Page images
PDF
EPUB

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 independent1.

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.) has 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.

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., are supplied in it by the scribe of the Hatton MS. in his usual neat hand, and with his peculiar spelling1." I have also noted that the same phenomenon occurs at the end of St Luke's Gospel2. 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 cwed 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 translation1.

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

66

1 Pref. to St Mark; p. x. Pref. to St Luke; p. vii.

Also at p. 174 of the edition for the Surtees Society, but not quite accurately. Thus the MS. has "aurát,” not "aurat"; "gimænelice da de," not "ade gimænelice"; “æc,” not “æc"; "misserrimus," not "miserrimus"; with a few other variations. The use of capital letters in the Surtees Society's edition where the MS. has only small letters is to be regretted.

This translation much resembles that in the Surtees edition of St John; Prolegomena, p. xliv.

5 This "at the first" is important; it refers to the Latin text, written long before the gloss.

6 See ch. xv. vv. 12, 17 below; where gemanelice=Lat. inuicem.

7 The word giðryde is here of uncertain meaning. In 1. 486 of the Phoenix, ed. Grein, we have geþryðed, apparently in the sense of "strengthened"; but there seems to be no other similar instance of the word. In the present case we can tell, beyond all doubt, that the words hit úta giðryde, &c. simply mean "bound it," as we should now say. The usual sense of prys is "force"; Grein.

8 A conjectural translation of gibélde; cf. bold, a house; Grein. Translated "adorned" in Surtees edition. I do not see how, philologically, we can connect gibélde with bild, a picture, as Prof. Westwood proposes. Cf. O. Friesic

the anchorite, he wrought in smith's work the ornaments that are on the outside, and adorned it with gold, and also with gems, overlaid with silver, unalloyed metal (lit. a treasure without deceit). And Aldred, an unworthy and most miserable priest, with the help of God and St Cuthbert, glossed it above in English (i. e. wrote the English gloss above), and made himself at home1 with the three parts. Matthew's part, for the honour of God and St Cuthbert. Mark's part, for the bishop. And Luke's part for the brotherhood, together with eight oras2 of silver for his admission3. And St John's part for himself, together with four oras of silver, (deposited) with God and St Cuthbert; to the end that he may gain admittance into heaven, through God's mercy, and on earth happiness and peace, promotion and dignity, wisdom and prudence, through St Cuthbert's merits.

"Eadfrið, Oeðiluald, Billfrið, and Aldred made and adorned this Gospel-book in honour of God and St Cuthbert."

[ocr errors]

We must not omit to observe the marginal note which Aldred has here made opposite his own name, to this effect:-"I am named Aldred, the son of Alfred; I who speak am the eminent son of a good woman.' And again, above the word mulieris, he has afterwards added-"i. tilw;" or, as this has no doubt been correctly explained, "id est, tilwin," that is to say, Tilwin. This feminine name is found, says Mr Waring, in the Durham Liber Vitæ. Who this Aldred really was is, after all, not at all certain. It has hitherto been supposed that he is the same with "Aldred the provost," whose name appears in the Durham Ritual; see Rituale Ecclesiæ Dunelmensis, ed. Stevenson (Surtees Soc.), p. 185, and pref. p. x. This was the opinion of Sir F. Madden, but it is hardly borne out by a comparison of the MSS. The date of the entry of the name in the Durham Ritual is supposed to be A.D. 970. Perhaps the most that can be said is that the glosses belong to about the same period, viz. to the latter half of the tenth century 5.

From the expression of Aldred, that he glossed the Gospel of St John "for himself," we conclude that the glosses to this gospel are in his own handwriting, whilst those to the other gospels (in a different hand) were merely made under his superintendence, though he claims credit for the whole work. This is shewn more clearly by the short entry at the beginning of St Mark's Gospel, viz., "Thou living God, be mindful of Eadfrið and Æðilwald and Billfrið and Aldred, sinners ;

belda, to give a dowry to a woman; plainly connected with bold, a house, domicile.

1 Perhaps this rather strange expression is equivalent to "made himself familiar with." That is, the three first gospels were glossed by another, and revised by Aldred.

