Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-g8jcs Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-23T19:38:15.206Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The manuscript of the Leiden Riddle

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  26 September 2008

M. B. Parkes
M. B. Parkes
Affiliation:
Keble College, Oxford
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

In April 1970 I was fortunate enough to have the opportunity to examine Leiden, Bibliotheek der Rijksuniversiteit, Vossius Lat. 4° 106, 25v, the page containing the text of the Leiden Riddle (see pl. I), under extremely strong early morning sunlight. Strong sunlight combines the advantage of ordinary light with, to a much lesser degree, the advantages of both infra-red and ultra-violet light whilst permitting a prolonged and close scrutiny of the manuscript. In sunlight some of the applications of reagent appear as opaque white, whereas in a photograph they appear as dark stains because the opaque white does not register adequately on the negative. In these conditions I was able to distinguish in the damaged parts of the text of the Leiden Riddle between traces of ink left upon the surface and stains left by the various reagents as well as other marks in the substance of the parchment itself. The following day I made an independent examination of the manuscript under ultra-violet light. Later by way of experiment a series of very hard prints was produced from photographs taken in ordinary light. Subsequently I compared the various readings and as a result of these examinations I offer a new transcription and notes on the more difficult passages.

Type
Research Article
Information
Anglo-Saxon England , Volume 1 , January 1972 , pp. 207 - 217
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1972

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

Page 207 note 1 I am indebted to Mr C. J. E. Ball (who initiated this investigation) and to Dr N. R. Ker both of whom have read earlier drafts of this paper and have contributed valuable criticisms and suggestions. I am also indebted to Professor B. Bischoff for help on various points and to him and to Mons. F. Hauchecorne for references. However, I am alone responsible for the views expressed. I owe the opportunity to examine the manuscript to Dr P. J. F. Obbema, the Keeper of Western Manuscripts, who accorded me special facilities and many other kindnesses. He drew my attention to the stimulating article by Professor Gerritsen (discussed below), thus enabling me to read it with the manuscript in front of me, and also discussed various readings with me. I am indebted to the Librarian at Leiden for permission to reproduce the photograph of the manuscript.

Page 207 note 2 See the facsimiles in Zandvoort, R. W., ‘The Leiden Riddle’, Collected Papers (Groningen, 1954).Google Scholar

Page 207 note 3 This experiment was undertaken by Mr A. Austin from a photograph available in Oxford. The effect of such prints is to heighten the contrasts, thus emphasizing very faint traces obscured beneath only a light film of reagent.

Page 208 note 1 My observations were checked by Dr P. J. F. Obbema when he examined the manuscript with me.

Page 209 note 1 My observations were checked by Dr P. J. F. Obbema when he examined the manuscript with me.

Page 210 note 1 Three Northumbrian Poems, ed. Smith, A. H. (London, 1933), p. 47, n. 14.Google Scholar

Page 210 note 2 Gerritsen, J., ‘The Text of the Leiden Riddle’, ESts 6 (1969), 529.Google Scholar

Page 210 note 3 Ker, N. R., Catalogue of Manuscripts containing Anglo-Saxon (Oxford, 1957), App., no. 19.Google Scholar

Page 210 note 4 Getritsen, , ‘The Text of the Leiden Riddle’, p. 534.Google Scholar

Page 211 note 1 Bethmann, L. C., ZDA 5 (1845), 199Google Scholar; Dietrich, F., Commentatio de Kynewulfi Poetae Aetas Aenigmatum Fragmento e Codice Lugdunensi Editio Illustrata (Marburg, 1860).Google Scholar

Page 212 note 1 In the present state of our knowledge it is not possible to identify the music represented by the neums.

Page 212 note 2 Personal communication.

