H. BOBER THE ATHANASIAN CREED IN CONNEXION WITH THE UTRECHT PSALTER, BEING A REPORT TO THE RIGHT HONOURABLE LORD ROMILLY, MASTER OP THE ROLLS, THE ON % Hmumnpl IN UNIVERSITY OF UTRECHT. BY SIR THOMAS DUFFUS HARDY, D.C.L., DEPUTY KEEPER OP THE PUBLIC RECORDS. |»1*' My Loud, Comobmably with your directions, I have the honour to report to your Lordship the result of my examination of the photographs of the manuscript conta in i n g the Athanasian and the Apostles Creed in the Psalter preserved in the library of the university at Utrecht. The subject has occupied my attention considerably longer than I had anticipated; but I was desirous of examining minutely, and precisely stating, the grounds on which I have arrived at my conclusions. X could have given my opinion that the MS. in question contained a Gallican Psalter written in the sixth century, without assigning arguments for my belief, leaving it to those who entertained a different opinion to give their reasons for their dissent; but I was sure that such a course would not be satisfactory to your Lordship, accustomed as you are to hear and decide upon impartial consideration of the evidence. I am fortunate in being able to lay before your Lordship the chief objections which have been urged against the age I assign to the Utrecht MS., at least so far as they have been communicated to me. There may bo others with which I am not acquainted; but, if they are not more conclusive than those I have heard already, there will he no difficulty in refuting them. Without entering more fully than I have done into all the Liturgical phases of the question, it was sufficient for me to show that the Utrecht MS., which contains both Creeds, is a Gallican Psalter, and was written in the sixth century. I have also shown that the Gallican Bitual was used in Britain before the arrival here of Augustine, but by whom the so-called Athanasian Creed was composed I have not ventured to give my opinion; though there is no doubt, in my own mind, that the “ Pides Catliolica,” since called the Athanasian Creed, was acknowledged in the Gallican church long anterior to the composition of the Utrecht Psalter. Your Lordship cannot fail to observe that I have occasionally repeated my remarks; but I have deemed it necessary to do so, in order to enforce my arguments. Through the indefatigable exertions of Mr. Rawdon Brown, of Venice, I have collected much interesting matter relating to the Venetian and other manuscripts, but this I postpone to a future occasion. What I shall have to communicate cannot fail, I think, of being very useful to those who are interested in the present discussion, and I shall take the earliest opportunity of laying the result of my researches before your Lordship. I have the honour to be Your Lordship’s most obedient and faithful servant. To the Bight Honourable T. DUPPUS HABDY. The Lord Bomilly, Master of the Bolls, Keeper General of the Public Becords. A 2 REPORT. The antiquity, or, more correctly speaking, the authenticity, of the Athanasian Creed has Discussions on the been, for more than two centuries, the subject of grave discussion. Prom the time of Gerard isth Voss in 1612, to that of Oudin in 1722, no less than 32 distinguished scholars had carefully century, and conscientiously considered the matter, all of them arriving at different conclusions, which may be seen in Waterland’s “ Critical History of the Athanasian Creed,” first published in 1723. During the last two years the discussion has been renewed, and the Dean of Westminster, Recent discussions. Canon Swainson, Professor Brewer, Mr. Pfoulkes, and others have publicly set forth their views on the controversy. Such being the case, it may reasonably be asked why I, a layman, should enter the list of disputants. I therefore deem it necessary to state that circumstances, over which I have no control, have compelled me to take part in the discussion; but I think it right to say at once that I have no intention of defending the Creed as a just exposition of the Christian Verity, or attempting to prove that it is the genuine composition of Athanasius bishop of Alexandria. I leave that task to theological and liturgical scholars. My object is much more simple; it is an endeavour to ascertain Object of this re- when the Creed in question first appeared, and by what name it was originally called,'so far p01t as these points can be determined on palteograpbical grounds. It is scarcely necessary to recapitulate the various arguments which were adduced by Dates hitherto as* Waterland to determine the age of the Creed. It is sufficient to say that nearly all the Qfe|a. totie thirty-two writers above referred to placed its composition in different years; the earliest in 336, the latest in 642; Waterland himself preferring a date between 426 and 430. The present controversy is somewhat different from that which engaged Waterland’s attention. It has arisen out of the discussion on the advisableness of retaining the Creed in question in the Book of Common Prayer, prefaced by the Rubric as it now stands. On this point it is needless for me to express any opinion. The present controversialists widely differ as to the date to be assigned to the Quicnnque. One party contends that it is the veritable composition of Athanasius bishop of Alexandria, who flourished in the fourth century; another, that it was not produced by Athanasius himself, but was compiled from his works by one of his followers, if not by a contemporary; and a third, that it is a forgery as late as the age of Charlemagne. It is this last assertion mainly that has aroused the present debate, which has now assumed the dimensions of national interest, I may say, of national importance, confining itself no longer to the closet of the theologian, but extend¬ ing to the columns of the daily journals. I venture, therefore, to offer a very few remarks on each of these points, before I proceed to consider the palseographical question;—a subject alike interesting to myself and I believe to many others, and upon which I have, I hope, some qualifications to speak. I am, I believe, correct in affirming that the Symbol—for it can scarcely be called a on the origin of Creed—is not to be found among the numerous writings of Athanasius. In other words, lts not a single manuscript of his works has yet been discovered in which the Creed that bears his name is to be found. This Symbol is a composition too important in itself, as expounding the mysteries of the Trinity and Incarnation, to have been omitted had Athanasius really written it; I therefore think it may be admitted that it is not the veritable work of Athanasius; especially as the subject occupied the thoughts of his life, and he suffered 6 Professor Brewer’s publication on the subject. If not Athanasius, who was the author of the Symbol ? Obscurity of its origin. Athanasius a great champion of the mystery of the Trinity. Gratian. Ambrose. Theodosius. Edict of Theodo¬ sius. First royal or pub¬ lic recognition of the Trinity. persecution and exile for maintaining it. It must not, however, he denied that the different dogmas contained in the Quicungue may he found in the various writings of Athanasius. This is clearly shown by Professor Brewer in “ The Athanasian Origin of the Athanasian Creed.” Mr. Brewer, however, as I understand him, does not insist upon the Symbol, as it has come down to us, being received as the actual composition of the Bishop of Alexandria; although he expresses his own belief that it is so, and offers reasons for his opinion. If no proof exists that the Symbol was written by Athanasius, we are then driven to inquire who was its author: and here I must confess that I am not inclined to adopt the suggestion of Waterland, and attribute its composition to Hilary bishop of Arles, between the years 426 and 430 ;* nor can I believe it to have been written by Vigilius Tapsensis, who flourished in the fifth century;—an opinion maintained by Quesnet, Heidegger, Cave, Dupin, Pagi, Oudin, and others. The time of its first appearance and its origin are enveloped in the deepest obscurity, from which it seems impossible to extricate it, with the scanty evidence that exists at present, or to arrive at any positive conclusion on the subject. It is therefore with great hesitation and diffidence that I venture to offer a conjecture as to the time and occasion of the first promulgation of the Symbol. It is a matter of historical certainty that the first great champion of the mystery of the Trinity was Athanasius, who was more than once exiled for maintaining and defending it in the year 373. It is quite impossible that the seed which he had sown should have rotted and died. Indeed, we know for a certainty that it did not. Athanasius was scarcely dead, when the Emperor Gratian commanded Ambrose, afterwards archbishop of Milan, to compose for his instruction, and that of his son Theodosius, a theological treatise on the faith of the Trinity. Gratian’s profound veneration for the Christian clergy had induced him to entrust the education of his son Theodosius to Ambrose, the most orthodox bishop of his empire. The fame of Theodosius has been the subject of much eloquence as the opponent of the Arian heresy. He was the first emperor baptized in the true faith of the Trinity, and received the initiatory rite from Acholius bishop of Thessalonica. His baptism had scarcely been accomplished when, to use the words of Gibbon, ££ Glowing with the warm “ feelings of regeneration, he dictated a solemn edict, which proclaimed his own faith and “ prescribed the religion of his subjects. ‘ It is our pleasure ’ (such is the Imperial style) “ that all the nations which are governed by our clemency and moderation should stedfastly “ adhere to the religion which was taught by St. Peter to the Homans; which faithful “ tradition has preserved; and which is now professed by the pontiff Damasus and by Peter £c bishop of Alexandria, a man of apostolic holiness. According to the discipline of the ££ apostles and the doctrine of the Gospel, let us believe the sole deity of the Bather, the ££ Son, and the Holy Ghost, under an equal majesty and a pious Trinity. We authorize ££ the followers of this doctrine to assume the title of Catholic Christians; and as we ££ judge, that all others are extravagant madmen, we brand them with the infamous name “ of heretics; and declare that their conventicles shall no longer usurp the respectable ££ appellations of churches. Besides the condemnation of Divine justice, they must expect ££ to suffer severe penalties, which our authority, guided by heavenly wisdom, shall think ££ proper to inflict upon them.’ ”f This edict of Theodosius, embodying the chief dogmas of the Creed ascribed to Athanasius, * Waterland argues that because the Athanasian Creed first appeared in the Gallican Psalters and was fully recog¬ nized by the Gallican councils, therefore the Creed was first composed in Gaul. He gives eight reasons for his persuasion, but they do not appear to me to be either conclusive or probable. f Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire, chap, xxvii. 7 ■was the first royal recognition in public of the Mystery of the Trinity. That it was carried out to its fullest extent, is proved by the fact of Theodosius placing on the archie- piscopal throne of Constantinople the celebrated Gregory Nazianzen, and expelling from Gregory Na- all the churches of his dominions the bishops and their clergy who obstinately refused zianzen - to believe, or at least to profess, the doctrine of the Council of Nicsea. Not content Sentence of the with this, Theodosius convened at Constantinople a Synod of one hundred and fifty |n™f e ° 0 f n bishops, who completed without much difficulty and delay the theological system which Trinity, had been established in the Council of Nicaea. There a final and unanimous sentence was pronounced to ratify the equality of the Godhead of the Three Persons of the Trinity. It was then, on some such occasion as this, that I venture to suggest the germ* * * § of this Symbol of the Catholic faith was first sanctioned and promulgated. + I do not of course mean to aver that all the subtleties of the Creed were embodied in the Edict of Theodosius, but only that it was the basis upon which the Creed (since attributed to Athanasius) was Basis of the Creed, established.