Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-r5fsc Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-02T18:13:14.410Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

New Evidence for the Influence of Gallic Canon Law in Anglo-Saxon England

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  09 September 2013

MICHAEL D. ELLIOT
MICHAEL D. ELLIOT*
Affiliation:
Centre for Medieval Studies, University of Toronto, 125 Queen's Park, Toronto, Ontario, CanadaM5S 2C7; e-mail: [email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

The importance of canon law collections to Anglo-Saxon legal culture has long been thought negligible, especially in comparison to the considerable importance of an alternative genre of canonical literature known as the penitential handbook. Over the past several decades, however, evidence for the use and circulation of continental canon law collections in pre-Conquest England has been mounting, to the extent that it could challenge traditional notions about the dominance of penitential law in the early English Church. This study presents new evidence for the reception in Anglo-Saxon England of a major continental collection known as the Collectio vetus Gallica.

Type
Research Article
Information
The Journal of Ecclesiastical History , Volume 64 , Issue 4 , October 2013 , pp. 700 - 730
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2013 

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 I exclude episcopal capitularies and secular statutes from the present discussion, not because there is anything (in this historical period) like a clear distinction between these types of law and canon law strictly speaking, but merely in order to tighten the focus of my arguments. For the Anglo-Saxon episcopal capitularies, many of which survive in the vernacular, see Councils and ecclesiastical documents relating to Great Britain and Ireland, iii, ed. William Stubbs with A. W. Haddan, Oxford 1871, repr. 1964, 403–13 (the Dialogus Ecgberhti), and Councils and synods, with other documents relating to the English Church, I: A. D. 871–1204, i:871–1066, ed. Dorothy Whitelock, Oxford 1981, repr. 1986, text nos 20, 46, 48, 53–7, 63. Royal and secular law codes (principally vernacular) are edited in Die Gesetze der Angelsachsen, ed. Felix Liebermann, Halle 1898–1916, with important additional commentary by Wormald, Patrick in The making of English law: King Alfred to the twelfth century, I: Legislation and its limits, Oxford 1999Google Scholar. For all of Wormald's contributions to the study of both royal and ecclesiastical Anglo-Saxon law, his work has surprisingly little to say about the place of canon law collections in the English legal landscape.

2 On the canons of Anglo-Saxon councils, and the possibility that many have been lost, see Cubitt, Catherine, Anglo-Saxon church councils, c. 650–c. 850, London 1995Google Scholar, esp. pp. 62–3.

3 This is of course a problem for all Anglo-Saxon studies, and is one which will be returned to at the end of this article.

4 This has recently been noticed, for example, by Bryan Carella, ‘Alcuin and Alfred: two Anglo-Saxon legal reformers’, unpubl. PhD diss. North Carolina 2006, 10. Only two collections of canon law are known to have been compiled in Anglo-Saxon England, and these contain predominantly foreign canonical material. The first is the small collection of judgements by Archbishop Theodore (†690) on Roman, Greek and Irish canonical and penitential practices, assembled after Theodore's death into various collections now known as the Iudicia or Canones Theodori: Die canones Theodori Cantuariensis und ihre Überlieferungsformen, ed. P. W. Finsterwalder, Weimar 1929. The second is a collection of mainly Carolingian canonical material compiled in England in about 1005 and extant in multiple recensions, two having been (incompletely) edited in Wulfstan's canon law collection, ed. J. E. Cross and Andrew Hamer, Cambridge 1999. Due in part to its incredibly muddled textual and editorial tradition, this collection has long gone under the unfortunate title Excerptiones Pseudo-Ecgberhti. But a much better designation is that used here, the Collectio canonum Wigorniensis, a name which reflects the overwhelming association of its manuscripts with Worcester.

5 Anglo-Saxon England is scarcely mentioned in survey studies of early medieval canon law. A few examples may be given here. In Friedrich Maassen's classic study of the Geschichte der Quellen und der Literatur des canonischen Rechts im Abendlande, I: Die Rechtssammlungen bis zur Mitte des 9. Jahrhunderts, Graz 1870, repr. 1956, the canonical materia of the Anglo-Saxon Church – subsumed into a larger discussion of ‘irische und britannische Concilien’ – receives but a paragraph of discussion at pp. 223–4. The penitential judgements of Theodore are also considered strictly within the larger context of Insular penitential literature and its contribution to continental Churches in Fournier, Paul and Le Bras's, Gabriel survey of the Histoire des collections canoniques en occident depuis les Fausses décrétales jusqu'au Décret de Gratien, Paris 1931–2, i. 50–62Google Scholar; however, they also provide an unusually lengthy discussion of the Collectio Wigorniensis at vol. i. 316–20. In Kirchenrecht und Reform im Frankenreich: die Collectio vetus Gallica, die älteste systematische Kanonessammlung des fränkischen Gallien: Studien und Edition, ed. Hubert Mordek, Berlin 1975, now a standard reference work for the history of collections in the early medieval West, the Anglo-Saxon Church receives only passing mention (p. 80); however, again there is also a brief yet important discussion of the Collectio Wigorniensis at p. 120 n. 86.

6 For an excellent introduction to the genre of the early medieval canon law collection see Reynolds, R. E., ‘Law, canon: to Gratian’, in Strayer, J. R. (ed.), Dictionary of the Middle Ages, New York 1982–9, vii. 395–413Google Scholar. See also Fransen, Gérard, Les Collections canoniques (Typologie des sources du moyen âge occidental x, 1973)Google Scholar.

7 On the name ‘Collectio Wigorniensis’, see n. 4 above. Helmut Gneuss lists a smattering of canon law collections in his Handlist of Anglo-Saxon manuscripts: a list of manuscripts and manuscript fragments written or owned in England up to 1100, Tempe, Az 2001, 159. If one removes from Gneuss's list the Hibernensis and Wigorniensis, as well as collections from obviously post-Conquest manuscripts (along with certain works that are not canon law collections at all), only four collections remain, each surviving in but a single Anglo-Saxon manuscript: the Collectio capitularium of Ansegis (bk i only), the Collectio Dionysio-Hadriana (conciliar canons only), the Collectio quadripartita (bks ii–iv only) and the Collectio Sanblasiana (this last extant in a manuscript whose English origin is not certain). However, as will be demonstrated below, this list can be expanded considerably by taking into account continental manuscript evidence.

8 The use of penitential handbooks and the importance of penitential law in Anglo-Saxon England has been studied intensively. See, for example, Oakley, T. P., English penitential discipline and Anglo-Saxon law in their joint influence, New York 1923Google Scholar; Frantzen, A. J., The literature of penance in Anglo-Saxon England, New Brunswick, NJ 1983Google Scholar; Hough, Carole, ‘Penitential literature and secular law in Anglo-Saxon England’, Anglo-Saxon Studies in Archaeology and History xi (2000), 133–41Google Scholar; and Meaney, A. L., ‘Old English legal and penitential penalties for “heathenism”’, in Keynes, Simon and Smyth, A. P. (eds), Anglo-Saxons: studies presented to Cyril Roy Hart, Dublin 2006, 127–58Google Scholar. Of crucial importance to understanding the so-called Bedan and Ecgberhtine penitentials is Reinhold Haggenmüller's Die Überlieferung der Beda und Egbert zugeschriebenen Bussbücher, Frankfurt-am-Main 1991. Haggenmüller's work on the textual tradition of these penitentials throws many previous assumptions about their development into doubt. Similarly thorough textual work still remains to be done on the Theodorian penitential tradition.

