Notes on the Textus Roffensis

http://kentarchaeology.org.uk/research/archaeologia-cantiana/ Kent Archaeological Society is a registered charity number 223382 © 2017 Kent Archaeological Society ( ioi ) NOTES ON THE TEXTUS ROFFENSIS.* BY DR. E. LIEBERMANN, BERLIN. Section 1. Former descriptions of the Textus Roffensis.—2. Date of the joining of the different parts.—3. Two works contained in it.—4. Till when separate.—5. Traces of separate existence.—0. The first work A formed out of two volumes.—7. The inscription covers, most likely, all the three volumes.— 8. In what sense was Ernulf considered to be the author?—9. Not Ernulf's autograph.—10. Age of the handwriting.—11. Ernulf is the father of the Textus.—12. I am concerned only with the Leges.—12A. Authors of Collections who have used the Textus itself.—13. The Chartulary of different hands.— 14. The oldest one, of about 1145, perhaps identical with the writer of the Leges.—14A. Value of the Chartulary.—15. Every piece of the part A (Leges) is but a copy.—16. But some pieces are only preserved to us in this Textus Roffensis.— 17. Boffensis used a few large compilations; he did not collect State Papers.—18. One of his sources was a Christ Church (Canterbury) volume.— 19. There existed a common source used by Boffensis and Corpus Cambridge 383.—20. One of Boffensis' sources was a composition of about A.D. 1000.— 21. Distinct groups in Boffensis A.—22. Kentish Law.—23. Alfred and Edmund groups.—24. jEthelstan group.—25. Instituta Cnuti.—26. The Canonical Tract.—26A. The Mass.—27. The Successions.—28. The History of Textus Boffensis since the sixteenth century.—29. Concordance between Textus Boffensis and the best prints. 1. A careful Catalogue of the contents of the Textus Roffensis was given {a) by Wanley, Libr. Septentrional Catal.. 1705, p. 273, which forms vol. iii. of Hickes' Antiq. liter. Septentr.; (b) Pegge, Archceologia, i. (1770) ; (c) Schmid Gesetze. der Ana els a chs en, 1858, p. xxiii. A short mention of it and a very meagre biography of Ernulf are to be found in T. D. Hardy's Descriptive Catalogue of MSS. relative to Great Britain, ii., p. 150. A facsimile of folio 44 is in plate 73 of the Palatograph. Soc, ii. ser., 1894. 2. The Textus was foliated about A.D. 1400. Therefore the different parts of which it consists [see sees. 3—6] had beeu brought under one cover at the end of the fourteenth century at the latest, but perhaps earlier ; not, however, earlier than the middle of the twelfth century (see sec. 4). If my hypothesis in sec. 7 about the meaning of "Textus Roffensis" is right , the connection between Laws and Records exists at least since the end of the thirteenth century. 3. Two different works are contained in the Textus :— A. Leges, without an original collective title. B. Privilegia S. Andreae Hrofensis. According to the original inscription on f. 119, B was begun not much, if at all, later than A (cf. sec. 14). * These remarks were hastily jotted down in 1893, and were not intended to be printed. The reader, therefore, is requested kindly to pardon the quantity of formal shortcomings, too numerous to be corrected in the proof sheets.— E. Liebermann. 102 NOTES ON THE TEXTUS ROEEENSIS. 4. A was separate from B in the middle of the twelfth century, because among the different pieces of B there is, f. 228, a Catalogue of the Cathedral Library (ed. Coates,* Archceologia Cantiana, 1866, Vol. VI., p. 126), naming as its first number at the top Instituta Begum Anglorum, i.e. A or A's, vol. ii. 5. A and B were bound under separate covers. This is proved by sec. 4, and by the fact that the quire (quaternio) commencing on f. 11.9 and ending on f. 126 verso is marked I. on the lower margin. Accordingly f. 134 verso is marked II. and so on. As a third argument that a new volume begins on f. 119,1 may adduce that fos. 117, 118 must have been fly-leaves. Formerly they were empty ; the insertions on them are of later date. 6. But A itself consists of two volumes not originally bound together, the former of which ended f. 57 verso, which still bears the character of a fly-leaf. Accordingly fos. 65, 73, 87, 95, shew under their back pages the faint quire marks I., II., IIL, IIII. These marks have been sometimes cut by the binder of tbe thirteenth or fourteenth century, or perhaps by a more modern one. There is also an internal division between these two parts of A, viz., the former volume contains laws not later than about A.D. 1080, while the latter begins with a twelfth-century translation, and contains Henry I.'s Charter. 