We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 26 September 2008
The fragment in question consists of the remains of a bifolium, now a complete single leaf with an irregular stub carrying the ends of three lines of script at its head. The text is Judges v.5–6, vi.6 and x.7 to xi.26. It is undecorated, but written in a highly accomplished Insular cursive minuscule of Phase ii. The fragment, hitherto unpublished, is of importance as the relict of what may have been a bible written in Southumbria during the first half of the ninth century and which on stylistic grounds evidently belongs to the so-called ‘Canterbury’ or ‘Tiberius’ group of manuscripts. This group has played a prominent and often controversial role in the evaluation of the ninth century and its contribution to the history of Anglo-Saxon manuscript production.
1 The leaf was offered for sale by Christie, Manson and Woods Ltd on 2 December 1987, as lot 137 of the Estelle Doheny Collection, from the Edward Laurence Doheny Memorial Library St John's Seminary, Camarillo, California. It was bought by Bernard Quaritch Ltd for Prof T. Takamiya of Keio University, Japan, and is now in the Takamiya Collection, Tokyo. Countess Doheny purchased the leaf from H.P. Kraus. It was previously owned by Dr Lowe, E.A., but does not, however, appear in his masterly survey volumes. Codices Latini Antiquiores (ii vols, and supp., Oxford, 1934–71;Google Scholar hereafter CLA), perhaps because of the fact of private ownership, but probably also owing to his perception of the chronology of Insular script, which led him, rightly, to omit the ‘Book of Cerne’ (Cambridge, University Library, LI. 1 10) from a survey whichwas restricted by an artificial upper chronological limit of c. 800.
2 I should like to thank the following for their kind assistance in the preparation of this paper: Professor T. Takamiya, Hans Fellner, Richard Linenthal, Tony Parker, Vanessa Marshall, Marvin Colker, Michael Lapidge, Michael Reeve, Rosamond McKitterick, Mildred Budny, Patrick McGurk and Cecil Brown.
3 The terminology is that of Brown, T.J.; see ‘The Irish Element in the Insular System of Scripts’, Die Iren und Europa im früheren Mittelalter, ed. Löwe, H., 2 vols. (Stuttgart, 1982) I, 101–19, at 113 and 115–16.Google Scholar
4 For a discussion of the ‘Tiberius’ group, see Sisam, K., ‘Canterbury, Lichfield and the Vespasian Psalter’, RES n.s. 7 (1956), 1–10, and 8 (1957), 370–4.Google Scholar
5 For recent discussions which favour a more positive view of the achievements of the ninth century see the following: Morrish, J., ‘King Alfred's Letter as a Source on Learning in England’, Studies in Earlier Old English Prose, ed. Szarmach, P.E. (Binghamton, 1986), pp. 87–107Google Scholarand ‘Dated and Datable Manuscripts copied in England during the Ninth Century’, MS 50 (1988), 512–38;Google ScholarBrown, M.P., ‘Paris, Bibliothèque Nationale, lat. 10861 and the Scriptorium of Christ Church, Canterbury’, ASE 15 (1987), 119–37, and ‘Continental Symptoms in Insular Codicology: Historical Perspectives’, Pergament, ed. P. Ruck (Sigmaringen, forthcoming).Google ScholarSee also Brooks, N., The Early History of the Church of Canterbury (Leicester, 1984), pp. 111–206;Google ScholarBudny, M.O., ‘London, British Library MS Royal I.E. VI: the Anatomy of an Anglo-Saxon Bible Fragment’ (unpubl. Ph.D dissertation, London Univ., 1985), pp. 753–802.Google ScholarFor an outline of the case in favour of decline see Gneuss, H., ‘King Alfred and the History of Anglo-Saxon Libraries’, Modes of Interpretation in Old English Literature, ed. Brown, P.R., Crampton, G.R. and Robinson, F.C. (Toronto, 1986), pp. 29–49.Google Scholar
6 See Brown, T.J., ‘The Distribution and Significance of Membrane prepared in the Insular Manner’, Colloques Internationaux du C.N.R.S. 547 (Paris, 1972), 127–35. A number of long, straight hairs which remain on the membrane of the fragment suggest that it is not sheepskin.Google Scholar
7 For verdigris, see Thompson, D. V., The Materials and Techniques of Medieval Painting (New York, 1956), pp. 165–4 and 167.Google ScholarFor single strap and pin, see Muzerelle, D., Vocabulaire Codicalogique (Paris, 1985), fig. 314.Google Scholar
8 Slits also appear in this context in the Book of Cerne; see Brown, M.P., ‘Cambridge, University Library, MS LI. 1 10, the Book of Cerne’ (unpubl. Ph.D dissertation, London Univ., forthcoming).Google Scholar
9 It is interesting to note that the Royal Bible (BL, Royal I. E. VI) was sewn on five cords, although its dimensions were somewhat larger; see Budny, ‘Royal I. E. VI.’, pp. 184–98.