9 Some recent studies include Fulk, R. D., ‘Male homoeroticism in the Old English Canons of Theodore’, in Pasternack, C. B. and Weston, L. M. (eds), Sex and sexuality in Anglo-Saxon England: essays in memory of Daniel Gillmore Calder, Tempe, Az 2004, 1–34Google Scholar; Meaney, ‘Old English legal and penitential penalties’; and Frantzen, A. J., ‘Making sense: translating the Anglo-Saxon penitentials’, in Healey, A. DiPaulo and Kiernan, K. S. (eds), Constructing meaning in early English, Toronto 2006, 40–71Google Scholar.

10 ‘The evidence of the circulation of canonical collections … pales in comparison with the evidence about the presence of penitentials in England. Perhaps the very popularity of the latter explains in part why the former have not left more of a mark. Penitentials were used in their place’: Helmholz, R. H., The Oxford history of the laws of England, I: The canon law and ecclesiastical jurisdiction from 597 to the 1640s, Oxford 2004, 29Google Scholar.

11 See Flechner, Roy, ‘An Insular tradition of ecclesiastical law: fifth to eighth century’, in Graham-Campbell, James and Ryan, Michael (eds), Anglo-Saxon/Irish relations before the Vikings, Oxford 2009, 23–46Google Scholar, especially his conclusions at pp. 45–6.

12 See, for example, Breen, Aidan, ‘The date, provenance and authorship of the Pseudo-Patrician canonical materials’, Zeitschrift der Savigny-Stiftung für Rechtsgeschichte, kanonistische Abteilung lxxxi (1995), 83–129CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Charles-Edwards, T. M., ‘The penitential of Theodore and the Iudicia Theodori’, in Lapidge, Michael (ed.), Archbishop Theodore: commemorative studies on his life and influence, Cambridge 1995, 141–74CrossRefGoogle Scholar, and ‘The construction of the Hibernensis’, Peritia xii (1998), 209–37; and Flechner, R., ‘The making of the Canons of Theodore’, Peritia xvii–xviii (2003–4), 121–43CrossRefGoogle Scholar, and ‘Insular tradition’.

13 Breen, ‘Pseudo-Patrician canonical materials’; Meeder, Sven, ‘Boniface and the Irish heresy of Clemens’, Church History lxxx (2011), 251–80Google Scholar at pp. 259–65.

14 See Frantzen, Literature of penance, 122–50.

15 See n. 5 above.

16 Reliance upon penitential law and the canonical authority of obscure councils and northern Church Fathers, like Patrick and Gildas, are some facets of the idiosyncrasy of the Irish tradition; another was their heavy use of Scripture as a canonical source. These differentiating characteristics have been summarised conveniently by Sven Meeder in his discussion of the encounter between Columbanus' Irish perspective on canonical authority and that of the Gallic bishops: ‘Boniface and the Irish heresy’, 269–70.

17 This subject requires much further study, but important preliminary investigations have been carried out by Lapidge, Michael, ‘The school of Theodore and Hadrian’, Anglo-Saxon England xv (1986) 45–72Google Scholar at pp. 64–6; Brett, Martin, ‘Theodore and the Latin canon law’, in Lapidge, , Archbishop Theodore, 120–40Google Scholar; and Ganz, David, ‘Roman manuscripts in Francia and Anglo-Saxon England’, in Roma fra oriente e occidente (Settimane di studio del Centro italiano di studi sull'alto medioevo xlix, 2002), 607–47Google Scholar, esp. pp. 617–29.

18 ‘The early English church was one open to influences from Gaul, Ireland, and Rome, and some of its members were remarkable in their energy and enthusiasm for, and in the speed with which they adopted, the language and intellectual traditions of the Christian church’: McKitterick, Rosamond, Anglo-Saxon missionaries in Germany: personal connections and local influences (Vaughan Paper xxxvi, 1991), 4Google Scholar.

19 Pope Gregory i to Augustine (‘Per dilectissimos filios meos’), JE 1843, in Gregorii I papae registrum epistolarum, ed. P. Ewald and L. M. Hartmann, MGH, Epp. i–ii, 1891–9, liber xi, no. 56a. ‘Libellus responsionum’ is the title given to this letter by Bede. On the question of its authenticity see Meyvaert, Paul, ‘Bede's text of the Libellus responsionum of Gregory the Great to Augustine of Canterbury’, in Clemoes, Peter and Hughes, Kathleen (eds), England before the Conquest: studies in primary sources presented to Dorothy Whitelock, Cambridge 1971, 15–33Google Scholar. It was included in Bede's Historia ecclesiastica, thence translated into Old English during the reign of King Alfred: Rowley, Sharon, ‘Shifting contexts: reading Gregory the Great's Libellus responsionum in book iii of the Old English Bede’, in Bremmer, R. H. Jr, and others (eds), Rome and the north: the early reception of Gregory the Great in Germanic Europe, Louvain 2001, 83–92Google Scholar.

20 On the Sanblasiana see Maassen, Geschichte, 504–12; Kirchenrecht, 240–1; Kéry, Lotte, Canonical collections of the early Middle Ages (ca. 400–1140): a bibliographical guide to the manuscripts and literature, Washington, DC 1999, 29–31Google Scholar; and Zwei Päpste in Rom: der Konflikt zwischen Laurentius und Symmachus (498–514): Studien und Texte, ed. Eckhard Wirbelauer, Munich 1993, 122–8. For discussion of this collection's transmission in early Anglo-Saxon England see Lapidge, ‘School of Theodore’, 54–9, 64–6, and Brett, ‘Theodore and the Latin canon law’, 136 and passim. On the controversial origin and provenance of an early manuscript witness, Erzbischöfliche Diözesan- und Dombibliothek, Cologne, Codex 213 (first half of the eighth century, Lindisfarne?, York?, Ireland?, Echternach?, Cologne?) see Bullough, D. A., Alcuin: achievement and reputation, Leiden 2004, 231–2Google Scholar with n. 309. Notice should also be taken of the copy of the Sanblasiana in a manuscript once part of the Phillipps collection at Cheltenham (ms 17849), but now in the hands of a private collector in Europe; it was copied at the end of the eighth century in a southern German or northern Italian centre under Insular influence. So too, Bibliothèque nationale, Paris, ms lat. 3836 (second half of the eighth century, Corbie region) is a copy of the Sanblasiana whose script shows Insular features: McKitterick, Rosamond, ‘The diffusion of Insular culture in Neustria between 650 and 850: the implications of the manuscript evidence’, in Atsma, Hartmut (ed.), La Neustrie: les pays au nord de la Loire de 650 à 850, Sigmaringen 1989, ii. 395–432Google Scholar at p. 417.

21 On the Dionysiana see Maassen, Geschichte, 422–40; Wurm, Hubert, Studien und Texte zur Dekretalensammlung des Dionysius Exiguus, Bonn 1939Google Scholar, repr. Amsterdam 1964; Kirchenrecht, 241–3; and Kéry, Canonical collections, 9–13. The only two surviving complete copies of the first recension of the Dionysiana have Anglo-Saxon associations. The first, BAV, ms Pal. lat. 577 (end of the eighth century, Main river region), written in Anglo-Saxon script, has been considered by some to be a Bonifatian manuscript: Glatthaar, Michael, Bonifatius und das Sakrileg: zur politischen Dimension eines Rechtsbegriffs, Frankfurt-am-Main 2004Google Scholar, esp. pp. 455–502, 580–99; Hen, Yitzhak, Culture and religion in Merovingian Gaul, A. D. 481–751, Leiden 1995, 179Google Scholar. The second, Landesbibliothek und Murhardsche Bibliothek, Kassel, ms 4° theol. 1 (c. 800 × 835, Main river region), is a Carolingian book that bears notes and corrections by several hands writing Anglo-Saxon minuscule: Bischoff, Bernhard, Katalog der festländischen Handschriften des neunten Jahrhunderts (mit Ausnahme der wisigotischen), Wiesbaden 1998–2004, i, no. 1820Google Scholar.

