Aelfric's pastoral letters and the episcopal capitula of Radulf of Bourges.
All attempts to interpret and reconcile these lists have ultimately encountered the same two obstacles: (1) AElfric's list in his Old English letter to Wulfsige (Fehr's 'Brief I') does not agree in all points with the source proposed by Fehr, a passage from the introduction to the Penitential of Egbert;(3) (2) more disturbing still, the list in the letter to Wulfsige does not even agree in its particulars with that found in AElfric's first Latin letter to Archbishop Wulfstan (Fehr's 'Brief 2') or its Old English companion piece ('Brief II'). Fehr's argument for the source does not rely so much on correspondences in content between the Egbertine list and AElfric's in the letter to Wulfsige (although his argument does attempt to downplay their differences), but on the confirming detail of two incidental Latin phrases in the former: a reference to ordination (... antequam episcopus tangat caput) and another to books as the priest's spiritalia arma.(4) The appearance of similar phrases in the Old English letter to Wulfsige (tha waepna... aer than the he beo gehadod) does appear to support Fehr's claim that, differences of detail aside, the Egbert list underlies this portion of the letter:
Penitential of Egbert (quoted from Corpus Christi College, Cambridge, MS. 265, p. 39):
... imprimis propter deum cogitet et preparet arma eius, antequam manus episcopi tangat caput ipsius, id est salterium, lectionarium, antiphonarium, missalem, baptisterium, martirlogium, in anni circulum ad predicationem, et compotum et cyclo, hoc est ius sacerdotum, postea autem penitentialem.
He sceal habban eac tha waepna to tham gastlicum weorce, aer than the he beo gehadod, thaet synd tha halgan bec: saltere and pistolboc, godspellboc and maesseboc, sangboc and handboc, gerim and <passionalem>(5) penitentialem and raedingboc.
The occasional difficulties of matching Old English to Latin terms have prompted not only Fehr's detailed analysis, but also the more recent, learned considerations by Gatch, Gneuss, and Hill.(6) Suffice it to summarize here that, except for the troubling addition of godspellboc and lack of a clear equivalent to Egbert's [sc. liber] in anni circulum ad praedicationem, a general overall agreement between the two lists can be construed. Such an agreement, confirmed by the occurrence in the Old English of the two incidental Latin phrases noted above, convinced Fehr and - so far as I can determine - has swayed subsequent commentators that AElfric's catalogue of necessary liturgical books is ultimately based on the list in the introduction to Egbert's Penitential.(7)
More formidable problems arise, however, if we assume that, because the Egbert-passage informs the list in Brief I, that source and it alone must inform the lists in the first Latin and Old English letters to Wulfstan (Briefe 2 and II). Admittedly, the three lists are all by the same author, and there is enough similarity among their contents to posit a single source, albeit one variously adapted and arranged on separate occasions. Working from such presuppositions, scholars have quite naturally applied themselves to reconciling the information from one list with that of the other two. Puzzling over some of these difficulties, Fehr would muse, 'AElfric ist unglaublich inkonsequent an diesen drei Stellen. Er verlangt immer wieder andere Biicher.'(8) This perceived need to square the data (or, at least, to read one list strictly in terms of the others) rests, it seems, on the assumption that Egbert was directly or indirectly AElfric's source for all three.
A review of the correspondences between the Egbert- and Wulfsige-lists on the one hand, and those of 2 and II Wulfstan on the other, prompts the question: might AElfric have drawn upon another, supplementary source for all the lists, or at least those of the latter group? If that is the case, attempts to reconcile the lists with Egbert and with one another are bound to fail and, indeed, create as many problems as they solve. We may remind ourselves that the chronology of the letters, reconstructed by Fehr and revised by Clemoes, allows for a gap of as many as thirteen years between the letter to Wulfsige and Wulfstan 2-3 and II-III.(9) Fehr's original chronology cast events into a much shorter span and, perhaps as a result, he emphasized the extent to which AElfric appears to have drawn upon the same stock of source material for the first Latin letter to Wulfstan as he had used for the Old English letter to Wulfsige, a practice giving rise in many cases to more similarities in content between letters I and 2 than between 2 and II.(10)
But does Fehr's theory about the relationship between Briefe I and 2/II hold true for those sections of the letters that pertain to the liturgical books? Another close comparison is in order.
