The Old English Bede: Transmission and Textual History in Anglo-Saxon Manuscripts
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
The Old English Bede: Transmission and Textual History in Anglo-Saxon Manuscripts. Christine Wallis Doctor of Philosophy School of English November 2013 ‘The Old English Bede: Transmission and Textual History in Anglo-Saxon Manuscripts.’ An unknown author translated the Old English version of Bede’s Ecclesiastical History (OEB) around the ninth century. Previous research focused on the text’s authorship, specifically on Mercian linguistic features in its earliest manuscript, rather than the reception and transmission of its manuscripts (Miller, 1890; Whitelock, 1962; Kuhn, 1972). This thesis considers the OEB’s reception and transmission as evident in its copyists’ scribal performances. Conservative and innovative textual variants are identified for the OEB, and scribal behaviour categorised according to the framework devised by Benskin and Laing (1981) in their study of Middle English scribes. A detailed linguistic comparison of OEB witnesses combined with a close examination of the physical manuscripts reveals the working methods of scribes involved in their production. The manuscripts examined are: Oxford, Bodleian Library Tanner 10 (T) Oxford, Corpus Christi College 279B (O) Cambridge, Corpus Christi College 41 (B) Cambridge, University Library Kk.3.18 (Ca) Each chapter analyses a particular scribal performance. O’s scribe created a Mischsprache text, combining Mercian and West-Saxon forms, yet conflicting views of what constituted a good text are revealed by O’s producers’ extensive textual corrections. Relict forms in B demonstrate that its exemplar was illegible in places and that the scribe was forced to make several textual repairs. Ca has long been considered a direct copy of O, however my detailed comparison of the two manuscripts reveals that this cannot be the case. Finally, some previously unnoticed and unpublished drypoint annotations to O’s text are presented and explored in the context of other Anglo-Saxon scratched material. This thesis shows the benefits of examining the OEB from a scribal viewpoint, identifying common modes of scribal behaviour across the medieval period. It proposes a set of features belonging to the original translation, some of which hint at an earlier date of composition than previously supposed. Acknowledgements I would like to thank my supervisors, Professor Susan Fitzmaurice, Dr. Philip Shaw and Dr. Mark Faulkner for their help, guidance and patience while undertaking this research. My thanks are also due to the many colleagues and friends who have helped along the way with their discussions and advice. The postgraduate community in the Schools of English and History provided a welcoming environment to share research and make friends. Likewise, HiSoN (the Historical Sociolinguistics Network) has been a source of inspiration and many friends. Thanks also to Dr Rebecca Fisher for sharing her enthusiasm of the Medieval world, and to Markus Schiegg, Dieter Studer-Joho and Dr. Andreas Nievergelt for sharing their knowledge and expertise of dry-point glosses. Also to Kate Wiles, Sanne van der Schee, Dr. Gavin Schwartz-Leeper and Hugh Escott for our many thought-provoking conversations. I would particularly like to thank Docent Matti Kilpiö for his kind and generous help during my visit to Helsinki in autumn 2012. I have benefitted from the facilities of several libraries, and wish to thank the librarians at Sheffield University Library, and the Brotherton Library at the University of Leeds. Corpus Christi College library in Oxford, the Parker Library, the Bodleian Library, Cambridge University Library, and the British Library generously allowed me access to their manuscript collections. Finally, my thanks go to my family. My husband David provided invaluable support and endless cups of tea. My parents first introduced me to history and encouraged me to develop my interest in all things old, and this thesis is for them. Abbreviations Manuscript Sigla: T – Oxford, Bodleian, Tanner 10 O – Oxford, Corpus Christi College, 279B Ca – Cambridge, University Library Kk. 3.18 B – Cambridge, Corpus Christi College, 41 Z – British Library, Cotton Domitian ix, f. 11 C – British Library, Cotton Otho B. xi, + Cotton Otho B. x, ff. 55, 58, 62, + British Library, Additional 34652, f. 2 Manuscript Dating: Manuscript dating follows Ker’s (1957) conventions: s. x = tenth century s. x1 = first half of the tenth century, c. 900-950 s. x2 = second half of the tenth century, c. 950-1000 s. xin = first quarter of the tenth century, c. 900-925 s. xmed = the middle two quarters of the tenth