Western Medieval Manuscripts : Homilies and saints' lives, in Old English

Western Medieval Manuscripts

Cambridge, University Library, MS Ii.1.33 (hereafter CUL MS Ii.1.33) is a remarkable manuscript, in that it offers unique evidence for the transitional period between Old English and Middle English. Compiled in the second half of the twelfth century, it stands out for being one of the latest extant collections containing Old English texts, demonstrating the linguistic, cultural and historical transformations of its time. Furthermore, its significance lies not only in its contents, but also in its complex history of compilation, usage and subsequent scholarly engagement. The manuscript primarily consists of texts by Ælfric of Eynsham (c. 950-c. 1010), a monk and abbot known for his large amount of Old English religious prose, such as his two sets of Catholic Homilies and his Lives of Saints. It also includes some penitential material towards the end: three anonymous texts and an Old English translation of Alcuin's De uirtutibus et uitiis, chapters 1-13. In the manuscript, some Ælfrician pieces are presented only as passion narratives, suggesting that the book might have originally been intended as a Passional.The manuscript underwent several stages of development, with contributions from at least two but possibly up to four scribes, based on both palaeographical and linguistic considerations. The current order of texts does not reflect their order of copying; rather, the manuscript was built around a core, and the first four texts that appear may in fact have been written last. Some of the texts that were copied earliest focus on the apostles, while some later ones, copied by a different scribe, address saints in a Church-year order. Subsequent additions transformed the manuscript's character, turning it from an 'Apostolic Passional' to a 'Saintly Reader', and ultimately to a miscellaneous collection of religious texts.CUL MS Ii.1.33 is an invaluable resource for understanding the linguistic transition from Old English to Middle English. Although the primary language of the manuscript is Old English, it incorporates some Middle English features, particularly in later additions and alterations. These linguistic changes are particularly evident in orthography and vocabulary, and offer insights into how these scribes engaged with older texts while adapting them to their contemporary linguistic context. Notably, one scribe contributed a marginal Middle English passage adapted from a Latin source, alongside two marginal passages in Old French, highlighting the multilingual environment of the period (see ff. <a href='' onclick='store.loadPage(154);return false;'>70v</a> and <a href='' onclick='store.loadPage(253);return false;'>120r</a>). The manuscript also shows evidence of deliberate preservation and emendation. Scribes updated texts linguistically to reflect contemporary usage while sometimes reverting to older forms, indicating a complex relationship with the linguistic heritage of Old English. This blend of conservation and adaptation underscores the manuscript's role as a bridge between Old English and Middle English.The origins and medieval provenance of CUL MS Ii.1.33 have been widely debated. The manuscript is thought to have been compiled in a south-eastern scriptorium, potentially at Canterbury or Rochester. Another possible origin is Ely, given the manuscript's later association with St Æthelthryth, Ely's patron saint. There may also be a link to Barnwell Priory, on the outskirts of Cambridge. Although direct evidence to link the manuscript to these locations is limited, the manuscript's emphasis on specific saints and its inclusion of particular texts align with these ecclesiastical centres. Such associations further situate the manuscript within broader ecclesiastical and cultural networks in medieval England - and the possibility that it was a commissioned work or a gift between monasteries reflects the interconnectedness of these institutions. However, the absence of conclusive proof leaves room for further study and speculation, as much for the manuscript's origins as its intended purposes, which also remain uncertain. Unlike other homiletic collections designed explicitly for preaching, this manuscript seems to be more associated with private or communal reading. The lack of expository content typical of sermons supports this hypothesis. As new sections were added, the manuscript's character evolved, adapting to changing needs. For example, its emphasis on saints and the Church-year order suggests a devotional or educational function. Certainly, though, CUL MS Ii.1.33 provides critical evidence of the continued copying and use of Old English texts long after the Norman Conquest. While the production of new vernacular texts declined in the twelfth century, manuscripts like this one demonstrate an enduring demand for Old English religious works. This interest may have stemmed from a desire to preserve Anglo-Saxon heritage or from the practical use of these texts in devotional and educational settings. The manuscript's multilingual character, with Latin and Old French alongside both Old English and Middle English, highlights the complex linguistic environment of post-Conquest England. Although an inscription on f. <a href='' onclick='store.loadPage(71);return false;'>29r</a> indicates a period of neglect (a common fate for Old English texts after the Norman Conquest), evidence of renewed interest in the manuscript's contents is extensive: glosses, additions, running titles and marginal annotations, in Middle English and Latin, were made during the thirteenth and fourteenth centuries, possibly for instructional purposes, and point to ongoing engagement with the manuscript over many decades. Such interest persists to this day. Following the Dissolution of the Monasteries and the dispersal of their libraries, the manuscript came into the hands of Matthew Parker (1504-1575), archbishop of Canterbury, and was one of twenty-five manuscripts he donated to Cambridge University Library in 1574. George Hickes listed it alongside its texts in 1689, while Humfrey Wanley's companion volume to Hickes' later Thesaurus in 1705 provided more detailed information, including incipits and/or explicits. In 1957, Neil Ker offered the most comprehensive description of the manuscript up to that time in his catalogue of manuscripts containing Old English. Subsequent scholarship, including the work of Elaine Treharne (1998), Oliver M. Traxel (2004), John Frankis (2007) and Orietta Da Rold (2010), has continued to refine our understanding of the manuscript's content and significance. Standard editions of Ælfrician texts, such as those by Peter Clemoes, Malcolm R. Godden, and Walter W. Skeat, have drawn extensively from CUL MS Ii.1.33. The manuscript's four non-Ælfrician texts have also attracted editorial attention, particularly Anna Maria Luiselli Fadda's edition of two anonymous Old English homilies (1977) and Susan G. Youngs' dissertation on the final text appearing in the manuscript: the poem Instructions for Christians (1995).That the manuscript has continued to attract scholarly attention over a period of more than eight and a half centuries attests to its enduring significance both as a cultural artefact and a subject of academic enquiry. As one of the last manuscripts to be made that contains text in Old English, and partially glossed in the vernacular language that evolved thereafter, it provides a bridge between the language and culture of pre- and post-Conquest England, offering a distinctive perspective on the preservation and transformation of this country's linguistic and literary heritage. Prof. Dr. Oliver M. Traxel Professor of English Language and Linguistics University of Stavanger