Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-mkpzs Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-26T00:59:18.624Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Regula canonicorum or Regula monasterialis uitae? The Rule of Chrodegang and Archbishop Wulfred's reforms at Canterbury

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  26 September 2008

Brigitte Langefeld
Brigitte Langefeld
Affiliation:
Schönau, Germany
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

Around the years 755–6 Chrodegang, bishop of Metz from 742 to 766 and metropolitan of the Austrasian church since the death of Boniface in 754, compiled a rule for the canons of his own familia in Metz. His paruum decretulum or parua institutio, as he himself called it, contained very few thoughts not already expressed about the spiritual principles and practical organization of those canons who wished to live in a quasi-monastic, celibate community. Indeed, Chrodegang himself made it abundantly clear in the preface to his Regula that he would have had no need to compile his Rule if the writings of the Church Fathers and existing ecclesiastical laws on this subject had been honoured:

Si trecentorum decem et octo reliquorumque sanctorum Patrum canonum auctoritas perduraret, et clerus atque episcopus secundum eorum rectitudinis normam uiuerent, superfluum uideretur a nobis exiguis minimisque, super hac re tarn ordinate disposita aliquid retractari, et quasi quidem noui aliquid dici.

Type
Research Article
Information
Anglo-Saxon England , Volume 25 , December 1996 , pp. 21 - 36
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1996

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1 The dating of Chrodegang's Regula canonicorum largely depends on its connection with the Council of Ver in 755 (Capitularia Regum Francorum I, ed. Boretius, A., MGH Leges 2 (Hanover, 1883), 32–7Google Scholar). The council concerned itself with a clearer distinction between the monastic and the secular orders, and bears in parts (especially in its preface) such strong resemblance to Chrodegang's Regula that it is generally thought to have been either presented at the Council of Ver for the first time or to have been prompted by it. The latter view seems preferable, as Chrodegang states (unfortunately without any further reference) that his Regula was in agreement with the Roman Church as well as with ‘our synod’: S. Chrodegangi Metensis Episcopi (742–766) Regula Canonicorum, aus dem Leidener Codex Vossianus Latinus 94 mit Umschrift der Tironischen Noten, ed. Schmitz, W. (Hannover, 1889), p. 7.Google Scholar A reasonable summary of the debate about the date of Chrodegang's Regula is given by Hocquard, G., ‘La Règle de Saint Chrodegang’, in Saint Chrodegang, Communications presentées au colloque tenu à Metz à l'occasion du douzième centenaire de sa mort (Metz, 1967), pp. 55–89, at 64–7.Google Scholar

2 ‘If the authority of the laws of the 318 and other Holy Church Fathers had lasted, and the secular clergy as well as the bishop lived according to their rule, then it would be superfluous for an insignificant and unimportant person like me to comment on, or say anything new about, such a well-treated matter’: Regula canonicorum, ed. Schmitz, , p. 1.Google Scholar

3 Despite the fact that only four manuscripts of Chrodegang's original Regula have survived, their textual history (and in particular the fact that the earliest manuscripts already possess a considerable degree of textual contamination) makes it clear that the Rule must have been almost instandy circulated in many more copies than those which have survived; see Langefeld, B., The Old English Rule of Chrodegang, CSASE (Cambridge, forthcoming), chs. 2 and 3.Google Scholar The four extant manuscripts are: (1) Bern, Burgerbibliothek 289 (Metz, s. viii/ix), 1r–15v; (2) Leiden, Biblotheek der Rijksuniversiteit, Voss. lat. F. 94 (western France, possibly vicinity of Tours, s. ix1), 8r–16v; (3) Vatican City, Biblioteca Apostolica Vaticana, Pal. Lat. 555 (German-French border area, s. ix1), 1r–40r; and (4) Leiden, Bibliotheek der Rijksuniversiteit, BPL 81 (Orval/Luxemburg, s. xi/xii), lr–22v. For the dating of these manuscripts, I am indebted to the late Professor Bernhard Bischoff.