22 This relies on evidence from the ‘Leiden-family’ of glossaries – a gloss tradition based on school texts produced at Canterbury under Archbishop Theodore. Martin Brett concludes that ‘In Theodore's circle … an enlarged version of the second Dionysiana was indeed a central text’: ‘Theodore and the Latin canon law’, 130–6.

23 On the Quesnelliana see Maassen, Geschichte, 486–500; Wurm, Studien und Texte, 82–7; Kirchenrecht, 238–40; and Kéry, Canonical collections, 27–39. Five of the eight early witnesses of this collection have been associated with Anglo-Saxon England or with continental centres under Insular influence: Bibliothèque municipale, Arras, ms 644 (572) (late eighth to early ninth century, north-east France), with possible provenance in late Anglo-Saxon England as part of the personal library of Abbot Saewold of St Peter's at Bath; Universitätsbibliothek, Düsseldorf, K02:E32 (end of eighth or early ninth century, Werden, though E. A. Lowe suggested Northumbria), a fragment written in Anglo-Saxon minuscule, possibly by the scribe ‘Ercanfrit’, who may have worked at Kent; Stiftsbibliothek, Einsiedeln, Codex 191 (277) (end of eighth century, north-east France), with corrections by a hand writing Anglo-Saxon script; and Österreichische Nationalbibliothek, mss lat. 2141, 2147 (both c. 780, Lorsch region), both showing Insular features in script and abbreviations, the latter also in parchment preparation. For the Quesnelliana's possible transmission in Anglo-Saxon England see Fuhrmann, Horst, Einfluss und Verbreitung der pseudoisidorischen Fälschungen, von ihrem Auftauchen bis in die neuere Zeit (MGH, Schriften xxiv.1–3, 1972–4)Google Scholar, i. 229 with n. 121; Lapidge, Michael, The Anglo-Saxon library, Oxford 2006, 136–8Google Scholar; and McKitterick, Rosamond, ‘Knowledge of canon law in the Frankish kingdoms before 780: the manuscript evidence’, JTS xxxvi (1985), 87–117Google Scholar at p. 116 n. 91.

24 See R. A. Aronstam, ‘The Latin canonical tradition in late Anglo-Saxon England: the Excerptiones Egberti’, unpubl. PhD diss. Columbia 1974; Wulfstan's canon law collection; Wormald, Patrick, ‘Archbishop Wulfstan and the holiness of society’, in Pelteret, D. A. E. (ed.), Anglo-Saxon history: basic readings, New York 2000, 191–224Google Scholar; Ambrose, Shannon, ‘The Collectio canonum Hibernensis and the literature of the Anglo-Saxon Benedictine reform’, Viator xxxvi (2005), 107–18Google Scholar; and Elliot, M. D., ‘Ghaerbald's First capitulary, the Excerptiones Pseudo-Ecgberhti, and the sources of Wulfstan's Canons of Edgar’, Notes and Queries lvii (2010), 161–5CrossRefGoogle Scholar. Much work remains to be done on this subject, but a preliminary list of collections relevant to the English Benedictine Reform can be proposed based on the putative sources of the Wigorniensis and of the Pastoral letters of Ælfric: the Collectio capitularium of Ansegis; the collectiones Hibernensis, Dionysio-Hadriana, Quadripartita, possibly the Dacheriana; and the Paenitentiale of Halitgar. Account should also be taken of the canonical excerpts in the Wulfstanian manuscript CCCC, ms 265, pp. 1–208 (c. 1060 × 1075, Worcester?) at pp. 199–207, taken from an unidentified ‘chronological’ collection. Contrary to common report, the source collection was not the Dionysio-Hadriana, but must have been a collection which mixed Dionysiana readings with prisca ones, and which included the apocryphal Constitutum Silvestri.

25 For the council's constitutio see Concilia Galliae a. 511–a. 695, ed. Charles de Clercq, CCSL cxlviiiA, 1963, 85. For the events surrounding the council see K. J. von Hefele, Histoire des conciles d'après les documents originaux, ed. and trans. Henri Leclercq and others, Paris 1907–52, ii/2, 1125–9, and Pontal, Odette, Histoire des conciles mérovingiens, Paris 1989, 84–7Google Scholar. That Contumeliosus, literally ‘reproachful one’, was the bishop's real name and not merely a disparaging moniker devised by Caesarius is proved by the letter written to Caesarius in 535 by Pope Agapetus i (JK 890), to whom Contumeliosus had appealed Marseilles's decision.

26 Concilia, 86–9; JK 886, 887, 888.

27 See Maassen, Geschichte, 297, 437; Wurm, Studien und Texte, 44; and Jasper, Detlev, ‘The beginning of the decretal tradition: papal letters from the origin of the genre through the pontificate of Stephen v’, in Fuhrmann, Horst and Jasper, Detlev (eds), Papal letters in the early Middle Ages, Washington, DC 2001, 3–133Google Scholar at p. 68 n. 288. The canons quoted by Pope John are ‘capitulo vii’ of Siricius to Himerius (‘Directa ad decessorem’), JK 255; ‘titulo xxv’ and ‘xxviiii’ of the Canones apostolorum; ‘capitulo xlv’ (= ch. i) of Neocaesarea; and ‘capitulo iiii’ and ‘xv’ of Antioch: Concilia, 88–9.

28 The letter is edited in Concilia, 90–6, lines 106–272. That it was already attributed to Hormisdas in the early Middle Ages is attested in Concilia, 90, textual note to lines 106–272, and in Kirchenrecht, 220 with n. 56. Caesarius’ Letter was often transmitted with one of Pope John's selected canons preceding it (Orange [441] 22), on which see ibid. 225–6 n. 56.

29 Pope John ii died shortly after these events. Contumeliosus successfully appealed to his successor, Pope Agapetus i, who ordered that the entire matter be reinvestigated. Unfortunately, according to Hefele-Leclercq, , ‘Nous ne savons pas comment cette affaire s'est terminée’: Histoire, ii/2, 1129Google Scholar.

30 Caesarius quotes Nicaea (versio Rufini) 9, Valence (374) 4, Orléans (511) 9, Orange (441) 22 and Epaone (517) 22, and later goes on to quote from the fifth-century Statuta ecclesiae antiqua (Concilia, 93, line 200). The Coloniensis and the Laureshamensis are the only collections known today which contain all of these elements; however, since both collections also contain the Johanno-Caesarian correspondence itself, neither can be the actual collection upon which Caesarius drew. On these collections see Maassen, Geschichte, 574–91, and Kéry, Canonical collections, 44–5, 49–50.

31 ‘Ecce manifestissime constat, quia, secundum quod et tituli antiquorum patrum a sancto Iohanne papa transmissi, et trecentorum decem et octo episcoporum sententia, sed et canones Galligani continere uidentur, clerici in adulterio deprehensi, et aut ipsi confessi aut ab aliis reuicti, ad honorem redire non possunt’: Concilia, 90, lines 106–11. Unless otherewise stated all translations are my own.

32 ‘Quae est ista iustitia inimica benignitas, palpare criminosos, et uulnera eorum usque ad diem iudicii incurata seruare’: ibid. 91, lines 124–6.

33 ‘[Nos] non recordantes illud, quod in ueteri testamento scriptum est, quia uno peccante contra omnes Dei ira desaeuiit. O pietas, o misericordia, uni parcere, et omnes per exemplum malum in discrimen adducere!’: ibid. 91–2, lines 145–8. The scriptural reference is to Numbers xvi. 22.

