Page images

VI. The same editor, Herr Bouterwek, printed a volume entitled "Screadunga,” ie. Fragments, at Elberfeld, in 1858. This contains the lives of St Mark and St Luke and the arguments to St Mark's, St Luke's, and St John's gospels, omitted in his former volume. But besides this, the volume contains both the Latin text and gloss, of St Mark's gospel only, from the Rushworth MS. The following is an analysis of Chapter xi.

Latin text. 1. B. appropinquarent Ierosolymae et Bethaniae; MS. adpropinquarent hierusolimae & bithaniae. 2. B. illuc; MS. illud. B. soluite; MS. solute (wrongly). 6. B. eis; MS. illis. 7. B. imponunt; MS. inpossuerunt. 9. B. praeibant; MS. praecedebant. B. Hosanna; MS. ossanna. (So also in v. 10). 11. B. Ierosolymam; MS. hirusolyma. B. exiit; MS. exiuit. 12. B. a; MS. de. 15. B. Ierosolymam; MS. hierusolymam. B. in templum; MS. templum. B. eiicere; MS. eicere. B. numulariorum; MS. nummulariorum. 16. B. quisque; MS. quisquam. 17. B. speluncam; MS. speloncam. 18. B. doctrina; MS. doctrinam. 20. B. transirent ; MS. transierent. 21. B. recordatus; MS. recordatus est. 23. B. quia (twice); MS. quia (once). B. haesitauerit; MS. essitauerit. B. fiet; MS. omits. 24. B. euenient; MS. ueniet. 26. B. dimiseritis; MS. demiseritis. B. dimittet; MS. dimittat. 27. B. Ierosolymam; MS. hierusolimam. B. in templo accedunt; MS. in templum accesserunt. 28. B. ista; MS. haec. 29. B. respondete; MS. respondite. 30. B. Baptismus Ioannis; MS. baptismum iohannis. B. respondete; MS. respondite. 32. B. Ioannem; MS. iohannem. 33. B. dicunt; MS. dixerunt. B. et respondens; MS. respondens.

Northumbrian gloss. 8. B. legdon; MS. legdun. 17. B. wutudlice; MS. wutodlice. 25. B. hwoegn; MS. hwoegu. 33. B. ne ic ic; MS. ne ec ic.

From this and further examination of the edition it readily appears that the Latin text and Northumbrian gloss are very differently represented in this edition; the former is faulty, but the latter excellent. In fact, the Latin must really have been derived originally from some other source; it is quite impossible that inpossuerunt could have been copied imponunt in v. 7, and praecedebant read as praeibant: It will be found, in fact, that Bouterwek's text is much more free from blunders than the careless text in the MS., and represents the text of the Lindisfarne MS. much more closely than that of the Rushworth MS. In short, this edition of the Latin text is not to be trusted for fidelity.

On the other hand, the Northumbrian gloss is represented with great exactitude; the editor preserves the curls and marks of contraction of the MS., so as to produce almost a facsimile of it. Whatever errors occur are but slight, and I have found it well worth while to collate my own text with Bouterwek's throughout the entire gospel. My own text is, in fact, the same as his, but with the few errors corrected, and the contractions expanded.

VII. Among the publications of the Surtees Society, Nos. 28, 39, 43, and

48, A.D. 1854—1865, is an edition of the Lindisfarne and Rushworth Gospels, exhibiting both the Latin texts and English glosses. The first volume was edited by the Rev. J. Stevenson, the last three by Mr G. Waring. This elaborate edition, the work of some years, was intended to shew the exact contents of both MSS., with the exception of the short lives of the Evangelists, the prefaces of St Jerome, and the arguments of the sections of the Gospels. It will be sufficient to speak here of the second volume only, containing St Mark's Gospel. The only intentional variations of the edition from the MSS. are in the use of capitals for proper names and the first words in each verse, the use of v for u, of j for i before vowels, of a for ae, and in the frequent expansions of contractions. Unfortunately, however, either on account of some faults in the original transcript, or of some oversights in comparing the proofsheets with the MSS. themselves, the result is hardly satisfactory. A list of the errors in chapter xi. will shew their nature.

Latin text (Lindisfarne MS.). 1. adpropinquaret'; Hierosolyma; 2. illum omitted. 4. inveniunt. 5. eis. 11. Hierosolyma. 12. exiret ea. 14. æternam. 24. omnia omitted. 33. et omitted.