Brief 2.137, 139:
Presbyter debet habere etiam spiritalia arma, id sunt diuinos libros, scilicet missalem, lectionarium, quod quidam uocant epistolarium, psalterium, nocturnalem, gradalem, manualem, passionalem, penitentialem, compotum, et librum cum lectionibus ad nocturnas .... Hos libros debet ipse habere bene correctos et hos debet scire.
Brief II. 157-8:
Maessepreost sceal habban maesseboc and pistelboc, and sangboc and raedingboc and saltere and handboc, and penitentialem and gerim. And tha beon wel gerihte.
Although the reference to such books as the priest's 'weapons' in Brief 2 suggests the influence of Egbert and Brief I, Fehr's second shibboleth-phrase, antequam manus episcopi tangat caput ipsius/aer than the he beo gehadod, turns up in neither of the two later lists. While the mere want of the phrase here does not thwart Fehr's theory - AElfric might easily omit such a non-essential idea when adapting old material for a new occasion -its absence does allow, when viewed together with the reordering of items, that the relationship between the two lists is not simply that of source to translation, as Fehr maintains.
The assumption that the passage from Egbert's Penitential informs all three lists suffers another blow when closer attention is paid to the material immediately following the lists at 1.52 and 2.137. After an emphatic statement in the Old English and Latin versions that priests should look upon the aforenamed books as essentials, not luxuries (I.53; 2.138). AElfric enjoins: 'And be he aet tham waer, thaet hi beon wei gerihte' (I.54) / 'Hos libros debet ipse habere bene correctos et hos debet scire' (2.139). Then follow instructions (I.55-8; 2.140-2) about the necessity of having clean and decorously made Mass vestments. No instructions such as these accompany the book list in the introduction to Egbert's Penitential, however, and Fehr's source apparatus does not offer any promising leads, except to refer to two analogous passages in Wulfstan's Canons of Edgar.(11) Of course these latter kinds of instructions are commonplace in capitularia of the time; but for the moment we are concerned less with the fontes of these capitula than the fact of their immediate proximity to the book lists in two of AElfric's pastoral letters.
In the course of re-examining the contents of Cambridge, Corpus Christi College MS 265 (Worcester, saec. [xi.sup.2]), one of the three manuscripts that contain both of AElfric's Latin pastoral letters for Archbishop Wulfstan,(12) I have come across another list of liturgical books that is in many respects a closer match to that in Brief 2 and also accounts for the subsequent canons in both I and 2. The possible source is found within a sequence of excerpts from the Capitula of Radulf, Bishop of Bourges from 840 until his death in 866.(13) These excerpts are written on pages 113-21 of CCCC 265, following what appears to be a set of reference copies of letters to and from Archbishop Wulfstan (pp. 110-13), and immediately preceding the much better-known first Capitulary of Theodulf of Orleans (pp. 121-42).(14) As it appears in all manuscripts except CCCC 265, Radulf's list of prescribed books is a modest and general one:
Radulf, cap. 5 (Brommer, p. 237):
Admonendi etiam sunt sacerdotes, ut operam dent, quatenus missalem et lectionarium, psalterium sive aliquos libellos sibi necessarios bene correctos habeant.
This admonition is followed by instructions about the proper and restricted use of the altar vessels (illustrated negatively by the exemplum of Belshazzar), and then by a similar directive concerning the altar cloths and priestly vestments. In the Corpus excerpts, however, we encounter two significant changes: first, Radulf's original list of books has been expanded; second, the long statute concerning the altar vessels and the reference to Belshazzar were omitted by the compiler, so that the remarks about the fair linens and priestly vestments immediately follow the book list.
Radulf, cap. v, edited from CCCC 265, pp. 114-15:
Ammonendi sunt etiam sacerdotes, ut operam dent quatinus missalem et lectionarium, psalterium. siue alios libros sibi necessarios, antiphonarium, martirlogium, compotum, penitentialem bene correctos habeant; quia sepe dum bene aliquid deum rogare cupiunt, per inemendatos libros male rogant. Et pueros suos non sinant uel legendo uel scribendo eos corrumpere. Statuimus quoque ut cum studio summo lintheamina nitida altaribus preparentur, et sacerdotalia indumenta cu<m> quibus sacrificatur obtima pro uiribus et munda habere satagant, et sic noua siue uetustate confecta ad alios usus transire nullomodo sinant.
