¹ I present a list of abbreviations used hereafter for books and articles frequently mentioned:

Köhler, Schule.

Köhler, Wilhelm, Die Karolingischen Miniaturen. Im Auftrage des Deutschen Vereins für Kunstwissenschaft. Erster Band: Die Schule von Tours. Des Textes erster Teil: Die Ornamentik (Berlin, 1930).Google Scholar

(Köhler,) G. G. A.

(Köhler,) , G. G. A., review of Rand, Survey (see below), in Göttingische gelehrte Anzeigen, 193. Jahrgang (1931), 321–336.Google Scholar

Rand, Survey.

Rand, E. K., A Survey of the Manuscripts of Tours. Studies in the Script of Tours, I. (Cambridge, Mass.: The Mediaeval Academy of America, 1929).Google Scholar

(Rand,) G. G. A.

Rand, E. K., review of Köhler, Schule (see above), in Göttingische gelehrte Anzeigen, 193. Jahrgang (1931), 336–351.Google Scholar

‘Alcuin's Bible.’

Rand, E. K., ‘A Preliminary Study of Alcuin's Bible,’ in The Harvard Theological Review, XXIV (1931), 323–396.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

The Earliest Book of Tours.

E. K. Rand, with the assistance of Jones, Leslie Webber, The Earliest Book of Tours with Supplementary Descriptions of Other Manuscripts of Tours. Studies in the Script of Tours, II. (Cambridge, Mass.: The Mediaeval Academy of America, 1934).Google Scholar

² Beeson, C. H., in Classical Philology, XXV (1930), 285.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

³ Lowe, E. A., ‘Handwriting,’ in C. G. Crump and E. F. Jacob, The Legacy of the Middle Ages (Oxford, 1926), 217.Google Scholar

⁴ Survey.

⁵ Schule.

⁶ For the points of agreement and disagreement see Köhler, G. G. A.; Rand, G. G. A.; and ‘Alcuin's Bible.’

⁷ G. G. A., p. 333.

⁸ Ditto.

⁹ G. G. A., p. 334.

¹⁰ G. G. A., pp. 335–336.

¹¹ G. G. A., p. 347. Cf., e.g.: ‘In some cases it is hard to tell the difference between a letter, or a fragment of text, and a picture; but if lettering underlies the art, however elaborate the art may be, it is a scribe who achieves it.’

¹² G. G. A., p. 348.

¹³ G. G. A., p. 349.

¹⁴ G. G. A., pp. 349–350.

¹⁵ For an application of this principle to another problem see Jones, L. W. and Morey, C. R., The Miniatures of the Manuscripts of Terence prior to the Thirteenth Century (Princeton: 1930 and 1932).Google Scholar

¹⁶ G. G. A., p. 336.

¹⁷ G. G. A., p. 351, n. 2.

¹⁸ Rand, G. G. A., pp. 350–351; ‘Alcuin's Bible,’ pp. 341, 346, 347, 353, 373, 393, 395–396; The Earliest Book of Tours, p. viii.

¹⁹ He does, however, bar a book (Survey, No. 44) that formerly was the keystone in the arch of his account of the Alcutnian style, and on the contrary accepts as books of Tours manuscripts that Rand considers of questionable genuineness (Survey, Nos. 33, 95).

²⁰ For a study of some of the foundations upon which Alcuin built see The Earliest Book of Tours.

²¹ Cf., e.g., the importance of studying the appearance of imitations of the various styles of Tours at other centers as a means of dating the styles at Tours itself. On this point see Rand, E. K., ‘A Supplement on Dodaldus,’ Speculum, VI (1931), 594Google Scholar, and Jones, L. W., ‘Two Salzburg Manuscripts and the Influence of Tours,’ Speculum, X (1935), July.Google Scholar

²² Rand avoids a consideration of text in Survey, but includes it in ‘Alcuin's Bible,’ 373–393 (he adds the readings of Morgan Library 191 and Tours, Bib. Municipale, 22 to Köhler's list). For Köhler's treatment of text see the description below.

²³ Schule, p. 314.

²⁴ Die Trierer Ada-Handschrift, bearbeitet und herausgegeben Menzel, von K., Corssen, P., Janitschek, H., Schnütgen, A., Hettner, F., Lamprecht, K.. Publikationender Gesellschaft für Rheinische Geschichtskunde (Leipzig, 1889), 29–61.Google Scholar

²⁵ Schule, pp. 338–361.

