Napier Boethius fragment
§ 1 In 1887 A. S. Napier published a
semi-diplomatic transcript of a fragment from an Old English
Boethius manuscript, which he reported
finding the year before as a flyleaf at the end of Bodleian
Library, Oxford, MS Junius 86 (Napier 1887). Medieval and
Renaissance binders sometimes used the leaves of older
manuscripts, when they had lost their interest, at the front and
back of bindings to reinforce them and protect their contents
xli). Junius 86 is the second part of an eleventh-century
collection of, for the most part, Old English homilies. Unfortunately, the fragment was removed and
temporarily mislaid soon after its discovery in
1886, and no one other than Napier has ever been able to examine
it (Sedgefield 1899, xvi.). For the inaugural issue of the
Digital Medievalist it is de rigueur to use digital tools for
analyzing virtual manuscripts. For this job I will be wielding
several digital tools originally developed for the Electronic Boethius (http://beowulf.engl.uky.edu/~kiernan/eBoethius/inlad.htm) in order to create and analyze a virtual facsimile of the
lost manuscript leaf Napier describes and transcribes.
§ 2 The Old English Boethius, also known as Alfred's or (perhaps more accurately) the Alfredian Boethius, is a translation of Boethius's Consolation of Philosophy, one of the foundational texts of Alfred the Great's (871-899) cultural and educational reform at the end of the ninth century. Before Napier's discovery, there were only two known surviving manuscripts in two distinct versions, an early to mid tenth-century prose-and-verse one in British Library, MS Cotton Otho A. vi, and a twelfth-century all-prose one in Bodleian Library, Oxford, MS Bodley 180. The first part of the tenth-century manuscript, including a prose-and-verse preface, was totally destroyed in the Cottonian Library fire in 1731. Francis Junius, the great seventeenth-century Anglo-Saxon scholar for whom the Junius manuscripts are named, had fortunately made a collation of his own transcript of Bodley 180 with the Cotton manuscript before the fire. Even more providentially, Junius had copied in full all of the verse sections into what is now Bodleian Library, Oxford, MS Junius 12. His transcripts of the destroyed meters are our only source for them today.
§ 3 We know from Junius 12 alone that
the opening folios of the Cotton manuscript contained two
prefaces that declared, in both prose and verse, that King Alfred
first translated Boethius literally into prose and then
geworhte hi eft to
leoðe, swa swa heo nu gedon is,
reworked it for verse, just as it
is done here, that is, in a prose-and-verse
manuscript. The later twelfth-century manuscript does not include any
verse, even though its prose preface incongruously claims, too,
reworked it for
verse, just as it is done here. Scholars since the
seventeenth century have interpreted the prose preface to mean
that the entirely prose version in the twelfth century manuscript
is actually "older" than the tenth-century version. They have
seen it, in other words, as a copy of the original prose draft,
before Alfred reworked the Boethian meters from a literal prose
translation to a verse translation. It seems highly unlikely that a draft, which we know from
the two prefaces that Alfred revised and replaced, would none the
less survive a transmission of more than two centuries, while
retaining a nonsensical comment that the all-prose draft
contained verse. A more likely possibility, it seems to me, is
that the twelfth-century version is a later revision that
replaced the Alfredian verse passages, after they had lost their
appeal as poetry, with prose paraphrases of them.
§ 4 To judge by his calculations on how
much was missing, Napier assumed his fragment came from an
all-prose, early tenth-century, manuscript. His estimate of lines
missing between the fragments is based on Bodley 180, and his
restorations of lost text within the fragments come from the
early nineteenth-century editions of the prose manuscript by J.S.
Cardale and Samuel Fox (Cardale 1829; Fox 1835). In his
1899 edition Sedgefield endorses Napier's assumption in his
manuscript stemma, which describes the fragment as
only? (Sedgefield 1899, xix).
§ 5 Likewise, George Philip Krapp, who
edited the verse meters from Cotton separately in what has come
to be known as The Metres of Boethius,
describes the Napier fragment as
a parchment leaf
[sic] of the first half of
the tenth century, containing part of the Anglo-Saxon prose
version... (Krapp 1932, xxxv). Ker implies that
it came from an early prose manuscript, too, for he includes the
prose binding fragments
of great interest in his introduction (Ker 1957, lxi),
and bases his own description on Napier's without comment or
modification (art. 337). No one to my knowledge has ever
questioned Napier's hypothesis.
