Anglo-Saxon England: Volume 37

Anglo-Saxon England 37

Her mon mæg giet gesion hiora swæ«

ANGLO-SAXON ENGLAND 37 Edited by MALCOLM GODDEN University of Oxford

M A R K B L AC K BU R N University of Cambridge

ROBERT BJORK Arizona State University

R I C H A R D DA N C E University of Cambridge

RICHARD GAMESON Durham University

MECHTHILD GRETSCH Universität Göttingen

PA T R I Z I A L E N D I N A R A Università di Palermo

KATHERINE O’BRIEN O ’ K E E F F E , University of California, Berkeley PA U L R E M L E Y University of Washington

SIMON KEYNES University of Cambridge

JOHN BLAIR University of Oxford

M A RY C L AY T O N University College, Dublin

ROBERTA FRANK Yale University

HELMUT GNEUSS Universität München

MICHAEL LAPIDGE University of Cambridge

R O S A L I N D L OV E University of Cambridge

A N DY O RC H A R D University of Toronto

D O N A L D S C R AG G University of Manchester

PA U L E . S Z A R M A C H The Medieval Academy of America

Published by the Press Syndicate of the University of Cambridge The Edinburgh Building, Cambridge CB2 8RU, United Kingdom 32 Avenue of the Americas, New York, NY 10013-2473, USA 47 Williamstown Road, Port Melbourne, VIC 3207, Australia Ruiz de Alarcón 13, 28014 Madrid, Spain Dock House, The Waterfront, Cape Town 8001, South Africa © Cambridge University Press 2008 First Published 2008 Typeset by Servis Filmsetting Ltd Stockport, Cheshire Printed in the United Kingdom by the University Press Cambridge ISBN 978 0521 767361 ISSN 0263-6751

copying

This journal is registered with the Copyright Clearance Center, 222 Rosewood Drive, Danvers, MA 01923, USA. Organizations in the USA who are also registered with C.C.C. may therefore copy material (beyond the limits permitted by sections 107 and 108 of US copyright law) subject to payment to C.C.C. of the per-copy fee of $15. This consent does not extend to multiple copying for promotional or commercial purposes. Code 0263-6751/2008 $15. Organizations authorized by the Copyright Licensing Agency may also copy material subject to the usual conditions. For all other use, permission should be sought from Cambridge or the American Branch of Cambridge University Press. subscriptions: Anglo-Saxon England (ISSN 0263-6751) is an annual journal. The subscription price (excluding VAT) of volume 37, which includes print and electronic access, is £100 for institutions (US$165 in the USA, Canada and Mexico), £53 (US$82 in the USA, Canada and Mexico) for individuals ordering direct from the Press and certifying that the annual is for their personal use. EU subscribers (outside the UK) who are not registered for VAT should add VAT at their country’s rate. VAT registered subscribers should provide their VAT registration number. Japanese prices for institutions are available from Kinokuniya Company Ltd., P.O. Box 55, Chitose, Tokyo 156, Japan. Orders, which must be accompanied by payment, may be sent to a bookseller, subscription agent, or direct to the publishers: Cambridge University Press, The Edinburgh Building, Shaftesbury Road, Cambridge CB2 8RU, UK. Orders from the USA, Canada or Mexico should be sent to Cambridge University Press, Journals Fulfillment Department, 100 Brook Hill Drive, West Nyack, New York 10994-2133, USA. Prices include delivery by air. Back volumes: £95.00 (US$155.00 in the USA, Canada and Mexico) each available from Cambridge or the American Branch of Cambridge University Press. A catalogue record of this book is available from the British Library.

Contents

List of illustrations Record of the thirteenth conference of the International Society of Anglo-Saxonists at the Institute of English Studies, University of London, 30 July to 4 August 2007 mary swan University of Leeds The virtues of rhetoric: Alcuin’s Disputatio de rhetorica et de uirtutibus matthew s. kempshall University of Oxford

page vii

1 7

King Edgar’s charter for Pershore (972) peter a. stokes University of Cambridge

31

Lost voices from Anglo-Saxon Lichfield gifford charles-edwards† University of Wales, Bangor and helen mckee Englefield Green, Surrey

79

The Old English Promissio regis mary clayton University College, Dublin

91

Viking invasions and marginal annotations in Cambridge, Corpus Christi College 162 kathryn powell University of Manchester Re-evaluating base-metal artifacts: an inscribed lead strap-end from Crewkerne, Somerset ga bor thomas University of Reading, naomi payne Somerset County Museums Service and elisabeth okasha University College Cork

151

173

Contents Anglo-Saxon and related entries in the Oxford Dictionary of National Biography (2004) helen foxhall forbes University of Cambridge mathhias ammon, elizabeth boyle, c ona n t. d oyle, peter d. evan, rosa maria fera, paul ga zzoli , helen imhoff, anna matheson, sophie rixon and levi roach University of Cambridge Bibliography for 2007 paul g. remley, University of Washington, Seattle martha bayless, University of Oregon carole p. biggam, University of Glasgow mark blac kburn, Fitzwilliam Museum, Cambridge felicity h. clark, University of Oxford fiona edmonds, University of Cambridge carole hough, University of Glasgow simon keynes, University of Cambridge rebec ca rushforth, University of Cambridge Abbreviations listed before the bibliography (pages 234–6) are used throughout the volume without further explanation. The editorial assistance of Clare Orchard and Debby Banham is gratefully acknowledged.

vi

183

233

Illustrations plates I II III IV V VI VII

Lichfield, Cathedral Library, Lich. 1, p. 141 Cambridge, Corpus Christi College 162, p. 198 (detail) Cambridge, Corpus Christi College 162, p. 174 (detail) Cambridge, Corpus Christi College 162, p. 107 (detail) Cambridge, Corpus Christi College 162, p. 423 (detail) Inscribed strap-end from Crewkerne Inscribed strap-end from Crewkerne. Illustrated by Jane Read figures

1 2 3 4

Variation in a, d and s in Augustus ii. 6 Examples of altered hidages in Augustus ii. 6 Examples of underlines and the ‘caret’ symbol in Augustus ii. 60 Lichfield dry-points

page 35 37 38 79

tables 1 2 3 4 5

Sample collation from AD1D2 Structure of the Orthodoxorum charters List of estates in Augustus ii. 6 and Vitellius D. vii Order of boundary clauses in Augustus ii. 6 and Vitellius D. vii Annotations in Augustus ii. 6

page 39 60–1 62 63 72

acknowled gement s By permission of the trustees of the British Museum the design on the cover is taken from the obverse of a silver penny issued at London in the early 880s, reflecting Alfred’s assumption of political control over the city. Permission to publish photographs has been granted by the Chapter of Lichfield Cathedral (pl. I); the Master and Fellows of Corpus Christi College, Cambridge (pls. II–V); Somerset County Council (pls. VI–VII).

vii

c ontributions for future editions are invited Material should be submitted to the editor most convenient regionally, with these exceptions: an article should be sent to John Blair if concerned with archaeology, to Mark Blackburn if concerned with numismatics, to Richard Gameson if concerned with art history, to Simon Keynes if concerned with history or onomastics, and to Michael Lapidge if concerned with Anglo-Latin or palaeography. Whenever a contribution is sent from abroad it should be accompanied by international coupons to cover the cost of return postage. A potential contributor is asked to get in touch with the editor concerned as early as possible to obtain a copy of the style sheet and to have any necessary discussion. Articles must be in English. The editors’ addresses are: Dr M. A. S. Blackburn, Fitzwilliam Museum, Cambridge CB2 1RB (England) Professor W. J. Blair, The Queen’s College, Oxford OX1 4AW (England) Professor R. E. Bjork, Lattie F. Coor Building 4438, 975 S. Myrtle Avenue, Arizona State University, Tempe AZ 85287-4402 (USA) Professor M. Clayton, School of English, Drama and Film, University College Dublin, Belfield, Dublin 4 (Ireland) R. Dance, St Catharine’s College, Cambridge CB2 1RL (England) Professor R. Frank, Department of English, Yale University, New Haven, Connecticut 06520 (USA) Professor R. Gameson, Department of History, Durham University, 43 North Bailey, Durham DH1 3EX (England) Professor H. Gneuss, Institut für Englische Philologie, Universität München, Schellingstrasse 3, D-80799 München (Germany) Professor M. R. Godden, English Faculty, St Cross Building, Manor Road, Oxford OX1 3UQ (England) Professor M. Gretsch, Seminar für Englische Philologie, Universität Göttingen, KäteHamburger-Weg 3, D-37073 Göttingen (Germany) Professor S. D. Keynes, Trinity College, Cambridge CB2 1TQ (England) Professor M. Lapidge, Clare College, Cambridge CB2 1TL (England) Professor P. Lendinara, Dipartimento DANAE, Facoltà di Scienze della Formazione, Viale delle Scienze (edificio 15) 90128 Palermo (Italy) Dr R. Love, Robinson College, Cambridge CB3 9AN (England) Professor K. O’Brien O’Keeffe, Department of English, 322 Wheeler Hall, University of California, Berkeley, CA 94720-1030 (USA) Professor A. Orchard, Trinity College, 6 Hoskin Avenue, Toronto, Ontario M5S 1H8, (Canada) Professor P. G. Remley, Department of English, Box 354330, University of Washington, Seattle, WA 98195–4330 (USA)

ix

Contributions for future editions are invited Professor F. C. Robinson, Department of English, Yale University, New Haven, Connecticut 06520 (USA) Professor D. G. Scragg, Centre for Anglo-Saxon Studies, School of Arts, Histories and Cultures, University of Manchester, Manchester M13 9PL (England) Professor P. E. Szarmach, The Medieval Academy of America, 104 Mount Auburn Street, 5th Floor, Cambridge, Massachusetts 02138 (USA)

x

Record of the thirteenth conference of the International Society of Anglo-Saxonists, at the Institute of English Studies, University of London, 30 July–4 August 2007 I The general theme of the conference was ‘Anglo-Saxon Traces: Her mon mæg giet gesion hiora swæe ’. The conference was attended by 196 people. The following papers were delivered: Anton Scharer, ‘Objects of Royal Representation (in England and on the Continent)’ Jennifer O’Reilly ‘The Topography of Islands in Bede’s Historia ecclesiastica’ Diarmuid Scully, ‘Among the Ruins: Bede and his Sources on the Geography and Built Environment of Roman Britain’ Joshua Westgard, ‘Traces of Bede?: the Moore Continuations and the Transmission of Bede’s Historia ecclesiastica’ Richard North, ‘Revenue and Real Estate: Archbishop Wulfred and the Strange Case of Cynehelm’ Juan Camilo Conde-Silvestre and Mª Dolores Perez Raja, ‘Language, Landscape and Social History in Medieval Lincolnshire: traces of the Anglo-Saxon past in ME dialectology’ Lesley Abrams, ‘People of the Danelaw’ Hafed Walda and Martyn Jessop, ‘Gaining a Sense of Place in Anglo-Saxon England’ Joy Jenkyns ‘Walking the Trail: the Westminster Surveys’ Peter A. Stokes, ‘A Previously Unnoticed Version of the Pershore Orthodoxorum Charter (S 786)’ Carol Farr, ‘Irish Pocket Gospels in Anglo-Saxon England’ Catherine Karkov, ‘Tracing the Anglo-Saxons in the Epistles of Paul: the Case of Würzburg, Universitätsbibliothek, M. p. th. f. 69’ Peter Dendle, ‘Exorcisms in A-S Liturgical Manuscripts: Problems of Context and Application’ Scott Smith, ‘Latin Diplomas and the Turn to Verse in the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle’ Patrick W. Conner, ‘Five Anglo-Saxon Guilds and How They Grew’ Lisa Weston, ‘Enclosing the Space of Miracle’ 1

