We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 26 September 2008
The great monument of tenth-century Anglo-Saxon monastic liturgy, the Regularis concordia, has been particularly fortunate in its twentieth-century devotees. The most prominent was Dom Thomas Symons, who published numerous learned articles on the text and, in 1953, an edition and translation that are still immensely valuable. More recently, Lucia Kornexl has re-edited the Concordia with its continuous Old English gloss from London, British Library, Cotton Tiberius A. iii, and provided an exhaustive collation against the second Latin copy in London, British Library, Cotton Faustina B. iii. Building on this detailed editorial work, Kornexl's introductory chapters also suggest new and helpful ways of regarding the transmission of this text and the authority of its two extant manuscripts.
1 Regularis Concordia Anglicae Nationis Monachorum Sanctimonialiumque: The Monastic Agreement of the Monks and Nuns of the the English Nation, ed. and trans. Symons, T. (London, 1953).Google Scholar Just before his death Symons also collaborated on a new edition of the text, published as Regularis Concordia Anglicae Nationis, ed. Symons, T. and Spath, S., with Wegener, M. and Hallinger, K.Google Scholar, Consuetudinum Saeculi X/XI/XII Monumenta: Introductions, ed. Hallinger, K., Corpus Consuetudinum Monasticarum 7.1 (Siegburg, 1984), 155–67Google Scholar (prolegomena), and Consuetudinum Saeculi X/XI/XII Monumenta Non-Cluniacensia, Corpus Consuetudinum Monasticarum 7.3, ed. Hallinger, K. (Siegburg, 1984), 61–147 (edition).Google Scholar This edition is valuable more for its accompanying explanatory notes than for its text, which is based on the poorer of the two extant manuscripts (London, British Library, Cotton Faustina B. iii).
2 Both manuscripts were copied at Christ Church, Canterbury, and are now usually dated to s. ximed, though earlier scholarship tended to date the Faustina copy earlier. On the manuscripts, see Die Regularis Concordia, ed. Kornexl, (cited below, n. 3), pp. xcvi–cxxix.Google Scholar
3 Die Regularis Concordia und ihre altenglische Interlinearversion, ed. Kornexl, L., Texte und Untersuchungen zur englischen Philologie 17 (Munich, 1993)Google Scholar; summarized in English as ‘The Regularis Concordia and its Old English Gloss’, ASE 24 (1995), 95–130.Google Scholar In the following pages I quote the Latin text from Kornexl's edition, cited as Reg.con., by her section and line numbers (the section divisions correspond to those of Symons's edition of 1953).
4 Regularis concordia, ed. Symons, , pp. Ivi–lviiiGoogle Scholar; an abridgement of this list appears in Corpus Consuetudinum Monasticarum 7.1, 164. See also Hill, J., ‘The “Regularis Concordia” and its Latin and Old English Reflexes’, RB 101 (1991), 299–315Google Scholar, and Die Regularis Concordia, ed. Kornexl, , pp. cxlix–clv.Google Scholar
5 Excerpta ex Institutionibus Monasticis Æthelwoldi Episcopi Wintoniensis Compilata in Usum Fratrum Egneshamnensium per Ælfricum Abbatem, ed. Bateson, M.Google Scholar in Compotus Rolls of the Obedientiaries of St Swithun's Priory, Winchester, ed. Kitchin, G. W., Hampshire Record Soc. (London, 1892), pp. 171–98Google Scholar (Appendix VII). Here I cite (as LME and section no.) the more recent edition, Aelfrici Abbatis Epistula ad Monachos Egneshamnenses Directa, ed. Nocent, H., with Elvert, C. and Hallinger, K.Google Scholar, in Consuetudinum Saeculi X/XI/XII Monumenta Non-Cluniacensia, ed. Hallinger, , 155–85.Google Scholar On the dismissive view of the Eynsham letter by editors of this series, see introductory remarks in Corpus Consuetudinum Monasticarum 7.1, 158 and 160. A new edition, with translation and commentary by the present author, is forthcoming in the series Cambridge Studies in Anglo-Saxon England.
