Ancient Cemetery Discovered in Shanxi, China

“Based on the unearthed remains, including bamboo scripts, iron knives, a grindstone and musical instruments, the owner of the tomb was probably a civilian official of the royal government of the Western Han Dynasty. It is the first time bamboo scripts of the Han Dynasty in Shanxi have been discovered, filling in one of the blanks of archaeology for the period.” – Archaeologist Ji Ruibao

The Shanxi Provincial Institute of Cultural Relics and Archaeology recently announced that experts have verified the authenticity of a large Dongshan cemetery in Taiyuan that was created by the Western Han Dynasty (202 BC-AD 8) about 2000-2200 years ago. The size of the cemetery is 64,000 square meters and around 23 percent (15,000 sq.m.) of it was unearthed between 2015 to 2018.

To give you a general sense of where this cemetery was discovered, here’s an image I took from Google maps:

The archaeologists working on the site discovered two building base sites, 2 tombs on the site, 11 tombs around the site, tile fragments, and a number of artifacts. There were also 10 meter wide paths bearing wheel marks discovered around the cemetery.

“Although these two tombs have not yet been excavated, the layout of the tombs indicates that the owners could be nobility from the Han Dynasty.” – Chang Yimin, a Cultural Relics and Archaeology Institute of Taiyuan researcher.

The two tombs inside of the cemetery are 163 meters (534.777 feet) apart. The experts commenting on this claim that these un-excavated tombs might have belonged to a couple. Pertaining to the 11 tombs found outside of the cemetery, the excavators discovered 66 sets of cultural relics. These sets included items such as musical instruments, lacquered boxes, and bamboo slips.

The relationship between the 2 tombs inside and 11 tombs outside of the cemetery has not yet been determined. The majority of the site is still not excavated and I’m eager to see what else gets unveiled.

Here are some images of items found during the excavations:

Bamboo scripts from the site. Photo credit: Shanxi Provincial Institute of Cultural Relics and Archaeology

~~~~~ ~~~~~ ~~~~~ ~~~~~

References:

[1] – https://www.chinadaily.com.cn/a/202006/22/WS5ef0804aa310834817254b12_9.html

[2] – https://news.cgtn.com/news/2020-06-24/Large-ancient-cemetery-discovered-in-north-China-may-belong-to-a-king-RAfbHxyQCs/index.html

[3] – http://www.xinhuanet.com/english/2020-06/22/c_139158672.htm

~~~~~ ~~~~~ ~~~~~ ~~~~~

Gain access to exclusive activities, benefits, and content @

~~~~~ ~~~~~ ~~~~~ ~~~~~

Notable Responses to Investigating the Parker Chronicle

On the topic of reception of my article, I’ve gotten a few notable responses. I won’t cover the library’s email response here because I already did that in the first article. Notable in this article means anyone who’s made comments that really stuck out to me.

~~~~~ ~~~~~ ~~~~~ ~~~~~

The first one is from a supposed teacher of Anglo-Saxon studies. I don’t know if they really are a teacher or not, but I really hope not. Our exchange took place on Reddit. I’m RedddTrip and the responder is Flubb. Here are the screenshots:

I was curious as to how many works were actually listed in the bibliography and what the earliest ones were, so I made a chronological list of the bibliography and numbered them. It only contains 240 references, not “almost 300”. This is part of the reason why I say I hope this person isn’t really a teacher, especially a history teacher, because something like this is really easy to verify and they couldn’t even be bothered to do that.

My argument that its earliest known history/provenance is with Wotton is supported by a reference which the library didn’t include. Still, it’s a scholar who has studied this manuscript and is commenting on it. I’m curious now as to whether Wotton paid any attention to the manuscript, or if it really became known during Parker’s time, and it’s assumed it was given to him by Wotton. Maybe the answer is out there, maybe it isn’t. I don’t know and at this point I don’t have much confidence that anyone else does either. I have an article specifically for the provenance of this manuscript that I’m still working on as I study.