34 ‘Et ideo dilegenter perpendite, si aut potest aut debet fieri, ut tantorum ac talium, quos supra memorauimus, sacerdotum canones contemnentes, aliter quam illi statuerunt obseruare uel agere praesumamus’: ibid, 92, lines 156–60.

35 Ibid. 93–4, lines 213–22.

36 ‘[M]elius est, ut unusquisque paruo tempore in hoc mundo uerecundiam uel confusionem sustineat, quam postea ad supplicia aeterna perueniat’: ibid. 94, lines 224–5.

37 Maassen, Geschichte, 297; Concilia, 84; Jasper, ‘Decretal tradition’, 68 n. 288. All four collections date from the middle to the second half of the sixth century, and all but the Remensis originated in southern Gaul (Kéry gives the origin of the Remensis simply as ‘Gaul’: Canonical collections, 50,). Neither Maassen nor Jasper mentions the Collectio Remensis in connection with the Letter.

38 The Remensis now survives uniquely in Staatsbibliothek zu Berlin – preußischer Kulturbesitz, Phill. lat. 1743 (second half of the eighth century, Rheims?, Bourges?), where the dossier occupies fos 271r–276r. See Rose, Valentin, Verzeichniss der lateinischen Handschriften der königlichen Bibliothek zu Berlin, I: Die Meerman-Handschriften des Sir Thomas Phillipps (Die Handschriften-Verzeichnisse der königlichen Bibliothek zu Berlin xii, 1893)Google Scholar, no. 84 at p. 177. All other collections transmit either the Johannine or (portions of) the Caesarian letter. Both Maassen, Geschichte, 297, and Jasper, ‘Decretal tradition’, 68 n. 288, claim that Pope John's letter (JK 888) was transmitted in the Corbeiensis, Coloniensis and Laureshamensis; however, only the Coloniensis contains John's letter in its entirety (noted by Maassen), and in fact the Corbeiensis does not contain John's letter at all, but only Caesarius' (not noted by Maassen).

39 Hormisdas to the Spanish bishops (‘Benedicta trinitas’), JK 787: Staatsbibliothek zu Berlin, ms Phill. lat. 1743, fos 268v–271r. Maassen notes that in some collections this decretal begins with the words ‘Dilectissimis fratribus episcopis’: Geschichte, 289, no. 16.

40 Rose records the explicit-incipit thus: ‘f. 271: Expł. epła. ormisd<ę> Inc tituli qui infra scripti sunt De auctoritate domni papę <iohannis neuere Ergänzung> et de sis canonibus excepti sunt. Ut unus quisque clericorum … Delictissimo fratri caesario. Iohan. Caretates tuae’: Verzeichniss, 177.

41 According to Mordek it is in Württembergische Landesbibliothek, Stuttgart, ms HB.VI.113 (end of the eighth century, Chur area), a manuscript of the ‘south-German’ class of Vetus Gallica manuscripts and the earliest witness to that collection, that Caesarius' Letter is first seen to be attributed to Hormisdas: Kirchenrecht, 225 n. 56.

42 Ibid. 62–96.

43 Ibid. 217–18.

44 Ibid. 416–17.

45 Ibid. 225–6.

46 Cross, J. E., ‘A newly-identified manuscript of Wulfstan's “commonplace book”, Rouen, Bibliothèque municipale, ms 1382 (U.109), fols. 173r–198v’, Journal of Medieval Latin ii (1992), 63–83Google Scholar at pp. 78–80. The manuscripts are CCCC, ms 190, pp. iii–xii, 1–294 (first half of the eleventh century, Worcester?); CCCC, ms 265, pp. 3–208; Bodleian Library, Oxford, ms Barlow 37 (6464), fos 1r–61v (late twelfth or early thirteenth century, Worcester?); and the fragmentary Bibliothèque municipale, Rouen, ms 1382 (U. 109), fos 173r–198v (first half of the eleventh century, England).

47 To date the most important study of Wulfstan's commonplace book is Sauer, Hans, ‘The transmission and structure of Archbishop Wulfstan's “commonplace book”’, in Szarmach, P. E. (ed.), Old English prose: basic readings, New York 2000, 339–94Google Scholar (translated and updated from a German article published in 1980). Sauer gives a full bibliography of relevant studies published up to the 1990s. Important recent studies include Cross, ‘Newly-identified manuscript’; Jones, C. A., ‘A liturgical miscellany in Cambridge, Corpus Christi College 190’, Traditio liv (1999), 103–40CrossRefGoogle Scholar, and ‘Wulfstan's liturgical interests’, in Townend, Matthew (ed.), Wulfstan, archbishop of York: the proceedings of the Second Alcuin Conference, Turnhout 2004, 325–52Google Scholar; Wulfstan's canon law collection; Wormald, ‘Holiness of society’; and Joyce Hill, ‘Two Anglo-Saxon bishops at work: Wulfstan, Leofric and CCCC ms 190’, in Körntgen, Ludger and Wassenhoven, Dominik (eds), Patterns of episcopal power: bishops in tenth and eleventh century western Europe (Prinz-Albert-Forschungen vi, 2011), 145–61CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

48 ‘Ciprianus dicit: Qui peccantem uerbis adulantibus palpat, peccandi fomitem subministrat, nec premit delicta illius, sed fouet’: Admonitio spiritalis doctrinae (ed. Cross, ‘Newly-identified manuscript’, 79), lines 5–7; cf. Cyprian, De lapsis, in S. Thasci Caecili Cypriani opera omnia. Pars i, ed. W. Hartel, CSEL iii/1, 1868, 247, lines 11–13.

49 Concilia, 93–4, lines 214–26, quoted verbatim in Admonitio spiritalis doctrinae, lines 19–28.

50 Concilia, 91, lines 124–6, 145–7; 92, lines 149–51, corresponding respectively to Admonitio spiritalis doctrinae, lines 11–13, 13–14, 5–7.

51 See Wilcox, Jonathan, ‘The wolf on shepherds: Wulfstan, bishops, and the context of the Sermo lupi ad Anglos’, in Szarmach Old English prose, 395–418Google Scholar. The Sermo lupi ad Anglos is edited in three versions in Homilies of Wulfstan, 255–75.

52 Bodl. Lib., ms Barlow 37, fos 31r–32v. This work is also found, separate from Admonitio spiritalis doctrinae, in CCCC, ms 190, pp. 185–8, and ms 265, pp. 152–4, where it ends with the same sentences with which the Admonitio spiritalis doctrinae begins; ‘Clama, ne cesses, quasi tuba, et reliqua. Predicatoribus itaque si tacuerint dampnum est, et populo, si non obedierit, pernities est.’ It was doubtless this congruence between head and tail that led to the union of the two texts in ms Barlow 37's exemplar.

53 For an edition and study see M. D. Elliot, ‘Wulfstan's commonplace book revised: the structure and development of “Block 7”, on pastoral privilege and responsibility’, Journal of Medieval Latin xxii (2012), 1–48.

54 On Wulfstan's hand see N. R. Ker, ‘The handwriting of Archbishop Wulfstan’, in Clemoes and Hughes, England before the Conquest, 315–31 at pp. 321–4. De veneratione sacerdotum occupies fos 122v–125r in BL, ms Cotton Nero A. i. It is followed by two other Latin texts (one of which, Homily 16a, has been edited by Dorothy Bethurum) which are compositionally and thematically very similar to it: Karl Jost, Wulfstanstudien, Bern 1950, 63–5.

