Bede: Part 1 9789048524419

Table of contents :
Table of Contents
Preface
Guide for Readers
Introduction
Educational Works
Histories
Poetry: De die iudicii
Poetry: Epigrams
Poetry: Hymns
Saints’ Lives

Citation preview

Bede – Part 1, Fascicles 1-4

Sources of Anglo-Saxon Literary Culture Sources of Anglo-Saxon Literary Culture (SASLC) is a longstanding collaborative project by numerous scholars to map the sources that influenced the literary culture of Anglo-Saxon England. Taking inspiration from Ogilvy’s Books Known to the English, it aims at a comprehensive, descriptive list of all authors and works known in England between c. 500 and c. 1100 CE. While the focus is Anglo-Saxon England, evidence of knowledge of sources by Anglo-Saxons residing on the Continent is also taken into account. The sources themselves are largely Western European. Most entries concern classical, patristic, and medieval authors, works, or traditions. Series Editors Frederick M. Biggs, University of Connecticut, USA Charles D. Wright, University of Illinois, Urbana-Champaign, USA

Bede Part 1, Fascicles 1-4

George Hardin Brown and Frederick M. Biggs

Amsterdam University Press

Cover design: Coördesign, Leiden Lay-out: Crius Group, Hulshout Amsterdam University Press English-language titles are distributed in the US and Canada by the University of Chicago Press. isbn 978 90 8964 714 6 e-isbn 978 90 4852 441 9 (pdf) doi 10.5117/9789089647146 nur 684 © George Hardin Brown & Frederick M. Biggs / Amsterdam University Press B.V., Amsterdam 2017 All rights reserved. Without limiting the rights under copyright reserved above, no part of this book may be reproduced, stored in or introduced into a retrieval system, or transmitted, in any form or by any means (electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording or otherwise) without the written permission of both the copyright owner and the author of the book.

For my wife Phyllis, fine medievalist scholar and my best critic and support For Margaret Ashton Biggs, my mother and fifth-grade teacher of medieval history



Table of Contents

Preface 9 Charles D. Wright

Guide for Readers

Frederick M. Biggs

11

Introduction 17 Educational Works

39

Histories 123 Poetry: De die iudicii

207

Poetry: Epigrams

217

Poetry: Hymns

241

Saints’ Lives

263

Preface Charles D. Wright The two magisterial fascicles on Bede, by George H. Brown and Frederick M. Biggs, are the first in a series to be issued by Amsterdam University Press for SASLC in a new model that combines print and online publication. No longer tied to publication of print volumes organized by the alphabet, SASLC will now publish all entries freely accessible online – without waiting for all entries in a given letter to be completed. Selected major entries, however, will first be published as print fascicles (four per year). These fascicles may be devoted to major individual authors such as Bede, or to multiple related authors, or to major textual genres. After print publication, each fascicle will later become available as an online publication. SASLC online will initially contain previously published entries, including those in the Trial Version,1 in volume 1 of the letter A (including E. Gordon Whatley’s monumental Acta Sanctorum generic entry),2 in Liturgical Books,3 in Apocrypha, 4 as well as previously unpublished entries that had been submitted over the years but were awaiting print publication of complete individual letters. We gratefully thank Simon Forde and Erin T. Dailey, acquisition editors of Amsterdam University Press, for their confidence in and support for the project, as well as Patricia Hollahan, former managing editor of Medieval Institute Publications, for allowing us to upload pdf files of the volumes published by MIP for online access. The fascicles on Bede, the single most prolific and important Anglo-Saxon author, and one of the most important sources for Anglo-Saxon literary culture, fittingly mark SASLC’s relaunch in partnership with Amsterdam University Press as well as George Brown’s decades of distinguished scholarship on Bede. Special thanks go to Thomas N. Hall, former SASLC Director, for 1 Sources of Anglo-Saxon Literary Culture: A Trial Version, ed. Frederick M. Biggs, Thomas D. Hill, and Paul E. Szarmach with the Assistance of Karen Hammond, Medieval & Renaissance Texts & Studies 74 (Binghamton, NY: CEMERS, 1990). 2 Sources of Anglo-Saxon Literary Culture, vol. 1: Abbo of Fleury, Abbo of St. Germain-des-Prés, and Acta Sanctorum, ed. Frederick M. Biggs, Thomas D. Hill, Paul E. Szarmach, and E. Gordon Whatley, with the assistance of Deborah A. Oosterhouse (Kalamazoo: Medieval Institute Publications, 2001). 3 The Liturgical Books of Anglo-Saxon England, ed. Richard W. Pfaff, Old English Newsletter Subsidia 23 (Kalamazoo: Medieval Institute Publications, 1995). 4 Sources of Anglo-Saxon Literary Culture: The Apocrypha, ed. Frederick M. Biggs, Instrumenta Anglistica Mediaevalia 1 (Kalamazoo: Medieval Institute Publications, 2007).

10 

BEDE – PART 1

preliminary editing of the Bede entries, as well as to David F. Johnson, general editor of what was originally planned as a print volume on the letter B, whose entries as completed will now be published individually either directly to SASLC online or initially in other print fascicles. Fascicles on Pseudo-Bede (by Brandon W. Hawk) and the Old English Bede (by M. Breann Leake and Sharon Rowley) are in an advanced state preparation, as is a fascicle on Benedict’s Rule (by Shannon Godlove, Stephanie Clarke, and Amity Reading). Additional fascicles in preparation include a revised and updated Ambrose with PseudoAmbrose and Ambrosiaster (by Charles D. Wright)5, Caesarius of Arles (by Joseph B. Trahern), and The Cotton-Corpus Legendary (by E. Gordon Whatley). The SASLC Board currently consists of four members: Frederick M. Biggs (University of Connecticut); Stephanie Clark (University of Oregon); Brandon W. Hawk (Rhode Island University); and Charles D. Wright (University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign). The initiative for relaunching the project was due to Fred, who worked with Amsterdam University Press to establish our new publication model, and who collaborated with George Brown in the preparation of our inaugural Bede fascicles. Without Fred’s vision and leadership, SASLC would now be moribund, but it is instead redivivus with a vengeance. The new SASLC continues the work begun in the 1980s by Paul Szarmach and Thomas D. Hill (with J. E. Cross as tutelary spirit), and continued in recent years by Thomas N. Hall (who had nearly completed editing a Cvolume, whose entries will now likewise be published individually or as part of themed fascicles). On their behalf and our own we thank the many contributors who have submitted SASLC entries over the years, and we assure those whose entries had been held hostage by the alphabet that they will now be released expeditiously to the custody of SASLC online or to print fascicles. And we encourage our Anglo-Saxonist colleagues to participate in SASLC by contributing new entries (see SASLC online for the Master List of Projected Entries, which still includes many that have not yet been assigned). We turn to Bede for an epigram for these volumes and for the SASLC project. Haec de re difficillima prout nobis intellexisse uisi sumus strictim explicare curauimus parati ueriora in his discere si qui nos docere uoluerit. (Bede, De tabernaculo II.iii)

5 First published in Old English Newsletter, Subsidia 25, ed. Dabney Anderson Bankert, Jessica Wegmann, and Charles D. Wright (Kalamazoo: Medieval Institute Publications, 1997).



Guide for Readers Frederick M. Biggs

As part of the Sources of Anglo-Saxon Literary Culture [SASLC], the following entries on Bede conform to the structure of the reference work as a whole. Since they represent, however, the writings of only one author, fewer issues need to be addressed here. The minimal unit of SASLC is the entry, each of which discusses a particular text known in Anglo-Saxon England. Elsewhere in SASLC, entries may be gathered into larger, generic sets (such as APOCRYPHA; on the use of cross-references, see below), or they are, as here, found under a single author. While the structure of SASLC is alphabetical, individual entries within a major-author or a generic grouping may be organised in different ways, which will be explained at the beginning of these sections. Each entry starts with a title and an abbreviation. For Anglo-Latin works, these are drawn from Michael Lapidge’s Abbreviations for Sources and Specification of Standard Editions for Sources (1988; the bibliography at the end of the second fascicle is referenced by the author’s name and the date of publication); for vernacular works, they are drawn from the Microfiche Concordance to Old English [MCOE]. As a result, SASLC is, on the whole, consistent with Fontes Anglo-Saxonici and the Toronto Dictionary of Old English, although at times we refer to more recent editions than the ones used in those works. Titles and abbreviations are then followed by references to standard scholarship on the text (see the list of abbreviations at the end of this Guide), using item numbers if available (for example, CPL 1343 refers to the entry on De natura rerum in the Clavis Patrum Latinorum) and page numbers if not. The next line designates the edition, which will be used throughout SASLC, that best represents what Bede wrote. So, for example, De natura rerum is edited on pages 180-234 of volume 123A of the Corpus Christianorum, Series Latina: CCSL 123A.180-234. References to the Historia ecclesiastica gentis Anglorum are to Michael Lapidge’s Beda: Storia degli Inglesi (2010), and so to the third edition of volume 1 and the first edition of volume 2. On occasions when a work circulated in more than one version (for example, the metrical Vita Cuthberti) each is given its own entry.

12 

BEDE – PART 1

Headnote Much of the evidence for the knowledge of a work in Anglo-Saxon England is summarised in the headnote, which covers manuscripts, booklists, AngloSaxon versions, quotations or citations, and references. Each category of evidence requires some comment. MSS: Manuscripts. The inclusion of a work in a relevant manuscript provides firm physical evidence for its presence in Anglo-Saxon England. AngloSaxon Manuscripts [ASM] by Helmut Gneuss and Lapidge is the essential reference work here. We have, of course, consulted other sources as needed, including, for example, Lapidge’s “Surviving Eighth-Century Manuscripts from the Area of the Anglo-Saxon Mission in Germany,” in The Anglo-Saxon Library (2006 pp 155-66). Manuscripts not in ASM (including those written in Anglo-Saxon script on the Continent, which are potentially relevant but do not in themselves constitute evidence for the work’s knowledge in Anglo-Saxon England) are preceded by a question mark in the headnote, and are discussed in the body of the entry. Lists: Booklists. Although less informative than a surviving manuscript, the mention of a work in wills, lists of donations, or inventories of libraries from our period provides a good indication that it was known. In “Surviving Booklists from Anglo-Saxon England” Lapidge [ML] edits the remaining catalogues of manuscripts from our period, and identifies, whenever possible, the work in question. A-S Vers: Anglo-Saxon Versions. Like the manuscript evidence, an AngloSaxon translation into Old English, or adaptation in Anglo-Latin, indicates that the source was known to the English at some time during the AngloSaxon period. The abbreviations for Old English texts are again from the MCOE, and those for Anglo-Latin from Lapidge (1988). In order to make our work self-contained, these abbreviations are expanded later in the bodies of the entries where they occur and the designated editions specified. We have, of course, exercised judgement when deciding whether to represent the information as a translation or adaptation rather than as a series of quotations. Quots/Cits: Quotations or Citations. The source-notes of modern critical editions and other secondary scholarship often establish that Anglo-Saxon writers knew a work in full or in some shortened form. A citation, including both the name and the words of an author, is sometimes significant since

Guide for Readers

13

it shows the knowledge of the origin of an idea or phrase. The abbreviation for the source, that is the work being discussed in the entry, is on the left of the colon; the abbreviation for the work that uses this source is on the right. They are again drawn from Lapidge (1988) and the MCOE, but may be extended, for reasons that will become clear in a moment, to designate some part of the work in question. Since our aim is to identify precise passages as simply as possible, we use the line numbers provided by editors whenever possible. If a work is continuously lineated, the abbreviation for the title is followed by line numbers. So “BEDA.Carm.Iudic., 1-11” refers to the opening eleven lines of Bede’s De die iudicii (since this example would only appear in the Bede entry as a source and so to the left of the colon, we omit “BEDA”). In contrast, since Lapidge lineates individual chapters of his edition of the Historia ecclesiastica, “Hist. eccl., V.xxiv, 185-88” refers to lines 185-88 of book 5, chapter 24, Bede’s closing prayer. If an edition begins with new line numbers on each page or if it does not provide them, the last numbers in these sequences are a combination of pages and lines. So, “BONIF.Epist. 75, 158.8-12” refers to lines 8-12 on page 158 of Michael Tangl’s edition of Letter 75 in the correspondence of BONIFACE and LULL (MGH ES); the work in question is his Epistola 75. Similarly, Christine Rauer has not lineated her edition of the OLD ENGLISH MARTYROLOGY, and so “Mart (B19.1; John of Beverley), 100.5-8” refers to lines 5-8 on page 100, the entry on John of Beverley. It is worth noting here that we count the lines of text, not all the lines of print, which might also include running titles or notes. Users who track down these references will notice further refinements, but we expect this is enough information for all to navigate the system. Refs: References. Although always open to interpretation, a specific reference to a work by an Anglo-Saxon writer may indicate its presence in England during our period. Line numbers are referred to in the same way as explained above under Quotations or Citations. Body The body of the entry usually begins with a brief discussion of the work in question, indicating other titles by which it has been known and considering its likely date of composition. We then consider any information in the headnote that requires clarification or amplification. It is here that the

14 

BEDE – PART 1

abbreviations used in Quots/Cits and Refs are expanded, and the designated editions of the writers who have used Bede’s works are identified. Readers will notice that references to quoted passages in Quots/Cits differ from those that provide information about the designated edition. As just explained, in the headnote “ALCVIN.Epist. 29, 71.14” identifies line 14, which appears on page 71 of Alcuin’s Letter 29. In the body, “MGH ECA 2.71” refers to the same page 71, but adds the information that the line in question appears in the second volume of the Epistolae carolini aeui, part of the Monumenta Germaniae Historica. Entries often conclude with a discussion of bibliography. Cross-references Readers are directed to other entries (written or projected) in SASLC by names in bold: large capitals are used for those that figure into the alphabetical scheme of the project as a whole (that is, known authors and the names of generic sets, as well as the titles of anonymous works not gathered into these larger groupings); small capitals for any division within a major-author or generic set. Thus AMBROSE and De fide. Names in small bold capitals need not, however, always refer to individual texts since some major-author and generic sets are further divided into sections (for example, Apocryphal Apocalypses in APOCRYPHA). An author or the title of a work is placed in bold the first time (and only the first time) it appears in an entry or in an introductory section of a major-author or generic set. Names, such as APOCRYPHA and Aprocryphal Apocaclypses, that refer to major-author or generic groupings or to divisions within them are always in bold; the names of authors and titles of works will not be after their first use. This practice also means that when the first occurence of the name of an author whose work was known in Anglo-Saxon England is in a quotation, we change the immediate author’s usage to conform with that of our volume. So, for example, in the discussion of Boniface’s correspondence, Wilhelm Levison’s “Egbert” becomes “ECGBERHT” even though we are quoting from his England and the Continent in the Eighth Century (1946). We have not, however, regularised other names in quotations. These references will eventually lead to entries where the differing names will be explained; had there been any ambiguous cases we would have discussed them in their immediate context. In cases such as “Ecgberht,” where there are differing spellings of a name, we have followed the Prosopography of Anglo-Saxon England (PASE). This research tool has also proved useful in sorting out individuals who share the same name.

Guide for Readers

15

Standard Editions and Abbreviations of Standard Research Tools Some editions and research tools (listed below) are referred to by abbreviations without further bibliographical elaboration. As noted already, when items in a research tool are numbered individually, references are to items (or to volume and item; for example, CLA 9.1233); otherwise, references are to pages (or to volume and page; for example, OTP 2.249-95). References to the Bible are to the Biblia sacra iuxta Vulgatam versionem, 3nd ed., editio minor, ed. R. Weber (Stuttgart, 1984). References to Anglo-Saxon Charters are to the Electronic Sawyer (esawyer. org.uk) by Sawyer number. ASM

ASMMF ASPR BaP BHL

CAO CCSL CLA CPL CSEL CSLMA

EEMF EETS

HBS ICL

Anglo-Saxon Manuscripts: A Bibliographical Handlist of Manuscripts and Manuscript Fragments Written or Owned in England up to 1100, Helmut Gneuss and Michael Lapidge (Toronto, 2014) Anglo-Saxon Manuscripts in Microfiche Facsimile, ed. A.N. Doane et al. (Binghamton and Tempe, 1994-) Anglo-Saxon Poetic Records, ed. G.P. Krapp and E.V.K. Dobbie, 6 vols (New York, 1931-53) Bibliothek der angelsächsischen Prosa, ed. Christian W.M. Grein, Richard P. Wülker, and Hans Hecht, 13 vols (Kassel, 1872-1933) Bibliotheca Hagiographica Latina, 2 vols, Subsidia Hagiographica 6 (Brussels 1898-1901); Novum Supplementum, ed. Henrik Fros, Subsidia Hagiographica 70 (Brussels, 1986) Corpus antiphonalium officii, ed. René-Jean Hesbert, 6 vols (Rome, 1963-79) Corpus Christianorum, Series Latina (Turnhout, 1953-) E.A. Lowe, Codices Latini Antiquiores, 11 vols (Oxford, 1934-66); Supplement (1971); 2nd ed. of vol 2 (1972) Eligius Dekkers, Clavis Patrum Latinorum, 3rd ed. (Turnhout, 1995) Corpus Scriptorum Ecclesiasticorum Latinorum (Vienna, 1866-) Auctores Galliae 735-987 = Clavis Scriptorum Latinorum Medii Aevi, Auctores Galliae 735-987, ed. Marie-Hélène Jullien and Françoise Pereleman (Turnhout, 1994-) Early English Manuscripts in Facsimile, 29 vols (Copenhagen, 1951-2002) Early English Texts Society ES Extra Series OS Original Series SS Supplementary Series Henry Bradshaw Society (London, 1891-) Dieter Schaller and Ewald Könsgen, Initia Carminum Latinorum Saeculo

16 

MCOE MGH

ML

NRK ODND

PASE PL RBMA RS

BEDE – PART 1

Undecimo Antiquiorum (Göttingen, 1977); Supplementband continued by Thomas Klein (Göttingen, 2005) A Microfiche Concordance to Old English: The List of Texts and Index of Editions, compiled by Antonette diPaolo Healey and Richard L. Venezky (Toronto, 1980) Monumenta Germaniae Historica AA Auctores antiquissimi CAC Concilia aeui carolini ECA Epistolae carolini aeui [vol. 1: Epistolae merowingici et carolini aeui] Epistolae selectae ES PLAC Poetae latini aeui carolini SRM Scriptores rerum merovingicarum Michael Lapidge, “Surviving Booklists from Anglo-Saxon England,” in Learning and Literature in Anglo-Saxon England, ed. Michael Lapidge and Helmut Gneuss (Cambridge, 1985), pp 33-89 N.R. Ker, Catalogue of Manuscripts Containing Anglo-Saxon (1957; reprinted with a supplement, Oxford, 1990) The Oxford Dictionary of National Biography, ed. David Cannadine; oxforddnb. com; first published as 60 volumes, ed. H.C.G. Matthew and Brian Harrison (Oxford, 2004) Prosopography of Anglo-Saxon England, Janet L. Nelson, Simon Keynes, Stephen Baxter, and others; pase.ac.uk Patrologia Latina, ed. J.-P. Migne, 221 vols (Paris, 1844-64) Friedrich Stegmüller Repertorium Biblicum Medii Aevi, 11 vols (Madrid, 1950-80) “Rolls Series”: Rerum Britannicarum Medii Aevi Scriptores (London, 1858-96)

Introduction In any account of the literary culture of Anglo-Saxon England, Bede must loom large. While only one of many distinctive voices for whom we have a written record, Bede stands out as the author who turned a lifetime of study into the widest-ranging corpus of writings, many of which continued to influence later generations. THEODORE, archbishop of Canterbury, and HADRIAN, abbot of St Peter’s Canterbury, may have been better educated and more able teachers. ALDHELM, the BEOWULF-poet, and, to choose one more example from among many, CYNEWULF may have written better verse. BONIFACE, archbishop and martyr, may have changed more lives through his mission. ALCUIN, abbot of Tours, may have carried English scholarship more effectively to the Continent. ALFRED THE GREAT’s support of education may have occurred at a more crucial moment in English history. DUNSTAN, archbishop of Canterbury, ÆTHELWOLD, bishop of Winchester, and Oswald, bishop of Worcester and archbishop of York, may have instituted a more significant reform. ÆLFRIC, abbot of Eynsham, and WULFSTAN, archbishop of York, may have preached better sermons. Bede, however, left writings that demonstrate his skills and influence in all these areas, writings that those who followed him would have almost certainly known, as these entries and the ones that will complete this survey in the next volume of SASLC show. Evaluating Bede’s place in this literary culture is sometimes complicated because, as these works demonstrate, his own reading, which was both wide and deep, appears often in his writing. When in the well-known autobiographical passage at the end of the Historia ecclesiastica gentis anglorum (V.xxiv) he spoke of having been sent at the age of seven by his kinsmen to enter the monastery of Monkwearmouth, it was not in order for him to become a monk, although this was their intention, but specifically for him to be educated: “cum essem annorum VII, cura propinquorum datus sum educandus reuerentissimo abbati Benedicto, ac deinde Ceolfrido” (ed. Lapidge 2010 2.480; “when I was seven years of age I was, by the care of my kinsmen, put into the charge of the reverend Abbot Benedict and then of CEOLFRITH to be educated,” trans. Colgrave and Mynors 1969 p 567). His writings suggest that, in the following clause, “scripturis” should be understood not only as indicating that he valued his Biblical Commentaries most highly but also as reflecting the view that many kinds of writing, which radiated out from his central interest in the Bible, reveal God’s presence in this world: “cunctumque ex eo tempus uitae

18 

BEDE – PART 1

in eiusdem monasterii habitatione peragens, omnem meditandis scripturis operam dedi, atque inter obseruantiam disciplinae regularis, et cotidianam cantandi in ecclesia curam, semper aut discere aut docere aut scribere dulce habui” (ed. 2.480; “from then on, I have spent all of my life in this monastery, applying myself entirely to the study of the Scriptures; and amid the observance of the discipline of the Rule and the daily task of singing in the church, it has always been my delight to learn or to teach or to write,” trans. p 567). This same interpretation may also apply to the comment that immediately precedes the list of his works: “Ex quo tempore accepti presbyteratus usque ad annum aetatis meae LVIIII haec in scripturam sanctam meae meorumque necessitati ex opusculis uenerabilium patrum breuiter adnotare, siue etiam ad formam sensus et interpretationis eorum superadicere curaui” (ed. 2.480; “From the time I became a priest until the fifty-ninth year of my life I have made it my business, for my own benefit and that of my brothers, to make brief extracts from the works of the venerable fathers on the holy Scriptures, or to add notes of my own to clarify their sense and interpretation,” trans. p 567). While there will be more to say about these passages, they call attention to the close connection between Bede’s reading, which must have begun at an early age, and his writing, which continued, according to CUTHBERT’s Epistola de obitu Bedae (ed. and trans. Colgrave and Mynors 1969 pp 580-87) by dictation up to the final moments before his death. When a later Anglo-Saxon writer used a passage from, say, ARATOR, AUGUSTINE, PLINY, or VERGIL it may well be either because they knew it from Bede or, in a more complex literary way, because they knew how he had used it. As we will discuss in a moment, while derived most fully from the identification of the works Bede used, our image of his libraries – since Monkwearmouth and Jarrow, although presented by Bede as a single institution (see Grocock and Wood 2014 pp xxix-xxxv), must have had their own collections – is made more vivid both by the accounts of the assembling of their volumes by Benedict Biscop and Ceolfrith (see Historia abbatum I.vi, I.ix, and II.xv; and the anonymous Vita Ceolfridi ix-xii and xx, both ed. and trans. Grocock and Wood 2014 pp 34-37, 42-45, 56-61, 86-93, and 98-99), and by the survival of manuscripts produced in their scriptoria. One remarkable book that plays a part in both stories, as Paul Meyvaert (1996, 2005, and 2006) has reconstructed them, is the Codex Amiatinus (Florence, Biblioteca Medicea Laurenziana, Amiatino 1; ASM 825). Inspired by CASSIODORUS’s lost pandect, the Codex Grandior, which he had acquired in Rome, Ceolfrith decided to create three similar, single-volume Bibles, one for each altar of Monkwearmouth-Jarrow’s churches, and one to be brought

Introduc tion

19

back to Rome as a gift to St Peter’s. Bede’s likely participation in this work allows us to consider his direct relationship to the books around him and to his brethren. There can be little doubt that if not the leading voice in determining the text of the new Bibles – the Codex Grandior contained the Vetus latina, while the Codex Amiatinus follows the Vulgate (see BIBLE) – Bede would have strongly supported this decision since in his own work he championed JEROME’s translation, which for the Old Testament relied on Hebrew sources, leading him to refer to it as the “hebraica ueritas” (see the Epistola ad Pleguinam in Letters). This incident provides further insight into Bede as a discriminating reader of texts who used his library to answer questions. According to Meyvaert (see, however, 2006 p 302, where he draws back from this view), when the decision was made to enhance the presentation volume with an opening decorative quire that would include an illustration modelled on the Cassiodorus-portrait in the Codex Grandior, it was Bede who turned to the book of Ezra, perhaps beginning his commentary on it, to make sense out of an image whose real meaning eluded him. Because Bede’s brethren found the Cassiodorus/Ezra portrait obscure, it was also Bede who wrote an epigram to be placed over it (Meyvaert 2005 p 1115; see Codicibus sacris hostili clade perustis in Poetry: Epigrams). Finally, the rearrangement of folios in this first quire indicates that he was, according to Meyvaert (2006), in conflict with the monk who ran the scriptorium. While Bede must have had ample access to the books he used, they were shared by the community as a whole. We have reason to believe that he kept with him for many years a copy of the calendar that he used when teaching computus to novices (see Kalendarium ad usum computandi in Educational Works), and yet Cuthbert’s silence on the subject of any drafts/personal copies of his other writings when he described Bede’s final gifts to his brethren (“some pepper, and napkins, and some incense,” trans. Colgrave and Mynors 1969 p 585) reinforces this view, suggesting that even when he went back to revise his own works, Bede did so from the house copies. The holdings of the libraries assembled by Benedict Biscop and Ceolfrith and subsequently enlarged by the monasteries’ scribes is illuminated most clearly by the sources Bede used in his writings, as established by M.L.W. Laistner (1935) and confirmed with new detail by Michael Lapidge (2006 pp 107-15 and 191-228). The concern of the following entries is, of course, Bede as a source rather than his use of sources; and yet the question of which books were available to him is worth raising here since the volumes at hand influenced not just individual passages in his works but also his choice of the subjects on which to write. The Epistola de Obitu Bedae again

20 

BEDE – PART 1

provides a telling example. In addition to a translation of John’s Gospel into English, Bede hoped in his final days to complete “a selection from Bishop ISIDORE’s book On the Wonders of Nature” since, as Cuthbert explained in Bede’s voice, “‘I cannot have my children learning what is not true, and losing their labour on this after I am gone’” (trans. Colgrave and Mynors 1969 p 583; see the discussion in Kendall and Wallis 2010 pp 13-20). According to his friend and colleague, Bede cared deeply about what others would find in the library. For their time and place, the collections of Monkwearmouth-Jarrow were impressive. Lapidge increases Laistner’s estimate that they held 150 volumes to 200 (2006 p 127), a number supported by his list of quotations from earlier writings (pp 174-274). Moreover, this connection between quotations and the library as a whole points to a significant feature of Bede’s own writing, recalling his comment that he was completing in his final days a “selection” from Isidore’s work and his characterization of his method as making “brief extracts from the works of the venerable fathers on the holy Scriptures.” The identification of each new source relationship is valuable, which is why the correspondences in Fontes Anglo-Saxonici and the apparatus fontium of modern editions have been consulted in writing the following entries and why future entries in SASLC will record the sources Bede used. Similarly, Bede’s respect for his sources, seen for example, in his identifications of passages from each of the four fathers, AMBROSE, Augustine, Jerome, and GREGORY THE GREAT, in his Commentarius in Marcum and Commentarius in Lucam, or in his unwillingness to emend even obvious mistakes in the documents he included in the Historia ecclesiastica (see Lapidge 2008a p 88 note 179) commands our esteem. To focus only on the quotations and Bede’s faithfulness to his sources, however, would be to miss what the patterns reveal about not only the shape of the library but also Bede’s genuine originality. The Collectio ex opusculis Augustini in Epistulas Pauli can illustrate this point. The work is, to paraphrase Bede’s description in the Historia ecclesiastica, a careful transcription of Augustine’s explanations, taken from various works, of particular passages from Paul’s Letters placed in the order of the Pauline Epistles (“in Apostolum quaecumque in opusculis sancti Augustini exposita inueni, cuncta per ordinem transscribere curaui,” ed. Lapidge 2010 2.482). What could be more derivative or indeed useless since Augustine’s interpretations of individual verses must have been shaped to some degree by the context of the argument he was making? Perhaps Bede believed that Augustine’s interpretation of these Epistles held steady across his life, or perhaps he gathered the passages in order to find out. In either

Introduc tion

21

case, the project reveals a genuine insight into the importance of Paul in Augustine’s thought and the significance of Augustinian interpretations of Paul for ecclesiastical teaching. In an unrelated but also significant way, these extracts contributed to François Dolbeau’s (1996a and 1996b) identification of sermons in a fifteenth-century German manuscript as indeed by Augustine. Bede’s works, derived from his library’s treasures, added significantly to them. Considering the chronological order of Bede’s corpus suggests, in contrast to, say, a similar examination of that of the just-mentioned Augustine, more continuities than new departures. Lapidge (2010 1.xlviii-lviii), who focuses on certain, historical information, identifies half of Bede’s thirty-nine works as unable to be precisely dated, and yet many can be, including the four that provide internal evidence for a particular year (see Lapidge and the following entries for the details): De temporibus (703), De temporum ratione (725), the Historia ecclesiastica (731), and the Epistula ad Ecgberctum (734). Others, as Lapidge explains, can either be placed within chronological limits by their references to people or external events, or be located by internal references or borrowings in relation to Bede’s other works. From this information some trends emerge. It would, of course, be wrong to interpret Bede’s statement, quoted above, that, from the time he was ordained a priest in 702 or 703 until he was fifty-nine (731) he wrote only commentaries on the Bible. Faith Wallis (2014 p 43) has argued that Bede composed his Commentarius in Apocalypsim to counter the fear that, as of 701, there was only a century left until the end of time, thereby dating the work to around that year (see also Kendall and Wallis 2010 pp 6-7). In any case he certainly produced other works after being ordained. A distinctive “mature period” in Bede’s life as an author has become increasingly hard to sustain. Since both poetry and hagiography seem to have occupied his attention already as a young man, these genres offer an opportunity to look for changes in his thinking over the course of his career. Developing the work of Neil Wright (1981-82), Lapidge (2006a pp 107-15; see also 2005a) demonstrates a strong Vergilian influence in his metrical Vita Cuthberti (dated to 705-10), adding that he also “certainly” knew LUCAN and CLAUDIAN, and that he “probably” knew OVID and PERSIUS (p 115). As Lapidge recognises, these borrowings stand in sharp contrast to Bede’s reliance on Christian Latin poets for most of his examples in De arte metrica and on Scripture for all his illustrations in De schematibus et tropis. Indeed in book 2 of his Commentarius in primam partem Samuhelis he warned against the “secular fables and teachings of demons” found in “the dialecticians,

22 

BEDE – PART 1

rhetoricians, and poets of the gentiles” (lines 1854-56; ed. CCSL 119.112). Lapidge (2010 1.lvii) lists the two Educational Works as among those that cannot be dated firmly, and assigns this book of the Commentary to 710-16. Perhaps a younger Bede was sufficiently impressed by the aesthetic qualities of classical verse to embellish a verse hagiography with Egyptian gold, while later in life he worried more about its seductive potential to lead one back to Egyptian fleshpots. His account of CÆDMON’S Hymn, a miracle even though Cædmon himself was not a saint, in the Historia ecclesiastica might support this interpretation if indeed, as Biggs (1997) has argued, Bede paraphrased the poem in Latin to divert attention from its ties to traditional Germanic verse. Like De orthographia, another undated classroom text that is now considered to have been completed late in Bede’s life, De arte metrica and De schematibus et tropis could then be assigned to after this change of heart, when he was concerned to prove the superiority of Christian writings. Vergil, however, seems to have commanded greater respect for Bede than other pagan authors, for even in the late De orthographia he retained many of AGROECIUS’s quotations from him, while eliminating almost all those from Cicero, Horace, and other pagan authors. To sort these woks on the basis of the degree to which they incorporate quotations from pagan authors risks overstating the evidence. Bede revised the metrical Vita Cuthberti around 716, and he offered to send a copy of it to Eadfrith and the congregation at Lindisfarne after he had written the prose Vita Cuthberti, which can be assigned to between 720-25. Indeed, in an essay that emphasises Bede’s willingness to reach his own conclusions even if they disagree with authorities such as Jerome, Roger Ray (2006 pp 21-24; see also Ray 1987) explicates a later passage in the commentary on 1 Samuel discussing Jonathan’s mistaken eating of honey proscribed by his father as showing that “pagan rhetoric, though it can be dangerous, can arm the church for verbal battle.” And Bede’s lost translation of John’s Gospel, mentioned above, suggests that he moved easily between the Latin of his reading and writing, and the vernacular of the wider world that surrounded him. There must have been crises in Bede’s life: the accusation of heresy that emerged out of De temporibus; Ceolfrith’s abdication of the abbacy of Monkwearmouth-Jarrow and his departure for Rome; and Bede’s perception, later in life, of a need to reform the Church and society around him (see Thacker 1983 and DeGregorio 2002, 2006c, and 2014). The balance, however, perhaps achieved by attempting throughout his life to express the miraculous in human form, opened for Bede a remarkably consistent voice.

Introduc tion

23

Even if we had a fixed chronology for all of Bede’s works, it would still make sense for this entry to group them thematically (as he himself did in his list in the Historia ecclesiastica) since this approach allows us to write separate introductions for the various genres in which he wrote. Indeed, Bede’s groupings are sometimes useful in determining where works that straddle categories belong. Following him, we have included De temporibus and De temporum ratione with the other Educational Works even though each concludes with a chronicle, referred to as the Chronica minora and the Chronica maiora, which might have suggested their placement among the histories. Similarly, his metrical Vita Cuthberti appears with his other Saints’ Lives, although it is related to his Poetry. Moreover, the division into two fascicles is intended to be useful rather than definitive. As just discussed, hagiography and poetry were, apparently, two genres that came together in his early metrical Vita Cuthberti and so offered a place to begin. Of these two, Bede’s poetry is more complicated because his Hymns and Epigrams seem better suited for separate entries. A third section includes only his De die iudicii, which stands apart from his other works. Sorting out Cuthbert and, more generally, hagiography led to the Historia ecclesiastica and thus Histories, with its second entry on the Historia abbatum. Given this confluence of texts, the obvious final piece to this fascicle is the section on Educational Works since it includes Bede’s treatises on poetry and rhetoric already mentioned as well as his masterpiece on time, De temporum ratione. The core of fascicle 2, then, becomes Bede’s writings on the Bible: most significantly for him, the Commentaries, but also his Homilies, which Ælfric mined in writing his Homilies. Linked to the Bible are sections on Aids to Biblical Study and Chapter Divisions. Three more sections then complete the second fascicle: Letters, Lost Works, and Martyrology. It also includes cumulative Bibliography and Indices. A combined table of contents is as follows: Bible: Aids to Biblical Study Bible: Chapter Divisions Bible: Commentaries Bible: Homilies Educational Works Histories Letters Lost Works Martyrology Poetry: Epigrams

24 

BEDE – PART 1

Poetry: Hymns Poetry: De die iudicii Saints’ Lives The following entries, then, indicate how later Anglo-Saxons used Bede’s work. The f ive categories of information surveyed in the headnote – manuscripts, booklists, Anglo-Saxon versions, quotations and citations, and references – record the significant discoveries of scholars in each area, opening the way to further discussion of them and of the points at which they overlap. While most of the details can be treated within particular entries, some general orientation is offered here, concentrating on issues that concern the works as a whole. M.L.W. Laistner’s A Hand-List of Bede Manuscripts (1943) establishes the central role that continental copies played in the transmission of Bede’s writings. More recent editions and the introductions to translations of individual texts often provide information about newly discovered manuscripts and their relationships. Considering the treatises on metrics and rhetoric together, the two chronicles separately from their original contexts, and most of Bede’s poetry as it would have been divided into two now lost volumes, Lapidge (2008a) surveys the relevant information for establishing the texts of thirteen works: De orthographia, De arte metrica and De schematibus et tropis, De natura rerum, De temporibus, De temporum ratione, Chronica minora, Chronica maiora, Historia abbatum, Historia ecclesiastica, the metrical Vita Cuthberti, Liber epigrammatum, Liber hymnorum, and (Poetry:) De die iudicii. Particularly important are his discussions of Bede’s lost autograph copy of the Historia ecclesiastica, as well as the early transmission of this work in England, and of the two volumes of verse. Our ability to study the manuscripts known in England prior to 1100 has been advanced significantly by the most recent incarnation of Helmut Gneuss’s study of this topic, now issued in collaboration with Lapidge as Anglo-Saxon Manuscripts: A Bibliographical Handlist of Manuscripts and Manuscript Fragments Written or Owned in England up to 1100 (2014). This work incorporates the views of Bernhard Bischoff about the date, origin, and provenance of many ninth-century manuscripts in his Katalog (1998-2014). A new feature of this version is their identification of digitised facsimiles of complete manuscripts in the Parker Library of Corpus Christi College, Cambridge (parker.stanford.edu), the British Library (www. bl.uk/manuscripts), and Oxford’s Bodleian Library (digital.bodleian.ox.ac. uk/index; in the categories “Celtic Manuscripts,” “Western Manuscripts,” and “Medieval and Renaissance Manuscripts”); they identify these resources

Introduc tion

25

(with the item numbers from their catalogue) in their introduction (pp 10-11) but not in the individual entries. It should also be noted that, while Gneuss and Lapidge (2014) include manuscripts brought from England to the Continent, they exclude those “that were written, or annotated, or decorated, by Anglo-Saxon scribes and artists on the Continent but that were not known to have been in England at any time before 1100” (p 4). This category is especially important during the time of the eighth-century Anglo-Saxon missions. As Lapidge (2006 p 155) writes, “it is obvious that there are severe difficulties in distinguishing between manuscripts written in England and subsequently taken to the Continent (either by an Anglo-Saxon missionary or some other agent), and manuscripts written on the Continent either by Anglo-Saxon scribes or by Continental scribes trained by Anglo-Saxons.” Moreover, while no longer reliable sources of information about books “in England,” Anglo-Saxon emigrants on the Continent, such as Boniface and Alcuin, might always have been remebering something they had read before leaving home. Since our concern is with “Anglo-Saxon Literary Culture” and not only “Books Known in England,” manuscripts from Lapidge’s appendix to The Anglo-Saxon Library (2006), “Surviving Eighth-Century Manuscripts from the Area of the Anglo-Saxon Mission in Germany,” which derives from E.A. Lowe’s Codices Latini Antiquiores (CLA), have been included (preceded by a question mark in order to flag them as constituting a secondary level of evidence). Lapidge’s following appendix, “Ninth-Century Manuscripts of Continental Origin Having Pre-Conquest English Provenance,” provides a useful gathering of the books introduced into later Anglo-Saxon England. One area related to manuscripts still in need of study are the extracts made from Bede’s works. The problem becomes most apparent when considering the sections from the Commentaries on Mark and Luke, many of which were incorporated into later HOMILIARIES. Indeed, the difficulty of distinguishing Bede’s genuine homilies from the many others attributed to him was solved by Germain Morin (1892 and 1913), but Morin’s list of manuscripts containing Bede’s homilies did not include those transmitting extracts, and neither does M.L.W. Laistner’s more comprehensive list, as his explanation of its scope implies (1943 p 116): “Since the purpose of this book is to help students of Bede’s genuine writings and, in the present instance, some future editor of Bede’s homilies, the list of MSS that follows has been confined, first, to those codices that Dom Morin has enumerated and others which seem to contain the fifty homilies on the Gospels more or less intact; secondly, to the one or two homiliaries or lectionaries of early date, which, in addition to sermons by other authors and perhaps spuria assigned to Bede

26 

BEDE – PART 1

appear from the descriptions in the printed catalogues to preserve also a certain proportion of genuine homilies by him.” In some ways similar are sections of the Historia ecclesiastica (often concerning particular saints) that also circulated independently. Laistner writes (1943 p 103), These are very numerous and of considerable interest; for they illustrate the wide distribution of complete manuscripts of the Historia ecclesiastica, from which they must often have been copied. The process, moreover, began early; for example in a Reichenau catalogue compiled in the first half of the ninth century we meet this entry: “nonnullae visiones excerptae de libris gestorum Anglorum Bedae.” In some cases it has not been possible from the information given in the catalogues to determine from what part of the Historia ecclesiastica the extracts have been taken. Such manuscripts have been grouped together at the end; in other cases approximate references have been given to the Book and chapters from which the excerpts have been selected.

Lapidge (2008a p 112) concludes his discussion of complete (or nearly complete) manuscripts of the Historia ecclesiastica by noting that “given that it is possible to reconstruct the text … on the basis of six early manuscripts, collation of the remaining 150 + manuscripts hardly seems a pressing desideratum.” The possibility, however, of identifying a later writer’s precise source would justify further attempts at this daunting task, and in any case all surviving manuscripts are significant evidence of Bede’s continuing influence. In order to support this work, we have included separate entries on individual extracts of the Commentaries on Mark and Luke, and the Historia ecclesiastica. De temporum ratione provides a third example of the problem of extracts, although here there does not yet appear to be sufficient evidence to justify additional entries. In the introduction to her translation of the work, Wallis (1999 p lxxxviii-lxxxix) explains that “the Carolingian adoption of computus into its official educational policy made it a requisite element of every educated man’s mental equipment,” leading to “high levels of production of manuscripts of The Reckoning of Time in the eighth and ninth centuries.” She continues (pp lxxxix-xc), While Bede’s great treatise on the calendar was becoming a cornerstone of the Carolingian curriculum, other forces were at work which changed the way that curriculum was conceived. Carolingian schoolmasters, especially those attached to cathedrals, discovered long-neglected works like

Introduc tion

27

Martianus Capella’s De nuptiis Philologiae et Mercurii, which introduced them to the idealized ancient curriculum known as the Seven Liberal Arts. Many of these schoolmasters glossed both Martianus and the works of Bede: men like Martin the Irishman (817-875), head of the cathedral school of Laon and his followers Manno of Laon and Heiric of Auxerre. None of these men were computists, and when they read Bede, they were looking for material to fill the category of astronomia in their new taxonomy of learning. As we shall see shortly, this had a considerable impact on the way in which The Reckoning of Time was glossed in the Carolingian age. It also entailed an approach to computus which differed significantly from Bede’s. Bede never mentions the Liberal Arts, and as we have seen, his monastic conception of doctrina christiana encouraged the dismantling of ancient genres of scientific and didactic literature and the incorporation of their contents into new Christian formats. This tide began to reverse in the Carolingian period. The works of astronomy and natural science which Bede had pillaged on behalf of computus were now copied and studied for their own sake. In consequence, Bede himself was mined for astronomical information that could be rearranged in more “classical” formats.

While of limited use to editors, extracts reveal much about changes in literary culture: BYRHTFERTH, to take the obvious example, revered Bede, yet his Enchiridion is the work of a different intellectual world, exemplified by his use of extracts from Bede’s works. Shifting next to a discussion of references allows us to pick up the story of the transmission of Bede’s writings to the Continent. Referring to the correspondence of Boniface and LULL, Wilhelm Levison (1946 p 140) describes Bede’s growing reputation: When Boniface left England, Bede was unknown to him, nor had he seen his Ecclesiastical History when, in 735, he inquired about the answers of Pope Gregory and about the date of the arrival of his emissaries, both to be found in this work. But the fame of Bede reached him in his later years; in the forties he requested of ECGBERHT of York and Abbot HWÆTBERHT of Wearmouth and Jarrow to provide him with some treatises of Bede, that new light shining in the province of York. Ecgberht complied with these wishes, and Boniface asked him later for other writings of Bede, particularly for those which were useful to a preacher. Lullus expressed similar wishes about writing of Aldhelm; but he also sent presents to the tomb of Bede, in return for which Abbot CUTHBERT, Hwætberht’s successor, sent him Bede’s two books on St. Cuthbert; he would have

28 

BEDE – PART 1

provided more, had not the cold winter hampered the hand of the scribe. Meanwhile Lullus acquired the Ecclesiastical History, which contains at the end a short autobiography of Bede with a list of his writings; Lullus quoted this list, when he wanted to have other works of Bede, and at least one more of these writings reached Mainz.

Together, these references concern all of Bede’s works, and so to avoid repetition a general discussion of them follows here. Boniface’s f irst reference to Bede occurs in a letter, Epistola 75 to Ecgberht, archbishop of York, the person to whom Bede had written some twelve years earlier (Boniface’s letter is dated 746-47), urging the reform of the Northumbrian church. Boniface here followed up on an earlier letter written jointly with other missionary bishops admonishing Æthelbald, king of the Mercians, to reform his ways. Having opened the letter thanking Ecgberht for gifts and books, Boniface turned near its end to request works by Bede (ed. MGH ES 1.158; trans. EHD 824): Pręterea obsecro, ut mihi de opusculis Bedan lectoris aliquos tractatus conscribere et dirigere digneris, quem nuper, ut audivimus, divina gratia spiritali intellectu ditavit et in vestra provincia fulgere concessit, et ut candela, quam vobis Dominus largitus est, nos quoque fruamur. (Moreover, I beseech you to copy and send to me some treatises from the work of the teacher, Bede, whom lately, as we have heard, the divine grace endowed with spiritual understanding and allowed to shine in your province, so that we also may have benefit from that candle which the Lord has bestowed on you.)

If the past tenses that he used in the following paragraph indicate that, when composing these remarks, he had reason to believe that Gregory’s letters were available in England, it may point more broadly to the reason Bede had been mentioned to him (ed. 1.158; trans. p 824): Interea ad indicium caritatis fraternitati tuae direxi exemplaria epistolarum sancti Gregorii, quas de scrinio Romanę ęcclesiae excepi; quę non rebar ad Brittaniam venisse; et plura iterum, si mandaveris, remittam, quia multas inde excepi …. (Meanwhile I have sent to you, my brother, as a token of love, copies of the letters of St Gregory which I have obtained from the archives of the

Introduc tion

29

Roman Church, and which I did not think had reached Britain; and I shall send more, if you require them, for I obtained many from there.)

In any case, in another letter, Epistola 76, to Hwætberht, dated to 746-47, Boniface emphasised Bede’s role as an interpreter of the Bible (ed. MGH ES 1.159; trans. EHD p 825): Interea rogamus, ut aliqua de opusculis sagacissimi investigatoris scripturarum Bedan monachi, quem nuper in domo Dei apud vos vice candellę ęcclesiastice scientia scripturarum fulsisse audivimus, conscripta nobis transmittere dignemini. (Meanwhile we ask that you will deign to have copied and sent to us certain of the works of that most skilful investigator of Scriptures, the monk Bede, who, we have heard, has lately shone in the house of God among you with knowledge of the Scriptures like a candle of the Church.)

In a third letter, Epistola 91, which is dated between 747 and 754, Boniface asked Ecgberht directly for Bede’s writings on the Bible that could be used in preaching, specifying both his Homilies and Commentarius in Prouerbia (ed. MGH ES 1.207; trans. Kylie 1911 p 136): Modo enim inhianter desiderantes flagitamus, ut nobis ad gaudium meroris nostri eo modo, quo et ante iam fecistis, aliquam particulam vel scintillam de candella ęcclesiae, quam inluxit spiritus sanctus in regionibus provinciae vestrae, nobis destinare curetis: id est ut de tractatibus, quos spiritalis presbiter et investigator sanctarum scripturarum Beda reserando conposuit, partem qualemcunque transmittere dignemini; maxime autem, si fore possit, quod nobis predicantibus habile et manuale et utillimum esse videtur, super lectionarium anniversarium et proverbia Salomonis. Quia commentarios super illa eum condidisse audivimus. (We ask with earnest desire, that to bring joy into our sorrow as you have done before, you should take care to send us a tiny gleam from that candle of the Church, which the Holy Spirit lit within the limits of your province; that is, that you should deign to send across some part of the commentaries of Bede, that saintly priest and investigator of the holy scriptures, composed; especially, if it be possible, his Homilies, and his Proverbs of Solomon, for they will be very convenient and useful to us in our preaching. We have heard that he wrote commentaries on these subjects.)

30 

BEDE – PART 1

We do not know which of Bede’s writings, if indeed any, reached Boniface: that one of the f irst may have been the Historia ecclesiastica is made more likely, as Levison notes and we will see in a moment, by Lull having quoted from it. In addition to containing practical information about the organisation of a new ecclesiastical structure among a Germanic people that Boniface had sought directly from Gregory’s letters to AUGUSTINE, archbishop of Canterbury, it would have provided him with an inspiring account of the spread of the Church called to mind by his metaphor of the candle (see Mt 5:15), which he repeated in more elaborate ways in the later letters. Indeed, his increasing respect for Bede can be heard in the change from his first reference to him as a “lector” to the last: “spiritalis presbiter et investigator sanctarum scripturarum.” The most evocative reference to Bede’s writings in this early correspondence appears in a letter, Epistola 116, of Cuthbert, abbot of Monkwearmouth-Jarrow (and so not the author of the Epistola de obitu Bedae), to Lull in 764. Since it concerns the metrical Vita Cuthberti, it will be discussed more fully in that entry; we quote it here because it shows Lull asking for and receiving specific works (ed. MGH ES 1.251; trans. EHD p 832): Nunc vero, quia rogasti aliquid de opusculis beati patris, cum meis pueris iuxta vires, quod potui, tuae dilectioni preparavi: libellos de viro Dei Cudbercto metro et prosa conpositos tuae voluntati direxi. Et si plus potuissem, libenter voluissem. Quia presentia preteriti hiemis multum horribiliter insulam nostrae gentis in frigore et gelu et ventorum et imbrium procellis diu lateque depressit, ideoque scriptoris manus, ne in plurimorum librorum numerum preveniret, retardaretur. (Now truly, since you have asked for some of the works of the blessed father, for your love I have prepared what I could, with my pupils, according to our capacity. I have sent in accordance with your wishes the books about the man of God, Cuthbert, composed in verse and prose. And if I could have done more, I would gladly have done so. For the conditions of the past winter oppressed the island of our race very horribly with cold and ice and long and widespread storms of wind and rain, so that the hand of the scribe was hindered from producing a great number of books.)

Lull’s own first surviving references to Bede’s writings were noted by Levison since they show that he made his request for specific works after having consulted the list near the end of the Historia ecclesiastica. In Epistola 125,

Introduc tion

31

dated to 767-78, he wrote to ÆTHELBERHT, archbishop of York (ed. MGH ES 1.263; trans. EHD pp 834-35): Obsecro, ut quemlibet horum librorum adquiras et nobis mittere digneris, quos beatę memoriae Beda presbiter exposuit, ad consolationem peregrinationis nostrae; id est: in primam partem Samuelis usque ad mortem Saulis libros quattuor; sive in Esdram et Nehemiam libros tres, vel in evangelium Marci libros quattuor. Gravia forte postulo, sed nihil grave verae caritati iniungo. (I beseech that you acquire and deign to send us any of those books which Bede the priest, of blessed memory, composed, for our consolation in our exile; namely four books on the first part of Samuel as far as the death of Saul, and three books on Ezra and Nehemiah, and four books on the gospel of St Mark. Perhaps I make heavy demands; but I enjoin nothing heavy to true love.)

Epistola 126, to Cuthbert, abbot of Monkwearmouth-Jarrow, is dated to the same period (764-86), but is probably later if one can assume that Lull would have requested the New Testament commentary before seeking more works on the Old Testament and a collection of verse (ed. MGH ES 1.264): Petimus etiam, ut ad consolationem non solum peregrinationis, sed etiam infirmitatis nostrae libros istos a beate memoriae Beda expositos mittere digneris: de edificatione templi, vel in Cantica canticorum, sive epigrammatum heroico metro sive elegiaco conpositorum; si fieri postest, omnes, sin autem, de edificatione templi libros tres. Fortassis difficilis petitio, sed nihil arbitror esse difficile vere caritati. (As consolation not only for our exile but also for our infirmity, we ask that you deign to send us books written by Bede of blessed memory: on the building of the Temple, or on the Canticle of Canticles, or (the book) of epigrams in heroic and elegiac metre. If you are able, send all, if not, the three books on the building of the Temple. Perhaps a difficult request, but I consider nothing difficult to true love.)

Since Lull’s identification of these works closely matches Bede’s list in book 5 chapter 24, they are included as citations in the entry on the Historia ecclesiastica as well as references in the others. Epistola 127 (ed. MGH ES 1.264-65) from 764-86, confirms that Cuthbert sent Lull Bede’s De templo,

32 

BEDE – PART 1

but not apparently the Commentarius in Cantica canticorum or the lost Liber epigrammatum; he referred to the author as “clarissimus ecclesiae Dei magister Baeda.” Finally, in this context, Epistola 124 (ed. MGH ES 1.261-62), dated to 767-78, deserves mention since in it Æthelberht, responding to a lost letter from Lull, explained that the work on the earth and tides was unknown to him, and that the books on cosmography that he did have were “very difficult in their pictures and writing” (“picturis et litteris permolesta”). The implication may well be that both libraries already had De natura rerum and De temporum ratione. Taken together, the correspondence of Boniface and Lull paints a vivid picture of the spread of Bede’s works to the Continent. It also shows the rapid growth of his reputation. Writing in the first volume of the Cambridge History of the Book, Rosamond McKitterick (2011 p 335) summarises much of this evidence and then concludes: By the ninth century, Bede had been accorded a place by Carolingian library compilers and cataloguers alongside Jerome, Augustine and Ambrose, not to mention the chronologically closer Gregory the Great, Isidore of Seville and Cassiodorus. For Bede to be regarded in this manner within a century of his death argues for a very widespread familiarity with his work, but it also raises the question of why he was so elevated. Bede no doubt assisted his own reputation by providing a list of his works. Yet it is one of the ironies of the manuscript distribution that it suggests that Bede’s fame, especially for his exegesis and his school texts, was far greater on the Continent than in England in the first two centuries after his death.

As a way of calling attention to this information in the following entries but not burdening them with unnecessary repetition, we include Boniface’s general reference to Bede in Epistola 75 in all those on major works and his reference to Bede’s writings on the Bible in Epistola 76 in all of his Commentaries and in the first entry on his Homilies. The others are included only in the specific works to which they refer. Turning briefly to booklists, Alcuin’s reference to Bede in the section of his Versus de sanctis Euboricensis ecclesiae (ed. and trans. Godman 1982) that describes the books he was given by Ælberht, archbishop of York, presents a similar problem of representing significant evidence in all of the relevant entries while avoiding unnecessary repetition. Here “Beda magister” (line 1547) and Aldhelm appear among classical authors including ARISTOTLE and Vergil, the Latin fathers, the Christian-Latin poets, and the

Introduc tion

33

writers of grammatical texts. Peter Godman writes that this section “is not a catalogue of Ælberht’s library but an outline, with explicit omissions (vv. 1558-62), of the major authors whom Alcuin claims to have been available at York” (p 122 note on lines 1536 ff.). Lapidge prints it as the first item in “Booklists from Anglo-Saxon England” (ML), analysing its contents and discussing Alcuin’s subsequent references to his books. More revealing of Alcuin’s knowledge of Bede’s writings is the passage earlier in this work (lines 1306-12) in which he paraphrased Bede’s own list of works in Historia ecclesiastica V.xxiv: This famous scholar wrote many works, unravelling the mysterious volumes of Holy Scripture, and composed a handbook on the art of metre. He also wrote with marvellous clarity a book on time, containing the courses, places, times, and laws of the stars. He was the author in lucid prose of books on history, and the composer of many poems in metrical style.

This passage is discussed in further detail in the entry on the Historia ecclesiastica and its likely references to particular works are included in the other relevant entries. The general reference to the booklist is also included in all the major entries, but discussed only here. Finally, the at times confusing issue, and so worthy of some attention here, of distinguishing an Anglo-Saxon version from a series of quotations/ citations also provides an opening to remind users that the daunting lists that can appear in the latter category are not simply facts to be counted but rather the materials from which new interpretations of the literary culture of the period can be made. The summaries that follow the headnotes draw attention to the best, in our fallible judgement, of what has been written on the correspondences; if not simply oversights, those that are not discussed suggest opportunities for new study. To begin with the more technical issue, there are two major Anglo-Saxon versions of works by Bede: the OLD ENGLISH HISTORIA ECCLESIASTICA, which will be covered in a separate entry, and the poem Judgment Day II, a translation of De die iudicii. In the case of the Historia ecclesiastica, we have considered some other extended borrowings that draw on particular sections of this work to be “versions” rather than a series of quotations. In these cases, later authors, in our opinion, retold Bede’s narratives, changing them to suit their particular needs but probably assuming that their audiences would recognise them as such. The “Letter of Protest from the Bishops of Britain

34 

BEDE – PART 1

to the Pope,” most likely written by Wulfstan, is a good example of how quotations from this work could be used in this way. Drawing on both Bede and Alcuin to support the argument that newly appointed archbishops were not required in the early days of the English Church to fetch their pallium in Rome, the letter opens by identifying its main source: “sicut legimus in historiis Anglorum, scribente Beda, historiographo et laudabili doctore nostro” (ed. Whitelock, Brett, and Brook 1981 p 445; “as we read in the History of the English, written by Bede, the historian and our praiseworthy teacher”). Bede’s authority, as much as his text, will support the claim. In An Account of King Edgar’s Establishment of Monasteries (ed. Whitelock, Brett, and Brook 1981 pp 143-54), although Bede is not named, Æthelwold probably began with Bede’s description of the conversion of the English (Historia ecclesiastica I.xxiii-xxvi and II.i) because it would lend weight to the significance of Edgar’s actions (for further analysis, see the entry). The story of the conversion of the English is Bede’s, and England’s subsequent literary history is richer for it. The following pages contain many examples of quotations from Bede that play a part in significant literary relationships. Peter Godman’s (1982) edition of the Versus de sanctis Euboricensis ecclesiae establishes its many debts to Bede: to note just one example, Alcuin retold the life of Cuthbert by quoting selected chapter headings of Bede’s prose and metrical Vitae Cuthberti (lines 688-740). Similarly, a detailed assessment of the sources for Homily 10 on Cuthbert in Ælfric’s second series of Catholic Homilies (B1.2.11; ed. Godden 1979 pp 81-91) leads Malcolm Godden (2000 p 413) to conclude that this work “inspired” Ælfric “to experiment with poetic techniques in his own writing.” One additional, seemingly minor example indicates just how deeply rooted Bede must have been in the minds of many literate Anglo-Saxons. Patrizia Lendinara (2001 p 311) has drawn attention to the phrase “coetibus angelicis” in De die iudicii (line 58), identifying its use in several of Alcuin’s works including his Epistola 294 (ed. MGH ECA 2.452). In this letter, written to one of his pupils about whom Alcuin had heard rumours of sinful behaviour, it occurs in the final paragraph, which warns of the terror of the coming Judgement. Had the two read De die iudicii when the recipient had been a student, the phrase itself might have been enough to recall its context (ed. CCSL 122.441; trans. Allen and Calder 1976 p 210): Tum superum subito ueniet commota potestas, Coetibus angelicis regem stipata supernum. Ille sedens solio fulget sublimis in alto; Ante illum rapimur, collectis undique turmis,

Introduc tion

35

Iudicium ut capiat gestorum quisque suorum. Sis memor illius, qui tum pauor ante tribunal Percutiet stupidis cunctorum corda querelis. (Having surrounded the heavenly King with its angelic hosts, the wakened might of heaven will suddenly arrive; sublime, He sits on His high throne, ablaze with light. When the crowds have been assembled from all regions, we are brought before Him so each may be judged according to his deeds. Remember the fear which will strike the hearts of everyone brought to the tribunal, and which will make them plead in vain.)

Born within a year or so of the foundation of Monkwearmouth, Bede and the monastery, his immediate literary context, flourished together. Indeed, if he was the boy who alone in a time of plague at the recently founded Jarrow was able help his abbot, Ceolfrith, sing the Psalms during services (see the anonymous Vita Ceolfridi, ed. and trans. Grocock and Wood 2014 pp 92-95, and their notes), his community started small indeed. In contrast, 600 brothers gathered at the Wear to bid farewell to Ceolfrith when he departed in 716 for Rome (see the Historia abbatum, ed. Grocock and Wood 2014 pp 62-65, and their notes). During his life, his circle grew dramatically, and so there must have been others who shared his experience of having been immersed from an early age in a literate culture that felt both deeply rooted in time and freshly transplanted in a new place. Yet Bede above all others responded with a body of work that continued to shape those who lived after. As is fitting given Bede’s own meticulous scholarship, scholarship on Bede is extensive and of high quality, which is not to say all has been done. His first major biography, for example, is now being written by Sarah Foot. Two earlier works by one of us, Bede the Venerable (Brown 1987) and A Companion to Bede (Brown 2009), provide more information on many of the subjects discussed here. They may be supplemented with the collections edited by Stépjhane Lebecq, Michael Perrin, and Olivier Szerwiniack, Bède le Vénérable entre tradition et posterité / The Venerable Bede, Tradition and Posterity (2002), and by Scott DeGregorio, Innovation and Tradition in the Writings of the Venerable Bede (2006) and The Cambridge Companion to Bede (2010). All these works contain useful bibliographies. Michael Lapidge has included an extensive bibliography covering all aspects of Bede’s life and writings in the first volume of his edition of the Historia ecclesiastica, first published in 2008, but referred to throughout this volume in its third edition, published with the second volume, in 2010. Lapidge’s edition includes a

36 

BEDE – PART 1

translation in Italian by Paolo Chiesa, and indeed the enthusiasm of scholars to make Bede’s work available to students in modern languages is a laudable feature of this lively community. Here the Cistercian Studies Series and Liverpool University Press’s Translated Texts for Historians deserve special mention; see DeGregorio (2010a pp 247-48) for a list of translations into English. The primary catalogue of Bede’s writings is the list he furnished in Historia ecclesiastica V.xxiv (ed. Lapidge 2010 2.480-84), which Michael M. Gorman (1995 Appendix and 2001) has supplemented with valuable notes. Earlier editions of his works, including those by Johann Herwagen the Younger (1563), J.A. Giles (1843-44), and J.-P. Migne (PL 90-95), contain a large number of texts not by Bede. The editions published in the Corpus Christianorum, Series Latina (CCSL), while at times not without flaws, have advanced the study of Bede’s works. They are, of course, the basis of the database, the Library of Latin Texts (also known as CETEDOC) made available by Brepols. Concerning the list in the Clauis Patrum Latinorum (CPL) it should be noted that 1346a, 1352, 1361, 1368, 1369, 2323, 2323a, and 2323b are inauthentic and 1364 is genuine in part (quaestiones 1-8). The definitive list of Bede’s work is now by Lapidge (2010 1.xliv-xlvii); Richard Sharpe’s annotations in A Handlist of the Latin Writers of Great Britain and Ireland Before 1540 (HLW pp 70-74) remain valuable. To Lapidge’s list we have added only two minor works, the table Pagina regularum, which he wrote to help students determine the position of the moon in the zodiac (see Educational Works), and the Old English poem known as Bede’s death Song (see Poetry: Epigrams), which he recited repeatedly at the time of his death. Volumes for SASLC by Sharon Rowley and M. Breann Leake on the Old English Historia ecclesiastica and by Brandon Hawk on PSEUDO-BEDE are in preparation. The Bedan Legacy, by Joshua Westgard and George H. Brown, will survey Bede’s influence both in England and on the Continent.

Acknowledgements We have worked together to try to reach the standards set by two masters. The more important, of course, is Bede, whose writings continue to offer new insights even after years of study. The second is SASLC itself, created by Paul E. Szarmach and Thomas D. Hill from the perception of James E. Cross that a collaborative project to revise J.A.D. Ogilvy’s Books Known to the English: 597-1066 would bring together scholars committed to understanding

Introduc tion

37

how authors use sources. Neither master might seem too hard, and yet Bede’s meticulous attention to detail and SASLC’s wealth of material have made us constantly aware that all we offer here is an attempt to represent the work of many scholars. When Bede sent Hwætberht the masterpiece, De temporum ratione, he asked that “should you find anything reprehensible in it, you make it known to me immediately so that I can correct it” (trans. Wallis 1999 p 4). With certainty that there is more to amend here, in repeating his request we change only the number of his pronouns. Without the help of Thomas N. Hall and Charles D. Wright there would be much more to do. We have then to acknowledge only a remaining area of disagreement (the dedications are simply separate): the interpretation of the genesis of Bede’s histories, which reflects Biggs’s views more strongly than Brown’s. We agree that Bede wrote with the certainty that there was, finally, a single truth. While as source-scholars we embrace a similar task of establishing precise relationships, as members of the lively intellectual community that studies Bede and Anglo-Saxon literary history, we recognise that differing interpretations can be a source of new inspiration.



Educational Works

Following his verse compositions in his list of works in book 5, chapter 24 of the Historia ecclesiastica gentis Anglorum (ed. Lapidge 2010 2.484; trans. Colgrave and Mynors 1969 p 571), Bede itemised five of the works considered in this section: Two books, one on the nature of things and the other on chronology: also a longer book on chronology. A book about orthography, arranged according to the order of the alphabet. A book on the art of metre, and to this is added another small book on figures of speech with which the holy Scriptures are adorned.

Because these books conclude the list, one might assume that they were indeed low in Bede’s own relative estimation of his writings, perhaps youthful work that then gave way to what he considered his more serious projects, such as the Biblical Commentaries or Histories. Recent scholarship, however, has challenged this assumption, showing that the subjects addressed in them occupied Bede’s interest across his career. Two, De temporibus and De natura rerum, are almost certainly early, and yet by 703, the likely date of De temporibus, Bede was around thirty years old, and so more than capable of putting the systematic reading that must have occupied his actual youth to good use in his own writings. That he revised De temporibus as De Temporum ratione in 725 confirms his sustained interest in its subject. Similarly, his Magnus circulus seu Tabula paschalis annis Domini dxxxii ad mlxiii, a Paschal table that carried the calculations of DIONYSIUS EXIGUUS into the eleventh century, could have been written at any point in his career. Moreover, De arte metrica, De schematibus et tropis, and De orthographia are all now considered works of Bede’s so-called “mature” period. They are, nonetheless, gathered here – in alphabetical order – under the rubric “educational works” because they were probably intended to be used in teaching. Two additional works considered in this section (even though Bede did not mention them in his list of works in the Historia ecclesiastica), the Kalendarium ad usum computandi and the Pagina regularum, were composed as aids for users of De temporum ratione, and almost certainly played a role in the classroom. As Bede himself wrote, “it has always been my delight to learn or to teach or to write” (ed. 2.480; trans. p 567; emphasis added).

40 

BEDE – PART 1

In early medieval monastic schools the two main preparatory educational disciplines (aside from the practical arts of music and husbandry) were grammar (for the reading of the Bible and liturgy, for the composition of hagiography, history, and hymns, and for the correct writing of manuscripts) and computus (for the reckoning of the church calendar and history). To supplement the late-antique school treatises in his monastic library, Bede wrote works on both, as well as another short treatise, De natura rerum, which served as an introduction to cosmology, a companion to the hexameron (exegesis on the first six days of creation in Genesis) and an adjunct to computus. The difference between Bede’s monastic education and that of the lateantique world of AMBROSE, AUGUSTINE, JEROME, and GREGORY THE GREAT is illustrated by his decision to limit the examples in his work on rhetoric, De schematibus et tropis, solely to Scripture. The goal of the Roman educational system had originally been the formation of the citizenstatesman, and therefore it emphasised the acquisition of linguistic skills through the disciplines of grammar and rhetoric, with some borrowings from dialectic for argumentation and persuasion. The material that served as the norm of excellence and supplied the examples for the study of these disciplines was classical Latin literature – poetry, history, and oratory. In the late-antique period, teachers used handbooks with the literary examples extracted and classified according to topic, so that pupils first knew the classics at a remove from their original context, surrounded by pedantic commentary. Like so much else in the nostalgic years of the crumbling Roman Empire, education was extremely conservative and formalised. Ambrose and Gregory became civil administrators, Augustine a teacher of rhetoric. Yet in their Christian writings, these authors repudiated this tradition while tolerating profane studies only if appropriated for the study of the sacred text. Bede’s own attitude towards Roman rhetoric was, from the evidence of his textbooks and commentaries, ambivalent and in some instances strongly antagonistic. Like the Fathers, he believed that rhetorical artifice could be most alluring, that in the hands of heretics or the devil it could lead individuals astray and entice them to evil. For example, speaking of the wanton woman in Proverbs 7 as a figure of heresy, he remarked that the description of her bed’s coverlet with its decorated Egyptian tapestry signifies “the adornment of eloquence and the trickery of dialectical art, which took its origin from the pagans” (Commentarius in Prouerbia I.vii, lines 73-77; ed. CCSL 119B.58). Bede also had harsh things to say about philosophers: “A certain one of ours nicely remarked that philosophers

Educational Work s

41

are the patriarchs of heretics” (Commentarius in primam partem Samuhelis IV, lines 2345-47; ed. CCSL 119.267). Elsewhere, explicating a text about the hostile Samaritans’ eating salted food in the palace of Artaxerxes, Bede explained that they were thus corrupted “by the taste of worldly philosophy, by the sweetness of rhetoric, and by the trickery of dialectical art” (Commentarius in Ezram et Neemiam I, lines 1783-94; ed. CCSL 119A.285-86). He excoriated those contemporaries who should ascend to hearing the word of God but instead descend to listen to “secular fables and teachings of demons, reading the dialecticians, rhetoricians, and poets of the gentiles” (Commentarius in primam partem Samuhelis II, lines 1854-56; ed. 119.112). Indeed, Bede strongly discouraged the reading of pagan literature although he continued to cite Vergil (Brown 2009 pp 20-21). Bede’s innovations in the field of science have been reassessed in two chapters by Faith Wallis (2006 and 2010), which in part reflect the fundamental work presented in her translation of De temporum ratione (1999) and which is carried further in the introduction, notes, and commentary in the translation, with Calvin B. Kendall, of De natura rerum and De temporibus (2010). Recognising that “Bede’s scientific interests were selective,” she identifies the core of his thought here as his insights into “the fundamental structures of the universe … encapsulated … in the word natura” (Wallis 2006 p 71). Based primarily not on direct observations of the world but rather on information that he found in other authorities, particularly PLINY’s Historia naturalis and ISIDORE’s De natura rerum as well as the writings of Ambrose, Augustine, and BASIL on Genesis, “he reconceptualized the notion of Christian cosmography”: “where Isidore was content to tack biblical parallels onto essentially Graeco-Roman material, Bede wanted to demonstrate how the Christian understanding of creation and classical science constituted a coherent account of a created cosmos” (Wallis 2010 p 116). While he first detached Isidore’s chapters on time so he could incorporate them into De temporibus, he still conceived of the two treatises as linked, and later, as Kendall and Wallis (2010 p 31) write, “in The Reckoning of Time Bede re-united cosmology and time-reckoning to form a unified science of computus that would become the framework for Carolingian and scholastic basic scientific education.” For Bede’s own education and on his role as an educator, see George H. Brown (1996), Roger Ray (1997), Alan Thacker (2006), Calvin B. Kendall (2010), and Kendall and Faith Wallis (2010 pp 31-33). On the specific possibility that he served as choirmaster, see Brown (1987 p 19).

42 

BEDE – PART 1

De arte metrica [BEDA.Art.metr.]: CPL 1565. ed.: CCSL 123A.81-141. MSS 1. London, British Library, Harley 5977, no. 64: ASM 442.4; ASMMF 1. 2. London, British Library, Royal 15. A. xvi: ASM 489. 3. Worcester, Cathedral Library, Q. 5: ASM 765. 4. Avranches, Bibliothèque municipale, 236: ASM 784. 5. ? Paris, Bibliothèque nationale de France, lat. 14088. 6. ? Paris, Bibliothèque nationale de France, lat. 16668. Lists 1. ? Alcuin: ML 1.7. 2. ? Athelstan: ML 3.4. A-S Vers none. Quots/Cits 1. Art.metr., xiii, 5-9: ByrM (B20.20), II.i, 434-36. 2. Art.metr., ii, 9: ByrM (B20.20), II.i., 447-48. 3. Art.metr., xii, 2-3: ByrM (B20.20), II.i, 470-73. 4. Art.metr., xii, 23-28: ByrM (B20.20), II.i, 473-82. 5. Art.metr., xii, 32-37: ByrM (B20.20), II.i, 483-89. 6. Art.metr., x, 13-16: ByrM (B20.20.1), II.i, 491-96. 7. Art.metr., xiii, 11-13: ByrM (B20.20), II.i, 498-501. 8. Art.metr., xxv, 4-7: ByrM (B20.20), III.iii, 6-13. 9. Art.metr., xxv, 20-22: ByrM (B20.20), III.iii, 14-17. 10. Art.metr., xxv, 21-22: BYRHT.Vit.Os., Prol., 2.2-3. 11. Art.metr., xix, 26: BYRHT.Vit.Os., Prol., 2.10-11. 12. Art.metr., xxii, 14: BYRHT.Vit.Os., Prol., 6.3. 13. Art.metr., xix, 6-7: BYRHT.Vit.Os., Prol., 6.11-12. 14. Art.metr., xxiii, 8: BYRHT.Vit.Os., 48.14-15. 15. Art.metr., xix, 3: BYRHT.Vit.Os., 168.37. Refs 1. ? BONIF.Epist. 75, 158.8-12. 2. ALCVIN.Vers.Eubor., 1308.

Educational Work s

43

Bede’s De arte metrica (listed in Historia ecclesiastica gentis Anglorum V.xxiv, line 182 as a “librum de metrica arte”; ed. Lapidge 2010 2.484), even though mostly a compilation of extracts from late-antique grammarians, is a careful arrangement and presentation of metrics that made this manual a standard, even indispensable, school text. Once assumed to be an early work (see, for example, Laistner 1943 p 131), it is now placed later, perhaps in the 720s (see Lapidge 2008a p 50 note 35). Sappo Heikkinen (2012 pp 5-8) reviews the problem, calling particular attention to articles by Arthur G. Holder (1999), who argues that Bede’s use of the term “conlevita” in the passage that links this work with De schematibus et tropis (ed. CCSL 123A.141) should be understood as implying not that Bede is a deacon (“levita”) at the time, but rather that his addressee, Cuthbert, is; and by Carmela V. Franklin (2000), who identifies an exegetical interpretation in De schematibus et tropis that does not appear in the Expositio Actuum apostolorum but is present in the later Retractatio in Actus apostolorum. Bede linked this work to De schematibus et tropis in Historia ecclesiastica V.xxiv: “et huic adiectum alium de schematibus siue tropis libellum” (lines 182-83, ed. 2.484; “and to this is added another small book on figures of speech,” trans. Colgrave and Mynors 1969 p 571). De arte metrica is a systematic exposition of Latin versification by means of a judicious compilation of grammarians’ commentaries on DONATUS (principally SERVIUS’s continuation, De finalibus, of Donatus’s De pedibus, with excerpts from POMPEIUS, SERGIUS, AUDAX, and others), replete with examples from VERGIL and Christian poets. Because it contains a reasonably full account of most Latin classical and post-classical metrical usage, it could instruct a pupil, who had laid the foundation of Latin grammar in earlier studies, on how to recognise and read correctly the verse forms found in hymns, metrical saints’ lives, epigrams, and liturgical chants, as well as in classical Latin poetry. Bede discussed without digression what the letters are, their classifications and characteristics (chapter 1); he then proceeded to syllables (chapters 2-8) and feet (chapter 9), before the treatment of metrics (chapters 10-23), rhythm (chapter 24), and the three genres of poetry. His main contribution to metrical history is his short description in chapter 24 of isosyllabic stress rhythm (that is, accentual metre), which superseded quantitative Latin verse in medieval poetry. MSS 5-6. Michael Lapidge (2008a p 51 note 36) states that “a few more fragments have been identified” in addition to the ninety-six manuscripts identified by Calvin B. Kendall as he prepared his 1975 edition for the CCSL (see 123A.60-72), which treats the manuscripts of this work and De schematibus et tropis together. None of the four manuscripts listed above that are included

44 

BEDE – PART 1

in Anglo-Saxon Manuscripts (ASM) is among the sixteen that Kendall uses to establish his text. The two additional ones, however, still bear signs of their Insular origins. As Kendall (p 64) notes, Paris, Bibliothèque nationale de France, lat. 14088 contains some Insular abbreviations. Moreover, he uses this manuscript “to confirm the hypothesis of a two-branched tradition”: “The semi-literate scribe who prepared [it] at St. Germain (?) early in the ninth century worked from a Class I and a Class II MS” since “where the traditions split, both readings may appear” (p 75). More strongly connected to England is Paris, Bibliothèque nationale de France, lat. 16668 (s. viiiex), which according to E.A. Lowe (CLA Supplement 1749) was “written at Lorsch [but one of the scribes writes Anglo-Saxon minuscule]”; see Lapidge (2006 p 165 no. 104), who lists it among the surviving eighth-century manuscripts from the area of the Anglo-Saxon mission in Germany. MSS 1-6. Before commenting on the specific manuscripts, Lapidge (2008a pp 51-52; his quotation is from Kendall CCSL 123A.76) characterises the transmission of De arte metrica and De schematibus et tropis: No English manuscript of the eighth century survives, and there is no evidence of “an unbroken [English] manuscript tradition”; the earliest surviving manuscripts are continental, and of the ninth century. It would appear that the text was re-imported into England in the late tenth century, perhaps through the agency of ABBO OF FLEURY, who spent two years teaching at Ramsey (985-987); from that time onwards it is attested not only in England but in most parts of Europe. The editor of De arte metrica and De schematibus et tropis is therefore forced, willy-nilly, to print the text in the form in which it circulated on the Continent in the ninth century.

While supporting Kendall’s “eclectic” editorial procedure, Lapidge focuses particularly on one manuscript, now in Leiden, which has preserved readings “more likely to represent Bede’s wording than that printed by Kendall”; he offers four examples (pp 54-55). Finally, Kendall explains that De arte metrica and De schematibus et tropis “were often separated”: “CHARLEMAGNE’s mandate to Baugulf, abbot of Fulda (780-802), which laid particular emphasis on the training required to understand the Scriptures, must have stimulated the independent transmission of [De schematibus et tropis]” (p 75). In this context, it is interesting to note that both the Harley and Royal manuscripts contain only De arte metrica. The Avranches manuscript, which also lacks De schematibus et tropis, contains only extracts of De arte metrica: chapters 3 (from line 13), 4, 7 (from line 24), 8, 9, 10 (lines 2-16), 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 24 (from line 26? Kendall lists only line 26; see p 65). The Worcester

Educational Work s

45

manuscript has both treatises, but the first leaf following the capitula of De arte metrica has been cut out and eight lines of verse, which begin “Aureus ac simul iustinus fera praelia mundi” (ICL 1479; printed by Floyer and Hamilton 1906 p 105) separates the two works. This manuscript has two tenth-century glosses (OccGl 42; Nap; C42; NRK 399a), printed by Napier (1900 no. 30). Lists. Bede is mentioned in the list of books owned by Ælberht, archbishop of York, and bequeathed to ALCUIN (ML 1.7); see the introduction, BEDE. Both “De arte metrica” and “Excerptiones de metrica arte” appear among the books owned by a grammarian named Athelstan (ML 3.3 and 5): Lapidge identifies the first as “possibly Bede’s treatise of that name.” Quots/Cits 1-7. BYRHTFERTH drew two long passages in his Enchiridion (ed. Baker and Lapidge 1995; the correspondences listed above are based on this source) from De arte metrica. The editors, Peter S. Baker and Lapidge, explain the first (pp lxxx-lxxxi; expanding their abbreviations here and in following quotations): At the end of Enchiridion II.i, for example, following on from a discussion of the months and the seasons, Byrhtferth introduces a discussion of synaloepha (424-503), that is, the metrical elision of a syllable. This marginally relevant discussion was possibly prompted by Bede, who in his De arte metrica derived the meaning of synaloepha from a Greek word meaning saltus, whence Byrhtferth proceeded to compare the omission of a day in the nineteenth year of a decennovenal cycle with the omission of a syllable through synaloepha. In his characteristically pedantic way, Byrhtferth then went on to discuss other aspects of diction, and concluded this (now wholly irrelevant) discussion with an account of the scansion of a hexameter and the positioning of caesuras. Much of Byrhtferth’s discussion here, along with the illustrations from the hexameters of CAELIUS SEDULIUS, is drawn from Bede’s De arte metrica.

They comment on the first borrowing, from Bede’s discussion of synaloepha (xiii, lines 5-9), “Byrhtferth neglects to mention syllables ending in –m and words beginning with vowels, and does not get around to explaining to his readers that final vowels and syllables ending in -m are dropped before words beginning with vowels” (p 296). Bede’s remarks on long, short, and common syllables were restated by Byrhtferth, “they also very cleverly classify the syllable in three ways” (lines 447-48; trans. p 89), but his naming of four kinds of scansion and of caesuras remained (lines 470-76), the latter then illustrated in lines 476-79 (pentimemeris), 480-82 (eptimemeris), 483-86 (kata triton trokeon), and 487-89 (bucolice ptomen). In the first three cases,

46 

BEDE – PART 1

Byrhtferth scanned the verses he used to exemplify each, writing .s. (for “spondeus”) and .d. (for “dactylus”) over the lines. Still following Bede (x, lines 13-16), he wrote that “correct metrical verse must have twenty-four morae” just as there are twenty-four hours in a day and twenty-four halfounces in a pound (lines 491-96). Finally, he used Bede’s first example and explanation of synaloepha (xiii, lines 11-13) in lines 498-501. Quots/Cits 8-10. The opening passage of book 3, chapter 3 of the Enchiridion, which has lost some material, offers the reader “who wishes to investigate the profundity of the computus” instruction on “three kinds of discourse in the text” (trans. Baker and Lapidge 1995 p 163). Byrhtferth here drew on chapter 25 of De arte metrica, in which Bede discussed the three genres of poetry, for his categories: “actiuum opus uel imitatiuum,” “enarratiuum,” and “mixtum” (lines 6-13). He then elaborated on the third using Greek terms that he also found in De arte metrica (lines 14-17): When the poet brings in other personae who speak with him as if to answer him, then the composition is called koenon or micton. The things that one calls The Iliad and The Odyssey of Homer and The Aeneid of Virgil are composed in this way.

The editors note that the following explanations, “Ilias means strife, and Odyssey means wandering, as Homer tells in that book” (lines 17-18) “presumably derived … from glosses or commentary” in the manuscript of De arte metrica that Byrhtferth used. In any case, Lapidge (2009 p 3 note 1) states that “Byrhtferth’s ostentatious display of classical learning” at the beginning of his Vita Oswaldi is drawn from the same passage: “Given that ‘the Iliad and Odyssey and the Aeneid of Vergil’ were skilfully written and studied by many men with marvellous intelligence” (trans. Lapidge 2009 p 3; the direct borrowing is within single quotation marks). In addition to borrowings from De arte metrica in the text of the Enchiridion, Bede’s work may also be represented, as Baker and Lapidge (1995 pp 334-35) indicate, in some of its tables. The list of letters of the Latin alphabet in figure 26 is likely to have derived from either Isidore or Bede, chapter 1, lines 2-8. Its five vowels (AEIOU), seven “semiuocales” (FLMNRSX), and nine “mutae” (BCDGHKPQT) correspond to the way Bede had presented them. Quots/Cits 11-15. As Lapidge notes in his edition of the Vita Oswaldi (2009; both the edition and the Latin translations are used here), Byrhtferth also took lines from four poems that Bede had included in De arte metrica. In the discussion of the dove released from the Ark, Byrhtferth’s phrase “the olive branch as a gift for the man” (p 2, lines 10-11) is drawn from an anonymous

Educational Work s

47

poem (ICL 11092) included by Bede in chapter 19. Identifying his source as “quidam rethor,” Byrhtferth quoted “everything we possess is transient” (p 6, line 3) from PROSPER OF AQUITAINE, found in Bede’s chapter 22. His “the lands of the earth are parched with dust; / The dry field is bleached, the earth cracks open,” which he identified as “that saying of the scholar,” is from an anonymous poem (ICL 15644) by way of chapter 19. Moreover, “let the throng of monks say it” (p 48, lines 14-15), the first line of a hymn by HILARY OF POITIERS “was quoted by Byrhtferth probably from Bede” (Lapidge 2009 p 48 note 79), chapter 23. Finally, De arte metrica may lie behind Byrhtferth’s use of the term catalecticis (p 168, line 37), although Lapidge notes “it is not clear that he understood it” (p 169 note 92). Refs. For the reference of BONIFACE to Bede in Epistola 75 (ed. Tangl 1955, 158.8-12), see the introduction, BEDE. Alcuin’s reference in his Versus de sanctis Euboricensis ecclesiae occurs in the context of his discussion of Bede, who “composed a handbook on the art of metre” (Godman 1982 pp 102-03). Bede’s text is also edited in GL 7.227-60. The edition in PL 90.149-76 is untrustworthy. For a history of earlier editions, see CCSL 123A.72-74. For a translation, which identifies Bede’s sources and provides the commentaries and glosses of REMIGIUS OF AUXERRE, see Calvin B. Kendall (1991 pp 36-167). Louis Holtz (2002) discusses the sources of De arte metrica. For a comparison of Bede’s and ALDHELM’s approaches to teaching metre, see Carin Ruff (2005), and, more generally, Robert B. Palmer (1959). De natura rerum [BEDA.Nat.rer.]: CPL 1343. ed.: CCSL 123A.189-234. MSS 1. London, British Library, Cotton Caligula A. xv, fols. 3-117: ASM 311. 2. London, British Library, Cotton Domitian i, fols. 2-55: ASM 326; ASMMF 5. 3. London, British Library, Cotton Titus D. xxvi + xxvii: ASM 380. 4. London, British Library, Royal 13. A. xi: ASM 483. Lists ? Alcuin: ML I.7. A-S Vers none.

48 

Quots/Cits 1. Nat.rer., xxi, 2: ALCVIN.Epist. 155, 250.41-251.1. 2. Nat.rer., xxi, 3-4: ALCVIN.Epist. 155, 251.2. 3. Nat.rer., xxi, 14-15: ALCVIN.Epist. 155, 251. 25. 4. Nat.rer., xxi, 13-14: ALCVIN.Epist. 155, 251.25-26. 5. ? Nat.rer., xlii, 5-6: Or (B9.2), 10.8-9. 6. ? Nat.rer., xlii, 5-6: Or (B9.2), 10.14-15. 7. ? Nat.rer., l, 6-7: Or (B9.2), 50.25-27. 8. Nat.rer. xxii, 2-3: Bo (B; B9.3.2), iv, 6-7. 9. ? Nat.rer., l, 6-7: Bo (B; B9.3.2), xv, 17-21. 10. ? Nat.rer., xl, 5-6: Bo (B; B9.3.2), xxiv, 19-23. 11. ? Nat.rer., xl, 5-6: Bo (B; B9.3.2), xxxiv, 15-16. 12. ? Nat.rer., xl, 5-6: Bo (B; B9.3.2), xxxiv, 115-18. 13. Nat.rer., iv, 2: Bo (B; B9.3.2), xxxiii, 167. 14. ? Nat.rer., iv, 9-10: Bo (B; B9.3.2), xxxiii, 167-69. 15. ? Nat.rer., iv, 3-9: Bo (B; B9.3.2), xxxiii, 170-76. 16. Nat.rer., xliv, 2-8: Bo (B; B9.3.2), xxxiii, 178-85. 17. Nat.rer., iii, 3-4: Bo (B; B9.3.2), xxxiii, 206-09. 18. Nat.rer., v, 2: Bo (B; B9.3.2), xxxiii, 206-09. 19. ? Nat.rer., iii, 5-7: Bo (B; B9.3.2), xxxiii, 210-14. 20. Nat.rer., xlv, 5-6: Bo (B; B9.3.2), xxxiii, 210-14. 21.Nat.rer., xi, 2: Bo (B; B9.3.2), xxxiv, 103-04. 22. ? Nat.rer., xiii, 2: Bo (B; B9.3.2), xxxvi, 49-50. 23. ? Nat.rer., xiii, 3: Bo (B; B9.3.2), xxxix, 60-61. 24. Nat.rer., xxii, 2-4: ÆCHom I, 40 (B1.1.42), 39-42. 25. Nat.rer., xxiv, 2-4: ÆCHom I, 40 (B1.1.42), 42-44. 26. Nat.rer., v, 2-5: ÆTemp (B1.9.4), 14-17. 27. Nat.rer., ii, 5-6: ÆTemp (B1.9.4), 22-23. 28. Nat.rer., xi, 4-5: ÆTemp (B1.9.4), 43-45. 29. Nat.rer., xx, 2-4: ÆTemp (B1.9.4), 110-11. 30. Nat.rer., xxii, 2-6: ÆTemp (B1.9.4), 120-25. 31. Nat.rer., xliii, 2-8: ÆTemp (B1.9.4), 216-19. 32. Nat.rer., ii, 1: ÆTemp (B1.9.4), 221. 33. Nat.rer., iii, 1: ÆTemp (B1.9.4), 221. 34. Nat.rer., iii, 2: ÆTemp (B1.9.4), 222. 35. Nat.rer., v, 2-7: ÆTemp (B1.9.4), 224-28. 36. Nat.rer., iii, 5-7: ÆTemp (B1.9.4), 228-30. 37. Nat.rer., ix, 2-15: ÆTemp (B1.9.4), 282-92. 38. Nat.rer., xi, 1: ÆTemp (B1.9.4), 354. 39. ? Nat.rer., xxxvi, 2-11: ÆTemp (B1.9.4), 345-46.

BEDE – PART 1

Educational Work s

40. Nat.rer., xii, 2-4: ÆTemp (B1.9.4), 360-62. 41. Nat.rer., xii, 2-xiii, 16: ÆTemp (B1.9.4), 362-64. 42. Nat.rer., v, 8-12: ÆTemp (B1.9.4), 369-74. 43. Nat.rer., xxiv, 2-8: ÆTemp (B1.9.4), 378-82. 44. Nat.rer., xxvi, 1: ÆTemp (B1.9.4), 384. 45. Nat.rer., xxvii, 1: ÆTemp (B1.9.4), 384. 46. Nat.rer., iii, 2-5: ÆTemp (B1.9.4), 385-88. 47. Nat.rer., xxv, 2-3: ÆTemp (B1.9.4), 388-90. 48. Nat.rer., iii, 4: ÆTemp (B1.9.4), 391-92. 49. Nat.rer., xxv, 2-3: ÆTemp (B1.9.4), 392-93. 50. Nat.rer., iv, 9-14: ÆTemp (B1.9.4), 395-97. 51. Nat.rer., xxv, 3: ÆTemp (B1.9.4), 401-02. 52. Nat.rer., xxvi, 2: ÆTemp (B1.9.4), 402. 53. Nat.rer., xxvi, 6-7: ÆTemp (B1.9.4), 403-04. 54. Nat.rer., xxvii, 2: ÆTemp (B1.9.4), 404. 55. Nat.rer., xxvii, 6-7: ÆTemp (B1.9.4), 404-06. 56. Nat.rer., xxvii, 8-9: ÆTemp (B1.9.4), 406-07. 57. Nat.rer., xxvii, 13-14: ÆTemp (B1.9.4), 408-10. 58. Nat.rer., xxvii, 2-3: ÆTemp (B1.9.4), 411. 59. Nat.rer., xxvii, 1-16: ÆTemp (B1.9.4), 412-13. 60. Nat.rer., xxvii, 5: ÆTemp (B1.9.4), 414-16. 61. Nat.rer., xxxiii, 1: ÆTemp (B1.9.4), 419. 62. Nat.rer., xxxii, 2-5: ÆTemp (B1.9.4), 420-24. 63. Nat.rer., xxxiii, 2-4: ÆTemp (B1.9.4), 420-24. 64. Nat.rer., iv, 14: ÆTemp (B1.9.4), 432-37. 65. Nat.rer., xxxii, 2-5: ÆTemp (B1.9.4), 432-37. 66. Nat.rer., xxxiii, 24: ÆTemp (B1.9.4), 432-37. 67. Nat.rer., xxxiv, 1: ÆTemp (B1.9.4), 442. 68. Nat.rer., xxxiv, 1-4: ÆTemp (B1.9.4), 442-44. 69. Nat.rer., xxxv, 1: ÆTemp (B1.9.4), 445. 70. Nat.rer., xxxv, 2-3: ÆTemp (B1.9.4), 446-47. 71. Nat.rer., xxviii, 1: ÆTemp (B1.9.4), 448. 72. Nat.rer., xxix, 5-8: ÆTemp (B1.9.4), 449-53. 73. Nat.rer., xii, 2-3: ÆIntSig (B1.6.1), 111. 74. Nat.rer., xii, 2-4: ÆIntSig (B1.6.1), 115-17. 75. Nat.rer., xii, 2-3: ÆIntSig (B1.6.1), 118. 76. Nat.rer., xii, 6-7: ÆIntSig (B1.6.1), 119-20. 77. Nat.rer., xiii, 2-4: ÆIntSig (B1.6.1), 121-27. 78. Nat.rer., xiii, 4-5: ÆIntSig (B1.6.1), 127-29. 79. Nat.rer., xiii, 5-6: ÆIntSig (B1.6.1), 129-31.

