Proceedings of Borderlines Interdisciplinary Postgraduate Conference 2003.
© 2006 and beyond Lorraine Taylor. ISBN: 978-0-9552229-8-6.

The Old English Bede texts: negotiating the interface

Lorraine Taylor

1. The Venerable Bede’s Historia Ecclesiastica Gentis Anglorum (HE, completed 731) was ‘widely diffused in western Europe throughout the Middle Ages’ according to DH Farmer (Farmer 1990. 19), and it continues to be in demand to this day, as the 2001 reprint of the standard edition by Bertram Colgrave and RAB Mynors demonstrates. As might be expected, the vernacular, Old English version has not enjoyed the same geographical range of diffusion. But its range of influence has been every bit as temporally and culturally diffuse as that of the HE and has, as I hope to demonstrate, contributed to the origin and development of national self-consciousness and identity in England and beyond, over many centuries.

2. The Old English Bede texts survive in five Old English manuscripts produced in the tenth and eleventh centuries. These manuscripts have played various and prominent roles at key moments in the formation of English and British cultural attitudes. These moments include their time of production; their employment as polemical tools during the post-Reformation period in England; their earliest appearances in print during the religious and political controversies of the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries; their part in the nineteenth-century ‘recovery’ of philology; their interest to twentieth century scholars, and their place in the twenty-first century recuperation of Old English studies. At each of these moments, the Old English Bede material has been copied, edited and re-presented in different forms, to suit the various cultural, religious and/or political agendas of those involved — as well as the agendas of their target audiences. Thus, we see the production of five discrete and individual Old English manuscripts; the ownership, annotation and transcription of all but one of these in the sixteenth century; the various combinations and presentations of them undertaken by Messrs Wheloc, Smith, Schipper and Miller in their respective seventeenth, eighteenth and nineteenth century editions, and the facsimile manuscript edition produced by Janet Bately in 1992.

3. Each of these textual events took place at a kind of interface. In the ninth century, for example, this might be seen as situated between the traditional Latin grammatical culture that formed the basis of all western culture up to then, and the English version of that culture, as envisaged by King Alfred later in that century. In the sixteenth century, in this context, the interface was between English Protestantism and Roman Catholicism. And in the late twentieth century, Medieval Studies itself was at the interface, when philology came under sustained attack in universities, motivating medievalists to take a new approach to their discipline.

4. An ‘interface’ can be a site of confrontation or a site of interaction — or even both of these simultaneously. In this paper, I shall explore the ways in which the Old English Bede material was used to negotiate some of the interfaces it found itself involved in, at times when issues of cultural and national identity were themselves being negotiated.

Pre-Conquest

5. R Vleeskruyer has written of the ‘accumulating evidence that a vigorous tradition of Mercian vernacular writing existed in England in the late ninth century, writing that preceded Alfred’s work — that is, his educational reform programme — and to a large extent, made it possible’ (Vleeskruyer 1953. 41). Vleeskruyer was confident that the Old English translation of the HE belonged to this earlier tradition. At least one copy of the translation was in circulation as early as the beginning of the tenth century, based, obviously, either on an earlier copy, or on the original translation. The HE could be seen as having negotiated the boundary between ancient classical, grammatical textual culture and early medieval textual culture in England. While situating the HE firmly within the classical tradition, Bede nevertheless broke new ground as composer and compiler of his own text — a first for that moment in English literary history and historiography. In a similar way, the Old English translation negotiated the transition towards the new, distinctively English, grammatical culture that had been gathering momentum in the ninth century, and which Alfred was to appropriate for his own ends. The original translation has not survived; nothing is known about its producers or site of production. What is clear, however, is that, when it was produced, an ideological climate prevailed which made its production possible, desirable, thinkable.

6. This was a time of great change in the status of the vernacular; a time that saw the English language elevated to a position where, for a time, it would rival Latin as a literary language in Anglo-Saxon England, and when certain texts in the vernacular would come to be regarded with as much esteem as those in Latin. If, as Richard Gameson says, ‘there is no evidence that command of Latin in Anglo-Saxon England ever extended beyond a few small pockets within a great sea of ignorance’ (Gameson, 1999. 199), the potential audience, at least, for vernacular material was much greater. Where the HE would have been totally inaccessible both visually and aurally to a non-Latin-speaking audience, the translation could have been understood by anyone who heard it read aloud, even if they could not read. So audiences hitherto excluded from any knowledge of the HE (unless through explication) now had access to it, albeit in a version mediated and controlled by the translator(s). In reality, of course, the actual readership, even for the Old English Bede and its redactions — as for any text at this time and for many centuries to come in England — would have constituted a tiny, if influential, minority of the population. Obviously, the translation was valued for something other than, or as well as, its content. In fact, the translation and its later copies would repeatedly come to function symbolically, as icons intended to demonstrate something about the identity — the culture and values — of those who were responsible for their production and use.

