Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-t5tsf Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-08T06:34:11.321Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Paris, Bibliothèque Nationale, lat. 10861 and the scriptorium of Christ Church, Canterbury

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  26 September 2008

Michelle P. Brown
Michelle P. Brown
Affiliation:
Birkbeck College, London
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

The primary purpose of this article is to draw attention to a little-known Anglo-Saxon manuscript of the early ninth century, now Paris, Bibliothèque Nationale, lat. 10861, a collection of Latin saints' lives or passions. My interest was first drawn to this manuscript by the brief remarks of J. J. G. Alexander and J. E. Cross (the latter incorporating the personal communication of Bernhard Bischoff), both of whom associated the manuscript with the more famous Book of Cerne (Cambridge, University Library, Ll. 1.10) by virtue of its script and decoration. Closer examination of the manuscript reveals far more complex connections and implications. In particular, the script of BN lat. 10861, which incorporates several distinctive calligraphic features, relates it closely to a group of charters produced at Christ Church, Canterbury, and dated between c. 805 and c. 825. There have hitherto been few attempts to link Anglo-Saxon documentary and book hands, with the notable exceptions of the link between Oxford, Bodleian Library, Bodley 426 (Philippus, Expositio in Iob), which has been dated to the mid-ninth century on the basis of its association with two charters (London, British Library, Cotton Augustus ii. 37, dated 838, and Cotton Charter viii. 36, dated 847) thought to have been written in Wessex, probably at Sherborne or Winchester, and the association of London, BL, Royal 1. E. VI and BL, Add. Ch. 19789, a ninth-century forgery of a document dated 759, recently advanced by Mildred Budny. The establishment of such relationships offers potential for a firmer assessment of the date and place of origin of a particular manuscript than might otherwise be possible; it may also provide a valuable insight into the workings of the scriptorium in question. If, as I believe, a reasonably accurate dating may be advanced for BN lat. 10861 through its association with charter material, further chronological implications may arise, for the decoration of this manuscript places it firmly within the ‘Canterbury’ or ‘Tiberius’ group of manuscripts, and the dating of any one member of the group offers scope for the relative dating of others.

Type
Research Article
Information
Anglo-Saxon England , Volume 15 , December 1986 , pp. 119 - 137
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1986

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 I should like to extend my thanks to the University of London Central Research Fund Committee for financing this research and to acknowledge a particular debt of gratitude to M François Avril and Mme Patricia Stirnemann of the Bibliothèque Nationale for their generous assistance, and to Prof. Julian Brown, Prof. Nicholas Brooks, Prof. James Cross, Prof. Henry Loyn, Dr Malcolm Parkes, Dr Michael Lapidge, Dr David Dumville, Dr Mildred Budny, Dr Cyril Hart, Mr Patrick Wormald, Mr Nicholas Webb and Mr Cecil Brown for their guidance and much invaluable discussion.

The various texts in this collection of vitae all relate the martyrdoms of the saints concerned, but I have refrained from referring to the manuscript as a passionale as this would imply a formal liturgical function which I feel is unlikely to have applied to the Paris manuscript in view of the absence of any apparent ordering of the contents in relation to the dates of the passiones.

2 See Gneuss, H., ‘Manuscripts Written or Owned in England up to 1100’, ASE 9 (1981), 1–60 (no. 898)Google Scholar; Alexander, J. J. G., Insular Manuscripts, 6th to the 9th Century (London, 1978), no. 67Google Scholar and pl. 319; and Cross, J. E., ‘Saints’ Lives in Old English: Latin Manuscripts and Vernacular Accounts: the Old English Martyrology’, Peritia 1 (1982), 38–62, at 53CrossRefGoogle Scholar. In a private communication to James Cross, Bernhard Bischoff commented: ‘in angelsächsischer Schrift geschrieben m.E. in England (trotz Pergament und nicht Vellum)’, and again, later, ‘…in meinen flüchtigen (weil nicht speziell interessierten) Notizen steht: “von südenglischer Hand auf dem Festland geschrieben (auf Parchment, nicht Vellum) die Schrift hat mich an das Book of Cerne erinnert; das wäre also saec ix1”.’ Bischoff's assessment is confirmed by Morrish, Jennifer, ‘King Alfred's Letter as a Source on Learning in England’, Studies in Earlier Old English Prose, ed. Szarmach, Paul E. (Binghampton, 1986), pp. 87–107, at 92.Google Scholar

3 Lowe, E. A., Codices Latinae Antiquiores, 11 vols. and supp. (Oxford, 1934–1972) (hereafter CLA) 11, no. 234.Google Scholar

4 Sawyer, P. H., Anglo-Saxon Charters. An Annotated List and Bibliography, R. Hist. Soc. Guides and Handbooks 8 (London, 1968)Google Scholar, nos. 1438 and 298 respectively. References to charters listed in this book are hereafter given in the form S1438, and so on.

