Dating winchester mod 94

A new verse is indicated by a large colored initial. 4.2, 61.6); (2) occasionally over a short vowel in a syntactically important word, for example, him (Pss. 2.9, 74.2); (3) also over stressed prefixes, for example, onliht (Ps. 7 to indicate perhaps that it is unrelated morphologically to the immediately following on (which has a single accent over n).31 Some omissions resulted from haplography, for example; ec[re] reste (Introd. A Malmesbury origin was proposed by Karl Wildhagen,90 but most of his evidence, notably the identification of the scribe Wulfwinus with Wulfi of the West-Saxon Gospels (London, BL, MS Cotton Otho C. Throughout this chapter Old English works are referred to by the standard abbreviations given in Bruce Mitchell et al., “Short Titles of Old English Texts,” ASE 4 (1975): 207-21. In the Prose Psalms, punctuation is found only at the end of the verse (except for some six occurrences of the punctus within the introductions). Judging by numerous instances of large spaces between the end of a verse and the ; punctuation mark, the latter seems to have been mechanically supplied. i) and his claim for unusual similarities between the Paris and the Cambridge Psalter (which he located at Winchcombe in the same diocese as Malmesbury),91 is either incorrect or speculative. [9 ] Recorded on the verso of what is now the fourth flyleaf, immediately preceding Ps. 2 ]] found in other manuscripts owned by him.5 Subsequently, it was donated to his favorite foundation, the Sainte Chapelle de Bourges, as attested by its appearance in a list of manuscripts received there in July 1406.6 More than a century later, an inventory of Sainte Chapelle manuscripts, drawn up in November 1552, lists a “Psalterium Davidicum,” which should probably be identified with the present manuscript since all of the other psalters mentioned are described as glossed.7 It was still there in 1708 when the Benedictine scholar Dom Martène singled it out for comment: L’un des plus curieux manuscrits de la sainte Chapelle, est celui qu’on appelle les heures du duc Jean. 186 (after the prayers and colophon; probably blank). 12.5), about 20 occurrences; of words, as in parauit (Ps. Significantly, the Vespasian Psalter from Christ Church Canterbury lacks the Canticum Simeonis, a feature that may reflect the old Roman usage once observed there.65 The former is headed Incipiunt Letaniae,66 the latter (individually) (Alia) Oratio. Qua expleta, post orationem dominicam [Pater Noster] intercanitur psalmus In te domine speraui (ii), consequentibus precibus et orationibus.”67 This resemblance does not necessarily mean, however, that the Paris litany had a monastic provenance, since the devotion of the Seven Penitential Psalms was also popular among the secular clergy and devout laity. Arguably, it was passed over because of its proximity to Ps. Positive evidence is found in Ps(P)’s use of specifically West Saxon words such as ealneh, eaþmetto, (ge)fægnian, fnæs, for hwi, miltsung, offrung, ongemang, rihtwis, (ge)swincan, getruma.103 Moreover, Ps(P) has other West Saxon words that normally occur only in the early West Saxon works comprising Alfred (CP, Bo, Solil), Or, and the 890-Chronicle, namely, bismer, broc, cræft, gefea, morgen, ofermodlice, tohopa, unþeaw, swa þer, (eac) swa ylce.104 Within this body of works, Ps(P) shows closest agreement with Alfred in using (1) all these words, where Or and the 890-Chronicle have different synonyms for some; (2) certain words and constructions rarely or Print Edition Page No. oþþe;105 (3) a limited range of words for concepts represented in the other two works by a wider range, for example, for ‘to fight’, Ps(P) and Alfred use only winnan and feohtan, where the others also have gewinnan and gefeohtan.106 Other significant agreements shared by Ps(P) and Alfred are as follows: Since the concepts denoted by the words in these different categories of agreement are common in Old English prose translations, the correspondences between Ps(P) and Alfred cannot be dismissed as coincidental agreements arising out of a scarcity of occurrences. 70 Nor does a small number of differences between Ps(P) and Alfred in word choice prejudice the claim for common authorship.133 Thus, Ps(P)’s consistent translation of ciuitas with burg, where Alfred uses burg and ceaster,134 can plausibly be explained by its bias towards a historical interpretation of ciuitas in the psalms as the fortified city of Jerusalem. Discenza concludes that in CP, his earliest translation, Alfred was “establishing his own translation solutions” to Lat. C’est un pseautier latin avec une version angloise de six ou sept cens ans. With the exception of those belonging to Quire 25, the missing leaves coincide with important structural or liturgical divisions commonly attested in medieval psalters.18 Those missing from Quires 1, 9, and 24 marked points of a tripartite division of the 150 psalms (the expected division before Ps. 97);20 and the beginning psalm of a weekly cycle for Vespers (Ps. Transposition of letters.34 For example, litegu (Ps. 7.14), altogether 22 occurrences; of phrases, as in et rex magnus (Ps. The overall framework of this section—(1) invocation of saints and petitions rounded off with the kyrie, (2) Pater Noster, (3) preces (four) and Collect, and (4) orationes—recalls the type of enlarged litany recited with the Seven Penitential Psalms after Prime in late-tenth- and eleventh-century English monasteries, as described in the Regularis Concordia (ca. Indeed, the absence in the Paris litany of a petition for an abbot, which was obligatory in monastic litanies, tells against it. Toswell, “The Format of the Bibliothèque Nationale MS lat. [18 ] Noted, but not adequately explained, by Wormald in Facsimile, p. 51, which marks the first part of the tripartite division. 11-12 and 47, speculated that the cognomen (suprascript) was added by a later scribe who wished to identify more precisely the Wulfwinus whose work he had just copied. 68 ]] not at all found in the others, for example, ætiewan, oþþe twega oþþe . More challenging to explain is the apparent disagreement between Ps(P) and Alfred’s works in the rendering of Lat. uirtus, sometimes using mægen (20x) and the collocation mægen and cræft (7x), but more often cræft (31x, and independently 10x), but that in his later work, Bo, Alfred used cræft almost exclusively (15x, and independently 36x), with only one occurrence of mægen.135 She argues that in so doing Alfred was adding to the traditional meanings of cræft “a rarer usage, spiritual merit, and his own usage, virtue.”136 The same study also addressed the use of mægen and cræft as translations of uirtus in Ps(P), stating that because of uncertainties about when it was completed and what version of the psalms it used “no conclusion can be drawn about Alfred’s usage from this text.”137 As for these two “uncertainties,” I have argued elsewhere in the present edition that Ps(P) is based on a Roman psalter of the English family, with an admixture of Gallican readings, which seem to have been deliberately incorporated,138 and that the work probably postdates CP and Bo, since it reveals the verbal influence of both.139 If these conclusions are accepted, then Discenza’s findings raise another question: should we not expect to find some influence of Alfred’s “new” translation of uirtus as cræft in Ps(P), especially since the latter is a moral work?