§ 6 Despite these uncritical
endorsements, the missing text between the front and back of the
fragment contains one of the Boethian meters. The first side of
the fragment ends just before the start of the eighth metrical
passage, while the second side begins immediately after the
Wisdom þa þis leoð asungen hæfde, þa ongan he eft
Wisdom had sung this verse, he then began to speak
again). The fact that the missing part is one of the
meters leaves open the possibility that the fragment came from
another prosimetrical manuscript, like the extant tenth-century
one, rather than from an earlier all-prose manuscript of Alfred's
original draft. Napier could not easily examine this possibility,
because at the time both modern editions were based on Bodley
180, not Cotton Otho A. vi.
§ 7 Even if he considered the
possibility, Napier had no easy way to gauge the number of
manuscript lines the verse would take up between the recto and
verso of his fragment. The situation was not much improved with
Sedgefield's edition. Sedgefield theoretically based his text on
the Cotton manuscript (see his preface, vii), but in practice he
gave extraordinary authority to Bodley 180. In fact, he went so
far as to extract the Cotton meters from his
Cotton text and tack them on at the end of
his edition in a section called
The Old English
version of the lays of Boethius (151-204), preceding an
appendix for the Napier (N) fragment (205-206). As Kenneth Sisam
The arrangement of C is not easy to
visualize from Sedgefield's edition.... (Sisam 1953,
294, n. 2).
§ 8 The digital tools I will use to try
to solve the general
Napier problem are part
of a comprehensive Edition Production Technology (EPT) workbench, powered by the Eclipse programming
environment (see Kiernan et al. 2004 for details).
The EPT's StaTend tool can quickly help to visualize
the arrangement of both the Cotton and Bodley versions as they
relate to the Napier fragment. Designed for the Electronic Boethius project, the tool computes simple
statistics for folios (number of lines, characters per lines,
spaces per line) and helps an editor use Junius's transcript to
reconstruct virtual folios from this data for lost or damaged
parts of a manuscript. It has general application, however, and
adapts especially well to the Napier problem, because the Cotton
and Bodley manuscripts supply variant texts that come between the
two sides of the fragment. The tool first computes the number of
characters and spaces per line in the fragment, following
Napier's line boundaries:
§ 9 The results show that the 16 lines of the fragment, recto and verso, average about 75 characters per line, including spaces. Using this data, the tool can easily provide two simulated reconstructions of the full folio, verso, one for a prose meter and one for a verse meter. StaTend reveals that the lost part of the page, between the end of the first side and the beginning of the second side of the fragment, presumably also held an average of about 75 characters (including spaces) per line. A simple query interface allows the editor to determine how many lines the full leaf held if all lines averaged 75 characters per line:
§ 10 Basing his estimates on an all-prose Boethius, Napier estimated that the original leaf held approximately 38 lines, which both Sedgefield and Ker accepted. The StaTend figures show, however, that the original leaf must have had at least 42 lines. Moreover, if its formatting was like Bodley 180, fols. 19v-20r, the leaf would have had even more lines, because of the two sets of large capitals that announce the new chapters, XV and XVI, preceding the fragment.
§ 11 The Cotton verse meter is somewhat longer than the prose version. Following the same procedure, the StaTend tool reveals that if the fragment came from a prose-and-verse manuscript, the folio would have taken up at least 49 lines. If its formatting was like the Cotton manuscript, fols. 20r-21v, it too would be somewhat longer to accommodate the large capitals at the beginning of the verse and prose.
§ 12 These reconstructed virtual folios
illustrate that there is no evidence to support Napier's and
Sedgefield's assumption that the fragment came from an all-prose
manuscript. There is simply no way of knowing whether the
Boethian meter that came before the fragment in the original
folio was prose or verse. Both versions would fit in a small
folio volume. It seems that the only argument in favor of the
meter being in prose is the circular one that it would then
support the hypothesis that the twelfth-century prose manuscript
is more authoritative than the prosimetrical one coming so close
to the time of King Alfred himself. The one shred of evidence that the Napier fragment came
from a prosimetrical version is that it shares one reading,
gearod (past participle
make ready, prepare, equip), with the Cotton
manuscript, where Bodley has gegyrewod
(past participle of gierwan / gyrian, with the same
§ 13 While preparing his edition,
Sedgefield naturally sought to study the manuscript itself of the
fragment. After all, its paleographical features, as described by
Napier, had made the missing fragment the earliest
surviving witness in his stemma. It was
presumably a shocking disappointment to learn that Napier had
already lost it.