6 Liber officialis, ed. Hanssens, J. M. as vol. II of Amalarii Episcopi Opera Liturgica Omnia, 3 vols., Studi e Testi 138–40 (Rome, 1948–1950).Google Scholar All quotations hereafter are from Hanssens's text, cited by book, chapter and section numbers of his edition. On Amalarius's career, see Hanssens's prolegomena (Amalarii Episcopi Opera I, 58–82)Google Scholar and Cabaniss, A., Amalarius of Metz (Amsterdam, 1954).Google Scholar
7 A very incomplete transcription, from a single manuscript, was included as an appendix to Bernhard Fehr's edition of Ælfric's pastoral letters. See ‘Anhang III: Teile aus Aelfrics Priesterauszug’, in his Die Hirtenbriefe Ælfrics in altenglischer und lateinischer Fassung, Bibliothek der angelsächsischen Prosa 9 (Hamburg, 1914Google Scholar; repr. with a ‘Supplement to the Introduction’ by Clemoes, P., Darmstadt, 1966), 234–49.Google ScholarThe DEC Ana IBA are edited, with omissions, on pp. 234–40 (§§ 1–13) and 241–3 (§§ 17–32).Google Scholar Fehr prints complete only those portions of the De ecclesiastica consuetudine transcribed for him by Karl, Jost (see p. 234, n. 3)Google Scholar; these are §§ 3 and 5–7 of my edition, below. The item which I include as § 12 of the DEC has been edited by Cross, J. E., ‘A Newly-Identified Manuscript of Wulfstan's “Commonplace Book”, Rouen, Bibliothèque Municipale, MS 1382 (U.109), fols, 173r-198v’ Jnl of Med. Latin 2 (1992), 63–83, at 77–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
8 For the theory of Archbishop Wulfstan's ‘commonplace book’, see Bateson, M., ‘A Worcester Cathedral Book of Ecclesiastical Collections, made c. 1000 A.D.’, EHR 10 (1895), 712–31CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Bethurum, D., ‘Archbishop Wulfstan's Commonplace Book’, PMLA 57 (1942), 916–29CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Whitelock, D., ‘Archbishop Wulfstan, Homilist and Statesman’, TRHS, 4th ser., 24 (1942), 25–45, at 30–5Google Scholar; Sauer, H., ‘Zur Überlieferung und Anlage von Erzbischof Wulfstans “Handbuch”’, DAEM 36 (1980), 341–84Google Scholar; and the introduction by Cross, J. E. and Tunberg, J. M. to The Copenhagen Wulfstan Collection: Copenhagen Kongelige Bibliotek Gl. Kgl. Sam. 1595, EEMF 25 (Copenhagen, 1993).Google Scholar
9 The standard accounts of CCCC 190 include: Bateson, , ‘A Worcester Cathedral Book’Google Scholar; James, M. R., A Descriptive Catalogue of the Manuscripts in the Library of Corpus Christi College, Cambridge, 2 vols. (Cambridge, 1909–1912) I, 452–63Google Scholar; Hirtenbriefe, ed. Fehr, , pp. xvii–xixGoogle Scholar, with Clemoes's ‘Supplement’, pp. cxxx–cxxxiGoogle Scholar; Bethurum, , ‘Archbishop Wulfstan's Commonplace Book’Google Scholar; Ker, N. R., A Catalogue of Manuscripts Containing Anglo-Saxon (Oxford, 1957), pp. 70–3 (no. 45).Google Scholar
10 Fehr collates the pastoral letter as ‘Brief III’ (Hirtenbriefe, pp. 146–221)Google Scholar and the excerpts on the ecclesiastical grades as De septem gradibus aecclesiasticis (Hirtenbriefe, Anhang, V, pp. 256–7).Google Scholar
11 Ed. PL 107, cols. 325–8.
12 Not collated in Les Ordines romani du haut moyen âge, ed. Andrieu, M., 5 vols., Spicilegium Sacrum Lovaniense, Études et Documents 11, 23–4, 28 and 29 (Louvain, 1931–1961) II, 481–8.Google Scholar Andrieu did collate the closely related copy of this ordo preserved in our second manuscript, Rouen 1382; see item 1 in Cross's inventory and discussion of this manuscript, cited above, p. 235, n.7.Google Scholar
13 Partially edited by Fehr in Anhang III, Hirtenbriefe, pp. 240–1 (§§ 14–16).Google Scholar
14 Ed. (with some omissions) by Fehr, ibid., pp. 243–9 (§§ 33–48).
15 The most convenient and accurate overview is by , Sauer, ‘Zur Überlieferung’, p. 383Google Scholar (manuscript O, ‘Textblock IX’).
