We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 21 March 2016
Amongst the manuscripts bequeathed to Corpus Christi College, Cambridge, by Matthew Parker in 1575 is one of the most important surviving collections of sources for the history of the north of England in the twelfth century. Manuscript 139, as it now is, contains, amongst other items, unique, or almost unique, copies of the so-called Historia Regum, which had been ascribed to Symeon of Durham before the end of the twelfth century, its continuation by John of Hexham, and the History of Richard of Hexham. It was a prime, and in part a unique, source of Twysden’s pioneering edition of 1652, and its value is in no way diminished today. This apart, the manuscript is of great interest as a manuscript, and the problems of its date, provenance and composition are still the subject of debate. The most recent and definitive account of the manuscript was given by Peter Hunter Blair in a fifty-five page article contributed to the volume of essays edited by Nora Chadwick under the title Celt and Saxon. His conclusions, which supersede all earlier views, were that the manuscript was compiled in the period c 1165–70 at the cistercian house of Sawley in the West Riding of Yorkshire, and the subsequent discovery of an erased Sawley ex libris, now visible only in ultra-violet light, and dated by Ker to the late twelfth/early thirteenth century, reinforced his view. Yet there still remain problems and uncertainties, and my purpose here is first to sketch in a little of the history of the manuscript in its present form, and secondly, by further examination of particular aspects of its to supplement and qualify Blair’s conclusions.
1 Twysden, R., Historiae Anglicanae Scriptores X (London 1652).Google Scholar
2 Blair, [P. H.], [‘Some observations on the Historia Regum attributed to Symeon of Durham’], Celt and Saxon (Cambridge 1963) pp 63–118 Google Scholar. See also Offler, [H. S.], ‘Hexham and the Historia Regum ’, Transactions of the Architectural and Archeologised Society of Durham and Northumberland, ns 2 (1970) pp 51–62 Google Scholar. I am grateful to Mr David Dumville for his criticism of this paper, and for a preview of his two valuable forthcoming papers on the ‘Nennius’ material in MS 139. See Dumville, [David], ‘The Corpus Christi Nennius ’, Bulletin of the Board of Celtic Studies, 25 (1972-4) pp 369-80Google Scholar, and ‘Nennius and the Historia Brittonum’, Studia Celtica 9 (1974).
3 Ker, N.R., Medieval Libraries of Great Britain (London 1964)Google Scholar. See below p 98 and n 77.
4 19 February 1952.
5 James, M.R., [Descriptive Catalogue of the Manuscripts in the Library of Corpus Christi College, Cambridge], 2 vols (Cambridge 1912) I p xvi.Google Scholar
6 For comment on the make-up of the manuscript and on the classification of its contents see appendix.
7 Blair p 63.
8 See Dumville ‘The Corpus Christi Nennius’ p 371.
9 A further division of materials should perhaps be indicated within this section. See appendix nn 8, 9.
10 The reference in item 6 to Somerled qui usque hodie superest poses some problems here. See appendix n 17.
11 Oxford, Bodleian MS Dugdale 48 fol 4SV. See appendix.
12 Bernard, [E.], [Catalogi Librorum Manuscriptorum Angliae et Hibemiae] (Oxford l697) I, 3. pp 131-46, no 1341. 64.Google Scholar See appendix.
13 Hearne, T., Roberti de Avcsbury: Historia de Mirabilibus gestis Edvardi III, et Libri Saxonici, Nomina eorutn qui scripserunt historiam gentis Anglorum et ubi exstant. Per JJ (Oxford 1720) pp 269-98.Google Scholar Printed from BM MS Cotton Nero C III fols 2o8v-12v. The manuscript has been refoliated since 1720. See appendix.
14 Ibid p 274.
15 Similar confusion can be found in Bale’s list, items 12-20 in MS 139, for example, being ascribed to Ailred. See appendix.
16 The items not mentioned by Josceiin, with the exception of the poem by Serlo, and Ailred’s account of the battle of the Standard, are either anonymous, or by foreign authors. Ailred’s treatise on the battle of the Standard begins a new gathering and lacks a formal rubric. It is introduced in the explicit of the previous item (II). For Joscelin and Bale’s lists see Wright, C.E. in Transactions of the Cambridge Bibliographical Society, 1 (1949-53).Google Scholar
17 Illustrium maioris Britanniae Scriptorum Summarium (Ipswich 1548 Google Scholar, reissued Wesel 1549).
18 Scriptorum illustrium maioris Brytannie Catalogus, 2 parts (Basel 1557, 1559).
19 Items 2, 21, 22, 23.
20 Items 1, 3-10, 12-20, 24-6 are listed as ex coenobio, items 3, 4 and 7 appearing twice with this ascription. Items 11, 14 16 are listed as ex libro. Items 8a, 9, 8b are listed as ex collectis Nicolai Brigham (died 1558).
