Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-8ctnn Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-26T01:06:21.726Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Francis Junius (1591–1677): copyist or editor?

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  26 September 2008

Kees Dekker
Kees Dekker
Affiliation:
University of Groningen
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

In September 1890, Hendrik Logeman, professor of English and Germanic philology at the University of Ghent in Belgium, had the audacity to accuse no less a scholar than Henry Sweet of misleading his readers. Logeman based his accusation on an unfortunate remark Sweet had made in his edition of the Old English translation of Pope Gregory's Pastoral Care. For this scholarly edition, Sweet had wished to include the text of London, British Library, Cotton Tiberius B. xi. However, having barely survived the Ashburnham House blaze of 1731, this manuscript had been almost entirely consumed by fire at a bookbinder's in 1865. As a replacement, Sweet had used Oxford, Bodleian Library, Junius 53, a transcript made by the seventeenth-century philologist Francis Junius (1591–1677) when the Cotton manuscript was still unscathed. Sweet praised Junius and emphasized the accuracy of the transcript by stating that Junius only ‘swerved from the path of literal accuracy in a few unimportant particulars’. Hendrik Logeman had collated the Old English glosses to the Benedictine Rule from Cotton Tiberius A. iii with a Junius transcript, Junius 52, for his 1888 edition, but he found, instead, that Junius failed to distinguish between 〈ð〉 and 〈þ〉 that he corrected his text without giving the reading of the manuscript, and that he added, omitted or transposed entire words.

Type
Research Article
Information
Anglo-Saxon England , Volume 29 , January 2000 , pp. 279 - 296
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2000

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1 Ker, N. R., A Catalogue of Manuscripts Containing Anglo-Saxon (Oxford, 1957), p. 257.Google Scholar For a detailed account of the events, see Prescott, A., ‘“Their Present Miserable State of Cremation”: the Restoration of the Cotton Library’, Sir Robert Cotton as Collector: Essays on an Early Stuart Courtier and his Legacy, ed. Wright, C. J. (London, 1997), pp. 391–454, at 419–21.Google Scholar

2 For information on Francis Junius, I refer to Franciscus Junius F.F. and His Circle, ed Bremmer, R. H. Jr (Amsterdam, 1998).Google Scholar For an inventory (though not always reliable) of the Junius manuscripts by N. Denholm-Young, see Madan, F., Craster, H. H. E. and Denholm-Young, N., A Summary Catalogue of Western Manuscripts in the Bodleian Library at Oxford, 7 vols. (Oxford, 1895–1953), II. 2, 962–90Google Scholar; see also Stanley, E. G., ‘The Sources of Francis Junius's Learning as Revealed in the Junius Manuscripts in the Bodleian Library’, Franciscus Junius F.F., ed. Bremmer, , pp. 159–76.Google Scholar

3 King Alfred's West-Saxon Version of Gregory's Pastoral Care, ed. Sweet, H., EETS os 50 (London, 1871), vi–ix, xix.Google Scholar

4 The Rule of S. Benet. latin and Anglo-Saxon Interlinear Version, ed. Logeman, H., EETS os 90 (London, 1888), xxxii.Google Scholar

5 The Academy: a Weekly Review of Literature, Learning, Science and Art, no. 960, p. 274.

6 For the other letters, see The Rule of S. Benet. latin and Anglo-Saxon Interlinear Version no. 962, p. 319; no. 963, pp. 343–4; and no. 964, p. 366.

7 Zupitza, J., ‘Kentische Glossen des neunten Jahrhunderts’, ZDA 21 (1877), 1–59, at 42, s.v. aręrð.Google Scholar

8 Ibid. pp. 2–3. This particular glossary is now Antwerp, Plantin-Moretus Museum, 16.2+ London, British Library, Add. 32246.Google Scholar

9 Anglo-Saxon and Old English Vocabularies, ed. Wright, T. and Wülcker, R. P., 2nd ed., 2 vols. (London, 1884, repr. Darmstadt, 1968) I, 104–91.Google Scholar

10 Förster, M., ‘Die altenglische Glossenhandschrift Plantinus 32 (Antwerpen) und Additional 32246 (London)’, Anglia 41 (1917), 94–161, at 94–6.Google Scholar See also Ker, Catalogue, p. 2, art. d, who speaks of ‘confusing results’.