16 E.g. Sauer, , ‘Zur Überlieferung’, p. 383Google Scholar; Hill, , ‘The “Regularis Concordia”’, pp. 305–6.Google Scholar
17 Hirtenbriefe, ed. Fehr, , p. cxxv (§ 265).Google Scholar On this point he appears to have changed his mind since an earlier article, ‘Das Benediktiner-Offizium und die Beziehungen zwischen Ælfric und Wulfstan’, Englische Studien 46 (1912–1913), 337–46.Google ScholarThere he speaks (p. 342) of the Amalarian extracts as a separate text: ‘Es folgen nun nach der Consuetudo [= DEC] längere stücke aus Amalarius [= IBA], ferner ordines für bestimmte offizien usw…’Google Scholar
18 The IBA ends at line 24 on p. 237, and the last ruled line of the page has been left blank. Elsewhere the scribe has been perfectly willing to begin a new text on the last line of a page (cf. p. 213). The table of contents in CCCC 190, apparently copied from the exemplar, is too incomplete to offer sure guidance: it notes the last item of my IBA (‘XCI. De quattuor tempora [sic] qualiter agantur’), but its next item (‘XCII. De incestuosis et homicidis’) does not begin until p. 241. Perhaps no more than a single leaf was missing from the exemplar following the IBA.
19 See Cross, , ‘A Newly-Identified Manuscript’, pp. 65–7 (items 2 and 4).Google Scholar
20 Cross, , ‘A Newly-Identified Manuscript’, pp. 63–4Google Scholar; see also Sauer, , ‘Zur Überlieferung’, p. 345Google Scholar; Aronstam, R. A., ‘The Latin Canonical Tradition in Late Anglo-Saxon England: the Excerptiones Egberti’ (unpubl. PhD dissertation, Columbia Univ., 1974), p. 23 and n. 42.Google Scholar
21 Cross edits both of the Ember Day items (his items 3 and 5) in ‘A Newly-Identified Manuscript’, pp. 73–8.Google Scholar
22 Fehr recognized the affinities between the item Qualiter quattuor tempora agantur and the earlier selections from the Concordia, and this led him to view all the intervening Amalarian material in CCCC 190 as part of the De ecclesiastica consuetudine; see his Hirtenbriefe, p. cxxv (§ 265).Google Scholar
23 Cross notes in his edition of these Ember Day texts (see above, p. 237, n. 21) that both also occur in manuscripts other than CCCC 190 and Rouen 1382. The Qualiter quattuor tempora agantur, which I would associate with the DEC, also occurs in Oxford, Bodleian Library, Barlow 37. The Latin sermon, beginning ‘Quattuor esse tempora totius anni manifestum est’, is found in CCCC 190, Rouen 1382, Barlow 37, and also Copenhagen, Kongelige Bibliotek, Gl. Kgl. Sam. 1595 as well as in London, BL, Cotton Nero A.i, but the versions vary considerably. Cross also lists three other manuscripts that are not associated with the ‘commonplace book’ family.
24 This hypothesis explains the remarkable differences in arrangement and content of entire ‘text-blocks’ in the ‘commonplace book’ manuscripts (, Sauer, ‘Zur Überlieferung’, p. 379).Google Scholar On the basis of textual evidence alone, Sauer (ibid. p. 377) posits at least four original versions in Wulfstan's possession, now represented by: (1) Copenhagen 1595 and (2) Cotton Nero A.i, as well as (3) one now-lost archetype from which descends CCCC 190, and (4) another from which descend the closely-related CCCC 265 and Barlow 37. Several manuscripts in the family, moreover, preserve corrections and revisions supposedly in Wulfstan's own hand, on the identification of which see Ker, N. R., ‘The Handwriting of Archbishop Wulfstan’, England Before the Conquest: Studies in Primary Sources presented to Dorothy Whitelock, ed. Clemoes, P. and Hughes, K. (Cambridge, 1971), pp. 315–51Google Scholar, repr. in his Books Collectors and Libraries: Studies in the Medieval Heritage, ed. Watson, A. G. (London, 1985), pp. 9–26.Google Scholar Now also of crucial importance is Tunberg's, J. M. analysis of the codicology of one first-generation copy of Wulfstan's collection (Copenhagen 1595)Google Scholar; her observations suggest how certain practices in Wulfstan's scriptoria could account for the apparent multiplicity of ‘commonplace book’ archetypes; see Cross, and Tunberg, , The Copenhagen Wulfstan Collection, pp. 27–8.Google Scholar