Radulf's list, including the additions found in CCCC 265 (antiphonarium, martirlogium, compotum, penitentialem), does not offer a perfect match with AElfric's at Brief 2.137; even if we generously allow that AElfric's nocturnalem and gradalem may both lie hidden in the single term antiphonarium of the Corpus list,(15) the latter still lacks AElfric's manualem and librum cum lectionibus ad nocturnas, while Brief 2 retains the Egbertine reference to spiritalia arma. On the other hand, the correspondences in order of items are far greater between Brief 2 and the Corpus list than between Brief 2 and Brief I or Egbert. The conclusion that AElfric's list in Brief 2 may well represent a conflation of sources - Egbert (and Brief I) with the interpolated version of Radulf's list - gains strength when we note the instructions that immediately follow in the Wulfsige and Wulfstan letters:
He sceal habban eac maesse-reaf, thaet he mage arwurdhlice Gode sylfum thenigan, swa hit gedafenlic is. thaet his reaf ne beo horig ne huru tosigen. And his weofod-sceatas beon wei betworfene.(16)
Et debet habere clara et integra officialia indumenta.
Brief II. 159:
And claene maesse-reaf to Cristes thenungum.
Not only does AElfric's choice of words recall Radulf's sacerdotalia indumenta and (in the Wulfsige letter only) the lintheamina nitida for the altars, but the very sequence of these and the preceding directions in Briefe I, 2, and II appears to derive from an abridgement of Radulf's fifth capitulum akin to that preserved only in CCCC 265.(17)
The case for AElfric's knowledge of Radulf's Capitula finds further support in at least three other loci in the pastoral letters:
(1) In the second letter to Wulfstan, both Latin and Old English versions (Fehr's Briefe 3 and III), AElfric's teaching about the holy oils includes the specific instruction that priests attending the bishop's Chrism Mass on Maundy Thursday should bring three separate ampoules in which to carry home the three different types of consecrated oil: the oil of catechumens (or, to AElfric, simply 'holy oil'), the chrism, and the oil of the infirm (Briefe 3.20-2; III.2-4).(18) Fehr cites as an ultimate source the similar instruction found in many manuscripts of Ansegisus' Capitularium collectio (I.clvi);(19) yet AElfric does not appear to have known Ansegisus' compendium as a whole, nor does a similar prescription occur in his chief canonical sources, the Capitula a sacerdotibus proposita (= the first Capitulary of Gharbald of Liege) or the so-called Excerptiones [pseudo-] Egberti.(20) A more immediate source than Ansegisus may be found in Radulf's capitulum xiv, also included among the Corpus excerpts: 'Tres autem omnes secum deferant ampullas. unam pro crismate. aliam pro oleo ad catecuminos. tertiam pro oleo ad infirmos unguendos. secundum apostoli Iacobi documentum. cui etiam decreta partum consonant' (CCCC 265, p. 115[ii];(21) Brommer, p. 244). AElfric's directions continue with a particular discussion of the use of the oil of the infirm for anointing the sick (Briefe 1.85, 87-9; 3.9-10; III.9-10), based ultimately on James 5:13-6. The citing of this scriptural justification for the practice of anointing the sick is commonplace in the capitularies and priestly handbooks of the time, but whereas the scriptural reference is usually little more than a terse allusion (as at Briefe 3.9-10 and 111.9-10), AElfric's full translation of the verses from James in the letter to Wulfsige (1.87-9) has, so far as I can tell, no close parallel other than the similarly extensive quotation in Radulf's capitulum xiv (CCCC 265, p. 115[ii]; Brommer, p. 244).(22) AElfric may, however, be supplying the Biblical verses of his own initiative.
(2) AElfric's instructions on the treatment of the newly baptized present details strikingly similar to those of Radulf's capitulum XX,(23) and for which, again, Fehr could find no close analogues among AElfric's usual canonical sources:
Et hoc scitote quod infantibus baptizatis statim debetis dare communionem et omni die, quamdiu in albis sunt, debent habere missam, et parentes eorum pro ipsis offerant.
Ge sculon huslian tha cild, thonne hi gefullode beodh, and hy man bere to maessan, thaet hyg beon gehuslode ealle tha seofon dagas, tha hwile the hig unthwogene beodh.