49

50 

BEDE – PART 1

80. Nat.rer., xiii, 7-9: ÆIntSig (B1.6.1), 131-33. 81. Nat.rer., xiii, 9-10: ÆIntSig (B1.6.1), 133-35. 82. Nat.rer., xii, 2-4: ÆIntSig (B1.6.1), 135-42. 83. Nat.rer., xii, 2-4: ÆHom 21 (B1.4.22), 181-86. 84. ? Nat.rer., xxiv, 2-4: ByrM (B20.20), II.iii, 234-36. 85. Nat.rer., xxxix, 7: ByrM (B20.20), III.ii, 136-37. 86. ? Nat.rer., iii, 6: ByrM (B20.20), IV.i, 18. 87. ? Nat.rer., xxvii, 2-5: ByrM (B20.20), IV.i, 51-52. 88. ? Nat.rer., iii, 2-6: ByrM (B20.20), IV.i, 54. 89. Nat.rer., xxii, 3-9: BYRHT.Hist.reg., 40.16-21. 90. Nat.rer., xxxix, 2-5: BYRHT.Hist.reg., 54.34-55.1. Refs 1. ? BONIF.Epist. 75, 158.8-12. 2. ? ÆTemp (B1.9.4) 4-6. This account of natural phenomena, dated to around 703 (Kendall and Wallis 2010 pp 1-2 and 188-90; see also Lapidge 2008a p 55 and Lapidge 2010 1.lii-liii), contains descriptions of the earth, the heavens with the stars, the planets and their orbits, atmospheric events, oceans and rivers, the earth as a globe, and the cause of earthquakes and volcanoes. It ends with the geographical divisions of the earth. A distinctive feature is its identification of sources, notably ISIDORE’s De natura rerum, PSEUDO-ISIDORE’s (identified as Isidore’s) De ordine creaturarum, and PLINY’s Historia naturalis. Yet as Faith Wallis (2006 and 2010) has shown, Bede offered not a compilation of earlier information but a new Christian synthesis that emphasises the material world’s dependence on God’s creation. Indeed, Calvin B. Kendall and Wallis (2010) argue that it and De Temporibus were conceived of as a pair, one on cosmology and the other on chronology. As supporting evidence they note both Bede’s verse, Naturas rerum uarias labentis et aeui (see Poetry: Epigrams), written after De temporibus but placed before De natura rerum, and his listing of the two together in Historia ecclesiastica gentis Anglorum V.xxiv, line 179 (ed. Lapidge 2010 2.484; trans. Colgrave and Mynors 1969 p 571): “two books, one on the nature of things and the other on chronology: also a longer book on chronology.” MSS 1 and 3. The list of manuscripts of De natura rerum in Charles W. Jones’s edition (CCSL 123A.60-72) has been superseded by Kendall and Wallis (2010 pp 43-56), who identify 143 copies of the work. So far, the number of manuscripts and their lack of obvious filiations have prevented a clear

Educational Work s

51

understanding of the text’s dissemination. Referring to eleven manuscripts, Jones (CCSL 123A.184) writes, The only apparently sound generalization is that all manuscripts known to have been written in England … show some relation to and presumable derivation from French manuscripts. It seems probable that ABBO OF FLEURY brought with him or imported texts of De natura rerum, De temporum ratione, De temporibus, the Epistola ad Wicthedum when he migrated to Ramsey, thereby starting a new tradition of computistical and physical studies in England in the time of DUNSTAN and Oswald.

While he provides some other groupings in this discussion, his editorial practice appears to be, as Michael Lapidge (2008a p 58) puts it, to print “whatever reading seemed appropriate to him in each individual instance.” Jones (p 188) lists eleven manuscripts from which he has taken readings; Kendall and Wallis (p 44) identify eight that they refer to in their notes, adding one from St Gall, but excluding others, specifically one that Jones uses, Cotton Caligula A. xv, which appears in the list above. Helmut Gneuss and Lapidge (ASM 311) describe it as “s. viii2 with additions, s. ix 1 and ix/x, NE France, prov. England by s. ix/x”; they do not, however, call attention to the extract from chapter 17, which, according to Kendall and Wallis (p 48; they provide further references), has been added to “the ‘Computus Cottonianus,’ the core of which was composed in Spain in the seventh century.” Of this manuscript, and more generally of excerpts of Bede’s work, Jones (p 185) writes: Individual chapters of De natura rerum appear frequently, sometimes unexpectedly, in codices assembled throughout the middle ages; but since the chapters are excessively short and generally commonplace, I have not recorded these appearances in the Hand-List of Manuscripts, as I do for De temporum ratione. Quite uniformly the texts are badly corrupted. I have included variants from the single chapter (xvii) excerpted in the eighth century Cotton manuscript, Caligula A. xv (Cot), merely to indicate how rapidly a text disintegrates when separated from the parental name of Bede.

In this context it is appropriate to mention two brief passages in the Ælfwine’s Prayerbook (London, British Library, Cotton Titus D. xxvi and xxvii; ed. Günzel 1993), which draw on chapters 31 and 36 of De natura rerum. Beate Günzel explains that they are the second and third parts of a

52 

BEDE – PART 1

paragraph, which she titles “Weather Signs” (see pp 77-78 and 145-46), in the manuscript. The first of these two extracts explains that the shades of the moon and sun can forecast fair or stormy days; in chapter 36, Bede treated the sun first and then the moon, but he is the obvious ultimate, if not direct, source for these remarks. The second concerns the colors of the rainbow. MSS 2 and 4. Kendall and Wallis (2010 pp 5 and 33-34) also discuss the frequent circulation of De natura rerum with De temporibus and De temporum ratione, noting that just as Bede spoke of the first two together, they travel as a pair without a break in fifty-six of the surviving manuscripts. In all but three cases, De natura rerum comes first. They also explain that “in several manuscripts from the ninth century onwards … the two works are treated as a single treatise in two books” (p 5). Even though De temporum ratione was written to replace De temporibus, both works on time are included, along with De natura rerum, in forty-five manuscripts; twenty-two contain only De natura rerum and De temporum ratione. Cotton Domitian i includes De natura rerum but neither of the works on time; Royal 13. A. xi has all three works. Of this manuscript, Gneuss and Lapidge (ASM 483) write: “s. xi/xii or xii in., Normandy or NW France rather than England?, not in England by 1100?”. MSS other manuscripts. Finally, a manuscript now divided between two collections, Oxford, John’s College 17 and London, British Library, Cotton Nero C. viii (fols. 80-84), and a closely related one also in the British Library, Cotton Tiberius E. iv, deserve mention here because they descend from the computus assembled by BYRHTFERTH (see Baker and Lapidge 1995 pp lii-lx and 373-427). Both contain De natura rerum, although in the Oxford manuscript the text is incomplete due to a loss of leaves. Lists. Bede is mentioned in the list of books owned by Ælberht, archbishop of York, and bequeathed to ALCUIN (ML 1.7); see the introduction, BEDE. Quots/Cits 1-4. In Epistola 155 (ed. MGH ECA 2.250-53), Alcuin responded to CHARLEMAGNE’s question about the course of the moon through the zodiac. After citing a comment from De temporum ratione, he turned to a sentence, which he attributes (as does Bede) to Pliny, from De natura rerum: “The moon traverses the zodiac thirteen times in twelve [synodic] lunar months” (ed. CCSL 123A.213; trans. Kendall and Wallis 2010 p 86). He then added Bede’s following explanation: “it runs through each individual sign in two days, six hours and bes … of one hour.” He quoted Bede two more times later in the letter. Quots/Cits 5-7. Janet Bately (1980) refers to De natura rerum four times in the notes to her edition of the OLD ENGLISH OROSIUS (B9.2), in three cases as a possible source. Unlike the Historia aduersum paganos, which mentions the Red Sea and the Persian Gulf, the vernacular text follows

Educational Work s

53

a reference to the first body of water with the comment, “on ðæm londe sindon twa micla ea, Iþaspes 7 Arbis” (p 10, lines 7-8). As possible sources, Bately offers Isidore’s Etymologiae and Bede’s De natura rerum; Bede was himself quoting Isidore’s work at this point (trans. Kendall and Wallis 2010 p 96; the text in italics is from Isidore): Moreover, the Red Sea is divided into two gulfs. Of these the Persian tends to the north, while the Arabian, which is 115 miles distant from the Egyptian Sea, tends to the west.

In the second case, yet referring to the same passage in De natura rerum, Bately suggests that Bede’s “tends to the north” may have influenced the Old English writer in a following remark: “Ondlong þæs Re[a]dan Sæs, þæs dæles þe þær norþ scyt” (p 10, lines 14-15). If so, Bede, not Isidore was the translator’s source; yet the descriptions are too confused for certainty. In the third, Bately again considers both the Etymologiae or De natura rerum as possible sources for the association of Mount Etna with hell; this time Bede was using Isidore’s De natura rerum, and so the latter is a third possibility for the origin of this material. Finally, in discussing the flooding of the Nile (p 11, lines 17-20), Bately specifically contrasts Bede’s remarks to Isidore’s, considering the latter to be the more likely source. Quots/Cits 8-23. Although much of the material shared by De natura rerum and the two versions of Old English Boethius (ed. and trans. Godden and Irvine 2009; both their texts and translations are used throughout this discussion, as is their “Commentary”) is traditional, several specific correspondences contribute to the strong possibility that Bede was indeed one of the vernacular writer’s sources. First, however, it is necessary to take up the Old English versions to clarify the correspondences listed above, all the more so because the 2009 edition by Malcolm Godden and Susan Irvine replaces the ones used by the DOE and Fontes Anglo-Saxonici, Walter J. Sedgefield (1899) and the Meters of Boethius (ASPR 5), which divided the material differently. Godden and Irvine consider the B Text (Oxford, Bodleian Library, Bodley 180), which is all prose, to be the source of the C Text (London, British Library, Cotton Otho A. vi), which mixes prose and verse. Since even the verse of C often corresponds closely to the prose of B that it replaces, the editors organise their “Commentary,” the key to the discussion of sources, around the B Text. Following their lead, the source relationships listed above all refer to B, using the DOE abbreviation, “Bo,” but placing a “B” between it and the Cameron number (B9.3.2). In the introductory comment for his entries on the Meters of Boethius in Fontes

54 

BEDE – PART 1

Anglo-Saxonici, Daniel Anlezark notes that “there are few instances of the poet reverting to the original Latin text and using commentary material not used in Alfred’s prose.” Indeed, none of his nine references to De natura rerum suggests a direct use of Bede’s work and so they are not included in the list above. Cross-references to the Meters, however, are provided in the following discussions; these texts are referred to by the DOE as “Met” (A6). See also Godden and Irvine (pp 233-35) for a “Table of Correspondences for the Chapters of B, the Sections of C, and the Latin Text.” Quots/Cits 8. Godden and Irvine (2009 1.58-59), who question the attribution of the Old English Boethius to ALFRED THE GREAT (1.140-51), discuss De natura rerum primarily in relation to two topics: the four elements and astronomy. Considering other authorities such as AMBROSE, Isidore, and Pliny, they conclude, “the material suggests that it was based on a good education in natural science rather than a specific consultation of particular passages in any of these authors for the purposes of the translation.” Bede’s work, however, seems likely at least to have played some role in that education. To turn to specific cases, they record that John H. Brinegar (2000 pp 33-34) has suggested that De natura rerum was the source for the discussion of solar eclipses in chapter 4. Instead of following De consolatione Philosophiae, which notes changes in the brightness of the moon, the vernacular translator added that the moon sometimes “robs the sun of her light, when it comes between us and her” (lines 6-7; trans. Godden and Irvine 2009 2.6). Bede opened chapter 22 of De natura rerum: “They tell us that the sun is hidden by the intervention of the moon, and the moon by the interposition of the earth” (lines 2-3; trans. Kendall and Wallis 2010 p 87; the italics indicate that Bede was adapting Pliny). Here the corresponding Meter 4 is less precise than the prose: “at times it also robs the sun of its bright light when events may fall out that by necessity they become so very close together” (lines 10-12; trans. 2.100-01). Quots/Cits 9. Godden and Irvine (2009 2.307) note that the expanded reference to Etna (chapter 15, lines 17-21) “invokes similar details to those introduced by the Orosius translator” (see above). The Old English Boethius reads (trans. 2.22), But now men’s greed burns like the fire in hell which is on the mountain that is called Etna, on the island which is called Sicily. The mountain is continually burning with sulphur and burns up all the neighbouring places.

Crediting Brinegar (2000 pp 30-32) for identifying several possible Latin sources including De natura rerum, they conclude that “the close agreement with the

Educational Work s

55

Old English Orosius suggests that the latter influenced the Old English Boethius or that both were drawing on the same contemporary tradition” (2.307). Of Meter 8, lines 46-51, they comment in part: “The notion of the darkness of the fire of greed is introduced independently of the prose, evoking more vividly the link between the sulphurous fire of Etna and the dark fire of hell” (2.504). Quots/Cits 10-12. Again referring to Brinegar (2000 pp 42-43) for the Latin sources, Godden and Irvine (2009 2.337) identify three passages in the Old English Boethius related to springs, rivers, and the sea that could rely on De natura rerum. All present the circulation of water as an analogue for “the best felicity,” from which all others come and to which they all return, just as, in chapter 24, “all waters come from the sea and all go back to the sea” (trans. 2.35). The translator continues, “there is no spring so small that it does not seek the sea, and from the sea it alights on the earth again and so it creeps through the earth until it comes again to the same spring that it previously flowed from and so again to the sea” (trans. 2.35). As a third possibility for “Why the Sea Does Not Grow in Size” (chapter 40), Bede, following Isidore’s De natura rerum, explained of water that “it reflows by a hidden passage into their own springs and runs back by the usual way through their own streams” (trans. Kendall and Wallis 2010 p 95). The two other places where this analogy appears are both in chapter 34. Quots/Cits 13-15. Godden and Irvine (2009 p 378) introduce the second part of chapter 33 (lines 142-251), which corresponds to Meter 20, by commenting, “the Old English author here embarks on a long and eloquent celebration of divine power and love, which keeps alongside the Latin metre, 3m9, at the beginning and end but in the long central section, especially on the elements, spins freely and sometimes repetitively.” Near the beginning of the discussion of the elements, the Old English Boethius states, “For each of those you set its own separate place” (line 167; trans. 2.52; see also Meter 20, lines 63-64). The editors note that Brinegar (2000 p 48) cites the opening of chapter 4 of De natura rerum as the source for this idea: “The elements differ from one another both by nature and by position” (trans. Kendall and Wallis 2010 p 75). The following remark, “and yet each is mingled with the others and harmoniously bound” (lines 167-69; see also Meter 20, lines 65-66), draws on a subsequent comment in Bede’s work: “These elements nevertheless are so mingled with each other by a certain affinity of nature” (trans. p 76). As the italics taken from Kendall and Wallis indicate, in this case Bede used other works, which supports Godden and Irvine’s thesis of a general tradition rather than specific texts underlying the Old English Boethius. Bede’s De natura rerum, however, remains at least a probable source. Indeed, in their commentary, Kendall and Wallis (p 138) write that

56 

BEDE – PART 1

this understanding of the ordering of the material world provided Bede with the structure of his work: Pliny’s definition of the world as the four elements actually constitutes Bede’s plan for On the Nature of Things, giving it a distinctive structure that sets it apart from Isidore’s work. The four elements determine not only the qualities of material entities but also their location according to relative weight. Fire is the lightest element, and naturally moves to the highest place; earth is heaviest, and will always seek the lowest position. Air is heavier than fire but lighter than water, while water is heavier than air but lighter than earth. Hence the elements define four vertically arranged realms in the material cosmos. Bede will arrange his text as a top-to-bottom survey of these realms ….

While not mentioning the relative weights, the following lines in the Old English Boethius (170-76; see also Meter 20, lines 66-85) discuss the idea of the places occupied by the elements. Here and elsewhere (see below), the translator appears to have followed the emphasis Bede placed on this ordering of the elements. Quots/Cits 16. Of the following passage in the Old English Boethius (lines 178-85), Godden and Irvine (2009 2.381) write, “this graphic account of the interrelationship of earth and sea, with the earth providing a floor for the sea but being in turn moistened by it so that plants can grow, somewhat resembles the account in Bede’s De natura rerum, chapter 44.” They then quote and translate the passage, which is given here from Kendall and Wallis (2010 p 97), preserving this translation’s italics for passages that Bede took from other sources: The Creator encircled the globe around the middle with water, which inclined toward the centre of the earth from every direction and labouring toward the interior could not fall off. In consequence, since the parched and thirsty earth was unable to cohere on its own and without moisture, and the waters in turn were unable to remain without the sustaining earth, they were joined in a mutual embrace, with the one opening her bosom and the other permeating the whole, within, without, above, below, by means of veins running throughout like bonds, and even bursting out in the highest mountain ranges.

The Old English Boethius reads (trans. 2.52; see also Meter 20, lines 90-106), You set the dry and cold earth under the cold and wet water, so that the soft and flowing water may have a floor on the firm earth, for it cannot

Educational Work s

57

stand on itself. But the earth holds it and to some extent absorbs it and because of the absorption it is watered so that it grows and blossoms and brings forth crops.

Godden and Irvine further link this idea of the watering of the earth, which develops from the hierarchy of elements, with the passages about the springs, rivers, and the sea discussed above. Quots/Cits 17-18. Still discussing chapter 33, Godden and Irvine (2009 2.384) draw attention to the statement that fire is bound “with unloosable chains, so that it cannot come to its own territory, that is the very great fire that is above us” (trans. 2.52; lines 206-09; see also Meter 20, lines 153-56) as distinctive since the “home of fire is said in the glosses to be the aether.” They then offer two passages from De natura rerum as possible sources: the highest sphere of the world is the realm “of fire, by which the stars shine” (chapter 3, lines 3-4; trans. Kendall and Wallis 2010 p 75) and “heaven is of a fine and fiery nature” (the beginning of chapter 5, “The Firmament,” line 2; trans. p 76). Quots/Cits 19-20. Before turning in chapter 33 to the three-fold nature of the soul, the Old English Boethius concludes its discussion of the cosmos (lines 210-14; trans. Godden and Irvine 2009 2.53; see also Meter 20, lines 161-68): You have established the earth very wonderfully and firmly so that it does not incline to either side, nor does it stand on any earthly thing, nor does any earthly thing hold it so that it does not fall. And yet it is not then easier for it to fall down than up.

As a source, Godden and Irvine (2.384) first suggest Psalm 103:5: “Who has founded the earth upon its own bases: it shall not be moved for ever and ever.” Yet they note similar ideas in De natura rerum about “earth itself, which is the middle and lowest portion of [the cosmos]”: “It hangs suspended, motionless, with the universe whirling around it” (chapter 3, lines 5-7; trans. Kendall and Wallis 2010 p 75); and “Nature contains it, and denies it any place to fall” (chapter 45, lines 5-6; trans. p 97; in both, the italics represent Bede’s use of Pliny). Quots/Cits 21. As an analogy to the idea of God as the source of good, the Old English Boethius invokes “all stars [which] are illuminated and brightened from the sun” (chapter 34, lines 103-04; trans. Godden and Irvine 2009 2.56). Citing Brinegar (2000 p 38-39), Godden and Irvine (2.391) offer Isidore and Bede as possible sources.

58 

BEDE – PART 1

Quots/Cits 22-23. Finally, two details about Saturn stand out in the discussions of the orbits of the stars and planets in the Old English Boethius: it is “higher than any other star” (chapter 36, lines 49-50; trans. Godden and Irvine 2009 2.68; see also Meter 24, lines 22-24) and “Saturn does not come there earlier than about 30 years after he was there before” (chapter 39, lines 60-61; trans. 2.81; see also Meter 28, lines 25-27). In her entries in Fontes Anglo-Saxonici, Rohini Jayatilaka credits Brinegar (2000 p 37) with identifying what she considers a possible source for these remarks in chapter 13 of De natura rerum: “The highest of the planets is the star Saturn … completing a circuit of the zodiac in thirty years” (trans. Kendall and Wallis 2010 p 81); although the translators do not place the second piece of information in italics, as with the first, they refer the reader to Pliny. Moreover, the surrounding passages in chapters 36 and 39 in the B Text about the stars and planets and their motions may reflect more generally the discussions in chapters 11-12 of De natura rerum. Quots/Cits 24-25. ÆLFRIC certainly knew De natura rerum, as the next set of quotations and citations shows; an earlier use, discussed by Malcolm Godden (2000 p 337), appears in his Homily 40 for the Second Sunday in Advent in the first series of Catholic Homilies (B1.1.42; ed. Clemoes 1997 pp 524-30). Departing from his main source, GREGORY THE GREAT, Ælfric drew on either De natura rerum or De temporum ratione to offer a natural explanation of eclipses, thus distancing them from the signs of the end of time. In the following remark (lines 42-44), he used a later chapter of De natura rerum for his discussion of comets. These isolated uses suggest, as one might expect, that Bede’s didactic works had indeed been part of the curriculum that Ælfric had studied at Winchester. Quots/Cits 26-72. Ælfric’s knowledge of De natura rerum is certain. Heinrich Henel (1942) prints some thirty-five passages from it parallel to his De temporibus anni; virtually all are accepted by Mark Atherton in his entries in Fontes Anglo-Saxonici, most as direct sources, and they are also listed with a few minor variations in Lapidge (2006 p 255 number 29). The question has been looked at again by Martin Blake (2009; the edition and translation used here), who begins his discussion of De temporibus anni’s sources by noting that although Ælfric referred to a single book by Bede that he had used (see Refs), he was most likely being modest, and had relied on more sources (pp 46-47). Yet Bede’s treating of similar material in this work, in De temporibus, and in De temporum ratione as well as both Bede’s and Ælfric’s use of Isidore’s De natura rerum and Etymologiae can at times make it difficult to determine an exact source. As an overview, Blake writes: “De temporibus anni’s concise and straightforward style is often more reminiscent of the earlier, and more

Educational Work s

59

accessible, De temporibus and De natura rerum, although in terms of content De temporum ratione is by far the most heavily used” (p 47). He also considers De natura rerum to be Bede’s main source for the last one hundred lines of the work, for the sections “On the Various Stars,” “On the Twelve Winds,” “On Rain,” “On Hail,” “On Snow,” and “On Thunder.” For the first of these, Ælfric made “significant use” of Isidore; for the others, Bede’s De natura rerum was apparently his only source. Similarly, the opening of Ælfric’s work appears to have been inspired by this work of Bede’s, which also begins with creation; De temporibus starts with the division of time, and De temporum ratione with “Calculating or Speaking with Fingers.” Quots/Cits 32, 33, 38, 44, 45, 61, 67, 69, and 71. In her edition of Ælfwine’s Prayerbook, which contains a copy of Ælfric’s De temporibus anni, Günzel (1993 p 36) remarks of Ælfric’s work that “most of the chapter headings are also taken directly from Bede.” While the situation is more complicated, particularly since Bede often drew on Isidore’s headings, she is essentially right. For example, Ælfric’s “De mundo” (ed. Blake 2009 p 84, line 221), which is also the heading of chapter 9 in Isidore’s De natura rerum, corresponds to either chapter 2, “De mundi formatione,” or chapter 3, “Quid sit mundus,” of Bede’s work; the following content in De temporibus anni derives from chapters 3 and 5 of De natura rerum (as well as his Commentarius in Genesim). Similarly, Ælfric’s “De pluvia” (line 419) is closer to Isidore’s “De pluviis” (ed. Fontaine 1960 p 289) than to the “De imbribus” of Bede’s work, but again, the following content is from Bede. “De grandine” (line 443) and “De niue” (line 445) are shared by all three works. Of special note, however, is Ælfric’s final title, “De tonitru” (line 448), which could derive from either Bede or Isidore and which at first seems surprising because Ælfric turned initially to material from Bede’s chapter on lightning. He did so in order to conclude the work with Apocalypse 10:3-4: And he cried with a loud voice as when a lion roareth. And when he had cried, seven thunders uttered their voices. And when the seven thunders had uttered their voices, I was about to write; and I heard a voice from heaven saying to me: Seal up the things that the seven thunders have spoken and write them not.

Not only did De natura rerum suggest the beginning of Ælfric’s work, but, through this chapter heading, it also set up its end. See also the discussion of the headings drawn from De temporibus and De temporum ratione. Quots/Cits 26-37. In the earlier parts of De temporibus anni (ed. Blake 2009), Ælfric selected only occasional details from De natura rerum. In

60 

BEDE – PART 1

discussing creation, he used Bede’s language in describing the firmament (lines 14-15) and the forming of the land and sea (lines 22-23). In a following passage, he drew on De natura rerum when he stated that the light of the sun hides that of the stars (lines 43-45). He also relied on it in describing the moon (lines 110-11), eclipses (lines 120-25), and the flooding of the Nile (lines 216-19). In his section “On the World,” he used Bede in again describing the earth (lines 222 and 228-30) and the firmament (lines 224-28). Finally, his section on the earth’s five zones (lines 282-92) was drawn from Bede’s work. Quots/Cits 39. One issue that might have confused Ælfric was Bede’s view on the use of signs in the sky for predicting the weather. Near the end of the section “On the Moon’s Leap” (ed. Blake 2009 p 90), he turned from the claim, based on a passage in De temporum ratione, that the position of the moon does not determine the weather (lines 342-45), to a positive statement on the topic: “However, people who are inquisitive may observe by its colour, and by that of the sun or the sky, what kind of weather is approaching” (lines 345-46). In his note, Blake (p 123) points by way of a passage in Ælfwine’s Prayerbook (ed. Günzel 1993 p 145-46) to chapter 36 of De natura rerum, where Bede, using Isidore’s De natura rerum, endorsed this practice. By the time he wrote De temporum ratione, however, Bede had turned against this view. See further the discussion of these lines in the entry on the later work. Quots/Cits 41. Of the final sections of De temporum anni (ed. Blake 2009) drawn largely from De natura rerum, two require specific discussion. After introducing the seven stars called planets, Ælfric commented, “I know that it may seem very incredible to unlearned people if we speak truthfully about the stars and their paths” (lines 362-64; trans. Blake 2009 p 93). Henel (1942 p 69) identifies as the source chapters 12 and 13 of De natura rerum. Referring to George E. MacLean (1883 pp 468-69), Blake (p 125) comments, “the discussion of planets, which is terminated so abruptly here, appears to be picked up again in the Interrogationes at 114-15, a passage that he first quotes then translates: ‘I will now say what I previously remained silent about because of the ignorance of worldly understanding.’” After considering other interpretations of the final phrase, Blake concludes that Ælfric “thinks this knowledge would be hard to swallow, rather than dangerous.” See, however, the discussion of the Interrogationes below. Quots/Cits 53. Blake (2009 p 127) writes that Ælfric’s excursus of the names of the winds “is a much simplified version of Bede’s De natura rerum, chapter 27,” but notes that “the names he uses are in places at variance with Bede’s.” If indeed he was following Bede, Ælfric also rearranged their order. Blake comments that “tracts, often somewhat muddled, on the names of the winds are reasonably common in Anglo-Saxon computi.” Moreover, while Ælfric

Educational Work s

61

acknowledged the eight additional winds between the principle ones (lines 412-13), which Bede included in his discussion, he named only one, Aquilo or Boreas, and his information about it differs from Bede’s. Quots/Cits 73-82. As noted above (Quots/Cits 41), although Ælfric declined to discuss the planetary motions in De temporibus anni, he returned to the question in his Interrogationes Sigeuulfi in Genesin (B1.1.6; ed. MacLean 1884; lines 115-44). Having reached the point where Alcuin explained that heaven, although turning swiftly, does not fall because it is restrained by the “occursu” (PL 100.519 prints “hoc cursu” in square brackets, a reading which, MacLean adds, the Anglo-Saxon text “favors”; p 13 note 6) of the planets, Ælfric commented that he would not expect his reader to understand what this means unless he explained it more clearly “of oðrum bocum” (line 113; “from other books”; then follows the remark, quoted above, on having remained silent on this topic previously). The idea that the counter-motion of the planets stabilises that of the stars has not been identified in Bede or indeed elsewhere. Ælfric, however, did turn to Bede’s works, certainly De natura rerum, which MacLean prints opposite this passage and which is the only source listed by Filippa Alcamesi (2010 p 182), but see also De temporum, discussed by M.B. Bedingfield in his entries in Fontes Anglo-Saxonici. The issue is further complicated because at some points Ælfric’s wording recalls his own De temporibus anni, which is of course also based on Bede’s works. Because of this overlap, all of the passages from De natura rerum that might be relevant to the Interrogationes have been included above. Quots/Cits 73-76. Ælfric first introduced information from chapter 12 of De natura rerum into his Interrogationes in the answer to the question, “Si volubile est, cur non cadat?” (ed. MacLean 1884 p 13) by identifying Alcuin’s “planets” as “the seven wandering stars” (line 111). His more detailed explanation begins with Bede’s remark about them: “they move in a course contrary to the world, that is, to the left, with the world always advancing to the right” (trans. Kendall and Wallis 2010 p 81). In their commentary Kendall and Wallis (p 145) explain that the motion is from left (east) to right (west) because, “if you are in the northern hemisphere, you will always have to face south if you want to look at the ecliptic, the path of the sun and the planets”; Ælfric used “easten” and “westwerd” (lines 115-17). He also followed information in chapter 12 when he asserted that they moved “sometimes higher sometimes lower” in their courses (lines 119-20). Quots/Cits 77-82. Ælfric’s discussion of the ordering of the “wandering stars,” most of which is drawn from chapter 13 of De natura rerum, focuses on their names and the lengths of time each takes to complete a circuit of

62 

BEDE – PART 1

the zodiac. He occasionally changed details, some of which are more easily explained by assuming his willingness to do so combined with corruptions in the texts than by seeking other sources. For example, Ælfric specified Mercury’s circuit as 369 days; the texts of both De natura rerum and De temporum ratione record 348 days. Bedingfield points to a variant reading in a manuscript of De temporum ratione that corresponds to Ælfric’s figure and so may show his exact source. However, Bede’s subsequent comment that Mercury’s circuit is nine days shorter appears more likely to account for Ælfric’s mistaken 329 days than Bedingfield’s alternative recorded in Fontes Anglo-Saxonici. In any case, Ælfric restated his main argument in the following lines (135-42), which then correspond generally to his sources in Bede. Quots/Cits 83. A passage that describes the circuits of the planets in Ælfric’s Homily 21, commonly known as De falsis diis, in his Supplementary Collection (B1.4.22; ed. Pope 1967-68 pp 676-712) draws on one of the ideas from De natura rerum just discussed in connection with the Interrogationes Sigeuulfi in Genesin. After mentioning that heathen peoples attributed the power of the sun, the moon, and the five known planets to their gods, Ælfric commented that although these luminaries travel against the firmament, heaven always turns them back (lines 181-86). Pope (p 717) writes, “presumably the Interrogationes and De falsis diis were written at about the same time.” Ælfric returned to two topics, the air (lines 130-38) and the sun, moon, and stars (lines 229-35), in his Hexameron (B1.5.13; ed. Crawford 1921 pp 33-74), but in both cases appears to have relied on his De temporibus anni and Interrogationes without returning to Bede’s works; see the passages that S. J. Crawford prints beneath the text (pp 43-44 and 51) as well as his notes (pp 77 and 79). The suggestion that the planets hold the upper region of the stars in place is not mentioned. Quots/Cits 84-88. In the introduction to their edition of the Enchiridion, Michael Lapidge and Peter S. Baker (1995 p lxxiv) note BYRHTFERTH’s familiarity with De natura rerum, calling attention to the partial copy of the work in the St John’s College manuscript (see the discussion in “MSS other manuscripts” above) and a possible verbal echo in Enchiridion IV.i, line 18 (an explanation of the Trinity ruling all things “supera … media et ima”), but basing their claim on “the Latin terminology for spring tide and neap tide” in Enchiridion III.ii, lines 131-38. This passage provides firm evidence of Byrhtferth’s use of Bede’s work, but only for a single phrase, “and ledon (waning) begins when the moon is five days old” (lines 136-37; trans. Baker and Lapidge 1995 p 145), which corresponds to Bede’s, “the lesser tide, beginning from the fifth and from the twentieth day of the moon” (trans. Kendall and Wallis 2010 p 95); see De temporum ratione for a discussion of the rest of this passage. Byrhtferth’s editors also refer to De

Educational Work s

63

natura rerum in their notes on II.iii, lines 234-36 (on comets), IV.i, lines 51-52 (on the four winds), and IV.i, line 54 (on the four elements). Quots/Cits 89-90. Two more borrowings from De natura rerum appear in the Historia regum (ed. Arnold 1885 2.3-91; see also Hart 2006). As Lapidge (1993b pp 328-29) explains in the article that attributes the early section of this work, previously assigned to Symeon of Durham, to Byrhtferth, the first concerns eclipses: Because the Historia regum author prefaced his discussion with “inquit plinius,” Arnold assumed that the source of the discussion was Pliny’s Historia naturalis … However, in spite of what the Historia regum author says, his wording agrees with Bede, not with Pliny, and it is apparent that he was copying from a manuscript of the De natura rerum which was provided with Bede’s characteristic source-marks (i.e. Plinius must have been written in the margin beside the chapter on eclipses …).

The second, attributed to Bede and identified by Thomas Arnold (p 54, line 34 to p 55, line 1), concerns the dependence of the tides on the moon. Byrhtferth’s knowledge of De natura rerum and De temporum ratione is further supported by glosses on these works printed in the sixteenthcentury edition of Johann Herwagen and so reprinted in PL 90.187-256, where they are identified as “Brideferti Glossae.” Arguing against a paper by Michael M. Gorman (1996), John J. Contreni (2005) disagrees with this attribution. Lapidge (2008b; see also 2009 pp xxxiii-xxxvi) has made the case for Byrhtferth. On this issue, see also Kendall and Wallis (2010 pp 37-42), who, after summarizing the relevant evidence, note that the question of attribution to Byrhtferth “is currently in dispute” (p 39 note 128). Refs. For the reference of BONIFACE to Bede in Epistola 75 (ed. Tangl 1955, 158.8-12), see the introduction, BEDE. For Ælfric’s reference, see the discussion of Quots/Cits 26-72. The work also appears in PL 90.187-278. As the discussion here indicates, the translation in Calvin B. Kendall and Faith Wallis (2010) is accompanied by illuminating notes and commentary. De orthographia [BEDA.Orthogr.]: CPL 1566. ed.: CCSL 123A.7-57. MSS 1. Cambridge, Corpus Christi College, 221, fols. 1-24: ASM 69. 2. London, British Library, Harley 3826: ASM 438; ASMMF 15.

64 

BEDE – PART 1

3. Columbia, University of Missouri Library, Fragmenta manuscripta, F.M. 2: ASM 809.9. Lists ? Alcuin: ML 1.7. A-S Vers none. Quots/Cits 1. Orthogr., 45-46: ALCVIN.Orthogr., 3.15. 2. Orthogr., 47: ALCVIN.Orthogr., 3.16. 3. Orthogr., 61-62: ALCVIN.Orthogr., 3.17-18. 4. Orthogr., 108: ALCVIN.Orthogr., 4.1. 5. Orthogr., 100-01: ALCVIN.Orthogr., 4.4-5. 6. Orthogr., 112-14: ALCVIN.Orthogr., 4.6-7. 7. Orthogr., 115: ALCVIN.Orthogr., 4.8. 8. Orthogr., 116: ALCVIN.Orthogr., 4.9-10. 9. Orthogr., 118-19: ALCVIN.Orthogr., 4.18-19. 10. Orthogr., 120: ALCVIN.Orthogr., 4.20. 11. Orthogr., 123-24: ALCVIN.Orthogr., 5.1-2. 12. Orthogr., 126-27: ALCVIN.Orthogr., 5.3-4. 13. Orthogr., 24-25: ALCVIN.Orthogr., 5.5-6. 14. Orthogr., 26-29: ALCVIN.Orthogr., 5.6-9. 15. Orthogr., 141-42: ALCVIN.Orthogr., 5.11-12. 16. Orthogr., 143: ALCVIN.Orthogr., 5.13. 17. Orthogr., 285: ALCVIN.Orthogr., 6.11. 18. Orthogr., 286-89: ALCVIN.Orthogr., 6.11-14. 19. Orthogr., 30-33: ALCVIN.Orthogr., 7.3-6. 20. Orthogr., 145: ALCVIN.Orthogr., 7.23. 21. Orthogr., 154-55: ALCVIN.Orthogr., 7.24-25. 22. Orthogr., 170-73: ALCVIN.Orthogr., 8.23-24. 23. Orthogr., 172-73: ALCVIN.Orthogr., 9.1-2. 24. Orthogr., 179: ALCVIN.Orthogr., 9.3. 25. Orthogr., 202: ALCVIN.Orthogr., 9.4. 26. Orthogr., 214: ALCVIN.Orthogr., 9.7. 27. Orthogr., 225-26: ALCVIN.Orthogr., 9.8-10. 28. Orthogr., 235: ALCVIN.Orthogr., 9.11-12. 29. Orthogr., 238: ALCVIN.Orthogr., 9.13. 30. Orthogr., 251: ALCVIN.Orthogr., 9.14.

Educational Work s

31. Orthogr., 258: ALCVIN.Orthogr., 9.15. 32. Orthogr., 267-68: ALCVIN.Orthogr., 9.16. 33. Orthogr., 273: ALCVIN.Orthogr., 9.19. 34. Orthogr., 278-82: ALCVIN.Orthogr., 9.20-22. 35. Orthogr., 294-96: ALCVIN.Orthogr., 9.23-25. 36. Orthogr., 301: ALCVIN.Orthogr., 10.3-4. 37. Orthogr., 236-37: ALCVIN.Orthogr., 10.16-17. 38. Orthogr., 313: ALCVIN.Orthogr., 10.24. 39. Orthogr., 314: ALCVIN.Orthogr., 10.25. 40. Orthogr., 316: ALCVIN.Orthogr., 11.1. 41. Orthogr., 317: ALCVIN.Orthogr., 11.2. 42. Orthogr., 321: ALCVIN.Orthogr., 11.4. 43. Orthogr., 322-23: ALCVIN.Orthogr., 11.6-7. 44. Orthogr., 329-30: ALCVIN.Orthogr., 11.7. 45. Orthogr., 324: ALCVIN.Orthogr., 11.14. 46. Orthogr., 337: ALCVIN.Orthogr., 11.15. 47. Orthogr., 345-46: ALCVIN.Orthogr., 11.16. 48. Orthogr., 380-81: ALCVIN.Orthogr., 11.17. 49. Orthogr., 380: ALCVIN.Orthogr., 11.18. 50. Orthogr., 386-97: ALCVIN.Orthogr., 11.22. 51. Orthogr., 398: ALCVIN.Orthogr., 12.2. 52. Orthogr., 399-400: ALCVIN.Orthogr., 12.3. 53. Orthogr., 409-10: ALCVIN.Orthogr., 12.7-8. 54. Orthogr., 411: ALCVIN.Orthogr., 12.9. 55. Orthogr., 412: ALCVIN.Orthogr., 12.11. 56. Orthogr., 413-15: ALCVIN.Orthogr., 12.12-14. 57. Orthogr., 418: ALCVIN.Orthogr., 12.15. 58. Orthogr., 420-21: ALCVIN.Orthogr., 13.20. 59. Orthogr., 450-51: ALCVIN.Orthogr., 14.1. 60. Orthogr., 424-25: ALCVIN.Orthogr., 14.2-3. 61. Orthogr., 427: ALCVIN.Orthogr., 14.4. 62. Orthogr., 428: ALCVIN.Orthogr., 14.5. 63. Orthogr., 428: ALCVIN.Orthogr., 14.6. 64. Orthogr., 432-33: ALCVIN.Orthogr., 14.6-7. 65. Orthogr., 435-36: ALCVIN.Orthogr., 14.8-9. 66. Orthogr., 440-41: ALCVIN.Orthogr., 14.10-11. 67. Orthogr., 445-47: ALCVIN.Orthogr., 14.12-13. 68. Orthogr., 448: ALCVIN.Orthogr., 14.14. 69. Orthogr., 453-54: ALCVIN.Orthogr., 14.15-16. 70. Orthogr., 460-61: ALCVIN.Orthogr., 14.17-18.

65

66 

71. Orthogr., 465: ALCVIN.Orthogr., 14.19. 72. Orthogr., 477-78: ALCVIN.Orthogr., 15.21-22. 73. Orthogr., 479-80: ALCVIN.Orthogr., 16.1. 74. Orthogr., 483-84: ALCVIN.Orthogr., 16.2-3. 75. Orthogr., 495: ALCVIN.Orthogr., 17.1. 76. Orthogr., 500: ALCVIN.Orthogr., 17.2. 77. Orthogr., 505-06: ALCVIN.Orthogr., 17.3-4. 78. Orthogr., 514-15: ALCVIN.Orthogr., 18.7-8. 79. Orthogr., 518-20: ALCVIN.Orthogr., 18.8-10. 80. Orthogr., 526-28: ALCVIN.Orthogr., 18.11-12. 81. Orthogr., 533-35: ALCVIN.Orthogr., 18.13-14. 82. Orthogr., 536: ALCVIN.Orthogr., 18.16. 83. Orthogr., 558-59: ALCVIN.Orthogr., 18.17. 84. Orthogr., 578: ALCVIN.Orthogr., 18.18. 85. Orthogr., 612-13: ALCVIN.Orthogr., 19.4. 86. Orthogr., 621-22: ALCVIN.Orthogr., 19.6. 87. Orthogr., 623: ALCVIN.Orthogr., 19.7. 88. Orthogr., 624: ALCVIN.Orthogr., 19.8. 89. Orthogr., 626-27: ALCVIN.Orthogr., 19.9-10. 90. Orthogr., 628-31: ALCVIN.Orthogr., 19.11-13. 91. Orthogr., 633-34: ALCVIN.Orthogr., 19.13-14. 92. Orthogr., 644: ALCVIN.Orthogr., 19.15. 93. Orthogr., 646: ALCVIN.Orthogr., 19.16. 94. Orthogr., 667: ALCVIN.Orthogr., 20.12. 95. Orthogr., 684: ALCVIN.Orthogr., 20.20. 96. Orthogr., 702-03: ALCVIN.Orthogr., 20.21. 97. Orthogr., 718-19: ALCVIN.Orthogr., 21.11-12. 98. Orthogr., 720: ALCVIN.Orthogr., 21.12-13. 99. Orthogr., 723-25: ALCVIN.Orthogr., 21.13-14. 100. Orthogr., 726-27: ALCVIN.Orthogr., 21.14-15. 101. Orthogr., 739-40: ALCVIN.Orthogr., 21.16-17. 102. Orthogr., 760-61: ALCVIN.Orthogr., 21.19-20. 103. Orthogr., 764-65: ALCVIN.Orthogr., 21.20-21. 104. Orthogr., 768-89: ALCVIN.Orthogr., 21.22-23. 105. Orthogr., 770-71: ALCVIN.Orthogr., 21.24. 106. Orthogr., 772-73: ALCVIN.Orthogr., 21.24-25. 107. Orthogr., 763: ALCVIN.Orthogr., 22.1. 108. Orthogr., 821-22: ALCVIN.Orthogr., 23.15-16. 109. Orthogr., 822-23: ALCVIN.Orthogr., 23.16. 110. Orthogr., 824: ALCVIN.Orthogr., 23.17.

BEDE – PART 1

Educational Work s

111. Orthogr., 826-27: ALCVIN.Orthogr., 23.18. 112. Orthogr., 842: ALCVIN.Orthogr., 23.18-19. 113. Orthogr., 858: ALCVIN.Orthogr., 23.20. 114. Orthogr., 860-62: ALCVIN.Orthogr., 23.21-23. 115. Orthogr., 863: ALCVIN.Orthogr., 23.24. 116. Orthogr., 867: ALCVIN.Orthogr., 23.25. 117. Orthogr., 868: ALCVIN.Orthogr., 24.1. 118. Orthogr., 872-73: ALCVIN.Orthogr., 24.2. 119. Orthogr., 874-75: ALCVIN.Orthogr., 24.3-4. 120. Orthogr., 876-78: ALCVIN.Orthogr., 24.5-6. 121. Orthogr., 880: ALCVIN.Orthogr., 24.7. 122. Orthogr., 883: ALCVIN.Orthogr., 24.8. 123. Orthogr., 884: ALCVIN.Orthogr., 24.9. 124. Orthogr., 886: ALCVIN.Orthogr., 24.10. 125. Orthogr., 893: ALCVIN.Orthogr., 24.11. 126. Orthogr., 901: ALCVIN.Orthogr., 24.12. 127. Orthogr., 910-11: ALCVIN.Orthogr., 24.13. 128. Orthogr., 912-13: ALCVIN.Orthogr., 24.14-15. 129. Orthogr., 914-15: ALCVIN.Orthogr., 24.16-17. 130. Orthogr., 921-23: ALCVIN.Orthogr., 24.18-19. 131. Orthogr., 937: ALCVIN.Orthogr., 24.20. 132. Orthogr., 941-42: ALCVIN.Orthogr., 24.21-22. 133. Orthogr., 957: ALCVIN.Orthogr., 26.22. 134. Orthogr., 954: ALCVIN.Orthogr., 27.1. 135. Orthogr., 958-59: ALCVIN.Orthogr., 27.2-3. 136. Orthogr., 960-61: ALCVIN.Orthogr., 27.4-5. 137. Orthogr., 964-65: ALCVIN.Orthogr., 27.6. 138. Orthogr., 966: ALCVIN.Orthogr., 27.7. 139. Orthogr., 976-70: ALCVIN.Orthogr., 27.8-10. 140. Orthogr., 975-78: ALCVIN.Orthogr., 27.11-14. 141. Orthogr., 955-56: ALCVIN.Orthogr., 27.19. 142. Orthogr., 981: ALCVIN.Orthogr., 27.22. 143. Orthogr., 983: ALCVIN.Orthogr., 27.23. 144. Orthogr., 984: ALCVIN.Orthogr., 28.1. 145. Orthogr., 990: ALCVIN.Orthogr., 28.2. 146. Orthogr., 994-95: ALCVIN.Orthogr., 28.3. 147. Orthogr., 996: ALCVIN.Orthogr., 28.4. 148. Orthogr., 1062-70: ALCVIN.Orthogr., 29.10-14. 149. Orthogr., 1019: ALCVIN.Orthogr., 29.15. 150. Orthogr., 1020-21: ALCVIN.Orthogr., 29.16-17.

67

68 

151. Orthogr., 1022-23: ALCVIN.Orthogr., 29.18. 152. Orthogr., 1026-27: ALCVIN.Orthogr., 29.19-20. 153. Orthogr., 1028-30: ALCVIN.Orthogr., 29.22-30.2. 154. Orthogr., 1040-42: ALCVIN.Orthogr., 30.3-5. 155. Orthogr., 1047-49: ALCVIN.Orthogr., 30.6-8. 156. Orthogr., 1050: ALCVIN.Orthogr., 30.9. 157. Orthogr., 1054-55: ALCVIN.Orthogr., 30.10-11. 158. Orthogr., 1058: ALCVIN.Orthogr., 30.12. 159. Orthogr., 1060-61: ALCVIN.Orthogr., 30.13-14. 160. Orthogr., 1073: ALCVIN.Orthogr., 30.15. 161. Orthogr., 1074-75: ALCVIN.Orthogr., 30.16. 162. Orthogr., 1084-85: ALCVIN.Orthogr., 30.17-18. 163. Orthogr., 1106-08: ALCVIN.Orthogr., 30.19-21. 164. Orthogr., 1109-10: ALCVIN.Orthogr., 30.22-23. 165. Orthogr., 1119: ALCVIN.Orthogr., 30.24. 166. Orthogr., 1120: ALCVIN.Orthogr., 30.25. 167. Orthogr., 1130: ALCVIN.Orthogr., 31.1. 168. Orthogr., 1136: ALCVIN.Orthogr., 31.2. 169. Orthogr., 1137-38: ALCVIN.Orthogr., 31.3-4. 170. Orthogr., 1140-41: ALCVIN.Orthogr., 31.21-22. 171. Orthogr., 1146-50: ALCVIN.Orthogr., 32.11-14. 172. Orthogr., 1162-63: ALCVIN.Orthogr., 32.15-16. 173. Orthogr., 1166-70: ALCVIN.Orthogr., 32.17-20. 174. Orthogr., 1172-74: ALCVIN.Orthogr., 32.21-22. 175. Orthogr., 1176: ALCVIN.Orthogr., 32.23. 176. Orthogr., 1177-78: ALCVIN.Orthogr., 32.24-25. 177. Orthogr., 1179: ALCVIN.Orthogr., 33.1. 178. Orthogr., 1180: ALCVIN.Orthogr., 33.2. 179. Orthogr., 1181: ALCVIN.Orthogr., 33.3. 180. Orthogr., 1188-90: ALCVIN.Orthogr., 33.4-6. 181. Orthogr., 1193-94: ALCVIN.Orthogr., 33.7-8. 182. Orthogr., 1212-14: ALCVIN.Orthogr., 34.12-13. 183. Orthogr., 1221: ALCVIN.Orthogr., 34.14. 184. Orthogr., 1222: ALCVIN.Orthogr., 34.17. 185. Orthogr., 1235: ALCVIN.Orthogr., 34.18. 186. Orthogr., 1237: ALCVIN.Orthogr., 34.19. 187. Orthogr., 1238: ALCVIN.Orthogr., 34.20. 188. Orthogr., 1241: ALCVIN.Orthogr., 34.21. 189. Orthogr., 1242-43: ALCVIN.Orthogr., 34.22. 190. Orthogr., 1210-11: ALCVIN.Orthogr., 35.1.

BEDE – PART 1

Educational Work s

69

191. Orthogr., 1095-97: BYRHT.Vit.Os., 106.18-19. 192. ? Orthogr., 385: BYRHT.Vit.Os., 160.12. 193. Orthogr., 311.20-21: BYRHT.Vit.Ecg.gloss.Cotton.Nero., 20-21. Refs ? BONIF.Epist. 75, 158.8-12. Although occupying only fifty pages in Charles W. Jones’s edition in the Corpus Christianorum, Series Latina, De orthographia presents a series of challenges that call out for further study. In an article that provides fundamental insights into many aspects of the work and that is, therefore, the basis of much of what follows, (Anna) Carlotta Dionisotti (1982) is frank about the difficulties confronting scholars: the assessment of Bede’s sources is complicated by both their repetitive content and their imperfect transmissions; the establishment of his text depends not only on the manuscripts of the work, only a handful of which have been collated, but also on its reception by Carolingian authors, above all ALCUIN; and an appreciation of its aims requires an understanding of the different problems that confront the philologist at various points in the history of a language. Indeed, while citing Jones’s “apt” comparison of De orthographia to Fowler’s Modern English Usage, Dionisotti challenges the assumption that it was written as a textbook: “Surely no sane teacher wishing his pupils to learn e.g. which words are singularia/pluralia tantum would scatter them through the letters of the alphabet and thoroughly embed them in quite other matter” (p 122). It is included in this section because, although it appears likely that the work grew out of Bede’s own philological interests, it found a place, as Dionisotti puts it, “as a reference work for the library, or scriptorium, or the desk of the studious monk” (p. 122). In any case, Bede included it in this context in the list of his own works in the Historia ecclesiastica gentis Anglorum: “librum de orthographia alphabeti ordine distinctum” (ed. Lapidge 2010 2.484; “a book about orthography, arranged according to the order of the alphabet,” trans. Colgrave and Mynors 1969 p 571). Probably compiled throughout his career, De orthographia attained its final form, as Bede’s growing command of Greek demonstrates (see Dionisotti p 125), only later in his life (Lapidge 2008a p 44 and Lapidge 2010 1.lvii note 3). De orthographia grew out of Bede’s efforts to understand the idioms he encountered in reading Scripture. Many of his problems arose because the Old Latin Bibles that he knew had been translated from, in the case of the Old Testament, Hebrew into Greek, and then, with the New Testament, from Greek into Latin, and so recorded a variety of fossilised usages that would

70 

BEDE – PART 1

often have differed from the text of his Vulgate (see BIBLE). In explaining why neither AUGUSTINE nor JEROME had needed to write a handbook like his, Dionisotti explains, “the education of their day still ensured automatic familiarity with the idiomata of Latin, what was or was not a latina locutio, however divergent their views on the Latin Bible” (p 129; Augustine, as she summarises elsewhere, favoured the Septuagint as the basis for the Latin Bible in contrast to Jerome, who returned to Hebrew scriptures for his translations). Closer to Bede, she notes, was CASSIODORUS, who “tried to meet the needs of his time by energetically collecting the texts of the Latin grammarians, making relevant selections from them, and emphasising their use” (p 129). Bede’s solution, she argues, was to select extracts from “at most seven” volumes: “CAPER, AGROECIUS, VIRGILIUS MARO GRAMMATICUS, a grammar of the Charisian Group, a collection of idiomata and differentiae, a de latinitate (Caper?), and an orthographical work” (p 121; see GRAMMARS; she specifically discounts his use of dictionaries cited by Jones in his apparatus fontium, pp 111-12). From these sources he took examples illustrating a variety of topics: differences between Greek and Latin such as in their defective nouns (singularia/pluralia tantum), verbs that govern different cases (idiomata casuum), and nouns with different genders (idiomata generum); distinctions between synonyms (differentia); nouns with anomalous plurals, and indeclinables; nouns/adjectives with double accusative/ablative forms; anomalous/defective degrees of comparison; problematic perfects; words with diphthongs; the use of prepositions; the assimilation of prefixes; and the division of syllables in writing and speaking. Referring specifically to the differentiae, she suggests that “a few may have been coined by Bede himself” from his patristic reading (p 115 and note 2). Moreover, considering the idiomata casuum, she demonstrates that Bede “recasts a number of his excerpts” perhaps “to make them relevant to one of his primary concerns, the critical study of different Latin versions of the Bible” (p 124). The aim of De orthographia, she concludes, was “to reconstruct, and appropriately adapt, one of the tools of biblical criticism, which the Fathers had assumed, so that their work could be understood and pursued further, by Bede himself and kindred spirits” (p 129). Another, although unintended, result of De orthographia is that it gives modern editors a tool to use in evaluating how closely any particular manuscript or group of manuscripts follows Bede’s own copy. Michael Lapidge (2008a pp 97-101) uses it to uncover almost immediate changes by a Canterbury scribe/redactor in the text of the Historia ecclesiastica, and his edition of the Historia (2010 see pp cxxviii-cxxxi) follows the guidelines set out in it.

Educational Work s

71

MSS 1-2. De orthographia survives in twenty-three manuscripts, a relatively small number for a work by Bede; they are listed and discussed in Lapidge (2008a pp 44-50), who has worked from Dionisotti (1982 pp 13739). Dionisotti asserts that “the text had a considerable diffusion from the eighth to the eleventh century, and hardly any thereafter” (p 134). Lapidge stresses that, since only six of the twenty-three copies have been collated by Jones and previous editors, “much work obviously remains” (p 45). The Cambridge and London manuscripts listed above were used by Jones, but, as Lapidge points out, he apparently adopted a late eighth-century manuscript from Monte Cassino but now in Paris as his base text. Lapidge (p 46) questions Jones’s claim that the Cambridge and London manuscripts represent “an unbroken Insular … tradition,” which could be distinguished from “a Continental tradition” (CCSL 123A.4). Harley 3826 is listed as “s. x/xi, prob. Abingdon” in ASM; Corpus 221, however, is described as “x 1 or x med. or x 2, perh. Canterbury StA (or Brittany?).” He notes, however, that “there are many places where [these manuscripts] more obviously preserve what Bede wrote” than does the Paris manuscript (p 46). MSS 3. The University of Missouri fragment, the recto of a single folio, has suffered damage, particularly at the margins of its cropped edges. Nicholas H. Webb (1988 p 79) identifies the opening words of the first column as “agon graece” (line 37); some words from the line above may still be recoverable; see the image available on the Digital Scriptorium. In any case, this column ends with “affectum similiter” (lines 91-92; the writing below may be part of this text). The first clearly legible words at the top of the second column are “ambos et duos” (line 102), which suggests that some ten lines as printed in the CCSL have been lost. Noting another faded line below, Webb offers “generi (sic) masculino et baptisma baptismatis neutro” (lines 154-55) as the end of this column. Considering the leaf as a whole, he writes, “The haphazard nature of the quotations suggests that they were scholarly notes, perhaps entered in a commonplace book.” Helmut Gneuss and Lapidge (ASM 809.9) describe the fragment as written in the ninth century, probably in Wales, but in Winchester by the beginning of the tenth century. MSS other manuscripts. Both Dionisotti (1982 pp 131-34) and Lapidge (2008a pp 49-50) call attention to another group of manuscripts that need to be considered in establishing the text of De orthographia, copies of the second recension of Alcuin’s De orthographia to which have been added the material from Bede that the later writer cut (on the nature of the two recensions, see Bruni 1997 pp xii-xxv). After identifying five relevant manuscripts, Dionisotti confronts but leaves unanswered the question of whether they “constitute one witness or several.” In this context, she mentions William of Malmesbury’s

72 

BEDE – PART 1

similar conflation of Alcuin and Bede, a work that Lapidge notes might also play a role in determining the transmission of Bede’s De orthographia. Lists. Bede is mentioned in the list of books owned by Ælberht, archbishop of York, and bequeathed to Alcuin (ML 1.7); see the introduction, BEDE. Quots/Cits 1-190. The central text for evaluating the reception and, indeed, dissemination of Bede’s De orthographia is obviously Alcuin’s work of the same name. The borrowings from Bede are so extensive that the later work might loosely be considered an “A-S Vers” of the earlier one; however, Alcuin’s almost equal use of Cassiodorus’s De orthographia, as well as numerous borrowings from ISIDORE’s Etymologiae and PRISCIAN’s Institutiones grammaticae make it substantially new. As Dionisotti (1982 p 134) comments, he “must have intended that his work should replace Bede’s, otherwise he would hardly have included so much of it.” Citing a suggestion by Donald Bullough (1998 pp 15-16), Lapidge (2008a p 49) writes that Alcuin may have composed the first recension of this work while “still in Northumbria (before joining CHARLEMAGNE’s court circle in 782).” The second recension, which has not yet been firmly assigned to Alcuin (see Lapidge p 49 note 32), moves in general away from Bede’s original in small matters of wording (see Bruni 1997 pp xiii-xxi, who uses this evidence to argue that the first recension is earlier). As noted above in MSS other manuscripts, this second recension is accompanied in some manuscripts by the material from Bede that Alcuin excluded in his version. Quots/Cits 1-3. As the evidence in Sandra Bruni’s edition shows (1997; see the apparatus fontium and her “Index fontium” pp 37-39), Alcuin often repeated Bede without any significant change. His first borrowing, for example, “aeger animo, aegrotus corpore, utrumque per diptongon scribitur” (p 3, line 15), which distinguishes the appropriate contexts for related adjectives and sets their spelling, differs from Bede only in the final word, which reads “scribendum.” Dionisotti (1982 pp 134-35) notes that in such “semi-formulaic” texts, these kinds of variants are “non-significant”: “scribes probably felt under no obligation to copy exactly even if their exemplar had the words written out; their aim after all was to transmit useful information, not ease the life of future editors.” In this example, Bede also preserved the Greek spelling, “diphthongon.” Alcuin’s second borrowing, “alibi alio loco, alias alio tempore significat” (p 3, line 16), simplifies Bede by omitting his following explanation, “at tamen inuenimus alias nonnumquam pro aliter siue pro alio loco positum” (ed. CCSL 123A p 9). In the third borrowing, Alcuin changed Bede more significantly, distinguishing disyllabic “aër” from Bede’s monosyllabic “aes” and then rewriting Bede’s main point, “et quamuis aera dicamus, tamen ceteris casibus non utimur” as “non habet

Educational Work s

73

pluralem numerum nisi aera tantum” (p 3, lines 17-18). Although Bruni asks the reader to compare Bede at this point, we have listed his work as the source. In the case of Alcuin’s “album natura, candidum cura facit” (p 5, line 10), Bruni refers to both Isidore’s De differentiis uerborum (ed. PL 83.14, lines 17-21) and Bede’s De orthographia; here, the wording in Isidore is closer to Alcuin’s and so we have dropped the reference to Bede. The other items included in Quots/Cits reflect similar judgements, but, on the whole, adhere closely to Bruni’s assessments. Quots/Cits 96. Further analysis of Alcuin’s work will undoubtedly yield new insights. One notable difference between his work and his source is Bede’s greater attention to examples involving Greek. Alcuin did refer to Greek on occasion, but his comment, “Mattheus et Matthias per duo t, quod Greci per τ et θ scribunt” (p 20, line 21), may call attention to a move away from Bede’s interest in the idioms that underlie the Old Latin Bible. Quots/Cits 191-93. In his Vita Oswaldi (ed. Lapidge 2009 p 106), BYRHTFERTH used “gerontas” as a way of describing the priests who, along with other church officials and members of the nobility, gathered in Bath in 973 to witness Edgar’s anointing. Noting that Bede was quoting from GREGORY THE GREAT, Lapidge (p 107 note 58) identifies Byrhtferth’s source as lines 1095-97 of De orthographia. Less certain is the phrase “uitreos … campos,” which Byrhtferth used in describing Dunstan’s life in this world: “But the clemency of His mercy retained him in the struggle for a length of time, so that he would labour on earth through the glassy expanses of the salt sea (“uitreos salsi marmoris campos”) in order that afterwards, as a veteran soldier, he might make his way with distinction in heaven” (trans. Lapidge 2009 p 161). Lapidge suggests that Byrhtferth could have drawn the phrase from either CAELIUS SEDULIUS or ALDHELM, adding that Bede had quoted the line from Sedulius in De orthographia. Lapidge refers to Bede’s work again when discussing the glosses to Byrhtferth’s Vita Oswaldi and Vita Ecgwini (ed. Lapidge 2009) in London, British Library, Cotton Nero E. i. “Supremus” in Vita Ecgwini I.i (p 214, line 7) is glossed “summus uel excelsus. Supremus per unum, summus dicitur per duo, .m. ultimus dicitur” (p 311, lines 20-21). Lapidge (note 2) refers to De orthographia, lines 1104-05, “supremus, summus, et ultimus et superiorem et inferiorem significat,” which is identified in the CCSL as from Agroecius, but Bede is the more likely source. Refs For the reference by BONIFACE to Bede in Epistola 75 (ed. Tangl 1955, 158.8-12), see the introduction, BEDE. Bede’s De orthographia is also edited in GL 7.261-94.

74 

De schematibus et tropis [BEDA.Schem.trop.]: CPL 1567. ed.: CCSL 123A.142-71. MSS 1. London, British Library, Harley 521, fol. 2: ASM 418.8. 2. Worcester, Cathedral Library, Q. 5: ASM 765. Lists ? Alcuin: ML I.7. A-S Vers none. Quots/Cits 1. Schem.trop., ii, 9-11: ByrM (B20.20), II.i, 466-70. 2. Schem.trop., i, 3-4: ByrM (B20.20), III.iii, 23-24. 3. Schem.trop., i, 25-29: ByrM (B20.20), III.iii, 25-30. 4. Schem.trop., i, 34-40: ByrM (B20.20), III.iii, 31-36. 5. Schem.trop., i, 42-48: ByrM (B20.20), III.iii, 37-41. 6. Schem.trop., i, 51-53: ByrM (B20.20), III.iii, 42-47. 7. Schem.trop., i, 65-68: ByrM (B20.20), III.iii, 48-52. 8. Schem.trop., i, 71-73: ByrM (B20.20), III.iii, 53-56. 9. Schem.trop., i, 77-78: ByrM (B20.20), III.iii, 56-57. 10. Schem.trop., i, 79: ByrM (B20.20), III.iii, 57-58. 11. Schem.trop., i, 80-83: ByrM (B20.20), III.iii, 59-63. 12. Schem.trop., i, 84-85: ByrM (B20.20), III.iii, 64-66. 13. Schem.trop., i, 86: ByrM (B20.20), III.iii, 66-67. 14. Schem.trop., i, 88-89: ByrM (B20.20), III.iii, 67-69. 15. Schem.trop., i, 90-91: ByrM (B20.20), III.iii, 70-71. 16. Schem.trop., i, 95-102: ByrM (B20.20), III.iii, 74-85. 17. Schem.trop., i, 103-06: ByrM (B20.20), III.iii, 86-89. 18. Schem.trop., i, 108: ByrM (B20.20), III.iii, 90. 19. Schem.trop., i, 115: ByrM (B20.20), III.iii, 92. 20. Schem.trop., i, 115-18: ByrM (B20.20), III.iii, 93-97. 21. Schem.trop., i, 119-21: ByrM (B20.20), III.iii, 97-99. 22. Schem.trop., i, 129-30: ByrM (B20.20), III.iii, 100-01. 23. Schem.trop., i, 137: ByrM (B20.20), III.iii, 104. 24. Schem.trop., i, 138-42: ByrM (B20.20), III.iii, 106-09. 25. Schem.trop., i, 144-47: ByrM (B20.20), III.iii, 110-12. 26. Schem.trop., i, 151-54: ByrM (B20.20), III.iii, 113-16.

BEDE – PART 1

Educational Work s

75

27. Schem.trop., i, 155-57: ByrM (B20.20), III.iii, 117-19. 28. ? Schem.trop., ii, 213-14: BYRHT.Vit.Os., Prol., 8.4. 29. ? Schem.trop., i, 72-73: BYRHT.Vit.Os., 12.5. Refs ? BONIF.Epist. 75, 158.8-12. In the list of his works in Historia ecclesiastica V.xxiv, lines 182-84, Bede followed De arte metrica with his reference to De schematibus et tropis: “et huic adiectum alium de schematibus siue tropis libellum, hoc est de figuris modisque locutionum, quibus scriptura sancta contexta est” (ed. Lapidge 2010 2.484; trans. Colgrave and Mynors 1969 p 571, “and to this is added another small book on figures of speech or tropes, that is, concerning the figures and modes of speech with which the holy Scriptures are adorned”). On its recent dating to later in Bede’s career, see De arte metrica. The work is an expansion of DONATUS’s De schematibus and De tropis (the last two sections of the Ars grammatica, i.e., Ars maior) with additional material taken from CASSIODORUS, In Psalmos (see Knappe 1996 pp 238-39 and 559-60). Bede clearly thought of the book with its companion piece as a grammatical work; but editors and critics have frequently called it a rhetorical treatise. The confusion arises from the fact that vocational grammarians at an early date arrogated such topics to grammar from rhetoric, because figures of speech obviously applied to the study of language and its literary interpretation. This wholesale inclusion of rhetorical matters within the pale of grammar allowed monastic grammarians like Bede to avoid espousing suspect rhetoric in the abbey school, while permitting a study of metrics and literary devices for interpretation of poetry in the Bible and Christian authors. One remarkable aspect of Bede’s manual is that it is the first to give not a single example from Roman pagan literature, not even VERGIL, whom he included in De arte metrica. A second remarkable feature is that it is the first to attempt a synthesis of linguistic and theological symbolism in a grammatical treatise; on his discussion of allegory, see George H. Brown (2009 pp 24-26), Scott DeGregorio (2010b pp 132-35), Arthur G. Holder (2006 p 173), Calvin B. Kendall (2006 p 113), and Alan Thacker (2006 p 50). MSS 1-2. For a discussion of the manuscript tradition and information about the Worcester manuscript, see De arte metrica. Discovered by Carl T. Berkhout (2006b), the fragment of De schematibus et tropis in the Harley 521, a fifteenth-century heraldic manuscript, contains the end of the work, from line 290 (“Parabole est rerum”) to 301 (“estote uxoris Loth”); the scribe then concluded, “finit.” Berkhout edits the text (p 12), dating the fragment to the mid-tenth century and placing its scribe at St Augustine’s, Canterbury.

76 

BEDE – PART 1

Lists. Bede is mentioned in the list of books owned by Ælberht, archbishop of York, and bequeathed to ALCUIN (ML 1.7); see the introduction, BEDE. Quots/Cits 2-27. Peter S. Baker and Michael Lapidge note in their edition of the Enchiridion (1995 p lxxxi; this work and its translations will be referenced throughout this section; line references are to the Old English) that BYRHTFERTH’s discussion of the figures of speech in book 3, chapter 3, lines 22-127 comes largely from Bede’s De schematibus et tropis (see also Murphy 1970, which they cite in their Commentary, p 329). As in the case of his use of De arte metrica, they write, “it is clear from the explanations of the various terms that [Byrhtferth] was also drawing on the commentary to De schematibus et tropis by REMIGIUS OF AUXERRE, presumably in the form of an interlinear or marginal gloss accompanying Bede’s text” (p lxxxi). Not only did he take much of Bede’s text and many of his examples from the Bible, he also preserved the numeration of his source. Quots/Cits 2-3. Byrhtferth shortened Bede’s opening discussion of the presence of figures of speech in the Bible to the more general, “we desire that the onlooker who investigates this work should know with complete understanding that many figures are written out in rhetoric” (III.iii, lines 22-23; trans. Baker and Lapidge 1995 p 163). He did, however, preserve Bede’s introduction of the Latin and Greek terms: “they are called figurae in Latin and scemata in Greek” (lines 23-24). As the editors note, Byrhtferth’s discussion of prolepsis (lines 25-30) follows De schematibus et tropis lines 25-29. Anticipatio (line 25), however, comes from the Remigian gloss; there is, of course, no source for the two English equivalents, “forstæppung” and “dyrstynnys.” Finally, Byrhtferth used only the first of Bede’s examples: “‘His foundation is in the holy mountains. The Lord loves the gates of Zion.’ He said ‘his’ before ‘the Lord’” (lines 29-30). Quots/Cits 4-5. Byrhtferth replaced Bede’s explanation of zeugma with an English equivalent, “gefeig” (III.iii, line 31; trans. Baker and Lapidge 1995 p 164), for the word, and added, as the editors note, the comment that this “joining is very frequently in holy scriptures” (lines 31-32). He then shortened Bede’s example. Similarly, he omitted most of the explanation of hypozeuxis, commenting only that it “is precisely the opposite of the aforementioned figure” (line 37). Here he abbreviated Bede’s first two examples and omitted the third. A reader unfamiliar with these figures of speech would be unlikely to understand them from this presentation. Quots/Cits 6-10. Byrhtferth followed Bede’s description of syllepsis with only his first example, perhaps using the Remigian gloss to explain it or relying on Bede’s discussion of his second example. The editors point out that in quoting the Bible here, he added the words “in uerba oris mei”

Educational Work s

77

“probably from memory” (Baker and Lapidge 1995 p 329). Byrhtferth offered an English equivalent for anadiplosis before including Bede’s definition and first example. The editors comment that his “iterata dupplicatio” (line 49; for “congeminatio dictionis”) is found in only one manuscript from the early twelfth century. After supplying an English equivalent, Byrhtferth used Bede’s description and first and third examples to illustrate anaphora. The editors note that his explanation of epanaphora as “further repetition” “may derive, through error, from Remigius’s commentary, which at this point reads ‘EPANAFORAM. super reuelationem’” (p 330). Quots/Cits 11-14. The discussion of epanalepsis in the Enchiridion (III. iii, lines 59-63; ed. Baker and Lapidge 1995 p 164) follows De arte metrica closely. For epizeuxis Byrhtferth added an English equivalent and reduced the two examples that he took from Bede’s work. The editors also note that Byrhtferth used Remigius’s “EPIZEVXIS id est superconiunctio” (p 330). Quots/Cits 15-16. The discussion of paronomasia is the longest of this set in the Enchiridion – it is the second longest in De arte metrica – and it would have been longer. The editors write, “Perhaps some notion of how much of Byrhtferth’s text has been lost after seminarium byð (74) can be gleaned from the sequel of Bede’s discussion”: they then quote four lines of De arte metrica (ed. Baker and Lapidge 1995 p 330). What is certain is that before the gap Byrhtferth had turned from Bede’s discussion to Remigius’s gloss on “diuersa.” Following the gap is Bede’s third example, from Isaias, which led Bede into an explanation of the Hebrew words, “mesphat,” “mesaphaa,” “sadaca,” and “suaca,” which he associated (following JEROME) with the Vulgate’s “iudicium,” “iniquitas,” “iustitia,” and “clamor.” Byrhtferth added English equivalents for these four terms. Quots Cits 17-24. Although he shortened the final example, Byrhtferth followed Bede’s discussion of schesis onomaton closely. In contrast, his brief entry on paromoeon, “that is, proper simile in Latin and very like in English” (III.iii, lines 90-91; trans. Baker and Lapidge 1995 p 167) derives from Remigius; the correspondence listed above (line 90) concerns only the name of the figure. As the editors also note, Byrhtferth here had lost count. He inserted Remigius’s etymologies into Bede’s discussion of homoeoteleuton (line 92; “similis terminatio”) and used only his first and third examples. In the case of the third, he identified the source, as Bede had not, as “Sedulius” (line 98); the editors comment, “possibly Byrhtferth recognized it” (p 330). He reproduced Bede’s definition and first example of homoeoptoton before turning, as the editors note, to a line from PERSIUS (line 103) quoted by ISIDORE as an example of polyptoton. Before turning to Bede’s examples of polyptoton (correspondence 23 represents only the name of the figure and

78 

BEDE – PART 1

the number), Byrhtferth incorporated the etymologies from Remigius. He shortened the second example, quoting only the key phrases. Quots/Cits 25-27. Byrhtferth followed Bede’s explanation of hyrmos, itself taken from CASSIODORUS, closely, adding as the editors note, “et in uirtute tua iudica me” (III.iii, line 111; ed. Baker and Lapidge 1995 p 168) to his first example, but then omitting the rest of the verse. He also cut the explanation of the verse. Polysyndeton derives, with some shortening of the example and the addition of an English equivalent, from Bede. Dialyton also derives directly from Bede, omitting the final clause of the example. Quots/Cits 1. With these certain correspondences in mind, it seems more likely that a passage in Enchiridion book 2, chapter 1, lines 466-70 (on synaloepha) also takes an explanation from De schematibus et tropis. On the passage as a whole, see the entry on De arte metrica. In the section at issue here, which the editors, Baker and Lapidge (1995 p 297), suggest probably draws on DONATUS, Byrhtferth had turned to “scemata lexeos and dianoeas” (trans. Baker and Lapidge 1995 p 91): Lexeos is the combination of words and dianoeas is sense; the wisest scholars ought to know this. Lexeos pertains to the scholars who are elegantly taught in that discipline. Lo, they diligently weigh the manners and the customs (tropus in Greek and mos in Latin) so that they can distinguish clearly the difference between “from animate to animate” and “from inanimate to inanimate” and “from inanimate to animate” and from animate to inanimate.”

The end of this passage corresponds to Bede’s remarks on metaphor in chapter 2 of De schematibus et tropis, which he had taken from Donatus (ed. CCSL 123A.152, lines 8-11): Metafora est rerum uerborumque translatio. Haec fit modis quattuor: ab animali ad animale, ab inanimali ad inanimale, ab animali ad inanimale, ab inanimli ad animale.

In their note on lines 466-70 of the Enchiridion, Baker and Lapidge indicate that its source is lines 3-10 of chapter 2 of De schematibus et tropis, which begins “Tropus est dictio translata a propria significatione ad non propriam similitudinem ornatus necessitatisue causa” (lines 2-3). Byrhtferth omitted the intervening material that would have made the passage he quoted intelligible. Quots/Cits 28-29. Near the conclusion of the Prologue of his Vita Oswaldi (ed. Lapidge 2009 p 8), Byrhtferth asserted that “all verbal artifice is absent” (line 4), using a term, “astismos,” derived from Greek. Noting that it is

Educational Work s

79

discussed by Donatus and Isidore, Lapidge (note 28) states that he “probably took the term from Bede,” chapter 2, lines 213-14 of De schematibus et tropis. Commenting on a reading from the Roman version of the Psalms in part 1, chapter 1 of the work, Lapidge remarks that, since Bede also quoted the verse in chapter 1 of his De schematibus et tropis, “it is possible that Bede … is his source for the ‘Roman’ reading defensor” (p 12 note 26). Refs For the reference of BONIFACE to Bede in Epistola 75 (ed. Tangl 1955, 158.8-12), see the introduction, BEDE. Besides the PL and CCSL editions, there is Karl Halm’s (1863 pp 607-18). For a translation, see Calvin B. Kendall (1991). Louis Holtz (2002) discusses the sources of the work. De temporibus [BEDA.Temp.]: CPL 2318. ed.: CCSL 123C.585-611. MSS 1. London, British Library, Cotton Tiberius B. v, fols. 2-73, 77-85: ASM 373; ASMMF 9. 2. London, British Library, Royal 2. B. v (the “Royal Psalter”): ASM 451; ASMMF 2. 3. London, British Library, Royal 13. A. xi: ASM 483. Lists 1. ? Alcuin: ML 1.7. 2. ? Worcester: ML 11.32. A-S Vers none. Quots/Cits 1. Temp. ix, .2-5: ÆCHom I, 6 (B1.1.7), 132-35. 2. Temp., iii, 11-12: ÆTemp (B1.9.4), 41-42. 3. Temp., iii, 1: ÆTemp (B1.9.4), 93. 4. Temp., iii, 2-3: ÆTemp (B1.9.4), 94. 5. Temp., iii, 2: ÆTemp (B1.9.4), 96-97. 6. Temp., iii, 5-12: ÆTemp (B1.9.4), 125-32. 7. Temp., ix, 1: ÆTemp (B1.9.4), 141. 8. Temp., ix, 2-3: ÆTemp (B1.9.4), 142.

80 

BEDE – PART 1

9. Temp. ix, .3-4: ÆTemp (B1.9.4) 156-59. 10. Temp., vii, 1: ÆTemp (B1.9.4), 236. 11. Temp., x, 1: ÆTemp (B1.9.4), 293. 12. Temp., xii, 1: ÆTemp (B1.9.4), 319. 13. Temp., ix, 8-10: ByrM (B20.20), I.i, 191-92. p 259 14. Temp., xvi, 2: ByrM (B20.20), IV.ii, 5-6. 15. Temp., xvi, 2-22: ByrM (B20.20), IV.ii, 6-10. Refs 1. ? BONIF.Epist. 75, 158.8-12. 2. ? ÆTemp (B1.9.4) 4-6. In explaining a calculation in chapter 14 of De temporibus, Bede identified the present year as 703, thus dating the work to early in his career as a writer; he would have been around thirty and so its publication roughly coincided with his ordination as a priest. In it he discussed time and its calculation, ending with a brief chronicle of world events. The chronicle sometimes circulated separately and is referred to as the Chronica minora; in his edition in CCSL 123A, Charles W. Jones follows Theodore Mommsen’s edition (MGH AA 13.246-317, bottom) for this part of the text. At the beginning of De temporum ratione, Bede referred to his earlier work on time as De ratione temporum, but the name he gave it in the list in the Historia ecclesiastica gentis Anglorum (ed. Lapidge 2010 2.484), De temporibus, is the one used in modern scholarship. Calvin B. Kendall and Faith Wallis (2010 p 3) argue that Bede conceived of it as part of a pair, the other being his work on cosmology, De natura rerum. Bede himself reported that students found it (and also the De natura rerum) too compressed for their use (“dicebant eos [libellos] brevius multo digestos esse quam uellent”: De temporum ratione, praefatio, lines 4-5; ed. CCSL 123B.263), and for that reason he undertook the expanded and more detailed later treatise. For the early Middle Ages the correct reckoning of time and dating of secular and sacred events was no easy matter, complicated by the liturgical necessity of coordinating the lunar (Jewish) calendar with the solar (Roman) calendar. Bede drew first on books 5 and 6 of ISIDORE’s Etymologiae, supplementing his discussion with Irish material (see Ó Cróinín 1983), to progress from the smallest units of time to the year (chapters 1-10). He then turned to the Paschal cycle itself (chapters 11-12), the organisation of the table for the projected dates of Easter (chapter 13), formulae for the cycle (chapter 14), and the symbolic meaning of this material (chapter 15). Taking the Alexandrian nineteen-year cycle as normative, Bede made it the basis

Educational Work s

81

of this manual of time-reckoning and established computus, the method of constructing and ordering the Christian lunar-solar calendar, as a science. For further discussion of Bede’s innovations here, see Wallis (2010 p 120). In the chronicle (chapters 17-22), rather than blindly accepting the figures which Isidore had unquestioningly taken from JEROME’s translation of EUSEBIUS’s Chronicle, Bede calculated the time differences allotted in the Bible according to Jerome’s translation from the Hebrew, with assistance from the historian JOSEPHUS where the Bible is unspecific. The result was that instead of the usual 5000 years from the creation to the birth of Christ, Bede arrived at the sum of 3952 years. After Bede was accused of heresy at a banquet in the monastery of Hexham where his diocesan superior Bishop Wilfrid was present, he responded with his Epistola ad Pleguinam. MSS 1-3. The list of manuscripts of De temporibus in Jones’s edition (CCSL 123C.580-83) has been superseded by Kendall and Wallis (2010 pp 56-64), who identify 112 copies of the work; see also their discussion of eighteen manuscripts mentioned by others that they exclude. The only complete copy that might have been in England before 1100 is Royal 13. A. xi. Helmut Gneuss and Michael Lapidge (ASM 483) date it to either the end of the eleventh or the beginning of the twelfth century, and suggest that it might have been written in Normandy or north-west France rather than in England. The two other manuscripts listed above contain only extracts: Cotton Tiberius B. v includes chapter 14, “The Formulas for the Headings of the Paschal Table,” and Royal 2. B. v has chapter 16, “The Ages of the World.” In addition to these manuscripts, one now divided between two collections, Oxford, St John’s College 17 and London, British Library, Cotton Nero C. viii (fols. 80-84), and a closely related one also in the British Library, Cotton Tiberius E. iv, deserve mention here because they descend from the computus assembled by BYRHTFERTH (see Baker and Lapidge 1995 pp lii-lx and 373-427). Finally, though De temporibus is not included among the contents of Cambridge, Trinity College, B. 3. 5 (84) in ASM 161, M.R. James (1900 1.104) notes that an extract from chapter 8 (Ebdomada grece … ad lune cursum stringi = PL 90.326) is added “in a slightly later hand” on fol. 144 rv, with the marginal identif ication “S. beda doctor et monachus habet istud in libro suo de temporibus” (see also Gameson 1999 p 70 no. 140) . On the dissemination of the work, Michael Lapidge (2008a p 63) writes, In broad terms the transmission of De temporibus resembles that of De natura rerum. Among manuscripts of De temporibus, there are no surviving English manuscripts of the eighth century; the earliest manuscripts of the work are of continental origin and date from the ninth century:

82 

BEDE – PART 1

copies, presumably, of (lost) English manuscripts that travelled to the Continent in the wake of the Bonifatian mission. As in the case of De natura rerum, it would appear that the text of De temporibus was only reintroduced into England in the late tenth century by ABBO OF FLEURY; the copy (or copies) of the text brought to England served in turn as the source of a number of post-Conquest English manuscripts.

Kendall and Wallis (2010 pp 5 and 33-34) add that the circulation of De temporibus is often tied to that of De natura rerum and De temporum ratione: just as Bede spoke of the first two together, they travel as a pair without a break in fifty-six of the surviving manuscripts. In all but three cases, De natura rerum comes first. They also explain that “in several manuscripts from the ninth century onwards … the two works are treated as a single treatise in two books” (p 5). Even though De temporum ratione was written to replace De temporibus, both works on time are included, along with De natura rerum, in forty-five manuscripts; twenty-two contain only De natura rerum and De temporum ratione. This issue bears directly on the texts in St John’s College 17, the manuscript mentioned above in connection with Byrhtferth’s computus. Kendall and Wallis explain that the texts of both De natura rerum and De temporum ratione in this manuscript “are related to the French family of texts associated with Abbo of Fleury”; however, its text of De temporibus “belongs to a more archaic recension, most exemplars of which hail from southern Germany and Switzerland.” Its text, then, “may have migrated back to Britain from Germany” or may be from “an ancient English codex which never left the islands, and which somehow survived the depredations of the Viking years” (p 35 note 120). Lists. Bede is mentioned in the list of books owned by Ælberht, archbishop of York, and bequeathed to ALCUIN (ML 1.7); see the introduction, BEDE. The booklist possibly from Worcester (ML 11) includes “Beda De temporibus,” which Lapidge identifies as this work. Given, however, the overlapping titles under which it and De temporum ratione circulated, it might refer to either. Quots/Cits 2-9. The case for ÆLFRIC’s knowledge of De temporibus rests not on Homily 6 of his first series of Catholic Homilies (B1.1.7; ed. Clemoes 1997 pp 224-31), but rather on De temporibus anni (ed. and trans. Blake 2009), and so the later work will be treated first. While even here the evidence is less certain than it is for his reliance on De natura rerum and De temporum ratione, it clearly points to his use of it. His reference at the opening of De temporibus anni to a single “book” by Bede is inconclusive: he certainly drew from more than one. Martin Blake recognises that here he “is being excessively modest about the scope of his sources” (p 47). Moreover,

Educational Work s

83

some of the possible correspondences remain uncertain because, as Blake puts it, “Bede incorporated passages from both De temporibus and De natura rerum into De temporum ratione, so it is not always easy to decide which of these works was Ælfric’s main source at any particular point” (p 47). Several, however, appear particularly strong. For Ælfric’s division of night into seven parts, “Crepusculum,” “Vesperum,” “Conticinium,” “Intempestum,” “Gallicinium,” “Matutinum uel Aurora,” and “Diluculum” as well as the descriptions of each (lines 125-32), Heinrich Henel (1942 pp 24-27) offers only De temporibus, which Mark Atherton also considers the certain, direct source in his entries in Fontes Anglo-Saxonici. Bede’s source for this passage, Isidore’s De natura rerum, is less close to Ælfric than is the account in De temporibus. Atherton also considers the final part of this passage to be a possible source for the comment in the first section of the work, “the light which we call daybreak comes from the sun when it is rising” (lines 41-42; trans. p 77); it might also have come from De temporum ratione. In any case, Ælfric’s simple opening to chapter 3, “night is established as a period of rest for people upon this earth” (line 94; trans. p 81), is also taken, according to both Henel and Atherton, directly from De temporibus. Bede’s statement of this idea in De temporum ratione is more complex: “The shadow of night was given to mortals for the body’s repose lest mankind perish because of unendingly immoderate exertion at its work” (CCSL 123B.298; chapter 7, lines 51-53; trans. Wallis 1999 p 30). It seems likely, then, that a following comment, “our earthly night comes about in truth as a result of the earth’s shadow” (lines 96-97; trans. p 81) and the heading, “De nocte,” both of which might derive from De temporum ratione, were indeed taken from De temporibus. Quots/Cits 1. The possible borrowing in Homily I, 6 (ed. Clemoes 1997 pp 224-31), on the Circumcision, is related to lines 156-59 of De temporibus anni: both concern the differing practices of the Romans, Hebrews, Greeks, and Egyptians on the start of a new year. Blake (2009 p 47) points out that Ælfric followed the order of chapter 9 of De temporibus rather than that of chapter 36 of De temporum ratione, as suggested by both Henel (1942 pp 30-3) and Atherton in Fontes Anglo-Saxonici. This too is the order in Homily I, 6, again making it the more likely source; Malcolm Godden (2000 p 51) mentions both works by Bede but quotes only from De temporum ratione. In any case, this use of Bede’s earlier work in De temporum anni strengthens Atherton’s suggestion that it also contributed to Ælfric’s comment at the beginning of this chapter, “the sun’s year is when it runs along the great circle of the zodiac” (line 142; trans. p 83), a remark that Henel traces to De temporum ratione. The heading of this chapter, “De anno,” also might derive from De temporibus.

84 

BEDE – PART 1

Quots/Cits 10-12. In addition to the headings in De temporum anni that have already been discussed, there are three more, “De equinoctiis” (ed. Blake 2009, line 236), “De bissexto” (line 293), and “De saltu lune” (line 319), that may reflect De temporibus; see Beate Günzel (1993 p 36), who remarks of Ælfric’s work that “most of the chapter headings are also taken directly from Bede.” Refs For the reference of BONIFACE to Bede in Epistola 75 (ed. Tangl 1955, 158.8-12), see the introduction, BEDE. The CCSL edition is a composite of two earlier editions: chapters 1-16 are from Charles W. Jones (1943 pp 293-304) and chapters 17-22 are from Theodor Mommsen (MGH AA 13.246-317, bottom). See Jacques Elfassi (2002) for a discussion of Bede’s use of Isidore in the Chronica minora. De temporum ratione [BEDA.Temp.rat.]: CPL 2320. ed.: CCSL 123B.263-544. MSS 1. Cambridge, Corpus Christi College, 291: ASM 85. 2. London, British Library, Cotton Titus D. xxvi + xxvii: ASM 380. 3. London, British Library, Cotton Vespasian B. vi, fols. 1-103: ASM 384. 4. London, British Library, Harley 3017: ASM 432.5 5. London, British Library, Royal 12. D. iv: ASM 478.5. 6. London, British Library, Royal 13. A. xi: ASM 483. 7. London, British Library, Royal 15. B. xix, fols. 36-78: ASM 492. 8. London, The National Archives, PRO SP 46/125, fol. 302: ASM 521.7. 9. Salisbury, Cathedral Library 158, fols. 9-83: ASM 744. 10. Avranches, Bibliothèque municipale, 236: ASM 784. 11. Darmstadt, Hessische Landes- und Hochschulbibliothek, 4262: ASM 818. 12. Bückeburg, Niedersächsisches Staatsarchiv, Depot 3/1 + Münster in Westfalen, Staatsarchiv, MSC I. 243: ASM 856. 13. Paris, Bibliothèque nationale de France, nouv. acq. lat. 586, fols. 16-132: ASM 902. 14. ? Nürnberg, Germanisches Nationalmuseum, Kupferstichkabinett, Kapsel 536/SD 285. Lists 1. ? Alcuin: ML 1.7. 2. ? Worcester: ML 11.32. A-S Vers none.

Educational Work s

85

Quots/Cits 1. Temp.rat., xlv, 31: ALCVIN.Epist. 126, 186.10. 2. Temp.rat., xlii, 14-21: ALCVIN.Epist. 126, 186.38-187.3. 3. Temp.rat., xlii, 2-3: ALCVIN.Epist. 126, 187.3-4. 4. Temp.rat., xlii, 66-71: ALCVIN.Epist. 126, 187.13-17. 5. Temp.rat., xxxvi, 44-46: ALCVIN.Epist. 145, 231.27-28. 6. Temp.rat., xxxviii, 29-31: ALCVIN.Epist. 145, 232.4. 7. Temp.rat., xvi, 79-81: ALCVIN.Epist. 148, 238.14-15. 8. Temp.rat., xviii, 2-3: ALCVIN.Epist. 155, 250.38. 9. Temp.rat., iii, 34-39: ALCVIN.Epist. 155, 251.12-13. 10. Temp.rat., iv, 34-37: ALCVIN.Epist. 155, 251.21. 11. Temp.rat., xv, 7-8: Mart 2.2.1 (B19.1; Beginning of January), 42.1-3. 12. ? Temp.rat., xv, 13-14: Mart 2.2.1 (B19.1; Beginning of January), 42.1. 13. ? Temp.rat., xii, 82-83: Mart 2.2.1 (B19.1; Beginning of January), 42.3. 14. Temp.rat., lxvi, 1714-16: Mart 2.2.1 (B19.1; Anthony the Hermit), 50.18. 15. Temp.rat., lxvi, 1791-93: Mart 2.2.1 (B19.1; Anastasius), 56.13-14 16. Temp.rat., lxvi, 1801-03: Mart 2.2.1 (B19.1; Anastasius), 56.14-15. 17. Temp.rat., lxvi, 1803: Mart 2.2.1 (B19.1; Anastasius), 56.16. 18. Temp.rat., lxvi, 1805-09: Mart 2.2.1 (B19.1; Anastasius), 56.16-19. 19. Temp.rat., xv, 8-9: Mart 2.2.1 (B19.1; Beginning of March), 58.22-23. 20. ? Temp.rat., lxvi, 1203-04: Mart 2.2.1 (B19.1; Perpetua and Felicity), 62.1-3. 21. Temp.rat., xv, 9: Mart 2.2.1 (B19.1; Beginning of April), 76.20-21. 22. Temp.rat., xv, 9: Mart 2.2.1 (B19.1; Beginning of May), 92.1-2. 23. Temp.rat., xv, 41-44: Mart 2.2.1 (B19.1; Beginning of May), 92.2-5. 24. Temp.rat., xv, 10: Mart 2.2.1 (B19.1; Beginning of June), 110.3-4. 25. Temp.rat., xv, 44-46: Mart 2.2.1 (B19.1; Beginning of June), 110.4-6. 26. Temp.rat., xv, 10: Mart 2.2.1 (B19.1; Beginning of July), 128.24-27. 27. Temp.rat., xii, 34-37: Mart 2.2.1 (B19.1; Beginning of July), 128.24-26. 28. Temp.rat., xv, 10: Mart 2.2.1 (B19.1; Beginning of August), 148.11-15. 29. Temp.rat., xii, 37-40: Mart 2.2.1 (B19.1; Beginning of August), 148.12-14. 30. Temp.rat., lxvi, 2061-66: Mart 2.2.1 (B19.1; Augustine of Hippo), 168.21-170.4. 31. Temp.rat., xv, 11: Mart 2.2.1 (B19.1; Beginning of September), 172.18-19. 32. Temp.rat., xv, 47-48: Mart 2.2.1 (B19.1; Beginning of September), 172.19-20. 33. Temp.rat., xv, 11: Mart 2.2.1 (B19.1; Beginning of October), 194.17-18. 34. Temp.rat., xv, 11-12: Mart 2.2.1 (B19.1; Beginning of November), 208.11-12. 35. Temp.rat., xv, 49-50: Mart 2.2.1 (B19.1; Beginning of November), 208.12-14. 36. Temp.rat., lxvi, 1780-84: Mart 2.2.1 (B19.1 All Saints), 208.15-20. 37. Temp.rat., xv, 12: Mart 2.2.1 (B19.1; Beginning of December), 222.15-16. 38. Temp.rat., xv, 32-34: Mart 2.2.1 (B19.1; Beginning of December), 222.16-19. 39. ? Temp.rat., lxvi, 205-06: Or (B9.2), 11.11.