Record of the thirteenth conference of the International Society of Anglo-Saxonists Vicky Bristow, ‘Elene, the Anonymous Homily on the Invention of the Cross and the Acta Cyriaci: their Dramatic Structure and Style’ Samantha Zacher, ‘Locating Andreas: its Place in the Book, and the Book in its Place’ Andy Orchard, ‘How Anglo-Saxon is Andreas?’ Orietta Da Rold, ‘Making the Book’ Elaine Treharne, ‘Writing the Book’ Mary Swan, ‘Using the Book’ Frederick M. Biggs, ‘The Demise of Joint Kingship in Anglo-Saxon England’ Christina Lee, ‘Body Talks: Disability in Anglo-Saxon England’ Josh Davies, ‘The Reverse Chronology of St Alfege’s Church: a Suitable Monument for Anglo-Saxon England?’ Jacqueline Stodnick, ‘Her Again: Deictic Syntax in the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle’ Margaret Scott, ‘Scottish Place-Names and Anglo-Saxon England’ Antonette diPaolo Healey, ‘Searching for Words: DOEonline: A to G’ Debby Banham, ‘ “ Here You Can See Their Tracks”: Ridge and Furrow, Open Fields and Anglo-Saxon Farming’ Sue Hirst, ‘Mucking-East Tilbury: Meeting Place and Mart in the Early and Middle Saxon Periods?’ Bruce Watson, ‘The Southwark Domesday Entries: an Enigma Reconsidered’ Gabor Thomas, ‘Excavations at Bishopstone 2003–5: a Late Anglo-Saxon Manorial Settlement in its Regional and National Context’ Richard Mortimer, ‘Excavations at West Fen Road, Ely, Cambridgeshire 1999: Exploring Conceptions of “Rural” and “Urban” Space in the Anglo-Saxon Settlement Record’ Michael Drout, ‘The Invention of Cynewulf: Albert S. Cook, Philology, Romanticism and English Studies in America’ Julia Crick, ‘Script and the Sense of the Past in Pre-Conquest England’ Robin Norris, ‘A Three-Dimensional View of Anglo-Saxon Saints’ Lives’ Juliet Hewish, ‘From Alcuin to Ælfric: Tracing the Dissemination of the Life of St Martin in late Anglo-Saxon England’ Erika Corradini, ‘The Use of Ælfric’s Homilies in Secular Cathedrals: Exeter, 1050–1072’ Malcolm Godden, ‘Reading the Consolation of Philosophy in Anglo-Saxon England’ Nicole Guenther Discenza, ‘Following in the Tracks of Bede: Science and Cosmology in the Benedictine Reform’ Daniel Anlezark, ‘Learning about the Jews in BL MS Harley 3271’ Emily V. Thornbury, ‘Building with the Rubble of the Past: Three Case Studies in Anglo-Saxons’ Use of Flawed Texts’ 2

Record of the thirteenth conference of the International Society of Anglo-Saxonists Karen Jolly, ‘Scribal Tracks: Aldred’s Bilingual Colophons’ Chris Fern, ‘The Importance of Horse Symbolism and Equestrianism in Early Anglo-Saxon Society’ The following Project Reports were given: ‘The Old English Newsletter Online: Present State and Future Plans’ ‘The Lexis of Cloth and Clothing in Britain c. 700–1450: Origins, Identification, Contexts and Change’ ‘The Alfredian Boethius Project’ ‘Prosopography of Anglo-Saxon England’ ‘Leornungcræft: Manuscripts and Texts Used for Instruction in Anglo-Saxon England’ ‘Early English Laws’ II General Business Meeting held in Senate House on 4 August 2007, at 12.00 noon, President Jane Roberts presiding. A The President reported on behalf of the Executive Committee: 1 The fourteenth conference of the Society is to be held at the Memorial University, Newfoundland, 27 July–1 August 2009, hosted by William Schipper. Its theme will be ‘The Maritime World of the Anglo-Saxons’. 2 The fifteenth conference of the Society will be held at the University of Wisconsin-Madison, hosted by John D. Niles. 3 Gratitude was expressed to all those who had assisted in making the conference such a success. B The Executive Director reported on behalf of the Executive Committee: 1 Membership dues and related interest have generated revenues of $11,204.09. The total assets as at 31 June 2007 were $59,881.58. Of this amount, $32,224.39 is retained in mutual funds. 2 Officers of the Society. In accordance with the Society’s constitution, Jane Roberts completes her term as President on 31 December 2007, after which William Schipper will assume the post of President. John D. Niles will assume the post of First Vice-President. David Johnson completes his term as Executive Director on 31 December 2007, after which Stacy Klein will assume the post of Executive Director. 3 Membership of the Advisory Board. The term of office expires on 31 December 2007 for the following members: Mary Blockley, Rolf Bremmer, Jr, Thomas N. Hall, John Hines, Éamonn Ó Carragain and Joanna Story. 4 Honorary Membership of the Society. The Honorary Membership consists of George Hardin Brown, †Peter Clemoes, Rosemary Cramp, André Crépin, René Derolez, Helmut Gneuss, †Edward B. Irving Jr, 3

Record of the thirteenth conference of the International Society of Anglo-Saxonists Matti Kilpiö, Tadao Kubouchi, †Henry Loyn, Bruce Mitchell, Sigeru Ono, †John Pope, Barbara Raw, Matti Rissanen, Jane Roberts, Fred. C. Robinson, Ute Schwab, Donald G. Scragg, Nicholas Brooks, Joyce Hill, Kevin Kiernan, and Joseph B. Trahern. Margaret Clunies-Ross, Alger N. Doane, Michael Lapidge, Richard Pfaff and Leslie Webster were accorded honorary membership. 5 The Advisory Board has established procedures for the publication of themed volumes arising substantially from ISAS conferences. The first, edited by Matti Kilpiö, will be based on the 2001 Conference at the University of Helsinki; the second, edited by †Nicholas Howe and Catherine Karkov and published in 2006, is based on the 2003 Conference at Arizona State University. The third, to be edited by Hans Sauer and Joanna Story, is based on the 2005 conference at Munich. The fourth, to be edited by Jane Roberts and Leslie Webster, is to be based on the 2007 conference. The Executive Committee will oversee and monitor the production of the volumes. The membership package includes the ISAS publication based on, and emerging substantially from, the Conferences, with the exception of the first volume. 6 ISAS Publication Prizes, 2007. The panel, consisting of Thomas N. Hall, Elaine Treharne and Barbara Yorke, and chaired by Elaine Treharne, announced the winners of this cycle’s awards. Best First Book: shared by Daniel Anlezark, Water and Fire: the Myth of the Flood in Anglo-Saxon England (Manchester UP, 2006) and Martin Foys, Virtually Anglo-Saxon (University Press of Florida, 2007). Best Edition/ Translation: Scott DeGregorio, translation, Bede In Ezram (Liverpool UP, 2005). Best Article: Joyce Hill, ‘Authority and Intertextuality in the Works of Ælfric’, Proceedings of the British Academy 131 (2005), 157–81 (The Sir Israel Gollancz Memorial Lecture for 2004). C The Executive Director reported on behalf of the Executive Committee: 1 The thanks of all participants for a very successful conference. III The conference included receptions hosted by the IES and the Institute for Historical Research and the British Library. At Lambeth Palace, participants enjoyed a reception and an exhibition of Anglo-Saxon manuscripts curated by Professor Roberts, Michelle Brown and David Ganz. The conference dinner was held at King’s College London, with a reception sponsored by the Centre for Late Antique and Medieval Studies and the Departments of English and History, King’s College London. A mid-week excursion to Sutton Hoo, guided by Lesley Webster, James Graham-Campbell and Angela Evans, allowed participants to see some of the most powerful Anglo-Saxon traces. A 4

Record of the thirteenth conference of the International Society of Anglo-Saxonists post-conference excursion took members on a tour of Anglo-Saxon sites that included Brixworth, Breedon-on-the-Hill, Lichfield Cathedral and Repton. IV Registration forms for the ISAS conference to be organized by and held at Memorial University, Newfoundland, will be mailed to all paid-up members of the Society. The conference theme will be ‘The Maritime World of the AngloSaxons’. Membership dues payments may be made by cheque or postal money order for $50.00 or £30.00 sterling (regular members) or for $35.00 or £20.00 (student and retired members) and should be sent to Professor Stacy S. Klein, Executive Director, ISAS, Dept. of English, Rutgers University, 510 George Street, New Brunswick, NJ 08901-1167, USA. E-mail [email protected]. Payment may be made to the Executive Director by Visa or MasterCard or by personal cheque. For members outside the US transfers in sterling may be sent to the ISAS account, HSBC Bank plc, City Office Cambridge Branch, Cambridge, CB2 3HZ; sorting code 40–16–08, account no. 21241605. Members may arrange to pay dues for more than the two-year cycle. Payment forms are available from the Executive Director.

5

The virtues of rhetoric: Alcuin’s Disputatio de rhetorica et de uirtutibus matthew s. kempshall abstract Alcuin’s Disputatio de rhetorica et de uirtutibus has traditionally posed problems of interpretation in terms of both form (its apparently bipartite structure) and content (as a digest of the rules of rhetoric combined with an exposition of the four cardinal virtues). However, a close reading of the sources from which Alcuin was drawing his argument (Cicero, Julius Victor, Fortunatianus, Marius Victorinus, Cassiodorus and, above all, Augustine and Quintilian) suggests why he should have chosen to emphasize the connection between rhetoric and the virtues in this particular way.

Alcuin’s Disputatio de rhetorica invites an attractively simple line of interpretation. Written in the form of a dialogue between Alcuin and Charlemagne, it opens by declaring its intent to set down the precepts of the discipline of rhetoric (rhetoricae rationis praecepta), suggesting that it will thereby act as a natural corollary to the teaching which Alcuin had already communicated on the subjects of dialectic, arithmetic and astronomy.1 What follows might therefore reasonably be regarded, on this basis, merely as one more example of an Alcuinian compilatio, an assembly of authoritative texts – in this case as a digest of Cicero’s De inuentione and Julius Victor’s Ars rhetorica (itself a fourth-century distillation of Cicero’s De oratore and Quintilian’s Institutio oratoria which enabled Alcuin to turn Cicero’s treatise on invention into a general treatise on rhetoric by providing a summary of its other four elements, namely arrangement, style, memory and delivery).2 In and of itself, such a characterization goes at least some way towards explaining both the nature and purpose of Alcuin’s text. The Disputatio de rhetorica does indeed appear to be a basic primer designed to serve alongside similar introductions to dialectic and grammar as a tool for the study of the liberal arts, themselves propaedeutic to the study of Scripture. Such a characterization would also seem to be confirmed by the manner, and extent, of its subsequent circulation – the Disputatio de rhetorica survives in at least eighteen 1

2

Alcuin, Disputatio de rhetorica et de uirtutibus [henceforth Disputatio de rhetorica], ed. and trans. W. S. Howell, The Rhetoric of Alcuin and Charlemagne (Princeton, 1941, pp. 66–155), p. 66, lines 17–22. Julius Victor, Ars rhetorica, ed. R. Giomini and M. S. Celentano (Leipzig, 1980); for his selection and fusion of Cicero and Quintilian, see pp. xvii–xviii and, for the early manuscripts, p. xxviii.

