Cambridge, Corpus Christi College, 279

Collectio Turonensis

saec. IX 2/2, region around Tours; later at Worcester (source: Kéry, Canonical Collections, p. 75)

Proofread status: 
This transcription has not been proofread yet.
Year transcribed: 
Transcription information: 
Michael D. Elliot
The text of the \'Turonensis\' (which exists only in this manuscript) is very badly corrupted, and a great deal of organizational information appears to have been lost. The chapters of the collection are unnumbered, many appear without titles or inscriptions, and in a good number of cases it is quite difficult to discern where one chapter ends and another begins. Moreover, the scribe employed different colors of ink and different sizes and placement of script to create a hierarchical and organizational plan that is not always transparent and is very often baffling. Some editorial decisions were therefore necessary in transcribing and encoding this text for the CCL. To explain, it is necessary to describe the layout of the text in the manuscript. Corpus 279 is ruled (dry point) for 20 lines to a page, with separately-ruled narrow margins to either side of the main writing frame, two to the left and one to the right. The margin to the right is used solely to contain a special type of punctuation―two dots (though sometimes only one) beside a tailed punctus―which is often placed at the point where a chapter ends (in my transcription this punctutation has been rendered \';\'). The column immediately to the left of the main frame is used to house litterae notabiliores, large letters often used to begin a new chapter on a new line. When this is their function, the letter is usually quite large and written in bright or dark red ink, the color of most of the display script in Corpus 279. It is, however, often the case that a littera notabilior has been used where no new chapter could have been intended. In such cases, the letter is sometime! s written in black-brown ink (the same color of ink used for the main text), seemingly to indicate not the start of a new chapter, but either a significant shift in thought or the beginning of an important scriptural quotation. Unfortunately, the distinction in use between red and black initials does not always hold and it is often impossible to tell if a red or black littera noblior indicates a new chapter or just a new sentence in the same chapter. Such doubtful cases can sometimes be resolved by considering the source material used; for example, if a red littera notabilior begins a new line but the text shows no interruption in quoting its source, it can be presumed that a new chapter is not intended (see, e.g., cc. 9, 13, 29, 33, 69). On the other hand, consideration of the source can sometimes be of no help, for the method of the compiler was usually to quote a string of excerpts from the same source, skipping here and there phrases and sentences in the source, so that! a block of text quoted from, say Jerome, could equally be con! sidered one chapter or many. In determining chapter divisions in such cases, I have sometimes had to follow instinct, rather than any objective criterion. The other column ruled to the left of the main frame (and to the left of the column used for litterae notabiliores) was used for inscriptions, that is for short, usually abbreviated, notes describing whence or from whom the chapter in question was taken. Often these marginal inscriptions are written in minuscule and in red-brown ink and convey such information as \'Gregorius\', \'in profeta\', or (as is very common) \'hic idem\'. Sometimes, however, these \'marginalia\' are written in red uncials; the significance of the difference -- i.e. the use of red uncial as opposed to brown minuscule -- eludes me. Complicating matters is the fact that most inscriptions are not made in the margin (despite their being a special column ruled for this) but rather are made inline in the main writing frame, in which case they are almost always in red uncials. Indeed, one could speculate that making inline attributions was the main scribe\'s standard practice, and that the marginal inscripti! ons in black-brown minuscule were added by later scribes when greater specificity was desired (the existence of the left-most ruled column would make this seem unlikely, but I point out that this left-most column is present throughout the manuscript, even where marginal inscriptions are not used). But at present I am uncertain about whether the marginal inscriptions were made by the main scribe or by a (contemporary?) corrector. In my transcription I have indicated (with \'<!-- marginal -->\') that an inscription is marginal only when such information seemed pertinent (in most cases, if an inscription is in minuscule, then it is marginal). The collection is divided into topics, with each topic containing one or more relevant chapters. New topics are often signalled by what I will call topical rubrics. Topical rubrics are written in red ink, and usually begin with \'de\' or \'incipit de\'; for example, \'INCIPIT DE SEPULTURA COIUGUM\' is the topical rubric pertaining to cc. 22–5. ( Not all topical divisions are indicated by a topical rubric. For example, the shift in topic from inheritance to clerical earnings between chapters 28 and 29 is not signalled by a rubric or heading of any kind.) Within each topical division authorities are indicated in one of two ways: either with an inline rubric naming the authority (e.g. \'Hesiodorus\', \'Paulus loquitur\') and written in red uncial letters; or