86 

BEDE – PART 1

40. ? Temp.rat., lxvi, 360: Or (B9.2), 24.31-32. 41. ? Temp.rat., lxvi, 370-71: Or (B9.2), 36.31-32. 42. Temp.rat., lxvi, 627-28: Or (B9.2), 45.17. 43. Temp.rat., lxvi, 786-87: Or (B9.2), 77.30-32. 44. Temp.rat., lxvi, 786-87: Or (B9.2), 81.2. 45. Temp.rat., lxvi, 926-28: Or (B9.2), 127.29. 46. Temp.rat., lxvi, 963-64: Or (B9.2), 129.16. 47. Temp.rat., lxvi, 964-65: Or (B9.2), 129.18-19. 48. Temp.rat., lxvi, 400-01: Or (B9.2), 133.9-10. 49. Temp.rat., lxvi, 1403-14: Or (B9.2), 149.17-18. 50. Temp.rat., lxvi, 1580-81: Or (B9.2), 156.22-23. 51. Temp.rat., xxix, 9-11: OrW (A3.14), 53b-54. 52. ? Temp.rat., lxvi, 1122: ChronF (Baker, B17.3), anno 116, 9.23. 53. ? Temp.rat., lxvi, 1138-39: ChronF (Baker, B17.3), anno 137, 10.11. 54. Temp.rat., lxvi, 1164-65: ChronF (Baker, B17.3), anno 167, 11.15-16. 55. Temp.rat., lxvi, 1200-02: ChronF (Baker, B17.3), anno 188, 12.11-13. 56. Temp.rat., lxvi, 1626-28: ChronF (Baker, B17.3), anno 448, 19.28-30. 57. Temp.rat., lxvi, 1624: ChronF (Baker, B17.3), anno 448, 20.3. 58. Temp.rat., lxvi, 1626-28: ChronF (Baker, B17.3), anno 448, 20.4-6. 59. Temp.rat., lxvi, 1618-20: ChronF (Baker, B17.3), anno 448, 20.6-10. 60. Temp.rat., lxvi, 1622-24: ChronF (Baker, B17.3), anno 448, 20.10-12. 61. Temp.rat., lxvi, 1706-07: ChronF (Baker, B17.3), anno 482, 22.12-16. 62. Temp.rat., ii, 5: ASSER.Vit.Ælf., xxiv, 5-6. 63. Temp.rat., vi, 15: ASSER.Vit.Ælf., xcix, 24-25. 64. Temp.rat., viii, 46: LANTFR.Trans.mir.Swith., ii, 53. 65. Temp.rat., iii, 48: LANTFR.Trans.mir.Swith., xx, 18. 66. Temp.rat., v, 2: ABBO.FLOR.Expl., 94.14-15. 67. Temp.rat., iii, 12-14: ABBO.FLOR.Expl., 95.19-20. 68. Temp.rat., iv, 8: ABBO.FLOR.Expl., 101.29-30. 69. Temp.rat., i, 89-105: ABBO.FLOR.Expl., 105.20-23. 70. Temp.rat., i, 25-71: ABBO.FLOR.Expl., 114.27-115.6. 71. Temp.rat., xxxvi, 44-46: ÆCHom I, 6 (B1.1.7), 132-35. 72. Temp.rat., vi, 9-11: ÆCHom I, 6 (B1.1.7), 141-43. 73. Temp.rat., vi, 1-30: ÆCHom I, 6 (B1.1.7), 148-59. 74. Temp.rat., xxviii, 38-42: ÆCHom I, 6 (B1.1.7), 191-93. 75. Temp.rat., xxviii, 20-32: ÆCHom I, 6 (B1.1.7), 193-95. 76. Temp. rat. xxix, 1-16: ÆCHom I, 6 (B1.1.7), 196-99. 77. Temp.rat., xxvii, 4-8: ÆCHom I, 40 (B1.1.42), 39-42. 78. Temp.rat., xxvii, 20-22: ÆCHom I, 40 (B1.1.42), 39-42. 79. Temp.rat., vii, 17-20: ÆCHom I, 40 (B1.1.42), 39-42.

Educational Work s

80. Temp.rat., lxx, 72-74: ÆCHom I, 40 (B1.1.42), 147-48. 81. Temp.rat., lxx, 46-59: ÆCHom I, 40 (B1.1.42), 150-53. 82. Temp.rat., lxx, 80-85: ÆCHom I, 40 (B1.1.42), 153-54. 83. Temp.rat., lxx, 31-35: ÆCHom I, 40 (B1.1.42), 163-65. 84. Temp.rat., vi, 13-16: ÆTemp (B1.9.4), 23-25. 85. Temp.rat., v, 2: ÆTemp (B1.9.4), 33-34. 86. Temp.rat., v, 9-11: ÆTemp (B1.9.4), 34-37. 87. Temp.rat., v, 26-29: ÆTemp (B1.9.4), 37-40. 88. Temp.rat., vii, 77-78: ÆTemp (B1.9.4), 41-42. 89. Temp.rat., v, 6-8: ÆTemp (B1.9.4), 45-48. 90. Temp.rat., vii, 43-44: ÆTemp (B1.9.4), 48-50. 91. Temp.rat., vi, 40-42: ÆTemp (B1.9.4), 67-68. 92. Temp.rat., vi, 40-42: ÆTemp (B1.9.4), 69-70. 93. Temp.rat., vi, 37-39: ÆTemp (B1.9.4), 70-73. 94. Temp.rat., vi, 1: ÆTemp (B1.9.4), 76. 95. Temp.rat., vi, 2-10: ÆTemp (B1.9.4), 77-79. 96. Temp.rat., vi, 13-17: ÆTemp (B1.9.4), 79-84. 97. Temp.rat., vi, 24-28: ÆTemp (B1.9.4), 84-87. 98. Temp.rat., vi, 77-81: ÆTemp (B1.9.4), 87-91. 99. Temp.rat., vii, 1: ÆTemp (B1.9.4), 93. 100. Temp.rat., vii, 4-5: ÆTemp (B1.9.4), 96-99. 101. Temp.rat., xxvii, 7-8: ÆTemp (B1.9.4), 99-101. 102. Temp.rat., vii, 17-20: ÆTemp (B1.9.4), 101-06. 103. Temp.rat., xxv, 13-15: ÆTemp (B1.9.4), 106-07. 104. Temp.rat., vii, 33-38: ÆTemp (B1.9.4), 107-10. 105. Temp.rat., xxiv, 3-6: ÆTemp (B1.9.4), 111-12. 106. Temp.rat., xvii, 2-3: ÆTemp (B1.9.4), 113-14. 107. Temp.rat., xxv, 41-42: ÆTemp (B1.9.4), 116-17. 108. Temp.rat., vii, 29-31: ÆTemp (B1.9.4), 119-20. 109. ? Temp.rat., lix, 60-62: ÆTemp (B1.9.4), 134-40. 110. Temp.rat., xxxvi, 1: ÆTemp (B1.9.4), 141. 111. Temp.rat., xvi, 2-7: ÆTemp (B1.9.4), 142-50. 112. Temp.rat., xvi, 29-31: ÆTemp (B1.9.4), 150-52. 113. Temp.rat., xvi, 2: ÆTemp (B1.9.4), 152. 114. Temp.rat., xxxvi, 21-24: ÆTemp (B1.9.4), 152-53. 115. Temp.rat., xxxvi, 44-46: ÆTemp (B1.9.4), 156-59. 116. Temp.rat., xxxvi, 8-11: ÆTemp (B1.9.4), 163-65. 117. Temp.rat., xvi, 77-79: ÆTemp (B1.9.4), 163-65. 118. Temp.rat., xxvi, 2-8: ÆTemp (B1.9.4), 168-70. 119. Temp.rat., xxxvi, 11-14: ÆTemp (B1.9.4), 174-77.

87

88 

120. Temp.rat., xxxvi, 14-18: ÆTemp (B1.9.4), 178-82. 121. Temp.rat., xi, 29-31: ÆTemp (B1.9.4), 182-83. 122. Temp.rat., xxxv, 2-7: ÆTemp (B1.9.4), 187-95. 123. Temp.rat., xxx, 7-11: ÆTemp (B1.9.4), 195-201. 124. Temp.rat., xxvi, 12-23: ÆTemp (B1.9.4), 208-11. 125. Temp.rat., xxxv, 83-84: ÆTemp (B1.9.4), 213-16. 126. Temp.rat., xxx, 1: ÆTemp (B1.9.4), 236. 127. Temp.rat., xxx, 2: ÆTemp (B1.9.4), 237-38. 128. Temp.rat., xxx, 57-61: ÆTemp (B1.9.4), 238-40. 129. Temp.rat., xxx, 67-75: ÆTemp (B1.9.4), 241-46. 130. Temp.rat., xxx, 86-93: ÆTemp (B1.9.4), 246-53. 131. Temp.rat., xxxi, 3-5: ÆTemp (B1.9.4), 253-56. 132. Temp.rat., xxxiv, 74-75: ÆTemp (B1.9.4), 256-57. 133. Temp.rat., xxxii, 2-7: ÆTemp (B1.9.4), 257-59. 134. Temp.rat., xxxii, 10-13: ÆTemp (B1.9.4), 257-59. 135. Temp.rat., xxxi, 46-48: ÆTemp (B1.9.4), 261-62. 136. Temp.rat., xxxi, 32-36: ÆTemp (B1.9.4), 262-64. 137. Temp.rat., xxxi, 42-43: ÆTemp (B1.9.4), 265. 138. Temp.rat., xxxi, 55-58: ÆTemp (B1.9.4), 266-69. 139. Temp.rat., xxxi, 58-64: ÆTemp (B1.9.4), 271-77. 140. Temp.rat., xxxi, 66-69: ÆTemp (B1.9.4), 278-79. 141. Temp.rat., v, 103-05: ÆTemp (B1.9.4), 281-82. 142. Temp.rat., xxxviii, 1: ÆTemp (B1.9.4), 293. 143. Temp.rat., xxxviii, 21-27: ÆTemp (B1.9.4), 304-08. 144. Temp.rat., xxxviii, 18-19: ÆTemp (B1.9.4), 308-10. 145. Temp.rat., xl, 2-3: ÆTemp (B1.9.4), 310-11. 146. Temp.rat., xxxix, 21-26: ÆTemp (B1.9.4), 311-13. 147. Temp.rat., xli, 2-16: ÆTemp (B1.9.4), 313-18. 148. Temp.rat., xxxviii, 5-7: ÆTemp (B1.9.4), 320-25. 149. Temp.rat., xlii, 1: ÆTemp (B1.9.4), 319. 150. Temp.rat., xliii, 3-9: ÆTemp (B1.9.4), 320-25. 151. Temp.rat., xliii, 13-15: ÆTemp (B1.9.4), 325-26. 152. Temp.rat., xliii, 39-41: ÆTemp (B1.9.4), 326-30. 153. Temp.rat., xliii, 42-47: ÆTemp (B1.9.4), 326-30. 154. Temp.rat., xliii, 109-12: ÆTemp (B1.9.4), 331-33. 155. ? Temp.rat, xxv, 55-58: ÆTemp (B1.9.4), 335-37. 156. Temp.rat., xxv, 42-45: ÆTemp (B1.9.4), 337-38. 157. Temp.rat., xxv, 27-42: ÆTemp (B1.9.4), 338-41. 158. Temp.rat., xxv, 12-13: ÆTemp (B1.9.4), 341-42. 159. Temp.rat., xxv, 45-47: ÆTemp (B1.9.4), 342-45.

BEDE – PART 1

Educational Work s

160. Temp.rat., xxv, 53-55: ÆTemp (B1.9.4), 342-45. 161. ? Temp.rat., xxv, 55-58: ÆTemp (B1.9.4), 345-46. 162. Temp.rat., xxviii, 16-20: ÆTemp (B1.9.4), 347-48. 163. Temp.rat., xxviii, 24-29: ÆTemp (B1.9.4), 348-50. 164. Temp.rat., xxix, 2-3: ÆTemp (B1.9.4), 350-52. 165. Temp.rat., xxix, 11-16: ÆTemp (B1.9.4), 350-53. 166. Temp.rat., xxxii, 38-43: ÆTemp (B1.9.4), 364-69. 167. Temp.rat., viii, 49-51: ÆIntSig (B1.6.1), 121-23. 168. Temp.rat., viii, 51: ÆIntSig (B1.6.1), 123-25. 169. Temp.rat., viii, 51: ÆIntSig (B1.6.1), 125-27. 170. Temp.rat., viii, 51-52: ÆIntSig (B1.6.1), 127-29. 171. Temp.rat., viii, 52-53: ÆIntSig (B1.6.1), 129-31. 172. Temp.rat., viii, 54: ÆIntSig (B1.6.1), 131-33. 173. Temp.rat., viii, 46: ÆIntSig (B1.6.1), 131. 174. Temp.rat., viii, 56-57: ÆIntSig (B1.6.1), 133-35. 175. Temp.rat., viii, 30-35: ÆHom 21 (B1.4.21), 181-86. 176. Temp.rat. i, 10-24: BYRHT.Comp., iv, 13-17. 177. Temp.rat., xxx, 1-93: BYRHT.Comp., iv, 54-64. 178. Temp.rat., xx, 62-65: BYRHT.Comp., iv, 67-70. 179. Temp.rat., xxi, 5-8: BYRHT.Comp., vi, 2. 180. Temp.rat., xx, 2-7: BYRHT.Comp., vi, 11. 181. Temp.rat., xxxv, 7-31: ByrM (B20.20), I.i, 117-33. 182. Temp.rat., xxxvi, 14-16: ByrM (B20.20), I.i, 182-83. 183. Temp.rat., xxxvi, 16-18: ByrM (B20.20), I.i, 186-87. 184. Temp.rat., xxxvi, 30-31: ByrM (B20.20), I.i, 191-92. 185. Temp.rat., xxxvi, 8-9: ByrM (B20.20), I.i, 193-94. 186. Temp.rat., xxxvi, 18-19: ByrM (B20.20), I.i, 197-98. 187. Temp.rat., xlv, 4-6: ByrM (B20.20), I.i, 199-206. 188. Temp.rat., lvi, 7-8: ByrM (B20.20), I.i, 207-09. 189. Temp.rat., liii, 5-12: ByrM (B20.20), I.ii, 45-52. 190. Temp.rat., liii, 18-26: ByrM (B20.20), I.ii, 54-62. 191. Temp.rat., xli, 2-14: ByrM (B20.20), II.i, 121-36. 192. Temp.rat., xlii, 11-21: ByrM (B20.20), II.i, 179-88. 193. Temp.rat., xxxv, 7-14: ByrM (B20.20), II.i, 392-416. 194. Temp.rat., xxxv, 76-77: ByrM (B20.20), II.i, 401-07. 195. Temp.rat., vii, 73: ByrM (B20.20), II.iii, 136. 196. Temp.rat., vii, 74-75: ByrM (B20.20), II.iii, 137. 197. Temp.rat., xv, 50-52: ByrM (B20.20), II.iii, 224-25. 198. Temp.rat., xlix, 44-46: ByrM (B20.20), III.i, 49-51. 199. Temp.rat., xlix, 52-55: ByrM (B20.20), III.i, 51-53.

89

90 

200. Temp.rat., xlix, 60-62: ByrM (B20.20), III.i, 53-56. 201. Temp.rat., lxi, 4-9: ByrM (B20.20), III.i, 128-34. 202. Temp.rat., lxi, 32-35: ByrM (B20.20), III.i, 134-36. 203. Temp.rat., xii, 18: ByrM (B20.20), III.ii2, 48-49. 204. Temp.rat., xii, 20-21: ByrM (B20.20), III.ii2, 49-50. 205. ? Temp.rat., xxviii, 47-49: ByrM (B20.20), III.ii, 124. 206. ? Temp.rat., iii, 12-14: ByrM (B20.20), III.ii, 131. 207. ? Temp.rat., xxviii, 16-17: ByrM (B20.20), III.ii, 131. 208. Temp.rat., xxix, 3-6: ByrM (B20.20), III.ii, 131-32. 209. Temp.rat., xxix, 49-50: ByrM (B20.20), III.ii, 132-33. 210. Temp.rat., xxix, 92-93: ByrM (B20.20), III.ii, 134-36. 211. Temp.rat., xxix, 50-53: ByrM (B20.20), III.ii, 137-38. 212. Temp.rat., xxiv, 2-21: ByrM (B20.20), III.ii2, 168-89. 213. Temp.rat., lxi, 4-17: ByrM (B20.20), III.ii, 266-73. 214. Temp.rat., lxiii, 2-63: ByrM (B20.20), III.ii, 283-92. 215. Temp.rat., iv, 7-22: ByrM (B20.20), III.iii, 239-54. 216. Temp.rat., iv, 27-29: ByrM (B20.20), III.iii, 255-57. 217. Temp.rat., iv, 34-38: ByrM (B20.20), III.iii, 257-61. 218. Temp.rat., iv, 19-26: ByrM (B20.20), III.iii, 298-305. 219. Temp.rat., v, 7-8: ByrM (B20.20), III.iii, 307-08. 220. Temp.rat., iv, 37-55: ByrM (B20.20), III.iii, 311-28. 221. Temp.rat., xxxv, 7-31: ByrM (B20.20), IV.i, 32-84. 222. Temp.rat., xxxix, 26-34: ByrM (B20.20), IV.i, 111-120. 223. Temp.rat., xxxix, 21: ByrM (B20.20), IV.i, 111-12. 224. Temp.rat., xxxix, 42: ByrM (B20.20), IV.i, 121. 225. Temp.rat., xxxix, 59-60: ByrM (B20.20), IV.i, 122. 226. Temp.rat., x, 4-10: ByrM (B20.20), IV.i, 180-82. 227. Temp.rat., lxvii, 40-52: ByrM (B20.20), IV.i, 188-94. 228. Temp.rat., i, 37-38: ByrM (B20.20), IV.i, 317-18. 229. Temp.rat., i, 42-43: ByrM (B20.20), IV.i, 318-19. 230. Temp.rat., lxi, 14-16: ByrM (B20.20), IV.i, 392-93. 231. Temp.rat., lxxi, 61-62: ByrM (B20.20), IV.i, 395-96. 232. Temp.rat., lxvi, 8-43: ByrM (B20.20), IV.ii, 6-10. 233. Temp.rat., lxvii, 52-60: ByrM (B20.20), IV.ii, 10-11. 234. Temp.rat., lxvi, 8-10: ByrM (B20.20), IV.ii, 22-25. 235. Temp.rat., lxvi, 15-17: ByrM (B20.20), IV.ii, 37-39. 236. Temp.rat., lxvi, 22-24: ByrM (B20.20), IV.ii, 46-47. 237. Temp.rat., lxvi, 29-31: ByrM (B20.20), IV.ii, 52-54. 238. Temp.rat., lxvi, 36-38: ByrM (B20.20), IV.ii, 61. 239. Temp.rat., lxvi, 41-42: ByrM (B20.20), IV.ii, 66-68.

BEDE – PART 1

Educational Work s

91

240. Temp.rat., lxvii, 40-52: ByrM (B20.20), IV.ii, 91-95. 241. Temp.rat. i, 10-24: BYRHT.Vit.Os., 22.20-22. 242. Temp.rat. i, 10-24: BYRHT.Vit.Os., 26.17-20. 243. Temp.rat. lxvi, 985-87: BYRHT.Vit.Ecg., 224.9-10. 243. Temp.rat. i, 10-24: BYRHT.Vit.Ecg., 224.15-17. 244. Temp.rat., xxxix, 33: BYRHT.Vit.Ecg., 278.14-17. 245. Temp.rat. i, 10-24: BYRHT.Hist.reg., 5.16-17. Refs 1. ? BONIF.Epist. 75, 158.8-12. 2. ALCVIN.Vers.Eubor. 1309-11. 3. ALCVIN.Epist. 155, 250.38. 4. ALCVIN.Carm. 72, 4-5. 5. ÆCHom I, 6 (B1.1.7), 157. 6. ?ÆTemp (B1.9.4), 4-6. 7. ÆTemp (B1.9.4), 90. 8. BYRHT.Comp. IV.54-64. 9. ByrM (B20.20), II.i, 145-50. 10. ByrM (B20.20), II.i, 179-88. 11. ByrM (B20.20), III.ii, 171-72. 12. ByrM (B20.20), IV.i, 26-29. As Faith Wallis explains in the introduction to her indispensable translation and commentary (1999 p lxiv), De temporum ratione, a thorough revision of De temporibus and De natura rerum completed in 725 (see CCSL 123B.241), “aimed for nothing less than a new genre of writing which would integrate computus, its astronomical and cosmological context, and its relation to historical time.” Following four preparatory chapters, the work guides students through the Julian calendar and indicates the effects of the sun and moon upon it (chapters 5-41), with another two chapters on the anomalies of lunar reckoning. Then chapters 44-65 lay out the paschal table of the nineteen-year cycle, chapter 66 treats the six ages of the world, and chapters 67-71 discuss future time and the end of time. The carefully structured, graduated text proved an “epoch-making” guide (Bullough 2004 p 218) that was immensely influential throughout the Middle Ages and beyond. The record of its use in Anglo-Saxon England reflects that importance. Bede listed it as “de temporibus librum unum maiorem” in the Historia ecclesiastica gentis Anglorum (ed. Lapidge 2010 2.484) and the CCSL edition concludes the text with, explicit liber de temporibus maior. Wallis

92 

BEDE – PART 1

(1999 p xvi) notes that during the Middle Ages it was known as De temporibus or De temporibus liber secundus. Two pertinent instructional letters were associated with De temporum ratione: the Epistola ad Helmualdum, most of which appears as chapters 38-39, and the Epistola ad Wicthedum, which was written after the main work but which often travelled with it. In addition, three or perhaps four other brief works circulated with it, aids to help those using the work. Paul Meyvaert (2002) has edited one of these texts, the Kalendarium ad usum computandi, which is tied to two tables, the Pagina regularum and the Aetas lunae in alphabetis distincta, the first composed by Bede but the other taken from older sources. A fourth work, the Magnus circulus seu Tabula paschalis annis Domini dxxxii ad mlxiii, also travelled with De temporum ratione. On these aids, see the discussion of the “Quots/Cits” from ALCUIN, below. MSS 1-14. The manuscripts reveal the popularity both of the entire work and of extracts taken from it. Charles W. Jones’s list (CCSL 123B.242-56) of 245 copies has been criticised by Michael Lapidge (2008a p 71 note 29) because its unexplained sigla leave many questions, particularly about the contents of individual manuscripts, unanswered. Some more general observations, however, may still be useful. Jones states that as a group the manuscripts show that the “practical,” by which he means the so-called Chronica maiora (chapters 66-71), and the “theoretical,” the preface and chapters 1-65, “began to travel separately at a very early period, as well as continuing to travel together” (p 242). M.L.W. Laistner (1943 pp 151-53) identifies forty-four manuscripts of the Chronica maiora alone; working from guesses about Jones’s sigla, Lapidge (2008a p 71 note 29) adds thirteen more. Yet the circulation of this part of the work itself deserves further study: three of Theodor Mommsen’s base manuscripts for his edition in MGH AA 13, which Jones reprinted in CCSL 123B, contain only chapter 66 (see CCSL 123B p 462). Discussing this issue with reference to a number of early manuscripts, Wallis (1999 pp 363-64) reflects, It is hard to pinpoint any single reason for these amputations. The chronicle is certainly a long chapter which would consume much parchment and not be very useful, since its dating scheme was eccentric; the closing chapters on the last days probably seemed of little practical use to Carolingian schoolmasters bent on using The Reckoning of Time as a classroom text. But it is not beyond possibility that a more overt hostility may lie behind this phenomenon. Bede’s radical postponing of AM 6000 and his impeccably Augustinian policy on the unpredictability of the last days would be unwelcome both to millenarians and anti-millenarians.

Educational Work s

93

Millenarians would object to the explicit message, anti-millenarians to the implicit one, namely that by harping so insistently on the dangers of forecasting the Last Day, Bede was admitting that the Church’s war against such speculation was still far from won. On Times had already been compromised in some eyes by this new chronology, and The Reckoning of Time was far too useful to place at risk.

While Bede’s aim for the work was clear, its users would adapt it to their own purposes. MSS 11-12. The most useful overview of the dissemination of De temporum ratione as a whole appears in the introduction of Wallis’s translation (1999 pp lxxxv-xcvii). Citing Dorothy Whitelock (1960) and calling attention to three of the fragments listed above, she writes (p lxxxvi), The Reckoning of Time entered the European mainstream through two channels: the Irish and the Anglo-Saxon. The two streams seem to have been contemporary, and their earliest witnesses are fragmentary manuscripts whose state attests to heavy use and copying. Two fragments – Bückeburg, Niedersächsisches Staatsarchiv, Depot 3/1 fols i-viii and Münster in Westfalen, Staatsarchiv, MSC I. 243 fols 1r-2v, 11r-12v – are linked through their north German provenance with the missions of BONIFACE. Boniface appealed to English supporters to send him copies of the works of that “candle of the Church,” Bede, and one of those works was very probably The Reckoning of Time. The Bückeburg and Münster fragments are from a single codex written in Northumbrian uncial script, probably about 746-750 and possibly in Wearmouth-Jarrow. The third fragment, Darmstadt, Hessische Landes- und Hochschulbibliothek, 4262, also in Northumbrian uncial, may have been written during Bede’s lifetime. These are the only English manuscripts of The Reckoning of Time before the age of Dunstan.

Of these manuscripts Lapidge (2008a pp 67-68), who identifies their contents as chapters 26-28 (Darmstadt), 46-50, 56-59, and 63-64, writes, “a future editor would be well advised to begin by collating these fragments before moving on to the large number of ninth-century continental manuscripts overlooked by Jones.” It should be noted here that in connection with the Bückeburg and Münster fragments, he also lists Braunschweig, Stadtbibliothek, Fragm. 70, as did Helmut Gneuss in his Handlist of Anglo-Saxon Manuscripts (2001), the immediate predecessor to ASM. This fragment is not listed in CLA 9.1233 (see also the Supplement p 4) and it is not included in ASM.

94 

BEDE – PART 1

MSS 4. Although Wallis (1999 pp lxxxv-xcii) mentions only one of the manuscripts listed above in her following discussion, a summary of her main points provides a context for understanding the later dissemination of the work. In connection with the “Irish stream,” she draws attention to glosses in Old Irish, which prompt her “to raise the intriguing question of whether computus was taught in the vernacular”: “It is not impossible that even Bede himself taught computus in Old English” (p lxxxvii). In any case, in a separate section on glosses (pp xciii-xcvi), she explains that “the tradition is twofold: an Irish tradition which antedates the arrival of the texts on the continent, and a later Carolingian tradition” (p xciii). Of particular importance for Anglo-Saxon England are the “Byrhtferth Glosses,” which will be discussed below. On the Carolingian tradition, she writes more generally that the adoption of computus into CHARLEMAGNE’s official educational program helps to explain the high levels of production of manuscripts of The Reckoning of Time in the eighth and ninth centuries. Carolingian manuscripts of the full text of The Reckoning of Time certainly bear witness to its active use in teaching. In Bede’s formulae and worked examples, the annus praesens was modified to bring it up to date, and sometimes additional formulae were interpolated. (p lxxxix).

Wallis also records that even as the work was becoming a “cornerstone of the Carolingian curriculum,” a new emphasis on the seven liberal arts led contemporaries to plunder the work “for materials to fill the category of astronomia in their new taxonomy of learning” (p xc): “In terms of the manuscripts of The Reckoning of Time, the most striking result of this change in perspective was the wholesale dismemberment of the treatise into excerpts which could be included in a new type of anthology, containing computus, astronomy and natural science” (p xci). Other collections of excerpts were incorporated into what she calls “practical computus handbooks” (p xcii); here she cites Harley 3017, a manuscript that Gneuss and Lapidge (ASM 432.5) record as having been written in Fleury (s. ix3/4), but that then came to Nevers in the tenth century and, possibly, to England in the eleventh century. According to Jones (CCSL 123B.247), it contains chapters 19, 35 (beginning), 48, 50 (beginning), 51 (beginning), and 56 of De temporum ratione. Peter S. Baker and Lapidge (1995 p lxii) note that it “occupies a position between the very early computi and those that BYRHTFERTH used.” MSS 13. Although Wallis does not mention the Paris manuscript, which contains the list of fractions from chapter 4, in her introduction, she does

Educational Work s

95

note in her commentary that this part of the work “frequently circulated separately in computus anthologies” (p 270). Here it appears in the Excerptiones de Prisciano, edited by David W. Porter (2002; the extract is on p 324), who attributes the work to ÆLFRIC (p 29). It is the final item in the last section, which is entitled “The Thirty Divisions of Grammar.” On the manuscript see also Birgit Ebersberger (1999 pp 156-59 no. 28). A final example of extracting may appear in the use of a single sentence from chapter 26 of De temporum ratione at the beginning of a paragraph in the Ælfwine’s Prayerbook (London, British Library, Cotton Titus D. xxvi and xxvii; ed. Günzel 1993) that Beate Günzel entitles “Weather Signs” (p 145). Bede, who is quoting PLINY, wrote: “Pythagoras, a man of keen perception, deduced that it is 126,000 stadia from the Earth to the Moon, double that to the Sun, and three times that to the zodiac” (CCSL 123B.360; trans. Wallis 1999 p 77). Günzel (p 77) attributes Ælfwine’s slightly revised version to the “Byrhtferth Glosses” on chapter 12 of De natura rerum (ed. PL 90.208), but the wording is closer to Bede’s original. MSS 8 and 14. Not listed in ASM because it was neither written nor present in Anglo-Saxon England, the Nürnberg fragment, a single bifolium in Anglo-Saxon minuscule, was written around 800 “in a German centre with Anglo-Saxon traditions in the Main region or in Hessia” (CLA Add. 1.1850; see also Lapidge 2006 p 166 no. 111). It is, then, further evidence of the transmission of Bede’s work to the Continent. The fragment preserved in The National Archives, containing part of chapter 47, is written in a form of Anglo-Saxon square minuscule that David N. Dumville (1987 p 171) dates to the 920s. Of the nine readings that differ from Jones’s text, Michael Roper (1983 pp 127-28) identifies two that correspond to variants in his apparatus, but concludes that they are “an inadequate basis for drawing conclusions about the nature of the (possibly continental) exemplar used by the scribe.” MSS 3, 7, 9, and 10. Two of the British Library manuscripts, Cotton Vespasian B. vi and Royal 15. B. xix, and the one in Salisbury are similar in that all were written on the Continent in the ninth century, but brought to England probably late in the Anglo-Saxon period or shortly after the Norman Conquest; all are included in Lapidge’s “Ninth-Century Manuscripts of Continental Origin Having Pre-Conquest English Provenance” (2006a pp 167-73). Gneuss and Lapidge (ASM) identify Vespasian B. vi as “s. ix 2/4, Saint-Denis, prov. England by s. xi in.” According to Jones, it lacks the praefatio and capitula. In addition to Latin glosses, there are three in Old English (OccGl 44.1; C44.1; ed. Napier 1900 no. 31; see NRK 205). Gneuss and Lapidge write of Royal 15. B. xix, “s. ix4/4, Rheims area, prov. England s. x? or not in England before s. xii or xiii.”

96 

BEDE – PART 1

According to Jones, the end of De temporum ratione (from chapter 30) has been lost. Finally, Gneuss and Lapidge date and place the relevant folios of Salisbury, Cathedral Library 158, “s. ix 2 or ix/x, France, prov. Salisbury by s.xi ex.” Jones notes that it contains glosses. The Avranches manuscript was possible written by an Anglo-Saxon scribe at Mont Saint-Michel (Bower 1988 p 211). Gneuss and Lapidge identify it: “s. x/xi, prov. Mont Saint-Michel by s. xi ex.” Jones records that it contains only chapter 1. MSS 1, 5, and 6. The Cambridge and two of the Royal manuscripts, 12. D. iv and 13. A. xi, are from the late Anglo-Saxon period. Of Corpus Christi College 291, Gneuss and Lapidge (ASM) write, “s. xi/xii, Canterbury, StA.” Jones indicates the presence of glosses. Gneuss and Lapidge similarly date Royal 12. D. iv, but place it at Christ Church, Canterbury. According to Jones, it too contains a few glosses. Gneuss and Lapidge consider Royal 13. A. xi to be from the late eleventh or the beginning of the twelfth century, but note that it may have been written in Normandy or northwest France rather than England. MSS other manuscripts. Finally, a manuscript now divided between two collections, Oxford, St John’s College 17 and London, British Library, Cotton Nero C. viii (fols. 80-84), and a closely related one also in the British Library, Cotton Tiberius E. iv, deserve mention here because they descend from the computus assembled by Byrhtferth (see Baker and Lapidge 1995 pp lii-lx and 373-427). Passages and tables in the Computus that have been taken from De temporum ratione are listed in Quots/Cits. These manuscripts also contain De temporum ratione, in, according to Baker and Lapidge, “closely related” versions, which descend (they quote Jones CCSL 123B.241) “from a French exemplar which contained [the Epistola ad Wicthedum] and very probably an Abbonian commentary.” After comparing distinctive readings from the Enchiridion and these two manuscripts, Baker and Lapidge suggest the Byrhtferth’s text “was probably of the same type” as the ones in these manuscripts, “but not identical with them”: “Perhaps the best conclusion is that both … were derived from Byrhtferth’s copy, as the character of [the St John’s manuscript] would lead one to expect, but that one or both were collated with a copy of a different type.” They also note that De temporum ratione is glossed in both manuscripts, with the glosses in the St John’s copy being particularly extensive and, in the eyes of the editors, since they “often provide source material” for the Enchiridion, likely to be by Byrhtferth. Lists. Bede is mentioned in the list of books owned by Ælberht, archbishop of York, and bequeathed to Alcuin (ML 1.7); see the introduction, BEDE. The booklist possibly from Worcester (ML 11) includes “Beda De temporibus,” which

Educational Work s

97

Lapidge identifies as De temporibus. Given the overlapping titles under which De temporibus and De temporum ratione circulated, it might refer to either. Quots/Cits 1-10 and Refs. At the level to which Bede had elevated the discipline, computus was more effectively taught than simply read. As he explained in a letter to HWÆTBERT, abbot of Monkwearmouth-Jarrow, that serves as the preface to De temporum ratione, Bede returned to the reckoning of time because some of his brethren found the explanation of the calculation of Easter in De temporibus “more concise than they would have wished” (trans. Wallis 1999 p 3; “multo digestos esse quam uellent,” ed. CCSL 119B.263). However, as demonstrated by a series of comments gathered by Paul Meyvaert (2002 pp 42-43), even his new, longer work required unpacking. It is, therefore, understandable that Alcuin in his Versus de sanctis Euboricensis ecclesiae, while crediting Bede with “a book on time / containing the courses, places, times, and laws of the stars” (lines 1309-11; ed. and trans. Godman, 1982 pp 102-03), devoted greater space to the instruction in computus that he received at York from his teacher Ælberht (lines 1440-49; trans. pp 113-15): To others this master taught the harmony of the spheres, the labours of the sun and the moon, the five zones of heaven, the seven planets, the regular motions of the stars, their rising and setting, the movements of the air, the tremors of the earth and sea, the natures of men and cattle, of birds and wild beasts, the diverse forms and shapes of numbers. He regulated the time for Easter’s celebration, revealing the great mysteries of holy Scripture, for he fathomed the depths of the rough and ancient law.

Despite the record that Ælbert left Alcuin not a De temporum ratione but rather Pliny’s Historia naturalis (ML 1.9; Bede is mentioned in 1.7), as well as the suggestion in the closing lines of the passage just quoted that Ælberht taught from his own research (which might be supported by topics such as “the five zones of heaven” not covered in Bede’s work), it appears likely that the text behind this course was De temporum ratione, augmented by the teaching that Ælberht himself would have received, about which one can only conjecture (see Springsfeld 2002 p 17). Meyvaert (2002 p 16) appears well justified in entertaining the possibility that Alcuin brought a copy of De temporum ratione with him to the court of Charlemagne; his own uses of the work, however, are less verbal borrowings than restatements of Bede’s positions.

98 

BEDE – PART 1

Quots/Cits 1-10. In Epistola 126 (ed. MGH ECA 2.185-87), Alcuin advised Charlemagne in 797 to allot to November the “leap of the moon” (“saltus lunae,” the subtraction of the calculated lunar day that accumulated over the nineteen-year cycle). Bede had considered this topic, which has implications for the date of Easter particularly in the last year of the nineteen-year cycle, in chapters 42 and 45 of De temporum ratione (see Wallis 1999 pp 326-35). Alcuin’s aim in the letter is not to quote and explicate Bede’s work, but rather to use his understanding of it to present its conclusions, in substantial detail, to Charlemagne. The quotations listed above are those identified by the editor, Ernst Dümmler. In Epistola 145 (ed. MGH ECA 2.231-35), again to Charlemagne but in the following year, Alcuin ridiculed the suggestion that the “leap of the moon” should be inserted into the last year of the nineteenyear cycle following the Egyptian practice, which ended on the 4th kalends of September (29 August). Again, both correspondences are noted by Dümmler. The first concerns the Egyptian practice of beginning the year in the autumn; the second gives the exact date for the end of the year. In Epistola 148 (ed. MGH ECA 2.237-41), Alcuin described the progress of the sun through the zodiac, using information about the length of its stay in each sign derived according to Dümmler from De temporum ratione. Dietrich Lohrmann (1993 pp 85-86), who reexamines the question, argues more generally that Ratio de luna, one of four brief treatises on computus attributed to Alcuin – the other three are De saltu lunae, De bissexto, and Calculatio Albini magistri (ed. PL 101.980-1002; see CSLMA, Auctores Galliae 2.148-50 and Bullough 2004 p 290) – is indeed by him. In Epistola 155 (ed. MGH ECA 2.249-53), Alcuin first identified Bede as his source (2.250, line 38) and quoted the opening clause of chapter 18, “anyone who is ignorant of the [zodiac] signs, but who wishes nonetheless to discover the course of the Moon” (ed. CCSL 123B.339; trans. Wallis 1999 p 60), before turning to De natura rerum. The following discussion alludes briefly to chapters 3 and 4 of De temporum ratione. Quots/Cits 11-13. In discussing the sources for the sections on the beginnings of the months in the OLD ENGLISH MARTYROLOGY, Christine Rauer (2013; her edition, translation, and commentary are used throughout this section) consistently cites chapter 12, “The Roman Months,” and chapter 15, “The English Months,” of De temporum ratione. January provides a useful starting point for considering the issue (trans. Rauer p 43): On the eighth day of Christmas is the beginning of the month which is called Januarius, which in our language is “Æftera Geola” [The Latter Month of Yule]. It is the first month of the year for the Romans and for us. This month has thirty-one days.

Educational Work s

99

In chapter 15, lines 7-8 of De temporum ratione, Bede stated with reference to the English, “the first month, which the Latins call January, is Giuli” (trans. Wallis 1999 p 53). He later reported that “Giuli” was also used for December. The claim that 1 January is the eighth day of Christmas might be a misunderstanding of Bede’s assertion that “they began the year on the 8th kalends of January [25 December], when we celebrate the birth of the Lord” (lines 13-14; trans. p 53). Bede, moreover, surveyed the changing Roman practice for the length of each month in chapter 12, but did not offer a simple list. That January has thirty-one days may be inferred from Bede’s statement (lines 82-83), “Shortly afterwards, Numa, in honour of the odd number, added a day, which he gave to January” (trans. p 49). Quots/Cits 19, 21-29, 31-35, and 37-38. In the case of other months, Bede’s explanations of the Roman or English names carry over into the Martyrology. For example, prompted by the vernacular name for May, Bede wrote (chapter 15, lines 41-44), “Thrimilchi was so called because in that month the cattle were milked three times a day; such at one time, was the fertility of Britain or Germany, from whence the English nation came to Britain” (trans. Wallis 1999 p 54). The martyrologist repeated all this material. Adapting the Saturnalia of MARCOBIUS, Bede wrote (chapter 12, lines 37-40): “The month of August was formerly called ‘Sextilis’ until this honour was bestowed upon Augustus by decree of the Senate, because on the very first day of that month he defeated Antony and Cleopatra and established his rule over the Roman people” (trans. p 47). The martyrologist commented, “the Roman citizens first called it by that name, because on the first day of the month he [Augustus] established the Roman empire, and overcame those who had earlier overthrown it” (trans. p 149). Quots/Cits 14, 15-18, 30, and 36. Finally, the martyrologist also used the Chronica maiora, chapters 66-71 of De temporum ratione, for details in his entries on Anthony the Hermit, Anastasius, Perpetua and Felicity, Augustine of Hippo, and All Saints. Only the case of Perpetua and Felicity appears doubtful. The martyrologist began his remarks by noting that the bodies of both women rest in Carthage, but then offered details and separate accounts of their martyrdoms. In contrast, Bede stated: “Perpetua and Felicitas were thrown to the beasts for Christ in the arena at Carthage in Africa on the Nones of March [7 March]” (trans. Wallis 1999 p 204). Quots/Cits 39-50. There can be little doubt that the author of the OLD ENGLISH OROSIUS (ed. Bately 1980; her text and commentary are the basis of this discussion) used sources other than the Historia aduersum paganos; as Rohini Jayatilaka remarks in the introduction to her entries in Fontes Anglo-Saxonici, the difficulty in determining which he used is due

100 

BEDE – PART 1

to the appearance of the relevant details in, as she puts it, “numerous texts”: “none can be pinpointed as a more likely source than the others.” She does, however, include Bede’s Chronica maiora (chapters 66-71 of De temporum ratione) as one of those “likely to have contributed material.” The first three correspondences – the connection between the Nile and the Gihon (ed. Bately p 11, line 11); the identification of “Cicrope” (Cecrops) as the first ruler of Attica (p 24, lines 31-32); and the specifying of Numitor’s rule “in Italia þæm lande” (p 36, lines 31-32) – seem slight. More convincing, although also found in other sources, are the details that Darius was Cyrus’s kinsman (p 45, line 17), that Seleucus became king of the east (pp 77, lines 30-32, and p 81, line 2), that Pompey sought aid from Ptolomy (p 127, line 29), that Anthony ruled all of Asia (p 129, line 16) and that Cleopatra was his wife (p 129, lines 18-19), that Constantine built churches (p 149, lines 17-18; this is the only source Bately offers), and that the Goths travelled to Spain and Africa (p 156, lines 22-23). The four additional sources in Fontes Anglo-Saxonici (133.9-10, 145.5-14, 148.10-20, and 153.8) are not, however, compelling. Quots/Cits 51. J. E. Cross (1972 p 79) claims that the statement in the Old English poem, The Order of the World, “His might draws forth the heavenly candles (or candle), and the waters with them” (ed. ASPR 3.163-66, lines 53b-54; trans. Cross), “obviously refers to the influence of sun and/or moon on the tides.” In his entries on the poem in Fontes Anglo-Saxonici, Daniel Anlezark specified chapter 29, lines 11-19 of De temporum ratione as the probable source. Quots/Cits 52-61. Writing in Canterbury in the first decade of the twelfth century, the compiler of the F manuscript (ed. Baker 2000) of the ANGLOSAXON CHRONICLE augmented his main source, a version of the northern recension, by turning to other sources, including the Historia ecclesiastica and De temporum ratione. Baker (2000 p lvii) suggests that the lengths of the reigns of the Roman emperors Hadrian (anno 116) and Antonius (anno 137) might have come from this work. In describing both the request of Lucius, king of Britain, to be made a Christian (anno 167) and the great ditch that Severus built across England (anno 188), the compiler of F used the Latin of De temporum ratione. Annal 448 is more complicated and is perhaps better approached by considering the Latin first. The discussion of the translation of the head of John the Baptist (p 20, lines 4-6), which is unique to F, derives directly from De temporum ratione; it appears, then, that the compiler translated this passage at the opening of the annal (p 19, lines 28-30). The following Latin passage (p 20, lines 6-10), the arrival of Hengst and Horsa in England, is treated in the “common stock”; however, the progression “Martiano et Valentiniano,” “gens Anglorum,” “tribus longis

Educational Work s

101

nauibus,” and “aduehunter” establishes lines 1618-20 of De temporum ratione as a source for the Latin. The final clause of the annal derives from De temporum ratione: “Deinde in socios arma uertens totam prope insulam ab orientali plaga usque ad occidentalem igni uel ense subigit” (ed. CCSL 123B.517-18; “then they turned their arms on their allies, and subjugated almost the entire island by fire or the sword, from the eastern shore as far as the western one,” trans. Wallis 1999 p 221). This clause is also the source for the Old English, “hi fardydon þurh fyr 7 ðurh swyrdes egge” (p 20, line 3). In recording, incorrectly, the death of BENEDICT OF NURSIA, annal 482 (p 22, lines 12-16) both translates Bede’s Latin and reproduces the original, with a few minor changes. Quots/Cits 62-63. Lapidge (2003a p 39) identifies two verbal parallels between De temporum ratione and ASSER’s De rebus gestis Ælfredi (ed. Stevenson 1959). In the initial description of the king’s enchiridion, the hand-book of services, psalms, and prayers that he collected in his youth, Asser wrote, “inter omnia praesentis vitae curricula ubique circumducebat” (p 21; italics add). Lapidge finds the source for the opening phrase in one of Bede’s explanations for the name “tempora”: “seu quod momentis, horis, diebus, mensibus, annis, saeculisque et aetatibus omnia mortalis uitae curricula temperentur” (ed. CCSL 123B.274; italics added; “or because all the courses of mortal life are measured in moments, hours, days, months years, ages and epochs”; trans. Wallis 1999 p 13). Although the contexts are different, the phrases themselves do suggest a direct connection. Similarly, Lapidge has identified the source of Asser’s “aequali lance” (p 86), which occurs in a passage describing Alfred’s division of his revenues, in Bede’s use of the phrase in his chapter on “The World’s First Day.” Refining the view that, since in the beginning God divided light and darkness into equal parts, creation must have occurred on the equinox, Bede argued that this division must have been preserved until the fourth day when the luminaries were made: “Nam praecedens triduum, ut omnibus uisum est, absque ullis horarum dimensionibus, utpote necdum factis sideribus, aequali lance lumen tenebrasque pendebat” (123B.291; “During the preceding three days, as everyone can see, light and darkness weighed equally in the balance, for since the stars were not yet made, there was no measurement of hours”; trans. p 24). Wallis concludes her note on the passage by remarking that for Bede “time without the reckoning of time was inconceivable.” Quots/Cits 64-65. Lapidge (2003b p 234) lists De temporum ratione among the works that, on the basis of distinctive phrases in the Translatio et miracula S. Swithuni, LANTFRED must have read. He cites the work twice in his notes. The first phrase, “rutilantes fulgore inexhausti luminis”

102 

BEDE – PART 1

(p 270), describes two youths who visit a hump-backed man in a dream: “the splendid youths whom he had previously seen appeared again to him in the quiet of his sleep, shining with the radiance of inexhaustible light”; (trans. 271, emphasis added). Lapidge compares it to a comment about Mercury in Bede’s work: “By its perpetual circling close to the Sun, Mercury was deemed to radiate the inexhaustible light of wisdom” (trans. Wallis 1999 p 33; “quasi inexhausta sapientiae luce radiari putabatur,” ed. CCSL 123B.301). While the correspondence is not exact, the image of “inexhaustible light” (either “lumen” or “lux”) is less common than one might expect. The second, “in pungentis ictu” (p 302, line 18), which is used in the context of a slave miraculously transported to the Swithun’s tomb, may derive from Bede’s explanation of “in ictu oculi” (I Cor 15:52): “many writers call the tiniest interval of time in which the lids of our eyes move when a blow is launched [against them], and which cannot be divided or distributed, either a momentum, a punctus or an atom” (trans. Wallis 1999 p 16; the italics indicate Bede’s borrowing from Jerome). The phrase, however, also appears in book 1, Homily 10 of GREGORY THE GREAT’s Homiliae xl in euangelia, a work that Lapidge asserts Lantfred also knew. Quots/Cits 66-70. In his Explanatio in Calculo Victorii (ed. Peden 2003), ABBO OF FLEURY quoted a single line from De temporum ratione chapter 5, line 2: “Day is air which is lit up by the sun” (trans. Wallis 1999 p 19). Peden refers to the work at six more points in his notes, in four of these as possible sources. In explaining Abbo’s claim that an hour can be divided into either 4 or 5 puncti, he mentions chapters 3 and 17, but the first is more relevant: “An hour has four puncti, 10 minuta, 15 partes, 40 momenta, and in some lunar calculations, five puncti” (trans. Wallis 1999 p 15). From Bede’s remark, one could also work out Abbo’s following claim, “punctumque unum in tribus partibus.” As Peden explains, “the pars is a computistical term for four minutes of time, and so only the lunar punctus (i.e. 12 minutes, as opposed to the ordinary punctus of 15 minutes) has three partes.” Abbo used terminology that Bede had set out in his list of duodecimal fractions (chapter 4) when he wrote, “reliquae XI unciae, quae supersunt de praedicta summa, iabus vel deunx, quasi decem et una uncia dicuntur” (p 101, lines 29-30). As Wallis explains in her commentary (p 270), “the terminology is fairly complex, as Romans had separate words for the fraction itself, and for the remainder of the unit, e.g. uncia = 1/12, deunx = 11/12, quadrans = ¼, dodrans = ¾.” Moreover, like Abbo, Bede had offered “iabus” as a synonym for “deunx.” Abbo’s remarks about the different ways that the Greeks and Romans expressed numbers by means of letters (p 105, lines 20-23) was also discussed by Bede. Finally, Peden (p xxxi) notes that “Abbo’s description of

Educational Work s

103

the positions of the fingers on the left hand which represent number up to 90 (III.67) is the same as that which Bede provided in his De temporum ratione.” Quots/Cits 71-73. Ælfric’s homily on the Circumcision (Homily 6) in his first series of Catholic Homilies (B1.1.7; ed. Clemoes 1997 pp 224-31) provides the earliest evidence for his knowledge of De temporum ratione. Prompted by the detail that Christ was circumcised on the eighth day (Lc 2:21), Ælfric commented that “we have often heard that men call this day the day of the year, as if it were first in the circuit of the year, but we find no explanation in Christian books, why this day is accounted the beginning of the year” (trans. Thorpe 1884-86 1.99). The passage that follows, which records the practices among the Romans, Hebrews, Greeks, and Egyptians (lines 132-35), may derive, as Malcolm Godden (2000 p 51) notes, from either chapter 9 of De temporibus or chapter 36 of De temporum ratione; the order is that of De temporibus. After dismissing the practices of his own day, Ælfric expressed his opinion, and in doing so showed his grasp of a central argument articulated in chapter 6 of De temporum ratione: “Most rightly it has been thought that the beginning of the year should be observed on the day that the Almighty Creator placed the sun, and the moon, and the stars, and the beginning of all times” (lines 141-43; translating “tida” as “times” for Thorpe’s “seasons”). In “The World’s First Day,” Bede argued that although God equally divided the light from darkness on the first day, the equinox was inaugurated on the fourth day with the creation of the luminaries. As Wallis (2006 p 83) has explained, The natura created on the fourth day was, therefore, the measurement of time, not time itself. The Moon was created full on Day Four, for all things came into being in their perfect state; therefore the Moon was created at sunset. In Bede’s view, these details are critical, for what he calls the “rule of Easter” (paschae regula; ed. CCSL 123B.291, line 29) is nothing other than locating the moment every year when the Sun and Moon return to the positions and states they held at the moment of their creation.

In the Commentarius in Genesim I, lines 561-67 (ed. CCSL 118A.19) and the Historia ecclesiastica V.xxi, lines 46-62 (ed. Lapidge 2010 2.434), Bede linked this idea to Exodus 12:2 (“This month shall be to you the beginning of months; it shall be the first in the months of the year”), the sources for Ælfric’s following remarks. Ælfric then returned to chapter 6 of De temporum ratione, identifying “se lareow Beda” (line 157) as his source. Godden (2000 p 51; see also his entries in Fontes Anglo-Saxonici) writes that this passage is “probably based on chapter 6 of De temporum ratione.” It reflects, in our

104 

BEDE – PART 1

opinion, Ælfric’s understanding of a central tenet of Bede’s work, one that he was perhaps taught during his schooling under Æthelwold in the monastic school at Winchester. Quots/Cits 74-76. At the end of Catholic Homily I, 6, Ælfric discussed the moon’s physical control over earthly bodies, drawing, as Godden states (2000 pp 52-53 and Fontes Anglo-Saxonici) on De temporum ratione chapters 28 and 29. He began with a general statement, which Bede himself had drawn from Basil, “every bodily creature in the creation which the earth produces, is, however, according to nature, fuller and stronger in full moon than in decrease” (lines 191-93; trans. Thorpe 1.103). He then provided two specific examples of the moon’s influence on trees (lines 193-95) and the sea (lines 196-99). Quots/Cits 77-79. In Homily 40, for the Second Sunday in Advent, in the first series of Catholic Homilies (B1.1.42; ed. Clemoes 1997 pp 524-30), Ælfric also used De temporum ratione for details about heavenly bodies and events at the Last Judgement. Near the beginning of the homily (lines 39-42), he turned from his main sources to note that some of the signs that might be taken as indications of the coming Judgement are actually natural events. Godden (2000 p 337) writes, “in omitting Gregory’s reference to the fiery armies, and silently rebutting HAYMO’s identification of the apocalyptic signs with eclipses and comets, Ælfric is perhaps betraying a concern to present the end as less imminent than it was for either Gregory or Haymo.” In any case, his information about eclipses is likely to have come from either De natura rerum or chapter 27 of De temporum ratione (in both places, Bede himself relied on Pliny) since these contains all of the relevant details: in solar eclipses, the moon intervenes between the earth and the sun; in lunar eclipses, the earth intervenes between the moon and the sun; and lunar eclipses occur only when the moon is full. Godden’s suggested passage from chapter 7, lines 17-20, of De temporum ratione is less close in that it discusses only lunar eclipses; however, its explanation of these events may well have influenced Ælfric. Quots/Cits 80-83. Godden (2000 pp 342-43) also offered De temporum ratione as a likely source for four details about the Last Judgement in Catholic Homilies I, 40. The most distinctive is Ælfric’s literal interpretation of I Thessalonians 4:16 (“Then we who are alive, who are left, shall be taken up together with them in the clouds to meet Christ, into the air, and so shall we be always with him”): “The doom will be deemed on no earthly field, but will be as the apostle here above in the lesson said, that we shall be seized up in clouds towards Christ, through the air; and there will be the separation of righteous and impious men” (lines 150-53; trans. Thorpe

Educational Work s

105

1844-46 1.617). Godden points out that in Bede’s work “the righteous at least are raised into the air for the judgment.” He continues, “Ælfric’s next point, that the righteous subsequently reside nowhere but in heaven with God, probably reflects Bede’s subsequent argument that St Paul’s words are to be understood as implying not that the righteous remain in the air but that after the judgment they reside with God.” Moreover, he suggests that Bede’s remarks about the “perfect servants who are caught up in the sound of the trumpet to meet the Lord in the air” (trans. Wallis 1999 p 246) may be reflected in Ælfric’s previous comments: “The fire will in no wise injure the righteous who had before been cleansed from sins” (lines 147-50). Finally, Ælfric’s claim (echoing Isaias 30:26) that after the heaven and earth have been cleansed by fire, “then will the sun be sevenfold brighter than it now is, and the moon will have the light of the sun” (lines 163-65) draws on Bede’s earlier statement in this chapter about the renewal of these bodies by fire, which then leads to the same verse from Isaias. Quots/Cits 84-166. That Ælfric’s De temporibus anni (B1.9.4; ed. Blake 2009) is based on Bede’s work is indicated by the rubric in London, British Library, Cotton Tiberius B. v, “Incipiunt Pauca de Temporibus Bedae presbiteri” (NRK 193a). However, since Ælfric’s treatise is an edited and simplified amalgam of all three of Bede’s works (De temporibus, De temporum ratione, and De natura rerum) thoroughly reworked in the Ælfrician mode, it is not classed here as an Anglo-Saxon version. Moreover, as discussed under De natura rerum, the first reference to Bede (Refs 6) could be to either of these works or to De temporibus. The second (Refs 7), however, occurs in the context of a passage taken from De temporum ratione. Heinrich Henel’s edition (1942) remains the most convenient basis for comparing Ælfric’s work with this source. Working from it, Mark Atherton lists seventy-four correspondences between the two works in his entries in Fontes AngloSaxonici; see also Martin Blake’s “Commentary” and Lapidge (2006 p 255). Quots/Cits 94, 99, 110, 126, 142, and 149. In her edition of Ælfwine’s Prayerbook, which contains a copy of Ælfric’s De temporibus anni, Günzel (1993 p 36) remarks of Ælfric’s work that “most of the chapter headings are also taken directly from Bede.” Although the situation is somewhat more complicated because of similar titles not only in Bede’s three relevant works, but also in ISIDORE’s De natura rerum (ed. Fontaine 1960), Günzel is essentially correct. Ælfric’s first heading, “De primo die sæculi siue de equinoctio uernali” (line 76; ed. Blake 2009 p 78) modifies that of chapter 6 of De temporum ratione, “Ubi primus saeculi dies sit” (ed. CCSL 123B.290). Others that reflect this work are “De nocte” (line 93), “De anno” (line 141), “De equinoctiis” (line 236), “De bissexto” (line 293), and “De saltu lune” (line 319).

106 

BEDE – PART 1

Quots/Cits 84, 95-98, 109, and 130. Ælfric’s first borrowing in De temporibus anni from De temporum ratione occurs after his statement about the creation of the land and sea on the third day: “These three days were without sun or moon or stars or any measure of time, equally encompassed by light and darkness” (lines 23-25; trans. Blake p 2009 p 77). This is, of course, the issue that appears in Catholic Homily I, 6, recalling Bede’s discussion in chapter 6, “The World’s First Day,” of why God’s equal division of light from darkness on the first day of creation must have been sustained during the next two days until the creation of the luminaries, which could measure time, on the fourth day. Ælfric returned to this idea in more detail in his following section, “The First Day of the Age, or the Vernal Equinox,” again following Bede in explaining its importance by linking it to the rules for setting the date of Easter (lines 84-87). Indeed, it is at the end of this section that he explicitly mentioned Bede: “We intend to say more about this equinox in a more appropriate place, but we now say briefly that the first day of this world is reckoned as the day which we call quinta decima kalendas aprilis, and the date of the equinox is held, as Bede teaches, to be on the fourth day, that is on duodecima kalendas aprelis” (lines 87-91). The topic next arises at the end of Ælfric’s section “On Night.” After declining to discuss weeks and months, he continues (lines 134-40): We say, however, of the holy Eastertide that, whenever the moon is fourteen nights old from duodecima kalendas aprelis, then on that day is the limit of Easter which we call terminus. And if the terminus, that is the quarta decima luna, occurs on a Sunday, then that day is Palm Sunday. If the terminus falls on a weekday, then the following Sunday is Easter day.

In addition to a passage from the computus in the Missal of Robert of Jumièges, Heinrich Henel (1942 pp 27 and 90) also prints one from chapter 49 of De temporum ratione, but comments, “It is impossible to note all the places in which the criteria for the reckoning of Easter are given, and equally impossible to say with certainty which of them may have been Ælfric’s source.” Fontes Anglo-Saxonici considers Bede a possible source here. Blake (p 110) specifies the so-called “Winchester Computus.” In any case, Ælfric’s final remarks again draw on De temporum ratione; in “On the Equinoxes,” he wrote (lines 246-50), It is necessary for us to hold the holy Eastertide according to the true rule, never before the equinox and the overcoming of darkness. We say truly, therefore, that the equinox is, as we said earlier, on duodecima

Educational Work s

107

kalendas aprilis, just as the faithful fathers established, and as reliable measurements also show us.”

Although not the only theme discussed in De temporibus anni, this connection between the creation of the sun, moon, and stars with the rules for establishing the date of Easter, which Ælfric drew from Bede, would have made his work a valuable vernacular reference book. Quots/Cits 155 and 161. As noted in the discussion of lines 345-46 in the entry on De natura rerum, Ælfric’s positive remarks on the use of signs in the sky to predict the weather reflect Bede’s discussion of the topic in the earlier work. The passage in De temporum ratione quoted by Henel (1943 p 65) casts doubt on the practice: “But those who are inquisitive about this sort of thing will often pronounce on atmospheric conditions by the colour of [the Moon] or sun, or from the heavens themselves, the stars or the shifting shapes of clouds, or other omens” (trans. Wallis 1999 p 76). However, since Ælfric had just used (in lines 342-45; ed. Blake 2009 p 90) the previous passage in De temporum ratione, it is difficult to imagine that he did not keep reading; indeed, his “þa ðe fyrwite beoð” echoes Bede’s “qui curiosi sunt.” It is possible, then, that his earlier statement, “No Christian must divine any thing according to the moon; if he does so, his faith is nothing” (lines 335-37) may indeed reflect Bede’s view (trans. p 91), just not about the weather. Quots/Cits 167-74. As discussed in the entry on De natura rerum (see Quots/Cits 73-82), in his Interrogationes Sigeuulfi in Genesin (B1.1.6; ed. MacLean 1884; lines 115-44) Ælfric turned away from his main source, Alcuin’s Quaestiones in Genesin, to include a passage about the “wandering stars,” the five known planets and the sun and moon. While most of his material appears to derive from the earlier work, a few details suggest that he also used De temporum ratione, where indeed much of the information from De natura rerum is repeated. In his entries in Fontes Anglo-Saxonici, M.B. Bedingfield lists De natura rerum as the source for the details about Saturn, Jupiter, and Mars, but De temporum ratione as that for the rest. The most compelling case for the later work is found in the description of Mercury as “micel 7 beorht” (line 131); the characterisation of the moon as “ealra tungla nyðemest” (line 133), which also derives ultimately from De termporum ratione, was used by Ælfric in De temporibus anni (lines 107 and 169-70). Since Ælfric was certainly aware of the relationship between the two works and might have moved freely between them, all the possible sources in De temporum ratione are included above. Quots/Cits 175. In De falsis diis, Homily 21 in his Supplementary Collection (B1.4.22; ed. Pope 1967-68 pp 676-712), Ælfric’s discussion of the days

108 

BEDE – PART 1

of the week led to a brief passage on the planets (lines 181-86). Pope (p 717) considers this transition to have been influenced by De temporum ratione; the passage itself is linked more closely to De natura rerum. In his Hexameron (B1.5.13; ed. Crawford 1921 pp 33-74), Ælfric returned to several of the topics already discussed, but there appear to be no specific details that he suggest again used De temporum ratione at this time. His remarks about both the creation of light (lines 107-17) and the luminaries (lines 216-23) draw ultimately on chapters 6 and 30 of Bede’s work, but reflect his own adaptations in Catholic Homily I, 6, and De temporibus anni; see the passages that Crawford prints below these lines (pp 42-43 and 50), as well as his notes (pp 76 and 78-79). Similarly, his statement about the circuits of the sun and moon (lines 236-38) reflects De temporibus anni (see Crawford pp 51 and 79). In one case, however, he should have returned to Bede: his claim that the firmament revolves once in twenty-four hours (lines 140-48) confuses its motion with that of the sun (see De temporum ratione chapter 5, lines 7-8; ed. CCSL 123B.283). He had defined “day” correctly in De temporibus anni (lines 45-48). Quots/Cits 176-80. Byrhtferth’s knowledge of De temporum ratione is beyond doubt. He used it in composing his Computus (BYRHT.Comp.), which has been reconstructed by Baker and Lapidge (1995, pp 373-427; used here and in the Quots/Cits treating their section numbers as chapters), taking from it both text and diagrams. Indeed, his “Epilogus” (section 4 of the Baker/Lapidge reconstruction and so identified above as “iv”), an overview of the manuscript that he compiled, is largely in praise of Bede and includes a summary of De temporum ratione: “he set out in brilliant style the Paschal observances of the Hebrews, the twelvefold distinction of Greek months, the complete cycle of Egyptian days and likewise that of the Romans and other Latin speakers, who have 365 days and six hours in their years” (trans. Baker and Lapidge 1995 p 376). As noted above, two of the manuscripts in which Byrhtferth’s Computus survives – Oxford, John’s College 17 and London, Cotton Tiberius E. iv – contain copies of Bede’s work. Quots/Cits 177-78. The first section of De temporum ratione that Byrhtferth discussed in detail in the “Epilogus” (lines 54-64; ed. Baker and Lapidge 1995 p 378) is chapter 30, “Equinoxes and Solstices” (trans. Wallis 1999 pp 86-89). While Bede acknowledged the traditional dates for each and the symbolism that had been attached to them, his concern was to stress the correct date of the spring equinox since this determines the possible dates of Easter. In contrast, Byrhtferth asserted, for example, that “the vernal equinox will be from 21 March until 20 September; it has 182 days” (lines 59-60; trans. p 378). Byrhtferth concluded: “If anyone is ignorant of these things, or would

Educational Work s

109

contradict them, let him read the words of the thirtieth chapter [of De temporum ratione], and he will find them to be true” (lines 62-64; trans. p 378). Similarly, he took the sentence at the end of Bede’s discussion of a new formula for determining the age of the moon on the first day of any month (chapter 20), which merely explained why he had created his system for the Roman rather than the Egyptian practice, to state, “these words are to be understood as saying that, like the Romans, we start the beginning of the year at 1 January, from which we derive the divine sacraments, and terminate it on 31 December, which is the last of their days” (lines 67-70; trans. pp 378-79). Quots/Cits 179-80. In section 6 of his Computus (ed. Baker and Lapidge 1995 pp 381-82, figures 2 and 5), Byrhtferth included two tables drawn from chapters 21 and 20 of De temporum ratione. The first concerns the “solar regulars” (see Wallis 1999 pp 296-97) and the second the “lunar regulars” (see Wallis 1999 p 295). Baker and Lapidge (1995 pp 416, 417, and 424) identify three more places in which Byrhtferth included material from Bede’s work. Section 17 adds to a table of lunar letters an “explanation taken in part from” chapter 23 of De temporum ratione. Section 20, “Bede’s zodiac table,” includes a passage from chapter 19, which is headed, “Hanc sententiolam uenerabilis edidit auctor / Beda sacer, multum nitido sermone choruscans, / Zodiaci ratione super cicli manifesta / Quatinus hunc quisque scrutans cognoscere possit.” Finally, section 47, “How many hours the moon shines,” is an extract from chapter 24. Quots/Cits 189, 190, and 192. In discussing the sources for Byrhtferth’s Enchiridion (ByrM; B20.20; ed. Baker and Lapidge 1995 p lxxxvi), the editors identify De temporum ratione as, aside from Byrhtferth’s own Computus, “certainly … the most important”: he consulted Bede frequently in every part of his work, describing him as “se arwurða rimcræftiga,” “gumena se getyddusta,” “se eadiga wer,” and “gumena se getiddusta on Angelcynne.” He praises no other author so highly.

They identify only three passages that render De temporum ratione “fully and exactly enough to provide substantial clues to the textual relations of Byrhtferth’s source manuscript”: the point here is that most of his uses of Bede’s work involve translation or adaptation, some of which will be discussed below. The first two passages considered here appear in Byrhtferth’s discussion of the concurrents (I.ii, lines 45-52 and 54-62; for a definition, see Wallis 1999 p 427 and her commentary on chapters 21 and 53). As Baker and

110 

BEDE – PART 1

Lapidge (p lxxxvii) note, Byrhtferth has inserted several clauses between them. The third concerns the “leap of the moon” (II.i, lines 179-88) the day subtracted from the calendar at some point over the nineteen-year cycle to bring it back in line with reality. Byrhtferth introduced this passage with an elaborate reference to Bede and De temporum ratione (Refs 9). Quots/Cits 193 and 221. The first extensive borrowing in the Enchiridion (II.i, lines 392-416; ed. Baker and Lapidge 1995 pp 82-84) from De temporum ratione is a revision of Bede’s association in chapter 35 of the four seasons, the elements, humours, and ages of man. In their note on the passage, which identifies this correspondence and mentions other (possible) sources, including diagrams, Baker and Lapidge note that Byrhtferth “recurs to this material several times” in the Enchiridion as well as in his Vita Ecgwini (ed. Lapidge 2009). In II.i, Byrhtferth omitted references to the humours and the ages of man, but added the four virtues – justice, prudence, temperance, and fortitude. The passage in IV.1, lines 32-84, a discussion of the number four, considers, among other fours, the seasons and the ages of man. Citing a passage from the Enchiridion, Lapidge (1993b p 300) argues that the appearance of “‘scientific’ material” in the Vita Ecgwini points to Byrhtferth as the author of this work; here Byrhtferth used the four ages of man to structure his account of the saint’s life (ed. Lapidge 2009 p 210, lines 15-17). In his edition, Lapidge (pp 211-12 note 36) traces the medieval topos of the four ages of man to Isidore, providing additional bibliography and examples of its use in other hagiographic texts, including part 5, chapter 6 of Byrhtferth’s Vita Oswaldi (ed. Lapidge 2009 p 158, lines 15-19). Quots/Cits 182-88. In his opening remarks in his section on the “Natural Years” (Part 1, chapter 1, lines 163-231) in the Enchiridion, Byrhtferth claimed to have been “sustained by the assistance of the fathers,” adding “with whose dogs I am unfit to lie down” (lines 173-74; trans. Baker and Lapidge 1995 p 19). The editors identify a rota, which they print (Appendix A p 55), as the source for the items on Byrhtferth’s list as well as their order, but then identify other sources, too, including the ones above from De temporum ratione. Most are from chapter 35, although in one case (lines 193-94), they suggest that the wording of chapter 9 of De temporibus may be closer to Byrhtferth’s. They also point out that Byrhtferth’s “quo scriptum est ‘communis communis’” refers not to Bede but to tables in the computus. Similarly, his discussion of the “circulus Romanorum” (lines 207-13) appears to draw a single clause from De temporum ratione, but otherwise explicates the diagram that the editors print opposite it. Quots/Cits 197. Baker and Lapidge (1995 p 312) offer Bede’s concluding remark to his discussion of the English months – “good Jesu, thanks be to thee,

Educational Work s

111

who hast turned us away from these vanities and given us [grace] to offer to thee the sacrifice of praise” (trans. Wallis 1999 p 54) – as a comparison for Byrhtferth’s interjection into his remarks on the days of the week – “Praise God that young people scorn such error” (Enchiridion II.iii, lines 224-25; trans. Baker and Lapidge 1995 p 119). Byrhtferth had just stated, “our elders believed that they had spirit from the sun, body from the moon, understanding from Mercury, pleasure from Venus, blood from Mars, temperance from Jove, and the humours from Saturn,” which, his editors note, can be more closely paralleled in Isidore’s Etymologiae than in Bede’s De temporum ratione (viii, lines 36-39). While the entire passage (II.iii, lines 213-24) is, as they state, closer to Isidore than to Bede, their specific suggestion about lines 224-25 is strengthened by Byrhtferth’s opening, which associates the passage not only with the Romans but also with the English (II.iii, 213-14). Quots/Cits 198-200. Baker and Lapidge (1995 p 315) point out that in Enchiridion III.i, lines 49-51, Byrhtferth paraphrased Joshua 1:7: “Take courage therefore, and be very valiant that thou mayst observe and do all the law, which Moses my servant hath commanded thee: turn not from it to the right hand or to the left, that thou mayst understand all things which thou doest.” His source, they note, is Bede, who paraphrased the same verse also in a discussion of the date of Easter and in a form that brings it closer to Byrhtferth’s, “for the way is royal, and it is worthy of being strayed from neither on the left nor on the right” (trans. Baker and Lapidge 1995 p 125). The subsequent letter of Theophilus was also then quoted by Bede. Quots/Cits 205-11. The relationship of De temporum ratione to Byrhtferth’s discussion of “The Harmony of the Sea and the Moon” (Enchiridion III.ii, lines 124-38), a passage in which Bede is mentioned by name, is complicated, as Baker and Lapidge (1995 p 324) indicate. Byrhtferth’s main source for lines 124-31, the influence of the moon on sublunar bodies, is a section in Ælfric’s De temporibus anni (lines 347-50), which is itself dependent on Bede’s work (see Quots/Cits 172-73). The editors also record two suggestions by Henel (1942 p 99; they also cite Henel 1934 p 32 note 94): the opening clause, “the wise seafarers understand well that” (III.ii, line 124; trans. Baker and Lapidge 1995 p 145), is a misunderstanding of Bede’s comment, “Idemque significat pecorinum cerebrum uel etiam uiscerum [sic J, for uiscera] marinorum animalium que sunt humectiora, necnon arborum medulle” (Baker and Lapidge here quote from the John’s College manuscript discussed above); and the addition of “or five” in the clause “so the sea rises four or five points later” (III.ii, line 131) reflects Byrhtferth’s “uncertainty as to when an hour should be divided into four, and when into five ‘parts’” (Henel 1942 p 99). Byrhtferth’s next remark, “when the moon rises, the sea begins to rise” (III.

112 

BEDE – PART 1

ii, lines 131-32), restates one of the opening statements in chapter 29 of De temporum ratione: “For at [the Moon’s] every rising and setting, [the ocean] sends forth the strength of his ardour … to cover the coasts far and wide; and when it retreats, it lays them bare” (trans. Wallis 1999 p 82). In then invoking the terms malina and ledon to describe particular kinds of tides (see Wallis 1999 pp 307-12), Byrhtferth might have been using either De natura rerum or De temporum ratione; his wording, however, is closer to De temporum ratione (lines 49-50): “When the tides are increasing, they are called malinae, and when they are decreasing, ledones” (p 84). The beginning of the next claim, “the malina begins five days before the new moon and just as long before the full moon” (lines 134-36), also derives from De tempore ratione. After one detail from De natura rerum (lines 136-37), Byrhtferth concludes the discussion, “and each of these nouns makes two alternations over thirty days” (lines 137-38), rendering Bede’s “in alternating periods of seven or eight days, they divide up every month among themselves in their fourfold diversity of change” (p 84). While Bede’s discussion of the tides is widely admired (see Wallis 1999 pp 307-12, and Kendall and Wallis 2010 pp 188-90), Byrhtferth’s appears to be a more random collection of partially understood information. Quots/Cits 212. The central portion of Byrhtferth’s section on “The Moon’s Age” (Enchiridion III.ii, lines 168-89) “closely follows Bede” but again shows Byrhtferth’s confusion over the number of points in an hour (see Baker and Lapidge 2009 p 325). Quots/Cits 222-25 and 243. As Baker and Lapidge (1995 pp 346-47) note, the first part of Byrhtferth’s explanation of the perfection of the number six (Enchiridion IV.i lines 111-18) repeats a passage from Augustine’s De trinitate, which Bede had included in chapter 39 of De temporum ratione: “There are various discrepancies (in matters of word order, etc.) between the text as quoted by Byrhtferth and that found in Augustine and Bede; but since the text of Bede agrees verbatim with that of Augustine, it is not possible on textual grounds alone to determine whether Byrhtferth was following one or the other source.” Their suggestion that De temporum ratione is the direct source is supported by the opening of the passage in the Enchiridion, which follows Bede in adding “inquit” after “unum enim,” and then includes a second marker of direct quotation, “ut Aurelius Augustinus ait,” a few words later; Bede had identified his source as well. In this context, it appears likely that Byrhtferth’s opening, “senarii igitur numerus” (IV.i, line 108) echoes Bede’s “de senarii numeri” (line 122). Byrhtferth played again with the theme of the perfection of the number six in his Vita Ecgwini (ed. Lapidge 2009 p 278, lines 14-25), but the correspondences appear to be

Educational Work s

113

mainly between Byrhtferth’s two works rather than between De temporum ratione and the Vita. Quots/Cits 227. Although the source relationship here is straightforward, the topic itself, the meaning of the seventh and eighth ages, is prominent throughout Bede’s work, and so requires some comment. In discussing the number eight, Byrhtferth noted that God blessed only the seventh day (Gn 2:3), and then commented (Enchiridion IV.1, lines 190-94; trans. Baker and Lapidge 1995 pp 211-13): God blessed the seventh day so that the eighth would be even more sacrosanct. All the saints, who through their faith overcome the kingdoms of this life, receive the seventh day of perpetual life and peace, released from their bodies, awaiting the coming of almighty God and our saviour.

Byrhtferth’s editors direct their readers to chapter 67 of De temporum ratione and suggest they compare Bede’s Homily I.23. The first appears to be the source of the passage since so much of the Enchiridion derives from this work and since the wording is close. In her commentary, Wallis (1999 pp 356-59 and 368-69) explains the relationship of Bede’s seventh age of rest, which runs concurrent with the first six ages, to Augustinian thought and identifies other places where it appears in his work. Quots/Cits 228-29, 241, 242, 244, and 246. Although the main source for Byrhtferth’s remarks about the thirty-, sixty-, and hundredfold fruit in Enchiridion IV.i, lines 310-32 (ed. Baker and Lapidge 1995 p 222) is a homily by HAYMO, it includes two sentences taken directly from chapter 1 of De temporum ratione, both concerning the placement of fingers to denote numbers: “When you say ‘thirty,’ you join the tips of the index and middle fingers in a gentle embrace” and “when you say ‘sixty,’ you carefully encircle the thumb, bent as before, by curving the index finger forward” (trans. Wallis 1999 p 10). Earlier the chapter, Bede had introduced the topic of calculating with the fingers by quoting Jerome’s explanation of the parable of the sower (Mt 13:3-8; trans. Wallis 1999 pp 9-10; the text in italics is from Jerome’s Aduersus iouinianum): Many have said other things [on this topic], and even Jerome, that translator of the sacred narrative, says in his treatise on the evangelical precept (and [Jerome] did not hesitate to take up the aid of its discipline: The thirty-fold, sixty-fold and hundred-fold fruit, though born of one earth and one seed, nevertheless differ vastly as to number. Thirty refers to marriage, for this conjunction of fingers depicts husband and wife, wrapped and linked

114 

BEDE – PART 1

(as it were) in a tender kiss. Sixty refers to widows, because their position is one of confinement and tribulation; hence they are pressed down against the upper finger, for the more the will of a [sexually] experienced person suffers in abstaining from sin, the greater the reward. Finally, the hundred-fold number, pay careful attention, reader, I pray!) is transferred from the left hand to the right, and symbolizes the crown of virginity by making a circle with the same fingers, but not on the same hand, by which marriage and widowhood are signified on the left hand.

Although as Lapidge (2009 pp 22-23 note 78, citing Quacquarelli 1989; see also Baker and Lapidge 1995 p 361) indicates, there is a long tradition of exegesis on this parable, Lapidge has ample reason to identify this chapter of De temporum ratione as a source for Byrhtferth’s reference to this idea here and elsewhere in his work. The opening discussion of the “Epilogus,” which discusses the apostles and their followers prior to Bede (ed. and trans. Baker and Lapidge 1995 p 375, lines 3-17), concludes with the statement that “some of them bountifully bought the hundredfold fruit, some the sixtyfold and some the thirtyfold.” Similarly in his Vita Oswaldi (ed. Lapidge 2009 pp 22-23 and 27), Byrhtferth used it twice to explain how ODA, Oswald’s uncle, performed good works after having been appointed first bishop of Ramsbury and then archbishop of Canterbury. It appears in his Vita Ecgwini (ed. Lapidge 2009 p 225) in connection again with the saint’s religious deeds. Finally, it plays a role in Byrhtferth’s numerically structured excursus on the princes Æthelberht and Æthelred in his Historia regum (ed. Arnold 1885 p 5, lines 16-17). As Lapidge (1993c p 330) explains, “since each martyr lived pure for fifty days in both body and soul, the number 50 may be doubled, yielding 100, and this of course suggests the hundredth fruit of the biblical parable.” Quots/Cits 232. As the discussion of Quots/Cits 227 makes clear, Byrhtferth understood the place of the seventh and eighth ages in Bede’s thought; he decided, however, to conclude the Enchiridion with a discussion of, primarily, the six ages of the world (on this theme and its presence in other AngloSaxon texts, see Baker and Lapidge 1995 p 366). Indeed, his opening line of this discussion, “there are six ages of the world” (IV.ii, lines 5-6; ed. Baker and Lapidge 1995 p 232), although not noted by Baker and Lapidge, is taken from De temporibus, which might also, in its more compressed form, be the source of the summary of the six in lines 5-10. In any case, his comment that the ages are not of equal length reflects a fundamental concern that led Bede to write De temporibus and to defend himself in his Epistola ad Pleguinam (see Wallis 1999 pp xxx-xxxi). He did, however, provide the length of each

Educational Work s

115

age according to both the Vulgate and the Septuagint in De temporum ratione, a practice that Byrhtferth followed. Some mistakes in particular numbers have made their way into Byrhtferth’s text. Finally, Byrhtferth alluded again to the seventh and eighth ages when he commented, “Every man’s time ends within the space of seven days, and then he rests himself, and the soul receives that which the body produced until the eighth day arrives; that is the judgement day; that is the eternal day, the long day after the judgement, the pleasurable day, the holiest Sunday, God’s day, and the day of all the saints” (trans. Baker and Lapidge 1995 pp 237-39). Quots/Cits 243. In the Vita Ecgwini (p 244, lines 9-10; ed. Lapidge 2009 p 244), Byrhtferth recorded the saint alluding to the fourfold division of Judea by the tetrarchs. Lapidge (note 28) comments that this division “is mentioned in Luke 3:1 and described by JOSEPHUS, Antiquitates Iudaicae, XVII.13.2; but Byrhtferth more likely knew the discussion by Bede”; he cited this work, the Commentarius in Lucam, and Homily II.23. Byrhtferth’s knowledge of this work and De natura rerum is further supported by glosses on these works printed in the sixteenth-century edition of Johann Herwagen and so reprinted in PL 90.297-518, where they are identified as “Brideferti Glossae.” Arguing against a paper by Gorman (1996), Contreni (2005) contests this attribution. Lapidge (2008b; see also 2009 pp xxxiii-xxxvi) has made the case for Byrhtferth. On this issue, see also Kendall and Wallis (2010 pp 37-42), who, after summarising the relevant evidence, note that the question of attribution to Byrhtferth “is currently in dispute” (p 39 note 128). The theme of the three ages, which is found in De temporum ratione lxiv, lines 27-30 (ed. CCSL 123B.456), Commentarius in primam partem Samuhelis II, lines 637-38 (ed. CCSL 119.83), Commentarius in Ezram et Neemiam II, lines 1847-48 (ed. CCSL 119A.334), Homily I.14, lines 49-51 (ed. CCSL 122.96), and Historia ecclesiastica V.xxi, lines 240-41 (ed. Lapidge 2010 2.448), is a patristic commonplace. Baker and Lapidge (1995 p 338 note on lines 24-27), from whom the list of occurrences in Bede’s works has been taken, provide primary references and bibliography to support their assertion that it was “favoured especially by Augustine”; they also note its appearance in the works of Gregory, Isidore, HRABANUS MAURUS, and HINCMAR OF RHEIMS, who provided wording close to the passage in Byrhtferth’s Enchiridion (IV.i, lines 24-27) that they are considering. Godden (2000 pp 177 and 450) discusses the theme in relationship to Ælfric’s Catholic Homilies I, 22, lines 33-38 (B1.2.24; ed. Clemoes 1997 pp 354-64) and II, 12, lines 7-16 (B1.2.13; ed. Godden 1979 pp 110-26). Ælfric developed the theme in more detail in his First Old English Letter for Wulfstan (ÆLet 2,

116 

BEDE – PART 1

Wulfstan 1; B1.8.2; ed. Fehr 1914 pp 68-145, at p 72, line 5 to p 76, line 3). In their edition of this letter, Dorothy Whitelock, M. Brett, and C. N. L. Brooke (1981 1.262 note 3) add Alfric’s Epistola ad monachos Egneshamienses (ed. Jones 1998 p 124, lines 8-11) to the list of works already noted. Refs. It is perhaps fitting that some of the most extravagant references to Bede occur in the context of De temporum ratione, a work that represents his sustained attention to his followers. In addition to his remarks in his Versus de sanctis Euboricensis ecclesiae mentioned at the beginning of the discussion of Quots/Cits, Alcuin’s Carmina 72 (ed. MGH PLAC 1.294-95) discusses making for Charlemagne a “libellus annalis,” a calendar book, from the assertions of ancient writers that Bede, “nostrae cathegita terrae” (“our universal teacher”) had written down. In the “Epilogus” to his Computus (ed. and trans. Baker and Lapidge 1995 p 376), Byrhtferth wrote, He composed this present excellent book through his noble labours and thought that it should be called “De temporibus” [i.e. De temporum ratione]. In this book he set out in brilliant style the Paschal observances of the Hebrews, the twelvefold distinction of Greek months, the complete cycle of Egyptian days and likewise that of the Romans and other Latin speakers, who have 365 days and six hours in their years. For his own English peoples he set out the pathway to be followed to eternal glory; by advancing on this path they can win the prize of heavenly inheritance. I do not consider it astonishing that so renowned a sower of the divine crop should have been able to produce such writings since, if one may bring out into the open his own words, it does not seem strange, as he says himself, “that after I had attained the favour of my appointed calling no hour passed in which I did not try to be of service to myself or to others through reading, teaching or meditating.”

In his Enchiridion (ed. and trans. Baker and Lapidge 1995 pp 66-67), Byrhtferth first imagined Bede, that “marvellous teacher,” “couched with pillows” in “Moses’s wonderful tabernacle,” and then continued: “We shall pretend that that most learned man is sitting here, now that we are examining his writing.” In De temporum ratione, Bede’s instruction seems to have survived. De temporum ratione is also edited in PL 90.293-578. The so-called Chronica maiora, chapters 66-71, appears in Theodor Mommsen’s edition (MGH AA 13.247-327); it is this edition that Charles W. Jones reprints in CCSL 123B. Jones’s earlier edition, Bedae opera de temporibus (1943), contains much information not included in CCSL 123B. Faith Wallis (1999) is the essential source for understanding this work.

Educational Work s

117

Kalendarium ad usum computandi [Beda.Kalend.]. ed. Meyvaert 2002 pp 47-58. MSS 1. (?) Cambridge, University Library, Kk. 5. 32: ASM 26. 2. (?) Cambridge, Corpus Christi College, 9: ASM 36. 3. (?) Cambridge, Corpus Christi College, 391: ASM 104. 4. (?) Cambridge, Corpus Christi College, 422: ASM 111; ASMMF 11. 5. (?) Cambridge, Trinity College, R. 15. 32 (945): ASM 186; ASMMF 12. 6. (?) London, British Library, Add. 37517: ASM 291; ASMMF 2. 7. (?) London, British Library, Arundel 60: ASM 304; ASMMF 2. 8. (?) London, British Library, Arundel 155: ASM 306; . 9. (?) London, British Library, Cotton Galba A. xviii: ASM 334. 10. (?) London, British Library, Cotton Julius A. vi: ASM 337. 11. (?) London, British Library, Cotton Nero A ii: ASM 342; ASMMF 1. 12. (?) London, British Library, Cotton Tiberius B. v: ASM 373. 13. (?) London, British Library, Cotton Titus D. xxvii: ASM 380. 14. (?) London, British Library, Cotton Vitellius A. xii: ASM 398. 15. (?) London, British Library, Cotton Vitellius A. xviii: ASM 400. 16. (?) London, British Library, Cotton Vitellius E. xviii: ASM 407. 17. (?) London, British Library, Harley 3017: ASM 432.5. 18. (?) London, British Library, Royal 12. D. iv: ASM 478.5. 19. (?) Oxford, Bodleian Library, Bodley 579: ASM 585. 20. (?) Oxford, Bodleian Library, Digby 63: ASM 611. 21. (?) Oxford, Bodleian Library, Douce 296: ASM 617. 22. (?) Oxford, Bodleian Library, Hatton 113: ASM 637-638. 23. (?) Oxford, Bodleian Library, Junius 27 (S.C. 5139): ASM 641. 24. (?) Salisbury, Cathedral Library 150; ASM 740. 25. (?) [Rome] Città del Vaticano, Biblioteca Apostolica Vaticana, Reg. lat. 12: ASM 912. 26. (?) Rouen, Bibliothèque municipale, 274 (Y. 6): ASM 921; ASSMF 18. Lists – Refs none. Paul Meyvaert (2002) has identified and edited the calendar that Bede composed to accompany two tables, Aetas lunae in alphabetis distincta and Pagina regularum, as well as, perhaps, a Paschal table (Magnus circulus), which circulated as aids to users of De temporum ratione, completed in 725. Meyvaert, however, dates the beginning of Bede’s work

118 

BEDE – PART 1

on the calendar much earlier in his career, since one of his sources was the Codex cosmographiorum that Benedict Biscop had purchased in Rome but that, as Bede related in chapter 15 of the Historia abbatum (ed. Grocock and Wood 2013 p 58), CEOLFRITH, abbot of Monkwearmouth-Jarrow, later gave to Aldfrith, king of Northumbria, in return for land. Meyvaert places the exchange in the early 690s (p 18 note 45). He writes, I envisage Bede producing a Julian calendar for his own use and then copying into it, at the appropriate dates, all the statements about constellations he found in the calendar of the Codex cosmographiorum, before the codex left for Alfrith’s court. He would have kept this calendar by him over the coming decades as he discussed with his pupils the various topics that were to form the chapters of De temporum ratione, and as his work progressed he would have made new entries into his own calendar.

Bede would have needed this source for this information from PLINY about the constellations because his copy of the Historia naturalis lacked book 18. In the following years, he added other information: the dates for the seasons; the Egyptian months; the first day of the world; limits for Easter and Pentecost; the dates when there were no shadows at Meroe in Egypt; the zodiacal signs; the solstices and equinoxes; the embolisms, ogdoas, and endecas; the beginning of the Greek month Deseos; the indictions; the bissextus on 24 February; and the “leap of the Moon” on 21 March. The main link between the calendar and De temporum ratione is embedded in two columns of letters preceding the dates of the calendar (see Meyvaert’s figure 4 and edition). The first, running from A-O, determines, when connected to the Pagina regularum, the position of the moon within the zodiac (see De temporum ratione chapter 19, Jones’s table p 345, and Wallis’s note on her table, p 65, as well as her commentary, pp 291-93). The second, a continuous sequence of fifty-nine letters (a-u, a.-u., and .a-.t), provides, when used with Aetas lunae in alphabetis distincta, the age of the moon (see Wallis pp 299-300). While Bede took credit for the Pagina regularum, he made it clear that the second table was created before his time. Meyvaert also argues convincingly that the original calendar lacked hagiographical entries, which Bede would have considered appropriate for his Martyrology but not for an aid to computus. However, as Meyvaert states, “as the annalis libellus travelled about, in the company of De temporum ratione, it displayed at the outset numerous blank lines, and these presented an almost irresistible temptation for scribes copying the calendar to fill in blank spaces with names of saints either universally known or

Educational Work s

119

being celebrated locally – hagiography, after all, was one of the dominant preoccupations of the Middle Ages” (pp 12-13). In pursuing this argument, Meyvaert draws attention to two sets of details that have particular relevance for our understanding of the transmission of Bede’s work. The first is what he terms “an early insular hagiographic list” (see pp 13-14), found in seven manuscripts. Its distinctive features include an entry on Quintinus (see ACTA SANCTORUM) that corresponds to Bede’s Martyrology and the designation of the feast celebrated on 2 February as “Dies sanctae Mariae,” a tradition that Meyvaert connects to Northumbrian practice of Bede’s day (as evidence he cites Bede’s Homily I.18). Although all of the manuscripts he identifies are Continental, Meyvaert concludes that this material was added to the calendar “while it was still circulating in England” (p 14). The second is a series of entries in one manuscript, Berlin, Staatsbibliothek zu Berlin – Preussischer Kulturbesitz, Phillipps 1869, related to Northumbria. Meyvaert connects the entry for 30 October, “Titulus Agiae Sophiae,” specifically to Alcuin, “since the church of S. Sophia to which it alludes is the one Alcuin helped to found in that city”: “Consequently I believe we have grounds for arguing that when Alcuin came to the court of CHARLEMAGNE, he brought with him from York a copy of De temporum ratione, equipped with its calendar, and that this copy, at one or two stages removed, is the exemplar that underlies the present Phillipps 1869” (pp 15-16). The manuscripts listed above do not, of course, include complete copies of Bede’s work, but rather represent potential evidence for its circulation in Anglo-Saxon England. Thanks to the work of Meyvaert and of Arno Borst (1998 and 2001), who has provided detailed information on many of the manuscripts, it is ready for further study. As Meyvaert points out, Borst’s work is limited by its premise that the calendar originated not in Monkwearmouth-Jarrow under Bede’s guidance, but rather at Lorsch in 787 in response to Charlemagne’s call for a renewed study of computus. Meyvaert’s edition, which establishes its text by identifying information in the main manuscripts of Borst’s seven groups, may yield new insights as the manuscripts are collated, and as the other copies that Borst considered secondary are given renewed attention. Indeed, only two of those listed above, which are both in the British Library, are from Borst’s main groups: Arundel 60 represents his “Westeuropäische Fassung,” and Harley 3017 his “Westfränkische Fassung” (2001 pp xv-xix). Borst places most of the Anglo-Saxon manuscripts as secondary witnesses in these two groups: in the first, manuscripts 1-4, 7-8, 14-16, 18, 21-22, and 24; and in the second, 9-10, 12, 19-20, 23, and 25. Three manuscripts appear in a third group, his “Rheinfränkische Fassung”: 5, 11, and 13.