7

Matthew S. Kempshall ninth-century manuscripts and is often bound together with Alcuin’s De dialectica. Likewise by its shelf-life and waning influence, once complete versions of the original texts of Cicero and Quintilian on which it was based began to be sought out, and copied, in their own right.3 However, the Disputatio de rhetorica is neither as basic nor as straightforward a ‘textbook’ as such a summary would imply. While Alcuin’s work can be credited with an important role in the history of the transmission of the techniques of classical rhetoric, and while individual precepts which are contained within the treatise can be mined, and mined successfully, for what they recommend about, say, imitatio as a source of auctoritas, or about the relationship between grammar as the ars recte loquendi and rhetoric as the ars bene loquendi,4 difficulties arise as soon as the text is studied as a whole, as a work which might have been designed to do more than just provide a scissors-and-paste synthesis of the rules of classical rhetoric. Two aspects in particular have proved problematic. First, there is the apparent concentration of the purpose and value of studying rhetoric in an explicitly ‘political’ sphere. The very first line of Alcuin’s versepreface states that the person who reads its precepts is the person who wants to learn about ciuiles mores.5 Indeed, in the opening statement in prose, the entire scope (tota uis) of rhetoric is said to revolve around what are called ciuiles quaestiones, a phrase which is subsequently repeated two times at the beginning of the treatise and twice more at the end.6 Second, there is the set-piece discussion of the four cardinal virtues with which the treatise closes – an analysis of how prudence, justice, fortitude and temperance serve as the roots (radices) of all the other virtues, followed by an exposition of their relationship to the specifically Christian life of love of God and love of neighbour.7 What has so perplexed modern commentators about both of these features is that in neither case do Alcuin’s definitions and discussion find much of a warrant in 3

4

5

6

7

Clavis scriptorum Latinorum medii aevi: Auctores Galliae II, ed. M.-H. Jullien and F. Perelman (CCCM, Turnhout, 1999), pp. 160–1. Alcuin, Disputatio de rhetorica, p. 132, lines 994–1010. cf. P. Godman, Poets and Emperors: Frankish Politics and Carolingian Poetry (Oxford, 1987), pp. 59–60; M. Irvine, The Making of Textual Culture: ‘Grammatica’ and Literary Theory 350–1100 (Cambridge, 1994), pp. 309 and 325–6; J. J. Murphy, Rhetoric in the Middle Ages: a History of Rhetorical Theory from Augustine to the Renaissance (Berkeley, 1974), pp. 80–2. Alcuin, Disputatio de rhetorica, p. 66, line 1: ‘qui rogo civiles cupiat cognoscere mores, haec praecepta legat quae liber iste tenet’. Alcuin, Disputatio de rhetorica, p. 66, line 13: ‘totam eius artis uim in ciuilibus uersari quaestionibus’; p. 68, line 57: ‘in ciuilibus . . . quaestionibus’; p. 70, lines 84–5: ‘in causis et quaestionibus ciuilibus’; p. 142, line 1150: ‘causis ciuilibus et negotiis saecularibus’; p. 154, lines 1357–8: ‘ciuilium quaestionum’. For definitions of causa and negotium, together with their relation to a quaestio, see Quintilian, Institutionis oratoriae libri duodecim [henceforth Institutio oratoria], ed. M. Winterbottom (Oxford, 1970), III.5.17–8, p. 142. Alcuin, Disputatio de rhetorica, pp. 142–54, lines 1159–356.

8

The virtues of rhetoric: Alcuin’s Disputatio de rhetorica et de uirtutibus the texts of Cicero and Julius Victor which Alcuin had followed so closely in the remainder (some four-fifths, in fact) of his treatise. Indeed, the net effect of these two idiosyncracies has been that few modern commentators seem to know quite what to make of Alcuin’s text. Much the boldest interpretation of the Disputatio de rhetorica was proffered by Liutpold Wallach, for whom Alcuin’s combination of ‘political’ subject-matter, prescription of the cardinal virtues and formal dialogue with Charlemagne made it nothing less than a treatise on kingship, a speculum principis. ‘The De Rhetorica’, he wrote, ‘is made up of rhetorical doctrine, not because Alcuin wanted to write a rhetorical textbook, but because he wished to describe the mores of Charlemagne as those that ought to serve as examples to his subjects’.8 Wallach’s interpretation has proved (and, in some cases, continues to prove) influential, even though a more systematic study of Carolingian Fürstenspiegel would suggest that Alcuin’s treatise does not, in fact, fulfil the criteria necessary for it to be categorized in this genre.9 But if this littera exhortatoria is not a speculum principis, what is it? Michael Wallace-Hadrill was prompted to confess bafflement: ‘whether we really have from him the earliest example of a Carolingian speculum principis is doubtful: it depends on what one thinks was the purpose of his rhetorical exercise known as the Disputatio de rhetorica et de uirtutibus’.10 Indeed it does. Even if Wallach’s interpretation is no longer as persuasive as it once was, the problems it was originally created to solve still remain. Why does Alcuin define the entire scope of rhetoric as ciuiles quaestiones? Why does he then conclude his treatment with an analysis of the cardinal virtues? Neither one of these features would seem, at first sight, to sit particularly comfortably with the view that Alcuin simply wanted to produce a digest of the rules of Ciceronian rhetoric. Yet, if it is precisely those aspects of a text which seem to a modern reader to be either alien, difficult or incongruous that often reveal most about why that text was written and what it was trying to say, then such departures clearly need explaining. Generally speaking, when Alcuin does choose to deviate from the authoritative model he is otherwise imitating and emulating, then it is through these differences that his interpretative originality is often revealed. To have tied the 8

9 10

L. Wallach, Alcuin and Charlemagne: Studies in Carolingian History and Literature (Ithaca, 1959), p. 71. For the equation of the personal virtue of a ruler with the prosperity of his kingdom, see, for example, Alcuin, Epistolae, ed. E. Dümmler (MGH Epistolae IV, Berlin, 1895), 18, p. 51. H. H. Anton, Fürstenspiegel und Herrscherethos in der Karolingerzeit (Bonn, 1968), pp. 87–8. J. M. Wallace–Hadrill, Early Germanic Kingship in England and on the Continent (Oxford, 1971), p. 101; compare Wallace–Hadrill, ‘The Via regia of the Carolingian Age’, Trends in Medieval Political Thought, ed. B. Smalley (Oxford, 1965), pp. 22–41 at p. 30; idem, Early Medieval History (Oxford, 1975), pp. 181–200, at p. 189: ‘. . . the one composition of . . . Alcuin that can fairly be termed a consistent statement of political theory, the Disputatio de rhetorica et de uirtutibus’.

9

Matthew S. Kempshall subject-matter of rhetoric so firmly to ciuiles mores and ciuiles quaestiones suggests, therefore, that Alcuin was intent on making a particular point from the outset. Was it a case of simply wanting to fashion rhetoric into ‘an instrument of civil and political knowledge’, to make it ‘the art of dealing with questions of government as moral issues’, ‘the [legal] settlement of civil disputes’, or even ‘civic affairs’ and the ‘customs of the State’?11 Or did the term ciuilis carry a particular significance for Alcuin which was at once more precise and more inclusive than a modern understanding of ‘political’ might imply? Likewise, to have displaced and expanded what Cicero had said about virtue in De inuentione so that this material could serve as a conclusion to his own work would also seem to reveal something about Alcuin’s intentions. The fact that he drew attention to this editorial choice by giving his treatise the title Disputatio de rhetorica et de uirtutibus seems to point in the same direction. Alcuin’s twentiethcentury editor and translator was of the opinion that the dislocation of Cicero’s discussion of virtue as if it were something separate from the nature of inuentio simply marked Alcuin’s lack of understanding, a ‘weakness’ in his abridgement which stemmed from his failure to grasp ‘the full connection between the subject of rhetoric and that of the virtues’.12 It is this judgment which has led to the prevailing view of the Disputatio de rhetorica as a treatise in two parts. However, once Alcuin’s careful and deliberate adaptation of Cicero’s scheme is set within the context of a developed theory of moral philosophy, a rather different picture begins to emerge.13 This picture becomes clearer still when fuller appreciation is given to the connection between Alcuin’s concluding emphasis on virtue and his opening concentration on questions which relate to ‘civil’ conduct. To explain why Alcuin himself might have thought that what he wrote about virtue would be just as integral to a proper comprehension of the discipline (ratio) of rhetoric as the actual rules (praecepta) of speaking and writing well is to explain why the Disputatio de rhetorica should be placed at the heart of Alcuin’s own understanding of the role of language and learning within a Christian society. 11

12

13

C. Leonardi, ‘Alcuino e la retorica’, Dialektik und Rhetorik im frühen und hohen Mittelalter: Rezeption, Überlieferung und gesellschaftliche Wirkung antiker Gelehrsamkeit vornehmlich im 9. und 12. Jahrhundert, ed. J. Fried (Munich, 1997), pp. 171–4, at p. 171 (‘scienza civile’) and p. 173 (‘uno strumento di consapevolezza civile e politica’); Wallach, Alcuin and Charlemagne, p. 70; D. E. Luscombe, ‘Dialectic and Rhetoric in the Ninth and Twelfth Centuries: Continuity and Change’, Dialektik und Rhetorik, ed. Fried, pp. 1–20, at p. 3; Howell, Rhetoric of Alcuin and Charlemagne, p. 67. Howell, Rhetoric of Alcuin and Charlemagne, pp. 31–2 and pp. 63–4. I have been unable to consult H. L. Zimmermann, ‘A Critical Text: Alcuin’s Disputatio de rhetorica et de virtutibus sapientissimi regis Karoli et Albini magistri’ (unpublished dissertation, St. Louis, 1968). S. Mähl, Quadriga virtutum: die Kardinaltugenden in der Geistegeschichte der Karolingerzeit (Cologne, 1969), pp. 83–125, esp. pp. 109–16.

10

The virtues of rhetoric: Alcuin’s Disputatio de rhetorica et de uirtutibus So what are we to make, first of all, of the statement that rhetoric is entirely concerned with ciuiles quaestiones? Alcuin takes the precise formulation of this definition, not from Cicero or from Julius Victor, but from Cassiodorus’s Institutiones, the sixth-century educational handbook which had provided the basic, but essential, framework for the integration of classical learning into monastic schooling. The art of rhetoric, according to Cassiodorus, is the science of speaking well on civil issues, in ciuilibus quaestionibus, where ciuiles quaestiones are understood to refer to those questions which everyone can comprehend when they concern equity and goodness, de aequo et bono.14 Alcuin’s own gloss on this definition is that these ciuiles quaestiones are docti quaestiones – that is, they are issues ‘open to instruction’ because they are capable of being grasped by everyone through the natural capacity of their minds.15 Right from the start, in other words, it is clear that the so-called ‘political’ dimension to Alcuin’s definition of rhetoric is, in fact, shorthand for the breadth and accessibility which rhetoric gives to the operation of virtue within human society. On this basis, rhetoric is concerned, first and foremost, with two fundamental moral qualities, namely equity and goodness. This supplementary definition depends, in its turn, on Alcuin’s understanding of how rhetoric had originally brought humankind out of a state of nature and into ‘civilization’. This notion is, of course, originally a Ciceronian argument, versions of which appear in De inuentione and De oratore, as well as in Quintilian’s Institutio oratoria.16 Alcuin provides his own potted version right at the start of the Disputatio de rhetorica. It was, he argues, only by combining ratio with oratio, reason with rhetoric, that a great and wise man (magnus uir et sapiens) was able to persuade his fellow humans to abandon their lives as solitary, scattered and predatory beasts ruled by cupidity and physical strength. Gathering these people together into one place, this individual led them towards everything advantageous and morally virtuous (utile atque honestam) and thereby inculcated different principles of life, namely 14

15

16

Cassiodorus, Institutiones, ed. R. A. B. Mynors (Oxford, 1937), II praef., p. 91; II.2.1, p. 97: ‘ciuiles quaestiones sunt secundum Fortunatianum, artigraphum novellum, quae in communem animi conceptionem possunt cadere, id est quas unusquisque potest intellegere cum de aequo quaeritur et bono’. For Fortunatianus, see below, n. 22. Cf. P. Lehmann, ‘Cassiodorstudien’ in his Erforschung des Mittelalters: Ausgewählte Abhandlungen und Aufsätze, 5 vols. (Leipzig, 1941–59), II, 38–108 at pp. 91–5. The phrase was also used by Isidore of Seville, Etymologiae, II.i.1, ed. W. M. Lindsay (Oxford, 1911). Cf. Hrabanus Maurus, De institutione clericorum, III.19, ed. D. Zimpel (Frankfurt, 1996), p. 470. Alcuin, Disputatio de rhetorica, p. 68, lines 57–8: ‘in ciuilibus id est doctis quaestionibus quae naturali animi ingenio concipi possunt’. Cf. Alcuin, De dialectica (PL 101, 951–76), 953: ‘quid est inter dialecticam et rhetoricam? . . . dialectica siquidem ad inveniendi res acutior; rhetorica ad inventas dicendas facundior. illa raros et studiosos requirit, haec frequenter procedit in turbas’. Cicero, De inuentione, I.2.2–3, ed. E. Ströbel (Leipzig, 1915), pp. 2–3; De oratore, I.8.33, ed. K. Kumaniecki (Leipzig, 1969), p. 14; Quintilian, Institutio oratoria, II.16.9, pp. 112–13.

