v. cap. xviii.

Fr. of C. xvi. v. 12-20.

b

[ocr errors]

Owing to the very fragmentary character of these passages, and its very close agreement with the text, the various readings recorded from it in the first column (where it is denoted by the letter C.) are very few. By an oversight, none were recorded before the beginning of Chapter XII. Before this point the various readings are only these, viz. P. 60. viii. 6 hig [for last hi].-P. 62. viii. 20. seofan. 21. om. ge. 22. anne.-P. 72. ix. 33. smeada.-P. 76. x. 2. fandiende. 5. heardnysse. 6. wæpned 7 wimman.-P. 78. 18. hi [for hwi].-P. 80. 27. hig. 29. us [for hus]. 30. ecce.-P. 86. xi. 6. hig (twice). Compare the table of Errata at the end of this volume.

V. THE HATTON MS.-This MS., formerly marked Hatton 65, is now marked Hatton 38; it is now in the Bodleian Library, at Oxford, and is described by Wanley, p. 76. It is a neat volume, the leaves of which measure 94 by 6 inches, containing the four gospels, written in an exceeding uniform, upright, and clear hand, but of rather a late date, about the time of Henry II. The Gospels are arranged in the following order :-Mark, Luke, Matthew, and John. It is interesting as shewing how the language began to lose strength in its inflectional forms, as is at once apparent by comparing it with the older text here printed beside it. The rubrics occurring in it are printed in the right-hand margin. It formerly belonged to the Rev. John Parker, son to Archbishop Parker, whose name-Johēs parker-is written on the back of a fly-leaf. One leaf having been lost, the missing portion (Luke xvi.) was "restored" by Mr Parker.

VI. THE ROYAL MS. This MS. is now in the Royal Library at the British Museum, where its class-mark is Bibl. Reg. 1 A. xiv. It is described by Wanley, p. 181. It is somewhat older than the Hatton MS., and was probably written in the time of Stephen. It contains 175 leaves, each measuring about 8 by 5 inches. Leaves 3-173 are occupied by the Gospels, and contain about 25 lines on a page. The leaves at the beginning and end seem to have formed part of a Latin missal.

The handwriting is in singular contrast to that of the Hatton MS., being bold, hasty, and rough. It may seem fanciful, but it gives the impression of having been written in troublous times, when the object was rather to have a copy for ready use than to spend time in elaborating it. The general agreement of it with the Hatton MS. is very close, excepting that it preserves more archaic forms; and it contains nearly the same rubrics in the same places. It appears by collation that the Hatton MS. was actually copied from it by a scribe who had plenty of leisure. All doubt on the subject is removed by observing that the last seven verses of St Mark's Gospel, omitted by the scribe of the Royal MS., are supplied in it by the scribe of the Hatton MS. in his usual neat hand and with his peculiar spelling. This interesting fact seems never to have been hitherto observed. It proves, moreover, that the scribe of the Hatton MS. had access to some other MS. besides the Royal. The Gospels are in the order-Mark, Matthew, Luke, and

1

John. Wanley says that it formerly belonged to the Abbey of St Augustine's, Canterbury, and was afterwards in the possession of Archbishop Cranmer, whose name-Thomas Cantuarien:-is on the first page. This would seem to connect it with Canterbury as its locality.