Radulf, cap. xx (CCCC 265, p. 118; Brommer, p. 249);
... et tunc [sacerdotes] ad proprias ecclesias cum baptizatis suis et ceteris subiectis remeantes missarum sollempnia persoluant, et baptizati et qui eos a fonte baptismatis susceperunt omnes communicent. Et quamdiu in albis sunt, cotidie a patronis ad ecclesiam cum luminaribus deducantur et corpus et sanguinem christi usque in diem octauum equali iure cuncti percipere studeant.
AElfric's adaptation of the passage, with its more explicit references to infantes and parentes, befits the pastoral situation of his time and place, when the adult catechumenate had all but disappeared.
(3) A third possible correspondence occurs within AElfric's statements that priests are not to exact payment from their parishioners in return for performing baptisms, burials, and the like (Briefe 3.61-2; III. 110-12; cf. I.72). Fehr correctly identified the base text of AElfric's instruction as the twelfth canon of Gharbald's first Capitulary (which is not, as Fehr thought, part of the Excerptiones [pseudo-] Egberti). But in the second Latin and Old English letters to Wulfstan, AElfric supplemented this teaching with another commonplace support-text, a quotation of the last part of Matthew 10:8: 'gratis accepistis, gratis date' (cf. Briefe 3.62; III. 112). This citation does not accompany Gharbald's text, but it does occur in Radulf's condemnation of the same practices in capitulum xviii (CCCC 265, p. 116; Brommer, p. 246). As I have suggested regarding AElfric's differing lists of liturgical books, in this case too it seems he drew upon material supplementary to that used for Brief I and created a composite canon.
The evidence of these loci, together with that of the interpolated book list in the Corpus excerpts, suggests a more plausible intermediate source for certain details of AElfric's pastoral writings than those suggested by Fehr's commentary. By calling attention to the Radulf excerpts, I hope to have demonstrated how much work remains to be done in the search for possible intermediate sources of AElfric's pastoral writings, and that, to this end, a great wealth of material in late Anglo-Saxon ecclesiastical commonplace books invites closer scrutiny. In our study of the Old English homilies, the quest for intermediate rather than ultimate sources has led to an ever-deepening appreciation of the importance of Latin homiliaries and florilegia as channels of transmission for much Patristic learning.(24) Canonical and liturgical miscellanies such as CCCC 265 may yet prove to be similarly important source-mines in our efforts to place AElfric's pastoral writings in their immediate intellectual and cultural background.(25) Peter Clemoes's argument that the contents of CCCC 265, 190, and other manuscripts associated with Wulfstan's 'Commonplace Book' pertain overwhelmingly to Wulfstan's career and hardly at all to AElfric's, while a necessary corrective to some of Fehr's mistaken notions, has had the effect of discouraging consideration of texts in these manuscripts as possible AElfrician sources.(26) It is evident that the two churchmen shared sources and ideas, although the number of texts that are demonstrably the result of such exchanges is fewer than one might suppose.(27) If my preceding arguments are tenable, however, we possess in the Corpus Radulf-excerpts evidence of yet another Latin canonical source used by both AElfric and Wulfstan, and each independently, it seems, of his colleague. The excerpts from Radulf's second capitulum are almost certainly the immediate source of the concluding portion of article twenty-six in Wulfstan's Canons of Edgar:
Canons of Edgar, 26 (Fowler, p. 6):
And we laeradh thaet preostas cirican healdan mid ealre arwurdhnesse to godcundre thenunge and to claenan theowdome, and to nanum odhrum thingum; ne hi thar aenig unnit inne ne on neaweste ne gethafian: ne idele spaece, ne idele daede, ne unnit gedrync, ne aefre aenig idel; ne binnan cirictune aenig bund ne cume, ne swyn the ma, thaes the man wealdan maege.
Fowler convincingly claims Brief I.48 as the source of Wulfstan's opening sentence, and for the rest of the canon points to other parallels in AElfric's pastoral letters and Theodulf's first Capitulary. For the concluding instruction to keep dogs and pigs out of the church, however, Fowler refers to the obvious forts, the seventy-first capitulum of Charlemagne's Admonitio generalis.(28) But in both the Admonitio itself and in Ansegisus' Capitularium collectio (I.lxvii), this prescription mentions dogs only; we search in vain for Wulfstan's incommodious swyn until we come to Radulf's adaptation of this same phrase for his second capitulum: 'non sint [ecclesiae] canibus et porcis peruie' (CCCC 265, p. 114; Brommer, p. 235). The phrase does not occur in AElfric's extant pastoral writings, and Wulfstan appears to have included it on his own.