“The earliest known reference to [The Parker Chronicle] after the dissolution of the monasteries is when it was already the property of Dr. Nicholas Wotton…” – N. A. Sparks (2014, p.110-111)

Again, I hope that Redditer is not really a teacher. Especially of Anglo-Saxon studies, as it doesn’t appear they know much of anything about this manuscript which they’re commenting on. I figured people would read the article and either say “I don’t know any of those answers” and move on with their lives, or they would say “I know some of those answers” and then comment them before moving on with their lives. It seems to me like this person really just had a bone to pick with Fomenko.

As far as the conspiracy thing, I’m not advocating any conspiracy by asking these questions. However, as I’ve been studying into more, it wouldn’t be too far fetched to include “conspiracy” here. That is if conspiracy in this case means faking or counterfeiting ancient writing.

“There is one particularly telling form of annotation that abounds in the archbishop’s library, and of which he was particularly proud. This was the work of counterfeiting ancient writing, in order to restore to damaged or illegible or partial manuscripts a semblance of completeness, and it seems to have been the special task of one “Lyly”.” – B. Robinson [p.1076]

I have an article here that goes into some more detail about this counterfeiting, as well as some accusations about Matthew Parker making up a historical figure.

All in all, I really hope that person is not a teacher. And if they are, I hope that their comments on my post were not typical for them. If those are the typical types of comments they make, I feel for their students.

“Blogs like this are a sign that non-historians shouldn’t attempt to be clever…”. If my blog is a sign of that, I don’t want to know what his comments imply about historians and/or history teachers (if they are really a history teacher, which I have serious doubts about).

~~~~~ ~~~~~ ~~~~~ ~~~~~

The second notable response is from (possibly) a manuscript researcher(?). They commented on my article on the website and in case they end up deleting their comments, I wanted to include them here for the overall report on my journey investigating the Parker Chronicle. I’m Stephen Sorensen and they are Patrick McGroyne.

Their first comment and my first response:

I think the book he mentions is this one. Google books allows you to search the entire thing for keywords and based on my searches for keywords, it doesn’t appear to answer any of the questions I originally had, aside from maybe Questions 1 or 4. Still, 2 out of 10 on any test would be an absolute failure. Why did Patrick say that book was the volume I want? My guess is he sincerely thought it would have the answers I was looking for, even though he almost couldn’t have been more wrong. Maybe the answers are in there and I wasn’t able to locate them, but I have doubts about that.

Continuing on:

For reference:
Question 1: Why are there multiple dates given to the chronicle?
Question 4: What parts are dated to which years?
Question 8: When was it named the Parker Chronicle?

Question 1 is by far the easiest question on this list to answer, and originally I had the answer included in the first article. But I took it off so as to keep the article less crammed. The answers are now being added to the questions article, which deals specifically with the questions and their answers. Also, nobody yet has directly said to me that the Parker Chronicle is comprised of 5 separate booklets that were all added together to create what is now known as the Parker Chronicle (or CCCC MS 173). I figured that out on my own while reading through some of the literature about the Parker Chronicle. It seems to me like a really simple fact, but I’m surprised nobody who has read my original article has yet mentioned that.

Question 4 is a bit more complicated to answer, but still one of the easier questions on the 10 question list. It cannot be answered with the information given in the description alone. The best answer to this that I’ve found so far is in Parkes (1976). I reference that work in my Contents of CCCC MS 173 article. From what I read, I think Parkes splits up the booklets as follows:
B1 – Fols. 1-25. 9th-10th centuries.
B2 – Fols. 26-32. Mid-10th-11th cc.
B3 – Fols. 33-52. Mid-10th c.
B4 – Fols. 53-56. 10th-12th cc.
B5 – Fols. 57-83. 8th-9th cc.

“Fols.” basically means pages, and “B” stands for booklet. All in all, that info is not stated “explicitly” in the description.

Question 8 is still wholly unanswered by anything I’ve seen. This includes the information in the description. I think maybe Patrick misread the question as “Why was it named the Parker Chronicle?” instead of “When was it named the Parker Chronicle?”. The answer to the “why” question wasn’t included in my first article, but I had mentioned it elsewhere on my website. The answer to the “when” question isn’t answered anywhere from what I can tell. If you think it is answered somewhere, please give me the citation.

Spoiler alert for anyone wondering if they do answer Question 8 in their next comment; they don’t.

They either didn’t read the article, did read it but forgot its contents, or knows I noticed the “More details” and is just goofing around. I don’t know what other explanations account for his comment above, but I think those three just about cover all the options. Here’s a screenshot from my article:

I name the source right there word for word, and even pull details from the article. How Patrick missed this is why I think maybe some tomfoolery is at hand here. Even if I hadn’t found that reference through the More details button, I clearly have seen it and cited it in the article that Patrick was commenting on.

He then gives a poor analogy about plumbers and manuscript researchers. Really the whole comment above is a big dodge to my request to “Please directly answer question 8 in your next comment…”. And so I responded with:

He fails to start his response with “the answer to question 8 is…” and also fails to answer the question at all.

“It was called the Parker Chronicle when Parker bequeathed…” does not answer question 8. And also I don’t know of any evidence that shows it was called such at that time. Parker’s collection didn’t even make to CCCC until 1593. James p xii doesn’t help much either, as (I’m assuming Patrick means M. R. James) James has many works and on the ones I was able to check, “p xii” doesn’t have anything remotely relevant to question 8.

Given all that, I ask two more questions for clarity:

The earliest source that has those words on it is still unknown to me. And I don’t think anyone else has taken it upon themselves yet to find the answer to this either. Patrick responds without answering either of those questions, and instead answers the question with a question.

That question to my questions being:

That comment was made on June 11th, 2020. Today is June 22nd, 2020 and I still haven’t received an email from Patrick at all. It was with that last comment of theirs that I my suspicions were raised even higher about them being a troll or something similar. That last comment coupled with the lack of email response, I doubt this person is a manuscript researcher. Even based on their responses to my comments, it seems to me that they lack well-developed reading comprehension skills. All of it makes me doubt that the person is legitimately a MS researcher, or that they have any experience in being a MS researcher.

