{"id":8482,"date":"2016-09-30T02:28:05","date_gmt":"2016-09-30T02:28:05","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/manuscriptevidence.org\/wpme\/?p=8482"},"modified":"2019-08-13T20:30:17","modified_gmt":"2019-08-13T20:30:17","slug":"seminar-on-the-evidence-of-manuscripts-february-1993","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/manuscriptevidence.org\/wpme\/seminar-on-the-evidence-of-manuscripts-february-1993\/","title":{"rendered":"Seminar on the Evidence of Manuscripts (February 1993)"},"content":{"rendered":"

“Corpus Christi College, Cambridge, MS 44:
\nThe Corpus Canterbury Pontifical”
\nParker Library, 27 February 1993<\/h3>\n
\"Invitation<\/a>

Invitation Letter Page 1 for 27 February 1993<\/p><\/div>\n

\"Invitation<\/a>

Invitation Letter Page 2 for 27 February 1993<\/p><\/div>\n

In the Series of Seminars and Workshops on “The Evidence of Manuscripts”<\/a>
\nThe Parker Library, Corpus Christi College, Cambridge<\/p>\n

2-page Invitation in pdf<\/a>, with 1-page RSVP Form.<\/p>\n

This Workshop followed the Workshops and other Events
\nof the Research Group on Manuscript Evidence
\nin Japan in November and December 1992<\/a>.<\/p>\n

The previous Seminar held in England took place in Oxford and considered<\/p>\n

“Research on Anglo-Saxon Manuscripts in Cambridge and Oxford”<\/a>
\nPembroke College, Oxford, 20 June 1992<\/p>\n

*****<\/p>\n

The Plan<\/h3>\n

Dated 20 January 1993, the 2-page Invitation Letter (shown here and downloadable here<\/a> with the 1-page RSVP Form) provides the Menu for the Food for Thought.<\/p>\n

<\/p>\n

\"\u00a9<\/a>

\u00a9 The British Library Board. Arundel MS 155, folio 7r. November in the Kalendar of the Arundel Psalter, recording the ordination of Saint Alphege.<\/p><\/div>\n

We plan to hold a workshop on Saturday, 27 February, devoted to Corpus Christi College, MS 44<\/a>. This imposing eleventh-century manuscript, the Corpus Canterbury Pontifical, contains episcopal services in Latin, with prefatory texts in Old English.<\/p>\n

The rites include the dedication of a church, the ordination of various orders of clergy, the coronation of a king and queen and the enthronement of an archbishop returning from Rome with the pallium<\/a>.\u00a0 The damaged Old English texts include an account of the significance of church bells.\u00a0 The litanies mention saints especially revered at Canterbury<\/a>; among them St Alphege<\/a> provides a terminus post quem<\/em> of 1012 and perhaps 1023.\u00a0 Interlinear Latin glosses are identifiable as the work of a scribe of St Augustine’s Abbey<\/a>.\u00a0 Added musical notation for services of consecrating both a church and an archbishop imply use for particular occasions, perhaps at Christ Church Cathedral<\/a>.\u00a0 The book may have been made for an archbishop.\u00a0 It belonged to Ely Cathedral<\/a> at least by the late medieval period.\u00a0 It shows few signs of use until its extensive restoration for <\/a>Archbishop Parker<\/a> in the sixteenth century.\u00a0 Its date, place of origin and early history remain open to question.<\/a><\/p>\n

The Years’ Long Focus of Research<\/h3>\n

As the Letter explains,<\/p>\n

The manuscript has been the subject of study in our research work at the Parker Library over a number of years.\u00a0 For example, it has been closely examined for a new catalogue<\/a> of Anglo-Saxon and related manuscripts at Corpus.\u00a0 Its damaged binding calls for repair or replacement, so rebinding may be required.\u00a0 As part of our on-going exploration of the manuscript, the workshop will discuss its character, its problems, its context and related matters.\u00a0 We hope you might attend to give your advice and help.<\/p>\n