That significant fons of so many reformist motifs, the Admonitio generalis, brings us back to the issue of AElfric's own ideals as manifest in his lists of liturgical books, lists that, despite some differences of detail, all conclude with the telling insistence that a priest's books be 'well corrected' (Briefe 1.54; 2.139; II.158). The ultimate source of this statement is of course capitulum lxxii of the Admonitio generalis, where Charlemagne also makes the famous statement that even well-intentioned clergy pray badly because they use uncorrected books; priests should accordingly correct their own books, and keep them from falling into the hands of those who might corrupt them.(29) This particular passage is incorporated verbatim into Radulf's capitulum v, immediately following his list of necessary liturgical books. The Carolingian ideal of establishing 'better texts' was an integral part of the monastic reform movement in which AElfric was schooled at AEthelwold's Winchester. Well-known admonitions conclude the prefaces to both series of the Catholic Homilies, as well as the prefaces to a number of other works by AElfric, imploring future copyists to correct their work studiously according to the exemplar.(30) Seen from the broader perspective of AElfric's enthusiasm for Carolingian reformist ideals and auctores (e.g., Alcuin, Paul the Deacon, Haymo of Auxerre, Smaragdus, and, at least indirectly, Benedict of Aniane), these appeals in the prefaces emerge less as the expressions of some personal scruple than as the manifestation of a programmatic ideal.(31) Radulf, too, participated in church reforms of the later Carolingian empire, and his Capitula, even in the greatly abridged version found in CCCC 265 and Barlow 37, trumpet their allegiance to that intellectual tradition.(32) The leaders of monastic and secular church-reform in the late Anglo-Saxon period would look to this tradition for their essential texts the Rule of St. Benedict, Theodulf's Capitula, the Aachen synodal decrees of 817, Paul the Deacon's homiliary, and many others. AElfric and Wulfstan, albeit in largely different ways, enthusiastically embraced the values and rhetoric of such 'new' sources, and we should doubtless add Radulf's Capitulary to the list of texts that not only directly inform their pastoral writings, but which, in broader perspective, helped transplant Carolingian ideals of ecclesiastical reform to late Anglo-Saxon England.
CHRISTOPHER A. JONES University of Toronto
1 Ed. and trans. by B. Fehr, Die Hirtenbriefe AElfrics in altenglischer und lateinischer Fassung (Hamburg, 1914; reprint with supplement to the introduction by P. Clemoes: Darmstadt, 1966), Bibliothek der angeisachsischen Prosa ix.9, 51 and 126 (Briefe I.32; 2.137; II.157). In this paper quotations from the Old English letters are taken from Fehr's first column (ms. O = Cambridge, Corpus Christi College MS 190).
2 E.g., Fehr, Hirtenbriefe, lxxxvi-xcii; H. Gneuss, 'Linguistic Borrowing and Old English Lexicography: Old English Terms for the Books of the Liturgy', Problems of Old English Lexicography: Studies in Memory of Angus Cameron, ed. A. Bammesberger (Regensburg, 1985), 107-29; idem, 'Liturgical books in Anglo-Saxon England and their Old English terminology', Learning and Literature in Anglo-Saxon England: Studies Presented to Peter Clemoes on the Occasion of his Sixty-fifth Birthday, ed. M. Lapidge and H. Gneuss (Cambridge, 1985), 91-141; M. Gatch, Preaching and Theology in Anglo-Saxon England: AElfric and Wulfstan (Toronto, 1977); J. Hill, 'Monastic Reform and the Secular Church: AElfric's Pastoral Letters in Context', England in the Eleventh Century: Proceedings of the 1990 Harlaxton Symposium, ed. C. Hicks (Stamford, 1992) 112-13.
3 This list of books may be one of several later Frankish additions to Egbert's Penitential; see A. J. Frantzen, The Literature of Penance in Anglo-Saxon England (New Brunswick, NJ, 1983). 74.
4 Fehr, Hirtenbriefe, lxxxvi, xciii-xciv; also 51-2 (the source apparatus to Brief 2:137).
5 Two manuscripts (CUL Gg.3.28 and Bodieian, Junius 121) agree in the reading passionalem against pastoralem in CCCC 190; on the emendation see Fehr, Hirtenbriefe, liv and 13.