7. The inscription on the first page "perErnulfum Episcopum" was written about the end of the thirteenth century. It remains uncertain whether its scribe intended to designate Ernulf as the author of all tbe three volumes. Perhaps, if the three volumes were not all under one binding at that time, he intended to ascribe to Ernulf the authorship of A. 1 only. More likely, however, he meant all the three volumes, as the local tradition in the sixteenth century considered the .Textus as it now is as one whole compiled by Ernulf ; besides, a book would hardly be called Textus Roffensis if it had contained only (as fos. 1—57, even fos. 1—118 do) universal English matter without local reference, while the title " Textus Roffensis " is very appropriate for a Rochester Chartulary connected with legal matter. The word Textus means sometimes Chartulary, Ledger-book, Register. MS. Cottou, Vespas. A 22, quotes among the books given by Ernulf : Textum. 8. Ernulf's authorship must not be understood in a modern sense; there is no authorf of Textus Roffensis in our sense. Nor must the inscription of 1300 necessarily mean anything more than a collector or compiler; nay, it even designates, perhaps, only the owner, aud (afterwards) donor or bequeather of the volume. 9. Ernulf's own hand has most likely not written any stroke iirthe whole volume, because great Bishops were used to leave this tedious copyist's work to junior clerks. It is certain that he did not write the Chartulary, the oldest hand of which penned a record of 1146. It is not impossible, though not the slightest argument is to be dis- * He collated the later catalogue of 1202 (ed. Rye, ib. iii., 47). f Sterne therefore (Tristram Shandy) ought not to have made Ernulf responsible for an anathema which is purely Anglo-Saxon. NOTES ON THE TEXTUS ROEPENSIS. 103 covered for it, that Ernulf did the correction of the early part of the work. 10. The character of the handwriting is decidedly everywhere' later than the style of the eleventh century. The general look of it would point rather to 1140—1150 ; but a monk born, say 1100, would shew the same penmanship in 1120 as in 1145. Educated and induced to copy this volume by Ernulf, he would designate it as Ernulf's work, though he might continue it through two decades after the Bishop's death. The list of the Archbishops of Canterbury (f. 110 v.) seems to be written by the same mau who wrote the Kentish Laws (f. 1), though of course at a later period of his work. Now this list appears to have been done under Archbishop William, as his name is the first without obit's date, and by a later hand. (The Rochester List having been tampered with by erasures, proves only that since 1148 a contemporary continuator was at work.) The pieces which are latest in date iu part A, viz., the Instituta Cnuti, and Henry's Charter, shew in the majority of cases still ce or e (for the classical cs), only rarely the mere e, which becomes universal after about 1150. 11. In the limited sense here pointed out Ernulf may be called the father of Textus Roffensis, or its first collector. A. In the first place the character of the man answers very well to this part. Ernulf, perhaps owing to his Erench (not Norman) nationality, had a feeling for the antiquity of the Anglo-Saxons. Dnder him the Anglo-Saxon Eadmer became Precentor of Christ Church; under him the last Anglo-Saxon historical phrases* were penned in Christ Church; under him Peterborough finished the string of the Anglo-Saxon annals.t The prayer of the Anglo- Saxon historian (A.S. 1114) for Ernulf is touching indeed; also (A.D. 1124) he is called " eadig," i.e. beatus. On the other hand Ernulf must have possessed a certain legal training : (a) coming out of Ivo's school and Lanfranc's ;J (b) at Canterbury as well as at Peterborough he cared for the Monastic temporalities ; the Chartulary would be considered as part of the " exterior " (administrative) business ; (c) Ernulf was deeply interested in the struggle between Church and State under Anselm (see Anselm's Correspondence) ; (d) Ernulf got from Anselm important State Papers to be preserved aud corned at Christ Church (see especially Ep. Anselmi, iv., 40, f. 58, A.D. 1104) ; (e) Ernulf is known as a scholar§ and an author legally trained ;|| ( / ) the material of the Textus came partly