Page 213 note 1 de Meyier, K. A., Paul en Alexandre Petau (Leiden, 1947), p. 64.Google Scholar On Daniel see Hagen, H., Zur Gescbichte der Philologie (Berlin, 1879), pp. 1–52Google Scholar, and the brief mention in Delisle, L. V., Le Cabinet des Manuscrits (Paris, 1868–1881) 11, 564.Google Scholar

Page 213 note 2 Pellegrin, E., Bibliothèque de l'Ecole des Chartes 115 (1957), 14–15.Google Scholar

Page 213 note 3 de Meyier, , Paul en Alexandre Petau, p. 62.Google Scholar

Page 213 note 4 E.g. E. A. Lowe, Codices Latini Antiquiores, nos. 563, 796 and 802; and the following manuscripts in the Bibliothèque Municipale at Orléans (the dates given are those assigned to the hands of the main contents by Professor Bischoff): 184 (s. ix in.); 70 and 270 (s. ix); 14 and 147 (s. ix); 297 (s. x); 16 (s. x); 14 (s. x): other examples are given below. There are a number of other manu-scripts at Orléans with similar pen trials, but they do not contain the ex libris inscriptions. Some Fleury manuscripts with neumatic notation and now in the Vatican are illustrated by Bannister, H. M., Monumenti Vaticani di Paleografia Musicale Latina (Leipzig, 1913)Google Scholar, pls. 15–17, nos. 122–33 (see also the review by Rand, E. K., Amer. Jnl of Philol. 35 (1914), 470).Google Scholar

Page 213 note 5 Cf., e.g., Orléans 84, p. 289; 14, p. 260; 270, p. 320; and 16, pp. 250–1.

Page 213 note 6 Cf., e.g., Orléans 343 (bis), p. 104; 159, p. i; 14, p. 11; and 192, p. 45.

Page 214 note 1 Gerritsen, ‘The Text of the Leiden Riddle’, p. 538.Google Scholar

Page 215 note 1 Cf. Isidore of Seville, Elymologiae 1. xx, ‘Totus autem versus periodus est’ (Migne, Patrologia Latina 82, col. 96).

Page 215 note 2 Gerritsen, ‘The Text of the Leiden Riddle’, p. 539.Google Scholar

Page 215 note 3 See especially Lesne, E., Les Livres‘Scriptoria’ et Bibliothèques (Histoire de la Propriiti ecclisiastique en Frame iv, Lille, 1938), p. 136Google Scholar, and Les Écoles (Ibid, v, Lille, 1940), p. 191; and Cuissard, Ch., L'École de Fleury à la Fin du Xe Siècle (Orléans, 1875)Google Scholar.

Page 215 note 4 Orléans 342 contains both the earlier and the later neums. The main hand of this manuscript is dated s. x-xi by Professor Bischoff, but the manuscript does not contain an ex libris inscription. The Calligraphy of the later neums is illustrated from an eleventh-century addition to a Fleury manuscript now in the Vatican Library by Bannister, Monumenti Vaticani, pi. I7(b), no. 132. Compare especially the formation of the clivis and the quilismata in this plate with those alongside the text of the riddle.

Page 216 note 1 Catalogue, p. 479.Google Scholar

Page 216 note 2 ‘Das “Leiden Riddle” … schien mirc. ix-x oder x zu sein’ (personal communication).

Page 216 note 3 If in the last line of the text the reading niadlicae is preferred (see n. 11 to the transcription above), the first a would be a second example of the use of this particular insular form.

Page 216 note 4 See Bishop, T. A. M., ‘An Early Example of the Square Minuscule’, Trans. of the Cambridge Bibliographical Soc. 4 (1964–1968), 246.Google Scholar

Page 217 note 1 Gerritsen, ‘The Text of the Leiden Riddle’, p. 541.Google Scholar

Page 217 note 2 Compare the difference between a and u in pl. xix (b) of T. A. M. Bishop, ‘An Early Example of the Square Minuscule’.

Page 217 note 3 Gougaud, L.,‘Les Relations de l'Abbaye de Fleury-sur-Loire avec la Bretagne armoricaine et les lies Britanniques’, èdmoires de la Société d'Histoire et d'Archiologie de Bretagne 4, 2 (1923).Google Scholar Since this article was written the late Professor Wormald has drawn attention to the work of an English illuminator in a Fleury manuscript; see England Before the Conquest: Studies in Primary Sources presented to Dorothy Whitelock, ed. , Peter Clemoes and Kathleen Hughes (Cambridge, 1971), P 311.Google Scholar