} I may be wrong in my opinion, but I can perceive, or at any rate fancy I see, some grounds for my belief. The name of the compiler of the Symbol I do not venture to suggest, nor do I think that this is of much importance. So much for the age, origin, and first outline of the Creed or Symbol. The th ird theory, respecting the age and origin of the Symbol, has been advanced by Mr. Efoulkes. He asserts that the Creed is no better than a forgery of the age of Charlemagne, and that it was concocted in the year 800 by Paulinus bishop of Aquileia, who composed a creed exactly resembling that ascribed to Athanasius, and sent it in the same year to Alenin. As Mr. Brewer has unequivocally confuted Mr. Efoulkes’ arguments, it is unnecessary Confctedhj- for me to do more than refer the reader to Mr. Brewer’s work before mentioned, pp. 81-104. Although I purposely abstain from taking any part in the controversy between Professor Manuscript evi- Brewer and Mr. Efoulkes, yet I must advance palseographical reasons against Mr. Efoulkes’ jX.XfoXeV theory respecting the age of the Creed. What I have to say on the subject appears to theory, me to be beyond dispute, inasmuch as I can produce manuscript evidence as early as the sixth century, of the existence of the Fides Catholic® known as the Athanasian Creed. The earliest copy of the Creed, at least the earliest with which I am acquainted, is found Earliest copy of ^ in a very ancient volume belonging to the Academical Library at Utrecht. At one time it jjtreoht. formed part of the Cottonian Collection of Manuscripts; for it bears the signature and arms of Sir Bobert Cotton, as well as his press mark, [Claudius A. vn.] We are in ignorance when or by what means it became dissevered from that far-famed repository ; there is, however, evidence that, as early as the year 1718, it had happily become the property of the University Library of Utrecht, by the donation of Monsieur D. de Bidder ;§ I say “ happily,” for by this means it escaped the fire which destroyed so many precious volumes in the Cottonian Library. In considering the age of this manuscript, it is important that the fact of its having once Formerly in the been in the possession of Sir Bobert Cotton should be borne in mind, as it proves that it is ErtCotton.' 1 ' the identical volume which had been seen and commented on by Archbishop Usher in his work “Do Symbolis,” addressed to Gerard Voss on the 8th of February in the year 1646.|| * I confine my observation to the doctrine of the Trinity , and do not include that of the Incarnation. f During 15 years Theodosius promulgated at least 15 severe edicts against the heretics who contravened or disregarded the decrees of the Council of Constantinople. (See the Theodosian Code, 1. xvi. tit. v. leg. 6-23.) X It is not at all improbable that Ambrose may have suggested to Theodosius the terms in his edict “ Ergo sanctus « p a ter, sanctus filius, sanctus et spiritus sanctus : sed non tres sancti, quia unus est Deus sanctus, unus est Dominus. “ Una est etenim vera sanctitas ; sicut una est vera divinitas, una ilia vera sanctitas naturalis (Ambros. de Sp. S. < e lib. iii. c. 16).” § Inside the binding is Claudius A. vn., and Bibliotheca Trajectince donavit D. de Bidder. || “ Jacobi Usserii Armachani de Romance ecclesi® Symbolo Apostolico vetere.” 8 Archbishop Usher’s opinion thereon. Confirmation of Usher’s opinion. Waterland’s opinion thereon. As the question of TJsher having ever seen, the manuscript he has described has been frequently controverted, it is necessary to prove the fact. In mentioning the Athanasian Symbol the Archbishop thus writes to bis friend: “ Latino-Gallicum illud Psalterium in “ Bibliotheca Cottonian;! vidimus; sicut et alia Latina duo, long& majoris antiquitatis; in “ quibus prseter hymnum hunc [sc. Te Deum ] (sine ullo auctoris nomine, hymni ad Matutinas “ titulo inscriptum) et Athanasianum habebatur Symbolum et Apostolicum, totidcm omnino “ quot hodiemum nostrum continens capitula. In priore, quod Gregorii I. tempore non “ fuisse recentius, turn ex antiquo picturaa genere colligetur,* turn ex literarum forma “ grandiuscul!, Athanasianum quidem Pidei Catholics, uti etiam in Psalterio Ludovici IX. “ Sancti dicti, quod in Eegis nostri Bibliotheca, extat Jacobsea, alterum vero Symboli “ Apostolorum prafert titulum.” Prom these remarks, it is clear that the Archbishop gives it as his opinion that the manuscript was written not later than the time of Gregory the Great (who filled the chair of St. Peter between the years 590 and 604) ;■ and Archbishop Usher was not the man to give expression to any hasty opinion, especially when he was writing to so severe and distinguished a critic as Gerard Voss, who had expressed a strong and different opinion as to the age of the Creed.f Usher’s opinion is confirmed by the following inscription in a handwriting of the first half of the seventeenth century, on one of the blank leaves of the volume: “ Psalmi Davidis Latine cum aliis Hymnis et Canticis Same Scripturse, Orationo Dominica, Symbolo Apostolorum et Athanasii, quae omnia illustrantur Eomano habitu, figuris et antiquitate. Imperatoris Valentiniani tempora videntur attingere.” Waterland, who wrote bis “ Critical History of the Athanasian Creed ” in 1724, thus expresses himself respecting the manuscript which Usher had used : “ (A.D. 600.) The oldest MS. we have heard of is one mentioned by Bishop Usher, which “ he had seen in the Cotton Library, and which he judged to come up to the age of Gregory “ the Great.J This manuscript has often been appealed to since Usher’s time, and, upon the “ credit of Usher, by the learned on this subject, as particularly by Comber, L’Estrange, “ Tentzelius, Tillomont, Le Quien, Muratorius, Natalis, Alexander, and perhaps several “ more. Montfaucon takes notice of Usher’s manuscript, but observes that Usher himself “ allowed the character to be much later than the time of Gregory, which would have been “ a strange inconsistency in Usher, who forms his argument for the antiquity of the “ manuscript from the character itself, and from the ancient kind of picture. But Montfaucon “ is plainly mistaken,§ confounding what Usher had said of another manuscript, in Bennet “ Library at Cambridge, with what he had said of the Cotton Manuscript at Westminster.|| “ The two manuscripts are very distinct and different as possible, nor has the Bennet “ Manuscript any Athanasian Creed in it; only its being called ‘ Gregory’s Psalter ’ “ occasioned, I suppose, the mistake of making it the same with the other. Tentzelius^f “ seems first to have confounded them together; and probably Montfaucon followed him. “ implicitly, not having Usher at hand to consult, which would immediately have discovered “ the fallacy. Were there no other objection against Usher’s Manuscript beside what hath “ been mentioned, all would be well; but it is of greater weight to observe that there is not “ at this day in the Cotton Library any such Manuscript copy of the Athanasian Creed, “ nor indeed any Latin Psalter that can come up to the age of Gregory or near it. There “ is an ancient Psalter (marked Vespasian, A.) written in capitals and illuminated, and “ which might perhaps, by the character, be as old as the time of Gregory the Great, were it * v. Angeli Rocliai Bibliothec Vatican., pag. 407, et Cardin. Carafe Praifat.; in Edit. Gr®c. LXX. Interp. Roraai an. 1587 excus. | See Waterland, p. 6, Ed. 1728. J Usser. de Symb. Prsef. pp. 23. § Montf. Diatr., p. 721. || Usser. de Symb., p. 9. If Tentzelii Judic. Eruditor, p. 49, et Exercit. Select., p. 29. 9 “ not reasonable to think, from a charter of Kang Ethelbald, written in the same hand “ and at the same time, and formerly belonging to it,* that it cannot be set higher than the “ date of that charter, A.D. 736. But I should here observe that that charter is not in the “ larger capitals, as the Psalter itself is, but in the smaller capitals, the same hand that the “ several pieces in that MS. previous to the Psalter are written in, and how far this may “ affect our present argument I cannot say. Possibly the Psalter itself, being in a different “ hand, may be older than those previous pieces, as it is certainly much older than the “ additional pieces at the end, which are not in capitals, great or small. “ This Psalter has the .‘ Te Deum 5 annexed to it, with the title of ‘ Hymnus ad Matutinum,’ “ as Usher’s had; and also the Athanasian Creed, with the title of ‘Tides Catholica,’ but “ both in a very different and much later hand than that of the Psalter itself; later by “ several centuries, as the very learned Mr. Wanleyf judges, who sets the age of the Psalter “ about 1,000 years, but of the Athanasian Creed, &c. at the time of the Norman Conquest. “ A suspicion, however, may from hence arise, that this very Psalter, with what belongs “ to it, might be the Psalter, &c. which Usher spake of, especially since there is none “ other in the Cotton Library at all like it. But, on the contrary, it is to be considered “ that this manuscript has no Apostolical Creed at all in it, which Usher affirms his to have “ had; nor has it the Hymnus Matutinus, beginning with ‘Gloria in Excelsis Deo,’ which “ Usher’s also had ;J nor is . the Creed in capitals, as one would imagine Usher’s to have “ been, by what he says of it. Neither , is it at all probable that if Usher had intended “ the Psalter, now extant in the Cotton, he should give no hint of the Saxon version “ going , along with it—especially considering that it might be made an objection to its “ antiquity. Nor do I think that so inquisitive a man as Usher could either have been “ ignorant of the age of Ethelbald, or of his charter having been once a part of that “ manuscript. In his Historia Dogmatica§ he takes notice of this very Psalter, now marked “ Vespasian, A., and of the Saxon version in it, and likewise of its being in the same hand “ with Ethelbald’s charter: and there he sets the age of it no higher than the year 736, “. (that is, above 130 years later than Gregory I.), without the least hint that he had ever “. mistaken the age of it before, or had thought otherwise than he did of it at the time of his “ writing this later treatise. These considerations persuade me that Bishop Usher had seen “ some other manuscript, which has since that time, like many more, || been lost or stolen “ from the Cotton Library. He that was so accurate in every tittle of what he says of “ K. Athelstan’s Psalter (mentioned at the same time) could never have been so negligent, “ or rather plainly, careless, in respect of the other. I conclude, therefore, that there really “ was such a Psalter as Usher describes, with the Athanasian Creed in it; such as he “ judged to be of the age of Gregory I. from more marks than one; and how good a judge “ he was in those matters is well known to as many as know anything of that great man. “ But how far his judgment ought to sway, now the MS. itself is lost, I must leave With “ the reader.”^[ The discovery at Utrecht of the missing manuscript annihilates all the theories and suppositions of Montfaucon and others, and verifies the conjectures of "Waterland. The next person who alludes to the age of the Utrecht MS. is Gustavus Haenel, in his Gustavus Haenel. Catalogue (published at Leipsig in 1830). He thus describes it: “ Psalterum Latinum literis “ uncialibus et semi uncialibus, ssec. vi. exaratum, cum delineatione cjusdem temporis; “ Salomonis fragmentum, eodem charactere, quo celeberrimus Codex Tlieodosianus, qui * Hicke’s Dissert. Epist. in Ling. Septentr. Tkesaur. p. 67. f Vid. Wanleii Catal. MSS. Septentr. p. 222. X Usher, De Symbol. 33. § Historia Dogm. p. 104. || Y. Th. Smithi Prasfationem ad Catalog. MSS. Bibl. Cotton. If Waterland: Critical History of the Athanasian Creed, p. 56, Ed. 1728. 