from Canterbury, as Ernulf himself did (see. below, see. 18). * Edited by me, Anglonormann. Oeschichtsquellen, p. I. ' t Edited by Earle, Two of the Saxon Chronicles, cf. p. xlviii. X Both Ivo and Ernulf were in monastic houses at Beauvais about the same time. They corresponded, and Bochester possessed, about 1120—1150, Epistolarium Ivonis Carnotensis, according to Textus Boffensis, f. 227. § Cf. Liebermann, Raginald von Canterbury, p. 527. || He wrote, 1089—1098, to Bishop Walkelin of Winchester, De Incestis Conjugiis, a tract oE Canon Law, at the end < f which he refers to a iiorsonal conversation about the matter with the late Lanfranc. This was printed by D'Achery (Ed. La Bar-re, iii., 464), aud thence by Migne, fafcr. Lat., 103, 1458. Eaginald, p. 539,1. 2, puts him into tho rank of doctors who rule and legislate. 104 NOTES ON THE TEXTUS ROEEENSIS. B. Several of these features (a to f) do not fit in with the character of Bishop Ralph, or of Bishops John, Asceline, and Walter, while for Gundulf's time (see below, sec. 14) the handwriting of the Textus would be too late, and for the end of the twelfth century too early. A second younger scribe was already at work about 1130 (sec. 14, c); also the linguistic forms are too well preserved for the reign of Henry II. If the work had been begun after Bishop John, Stephen's coronation charter would hardly be wanting. We should find the so-called Laws of Edward the Confessor, or of Henry, or pieces from the Latin Quadripartitus; instead of the Canonistic tract on fos. 81—88, we should have got an extract out of Gratian (see below, sec. 26); instead of Anglo-Saxon we should find Latin, as Rochester wrote its annals in Latin about 1170. The original end of the Canterbury and Rochester lists, fos. 110, 111, fits in with Ernulf's time; later c.ontinuators carry them on into the reign of Henry II. (a) If the Textus had been written by order of the Prior of Rochester without the Bishop's knowledge, or if it had been composed just a few years before or after Ernulf's episcopate, it would be very hard to explain how it could come to be traditionally called Ernulf's. 12. The Textus has been used by me only as far as it concerns Anglo-Saxon laws; besides, I tried only to ascertain facts about the origin of the volume. I therefore hardly looked through part B, the Chartulary. This was printed almost entirely by John Thorpe (Begistrum Boffense, Lond., 1769, folio). Single pieces from it were selected by almost every writer ou the Anglo-Saxons, or on Kent, or on Early English Law, or on the Early English Church. After Hearne (see sec. 28), Wilkins, and J. Thorpe, only very few antiquaries went to the Textus itself, the majority relying on the printed books. Eor the important exceptions, see sec. 12A. Eor the antiquaries who used Textus Roff. before Hearne and Thorpe, see below, sec. 28, a—p. 12A. Record Collections whose authors used Textus itself: — 1. Kemble, CodexDiplomaticusJEvi Saxonici, Lond., 1839—1848. He gave all the Textus Charters. 2. Benjamin Thorpe, Diplomatarium Mei Saxonici, 1865. He printed a few Roffensis Charters. However, he sometimes simply repeated Kemble's print. 3. Johu Earle's Hand-book to the Land Charters and other Saxonic Documents, 1888. He printed some Charters, if I mistake not, mostly out of Kemble. 4. Walter de Gray Birch, Gartularium Saxonicum. He has printed every Charter out of the Textus Roffensis itself. His vol. ii., 1887, reaches as far as A.D. 947, and vol. iii. only to 975. 13. The Chartulary is written by different hands.* 14. The oldest hand may be identical with the writer of the Leges (Part A). It certainly comes from the same Scriptorium * The portions (Hearne's Edition, p. 153) mentioning Henry I. and Archbishop Balph are of later hand. NOTES ON THE TEXTUS ROFFENSIS. 10 5 and age. The latest entry of this oldest hand I have found is of A.D. 1146, f. 206=Jaffe-L6wenfeld, Reg. Pontf, No. 6215. (a) This oldest scribe calls Gundulf " beatse memoriae," that is to say, he wrote after 1108. (b) He wrote after Ernulf's consecration, f. 190 v. = Hearne's Edition, p. 180. By the firsthand is also f. 183; f. 196 v.=Hearne, p. 191; f. 199=Hearne, p. 196; f. 228, Library Catalogue. (c) On the other hand the records of about 1130—1150 are generally by a later hand, for instance, f. 203--= Hearne, p. 203 (A.D. .1125—1136); Imar of Tusculum's Charter, 1142—1159; Eugenius iv. = Hearne, p. 208. 