||

A new verse is indicated by a large colored initial. 4.2, 61.6); (2) occasionally over a short vowel in a syntactically important word, for example, him (Pss. 2.9, 74.2); (3) also over stressed prefixes, for example, onliht (Ps. 7 ]] to indicate perhaps that it is unrelated morphologically to the immediately following on (which has a single accent over n).31 Some omissions resulted from haplography, for example; ec[re] reste (Introd. A Malmesbury origin was proposed by Karl Wildhagen,90 but most of his evidence, notably the identification of the scribe Wulfwinus with Wulfi of the West-Saxon Gospels (London, BL, MS Cotton Otho C. Throughout this chapter Old English works are referred to by the standard abbreviations given in Bruce Mitchell et al., “Short Titles of Old English Texts,” ASE 4 (1975): 207-21.

In the Prose Psalms, punctuation is found only at the end of the verse (except for some six occurrences of the punctus within the introductions). Judging by numerous instances of large spaces between the end of a verse and the ; punctuation mark, the latter seems to have been mechanically supplied. i) and his claim for unusual similarities between the Paris and the Cambridge Psalter (which he located at Winchcombe in the same diocese as Malmesbury),91 is either incorrect or speculative. [9 ] Recorded on the verso of what is now the fourth flyleaf, immediately preceding Ps.

