INTRODUCTION
The eighth-century manuscript Durham, Cathedral Library, MS. B II. 30 contains an abbreviated version of Cassiodorus’s Commentary on the Psalms. Up until now only one other possible copy of this version was known: Landesbibliothek Düsseldorf, K16:Z03/01 (CLA S.1786).Footnote 1 However, a second fragment of the text attests to a further copy of the text on the Continent. This is manuscript fragment Hr 2,19 in the Hessisches Staatsarchiv in Marburg, which consists of a bifolium written by a single hand in Insular minuscule approximating Insular set minuscule. The page layout consists of two columns with twenty-three lines each. The biblical lemmata and the commentary text are written in the same script but are distinguished by rubricated initials: red for the Psalm text and yellow or brown for the commentary. Furthermore, the initial letter of a given section of Psalm text or commentary is enlarged, and the biblical passages are marked by points and commas in the margin. It has recently been described and palaeographically associated with a particular group of manuscripts originating in or around the Fulda–Hersfeld area and dating to around 800.Footnote 2 The fragment’s later history is not known in detail, but there are clear traces of its use as binding,Footnote 3 and the place name Kirchheimb is found in faint lettering in a later hand on 1r. Given that the fragment is now held by the Staatsarchiv Marburg and is likely to have come from a local archive in Hessen, Kirchheimb most probably refers to the modern-day town of Kirchheim, around ten kilometres from Bad Hersfeld.
In the present contribution, I wish to examine the text as it is transmitted in this fragment, comparing it to the relevant passages in the Durham manuscript. This will confirm that the fragment contained the version also transmitted by the Durham copy and will also suggest that its exemplar was different from the latter, thus indicating that the abridged version of the commentary enjoyed a wider popularity than previously thought likely by scholars. An appendix provides a full transcription of the fragment, a transcription of the relevant passages in the Durham copy and in Adriaen’s edition of the Commentary,Footnote 4 along with images of the fragment (Figs. 1–4), a list of changes made to the Marburg fragment and the Durham manuscript, and notes on textual differences. While the edition by Adriaen is problematic in that it does not accurately represent the manuscript tradition, the text is included in the comparison by way of reference as the recent edition by Stoppacci only covers the commentary on Psalms 1–50.Footnote 5
Durham, Cathedral Library, MS. B II. 30 is the main manuscript and the only nearly complete copy of this abridged version of the commentary.Footnote 6 Other abbreviated versions of the work exist, but they are not identical with the Durham version, as indicated by Stoppacci in the introduction to her edition of the first part of the commentary. Stoppacci also points out that Durham’s abbreviated version is in fact the earliest textual witness to Cassiodorus’s commentary.Footnote 7 Opinions have diverged both on the Durham manuscript’s place of origin and that of the abridged version of the commentary contained within it, as have views on the likelihood of the text’s wider transmission. Northumbria has been the prime candidate as a place of origin for the manuscript, with both Jarrow and York having been put forward as possibilities, but the question has not been settled conclusively.Footnote 8 Alcuin appears to have been familiar with the abbreviated version of the commentary contained in the Durham manuscript,Footnote 9 thus perhaps indicating a link with York, as tentatively suggested by Bullough and argued more strongly by Gameson.Footnote 10 However, Fravventura’s more detailed examination in her edition of Alcuin’s text leads her to conclude that while Alcuin must have used a version of the abbreviated text as contained in Durham B.II.30, there are also differences in wording, with Alcuin including passages not contained in the Durham codex.Footnote 11 This need not negate the possibility of a connection with York: there may have been more than one copy of the text available, or Alcuin may have had access to more than just the abbreviated version. While arguments regarding the Durham manuscript’s exact place of origin must remain circumstantial, the connection of the abbreviated commentary with York and perhaps even more with Alcuin personally is strong.
