Cambridge Corpus Christi College 198 OE Temporale Homilies

Main Article Content

Peter J. Lucas



41. Cambridge, Corpus Christi College 198

OE Temporale Homilies

[Ker 48, Gneuss 64]

HISTORY: A fat collection of homilies arranged temporale, beginning at Christmas and ending at June. A core of homilies (Part I) from the first half of the 11c was augmented contemporarily by the production of booklets (Part II) inserted at the chronologically appropriate space in the core, or added on. In turn, in the second half of the l lc, further booklets (Part III) were inserted or added showing a homiliary developing and expanding over the century, probably in an unbound state ( cf. Robinson in Richards 1994: 31-33; Scragg 2012: nos. 111-24; Stokes 2014: 214). The initial core of the collection (Part I: ff. 1-149, 160-217, 248-295) dates from the first half of the l lc and was written by four main scribes (Scribes 1-4), with a small contribution by another (Scribe 6). The homilies shared with the Vercelli Book, Vercelli, Biblioteca Capitolare CXVII [482], drew on a southeastern exemplar (items l, 7, 19, 25; see Scragg 1992: xxviii). That the main part of Part I was copied (in part) from an exemplar of similar layout is suggested by features of Scribe 2's work such as: (1) the last line off. 24r, where the words 'forðonðe hi' (at ed. Clemoes 1997: 220/100) have been spaced out to take up as much of the line as possible, and the bottom line off. 24v has been left blank; and (2) the writing in Quire XXIII (ff. 176-83) is of 25 lines per page on ff.176-81, but 26 lines per page on ff. 182-3, despite the prick-marks showing preparation for 26 lines thoughout the quire. In Part I, each scribe copied by the quire, irrespective of whether the beginning of a homily coincided with the beginning of a quire ( which it usually did not) and the division of Part I into two groups of quires seems to have originally had no intended function (Robinson in Richards 1994: 32). The contents of Part I (items 1-7, 9-43) are very similar to those in Oxford, Bodleian Library Bodley 340+342 [358] (arts. 1-7, 9-32, 42-6, 48-53; Sisam 1953: 154-6), except that item 8 here is from Ælfric, whereas in Bodley 340 it is not. Bodley 340+ 342 was written in the early 11 c and may have been copied in Canterbury or Rochester, again suggesting a south-eastern exemplar (on Bodley 340+342, see Wilcox 2008).

This initial core (Part I) was then expanded as a continuation of the original compilation; this is clear as Scribe 6 continues at f. 288 the work of Scribe 4, which finished on f. 287 at the end of quire XXXVI. Four or five nearly contemporary scribes (Scribes 5-8; cf. Pope 1967: 1.22) also inserted material at appropriate places in Part I; this work comprises Part II (Booklets II.l, II.2, II.3, II.4; ff. 150-59, 218-47, 291-321, 328-50r, 360-66, 378- 94). This appears to be a deliberate expansion of the initial material, though according to Robinson (in Richards 1994: 32) this expansion appears piecemeal with scribes not directly collaborating according to a planned design. This material too was probably copied (in part) from an exemplar of similar layout, as is suggested by the last line off. 241v (end of quire XXX), where the word 'ahefednyss' (at ed. Godden 1979: 325/224) has had '-nyss' added below the end of the line.

Further additions (Part III: Booklets III.1 , III.2; ff. 32lv-27 and 367- 77) were then made in the second half of the l lc, and these were written by three scribes (Scribes 9-11). Spellings in Part III of the manuscript (as 'mon: 'beorend', 'weorod', 'heafcl') suggest that it was written in the West Midlands (Worcester?); for contemporary activity at Worcester, see Gameson 1996. Shared textual and layout features for one item in Part III (art. 62) suggests a close relationship to Blickling Homily 10 (Swan 2006), to the point where it may be supposed that CCCC 198's rendition may have been written in the same scriptorium as the Blickling manuscript (Princeton, Princeton University Library, WH. Scheide Collection MS 71 [439]; see Swan 2006; Scragg 1985: 313-15; Clayton 1998: 240).