~~~~~ ~~~~~ ~~~~~ ~~~~~

Gain access to exclusive Ctruth activities, benefits, and content @

This image has an empty alt attribute; its file name is aa687bd6-a16e-4282-99cd-75d0bc130951.jpg

~~~~~ ~~~~~ ~~~~~ ~~~~~

Looking into CCCC MS 173

This article details some key moments of my experience while looking into CCCC MS 173 (a.k.a. the Parker Chronicle).

~~~~~ ~~~~~ ~~~~~ ~~~~~

I published my first article about it on May 30th, 2020. It was basically a reaction article of me reacting to the information that the Parker Library on the Web had about it. That first article has been updated since I originally wrote it, but not much has changed. The first part contains details from the library. The second part contains my commentary and questions. The third part now contains some emails and additional commentary.

Originally, the third part only contained a notice that I was planning on emailing them. I did email them and they got back to me two days later. Now the third part contains my email to them, their response, and my commentary about it all. I also originally had my question list after the notice about the email, but since then I moved it to right before the third part so that it’s in the second part and closer to the commentary that inspired the questions.

I made a separate article to answer the questions. The first article is already lengthy as it is, so the article specifically for the questions is where they will be answered. I make a note of this in the first article too. As of right now, on the “Questions About” article, I have answers for Questions 1, 2 (but additional questions raised), 4 (kind of), and 5 (kind of, an additional is question raised). That’s 4 out of the original 10.

I’ve been reading through as much of the bibliography that’s available online but still have the majority of my questions unanswered. It’s been almost 3 weeks and I’ve spent a considerable amount of time on this. I don’t mind spending even more time on it because I find it fascinating, but this does support my initial suspicion that nobody can answer the full list of questions. I also haven’t seen my full list of questions being asked anywhere else. Really the questions I’m most curious about the answers to are all the ones that haven’t been answered. The ones that have been answered are in my opinion the easiest to answer, as the answers can be applied to a number of manuscripts and deal with basic manuscript information such as methods of dating and manuscripts compositions. The other questions are more specific to this MS itself, such as when were the names for it first used, and where/how was it obtained by Wotton.

~~~~~ ~~~~~ ~~~~~ ~~~~~

Gain access to exclusive Ctruth activities, benefits, and content @

This image has an empty alt attribute; its file name is aa687bd6-a16e-4282-99cd-75d0bc130951.jpg