11

Matthew S. Kempshall divine observance and a sense of duty towards their fellow human beings.17 This is what Alcuin wanted to underline when he echoed Cassiodorus’s concentration on ciuiles quaestiones. Rhetoric is necessarily involved in everything which distinguishes humankind’s existence in communities, in everything which differentiates it from a purely animal existence. Rhetoric is based on the union of sapientia with eloquentia and, in each of its three branches, it comprises anything which involves equity and goodness – judicial rhetoric seeks what is equitable, demonstrative rhetoric what is morally virtuous, and deliberative rhetoric what is both morally virtuous and advantageous.18 This compass can be called ‘political’, in short, but only if the term is construed in the broadest possible sense, as everything which concerns life in a distinctively human society, and not if the term is restricted simply to those who exercise authority within that society. Alcuin found the same argument, with slightly different phraseology, in Julius Victor, for whom the duty of the orator was to concern himself with ciuilia negotia, where ‘civil affairs’ comprise those matters on which everyone with any intellectual capacity can speak and judge. They cover general opinion, laws or conduct (mores) – anything, in fact, which can be the subject of accusation, defence, or simply debate over its equity and utility (de aequo et utili).19 For Julius Victor, the foundation of eloquence, as indeed of everything else, is therefore sapientia.20 As such, rhetoric can be applied to people, events or texts, and can range all the way from universal abstract propositions to specific cases. True to the breadth of this definition, Julius Victor had run through all the component parts of ‘speaking well’ and exhorted his readers to put these rules into practice by immediate and constant exercise. He had then concluded his treatise by showing how rhetoric should be applied to the writing of letters, or rather to the writing of epistolae negotiales, that is, letters on public as opposed to personal issues. The gravity of this particular epistolary genre, he states, requires the deployment of all the precepts of rhetoric.21 17

18 19

20

Alcuin, Disputatio de rhetorica, p. 68, lines 33–51. For the identification of Cicero’s uir magnus et sapiens with Charlemagne, see Wallach, Alcuin and Charlemagne, pp. 51–2; Mähl, Quadriga virtutum, p. 114; for the phrase itself, see below, n. 44. For the suggestion that Alcuin saw in this myth a potent image for the ‘romanisation’ of the ‘germanic’ culture of the Franks, see Leonardi, ‘Alcuino e la retorica’, p. 172. Alcuin, Disputatio de rhetorica, p. 72, lines 100–3. Julius Victor, Ars rhetorica, p. 1: ‘sunt autem ea demum ciuilia negotia quae nulla arte propria continentur . . . sed earum rerum tractatum habent quae perficiuntur ex opinione communi aut legibus aut moribus et de quibus omnes qui aliquatenus intellectum aliquem recipiunt et dicere et iudicare possint. omnes enim fere et accusare alium et purgare se ipsos possunt et de aequo et utili disputare uidentur sibi posse’. Cf. ibid. pp. 24–5; Quintilian, Institutio oratoria, V.14.28–9, pp. 312–13. Julius Victor, Ars rhetorica, p. 93: ‘sed est eloquentiae, sicut reliquarum rerum, fundamentum 21 sapientia’. See below, n. 95. Ibid. p. 105.

12

The virtues of rhetoric: Alcuin’s Disputatio de rhetorica et de uirtutibus Familiarity with both Cassiodorus and Julius Victor may be enough, in itself, to account for Alcuin’s emphasis on ciuiles quaestiones right at the start of the Disputatio de rhetorica. However, Alcuin also seems to have been drawing directly on the fourth-century sources from which Cassiodorus had himself taken this argument, namely Fortunatianus’s Ars rhetorica and the commentary on Cicero’s De inuentione by Marius Victorinus.22 Alcuin was certainly familiar with the treatise by Fortunatianus.23 Indeed, coupled with the explicit personal endorsement of Fortunatianus’s authority which had been provided by Cassiodorus’s Institutiones, as well as by the fact that the treatise had subsequently circulated in conjunction with the pseudo-Augustinian De rhetorica,24 it may well have been the precedent provided by the unusual form of Fortunatianus’s treatise which prompted Alcuin to couch his own work as a dialogue of question and answer.25 ‘What is rhetoric?’ Fortunatianus had asked. ‘The knowledge of speaking well’ was the reply. ‘What is an orator?’ he continued. ‘The good man skilled in speaking. What is the function of the orator? To speak well on civil questions. To what end? In order to be persuasive, in so far as circumstances and audience allow, in civil questions. What are civil questions? Those which can fall into the common capacity of the mind, that is, those which every person can understand as an inquiry into what is equitable and good. How many kind of civil question are there? Three. What are they? Demonstrative, deliberative and judicial.’26 Alcuin’s conversance with Marius Victorinus is slightly harder to pin down than in the case of Fortunatianus but the circumstantial evidence remains considerable. Marius Victorinus’s commentary on Cicero’s De inuentione is extant in at least one late-eighth-century manuscript (Cologne, Dombibliothek, 166, a manuscript which appears to have been written ‘under insular influence’ and which also includes Fortunatianus and the pseudo-Augustinian De rhetorica),27 and the author is named in person alongside Boethius in the library described 22

24

25

26

27

Fortunatianus, Ars rhetorica, ed. K. Halm, Rhetores Latini minores (Leipzig, 1863), pp. 81–134; Marius Victorinus, Explanatio in rhetoricam Ciceronis, ed. Halm, Rhetores Latini minores, 23 pp. 155–304. Wallach, Alcuin and Charlemagne, pp. 44–5. Augustine, Liber de rhetorica, ed. Halm, Rhetores Latini Minores, pp. 135–51. See esp. p. 136 and (for discussion of ciuiles quaestiones) pp. 138–9. Cf. E. A. Matter, ‘Alcuin’s Question–and–Answer Texts’, Rivista di storia della filosofia 45 (1990), 645–56. Cf. Quintilian, Institutio oratoria, IX.2.31, p. 495. Fortunatianus, Ars rhetorica, ed. Halm, Rhetores Latini Minores, p. 81: ‘quid est rhetorica? bene dicendi scientia. quid est orator? uir bonus dicendi peritus. quod est oratoris officium? bene dicere in ciuilibus quaestionibus. qui finis? persuadere, quatenus rerum et personarum condicio patiatur in ciuilibus quaestionibus. quae sunt ciuiles quaestiones? quae in communem animi conceptionem possunt cadere, id est quas unusquisque potest intellegere ut cum quaeritur de aequo et bono. genera ciuilium quaestionum quot sunt? tria. quae? demonstratiuum, deliberatiuum, iudiciale’. For a description of the manuscript, see A. von Euw, ‘Lehrtexte zur Grammatik, Rhetorik und Dialektik (Dom Hs. 166)’, in Glaube und Wissen im Mittelalter: Die Kölner Dombibliothek (Munich,

13

Matthew S. Kempshall by Alcuin in his poem on the bishops, kings and saints of York.28 Moreover, when Alcuin cites Marius Victorinus’s anti-Arian theological works in Adversus Elipandum and De fide, he makes a point of describing his Ciceronian pedigree. Marius Victorinus, he writes, was a distinguished rhetor who, by moving from the school of Cicero to ecclesiastical controversies, became as firm an advocate of the faith as he had been outstanding as an orator.29 Although Alcuin does not mention Marius Victorinus or quote him verbatim in the Disputatio de rhetorica, it is therefore still probable that he was familiar with the work when he was writing his treatise. After all, as has been remarked of Alcuin’s corresponding ‘textbook’ on grammar, it is clear from his other writings that Alcuin had read much more widely in this field than the sources for this one ‘handbook for beginners’ would, by themselves, imply.30 At the very least, knowledge of Marius Victorinus would have strengthened Alcuin’s conviction that rhetoric should be given a very wide definition indeed, since Victorinus had opened his commentary on Cicero’s De inuentione by spelling out in some detail the necessary connection between rhetoric and wisdom. Wisdom on its own, he wrote, sapientia without eloquentia, is of little benefit compared to wisdom when it is joined with eloquence, since it is through eloquence that wisdom is able to exert its compelling power. Eloquence without wisdom, meanwhile, is very harmful; strictly speaking, it is not even eloquence but simply a mass of words. It is thus the combination of eloquence with wisdom which is central to Victorinus’s view of the ciuitas, that is, of every multitude of human beings which has been gathered together to live in accordance with law, since it is this combination which actually creates society by bringing wars to an end, establishing agreements, maintaining justice and supporting friendship. It is thus

28

29

30

1998), pp. 125–8. Cf. R. H. Rouse and R. M. Thomson, ‘Censorinus’ (ed. L. D. Reynolds, Texts and Transmission: a Survey of the Latin Classics, Oxford, 1983, pp. 48–50), p. 48; B. Bischoff, Manuscripts and Libraries in the Age of Charlemagne (Cambridge, 1994), ch. 5 ‘Libraries and Schools in the Carolingian Revival of Learning’, pp. 93–114 (at p. 96); ch. 7 ‘Benedictine Monasteries and the Survival of Classical Literature’, pp. 134–60 (at p. 147); idem, Katalog der festländischen Handschriften des neunten Jahrhunderts (2 vols., Wiesbaden, 1998) I, 402. For Alcuin’s quotation from Marius Victorinus’s commentary in De dialectica, see Wallach, Alcuin and Charlemagne, p. 37. Alcuin, The Bishops, Kings and Saints of York, ed. and trans. P. Godman (Oxford, 1982), p. 124, line 1548. Cf. R. Ray, Bede, Rhetoric and the Creation of Christian Latin Culture (Jarrow Lecture, 1997), p. 7; G. Knappe, ‘Classical Rhetoric in Anglo–Saxon England’, ASE 27 (1998), 5–29 at pp. 12–14; Knappe, Traditionen der klassischen Rhetorik im angelsachsischen England (Heidelberg, 1996), pp. 161–84. Alcuin, Adversus Elipandum IV.9 (PL 101, 231–300), 292. Cf. P. Hadot, ‘Marius Victorinus et Alcuin’, Archives d’histoire doctrinale et littéraire du moyen âge, 21 (1954), pp. 5–19; idem, Marius Victorinus: Recherches sur sa vie et ses oeuvres (Paris, 1971), p. 21. See also J. J. O’Donnell, Augustine’s Confessions: Introduction, Text, Commentary, 3 vols. (Oxford, 1992) III, 13–15. Irvine, Making of Textual Culture, pp. 317–18.

