No CrossRef data available.
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.
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: 19 October 2022
Cambridge, Corpus Christi College 190 (CCCC 190) contains an Ash Wednesday entry into public penance and a Maundy Thursday reconciliation of penitents as well as two Old English sermons translated from them. The sermons were added to the manuscript at Exeter during Bishop Leofric’s tenure (1050–72), and the rites were recopied into one of his pontificals, London, British Library, Cotton Vitellius A. vii, where the Ash Wednesday service was also revised into a unique, previously unrecognized, standalone rite. This article examines the manuscript evidence for Leofric’s interest in these unique rites and sermons, and suggests that they might have been useful to him in the wake of the Norman Conquest. Because of their uniqueness and proposed historical relevance to post-Conquest Exeter, the article concludes with editions of the rites from Vitellius A. vii and the sermons from CCCC 190, which are printed together for the first time.
1 This article about a particular bishop and his book is indebted to R. W. Pfaff, ‘The Anglo-Saxon Bishop and his Book’, Bull. of the John Rylands Lib. 81 (1999), 3–24.
2 My understanding of Leofric’s work as a pastor and prelate is deeply indebted to the work of Joyce Hill and Elaine Treharne, and essential notices of their work include the following: J. Hill, ‘Leofric of Exeter and the Practical Politics of Book Collecting’, Imagining the Book, ed. S. Kelly and J. J. Thompson (Turnhout, 2005), pp. 77–97, and ‘Two Anglo-Saxon Bishops at Work: Wulfstan, Leofric and Cambridge, Corpus Christi College MS 190’, Patterns of Episcopal Power in Tenth and Eleventh Century Western Europe, ed. L. Körntgen and D. Wassenhoven (Berlin, 2011), pp. 145–61; E. Treharne, ‘Producing a Library in Late Anglo-Saxon England: Exeter, 1050–1072’, RES ns 54 (2003), 155–72; ‘Bishops and their Texts in the Later Eleventh Century: Worcester and Exeter’, Essays in Manuscript Geography: Vernacular Manuscripts of the English West Midlands from the Conquest to the Sixteenth Century, ed. W. Scase (Turnhout, 2007), pp. 13–28; and ‘The Bishop’s Book: Leofric’s Homiliary and Eleventh-Century Exeter’, Early Medieval Studies in Memory of Patrick Wormald, ed. S. Baxter, C. Karkov, J. L. Nelson and D. Pelteret (Farnham, 2009), pp. 521–37.
3 Cambridge, Corpus Christi College 190, pp. iii–xii and 1–294 (Worcester?, s. xi1, prov. Exeter by s. xi med.; Exeter additions s. xi med.–xi2: Gneuss-Lapidge, ASMss 59 (pp. 71–3)). The digital facsimile of CCCC 190 can be accessed at Parker Library On the Web, and a detailed description and list of contents can be found in M. Budny, Insular, Anglo-Saxon, and Early Anglo-Norman Manuscript Art at Corpus Christi College, Cambridge: an Illustrated Catalogue, 2 vols. (Cambridge, 1997), 34, I, 535–43, at 541–3.
4 P. Wormald, The Making of English Law: King Alfred to the Twelfth Century, I: Legislation and its Limits (Oxford, 1999), pp. 221–4. Leofric replaced the sees of Devon and Cornwall, Crediton and St Germans, with Exeter in 1050 (F. Barlow, ‘Leofric and his Times’, Leofric of Exeter: Essays in Commemoration of the Foundation of Exeter Cathedral Library in A.D. 1072, ed. F. Barlow, K. Dexter, A. Erskine and L. Lloyd (Exeter, 1972), pp. 1–16, at pp. 6–9).
5 CCCC 190, pp. 295–420 (s. xi med. and xi3/4, Exeter; whole manuscript prov. Exeter: Gneuss-Lapidge, ASMss 59.5 (pp. 73–5)). For a detailed description and list of contents, in addition to that of Budny cited in n. 3, see N. R. Ker, Catalogue of Manuscripts Containing Anglo-Saxon (Oxford, 1957), 45.
6 Canonical extracts were added on pp. 130–1, and canons from two English church councils and a set of penances were added on pp. 292–4. To the beginning of Part II were added Ælfric’s pastoral letter for Bishop Wulfsige (pp. 295–308), Ælfric’s Second Series homily On the Feast-day of Several Apostles, on the duty of the clergy to preach and teach (pp. 308–14), and De ecclesiasticis gradibus, Wulfstan’s revision of a short explanation of the seven ecclesiastical orders (pp. 314–19). The sermons for Ash Wednesday and Maundy Thursday were added towards the middle of Part II (pp. 351–64) (Hill, ‘Two Anglo-Saxon Bishops’, pp. 154 (Part I) and 156–60 (Part II)).
7 Ibid. pp. 156 and 154, respectively. In addition to Leofric, Wormald identifies Lyfing as a ‘candidate for unifier of the volume’ (Making of English Law, p. 223).
8 The origins of the anonymous sermons are unknown (Hill, ‘Two Anglo-Saxon Bishops’, p. 159). It is possible that they came to Exeter with material associated with Wulfstan. Most of the critical attention has focused on the Old English Maundy Thursday sermon, since Wulfstan also wrote a sermon for the occasion and may have consulted the Latin and Old English versions in CCCC 190 when doing so. D. Bethurum considered it ‘quite likely’ that Wulfstan adapted an Abbo homily for the sermon in the Maundy Thursday Reconciliation in CCCC 190, and she states categorically that ‘he certainly did not make’ the English translation of his Latin adaptation; she speculates that he ‘assigned the translation partly as an educational exercise to some member of his familia’ and then, along with his Latin abbreviation, ‘consulted the English homily when he wrote his own form of the sermon’, Sermo de cena domini (The Homilies of Wulfstan (Oxford, 1957), p. 346). K. Jost also accepted that Wulfstan drew on the anonymous Old English homily (Wulfstanstudien (Bern, 1950), pp. 117 and 150–1), and a review of the stylistic evidence points in particular to verbal correspondences in lines 1–20 of Bethurum’s edition (Homilies of Wulfstan, XV, p. 236) and lines 2–24 of the anonymous homily edited below in Appendix C.I (p. 262). Though derived from a study of Wulfstan’s uses of Ælfric, the following observation of M. Godden applies here too: ‘when writing in the vernacular [Wulfstan] does seem to have found it convenient to use as a starting point texts in English’ (‘Relations of Wulfstan and Ælfric: a Reassessment’, Wulfstan, Archbishop of York: the Proceedings of the Second Alcuin Conference, ed. M. Townend (Turnhout, 2004), pp. 353–74, at 374). P. Clemoes rejects the assertion that Wulfstan consulted the anonymous Old English Maundy Thursday homily. For him ‘the possibility remains that this translation was made entirely independently of Wulfstan and that he never knew of its existence’ (‘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 272). He thinks that the Old English translations of the Latin Ash Wednesday and Maundy Thursday sermons ‘can have been made at any point in circulation’ (ibid. pp. 271–2). Even so, as Clemoes points out, the other three texts added at Exeter to the beginning of Part II have associations with Wulfstan. He was responsible for revising De ecclesiasticis gradibus, and he used Ælfric’s Letter to Wulfsige and his homily On the Feast-day of Several Apostles in other works (ibid., p. 271). So even if it is imprudent to take for granted that these works ‘came to Exeter, directly or indirectly, from Worcester’ as De ecclesiasticis gradibus did (ibid.), the possibility remains that they could have come to Exeter with more materials associated with Wulfstan.
It is also possible that the sermons were translated and added to CCCC 190 at Leofric’s direction; both are unique to CCCC 190, and their addition increases the parallelism between Parts I and II as do the other Exeter additions to Part II (Hill, ‘Two Anglo-Saxon Bishops’, p. 160).
