Editing Textus Roffensis (section)

== The ''Textus Roffensis'' Scribe ==
The unknown scribe was remarkable for his knowledge of old forms of English, and was able to transcribe accurately from a range of original manuscripts written in Anglo-Saxon dialects, including the local Kentish used for the laws of the kings of Kent.  Two or more generations after the [[Norman Conquest]], this was distinctly unusual.<ref>Julia Crick, 'English Vernacular Script' in R. Gameson (ed.), ''[[The Cambridge History of the Book in Britain]]'', vol. 1 (2011), 185–6</ref>  Few of his records were contemporary and, to read the Laws of Aethelberht, he was looking back at an obsolete dialect of early Anglo-Saxon English, some 500 years old.

He followed standard practice of distinguishing between written English and written Latin.  The overall aspect is Protogothic<ref>http://www.le.ac.uk/english/em1060to1220/mss/EM.RCL.htm, 'Hand Description'</ref> with, for example, narrow letter-forms and forked tops to ascenders.  However, he used a modified [[Insular Minuscule]] for the English and a modified [[Carolingian minuscule|Caroline Minuscule]] for the Latin.  This was standard practice in the years around 1000, but proficiency in writing Insular Minuscule was in terminal decline by the time of the ''Textus Roffensis''.<ref>Julia Crick, 'English Vernacular Script' in R. Gameson (ed.), ''[[The Cambridge History of the Book in Britain]]'', vol. 1 (2011)</ref>

The double-page opening of f95v and f96r is a good place to examine differences in the two scripts.  The left-hand page contains the end of ''Hit becƿæð. ond becƿæl '' in English and the right-hand page the start of Henry I's Coronation Charter, in Latin.  It is not only the general letter-shapes which show some differences.  In the English, the only abbreviations are the [[tironian]] ''et'' for ''ond'' and the suspensions on dative endings e.g. ''beÞinū/ beminū'' for ''–um'' (concerning yours/ - mine).  The number of abbreviations, suspensions and ligatures in the Latin give a different look, accentuated by different letter-forms, such as ''g'', ''h'' and ''r'' in ''gehyrde'' (f.95v, line 11) and ''erga uos habeo'' (f.96r, line 9); the ''f'' in ''forðam'' (English, line 10) and in ''facio'' (Latin, line 10)<ref>For image, see the digitised manuscript: http://enriqueta.man.ac.uk/luna/servlet/detail/Man4MedievalVC~4~4~990378~142729?qvq=q:%3DTextus%2BRoffensis%2B&mi=0&trs=2</ref>

The ''Roffensis'' scribe made remarkably few errors and only some minor edits which lightly modernise the text.<ref>For details, see Stefan Jurasinski, 'Scribal Malpractice and the Study of Anglo-Saxon Law in the Twelfth Century' in B. R. O'Brien and [[Barbara Bombi|B. Bombi]] (eds.), ''Textus Roffensis Law, Language, and Libraries in Early Medieval England'' (2015), 83–101</ref>  This can be seen in the [[Laws of Ine]].  The original laws were written in the late seventh century.  They were already updated when recorded in Alfred's ''Domboc'' two centuries later.  The earliest preserved version is from c. 925.<ref>Cambridge, Corpus Christi College, MS 173, ff. 47r-52v</ref>  In clause 2, this has ''Cild binnan ðritegum nihta sie gefulwad'' ('a child shall be baptised within thirty days').  The scribe substitutes for the tenth-century term for baptism ({{lang|ang|gefulwad}}) the twelfth-century term {{lang|ang|gefullod}}.  Similarly, the scribe substitutes {{lang|ang|þeow}} (slave) for Alfred's {{lang|ang|fioh}} (wealth).  There is some dispute whether this reflects the changing position of slaves after the Conquest or whether it is just correcting the term, since slaves were chattels.<ref>Jurasinski, 99</ref>

Overall, the ''Roffensis'' scribe treated his sources with respect.  He did not, for example, make erroneous 'corrections' to the Old English law texts, unlike the "incompetent translations of ''Quadripartitus's'' author".<ref>Jurasinski, 99, 94</ref>