• Brittany (probably)
• Western Francia (?)
• Tours (?)

• St-Martin of Tours
• Marmoutier

• Gospel-book

• Jerome, Epistle to Pope Damasus (1r-2v)
• Prologue to Matthew's Gospel and canon tables (2v-7r)
• Gospel of Matthew, with preface (7v-44v)
• Gospel of Mark (imperfect), with preface (44v-53v)
• Gospel of Luke (acephalous) (54r-77r)
• Gospel of John, with preface (77v-101v)
• Excerpts from John's Gospel (102r-v).

• Probably written in Brittany

This important MS is also known (confusingly) as 'Gospel of Marmoutier', but only on account of the presence of an eighteenth-century ex-libris from the abbey of Marmoutier. This Gospel-book presents a rich iconography, with decorated canon tables at fols 3v-7r, full-page portraits of Saint Mark and Saint John (fols 45v and 78v) and numerous decorated zoomorphic initials belonging to the so-called 'Landévennec group.' Many insular abbreviations occur throughout (cf. Lemoine 2008: 187, 'les symboles continentaux sont utilisés conjointement aux symboles insulaires'), and several scholars have recognised Irish affiliations in relation to this MS. Thus, for example, Rand (1929: 166) described the script of Egerton 609 as follows: 'Continental, both majuscules and minuscules showing Insular traits. By one scribe, apparently an Irishman, who has mastered something of the manner of Tours'; moreover, the same scholar drew the following conclusions as to the manuscript's origin (Rand 1929: 167): 'Either a present from some other monastery (first to St. Martin's and then to Marmoutier) or the work of an Irishman experimenting at Tours.' In 1987, McGurk likewise highlighted a number of Irish features but also drew attention to certain affinities with Breton Gospel-books (McGurk 1987: 176). An ascription to Brittany had indeed been proposed before (e.g. EBGB 14–15, n. 1, and 19, n. 3) and was eventually accepted by Bischoff (Kat. §2433). Simpson (McKee 1999: 280) even claims that 'a consensus seems now to have been reached: it is another manuscript from Brittany'; although this is perhaps excessive, it is nevertheless true that the combined evidence of script and decoration and the possibly 'Irish' character of the Gospel-text itself (although see the caveat in McNamara 2000b: 431 about this) do make a Breton origin at least probable.

British Library Digitised Manuscripts; Deuffic 2008: 122; Dumville 2005: 52; EBGB 14–15, n. 1, and 19, n. 3; ILLB In15; L&S §961; Lemoine 2004: 156; Lemoine 2008: 187, 191, 193, 195; Marsden 1999: 290–1, 303; McGurk 1987: 176, 189; McNamara 1990b: 302 = McNamara 2000b: 431; Morey, Rand and Kraeling 1931: 260–1; OHLP 257; PMSB 301 (§43); Rand 1929: 68, 166–7 (§140); Saenger 1997: 102; Simpson (McKee) 1999: 280–2; Smith 1992: 167 (n. 81); Wikipedia.

• http://www.bl.uk/manuscripts/Viewer.aspx?ref=egerton_ms_609_fs001r