Читать книгу A Catalogue of Manuscripts Known to Contain Old English Dry-Point Glosses - Dieter Studer-Joho - Страница 17

Sometimes we find names scratched into MSS that may have been meant to state either the owner or perhaps merely the reader of the document at hand, but no discernible connection can be established between the main text of the MS and the names that are entered.dry-pointnames Lichfield, Cathedral Library Lich. 1Lichfield, Cathedral Library Lich. 1 [G:269] (also known as the “Gospels of St Chad”) provides a documented example of a MS in which 8 (perhaps 9) names are added in dry-point to the margins and to empty spots.1 Interestingly, six of the names also form part of a long list of names added – presumably as a liber vitae – in ink to p. 141 of the same MS. Charles-Edwards & McKee (2008: 87) suggest that the writers of the names “wished to mark a personal link with the manuscript”, though it is not clear if the dry-point entries pre- or post-date the ink entries. In any case, these dry-point entries do not constitute an identifiable comment on the base text per se. Of course, it is no coincidence that the MS contains the Gospels and it was certainly the high status of the MS that ultimately led to its use as a liber vitae; however, adding the names was definitely not meant to be a comment of any kind on the text. The dry-point material of the Lichfield Gospels can be visualized in an interesting fashion on the website of the ‘Lichfield Cathedral Imaging Project’.2

Such entries give interesting codicological and palaeographical cues for a MS’s history and it seems likely that dry-point additions of this kind may be discovered in further MSS in the future. They partly touch on the subject of dry-point glossing as they are also evidence for the use of styli as writing instruments in the MS context, but their MSS will not be included in the Catalogue presented below, as they do not qualify as glosses as outlined above.

CLA (2: 257) reports letters in dry-point that probably represent an Anglo-Saxon name inscribed in Oxford, Bodleian Library Selden Supra 30Oxford, Bodleian LibrarySelden Supra 30 [G:665]: “the letters EADB and +E+ cut with a stylus on page 47 may refer to Eadburga, Abbess of Minster (†751)”. Hence, the inscription may be seen as evidence that the MS belonged to Minster-in-Thanet Abbey at some stage. The MS itself is written in uncials (cf. also Lowe 1960: 21), “probably in a Kentish centre, to judge by the script” (CLA 2: 257), sec. viii¹ and contains the Acts of the Apostles.Wolfenbüttel, Herzog August Bibliothek Cod. Guelf. 173

Cambridge, CCC 57Cambridge, Corpus Christi CollegeMS 57 [3/K:34] also features some dry-point writing that is considered to represent a name.dry-pointnamesdry-pointrunes It consists of runic letters, set in two lines in the margin of f. 30^v, some of which may have been lost in the process of trimming. While the second line cannot be read with confidence, the first line is reported to spell out auarþ, which is considered to be the anglicised Scandinavian name “Hávarðr” (Graham 1996: 17). In addition to that, Cambridge, CCC 57 [3/K:34] also features 4 dry-point glosses to SMARAGDUS, Diadema monachorum, which is why the MS is included in the Catalogue below.4

Dry-point runesdry-pointrunesdry-pointnames spelling out the name Eđelþryþ are reported from St Petersburg, National Library of Russia F.v.I.8St Petersburg, National Library of RussiaF.v.I.8 [G:841] (also known as the “Codex Fossatensis”, sec. viii^ex. or ix^in., originating perhaps from Northumbria). The inscription is placed between the columns of the final page of the Gospel of John on f. 213^r.5

CLA (2: 183) reportsdry-pointinscriptions a short entry in Insular dry-point writing on the lower margin of f. 41^v of London, British Library Cotton Caligula A. xvLondon, British LibraryCotton Caligula A. xv [G:311], reading liofric sacerđ garulf leuita, which can be translated as “the priest Leofric [and] the deacon Garulf”; CLA dates it sec. ix or x and takes it as evidence that the MS must have been in England by then – originating from north-eastern France, sec. viii².