14

The virtues of rhetoric: Alcuin’s Disputatio de rhetorica et de uirtutibus through eloquence that the human soul is liberated from enslavement to the body in a life which would otherwise be solitary, brutish and short. This is the achievement of the ‘great and wise man’ (uir magnus et sapiens) who uses eloquence to gather his fellow humans into a community, persuading them to exchange the life of beasts for a life which is truly human. At the core of this uita ciuilis (and, for Marius Victorinus, ciuilis always means living according to law),31 is therefore the instilling into human beings of what is morally good and advantageous. For Marius Victorinus, this is the central function of eloquence. Human nature may be perfected by precepts discovered through wisdom but this can only be realized when eloquence is used to persuade the human will. Eloquence combined with wisdom, in short, establishes human communities by persuading people of what is good and advantageous and by teaching them what is just. Conversely, when eloquence is deployed without wisdom, society is destroyed by those who operate by force of words alone; wisdom then becomes the preserve of philosophers who retire from public affairs and simply write about sapientia rather than translate it into action. It is to forestall this fate that Marius Victorinus underlines Cicero’s exhortation to study rhetoric and wisdom together, since it is this conjunction alone which will enable public and private affairs to be administered and life to be made safe, good and beneficial, both to oneself and to one’s friends.32 If Cicero’s De inuentione convinced Alcuin of the central role of rhetoric in the transition of humankind from a bestial state of nature, then Cassiodorus and Julius Victor, but also Fortunatianus and Marius Victorinus, left him in no doubt as to its role in maintaining the fabric of that society once it had been established and, by extension, the comprehensive range of subjects on which it should be brought to bear. This role and this scope, in short, are what Alcuin was indicating in the definitions with which he opened the Disputatio de rhetorica by highlighting the phrases ciuiles mores and ciuiles quaestiones. Rhetoric is comprehensible to everyone because it covers everything which is open to question in a human society living under law. It is therefore concerned with everything which carries any consideration of moral goodness, advantage and equity. No more and, certainly, no less. Where, then, does this analysis leave the second of the two issues which have so frequently troubled modern commentators, namely the connection between a treatise on rhetoric and a concluding disquisition on virtue? Is this conclusion simply, as some have argued (and indeed as Charlemagne himself is made to say), an exercise in speaking (exercitatio sermocinationis), a practical 31

Marius Victorinus, Explanatio in rhetoricam, I.1, p. 158; I.2, pp. 162 and 164. Cf. Augustine, Quaestiones euangeliorum 46 (ed. A. Mutzenbecher, CCSL 44B, Turnhout, 1980, pp. 1–118), 32 pp. 109–11. Marius Victorinus, Explanatio in rhetoricam, I.1, pp. 155–60; I.4, pp. 168–70.

15

Matthew S. Kempshall demonstration of the sort of subject on which rhetoric could be brought to bear, ‘a good subject for practice in speaking’?33 Alcuin himself, after all, states that he could have said more on the subject of the virtues were his disputation not already hastening towards its conclusion and if it did not seem so superfluous a subject on which to engage Charlemagne given that he was already ‘adorned’, not just by knowledge of the virtues, but also by his practice of them.34 Cicero had originally included the cardinal virtues (prudence, justice, fortitude and temperance) under the heading of invention as a subject essential to the rhetorician who was engaged in demonstrative and deliberative rhetoric. In demonstrative rhetoric (that is, in display or epideictic rhetoric), the virtues provide the raw material with which individuals are held up either for praise or for blame; in deliberative rhetoric, they provide the basis for establishing whether a particular course of action is morally worthy (honestum) and advantageous (utile).35 Why, then, did Alcuin not do the same? Why did he postpone discussion of the cardinal virtues until after he had analysed all the other parts of rhetoric, that is, not just invention, but also arrangement, style, memory and delivery? Why did he treat the virtues as if they constituted a separate subject for debate? An interest in incorporating prudence, justice, fortitude and temperance into a more general discussion of virtue can be traced in many of Alcuin’s other works, not least De uirtutibus et uitiis where the classification from Cicero’s De inuentione once again provides Alcuin with his finale. In the struggle between virtue and vice, between Christian observance and diabolic impiety, Alcuin writes that wisdom, justice, fortitude and temperance are the four most glorious commanders.36 In this work, however, the reason why Alcuin should have given such prominence to the cardinal virtues appears to have a straightforward source of inspiration. Alcuin, after all, was not the first person to have seen that Cicero’s discussion of the virtues could be excerpted from De inuentione as a 33

34

36

Alcuin, Disputatio de rhetorica, p. 144, lines 1190–3: ‘paulo ante inter nos constitit sermocinationis exercitationem esse necessariam, in quo melius est habendum sermonis studium quam in uirtutum excellentia quae utrumque et scribentibus et legentibus multum prodesse ualet?’ Cf. G. A. Kennedy, Classical Rhetoric and its Christian and Secular Tradition from Ancient to Modern Times, 2nd ed. (London, 1999), p. 209; Anton, Fürstenspiegel und Herrscherethos, p. 88: ‘. . . der Exemplifizierung und Erprobung der rhetorischen Grundsätze’. For the importance of exercitatio, see Quintilian, Institutio oratoria, X.1.2, p. 567. Alcuin, Disputatio de rhetorica, p. 144, lines 1182–6: ‘ideo uirtutes in medio sunt positae de quibus tuae uenerandae auctoritati plura dicere potuissem si non disputatio nostra ad finem festinaret et si non superfluum uideretur tecum de uirtutibus agere quem uirtutum non tantum scientia sed etiam ornat efficientia’. In view of the synonymous nature of rhetoric and ornamentum, Alcuin’s choice of ornare is, in itself, significant for the link between virtue and 35 rhetoric. Cicero, De inuentione, II.51.155–54.165, pp. 145–50. Alcuin, De uirtutibus et uitiis XXXIV–V (PL 101, 613–638), 637. cf. Mähl, Quadriga virtutum, pp. 97–101.

16

The virtues of rhetoric: Alcuin’s Disputatio de rhetorica et de uirtutibus free-standing classification. Augustine had already done this in his De diuersis quaestionibus and had himself drawn attention to the fact in his Retractiones: ‘since I was responsible for making this part of Cicero known to the brothers’, he records, ‘they have written it among those things which they were collecting since they wanted to know how Cicero divided and defined the virtues’.37 Alcuin knew both these texts by Augustine and, once again, such familiarity may, in itself, underpin Alcuin’s interest in separating Cicero’s analysis and appending it as his own conclusion to the Disputatio de rhetorica.38 Augustine’s own approach to the list of virtues which he found in Cicero’s De inuentione, however, had been much more complex than treating it as a convenient classificatory scheme. Augustine’s real interest in the cardinal virtues, in De civitate Dei, for example, or in the Contra Iulianum (where the discussion is again prefaced by verbatim quotation from De inuentione), turned on two fundamental questions. In the first instance, Augustine was concerned whether true moral virtue could, in fact, be possessed by an individual who had not been illuminated with the grace of Christian charity, by a Scipio, that is, or by a Regulus.39 Second, Augustine insisted that, even if his first question were to be answered in the negative, Christians should nonetheless have no cause for complacency – if pagan Romans had been capable of performing outstanding and notable acts when motivated by glory, by self-love or by praise in this life, then surely Christians should be able to achieve so much more when motivated by correctly ordered self-love, by love of God and of their neighbour?40 It is precisely the import of these two questions from Augustine which Alcuin picks up at the end of the Disputatio de rhetorica, a point which is all too readily obscured if Alcuin’s text is characterized merely as a means of distilling and disseminating the rules of classical rhetoric. Alcuin, like Augustine, analyses the status of all those moral virtues which had been described by classical philosophers and rhetoricians, and which had been exemplified by noble Romans, when they were neither informed by revelation nor directed towards the goal of each individual human being in God. Alcuin opens his discussion in the Disputatio de rhetorica by observing that both Christianity and philosophy cultivate virtue, knowledge, truth and ‘good’ (that is, correctly ordered) love – things which are all sought for their own sake, as 37

38

39

Augustine, Retractiones, I.26 (ed. A. Mutzenbecher, CCSL 57, Turnhout 1984), p. 77; De diuersis quaestionibus, 31 (ed. A. Mutzenbecher, CCSL 44A, Turnhout 1975), pp. 41–5. E.g. Alcuin, Adversus Felicem III.12 (PL 101, 128–230), 156; Ep. 309, p. 474. For Alcuin’s knowledge of Augustine (including the Retractationes, De doctrina Christiana and De civitate Dei) in Northumbria, see D. A. Bullough, Alcuin: Achievement and Reputation (Leiden, 2004), pp. 261– 6. Augustine, De civitate Dei, eds. B. Dombart and A. Kalb (CCSL 47–8, Turnhout, 1955), V.19, pp. 154–6, XIX.4, pp. 664–9, XIX.10, p. 674, XIX.25, p. 696; Contra Iulianum IV.3.17–26 (PL 40 44, 641–874), 745–51. Augustine, De civitate Dei, V.17, pp. 149–50.

17

Matthew S. Kempshall ends in themselves, rather than for the sake of something else. The difference between Christianity and philosophy, in this regard, is the presence of faith and baptism.41 Having proceeded to excerpt Cicero’s classification of the virtues from De inuentione, Alcuin then turns to Augustine’s warning against Christian complacency. The cultivation of moral virtue (honestum) has the greatest worth (honor) among men and praise with God. If pagan philosophers had managed to maintain the cardinal virtues when motivated only by the worldly standing or praise that this gave to their lives, then is it not a matter for wonder, even pity, that Christians stray from these virtues in so many respects despite having been promised the reward of eternal glory if they were to observe these virtues in faith and love, or even out of fear of punishment?42 Alcuin accordingly concludes by setting out how each of the cardinal virtues should be understood and exercised within the Christian religion. Once again, he turns to Augustine, in this instance to book VI of De musica.43 Observance of these virtues is necessary for all human beings and its goal is love of God and of one’s neighbour. Alcuin quotes Matthew XXII.37–40 in order to reinforce the point: ‘Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind [Deuteronomy VI.5]. This is the first and greatest commandment. And the second is like it: Love your neighbour as yourself [Leviticus XIX.18]. All the Law and the Prophets hang on these two commandments’. The only source of happiness, Alcuin explains, the measure of the correctly ordered soul, is that it loves God, rules what is inferior to it (namely the body) and supports its fellow human beings in love. It is thus only through combining these two loves – of God and of neighbour – with the exercise of the four cardinal virtues that an individual will be truly blessed (magnus uir et uere beatus) in the heavenly kingdom.44 This resolution accordingly provides Alcuin with his own closing summary of what he thinks he has been doing in the Disputatio de rhetorica: having started with the ever-changing character of ciuiles quaestiones, he has now ended with the goal of eternal changelessness. His exposition, he writes, has been aimed at the individual who is eager to learn about the morally worthy disciplines of this world and at the individual who scrutinises the higher virtues (aut . . . aut).45 It is in this sense that the Disputatio de rhetorica might, perhaps, be regarded as a treatise in two parts. In tying eloquence so closely to 41 43 44

45

42 Alcuin, Disputatio de rhetorica, pp.144–6, lines 1199–1214. Ibid. p.150, lines 1287–98. Mähl, Quadriga virtutum, pp. 112–15. Alcuin, Disputatio de rhetorica, p. 152, lines 1320–55. For the significance of this final phrase as an adaptation of both Cicero (see above, n. 17) and Augustine, De musica, VI.14.45 (PL 32, 1081–1194), 1187 (magnus uir et humanissimus), see Mähl, Quadriga virtutum, pp. 107, 114. See also Sallust, Jugurtha XLV.1, ed. L. D. Reynolds (Oxford, 1991), p. 92. Alcuin, Disputatio de rhetorica, p. 154, lines 1357–63: ‘quis est qui nos frustra sermocinari audeat dicere si aut honestarum est saeculi scrutator curiosus artium aut excellentium scrutator uirtutum?’