Some years ago, Sedgefield
reports in his introduction, the Napier fragment
out and bound separately, but it has since been temporarily
mislaid, so that the present editor has not been able to see
it (Sedgefield 1899, xvi). No one has
found it after more than a century of searches. Ker, an expert
sleuth, implies that he made a thorough search himself. Clearly
he had no hope for its recovery.
It was mislaid before the
publication of Sedgefield's Boethius
in 1899, he says,
and is now not to be
§ 14 Somewhat lamely thanking Napier in
for supplying me with some valuable notes on
several points (Sedgefield 1899, ix), Sedgefield was
obliged to represent Napier's important discovery at second-hand.
Sedgefield gives a word-for-word translation of Napier's
Professor Napier says—the following fragment of the Alfredian translation of Boethius in a hand of the first half of the tenth century forms the last leaf of MS. Bodl. 86.[] This leaf, which evidently has been used previously in the binding, was placed in its present position by the binder, and originally belonged to a small folio Boethius manuscript. The fragment formed the lower half of a leaf, and judging by the part missing between the two sides each page must have contained about thirty-eight lines. The writing is in parts very indistinct, as the letters are frequently blurred; the parchment is also perforated here and there, so that some letters are quite gone.
§ 15 Sedgefield for some reason omits
Napier's comment that he supplied in brackets text he could not
clearly read from Bodley 180, and that he marked line boundaries
with upright strokes. Sedgefield adds that
the words in Professor
Napier's transcript, which accurately represents the
manuscript, are much run together, and no capitals are
used, even though there are in fact nine capitals (A,
N, N, W, S, F, S, I, F) in the transcript. These comments about
the accuracy of the transcript and the retraction of the
suspiciously freqent use of capitals are perhaps among the
valuable notes Napier personally supplied
Sedgefield, in lieu of the fragment. In any case, Sedgefield
correctly observes that
contractions and accents are
relatively frequent, and concludes with the crucially
important observation that
a and o,
following h, m,
and n, are in some cases formed by a
looped prolongation of the last stroke of these consonants
below the line, a characteristic of the age of the
fragment (Sedgefield 1899, xv-xvi). On the
basis of this dating criterion, Sedgefield accepted the lost
Napier fragment as the earliest witness in his account of the
transmission of the text.
§ 16 Napier's printed representation of
the fragment in 1887 attempts in several ways to disclose the
technical means of production of a medieval manuscript. First,
his transcript uses the abbreviations (the crossed thorn for
that; the macron over various vowels to represent
abbreviated spellings) and copies the scribal word divisions of
the manuscript, combining for example three words in one in the
(i.e., hwonan hi sien,
from where they might be)
in line 6r. Second, the transcript indicates line boundaries by
upright bars. Third, it conveys the damaged state of the
manuscript by the lacunas, filled with readings from the
twelfth-century prose manuscript via Cardale and Fox. Fourth, it
records a scribal correction by superscript (swa in line 8v). And fifth, it
presents paleographical information and a rough dating criterion
by showing the existence of subscript a
and o by means of italics. Two of the
tools in the EPT workbench, the xTagger and the
xMarkup, can exploit Napier's explicit
markup to provide richer access to the
§ 17 The EPT's xMarkup tool
allows a researcher to encode a text for a wide range of purposes
under the broad headings (each with its own set of elements and
Edition. One of the first stages of
encoding an image-based electronic edition is to tag folios and
folio lines to structure the transcript and facilitate searches
and other forms of interchange.
§ 18 Even without the leaf, Napier's markup makes it possible and desirable to provide encoding for the fragment, recto and verso; the folio lines; scribal punctuation; capitals; accented letters; scribal corrections; implicit natural word boundaries; lacunas caused by damage; and the abbreviations (including ampersand, crossed thorn, macrons for suspensions, and subscripts).
§ 19 The EPT's xTagger tool is able to manage all of the potentially conflicting markup and display it under similar broad hierarchical headings. The researcher can show or hide any aspect of the markup during and after encoding, as desired.
§ 20 The xMarkup template
for abbreviations under
the editor encode the subscripts, which like all abbreviations
are used to save space.
§ 21 As with the markup for folios and folio lines, the xTagger can show or hide the XML encoding that enables searches, transformations for presentation, and other computer generated operations, in this case for the subscript letters that so clearly dated the fragment in the absence of the actual manuscript.
