Chapter 4
Manuscripts

[Skip to Content]

Contents

General Navigation

This chapter

[Beginning of Content]

Introduction

§ 4.1    Cædmon’s Hymn is known to have been copied in twenty-one medieval witnesses. Of these, two have been destroyed and a third badly damaged: † Tournai, Bibliothèque de la Ville, 134 (To) was destroyed during World War II; † Cotton Otho B. xi (C) was badly burned in the Cottonian fire of 1731, and the section containing Cædmon’s Hymn completely destroyed; Oxford, Bodleian Library, Bodley 163 (Bd) survives, but the copy of the Hymn in the manuscript has been almost completely effaced by a corrector. Fortunately, however, only the erased text of Bd is lost to modern readers: a photographic facsimile survives of the page containing the Hymn in To (Faider and van Sint Jan 1950, pl. iv) and a complete transcription of C was made by Laurence Nowell in the mid-seventeenth century (London, British Library, Additional 43703 [N]).

§ 4.2    The manuscripts of Cædmon’s Hymn have not suffered from a lack of attention. Seventeen were described, transcribed, and edited by Dobbie in the late 1930s and early 1940s (Dobbie 1937; Dobbie 1942). The remaining four were subsequently identified, (very briefly) described, and transcribed in Humphreys and Ross 1975. The appearance of the Hymn in specific witnesses or groups of witnesses has been the subject of several studies and most manuscripts have also been described to a greater or lesser extent in library catalogues or other works not primarily concerned with Cædmon’s Hymn (see individual manuscript entries below for details). Black and white facsimiles of all known witnesses were published in Robinson and Stanley 1991, pll. 2.1-2.21. New transcriptions (print and CD-ROM) and, for most witnesses, digital colour facsimiles (CD-ROM only) are available in this edition.

§ 4.3    The following section provides brief physical descriptions of all known witnesses to Cædmon’s Hymn. In writing these accounts, I have concentrated primarily on describing the folio or folios upon which the Hymn itself appears. While they are in most cases based on my personal examination of the manuscripts,[1] they are not intended to replace standard palaeographical descriptions. Bibliographic references too are meant to be useful rather than exhaustive. In citing secondary accounts, I have preferred significant and (where available) recent works to those of purely antiquarian interest or containing only passing or unsupported references to the manuscript in question. This is particularly true of disputes about the number, identification, or dating of hands. Scholars interested in the history of such arguments can in most cases reconstruct the bibliography from the works cited here, particularly Dobbie 1937.

Manuscript catalogue

Index by city and library

§ 4.4    Manuscript descriptions in the main body of the chapter are sorted alphabetically by sigla. The following list provides an index arranged by city, library, and shelf-mark.

Manuscript descriptions

B1 Cambridge, Corpus Christi College, 41

Published descriptions and catalogue entries

Budny 1997, art. 32; Robinson and Stanley 1991, pl. 2.6; Ker 1990, art. 32; Dobbie 1937, 28; James 1909, art. 41; Schipper 1897, 2: xxv-xxix; Miller 1890-1898, 1: xvi-xvii; 2: ix-x; Wanley [1705] 1970, 114-115.

Manuscript

§ 4.5    Parchment. 488 pp. 345 × 210 mm (Writing Surface: 265 × 143 mm in a single column of 25 lines). The manuscript contains a highly innovative copy of the Old English Historia ecclesiastica ending in a unique metrical colophon (ed. Robinson 1981; see Grant 1989 for an exhaustive treatment of innovations). Various other unrelated texts (prayers, charms, liturgical texts, and poems) have been copied in the margins on specially ruled lines. The last page contains a copy of Bishop Leofric’s donation inscription, recording the gift of the manuscript to Exeter Cathedral.[2] The main text has been copied in two hands of s. xi1 (Ker 1990; Budny 1997); the marginal texts are mostly in a single hand of s. xi1 or s. ximed (Ker 1990; see also Budny 1997); the donation inscription is in a third hand and the manuscript has been augmented in several more (Ker 1990; Budny 1997). Although the manuscript’s history before its donation to Exeter Cathedral is unknown, Budny suggests it is “unlikely that it was made at Exeter” (Budny 1997, 509).

Hymn

§ 4.6    The West-Saxon eorðan recension has been copied by the second scribe of the main text on p. 322. The Hymn begins at manuscript line 6. As in all copies of the West-Saxon eorðan recension except To, the Hymn has been copied as part of the main text of the Old English translation of the Historia ecclesiastica, replacing Bede’s paraphrase. This witness of the Hymn, like its framing text, contains a number of unique and highly innovative readings. These variants are discussed below, Chapter 7: Editorial introductions.

Bd Oxford, Bodleian Library, Bodley 163

Published descriptions and catalogue entries

Robinson and Stanley 1991, pl. 2.14; Ker 1990, art. 304; Colgrave and Mynors 1969, li; Dobbie 1937, 35-36; Frampton 1924, 4-5, n. 3; Hunt et al. 1895-1953, 2.1: art. 2016; Plummer [1896] 1969, 1: cxviii-cxx; Wanley [1705] 1970, 83.

Manuscript

§ 4.7    Parchment. 252 folios. 267 × 202 mm (Writing Surface: 185 × 142 mm in a single column of 22 lines). Trimmed with some loss from the marginal material. The manuscript is a composite volume. The first part, in which Cædmon’s Hymn is found, contains a copy of the Latin Historia ecclesiastica of the “Winchester” (c-type) recension (Colgrave and Mynors 1969, li), Aðelwulf’s De abbatibus, extracts from Jerome and Orosius, and a Latin charm; the second part contains the Historia Brittonum and several other historical texts; the third section contains a Latin-Old English glossary, the beginning of a homily on the Feast of Saint John the Baptist, and “a list of about seventy works, probably in the library of Peterborough abbey” (Hunt et al. 1895-1953, 2.1: 165); similarities in format and lineation suggest the first and third sections originally belonged together.[3]

§ 4.8    The first part of the manuscript is in several hands of s. xiin and, on ff. 1, 6 and 7, s. xiiin (Ker 1990). Bishop reports that the scribe responsible for “the bulk of [Bd]” is the same as that responsible for the “Bury Gospels,” Cambridge, Pembroke College, 301 (Bishop 1953, 441). The Latin text of the Historia ecclesiastica in Bd appears to be a transcript of W, with some corrections and alterations (Ker and Piper 1969-1992, 4: 578). The manuscript is likely to have been in Peterborough by s. xiiin, when the booklist on f. 251r was added (Ker 1990).

