These relic lists are very close recensions of one another. They appear in several source manuscripts:
(1) Relic list D1_1α appears in Trinity College Cambridge MS O. 3. 55, f. 2r-v.
(2) Relic list D2_1β appears in Oxford, Bodleian Library MS Digby 41, on the 'four leaves at the end of the manuscript' (ff. 91, 91*, 92, 101), which are from an older MS, London, British Library MS Harley 1924 (see below).
(3) Relic list D3_1γ appears in Dijon, Bibliothéque municipale, MS 657 (396), f. 39r.
Furthermore, this list is also 'bodily incorporated' into the list in York, York Minster MS XVI. I. 12, ff. 13r–14v (Battiscombe 1956) . Additionally, an extract of this list was copied into Cambridge University Library Ff. I. 27 on f. 194v of the red chalk foliation.
Battiscombe's edition uses this manuscript as its sole basis; in deference to this fact, I have given it the 'alpha' designation. Battiscombe makes no mention of alternate readings from the other MSS and he did not coin any sigla, so his editing work should be seen as more-or-less transcriptory. However, the agreements and disagreements between the list in this MS [D1_1α] and the list in Dijon, Bibliothéque municipale, MS 657 (396) [D3_1γ] are noted down in Bertram Colgrave's hand on a signed slip of paper inserted into the Trinity College hard copy of M. R. James' The Western Manuscripts in the Library of Trinity College, Cambridge: a Descriptive Catalogue. The slip has been digitised along with the rest of the catalogue (see bibliography below).
The manuscript dates to the 12th century. According to Colgrave's handwritten comments, this manuscript is quite similar to the Dijon manuscript overall. In terms of provenance, the manuscript was once at Durham Priory, as James indicates with a citation. It was also owned for a time by antiquary Roger Gale prior to its donation to Trinity College Cambridge.
Relic list D1_1α itself has a few notable features. It is written in inline-list format, arranged in two columns, and takes up the full recto and part of the verso of its leaf. The list begins with a large initial of two lines' height which has been touched with red, and a further, slightly smaller initial C sets off 'Corp[us]' in the entry referring to S. Cuthbert's body. Initial touching in red of the list entries appears thoughout. The touching may be meant to separate entries based on individual relic labels judging by the fact that some 'entries' contain the names of two persons or reference to two relic types. One might note the reference to the Rel[iquiae] [sancti] amandi [episcopi] & ceſarii [episcopi], in which only the first R has been touched (f. 2v), or the entry of De oſſib[us] & de ca[e]pilliſ & de ueſtimentiſ [ſanctorum] confeſſo[rum] atq[ue] pontificum silueſtri leonis Gregorii (f. 1r-2v), in which only the first D has been touched. The list is not written in a single hand. Rather, most of it is written in one hand, with some additions by others. Seven lines before the end of the list, a new hand takes over, writing in a blacker ink with a more spidery aspect. The last two entries appear to be a further hand and stint, or even two stints and hands. Thus, the list looks to be a large core list which has been augmented at least twice, if not three times, after completion.
Additionally, the list has been annotated in various ways, though this annotation is probably late-medieval or antiquarian. An abbreviation for 'nota bene' appears in the right margin of f. 2r, which seems connect to a bracket that specifically draws attention to the details of S. Cuthbert's entry, which is specific in describing that his 'flesh and bones are preserved as a complete whole, almost as if he were still alive' (cum carne & oſſib[us] totum integrum quaſi adhuc eſſet vivus). The 'nota' is similar to other notae in the manuscript that are in the same type of ink, see e.g. fols. 30v, 48v. A goodly portion of the list in this area is underlined and bracketed, attached to a large, clear marginal note encircled by a loop that notes that these entries are the 'Reliqui[a]e reperte cum ſanctiſsim[m]o Cuthberto'. The script of the nota and the marginal annotation itself are late-medieval antiquarian in character, though, unlike the script of the rest of most of the manuscript. Curiously, this hand also seems to have quietly added a superlative ending onto to the list entry for S. Cuthbert. Furthermore, these annotating notes are reiterative and interpretive, as the list itself already makes clear in its own text that relics in this section were found with Cuthbert's body because they were inside of the same shrine (quod locatum eſt in ſc[ri]nio c[um] corpore [sancti] cuthberti). That is, the composer of the list assumed the reader would be familiar with the happenings of that particular translation, while the annotator needed to make an interpretive remark. The relics mentioned as being found at the opening of the shrine include Oswald's head, the bones of S. Aidan, bones of other early English ecclesiastics, and the body of Bede.