§ 22 It may well have seemed at the end
of the nineteenth century that the subscript letters Napier and
Sedgefield used to date the fragment were a relatively common
feature of early tenth-century manuscripts. However, we now know
that the use of subscripts in surviving Anglo-Saxon manuscripts
was extremely rare. With a comprehensive knowledge of over 400
surviving manuscripts containing Old English, Ker in his
exhaustive Catalogue has identified only
two other Old English manuscripts that use these subscripts. In
his discussion of ligatures in the introduction, Ker says in the
rare ligatures appearing as
relics of earlier practices that
h, m, n are combined occasionally with following
a, i, o, the a, i, o being
subscript, in 39 [Corpus Christi
College, Cambridge, MS 173, The Parker MS of
the Anglo-Saxon chronicle] hand 2, 133 [British Library MS Additional 47967, The Tollemache Orosius] and, apparently,
337 [the Napier fragment]
§ 23 Napier would have known that the
early hands of the Parker chronicle were dated in or near the
time of Alfred, so it is surprising that he did not cite them to
explain the dating significance of the subscripts. The Parker
manuscript was used as a touchstone for dating scripts, because
the chronicle entries roughly coincide with changes in
handwriting between the late ninth to the mid tenth century. Ker
explains the development of the first two scribal stints by
describing the first scribe's work on the annals from the year 1
to 891 as
an upright hand of s. ix/x, intermediate in
character between the pointed minuscule of s. ix and the larger
squarer script of s. x (Ker 1957, art. 58). Sedgefield was
thus on safe ground to date the Napier fragment, no doubt with
Napier's encouragement, to the early tenth century.
§ 24 What Napier could not have known is
that expert paleographers after the nineteenth closely tie
together the handwriting of the Parker chronicle and the
Tollemache Orosius and assign both manuscripts to the same
scriptorium. For the Tollemache Orosius, Ker says that the square
Anglo-Saxon minuscule is
throughout probably in one hand
contemporary with and from the same scriptorium as the hand (or
hands) of the annals for 892-924 in the Parker
chronicle (Ker 1957, art. 165). In his
description of the Parker manuscript for the same section (fols.
16v-25v) Ker says that the hand varies
a good deal in
appearance like the closely similar and possibly identical hand
of Orosius (58). Ker's linking of these two manuscripts
through a common scribe is corroborated and further developed by
Malcolm Parkes. In The palaeography of the
Parker manuscript of the chronicle, laws and Sedulius, and
historiography at Winchester in the late ninth and tenth
centuries, Parkes argues that,
by contrast with
other Anglo-Saxon manuscripts of this period, this particular
group of manuscripts [including Parker and Orosius] have a
common characteristic: the palaeographical features of the
different manuscripts in the group reflect the various stages
of a particular pattern of evolution[,] and conformity to this
pattern forms the basis for attributing them all to a single
scriptorium (Parkes 1976, 158).
§ 25 Parkes explains that
in which the incidence of certain forms—in particular
half-uncial a and s, cursive (Parkes 1976, 158). Parkes
specifically uses the subscripts of the Parker manuscript as an
l, cursive ligatures, and subscript
letters—gradually diminishes, even within the handwriting of an
individual scribe, suggests that the process of standardization
was achieved slowly and entailed the elimination of
In the thirty-one pages of [scribe 1's]
stint in the first booklet there are only ... three [instances]
of subscript letters (159). He further observes that in the part copied by scribe 2,
the same person who copied the Orosius,
only three instances of subscript letters, each
of which occurs at the end of a line to save space
(159). All three are examples of mo (i.e. m with
subscript o). In the Parker manuscript
the scribes' use of subscripts averages one about every 165
lines. While neither Parkes nor I have made a tally of the use of
subscripts in Orosius, the usage is not
heavy. There is a single instance at the end of line 16 of the
frontispiece to Janet Bately's edition of The
Old English Orosius. In his facsimile of the Tollemache
Orosius, Alistair Campbell mentions
the practice of
suspending a, o, and i to the final stroke
of m and n and gives some widely dispersed examples. He
also mentions the
very rare subscript
e. In stark contrast to the diminishing
use of subscripts in the Parker and Orosius manuscripts, the
scribe of the fragment Napier found used the widest variety of
subscripts (na, mo,
ma, ha) 16 times
in 32 lines.
§ 26 In addition to the use of rare subscripts, the Napier fragment has something else in common with the Parker and Orosius manuscripts. Along with Alfred's Boethius, the Anglo-Saxon chronicle and Orosius's History of the world were core texts of Alfred's reform. The evidence would seem to suggest that the Napier fragment came from the same Winchester scriptorium. Following Parkes's argument, it might even be argued that the extremely high incidence of the use of subscripts, with no signs of abating, suggests that the Napier fragment is the earliest manuscript of the three.
