Page images


I. The earliest edition of the Saxon Gospels is that printed by John Day in 1571, at the suggestion of Matthew Parker, Archbishop of Canterbury, with a dedication to Queen Elizabeth by John Foxe, the martyrologist, who probably had a considerable share in the work. For the purpose of ascertaining the exact critical value of the various editions, it will be convenient to analyse Chapter xi. of St Mark's Gospel in them all, as it is a short one, and occurs in the middle of the


Parker's edition is, no doubt, as Mr Thorpe says, closely copied from the Bodley MS. The chief variations from the MS. are these.

(a) The editor ignores the accents. These occur, in the MS., in the words bethanía, inc', áledon, osanná, cóm, áne, éte, láreow, sæ, gé, agén, ús.

(b) He prefers as a final letter, printing cwad for cwæþ, twynað for twynaþ, and the like; also gewurde for gewurpe.

(c) He prefers y to i, printing hym, hyne, sy, nys, &c., where the MS. has him, hine, si, nis.

(d) He puts capital letters to proper names, according to the usual custom; and expands all the contractions.

(e) The following seem to be misprints, viz. Asson for assan, v. 2; Hælend for hælende, v. 7; twelfe for twelf, v. 11; pære for þæra, v. 18; Fulluhte for fulluht,

v. 30.

(f) The following are corrections. He inserts ge after gelyfde in v. 31; he prints hæfdon for the incorrect MS. reading afdon in v. 32; and in v. 33, alters pincg into ping. The final cg, however, occurs sufficiently often in the Bodley and Cotton MSS., and might have been retained. The corrections shew that some other MS. was occasionally consulted, and the fact that the rubrics are inserted throughout tells us which, viz. the Cambridge one.

The edition may therefore be regarded as a tolerably correct print of MS. Bodley 441, with a few corrections from the Cambridge MS. The occasional misprints render it not quite trustworthy, but it often affords a probable clue to the peculiarities of the MS. which it follows. Thus, in the last word but one in the Gospel, we find in this edition the extraordinary form fyligendend in place of fyligendum. This is the actual reading, but the page on which it occurs is spurious; by which I merely mean, that it is copied out in a modern hand. The edition is printed in the (so-called) Saxon characters.

II. An edition of the Gothic and Anglo-Saxon Gospels in parallel columns was printed by Junius and Marshall in 1665.

1 In the first two words the stroke over the i is not, however, a true accent, but only used to distinguish ni or in from m.

This edition deserves a good deal of attention, and is executed with more critical ability than Mr Thorpe, in the preface to his own edition, seems to imply. It would have been still better had it been founded upon one of the MSS. themselves, but the real basis of it is Parker's edition. Marshall's Observations on the Anglo-Saxon version, pp. 487-565, contain, as Wanley remarks, many things worthy of note. At p. 490, we read that Junius, taking Parker's edition in hand, collated it with the Bodley, Cambridge, and Corpus MSS., and gave the collations to Marshall for him to make use of as he thought fit. The Hatton MS. and the Rushworth gloss were` also consulted. By help of these materials, Marshall corrected a large number of readings in Parker's edition, retaining those that seemed to be sufficiently correct. Turning to Chapter xi, we find that he has eliminated all the misprints noticed above in section (e), and gives the correct readings assan, hælende, twelf, þæra, sacerdas, and fulluht. In the following instances he adopts readings from the Cambridge MS. viz. in ongean for ongen, v. 2; hig for hi, v. 4; tempel for templ, v. 11; mynetera for mynetra, v. 15; sacerdas for sacerdos, v. 27; and in the addition of the words pe on heofonum' ys at the end of v. 26. In v. 33, he restores incg as the reading of the Bodley MS., though it is really written pincg. In v. 8, he corrects boceras to bogas, a correction suggested by the Hatton MS. Throughout he adopted the general rule of never giving any reading which may not be found in one or other of the MSS.; the only drawback being that he does not always say which of the MSS. contains the reading given. It is clear, however, that the Cambridge MS. was the one first consulted; then the Corpus, Hatton, and Rushworth MSS., in this order. In other respects he follows Parker's peculiarities, in (a) ignoring the accents; (b) the frequent use of as a final letter; (c) the frequent use of y for i; (d) the use of capital letters in proper names, and the expansion of contractions. He also introduces capitals frequently at the beginning of verses, but these occur in the MSS. The volume contains also the Moso-Gothic version; some notes on the differences between the readings of the Anglo-Saxon and Vulgate versions, p. 495; some notes on the rubrics, and the Anglo-Saxon words occurring in them, p. 508; some particular readings from the Bodley, Cambridge, Corpus, and Hatton MSS., which are denoted by the letters O., C., B. and H. respectively, p. 538; and notes upon passages in which the A. S. version seems to be corrupt or badly translated, p. 555; the whole displaying a good deal of care and painstaking.