30606. J} 10 Baron van West- reenen. Professor West- wood. His opinion on the age of the Utrecht Psalter. To be differed from to some extent. Attention of Con¬ vocation called to the Utrecht Psalter. Photographs of the Utrecht MS. re¬ cently obtained by the Master of the Polls. “ Bom® in Aedibus Vaticanis asservatur, scriptus est, memb. 4.” It will be seen that he attributes its production to the sixth century; but it is suggested by Mr. P. J. Vermuelen, the University Librarian at Utrecht, that Haenel, from his inaccurate description of the volume, had not sufficiently examined it* The next scholar who, I believe, turned his attention to the Utrecht volume was Baron van Wostreenen van Tiellandt. He wrote a most detailed analysis of the volume, which he presented to the Utrecht Library. This work has since been given to the world by Professor H. J. Boyaards, in his “Archief voor kerkelyke Gescliiedenis, vol. iv. 1833.” Baron van Westreenen believes the Utrecht MS. to have been written in the sixth or seventh century. So important do I consider the Baron’s evidence on the subject that I venture to give the whole of his criticism in an appendix. To the important evidence of Baron van Westreenen van Tiellandt, I would add that of an Englishman, Professor J. 0. Westwood, who has bestowed much time and consideration on the subject of ancient manuscripts. Though I differ from him in some particulars respecting the Utrecht Psalter, I venture to do so with very great deference. Concerning the age of the manuscript, Professor Westwood says, in his description of it, “ In these respects a date not more recent than the sixth or early part of the seventh century “ ought to be assigned to the manuscript; but, as will be seen by the fac-simile in the upper “ part of my plate,t the initial letter of the first Psalm is a large golden uncial B, two “ and a quarter inches high, having a fine line of red edging to the gold, and a fine parallel “ blue one, the upper part of the letter formed into a large interlaced knot of the genuine “ Anglo-Saxon style.” This is a point, and a very important one, on which I differ ftom Professor Westwood; and I shall presently, I hope, produce sufficient evidence to prove to his satisfaction that the letter in question is not Anglo-Saxon. Many of Professor Westwood’s remarks are so valuable that I have made copious extracts from them, with the permission of Mr. B. Quaritch, the proprietor of the work. As the recent controversy respecting the age of the Athanasian Creed had again brought the subject of the age of the Utrecht Psalter prominently before the public, it attracted the notice of Convocation. Impressed with the importance of this document, the present Bishop of Gloucester and Bristol, Dr. Ellicott, requested the Master of the Bolls to obtain, if possible, a photograph of the MS. from the authorities of Utrecht. He believed, if it could be proved that the early age in which the MS. is supposed to have been written could be shewn to be correct, it would entirely remove a prevailing impression that the Creed was a forgery of the ninth century. Lord Bomilly thereupon, through the cordial assistance of Earl Granville, Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, obtained from the Trustees of the Academical Library at Utrecht a photograph of several portions of the Manuscript, and his Lordship directed me to make a full report to him of my opinion as to its age, together with such remarks as might appear to me calculated to throw light upon the age of the Creed itself,—of course, avoiding the expression of all theological opinion. * There seems to be but little doubt that Haenel has mistaken the second portion of the volumes. The fragments have no reference to the books of Solomon, but are fragments of the Gospel, according to St. Jerome’s translation, preceded by Jerome’s letter to Pope Damasus, and the latter portion of his general preface to the Four Evangelists, &c. Haenel has also been taken to task by the Baron van Westreenen for comparing the Utrecht Psalter to the Theodosian Code preserved in the Vatican, because the authors of the Nouveau Traite de Diplomatique do not enumerate such a MS. as being found there; but Professor Geel, of Leyden, has satisfactorily proved in his essay that Haenel was perfectly correct in his reference to that manuscript, and that he alluded to the eleven leaves (undecim ampla folia complicata) of the Theodosian Code which were discovered by Mai some years ago in the Vatican. t Mr. Westwood here alludes to the fac-simile which he has given in his splendid work entitled “ Fac-similes of Miniatures and Ornaments of Anglo-Saxon and Irish Manuscripts, 1868.” 11 Before I proceed to pronounce any judgment respecting the Utrecht Psalter, I deem Materials for this it necessary to state the materials from which I have derived my opinion thereon. Keport. (I.) The very accurate photographs of the Athanasian Symbol and Apostles Creed, and the “ Canticum Simeonis ” and the ec Gloria in Excelsis,” sent to England by the Trustees of the University Library at Utrecht. (II.) The lithograph of the Creed, and the commencement of the first portion with the initial letter B, made by Professor J. Arntz. (III.) The fac-simile made by Mr. Westwood of the commencement of thePirst Psalm with the initial letter, and the two drawings in connexion with that Psalm. (IV.) The fac-simile made by Mr. Westwood of the ISOth Psalm, with the design at the head of it, and the design of the organ at the close of the Psalm. (V.) The fac-simile of the portion of the Pirst Psalm given by Professor H. J. Boyaards. (VI.) The volume of all the fac-similes in the Utrecht Psalter now among the additional MSS. in the British Museum. (VII.) The detailed description of the MS. given by Baron von Westreenen van Tiellandt. (VIII.) Mr. Westwood’s analysis of the same MS. (IX.) Professor J. Arntz’s description of the MS. (X.) The Librarian of Utrecht’s account of the MS. (XI.) Notes on the Utrecht Psalter made by the Bev. Canon Swainson,* on the 28th of August 1872. It is true that I have not had the advantage of seeing the Manuscript itself; yet I believe These data an that the data above mentioned, in conjunction with a knowledge of MSS. extending to more ^ctaSspection than half a century, enable me to form a correct judgment on the whole, and one quite as of the manuscript much to be relied upon as if I had seen and examined the manuscript itself. My opinion must therefore be taken for as much as it may be worth, after what I have to advance in justification of my belief has been duly considered. I do not require to seethe original statue of Venus de Medicis to judge of its exquisite Grounds for this beauty and art; a photograph of it will enable me to judge of both. The original will not assertIon ' tell me whether its author was Praxiteles, or enable me to declare his name; but a photograph will tell me that the statue is marble, and show me every defect time may have made upon its polished surface. So will an accurate photograph of a MS.f The very texture of its vellum leaves, the lines upon which the words are written, and every imperfection of the writing, are brought vividly before the eye. An experienced eye can detect whether the punctuation has been supplied by a later hand; whether the drawings were added after the manuscript was written; whether they encroach upon the text and overlap it, or not. This is as clearly perceptible as when ink has been placed over pencil-mark outlines. To proceed then;—the Utrecht Manuscript is a square folio,$ or perhaps it may be called Description of the ----—- Utrecht MS. * I avail myself of this opportunity of expressing my thanks to Dr. Swainson for the assistance he has rendered me in this inquiry. f The photographs of the Utrecht MS. plainly show that the texture of the vellum is very fine and thin. J The binding is of about the latter end of the sixteenth century, with Cotton’s arms on the back. On one of the fly leaves at the commencement of the manuscript is the following annotation : “ Psalterium « secundum Septuaginta, ab Hieronymo emendatum, sive Psalmi Davidis, Latine cum aliis Hymnis et Canticis Sacrai “ Scriptural, Oratione Dominica, Symbolo Apostolorum et Athanasii. Qua* omnia illustrantur Romano habitu, figuris “ et antiquitate. Imperatoris Valentiniani tempora videntur attingere.” After the word “ attingere ” the following occurs: “ Fragmentum Evangelii secundum Matheum, de translatione B. Jeronimi cum prologo ipsius ad Damasum “ Papam, Literis Lombardicis. “ Carta originalis literis antiquissimis HLOTHARII Regis Cantuariorum BERCVALO, et Monasterio suo de terns « in Westan in Geneo consensu Archiepi THEODORI A 0 Christi 679 Indictione septima.” The original Charter having been inserted in this MS. shows two important facts : first, that the MS. was written before the year 679, and next that it belonged originally to the monastery of Reculver.—See further on (p. 34) for remarks upon this Charter. B2 12 Its Psalter accord¬ ing to the Gallican version. The Italic version. The Roman Psalter. The Gallican Psalter. The Hebraic Psalter. Some MSS. with two or more of these various versions. a large quarto volume, extending to 21G pages; the first 192 of which contain the Psalter, according to the Gallican version.* As part of my argument will, to a great extent, depend on the fact that the Psalter in question follows the Gallican, and not the Roman, text, a few words on this subject will be necessary here. Anciently, four kinds of Latin Psalters were used in various parts of Christendom. They were the Italic, the Roman, the Gallican, and the Hebraic. (1.) The Italic (Versio Italica ) is the old translation or recognized version, which was used in Italy before St. Jerome’s time.f It has been printed more than once. I believe no manu¬ script of the Versio Italica contains the Atlianasian Creed. (2.) The Roman is not very different from the Italic ; indeed, it is little more than a text corrected by St. Jerome, and made about the year 383. It is called the Roman Psalter, because it was first used in the Roman Offices; but it was extensively superseded in the sixth century, when Gregory of Tours introduced the version since called the Gallican version. The Roman Psalter, however, still obtained at Rome until the time of Pope Pius the Pifth.f The Athanasian Creed is to be found in some of the Roman Psalters, but not in all. (3.) The Gallican Psalter is St. Jerome’s more exact Latin translation, made from Origen’s Hexapla, or rather perhaps from the Greek Septuagint, corrected from the Hebrew where the Greek was supposed to be faulty. This work was executed by St. Jerome in the year 389. Proof exists of its use in Gaul or Prance during the sixth century. Hence it is called the “ Gallican Psalter.” Prom Gaul it passed over into England before the year 597; for we find Augustine specially alluding to it in his letter to Pope Gregory. It is not a little curious that although the Gallican Psalter and Ritual prevailed in England before Augustine’s mission, yet it made but little way in the church of Canterbury. The Popes of Rome, though they themselves used the Roman Psalter, yet connived at the use of the Gallican version.§ The Athanasian Creed is found in the earliest Gallican Psalters. (4.) The Hebraic Latin Psalter is St. Jerome’s translation taken immediately from the Hebrew, and was made in the year 391. It has not been in common use, like the Roman and Gallican ; and it does not contain the Athanasian Creed. Before I dismiss the subject of Psalters, it may not be irrelevant to mention that some manuscripts of the eleventh century have the Roman and Gallican Psalters in opposite columns; others have, in like manner, the Gallican and Hebraic; some have all the three versions of St. Jerome placed in the same order ;[| and in a few MSS. the Greek text makes a fourth column. * This is evident from the omission of the words a ligno at v. 10 in the 95th Psalm (which occur in the Book of Psalms, according to the text of the Septuagint) after the words Dominus regnavit a ligno. The 95th of the Vulgate is the 96th of the English and Hebrew versions. In the Vulgate the 9th and 10th Psalms, according to the Hebrew, are counted as the 9th. Hence, after the 9th Psalm, the Hebrew numbering is one in advance of the Latin up to Psalm 146 Lat., 147 Heb. The 12th verse of Psalm 147 Hebrew (Praise the Lord, 0 Jerusalem) is the 1st verse of Psalm 147 Vulgate. The 148th and two following Psalms are numbered alike in the Hebrew and in the Vulgate. S. Justin, in his Dialogue with Tryphon, reproaches the Jews with having omitted those words from the Holy Text out of hatred to the Cross ; nevertheless both Origen and S. Jerome suppress the words a ligno upon the faith of a Hebrew MS. (Nouv. Traite de Diplomatique, ii. 395.) I Le Long Biblioth. Bibl. i. 243. J Bona Rerum Liturgic., 1. ii. c. 3. § Down to the year 678, when Pope Agatho sent John the Archchantor of St. Peter’s into Britain, to teach the Roman mode of singing and reading ; from which time the Roman ritual began to supersede the Gallican ; and here I may be permitted to remark that this Utrecht or Gallican Psalter must have found its way into Britain before ' the year. 678. . || The Eadwine or Canterbury Psalter contains the Hebrew, the Roman, and the Gallican versions. 