~~~~~ ~~~~~ ~~~~~ ~~~~~

Different Names for CCCC MS 173

The Parker Manuscript has been called by many names. This article explores those names and when they were originally attributed to the MS.

~~~~~ ~~~~~ ~~~~~ ~~~~~

Names

1 – The Parker Chronicle [2]

2 – Manuscript A of the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle [2]

3 – MS Cambridge, Corpus Christi College 173 [2]

4 – S.11 (this is its name in the Parker Register, CCCC MS 575, page 62?)

Catalogs that mention it

According to Dickins (1972), there are 6 major catalogs of the MSS in the Parker Library. The CCCC website [9] lists only 4 main catalogs, which are numbers 2, 3, 4, and 5 below.

1 – John Parker’s Inventory of his father’s library (1593).

2 – Thomas James’ Ecloga Oxonio-Cantabrigiensis (1600). Pages 70-98.

3 – William Stanley’s 1722 catalog.

4 – James Nasmith’s 1777 catalog.

5 – Montague Rhodes James’s 1909-1913 (1912) catalog.

6 – Richard Vaughan’s 1960 catalog.

~~~~~ ~~~~~ ~~~~~ ~~~~~

References:

[1] – https://www.corpus.cam.ac.uk/about-corpus/parker-library/collections/catalogues-manuscripts

[2] – Alfred the Wise: Studies in Honour of Janet Bately on the Occasion of Her Sixty-Fifth Birthday

~~~~~ ~~~~~ ~~~~~ ~~~~~

Gain access to exclusive Ctruth activities, benefits, and content @

This image has an empty alt attribute; its file name is aa687bd6-a16e-4282-99cd-75d0bc130951.jpg

~~~~~ ~~~~~ ~~~~~ ~~~~~

The Sedulius of CCCC MS 173

“The Parker Register does not mention the Sedulius at all, which is perhaps surprising in view of its distinctive appearance, for it could hardly be missed by a cataloguer.” – R. I. Page (1981, pp.9-10)

1575 – The position in the MS of the Sedulius is unknown.

by 1600 – It was placed between the Chronicle and the laws (Thomas James’ Catalog).

by 1705 – It was positioned at the end of the MS. This is how it is ordered today. *Wanley (1705).

“Again at some stage the eighth-century booklet containing Sedulius’ Carmen Paschale was added to the collection, but it cannot be proven when this took place.” – M. B. Parkes (1976, p.151)

~~~~~ ~~~~~ ~~~~~ ~~~~~

References:

[4] – PAGE, R. I. “THE PARKER REGISTER AND MATTHEW PARKER’S ANGLO-SAXON MANUSCRIPTS.” Transactions of the Cambridge Bibliographical Society, vol. 8, no. 1, 1981, pp. 1–17. JSTOR, www.jstor.org/stable/41154594. Accessed 11 June 2020.

[6] – PARKES, M. B. “The Palaeography of the Parker Manuscript of the ‘Chronicle’, Laws and Sedulius, and Historiography at Winchester in the Late Ninth and Tenth Centuries.” Anglo-Saxon England, vol. 5, 1976, pp. 149–171. JSTOR, www.jstor.org/stable/44510673. Accessed 11 June 2020.