Corrections (passages for insertion) occur in the hands of Scribe 3 on ff. 107v, 138v, 217r, and Scribe 6 on f. 289r. The name 'reoelric' occurs in the top left-hand corner of f. 323v in the hand of the text (Scribe 10). There are Latin annotations on ff. 20r, 24v, 255r. The Gospel text has been expanded in a hand of 12/13c on f. 150r. The whole manuscript was at Worcester by the 13c (if not before) when the table of contents was completed and the manuscript was glossed throughout by the "Tremulous Hand" (Franzen 1991: 51-3; Schipper 1985). Origins for the compilation as a whole are unclear. Early provenance in Worcester has often been taken as implying a Worcester origin (as suggested in Dumville 1993: 68n.303 and Stokes 2014: 28n.84 and 99) especially taken in light of the later l lc additions of Part III in a West Midlands dialect; however Pope points out that the style of writing in Part I, as well as its limited range of access to JElfric's work, compared to similar homiletic collections, suggest that the origin is not Worcester (1967: 1.21-22). The affiliations between CCCC 198 and the Blickling Homilies in Part II (see Clayton 1998: 240) and for a homily in Part III (see Swan 2006) may suggest a shared origin, though this origin too is unknown. Swan suggests Hereford as a potential alternative to Worcester, at least for the later l lc additions (Swan 2006: 93 et passim; cf. Scragg 1985: 313n.60).

John Joscelyn (1529-1603), Matthew Parker's Latin secretary, consulted and annotated the manuscript, foliated up to f. 360, glossed interlinearally, and added notes at the start of homilies on other versions of their texts, providing variant readings from other manuscripts, including Oxford, Bodleian Library Hatton 113+ 114 [ 384a + 384b] and Cambridge, Corpus Christi College 421 [59]. Budny (1997: 1.560-61) suggests that Joscelyn's side-by-side comparison with Hatton 113+ 114 implies he must have worked on CCCC 198, at least in part, in Worcester, as Hatton 113+114 did not leave Worcester until the 17 c; this work may date to the 1560s and may mean that CCCC 198 did not leave Worcester until the third quarter of the 16c.

Matthew Parker (1504-1575) acquired the book, and intervened in it in typical fashion, foliating-or retracing Joscelyn's foliation-adding catchwords on several leaves, underlining text, and adding leaves, contents lists, and providing a title for the volume. Parker likewise provided a frontispiece- perhaps from another volume-as he was wont to do; f. ii is a singleton affixed before the first homily, and on the recto is a later 1 lc drawing of six apostles (Wormald 1952: no. 8). This seems to be a displaced leaf from another volume, though Budny (1997: 1.559-60; Budny 1993: 29-30) has argued that the leaf is integrally medieval and may date to the additions of Part III. Parker had the manuscript rebound, as cropped annotations by Joscelyn, Parker's catchwords, and his re-foliation suggest, but in the 16c the manuscript presumably had a black binding as it is referred to as 'liber niger' in CCCC 421, p. v, and London, British Library, Cotton Cleopatra B.xiii [185], f. i verso. During Parker's ownership, there may have been losses from the book and slight shufflings of order, as erasures on the last leaves, the early contents lists, collation of Joscelyn's word lists, and offsets of now lost foliation show (Budny 1997: 1.562-63). Parker used the book (along with London, British Library Cotton Faustina A.ix [192] as the basis of his printing of Ælfric's Easter Homily in A Testimonie of Antiquitie (1566). It is Parker's 'Quartus liber homiliarum', S.8 (f. i recto) in the list of books bequeathed by Parker to Cambridge, Corpus Christi College in 1575. William Usie (1569-1637) consulted the manuscript and copied some of its texts (Lee 2000: 234-35). The manuscript may have been repaired or rebound between 1748-50, as it was listed in an inventory of twenty-five books taken out for binding work (Budny 1997: 1.564). Rebound and repaired again in 1930 at the British Museum in London.

Article Details

Manuscript Descriptions