9 The sermons were inserted between a set of instructions for the vigil mass at Pentecost (p. 350) and forms of confession and absolution (p. 365). The pagination for the gathering (pp. 351–64) reflects the fact that the quire of 8 lacks leaf 7 (Ker, Catalogue of Manuscripts, 45, p. 73). E. M. Drage identifies the copyist as Scribe 5 (‘Bishop Leofric and the Exeter Cathedral Chapter (1050–1072): a Reassessment of the Manuscript Evidence’ (unpubl. DPhil dissertation, Oxford Univ., 1978), p. 156).
10 The following three texts were added later: (1) a Latin text on the punishment of sins deserving excommunication was added on p. 360 by Exeter Scribe 10 (Drage, ‘Bishop Leofric’, p. 163) (lines 1–19 of this text have been excerpted from pp. 241–2, item 6 of the penitential series discussed below (see pp. 215–16)); (2) ‘verses criticizing the treatment of priests’ children’ were added on p. 361 in the twelfth century (Budny, Illustrated Catalogue, p. 543); and (3) a form of excommunication was added to p. 364 by Exeter Scribe 2 (Drage, ‘Bishop Leofric’, p. 151).
11 With the exception of spelling admonemus as ammonemus and omitting ut from the phrase ‘et ut hoc quadragesimale’ in the Ash Wednesday incipit, the scribe copies the passages as he found them in Part I.
12 CCCC 190, p. 351, where the title is in red rustic capitals and the red capital ‘A’ of Audite is two lines tall: ‘A SERMON AT THE BEGINNING OF THE FAST TO THE PEOPLE. Listen, dearest brothers, we admonish you all together by the authority of God the Father to undertake the confession of sins and true penitence, and to observe inviolably this Lenten season. And the rest’. For the corresponding text in Part I, see p. 247.
13 CCCC 190, pp. 353–4, where the title is in red rustic capitals and the ‘V’ of Vere has been filled with green: ‘A SERMON AT THE LORD’S SUPPER TO THE PENITENTS. Truly, dearest brothers, you ought to know whence this example had its beginning. And the rest’. For the corresponding text in Part I, see p. 253.
14 CCCC 190, p. ii, line 11. For this and the following attributions to Scribe 1, about whom Drage notes the ‘strong likelihood that [he] is, in fact, Leofric himself’, see ‘Bishop Leofric’, pp. 140 and 149. The editor of Leofric’s missal accepts this attribution (The Leofric Missal, ed. N. Orchard, 2 vols., HBS 113–14 (London, 2002) I, 212).
15 CCCC 190, p. 131, line 4.
16 CCCC 190, p. 292, line 28.
17 CCCC 190, p. 247: ‘Alleluia. O St Eligius, you are the sweetness of the poor’. St Eligius is the goldsmith turned missionary by whom Chaucer’s prioress would later swear her strongest oath. The earliest example of the office in Cantus: a Database for Latin Ecclesiastical Chant is from an early-twelfth-century anitiphoner from the monastery of St. Maur-des-Fossés near Paris (Paris, Bibliothèque nationale de France, lat. 12044), and the antiphon reads in full: ‘Sancte Eligi, tu dulcedo pauperum, tu pius consolator miserorum, ora pro nobis’. The four entries for the office in Cantus indicate that it was rare on the Continent. The cult appears not to have been widespread in Anglo-Saxon England either. Eligius appears in only four of twenty-seven Anglo-Saxon calendars, including that of the Lotharingian bishop Giso of Wells, and in only six of sixty-one Anglo-Saxon litanies, including one in a psalter written at Exeter while Leofric was bishop (respectively, Saints in English Kalendars before A.D. 1100, ed. R. Rushforth, HBS 117 (Woodbridge, 2008), nos. 4, 6, 22 and 25; and Anglo-Saxon Litanies of the Saints, ed. M. Lapidge, HBS 106 (Woodbridge, 1991), nos. XII, XVI, XXIII (Exeter psalter), XXIV, XXVII and XXVIII). For an overview of Leofric’s life and career, see Barlow, ‘Leofric and his Times’ (see above, n. 4), and his ‘Leofric (d. 1072), bishop of Exeter’, Oxford Dictionary of National Biography (published online, 2004).
18 CCCC 190, p. 246, lines 13–15: ‘In the sweat of your face you will eat your bread, lamenting your sins with much suffering’.
19 S. Rankin, ‘From Memory to Record: Musical Notation in Manuscripts from Exeter’, ASE 13 (1984), 97–111, at 104. I discuss Leofric’s missal (Oxford, Bodleian Library, Bodley 579: Gneuss-Lapidge, ASMss 585 (pp. 456–8)) and more of his liturgical books below on pp. 222–7.
20 For the In sudore incipits, see CCCC 190, pp. 246, line 24, and 247, line 1.
21 M. Clayton makes a similar point when she speculates that Leofric read the Latin sermons for Ash Wednesday and Maundy Thursday in CCCC 190 and then had them copied into his pontifical (‘The Old English Promissio regis’, ASE 37 (2008), 91–150, at 102), on which see below, pp. 219–21.
22 Wormald, Making of English Law (see above, n. 4), p. 217, where the comment applies to CCCC 190 and other ‘commonplace book’ manuscripts. The penitential series is bookended by excerpts from Amalarius of Metz’s ninth-century allegorical liturgical treatise, the Institutio beati Amalarii de ecclesiasticis officiis, on pp. 229–37, and by extracts from the monk Defensor’s late-seventh- or early-eighth-century collection of patristic sayings, the Excerptiones ex libro scintillarum, on pp. 264–81.
23 Wormald, Making of English Law, p. 221.
24 C. A. Jones, ‘Two Composite Texts from Archbishop Wulfstan’s “commonplace book”: the De ecclesiastica consuetudine and the Institutio beati Amalarii de ecclesiasticis officiis’, ASE 27 (1998), 233–71, at 236.
25 C. A. Jones, ‘Wulfstan’s Liturgical Interests’, Wulfstan, Archbishop of York: the Proceedings of the Second Alcuin Conference, ed. M. Townend (Turnhout, 2004), 325–52, at 326.
26 The penitential series begins imperfectly at the top of p. 238. But since p. 238 is the verso of p. 237, on which the Institutio beati Amalarii concludes, J. Cross surmises that ‘material must have been lost from the exemplar of CCCC 190’ (‘A Newly-Identified Manuscript of Wulfstan’s “Commonplace Book”, Rouen, Bibliothèque Municipale, MS 1382 (U.109), fols. 173r–198v’, Jnl of Med. Latin (1992), 63–83, at 67). Jones remarks that the loss may have been ‘no more than a single leaf’ (‘Two Composite Texts’, pp. 236–7, n. 18). Because the remaining twelve texts in the series begin with titles, I have supplied the title that heads a longer version of this text on pp. 227–8.
27 The manuscript mistakenly reads introdudcuntur (CCCC 190, p. 259).
28 CCCC 190, pp. 238–64: (1) ‘On public penance for any trouble whatsoever’ (p. 238); (2) ‘On the diversity of penances’ (p. 238); (3) ‘On the diversity of sins and penances’ (pp. 238–40); (4) ‘In the same manner’ (p. 240); (5) ‘On the incestuous and murderers’ (p. 241); (6) ‘On the excommunicated who against their will are roused to penance’ (pp. 241–2); (7) ‘On the sudden judgement of worldly matters’ (p. 242): (8) ‘Here begins an example of one excommunicated for a capital crime’ (p. 243); (9) ‘On confession and the act of penance’ (pp. 243–5): (9a) ‘Chants following confession’, (9b) ‘Let us pray’, (9c) ‘Another [prayer]’, and (9d) Another [prayer]’; (10) ‘The manner of Wednesday at the beginning of the fast concerning penitents’ (pp. 245–9); (11) ‘A sermon during Lent’ (pp. 249–52); (12) ‘How penitents at the Lord’s Supper [Maundy Thursday] are led into the church’ (pp. 252–9); and (13) ‘A verse on Maundy Thursday at the Lord’s Supper when the chrism is carried from the sacristy (that is, before “Through whom, Lord, you always create, sanctify good things” is said at Mass): “O Redeemer…” and those things that follow’ (pp. 259–64).