III. An edition of A. S. Gospels was printed in 12mo. at London by Mr Thorpe in 1842, with the title-"Da halgan godspel on Englisc."

This edition is said to be based upon the Cambridge MS., with occasional readings from the Corpus MS. The Bodley and Cotton MSS. were also consulted.

1 MS. A. heofenum.

2 "O. denotat codicem Oxoniensem; C. Cantabrigiensem; B. Benedictinum; et H. Hattonianum,” p. 538.

The short preface is very misleading; the estimates there given of the editions of Parker and Marshall cannot be allowed to be correct. Thus, of Parker's edition he says that "it may be regarded as a faithful impression of a late manuscript (apparently Bodley 441), showing the tongue in its decline, and when rapidly verging towards that state of barbarism into which it sank about the beginning of the twelfth century." To this it may be objected that the Bodley MS. is a duplicate of the Cotton MS., which has some pretensions to being considered the earliest in existence; that some of the pages of the Bodley MS. are supplied incorrectly in a later hand; and that Parker's edition is not free from several bad misprints. Next we read that "Marshall's edition exhibits an earlier, though, perhaps, not a purer text, which the singularly unfortunate idea of its editor, of supplying the omissions of the Saxon version, sometimes (and not always grammatically) by his own words, and at others, from the old Northumbrian glosses, has, moreover, greatly contributed to vitiate." It may, however, be held that Marshall's text is not an earlier, but the same text, that it is very much purer owing to the careful way in which Junius made the collations, and that the words supplied where the MSS. are defective are enclosed within square brackets, and create no difficulty. But my chief reason for noticing these points is that Mr Thorpe's text is practically much the same as Marshall's which he condemns. It was clearly printed from a copy of Marshall's edition, in which two sets of alterations had been made. Firstly, the spellings of many unimportant words have been capriciously altered, so that, where Marshall prints his in Ch. xi. v. 1, Thorpe prints hys; but where Marshall prints hys in v. 14, Thorpe prints his. In like manner, hine hyngrode in v. 12 is put for hyne hingrode, and many other changes of i for y and y for i are made, which it is needless to recount': secondly, several readings are adopted from the Cambridge MS. which Marshall either overlooked or did not regard worthy of attention. Examples are; getigedne for getiggedne, v. 4; heora for hyra, vv. 7 and 8; heowon for heowun, v. 8; streowedon for streowodon, v. 8; þær for the second par in v. 13; ongan for ongann, v. 15; cypton for ciptun, v. 15; ondredon, v. 18; manigeo, v. 18; wyrt-ruman, v. 20; wyrigdest, v. 21; sig, v. 23; tweonað, v. 23; geweorde, v. 23; gebiddanne, v. 25; heofenlica, v. 25; heofenum, v. 25 (though in v. 26 Marshall's spelling heofonum is accidentally retained); acsige, v. 29. It is only in this sense that the edition can be considered as based upon the Cambridge MS.; for otherwise the reader who actually compares it with the MS. will find several unimportant differences. The result of the examination is that Mr Thorpe's edition is really a revised edition of Marshall's, and should have been so described. It is a valuable and useful edition because it is free from mistakes, and because the

1 The MS. itself has hys in both places, vv. 1 and 14;

in v. 12, it has hyne hyngrode; in v. 4, getygedne.

2 Thus, in xi. 30, 31, Thorpe, following Marshall, prints

heofene twice; not having observed that the MS., in the second instance, has 'heofenum.'

readings can always be defended; but it is uncritical in the sense that the MS. authorities are not given.

IV. Dr Bosworth printed an edition of "The Gothic and Anglo-Saxon Gospels, in parallel columns with the versions of Wicliffe and Tyndale" in 8vo.; London, 1865. In this edition, the text was, for the first time, based upon a better authority, viz. the Corpus MS., and is very valuable as giving the text of that MS. with great exactness. The only variations throughout Chapter xi. are that, in v. 26, the word heofonlica has been accidentally omitted; that man is put for mann in v. 14; that ongann in v. 15 has been replaced by the more usual form ongan; and that the evident misreading sacerdos in v. 27 has been corrected into sacerdas. The corrections ongen in v. 2 and bogas in v. 8 are supplied between square brackets. The only other differences are those purposely introduced by the editor, viz. the modern system of the use of capitals and of punctuation, a uniform system of accentuation, and a uniform use of the letters p and , which are used somewhat confusedly in the MS. The system adopted for the use of these letters is carefully explained at p. xxxii. of the editor's preface, and is based upon the modern English sounds of the words employed, p being put for the sharp sound of th in thin, and for the flat sound of th in thine. The practice of the scribe of the MS. is nearly the contrary of this; yet we find instances in which the letters have these theoretical values in farap, v. 2; Đa, vv. 7, 13, 18, 22; de, v. 9; cwyþ, v. 23; forgifap, v. 25; and ondradap, v. 32.