4 Cf. Werminghoff, A., ‘Die Beschlüsse des Aachener Konzils im Jahre 816’, Neues Archiv der Gesellschaft für ältere deutsche Geschichtskunde 27 (1901–1902), 607–75Google Scholar; de Clercq, C., La législation religieuse franque, 2 vols. (Louvain, 1936–1958) II, 8–12Google Scholar; Hanneman, O., Die Kanonikerregeln Chrodegangs von Metz und der Aachener Synode von 816 and das Verhältnis Gregors VII dazu (Greifswald, 1914), pp. 26–41Google Scholar; and more recendy Schieffer, R., Die Entstehung von Domkapiteln in Deutschland, Bonner Historische Forschungen 43 (Bonn, 1976), 232–60Google Scholar; see also Langefeld, The Old English Rule of Chrodegang, ch. 2. For the text of the Institutio canonicorum, see Concilia Aevi Karolini 1, ed. Werminghoff, A., MGH Concilia 2 (Hanover-Leipzig, 1906), 312–421.Google Scholar

5 Leiden, Bibliotheek der Rijksuniversiteit, BPL 81, 1r–22v (see also above, n. 3).

6 See Langefeld, The Old English Rule of Chrodegang, ch. 2.

7 The enlarged Regula has survived in the following continental manuscripts: (1) Paris, Bibliothèque Nationale, lat. 1535 (western France, perhaps Brittany, s. ix2/4, later provenance Fécamp, s. xex), 113v–149v; (2) Vatican City, Biblioteca Apostolica Vaticana, lat. 5776 (northern Italy, s. xi/xii; provenance Bobbio, s. xv), 4r–47v; (3) Verona, Biblioteca Capitolare, LXIV (62) (northern Italy, probably Verona, s. xiex), 60r15–61v10; (4) New York, Hispanic Society of America HC 380/819 (Catalonia, s. xi), 108v3–22; (5) Rome, Biblioteca Nazionale Centrale Vittorio Emanuele II, 583 (southern Italy?, s. xi?), 1r–14v. (For the dating of the continental manuscripts of the enlarged Regula I am once more indebted to Professor Bernhard Bischoff.) The Insular manuscripts are: (1) Brussels, Bibliothèque Royale, 8558–8563 (2496) (possibly Worcester, s. x1), 1r–38v; (2) Cambridge, Corpus Christi College 191 (Exeter, s. xi3/4), pp. 1–169; (3) Canterbury, Cathedral Library, Add. 20 (ccc no. xixa) (probably Canterbury, s. xi2/4), fragment; (4) London, British Library, Add. 34652 (provenance unknown, s. xi2/4), fol. 3; see also Langefeld, The Old English Rule of Chrodegang, ch. 3.

8 See Schieffer, , Die Entstehung von Domkapiteln in Deutschland, esp. pp. 100–6.Google Scholar

9 Ibid. pp. 107–16.

10 See, in particular, Acts II.42, II.44–7 and IV.32; cf. Ch. Dereine, ‘Chanoines (des origines au XIIIe s.)’, Dictionnaire d'histoire et de géographie ecclésiastiques (Paris, 1909–) XII, 353–405Google Scholar; Poggiaspallia, F., La vita comune del clero dalle origini alla riforma gregoriana, Uomini e dottrine 14 (Rome, 1968), 9–17Google Scholar; Frank, K. S., ‘Vita Apostolica. Ansätze zur apostolischen Lebensform in der alten Kirche’, Zeitschrift für Kirchengeschichte 82 (1971), 145–66Google Scholar; and for a general summary, Baus, K. and Ewig, E., ‘Die Reichskirche nach Konstantin dem Großen. Die Kirche von Nikaia bis Chalkedon’, in Handbuch der Kirchengeschichte, ed. Jedin, H., 7 vols. in 10 (Freiburg, 1963–1979) II.1, 278–98.Google Scholar