29 See Cambridge, Corpus Christi College 41 (Gneuss-Lapidge, ASMss 39 (pp. 48–50)); the companion volumes CCCC 419 421 (Gneuss-Lapidge, ASMss 108–9 (pp. 114–18)); and the companion volumes London, British Library, Cotton Cleopatra B. xiii (Gneuss-Lapidge, ASMss 322 (pp. 248–9)) and London, Lambeth Palace Library, 489 (Gneuss-Lapidge, ASMss 520 (pp. 414–15)). CCCC 419, for example, contains sermons for Lent (arts. 13–14) and those suitable for Lent (arts. 10–11), but each is titled larspell, an instructive discourse (Ker, Catalogue of Manuscripts, 68, p. 116).
30 Pfaff, ‘Anglo-Saxon Bishop and his Book’ (see above, n. 1), p. 15, though he qualifies his ‘general rule’ by noting that music in pontificals poses a challenge since much of it, as here, would not have been sung by the bishop. Musical forms are sufficiently rare or sporadic in early liturgical manuscripts that their absence does not necessarily indicate a rite would not be performed, especially if the forms were relegated to other books or media. Still, because ‘writing notation … is a good deal of trouble and therefore unlikely to be included unless for practical use’ (ibid.), the presence of neumes can serve as a reliable indicator of interest and investment in the performance of a particular rite.
31 Rankin, ‘Musical Notations in Manuscripts from Exeter’ (see above, n. 19), p. 111.
32 CCCC 190, p. 246: ‘In the sweat of your face you will eat your bread, lamenting your sins with much suffering’. The chant incorporates part of Gen. 3: 19, which reads, ‘In sudore vultus tui vesceris panis donec revertaris in terram de qua sumptus es, quia pulvis es et in pulverem reverteris’ (Biblia Sacra, ed. R. Weber, 4th ed. (Stuttgart, 1994)): ‘In the sweat of thy face shalt thou eat bread till thou return to the earth out of which thou wast taken, for dust thou art and into dust thou shalt return’ (The Vulgate Bible: Volume 1, The Pentateuch, ed. E. Swift, Dumbarton Oaks Med. Lib. (Cambridge, MA, 2010)). All biblical verses and translations are quoted from these volumes.
33 Drage does not identify the glossator, but his insular miniscule shares the distinctive crossbar of the eth characteristic of her Scribe 5, the copyist of the sermons translated from the rites (‘Bishop Leofric’, p. 157).
34 CCCC 190, p. 246 (App. C.I, lines 70–3, pp. 264–5): ‘we chant after you what the Lord chanted after Adam when he drove him out of Paradise. At that time he spoke in this way: “In sudore uultus tui uesceris pane tuo”, that is, “‘In the sweat of your face you will eat your bread’”’.
35 Hill, ‘Two Anglo-Saxon Bishops’, p. 160 (emphasis hers). It is worthy of note that Leofric had vernacular texts copied into the pontifical where the CCCC 190 Ash Wednesday and Maundy Thursday rites were also copied. The presence of four vernacular texts in Cotton Vitellius A. vii – the Promissio regis coronation ordo, the Incipit coniuratio hominis ante communis and two forms of exorcism (Clayton, ‘Old English Promissio regis’ (see above, n. 21), p. 101) – raises the possibility that the gloss in CCCC 190 might have been incorporated into a performance text that does not survive. The pontifical and the hypothetical performance texts are discussed in detail in the remainder of this section.
36 London, BL, Cotton Vitellius A. vii, fols. 1–112 (prob. Ramsey after 1030, and Exeter 1046 × 1072: Gneuss-Lapidge, ASMss 397 (pp. 320–1)) is fire-damaged and fragmentary. For a detailed description and list of contents, see K. D. Hartzell, Catalogue of Manuscripts Written or Owned in England up to 1200 Containing Music (Woodbridge, 2006), 147, pp. 265–70, where Hartzell notes that ‘a number of scribes wrote this book, three more than others’ (p. 270). Two of the main scribes were from Exeter: Scribe 13 wrote folios 1–15, 54v–72v12, and Leofric, Scribe 1, copied 72v12–112v (Drage, ‘Bishop Leofric’, pp. 169 and 149, respectively). The third main scribe, from Ramsey it seems, wrote most of the intervening folios (Hartzell, Catalogue, p. 270).
37 The rites are edited in the Appendices in the order of their appearance in the manuscript: the revised Dismissal in Appendix A, the hybrid Dismissal in Appendix B, and the Reconciliation in Appendix C.
38 The rite for the clergy begins imperfectly, but a complete copy survives in another of Leofric’s pontificals, London, British Library, Additional 28188, 79v–84v (s. xi3/4, Exeter: Gneuss-Lapidge, ASMss 286 (p. 219)). H. Gittos notes that the pontifical section of BL Add. 28188 ‘is closely related to, and perhaps largely copied from’ Vitellius A. vii (Liturgy, Architecture and Sacred Spaces in Anglo-Saxon England (Oxford, 2013), p. 285), so it is reasonable to assume to that the Ash Wednesday ordo in Vitellius A. vii contained a complete copy of the rite. BL Add. 28188 can be viewed at the British Library’s Digitised Manuscripts website.
39 Rankin, ‘Musical Notations in Manuscripts from Exeter’, p. 111. The other services contain no neumes.
40 CCCC 190, p. 246: ‘uel sicut quibusdam placet’, a phrase that indicates the ordo was not copied for performance but for study and/or adoption.
41 B. Bedingfield notes of the Dismissal that ‘it is hard to know to what extent the material presented in CCCC 190 is taken passively from continental sources or is actively reshaped by Wulfstan or someone else’, but ‘what we find here is consonant with the treatment of public penance in Wulfstan’s sermons, and the interpolation of Abbo’s shortened sermon into the description of the Reconciliation perhaps hints at a slightly more active Wulfstanian involvement in the penitential material extant in CCCC 190, manipulating these sources as he puts together the material necessary to perform the rite’ (‘Public Penance in Anglo-Saxon England’, ASE 31 (2002), 223–55, at 237).
On Wulfstan’s role in shortening Abbo’s sermon for the Reconciliation, see above n. 8, and on his role in shortening another Abbo sermon (or directing it to be shortened) for interpolation into the Dismissal, see J. E. Cross and A. Brown, ‘Wulfstan and Abbo of Saint-Germain-des-Près’, Mediaevalia 15 (1989), 71–91, at 75. For more on Wulfstan’s special interest in the Dismissal and Reconciliation, see below, pp. 242–3. It should be noted that the Sermo in quadragesima interposed between the Dismissal and Reconciliation in CCCC 190 (see above, pp. 216–17) is a unique, truncated version of an Abbo sermon for which Cross and Brown think Wulfstan was also probably responsible (‘Wulfstan and Abbo’, p. 75).
42 S. Hamilton, The Practice of Penance, 900–1050 (Woodbridge, 2001), pp. 127–8, where the quotation applies to the Ash Wednesday entry into penance and the Maundy Thursday Reconciliation in the Romano-German Pontifical, for more on which see below, n. 59. Hamilton’s observation that public penance for select individuals provides a communal example and reminder is found on p. 117. My understanding of the relationships among the different kinds of services for penance and reconciliation is deeply indebted to Hamilton’s work.
43 According to C. Jones, the process of evolution among these rites of public penance ‘fits well within the larger picture of English pontifical services c. 950–1100 in which we see rapid, extensive revision of rites, often producing multiple versions within a single generation or two and at the same center. Though carried out for reasons we can’t usually discern, the multiple versions are revealing a kind of cottage industry of composing and then tinkering endlessly with pontifical ceremonies’ (private communication).
44 When referring to the imposition of ashes for public penitents, both the revised and hybrid Dismissals include the phrase ‘iuxta morem ipsius diei’ (‘according to the custom of this day’, Apps. A and B, lines 6–7, pp. 244 and 246, respectively). Bedingfield understands the phrase ‘to imply that the two rituals are distinct, and that the canonical ritual [of public penance] is being superimposed upon the more usual, and more general, Ash Wednesday liturgy, which encompasses all the faithful, not just those accused of especially serious, or public, sins’ (‘Public Penance in Anglo-Saxon England’, p. 236).