Hymn

§ 4.9    The West-Saxon ylda recension has been copied by a distinct hand of s. ximed (Ker 1990). The poem is located in the outer margin of the Latin Historia ecclesiastica on the page containing Bede’s paraphrase (f. 152v). It has been badly damaged by binders and an attempt at erasure. Despite attempts at reading the witness under ultraviolet, bright day-, and artificial light, I was unable to decipher more than a few words and letters.

Br Brussels, Bibliothèque Royale, 8245-57

Published descriptions and catalogue entries

Cavill 2000, 512-513; O’Donnell 1996b; Robinson and Stanley 1991, pll. 2.10.1-2.10.2; Humphreys and Ross 1975, 53, art. 1; Colgrave and Mynors 1969, lxv-lxvi; Laistner 1943, 95;[4] Van den Gheyn 1905, 5: art. 3116.

Manuscript

§ 4.10    Paper with some parchment. 321 folios.[5] 276 × 202 mm (Writing Space: 210 × 150 mm in two columns of 42 lines in the first section). Trimmed with some loss from the margins. The manuscript is in two parts. The first part contains a copy of the “German” (m-type) recension of the Latin Historia ecclesiastica (Colgrave and Mynors 1969, lxv-lxvi). The second part contains a variety of histories, vitae, and historical and administrative documents relating to the practices of the Carthusians (see Van den Gheyn 1905 for a complete listing). Colophons on ff. 1v and 87r identify the scribe of the manuscript as a whole as fratrem anthonium de bergis supra zomam, “Brother Anthony of Bergen-op-Zoom”) and date his work in the first section to 1489. The colophons also indicate that the manuscript was copied at Korssendonk, a house of the Windesheim congregation of Regular Canons in Belgian Brabant.

Hymn

§ 4.11    The Northumbrian eordu recension[6] has been copied as part of the main text of the Latin Historia ecclesiastica at the beginning of Bede’s paraphrase (i.e. between iste est sensus and Nunc laudare debemus) on ff. 62r2-62v1. It is in the hand of the main scribe. No change in script separates Cædmon’s Hymn from the surrounding Latin text, although some unusual letter-forms and slightly wider than usual spacing between the characters suggest that Anthony had difficulty with the passage. The text is also full of misapprehensions of individual letters and forms, a feature of all three witnesses to the Northumbrian eordu recension. For a detailed discussion of the scribe’s performance in this manuscript, see O’Donnell 1996b, especially 140-150; Cavill 2000, 512-513. The text of the recension is discussed below, Chapter 7: Editorial introduction, Northumbrian eordu recension.

C † Cotton Otho B. xi (London, British Library, Cotton Otho B. xi + Otho B. x, ff. 55, 58, 62 + Additional 34652, f. 2)[7]

Published descriptions and catalogue entries

Grant 1996, 25-35; Ker 1990, art. 180; Lutz 1981, xxvii-xxxii; Torkar 1981, 39-43, 49-83, 149-167; Dobbie 1937, 24-25; Schipper 1897, 2: xv-xix; Miller 1890-1898, 1: xv-xvi; 2: ix; Plummer [1896] 1969, 1: xcii-xcv; Wanley [1705] 1970, 219; Smith 1984, 71, art xi.

Manuscript

§ 4.12    Parchment. 53 folios in 56 fragments: 53 fragments survive in C, 3 in Cotton Otho B. x, and 1 complete leaf in Additional 34652 (Ker 1990). The original manuscript may have contained anywhere from 176 (one possible interpretation of the description in Wanley [1705] 1970) to “more than 350 leaves” (Dobbie 1937, 24). The most likely figure is probably 231 or 331 folios.[8] “244 × 177 mm” (Writing Surface: “207 × 144 mm,” single column of “27 long lines, except ff. 35, 36, 39 and Add. [34652] in 26 lines, and ff. 48-51 in 22 lines”).[9] The manuscript contained copies of the Old English Historia ecclesiastica, the “G” text of the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle, and miscellaneous shorter texts including genealogies, laws, and poetry (see Torkar 1981).

§ 4.13    The first text was copied (with the exception of Bede’s autobiographical note) in a hand of s. xmed; the remaining texts were copied in two hands of s. xi1 (Ker 1990). The first scribe of the manuscript, responsible for copying the Old English Historia ecclesiastica, probably also copied the annals for 925-955 in Chronicle A (Cambridge, Corpus Christi College, 173), and London, British Library, Royal 12 D. xvii, a recipe collection that shows considerable overlap with C (Torkar 1981, 153-154; see Ker 1990, arts. 39 and 264). The manuscript was “[w]ritten at Winchester” (Ker 1990).

Hymn

§ 4.14    Although fragments survive from Bede’s chapter on Cædmon, the page containing the text of the Hymn itself was destroyed in the fire of 1731. Nowell’s transcription in N, however, confirms that C contained the expected copy of the West-Saxon eorðan recension. It is impossible to say with certainty much about the location of the Hymn, other than that it was found in the Old English Historia ecclesiastica. The Hymn therefore presumably was copied by the principal scribe of the main text of the Old English Historia ecclesiastica.

Ca Cambridge, University Library, Kk. 3. 18

Published descriptions and catalogue entries

Robinson and Stanley 1991, pl. 2.5; Ker 1990, art. 23; Dobbie 1937, 27-28; Schipper 1897, 2: xix-xxi; Miller 1890-1898, 1: xix-xx; Hardwick et al. [1856-1867] 1980, 3: art. 2004; Smith 1722; Wanley [1705] 1970, 153; Wheloc 1644.

Manuscript

§ 4.15    Parchment. 97 folios. 319 × 230 mm (Writing Surface: 275 × 158 mm in a single column of 30 lines). The manuscript contains a copy of the Old English translation of the Historia ecclesiastica in a single hand of s. xi2 (Ker 1990). The witness is closely related to, and, indeed, was perhaps directly copied from, O (Zupitza 1882, iv).[10] A Worcester manuscript, Ca contains glosses in the Worcester “tremulous hand” (Ker 1990) and a partial signature by “Coleman,” a Worcester scribe (Ker 1949, 29). The main scribe of Ca is responsible for five other Worcester manuscripts and London, British Library, Harley Charter 83. A. 3 (Ker 1990). The manuscript was used as the basis for early editions by Smith 1722 and Wheloc 1644.