Small correctionsdry-pointemendations to the base text or to glosses consisting of single letters are also sometimes executed in dry-point. London, British Library Cotton Vespasian A. iLondon, British LibraryCotton Vespasian A. i[K:203] (also known as the “Vespasian Psalter”), for instance, features a dry-point letter <t> added to the ink gloss OE gas ‘ghost, spirit’ (Pulsiano 2001: 737) glossing L. spiritus ‘ghost, spirit’ (Psalm 50:19). Such inconspicuous dry-point additions are not readily detected: It must be assumed that Sweet (1885: 258) did not notice the additional dry-point t and as a consequence marks the unusual form OE gas with an asterisk in his edition. While it can be argued that this t represents OE language material and hence constitutes an OE gloss (or at least part of it) in dry-point, I do not count this in as evidence of dry-point glossing activity in the “Vespasian Psalter”, but I think that this type of entry is more fruitfully termed “dry-point emendation”. After all, it can be argued that the extra <t> does not gloss the L. text, but it emends the original gloss gas, about whose form we can only speculate. It may well be that the lack of the final <t> in the original gloss may be due to a simple scribal error.

Interestingly, Toon (1991: 91) also reports dry-point compilation marksdry-pointcompilation marks from the “Vespasian Psalter” [K:203] on ff. 12^r–26^r, consisting of single letters taken continuously from the Roman alphabet. He assumes that the marks “take on meaning as notes made before the text was written and that helped a scribe lay out a plan for having the book copied, as he or she guessed how much space was needed for the text of the psalms” (Toon 1991: 91). They are reminiscent of the compilation notes that Schipper reports from the “Benedictional of St Æthelwold” [G:301] (cf.p. 51 below).

A runic dry-point entrydry-pointrunes whose inner connection with the base text is difficult to assess has been edited from Exeter, Exeter Cathedral 3501Exeter, Exeter Cathedral 3501 [K:116] (also known as the “Exeter Book”). Förster (1933: 64) mentions a runic dry-point entry incised in the top right margin of f. 125^r of the “Exeter Book”, next to the riddle 62/64 with the reputed solution “ship” (Williamson 1977: 105 [no. 62]; Muir 2000: 361 [no. 64]). Förster transliterates it as “BUGRД, but he takes the view that this runic entry and other marginal notes were added long after the “Exeter Book” had been written and he suggests an early-modern date of entry, “perhaps of the 17^th century” (64). Williamson (1977: 327) disagrees with Förster’s reading of the third rune and suggests ᛒ ᚢᚾᚱᚦ “B UNRÞ”, instead, also stressing the slightly larger spacing after the first rune. Williamson disagrees with Förster’s view that the entry was not genuinely medieval, but sees it as Old English, implying a date of entry still in the Anglo-Saxon era. Williamson (ibid.) reports that R.I. Page suggested to him “mischievously” in private communication that the runes might stand for OE beo unreþe, which he translates as “don’t be cruel” and hence as a comment on the difficulty of the riddle. Williamson provides a photograph of the runic dry-point entry (1977: 59 [Pl. XVII]), probably photographed under grazing light conditions. The individual runes are well discernible in the picture and the assumption that we deal with runic N seems more convincing than runic G, as one of the staves is upright with respect to the direction of writing and the other stave is slanting from top right to bottom left. Muir (2000: 708) interprets this way of writing the N rune as an error and deems it possible that the rune might in fact represent A, comparing it to similar forms on the Jelling Stone. Based on Williamson’s photograph, I cannot notice anything unusual about the form of the N rune, rather it seems mirrored along the vertical axis, which is not unusual in runic writing at all (cf. Page 1999: 41; Düwel 2001: 10 [“Wenderune”]). Muir (2000: 708) also points out that the final thorn rune is rather bottom-heavy and might as well be construed as a wynn rune <ᚹ>, but he does not present a possible reading with final -w. In any case, the actual connection between the inscription and the text of the riddle does not become apparent, even though the riddle itself contains several runes, which might have inspired the use of runes in the dry-point annotation. In view of the other examples of runic names entered in dry-point in Anglo-Saxon MSS mentioned above, a reading of the runes as a name would be imaginable, too, but no immediate reading springs to mind, unfortunately.