§ 27 In any case, there is good reason to use the Parker and Orosius manuscripts as models to simulate the script of the Napier fragment. The EPT's DucType tool, designed to examine the paleographical features of scribal letterforms, can be pressed into service to assemble a complete set of letters from these contemporary manuscripts to help us visualize the Napier fragment.
§ 28 The EPT's RamSome, so named because its output requires some RAM and resembles an Old English ransom note, is an imaging facility of the StaTend tool, which earlier provided basic statistics about the Napier fragment (see figure 2, above). RamSome was designed for the Electronic Boethius to use letterforms from Cotton Otho A. vi to recreate virtual folios for the ones destroyed in the Cotton fire. Adapted for the Napier fragment, it draws on the set of letters collected from the Parker and Orosius manuscripts and on-the-fly transforms the transcript into an image, including the subscripts and other special characters, such as ampersand, crossed-thorn, and letters with macrons. The set of letterforms can include variant letters, and the RamSome interface is interactive, allowing an editor to pick and choose from the set, to select a Parker letter, for example, instead of an Orosius example, or to substitute one of the three forms of s for another one.
§ 29 While he provides enough explicit
markup to arrive at this virtual
reconstruction of the lost leaf, Napier fails to convey several
important facts about the actual fragment. We must infer for
ourselves the technical means of production of the original
manuscript, its dimensions, for example, the nature of the
rulings and the size of the writing grids, the disposition of the
scribe's handwriting, and so on. Napier does tell us that the
manuscript that held the fragment as an endleaf was Bodleian
Library, Oxford, MS Junius 86, a surprisingly small book
considering the size of the text of the fragment. Junius 86
measures only 155 × 100 mm, or about 6 × 4 inches. To fit the
space, the fragment must have been inserted sideways when it
became a flyleaf for Junius 86. Even so, sixteen ruled lines of
text had to fit in the 100 mm space, leaving little over 6 mm per
line, from ruling to ruling, and making the written space of the
fragment, without any margins at all, extremely cramped.
§ 30 Napier tells us that the script is sometimes indistinct where the letters are blurred and that some letters are gone because of holes in the vellum. But he inexplicably fails to mention that the script is tiny—difficult to read in such proportions even in the clear and clean hand of the Orosius scribe. It is difficult to accept that the scriptorium that produced the spacious and highly legible pages of the Parker and Orosius manuscripts also produced such a tightly-packed and difficult to read manuscript of Alfred's Boethius in the early tenth century.
§ 31 In view of the improbably small script, there appear to be several other circumstantial reasons to doubt the authenticity of the Napier fragment. It is odd, for example, that the scribe, who was otherwise so economical with vellum, did not use the right margin more efficiently. It stretches credulity that the Napier scribe would use 16 rare subscripts, relics of the past, in 32 lines, an average of one every other line. Although other space-saving features of the script that Napier does not describe (such as other cursive ligatures and underslung l) may have further compressed some of the lines, there do not appear to be letterforms in the overcrowded lines that would account for the great discrepancies in the length of the lines. From another angle, it stretches belief that Junius, who went to great lengths to collate Boethius manuscripts in Junius 12, was not aware of an Old English binding fragment, in plain view as an endleaf, in one of his own medieval manuscripts, Junius 86. This book formerly belonged to his nephew, Isaac Voss, who would have surely discouraged his binder from using Old English texts for end leaves, because he was an avid collector of Anglo-Saxon pieces. Junius was well acquainted with Voss's library, "for I have mett among that store my kinsman hath with diverse Francike, Anglo-Saxonike, and Gothic Antiquities, no where else to be found" (van Romburgh 2004, 876). It seems equally surprising that Humfrey Wanley failed to notice an endleaf containing Old English. If it leads to the recovery of such an important leaf of Old English, raising these legitimate doubts will be worthwhile. In the meantime, scholars are free to accept or reject the authenticity of the Napier fragment, but they should no longer assume that it proves the existence of an all-prose Boethius manuscript from the early tenth century.
. The verse preface emphasizes Alfred's interest in poetry:
us ealdspell reahte, / cyning Westsexna, cræft meldode, /
leoðwyrhta list.... Ic sceal giet sprecan, / fon on fitte,
Thus Alfred told us an old story, King of West Saxons
showed off his craft, skill of verse-making. ... I yet must
speak, fashion in fitts folk-shared philosophy....