Hymn

§ 4.16    The West-Saxon eorðan recension has been copied by the scribe of the Old English Historia ecclesiastica in the usual position as part of the main text of the Historia beginning at f. 72v (p. 140 in the older filiation), manuscript line 24.

CArms London, College of Arms, s.n.[11]

Published descriptions and catalogue entries

Cavill 2000, 504-505; Robinson and Stanley 1991, pl. 2.13; Humphreys and Ross 1975, 53, art. 4; Colgrave and Mynors 1969, liii.

Manuscript

§ 4.17    Parchment. 113 folios. 230 × 165 mm (Writing Surface: 185 × 112 mm in a single column of 35 lines on f. [84v]. Pages are of uneven size and number of lines). The manuscript contains copies of the Latin Historia ecclesiastica, perhaps belonging to the “English” c-type (Colgrave and Mynors 1969, liii),[12] and the Epistola Cuthberti de obitu Bedae. Copied in s. xii (Ker 1964, 51). CArms has a medieval press mark from Chichester Cathedral (Ker 1964, 51) but is otherwise of unknown provenance.

Hymn

§ 4.18    The West-Saxon eorðe recension has been copied by the scribe of the main Latin text in alternating lines with Bede’s paraphrase within the main Latin text of the Historia ecclesiastica on f. [84v] (see O’Donnell 1996b, appendix). The first three words of the Old English poem have been copied interlinearly above the first words of the paraphrase (between manuscript lines 29 and 30).

Di Dijon, Bibliothèque Municipale, 574[13]

Published descriptions and catalogue entries

Robinson and Stanley 1991, pl. 2.2; Ker 1990, art. appendix 8; Colgrave and Mynors 1969, lx-lxi; Colgrave 1940, 34; Dobbie 1937, 17-19; Wuest 1906, 206-12; Catalogue General 1885-, 5: 142, art. 574/334.

Manuscript

§ 4.19    Parchment. 117 folios. 325 × 240 mm (Writing Surface: 230 × 180 mm, two columns of 36 lines). The manuscript contains a copy of the Latin Historia ecclesiastica (probably of the “German” m-type recension),[14] three texts by Bede and other authors concerning Saint Cuthbert, and, on the final three folios, miscellaneous works on Saint Thomas Becket in verse and prose. The first 114 folios, containing Historia ecclesiastica and the material on Saint Cuthbert, are in several hands of s. xii (see Wuest 1906, 210; Catalogue General 1885-);[15] the last three folios have been copied in several slightly later hands. The manuscript was probably copied at Cîteaux.

Hymn

§ 4.20    The Northumbrian eordu recension is found within the main Latin text of Historia ecclesiastica at the beginning of Bede’s paraphrase (i.e. between iste est sensus and Nunc laudare debemus), f. 59v2, manuscript line 19. The beginning of the Old English text and the start of the paraphrase are marked by signes de renvoi consisting of a cross with dots in the upper left and right quadrants. The Old English text is further distinguished by a vertical line in the right hand margin. Robinson and Stanley report “[a]bove modgedeanc, between the e and d, is a very light s, perhaps for saxonice” (Robinson and Stanley 1991, 18); it is uncertain, even after personal inspection under natural, bright white, and ultra-violet light, however, whether this extremely light mark is from a pen or simply a blemish on the parchment.

H Oxford, Bodleian Library, Hatton 43

Published descriptions and catalogue entries

Robinson and Stanley 1991, pl. 2.15; Ker 1990, art. 326; Colgrave and Mynors 1969, xlii-xliii; Dobbie 1937, 34-35 (description) and 38-39 (text); Hunt et al. 1895-1953, 2.2: art. 4106; Plummer [1896] 1969, 1: cxiii.

Manuscript

§ 4.21    Parchment. 181 folios. 264 × 210 mm (Writing Surface: 192 × 147 mm in a single column of 26 lines). The manuscript contains an “accurate and handsome” copy of the early c-text of the Latin Historia ecclesiastica (Colgrave and Mynors 1969, xliii), in two hands of s. xiin (Ker 1990). Its provenance is unknown.[16]

Hymn

§ 4.22    The West-Saxon ylda recension of Cædmon’s Hymn has been copied in the lower margin of the Latin Historia on f. 129r in a distinct hand of s. xi2 (Ker 1990). The scribe uses a lighter colour ink, marks the beginning of the Old English with a signe de renvoi (a similar signe de renvoi is found at the beginning of the paraphrase on manuscript line 17 of the main text), and draws a box around his text. The same hand is probably also responsible for the three occurrences of beati on ff. 23v and 24r), although these omit the most distinctive feature of the scribe’s copy of Cædmon’s Hymn, the very high <s>.

Hr Hereford, Cathedral Library, P. 5. i

Published descriptions and catalogue entries

Mynors and Thomson 1993, 95-96; Robinson and Stanley 1991, pl. 2.12; Ker 1990, art. 121; Colgrave and Mynors 1969, lvi; Ker 1955, 20-21; Dobbie 1937, 41-42; Judge 1934, 89-92; Bannister 1927, 147-149.

Manuscript

§ 4.23    Parchment. 154 folios. 283 × 200 mm (Writing Space: 217 × 145 mm in two columns of 35 lines). A composite manuscript. The first section contains Lanfranc, Constitutiones, and the Pseudo-Augustine, Contra Felicianum Arianum; the second, a copy of the “Digby” or “Common Southern Text” of Bede’s Latin Historia ecclesiastica (Colgrave and Mynors 1969, lv-lvi), an unusually innovative representative of the “Digby” text of Cuthbert’s Epistola de obitu Bedae (Dobbie 1937, 82-83), and a list of archbishops of Canterbury. Additional items have been lost from the end of the manuscript, except for a copy of the Historia Brittonum, preserved in the British Library. The first part is in a single hand; Bede’s Historia and Cuthbert’s epistle are in a second; the list of archbishops, a third, with additions by other scribes. All three main hands are to be dated to “s. xiex, s. xiiin” (Mynors and Thomson 1993).[17] Hr was acquired by Sir John Prise from the cell of Battle Abbey at Brecon by 1539 (Ker 1955, 7, 20-21). It appears to have been at Battle Abbey itself before that (Ker 1990).

Hymn

§ 4.24    The West-Saxon eorðe recension is found in the outer margin of the Latin Historia ecclesiastica (f. 116v) on specially ruled lines. Signes de renvoi in a later hand at the upper right of the Hymn and at the beginning of the paraphrase in column two link the gloss to the main text. The Hymn has been copied by a different but roughly contemporaneous marginal scribe (Ker 1990).