120 

BEDE – PART 1

That many of these manuscripts include readings that originated in Bede’s text can be confirmed by consulting Francis Wormald’s English Calendars before 1100 (1934), in which nineteen of them have been printed: 1-8, 11, 13-16, and 19-22, and 23-24. Wormald lists the Rouen manuscript, known as the Sacramentary of Robert of Jumièges, but does not print it since it had been edited by H. A. Wilson (1896). A metrical calendar that appears in two more of the Cotton manuscripts above, Galba A. xviii and Julius A. vi (it also appears in a later Cotton manuscript, Titus B. v, and twenty-seven lines from it have been inserted into a practical calendar now mutilated, in Bodleian Library Junius 27), has been edited by P. McGurk (1986) under the title “The Metrical Calendar of Hampson.” The calendar in the remaining manuscript, British Library, Royal 12. D. iv, deserves particular attention since it travels with a copy of De temporum ratione. Magnus circulus seu Tabula paschalis annis Domini DXXXII ad MLXIII [BEDA.Magn.circ.]: CPL 2321a. ed. CCSL 123C.551-562. MSS – Refs none. This Paschal table has been reconstructed by Charles W. Jones on the basis of Bede’s discussion of it in chapter 44 of De temporum ratione and his familiarity with later versions of it (CCSL 123C.249). Referring to folios 1r-12v in Münster in Westfalen, Staatsarchiv, MSC I. 243 (ASM 856), he writes, “in preparing these cycles I have kept before me photographs of the earliest extant table in the Bede tradition.” In Anglo-Saxon Manuscripts, Helmut Gneuss and Michael Lapidge list folios 1-2 and 11-12 of this manuscript (with Bückeburg, Niedersächsisches Staatsarchiv, Depot 3/1) to be part of an eighth-century Northumbria copy of De temporum ratione; see too the discussion by Faith Wallis quoted in that entry. They also list the Cyclus paschalis magnus of DIONYSIUS EXIGUUS as among its contents. Jones states, “the Münster fragments give some portion of each of the five cycles of the anonymous continuation of Dionysius, and then full Bedan cycles xiv-xxviii (A.D. 779-1063).” Wallis (1999 pp 392-404) translates Bede’s Paschal table apparently from Jones’s edition. She does not include the table that Jones labels “Epactae lunares in kalendis” (CCSL 123C.550), which is based on chapter 22 of De temporum ratione. Dionysius’s Paschal table lies at the centre of Bede’s understanding of the correct way to determine the date of Easter; what is not clear is when

Educational Work s

121

he expanded it to include a full 532 cycle ending in 1062. He certainly knew the earlier work when he explained the table column by column in chapter 14 of De temporibus, and he returned to it in chapters 44-62 of De temporum ratione. In discussing the relevant chapters of both these works, Kendall and Wallis (2010 p 177) point out that Bede departed from Dionysius’s text to present formulas for finding epacts and concurrents for any year in the future: This stress on the future, indeed, the remote future, is particular to Bede and rather curious. What practical purpose could be served by calculating the concurrent for one hundred years from now? One motive might be to reinforce the idea that the world was not about to end, or at least that as far as human knowledge can ascertain, it is just as likely that the world will continue a century from now as not. Only God knows when the age will come to a close. As our Introduction explains, Bede may have composed On Times with a view to deflating apocalyptic speculation. This novel formula may be an oblique reference to his determination on this point.

A table projected more than 300 years into the future would make much the same point. In any case, as Wallis (1999 p lxiii) states, it was not only Bede’s refutation of errors in other ways of calculating Easter but also “his transformation of Dionysius’ system into a perpetual Paschal table, which effectively won the day for Dionysius.” Pagina regularum [BEDA.Pag.reg.]. ed. CCSL 123B.345. MSS – Refs none. In chapter 19 of De temporum ratione, Bede stated that he had devised and included at the beginning of the work a “Table of Regulars” to aid “someone rather less skilled in calculation” to determine in conjunction with the Kalendarium ad usum computandi the course of the moon through the zodiac (ed. CCSL 123B.344; trans. Wallis 1999 p 63). Charles W. Jones prints the table as part of the chapter. Faith Wallis (1999 p 292) comments that it “enjoyed enormous success in medieval computus collections and anthologies.”

Histories “Bede was in many ways a natural historian”: so Alan Thacker begins his “Bede and History” in the Cambridge Companion to Bede (2010 p 170). An explanation of how he became a writer of histories, however, underlies our grouping of the Historia abbatum and the Historia ecclesiastica gentis Anglorum in this section. The earliest work by Bede that we can date with certainty, De Temporibus (703), ends with the so-called Chronica minora (chapters 17-22), a record of the main events in each of the six ages of the world. While this chronicle sometimes circulated separately, its author embedded it into a larger argument. As Calvin B. Kendall and Faith Wallis point out in the introduction to their translation of De temporibus (2010 p 6), it is “not without significance” that Bede was writing his Commentarius in Apocalypsim at about the same time: both offer “a vigorous challenge to a chronology of world history that encouraged belief in the imminence of the Last Judgement.” Bede’s other Biblical Commentaries also provided ample opportunity to consider the progress of history, but they did not prompt their author to write a history of his own. Similarly, the earliest (probably) of his Saints’ Lives, the metrical Vita Cuthberti, written in 705 or shortly thereafter, was intended to accompany the already existing anonymous Vita Cuthberti (see ACTA SANCTORUM). Its purpose was less to tell the events of Cuthbert’s life than to encourage spiritual reflection on them, a feature common to the genre. Even Bede’s innovation in his Martyrology, to combine chronicle and hagiography by including brief accounts of each saint’s life and death, stops short of constructing a sustained historical narrative. Bede’s first history, the Historia abbatum, developed, we would suggest, out of the crisis of 716, when CEOLFRITH, abbot of MonkwearmouthJarrow, suddenly departed for Rome, where he planned to end his days. Although HWÆTBERT was quickly elected to replace him, Bede’s uncertainty about what the journey implied about the direction of the monastery would have increased when the community learned of Ceolfrith’s death in Langres (in northeastern France) far from his destination. At a moment of some personal doubt Bede felt compelled to write a narrative that would affirm the history of his own monastery. In a chapter entitled “A Case of Generic Discomfort: Bede’s History of the Abbots,” Vicky Gunn (2009 pp 116-17) cites the work’s “lack of hagiographical material” as evidence that it “is not a vita” but rather “historia.” That it has no preface, a point to which she also draws attention, indicates that Bede wrote it for himself as a way to reflect on recent events. Similarly, the work’s conclusion reveals both

124 

BEDE – PART 1

his intention and his lingering uncertainty. With its praise of the Historia abbatum and its reference to its author, the explicit, which is found in just a single manuscript – yet is printed and translated in the edition of Christopher Grocock and I.N. Wood (2013 pp 74-75) as an integral part of the text – appears unlikely to be authorial: Here ends the life of the holy and venerable abbots Benedict, Ceolfrith, Eosterwine, and Sicgfrith, who steered the foremost lights of the church, the monasteries of the holy apostles Peter and Paul, as the book composed by the blessed Bede brilliantly teaches.

If the explicit is not by the author, Bede’s own last words provide a significant contrast since they are more limited – not a self-congratulatory assessment of the narrative, but rather a prayer that the patron saints of the church in which Ceolfrith had been buried “may exercise the holy might of their prayers and protection for us, unworthy as we are, and for our father-founder.” The word “father-founder” reiterates Bede’s main topic, but the explicit articulates the theme: these abbots “steered the foremost lights of the church, the monasteries of the holy apostles Peter and Paul.” To confront his uncertainty, Bede wrote in a new genre, one that he would explore fully and with greater confidence in the Historia ecclesiastica. The generic distinction posited here is not unequivocally supported in Bede’s own list of works at the end of the Historia ecclesiastica. There the two histories are listed in succession (ed. Lapidge 2010 2.484; trans. Colgrave and Mynors 1969 p 571): A history of the abbots of the monastery in which it is my joy to serve God, namely Benedict, Ceolfrith, and Hwætberht, in two books. A history of the Church of our island and race, in five books.

They appear, however, following the Saints’ Lives, which are also called “historiae,” and before the Martyrology. Moreover, as the range of uses demonstrate, while later Anglo-Saxon writers were impressed by Bede’s achievement, most of them found in these works not models for similar histories but rather sources of information about the individual figures, particularly the saints, whom Bede discussed (the notable exceptions are ALCUIN’s Versus de sanctis euboricensis ecclesiae and BYRHTFERTH’s Historia regum). More remains to be learned about the dissemination of extracts of the Historia ecclesiastica, which are listed following the main entry on the work.

Histories

125

In addition to the works of Alan Thacker and Vicky Gunn already mentioned, see Walter Goffart’s “Bede’s History in a Harsher Climate” (2006), which returns to some of the major themes of his earlier work, The Narrators of Barbarian History (A.D. 550-800): Jordanes, Gregory of Tours, Bede, and Paul the Deacon (1988). One of these themes, Goffart’s effort “to subvert the cherished idea that Bede’s history is isolated and unique” by demonstrating “the genesis of Northumbrian church history” in earlier hagiographic works (p 206), provides a sharp alternative to the interpretation offered here. Historia abbatum [BEDA.Hist.abb.]: CPL 1378. ed.: Grocock and Wood 2013 pp 22-74. MSS London, British Library, Harley 3020, fols. 1-34: ASM 433. Lists ? Alcuin: ML I.7. A-S Vers ANON.Vit.Ceolfrid. Quots/Cits 1. Hist.abb., 70.15-20: ALCVIN.Vers.Eubor. 1297-98. 2. Hist.abb., 72.21-25: ALCVIN.Vers.Eubor., 1297-98. 3. Hist.abb., 54.26-27: Mart (B19.1; Benedict Biscop), 46.16-17. 4. Hist.abb., 22.16-24.2: Mart (B19.1; Benedict Biscop), 46.17-18. 5. Hist.abb., 24.4: Mart (B19.1; Benedict Biscop), 46.18. 6. Hist.abb., 24.14: Mart (B19.1; Benedict Biscop), 46.18. 7. Hist.abb., 30.12-14: Mart (B19.1; Benedict Biscop), 46.19. 8. Hist.abb., 26.6-8: Mart (B19.1; Benedict Biscop), 46.20. 9. Hist.abb., 28.15-16: Mart (B19.1; Benedict Biscop), 46.21. 10. Hist.abb., 22.6-9: Mart (B19.1; Benedict Biscop), 46.21-22. 11. Hist.abb., 30.16-32.3: Mart (B19.1; Benedict Biscop), 46.21-22. 12. Hist.abb., 34.1-36.19: Mart (B19.1; Benedict Biscop), 46.23-24. 13. Hist.abb., 54.9-12: Mart (B19.1; Benedict Biscop), 46.24-25. 14. Hist.abb., 42.19: Mart (B19.1; Eastorwine), 62.11. 15. Hist.abb., 38.15-17: Mart (B19.1; Eastorwine), 62.12. 16. Hist.abb., 40.7-9: Mart (B19.1; Eastorwine), 62.12-13. 17. Hist.abb., 40.15-17: Mart (B19.1; Eastorwine), 62.13-14. 18. Hist.abb., 40.17-21: Mart (B19.1; Eastorwine), 62.15-17.

126 

19. Hist.abb., 42.5-9: Mart (B19.1; Eastorwine), 62.15-17. 20. Hist.abb., 42.15-24: Mart (B19.1; Eastorwine), 62.17-21. 21. Hist.abb., 72.19: Mart (B19.1; Ceolfrith), 190.10-11. 22. Hist.abb., 56.13-15: Mart (B19.1; Ceolfrith), 190.11-12. 23. Hist.abb., 60.17-62.5: Mart (B19.1; Ceolfrith), 190.12-13. 24. Hist.abb., 62.11-12: Mart (B19.1; Ceolfrith), 190.13-14. 25. Hist.abb., 72.11-18: Mart (B19.1; Ceolfrith), 190.14-18. 26. Hist.abb., 72.3: Mart (B19.1; Ceolfrith), 190.16-17. 27. Hist.abb., 70.15-20: Mart (B19.1; Ceolfrith), 190.18-20. 28. Hist.abb., 70.21-72.2: Mart (B19.1; Ceolfrith), 190.21-23. 29. Hist.abb., 42.25-26: WVLF.WINT.Vit.Æthelwold., 6.23-24. 30. Hist.abb., 42.25-26: BryM (B20.20), I.iii, 11-12. 31. Hist.abb., 42.25-26: BryM (B20.20), IV.i, 214-15. 32. Hist.abb., 42.25-26: BYRHT.Vit.Os., 14.10-11. 33. Hist.abb., 42.25-26: BYRHT.Vit.Os., 86.11-12. 34. Hist.abb., 42.25-26: BYRHT.Vit.Os., 120.12. 35. Hist.abb., 42.25-26: BYRHT.Vit.Os., 170.6 36. Hist.abb., 42.25-26: BYRHT.Vit.Os., 172.9. 37. Hist.abb., 42.25-26: BYRHT.Vit.Ecg., 228.9-10 38. Hist.abb., 42.25-26: BYRHT.Vit.Ecg., 236.12. 39. Hist.abb., 22.15-24.13: BYRHT.Hist.reg., 15.24-16.12. 40. Hist.abb., 24.14-18: BYRHT.Hist.reg., 16.13-17. 41. Hist.abb., 26.4-5: BYRHT.Hist.reg., 16.18. 42. Hist.abb., 26.7-12: BYRHT.Hist.reg., 16.19-22. 43. Hist.abb., 30.14-15: BYRHT.Hist.reg., 16.25-27. 44. Hist.abb., 30.16-32.3: BYRHT.Hist.reg., 16.31-17.3. 45. Hist.abb., 32.5: BYRHT.Hist.reg., 17.3. 46. Hist.abb., 32.12: BYRHT.Hist.reg., 17.4. 47. Hist.abb., 36.20-38.2: BYRHT.Hist.reg., 17.10-14. 48. Hist.abb., 38.2-11: BYRHT.Hist.reg., 17.25-18.2. 49. Hist.abb., 40.1-4: BYRHT.Hist.reg., 18.9-11. 50. Hist.abb., 40.5-42.24: BYRHT.Hist.reg., 18.12-19.24. 51. Hist.abb., 42.25-26: BYRHT.Hist.reg., 19.28-29. 52. Hist.abb., 42.26-44.3: BYRHT.Hist.reg., 19.30-35. 53. Hist.abb., 46.12-48.9: BYRHT.Hist.reg., 19.35-20.9. 54. Hist.abb., 50.22-52.15: BYRHT.Hist.reg., 20.10-34. 55. Hist.abb., 52.19-54.27: BYRHT.Hist.reg., 21.1-25. 56. Hist.abb., 56.8-62.11: BYRHT.Hist.reg., 21.26-22.21. 57. Hist.abb., 42.25-26: BYRHT.Hist.reg., 55.19-20. 58. Hist.abb., 42.25-26: BYRHT.Hist.reg., 61.29-30.

BEDE – PART 1

Histories

127

Refs 1. ? BONIF.Epist. 75, 158.8-12. 2. BYRHT.Hist.reg., 15.12-15. 3. BYRHT.Hist.reg., 23.4-5. 4. BYRHT.Hist.reg., 29.28-29. Bede’s ways of identifying this work in both its incipit and in the list of his writings in book 5, chapter 24 of the Historia ecclesiastica call attention to its primary focus, which is not on the abbots as individuals but rather on the institution, the monastery of Monkwearmouth-Jarrow, that they built and led. The singular “vita” – “incipit uita sanctorum abbatum monasterii in Viuramutha et Gyrum Benedicti, Ceolfridi, Eosterwini, Sigfridi, atque Huetbercti ab eiusdem monasterii presbitero et monacho Beda composita” (“here begins the life of the holy abbots at Wearmouth and Jarrow, Benedict, Ceolfrith, Eosterwine, Sicgfrith, and Hwaetbert, written by Bede, priest and monk of that same monastery”; ed. and trans. Grocock and Wood 2013 pp 22-23) – refers to their common life within the monastery. Moreover, in contrast to the plural “histories of the saints” (trans. Colgrave and Mynors 1969 p 569; “de historiis sanctorum,” ed. Lapidge 2010 2.482), its designation in the Historia ecclesiastica mentions a single history: “Historiam abbatum monasterii huius, in quo supernae pietati deseruire gaudeo, Benedicti, Ceolfridi et Huaetbercti, in libellis duobus” (ed. 2.484; “a history of the abbots of the monastery in which it is my joy to serve God, namely Benedict, Ceolfrith, and Hwætberht, in two books,” trans. p 571). Indeed, as Christopher Grocock and I.N. Wood (2013 p xxv) point out in their edition and translation, Bede makes his subject clear from the start: he begins Book I of his monastic history with Ecgfrith’s grant of Wearmouth to Benedict Biscop. Equally significantly, the first book ends with the amalgamation of Wearmouth and Jarrow. This structuring of material can be taken to indicate that the monastery as much as its abbots are the subject of Bede’s text.

Bede’s narrative runs from 674, the year Benedict Biscop founded the monastery, until 716, the year of CEOLFRITH’s death on his way to Rome. While the material is divided into two books, the chapters are numbered consecutively. As Grocock and Wood (2013) explain in their introduction, the date of the Historia abbatum is tied up with the question of its relationship to the anonymous Vita Ceolfridi (see Ceolfridus in ACTA SANCTORUM). In contrast to Judith McClure (1984), they demonstrate that Bede did not write the Vita Ceolfridi (see pp lxi-xcv). Moreover, they show that the description

128 

BEDE – PART 1

of Ceolfrith’s death in the Chronica maiora (chapters 66-71 of De Temporum Ratione) does not establish the anonymous Vita as a source for the Historia abbatum, a possibility which Wilhelm Levison (1935 p 129 note 1) had used to argue that Bede had not yet written his own account of the events even in 725 and so to place the Historia abbatum later in his career. Instead, focusing on the presence of a papal letter (which appears in the Vita Ceolfridi but not in the Historia abbatum) that was carried back from Rome by some of Ceolfrith’s company, Grocock and Wood conclude: “As Bede is highly unlikely deliberately to have ignored a papal letter in his composition, it would seem that he wrote his History of the Abbots before the return of those monks who went on to Rome, possibly in the autumn or winter of 716” (p xxi). If so, Bede wrote this work quickly indeed. MSS. The Historia abbatum is the second item in the Harley manuscript, part of a collection of Bedan material that also includes Homily I.13 and the Vita Ceolfridi. Michael Lapidge (2008a p 75) asserts that this section was “very probably written at Glastonbury c. 1000”; David N. Dumville (1992 p 110 note 92) places this manuscript in the context of other libelli written for saints. The Historia abbatum also appears in Durham, Cathedral Library, B. II. 35, but beyond the section written before 1096 (see ASM 238). For a complete description of the eleven manuscripts in which it survives, see Grocock and Wood (2013 pp ci-cxiii). Lapidge comments that this history’s circulation perhaps only in England reflects its contents, “a work of principally local interest” (p 74). Lists. Bede is mentioned in the list of books owned by Ælberht, archbishop of York, and bequeathed to ALCUIN (ML 1.7); see the introduction, BEDE. A-S Vers. That there is a direct relationship between the Historia abbatum and the Vita Ceolfridi is unquestionable: as noted above, it has been argued both that Bede was the author of the Vita and that he used it in writing his own work. In contrast to the first possibility, Grocock and Wood (2013 p xxi) suggest that “since there are numerous differences in detail, it would seem that the Anonymous went out of his way to alter and even correct Bede’s account,” and that “there are differences in tone, which may suggest that the two writers did not always see eye to eye.” They also provide an extensive analysis of the styles of the two works, which supports their view that they are by different authors (pp lxiv-xcv). Since they were members of the same community and so with personal access to the events described, sorting out precise borrowings is often impossible. The editors, however, make a compelling case against Levison’s suggestion that, in the Chronica maiora, Bede drew on the Vita Ceolfridi rather than his own Historia abbatum in describing the gifts (in particular the Codex Amiatinus) that Ceolfrith was bringing to the Pope at the time of his death in Langres. They acknowledge

Histories

129

that at this point the wording of the Vita is “undoubtedly closer” to that of the Chronicle; however, “it is not exact, and, like the phrase in Bede, it is no more than a strict description of the text of the pandect” (pp xx-xxi). This evidence, then, should not be used to argue that Bede had not written his own version of the events in 725, the year that he completed De temporum ratione. Instead, as noted above, Grocock and Wood argue that the absence in the Historia abbatum of the papal letter and its inclusion in the Vita Ceolfridi indicate Bede’s priority. The anonymous Life is, therefore, best considered an Anglo-Saxon Version of the Historia abbatum. Quots/Cits 1-2. In his Versus de sanctis Euboricensis ecclesiae (ed. Godman 1982), Alcuin noted that Ceolfrith died “on pilgrimage” in Langres (line 1297), a detail that he might have found in chapter 21 of the Historia abbatum or in the anonymous Vita Ceolfridi (ed. Grocock and Wood 2013 p 112). He also noted that Ceolfrith was buried there “with due honour”; Bede described the funeral in both chapters 21 and 23. Quots/Cits 3-13. In her edition of the OLD ENGLISH MARTYROLOGY, Christine Rauer (2013 p 235) notes that the section on Benedict Biscop (see Benedictus Biscopus in ACTA SANCTORUM) is based on chapters 1-4, 6, and 14 of the Historia abbatum; her more detailed analysis in Fontes Anglo-Saxonici is the basis of the entries above, which refer to the more recent editions of both works. The martyrologist simplified Bede’s account, recording, for example, a single trip to Rome, but included his noble background (lines 17-18), his instruction in many distinguished monasteries (line 19), and his founding of the monastery of Monkwearmouth (lines 21-22). Quots/Cits 14-20. The entry on Eastorwine in the Old English Martyrology follows chapters 7-8 of the Historia abbatum; see Rauer (2013 p 244) and her entries in Fontes Anglo-Saxonici. Like Bede, the martyrologist stressed the abbot’s humble ways, which included working in the fields and baking (lines 15-17, combining two passages), even though he had once been one of Ecgfrith’s thegns (lines 13-14). He did not preserve the details that allow the most recent editors of Bede’s work to unravel the complicated “abbatial arrangements” caused by the early history of Monkwearmouth-Jarrow; see Grocock and Wood (2013 pp xxxii-xxxv). Quots/Cits 21-28. The martyrologist focused almost exclusively on Ceolfrith’s death on his journey to Rome for the entry in the Old English Martyrology. The sources above are from Rauer’s entries in Fontes AngloSaxonici; see also her edition (2013 p 295). Quots/Cits 29, 51, 57-58, 32-38, and 30-31. Bede began chapter 9 of the Historia abbatum, “uerum his de uita uenerabilis Eosteruini breuiter praelibatis, redeamus ad ordinem narrandi” (ed. and trans. Grocock and Wood

130 

BEDE – PART 1

2013 pp 42-43; “now that we have briefly examined the life of the venerable Eosterwine, let us return to the course of events as it should be told”). In their edition of WULFSTAN OF WINCHESTER’s Vita Æthelwoldi (see Æthelwoldus in ACTA SANCTORUM), Lapidge and Michael Winterbottom (1991 pp 6-7) note that a phrase that concludes chapter 4 of this work, “nunc ad narrationis ordinem redeamus,” echoes Bede’s wording. Referring to the Historia abbatum, Lapidge (1993c pp 326-27) points out that this phrase “clearly impressed itself” on BYRHTFERTH, who had included it as part of a larger borrowing from the Historia abbatum in his Historia Regum (ed. Arnold 1885 2.3-91, at p 19, and listed in the following Quots/Cits), “for there are two adumbrations of it at later points of his narrative.” (It should be noted that Lapidge also accepts Byrhtferth’s knowledge of Wulfstan’s work; see 2006 p 274). Using his abbreviations for Byrhtferth’s Vita Oswaldi and Vita Ecgwini (both ed. Lapidge 2010; references have been changed to this edition) and his Enchiridion (ed. Baker and Lapidge 1995 pp 326-27; identified in the list above as BryM), Lapidge (1993c pp 326-27) adds, Throughout the writings of Byrhtferth there are similar reflections of Bede’s sentence: “ad ordinem … redeamus proprie relationis” (VSO, p 14); “ad uiam nostri sermonis redeamus” (VSO, p 86); “extra uiam paulatim digressimus, sed redeamus ad uiam” (VSO, p 120); “haec dicta sufficiant … nunc ad propria redeamus” (VSO, p 170); “his peractis, ad ea redeamus quae … gessit” (VSO, p 172); “nunc igitur redeamus ad ordinem narrationis unde paulatim digressi sumus” (VSE, p 228); “nunc autem stylus reuertatur scriptoris ad ordinem narrationis” (VSE, p 236); “his dictis, redeamus uenusto animo unde discesseramus” (Ench, p 46); “his dictis, readeamus ad nos ipsos” (Ench, p 214). None of these phrases is a verbatim repetition of Bede’s sentence, yet all are indebted to it.

As a group, these borrowings reinforce Lapidge’s attribution of the Historia regum to Byrhtferth. Quots/Cits 39-42 and Refs 2. In the article that established the early sections of the Historia regum (ed. Arnold 1885 2.3-91), formerly attributed as a whole to Symeon of Durham, as the work of Byrhtferth of Ramsey, Lapidge (1993c p 333) notes that “large sections of the early part of his chronicle are based on extensive quotations from both the Historia ecclesiastica and the Historia abbatum.” Indeed, after identifying his source as Bede’s “vita beatissimi abbatis sui Benedicti, atque Ceolfridi” (ed. p 15, lines 12-15), Byrhtferth introduced his first long quotation from the opening of the Historia abbatum. It begins, although Byrhtferth did not mention this, with

Histories

131

a sentence that Bede had quoted from GREGORY THE GREAT’s Dialogi about BENEDICT OF NURSIA (Benedictus Casinensis in ACTA SANCTORUM). In any case, this passage describes Benedict Biscop’s background and his decision to enter religious life (p 15, line 24 to p 16, line 12). In the next passage, Benedict undertakes his first trip to Rome (p 16, lines 13-17), returns a second time during the papacy of Vitalianus (lines 17-18), and then spends two years at Lérins, where he receives the tonsure, before deciding to return to Rome (lines 19-22). Here Byrhtferth largely cut and pasted, omitting, for example, that on the second journey Benedict travels with Alchfrith, son of Oswiu, and adding some of his own language, although even this at times echoes Bede’s characteristic phrasing (e.g. “ad limina sanctorum apostolorum” as a way to refer to a journey to Rome; on this phrase, see Lapidge 2009 p 104 note 45). In his edition, Thomas Arnold (1885) uses a change in type size to indicate direct borrowings, which provides the basis for the correspondences listed above. Quots/Cits 43-56 and Refs 3. Using similar techniques, Byrhtferth described Benedict Biscop’s return to England with Theodore and Hadrian, and, passing over his two years as abbot of the monastery of St Peter and St Paul (later St Augustine’s) and another trip to Rome, the founding of Monkwearmouth (ed. Arnold 1885 p 16, lines 25-27 and line 31-p 17, line 3). Retaining only Bede’s words for masons and glaziers (p 17, lines 3 and 4), he indicated the impressive results. Bede’s account of Ecgfrith’s further generosity (lines 10-14) led Byrhtferth to reflect on the difficulties of his own day before he returned to the founding of Jarrow, specifically echoing Bede’s sentiment that the two foundations should remain linked, as the head to the body, perpetually in brotherly fellowship (p 17, line 24-p 18, line 2). Again revising Bede slightly, Byrhtferth explained the appointment of two abbots – Ceolfrith at Jarrow and Eosterwine at Monkwearmouth – by invoking Gregory’s recollection that “the great Abbot Benedict himself appointed twelve abbots under him without a diminishing but rather an augmenting of love” (lines 9-11). Eosterwine’s abbacy is covered in detail (p 18, line 12 to p 19, line 25) almost exactly as in Bede (with one omission, “mentis,” line 18), possibly indicating the group of manuscripts from which Byrhtferth worked (see Grocock and Wood 2013 p 40, textual note e). In any case, Byrhtferth preserved Bede’s transition back to Benedict discussed above (lines 27-29), and then mentioned his fifth trip to Rome (lines 30-35). Again selecting among Bede’s details, he related Benedict’s final, three-year illness (p 19, line 35-p 20, line 9), the immediate events leading to his death (lines 10-34), and the death itself (p 20, lines 1-25). Ceolfrith’s abbacy is treated similarly up to his decision to depart for Rome (p 21, line 26 to p 22,

132 

BEDE – PART 1

line 21). Byrhtferth then summarised Bede’s account of Hwætbert’s election, preserving a phrase about Acca’s confirmation of the office (lines 24-25), and Ceolfrith’s death on his journey to Rome. Having reached the end of the Historia abbatum and preparing to turn to a discussion of Bede himself, Byrhtferth wrote: “Haec autem quae scripta sunt ex dictis beatissimi Bedae excerpsimus” (Arnold 1885 2.23). Refs 1. For the reference of BONIFACE to Bede in Epistola 75 (ed. Tangl 1955, 158.8-12), see the headnote BEDE. Refs 4. In the Historia regum, Byrhtferth referred again to the Historia abbatum in his retelling of Bede’s brief account of his life in Historia ecclesiastica V.xxiv. After mentioning that Bede had been educated by Benedict and Ceolfrith, he added that as an adult Bede had set forth their life (“vitam … explicuit,” ed. Arnold 1885 p 29, lines 28-29). The Historia abbatum has also been edited by Charles Plummer (1896 1.364-87). The edition and translation by Christopher Grocock and I.N. Wood (2013 p xxv) used throughout this entry also edits and translates three related texts: Bede’s Homily I.3 on Benedict Biscop, the anonymous Vita Ceolfridi, and Bede’s Epistola ad Ecgbertum. The editors’ detailed introduction explains the importance of these works for our understanding of early medieval Northumbria. Vicky Gunn’s Bede’s Historiae (2009) places the work within the context of not only the Historia ecclesiastica but also the emerging tradition of Saints’ Lives in Northumbria and Bede’s Martyrology. Her introduction, “Bede’s Historiae in the Late Twentieth Century,” surveys recent trends in scholarship. Historia ecclesiastica gentis Anglorum [BEDA.Hist.eccl.]: CPL 1375. ed.: Lapidge 2010. MSS 1. Cambridge, University Library, Kk. 5. 16 (the “Moore Bede”): ASM 25; EEMF 9. 2. Cambridge, Corpus Christi College, 270, fols. 1 and 197: ASM 75. 3. Cambridge, Trinity College, R. 7. 5 (743): ASM 181. 4. Durham, Cathedral Library, B. II. 35, fols. 38-118: ASM 238. 5. London, British Library, Cotton Tiberius A. xiv: ASM 367. 6. London, British Library, Cotton Tiberius C. ii: ASM 377. 7. London, British Library, Egerton 3278: ASM 410.5. 8. London, British Library, Royal 13. C. v: ASM 487. 9. Oxford, Bodleian Library, Bodley 163 (S.C. 2016), fols. 1-227 and 250-51: ASM 555; ASMMF 10.

Histories

133

10. Oxford, Bodleian Library, Hatton 43 (S.C. 4106): ASM 630. 11. Winchester, Cathedral Library, 1 (with London, British Library, Cotton Tiberius D. iv, vol. 2, fols. 158-66): ASM 759. 12. Kassel, Gesamthochschulbibliothek 4o MS.theol. 2: ASM 835. 13. Münster in Westfalen, Universitäts- und Landesbibliothek, Fragmentenkapsel 1, no. 3: ASM 856.2. 14. New York, Morgan Library and Museum, M 826: ASM 863. 15. St Petersburg, Russian National Library Q. v. I. 18 (the “Leningrad Bede”): ASM 846; EEMF 2. Lists 1. ? Alcuin: ML 1.7. 2. Sæwold: ML 8.22. 3. Worcester II: ML 11.23 and 43. 4. Peterborough: ML 13.8. 5. ? Würzburg Inventory. A-S Vers 1. Bede (B9.6). 2. ÆTHELWEARD.Chron. 3. RevMon (B17.11). 4. ABBO.FLOR.Pass.Eadmund. 5. ANON.Hist.Cuthb. Quots/Cits 1. Hist.eccl., V.xxiv, 129-39: Lull.Epist. 125, 9-10. 2. Hist.eccl., V.xxiv, 138: Lull.Epist. 125, 11. 3. Hist.eccl., V.xxiv, 147: Lull.Epist. 125, 11-12. 4. Hist.eccl., V.xxiv, 131: Lull.Epist. 126, 9. 5. Hist.eccl., V.xxiv, 135: Lull.Epist. 126, 10. 6. Hist.eccl., V.xxiv, 178: Lull.Epist. 126, 10-11. 7. Hist.eccl., V.xxiv, 131-32: Lull.Epist. 126, 12. 8. Hist.eccl., I.vii, 4: ALCVIN.Vers.Eubor., 22. 9. Hist.eccl., II.iii, 7-8: ALCVIN.Vers.Eubor., 24. 10. Hist.eccl., I.x, 18: ALCVIN.Vers.Eubor., 88. 11. Hist.eccl., V.vii, 38: ALCVIN.Vers.Eubor., 760. 12. ? Hist.eccl., I.xxvii, 28-29: ALCVIN.Vers.Eubor., 869-70. 13. ? Hist.eccl., IV.xxv, 71-73: ALCVIN.Vers.Eubor., 869-70. 14. Hist.eccl., V.xxiv, 112-13: ALCVIN.Vers.Eubor., 1293-94. 15. Hist.eccl., V.xxiv, 117-18: ALCVIN.Vers.Eubor., 1303-05.

134 

BEDE – PART 1

16. Hist.eccl., V.xxiv, 126-82: ALCVIN.Vers.Eubor., 1306-12. 17. Hist.eccl., III.xvi, 1-24: ALCVIN.Carm. 9, 167-68. 18. Hist.eccl., I.xxix, 26-32: ALCVIN.Epist.ad.Off., 245.5-9. 19. Hist.eccl., II.xviii, 8-12: ALCVIN.Epist.ad.Off., 245.9-13. 20. Hist.eccl., II.xviii, 2-6: ALCVIN.Epist.ad.Off., 245.16-22. 21. Hist.eccl., IV.iii, 160: Mart (B19.1; Chad), 60.1. 22. Hist.eccl., IV.iii, 3-17: Mart (B19.1; Chad), 60.2-4. 23. Hist.eccl., IV.iii, 57-107: Mart (B19.1; Chad), 60.4-6. 24. Hist.eccl., IV.iii, 150-57: Mart (B19.1; Chad), 60.6-8. 25. Hist.eccl., IV.iii, 22-23: Mart (B19.1; Chad), 60.8-9. 26. ? Hist.eccl., IV.xxvii, 35-37: Mart (B19.1; Cuthbert), 66.1. 27. ? Hist.eccl., III.xiv, 21: Mart (B19.1; Cuthbert), 66.2. 28. Hist.eccl., V.ii, 8-58: Mart (B19.1; John of Beverley), 100.6. 29. Hist.eccl., II.ii, 23-32: Mart (B19.1; Augustine of Canterbury), 108.8. 30. Hist.eccl., II.iii, 36-42: Mart (B19.1; Augustine of Canterbury), 108.5-7. 31. ? Hist.eccl., III.iv, 3: Mart (B19.1; Columba of Iona), 114.4. 32. ? Hist.eccl., III.iv, 4-5: Mart (B19.1; Columba of Iona), 114.3-4. 33. ? Hist.eccl., III.iv, 20-23: Mart (B19.1; Columba of Iona), 114.3-4. 34. ? Hist.eccl., V.ix, 35-40: Mart (B19.1; Columba of Iona), 114.4-6. 35. ? Hist.eccl., V.ix., 40: Mart (B19.1; Columba of Iona), 114.4. 36. Hist.eccl., I.xvii, 10-12: Mart (B19.1; Germanus), 150.13-14. 37. Hist.eccl., V.x, 52-53: Mart (B19.1; The Two Hewalds), 196.1. 38. Hist.eccl., V.x, 20-21: Mart (B19.1; The Two Hewalds), 196.1-2. 39. Hist.eccl., V.x, 16-19: Mart (B19.1;The Two Hewalds), 196.2-5. 40. Hist.eccl., V.x, 54-61: Mart (B19.1; The Two Hewalds), 196.4-5. 41. Hist.eccl., IV.vi, 21-28: Mart (B19.1; Æthelburh), 198.2-4. 42. Hist.eccl., IV.ix, 1-20: Mart (B19.1; Æthelburh), 198.4-5. 43. Hist.eccl., III.xxiii, 1-2: Mart (B19.1; Cedd), 206.2-4. 44. Hist.eccl., III.xxiii, 48-51: Mart (B19.1; Cedd), 206.4-5. 45. Hist.eccl., III.xxiii, 52-53: Mart (B19.1; Cedd), 206.2. 46. Hist.eccl., IV.iii, 150-57: Mart (B19.1; Cedd), 206.2-3. 47. ? Hist.eccl., II.iv, 56-63: Mart (B19.1; All Saints), 208.15-20. 48. Hist.eccl., IV.xxi, 1-3: Mart (B19.1; Hilda), 216.1-2. 49. Hist.eccl., IV.xxi, 6-9: Mart (B19.1; Hilda), 216.6-8. 50. Hist.eccl., IV.xxi, 9-10: Mart (B19.1; Hilda), 216.3. 51. Hist.eccl., IV.xxi, 43-46: Mart (B19.1; Hilda), 216.2-3. 52. Hist.eccl., IV.xxi, 95-107: Mart (B19.1; Hilda), 216.3-6. 53. Hist.eccl., IV.xxi, 163-67: Mart (B19.1; Hilda), 216.8-9. 54. Hist.eccl., IV.iii, 148-53: Mart (B19.1; Higebald), 226.1-3. 55. Hist.eccl., III.vii, 52-57: LS 3 (Chad) (B3.3.3), 10-13.

Histories

56. Hist.eccl., III.xxviii, 7-13: LS 3 (Chad) (B3.3.3), 10-13. 57. Hist.eccl., III.xxviii, 20-22 : LS 3 (Chad) (B3.3.3), 10-13. 58. Hist.eccl., V.xix, 121-22: LS 3 (Chad) (B3.3.3), 10-13. 59. Hist.eccl., IV.ii, 1-7: LS 3 (Chad) (B3.3.3), 14-16. 60. Hist.eccl., IV.ii, 32-IV.iii, 183: LS 3 (Chad) (B3.3.3), 16-226. 61. Hist.eccl., I.i, 1-5: ChronE (Irvine, B17.9), preface, 3.1. 62. Hist.eccl., I.i, 51-90: ChronE (Irvine, B17.9), preface, 3.1-19. 63. Hist.eccl., I.i, 62-63: ChronF (Baker, B17.3), preface, 1.37-2.1. 64. Hist.eccl., I.i, 71-85: ChronF (Baker, B17.3), preface, 2.1-15. 65. Hist.eccl., V.xxiv, 3-5: ChronA (Bately, B17.1), anno 60 BC, 2.10-13. 66. Hist.eccl., I.ii, 1-38: ChronE (Irvine, B17.9), preface [60 BC], 3.20-32. 67. Hist.eccl., V.xxiv, 3-5: ChronF (Baker, B17.3), anno 60 BC, 2.38-3.1. 68. Hist.eccl., V.xxiv, 6-9: ChronA (Bately, B17.1), anno 46, 4.15-18. 69. Hist.eccl., I.iii, 1-26: ChronE (Irvine, B17.9), anno 47, 5,15-21. 70. Hist.eccl., V.xxiv, 6-9: ChronF (Baker, B17.3), anno 46, 6.2-4. 71. Hist.eccl., I.iv, 1-3: ChronE (Irvine, B17.9), anno 155, 8.15. 72. Hist.eccl., V.xxiv, 10-13: ChronA (Bately, B17.1), anno 167, 8.35-9.1. 73. Hist.eccl., I.iv, 7-9: ChronE (Irvine, B17.9), anno 167, 8.30-31. 74. Hist.eccl., V.xxiv, 14-16: ChronA (Bately, B17.1), anno 189, 9.24-25. 75. Hist.eccl., I.v, 1-20: ChronE (Irvine, B17.9), anno 189, 9.10-15. 76. Hist.eccl., I.v, 15-18: ChronF (Baker, B17.3), anno 188, 11-13. 77. Hist.eccl., I.vii, 1: ChronE (Irvine, B17.9), anno 286, 11.32. 78. Hist.eccl., I.vii, 1: ChronF (Baker, B17.3), anno 286, 30. 79. Hist.eccl., I.ix, 1-3: ChronE (Irvine, B17.9), anno 379, 13.41. 80. Hist.eccl., V.xxiv, 17-18: ChronA (Bately, B17.1), anno 381, 14.34-15.1. 81. Hist.eccl., I.ix, 8-17: ChronE (Irvine, B17.9), anno 380, 14.3-7. 82. Hist.eccl., I.x, 3-5: ChronE (Irvine, B17.9), anno 380, 14.7-8. 83. Hist.eccl., V.xxiv, 17-18: ChronF (Baker, B17.3), anno 381, 17.10-11. 84. Hist.eccl., V.xxiv, 19-20: ChronA (Bately, B17.1), anno 409, 15.32-33. 85. Hist.eccl., I.xi, 16-19: ChronE (Irvine, B17.9), anno 409, 14.39-43. 86. Hist.eccl., V.xxiv, 19-20: ChronF (Baker, B17.3), anno 409, 18.10-11. 87. Hist.eccl., I.xiii, 1-2: ChronE (Irvine, B17.9), anno 423, 15.13. 88. Hist.eccl., V.xxiv, 21-22: ChronA (Bately, B17.1), anno 430, 16.24-26. 89. Hist.eccl., V.xxiv, 21-22: ChronF (Baker, B17.3), anno 430, 19.5-6. 90. Hist.eccl., I.xiii, 4-6: ChronE (Irvine, B17.9), anno 443, 16.4-6. 91. Hist.eccl., I.xiv, 29-34: ChronE (Irvine, B17.9), anno 443, 16.6-7. 92. Hist.eccl., V.xxiv, 23-24: ChronA (Bately, B17.1), anno 449, 17.16-17. 93. Hist.eccl., V.xxiv, 24-25: ChronA (Bately, B17.1), anno 449, 17.17-21. 94. Hist.eccl., I.xiv, 32-34: ChronA (Bately, B17.1), anno 449, 17.17-21. 95. Hist.eccl., I.xv, 1-7: ChronA (Bately, B17.1), anno 449, 17.17-21.

135

136 

BEDE – PART 1

96. Hist.eccl., I.xv, 29-30: ChronA (Bately, B17.1), anno 449, 17.17-21. 97. Hist.eccl., I.xv, 4: ChronE (Irvine, B17.9), anno 449, 16.17. 98. Hist.eccl., I.xv, 5: ChronE (Irvine, B17.9), anno 449, 16.18-19. 99. Hist.eccl., I.xv, 7-12: ChronE (Irvine, B17.9), anno 449, 16.19-23. 100. Hist.eccl., I.xv, 16-35: ChronE (Irvine, B17.9), anno 449, 16.23-33. 101. ? Hist.eccl., I.xv, 30-32: ChronA (Bately, B17.1), anno 455, 18.2-5. 102. Hist.eccl., V.xxiv, 26-27: ChronA (Bately, B17.1), anno 538, 21.23-24. 103. Hist.eccl., V.xxiv, 26-27: ChronF (Baker, B17.3), anno 538, 25.11-12. 104. Hist.eccl., V.xxiv, 28-29: ChronA (Bately, B17.1), anno 540, 21.26-27. 105. Hist.eccl., V.xxiv, 28-29: ChronF (Baker, B17.3), anno 540, 25.16-17. 106. Hist.eccl., V.xxiv, 30-31: ChronA (Bately, B17.1), anno 547, 22.5-6. 107. Hist.eccl., V.xxiv, 31: ChronE (Irvine, B17.9), anno 547, 20.8. 108. Hist.eccl., V.xxiv, 30-31: ChronF (Baker, B17.3), anno 547, 25.29. 109. Hist.eccl., V.xxiv, 34-35: ChronA (Bately, B17.1), anno 565, 23.14-16. 110. Hist.eccl., II.v, 1-5: ChronE (Irvine, B17.9), anno 565, 20.31-32. 111. Hist.eccl., III.iv, 1-38: ChronE (Irvine, B17.9), anno 565, 20.32-21.2. 112. Hist.eccl., V.xxiv, 32-33: ChronF (Baker, B17.3), anno 565, 27.15-16. 113. Hist.eccl., I.xxiii, 1-2: ChronE (Irvine, B17.9), anno 583, 21.28. 114. Hist.eccl., I.xxiii, 3-5: ChronE (Irvine, B17.9), anno 592, 22.4. 115. Hist.eccl., V.xxiv, 34-35: ChronC (O’Brien O’Keeffe, B17.7), anno 596, 35.17-19. 116. Hist.eccl., V.xxiv, 34-35: ChronF (Baker, B17.3), anno 596, 28.31-32. 117. Hist.eccl., V.xxiv, 36-37: ChronF (Baker, B17.3), anno 597, 28.33-29.2. 118. Hist.eccl., V.xxiv, 38-40: ChronA (Bately, B17.1), anno 601, 25.28-30. 119. Hist.eccl., II.ix, 1-4: ChronA (Bately, B17.1), anno 601, 25.30-31. 120. Hist.eccl., V.xxiv, 38-40: ChronF (Baker, B17.3), anno 601, 6-12. 121. Hist.eccl., V.xxiv, 41: ChronA (Bately, B17.1), anno 603, 26.1. 122. Hist.eccl., I.xxxxiv, 12-23: ChronE (Irvine, B17.9), anno 603, 22.27-31. 123. Hist.eccl., V.xxiv, 42-43: ChronA (Bately, B17.1), anno 604, 26.4-5. 124. Hist.eccl., II.iii, 1-19: ChronE (Irvine, B17.9), anno 604, 32-37. 125. Hist.eccl., V.xxiv, 42: ChronF (Baker, B17.3), anno 604, 29.21-22. 126. Hist.eccl., V.xxiv, 44: ChronA (Bately, B17.1), anno 606, 26.12. 127. Hist.eccl., II.i, 16: ChronA (Bately, B17.1), anno 606, 26.13-14. 128. Hist.eccl., II.ii, 73-108: ChronE (Irvine, B17.9), anno 605, 22.38-23.4. 129. Hist.eccl., V.xxiv, 45: ChronA (Bately, B17.1), anno 616, 27.8. 130. Hist.eccl., II.v, 1-5: ChronA (Bately, B17.1), anno 616, 27.8. 131. Hist.eccl., II.v, 43-44: ChronA (Bately, B17.1), anno 616, 27.9. 132. Hist.eccl., II.v, 43-48: ChronE (Irvine, B17.9), anno 616, 23.18-19. 133. Hist.eccl., II.vi, 1-24: ChronE (Irvine, B17.9), anno 616, 23.20-25. 134. Hist.eccl., II.vii, 1-6: ChronE (Irvine, B17.9), anno 616, 23.25-28.

Histories

137

135. Hist.eccl., II.vi, 28-30: ChronE (Irvine, B17.9), anno 616, 23.28-29. 136. Hist.eccl., II.vii, 38-viii, 3: ChronE (Irvine, B17.9), anno 616, 23.29-32. 137. Hist.eccl., II.v, 47-48: ChronF (Baker, B17.3), anno 616, 31.10-11. 138. Hist.eccl., II.vi, 7-8: ChronF (Baker, B17.3), anno 616, 31.17-18. 139. Hist.eccl., II.vi, 9: ChronF (Baker, B17.3), anno 616, 31.18. 140. Hist.eccl., II.vi, 17: ChronF (Baker, B17.3), anno 616, 31.20. 141. Hist.eccl., II.vi, 17-18: ChronF (Baker, B17.3), anno 616, 31.20. 142. Hist.eccl., II.xii, 96-99: ChronE (Irvine, B17.9), anno 617, 23.33-34. 143. Hist.eccl., II.v, 16-18: ChronE (Irvine, B17.9), anno 617, 23.34-35. 144. Hist.eccl., III.i, 8-10: ChronE (Irvine, B17.9), anno 617, 23.35-36. 145. Hist.eccl., II.vii, 38-42: ChronE (Irvine, B17.9), anno 624, 24.1. 146. Hist.eccl., V.xxiv, 46-47: ChronA (Bately, B17.1), anno 625, 28.3-4. 147. Hist.eccl., V.xxiv, 48-49: ChronA (Bately, B17.1), anno 626, 28.5-6. 148. ? Hist.eccl., II.xx, 1-41: ChronA (Bately, B17.1), anno 626, 28.7-8. 149. Hist.eccl., II.ix, 48-80: ChronE (Irvine, B17.9), anno 626, 24.9-17. 150. Hist.eccl., II.xiv, 1-12: ChronE (Irvine, B17.9), anno 626, 24.17-22. 151. Hist.eccl., V.xxiv, 50: ChronA (Bately, B17.1), anno 627, 28.13-14. 152. Hist.eccl., II.xiv, 1-4: ChronA (Bately, B17.1), anno 627, 28.13-14. 153. Hist.eccl., II.xvi, 1-5: ChronE (Irvine, B17.9), anno 627, 24.24-26. 154. Hist.eccl., II.xvii, 1-5: ChronE (Irvine, B17.9), anno 627, 24.26-28. 155. Hist.eccl., II.xviii, 1-6: ChronE (Irvine, B17.9), anno 627, 24.28-30. 156. Hist.eccl., II.xix, 1-7: ChronE (Irvine, B17.9), anno 627, 24.30-31. 157. Hist.eccl., II.xvii, 1-5: ChronF (Baker, B17.3), anno 627, 32.21-22. 158. Hist.eccl., II.xviii, 1-6: ChronF (Baker, B17.3), anno 627, 32.22-25. 159. Hist.eccl., II.xv, 1-4: ChronA (Bately, B17.1), anno 632, 28.20. 160. Hist.eccl., V.xxiv, 51: ChronA (Bately, B17.1), anno 633, 28.21-22. 161. Hist.eccl., V.xxiv, 54-55: ChronA (Bately, B17.1), anno 633, 28.22-23. 162. Hist.eccl., II.xx, 1-16: ChronE (Irvine, B17.9), anno 633, 24.38-25.3. 163. Hist.eccl., II.xx, 35-57: ChronE (Irvine, B17.9), anno 633, 25.3-7. 164. Hist.eccl., III.vii, 1-3: ChronA (Bately, B17.1), anno 634, 28.24-25. 165. Hist.eccl., III.i, 1-8: ChronE (Irvine, B17.9), anno 634, 25.8-10. 166. Hist.eccl., III.vii, 1-12: ChronE (Irvine, B17.9), anno 634, 25.10-13. 167. Hist.eccl., III.i, 26-33: ChronE (Irvine, B17.9), anno 634, 25.13-16. 168. Hist.eccl., III.vii, 12-21: ChronA (Bately, B17.1), anno 635, 28.26-28. 169. Hist.eccl., II.xv, 25-29: ChronA (Bately, B17.1), anno 636, 28.29-31. 170. Hist.eccl., V.xxiv, 52: ChronA (Bately, B17.1), anno 640, 28.36. 171. Hist.eccl., III.viii, 1-23: ChronE (Irvine, B17.9), anno 639, 25.27-31. 172. Hist.eccl., V.xxiv, 53: ChronA (Bately, B17.1), anno 642, 29.5-6. 173. Hist.eccl., III.vii, 27-28: ChronA (Bately, B17.1), anno 643, 29.7. 174. Hist.eccl., III.vii, 47-50: ChronA (Bately, B17.1), anno 643, 29.8-9.

138 

BEDE – PART 1

175. Hist.eccl., III.ix, 8-12: ChronE (Irvine, B17.9), anno 641, 25.33-34. 176. Hist.eccl., III.xii, 31-32: ChronE (Irvine, B17.9), anno 641, 25.34-35. 177. Hist.eccl., III.xiii, 1-2: ChronE (Irvine, B17.9), anno 641, 25.35-36. 178. Hist.eccl., III.xii, 36: ChronE (Irvine, B17.9), anno 641, 25.36-37. 179. Hist.eccl., III.xiv, 1-3: ChronE (Irvine, B17.9), anno 641, 25.39-26.2. 180. Hist.eccl., V.xxiv, 54-55: ChronA (Bately, B17.1), anno 644, 29.10-11. 181. Hist.eccl., III.xiv, 7-11: ChronE (Irvine, B17.9), anno 643, 26.4-6. 182. Hist.eccl., III.xiv, 17-22: ChronE (Irvine, B17.9), anno 643, 26.6-7. 183. Hist.eccl., V.xxiv, 54-55: ChronF (Baker, B17.3), anno 644, 34.13-15. 184. Hist.eccl., III.vii, 31-32: ChronA (Bately, B17.1), anno 645, 29.13-14. 185. Hist.eccl., III.vii, 33-34: ChronA (Bately, B17.1), anno 646, 29.14. 186. Hist.eccl., III.vii, 42-44: ChronA (Bately, B17.1), anno 650, 29.20-21. 187. Hist.eccl., V.xxiv, 56-57: ChronA (Bately, B17.1), anno 651, 29.22-23. 188. Hist.eccl., III.xiv, 24-39: ChronE (Irvine, B17.9), anno 650, 26.16-17. 189. Hist.eccl., III.xiv, 88-90: ChronE (Irvine, B17.9), anno 650, 26.17-18. 190. Hist.eccl., III.xxi, 1-3: ChronA (Bately, B17.1), anno 653, 29.26-27. 191. Hist.eccl., V.xxiv, 58-59: ChronA (Bately, B17.1), anno 653, 29.26-27. 192. Hist.eccl., III.xviii, 28-30: ChronA (Bately, B17.1), anno 654, 29.28. 193. Hist.eccl., III.xx, 7-9: ChronE (Irvine, B17.9), anno 653, 26.23-24. 194. Hist.eccl., III, xx, 9-11: ChronF (Baker, B17.3), anno 653, 35.2-4. 195. Hist.eccl., V.xxiv, 60: ChronA (Bately, B17.1), anno 655, 29.30-30.1. 196. Hist.eccl., III.xxiv, 27-32: ChronE (Irvine, B17.9), anno 654, 26.25-26. 197. Hist.eccl., III.xxiv, 80-81: ChronE (Irvine, B17.9), anno 654, 26.28-29. 198. Hist.eccl., III.xxiv, 84-86: ChronE (Irvine, B17.9), anno 654, 26.36-37. 199. Hist.eccl., III.xx, 10-14: ChronE (Irvine, B17.9), anno 655, 27.1-2. 200. Hist.eccl., III.xxiv, 84-89: ChronA (Bately, B17.1), anno 657, 30.5-6. 201. Hist.eccl., III.vii, 30-33: ChronA (Bately, B17.1), anno 658, 30.9-11. 202. Hist.eccl., III.vii, 48-52: ChronA (Bately, B17.1), anno 660, 30.13-16. 203. ? Hist.eccl., IV.xiii, 9-14: ChronA (Bately, B17.1), anno 661, 30.21-23. 204. Hist.eccl., V.xxiv, 61-64: ChronA (Bately, B17.1), anno 664, 30.27-30. 205. Hist.eccl., IV.i, 3-4: ChronA (Bately, B17.1), anno 664, 30.30-31. 206. Hist.eccl., III.xxvii, 1-9: ChronE (Irvine, B17.9), anno 664, 30.16-18. 207. Hist.eccl., IV.i, 5-6: ChronE (Irvine, B17.9), anno 664, 30.18-20. 208. Hist.eccl., IV.i, 2-3: ChronE (Irvine, B17.9), anno 664, 30.20. 209. Hist.eccl., V.xxiv, 62: ChronE (Irvine, B17.9), anno 664, 30.20. 210. Hist.eccl., V.xxiv, 63-64: ChronE (Irvine, B17.9), anno 664, 30.20-21. 211. Hist.eccl., IV.i, 3-4: ChronE (Irvine, B17.9), anno 664, 30.21-22. 212. Hist.eccl., III.xxix, 1-13: ChronE (Irvine, B17.9), anno 667, 30.25-27. 213. Hist.eccl., IV.i, 8-18: ChronE (Irvine, B17.9), anno 667, 30.25-27. 214. Hist.eccl., V.xxiv, 65: ChronA (Bately, B17.1), anno 668, 31.1-2.

Histories

139

215. Hist.eccl., IV.i, 49-52: ChronE (Irvine, B17.9), anno 668, 30.28-29. 216. Hist.eccl., V.xxiv, 66: ChronA (Bately, B17.1), anno 670, 31.5-6. 217. Hist.eccl., IV.v, 1-10: ChronA (Bately, B17.1), anno 670, 31.5-6. 218. Hist.eccl., III.vii, 69-74: ChronA (Bately, B17.1), anno 670, 31.6-8. 219. Hist.eccl., V.xxiv, 67-69: ChronA (Bately, B17.1), anno 673, 31.14-15. 220. Hist.eccl., IV.xvii, 26-30: ChronA (Bately, B17.1), anno 673, 31.15-16. 221. Hist.eccl., V.xxiv, 67-69: ChronF (Baker, B17.3), anno 673, 36.33-37.1. 222. Hist.eccl., V.xxiv, 70-71: ChronA (Bately, B17.1), anno 675, 31.22-23. 223. Hist.eccl., V.xxiv, 72: ChronA (Bately, B17.1), anno 676, 31.26-27. 224. Hist.eccl., V.xxiv, 73-74: ChronA (Bately, B17.1), anno 678, 31.29-31. 225. Hist.eccl., IV.xii, 30-45: ChronE (Irvine, B17.9), anno 678, 32.35-33.2. 226. Hist.eccl., V.xxiv, 73-74: ChronF (Baker, B17.3), anno 677, 37.15-17. 227. Hist.eccl., V.xxiv, 76: ChronA (Bately, B17.1), anno 679, 31.32. 228. Hist.eccl., IV.xvii, 43-45: ChronA (Bately, B17.1), anno 679, 31.32-33. 229. Hist.eccl., IV.xix, 1-3: ChronE (Irvine, B17.9), anno 679, 33.3-4. 230. Hist.eccl., IV.xvii, 43-45: ChronE (Irvine, B17.9), anno 679, 33.4. 231. Hist.eccl., IV.xxiii, 1-5: ChronE (Irvine, B17.9), anno 679, 33.4-5. 232. Hist.eccl., V.xxiv, 77-80: ChronA (Bately, B17.1), anno 680, 31.33-32.3. 233. Hist.eccl., V.xxiv, 77-80: ChronF (Baker, B17.3), anno 680, 38.1-3. 234. Hist.eccl., IV.xii, 53-56: ChronE (Irvine, B17.9), anno 681, 33.9-10. 235. Hist.eccl., IV.xxiv, 1-5: ChronE (Irvine, B17.9), anno 684, 33.14-16. 236. ? Hist.eccl., IV.xiv, 86-97: ChronA (Bately, B17.1), anno 685, 32.9. 237. Hist.eccl., V.xxiv, 81: ChronA (Bately, B17.1), anno 685, 32.14. 238. Hist.eccl., V.xxiv, 82: ChronA (Bately, B17.1), anno 685, 32.16. 239. Hist.eccl., IV.xxvi, 56-61: ChronE (Irvine, B17.9), anno 685, 33.17-20. 240. Hist.eccl., IV.xxiv, 15-18: ChronE (Irvine, B17.9), anno 685, 33.20-22. 241. Hist.eccl., IV.xxiv, 44-46: ChronE (Irvine, B17.9), anno 685, 33.22-23. 242. Hist.eccl., IV.xxiv, 48-51: ChronE (Irvine, B17.9), anno 685, 33.24. 243. Hist.eccl., V.ii, 1-2: ChronE (Irvine, B17.9), anno 685, 33.24-25. 244. Hist.eccl., V.iii, 2-5: ChronE (Irvine, B17.9), anno 685, 33.25-27. 245. Hist.eccl., V.vi, 79-83: ChronE (Irvine, B17.9), anno 685, 33.27-29. 246. Hist.eccl., V.vii, 53-55: ChronA (Bately, B17.1), anno 688, 32.22-23. 247. Hist.eccl., V.vii, 1-15: ChronA (Bately, B17.1), anno 688, 32.24-26. 248. Hist.eccl., V.vii, 1-19: ChronE (Irvine, B17.9), anno 688, 33.37-34.3. 249. Hist.eccl., V.vii, 53-viii, 2: ChronE (Irvine, B17.9), anno 688, 34.3-5. 250. Hist.eccl., V.xxiv, 85: ChronA (Bately, B17.1), anno 690, 32.31. 251. Hist.eccl., V.viii, 2-8: ChronE (Irvine, B17.9), anno 690, 34.7-8. 252. Hist.eccl., V.viii, 27-33: ChronE (Irvine, B17.9), anno 692, 34.10-11. 253. Hist.eccl., V.viii, 33-34: ChronE (Irvine, B17.9), anno 692, 34.12-13. 254. Hist.eccl., V.viii, 34-39: ChronE (Irvine, B17.9), anno 693, 34.14-16.

140 

BEDE – PART 1

255. Hist.eccl., V.xii, 29: ChronE (Irvine, B17.9), anno 693, 34.16-17. 256. ? Hist.eccl., IV.xxiv, 56-57: ChronA (Bately, B17.1), anno 694, 33.3. 257. Hist.eccl., V.xxiv, 86-87: ChronE (Irvine, B17.9), anno 697, 34.23. 258. Hist.eccl., V.xxiv, 88-89: ChronE (Irvine, B17.9), anno 699, 34.26. 259. Hist.eccl., V.xviii, 4-6: ChronA (Bately, B17.1), anno 703, 33.14. 260. Hist.eccl., V.xxiv, 90-91: ChronA (Bately, B17.1), anno 704, 33.16-18. 261. Hist.eccl., V.xxiv, 92: ChronA (Bately, B17.1), anno 705, 33.19-20. 262. Hist.eccl., V.xviii, 1-2: ChronE (Irvine, B17.9), anno 705, 34.34. 263. Hist.eccl., V.xviii, 3: ChronE (Irvine, B17.9), anno 705, 34.35. 264. Hist.eccl., V.xviii, 18-20: ChronE (Irvine, B17.9), anno 705, 34.39-35.2. 265. Hist.eccl., V.xviii, 18-20: ChronA (Bately, B17.1), anno 709, 33.24-27. 266. Hist.eccl., V.xviii, 34-35: ChronA (Bately, B17.1), anno 709, 33.27-29. 267. Hist.eccl., V.xix, 1-9: ChronA (Bately, B17.1), anno 709, 33.29. 268. Hist.eccl., V.xxiv, 93-94: ChronA (Bately, B17.1), anno 709, 33.29. 269. Hist.eccl., V.xix, 18-22: ChronE (Irvine, B17.9), anno 709, 35.4-6. 270. Hist.eccl., V.xix, 127-29: ChronE (Irvine, B17.9), anno 709, 35.6. 271. Hist.eccl., V.xxiv, 95: ChronA (Bately, B17.1), anno 710, 33.30. 272. Hist.eccl., V.xx, 13-14: ChronE (Irvine, B17.9), anno 710, 35.7-8. 273. Hist.eccl., V.xxii, 4-5: ChronA (Bately, B17.1), anno 716, 33.37-38. 274. Hist.eccl., V.xxiv, 96: ChronA (Bately, B17.1), anno 716, 33.37-38. 275. Hist.eccl., V.xxii, 5-6: ChronA (Bately, B17.1), anno 716, 33.38-39. 276. Hist.eccl., V.xxiii, 1-3: ChronA (Bately, B17.1), anno 716, 33.39. 277. Hist.eccl., V.xxiii, 31-32: ChronA (Bately, B17.1), anno 716, 33.39-34.1. 278. Hist.eccl., V.xxiv, 96-97: ChronA (Bately, B17.1), anno 716, 34.2-3. 279. Hist.eccl., V.xxiv, 97-99: ChronA (Bately, B17.1), anno 716, 34.6-8. 280. Hist.eccl., V.xxiv, 97-99: ChronF (Baker, B17.3), anno 716, 46.6-8. 281. Hist.eccl., V.vi, 77-80: ChronE (Irvine, B17.9), anno 721, 35.32-34. 282. Hist.eccl., V.xxiv, 100: ChronA (Bately, B17.1), anno 725, 34.24. 283. Hist.eccl., V.xxiii, 3-6: ChronE (Irvine, B17.9), anno 725, 35.39-36.1. 284. Hist.eccl., V.vii, 54-57: ChronA (Bately, B17.1), anno 728, 35.1. 285. Hist.eccl., V.xxiii, 6-7: ChronE (Irvine, B17.9), anno 727, 36.6. 286. Hist.eccl., V.xxiii, 15-16: ChronE (Irvine, B17.9), anno 727, 36.6-7. 287. Hist.eccl., V.xxiv, 101-02: ChronA (Bately, B17.1), anno 729, 35.6-7. 288. Hist.eccl., V.xxiii, 17-18: ChronE (Irvine, B17.9), anno 729, 36.9. 289. Hist.eccl., V.xxiii, 28-34: ChronE (Irvine, B17.9), anno 729, 36.9-11. 290. Hist.eccl., V.xxiii, 17-18: ChronF (Baker, B17.3), anno 729, 47.3-4. 291. Hist.eccl., V.xxiii, 30-33: ChronA (Bately, B17.1), anno 731, 35.9-10. 292. Hist.eccl., V.xxiv, 103-04: ChronA (Bately, B17.1), anno 731, 35.14-15. 293. Hist.eccl., V.xxiii, 38-46: ChronE (Irvine, B17.9), anno 731, 36.13-18. 294. ? Hist.eccl., II.iii, 3-6: ASSER.Vit.Ælf., iv, 4-8.

Histories

295. Hist.eccl., IV.xxii, 40-41: ASSER.Vit.Ælf., xxii, 14-15. 296. Hist.eccl., IV.i, 22-24: ASSER.Vit.Ælf., lxxvi, 34-35. 297. Hist.eccl., I.xxxiii, 2-3: ASSER.Vit.Ælf., xci, 28-29. 298. Hist.eccl., I.i, 1: ANON.Cart.S509, 1. 299. Hist.eccl., I.i, 1: ANON.Cart.S546, 7. 300. Hist.eccl., I.i, 1: ANON.Cart.S555, 1-2. 301. Hist.eccl., I.i, 1: ANON.Cart.S726, 1. 302. Hist.eccl., I.i, 1: ANON.Cart.S735, 1. 303. Hist.eccl., I.i, 1: ANON.Cart.S743, 1. 304. Hist.eccl., I.i, 1: ANON.Cart.S745, 30-31 . 305. Hist.eccl., I.i, 1: ANON.Cart.S841, 2. 306. Hist.eccl., I.i, 1: ANON.Sacram.Ratold., 49.21-22. 307. Hist.eccl., I.i, 1: ANON.Sacram.Ratold., 49.28-29. 308. Hist.eccl., I.xxvii, 49-54: ÆTHELWOLD.Reg.conc., 71.14-72.1. 309. Hist.eccl., I.i, 1: LANTFR.Trans.mir.Swith., Praef., 54. 310. Hist.eccl., II.xvi, 25-28: WVLF.WINT.Narr.metr.Swith., II, 462-65. 311. Hist.eccl., IV.xvii, 109-12: WVLF.WINT.Vit.Æthwold., 38.8-10. 312. Hist.eccl., II.i, 5-12: ÆCHom II, 9 (B1.2.10), 3-6. 313. Hist.eccl., I.xxiii, 26-37: ÆCHom II, 9 (B1.2.10), 175-87. 314. Hist.eccl., I.xxv, 1-18: ÆCHom II, 9 (B1.2.10), 188-97. 315. Hist.eccl., I.xxv, 37-48: ÆCHom II, 9 (B1.2.10), 198-204. 316. Hist.eccl., I.xxvi, 1-11: ÆCHom II, 9 (B1.2.10), 205-15. 317. Hist.eccl., I.xxvi, 19-29: ÆCHom II, 9 (B1.2.10), 216-25. 318. Hist.eccl., I.xxvii, 1-8: ÆCHom II, 9 (B1.2.10), 226-31. 319. Hist.eccl., I.xxvi, 12-15: ÆCHom II, 9 (B1.2.10), 231-32. 320. Hist.eccl., I.xxxii, 1-5: ÆCHom II, 9 (B1.2.10), 232-36. 321. Hist.eccl., I.xxvii, 9: ÆCHom II, 9 (B1.2.10), 237-38. 322. Hist.eccl., I.xxvi, 5-12: ÆCHom II, 9 (B1.2.10), 239-46. 323. Hist.eccl., I.xxix, 1-12: ÆCHom II, 9 (B1.2.10), 247-53. 324. Hist.eccl., IV.xxv., 29-44: ÆCHom II, 10 (B1.2.11), 131-36. 325. Hist.eccl., IV.xxv., 38: ÆCHom II, 10 (B1.2.11), 133. 326. Hist.eccl., IV.xxvi., 23-32: ÆCHom II, 10 (B1.2.11), 176-83. 327. Hist.eccl., IV.xxvi., 25-26: ÆCHom II, 10 (B1.2.11), 180-81. 328. Hist.eccl., IV.xxvi., 26-54: ÆCHom II, 10 (B1.2.11), 239-52. 329. Hist.eccl., IV.xxvi., 42: ÆCHom II, 10 (B1.2.11), 244. 330. Hist.eccl., IV.xxvi., 66-78: ÆCHom II, 10 (B1.2.11), 259-71. 331. Hist.eccl., IV.xxvi. ,66-67: ÆCHom II, 10 (B1.2.11), 261. 332. Hist.eccl., IV.xxvi., 71-73: ÆCHom II, 10 (B1.2.11), 265-67. 333. ? Hist.eccl., III.xix, 24: ÆCHom II, 22 (B1.2.25), 19. 334. Hist.eccl., V.xii, 1-25: ÆCHom II, 23 (B1.2.26), 3-20.

141

142 

335. Hist.eccl., V.xii, 194-95: ÆCHom II, 23 (B1.2.26), 3-5. 336. Hist.eccl., V.xii, 197-98: ÆCHom II, 23 (B1.2.26), 4-5. 337. Hist.eccl., V.xii, 177-79: ÆCHom II, 23 (B1.2.26), 18. 338. Hist.eccl., V.xii, 28-48: ÆCHom II, 23 (B1.2.26), 21-33. 339. Hist.eccl., V.xii, 172-73: ÆCHom II, 23 (B1.2.26), 21. 340. Hist.eccl., V.xii, 160-64: ÆCHom II, 23 (B1.2.26), 21-22. 341. Hist.eccl., V.xii, 49-85: ÆCHom II, 23 (B1.2.26), 34-54. 342. Hist.eccl., V.xii, 88-135: ÆCHom II, 23 (B1.2.26), 55-79. 343. Hist.eccl., V.xii, 135-159: ÆCHom II, 23 (B1.2.26), 80-100. 344. Hist.eccl., V.xii, 181-203: ÆCHom II, 23 (B1.2.26), 101-11. 345. Hist.eccl., IV.xx, 1-11: ÆCHom II, 24 (B1.2.27), 143-50. 346. Hist.eccl., IV.xx, 15-35: ÆCHom II, 24 (B1.2.27), 150-66. 347. Hist.eccl., IV.xx, 47-55: ÆCHom II, 24 (B1.2.27), 167-73. 348. Hist.eccl., IV.xx, 59-63: ÆCHom II, 24 (B1.2.27), 173-76. 349. Hist.eccl., V.xiii, 1-55: ÆHom 20, (B1.4.20), 138-201. 350. Hist.eccl., V.xiii, 64-66: ÆHom 20 (B1.4.20), 138-201. 351. Hist.eccl., V.xiii, 55-59: ÆHom 20 (B1.4.20), 202-04. 352. Hist.eccl., V.xiii, 61-64: ÆHom 20 (B1.4.20), 205-07. 353. Hist.eccl., V.xiv, 1-12: ÆHom 20 (B1.4.20), 208-12. 354. Hist.eccl., V.xiv, 14-26: ÆHom 20 (B1.4.20), 213-26. 355. Hist.eccl., V.xiv, 27-29: ÆHom 20 (B1.4.20), 226. 356. Hist.eccl., V.xiv, 12-14: ÆHom 20 (B1.4.20), 227-29. 357. Hist.eccl., V.xiv, 29-38: ÆHom 20 (B1.4.20), 230-45. 358. Hist.eccl., I.xxvii, 331-36: WVLF.EBOR.Coll.can., 92.2-5. 359. Hist.eccl., I.xxvii, 308-19: WVLF.EBOR.Coll.can., 92.6-9. 360. Hist.eccl., I.xv, 1-5: BYRHT.Gloss.Temp.rat., 356.53-59 361. Hist.eccl., II.v, 38-42: BYRHT.Hist.reg., 3.18-22. 362. Hist.eccl., III.viii, 1-2: BYRHT.Hist.reg., 3.25. 363. Hist.eccl., III.viii, 4-6: BYRHT.Hist.reg., 3.26-29. 364. Hist.eccl., V.xxiii, 38-47: BYRHT.Hist.reg., 28.10-20. 365. Hist.eccl., V.xxiii, 48-82: BYRHT.Hist.reg., 28.21-29.23. 366. Hist.eccl., V.xxiv, 112-18: BYRHT.Hist.reg., 29.26-34. 367. Hist.eccl., praefatio, 1-5: BYRHT.Hist.reg., 42.14-18. 368. Hist.eccl., V.xxiv, 117-18: BYRHT.Comp., iv, 36-38. 369. Hist.eccl., V.xxiv, 121-24: BYRHT.Comp., iv, 36-38. 370. Hist.eccl., I.i, 1: BYRHT.Vit.Os., 72.13. 371. Hist.eccl., I.xix, 23: BYRHT.Vit.Os., 106.15. 372. Hist.eccl., III.xxv, 208-10: BYRHT.Vit.Os., 112.8-9. 373. Hist.eccl., I.i, 1: BYRHT.Vit.Os., 136.1. 374. Hist.eccl., II.xx, 67-68: BYRHT.Vit.Os., 200.11-12.

BEDE – PART 1

Histories

143

375. Hist.eccl., I.i, 1: B.Vit.Dunst., 6.14. 376. Hist.eccl., I.i, 1: ANON.Orat.O.inclite.confess., 3-4. 377. Hist.eccl., I.xxiii, 30-33: ANON.Epist.Omnes.episc./?WVLF.EBOR., 445.7-10. 378. Hist.eccl., I.xxvii, 1-7: ANON.Epist.Omnes.episc./?W VLF.EBOR., 445.10-13. 379. Hist.eccl., II.iv, 1-7: ANON.Epist.Omnes.episc./?WVLF.EBOR., 445.13-16. 380. Hist.eccl., II.vii, 1-6: ANON.Epist.Omnes.episc./?WVLF.EBOR., 445.17. 381. Hist.eccl., II.viii, 1-6: ANON.Epist.Omnes.episc./?W VLF.EBOR., 445.18-446.3. 382. Hist.eccl., II.viii, 40-46: ANON.Epist.Omnes.episc./?WVLF.EBOR., 446.3-9 383. Hist.eccl., II.ix, 35-36: ANON.Epist.Omnes.episc./?WVLF.EBOR., 446.10-11. 384. Hist.eccl., II.xvii, 1-5: ANON.Epist.Omnes.episc./?W VLF.EBOR., 446.11-14. 385. Hist.eccl., II.xviii, 1-6: ANON.Epist.Omnes.episc./?WVLF.EBOR., 446.14-15. 386. Hist.eccl., II.xviii, 37-50: ANON.Epist.Omnes.episc./?WVLF.EBOR., 446.18-32. 387. Hist.eccl., I.xxix, 1-5: LS 31 (Paulinus) (B3.3.31), 151.18-19. 388. Hist.eccl., II.ix, 1-4: LS 31 (Paulinus) (B3.3.31), 151.19-21. 389. Hist.eccl., I.xxix, 26-27: LS 31 (Paulinus) (B3.3.31), 151.21-22. 390. Hist.eccl., II.ix, 14-16: LS 31 (Paulinus) (B3.3.31), 151.24-25. 391. Hist.eccl., II.xx, 8: LS 31 (Paulinus) (B3.3.31), 151.25-26. 392. Hist.eccl., II.xx, 35-39: LS 31 (Paulinus) (B3.3.31), 151.27-152.4. 393. Hist.eccl., II.xx, 40-42: LS 31 (Paulinus) (B3.3.31), 151.27-152.4. 394. Hist.eccl., II.xx, 50-56: LS 31 (Paulinus) (B3.3.31), 152.4-6. Refs 1. ? BONIF.Epist. 75, 158.8-12. 2. ALCVIN.Vers.Eubor. 1207-09. 3. ALCVIN.Vers.Eubor. 1288-1314. 4. ALCVIN.Epist.ad.Off., 245.13-16. 5. Mart (B19.1; Chad), 60.2. 6. Mart (B19.1; John of Beverley), 100.7. 7. Mart (B19.1; Augustine of Canterbury), 108.9-10. 8. Mart (B19.1; Germanus), 150.15-16. 9. Mart (B19.1; The Two Hewalds), 196.5-6. 10. Mart (B19.1; Æthelburh), 198.6.

144 

BEDE – PART 1

11. Mart (B19.1; Cedd), 206.5. 12. Mart (B19.1; Higebald), 226.2-3. 13. ÆCHom II, 9 (B1.2.10), 6-8. 14. ÆCHom II, 23 (B1.2.26), 1-2. 15. ÆCHom II, 23 (B1.2.26), 142-43. 16. BYRHT.Gloss.Temp.rat., 356.55-57. 17. BYRHT.Hist.reg., 29.18-20. 18. BYRHT.Hist.reg., 29.28-30. 19. ANON.Epist.Omnes.episc./?WVLF.EBOR., 445.3-5. 20. ? ANON.Pont.Dunst. While the innovations in many of Bede’s other works are now appreciated more fully by modern scholars, the Historia ecclesiastica gentis Anglorum still stands out as a stunningly original achievement, one that, as the length and complexity of this entry indicate, was recognised at many points during the Anglo-Saxon period. Although not discussed below, CUTHBERT’s Epistola de obitu Bedae (ed. and trans. Colgrave and Mynors 1969 pp 580-87) provides an almost immediate example of the force of Bede’s narrative since it records the demand for not only “masses and devout prayers for the benefit of God’s chosen servant Bede” but also a further accounting in this new form of his final days (pp 580-81). Indeed, under the sway of the work, Cuthbert ended his letter proposing “with God’s help to write a fuller account of all that I myself have seen and heard regarding him” (pp 586-87); that he could not do so may remind us of how much more Bede had achieved in this work. While acknowledging Walter Goffart’s (1990 pp 40-45) provocative argument that the internal dating of the work to 731 (V.xxiii, lines 84-87; ed. Lapidge 2010 2.470-72) is more political convenience than historical fact, Michael Lapidge (2010 pp xlix and lix) accepts Bede’s statement. Bede’s description of the Historia ecclesiastica in the list of his works in book 5, chapter 24, line 172 – “historiam ecclesiasticam nostrae insulae ac gentis in libris V” – was simplified in the many references to the work by his early English followers, but fits it well. By calling attention to Bede’s conscious crafting of his authorial presence in the work, N. J. Higham (2006) offers a way beyond the at times polarised debate of the late twentieth century, summarised in Vicky Gunn’s “Introduction” (2009), over the question of Bede’s “innocence” as an historian. Higham (p 11), for example, tellingly points out that Bede ordered the opening words of his dedication, “Gloriosissimo regi Ceoluufo Baeda famulus Christi et presbyter” (ed. 2.6; “To the most glorious King Ceolwulf, Bede, servant of Christ and priest,” trans. Colgrave and Mynors 1969 p 2):

Histories

145

Bede here sought the rhetorical impact which juxtaposition of his own name with that of the king offered, as an assertion of his right to a presence in this august company and of the equality of his own identity vis-à-vis the secular social fabric personified by the king, based on his priestly rank and claims on Christ’s patronage. Although the Preface is to an extent conditioned by the expressions of humility conventional in the opening lines of a piece of hagiography of the period, this aspect is comparatively low key and it is in other respects a masterpiece of positioning which sets out his own self-perception as an historian. Bede portrayed the king as if dependent on himself as author, eager to acquaint himself with the work both in its first draft (which he had already seen) and in its present state, and as its enthusiastic recipient and consumer. He presented himself, in contrast, as a gracious benefactor to the king, then as if a wise teacher to his royal pupil and shepherd to his sheep.

While not wishing “to denigrate or to underestimate Bede as a source of ‘historical’ information about the seventh and early eighth centuries,” Higham focuses “instead on the Ecclesiastical History as an organised and purposeful collection of apologues, or moral fables – parables if you will – containing moral exemplars capable of engaging, and being emulated by, his intended audience” (p 148). That his intended audience included not just the clergy as they guided the church but also the aristocracy as they ruled their kingdoms mirrors the theme that dominates the Historia ecclesiastica: the value of cooperation between these institutions. The result is a work that weaves unprecedented detail about a range of subjects into a compelling narrative, an “ecclesiastical history of our island and people.” While an inspiration for the work was, as suggested above, his own Historia abbatum, it appears that he was also influenced by GREGORY OF TOURS’ Historia Francorum as well as RUFINUS’s abbreviated Latin version of EUSIBIUS’s Historia ecclesiastica (for a detailed discussion of Bede’s use of his sources, see Lapidge 2010 1.xxxii-xli). His intention was to record the story of the “gens Anglorum” within the context of Eusebian universal history, thereby depicting the people of England, and especially of his beloved Northumbria, as one of God’s chosen tribes. For particular details, he turned to many places. Bertram Colgrave and R.A.B. Mynors (1969 p xxxi), for example, write that “his first book, where he is preparing the scene for the coming of Augustine’s mission is based largely upon older material and there is little that is original”:

146 

BEDE – PART 1

His first chapter, for instance, is a mosaic of quotations from PLINY, GILDAS, SOLINUS, and OROSIUS, together with a sentence from the Hexameron of St. BASIL. In the next few chapters he continues to use Orosius principally, with a few additions from EUTROPIUS and VEGETIUS as well as from the LIBER PONTIFICALIS, the official collection of the lives of the popes which he was to use considerably in later books. When he reaches the Diocletian persecutions he is able to use the first saint’s Life which had any reference to Britain, that of St. Alban. So he continues mostly from Orosius with occasional insertions from Eutropius, Gildas and a poem of PROSPER. But with the end of Roman rule, Bede is dependent on Gildas, though with many additions and explanatory notes of his own and occasional facts drawn from other historians. The Gildas borrowings continue to the end of chapter 16 with his own important insertion about the origin of the Angles, Saxons, and Jutes in chapter 15. In chapter 17 he turns to another Life, that of St. Germanus written by CONSTANTIUS, and this he follows almost verbally to the end of chapter 21 when the Gildas extracts begin again. Then, at the end of chapter 22, with something like a sigh of relief, he turns to his papal and other sources.

In addition to these literary sources (for stylistic influences, notably Rufinus, see Shanzer 2007), Bede relied, as he stated in his Preface, on oral traditions: “My principal authority and helper in this modest work has been the revered abbot Albinus, a man of universal learning who was educated in the Kentish Church by Archbishop Theodore and Abbot Hadrian of blessed memory, both venerable and learned men” (trans. pp 3-5; ed. 1.8, lines 22-26). Indeed, the preface alone is remarkable as a reflection on the historian’s craft, as illustrated by the lively debate over the meaning of the phrase “uera lex historiae” (lines 82-83; ed. 1.12); see in particular Roger Ray (1980) and Goffart (2005). That the work was appreciated by the Anglo-Saxons is demonstrated in the information summarised above and discussed in more detail below. ALCUIN and BYRHTFERTH demonstrate a genuine understanding of its historical scope. Various compilers of the ANGLO-SAXON CHRONICLE, including the authors of the “common stock” and the northern recension, and the author of the OLD ENGLISH MARTYROLOGY turned to it for numerous details as well as general inspiration. It was a primary source of ÆLFRIC’s hagiography, and WULFSTAN OF YORK relied on it when writing a letter of protest to a Pope. The manuscript evidence points to its wider dissemination on the Continent (see Laistner 1943, Cross 1996, and

Histories

147

Brown 1997). Although well beyond the scope of our project, the Historia ecclesiastica returned to prominence in the chronicles and histories of the twelfth and thirteenth centuries, including those of Matthew Paris, William of Malmesbury, and William of Newburgh. During the early modern period it remained the chief historical source for both Protestants and Catholics. If Higham is correct that “each year, hundreds – perhaps thousands – read Bede’s Ecclesiastical History for a first time” (2009 p 5), its vision continues to shape our sense of English history. MSS 1-16, especially 1 and 15. Of the more than 160 manuscripts that contain all or parts of Bede’s Historia ecclesiastica, fifteen provide direct information about the circulation of the complete work in England before 1100. Michael Lapidge (2008a p 78 using the abbreviation HE), who also covers this material in his edition (2010 1.lxxxv-cxxxiv), reaches several important conclusions, the first of which distinguishes this work from most of Bede’s others, which are first attested in ninth-century manuscripts from the Continent: Bede’s HE is preserved in a number of English manuscripts dating from the eighth century – some, indeed, written within a few years of Bede’s death in 735 – so that it is possible accurately to determine the form of the text as it circulated in Northumbria in the generation immediately after Bede, and in some places to catch a glimpse of Bede’s own (autograph) working copy, even if that hypothetical manuscript does not survive. In this respect the textual transmission of Bede’s HE is different from any of his other writings, and different from that of the majority of Medieval Latin authors.

The six manuscripts that are key for determining this early circulation are all in the list above. The Moore Bede, part of the collection of John Moore, bishop of Ely, that was given by George I to the Cambridge University Library where it is now manuscript Kk. 5. 16, can be dated on the basis of chronological notes to 737 or shortly thereafter (see also Dumville 2007, who favours a later date). The St Petersburg Bede (formerly the Leningrad Bede; Russian National Library, Q. v. I. 18) was at one point considered by E.A. Lowe to be earlier since he suggested that the fifth line of its colophon, “Beda famulus Christi,” might have been written by the author. Although Paul Meyvaert (1961 pp 274-86) demolished this suggestion and Lowe did not repeat it in CLA XI.1621, it is still possible to imagine that the scribe of the of the St Petersburg manuscript “might well have been among the disciples who gathered round the master’s deathbed” (Colgrave and Mynors 1969 p

148 

BEDE – PART 1

xxxix); as noted below, however, the Moore Bede was more likely written at another Northumbrian monastery. MSS 1, 15, and 5. On the basis of scribal mistakes in the Moore and St Petersburg Bedes as well as another closely related manuscript, Cotton Tiberius A. xiv (which is listed in ASM as “s. viii med., MonkwearmouthJarrow” and in Lapidge (2008a p 78) “Northumbrian (?MonkwearmouthJarrow), s. ix in”), Lapidge reaches further conclusions about these copies of the work. All three are independent of each other. The Moore Bede, “copied by a single scribe who was writing in great haste” (p 91), is a direct witness of what Lapidge labels “the Monkwearmouth-Jarrow house copy” of “Bede’s (autograph) working copy”; he later comments that it was written “for another Northumbrian house” (p 104), a possibility in line with R. A. B. Mynors’s suggestions about the scribe (Colgrave and Mynors 1969 p xliv): “perhaps he was on a visit to Wearmouth or Jarrow, or had the loan of a copy from there for a limited time.” The St Petersburg Bede and Tiberius A. xiv descend independently from a second manuscript of the house copy; see Lapidge’s stemma (p 105) and his argument that this lost exemplar was possibly written in 746 (p 95). MSS 12, 6, and 10. Three more early manuscripts descend, according to Lapidge, from “the Canterbury house copy,” which was derived from the Monkwearmouth-Jarrow house copy by way of an exemplar that had been sent to Albinus, abbot of St Augustine’s (see Letters) shortly after the completion of the work. Lapidge considers this Canterbury house copy to be the work of “perhaps Albinus himself, or perhaps Nothhelm, or perhaps an unknown colleague” (2008a p 97), identifying a series of characteristic “corrections,” three of which concern small but substantive additions to the text based on information available in Canterbury but apparently not at Monkwearmouth-Jarrow. Moreover, Lapidge uses the second of two annals, which can be dated to 31 January 734, and the failure to include the death of TATWINE, archbishop of Canterbury (30 July 734), to date this reconstructed exemplar to the first half of that year. It is, he concludes, “not an independent witness to Bede’s text,” but “an illustration of how the text was received and redacted at Canterbury by Bede’s closest colleagues, within two or three years of its publication in 731” (p 101). The manuscripts in question are the one now in Kassel, which contains books 4 and 5 and is dated to the second half of the eighth century; the second Cotton manuscript, Tiberius C.ii, which was “written at Canterbury in the early ninth century”; and Hatton 43, “written in one of ÆTHELWOLD’s monastic houses at the very beginning of the eleventh century” (p 102). The Tiberius and Hatton manuscripts, Lapidge suggests, descend from “a

Histories

149

Southumbrian manuscript, probably dating from the second half of the eighth century” (p 102). MSS 1, 5, 6, 10, 12, and 15. Lapidge (2008a pp 103-05) uses the evidence of these six manuscripts not only to establish a procedure for editing the Historia ecclesiastica but also to investigate Bede’s autograph. In considering mistakes attributable to the author, he explicitly rules out “discussion of the numerous errors in documents quoted by Bede, such as papal letters, since Bede took care to reproduce such documents with utter fidelity, errors and all” (p 103 note 223). He establishes that the monastery did not use Bede’s autograph as its main copy for disseminating the work since it must have contained mistakes of a kind that Bede would not have made. For example, Lapidge explains (p 103), on nine occasions all six manuscripts of the early manuscripts of the HE preserve forms of aceruus (‘heap’) where context clearly requires acerbus (‘bitter,’ ‘harsh’). Bede can scarcely be charged with this solecism, since in his treatise De orthographia he explicitly recommends that scribes distinguish the two forms “aceruus moles est, acerbus immaturus uel asper” (ed. CCSL 123A.11). [This information is taken directly from AGROECIUS, Ars de orthographia.]