11 Jost, K., ‘Zu den Handschriften der Cura Pastorali’, Anglia 37 (1913), 63–8.Google Scholar

12 Ibid. p. 66: ‘Gewisse lautliche umsetzungen sind wohl mehr oder weniger systematisch durchgeführt … während bei andern blosse nachlässigkeit vorliegen mag; dazu kommen eine grosse anzahl tiefergreifender textveränderungen wie wortauslassungen oder -hinzufügungen.’

13 The Paris Psalter and the Meters of Boethius, ed. Krapp, G. P., ASPR 5 (New York, 1932), xli–xliv.Google ScholarThe remaining passages of Old English verse from Cotton Otho A. vi as well as Junius's transcripts are printed in facsimile by Robinson, F. C. and Stanley, E. G., Old English Verse Texts From Many Sources: a Comprehensive Collection, EEMF 23 (Copenhagen, 1991), section 5.Google Scholar

14 Bennett, J. A. W, ‘The History of Old English and Old Norse Studies in England from the Time of Francis Junius till the End of the Eighteenth Century’ (unpubl. DPhil dissertation, Oxford Univ., 1938), pp. 341–4.Google Scholar

15 In his comments on the dispute between Sweet and Logeman, Bennett (‘History’, p. 341, n. 1), was rather partial to Sweet. In an understatement, he mentioned that Sweet's praise of Junius 53 gave rise to some controversy, and added that Sweet's arguments were forceful enough to make Logeman withdraw his charge, which never actually happened. Moreover, Bennett failed to mention Jost's support for both Logeman's arguments and Zupitza's earlier comments.

16 Lucas, P. J. in F.F, F. Junius., Cadmonis monachi paraphrasis poetica Genesios ac praecipuarum sacrae paginae historiarum, abhinc annos MLXX… (Amsterdam, 1655), repr. in facsimile with an introduction by P. J. Lucas, Early Stud, in Germanic Philol. 3 (Amsterdam, GA, 2000), 3.7–3.14.Google Scholar

17 This poem is in Cotton Julius A. ii, 136–137r; Ker, , Catalogue, p. 202 (no. 159, art. 1).Google Scholar See Junius, , Cædmon, pp. 110–11.Google Scholar

18 In Junius, Cædmon, 3.14–3.16, Lucas shows that a number of Junius's emendations anticipate those attributed to later scholars, suggesting the possibility that later editors consulted Junius 73 *, and rightly suggests that Junius should receive due credit for these conjectures.

19 Ibid. p. 3.13–3.14.

20 Ker, , Catalogue, pp. 243–4 (no. 186, arts 9 a, d-f).Google Scholar Junius's transcript is in Junius 63, pp. 1–13.

21 Pulsiano, P. and McGowan, J., ‘Four Unedited Prayers in London, British Library Cotton Tiberius A. iii’, MS 56 (1994), 189–216, at 193–4.Google Scholar

22 Cf. Gen. II.19–20. For the history of ideas about language origins, see Borst, A., Der Turmbau von Babel, 4 vols. in 6 (Stuttgart, 1957–1963), 1262–1394Google Scholar; Stam, J. H., Inquiries into the Origin of language: the Fate of a Question (New York, 1976)Google Scholar; Gessinger, J. and Rahden, W von, Theorien vom Ursprung der Sprache, 2 vols. (Berlin, 1989).Google Scholar

23 F.F., F. Junius, Observations;in Willerami Abbatis Francicam paraphrasin Cantici canticorum (Amsterdam, 1655)Google Scholar, repr. in facsimile with an introduction by N. Voorwinden, Early Stud, in Germanic Philol. 1 (Amsterdam, 1992), π8r: ‘Commentationis exercirium accessi, nisi ut magis magisque explicetur Veritas …’ (‘I have engaged in the exercise of this commentary with no other intention than that the truth should become more and more unravelled’) (I refer to the book's first unnumbered quire as π). See also F.F., F. Junius, Gothicum glossarium quo pleraque Argentei Codicis vocabula explicantur, atque ex linguis cognatis illustrantur (Dordrecht, 1665)Google Scholar, ***2r, where Junius draws his etymological studies into a more philosophical perspective.

24 Junius, Observationes, π6r+v, and π3r ‘neque aliunde veras Teutonicarum vocum origines certiús peti posse, quam ex priscâ istiusmodi monumentorum ortographiâ’ (‘The true origins of [High and Low] German words cannot be sought with more certainty from anywhere than from the ancient spelling of such documents’).