2 The ora had two values, but was commonly reckoned as equivalent to 16 penings or pence; and 15 oras made a pund or pound. See Money in the Glossary to Thorpe, Ancient Laws, vol. ii.

3 The sense is conjectural; taking in-lád-in-leading

=(perhaps) induction. The word lúd also means 'exculpation,' or 'ordeal'; see Gloss. to Ancient Laws, ed. Thorpe.

4 Prolegomena to St John (Surtees Soc.), p. xlvi; Lingard, Hist. A. S. Church, ii. 364.

5 The names of Eadfrið, Exilwald, and Billfrið are to be connected with the Latin text, the date of which is about A.D. 700. On the date of the glosses, see further at p. xii.

See St Mark's Gospel, p. 1.

these four with God's help, were employed upon this book.” The additions in St Luke's Gospel, made by Aldred in red ink, have already been remarked upon1. In St John, the red ink begins with the words " du genioma" as a gloss to "tollere" in Chap. v. v. 10; see p. 47. Mr Waring remarks that "the second hand in red ink, which we know to have been Aldred's autograph, is distinguished by the v-shaped letter for u and w, and by certain orthographical peculiarities, as bloedsia, and gi for ge in the inseparable particle; forms equally characteristic of the Ritual2." I mention this because the reader will probably be at a loss to understand the last remark. He will turn over page after page, and not discover that gi is written for ge. Open the book at random, say at p. 163. We find geroefa, gelefed, geslea, gefylled, geonduearde, geonduarde, gesaldon, gehére, gecuoæð, and gemoete; ten examples of ge-, but of gi- not one, though there are several examples of its use in the Rushworth gloss below. Yet the remark must mean something, and it must, I think, refer to this. It is a very singular and at present inexplicable fact that the prefix is written as gi just a few times, near the end of the Gospel. In Ch. xx. v. 2, the gloss to cucurrit was originally geurn, but has been corrected to giarn. But what is still more astounding is that, quite suddenly, without any notice, and for no discoverable reason, a number of examples of the use of gi begin to appear at Ch. xx. v. 23, where we find gihabbað (immediately followed by genumeno vel gehaldeno!), gicueden, gesegon, gisii, gelef, geseh, geonduearde, gisege, gilefdes, gisegon, gilefdon, gelefe, gelefa. In Chap. xxi, we have gifengon, giondueardon, gimõetas, getea, geherde, getugun, geségon, ginomun vel gifengon, gifrægna, gelic, gihriordadon, gehala, giunrotsade, gilesua, gigyrde, geuintrad, gibrehtnad vel giuuldrad, gicueð, gesoec, gisah, giræsti, gisah, geuuni, gewuniga, getrymmeð. Nothing can be clearer than that the use of gi as distinguished from ge cannot be relied upon as "characteristic" of the writer. The only conclusion to be drawn seems to be that, just at this very period, a scribe who had been accustomed to write the prefix as ge was beginning to think that he ought to write it as gi; so that gi was, on the whole, a later form, and appears, as being such, so frequently in the later or Rushworth gloss3. It is a peculiarly interesting point, as shewing that changes of spelling took place in the practice of the same scribe at different times of his life, a hypothesis which opens out somewhat startling views, and shews the danger, and even the absurdity, of carrying out criticism, as obtained from internal evidence, in too rigid and narrow a manner. In saying this, I am not at all aiming at the slight slip made in Mr Waring's admirable and valuable remarks,

1 See St Luke's Gospel, pref. p. vii.

2 Prolegomena to St John, p. xlvi.

The Gothic form of this remarkable prefix was ga-. Next comes the A. S. and Northumbrian ge-. After this, ge- is again thinned down to gi-. Next g passes into y, giving yi-, written as y-, or even as i-. The last step is

its general disappearance.

4 So also Mr Waring, who says of the Rushworth gloss, that it "strikingly illustrates the difficulty of fixing any certain date for MSS. on the mere ground of grammatical precision"; Prolegomena to St John, p. cii, note 2.

5 Mr Waring expressly notes, in a footnote at p. cvi,

« PreviousContinue »