14A. The pieces of which the Record register consists still partly exist in the original. Eor instance, the Charter of A.D. 778 which Roffensis, f. 129, copied can be collated with his transcript; and this comparison proves that he worked most carefully. (Of. Earle, Land Charters, 53.) I cannot tell whether every piece in the Register has been printed; if not, all the records are sure to appear with Walter de Gray Birch (see above, sec. 12A, NO. 4). If there are, however, other unprinted pieces in the Chartulary they would not concern him, and ought to be edited at once. 15. No piece of Part A is original, that is to say, the writer did not compose one phrase in the volume; he was a copyist throughout. 16. But the direct source is not known to us of any element of the work. There are several pieces for which Roffensis gives better readings (i.e. a more original text) than any other Codex, and of some pieces there is no other MS. existing. Textus is unique for fos. I—5, Kentish Law; 32, Ordeal; 32 v., Tomb-robbery; 38, King's Peace; 47, William I. in Anglo-Saxon; 48, AJEthelred's Wantage Statute ; 49 v., Exorcisuius (well known in other arrangements of its elements, at least partly) ; 81 v., Accusatores [the single decreta are mostly (perhaps all of them) known, hut tho tract as a whole in this form is a copy of a work perhaps otherwise lost] ; 88, ./Ethelstan's London Law. 17. The labour of collecting,* bringing iuto order, and ascribing to the different kings, had been at least partly done in a lost volume, from which the Roffensis scribe copied page after page. There are several proofs of this. (a) On f. 44 the laws of Edmund follow Eadward, leaving out A?Ethelstan. The same curious omission occurs also in the Corpus Cambridge MS. 383, and in the Quadripartitusf (no doubt also in his lost Anglo-Saxon original) 4 Both of these latter works are not derived from Roffensis. All three must therefore have been derived from a (lost) legal compilation, written circa 950—1080. * Rochester possessed, according to the Catalogue quoted in sec. 4, several Anglo-Saxon volumes, viz., Pastoralis, i.e. King Alfred's version of St. Gregory, and Sermonalia Anglica in vol. ii., i.e. Aelfric. t Edited by me, p. 133. % In the same way Boffensis and Corpus Cambridge 383 put after Alfred-Ine: Be blaseruin, and Be forfange {cf. below, sec. 19). 106 NOTES ON THE TEXTUS ROEFENSIS. (b) The Wessex genealogy on f. 7 verso goes before the laws of Alfred-lne. The same connection exists in Corpus Cambridge 173, a Christ Church volume of about 930. (c) Eolio 57 verso, the scribe begins to copy a Christ Church Charter, but breaks off in the middle of the sentence, perceiving that this local Canterbury matter does not concern Rochester. He would surely never have picked out this single record foreign to his monastery, hut would easily be misled into copying what he found in his source. (d) Eos. 100—111 contain Catalogues of Princes and Prelates; these are, all of them, a mere copy of a well-known and widespread work, begun about A.D. 815 at Canterbury. Among its numerous MSS. Roffensis is most akin to Cotton, Tiberius B, V, about A.D. 1000. Both of them bring the lists of the Bishops of Leicester, Lichfield, Hereford, Lindsey, Dun wich, and Tork, exactly to the same date, as does MS. Corpus Cambridge 183, but nine other lists end in Roffensis and Tiberius about A.D. 990. In Tiberius and Roffensis (and in no other MS. of this work) two Archbishops of Canterbury of that time are honoured by surnames— the " Good One," " Dei amicus." I therefore conclude that their common source* was a Canterbury monk continuing his predecessor's work of the ninth century about the end of the tenth. 18. The volume, or one of the volumes, copied by Roffensis was a Christ Church book. (See above, sec. 17, b, c, d.) 19. One (lost) source of Roffensis was used also by Corpus Cambridge 383f (see above, sec. 17, a), as in the Laws of Alfredlne, Edward, jEthelstan II., they offer some common readings deviating from the other MSS. Secondly, Roffensis, f. 95, " charm for stolen cattle," answers in many peculiarities to 383, while other MSS. differ. This charm does occur in many other MSS., but only in two in the middle of legal matter, viz., in Roffensis and 383. Thirdly, Roffensis, f. 7 verso, and MS. 383 contain the Wessex Genealogy, cf. below, sec. 23. 