[ocr errors]

2. de (gloss to quod); ongeægn;

Northumbrian gloss (Lindisfarne MS.). 1. more. gie inserted before ineodon; done fola (for fola); nænig; dene omitted. 3. huæ ; hia unbinde. 6. cuoedon. 7. done fola. 8. hiora; woeg; gebugon. 9. usig; heahnissum. 11. ymbsceawde; efrntid was; bethania omitted; 12. bethania omitted; gehyncerde. 13. Sæm ilca (twice); leafa. 14. Rune for monn omitted (corrected inserted after geherdon. 16. fæt. 17. awritten; gebeddes. 19. was. 20. omitted. 21. wæs eftmyndig; peter omitted. 28. to inserted; doest. 29. frægna; iuh; him . 33. 1 omitted; neuto we.

in Addenda);
18. Sæm omitted.

23. sende; gelefed.

24. gie omitted. doa. 30. fulwiht; monnum.

31. so

Latin text (Rushworth MS.). The Latin text is exhibited by a collation at the foot of the page, but the collation is vitiated by being compared with a faulty text above. Several of the peculiarities of the Rushworth text are passed over; this I denote by the word "missed." The following are misreadings. 1. adpropinquaret. 2. adhuc nemo missed; illum omitted. 4. inueniunt. 5. eis. 6. illis for first eis missed; præceperant given as a reading, where MS. has praeciperat ; dimisierunt missed. 7. impossuerunt given as a reading, where MS. has inpossuerunt. 11. hirusolyma missed. 14. æternum; ex te fructum missed. 24. omnia omitted. 26. dimittit given, where MS. has dimittat. 28. haec for ista missed. 31. omission of nobis missed. 33. et omitted.

Northumbrian gloss (Rushworth MS.). The following are wrong. 2. onfindas. 4. dæm; I inserted. 8. gibedgun (printer's erratum). 9. ge (for se). 10. user;

1. I give only the forms in the Surtees Society's edition; for the correct forms, see p. 87 in this volume.

Davides; hæł. 12. beth. 13. gimette; ne fand. 14. nænig. 17. pte (printer's erratum, corrected in Addenda; so in vv. 23, 28); wutudlice. 21. cwede. 24. cwedo; gibiddas. 30. inserted. 31. solice; hiæ omitted. 33. wittan.

A large number of these errors are of no great moment, and several of them appear to be corrections deliberately adopted. I draw attention to them because otherwise the numerous variations between my own text and that of the Surtees Society might appear remarkable. My own plan is to give the uncorrected readings of the MSS. themselves, from a conviction that in many instances students not only prefer to correct them for themselves, but may be better able to correct them than I am. It is by no means my wish to depreciate the value and worth of the enormous labour involved in these publications of the Surtees Society; and the reader must be cautioned against forming too unfavourable an estimate of them from the numerous printer's errors in the first two or three opening chapters of this Gospel, wherein the letters p, w, and p are confused, and n and u not always not always distinguished. In practice, I have found Mr Waring's volume extremely useful, and have collated it throughout with the Lindisfarne MS. For the Rushworth gloss I have preferred Bouterwek's edition, as being more uniformly correct. In correcting In correcting proofsheets, I have consulted the MSS. themselves only. The present volume no doubt also contains a few errors, but they can hardly be numerous.

VIII. The first volume of the present work, work, viz., the Gospel of St Matthew edited by Mr Kemble, has been already spoken of. It may be as well to add that it does not follow the capitals of the MSS., and that the punctuation accords with the modern method. The letters v and j are used before a vowel, where the MS. has u and i, the other usual editorial alterations of this character are made throughout. The larger sections are not numbered, and the reference-numbers to the subsections in other gospels are omitted. These are, perhaps, but small matters. It is of more importance to note that in the Canons printed on pages 4-7, a few of the numbers a few of the numbers are misprinted. Thus, in the second column of St Luke in Canon Secundus, lines 18 and 19, the numbers 35 and 36 have been reversed by the printer into 53 and 63. In col. 1, line 26 of St Mark in the same Canon, 141 is printed 41, by the dropping out of 1; and in col. 4, 1. 1 of St Mark, 146 is printed 149 by the reversal of the last figure.