²⁶ Köhler also considers the order of the books of the Bible (Schule, pp. 315–318), the prefatory pieces (Schule, pp. 318–323), the capitula and the divisions in the text (Schule, pp. 323–338). These matters will be discussed below (pp. 143–149).

²⁷ Bruyne, Dom de, ‘Notes sur la Bible de Tours au IX^e siècle,’ in Göttingische gelehrte Anzeigen, 193. Jahrgang (1931), 357.Google Scholar

²⁸ Novum Testamentum … (Oxonii, 1889–1898).

²⁹ ‘Alcuin's Bible,’ p. 382.

³⁰ Berger, S., Histoire de la Vulgate pendant les premiers siècles du Moyen Âge (Paris, 1893), p. 241.Google Scholar

³¹ Quentin, Dom H., Mémoire sur l'Établissement du Texte de la Vulgate. Collectanea Biblica Latina, VI (Rome and Paris, 1922)Google Scholar. See Rand's, E. K. criticism of this work in The Harvard Theological Review, XVII (1924), 197–264.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

³² Dom de Bruyne, loc. cit., makesthe following excellent suggestion: ‘Enfin on s'étonne que personne n'ait encore songé à comparer les mss de Tours avec le commentaire d'Alcuin sur S. Jean. Le commentaire aété fait immédiatement après la revision de la Bible et il est done un excellent critère pour apprécier le texte de nos mss.’

³³ ‘Methodische Fortschritte und Materieller Landerwerb in der Kunstforschung,’ in Acta Archaeologica, III (1932), 276–288 (with two plates).Google Scholar

³⁴ Art. cit, p. 280.

³⁵ Nordenfalk would really prefer to regard Paris, B. N., lat. 1451 (dated 796) as 'den besten chronologischen Anhaltspunkt' (p. 279). This ms., however, though retainedby Wilmart, Dom A., ‘Dodaldus, clerc et scribe de Saint-Martin de Tours,’ Speculum, VI (1931), 574Google Scholar, n. 2, is discarded by Köhler and by Rand, , ‘A Supplement on Dodaldus,’ Speculum, VI (1931), 592 sq.Google Scholar

Again, Nordenfalk (art. cit., p. 280, n. 3) does not seem to accept the early date of Rand's pre-Alcuinian (‘Improved Cursive’) period. He thinks that Rand has recanted and placed it after Alcuin's revision of the text (801), i.e., ‘weit ins IX Jahrhundert,’ though Rand has done nothing of the sort.

³⁶ Loc. cit.

³⁷ Art. cit., p. 280.

³⁸ Art. at., p. 284.

³⁹ Art. cit., pp. 282–284.

⁴⁰ He finds, however (art. cit., p. 282) that it differs from mss. of Tours in that it changes the body and interlacings of the bird-initials of its prototype into a snake (‘Schlange’). This would of course be accounted for by supposing our ms. pre-Alcuinian. As a further evidence of the same date he points out (p. 284) that it is the second volume ofa two-volume Bible, whereas the St. Gall Bible (which is the earliest to show Alcuin's revision) is in one volume, and Alcuin's letter written to accompany the Alcuinian edition remarks as notable the fact that the edition is in one volume. Nordenfalk, however, fails to point out that some of the Bibles of Tours whichbelong to the Alcuinian recension are in two volumes: Survey, No. 49 (London, B. M., Harley 2805), the first half of a Bible; No. 70 (Angers, Bib. Mun. 1–2), two parts of one Bible, written possibly at Angers; No. 73 (Berne, Stadtbib. 3–4), two parts of one Bible.

⁴¹ In The Earliest Book of Tours, p. 96. See also Plates LIX-LXI.

⁴² Survey, p. 107.

⁴³ That this conclusion is correct is also substantiated by the adherence of the text to the Alcuinian revision. See below, pp. 166, 173–175.

⁴⁴ Art. cit., p. 284.

⁴⁵ See above, p. 139.

⁴⁶ I desire to express my gratitude to Monsieur Ph. Lauer, Conservateur des Manuscrits at the Bibliothèque Nationale, Paris, and to Mr. Morgan, his librarian Miss Belle da Costa Greene, and Miss Meta P. Haarsen also of his library, for their permission to consult these manuscripts and their kindness in facilitating my work.

⁴⁷ As Rand points out, ‘Alcuin's Bible,’ p. 386,the Morgan Gospels in both earlier and later parts is A. T. in all of the readings listed by Köhler. SeeRand's account of this manuscript, art. cit., pp. 351–352, andKöhler's account, Schule, p. 161.