20. One of the Collectanea volumes copied by Roffensis had been composed about A.D. 1000, as the Wessex Genealogy, f. 8, ends at a time when the duration of iEthelred's reign was not yet known ; also the tabular work (see above, sec. 17, d) was derived from a composition of about 990. Perhaps the two works of about A.D. 1000, mentioned in this sec. 20, formed one identical volume. 21. There are distinct groups to be discerned in the Textus :— (a) Kentish group, fos. 1—5, exists only here; (b) Early Wessex, fos. 7 v.—32, exists also in Corpus Cambridge 383 (see above, sec. 19) ; (c) iEthelstan group, fos. 32 v.—37; (d) Edward- * Boffensis, though younger, gives some better readings than Tiberius, and is therefore not derived from it. t This comes from St. Paul's, London; it was written about A.D. 1120. By the Editors of Anglo-Saxon Law it is called B. NOTES ON THE TEXTUS ROPEENSIS. 107 Edmund group ; (e) Instituta Cnuti, fos. 58—80; ( / ) Successions of Kings and Prelates, fos. 101—116. They constitute one work. 22. The Kentish law does not appear in the Textus in a language which can have been spoken in Kent about 600 and 700, but generally in the Wessex forms of about A.D. 1000. The modernization is far too harmonious to be a mere copyist's work of the twelfth century, who can easily be proved* sometimes to have misunderstood his text. I conclude, therefore, that Roffensis used a book where the three first pieces had already been collected and transliterated. There remain, however, in the Textus Roffensis some distinct traces of very early and Kentish provincial dialect.f 23. The early Wessex group. Alfred himself embodied Ine's laws into his code. The Wessex genealogy was connected with these laws already in their oldest MS., viz., MS. Corpus Cambridge 173, of tbe beginning of tbe tenth century (cf. sec. 17, b). Erom this MS. the genealogy was printed in B. Thorpe, Anglo- Saxon Chronicle, and Earle, Two of the Saxon Ghronicles,% but Roffensis gives a continuation through the tenth century. In this connection I suppose Alfred's law and genealogy came into the hands of a man who augmented them by some short paragraphs, and modernized them by:—(a) putting in definite articles; (b) putting in prepositions instead of the instrumental case; (c) avoiding obsolete words, geswicnan, unsyngian, middangeard. This anonymous scribe may have annexed the Edward-Edmund group (see sec. 21, cl). At any rate his work, as well as the latter group, was clearly used, not only by Roffensis, but by Corpus Cambridge 383 (cf. above, sec. 19). Roffensis shews a distinct trace of having used (though as T said not directly) an Alfredian MS., in preserving the vowel o before nasals; for instance in mon, which either the copyist or the corrector modernized by adding a stroke and perverting into rnren ; in the same way single vowels have been altered into broken ones, and i into y. 24. The. JEthelstan group is only partly preserved in MS. Corpus Cambridge 383, out of which, unluckily, many leaves have been torn. Even this may belong to the same class of laws mentioned in sec. 23. 25. The Latin version of Cnut is not the common one printed by Thorpe§ and Schmid,§ but the so-called Instituta Cnuti,|| printed by Kolderup-Rosenvinge, Anniversaria Univers. Havn. (Kopenhavn, 1826), where Roffensis has been collated. 26. The Canonical tract about the suitor in Ecclesiastical Law seems to me (who unluckily took too short notes of it) to be a copy or an extract from a work written shortly before Gratian. The decretals it contains are not all of them to be found in Gratian * He confounded h with the thorn-rune, and he separated the words wrongly. t Another archaic trace is the use of the f-like form for y. X Sweet, Oldest Texts, 179, printed a fragment from Additional MS. 23,211, of the ninth century. § See sec 28, to. || Cf. Transact. Histor. Soc, 1893, p. 77. 108 NOTES ON THE TEXTUS ROEEENSIS. or Ivo, or Anselmo Dedicata, or Beneclictus Levita, or Burchard, but they—at least those I noted—come from Pseudo-Isidorus, hardly, however, directly.* This tract ought to be identified (which could easily be done if one had the inscription and first two or three words of every decretal). It may be an "Ineditum," and may constitute a hitherto unknown monument either of Ernulf's cauonistic scholarship or of his school; at any rate it is an important link in the history of the canon law, introduced into England from Bee through Lanfranc, Anselm, and their circle. Possibly the same cauonistic collection was used by Roffensis and by the contemporary author of the so-called Leges Henrici I, 26A. I have no note whatever of the treatise about the Mass, f. 116 v. There exist legions of similar tracts. The identification could not be difficult from three or four lines of the beginning. Can it be connected with Ernulf's letter to Lambert of St. Bertin about the sacrifice of the altar? This was printed by D'Achery and Migne. (See above, sec. 11.) 