In contrast to these mistakes, Lapidge highlights the overall accuracy of the transmission by noting “five places in the text where the scribes of [this reconstructed exemplar] have left a small space, implying that a word in [Bede’s autograph] was illegible, or that Bede himself had left a gap which he intended to fill on a later occasion, but to which in fact he never returned.” In this context, Lapidge also mentions the “presumably de luxe … presentation copy intended for King Ceolwulf, of which (alas) no trace remains” (p 104). MSS 12, 5, 6, 3, 4, 11, 9, and 8. Lapidge’s (2008a pp 106-12) discussion of the later dissemination of the Historia ecclesiastica, which relies on the analysis of R.A.B. Mynors (in Colgrave and Mynors 1969 pp xlii-lxx), notes that in general the manuscripts that circulated in England during the Anglo-Saxon period descended from the Canterbury house copy, while those produced on the Continent follow the Monkwearmouth-Jarrow house copy. Although the Kassel manuscript, a member of the first group, was taken to the Continent, and Tiberius A. xiv, a member of the second, remained in England, “neither of these two manuscripts seems to have generated descendants, either in England or on the Continent” (p 106). In contrast, Tiberius C. ii, from Canterbury, was used by the scribe of Trinity College R. 7. 5 and by later scribes as well. The Canterbury house copy also served as the basis for a

150 

BEDE – PART 1

group of Northumbrian manuscripts associated with Durham, one of which, Durham, Cathedral Library B. II. 35, “was given to the Cathedral by its Norman builder, Bishop William of St. Carilef (who died in 1096)” (Colgrave and Mynors 1969 p xlix). This “Durham group” is apparently the source for another set of manuscripts, known as the “Winchester group,” which includes Winchester, Cathedral Library, 1 (with London, British Library, Cotton Tiberius D. iv, vol. II, fols. 158-66), written at the end of the tenth or the beginning of the eleventh century, and Oxford, Bodleian Library, Bodley 163, from Peterborough at the beginning of the eleventh century. A final Anglo-Saxon manuscript, London, British Library Royal 13. C. v, is identified in Colgrave and Mynors (1969 pp li-lii) as sharing “one or two readings” with Tiberius A. xiv; Lapidge adds that it is also similar to the “Winchester group” (p 109). It is described by Helmut Gneuss and Lapidge (ASM 487) as “s. x/xi or xi1, Worcester?, (prov. Gloucester).” MSS 15, 1, 3, and other manuscripts. The dissemination of the Historia ecclesiastica on the Continent provides some further information about the knowledge of the work and the production of additional copies in England. Lapidge (2008a p 109) implies that both the St Petersburg and Moore Bedes had left Northumbria by the end of the eighth century, although the evidence in the first case is unclear since he asserts that it “seems to have left no direct descendants.” Mynors (Colgrave and Mynors 1969 p lxi), who identifies a twelfth-century manuscript in the Bibliothèque Arsenal in Paris as a descendant, leaves the question open. In contrast, as detailed by Mynors (pp lxii-lxiv) relying on Bernhard Bischoff (1965 pp 56-57), there is strong evidence that the Moore Bede was in the Court school of Charlemagne by around 800 (ASM lists its provenance as “Aachen s. viii ex.”) and that it served as the indirect source for seven ninth-century copies. A separate exemplar is identified by Mynors (pp lxv-lxvii) as responsible for the dissemination of the text in present-day Germany (see also Lapidge pp 110-11). The question of another lost Northumbrian exemplar, which would explain a group of eight manuscripts from the twelfth century and later containing the “Continuatio Bedae” (so called because of annals related to Northumbrian history from 732 to 766 added to Historia ecclesiastica V.xxiii), has been reopened by Joshua A. Westgard (2007), who proposes that the Münster leaf listed above was part of the key manuscript in this tradition (see Lapidge p 111 note 238 and Sparks 2013 pp 42-44; for the related question of the Bloomington-Düsseldorf fragment, see the entry on the extract of V.xiii below). Mynors (p lxix) discusses a ninth-century copy of the Historia ecclesiastica now in the Bodmer Library (Cologny), which might represent a separate export from England that circulated in present-day Italy. Finally,

Histories

151

Westgard (2006) shows that the Canterbury text did not hold complete sway in later Anglo-Saxon England, citing the dependence of manuscripts D, E, and F of the northern recension of the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle on a manuscript closer to the Northumbrian than the Canterbury house copy and a distinctive, Northumbrian version of CÆDMON’s Hymn found in three later Continental manuscripts (Brussels, Bibliothèque royale, 8245-57; Dijon, Bibliothèque municipale, 574; and Paris, Bibliothèque nationale de France, lat. 5237). MSS 13, 14, 2, and 7. In addition to the complete manuscripts (and the Kassel manuscript) just discussed and the extracts, which will be considered in the following entries, the Münster fragment is joined by three others from pre-1100 English manuscripts. Morgan Library, M 826, a single leaf, contains III.xxix, line 60 to xxx, line 26; it begins with the first word, “Munuscula” (ed. Lapidge 2010 2.152), of a new sentence near the end of Vitalian’s letter to Oswiu and ends with the conclusion of chapter 30, leaving eleven blank lines. David N. Dumville (2007 pp 105-08) edits the text, establishing that it is part of the Northumbrian tradition (see p 105 note 239) and dating it to the eighth “or perhaps better” early ninth century (p 57). Two flyleaves identified as folios 1 and 197 of Cambridge, Corpus Christi College, 270, which were written by separate scribes and ruled differently, contain fragments from the “Praefatio” of the Historia ecclesiastica. The first starts with “Beda famulus Christi” (ed. Lapidge 2010 p 6, lines 1-2), and so lacks “gloriosissimo regi Ceoluulfo”; it breaks off mid-sentence, “Orientalium Anglorum” (p 8, lines 47). Although listed by M.L.W. Laistner (1943 p 103) as an extract from Ecclesiastical History I.ii concerning the material on Caesar in Britain, the second contains parts of chapters 2 and 3 of book 1. It begins in mid-word (“[incogni]ta fuit”; ed. Lapidge 2010 p 30, line 2) and ends mid-sentence (“a meridiano”; p 34, line 22). Indeed, the opening of chapter 3 is marked by a larger, coloured initial; see Parker Library on the Web, http://parkerweb. stanford.edu/parker/actions/page_turner.do?ms_no=270. Finally, Mynors (Colgrave and Mynors 1969 p xlvii) finds that he “can make nothing” of Egerton 3278, a single leaf from an early eleventh-century manuscript: “How many copies were in existence in the England of St. DUNSTAN, and where were they?” According to Gneuss and Lapidge (ASM 410.5), this fragment contains book 5, chapters 19-20. MSS 8-10. Teresa Webber (2015 p 51) calls attention to sets of marginal lection numbers indicating liturgical use in Royal C. v, Bodley 163, Hatton 43, and the Winchester Cathedral manuscript. While she notes that “the dates of these annotations cannot be determined with any precision,” she adds, “nevertheless, their presence in a number of late- tenth

152 

BEDE – PART 1

and early- eleventh-century English copies of saints’ lives and miracles would seem to suggest that it was from around this date that the practice of annotating manuscripts with marginal lection marks was introduced.” The ones in Royal C. v concern Alban (I.vii), Mellitus (II.iii-iv), Æthelburh (IV.ix), and Æthelthryth (IV.xvii). Those in Bodley 163 concern Oswald (III.i. III.ii, III.xi, and IV.xiv) and Æthelburh (IV.viii-ix). Those in Hatton 43 concern Augustine (I.xxiii), Fursey (III.xix), Æthelthryth (IV.xvii), Cuthbert (IV.xxvii-xxviii), and Wilfrid (V.xix). Those in the Winchester manuscript concern Gregory (II.i). MSS: Caedmon’s Hymn and Old English glosses. As mentioned already, the presence of the vernacular Cædmon’s Hymn is a distinctive feature of some of the Latin manuscripts of the Historia ecclesiastica. Supporting P. R. Orton’s (1983) suggestion that “Bede suppressed the Hymn because its conventional qualities proclaim its debt to previous tradition so clearly as to undermine the story’s claim that Cædmon’s gift owed nothing to men and everything to grace,” Frederick M. Biggs (1997 pp 304-08) notes that the marginalisation of the poem in the Moore and St Petersburg manuscripts reflects the main scribes’ adherence to Bede’s wishes (Bodley 163, Hatton 43, the Winchester manuscript, although all later, provide similar evidence; see NRK 304, 326, and 396). Moreover, in addition to the three post-Conquest manuscripts noted above, the Hymn also survives in seven similarly late Latin manuscripts: Cambridge, Trinity College R. 5. 22; Hereford, Cathedral Library, P. V. 1 and Oxford, Bodleian Library, e Mus. 93 (S.C. 3632; NRK 121); London, College of Arms, sine numero; Oxford, Bodleian Library, Laud misc. 243 (NRK 341); Oxford, Lincoln College, 31 (NRK 356); Oxford, Magdalen College, lat. 105 (NRK 357); and San Marino, Huntington Library, HM 35300; all the relevant folios are reproduced in Fred C. Robinson and E. G. Stanley (1991), and see also Paul Cavill (2000) and Daniel Paul O’Donnell (2005). Another late Latin manuscript with the Hymn, Tournai, Bibliothèque municipale, 134, was destroyed in 1940 (NRK 387); Robinson and Stanley (1991) reproduce the facsimile of this page. There are other glosses in Tiberius C. ii (NRK 198) and Bodley 163 (NRK 304). These are identified in the Dictionary of Old English with the abbreviations OccGl 45.1.1 (Ker; C45.1.1); OccGl 45.1.2 (Meritt; C45.1.2); OccGl 45.2 (Meritt; C45.2); OccGl 45.3 (Nap; C45.3); and OccGl 45.4 (Michiels; C45.4). Lists. The list of books given by Ælberht, archbishop of York, to Alcuin does not specify a particular work by “Beda magister,” so might refer to the Historia ecclesiastica (ML 1.7); see the introduction, BEDE. Sæwold’s gift to the church of Saint-Vaast in Arras (ML 8.22) includes a “librum hystoriae aecclesiastice gentis Anglie” (ML 8.22); citing Philip Grierson (1940b p 110

Histories

153

number 22), Lapidge indicates that a fragment of this manuscript may survive in the Morgan Library and Museum as M. 826 (MSS 14 above). A booklist possibly from Worcester contains two entries that in all likelihood refer to Bede’s work as the “Hystoria anglorum” and the “Historia anglorum” (ML 11.23 and 43). Lapidge comments: “It is principally a list of books intended for use in a schoolroom (note the multiple copies of some school-texts)” (p 69). The title “Historia anglorum” appears in the Peterborough list (ML 13.8). Here Lapidge writes, “the book in question is possibly Bodley 163 itself, assuming that the part containing Bede (fols. 1-227) was at Peterborough when the booklist was written.” Finally, Lapidge (2006 pp 148-51) edits and annotates an inventory from Würzburg, a centre of Anglo-Saxon missionary activity, which again includes a “historia anglorum.” Agreeing with Walter Berschin (2001 p 203), he writes that although the list was written around 800, “its compilation perhaps dates from soon after the founding of the see of Würzburg in 742.” A-S Vers 1 and Refs 13. The Anglo-Saxon version identified by the Dictionary of Old English as Bede (C9.6) and discussed more fully in the OLD ENGLISH HISTORIA ECCLESIASTICA is attributed by Ælfric to ALFRED THE GREAT. At the beginning of his Homily on GREGORY THE GREAT in his second series of Catholic Homilies (B1.2.10; ed. Godden 1979 pp 72-80), Ælfric wrote of Gregory, “many holy books manifest his conduct and his holy life, and also the ‘Historia Anglorum,’ which King Alfred turned from Latin into English” (ed. p 72; trans. Thorpe 1844-46 2.117-19; see the discussion below of his use of sources in this homily). In the light of the five manuscripts and three excerpts that survive, this claim, while possible in the broad sense of attributing to Alfred the work of his followers, is no longer accepted uncritically. As Thomas Miller (1890 p liii) concludes an analysis of the text’s language, “all issues raised lead to similar results, placing the origin of the version in Mercia.” In spite of the Anglian dialect of the original, it should also be noted here that all the surviving copies, as Sharon M. Rowley (2011 p 37) states, are “predominantly,” in the late West Saxon dialect. Moreover, Miller’s (1890 pp xxiv-xxv) work has also led more recent scholars to recognise that, while there was one main translator, two more individuals contributed to parts of the work as we now have it (see in particular Whitelock 1974 and Rowley 2011 p 40). The main translator was aided by someone who adapted his rendering of Bede’s chapter headings to the abbreviated text he produced, and a later translator supplied a new version for the end of III.xvi to the end of III.xviii, material apparently missing from his exemplar. Rowley (2011 p 37) concludes that “paleographical and linguistic evidence coincide to suggest that the translation was made by the

154 

BEDE – PART 1

end of the ninth or beginning of the tenth century, but permits no greater precision”; she also offers new reasons not to associate it with Alfred (pp 54-55). Charles Plummer (1896 1.cxxviii-cxxix ) recognises that the translator worked from a Latin text similar to Tiberius C. ii, and so in the Canterbury tradition; see also Dorothy Whitelock (1962) and Lapidge (2008c). A-S Vers 2. ÆTHELWEARD’s use of the Historia ecclesiastica in his Chronicon (ed. Campbell 1962) is limited to his accounts of events in England following the destruction of Rome by the Goths and of Gregory the Great’s decision to send AUGUSTINE, later archbishop of Canterbury, to convert the Anglo-Saxons. A. Campbell, who notes these departures for Æthelweard’s main source, the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle, does not analyse them further (p xvii): With the remarks on the still visible traces of the Roman occupation, Æthelweard begins to use Bede, whom he follows till towards the end of chap. 4 (Historia ecclesiastica I.xii-xv), where he reverts to OEC with the burial of treasure by the Romans (OEC 418), and the mission of Palladius (OEC 430) … The first two chapters of the second book give the story of Gregory the Great and the English slaves, and the mission of St Augustine, his reception in Kent, and the Kentish royal genealogy, mainly according to Historia ecclesiastica I.xxiii and xxv-xxvi. OEC is then followed from the accession of Ceolwulf (597) to the marriage of Beorhtric (787).

While it would be possible to propose more precise correspondences between the two texts, which could be included in Quots/Cits, considering these passages as Anglo-Saxon versions of parts of Bede’s work reflects Æthelweard’s reliance on the Historia ecclesiastica: he followed its narrative and yet even when retaining specific details, he often rephrased them. For example, Æthelweard described the Roman remains: “urbes etiam atque castella nec non pontes plateasque mirabili ingenio condiderunt, quae usque in hodiernam diem videntur” (“They made cities, forts, bridges and streets with wonderful skill, and these are to be seen to this day”; ed. and trans. Campbell 1962 pp 5-6). The corresponding clause in Bede reads, “quod ciuitates farus pontes et stratae ibidem factae usque hodie testantur” (I.xi, lines 21-22; ed. Lapidge 2010 1.56; “[an occupation] to which the cities, lighthouses, bridges, and roads which they built testify to this day,” trans. Colgrave and Mynors 1969 p 41). While the debt is unmistakable, of the structures, only the bridges are mentioned in both. A-S Vers 3. In the fragmentary opening of the Account of King Edgar’s Establishment of Monasteries (B17.11; identified in the Dictionary of

Histories

155

Old English as the Revival of Monasticism, and so abbreviated RevMon; ed. and trans. Whitelock, Brett, and Brooke 1981 pp 143-54), Æthelwold used a retelling of Gregory’s conversion of the Anglo-Saxons through the mission of Augustine to prepare for his narrative of Edgar’s refounding of Christian worship. This section is based on Historia ecclesiastica I.xxiii-xxvi, xxxiii, and II.i (ed. Lapidge 2010 1.92-104 and 164-80). Although the opening has not survived, the narrative that remains moves from a general reflection on the spread of Christianity to the conversion of the English, drawing at the end on Bede’s remarks midway through book 2, chapter 1, lines 138-48 that begin his account of Gregory’s personal involvement with the mission: “To his works of piety and justice this also belongs, that he snatched our race from the teeth of the ancient foe and made them partakers of everlasting freedom by sending us preachers” (ed. Lapidge 2010 1.174; trans. Colgrave and Mynors 1969 p 131). Passing over Gregory’s epitaph, Æthelwold then followed with simplified versions of the stories, both from this chapter, of the English slave boys and the refusal of the Roman citizens to allow Gregory to carry out the plan himself. In then mentioning that Gregory “found Augustine to take his place” (trans. p 144), Æthelwold alluded to the narrative in book 1. A major difference, as the editors note, is Æthelwold’s statement that Gregory ordered the founding of monasteries. As they indicate, this instruction is in keeping with one of Gregory’s answers to Augustine’s questions, which states that the missionaries should, after the practice of the fathers of the early Church, have “all things in common” (I.xxvii, lines 26-29; ed. 1.106; trans. p 81). As the passage breaks off, it has turned from the monastic prosperity that followed Augustine’s mission to, most likely, the devastation of the Viking raids. The editors comment that the tone of the entire piece “may fit best the period after his [Edgar’s] death [975] when the reaction against his support of monks might lead their supporters to claim that all Edgar’s success had been God’s reward to him for his attitude to monastic revival” (p 143). A-S Vers 4. ABBO OF FLEURY set the stage for his Passio Eadmundi by retelling Bede’s story of the arrival the Angles, Saxons, and Jutes in England (Historia ecclesiastica I.xv; ed. Lapidge 2010 1.68-72), a source relationship noted by Michael Winterbottom in his edition (1972 p 68). Although Abbo kept many of Bede’s themes, such as the slackness of the Britons, he rewrote the narrative, at one point even allowing the changed political landscape to override the onomastic evidence: “The occasion having thus arisen, the eastern part of the island, which, even to this day, is called ‘Eastengle,’ in the speech of the Angles, fell to the lot of the Saxons, while the Jutes and Angles parted in other directions” (i, lines 13-17; ed. p 69; trans. Hervey 1907 p 13).

156 

BEDE – PART 1

A-S Vers 5. The anonymous Historia de Sancto Cuthberto (see Cuthbertus in ACTA SANCTORUM), dated by its most recent editor and translator, Ted Johnson South (2002 p 36) to probably the later eleventh century, includes in chapters 3 and 4 a number of details about the Cuthbert’s life. While some of this material derives from the anonymous Vita Cuthberti (see ACTA SANCTORUM) and perhaps from Bede’s prose Vita Cuthberti (see Saints’ Lives), Johnson South suggests that “it seems to adhere most closely to the brief biography of the saint presented in the Historia ecclesiastica”: “The best example of this is the sequence of events surrounding Cuthbert’s consecration as bishop (HSC 3); only the HE explains that Cuthbert was originally elected as bishop of Hexham and then exchanged sees with Eata, or mentions the attendance of seven bishops at the consecration ceremony” (p 4). These assertions, while accurate, should not obscure the many differences between the two accounts. Rather than listing questionable quotations of Bede’s work in the Historia de Sancto Cuthberto, it seems preferable to consider the sections of the later work that describe Cuthbert’s life as a monk and bishop (ed. p 42, line 14 to p 46, line 10) to be a version of Bede’s account (Historia ecclesiastica, book 4, chapters 25-26; ed. Lapidge 2010 2.296-306). Johnson South may be correct when he accounts for confusions in the text by suggesting that “our author was not working directly from these sources, but was instead drawing on a traditional understanding of the saint’s life which had developed over time” (p 5). It appears, however, equally possible that he rewrote many details because they had no direct bearing on his main purpose, which was to support the land-claims of the community of St Cuthbert (p 2). Quots/Cits 1-3. In Epistola 125 (ed. MGH ES 1.262-63), LULL asked ÆTHELBERHT, archbishop of York, to send him three works by Bede, the Commentarius in primam partem Samuhelis, the Commentarius in Ezram et Neemiam, and the Commentarius in Marcum. His wording follows Bede’s so closely that it is clear that he had consulted the list of works in book 5, chapter 24 of the Historia ecclesiastica (ed. Lapidge 2010 2.480-82); see the discussion of references in the introduction to BEDE. Quots/Cits 4-7. In Epistola 126 (ed. MGH ES 1.263-64), Lull asked CUTHBERT, abbot of Monkwearmouth-Jarrow, to send him De templo, the Commentarius in Cantica canticorum, and the now lost Liber epigrammatum. As in the case of the Epistola 125, the wording shows that he had used Bede’s list of works in the Historia ecclesiastica V.xxiv (ed. Lapidge 2010 2.480-84). Quots/Cits 8-9. The relatively few quotations identified above in Alcuin’s Versus de sanctis Euboricensis ecclesiae (ed. and trans. Godman

Histories

157

1982; the passages referred to in the following discussion can be found by his line numbers) only begin to represent this author’s deep engagement with Bede’s Historia ecclesiastica. In addition to these six, fifty-five more correspondences are listed by Peter Godman (pp 145-46), but these represent not verbal borrowings but rather the repeated adaptation of Bede’s narrative. As he writes, “in founding his poem on York on the history of his own people, written by the leading Northumbrian scholar and counsellor to ECGBERHT, archbishop of York, Alcuin chose not only the outstanding model of previous Anglo-Latin prose but also the one most immediate to him” (pp lxxv-lxxvi). For example, Godman (p xlviii) notes that the opening of the Historia ecclesiastica, which he abbreviates HE, stands behind that of Alcuin’s poem even as they differ: “For Bede’s description of the situs Britanniae at HE I.i, Alcuin substitutes an ekphrasis on York (vv. 19-37).” There are, moreover, two verbal echoes of the Historia ecclesiastica in this passage. From Bede’s quotation of VENANTIUS FORTUNATUS’s description of England’s first martyr, “Albanum egregium fecunda Brittania profert” (ed. Lapidge 2010 1.40; “illustrious Alban, fruitful Britain’s child,” trans. Colgrave and Mynors 1969 p 29), at the beginning of I.vii, Alcuin took the phrase “fecunda Britania,” incorporating it without reference to Alban into his York-based narrative, which challenged playfully even Rome’s supremacy: “nam tunc Romanos fecunda Britannia reges / sustinuit” (line 22-23; “for then fertile Britain sustained the Roman kings”; see Godman’s translation, which changes the syntax of this clause). In the following lines, Alcuin also took Bede’s description of Kent’s “chief city,” London, which “is an emporium for many nations who come to it by land and sea” (trans. p 143; “ipsa multorum emporium populorum terra marique uenientium,” ed. 1.188) applying it to York under Roman control, “ut foret emporium terrae commune marisque” (line 24; “so it was a universal emporium by land and sea”). Unlike Bede’s metrical Vita Cuthberti (see Saints’ Lives), which provided Alcuin with many memorable phrases in addition to parts its narrative, the Historia ecclesiastica was primarily a font of information that he rewrote using other poetic sources. Quots/Cits 10-13. Two of Alcuin’s other direct borrowings in his Versus de sanctis Euboricensis ecclesiae, like the one about “fruitful Britain,” are mediated by the Historia ecclesiastica from other poetic sources. In discussing Pelagius and the Pelagian heresy (I.x), Bede quoted six couplets by PROSPER OF AQUITAINE, one of which contained the phrase “aequorei … Britanni” (ed. Lapidge 2010 1.54), which Alcuin then used in the context of Gregory the Great’s mission to the English (line 88). Similarly, Alcuin adapted a line from Cædwalla’s epitaph, “mira fides regis, clementia maxima Christi” (V.vii; ed. 2.352; “great the king’s faith; Christ’s mercy greater still,” trans.

158 

BEDE – PART 1

Colgrave and Mynors 1969 p 471) to fit the chaste marriage of Ecgfrith and Æthelthryth: “virginis alma fides, regis patientia mira!” (line 760; “how pure was her faith, how wondrous his patience!”). Finally, a less dramatic change in context occurs when Alcuin used Gregory’s answer to Augustine (I.xxvii) that the English clergy should follow the practice of the early fathers (“none of them said that anything he possessed was his own, but they had all things in common”; ed. 1.106; trans. p 81) to explain Bosa’s rule of the See of York (lines 869-70). Lapidge (2010 1.329) notes that Bede had first used the passage in which this clause appears in the prose Vita Cuthberti (ed. Colgrave 1940 p 208, lines 17-23) and that the passage also occurs in Historia ecclesiastica IV.xxv (ed. 2.300). Quots/Cits 14-16 and Refs 2-3. To enumerate Alcuin’s more general uses of the Historia ecclesiastica in his Versus de sanctis Euboricensis ecclesiae would require retelling much of early Northumbrian history. Indeed his explicit comment about the Historia ecclesiastica at the end of his account of the miracles of John of Beverley applies more broadly to his use of this source (ed. and trans. Godman 1982 p 95, lines 1207-09): I have related only what Bede the master laid down with unquestionable accuracy in his historical account of the English peoples and their deeds from their first beginnings.

Godman notes here that, “with one possible exception (vv. 1291-1318) Alcuin from this point ceases to draw on the HE, which closes in the year 731.” The exception is his account of Bede’s own life, drawn mainly from Historia ecclesiastica V.xxiv, with one passage about CEOLFRITH’s death taken from the Historia abbatum. According to Alcuin, at age seven Bede entered the monastery of Jarrow through the actions of his parents (lines 1293-94). While the age is from the Historia ecclesiastica V.xxiv, Bede specified that it was his kinsmen who guided this decision (“cura propinquorum”; ed. Lapidge 2010 2.480) and he did not specify Jarrow, which had yet to be founded. Alcuin also adapted Bede’s comment that “it has always been my delight to learn or to teach or to write” (V.xxiv, lines 117-18; ed. 2. 480; trans. Colgrave and Mynors 1969 p 567). Finally, Alcuin used Bede’s list of his own works (V.xxiv, lines 126-82; ed. 2.480-84) to praise him as an author (lines 1306-12): This famous scholar wrote many works, unravelling the mysterious volumes of Holy Scripture, and composed a handbook on the art of metre. He also wrote with marvellous clarity a book on time,

Histories

159

containing the courses, places, times, and laws of the stars. He was the author in lucid prose of books on history, and the composer of many poems in metrical style … .

This list may augment our understanding of which books are meant by Alcuin’s later reference to “Beda magister” (line 1547) in his catalogue of the books that he received from Ælberht (ML1.7), or at least which he found most valuable. Quots/Cits 17. In lines 167-68 of De clade Lindisfarnensis monasterii (Carmen 9; ed. MGH PLAC 1.229-35), Alcuin referred briefly to a miracle of Aidan, bishop of Lindisfarne, related in Historia ecclesiastica III.xvi (ed. Lapidge 2010 2.74). Although in solitary prayer on Farne, the saint seeing smoke recognised that the Mercian king Penda was attempting to burn the “royal city called after the royal queen Bebbe” (trans. Colgrave and Mynors 1969 p 263), and so prayed to God, who answered his prayers by turning the direction of the wind. Quots/Cits 18-20 and Refs 4. In a letter to Offa (ed. Levison 1946 pp 245-46) explaining how to proceed when one of the two archbishops in his kingdom had died, Alcuin referred to chapters 17 and 18 of book 2 of the Historia ecclesiastica, and drew on passages from book 1, chapter 29, as well as book 2, chapter 18. As Wilhelm Levison explains (p 245), Alcuin pointed out “that the Pope, when he set up two metropolitan sees in seventh-century England, intended to make it possible for an archbishop elect after the death of his predecessor to be consecrated by the surviving metropolitan.” Since “Lichfield had been made a metropolitan see at the cost of Canterbury in 788,” Alcuin’s letter was probably written following archbishop Jaenberht of Canterbury’s death in 792 (12 August) and Ethelhard’s consecration in 793 (21 July). Quots/Cits 21-54. In discussing the composition and sources of the Old English Martyrology, Christine Rauer (2013 pp 1-4) considers Lapidge’s (2005b pp 66-69) suggestion that the martyrologist worked from a collection of Latin abstracts compiled by Acca of Hexham. She writes that in a personal communication Lapidge adds the Historia ecclesiastica to the texts that Acca might have used to make the intermediary text (p 4 note 14). Rauer concludes: “it is important to bear in mind that the sources identified for the Old English text … could have been used directly or indirectly by the martyrologist” (p 4). The correspondences listed above and considered in the following discussion rely on Rauer’s edition as well as her entries in Fontes Anglo-Saxonici, changing her references from Colgrave and Mynors (1969), whose translation will still be used throughout, to Lapidge (2010).

160 

BEDE – PART 1

As mentioned in the headnote, M.L.W. Laistner (1943 pp 103-11) has called attention to the many extracts from the Historia ecclesiastica, which might underlie particular entries in the Martyrology. Our assumption is that if the martyrologist mentioned Bede in an entry, he worked from the Historia ecclesiastica as a whole; if he did not, he used either an extract or an adaptation of part of Bede’s work. In the cases where we have extracts corresponding to entries in this work, that is for Alban, Oswald, Aidan, Fursa, and Æthelthryth, we have considered the evidence in separate discussions following this main entry. In cases where our only evidence of separate extracts on particular saints is the Martyrology, the material (Columba, All Saints, and Hild) is treated in this main entry. Quots/Cits 21-25, 46, and 54; and Refs 5. Following the identification of the date of Chad’s feast (ed. and trans. Rauer 2013 p 60, line 1 and p 61; see Ceadda in ACTA SANCTORUM), which corresponds to the end of Bede’s narrative since it is based on the saint’s death (Historia ecclesiastica IV.iii; ed. Lapidge 2010 2.184), the martyrologist identified his source: “And Bede the scholar wrote about his miracle and life in the books about the English.” Overlooking Chad’s earlier appointment to the see of Northumbria in place of Wilfrid (III.xxviii) and his reconsecration by Theodore (IV.ii), he related, as Bede explained in IV.iii, that “the archbishop took Chad in the north, in the Monastery of Lastingham” to serve as bishop for the Mercians, Middle Angles, and the “people of Lindsey” (ed. p 60, lines 2-4). In then describing the saint’s death, he changed one detail: the angels’ song that Owine hears occurs when Chad is led to heaven rather than when the angels first come to announce his death to him (ed. p 60, lines 4-6). In this context, he also related that “the hermit St Ecgberht told Abbot Higebald that Bishop Cedd’s soul had come from heaven with a host of angels, and had fetched his brother’s soul to heaven” (ed. p 60, lines 6-8; see Cross 1982 p 24 for the identification of Ecgberht as a hermit). This story, also from Historia ecclesiastica IV.iii, interested the martyrologist since he retold it in his account of Cedd and included an entry on Higebald. Again, relying on Historia ecclesiastica IV.iii, the entry concludes by noting Chad’s burial in the monastery of Lichfield (ed. p 60, lines 8-9). Having selected one chapter of Bede’s work, the martyrologist adapted the material into an effective entry. Quots/Cits 26-27. Most of the entry on Cuthbert in the Old English Martyrology (ed. and trans. Rauer 2013 pp 68-69) derives, according to Rauer (see also her entries in Fontes Anglo-Saxonici), from Bede’s prose Vita Cuthberti. She notes, however, that “further, minor, parallels” can be found in Bede, Historia ecclesiastica IV.xxv-xxx, enumerating “his office, his feastdays, his

Histories

161

area of activity.” She adds that his office and feast day could also derive from Bede’s Martyrology. The prose Vita does not record when Cuthbert died; 20 March is specified in Bede’s Martyrology and in Historia ecclesiastica IV.xxvii (ed. Lapidge 2010 2.308). Moreover, the term “Transhumbrentium” (ed. Rauer 2013 p 68, line 2), which does not appear in the sources Rauer cites, was used by Bede in Historia ecclesiastica III.xiv (“Transhumbranae gentis partem”; ed. 2.66) and in Historia abbatum I.iv (“Transhumbranae regionis regem”; ed. Grocock and Wood 2013 p 30, line 10). Quots/Cits 28 and Refs 6. The martyrologist reduced Bede’s detailed account of John of Beverley healing a man unable to speak (ed. Lapidge 2010 2.332-34) to a single statement: “he gave speech to a dumb man” (ed. and trans. Rauer 2013 pp 100-01). He then referred to many similar stories that Bede recounted in the following chapters: “and his miracles are written down in the books called Historia anglorum.” Quots/Cits 29-30 and Refs 7. The martyrologist concluded his brief entry on Augustine of Canterbury (see Augustinus Cantuariensis in ACTA SANCTORUM), “And all his journeys to Britain and his religious teaching are described in the history of the English, that is in the Historia anglorum” (ed. and trans. Rauer 2013 pp 108-09). In Fontes Anglo-Saxonici, Rauer identifies Historia ecclesiastica II.ii, lines 23-32 (ed. Lapidge 2010 1.182) as the certain direct source for the statement that “his miracle was that he gave sight to a blind man”; in Bede’s narrative, it was with this miracle that Augustine proved his superiority over the British bishops. She considers Augustine’s epitaph, recorded in II.iii (ed. 1.190), the probable multiple source (with other material) for the entry’s opening: “On the twenty-sixth of the month is the commemoration of Bishop St Augustine, who first introduced baptism here to this Britain, to the English; and his episcopal seat was in the city of Dorobernia.” Quots/Cits 31-35. Although most of the fifteen-line entry on Columba (ed. and trans. Rauer 2013 pp 114-15; see Columba Hiensis in ACTA SANCTORUM) has no known source, Rauer considers several details from its opening to be derived directly from Historia ecclesiastica III.iv and V.ix (ed. Lapidge 2010 2.24 and 2.360). The martyrologist wrote, “… the holy priest St Columba, whom the Gaels call Colum Cille; he came from the Gaels to Britain, and introduced the Picts to baptism, and constructed a monastery for them [or “himself”] on the island which is called Hii [i.e. Iona].” If taken directly from Bede, these details have been freely rearranged. Moreover, since they seem likely to occur in any discussion of Columba, and since the martyrologist did not mention the Historia ecclesiastica as his source, it seems more likely that he drew on another text.

162 

BEDE – PART 1

Quots/Cits 36 and Refs 8. In her entries in Fontes Anglo-Saxonici, Rauer considers the opening of Historia ecclesiastica I.xvii (ed. Lapidge 2010 1.74-78), which recounts Germanus’s mission to England in response to the Pelagian heresy (see Germanus Autisiodorensis in ACTA SANCTORUM), as the certain direct source for the claim about the saint in the Old English Martyrology (ed. and trans. Rauer 2013 pp 150-51), that he “came to this Britain across the sea in the days of the Britons.” In her edition, she suggests that the following comment, “and he performed many miracles both on sea and on dry land,” derives “probably” from Bede’s detailed narrative of these events in book 1, chapters 17-21. The entry in the Martyrology ends, “and his deeds are all listed in the books about the English.” Quots/Cits 37-40 and Refs 9. In Historia ecclesiastica V.x (ed. Lapidge 2010 2.362-68), Bede discussed the mission of the two Hewalds to the Continental Germanic tribes as part of his larger account of the efforts of Ecgbert (the church reformer, not the archbishop of York; see the ODNB), to convert these peoples. In his entry Hewaldi Duo in ACTA SANCTORUM, Whatley notes “several anonymous reworkings of the Bedan narrative (BHL 2804-2807d).” The only information in Fontes Anglo-Saxonici for the circulation of this material is the entry on “The Two Hewalds” in the Old English Martyrology (ed. and trans. Rauer 2013 pp 196-97). Its conclusion, “their miracles are described in the books of the English, that is in the Historia anglorum” (trans. p 197), suggests that the martyrologist worked not from an abstract but from the entire work. In any case, Bede is the ultimate source for the date of their martyrdoms (3 October), their distinguishing features (black and white; only Bede specified that this referred to their hair), and the heavenly light that shone on their bodies. J. E. Cross (1982 p 25) explains the confusion about their mission-field (Bede identified the kingdom of the Old Saxons while the martyrologist specified Frisia): “their story immediately follows that of Willibrord, who did go to Frisia (V.x), and a misunderstanding could have arisen from hasty reading.” Quots/Cits 41-42 and Refs 10. Comments at the beginnings of chapters 7 and 11 of book 4 of the Historia ecclesiastica establish that Bede composed his remarks on Æthelburh, first abbess of Barking, and Sebbi, king of the East Saxons, from a “libellus” that was “in the possession of many people” (ed. Lapidge 2010 2.200 and 212; trans. Colgrave and Mynors 1969 pp 357 and 365) but has not survived. Although the martyrologist concluded the entry on Æthelburh (ed. Rauer 2013 pp 198-99) by referring to Bede (“her miracles and those of her monastery are written down in the books of the English”), Rauer draws attention to a discrepancy – “Bede’s account, however, describes Erkenwald (and not directly his sister Æthelburh) as

Histories

163

founder of Barking” – before noting that “it cannot be ruled out that the martyrologist was also familiar” with the earlier work (p 298). In her entries in Fontes Anglo-Saxonici she lists the two correspondences included above as “probable.” In contrast, Cross (1982 p 25) considers Bede to be the source of the entry, explaining another discrepancy between the two texts – the martyrologist described Barking as “a house of virgins” while Bede indicated that it was a double monastery – to have been caused by the author summarising “without close consultation.” The first correspondence concerns the general information that Æthelburh established Barking, where many miracles happened. The second relates that “a holy virgin saw the soul of the same Æthelburh being pulled to heaven with golden chains.” Quots/Cits 43-46 and Refs 11. The five-line entry on Cedd, bishop of the East Saxons, in the Old English Martyrology (ed. and trans. Rauer 2013 pp 206-07) relies, as the martyrologist implied at its end, on the Historia ecclesiastica (ed. Lapidge 2010), mainly III.xxiii, but also for the detail of Cedd leading his brother’s soul to heaven, IV.iii. The entry notes his burial “in the northern region in the monastery of Lastingham” (ed. p 206, lines 3-4); Bede specified “ad dexteram altaris” (ed. 2.108, lines 50-51). Quots/Cits 47. The entry on All Saints (1 November) in the Old English Martyrology (ed. Rauer 2013 pp 208-09) attributes the feast to Pope Boniface, “when on that day he consecrated the house of the pagan idols which they call Pantheon as a church of St Mary and all the Christian martyrs.” In Historia ecclesiastica II.iv (ed. Lapidge 2010 1.196), Bede explained that Boniface converted the Pantheon into “a shrine for a multitude of saints” (trans. Colgrave and Mynors 1969 p 149), but did not specify when it was dedicated, or, indeed, that the feast itself “should be granted the same honour in God’s churches among Christians as … the first day of Christmas.” Moreover, the martyrologist did not refer to Bede’s History as he did in other places, and so it is unclear what role Rauer believes this text might have played in this entry. For other sources, which might include the Chronica maiora at the end of De Temporum ratione, see Rauer’s commentary and especially the article by Thomas N. Hall (2008), which she cites since it provides much of the context for considering the problem. Quots/Cits 48-53. Only half of the fifteen-line entry on Hild in the Old English Martyrology (ed. and trans. Rauer 2013 pp 216-17) can be related to passages in Historia ecclesiastica IV.xxi (ed. Lapidge 2010 2.264-74); the final seven lines, which elaborate on the vision of the saint’s soul being led to heaven, have no immediate source. Cross (1982) proposes a lost life of Hild that the martyrologist used in addition to the History; Whatley (Hilda in ACTA SANCTORUM) notes that “it is possible that the lost life was a

164 

BEDE – PART 1

reworking of Bede’s account.” In her entries in Fontes Anglo-Saxonici, Rauer considers all of the correspondences noted above to be “probable,” except for the last, which she labels “possible.” The Historia and Martyrology agree on Hild’s founding of Whitby, the names of her father and mother, her mother’s vision of daughter’s future sanctity, and the equal division of her life into thirty-three year periods of secular and religious pursuits. Quots/Cits 54 and Refs 12. As noted in the discussions of Chad (Quots/Cits 21-25) and Cedd (Quots/Cits 43-46), the martyrologist referred twice to an account of Cedd leading his brother’s soul to heaven. Higebald was apparently included in the Old English Martyrology (ed. Rauer 2013 pp 226-27) because of his role in this narrative. As Bede related in Historia ecclesiastica IV.iii (ed. Lapidge 2010 2.184) when a conversation between Ecgbert, “who had lived the monastic life with Chad, when they were both youths in Ireland,” and Higebald, “abbot in the province of Lindsey” who had travelled to talk with Ecgbert, turned from the general topic of saints to Bishop Chad, Ecgbert claimed to know “a man in this island, still in the flesh, who saw the soul of Chad’s brother Cedd descend from the sky with a host of angels and return to the heavenly kingdom, taking Chad’s soul with him” (trans. Colgrave and Mynors 1969 p 345). The martyrologist commented only: “Bede the scholar wrote about him in the books about the English that he led a holy and very chaste life” (ed. p 226, lines 2-3). Quots/Cits 55-60. In her survey of anonymous Old English homilies concerning saints, Jane Roberts (2000 p 436) draws particular attention to the anonymous life of Chad (B3.3.3; ed. Vleeskruyer 1953 pp 162-84): This homily is generally accorded an important position within the development of Old English prose. Behind the Chad life, it is variously argued, there lie both a lost composite Latin vita and a lost ninth-century exemplar. Vleeskruyer (1953 pp 12 and 68), demonstrating that the “stylistic and grammatical minutiae of our text prove to be in close agreement with those of the archetypal versions of [the Old English] Bede and the Dialogues,” chooses “to relate its composition to the establishment of a common medium of vernacular prose-writing before the period of King Alfred.” The Chad homily, together with the Old English Martyrology, indeed constitutes the major evidence for the existence of so early a tradition of Mercian prose, largely on the grounds that the sources established for them have not been proven later than the age of Alfred.

Citing Napier (1888; see also Bately 1988 p 118), she adds that others favour a tenth-century date of composition. Roberts’s own suggestion “is to place

Histories

165

its final compilation much at the time [Oxford, Bodleian Library] Hatton 116 was put together,” that is at the beginning of the twelfth century (NRK 333). She suggests that it “could have been drawn together with copies both of Bede and of the Old English translation open” (p 441). It should be noted, however, that the only evidence that she offers for the influence of the Old English Bede on the homily is the phrase “mid hrægle gegyrwed” (p 440 and note 49) used to describe the superstructure of the saint’s tomb, that could be connected to the homilist’s depiction of an altar alongside the place of burial. Quots/Cits 55-60. Roberts’s analysis of the first passage dealing with Chad (she refers to lines 10-19) supersedes the entries by Christine Rauer in Fontes Anglo-Saxonici; she offers, for example, a source for the homily’s claim that Alwine (Bede’s Wine) was the bishop of London. With the assertion that, when he arrived in England, Theodore “journeyed to every district, consecrating bishops in suitable places” (ed. Lapidge 2010 2.172, lines 32-33; trans. Colgrave and Mynors 1969 p 335; see lines 15-17), the homilist began to render Bede’s narrative “fairly closely” (Roberts 2000 p 438). The first phrase, “mid þy he manegu ealond geondferde” (lines 16-17) corresponds more closely to the opening of the chapter, but the similarity in Bede’s remarks provides the homilist with a smooth transition. See also Roberts’s following discussion as well as the notes in Vleeskruyer’s edition for analysis of several passages that the homilist changed. Aside from the opening and closing, which are adapted from SULPICIUS SEVERUS’s Vita Martini, the text shows little evidence of modification for oral presentation, suggesting perhaps that the central portion was originally a translation of an extract of the Historia ecclesiastica. Quots/Cits 61-293. The most detailed analysis of the influence of the Historia ecclesiastica on the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle is that of Susan Irvine in her entries in Fontes Anglo-Saxonici: these have provided much of the information in the Quots/Cits listed above as well as their structure. This starting point is, however, not only convenient but also useful since her work, which was carried out in conjunction with her edition of manuscript E (ed. Irvine 2004), focuses on the more complete version of the northern recension, which was derived from the “common stock” of the Chronicle composed in Wessex in the early 890s (see Keynes 2005 p 16). Irvine (p xxxvii) writes of the northern recension, This recension is distinguished from other versions of the Chronicle mainly by its additional material relating to northern regions of AngloSaxon England. For the annals up to 731 this material has largely been drawn from Bede’s Historia Ecclesiastica.

166 

BEDE – PART 1

The northern recension is also characterised by a series of annals from 732 to 802 “drawn from a set or sets of Latin Northumbrian annals compiled at or near York” (Irvine 2004 p xxxvii; see also Keynes 2005 p 15, B33, who refers to them as the “York Annals” or the “First Set of Northern Annals”; in contrast, Hart 2003 2.227-305 argues that manuscript B played a more central role in the later dissemination of the Chronicle). Recognising these two factors (if not all the conclusions worked out since his work was first published), Charles Plummer (1892-99 2.lxxi) offers a plausible explanation of the origin of the northern recension: We may then, I think, assume that a copy of the Saxon Chronicle in its southern form (extending, it would seem, to about 892) was sent to some northern monastery, probably Ripon, and there fell into the hands of some one who conceived the idea of enriching it, partly by drawing more largely on the text of Bede, and partly by incorporating with it a translation of the Latin Northumbrian Annals extending to 806.

In this context, it seems only fitting to recall Plummer’s comments about the origin of the later annals themselves (2.lxix): It will be noticed that these Northumbrian annals begin just where Bede’s H.E. ends; and there can be no doubt that they were intended to form a continuation to Bede’s chronological epitome [Historia ecclesiastica V.xxiv, ed. Lapidge 2010 2.472-78]. The continuations of that epitome, which are found in later MSS. of Bede, and the fact that in several MSS. additions and insertions are made in the epitome itself, show how readily that epitome might become the basis of a regular Chronicle. In this sense also, as well as in others, Bede is the father of English history.

Quots/Cits 61-293. In reviewing the opinions of Plummer and others, Janet Bately (1979) provides a detailed overview of the influence of the Historia ecclesiastica on the “common stock.” While recognising that there is much in the Chronicle that is not directly dependent on Bede, she establishes that the summary of events in book 5, chapter 24 is one of the main sources from which the West-Saxon compilers worked. She concludes, It would seem therefore that the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle’s debt to Bede is a complex one. On the one hand there is clear evidence that one of its compilers must have had before him a version of Bede’s Epitome, the chronological summary at the end of the Historia ecclesiastica which he

Histories

167

incorporated into the chronicle with few modifications. The Epitome uses A.D. dating even for its earliest entries, and it is quite possibly because of this that the Chronicle adopts A.D. dating for its annals dealing with “world history,” although the normal custom seems to have been to retain the dating according to regnal years or annus mundi of writers like Jerome, Rufinus and Isidore. There are also two or three isolated entries with features which suggest possible knowledge at first or second hand of individual passages of the body of the Historia ecclesiastica. On the other hand there is no good reason to suppose that the compilers of the Chronicle consulted the Historia ecclesiastica as a whole in their search for information as the author of the “northern recension” seems to have done. Why they should have failed to do so – whether because of inadequate Latinity, lack of opportunity, the availability of the Old English translation, or simply because it contained little that was relevant to West Saxon history – will probably never be known.

On a practical level, this understanding of the development of the Chronicle has led us to include evidence of the use of the Historia ecclesiastica in the “common stock” by referring to the A manuscript (ed. Bately 1986), which in turn has led to a reassignment of many of the correspondences Irvine recorded in Fontes Anglo-Saxonici between E and the Historia ecclesiastica to this version. Quots/Cits 61-293. A third manuscript of the Chronicle, F (ed. Baker 2000), must also be introduced here since it is well known that its compiler also returned to the Historia ecclesiastica (as well as to the chronicle in chapter 66 of De temporum ratione) in composing this bilingual version of the northern recension. While the Latin in this text at times translates the Old English, it often corresponds so closely to Bede’s that it must be evidence for the direct use of his text. This conclusion is confirmed by cases in which the compiler substituted another passage from the Historia ecclesiastica in place of the one translated in his main source. Some uncertainty inevitably remains. For example, is “hic passus est sanctus Albanus” (F, anno 286; ed. Baker p 14, line 20) a translation of “her þrowode sanctus Albanus” (line 19), or a return to the opening of book 1, chapter 7 of the Historia ecclesiastica: “Siquidem in ea passus est sanctus Albanus” (ed. Lapidge 2010 1.40; see below for other issues raised by this annal)? In an effort to record all the possible evidence, we will consider this example to be a return to Bede’s original. There are, thankfully, few cases that are this unclear. Still common, however, is uncertainty about the exact point where the compiler of F stopped translating the Old English of the Chronicle and began copying the Latin

168 

BEDE – PART 1

of the Historia ecclesiastica. For example, his Old English text describing the arrival of the Picts in the British Isles offered, “þa gelamp hit þæt Pihtas coman suðan of Scithian mid langum scipum na manegum, 7 ða coman ærost on norð Ybernion upp” (ed. Baker p 1, lines 5-7). His corresponding Latin read, “contigit etiam tunc temporis Pictos uenire de Scithia cum paucis longis nauibus et, circumagente flatu uentorum” (ed. Baker p 1, lines 35-37). Until the last phrase, which is certainly from Historia ecclesiastica I.i, line 62, the Latin in F seems to be a direct translation of the Old English; “contigit,” however, appears in the original, as does “longis nauibus.” Since the user will be directed back to Bede’s text, in this and similar cases we record the quotation as beginning where it is more certain that it did. Quots/Cits 61-293. Our general assumption – that material from Bede in the “common stock” (represented by A) passed into the northern recension (represented by E), where it was augmented by new information from the Historia ecclesiastica, and that F then used Bede directly for some of his Latin – is challenged dramatically by what we know of F’s interventions into the text of A: he not only had access to this manuscript, but also made changes in it, both erasing and adding material (see Bately 1986 pp xl and cxxv and Baker 2000 pp xx-xxii). See the introductions to Peter S. Baker’s and Irvine’s (2004) editions for detailed discussions of the relationships among the various manuscripts of the Chronicle, and see the discussion of annal 565 below for an example of an entry that may have been composed by F directly from Bede, which then made its way into other versions of the Chronicle. If the compiler of F gathered the material in 565, the Quots/ Cits listed above for E should be reassigned to him. Similar revisions may well have happened at other stages in the development of the Chronicle. One can fully understand why Dumville and Simon Keynes, the general editors of the Collaborative Edition of the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle, decided not to include information about sources until reliable editions of each manuscript were available. In an age of electronic publication with its advantage of timely corrections and revisions, the correspondences listed above and discussed below are offered as part of an ongoing attempt to assess the role of the Historia ecclesiastica in shaping the early annals of the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle. Quots/Cits 65, 68, 72, 74, 80, 82, 88, 92-93, 102, 104, 106, 109, 115, 117, 121, 123, 126, 129, 146-47, 151, 160-61, 170, 172, 180, 187, 191, 195, 204, 214, 216, 219, 222-24, 227, 232, 237-38, 246-47, 250, 260-61, 268, 271, 274, 282, 287, and 292. As Bately (1979 p 237) notes, the most compelling evidence for the dependence of the “common stock” (represented in the list above by manuscript A) on the epitome in Historia ecclesiastica V.xxiv (ed. Lapidge 2010 2.472-78) is

Histories

169

that its compiler “used every annal in the version available to him with the exception of 597, a total of 48 entries.” She observes (p 247 note 25) that two annals, 697 and 698, are both missing in the copy of the Historia ecclesiastica in Cotton Tiberius C. ii (MSS 6) and that anno 697 does not appear in the copies in Hatton 43 or the Kassel manuscript (MSS 10 and 12): all three descend from the Canterbury house copy and so this evidence indicates the type of the manuscript that the compiler used. Concerning 597, she explains, “since the annal immediately preceding (596) deals with the sending of Augustine by Gregory, the omission of this entry, referring to Augustine’s arrival in Kent, could have been deliberate” (p 247 note 26). Of the compiler’s use of Bede’s epitome, which she abbreviates as “BEp,” she writes, “he followed the wording of BEp closely, divergences from his source that do not merely involve minor changes of construction mainly taking the form of the omission of trivial or repetitious detail in the Latin” (p 237). It should also be noted that the correspondence above for anno 596 refers not to A but to C because, as Whitelock explains in a note in her translation of the Chronicle (EHD p 158 note 7), the entry in A “is dated 595 and written in a later hand over an erasure which probably had the same statement dated 596.” In the case of anno 670, the epitome accounts only for the opening information, the death of Oswiu; the rest of this entry in A comes from the main text of the Historia ecclesiastica. In anno 676, the material from Bede (Æthelred’s ravaging of Kent) appears after information not from the Historia ecclesiastica. While the deaths of Ecgfrith and Hlothhere recorded in the epitome do appear in anno 685, the first follows a genealogy of Cædwalla and the second a genealogy of Ecgfrith. The more detailed discussion of Cædwalla’s journey to Rome in anno 688 reflects the account earlier in book 5. Moreover, the detail from the epitome in anno 709 (Cenred’s departure to Rome) follows other information taken from earlier in the Historia ecclesiastica, where indeed it also appears. Anno 710 in A, which contains the information Bede recorded under 711, appears in a later hand. Finally, the material from the epitome in anno 731 follows other details from the Historia ecclesiastica. The evidence as a whole, however, still supports Bately’s conclusion. Quots/Cits 88-89, 102-105, 115-17, 146, 159, 168-69, 184-86, 190-91, 200, 202, 216-23, 232-33, 256, 259-60, 273-80, and 284. If the original use of either the epitome or other parts of the Historia ecclesiastica in the “common stock” accounts for the evidence in the later versions of the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle, then only its appearance in A is recorded. The annals in E, as representing the northern recension, in which this is the case are the following: 430 (Palladius/Patrick is sent to Ireland; A, following Bede, has Palladius, to

170 

BEDE – PART 1

which F has added “uel Patricius”), 538 (solar eclipse), 540 (solar eclipses), 596 (Augustine’s mission), 625 (Archbishop Justus consecrates Paulinus), 632 (Eorpwold’s baptism), 635 (Cynegils’s baptism); 636 (Cwichelm’s baptism and death; Felix preaches to the East Angles), 645 (Penda overthrows Cenwealh), 646 (Cenwealh’s baptism), 650 (Agilbert becomes bishop in Wessex), 653 (E: 652; the conversion of the Middle Angles under Peada), 657 (E: 656; Peada’s death and Wulfhere’s succession in Mercia), 660 (Agilbert becomes bishop of Paris and Wine succeeds him in Wessex), 670 (Oswiu’s death and Ecgfrith’s succession; Leuthere becomes bishop of the West Saxons), 673 (the death of Egbert of Kent, the synod of Hertford, and the founding of Ely by Æthelthryth), 675 (the death of Wulfhere and the succession of Æthelred), 676 (Æthelred devastates Kent), 680 (the synod of Hatfield and the death of Hild), 694 (Wihtred becomes king of Kent); 703 (the death of Hædde, bishop of Winchester), 704 (Æthelred becomes a monk, leaving Mercia to Cenred), 716 (on the reigns of Osred, Cenred, and Osric in Northumbria; and Ceolred and Æthelbald in Mercia), and 728 (E: 726; Ine travels to Rome). In these annals, the Latin in F shows a return to the Historia ecclesiastica for the years 430, 538, 540, 596, 673, 680, and 716. Quots/Cits 72-73, 106-108, 118-20, 187-89, 192-94, 250-51, 265-72, and 282-83. Less certain are annals in which it appears that E, representing the northern recension of the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle, preserves Bedan material from the “common stock” (as exemplified by A), but adds some new details drawn from the Historia ecclesiastica. In these cases, the shared material is noted only with reference to A. For example, A and E record (with slightly different wording) that in 167 Eleutherius became Pope, an office he held for fifteen years, and during this time Lucius, king of Britain, asked that he might be made a Christian, a request that was granted. The compiler of the “common stock” took this information from the epitome (ed. Lapidge 2010 2. 472, V.xxiv, lines 10-13). E then adds, “And they remained in the true faith until Diocletian’s reign” (trans. EHD p. 151), a detail drawn from I.iv, lines 7-9 (ed. 1.336). Here the compiler of F translated the vernacular source. Similar are 547 (A and E: “Ida, from whom the royal family of the Northumbrians took its rise, succeeded to the kingdom”; E: “And he reigned twelve years”; trans. p 156), 601 (A: Gregory sent the pallium and teachers to Augustine, and Paulinus converted Edwin; F re-establishes Bede’s point that Paulinus was among the teachers), 651 (A: “In this year King Oswine was slain and Bishop Aidan died”; E: 650, “In this year King Oswiu had King Oswine slain on 20 August, and twelve days later Bishop Aidan died on 31 August”; trans. p 164), 654 (A and E [653]: “In this year King Anna was slain”; E: “And in this year Archbishop Honorius died on 30 September”; trans. p 164), 690 (A: “In

Histories

171

this year Archbishop Theodore died”; E adds, “He had been bishop for 22 years, and he was buried in Canterbury”; trans. p 169), 709 (A and E: the death of Aldhelm and Forthhere’s succession to his bishopric; the succession of Ceolred in Mercia and the departure of Cenred and Offa to Rome; E adds, “And Cenred was there until the end of his life. And that same year Bishop Wilfrid died in Oundle, and his body was taken to Ripon. He was bishop for 45 years, and King Ecgfrith previously drove him to Rome”; trans. p 170), 710 (A and E: “Ealdorman Brihtferth fought against the Picts”; E: “Acca, Wilfrid’s priest, succeeded to the bishopric which Wilfrid held”; trans. p 170; A is in a later hand, but the reading also appears in C and G), and 725 (A and E: “Wihtred, king of the people of Kent, died”; E adds the month and day and the length of his reign; trans. p 172). In these annals, the Latin in F shows a return to the Historia ecclesiastica for the years 547, 601, and 653. Quots/Cits 65-70, 74-76, 80-86, 92-100, 121-41, 151-58, 160-67, 170-83, 195-98, 204-11, 214-15, 224-31, 246-49, 261-64, and 287-90. Most difficult to assess are annals in the northern recension of the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle that appear to have been inspired by an entry in the “common stock,” but which rewrite the material drawing heavily on other passages in the Historia ecclesiastica. For example, the annal in A for 60 BC derives from the epitome (V.xxiv, lines 3-5, ed. Lapidge 2010 2.472; trans. Colgrave and Mynors 1969 p 561): In the sixtieth year before the incarnation of the Lord, Gaius Julius Caesar was the first Roman to make war on Britain. He was victorious but was unable to obtain control of it all.

Although there is, of course, some overlap, the entry in E relies more heavily on Historia ecclesiastica I.ii (ed. 1.30-32), mentioning, for example, Caesar’s initial campaign with eighty ships, his return with 600 more. Indeed, in her entries in Fontes Anglo-Saxonici, Irvine mentions only I.ii, considering it a certain direct source. The Latin in F, however, returns to Bede’s epitome in V.xxiv. The following annals too reflect the same situation: 46 (A: Claudius’s campaign in Britain), 189 (A: Severus’s seventeen-year reign as emperor and his dike in Britain), 381 (A: emperor Maximus’s British birth; ), 409 (A: the sack of Rome), 449 (A: Hengist and Horsa are invited into Britain by Vortigern), 603 (A: the battle at Degsastan), 604 (A: the conversion of the East Saxons), 606 (A: the death of Gregory; E, 605), 616 (A: the death of Æhelberht and the succession of Eadbald), 627 (A: the baptism of Edwin), 633 (A: the death of Edwin and the return of Paulinus to Kent); 634 (A: Birinus preaches to the West Saxons), 640 (A: the death of Eadbald; E: 639), 642 and 643 (A: the death of Oswald king of Northumbria, the

172 

BEDE – PART 1

succession of Cenwealh king of the West Saxons, and the building of a church at Winchester; E includes this material in 641), 644 (A: the death of Paulinus), 655 (A: the death of Penda and the conversion of the Mercians; E: 654), 664 (A: eclipse, the death of Eorcenberht, the departure of Colman, a great pestilence, the consecration of Ceadda and Wilfrid, and the death of Deusdedit; Baker [2000 p lv] identifies this as one of the annals in which the compiler of F returned to the Historia ecclesiastica for the wording of his Latin), 668 (A: consecration of Theodore), 678 (A: a comet appears and Ecgfrith drives Wilfrid from his bishopric), 679 (A: Ælfwine was slain and Æthelthryth died), 688 (Cædwalla’s journey to Rome, baptism, and death; and Ine’s succession; here A and E have used the same passages and the differences between them are minimal), 705 (A: the death of Aldfrith), and 729 (A: a comet appears and St Egbert dies). In these annals, the Latin in F shows a return to the Historia ecclesiastica for the years 46, 188, 381, 409, 604, 627, 644, 677, and 729. Quots/Cits 61-64. Recorded above is also some material from the Historia ecclesiastica that appears exclusively in the northern recension of the AngloSaxon Chronicle, as represented by either E or F, a situation perhaps best illustrated by its new preface, which, as Whitelock notes (EHD p 148), is based on Historia ecclesiastica I.i (ed. Lapidge 2010 1.22-28). The preface in A, a WestSaxon regnal list and genealogy running from the arrival of Cerdic and his son Cynric (dated to 494) to the time of Alfred (for a discussion and edition, see Dumville 1986), overlaps with material in the Historia ecclesiastica in a few places, for example in noting that the West Saxons converted to Christianity under Cynegils (see III.vii, ed. 2.36), but most of its information is obviously independent of Bede. Omitting this material, the northern recension as represented by E begins with Bede’s statement that “the island of Britain is 800 miles long and 200 miles broad” (trans. EHD p 148) and then focuses on the arrivals of the first three language groups, the British, the Picts, and the Scots (Irish). As noted above, the Latin in F at first translates the Old English, but, with the arrival of the Picts, shifts to the Historia ecclesiastica, providing additional details about the Picts’ interactions with the Irish but not including the subsequent Irish migration to Scotland. Quots/Cits 77-79, 87, 90-91, 113-14, 117, 142-45, 199, 212-13, 234-35, 252-55, 257-58, 281, and 285-86. Material from the Historia ecclesiastica unique to the northern recension of the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle appears in the following annals: 286 (the martyrdom of Alban; F may reflect Bede’s Latin), 379 (E: Gratian’s rule; Irvine considers Bede a possible source, noting that he assigns the beginning of Gratian’s reign to 377), 423 (E: Theodosius succeeds), 443 (E: the Britons’ unsuccessful petition for help from Rome), 583

Histories

173

(E: Mauricius succeeds), 592 (E: Gregory becomes pope), 597 (Augustine’s arrival is only in F, and so the Old English annal here is a translation of the Latin), 617 (E: the death of Æthelfrith), 624 (E: the death of Mellitus), 655 (E: Deusdedit becomes archbishop of Canterbury), 667 (E: Oswiu and Egbert send Wigheard to Rome to be consecrated archbishop of Canterbury, but he dies shortly after arriving; Baker [2000 p lv] considers this one of the passages in which F returned to Bede’s Latin, but the correspondences are slight), 681 (Tunberht becomes bishop of Hexham and Trumwine bishop of the Picts), 684 (Ecgfrith’s campaign in Ireland), 692 (Berhtwold elected archbishop of Canterbury while Wihtred and Swæfheard ruled in Kent), 693 (the consecrations of Berhtwold and Tobias; a reference to the vision of Dryhthelm, although E identifies him as Brihthelm), 697 (the murder of Queen Osthryth), 699 (the murder of Berhtred [Briht, in the Chronicle], an ealdorman of the king of Northumbria), 721 (John of Beverley), and 727 (the death of Tobias and the consecration of Ealdwulf). Quots/Cits 71. Other annals in the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle present other problems. Irvine records Historia ecclesiastica I.iv, lines 1-3 (ed. Lapidge 2010 1.36) as the certain direct source for annal 155 in E: “Her Marcus Antonius 7 Aurelius his broðer fengon to rice” (ed. Irvine 2004 p 8, line 15); Bede had dated the event to 156. For the year 137, the Old English in F reads, “her Antonius agann to rixienne” and the Latin, “Antonius incipit regnare et regnauit .xxi. annos” (ed. Baker 2000 p 10, lines 10-11). Baker lists this annal as taken from Norman chronicles, although he notes that the detail of the length of Antonius’s reign could have come from De temporum ratione. Quots/Cits 101. In her entries in Fontes Anglo-Saxonici, Irvine considers Historia ecclesiastica I.xv, lines 30-32 (ed. Lapidge 2010 1.70) to be a possible source for anno 455 (she specifies E but the material is shared by the other manuscripts of the Chronicle and so listed above as A; ed. Bately 1986 p 18), which mentions Horsa’s death in that year. The other details, however, are not from Bede. Quots/Cits 109-12. The original annal for 565 in A has been erased; Bately (1986 p 23) prints it from manuscript G. The wording and syntax differ slightly from C, but the content is essentially the same: “In this year the priest Columba came from Ireland to Britain, to instruct the Picts, and built a monastery on the island of Iona” (trans. EHD p 156). The new annal in A, written by F, corresponds to E. It records Æthelbert’s fifty-three-year reign, Gregory’s role in converting the English, Columba’s mission to the Picts, the founding of Iona, and the previous conversion of the South Picts by Ninian and his founding of Whithorn. It concludes: “Now in Iona there must always be an abbot, not a bishop, and all the bishops of the Scots

174 

BEDE – PART 1

must be subject to him, for Columba was an abbot, not a bishop” (trans. p 157). Citing Plummer (1896 2.133) and the annal in F for 995, Baker (2000 p xxxv) comments, “this is a strange distortion of what Bede says,” arguing further that “it answers to the F-scribe’s interest in asserting the supremacy of monks over secular clergy, and it has particular relevance to the primacy controversy that preoccupied Canterbury after 1070 in that it asserts the primacy of a monastic establishment.” His larger point is that this annal may have been written by F and inserted not only into A, but also into a copy of the northern recension, which was then copied into E. Irvine (2004 pp xliv-xlvi), however, considers the evidence “by no means clear-cut.” She offers an explanation for the annal’s final comment that makes it appear less unusual and, pointing to Geffrei Gaimar’s later L’Estoire des Engleis, she argues that “the most straightforward explanation would be that the annal for 565 was part of the northern recension Chronicle.” Quots/Cits 147-50. The “common stock” annal for 626 begins with the baptism of Eanflæd, daughter of Edwin, taken from the epitome in the Historia ecclesiastica (V.xxiv, lines 48-49, ed. Lapidge 2010 2.474) but then turns to Penda, noting that he “held his kingdom for 30 years and was fifty years old when he succeeded to the kingdom” and providing a genealogy (trans. EHD p 161). The connection between Eanflæd and Penda may have been suggested by Historia ecclesiastica II.xx, which notes that Penda supported Edwin at the battle of Hatfield Chase in 633, identifying this as the beginning of his twenty-two-year reign, and that in the resulting political turmoil, Eanflæd was taken by Paulinus back to Kent. There are, however, obvious discrepancies, which might be better explained by assuming other sources for the annal; see for example, Nicholas Brooks (1989 p 166). In any case, E places Eanflæd’s baptism in the context of the events that would lead to Edwin’s conversion, an attempt on his life, which happened on the same day as the birth of Eanflæd, and his resulting promise that he would “give his daughter to God, if he would by his prayers obtain from God that he might destroy his enemy” (trans. p 161). The annal then details his subsequent success in Wessex (in Fontes Anglo-Saxonici Irvine notes that Bede did not specify his destruction of five kings), his baptism, and his establishing Paulinus as bishop of York. It ends by recalling the “common stock”: “And in this year Penda succeeded to the kingdom and reigned for 30 years” (trans. p 161). Quots/Cits 201. Anno 658 of the “common stock” records a battle between Cenwealh and the Britons at Peonnan, an event not discussed by Bede. The rest of the material, the reason for Cenwealh’s exile, can be paralleled in Historia ecclesiastica III.vii, which Irvine considers a probable source.

Histories

175

Quots/Cits 203. In her entries in Fontes Anglo-Saxonici, Irvine identifies one detail in anno 661, which appears in both the “common stock” and the northern recension, as “probably” derived from Historia ecclesiastica IV.xiii, lines 9-14 (ed. Lapidge 2010 2.220-22): “As a token of his adoption Wulfhere gave him [Æthelwealh] two provinces, namely the Isle of Wight and the province of the Meonware in the land of the West Saxons” (trans. Colgrave and Mynors 1969 p 373). The Chronicle states: “And Wulfhere, the son of Penda, harried the Isle of Wight, and gave the people of the Isle of Wight to Æthelwold, king of the South Saxons, because Wulfhere had stood sponsor to him at baptism” (trans. EHD p 165). Quots/Cits 236 and 239-45. The one clause in the annal for 685 that Irvine (in her entries in Fontes Anglo-Saxonici on E) does not provide a source for, “And in that year, Ceadwalla began to contend for the kingdom” (trans. EHD p 167), derives from the “common stock.” Bede referred to this event in IV.xiv, lines 86-97 (ed. Lapidge 2010 2.232), but without providing a date. Of this passage, J.M. Wallace-Hadrill (1988 p 155) remarks, “the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle is a better guide to West Saxon history than is HE.” Quots/Cits 256. In her entries in Fontes Anglo-Saxonici, Irvine considers Historia ecclesiastica IV.xxiv, lines 56-57 (ed. Lapidge 2010 2.294) to be a possible source for the statement in annal 694 (she specifies E, but it is part of the “common stock”) that Wihtred succeeded to the kingdom of Kent. Quots/Cits 294-97. In chapter 4 of his De rebus gestis Ælfredi (ed. Stevenson 1959 p 5), ASSER referred to London as belonging to Essex, a remark that does not represent conditions in the ninth century, when it was part of Mercia. William H. Stevenson (1959 p 177 note 4, 4) suggests that the statement “seems to be based” on Historia ecclesiastica II.iii, lines 3-6 (ed. Lapidge 2010 1.188), a possibility supported by the translators of this work, Keynes and Lapidge (1983 p 231 note 16). Lapidge (2003a pp 38-39) has found further evidence of Asser’s use of the Historia ecclesiastica. The first phrase, “docibilis memoriter retinebat” (ed. p 20; “he readily retained them in his memory,” trans. p 75), appears in the context of the young Alfred’s love of English poetry, recalling “cuncta quae dormiens cantauerat memoriter retinuit” (IV.xxii, lines 40-41, ed. 2.278), which of course occurs in the story of Cædmon’s Hymn: “he remembered all that he had sung while asleep” (trans. Colgrave and Mynors 1969 p 417). While similar phrases do appear in works perhaps most notably by Augustine, the context here makes Lapidge’s connection attractive indeed. The second, “bonis moribus instituere et literis imbuere” (ed. p 60; “[giving] … instruction in all virtuous behaviour and tutelage in literacy,” trans. p 91), is used by Asser to describe Alfred’s training of the noble youths brought up in the royal household. It recalls

176 

BEDE – PART 1

Bede’s description of HADRIAN, abbot of St Peter’s, Canterbury, “sacris litteris diligenter imbutus, monasterialibus simul et ecclesiasticis disciplinis institutus” (IV.i, lines 22-24, ed. 2.166; “well versed in the holy Scriptures, trained both in monastic and ecclesiastical ways,” trans. p 329). A search of “institu* + imbu*” in CETEDOC reveals that Bede indeed paired these verbs often and that BOETHIUS’s De consolatione Philosophiae’s “quod tuis imbuti disciplinis, tuis instituti moribus sumus” (ed. CCSL 94.11; I.iv prose, line 130) is another possible source for Asser’s wording. The third, “divino fultus adminiculo” (ed. p 77; “sustained by divine assistance,” trans. p 101), used of Alfred, echoes Bede’s “regio fultus amminiculo” (I.xxxiii, lines 2-3, ed. 1.154), used of Augustine of Canterbury, aided by Æthelberht to found Christ Church, Canterbury. Quots/Cits 298-307, 309, 370, 373, and 375-76. Bede’s use of “Albion” to designate the island of Britain in the opening line of the Historia ecclesiastica (ed. Lapidge 2010 1.22), a practice found in classical Greek authors but adapted by him from PLINY’s Historia naturalis IV.xxx (ed. Jan and Mayhoff 1875-1906 1.348; see Lapidge 2003b pp 258-59), was in turn taken up, as Julia Crick (2008 pp 158-70) has demonstrated, at the time of the Benedictine Reform. It appears first in charters of 946 and 949 (S 509 and S 513; ed. esawyer.org.uk; all charters are cited from this source) that Keynes (1994 pp 182-83) discusses as precursors to the “Dunstan B” charters and which he associates with Dunstan himself. In the first, Edmund is called “rex et primicerius totius Albionis” and in the second Eadred is styled “Albionis monarchus et primicerius.” The first of the “Dunstan B” charters, S 555, dated 951, “is said to have been written at the command of Abbot Dunstan (‘Ego Dunstan abbas consensi et scribere iussi’)” (Keynes 1994 p 185); in it, Eadred is identified as “rex primicerius tocius Albionis,” a formula also found in S 726, S 735, and S 743. Keynes, who provides a full list of the charters in this group (pp 173-79), notes that while many were issued from Glastonbury (between 951 and 975), some were from Bath (between 956 and c. 1009), Worcester (in 958), and Abingdon (between 953 and 975); “two others appear to have been issued from elsewhere (in 967 and 975), under Dunstan’s influence as archbishop of Canterbury” (p 181). Edgar’s refoundation and grant of privileges to New Minster, Winchester in 966 (S 745; lines 30-31), written by Æthelwold (Whitelock 1970 pp 131-33), contains the phrase “totius Albionis basileus” (lines 30-31), with the substitution for “rex” probably reflecting not a source other than Bede (by way of Dunstan) for Albion but rather the author’s fondness for grecisms (see Lapidge 1993d p 189). Crick (p 165) also draws attention to two references to Albion in a coronation ordo that survives in the Sacramentary of Ratoldus (ed. Orchard

Histories

177

2005 p 49) and that may have been used by Edgar in Bath in 973. She translates the passages: “the celebrant sought blessing ‘for Thy servant, whom we elect with humble devotion in the kingdom N. of all Albion or equally of the Franks’ and charged the new king ‘that he should so nourish, instruct, defend and prepare the church of all Albion, with the peoples annexed to it.’” Similar uses appear in the works of the reformers’ followers. In his edition and translation of the Translatio et miracula S. Swithuni, Lapidge (2003b pp 258-59 note 34) links LANTFRED OF WINCHESTER’s comment that Edgar ruled “in the island which was reportedly called ‘Albion’ by the early English” to Bede’s Historia ecclesiastica, also noting one charter (S 841 from 982) that includes the phrase “totius Albionis basileus egregius.” Crick mentions similar uses of Albion in Byrhtferth’s Vita Oswaldi (ed. Lapidge 2009 pp 72 and 136); B’s Vita Dunstani (ed. Stubbs 1874 p 6) and in a prayer to Dunstan also edited by William Stubbs (p 440), which begins “O inclite confessor Christi.” This wealth of detail supports Crick’s larger point that “the ‘hegemonic’ themes so prominent in the charters of tenth-century kings project ecclesiastical as much as royal ideology”: “Insular ambition characterizes both” (p 164). Quots/Cits 308. Near the beginning of the Regularis concordia (ed. Symons and Spath 1984 pp 71-72), Æthelwold alluded to Gregory’s response, recorded in Historia ecclesiastica I.xxvii, lines 49-54 (ed. Lapidge 2010 1.108), to Augustine that he should select from the customs of the Roman and the Gaulish churches in establishing English practice. Quots/Cits 310-11. In his edition of WULFSTAN OF WINCHESTER’s Narratio metrica de Swithuno, Lapidge (2003b p 515 note on lines 457-65) points out that a passage describing the effect of Edgar’s harsh punishment of thieves, “so that, in the end, a mother could go by the winding by-roads with her children in peace of mind, without danger, from the bounds of the eastern sea until she reached the shores of the western coast” (trans. Lapidge 2003 p 517), echoes Bede’s description of England in the time of Edwin (Historia ecclesiastica II.xvi, ed. Lapidge 2010 1.256). In their edition of Wulfstan Cantor’s Vita Æthelwoldi, Lapidge and Michael Winterbottom (1991 p 38 note 3), identify “information about the site of Ely, as well as the (still accepted) etymology” as drawn from Historia ecclesiastica IV.xvii, lines 109-12 (ed. 2.252). Quots/Cits 312. Malcolm Godden (2000 pp 403-04) explains that Ælfric used PAUL THE DEACON’s Vita Gregorii, “which drew mainly on Gregory of Tours’ Historia Francorum and Bede’s Historia ecclesiastica,” for the structure and most of the material in the first three quarters of his Homily 9 on Gregory the Great in his second series of Catholic Homilies

178 

BEDE – PART 1

(B1.2.10; ed. Godden 1979 pp 72-80). Ælfric then turned directly to the Historia ecclesiastica in order to expand the narrative of Augustine’s mission to the Anglo-Saxons. Citing Whitelock (1962 p 58), Godden notes that when Ælfric departed from Paul the Deacon in the first part of the homily to include “the famous passage on the slave-boys in the market-place he seems to have chosen to rewrite the Old English version,” inserting it into “its chronological position.” In contrast, Mechthild Gretsch (2001 pp 48-49) finds “no instance where there are compelling or even plausible reasons for assuming that the Old English Bede, and not the Historia ecclesiastica itself, was Ælfric’s primary (or even subsidiary) source for the passage.” As Godden points out in his note on lines 3-5 and his entries in Fontes Anglo-Saxonici, Ælfric also “probably” used Bede’s summary statements about Gregory’s importance to the English from the beginning of book 2 (II.i, lines 5-12; ed. Lapidge 2010 1.164) to open his homily: “He is rightly the apostle of the English nation, for he, through his counsel and mission, withdrew us from the worship of the devil, and turned us to the belief of God” (ed. p 72; trans. Thorpe 1844-46 2.117). In any case, he took his material for the last part from book 1, chapters 23, 25, 26, 27, 28, 31, and 32, apparently working from a complete version of Bede’s work rather than from extracts. Quots/Cits 313-23. As Godden (2000 p 409) states, the transition in Ælfric’s Catholic Homily II, 9 (ed. Godden 1979 pp 72-80) to the Historia ecclesiastica occurs in lines 175-87, in which Ælfric converts “Gregory’s letter of exhortation, sent after the missionaries have attempted to abandon their journey, into a speech of encouragement as they leave”; the passage corresponds to Historia ecclesiastica I.xxiii, lines 26-37 (ed. Lapidge 2010 1.94-96). The next two passages (lines 188-197 and 198-204) describe Gregory’s arrival in England with some forty companions and Æthelberht’s assignment to them of a dwelling in Canterbury, rearranging some details and omitting others, such as their initial stay on the Isle of Thanet and Æthelberht’s Christian wife, Bertha. The missionaries’ pious way of life leads to the conversion of many (lines 205-15), including the king (lines 216-25). Augustine returns to the Continent to be consecrated archbishop of the English, and then writes to the Pope to inform him of this development and to ask many questions (lines 226-31). In Bede’s account, the Liber responsionum follows. Instead, Ælfric adapted the questions from this work, “how should bishops live with their clergy? How are the offerings which the faithful bring to the altar to be apportioned, and how ought a bishop act in church?” (ed. 1.106; trans. Colgrave and Mynors 1969 p 79), into a more general consideration of “how he [Augustine] should live among the newly converted people” (lines 231-32; ed. p 79; trans. Thorpe 1844-46 2.131). Gregory’s answer, set up by two

Histories

179

passages changed from their original contexts (lines 232-36 and 237-38), is the letter warning of the dangers of miracles (lines 239-46; trans. 2.131-33): My dearest brother, I know that the Almighty God manifesteth many miracles through thee to the nation that he hath chosen, for which thou mayest rejoice and also fear. Thou mayest certainly rejoice that the souls of that people have through those outward wonders been drawn to inward grace; yet fear that thy mind be not lifted up with arrogance by the miracles which God through thee performeth, and thou thence fall into vain-glory within, because thou art raised in dignity without.

Again modifying a passage from Bede (I.xxix, lines 1-12; ed. 1.138), Ælfric then rounded off his account of the mission, suggesting most significantly that the institutions put in place at that time endured into his own (lines 247-53): “Augustine after this established bishops from among his companions over all the cities of the English nation, and they have continued prospering in God’s faith to this present day” (trans. 2.133; see Godden’s analysis of the differences from Bede’s version, 2000 p 411). Quots/Cits 324-32. In his opening discussion of the Homily 10 in the second series of Catholic Homilies (B1.2.11; ed. Godden 1979 pp 81-91), Godden (2000 p 415; see also his entries in Fontes Anglo-Saxonici) concludes that Ælfric read the anonymous Vita Cuthberti (see Cuthbertus in ACTA SANCTORUM), Bede’s metrical and prose Vitae of the saint (see Saints’ Lives), and Historia ecclesiastica IV.xxv-xxviii before he composed his homily on Cuthbert. The evidence for his use of Bede’s two Vitae is compelling, and so, since there is much overlap especially between the prose Vita and the Historia ecclesiastica, the case for exclusive borrowings from the latter work requires close attention. Relying in part on B. A. Blokhuis (1996), who argues that Ælfric used only the metrical Vita and the Historia ecclesiastica, Godden identifies five phrases in four longer passages that indicate that the Historia was indeed a source for the homily. The first phrase, “dicendi peritia” (IV. xxv, line 38; ed. Lapidge 2010 2.298) is closer to Ælfric’s “fægre getingnysse” (line 133) than the prose Vita’s “docendi peritia”; the context is an oddly placed discussion of Cuthbert’s teaching (lines 131-36). In the description of Cuthbert’s attempts to grow grain (lines 176-83), only the Historia ecclesiastica provides a source for the specific comment that the wheat, which he tried first, would not even sprout (lines 180-81). Moreover, only the Historia ecclesiastica mentions that Cuthbert at first would not leave his monastery (“suo monasterio,” ed. 2.304), rather than just “his place” (“suo loco,” ed. Colgrave 1940 p 238), when first summoned to be made a bishop;

180 

BEDE – PART 1

Ælfric wrote, “ac hi ne mihton hine of his mynstre gebringan” (lines 243-44). Finally, in describing Cuthbert’s way of life as a bishop (lines 259-71), Ælfric used a phrase and a longer comment that recall the Historia ecclesiastica: “to geefenlæcunge ðære eadigra apostola” (line 261) corresponds to “ad imitationem beatorum apostolorum” (ed. 2.306), and “mid soðre lufe symle geswette. and gemetegode mid micclum geðylde. and wæs swiðe esful on ælcere spræce” (lines 265-66) renders “erat quippe ante omnia diuinae caritatis igne feruidus, patientiae uirtute modestus, orationum deuotioni sollertissime intentus” (ed. 2.306). While alone none of these correspondences might be convincing, together they make a strong case for Ælfric’s use of the Historia ecclesiastica as well as other works about the saint. He did not, however, draw on the posthumous miracles that Bede recorded in chapters 29 and 30 of book 4; on the circulation of these chapters, see the discussion of this extract below. Quots/Cits 333-48 and Refs 14-15. Godden prints the material that Ælfric gathered for Tuesday in Rogationtide in the second series of his Catholic Homilies as two homilies, 20 and 21 (ed. Godden 1979 pp 190-98 and 199-205; the first is referred to in the DOE as ÆCH 22 [B1.2.25]; but the second is divided, ÆCH 23 and 24 [B1.2.26 and 27]), noting in his Commentary (2000 p 529) that it is unclear “whether Ælfric meant them to be read as one sermon or more.” He describes them as “two visions of the otherworld, those of Fursey and Dryhthelm, followed by two further brief stories from Gregory’s Dialogi and Bede’s Historia ecclesiastica, which also relate to the afterlife and the otherworld.” Focusing more on Fursey but making a point relevant to these four pieces as a collection, he continues, He [Ælfric] was perhaps led to this choice of material by a familiarity with (and a wish to counter) a vernacular tradition of giving eschatological sermons, often of a sensational kind using apocryphal legends, in the Rogationtide period (see items in the collection by Bazire and Cross [1982], especially 5, which shows parallels with the Visio Pauli [Apocalypse of Paul, APOCRYPHA], and 3 and 10 which draw on the Apocalypse of Thomas). Hence the opening attack on the apocryphal Visio Pauli. But though he had, and cited, the authority of St Augustine for repudiating the latter, his preference for the vision of Fursey presumably rested less on its authority, since it is an anonymous piece (though it does have the support of Bede who retells the story in his Historia ecclesiastica), than on its content, and specifically its focus on moral issues, articulated through the dialogue with the accusing devils and the exhortations of Beanus and Meldanus. Its eschatology is in fact very unspecific: while it describes the

Histories

181

four fires of punishment, it does not distinguish hell from purgatory or paradise from heaven, as the next piece does, or discriminate the kinds of punishments in relation to particular sins.

This concern with following orthodox sources may indeed be seen in Ælfric’s identifications at the beginnings of the second, third, and fourth narratives: “Beda, our doctor, has written, in the book which is called ‘Historia Anglorum,’ of a certain man’s resurrection in this island, in these words”; “we read everywhere in books, that oft and frequently men have been led from this life, and again raised to life, and they saw many places of punishment, and also the dwelling of the saints, as Gregory, the holy pope, has written in the book which is called ‘Dialogi’”; and “we read in many places in holy writings that the holy mass greatly benefits both the living and the departed, as Beda, the wise doctor, has written in the Historia Anglorum of a certain thane” (ed. pp 199, 203, and 204; trans. Thorpe 1844-46 2.349, 355, and 357). For this reason, these items are treated together here, although it is of course possible that Ælfric knew some of this material through extracts. Quots/Cits 333-48. The only specific borrowing from the Historia ecclesiastica in Catholic Homily II, 20 is Ælfric’s possible use of Bede’s description of Fursey as “de nobilissimo genere Scottorum” (III.xix, line 24; ed. Lapidge 2010 2.84), which, as Godden explains, “may have prompted Ælfric’s Scyttisc” (line 19; see Godden 2000 p 531). In contrast, he writes that for Dryhthelm, “Ælfric follows Bede’s account in Historia ecclesiastica V.xii fairly closely, though in a more concise style; he omits the passage towards the end (lines 160-80) which tells how Dryhthelm described his experiences to a hermit and the king, but includes the salient points of that passage at the beginning of his own version” (p 538); these include Dryhthelm’s name (lines 3-5) and the comment on his character (lines 4-5). Ælfric also changed where Bede mentioned the name of the abbot of Melrose (line 18) as well as to whom Dryhthelm tells his story (lines 21 and 21-22). When he turned to the story of Imma, Ælfric apparently reversed the roles of the two kingdoms: as Godden explains, “Bede identifies Imma as a retainer of Ælfwine, brother of Ecgfrith and apparently an under-king, who was killed in battle; Ælfric seems to identify him as a thegn of the Mercian Æthelred, and hence identifies the enemies who capture him as northerners (lines 149-50), i.e. Northumbrians, despite the clear statement in Bede that their leader was a comes of Æthelred” (p 543). Godden continues, “Perhaps he was drawing on memory for the story.” The correspondences he points out, however, which are listed above, are very close. Finally, noting that “a number of points” made in Catholic Homily II, 21, “and especially at 130-37 (the fates

182 

BEDE – PART 1

of souls, the efficacy of intercession and the mass) are repeated in a later homily, Pope [Supplementary Collection] 11, esp. lines 200-42,” Godden (p 538) speculates that “Ælfric was evidently engaged from an early period in collecting and adapting texts which related to the fate of the soul after death and particularly the question of subsequent intercession.” Quots/Cits 349-57. As John C. Pope notes in his edition of Homily 19 of Ælfric’s Supplementary Collection (B1.4.20; ed. Pope 1967-68 pp 622-35), “De doctrina Apostolica” contains two exempla drawn from the Historia ecclesiastica, both concerning men warned in visions of their future damnation; the correspondences above rely on his work and the entries by Rohini Jayatilaka in Fontes Anglo-Saxonici. In the first (lines 138-201), Ælfric followed Bede’s narrative closely, describing how although urged by his king, Cenred of Mercia, to amend his sinful behaviour, a nobleman refuses, even when shown in a vision the small book of his good deeds and the large one of his evil actions. While Bede did not at first specify that the good book is carried by angels and the bad one by devils, Ælfric made this clear as he told the story. His summary (lines 202-07) also draws on several themes treated by Bede in separate passages. In the second (lines 208-45), Ælfric shifted several parts of Bede’s similar story of a man who refuses to repent even though he is shown his own place in hell, yet again remained faithful to his source. As in the case of Dryhthelm and the other vision, it is possible that Ælfric relied on one or more extracts for this material; since, however, he identified Bede as his source for both of these stories (lines 137 and 208), we have included them here. Quots/Cits 358-59. Item 61 in Recension A of WULFSTAN OF YORK’s Collectio canonum (ed. Cross and Hamer 1999 p 92; it is repeated in Recension B items 141 and 164), which discusses the length of time a man should wait before entering a church following intercourse with his wife, quotes from Gregory’s response to Augustine’s eighth question, recorded in Historia ecclesiastica I.xxvii (ed. Lapidge 2010 1.126-28). Quots/Cits 360 and Refs 16. In his Glosses on De temporum ratione (ed. PL 90.297-548; on the attribution of this work, see Gorman 1996, Contreni 2005, Lapidge 2008b, and Kendall and Wallis 2010 pp 37-42), Byrhtferth commented on the opening of chapter 15, “The English Months,” directing his readers to Historia ecclesiastica I.xv (ed. Lapidge 2010 1.68), from which he quoted, for his explanation of “Angli” as the region where the Angles first settled. Quots/Cits 361-63 and Refs 17. Commenting on the death of Æthelberht, king of Kent, near the beginning of his Historia regum (ed. Arnold 1885 2.3; on the attribution of this part of the work once considered in its entirety

Histories

183

to be by Symeon of Durham, see Lapidge 1993c; see also Hart 2006), Byrhtferth paused to provide a genealogy, identifying Bede as his source: “Erat autem idem rex filius Irmirici, cujus pater Octa, cujus pater Oiric, cujus pater Hengest, qui cum filio suo Oisc a Wirtigerno rege invitatus Britanniam primus intravit, ut Beda luculento describit sermone.” Although not noted by Arnold, this passage is drawn with minor changes from Historia ecclesiastica II.v, lines 38-42 (ed. Lapidge 2010 1.198-200). Arnold does identify the following remarks on Eorcenberht, who was “the first English king to order idols to be abandoned and destroyed throughout the whole kingdom and to command the forty days fast of Lent to be observed by royal authority,” as from III.viii (ed. 2.40-42). Indeed the other correspondences involving the Historia regum listed above are noted in his edition. Quots/Cits 364-69 and Refs 18. Following extensive extracts from the Historia abbatum and the entire De die iudicii, Byrhtferth turned to the end of the Historia ecclesiastica to round out his tribute to Bede in the Historia regum. He drew first on Bede’s account of the consecration of Tatwine, who succeeded Berhtwold as archbishop of Canterbury (ed. Arnold 1885 2.28, lines 10-20) and on Bede’s summary of the state of the Christian faith in England in 731 (ed. 2.28-29). He then included the opening of Bede’s account of his own life, breaking to encourage anyone who might want to know more about his deeds to read “capitulum xxv. historiae Anglorum gentis” (ed. 2.29). In this context, it is interesting to compare Byrhtferth’s free rendering in the “Epilogus” (Preface) to his Computus (ed. and trans. Baker and Lapidge 1995 pp 375-79) of Bede’s well-known remarks from this brief autobiography. In praising De temporum ratione, Byrhtferth wrote: “I do not consider it astonishing that so renowned a sower of the divine crop should have been able to produce such writings since, if one may bring out into the open his own words, it does not seem strange, as he says himself, ‘that after I had attained the favour of my appointed calling no hour passed in which I did not try to be of service to myself or to others through reading, teaching or meditating’” (trans. p 377). Perhaps quoting from memory, Byrhtferth here combined two of Bede’s statements: “I have spent my life in this monastery, applying myself entirely to the study of Scriptures; and, amid the observance of the discipline of the Rule and the daily task of singing in the church, it has always been my delight to learn or to teach or to write”; and “from the time I became a priest until the fifty-ninth year of my life I have made it my business, for my own benefit and for that of my brothers, to make brief extracts from the works of the venerable fathers on the holy Scriptures” (ed. Lapidge 2010 2.480; trans. Colgrave and Mynors 1969 p 567; emphasis added). In any case, Byrhtferth returned to the Historia ecclesiastica in his

184 

BEDE – PART 1

Historia regum when, in recording the death of Ceolwulf, he mentioned that it was to this king that Bede, “historiographus veridicus,” had written the letter that begins, “Gloriosissimo regi Ceolwlfo Beda famulus Christi et presbyter” (ed. 2.42); this letter serves as the preface to the History in the St Petersburg manuscript (ed. 1.6). Byrhtferth also included the second sentence from the letter. Quots/Cits 372. Given this evidence of Byrhtferth’s knowledge of the Historia ecclesiastica, it appears reasonable for Lapidge to refer to it often as the source for both historical information and distinctive phrasing in the Vita Oswaldi and the Vita Ecgwini (ed. Lapidge 2009; see the index on p 351 and the shorter list in Lapidge 2006 p 268). Before turning to these correspondences, however, it is necessary to consider an explicit quotation of Bede’s work in the Vita Oswaldi. In discussing one of the abbots under Oswald’s authority, Byrhtferth wrote: “Such men are generally accustomed to report the faults which they see in men, but to keep silent regarding their good points, not heeding that saying of the distinguished scholar Bede: ‘It is more blessed to report good points than faults concerning persons unknown to you’” (trans. Lapidge 2009 p 113). Suggesting that Byrhtferth was “apparently quoting from memory,” Lapidge identifies the sentence in question as occurring in Wilfrid’s response to Colman at the Synod of Whitby (III.xxv, lines 208-10; ed. Lapidge 2010 2.132): “Far be it from me to say this about your father [that they will be damned], for it is much fairer to believe good rather than evil about unknown people” (trans. Colgrave and Mynors 1969 p 307). Three historical correspondences between the Historia ecclesiastica and the Vita Oswaldi noted by Lapidge (2009 p 351), although not listed above, appear more significant than the others. Byrhtferth agreed with Bede on Augustine’s consecration of Christ Church, Canterbury (ed. Lapidge 2009 p 26, line 7: I.xxxiii, lines 1-5), Laurence’s completion of St Peter’s and St Paul’s (later St Augustine’s), Canterbury (ed. p 234, lines 14-16: II.iv, lines 8-11 and II.vi, lines 1-3), and Æthelred’s abdication (ed. p 254, lines 10-11: V.xix, line 225). He did not, however, follow the Historia ecclesiastica when he mentioned Æthelred’s “illustrious children” (ed. p 238, line 15; see V.xix, which refers only Ceolred), or when he stated that Offa was king of the East Angles (ed. p 256, line 13; see V.xix, lines 8-9). Perhaps the most perplexing historical problem possibly related to the Historia ecclesiastica is Byrhtferth’s discussion of a letter from POPE BONIFACE V, which he claimed was given to Ecgwine, for king Eadbald of Kent (ed. p 234, line 12-p 236, line 9). The letter Byrhtferth then quoted is one from BONIFACE, and other Continental bishops to Æthelbald of Mercia. Here Lapidge refers to

Histories

185

book 2, chapters 4 and 5 of the Historia ecclesiastica as perhaps influencing Byrhtferth’s discussion. Quots/Cits 371 and 374. In the Vita Oswaldi and the Vita Ecgwini, Byrhtferth also used, as Lapidge demonstrates, distinctive phrases probably or possibly drawn from the Historia ecclesiastica. Most convincing, and so listed above, is the phrase “niueis uestibus” (ed. Lapidge 2009 p 106, line 15) and the clause “uiam est sanctorum egregie secutus” (ed. p 200, lines 11-12), which derives from Bede’s “patrum uiam secutus est” (II.xx, lines 67-68; ed. Lapidge 2010 1.272; see also Bede’s Vita Felici). As a way to refer to Rome, “Romulee urbs” (ed. p 96, line 3; see Lapidge 1993b p 297 note 20 for other examples) appears in poems by both PAULINUS OF NOLA and Alcuin, but its likely immediate source is the epitaph for Cædwalla quoted by Bede in V.vii, with the phrase itself at line 42. Similarly, designating Rome as the “limina apostolorum” (ed. p 104, line 1 and p 230, lines 5-6) could derive from ALDHELM, yet the phrase is found throughout Bede’s writings, including Historia ecclesiastica V.vii, line 5 and V.xix, line 49 (see Lapidge 2009 p 104 note 45). The description of Oswald “bestowing alms on monasteries, on villages, on burhs, on the countryside, and on towns” (ed. p 104, line 7; see also p 194, line 6 and p. 224, lines 24-25) recalls Bede’s “recycling” in Historia ecclesiastica II.xxviii, lines 30-31 of wording by CAELIUS SEDULIUS. The play on “uerba” and “uerbera” (ed. p 136, lines 21-22) occurs in many hagiographic passages, including Bede’s account of Alban’s martyrdom (I.vii, lines 46-48). Lapidge offers a number of possible sources for “celestis regni gaudia” (ed. p 142, line 29-p 144, line 1) including II.v, line 5 and IV.ii, line 21. He considers “deuoto corde” (ed. p 174, line 8) “a common phrase,” but cites III.xxii, line 59. For “baculo se sustentans” (ed. p 184, line 18), he offers both JEROME and IV.xxix, lines 23-24; and for “deuotio mentis” (ed. p 192, line 7), CASSIODORUS, ISIDORE, and V.xix, line 12. Finally, Lapidge provides only “die postquam obitum suum dominici corporis et sanguinis perceptione muniuit” (IV.iii, lines 104-05, ed. 2.180) as a possible source for “corporis et sanguinis perceptionem” (ed. p 200, lines 1-2); Bede, however, here used Gregory’s Dialogi. Quots-Cits 377-86 and Refs 19. As Whitelock, M. Brett, and C. N. L. Brooke indicate, the anonymous “Letter of Protest from the Bishops of Britain to the Pope” (ed. Whitelock, Brett, and Brooke 1981 pp 445-47) draws on seven chapters from the first two books of the Historia ecclesiastica to establish that in the early days of the English Church archbishops did not travel to Rome in order to obtain their pallium and that they were consecrated by archiepiscopal colleagues. Citing the work of Dorothy Bethurum, the editors attribute the letter to Wulfstan, archbishop of York: “It is likely enough that

186 

BEDE – PART 1

a document in the name of all the episcopate would be drafted by him, for at least from 1008 he had drafted laws for Æthelred, and later for Cnut” (p 442). They date the letter to perhaps 1020, the year Æthelnoth was appointed archbishop of Canterbury, noting that his was the first direct election to the episcopal see of either Canterbury or York (as opposed to a translation from another see) since 931. The letter begins, after identifying Bede as its source (“sicut legimus in historiis Anglorum, scribente Beda, historiographo et laudabili doctore nostro”), by referring to one of Gregory’s statements in the letter he sent back with Augustine to his doubting companions on their initial journey to England: “when Augustine your prior returns, now, by our appointment, your abbot, humbly obey him in all things” (ed. Lapidge 2010 1.94-96; trans. Colgrave and Mynors 1969 p 71). It then notes that Augustine was ordained archbishop by Etherius, archbishop of Arles, and that he, following the example of Peter, ordained his successor, a practice that continued under Laurence, Mellitus, and Justus, and quotes from a letter of Pope Boniface to Justus that supports this tradition; in doing so, the author omitted the phrase: “and confer on you permission to use it [the pallium] only when celebrating the sacred mysteries” (ed. 1.212, lines 41-43; trans. p 161). The cases of Paulinus and Honorius are adduced, and part of another letter from Pope Honorius to the archbishop Honorius quoted with, as the editors note, “some variants” (p 446). If the letter is indeed by Wulfstan, it shows his command of Bede’s work. Quots/Cits 387-94. Added to the collection of Ælfric’s Homilies preserved in Oxford, Bodleian Library, Bodley 342 (ASM 569; NRK 309) is a brief Homily on Paulinus (B3.3.31), which has been edited by K. Sisam (1953 pp 151-52), who comments, “the historical information … has no special interest and is derived from Bede.” In her entries in Fontes Anglo-Saxonici, Jane Roberts provides a more detailed analysis, considering the Historia ecclesiastica to be a probable source in each case; these entries provide the basis of the correspondences listed above. In I.xxix, Bede explained that in response to Augustine’s perception that “the harvest was great and the workers were few” (ed. Lapidge 2010 1.138; trans. Colgrave and Mynors 1969 p 105), Gregory sent new missionaries, including Paulinus, and a letter setting out the episcopal structure for the English church, which was to include a bishop in York. Working freely from these details, the homilist noted that Gregory sent Paulinus to preach (ed. p 151, lines 18-19) and that he became archbishop in York (lines 21-22). Between these details and following the second, the homilist described Paulinus’s mission to Eadwine and the Northumbrians, details Bede covered in II.ix. In this context, he mentioned Eadwine’s Christian wife, Æthelburh, daughter of Æthelberht (lines 24-25). Following Eadwine’s death (lines 25-26), as the homilist recorded, Paulinus

Histories

187

returned to Kent with Æthelberht and her children (p 151, line 27-p 152, line 4). Revealing his Rochester affiliations, the homilist explained that since “this place” was “bishopless,” Paulinus was appointed to the bishopric, where he remained to the end of his life (ed. p 152, lines 4-6). The final detail, that he was buried in Rochester, is not in the Historia ecclesiastica. On the theme of the three ages, which appears in the works of Ælfric and Byrhtferth, see De temporum ratione. Refs 1. For the reference of Boniface to Bede in Epistola 75 (ed. Tangl 1955, 158.8-12), see the introduction to BEDE. Refs 2-19. Many of the references to the Historia ecclesiastica have already been discussed with the Quots/Cits that they accompany: on the whole, Anglo-Saxon authors knew when they were citing this work and often took the opportunity to identify it and to praise its author. Alcuin’s two specific references in his Versus de sanctis Euboricensis ecclesiae to the Historia ecclesiastica are both quoted above. While not strictly a reference to this work by Bede, the opening of the second passage suggests Alcuin’s appreciation of its approach to history: “Early in the reign of Archbishop Egbert / a priest of outstanding merits named Bede closed his eyes / on this present life and sought the kingdom of the stars” (ed. and trans. Godman 1982 pp 100-01). The entries in the Old English Martyrology (ed. Rauer 2013) have been divided primarily on the basis of references to the Historia ecclesiastica: those that mention it are included in this main entry. At the beginning of his homily on Gregory the Great (ed. Godden 1979 p 72), Ælfric alluded to the “many holy books” that discuss the saint, but named only one, the “historia anglorum.” It is in this context that he identified Alfred as the translator of the Old English Bede. As noted in the discussion of Quots/Cits 315-30, Ælfric’s specific references to Bede in Catholic Homilies II, 20 and 21 indicate his concern with orthodoxy. The specificity of Byrhtferth’s reference in his Glosses on De Temporum ratione (PL 90.356) to “libro 1, cap 15” might suggest that he expected his reader to have this work readily available. Similarly, among his many references to Bede in his Historia regum is one that directs readers to chapter 25 of the Historia ecclesiastica for more information about its author’s life (ed. Arnold 1885 2.29). Finally, Bede’s weight is shown when the author, probably Wulfstan of York, began his “Letter of Protest from the Bishops of Britain to the Pope” (ed. Whitelock, Brett, and Brooke 1981 pp 445) by citing his source: “sicut legimus in historiis Anglorum, scribente Beda, historiographo et laudabili doctore nostro.” Refs 20. A final reference to Historia ecclesiastica II.xviii in the Dunstan or Sherbourne Pontifical (Paris, Bibliothèque nationale de France, lat. 943: ASM 879; see Pfaff 1995 pp 88-90) concerns the tradition already

188 

BEDE – PART 1

mentioned in connection with Alcuin’s letter to Offa (Quots/Cits 11-13) and the anonymous “Letter of Protest from the Bishops of Britain to the Pope,” written probably by Wulfstan of York (Quots/Cits 359-68), the ability of either the archbishop of Canterbury or the archbishop of York to consecrate the successor to the other see rather than requiring consecration in Rome. In the introduction to their edition of the “Letter of Protest,” Whitelock, Brett, and Brooke (1981 pp 44) write, In some English pontificals, already from the last decades of the tenth century, some prayers accompanying the handing over of the pallium are preceded by the following passage: “Hoc additamentum sit si archiæpiscopus æcclesie Christi vel ęcclesię sancti Petri archiæpiscopum hinc et inde secundum decretum Honorii pape ad Honorium archiæpiscopum ordinare voluerit, ut legitur in xviii capitulo libri ii Historiarum Anglorum.” This appeal to authority, the same as that cited by Alcuin [also referred to in the letter], suggests that such a practice had not been universal and perhaps was being disputed.