25 References to the DEC and IBA employ the section numbers I have assigned in the editions, below.
26 Thus DEC 7: (1) ‘Qui passurus aduenisti propter nos, miserere nobis’; (2) ‘Qui <prophetice promisisti>, Ero mors tua, O mors: Domine miserere nobis’; (3) ‘Vita in ligno moritur, infernus ex morsu expoliatur: Domine miserere nobis’. Ælfric's Eynsham letter (§ 33) follows the shorter form found in the Concordia and R. See also Regularis concordia, ed. Symons, , p. 36Google Scholar, n. 6. The additional verses in O appear in a form of this devotion included on p. 562Google Scholar of the ‘Red Book of Darley’ (Cambridge, Corpus Christi College 422Google Scholar; Winchester, s. ximed); cf. Hesbert, R. J., Corpus Antiphonalium Officii, 6 vols., Rerum Ecclesiasticarum Documenta, Series Maior 7–12 (Rome, 1963–1979), II (‘Cursus monasticus’), no. 74c.Google Scholar
27 Reg.con. 58.1404–14; see also Kornexl's extensive commentary and bibliographical references (ibid. pp. 353–6).
28 The only flaw in the O version is the omission of the canticle ‘Cantemus Domino’ after the first lesson, ‘Temptauit Deus’; cf. Reg.con. 58.1407 and apparatus. If the version in O was developed from a form of the text similar to R, the presence of this canticle (correctly) in R but not O is difficult to explain.
29 DEC 9; cf. Reg.con. 48.1171–7, plus apparatus and commentary.
30 DEC 10; cf. Reg.con. 52.1260.
31 E.g. (Fa = Faustina B. iii, Ti = Tiberius A. iii): DEC 7 sufficiat: sufficiat Fa, sufficit Ti; and DEC 11 colamus: colamus Fa, colimus Ti. Also DEC 9 and Fa omit the phrase et pacem non dare nisi qui communicent found in the Tiberius manuscript (Reg.con. 49.1196–7), though the grammatical awkwardness of the phrase, the redundancy of its teaching and its conspicuous lack of an Old English gloss all suggest to Kornexl a late and clumsy addition (Die Regularis Concordia, ed. Kornexl, , pp. 320–2).Google Scholar
32 Cf. Ælfric, LME 29: ‘et ab octauis Pentecostes usque ad Exaltationem sanctae Crucis [scil. 14 September]’. The disagreement among the witnesses reflects some inevitable misunderstanding about the date of the transition from the summer to winter horarium. Most of the changes in the Office took place from 1 October, although the summer hymnal remained in use until 1 November; the summer schedule of meals and work, however, lasted only until 14 September. See Regularis concordia, ed. Symons, , p. xxxv.Google Scholar
33 E.g., DEC 2 conplectione R, complectione Fa, completione O Ti; also DEC 7 Dehinc R Fa Ti, Deinde O; and DEC 10 eatur R Fa Ti, eant O. But cf. DEC 6 oblatum R, oblationem O Ti Fa.
34 Die Regularis Concordia, ed. Kornexl, , pp. cxliv and cvii–cviii.Google Scholar
35 As Symons noted, these are the processional chants found in the ‘Portiforium of St Wulfstan’ (Cambridge, Corpus Christi College 391; Worcester, s. ximed).Google Scholar
34 Reg.con. (53.1287–90) does not specify the antiphons, nor does Ælfric at LME 48.
37 Bateson, , ‘A Worcester Book’.Google Scholar Fehr was also influenced by Feiler's, E. study of the so-called ‘Old English Benedictine Office’, published as Das Benediktiner-Offizium, ein altenglisches Brevier aus dem 11. Jahrhundert: Ein Beitrag zur Wulfstanfrage, Anglistische Forschungen 4 (Heidelberg, 1901).Google Scholar This edition and study prompted Fehr's article cited above, p. 236 n. 17.