Ld Oxford, Bodleian Library, Laud Misc. 243

Published descriptions and catalogue entries

Robinson and Stanley 1991, pl. 2.16; Ker 1990, art. 341; Colgrave and Mynors 1969, liii; Dobbie 1937, 40-41; Plummer [1896] 1969, 1: cxvii-cxviii; Coxe and Hunt 1973, 2: col. 205.

Manuscript

§ 4.25    Parchment. 111 folios. 270 × 190 mm. (Writing Surface: 230 × 145 mm in two columns of 36 lines). Partially trimmed with loss of up to 25 mm on outer margin. The manuscript contains a copy of the Latin Historia ecclesiastica (associated with the “English” c-type recension by Colgrave and Mynors 1969, liii)[18] in one or more hands of s. xii1 (cf. Dobbie 1937, 40-41; Colgrave and Mynors 1969, liii; Ker 1990). Provenance is unknown.

Hymn

§ 4.26    The West-Saxon eorðe recension has been copied in the outer margin of f. 82v. It is marked with an elaborate signe de renvoi, but without any corresponding mark at the beginning of the paraphrase, which begins 10 lines below the end of the Old English Hymn in the first column.[19] The Hymn has been partially damaged in trimming, although some care has been taken to cut around the text. The scribe of the Old English text is probably the same as that responsible for the main text on f. 82v (Ker 1990). He is also responsible for other marginalia in the manuscript.

Ln Oxford, Lincoln College, lat. 31

Published descriptions and catalogue entries

Robinson and Stanley 1991, pl. 2.17; Ker 1990, art. 356; Colgrave and Mynors 1969, liv; Dobbie 1937, 36-37; Plummer [1896] 1969, 1: cxxii-cxxiii; Coxe 1972, 1: 28.

Manuscript

§ 4.27    Parchment. 216 folios (including 13 empty folios of ruled parchment, perhaps s. xv; see Colgrave and Mynors 1969, liv). 262 × 177 mm (Writing Surface: 215 × 140 mm in two columns of 32 lines). A composite manuscript. The first part contains a copy of the “Yorkshire” version of the c-type “English” text of Bede’s Latin Historia ecclesiastica and “Burney” version of Cuthbert’s Epistola de obitu Bedae collated against a member of the “Digby” recension (Dobbie 1937, 88). Both texts have been copied in a single hand of s. xiimed. The second part contains an unrelated copy of Bede’s Commentary on the Catholic Epistles. The two parts were probably bound together in s. xv when the manuscript was donated to Lincoln Cathedral by Robert Flemmyng, who died in 1483 (Colgrave and Mynors 1969, liv). Its provenance is otherwise unknown.

Hymn

§ 4.28    The West-Saxon ylda recension of the Hymn has been copied in the bottom margin of f. 83r[20] on specially ruled lines by one of the correctors of the main Latin text (Ker 1990). The vernacular text has been copied around a tear in the bottom right corner of the page. It is connected to the Latin text by a signe de renvoi; a matching symbol is found in the outer margin beside the first word of the paraphrase. Bede’s Death Song has been copied in a different hand on f. 112v (Ker 1990).

M Cambridge, University Library, Kk. 5. 16 (“The Moore Bede”)

Published descriptions and catalogue entries

Robinson and Stanley 1991, pl. 2.1; Ker 1990, art. 25; Robinson 1988, art. 68 (1: 37 and 2: pll. 1 and 2); Colgrave and Mynors 1969, xliii-xliv; Hunter Blair 1959; Dobbie 1937, 11-16; Lowe 1934-, art. 139; Mayor and Lumby 1878, 413, 431*; Paleographical Society 1879, 1: pll. 139 and 140 and accompanying letterpress; Plummer [1896] 1969, 1: lxxxix-xci; Hardwick et al. [1856-1867] 1980, 3: art. 2058; Wanley [1705] 1970, 287.

Manuscript

§ 4.29    Parchment. 128 folios. 293 × 215 mm (Writing Surface: 250 × 185 mm in a single column of 30-33 lines in the main text [30 on f. 128v]). The manuscript contains (with P) one of the two earliest representatives of the m-type text of the Latin Historia ecclesiastica (Colgrave and Mynors 1969, xliii-xliv). Copied in a single hand, M is traditionally dated to 734 × 737 on the basis of the so-called Moore Memoranda, a series of chronological notes preserved on f. 128v. Although the validity of these (and similar notes in P) as evidence for the manuscript’s date has been challenged vigorously, the manuscript can be dated securely to s. viii on palaeographic and codicological grounds (for a discussion see Note A: The dating of M and P, below). M is now thought “likely to be English in origin” (Ker 1990). Bischoff has shown that the manuscript was at the Palace School at Aachen in c. 800 (Bischoff 1966-1968, 56). Parkes suggests that it may have been sent to there from York at Alcuin’s request (Parkes 1982, 27, n. 35).

Hymn

§ 4.30    The Northumbrian aelda recension has been copied at the top edge of f. 128v (an originally blank page). The Hymn is in the hand of a contemporary scribe, probably to be identified with that responsible for the so-called Memoranda on the same page (written in a larger script, but showing many similarities to the more cramped Cædmon’s Hymn; see Note A: The dating of M and P) and the main text of ff. 1r-128r.[21]

Mg Oxford, Magdalen College, lat. 105

Published descriptions and catalogue entries

Robinson and Stanley 1991, pl. 2.18; Ker 1990, art. 357; Colgrave and Mynors 1969, lvi; Dobbie 1937, 37-38; Plummer [1896] 1969, 1: cxxiv; Coxe 1972, 2: 55-56.

Manuscript

§ 4.31    Parchment. 138 folios. 304 × 215 mm (Writing Surface: 215 × 138 mm in two columns of 36 lines). Manuscript has been trimmed slightly. Mg contains a copy of the “Common Southern” version of the c-type “English” text of Bede’s Latin Historia ecclesiastica (Colgrave and Mynors 1969, lv-lvi) in a single hand of s. xiimed (Ker 1990). The manuscript was in Magdalen College by 1600 but otherwise is of unknown provenance.

Hymn

§ 4.32    The West-Saxon ylda recension has been copied on specially drawn lines in the outer margin of f. 99r. It is at the same height on the page as the beginning of the Latin paraphrase in column 1, and has been copied by the scribe of the main Latin text. The Hymn is in the same proto-gothic script as the Latin, but with some imitation “insular” features, especially <f>, <g>, rounded <d> and “insular” <r> (Ker 1990). A three-dot signe de renvoi connects Nu in the Hymn and nunc in the paraphrase.