(Krapp 1932, 153, my trans.; see Kiernan
. Griffiths 1994 repeatedly refers to the prose draft (e.g. 41); cf. Sisam 1953, 294-295. Malcolm Godden has told me that he assumes that the all-prose version was a completed text intended for circulation and use.
. Godden has persuasively argued that there was an all-prose
version in circulation a century after the death of Alfred,
because Ælfric apparently draws on it briefly in Lives of Saints (Godden 1985, 296-298); Bolton 1972 and Griffiths 1994 give other examples, while Griffiths
suggests that Ælfric's use may also
show familiarity with Metre 31
in its verse form (43-44).
. While it does not affect Parkes's essential point, I have noted seven examples in the first scribe's stint: miercna 12b32, his 12b34, suna 13a31, seaxna 13a32, mierce 13b27, monna 15a14, and sona 15b3.
I am much indebted to Emil Iacob, who did most of the programming of the rich and varied EPT tools illustrated in this article. I would also like to thank Dorothy Porter for her competent and cheerful assistance while I was preparing it.
Bately, Janet, ed. 1980. The Old English Orosius, EETS SS. 6. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Bolton, W.F. 1972. The Alfredian Boethius in Ælfric's Lives of saints I. Notes and Queries 217: 406-407.
Campbell, Alistair, ed. 1953. The Tollemache Orosius (British Museum Additional manuscript 47967). Early English Manuscripts in Facsimile 3. Copenhagen: Rosenkilde and Bagger.
Cardale, J. S., ed. 1829. King Alfred's Anglo-Saxon version of Boethius De consolatione Philosophiae with an English translation and notes. London.
Flower, Robin and Hugh Smith, eds. 1941. The Parker chronicle and laws (Corpus Christi College, Cambridge, MS. 173): a facsimile. EETS 208.
Fox, Samuel, ed. 1835. King Alfred's Anglo-Saxon version of the Metres of Boethius, with an English translation and notes. London.
Godden, Malcolm. 1985. Anglo-Saxons on the mind. In Learning and literature in Anglo-Saxon England, eds. Michael Lapidge and Helmut Gneuss, 271-298. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
---. 1994. Editing Old English and the problem of Alfred's Boethius. In The editing of Old English, eds. D.G. Scragg and Paul Szarmach, 163-176. D.S. Brewer.
Griffiths, Bill, ed. 1994. Alfred's Metres of Boethius. Revised ed. Pinner, Middlesex: Anglo-Saxon Books.
Ker, Neil R. 1957. Catalogue of manuscripts containing Anglo-Saxon. Oxford: Clarendon Press.
Kiernan, Kevin. 1998. Alfred the Great's burnt Boethius. In The iconic page in manuscript, print, and digital culture, edited by George Bornstein and Theresa Tinkle, 7-32. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.
Kiernan, Kevin, Alex Dekhtyar, Jerzy W. Jaromczyk, Dorothy Porter, and Ionut Iacob. August 2004. Edition Production Technology (EPT) and the ARCHway project. In DigiCULT.info. 36-38. [Available on-line at http://www.digicult.info/downloads/DC_NL8_lowres_final.pdf].
Krapp, George Philip, ed. 1932. The Paris psalter and the meters of Boethius. ASPR 5.
Napier, A. S. 1887. Bruchstück einer altenglischen Boetius-Handschrift. Zeitschrift für deutsches Altertum und deutsche Literatur 19: 52-54.
Malcolm Parkes. 1976. The palaeography of the Parker manuscript of the chronicle, laws and Sedulius, and historiography at Winchester in the late ninth and tenth centuries, Anglo-Saxon England 5: 149-171.
van Romburgh, Sophie, ed. 2004. For my Worthy Freind Mr Franciscus Junius: an edition of the correspondence of Francis Junius F.F. (1591-1677). Leiden and Boston: Brill.
Sedgefield, Walter J., ed. 1899. King Alfred's Old English version of Boethius, De consolatione Philosophiae. Oxford.
Sisam, Kenneth. 1953. The authorship of the verse translation of Boethius's Metra. In Studies in the history of Old English literature, 293-297. Oxford: Clarendon Press.
Wanley, Humfrey. 1705/1970. Librorum Vett. Septentrionalium, qui in Angliae Bibliothecis extant ...Catalogus Historico-Criticus. Reprinted in English linguistics: 1500-1800, no. 248. Menston, England: The Scolar Press.