38 Fehr, , ‘Das Benediktiner-Offizium’, p. 338. Fehr even suggested an Eynsham origin for the Latin core of CCCC 190.Google Scholar
39 I.e., LME 70–80.Google Scholar See Hall, J. R., ‘Some Liturgical Notes on Ælfric's Letter to the Monks at Eynsham’, Downside Rev. 93 (1975), 297–303CrossRefGoogle Scholar; also Gatch, M. McC., “The Office in Late Anglo-Saxon Monasticism’, Learning and Literature in Anglo-Saxon England: Studies presented to Peter Clemoes on the Occasion of his Sixty-Fifth Birthday, ed. Lapidge, M. and Gneuss, H. (Cambridge, 1985), pp. 341–62, at 352–62.Google Scholar The copy of OR XIII A in Rouen 1382 was collated as manuscript S by Andrieu (see above, p. 236, n. 12).
40 Hirtenbriefe, ed. Fehr, , p. cxxv, n. 1.Google Scholar
42 ibid. p. cxxvi.
43 See Whitelock, , ‘Archbishop Wulfstan’, p. 33, n. 1.Google Scholar Yet Whitelock did not see her revision of Fehr's theory about the manuscript as necessarily refuting Ælfric's authorship of the ‘Priesterauszug’. It is difficult to determine, however, whether Whitelock's definition of the De ecclesiastica consuetudine included only the excerpts from the Concordia (with their Amalarian interpolations), or also the subsequent passages from Amalarius (my IBA) or any other part of Fehr's ‘Priesterauszug’.
44 The Homilies of Wulfstan, ed. Bethurum, D. (Oxford, 1957), p. 345Google Scholar, with ref. to Whitelock, , ‘Archbishop Wulfstan’, p. 34.Google Scholar Bethurum finally leaves the question open: ‘the evidence is not sufficient for certain attribution to either [scil. Wulfstan or Ælfric]’. Fehr had also acknowledged the different methods of the ‘Priesterauszug’ and the Eynsham letter (Hirtenbriefe, pp. cxxv–cxxvi).Google Scholar Bethurum's statements imply a grouping of all the liturgical and penitential texts on pp. 213–64 of CCCC 190 under the single title De ecclesiastica consuetudine.
45 Clemoes, P., ‘The Old English Benedictine Office, Corpus Christi College, Cambridge, MS 190, and the Relations between Ælfric and Wulfstan: A Reconsideration’, Anglia 78 (1960), 265–83, at 276–7Google Scholar; see also his ‘Supplement to the Introduction’ in the 1966 repr. of Hirtenbriefe, ed. Fehr, , pp. cxlvi–cxlvii.Google Scholar
46 See Clemoes, , ‘The Old English Benedictine Office’, p. 276, n. 3Google Scholar, and ‘Supplement to the Introduction’, Hirtenbriefe, ed. Fehr, , p. cxlvi, n. 94.Google Scholar
47 I have substituted single quotation marks for the editors' original italics (indicating liturgical incipits).
48 ‘Supplement to the Introduction’, Hirtenbriefe, ed. Fehr, , p. cxlvi, n. 94.Google Scholar
49 See Dumville, D. N., Liturgy and the Ecclesiastical History of Late Anglo-Saxon England: Four Studies, Stud, in Anglo-Saxon Hist. 5 (Woodbridge, 1992), 116 and 135Google Scholar, and idem, ‘Breton and English Manuscripts of Amalarius's Liber officialis’, Mélanges François Kerlouégan, ed. Conso, D., Fick, N. and Poulle, B. (Paris, 1994), pp. 205–14.Google Scholar The transmission of the Liber officialis is notoriously complex. The Retractatio prima may be the work of a late-ninth-century French or Breton redactor working from the text of Amalarius's third, revised edition (i.e., the one incorporating changes inspired by a visit to Rome in 831). Into the abridgement (or Retractatio prima) the redactor also occasionally spliced material of his own, which Hanssens prints in a special appendix (see below, p. 246, n. 50).Google Scholar On the textual history of the Liber officialis, see the prolegomena to Hanssens's edition in Amatarii Episcopi Opera I, 120–200, esp. pp. 129 and 198 on the Retractatio prima.Google Scholar
50 All printed by Hanssens, (Amalarii Episcopi Opera II, 561–2Google Scholar) as Lectiones a textu discrepantes longiores II.3, 4 and 6 pertaining to Liber officialis I.x.1–2, I.xi.14 and I.xiii.12.