5 A resemblance to S298 indicated by Lowe, (CLA 11, no. 234)Google Scholar was extended to include S1438 by Chaplais, P., ‘The Origin and Authenticity of the Royal Anglo-Saxon Diploma’, Jnl of the Soc. of Archivists 3 (1965–1969), 48–61, at 57CrossRefGoogle Scholar, followed by Morrish, J., ‘An Examination of Literacy and Learning in the Ninth Century’ (unpubl. D.Phil. dissertation, Oxford Univ., 1982), p. 91Google Scholar. N. Brooks supports this, viewing Bodley 426 and S298 as products of a West Saxon, possibly Sherborne, scriptorium: see The Early History of the Church of Canterbury (Leicester, 1984), pp. 323–5. M. Budny would (I feel mistakenly) attribute the works to Christ Church, Canterbury: see ‘London, British Library MS Royal 1. E. VI: the Anatomy of an Anglo-Saxon Bible Fragment’ (unpubl. Ph.D. dissertation, London Univ., 1985), p. 770.Google Scholar

6 CLA 11, no. 214 and S56 See Budny, ‘Royal 1. E. VI’, pp. 771–2; Budny has further confirmed that S56 is a forgery, probably executed by scribe 1 of Royal 1. E. VI.

7 Sisam, K., ‘Canterbury, Lichfield and the Vespasian Psalter’, RES n.s. 7 (1956), 1–10, and 8 (1957), 370–4.Google Scholar

8 Delisle, L., Le Cabinet des Manuscrits de la Bibliothèque Nationale, Histoire Générale de Paris (Paris, 1874) 11, 293 and 339Google Scholar; and Omont, H., ‘Recherches sur la Bibliotheque de l'Eglise Cathédrale de Saint-Pierre de Beauvais’, Memoires de l'Académic des Inscriptions et Belles-Lettres 40 (1914), 11, 16 and 31Google Scholar (no. 112), 46 (no. 98), 60 (no. 28) and 76. Omont's work reveals that the manuscript appears as no. 112 in a fifteenth-century Beauvais catalogue (which estimates its worth at fifty solidi), as no. 98 in the catalogue of Claude Joly (1664) and again in a Beauvais catalogue of 1750 which states that it was unbound and in a membrane loose-wrapper, but was nonetheless in good condition.

9 See Bishop, T. A. M., English Caroline Minuscule (Oxford, 1971), pp. xi–xxiv.Google Scholar

10 The notes on 123 v consist of five miscellaneous items (riddles and certain dicta of Alcuin and St Gregory) and read as follows: (1) ‘Alcuinus ait. ante horam diligentia. in hora obedientia. post horam negligentia’; (2) ‘Sententia sancti gregorii; Quatuor sunt que ad memoriam reducere debent homines… Ante de iudicium cum venerit iudicare saeculum per ignem’; (3) ‘Missus transmissus qui non loquebatur … Intellexit quoniam aque recessissent a terris’ (riddle concerning Noah and the dove); (4) ‘Archanum alterius tu numquam scrutaberis umquam’ (see Walther, H., Proverbia Sententiaeque Latinitatis Medii Aevi, 5 vols. (Göttingen, 1963–1969) 1, 147 (no. 72))Google Scholar; (5) ‘Interrogandum est quod apostolus dicit. Verbum breviatum (…) super terram … Credo in Deum patrem omnipotentem’.

11 The introductory formula of the twelfth-century list, ‘in hoc codice continentur’, is worthy of note, being a peculiarly continental phraseology first occurring in ninth-century Carolingian usage. I am indebted for this information and for much valuable discussion to Prof. Donald Bullough.

12 The contents of BN lat. 10861 are listed in Poncelet, A., Catalogus Codicum Hagiographicorum Latinorum Antiquiorum saeculo XVI qui asservantur in Bibliotheca Nationali Parisiensi (Brussels, 1890), pp. 605–6 (D XIV)Google Scholar; BHL nos. refer to Bibliotheca Hagiographica Latina Antiquae et Mediae Aetatis Ediderunt Socii Bollandiani, 2 vols. (Brussels, 1898–1899).