In addition to this runic dry-point entry, the “Exeter Book” contains several dry-point etchings, some of which were even reproduced as actual dry-point etchings in the 1933 facsimile (Chambers et al. 1933). Conner (1986: 236–237) disagrees with Förster’s late date for the dry-point sketches, based on the observation that in four of the drawings “the writing goes over the drypoint lines”, which he takes as evidence “that these drypoints and surely others in the same styles were on the parchment” before the writing was added in the third quarter of the 10^th c. Conner presents a list of the dry-point drawings in the “Exeter Book” (Conner 1986: 237; enlarged in Conner 1993: 122), including “two large initial eths in the right margin of f. 80^r” and “two ornate initial Ps (one above the other)” on f. 95^v, and he argues that their absence in his hypothesized first collational “booklet” can serve to differentiate it from the other “booklets”. However, Muir (1989: 277–279) refutes Conner’s observation by reporting previously unnoticed dry-point etchings in Conner’s hypothesized first “booklet”, some of which may represent letter forms: “perhaps including eth and wynn” and others “most closely resembling an O and a P” on f. 47^v.6 Interestingly, Alger (2006: 153) also reports a previously unnoticed beginning of a dry-point alphabet plus several worn letter-like dry-point etchings on f. 49^v of the “Exeter Book”.dry-pointalphabetical inscriptions The crude forms of the letters lead Alger to the conclusion that the glossator was merely practising letterforms, which are made up of mixed Insular and Caroline minuscules. None of the commentators can make perfect sense of the dry-point annotations vis-à-vis the base text. They do not seem to gloss anything as such, but the fact that even after Förster’s, Conner’s and Muir’s thorough searches for dry-point material, Alger (2006) was still able to find previously unreported etchings seems worth noting.

Another case of a runic dry-point inscriptiondry-pointrunesdry-pointinscriptions whose linguistic status as OE is uncertain and whose inner connection to the base text remains unclear is presented by St. Gallen, Stiftsbibliothek 188St. Gallen, StiftsbibliothekMS 188. Nievergelt (2009a: 65–68) describes a runic dry-point inscription that he deciphers as ᛖᚳᚨᚹ, illustrated by a photographic picture of the entry from the bottom margin of p. 77, shot in grazing light conditions (2009a: 67). According to Nievergelt, the incision is very neat and distinct and the reading of the individual runes is quite certain. Since the second rune presupposes futhorc usage,dry-pointfuthorc inscriptions the inscription is probably to be interpreted as “ECÆW”, but Nievergelt cautions that the status of runic usage in St. Gallen is difficult to assess and hence the third rune could possibly have been meant to represent A and the fourth rune might have been meant to represent thorn rather than wynn. In any case a L. or OHG interpretation of the inscription seems unlikely out of graphematic and phonological considerations. Due to the fact that other St. Gallen MSS are known to contain OE (in one case, St. Gallen, Stiftsbibliothek 1394, Part IXSt. Gallen, StiftsbibliothekMS 1394, Part IX[32/K:A44], even in dry-point), Nievergelt is inclined to interpret the inscription as OE ecg-ǣ(w), a supposed hapax legomenon composed of ecg “sword” and ǣ(w) “law” referring to the text of MAXIMUS TAURINENSIS’s Homily 114 on the same MS page concerned with military service. No specific lemma in the text can be tied to the inscription, so the runic entry would have to be understood as a very general comment on the text as a whole.

Another runic dry-point entry,dry-pointinscriptions which may represent a general comment on the base text, is reported from the “Blickling Psalter” (New York, Pierpont Morgan Library 776New York, Pierpont Morgan Library 776 [G:862]) by Pulsiano (2002: 190):7

In the Blickling Psalter, in the bottom margin of f. 82r, appear scratches in a large, sprawling hand, easily passed over, but which appropriately spell in runes the word “psalter” (as ?saltrie).

Unfortunately, Pulsiano does not provide a precise description of his find or a drawing of this interesting entry. The linguistic status of this entry is difficult to assess and a detailed runological examination would be in order. It has to be assumed that the initial question mark in Pulsiano’s transliteration is meant to indicate at least one further undecipherable rune, for which a runic p would be a likely candidate.8 Syncope of the medial vowel (i.e. -tr-) is not compatible with L. psalterium, and also in OE it is attested only once in the DOEC 2009, in the form saltre (dat. sg.) from the very late “Eadwine Psalter”,Cambridge, Trinity College LibraryR. 17. 19 glossing L. psalterio (Psalm 143, referring to the instrument, not to the Book of Psalms). Both syncope of the medial vowel and the ending -ie are reminiscent of ME forms (cf. MED “sautrī(e (n.)”), however the -l- is not typical for ME, where forms in -u- or -w- dominate by far, though the former does occur. The lack or presence of initial p- cannot help in dating the entry, either, although forms with initial p- are more common in OE than in ME. Lacking a runological dating, I am inclined to assume that this dry-point runic entry may be of a late date, perhaps even eME.