51 He may also have been influenced by the arrangement of the comparable matter in the Concordia, where the three provisions are grouped together at the end of instructions for Palm Sunday. In the Retractatio prima of the Liber offlcialis, each provision occurs separately in the chapters devoted to each of the three occasions.
52 LME 1: ‘Tamen ne expertis tam salubris doctrine remaneatis, aliqua quae regula nostra non tangit, huic cartule insero uobisquae [sic] legenda committo addens aetiam aliqua de libro Amalarii presbiteri.’ The final participial phrase suggests that Ælfric himself has introduced the supplementary material from the Liber officialis.
53 For the use of Amalarius as a supplementary source in the Catholic Homilies, for example, see the citations by Förster, M., ‘Über die Quellen von Ælfrics exegetischen Homiliae Catholicae’, Anglia 16 (1894), 1–61, at 48–9CrossRefGoogle Scholar; and, more doubtfully, by Fehr, B., ‘Über einige Quellen zu Aelfrics Homiliae Catholicae’, Archiv 130 (1913), 378–80.Google Scholar Ælfric's most extensive use of Amalarius in the vernacular occurs in the homily for Septuagesima Sunday; see Ælfric's Catholic Homilies. The Second Series. Text, ed. Godden, M., EETS ss 5 (London, 1979)Google Scholar, Homily, V, pp. 41–51, at 49–51, lines 234–87.Google Scholar
54 ‘Supplement to the Introduction’, Hirtenbriefe, ed. Fehr, , p. cxlvii, n. 96.Google Scholar
55 LME 33; cf. Brief III.24 (ed. Fehr, , p. 154).Google Scholar Some of Ælfric's interpretation of Tenebrae, however, cannot be traced to standard versions of the Retractatio prima, indicating his reliance on a variant text of that recension (see below, p. 255).
56 Hirtenbriefe, ed. Fehr, , pp. cxxv–cxxviGoogle Scholar: ‘Dieser Priesterauszug unterscheidet sich nun allerdings in einem Punkte deutlich vom Klosterauszug. Er ist immer wörtliche Kopie Aethelwolds und bringt lange Auszüge aus Amalarius als Anhang. Aelfricsche Zutaten selbständiger Art fehlen. Der Klosterauszug aber unternimmt gerne kleine stilistische Aenderungen im Latein Aethelwolds und arbeitet Amalarius und einige allerdings wenige eigene Zutaten organisch in den Aethelwoldschen Grundstock hinein.’
57 ‘Supplement to the Introduction’, Hirtenbriefe, ed. Fehr, , p. cxlviiGoogle Scholar: ‘the Priesterauszug bears none of the characteristic stamp of Ælfric's mind: its method of quoting whole passages of the Regularis Concordia verbatim lacks any of the active comprehension which Ælfric brings to bear on this source in his Letter to the Monks of Eynsham and in Brief III, and which is so characteristic of his work as a whole.’
58 See above, p. 243, n. 41.
59 See above, n. 57, and p. 243, n. 44.
60 On Ælfric's Latinity, viewed against the background of the ‘hermeneutic’ style then in vogue, see Lapidge, M., ‘The Hermeneutic Style in Tenth-Century Anglo-Latin Literature’, ASE 4 (1975), 67–111, at 101Google Scholar; repr. with addenda in his Anglo-Latin Literature, 900–1066 (London, 1993), pp. 105–49 and 474–9, at 139.Google Scholar For an inventory of Latin works attributed to Ælfric and a detailed discussion of his abbreviation of the Vita S. Æthelwoldi, see Wulfstan of Winchester: the Life of St Æthelwold, ed. and trans. Lapidge, M. and Winterbottom, M. (Oxford, 1991), pp. cxlvi–clv.Google Scholar A fuller account is forthcoming in Jones, C. A., ‘Meatim sed et Rustica: Ælfric of Eynsham as a Medieval Latin Author’.Google Scholar
61 Extensive verbatim borrowings from the Concordia occur in LME 17–22, 29–30, 32–4, 36, 40, 45–6, 49, 52, 65–6 and 68–9.Google Scholar For verbatim quotation of the Liber officialis, see especially LME 27–8 and 30.Google Scholar In fact, Ælfric's Latin writings as a whole show a strong reliance on the wording of their immediate sources. For example, the extracts on the ecclesiastical grades preserved in Boulogne-sur-Mer, Bibliothèque Publique, 63, and in numerous manuscripts of the Wulfstan's ‘commonplace book’ (see above, p. 236, n. 10), are almost universally attributed to Ælfric, though they consist in large part of verbatim quotation of Isidore and the Aachen Council of 816.