25 Because the nature of Renaissance textual criticism has often been discussed, I will limit myself to this summary remark. For the information presented here, I refer to D'Amico, J. F., Theory and Practice in Renaissance Textual Criticism: Beatus Rhenanus between Conjecture and History (Berkeley, CA, 1988)Google Scholar, whose discussion of the German ‘arch-humanist’ Beatus Rhenanus provides an excellent background. See also Hamilton, A., ‘Humanists and the Bible’, The Cambridge Companion to Renaissance Humanism, ed. Kraye, J. (Cambridge, 1996), pp. 100–17.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

26 See Dekker, K., The Origins of Old Germanic Studies in the Low Countries, Brill's Studies in Intellectual History 92 (Leiden, 1999), 41–52.Google Scholar

27 Junius, Observations, π6v.

28 See also Dekker, K., ‘“That Most Elaborate One of Francis Junius”, an Investigation of Francis Junius's Manuscript Old English Dictionary’, The Recovery of Old English: Anglo-Saxon Studies in the Sixteenth and Seventeenth Centuries, ed. Graham, T. (Kalamazoo, MI, 2000), pp. 310–54.Google Scholar

29 Spelman, J., Psalterium Davidis Latino—Saxonicum vetus …. (London, 1640). Spelman collated his edition, based on London, British Library, Stowe 2, with Cambridge, Trinity College R. 17. 1; Cambridge, University Library, Ff. 1. 23; and London, British Library, Arundel 60, to which he referred as ‘T’, ‘C’ and ‘A’, respectively. Although many of Spelman's marginalia concern lexical variants, there are also spelling variants, for example in Ps. 2 (Spelman, Psalterium, B2r):geoc/ ioc, Ps. IV (B3r) gecigde / gecigede; Ps. V (B4r): morgine / morgen, (B4v) soðfastnys / sopþfestnesse; etc.Google Scholar

30 Junius, Gothicum Glossarium, *** lv: ‘In allegandis quoque Argentei codicis locis oppidò quàm sumus copiosi, ut ex multâ citationum varietate Lector pleniùs deprehendat antiquam principis linguæ ortographiam in Verborum Nominùmque inflexionibus, atque eâdem quoque operà qualemcunque syntaxeos Gothiæ rationem observet’ (‘We have been exceedingly elaborate in adducing places from the Codex Argenteus, so that from the great variety of citations the reader may fully understand die ancient spelling of the first language in the inflection of verbs and nouns, and so that he may perceive some principles of the Gothic syntax with the same effort’).

31 Junius, Gothicum Glossarium, *** lv: ‘Fatebitur is imprimis arduum esse linguas cum situ & squallore luctantes ex obscuris, attriris, ac semilaceris etiam membranis restituere; immensam priscarum vocum congeriem in operis torius apparatum conquirere, excerpere, in unum comportare, digerere; primam earum significationem verisimili conjecturâ indagare, genuinam orthographiam eruere, probabilem denique originationem ex hac priscæ acceptionis scriptionisque ratione expiscari’ (‘Any [philologist] will acknowledge in the first place that it is burden-some to restore languages from dark, damaged, and even half-torn leaves of parchment struggling with dirt and filth; to collect the enormous heap of old words in the apparatus of one entire work, to separate them, to group them under one denominator, to arrange them; to trace their initial meaning through almost certain conjecture, to discover the true spelling, and subsequently, to fish out the probable origin from the explanation of the old meaning and spelling’).

32 Junius, Gothicum Glossarium, *** 1v: ‘Expertus quoque testabitur quàm aegré nosmet ipsos exhujus operae difficultatibus evolvamus, cum post primum delectum opus retractaturi mendosa confusáque reteximus, supervacua rescindimus; plurimis passim occurrentibus, quae non tam circumcidenda sunt atque amputanda, quàm extrahenda & penitus tollenda.’

33 This does not mean that his transcripts do not contain errors of transcription. Such errors are inherent to the process of transcribing, but for a discussion of the nature of textual changes and emendations, they are irrelevant.