N London, British Library, Additional 43703

Published descriptions and catalogue entries

Grant 1996, 25-35; Robinson and Stanley 1991, pll. 2.7.1-2.7.2; Lutz 1981, li-liii; Torkar 1981, 42-48, 159-167; Grant 1974.

Manuscript

§ 4.33    Paper. 268 folios. 200 × 152 mm (Writing Surface: 157 × 100 mm in a single column of 27 lines). The manuscript contains a copy of the Old English translation of Bede’s Historia ecclesiastica, the “G” text of the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle, and a variety of other laws, administrative documents and recipes (see Torkar 1981, 42-43). A transcription of C, the manuscript was copied by Laurence Nowell in 1562 in London.[22]

Hymn

§ 4.34    The West-Saxon eorðan recension has been copied by Nowell at the expected point of the main text of the Old English Historia ecclesiastica (ff. 146r-146v).

O Oxford, Corpus Christi College, 279, B[23]

Published descriptions and catalogue entries

Robinson and Stanley 1991, pl. 2.9; Ker 1990, art. 354; Dobbie 1937, 25-27; Schipper 1897, 2: xii-xv; Miller 1890-1898, 1: xvii-xix; 2: x-xi; Coxe 1972, 2: 118.

Manuscript

§ 4.35    Parchment. 161 folios. 257 × 167 mm (Writing Surface: 212 × 115 mm in a single column of 24 lines). The manuscript contains a copy of the Old English translation of the Historia ecclesiastica in three hands of s. xiin (Ker 1990).[24] Provenance unknown before 1644, when an inscription in the Latin text indicates that it was bequeathed to Corpus Christi College by Brian Twyne (Dobbie 1937, 26).

Hymn

§ 4.36    The West-Saxon eorðan recension has been copied by the second scribe at the expected point in the main text of the Old English Historia ecclesiastica (f. 112v, manuscript line 1).

P St. Petersburg, National Library of Russia, lat. Q. v. I. 18 (“The St. Petersburg Bede”; “The Leningrad Bede”)

Published descriptions and catalogue entries

O’Donnell 2002; Robinson and Stanley 1991, pl. 2.3; Ker 1990 art. 122; Parkes 1982, 5-12; Arngart 1973; Colgrave and Mynors 1969, xliv; Bévenot 1962; Wright 1961; Meyvaert 1961; Lowe 1958a; Lowe 1958b; Arngart 1952; Anderson 1941; Dobbie 1937, 16-17; Lowe 1934-, art. 1621; Dobiache-Rojdestvensky 1928; Staerk 1910, art. xlii; Gillert 1880, art. 26.

Manuscript

§ 4.37    Parchment. 162 folios (numbered 161, but with f. 51 repeated; the correct foliation is given on the last folio in the bottom right corner).[25] 270 × 190 mm (Writing Space: 230 × 150 mm in two columns of 27 lines), trimmed with some loss from the margins. The manuscript contains (with M) one of the two earliest representatives of the m-type text of the Latin Historia ecclesiastica (Colgrave and Mynors 1969, xliv). It has been copied by four hands with colophons, chapter numbers, and other textual “accessories” in a fifth (Parkes 1982, 6-11). The manuscript as a whole is usually assigned on palaeographic grounds to Bede’s monastery at Wearmouth-Jarrow and dated to 731 or 732 × 746 on the basis of the so-called Memoranda, a series of retrospective dates found in the margins of Bede’s recapitulo in V. 24. The validity of these Memoranda (and similar notes in M) as evidence for the precise year in which the manuscript was copied has been vigorously challenged; it seems unlikely, however, that the manuscript was copied much after s. viiimed (see Note A: The dating of M and P below).

Hymn

§ 4.38    The Northumbrian aelda recension of Cædmon’s Hymn has been copied by the fourth scribe of the main Latin text (“Scribe D,” Parkes 1982, 6) in the bottom margin of f. 107r (recte f. 108r). Bede’s Latin paraphrase is found on the same page of the manuscript in the same hand as the Old English Hymn.[26] No signe de renvoi connects the two texts.

P1 Paris, Bibliothèque Nationale, lat. 5237

Published descriptions and catalogue entries

O’Donnell 1996b, 146-163; Robinson and Stanley 1991, pl. 2.4.; Colgrave and Mynors 1969, lxvi; Dobbie 1937, 19-20; Wuest 1906, 212-215; Catalogus codicum regiae 1739-44, volume 4, part 3: 57.

Manuscript

§ 4.39    Paper. 300 folios (numbered ff. 1-299 with f. 92 twice). 280 × 215 mm (Writing Surface: 198 × 135 mm in a single column of 40 lines). The manuscript is a composite. The first part contains a copy of the Latin Historia ecclesiastica of the “German” m-type recension (Colgrave and Mynors 1969, lxv-lxvi) and a Latin chronicle of the counts of Flanders from 621-1422; the second, miscellaneous texts in Latin and German, the majority pertaining to the council of Constance in 1414.[27] The first part of the manuscript was copied by several hands of s. xv1 (after 1422),[28] probably in Cologne (Wuest 1906, 215).[29]

Hymn

§ 4.40    The Northumbrian eordu recension has been copied within the main Latin text of the Historia by the main scribe of the first part. It is found at the beginning of the Latin paraphrase (i.e. between iste est sensus and nunc laudare) on f. 72v, beginning with manuscript line 2.

SanM San Marino CA, Huntington Library, HM 35300 [formerly Bury St. Edmunds, Cathedral Library, 1]

Published descriptions and catalogue entries

Cavill 2000, 503-504; Robinson and Stanley 1991, pl. 2.19; Dutschke 1989, 2: 705-707; Humphreys and Ross 1975, 53, art. 2; Colgrave and Mynors 1969, lvii.