55 De veneratione sacerdotum is very probably not a ‘finished’ text but rather represents an interim stage in the development of this work from Latin pastiche to polished vernacular sermon (i.e. Homily 16b); cf. nn. 52, 54 above. The texts likely evolved thus: Admonitio spiritalis doctrinae + De pastoribus sacerdotum (CCCC, ms 190, pp. 185–8; ms 265, pp. 152–4) > De pastoribus ecclesie, quomodo uigili cura et sedula ammonitione populum dei perducant ad pascua uite (Bodl. Lib., ms Barlow 37, fos 31r–32v) > De veneratione sacerdotum (ms Cotton Nero A. i, fos 122v–125r) > De pastore et praedicatore (ms Cotton Nero A. i, fos 126r–127r, incorporating material from another work titled De blasphemia, found in CCCC, ms 265, pp. 154–6, and Bodl. Lib., ms Barlow 37, fo. 35r) > Homily 16a (ms Cotton Nero A. i, fos 125r–v) > Wulfstan's Old English Homily 16b.

56 ms Cotton Nero A. i, fos 156v–157v; CCCC, ms 190, pp. 241–2.

57 ‘Et melius est ut quisque parvo tempore donec vivit plangat et peniteat, et pro peccatis ad tempus verecundiam vel confusionem sustineat, quam ut postea ad supplicia eterna [var. poenam perpetuam] perueniat’; cf. n. 36, above.

58 O'Brien, KatherineO'Keeffe, , ‘Body and law in late Anglo-Saxon England’, Anglo-Saxon England xxvii (1998), 209–32Google Scholar at p. 216.

59 ‘Excommunicati, si perdurant in pristinis criminibus parvipendentes canonicam excommunicationem, necesse est ut inviti penas penitentiae exsolvant, ne animae pro quibus dominus passus est in eterna pena dispereant … Melius est enim cuique ut coactus ad regnum quam sponte ad supplicium perueniat sempiternum.’ I have not been able to identify a source for this material.

60 The series of three texts is found in ms Cotton Nero A. i, fos 156r–157v, and in CCCC, ms 190, pp. 241–2, with De excommunicatis duplicated (by a later hand) on p. 360. A longer, variant version of De inproviso is found in Bodl. Lib., ms Barlow 37, fos 11v–12r, and in CCCC, ms 265, pp. 108–9, whence it has been edited by Bateson, Mary: ‘A Worcester cathedral book of ecclesiastical collections, made c. 1000 A.D.’, EHR x (1895), 712–31 at pp. 726–7Google Scholar. On the basis of source evidence and patterns of borrowing it can be established with near certainty that this series of texts developed in the following way: De incestuosis > De inproviso (CCCC 265; ms Barlow 37) > De excommunicatis > De inproviso (ms Cotton Nero A. i; CCCC 190).

61 Paenitentiale Pseudo-Theodori, ed. C. Van Rhijn (CCSL clvi.B, 2009).

62 Carine Van Rhijn, the most recent editor of the Paenitentiale Pseudo-Theodori, has printed these additional chapters in an appendix, though unfortunately without source-commentary or chapter/line numbers. They have been represented as part of the Paenitentiale ever since the publication of Benjamin's Thorpe's edition, which was based on CCCC, ms 190: Ancient laws and institutes of England; comprising …, ed. B. Thorpe, London 1840, folio edition, pp. 277–306.

63 ‘Quanto autem quisque altioris ordinis fuerit, tanto debet maioris esse continentiae’: Paenitentiale Pseudo-Theodori, 143–4. The text of De temperantia is also found, with additions, in ms Cotton Nero A. i, fos 154r–155r (immediately following Wigorniensis B, as edited by Cross and Hamer), where the final sentence (‘Medicus enim …’) has been added by Wulfstan himself. Partial versions of the expanded form of this chapter are also found in CCCC, ms 265, pp. 58–9, and Bodl. Lib., ms Barlow 37, fos 21v–22r.

64 ‘Quapropter, quia multa paucis uerbis explicare non possumus, saltem pronuntiamus quia pro prescriptis criminibus et eis similibus quidam constituerit laico paenitentiam iiii annorum, et si seruus est duorum annorum, canonico v, subdiacono vi, diacono vii, presbitero x annorum, aepiscopo autem xii annorum. Pro peccatis itaque leuioribus leuigandum iudicabant modum paenitentiae. Parricidis uero et aliis nefandis criminibus omnimodo artam constituerit paenitentiae mensuram’: Paenitentiale Pseudo-Theodori, 143–4. On the ratio of 6:7:10:12 years of penance for serious crimes committed by men in holy orders see Ludger Körntgen, ‘Kanonisches Recht und Busspraxis: zu Kontext und Funktion des Paenitentiale Excarpsus Cummeani’, in W. P. Müller and M. E. Sommar (eds), Medieval church law and the origins of the western legal tradition: a tribute to Kenneth Pennington, Washington, DC 2006, 17–32 at pp. 22–7.

65 ‘Quia, ut Cyprianus dicit, qui peccantem uerbum [sic; lege uerbis] adolantibus palpat, peccandi fomitem subministrat, nec premit delicta illius, sed fouet. Ormisda papa dicit: Quae est ista inimica benignitas, palpare criminosos et uulnera eorum usque ad diem iudicii incurata seruare? Alibi quoque scriptum est: Facientes et consentientes aequali paena puniuntur’: Paenitentiale Pseudo-Theodori, 144.

66 Cf. Admonitio spiritalis doctrinae, lines 11–15: ‘Ormisdas papa dicit: Quę est ista inimica benignitas, palpare criminosos, et uulnera eorum usque ad diem iudicii incurata seruare? In ueteri enim testamento scriptum est: Quia per unum peccantem contra homines [dei] ira desęuiat. Alibi quoque scriptum est: Facientes et consentientes ęquali pęna puniuntur’. Cf. nn. 32–3 above. That the author of the Admonitio spiritalis doctrinae had independent access to Caesarius’ Letter is established by the fact that much more from the Letter is quoted in Admonitio spiritalis doctrinae than in De temperantia. The direction of borrowing is clear from De temperantia's inclusion of ‘Alibi quoque scriptum est …’ (found in Admonitio spiritalis doctrinae but not in Caesarius) and its excision of ‘In ueteri … ira desęuiat’ (found in Admonitio spiritalis doctrinae and in Caesarius).

67 See nn. 55, 60, 63 above.

68 In de Clercq's apparatus criticus, readings for the Vetus Gallica version of Caesarius' Letter are designated with the siglum ‘y’ (= consensus codicum for de Clercq's mss ‘d, e, f, g’). Variants peculiar to the Vetus Gallica that are also shared with the Anglo-Latin texts considered above include ‘neglegenter’ instead of ‘leniter’; ‘capta’ instead of ‘in captiuitate ducta’; and the addition of ‘donec vivit’ after ‘parvo tempore’: Concilia, 93–4, lines 215, 218, 224.

69 Cross and Hamer, the editors of the most recent edition of the Wigorniensis, do not mention the Vetus Gallica.

70 Kirchenrecht, 120 n. 86. Mordek noted that Vetus Gallica 4.12; 5.5; 13.5; 20.1; 27.8; 31.6; 32.1; 32.5; and 45.3 have parallels in Wigorniensis B 50, 51, 57, 59, 60, 63, 71, and in Wigorniensis A 27, 28. In fact, the whole series of parallels is represented in Wigorniensis A 10, 18, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 33 (Wigorniensis A had not yet been edited at the time when Mordek was writing). Mordek further noted that many canons in the Wigorniensis bear the inscription ‘canon’ instead of ‘concilium’, as in the Vetus Gallica.