21 For example, ‘De Funtanensi coenobii, li.i. Anno 1132 ciclus lunaris’ (ex coenobio entry). ‘De Fundatione cenobii Funtanensis’ and ‘Stephanus. .. scripsit quomodo et a quibus cenobium dive Marie Eboraci fuerit fundatum’ (ex libro entries).
22 ‘Ea tempestate quidam pestilentem’. See appendix.
23 Though the essentially alphabetical nature of Bale’s list could have caused the duplication of the St Mary’s, York, and Fountains references: they appear first under Ailred, and later under Stephen of Whitby and Thurstan. See appendix.
24 Bale’s autograph and untitled notebook, Bodleian MS Seiden supra 64 (Bernard no 3452). Edited by Poole, R.L. and Bateson, M., Anecdota Oxoniensia, medieval and modern series 9 (Oxford 1902)Google Scholar as Index Britanniae Scriptorwn. The list is arranged alphabetically not chronologically, with most articles followed by source references. For Poole’s description see pp vii-xxvi; the arrangement of the alphabetical scheme is explained on pp xxii-iii.
25 One apparently serious divergence from the text of MS 139 appears in Bale’s extract from the account of the siege of Durham (item 6). He gives the date as 980, the manuscript as 969. The siege, however, is referred to the reign of Ethelred, son of Edgar, who did not succeed until 979. Bale’s date, therefore, can be seen as a correction of an obvious error—possibly his own correction since Leland gives 969 in his description of what is demonstrably the same manuscript. See appendix.
26 Fols 301r-20r. See appendix.
27 [Memorials of Fountains Abbey I, ed Walbran, J.R.], SS 42 (1862).Google Scholar
28 Oxford, Bodleian MS Top Gen. C.2.
29 See below appendix n 16.
30 See appendix n 23.
31 He may not, in fact, have worked on the manuscript itself, see Walbran p lxxi.
32 MS 139 fol 159r.
33 See appendix.
34 ‘ex verbis quae superius scripta sunt coniectura mihi animum subit partem. aliquam earum rerum quae in marginibus antiqui exemplaris exarantur autorem ipsum Nennium agnoscere cum Elbodi, qui et alias Elbogudus dicitur, mentionem faciat; et diligentem aliquem lectorem, collatis exempla- ribus, ea in marginibus scripsisse, quae in codice Salkiensis monasterii [my italics] sensiit deesse.’ Thomas Soulemont was French Secretary to Henry VIII from 1532 and Cromwell’s Secretary from about 1537. He died in 1541. I owe this reference to Mr Dumville.
35 It is impossible to separate Symeon’s letter (item 5), with which Leland’s description now starts, from items 2-4 in MS 139. In view of his reference to the Sawley ex libris it is unlikely that the manuscript that Leland saw lacked item 1, and probable that his notebook has since lost some leaves. See appendix n 16.
36 pp 75-6
37 See below.
38 See above n 25.
39 For a detailed account of these sub-sections of item 7 see Blair pp 76-118.
40 See Heame.
41 See appendix n 8. There are similar comments in Joscelin’s list, and the hand appears to be the same.
42 Corpus Christi College Cambridge MS 66 has a list of contents in the same hand as the list in MS 139, implying that the manuscripts were together in the fifteenth century. It does not, however, follow that both were at Sawley then. Given the similarity of content it is possible that both left Sawley together. I owe this reference to Mr Dumville.
43 Melsa, [Chromca Monasterii de], [ed Bond, E.A.], RS 43, 3 vols (1866-8) II p 252.Google Scholar See Powieke, [F. M.], [The Thirteenth Century] (Oxford 1953).Google Scholar
44 Melsa II pp 253-4, Powieke p 603. See Walbran p 140 n 2.
45 Gatherings I-II, fols 3-18.
46 Gatherings XXI-XXII, fols 168-82. See Dumville, ‘The Corpus Christi Nennius’ p 371.
47 Gathering XX, fols 164-7.
48 Gathering XIX, fols 152-63.
49 A detailed discussion of this text is forthcoming in Analecta Cisterciensia.
50 Gatherings III-VI, fols 19-53.
51 Fols 38r-48r.
52 ‘pie memorie’.
53 Fols 40v-2r.
54 Fols 52r-3v.
55 In BM MS Cotton Titus A XIX (15th century) the list of archbishops ends with Thurstan (1114-40).
56 See below appendix n 17. If this is a mistaken reference to the Somerled who died in 1164 (see item 11) then it reinforces the case for the separate compilation, and subsequent combination, of sections 2 and 3 of MS 139, and, incidentally, might suggest that Richard of Hexham was dead by 1164. See HRH.