18

The virtues of rhetoric: Alcuin’s Disputatio de rhetorica et de uirtutibus sapientia, however, in pairing Cicero with Augustine, Alcuin is also aiming to demonstrate just how intimately these two themes are connected. If Alcuin’s transcription of Cicero’s classification of the cardinal virtues from De inuentione is best understood in terms of the discussion with which it had been accompanied in De civitate Dei and De musica,46 then the influence of this Augustinian mediation on the Disputatio de rhetorica should not be limited to the virtues themselves. However important Augustine may have been to Alcuin’s closing analysis of virtue, his presence also extends to the broader assumptions about the relationship between classical learning and Christian faith on which the treatise as a whole is based. The crucial text here is Augustine’s De doctrina Christiana, a work which was fundamental to the entire Carolingian view of learning within a Christian society.47 Can this text too, then, help us understand why Alcuin might have regarded moral virtue as integral to the study of rhetoric? Written as a short reflection on the relationship between words and things and, as a result, on how the relationship between them is dependent on a proper understanding of signs, De doctrina Christiana set out to demonstrate how a basic knowledge of grammar, logic and rhetoric could, and should, be used to expound both the literal and the figurative meaning of the Bible. In expounding the utility of these branches of pagan learning, the ‘gold’ and ‘clothing’ of the Egyptians, Augustine also points out their limitations: some signs will remain ambiguous and obscure, some humanly instituted knowledge is self-indulgent and to be avoided. Rhetorical tropes and ornamentation, however, although they might seem to belong to the category of such suspect knowledge, are present in Scripture because they are natural, not artificial, to humankind. According to Augustine, therefore, as a means of understanding the divine truths which are contained in the Old and New Testaments and, equally importantly, as a means of communicating these truths to others, the disciplines of grammar, logic and rhetoric are fundamental to Christian teaching.48 De doctrina Christiana did not itself attempt to provide an introduction to the study of grammar, logic and rhetoric. Indeed, Augustine issues explicit 46 47

48

Mähl, Quadriga virtutum, pp. 115–16, 124–5. See M. M. Gorman, ‘The Diffusion of the Manuscripts of Saint Augustine’s De doctrina Christiana in the Early Middle Ages’, RB 95 (1985), pp. 11–24, reprinted in his, The Manuscript Traditions of the Works of St Augustine (Florence, 2001), pp. 265–78; and, more generally, De Doctrina Christiana: a Classic of Western Culture, ed. D. W. H. Arnold and P. Bright (Notre Dame, 1995). Cf. Alcuin, Ep. 19, p. 53; Ep. 31, p. 221; Ep. 291, p. 449. For Alcuin’s role in De litteris colendis, see Wallach, Alcuin and Charlemagne, pp. 204–11; T. Martin, ‘Bermerkungen zur Epistola de litteris colendis’, Archiv für Diplomatik 31 (1985), 227–72, at pp. 246–50. See, for example, K. Eden, ‘The Rhetorical Tradition and Augustinian Hermeneutics in De doctrina Christiana’, Rhetorica 8 (1990), 45–63 and, more generally, Augustine and the Disciplines: from Cassiciacum to Confessions, ed. K. Pollmann and M. Vessey (Oxford, 2005).

19

Matthew S. Kempshall disclaimers on this score. ‘This would not be the proper place’, he writes, ‘to present [figures of speech] to people not familiar with them; I do not wish to look as if I am giving a course on grammar.’49 Tropes are intrinsic to language and natural to human beings without a formal training in grammar but this is not to say that they should be excluded from closer attention. Far from it. In De doctrina Christiana, however, Augustine simply recommends that these tropes should be learned separately. Likewise with the study of rhetoric. Augustine writes: At the outset, I must curb the expectations of any readers who think that I am going to present the rhetorical rules which I learned and taught in pagan schools, and warn them . . . not to expect that sort of thing from me. This is not because the rules have no practical use, but because such practical uses as they do have must be learned separately – assuming that a person of good character (uir bonus) has the time to learn them on top of everything else – and not sought from me either in this or any other work.50

Augustine was clearly concerned by the amount of time that could be spent in learning all these rhetorica praecepta and he therefore suggested that, rather than occupy an individual’s mature or advanced years, they should be learned when young. As a result, the remainder of De doctrina Christiana is devoted, instead, to a demonstration of how the interpreter and teacher of divine scripture can use different styles of elocutio in order to defend the Christian faith and defeat error, communicate what is good and eradicate what is bad.51 With that proviso, however, Augustine’s recommendation is clear: As for the relevant observations and rules which, together with a skilful manner of speaking that uses an abundance of words and verbal ornament, constitute what we mean by eloquence, these should be learned independently of this work by those who can do so quickly, by setting aside an appropriate period of time at a suitable and convenient stage of their lives.52

Modern commentators who put De doctrina Christiana and the Disputatio de rhetorica side by side have tended to do so in order to point up the differences, rather than the similarities, between these two texts.53 It is certainly true that 49

50

52

53

Augustine, De doctrina Christiana, III.87, ed. R. P. H. Green (Oxford, 1995), p. 170: ‘sed hic eos ignaris tradere non decet, ne artem grammaticam docere uideamur’. Ibid. IV.3, p. 196: ‘primo itaque exspectationem legentium qui forte me putant rhetorica daturum esse praecepta quae in scholis saecularibus et didici et docui, ista praelocutione cohibeo atque ut a me non exspectentur admoneo; non quod nihil habeant utilitatis sed quod si quid habent seorsum discendum est, si cui fortassis bono uiro etiam haec uacat discere, non 51 autem a me vel in hoc opere vel in aliquo alio requirendum’. Ibid. IV.14, p. 200. Ibid. IV.6, p. 198: ‘sed quaecumque sunt de hac re obseruationes atque praecepta quibus, cum accedit in uerbis plurimis ornamentisque uerborum linguae sollertissima consuetudo, fit illa quae facundia vel eloquentia nominatur, extra istas litteras nostras, seposito ad hoc congruo temporis spatio, apta et convenienti aetate discenda sunt eis qui hoc celeriter possunt’. For example, Irvine, Making of Textual Culture, p. 326. De doctrina Christiana, however, can be seen to underpin the Disputatio de rhetorica in terms of the choice of De inuentione as its primary

20

The virtues of rhetoric: Alcuin’s Disputatio de rhetorica et de uirtutibus Augustine’s main concern, unlike Alcuin’s (at least in the Disputatio de rhetorica), is Scripture. Yet, while Alcuin acknowledges that the wisdom he is expounding is indeed that of the rhetoricus rather than the evangelicus,54 he is still careful to intersperse his own digest of the praecepta rhetorica with scriptural examples. Demonstrative, judicial and deliberative rhetoric, for example, are all illustrated directly from the Bible – by Cain and Abel, Ahithophel and Hushai, Tertullus and Paul respectively.55 It is also true that Augustine registers profound concern over the potential abuse of eloquence when it has no goal other than pleasure and when it is placed in the service of falsehood rather than truth. Delight in words is, for Augustine, only ever a means to further the primary goals of persuasion, namely instruction in truth and inspiration to good action. Within these terms of reference, however, he still insists that it serves a useful purpose.56 Just because the rules of eloquence can be used to commend falsehood does not, for that reason, make them invalid. ‘Since they can also be used to commend the truth’, Augustine states, ‘it is not the subject itself that is reprehensible but the perversity of those who abuse it’.57 Truth should not stand unarmed in its fight against falsehood; rhetoric should not be left to those who serve iniquity and error. Oratorical ability, he concludes, needs to be acquired by good and zealous Christians in order to fight for the truth.58 Alcuin registers the same concerns and the same solution. Indeed, he cites (apparently via Boethius) the same piece of sophistical discourse as Augustine in order to make the point.59 Augustine’s concentration on scriptural exegesis and on the dangers of sophistry should not be allowed to obscure his conviction of just how useful a knowledge of rhetoric could be. Two points emerge from his line of argument which, when viewed from the perspective of Alcuin’s Disputatio de rhetorica, deserve much greater emphasis than they are sometimes given. First, Augustine gives a list of the contexts in which rhetoric can prove a valuable instrument, a

55

56 57

58 59

authority since Augustine himself draws attention to the fact that no fewer than three of his own four books were specifically concerned with the subject of inuentio (Augustine, De doct54 rina Christiana, IV.1–2, p. 196). Alcuin, Disputatio de rhetorica, p. 118, lines 782–5. Ibid. pp. 70–2, lines 91–100. Cf. Ibid. p. 104, lines 603–6. For Alcuin’s illustration of the universe ruled by design, see pp. 118–20, lines 808–26. Augustine, De doctrina Christiana, IV.143–4, 149–50, pp. 272, 274–6. Ibid. II.132, p. 118: ‘sunt etiam quaedam praecepta uberioris disputationis quae iam eloquentia nominatur, quae nihilominus uera sunt quamuis eis possint etiam falsa persuaderi; sed quia et uera possunt, non est facultas ipsa culpabilis sed ea male utentium peruersitas’. Ibid. IV.4–5, pp. 196–8. Alcuin, Disputatio de rhetorica, pp. 128–30, lines 936–970; Augustine, De doctrina Christiana, II.117–18, p. 110. According to Wallach (Alcuin and Charlemagne, pp. 39–40; idem, ‘Alcuin on Sophistry’, Classical Philology 50 (1955), 259–61), Alcuin is quoting directly from Boethius’s commentary on Aristotle’s De interpretatione (PL 64, 293–392), 304–6, and Aulus Gellius, Noctes Atticae, ed. P. K. Marshall (Oxford, 1968), XVIII.2.9, p. 540.

21

Matthew S. Kempshall list which extends far beyond the exposition of scriptural texts in sermons and homilies. It comprises entreaties (obsecrationes), rebukes (increpationes), rousing speeches (concitationes) and solemn admonitions (coercitationes),60 and it extends to the instruction and advocacy of things to be acted upon.61 Rhetoric can be deployed, Augustine argues, in public or in private, with one person or with several, with friends and opponents, in continuous speech and debate, in treatises and books, in letters of great length or extreme brevity; in other words, wherever, and in whatever form, instruction in Christian truths and exhortation to a Christian way of life is required.62 This is therefore the first point which needs to be underlined – the sheer range of non-Scriptural contexts in which Augustine considered classical rhetoric to be useful. This does not mean that Augustine wanted Christians to devote huge amounts of time to the study of rhetoric. Indeed, he actively discourages this. What he does imply, however, is that it would be helpful if there were a way of picking up the essentials of classical rhetoric briefly and quickly. What was needed, in other words, was a distillation of everything a Christian needed to know about rhetoric. This is therefore the second point – Augustine’s recommendation provides one very good reason why Alcuin might subsequently have thought it desirable, even necessary, to produce a convenient primer of rhetoric as the short-cut to a time-consuming and distracting preoccupation with the classical rhetoricians themselves. De doctrina Christiana, in other words, helps explain how Alcuin might have intended the composition of his Disputatio de rhetorica to fulfil a quite specific need within a Christian educational programme. What this still does not explain, of course, is why Alcuin considered the subject of virtue to have been an appropriate conclusion for the Disputatio de rhetorica. As it stands, the transition from the discussion of delivery (elocutio, the last of the five parts of rhetoric) is effected by the observation that, if honestas is absolutely essential in every aspect of life, then this is particularly true of words, because a man’s speech bears testimony to his character (mores).63 The importance of moral goodness to the orator is a point that had been made by Augustine in De doctrina Christiana (as, indeed, it had been made by Marius Victorinus, Julius Victor and Fortunatianus) but, in reinforcing the connection 60

62

63

Augustine, De doctrina Christiana, IV.15, p. 202. Cf. Cicero, De oratore, III.30.118, pp. 306–7; I Tim. II:1; Hrabanus Maurus quotes the same text from Augustine (De institutione clericorum, 61 III.28, pp. 489–90). Augustine, De doctrina Christiana, IV.79, pp. 230–2. Ibid. IV.102, p. 242: ‘cum uero de illius uiri disseramus eloquio quem uolumus earum rerum esse doctorem quibus liberamur ab aeternis malis atque ad aeterna peruenimus bona ubicumque agantur haec – siue apud populum siue priuatim siue ad unum siue ad plures siue ad amicos siue ad inimicos siue in perpetua dictione siue in collocutione siue in tractatibus siue in libris siue in epistolis uel longissimis uel breuissimis – magna sunt’. Alcuin, Disputatio de rhetorica, p. 142, lines 1162–4: ‘cum in omni parte uitae honestas pernecessaria est, maxime in sermonibus, quia fere cuiusque mores sermo probat’.