71 Martin Brett, review of Cross and Hamer's edition, this Journal lii (2001), 717–19 at p. 718.

72 With Wigorniensis A 17–28 compare Vetus Gallica 37.1; 41.3–4; 36.1; 17.12l; 13.5; 20.1; 27.8; 31.6; and 32.1. Compare also Wigorniensis A 33 with Vetus Gallica 45.3. Further parallels with the Vetus Gallica exist, but they are generally less than convincing.

73 Ecclesiae occidentalis monumenta iuris antiquissima, canonum et conciliorum graecorum interpretationes latinae, ed. C. H. Turner, Oxford 1899–1939, i.1.ii, 227. Rufinus' translation of an abbreviated version of the Nicaean canons forms part of the additions to his translation of Eusebius' Historia ecclesiastica. On the versio Rufini see Maassen, Geschichte, 33–4.

74 This is in CCCC, ms 190, p. 102: ‘Item canon sanctorum. Vt ępiscopus si fieri potest … non minus quam a tribus.’ This canon, from which Wigorniensis A 11 was fashioned and which was printed by Cross and Hamer from ms Cotton Nero A. i as Wigorniensis B 106, is part of a series of canons (yet to be printed) on ecclesiastical orders and elections which is found on pp. 97–110 of CCCC, ms 190.

75 The addition is on fo. 131v of ms Cotton Nero A. i, and is clearly visible in the facsimile edition: A Wulfstan manuscript, containing institutes, laws and homilies: British Museum Cotton Nero A. I, ed. H. R. Loyn, Copenhagen 1971. This canon is one of four added by the same hand on that folio. The existence of these four canons has never before been noted. They are omitted in Cross and Hamer's edition, even though they are clearly by the same hand which Neil Ker described as ‘early eleventh-century’: ‘Handwriting’, 322 n. 1. The hand in question is not Wulfstan's.

76 It is of course possible, that the source was Rufinus' Historia, itself a work which enjoyed a rather extensive transmission in Anglo-Saxon England: Lapidge, Anglo-Saxon library, 88–90, 302.

77 Sermo 392, ‘Ad conjugatos’, PL xxxix.1709–13, with the relevant passage at column 1710. See also Maassen, Geschichte, 349, no. 3. The canon is found in CCCC, ms 265, pp. 64–5, and Bodl. Lib., ms Barlow 37, fo. 23r, as part of a series of canons which is mentioned but not printed in Wulfstan's canon law collection, p. 43, no. 15.iii and p. 53, no. 36 (where the source of the canon in question is given as ‘unidentified’).

78 Kirchenrecht, 555–7. The Wigorniensis canon is much closer to the Vetus Gallica at this point than to the edition printed by Migne. Note, for example, the supralineal addition to line 27 of Mordek's text found in Württembergische Landesbibliothek, Stuttgart, ms HB.VI.112 (tenth century, Lake Constance region; Mordek's S3), as well as the erroneous reading ‘celi’ for ‘seculi’ in all Vetus Gallica manuscripts. Both of these readings are shared by the Wigorniensis.

79 Foundational work on the sources of the Wigorniensis began in 1757 with Girolamo Ballerini and Pietro Ballerini's Disquisitiones, pt iv, chs 6.4–5, PL lvi.299A–300D. While the Cross and Hamer edition contains the most recent and detailed source work on this collection, a considerable portion of their source notes are erroneous, misleading, or incomplete.

80 Wulfstan's canon law collection, 9–12.

81 There may indeed be as many as five recensions of this collection (i.e. as many recensions as there are manuscript witnesses), which together embrace a far greater collection of canonical materials than Cross and Hamer's edition indicates. I am preparing a new edition which will depict fully the differences in the number, distribution and arrangement of canons in each of the Wigorniensis manuscripts.

82 The possible influence of Vetus Gallica 5.1 on the canon in CCCC, ms 190, p. 102 (= Wigorniensis B 106), mentioned at n. 74 above, is the only evidence that I have found so far that would suggest that the Vetus Gallica may have been available to the compiler of Wigorniensis B. On the other hand, this same canon was the source for Wigorniensis A 11, which suggests that it formed part of the A-compiler's original stock of material, upon which the B-compiler seems to have been largely dependent.

83 Wulfstan's canon law collection, 16. In ‘Ghaerbald's First capitulary’, 164–5, I argued, principally on the basis of negative evidence, viz. non-use of the Hibernensis in Wulfstan's Canons of Edgar, that in fact Wulfstan might not have personally been involved in the development of Wigorniensis B. Further research has chipped away at my earlier scepticism, however, and I now see B as an essentially Wulfstanian product.

84 As early as 1720 John Johnson suggested that Wulfstan was among a series of York archbishops who had made successive revisions to the Wigorniensis, a collection which at the time was believed to be of eighth-century York origin: A collection of all the ecclesiastical laws, canons, answers, or rescripts, with other memorials concerning the government, discipline and worship of the Church of England, 2nd edn, ed. John Baron, Oxford 1850, i. 224–5.

85 As yet, no comprehensive account of correspondences between Wulfstan's corpus and the Wigorniensis is available, though there are very full references to such provided in the source notes to Cross and Hamer's edition. See also the source notes in Die ‘Institutes of polity, civil and ecclesiastical’: ein Werk Erzbischof Wulfstans von York, ed. Karl Jost, Bern 1959, and in Councils and synods, text nos 47–50, 52, 54–7, 59, 63–4.

86 Elliot, ‘Ghaerbald's First capitulary’, 165 n. 28. One such indicator is the fact that the author of Wigorniensis A made extensive use of the fourth book of the Collectio quadripartita (printed as Antiqua canonum collectio qua in libris de synodalibus causis compilandis usus est Regino Prumiensis, ed. E. L. Richter, Marburg 1844), a work with which Wulfstan (and the compiler of Wigorniensis B, if they be different people) had a passing familiarity at best. A full study of the influence of the Quadripartita on the works of Wulfstan, or on the works of any other Anglo-Saxon for that matter (apart from the Wigorniensis), has yet to be carried out, but so far I have been able to find only a few traces of the Quadripartita in Wulfstan's works that cannot be explained by dependence upon Wigorniensis A. Quadripartita iv.3 and iv.5, for example, are quoted repeatedly (in slightly modified form) in Wulfstanian works, namely Homilies of Wulfstan, no. 10b, lines 86–90; no. 10c, note to line 115; the (probably) Wulfstanian tract Qualiter pęnitentes in cęna domini ęcclesiam introducuntur, in Die Hirtenbriefe Ælfrics in altenglischer und lateinischer Fassung, ed. Bernhard Fehr, Hamburg 1914, repr. with supplement by Peter Clemoes, Darmstadt 1966, 249, lines 7–11; and Item de reconciliatione, CCCC, ms 190, p. 94. Other examples include certain phrases added to Wigorniensis B 129 from Quadripartita iv.78, and to Wigorniensis B 159 from Quadripartita iv.29; however, there are intermediate sources, namely two (unprinted) canons from Wigorniensis A manuscripts (CCCC, ms 265, pp. 65, 93–4; and Bodl. Lib., ms Barlow 37, fos 22r–v, 23r). This handful of examples hardly inspires confidence that Wulfstan had a thorough enough knowledge of the Quadripartita to account for his authoring of Wigorniensis A. Wigorniensis B 47 is almost certainly not from Quadripartita iv.376, contra Wulfstan's canon law collection, 129. Gareth Mann is mistaken in claiming that Wulfstan's De rapinis ecclesiasticarum rerum draws directly on the Quadripartita: ‘The development of Wulfstan's Alcuin manuscript’, in Townend, Wulfstan, archbishop of York, 235–78, at pp. 260–1; the direct source is rather Wigorniensis A 43, the source of which was either Quadripartita iv.120, Paenitentiale Theodori (U) i.3.2 or Excarpsus Cummeani iv.1.