2 ]] found in other manuscripts owned by him.5 Subsequently, it was donated to his favorite foundation, the Sainte Chapelle de Bourges, as attested by its appearance in a list of manuscripts received there in July 1406.6 More than a century later, an inventory of Sainte Chapelle manuscripts, drawn up in November 1552, lists a “Psalterium Davidicum,” which should probably be identified with the present manuscript since all of the other psalters mentioned are described as glossed.7 It was still there in 1708 when the Benedictine scholar Dom Martène singled it out for comment: L’un des plus curieux manuscrits de la sainte Chapelle, est celui qu’on appelle les heures du duc Jean. 186 (after the prayers and colophon; probably blank). 12.5), about 20 occurrences; of words, as in parauit (Ps. Significantly, the Vespasian Psalter from Christ Church Canterbury lacks the Canticum Simeonis, a feature that may reflect the old Roman usage once observed there.65 The former is headed Incipiunt Letaniae,66 the latter (individually) (Alia) Oratio. Qua expleta, post orationem dominicam [Pater Noster] intercanitur psalmus In te domine speraui (ii), consequentibus precibus et orationibus.”67 This resemblance does not necessarily mean, however, that the Paris litany had a monastic provenance, since the devotion of the Seven Penitential Psalms was also popular among the secular clergy and devout laity. Arguably, it was passed over because of its proximity to Ps. Positive evidence is found in Ps(P)’s use of specifically West Saxon words such as ealneh, eaþmetto, (ge)fægnian, fnæs, for hwi, miltsung, offrung, ongemang, rihtwis, (ge)swincan, getruma.103 Moreover, Ps(P) has other West Saxon words that normally occur only in the early West Saxon works comprising Alfred (CP, Bo, Solil), Or, and the 890-Chronicle, namely, bismer, broc, cræft, gefea, morgen, ofermodlice, tohopa, unþeaw, swa þer, (eac) swa ylce.104 Within this body of works, Ps(P) shows closest agreement with Alfred in using (1) all these words, where Or and the 890-Chronicle have different synonyms for some; (2) certain words and constructions rarely or Print Edition Page No. oþþe;105 (3) a limited range of words for concepts represented in the other two works by a wider range, for example, for ‘to fight’, Ps(P) and Alfred use only winnan and feohtan, where the others also have gewinnan and gefeohtan.106 Other significant agreements shared by Ps(P) and Alfred are as follows: Since the concepts denoted by the words in these different categories of agreement are common in Old English prose translations, the correspondences between Ps(P) and Alfred cannot be dismissed as coincidental agreements arising out of a scarcity of occurrences. 70 Nor does a small number of differences between Ps(P) and Alfred in word choice prejudice the claim for common authorship.133 Thus, Ps(P)’s consistent translation of ciuitas with burg, where Alfred uses burg and ceaster,134 can plausibly be explained by its bias towards a historical interpretation of ciuitas in the psalms as the fortified city of Jerusalem. Discenza concludes that in CP, his earliest translation, Alfred was “establishing his own translation solutions” to Lat.

]]

There are two nineteenth-century foliations:17 the earlier, in pencil, foliates the 186 written leaves, numbering them 1-196 by including missing leaves (discussed in the next section); the other, in ink, foliates the written leaves and a final medieval flyleaf, 1-187, and is the foliation still used. Rustic capitals (in red) are used for the Latin rubric preceding each psalm, and uncials for the opening line of each Latin psalm. 78.9); (2) occasionally over the double consonant of upp (either as an independent adverb or a verbal prefix), for example, Pss. 21 eleventh century,88 while its drawings may represent an intermediate stylistic stage between other drawings dated at lower and upper limits of 1023-1050.89 In the litany the presence of St. And since the latter collocation consists of a literal member (physical light) and a moral (discernment of personal sin), so, arguably, the first collocation has a literal (mægen and strengo) and a moral component (cræft).

Subsequent descriptions of the manuscript by Silvestre (1841) and Delisle (1856) add no new information, except evidence about the nineteenth-century pencil and ink foliations.11 Notably absent from the post-medieval accounts of the manuscript is any mention of the Davidic picture or of illumination (traces of which still survive on two folios); presumably, they were already missing by this time.12 But when Print Edition Page No. 38) in Quire 9, the fourth and fifth leaves, after fol. cognomento Cada.”22 Although it cannot be conclusively established that the colophon is an autograph, there is no good reason to doubt its authenticity.23 It is in the same hand and ink as the surrounding text, although in smaller form. Thus, the original litany was probably composed between 9, perhaps at Winchester. The preces are found associated with the recitation of the Office in penitential seasons; the Collect comes from a prayer at the beginning of Mass.76 The eight orationes are as follows: Print Edition Page No. b, line 17 (interlinear): veniam, written between domine and tribuente (prayer no. 8824: The Paris Psalter,” Notes and Queries 241 (1996): 130-33. [21 ] For a detailed account of the distributio psalmorum of the Roman Office, see Johann M. First the evidence: in Ps(P), uirtus is translated by mægen (8x), by mægen and cræft (2x), and by cræft (1x).