Lastly, the list shows some other evidence of possible contemporary medieval usage. In the intercolumnal space there are five small, sloppy ticks or 'x'-marks arranged in a column in a lighter pen at the top of the page. A cross with serif-terminals in very black ink has been placed below these light tick-marks, but judging by ink colour, and the style of the notae and crosses appearing throughout the manuscript, this is probably another product of the antiquarian hand. On a more contemporary note, virgula have been added when line breaks split names or words. Strokes appear over the letter 'i' in areas where minim confusion is an obvious problem, particularly in the names of holy persons ending in double-i, but are not present in other places. Such traits suggest the list was regularly read and re-read by users of the manuscript, perhaps aloud.
A 16th(?) century hand leaves a two-line note on the bottom right margin of f. 2r, but it is not readily legible from the digitisation.
Some remarks on the the lists' physical context in the codex are now warranted. It seems to have been treated as a peritext to the main text of the volume along with the list of bishops that follows it. The relic list takes up the first leaf of the first quire in the manuscript (after the added flyleaf) and its leaf still shows pricking along the outside edge. The parchment is quite dark in colour compared to the interior leaves and seems, at least from the digitisations, to be comparatively dirty and grimy, suggestive of a long history of liminal position. A vertical stripe of even more extreme dirtiness along the gutter edge of the recto suggests the prior presence of a stub here, perhaps a earlier flyleaf. On its verso, a block of space keeps the relic list distinct from the next text, a list of names of bishops of Lindisfarne and Durham. This block of space seems to have been left in part for the express purpose of adding more relics to the list, as the final few items (written in their own stint or stints, see above) do not obey the vertical rule of the text block; the scribe adding them either can no longer see where to stop writing due to the fading of the ruling line itself, or is trying to be frugal about the remaining blank space.
According to N. R. Ker, the four leaves at the end of Digby 41 (ff. 91, 91*, 92, 101) actually belong to a Life of St Cuthbert, British Library, MS Harley 1924. This latter manuscript is of Norman make and dates to the 2nd or 3rd quarter of saec. XII, and has early provenance at Durham. [More detailed contextual discussion to come for these manuscripts!]
The short catalogue entry for Dijon, Bib. Mun. MS 657 (369) on the Bibliothèque municipale de Dijon website refers to the list as a list of the relics of Lindisfarne, not Durham, and overall categorises this manuscript as collection of Lindisfarne-related saint's lives, mostly Bedan. This Lindisfarnian attribution to the relic list is probably due to the cataloguer's unawareness of the details of the history of Lindisfarne and Durham. The fact that this manuscript is of English make and dates to the first quarter of saec. XIII, well after the translation of Cuthbert to Durham in 1104, suggests that Battiscombe's comment is correct and the list is a Durham list (or, rather, that it represents the whole collection of Durham relics). Battiscombe may have never actually viewed the Dijon MS, but he and Colgrave evidently worked together on the topic of the relation between Trinity College Cambridge MS O. 3. 55 and Dijon, Bibliothéque municipale, MS 657 (396), judging by Battiscombe's footnotes and Colgrave's handwritten slip. As mentioned above, Colgrave's handwritten slip notes that there is significant similarity between the two MSS. The manuscript has Cîteaux provenance and was part of a group of Cîteaux material that is now held at Dijon, Bibliothéque municipale. [More detailed contextual discussion to come for this manuscript!]
It is of interest that this list reappears in similar contexts: hagiographical material that represents the identity of Durham as a monastic house--that is, a home (if something of an ersatz one) for Cuthbert, Bede, and other very early Northumbrian saint and holy figures, and that two of the manuscripts are in fact quite similar productions.
Battiscombe suggests that the relic list he prints [D1_1α] was written up after the translation of Cuthbert in 1104 to Durham, but not later than the middle of the twelfth century. His dating is derived from a combination of the list's relationship to some of its textual relatives and general palaeographic grounds.