13 For these various saints, see in general Holweck, F. G., A Biographical Dictionary of the Saints (London, 1924).Google Scholar

14 Afra subsequently occurs in the Old English Martyrology (see below, p. 125, n. 25). The earliest extant example of her inclusion in an English calendar would appear to be Oxford, Bodleian Library, Bodley 579 (the Leofric Missal, Glastonbury, c. 970), 42v, where she is recorded against 8 August with St Cyriacus (see Wormald, F., English Kalendars before A.D. 1100, Henry Bradshaw Soc. 72 (London, 1954), 43–55, at 51)Google Scholar. Afra was later incorporated into the Sarum litany, her absence from the York litany perhaps implying a southern English devotion. I am grateful to Mr Michael Michael for discussion on this point.

15 I am deeply indebted to Dr Malcolm Parkes for discussion on this and many other points.

16 The conjunction of St Philip with St James the Greater is unusual. This conjunction is found, certainly later in the Middle Ages, at Saint-Sernin, Toulouse, which celebrated the elevation of the relics of SS. Philip and James the Less on 26 March and which also claimed to possess the remains of James the Greater, which it celebrated on 1 October: see Holweck, , Dictionary of the Saints, pp. 517, 518 and 810–11Google Scholar. I should not, however, consider this point to be relevant to the consideration of where BN lat. 10861 was written.

17 See Aldhelmi Opera, ed Ehwald, R., Monumenta Germaniae Historica, Auct. Antiq. 15 (Berlin, 1919), 3–32 (no. IV).Google Scholar

18 Aldhelm: the Poetic Works, trans. Lapidge, M. and Rosier, J. L. (Cambridge, 1985), pp. 35–45, esp. 41–4.Google Scholar

19 Aldhelm: the Prose Works, trans. Lapidge, M. and Herren, M. (Cambridge, 1979), pp. 107, 109–10, 125–6, 95–6, 112, 107–8, and 113 respectivelyGoogle Scholar

20 Quentin, H., Les martyrologes bistoriques du moyen âge (Paris, 1908), pp. 47–112.Google Scholar

21 ibid. pp. 525–32, especially 529.

22 CLA v, no. 606a; and see The Calendar of Saint Willibrord, ed. Wilson, H. A., Henry Bradshaw Soc. 55 (London, 1918), 1–45.Google Scholar

23 CLA VIII, no. 1052; see also Bischoff, Bernhard, Die südostdeutschen Schreibschulen und Bibliotheken in der Karolingerzeit, 2 vols. (Wiesbaden, 1974–1980) 1, 183–4Google Scholar; for the text see Missale Francorum (Cod. Vat. Reg. Lat. 257), herausgegeben von Leo Cunibert Mohlberg, ed. Eizenhöfer, L. and Siffrin, P., Rerum Ecclesiasticarum Documenta, Series maior, Fontes 11 (Rome, 1957), 79–85.Google Scholar

24 CLA IX, no. 1236; see also Bischoff, , Schreibschulen 1, p. 62, n. 167Google Scholar. For the text see Bauerreis, R., ‘Ein angelsächsisches Kalendarfragment’, Studien und Mitteilungen zur Geschichte des Benediktiner Ordens 51 (1933), 177–82Google Scholar; see also Grosjean, P., ‘Un Fragment d'Obituaire anglo-saxon’, AB 79 (1961), 320–45.Google Scholar

25 See Das altenglische Martyrologium, ed. Kotzor, G., 2 vols., Bayerische Akademie der Wissenschaften, Abhandlungen, phil.-hist. Klasse n.s. 88 (Munich, 1981) 1, 443–54.Google Scholar

26 ibid. 1, 291–300.

27 See Brown, T. J., ‘The Oldest Irish Manuscripts and their Late Antique Background’, Irland und Europa: die Kirche im Frühmittelalter, ed. Chatháin, P. Ni and Richter, M. (Stuttgart, 1984), pp 311–27, at 322.Google Scholar

28 CLA V, nos. 526 and 584 (the latter item was wrongly numbered as BN lat. 9527 until 1958, an error which is perpetuated in CLA).