~~~~~ ~~~~~ ~~~~~ ~~~~~

Gain access to exclusive Ctruth activities, benefits, and content @

This image has an empty alt attribute; its file name is aa687bd6-a16e-4282-99cd-75d0bc130951.jpg

~~~~~ ~~~~~ ~~~~~ ~~~~~

Ancient Map Carved on Volcanic Stone Registered by INAH


Mexico’s National Institute of Anthropology and History (INAH) announced on June 14th, 2020 that they entered into their registry of public monuments an ancient map carved on a massive volcanic stone that’s creation has been dated sometime between 200 BC and 200 AD. This is about 1800 to 2200 years old.

The artifact was registered on June 7th, 2020, exactly a week prior to the public announcement. The institute itself reported that the registration occurred only a few days after a citizens’ complaint was filed against the INAH Colima Center.


While artifacts dating to the Chanal or Postclassic Colimense phase (1000–1500 AD) have been found near the monument, the comparisons to early tombs from the Late Preclassic and Early Classic periods have led the team to date it to the 200 BC to 200 AD period.

The volcanic stone is located about 8.6 miles south of Volcán de Colima. It’s been there reportedly for thousands of years ever since the volcano originally threw it there during an eruption. Below is a map to give you a sense of the geographical location of the find. The red mark is where the volcano which produced the rock is located.


Julio Ignacio Martinez de la Rosa, the top local INAH official, reports that “just in the La Campana Archaeological Zone, in the city of Colima … we’ve counted more than 100 petroglyphs”.

The stone weighs over 4000 pounds. Whoever carved it used three methods that have been identified so far: chipping, sanding, and polishing. These methods were used to manipulate the rock into representing the surrounding areas. There are “small circular cavities” carved into the rock which might be representing the location of the communities who carved it. This particular discovery might prove useful for modern studies in determining where people were living in ancient times.

“The highest part of the stone – which is 1.7 meters (5.6 feet) high and ranges in width from 2.12-2.77 meters … – has its axis oriented approximately 20 degrees to the northeast, that is, toward the … volcano” – R. P. Ruiz


The official in charge of examining cultural heritage items, archaeologist Rafael Platas Ruiz, reports “There’s no doubt that these stone-maps helped people know about – and facilitated the management of – their lands. Also, they were a way of preserving the knowledge from one generation to another in an epoch in which no writing existed in the territory that today is Colima”.

~~~~~ ~~~~~ ~~~~~ ~~~~~

References:

[1] – http://www.laht.com/article.asp?ArticleId=2492834&CategoryId=14091

[2] – https://www.heritagedaily.com/2020/06/archaeologists-discover-2000-year-old-stone-map-on-volcanic-rock/133727

[3] – https://www.en24.news/2020/06/they-discover-a-stone-map-in-colima-with-an-approximate-age-of-two000-years.html

~~~~~ ~~~~~ ~~~~~ ~~~~~

Gain access to exclusive activities, benefits, and content @

This image has an empty alt attribute; its file name is aa687bd6-a16e-4282-99cd-75d0bc130951.jpg

~~~~~ ~~~~~ ~~~~~ ~~~~~

Provenance of CCCC MS 173

“HISTORIANS, paleographers, and archaeologists, will all agree that it is very important to determine the places in which ancient books were written or preserved.” – M. R. James (1899) [2, p.1]

“The earliest known reference to [The Parker Chronicle] after the dissolution of the monasteries is when it was already the property of Dr. Nicholas Wotton…, whence it came to be known to Parker and his circle, especially Joscelyn, who compiled a list of sources for the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle, whilst the book was still in Wotton’s possession.” – N. A. Sparks (2014) [1, p.110-111]

M. R. James was the first to conduct an investigation into the provenance for the Parker MSS, including the Parker Chronicle. Parkes [6] claims MS 173 was brought to Canterbury around 1005 when Bishop Ælfheah was translated to there from Winchester. However, I don’t believe there is any evidence for this. I think this is based on rationalizations on how it may have gotten from Winchester to Canterbury. Another idea comes from Prof. Earle, who suggested monks from Canterbury took it from Winchester to restock their own library in Canterbury after a fire in 1067 [7].

CCCC MS 173 is supposedly listed in a 14th-century Christ Church catalog according to James (1899) [2]. He also says that it can be considered a Christ Church book based on the strength of internal evidence. What is the internal evidence? Parkes (1976) [6] says that this catalog lists it as ‘cronica uetustissima anglice’ and notes the issues that accompany such a brief mention. The catalog doesn’t mention the Sedulius text or the laws booklet, and it doesn’t appear to mention them elsewhere in the catalog either.

“I have not argued for the ownership or provenance of this manuscript, merely for its origin. The reason for this is that I am unable to find sufficient evidence for ownership in the tenth century.” – M. B. Parkes (1976, p.170)

Wright (1958, p.219) tells us that Parker received a good number of MSS through Dean Nicholas Wotton (c.1497-1567), including CCCC MS. 173.