Manuscript

§ 4.41    Parchment. 170 folios. 261 × 187 mm (Writing Surface: 182 × 125 mm in two columns of 32-40 lines [38 and 40 lines on f. 82r]).[30] The manuscript is a composite. The first part contains a copy of the “Common Southern” version of the c-type “English” text of Bede’s Latin Historia ecclesiastica in perhaps two hands of s. xvmed; the second part contains a s. xiiiex collection of miscellaneous texts, mostly by Bede (see Dutschke 1989 for a detailed list). The manuscript was given in 1490 to the Bridgettine abbey of Syon at Isleworth, Middlesex, by Robert Elyot, a Fellow of All Souls College, Oxford, who died in 1499 (Dutschke 1989). It is identified as K. 59 in the early sixteenth-century catalogue of the Syon Abbey (see Ker 1964, 185). SanM was subsequently acquired by Augustine Stywarde and donated to Bury Saint Edmunds in 1595. It was acquired by the Huntington in 1971 (Dutschke 1989).

Hymn

§ 4.42    The West-Saxon ylda recension has been copied in a hand identical with or very similar to that responsible for the Latin text. It is found beside the Latin paraphrase on specially ruled lines in the outer margin of f. 82r.

T1 Oxford, Bodleian Library, Tanner 10

Published descriptions and catalogue entries

Bately 1992; Robinson and Stanley 1991, pl. 2.8; Ker 1990, art. 351; Dobbie 1937, 23-24; Schipper 1897, 2: xxi-xxv; Miller 1890-1898, 1: xiii-xv; Hackman 1860, 4: col. 11, art. 10.

Manuscript

§ 4.43    Parchment. 139 folios. 250 × 162 mm (Writing Surface: 177 × 107 mm in a single column of 29 lines).[31] Contains a copy of the Old English translation of the Historia ecclesiastica copied by as many as five scribes of s. x1. The manuscript was in Thorney in s. xiv (Ker 1990), where the binding leaves (removed in 1898 and now catalogued as Tanner 10*) were used to record loans from the book closet in 1324-1330 (Humphreys 1948).

Hymn

§ 4.44    The West-Saxon eorðan recension has been copied as part of the main text of the Old English Historia ecclesiastica on 195 (f. 100r, beginning at manuscript line 8) by the main scribe (Scribe 1).

To † Tournai, Bibliothèque de la Ville, 134[32]

Published descriptions and catalogue entries

Robinson and Stanley 1991, pl. 2.20; Ker 1990, art. 387; Humphreys and Ross 1975, 53, art. 3; Colgrave and Mynors 1969, lxi; Faider and van Sint Jan 1950, 149-153;[33] Laistner 1943, 101.

Manuscript

§ 4.45    Parchment. 123 folios. 280 × 190 mm (Writing Surface: 205 × 125 mm in two columns of 35 lines).[34] Contained copies of the Latin Historia ecclesiastica (assigned tentatively to the c-text tradition in Colgrave and Mynors 1969, lxi), Rogerus’s Carmina et epistolae, and the Bulla Alexandri tertii papae de Thomae Becket occisione, all in a single, probably English,[35] hand of s. xii. Some marginalia were found in different contemporary and later hands. To belonged to Denis de Villers, canon of Tournai, who died in 1620 (Ker 1990); it is otherwise of unknown provenance. The manuscript was destroyed “during the air raid of 17 May 1940” (Humphreys and Ross 1975, 53, citing a letter “from the Librarian to the Second Author [i.e. Ross],” 30 November, 1968).

Hymn

§ 4.46    The West-Saxon eorðan recension was copied in the bottom margin of the Latin Historia ecclesiastica on f. 78v by what may have been the main hand of the page. Signes de renvoi linked the Hymn to the line above the beginning of Bede’s paraphrase (i.e. to a point after nunquam audierat rather than the more usual iste est sensus). This is the only copy of the West-Saxon eorðan recension known from a manuscript of the Latin Historia ecclesiastica. All other examples of the recension are found as part of the main text of the Historia’s Old English translation.

Tr1 Cambridge, Trinity College, R. 5. 22

Published descriptions and catalogue entries

Robinson and Stanley 1991, pl. 2.11; Colgrave and Mynors 1969, lvi; Dobbie 1937, 38; James 1901, 2: art. 717; Mayor and Lumby 1878, 413-414; Wheloc 1644.

Manuscript

§ 4.47    Parchment. 156 folios in two volumes. 298 × 196 mm (Writing Surface: 227 × 155 mm in two columns of 55 lines). Manuscript has been trimmed in binding; fold-ins suggest as much as 25 mm have been cut away. A composite manuscript, the first part contains a copy of the “Common Southern” version of the c-type “English” text of Bede’s Latin Historia ecclesiastica and the “Digby” recension of the Epistola Cuthberti de obitu Bedae (Colgrave and Mynors 1969, lvi) in a single hand of s. xiv (James 1901); the remaining parts contain miscellaneous lives and passions and a copy of the Old English Pastoral Care. The manuscript was probably in Salisbury in 1568 (Ker 1990, art. 87, 133).

Hymn

§ 4.48    The West-Saxon ylda recension has been copied by the main hand of the first part of the manuscript. It is found inserted into the main Latin text of the Historia ecclesiastica at beginning of the paraphrase (i.e. between iste est sensus and nunc laudare) on f. 32v1-2, beginning at manuscript line 52.

W Winchester, Cathedral I

Published descriptions and catalogue entries

Ker and Piper 1969-1992, 4: 578-579; Robinson and Stanley 1991, pl. 2.21; Ker 1990, art. 396; Colgrave and Mynors 1969, l-li; Dobbie 1937, 35; Potter 1935; Plummer [1896] 1969, 1: cix-cxi.

Manuscript

§ 4.49    Parchment. 108 folios. 363 × 265 mm (Writing Surface: 295 × 196 mm in two columns of 32 lines). The manuscript has been trimmed in binding; fold-ins suggest as much as 10 mm has been cut away. Contains a copy of the Latin Historia ecclesiastica (“Winchester” [c-type] recension, Colgrave and Mynors 1969, l-li) and the beginning of Aðelwulf’s De abbatibus (Ker and Piper 1969-1992)[37] in one or more (“arguably... one,” Ker and Piper 1969-1992, 4: 579; “four” Potter 1935, 40) careless hand(s) of s. x/xi. The manuscript was probably in Winchester by s. xiv (Ker and Piper 1969-1992). The presence of a corrupt Irish colophon on f. 108v suggests W may have been copied from an earlier, Northern exemplar (see Plummer [1896] 1969 and Potter 1935, both of which make slight errors in transcription). The manuscript probably served as a source for Bd (Ker and Piper 1969-1992).

Hymn

§ 4.50    The West-Saxon ylda recension has been copied by a marginal hand of s. xi in the outer margin of f. 81r of the Latin Historia ecclesiastica. The scribe is probably the same as that responsible for additional marginalia on f. 93v (see also Ker and Piper 1969-1992). Signes de renvoi link the Old English poem with the beginning of the paraphrase in col. 1.