87 This for three reasons: the compiler of Wigorniensis B seems not to have known the Quadripartita, or at least not well (see n. 86 above); the compiler of Wigorniensis A was more logical in the arrangement of his materials than was the compiler of B (see Wulfstan's canon law collection, 14); and Wigorniensis A seems to have had a fixed form with defined limits, whereas the two versions of B, through extensive additions and insertions, show great variation in their sequencing, lack definable limits and tend to blend into the surrounding textual material in their manuscript contexts.

88 Ganz, David, Corbie in the Carolingian renaissance, Sigmaringen 1990, 14–19Google Scholar; Flechner, Roy, ‘Paschasius Radbertus and Bodleian Library, ms Hatton 42’, Bodleian Library Record xviii (2001), 411–21 at p. 413Google Scholar.

89 Kirchenrecht, 52, 219–20, 235, 237; Reynolds, R. E., ‘Unity and diversity in Carolingian canon law collections: the case of the Collectio Hibernensis and its derivatives’, in Uta-Renate Blumenthal, (ed.), Carolingian essays: Andrew W. Mellon lectures in early Christian studies, Washington 1983, 99–135Google Scholar at pp. 108–9.

90 On the eighth-century Anglo-Saxon mission see Levison, Wilhelm, England and the continent in the eighth century, Oxford 1946Google Scholar, repr. 1998, 49–78; Wallace-Hadrill, J. M., The Frankish Church, Oxford 1983, 143–61Google Scholar; McKitterick, Rosamond, Anglo-Saxon missionaries, and ‘England and the continent’, in McKitterick, Rosamond (ed.), The new Cambridge medieval history, II: c. 700–c. 900, Cambridge 1995, 64–84Google Scholar; Wood, Ian, The missionary life: saints and the evangelisation of Europe, 400–1050, New York 2001Google Scholar; and Lapidge, Anglo-Saxon library, 77–90, 148–66.

91 The literature on Boniface is vast, but see above all Schieffer, Theodor, Winfrid-Bonifatius und die christliche Grundlegung Europas, Freiburg 1954Google Scholar, repr. Darmstadt 1972, and Schieffer, Rudolf, ‘Neue Bonifatius-Literatur’, DA lxiii (2007), 111–23Google Scholar. Helpful (English) introductions to Boniface include Reuter, Timothy (ed.), The greatest Englishman: essays on St Boniface and the church at Crediton, Exeter 1981Google Scholar, and Noble's, T. F. X.introduction to The letters of Saint Boniface, new edn, trans. Ephraim Emerton, New York 2000Google Scholar. On Boniface and the canon law see Hartmann, Wilfried, Die Synoden der Karolingerzeit im Frankenreich und in Italien, Paderborn 1989Google Scholar, ch. ii; Glatthaar, Sakrileg; and Ubl, Karl, Inzestverbot und Gesetzgebung: die Konstruktion eines Verbrechens (300–1100), Berlin 2008, 219–51CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

92 McKitterick, ‘Diffusion of Insular culture’, 412–18; Ganz, Corbie, 20, 24, 41; Glatthaar, Sakrileg, 368–92.

93 ‘Bemerkenswert erscheint allerdings, dass weitere Zusätze und Begleittexte der in Corbie redigierten Vetus Gallica Fragen ansprechen, mit denen sich auch Bonifatius konfrontiert sah’: Körntgen, ‘Kanonisches Recht’, 29.

94 ‘Das Material, das man in Corbie zusammengestellt und gemeinsam mit der Vetus Gallica tradiert hat, entstammte nicht nur zu einem Teil sehr jungen, noch nicht lange im Frankenreich zugänglichen Quellen wie der Collectio Hibernensis, der römischen Synode von 721 oder der Theodor-Sammlung des discipulus Umbrensium. Es war zugleich höchst aktuell, weil es Probleme betraf, die im zweiten Viertel des 8. Jahrhunderts in der fränkischen Kirche und nicht zuletzt unter Beteiligung des … Bonifatius diskutiert wurden’: ibid. 30–1.

95 Ibid. 31; Glatthaar, Sakrileg, 384–6 (describing Boniface and Grimo as both ‘Altersgenossen’ and ‘Gesinnungsgenossen’). See also Kirchenrecht, 93–4. On the identification of Grimo, abbot of Corbie, with Grimo, archbishop of Rouen, see Glatthaar, Sakrileg, 385.

96 ‘Daß hinwiederum Bonifatius schon zur Zeit der Kirchenorganisation (739) [viz. in Bavaria] den wahrscheinlichen Redaktor, Veranlasser oder doch zumindest Förderer der vor-süddeutschen Vetus Gallica kannte, darf vorausgesetzt werden’: Glatthaar, Sakrileg, 384. Glatthaar argues, moreover (though on what seems like slim evidence), that there may have been a direct connection between Boniface and the ‘Erstcodex’ of the south-German Vetus Gallica tradition (pp. 372–9, and pp. 385–6).

97 On this manuscript see Van den Gheyn, Joseph and others, Catalogue des manuscrits de la Bibliothèque royale de Belgique, Brussels 1901–48, i, no. 363Google Scholar; Lowe, E. A., Codices latini antiquiores: a palaeographical guide to Latin manuscripts prior to the ninth century, Oxford 1934–71, x, no. 1548Google Scholar, and supplement, no. 66; Andrieu, Michel, Les ‘Ordines romani’ du haut moyen âge (Spicilegium sacrum Lovaniense, études et documents xi, xxiii–xxiv. xxviii–xxix, 1931–61)Google Scholar, i. 91–6; Kirchenrecht, 276–7, 220 n. 56 (siglum ‘B’); F. B. Asbach, Das Poenitentiale Remense und der sogen: Excarpsus Cummeani: Überlieferung, Quellen und Entwicklung zweier kontinentaler Bußbücher aus der 1. Hälfte des 8. Jahrhunderts, unpubl. PhD diss. Regensburg 1975, 19–20 and passim; and Bischoff, Katalog, i, no. 741.

98 Reynolds, ‘Unity and diversity’, 105, 110; Glatthaar, Sakrileg, 84–6 and passim; Meeder, ‘Boniface and the Irish heresy’, 259–65.

99 Reynolds, ‘Unity and diversity’, 110; Mordek, Hubert, Bibliotheca capitularium regum francorum manuscripta: Überlieferung und Traditionszusammenhang der fränkischen Herrschererlasse, MGH, Hilfsmittel xv, 1995, 961Google Scholar. Glatthaar notes that Würzburg 31's copy of the Vetus Gallica comes from a very old exemplar, which may have been close to the archetype of the north-German Vetus Gallica tradition: Sakrileg, 385–6.

100 Van den Gheyn, Catalogue, ii, no. 1324; Kirchenrecht, 274–6, 327–8; Mordek, Bibliotheca, 85–90; Bischoff, Katalog, i, no. 724 (‘Wohl Nordostfrankreich [Kanalküst?], IX. Jh., 1. Drittel’).

101 Ker, N. R., Catalogue of manuscripts containing Anglo-Saxon, Oxford 1957, 476Google Scholar; David Ganz, review of Helmut Gneuss's Handlist of Anglo-Saxon manuscripts, Anglia cxxii (2004), 498–502 at p. 500; R. H. Bremmer, Jr, and Kees Dekker, ASMMF, XIII: Manuscripts in the Low Countries, Tempe, Az 2006, no. 21; Helmut Gneuss, review of ASMMF ix–xiii, Anglia cxxvi (2008), 134–41 at p. 140.