57 Gatherings VII-XVI, fols 54-135.
58 Fols 54r-131r.
59 Fols 131v-4r.
60 Fol 134r/V. Preceded by an erased rubric.
61 Fols 134v-5r.
62 Fol 135r/v.
63 ‘Descriptio Serlonis monachi fratris Radulphi abbatis de Parcho de . . . .’ (rubric), ‘Descriptio Serlonis monachi metrice de . . . (contents list).
64 See Blair p 67. It is not possible to sustain the identification of Serlo the poet with Serlo the author of the foundation history of Fountains. The name is common in the twelfth century. A canon of York called Serlo was one of three early recruits to Fountains, would seem to have preceded his namesake at the house, and might be regarded as a more likely poet than the later ‘historian of Fountains’. The statement of relationship between a Serlo and abbot Ralph of Louth Park is, however, interesting in the light of the chronicler of Fountains’ claim to be related to some of the exiles from St Mary’s, York, who founded Fountains. It has not been possible to demonstrate any such relationship from the historical accounts of the foundation and development of Fountains, but this comment in a later twelfth-century cistercian manuscript may embody contemporary knowledge misapplied to the author of the poem on the battle of the Standard. For Serlo of Fountains, and the attempts to give him a literary reputation see Baker, [L. G. D.], ‘[The] Genesis [of English Cistercian Chronicles. The Foundation History of Fountains Abbey]’, I, Analecta Cisterciensia 25, I (1969) pp 28–32 Google Scholar. For abbot Ralph see Walbran p 71 note.
65 See Blair pp 69-70, 78.
66 Ibid p 68. Dumville, ‘The Corpus Christi Nennius’ p 371, notes that fol 135 is a ‘later addition’ to gathering XVI, but the folio cannot be as sharply distinguished from the rest of the gathering as he implies.
67 For Blair’s argument see pp 77-8. It is not altogether convincing. It demands that the rubricator be sufficiently alert to describe the Historia Regum more or less correctly as spanning the period from the death of Bede almost to the death of Henry I (1129), and sufficiently muddled to calculate the span of time to his own day, and give it as 429 years and four months (not 329 years as given by Blair on p 75). It might seem as plausible to suggest ‘ccccxxix’ as a misreading of ‘mcxxix’, the terminal date of the Historia Regum. Nor is it altogether satisfactory to identify the inconsistencies of the copyists (See Blair pp 65, 78, and above n 55) with the practice of the rubricator. The rubrics themselves need to be treated with caution. In this context Joscelin’s reference to another Durham history which appears to end in 1164 is interesting, and perhaps significant. See below appendix n 52.
68 Gatherings XVII-XVIII, fols 136-51.
69 Fols 135v-40r.
70 Fols 149r-51v.
71 Daniel, Walter, Life of Ailred, ed Powieke, F.M. (London 1950) p xcix.Google Scholar
72 For John of Hexham see HRH p 66.
73 The erased rubric which follows item 8a, if it can be read, may do something to illuminate this question.
74 It is suggested below that MS 139 should be ascribed, in the first instance, to Fountains rather than Sawley, and one of the early important recruits to the house was Symeon’s correspondent, dean Hugh of York, who brought with him a large number of books. These are likely to have suffered in the difficult early years of the house, and, more particularly, in the burning of the house in the course of the York election dispute. The contents of MS 139 may be part of a programme of replacing damaged or destroyed texts, and it may be noted that the so-called foundation charter of Fountains is of much the same date.
75 To which it might have been attached in the copyists’ original.
76 This may not even have been to hand when section 3 of MS 139 was being copied.
77 Blair p 78. Elsewhere (p 70), he suggests c1170 as ‘a likely approximation’. See Offler, ‘Hexham and the Historia Regum’.
78 Blair p 78.
79 Ibid p 69. If, as Dumville suggests (see n 66 above) the Somerled poem is an addition to the gathering then the dates for the second section of MS 139 must be extended to 1161-7. It is, however, important to keep the sectional nature of MS 139 clearly in mind when seeking to arrive at an acceptable dating. Dumville’s demonstration that some of the marginalia to the final section oí MS 139 must be dated before 1166 is decisive for that section only. Without such clear corroboration for other sections it cannot be extended to them. See ‘The Corpus Christi Nennius’ pp 374-9.
80 See M.R. James p 323; Blair pp 72-6, 116-18.
81 Corpus Christi College 66, pp 1-114; Cambridge University Library Ff 1. 27, pp 1-40, 73-252. See Dumville, ‘The Corpus Christi Nennius’ pp 371-2.