45 Leofric’s other liturgical books do not contain penitential rites with formal expulsions or re-entries (Hamilton, ‘Rites of Public Penance’, pp. 75, 79, and 82–3). Cf. the entry into penance in his missal (Leofric Missal, ed. Orchard (see above, n. 14), II, nos. 485–93, pp. 125–6); the entry into penance for the clergy that appears in two of his pontificals (Vitellius A. vii, 59r–61r, and BL Add. 28188, 79v–84v); and the re-entry in his missal (Leofric Missal, ed. Orchard, II, nos. 766–9, pp. 163–4).
46 S. Hamilton (private communication).
47 Apps. A and B, line 11, pp. 244 and 246, respectively: ‘the petitions and prayers that are contained in the book of rites’. Both Dismissals also later instruct the clergy to recite the petitions and/or prayers sicut in sacramentario contine[n]tur (Apps. A, line 18, p. 244 and B, line 33, p. 247: ‘as they are contained in the sacramentary’).
48 Respectively, App. C, lines 16, 23 and 31 (preces pro peccatis, pp. 255–6), 110 (communis oratio, p. 259) and 124–5 (p. 259), where the ritual does not mention by name the absolutio, a prayer of absolution, but rather instructs the bishop to absolve the penitents.
49 For the ‘Ordo agentibus publicam penitentiam’, see Leofric Missal, ed. Orchard, II, nos. 485–93, pp. 125–6. Leofric would have recognized five of the missal’s six prayers and five of its nine preces as belonging to the entry into public penance for the clergy. For the prayers, cf. Leofric Missal nos. 486–9 and 491, with the prayers in BL Add. 28188, 80r–v and 81r. Only two of the prayers in the missal, nos. 489 and 491, survive in Vitellius A. vii on 59r and 59v, respectively. For the preces, cf. Leofric Missal, ed. Orchard, II, no. 490, with those in BL Add. 28188, 81r, and Vitellius A. vii, 59r.
50 Hamilton notes that this ‘earliest English rite for public penance’, which dates to the late ninth or early tenth century, ‘was not subject to revision in the same way as the other parts of ‘A’ [the missal’s earliest layer] were over the course of the tenth century; it is unclear, therefore whether this rite was found acceptable and used, or just ignored’ (‘Rites for Public Penance’, p. 75). Leofric did not update it, as he did the missal’s Reconciliation. Hamilton surmises that he may have turned instead to the devotional Ash Wednesday entry into penance found in his pontificals, Vitellius A. vii and BL Add. 28188 (ibid. p. 82). The attention given to the Dismissal revised and recopied in Vitellius A. vii perhaps indicates that those communal entries into penance for the laity provided an even more attractive option for him.
51 For the ordo, which consists of an antiphon, psalm, the Kyrie, Paternoster, a set of petitions and four prayers, see Leofric Missal, ed. Orchard, II, nos. 766–9, pp. 163–4, and for a discussion of the ‘seemingly unique rite’, Hamilton, ‘Rites for Public Penance’, p. 79.
52 Orchard does not assign the alterations to an Exeter scribe, so the plural forms, as well as the references to the populum (people) interlined above the singular famulum (servant), predate Leofric (Leofric Missal, ed. Orchard, II, nos. 766 and 768–9, pp. 163–4).
53 Ibid. no. 770, p. 164.
54 Ibid. nos. 771–9, pp. 164–6.
55 Ibid. no. 771 (n. 5), p. 164.
56 Cotton Vitellius A. vii, 79v–85v.
57 Drage, ‘Bishop Leofric’, p. 149. Leofric copied the Reconciliation as part of a run of ordines from Holy Thursday to Holy Saturday (70v–110r) (Hartzell, Catalogue (see above, n. 36), p. 270).
58 Jones, ‘Wulfstan’s Liturgical Interests’ (see above, n. 25), p. 352. Wulfstan or someone in his circle must have had access to a text of the Reconciliation similar to Leofric’s. On the ‘crisscrossings’ between Worcester and the Continent that ‘underscore the near-certainty that foreign liturgical texts made their way to Worcester directly’, see Jones, ‘A Liturgical Miscellany in Cambridge, Corpus Christi College 190’, Traditio 54 (1999), 103–40, at 127.
59 Of the two modern editions of the Reconciliation ordo, Leofric’s text in Vitellius A. vii agrees more often with that printed in Les Ordines Romani du haut moyen âge, ed. M. Andrieu, 5 vols. (Louvain, 1931–61) V, Les Texts (Ordo L), 192–207 (nos. 24–59) than that printed in Le Pontifical romano-germanique du dixième siècle, ed. C. Vogel and R. Elze, 3 vols., Studi et Testi 226–7 and 269 (Vatican City, 1963–72) II, Ordo XCIX, 59–67 (nos. 222–51). The same agreement is true for the copy of the Reconciliation found in London, British Library, Cotton Vitellius E. xii, 116r–160r, another fragmentary pontifical housed at Exeter (s. xi1, Germany, prob. Cologne, prov. York s. xi2 [fols. 116–152]; s. xi2 (after 1068), Exeter [fols. 153–160]; prov. whole manuscript Exeter: Gneuss-Lapidge, ASMss 406.5 (pp. 333–4)). Vitellius E. xii was the exemplar for a set of pontifical texts copied into Leofric’s missal, but the Reconciliation was not among the set’s Maundy Thursday ordines (for a discussion of the set, see Leofric Missal, ed. Orchard, I, 228–30, and for the texts, II, nos. 2762–823, pp. 478–96, with the Maundy Thursday ordines at nos. 2763–815). Trial collation of passages shared by Vitellius A. vii and Vitellius E. xii suggests that these manuscripts belong to the same family. If so, Vitellius A. vii would be a new member of a family that includes Vitellius E. xii, Cambridge, Corpus Christi College 163 (s. xi2, prob. xi4/4, prob. Worcester (Winchester OM? at or for Nunnaminster?): Gneuss-Lapidge, ASMss 51 (pp. 60–1)) and London, British Library, Additional 17003 (no entry in Gneuss-Lapidge, ASMss). CCCC 163 was either copied from or shared an exemplar with Vitellius E. xii (M. Lapidge, ‘Ealdred of York and MS Cotton Vitellius E. xii’, The Yorkshire Archaeol. Jnl 55 (1983), 11–25, at pp. 21–2). BL Add. 17003 was ‘written in Germany in the second half of the eleventh century’ and the ‘closest relative’ to Vitellius E. xii and CCCC 163 in a family of manuscripts that provides key witnesses for Ordo L (ibid. pp. 21–2).
In light of H. Parkes’s recent work, it is prudent to approach with caution and an attentiveness to families of manuscripts Andrieu’s and Vogel and Elze’s editions of texts that belonged to the so-called Romano-German Pontifical. They put forward a reconstruction of the development and transmission of the Pontifical romano-germanique (PRG) as a single monumental collection that was composed in Mainz c. 950 and disseminated throughout the German empire and less widely in the eleventh century in Italy, France and England. In his essay, ‘Questioning the Authority of Vogel and Elze’s Pontifical romano-germanique’, Understanding Medieval Liturgy: Essays in Interpretation, ed. H. Gittos and S. Hamilton (Farnham, 2016), pp. 75–101, and in his monograph, The Making of Liturgy in the Ottonian Church: Books, Music and Ritual in Mainz, 950–1050 (Cambridge, 2015), Parkes challenges that reconstruction and argues that the PRG did not originate at Mainz in the mid-tenth century, did not circulate in the form represented in the standard modern editions of the text and thus was not transmitted wholesale to places like England. While his conclusions do not necessarily overturn or call into question previous analyses of PRG ordines, his revisionism may bear to varying degrees on accounts of their dissemination and reception. For the sake of clarity and continuity, I refer to the ordines that belong to this textual tradition as Romano-German rites.