29 CLA II, nos. 148b and 260; see Brown, ‘The Oldest Irish Manuscripts’, p. 323.

30 See Parkes, M. B., ‘The Palaeography of the Parker Manuscript of the Chronicle, Laws and Sedulius, and Historiography at Winchester in the Late Ninth and Tenth Centuries’, ASE 5 (1976), 149–71, at 161.Google Scholar

31 Micheli, G. L., L'Enluminure du haut moyen âge (Brussels, 1939), p. 51, pl. 86 (2r)Google Scholar. Micheli recognised BN lat. 10861 as part of the ‘Canterbury’ group, but intimated that, along with the Codex Bigotianus, it might represent the work of an Anglo-Saxon monk on the Continent, or that it might even be a continental copy of a ‘Canterbury’ manuscript. Whilst acknowledging the former possibility I do not agree that the manuscript could be a copy. For a discussion of contacts between England and the Continent at this period, see Levison, W., England and the Continent in the Eighth Century (Oxford, 1946).Google Scholar

32 See Brown, M. P., ‘Cambridge, University Library MS. Ll. 1. 10, the Book of Cerne’ (unpubl. Ph.D. dissertation, London Univ., forthcoming).Google Scholar

33 CLA II, no. 241. The Book of Cerne is not listed in CLA, but see Alexander, , Insular Manuscripts, no. 66 and pls. 310–15.Google Scholar

34 See below, pp. 131 and 133.

35 Secondary references are to facsimiles in Bond, E. A., Facsimiles of Ancient Charters in the British Museum, 4 vols. (London, 1873–1878)Google Scholar (hereafter cited as BM facs.) and Sanders, W. B., Facsimiles of Anglo-Saxon Manuscripts, 3 vols. (Southampton, 1878–1884) (hereafter cited as OS facs.).Google Scholar

36 This example also employs the curious XPI monogram found at the foot of BN lat. 10861, 2r, although without the foliate extension which appears in the Paris manuscript.

37 See Brooks, N. P., ‘The Pre-Conquest Charters of Christ Church, Canterbury’ (unpubl. D. Phil. dissertation, Oxford Univ., 1969), pp. 133–51Google Scholar, and Early History of the Church of Canterbury, p. 168.

38 The developments which I am outlining obviously contain an element of generalization. Chronological divisions should not be considered absolute; for example, this earlier Kentish script recurs in some Canterbury documents after the introduction of the mannered minuscule of BN lat. 10861 (see Cotton Augustus ii. 47, dated 811; S1246, BM facs. ii.11).

39 See above, p. 128.

40 See Brooks, , Early History of the Church of Canterbury, pp. 171–4.Google Scholar

41 See N. Webb, ‘Stowe Charter 19 and the Ninth-Century Charters from Christ Church, Canterbury’ (forthcoming).

42 See Levison, , England and the Continent, pp. 18–19Google Scholar, and Brooks, , Early History of the Church of Canterbury, pp. 118–23Google Scholar. It seems that the loss of the Christ Church archives of the seventh and eighth centuries may well have occurred as a result of an attack upon the community during Eadberht's coup. The coup itself provides yet another reason for the heightened productivity of the ninth-century Christ Church scriptorium.

43 See below, p. 131.

44 Wormald, P., ‘Charters, Law and the Settlement of Disputes in Anglo-Saxon England’, The Settlement of Disputes in Early Medieval Europe, ed. Davies, W. and Fouracre, P. (Cambridge, 1986).Google Scholar

45 S1434, one of the Christ Church charters which exhibits our script.

46 I am deeply indebted to Patrick Wormald for much valuable discussion, in private communication, on this and many other points.

47 For a general discussion of literacy, see Wormald, C. P., ‘The Uses of Literacy in Anglo-Saxon England and its Neighbours’, TRHS 27 (1977), 95–114Google Scholar. See also Ganshof, F. L., ‘The Use of the Written Word in Charlemagne's Administration’, in his The Carolingians and the Frankish Monarchy (London, 1971), pp. 125–42Google Scholar, and Parkes, M. B., ‘The Literacy of the Laity’, Literature and Western Civilization: the Medieval World, ed. Daiches, D. and Thorlby, A. (London, 1973), p. 555Google Scholar

48 The calligraphic variants found within this script may be viewed as akin to later English litera documentaria of the twelfth to fourteenth centuries, which employs long ascenders as a quick and cheap way of decorating script.

49 See Brooks, , Early History of the Church of Canterbury, pp. 180–3Google Scholar. Papal involvement in the disputes of this period adds yet another dimension to the proceedings and may likewise have entailed a heightened awareness of documentary prestige and ‘chancery’ practice.

50 The possibility that BN lat. 10861 was written on the Continent should act as sufficient warning in this respect.

51 See Brooks, , Early History of the Church of Canterbury, p. 182.Google Scholar

52 ibid. pp. 141–2.