⁴⁸ Art. cit., p. 383.

⁴⁹ This ms. (Rand, art. cit., p. 395, and Köhler, Schule, p. 339) is certainly N. E.

⁵⁰ Art. cit., p. 383.

⁵¹ I have intentionally omitted from my report of Paris, B. N., lat. 8847, as of no significance, certain misspellings, the omissions of certain unimportant words (particularly et at the beginning of clauses, though this is sometimes significant, as we shall see), and certain inversions (corrected frequently by m. 1). In general, the manuscript is much more faulty in text than either of the other two manuscripts. In some instances my judgment will probably prove to be wrong, but I doubt if these instances will affect the general picture. The way ofthe critic of text is a hard one, beset by pitfalls at every hand, but traversed it must be.

⁵² Schule, p. 315. I omit consideration of one of Köhler's criteria, the order of the books of the Bible, which in the present case is of no significance.

⁵³ The fact that a Bible is written in one or in two volumes has already been considered (see above, p. 141, n. 40) for its possible bearing upon date.

⁵⁴ tamen is merely a variant of etiam.

⁵⁵ Schule, p. 319.

⁵⁶ ‘Alcuin's Bible,’ p. 377. Cf. his further remarks, loc. cit., on the same subject.

⁵⁷ ‘Alcuin's Bible,’ p. 377.

⁵⁸ After the prologues in Mor and P₃.

⁵⁹ Berger, S., Histoire de la Vulgate pendant les premiers siècles du Moyen Âge (Paris, 1893), p. 307.Google Scholar

⁶⁰ ‘Alcuin's Bible,’ p. 378.

⁶¹ Stephan Beissel, Geschichte der Evangelienbücher in der ersten Hälfte des Mittelalters. Ergänzungshefte zu den “Stimmen aus Maria-Laach,” Heft 92 und 93 (Freiburg, 1906), pp. 334–335.Google Scholar

⁶² Schule, pp. 323–335.

⁶³ ‘Alcuin's Bible,’ pp. 378–381.

⁶⁴ ‘Notes sur la Bible de Tours au IX^e siècle,’ Göttingische gelehrte Anzeigen, 193. Jahrgang (1931), pp. 354–357. He points out, moreover, art. cit., p. 355, n. 2, ‘Berger 353 énumère un grande nombre de sommaires en indiquant les mss où ils se trouvent. Ces listes sont cependant encore incomplètes. Le tableau de Beissel ne mérite pas les éloges que lui donne trop généreusement Köhler 323. Wordsworth a édité beaucoup de sommaires, mais n'a pas tenté de donner un texte critique.’Google Scholar

⁶⁵ P. 355, particularly n. 1.

⁶⁶ Pp. 355–357.

⁶⁷ Dom de Bruyne, art. cit., p. 356.

⁶⁸ Köhler, Schule, p. 333.

⁶⁹ Köhler, Schule, p. 329.

⁷⁰ Presumably R (n), though J (l) also has 46 items. Except for a few readily explicable variations the divisions in Mor and P₂ occur at exactly the same points in the text: the system in the two books is obviously the same.

⁷¹ Dom de Bruyne, art. cit., p. 355.

⁷² Köhler, Schule, p. 329.

⁷³ The only instance of divergence (II at Ch. I, 46 in Mor and at Ch. II in P₃) is pretty surely accidental.

⁷⁴ Köhler, Schule, p. 326.

⁷⁵ Köhler, Schule, p. 327. There are also traces of another set here employing 78 items.

⁷⁶ Presumably R (Q), though J (l) has only one more item and might therefore be confused with the former.

⁷⁷ There is one instance of divergence, fairly surely accidental: XXXV at Ch. XX, 19 in Mor and at Ch. XX, 1 in P₃.

⁷⁸ Köhler, Schule, p. 327.

⁷⁹ ‘Alcuin's Bible,’ p. 391.

⁸⁰ For neglect in this matter cf. the Bible of Monza, ‘Alcuin's Bible,’ p. 380.

⁸¹ If there was not some conservatism in the copying of Bibles, why were the Alcuinian and subsequent revisions not adopted almost immediately in their entirety?

⁸² After all, two sets of numbers afford little basis for choice, especially if one set is not crossed out or expunged.

⁸³ The Bible of Monza has divisions for all four Gospels, but a set of capitula for Luke only. The Bible of Basel has divisions for Matthew alone, but no capitula. The St. Gall Bible, finally, has merely ‘traces’ of divisions, but no actual divisions or capitula. See Köhler, Schule, pp. 324–325; ‘Alcuin's Bible,’ pp. 378–381; Dom de Bruyne, art. cit., pp. 356–357.