60 Vitellius A. vii, 81r–v (texts of seven preces are visible); 81v–84v (orationes); and 84v–85v (absolutiones).
61 Vitellius A. vii appears to belong to a family of five manuscripts (Andrieu’s MSS JQRTZ) that contain three of the same prayers of absolution for multiple penitents (Ordines Romani, ed. Andrieu, Ordo L, 52–4, pp. 204–5). Four of the manuscripts (QRTZ) contain three prayers of absolution for a single penitent (ibid. 55–7, pp. 205–6), while one manuscript (J: London, British Library, Additional 17004 (no entry in Gneuss-Lapidge, ASMss) designates the third prayer (no. 57) for multiple penitents. Leofric’s exemplar may have omitted two of the three prayers (nos. 55–6) and may have included one as an absolutio pluralis (no. 57), but the surviving manuscripts do not suggest this possibility as very likely.
62 The chants in the short Dismissal need neumes (Vitellius A. vii, 62v), as do the In sudore antiphon and chants in the long Dismissal (63r–v). Because the Dismissal’s three sets of chants are almost identical to those of the re-entry on Maundy Thursday, a music-scribe needed only to take his cues literally from the Reconciliation. He would also need to consult CCCC 190 for notes to the full Venite antiphon in Vitellius A. vii, which curiously lacks neumes (cf. Vitellius A. vii, 66v, and CCCC 190, p. 259). Though Leofric could have used his missal for the benediction and mass following the re-entry, a text-scribe would need to supply preces and orationes for all three services and copies of the Old English sermons if the bishop did not plan to preach them from CCCC 190.
63 Hill, ‘Leofric of Exeter’ (see above, n. 2), p. 93. The inventory notes the gift of three other books of blessing but does not designate them as deorwyrðe.
64 R. W. Pfaff, The Liturgy in Medieval England: a History (Cambridge, 2009), p. 132, where he also notes that ‘Leofric’s more precious pontifical book(s) must have perished’.
65 See above, n. 49. We witness this kind of development and transfer in the Worcester supplement to the Samson Pontifical (Cambridge, Corpus Christi College 146: Gneuss-Lapidge, ASMss 46 (p. 55)), where liturgical redactors have created performance texts by supplementing the hybrid Dismissal and Reconciliation with texts of prayers and chants characteristic of the Romano-German Pontifical (see the Dismissal on pp. 16–22 and the Reconciliation on pp. 31–7). Also worthy of note regarding possible lines of transmission is Leofric’s addition to his missal of ‘directions’ for the Vigils of Easter and Pentecost that were available to him in CCCC 190 (Leofric Missal, ed. Orchard (see above, n. 14), I, 211, n. 19), and, more pertinently, his addition of the final chant of the Romano-German Reconciliation in Vitellius A. vii to the Reconciliation in his missal (ibid. no. 769 (n. 3), p. 164). On the role of the chant in the Romano-German rite by which the bishop would raise penitents from spiritual death to life, see S. Hamilton, ‘Rites for Public Penance in Late Anglo-Saxon England’, The Liturgy of the Anglo-Saxon Church, ed. H. Gittos and M. B. Bedingfield, HBS Subsidia V (London, 2005), pp. 65–103, at 82. See also the notes on lines 122–3 of the Reconciliation edited in Appendix C (p. 261).
66 Pfaff writes that ‘it would not be surprising if texts [of episcopal rites] were sometimes used in other than codex form – especially in pontifical rolls’ (‘Anglo-Saxon Bishop and His Book’ (see above, n. 1), p. 3).
67 T. F. Kelly, The Exultet in Southern Italy (Oxford, 1996), p. 26, on which the remainder of this paragraph depends.
68 Ibid.
69 Paris, Bibliothèque nationale de France, lat. 10575 (the ‘Egbert Pontifical’) (s. x med. or x2 or x/xi, prov. Évreux s. xi: Gneuss-Lapidge, ASMss 896 (pp. 647–8)).
70 Two Anglo-Saxon Pontificals, ed. H. M. J. Banting, HBS 104 (London, 1989), 148: ‘roll in which certain declarations regarding the reconciliation of penitents are contained’.
71 C. G. Henderson and P. T. Bidwell, ‘The Saxon Minster at Exeter’, The Early Church in Western Britain and Ireland: Studies Presented to C. A. Ralegh Radford, ed. S. Pearce and C. A. Radford, BAR Brit. ser. 102 (Oxford, 1982), 145–75, at 162.
72 In the Romano-German Pontifical, the Reconciliation commences at 9 am after an earlier synod (Hamilton, Practice of Penance, p. 118), so the clergy who will attend the consecration of and then collect the chrism later in the day may have been present for the Reconciliation too. The addition to CCCC 190 at Exeter of Ælfric’s pastoral letter from Bishop Wulfsige to his clergy, which was to be read at a synod near Easter, and of Ælfric’s homily on the priestly duty to preach and teach suggests that Leofric may have anticipated this sequence of events (on the additions, see above, n. 6).
73 Ibid. pp. 115–17.
74 Ibid. pp. 118–21, at p. 121. It should be noted that the reconciliation of penitents is only one part of the order for Maundy Thursday: ‘De officiis divinis a cena domini usque in octavas pentecostes. Feria quinta maioris ebdomadae’ (Les Ordines Romani, ed. Andrieu, V, Ordo L, XXV, 186–244 (nos. 1–145), with the Reconciliation at 192–207 (nos. 24–59); Le Pontifical romano-germanique, ed. Vogel and Elze, II, Ordo XCIX, 56–86 (nos. 212–302), with the Reconciliation at 59–67 (nos. 222–51)).
75 Jones, ‘Wulfstan’s Liturgical Interests’, p. 349. Jones also comments that ‘[t]he public penitential rites in which Wulfstan took such interest conveyed, with a dramatic force that private penance could not, the abject condition of sinners and the absolute power of bishops to bind and loose’ (p. 350).
76 The rites and the sermons translated from them are edited in the Appendices. The following discussion is modelled on and informed by Hamilton’s analyses of the Ash Wednesday entry into penance and the Maundy Thursday reconciliation of penitents in the Romano-German Pontifical (Practice of Penance, pp. 108–21).
77 The Dismissal is unique among the six entries into public penance in other Anglo-Saxon pontificals; the Reconciliation is unique among twelve such services. For a list of these ordines, see the Headnotes to the Appendices, pp. 242, nn. 8–9.
78 For the explanation in the Latin sermon in the Dismissal, see Appendix B, lines 61 (Adam) – 68 (sanctorum), p. 248, and for the corresponding passage in the Old English translation, see Appendix B.I, lines 41 (Witodlice) – 51 (geferræddene), p. 252. For the explanation in the Latin sermon in the Reconciliation, see Appendix C, lines 81 (Sed quid) – 85 (et reliqua), pp. 257–8, and for the corresponding passage in the Old English translation, see Appendix C.I, lines 66 (Ac hwæt) – 73 (brucan), pp. 264–5.
79 Neumes accompany this chant in Vitellius A. vii, but it has been glossed in Old English in CCCC 190 (see above, pp. 217–19).
80 Here occurs the Latin sermon that was translated into Old English. For the Latin version, see Appendix B, lines 35–70, pp. 247–8, and for the Old English version, Appendix B.I, pp. 250–2.
81 Here occurs the Latin sermon that was translated into Old English. For the Latin version, see Appendix C, lines 33–108, pp. 256–9, and for the Old English version, Appendix C.I, pp. 262–6. As discussed earlier (see above, p. 213), the ordo in Vitellius A. vii and CCCC 190 instructs a deacon to read a lectio (‘reading’), but the title of the Old English sermon added to Leofric’s handbook, Sermo in cęna domini ad pęnitentes, implies the bishop will deliver it.
82 Neumes accompany the antiphon in CCCC 190 (p. 258) but not in Vitellius A. vii.
83 M. B. Bedingfield, ‘Ritual and Drama in Anglo-Saxon England: the Dangers of the Diachronic Perspective’, Liturgy of the Anglo-Saxon Church (see above, n. 65), pp. 291–317, at 313–14.
84 Ibid.
85 Hamilton, Practice of Penance, p. 121, where the comment applies to the Reconciliation in the Romano-German Pontifical.