VII. THE LINDISFARNE MS. This MS. is also known as the Durham Book; it is now one of the Cotton MSS. in the British Museum, its class-mark being Nero D. 4. This fine MS., one of the chief treasures in our national collection, has been frequently described at great length; see Wanley's Catalogue, p. 250, and especially the descriptions in Professor Westwood's "Palæographia Sacra Pictoria" and "Facsimiles of Miniatures and Ornaments of Anglo-Saxon and Irish MSS.;" also the Prolegomena to Part IV. of the "Lindisfarne and Rushworth Gospels," edited for the Surtees Society by Stevenson and Waring. It consists of 258 leaves of thick vellum, each measuring 13 inches by 9, and contains the four Gospels in Latin, written in double columns, with an interlinear Northumbrian gloss; together with St Jerome's Epistle to Pope Damasus, the Eusebian Canons, two prefaces, short notices of the four Evangelists, arguments of the sections into which the Gospels are divided, and tables of lessons to be read on Sundays, festivals, &c.1 The Latin text was written in the island of Lindisfarne by Eadfrith, who was bishop of Lindisfarne A.D. 698-721; so that if he wrote it before his election we must date it before 698. We cannot be far wrong in dating it, in round numbers, about A.D. 700. The interlinear gloss is two and a half centuries later, having been made by Aldred, a priest, about A.D. 950, at a time when the MS. was probably kept at Chester-le-Street, near Durham, whither it had been removed for fear of the Danes. The stains made upon the edges of the leaves by sea-water, probably during its transit from Lindisfarne to the mainland, are still plainly visible. The Durham Ritual, edited for the Surtees Society by Mr Stevenson in 1840, is glossed by the same hand. An entry at the end of St John's Gospel gives the names of Eadfrith the writer, and Aldred the glossator, as well as of Ethilwald and Bilfrith, who were employed upon the cover of it. Ethilwald succeeded Eadfrith in the see of Lindisfarne, A.D. 721, and died about the year 737. Another and much shorter entry occurs at the bottom of leaf 88, at the back, and is printed in this volume, p. 1; see also the Critical Notes. Immediately above this note is written "Incipiunt capitulae (sic) secundum marcum," and on the next leaf is a short life of St Mark headed "Incipit argumentum." Next, on leaf 90, "Incipiunt capitula lectionum;" and, at the bottom of leaf 92, a very imperfect list of days when the lessons are to be read. All this preliminary matter to St Mark's Gospel is here dum Mattheum, p. 21. The table of lessons from St Matthew is omitted by Kemble.

1 See Kemble's edition of the Gospel of St Matthew, which contains-Prologus decem Canonum, p. 1; Canones, p. 4; Præfatio ejusdem (i.e. Hieronymi), p. 7; Præfatio Eusebii, p. 10; Argumentum Matthei, p. 12; Capitula Lectionum secundum Mattheum, p. 13; and Evangelium Secun

2 See Wright's Biographia Britannica (Anglo-Saxon Period), p. 426.

printed, pp. 1-5. The Latin text of the Gospel, with the Northern-English gloss, occupies the upper part of the right-hand pages, beginning at p. 9.

VIII. THE RUSHWORTH MS. This MS. is in the Bodleian Library at Oxford, and is marked Auct. D. ii. 191. It now consists of 169 leaves of thick vellum,

measuring 14 by 10 inches, but is incomplete. It is described by Wanley, p. 81; by Professor Westwood in his "Palæographia Sacra Pictoria," and his "Facsimiles of the Miniatures and Ornaments of Anglo-Saxon and Irish Manuscripts;" by Mr Waring, in his Prolegomena to St John's Gospel, p. xlvii; and others. The Gospel of St Luke is incomplete, and there are no prefaces, arguments or tables, as in the Lindisfarne MS. In other points, however, it strongly resembles it, excepting that the Latin text is written all across the page, instead of in double columns. The Latin was written by a scribe who gives his name, at the end, as Macregol and Macreguil, but the date is uncertain. Wanley supposes it to have once belonged to Beda, who died A.D. 735; whilst, on the other hand, the Irish Annals of the year 820 record the death of a scribe named Mac Riagoil. We may, perhaps, refer it to the eighth century. The gloss is by two hands, those of Farman and Owun, whose names are given at the end of St John's Gospel; and Farman is described as a priest of Harewood, which is in the West Riding of Yorkshire, on the river Wharfe. The portion written by the former ends at the word hleonadun in v. 15 of the second chapter of St Mark, as the reader may perceive by turning to p. 19, and observing that the thorn-letter (b) seldom again occurs after that verse, except when used with a stroke through it, to denote the word "pæt." In v. 13 it occurs in pa preat, in v. 14 in midty, and cwep, and in v. 15 in midpy, for the last time. The gloss may be referred to the latter half of the tenth century. Nothing more is known of the history of the MS. till we find it in the hands of John Rushworth, of Lincoln's Inn, barrister, and deputyclerk to the House of Commons during the Long Parliament; by whom it was presented to the Bodleian Library.