27. The lists of Princes and Prelates are only partially printed from Roffensis by Gale and Hearne (see below), and made use of by the authors of Easti Eccl. Anglic, for instance Hardy's Le Neve (1854), and Will. Stubbs' Begistr. saer. Angl. (1858). Only the Anglo-Saxon Princes and Prelates are at all of historical importance. They have been printed, and commented on from several MSS. which are older and better than Roffensis. These lists, therefore, are valuable chiefly from the later inserted continuations, because these by the date of their handwriting help to determine the age when Textus was in process of formation. (a) E. 101, Wessex Genealogy. An older form of this exists in Cotton, Tiberius B, V, of about A.D. 1000, f. 22 ; cf. Kemble, Stammtafel der Westsachsen (Mlinchen 1836), p. 10. This ends with JEthelred IL, while Roffensis, or rather his source, added Eadmund, 1016. This number (a), as well as below (b) and (e), were printed, though not from Roffensis, in Wright and Halliwell's Beliquice Antiquce, vol. ii., pp. 169—173 (from Tiber. B, V), in Elorence of Worcester (see below, g), in Alfred of Beverley, in Langebeke, Script. Hist. Dan., ii., 1770. (b) E. 102. The not- Wessex Heptarchy (cf. Tiber. B, V, f. 22 v.), printed from Vespasian B, VI, of the beginning of the ninth century in Sweet, Oldest English Texts, 169. (c) E. 103 v. Hee sunt genealogia Regum Occid. Sax. = Tiberius B, V, f. 23. (d) E. 105, Popes. The first hand ends exactly at the same point as the earliest known MS. of this work, Vespasian B, VI, with " 99 Leo Sanctus," 816. The other one of Henry II.'s reign leads on from " C. Stephanus [816]—Celestinus " [1191—1198]. This continuation must have been written 1191—1198. This list was printed by Pauli, Neues Archiv, v. 63, 1880, from Tiber. B, V, f. 19 v. * Its source may have been one or both of the works which the Catalogue, 227 v., entitles, Canones et decreta pontilicum (possibly Pseudo-Isidore) and Exceptiones de eisdem. NOTES ON THE TEXTUS ROEEENSIS. 109 (e) E. 107, Emperors' List. The beginning of this was most likely on the lost former leaf, 107 verso, which has been now replaced.* The List now commences "34. Constantinus filius Constantini et Helene " [323—331], and ends " 67 Leo." I cannot tell for certain whether Leo IV., 775—780,is meant; generally the lists leap from him to the Erankish Emperors. The same Catalogue is in Tiber. B, V, f. 20. (/') E. 107 verso The Oriental Patriarchs. The same Catalogue is in Tiberius B, V, f. 20 v. Jerusalem ends in A.D. 386. (g) E. 110 v., The Anglo-Saxon Bishops. This collection exists also in Vespasian B, VI, f. 108; Sweet, Oldest Texts, p. 167, published its Anglo-Saxon names. The whole work is printed, only in a continued and altered form (viz., in Elorence of Worcester,] of about A.D. 1115), but its author lived and all of the lists ended originally in 800—810. Erom six other MSS., partly of the ninth century,J and from Roffensis the work could be reconstructed. Among them Tiberius B, V, f. 20, is next akin to Roffensis in this respect as in the foregoing numbers a—f, though not his source. They both used a common Canterbury source of about A.D. 990.§ 28. The history of the Textus Roffensis is almost the history of Anglo-Saxon studies in general. If the archives of Rochester Cathedral contain MS. notes about the scholars who lent or read the Textus, especially in the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries, their publication would be a boon for the elucidation of the Anglo- Saxon revival. (a) John Joscelin used Anglo-Saxon legal MSS., and, it is said, also the Textus Roffensis for his Anglo-Saxon Glossary, which is now MS. Cotton, Titus A, 16. (b) William Lambarde, the first editor of Anglo-Saxon law, did not know the Textus Roffensis when he published his Kpxmovoy.la, 1568, 4°,|| but he perceived its paramount value at once'ft as soon as he saw it, and in bis Perambulation of Kent, 1576,** he printed, pp. 307, 357, 364, from f. 193, Be Leod