86 Luke 18: 13: ‘nolebat nec oculos ad caelum levare’.
87 App. C.I, line 36, p. 263: ‘power to bind and to loose people’s souls’. The concluding comment in the Reconciliation echoes this sentiment: ‘Mult[um] enim utile ac necessarium est ut peccatorum reatus episcopali supplicatione et absolutione soluatur. Mediator enim Dei et hominum Ihesus Christus prepositis sanctę Dei ęcclesię potestatem tradidit, ligandi uidelicet atque soluendi’ (App. C, lines 124–7, p. 259: ‘Truly, it is very fitting and necessary for the guilt of sins to be cleansed by episcopal supplication and absolution. For the mediator of God and men, Jesus Christ, entrusted power, namely to bind and to loose, to the bishops of God’s holy Church’).
88 App. C.I, lines 96–7, p. 266: ‘received again into the Church as if into Paradise on account of your penance’.
89 CCCC 190, pp. 293–294. For an edition, see ‘Penitential Articles Issued after the Battle of Hastings’, in Councils Synods with other Documents relating to the English Church, I: AD 871–1204, ed. D. Whitelock, M. Brett and C. N. L. Brooke, 2 vols. (Oxford, 1981), pt 2: 1066–1204 [ed. Brett], pp. 581–4 (no. 88). For a translation, see English Historical Documents 1042–1189, ed. D. C. Douglas and G. W. Greenway, Eng. Hist. Documents 2 (London, 1953) [hereafter EHD], no. 81.
90 The Exeter scribe who wrote the penitential articles also copied on the preceding page two sets of canons issued at legatine councils at Winchester in April 1070 and at Windsor in May 1070 (‘Legatine council at Winchester’ and ‘Legatine Council at Windsor’, Councils Synods, ed. Brett, pp. 565–80 (nos. 86 and 87)). Drage identifies the copyist of the articles and canons as Scribe 10 (‘Bishop Leofric’, p. 163), and evidence for their copying into CCCC 190 points to a terminus post quem of 24 May 1070, the date of the Windsor council. A terminus ante quem of 10 February 1072, the date of Leofric’s death, is suggested by his alteration of a canon on the page facing the articles of penance. The date the penitential articles were issued is unclear. Brett notes that ‘[t]he confirmation at least occurred most probably either in 1067, when Ermenfrid [the papal legate] was in Rouen, or in 1070 [between May and August] when he presided over the Norman council at which Lanfranc accepted election to Canterbury’ (‘Penitential articles’, Councils Synods, ed. Brett, p. 582 (no. 88)). He prefers the earlier date of issue ‘since it is difficult to believe that such penances were imposed long after the event’ (ibid.). Ermenfrid visited England in 1070 and presided over the council of Windsor in May that year (H. E. J. Cowdrey, ‘Bishop Ermenfrid of Sion and the Penitential Ordinance following the Battle of Hastings’, JEH 20 (1969), 225–42, at 229–31), and Brett notes that the copies of the penitential articles and canons from Winchester and Windsor may derive from Ermenfrid’s own (‘Penitential articles’, Councils Synods, ed. Brett, p. 582 (no. 88)).
91 For an account of the Exeter siege, see F. M. Stenton, Anglo-Saxon England, 3rd ed. (Oxford, 1971), pp. 600–1, the chief primary source for which is the account by Orderic Vitalis (Historia Ecclesiastica (hereafter OV, HE), The Ecclesiastical History of Orderic Vitalis, ed. and trans. M. Chibnall, 6 vols. (Oxford, 1969–80; repr. 2002) II, Book IV, 210–14). According to Chibnall, for the fourth book of the HE, Orderic, who wrote the bulk of work between 1123 and 1137, relied on the Gesta Guillelmi by William of Poitiers, which he ‘admired … for its style and for its authenticity as an eyewitness account’ (I, 32), but the analogous passages in the Gesta Guillelmi have not survived (II, xviii).
92 See A. Williams, ‘Godwine [Godwin], earl of Wessex (d. 1053), magnate’, Oxford Dictionary of National Biography (published online, 2004).
93 OV, HE II. iv (ed. Chibnall, p. 210).
94 Ibid. p. 212.
95 Ibid.
96 The Anglo-Saxon Chronicle MS D, ed. G. P. Cubbin, AS Chronicle: a Collaborative Edition 6 (Cambridge, 1996), 1067, p. 82: ‘wearð micel his heres forfaren’. Orderic makes no mention of casualties, only the king’s clemency.
97 Orderic mentions that the clergy were among those who approached the king (OV, HE II. iv (ed. Chibnall, p. 212)). Leofric had served in the royal household from 1041 to 1046, the year he was appointed bishop of Devon and Cornwall (Barlow, ‘Leofric and his Times’ (see above, n. 4), p. 3, and ‘Leofric’, Dictionary of National Biography (see above, n. 17)).
98 Stenton, Anglo-Saxon England, p. 603, and OV, HE, II. iv (ed. Chibnall, p. 228). Orderic also reports that in midsummer 1068 two of Harold’s sons landed at Exeter with a fleet and began to advance inland (ibid. p. 224). The Gesta Normannorum Ducum also records but does not localise the attack (The Gesta Normannorum Ducum of William of Jumièges, Orderic Vitalis, and Robert of Torigni, ed. and trans. E. M. C. van Houts, 2 vols. (Oxford, 1995) II, Book VII, 180–2). According to the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle, however, the fleet landed in the mouth of the River Taw on the north coast of Devon (ASC MS D, 1068, p. 84). I follow Stenton’s account of the two attacks on Exeter in late 1067/early 1068 and autumn 1069 (Anglo-Saxon England, pp. 600 and 603).
99 Ibid. pp. 226–32.
100 OV, HE, II. iv (ed. Chibnall, p. 228): ‘Exoniæ ciues regi fauebant’.
101 Ibid.
102 ‘Penitential Articles’, Councils Synods, ed. Brett, p. 583 (no. 88); EHD, no. 81. The penitentials in CCCC 190 offered Leofric some guidance, stipulating a forty-day fast for those who commit homicide when following a king into battle aduersus insurgentes sue rebelles (CCCC 190, p. 16: ‘against insurgents or rebels’) or in publico bello (CCCC 190, p. 40: ‘in a public war’) or who kill a combatant on folcegefeohte (CCCC 190, p. 377: ‘in a war fought between two nations’). For the Latin penances, see Paenitentiale Pseudo-Theodori, ed. C. van Rhijn, CCSL 156B (Turnhout 2009), pp. 146 (§12, lines 44–5) and p. 39 (§15, line 46), respectively, and for the Old English penance, Das altenglische Bussbuch (sog. Confessionale Pseudo-Egberti), ed. R. Spindler (Leipzig, 1934), p. 187 (20.h). By contrast the penitential articles from Hastings distinguish between different kinds of combatants and ‘[take] into account both the intentions and motives of the participants, distinguishing between those who were willing to, but did not, kill anyone, and those who did’ (Hamilton, Practice of Penance, p. 194).
103 EHD, no. 81; ‘Penitential Articles’, Councils Synods, ed. Brett, pp. 583–4 (no. 88): ‘sive continue sive per intervalla’ and ‘tribus quadragesimis’, respectively.
104 See above, n. 90.
105 For the calendars containing the dates mentioned below, see Handbook of Dates for Students of English History, ed. C. R. Cheney (1945; repr. Cambridge, 1996), Table 2 (1068), Table 22 (1069), Table 14 (1070), Table 34 (1071) and Table 18 (1072).
106 See above, p. 214.
107 I am grateful to Drew Jones for bringing to my attention the point developed here.
108 It may be that in the Old English sermon for Maundy Thursday an improvised fix of an awkward or corrupt sentence in the Latin sermon registers an awareness of people who cannot complete their penances in a single Lent. In a manner distinct from the Latin text, the translator is keen to distinguish between assigned and voluntary penance when he writes: ‘Ðæt ge sculon eac understandan þæt ge næfre na mare ne don on eowre dædbote buton swa mycel swa eow wæs beboden. Ac æfter þære dædbote, ge moton be eowrum agenum wyllan mare don…’ (App. C.I, lines 86–9, p. 265: ‘You must also understand that you are not ever to do more during your penance except as much as was commanded of you. But after that penance, you may do more according to your own desire…’). His insistence that penitents must not augment an assigned penance – and thus seek reconciliation too soon – may gesture to those whose penances require multiple years to satisfy.