22

The virtues of rhetoric: Alcuin’s Disputatio de rhetorica et de uirtutibus between eloquence and wisdom, Augustine had been noticeably equivocal on the need for virtue on the part of the orator himself. Eloquence must always be connected with wisdom, and it must be deployed by the individual who is himself of good character. In emphasizing the utility of elocutio in instructing an audience of the truth and in persuading them to put goodness into action, Augustine states that greater weight (maius pondus) is carried by the life of the speaker. The art of speaking both wisely and eloquently is defined as the use of elocutio to support things that are true and necessary. It is better to treat something wisely and not eloquently rather than the other way around but, if neither is possible, then an individual should simply live his life in such a way that he serves as an exemplum to be imitated by others so that the form of his life carries, as it were, the force of eloquence. Yet, although Augustine argues that it is accordingly much better to practise what one preaches, and that an exemplary life will benefit a greater number of people, he also concedes that a wise and eloquent speaker can proclaim the truth and yet still lead a wicked life in person.64 For an emphasis on moral virtue as an absolute precondition for eloquence, we have to turn elsewhere, in the first instance to Cassiodorus’s Institutiones, the text from which Alcuin derived his original definition of rhetoric comprising ciuiles quaestiones. As a demonstration of how the theory of De doctrina Christiana might be translated into practice, the Institutiones certainly showed Alcuin how Augustine’s strictures on uniting sapientia with eloquentia could actually be achieved through a Christian educational programme. In discussing the particular scope of rhetoric, moreover, Cassiodorus also demonstrated to Alcuin how ciuiles quaestiones should be understood as comprising everything which concerns equity and goodness, de aequo et bono. What makes these particular words so suggestive for the structure of the Disputatio de rhetorica is, in the first instance, the sanction these two terms could have given for a bipartite treatment of rhetoric – that is, one which separated discussion of its specifically legal and juridical aspects from the question of its relation to moral goodness, dealing with each one of them in turn. Cassiodorus’s pairing de aequo et bono may thus have provided Alcuin with sufficient justification for his decision to structure and entitle the Disputatio de rhetorica et de uirtutibus in the way in which he did – first as an exposition of predominantly legal rhetoric (that is, the judicial rhetoric which has equity as its goal) and then as a discussion of the cardinal virtues (which provide the goal of demonstrative and deliberative rhetoric). Still more suggestive, however, is the source from which Cassiodorus, and before him Fortunatianus, had themselves derived this phrase ‘equity and goodness’, namely Quintilian’s Institutio oratoria. 64

Augustine, De doctrina Christiana, IV.151–9, pp. 276–80.

23

Matthew S. Kempshall Whether Alcuin read Quintilian in extenso or simply in the form of the excerpts he had found in Julius Victor is, in many respects, the most tantalizing of all the questions to ask of the Disputatio de rhetorica. That Alcuin should have sought out Quintilian as the natural partner for Cicero’s De inuentione is explicitly indicated by Cassiodorus himself when, having recommended De inuentione and drawn attention to the commentary of Marius Victorinus, he credited Quintilian with having enriched Cicero’s work still further. As a consequence, Cassiodorus records his own decision to bind Quintilian’s Institutio oratoria into a single volume with Cicero’s De inuentione so that, notwithstanding the size of the resulting codex, both texts could be to hand when they were needed. For the convenience of those who wanted a brief (but still subtle and perceptive) guide, Cassiodorus further suggests the three books of Fortunatianus (a work which he had himself distilled so that a reader might derive the essentials of rhetoric without getting bored), but otherwise his recommendation of a combination of Cicero with Quintilian is clear.65 Although the earliest extant manuscript of all twelve books of Quintilian dates from the early tenth century (Bamberg M. 4. 14), a complete text was apparently copied in the mid-ninth century in a northern Italian scriptorium (this lost exemplar is reflected in the codex Milan, Biblioteca Ambrosiana, E. 153).66 In addition, two letters of the ninth-century scholar Lupus of Ferrières request a manuscript from which he could supplement and correct the incomplete Quintilian which he already possessed.67 The second of these letters was written at some point between 855 and 858 to Pope Benedict III in Rome, but Lupus’s first target, in 852, had been Abbot Ealdsige of York. It is this letter which has prompted the suggestion that the exemplar for the complete ninth-century Quintilian came ‘conceivably . . . from York’.68 Even though it is unclear whether Lupus was successful in his quest (the one surviving manuscript of Quintilian which can be closely connected to Lupus, 65

66

67

68

Cassiodorus, Institutiones, II.2.10, pp. 103–4. Compare Isidore, Etymologiae, II.i.1, who warns that the art of rhetoric had been set down in Latin by Cicero and Quintilian so copiously and in such variety that, while it was possible for the reader to express wonderment, it was impossible to comprehend. On which, see M. Winterbottom, Institutionis oratoriae libri duodecim, 2 vols. (Oxford, 1970), I, v–xv; Winterbottom, Problems in Quintilian, Bull. of the Institute of Classical Stud. Supplement 25 (London, 1970), pp. 3–7; idem, ‘Quintilian’ (Reynolds, Texts and Transmission, pp. 332–4), pp. 332–3; Bischoff, Manuscripts and Libraries, ch. 6 ‘Palaeography and the Transmission of Classical Texts in the Early Middle Ages’, pp. 115–33, at p. 130; ch. 7 ‘Benedictine Monasteries’, p. 142. Servati Lupi Epistulae, ed. P. K. Marshall (Leipzig, 1984), Ep. 62, p. 68, Ep. 103, p. 101; Loup de Ferrières, Correspondance, ed. L. Levillain, 2 vols. (Paris, 1927, 1935), Ep. 87, p. 80, Ep. 100, p. 122; The Letters of Lupus of Ferrières, trans. G. W. Regenos (The Hague, 1966), pp. 106, 120. Winterbottom, ‘Quintilian’ (Reynolds, Texts and Transmission), p. 332. See above, n. 29.

24

The virtues of rhetoric: Alcuin’s Disputatio de rhetorica et de uirtutibus Berne 351, is of an incomplete text),69 the letter is nonetheless revealing. In the early 830s, Lupus had written to Einhard asking for copies of De inuentione, De oratore, the Rhetorica ad Herennium and Marius Victorinus’s commentary on De inuentione – all of these he knew to be in the library at Fulda from an inventory of books he had seen.70 In the case of Quintilian, therefore, if it was Cassiodorus who provided Lupus with his desideratum, then it may well have been Alcuin who led Lupus to think that York was the most likely source for a complete text.71 Nonetheless, whether Alcuin knew Quintilian’s Institutio oratoria in its entirety or whether he simply knew it in the form of one of the various mutili (that is, manuscripts which lacked most or all of books V–IX, parts of books X–XI and the end of book XII), the possibility that (as with Fortunatianus) Alcuin was familiar with more of Quintilian than the excerpts available in Julius Victor is of considerable significance for the argument of the Disputatio de rhetorica. This is because of what is contained in books I and XII of the Institutio oratoria since it is there, at the beginning and end of his treatise, that Quintilian emphasizes the need for a rhetorician to possess not just eloquence but moral virtue. Quintilian makes it clear from the outset of his work that, in describing everything which contributes to the education (institutio) of the complete or perfect orator, he has a much broader agenda than simply to provide a technical manual on the laws of rhetoric. Excellence in the facultas dicendi will certainly constitute the core of his treatise as he outlines it – five books will thus be devoted to inuentio (III–VII), four to style, memory and delivery (VIII–XI)72 – but his primary concern, in books I–II and in book XII, is to wrest back from philosophy material which he believed to have been wrongly, indeed disastrously, separated from the study of rhetoric. In Quintilian’s view, restoring the correct relationship between eloquentia and sapientia means, first and foremost, reuniting expertise in rhetoric with the study of moral virtue, since it was precisely when these two disciplines were divorced that eloquence began to be put to evil uses and wisdom became a cover for vice.73 At the very beginning of book I, Quintilian accordingly announces his intention to reclaim for oratory the rules of virtue (praecepta uirtutis), a subject which is not just germane to rhetoric but actually constitutes its better part (melior pars).74 69

70 71

72

Bischoff, Manuscripts and Libraries, ch.7, ‘Benedictine Monasteries’, pp. 144–5; Winterbottom, Problems in Quintilian, pp. 22–3. Ep.1, ed. Marshall, pp. 1–3; ed. Levillain I, pp. 2–11; trans. Regenos, pp. 1–3. Cf. P. Lehmann, ‘Die Institutio oratoria des Quintilianus im Mittelalter’ (idem., Erforschung des Mittelalters II, pp. 1–28), pp. 4–5. Quintilian, Institutio oratoria, I proem. 22, p. 6. Quintilian actually recommends that people looking for a basic introduction to inuentio should go elsewhere (Institutio oratoria, VIII proem. 73 74 1, p. 419). Ibid. I proem. 13–15, p. 5. Ibid. I proem. 17, p. 6.

25

Matthew S. Kempshall Quintilian’s impassioned plea on the need for rhetoric to be united with virtue has two far-reaching consequences for the characterization of the orator whose training and formation is outlined in his treatise. Once again, these are made explicit right at the start of book I. The principles of moral goodness and eloquence are inseparable, he argues, not just because there is scarcely any subject which does not involve discussion of justice, fortitude, temperance, equity and goodness (aequo ac bono), but also because it is impossible to be a perfect orator without possessing all these virtues of character oneself, without actually being a uir bonus. The perfect orator can, in fact, be called the truly wise man (uere sapiens) because he is perfect, not just in the knowledge and practice of speaking, but also in his own moral conduct. This is therefore Quintilian’s first point and one to which he returns repeatedly in the course of book I – the orator is skilled in rhetoric but he is also morally virtuous;75 he is the uir bonus dicendi peritus.76 The second corollary which Quintilian elicits is the breadth of the subject-matter with which the perfect orator will have to be conversant and the scope of his activity within the human community. From the foundations laid in grammar and dialectic, he argues, the orator should be trained, not just in moral philosophy, but also in geometry, music, civil law and natural philosophy; in short, he will be educated in everything that falls within the term sapientia.77 The perfect orator will therefore be morally virtuous – a good man – but he will also be truly ‘civil’ (uere ciuilis), in the sense that he will administer public and private matters in the ciuitas, rule by counsel, institute laws and correct faults through judgement.78 The perfect orator, in short, will be not just the uir bonus but the uir ciuilis, an individual who is truly wise (uere sapiens) and is committed, not to secret disputations, but to the administratio rei publicae. This perfect orator pursues everything which makes the goal of rhetoric, not persuasion as such, but speaking well, that is, securing what is morally good and advantageous.79 Quintilian returns to these themes in the final book of his treatise. Indeed, book XII’s recapitulation of the principles already outlined in book I is, 75

76

77 78

79

Ibid. I proem. 9, 12, 16, pp. 4–5. Cf. ibid. I.2.3, pp. 14–15; II.2.5, p. 76; II.3.12, p. 80; II.15.1– 2, p. 105; II.16.11, p. 113; II.17.31, 43, pp. 118–19, 121; II.21.12, p. 126; VI.2.18, p. 332. Ibid. XII.1.1, p. 692. Cf. Fortunatianus, Ars rhetorica, p. 81; Cassiodorus, Institutiones, II.2.1, p. 97; Isidore, Etymologiae, II.iii.1; Hrabanus Maurus, De institutione clericorum, III.27, pp. 488–9: ‘quem antiqua diffinitio affirmat uirum bonum et dicendi peritum esse debere. si ergo haec definitio in oratoribus gentilium obseruabatur, multo magis in oratoribus Christi obseruari conuenit, quorum non solum sermo imo etiam tota uita doctrina uirtutum debet esse’. Ibid. I proem. 18, p. 6; I.10.1–7, pp. 58–60; II.21.14–23, pp. 126–28. Ibid. I proem. 10, p. 4. Cf. ibid. XII.7.2, p. 714. Quintilian’s insistence on the adverb uere is significant here, given his concerns over the otherwise potentially restrictive nature of the phrase ciuiles quaestiones (II.15.15–22, 33–36, pp. 107–8, 110–11; II.21.2–4, pp. 124–5). Ibid. XI.1.11–14, 35, pp. 624, 629.