82 Founded 1148.
83 Blair p 118.
84 Fols I52r-4V.
85 See Chartulary of Whitby, ed Atkinson, J.C., SS 69 (1869)Google Scholar; The Chronicles of St Mary’s Abbey, York, ed Craster, H.H.E. and Thornton, M. E., SS 148 (1934)Google Scholar.
88 Fol 153va.
87 Fol 154rb.
88 See below.
89 See Baker, [Derek], [‘The] Foundation [of Fountains Abbey]’, NH 4 (1969) pp 29–43 Google Scholar; ‘The Desert in the North’, NH 5 (1970) p I–II.Google Scholar
90 See Baker, ‘Genesis’ and ‘Foundation’.
91 Fol 154vb.
92 Fol 159r, see appendix n 23.
93 [Corpus Christi College] D 209.
94 See n 27 above.
95 MS D 209, like MS 139, may be divided into a number of distinct sections. The third and final section, comprising gatherings XHI-XVI, fols 92-109, contains, first, the Exordium of Citeaux and then the ‘letter of Thurstan’—clearly seen as an English Exordium.
96 See MS 139 fol 159r, MS D 209 fol 107r.
97 See BM MS Cotton Otho C. XIV; Oxford Bodleian MS 39.
98 The rubric to the ‘letter of Thurstan’ in MS D 209 is followed by a line and a half of erasures which are now totally illegible. It is possible, however, that they represent an abortive attempt to fit in the dating clause, in its proper place, once the omission had been discovered.
99 Fol 159r.
100 Fol 154vb.
101 Fol 155r.
102 ‘. . . sicut precedens [sequens] epistola manifeste demonstravit [demonstrabit]’. MS 139 readings in brackets.
103 Detailed collation will be given in Baker, ‘Genesis’ III, forthcoming.
104 See above pp 84-5.
105 Blair pp 72-4.
106 For discussion of these notes See Barrow, G.W.S., ‘From Queen Margaret to David I: Benedictines and Tironians’, Innes Review 11 (Glasgow 1960) pp 22–38 Google Scholar, repr The Kingdom of the Scoiy (London 1973) pp 188-211. The Tironian notes appear on fols 122vb, 123r, 130v. The second of these is written over an earlier note. The Tulketh reference is on fol 128r.
107 Fol 132vb.
108 Fol 140va.
109 Fol 143v.
110 Fol 148V.
111 Ibid
112 Ibid
113 Fol I39r.
114 Fol 154vb.
115 Fol 152r. See appendix. Most of these notes are in the same hand, which can perhaps be seen again on fol i68v in the reference to the abbots of Fountains, see M.R. James p 321.
116 Gatherings VI1-XVII1, fols 54-151
117 The state of the outside folios of sections 2-4 (fols 19-151), and section 5 (fols 152-63) suggest a short-lived existence as separate volumes—as with section 1 (fols 3-18).
118 Item 9, the extract from Florence of Worcester, lacks any introduction but is preceded by an erased rubric which may refer to it.
119 Only gathering XX, which has, apparently, lost its final folio since MS 139 was put together, and gathering XXII, the final gathering, have no numbers. Gatherings I and XXI, which lack their final leaves, are numbered, and were therefore in their present form before the manuscript was put together.
120 See Blair pp 70-6 for a resumé of the evidence.
121 Above n 81. See Blair p 76, n i for reference to possible palaeographical similarities, but see Dumville, ‘The Corpus Christi Nenmus’ p 371 n 4. Dumville has shown that the ‘Nennius’ portion of MS 66 cannot be dated before 1202-7 (see p 377), but further work on the compilation of this manuscript is needed before this conclusion can be extended.
122 See above pp 100.
123 Blair (p 74) notes that the text of the Historia Dunelmensis Ecclesia in Cambridge University Library MS Ff 1. 27 ranks in date after the Durham and Fountains copies. This latter copy, now BM MS Faustina A.V. 10, was copied at Durham, and had moved to Fountains in or before the early thirteenth century. It is worth noting that none of the Durham copies of the HDE refer to Symeon as precentor.
124 See Walbran p 53. Blair, p 65, refers to two dean Hughs, but Clay is of the opinion that all the references are to the same man. York Minster Fasti, ed Clay, C.T., YAS, Record Series 123 (1958) 1, p 1.Google Scholar
125 Sawley was a daughter house of Newminster, itself the first colony sent out from Fountains. See the comments of Walbran pp 62-3 note, 93 n 4,
126 For Stephen of Eastern (Sawley) see Walbran pp 135-6; Wilmart, A, ‘Les méditations d’Etienne de Salley sur les Joies de la Vierge Marie’, Auteurs spirituels et textes dévots du moyen age latin (Paris 1971) pp 317-60;Google Scholar Baker, Derek, ‘The surest road to heaven’, SCH 10 (1973) pp 55–7.Google Scholar