13 But to return to the contents of the Utrecht MS. Immediately following the Psalter occur the several Canticles of Isaiah, of Moses in Exodus (“ Cantemus Domino ”), of Ahbacuc, of Moses in Deuteronomy, of the Three Children, the Te Deum* * * § (called “ Hymnum ad Matutinum”), the hymns of Zacharias (called “Canticum Zachari* prophet* ad Matu- tinurn ”), of Mary, Simeon (called “ Canticum Simeonis ad Completorium”f), the Gloria, the Paternoster (without the Doxology), the Apostles Creed [Symbolum Apostolorum], in which is found the Article of the Descent into Hell,J the Symbol of Athanasius, here called Fides Catholicam (sic), and finally the apocryphal Psabn of David, often called the 151st Psalm. I may here mention that the Nicene Creed does not occur in this manuscript. Indeed it was not introduced into the Gallican Psalter until the time of Pepin or Charlemagne. § After the Psalter are fragments of the Gospels, with .1 erome’s epistle to Pope Damasus, the end of his second general preface to the Pour Evangelists (wanting the beginning); the preface of St. Matthew, with the contents of the chapters of that Evangelist; a drawn title-medallion,[| in the margin of which there is an invocation to the Virgin Mary, in Greek * I have not been able to discover when the Te Deum was first used, but I find it thus mentioned in the Rules of St. Benedict: 11 Post quartum autem responsorium incipiat Abbas hymnum Te Deum laudamus.” I mention this, as Baron van Westreenen states that the Psalter could not have been written in the fourth century, as that hymn had not been introduced into the Church service. It is alleged to have been written by St. Ambrose, bishop of Milan. Though somewhat irrelevant as to the age of the Psalter, I may mention that in the Utrecht MS. the word munerari instead of numerari occurs in the 20th verse, “ Make them to be numbered with thy Saints.” I have not been able to ascertain whether the same reading occurs in the Roman Psalter. f This Canticle was not mentioned by St. Benedict. Mentioning it, Cardinal Bona writes “ de quo S. Benedictus nullam facit mentionem.” J See remarks on these words, post. § The famous Psalter presented by Charlemagne (while only King of France) to Pope Adrian I. in the year 772 is a Gallican Psalter. It is thus described by Lambecius— “ Primus codex membranaceus venerand® vetustatis, ejusque formas, quas vulgo vocatur in octavo majori, continet “ Psalterium Latinum, jussu et cura ipsius Caroli Magui, cum ad hue Rex tantum esset Francorum, et nondum “ Romanorum Imperator, totum aureis Uteris exaratum, quod summo Pontifici Hadriano I., qui sedi Apostolic® prasesse “ ccepit die x. Februarii A.C. 772, et die 26 Dec. 795. Mortuus est, dono misit; uti ex sequentibus ab ipso rege Carolo “ Magno compositis versibus dedicationis, qui primo ejusdem codicis folio literis itidem aureis scripti sunt videre est. “ Reprsesento autem eos hie adeo bona fide, ut tarn in Uteris ipsis, quam in antiqua interpungendi ratione ne hilum “ quidem immutaverim. “ Hadriano summo papae patrique beato. Rex Carolus salve mando valeque pater. Presul Apostolicae munus hoc sume cathedrae. Yile foris visu stemma sed intus habens. Organa davitico gestat modalantia plectro. Continet et lyricos suavisonosque melos. Haec tua xpe chelys miracula concinit alma. Qui clavem david sceptra donunque tenes. Mystica septeno fuerant haec trusa sigillo. Carmina ni xps panderel ista deus. Hoc vobis ideo munus pie dedo sacerdos. Filius ut mentem patris adire queam. Ac memorere mei precibus sanctisque piisque Hoc donum exiguum saepe tenendo manu. Et quamquam modico niteat splendore libellus. Davidus placeat celsa camoena tibi. Rivulus iste meus teneatur flumine vestro. Floriferumque nemus floscula nostra petant. Incolumis vigeas recitor per tempora longa. Ecclesiam que dei dogmatis arte regos.” After the Psalms and various Cantica and Hymni, “ Fides S. Athanasii episcopi Alexandrini : Quicunque vult salvus esse ante omnia opus est, ut teneat Catholicam fidem, etc.”—Petri Lambecii, Commentariorum de Augustissima Bibliotheca Caesarea Yindobonensi, Lib. n., p. 261. || Westwood thus describes the medalUon : “ Within a circle formed of a ribbon about an inch and a quarter wide, « on which are represented a series of twenty-six pink scallops or plain festoons, underlaced by thirteen blue ones « of twice the diameter of the eighteen others; and in the open space formed by the former is inscribed the prayer « to the Virgin Mary as in the text.” Contents of the Utrecht MS. 14 Character of the handwriting. •words AriA MAPIA BOH0HCON Tm rPA’J'ANTI, in the midst of which is a list of the Gospels, hut haying the spelling of Luca» instead of Luca m ;* the commencement of the Gospel of St. Matthew, as far as the words “Johannes hahehat yestimentum de pilis came- lorurn ” (y. 4. c. iii.); and finally the first chapter of St. John, as far as the sentence “ et dixit, non sum ” in the 22nd yerse. All these together occupy 24 pages, containing two columns on each page, written in solid black uncials,! of the same form as the headings &c. of the Psalter. The text of these 192 pages of the Psalter (each containing three columns) is written in capitals generally known as litterai majmcula rnsticce, in about 30 lines in each column, each line being of equal length, and containing from 15 to 20 letters on an average. There is no interval between the words,! but they are all joined together. NAMSICDTANIMARATIO NALISETCAROUNTTSESTHO MO.ITADSETHOMOUNTTS ESTXPS; Yet some of the words extend into two lines, as in the above instance, and oven into two columns: SEDNECESSARITJMEST DAT; ADAETERNAMSALUTE f GTINCARNATIONEM QTJOQUEDNIN OSTRI IHtTXPIEIDELITERCRE while here and there a small space between some words, called almea% occurs. Of this peculiarity I shall speak presently. The headings and commencing lines of each psalm or subject, and the initial letters of each yerse, are written in red|| uncial characters, of a size rather larger than the text. Rut I should state that the commencing lines of the first sixteen psalms are in gold, afterwards they are in black, while the fragments of the Gospels are written in two columns only, and in uncials of the same form as the headings and com- * Baron van Westreenen remarks that the spelling “ Lucara” for Lucam hears the mark of great antiquity, and “may therefore date just as much from the end of the fifth or the beginning of the seventh, as from the sixth century.” f The first word LIBER of St. Matthew’s Gospel is written in plain capitals of gold, the initial L being two inches, and the others nearly an inch high. The gold has been ornamented with lines of black, which, as well as the gold itself, in parts, has scaled off. In the I and partly in the L these black lines exhibit traces of interlacement. The headings of the Lectiones are written in red Rustic capitals.—(Westwood, p. 7.) J It is generally admitted that it is a mark of high antiquity in manuscripts when words written in capitals are not separated from each other by intervening spaces; and this no doubt, is true, but I would not go so far as to assert that when words are not joined together, therefore the writing must be comparatively modern, or at any rate of a date remote from the most ancient class. No doubt innumerable instances can be adduced of words being divided by points or other arbitrary marks, and sometimes separated from each other by small spaces ; but these instances, I would remark, nearly all occur in lapidary inscriptions. There are, however, cases in very early MSS. where words are separated from each other by marks or small spaces ; that is, there is a little more distance between the last letter of one word and the first of the word following it than between the letters composing the words themselves. For instance, in the MS. of Germanicus Caesar’s translation of Aratus, enriched with coloured figures of the constellations, in the Leyden collection, supposed to have been written and decorated in the ancient Roman times, the words, although written in capitals, are divided.— See Ottley’s paper in the Archnologia, vol. xxvi. p. 171. § This word does not occur in any Latin dictionary with which I am acquainted, though it is frequently used in the Nouveau Traite de Diplomatique ; it will, however, be found in the Dictionnaire de l’Academie Francaise : — Alinea. Loc. adv. empruntee du Latin, et qui signifie, A. la ligne. Quand on dicte a quelqu’un, on dit Alinea; e’est a dire, Quittez la ligne ou vous en etes, et commencez-en une autre audessous. 11 s’emploie plus ordinairement comme substantif masculin : Lisez jusqu’au 'premier Alinea : Observez les Alinea. 11 se dit souvent, par extension, d’un passage, d’un paragraphe compris entre deux Alinea : Le premier Alinea de ce chapitre est fort long : TJn petit Alinea: TJn Alinea tres-court. || Dr. Swainson tells me that there is no rubric for the first four psalms ; that is, there is no rubric until the fifth. 15 mencements of the psalms. The initial letter of the First Psalm is a large golden. IS. I shall have to notice this presently. The orthography is, on the whole, pure; hut there are several grammatical errors, which Orthography, would indicate that the scribe was not a Latin scholar; diphthongs oe and ae are written in distinct vowels, and not as ce, oe. The rarity of abbreviations in manuscripts is generally in proportion to then’ antiquity, The abbreviations and this is the case in the TJtrecht MS. The abbreviations are very few—a slight circum¬ flex (-. ) at the end of a word to indicate suppressed letters, as m or n, a dot or a semi-colon after 6 to denote bus, and after q to denote que. No one can examine the punctuation with attention, and believe it has been introduced Punctuation by the original scribe. It is clearly a subsequent addition; for the punctuation is not carried Sr date* 0 * on throughout the MS. As already stated, throughout the Psalter, as in other very ancient MSS., the words are not separated from each other by intervening spaces, but sometimes the letters of a word are separated, one portion being in one line and the remainder in the next, quite independent of the sense; and sometimes they are so disjointed as to be read with difficulty.* The marks of punctuation in the psalter are the period or full stop (not often used). The The marks of semi-colon (;) and the inverted semi-colon (!) are much more general. In the fragments of P unotaatlon - the Gospels, a kind of comma (,) is almost constantly used, to the exclusion of the semi-colon and the inverted semi-colon. I shall, however, presently have occasion to speak more specially of the punctuation. The omission of stops marking periods, and distinguishing the members of a sentence, is a sign of antiquity. Throughout the Psalter there are no less than 166 drawings in brown or bistre, each of Drawings, which has some sort of reference to the subject of the psalm or passage near to which it is placed. The Gospel fragments, however, have none of these ornamental drawings. The handwriting is certainly of the sixth century, and so completely resembles that in The handwriting the MS. No. 8084,t which I have seen and compared with the Utrecht facsimile, that both sixth might readily be supposed to be the writing of the same scribe;{ but I shall have future occasion to speak more particularly on this point. The drawings are seemingly taken from, or rather suggested by, designs of the fourth or fifth century; for they are plainly of the Roman style, both in the proportions of the figures, the dress and armour, as well as the shape of the buildings; while some are the invention of the chief artist who designed the * Curious instances of this division of words is given by Ottley (p. 173), as “ summo Jove persea vis est ” is written « summo io veperse auis est,” and “ vero sex undique paruae ” is written “ veros exundique parvae.” j- Codex membranaceus, olim Puteanus. Ibi continentur: 1°. Aurelii dementis Prudentii liber cathemerinwn. 2°. Ejusdem apotheosis. 3°. Ejusdem hamartigenia. 4°. Ejusdem psychomachia. 5°. Ejusdem ex libro wei aefa.vm hymni quinque, primus Martyribus Hemiterio et Chelidonio: secundus B. Laurentio: tertius Eulalim Virgini: quartus xviii. Martyribus Ccesaraugustanis: quintus B. Vincentio; finis desideratur. Is codex sexto sasculo videtur exaratus. X Baron van Westreenen states that “ the representations of Christ and the Saints with the head surrounded by a “ glory show that the manuscript cannot be as old as the time of Valentinian the younger, i.e., of t the 4th century.” And I think that Baron van Westreenen’s criticism is perfectly just. There is in the Catacombs a representation of the baptism of Jesus, in which he is pourtrayed standing in the Jordan, and John the Baptist pouring water with his hand on the Saviour’s head; both of whom have a nimbus surrounding their heads, as also has the angel standing on the right hand of Jesus. This painting, however, is said to be of the sixth century (Bottarius illustrat. Rom. Subterr. tom. i. 199). I would refer the reader to St. Isidore’s Etymologia, lib. xix. cap. xxxi., who, speaking of the Nimbus, writes, « Nam est lumen, quod circa angelorum capita pingitur, nimbus vocatur.” St. Isidore wrote this work about the year 550. 16 drawings; for it is plain to demonstration tliat these illustrations were not all the work of Opinion of M. Leopold Delisle as to the antiquity of the National MS. No. 8084. Objections to the great age of the manuscript here anticipated. First objection. The Psalter of Augustine. one artist. In proof of the great age of the Trench MS., which the Utrecht MS. so closely resemble in all points, I submit the opinion of M. Leopold Delisle, perhaps the most skilful and most accurate palseographist in Europe: « L’un des manuscrits les plus remarquables de la Bibliotlieque imperiale est l’exemplaire « des poesies de Prudence, n. 8084 du fonds latin. 11 est entierement ecrit en belles lettres “ capitales, sur une peau tres-mince. Mabillon lui donnait a peu pres la meme antiquity “ qu’a un Virgile du Vatican, dont il rapportait l’execution au quatri^me si&cle. Dom Tassin “ et Dom Toustain partageaient l’opinion de Mabillon : suiyant eux, * ce precieux manuscrit « £ approche fort du temps de hauteur, s’il n’est pas contemporain.’ M. du Wailly est du “ meme avis, et met resolument au quatri&me si&cle le ms. 8084. II y a la peut-etre un tc peu d’exaggeration, et ce volume pourrait bien n’appartenir qu’au cinqui^me si&cle; mais “ ce qui est incontestable, c’est qu’il existait deja au commencement du sixikme.” As I am aware that the great age of the Utrecht MS. will be disputed, I think it expedient to anticipate the objections which maybe urged against the antiquity of the volume; at least, I shall notice all those which have been mentioned to myself by those who support Mr. Efoulkes’ theory. There may, however, be others with which I am not acquainted. Whenever any such new objections may appear, I shall feel myself bound in honour either to acknowledge my own errors, or else to point out those of others, if I am able, without delay; for the subject has now become a matter of importance, in the eyes of my own countrymen, and in those of. foreign scholars alike. The first objection then to the Utrecht MS., if I understand it rightly, is that the hand¬ writing is not so early as that of the sixth or seventh century; but I have not yet heard the grounds upon which this opinion rests. It could not be derived from any examination of the manuscripts in the British Museum, for if we except the Vespasian Psalter there are none there of the sixth and not more than four of the seventh century. The Psalter, of Augustine,* as it is called (MS. Cott. Vespas. A. i.), is written in large Boman uncials, * This MS. is generally believed to be the identical volume brought by Augustine into England; but it certainly does not answer the description, as given by Elmham, of the Psalter sent by Pope Gregory the Great, but another Psalter mentioned by Elmham agrees with the Cottonian MS. Yespas. A. i. I here subjoin Elmham’s words respecting the two Psalters. Elmham in his Historia S. Augustini Cantuariensis gives an account of the books in the monastic library at Canterbury ; among them was “ ‘ Psalterum Augustini,’ quod sibi misit idem Gregorius, in cujus primo folio incipiunt ‘ Meditationes ’ quajdam devotee taliter annotat® * Ecce quantum spatiatus sum in memoria mea ’ etc. usque ad folium quintum, ubi incipit ‘ Omnia Scriptura divinitus inspirata,’ et in altera parte ejusdem folii est ‘Symbolum Apostolorum,’ ‘ Oratio Dominica,’ ‘Gloria in excelsis,’ et ‘Sanctus, Sanctus,’etc. In sexto folio incipit ‘ Psalterium.’ In fine vero ejusdem ‘Psalterii sunt Ympni,’ tam nocturnales, quam diurnales. Primus hymnus pro medio noctis est iste, ‘ Mediae noctis tempus est;’ secundus ad gallicantum, ‘ iEterne . rerum Conditor;’ ad matutinas, ‘Splendor paternte glorise;’ ad primam, ‘ Venite fratres ocius;’ ad tertiam, ‘Jam,surgit hora tertia ;’ ad sextam, ‘Bis ternas horas explicans ;’ ad nonam, ‘ Ter hora trina volvitur;’ ad vesperas, ‘ Deus Creator omnium;’ ad completorium, ‘ Te deprecamur Domine.’ In xl., ‘ Christe, qui lux es Domine.’ De natali Domini hymnus, ‘ Intende, qui regis Israel super cherubin, qui sedes a patre Effrem. excita potentiam tuam et veni.’ Ac deinde sequitur pro eodem hymno, ‘ Yeni Redemptor gentium,’ usque ad finem. In Pascha hymnus, ‘ Hie est dies verus Dei;’ in festo apostolorum Petri et Pauli, ‘ Apostolorum passio ’. De sancto Johanne Evangelista ‘ Amore Christi nobilis.’ ” He mentions the other Psalter thus, “Est etiam et aliud ‘Psalterium’ supra tabulam magni altavis positum ; quod habet exterius imaginem Christi argenteam planam, cum quatuor Evangelistis. In hujus Psalterii primo folio incipit, ‘ Omnis scriptura divinitus inspirata.’ In tertio folio incipit, ‘ Epistola Damasi pap® ad Jeronymum,’ et in fine Versus ejusdem Damasi; ac deinde ‘Epistola Jeronymi ad Damasum,’cum Hieronymi versibus Deinde in quarto folio, ‘De Origine Psalmorum,’ in cujus fine distinguit Psalterium in quinque libros. Primus liber finit a Psalmo XL., videlicet, ‘Beatus qui intelligit,’ qui sic habet ‘Fiat, Fiat.’ Secundus liber a Psalmo LXXI., videlicet, .‘Deus, judicium tuum,’ qui sic habet, ‘ Fiat, Fiat.’ Tertius liber a Psalmo LXXXVIII., videlicet, Misericordias Domini,’ qui sic habet, ‘Fiat, Fiat.’ Quartus liber a Psalmo CV., videlicet, ,‘ Confitemini II.,’ qui sic babet, ‘ Fiat, Fiat.’ Quintus liber a Psalmo CL., videlicet, ‘ Laudate Dominum de ccelis,’ qui sic habet. ‘ Omnis spiritus laudet Dominum.’ In quinto folio ejusdem Psalterii.sequitur expositio de Alleluia secundum Hebrasos, Chald®os, Syros, et Latinos. Item interpre- tatio ‘ Glorias ’ apud Chaldteos. Item interpretatio Psalmi CXVIII. per singulas literas. In sexto folio sequitur quando 17 witli the title of each psalm in Roman rustic capitals in faded red ink.* In both these particulars the Utrecht Psalter differs from it, the text in the Utrecht MS. being in Roman rustic capitals, and the titles of the Psalms in Roman uncials. There are, however, at the commencement of the MS. (Cott. Yespas. A. i.) several pages written in Roman rustic and semi-rustic capitals, and one at the end of the Psalm, f. 109, which are considered to be of the fifth or sixth century. Now no one can look at the Roman rustic in this volume, especially that on f. 109, and reject the Utrecht MS. on account of its handwriting. If f. 109 is of the sixth century, which I believe it to be, there cannot be a doubt that the Utrecht Psalter is quite as old. The second is the Biblia Gregoriana (MS. Reg. 1. E. 6), which may be of the seventh, The Biblia though there are some indications of its being of the eighth century.f The Evangelia ^hef°MSS. ^ (Harl. 1775) is probably of the seventh century, as well as the Burney MS., No. 340. psalli vel legi debeat, quomodo Hieronymus scribit; item { Ordo Psalmorum per A, B, C, D.’ In septimo folio de literis Ilebrans, qua; in Psalterio scribuntur. In octavo folio, ‘ Interpretatio Psalmorum,’ usque ad folium undecimum, ubi incipit “ Textus Psalterii,” cum imagine Samuelis sacerdotis, et in fine ejusdem Psalterii sunt hymni de matutinis, de vesperis, et de Dominico die, sicut in alio Psalterio pramotato habentur.”— Historia Monasterii S. Augustini Cantuariensis, by Thomas of Elmham. Edited by Charles Hardwick, M.A. p. 98. * The Psalter, with its interlinear Saxon translation, commences on f. 12. The Saxon translation is certainly an addition at a later period. The introductory leaves, from f. 1 to f. 12, contain the preface “ De utilitate psalmorum.” Other matter relative to the Psalms appears to me to have been added when Sir Robert Cotton had the volume bound, inasmuch as Cotton’s name occurs at the foot of f. 12. His usual manner of showing his ownership was by writing his name on the first page of each of his manuscripts. f Mr. Westwood, (p. 39,) speaking of this volume, says :—“ In its present state, this noble manuscript contains only the four Gospels, with the Epistle ‘ Beato Papa; Damaso Hieronimus,’ Capitula, and Eusebian Canons ; but from the numeration of the quaternions of eight leaves each (lxxx. to Ixxxviii.), it is evident that in its original state it contained the whole of the Bible, as the Old Testament occupies seven or eight times the amount of space required for the Gospels. This curious circumstance, overlooked by all other writers, has led me to the conclusion that this MS. is no other than the remains of the so-called Biblia Gregoriana, described by Thomas Elmham, a monk of the abbey of Augustine . . . and the Church of Christ at Canterbury, to which the MS. itself belonged, as appears from the inscription at the beginning of (.he volume, ‘ Liber Sancti Augustini Cantuariensis.’ “ The monastic historian (whose work is contained in the library of Trinity College, Cambridge) thus describes the volume, his description perfectly agreeing with the fragment before us:— ‘ Imprimis habetur in librario Biblia Gre¬ goriana, in duobus voluminibus : quorum primum habet rubricam in primo folio de capitulis libri Genesis, secundum volumen incipit prologo beati Jeronimi super Ysaiam prophetam. In principio vero librorum in eisdem voluminibus inseruntur qusedam folia, quorum aliqua purpurei, aliqua rosei, sunt coloris, qua; contra lucem extensa mirabilem reflexionem ostendunt.’ The agreement of this latter statement with the volume before us will at once be admitted by all who have noticed the beautiful effect of the purple leaves on being held up to the light. The second title-page of this work is arranged after one of these leaves. Of all the Augustine MSS. (the ‘ primitie librorum totius ecclesie Anglicane,’ as they are called by the annalist above mentioned), Wanley observes that the ‘Biblia Gregoriana, duobus voluminibus scripta, agmen ducunt;’ adding that these volumes were inexistence no long time previous to his researches; since, in the apologetic petition of the Catholic laity, presented to King James T. in July 1604, they were expressly described in these words :—‘ The very original Bible, the self-same numero, which S. Gregory sent in with our Apostle S. Augustine, being as yet preserved by God’s special providence.’ “ It may, however, be objected that the numeration of the quaternions indicates a continuous text, forming only a single volume; and that the manuscript itself is an Anglo-Saxon production, and certainly not an Italian one. Against the former objection I may suggest, that although the quaternions are numbered continuously,* the work, when complete, might have been bound in two volumes; the Prophecies of Isaiah (which formed the beginning of the second volume of the ‘Biblia Gregoriana’) being about the middle of the Old and New Testaments united. Against the latter objection I can only reply that the noble size and appearance of the two volumes might easily have induced a monkish writer in the fifteenth century to have erroneously identified these two volumes with the description or tradition of the copy of the Bible which Bede informs us was sent by Pope Gregory to St. Augustine. “At present the volume comprises only 77 leaves, measuring 18 inches by 14, the text being written on both sides in double columns, each containing 42 lines, several of the leaves containing the illuminations and their.descriptions being stained of a very dark purple colour. Both Casley and Astle concur in referring the text (of which fac-similes are given by those two authors and also in my ‘ Pakeographia ’) to the seventh century, whilst Sir Frederic Madden refers it ‘ unquestionably to the eighth century.’ ” After a careful examination of this volume, I am inclined to agree with Casley and Astle, rather than with Sir Frederic Madden. 30606. The famous “ Codex Alexandrinus,” although bound in four volumes, has quaternions numbered consecutively. c 18 Objection that the writing is a later imitation of an earlier hand. Answer to such objection. However, I liave been informed that some of the objectors to the great antiquity of the Utrecht MS. do not deny that it is written in the hand of the sixth and seventh century, hut they allege that it is a copy made in the ninth or tenth century, and that the writer purposely imitated the handwriting of the sixth century. They do not seem to he aware that in making such an admission they defeat their own objection; for if the Utrecht MS. he imitated from a copy written in the hand of the sixth century, then the exemplar from which the copy was taken must have been of the sixth century; and if so, whatever becomes of the antiquity of the Utrecht MS. itself, the contents of it were as early in date as the original exemplar; and the result would be to place the origin of the Athanasian Creed at a much earlier date than its objectors are willing to admit. Besides, if it is a copy or imitation of a MS. of the sixth century, then its sixth century original must have had the same features and characteristics as the copy itself,*—unless they are able to show that what was a copy was no copy;—and then precisely the same objections made to the character of the one would apply to the other. Moreover, what object could there have been in writing the whole Psalter in a hand that had become obsolete for some centuries, and perhaps unread¬ able, and the text of which was not that received at the time, for the Gallican Psalter had then been long superseded by the Boman ? Had the Athanasian Creed been written in a hand of the sixth century, and the rest of the Psalter in a hand three centuries later, one might suppose that some fraudulent object had been intended, though it is difficult to surmise what the object could be. But that so costly and laborious a forgery as that of the whole Psalter should have been attempted, and should have been written in a hand that in all pro¬ bability could not be read, is quite incredible. Bor what purpose ? To palm off an antiquated psalter on the unsuspecting? Who was to gain by it? Then to palm off the Athanasian Creed as a document of greater antiquity than it really was ? That might have been done in a more direct and economical way, by writing it alone in rustic letters of the time of Athanasius. In fact, any one who examines this MS. must be convinced, from the size and extent of it, and the excessive costliness of its decorations, that the surmise of its being written for a fraudulent purpose