For the quotation, they refer to Michael Richter’s Canterbury Professions (1973 p lxiii note 2), who identifies it as a rubric preceding “three prayers accompanying the handing over of the pallium by one archbishop to the other” found in seven Pontificals, including the Dunstan Pontifical. The others that are found in manuscripts in England before 1100 are Cambridge, Corpus Christi College, 44 (ASM 40); Cambridge, Corpus Christi College, 146 (ASM 46; on the appearence of the comment in this manuscript, see Dumville 1992 p 72); London, British Library, Add. 57337 (the “Anderson Pontifical”; ASM 302); Rouen, Bibliothèque municipale, 368 (A.27) (the “Lanalet Pontifical”; ASM 922); and Rouen, Bibliothèque municipale, 369 (Y.7) (the “Benedictional of Archbishop Robert”; ASM 923). The Historia ecclesiastica has been well-served by scholars. One of many useful features in Michael Lapidge’s edition (2010; the first edition of volume 1 was published in 2008; the third edition of volume 1 and the first edition of volume 2 appeared in 2010) is the detailed bibliography (1.cxxxv-clxxxii). His research into the manuscripts is presented in his edition (1.lxxxv-cxv) and in his article, “Beda Venerabilis,” Te.Tra. 3 (2008a pp 78-112), as is an overview of previous editions (1.cxvi-cxxvi; pp 79-88). J.M. Wallace-Hadrill’s “Historical Commentary” (1988) remains a valuable source of information. The studies of N. J. Higham (2006) and Vicky Gunn (2009) provide excellent starting points for further reading.

Histories

189

Extract ex Hist.eccl., I.vi-vii. ed.: see Lapidge 2010 1.38-48. MSS New York, Morgan Library and Museum, M 926, fols. 42-52: ASM 865.1. Lists – A-S Vers none. Quots/Cits 1. Hist.eccl., I.vii, 7-32: Mart (B19.1; Alban), 120.18-22. 2. Hist.eccl., I.vii, 72-91: Mart (B19.1; Alban), 120.22-25. 3. Hist.eccl., I.vii, 100-02: Mart (B19.1; Alban), 120.25-27. 4. Hist.eccl., I.vi, 1-3: ÆLS (Alban) (B1.3.20), 1-12. 5. Hist.eccl., I.vi, 17-22: ÆLS (Alban) (B1.3.20), 1-12. 6. Hist.eccl., I.vii, 1: ÆLS (Alban) (B1.3.20), 13-15. 7. Hist.eccl., I.vii, 5-100: ÆLS (Alban) (B1.3.20), 16-132. 8. Hist.eccl., I.vii, 107-11: ÆLS (Alban) (B1.3.20), 133-37. 9. Hist.eccl., I.viii, 1-6: ÆLS (Alban) (B1.3.20), 138-42. 10. Hist.eccl., I.vii, 102-06: ÆLS (Alban) (B1.3.20), 143-46. 11. ? Hist.eccl., I.viii, 7-10: ÆLS (Alban) (B1.3.20), 147-51. Refs none. Working from an earlier passio, which his account apparently then supplanted (see Albanus in ACTA SANCTORUM), Bede related most of the details concerning the martyrdom of Alban in Historia ecclesiastica I.vii (ed. Lapidge 2010 1.41-48). His version then circulated separately in legendaries and other collections. M.L.W. Laistner (1943 p 103-04) identifies a version that covers chapters 7-8. Another extract, printed in the Acta Sanctorum (BHL 206), begins by mentioning Diocletian, who is discussed in chapter 6, but moves quickly to the material in the following chapter; this text does not include chapter 8. Teresa Webber (2015 p 53) identifies chapters 6-7 as appearing “verbatim” as lections in an office for Alban in the Morgan Library manuscript. She also notes that “traces of two sequences of 8 lections” drawn from chapter 7 “remain visible” in London, British Library, Royal 13. C. v (see the main entry above). The entry on Alban in the OLD ENGLISH MARTYROLOGY (ed. and trans. Rauer 2013 pp 120-21), which does not mention the Historia ecclesiastica, relies for most of its details on chapter 7 of Bede’s account: the quotations listed

190 

BEDE – PART 1

above follow Christine Rauer’s analysis in her edition and in her entries in Fontes Anglo-Saxonici. Wearing the cloak of a priest whom he has sheltered, Alban is taken before a judge and, when he refuses to renounce Christ, he is beheaded. The martyrologist also included two miracles that accompanied his martyrdom: a spring emerges at his feet and the eyes of his executioner fall out. The entry concludes still following Bede: “The place where Alban suffered is near the city which the Britons called Verolamium, and the English now call Wætlingaceaster [i.e. St Albans]” (trans. p 121). ÆLFRIC’s Homily on Alban in his Lives of Saints (B1.3.20; ed. and trans. Skeat 1966 1.415-24), which does not mention Bede, derives mainly from chapter 7 of the Historia ecclesiastica, but also uses details from chapters 6 and 8 (the identifications listed above and discussed here rely on the entries by Rohini Jayatilaka in Fontes Anglo-Saxonici). The opening twelve lines combine two passages from chapter 6 to describe the persecutions throughout the Roman empire under Diocletian, omitting Bede’s details about an unrelated rebellion in Britain. Ælfric then announced his subject (lines 13-15), drawing on the beginning of chapter 7 but not using Bede’s quotation of VENANTIUS FORTUNATUS. The narrative of the martyrdom (lines 16-132) follows Bede’s closely, adding some minor details (e.g. the judge, left as in Bede without attendants after Alban has been taken away to be killed, fasts “against his will”; line 92) and simplifying others, such as the description of the spring (compare I.vii, lines 79-87 to lines 111-15). Ælfric then rearranged material, commenting first on the others slain during the persecution (lines 133-37), and mentioning the general repairing of churches once it had stopped (lines 138-42, from chapter 8), before concluding Alban’s story with the construction of a church in his honour (lines 143-46). The homily ends by placing the martyrdom in its historical context: This was done before that strife came through Hengest and Horsa who defeated the Britons, and Christianity was again dishonoured, until Augustine re-established it, according to the instruction of Gregory, the faithful pope.

These details, which of course correspond generally to Bede’s narrative, may have been suggested by his specific comment in I.viii, lines 7-10: “The churches of Britain remained at peace until the time of the Arian madness which corrupted the whole world and even infected this island, sundered so far from the rest of mankind, with the poison of its error” (ed. Lapidge 2010 1.50; trans. Colgrave and Mynors 1969 p 35).

Histories

191

Extract ex Hist.eccl., III.i (and following). ed.: see Lapidge 2010 2.12 ff. MSS 1. Oxford, Bodleian Library, Digby 175 (S.C. 1776): ASM 614. 2. Paris, Biblothèque nationale de France, lat. 5362, fols. 1-84: ASM 885.3. Lists – A-S Vers none. Quots/Cits 1. Hist.eccl., III.ix, 8-12: Mart (B19.1; Oswald), 154.5. 2. Hist.eccl., III.ix, 1-2: Mart (B19.1; Oswald), 154.5-6. 3. Hist.eccl., III.vi, 3-8: Mart (B19.1; Oswald), 154.6-8. 4. Hist.eccl., III.xii, 35-36: Mart (B19.1; Oswald), 154.6-8. 5. Hist.eccl., III.xii, 24-30: Mart (B19.1; Oswald), 154.8-10. 6. Hist.eccl., III.xiii, 1-3: Mart (B19.1; Oswald), 154.9-10. 7. Hist.eccl., III.xi, 7-32: Mart (B19.1; Oswald), 154.12-13. 8. Hist.eccl., III.i, 8-12: ÆLS (Oswald) (B1.3.26), 4-6. 9. Hist.eccl., II.xx, 1-8: ÆLS (Oswald) (B1.3.26), 7-9. 10. Hist.eccl., III.i, 18-36: ÆLS (Oswald) (B1.3.26), 10-16. 11. Hist.eccl., III.ii, 2-15: ÆLS (Oswald) (B1.3.26), 17-27. 12. Hist.eccl., III.i, 34-36: ÆLS (Oswald) (B1.3.26), 28-29. 13. Hist.eccl., III.ii, 15-21: ÆLS (Oswald) (B1.3.26), 30-33. 14. Hist.eccl., III.ii, 44-63: ÆLS (Oswald) (B1.3.26), 34-39. 15. Hist.eccl., III.ii, 22-29: ÆLS (Oswald) (B1.3.26), 40-44. 16. Hist.eccl., III.iii, 1-11: ÆLS (Oswald) (B1.3.26), 45-56. 17. Hist.eccl., III.iii, 8-10: ÆLS (Oswald) (B1.3.26), 57-59. 18. Hist.eccl., III.iii, 26-32: ÆLS (Oswald) (B1.3.26), 60-69. 19. Hist.eccl., III.v, 1-7: ÆLS (Oswald) (B1.3.26), 70-82. 20. Hist.eccl., III.v, 10-12: ÆLS (Oswald) (B1.3.26), 70-82. 21. Hist.eccl., III.v, 19-21: ÆLS (Oswald) (B1.3.26), 70-82. 22. Hist.eccl., III.vi, 9-11: ÆLS (Oswald) (B1.3.26), 83-84. 23. Hist.eccl., III.iii, 37-40: ÆLS (Oswald) (B1.3.26), 85-86. 24. Hist.eccl., III.vi, 11-26: ÆLS (Oswald) (B1.3.26), 87-103. 25. Hist.eccl., III.vi, 3-8: ÆLS (Oswald) (B1.3.26), 104-108. 26. Hist.eccl., II.xiv, 13-17: ÆLS (Oswald) (B1.3.26), 109-10. 27. Hist.eccl., II.xx, 31-32: ÆLS (Oswald) (B1.3.26), 109-10. 28. Hist.eccl., III.xii, 18-24: ÆLS (Oswald) (B1.3.26), 111-18. 29. Hist.eccl., III.vii, 1-26: ÆLS (Oswald) (B1.3.26), 119-43.

192 

BEDE – PART 1

30. Hist.eccl., III.ix, 1-2: ÆLS (Oswald) (B1.3.26), 144-55. 31. Hist.eccl., III.ix, 8-12: ÆLS (Oswald) (B1.3.26), 144-55. 32. Hist.eccl., III.xii, 26-30: ÆLS (Oswald) (B1.3.26), 156-61. 33. Hist.eccl., III.xii, 32-36: ÆLS (Oswald) (B1.3.26), 162-68. 34. Hist.eccl., III.vi, 25-29: ÆLS (Oswald) (B1.3.26), 169-75. 35. Hist.eccl., III.xi, 7-26: ÆLS (Oswald) (B1.3.26), 176-91. 36. Hist.eccl., III.xi, 30-32: ÆLS (Oswald) (B1.3.26), 192-99. 37. Hist.eccl., III.xi, 42-66: ÆLS (Oswald) (B1.3.26), 192-99. 38. Hist.eccl., III.ix, 17-19: ÆLS (Oswald) (B1.3.26), 200-03. 39. Hist.eccl., III.ix, 27-52: ÆLS (Oswald) (B1.3.26), 204-20. 40. Hist.eccl., III.x, 1-26: ÆLS (Oswald) (B1.3.26), 221-238. 41. Hist.eccl., III.xiii, 1-51: ÆLS (Oswald) (B1.3.26), 239-68. 42. Hist.eccl., III.ix, 21-24: ÆLS (Oswald) (B1.3.26), 273-76. 43. Hist.eccl., III.xii, 16-20: ÆLS (Oswald) (B1.3.26), 273-76. 44. Hist.eccl., IV.xiv, 41-46: ÆLS (Oswald) (B1.3.26), 277-78. Refs none. Oswald, king of Northumbria (d. 642) and saint (see Oswaldus Rex in ACTA SANCTORUM), appears throughout the central portion of the Historia ecclesiastica (ed. Lapidge 2010). Bede introduced him in II.xiv (ed. Lapidge 2010 1.248) as Edwin’s successor to whom it was left to finish the stone church in York. He emerges at the end of the first chapter of book 3 when he defeats Cædwalla at Denisesburn; chapter 2 begins with him raising a cross and praying before the battle. His rule over all of Britain and his death are mentioned in chapter 6; his death is recounted in more detail in chapter 9; and his miracles are described in chapters 9-13. Listing fifteen manuscripts including the two above, M.L.W. Laistner (1943 p 105) titles this excerpt “HE iii, 1 ff. (Oswald)” and comments, “some MSS have the first fourteen chapters, others only shorter extracts from this book of the HE.” In their description of the contents of Digby 175, Helmut Gneuss and Michael Lapidge (ASM 614) describe its Vita Oswaldi as “incomplete; from Bede, Historia ecclesiastica III.” According to Lapidge and Michael Winterbottom (1991 p cxlvii; see also Lapidge 2003b p 555), the Paris manuscript contains “excerpts from Bede’s Historia ecclesiastica pertaining to Oswald, king and Martyr (68v-70r) and to St Birinus (70r-v),” the significant point being that Birinus is treated separately from Oswald. Except for mentioning that he was the first bishop of the West Saxons (IV.xii), Bede related all he had to say about Birinus in III.vii, and so in the context of Oswald. Indeed, Oswald is

Histories

193

part of this story since he “was present and stood godfather” (ed. 2.36; trans. Colgrave and Mynors 1969 p 233) for Cynegisl, king of the West Saxons, at the time of his baptism by Birinus. Bede continued, “The two kings gave the bishop a city called Dorchester in which to establish his episcopal see.” On the separate circulation of an extract on Birinus, see Extract ex Hist.eccl. III.vii, and on the significance of the Paris manuscript for our understanding of ÆLFRIC, see the discussion of the Quots/Cits below. The ten-line account in the OLD ENGLISH MARTYROLOGY (ed. and trans. Rauer 2013 pp 1543-55) draws on and rearranges material from chapters 6 through 13. After identifying his feast day (4 August) and the length of his reign (nine years), the martyrologist stated that Oswald ruled “the four nations which are in Britain, namely the Britons and the Picts and the Gaels and the English” (ed. p 154, lines 6-8). He then turned to his death, recording his final prayer, and the subsequent location of his body. The entry concludes: “And his miracles were many, both on this side of the sea and beyond” (ed. p 154, lines 13-14). In his Homily on the Oswald in his Lives of Saints (B1.3.26; ed. and trans. Skeat 1966 2.124-43), Ælfric mentioned Bede for a second time – the first was in line 33 – as he drew his work to a close: “Now saith the holy Bede who indited this book, / it is no wonder that the holy king / should heal sickness, now that he liveth in heaven, / because he desired to help, when he was here on earth, / the poor and weak, and to give them sustenance” (lines 272-76). As noted in the entries by Rohini Jayatilaka in Fontes AngloSaxonici, which are the basis for the correspondences listed above and discussed here, this passage echoes both III.ix, lines 21-24 and III.xii, lines 16-20, where Bede is, of course, not mentioned; it is not clear if “ðas boc” was meant to refer to the Historia ecclesiastica or perhaps to some collection of extracts. The Paris manuscript discussed above is relevant here since Lapidge (2003b pp 555-57; anticipated in Lapidge and Winterbottom 1992 p cxlviii) has argued that it is a copy of a commonplace book written by Ælfric to aid in the composition of his hagiographical writings. As supporting evidence, Lapidge notes specifically that “the Oswald excerpts formed the basis for Ælfric’s ‘Life of Oswald king and martyr’; furthermore, the Birinus excerpts in the Paris manuscript correspond exactly to the material on St Birinus which was interpolated by Ælfric into his ‘Life of Oswald’” (Lapidge and Winterbottom 1991 p cxlix). Although at times he discussed later miracles associated with particular events in the saint’s life, Ælfric’s basic strategy was to present Oswald’s life in chronological order. For example, after describing Oswald’s victory over Cædwalla achieved by raising a cross and then praying before it (lines 17-29),

194 

BEDE – PART 1

he repeated first Bede’s general comment that many men and cattle were later healed at this place (lines 30-33), and then related in more detail the account of a man whose broken arm was cured by moss from the cross (lines 34-39). Omitting Bede’s specific reservations about his observance of Easter (III.iii, lines 11-21), Ælfric included much detail about Aidan’s role in the king’s conversion of Northumbria. He concluded this part of the narrative with an account of the Easter feast at which Oswald gave “the silver dish, victuals and all,” from which he and Aidan were eating, to “poor men … sitting in the streets” (lines 95 and 92). It was this deed that led Aidan to cry out, “May this blessed right hand never rot in corruption,” a prayer that Ælfric, following Bede, further explained: “And it happened to him, even as Aidan prayed for him, / that his right hand is sound until this day” (lines 102-03). Moving beyond Aidan, Ælfric then emphasised Oswald’s success in bringing Christianity to Northumbria, even reaching back to book 2 of the Historia ecclesiastica to mention his completion of Edwin’s church at York (lines 109-10). Oswald’s role in the conversion of the West Saxons through his fostering of Cynegisl at the time of his baptism occupies the next twenty-four lines (lines 119-43) and leads directly to the saint’s death at the battle of Maserfield (lines 144-61), where his last words are, as in the Historia ecclesiastica, a prayer for the souls of his people. Attention shifts to the fates of the saint’s remains, particularly his head and right arm, but also his bones, which were first rejected by the Mercian monastery of Bardney, but then accepted after a light like “a lofty sunbeam” shone from them throughout the night (lines 176-91). Still following Bede, Ælfric recounted further miracles of healing (lines 192-268), including one that Bede attributed specifically to Bishop Acca when he was still a priest in Ireland, but that Ælfric related only to “a certain mass-priest” (lines 239-68). According to the entries in Fontes Anglo-Saxonici, he turned to book 4 of the Historia ecclesiastica for his final comment on Oswald drawn from this source: “Now he hath honour with Almighty God / in the eternal world for his goodness” (lines 277-78). Extract ex Hist.eccl., III.v. ed.: see Lapidge 2010 2.28-32. MSS 1. Oxford, Bodleian Library, Digby 175 (S.C. 1776): ASM 614. Lists – A-S Vers none.

Histories

195

Quots/Cits 1. Hist.eccl., III.xvii, 11-13: Mart (B19.1; Aidan), 172.10-11. 2. Hist.eccl., III.iii, 1-11: Mart (B19.1; Aidan), 172.12-13. 3. Hist.eccl., III.xv, 1-xv, 42: Mart (B19.1; Aidan), 172.13-14. 4. Hist.eccl., III.xviii, 13-18: Mart (B19.1; Aidan), 172.14-15. Refs none. The one miracle associated with Aidan in the OLD ENGLISH MARTYROLOGY (ed. and trans. Rauer 2013 pp 172-73) – Cuthbert sees the saint’s soul led to heaven – derives ultimately from Bede’s prose Vita Cuthberti. In her commentary, Christine Rauer states that the martyrologist “probably” relied on the Vita and the Historia ecclesiastica, “although the use of a further anonymous vita of this saint cannot quite be ruled out.” E. Gordon Whatley’s entry on Aidanus in ACTA SANCTORUM focuses on the anonymous BHL 190, listing Digby 175 as containing this work and noting that the clause about the journey of Aidan’s soul to heaven “is closer to the equivalent passage of this life of Aidan … although the Martyrology’s ‘micle leohte’ echoes Bede rather than the anonymous life of Aidan.” Extract ex Hist.eccl., III.vii. ed.: see Lapidge 2010 2.36. MSS Paris, Bibliothèque nationale de France, lat. 5362, fols. 1-84: ASM 885.3. Lists – A-S Vers none. Quots/Cits Hist.eccl., III.vii, 1-26: ÆLS (Oswald) (B1.3.26), 119-43. Refs Vita Sancti Birini (ed. Love), p 34, lines 7-8. Two extracts from Historia ecclesiastica III.vii, which includes Bede’s discussion of Birinus, the first bishop of the West Saxons, circulated in late Anglo-Saxon England. The first, which contains only the material on Birinus, has been associated with ÆLFRIC, and so may be earlier than the

196 

BEDE – PART 1

second, given a separate entry below, which appears in the context of late eleventh-century liturgical texts related to the saint. Birinus’s cult provides some context for understanding both extracts, and, indeed, the other texts associated with him. Aside from possibly independent information recorded under the years 634 and 650 in the ANGLO-SAXON CHRONICLE, Bede related all that we know about him: having promised Pope Honorius “that he would scatter the seeds of the holy faith in the remotest regions of England,” but then having found the first people he encountered, the West Saxons, to be heathen, Birinus decided that “it would be more useful to preach the word there rather than to go further seeking for others to evangelize” (ed. Lapidge 2010 2.36; trans. Colgrave and Mynors 1969 p 233). He converted the king, Cynegisl, and, at his baptism, Oswald, king of the Northumbrians and also a saint (see Extract ex Hist. eccl. III.i and following), was his godfather. Bede continued, The two kings gave the bishop a city called Dorchester in which to establish his episcopal see. After he had built and dedicated churches and brought many to the Lord by his pious labours, he went to be with the Lord and was buried in the same city. Many years afterwards, when Hædde was bishop, his body was translated thence to the city of Winchester and was deposited in the church of the apostles St Peter and St Paul.

As Rosalind C. Love (1996 p lxi) notes, “the main focus of Birinus’s cult thus became Winchester.” Love explains that although the commemoration of Birinus’s deposition in one ninth-century liturgical calendar might “provide an indication that his cult was already widely known,” it is more likely that he was found here “simply because Bede included an approving account of his deeds” (p lxi). There is no other evidence of his cult until 980, when ÆTHELWOLD, bishop of Winchester, translated his relics during the rebuilding of the east end of the Old Minster, Winchester. Love writes that “it was probably then that the feast of the translation of Birinus (celebrated in conjunction with that of Cuthbert) was instituted.” Both his deposition and translation are “found in almost every English monastic calendar surviving from the eleventh century” (p lxi) and “there is a fairly substantial body of material intended for use in the liturgy on the feast of Birinus, preserved in manuscripts datable” to this time (pp lxii-lxiii). Some of this evidence is from centres other than Winchester, but she concludes it was there that “the majority of liturgical texts commemorating the saint must have been generated” (p lxx). The most substantial of these is the Latin Vita (BHL 1361; ed. Love 1996

Histories

197

pp 1-46), which David Townsend (1989 p 130) dates to shortly after the Norman Conquest, but which Love places at the end of the century, associating it with the translation of Birinus’s relics to the new Anglo-Norman minster in 1093. Concerning this text, Love further concludes that “it is difficult to assemble a particularly convincing argument for GOSCELIN’s authorship on grounds of style and vocabulary” (p lix); however, she does associate it with the anonymous Vita Swithuni and Miracula Swithuni (ed. Lapidge 2003b pp 630-38 and 648-96; see also Lapidge’s discussions pp 611-22 and 641-42). The Paris manuscript, which Michael Lapidge (2003b p 555-57) has identified as a copy of a commonplace book made by Ælfric in preparation for composing his vernacular homilies on saints, contains only the parts of chapter 7 on Birinus. Indeed, Lapidge and Michael Winterbottom (1992 p cxlix) note that these excerpts “correspond exactly to the material on St Birinus which was interpolated by Ælfric into his ‘Life of Oswald’” (see Extract ex Hist.eccl., III.i and following). The manuscript supports this view since the extract on Birinus (fols. 70r-v) follows that on Oswald (68v-70r) rather than appearing in the Oswald material in the order followed by Bede. Ælfric would have been studying to become a priest in Æthelwold’s monastic school at Winchester at the time of the 980 translation (see Godden in the ODNB), and so he would have known of Birinus’s cult. Extract ex Hist.eccl., III.vii. ed.: see Lapidge 2010 2.36-40. MSS Oxford, Bodleian Library, Digby 39 (S.C. 1640), fols. 50-56: ASM 609. Lists – Refs none. See the previous entry for a brief overview of Birinus’s cult in Anglo-Saxon England drawn from Rosalind C. Love (1996 pp lx-lxxiv) and specifically for ÆLFRIC’s extract of material related to the saint in his Homily on Oswald. At issue here is a second extract, which contains all of chapter 7 of Historia ecclesiastica III, and so relates the broader story of the conversion of the West Saxons under king Cynegisl and his successor, Cenwealh, by Birinus and the following bishops, Agilbert, Wine, and Leuthere. M.L.W. Laistner (1943 p 106) records only the Digby and Paris (see the previous entry) manuscripts, and so offers no indication that this chapter circulated beyond the immediate

198 

BEDE – PART 1

sphere of Winchester. In addition to the extract (and some other texts that will be discussed below), the Digby manuscript also contains (although in parts dated after 1100 and so not included in ASM) the earliest copy of an anonymous Vita of the saint (BHL 1361; ed. Love 1996 pp 1-46). The extract appears in a section of Digby 39 (fols. 50r-56v) that Love identifies as “a distinct codicological unit, written in a single hand probably datable to the last quarter of the eleventh century” (p lxvi). She concurs with the view that it was written at St Mary’s Abingdon, which, she notes, “had close ties with Winchester, particularly since the time of Bishop Æthelwold, who had served as abbot of Abingdon from about 954 until his elevation to the episcopate” (p lxvi). The extract itself is “divided (by crosses marked in the margins) into eight lections presumably for reading aloud at Matins,” a form that Love considers significant since it may indicate “that at the time when they were copied out, no other version of the Life of Birinus was available at Abingdon for reading on his feast day” (p lxvi). Teresa Webber (2015 pp 53-54) suggests that “earlier exemplars from Winchester (or perhaps Dorchesteron-Thames, the original place of Birinus’ burial) lie behind” this extract. The use of this extract as liturgical readings raises the question of its relationship to the other texts in the manuscript associated with Birinus and their relationship to the Historia ecclesiastica. The section of the manuscript dated to before 1100 also contains an anonymous Latin sermon on Birinus (ed. Love 1996 pp 119-22), about which, after comparing it to Vita, Love concludes, “the homily … may … represent an earlier attempt to amplify the terse record of Birinus’s deeds supplied by Bede,” perhaps “based on a pre-existing account or brief Life, now lost” (p lxviii). While there is no indication that the sermon or the lost texts were written before 1066, it is still worth noting, as Love does, that the homilist used not only Historia ecclesiastica III.vii (ed. Lapidge 2010 2.36-40; lines 3-4 correspond to Love’s edition, p 120, line 13; and lines 22-23 correspond to 120, lines 34-35), but also I.xxv (lines 38-41 correspond to p 120, lines 20-23), Æthelberht’s response to Augustine’s teaching: “The words and promises you bring are fair enough, but because they are new to us and doubtful, I cannot consent to accept them and forsake those beliefs which I and the whole English race have held so long” (ed. 1.100; trans. Colgrave and Mynors 1969 p 75). Indeed the homilist refers specifically to the Historia ecclesiastica when he writes, “sicut in gestis huius patrie legatur” (ed. Love 1996 p 120, line 10; see also Love’s note). Moreover, the Vita, dated by David Townsend (1989 p 130) to shortly after the Norman Conquest but by Love (p lx) to the time of the 1093 translation, may also show a wider knowledge of the Historia ecclesiastica. At the point when, as Birinus begins his voyage to England, he realises that

Histories

199

he has left behind a corporal, apparently with a host wrapped in it (see Love’s note p 20), the text reads, “All human aid is denied him, and he is afraid to try divine aid” (trans. Love p 21; “Denegatur sibi omne humanum auxilium, timet experiri diuinum,” p 20, line 26). Love cites Historia ecclesiastica II.vii, line 22 (“confidens episcopus in diuinum, ubi humanum deerat”; “trusting in divine help since human aid had failed”; ed. 1.208; trans. p 157), spoken of Augustine as he prepares to save Canterbury from fire. (Birinus overcomes his difficulty by walking on water.) Love again refers to the Historia ecclesiastica for the information that Hædde was the fifth bishop of the West Saxons (p 44, lines 16-17), which could be derived from Historia ecclesiastica IV.xii, lines 6-7. In any case, the author specifically invoked Bede when he turned to the material taken from this source: “And first, as the venerable priest Bede reports, upon entering the land of the Gewissae [West Saxons], since he found all there enveloped in pagan errors, he considered it more useful to preach the word of God there, than, proceeding further, to seek others to preach to” (trans. p 35). The impression created by these texts is of a renewed interest following the Conquest in the Historia ecclesiastica for information about Anglo-Saxon saints. In the case of the Vita, however, the history is overpowered by new narrative concerns. Extract ex Hist.eccl., III.xix. ed. see Lapidge 2010 2.82-94. MSS – A-S Vers none. Quots/Cits Hist.eccl., III.xix, 114-17: Mart (B19.1; Fursa), 48.16-18. Refs none. As Christine Rauer notes in her entries in Fontes Anglo-Saxonici, the discussion of Fursa in the OLD ENGLISH MARTYROLOGY (ed. Rauer 2013 number 21) contains a certain, direct borrowing from Historia ecclesiastica III.xix, the detail that Bede’s source, “an aged brother still living in our monastery,” recalled that “although it was during a time of severe winter weather and a hard frost and though Fursa sat wearing only a thin garment, yet as he told his story, he sweated as though it were the middle of summer, either because of the terror or else the joy which his recollections aroused” (ed.

200 

BEDE – PART 1

Lapidge 2010 2.90-92; trans. Colgrave and Mynors 1969 p 275). In Fontes Anglo-Saxonici, she establishes that other details are from the anonymous Vita Fursei (BHL 3213a; in Furseus, ACTA SANCTORUM, Whatley refers to BHL 3210). The general comments, however, that he was born in Ireland, that “his soul was led from his body for one night and he saw more horror and marvels than he was able to relate to men,” and that he travelled to Gaul where he died and was buried, could be from either source. Milton McC. Gatch (1992 pp 160-61) states that the visions in the Old English Vision of Leofric (B4.2; ed. Napier 1907-10 pp 182-86) “are far briefer than but not dissimilar to the famous tales of Fursey and Dryhthelm in Bede.” In his entries in Fontes Anglo-Saxonici, Peter Jackson finds “no real parallels” between Fursey’s vision and Leofric’s, but considers Dryhthelm’s as a multiple analogue. Extract ex Hist.eccl., IV.xvii. ed.: see Lapidge 2010 2.244-52. MSS Paris, Biblothèque nationale de France, lat. 5362, fols. 1-84: ASM 885.3. Lists – A-S Vers none. Quots/Cits 1. Hist.eccl., IV.xvii, 1-51: Mart (B19.1; Æthelthryth), 122.2-15. 2. Hist.eccl., IV.xvii, 61-85: Mart (B19.1; Æthelthryth), 122.15-18. 3. Hist.eccl., III.vii, 35: ÆLS (Æthelthryth) (B1.3.21), 7. 4. Hist.eccl., III.xviii, 26-27: ÆLS (Æthelthryth) (B1.3.21), 7. 5. Hist.eccl., IV.xvii, 1-9: ÆLS (Æthelthryth) (B1.3.21), 5-16. 6. Hist.eccl., IV.xvii, 18-20: ÆLS (Æthelthryth) (B1.3.21), 16-17. 7. Hist.eccl., IV.xvii, 9-18: ÆLS (Æthelthryth) (B1.3.21), 18-30. 8. Hist.eccl., IV.xvii, 21-35: ÆLS (Æthelthryth) (B1.3.21), 31-48. 9. Hist.eccl., IV.xvii, 65-67: ÆLS (Æthelthryth) (B1.3.21), 49-60. 10. Hist.eccl., IV.xvii, 88-95: ÆLS (Æthelthryth) (B1.3.21), 49-60. 11. Hist.eccl., IV.xvii, 65-73: ÆLS (Æthelthryth) (B1.3.21), 61-67. 12. Hist.eccl., IV.xvii, 45-60: ÆLS (Æthelthryth) (B1.3.21), 68-85. 13. Hist.eccl., IV.xvii, 73-87: ÆLS (Æthelthryth) (B1.3.21), 86-96. 14. Hist.eccl., IV.xvii, 101-07: ÆLS (Æthelthryth) (B1.3.21), 97-106. 15. ? Hist.eccl., IV.xvii, 18-20: ÆLS (Æthelthryth) (B1.3.21), 107-112. 16. Hist.eccl., IV.xvii, 85-101: ÆLS (Æthelthryth) (B1.3.21), 113-18.

Histories

201

Refs none. Bede’s detailed account of the life and miracles of Æthelthryth (see Ætheldrytha in ACTA SANCTORUM) in Historia ecclesiastica IV.xvii seems wellsuited for independent circulation, with or without the following chapter, in which Bede recorded his hymn, Alma Deus trinitas quae saecula cuncta gubernas. M.L.W. Laistner (1943 p 106) lists two manuscripts of chapter 17; the Paris manuscript contains both chapters. Michael Lapidge (2003b pp 555-57) has demonstrated that the Paris manuscript was created by ÆLFRIC as a source for several of his saints’ lives. The eighteen-line entry in the OLD ENGLISH MARTYROLOGY (ed. Rauer 2013 number 110) on Æthelthryth (Ætheldrytha in ACTA SANCTORUM) is, as Christine Rauer records in her entries in Fontes Anglo-Saxonici and her edition, composed of two passages from the Historia ecclesiastica: the first covers her chaste marriage to two kings and her founding of a female community at Ely; and the second the discovery of her uncorrupted body – and specifically her healed neck – sixteen years after her death. Ælfric’s homily on Æthelthryth in his Lives of Saints (B1.3.21; ed. and trans. Skeat 1966 1.432-40), which rearranges the material in IV.xvii while following its details closely, contains one comment that suggests a familiarity with the Historia ecclesiastica as a whole. In his description of Anna, Æthelthryth’s father, Ælfric stated that “his whole family was honoured by God” (line 7); the entries in Fontes Anglo-Saxonici offer two possibilities, III.vii, line 35 and II.xviii, lines 26-27, either or both of which are likely to be the source. In any case, the rest of Ælfric’s opening passage (lines 5-16), which summarises the saint’s chaste life with two husbands, draws mainly on IV.xvii, lines 1-9. While Bede addressed the doubt raised by this claim of her virginity by turning first to what he had been told by Wilfrid, Ælfric began by noting that the miracles associated with her confirm it (lines 16-17). He then turned to Wilfrid’s testimony (lines 18-30), invoking Bede twice, the second time as “the holy Beda who wrote this book” (line 24; see also lines 118-19). Lines 31-48 describe her entry into a convent, move to Ely as abbess, and her exemplary life there. In recording the saint’s death, burial, and translation, Ælfric radically reordered Bede’s narrative to offer a simpler chronology: Æthelthyrth falls ill and her tumour manifests itself (lines 49-60); the leech Cynefrith tries unsuccessfully to cure her wound (lines 61-67); she is buried in a wooden coffin (lines 68-69); Sexaburh becomes abbess and, sixteen years later, having decided to translate Æthelthyrth’s bones, sends brethren to find suitable stone (they return with a marble

202 

BEDE – PART 1

coffin; lines 70-85), the grave is opened and Cynefrith finds that her neck has healed (lines 86-96); and finally, she is reburied in the coffin, which fits her exactly (lines 97-106). Ælfric then returned to the idea that the saint’s uncorrupted body reveals her virginity, adding apparently on his own that it also demonstrates God’s power “to raise up uncorruptible bodies” (lines 107-12). Finally, he discussed the miracles associated with Æthelthryth’s relics (lines 113-18). Extract ex Hist.eccl., IV.xxix-xxx. ed.: see Lapidge 2010 2.296-320. MSS 1. Cambridge, Corpus Christi College, 183: ASM 56. 2. London, British Library, Cotton Claudius A. i, fols. 41-157: ASM 312.1. 3. London, British Library, Cotton Vitellius A. xix: ASM 401; ASMMF 10. 4. London, British Library, Harley 1117: ASM 427; ASMMF 10. 5. Oxford, Bodleian Library, Digby 175 (S.C. 1776): ASM 614. 6. Paris, Biblothèque nationale de France, lat. 5362, fols. 1-84: ASM 885.3. Lists Athelstan: ML 2.4. A-S Vers – Refs none. Although he had written both a metrical (c. 705; revised c. 716) and a prose Vita Cuthberti (c. 721), Bede returned to this subject again in chapters 25-28 of book 4 of the Historia ecclesiastica, relying on both the earlier anonymous prose Vita and his own prose work (see Cuthbertus in ACTA SANCTORUM). He then added two more (29 and 30), which include miracles that he had “recently chanced to hear” (IV.xxviii, lines 47-49, ed. Lapidge 2010 2.314; trans. Colgrave and Mynors 1969 p 445). These additional chapters often appear in later manuscripts of the prose Vita Cuthberti. The Cambridge manuscript is one of four volumes given by Athelstan to the congregation of Cuthbert at Chester-le-Street; see Michael Lapidge’s discussion of this list (ML 2) and Simon Keynes’s (1985) analysis of the gift, which is summarised in greater detail in the entry on the prose Vita. Cotton Vitellius A. xix, also from the mid tenth century, contains both the metrical Vita as well as Bede’s prose Vita. Harley 1117, from the end of the tenth or the beginning of the eleventh century, was probably copied from Vitellius

Histories

203

A. xix (see Colgrave 1940 p 46). Digby 175, identified in ASM as “s. xi/xii, Durham,” contains extracts from the Historia ecclesiastica concerning both Oswald and Aidan. Michael Lapidge (2003b pp 555-57) has demonstrated that the Paris manuscript was compiled by ÆLFRIC for use in writing his saints’ lives. Extract ex Hist.eccl., V.xii. ed.: see Lapidge 2010 2.372-86. MSS London, Lambeth Palace Library, 173, fols. 157-221: ASM 508. Lists – A-S Vers none. Quots/Cits 1. ? Hist.eccl., V.xii, 102-06: Leof (B4.2), 10. 2. ? Hist.eccl., V.xii, 113-14: Leof (B4.2), 11-12. Refs none. As Bertram Colgrave and R.A.B. Mynors (1969 p 498 note 1) point out, chapter 12 of the last book of the Historia ecclesiastica, Dryhthelm’s vision, is “a good example of Bede’s power of relating a vivid story.” Following the simple statement of his topic (“about this time a memorable miracle occurred in Britain like those of ancient times”), Bede explained its significance: “In order to arouse the living from spiritual death, a certain man already dead came back to life and related many memorable things that he had seen, and I think that some of them ought to be briefly mentioned here” (ed. Lapidge 2010 2.372; trans. p 489). Hardly brief, the narrative concludes dramatically with the revelation of Dryhthelm’s name and his simple responses to those who ask him about his extreme asceticism: “I have known it colder” and “I have seen it harder,” leaving Bede only to sum up: “And so until the day he was called away, in his unwearied longing for heavenly bliss, he subdued his aged body with daily fasts and led many to salvation by his words and life” (ed. 2.386; trans. p 499). M.L.W. Laistner (1943 pp 107-08) lists ten manuscripts that contain the extract, including the one noted above in the Lambeth Palace Library. M.R. James (1932 p 273) writes that it begins with a large red initial and that it

204 

BEDE – PART 1

contains two marginal glosses in Anglo-Saxon (OccGl 45.2; C45.2; ed. Meritt 1945 number 5). ÆLFRIC told the story as the second of two visions of the otherworld for Tuesday in Rogation tide in his second series of Catholic Homilies; it has been edited by Malcolm Godden (1979 pp 199-203) as Homily 21 (ÆCHom II, 23; B1.2.26). Because it appears more likely that Ælfric drew this material from the Historia ecclesiastica rather than from extracts, the Quots/Cits have been included in the main entry above. Milton McC. Gatch (1992 pp 160-61) states that the visions in the Old English Vision of Leofric (B4.2; ed. Napier 1907-10 pp 182-86) “are far briefer than but not dissimilar to the famous tales of Fursey and Dryhthelm in Bede.” In his entries in Fontes Anglo-Saxonici, Peter Jackson finds “no real parallels” between Fursey’s vision and Leofric’s, but considers Dryhthelm’s as a multiple analogue. Like Dryhthelm, Leofric is taken “to a very beautiful and very fair field filled with a sweet odour” where “he beheld … great crowds … all clothed in snow-white garments” (trans. Napier 1907-10 p 183). As Jackson indicates, there are other possible sources for these details, particularly the Dialogi of GREGORY THE GREAT. Extract ex Hist.eccl., V.xiii. ed.: Sparks 2013 pp 47-48. MSS ? Bloomington, Lilly Library, Ricketts 177 + Düsseldorf, Universitäts- und Landesbibliothek, KB1: B 216. Lists – Refs none. The Bloomington and Düsseldorf fragments are part of a single leaf that contains the central portion of Bede’s account of a man warned of his future damnation by seeing first “two handsome youths,” who present him with “a very beautiful but exceedingly small book” containing his good deeds, and then “an army of evil spirits” with “a volume of enormous size and almost unbearable weight” detailing all of his sins “clearly but in hideous hand-writing” (trans. Colgrave and Mynors 1969 p. 501). These fragments may contain not only the end of the extract, which is marked by “finit,” but also its opening; Nicholas A. Sparks (2013 p 39 note 42) writes: “At the head of the Bloomington leaf, the black, enlarged initial S is somewhat calligraphic, so may be seen as indicating the beginning of this extract;

Histories

205

conversely, however, we might expect a similar short incipit prefacing the start of Bede, as we find at the start of the Augustine tract.” As it survives, the passage omits King Cenred of Mercia’s initial attempts to reform the man, beginning instead at the dramatic moment when he becomes more ill, which leads to his recounting of his vision to the king. The end of the extract also omits Bede’s concluding remark: “I thought I ought to tell this story simply, just as I learned it from the venerable Bishop Pehthelm, for the benefit of those who read it or hear it” (ed. Lapidge 2010 2.392; trans. Colgrave and Mynors 1969 p 503). Written at Werden (see Zechiel-Eckes 2003 p 29), the fragment is included here not only because of its potential relevance for the larger textual history of the Historia ecclesiastica but also because of the indications that it was made in, as Sparks (2013 p 45) argues, a “thoroughly Insular” context. He identifies its text as “more likely Northumbrian” as it is unrelated to the manuscripts from the Canterbury redaction of the work (p 41 and see the main entry above). Sparks quotes a personal communication from Joshua A. Westgard: “the variants in this short excerpt haven’t enabled any easy identification … I see no conjunctive errors in this fragment that would allow me to link it to the main German family”; however, Sparks continues, “the absence of German markers need not speak for an English pedigree” (pp 41-42). He also considers the possibility that it is related to the textual tradition of the Continuatio Bedae, which Westgard has linked to another fragment of the Historia ecclesiastica preserved in Münster (see the main entry), but concludes, “To me, I should say it looked improbable that the ancestor of the Continuatio text could be closely related to the BloomingtonDüsseldorf fragment, but I would be glad if it were proved otherwise” (p 44). On the whole, this fragment may indicate the loss of another Northumbrian copy of Bede’s work. Sparks (2013 pp 44-45) also provides some reasons to believe that the extract itself was made in England. The text that follows it in the BloomingtonDüsseldorf fragments, the beginning of a passage from AUGUSTINE’s De diuersis quaestionibus, although known to Bede and THEODORE of Canterbury, “bears no obvious traces of its internal history let alone the textual provenance from which its version is derived” (p 44). Sparks (pp 31-33), however, has identified another fragment in Chicago’s Newberry Library that he shows comes from the same book. It contains extracts from the PSEUDO-JEROME, Epistola de gradus Romanorum (referred to by Sparks as Ämtertraktat), and the PSEUDO-BONIFACE sermon De Fide recta. Sparks cites P. S. Barnwell (1991) and Gerhard Schmitz (2010), who have “linked both texts to the Anglo-Saxon mission” (p 45). It appears

206 

BEDE – PART 1

more likely that the collection was made before the missionaries left their homeland. Extract ex Hist.eccl., V.xiii-xiv. ed.: see Lapidge 2010 2.386-92. MSS London, Lambeth Palace Library, 173, fols. 157-221: ASM 508. Lists – Refs none. In describing the Lambeth Palace manuscript, M.R. James (1932 p 273) distinguishes the “Vision of Drihthelm” (item 8; V.xii) from “Visions from Bede” (item 9; V.xiii-xiv), the latter beginning with a “large red initial somewhat decorated” and ending imperfectly with “penitentiam ageret” (corresponding to “paenitentiam faceret” in Lapidge 2010 2.394, lines 22-23). M.L.W. Laistner (1943 pp 108), who notes only the chapter on Drihthelm in the Lambeth manuscript, does not identify other excerpts of these two chapters. The vision recounted in chapter 13 has been described in the previous entry. In Homily 19 of his Supplementary Collection (B1.4.20; ed. Pope 1967-68 pp 622-35), ÆLFRIC adapted the material from these two chapters: they are included in the main entry, Quots/Cits 331-39.



Poetry: De die iudicii

Too long to be considered an Epigram and not intended for liturgical use as a Hymn, De die iudicii might have been collected with the metrical Vita Cuthberti in a section called, for example, “Other Verse.” It seems, however, preferable to consider the prose and metrical works on Cuthbert together in Saints’ Lives, as Bede himself did in his list of works at the end of the Historia ecclesiastica gentis Anglorum (ed. Lapidge 2010 2.482). Moreover, the Collectio Psalterii, published by J. Fraipont in part 4, Opera rhythmica, of the CCSL edition of Bede’s works, is metrical not by the standard that Bede followed in his own verse but rather inasmuch as JEROME’s translation adapts Hebrew prosody (see Toswell 2014 pp 45-46). It is included in Bible: Aids to Biblical Study. There is, then, a single “other work” to be considered here. De die iudicii [BEDA.Carm.Iudic.]: CPL 1370; RBMA 1646, 1; ICL 8197. ed.: CCSL 122.439-44. MSS 1. Cambridge, University Library, Gg. 5. 35: ASM 12; ASMMF 9. 2. Cambridge, Trinity College, O. 2. 31 (1135): ASM 190; ASMMF 12. 3. London, British Library, Add. 11034: ASM 280. 4. London, British Library, Cotton Domitian i, fols. 2-55: ASM 326; ASMMF 5. 5. London, British Library, Royal 15.B. xix, fols. 79-199: ASM 493. 6. Salisbury, Cathedral Library, 168: ASM 750. 7. Paris, Bibliothèque nationale de France, lat. 8092: ASM 890. Lists none. A-S Vers 1. JDay II (A17). 2. HomU 26 (Nap 29; B3.4.26). Quots/Cits 1. Carm.Iudic., 161: ÆTHELBERHT.Epist. 124, 413.11. 2. Carm.Iudic., 161: ALCVIN.Epist. 29, 71.14. 3. Carm.Iudic., 161: ALCVIN.Epist. 65, 109.25 4. Carm.Iudic., 161: ALCVIN.Epist. 95, 140.12

208 

5. Carm.Iudic., 161: ALCVIN.Epist. 102, 149.27 6. Carm.Iudic., 156-57: ALCVIN.Epist. 234, 380.19. 7. Carm.Iudic., 161: ALCVIN.Epist. 252, 408.25 8. Carm.Iudic., 161: ALCVIN.Epist. 262, 420.28. 9. Carm.Iudic., 58: ALCVIN.Epist. 294, 452.18. 10. Carm.Iudic., 30: ALCVIN.Vers.Eubor., 469-70. 11. Carm.Iudic., 35: ALCVIN.Vers.Eubor., 636. 12. ? Carm.Iudic., 95: ALCVIN.Vers.Eubor., 910-14. 13. Carm.Iudic., 161: ALCVIN.Carm. 12, 3. 14. Carm.Iudic., 1-3: ALCVIN.Carm. 23, 3-4. 15. ? Carm.Iudic., 157: ALCVIN.Carm. 28, 14. 16. Carm.Iudic., 161: ALCVIN.Carm. 28, 26. 17. Carm.Iudic., 156-57: ALCVIN.Carm. 29, 1-2. 18. Carm.Iudic., 142: ALCVIN.Carm. 76, 21. 19. Carm.Iudic., 58: ALCVIN.Carm. 88, xv, 16. 20. Carm.Iudic., 148: ALCVIN.Carm. 89, xiii, 1. 21. Carm.Iudic., 15: ALCVIN.Carm. 90, xxvi, 8. 22. Carm.Iudic., 49: ALCVIN.Carm. 100, i, 13. 23. Carm.Iudic., 161: ALCVIN.Carm. 101, 13. 24. Carm.Iudic., 148: ALCVIN.Carm. 110, iv, 1. 25. Carm.Iudic., 156-57: ALCVIN.Vit.Willibr.metr., xxiv, 10. 26. Carm.Iudic., 58: ALCVIN.Vit.Willibr.metr., xxiv, 9. 27. Carm.Iudic., 30: ALCVIN.Vit.Willibr.metr., xxxii, 10. 28. Carm.Iudic., 148: ÆTHELWULF.Abbat., 204. 29. ? Carm.Iudic., 157: ÆTHELWULF.Abbat., 794. 30. Carm.Iudic., 24: WVLF.WINT.Narr.metr.Swith., II, 567. 31. Carm.Iudic., 24: WVLF.WINT.Narr.metr.Swith., II, 1145. 32. Carm.Iudic., 19: BYRHT.Vit.Os., 136.14-15. 33. Carm.Iudic., 6: BYRHT.Vit.Ecg., 226.1-2. 34. Carm.Iudic., 7: BYRHT.Vit.Ecg., 226.3. 35. Carm.Iudic., 8-9: BYRHT.Vit.Ecg., 226.5-6. 36. Carm.Iudic., 10: BYRHT.Vit.Ecg., 226.7-8. 37. Carm.Iudic., 49: BYRHT.Vit.Ecg., 226.10. 38. Carm.Iudic., 50-55: BYRHT.Vit.Ecg., 226.12-17. 39. Carm.Iudic., 57-61: BYRHT.Vit.Ecg., 226.19-23. 40. Carm.Iudic., 66-67: BYRHT.Vit.Ecg., 226.24-25. 41. Carm.Iudic., 79-80: BYRHT.Vit.Ecg., 226.26-27. 42. Carm.Iudic., 124-27: BYRHT.Vit.Ecg., 226.28-31. 43. Carm.Iudic., 1-163: BYRHT.Hist.reg., 23.29-27.35. 43. ? Carm.Iudic., 59-71: ByrM (B20.20), IV.ii, 98-102.

BEDE – PART 1

Poetry: De die iudicii

209

Refs BYRHT.Hist.reg., 23.24-28. Some uncertainty surrounds De die iudicii in part because Bede did not include it in his list of works in book 5, chapter 24 of the Historia ecclesiastica gentis Anglorum (ed. Lapidge 2010 2.480-84). The title “De die iudicii” or “Versus de die iudicii” is suggested by both the incipit in the manuscript of the Old English translation, Judgment Day II, and BYRHTFERTH’s discussion of the poem prior to quoting it in his Historia Regum (see below). Also appropriate is the title, “Lamentatio Bedae,” given to it in Byrhtferth’s work (ed. Arnold 1882-85 2.23; for this and other titles, see the textual note, “Titulus,” in CCSL 122.439), since, as Patrizia Lendinara (2007a p 175) states, the main theme of the poem is “the need for penitence.” In the opening eleven lines, the speaker, sitting in a natural setting, is “suddenly disturbed by a bitter lament” (trans. Allen and Calder 1976 p 209) when he remembers his own sins and Judgement Day, two of the nouns in a longer series – Lendinara calls attention to the poem’s “many holonomastic lines, that is verses entirely made up of nouns (or adjectives or verbs), a feature which Bede himself had praised in his De schematibus et tropis” (p 176). After calling on his body to repent, the speaker’s attention turns to signs of Judgement (lines 50-56 and 72-77), Judgement itself (lines 57-71 and 78-86), the terrors of hell (lines 93-123), and the joys of heaven (lines 124-54; these identifications largely follow Lendinara pp 175-76). As originally written, it concludes with an address to ACCA, who became bishop of Hexham in 710. The question of Bede’s authorship has yet to be fully resolved. Relying in part on an unpublished paper by Rob Getz, Janie Steen (2008 pp 72-74) presents the case for ALCUIN. Writing in a way that suggests he does not favour an attribution to Bede, Michael Lapidge (1996b p 320) notes that the poem’s “verbose overstatement” stands in contrast to the “compressed understatement” of his Hymns and metrical Vita Cuthberti, and he offers four examples of metrical faults, not “a feature found elsewhere in his verse,” as evidence for many more. In contrast, he calls attention to the “frequent manuscript attributions to Bede” and the “envoi to Acca of Hexham” as evidence of Bede’s authorship. Moreover, he addresses the first problem when he writes: “Perhaps Bede felt that a lofty theme such as the joys of heaven deserved heightened rhetorical treatment (hence his pervasive use of asyndeton); or perhaps he intended that his spiritual outpouring of grief should be embodied in a verbal outpouring.” Lapidge (2008a pp 131-37; see also Lapidge 2004 pp 103-11) clearly supports the attribution to Bede, identifying the flaws of the CCSL edition as the source for “a number

210 

BEDE – PART 1

of unmetrical lines (42, 89, 91, 92, 103, 121, 147, etc.) which [Bede] can never have written” (p 137 note 315). Considering the attribution to Bede secure, Lapidge (2008a p 131) writes that De die iudicii is “probably one of Bede’s earliest poetic compositions”: The final lines of the poem contain a dedication to Bede’s lifelong friend and colleague, Acca of Hexham; but since Acca is not addressed specifically in the poem as “bishop,” but only as Acca pater (162), the presumption must be that the poem was composed before Acca became bishop of Hexham on the death of Bishop Wilfrid in 710. The poem is thus probably to be dated to the first decade of the eighth century.

A new edition as well as a full analysis will appear in Lapidge’s forthcoming Bede’s Latin Poetry. MSS 1-7. The forty-one manuscripts, which Lapidge (2008a pp 131-37) analyses and groups in a stemma, raise two issues: the shape of the text and its circulation in Anglo-Saxon England (Lapidge’s discussions of lexical variants, which help determine these groups, will not be considered here). Three groups of manuscripts, all apparently of Continental origin, do not include the address to Acca (lines 156-63). “There are,” Lapidge writes, “two possible explanations for this omission: either the lines were removed by a continental scribe as being thought irrelevant to a Continental readership … or else they were removed in England for the same reason, before being exported to the Continent” (p 135). One of these groups, which includes London, British Library, Royal 15. B. xix, contains manuscripts whose early dates “imply transmission to the Continent no later than the early ninth century, and perhaps to the period of Carolingian cultural renewal in the late eighth” (p 135). Indeed Lapidge argues that the “evidence of early copies from Saint-Riquier (where Angilbert, CHARLEMAGNE’s son-in-law, was abbot) and Salzburg (where Alcuin’s colleague Arno was bishop and later archbishop), in combination with Alcuin’s own intimate knowledge of the Versus de die iudicii, may perhaps point to Alcuin himself as the agent of transmission” of this group (p 135). Lapidge further notes that “at some point it must have struck a reader of [this recension] that line 154 formed a somewhat abrupt ending to the poem (‘sedibus et superum semper gaudere beatis’); he therefore composed an additional hexameter to bring the poem to a seemingly more suitable conclusion” (p 135). This line, 155, is marked in the CCSL with a question mark and Lapidge shows that it does not follow Bede’s normal metrical practice. As Lapidge indicates, three of the manuscripts listed above – Cambridge, University Library, Gg. 5. 35; London,

Poetry: De die iudicii

211

British Library, Add. 11034; and Paris, Bibliothèque nationale de France, lat. 8092 – end with line 155, leading him to identify the Cambridge and Paris manuscripts as “English copies of a continental exemplar imported into England perhaps no earlier that the eleventh century” (p 136). He does not clarify the London manuscript’s relationship to this group; ASM identifies it as questionably tenth century and probably from England. MSS 2, 4, and 6. Two of the manuscripts listed above – Cambridge, Trinity College, 0. 2. 31 (1135) and London, British Library, Cotton Domitian i – belong to a sub-group of Lapidge’s first group, which “consists primarily of manuscripts written in England” and which “have lines 1-154 and 156-63,” in other words, the poem as Bede wrote it. The sub-group, however, has omitted some of the final lines and rearranged others. For the Cambridge manuscript, Lapidge lists lines 1-154, 156-59, 161, and 163; for the London manuscript, lines 1-154, 156-59, and 161-63. It should be noted, however, that the last seven lines of the London manuscript have been added by a second hand, which Timothy Graham has identified as Anglo-Saxon square minuscule from the second half of the tenth century (see Biggs 2003 p 153). The order of the last three lines is 162-63 and 161. Here line 155, written in a hand resembling that of John Dee, who owned the manuscript before Cotton, is indicated as belonging before line 154. This, too, is the manuscript that L. Whitbread (1966 pp 648-49) identified as particularly close in its use of paragraphing to the Old English Judgment Day II. Finally, Salisbury, Cathedral Library, 168 is one of two manuscripts of the first group that contains the entire poem as well as the spurious line 155. Lapidge comments: “It is hardly surprising that some contamination should have occurred with a poem which was copied as frequently and studied as intensively as the Versus de die iudicii” (p 136). In addition to the manuscripts of the work, two other forms of its transmission require comment in this context. As published by Georg Cassander (1556 pp 338-44) “from a manuscript which cannot be identified and may not survive” (Lapidge 2008a p 137), it contains lines 1-154, 156-57, and 163. On the importance of this edition for identifying Bede’s genuine Hymns, see the introduction to that section; there seems no reason to assume, however, that Cassander must have relied on the same source for this poem and the other works he ascribes to Bede. It is perhaps worth noting that in this edition, the poem follows Bede’s hymn Apparebit repentina dies magna Domini. Moreover, as mentioned above, Byrhtferth included the entire poem as written by Bede in his Historia regum (ed. Arnold 1882-85 2.23-27; on the attribution of this work to Byrhtferth, see Lapidge 1993c pp 317-42; see also Hart 2006). Lapidge (2008a p 134) classifies this version with

212 

BEDE – PART 1

his first group of manuscripts primarily written in England. Indeed, the manuscript, Cambridge, Corpus Christi College, 139, fol. 58v, shows that the extra line, 155, has been added to the original text, although in a script roughly contemporary with the main hand. It has been placed between lines 153 and 154, where it has been added, as just noted, to Domitian i. A rubric before the poem identifies it as “Lamentatio Bedae presbyteri.” Byrhtferth remarked that it concerns Judgement Day (“de die iudicii”) and was written for bishop Acca (see Arnold 1882-85 2.23 and the discussion of Refs below). MSS glosses. Lendinara (2007a p 184) writes that “seven out of the nine Insular manuscripts of De die iudicii contain Latin glosses, while one, Domitian i, features glosses in both Latin and Old English.” The Old English glosses, OccGl 43 (Nap; C43), are edited by Napier (1900 no. 33); see also NRK 146. She also notes “particularly numerous” Latin glosses in the Paris manuscript. Some of the glosses are variant readings, which “testify both to the deep interest in the text of the poem itself and to the large number of copies in circulation.” The glosses support her argument that the poem was used as a school text in late Anglo-Saxon England. A-S Vers. There are two Old English versions of De die iudicii: the verse Judgment Day II (A17; ed. ASPR 6.58-67), which is usually dated on metrical grounds to after the mid-tenth century (see Fulk 1992 pp 262-64 and Bredehoft 2005 pp 70-80), and a long passage (p 136, line 27-p 140, line 2) in an anonymous homily known as Napier 29 (B3.4.26; ed. Napier 1883 pp 134-43). The rubric, “Incipit uersus Bede presbiteri. De die iudicii,” for Judgment Day II in the one manuscript in which it survives, Cambridge, Corpus Christi College, 201 (ASM 65; NRK 49), associates the poem with Bede’s and then quotes its first two lines. Lendinara (2007b p 39) sums her detailed analysis of the relationship of the Old English to the Latin, “the translation is accurate, but not slavish.” As she notes, however, this question is complicated by the prose version included as part of Napier 29, which survives in Oxford, Bodleian Library, Hatton 113 (ASM 637-38; NRK 331). Calling attention to the use of “underfon in a context (lines 119-26) close to the version of Napier, Wulfstan, 137.18-23, and unscannable,” E. G. Stanley (1971 p 389) argues, “this use provides some evidence either that a prose version underlies the verse or that a prose version and the extant verse version were a more or less simultaneous double product, the prose here having precedence.” In his edition, Graham D. Caie (2000 pp 31-32) notes other examples that establish that the poem as we have it cannot have been the homilist’s source. On the other hand, as Stanley also recognises, since the homily contains only part of the Bedan material found in Judgment Day II (see Caie 2000 pp 25-26, who notes it does not include lines 1-95,

Poetry: De die iudicii

213

166-75, and 232-42 of the Old English poem; and has a shortened form of lines 248-71), it cannot be the poem’s source. It is not clear, however, why the homilist must have worked from a prose version rather than a fuller poetic one, the position of Whitbread (1966 pp 646-47). Steen (2008 pp 75-88) discusses the Old English poet’s use of his source. Quots/Cits 1-5, 7-8, 13, 16, and 23. A line in Bede’s salutation to Acca, “Viue Deo felix et dic uale fratribus almis” (line 161; “Live happy in God and say farewell to the kind brothers”; trans. Allen and Calder 1976 p 212) was, as Whitbread (1967 p 263) notes, used by ÆTHELBERHT, archbishop of York, in a poem that he inserted into the end of Epistola 124 to LULL (MGH ECA 1.413; the author referred to himself as Koaena). Indeed, Andy Orchard (2000 p 26) notes that the phrase appears in three of Alcuin’s poems (12, 28, and 101; MGH PLAC 1.237, 247, and 328), but not recognising its source in Bede, he attributes it to Æthelberht (see also Thornbury 2014 p 88). Alcuin also used it, as Whitbread recognises, in verses at the end of six letters (ed. MGH ECA 2.71, 109, 140, 149, 408, and 420), often with imaginative elaboration. The early use by Æthelberht supports the claim that the salutation and so the poem as a whole were written by Bede. Quots/Cits 6, 15, 17, 25, and 29. Whitbread (1967 p 264) also identifies lines 156-57, the beginning of Bede’s closing address to Acca (“May Christ keep you safe for my sake, my dearest brother, and make you always and forever happy”), as the source for a number of verses by Alcuin. Carmen 29 opens “Incolumem Christus, carissime, te mihi praesul / Conservet mitis semper ubique, precor” (ed. MGH PLAC 1.248; the words in italic are shared by both). Alcuin concluded Letter 234 to Pope Leo: “Incolumem Christus faciat te vivere semper / O pater, o pastor, papa valeto, Leo” (ed. MGH ECA 2.380). These lines are also the source for line 10 of chapter 24 of Alcuin’s metrical Vita Willibrordi (MGH PLAC 1.216; “Conlaudans Christum semper sine fine beatus”). Moreover, Whitbread points out that the final phrase in Bede’s line 157, “sine fine beatum,” could be the source for Alcuin’s “sine fine beatam” in his poem 28 to Pope Leo III (ed. MGH PLAC 1.247). The same phrase appears in line 794 of ÆTHELWULF’s De abbatibus (ed. A. Campbell 1967 p 63). A possible source for this phrase is OVID’s Ibis (line 207; ed. La Penna 1957 p 41); see also “sine fine beatae,” line 592 in book 1 of ARATOR’s Historia apostolica (ed. CCSL 130.268). Quots/Cits 9, 19, and 26. Lendinara (2001 p 311) calls attention to the phrase “coetibus angelicis” (line 58), although it should be noted that it also occurs in ALDHELM’s Carmina Ecclesiastica IV.ii, 36 (MGH AA 15.22). She identifies its use in Alcuin’s Vita Willibrordi (MGH PLAC 1.216), where it appears with the phrase “sine fine beatus,” and his Carmen 88, xv (MGH

214 

BEDE – PART 1

PLAC 1.308). As Lendinara (2001 p 318) also notes, Alcuin again turned to it in Epistola 294 (MGH ECA 2.452), a letter written to one of his pupils about whom he had heard rumours of sinful behaviour. The phrase itself occurs at the point in the poem when Christ arrives to judge mankind. If an allusion to De die iudicii, the phrase would have resonated more strongly had Alcuin, as seems likely, read the poem with his pupil. Quots/Cits 10-12 and 27. Peter Godman (1982) identifies three uses of De die iudicii in his edition and translation of Alcuin’s Versus de sanctis Euboricensis ecclesiae. In discussion drawn from Historia ecclesiastica III.xiii of a posthumous miracle of Oswald, the saving of an Irish scholar during a time of plague, Alcuin referred to the moment of death with the phrase “mortis … articulus” (ed. p 40), which Godman notes he had drawn from line 30 of De die iudicii, part of Bede’s account of the conversion of the thief at the Crucifixion. Indeed, as Godman also points out, Alcuin used Bede’s exact phrase, “mortis in articulo,” in section xxxii of his verse Vita Willibrordi (MGH PLAC 1.218), here discussing a thief who has tried to steal a cross that the saint had previously carried. Moreover, Godman credits line 35 of De die iudicii, “Auribus Omnipotens te nunc exaudit apertis,” as the source for Alcuin’s “auribus e solio caelesti audivit apertis” (line 636; ed. p 52); Bede’s remark occurs in the context of the speaker’s plea to his body to repent; Alcuin’s in Wilfrid’s description to his disciples of Michael’s message that Mary has heard their prayers. Godman’s third example is not certain. In his recounting of Dryhthelm’s vision (Historia ecclesiastica V.xii), Alcuin described the deep valley to which Dryhthelm is first led as, on one side (lines 910-14; ed. p 76), … filled with terrible raging flames, and the other with freezing hail. It was crowded on both sides with the souls of men, who, when excessively burned and unable to endure the burning, would leap in their misery into the midst of the cold.

There are two correspondences, “flammis ferventibus” (line 910) and “frigoris” (line 914), in this passage to line 95 of De die iudicii: “Frigora mixta simul feuentibus aligida flammis.” The connection to the poem, however, is mediated by the immediate source in the Historia ecclesiastica V.xii, lines 31-36, which provides sources for both “frigora” and “ferventibus flammis.” Quots/Cits 14, 18, 20, 24, and 28. Whitbread (1967 p 264) notes three verbal echoes (“undique,” “ramis resonantibus arbos,” and “florigeris”) from the beginning of Bede’s poem in the opening lines of Alcuin’s Carmen 23 (ed.

Poetry: De die iudicii

215

MGH PLAC 1.243), his well-known poem in which he bid farewell to his cell. Lendinara (2001 p 312) identifies Bede’s “praemia perpetuis” (line 142; “perpetual rewards”) in Alcuin’s Carmen 76 (line 21; MGH PLAC 1.297). Whitbread (p 264) also calls attention to the phrase “Dei genitrix, pia virgo Maria” (line 148) in the first line of section 13 (“Ad aram sanctae Mariae et Clementis”) of Alcuin’s Carmen 89 (“In aecclesia sancti Vedasti in pariete scribendu”; MGH PLAC 1.310) and in the first line of section 4 of Carmen 110 (ed. MGH PLAC 1.341). Lendinara (2001 p 311) cites further examples of Alcuin referring to Mary as “dei genetrix”: Carmina 20, line 22 (ed. MGH PLAC 1.241), Carmen 90, section 1, line 2 (ed. MGH PLAC 1.313), Carmen 99, section 12, line (ed. MGH PLAC 1.325), and Carmen 109, section 4, line 1 (ed. MGH PLAC 1.336). However, since this phrase was used by GREGORY THE GREAT in Dialogi IV.xviii and ARATOR, and appears throughout Bede’s writings, these examples (and there are others) are not included above, awaiting further study. In this context, Steen (2008 p 171 note 17) adds Æthelwulf’s “a dextris uirgo et genetrix astare uideri” in De abbatibus, line 204 (ed. A. Campbell 1967 p 19). Quots/Cits 21-22. Lendinara (2001 p 311) points out that Alcuin modified Bede’s phrase “membra solo sternam” (line 15) in his Carmen 90, xxvi (line 8; MGH PLAC 1.317). She also identifies the phrase “mercedem reddere” (line 49) as the source of line 13 of Alcuin’s Carmen 100, i (MGH PLAC 1.328), the conclusion of his poem “ad mensam”: “Accipiet Christus, dederis tu pauperi quicquid, / Et tibi non tardat mercedem reddere magnam” (“Christ will receive whatever you give to the poor / and he will not delay to return to you a great reward”). Quots/Cits 30-31. In his Narratio metrica de Swithuno (ed. Lapidge 1988 pp 371-551) WULFSTAN OF WINCHESTER includes two lines that Lapidge considers reminiscent of line 24 of De die iudicii, “Qui solet allisos sanare et soluere uinctos” (“who is accustomed to heal those who suffer and free those in chains”). The first, in the account in book 2 of a man aided by Swithun in cutting through a beam with a small knife, appears in a prayer to God, “qui / erigit elisos, soluitque ligamine unctos” (line 567; “[God, who] lifts up those who are down-trodden and who releases captives from their chains” ed. and trans. Lapidge 1988 pp 520-21). The second, also in book 2, concludes the story of “the woman bound up in manacles”: “These very manacles are still to be seen hanging in this church, in praise and honour of the highest Deity, for whom it is possible to raise up the down-trodden and release those in chains” (“erigere elisos cui posse et soluere uinctos”; ed. and trans. Lapidge 1988 pp 548-49). Quots/Cits 32-43. In his Vita Oswaldi IV.xviii (ed. and trans. Lapidge 2009 pp 2-202), BYRHTFERTH uses the phrase “de cordis antro” in

216 

BEDE – PART 1

describing how the “faithful … know how to expel the poison of discord from the depths of their heart.” Lapidge (2009 p 136) connects this phrase to PRUDENTIUS but “especially” to line 19 (his 18 is a misprint) of Bede’s De die iudicii, “Nec lateat quicquam culparum cordis in antro.” As Lapidge’s edition (2009 pp 206-303) of the Vita Ecgwine establishes, the sermon that Byrhtferth composed for the saint is “simply lifted [from] a number of lines from Bede’s Versus de die iudicii” (Lapidge 2009 p 226 note 56). Bede’s lines 6 and 10 are embedded in Byrhtferth’s prose, but the others are quoted directly, with some minor adaptations. Lapidge here also concludes that Byrhtferth used a different copy of Bede’s poem when composing this work in Evesham than the one he had used at Ramsey when writing the Historia regum. For Byrhtferth’s inclusion of the poem in this work, see the discussion of manuscripts above and references below. In their notes on lines 98-102 of their edition of the Enchiridion, Baker and Lapidge (1995 p 369) write, “The material on the day of judgement is commonplace, but there are some palpable verbal debts to Bede’s poem De die iudicii” (59-71). Refs. As he introduced a complete transciption of De die iudicii in his Historia regum xxvi, Byrhtferth, as noted above, referred explicitly to Bede. Indeed, from the opening lines of this work, which draw on Historia ecclesiastica II.v, lines 1-5 (ed. Lapidge 2010 1.196), Bede played a major role in the story. In chapter 13, for example, Byrhtferth turned to the founding of Monkwearmouth-Jarrow, and chapter 14 began an extended extract from Bede’s Historia abbatum. He then discussed Bede (chapter 25), quoting first the PSEUDO-BEDE Me legat annales cupiat qui noscere menses found in computistical manuscripts. Following De die iudicii, he included Bede’s account of the state of the church in England in 731 (chapter 29, from Historia ecclesiastica V.xxiii), and his summing up of his own life (chapter 30, from V.xxiv); in chapter 34, he recorded Bede’s death. It appears, then, that De die iudicii occupied a significant place in Byrhtferth’s view of Bede. Graham D. Caie (2000) edits the Old English poem, Judgment Day II, as well as the section from Napier Homily 29 that corresponds to it; he also prints the Latin from London, British Library, Cotton Domitian i. This edition has been severely criticised by Mark Griffiths (2001), who analyses the sources of the poem in his entries in Fontes Anglo-Saxonici. Lines 139-54 are edited in MGH PLAC 4.1088 from a tenth-century manuscript now in Paris. Lendinara (2001) reviews the question of Alcuin’s knowledge of the poem more broadly, considering questions of style as well as verbal echoes. She also traces the borrowings more deeply into later Carolingian uses.



Poetry: Epigrams

From the list of his works at the end of the Historia ecclesiastica gentis Anglorum (ed. Lapidge 2010 2.484; trans. Colgrave and Mynors 1969 p 571), it is certain that Bede not only wrote epigrams, but also gathered them together into a volume since he included “a book of epigrams in heroic and elegiac metre” (“librum epigrammatum, heroico metro siue elegiaco”). Because this work has not survived, it has fallen to scholars, particularly Michael Lapidge (1996b pp 314-20, 357-79, 508, and 510-12; and 2008a pp 120-26), to sort out what can be said about its contents. Two kinds of works were certainly included: dedications (tituli) for churches and epigraphs for books. Standing midway between these two would be tituli composed, if indeed Bede did compose them, to adorn lavish books such as the Codex Amiatinus, as well as, perhaps, verses to close a book, if indeed this was the purpose of Lector adesto uigil. Also likely to be part of his collection would be moral sententiae, which could cover his paraphrases of the Psalms and perhaps the O Deus aeternae mundo spes unica uitae, also known as the Oratio Bedae. It might also have contained epitaphs. In the absence of firm information, all of these short works will be gathered here, where they are arranged in alphabetical order of their incipits. Preceding these entries is a more general one on the lost Liber epigrammatum, which includes a discussion of the individual genres, but which should not obscure the fact that many if not all of these works would have circulated in other forms, such as at the beginnings of the works they introduced. The entry Liber epigrammatum also discusses briefly another category, AENIGMATA, even though there are no accepted examples of Bede’s work in this genre. Finally, before turning to Bede’s Latin epigrams, one poem in Old English, Bede’s Death Song, will be considered because it is similar in theme to some of these works. Bede’s Death Song [BDS (A33)]. ed.: ASPR 6.107. MSS – Refs none. In his Epistola de obitu Bedae, CUTHBERT related that among the verses of scripture and antiphons that Bede repeated during the days of his final illness was a five-line poem in Old English. This comment informs us not only of the poem’s theme, but also of Bede’s knowledge of vernacular

218 

BEDE – PART 1

poetry: “And in our own language, for he was familiar with English poetry, speaking of the soul’s dread departure from the body, he would repeat …” (“In nostra quoque lingua, ut erat doctus in nostris carminibus, dicens de terribili exitu animarum e corpore …”; ed. and trans. Colgrave and Mynors 1969 pp 580-81). The alliterative poem that follows warns each to consider the judgement he will face “aefter deothdaege” (“after his death day”). Noting this theme in Bede’s Latin poetry, Michael Lapidge (1996b p 338; see also pp 319-20) moves towards the conclusion of his Jarrow lecture, “Bede’s Poetry,” by quoting the Old English and commenting, “In English, as also in Latin, Bede has a distinctive voice.” As Howell D. Chickering (1976) demonstrates, the question of attribution depends to some degree on our understanding of the oral character of Old English verse. Noting that some scholars deny Bede authorship because this claim is explicitly made only in a small and late group of manuscripts (see note 4 in Colgrave and Mynors 1969 pp 580-81 and ASPR 6.c-cvii), Chickering calls attention to the phrase “doctus in nostris carminibus” to argue that “Bede knew how to compose orally and made his Death-Song on the spot” (p 96). He cites Bede’s comment that CÆDMON “made songs about the terrors of the future judgment” (Historia ecclesiastica gentis Anglorum IV.xxii; ed. Lapidge 2010 2.280; trans. Colgrave and Mynors 1969 p 419), as well as five other Old English poems to propose that the theme became “traditional” in vernacular verse. Cuthbert, however, provides no indication that Bede himself used different words at different times, and there are no substantial variants in the manuscripts. Elliott Van Kirk Dobbie (ASPR 6.107-08) prints three versions of the poem. The earliest manuscript of the Northumbrian version, assigned the abbreviation BDSN by the Toronto Dictionary of Old English, survives in St Gall and dates to the ninth century. A single manuscript from the tenth century in the Hague (BDSH) represents his second version. The third, the West Saxon Version (BDSW-S), survives only in manuscripts of the twelfth century and later. Facsimiles of all the manuscripts are printed in EEMF 23. Liber epigrammatum: lost. MSS none. Lists ? Alcuin: ML 1.7.

Poetry: Epigrams

219

A-S vers none. Quots/Cits MILR.Syll.: see below. Refs 1. ? BONIF.Epist. 75, 158.8-12. 2. ? ALCVIN.Vers.Eubor., 1308. As mentioned in the introduction, this book, listed in Historia ecclesiastica gentis Anglorum V.xxiv (ed. Lapidge 2010 2.484; trans. Colgrave and Mynors 1969 p 571), does not survive and so scholars, particularly Michael Lapidge (1996b pp 314-20, 357-79, 508, and 510-12; and 2008a pp 120-26), have had to reconstruct its likely contents. Surveyed here is the evidence for the six kinds of poems likely to have been included, listing the surviving examples of each. This organisation is, of course, merely for convenience of presentation: there is not enough information to suggest how Bede ordered his collection. The evidence for the genres themselves requires some initial comment. Most important, after the internal clues provided by Bede’s own writings, is the Sylloge of MILRED, bishop of Worcester (745-75), since it too was a collection of epigrams – one that drew on Bede’s (and so the mention in Quots/ Cits); on Milred’s other sources, see Patrick Sims-Williams (1982). Unfortunately knowledge of this work is limited solely to a bifolium, which contains sixteen poems and inscriptions, that survives as manuscript 128 in the library of the University of Illinois (ASM 938), and to notes on the entire manuscript from which the bifolium was taken, made by the sixteenth-century English antiquarian, John Leland; seven of these notes pertain to Bede (see Lapidge 2008a p 121). Indeed epigrams from this source will be quoted from Lapidge (1996d pp 361-79), who has worked from Leland’s manuscript deposited in the Bodleian Library in Oxford. One epigram, Istam Patricius sanctus sibi vindicat aulam (ICL 8406), identified by Leland and presumably Milred as by Bede (see Lapidge 1996d pp 363-64 and Lapidge 2008a p 121) has been assigned by Ludwig Traube (1901) to CELLANUS OF PÉRONNE (see HLW p 84). Milred is also our sole source for the information that Bede wrote AENIGMATA and included them in his Liber epigrammatum, unless there is more to say about a work of this title in Cambridge, University Library, Gg. 5. 35, which Helmut Gneuss and Lapidge (ASM 12) attribute to Bede. Earlier, Lapidge (1996d p 362) had ruled out this possibility. Gneuss and Lapidge’s reference to ICL 11204 leads to “Olim truncus eram ficulnus, inutile lignum,” HORACE’s Sermones 1.8.

220 

BEDE – PART 1

Also important for our understanding of the kinds of poems Bede might have included are the likely sources for his epigrams. Here the collections of inscriptions to commemorate the dedications of Roman churches and cemeteries – the inscriptions a tradition begun by Pope DAMASUS (366-84) and the collections dating from the seventh century (see Lapidge 1996b pp 314-15) – are of primary interest. Damasus also wrote poems that served as epigraphs for books, which Bede might have known through their circulation in early Anglo-Saxon England (see Lapidge 1996b p 317). Bede certainly had at hand, as Lapidge (1996b p 318) points out, PROSPER OF AQUITAINE’s Epigrammata (CPL 526), “metrical versions of various moral sententiae (‘sayings’) which Prosper had collected from the prose writings of St AUGUSTINE”; indeed, Bede quotes two verses of its preface in De arte Metrica I.iii, lines 74-75, after identifying both the author and title of the work (“ut Prosper in praefatione epigrammatum”; ed. CCSL 123A.91). Finally, Bede used at least one of Prosper’s Epigrammata in obtrectatorem Augustini (CPL 518), the short damning attack on PELAGIUS. He quotes it in Historia ecclesiastica I.x, although here without identifying it as an epigram: “Quod pulchre uersibus heroicis Prosper rethor insinuat cum ait” (lines 12-13; ed. Lapidge 2010 1.54; “The rhetorician Prosper expresses it well in telling couplets when he says …,” trans. Colgrave and Mynors 1969 p 39). It is on the basis of this evidence that Lapidge establishes the likely contents of Bede’s lost volume. Tituli of churches. As Leland’s notes show (see Lapidge 2008a pp 120-21), Milred’s Sylloge contained two works that are attributed to Bede and that have survived: Istam Patricius sanctus sibi vindicat aulam (ICL 8406) and Splendet apostolici radio locus iste dicatus. As noted above, the first is by Cellanus, and the attribution to Bede, as Lapidge (1996d p 364) puts it, “inscrutable.” The second is by Bede. Leland, presumably following Milred, identified it as “gathered from Bede’s epigrams” (see Lapidge 2008a p 121). Leland’s notes also include three works of this type that have not survived: “Epigramma Bedae ad S. Michaelem,” which “was possibly intended to commemorate the oratory (clymiterium) of St Michael” mentioned in Historia ecclesiastica V.ii as “being near Hexham” (Lapidge 1996d pp 362-63); “[Epigramma Bedae] ad S. Mariam de consecratione ecclesiae in eius honorem,” which could have been for one of the churches of Saint Mary at either Monkwearmouth or Hexham; and “Versus eiusdem in porticu ecclesiae S. Mariae ab Wilfrido episcopo constructa, in quibus mentionem facit Accae episcopi,” which was certainly for the church of Saint Mary at Hexham (these identifications are from Lapidge 1996d pp 362-63, which contains further discussion of each). The Illinois manuscript also contains tituli of Roman churches not mentioned by Leland since his concern was

Poetry: Epigrams

221

English history (see Sims-Williams 1982 and 1983); these, however, serve as a reminder of the prevalence of the genre in early Anglo-Saxon England. Epigraphs for books. Leland’s first note reads, “Versus Bedae de tractatu Hieronymi in Esaiam,” which, according to Lapidge (2008a p 122), “was arguably composed by Bede to preface the collection of ‘distinctiones capitulorum’ [see Bible: Chapter Headings] to the prophets Isaiah, Daniel, the so-called minor prophets, and part of Jeremiah, which he listed among his writings in the final chapter of his Historia ecclesiastica.” As Lapidge explains in his note, this collection of chapter headings was published by Donatien de Bruyne (1914 pp 185-238), but without a prefatory epigram. Lapidge then lists the four such prefaces that do survive: Des­cripsi breuiter finesque situsque locorum, Exul ab humano dum pellitur orbe Iohannes, Iacobus Cephas Iohannes Thaddeus uno, and Naturas rerum uarias labentis et aeui. It is perhaps significant that these four were written for works that date to early in Bede’s career: De locis sanctis (c. 702-03), Commentarius in Apocalypsim (c. 701), Commentarius in epistolas septem catholicas (c. 709-716), and De natura rerum (c. 703). Lapidge concludes: “it is a reasonable assumption, then, that these five prefatory epigrams once formed part of Bede’s Liber epigrammatum.” Indeed, this volume may have had an epigraph as well since Leland records one, Hos Albine tibi merito venerabilis abba, to Albinus accompanying a volume of Bede’s poetry (Lapidge 1996d p 378). Lapidge notes “some difficulties with this epigram”: Bede himself would seem to be dead when it was written (“nostro qui clarus in orbe / extitit”), and Bede died in 735. But Albinus to whom the epigram is addressed, died some three years before Bede in 732. The difficulty is best resolved by supposing that Bede’s Liber epigrammatum was dedicated to Albinus, and that a later poet simply recast the original dedication, after the deaths of both Bede and Albinus, in the present epigram.

There is, then, no separate entry on this work. Sententiae. Prosper not only wrote a collection of epigrams, metrical expressions of ideas drawn from Augustine’s writings, but also placed at its beginning a prefatory verse that explains this genre in a Christian context: “While it pleases the mind to engage in holy discourses / it also delights the soul to feed on heavenly bread” (“Dum sacris mentem placet exercere loquelis, / Cœlestique animum pascere pane juvat”; PL 51.497). He expressed his pleasure in having gathered these “flowers” and having woven them into short verses, identifying them as epigrammata. Yet credit belongs not to the poet (“nec nostrae hoc opis est”), but rather the “dew” (“ros”)

222 

BEDE – PART 1

comes from God – “from the one who commands the waters to pour forth on the dry cliff” (“Qui siccam rupem fundere jussit aquas”). He concludes with an exhortation: “What may have come, with holiness as a guide, into the disposition of the heart, let joyful faith bring forth in song” (“Ut quod in affectum cordis, pietate magistra, / Venerit, hoc promat carmine laeta fides”). As already noted, Bede quoted two verses – the ones concerning God’s role in poetic inspiration – in De arte metrica. With its twin themes of study and composition, which mirror much of Bede’s own career, the preface to Prosper’s Epigrammata widens the genre to include much shorter religious verse. In this context, Lapidge (1996b p 318) mentions the Oratio Bedae (O Deus aeternae mundo spes unica uitae) as well as his metrical versions of three psalms: Ceruus ut ad fontes sitiens festinat aquarum, Quam dilecta tui fulgent sacraria templi, and Laudate Altithronum pueri laudate tonantem. With these, Lapidge (2008a p 125) associates “three single lines – arguably taken from longer poems? – which were preserved by ALCUIN in his De Laude Dei: Non circumdantis timeo milia plebis (cf. Ps 3:7), Quem metuant fines terrarum funditus omnes (cf. Ps 66:8), and Gau­ debunt mea cum tibi decantauero labra (cf. Ps 70:23).” Epitaphs. That not only holy churches, books, and themes but also holy lives might be summed up in verse seems an inevitable conclusion for Bede to have reached, especially since it returns the epigram back to one of its original meanings (see Howatson 1989 pp 216-17). He began his “somewhat full account” of GREGORY THE GREAT’s life in Historia ecclesiastica II.i with his death, and later in this chapter returns to his burial at St Peter’s before quoting in full the epitaph written on his tomb (ed. Lapidge 2010 2.176). Qualifying Wilhelm Levison’s (1935 p 140) view that “Bede’s aim [is] to tell a documented story,” J.M. Wallace-Hadrill (1988 pp 50-51) comments: “Bede may of course have cited it less because it was a ‘document’ than because it was a summary in elegiac couplets of the saint’s merits.” In any case, he also included in this work the complete verse epitaphs of Cædwalla of Wessex (V.vii; Culmen opes subolem pollentia regna triumphos; ed. 2.352) and Wilfrid (V.xix; ed. 2.426-28), the opening and closing of the thirty-fourverse epitaph of THEODORE, archbishop of Canterbury (V.viii; Hic sacer in tumba pausat cum corpore praesul; ed. 2.356), and the prose epitaph of AUGUSTINE, archbishop of Canterbury (II.iii; ed. 2.190). Indeed, Werner Jaager (1935 pp 50-51) considers the one for Wilfrid, Vilfridus hic magnus requiescit corpore praesul, likely to have been written by Bede (see also Lapidge 2008a p 123). In this context, Lapidge (2008a p 123) also mentions the eighteen verses that Bede included in his prose Vita Cuthberti, Quis

Poetry: Epigrams

223

Domini expediet coelestia munera dictis? Since it was not written on a tomb, this epigram is not in that narrow sense an epitaph; it is, however, a meditation on the resurrection of the deceased saint that sums up the sanctity of his life. Moreover, Bede made it clear that he wrote it earlier in his career, apparently independently of his later writings about this saint. It is perhaps worth noting here that Leland recorded Bede’s own epitaph, Presbyter hic Beda requiescit, carne sepultus, from Milred’s Sylloge, which was also known to William of Malmesbury; Lapidge (1996d p 379) states that it “is presumably the production of one of the Jarrow brethren.” Tituli within books. Lapidge (2008a p 123) writes, “Also appropriate for inclusion in a book of epigrams would be tituli composed to adorn lavish books, such as copies of the Bible.” The three surviving examples, two of which are ascribed by Paul Meyvaert (1996 pp 868 and 877) to Bede, are found in the Codex Amiatinus, Codicibus sacris hostili clade perustis, Eloquium domini quaecunque uolumina pandunt, and Hieronyme interpres uariis doctissime linguis. Closing verses in books. Lapidge (2008a p 125) supports Sims-Williams’s (1982 pp 37-38) suggestion that Lector adesto uigil pagina quaeque canit, three lines of verse that survive in a single German manuscript, is part of the epigram that once closed Bede’s Liber epigrammatum. Lists. Bede is mentioned in the list of books owned by Ælberht, archbishop of York, and bequeathed to Alcuin (ML 1.7); see the introduction, BEDE. Refs. For the reference of BONIFACE to Bede in Epistola 75 (ed. Tangl 1955, 158.8-12), see the introduction, BEDE. Alcuin’s reference in his Versus de sanctis Euboricensis ecclesiae occurs in the context of his discussion of Bede, who was “the composer of many poems in metrical style” (Godman 1982 pp 102-03). Ceruus ut ad fontes sitiens festinat aquarum [BEDA.Epig.Ceruus.]: ICL 2131; ICVL 2658. ed.: CCSL 122.447-48. MSS – A-S vers none. Quots/Cits ALCVIN.Laud.Dei.: see below. Refs none.