34 A change for no apparent reason is, for instance, his variation of 〈þ〉 and 〈ð〉.

35 Bischoff, B., Latin Palaeography: Antiquity and the Middle Ages, trans. Croínín, D. Ó and Ganz, D. (Cambridge, 1990), p. 173CrossRefGoogle Scholar, indicates that the use of spaces to separate words was not yet entirely regular in the tenth and eleventh centuries. On the use of spaces as graphic cues in Latin and Old English verse texts, see O'Keeffe, K. O'Brien, Visible Song: Transitional Literacy in Old English Verse, CSASE 4 (Cambridge, 1990), 127–8 and 136.Google Scholar

36 Lucas, in Junius, Cædmon, 3.10, lists soð-fast, folc-toga, folc-ribt.

37 Compare, for instance, Cotton Tiberius A. iii, fol. 43, edited by Napier, A., ‘Altenglische Kleinigkeiten’, Anglia 11 (1889), 1–10, at 1, with junius 44,17v: ‘7 næfre his lichama ne#fulode ne#ne#brosnode. innon ðære eorðan. Ðæt wæs adam se#æresta mánn þe þis bî ge*lumpen wæs 7 for*þpon hine se eorðe gretan ne meahte he fulode 7 brosnode’. (# = space added by Junius; * = space removed by Junius.)Google Scholar

38 For instance, Junius replaced the subjunctive form gesawe by the indicative form geseah in the sentence … pæt he ær sylf ne gesawe, ac his modor him sæde, p æt heo hit eall sylf gesawe,…; see Junius 41, fols. 31–8, his transcript of Be pæm frumsceafte from Oxford, Bodleian Library, Hatton 113, fols. 1–3, edited by Napier, A. S., Wulfstan. Sammlung der ihm Zugeschriebenen Homilien nebst Untersuchungen über ihre Echtheit (Berlin, 1883, repr. 1967 with a supplement by K. Ostheeren), pp. 1–5, at 3.Google Scholar Although the form occurs twice, only the first instance was changed. In the sentence sepe flyhð, raðe he bið gecydd dead, oððe gewriðan, glossed as Qui fugit cito nuntiatur mortuus, uel ligatus reuertitur, Junius changed gewriðan into the lsquo;correct’ participle form gewriðen; see Junius 44, 3r, a transcript of De obseruatione lune & que cauenda sunt from Cotton Tiberius A. iii, 32v–35v, edited by Förster, M.,‘Vom Fortleben antiker Sammellunare’, Anglia; 55 (1944), 79–129, at 94.Google Scholar I do not believe that in the sentence tacn hefð on swiðram handu, glossed Signum habet in dextera manu (ibid. p. 97), Junius's change of handu to handa originated from a correct idea of the dative singular in u-stems, since he also read 〈a〉 for 〈u〉 in other instances.

39 For example, in his transcript of De observations lune & que cauenda sunt Junius changed the sentence se þt lið roðe aworfað, glossed as Qui jacet, cito conualescit (Förster, ‘Antike Sammellunare’, p. 83), into se þe lið, roðe aworfað, and adds in the margin: acofrað est in ipso M , see Junius 44,2r. A similar note occurs further down in the same manuscript in relation to lac niman, which Junius replaced by lacnian, see Förster, , ‘Antike Sammellunare’, p. 98.Google Scholar In the same transcript, the scribe left usque sero unglosssed, to which Junius added oð æfen (ibid. p. 111). For more examples, see Jost, , ‘Cura Pastoralis’, pp. 65–7.Google Scholar

40 For examples, see Jost, , ‘Cura Pastoralis’, p. 65Google Scholar, and Krapp, , Boethius, p. xliii.Google Scholar

41 Jost, , ‘Cura Pastoralis’, p. 65.Google Scholar

42 Ibid. p. 67.

43 Pulsiano, and McGowan, , ‘Four Unedited Prayers’, p. 194.Google Scholar

44 I have not separated long and short vowels, since there is no evidence that Junius distinguished in any way between long and short vowels in Old English, or in any other Old Germanic language. See also Pulsiano, and McGowan, , ‘Four Unedited Prayers’, pp. 194 and 198, who observe that in his transcription of four prayers from Cotton Tiberius A. iii, Junius ignored the superscript 〈c〉 added by the scribe to mark short vowels.Google Scholar

45 Zupitza, , ‘Kentische Glossen’, pp. 18 and 19.Google Scholar

46 Pulsiano, and McGowan, , ‘Four Unedited Prayers’, p. 194.Google Scholar

47 Krapp, , Boethius, p. lxiiiGoogle Scholar, Meters 29, 6,13,4. For other examples, see Jost, , ‘Cura Pastoralis’, p. 65Google Scholar, and Clubb, M. D., Christ and Satan: an Old English Poem, Yale Stud, in Eng. 70 (Hamden, CT, 1925, repr. New Haven, CT, 1972), 25.Google Scholar