with a marginal incription as described above. When a topical division is introduced and under it only one authority is given, the tendency is for both the topical rubric and the inscription to be written together, inline! and in red (but there are many exceptions to this rule); in this way, the distinction between topical rubric, inscription and canon title is blurred. In my transcription, I have usually set topical divisions before (i.e. outside) their pertinent chapter(s); in this way they are clearly visible as topical divisions, and cannot be confused with chapter titles/inscriptions. However, when topical divisions is written together with an inscription -- typically when only a single authority is cited under that topic, as in cc. 37, 38, 39, 56, 58, 95, etc. -- then the whole is taken as the the rubric (i.e. title) for that chapter. Further description available at
Catalogue description: 
1) M. R. James, A descriptive catalogue of the manuscripts in the library of Corpus Christi College, Cambridge, 2 vols (Cambridge, 1912), II, no. 279. ( 2) H. Gneuss, Handlist of Anglo-Saxon manuscripts: a list of manuscripts and manuscript fragments written or owned in England up to 1100, Medieval and renaissance texts and studies 241 (Tempe, Arizona, 2001), no. 81. 3) B. Bischoff, Katalog der festländischen Handschriften des neunten Jahrhunderts mit Ausnahme der wisigotischen, 2 vols (Wiesbaden, 1998–2004), I, no. 818.
Transcribed from: 
Images (digital or microfilm)
Quality of Images: 
Transcriber information: 
Not a published editor of medieval text, but experienced in manuscript research.
Best description: 
1) H. Simpson, \'Ireland, Tours, and Brittany: the case of Cambridge Corpus Christi College, MS. 279\', in Irlande et Bretagne: vingt siècles d\'histoire. Actes du Colloque de Rennes (29–31 Mars 1993), ed. C. Laurent and H. Davis, Essais 7 (Rennes, 1994), 108-23. 2) R. Sharpe, \'Gildas as a father of the church\', in Gildas: new approaches, ed. D. N. Dumville and M. Lapidge, Studies in Celtic history 5 (Woodbridge, 1984), 193-206. 3) F. W. A. H. Wasserschleben, ed., Die irische Kanonensammlung, second edition (Leipzig, 1885; repr. Aalen, 1966), xxii–v and lxvii-xx.
Description Updates: 
1) The manuscript is incomplete: the final quire wants a leaf, and there may have been further quires, now lost. 2) The original foliation skips pp. 70-71 and 92-93; these pages are currently numbered 69b–c and 89b–c. 3) Complete contents list as follows: Synodus episcoporum (\'Synodus I S. Patricii\', MS pp. 1-11: ed. Bieler, Penitentials, 54-8); the canon law collection which I call the \'Turonensis\' (MS pp. 11-105); Liber ex lege Moysi (MS pp. 106-48: ed. S. Meeder, Journal of Medieval Latin 19 [2009], 173-218); Deuteronomy 28:1-45 (MS pp. 148-55); two Theodorian chapters on baptism (~Excarpsus Cummeani 12.1–2) (MS pp. 155-56: ed. Bradshaw, Early collection, 30, nos 1-2); \'Canones Hibernenses\' 4.1, 4-5, 5.7 (MS pp. 156–57: ed. Bieler, Penitentials, 170-74); \'Qui occiderit hominem mortuum presente episcopo, VII annos peniteat uel VII ancillas reddat\' (ed. Bradshaw, Early collection, 30, no. 7); excerpts from Hibernensis A 8.2; 1.3, 7e, 8, 9a-b, 18a; 2.2, 9, 11a, 11d-e, 13b–c, 14, 25; 11.6; 12.1a, 2a, 15a; 15.1, 3c; 16.3d; 17.6, 11a, 12a; 18.6a-b; 21.6a, 12, 26b-c, 28–9; 28.13b-c; 29.7; 31.18; 32.17a, 19c; 33.11a, 11c, 12e, 12g; 39.3a, 3c, 4a; 40.15c; 41.1a, 3a, 4a-c, 6a, 7b! , 10; 42.3a, 3c, 4e, 8, 11a-b, 12f, 13a, 14b-c, 29, 31; 45.7a; 46.10, 31; 47.12a; 49.10; 50.1 (MS pp. 157-83 -- this list based on Sharpe, \'Gildas\', 202–05, with corrections); four short miscellaneous texts: \'De his quibus facitur feria\', \'De lavatione pedum hospitum\', \'De vindicta crucis\' and \'Quatuor modis anima uniuscuiusque uisitat post mortem\' (MS pp. 183-88: the first three ed. Simpson, \'Ireland\', 118-19; the last ed. C. D. Wright, Irish Tradition [1993], 258-59); Hibernensis A 18.8a, 8b (8b ends imperfectly) (MS p. 188).
Scribal practices: 
1) ligature of \'r\' with \'a\' and of \'r\' with \'e\' is common (cf. p. 77, line 17; p. 100, lines, 2 and 4; p. 101, line 2) 2) A very great degree of textual corruption. Verbs and nouns are commonly incorrectly inflected. 3) Orthography is generally normal, but note the following: \'cogium\' for \'coniugum\' (corrected to \'cogum\' by erasure); \'cremine/creminosus\' for \'crimine/criminosus\'; \'legulam\' for \'ligulam\'; \'centeriones\' for \'centuriones\'; \'abstrachi\' for \'abstrahi\'; \'intensione\' for \'intentione\'; \'cicidit\' for \'cecidit\'; \'motato\' for \'mutato\'; \'diuissione\' for \'diuisione\'; \'cessaris\' for \'caesaris\'; \'hesiodorus\' for \'isidorus\'; \'quontam\' for \'quoddam\' (once); \'inquod\' for \'inquit\' (once); \'necessiosaria\' for \'necessariora\'; \'pretiotior\' for \'pretiosior\'; \'penuaria\' for \'peniuria\'; \'uiuolasse\' for \'uiolasse\'; \'iuuichis\' for \'eunuchis\' (once); \'peruassianis\' for \'peruasionis\' (once); \'oblutione\' for \'ablutione\' (once) 4) An angular \'u\' is often added above a fourth declension genitive plural noun to correct its ending from \'-um\' to \'-uum\'. Occasionally third declension nouns are treated this way, resulting in, e.g., \'sollemnitatu\\u/m\' and \'ducu\\u/m\'. I have not indicated such \'corrections\' in the transcription.
Change of hands: 
1) The sudden apparent change of script on p. 14 is due only to the scribe switching to a sharper stylus. 2) Corrections appear to be in the hand of the main scribe, or of a contemporary working at the same centre.