Notes

[1]In making this edition, I have personally consulted all witnesses to the Hymn except the destroyed manuscripts To and C, T1 (undergoing conservation in the summer of 1998), and the late SanM. I inspected the manuscripts of Cædmon’s Hymn in June and July 1998, except for Br, which I consulted in the spring of 1994.

[2]Nine other manuscripts have similar donor inscriptions. B1 is the only one not recorded in the corresponding list of Leofric donations copied in Oxford, Bodleian Library, Auct. D. 2. 16, ff. 1r-2v (s. xi2), Exeter, Cathedral Library, 3501, ff. 8-130 (“The Exeter Book”), ff. 1r-2v (s. x2) and, in Middle English, Exeter, Cathedral Library, Charter no. 2570 (s. xv). See Budny 1997 and Ker 1990. Editions of the “normal form” of the donor inscription and of the list of donations can be found in Chambers et al. 1933, 11, n. 2, and 18-32, respectively.

[3]Ff. 250-251 are on thick parchment and ruled for 22 lines of text, as is the Historia ecclesiastica (see Ker 1990). The glosses on f. 250r are “in the same hand as the charm on fol. 227” (Hunt et al. 1895-1953, 2.1: 165).

[4]Laistner incorrectly cites Van den Gheyn’s catalogue number as the manuscript’s shelf-mark. For “Bibliothèque royale 3116” read “Bibliothèque royale 8245-57.” Laistner also has an error in his reference to Van den Gheyn 1905. For “II, 40” read “V, 40.”

[5]Van den Gheyn 1905 gives the number of folios as 320 (5: 41). A last, numbered, folio in the manuscript is clearly original, however. See O’Donnell 1996b, 140, n. 7.

[6]Robinson and Stanley 1991 incorrectly identify the dialect of the Hymn in this witness as “West-Saxon” (18).

[7]For a discussion of Nowell’s transcription of this manuscript, see N, below.

[8]As these figures suggest, there is considerable confusion surrounding the original number of folios in C. Wanley, who catalogued the manuscript before the Cottonian fire, gives two different foliations: “231” folios, recorded in hand-written annotations to the manuscript’s entry in various copies of Smith 1984 (for a discussion, see Torkar 1981, 50-60; Lutz 1981, xxviii-xxix), and (more than) 351 “fol.” in his published catalogue of 1705 (Wanley [1705] 1970, 219). Subsequent, post-fire, estimates have ranged from less than 231 folios (Ker 1990, 233) to Dobbie’s estimate of “more than 350 leaves” (Dobbie 1937, 24).

The confusion appears to have its origins in two separate mistakes in Wanley [1705] 1970. First of all, Wanley appears to confuse folio and page numeration in his description of the manuscript’s contents. In locating the incipits for items I through XII, Wanley references specific pages. For items XIII and XIV, however, he changes to folio numbers:

Facsimile of Wanley [1705] 1970, 229, showing the change from page to folio numbers between the bottom of the first column and the top of the second.

(Image only.)

(Wanley [1705] 1970, 229).

As his last page-number reference (at the bottom of the first column on p. 219) is to “Pag. 349” and his first folio reference (at the top of the second column on p. 219) is to “fol. 349,b,” it seems likely that it is the folio count that is incorrect. For “fol. 349,b,” therefore, read “page 350,” for “fol. 351,” read “page 351.” This provides a low estimate of 176 folios for the manuscript as a whole (implicit in Ker 1990). The confusion also explains the high estimate of “more than 350 leaves” mentioned by Dobbie 1937.

In addition to confusing folios and pages, however, Wanley also appears to have miscounted in his 1705 catalogue. As Torkar argues, the easiest way of reconciling Wanley’s published and unpublished paginations is to assume that the printed catalogue has accidentally dropped 100 pages from its count (for a detailed explanation, see Torkar 1981, 49-60). After collating the surviving fragments against N and various pre-fire descriptions of C, moreover, Torkar concludes that the error arose in the Old English Bede (Torkar 1981, 50-60, especially 58-60).

[9]All measurements from Ker 1990. Ker’s figures are based on an examination of Additional 34652, f. 2. This leaf, detached from the manuscript before the Cottonian fire, is the only folio to have avoided fire-related damage.

[10]Dobbie 1937 (27, n. 39) gives an incorrect title and publication date for this volume.

[11]The manuscript is variously identified as College of Arms, M. 6 (Humphreys and Ross 1975, 53) and sine numero (Robinson and Stanley 1991, and Ker 1964, 51). The correct designation is sine numero (R. Yorke, College of Arms Archivist, Personal Communication, April 18, 2001). “M. 6” is a medieval (Chichester) press mark.

[12]Colgrave and Mynors discuss CArms in their section on the “English” or c-type tradition, but place the manuscript, with Ld, in a brief list of “copies, whose relation to the more clearly marked groups has not yet been established” (Colgrave and Mynors 1969, lii-liii).

[13]This manuscript is often identified as Bibliothèque publique 574 (e.g. Colgrave 1940). The manuscript is owned by the Bibliothèque municipale.

[14]Colgrave and Mynors tentatively assign Di, which they did not examine, to the “English” or c-type text, presumably on the basis of the strong English focus of its contents (Colgrave and Mynors 1969, lx-lxi). The manuscript shows close correspondences to Br and P1, however, both of which Colgrave and Mynors assign to the “German” or m-type recension on the basis of a collation of selected passages from the Latin text (Colgrave and Mynors 1969, lxv-lxvi). A more detailed discussion of the relationship among Di, Br, and P1 can be found below (Chapter 7: Editorial introduction, Northumbrian eordu recension), and in O’Donnell 1996b.

[15]The Catalogue General 1885- suggests the first part of the manuscript is in “une écriture anglaise très caractérisée” (142). This is an exaggeration, although, as Wuest suggests, some of the scribes show some English traits (Wuest 1906, 208). Both Wuest (210) and the Catalogue (142) date the manuscript to before 1171 on different internal grounds.

[16]Plummer’s suggestion of “Glastonbury” (Plummer [1896] 1969, 1: cxiii) has been generally discounted. See Colgrave and Mynors 1969, xliii.

[17]The list of archbishops is dated on internal grounds to “1161-1162” by Bannister (Bannister 1927, 149).

[18]Colgrave and Mynors discuss Ld in their section on the “English” or c-type tradition, but place the manuscript, with CArms, in a brief list of “copies, whose relation to the more clearly marked groups has not yet been established” (Colgrave and Mynors 1969, lii-liii).

[19]A similar signe de renvoi is used on f. 32r, where it also appears in the text.

[20]Dobbie 1937, who ignores the first 13 blank folios in his foliation, gives the location of the Hymn as “f. 70a.” The current description follows Ker 1990 and Robinson and Stanley 1991, both of which count the initial folios.

[21]For differing opinions, see Hunter Blair 1959; Kiernan 1990a, 160-162 [but cf. Kiernan 1990b, 52]; and Ker 1990.

Kiernan 1990a, pointing to the small size of the text of Cædmon’s Hymn and the subsequent line of glosses, has suggested that the Hymn was added to the manuscript after the Moore Memoranda that follow (see particularly 160-162 and n. 16). This seems inconsistent with a) the layout of the manuscript (it assumes that the scribe of the Memoranda used a much larger top margin on f. 128v than elsewhere), b) the strong similarities between the smaller script of the Hymn and the larger script of the Memoranda, and c) the convincing argument in Kiernan 1990b concerning the Memoranda scribe’s approach to compiling f. 128v:

The Moore scribe apparently collected the marginalia in his exemplar and deposited them all in a heap at the end of his manuscript.

Thus, instead of inserting Cædmon’s Hymn as a marginal note on the same page as Bede’s Latin paraphrase (fol. 91r), as the other Anglo-Saxon manuscripts of the Latin text do, the Moore scribe makes an endnote of our first English poem. He also apparently gathered together and alphabetized three rather specialized glosses from the margins of his copy-text.... And, of course, he combined the marginal chronological notes into what scholars have been calling the Moore Memoranda (52-53).

[22]See colophons on f. 2r and especially f. 264v (transcribed in Lutz 1981, li).

[23]Earlier descriptions of this manuscript give the shelf-mark “279, pt II,” and note that it was bound with a copy of the Latin Historia ecclesiastica in s. xvi or s. xvii (e.g. Ker 1990; Miller 1890-1898). The two texts were separated again during conservation and rebinding in 1992. The Old English translation is now known as “279, B”.

[24]The scribes show a very uneven division of labour. The chief scribe is responsible for most of the main text with sporadic interventions, ranging from a few lines to several leaves, in a second, better, hand (Ker 1990). Yet a third scribe, “a fine hand” (Ker 1990), copied a single page. A breakdown of the three scribes’ work can be found in Ker 1990.

[25]Anderson notes that a folio also is missing after f. 159 (Anderson 1941, 1; Arngart 1952, 14). Its absence is not reflected in the official foliation.

[26]Kiernan’s claim that the vernacular text of the Hymn was added to P in a separate hand and at a later time (Kiernan 1990a, 162 and 172, n. 16) seems unlikely. The Old English is in a nearly identical colour ink, and the script shares numerous peculiarities with Scribe D’s Latin text. These include (Latin examples are cited from f. 107r by column and manuscript line number): frequent open-headed <a> (see Parkes 1982, 7), <g> in Old English gihuæs and Latin surgebat (1/8); <d> in Old English uuldurfadur, Latin decretum (1/5), and Latin deberent (1/6); <t> in Old English tha and Latin ad stabula (1/13); <&> (i.e. <e+t> ligature) in Old English metudæs and Latin et (1/17).

In arguing that the poem was copied by a different scribe after the manuscript was finished, Kiernan points particularly to the relative length of the truncated descender on the letters <f>, <p>, <r>, and <s> compared to the descender on the letter <g>: “[i]n the main text, with exactly the same space between lines, the descender on these letters is invariably long and spiky” (Kiernan 1990a, 172, n. 16). This view, however, ignores differences in the context within which each text is found. Although the two passages are written with similar space between the lines, the Old English text of the Hymn is written in a clearly more compact script, such as, indeed, would be suitable to a gloss. Characters are bunched together, decorative features like finials and spiked descenders are reduced in prominence, and there is less attention devoted to preserving contrasts in descender lengths or between thick and thin strokes. The main Latin text is copied in a much larger and more careful script. The relative length of the “descenders” on “the letters <f>, <p>, <r>, and <s>” and “<g>,” moreover, is irrelevant. The two groups of letters have completely different types of “descenders”; one would expect such different ratios to arise in different types of writing by the same scribe in different scripts. Given the large number of similarities between the two scripts, it is more than reasonable to conclude that the two texts have been written by the same scribe. See also Parkes 1982, 5, and, for details of the fourth scribe’s work, 7 and 11.

[27]An older numbering in this section indicates that the first 20 folios are missing from part 2.

[28]The terminus post quem is provided by the second item in the first part of the manuscript, the chronicle of the Counts of Flanders. Material in this second part of the manuscript dates from 1425 (Wuest 1906, 213-215).

[29]Wuest bases his provenance on material in the second, originally independent, section; while this is not directly related to the first part (which contains the copy of Cædmon’s Hymn), Wuest considers that this too “ist sicher nicht weit von Köln... geschrieben” (Wuest 1906, 215).

[30]Information about the physical makeup of SanM is based on Dutschke 1989, 2: 707.

[31]Information about the physical makeup of T1 is based on Ker 1990, art. 351.

[32]This manuscript is often identified as Bibliothèque municipale 134 (e.g. Robinson and Stanley 1991). The library is currently known as the Bibliothèque de la ville.

[33]Faider and van Sint Jan 1950 contains the only known image of the Hymn in this manuscript. The printed photograph in this volume is the source of all modern facsimiles including Robinson and Stanley 1991 (Fred C. Robinson, personal communication) and this edition.

[34]This manuscript was destroyed in 1940. Physical description is from Faider and van Sint Jan 1950.

[35]Ker places the manuscript in the section of his Catalogue devoted to English manuscripts, but suggests that “[t]he Latin text of the Historia ecclesiastica may not be in an English hand” (Ker 1990). Faider and van Sint Jan describe the hand as “nettement insulaire” and suggest that “le texte anglo-saxon du fol. 78 vo est d’orthographe trop correcte pour avoir été transcrit sur le continent” (Faider and van Sint Jan 1950, 153).

[37]The remainder of the poem, with extracts from Jerome and Orosius, is found in London, British Library, Cotton Tiberius D. iv, vol. 2, ff. 158-66 (Ker and Piper 1969-1992).