At Least “Two Sides to Every Storey”<\/h3>\n

The claims for the manuscript are multiple, especially when viewed across the centuries.<\/p>\n

1. Saint Augustine’s Abbey as Possible Maker<\/h4>\n

With a view toward the Cathedral.\u00a0 For the Corpus Canterbury Pontifical:\u00a0 its Archbishop as a possible patron included.\u00a0 Currying favour may have seemed a Good Plan.<\/p>\n

\"Ruins<\/a>

Ruins of Saint Augustine’s Abbey, with a view toward Canterbury Cathedral. Photograph by Casey and Sonja, via Wikipedia Commons.<\/p><\/div>\n

2. Canterbury Cathedral or Its Archbishop(s) as Early Owner<\/h4>\n
\"Plans<\/a>

Plans of Canterbury Cathedral at Different Periods: ‘Saxon Cathedral’ and ‘In 1774’. Hartley Withers, ‘The Cathedral Church of Canterbury’ (1897), page 130.<\/p><\/div>\n

\"Southwest<\/a>

Southwest Porch of Canterbury Cathedral, with niches filled by 1869 with sculptures by Theodore Pfyffers. Photography<\/p><\/div>\n

Which Archbishop?\u00a0 How about, say, Lanfranc (as seen in an early image, in Bodl MS 569)<\/a>?\u00a0 And as presented full-length sternly among the architectural sculptures of 1864\u20131869 by Theodore Pfyffers<\/a> placed in niches over the SouthWest Porch of Lanfranc’s successors’ Cathedral?<\/p>\n

What with the Norman Conquest<\/a> as an Interruption, To Put It Mildly?
\nMore Than Two Sides To Every Storey.\u00a0 ‘Nuff Said?<\/p>\n

\"Canterbury<\/a>

Canterbury Cathedral, 1990. Photography \u00a9 Mildred Budny.<\/p><\/div>\n

\"Canterbury<\/a>

Canterbury Cathedral, 1990. Photography \u00a9 Mildred Budny.<\/p><\/div>\n

\"Canterbury<\/a>

Canterbury Cathedral 1990. Photography \u00a9 Mildred Budny<\/p><\/div>\n

<\/h4>\n

<\/h4>\n

<\/h4>\n

<\/h4>\n

<\/h4>\n

*****<\/h4>\n

3. Ely Cathedral<\/h4>\n

Collecting the Spoils?<\/p>\n

\"Ely<\/a>

Ely Cathedral, North-East aspect. Proof of Print by John Buckler (1770-1851), via Wikimedia Commons.<\/p><\/div>\n

Collecting the Spoils, Part II<\/h3>\n

From Ely after the Reformation<\/a> into the hands of Matthew Parker. Our detailed research on the manuscript and the evidence for its history makes it possible to identify possible routes from Ely to Parker, and to name names. Not forgetting some associations and affiliations arising from, through or around the marriage in January 1567 of his son John to Joana, daughter of Richard Cox, Bishop of Ely<\/a>. There are other candidates, too.\u00a0 The entry for MS 44 (Number 46) in the Illustrated Catalogue<\/strong> of Anglo-Saxon, and Early Anglo-Norman Manuscript Art at Corpus Christi College, Cambridge<\/a> (1997) tells the tale.\u00a0 The current state of the entry distributed among the Handouts at the Workshop spells it all out.<\/p>\n

\"Matthew<\/a>

Matthew Parker stands outside the entrance to the Chapel in his College. August 2005. Photography \u00a9 Mildred Budny.<\/p><\/div>\n

The Speakers<\/h3>\n

We return to the Invitation Letter.\u00a0 As it says, as usual,<\/p>\n

We aim to run the workshop on informal lines, as a round table. This will give plenty of opportunity to respond to the speakers and ask questions.<\/p>\n

