216 ff.
Manuscripts

London, College of Arms, MS Arundel 30

test this
  • Latin
  • s. xiiiex / s. xivin
  • English manuscripts
  • vellum
Identifiers
Location
Shelfmark
Arundel 30
Type
manuscript miscellanies histories
Provenance and related aspects
Language
Latin
Date
s. xiiiex / s. xivin
Late 13th to early 14th century.
Origin, provenance
Provenance: EnglandEngland

No description available

See more
Bury St EdmundsBury St Edmunds

No description available

See more
Hands, scribes
Codicological information
Material
vellum
Foliation
216 ff.
Collation
Unknown. 19 leaves are palimpsest; ff. 5-10 and possibly 208 contain a 10th-century fragment of Virgil’s Aeneid written in Anglo-Saxon minuscule (see Christopher Baswell, Virgil in medieval England (Cambrdige, 1995): 286-287).
The list below has been collated from the table of contents, if available on this page,Progress in this area is being made piecemeal. Full and partial tables of contents are available for a small number of manuscripts. and incoming annotations for individual texts (again, if available).Whenever catalogue entries about texts are annotated with information about particular manuscript witnesses, these manuscripts can be queried for the texts that are linked to them.

Sources

Primary sources This section typically includes references to diplomatic editions, facsimiles and photographic reproductions, notably digital image archives, of at least a major portion of the manuscript. For editions of individual texts, see their separate entries.

Digitisation wanted.

Secondary sources (select)

Dumville, David N., “Textual history of the Welsh-Latin Historia Brittonum”, Ph.D. thesis: Edinburgh University, 1975.  
abstract:
This thesis presents a new edition of the major recensions of the Historia Brittonum. It is the first to depart from the pattern of conflated texts which has been followed by editors since 1691. Each may now be read as a text in its own right. I have argued that the 'Harleian' recension is the primary version of the Historia Brittonum and belongs to the year 829/30, and have shown that the attribution of the work to one 'Nennius' is late and unacceptable. The complicated textual tradition has been examined, from this early-ninth-century origin, throughout its mediaeval history; the fullest development is seen in the 'Sawley' recension of the beginning of the thirteenth century. I have also considered the early modern tradition of the work, represented by a large group of paper manuscripts prepared by or for the antiquaries of the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries as no printed text was available until 1691. In addition to detailed studies of manuscripts and textual tradition, I have prepared a literal modern English translation of the primary recension and have made a detailed preliminary study of its latinity. My remarks on the later recensions concentrate on establishing the filiation of the manuscripts and on placing each new version within the context of the textual tradition as a whole. This has seemed to be the primary requirement in any new investigation of the Historia. Work can now go forward, from a secure textual base, on the implications of this important series of texts for historical and literary studies.
(source: ERA)
Edinburgh Research Archive – PDF: <link>
Vol. 2,
Gransden, Antonia, The chronicle of Bury St. Edmunds, 1212–1301, Edinburgh, London: Thomas Nelson, 1964.
Black, William Henry, Catalogue of the Arundel manuscripts in the library of the College of Arms, London, 1829.
Internet Archive: <link>
44–57 [id. 30.]
Contributors
Dennis Groenewegen