⁸⁴ P. 172.

⁸⁵ P. 143.

^85a Or sometimes the page in Wordsworth and White's larger edition.

^85b Or line.

⁸⁶ Wordsworth, J. and White, H. J., Novum Testamentum … secundum Editionem Sancti Hieronymi ediderunt (Oxford, 1889–1922).Google Scholar

⁸⁷ There is proof in the readings in which Mor, P₃, and P₈ all agree against all the important non-Turonian families — the Irish (DELQRZ), the Northumbrian (AY), and the Theodulfian (ΘH. (Cf. p. 173 below). Such readings I have not listed among my variants, since my interest there has been not to distinguish the Turonian text from others, but to set down the readings in which P₈ differs from Mor or P₃ or both. I present below, however, several examples of readings characteristic of the Turonian text, readings in which Mor, P₂, and P₈ all agree against non-Turonian families: Mark, 5, 35: ab archisynagogo] ad archisynagogum (with KW); 6, 32: in navi] in navem (with CIK ); 8, 19: quot] et quot (quod P₃); 13, 2: has omnes magnas] magnas has omnes (with KV); 14, 13: laguenam] lagoenam (with ); Luke, 16, 21: divitis] + et nemo illi dabat (nunc eras. P₈) (with KTW) 21, 13: continget] P₈ m. 2 contingit (contigit Mor); John, 7, 39: non enim] nondum ( + enim? Mar); 13, 2: corde] cor (with ); 19, 36: impleatur] impleretur (with IKTVW).

⁸⁸ Wordsworth, J. and White, H. J., Novum Testamentum … secundum Editionem Sancti Hieronymi ediderunt (Oxford, 1889–1922). See the preface of this book for an explanation of the symbols used to designate the various manuscripts. I enclose in parentheses below certain readings, the presentimportance of which in indicating P₈'s sources I have not yet discovered.Google Scholar

⁸⁹ Rand, ‘Alcuin's Bible,’ p. 383, names only D, E, L, Z as the Irish group. Wordsworth and White, op. cit., p. x, include Q and R. P₈, however, agrees with Q and R alone of the Irish group (or with Q or R alone) in the following cases only: Mark, 14, 61 (RX*, an easy independent change); Luke, 12, 41 (HCTR, etc., possibly an independent omission); John, 4, 10 (Y*R, an easy independent error); John, 4, 38 (AYHQR, etc.; harder to explain, but this part of L is not extant); and John, 18, 36 (AYΘHR, etc.; this part of L is not extant).

⁹⁰ Z is frequently the only manuscript which agrees with both Mor and P₈. Z is not the immediate archetype of P₈, but it is certainly not far removed in relationship. In addition to the 50 instances mentioned above one should also consider the following instances in which Z^c may possibly be Z m. 1: Mark, 1, 12; Luke, 7, 38; 11, 31; 23, 38; John, 15, 25; 18, 39.

⁹¹ Matthew, 13, 15 (perhaps independent omission of enim); 27, 64 (possibly independent changes); Mark, 9, 28 (perhaps independent omission of nos); 13, 11 (perhaps independent changes).

⁹² Luke, 9, 18 (not a bold addition; cf. autem in verses 13, 14, and 16, which immediately precede); 21, 9 (possibly independent errors).

⁹³ Epist. ad Damasum, p. 2, 18(AHΘKVY); Matthew, 8, 20 (VWX^e [in ras.] Y); Luke, 7, 38 ( possibly Z^c here = Z m. 1); John, 10, 5 (AΔFGHΘMSY); cf. Luke, 10, 7 (H[ut cidetur sed dubium] ).

⁹⁴ John, 6, 21 ; 14, 10 (ACASY).

⁹⁵ According to Wordsworth and White, op. cit., T is saec. x and C saec. ix. T, then, is certainly, and C quite possibly, later than P₈, but both are nevertheless useful examples of what may have been contained in their models.

⁹⁶ John 6, 21 ; 14, 10 (ACΔSY).

⁹⁷ John, 8, 27 m. rec. T).

⁹⁸ Pp. 145–149 above.

⁹⁹ Although apparently many Bibles were copied at Tours, they were usually sent to other monasteries for use there. Consequently, at any given time there would not normally have been a large number of Bibles at Tours.