11 See, in particular, Sancti Aurelii Augustini sermones selecti duodeviginti, ed. Lambot, C., Stromata patristica et mediaevali 1 (Utrecht, 1950), 124–131Google Scholar (Sermo 355: ‘De vita et moribus clericorum suorum’). For the authenticity of St Augustine's work in general, see Verheijen, L., La Règie de Saint Augustin 1–2, Etudes Augustiniennes, 2 vols. (Paris, 1967) I, 417–20 and 148–52Google Scholar; and Poggiaspallia, , La vita comune, pp. 41–8.Google Scholar

12 Julianus Pomerius, De uita contemplatiua libri tres, in PL 59, cols. 411–520; see also Laistner, M. L. W., ‘The Influence during the Middle Ages of the Treatise De vita contemplativa and its Surviving Manuscripts’, Miscellanea Giovanni Mercati II, Studi e Testi 122 (Vatican City, 1946), 344–58Google Scholar; Poggiaspallia, , La vita comune, pp. 5–4Google Scholar; and Devisse, J., ‘L'influence de julien Pomère sur les clercs carolingiens. De la pauvreté aux Ve et IXe siècles’, Revue d'histoire de l'eglise de France 56 (1970), 285–95.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

13 Sancti Caesarii Arelatensis episcopi opera omnia nunc primum in unum collecta, ed. Morin, G., 2 vols. in 3 (Maredsous, 1937–1942).Google Scholar

14 Isidori Hispalensis episcopi Etymologiarum sive originum libri XX, ed. Lindsay, W. M., 2 vols. (Oxford, 1911)Google Scholar; Isidorus Hispalensis, De ecclesiasticis officiis, PL 83, cols. 737–826 (esp. ch. 2.3).

15 See Schieffer, , Die Entstihung von Domkapiteln, esp. pp. 127–31 with nn. 151–2.Google Scholar

16 See Grimme, F., ‘Die Kanonikerregel des hl. Chrodegang und ihre Quellen’, Jahrbuch der Gesellschaft für lothringische Geschichte und Altertumskunde 27/28 (1917), 1–44Google Scholar; and Hocquard, , ‘La Règie de Saint Chrodegang’, pp. 67–80.Google Scholar

17 See below, n. 25.

18 On the support which the Frankish church received from the Crown for its reform policies during the reign of Pippin III (=King Pippin I from 751 to 768) and Chrodegang's episcopate, see Wallace-Hadrill, J. M., The Prankish Church (Oxford, 1983), pp. 163–5CrossRefGoogle Scholar; see also Langefeld, The Old English Rule of Chrodegang, ch. 1.

19 See Chrodegang's Regula, chs. 2, 21, 25–7 and 34.

20 See Chrodegang's Regula, chs. 1 and 11; chs. 4–8; chs. 9, 24 and 28; chs. 31–2; chs. 22–3 and 29; chs. 20 and 30; and chs. 14–19.

21 See chs. 2 and 7–8. For an assessment of Chrodegang's liturgical reforms, see Salmon, P., L'office divin: Histoire de la formation du bréviare du XIe au XVIe siècle, Lex Orandi 43 (Paris, 1967), 23—32.Google Scholar

22 So already Paul the Deacon in his Gesta episcoporum Mettensium, ed. Waitz, G., MGH SS rer. Langobardicarum et Italicarum Saec. VI–IX (Hanover, 1878), 268Google Scholar; see also Ewig, E., ‘Beobachtungen zur Entwicklung der fränkischen Reichskirche unter Chrodegang von Metz’, FS 2 (1968), 67–77, at 68–9Google Scholar; Folz, R., ‘Metz dans la monarchic franque au temps de Saint Chrodegang’, in Saint Chrodegang, pp. 11–24, at 20–1Google Scholar; and Oexle, O. G., ‘Die Karolinger und die Stadt des Heiligen Arnulf’, FS 1 (1967), 285–93, at 290–2.Google Scholar

23 Cf.Statuta, Concilia Germaniae, ed Schannat, J. F. and Hartzheim, J., 11 vols. (Cologne, 1759–1790)I, 74.Google Scholar