gchincSum, and from the Chartulary the duty of keeping Rochester Bridge in order and Beorhtrie's Will. (c) Francis Tate copied large parts of Textus Roffensis in 1589. So says Wanley (see sec. 1), p. 185 seq.; he describes this copy, Cotton MS., Julius C, 2 (see next line). (d) An anonymous copy of the seventeenth century, descriptum ut videtur ex Jul. C, 2, is quoted by Wanley, p. 305. (e) Henry Spelman, Concilia et decreta Eccl. Britann. (1639, fol.), vol. i., p. 127, printed the beginning of Text. Roff.: A-Ethelbert, * Else one cannot see why a writer of the twelfth century begins the list of the Roman Emperors, f. 107, not by No. 1, but by No. 34. f There are different editions, the best is Monum. Hist. Britann., by Petrie, Sharpe and Hardy (1848), p. 616. J Cf. Thompson's Catalogue of Ancient MSS. in the British Museum (1884), p. 79. § Cf. above, sec. 17, d. \\ Repeated by Abr. Wheloc, 1644, folio. •fl See his marginal note signed W. L., 1573, Textus Roffensis, f. 1. ** Second edition 1596; third edition without date. 110 NOTES ON THE TEXTUS ROEEENSIS. sec. 1, and p. 194, a Latin translation of Wihtred, and p. 406, Be hadbote=Roff., f. 7. Spelman caused transcripts from Textus Roff. to be made for the use of Abr. Wheloc's projected Glossary, which exists in Harley MS. 761. Spelman sent these or other transcripts from the Textus to (f) John de Laet, who published from those transcripts at Anvers, 1640, his Latin translation of the laws of iEthelbert and Hlothare without printing the Anglo-Saxon text. (g) Wheloc, who in 1644 re-edited Lambarde's Archaionomia with many additions, did not use the Textus Roff. (h) Edmund Gibson acquired John de Laet's, or rather Spelman's, Anglo-Saxon copy and gave it to George Hickes, who printed it in Ling. vet. Sept. Thes. II, Diss. Epist., Oxon, 1703, folio, p. 89. This then was the first edition of the Kentish Law, except Wihtred, not taken from the Textus Roff. directly, but through an intermediate copy of about A.D. 1635. Furthermore, Hickes laid great stress on the importance of the different unedited parts of the Textus Roff., pp. 79—94, and printed (p. 79) Lambarde's marginal note (see above, b). (i) William Somner, Dictionarium Saxonico-Latino Angl. (1659, fol.), used the Textus (or copies of it) and printed some short fragments from it. He printed some records of the Chartulary in his History of Gavelkind, 1660. (j) Monasticon Anglicanum, ed. by Dodsworth and Dugdale (1681, fol.) (and perhaps the new Monasticon of Ellis still more so), contains Anglo-Saxon records most likely from Roffensis. (I have not these books at hand at present.) (j k) Edw. Browne's Fascic rerum expetend., 1689, printed the Exorcismum Ordalii. (7c) Henry Wharton, Anglia Sacra, 1691, folio i., 329, De sede Roffensi gave " Ernulfi Collect. Roff." This was repeated by Migne, Patrol. Lot, 163,1443. (0 Gale, Hist. Britann. Script., xv. (1691), 792=Roff., f. 102/ (m) Wanley. See above, sec. 1. (n) William and Elizabeth Elstob printed, about 1710, Proposals for Editing Anglo-Saxon Law and collated Wheloc (see g) with T. R., but William died 1715 (? cf. Petheram, Jlisiorieal Sketch of Anglo-Saxon Lit., 1840, p. 89), and this project came to nothing. (o) Sir John Fortescue Aland, Difference between an Absolute and a Limited Monarchy (1714), Preface, used the Elstob papers for Anglo-Saxon Law. (p) Harris, History of Kent, 1719, printed the Laws of iEthelbert and Hlothare and Byrthric's wili from De Laet's transcripts and translations from Textus Roff. (q) Thomas Hearne, Textus Boffensis, 1720.* He did not print immediately from the Textus, but from Harley MS. 6523. He left out purposely and expressly everything printed by Lambarde, though Lambarde had used inferior MSS. * See above, sec. 12, NOTES ON THE TEXTUS ROEEENSIS. Ill (r) David Wilkins, Leges Anglo-Saxonicce (London, 1721, fol.) collated Lambarde, Spelman, and Hickes, with Julius C, 2 (see. c), and Textus Roffensis. Several of its pieces were here printed for the first time (for instance Wihtred), or rather at the same time with Hearne's edition (see above), which was not yet known to Wilkins. Indeed Wilkins had begun his work (which directly continues the Elstob project hatched by Hickes) by 1716. (s) John Thorpe and the other prints from the Chartulary, see above, sec. 12. (t) Samuel Pegge, Archceologia, vol. i., 1770, gave a valuable description of Textus Roffensis. (u) J. Webb projected an edition of