The Düsseldorf fragment consists of a single sheet, contains parts of the commentary on Psalm 144 (Vulgate numbering), and has been dated to the early eighth century and assigned a Northumbrian origin (CLA S. 1786). The question of the fragment’s later transmission has not been addressed in any detail, although Lowe assigned it to Werden in CLA S. 1786 on the basis of the sixteenth-century entry ‘Moers’ on the fragment, referring to an area where Werden owned property. This adds to the attraction of the York connection, as it provides a possible, albeit speculative, route of transmission for the Düsseldorf fragment, as Werden’s founder Liudger was a pupil of Alcuin’s at York.Footnote 12 As Zechiel-Eckes cautions, however, the reference to Moers on the fragment is not necessarily proof of a Werden provenance.Footnote 13 There has been discussion on whether the Düsseldorf fragment constitutes the remainder of a second copy of the abbreviated version contained in Durham MS. B II. 30, as argued in detail by Bailey and Hadley in 1983 and supported by Zechiel-Eckes,Footnote 14 or whether it was written to supply text omitted or lost from the Durham manuscript, as put forward by Halporn in 1974.Footnote 15 Halporn also opposed the possibility of a further copy of the abridged commentary in an article responding to the findings of Bailey and Handley in 1985Footnote 16 and, more fundamentally, also raised the question of whether the Düsseldorf fragment was part of the same abridgement at all, given that the text contained in it is missing at the end of the Durham manuscript and there is thus nothing to compare it to in the Durham version.Footnote 17 This is an important point, mostly neglected in the discussion of the Düsseldorf’s fragment’s relationship to the Durham codex, and Stoppacci takes the view that the Düsseldorf version of the text is not the same as the abridgement in Durham MS B II. 30.Footnote 18 Much, then, remains uncertain, and the Düsseldorf fragment may be a red herring entirely, but given the extent to which its relationship to the Durham manuscript has been discussed, it is relevant to any discussion of the abridged commentary. If it is indeed from the same version of the commentary as the Durham copy, it seems most likely, as the majority of authors who have commented on this have held, that it was part of a separate copy, particularly as, to my knowledge, the question of how it might have become detached from the Durham codex and travelled to the Continent as a single leaf has not been addressed at all.
The fact that the Durham manuscript represents the only surviving more or less complete copy of this particular abbreviated version suggests that it did not gain wider popularity, a view reflected in Halporn’s arguments that no second copy is likely to have existed. Nevertheless, as mentioned above, it provides our earliest direct manuscript evidence for Cassiodorus’s commentary and is thus not entirely irrelevant for our understanding of the use of the commentary in parts of early medieval Europe. Fragment Hr 2,19 from Marburg therefore adds to our knowledge of the dissemination of this version. In contrast with the Düsseldorf fragment, there can be no doubt that the fragment formed part of a separate manuscript to the Durham codex: Fragment Hr 2,19 covers parts of the commentary on Psalms 134 and 136 (Vulgate numbering) and so contains text also included in the Durham manuscript.Footnote 19 It therefore proves beyond doubt that at least one further copy of this abridged version existed and indeed indicates that the version was exported to the Continent. Furthermore, textual differences with the Durham text, discussed in more detail below, indicate that the fragment is not a direct copy of Durham B.II.30 and that if it derives from this, there must at least have been intermediary stages. One could, of course, envision a scribe consulting multiple manuscript copies during the copying process – perhaps a full copy of the commentary as well as the abbreviated version in the Durham manuscript – or making conscious decisions to change a word in the case of perceived textual errors. But the Marburg fragment contains clear mistakes, which suggests that its scribe was not engaged with the text on a sufficiently deep level to make conscious changes. A simpler solution presents itself, namely that the Marburg fragment’s exemplar contained different readings to the Durham copy.
Assuming for a moment that both contain the same version of the commentary, there are also good indications that the Marburg and Düsseldorf fragments do not come from the same manuscript. For a start, their probable dates diverge: the Düsseldorf fragment is dated to the first half of the eighth century,Footnote 20 whereas the Marburg fragment shows palaeographical similarities with a group of manuscripts dated to around 800.Footnote 21 More importantly, there are clear differences between the two in script and layout. Both have a two-column layout, but the Düsseldorf fragment is written entirely in an Insular hybrid minuscule, with at least thirty-seven lines per column, and red letters used for the first word or syllable of the Bible text. This contrasts with the Marburg fragment’s twenty-three lines and red and yellow/brown rubrication for the psalms and the commentary text, respectively. The attention to visual cues suggests some care, and presumably forward planning, and so it seems unlikely that the layout would change so considerably part-way through the manuscript, especially given that both the Marburg and the Düsseldorf fragments come from the commentary on the last fifty psalms, which would have been regarded as one section.Footnote 22 Thus, while the text in the two fragments cannot be compared, it seems safe to say that they did not form part of one manuscript.
If we assume a lost exemplar for the Marburg fragment, it seems likely that there were at least three separate copies in existence: Durham B.II.30, the Marburg manuscript and Marburg’s exemplar. There may even have been four if the Düsseldorf fragment is witness to the same abbreviated version and if it and the Durham copy are separate entities. If none of the extant witnesses were the original copy of the abridged version, this increases the number of copies that existed. These conclusions suggest a somewhat wider popularity and dissemination of the abridged commentary than has previously been argued, albeit still within a wider Insular context if one accepts the arguments that the Marburg fragment was produced in the Fulda–Hersfeld region.
TEXTUAL COMPARISON
A textual comparison between the Marburg fragment and the Durham manuscript shows that they agree very closely but with some variation in wording and orthography. A full list of variation with commentary translation is given in the Appendix, following the transcriptions of the passages, but the most relevant variants indicating that there are at least intermediary stages between Marburg and Durham are presented in the following.
The clearest indication of this is the reading ‘bonitate’ in Marburg 2rb8 where Durham (252ra35) has ‘uoluptati’ (corrected from ‘uoluptate’): ‘quatenus dei carmina reuerenda hominum passim bonitate profundant …’ (I have added word division). Adriaen’s edition reads ‘uoluptate’ (p. 1232). This reading cannot be a straight-forward misreading; instead, this may be a deliberate choice on the part of the scribe, it may be a mistake that came about in other ways than misreading, or it may be due to a difference between Marburg’s exemplar and Durham B.II.30.
In Marburg 2ra16 the reading ‘dicitur’ corresponds to Durham’s and Adriaen’s ‘dicit’ (252ra23 and p. 1232, respectively). This variant may not be significant, as the ending -ur is abbreviated in Marburg and it is possible for a different stroke in the exemplar to have been misinterpreted as an abbreviation stroke. However, both readings are valid and it may be that Marburg’s exemplar did in fact contain the reading ‘dicitur’.
Finally, there are two variants in the last column of the fragment that may be significant. In 2vb12 Marburg reads ‘ut uaro’ where Durham and Adriaen have ‘ut auaro’ (252va3 and p. 1233, respectively). Both readings are grammatical, but ‘ut auaro’ makes much better sense. If Marburg’s reading is due to scribal error, either on the part of the Marburg scribe or earlier in the text’s transmission, it is possible that the exemplar in question used an open a followed by u, and the similarity between the two could have led to the omission of the initial a in auaro.Footnote 23 However, if this was the case, the exemplar was not the Durham manuscript, where a closed half-uncial a is used. The second variant occurs almost at the end of the Marburg fragment in 2vb19, where Marburg reads ‘grauibus’ instead of ‘grauibus uiris’ found in Durham and Adriaen (252va9 and p. 1233, respectively). As the sentence could be read without ‘uiris’ it is not necessary to posit any scribal error here.
Overall, while there is only one strong indication of Marburg and Durham’s indirect relationship, other less significant variants could point in the same direction.
Corrections to Marburg and Durham
It is interesting to note that there are a considerable number of changes to the text in both manuscripts. Whether these changes were made directly after the copying process in the same scriptorium or some time later cannot be determined. The colour of the ink and, particularly in Marburg, the difference in the thickness of the strokes suggests that these changes were not made during the actual copying process itself. In the case of erasures in the Durham manuscript, the fact that these result in a gap and that the word has not been continued over the erasure by the scribe also indicates that they were carried out after the copy was complete. Moreover, there are attempts to close such gaps by connecting the letters on either side with a long stroke, for example in ‘nefando’ in 248rb17. The care taken with these erasures might perhaps indicate that they were part of the production of the manuscript, possibly in a proof-reading process following the actual copying. At the very least they were made by someone more concerned with the appearance of the page than the person who carried out the strike-through corrections in Marburg.
A more detailed analysis of the type of corrections and the strokes and ink used might perhaps provide answers to when the corrections were made, but this would be a significant and uncertain undertaking which is beyond the scope of the present contribution. However, for the sake of completeness, a list of all changes is provided in the Appendix. The corrections do not add to the conclusions reached above regarding the relationship of the manuscripts, as there is no clear pattern that would indicate a direct relationship between the two copies. In some cases, this would only be feasible on the basis of the uncorrected reading; in other cases the opposite is true. However, the shared uncorrected readings perhaps suggest that both fragments are fairly close to a shared ancestor in that the correction of obvious mistakes has not taken place yet (for example ‘designat’, corrected to ‘designant’ in Durham but not in Marburg, ‘idem’, probably reflecting the pronunciation of ‘item’, corrected to ‘item’ in Durham but not in Marburg, and ‘contigeret’, corrected to ‘contigerit’ in Durham).
It should also be noted that the punctuation appears to have been changed in some instances in Marburg. This aspect has not been considered further in any detail here.
CONCLUSION
The existence of the Marburg fragment and its comparison with the Durham text indicates that the abridged version of the commentary existed in at least three manuscript copies and probably more. While the Marburg fragment may not be of great textual significance for Cassiodorus’s commentary as a whole, it is an interesting piece of evidence, especially as it comes from a continental context. Bullough and others have discussed Alcuin’s familiarity with the abridged version of the commentary, as outlined above, and Stoppacci focused on Alcuin’s role in the dissemination of Cassiodorus’s commentary.Footnote 24 A circumstantial argument has been put forward for the personal connection between Liudger and Alcuin explaining the presence of the Düsseldorf fragment on the Continent. If the Marburg fragment was written in the vicinity of Fulda, a similar argument could be advanced here. Alcuin’s connection to individuals at Fulda is well known, most notably to his pupil and later abbot of Fulda and archbishop of Mainz, Hrabanus Maurus. As Spilling has pointed out, there is evidence for books being loaned out in one of Alcuin’s letters,Footnote 25 and it is not inconceivable that the preservation of the abridged commentary on the Continent owes something to the personal connection between Alcuin and those active at the monastery of Fulda. However, much like the arguments regarding Liudger and Werden, this is speculative, especially given Fravventura’s more cautious note on Alcuin’s use of the abbreviated commentary. Nevertheless, the fragment is valuable in showing us the transmission on the Continent of what is regarded as a specifically English abbreviation of the Cassiodorian commentary.Footnote 26
APPENDIX
Transcriptions
The transcriptions were made using digitized images of the manuscripts, copies of which are included as figures after the transcription text (Figs. 1–4). In the transcriptions underlining represents expanded abbreviations; square brackets indicate letters that are only legible with difficulty due to staining or damage to the parchment and a zero indicates that the letter is not legible, and the number of zeroes reflects the probable number of letters that are illegible. The hash sign indicates an erasure. Rubrication or enlarged letters at the beginning of sections have not been marked. Word division and line breaks are reproduced as in the manuscripts.
Readings and punctuation have been reproduced here incorporating the changes made in the fragments at a later point. The changes to the wording are given in a separate table on pp. 24–5, and changes to punctuation, where identifiable, have been footnoted in the following transcription. As the fragment is stained and marked in places, presumably as a result of its use as binding, some of the decisions regarding whether to transcribe a mark as punctuation or not have been difficult to make. These uncertain instances have been marked by a question mark in round brackets. Overall, the Marburg fragment displays a combination of medial points (the most common punctuation mark), a lower point (which is not always easy to distinguish from the medial point and appears in some cases to be written in lighter ink), and punctus versus and punctus elevatus. These latter two appear to be the result of later changes to the punctuation, with two possible exceptions that cannot be determined because of problems with legibility. A comma-like mark occurs occasionally on the line and also in a slightly higher, medial position, and this has been transcribed as a comma; it may however not in fact be distinct from the point. The psalm text is highlighted by a combination of points and comma in the margin.
The Durham manuscript appears to use a threefold distinction with regard to points, with a high, medium and low point, but for technical reasons the description transcribes the first two as a medial point and the third as a point on the line.
The text from Adriaen’s edition is reproduced here in order to illustrate the abridgement in Durham and Marburg. Text contained in the two manuscripts is printed in bold in the text from the edition, whereas text omitted is roman and in a smaller font.
Fig. 1: Hessisches Staatsarchiv Marburg, Hr 2,19, fol. 1r. All images are reproduced with permission.
Fig. 2: Hessisches Staatsarchiv Marburg, Hr 2,19, fol. 1v–2r
Fig. 3: Hessisches Staatsarchiv Marburg, Hr 2,19, fol. 2v
Fig. 4: Hessisches Staatsarchiv Marburg, Hr 2,19 fol. 1rb4–9; close-up showing rubrication, marginal punctuation for Psalm passages, and the faded Early Modern addition of the place name ‘Kirchheimb’ from the fragment’s use as binding. The lettering in ‘Kirchheimb’ is very faint, and it is possible that it bled through from a label affixed to the page. The line and arrow on the right appear to be traces of modern use in an archival or research setting. The script’s characteristic g and e (almost or entirely closed and frequently top-heavy) can be seen, and a form of minuscule t with a very short bar, which occurs more clearly in other instances in the fragment, can be made out in ‘extinguere’ (1rb5).
Table of changes
In the list of corrections the first two columns contain the readings from Marburg and Durham, respectively. The first word in a column indicates the original reading prior to correction, the corrected text is given after the arrow, and the folio and line number are provided in brackets. Instances where both manuscripts contain a correction to the same word have been marked in bold. Two dashes indicate that no correction has taken place in the manuscript in question, and a zero indicates an illegible letter or a letter than can no longer be determined. Square brackets indicate text that can only be read with difficulty, and a question mark indicates uncertainty.
Variants and discussion
Below is given a short list of orthographic variants, including those that have come about through later changes to the manuscripts, and this is followed by a numbered list of more complex variants, which are also given in the context of the passage in question and marked in bold in these passages. Adriaen’s text is given for comparison, but differences between the manuscripts and the edition text are not discussed, given the incomplete depiction of the manuscript tradition in Adriaen. Each passage is followed first by a translation (intentionally literal rather than idiomatic) of the passage as presented in Adriaen and then by a short comment on the significance of the variation. Erasures have only been commented on if the original readings can be guessed at with some certainty. Later changes to the manuscript text are indicated, with the original reading in brackets and preceded by an opening angle bracket, standing for ‘changed from’. Word division is as in the manuscript, but line breaks are not reproduced.
Orthographic variation not considered further
Later changes to the reading are denoted with an arrow.
uis[si]00liter Mr 1ra2; ui#sibiliter D 248rb8
crudili Mr 1ra5; crudéli D 248rb
diabulus Mr 1ra9; diabulus → diabolus D 248rb15
uelut Mr 1ra16; uelud D 248rb21
occissi Mr 1rb4; occí#sí D 248rb30
iucundissima Mr 1rb20 → iacundissima; iucundissima D 248va8 → iocundissima
diabulum Mr 1rb21–22; diabulum D 248va9 → diabolum
diabulus Mr 1va11; diabulus D 248va19–20 → diabolus
am misserunt Mr 1vb17; a#mi#serunt D 248vb8
possedeant → possi(?)deant Mr 1vb21; possideant D 248vb12
intellegentiam Mr 2ra1; intellegentiam D 252ra9–10 → intelligentiam
inrigatione Mr 2ra6; inrigatione D 252ra14 → irrigatione
necessae Mr 2ra17 → necesse; necesse D 252ra24
inlaqueant Mr2rb15–16; inlaqueant D 252rb5 → illáqueant
contigeret Mr 2va10; contígeret D 252rb19 → contígerit
psalmodie Mr 2rb17; psalmodíae D 252rb6
adomini Mr 2va14; addomini D 252rb23
Other variation
Translation: And to whom will [it] be given more appropriately than to the devil, who pursues the human race with cruel desire.
Comment: ‘hoc nomen’ (‘this name’) is an interlinear addition to Durham. While it is not certain when the addition was made, the hand, as far as can be judged on two words, looks later, perhaps of the same date as the leaves added at the end of the manuscript.
Translation: Likewise he kills strong rulers in us when he renders the impure spirits, which have power through the stain of sins, external through the cleansing of trespasses. Who justly are said to have been struck down in their desire because they did not at all have the strength to destroy us.
Comment: Both ‘inundatione’ (‘through overflowing, through inundation’) and ‘emundatione’ (‘through cleansing’) are grammatically valid readings. In terms of sense, however, ‘emundatione’ is preferable; moreover, its etymological origins as e(x) + mundus provide a satisfying counterpart to the immundus (< im + mundus) spirits. How the variation came about is difficult to say with certainty. It is feasible that the divergence is due to the confusion of e and i combined with a misreading of minim strokes in the course of transmission.
It appears that ‘dicuntur’ (‘they are said’) in Durham is a correction from ‘dicunt’ (‘they say’), with the abbreviation sign added in darker ink. This may indicate a shared reading of ‘dicunt’ in the exemplars of Marburg and Durham, despite ‘dicuntur’ being the better reading.
Translation: ‘Sehon’ is interpreted as the temptation of colours; the ‘Amorrhei’ represent those that make things bitter. Since vices, which lead us away from the most joyful blessedness, are bitter.
Comment: The erroneous ‘designat’ has been corrected to ‘designant’ in Durham. The incorrect reading in Marburg may indicate a shared ancestor, but this error may also have come about independently by the omission of a nasal suspension stroke. It could perhaps also have been understood as referring to the word ‘ammorrei’ as such, rather than to the plural entity which it designates, and so in this case a singular may not have been regarded as an error. The difference in ‘nobis’ versus ‘nos’ is deceptive as the Durham reading has been corrected by erasure, the available space suggesting that the original reading may also have been ‘nobis’.
Translation: The divinity will kill these in us when it will have liberated the minds of the faithful from such servitude.
Comment: It is hard to make sense of ‘diuinitatis’ in Marburg because it would mean either interpreting ‘ista’ as the head of the genitive phrase (‘he/she/it kills those things of the divinity in us’) or understanding ‘ista’ as a singular and the subject of the verb (‘that kills in us of divinity’). In the first case, the only possible singular subject in the wider context of this passage would be the devil, which would make little sense; in the second case, the genitive would have no reference point. The reading in Durham is thus preferable, and the Marburg reading is likely the result of error on the part of the scribe or may have been contained in the scribe’s exemplar and not recognised as incorrect.
Durham’s ‘liberauit’ has an erasure that, due to the space, may indicate correction from ‘liberauerit’.
Translation: For when the devil closes that salvation-bringing road to us, he leaves us in execrable disorder, in which he rules most hideously. And from this his city is called Babylon, which is also called disorder.
Comment: ‘Iter’ in Durham makes more sense than Marburg’s reading ‘inter’. ‘Inter’ (‘between’) appears to be grammatically faulty, leading to the non-sensical ‘For when the devil closes between that salvation-bringing to us’. It may have come about through a misreading, perhaps of an accent as a misplaced suspension stroke, or may have been present in the exemplar, but in any case appears to be a case of scribal error whether by the Marburg scribe or the scribe of the exemplar. The reading thus does not carry any weight with regard to the relationship between Marburg and Durham.
Marburg and Durham both originally contained ‘idem’ (‘the same’, masculine or neuter), which has been corrected to ‘item’ in Durham, in keeping with the edition’s reading. ‘Idem’ would not make grammatical sense here, as Babylonia and ‘ciuitas’ are both feminine, and so the correct form is likely to be the adverb item. This difference then is likely to be orthographic, due to the lenition of intervocalic t at this point.Footnote 28
In Mr 1va14, the correction from ‘derelinquit’ to ‘dereliquit’, achieved by crossing out the n, changes the tense of the verb. While a grammatical form when taken in isolation, ‘dereliquit’ does not match the remaining tenses in the sentence. The original ‘derelinquit’ is identical to Durham’s reading.
Translation: This verse demonstrates that those previous things should not be received in a literal sense but should be perceived by means of a spiritual explanation.
Comment: The reading ‘suscipi’ in Marburg may have been corrected in two stages. The i inserted above the word appears to be in darker ink more similar to that of the main text than the very thin line crossing out the e. The original ‘suscipe’ (2sg imper. act. of suscipio, i.e. ‘take up!’ or ‘receive!’), while a valid grammatical form when taken in isolation, is incorrect in the context of the sentence but may reflect a loss of distinction between unstressed e and i. It can thus be classed as orthographic variation and is not necessarily an error copied from the scribe’s exemplar.Footnote 29 Both ‘spirituali’ and ‘spiritali’ in Durham are valid readings, but the uncorrected reading agrees with Marburg. However, as it is not certain when the correction in Durham was made and given that the forms are interchangeable, it cannot tell us anything about Durham’s exemplar and thus about the relationship between Durham and Marburg.
Translation: Doubtless this account should be transferred to a spiritual understanding [i.e. should be understood in a spiritual sense]. ‘Salices’ are the trees above the banks of a river delighting in rich viridity, and they cannot be killed by water flows, however much they may be saturated with plentiful watering. Holy and faithful people are equal to these.
Comment: In Durham, the original reading ‘spiritalem’ has been changed to ‘spiritualem’, similar to the change in example 6 above, with the uncorrected reading agreeing with Marburg. As it is not clear whether the change was made as part of the copying process and given the interchangeability of the two forms, its relevance for the discussion here is unclear. Similarly, it is not certain when the correct ‘fluentis’ was changed to ‘fluentes’ in Marburg. The reading ‘fluentes’ would have to be interpreted as a participle modifying ‘salices’ (‘Salices’ are the trees…delighting and flowing in rich viridity’). It is a possible reading, as the following clause ‘necari nequeunt’ could be taken as beginning a new clause (‘They cannot be killed, however much they may be saturated with plentiful watering’), but the sense is questionable and ‘fluentis’ is the better reading. For our purposes, moreover, the main point is that the original readings of Marburg and Durham agree.
The erasure in Durham in ‘hi#s’ may well reflect an original ‘hiis’ as in Marburg, differing from the edition’s ‘his’. ‘Hiis’ is likely Classical iis from is, ea, id, rather than identical with ‘his’. The meaning is not affected, but the agreement in Marburg and Durham’s original reading is of interest.
Translation: For these are our instruments, which not only give the pleasantness of psalm singing but also as a contribution bring us, in turn, joy. ‘In medio eius’ means [in the midst] of the city of Babylon, not [the middle] of the river because it is unavoidable that a very holy Christian must be in the midst of the world, however much he is seen to be moved in mind towards heavenly things.
Comment: The reading ‘alterna’, ‘in turns’, in Durham and the edition makes better sense. The change from ‘aterna’, an error, to ‘aeterna’ in Marburg is likely due to ‘aterna’ being identified as incorrect. ‘Aeterna’ would work if modifying organa – ‘These are our instruments, which … being eternal, give us joy as a contribution’. ‘Dicitur’ in Marburg versus Durham’s ‘dicit’ may indicate a difference in the exemplar. The reading is grammatically valid and makes sense (‘“In medio eius” is said of the city of Babylon, not of the river’).
Translation: They add another weight to their sorrows that they lament that they have come to this mockery. Since they are to pour forth the revered songs of God in different places for the pleasure of men and it is to be a necessity to them to say to pagans what only the people of the Lord is accustomed to hear. But so that we might pursue further that part which we have begun, the apostle testifies that concupiscence of the world holds us submissive [to it].
Comment: The sense of the passage is not improved through Marburg’s reading ‘bonitate’ instead of ‘uoluptate’: ‘Since they are to pour forth the revered songs of God in different places for the goodness of men’ or perhaps ‘Since they are to pour forth the revered songs of God for the goodness of men in many places’. It could perhaps be interpreted as referring to proselytizing activity: they are to sing the songs of God and to spread to pagans what only God’s people usually hear in order for people to achieve goodness. This is a possible interpretation, but given the context of the passage, it is unlikely to be the correct reading and the overall more positive note that ‘bonitate’ adds to the passage is at odds with its otherwise negative tone. There are no other indications in the, admittedly short, Marburg fragment that the scribe intervened in the text this drastically; on the contrary, there are several errors that suggest the scribe was not concerned with correcting the text. The variation cannot, however, be due to the scribe mis-copying what was on the page. Instead, it is possible that, given the medieval Latin confusion between b and u in some parts of Europe, the Marburg scribe incorrectly memorised the words in the process of shifting between the exemplar and the copy, either because the exemplar actually read ‘boluptate’ or because the letters expressed a similar phonological value in the scribe’s mind.Footnote 30 The Marburg fragment and Durham B.II.30 do both contain the reading ‘nobis’ for ‘nouis’ (2va14 and 252rb23, respectively), but this is intervocalic; moreover, in the Marburg fragment there is no other suggestion of this type of confusion. It does, therefore, seem more likely that ‘bonitate’ was found in the scribe’s exemplar.
In Durham ‘coepimus’, from coepere, and Maburg’s ‘cepimus’¸ from capio, could be true variants, though with a similar meaning, but they may also reflect the pronunciation of oe as e and thus constitute orthographic variation.Footnote 31
Translation: But the teaching here states that they must not be agreed with when it recalls that in a strange land, that is among wicked deeds which are alien to God, the hymn of the Lord must not be sung.
Comment: ‘Ammo monet’ in Marburg is clearly a mistake and is likely to be a form of dittography. Marburg’s ‘[id]’ is hard to read at this point, but the word may have been ‘quod’ rather than ‘id’ as it looks like there may have been a descender, indicating q rather than i, and an abbreviation stroke. This would be a significant variant if so, but given the legibility issues, the reading can carry no weight.
Translation: The prophet binds himself with fetters that are indeed hard, but by no means new, so that he should fall away from the memory of the Lord Saviour if Jerusalem should fall from his mind.
Comment: While ‘ipsi’ is a grammatically valid form, in the context of the sentence, the nominative singular ‘ipse’ of the edition as the subject of ‘decidat’ makes better sense. It is unclear why an attempt was apparently made to change it to ‘ipsi’ in Durham, but the original reading ‘ipse’ there, which differs from Marburg, may indicate a difference in the exemplars. However, due to the unstressed nature of the final vowel, the variation may also be orthographic.
Translation: Let my tongue cling to the roof of my mouth, if I do not remember you, if I do not set Jerusalem above my highest joy. (Psalm text for Psalm 136; modern numbering: 137.6, New Revised Standard Version.)
Comment: The addition of ‘meo’ appears to be a mistake in Marburg, and a few lines later, the psalm text is cited correctly as ‘in principio laetitae meae’ (2vb9) without the additional ‘meo’. This may have been prompted by the word ‘meae’ at the end of the phrase. Whether this mistake was in the exemplar or whether it is due to the Marburg scribe, it suggests that the scribe was not particularly attentive to the content of what was being transcribed, as a mistake in the Psalm text could easily have been identified and rectified if present in the exemplar. This is also why the reading has little value for establishing the relationship between Marburg and Durham: had the reading been in Durham’s exemplar, it may have been corrected by the Durham scribe.
Translation: ‘Si non proposuero Ierusalem in principio laetitiae meae’ follows. These are certainly the origins of worldly joys, that the gold finds the greedy one, the beautiful woman the extravagant person, boasting the proud one. But may it not be the case that these origins of joy are appropriate to prophetical sanctity. Indeed let us state that some things are honourable, but nevertheless they must not be given preference in any way to the holy church. To solemn men and those who conduct themselves with the greatest honour, the origin of joy is the son who is born, as it happened to Zacharias through John, who…
Comment: Marburg’s ‘prosuero’ appears to be a scribal error. Whether this was in the exemplar already or whether this is a case of eye-skip (reading and abbreviating ‘pro’ and then going back to the o of ‘po’ in the exemplar) on the part of the scribe of the Marburg fragment cannot be determined. It thus cannot be used when considering the relationship between Marburg and Durham. A small ‘o’ has been added in lighter ink above ‘laetitiae’ in the Marburg manuscript, resulting in a reading along the lines of ‘laoetitiae’, as no letter has been deleted. It is not clear what the purpose of this addition is, and the original reading ‘laetitiae’ is clearly correct. In the case of Marburg’s ‘uaro’ (‘to/through the knock-kneed one’) as opposed to Durham’s ‘auaro’, both readings are possible grammatically and Marburg may have been following its exemplar faithfully. However, given the sense of the passage, ‘auaro’ is the correct reading, and it is more likely that, as outlined on p. 8, ‘uaro’ is the result of a misreading of an open a.
The reading ‘qui nimmo’ in Durham may contain an erasure, as there is a line connecting the first i to the following n, as happens in erasures elsewhere in the manuscript, but it is not clear what letter would have been written originally if this is the case. Durham’s reading is clearly preferable and ‘quinimio’ in Marburg may indicate a misreading of minim strokes. The phrase may have been interpreted as ‘qui nimio’ (‘who excessively … ’ or ‘anyone excessively’), but it is unclear how ‘qui’ would operate in the context of the sentence as it is the only masculine singular nominative form. It cannot be a relative pronoun as it would have no grammatically suitable antecedent, and it cannot be a straight-forward pronoun as it would be the subject of an incomplete clause. ‘Qui nimmo’ is thus clearly the correct form. Whether the Marburg scribe introduced the error or was copying from a faulty exemplar cannot be ascertained with certainty, but it is clear that the scribe was either not following the sense of what was being written or was having trouble transcribing the exemplar correctly.
In the last section of the passage, ‘uiris’ has been omitted from the Marburg text. ‘Uiris’ is not necessary for the text to make sense if the adjective ‘grauis’ is used as a substantive, the resulting text meaning ‘to solemn people and those who conduct themselves with the greatest honour’. This may thus not necessarily be a copying error and may represent an actual textual difference between Marburg and Durham, especially given that there is no obvious reason this may have come about in the Marburg fragment.