Mais sitôt que l’eus vû, je connus le caractere Anglo-saxon. 109).19 The missing leaves of Quires 3, 4, 7, 11, 14, 16, and 18 occur at points that mark, respectively, the last psalm of Matins for Sunday (Ps. Thus, the first missing leaf in Quire 1 had a portrait of David playing the harp, the missing fifth leaf in Quire 4 had “Winchester” acanthus decoration, traces of which are still visible on its surviving stub, and the seventh leaf of Quire 18 left blots of decoration (offset) on the verso of the preceding fol. Since the remaining missing leaves in the Paris Psalter mark similar types of division, it is reasonable to conclude that they also were decorated and that all were stolen for their decoration. 16 Collections of such prayers are a regular feature of devotional psalters from the Carolingian period on, though none of the Paris prayers has yet been identified elsewhere. Thus, their predominantly penitential and private character would harmonize well with private recitation of the psalms. 20 ]] evidenced by the missing illuminated leaves) reflects the Roman Office, not the Benedictine.83 That such evidence for the observance of the Roman Office should be found in a psalter from the mid-eleventh century is remarkable, since by this time the Benedictine Office, which had been promulgated in the Regularis Concordia (ca. 32.17) can be plausibly explained as a stylistic pis aller—mægen occurs twice in the preceding sentence.141 Indeed, it could be argued that Ps(P)’s avoidance of cræft to translate uirtus (which in a literal rendering of the psalms had no moral meaning) shows a sensitivity to that word’s moral implications and therefore a usage similar to Alfred’s in Bo.