is too absurd to be maintained for an instant. The only reasonable conclusion is that it belongs to the date when the Boman rustic capitals and the Gallican Psalter were in use,—that is, to the sixth or the seventh century;—for there is no evidence, that I am aware of, of an entire MS. being written in Boman rustic capitals during the ninth century ;f and this view is confirmed by a very remarkable fact. It is generally supposed that the Harleian MS. No 603, is a tenth or eleventh century copy of the Utrecht Psalter. At first sight there appear to be good grounds for that belief, inasmuch * It is suggested by Professor Westwood, in liis description of the Psalter of St. Augustine (p. 14) that the Utrecht MS. is a copy of a psalter brought from Eome by St. Augustine. His words are, “ What more likely than that « one of the two venerable psalters brought from Eome should have been a manuscript, and should have been the very « one copied in the Utrecht Psalter in the rustic capitals of the original ? ” Now, if this supposition is of any worth, it proves that in the sixth century there was a MS. written in rustic capitals, and that the copy of it was the present Utrecht Psalter. If this were so, it would certainly prove that there was a MS. of the sixth century containing the Athanasian Creed. Unfortunately, however, for Mr. Westwood’s supposition, the Utrecht MS. is a Gallican and not a Eoman Psalter; and therefore Augustine would not have brought into England a Service Book of the Gallican Church. + Professor Westwood has very obligingly sent me afac-simile of the ordinary text of the Leyden manuscript of Aratus, which he considers to be of the ninth century. I am sorry that I cannot subscribe to Professor Westwood’s opinion. The fac-simile he has forwarded to me is certainly that of a handwriting of the sixth century at latest. I should be inclined to give it an earlier date. It confirms the opinion of Mr. William Y oung Ottley, who is known to have bestowed much time and labour on the subject of ‘Aratus,’ “that there is every reason to believe the Leyden MS. “ to have been written and decorated in ancient Eoman times.” (Archseol. xxvi. p. 171.) Mr. Ottley, at p. 142 of his very learned dissertation, speaking of the Leyden MS., says that “ it is in as perfect preservation as if it had been “ written and decorated only ten years ago, and appears certainly to be of very high antiquity.”—“ The text in this “ MS. is written opposite the drawings, in capitals not very unlike those of the Medicean Yirgil, but perhaps a little “ larger, and more freely and loosely executed.” 19 as it contains a large number of tbe illuminations which occur in the Utrecht volume. It does not comprise the whole; blank places having been left for several of the designs; moreover the MS. itself is imperfect. But now comes the extraordinary fact, that though the drawings have been closely imitated, in the Harleian MS. the text has not been followed,— apparently for this reason; the Utrecht MS. adheres entirely to the Gallican version of the Psalter, while the Harleian follows that of the Roman. The cause of the difference is obvious : the Gallican version had been superseded in England by the Roman, especially at Canterbury,* * where the Harleian MS. was doubtlessly written. This fact has been discovered by a careful collation. It affords an additional proof that the Utrecht MS. was written before the middle of the seventh century when the Gallican version was superseded. But even here the inferential evidence is not completed. There is a manuscript at Trinity College, Cam¬ bridge, commonly known as the Eadwine Psalter, also written about the eleventh century, which contains the drawings in the Utrecht MS. more elaborately executed; and here again the Utrecht or Gallican text only occupies one of three col umns ; the other two being the Roman and Hebrew versions. This MS. was also written at Canterbury, so that though the drawings were imitated, though not very successfully, the Gallican text was placed in the same predicament with the Hebrew. It was evidently a class book, and not intended for the Church service. I am fully aware that it is difficult to fix exactly the age of any manuscript, but an obvious difference is perceptible in the writing of each century, and even of each half centurv. It is quite possible that a scribe may have lived in the latter half of one century and in the beginning of the next, and have never intentionally altered his writing; but a disciplined eye will at once see a difference between the firm decided hand of the man in his prime, and the unsteady feeble hand of the same man in his decline of life, although the letters of the two periods bear a resemblance to each other,—-precisely as the face of a man of five-and- twenty and his face at seventy have similar features and the like expression, and yet there is a marked difference between the two faces, which it is impossible not to perceive. In formal handwritings I am quite sure that a difference may be seen in every twenty years. Take, for instance, the reign of Henry the Third, in which four positive changes at least are easily discoverable; the shape of the letters and mode of abbreviating words vary; one style is superseded by another; and the handwriting at the commencement of Henry’s reign is different from that at the end of it. And here I may remark that the writings of the same century also differ in relation to place as well as to time. In the provinces the writing is not so advanced as in cities; that is, a change was not so easily adopted. I therefore think it clear to demonstration that the handwriting of the sixth century could never have been continued into the ninth, and that it would have been as difficult for persons in general to have read a sixth century MS. in the ninth century as it is for an unskilled person at the present time to read a manuscript written 300 years ago. An experienced eye will certainly tell the age of a manuscript within fifty years. The palaeo¬ grapher is seldom mistaken. He knows the age of a writing in the same way as he recognizes, among ten thousand, the writing of a friend or acquaintance; and this he does by a “ power of accurate judgment/’ which, acquired and consolidated by daily, even hourly, experience, has at last become almost instinctive, and yet which he cannot impart or even justify to others. The shape of particular letters, especially the capitals, are landmarks Difficulties of - --— —— -- forging hand- * Although the Gallican Psalter was not recognized in the services of the church at Canterbury, yet it is clear that writing, it was not forbidden in their library, for there is a MS. now in C. C. C. Cant. No. 411, a Gallican Psalter, belonging to the early archbishops, which descended to Thomas Becket. Archbishop Parker, mentioning this MS., says, ee Hoc “ Psalterium laminis argenteis deauratum, et gemmis ornatum, quondam fuit N. Cantuar. Archiep. tandem venit in ! '.(iQ) *■ £ f Objection taken by Dr. Vermuelen. Fac-similes of the drawings in the Utrecht Psalter in the British Museum. Baron van Wes- treenen’s criticism as to the occurrence of the nimbus. Ih l v/ ft/ 28 Opinion of Mar- Martigny, one of the most recent authorities, (in his “ Dictionnaire des Antiquites Chrd- •firmer on the _ . tiennes,” Art. Nimhe,) thus sums up the conclusions to which, after a careful examination of extant materials, he has been led:— “ De l’dtude qui precede, il resulte clairement que les images du Sauveur sont les “ premieres auxquelles furent decernes par les artistes Chretiens les honneurs du nimhe; “ celles des anges yinrent en second lieu, ensuite celles des dvangelistes et de leurs animaux “ symboliques, puis celles des apbtres, et enfin celles de tous les autres Saints. Mais a “ quelle epoque cet usage fut-il adopte pour chacune de ces classes de representations ? “ Nous en avons, pour les images de Notre Seigneur, des exemples bien anterieurs a “ Constantin; ils sont fournis par ces verres dores que nous avons mentionnes plus haut. ” d ‘ om - V 133S - 11 am indebted to my friend Mr. Rawdon Brown, of Venice, for the loan of this very rare book, winch he obtained, with very great difficulty, in Italy, expressly for my use. Mr. Rawdon Brown has also sent me photographs of the MSS. used by Bianehini in his work, which I shall make public when [treating of .the Greek and Latin texts of the Athanasian Creed in the MSS. at Venice. Assumption by Archbishop Usher that the Apostles’ Creed, containing the same number of articles as it did in his day, existed in a MS. which he assigned to the time of Pope Gregory the Great. The article of the Descent found in undated MSS. of the Creed attri¬ buted to the sixth and seventh centuries. 32 Conclusive nature of the evidence that the Descent into Hell was an article of faith in the fifth century. Probability that the Psalter was written where the doctrines of the Aquileian Church prevailed. the articles traditionally ascribed to them. The tradition is, of course, entirely unworthy of belief; but the article of the Descent occurs again in this second version of the Creed (Mabillon, Mus. Ital., tom. i., pt. 2, p. 396).* The evidence in favour of “ The Descent into Hell ” being an article of faith in the fifth century, appears to me to be conclusive; but admitting, merely for the sake of argument, that it was not adopted at Rome until the eighth,f it is no evidence that the Utrecht Psalter was written in, or after, the eighth century ; unless, indeed, it could be shown that the Psalter was prepared in Rome before the words in question were introduced into the Roman Creed. The probability, however, is, that it was written in some part of Italy where the doctrines of the Aquileian Church obtained; for it must be remarked that the phrase “ descendit ad inferno ,” as it occurs in the Psalter, is the oldest form of expression, the same as that of Elipandus; while in the Creed of Vonantius Portunatus it is “ descendit ad infernum,” and afterward “ descendit ad inferos.” Por the purpose of completing these remarks on the Descent into Hell, I give the words of the Creed as they occur in a very ancient Gallican Psalter, written in the sixth century, and in the Utrecht Psalter. VetUS MlSSALE GaLLICAA’UH. Written about the year 560. Credo in Deum Patrem omnipotentem, Creatorem cadi et terras. Credo et in Jesum-Christum, Filium ejus unigenitum sempiternum. Qui conceptus est de Spiritu sancto, natus est de Maria Virgine. Passus est sub Pontio Pilato; crucifixus, mortuus, et sepultus. Descendit ad inferna. Tertia die resurrexit a mortuis. ascendit ad cselos. Sedit ad dexteram Dei Patris omnipotentis. Inde venturus judicare vivos et mortuos. Credo in sanctum Spiritum; sanctam Ecclesiam Catho- licam. Sanctorum communionem : remissionem peccatorum : Carnis resurrectionem: Vitam astern am. Amen.* * After Amen, this passage occurs—“ Symbolum, fratres car- rissimi, non in tabulis scribitur; sed in corde, susceptum memoriter retinetur. Et ideo juvat iterare quod nunquam convenit oblivisci.” Utrecht MS. Folio 90. Incipit Symbolum Apostolorum. Credo in Deum Patrem omnipotentem creatorem caeli et terrae Et in Jesum Christum filium ejus unicum dominum nostrum. Qui conceptus est de Spiritu sancto. natus ex Maria Virginae. (sic) Passus sub Pontio Pilato crucifixus mortuus et sepultus Descendit ad inferna f Tertia die resurrexit a mortuis ■ ascendit ad caelum Sedet ad dexteram Dei patris. omnipotentis. Inde venturus judicare vivos et mortuos; Credo et in spiritum sanctum sanctam ecclesiam catho- licam SanctorumJ communionem S remissionem peccatorum. Carnis resurrectionem ■ Vitam aeternam. Amen f The first two letters of the word patrem are in uncials, but the word patrem, written in full, occurs in the next line in rustic. See fac-simile. * I may refer to a very remarkable statement made by Usher in his “ Answer to a Challenge made by a Jesuit,” (Works, vol. iii. p. 310.) It is this : that Gilbert Genebrard, in his Treatise on the Trinity, (De Trinitate libri tres contra hujus asvi Trinitarios et Autotheanos, Paris, 1569 and 1585, 8°,) quotes the Commentary of St. Ambrose on the 5th chapter of S. Paul’s Epistle to the Romans, to show that the Arians were so strongly opposed to the doctrine of “ The Descent into Hell,” that they struck the article containing it out of the Apostles’ Creed. Usher’s reply to this allegation is, that there is not “ the least footstep of any such matter in St. Ambrose ; and that the Arians, et so far from disliking the article, actually introduced it (as we have already seen) into the Creeds of Sirmium, Nice, “ and Ariminum.” Now, the first half of Usher’s answer, viz., that the passage which he says Genebrard quotes as from St. Ambrose, is not to be found in his works, is perfectly consistent with the existence of the passage in the Commentary, inasmuch as Usher may have believed, as all modern editors of St. Ambrose believe, that the Com¬ mentary, though very ancient, was not written by St. Ambrose. A very careful search, however, through the Commen¬ tary, as it exists in the Paris edition of St. Ambrose, (the edition which Usher most probably used,) has failed to discover the passage, not only in the comment on Rom. v. and Rom. xv., but also that on Ephes. iv. 9, a passage still more likely than either of the others to have given rise to the statement alleged to have been quoted by Genebrard. It would be interesting to discover the cause of Genebrard’s mistake, for mistaken he most probably was; and still more interesting to show, that the Arians had been accused by a contemporary of subtracting from the Apostles’ Creed an article which, it is generally supposed, was first inserted in that creed by the Arians themselves. This, how¬ ever, in the present state of the case, it is impossible to do. f I have now before me a Roman breviary of the thirteenth century, where “ The Descent into Hell” is omitted in the Apostles’ Creed. It runs “ crucifixus sub Poncio Pilato passus et sepultus est et resurrexit tercia die et ascendit 33 Having thus shown, as .1 think, conclusively, that the Utrecht Psalter was written during the sixth century, I may he permitted to express an opinion as to the occasion of its coming into England. I need not repeat what I have stated before, that in my opinion the MS. was not written in England, as, to my mind, it has none of the characteristics of Anglo-Saxon writing; nor, probably, in Home, because it contains “The Descent into Hell ” in the Apostles’ Creed. I would, therefore, suggest that it was written in one of the monasteries in which the Gallican ritual obtained, as it contains ritualistic rubrics which are not to be found in the Eoman or the Oriental ritual. That the MS. conforms to the Gallican ritual there can be no doubt.