6 See works cited in n. 2, above.
7 But note the hint of doubt in Gneuss, 'Liturgical books', 95: 'See esp. the lists of books that priests are expected to own - based on Egbert's list ...? - in the letter to Bishop Wulfsige', etc.; and similarly in his discussion of AElfric's sangboc (?-bec), 103.
8 Hirtenbriefe, lxxxvii. In a footnote inserted just before the publication of his edition, however, Fehr claims to have abandoned the attempt to reconcile the lists with one another; see his introduction, lxxxvii n. 2.
9 Fehr, Hirtenbriefe, xxxviii; lii-liii; cf. Clemoes's supplement, cxliv-cxlv. On stylistic grounds, Clemoes dates the letter to Wulfsige closer to the beginning of the 992 x 1002 period (the span of Wulfsige's episcopacy at Sherborne), while Fehr had dated it to the end. Clemoes assigns the two Latin and Old English letters to Wulfstan to the years 1005-6.
10 Fehr, Hirtenbriefe, xlii: 'sein Latein [sc. Brief 2] erscheint uns ofters als eine treue Uebertragung des altenglischen Hirtenbriefes I: ja I liegt dem Latein von 2 oft naher als II, das doch Uebersetzung von 2 sein will'.
11 Fehr, Hirtenbriefe, 14, 52. See R. Fowler (ed.), Wulfstan's Canons of Edgar, EETS, o.s. 266 (1972), 8-9 (canons 34 and 33).
12 CCCC 265, pp. 160-80. The other manuscripts are: Cambridge, Corpus Christi College 190 (pp. 188-201, 151-9), and Copenhagen, Kongelige Bibliotek, GI.kgl.S. 1595 (fos 67r-77v). See Joyce Hill's convenient table of the pastoral letters and their manuscripts in her article, 'Monastic Reform and the Secular Church', 117. There was at least one earlier, 'private' Latin letter to Wulfstan (Fehr's Brief 2a), preserved only in Boulogne-sur-Mer, Bibliotheque publique MS 63 (fos 10r-13r).
13 The excerpts in CCCC 265 are collated (as MS C) by P. Brommer (ed.), Capitula episcoporum, Monumenta Germaniae Historica (1984), i, 233-68; they include part or all of Brommer's capp. 1, 2, 5-9, 12, 14, 17-20, 22, 21, 23-5. These same excerpta are also preserved in a closely related manuscript, Oxford, Bodleian, Barlow 37, fos 25r-26v; see H. Sauer, 'Zur Uberlieferung und Anlage von Erzbischof Wulfstans "Handbuch'". Deutsches Archiv fur Erforschung des Mittelalters, xxxvi (1980), 341-84. On Radulf's career and the evidence for his compilation of these capitula, see the introduction to Brommer's edition, 227.
14 The nine letters were transcribed from CCCC 265 by M. Bateson, 'A Worcester Cathedral Book of Ecclesiastical Collections, made c. 1000 A.D.', English Historical Review, x (1895), 728-30; they are collated in critical editions by D. Bethurum, The Homilies of Wulfstan (Oxford, 1957), 374-5, and R. A. Aronstam, 'Penitential Pilgrimages to Rome in the Early Middle Ages', Archivum Historiae Pontificiae, xiii (1975), 79-82. The copy of Theodulf's Capitula is collated (as MS C) by both P. Brommer (ed.), Capitula episcoporum, i, 103-42, and by H. Sauer (ed.), Theodulfi Capitula in England, Texte und Untersuchungen zur englischen Philologie 8 (Munich, 1978), 301-402.
15 AElfric's use of these terms (and their Old English equivalent sangboc or plural sangbec) is problematic; see Fehr, Hirtenbriefe, lxxxviii-xc; cf. Gneuss, 'Liturgical books', 103 and 117.
16 read 'behworfene'.
17 Cap. v in the same set of excerpts in the closely related manuscript, Barlow 37, does not contain the expanded list of books.
18 Note that at I.85 AElfric refers only to two kinds: 'to cildum... to seocum mannum'.
19 The MGH edition adopts the reading 'duas ampullas' but notes in the apparatus that 'multi mss.' read 'tres'; see A. Boretius (ed.), Capitularia regum Francorum, Monumenta Germaniae Historica, Leges II (1883), i, 412-13 (lib. I, cap. clvi).