“Through what sources or from whom did the Archbishop obtain the MSS. for his collection? On this we have unfortunately much less information than we would wish.” – Wright (1958, p.220)

Here is the part from James (1899) that shows the information about MS. 173:


Edwards is Edward Edward’s Memoirs of Libraries, London, 2 vols, 1859.

There is confusion as to how it arrived in Canterbury. Prof. Earle suggested monks from Canterbury took it from Winchester to restock their own library in Canterbury after a fire in 1067. Another person argues that possibly “AElfheah, bishop of Winchester, may have brought it with him when he became archbishop in 1006.” It is commonly believed to have traveled from Winchester to Canterbury. [p.396]

Timeline of MS 173’s provenance:

16th century – Nicholas Wotton possesses the manuscript. When exactly is it gifted to Parker?

1575 – Parker bequeaths MS 173 to Corpus Christi College, Cambridge.

1593 – MS 173 arrives at Corpus Christi College, Cambridge.

~~~~~ ~~~~~ ~~~~~ ~~~~~

References:

[1] – Sparks, Nicholas A. “Finding Matthew Parker in Manuscripts of the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle.” The Papers of the Bibliographical Society of America, vol. 108, no. 1, 2014, pp. 107–111. JSTORwww.jstor.org/stable/10.1086/680837. Accessed 11 June 2020.

[2] – https://archive.org/details/sourcesofarchbis00jamerich/page/n7/mode/1up

[6] – PARKES, M. B. “The Palaeography of the Parker Manuscript of the ‘Chronicle’, Laws and Sedulius, and Historiography at Winchester in the Late Ninth and Tenth Centuries.” Anglo-Saxon England, vol. 5, 1976, pp. 149–171. JSTOR, www.jstor.org/stable/44510673. Accessed 11 June 2020.

[7] – https://stacks.stanford.edu/file/druid:yf997gt4211/MS_173.pdf

~~~~~ ~~~~~ ~~~~~ ~~~~~

Gain access to exclusive Ctruth activities, benefits, and content @

~~~~~ ~~~~~ ~~~~~ ~~~~~

Contents of CCCC MS 173

This article contains information about the contents of CCCC MS 173.

~~~~~ ~~~~~ ~~~~~ ~~~~~

“As it stands now, CCCC 173 consists of two quite distinct parts. The first is the famous text of the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle and the laws, together with a group of papal and episcopal lists that occupy a separate quire (Ker 39). The second, on vellum of different size and therefore easily distinguishable, is an earlier manuscript of Sedulius’s Carmen paschale and other works (Ker 40).” – R. I. Page (1981, p.9)

The Parker MS is a collection of 5 booklets [1]. The current order of the booklets was established in the 17th century and was recorded for the first time by Humphrey Wanley in 1705.

Parkes (1976) splits them up as:
B1 – Fols. 1-25. 9th-10th centuries.
B2 – Fols. 26-32. Mid-10th-11th cc.
B3 – Fols. 33-52. Mid-10th c.
B4 – Fols. 53-56. 10th-12th cc.
B5 – Fols. 57-83. 8th-9th cc.

James [2] divided the collection into two volumes, the first (B1-B4) belonging to the 9th-11th cc. and the second (B5) belonging to the 8th-9th cc..

CCCC 575 (the Parker Register) lists CCCC 173 as S.11. The current arrangement of MS 173 was made in the late 17th/early 18th century when the MS was rebound.

The Parker Library On the Web lists this MS as Cambridge, Corpus Christi College, MS 173: The Parker Chronicle. The website hosts a collection of 179 images which show the entire MS.

The PLOtW lists 11 parts to the MS in the contents on the image viewer, but it does not include which parts are contained in what pages. It does tell the parts and their page number in the more details section. I include a guide here for easier navigation.

Abbreviations:
[f. = folio, half of a folded sheet],
[r. = recto (front)],
[v. = verso (back)].