24 So ch. 11 of the Council of Ver in 755 (see above, n. 1); ch. 9 of the Council of Aschheim (Bavaria) in 756 (Concilia Aevi Karolini I, ed. Werminghoff, , p. 58Google Scholar); the capitulary of 782 of King Pippin of Italy (ob. 810) (Capitularia Regum Francorum I, ed. Boretius, , p. 191Google Scholar); ch. 73 of Charlemagne's (d. 814) Admonitio Generalis of Aachen in 789 (ibid. p. 60); the Council of Frankfurt in 794 (ibid. p. 76); and also ch. 22 of the Capitulare missorum of 802 (ibid. p. 95); see also Morhain, E., ‘Origine et histoire de la Regula Canonicorum de Saint Chrodegang’, Miscellanea Pio Paschini. Studi di storia ecclesiastica, 2 vols., Lateranum, ns 14, 1–4, 15, 1–4 (Rome, 1948–1949) I, 173–85, at 179–84Google Scholar; and Schieffer, , Die Entstehung von Domkapiteln, pp. 236–7.Google Scholar

25 Most specifically in Charlemagne's Admonitio (Aachen, 789): ‘Qui ad clericatum accedunt, quod nos nominamus canonicam uitam, uolumus ut illi canonice secundum suam regulam omnimodis uiuant’ (Capitularia Regum Francorum I, ed. Boretius, , p. 60Google Scholar). Similarly, the Council of Tours (813), ch. 11: ‘Licitum sit episcopis praesentibus presbyteris et diaconibus de thesauro eclesiae familiae et pauperibus eiusdem eclesiae secundum canonicam institutionem, iuxta quod indiguerint, erogare’ (Concilia Aevi Karolinil, ed. Werminghoff, , p. 288).Google Scholar

26 Cf. Poggiaspallia, , La vita comune, pp. 71–99, esp. 88–97.Google Scholar

27 See above, nn. 3 and 7.

28 The earliest extant manuscript is Brussels, Bibliothèque Royale, 8558–8563 (2496) (Worcester, s. x1).

29 Cf. Wallace-Hadrill, J. M., ‘Rome and the Early English Church: some Questions of Transmission’, SettSpol 7 (1960), 519–48Google Scholar, repr. in his Early Medieval History (Oxford, 1975), pp. 115–37.Google Scholar

30 Kempf, F. and Jungmann, J. A., ‘Kirchenverfassung, Kultus, Seelsorge und Frömmigkeit vom 8. Jh. bis zur gregorianischen Reform’, Handbuch der Kirchengeschichte (see above, n. 10) III.l, 294–364, at 302–3.Google Scholar

31 See Epistolae Karolini Aevi II, ed. Dümmler, E., MGH Epist. 4 (Berlin, 1895), 19–29 (no. 3)Google Scholar; English Historical Documents c. 500–1042, ed. Whitelock, D., 2nd ed. (London, 1979), no. 191.Google Scholar

32 See, for example, Deanesley, M., ‘The famitia at Christ Church, Canterbury, 597–832’, Essays in Medieval History presented to Thomas Frederick Tout, ed. Little, A. G. and Powicke, F. M. (Manchester, 1925), pp. 1–13Google Scholar; Glunz, H. H., History of the Vulgate in England from Alcuin to Roger Bacon (Cambridge, 1933), pp. 57–9Google Scholar; Edwards, K., The English Secular Cathedrals in the Middle Ages, 2nd ed. (Manchester, 1967), p. 8Google Scholar; Brooks, N., The Early History of the Church of Canterbury: Christ Church from 597 to 1066 (Leicester, 1984), pp. 155–64, esp. 156–8Google Scholar; Brown, Michelle, in The Making of England: Anglo-Saxon Art and Culture A.D. 600–900, ed. Webster, L. and Backhouse, J. (London, 1991), pp. 195 and 211Google Scholar; and Cubitt, C., Angfo-Saxon Church Councilsc. 650–c. 850 (London, 1995), p. 201.Google Scholar