7. In the ninth century, given the prevailing political situation involving the migration of, or invasion by, large numbers of Danes, it would be difficult not to see the elevation of the English language, and the production of vernacular texts as, at least in part, a response to these circumstances. And even if the shift in literary culture had its origins in an earlier historical moment, there is no doubt that its progress had a great deal to do with the development of a sense of shared identity among some of those whose common language and culture would lead them to identify themselves as emphatically ‘not-Danish’. I do not use the term ‘English’ for what Kathleen Davis has described as ‘the shifting and competitive Anglo-Saxon kingdoms’ that existed in England at this time, ‘of which Alfred’s Wessex was only one’ (Davis 1998. 611). But to the readership and audience of a text like the Old English Bede — not perhaps numerous, but influential, and in a position to further ideas — the translation of an authoritative text such as the HE into their own language must have had great symbolic significance. This was an object valued by, and belonging exclusively to, only those people who spoke the English language and adhered to the Christian religion. The Old English Bede may have negotiated the interface between Latin and Old English textuality, but at a moment when English-speaking communities and their cultures were under threat, it could well have assumed considerable importance, along with other vernacular texts, as uncompromising symbols of contestation and exclusion, reinforcing ties between those on the ‘inside’, while emphasising the distance between them and the interlopers.

The Surviving Manuscript Copies

8. Of the four hundred and eighty-two manuscripts containing Old English catalogued by NR Ker, only twenty-seven date from the middle of the tenth century or earlier, i.e. from before the introduction of the Benedictine Rule, which led to the reformation of monasteries in England. Of these, two: Oxford Bodleian MS Tanner 10 (known as ‘T’), dated the beginning of the tenth century, and British Library MS Otho B.xi (known as ‘C’), dated mid-tenth-century, contain copies of the Old English translation of the HE. And, as can be seen from my Appendix A, there is already evidence of considerable variation between these two, earliest surviving, copies. Observe also, that each of these two manuscripts was added to, fifty years after its original production. In the case of ‘C’, this occurred around the beginning of the eleventh century, i.e. during the reformation of the monasteries, which is the period during which the three remaining surviving copies were produced, indicating that this work continued to have value, significance and influence for at least one hundred and fifty years. Again, a glance at Appendix A will make it clear that each of these three, later, copies also has its own unique features, making it quite distinct from the others. So, while each of the five manuscripts represents a copy of the translation, each one also displays its own characteristics. Appendix B shows the wide variation in treatment by the producers of the extant Old English Bede manuscripts, of HE 3: 16-20. In a sense, each copyist or editor found himself mediating the interface between the text and the specific Anglo-Saxon audience of his own historical moment - just as the original translator would have done — and having to tailor his work accordingly. A close reading of these variations has the potential to yield much information about the audience for each manuscript, its producer, and the circumstances surrounding its production. For example, what lies behind the decision to omit a substantial amount of material from MS ‘T’, corresponding to HE, Book iv, chapters twenty-six to thirty-two (five full chapters and part of two further chapters) and why was this material reinstated some fifty years later? Why does only MS ‘B’ contain a thirteen-line, metrical colophon? What was behind the omission of Bede’s autobiographical note from MS ‘C’, and its addition fifty years later? What information might be revealed by the ‘many alterations and corrections of the eleventh century’ to MS ‘O’, in a hand that wrote Article Three in the same manuscript? And what can be said about the fact that the genealogy of the West Saxon kings to Alfred is incorporated into the text of MS ‘Ca’ after the Old English Preface to the translation? While it may never be possible to name names, I believe that it is at least possible to imagine a range of plausible explanations for these variations, taking into account, among other things, the ideological climate pertaining at their times and places of production, insofar as this can be ascertained.

9. The original interface situation involving this work arose during the process of translation, as the four hundred or so variations between the HE and the surviving Old English Bede material, testify. These consist of the omission and transformation of Latin material, as well as additions. Where all of the Old English manuscripts agree, these variations must either go back to the original translation, or to a later, common, redaction. Whatever the case, there is evidence of a great deal of editing on the part of the translator or editor. To give but one example, there is no mention in the Old English version, as we have it, of the Synod of Whitby. This event was of huge significance to Bede, as it concerned the refusal of the Irish bishop Colman and his followers, to observe Easter on the correct date, as specified by Rome. Bede devotes two chapters in Book Three of the HE to this matter (3; 25-6), as well as making reference to it on many other occasions, and it is clear that, to him, the issue of obedience to Rome lay at the heart of the controversy. It has been suggested that this was a local dispute, of interest only in Northumbria, and that this is the reason both for its importance to Bede and its omission from the Old English Bede, produced at another place, possibly Mercia, and at a later date. And it is true that the rest of the country, apparently, led by those ‘trained in Kent and Gaul’ (3; 25), already kept the Roman Easter at the time when Bede was writing. However, I would like to suggest an alternative scenario; that, at the time when the translation, or copies, were produced, it may not have been thought expedient, perhaps for political reasons, to include material which suggested that such dissent within the Church was, or ever had been, even thinkable. Alan Sinfield writes of ‘the politics of plausibility’, of shared narratives within a community which are believed simply because they are considered to be credible, or plausible. It is my belief that the Old English Bede translator/editor would have been anxious to prevent his audience coming into contact with narratives of dissent or disunity in the Church, especially from so authoritative a source, lest these narratives come to be seen as plausible, that an alternative to strict orthodoxy might once again become imaginable. This is merely one of many examples that could be given, of intervention at the interface between mediator and audience in these texts.