[ocr errors]

The present volume begins with the heading "Incipiunt capitulae' secundum Marcum," as in the Lindisfarne MS.; but this heading really refers to the sections enumerated on p. 2. Next follows the note by the glossator Aldred already alluded to at p. xi. At fol. 89 is a short life of St Mark, headed Incipit Argumentum," concerning which see the note at p. 141. The Latin text being corrupt, it can hardly be expected that the gloss should make very good sense. The most curious circumstance here narrated is the tradition that St Mark cut his thumb off, concerning which see a note by Mr J. S. Wood, of St John's College, Cambridge, in the Journal of Philology, vol. ii. p. 87, and pp. vii—xi. of the preface to Tischendorf's edition of the Codex Amiatinus. It is noteworthy that Aldred seems entirely to have misunderstood this, as he glosses amputasse by to tellanne vel to clansanne (to tell or to cleanse), and pollicem by gehatne (promised). In the latter instance, he was evidently thinking of the Latin pollicitus. The homily numbered XVI. by Wanley (Catalogue, p. 188) in MS. Cotton Julius E. 7, is on the Passion of St Mark, and it is followed by a second homily on the Four Evangelists. In the latter, the notice of St Mark is so short that I here quote it entire, from the copy in MS. Camb. Univ. Lib. I. 1. 33, p. 220. It is written in a rude sort of rhythm, with not very well-marked alliteration.

Se oper godspellere Marcus. se was mid þam apostle petre
ge-togen on lare. and to ge-leafan ge-biged.
Petrus was his god-fæder

& he swa lange folgode

& hine gode ge-strynde.

his fulluht-fæder petre.

ohe ge-sette mid sopum ge-leafan

ba oðre cristes bóc on italia lande.

Ne ge-seah he crist on life. ac he leornode swa-peah

of petres bodunge. hu he da boc ge-sette.

& petrus hi sceawode. & sealde to rædenne.

This may be translated as follows:

The second Evangelist Mark, who was by the apostle Peter
Instructed in lore, and to belief turned;

1 So in the MS. At p. 2, it is rightly spelt capitula.

2 The two homilies seem to form but one in reality. Other copies are found in MSS. Corp. Chr. Coll. Cam. S. 8

(now 198), Camb. Univ. Lib. Ii. 1. 33, and Cotton Vitellius D. 17.

Peter was his godfather, and begat him in the Lord.
And he so long followed his baptismal father Peter,
Until he instituted with true belief

The second Christ's book (gospel) in Italian land.

He saw not Christ alive, but he learnt nevertheless
From Peter's preaching, how he should make the book;
And Peter considered it, and delivered it for reading.

At p. 2 are printed the " Capitula Lectionum," or short summaries of the contents of the various portions of the Gospel read at various times.

The whole gospel is divided into 46 such portions, as indicated by the capital Roman numbers in the margins of the right-hand pages. Section XI., for example, is said to contain the parable of the sower. Compare the capital "XI." in the margin at the beginning of chapter iv. p. 27.

This is, perhaps, the most convenient place in which to add that the Gospel is further divided into smaller sections, generally known as the "Ammonian sections'," which correspond to sections in the other gospels, according to the tables printed in Mr Kemble's edition of St Matthew, already mentioned on p. xxi. Thus, at ch. iv. ver. 1, the 36th section of St Mark, as shown by Canon Secundus, corresponds to the 76th section of St Luke and the 131st of St Matthew. I have throughout taken the liberty of printing the number of each subsection in Arabic numerals, as in Mr Kemble's book, though the MS. has Roman numerals only.

At the bottom of p. 5 is printed the imperfect table of lessons, which is to be read in five separate lines, as follows. I omit the gloss.

Sabbato sancto mane.

Post penticosten in ieiunium feria .iiii.

Die dominica de indulgentia passio domini nostri iesu christi.
feria .ui. de albas (sic) paschae.

The lessons to which these refer are left obscure owing to the lack of prefixed numbers. Probably these were to have been inserted in red letters, but were omitted by the rubricator. The tables of lessons to the other gospels are similarly obscure. A note in Marshall's edition (p. 513) seems to indicate a connection between the first line and the rubric in Camb. MS. at Chap. vi. 45Dis sceal on sæternes dæg ær halgan dæge-which would suggest that section

1 Ammonius of Alexandria, in the third century, endeavoured to form a harmony of the Gospels. Eusebius improved upon it by drawing up his ten Canons, in which

the sections of the Gospels are classed accordingly as the fact is found in all four gospels, in three, in two, or in one only.

« PreviousContinue »