48 See Campbell, A., Old English Grammar (Oxford, 1959), p. 4, n. 1.Google Scholar

49 Junius made an exception for the dialect forms from the Lindisfarne and Rushworth Gospels, of which he remarked that ‘they had to be more profoundly examined’; see Junius, , Gothicum Glossarium, *** 3r.Google Scholar

50 Line 289 in The Junius Manuscript, ed. Krapp, , ASPR I (London, 1931).Google Scholar

51 See for instance Junius 73*, 4r: ‘pag. 37,17. geond foldan bearn. Ita MS habet; malim tamen geond foldan bearm, ex 22,13. 34,5.’; and on 4v: ‘pag. 51,16. wære mine gelætan. Lege gelæstan. quemadmodum paullò antè pag. 50,13 fuit, ic )þa forð soðe gelæte’.

52 Krapp, , Boethius, p. xliii.Google Scholar

53 Junius 44, 2r. See Förster, , ‘Antike Sammellunare’, p. 81, n. 10, who also lists the correct attestations.Google Scholar

54 Junius 44,2r. Förster, , ‘Anrike Sammellunare’, p. 80, n. 6Google Scholar. Junius did not correct the same mistake in Lunary XVdl: ibid. p. 113.

55 Junius 44, 5r; Förster, ‘Antike Sammellunare’, p. 112.

56 Junius 44,6r; Förster, ‘Antike Sammellunare’, p. 117, who remarks in n. 11: ‘Ae. oððe (statt eal swa) als Glosse zu lat. ut ist nur erklärlich, wenn der unaufmerksame Übersetzer ut für aut verlas, wie schon Cockayne bemerkt.’ It seems very likely that Cockayne consulted Junius's transcript for his edition.

57 Junius 44,2v; Förster, ‘Antike Sammellunare’, p. 89.

58 This does not include the variation between ð; and þ;. My collation of Junius 108 with the edition by Gneuss, H., Hymnar und Hymnen im englischen Mittelater: Studien Zur Überlieferung, Glossierung und Übersetzung lateinischer Hymnen in England, Buchreihe der Anglia 12 (Tübingen, 1968), yielded: (Hymn 2) gelepewæce > gelipewæce, lufu > lufa; (Hymn 7) heofon wreo > heo forwreo; (Hymn 12) hreose > hweorfe; (Hymn 13) þrosm [y above the line] > þryosm; (Hymn 14) Junius inserted hexiendra; (Hymn 15) gewmþe > gewriðe, cris > crist, (Hymn 18) stefnum > stæfnum, (Hymn 19) mid wæstme > wið wæstme.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

59 See F.F, F. Junius. Quatuor D.N.J.C. evangeliorum versiones perantiquae duae, Goth. scil. et Anglo-Saxonica: quarum illam ex celeberrimo Codice Argenteo nunc primum depromsit Franciscus (Du Jon) Junius, F.F. Hanc autem ex Codicibus MSS. collatis emendatius recudi curavit Thom. Mareschallus, Anglus: cujus etiam observations in utramque versionem subnectuntur… (Dordrecht, 1665)Google Scholar, ** 4v. In his Alphabeti Anglo-Saxonici, Junius listed both the figura ‘appearance’ and the potestas ‘pronunciation’ of the Anglo-Saxon alphabet, and indiscriminately equated both 〈Ð, ð〉 and 〈þþ〉 with 〈th〉; ibid. ** 4r. Neither here, nor anywhere else, does Junius consider the fact that in his own days 〈th〉 could be pronounced as both a voiceless and a voiced fricative. See also Junius, Observationes, π8v; Junius, Gothicum Glossarium, p. 30.