33 Ch. 4: ‘Ut Episcopi diligenti cura prouideant, quo omnes canonici sui, canonice uiuant, et monachi seu monachae regulariter conuersentur, tam in cibis quam in uestibus, ut discretio sit inter canonicum et monachum uel secularem’: Epistolae Karolini Aevi II, ed. Dümmler, , p. 22.Google Scholar This seems to be the first recorded demand for a clearer distinction between the two in the early history of the Anglo-Saxon Church; see Vollrath, H., Die Synoden Englands bis 1066 (Paderborn, 1985), pp. 162–79, at 167, with nn. 131–2.Google Scholar

34 Ch. 6: ‘et in illo titulo perseuerent ad quem consecrati sunt, ita ut nullus de alterius presbyterum aut diaconum suscipere praesumat, absque causa rationabili et literis commendatiis’: Epistolae Karolini Aevill, ed. Dümmler, , p. 22.Google Scholar Compare Chrodegang's original Regula, ch. 2: ‘Ordines suos canonici ita conseruent, ut ordinati sunt in gradibus suis secundum legitimam uel sanctam institutionem romana ecclesia.…’ Regula Canonicorum, ed. Schmidt, , p. 3.Google Scholar

35 Ibid. p. 22 (chs. 4 and 8).

36 Cf. Wormald, P., ‘In Search of King Offa's “Law-Code”’, People and Places in Northern Europe 500–1600, ed. Wood, I. and Lund, N. (Woodbridge, 1991), pp. 25–45.Google Scholar

37 S 1265 (BCS 342). (S = Sawyer, P. H., Anglo-Saxon Charters: an Annotated List and Bibliography (London, 1968) with number of charterGoogle Scholar; BCS= Cartularium Saxonicum, ed. Birch, W. de G., 3 vols. (London, 1885–1893)Google Scholar, with number of text.)

38 Regula canonicorum, ed. Schmitz, , chs. 3 and 5–8.Google Scholar

39 S 1265 (BCS 342): ‘On the condition that they always show themselves more humble and grateful for all the good things they have received from God and visit the Church of Christ with conscientious regularity at the canonical hours, praying and asking for forgiveness of their own sins and appealing to the mercy of God for the remission of sins of others. And they should share the refectory and dormitory and obey the rule of the monastic discipline of life.’

40 S 1268 (BCS 380). The text is a record of a grant by Archbishop Wulfred to Christ Church, made some time between c. 825 and 832; the witness-list was added by a different hand, some years later.

41 Regula canonkorum, ed. Schmitz, , ch. 28.Google Scholar

42 S 1268 (BCS 380): ‘When a priest or deacon of the familia has been burdened by that physical infirmity he may rest there with due respect.’

43 On the relationship between bishop and clergy, see Bede, HE 1.27 (Bede's Ecclesiastical History of the English People, ed. Colgrave, B. and Mynors, R. A. B. (Oxford, 1969), pp. 78–81).Google Scholar

44 See Blair, J., ‘Introduction: from Minster to Parish Church’, Minsters and Parish Churches: the Local Church in Transition 950–1200, ed. Blair, J. (Oxford, 1988), pp. 1–19, at 1Google Scholar; and Blair, , ‘Secular Minster Churches in Domesday Book’, Domesday Book: a Reassessment, ed. Sawyer, P. H. (London, 1985), pp. 104–18.Google Scholar See also Mayr-Harting, H., The Venerable Bede, the Rule of St Benedict and Social Class, Jarrow Lecture 1976 (Jarrow, [1977]), pp. 6–8Google Scholar; and Wormald, P., ‘Bede and Benedict Biscop’, Famulus Christi, ed. Bonner, G. (London, 1976), pp. 141–69, esp. 141—50.Google Scholar

45 My emphasis.

46 S 1265 (BCS 342): ‘With the helping love of God I have undertaken to renew and restore and rebuild, for the honour and love of God, the holy monastery of Canterbury in order to help the priests and deacons and all the clergy of the same church to serve the Lord God.’

