Page images
PDF
EPUB

ERRATA.

[ocr errors]

Page 63, 1. 7 of Latin text, last word. For uobis read nobis. (The gloss is correct.)

64, col. 2, Various Readings. The words cumen and hit assigned to o. 64, belong to 0. 65. 99, marginal note, no. 90. For mt. cxi, read mt. cxii.

105, lower (Rushworth) text; v. 8. The word eftersona belongs to v. 7. „ 148, col. 1, Various Readings; V. 27. Insert A. before wytodlice.

152, col. 1, Various Readings ; v. 14. Insert B.C. before neom. 161, lower (Rushworth) text; v. 28. For groefa-halle read groefa halle, omitting the hyphen. 162, col. 1, Various Readings. The word byssum, as a variant for dyson, belongs to 0. 36, not 37. 164, col. 1, Various Readings, last word. Before A. swyðor insert S. 173, marginal note, no. 208. For mt. cccxluiii. mr. ccxxuiiii, read mt. cccxluiiii. mr. ccxxuiii.

[ocr errors]

ERRATUM IN ST MARK'S GOSPEL.

Page 118, col. 2, v. 49. For ge me namen, read ge me ne namen.

The word ne seems to have fallen out.

ERRATUM IN ST LUKE'S GOSPEL.

Page 167, lower (Rushworth) text, v. 31, first word. For cweð read cwæð.

PREFACE.

The present volume forms the fourth and concluding portion of the exhaustive edition of the Anglo-Saxon Gospels, as planned by Mr Kemble. The first portion was published in 1858, with the title—“The Gospel according to St Matthew, in Anglo-Saxon and Northumbrian Versions, synoptically arranged: with collations of the best Manuscripts. Edited for the Syndics of the Pitt Press. Cambridge: at the University Press. 1858.” This text was edited by Mr Kemble to the end of p. 192, and completed by Mr Hardwick, who added a very short Preface, to indicate the names of the MSS. from which the volume was edited. The title is so worded as possibly to convey a wrong impression ; since the MSS. collated include not only “the best,” but “all” the MSS. now known to exist.

The second portion was published in 1871, with the title—“The Gospel according to St Mark, in Anglo-Saxon and Northumbrian Versions, synoptically arranged, with collations exhibiting all the readings of all the MSS. Edited for the Syndics of the University Press, by the Rev. Walter W. Skeat, M.A. Cambridge: at the University Press, 1871.” The Gospel of St Luke was published in 1874, with a similar title.

The arrangement of the subject-matter is the same in this volume as in the three volumes preceding it. The following is the scheme of the contents of any two opposite pages,

after

p. 11.

[blocks in formation]

The rubrics in the left margin of the left-hand pages are from MS. A. ; with a few from MS. B. The rubrics in the right margin of the same pages are from the Hatton MS. ;

b

but they occur also in the Royal MS. without (if I rightly remember) a single variation of any importance.

The numbers in the right margin of the right-hand pages are from the Lindisfarne MS., and furnish references to parallel passages in the other Gospels. They are fully explained in the Preface to St Mark's Gospel, p. xxiii.

The Latin text of the Rushworth MS. is omitted to save space; a collation of it is given in the Appendix.

The object of the arrangement is to shew the changes effected by time in the Anglo-Saxon text. The Corpus MS. exhibits the text in its earliest, and the (opposite) Hatton MS. in its latest form. These are put side by side. The Lindisfarne and Rushworth glosses are in the Northumbrian dialect; and therefore occupy the opposite pages, apart from the rest. Wherever the volume is opened, all the readings of all the MSS. are exhibited at once.

The MSS. are numbered and described in the Preface to St Mark's Gospel. Perhaps it will be most convenient to the reader, if I here briefly indicate what has been already said in the previous Prefaces.

ST MATTHEW. The Preface, by Mr Hardwick, briefly explains the circumstances under which he undertook to complete the edition, and gives the names of the eight MSS.

ST MARK. The Preface refers to the description of MSS. given in “The Gothic and Anglo-Saxon Gospels,” edited by the late Rev. Joseph Bosworth, D.D., and G. Waring, Esq., published in 1865. Next follows a quotation from the Preface to the Wycliffite Versions of the Holy Bible, edited by Sir F. Madden and the Rev. J. Forshall in 1850, which gives an excellent account of the early versions of the Holy Scriptures. At p. v, is a description of the MSS., viz., I. the Corpus MS. ; II. the Cambridge MS., also called A.; III. the Bodley MS., also called B.; IV. the Cotton MS., also called C. These belong to the first column. Next, of V. the Hatton MS. (H.); and VI. the Royal MS. These belong to the second column, and it may be remarked that the Royal MS. is really the original from which H. was copied; but H. is printed as the text, to shew the latest forms of the words, as was said above. Since every variation is noted, both texts are, practically, given in full.

At p. xi, is a description of the Lindisfarne MS. (L.); and at p. xii, of the Rushworth MS. (R.). At p. xiv, follows a description of the printed editions of the Anglo-Saxon Gospels, viz., I. Parker's edition, 1571; II. Junius and Marshall, 1665; III. Thorpe, 1842; IV. Bosworth and Waring, 1865; V. Bouterwek's edition of the glosses in the Lindisfarne MS., 1857; VI. Bouterwek's “Screadunga,” i. e. Fragments, chiefly relating to St Mark's Gospel, 1858; VII. the Surtees Society's editions of the Northumbrian versions of St Matthew (1854), St Mark (1861), St Luke (1863), and St John (1865).