53 ibid. p. 168.

54 See Wormald, ‘Charters, Law and the Settlement of Disputes’. Although executed in a mature ninth-century pointed minuscule, S59 displays none of the Canterbury mannerisms. Its clarity is, if anything, reminiscent of the simplified Canterbury script of the late 820s and also of the Mercian Book of Cerne. I am somewhat inclined to associate Cotton Augustus ii. 4 (S114), dated 779, with S59 on palaeographical grounds (the former perhaps representing a precursor of S59's script), but it should be noted that there are no apparent diplomatic grounds for questioning this document's authenticity.

55 See above, p. 130.

56 See Brooks, , Early History of the Church of Canterbury, pp. 175–80Google Scholar, and Wormald, ‘Charters, Law and the Settlement of Disputes’.

57 Brooks (ibid. pp. 191–7), has identified two Christ Church forgeries, S22.1 and S90, the latter being an early ninth-century forgery, perhaps even in the hand of Wulfred himself, concerning the privileges of the Kentish churches initially granted by Æthelbald of Mercia.

58 See above, p. 120.

59 It would appear that even the field of liturgical manuscript production was not free from such tendencies; BL, Royal 1. E. VI, originally a complete Bible, exhibits an elegant hybrid minuscule.

60 Paris, BN lat. 9389 (CLA V, no. 578), Durham, Cathedral Library A. II. 17(CLA II, no. 149), and London, BL, Cotton Nero D. iv (CLA II, no. 187).

61 Characteristic letter-forms shared by Canterbury material and certain Hiberno-Saxon and Irish works include tall a and e variants, open-bowed d and q with reversed ductus, open-bowed p and spiralform capital G.

62 Dublin, Trinity College 60 (the Book of Mulling: CLA II, nos. 276–7), 52 (the Book of Armagh: CLA II, no. 270) and 58 (the Book of Kells: CLA II, no. 274).

63 For a consideration of the possibility of Irish influence in eighth- and ninth-century England, see Hughes, K., ‘Evidence for Contacts Between the Churches of the Irish and the English’, England Before the Conquest, ed. Clemoes, P. and Hughes, K. (Cambridge, 1971), pp. 49–67Google Scholar, and Brown, ‘The Book of Cerne’.

64 Leningrad, Public Library, F. v. I. 8 (CLA XI, no. 1605) and Vatican City, Biblioteca Apostolica Vaticana, Barberini lat. 570 (CLA I, no. 63). Both of these works have been variously attributed to both northern and southern England; the latter has also been associated with the ‘Canterbury’ group and with York; see lexander, , Insular Manuscripts, nos. 36 (Barberini Gospels) and 39 (Leningrad Gospels).Google Scholar

65 CLA II, nos. 191, 214 and 244 and 199 respectively.

66 The orange, blue and yellow appear, under moderate magnification, to be red lead, woad and ochre respectively, the cheaper and more available pigments; see Roosen-Runge, H. in Kendrick, T. D. et al. , Evangeliorum Quattuor Codex Lindisfarnensis, 2 vols. (Olten and Lausanne, 1956–1960).Google Scholar

67 The Book of Cerne and Hatton 93 are closely related to each other in script and decoration. They exhibit an affinity with manuscripts of the ‘Canterbury’ group but I am not of the opinion that they were produced at Canterbury or that they should be dismissed merely as outliers of the group. See Brown, ‘The Book of Cerne’.

68 Note also the grotesque head of the b on Barberini 12r which, through biting the lappet of the preceding head, resembles the head of the h (BN lat. 10861, 2r) which holds a disc in its mouth. There is also a very similar motif in Harley 2965, 11r.

69 See Budny, ‘Royal 1. E. VI’, and Brown, ‘The Book of Cerne’.

70 The Passio S. Cypriani is distinguished only by an enlarged numeral (X) on 55v, while the beginnings of the passiones of Gallicanus and of John and Paul are unmarked, save for the addition to the latter of a marginal cross and enlargement by transformation of an existing P, by a later hand, to mark the division (66v).

71 These are found in Leningrad, Public Library, Q. v. I. 18 (Bede, , Historia Ecclesiastica: CLA XI, no. 1621Google Scholar: see Schapiro, M., ‘The Decoration of the Leningrad Manuscript of Bede’, Scriptorium 12 (1958), 191–207CrossRefGoogle Scholar), and occur in subsequent English manuscripts and those from Insular centres on the Continent.