47 See above, n. 4.

48 See above, n. 25.

49 E.g. iuxta regulam monasterialis disciplinae uitae (S 1265 (BCS 342)); monasterialisque uitae regulam (S 1436 (BCS 384)); and regula monasterialis uitae (S 1436 (BCS 421)).

50 The terminology was already noticed by the editors of The Bosworth Psalter. An Account of a Manuscript Formerly Belonging to O. Turville-Petre Esq. of Bosworth Hall, now Addit. Ms 37517 at the British Museum, ed. Gasquet, F. A. and Bishop, E. (London, 1908), p. 129.Google ScholarBrooks, , The Early History of the Church of Canterbury, p. 156Google Scholar, regards this differendy, as a reflection of the ‘monastic discipline’ displayed in Chrodegang's Rule.

51 La Règie de Saint Benoît, ed. de Vogüé, A. and Neufville, J., 6 vols., Sources chrétiennes 181–6 [Série de textes monastiques d'occident 34–9] (Paris, 1971–1972), ch. I, 1.Google Scholar

52 As it happens, no such ‘combined’ text is known to have survived in manuscript form. See Prinz, F., Grundlagen und Anfänge Deutschlands bis 1056, Neue Deutsche Geschichte, ed. Moraw, P., Press, V. and Schieder, W., 10 vols. (Munich, 1985) 1, 332–6, esp. 335Google Scholar; and Prinz, F., Askese und Kultur. Vor- und frühbenediktinisches Mönchtum an der Wiege Europas (Munich, 1980), pp. 34—45Google Scholar; see also Wallace-Hadrill, , The Prankish Church, esp. pp. 69–70.Google Scholar

53 Cf. Grimme, , ‘Die Kanonikerregel des hl. Chrodegang und ihre Quellen’, pp. 5–6Google Scholar; and Hocquard, , ‘La Règie de Saint Chrodegang’, pp. 69–72.Google Scholar

54 S 1265 (BCS 342) and S 1268 (BCS 380).

55 ‘If someone with the rank of priest asks to be admitted into the monastery, then one should not admit him too hastily. However, if he persists, then he must obey the Rule in all of its severity, and he will not be exempt from anything’: Regula S. Benedicti, ch. 60,1—2.

56 ‘If the abbot wishes to ordain a priest or deacon, then he should choose one who is worthy of priesthood. The one who is then ordained shall avoid arrogance and pride. He should not dare to do anything which he was not told by the abbot; he should also know that even more so is he under the command of the Rule’: ibid. ch. 62,1–3.

57 ‘But when the clerics have the same wish, namely to be admitted to the monastery, they should be given a middle-rank position; they, too, have to promise to obey the Rule and to be stable themselves’: ibid. ch. 60, 8–9.

58 ‘The provost shall do with respect what he has been told to do by the abbot, and he should do nothing against the will of the abbot; for the higher he is above the others, the more conscientiously he has to obey the Rule’: ibid. ch. 65, 16–17.

59 ‘Qui tamen regulam decanis uel praepositis constitutam sibi seruare sciat’ (‘He must, however, know that he has to observe the regulations set up for deans and provosts’): ibid. ch. 62, 7.

60 Regula canonicorum, chs. 21 and 25–7.

61 For attestations of Kentish clergy in ninth-century charters, see Keynes, S., An Atlas of Attestations in Anglo-Saxon Charters c. 670–1066, Dept. of Anglo-Saxon, Norse and Celtic, Univ. of Cambridge (1993)Google Scholar, Table XXV.