* * * * § It may then, I suggest, have been brought into England by Bertha, daughter of Chari- berct. King of Prance, and Queen of Athelberct, of Kent, who allowed her to retain the Christian religion, and maintained a bishop here as her spiritual guide, t before the arrival of Augustine in Britain. It is not a little remarkable that the Gallican ritual must have been known and used in Britain, from the time that Lupus, Bishop of Troyes, and Germanus, Bishop of Auxerre, introduced it here, when they came from Gaul to endeavour to eradicate the Pelagian heresy. That the Gallican and the Irisli{ rituals obtained in Britain when Augustine arrived here, is evident from his question to Pope Gregory: “ As the faith is one “ and the same, are there different customs in different churches ? and is one custom of “ masses observed in the Holy Homan Church and another in the Gallican Church ?” To which Pope Gregory answers : “ You know, my brother, the custom of the Homan Church, “ in which, remember, you were brought up. But it pleases me, that if you have found any “ thing either in the Homan, or the Gallican, or any other Church, which may be more accept- “ able to Almi ghty God, you should carefully make choice of the same, and sedulously teach “ the Church of the English, which as yet is new in the faith, whatsoever you can gather “ from the several churches. Eor things are not to be loved for the sake of places, but “ places for the sake of good things. Choose, therefore, from each Church those things “ that are pious, religious, and correct, and when you have, as it were, made them up into “ one body, let the mind of the English be accustomed thereto.” Thus, from Augustine’s question and Gregory’s answer, it is clear that the Gallican ritual obtained in England before his arrival; and as the Homan ritual§ was introduced by him, it is not at all probable that any Gallican or other foreign ritual would have been sanctioned under Augustine’s primacy. To enlarge somewhat further on this subject. It is clear to demonstration that the Utrecht Psalter was prepared for some special occasion; and the extreme costliness of such a manuscript in those early times would appear to indicate that the Psalter under discussion must have been the property of some noble or royal personage. The high value that was set on these drawings is evident from the number of copies which were made from them. The drawings are such as would serve as an illustration of the text, and in coelum.” It might just as well be inferred that because the descent into hell is not in this MS., and yet it is in the Utrecht Psalter, therefore the Utrecht MS. was written after the thirteenth century, seeing that the phrase is found in later Eoman creeds. * The prominence given, in the Utrecht Psalter, to the Athanasian Creed, as well as that of the Apostles, to say nothing of the Gallican version of the Psalms, is an additional argument that the MS. was written in a foreign monastery, where the Gallican offices of the Church obtained. These two Creeds are not to be found in any Eoman Psalter of the 6th century. f Beda, lib. 1, c. xxv., states that Athelberct received Bertha from her parents upon condition that she should be permitted to retain her religion, with Bishop Luithard, who was sent with her as an assistant to preserve her faith. J The Irish ritual differs from the Eoman missal, and does not agree in all things with the Gallican. § It is, I believe, admitted that Pope Gregory the Great reduced the Eoman liturgy into the order now used by that Church. It may be mentioned here that York, Croyland, Lincoln, Sarum, and London afterwards had peculiar liturgies; but that of Sarum, drawn up by Osmund, Bishop of Sarum, 1078, being grounded on the Eoman, was in general use in England until the time of Cardinal Pole, when the Eoman was adopted. Occasion of the Utrecht Psalter coming to England. Perhaps brought here by Bertha, daughter of Chari- berct. Early use of the Gallican ritual in England. The Gallican ritual obtained in Eng¬ land before Augus¬ tine’s arrival. Eeasons for sup¬ posing that the Utrecht Psalter in question belonged to Queen Bertha. 30606. 34 Not written for an Anglo-Saxon per¬ sonage. Probably be¬ queathed by Queen Bertha to the monastery at Reculver. stand in tlie place of a comment to rude and uneducated min ds; for, as I have already- observed, all the drawings have especial reference to the subject near to which they are placed. Thus, the Apostles’ Creed is illustrated by the chief incidents mentioned therein; viz., the trial before Pontius Pilate, the crucifixion, resurrection, descent into Hell, and ascension into Heaven. I would further add, it is evident that the MS. was not written for an Anglo-Saxon personage, or it would have had an interlinear translation into that language, as is the case with those Psalters and other works which Augustine brought with him into England, for the instruction of his converts. Bertha, being a Erench princess, would not, of course, require such assistance. The designs were intended not only to convey what we may call an emblematic translation, but by their intrinsic beauty to impress the truth more clearly on the mind. As it was written in some foreign monastery, and was brought into England by Queen Bertha, so I am inclined to think it was bequeathed by her to the monastery at Eeculver in Kent. King JEthelbrect is said to have built a palace at Eeculver,' at least so Smith interprets Beda’s words: “ Ipse iEdilbreches Eegulbium demigravit, ibique novum sibi palatium con- didit;” and it was there that Queen Bertha, with her Christian instructor, Luithard, the Gallican bishop of Senlis, worshipped. She had previously performed her devotions at St. Martin’s, Canterbury ;* but when that ancient church was given by the King to Augustine and his followers, she removed to Eeculver, where it is said her husband built a small monastery, at her request. Beda, however, makes no mention of this monastery; but be this as it may, we know that Ecgbert, King of Kent, in the year 669, gave lands there to one Basse, a nobleman who had become a priest, for the purpose of enlarging the monastery at Eeculver; and we have evidence that Lothair, who succeeded Ecgbert as King of Kent, granted in the year 679 certain lands to Bercuald,f the abbot there; this very charter * Erat autem prope ipsam .civitatem ad Orientem ecclesia in honorem S. Martini antiquitus facta, dum adliuc Romani Brittanniam incolerent, in qua regina, quam Christianam fuisse prtediximus, orare consueverat. 11 here give the charter: “ In nomine Domini nostri Salvatoris Jesu Christi: Ego Hlotharius rex Catnuariorum pro u remedi urn animae meae dono terrain, in Tenid. quce appellatur Westan ae tibi Bercuald. tuoque monasterio cum <£ omnibus ad se pertinentibus campis pascuis meriscis silvis modicis fonnis piscara’s o mni bus ut dictum est ad “ eandem terrain, pertinentia. sicuti nunc usque possessa est. juxta notissimos terminos a me demonstrates et a proacu- “ ratoribus meis. eodem modo tibi tuoque monasterio conferimus. teneas possedeas tu. posterique tui in perpetuum “ defendant a nullo contradicitur. cum consensu archiepiscopi Theodori et Edrico. filium fratris mei necnon et omnium ec principum. sicuti tibi donata est ita tene et posteri tui: Quisquis contra hanc donationem venire temptaverit sit ab “ omni Christianatata separatus et a corpore et sanguine Domini nostri Jesu Christi suspensus. Manentem hawc “ donationis chartulam in sua nihilominus firmitate et pro confirmatione ejus manu propria signum sancte Crucis express c< et testes ut subscriberent rogavi. Actum in civitate Recuulf in mense Maio Indictione septima.*. “ In ipsa ante memorato die adjunxi aliam terram in Sturia juxta notissimos terminos a me demonstrates et proacura- “ toribus meis cum campis et silvis et pratis sicuti ante memorabimus supradictam terram: ita ista sit a me donata “ eodem modo cum omnibus ad se pertinentia, in potestate Abb. sit. in perpetuum. a me donata. a nullo contradictur, “ ( 1 U0< 1 ahsit. neque a me neque a parentibus meis neque ab aliis. Si aliquis aliter fecerit a Deo se damnatum sciat. “ et in die judicii rationem reddet Deo inanima sua.'. “ -f Signum manus Hlothari Regis Donatoris. “ + Signum manus Gumbercti. “ -f- Signum manus Gebredi. “ + Signum manus Osfridi. “ + Signum manus Irminredi. “ + Signum manus Aedibmaeri. “ + Signum manns Hacani. “ + Signum manus Aeldredi. “ + Signum manus Aldhodi. “ + Signum manus Gudhardi. “ + Signum manus Bernhardi. “ + Signum manus Uelhisci.” The original charter is now in the Cottonian Collection (Augustus, u. 2.), and seems to have been removed from the Utrecht Psalter by Sir Robert Cotton himself, when the volume was rebound. It is printed in Kemble’s “ Codex Diplo¬ matics aevi Saxoniei,” tom. 1. No. 16. 35 having teen originally inserted, in the Utreclit Psalter. The manuscript, in all probability, Tie Psalter finally remained at Reculver, as a memorial of its royal donor, and was either carried to Canterbury Canterbury. when Bercuald left the abbacy and became Archbishop of that See; or when that monastery was dissolved, and all its possessions and effects were removed to Canterbury, in the year 999 ; and hence it is that the drawings in this noble and beauteous MS., which would be justly prized at Canterbury, were copied by the writer of MS. Marl. 603, and by Eadwine, a monk at Canterbury, whose work is now preserved in Trinity College, Cambridge. To sum up what I have said in favour of the date of the Utrecht Psalter, placed by me Summary of argu- at the close of the sixth century, I have shown — variouapro- (I.) That Archbishop Usher, one of the most accomplished and accurate of theologians, positions, archaeologists, and palaeographers, attributes it to the age of Pope Gregory the Great, who occupied the chair of St. Peter from 590 to 604. (II.) That Gustavus Haenel, a highly competent authority, assigns it to the sixth century. (III.) That Baron van Westreenen, renowned for his knowledge of ancient MSS., ascribes it to the sixth or beginning of the seventh century; his opinion has been adopted by that of Professor H. J. Royaards. (IV.) That Professor "Westwood in his great work has assigned it to the sixth or early part of the seventh century.* * I have within the last few days received a letter from Professor Westwood, in which he says—“I see that in my “ large work I have not expressed myself so explicitly on the age of the MS. as I did in the Ih. Arch. Institute, xvi., “ ‘ p. 246, as follows : ‘ Supposing the drawings to be later (that they are later is proved by some of them extending “ ‘ over parts of the adjoining text) additions by an Anglo-Saxon artist copying from an early classical series of drawings “ ‘ we should have no difficulty in referring the text to the 5th or 6th century. The initial of the First Psalm, how- “ ‘ ever, precludes us from assigning it to so early a date, and would bring it to the 7th or 8th at the earliest, ranging “ ‘ it with the Psalter, so called, of S. Augustine, Cotton Library, Vespas. a. i. In this case the drawings may have been “ ‘ added in the 9th or 10th century. A more recent inspection of the Leyden Aratus (the text of which is also “ ‘ written in still finer rustic capitals in the 9th century, the' drawings being grand classical figures) has led me to “ ‘ believe that the Utrecht Psalter may even have been written as late as the 8th or even the 9th century.’ ” I have given Professor Westwood’s own words explaining the reason of his change of opinion, but I think it must be con¬ sidered that the reasons he advances are far from satisfactory. There can be no doubt, I think, that the drawings in the Utrecht Psalter were inserted after the text was written (though, mirable dietu, the reverse has been urged upon me), therefore Professor Westwood would refer the text to the 5 th or 6th century. In that I agree with him, but then he says that the initial of the First Psalm precludes him from assigning it to so early a date, and would bring it down to the 7th or 8th at the earliest, ranging it with the Augustine Psalter (Yespas. A. I.). Why he comes to this conclusion he does not state, and I am at loss to conceive, inasmuch as the Augustine Psalter does not contain any similar letter. He then goes on to say, “ In this case the drawings may have been added in the 9th or 10th century.’’ Why this should be so Professor Westwood does not say, nor can I divine. Nor indeed do I comprehend the force of an argument, which allows that the text is of the 5th or 6th century, and because the drawings may have been added as late as the 9th, infers that the whole MS. is of that date. The drawings are certainly the work of a foreign artist, and were copied four or five centuries afterwards by an Anglo-Saxon .artist, not very exactly, but, on the whole, sufficient to show that they were taken from the Utrecht Psalter. Moreover, I do not see what the Leyden MS. can have to do with the Utrecht MS., so as to induce Professor Westwood to bring the latter down to the 8th or 9th century. The two MSS. are in my opinion written nearly about the same period, but the Leyden is the earlier of the two. Professor Westwood in his letter—I have already given his words—compares the Utrecht Psalter to the Cottonian MS., Yespas. a. i., and therefore, as I understand him, would bring it down to the 7th or 8th century. In his great work he has given a very interesting description of this Cottonian MS. Speaking of it he says, “ The ten “ leaves ” (at the commencement of the volume) contain the prefaces to the Psalms, and “ is written in tall thin rustic « capitals, without enlarged initials or any space left between the words, closely resembling those of the Florence “ Virgil written in A.D. 498 ” (p. 10), . . . “ whilst the latter portion of the prefaces, including the Epistle Damasus, . .. “ is written in a smaller and rounder rustic character, closely resembling that of the MS. of St. Augustine, De Civitate “ Dei, of the 5th or 6th century ” (p. 10). “ The drawing is coeval with the text, .... and affords illustrations of the “ dresses and musical instruments of the period. It bears so strong a resemblance, both in its design and manipulation, « to the wall paintings of Italy, and especially to the drawings of the Codex Geneseos of the Cotton Library, the Vatican “ Virgil of the 5th century, and the Florence Gospels of St. John Zagba, A.D. 586, and is, at the same time, so “ entirely unlike any productions of our native artists in these respects, that I can only regard it as a work executed « either by one of the Roman followers of St. Augustine, or as a precise copy made from a Roman original by a skilled « An^lo-Saxon artist by whom or by one of his fellow Anglo-Saxon artists the ornamental arch in which the painting E 2 36 (V.) That I myself, with an experience of more than half a century, believe it to have been written at the latter end of the sixth century. (VI.) That none of the objections against this date, so far as I have heard them, are of sufficient validity; whether they relate to the handwriting, the initial letter B, the punctuation, abbreviations, drawings, especially the organs, the descent into Hell, the Matutinum, the Completorium, the nimbus, &c. (VII.) That as the Utrecht Psalter is a Gallican, and not a Homan, Psalter, objections to it, based upon the Homan usage, are of no force. (VIII.) That the objections of the librarian at Utrecht may be satisfactorily answered.* (IX.) That there are good grounds for surmising how the MS. in question found its way into England. I may have failed in what I have attempted, but I have not allowed prejudice to guide me in my researches ; for I am not conscious of any prepossession in favour of the Creed —rather otherwise. Its retention in the Book of Common Prayer, or the modification of the Bubric that compels it to be read aloud during Divine Service, is a question simply for theologians, in which I do not feel called upon to take any part. I have formed my judgment on the photographs of the manuscript on which the Master of the Rolls desired my opinion on paheographical grounds exclusively; and if I have helped to remove any erroneous im¬ pression as to the Creed being of later date than the sixth century, I feel I have done some service, and that my time and labour have not been thrown away. My remarks on the Venetian and other manuscripts, at Paris, Vienna, and Home, I must reserve for a future occasion. Since writing the above I have read Mr. Ffoulkes’ last pamphlet, entitled “The Athanasian Creed Reconsidered,” but I see nothing in it that affects my statement in the slightest degree except bis own statement, wherein he says, p. 49, “ I contend with “ Professor Heurtley that its (the Utrecht Psalter) exhibiting the Apostles’ creed, full and “ complete as now, negatives its being earlier than the eighth century, and further, on my “ own responsibility, that its appending the Athanasian Creed at all to a Psalter designed for “ use in a choir, to say nothing of its designating this Creed as ‘ Bides Catholica,’ simply “ negatives its being earlier than the middle of the ninth at best.” I am quite content that the opinion hero advanced should rest, as Mr. Efoulkcs desires, simply upon his own “ responsibility.” T. Duitus Hakdy, 28th November 1872. Deputy Keeper of the Public Records. “ is enclosed was executed,” (p. 11), In another place, speaking'of the Cottonian MS., Vespas. a. i., Professor Westwood (p. 12) says, “We have seen above that not only are several pages of the MS. containing the prefaces, &c. (written in “ rustic or semi-rustic capitals) referible to the 5th or 6th century; but the whole of the ordinary text of the Psalter “ is written in Roman uncials with which several MSS. of the 6th and 7th centuries may be advantageously compared; “ indeed, were it not for the illuminated initial letters, the volume would unquestionably be assigned to a Roman scribe.” After having expressed himself so strongly as to the very early age of the Cottonian M.S. (Vespasian a. i.) it is not a little singular that Professor Westwood should have changed his opinion so completely as to assign it to the 7th or 8th century, and without assigning any reason for his change of opinion. * I take this opportunity to express my warm thanks to Dr. P. J. Vermuelen for his very courteous and ready answers to my many inquiries, and for the valuable remarks with which he has favoured me. APPENDIX. MeMOKIE door den ondergeteekenden Bibliothekaris overgegeven aan Heeren Curatoren der Hoogeschool te Utrecht, aangaande den Codex MS. Psalmorum, waarin het zoogenaamde Credo Athanasii gevonden word! Gevraagd is: I. Of eenige inlichting kan gegeven worden ten bewyze dat het Handschrift tot de zesde eeuw zoude behooren. II. Of er reden bestaat om te onderstellen dat de miniaturen en illuminatien van latere dagteekening zyn dan het schrift der geloofs belijdenis. Ten aanzien der eerste vraag moet ik al aanstonds doen opmerken dat het voor my niet mogelyk is eenig bewijs te leveren dat het HS. uit de zesde eeuw afkomstig zoude zyn, om de eenvoudige reden dat ik het altyd tot de achtste of negende (750-850) heb gebragt en myn gevoelen niet is veranderd. Het was dan ook met bevreemding datik in een werkje van den Heer J. Jones, The Creed of S. Athanasius, fyc., Lond., 1872, het volgende aantrof: "The present archivist, Mr. P. J. Vermeulen, has been decided in his opinion that « it does not reach further back than the seventh century/’ Hoe deze woorden in dat werkje gekomen zyn, blyft my tot nog toe een raadsel, daar alien die het Handschrift in de laatste jaren onderzocht hebben, tevens myne meening aangaande den vuderdom hebben vernomen. Deze meening evenwel is in stryd met die van anderen. Op een der drie voorste schutbladen van den tegenwoordigen band staat, met eene hand uit de eerste helft der 17, eeuw geschreven: “Psalmi Davidis latine cum aliis hymnis et canticis sacrae scripturae, y f- 1 - l 1 VCrplTf rot SCATho ; LicXch ujcLiqueuutr una££IDAiiuiiA£A£ QVJAli;GtOlUACOAn WAMAIWA^ qUAif£fAT£AIAU£fTllUj' rAli«uriwrvj«c5' | £4CUATU£fAT£BJNCA£ AIUJfiiiunwOiATUJ iuriutisstS' SALWSISSUHITOHLHIA ofuifsrurnwfAicATHo UCAMflDiM; qvjAMwisiQUisQMnwn GAAUlMVJ10i.AIAM.QSU UAUAVUA1UBSQSHDU BlbiWAmAWUMlUAtBlT f-IDKAVJriMCAlHOUCA.-, ? HMfSUUXPAIfUMMfH HAfCBrUIUWUUDUiH ' AVUfliiU^lMMfWiU-f •TWN11AII lIIAlMilA I£MlMUWlIAl£U£NfA£ MVJA; . '!W£q\J£COW[uWD£Mr££ r£fS£0'WA£M£QM££U££rAN &IIAMINN0WIUSMW1' riAUJffAAAMlK; . SlDUMU£A£IfANU£ ; .\ UAwnwiMf£PJO na sicuTNowrwsiwcuAn ' tsiwpAiufUiiAUA NfCTkmsmi^mfDM St] SCI; _ M.U£IWCA£ATVJ££TVJMU£ mtimkisnfriunsfssa ih^emivu; . . • : usriurusscs; . AHfkWUifATfkAtHk NUiflLlKISAlftkHKlS \ irsnkivjsscs; sisiiLuikauuirouuf PAIfA-'OMMironNifl^ Liwouwironwyfru/ur er,TAM£MWOWIW£OMNJ rOT[WIf£££DUWVJ£OM%' | IAD)rAT£U>?flllVJJ Dmmuiwq; G T.IAM££4 N ONtklSDii HDytywisiDb , | TAD W £ fAT£ k AD H£ fl i 1 Uf DMSfliTlAiTUUa; t:TTAU£WHOMl£C££D^£ ' ££DSIHU£f£IDM£/ q uiAiiCuryiwGiUAtiw U HAM QMAWaaW^OMA DM £ ID WMCOM flitklMlA my:AirAi£COHT£LliM^; i (IAfA£ £ D £ OS Ail r I A£ £ DOMiMOiDlCfAftATHO , jj LlCAktLlQOWtkQHlBl J - MU A A TfiUwuUofnfAcrui - ' WICCktA'rM/NfCGfHlIU/ piiiufArArwfoLoHi-' WOWfACIU/-' MfCCIJAIM* SfD^iiu/j* \s C/SC/ArAIUflfiiiOWOH fACrM/WfCCklArU/WfCCf WlIUJ5fDfAOC£DfW5: j.QMVinUOrATIILHONTkES f rAIkl/MNU/fiLtUSWOH tusfiniMNu//wcV wowiJusfriiTi ■ . tltlWHACrfJWMAXfWlHii fkiuyAuironfAiux Hi HlLMAlM/AMlMlMUS : S iDronrMsnwoMAECO AlTfkHAfSlBlSUWMI j COAfQMALH; J TAUlflkOMHiA/lCUflX /MnuDiciuMismiiu WllASlMMWHAlf £1U HUAXiWlUWMAIfUf MEkAWDASlI ULUUlmCO/AiAIUS ISSt llXmtWNUAII L nwiiAi-; l"StD^*C£^AklUMin ~ AD.AIIHU4AMrAhm UIIMCA^WAIIOWIM QSlOCMfONlWOlftW ; :. ,caxLoaxioit ■ -.v 1 - AMTf/AICMlAGmilMS • ' ADDIXIIkAMDirAIkUS \'.A IIHOMOESIEXSU6STAM OMWlfOUKIiS, • ' IlAMAliCmN/AfCULO 1 HDiMIWrUkU/lUDia^ j MAivi/; UlUOmMOMUOi- f ... . pf.kflClMSD,/rikf£CIH5HO ADCUtM/ADMfWTM MOfXANlMAkAUOWAll' MtfROMlWfmSM. EIHM MAWACAkW 15 M B HAAIWTCMUCOkfO&BM*^ SinlWi - SVJ1/: . ;T U ) i AiQMAlurAm sieving ? OUMOWlWltMlM-' , !l? l ^ r v VA > - r i.u M r-^ ; ’> ' WIJJO WAIW/fCV WDM e iQMlBOMAIGiEW - HMMAMIIAIMA/ £ lBMWIlMMllAUAiUSM4A-r qMlUCEIDSnniHOUO' . ji^mimaIaiwigwim 1 AUfAMMM; NOWDUqiAMIM/iDU bAICfSlflDf/CAIHOUCA -p \ ■ HMSESIXrS; QMAM W151QDJ15QUI Tibi -;• umm/amumwcmcowmer. . m^fu^nfAaMicuDr.' SS*: ' dmimmhssihou ro MIHMMAWlIAtlSiMDb; %' uhm/omninomomcow TM/lOWISMBnAMIlAE WOMWlTAtlflkfONAI; ^ ISjAM/lCMrAWlMA^AHO MAllSf ICAkOM WMj E/IHO • MO iTAD/HHOMOMWtf/ ' 4 c VV TkUiVSIOH'O J\|u woicnn/i is >£LAUUIUUMDWf 5ICUNDUMVJIWVIMIU \JMlNPACf VIS \ Dt oospl c TO R IUtP CjUlAUlDiLUWIOCUlLUu t LOBAIM. CALurARHVjy K1 ■ l -UMENADWMfLAlJONA q UODfJLAfrAf^ASTiAWTf CITIUM - ElGlOjUAM fAcifMOMNivjKiroru rL£Bi;ru£i>x\HEl Cl l OR! VI VC vet L 5L£Db£I£Wl£kiAPAX HOMlWi&Ui'BOWlUO Lawiaii; l, AUDAMAIjTE • i\ £W£DIC1UU5I£ ' V DOJLAMUJIf; C LOUfiCAUUill i C RAIiAUGlMUniBI ; rnorniLMAGHAGLOW AMTUA.U - DWEWmCAUf^IS/ 0;rAi££iou'Hifoi(Hi‘; £> NffUiUWiC,£WiTA£ ' 1 HUXff t> HI DS AG WU-EDiflllU £ TA lUyquiioilimccAiA WUWD£Mi/£UUN06i$ ..QWTOiltfffCCATAMVjHI SWCMMMJCMLOHtl HOfJkAUy- j\U/£ D17ADD £.V 1tK AM rATW^MWiWWOBW Jr Ml\JSOhtSiCS-N$0\SSS 7KS XMCyfCOjfVI'lWGiO DW5 TWOiUJALlltflNWf; UA DlPAlBA* AMfM; I op \ t ioOpom s’ it: v P A i CiRVOS U R Q.U I r J i Kf C A£ US 3*c 1 n C £ IVUJOMWTUVMAD UINjAI&iGNVMIUVJM* flAIUOiUMlAnuA^ St t civ cum ftCUTlNCAliOIUNrU rAwiMwo/riLUMcon DiAWVlMDAWOBb'HO Dif'fTDlMirifNOB^ DfBIIAWOi'TB.A ; mArheum SICUItlWO^DIUlTri MtADfBIIOfU&'JSWO; IJUf-flWIWO^IMDU CAnMimriATtOWfM SfDllBfkAWOSAMAio'/ vt, -• fiiy j vc ! pits \ cn boLu sfolo mim pRcooisDm p\. rATBsfMOMMirortwnM CWATOWCAflinnBJLAE [TiHirtWKru^iLiu^inw .UWICUMDWMMOnJLU- quicowcffrumiDtfru SCO • WAT.U $ lk M A WAU1 A. G1W \[ ■ PAWUtfUjrON noriUrockviciFixvtf wokTuvf^nstcviLiviJ-'wy. aWDilADlwfaWA'IfB. IlADUBsISUiCBAXlTAMOfV tUlsASCfWDlIADCAElVIM. •«D«ADDWT£»*AMDlPA iupoMNiPormnfiw DfVJlHTUfAmUMCAfc uwosfmoBJUo;; CJUDOfllWSf M SCMKAU fCCUyiAMCAtHOUaM. ■ SCOfCUMCOMMUMlO. A W£M- UM15SJOMM „• • vfkiH * eATUSCIIR. QINOM ABl^T iNCON^Jl oiwnonu UIWVJI APiC CAT0MMN0N5inir IIlNCArHIOHAPfSIi UNIlAlNOMSfOU IDlNlKJDMJVOl'JSi IASflVJS III MlJCEilVjS' MEDlTABITVJPvDlI Vovwit'&wXs.'Dai)