¹⁰⁰ C. H. Beeson, in his review of Jones, L. W. and Morey, C. R., The Miniatures of the Manuscripts of Terence prior to the Thirteenth Century, II. The Text (Princeton University Press, 1932)Google Scholar, in Classical Philology, XXIX (1934), 75Google Scholar states that when new editions of Classical authors were made in the Middle Ages, they immediately drove out the older editions. ‘When an old codex was copied, the copy displaced the original.’ But this is apparently not true of the editions of the Bible in every case. The difference is no doubt due to the fact that many of the faithful considered particular editions of the Bible as possessing some sanctity and therefore hesitated to discard them completely.

¹⁰¹ ‘Alcuin's Bible,’ p. 385.

¹⁰² I add Q and R to this group in accordance with Wordsworth and White, op. cit., p. x, though Rand does not include them.

¹⁰³ ‘Alcuin's Bible,’ pp. 383–385. Rand cites seven, but his nos. 5 and 83 are not really examples of his point.

¹⁰⁴ Op. cit.

¹⁰⁵ Köhler at first asks (Schule, p. 342) if it is too bold aconjecture to regard Amalricus as the compiler of N. E. and then speaks positively of the ‘Amalricustext’ and the ‘Amalricusrevision’ (loc. cit.).

¹⁰⁶ Schule, p. 22.

¹⁰⁷ ‘Alcuin's Bible,” p. 393.

¹⁰⁸ The Earliest Book of Tours, p. 96.

¹⁰⁹ Loc. cit.

¹¹⁰ Loc. cit. The Regular set, in general. Note t always for -tur.

¹¹¹ This is probably due to fairly strict adherence to an older model.

¹¹² The added variants in London, British Museum, Add. 11848 and in the Gospels of Nancy should also be examined in this connection to see if they are by the original scribe or by a later hand. Cf. ‘Alcuin's Bible,’ p. 395.

¹¹³ See above, p. 140.

¹¹⁴ ‘Methodische Fortschritte und Materieller Landerwerb in der Kunstforschung,’ in Acta Archaeologica, III (1932), p. 284 and Abb. 2, p. 283. Cf. also pp. 282–283.Google Scholar

¹¹⁵ See above, pp. 141 ff. passim.

¹¹⁶ See above, pp. 136–137.

¹¹⁷ Of course Köhler does not agree with Rand concerning a number of non-illuminated manuscripts as well (G. G. A., pp. 323–327), but our present concern is with illumination.

¹¹⁸ G. G. A., pp. 323–332.

¹¹⁹ G. G. A., pp. 340–347; ‘Alcuin's Bible,’ pp. 327–335; elsewhere when noted.

¹²⁰ The Arabic numerals at the left of the items are Köhler's. Rand's designations are in parentheses.

¹²¹ To this list should be added Cologne, Dombibliothek XIII, thought once by Köhler (Survey, p. 115) a product of St. Martin's early in Alcuin's time, but later excluded from his list (G. G. A., p. 325), although with hesitation. This book I (Jones) find in The Earliest Book of Tours, pp. 92–94, to be Alcuinian (IVa).

¹²² There are minor disagreements in this period in manuscripts not mentioned below. See G. G. A., pp. 341–342 on Nos. 12, 13, 14, 16, 21, 25, and 26. On No. 25 (No.48-R) and on No. 16 (No. 63-R) see also The Earliest Book of Tours, p. 95 (Jones) and pp. 96–100 (Rand) respectively.

¹²³ In general, Rand puts all thebooks in this group of Köhler's nearer 820 than 843. The remaining members of the group are: 27.Paris, B. N., lat. 3 (No. 80. V); 28. Nancy, the Gospels of St. Gozlin (No. 79. V); 29. Paris, B. N., lat. 274 (No. 82. V); 30. Wolfenbüttel 2186 (No. 128. VI); 31. London, British Museum, Add. 10546 (No.77. V); 33. Basel B. II. 11 (No. 96. V. Cf. Rand in The Earliest Book of Tours, pp.110–112); 35. Vienna 468 (No. 104. V); 36. Leningrad Q. V. 1. No. 21 (No. 102. V).

¹²⁴ Note Rand's statement, G. G. A., p. 346: ‘Some of the books in the present section, therefore, that I have labelled Period VI might well have been done after thesacking of St. Martin's — my approximate limit was 860.’

¹²⁵ To the present group should be added Berlin, Preuss. Staatsbib.,Hamilton 248 (No. 124: R). See Jones in The Earliest Book of Tours, pp. 115–117.