century, c. 925-975 s. xex = final quarter of the tenth century, c. 975-1000 Journals and Resources: AJP – American Journal of Philology ANQ – American Notes and Queries ASE – Anglo-Saxon England ASPR – Anglo-Saxon Poetic Records BLJ – British Library Journal BT – An Anglo-Saxon Dictionary, J. Bosworth and T. N. Toller CH – A Concise Anglo-Saxon Dictionary, J. R. Clark-Hall DOE – Dictionary of Old English DOEC – Dictionary of Old English Corpus ECCO – Eighteenth Century Collections Online EEBO – Early English Books Online EETS – Early English Text Society ES – English Studies FLH – Folia Linguistica Historica JEGP – Journal of English and Germanic Philology LALME – Linguistic Atlas of Late Mediaeval English LSE – Leeds Studies in English MÆ – Medium Ævum MED – Middle English Dictionary MS – Mediaeval Studies NM – Neuphilologische Mitteilungen N&Q – Notes and Queries PASE – Prosopography of Anglo-Saxon England PBA – Proceedings of the British Academy OE – Old English RES – Review of English Studies SAP – Studia Anglica Posnaniensia TPS – Transactions of the Philological Society TRHS – Transacrions of the Royal Historical Society ZfdP – Zeitschrift für deutsche Philologie n.s. – new series o.s. – old series s.s. – supplementary series Transcription Conventions: \ / Text added in superscript # # Text cancelled by crossing through ( ) Expanded abbreviations [..] Erasure † † Uncertain reading / \ Line-end run-on, added below line ðaære Superscript letters in Chapter 6 denote scratched (dry-point) annotations Contents Abstract Acknowledgements List Of Abbreviations 1. Introduction 1 1.1 Manuscripts Used in the Study 2 1.1.1 Oxford, Bodleian Library Tanner 10 (T) 4 1.1.2 Oxford, Corpus Christi College 279B (O) 5 1.1.3 Cambridge, Corpus Christi College 41 (B) 6 1.1.4 Cambridge University Library Kk. 3.18 (Ca) 7 1.2 Approaches to the Bede 8 1.2.1 The Translator’s Identity 8 1.2.1.2 Authorship 11 1.2.2 Dialect Studies 13 1.2.2.2 Old English Dialectology 14 1.4.3 Manuscript Studies 17 1.3 Other Manuscripts 19 1.5 Thesis Outline 21 2. Methodology 23 2.1 The Nature of Manuscript Transmission 23 2.1.1 Writing Medieval Manuscripts 23 2.1.2 Textual Layering 26 2.1.3 Manuscript (Re)production 27 2.2 Texts Surviving in More Than One Manuscript 28 2.3 Old English Dialects 31 2.4 Conservative vs. Innovative Scribal Behaviour 31 2.5 The Difference Between Written and Spoken Language 32 2.6 Manuscripts As Evidence 34 2.7 Preparing the Data 35 2.7.1 Selection of the Data 36 2.7.2 Using the Data 40 3. The Creator of a Mischsprache: The Scribe of Oxford, 45 Corpus Christi College 279B 3.1 O As A Witness of the Old English Bede 46 3.1.1 The Manuscript 46 3.1.2 Editions of O 47 3.1.3 History of O 49 3.1.4 Scribal Performances in O 50 3.2 The Inconsistent Copyist 51 3.3 Conservative Textual Emendations 54 3.3.1 Pronouns: mec and ðec 54 3.3.2 Pronouns: ussa 56 3.3.3 Pronouns: eowic 57 3.3.4 Pronouns: usic 59 3.3.5 Pronouns: hio(ra) 60 3.3.6 Pronouns: hiæ 63 3.4 Innovative Emendations 65 3.4.1 Smoothing 65 3.4.2 Palatal Diphthongisation 66 3.4.2.1 Palatal Diphthongisation after <g> 66 3.4.2.2 Palatal Diphthongisation after <c> 69 3.4.3 Genitives in <æs> 69 3.5 Chapter-Initial Capitals 72 3.6 O1 as a Trainee Scribe 75 3.6.1 Scribe O3 75 3.6.2 ðam/ ðæm 81 3.7 Conclusion 82 4. A Translator Scribe: Cambridge, Corpus Christi College 41 85 4.1 The Manuscript 85 4.2 Exeter Books and Archbishop Leofric 88 4.3 B1: A Consistent Copyist 91 4.4 Translating the Text 94 4.4.1 Breaking and Retraction 94 4.4.2 <o> + Nasal 96 4.4.3 Class 2 Weak Preterite Verbs 98 4.4.4 Mid + Accusative 99 4.4.5 Forðon 100 4.4.6 Negative Contraction 102 4.5 Conservative Features In B 104 4.5.1 Palaeography 104 4.5.2 Morphology 105 4.5.3 Double Vowels 105 4.5.4 Dative Singulars in <æ> 107 4.5.5 Æfæst 109 4.6 B1: A Textual (E)mender 110 4.6.1 Textual Misreading 110 4.6.1.1 Misreading of Minims 110 4.6.1.2 Misdivision of Words 112 4.6.1.3 Confusion of Letters 114 4.6.2 Dialectal Lexical Variation 115 4.6.3 Non-Dialectal Lexical Variation: Where Sense is Retained 116 4.6.4 Non-Dialectal Lexical Variation: Nonsensical Readings 118 4.7 Conclusion 119 5. An Innovative Scribe: Hemming 123 5.1 Previous Studies of Ca 124 5.1.2 The Manuscript 124 5.2 Worcester, Wulfstan and Hemming 126 5.3 O’s Corrections and Their Relationship to Ca 130 5.3.1 Common Readings in O and Ca 131 5.3.2 ‘Copied’ Corrections 133 5.3.3 Annotations in Ca 136 5.4 Evidence Against O as Ca’s Exemplar 138 5.4.1 Category One: ‘Errors’ in O 139 5.4.2 Category Two: Erasures in O 142 5.4.3 Category Three: Conservative Forms in Ca 145 5.4.3.1 þæm 145 5.4.3.2 Nemne 146 5.4.3.3 Retraction 147 5.4.3.4 Datives in <æ> 149 5.4.3.5 e-Caudata 149 5.4.4.