20 See Fehr, Hirtenbriefe, xciv-cxvii; Gharbald's first Capitulary has been most recently edited by P. Brommer, MGH Capitula episcoporum, i.16-21; the Excerptiones [pseudo-] Egberti by R. A. Aronstam, The Latin Canonical Tradition in Late Anglo-Saxon England: The Excerptiones Egberti (unpubl. Columbia Univ. diss., 1974).
21 The pagination of CCCC 265 skips the two pages after 114-15; it has seemed less troublesome simply to refer to the unnumbered pages as 114[ii] and 115[ii], rather than adjust all subsequent pagination in the manuscript. Most descriptions of the book use its faulty pagination without comment.
22 Note, however, AElfric quotes even more the text (almost all of James 5:13-6) than does Radulf (only 5:14-5).
23 The similarity was noted by Brommer himself in his apparatus fontium to Radulf. cap. xx.
24 To name only a few: C. Smetana, 'AElfric and the Early Medieval Homiliary', Traditio, xv (1959), 163-204; idem, 'AElfric and the Homiliary of Haymo of Halberstadt', Traditio, xvii (1961), 457-69: M. Clayton, 'Homiliaries and Preaching in Anglo-Saxon England', Peritia, iv (1985), 20742: J. Hill, 'AElfric and Samaragdus', Anglo-Saxon England. 21 (1992), 203-37.
25 E.g., Hill, 'Monastic Reform', 107-9.
26 P. Clemoes, 'The Old English Benedictine Office, Corpus Christi College, Cambridge, MS 190, and the Relations between AElfric und Wulfstan: A Reconsideration', Anglia, lxxviii (1960), 265-83; in answer to B. Fehr, 'Das Benediktiner-Offizium und die Beziehungen zwischen AElfric and Wulfstan', Engitsche Studien, xlvi (1912-13), 337-46, as well as his introduction to the Hirtenbriefe.
27 Clemoes, 'The Old English Benedictine Office', 281-3.
28 Fowler, Canons of Edgar, 30-1, and Boretius, Capitularia regum Francorum i, 59 (cap. lxxi).
29 '... quia saepe, dum bene aliqui Deum rogare cupiunt, sed per inemendatos libros male rogant. Et pueros vestros non sinite eos vel legendo vel scribendo corrumpere; et si opus est euangelium, psalterium et missale scribere, perfectae aetatis homines scribant cum omni diligentia'; Boretius, Capitularia regum Francorum i, 60 (cap. lxxii).
30 B. Thorpe (ed.), The Homilies of the Anglo-Saxon Church: The First Part, Containing the Sermones Catholici or Homilies of AElfric (London, 1843), i, 8: M. Godden (ed.). AElfric's Catholic Homilies: Second Series, Text, EETS, s.s. 5 (1979), 2 (lines 43 ff.). See also W. Skeat (ed.). AElfrick's Lives of Saints, EETS, o.s. 76 and 82 (1881 and 1885), 6 (lines 74 ff); J. Zupitza (ed.), AElfrics Grammatik und Glossar (Berlin, 1880), 3 (lines 20 ff); S. J. Crawford (ed.), The Old English Version of the Heptateuch, EETS, o.s. 160 (1922), 75 (De uetere et nouo testamento, lines 1272 ff); 80 (Preface to Genesis, lines 117 ff).
31 Cf. Hill, 'Monastic Reform', 111.
32 Radulf is not named as the author of the Capitula in CCCC 265 or in any manuscript, but the tradition to which the work belongs is clear from the content, especially cap. xvii, which includes the phrase '... hoc iuxta canonum decreta seu gloriossimorum regum Karoli scilicet et Ludouici decernimus' (CCCC 265, p. 116; Brommer, p. 246).
I am grateful to Professor Joyce Hill of the University of Leeds, who read a draft of this note and offered a number of insightful criticisms and suggestions.
|Printer friendly Cite/link Email Feedback|
|Author:||Jones, Christopher A.|
|Publication:||Notes and Queries|
|Date:||Jun 1, 1995|
|Previous Article:||A History of Modern Criticism: 1750-1950, vol. 8, French, Italian, and Spanish Criticism, 1900-1950.|
|Next Article:||Aelfric's trud 'buffoon': old Irish druth 'buffoon.'|