The subjects:<\/p>\n

\"Statue<\/a>

Statue of Lanfranc, Archbishop of Canterbury, in sombre mood. Southwest Porch of Canterbury Cathedral. Photograph by Ealdgyth via Creative Commons.<\/p><\/div>\n

Mildred Budny will provide an introduction to the manuscript and summarise our research work on it.<\/p>\n

Ray Page will comment on its Old English texts and Matthew Parker’s ownership.<\/p>\n

Tim Graham<\/a> will survey its early modern additions and its probable route to Parker from Ely Cathedral.<\/p>\n

Catherine Hall will examine its layout and its musical notation as evidence for liturgical use.<\/p>\n

Richard Emms will consider the evidence for its origin at St Augustine’s Abbey and its possible ownership by Archbishop Stigand<\/a>.<\/p>\n

David Farmer<\/a> [David Farmer<\/a>] will consider its litanies and its possible ownership by Archbishop Lanfranc<\/a>.<\/p>\n

Simon Keynes<\/a> will be on hand to assess the evidence for its early ownership at Ely through Stigand and for Anglo-Saxon manuscripts at Ely.<\/p>\n

Andrew Prescott<\/a> will discuss the transmission of pontificals<\/a> in the late Anglo-Saxon and early Anglo-Norman periods.<\/p>\n

As always, “We hope that others will contribute to the discussion from their areas of specialisation and interest”.<\/p>\n

The Manuscript(s)<\/h3>\n

The manuscript will be available for examination during the workshop, along with others in the collection. They will include Anglo-Saxon manuscripts containing pontificals or pontifical extracts (MSS 146<\/a>, 163<\/a> and 265<\/a>) and eleventh-century liturgical or other manuscripts produced at Canterbury (for example, MSS 162<\/a>, 267<\/a> and 270<\/a>).<\/p>\n

As usual, “Other manuscripts may emerge for inspection as they occur to us in the course of the session”.<\/p>\n

The Logistics<\/h3>\n

As usual,<\/p>\n

The workshop will meet in the Parker Library. We will begin at 11 a.m., break for lunch and continue until about 4:30 p.m. Because the College no longer provides lunches on Saturdays we have to adjourn for lunch in town. This time, alas, we must ask our participants to contribute to the cost of lunch, as our Research Group funds cannot cover it. To let us know whom we may expect, please fill out the enclosed form and return it to me as soon as possible.<\/p>\n

The Participants<\/h3>\n

\"\u00a9<\/a>

\u00a9 The British Library Board, Royal MS 10 A.XII, folio 2v. Saint Dunstan writes in formal mode while wearing the pallium as archbishop.<\/p><\/div>Invitations were sent to:<\/p>\n

R.I. Page, Mildred Budny, Tim Graham, Catherine Hall, Nicholas Hadgraft, Nigel Wilkins, Simon Keynes, Andrew Prescott, Richard Emms, David Farmer, Christopher Brooke, Nicholas Brooks, Christine Fell, Malcolm Godden, Patrick Wormald, David Wilson, Richard Southern, Martin Brett, Susan Rankin, Tessa Webber, Benedicta Ward.<\/p>\n

Present (according to the Notes on the Day in the Research Group Archives):<\/p>\n

David H. Farmer, Martin Brett, Richard Emms, Nigel Ramsay, Simon D. Keynes, Jennifer O’Reilly, Andrew Prescott, Pav. Finland, Tessa Webber, Catherine Hall, Nicholas Brooks, Timothy C. Graham, Mildred Budny.<\/p>\n

The Archives<\/h3>\n

The paper folder for this Workshop preserved in the Research Group Archives retains some preparatory notes and the originals or copies of some of the correspondence for the organisation of the event; a full set of the Handouts issued on the day; and the unnumbered 2-page set of Mildred Budny’s handwritten notes in pencil on the day, with the date and place “27.2.93 \/ PL” (= Parker Library).<\/p>\n

That set records on Page 1 the “running order” for the workshop and the “MSS” brought onto the table, then lists on Page 2 the attendees (see above).<\/p>\n