224 

BEDE – PART 1

Identified in several manuscripts as the “Soliloquium venerabilis Bedae Presbyteri,” this epigram is a reworking of Psalm 41, “As the hart panteth after the fountains of water; so my soul panteth after thee, O God.” Michael Lapidge (1996b pp 318-19) argues that it and Bede’s paraphrase of Psalm 81, Quam dilecta tui fulgent sacraria templi, share a common theme, “the moment in life when the soul is separated from the body and travels to see the face of God.” He quotes and translates lines 15-19 in support of this analysis: “Because of the terror of that moment, the tears and lamentations of this present life are contrasted with the joys of eternal bliss.” Lapidge concludes: “In this poem the joyous hills of heaven are contrasted with the terrors of the hellish abyss: the poet places his entire trust in the Lord in order that his spirit may escape to the realm beyond the stars.” As Lapidge (2008a pp 123-24) notes, its manuscript context indicates that this poem circulated independently of the Liber epigrammatum. Excerpts are preserved in ALCUIN’s unpublished De laude Dei (see Hymns; Lapidge 2008a p 124; and Constantinescu 1974 p 56). See Elena Malaspina (1979 pp 973-87) for an analysis of the epigram’s rhetoric and vocabulary. Codicibus sacris hostili clade perustis [BEDA.Epig.Codic.]: ICL 2431. ed.: Meyvaert (1996 p 877). MSS Florence, Biblioteca Medicea Laurenziana, Amiatino 1 (the “Codex Amiatinus”): ASM 825. Lists – A-S vers none. Quots/Cits Epig.Codic.sacr., 1-2: ALCVIN.Carm. 69, 201-02. Refs none. The starting point for understanding this epigram, Hieronyme interpres uariis doctissime linguis, and Eloquium domini quaecunque volumina pandunt, all three of which appear as tituli in the opening folios of the Codex Amiatinus, is Meyvaert’s essays in Speculum (1996 and 2005) and Revue Bénédictine (2006). As Meyvaert argues, these folios were prepared

Poetry: Epigrams

225

following CEOLFRITH’s decision to send this pandect to St Peter’s in Rome. The inspiration for the gift was CASSIODORUS’s now lost one-volume Bible, the Codex Grandior, which contained a depiction of its owner that Bede was unable to recognise as such because, as Meyvaert (1996 pp 827-31 and 2005 p 1113) explains, he did not have access to that author’s Institutiones. Instead, Bede concluded the figure was Ezra, who, in his role as renewer of holy scripture following the Babylonian Captivity, was a type of Christ. Meyvaert (2005 p 1098) quotes from Bede’s Commentarius in Ezram et Neemiam: “Because through the burning of the Temple and the destruction of Jerusalem the Holy Scriptures that were kept there had been destroyed by hostile forces, they, through the Lord’s mercy, needed to be restored to his people who after returning and restoring the ruined buildings would possess that [Scripture] through which they could be restored inwardly in the faith and love of their creator.” It is this idea, indeed using some of its language, that is expressed in the image and epigram. Yet, Meyvaert (2005 p 1126) continues, Viewing the way the image is set in the page, surrounded by wide margins on all sides, I cannot believe that having verses above the image was part of the original planning. They were inserted, I think, by Bede as an “identifying tag” at a late date and at the urging of some of his brethren, who remained puzzled, because Bede wanted to make sure the image would be recognized for what it was meant to be when the gift pandect reached Rome.

Meyvaert (2005 p 1115) asserts that the inscription is in Bede’s own hand. Meyvaert (2006 p 302), it should be noted, concludes that he “exaggerated” Bede’s part in the planning of these opening folios and in the depiction of Ezra. Abandoning an explanation in his 1996 article, Meyvaert (2005 p 1127) develops Celia Chazelle’s suggestion (2003 p 146 note 49) that ALCUIN knew Bede’s couplet and used it in his conclusion of Carmen 69 (ed. MGH PLAC 1.292) because he had seen the Codex Amiatinus in Rome during his visits either in the late 770s or in 780-81. His poem, probably written in 790-93 when he was again in England and intended to accompany the gift of a large Bible to CHARLEMAGNE (Bullough 2004 pp 405-19), uses the couplet, as Meyvaert explains (2005 p 1127), to draw “a moral lesson by linking the books that had perished by fire (‘codicibus … perustis’) of the Ezra couplet with the idea of escaping eternal fire (‘igne / flammis … atris’) taken from a line of JUVENCUS’s Gospel poem he had come to cherish.”

226 

BEDE – PART 1

Descripsi breuiter finesque situsque locorum [BEDA.Epig.Descrip.]: ICL 3510; ICVL 4271. ed.: CCSL 175.251. MSS – Refs none. Written to introduce De locis sanctis (see Bible: Aids to Biblical Study), this six-line epigram identifies Bede as its author and “the territory and sites of the places / Which Holy Scripture would have us particularly remember” (trans. Foley and Holder 1999 p 5) as the topic of the following work. In it, Bede discusses his sources: “Following the records of the ancients and inspecting them / Together with the corroborating writings of newer teachers” (on this point, see the entry on De locis sanctis). It concludes with a prayer: “Grant, O Jesus, that we may always press toward that homeland / Which delights eternally in the highest vision of you.” Eloquium domini quaecunque uolumina pandunt [BEDA.Epig.Eloq.]: ICL 4367. ed.: Lapidge (1996d p 378). MSS Florence, Biblioteca Medicea Laurenziana, Amiatino 1 (the “Codex Amiatinus”): ASM 825. Lists – A-S vers none. Quots/Cits MILR.Syll.: see below. Refs none. Although the attribution of these verses to Bede does not follow Paul Meyvaert (2006), this article and his two in Speculum (1996 and 2005) provide the background for understanding the use of the first two lines of this epigram in the Codex Amiatinus (see Codicibus sacris hostili clade perustis), where they have been written over an image of the dove that symbolises the Holy Spirit. They begin a four-line epigram that was transcribed by John Leland

Poetry: Epigrams

227

from MILRED’s lost Sylloge (see Liber epigrammatum), but without identifying their author. In Leland, the final word of the incipit is “fundunt.” Meyvaert (2006 pp 303-04) proposes that the couplet in Amiatinus was written in response to Bede’s concern that, as originally planned, the opening folios did not sufficiently emphasise JEROME’s role as the translator of the text chosen for this pandect. Indeed, he suggests that, to support his argument with the individual who had organised the material, Bede “showed him a passage from ALDHELM’s poetic De uirginitate dealing with the virgin Eustochium, which specifically dwelt on Jerome as translator of Bible.” Using the phrase “volumina pandens,” Bede’s adversary “(or someone on his side) composed and placed [the couplet] on the last page of his initial quire, (just above the figure of the dove created to symbolize the Holy Spirit)”: Whatever books proclaim the word of God God the Spirit poured forth this word from his holy mouth.

Countering Bede, “the intention was to remind readers what they would find in all the biblical books that followed on the initial quire, namely God’s word (eloquium domini) transmitted through the inspiration of the Holy Spirit.” Meyvaert continues, “The Bible, after all was God’s word to mankind, not Jerome’s,” and concludes, “Bede may have been somewhat annoyed to find how brother John had played with Aldhelm’s vocabulary to counter him.” Patrick Sims-Williams (1983 p 24-25) offers two reasons why the entire epigram may be by Bede: “it is difficult to see why [Leland] transcribed it unless he had reason to believe it had a Bedan connection” like the two following verses; and “it looks as if it came from the same pen” as Hieronymus reserat dum mystica claustra uidentum. Lapidge (1996d p 512) states only that its appearance in the Codex Amiatinus “might imply a Northumbrian origin for the poem.” Yet to return to Meyvaert (2006), one might suggest that Bede’s adversary attempted to win his case by quoting Bede against Bede. Exul ab humano dum pellitur orbe Iohannes [BEDA.Epig.Exul.]: ICL 4853. ed.: CCSL 121A.218-19. MSS 1. Durham, Cathedral Library, A. IV. 28: ASM 225. 2. London, Lambeth Palace, 149, fols 1-139: ASM 506. 3. ? Karlsruhe, Badische Landesbibliothek Aug. perg. 135.

228 

BEDE – PART 1

Lists – A-S vers none. Quots/Cits Epig.Exul., 1: ALCVIN.Carm. 69, 168. Refs none. Heroic in both form and content, this twenty-two line epigraph composed in elegiac couplets introduces Bede’s Commentarius in Apocalypsim (c. 701), his only biblical work of this kind to receive such treatment. Indeed, it helps to confirm the date of this text since his other epigraphs for books appear in early works (see Liber epigrammatum). To argue for its authenticity, Roger Gryson (2001 pp 167-68) links it to the Commentary and to other works by Bede; he further details its connection with Latin poets, particularly the Christians, ARATOR, CAELIUS SEDULIUS, and PRUDENTIUS, but also the pagans, STATIUS and VERGIL. Bede focused first on John, an exile, who enters heaven from where he can look back at the strife of this world, which will end with the Lamb leading “the white robed soldier” to heaven and the “scaly Serpent” drowning “his cohorts in Tartarus by fire, famine, plague” (trans. Wallis 2013 p 99). In the first person, he then identified “This conflict’s form, its passion, its array / The strategy, the soldiery, the weapons and the prizes” as the topics for the following work, and alluded to his use of sources: “wandering where the men of old had sown, / I plucked from the sacred fields some shoots – but few.” He concluded by exhorting the reader to praise God “if my dishes are to your taste” or, if not, to “erase [his song with] merciless pumice.” Faith Wallis (2013 pp 58-59) offers a perceptive analysis of the poem that fits well with her interpretation of the Commentary as written to counter anxiety about an imminent end of time. “It deserves,” she writes, “our attention for what it reveals about Bede’s overall intentions”: Its accents are strongly Tyconian and Augustinian. Revelation is introduced as a vision of conflict-in-progress between two cities, Babylon and Jerusalem. On one plane, the two cities are sharply distinguished, but on another, they are confusingly intermingled. John’s vision is of ongoing war in the realm of “wave-wandering wheels” ( fluctiuagas rotas). There is a distinct echo here of Neptune’s chariot (Aeneid 1.147, 156), but fluctiuagas is Bede’s word, and one of his favourite locutions.

Poetry: Epigrams

229

He likes to deploy it in connection with historic time, which rolls on unceasingly and unpredictably, in contrast to the stabilitas of eternity and heaven. The eventual separation of the two cities is assured, with the Lamb leading his hosts into heaven and the Dragon drowning with his followers in hell, but Bede’s poem proclaims that it is the war itself that is his principal theme. He thus announces the bifocal character of Revelation as a symbolic account of historical time as well as a prophecy concerning its consummation.

In the eighth-century St Gall manuscript of the Commentary, it is preceded by the rubric, “Versus Bedae presbyteri,” which is also found in the Lambeth manuscript; there is no title in the Durham manuscript. The poem is not included in some manuscripts of this work, including Aberdeen, University Library 216 (ASM 1). It does appear before an abbreviated version of it in the ninth-century Karlsruhe manuscript listed above, which contains both Insular abbreviations and Old English glosses to one of its texts; see Wright (forthcoming 2015). The poem circulated independent of the rest of the Commentary in an eleventh-century German manuscript now in the Vatican (see Gryson 2001 p 91). In his Carmen 69, the metrical introduction to the Bible probably written in 790-93 (Bullough 2004 pp 405-10), ALCUIN adapted the opening line, “Exul ab humano expellitur orbe pius” (ed. MGH PLAC 1.291), but preserved its reference to John. Gaudebunt mea cum tibi decantauero labra [BEDA.Epig.Gaud.]: ICL 5511. ed.: CCSL 122.451. MSS – A-S vers none. Quots/Cits ALCVIN.Laud.Dei.: see below. Refs none. Preserved in ALCUIN’s unpublished De laude Dei (see Hymns and Lapidge 2008a p 125), this single line reworks Psalm 70:23, “My lips shall greatly rejoice, when I sing to thee.” Michael Lapidge suggests that it and the other two examples of these single lines, which are “arguably taken

230 

BEDE – PART 1

from longer poems,” may belong “with the metrical psalm-paraphrases” (see Liber epigrammatum). Hieronyme interpres uariis doctissime linguis [BEDA.Epig.Hier.interp.]. ed.: Meyvaert (1996 p 868). MSS Florence, Biblioteca Medicea Laurenziana, Amiatino 1 (the “Codex Amiatinus): ASM 825. Lists – Refs none. As discussed more fully in Codicibus sacris hostili clade perustis, which also survives as a titulus in the opening folios of the Codex Amiatinus, Paul Meyvaert’s 1996 and 2005 articles are key to understanding this epigram. CEOLFRITH’s Bible, inspired by the Codex Grandior and intended as a gift to St Peter’s in Rome, did not use as its text the Vetus Latina as its inspiration, CASSIODORUS’s pandect, had, but rather JEROME’s Vulgate (see BIBLE). Meyvaert (1996 p 868) describes the folio on which this epigram appears, When we pass from the recto of the leaf that contains [Cassiodorus’s] prologus to its verso, we leave the world of Cassiodorus for that of Wearmouth-Jarrow and Bede. This page – purple like the recto – makes a statement, namely, that the contents of the Codex Amiatinus represent Jerome’s version of the Bible.

Of the inscription itself Meyvaert (1996 p 870) writes, “the script of the poem celebrating Jerome appears a little cramped, is irregular in spacing (including height and width of the letters), and does not have quite the same professional look as the heading, in the same script, at the head of the columns” It is, he believes, Bede’s. The first three verses are from ISIDORE’s epigram on Jerome in his Versus de bibliotheca (ICL 6806; ICVL 8160; ed. PL 83.1109.20-24), “a series of elegiac couplets modelled on MARTIAL’s Epigrammata, which were originally intended as inscriptions placed beneath the portrait of the author to whom they referred” in the Cathedral Library of Seville (Di Sciacca 2008 p 7). The fourth verse, adapted as Meyvaert (1996 p 869) points out from a couplet about the Bible in the same work by Isidore (PL 83.1107.44), transforms the first three (trans. Meyvaert 1996 p 868):

Poetry: Epigrams

231

You, O Jerome, translator most learned in diverse languages, You Bethlehem celebrates, you the whole world sings; Our library, too, will exalt you in your books, Through which you create new gifts from old treasures.

Meyvaert comments, “in tribute to Jerome, the agency of Wearmouth-Jarrow scriptorium in the production of his ‘new gift’ (donarium) is tactfully suppressed”; yet the epigram may recall the monastery’s and more particularly Bede’s role in the dissemination of this version of the Bible in Anglo-Saxon England. Hieronymus reserat dum mystica claustra uidentum [BEDA.Epig.Hier. reser.]: ICL 6812. ed.: Lapidge (1996a p 361). MSS – A-S vers none. Quots/Cits MILR.Syll.: see below. Refs none. In his notes on MILRED’s lost Sylloge (see Liber epigrammatum), John Leland lists “Versus Bedae de tractatu Hieronymi in Esaiam,” quoting six lines of verse (Lapidge 2008a p 121). It celebrates JEROME’s success in his eighteen-book Commentarii in Isaiam in making the Hebrew treasures available in the Latin world (“Hebreas Latio pandit in orbe gazas”). Michael Lapidge (p 122) identifies this as a poem “arguably composed by Bede to preface the collection of Distinctiones capitulorum (see Bible: Aids to Biblical Study) to the prophets Isaiah, Daniel, the so-called Minor Prophets, and part of Jeremiah, which he listed among his writings in the final chapter of his Historia ecclesiastica (V.xxiv).” Hoc tibi Christe Deus uitae spes unica terris [BEDA.Epig.Hoc.]. ed.: Lapidge (2008a p 122). MSS Urbana (Illinois), University of Illinois Library 128: ASM 938.

232 

BEDE – PART 1

Lists – A-S vers none. Quots/Cits MILR.Syll.: see below. Refs none. Michael Lapidge (2008a p 122 note 273) suggests that this single, unassigned hexameter in the Urbana fragment of the Sylloge of MILRED (see Liber epigrammatum) “may be by Bede inasmuch as the phrase spes unica uitae is used in both the Oratio Bedae [O Deus aeternae mundo spes unica uitae] and the paraphrase of ps XLI [Ceruus ut ad fontes sitiens festinat aquarum].” Iacobus Cephas Iohannes Thaddeus uno [BEDA.Epig.Iac.]: ICL 7461. ed.: MGH PLAC 4.1067. MSS – Refs none. Edited as 25 in the “Versus libris adiecti” in the MGH, this epigram served as a verse prologue to Bede’s Commentarius in epistolas septem catholicas. It is recorded in a number of early manuscripts of the work, but has not yet been identified in any that circulated in Anglo-Saxon England. Michael Lapidge (2008a p 123 note 275) states that it “also enjoyed separate circulation with other of Bede’s poems (including the metrical paraphrases of Pss. XLI [Ceruus ut ad fontes sitiens festinat aquarum] and CXII [Laudate Altithronum pueri laudate tonantem] and the Hymn for St Æthelthryth [Alma Deus Trinitas quae saecula cuncta gubernas] in two Munich manuscripts … and one from St Gallen.” The epigram is also edited in CCSL 121.181. Laudate Altithronum pueri laudate tonantem [BEDA.Epig.Laud.]: ICL 8705. ed.: CCSL 122.450. MSS Cambridge, University Library, Ll. 1. 10 (the “Book of Cerne”): ASM 28; ASMMF 7.

Poetry: Epigrams

233

Lists – A-S vers none. Quots/Cits ALCVIN.Laud.Dei.: see below. Refs none. Identified in some manuscripts, but not the one in Cambridge listed above, as the “Carmen venerabilis Bedae presbyteri de Psalmo CXII,” this epigram is indeed a reworking of Psalm 112, “Praise the Lord, ye children: praise ye the name of the Lord.” Michael Lapidge (1996b p 318) characterises it as “a brief expression of praise to God,” which makes it similar in theme to many of Bede’s “abbreviated psalms” (Collectio Psalterii; see Bible: Aids to Biblical Study). The Cambridge manuscript, known as the Book of Cerne (see LITURGY), contains prayers as well as other texts; for an edition, see A. B. Kuypers (1902). As Lapidge (2008a pp 123-24) notes, its manuscript context indicates that this poem circulated independently of the Liber epigrammatum. Excerpts are preserved in ALCUIN’s unpublished De laude Dei (see Hymns; Lapidge 2008a p 124; and Constantinescu 1974 p 56). See Elena Malaspina (1979 pp 973-87) for an analysis of its rhetoric and vocabulary. Lector adesto uigil pagina quaeque canit [BEDA.Epig.Lect.]: ICL 8822. ed.: Lapidge (2008a p 125). MSS – Refs none. In discussing a ninth-century miscellany from Passau, Bavaria, Patrick Sims-Williams (1982 pp 37-38) calls attention to the final epigram, which apparently lacks its first line, in a series that he accepts as taken from the work of ALCUIN. He notes that it is like other epigrams by Bede since it identifies him as its author, using indeed the characteristic phrase “Beda dei famulus.” Without going into detail, Sims-Williams suggests “that it is with these lines that Bede concluded his lost Liber epigrammatum.” Certainly the ideas expressed would be appropriate in this context since the lines not only identify Bede as the author, but also address the attentive reader (“lector … uigil”) to attend to “whatever book sing” and, in the final

234 

BEDE – PART 1

phrase, to pour forth prayers (“funde preces”). Michael Lapidge (2008a p 125) calls attention to the shared diction with Naturas rerum uarias labentis et aeui. Since so little is known about these verses, their use in later Carolingian poetry may be revealing. Its opening line is repeated as the last in the seventh item edited by Karl Strecker in the section “Versus libri adiecti” (ed. MGH PLAC 4.1058; incip.: “Mystica Daviticae si te modulamina musae”). The last line, “Pro quisque legis obsecro funde preces” is echoed in the final line of the second Carmina Salisburgensia: “Pro quo, quisque legis versus, orare memento” (ed. MGH PLAC 2.639); and in the epitaph for Abbot Sichard of Farfa: “Pro quo, quisque legis, non cesses mente benigna / Fundere votivas nocte diesque preces” (ed. MGH PLAC 2.655). Indeed, the three lines are reworked in a poem commemorating Riculf, founder of St Albans’, Bleidenstadt (ed. MGH PLAC 1.431): Quam cernis, lector, signans et carmine tumbam. Pro quo, quisque legis versus, dic supplice voto: “Christe, tui famuli semper miserere, precamur.”

Its influence has not yet been found in Anglo-Saxon England. Naturas rerum uarias labentis et aeui [BEDA.Epig.Nat.]: ICL 10033; ICVL 11618. ed.: CCSL 123A.189. MSS London, British Library, Royal 13. A. xi: ASM 483. Lists – Refs none. Bede opened De natura rerum, his early work on the natural world (c. 703), with these verses. Using his characteristic phrase, “Dei famulus,” he identified himself as the author, and concluded with an appropriate admonition: “You who study the stars above, / Fix you mind’s gaze, I pray, on the light of the everlasting day” (trans. Kendall and Wallis 2010 p 71). It is initially surprising that Bede identified his topic as not only “the varied nature of things” but also “the broad ages of fleeting time.” This, however, is one of a number of details that Calvin B. Kendall and Faith Wallis (2010 pp 4-5 and 135) use to show the “unity of conception” of this work and De temporibus.

Poetry: Epigrams

235

The epigram appears in the Royal manuscript without the rubric, “Versus Bedae Presbiteri,” found in others. The entire epigram, with a substitution of “Iacob” for “Beda” has been edited by Karl Strecker in the section “Versus libri adiecti” (ed. MGH PLAC 4.1058). Non circumdantis timeo me milia plebis [BEDA.Epig.Non.]. ed.: CCSL 122.451. MSS – A-S vers none. Quots/Cits ALCVIN.Laud.Dei.: see below. Refs none. Preserved in ALCUIN’s unpublished De laude Dei (see Hymns and Lapidge 2008a p 125), this single line reworks Psalm 3:7, “I will not fear thousands of the people surrounding me.” Michael Lapidge suggests that it and the other two examples of these single lines, which are “arguably taken from longer poems?,” may belong “with the metrical psalm-paraphrases” (see Liber epigrammatum). O Deus aeternae mundo spes unica uitae [BEDA.Epig.O.]: ICL 10861; ICVL 12586. ed. CCSL 122.445-46. MSS London, British Library, Royal 2. A. xx: ASM 450; ASMMF 1. Lists – Refs none. Identified as the “Oratio Bedae” in a ninth-century manuscript that survives in Orléans (see Lapidge 2008a p 124), the prayer asks for God’s protection from death “in such a perilous moment” (“in tanto discrimine”) for his servant (“famulum … tuum”). It ends with the request to be among the angelic choirs.

236 

BEDE – PART 1

The Royal manuscript, which is printed by A. B. Kuypers (1902 pp 217-18), lacks the first six lines. Patrick Sims-Williams (1990 pp 281 and 352) notes that this manuscript may have included more works by Bede since it is missing leaves before and after the one on which his poems appear. Quam dilecta tui fulgent sacraria templi [BEDA.Epig.Quam.dilect.]: ICL 12972. ed. CCSL 122.449. MSS London, British Library, Royal 2. A. xx: ASM 450; ASMMF 1. Lists – Refs none. This epigram is a reworking in elegiac form of Psalm 83, “How lovely are thy tabernacles, O Lord of hosts!” It survives among other prayers in the British Library manuscript listed above, a prayerbook (with other texts) written in the late eighth and early ninth centuries, possibly at Worcester; A. B. Kuypers (1902 pp 201-25) edits the prayers. Indeed the attribution to Bede derives to some extent from this context, where it follows an incomplete version of the Oratio Bedae, O Deus aeternae mundo spes unica uitae; see Wilhelm Meyer (1917 pp 616-17). Elena Malaspina (1979 pp 973-87) provides further internal evidence in support of this claim. Michael Lapidge (1996b p 318) associates the epigram with Bede’s rendering of Psalm 41, Ceruus ut ad fontes sitiens festinat aquarum, proposing that both are reflections on a common theme, “that moment in life when the soul is separated from the body and travels to see the face of God.” As Lapidge (2008a pp 123-24) notes, its manuscript context indicates that this poem circulated independently of the Liber epigrammatum. Jane Toswell (2014 pp 59-60) prints and translates the text. Quem metuant fines terrarum funditus omnes [BEDA.Epig.Quam.met.]. ed.: CCSL 122.451. MSS – A-S vers none. Quots/Cits ALCVIN.Laud.Dei.: see below.

Poetry: Epigrams

237

Refs none. Preserved in ALCUIN’s unpublished De laude Dei (see Hymns and Lapidge 2008a p 125), this single line reworks Psalm 66:8, “and all the ends of the earth fear him.” Michael Lapidge suggests that it and the other two examples of these single lines, which are “arguably taken from longer poems?,” may belong “with the metrical psalm-paraphrases” (see Liber epigrammatum). Quis Domini expediet caelestia munera dictis [BEDA.Epig.Quis.]: ICL 13656. ed.: Colgrave (1940 p 294). MSS 1. Cambridge, Corpus Christi College, 183: ASM 56. 2. London, British Library, Cotton Vitellius A. xix: ASM 401; ASMMF 10. 3. London, British Library, Harley 1117: ASM 427; ASMMF 10. 4. Oxford, Bodleian Library, Bodley 596 (S.C. 2376), fols. 175-214: ASM 586. 5. Oxford, Bodleian Library, Digby 175 (S.C. 1776): ASM 614. 6. Paris, Bibliothèque nationale de France, lat. 5362, fols. 1-84: ASM 885.3. Lists Athelstan: ML 2.4. A-S vers Mart (B19.1). Quots/Cits – Refs none. In the account in his prose Vita Cuthberti (Saints’ Lives) of Bishop Eadberht’s response to the discovery of saint’s uncorrupted body eleven years after its burial, Bede inserted “verses,” which he had formerly (“quondam”) written. In his notes, Bertram Colgrave (1940 p 359) writes, “It is not quite clear whether Bede put into verse words previously uttered by Eadberht or whether Eadberht is quoting a poem previously written by Bede.” As he concludes, the first seems more likely, making this another example of Bede composing an epigram to reflect on a spiritual theme, in this case the joys of the resurrected body. Striking is his comparison of God’s ability to preserve Cuthbert’s body to three Old Testament events, the saving of Jonas from

238 

BEDE – PART 1

the belly of the whale (Ion 2:11), the preserving of the three Hebrews from the fiery furnace (Dn 3), and the renewal of the people’s garments (“plebis amictum”) at the time of the Exodus, apparently a reference to the new priestly garments (Ex 28). The first two are glossed this way in the Harley manuscript (see Colgrave’s notes). The manuscripts listed above contain the epigram as part of the prose Vita Cuthberti. Oxford, Bodleian Library 109 (ASM 546) has been omitted since the text ends in chapter 29 (see Colgrave 1940 p 23). The booklist, the donations of king Athelstan to the congregation of St Cuthbert at Chesterle-Street, includes “sancti Cuthberti uitam, metrice et prosaice scriptam,” identified by Colgrave and others as the Corpus Christi College manuscript. As such, it would have included Bede’s epigram within the prose Vita. On this manuscript, see the entry on the prose Vita Cuthberti. Although the source for the entry on Eadberht in the OLD ENGLISH MARTYROLOGY (ed. and trans. Rauer 2013 pp 98-99) is, as Christine Rauer demonstrates, the full prose Vita Cuthberti, it should be noted here that the author incorporated a paraphrase of the poem into the narrative. Instead of pausing to call attention to the epigram, the martyrologist paraphrased it in Eadbert’s speech to the monks who had presented him with a garment taken from the saint’s uncorrupted body. He rendered Bede’s first line, “Which man can recount the Lord’s gifts,” spoke more generally of God’s ability to preserve bodies from decay, and concluded, as the epigram does, with a reference to the Last Judgement that translates Bede’s last line: “when this earth will tremble and the angels’ trumpets will sound from above.” Splendet apostolici radio locus iste dicatus [BEDA.Epig.Splen.]: ICL 15611. ed.: Lapidge (1996b p 316). MSS Urbana, University of Illinois Library, 128: ASM 938. Lists – A-S vers none. Quots/Cits MILR.Syll.: see below. Refs none.

Poetry: Epigrams

239

Identified in the Urbana manuscript fragment of MILRED’s Sylloge as “Versus Bedae in absida basilice” (see Liber epigrammatum), this epigram was written, as internal evidence suggests, to be engraved on the walls of a chapel dedicated to the twelve apostles built by Cyneberht (Lapidge 1996b p 316). Michael Lapidge (1996d pp 364-65) identifies Cyneberht as the contemporary bishop of Lindsey mentioned by Bede in the preface to the Historia ecclesiastica gentis Anglorum as well as in IV.xii and V.xxiii (ed. Lapidge 2010 1.10, 2.220, and 2.468-70). He considers its language “conventional.” The first six lines survive only in the Illinois manuscript, John Leland having transcribed only the last six. Lapidge (1996b p 316) provides a translation. It was first edited by Luitpold Wallach (1975), but as Lapidge (2008a p 121) says, this edition “was severely (and rightly) criticized” by Dieter Schaller (1977 pp 9-21). Vilfridus hic magnus requiescit corpore praesul [BEDA.Epig.Uilfr.]: ICL 17554. ed.: Lapidge (2010 2.426-28). MSS 1. Cambridge, University Library, Kk. 5. 16 (the “Moore Bede”): ASM 25; EEMF 9. 2. Cambridge, Trinity College, R. 7. 5 (743): ASM 181. 3. Durham, Cathedral Library, B. II. 35, fols. 38-118: ASM 238. 4. London, British Library, Cotton Tiberius A. xiv: ASM 367. 5. London, British Library, Cotton Tiberius C. ii: ASM 377. 6. London, British Library, Egerton 3278: ASM 410.5. 7. London, British Library, Royal 13. C. v: ASM 487. 8. Oxford, Bodleian Library, Bodley 163 (S.C. 2016), fols. 1-227, 250-51: ASM 555; ASMMF 10. 9. Oxford, Bodleian Library, Hatton 43 (S.C. 4106): ASM 630. 10. Winchester, Cathedral Library, 1 (with London British Library, Cotton Tiberius D. iv, vol. 2, fols. 158-66): ASM 759. 11. St Petersburg, Russian National Library Q. v. I. 18 (the “Leningrad Bede”): ASM 846; EEMF 2. Lists – Refs none. Bede brought his extensive discussion of Wilfrid, bishop of York, in the Historia ecclesiastica gentis Anglorum to a close with these verses,

240 

BEDE – PART 1

which he introduced: “He died in his own monastery in the district of Oundle, while Abbot Cuthbald was ruling over it; he was carried by the brothers to his first monastery at Ripon and buried in the church of the blessed Apostle Peter close to the altar on the south side, as was mentioned before; his epitaph was inscribed above him as follows” (ed. Lapidge 2010 2.426; trans. Colgrave and Mynors 1969 p 529). J.M. Wallace-Hadrill (1988 p 194) writes, “It insists on achievements with which Bede could have no quarrel: Wilfred’s generosity to Ripon, his teaching of the true Easter and other Roman rites …, his establishment at Ripon of ‘regula patrum,’ and his long reign.” In contrast to his explicit statements about his writing of the hymn to Æthelthryth (Alma Deus Trinitas quae saecula cuncta gubernas) and the verses about Cuthbert (Quis Domini expediet caelestria munera dictis), Bede did not claim authorship of this epitaph. Werner Jaager (1935 pp 50-51), however, considers four kinds of evidence in favour of the attribution: only Bede, and not STEPHEN OF RIPON (Vita Wilfridi; ed. Colgrave 1927), records it; its form is atypical; individual phrases parallel other lines of Bede’s verse; and its metre is similar to his practice elsewhere. The manuscripts listed above are, for the most part, complete manuscripts of the Historia ecclesiastica. The Egerton manuscript is a fragment containing V.xix, line 222-V.xx, line 16 (ed. Lapidge 2010 2.424-28; see Colgrave and Mynors 1969 p xlvii), and so includes the epitaph.



Poetry: Hymns

From the list of his works at the end of the Historia ecclesiastica gentis Anglorum (ed. Lapidge 2010 2.484; trans. Colgrave and Mynors 1969 p 571), it is certain that Bede not only wrote hymns, but also gathered them together into a volume since he includes “librum hymnorum diuerso metro siue rythmo” (“a book of hymns in various metres and rhythms”). The collection as a whole has not survived, making it more difficult at times to distinguish between Bede’s hymns and his other short poems gathered in Poetry: Epigrams. Indeed only one hymn, Alma Deus trinitas quae saecula cuncta gubernas, on St Æthelthryth (see Ætheldrytha in ACTA SANCTORUM) is certainly both by Bede and a hymn since he tells us so in the Ecclesiastical History and then quotes it in its entirety. A second hymn, Primo Deus caeli globum, is introduced as his in an early ninth-century manuscript from Köln (Cologne). Moreover, this hymn is one of eleven in quantitative verse ascribed to Bede in the sixteenth-century edition of Georg Cassander (1556); for reasons that will be discussed in a moment, all are accepted as genuine. In addition, Michael Lapidge (2008a p 130) considers the attribution to Bede as “plausible” in the case of two rhythmical hymns about the Last Judgement, Apparebunt ante summum saeculorum iudicem and Apparebit repentina dies magna Domini. These fourteen hymns will be considered here in the alphabetical order of their incipits. In contrast, Bede’s metrical paraphrases of Psalms 41 and 112, considered by M.L.W. Laistner (1943 p 124) as hymns, are discussed with the epigrams. The attribution of some of Cassander’s hymns to Bede was placed on much firmer ground by Guido M. Dreves’s (1907 pp 97-98) discovery of ALCUIN’s De laude Dei, an as yet unpublished collection of devotional readings compiled while the author was in York and surviving in two manuscripts, one in Bamberg and the other in the Escorial (see Lapidge 1996b p 326 note 61; CSLMA Auctores Galliae 735-987 pp 140-41; and Ganz 2004). Prior to Dreves’s find, there appeared to be no way to evaluate Cassander’s attributions. The section in the Bamberg manuscript entitled De hymnis contains extracts that, although anonymous, allow the identification of eight of the hymns printed by Cassander as very likely by Bede. From this evidence, Lapidge (1996b p 327) concludes: “Although Alcuin’s De laude Dei and Cassander’s lost manuscript were apparently unrelated, they show substantial overlap: eight of the eleven hymns attributed by Cassander to Bede were guarenteedly in existence in Northumbria in the late eighth

242 

BEDE – PART 1

century, and this relatively high proportion should encourage us to accept the remaining three of Cassander’s hymns as genuine compositions by Bede as well.” Although warning that it is “no more than conjecture,” Lapidge (2008a pp 127-28) adds another detail potentially relevant to our understanding of Cassander’s “lost manuscript”: In the preface to his edition [Cassander] thanks his colleague Caspar von Niedpruck for providing him with transcriptions of hymns, and we know that von Niedpruck had access to libraries in Trier and Fulda. In light of this knowledge it is interesting to note that a sixteenth-century catalogue from Fulda includes a copy of an Ymnarius Edilwaldi. This manuscript copy has unfortunately been lost, but if – for sake of argument – it was a hymnal compiled by Æthilwald, sometime abbot of Melrose and later bishop of Lindisfarne (c.721-740), then it might reasonably have included hymns composed by Bede, since Bede and Æthilwald were in contact with each other (Æthilwald supplied Bede with material used in his prose Vita sancti Cudbercti, c. 30). And if von Niedpruck had consulted Æthilwald’s Ymnarius at Fulda on Cassander’s behalf, then Cassander’s ascriptions to Bede have the highest authority.

It should also be noted here that Alcuin included two more hymns, Adesto Christe cordibus and Laetare caelum desuper (see PSEUDO-BEDE), next to the eleven already under discussion, which were not included by Cassander as by Bede. These two were accepted as authentic by Dreves (1907 pp 113-14) and printed in CCSL 122 (pp 416 and 417-18 as hymns 4 and 5); however, Walther Bulst (1959) offers metrical reason to question their authenticity (see also Lapidge 2008a p 128). Lapidge (1996b pp 320-24) provides a convincing explanation of the origin of Bede’s work. Relying on Helmut Gneuss (1968 pp 10-40), who uses the evidence of De arte metrica as well as other texts to establish the contents of the Old Hymnal (see LITURGY), he explains that Bede would have been familiar with a series of sixteen hymns, eleven of which would have been “sung, day in day out, at the Office, with variation only on Christmas Day and Easter Day and on a few selected saints’ days.” All are in iambic diameter; eleven are metrical and five rhythmical. “Of the eleven metrical hymns, nine are certainly or very probably by AMBROSE.” Yet, Lapidge continues, “certain aspects of liturgical observance had changed very significantly in the period between the death of Ambrose in 397 and the compilation of the ‘Old Hymnal,’ and the lifetime of Bede.” Most significantly is the “explosion in the number of saints’ days which were accorded

Poetry: Hymns

243

special veneration, from the period of GREGORY THE GREAT onwards.” Since the “Old Hymnal” “made provisions merely for Christmas, Easter, the feasts of SS Peter and Paul and of John the Evangelist,” “Bede composed a number of hymns for the feasts of the sanctorale, using Ambrose as his model.” However, whereas Ambrose’s hymns are normally eight stanzas in length for antiphonal singing, Bede doubled the number, except for the still longer hymn for Ascension, Hymnos canamus gloriae. Bede’s hymns have been published in the collection “Opera rhythmica: liber hymnorum, rhythmi, variae preces” by J. Fraipont in CCSL 122.407-70. This edition has been criticised by Walther Bulst (1959). As noted above, hymns 4 and 5 are not by Bede; and the reference on p 119 to “London, Br. Mus. Harleyan 2928” is an error for London, British Library, Harley 2961. A somewhat better edition is the earlier one by Guido M. Dreves (1907) in the Analecta Hymnica. Liber hymnorum: CPL 1372. MSS none. Lists ? Alcuin: ML 1.7. A-S Vers – Quots/Cits none. Refs ? BONIF.Epist. 75, 158.8-12. As noted above, the list in the Historia ecclesiastica gentis Anglorum V.xxiv (ed. Lapidge 2010 2.484; trans. Colgrave and Mynors 1969 p 571) establishes that Bede gathered his hymns into a collection; yet, since it does not survive, scholars can surmise little about its shape. Michael Lapidge (2008a p 126, citing Becker 1885 p 111) draws attention to a ninth-century booklist from Lorsch that “refers to a volume containing seventy-seven of Bede’s hymns.” Here Lapidge states that “if this figure is a reliable indicator of the original extent of the Liber hymnorum, then much has been lost ….” Earlier (1996b pp 330-31) he had offered two reasons to doubt that Bede’s work was this extensive. First, he notes that “the distinction of Bede’s name attracted to it many hymns which could not – on stylistic grounds – possibly be his,”

244 

BEDE – PART 1

supporting this claim in part by referring to a problematic attribution to Bede in Christian of Stavelot’s ninth-century Commentarius in Matthaeum. Second, he argues that had Bede written so many hymns, more would have been included in the Carolingian New Hymnal (see LITURGY; only one hymn, Hymnum canamus gloriae, is indeed represented in this collection). Lapidge writes: “We are forced to conclude that Bede’s corpus of hymns was indeed a small one, and that, as in the case of his Liber epigrammatum, it was dispersed and lost soon after his death.” In this context, it should be noted that M.L.W. Laistner’s (1943 p 122) reference to “John of Boston” and to copies of Bede’s Liber epigrammatum and the Liber hymnorum in the library of Bury St Edmunds at the beginning of the fifteenth century is incorrect: Bostonus Buriensis was the scribe of a catalogue created by Henry of Kirkestede, subprior and librarian of the Abbey, and these references are drawn not from actual volumes but from Bede’s own list of his works; see Richard H. Rouse (1966) and George H. Brown (1987 pp 125-26 and 2009 p 87). In discussing the Old Hymnal (see LITURGY), Inge B. Milfull (1996 p 4) notes more generally, “meagre as this evidence is, nothing suggests that there was any other type of hymnal in use in Anglo-Saxon England until the Benedictine Reform in the tenth century.” Lists. Bede is mentioned in the list of books owned by Ælberht, archbishop of York, and bequeathed to ALCUIN (ML 1.7); see the introduction, BEDE. Refs. For the reference of BONIFACE to Bede in Epistola 75 (ed. Tangl 1955, 158.8-12), see the introduction, BEDE. Adesto Christe uocibus [BEDA.Hymn.Adesto.]: ICL 288. ed.: CCSL 122.433-34. MSS – Lists none. Quots/Cits ALCVIN.Laud.Dei.: see below. Refs none. For the feast of the nativity of the Virgin Mary (8 September), the hymn is assigned by Georg Cassander (1556 p 293) to Bede; stanzas 1 and 2 are quoted in ALCUIN’s unpublished De laude Dei (see the introduction to this section and Lapidge 2008a p 128 note 300). Mary Clayton (1990 p 92) points

Poetry: Hymns

245

out that unlike “African Marian homilies of the fifth and sixth centuries” and much of the later tradition that emphasises Mary’s role as intercessor, “this text is primarily Christocentric.” She continues, “the first two verses are addressed to Christ and it is only in the third that Bede turns to Mary: ‘And you, Virgin Mary, glorious mother of God, favour our praises.’” She also notes that “the main part of the hymn recounts the events of Mary’s life as told in the New Testament,” with only the final verse containing “an appeal for Mary’s intercession with Christ to accept the hymn of praise” (p 93). Referring specifically to the Homilies and Commentarius in Lucam, she states, however, that this is “the only text in which Bede appeals explicitly for Mary’s intercession” (p 92). The hymn is also edited in Guido M. Dreves (1907 p 114). Alma Deus trinitas quae saecula cuncta gubernas [BEDA.Hymn.Alma.]: ICL 582. ed.: Lapidge 2010 2.252-56. MSS Paris, Bibliothèque nationale de France, lat. 5362, fols. 1-84: ASM 885.3. Lists – A-S Vers none. Quots/Cits 1. Hymn.Alma., 398.42: ANON.Hymn.Nyn., 962.26. 2. Hymn.Alma., 398.42: ANON.Mirac.Nyn., 457. Refs 1. ALCUIN.Vers.Eubor., 781-82. 2. ALCVIN.Epist. 259, 417.14-15. Following a lengthy description in prose of Æthelthryth’s life (see ACTA SANCTORUM, Ætheldrytha), including her marriage to Ecgfrith, her founding of an abbey at Ely, and the discovery of her uncorrupted body at the time of her translation sixteen years after her death, Bede began the next chapter of the Historia ecclesiastica gentis Anglorum (IV.xviii; ed. Lapidge 2010 2.252): “It seems fitting to insert into this history a hymn on the subject of virginity which I composed many years ago in elegiac metre in honour of this queen and bride of Christ; imitating the method of holy Scripture in which many songs are inserted into the history and,

246 

BEDE – PART 1

as is well known, these are composed in meter and verse” (trans. Colgrave and Mynors 1969 p 397). He then quoted the entire hymn, composed of epanaleptic distichs, each beginning with a successive letter of the alphabet, before concluding with four more couplets, beginning with the letters of “amen.” Bede introduced his theme in contrast to classical poetry (Vergil’s “battle” and “Helen’s rape”) and referred to the Virgin Mary’s conception of Christ as well as the martyrdoms of other virgins (Agatha, Eulalia, Thecla, Euphhemia, Agnes, and Cecilia) before turning midway through the poem to his main topic, Æthelthryth. In the years between composing the hymn and including it in the Historia ecclesiastica, he had mentioned the saint in both the Chronica maiora included in De temporum ratione (ed. CCSL 123B.528-29; lxvi, 1920-28) and his Martyrologium (ed. Dubois and Renaud 1976 p 113); for an explanation of her presence in these works, see Vicky Gunn (2009 pp 113-14 and 140-43). Yet the main source for later accounts of the saint is Bede’s opus geminatum in miniature, as Mechthild Gretsch (2005 p 213) calls the prose and verse accounts in the Historia ecclesiastica, which are similar to his prose and metrical Vitae Cuthberti (see Saints’ Lives). Michael Lapidge (2008a p 129) notes that the hymn circulated independent of the Historia ecclesiastica in four manuscripts (two from the ninth century and two from the eleventh) preserved on the Continent. None of these were known in Anglo-Saxon England; Lapidge, however, details other works by Bede found within them, and suggests that since two of the manuscripts stand apart in some readings from the text in the Historia ecclesiastica, they may “illustrate Bede’s original version of the poem (and that included in the Liber hymnorum).” Lapidge (2003 pp 555-57) has argued that the contents of folios 1-84 of the Paris manuscript, “when set alongside ÆLFRIC’s vernacular treatment of Anglo-Saxon saints, may be seen to provide the quarry from which he produced those vernacular accounts.” It contains both chapters (IV.xvii and xviii) of the Ecclesiastical History related to Æthelthryth. Citing Lapidge’s work and Peter Jackson’s entries in Fontes Anglo-Saxonici, Gretsch (2005 p 213) comments, “interestingly, Ælfric does not have as much as a single verbal reminiscence of Bede’s hymn.” Yet she explains this decision by noting that from Bede’s prose Ælfric produces “a linear, chronological and authorial narrative” (p 217), which had little room for the “comparisons and metaphors” without biographical detail that make up the hymn (p 215). In his Versus de sanctis Euboricensis ecclesiae (ed. and trans. Godman 1982 pp 66-67), ALCUIN retold Bede’s prose account of the Æthelthryth and then commented, “Bede, of whom I have spoken, wrote in splendid verse / a hymn in honour of that holy maid, / and so I have only touched

Poetry: Hymns

247

on this subject in sparing style.” In Epistola 259 (ed. MGH ECA 2.417), he again referred to the hymn (“hymnum quoque nobilissimum elegiaco metro conpositum de quadam regina Edildryde nomine”) as in a volume he was sending to Arno, archbishop of Salzburg; although he identified other works in it as by Bede, he did not say so about the hymn. As Ernst Dümmler’s note in the MGH make clear, the manuscript that Alcuin sent survives in the Domsbibliothek of Köln (Cologne); it contains this hymn. A final association of the hymn with Alcuin involves two poems, the Hymnus Nynie episcopi (Arbiter altithronus, solus Deus omnicreator; ICL 963; ed. MGH PLAC 4.961-62) and the Miracula Nynie episcopi (Rex deus eternus patris ueneranda potestas; ed. MGH PLAC 4.944-61). Both are preserved in the Bamberg manuscript of Alcuin’s De laude Dei (unedited; see Lapidge 1996b p 326 note 61, and Ganz 2004). Moreover, in Letter 273 (ed. MGH ECA 2.431-32) to the brothers of Ninian’s church, Candida Casa at Whithorn in south-west Scotland, Alcuin mentioned that he had received poems about their founder, presumably including these two, from his followers in York. In editing them for the MGH, Karl Strecker ( p 945) points out that their use of first-person pronouns would suggest Whithorn as their author’s place of origin. If so, they might still be considered Anglo-Saxon products since, as Bede recounted in the Historia ecclesiastica V.xxiii, around the time he was writing, Whithorn had become a Northumbrian episcopal see with Pecthelm as its first bishop (see Levison 1940 p 28). More likely, however, is Lapidge’s suggestion (1996e p 386 note 29; see also Andy Orchard 2000 pp 27-34) that they were written by Alcuin’s former students at York. The Hymnus Nynie is, like Alma Deus trinitas, written in abecedarian, epanaleptic distichs, and the phrase “morbi diffugiunt” occurs in both. Indeed, this phrase also occurs in the Miracula Niniae episcopi. Robert Deshman (1995 p 123) connects the flowers in the depiction of Æthelthryth in the Benedictional of Æthelwold (see Deshman 1995 plate 28) specifically to the hymn. He explains: On the basis of Isaiah’s incarnational prophecy (11:1) that the tree of Jesse would flower, Bede likened the Virgin Mary to a “chaste shoot” producing “virgin flowers.” Christ was the first of the many “virgin flowers” which sprang from Mary. Æthelthryth and the other virgins in the heavenly choir are the other pure “flowers” from the same shoot since they emulated Mary’s chastity. Accordingly Æthelthryth, who already began to “flower” with virtuous deeds while leading the heavenly life on earth in her nunnery, also mystically shared Mary’s dual roles as the chaste mother and spouse of Christ.

248 

BEDE – PART 1

Further connection of the circle of Æthelwold to Bede’s hymn is provided by a group of five abecedarian epanaleptic hymns, attributed by Lapidge (1991 pp xxvii-xxx and 2003 pp 783-92; see also Dronke, Lapidge, and Stotz 1982) to WULFSTAN OF WINCHESTER. Lapidge (2003 pp 784-86 and 788-89) edits two redactions of one of the two hymns to Swithun, Aurea lux patrie (ICL 1443; but, as he explains, “this listing refers to Orderic’s redaction of the poem … not the original version”; p 783 note 10), noting that in one manuscript the first redaction contains three variant I-distichs, which allow it to be adapted to the different liturgical feasts associated with the saint, and that the second has been “substantially reworked” after its first four distichs “so as to constitute in effect an new hymn.” He argues that this second redaction was made at Wincester by Wulfstan “for continental export” (p 787). In the same volume, he also edits the second hymn to Swithun, Auxilium Domine (ICL 1530). The other hymns are to Æthelwold, Alma lucerna micat (ICL 591; ed. AH 48.9-12), and to Birinus, Agmina sacra poli (ICL 474; ed. AH 48.12-13), and for All Saints’ Day, Aula superna poli (ICL 1409a; ed. Dronke, Lapidge, and Stotz 1982 pp 59-65). Gretsch (2005 p 214) comments: “The indebtedness of these poems to Bede’s hymn on Æthelthryth is clear, not only from the rare metrical form they employ, but also from verbal links between some of the Winchester poems and Bede’s hymn.” From this evidence, she suggests that Bede’s hymn was both studied by Æthelwold’s students and incorporated into the liturgy of Winchester and Ely (pp 214-15). The hymn is also edited in Guido M. Dreves (1907 pp 98-100). See Vicky Gunn (2009 pp 152-58) for a discussion of Bede’s sources and Virginia Blanton (2007 pp 56-63) for an analysis of the hymn in the context of the saint’s cult in medieval England. The monograph of Stephen J. Harris (2016) reached the authors too late to be included. Apostolorum gloriam [BEDA.Hymn.Apost.]: ICL 936. ed.: CCSL 122.428-30. MSS – Lists none. Quots/Cits ALCVIN.Laud.Dei.: see below. Refs none.

Poetry: Hymns

249

For the feast of Peter and Paul (29 June), the hymn is attributed by Georg Cassander (1556 p 271) to Bede, and stanzas 1, 2, and 20 are quoted in ALCUIN’s unpublished De laude Dei (see the introduction to this section and Lapidge 2008a p 128 note 300). The twenty-three stanzas, each beginning with a succeeding letter of the alphabet, praise the two as the “principes ecclesiae” and the “uera mundi lumina,” associating them with Rome but noting that the entire world celebrates their martyrdoms. The churches of Monkwearmouth and Jarrow were dedicated to Peter and Paul, as were other churches in Anglo-Saxon England. The hymn is also edited in Guido M. Dreves (1907 pp 108-09). Apparebit repentina dies magna Domini [BEDA.Hymn.Apparebit.]: ICL 945. ed.: MGH PLAC 4.507-10. MSS – A-S Vers none. Quots/Cits. ALCVIN.Laud.Dei.: see below. Refs none. In his discussion of rhythmical verse in De arte metrica (ed. CCSL 123A.139), Bede quoted the opening two lines of this hymn, identifying its subject as the Day of Judgement and its form as “per alphabetum,” the first word of each strophe beginning with consecutive letters of the alphabet. Citing Sappo Heikkinen (2012 p 202), Michael Lapidge (2013 p 17) writes, “Bede’s reluctance to name the author, and to state that he composed the hymn pulcherrime, as he had said of his previous example, suggested to Heikkinen, rightly I think, that Bede was himself the author of the verses”; he then refers to Bede’s Latin Poetry (forthcoming), where he “sets out in length the arguments in favour of Bede’s authorship.” Georg Cassander (1556 pp 336-38; see the introduction to this section) includes the poem, but does not assign it to Bede; instead he notes that Bede remembered it in writing De arte metrica. Stanzas 21 and 22 are quoted in ALCUIN’s unpublished De laude Dei (see the introduction and MGH PLAC 4.507, opening note).

250 

BEDE – PART 1

Drawing on Matthew 24:30-43, the opening six stanzas describe events that precede Christ’s arrival at Judgement. Stanzas 7 to 21 retell Matthew 25:31-46, Christ’s exchanges with the saved and the damned. The hymn ends with two stanzas warning of the dangers of sin and advocating chastity. The refrain is “on fearful Judgement Day.” In his edition originally published in 1900, Albert S. Cook (1964 p 171) identified the hymn as “an important source” for Christ III. Most of the similarities between the two works can be explained by their reliance on the Bible, particularly the Gospel accounts of Judgement; see Biggs (forthcoming). The hymn is also edited with notes in A. S. Walpole (1922 pp 380-84). For an analysis of its form, see Sappo Heikkinen (2012 pp 203-04). For a translation, see Michael J. B. Allen and Daniel G. Calder (1976 pp 94-95). Apparebunt ante summum saeculorum iudicem [BEDA.Hymn.Apparebunt.]: ICL 946. ed.: MGH PLAC 4.491-95. MSS – Lists none. Quots/Cits ALCVIN.Laud.Dei.: see below. Refs none. Although not included in Georg Cassander (1556; see the introduction to this section), ALCUIN quotes the closing lines, “Perfectisque cum coronam iustus iudex afferes / tunc et nostrae paruitati largire indulgentiam,” in his unpublished De laude Dei (see Lapidge 2008a p 130); Michael Lapidge therefore considers the case for Bede’s authorship of this hymn “at least plausible.” He notes Bede’s “perennial concern” with the theme of Judgement, citing De temporum ratione as one example, and indeed, this work provides a close parallel for many of the details in the hymn. Its rubric in one early manuscript, “De Enoch et Haeliae,” corresponds to the opening line, the appearance of these two before Judgement. Bede begins chapter 69 of De temporum ratione (trans. Wallis 1999 pp 241-42): We have two very certain indicators of the approach of the Day of Judgment, namely the conversion of the Jewish people, and the reign and

Poetry: Hymns

251

persecution of Antichrist, which persecution the Church believes will last three and a half years. But let this [persecution] come unexpectedly and involve everyone whom it finds unprepared, [the Church believes] that Enoch and Elijah, great prophets and teachers, will come into the world before [Antichrist’s] arrival and will convert the Jewish people to the grace of faith, and will surrender to the insuperable affliction of this mighty whirlwind directed against the elect.

Both then quote Malachias 4:6 (“and he shall turn the heart of the fathers to the children”) to develop this topic, and, as in the passage just quoted, the hymn too specifies the length of their teaching as three and a half years (stanza 3), which will be followed by their martyrdoms (stanza 6). In De temporum ratione Bede stated that either Christ or Michael will strike down Antichrist; the hymn (stanza 9) mentions only Michael. The hymn then turns to the Day of Judgement (in stanzas 13-26 the original refrain, “inminente die iudicii,” is replaced by “in pavendo die iudicii”), drawing details from chapter 70 of De temporum ratione, and finally to the eighth age (the refrain of stanzas 27-35 is “in perennis die sabbati”) corresponding to chapter 71. Emitte Christe Spiritus [BEDA.Hymn.Emitte.]: ICL 4394. ed.: CCSL 122.424-25. MSS – Lists none. Quots/Cits ALCVIN.Laud.Dei.: see below. Refs none. For Pentecost, the hymn is assigned by Georg Cassander (1556 p 211) to Bede; stanza 1 is quoted in ALCUIN’s unpublished De laude Dei (see the introduction to this section and Lapidge 2008a p 128 note 300). Referring to the events of Acts 2, the hymn celebrates the joining of all people in the in the Holy Spirit. The hymn is also edited in Guido M. Dreves (1907 p 105-06).

252 

BEDE – PART 1

Hymnos canamus gloriae [BEDA.Hymn.Hymnos.]: ICL 7438. ed.: CCLS 122.419-23. MSS – Lists none. Quots/Cits 1. ALCVIN.Laud.Dei.: see below. 2. ? Hymn.Hymnos., 420.1-421.6: ChristB (A3.1), 558-85. Refs none. For the Ascension, the hymn is assigned by Georg Cassander (1556 p 198) to Bede; stanzas 1, 31, and 32 are quoted in ALCUIN’s unpublished De laude Dei (see the introduction to this section and Lapidge 2008a p 128 note 300). Cassander prints thirty-two stanzas, which do not include 17a (“Sicque uenturum … splendida”). For the two shortened forms, in use in Canterbury and in Winchester, included in the New Hymnal (see LITURGY), see the following entries. As the opening stanza announces, Christ’s “new way to ascend to the Father’s throne,” by conquering death through death, is the occasion for “new hymns to resound.” Stanzas 3-13 then detail this passage: Christ leads many “from the gates of hell” (stanza 7) “to everlasting seats in heaven” (stanza 9). After recounting the event as described in Acts 1:9-12 (14-17; with added detail), the hymn imagines Christ’s arrival in heaven (stanzas 18-29), ending with prayers (stanzas 30-32). Developing an argument proposed by Albert S. Cook (1964 pp 116-18 and 129-33), Johanna Kramer (2014 pp 124-26) considers the hymn a direct source for Christ II (ed. ASPR 3.15-27; see CYNEWULF): “Cynewulf draws on Bede in a number of respects, for instance in linking the Ascension with the Harrowing and Christ’s Entry and inverting the chronology of events with a repeated Ascension scene.” It should be noted at the outset that these arguments rely specifically on Bede’s original version, not the shortened forms discussed in the next two entries. Moreover, as Kramer acknowledges, the problem of assessing this relationship is made more difficult by the loss of a leaf from the Exeter Book at precisely this point in the poem, in what is printed in ASPR 3.18 as line 556b (between “frætwum” and “ealles waldend”); see in particular John C. Pope (1969). Indeed, Pope (p 217) states more cautiously that in lines 558-85, Cynewulf “had to turn for guidance

Poetry: Hymns

253

to Bede’s ascension hymn or its sources.” Mentioning Jackson J. Campbell (1982), in entries in Fontes Anglo-Saxonici, R. E. Greenman considers the entire hymn a probable source for this passage. For more information on the Harrowing, see the Gospel of Nicodemus (APOCRYPHA), and on the “Descent-Ascent” motif in Christ II, see George H. Brown (1974 pp 1-12). In Fontes Anglo-Saxonici, Greenman also lists the angel’s command to open the gates of heaven in stanza 19 as the certain direct source for a similar command in Christ II (line 576b); however, since as Greenman also notes, the ultimate source here is biblical (Ps 23:7 and 9), it seems unwise to accept this detail as proving a certain source relationship. For other possible verbal parallels, see Cook (1964 p 116) and Kramer (2014 p 126). The hymn is also edited in Guido M. Dreves (1907 pp 103-05). It is translated in Michael J. B. Allen and Daniel G. Calder (1976 pp 81-83). Hymnos canamus gloriae [BEDA.Hymn.Hymnos.Cant.]: ICL 7438. ed.: Milfull (1996 pp 294-95). MSS 1. ? Cambridge, Corpus Christi College, 473 (the “Winchester Troper”): ASM 116. 2. Durham, Cathedral Library, B. III. 32: ASM 244. 3. London, British Library, Add. 37517 (the “Bosworth Psalter”): ASM 291; ASMMF 2. 4. London, British Library, Cotton Vespasian D. xii: ASM 391; ASMMF 4. 5. ? Rouen, Bibliothèque municipale, 231 (A. 44): ASM 920. Lists 1. ? Sherburn-in-Elmet: ML 6.6. 2. ? Leofric: ML 10.11. 3. ? Worcester II: ML 11.56. 4. ? Bury St Edmunds II: ML 12.8. A-S Vers HyGl 3 (Gneuss; C18.3), 359-60. Quots/Cits – Refs none. Eight stanzas (1-6 and 8-9) of this eleven stanza hymn are drawn from Bede’s original (1, 2, 14, 15, 16, 17, 30, and 31). An additional stanza, which is printed in

254 

BEDE – PART 1

CCSL 122.421 as 17a (“Sicque uenturum … spendida”) and which reports that the apostles repeat the angel’s announcement that Christ will come again at the Last Judgement, appears as stanza 7. Only one of the manuscripts (Durham B. III. 32) includes stanza 10, “Tu esto nostrum gaudium, / qui es futurum praemium. / Sit nostra in te gloria / per cuncta semper secula” (“You shall be our joy, you who are our future reward. May our glory be in you forever through all the ages”). A partial stanza, 11, brings the hymn to a close: “Gloria tibi, domine, / qui scandis super sidera, / cum patre” (“Glory be to you, Lord, who ascends above the stars with the Father”). In this shortened form, it omits, then, allusions to the Harrowing of Hell and Christ’s arrival in heaven, focusing instead on the biblical core of Bede’s more elaborate narrative. Separate versions of the hymn circulated in the New Hymnal (LITURGY) that was introduced into England in the tenth century in two forms: the one containing this version is associated with Canterbury, and the other, which includes the further shortened reworking discussed in the next entry, is linked to Winchester (see Gneuss 1968 p 71 and Milfull 1996 p 8). The last word of the first line of two of the Canterbury manuscripts (Durham B. III. 32 and British Library, Add. 37517) is “Domino”; the hymnal of the third manuscript (British Library, Cotton Vespasian D. xii) uses “gloriae,” the reading in the Winchester Hymnal. In this form the hymn appears in three of the five complete or nearly complete hymnals from the period: Durham B. III. 32, British Library, Add. 37517, and British Library, Cotton Vespasian D. xii. The version in the hymnal in Cambridge, Corpus Christi College, 391 (ASM 104) is the further shortened form discussed in the next entry. The fifth hymnal, in London, British Library, Harley 2961 (ASM 431), has lost a quire that would have contained this hymn as well as several others (see Milfull 1996 p 47). The first stanza of the hymn is recorded along with three others in the originally blank leaves at the end of Cambridge, Corpus Christ College 473, one of the pair of “Winchester Tropers” (see Milfull 1996 p 65). The Rouen manuscript is included in James Mearns (1913 pp xv and 40), again without identifying details. Helmut Gneuss and Michael Lapidge (ASM 920) assert that it was probably written at St Augustine’s, Canterbury at the end of the eleventh century, a view shared by Richard Gameson (1999 p 147, item 819). The hymn also appears in London, British Library, Arundel 155; the manuscript is listed in CCSL 122.419, but without information about which version it contains. Gneuss and Lapidge (ASM 306) date the manuscript to 1012-23 and specify Christ Church Canterbury as its place of origin; Gameson (1999 p 95, item 358) notes that the hymns occur in additions from the second quarter of the twelfth century.

Poetry: Hymns

255

Three of the thirteen booklists from Anglo-Saxon England – those from Sherburn-in-Elmet, Worcester, and Bury St Edmunds – all mention a hymnal; a fourth – Leofric’s inventory of books procured for Exeter – lists two. There is no way to know if these refer to the Canterbury or Winchester versions of the New Hymnal. Stanzas 1, 3, 5, 7, 9, 10, and 11 are glossed in Durham B. III. 32. The List of Texts and Index of Editions for the Microfiche Concordance to Old English produced by the Toronto Dictionary of Old English (in A-S Vers) refers to the edition of Gneuss (1968). Inge B. Milfull (1996) follows the Durham manuscript. As Milfull (p 297) notes, the gloss in this manuscript thus corresponds to the version in the Winchester Hymnal (see Milfull p 36). Indeed, as she records, the adverbial “rynelices” renders Winchester “mystice” rather than Canterbury “mystico.” Her edition, however, shows the scribe glossing “domino” in line 1 (‘drihtne”) rather than the Winchester reading, “gloriae”; see also Gneuss (1968 p 359). The hymn, without stanzas 10 and 11, is also edited in A. S. Walpole (1922 pp 371-73). Hymnos canamus gloriae [BEDA.Hymn.Hymnos.Win.]: ICL 7438. ed.: Milfull (1996 pp 294-95). MSS 1. Cambridge, Corpus Christi College, 391: ASM 104. 2. Cambridge, Corpus Christi College, 473 (the “Winchester Troper”): ASM 116. 3. London, British Library, Cotton Julius A. vi: ASM 337; ASMMF 4. 4. London, BL Cotton Vespasian D.xii: ASM 391; ASMMF 4. 5. Ripon, Cathedral Library, MS. frag. 2: ASM 696; ASMMF 14. Lists 1. ? Sherburn-in-Elmet: ML 6.6. 2. ? Leofric: ML 10.11. 3. ? Worcester II: ML 11.56. 4. ? Bury St Edmunds II: ML 12.8. A-S Vers HyGl 3 (Gneuss; C18.3), 359-60. Quots/Cits none.

256 

BEDE – PART 1

Refs ÆLF.Epist.mon.Egnes., 136.25. Four stanzas (1-3 and 5) of this seven stanza hymn are drawn from Bede’s original (1, 14, 16, and 31). It contains, then, Bede’s opening verse, the description of the Apostles (and Mary) at the Ascension, the angels’ words to them, and the first verse of the closing prayers. Like the version in the Canterbury Hymnal (see the previous entry), it provides (as its fourth stanza) a response of the Apostles to the angel not included in Bede’s hymn (verse 17a in CCSL 122.421, “sicque uenturum … splendida”). It ends, again like the Canterbury version, with two more stanzas not by Bede: “Tu esto nostrum gaudium, / qui es futurum praemium. / Sit nostra in te gloria / per cuncta semper secula” (“You shall be our joy, you who are our future reward. May our glory be in you forever through all the ages”); and “Gloria tibi, domine, / qui scandis super sidera, / cum patre” (“Glory be to you, Lord, who ascends above the stars with the Father”). It corresponds, then, to stanzas 1, 3, 5, 7, and 9-11 of the Canterbury version. Corpus Christi College 391 contains one of the five hymnals that circulated in Anglo-Saxon England; on the other four, see the previous entry. The manuscript is known as the Portiforium of Saint Wulfstan, probably written at Worcester for its Bishop (1062-95); see Inge B. Milfull (1996 pp 43-47) for a detailed description of the manuscript that pays special attention to the hymns. The Ripon Cathedral Library fragment is now on deposit at the Leeds University Library. Both the arrangement of the hymns in this fragment and the abbreviation of the hymn under consideration here lead Milfull (1996 p 56) to conclude that it was “a hymnal of the Winchester type.” This version of the hymn also circulated in the Expositio hymnorum (see LITURGY), identified by Milfull (1996 p 9; see also p 53) as “a schoolbook, a prose version of the complete hymn cycle with a few added explanations.” The Expositio hymnorum is found in British Library, Cotton Julius A. vi and British Library, Cotton Vespasian D. xii, which also contains a Canterbury Hymnal. On Corpus Christi College 473, see the previous entry. On the booklists, see the previous entry. The hymns in the Expositio hymnorum in both British Library manuscripts are glossed (HyGl 3): for this hymn, see Helmut Gneuss (1968 pp 359-60). ÆLFRIC specifically mentioned the hymn in his Epistola ad monachos Egneshamienses (Letter to the Monks of Eynsham, ed. Jones 1998 p 136) in his discussion Sunday hymns from Easter through Pentecost: it was sung at Vespers from the feast of the Ascension. It is on the basis of the agreement between the manuscripts listed above and Ælfric’s directions throughout this letter (along with ÆTHELWOLD’s comments on Sundays

Poetry: Hymns

257

in Lent in his Regularis concordia) that led Gneuss (1968 pp 70-71) to conclude that this hymnal represents the use in Winchester (see also Milfull 1996 pp 9-10). Hymnum canentes martyrum [BEDA.Hymn.Hymnum.]: ICL 7442. ed.: CCSL 122.412-13. MSS − Refs none. For the feast of the Holy Innocents (28 December), the hymn is identified by Georg Cassander (1556 p 198) as by Bede (see the introduction to this section and Lapidge 2008a p 128 note 300). Excerpts from it do not appear in ALCUIN’s unpublished De laude Dei, but Lapidge (1996b p 327) considers it authentic. Its sixteen stanzas are paired throughout, with the first line of the opening one repeated in the last line of the second. After quoting and translating the first four stanzas, Lapidge (1996b p 329) writes: Like that of AMBROSE, Bede’s diction here is deceptively simple. He uses plain, unaffected language and avoids any kind of verbal display (no dwelling here on the gory details of the children’s deaths, as we would expect, say, from ALDHELM). The metaphors are sparse: the light of the perpetual realm, the earth’s tears as the martyrs leave. Biblical language underpins the diction unobtrusively, as in the reference in the last stanza to John 14:2 (“In domo Patris mei mansiones multae sunt,” “In my Father’s house are many mansions”). As with Ambrose, the hymn is built up from simple contrasts: the earth relinquishes them / heaven receives them (perditit / suscipit); the wicked king destroys / the merciful Creator receives (peremit impius / pius colligit). In the simplicity of its diction and the perfection of its metre, this hymn by Bede is a worthy successor to the great hymns of Ambrose, which were the cornerstone of all western hymnography.

The hymn is also edited in Guido M. Dreves (1907 p 102-03). Illuxit alma saeculis [BEDA.Hymn.Illux.]: ICL 7748. ed.: CCSL 122.414-15. MSS – Refs none.

258 

BEDE – PART 1

For the feast of Agnes (21 January), the hymn is assigned by Georg Cassander (1556 p 237) to Bede; it does not appear in excerpted form in ALCUIN’s unpublished De laude Dei (see the introduction to this section and Lapidge 2008a p 128 note 300). The main source for information about the saint in Anglo-Saxon England is the anonymous Passio (BHL 156; see Agnes in ACTA SANCTORUM); indeed, Bede used this account in his Martyrologium (ed. Dubois and Renaud 1976 p 18) as does ALDHELM in both his prose and poetic De uirginitate (ed. MGH AA 15.298-99 and 432-34). As Rhonda L. McDaniel (2013 p 234) writes, “while Aldhelm focused upon Agnes’s rejection of the enticements of earthly society and her experience of heavenly light on earth, Bede draws attention to Agnes’s place and status as a member of heavenly society after her martyrdom.” The hymn, she argues, was “written to address the devotional foci of those leading a monastic life, rather than for general use by the laity, not only because of its Latin composition and liturgical function, but also because of the specifically monastic themes it embodies” (p 234). She concludes, Though Bede speaks of Agnes as a virgin, soldier, and bride, he avoids the erotic language of AMBROSE and PSEUDO-AMBROSE [BHL 156], focusing instead upon the glory that God bestows upon Agnes because of her love for Christ. The saint maintains her faith and vow and the angelic realm is drawn into the human world in proof of her sanctity (p 238).

It is worth noting that McDaniel (pp 238-46) offers no evidence of ÆLFRIC’s use of Bede’s hymn in his version of the Passio in his Lives of Saints (B1.3.38; ed. Skeat 1966 1.170-94). The hymn is also edited in Guido M. Dreves (1907 pp106-07). Rhonda L. McDaniel (2013 pp 247-48) provides a translation of PL 94.626-27. Nunc Andreae sollemnia [BEDA.Hymn.Nunc.]: ICL 10716. ed.: CCSL 122.435-36. MSS – Lists none. Quots/Cits ALCVIN.Laud.Dei.: see below. Refs none.

Poetry: Hymns

259

For the feast of Andrew (30 November), the hymn is assigned by Georg Cassander (1556 p 308) to Bede; stanzas 1 and 12 are quoted in ALCUIN’s unpublished De laude Dei (see the introduction to this section and Lapidge 2008a p 128 note 300). Beginning and ending with the same line, the hymn refers to the main events in Andrew’s life from his calling by Christ to his martyrdom on a cross. Peter Darby (2012 p 89) suggests that this hymn and the second one for Andrew, Salue tropaeum gloriae, may have been conceived as a pair since they do not overlap in significant ways and may be associated with Wilfrid’s church at Hexham, which was dedicated to Andrew. The hymn is also edited in Guido M. Dreves (1907 pp 111-12). Praecessor almus gratiae [BEDA.Hymn.Praec.alm.]: ICL 12319. ed.: CCSL 122.431-32. MSS – Lists none. Quots/Cits ALCVIN.Laud.Dei.: see below. Refs none. For the feast of the decollation of John the Baptist (29 August), the hymn is assigned by Georg Cassander (1556 p 290) to Bede; stanzas 1 and 7 are quoted in ALCUIN’s unpublished De laude Dei (see the introduction to this sectionand Lapidge 2008a p 128 note 300). Less of a recounting of John’s mission than Praecursor alti luminis, the hymn is a meditation on the life and death of John as predecessor of Christ. The hymn is also edited in Guido M. Dreves (1907 pp 109-10). Praecursor alti luminis [BEDA.Hymn.Praec.alt.]: ICL 12332. ed.: CCSL 122.426-27. MSS – A-S Vers none. Quots/Cits 1. Hymn.Praecursor.alti., 427.33-34: ALCVIN.Vers.Eubor., 140-41.

260 

BEDE – PART 1

2. ALCVIN.Laud.Dei.: see below. Refs none. For the nativity of John the Baptist (24 June), the hymn is assigned by Georg Cassander (1556 p 263) to Bede; stanzas 1 and 4 are quoted in ALCUIN’s unpublished De laude Dei (see the introduction to this section and Lapidge 2008a p 128 note 300). In his edition, Peter Godman (1982 p 16) identifies the last two lines of stanza 16 as the source for a description of sunrise in Alcuin’s Versus de sanctis Euboricensis ecclesiae (lines 140-41). The hymn recounts John’s birth and ministry. The hymn is also edited in Guido M. Dreves (1907 pp 107-08). Primo Deus caeli globum [BEDA.Hymn.Prim.]: ICL 12514. ed.: Rädle (1999 pp 59-62). MSS – A-S vers none. Quots/Cits ALCVIN.Laud.Dei.: see below. Refs ALCVIN.Epist.259, 417.11-12. The last five stanzas (29-33) printed in CCSL 122.410-11 are not considered authentic; see Fidel Rädle (1999 p 63) and Michael Lapidge (2008a p 129), who notes that they contain “a number of metrical mistakes.” Both Köln (Cologne), Dombibliothek, 106 and Georg Cassander (1556 pp 86-90) include only the first twenty-eight stanzas. The hymn is assigned by Cassander to Bede but not connected to a particular feast; ALCUIN quoted three of its stanzas (19, 20, and 28) in his unpublished De laude Dei (see the introduction to this section and Rädle 1999 p 55). He also described it (“hymnus pulcherrimus de sex dierum opere et de sex aetatibus mundi”) in the letter to Arno, archbishop of Salzburg (ed. MGH ECA 2.417), that accompanied a volume containing the hymn. He did not attribute it here to Bede. Bede identified the topic of the poem in its second stanza: the six days of creation “correspond” to the six ages of the world. While Rädle (1999 p 57) asserts that the poem is thus “nothing other than an extract” from

Poetry: Hymns

261

De temporum ratione, Calvin B. Kendall and Faith Wallis (2010 p 185) consider it more generally as the “poetical counterpart to his chapters on the Six Ages” in De temporum ratione but also in De Temporibus and the Commentarius in Genesim, and “a splendid manifestation of his lifelong passion for poetry, cosmology, chronology, history, allegorical exegesis and prayer.” After two introductory stanzas, the first line of one stanza becomes the last line of the next one, linking the two subjects through the seventh day and the seventh age of rest. In stanza 19, the hymn turns to the extratemporal eighth day of eternal bliss, and then concludes with a prayer to be allowed to come to the eternal kingdom. Peter Darby (2012 pp 88-89) speculates that “the celebration of Easter might provide a suitable occasion for the performance of this hymn because it describes the death of Jesus, His resurrection and ascension into heaven.” He also considers the possibility that it was “written as a teaching device.” The poem is also edited in CCSL 122.407-10 and in Guido M. Dreves (1907 p 100-02). Fidel Rädle (1999 pp 64-65) provides a German translation; Calvin B. Kendall and Faith Wallis (2010 pp 180-84) translate it into English. Salue tropaeum gloriae [BEDA.Hymn.Solu.]: ICL 14581. ed.: CCSL 122.437-38. MSS – Refs none. This hymn follows immediately after Nunc Andreae sollemnia in Georg Cassander (1556 p 310), introduced by the rubric “in eodem festo ad crucem dicendus”; “eiusdem” identifies Bede as its author. Michael Lapidge (2008a p 127) suggests that it may be for the octave of Andrew. It is not included in excerpted form in ALCUIN’s unpublished De laude Dei (see the introduction to this section and Lapidge 2008a p 128 note 300). The first seven stanzas are Andrew’s address to the personified cross, suggesting some similarities to the prosopopoeia of The Dream of the Rood (see Brown 1987 p 75, Brown 2009 p 90, and Darby 2012 p 89). The rest of the poem describes Andrew’s suffering on the cross and elevation to heaven. The hymn is also edited in Guido M. Dreves (1907 pp 112-13).



Saints’ Lives

Although the four vitae collected here make up only a small part of Bede’s literary work, the lives of holy men and women played a large role in his spiritual and intellectual understanding of this world and the next, as is clear from the discussions of saints elsewhere in his writings. While Bertram Colgrave concludes his essay, “Bede’s Miracle Stories,” (1935 pp 228-29) by distinguishing between “Bede, the theologian, the hagiographer, and the historian,” continuities across his writings indicate that hagiography and historiography, as well as theology, were interpenetrable members of the same subject, history’s relationship to the divine. His metrical Vita Cuthberti, an early work that survives in both its original and a later form, shows Bede using verse to meditate on the saint’s spiritual significance, lifting him out of a temporal setting. In doing so, this exercise is similar, if more developed, to his early Hymn to Æthelthryth, Alma Deus trinitas quae saecula cuncta gubernas, which he later incorporated in the Historia ecclesiastica gentis Anglorum (ed. Lapidge 2010 2.252-56) itself, as Colgrave elucidates in his essay, a repository of much hagiography. When Bede returned to Cuthbert later in his career, he both revised the metrical version so it could provide the basis of spiritual reflection for a friend travelling to Rome, and wrote a new prose version for Cuthbert’s community at Lindisfarne, which could include more information about the saint than he had found in the anonymous vita. Similarly, in adapting, again probably early in his career, PAULINUS’s verse writings on Felix of Nola in his prose Vita Felicis, Bede provided this saint, too, with an opus geminatum, a pair of works on the same subject but written for different purposes. Bede’s fourth work in this genre, the Vita Anastasius, which has received less attention because it has only recently been rediscovered, provides further evidence of his interest in the genre since, as he explained in his list of works at the end of the Historia ecclesiastica, he wrote it “to clarify its meaning” (ed. 2.482; trans. Colgrave and Mynors 1969 p 571), which had been obscured by a previous translation. To Colgrave’s assertion that “in writing his commentaries and homilies [Bede] was the theologian who accepted the general theory that the day of miracles was past, or at any rate that contemporary miracles were not altogether on the same footing as those of the days of Christ” (1935 p 228), one might respond that these works offered little reason to stray beyond the events related in Scripture; a telling exception from De templo (ed. CCSL 119A.164-65) is discussed by Catherine Cubitt (2000 pp 67-68). In contrast, as Colgrave demonstrates, when writing hagiography, Bede often turned to

264 

BEDE – PART 1

the Bible to ground saints’ actions. Similarly to Colgrave’s claim that “when he was writing the Historia abbatum he wrote as a historian” (p 228), one might counter with Bede’s innovation in writing his Martyrology, which combines the celebration of saints with narratives about their deaths. As Bede ended his prose Life of Cuthbert, miracles happen “through the grace of Almighty God who, in this present age, is wont to heal many, and in time to come, will heal our diseases of mind and body; for he satisfies our desire with good things and crowns us for ever with lovingkindness and tender mercies” (trans. Colgrave 1940 p 307). In Historia ecclesiastica V.xxiv (ed. Lapidge 2010, 2.482; trans. Colgrave and Mynors 1969 pp 569-71), Bede listed the four works together: Also of the histories of the saints: a book on the life and passion of St. Felix the confessor, which I put into prose from the metrical version of Paulinus; a book on the life and passion of St. Anastasius which was badly translated from the Greek by some ignorant person, which I have corrected as best I could to clarify the meaning. I have also described the life of the holy father Cuthbert, monk and bishop, first in heroic verse and then in prose.

They are considered here in alphabetical order. Not included is the Vita Ceolfridi (see Ceolfridus in ACTA SANCTORUM): Judith McClure (1984) has argued that it was written by Bede; Christopher Grocock and I.N. Wood (2013 pp lxiv-xcv) provide strong evidence that it was not. Neither of Scott DeGregorio’s collections (2006 and 2010) offers a separate chapter on Bede as a writer of saints’ lives. While referred to in various places in these surveys of Bede’s writings, the topic is considered in most detail in Alan Thacker’s discussion of the Vitae Cuthberti in his “Bede and History,” in which hagiography is presented as a “sister discipline” of history (2010 pp 188). Vita Anastasius [BEDA.Vit.Anas.]: BHL 408; CPL 1382a. See also ACTA SANCTORUM. ed. Franklin (2004 pp 387-416). MSS – Lists none. In the list of his works at the end of the Historia ecclesiastica (ed. Lapidge 2010 2.478-84; trans. Colgrave and Mynors 1969 pp 569-71), Bede included “a book on the life and passion of St. Anastasius which was badly translated from the Greek by some ignorant person, which I have corrected

Saints’ Lives

265

as best I could, to clarify the meaning.” Long considered to have been lost, Carmela Vircillo Franklin and Paul Meyvaert (1982) identified what had been considered an anonymous work to be Bede’s revision; Franklin (2004), who develops this argument and edits the relevant texts, is the source for much of this entry. Indeed, she demonstrates that “Bede believed that the Passion of Anastasius, being the revision of a translation, belonged in a different category from all of his other writings” (p 198): his task was to correct what he could, but otherwise, to leave the text unchanged, a method reminiscent of his strategy in handling sources in other works, but here taken to an extreme because of the particular problem he confronted. Because “it was merely a correction of a poor text to begin with,” “he may not have formulated a new title or colophon” for it, with the result that “it did not survive in a collection of Bede’s works, but only in passionaries and legendaries” (p 208). She notes, however, that “its inclusion in the passionaries compiled in western Germany suggests that the reworking of the Passio S. Anastasii was brought into this area by the same route as the better known works of Bede” (p 210). Since Bede included additional details from the life of Anastasius in the universal chronicle in De temporum ratione and in his Martyrology, Franklin considers more broadly the possible sources of his information about the Persian monk. One likely source for both the texts he used as well as additional oral information is THEODORE, archbishop of Canterbury, who might well have come to England from the monastery ad Aquas Salvias in Rome, which with the head of the Anastasius became a center for his cult. Similarly, she explains “Bede’s interest in this obscure Persian saint” by connecting the life to “this history of the Holy Land,” “the worldwide history of Christian saints,” and specifically the history of the Holy Cross (pp 221-22). Finally, Franklin’s discussion of Bede’s use of Greek sources throughout his career, a competency she considers him to have “acquired in his maturity,” may suggest an early date for this work. Although the Vita Anastasius, then, may have had little impact on later Anglo-Saxon literary culture, it reveals much about Bede’s intellectual life. Vita Cuthberti metrica [BEDA.Vit.Cuthb.metr.(Bescançon)]. ed.: unedited. MSS none. Lists – Refs see below.

266 

BEDE – PART 1

Bede wrote and then revised his metrical Vita Cuthberti before writing his prose life of the saint. Because it is interrelated, the evidence for the dates of all three works is considered here. Werner Jaager (1935 p 4) notes in the introduction to his edition of what is now considered the revised metrical life (see the following entry) that the reference to Osred, who ascended the Northumbrian throne in 705, as “a new Josiah … mature more in spirit than in great years” (ed. Jaager 1935, lines 554-55) dates the original composition of this work to between 705 and 716, the end of his reign. Michael Lapidge (1996c p 340) adds, “with the procession of his youthful years, Osred turned from a young Josiah into a wicked Ahab, defiling nuns and murdering noblemen, with the result that he was assassinated, while still a teenager, in 716,” concluding “the poem was written very soon after Osred’s accession … within a year (or two at the most) of 705.” At the other extreme, the prose Vita Cuthberti is dated to around 721 on the basis of two pieces of information. First it is dedicated to Eadfrith, bishop of Lindisfarne, who died according to twelfth-century historians (see the ODNB) in that year; this date agrees generally with Bede’s comment in Historia ecclesiastica gentis Anglorum V.xii (ed. Lapidge 2010 2.384; trans. Colgrave and Mynors 1969 p 497) that at the time of writing (731) Æthelwold, his successor, ruled that see. Second, in De temporum ratione, itself date to 725 on the basis of internal evidence (see Wallis 1999 p xvi note 4), Bede referred to the prose Vita as having been written “recently” (trans. Wallis 1999 p 232; “nuper,” ed. CCSL 123B.530), making a date close to 721 reasonable. In this same comment, Bede added that he wrote the verse Vita “some years ago” (“ante aliquot annos”). What Bede did not make clear in De temporum ratione or in the prefaces to the metrical and prose Vitae is that between 705 and 721 he revised the earlier work. The conclusive evidence is Lapidge’s (1996c p 341) analysis of the version of the metrical Life preserved in Bescançon, Bibliothèque municipale, 186: Uniquely among manuscripts of the poem, this Bescançon redaction lacks the dedicatory epistle to Bede’s friend John. For many of the miracles it has chapter headings which are entirely different from those in (what I shall henceforth call) the vulgate recension, that is, the one preserved in the twenty manuscripts and printed by Werner Jaager. Most important, it has at more than 100 places a text substantially different from that of the vulgate recension.

With this information, it appears likely that Bede’s comment in the preface to the metrical life that he had “recently published [this work] in verse”

Saints’ Lives

267

(“quae nuper versibus edidi”; ed. Jaager 1935 p 56) refers to the revised version. The John in question then may well be, as Lapidge (2008a p 113) suggests and states (2010 1.liv), John of Beverley, who resigned the see of York around 716. (Bede’s phrase “in Christo domine,” used only in this letter, seems appropriate for the person who had ordained him both a deacon and a priest”; see Historia ecclesiastica V.xxiv, ed. Lapidge 2010 2.480). If so, Bede revised the metrical Life between 716 and 721, the year John died (for an argument dating the work to 716, see Biggs 2015). This chronology, moreover, fits well with Bede’s claim in the preface to the prose Life that in composing this work he carried out the promise mentioned in the earlier preface to “write more fully on another occasion about his life and miracles” (trans. Colgrave 1940 p 147). In this earlier metrical version, Bede adapted, as he himself made clear in the prologue to the Historia ecclesiastica (ed. Lapidge 2010 1.10-12; trans. Colgrave and Mynors 1969 p 6), the anonymous Vita Cuthberti (BHL 2019; CPL 1379; see ACTA SANCTORUM) written by a monk or the monks of Lindisfarne between 698 and 705 about their recently departed abbot and bishop. While he took little of the wording of this source, Bede’s Vita remains closer to its order and arrangement than does his later prose version, including all of its miracles except those mentioned but without detail. He did, however, add new material (see Colgrave’s “Concordance of the three Lives of St Cuthbert; ed. 1940 p 375). Lapidge (1996b p 332) asserts, “Bede clearly intended his poem to serve as a contrafactum of the prose life – and to be read in conjunction with it, and to offer a meditation on the spiritual significance of the events described prosaically by the Lindisfarne author” (see also Thacker 1989 p 118). It serves, in other words, as the second half of an opus geminatum, a phrase used by Bede in Historia ecclesiastica V.xviii to describe ALDHELM’s prose and verse De uirginitate; see Peter Godman (1981), Gernot Wieland (1981), and Bill Friesen (2011). Moreover, as the apparatus criticus of Jaager’s edition demonstrates, Bede drew heavily on the vocabulary and phrasing of the biblical epics of JUVENCUS, SEDULIUS, and ARATOR; for other sources, see Jaager (1935 p 15). Moreover, Lapidge (2005a p 740) demonstrates that “Bede’s debt to VERGIL goes far beyond the level of verbal reminiscence: that his whole conception of poetic language and metrical technique was informed by his attentive – inspired even – study of Vergil’s diction” (see also Brown 2009 pp 82-84). The proem, which places Cuthbert in a cosmic setting as the patron saint of the English but honoured universally, is followed by forty-six chapters, each beginning with a brief prose summary, which offers the opportunity to meditate on the spiritual significance of the saint’s actions.

268 

BEDE – PART 1

The lone survival of this version in a ninth-century manuscript from western Germany, which contains other works by Bede but not the prose Vita Cuthberti (see Lapidge 1996c pp 340-41 and 346), indicates an early export of the work. Indeed, Lapidge (1996a pp 345-46 and note 24) identifies in it “peculiarities” of Bede’s own orthography. Since, however, the manuscript evidence as a whole reveals that it was Bede’s revision that was widely disseminated, mention of this work in booklists and elsewhere as well as quotations will be included, for the moment, in the following entry. Michael Lapidge has announced an edition in his forthcoming Bede’s Latin Poetry. Vita Cuthberti metrica [BEDA.Vit.Cuthb.metr.]: BHL 2020; CPL 1380. ed.: Jaager 1935. MSS 1. Cambridge, Corpus Christi College, 183: ASM 56. 2. London, British Library, Cotton Vitellius A. xix: ASM 401; ASMMF 10. 3. London, British Library, Harley 526, fols. 1-27: ASM 419; ASMMF 10. 4. London, British Library, Harley 1117: ASM 427; ASMMF 10. 5. Oxford, Bodleian Library, Bodley 109 (S.C. 1962), fols. 1-60: ASM 546. 6. Oxford, Bodleian Library, Bodley 596 (S.C. 2376), fols. 175-214: ASM 586. 7. Oxford, Bodleian Library, Digby 175 (S.C. 1776): ASM 614. 8. Berlin, Staatsbibliothek zu Berlin, Preussischer Kulturbesitz, Grimm 132, 1 (with Budapest, National Széchény Library, Cod. lat. 442, fols. 1-2; Budapest, University Library, Fragm. lat. 1; Munich, Stadtarchiv, Historischer Verein Oberbayern, Hs. 733/16): ASM 791.9. 9. Copenhagen, Kongelige Bibliotek, G.K.S. 2034 (4o): ASM 815. 10. Paris, Bibliothèque nationale de France, lat. 2825, fols. 57-81: ASM 882. 11. [Rome] Città del Vaticano, Biblioteca Apostolica Vaticana, Reg. lat. 204: ASM 913. Lists 1. ? Alcuin: ML 1.7. 2. Athelstan: ML 2.4. A-S Vers none. Quots/Cits 1. Vit.Cuthb.metr., prol., 1: BEDA.Hist.abb., 66.19.

Saints’ Lives

2. Vit.Cuthb.metr., prol., 1: ANON.Vit.Ceolfr., 108.16. 3. Vit.Cuthb.metr., prol., 1: ANON.Vit.Guthl., 60.2. 4. Vit.Cuthb.metr., prol., 1: ALCVIN.Epist. 139, 220.13. 5. Vit.Cuthb.metr., prol., 1: ALCVIN.Epist. 177, 292.9 6. Vit.Cuthb.metr., prol., 1: ALCVIN.Epist. 234, 379.12. 7. Vit.Cuthb.metr., 38: ALCVIN.Vers.Eubor., 4. 8. Vit.Cuthb.metr., 36: ALCVIN.Vers.Eubor., 7. 9. Vit.Cuthb.metr., 610: ALCVIN.Vers.Eubor., 42. 10. Vit.Cuthb.metr., 775: ALCVIN.Vers.Eubor., 94. 11. Vit.Cuthb.metr., 500: ALCVIN.Vers.Eubor., 98. 12. Vit.Cuthb.metr., 403: ALCVIN.Vers.Eubor., 122. 13. Vit.Cuthb.metr., 565: ALCVIN.Vers.Eubor., 139. 14. ? Vit.Cuthb.metr., 22: ALCVIN.Vers.Eubor., 141. 15. Vit.Cuthb.metr., 2: ALCVIN.Vers.Eubor., 144. 16. Vit.Cuthb.metr., 398: ALCVIN.Vers.Eubor., 195-96. 17. Vit.Cuthb.metr., 803: ALCVIN.Vers.Eubor., 237. 18. Vit.Cuthb.metr., 383: ALCVIN.Vers.Eubor., 248. 19. Vit.Cuthb.metr., 559: ALCVIN.Vers.Eubor., 269. 20. Vit.Cuthb.metr., 562: ALCVIN.Vers.Eubor., 286. 21. Vit.Cuthb.metr., 563: ALCVIN.Vers.Eubor., 289. 22. Vit.Cuthb.metr., 144: ALCVIN.Vers.Eubor., 378. 23. Vit.Cuthb.metr., 842: ALCVIN.Vers.Eubor., 392. 24. Vit.Cuthb.metr., 962: ALCVIN.Vers.Eubor., 484. 25. Vit.Cuthb.metr., 516: ALCVIN.Vers.Eubor., 500. 26. Vit.Cuthb.metr., 147: ALCVIN.Vers.Eubor., 532. 27. Vit.Cuthb.metr., 365: ALCVIN.Vers.Eubor., 552. 28. Vit.Cuthb.metr., 471-72: ALCVIN.Vers.Eubor., 593. 29. Vit.Cuthb.metr., 785: ALCVIN.Vers.Eubor., 601. 30. Vit.Cuthb.metr., 575: ALCVIN.Vers.Eubor., 615. 31. Vit.Cuthb.metr., 119: ALCVIN.Vers.Eubor., 635. 32. Vit.Cuthb.metr., 28: ALCVIN.Vers.Eubor., 647. 33. Vit.Cuthb.metr., 22: ALCVIN.Vers.Eubor., 656. 34. Vit.Cuthb.metr., 406: ALCVIN.Vers.Eubor., 658. 35. Vit.Cuthb.metr., 381: ALCVIN.Vers.Eubor., 678. 36. ? Vit.Cuthb.metr., ii, rubr.: ALCVIN.Vers.Eubor., 688-89. 37. Vit.Cuthb.metr., 91: ALCVIN.Vers.Eubor., 688. 38. ? Vit.Cuthb.metr., iii, rubr.: ALCVIN.Vers.Eubor., 690-91. 39. Vit.Cuthb.metr., 104: ALCVIN.Vers.Eubor., 690. 40. ? Vit.Cuthb.metr., iv, rubr.: ALCVIN.Vers.Eubor., 692-93. 41. Vit.Cuthb.metr., 120-21: ALCVIN.Vers.Eubor., 693.