10. In conclusion, and to demonstrate the breadth of interest engendered by the vernacular Bede over the centuries, I would like to draw attention to just a few of the people mentioned by Ker as having been associated in some way with one or other of the surviving Old English Bede manuscripts. These include scholars such as Thomas Rudborne, Laurence Nowell and William Lisle, in the fifteenth, sixteenth and seventeenth centuries respectively, and George Hickes, C. Plummer and Janet Bately in the eighteenth, nineteenth and twentieth centuries respectively. Every person who has had any association with the Old English Bede material over these centuries, be it through readership, ownership, transcription, study, editing or preservation, constitutes a part of the cumulative audience for that material. They have all confronted or interacted with it in some way, as well as using it to confront and interact with others. By engaging with this material myself in order to write a reception history of it, with reference to these earlier audiences, I hope to demonstrate that the Old English Bede texts have not only negotiated past interfaces, but are still capable of being active at the interface today.

WORKS CITED

The Manuscripts

Oxford, Bodleian Library, MS Tanner 10, known as ‘T’

London, British Library, Cotton MS Otho B.xi (+ Otho B. x ff. 55, 58, 62 + Additional MS 34652 f. 2 ), known as ‘C’

Corpus Christi College, Oxford MS 279 pt. ii, known as ‘O’

Corpus Christi College, Cambridge, ms 41, known as ‘B’

Cambridge University Library, ms Kk. 3.18, known as ‘Ca’

London, British Library, Additional MS 43703 (Laurence Nowell’s 1562 transcript of MS C), known as ‘N.’

Secondary Sources

Janet M Bately, The Tanner Bede: The Old English Version of Bede’s ‘HE Ecclesiastica’. EEMF 24. Copenhagen: Rosenkilde and Bagger, 1992.

Colgrave, Bertram, and R.A.B. Mynors, ed. and trans., Bede’s Ecclesiastical History of the English People Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1969, Repr. 2001.

Kathleen Davis, ‘National Writing in the Ninth Century: A Reminder for Postcolonial Thinking about the Nation’, JMEMS 28: 3, Fall 1998.

Farmer, DH. Introduction, ‘Notes and Translation of the Minor Works’, Leo Sherley-Price and rev. R E Latham, Bede: Ecclesiastical History of the English People; with Bede’s Letter to Egbert and Cuthbert’s Letter on the Death of Bede. London: Penguin, 1990.

Richard Gameson. Scriptorium 49 (1995).

Ker, N R. Catalogue of Manuscripts Containing Anglo–Saxon. Reprinted with supplement. Oxford: Clarendon P., 1990.

Miller, Thomas, ed. and trans. The Old English Version of Bede’s Ecclesiastical History of the English People. 2 vols. EETS OS 95, 96, 110 and 111. London: 1890–98.

Rivkin, Julie, and Michael Ryan, ed. Literary Theory: an Anthology. Oxford; Blackwell, 2000.

Schipper, Jacob, ed. König Alfreds Übersetzung von Bedas Kirchengeschichte. Bibliotek der Angelsächsischen Prosa 4. Leipzig: 1899.

Sherley–Price, Leo, trans. Bede: Ecclesiastical History of the English People: with Bede’s Letter to Egbert and Cuthbert’s Letter on the Death of Bede. The History Translated by Leo Shirley–Price, rev. R E Latham. Translation of the Minor Works, New Introduction and Notes by D H Farmer. London: Penguin, 1990.

Sinfield, Alan. Cultural Materialism, Othello, and the Politics of Plausibility. In Rivkin and Ryan, 804–826.

John Smith, Historiae Ecclesiasticae Gentis Anglorum Libri Quinque, Auctore Sancto & Venerabili Beda, Presbytero Anglo-Saxone …. Cambridge: Cambridge UP, 1722.

Abraham Wheloc, Historiae Ecclesiasticae Gentis Anglorum Libri V. A Venerabili Beda Presbytero Scripti Cambridge, 1643.

R.Vleeskruyer. The Life of St Chad; An Old English Homily. Amsterdam; North-Holland Publishing Co., 1953.