At p. xxii, is given a full description of all the contents of the edition of St Mark, with an account of the Capitula Lectionum, the method of representing (by italic letters) the contractions used in the MSS., notes upon the ornamentation of the Cambridge MS., the accents in the Corpus MS., the language of the Hatton MS., &c. At p. xxix, the orthography of the Anglo-Saxon version is compared with that of the Northumbrian, shewing a considerable difference in many of the vowel-sounds, and in the inflexions of substantives and verbs. Notice

may be especially drawn to the remark on p. xiii, that the glossator of the Rushworth MS. consulted both the Latin text and the Northumbrian gloss in the Lindisfarne MS. whilst writing down his own gloss of the three latter Gospels. This is the more remarkable, because the glosses throughout St Matthew's Gospel are independent.

ST LUKE. The Preface again explains the arrangement of the subject-matter. At p. vii, an account of the pedigree of the MSS. is attempted. It is proved (1) that the Hatton MS. is copied from the Royal MS. ; (2) that the Royal MS. is copied from the Bodley MS. ; (3) that the Corpus, Bodley, and Cotton MS., were all copied from one and the same original at the same time; and (4) that the Cambridge MS. was ultimately derived from the same original, but was written out at a different time, and possibly from another copy of the text. The pedigree of the MSS., as given at p. x, is here repeated.

[blocks in formation]

I also note that, if we put aside preconceived fancies, we ought to conclude (1) that there never was but one Anglo-Saxon version ; (2) that the copies of it were never very numerous; and (3) that there is little to shew that many copies of it have been lost. Five of the six now left to us are intimately connected with each other, though written at different places; one at Bath, and another (apparently) at Canterbury.

ON THE GOSPEL OF ST JOHN.

With regard to the ANGLO-SAXON version of this Gospel, I have little to add. We may, however, note that the scribe of the Cotton MS. (No. IV.) bas told us his name, since we find the words “wulfri me wrat," i. e. Wulfri wrote me, at the end of the last verse of the last chapter. With respect to my observation that

1 See further remarks below; p. xii.

are

the Hatton MS. (No. V.) is a direct copy from the Royal MS. (No. VI.), I have already said that “all doubt on the subject is removed by observing that the last seven verses of St Mark's Gospel, omitted by the scribe of the Royal MS., supplied in it by the scribe of the Hatton MS. in his usual neat hand, and with his peculiar spelling?” I have also noted that the same phenomenon occurs at the end of St Luke's Gospel? And I have now to add that it occurs yet a third time at the end of St John, as noted at p. 186.

The Bodley MS. (No. III.) is imperfect at the end; it breaks off at the first syllable of the word ge-writ in Ch. xx. v. 9, p. 174. The remainder of the MS. is merely “restored” in a Tudor hand, I suppose under the supervision of Archbishop Parker. The text of this portion is valueless, and the collation is therefore not given beyond this point.

The Cotton MS. is also imperfect, but not quite at the end. Fol. 107 of the MS. ends with the word se in Ch. xix. v. 27; and at the bottom of the leaf is added, in a hand of the 16th century, the note—“here lacketh a leafe.” Fol. 108 of the MS. (as now numbered) begins with the words “I cwæð to him” in Ch. xx. v. 22; the number of verses omitted being about 37, or enough to fill two leaves rather than one, judging by the content of the leaves as noted in the Pref. to St Mark, p. ix.

With regard to the NORTHUMBRIAN versions of this Gospel, there is rather more to be said. I will first of all speak of the LINDISFARNE MS.

It is remarkable that the Northumbrian gloss of St John's Gospel in this MS. is, for the most part, written in red ink, and in a different hand.

The key to this is given by the note at the end of the Gospel, printed at p. 1883, of which I here supply a translation 4.

“Eadfrið, bishop of the Lindisfarne church, (was) he (who) at the first5 wrote this book in honour of God and St Cuthbert, and all the saints in common that are in the island. And Eðilwald, bishop of the people of the Lindisfarne island, made it firm? on the outside, and covered it as well as he could. And Billfrið

1 Pref. to St Mark; p. X.

6 See ch. xv. vv. 12, 17 below; where gemænelice=Lat. * Pref. to St Luke; p. vii.

inuicem. • Also at p. 174 of the edition for the Surtees Society, 7 The word giðryde is here of uncertain meaning. In but not quite accurately. Thus the MS. has “aurát,” not 1. 486 of the Phoenix, ed. Grein, we have gebryded, appa"aurat”; “gimænelice da de," not "fade gimænelice”; rently in the sense of “strengthened”; but there seems to “kec," not “æc”; “misserrimus," not “miserrimus”; with be no other similar instance of the word. In the present a few other variations. The use of capital letters in the case we can tell, beyond all doubt, that the words hit úta Surtees Society's edition where the MS. has only small giðryde, &c. simply mean “bound it,” as we should now letters is to be regretted.

say. The usual sense of bryd is “force"; Grein. 4 This translation much resembles that in the Surtees 8 A conjectural translation of gibélde; cf. bold, a house; edition of St John; Prolegomena, p. xliv.

Grein. Translated “adorned” in Surtees edition. I do 5 This “at the first” is important; it refers to the not see how, philologically, we can connect gibélde with Latin text, written long before the gloss.

bild, a picture, as Prof. Westwood proposes. Cf. O. Friesic

« PreviousContinue »