269

270 

BEDE – PART 1

42. ? Vit.Cuthb.metr., vii, rubr.: ALCVIN.Vers.Eubor., 694-95. 43. ? Vit.Cuthb.metr., viii, rubr.: ALCVIN.Vers.Eubor., 696-97. 44. Vit.Cuthb.metr., 229: ALCVIN.Vers.Eubor., 696. 45. Vit.Cuthb.metr., 247: ALCVIN.Vers.Eubor., 697. 46. ? Vit.Cuthb.metr., ix, rubr.: ALCVIN.Vers.Eubor., 698-99. 47. ? Vit.Cuthb.metr., x, rubr.: ALCVIN.Vers.Eubor., 700-01. 48. Vit.Cuthb.metr., xii, rubr.: ALCVIN.Vers.Eubor., 702-03. 49. Vit.Cuthb.metr., 336: ALCVIN.Vers.Eubor., 703. 50. ? Vit.Cuthb.metr., xiii, rubr.: ALCVIN.Vers.Eubor., 704-05. 51. Vit.Cuthb.metr., xvi, rubr.: ALCVIN.Vers.Eubor., 708-09. 52. ? Vit.Cuthb.metr., xvii, rubr.: ALCVIN.Vers.Eubor., 710-11. 53. ? Vit.Cuthb.metr., xix, rubr.: ALCVIN.Vers.Eubor., 712. 54. ? Vit.Cuthb.metr., xxi, rubr.: ALCVIN.Vers.Eubor., 713-14. 55. Vit.Cuthb.metr., 491: ALCVIN.Vers.Eubor., 713. 56. ? Vit.Cuthb.metr., xxiii, rubr.: ALCVIN.Vers.Eubor., 715-16. 57. ? Vit.Cuthb.metr., xxiv, rubr.: ALCVIN.Vers.Eubor., 717-18. 58. Vit.Cuthb.metr., 571-72: ALCVIN.Vers.Eubor., 718. 59. Vit.Cuthb.metr., xxv, rubr.: ALCVIN.Vers.Eubor., 719-20, 60. Vit.Cuthb.metr., xxvi, rubr.: ALCVIN.Vers.Eubor., 721-22. 61. ? Vit.Cuthb.metr., xxvii, rubr.: ALCVIN.Vers.Eubor., 723-24. 62. Vit.Cuthb.metr., 596: ALCVIN.Vers.Eubor., 724. 63. ? Vit.Cuthb.metr., xxxi, rubr.: ALCVIN.Vers.Eubor., 725-26. 64. ? Vit.Cuthb.metr., xxxv, rubr.: ALCVIN.Vers.Eubor., 727-28. 65. Vit.Cuthb.metr., 764: ALCVIN.Vers.Eubor., 728. 66. ? Vit.Cuthb.metr., xxxviii, rubr.: ALCVIN.Vers.Eubor., 729-30. 67. Vit.Cuthb.metr., xl, rubr.: ALCVIN.Vers.Eubor., 731-32. 68. Vit.Cuthb.metr., 187: ALCVIN.Vers.Eubor., 732. 69. Vit.Cuthb.metr., 855: ALCVIN.Vers.Eubor., 732. 70. Vit.Cuthb.metr., 585: ALCVIN.Vers.Eubor., 733. 71. Vit.Cuthb.metr., xlii, rubr.: ALCVIN.Vers.Eubor., 735. 72. Vit.Cuthb.metr., 873: ALCVIN.Vers.Eubor., 735. 73. Vit.Cuthb.metr., 872: ALCVIN.Vers.Eubor., 736. 74. Vit.Cuthb.metr., xliv, rubr.: ALCVIN.Vers.Eubor., 739-40. 75. Vit.Cuthb.metr., 892: ALCVIN.Vers.Eubor., 740. 76. Vit.Cuthb.metr., 711: ALCVIN.Vers.Eubor., 765. 77. Vit.Cuthb.metr., 830: ALCVIN.Vers.Eubor., 768. 78. Vit.Cuthb.metr., 832: ALCVIN.Vers.Eubor., 775. 79. Vit.Cuthb.metr., 820: ALCVIN.Vers.Eubor., 860. 80. Vit.Cuthb.metr., 694: ALCVIN.Vers.Eubor., 886. 81. Vit.Cuthb.metr., 372: ALCVIN.Vers.Eubor., 957.

Saints’ Lives

82. Vit.Cuthb.metr., 349: ALCVIN.Vers.Eubor., 957. 83. Vit.Cuthb.metr., 918: ALCVIN.Vers.Eubor., 1039. 84. Vit.Cuthb.metr., 812: ALCVIN.Vers.Eubor., 1040. 85. Vit.Cuthb.metr., 682: ALCVIN.Vers.Eubor., 1089. 86. Vit.Cuthb.metr., 30-31: ALCVIN.Vers.Eubor., 1090. 87. Vit.Cuthb.metr., 454: ALCVIN.Vers.Eubor., 1097. 88. Vit.Cuthb.metr., 135: ALCVIN.Vers.Eubor., 1121. 89. Vit.Cuthb.metr., 583: ALCVIN.Vers.Eubor., 1121. 90. Vit.Cuthb.metr., 80: ALCVIN.Vers.Eubor., 1129. 91. Vit.Cuthb.metr., 581: ALCVIN.Vers.Eubor., 1148. 92. Vit.Cuthb.metr., 570: ALCVIN.Vers.Eubor., 1150. 93. Vit.Cuthb.metr., 63: ALCVIN.Vers.Eubor., 1183. 94. Vit.Cuthb.metr., 525: ALCVIN.Vers.Eubor., 1220. 95. Vit.Cuthb.metr., 552: ALCVIN.Vers.Eubor., 1273. 96. Vit.Cuthb.metr., 335: ALCVIN.Vers.Eubor., 1334. 97. Vit.Cuthb.metr., 162: ALCVIN.Vers.Eubor., 1393. 98. Vit.Cuthb.metr., 248: ALCVIN.Vers.Eubor., 1422. 99. Vit.Cuthb.metr., 699: ALCVIN.Vers.Eubor., 1535. 100. Vit.Cuthb.metr., 510: ALCVIN.Vers.Eubor., 1616. 101. Vit.Cuthb.metr., 535: ALCVIN.Vers.Eubor., 1647. 102. ? Vit.Cuthb.metr., 22: ALCVIN.Vit.Willibr.pr., 117.20. 103. Vit.Cuthb.metr., 8: ANON.Mirac.Nyn., 15. 104. Vit.Cuthb.metr., 1: ANON.Mirac.Nyn., 16. 105. Vit.Cuthb.metr., 39: ANON.Mirac.Nyn., 28. 106. Vit.Cuthb.metr., 228: ANON.Mirac.Nyn., 34. 107. Vit.Cuthb.metr., 630: ANON.Mirac.Nyn., 39. 108. Vit.Cuthb.metr., 556: ANON.Mirac.Nyn., 52. 109. ? Vit.Cuthb.metr., 648: ANON.Mirac.Nyn., 66. 110. Vit.Cuthb.metr., 98: ANON.Mirac.Nyn., 73. 111. Vit.Cuthb.metr., 558: ANON.Mirac.Nyn., 81. 112. Vit.Cuthb.metr., 39: ANON.Mirac.Nyn., 102. 113. Vit.Cuthb.metr., 135: ANON.Mirac.Nyn., 106. 114. ? Vit.Cuthb.metr., 340: ANON.Mirac.Nyn., 118. 115. Vit.Cuthb.metr., 268: ANON.Mirac.Nyn., 129. 116. ? Vit.Cuthb.metr., 340: ANON.Mirac.Nyn., 154. 117. Vit.Cuthb.metr., 504: ANON.Mirac.Nyn., 164. 118. ? Vit.Cuthb.metr., 340: ANON.Mirac.Nyn., 206. 119. ? Vit.Cuthb.metr., 775: ANON.Mirac.Nyn., 214. 120. Vit.Cuthb.metr., 247: ANON.Mirac.Nyn., 241. 121. Vit.Cuthb.metr., 598: ANON.Mirac.Nyn., 258.

271

272 

BEDE – PART 1

122. Vit.Cuthb.metr., 143: ANON.Mirac.Nyn., 282. 123. Vit.Cuthb.metr., 75: ANON.Mirac.Nyn., 334. 124. Vit.Cuthb.metr., 282: ANON.Mirac.Nyn., 340. 125. Vit.Cuthb.metr., 504: ANON.Mirac.Nyn., 355. 126. Vit.Cuthb.metr., 39: ANON.Mirac.Nyn., 379. 127. Vit.Cuthb.metr., 550-01: ANON.Mirac.Nyn., 381-82. 128. Vit.Cuthb.metr., 257: ANON.Mirac.Nyn., 399. 129. ? Vit.Cuthb.metr., 72: ANON.Mirac.Nyn., 408. 130. Vit.Cuthb.metr., 69: ANON.Mirac.Nyn., 438. 131. ? Vit.Cuthb.metr., 32-33: ANON.Mirac.Nyn., 454. 132. Vit.Cuthb.metr., 841: ANON.Mirac.Nyn., 458. 133. Vit.Cuthb.metr., 842: ANON.Mirac.Nyn., 458. 134. Vit.Cuthb.metr., 565: ANON.Mirac.Nyn., 470. 135. Vit.Cuthb.metr., 549: ANON.Mirac.Nyn., 490. 136. ? Vit.Cuthb.metr., 114: ANON.Mirac.Nyn., 491. 137. Vit.Cuthb.metr., 546: ÆTHELWULF.Abbat., 35. 138. Vit.Cuthb.metr., 379-80: ÆTHELWULF.Abbat., 95-98. 139. Vit.Cuthb.metr., 960: ÆTHELWULF.Abbat., 159-60. 140. Vit.Cuthb.metr., 462: ÆTHELWULF.Abbat., 206. 141. Vit.Cuthb.metr., 388: ÆTHELWULF.Abbat., 215. 142. Vit.Cuthb.metr., 815: ÆTHELWULF.Abbat., 228. 143. Vit.Cuthb.metr., 826: ÆTHELWULF.Abbat., 231. 144. Vit.Cuthb.metr., 95: ÆTHELWULF.Abbat., 259. 145. Vit.Cuthb.metr., 105: ÆTHELWULF.Abbat., 399. 146. Vit.Cuthb.metr., 583: ÆTHELWULF.Abbat., 403. 147. Vit.Cuthb.metr., 96: ÆTHELWULF.Abbat., 464. 148. Vit.Cuthb.metr., 504: ÆTHELWULF.Abbat., 483. 149. Vit.Cuthb.metr., 78-79: ÆTHELWULF.Abbat., 666. 150. Vit.Cuthb.metr., 208: ÆTHELWULF.Abbat., 702. 151. Vit.Cuthb.metr., 918-28: Mart (B19.1; Æthelwald), 82.25-84.3. 152. Vit.Cuthb.metr., 653: WVLF.WINT.Narr.metr.Swith., I, 1477. 153. Vit.Cuthb.metr., 152: WVLF.WINT.Narr.metr.Swith., II, 608. 154. Vit.Cuthb.metr., 46: ÆCHom II, 10 (B1.2.10), 7-9. 155. Vit.Cuthb.metr., 49-51: ÆCHom II, 10 (B1.2.11), 9-13. 156. Vit.Cuthb.metr., 63-64: ÆCHom II, 10 (B1.2.11), 14-16. 157. Vit.Cuthb.metr., 67-69: ÆCHom II, 10 (B1.2.11), 16-18. 158. Vit.Cuthb.metr., 65: ÆCHom II, 10 (B1.2.11), 19. 159. Vit.Cuthb.metr., 54-61: ÆCHom II, 10 (B1.2.11), 19-25. 160. Vit.Cuthb.metr., 76-81: ÆCHom II, 10 (B1.2.11), 28-35. 161. ? Vit.Cuthb.metr., 81-85: ÆCHom II, 10 (B1.2.11), 35-39.

Saints’ Lives

273

162. Vit.Cuthb.metr., 86-91: ÆCHom II, 10 (B1.2.11), 39-43. 163. ? Vit.Cuthb.metr., 120-41: ÆCHom II, 10 (B1.2.11), 48-51. 164. ? Vit.Cuthb.metr., 164-79: ÆCHom II, 10 (B1.2.11), 51-58. 165. Vit.Cuthb.metr., 180-84: ÆCHom II, 10 (B1.2.11), 59-63. 166. Vit.Cuthb.metr., 220-47: ÆCHom II, 10 (B1.2.11), 74-94. 167. Vit.Cuthb.metr., 291-308: ÆCHom II, 10 (B1.2.11), 97-112. 168. ? Vit.Cuthb.metr., 311-32: ÆCHom II, 10 (B1.2.11), 112-26. 169. Vit.Cuthb.metr., 333-39: ÆCHom II, 10 (B1.2.11), 127-31. 170. Vit.Cuthb.metr., 347-48: ÆCHom II, 10 (B1.2.11), 141-42. 171. ? Vit.Cuthb.metr., 368-72: ÆCHom II, 10 (B1.2.11), 153-57. 172. Vit.Cuthb.metr., 373-76: ÆCHom II, 10 (B1.2.11), 159-62. 173. Vit.Cuthb.metr., 406-12: ÆCHom II, 10 (B1.2.11), 171-76. 174. Vit.Cuthb.metr., 431-44: ÆCHom II, 10 (B1.2.11), 190-200. 175. ? Vit.Cuthb.metr., 462-70: ÆCHom II, 10 (B1.2.11), 210-12. 176. Vit.Cuthb.metr., 492-535: ÆCHom II, 10 (B1.2.11), 212-38. 177. Vit.Cuthb.metr., 559-61: ÆCHom II, 10 (B1.2.11), 267-70. 178. Vit.Cuthb.metr., 565-70: ÆCHom II, 10 (B1.2.11), 272-75. 179. Vit.Cuthb.metr., 571-74: ÆCHom II, 10 (B1.2.11), 275-77 180. Vit.Cuthb.metr., 575-82: ÆCHom II, 10 (B1.2.11), 277-81. 181. Vit.Cuthb.metr., 591-96: ÆCHom II, 10 (B1.2.11), 286-91. 182. Vit.Cuthb.metr., 664-79: ÆCHom II, 10 (B1.2.11), 294-303. 183. ? Vit.Cuthb.metr., 597-609: ÆCHom II, 10 (B1.2.11), 304-07. 184. ? Vit.Cuthb.metr., 680-812: ÆCHom II, 10 (B1.2.11), 324-31. 185. ? Vit.Cuthb.metr., 120-41: ÆLS Oswald (B1.3.26), 279-82. 186. ? Vit.Cuthb.metr., 489: BYRHT.Vit.Os., 26.11. 187. ? Vit.Cuthb.metr., prol., 21: BYRHT.Vit.Os., 104.3-4. Refs 1. CVTHBERT.Epist. 116, 251.4-7. 2. ALCVIN.Vers.Eubor., 685-87. 3. ALCVIN.Vers.Eubor., 740-50. 4. ALCVIN.Carm. 9, 171-78. 5. ÆCHom II, 10 (B1.2.10), 3-6. 6. ÆCHom II, 10 (B1.2.10), 7. For Bede’s first version of his metrical Vita Cuthberti and a discussion of the dates of composition of his writings on this saint, see the previous entry. As mentioned above, after revising the work, Bede added a preface in the form of a letter to his friend John, perhaps John of Beverley, the bishop of York. Michael Lapidge (1996c pp 341-46) explains that he also rewrote many

274 

BEDE – PART 1

of the chapter headings and “in more than 100 places” changed the text “substantially.” Lapidge details three reasons for these revisions: to improve the metre, to incorporate borrowings from earlier poets more freely, and to correct minor misunderstandings of his main source, the anonymous Vita Cuthberti (BHL 2019; CPL 1379; see ACTA SANCTORUM). MSS 1-11, especially 8, 3, and 10. In addition to the Bescançon manuscript mentioned in the previous entry, there are fifteen full copies and five fragments of the metrical Vita Cuthberti, which Lapidge (2008a pp 113-19) divides “into five distinct classes, two of which consist of manuscripts written on the Continent … and three of manuscripts written in England.” Noting that the Berlin manuscript is “too fragmentary to be classified with confidence,” Lapidge places it in the first group of Continental manuscripts, which he postulates “descend from a lost archetype which was sent from Northumbria to Germany, perhaps some time during the second half of the eighth century.” The Berlin manuscript is dated to this time, and placed, perhaps, in Fulda. Harley 526 and Paris lat. 2825 are the two members of his second group of Continental manuscripts, “written c. 900 in northeast Francia and brought to England during the course of the tenth century, where, to judge from interlinear correction, their texts were carefully collated against locally-available English copies” of Lapidge’s second class of English manuscripts. He considers both these manuscripts to be “independent copies of a lost Anglo-Saxon exemplar … which was written in England in a high grade of Anglo-Saxon minuscule script (possibly what is called ‘hybrid’ minuscule, insofar as it is a blend of half-uncial and minuscule letter forms), and had travelled to NE France by the mid-ninth century.” MSS 7, 6, 2, 4-5, 11, 9, and 1. Digby 175, from around 1100, is the oldest example of Lapidge’s first group of English manuscripts, which are “all from Durham or its dependencies.” Of a similar date is the fragmentary Bodley 596, which contains lines 119-252. As Lapidge notes, Michael Gullick (1998 p 24) identifies the scribe of both these manuscripts as Symeon of Durham. Lapidge conjectures that the exemplar of this group “was a Northumbrian manuscript in Anglo-Saxon miniscule dating from before the ninth century, when monastic and ecclesiastical life was brought virtually to a halt by Viking attacks and settlements.” His second English group, which includes Vitellius A. xix, Harley 1117, Bodley 109, and the Vatican manuscript, “were written or owned at Canterbury in the mid or late tenth century.” The Copenhagen manuscript is one of two examples “which belong ambiguously” to this group of Canterbury manuscripts. Finally, the Corpus Christi manuscript, on which see more below, and Cambridge, Trinity College O.2.24, a late eleventh- or early twelfth-century manuscript from

Saints’ Lives

275

St Augustine’s Canterbury, “do not unambiguously belong to any of the other four distinct groups, yet … share no identifying features.” “For sake of convenience,” Lapidge groups them together. MSS: Old English glosses. Seven of the manuscripts contain Old English glosses. The Copenhagen manuscript (NRK 100) has 143 glosses from s. x/xi, which have been printed by Herbert Dean Meritt (1945 no. 9): CuthGl 1 (Meritt; C47.1). Carl T. Berkhout (2006a p 10) has suggested that one of them, “ic hicge” (Meritt 1945 p 18), is not a gloss on “certæm,” which is already glossed by “pugnam,” but rather “the glossator’s own comment, the vernacular equivalent of opinor and puto – ‘so I think’ or ‘it seems to me’ – in medieval manuscripts.” Vitellius A. xix (NRK 217) contains thirteen glosses, which have been printed except “nu” glossing “en”, by Meritt (1945 no. 6, glosses 3-14): CuthGl 2 (Meritt; C47.2). N. R. Ker notes that “the Latin and OE glosses to the verse life are in the same square Anglo-Saxon minuscule script and probably in the same hand as the text.” These thirteen glosses also occur in Harley 1117 (NRK 234) and Vatican Reg. lat. 204 (NRK 389). Indeed, it is partially on the basis of them that Bertram Colgrave (1940 p 46) concludes that Harley 1117 is a copy of Vitellius A. xix. The Harley 1117 glosses are printed by Meritt (1945 no. 7): CuthGl 4 (Meritt; C47.4); Ker writes, “OE glosses in the same hand as Latin glosses and contemporary with the hand of the text.” The Vatican manuscript contains sixteen glosses, printed (with one exception recorded by Ker) by A. S. Napier (1900 no. 32): CuthGl 7 (nap-Ker; C47.7). Ker adds, “the OE glosses are contemporary with the text and in the same hand as Latin glosses.” Harley 526 (NRK 230) contains fifteen glosses, printed by Meritt (1945 no. 11): CuthGl 3 (Meritt; C47.3). Ker writes, “The OE glosses are probably in the same hand as the Latin glosses.” Bodley 109 (NRK 301) has two glosses, which Ker records: CuthGl 5 (Ker; C47.5). The Paris manuscript contains seven glosses, printed by Meritt (1945 no. 10): CuthGl 6 (Meritt; C47.6). Ker notes that they “are probably in the same hand as Latin glosses.” Lists. While the booklist associated with ALCUIN (ML 1.7; see the introduction, BEDE) simply mentions “Beda magister,” the one associated with Athelstan’s gift of four volumes to the congregation of Cuthbert at Chester-le-Street contained a “sancti Cuthberti uitam, metrice et prosaice scriptam” (ML 2.4). This manuscript survives, now Cambridge, Corpus Christi College 183. Simon Keynes (1985 p 180) writes, It is apparent from its physical structure that the manuscript was designed from the start as a volume intended for presentation by King Athelstan to St Cuthbert’s community. The recto of the opening folio of the first

276 

BEDE – PART 1

quire (1r) was left black, and the verso was used for the splendid picture of a king presenting a book to a saint [Keynes reproduces the image]: the king, standing, is shown crowned, holding a book in both hands; and the saint, standing in front of his church, is shown with a halo, giving a blessing with his right hand and holding a book in his left hand.

Noting that it “was planned as a collection of texts celebrating the life of St Cuthbert,” Keynes analyses its contents: Bede’s two Lives, extracts from the Historia ecclesiastica relating to Cuthbert, a list of difficult words drawn from the metrical Life, and a liturgical office for the saint, as well as “a list of popes, a list of the disciples of Christ, a collection of episcopal lists, and various regnal lists and royal genealogies, followed by a curious assemblage of miscellaneous information.” Keynes explains the last item as perhaps intended “to remind the Northumbrian community of the essential unity of the Anglo-Saxon church, and to impress on them the ancient links which bound the various Anglo-Saxon kingdoms together (without going into details about their wars).” He also redates the gift to between 934 and 939 and identifies its likely place of origin as a monastery in the south-west, possibly Glastonbury. Quots/Cits 1-6. Borrowing a phrase from the opening of AUGUSTINE’s Letter 194 (ed. CSEL 57.176-214), Bede began the salutation of his prefatory letter, “Domino in domino dominorum.” This opening appears in HWÆTBERHT’s Letter to Pope Gregory II, written to accompany CEOLFRITH on his journey to Rome in 716, that is recorded in Bede’s Historia abbatum (ed. Grocock and Wood 2013 p 66) and in the anonymous Vita Ceolfridi (see Ceolfridus in ACTA SANCTORUM; ed. Grocock and Wood 2013 p 108). As Bertram Colgrave notes in his edition (1956 p 60; see Guthlacus in ACTA SANCTORUM), the author of the anonymous Vita Guthlaci used the same phrase at the beginning of his prologue to address king ÆLFWALD, king of the East Angles from 713-49. It was borrowed by ALCUIN at the start of his Epistolae 139, 177, and 234 (ed. MGH ECA 2.220, 292, and 379). Quots/Cits 7-101. Alcuin adapted phrases from the metrical Vita Cuthberti, as he did from other poetic works, throughout his Versus de sanctis Euboricensis ecclesiae; the list above, which is derived from the “Index of Quotations and Allusions” in Peter Godman’s edition and translation (1982 pp 141-54), will be used throughout this discussion. Cuthbert, however, was himself a major subject of the poem, which led Alcuin both to discuss Bede’s work and to incorporate material from it into his account of the saint. The metrical Vita Cuthberti is, then, a source not only of poetic diction but also of information about the saint, to which we will turn first.

Saints’ Lives

277

Quots/Cits 36-75 and Refs 2. Following his opening summary of Cuthbert’s life (ed. Godman 1982, lines 646-84) – drawn from the Historia ecclesiastica, his main source for the first two-thirds of the poem – Alcuin remarked that “Bede, that famous priest and teacher, wrote all about / these miracles, first in prose / and then in hexameter verse” (lines 685-87). In noting this misunderstanding of the chronology of Bede’s works, Godman (p 57) comments that “this error does not prove in itself that Alcuin’s exemplar of Bede lacked the prefaces to the Lives of St. Cuthbert”; however, in light of Lapidge’s discovery about the Bescançon manuscript (see the previous entry), it would be worth rechecking the verbal correspondences Godman lists, especially in the case of the rubrics to the metrical and prose Vitae. Alcuin used Bede’s chapter headings in the following section (lines 688-740) to retell the saint’s life, at times using additional phrases from the metrical version. Since they are similar, in many cases it is impossible to tell which heading Alcuin relied on: in the list above these are preceded by a question mark and included in the entry on the prose Vita Cuthberti. Quots/Cits 37, 39, 41, 44, 45, 49, 55, 58, 62, 65, 68, 69, 70, 72, 73, 75, and Refs 3. Almost all of the verbal borrowings from the metrical Vita that occur in the context of this retelling of Cuthbert’s life come from the chapters identified by the rubric. They usually represent a memorable phrase, and are, on the whole, close to Bede’s wording. For example, in summarising the early miracle in which Cuthbert’s knee is cured by an angel, Alcuin expanded the last four words of line 91 of the metrical Vita, which stand as an entire clause, into a full line: “qualiter angelicos monitus medicina secuta est” (ed. Godman 1982, line 688; “how he was cured by following an angel’s command”). Similarly, in his account of the young Cuthbert saving rafts that had been blown out to sea, he echoed Bede’s “per caerula puppis” (ed. Jaager 1935, line 104) in his own “per caerula puppes” (line 690; “from the sea … rafts”) and when Cuthbert saw Aidan’s soul borne to heaven he was tending “teneros agnos” (line 693; “young lambs”). Alcuin’s “plurima veridico praedixit et ore futura” (line 713; “how in words of truth he prophesied many future events”), which refers to chapter 21 of the metrical Vita in which Cuthbert predicts events in the life of Ecgfrith and his own bishopric, derives from Bede’s transitional comment at the end of chapter 20: “Haec sacer aiebat, senior quia praecius ipsum / Pontificem altiloquo praedixerat ore futurum” (lines 490-91). Yet perhaps most powerful is Alcuin’s allusion to the time when as a young man Cuthbert washes the legs and feet of an angel (metrical Vita chapter 7) as he described “how a boy vexed by evil spirits was cured by the earth / on which had been poured the water that had washed / Cuthbert’s holy limbs” (lines 731-32) following the saint’s

278 

BEDE – PART 1

death: the connection made by “sacros” marks the transformation of the saint’s limbs into their angelic form. In the following lines, Alcuin again specifically discussed his source: Not to seem wholly silent I have touched briefly on these things, passing swiftly over his wondrous deeds in my rude verse; for Bede, the peerless master, once wrote a full-scale poem on this subject in splendid style. Had not pious Bede written his poem before mine, I should expand on this theme in lyric strain …. (lines 741-46; trans. Godman 1982 p 63)

Alcuin’s debt to Bede was, as he acknowledged here, great, but his own tribute to Cuthbert an accomplishment in its own right. Quots/Cits 32. In his notes on the opening summary of Cuthbert’s life (lines 646-84), in which he finds no verbal echoes of the Historia ecclesiastica, Godman (1982) identifies five uses of the metrical Vita. Two are certain. The passage begins: “Vir quoque temporibus sanctus fulgebat in illis, / angelicam Cuthberctus agens in corpore vitam” (lines 646-47; “Another holy man was a shining light at that time, / Cuthbert, who led the life of an angel while still on this earth”). The second line draws on Bede’s first description of the saint, whom he places in the context of other holy men whom Christ sent to illuminate particular places (e.g. Peter and Paul with Rome; lines 25-29; ed. Jaager 1935 p 60; trans. Steen 2008 p 24): Nec jam orbis contenta sinu trans aequora lampas Spargitur efflugens, huiusque Britannia consors Temporibus genuit fulgur venerabile nostris, Aurea qua Cuthbertus agens per sidera vitam Scandere celsa suis docuit jam passibus Anglos. (Not even held in check by the coastline, the radiant lamp sheds its light overseas, and Britain, partaking of it, has in our own day produced an estimable lightning bolt: their Cuthbert, who, leading his life amidst splendid stars, has now taught the English to climb the heights in his footsteps).

While the exact borrowing is “agens … vitam,” the two passages are related more generally, with perhaps even Alcuin’s “angelicam … vitam” recalling by way of Gregory’s well-known pun in Historia ecclesiastica II.i (lines 204-06;

Saints’ Lives

279

ed. Lapidge 2010 1.178; trans. Colgrave and Mynors 1969 p 135) the “Anglos,” whom Cuthbert teaches. Quots/Cits 33, 14, and 102. The next borrowing from the metrical Vita in the opening summary of Cuthbert’s life in Alcuin’s Versus de sanctis Euboricensis ecclesiae (lines 646-84; ed. Godman 1982) is complicated because it is more broadly diffused in Latin poetry. Writing of HILARY OF POITIERS, Bede commented, “Pictavis Hilario multum radiata magistro / Discutit errorum vera jam luce tenebras” (lines 21-22; ed. Jaager 1935; “Poitiers, illumined by the teaching of Hilary, now dispels the darknesses of errors with the true light”), which as Godman (1982 p 54) notes is echoed in Alcuin’s “discutiens tenebras errorum luce serena” (line 656; “dispelling the shades of error with serene light”), spoken of Cuthbert. Related is Alcuin’s earlier comment about Paulinus, archbishop of York, “… Solis ceu Lucifer ortum / praecurrens tetras tenebrarum discutit umbras” (lines 140-41; “Like the morning star, hastening before sunrise, dispelling the foul shades of gloom”), which Godman (1982 p 16) associates with VERGIL’s Georgica III, 357: “discutit umbras.” Also related is a prophecy of Willibrord’s mother, spoken before the birth of the saint in Alcuin’s prose Vita Willibrordi (ed. MGH, SRM 7 pp 113-41): “luce veritatis caliginosos tenebrarum errores discutit” (“with the light of truth he dispelled the uncertain errors of darkness”); Fontes Anglo-Saxonici lists Bede’s metrical Vita as the probable direct source for this line. Here the editors of the MGH also refer in their note to PRUDENTIUS and PAULINUS OF NOLA. Alcuin’s description in the Versus de sanctis Euboricensis ecclesiae of Cuthbert dispelling shades, then, may be an example of the formulaic repetition that Andy Orchard (1994 pp 102-25) identifies in ALDHELM. Quots/Cits 35. In discussing lines 646-84 of the Versus de sanctis Euboricensis ecclesiae, Godman (1982) also lists the phrases “Farne petit” (line 390) and “primaevo a flore” (line 729) of the metrical Vita Cuthberti (ed. Jaager 1935) as the sources for Alcuin’s description of Cuthbert’s move to Farne Island (lines 657-59) and of the temporal extent of signs of divine favour (“usque diem mortis primaevo tempore vita”; line 684). Here the correspondences seem in the first case too slight and in the second inexact; they are not listed above. In contrast, Alcuin’s statement about the island that following the saint’s death, “to this day it has been resplendent with brilliant miracles” (“Nam locus ille nitet signis hucusque coruscis”) recalls Bede’s summary as Cuthbert arrives on Farne of the miracles that would take place there (lines 381-82; “and in a few words that shining [place], bright through many miracles, raised innumerable sick men, their feebleness banished”). In this case, recognising the context of the borrowing would have again added to an appreciation of the poem.

280 

BEDE – PART 1

Quots/Cits 7-31 and 76-101. In addition to quotations from Bede’s metrical Vita Cuthberti that Alcuin associated with Cuthbert, there are many more that he incorporated into his work. Indeed, only two of those listed by Godman (1982 pp 146-47) appear inexact and so are not listed above. In discussing Paulinus’s preaching, Alcuin explained that he began “to expound the mysteries of the Faith openly and systematically to all” (“testificare palam constanter in ordine cunctis”; line 164). Godman refers to line 536 of Bede’s poem, but the only correspondence is “in ordine” (ed. Jaager 1935 p 98). The correspondence between Alcuin’s line 615 and Bede’s line 235 is a single word, “perculsus.” The other fifty-one borrowings, although often complicated because they may derive ultimately from Vergil and have been used elsewhere in the works of the Christian Latin poets, almost certainly resonated for Alcuin with the metrical Vita. Quots/Cits 103-36. Karl Strecker identifies twenty-six direct borrowings from the Vita Cuthberti in the Miracula Nynie episcopi (Rex deus eternus patris veneranda potestas; ed. MGH PLAC 4.944-61), a work probably written by Alcuin’s former students; see Lapidge (1996e p 386 note 29), Andy Orchard (2000 pp 27-34), and Bede’s hymn, Alma Deus Trinitas. Strecker also cites lines 32-33 of Bede’s work for the idea expressed in line 454, that it is better to record a few of Cuthbert’s miracles than lose them all because they are so numerous. In the first specific correspondences, the Miracula Nynie uses two of Bede’s comments from the start of his poem to introduce the saint (lines 15-16): Nam deus omnipotens, lychinos qui sparserat orbi. Multa suis late concessit lumina seclis. (For God, who scattered their lamps throughout the world, is omnipotent. He allowed many lights to shine widely in their times.)

The metrical Vita Cuthberti begins, “Multa suis dominus fulgescere lumina saeclis / Donavit” (ed. Jaager 1935 p 58; “The Lord gave many lights to shine in their times,” trans. Steen 2008 p 24) and a few lines later, it states, “Multifidos varium lichinos qui sparsit in orbem” (line 8; “He scattered their manifold lamps over the diverse parts of the world”). In addition to this kind of borrowing of phrases, Strecker also notes the poem’s use in lines 118, 154, and 206 of a distinctive word, “procer” (“chief or noble”), which he associates with the opening of chapter 13 of the metrical Vita: “Vir venit ad procerem” (line 340; “a man came to the celebrated man”). The other questioned correspondences concern phrases that might have been derived

Saints’ Lives

281

from sources other than Bede. “Mortis in umbra” (line 66) might rely on Aldhelm; “Cumque soporifera torpebant omnia nocte” (line 214) derives from a line that Bede had taken in its entirety from JUVENCUS; “misteria pandere Christi” (line 408) could be from ARATOR; and “dona salutis” (line 491) might have been suggested by either Juvencus or Arator. Quots/Cits 137-48. In his edition and translation of ÆTHELWULF’s De abbatibus, A. Campbell (1967 p xlv) discusses the author’s sources: “In view of his interest in monastic history, he would be expected to know Bede’s lives of St. Cuthbert, and the metrical one has left decided traces on his poem.” The twelve examples listed above are not, as he notes (p lxv), all exact borrowings. For example, Æthelwulf adapted Cuthbert’s description of the loaves left by his angelic visitors, “lilia nec candent nec sic rosa fulgida flagrat” (line 208; “lilies do not shine nor the glittering rose burn”), into a description of the heavenly landscape to which he is led in a dream by a shining guide: “namquae rosae rutilant per totum et lilia flagrant” (line 702; “for roses were red everywhere there, and lilies shone”). Concerning Æthelwulf’s description of Lindisfarne in lines 95-98, Campbell notes that he “clearly derives much of his phrasing” from the metrical Vita lines 379-80, “but he adds from the prose life the additional statement that the ebb tide enabled a crossing to the island to be made” (ed. Colgrave 1940 pp 214-15). Quots/Cits 151. In his entry on Oethelwaldus (ACTA SANCTORUM), E. Gordon Whatley notes that the miracle of Æthelwald recorded in the OLD ENGLISH MARTYROLOGY (ed. and trans. Rauer 2013 pp 82-84) “appears to be condensed from Bede’s metrical Vita Cuthberti.” In the Martyrology, when asked by a pupil why he has fallen silent, the saint replies, “How could I both at once listen into heaven and speak here?” Although Christine Rauer does not list this correspondence in her entries in Fontes Anglo-Saxonci, she records it in the commentary of her edition (p 253). Quots/Cits 152-53. Lapidge identifies the two borrowings from the Vita in WULFSTAN OF WINCHESTER’s Narratio metrica de Swithuno (ed. Lapidge 2003 pp 371-551). In his note on book 2, line 608, he writes: “For the cadence praepinguis oliui, cf. Vergil, Ecl. v.68 (‘Pinguis oliui’) and Bede, VCM 152 (‘praepinguis oliui’), with discussion” by Lapidge (1995b pp 151-52). The phrase occurs in the account of a man who cuts through a beam with a knife, after which he gets by the guards and opens the door by drawing the bolt effortlessly as though “the lock had been lubricated with oil of the fatty olive” (“unguine sed perfusa foret prepinguis oliui” (ed. and trans. pp 522-23). Earlier in book 1, in an account of twenty-five invalids cured in one day, Wulfstan borrowed the phrase “sub lance diei” from Bede’s Vita (line 653).

282 

BEDE – PART 1

He had, as Lapidge notes, previously modified this phrase in his account of a citizen of Winchester who falls ill when confronted by a demon in the form of an Ethiopian woman. Taken back to his house, the man is cared for by kinsmen for “a period of nine days” (“hunc inibique nouem seruant in lance dierum,” book 1, line 589) as they search for a doctor. Quots/Cits 154-84. Malcolm Godden (2000 p 413) identifies ÆLFRIC’s use in his Homily 10 in his second series of Catholic Homilies (B1.2.11; ed. Godden 1979 pp 81-91) of the anonymous Vita Cuthberti, Bede’s prose and metrical versions, and the Historia ecclesiastica as “extraordinary” for four reasons, the first two of which are of primary concern here: “why did Ælfric use all these sources, since they contain largely the same material” and “why in particular did he choose to make such extensive use of the very difficult metrical life?” While referring to the anonymous Vita and Bede’s prose Vita, he continues to focus on the metrical Vita: Ælfric uses it not simply for the occasional episodes and passages which are not in the other lives, but extensively for stories which are covered in detail by the other two; often it seems to have been his preferred source. Part of the attraction may have been that it often dealt more succinctly with the story than Bede’s prose Life, which adds a great deal of circumstantial detail and a number of additional miracles, most of which Ælfric omits; but he was by this stage experienced at reducing hagiographic texts and would hardly have needed the help of Bede’s verse Life to do it. It would also seem that the style itself interested Ælfric, since his own version is so marked by poetic language and techniques. This is the first, and I think possibly the only case, in which Ælfric made substantial use of a poem as source, and it would seem that the example of Bede’s metrical life inspired him to experiment with poetic techniques in his own writing. The homily is striking evidence of his grasp both of Latin poetic language and of Old English poetic diction. (p 413)

While acknowledging the earlier studies of Max Förster (1892) and Whatley (Cuthbertus, ACTA SANCTORUM), he agrees with B. A. Blokhuis (1996), “who is clearly right in emphasising the primary use of Bede’s verse Life and the use of the Historia” (p 413). The parallels noted above and discussed here rely on Godden’s analysis presented both in his entries in Fontes Anglo-Saxonici and his Commentary (2000), and will, in quoting him, follow his usage: VCA for the anonymous life, VCM for Bede’s metrical Vita, and VCP for Bede’s prose Vita. Quots/Cits 154-59 and Refs 5-6. After opening this homily by noting that Cuthbert reigns in heaven with God, Ælfric identified his sources: “Beda,

Saints’ Lives

283

the wise doctor of the English nation, has written the life of this saint in the order of events, with wonderful praises, both in a simple narrative and in a poetic composition” (ed. Godden 1979 p 81; trans. Thorpe 1844-46 2.133-35). He then led into his version of the first episode, the prophecy of Cuthbert becoming a bishop (lines 8-25), by again mentioning Bede. Godden (2000 p 416) sets out the passages that Ælfric drew from the metrical Vita. His most dramatic change was to rearrange the narrative so it would conclude with Cuthbert consoling the child who makes the prophecy with “kind kisses” (line 25; trans. 2.135). Quots/Cits 160-63, 185, and 164. Godden (2000 p 416) calls lines 28-35 (ed. Godden 1979 p 82) the beginning of the account of the healing of Cuthbert’s swollen knee by an angel, “a curious mixture of phrases” from the anonymous, prose, and metrical versions, identifying several details, such as Cuthbert’s crutches and the angel’s snow-white horse, as dependent on the verse account. Cuthbert’s response to the angel’s request for food (lines 35-39) could come from either the metrical or prose Vitae; here Godden suggests that “Ælfric’s læcewyrt was perhaps suggested by VCM’s lagonis (flasks?) rather than VCP’s industria medicorum.” The description of the angel dismounting, holding Cuthbert’s knee, explaining how to bind it with hot flour and milk, remounting, and returning on the same way (lines 39-43) derives directly from the metrical Vita. Lines 48-51, a summary of Cuthbert’s vision of a soul – he foretells it to be that of Aidan, bishop of Lindisfarne – carried to heaven, could have been taken from any of the three sources; Godden considers the anonymous “closest.” Ælfric provided a summary of this miracle in life of Oswald (B1.3.26; ed. Skeat 1966 2.124-42) in his Lives of Saints lines 279-82. Returning to the life of Cuthbert, the following account of God providing him with food after he has sought shelter in a hut (lines 51-58), is told “succinctly” in the metrical Vita; however, one detail, the description of the countryside as a “wilderness,” “is suggested by VCP only.” Quots/Cits 165-71. As Godden (2000 p 418) notes, like the metrical Vita, Ælfric “goes quickly” from recording Cuthbert’s becoming a monk “to the next miracle” (lines 59-63; ed. Godden 1979 pp 82-83). Even here, however, Godden finds some wording closer to Bede’s prose account. The miracle itself, an angel disguised as a stranger leaves three loaves of bread before vanishing, is more closely paralleled in the other versions. According to Godden, the following miracle (lines 74-94), in which sea animals dry the saint after he has prayed standing up to his neck in the ocean, “seems close to the VCM, though with a bit of detail from the VCP (e.g. that the spy is a monk).” Similarly, “VCM seems closest” to the feeding of the saint and a companion by an eagle, again with a few details possibly drawn from

284 

BEDE – PART 1

the other versions. Godden finds “no close parallels in phrasing” between Ælfric’s next incident, the saint triumphing over a devil who tries to interrupt his preaching by creating the appearance of a fire (lines 112-26), and any of the three versions. Cuthbert’s extinguishing of a real fire (lines 127-31) leads Godden to quote only the metrical Vita without further comment. His freeing of a woman from demonic possession (lines 137-57) combines elements of the three versions: that Cuthbert is prior of Lindisfarne at the time (lines 141-42) could derive from the metrical Vita; and Godden writes that “VCM is very close for the last sentence” (lines 153-57): “It happened according to the teacher’s words, that the woman in her senses greeted him by words, prayed that she might prepare him meat, and informed him how the devil had secretly left her, and, greatly fearing, had taken flight, while the saint was journeying thither” (ed. p 85; trans. Thorpe 1844-46 2.143). Quots/Cits 172-84. Godden (2000 p 422) quotes only the metrical Vita for Cuthbert’s motives for moving to solitude on Farne (lines 159-62): “He then began to devise in his mind how he might flee from the people’s praise, lest he should be too famous in the world and a stranger to heavenly praise” (ed. Godden 1979 p 85; trans. Thorpe 1844-46 2.143). The description of his receiving a spring (lines 171-76) derives mainly from Bede’s verse. Godden again quotes only the metrical Vita for the story of the ravens who first harm Cuthbert’s roof, then live peacefully on the island (lines 190-200). He writes that lines 210-12 summarise “a chapter on his pastoral work with visitors (VCM c.20 [in Fontes Anglo-Saxonici he specifies lines 462-70], VCP c.22).” The entire account of the saint’s conversation with Ælflæd (lines 212-38) is paralleled most closely in the metrical Vita; Godden divides it into two sections to explain a number of Ælfric’s changes. He quotes the metrical Vita for Cuthbert’s unchanged way of living as a bishop (lines 259-71) and for the following accounts of the three healings: those of the wife of an ealdorman (lines 272-75), a maiden (lines 275-77), and a pious man (lines 277-81). Ælfric’s account of a half-dead boy borne by his mother to the saint and cured by his kiss (lines 286-91) follows the metrical Vita, although Godden comments, “the VCP makes it clearer that Cuthbert is travelling around his diocese at the time.” While the beginning of the following episode, in which Cuthbert sees the soul of Ælflæd’s herdsman borne to heaven, is closest to Bede’s prose Vita, most of the story, including the saint’s response to the abbess and the details of the herdsman’s death, derive from the metrical version. Godden writes of lines 304-07: “This brief summary of Cuthbert’s miracles may have been prompted by a rather flowery short chapter earlier in VCM; there is no equivalent in VCA and VCP.” After quoting the Latin, he continues, “The VCM does not specify prophesying the deaths of ‘the doomed’ (assuming

Saints’ Lives

285

that fægra is the genitive plural of the poetic word fæge), but the final lines refer to his prophetic powers and Ælfric was no doubt thinking especially of the prophecy of Ecgfrith’s death (which immediately follows this passage in VCM), and perhaps Hereberht’s and his own.” On lines 324-31, Godden comments, “A summary of the long description of Cuthbert’s last miracles and death, VCP cc.37-40 or VCM cc.32-7.” Quots/Cits 186-87. In his edition of BYRHTFERTH’s Vita Oswaldi and Vita ecgwini, Lapidge (2009) includes two references to Bede’s metrical Vita Cuthberti. The first concerns the phrase “arbiter orbis,” which appears in line 489 of Bede’s poem and in Byrhtferth’s discussion of archbishop Oda of Canterbury. He notes its use in CAELIUS SEDULIUS, Arator, and Aldhelm. The second concerns the phrase “limina apostolorum,” which he also cites as having been used by Aldhelm. Here, however, there is a stronger case for its popularisation by Bede, who used it, as Lapidge records, in the prologues to the metrical Vita Cuthberti and to his Commentarius in primam partem Samuhelis. Lapidge also notes one of its occurrences in the Historia abbatum (I.ii); a second use of “limina” in this sense appears in Hwaetbert’s letter to Pope Gregory II (ed. Grocock and Wood 2013 p 68). Refs 1-6. Some of the references to the work have already been mentioned; bringing them together here, however, may reveal not only the attention this work received in Anglo-Saxon England, but also the place of poetry, at least within certain circles. Although not a reference to Bede’s metrical Vita, the prologue to the anonymous Vita demonstrates the strong desire among Cuthbert’s followers to record his miracles in written form: the author explained that he wrote at his bishop’s, Eadfrith’s, command and that the exercise is “in itself a ready path to virtue” (trans. Colgrave 1940 p 63). Bede’s preface to his revised metrical version offers a vivid example of the place of poetry in this process: Cuthbert aids him as he revises the work for a friend’s spiritual reading. Although in writing his own prose version, Bede eclipsed his metrical Vita by providing a more complete account, he still offered to send this earlier work to Eadfrith. Similarly, in his list of works in the Ecclesiastical History, he stated simply that he wrote the metrical life first and then the one in prose. Refs 1. In this context, the letter of CUTHBERT, abbot of MonkwearmouthJarrow, to LULL (ed. MGH ES 1.250-52) reveals a deeper mingling of literary and religious culture than a mere reference to Bede’s prose and metrical lives might indicate. Cuthbert, in charge of Monkwearmouth-Jarrow, identified himself in his salutation simply as “disciple of the priest Bede” (trans. Whitelock 1979 p 831). He then thanked Lull for the gift of a “silk robe for

286 

BEDE – PART 1

the relics of Bede, our master of blessed memory, in remembrance and veneration of him,” continuing, And it indeed seems right to me, that the whole race of the English in all provinces wherever they are found, should give thanks to God, that he has granted to them so wonderful a man in their nation, endowed with diverse gifts, and so assiduous in the exercise of those gifts, and likewise living a good life; for I, reared at his feet have learnt by experience this which I relate.

In charge of Bede’s monastery, Cuthbert, saw Bede as Bede himself saw the earlier saint. Since abbot Cuthbert revealed that the harsh weather has impeded him from sending as many of Bede’s works as he would have liked to Lull, his choice of the prose and metrical lives of the Saint seems particularly fitting: Now truly, since you have asked for some of the works of the blessed father, for your love I have prepared what I could, with my pupils, according to our capacity. I have sent in accordance with your wishes the books about the man of God, Cuthbert, composed in verse and prose. And if I could have done more, I would gladly have done so. For the conditions of the past winter oppressed the island of our race very horribly with cold and ice and long and widespread storms of wind and rain, so that the hand of the scribe was hindered from producing a great number of books.

As Richard Gameson (2011 p 112) has noted, this remark tells us much about the hardships of book production in Anglo-Saxon England. It also allow us to recognise that certain works were particularly valued. Refs 2-6. Alcuin’s comment in his Versus de sanctis Euboricensis ecclesiae that “Bede, that famous priest and teacher, wrote all about these miracles, first in prose and then in hexameter verse” may indicate, as Godman (1982 p 57 note on lines 685-87) denies even as he suggests it, that his “exemplar of Bede lacked the prefaces to the Lives of St. Cuthbert.” Had Alcuin wanted to check this chronology, he could also have found the actual order of composition in the Historia ecclesiastica. Instead the comment again reveals the nature of this twinned works: the prose – even if historically it was the anonymous prose – provides the foundation for the metrical development. Alcuin’s subsequent rendering in verse of the combined prose headings to the prose and metrical versions carried on the exercise. Alcuin’s own emphasis on the verse Vita appears again in his De clade Lindisfarnensis

Saints’ Lives

287

monasterii (Carmen 9; ed. MGH PLAC 1.229-35), where he referred to Bede as “praeclarus,” mentioning specifically the “heroicis … versibus” with which he unfolded Cuthbert’s celebrated deeds. Finally, as already noted, Ælfric’s reliance on the metrical version is indeed, as Godden states, remarkable. Both of Bede’s versions, after all, have “told the life of this saint in the order of events,” an important consideration for Ælfric, who like Bede, favoured historical accuracy. The difference is that one is “simple narrative” and the other “poetic composition”; both are accomplished “with wonderful praise.” These specific references, combined of course with the uses these authors made of Bede’s metrical Vita, reveal perhaps a much wider influence on the literary culture of the period. Werner Jaager’s edition is praised by Michael Lapidge (2008a p 120) as “one of the great contributions to the scholarly understanding of Bede.” On the differences among the lives and Cuthbert’s career as solitary and pastor, see Clare Stancliffe (1989). Lapidge is preparing a new edition and translation in his forthcoming Bede’s Latin Poetry. Vita Cuthberti prosa [BEDA.Vit.Cuthb.pr.]: BHL 202; CPL 1381. ed.: Colgrave 1940 pp 141-307. MSS 1. Cambridge, Corpus Christi College, 183: ASM 56. 2. London, British Library, Cotton Vitellius A. xix: ASM 401; ASMMF 10. 3. London, British Library, Harley 1117: ASM 427; ASMMF 10. 4. Oxford, Bodleian Library, Bodley 109 (S.C. 1962), fols. 1-60: ASM 546. 5. Oxford, Bodleian Library, Bodley 596 (S.C. 2376), fols. 175-214: ASM 586. 6. Oxford, Bodleian Library, Digby 175 (S.C. 1776): ASM 614. 7. Paris, Bibliothèque nationale de France, lat. 5362, fols. 1-84: ASM 885.3. Lists 1. ? Alcuin: ML 1.7. 2. Athelstan: ML 2.4. A-S Vers none. Quots/Cits 1. ? Vit.Cuthb.pr., 142.6-7: FELIX.Vit.Guth., 60.6-7. 2. ? Vit.Cuthb.pr., 142.17: FELIX.Vit.Guth., 62.27. 3. Vit.Cuthb.pr., 142.12-13: FELIX.Vit.Guth., 64.2-3.

288 

4. Vit.Cuthb.pr., 142.14-18: FELIX.Vit.Guth., 64.4-8. 5. Vit.Cuthb.pr., 142.20: FELIX.Vit.Guth., 64.9. 6. Vit.Cuthb.pr., 144.3: FELIX.Vit.Guth., 64.9-10. 7. Vit.Cuthb.pr., 144.4-5: FELIX.Vit.Guth., 64.11-12. 8. Vit.Cuthb.pr., 214.23-26: FELIX.Vit.Guth., 88.16-18. 9. Vit.Cuthb.pr., 224.24-31: FELIX.Vit.Guth., 120.15-22. 10. Vit.Cuthb.pr., 224.20-22: FELIX.Vit.Guth., 122.28-31. 11. Vit.Cuthb.pr., 192.3-4: FELIX.Vit.Guth., 132.14-15. 12. Vit.Cuthb.pr., 192.34: FELIX.Vit.Guth., 134.17-18. 13. Vit.Cuthb.pr., 228.3-11: FELIX.Vit.Guth., 138.4-17. 14. Vit.Cuthb.pr., 228.10: FELIX.Vit.Guth., 150.12. 15. Vit.Cuthb.pr., 228.10: FELIX.Vit.Guth., 164.16. 16. Vit.Cuthb.pr., 270.27-272.17: FELIX.Vit.Guth., 152.10-27. 17. Vit.Cuthb.pr., 282.12-15: FELIX.Vit.Guth., 154.8-21. 18. Vit.Cuthb.pr., 272.25-32: FELIX.Vit.Guth., 154.30-156.6. 19. Vit.Cuthb.pr., 284.23-26: FELIX.Vit.Guth., 158.10-13. 20. Vit.Cuthb.pr., 290.29-292.19: FELIX.Vit.Guth., 160.14-162.3. 21. Vit.Cuthb.pr., 232.8-10: FELIX.Vit.Guth., 168.15-16. 22. ? Vit.Cuthb.pr., ii, rubr.: ALCVIN.Vers.Eubor., 688-89. 23. ? Vit.Cuthb.pr., iii, rubr.: ALCVIN.Vers.Eubor., 690-91. 24. ? Vit.Cuthb.pr., iv, rubr.: ALCVIN.Vers.Eubor., 692-93. 25. ? Vit.Cuthb.pr., vii, rubr.: ALCVIN.Vers.Eubor., 694-95. 26. ? Vit.Cuthb.pr., x, rubr.: ALCVIN.Vers.Eubor., 696-97. 27. ? Vit.Cuthb.pr., xi, rubr.: ALCVIN.Vers.Eubor., 698-99. 28. ? Vit.Cuthb.pr., xii, rubr.: ALCVIN.Vers.Eubor., 700-01. 29. ? Vit.Cuthb.pr., xv, rubr.: ALCVIN.Vers.Eubor., 704-05. 30. Vit.Cuthb.pr., xvii, rubr.: ALCVIN.Vers.Eubor., 706-07. 31. ? Vit.Cuthb.pr., xix, rubr.: ALCVIN.Vers.Eubor., 710-11. 32. ? Vit.Cuthb.pr., xxi, rubr.: ALCVIN.Vers.Eubor., 712. 33. ? Vit.Cuthb.pr., xxiv, rubr.: ALCVIN.Vers.Eubor., 713-14. 34. ? Vit.Cuthb.pr., xxix, rubr.: ALCVIN.Vers.Eubor., 715-16. 35. ? Vit.Cuthb.pr., xxx, rubr.: ALCVIN.Vers.Eubor., 717-18. 36. ? Vit.Cuthb.pr., xxxiii, rubr.: ALCVIN.Vers.Eubor., 723-24. 37. ? Vit.Cuthb.pr., xxxiv, rubr.: ALCVIN.Vers.Eubor., 725-26. 38. ? Vit.Cuthb.pr., xxxviii, rubr.: ALCVIN.Vers.Eubor., 727-28. 39. ? Vit.Cuthb.pr., xlii, rubr.: ALCVIN.Vers.Eubor., 729-30. 40. Vit.Cuthb.pr., xliv, rubr.: ALCVIN.Vers.Eubor., 733-34. 41. Vit.Cuthb.pr., xlv, rubr.: ALCVIN.Vers.Eubor., 737-38. 42. ? Vit.Cuthb.pr., 208.22-24: ALCVIN.Vers.Eubor., 869-70. 43. Vit.Cuthb.pr., 178.13-16: Mart (B19.1; Cuthbert), 68.3-4.

BEDE – PART 1

Saints’ Lives

44. Vit.Cuthb.pr., 264.14-17: Mart (B19.1; Cuthbert), 68.4-5. 45. Vit.Cuthb.pr., 208.29-210.2: Mart (B19.1; Cuthbert), 68.5-6. 46. Vit.Cuthb.pr., 264.21-266.11: Mart (B19.1;Cuthbert), 68.6-14. 47. Vit.Cuthb.pr., 302.9-11: Mart (B19.1; Æthelwald), 82.23-24. 48. Vit.Cuthb.pr., 302.27-29 : Mart (B19.1; Æthelwald), 82.24-25. 49. Vit.Cuthb.pr., 296.5-6: Mart (B19.1; Eadberht), 98.14. 50. Vit.Cuthb.pr., 286.19-20: Mart (B19.1; Eadberht), 98.15-16. 51. Vit.Cuthb.pr., 292.23-28: Mart (B19.1; Eadberht), 98.16-19. 52. Vit.Cuthb.pr., 292.7-8: Mart (B19.1; Eadberht), 98.19-20. 53. Vit.Cuthb.pr., 292.11-12: Mart (B19.1; Eadberht), 98.21. 54. Vit.Cuthb.pr., 292.1: Mart (B19.1; Eadberht), 98.21-22. 55. Vit.Cuthb.pr., 292.19-22: Mart (B19.1; Eadberht), 98.22-23. 56. Vit.Cuthb.pr., 292.32-294.1: Mart (B19.1; Eadberht), 98.23-24. 57. Vit.Cuthb.pr., 294.9-26: Mart (B19.1; Eadberht), 98.24-27. 58. Vit.Cuthb.pr., 294.3-7: Mart (B19.1; Eadberht), 98.28-100.1. 59. Vit.Cuthb.pr., 266.3-10: Mart (B19.1; Eadberht), 100.1-4. 60. ? Vit.Cuthb.pr., 164.17-166.24: Mart (B19.1; Aidan), 172.11-12. 61. Vit.Cuthb.pr., 158.5-7: ÆCHom II, 10 (B1.2.11), 25-27. 62. Vit.Cuthb.pr., 158.22-23: ÆCHom II, 10 (B1.2.11), 28-29. 63. Vit.Cuthb.pr., 160.2-3: ÆCHom II, 10 (B1.2.11), 33-34. 64. ? Vit.Cuthb.pr., 160.5-9: ÆCHom II, 10 (B1.2.11), 35-39. 65. Vit.Cuthb.pr., 160.13-16: ÆCHom II, 10 (B1.2.11), 44-47. 66. ? Vit.Cuthb.pr., 164.17-166.24: ÆCHom II, 10 (B1.2.11), 48-51. 67. ? Vit.Cuthb.pr., 168.13-14: ÆCHom II, 10 (B1.2.11), 52. 68. Vit.Cuthb.pr., 168.30-170.1: ÆCHom II, 10 (B1.2.11), 53. 69. Vit.Cuthb.pr., 172.4: ÆCHom II, 10 (B1.2.11), 59-60. 70. Vit.Cuthb.pr., 176.23-178.7: ÆCHom II, 10 (B1.2.11), 66-73. 71. Vit.Cuthb.pr., 188.19-21: ÆCHom II, 10 (B1.2.11), 76-77. 72. ? Vit.Cuthb.pr., 194.27-28: ÆCHom II, 10 (B1.2.11), 102. 73. ? Vit.Cuthb.pr., 198.1-29: ÆCHom II, 10 (B1.2.11), 112-26. 74. Vit.Cuthb.pr., 184.14-186.25: ÆCHom II, 10 (B1.2.11), 131-36. 75. Vit.Cuthb.pr., 204.1-7: ÆCHom II, 10 (B1.2.11), 137-40. 76. Vit.Cuthb.pr., 204.12-13: ÆCHom II, 10 (B1.2.11), 137-40. 77. Vit.Cuthb.pr., 204.13-206.3: ÆCHom II, 10 (B1.2.11), 143-53. 78. Vit.Cuthb.pr., 214.16-30: ÆCHom II, 10 (B1.2.11), 162-70. 79. ? Vit.Cuthb.pr., 216.28-218.7: ÆCHom II, 10 (B1.2.11), 171-76. 80. Vit.Cuthb.pr., 220.14-28: ÆCHom II, 10 (B1.2.11), 176-83. 81. Vit.Cuthb.pr., 220.28-222.9: ÆCHom II, 10 (B1.2.11), 184-90. 82. Vit.Cuthb.pr., 226.2-26: ÆCHom II, 10 (B1.2.11), 201-09. 83. ? Vit.Cuthb.pr., 462-70: ÆCHom II, 10 (B1.2.11), 210-12.

289

290 

BEDE – PART 1

84. Vit.Cuthb.pr., 238.4-18: ÆCHom II, 10 (B1.2.11), 239-52. 85. Vit.Cuthb.pr., 238.20-25: ÆCHom II, 10 (B1.2.11), 252-58. 86. Vit.Cuthb.pr., 240.29-242.5: ÆCHom II, 10 (B1.2.11), 259-64. 87. Vit.Cuthb.pr., 256.28-258.23: ÆCHom II, 10 (B1.2.11), 282-86. 88. Vit.Cuthb.pr., 262.2-13: ÆCHom II, 10 (B1.2.11), 292-94. 89. Vit.Cuthb.pr., 248.20-250.17: ÆCHom II, 10 (B1.2.11), 308-22. 90. ? Vit.Cuthb.pr., 270.14-284.26: ÆCHom II, 10 (B1.2.11), 324-31. 91. Vit.Cuthb.pr., 288.1-306.5: ÆCHom II, 10 (B1.2.11), 331-33. 92. Vit.Cuthb.pr., 290.27-294..31: ÆCHom II, 10 (B1.2.11), 333-38. 93. ? Vit.Cuthb.pr., 164.23-166.1: ÆLS (Oswald) (B1.3.26), 279-82. 94. ? Vit.Cuthb.pr., 166.20-23: ÆLS (Oswald) (B1.3.26), 279-82. 95. Vit.Cuthb.pr., 192.11-12: BYRHT.Vit.Os., 40.1-2. 96. Vit.Cuthb.pr., 174.17-18: BYRHT.Vit.Os., 48.7. 97. ? Vit.Cuthb.pr., 160.21-164.16: BYRHT.Vit.Os., 134.17-19. 98. Vit.Cuthb.pr., 174.17-18: BYRHT.Vit.Os., 138.18. 99. ? Vit.Cuthb.pr., 262.27: BYRHT.Vit.Os., 142.29-144.1. 100. ? Vit.Cuthb.pr., 284.25-26: BYRHT.Vit.Os., 142.29-144.1. 101. ? Vit.Cuthb.pr., 288.13-14: BYRHT.Vit.Os., 148.7. 102. ? Vit.Cuthb.pr., 296.8: BYRHT.Vit.Os., 148.11. 103. ? Vit.Cuthb.pr., 108.8: BYRHT.Vit.Os., 192.8. 104. ? Vit.Cuthb.pr., 304.3-4: BYRHT.Vit.Os., 192.8. Refs 1. CVTHBERT.Epist. 116, 251.4-7. 2. ALCVIN.Vers.Eubor. 687. 3. ALCVIN.Carm. 9, 171-78. 4. ÆCHom II, 10 (B1.2.11), 3-6. 5. ÆCHom II, 10 (B1.2.11), 7. Written at the request of Eadfrith, bishop of Lindisfarne (see the prefatory epistle to the bishop and the community at Lindisfarne; ed. and trans. Colgrave 1940 pp 142-47), Bede’s second account of the life of Cuthbert replaced the anonymous Vita Cuthberti (Cuthbertus in ACTA SANCTORUM) as the work that accompanied his metrical Vita Cuthberti. In the prologue to the Historia ecclesiastica gentis Anglorum (ed. Lapidge 2010 2.10-12), he explained that his source was indeed the anonymous life: “What I have written about the most holy father Bishop Cuthbert, either in this volume or in his biography, I took partly from what I had previously found written about him by the brethren of the church of Lindisfarne, accepting the story I read in simple faith; but in part I also made it my business to add with care what I was able

Saints’ Lives

291

to learn myself from the trustworthy testimony of reliable witnesses” (trans. Colgrave and Mynors 1969 p 7). Bertram Colgrave (1940 pp 14-16) provides an overview of Bede’s use of this source. In addition to fulfilling Eadfrith’s request and being able to include more information, Bede might have had other reasons for revising this work. Walter Berschin (1989) suggests that he considered his work superior to the anonymous life because of the significance of its forty-six chapters, an idea Berschin traces to AUGUSTINE. Michael Lapidge and Michael Winterbottom (1991 p cvi) have proposed that, also understanding the significance of this number, WULFSTAN OF WINCHESTER followed Bede in composing forty-six chapters for his Vita Æthelwoldi. On the date of the work, see the first entry on the metrical Vita Cuthberti. MSS 1-7. Colgrave (1940 pp 20-50) describes and analyses the thirty-six manuscripts and two fragments, including the seven listed above. He divides them into two groups, the first of which includes Corpus 183, Vitellius A. xix, Harley 1117, and BNF 5362 (as well as three more manuscripts). Although it contains “all of the earliest manuscripts with the exception of [Digby 175],” “the text of this group is less faithful to the original than that of the [other] group” (p 47). Since Digby 175 is incomplete, Colgrave adopts “the best of the early twelfth-century” manuscripts, Oxford, University College 165, “as the basis for his text” (p 48). MSS 1-2, 4-7, and Lists 2. For Corpus 183 (and the Athelstan booklist) see the second entry on the metrical Vita Cuthberti. According to Colgrave (1940 p 27), Vitellius A. xix contains “a purple panel on which is roughly scratched a figure, presumably St Cuthbert, with halo and ecclesiastical robes, in the act of blessing”; this folio appears near the beginning of the prose Vita. This manuscript also has two glosses: “a gloss in a contemporary hand throughout, a few words being in Anglo-Saxon”; and “a gloss which adds various proper names, given in the Anonymous Life, but omitted by Bede in the Prose Life.” The two Old English glosses from the first are printed by Colgrave in the footnotes on pages 190 (line 7) and 192 (line 17), and by Herbert Dean Meritt (1945, no. 6, glosses 1-2; see NRK 217; the DOE uses the abbreviation OccGl 46; Meritt; C46). According to Colgrave, Bodley 109 breaks off in chapter 29 (p 23); Bodley 596 lacks part of the last chapter (p 24); Digby 175 has lost its first quire, and so the prose Vita “begins towards the end of chapter 8” (p 22); and “the first three folios” of BNF 5362 “are badly discoloured and illegible in places” (p 35). MSS 2-3. Teresa Webber (2015 p 53) calls attention to marginal lection numbers that were added for liturgical use in Vitellius A. xix and Harley 1117. While noting that their date “cannot be determined with any precision,” she adds, “nevertheless, their presence in a number of late-tenth and

292 

BEDE – PART 1

early-eleventh century English copies of accounts of saints’ lives and miracles would seem to suggest that it was from around this date that the practice of annotating manuscripts with marginal lection marks was introduced.” Lists 1. The booklist associated with ALCUIN lists “Beda magister”; see the discussion in the introduction, BEDE. Quots/Cits 1-21. Colgrave identifies some fifteen direct borrowings from Bede’s prose life of Cuthbert in Felix’s Vita Guthlaci (ACTA SANCTORUM, Guthlacus) by printing corresponding words in italics and noting where they are from in the margins of his edition and translation (1956). R. C. Love uses this information in her entries in Fontes Anglo-Saxonici, in one case (ed. Colgrave 1956 p 154, line 30-p 156, line 6) specifying the passage in the prose Vita Cuthberti that Colgrave’s use of italics indicates he recognises, but that lacks a marginal identification. Colgrave’s and Love’s work form the basis for the correspondences recorded about and discussed here. Colgrave’s general assessment is that Felix was “familiar with Bede’s writings, or at any rate with the Life of St Cuthbert which he uses very considerably” (p 16). Quots/Cits 1-7. Felix’s first possible uses of Bede’s prose Vita Cuthberti, which are not listed by either Colgrave (1956) or Love (in Fontes AngloSaxonici), may serve as a reminder of the formulaic nature of hagiography. Even as he discussed his motives for writing his life of Guthlac and his sources, Felix might have been echoing Bede’s work just as Bede might have been drawing on earlier lives. Following his salutation to ÆLFWALD, king of the East Angles from 713-49, Felix continued: “Iussionibus tuis obtemperams, libellum quem de vita patris beatae memoriae Guthlaci componi praecepisti” (ed. p 60; “In obedience to your commands, though not without a bold forwardness, I have drawn up the book which you bade me compose concerning the life of our father Guthlac of blessed memory,” trans. p 61). In addition to the general idea, several phrases here correspond to Bede’s opening: “Quia iussistis delectissimi ut libro quem de uita beatae memoriae patris nostri Cuthberti uestro rogatu composui, praefationem aliquam in fronte iuxta morem praefigerem” (ed. Colgrave 1940 p 142; “Since, beloved friends, you have bidden me put, as is customary, some kind of preface to the book which I have composed, at your request, concerning the life of our father Cuthbert of blessed memory”). Similarly Felix’s designation of “competent witnesses” (“a dictantibus idoneis testibus,” ed. p 62) as his sources may rely on Bede’s remark that he had not presumed to write “without the scrupulous examination of credible witnesses” (“sine subtili examinatione testium indubiorum,” ed. p 142). In any case, the first borrowing noted by Colgrave and accepted by Love shows Felix’s willingness to modify Bede’s work. Felix stated his purpose in writing: “ad huius utilitatis commodum hunc

Saints’ Lives

293

codicellum fieri ratus, ut qui sciunt ad memoriam tanti viri, nota revocandi fiat, his vero, qui ignorant, velut late pansae viae indicium notesscat” (ed. p 64; “I considered that this little book should be composed for this useful purpose that, for those who know, it may serve as a sign to call them back to the remembrance of so great a man, and for those who do not know may be an indication to direct them on a wide open way,” trans. 65). As Colgrave’s use of italics indicates, here Felix echoed Bede’s more limited statement that he wrote his preface to indicate his sources: “placuit in capite praefationis et uobis qui nostis ad memoriam reuoocare, et eis qui ignorant haec forte legentibus notum facere” (ed. p 142; “I decided in the prefatory chapter to remind you who know, and to inform those readers who perchance do not know,” trans. p 143). In contrast, as both Colgrave and Love agree, the next borrowing is similar in both its meaning and wording: Bede and Cuthbert have relied on credible witnesses. Although Love does not trace the italicised words in the following clause, “investigavi a reverentissimo quodam abbate Wilfrido et a presbitero purae conscientiae, ut arbitror, Cissan” (ed. p 64; “I sought information [about whatever I wrote] from a certain most reverend Abbot Wilfrid and from a priest Cissa, a man, I believe of pure conscience” trans. p 63), both derive from Bede. Following Colgrave, Love accepts the following remark in the Vita Guthlaci as from Bede: “vel etaim ab aliis, qui diutius cum viro Dei conversati vitam illius ex parte noverant” (ed. 64; “as well as from others who for any length of time had dealings with the man of God and knew his life in part,” trans. 65). In addition to these borrowing, Felix might also have taken his claim that he has written in simple language (“simplici verborum vimine,” ed. p 60, lines 8-9) from Bede’s assertion that he has written “simplicibus … sermonibus” (ed. p 144, line 9). As these correspondences indicate, Felix knew Bede’s preface well and used it effectively in composing his own. Quots/Cits 8-12. Most of the other correspondences occur in the contexts of similar events. In describing Guthlac’s retreat to Crowland, Felix commented – changing the name – that “no settler had been able to dwell alone in this place before Guthlac the servant of Christ, on account of the phantoms of demons which haunted it” (trans. p 89). Later, he reversed Bede’s order by first noting that “not only indeed did the creatures of the earth and sky obey his commands, but also even the very water and the air,” but followed him in explaining that man has lost this dominion (trans. p 121). He concluded a miracle about swallows with a close adaptation of Bede’s words, “Therefore let it not seem absurd to anyone to learn the way of obedience from birds, since Solomon says, ‘Go imitate the ant, O sluggard, consider her ways and learn her wisdom’” (trans. p 123). He also used two of

294 

BEDE – PART 1

Bede’s general reflections on Cuthbert’s prophetic abilities when recounting how Guthlac was able to inform an abbot of his servants’ improper visit to the house of a widow (trans. pp 133-35). Quots/Cits 13-21. Felix’s comment, “nor were they deceived by a vain hope,” which he used three times (ed. p 138, line 14, p 150, line 12, and p 164, line 16), derives from Bede’s prose Vita; the first time it appears is in the context of a longer passage (ed. p 138, lines 4-17), also influenced by the Vita, describing how the saint helped many who sought him. Part of his account about the saint’s last illness (ed. pp 152 and 154), his instructions about his burial (ed. pp 154-56) and his death (ed. p 158) adapt Bede’s work, as does the account of the discovery of his uncorrupted body twelve months after burial (ed. pp 160-162). Finally, Felix turned to Bede for the comment of a blind man healed at the saint’s tomb: “I know well and believe that if some object consecrated by him touches my eyes, I shall be quickly healed” (trans. p 169). Quots/Cits 22-42. When Alcuin turned to Cuthbert in his Versus de sanctis Euboricensis ecclesiae (lines 646 and following; ed. and trans. Godman 1982), he noted that Bede was his source: “Bede, that famous priest and teacher, wrote all about / these miracles, first in prose / and then in hexameter verse” (lines 685-87; see the discussion in the second entry on the metrical Vita Cuthberti). The following lines summarise Bede’s accounts mainly by adapting the prose rubrics of these events. Since these rubrics are often similar, it is difficult to determine which Alcuin used; these are noted with a question mark. Godman, however, notes three cases (lines 706-07, 733-34, and 737-38) where Bede followed the prose (see the note to lines 688740). Peter Godman includes no other references to the prose version in his index (p 146); however, one passage that he relates to Historia ecclesiastica I.xxvii might instead have been drawn from the Vita. In explaining Bosa’s rule of the see of York, Alcuin commented that he prevented the clergy from claiming “anything as his private property / that everything should always be shared” (lines 869-70; “nec quicquam proprium sibimet iam vindicet ullus, / omnia sed cunctis fierent communia semper”), which as Godman indicates echoes one of GREGORY THE GREAT’s answers to a question by AUGUSTINE, archbishop of Canterbury. (The passage also appears later in the Historia ecclesiastica.) Quots/Cits 43-60. Writing in the commentary of her edition and translation of the OLD ENGLISH MARTYROLOGY, Christine Rauer (2013 pp 24647) agrees with the previous view that “the prose Vita is likely to have served as the main source” for the entry on Cuthbert. Here she mentions the angelic visitations (ed. p 68, lines 3-4), the saint’s ability to heal illnesses with his prayers (ed. p 68, lines 5-6), and the miracle of the water he blessed tasting

Saints’ Lives

295

like wine (ed. p 68, lines 6-14). In her entries in Fontes Anglo-Saxonici, Rauer also identifies a direct source for the martyrologist’s claim that Cuthbert could see “the souls of men, the chaste ones and the others too, when they left the body” (ed. p 68, lines 4-5). She considers the prose Vita to be the source for the opening two lines of the entry on Æthelwald, who “set up his hermitage on Farne Island after the holy bishop Cuthbert” (trans. p 83) and who “after he had lived there for twelve years … then entered the joy of eternal bliss” (trans. p 83). The entry on Eadbert is also drawn from this source, although the martyrologist rearranged the details. It identifies the day, 6 May, of the saint’s death (ed. p 98) and states that he followed Cuthbert as bishop of Lindisfarne (ed. p 98). It explains his regular custom of spending forty days before Christmas and Easter in solitary prayer in a place surrounded by sea currents, before turning to the account of Cuthbert’s exhumation, which happens around the middle of Lent. When the monks find the saint’s body uncorrupted even though it had been buried for eleven years, they bring a funeral garment to Eadbert, who kisses it. Rather than following Bede’s first more mundane speech by Eadbert, the martyrologist moved directly to paraphrasing his epigram, Quis Domini expediet caelestia munera dictis (ed. p 98, lines 24-27; Poetry: Epigrams). He then included Eadbert’s prophetic speech, “I certainly know that the place in which St Cuthbert’s body rests will not be empty for long, and that it will be a very blessed man to whom the Lord grants rest in that place” (trans. pp 99-101). The account ends with Eadbert’s death and burial “in the same place where St Cuthbert’s body rested before” (trans. p 101). Finally, the entry on Aidan (ed. p 172) includes the miracle of Cuthbert seeing his soul led to heaven; Rauer (2013 p 287) writes that this entry is “probably” based on the Historia ecclesiastica III.iii, III.xv-xvii, and III.xxvi (ed. Lapidge 2010 2.20 [lines 1-11], 2.70-78 [to line 42], and 2.136 [lines 32-35]; trans. Colgrave and Mynors 1969 218.10-20, 260.5-264.33, and 308.32-35), and the prose Vita Cuthberti (164.1-166.24), “although the use of a further anonymous vita of this saint cannot quite be ruled out.” Quots/Cits 61-92 and Refs 4-5. Malcolm Godden (2000 p 413) has concluded that ÆLFRIC’s Homily 10 on Cuthbert in his second series of Catholic Homilies (B1.2.11; ed. Godden 1979 pp 81-91) relies primarily on the metrical Vita Cuthberti; however, in contrast to B. A. Blokhuis (1996), who argues that he used only this source and the Historia ecclesiastica, he finds “definite borrowings from Bede’s prose Life” as well. Ælfric refers to both of Bede’s works at the start of his own. Godden (2000 pp 413-14) also suggests that “given the rarity of the anonymous Life, and the fact that some copies of Bede’s prose Life have details from the anonymous Life added as glosses, it seems

296 

BEDE – PART 1

possible that Ælfric used a copy of Bede’s prose Life that already included these phrases from the anonymous Life; but there are a few signs that he may have known rather more of the story than added glosses would account for.” The parallels noted above and discussed here rely on his analysis in his Commentary (2000 pp 412-29) and in his entries in Fontes Anglo-Saxonici. Quots/Cits 61-68 and 93-94. The prose Vita provides the source for Ælfric’s concluding sentence for the first incident he relates about Cuthbert, a three-year-old’s prophecy of his becoming a bishop as a way to cause him to forsake foolish games: “and himself afterwards, according to the child’s admonition, continued ever in profound seriousness” (ed. Godden 1979, lines 25-27; trans. Thorpe 1844-46 2.135). The opening of the second episode, the curing of the saint’s swollen knee by an angel (lines 28-47), is a “curious mixture of phrases” (Godden 2000 p 416) from the three main sources. Godden quotes the prose Vita for the opening comment: “After this the blessed Cuthbert’s knee was lamed with a hard swelling” (lines 28-29; trans. 2.135) and for the angel’s courteous greeting (lines 33-34). Cuthbert’s explanation of his injury (lines 35-39) could be from either the metrical or prose Vitae. The prose work provides the end of this story: “Thereupon Cuthbert bathed his knee according to the angel’s instruction, and forthwith in health possessed his power of walking, and was sensible that God had visited him through his angel, who in time of old had powerfully relieved the blind Tobias, through his archangel Gabriel” (lines 44-47; trans. 2.137). Godden considers the anonymous Vita closest for the account of Cuthbert’s vision of Aidan’s soul being led to heaven (lines 48-51), but notes that Bede’s prose version “presents the event as a conversion experience for Cuthbert, leading him to seek the monastic life,” which may have influenced Ælfric, who alone described Cuthbert as “preaching” in the next episode. In any case, Ælfric provided a summary of this miracle in life of Oswald (B1.3.26; ed. Skeat 1966 2.124-42; lines 279-82) in his Lives of Saints. Most of the following episode in the Life of Cuthbert, in which the saint’s horse uncovers a loaf of bread as it eats the thatched roof of the cottage in which Cuthbert has taken shelter, derives from the metrical Vita, but Godden notes that Ælfric’s “wilderness” (line 53) and possibly the bad weather (line 52), which is also alluded to in the anonymous Vita, are from the prose Vita. Quots/Cits 65-74. Although Godden (2000 p 418) considers the metrical Vita closest for the discussion of Cuthbert’s decision to join a monastery (ed. Godden 1979, lines 59-73), he identifies the phrase “wholly forsook all worldly things” (lines 59-60; trans. Thorpe 1844-46 2.137) as derived from the prose Vita. He demonstrates that the end of the following story (lines 66-73) – assigned to care for guests, Cuthbert encounters an angel who

Saints’ Lives

297

provides him with food – is “perhaps nearest” to the prose Vita “but the details are rearranged,” particularly the snow and the loaves (see pp 418-19 for the details). In the account of Cuthbert’s nightly prayers standing in the ocean up to his neck, derived mainly from the metrical Vita, Godden cites one detail – the saint is spied on by a monk (lines 76-77) – from the prose work. Similarly, the miracle of an eagle providing food for Cuthbert (lines 97-112) follows the metrical Life most closely, except for the saint’s question to his companion, “who for that day should give them food” (line 102; trans. 2.139), which could follow either the anonymous or the prose versions. According to Godden, Ælfric’s account of the devil’s attempt to interrupt Cuthbert’s preaching through a false fire (lines 112-26) “corresponds loosely to the narrative in the Vitae.” Godden notes that the next passage (lines 131-36) “is oddly placed in Ælfric’s version, in the middle of a sequence of miracle stories; possibly it marks the end of a sequence of events associated with Cuthbert’s preaching expeditions” (p. 421). He refers an earlier chapter, 9, in the prose Vita as a possible source, “though there is little close parallel” (p 421); Bede reused this passage in the Historia ecclesiastica. Quots/Cits 75-83. As Godden (2000 pp 421-22) explains, the account of Cuthbert freeing a woman from possession by a devil (ed. Godden 1979, lines 137-57) draws on all three Vitae. From Bede’s prose, Ælfric took his opening remarks, identifying her husband as a pious man who travels to seek help from the saint (lines 137-40), as well as the initial exchange between the men (lines 143-53). Godden quotes only the prose Vita for the description of Cuthbert’s move to Farne Island (lines 162-70; trans. Thorpe 1844-46 2.143): That island is all beaten by the salt ocean, in the middle of the sea; and all within, before that time, was very full of swart ghosts, so that men could not cultivate the soil for the threats of the swart devils; but they at last all fled and entirely vacated the island to the noble champion; and he there dwelt alone, regardless of their envy, through Almighty God.

The account of Cuthbert receiving a spring (lines 171-76) derives mainly from the metrical Vita, yet some details, such as the description of the hard rocks, are taken from the prose Life. In contrast, the description of Cuthbert’s crops (lines 176-83) is closer to the prose Vita, except for Ælfric’s comment about the wheat-seed. Cuthbert’s taming of two ravens that had previously harmed his roof (lines 184-90) follows this version, as does the account of the sea providing a tree for the building of a new room (lines 201-09). For the summaries of the saint’s pastoral work (lines 210-12), Ælfric might have relied on either the metrical or prose Vitae.

298 

BEDE – PART 1

Quots/Cits 84-92. In recounting Cuthbert’s appointment to the see of Lindisfarne (ed. Godden 1979, lines 239-52), Ælfric followed the prose Vita, which also recalls the child’s earlier prophecy (see lines 25-27) and links it to the next topic, Ecgfrith’s death in an attack on the Picts (lines 252-58). His summary of Cuthbert’s strengths as a bishop began with a passage (lines 259-64) that adapts the prose Vita. He then related three miracles (lines 272-81) drawn mainly from the metrical Vita; the fourth, however, in which Cuthbert heals a boy who had been carried to him (lines 282-86), is most closely paralleled in the prose version. Ælfric began the narrative of the saint’s vision of the death of Ælflæd’s herdsman (lines 292-95) with material from the prose Vita, before completing it with the metrical version. His account in lines 308-22 of the saint’s exchange with Hereberht, a follower who asks to die on the same day as the saint, also corresponds most closely to the prose Vita; Godden writes, “Ælfric moves the meeting to a slightly later position, just before the end, and creates a moving conclusion in which the two men depart from their last meeting to return to their homes and await death” (Godden 2000 p 429). The summary of Cuthbert’s last miracles and death (lines 324-31) could be from either the prose or metrical Vita. His burial and post-mortem miracles (lines 331-33), including the specific account of the discovery of his uncorrupt body (lines 333-38), all derive from Bede’s prose Vita Cuthberti. Quots/Cits 95-104. In his edition of BYRHTFERTH’s Vita Oswaldi, Lapidge (2009) includes eight references to Bede’s metrical Vita Cuthberti. As the saint travels by boat to Fleury, Byrhtferth commented, “arridebat Zephyrus” (p 40, lines 1-2), which Lapidge relates, although with a qualifying “perhaps,” to Bede’s “quia undarum simul et aurarum arridebat” (ed. and trans. Colgrave 1956; “because the state of both the winds and the waves was favourable”). In stating that Oswald “erat enimuero robustus corpore” (“he was robust in bodily strength”), Byrhtferth used Bede’s description of Cuthbert at the time when he became a monk; he described King Edward the Martyr in the same way at the time of his murder (p 138, line 18). He also recalled Cuthbert’s rescuing of men of rafts being blown out to sea (chapter 3 of Bede’s Vita), but here (p 134, lines 17-20) Byrhtferth stated that he followed a sung version of the miracle. Lapidge identifies this chant as “an antiphon which formed part of the Office of the First Nocturn on the feast of St Cuthbert (20 Mar.): ‘Cum iactantur puppes salo / sanctus orans heret solo mox uentorum uis mutata / naues uertit ad litora’ (ed. Hohler 1956 p 170; the antiphon is not listed in Hesbert, CAO).” Lapidge identifies possible sources for Byrhtferth’s “celestis regni gaudia” (p 142, line 29-p 144, line 1; “the joys of the celestial realm”), which Byrhtferth used in his account of the fate of King Edward the Martyr’s soul, in works by CASSIODORUS and Gregory as well as in Bede’s

Saints’ Lives

299

Historia ecclesiastica and Vita. CETEDOC reveals that it is a favourite of Bede’s, occurring twenty-seven times in his writings. For the phrase “morsibus … dilaniare” (p 148, line 7; “savage [the sheep] with their teeth”), used in the context of Oswald’s pastoral duties, Lapidge cites both Gregory’s Moralia in Iob and Bede’s prose Vita. He lists these same possible sources for the phrase “repentina morte” (p 148, line 11; “the sudden death”); CETEDOC reveals that this phrase is more common than the previous one. Finally, for the phrase “athleta Christi” (p 192, line 8), Lapidge offers only the prose Vita; CETEDOC provides other possibilities, including works by AMBROSE and Augustine. Refs. For the references not discussed above, see the metrical Vita Cuthberti. Bede’s writings on Cuthbert and particularly the prose Vita Cuthberti may have influenced liturgical observances as well as more generally the cult of the Saint, which continued to develop throughout the Anglo-Saxon period (see the essays in Bonner, Rollason, and Stancliffe 1989). Of particular importance are masses for Cuthbert preserved in a number of Anglo-Saxon manuscripts including Cambridge, Corpus Christi College, 183; see Nicholas Orchard (1995), who uses this manuscript as the basis for an edition and discusses the other versions. In his edition of Sidney Sussex Pontifical, which contains one of these masses, H. M. J. Banting (1989 p 169 note 39) refers to four passages in the prose Vita: “Cuthbert as an example of the monastic life,” which he relates to chapter 9 (ed. Colgrave 1940 pp 184-86); the comment “aeris huius principes hostium cuneos superabat,” which he connects to Cuthbert’s casting out of a demon (ed. p 206); the quotation from Ephesians 6:16-17, which in the Vita occurs in the context of the saint driving demons from Farne Island (ed. p 214); and “the strife of the hermit’s life,” a phrase that appears at the beginning of chapter 36 (ed. p 266). Also potentially relevant is the rhymed Office of St Cuthbert, found in Corpus 183, which has been edited by L. M. Sole (1998). Finally, the anonymous Historia de sancto Cuthberto (see Cuthbertus, ACTA SANCTORUM), which focuses mainly on the posthumous fortunes of the saint’s relics and their guardians, contains some details of Cuthbert’s life. In the introduction to his edition and translation, Ted Johnson South (2002 p 4) states that its author “drew, directly or indirectly,” on Bede’s prose Vita as well as the anonymous Vita Cuthberti and Bede’s Historia ecclesiastica. The evidence he offers for the prose Vita is, however, uncertain. In it and the Historia ecclesiastica, which it seems certain this author knew, following Cuthbert’s vision of Aidan’s death, the saint becomes a monk at Melrose; and the abbot, Boisil, then tells King Oswin of Cuthbert’s sanctity. Of the latter detail, Johnson South writes, “it may have been influenced by an episode unique to the Prose Life [chapter 6 of Bede’s prose Vita Cuthberti], in which Boisil speaks instead to Abbot Eata” (p 4 note 7).

300 

BEDE – PART 1

On the differences among the lives and Cuthbert’s career as solitary and pastor, see Clare Stancliffe (1989). A. Joseph McMullen (2014) has argued that, aware of the Irish tradition of “using place-names as propaganda to create a network of churches, monasteries, or lands under the authority of a saint’s leading church,” Bede “deliberately removed place-names outside Lindisfarne’s diocese (p 57). Vita Felicis [BEDA.Vit.Fel.]: BHL 2873; CPL 1382. ed.: PL 94.789-98. MSS – A-S Vers none. Quots/Cits 1. Vit.Fel., 798.21-26: Mart (B19.1; Felix), 48.1. 2. Vit.Fel., 790.21-29: Mart (B19.1; Felix), 48.3-5. 3. Vit.Fel., 790.41-791.24: Mart (B19.1; Felix), 48.5-6. 4. ? Vit.Fel., 795.33: BYRHT.Vit.Os., 200.11-12. Refs none. The Vita Felicis is a prose compendium of PAULINUS OF NOLA’s Natalicia (Carmina), poetic panegyrics commemorating the anniversary of the death and birth into heaven of Nola’s third-century patron saint, Felix. Using as his main evidence Bede’s comment in De arte metrica (CCSL 123A.133) that he was quoting from a particular book of Paulinus’s work, which corresponds to the arrangement of two Northumbrian manuscripts, Thomas W. Mackay (1976 p 77) demonstrates that “Bede knew a text of the poems of Paulinus of Nola which was different from and textually inferior to the main tradition of that poet.” Bede relied on poems 15 and 16 (in the numbering of CSEL 30) for the saint’s biography, poem 18 for the Nachleben, and poem 28 for the building of the new church at Nola. Mackay (pp 78-79) connects Bede’s and more generally the Anglo-Saxon interest in the cult of Felix to Hadrian, abbot of St Peter’s, Canterbury, who came to England from a monastery near Naples, and so in the vicinity of Nola. M.L.W. Laistner (1943 p 87) writes, “although it is more likely to be an early than a late work of Bede’s, I know no evidence by which to assign a date to it.” Because of Bede’s use of Paulinus’s work in De arte metrica and other early works, Mackey dates it to 700-05 (p 79).

Saints’ Lives

301

Bede explained his reason for writing the work at its beginning (ed. PL 94.789; trans. Brown 2009 p 78): The bishop Paulinus of Nola has described most beautifully and fully in hexameter verses the most felicitous triumph of blessed Felix, which he merited with God’s help in the same Campanian city of Nola. Because they are fitting for those versed in metrics rather than for simple readers, for the benefit of the many it has pleased me to elucidate the account with plainer words and to imitate the industry of the author who translated the text of the martyrdom of blessed CASSIAN from the metrical work of PRUDENTIUS into common and suitable speech.

The result is a charming and entertaining narrative, with its tale of Felix’s using physical and verbal stratagems to elude the pursuing Romans, of stolen cattle finding their way home to a grieving old man by the intervention of Felix, and of uncooperative tenants refusing to move their shabby dwellings and belongings from the immediate vicinity of Paulinus’s elegant chapel. Laistner (1943 p 87) lists only four manuscripts of the work, none from Anglo-Saxon England. While Paulinus’s work appears in booklists, there are no specific references to Bede’s Vita. The main evidence for the later use of the Vita in later Anglo-Saxon England is the 14 January entry in the OLD ENGLISH MARTYROLOGY (ed. Rauer 2013 p 48). E. Gordon Whatley (Felix Nolanus presbyter, ACTA SANCTORUM) writes, “the vernacular martyrologist already shows the influence of the confusing development of Felix’s cult in Rome, since he identifies Felix as a priest of Rome ‘in the place called Pincis’ … bypassing Bede’s ‘in Campania.’” Whatley concludes, “This suggests that the Martyrology may depend, in this instance, on a calendar or liturgical book, as well as on Bede.” In her entries in Fontes Anglo-Saxonici, Christine Rauer identifies the other details in this entry as “possibly” from Bede’s Vita. In the commentary in her edition, she writes, “the tortures described, together with the feastday, belong to Felix of Nola,” from either Bede’s Vita or his Martyrologium. The first correspondence concerns the date of the feast, the second, Felix’s incarceration, and the third his liberation by an angel. In his edition and translation of BYRHTFERTH’s Vita Oswaldi, Michael Lapidge (2009 p 200) notes that the clause “uiam est sanctorum egregie secutus” (lines 11-12) could derive from Bede’s “viam patrum secutus” in the Vita or from a similar clause in the Historia ecclesiastica. The Vita has been translated by J.A. Giles (1845 pp 103-14).