Simplified Guide:

Booklets One & Two

1 – The Anglo-Saxon Chronicle, A-version, preceded by the West-Saxon Royal Genealogy. [f. 1r – f. 32r].

2 – Acta Lanfranci. [f. 32r – 32v].

Booklet Three

3 – Anglo-Saxon Laws of Alfred and Ine. [f. 33r – f. 52v].

Booklet Four

4 – Lists of popes and English bishops. [f. 53r – f. 56v].

Booklet Five

5 – Sedulius, Letter I to Macedonius. [f. 57r – f. 58v].

6 – Sedulius, Carmen paschale. [f. 59r – f. 79v].

7 – Sedulius, Hymn A solis ortus cardine. [f. 79v-80r]

8 – Sedulius, Letter II to Macedonius. [f. 80r – f. 81r].

9 – Verses of Damasus on St Paul. [f. 81r-81v].

10 – Sedulius, Elegia. [f. 81v – f. 82v].

11 – Augustine, De ciuitate Dei, xviii.23 (excerpts) with three versions of Sibylline prophecies. [f. 82v – f. 83v].

There are blank pages in the main portion of the MS (f. 1r – f. 83v).
They are: [f. 35v], [f. 53v – f. 54r], and [f. 56r – f. 56v].

~~~~~ ~~~~~ ~~~~~ ~~~~~

The Sedulius

The Sedulius of CCCC MS 173 appears out of obscurity in the 16th century. Read more about it here.

~~~~~ ~~~~~ ~~~~~ ~~~~~

References:

[1] – PARKES, M. B. “The Palaeography of the Parker Manuscript of the ‘Chronicle’, Laws and Sedulius, and Historiography at Winchester in the Late Ninth and Tenth Centuries.” Anglo-Saxon England, vol. 5, 1976, pp. 149–171. JSTOR, www.jstor.org/stable/44510673. Accessed 11 June 2020.

[2] – Carl P. E. Springer. “The Manuscripts of Sedulius a Provisional Handlist.” Transactions of the American Philosophical Society, vol. 85, no. 5, 1995, pp. i-244. JSTOR, www.jstor.org/stable/1006648. Accessed 17 June 2020.

~~~~~ ~~~~~ ~~~~~ ~~~~~

Gain access to exclusive Ctruth activities, benefits, and content @

~~~~~ ~~~~~ ~~~~~ ~~~~~

Archbishop Matthew Parker’s Manuscript Collection

“Our task in studying the Parker MSS. is very much facilitated by the fact that his collections were ‘immobilized’ at an early date and not dispersed like those of Cecil or Lambarde; they are preserved to-day for the most part in three blocks: (a) first, of course, at Corpus Christi College, Cambridge, to which they were bequeathed in 1575 on the Archbishop’s death. (b) Secondly, in the Cambridge University Library to which they were given in 1574 by the Archbishop himself, largely at the instigation of Dr Andrew Perne, Master of Peterhouse, who was then busy with the reform of the library. … (c) Thirdly, there is a group at Trinity College, Cambridge, of which a convenient list is given by M. R. James in his Descriptive Catalogue of MSS. in the Library of C.C.C.C., Introduction, p. xxv.” – C. E. Wright [2]

“…Archbishop Parker did not employ any cut-and-dried plan in forming his collection.” – James (1899) [1]

Matthew Parker was the Archbishop of Canterbury and amassed a considerable collection of important manuscripts during his lifetime. As Archbishop of Canterbury, most of his manuscripts are from there.

~~~~~ ~~~~~ ~~~~~ ~~~~~

“I have within my house in wages, drawers and cutters, painters, limners, writers, and bookbinders.” – Matthew Parker to William Cecil in 1573 [3, p.1072]

“By “writers” he presumably meant his cabal of researchers, the majority of whom unfortunately remain to us only as names, with a scant record of their activities.” – B. Robinson [3, p.1072-3]

M. R. James refers to Parker’s collection as the Parker Manuscripts. He notes that almost all of the MSS were rebound at the end of the 1700s and that because of this, “all the evidence that might have been gleaned from old bindings, fly-leaves, or fragments of writing in the covers” was lost [1, p.3].

Parker donated 457 volumes total to Corpus Christi College, Cambridge. However, M. R. James estimated that around 24 or 28 of those never made it to the college. Given that, only around 433 volumes really made it to the library when the collection arrived in 1593.

Parker had concluded that The Homer in his collection belonged to Archbishop Theordore in the late 7th century.

“… Stephen Batman … claimed in print to have obtained for the archbishop some 6,700 books.” – B. Robinson [3, p. 1071]

M. R. James only was able to identify two MSS (MS 61 and MS 194) in the Parker Library that could be linked to Batman. Of those two, he felt only one could be linked to Batman with certainty. Jennifer Summitt argues that out of the 6,700 books, Parker thought only two of them were appropriate for his collection. [4, p.563]