62 See DEC 6 and 12. For Ælfric's silent interpolation of Amalarian or other material, see LME 22 (on the feast of the Holy Innocents, from Lib.off. I.xli.2) and 25 (on Candlemas, from Lib.off. IV.xxxiii.18). Usually, however, Ælfric keeps the Amalarian teaching separate, introducing paraphrases or direct quotation from the Liber officialis with the words ‘Amalarius’ and ‘Amalarius dicit…’; see, e.g., LME 24, 30–2, 35 and 43.Google Scholar
63 The grounds for this speculation are discussed in ch. 3 (on the manuscript context) and in the commentary to LME 12, 25 and 68 in my forthcoming edition of the Eynsham letter.
64 ‘At Nocturns on Christmas night the fourth respond shall, for extra solemnity, be sung by two cantors. After the “Te Deum laudamus” the gospel shall be read by the abbot, as is usual; and when the prayer has been said the ministers shall go out silently, change their shoes, wash and vest quickly; then all the bells shall peal and the Mass shall be celebrated. Matins shall follow, after which, if day has not yet dawned, Lauds of All Saints shall be begun in the usual way; if, however, it is already daybreak, that Office shall be said after the Morrow Mass which must itself be said in the early dawn. Then, at the proper time, when the bell rings the brethren shall sing Prime’ (Regularis concordia, trans. Symons, , pp. 28–9).Google Scholar
65 ‘At Vigils on that night, after the “Te Deum laudamus” the gospel shall be read by the priest, as is usual, and the collect shall be said. And so, when all the bells have been set ringing, Mass shall be said. After these things [come] Lauds, followed by the matutinal Mass when, at first light, the day has begun to dawn. Then, at the proper time, at the sound of the bell they shall sing Prime’ (all translations from the DEC and IBA are my own).
66 See Hirtenbriefe, ed. Fehr, , pp. cxxiv–cxxv. The compiler failed to change abbas in DEC 3 and numerous references to fratres are left unaltered.Google Scholar
67 LME 18. Brief III mentions no special customs for Christmas.
68 ‘On Holy Saturday at the hour of None, when the abbot enters the church with the brethren, the new fire shall be brought in, as was said before, and the candle which has been placed before the altar shall be lit from that fire. Then, as is the custom, a deacon shall bless the candle saying, in the manner of one reading, the prayer “Exultet iam angelica turba coelorum.” … After the blessing the subdeacon shall go up into the pulpit and shall read the first lesson: “In principio creavit”’ (Regularis concordia, trans. Symons, , p. 47).Google Scholar
69 ‘On Holy Saturday the deacon shall bless the candle in the usual way. After the blessing the sub-deacon shall read the lesson “In principio”’.
70 ‘Suffice it to recall here that from the aforementioned Sunday [scil. I Lent] there are still forty days [plus] two until the rite of baptism, making a total of forty-two; for that was the number of habitations had by the sons of Israel, who were baptized in the Red Sea, when they went forth from their harsh slavery in the land of Egypt and came to the promised land … Those who are heading towards their heavenly home are rightly satisfied with the same number of habitations as the sons of Israel had on their journey to the promised land.’ The reference is to the itinerary of the Israelites given in Num. XXXIII.1–49.
71 ‘Suffice it to recall here that in Lent there are forty-two days from the Sunday we call Quadragesima. For that was the number of habitations had by the sons of Israel when they went out of Egypt into the promised land. And those who are heading towards their heavenly home are rightly satisfied with the same number of habitations as the sons of Israel had on their journey to the promised land’.