109 Leofric Missal, ed. Orchard (see above, n. 14), II, no. 9, pp. 3–4: ‘The venerable man, when he had accepted the honour of the pontifical office, zealously preached God’s word to the people entrusted to him. He instructed the clergy in doctrine, built not a few churches, and actively administered the other matters that pertained to his office.’
110 Barlow, ‘Leofric and his Times’ (see above, n. 4), p. 6.
111 For their help with various aspects of this article, I would like to thank Sarah Hamilton, Joyce Hill and Christopher Fuhrmann, and I am grateful for the comments and criticism of the anonymous readers at ASE. I am particularly grateful to Drew Jones for his astute reading of the article and for his incisive and invaluable suggestions for improving it. Parts of the essay were presented at the 48th International Medieval Congress in Kalamazoo, MI, in May 2013, and at a workshop at the University of Texas at Arlington in November 2018, where Jacqueline Fay, Britt Mize and Renée Trilling offered valuable insights incorporated here.
1 London, British Library Cotton Vitellius A. vii, 1–112 (prob. Ramsey after 1030, and Exeter, 1046 × 1072: Gneuss-Lapidge, ASMss 397 (pp. 320–1)).
2 The rites belong to Part I: Cambridge, Corpus Christi College 190, pp. iii–xii, 1–294 (s. xi1, Worcester?, prov. Exeter by xi med.; Exeter additions s. xi med.–xi2: Gneuss-Lapidge, ASMss 59 (pp. 71–3)). The sermons belong to Part II: CCCC 190, pp. 295–420 (s. xi med. and xi3/4, Exeter; whole manuscript prov. Exeter: Gneuss-Lapidge, ASMss 59.5 (pp. 73–5)).
3 London, British Library, Cotton Nero A. i, 70–177 (1003 × 1023, Worcester or York: Gneuss-Lapidge, ASMss 341 (pp. 264–7)).
4 See above, pp. 210–11.
5 Wormald, Making of English Law (see above, n. 4), p. 217.
6 Nero A. i, 160r and 162r (Cross and Brown, ‘Wulfstan and Abbo’ (see above, n. 41), p. 73).
7 On Wulfstan’s interest in these rites, see Bedingfield, ‘Public Penance in Anglo-Saxon England’ (see above, n. 41), pp. 233–7, and on his interests in penitential rites in general, see Wormald, Making of English Law, pp. 210–24, and Jones, ‘Wulfstan’s Liturgical Interests’ (see above, n. 25), pp. 343 and 350.
8 Hamilton lists the pontificals (Practice of Penance (see above, n. 42), pp. 91–2), four of which have formal dismissals accompanied by the In sudore chant (*): Leofric Missal (Oxford, Bodleian Library, Bodley 579, 79v–81r: Gneuss-Lapidge, ASMss 585 (pp. 456–8)); Claudius Pontifical* (London, British Library, Cotton Claudius A. iii, 146v–148r: Gneuss-Lapidge, ASMss 314 (p. 242)); Samson Pontifical* (Cambridge, Corpus Christi College 146, pp. 16–22: Gneuss-Lapidge, ASMss 46 (p. 55)); Lanalet Pontifical* (Rouen, Bibliothèque municipale, 368 (A. 27), 101r–105v: Gneuss-Lapidge, ASMss 922 (p. 667–8)); Canterbury Benedictional (London, British Library, Harley 2892, 33r–37v: Gneuss-Lapidge, ASMss 429 (p. 352)); and the copy of the Romano-German Pontifical in Cambridge, Corpus Christi College 163, pp. 12–23* (Gneuss-Lapidge, ASMss 51 (p. 60)). Note that the hybrid Dismissal copied in V, C and N forms the basis of the ordo in a Worcester supplement to the Samson Pontifical, where it has been augmented with elements characteristic of the Romano-German Pontifical (see above, n. 65).
9 Four of the ordines listed by Hamilton (Practice of Penance, pp. 91–2) have formal re-entries accompanied by the Venite chant characteristic of the Romano-German Pontifical (*) [manuscripts with shortened references are cited in full in the preceding note]: Leofric Missal (Bodley 579, 104v–105v); Dunstan Pontifical (Paris, Bibliothèque nationale de France, lat. 943, 150v–154v: Gneuss-Lapidge, ASMss 879 (pp. 633–4)); Egbert Pontifical (Paris, BnF, lat. 10575, 161v–164v: Gneuss-Lapidge, ASMss 896 (pp. 647–8)); Anderson Pontifical (London, British Library, Additional 57337, 98r–101r (no entry in Gneuss-Lapidge, ASMss)); Claudius Pontifical (Claudius A. iii, 150r–v (imperfect)); Samson Pontifical* (CCCC 146, pp. 31–7); Lanalet Pontifical (Rouen BM 368 (A. 27), 111v–116v); Benedictional of Archbishop Robert (Rouen, Bibliothèque municipale, 369 (Y. 7), 76v–81r: Gneuss-Lapidge, ASMss 923 (p. 668–9)); Canterbury Benedictional (Harley 2892, 56r–66r); and the copies of the Romano-German Pontifical in London, British Library, Cotton Vitellius E. xii, 118v–121v* (Gneuss-Lapidge, ASMss 406.5 (pp. 333–4)) and Tiberius C. i, 163v–171r (Gneuss-Lapidge, ASMss 376 (pp. 300–1)), and CCCC 163, pp. 71–81*. Note that the Reconciliation copied in V, C and N forms the basis of the ordo in a Worcester supplement to the Samson Pontifical, where it has been augmented with elements characteristic of the Romano-German Pontifical (see above, n. 65).
10 For Bedingfield, the presence of the Latin sermons in the rites ‘hints at a slightly more active Wulfstanian involvement in the penitential material extant in CCCC 190, manipulating these sources as he puts together the material necessary to perform the rite’ (‘Public Penance in Anglo-Saxon England’, p. 237).
11 Cross and Brown, ‘Wulfstan and Abbo’, p. 80.
12 Ibid. p. 75. Copenhagen, Kongelige Bibliotek, G.K.S. 1595 (4°) (c. 1002–23, Worcester (and York?) prov. Denmark (Roskilde) s. xi?: Gneuss-Lapidge, ASMss 814 (pp. 581–3)). On the eight sermons of Abbo copied into Copenhagen 1595, see Cross and Brown, ‘Newly-Identified Manuscript’ (see above, n. 26), pp. 75–8, and their entry for Abbo’s sermons in Sources of Anglo-Saxon Literary Culture, I: Abbo of Fleury, Abbo of Saint-Germain-des-Près, and Acta Sanctorum, ed. F. M. Biggs, T. D. Hill, P. E. Szarmach and E. G. Whatley (Kalamazoo, 2001), pp. 18–22.
13 Cross and Brown, ‘Wulfstan and Abbo’, pp. 75–8, where they speculate on a line of transmission from Copenhagen 1595 (or a parallel manuscript) to CCCC 190 to Wulfstan’s Sermo de cena domini, for which see The Homilies of Wulfstan, ed. D. Bethurum (Oxford, 1957), pp. 236–8 (text) and 345–8 (notes). They treat as definitive Clemoes’ rejection of the idea (see above, n. 8) that Wulfstan knew of and consulted the Old English translation of the shortened Abbo sermon for Maundy Thursday in CCCC 190 (‘Wulfstan and Abbo’, p. 72). On the possibility that Wulfstan may have consulted the Old English sermons translated from the Ash Wednesday Dismissal and the Maundy Thursday Reconciliation, copies of which may have come to Exeter with material associated with Wulfstan, see above, pp. 211–12, n. 8.