~~~~~ ~~~~~ ~~~~~ ~~~~~

“There is one particularly telling form of annotation that abounds in the archbishop’s library, and of which he was particularly proud. This was the work of counterfeiting ancient writing, in order to restore to damaged or illegible or partial manuscripts a semblance of completeness, and it seems to have been the special task of one “Lyly”.” – B. Robinson [3, p.1076]

“Parker is even accused of having invented “Matthew of Westminster,” supposed author of the Flores historiarum, and of securing his place in the canon of medieval historians: both Madden and Luard blame Bale and Joscelyn for accepting the existence of “Matthew” on the basis of a single MS reference, and Parker for twice printing the Flores under that name. Not until 1890 was this ghost finally dispelled.” B. Robinson [3, p.1078-9]

^Robinson’s reference for the above quote is:
Luard, Flores historiarum, 1:ix-xii, xli-xlii; and Madden, Historia Anglorum, 1: xxviii.

“Are we really to believe that Parker was ignorant of the alteration and disfigurement of the authors published under his sanction, or must we be reduced to the necessity of supposing him to have written what he knew to be false? It is a dilemma hard to determine, but I would willingly, if possible, throw the blame on the editor or printer, rather than on the archbishop himself.” – F. Madden, Historia Anglorum, 1: xxxvii [3, p.1079]

“Parker admits that he has published books containing “some monastic fragments, or rather old wives’ tales” and “myths and portents”; but he writes that the “ideal reader” that he addresses will know that it is better to publish Matthew Paris and “Matthew of Westminster” with their doctrinal errors and fables which no one any longer believes, than to deprive the English of their history. These histories, Parker goes on, have been “mutilated, perverted, and cut into pieces” by the Catholics, and yet for all of this they cannot be discarded, since the English have no histories, except that they are “erased, corrupted, altered, incomplete, bastardized.”” – B. Robinson [3, p.1082]

~~~~~ ~~~~~ ~~~~~ ~~~~~

References:

[1] – https://archive.org/details/sourcesofarchbis00jamerich/page/n7/mode/1up

[2] – WRIGHT, C. E. “THE DISPERSAL OF THE MONASTIC LIBRARIES AND THE BEGINNINGS OF ANGLO-SAXON STUDIES: MATTHEW PARKER AND HIS CIRCLE: A PRELIMINARY STUDY.” Transactions of the Cambridge Bibliographical Society, vol. 1, no. 3, 1951, pp. 208–237. JSTOR, www.jstor.org/stable/41337126. Accessed 16 June 2020.

[3] – Robinson, Benedict Scott. “‘Darke Speech’: Matthew Parker and the Reforming of History.” The Sixteenth Century Journal, vol. 29, no. 4, 1998, pp. 1061–1083. JSTOR, www.jstor.org/stable/2543358. Accessed 16 June 2020.

[4] – Horobin, Simon, and Aditi Nafde. “STEPHAN BATMAN AND THE MAKING OF THE PARKER LIBRARY.” Transactions of the Cambridge Bibliographical Society, vol. 15, no. 4, 2015, pp. 561–581., www.jstor.org/stable/24900127. Accessed 17 June 2020.

~~~~~ ~~~~~ ~~~~~ ~~~~~

Gain access to exclusive Ctruth activities, benefits, and content @

~~~~~ ~~~~~ ~~~~~ ~~~~~

%d bloggers like this: