The Tanner Bede: The Old English Version of Bede's Historia Ecclesiastica, Oxford Bodleian Library Tanner 10, together with the Mediaeval Binding Leaves, Oxford Bodleian Library Tanner 10*, and the Domitian Extracts,. London British Library Cotton Domitian A. IX Fol. 11., Janet Bately

Speculum ◽  
1994 ◽  
Vol 69 (4) ◽  
pp. 1111-1115
Author(s):  
Vincent P. McCarren
Keyword(s):  
Old English ◽  
British Library ◽  
Bodleian Library ◽  
English Version ◽  
Historia Ecclesiastica

Ælfric's Preface to Genesis: genre, rhetoric and the origins of the ars dictaminis

2000 ◽  
Vol 29 ◽  
pp. 215-234 ◽  
Author(s):  
Mark Griffith
Keyword(s):  
Sixteenth Century ◽  
Old English ◽  
British Library ◽  
Bodleian Library ◽  
English Version ◽  
Cambridge University ◽  
Corpus Christi ◽  
Illustrated Text ◽  
Complete Form ◽  
Partial Translation

The preface by Ælfric occurs in complete form in two manuscripts and in part in a third. Oxford, Bodleian Library, Laud Miscellany 509 (s. xi2) contains the preface (fols. 1–3, headed with the words Incipit prefatio genesis anglice), together with the Old English Hexateuch (fols. 3–107) and Ælfric's selections from Judges (fols. 108–15). Cambridge, University Library, Ii. 1. 33 (s. xii2) has the preface, without tide, followed by Ælfric's partial translation of Genesis (fols. 2–24). London, British Library, Cotton Claudius B. iv (St Augustine's, Canterbury, s. xi1), having lost its first leaf, now preserves only the second half of the preface followed by an illustrated text of the Old English Hexateuch, but a sixteenth-century transcript by Robert Talbot, Cambridge, Corpus Christi College 379, preserves some of its missing text, along with the same tide as Laud 509. Both Laud 509 and Claudius B. iv give slightly different compilations of the translations by Ælfric with the more extensive work of the anonymous scriptural translator (or translators). The differing rubrics and contents of the manuscripts affect the way we read the preface that they share: the Cambridge manuscript presents it as a preface to half of Genesis only, Laud 509 and the transcript label it a preface at least to the whole of Genesis. If, however, the incipit is scribal, it could be taken as a prologue to the Hexateuch. Was the preface, then, intended by Ælfric to introduce just the first half of Genesis, or a larger work? Sisam is of the first view: ‘no preface to the Pentateuch (or Hexateuch) survives, and evidendy the compiler of the extant Old English version did not know of one, since he used Ælfric's inappropriate English preface to the first part of Genesis.’

‘Evil Tongues’: a previously unedited Old English sermon

1997 ◽  
Vol 26 ◽  
pp. 209-229 ◽  
Author(s):  
David ◽  
Ian McDougall
Keyword(s):  
Old English ◽  
English Text ◽  
British Library ◽  
English Version

In his account of the contents of the second volume of London, British Library, Cotton Otho C. i, Kenneth Sisam drew attention to an unpublished sermon on the sins of the tongue to which he gave the title Evil Tongues. The sermon is written in the same hand as the two texts which precede it in the manuscript – an Old English version of St Jerome's Vita Malchi monachi captivi (henceforth Malchus) and a translation of a letter by Boniface (Wynfrith) on an anonymous priest's vision of the next world (henceforth Wynfrith's Letter) Sisam was unable to identify a source for the Evil Tongues sermon, but close parallels for most of the Old English text are found in anther work by Jerome, the exposition of Ps. CXIX in his Tractatus in Psalmos.

A new Latin source for the Old English ‘Three Utterances’ exemplum

1991 ◽  
Vol 20 ◽  
pp. 187-202 ◽  
Author(s):  
Mary F. Wack ◽  
Charles D. Wright
Keyword(s):  
Old English ◽  
Detailed Comparison ◽  
British Library ◽  
Bodleian Library ◽  
Anglo Saxon ◽  
Corpus Christi ◽  
Oxford University ◽  
University College ◽  
The Moment ◽  
Latin Version

The so-called ‘Three Utterances’ exemplum, which tells of the exclamations of a good and a bad soul to the angels or demons who lead them to heaven or hell at the moment of death, was adapted independently by three Anglo-Saxon homilists. Versions of this legend survive in an Old English Rogationtide homily in Oxford, Bodleian Library, Hatton 114, 102v–105v, in a homilyBe heofonwarum and be helwarumin London, British Library, Cotton Faustina A. ix, 21v–23v, and Cambridge, Corpus Christi College 302, pp. 71–3, and in a Lenten homily in Oxford, Bodleian Library, Junius 85/86, fos. 25–40. In 1935 Rudolf Willard published a study of the exemplum, with a detailed comparison between the three Old English versions, an Irish version, and a single Latin version in Paris, Bibliothèque Nationale, lat. 2628 (s. xi). Two years later Willard published a second Latin version from Oxford, University College 61 (s. xiv). Other texts of the Latin sermon have subsequently come to light.

Francis Junius (1591–1677): copyist or editor?

2000 ◽  
Vol 29 ◽  
pp. 279-296 ◽  
Author(s):  
Kees Dekker
Keyword(s):  
Seventeenth Century ◽  
Pastoral Care ◽  
Old English ◽  
English Translation ◽  
British Library ◽  
Bodleian Library ◽  
Scholarly Edition ◽  
The University ◽  
Made In

In September 1890, Hendrik Logeman, professor of English and Germanic philology at the University of Ghent in Belgium, had the audacity to accuse no less a scholar than Henry Sweet of misleading his readers. Logeman based his accusation on an unfortunate remark Sweet had made in his edition of the Old English translation of Pope Gregory'sPastoral Care. For this scholarly edition, Sweet had wished to include the text of London, British Library, Cotton Tiberius B. xi. However, having barely survived the Ashburnham House blaze of 1731, this manuscript had been almost entirely consumed by fire at a bookbinder's in 1865. As a replacement, Sweet had used Oxford, Bodleian Library, Junius 53, a transcript made by the seventeenth-century philologist Francis Junius (1591–1677) when the Cotton manuscript was still unscathed. Sweet praised Junius and emphasized the accuracy of the transcript by stating that Junius only ‘swerved from the path of literal accuracy in a few unimportant particulars’. Hendrik Logeman had collated the Old English glosses to the Benedictine Rule from Cotton Tiberius A. iii with a Junius transcript, Junius 52, for his 1888 edition, but he found, instead, that Junius failed to distinguish between 〈ð〉 and 〈þ〉 that he corrected his text without giving the reading of the manuscript, and that he added, omitted or transposed entire words.

The originality of the Old English gloss of the Vespasian Psalter and its relation to the gloss of the Junius Psalter

1996 ◽  
Vol 25 ◽  
pp. 37-62 ◽  
Author(s):  
Phillip Pulsiano
Keyword(s):  
Old English ◽  
Direct Relationship ◽  
Trinity College ◽  
British Library ◽  
Bodleian Library ◽  
Extended Study ◽  
Cambridge University ◽  
Full Form ◽  
The Subject ◽  
The Relationship

In a brief discussion of the Vespasian Psalter in 1898, Albert S. Cook offered a statement that set the tone for subsequent debate about the relationship between the Old English gloss of the Vespasian Psalter (A = London, British Library, Cotton Vespasian A. i) and that of the junius Psalter (B = Oxford, Bodleian Library, junius 27): ‘It seems not improbable that it [i.e. the gloss to the Vespasian Psalter] is the original from which all later Old English glosses on the Psalms have been derived, undergoing in the process such modifications as were due to the language of the particular dialect or epoch.’ With regard to the Junius gloss specifically, Cook printed the text of Psalm XCIX [C] from the Vespasian Psalter, which he collated with the Junius, Cambridge (C = Cambridge, University Library, Ff. 1.23), Regius (D = London, British Library, Royal 2. B.V), and Eadwine (E = Cambridge, Trinity College R. 17.1) psalters; he concluded that ‘B stands nearest to A, but is carelessly written, and changes Anglian peculiarities in the direction of West Saxon (in to on, all to eall, &c.) while retaining, in general, a comparatively early and Anglian cast (weotað, scep, leswe, &c.)’. Although Otto Heinzel, writing in 1926, disagreed with Cook's assertion that the Vespasian gloss was the source from which all other psalters ultimately derived their glosses, he reiterated, after a fashion, the idea that the Junius gloss is related to that of the Vespasian Psalter, although, like Cook, he did not argue for a direct relationship between these two works. In Heinzel's stemma, from the Urtext*0 derive *α, which stands as the model for B, and *β, which in turn stands as the model for both A and C. The stemma, in its full form, taking the Dtype (Regius Psalter) tradition into account, has justly been termed ‘fanciful’ by Kenneth Sisam. The relationship between the glosses in these two psalters formed the subject of an extended study by Uno Lindelöf published in 1901.

scholarly journals Marginalised Texts: The Old English Marginalia and the Old English Bede in Cambridge, Corpus Christi College 41.

2015 ◽  
pp. 152-157
Author(s):  
Patricia O'Connor
Keyword(s):  
Old English ◽  
Eleventh Century ◽  
British Library ◽  
English History ◽  
Diverse Range ◽  
Ecclesiastical History ◽  
Corpus Christi ◽  
History Of ◽  
Historia Ecclesiastica ◽  
Biblical Commentaries

Bede was a prolific writer in Anglo-Saxon England who, over the course of his prodigious literary career, produced a diverse range of Latin texts encompassing educational and scientific treatises as well as Biblical commentaries. Out of all his Latin works, Bede’s Historia Ecclesiastica Gentis Anglorum (The Ecclesiastical History of the English People) is regarded as his greatest achievement, as it provides significant insights into a largely undocumented period in English history. The Historia Ecclesiastica was translated into the vernacular sometime in the late ninth or early tenth century and this translation is commonly referred to as the Old English Bede. The Old English Bede survives in five extant manuscripts, dating from the mid tenth and late eleventh century: Oxford, Bodleian Library, Tanner 10; London, British Library, Cotton Otho B. xi; Oxford, Corpus Christi College, 279; Cambridge, University Library Kk. 3.18 and Cambridge, Corpus Christi College, 41, the last of which ...

scholarly journals The Ælfrician Glossaries in Oxford, Bodleian Library, Barlow 35: A New Edition and Commentary

2020 ◽  
Vol 138 (2) ◽  
pp. 213-233
Author(s):  
Claudio Cataldi
Keyword(s):  
Old English ◽  
Twelfth Century ◽  
Bodleian Library ◽  
The Third ◽  
Plant Names ◽  
Selection Of ◽  
Comprehensive Discussion

AbstractThe present study provides a full edition and commentary of the three glossaries in Oxford, Bodleian Library, Barlow 35, fol. 57r–v. These glossaries, which were first partly edited and discussed by Liebermann (1894), are comprised of excerpts from Ælfric’s Grammar and Glossary arranged by subject. The selection of material from the two Ælfrician works witnesses to the interests of the glossator. The first glossary in Barlow 35 collects Latin grammatical terms and verbs followed by their Old English equivalents. The second glossary is drawn from the chapter on plant names of Ælfric’s Glossary, with interpolations from other chapters of the same work. This glossary also features twelfth-century interlinear notations, which seem to have a metatextual function. The third glossary combines excerpts from Ælfric’s Glossary with verbs derived from the Grammar. Liebermann transcribed only part of the glosses and gave a brief commentary on the glossaries as well as parallels with Zupitza’s (1880) edition of Ælfric’s Grammar and Glossary; hence the need for a new edition, which is provided in the present study, along with a comprehensive discussion of the glossaries and a reassessment of the correspondences concerning their Ælfrician sources.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document