Derolez (1954: 8) reports dry-point MS runesdry-pointrunesdry-pointfuthorc inscriptions from London, British Library Cotton Domitian A. ixLondon, British LibraryCotton Domitian A. ix [K:151], f. 11^v.10 In the originally blank space below a tabular representation of the Anglo-Saxon futhorc, runic dry-point f u þ o (?), runic dry-point a b c d e f g h i k l m n o p and a solitary runic dry-point g have been added in a “rather careless way”, as Derolez puts it. The runes were probably inspired by the runes given on the page. The date of their entry is unknown, but they must have been entered before the antiquary Robert Talbot (1505[?]–1558) added explanations of the rune names in the same blank space in sec. xvi. The fact that Talbot wrote right across the dry-point writing may point either to the possibility that he did not see the dry-point runes or that he chose to ignore them. They are easily visible in the facsimile given by Derolez (1954: Pl. 1); in fact, they are so easily visible that one may wonder whether their edges have been smudged or whether they were originally entered in (now faded) ink, pencil or crayon, leaving a dry-point-like appearance.Bern, Burgerbibliothek Cod. 20711

Kassel, UB 2° Ms. theol. 65Kassel, Universitätsbibliothek2° Ms. theol. 65 [13/K:121*] also features an alphabet – consisting of 20 symbols, mainly in Anglo-Saxon runes, but also including some non-runic symbols – representing the letters a to u, scratched into its back cover.dry-pointalphabetical inscriptions12 The MS also features an interesting runic dry-point inscription on its front cover that seems to mix runic and Roman writing. It is probably meant to give a terse indication of the MS’s contents as the name iosepi is entered three times (once only partially), referring to PSEUDO-HEGESIPPUS, whose De bello Iudaico is contained in the MS.13 The MS itself was written in (Northern?) Italy, sec. vi, and presumably passed through England to Fulda, probably in connection with Boniface’s missionary activities. Wiedemann (1994: 96) mentions a date sec. viii/ix for the runic inscriptions. The MS also features some of the oldest OE dry-point glosses that we know, which is why the MS is included in the Catalogue below.

For some reported dry-point material, there is no edition available that I am aware of. Ó Cróinín mentions dry-point glosses in Berlin, Staatsbibliothek zu Berlin – Preussischer Kulturbesitz Ms. Hamilt. 553Berlin, Staatsbibliothek zu Berlin – Preussischer KulturbesitzMs. Hamilt. 553 [G:790] – an illuminated Roman Psalter, nicknamed “Salaberga Psalter”, originating from Northumbria, perhaps Lindisfarne, sec. viii¹ (Gneuss 2001: 118). All the information that is available to me at the moment is given in Ó Cróinín (1994: 16): “There are a few dry-point glosses (fol. 12v lower margin; 13vb small-cap , between tramlines; 35v centre; not noted by Lowe [(CLA 8: 1048)] or Boese [(1966: 270)], but they do not reveal anything of the manuscript’s early history.” Unfortunately, I could not find any further information on the subject. Since the MS originates from Anglo-Saxon England, there is at least the possibility that this material might be OE, although Ó Cróinín’s phrasing would not suggest it.14

James (1912: 316) reports “an old scribble in large letters made with a dry point” on f. 1^r of Cambridge, Corpus Christi College 422Cambridge, Corpus Christi CollegeMS 422 [K:70] without providing a reading. Some letter forms of the scribble are visible in the digital facsimile provided by “Parker Library on the web”.15 The MS containing Salomon and Saturn, sec. x^med., and a missal, sec. xi^med., is described by Ker (1957: 119–121 [no. 70]), but he does not mention the scribble, which may or may not be an indication that the scribble is in L. Its position and size suggest that it is probably not a text gloss.