72 Hirtenbriefe, ed. Fehr, , p. cxxv, n. 1Google Scholar; the latter of these occurs in manuscript O only; see my source apparatus to DEC 4. Subsequent analyses of the DEC have rested on general assertions that easily obscure this point: e.g., Whitelock, (‘Archbishop Wulfstan’, p. 33, n. 1)Google Scholar speaks of ‘a text made up of passages from Æthelwold's Regularis concordia and Amalarius’, where it is not clear whether she means the DEC with its Amalarian interpolations or the DEC plus the IBA; similarly Bethurum (Homilies of Wulfstan, p. 345)Google Scholar refers to ‘passages inserted from Amalarius’, but since she apparently considers the DEC to include all the texts on CCCC 190 pp. 213–64, her reference is also unclear.
73 DEC 1, starting at my third sentence (‘In tempore quoque …’).
74 DEC 2: ‘In qua etiam nocte <inuitatorium> amittimus.’
75 DEC 6; see above, p. 245.
76 The Amalarian passage is probably the source of the same detail at LME 43.
77 The wording of DEC 9 is closer to the Concordia than to Ælfric, but DEC 9 and LME 46 both contain the detail (probably from Liber officialis I.xxxi.8) that incense only precedes the gospel in imitation of the holy women who brought spices to Christ's tomb. The exact interrelations are complex; see commentary to LME 46 in Jones, Ælfric's Letter.
78 As noted above (pp. 237–8), the exact relation of this item to the DEC is questionable; it follows my DEC 11 only in the Rouen manuscript.Google Scholar
79 I.e., Liber officialis II.i.1, II.ii.6 and 12 and II.iii.12. This selection in part reflects the prior abridgement represented by the Retractatio prima, but the compiler still shows fair skill in choosing and recombining the sentences.
80 Bede, In Lucae euangelium expositio I.ii.22, lines 1662–6 and 1691–6, in Bedae Venerabilis Opera, Pars II: Opera Exegetica 3, ed. Hurst, D., CCSL 120 (Turnhout, 1960), 61–2.Google Scholar
81 Bede, , De temporum ratione liber, c. 61, lines 14–16, and c. 63, lines 7–9, 11–13 and 32–4Google Scholar, in Bedae Venerabilis Opera, Pars VI: Opera Didascalica 2, ed. Jones, C. W., CCSL 123B (Turnhout, 1977), 450 and 454–5.Google Scholar
82 Bede, , Expositio actuum apostolorum II. 1, lines 34–6, and II.3, lines 46–8Google Scholar, in Bedae Venerabilis Opera, Pars II: Opera Exegetica 4, ed. Laistner, M. L. W, CCSL 121 (Turnhout, 1983), 16.Google Scholar
83 See Förster, , ‘Über die Quellen’, p. 24 (§ 81)Google Scholar; but cf. Smetana, C. L., ‘Ælfric and the Early Medieval Homiliary’, Traditio 15 (1959), 163–204, at 187.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
84 Förster, , ‘Über die Quellen’, p. 20 (§ 75).Google Scholar The homily includes one sentence that is close to the Bedan interpolation at IBA 16, but Ælfric is probably only translating the quite similar words in his chief source, Gregory the Great's Homiliae in euuangelium XL, no. XXX: ‘in linguis igneis apparuit Spiritus, quia omnes quos repleverit ardentes pariter et loquentes facit’ (PL 76, col. 1223C); cf. Catholic Homilies I, no. 22 (In die sancto Pentecosten): ‘Se halga gast wæs gesewen on fyrenum tungum bufon þam apostolon for þan ðe he dyde þæt hi wæron byrnende on godes willan. 7 bodiende ymbe godes rice’ (Ælfric's Catholic Homilies. The First Series. Text, ed. Clemoes, P., EETS 17 (Oxford, 1997), 359).Google Scholar
85 See, e.g., Bethurum's commentary to items VIII.a–c [sermons on baptism] in her Homilies of Wulfstan, pp. 302–4 and 311–20Google Scholar, supplemented by Cross, J. E., ‘Wulfstan's Incipit de baptismo (Bethurum VIIIa): a Revision of Sources’, NM 90 (1989), 237–42.Google Scholar
86 See Jones, C. A., ‘Ælfric, Amalarius, and Salisbury, Cathedral Library, MS. 154’ (forthcoming).Google Scholar
87 I owe thanks to the late J. E. Cross, who patiently responded to my early queries about these texts, and to Antonette DiPaolo Healey, Roberta Frank, David Townsend and Michael Lapidge, all of whom read drafts of the study and edition and saved me from numerous errors. All faults that remain are entirely my own.