60 Junius transcribed the Heliand from Cotton Caligula A. vii, together with the ensuing charm; see Ker, , Catalogue, p. 172 (no. 137).Google Scholar On a piece of parchment pasted on the inside cover of Junius 103, he described it as: ‘Euangelica historia perscripta idiomate (ut videtur) Danico-Saxonico in usum Canuti regis adhuc imbuendi primis religionis Christianae primordiis’ (‘A history of the Gospel written in (seemingly) the Danish-Saxon dialect, used to instruct the then King Cnut in the most important rudiments of the Christian religion’). On the origin of this description, see Gneuss, H., ‘Der älteste Katalog der angelsächsichen Handschriften und seine Nachfolger’, Anglo-Saxonica: Beiträge zur Vor- und Frühgeschichte der englischen Sprache und zur altenglischen Literatur, ed. Grinda, K. R. and Wetzel, C.-D. (Munich, 1993), pp. 91–106 at 100.Google Scholar In his attempt to identify the peculiar language of the Heliand, Junius introduced the term ‘Danish-Saxon’, which was used extensively by George Hickes in his dialectal division of early English. In a subsequent passage introducing the Heliand to the reader, Junius mentioned that the author was an Anglo-Saxon who had compiled the text in a mixture of languages for the spiritual benefit of King Cnut: ‘Sed fortassé tunc temporis major adhuc fuerit affinitas Anglosaxonicæ Danicæque dialecti cum Gothicâ; vetere, atque adeô studuerit Auctor hanc paraphrasticam Euangeliorum translationem per quandam affinium dialectorum mixturam accomodare captui Regis doctriná salutari nuperimè imbuti, fortè an adhuc imbuendi’ (Junius 103, lr: ‘But perhaps the correspondence of the Anglo-Saxon and Danish dialects with the ancient Gothic was at that time still greater, and, therefore, by a certain mixture of related dialects, the author will have tried to adapt this paraphrased translation of the Gospels to the understanding of the King, who had recently been initiated in the teaching of salvation, or perhaps still had to be initiated’). Junius clearly believed that mutual intelligibility between Anglo-Saxons and Danes, as a result of the close relationship of their languages with ancient Gothic, enabled an Anglo-Saxon scribe to write for his Danish king. No doubt Junius derived from the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle his awareness of Cnut's increasingly positive attitude towards the Christian church during his reign. Junius's interest in this period is also illustrated by his prefixing a transcript of the entries for the years 1002–56 to his copy of Wheelock's 1643 edition of the ASC, to which he also added extracts from MS F, the bilingual Canterbury epitome from Cotton Domitian A. ix. See Lutz, A., ‘The Study of the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle in the Seventeenth Century and the Establishment of Old English in the Universities’, The Recovery of Old English, ed. Graham, , pp. 1–85.Google Scholar

61 Some exceptional changes are: helag uuord godas > helag word gode (7); is uuord > his uuord (273); ðena > ðina (265); mid mannon > mid mannum (280); mid hluttro > mid hluttre (467);gifragen >gifragn (510). The line numbers are from the Heliand, ed. Sievers, E., Germanistische Handbibliothek 4 (Halle, 1878).Google Scholar

62 On this transcript, which is now Leeuwarden, Provincial Library of Friesland, 149 Hs, see Bremmer, R. H. Jr, ‘Retrieving Junius's Correspondence’, Franciscus Junius F.F., ed. Bremmer, , pp. 199–235, at 207–8Google Scholar; Dekker, , Origins, pp. 133–5.Google Scholar It was not included in R. E. Buckalew's list of manuscripts containing ælfric's Glossary. This version is derived from his ‘MS Q’. See Buckalew, R. E., ‘Nowell, Lambarde and Leland: the Significance of Laurence Nowell's Transcript of Ælfric's Grammar and Glossary’, Anglo-Saxon Scholarship, the First Three Centuries, ed. Berkhout, C. and Gatch, M. McC. (Boston, MA, 1982), pp. 19–50, at 27, and p. 195.Google Scholar

63 Munich, Universitätsbibliothek, 617, fol. 43; Amsterdam, Universiteitsbibliotheek, M 89b verso.

64 To Paterfamilias Hire des hlaford, Junius added:hiredes hlaford. hiredes ealdor. hiredes fæder. (Leeuwarden, 149 Hs, 5r), to Centurio hundredes he added hundredes ealdor. (5v), to Aratum sul. he added sul. sulh. sylh. (5v), to Vomer scer he. added scer, scær. scear. (5v), to Tignum rafter he added ræfter, to Pius arfest he added arfæst (6r), etc.

