{ "viewingDirection": "left-to-right", "metadata": [ { "label": "Origin Place", "value": "Northumbria." }, { "label": "Provenance", "value": "

Perhaps owned by Ely Cathedral by the 10th century, remaining there until the Dissolution in 1539, as suggested by Neil Ker in 1964. London, British Library, Cotton MS Tiberius B.v, f. 76 and London, British Library, Sloane MS 1044, f. 2, are both leaves that were formerly part of this manuscript, and the former (according to Ker) contained documents relating to Ely cathedral priory. However, this was later rejected in 1987 by Andrew Watson, who observed that these texts related not to Ely but to nearby Ramsey Abbey (though he did not, in turn, place the manuscript in Ramsey's possession in the relevant section of the catalogue).

Ker (1964), p. 78<\/div>
Ker and Watson (1987), p. 35 and n. 2 <\/div><\/div>
<\/p>" }, { "label": "Extent", "value": "Codex:

Five leaves of parchment have been inserted in place of missing leaves as part of the volume's conservation (for further information on which, see Custodial History). These inserted leaves have not been digitised, though in one instance (f. 190*) the stubs to which this is attached contains a fragment of decoration. These replacement leaves have not been counted here as part of the manuscript's extent. For the sake of clarity, it has been decided not to enumerate them separately either.<\/p>iv + 113 + iv leaves. Leaf height: 305 mm, width: 225 mm." }, { "label": "Funding", "value": "" }, { "label": "Date of Creation", "value": "8th century." }, { "label": "Classmark", "value": "Cambridge, University Library, MS Kk.1.24" }, { "label": "Donor(s)", "value": "Perne, Andrew, 1519?-1589" }, { "label": "Subject(s)", "value": "Bible. Gospels" }, { "label": "Associated Name(s)", "value": "Bradshaw, Henry, 1831-1886" }, { "label": "Format", "value": "Codex" }, { "label": "Data Source(s)", "value": "This catalogue entry draws on an unpublished description of the manuscript composed between 1926 and 1930 by M.R. James, now held in the University Archives (UA ULIB 7/3/74<\/a>)." }, { "label": "Binding", "value": "

Full alum-tawed goatskin, Cambridge University Library, 1997. See Custodial History for further information. <\/p>

17th-century binding of blind-tooled calfskin over pasteboards. This former binding has been retained and is stored with the manuscript. <\/p>" }, { "label": "Script", "value": "

Written in half uncial<\/i>. <\/p><\/div><\/div>" }, { "label": "Physical Location", "value": "Cambridge University Library" }, { "label": "Abstract", "value": "

For early medieval Christian communities, a gospel book was a treasured possession and, according to an Anglo-Saxon riddle, 'a thing useful against evils'. The most outstanding example of an Anglo-Saxon gospel book is undoubtedly the Lindisfarne Gospels, but this was a deluxe production. Cambridge, University Library, MS Kk.1.24, shown here, is a more typical example, also made in Northumbria in the 8th century, and its pages reveal many of the ways this precious book was used over the centuries.<\/p>

First and foremost, it was a book to be used for reading the word of God. It is written in a beautifully clear half-uncial script - and evidently the text was read carefully. At Luke 14:13 (f. 161r<\/a>), for example, after the opening word 'Sed', the scribe accidentally skipped ahead to the word 'uiuium' - and a reader supplied the omitted words, 'cum facis con-', in the margin, using tiny signes de renvoi<\/i> ·/. to indicate where these should be placed in the sequence. Elsewhere, rubrics have been added in the margins to indicate the start of gospel passages to be read on a particular feast day, suggesting that the book was being used as part of the liturgy: for example, a passage from Luke's gospel on f. 153r<\/a> is marked for the feast of the Nativity of Mary. Further evidence indicative of liturgical use is the addition on f. 129r<\/a> of a verse and response with music notation. <\/p>

Perhaps the most intriguing additions to the biblical text are the letters 'l' and 'c', which have been inserted at various points towards the end of each gospel (see ff. 177r-183v<\/a> and 232v-237r<\/a>). These represent cues to two speakers, 'Lector' (narrator) and 'Christus', who would have performed readings of the Passion narratives, an important part of the liturgy around Easter. These cues are often found in early medieval bibles but, as Patrick McGurk points out, their presence here does not necessarily mean that the book was used for this purpose. In MS Kk.1.24, the cues are reversed: Christ's words 'satis est' are marked 'l' and the narrator's next line, 'Egressus ibat...' is marked with a 'c', suggesting that they indicated where the speaker should stop rather than start.<\/p>