This edition has proved of very great service to me; indeed, it is the only one of the four which is of value from a critical point of view, as representing a definite text. I have collated it with the MS. throughout the whole gospel, so that, wherever my text varies from it, the variation has the authority of the MS. itself.

[ocr errors]

V. An edition of the Northumbrian glosses in the Lindisfarne MS. was printed in 1857 with the title :-"Die Vier Evangelien in Alt-Northumbrischer Sprache,...herausgegeben von Karl Wilhelm Bouterwek; Gütersloh, 1857." This is a very useful book, but I believe it to be founded upon a mistake, viz. upon a confusion between a gloss and a translation. A gloss, as may be seen by a glance at the right-hand pages of this volume, construes a text word for word, without much regard to the grammatical arrangement of the words of the vernacular tongue thus substituted. Its sole aim is to supply a clue to the meaning of the words of the original separately, that the original itself may be more easily understood. But a translation goes a great deal further; it is conformed to the grammatical laws of the vernacular tongue, and is intended to replace the original so completely, that the reader may be rendered quite independent of it. Here, however, the editor has endeavoured to treat the gloss as a translation, by transposing the words so as to bring them into the Anglo-Saxon order, and supplying, within square brackets, the words which are wanting to complete the sense. The result


is not quite satisfactory, because the occasional mistranslations produce passages in which the Latin text is indispensable, and consequently ought not to have been dispensed with. Besides which, to a reader who wishes to compare the gloss with the text, the transposition of the words is a source of great inconvenience. It would have been far better to allow the words of the gloss to stand in the same order as in the MS. In other respects, the edition is worthy of high praise, and is, in general, exact and careful. Whenever the editor varies from the MS. (which his scheme sometimes compels him to do), he gives the MS. reading in a note, that it may not be lost. In general, the MS. is very closely followed, but the contractions are sometimes (not always) expanded, and capital letters are given to proper names. The following variations from the MS. occur in Chapter xi., and are, in fact, errors. The readings of the edition are marked B.



1. bethaniæ is glossed Bethania; no gloss in MS. B. more; MS. mor. B. gie in; MS. omits. B. nænig; MS. ne ænig. 3. B. huæ; MS. hua. 4. B. uta (twice); MS. uta (once). 6. B. hia (both in text and note); MS. da de. 9. B. usig; MS. wusig (i. e. wsig, with small u above). 10. B. heahnissum; MS. heanis11. B. omits allum. 12. B. gehyncerde; MS. gewyncerde (where it is the MS. which is wrong). 14. B. inserts an I and p. 15. B. bycendo; MS. bycgendo. 17. B. awritten; MS. auritten. B. gebeddes; MS. gebedd'. 18. B. aldermonnum; MS. aldermonum. 23. B. (note) gelefes; MS. gelefe. 26. B. iuih pte t gif; MS. iuh tp gif. 27. B. ældisto; MS. ældesto. 28. B. doest; MS. does. 29. B. ondeuarde; MS. onduearde; (a mere printer's error). B. frægna; MS. fregna. B. onduerdes; MS. ondueardas. B. doa; MS. doam. 30. B. ondueardes; MS. ondueardas. 31. B. omits cuoed him t B. gesmeadun; MS. ge-smeadon. 32. B. omits wæs. 33. B. nutu; MS. neutu.

It deserves to be particularly remarked, that these and similar errors generally occur in the case of small and unimportant words, and some are due to the difficulty of carrying out the system of forcing a gloss into the guise of a translation. Mistakes in the more important words are very rare. It must be added, that the volume contains an excellent glossary, with copious references; also a preface and introduction, occupying 164 pages. An appendix contains the marginal notes, &c. written in the MS.; the preface of St Jerome, both text and gloss; the life of St Matthew, text and gloss; the arguments of the sections of St Matthew, text and gloss; the life of St John, text and gloss. All these are from the same MS., but do not exhaust its contents, as it also has lives of St Mark and St Luke, with arguments, and an argument of the sections of St John. See the account of the next edition.

1 This well illustrates the difference between a gloss and a translation; the Latin orationis is rightly glossed by

gebedd (a prayer), but B. gives the translation gebeddes (of prayer).

« PreviousContinue »