102 Mordek, Bibliotheca, 88. See also Kirchenrecht, 274.

103 Kirchenrecht, 274, 327–8; Mordek, Bibliotheca, 88. The Vetus Gallica manuscript which has readings closest to the Wigorniensis is Mordek's S3, on which see n. 78 above.

104 Bullough, D. A., ‘Alcuin and the kingdom of heaven: liturgy, theology, and the Carolingian age’, in Blumenthal, , Carolingian essays, 1–69Google Scholar at p. 47 n. 109.

105 Scheibe, Friedrich-Carl, ‘Alcuin und die Admonitio generalis’, DA xiv (1958), 221–9Google Scholar; Cubitt, Anglo-Saxon church councils, 162–90; Bullough, D. A., Alcuin: achievement and reputation: being part of the Ford Lectures delivered in Oxford in Hilary Term 1980, Leiden 2004, 379–84Google Scholar; Carella, ‘Alcuin and Alfred’, 24–53.

106 Fos 1–107 contain a collection of biblical commentaries by Church Fathers, followed (fos 107v–117r) by a collection of creedal texts, the original compilation of which was attributed to Alcuin by Bullough: ‘Alcuin and the kingdom of heaven’, 47 n. 109.

107 Epistolae Karolini aevi, ii, ed. Ernst Dümmler, MGH, Epp. iv, 1895, no. 179, p. 297, lines 21–4. The Sylvestrian canon in question comes from the apocryphal Constitutum Silvestri, the foremost part of a dossier of forged canonical documents pertaining to the Laurentian controversy and known as the Symmachiana. See Zwei Päpste in Rom, 236, lines 105–111.

108 Besides the ten manuscripts mentioned at nn. 20–3 above, the following seven were also written at Anglo-Saxon or Insular centres on the continent either shortly before or after 800: Bodl. Lib., ms Laud misc. 436 (882) (beginning of ninth century, Würzburg), containing Cresconius’ Concordia canonum; Stiftsbibliothek, St Gallen, ms 243 (first half of the ninth century, St Gallen), containing the Hibernensis; BAV, ms Pal. lat. 554, fos 5–13 (late eighth century, England? Lorsch?), containing the Ecgberhtine penitential; Universitätsbibliothek, Würzburg, ms M.p.th.f. 3 (beginning of the ninth century, Main river region), containing the Dionysio-Hadriana; Universitätsbibliothek, Würzburg, mss M.p.th.f. 186, + binding strips in M.p.th.f. 5+13+37+60, + M.p.th.q. 2, + M.p.misc.f. 3+5a (late eighth or early ninth century, Main river region), containing what is probably a fragment of the Dionysio-Hadriana; Universitätsbibliothek, Würzburg, ms M.p.th.f. 72 (c. 835 × 70, Fulda?), containing the Dionysio-Hadriana; and Universitätsbibliothek, Würzburg, ms M.p.th.q. 31, fos 1–41, 52–9 (late eighth or early ninth century, Germany), containing the Hibernensis.

109 On fos 51–106v see Gneuss, Handlist, no. 583.3; Haggenmüller, Überlieferung, 86–7; Wulfstan's canon law collection, 31–2 (with some misinformation); Bischoff, Katalog, ii, no. 3787; Kirchenrecht, 98 n. 3; and Asbach, Poenitentiale Remense, 28–30, 57–9, 61–4. See also Madan, Falconer and others, A summary catalogue of western manuscripts in the Bodleian Library, Oxford 1922Google Scholar, ii/1, no. 2026.

110 For the contents of this manuscript see Asbach, Poenitentiale Remense, 28–30, 57–64, and Pirmins Scarapsus: Einleitung und Edition, ed. Eckhard Hauswald, unpubl. PhD diss. Constance 2006, pp. xxvii–xxix.

111 On the ‘Oxoniensis posterior’ see Ker, Catalogue, no. 313; Dumville, D. N., English Caroline script and monastic history: studies in Benedictinism, A. D. 950–1030, Woodbridge 1993, 97Google Scholar n. 74; 142 n. 8; Marsden, Richard, ‘A survival of Ceolfrith's Tobit in a tenth-century Insular manuscript’, JTS xlv (1994), 1–23Google Scholar; Gneuss, Handlist, no. 583; and Scott Gwara, ‘A possible Arthurian epitome in a tenth-century manuscript from Cornwall’, Arthuriana xvii/2 (2007), 3–9.

112 On the close relationship between ms Bodley 572 and Kongelige Bibliothek, Copenhagen, ms 58, see Asbach, Poenitentiale Remense, 57–9. The origin of the Copenhagen manuscript has been the subject of some controversy, and is still unsettled, but it has recently been suggested that it was produced specifically for Boniface's use: Meens, Rob, ‘The oldest manuscript witness of the Collectio canonum Hibernensis’, Peritia xiv (2000), 1–19Google Scholar at pp. 11–14. See my own description of this manuscript online at the Carolingian Canon Law Project (http://ccl.rch.uky.edu).

113 Fo. 51r begins partway into the Excarpsus Cummeani, a text that stands in the middle of the Vetus Gallica appendix in manuscripts of Mordek's ‘north-French’ and ‘south-German’ classes (where it is followed immediately by Caesarius' Letter); Kirchenrecht, 220.

114 Marsden, ‘Survival of Ceolfrith's Tobit’, 3.

115 Gneuss, Handlist, no. 583.3, where the provenance of fos 51–106 is given as ‘in England before 1100?’

116 See textual note ‘x’ to Cross's edition of Admonitio spiritalis doctrinae. On Rouen, ms 1382 see Omont, H. A., Catalogue général des manuscrits des bibliothèques publiques de France: départements, Paris 1886, i. 354–6Google Scholar; Aronstam, ‘Latin canonical tradition’, 22–4; Cross, ‘Newly-identified manuscript’; Wulfstan's canon law collection, 39–41; and Gneuss, Handlist, no. 925.

117 Wulfstan's canon law collection, 31–2. The chapter is Wigorniensis B 130. Note, however, that an instance of homoioteleuton in ms Bodley 572's text of the Scarapsus makes it unlikely that this manuscript was the sole exemplar for Wigorniensis B at this point.

118 It is a salutary reminder of the limits of manuscript evidence to consider the fact that the earliest manuscripts to contain the Irish penitentials (written in the sixth and seventh centuries) are late eighth century, all continental, and not written in Irish script: Kottje, Raymund, ‘Überlieferung und Rezeption der irischen Bussbücher auf dem Kontinent’, in Löwe, Heinz (ed.), Die Iren und Europa im früheren Mittelalter, Stuttgart 1982, i. 511–24Google Scholar, esp. at pp. 515–18.

119 See Gneuss, Helmut, ‘King Alfred and the history of Anglo-Saxon libraries’, in Brown, P. R., Crampton, G. R. and Robinson, F. C. (eds), Modes of interpretation in Old English literature: essays in honour of Stanley B. Greenfield, Toronto 1986, 29–49Google Scholar at pp. 36–7, and ‘Anglo-Saxon libraries from the conversion to the Benedictine Reform’, Angli e Sassoni al di qua e al di là del mare (Settimane di studio del Centro italiano di studi sull'alto medioevo xxxii, 1986), 643–88 at pp. 645–6; and Treharne, Elaine, ‘Scribal connections in late Anglo-Saxon England’, in Gunn, Cate and Innes-Parker, Catherine (eds), Texts and traditions of medieval pastoral care: essays in honour of Bella Millett, Woodbridge 2009, 29–46Google Scholar at pp. 30–1.

120 Gneuss, ‘Anglo-Saxon libraries’, 676.