The Latin text of the Rushworth MS. differs but slightly from that of the Lindisfarne MS., and hence it is omitted here, as in Kemble's edition of St Matthew; but I have thought it advisable to give, in the Appendix, every variation of spelling and of readings which it presents, as compared with the text of the Durham Book. The Northern-English (Yorkshire) gloss is given at the bottom of the right-hand pages, beginning at p. 9. Hitherto, it hardly seems to have been pointed out with sufficient distinctness that the Rushworth gloss is really derived from the Lindisfarne gloss in a very direct manner. I have no doubt that Farman and Owun actually consulted the identical Lindisfarne MS. which we now possess, to

1 The number 3946, assigned to it in note 3 on p. iv, is its number in the Old General Catalogue of MSS., printed at Oxford in 1697.

A rude figure, apparently of a flying lion, is drawn

in the margin of the MS. to mark where the handwriting changes.

assist them in glossing their own text, which occasionally differs, be it remembered, from the Latin Lindisfarne text. Hence it is that even the marginal notes of the one are reproduced in the other. In i. 6, we find a note on wudu hunig (woodhoney), viz. p waxes on wudu binde; this is reproduced in the Rushworth gloss in the form- waxep on wude bendum. In v. 9, legio (legion) is explained in the Lindisfarne MS.-[Jusend]1 + xii dusend p is legio [is] was diowla legio. This is exactly reproduced in the margin also of the Rushworth MS. One more example may suffice. It so happens that, in the Lindisfarne gloss, wherein capital letters are very rare indeed, the word Ne is written with a capital in xiii. 31. Precisely the same phenomenon occurs in the Rushworth gloss, only that the Ne is shifted into the preceding verse owing to confusion of transibit with transibunt. This is more than coincidence; it is proof. It is clear that Farman and Owun had the pages of the Lindisfarne MS. open before them whilst engaged in writing their own glosses. At the same time they exercised an independent judgment. At times they took leave to alter, or to omit a gloss as doubtful. In the case of double glosses they generally took the first. Thus, at p. 111, xiv. 4, the Lindisfarne gloss for est is was vel is; the Rushworth gloss is was simply. In xiv. 12, the gloss to immolant is asagcas vel ageafað in L., but asagas only in R. Sometimes, both glosses are copied, in the order in which they occur. Thus, in xiv. 4, we find hia bulgon vel unwyrde sægdon in the former, and hia bulgun vel unwyrðne sægdun in the latter. The fact of the Rushworth gloss being, to a considerable extent, a mere copy of the older one, does not seem hitherto to have been fully perceived; but it is a great help towards the right understanding of the later gloss, and sometimes even throws light upon the earlier one. It is not going far enough to say, as Mr Waring rightly says, that "both glossists drew from a common original;" we can go still further, because we know what this original was.

In some cases, for example, the Rushworth gloss remains a mere riddle till the Latin of the Lindisfarne MS. has been consulted. I would particularly draw attention to such instances as the following. In iv. 36, the Rushworth MS. has ita ut erat, i. e. as he was; but erat is actually glossed by hie werun, i. e. they were. This singular mistranslation is, however, at once accounted for when we observe that the Lindisfarne MS. has erant, with the gloss hia weron. Once more, in vi. 14, the Rushworth MS. has et propterea operantur virtutes [in] illo, where operantur is glossed by un-woene sint, i. e. are unexpected; the simple clue to which is that the Lindisfarne MS. hàs not operantur at all, but inopinantur, by which the gloss there given, viz. un-woen sint, was evidently suggested. The result may be briefly expressed by saying that, whereas the gloss in the Lindisfarne MS. depends upon the Latin text of that MS. only, the gloss in the Rushworth MS. depends upon the Latin texts in both.

1 The words dusend and dis are supplied from conjecture; they have been cut away by the binder of the volume.

« PreviousContinue »