The Running Order<\/h4>\n

The “running order”, which concludes with an unnumbered item (“discussion:\u00a0 whither?”), lists 11 numbered entries with names (or initials) and sometimes with a brief note on the speaker’s subject. \u00a0 There are a couple of changes to the plan sketched in the Invitation Letter, and also to the handwritten plan.<\/p>\n

Thus, although not listed on the prior program, Nicholas Hadgraft spoke about the binding, and two of the intended presenters spoke twice:\u00a0 Tim Graham first “briefly” on the Old English, and then on the 16th-century connection (Numbers 4 and 11 in the list); Catherine Hall first on the character of the manuscript, and then on the neumes (Numbers 3 and 8). In the handwritten list, Nicholas Hadgraft’s position was originally Number “6”, before some shifting in some others’ order.\u00a0 A couple of the numbered items shift position, with arrows to indicate the revised sequence, repositioning upward the position for both David Farmer (originally 7) and Simon Keynes (originally either 6, with a “?”, or 9).\u00a0 Those shifts reposition Nicholas Hadgraft’s presentation in the sequence.<\/p>\n

An Aside, Completely On Point
\nWhy Bother to Mention?
\nAh, Indeed!<\/h4>\n

The point of reporting the contrasts \u2014 not conflicts but variations in this case \u2014 between the sequence proposed in the Invitation Letter and the sequence recorded in the handwritten notes on the day is to reflect that the preparations and the accomplishment remained flexible, responding to the developing requirements, potentials, and opportunities, to which the organisation readily responded. (As ever in the history of the Research Group on Manuscript Evidence.)\u00a0 Also to remind us that the aims presented in circulated notices may not completely correspond to the Actuality of the Event.<\/p>\n

To state that the actuality differed in certain respects from the advertised plan is partly to State the Obvious.\u00a0 However, in delving into the Research Group Archives at a distance of more than a couple of decades, while I am still alive and sentient, arouses the observation that not so many reports of scholarly events treat their enactments as living entities, with the interaction between the proposed plan and the actualisation.\u00a0 Is that a problem?\u00a0 Depends on the point of view.\u00a0 For the most part, no.\u00a0 People prepare for and come to an event, present their Stuff and\/or Listen and provide feedback, and then everyone goes away.\u00a0 Publications in one form or another might ensue, with another sort, or other sorts, of record(s) for the event and its impact.<\/p>\n

That the written, circulated, and published records of an event which unfolds in time may differ in certain respects one from another follows just as day follows night, and vice versa.\u00a0 Examples in the tradition of events organised or co-organised by the Research Group on Manuscript evidence include the varying titles announced for the 2003 Colloquium<\/a> and the changes to a session or two at several of the International Congresses on Medieval Studies over the years<\/a>. One of our Blogposts describes some changes to an individual’s documentary record from state to state and from State to State: Lillian Vail Dymond<\/a>.<\/p>\n

Not infrequently, as sometimes recorded on our Pages, when individuals or organisations come to publish the materials or research relating to or emanating from our events, our name is dropped, and not in the good way, as in giving respect or consideration, or even an honourable mention, but just plain dumped.\u00a0 One might think, from such records, that we had nothing whatsoever to do with the efforts.<\/p>\n

At present, we survey the whole Series of Seminars and other scholarly Events<\/a>, in this case the Early Series focused upon “The Evidence of Manuscripts”<\/a>.\u00a0 There is the unusual opportunity whereby the Archives of an international scholarly organisation which became, in the United States, a nonprofit educational corporation, came into the charge of an expert Archivist (Yours Truly), with scholarly interests as well as organizational experience.\u00a0Plus an abiding love of manuscripts, the written word, and the transmission of knowledge across the centuries.\u00a0 As witness our blog on Manuscript Studies<\/a>. As stated in our Mission at the front or HomePage of this website<\/a>.<\/p>\n