Ceux qui me la montrerent, croyoient que c’étoit de l’allemand ou de l’hebreu. 80) in Quire 16, the second and third leaves, after fol. 101 may have been omitted because a major liturgical division occurred soon after, at Ps. 109), all reflecting the cursus of the Roman Office.21 Such divisions were usually highlighted in medieval psalters by some type of decoration, and there is evidence that the Paris Psalter in its original state reflected this practice. In contents the Paris litany closely agrees with a litany for the Visitation of the Sick in the Lanelet Pontifical68 of St. 1031-46), as indicated by the following table:69 Print Edition Page No. 38) in Quire 9, the fourth and fifth leaves, after fol. cognomento Cada.”22 Although it cannot be conclusively established that the colophon is an autograph, there is no good reason to doubt its authenticity.23 It is in the same hand and ink as the surrounding text, although in smaller form. Thus, the original litany was probably composed between 9, perhaps at Winchester. The preces are found associated with the recitation of the Office in penitential seasons; the Collect comes from a prayer at the beginning of Mass.76 The eight orationes are as follows: Print Edition Page No. b, line 17 (interlinear): veniam, written between domine and tribuente (prayer no. 8824: The Paris Psalter,” Notes and Queries 241 (1996): 130-33. [21 ] For a detailed account of the distributio psalmorum of the Roman Office, see Johann M. First the evidence: in Ps(P), uirtus is translated by mægen (8x), by mægen and cræft (2x), and by cræft (1x). Mais sitôt que l’eus vû, je connus le caractere Anglo-saxon. 109).19 The missing leaves of Quires 3, 4, 7, 11, 14, 16, and 18 occur at points that mark, respectively, the last psalm of Matins for Sunday (Ps. Thus, the first missing leaf in Quire 1 had a portrait of David playing the harp, the missing fifth leaf in Quire 4 had “Winchester” acanthus decoration, traces of which are still visible on its surviving stub, and the seventh leaf of Quire 18 left blots of decoration (offset) on the verso of the preceding fol. Since the remaining missing leaves in the Paris Psalter mark similar types of division, it is reasonable to conclude that they also were decorated and that all were stolen for their decoration. 16 eleventh century,88 while its drawings may represent an intermediate stylistic stage between other drawings dated at lower and upper limits of 1023-1050.89 In the litany the presence of St. And since the latter collocation consists of a literal member (physical light) and a moral (discernment of personal sin), so, arguably, the first collocation has a literal (mægen and strengo) and a moral component (cræft). Subsequent descriptions of the manuscript by Silvestre (1841) and Delisle (1856) add no new information, except evidence about the nineteenth-century pencil and ink foliations.11 Notably absent from the post-medieval accounts of the manuscript is any mention of the Davidic picture or of illumination (traces of which still survive on two folios); presumably, they were already missing by this time.12 But when Print Edition Page No. 38) in Quire 9, the fourth and fifth leaves, after fol. cognomento Cada.”22 Although it cannot be conclusively established that the colophon is an autograph, there is no good reason to doubt its authenticity.23 It is in the same hand and ink as the surrounding text, although in smaller form. Thus, the original litany was probably composed between 9, perhaps at Winchester. The preces are found associated with the recitation of the Office in penitential seasons; the Collect comes from a prayer at the beginning of Mass.76 The eight orationes are as follows: Print Edition Page No. b, line 17 (interlinear): veniam, written between domine and tribuente (prayer no. 8824: The Paris Psalter,” Notes and Queries 241 (1996): 130-33. [21 ] For a detailed account of the distributio psalmorum of the Roman Office, see Johann M. First the evidence: in Ps(P), uirtus is translated by mægen (8x), by mægen and cræft (2x), and by cræft (1x). Mais sitôt que l’eus vû, je connus le caractere Anglo-saxon. 109).19 The missing leaves of Quires 3, 4, 7, 11, 14, 16, and 18 occur at points that mark, respectively, the last psalm of Matins for Sunday (Ps. Thus, the first missing leaf in Quire 1 had a portrait of David playing the harp, the missing fifth leaf in Quire 4 had “Winchester” acanthus decoration, traces of which are still visible on its surviving stub, and the seventh leaf of Quire 18 left blots of decoration (offset) on the verso of the preceding fol. Since the remaining missing leaves in the Paris Psalter mark similar types of division, it is reasonable to conclude that they also were decorated and that all were stolen for their decoration. 16 Collections of such prayers are a regular feature of devotional psalters from the Carolingian period on, though none of the Paris prayers has yet been identified elsewhere. Thus, their predominantly penitential and private character would harmonize well with private recitation of the psalms. 20 ]] evidenced by the missing illuminated leaves) reflects the Roman Office, not the Benedictine.83 That such evidence for the observance of the Roman Office should be found in a psalter from the mid-eleventh century is remarkable, since by this time the Benedictine Office, which had been promulgated in the Regularis Concordia (ca. 32.17) can be plausibly explained as a stylistic pis aller—mægen occurs twice in the preceding sentence.141 Indeed, it could be argued that Ps(P)’s avoidance of cræft to translate uirtus (which in a literal rendering of the psalms had no moral meaning) shows a sensitivity to that word’s moral implications and therefore a usage similar to Alfred’s in Bo. Ceux qui me la montrerent, croyoient que c’étoit de l’allemand ou de l’hebreu. 80) in Quire 16, the second and third leaves, after fol. 101 may have been omitted because a major liturgical division occurred soon after, at Ps. 109), all reflecting the cursus of the Roman Office.21 Such divisions were usually highlighted in medieval psalters by some type of decoration, and there is evidence that the Paris Psalter in its original state reflected this practice. In contents the Paris litany closely agrees with a litany for the Visitation of the Sick in the Lanelet Pontifical68 of St. 1031-46), as indicated by the following table:69 [[ Print Edition Page No. b, line 17 (interlinear): veniam, written between domine and tribuente (prayer no. 8824: The Paris Psalter,” Notes and Queries 241 (1996): 130-33. [21 ] For a detailed account of the distributio psalmorum of the Roman Office, see Johann M. First the evidence: in Ps(P), uirtus is translated by mægen (8x), by mægen and cræft (2x), and by cræft (1x). Mais sitôt que l’eus vû, je connus le caractere Anglo-saxon. 109).19 The missing leaves of Quires 3, 4, 7, 11, 14, 16, and 18 occur at points that mark, respectively, the last psalm of Matins for Sunday (Ps. Thus, the first missing leaf in Quire 1 had a portrait of David playing the harp, the missing fifth leaf in Quire 4 had “Winchester” acanthus decoration, traces of which are still visible on its surviving stub, and the seventh leaf of Quire 18 left blots of decoration (offset) on the verso of the preceding fol. Since the remaining missing leaves in the Paris Psalter mark similar types of division, it is reasonable to conclude that they also were decorated and that all were stolen for their decoration. 16 ]] Both lists have the same nucleus of saints and petitions in the same sequence. Thus, the additional categories in the Paris litany of Angelic Powers and English Martyrs are frequently omitted from English litanies; likewise, its fuller lists of Virgins and Petitions involve no more than the ready insertion (or removal) of blocks of items, the absence of which in the corresponding Lanelet categories is understandable in an abbreviated litany for the dying; and the differences in English Confessors probably reflect tailoring of a basic list to local needs. 2) above a caret mark, in the same fourteenth-century French hand. [15 ] The manuscript was recently repaired as indicated by a note on the lower margin of the inside rear cover, “BN restauration 1979, sous No. For a possible reason for this format, see Bernhard Bischoff, Latin Palaeography: Antiquity and the Middle Ages, trans. Hanssens, ed., Amalarii Episcopi Opera Liturgica Omnia, 3 vols., Studi e Testi 138-40 (Vatican City, 1948-50), esp. For other evidence of Roman usage in the Paris Psalter, see section III below. Clearly, this pattern of usage is very different from that of CP and quite the opposite of Bo, yet it does not necessarily prejudice the case for Alfredian authorship of Ps(P).

]]