Anglo-Saxon Law about 1810 {cf Bosworth's Elements of Anglo-Saxon Grammar, 1823, p. xxxv.), but in vain. (v) Reinh. Schmid, Tiber die Angelsdchs. Bechtsquellen, in the periodical Hermes, xxxi. (1828). This mail, who unluckily never saw an Anglo-Saxon MS., has done more for the history of the earliest English law than anybody before or since. (w) Reinh. Schmid based Die Gesetze der Angelsachsen (1832) ouly on printed books. The value of this book consists therefore in its explanations, and in the very careful collector's work. (x) Benjamin Thorpe (so generally quoted, though the best part of the work was done by Price), Ancient Laios and Institutes of England, 1840, 2 vols, octavo and 1 vol, folio. Thorpe or Price collated and exhausted the legal part of Textus Roffensis altogether. (y) Reinh. Schmid, Die Gesetze der Angelsachsen, 2 Aufl., 1858, used Thorpe's edition, and the deep researches of the German historians aud jurists of Grimm's school, to which J. M. Kemble's Saxons in England belongs, and so brought out what must be considered the Standard Edition up to now. (z) Osw. Cockayne, Leechdoms of Early England (Rolls Series, 1866), iii., 286, printed Text. Roff., f. 95 (not 50), without perceiving that from 1. 13 the charm ends, and there begins the legal formula which Thorpe had printed long before. (aa) Eor a new edition of Anglo-Saxon Law,* which the Bavarian Academy of Munich entrusted me with, I collated 'the Textus Roffensis, fos. 1—100, all through, with the exception of the Canonical collection, f. 82, which 1 excerpted, but too briefly. I copied fos. 7—9, Wessex Genealogy, f. 95 charm (see above z), fos. 101—104, Royal Genealogies, f. 110 v., Bishops' Lists. All these four pieces have been lying for some years in my desk in readiness for the printer. I shall edit them from older and better MSS., using the Rochester readings for variation notes. * The first fasoiole of my Q-esetze der Angelsachsen appeared in 1898. 112 NOTES ON THE TEXTUS ROEEENSIS. 29. LIST OP CONTENTS OF THE TEXTUS KOFEENSIS.-PAET A. Folio. 1 8v. 5 7 7 ? . 9 31 v. 82 82 v. 37v. 38 88 v. 39 v. )( 40 41 v. 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 v. 53 v. 53 v. 57 v, 58 63 75 80 81 v. 88 93 93 v. 91 v. 95 95 98 98 99 T. 101 102 103 >> v. 105 108 107 107 v. 109 109 v. 110 v. 116 V. 119 AEthelbert Hlothare Wihtred Had ^ Wessex Genealogy 1 Alfred; 24 v. Ine > Blaseras \ Forfang J Ordal Walreaf AEthelstan I I . ) V. [ King's Peace ) Oath forms Oath Wergeld Edward and Guthrum s Wergeld j Edward I. f „ II. > Edmund I. ( Edmund II. > AEthelred I. ' William II. AEthelred III. Exorcismus.aquce » fern ,, panis Cnut for Ch. Church VOL. II. Instituta Cnuti, I. 1 „ ni. William III. Exooptiones ex deere-1 tispontifleum, qualeB > accusatores ) iEthelstan VI. Leodgethincth Wergeld Wedding Charm ) Bequeathing form f Charta Henrici I.coron. Excommunicato major „ minor Succession of Kings— Adam to Eadward Ironside „ Northumbria ) ,, Mercia i ,. Kent „ Wessex „ Popes \ In place of lost leaf? Succession of Emperors ,, „ Patriarchs, Jerusalem 1 „ „ Patriarchs, , Alexandria / „ „ Patriarchs, Antiochia „ „ English Bishops / History of the Massif Part II., Chartulary** Hearne Edition, 1720. 1 6 9 Wanting 12 13 Wanting 13 14 15 Wanting 18 17 19 . 29 33 37 Wanting. 39 Wanting Wanting 48 Wanting 49 Wanting 51 65 1 59 ; 59-60 Wanting (Part) 60 61 > Wanting / B. Thorpe, 8vo Ed., Vol. I. 2 26 86 n., 240 Wanting 44; Ine 102 224 224 226 228 196 220 224 178 182 190 168 174 168 160 244 248 280 488 292 Wanting 490 Wanting 228 190 186 254 Wanting 184 497 Wanting W anting B. Thorpe, Folio Ed. 1 11 16 393 Wanting 27; Ine 45 95 „ 96 96 83 93 95 76 78 o. 12 and 13 80 71 75 68 69 104 105 119 210 124 ( 1 Wanting \ 211 Wanting 97 81 79 108 Wanting 78 215 Wanting Schmid Gesetze der Angelsachsen, 1858. P. 2. 10. 14. Anhang ix. Wanting.* 58; Ine 20. Anhang XIII. „ XIT. „ XVI. „ XV. P. 130. 152. Anhang XII. » x. Anhang ym., 2, TIII., 1. Anhang T IL, 3. P. 118. Anhang Tn, , l , P. no. 114. 172. 176. 198. 352. 212. Anhang XTII., Anhang XTII., 2. Anhang XTII., 3. Wanting. Instituta Cnuti collated, p. 250, as versio Colbertina.t Anhang xx. P. 354. Wan ting.J 156. Anhang y. „ VII., 2. » TI. Wanting.§ Anhang xi. i, XXI. Wanting.|| * Partly edited by Thorpe and Earle, see sec. 23. f Ed. Kolderup, cf. see. 25. t Perhaps unedited, see see. 26. g See see. 28, it. || Soe see, 27. t Perhaps unprinted, see Bee. 26A. ** See sees. 12, 12A.