Hi!\u00a0 You are Here.\u00a0 And Welcome You Are!<\/p>\n

The Manuscripts on the Table<\/h4>\n

Continuing with the Handwritten Authority.\u00a0 Its list of “MSS” cites certain changes.\u00a0 Besides Corpus Christi College, MS 44<\/a>, of course, the star of the show, these originals also appeared:<\/p>\n

MSS 146<\/a>
\n162<\/a>
\n163<\/a>
\n265<\/a>
\n81<\/a>
\nand the “indenture”.<\/p>\n

The last item would refer to one of the indentures founding scholarships from Canterbury to Corpus Christi College in 1569 and bearing Matthew Parker’s seal and signature.\u00a0 The instance chosen by Catherine Hall both for inclusion in the exhibition at the Parker Library on “Matthew Parker In Cambridge” (October 1993 \u2013 February 1994) and for photography for its exhibition booklet is Archives XLA 14<\/strong> (reproduced in part, focusing upon Parker’s signature, in Figure 3 of that booklet). The publication offers a worthy contribution, and we gladly honour its scholarship and dedication.<\/p>\n

\"Cover<\/a>

Cover \/ Poster (minus the pasted-in-photograph from Corpus Christi College MS 286) for the exhibition of ‘Canterbury at Corpus’ held at the Parker Library in 1991.<\/p><\/div>\n

\u201cMatthew Parker in Cambridge\u201d<\/strong>. Exhibition booklet selected by Catherine Hall, with photography by Mildred Budny (Cambridge:\u00a0\u00a0Research Group on Manuscript Evidence, 1993); reprinted in expanded form in Old English Newsletter<\/em><\/strong>, 27:1 (Fall 1993), as Appendix A (A-1\u20138), now available online<\/a>.<\/p>\n

An earlier exhibition booklet includes Corpus MS 44 in its own right.\u00a0 Number 4 here:<\/p>\n

“Canterbury at Corpus:\u00a0 An exhibition of manuscripts from St. Augustine’s Abbey, Canterbury, to mark the enthronement of the 103rd archbishop in April 1991<\/strong>“.\u00a0 Exhibition booklet “Selected, with text and photographs, by Mildred Budny (Cambridge:\u00a0 Research Group on Manuscript Evidence, 1991); reprinted in Old English Newsletter, 24:4 (Summer 1991), as Appendix A (A-1\u20138), not yet online.<\/p>\n

Singing from the Manuscript<\/h3>\n

A treasured highlight of the Workshop on the Corpus Canterbury Pontifical was the sight and sound of Catherine Hall as she stood before its opened pages and sang from its neumed passages.\u00a0 I found it thrilling to witness, and to experience, the use of the manuscript itself for some of the purposes of performance for which it was intended, and for which it had been prepared.<\/p>\n

Catherine’s Handouts provided copies of photographs from relevant pages in several manuscripts and her transcriptions of some neumed passages in Corpus MS 44<\/a>, pages 245, 248, 250, 255 and 264, as well as in Corpus MS 146<\/a>, pages 63 and 65.\u00a0 Here are specimens from the Antiphons at 1) the anointing of a new Bishop’s hands and 2) the giving of the Pallium (from pages 255 and 264).<\/p>\n

\"Page<\/a>

Page 5 of Catherine Hall’s Handout for 27 February 1993. Transcription of Neumed Passages from Corpus MS 44, pages 255 and 264.<\/p><\/div>\n

Already, from many conversations (including those related to the preparations for the “Canterbury at Corpus” exhibition, I knew that Corpus MS 44 was one of Catherine’s favorite manuscripts, and that she belonged to a local choir, with which she regularly performed.\u00a0 (They knew here there by her “other” name, her middle name, Priscilla.)\u00a0 It seemed natural, as well as fortunate, that she contributed her combined expertise to the event.<\/p>\n