10 The penetration of the staining would also indicate that at this stage the leaf, still at its original proportions, was near to the binding boards. I am inclined to associate this binding mechanism with the secondary binding, perhaps of thirteenth- to fourteenth-century date.
11 See above, n. 3.
12 I am deeply indebted to Michael Reeve for elucidation on this interesting point and for the following references. He suggests that the erasures have occurred in order to distinguish que from quae in a period when ae was regularly reduced to e. The ninth-century scribe of the fragment does not, of course, reduce ae, but the later corrector may not have expected all users of the manuscript to be as well aware of the distinction as was the scribe. Professor Reeve has noted a similar feature in two manuscripts of Livy: London, BL, Harley 2493, written in the second half of the twelfth century, and Florence, Biblioteca Medicea, Laur. Laur.20, of the second half of the ninth century. In these manuscripts corrections have been made at later dates in order to distinguish between quam, which, when corrected to abbreviated form, denotes a conjunction, and, when left in full, denotes the feminine accusative of the relative pronoun.
13 See Alexander, J.J.G., Insular Manuscripts 6th–9th Century (London, 1978), nos. 33 and 66.Google Scholar
14 See Brown, ‘Paris, BN lat. 10861’.
15 Numbers refer to Sawyer, P.H., Anglo-Saxon Charters: an Annotated List and Bibliography, R. Hist. Soc. Guides and Handbooks 8 (London, 1968).Google Scholar
16 On this decline see Brooks, The Early History, pp. 171–4.
17 Secondary references are to facsimiles in Bond, E.A., Facsimiles of Ancient Charters in the British Museum, 4 vols. (London, 1873–8).Google Scholar
18 See Biblia Sacra Vulgatae Sixti V. et dementis VIII. (Rome, 1861), vol. vi.Google Scholar
19 See Gneuss, H., ‘Manuscripts Written or Owned in England up to 1100’, ASE 9 (1981), 1–60.Google Scholar
20 CLA II, no. 153.
21 ibid. III no. 299.
22 ibid. no. 177.
23 ibid. II no. 154.
24 ibid. II, no. 194.
25 ibid. II no. 129.
26 ibid. II no. 259.
27 James, M.R., Bibliotheca Pepysiana, III: Medieval Manuscripts (London, 1923), p. 117.Google Scholar
28 CLA II, no. 214.
29 See Budny, ‘Royal I. E. VI’, p. 751.
30 It is worthy of note that the dimensions of the latter (CLA II, no. 259) are extremely close to those of the reconstructed fragment and that its script has been comparedto that of Oxford, Bodleian Library, Hatton 93, which I suggest was probably from the same scriptorium as the Book of Cerne; see M.P. Brown, ‘Book of Cerne’, and CLA II, no. 241.
31 CLA II, no. 241.
32 Further work on the nature of transmission of biblical texts in Anglo-Saxon England would be of use, A fruitful approach could be an initial study of references in medieval library catalogues.