14 (Qualiter … pęnitentes)] as C, p. 245 (from the hybrid Dismissal); Qualiter … penitentes agatur N
15 statut[a]] statutā V, C; statuta N
16 more(m)] macron over e not visible V; morem C, N
17 Tunc … Duo homines] Tunc … Duo homines ascenderunt C; omitted N
18 episcopus] pontifex C, N
19 Et sic psallentibus euntes] Et sic uniuersis psallentibus, procedat cum eisdem pęnitentibus usque ad hostium (ostium N) ęcclesię C, N
20 data] dataque C, N
21 Ipsi uero] Hisque peractis C, N
22 episcopus … fiant] pontifex cum clero superiori ordine vii pęnitentiales psalmos uel cantores Christe, audi nos, Sancta Maria ora pro nobis, uel plus minusue, decantent, precesque et orationes C; pontifex cum clero superiori ordine septem penitentiales psalmos uel plus minusue decantando preces que et orationes N
23 sacramentorio] sacramentario C, N
24 contine[n]tur] continetur V, C, N
25 (Qualiter … pęnitentes)] as C; Qualiter … penitentes agatur N
26 statuta] statutā V, C; statuta N
27 Tunc … ascenderunt] omitted N
28 63v
29 Kyrrie eleyson] Kyrrieleison N
30 Christe eleyson] Christeleison N
31 Kyrrie eleyson] Kyrrieleison N
32 uultus tui] omitted C, N
33 trahit] trahat N
34 .vii.] septem N
35 uel cantores … pro nobis] pro nobis omitted C; omitted N
36 decantent] decantando N
37 contine[n]tur] continetur V, C, N
38 Hic legatur lectio] omitted N
39 fiat] omitted C, N
40 64r
41 commune] comune N
42 Patris] omnipotentis N
43 uestrę] abbreviated ure and e-caudata not visible V; uestrę C, N
44 loricam igitur] order reversed N
45 igitur] ergo N
46 Domini] mistakenly abbreviated dmi (or perhaps dedim?) V; Dei C, N
47 magis] omitted N
48 64v
49 Pr[o]uidete] preuidete C; prouidete N
50 atque] et N
51 et] omitted N
52 uestram penitentiam] uestra pęnitentia C
53 aliquando] omitted N
54 Quadragesimo] xla for Quadragesima N
55 xl] xlta for quadraginta N
56 isti] iste N
57 exilio] exilium N
58 uel] et C, N
59 65r
60 ęterno] coeterno N
61 Hoc sermone] Quo N
62 cura] curā V, C; cura N
63 quinta] v V, C; quinta N
64 Gehyrað] y altered from i
65 synna] y altered from i
66 gehyrð] y altered from i
67 gehyrð] y altered from i
68 forsyhð] y altered from i
69 Wyðstandað] y altered from i
70 Nymað] y altered from i
71 p. 352
72 uel þe interlined
73 eadmodnysse] y altered from i
74 eadmodnysse] y altered from i
75 uel mihton interlined
76 p. 353
77 þam] interlined
78 …introd[u]cuntur] as C, but correcting introdudcuntur; Qualiter penitentes in cena domini in ecclesiam introducuntur N
79 tertia] abbreviated iiia V, C; tertia N
80 egreditur] egrediatur N unus] alter N
81 unus] alter N
82 alter] arter N
83 65v
84 Kyrrie eleyson] Kyrrieleison N (in all instances)
85 Christe eleyson] Christeleison N (in all instances)
86 repetat] repetit N
87 canendo] canendo Antiphonam N
88 diaconus alius] order reversed N
89 Vere … scire] Vere fratres karissimi hoc debetis scire et reliqua N. The full text of the sermon, titled ‘Sermo de reconciliatone (sic) post penitentiam’, appears in N on 159v–162v.
90 Dominus noster] order reversed N
91 66r
92 hominem] hominum, with ū written over erased letter N
93 dixit] dicit N
94 tui] tu N
95 eiectus Adam] order reversed N
96 pla[n]xit] planxit C; plancxit N
97 66v
98 atque] hoc est N
99 [ęcclesia]] domo Domini V, C; ecclesia N
100 Hieremiam] Ieremiam N
101 edifices et dissipes] order reversed N
102 Adę] Adam N
103 misit Dominus] order reversed N
104 67r
105 obseruare] obseruarare N
106 donat per nos] per nos donat N
107 Quam legem … admonitionem] omitted N
108 Non occides] Id est non occides N
109 męcharis] mechaberis N
110 operemini] opereminis (corrected from operetis) illa N
111 eiecit] eicit N
112 eicimus] eiicimus N
113 uultus tui] uultui uesceris pane tuo N
114 et multam] order reversed N
115 67v
116 pęnitentiam] dignam penitentiam N
117 sitis] sitis digni N
118 habetis] habeatis N
119 placet] placeat N
120 libere[n]t] liberet V, C; liberent N
121 Et] Non, with et in left margin N
122 faciatis] erasure after faciatis V; faciatis plus C, N
123 pęnitentia] erasure after pęnitentia V; pęnitentia nisi C, N
124 uesperam] ueperam
125 ęternę] ęternę C; eternę N
126 multam] multum N
127 et] omitted N
128 68r
129 ut] quo N
130 Amen] Amee N
131 Post finem] The text in N continues on fol. 171v after the incipit recorded in the lemma for line 33 (Vere … scire).
132 Antiphona] omitted N
133 docebo] doceb N
134 Venite … uos] neumes interlined in C
135 Dominum] omitted C
136 uicissim] psalmum uicisim N
137 vii] septem N
138 pęnitentiales] penitentiae N
139 predictis] prodictis corrected to predictis C
140 68v
141 absoluat] absoluit N
142 Mult[um]] Multi V, C (p. 259); Multum C (p. 94, where Multum … soluatur appears)
143 Mult[um] … soluendi] omitted N
144 The title occurs on the last line of p. 353.
145 p. 354
146 gyman] y altered from i
147 syngode] y altered from i
148 gehyrde] y altered from i
149 sylfne] y altered from i
150 p. 355
151 gehyrsumnisse] y altered from i
152 ingehydes] y altered from i
153 yfeles] y altered from i
154 swyðe] y altered from i
155 syx] y altered from i
156 gyt] y altered from i
157 nyhstan] y altered from e
158 tyd] uel i interlined
159 alysde] y altered from i
160 synfullan] y altered from i
161 flymon] y altered from i
162 p. 356
163 wyllan] y altered from i
164 wyllan] y altered from i
165 gyf] y altered from i
166 bisne] uel gelicnisse interlined
167 synfullan] y altered from i
168 bisne] geł for gelicnisse interlined
169 Adam] interlined above insertion mark
170 gymde] y altered from i
171 wyllan] y altered from i
172 hyg] y altered from i
173 gymon] y altered from i
174 gehyrsumnysse] each y altered from i
175 ingehydes] y altered from i
176 p. 357
177 yfeles] y altered from i
178 sylfne] y altered from i
179 gehyrsumnysse] y altered from i
180 gehyrsumnysse] y altered from i
181 wepende] n superscripted
182 swyðe] y altered from i
183 gehyrsumnysse] each y altered from i
184 cwæð] to him interlined
185 mycele] y altered from i
186 wyrðe] y altered from i
187 onfenge] uel under for underfenge interlined
188 þyssum] y altered from i
189 wyrðe] y altered from i
190 p. 358
191 blyþelice] y altered from i
192 betwyh] y altered from i
193 betwyh] y altered from i
194 unbyndan] y altered from i
195 wyrðe] y altered from i
196 gyf] y altered from i
197 swylce] y altered from i
198 wylles] y altered from i
199 gyf] y altered from i
200 magon fæstan] sume interlined between
201 alyse] y altered from i
202 mycel] y altered from i
203 wyllan] y altered from i
204 Mine gebroðru] uel Ł (for Leofan) men interlined
205 myclan] y altered from i
206 geswyncfullan] y altered from i
207 synd] y altered from i
208 alysede] y altered from i
209 swylce] y altered from i
210 p. 359
211 þyssum] y altered from i
212 synna forgyfennysse] each y altered from i
213 mycele blysse] each y altered from i
214 belyfan] i interlined over y
215 syn] y altered from i
216 swylce] y altered from i
217 Gode] uel him interlined