This moment, bringing the manuscript back to life, in both words and song, forms one of the best memories from the whole First Series<\/a> of Seminars and Workshops of the Research Group on Manuscript Evidence..<\/p>\n

\"Richard<\/a>

Richard Emms and Catherine Hall in Cambridge on 5 August 2005. Photography \u00a9 Mildred Budny.<\/p><\/div>\n

Manuscript Responses<\/h3>\n

The Research Group Archives preserve the handwritten responses to the Invitation Letter which express regrets from esteemed colleagues.\u00a0 I transcribe them here, using a forward slash (\/) to indicate the turning from the recto to the verso of the card or letter.<\/p>\n

\"Vivien<\/a>

Vivien Law in her Cambridge Garden in June 1996 (Photograph \u00a9 Mildred Budny)<\/p><\/div>\n

Vivien Law<\/a>‘s double-sided postcard on Sidney Sussex College<\/a> letterhead, dated “Thursday” and addressed to “Dear Milly”, offers<\/p>\n

Many thanks for your\/Ray’s invitation to the workshop on Corpus 44.\u00a0 At the moment I’m so pressed for time that I’ve even sunk to the level of cancelling supervisions, \/ something I don’t think I’ve ever done before except when flat on my back with a good uncompromising bug!<\/p>\n

In the circumstances, no, regretfully,<\/p>\n

Yours,
\nVivien<\/p>\n

Richard Southern<\/a>‘s double-sided letter, headed with the imprint of both the announcement that it comes “From:\u00a0 Sir Richard Southern” and his Oxford home address, bears both his date “24.1.93” and salutation “My dear Page”.\u00a0 Then it sets out his reasons, plus a suggestion.<\/p>\n

I think the idea of a ‘workshop’ as especially one on CCCC 44 is a splendid one & I should love to come.\u00a0 But I’ve become so deaf that I cannot (with all the apparatus in the world) hear anything anyone says.\u00a0 So I fear I must renounce the pleasures of being present & I’ll look forward to reading the results if, as I hope, you are intending to publish them.<\/p>\n

May I suggest the name of someone who (I’m pretty sure) would \/ like to come & can contribute to the subject:<\/p>\n

Sister Benedicta Ward<\/a> SLG
\nConvent of the Incarnation
\nFairacres
\nOxford
\nwith best wishes,
\nYrs
\nRichard Southern<\/p>\n

The Archives include a copy of Mildred Budny’s handwritten letter of 3 February 1993 inviting Sister Ward to the workshop.\u00a0 There is no sign of a response, nor did Sister Ward attend, although we hoped for her presence.<\/p>\n

*****<\/p>\n

\"Gold-stamped<\/p>\n

The Feedback<\/h3>\n

The Handouts include up-to-date printouts of the catalogue entries for Corpus MSS 44, 146, 163, and 265, Part I.\u00a0 The Workshop presented the occasion for feedback and refinements to their descriptions.<\/p>\n

There is also a handwritten page which represents a dialogue as the proceedings advanced, only partly according to plan.\u00a0 Written by a single hand (Yours Truly’s), these lines are broadly spaced, with large letter forms.\u00a0 It is right to infer that there were gestured responses or expressions not put-to-page from the Addressee (although the recorded half of the Dialogue was in fact Put-To-Page in both senses).<\/p>\n

Ray,
\nWhat do you think about timing?\u00a0 Now 5. [i.e. p.m.]<\/p>\n

Very cold<\/strong> [underlined], what<\/p>\n

Aim for what time end?<\/p>\n

Andrew still to talk<\/p>\n

There follows the more calmly composed notes summarising Andrew Prescott’s presentation, with references, for example, to Cotton MS Vitellius A VII<\/a> and Additional MS 28118 in the British Library.<\/p>\n

*****<\/p>\n

The Handbook<\/em> and the Illustrated Catalogue<\/em><\/h3>\n

\"Cover<\/a>\"EPSON001<\/a> Corpus Christi College, Cambridge, MS 44<\/a> also figures in<\/p>\n