65 Munich, Universitätsbibliothek, 617, fol. 43: ‘Olim certè serío iudicatoque existimavi, pernimium intersse inter vetusta Britanniae monumenta atque apographa temerè apud nos vulgata: nec experimentum contra fuit, unde mihi porro certum erit ab ipsissimis antiquioribus monumentis digitum nusquam’ (‘For truly a long time I have seriously and deliberately believed that there was too much difference between the most ancient English documents and the copies which have accidentally become known to us; and there has been no proof of the contrary, and therefore I will henceforth make absolutely sure not to swerve a finger's breadth from the more ancient documents themselves’).

66 See junius 10 (Wheelock's edition of Bede and Lambarde's Archaionomia), 18 (Selden's Eadmer) and 33 (Spelman's Psalter).

67 Junius, Observationes, “8v: ‘Unico puncto denotabant Anglo-Saxones sensum imperfectum: at perfectum sensum concludebant tribus punctis triangulari formâ hunc in modum conjunctis:-’.

68 For instance Junius 105, his transcript of Judith, in which a punctus versus is consistendy used to end sentences which are not marked in the original; see Robinson and Stanley, Old English Verse Texts, section 20.

69 See Lucas, in Junius, Cædmon, 3.7

70 Ibid. 3.8, for examples.

71 Timmer, B. J.Judith (London, 1952, 2nd ed. 1962, repr. Exeter, 1978), p. 2Google Scholar, states that the Oxford Saxonist Edward Thwaites (1677–1711) inserted ‘regular dotting of his own’ in his editio princeps of Judith, published by Thwaites in the Heptateuchus. Liber Job, et Evangelium Nicodemi; Anglo-Saxonice. Historiae Judith fragmentum; Dano-Saxonice …. (Oxford, 1698).Google Scholar However, Bennett, , ‘History’, pp. 74–5Google Scholar, made it clear that Thwaites used Junius's transcript for his edition, a fact which was also overlooked by Onions, C. T. and Whitelock, D. as editors of Sweet's Anglo-Saxon Reader (Oxford, 1946 and subsequent editions), who explained Thwaites's usefulness for illegible parts of the original manuscript, but left Junius's transcript unmendoned.Google Scholar

72 See Krapp, , Boethius, p. xliv, who comments on Junius's pointing that it ‘is neither consistendy carried out, nor very accurate where it does occur, and it is … of no textual value’.Google Scholar

73 It is beyond the scope of this study to go into Junius's perception of Old English verse, a topic which requires an investigation of its own. I refer to P. J. Lucas, ‘Franciscus Junius and the Versification of Judith, Francisci Junii in Memoriam: 1591–1991’, The Preservation and Transmission of Anglo-Saxon Culture: Selected Papers from the 1991 Meeting of the International Society of Anglo-Saxonists, ed. Szarmach, P. and Rosenthal, J., Stud, in Med. Culture 40 (Kalamazoo, MI, 1997), 369–404, for a scholarly evaluation of Junius's metrical pointing in his transcript of Judith. Lucas demonstrates that Junius used not only pointed but also extended spaces to separate Old English verse, a method occasionally used in Anglo-Saxon manuscripts, but one which has never been noticed before in a Junius transcript. On the basis of this discovery, Lucas comes to the conclusion that even though the original manuscript provided few graphic cues to indicate verse lines, Junius managed to recognize ninety per cent of the versification in Judith correctly.Google Scholar

74 See Lucas, in Junius, Cadmon, 3.8–3.9, and O’Keeffe, O’Brien, Visisble Song, pp. 179–87, who emphasizes the unique nature of Junius 11 ‘in its use of graphic cues to direct a reader's activity’.Junius must have been familiar with metrical pointing as a type of graphic cue from the Latin tradition.Google Scholar

75 Junius 103, 1r: ‘Eundem in utroque tractatu stilum acutum quoque dignoscent in antiquitate Cædmonianâ leviter modô versati: torus enim in eo fuisse deprehenditur utriusque operis Auctor, ut aliquam operi suo reverentiam adderent crebra grandisoni ac paucissimis jam intellecti Poëmatis vestigia.’