62 BSC 312 and S 1259 (BCS 319).

63 See Deanesly, , ‘The Archdeacons of Canterbury’, pp. 7–8Google Scholar; and Brooks, , The Early History of the Church of Canterbury, pp. 155 and 162.Google Scholar On the office of archdeacon in Anglo-Saxon England generally, see also Brooke, C., ‘The Archdeacon and the Norman Conquest’, in Tradition and Change. Essays in Honour of Majorie Chibnall presented by her Friends on the Occasion of her Seventieth Birthday, ed. Greenway, D., Holdsworth, C. and Sayers, J. (Cambridge, 1985), pp. 1–20.Google Scholar

64 S 282 (BCS 396).

65 S 1268 (BCS 380), S 1266 (BCS 381) and S 1436 (BCS 384).

66 S 332 (BCS 507), S 1269 (BCS 406), S 338 (BCS 516) and S 1200 (BCS 404).

67 Prior to 863 styled deacon (S 1197 (BCS 405)); after c. 867 styled priest.

68 Thereafter styled deacon.

69 Thereafter styled deacon.

70 Prior to 863 styled deacon (S 1197 (BCS 405)); and from 867 on styled priest.

71 Thereafter styled priest.

72 Brunheard attests as diaconus in 811 and 813 (S 1264 (BCS 332) and S 1265 (BCS 342)), but between 824 and 844 as Presbiter only (e.g. S 1266 (BCS 381) and S 1439 (BCS 445)); similarly Hunted appears as diaconus in 824 (S 1266 (BCS 381)), but from 825 on only as presbiter (S 1436 (BCS 384)). The position of diaconus was clearly defined as middle rank as the already quoted passage from the Regula S. Benedicti, ch. 60, 8 shows (‘Clericorum autem si quis eodem desiderio monasterio sociari uoluerit, loco mediocri conlocentur’).

73 See, e.g., S 287 (BCS 426), S 1438 (BCS 421) or S 1265 (BCS 342).

74 There is only one instance of a ‘subdeacon’ immediately prior to the beginning of Wulfred's archiepiscopate in 805 (S 1259 (BCS 319)); there are none attesting during Wulfred's archiepis-copate; the remaining instances date from Ceolnoth's time in office (e.g. S 1482 (BCS 412) or S 338 (BCS 516)).

75 For Dodda, see S 1266 (BCS 381), and for Sefreth, see S 344 (BCS 536) and S 319 (BCS 538).

76 In 805, prior to Wulfred's archiepiscopate, the names Beornheard and Eanred are found (S 1259 (BCS 319)). In the early years of Wulfred's archiepiscopate, between 805 and 813, three more names appear (in addition to Beornheard's already mentioned): Eadred, Wulfheard and Heahferth (S 161 (BCS 321), S 159 (BSC 316) and S 1265 (BCS 342)). Prior to Wulfred's archiepiscopate there is also one instance of the office of primicerius in the case of Cuba (Cufa) (S 1258 (BCS 291)).

77 See above, nn. 58 and 59.

78 Two of the Saxon Chronicles Parallel, ed. Plummer, C., 2 vols. (Oxford, 1892–1899) I, 283–5Google Scholar (and Plummer's cautious comments, ibid. II, 87, on the authenticity of the information in this addition); see also Facsimile of MS.F: The Domitian Bilingual, ed. Dumville, D. (Cambridge, 1995).Google Scholar Brooks dismisses the addition as ‘fabrication’, on the grounds that ‘the charters show that the community was already composed of secular clergy as soon as we have evidence, namely in the first decade of the ninth century’ (The Early History of the Church of Canterbury, p. 161).Google Scholar

79 See above, n. 7.

80 See above, n. 63.

81 Cf. Barlow, F., The English Church 1000–1066. A History of the Later Anglo-Saxon Church, 2nd ed. (London, 1979), pp. 208–31.Google Scholar See also Gneuss, H., ‘King Alfred and the History of Anglo-Saxon Libraries’, Modes of Interpretation in Old English Literature: Essays in Honour of Stanley B. Greenfield, ed. Brown, G. H. (Toronto, 1986), pp. 29–49, at 47–8, n. 47.Google Scholar I would like to thank David Dumville who first encouraged me to write this article and helped me with numerous suggestions. I would also like to express my sincere gratitude to Michael Lapidge and Simon Keynes for their kindness and patience.