'Noli me tangere' ('Do not touch me', John 20:17) reads the final line of the last leaf of the manuscript - a poinant coincidence in a book that was heavily used and survives now in very incomplete form. In terms of its text, all that remains are portions of the gospels of Luke and John. Decoration is also conspicuously absent. Insular gospel books of this period are renowned for their displays of artistic brilliance, but aside from a few flourishes and dots on minor initials, no decoration is to be found. This was probably due to deliberate removal by a later owner rather than accidental loss, since some decorated pages show evidence of being cut out. However, there are still clues that enable us to reconstruct what is missing. The most evocative such evidence is on f. 192r<\/a>, which begins with the text of John 1:18. The first seventeen verses must have occupied the previous leaf, which is now missing. The opening initial for each gospel was commonly enlarged and decorated, and sometimes accompanied by a display script for the opening line or lines, a border, and other artistic elements. However, under raking light, it is still possible to see the impression on f. 192r of the outline of the decoration that was once found on the adjacent leaf. Folio 192 must have lain underneath this missing leaf when the artist or scribe drew the outline of the decoration he was preparing to execute. Not only does the result give us a glimpse of what the lost initial looked like; it also tells us about the sequence of production. Evidently, the pieces of parchment were all gathered together as quires before the drawing (and presumably the writing, too) were done - rather than being finished as separate bifolia.<\/p>

The impression shows that the lost initial ran the full length of the page. The tall 'I' of 'In principio' (the opening words of the gospel of John in Latin) appears to have been surmounted by a knot of interlace, and to have curved backwards at the base, ending in a dragon-like head that turns with open jaws and an extended tongue towards the letter. A comparable example of such an initial may be found on f. 37r of Durham, Cathedral Library, MS A.II.16<\/a>. The beast's head - with broad, delineated muzzle, rounded features, parted jaws and small high-set eyes - is also similar to those found in the terminals to King David's throne in a full-page miniature on f. 81v of Durham, Cathedral Library, MS B.II.30<\/a> (the 'Durham Cassiodorus'). These two manuscripts share other features with MS Kk.1.24. MS A.II.16 was likewise marked up for liturgical use with prompts for 'Christus' and 'lector', and E.A. Lowe considered the script in MS B.II.30 to be the closest comparison to that in MS Kk.1.24.<\/p>

Another trace of drawing survives on a narrow stub after f. 189<\/a>, comprising remnants of plant motifs drawn in red ink. Evidently, this was once another decorated page, presumably a full-page evangelist portrait of John introducing his gospel text. However, these foliate motifs are very different in style to what was produced in 8th-century Northumbria, bearing closer resemblance - albeit in simpler, line-drawn form - to the architectural frame found in Insular manuscripts of the 10th century, such as the Benedictional of St Aethelwold (London, British Library, Add. MS 49598), f. 56v) and the Trinity Gospels (Cambridge, Trinity College, MS B.10.4)<\/a>). Furthermore, the stub in MS Kk.1.24 is one half of a bifolium that is separate from the original structure of the manuscript (its conjugate, f. 189, is blank). We know that Anglo-Saxon artists sometimes updated old gospel books by adding new evangelist portraits alongside the originals, as in London, British Library, Add. MS 40618 and London, British Library, Royal MS 1 E.vi. This phase of embellishment may have taken place at Ely or Ramsey Abbeys. In 1964, N.R. Ker tentatively attributed the manuscript to Ely's ownership on the basis of the addition of texts relating to its estates to a final leaf (which is now separated from MS Kk.1.24, and divided in two between two manuscripts: London, British Library, Cotton MS Tiberius B.v, f. 76 and London, British Library, Sloane MS 1044, f. 2). This was later rejected in 1987 by Andrew Watson, who observed that these texts related not to Ely but to nearby Ramsey (though he did not, in turn, place the manuscript in Ramsey's possession in the relevant section of the catalogue). Such practices - seen in other manuscripts at Cambridge University Library, including MS Ii.6.32<\/a> (the Book of Deer) and MS Ll.1.10<\/a> (the Book of Cerne) - confirm that the manuscript was considered the safest and most sacred place to preserve the community's most important records. The addition of this evangelist portrait (and presumably three others) was probably likewise intended as a pious renovation of a cherished manuscript. <\/p>Dr Suzanne Paul
Keeper of Rare Books and Early Manuscripts
Cambridge University Library
and
Dr Eleanor Jackson
Curator of Illuminated Manuscripts
British Library" }, { "label": "Title", "value": "Gospel book" }, { "label": "Author(s) of the Record", "value": "Suzanne Paul (2013), revised and updated by James Freeman (2024)" }, { "label": "Material", "value": "Parchment (hair/flesh disposition uncertain)" }, { "label": "Collation", "value": "

What remains of this manuscript comprises 15 quires, mostly of 8 leaves, of which 4 are now imperfect due to the loss of leaves. Although replacement leaves were added throughout the manuscript during its conservation, and although these technically carry a folio number (in accordance with Bradshaw's foliation practice), the collation statement given below counts only medieval leaves and omits replacement leaves and stubs (see also Foliation).<\/p>