76 Bennett, , ‘History’, p. 341.Google Scholar

77 van Vliet, Jan, ‘T Vader Ons in XX oude Duytse en Noordse taelen, met d'uijtleggingen &c ([Dordrecht], 1664), a4r+v.Google Scholar

78 Stanford University Libraries, Department of Special Collections, Misc. 010.

79 D. P. O'Donnell, ‘Junius's Knowledge of Durham’, ASE (forthcoming).

80 As Fry, D. K. had suggested in ‘A Newly Discovered Version of the Old English Poem “Durham”’, Old English and New: Studies in Language and Linguistics in Honor of Frederic G. Cassidy, ed. Hall, J. H., Doane, N. and Ringler, D. (New York, 1992), pp. 83–96.Google Scholar

81 See Twysden, R., Historia Anglicanae Scriptores X (London, 1652), p. 76, who copied this version from Cambridge, University Library, Ff. I. 27, fol. 202.Google Scholar

82 William Somner (1598–1669) also published an emended version of Durham at the end of his copious glossary, which concludes Twysden's book. There is no evidence that Junius used Somner's emended version, although he must have been aware of its existence.

83 For example, in the first line of the poem, Is ðeos burh vel byrig breome vel breme, there are two sets of two variants, of which burh-byrig occur under one lemma in Junius 2,40r.

84 For example: ‘&. ðelegeferes fortè & ðere geferas’ and another instance: ‘ 7 þelivold f. aðelwold’.

85 For instance: ‘weor vel dear, hic videtur antiquum fluvii nomen substituendum quod proximè ad hosce literarum ductus accedit’, and ‘on gechete lærde, ex historiâ fortè poterit erui num istud gechete intelligendum sit de loco institutionis, vel de facultate aliquá’. (‘weor or deor, it seems that here an old name of a river has to be substituted which comes closest to the order of these characters; on gechete larde, it will perhaps be possible to unearth from history whether this gechete should be understood as a place of education or as some skill.’)

86 See also Lucas in Junius, Cædmon, 3–15.

87 Exodus 350.

88 Junius 37*, 5v: ‘lin. 11. wolcnum habet MS. Magis tamen placet folcum, quod ipsa veluti series rei gestœ sugges strat describenti’. (‘line 11. The manuscript has wolcnum. Yet, folcum pleases more, which the chain of events itself, as it were, suggested to the copyist.’)

89 Pulsiano, and McGowan, , ‘Four Unedited Prayers’, p. 194.Google Scholar

90 See Stanley, , ‘The Sources of Junius's Learning’, p. 170, who signals that recent editors have not always consulted Junius's transcripts for this purpose.Google Scholar

91 In DOE A-984, mention is made of the fact that the prefix an in anapelað (Met. 17,28) derives from Junius 12. Similar comments are, however, not made in the following cases: DOE A-530 ageled ‘to hinder, delay’ (Met. 2, 5); DOE A-1605 arleasta, arleste ‘disgraceful deed’ (Met. 9, 6); DOE æ-279 ælinge‘tedium, weariness’ (Met. 0,3 [recte 0,6]);DOE B-87 baru ‘nom./acc. pl. n. of bar ‘barren, without vegetation’ (Met. 7, 13); DOE B-182 beadurincum ‘warriors’ (Met. 1, 18); DOE B-2357–8 bryrdan ‘to urge on, incite’, which is only based on bryrð (Met. 13, 3) and on gebrydded; DOE C-586 cluster ‘lock, bar, cloister, prison’ (Met. 1,72); DOE D-377 degelice ‘secretly, unknown’ (Met. 1,63); DOE E-1546 erigen ‘to plough’ (Met. 14,4).

92 See van der Werf, W A., ‘Franciscus Junius's Scribal Practice as regards wh-Spellings in Old English and Old Frisian Manuscripts’, Meidielingen 3 (1978), 9–31, at 15–17, s.v.gyt (116, 155), gedyde (184), saulæ (185), don ne (190), tyne (248), heom (250), lete (258), ahebban (259), wealdend(260), wyrðan (261), heabran (263), Speone (274), alwealdan (328), heora (336), hwittost (339), heofnon (339, 350), þes (356), æniga (356), stede (356), alwealdan (359), irenbendas (371), ymbutan (382), heom (401), neotan (401) and feðerhoman (417 partly) (the numbers refer to ASPR I). For more instances, see Clubb, Christ and Satan, e.g. eorðbūendum (1) and wolcn (6) (the numbers refer to the lines in Clubb's edition).Google Scholar

93 This article results from a paper I read at the Eighth Conference of the International Society of Anglo-Saxonists held in Palermo from 7 to 12 July 1997.1 am very grateful to Dan O'Donnell and Peter Lucas for generously allowing me to use their material, to Angelika Lute, Rolf Bremmer and Sophie van Romburgh for their helpful suggestions and improvements, and to the latter also for supplying me with several copies of Francis Junius's letters.