26

The virtues of rhetoric: Alcuin’s Disputatio de rhetorica et de uirtutibus according to Quintilian’s own description, the most weighty (grauis) part of his work. One of the reasons for this is his explicit acknowledgement that its contents have moved his own discussion of rhetoric well beyond what Cicero had provided. For all the praise which he bestowed on Cicero,80 Quintilian wished to go further – whereas Cicero had simply discussed the component parts of rhetoric (genus dicendi), Quintilian wanted to establish principles both for the moral conduct (mores) of the perfect orator and for his public responsibilities (officia).81 Quintilian accordingly proceeds to underline the significance of each of these two categories – the orator as uir bonus and the orator as uir ciuilis – in the conclusion to his work. Moral virtue is a prerequisite for the orator; in fact, it provides the more important of the two pairings in the phrase uir bonus dicendi peritus.82 This is not simply a case of saying that the orator should be a good man but an insistence that no one can ever be an orator unless he is a good man first. Quintilian furnishes both negative and positive reasons for such a prescription. Given the capacity of speech to cause harm, there is, he argues, nothing more dangerous to public or private matters than eloquence without virtue. More constructively, the subject-matter of rhetoric is such that the aim of every speech is to convince a judge of its truthfulness and moral worth (uera et honesta), just as it is fundamental to demonstrative and deliberative oratory to consider what is morally good (honestum). According to Quintilian, the greatest part of rhetoric therefore deals with what is equitable and good; indeed, there is hardly a case which does not at some point deal de aequo et bono.83 The perfect orator is thus the uir sapiens, an individual who is perfect as much in his moral conduct as in his power of speech and who draws on the precepts of wisdom (praecepta sapientiae).84 This moral goodness derives from the nature of his character but also from instruction. It is for this reason that the primary concern of the orator’s studies will be the cultivation of moral conduct and the inculcation of everything good and just – because, without this knowledge, the orator can be neither uir bonus nor dicendi peritus.85 As a result, even though knowledge of these subjects must be sought from their sources in sapientia and therefore from philosophers, rhetoric retains the intrinsic role of discussing everything which is equitable, just, true and good. This does not mean the orator should be a philosopher himself, since that would remove him from his ‘civil’ responsibilities in the administratio rei publicae, but it does mean that he should be a uir sapiens. Only then will the orator be a true uir ciuilis, engaged, not in hidden disputations, but in action.86 80 81

83 86

E.g. ibid. I.6.18, p. 44; X.1.108–12, pp. 589–90. Ibid. XII proem. 4, pp. 691–2. Cf. M. Winterbottom, ‘Quintilian and the uir bonus’, Jnl of Roman 82 Stud. 54 (1964), 90–7. Ibid. XII.1.1, p. 692. Cf. XII.1.27, p. 697. 84 85 Ibid. XII.2.15–16, p. 704. Ibid. XII.1.28, p. 697. Ibid. XII.2.1, p. 701. Ibid. XII.2.6–7, pp. 702–3.

27

Matthew S. Kempshall According to books I and XII of the Institutio oratoria, the study of wisdom will give the orator a complete knowledge of what has been written on virtue, enabling him to combine knowledge of the divine with knowledge of the human.87 It is this final observation which prompts Quintilian to set out just how central to eloquence is the study, not just of ethics, but of dialectic and ‘matters divine’ (de rebus diuinis), matters which comprise the origins of the soul, religious observance and the governance of the universe.88 What greater subjects are there for the orator, Quintilian asks, than virtue, the res publica, providence, the origins of the soul and friendship?89 Nor does the list end there. Quintilian also advocates the study of history, of the sayings and deeds of antiquity,90 and of poetry,91 as well as knowledge of the ius ciuilis, both written and customary.92 The orator, Quintilian concludes, is involved in giving judgement, delivering counsel, engaging in disputes, participating in assemblies and discharging every officium of the good citizen.93 This is why the primary goal of rhetoric is for humans to be boni uiri. Quintilian worries that he will be criticized for having thereby set too high a standard with his insistence that skill in speaking must be exercised by the morally good man, or for having included too many subjects with his insistence, not just on the rules of rhetoric, but on the precepts of virtue and knowledge of law as well. However, he remains convinced that the education of the orator consists, above all, in cultivating a life which is morally good and blessed (institutio uitae honestae beataeque).94 So, where does this leave Alcuin’s Disputatio de rhetorica et de uirtutibus? In the first instance, it leaves the treatise entirely coherent as an introduction to rhetoric, but in terms both of its technical components and of its wider role in human society. In defining its scope as ciuiles quaestiones, Alcuin’s conception of rhetoric includes everything which prevents human society from reverting to a state of nature – this is what he had gleaned from reading De inuentione and Julius Victor through Cassiodorus, Fortunatianus and Marius Victorinus. In establishing the necessity of the connection between eloquentia and sapientia, Alcuin was driving home a point which had been fundamental to Cicero, Julius Victor, Marius Victorinus and Cassiodorus, but also to Augustine. Indeed, it is worth noting that, when Alcuin quotes Julius Victor on wisdom as the foundation of eloquence, he inserts a characteristically Augustinian emphasis with 87

88 90 91 92

Ibid. XII.2.8, p.703. Cf. Marius Victorinus, Explanatio in rhetoricam, I.24, p. 216: ‘ac diuina quidem natura ad rhetoricam non pertinet, et ideo hanc omisit. sciri tamen debet, quia loco argumenti saepe rerum diuinarum inducitur disputatio . . . sed hoc ad rhetoricam non tamen ex rhetorica descendit’. 89 Institutio oratoria, XII.2.20–1, p. 705. Ibid. XII.2.28, p. 707. Ibid. XII.2.29–30, p. 707. Ibid. XII.4.1–2, pp. 710–11. Cf. I.8.10–2, p. 56; X.1.27–9, pp. 572–3; X.5.4, pp. 607–8. 93 94 Ibid. XII.3.1–10, pp. 708–10. Ibid. XII.11.1, p. 740. Ibid. XII.11.11–12, p. 742.

28

The virtues of rhetoric: Alcuin’s Disputatio de rhetorica et de uirtutibus his own comment that this is, in fact, the most important point of all.95 It was Augustine’s De doctrina Christiana, moreover, which had highlighted the need for an epitome of the rules of rhetoric in order to save the student from the sheer volume of classical writing on the subject. Last, but not least, in establishing such a firm connection between eloquentia and moral virtue, Alcuin argued that rhetoric could not, and should not, be exercised except by the uir ciuilis, by the individual who was perfect in the exercise of the cardinal virtues. In a purely formal sense, therefore, it is possible to find complete coherence in the way in which Alcuin’s Disputatio de rhetorica is put together, from the breadth of the definition with which it opens to the discussion of virtue with which it concludes – a digest of the precepts of classical rhetoric, certainly, but one which is arguing a particular point by demonstrating the dependence of human society on the connection between eloquence and wisdom, between rhetoric and the four cardinal virtues. This broader argument is reflected in the particular definition with which it opens and the particular connection with which it concludes – and, indeed, in the particular title which is given to the whole work. Alcuin’s knowledge of classical rhetoric left him acutely aware of what happened when philosophy withdrew from society, when sapientia did not have eloquentia to translate it into action, and not just by an elite but by all those who could exercise the natural capacity of their minds to understand equity and goodness. He was also aware of how extensively rhetoric would therefore need to be deployed, serving sapientia by enabling wisdom to be communicated and acted upon through a variety of channels – in letters, in treatises and in personal exhortations. Only then would ‘the multitude of the wise be the wellbeing of the world’ (Wisdom VI.26).96 Alcuin’s understanding of rhetoric, in short, was central to his understanding of how wisdom should be applied by individuals within human society. Read in these terms, the Disputatio de rhetorica is much more than just a textbook. It provides a profound insight into how Alcuin put together the instruments of his own public and literary activity, as a means of discharging his own duty as a uir ciuilis, his own responsibility as a servant of sancta sophia. Read in these terms, indeed, the Disputatio de rhetorica et de uirtutibus suggests one final possibility with which it might be appropriate to conclude. If the list of books in Berlin Diez B. 66 does, in fact, indicate the contents of the court library under Charlemagne, then the presence on this list, not just of Julius Victor (a rare text, after all, which Alcuin clearly did know), but also of Horace’s Ars poetica throws up a very striking parallel to the view of rhetoric expounded 95 96

Alcuin, Disputatio de rhetorica, p. 136, lines 1059–61: ut ad summum ueniamus. Alcuin, Ep. 31, pp. 72–3: multitudo sapientium sanitas est orbis; Ep. 129, pp. 191–2: multitudo sapientium salus est populi.

29

Matthew S. Kempshall in the Disputatio de rhetorica. According to Horace, poetry had wisdom (sapientia) as its source and foundation (fons et principium), just like rhetoric. It, too, had an heroic figure who led humankind out of the state of nature. Indeed, like the uir magnus et sapiens, the poet (uates) had the responsibility of taming humans, of leading them away from a bestial life of bloodshed in the forest. Like the orator, therefore, the poet used his wisdom to separate the public from the private, to build cities, to institute laws; in short, to set out the path of life, the uia uitae.97 If Cicero and Quintilian had demonstrated to Alcuin just how central the functions of rhetoric should be in the service of wisdom, then Horace had set out comparable claims for poetry. It may be no coincidence, therefore, that Alcuin’s own works reveal such a similar combination. In Alcuin, too, rhetoric and poetry formed an intellectual, moral and social union.98 97 98

Horace, Ars poetica, ed. C. O. Brink, Horace on Poetry (Cambridge, 1971), p. 69, lines 391–407. I would like to thank David Ganz, Mary Garrison and Elizabeth Tyler for their valuable comments on the original version of this paper which was delivered in 2001 at the Quodlibet Conference on Alcuin held at the Centre for Medieval Studies in York; for its publication, finally, and in its present form, I am grateful to Katy Cubitt, David Ganz and Gillian Hargreaves.

30

King Edgar’s Charter for Pershore (AD 972) peter a. stokes

abstract S 786 is one of the so-called Orthodoxorum charters, a group of documents which provide important evidence about the Anglo-Saxon chancery, the development of charters in the tenth century, and the history of Pershore Abbey and the tenth-century Benedictine reforms. The document has therefore received a great deal of attention over the past century or so, but this attention has been focussed on the surviving tenthcentury single sheet, and so a second, significantly different version of the text has lain unnoticed. This second version is preserved in a copy made by John Joscelyn, Latin Secretary to Archbishop Matthew Parker. Among the material uniquely preserved in this copy are Old English charter bounds for Wyegate (GL), Cumbtune (Compton, GL?) and part of the bounds probably for Lydney (GL), as well as a reference to a grant by Bishop Werferth of Worcester. In this article both versions of the document are discussed and are published together for the first time, and a translation of the single sheet is provided. The history of the two versions is discussed in some detail, and the text of a twelfth-century letter which refers to the charter is also edited and translated.

The so-called Orthodoxorum charters have long played an important role in our understanding of the tenth-century Benedictine reforms. They form a group of six charters, all purportedly issued between 959 and 993, and all surviving in multiple copies.1 They are usually considered as a group because they share many similarities in formulation, most notably the proems which are all very long, approximately the same, and in the same style of elaborate (and quite difficult) ‘hermeneutic’ or ‘poetic’ Latin.2 They are interesting with respect to the tenth-century Reforms because they all claim rights for their monastic beneficiaries such as the right to elect their own abbot from within their own 11

12

The charters are S 658 (Abingdon, dated 959), S 673 (Abingdon, dated 958 for 959), S 876 (Abingdon, dated 993), S 786 (Pershore, dated 972), S 788 (Worcester, dated 972), and S 812 (Romsey, datable 967 ⫻ 975). In references to Anglo-Saxon charters, S ⫽ P. H. Sawyer, AngloSaxon Charters: an Annotated List and Bibliography, R. Hist. Soc. Guides and Handbooks 8 (London, 1968), followed by the number of the document. For these terms see M. Lapidge, ‘The Hermeneutic Style in Tenth-Century Anglo-Latin Literature’, ASE 4 (1975), 67–111, and M. Lapidge, ‘Poeticism in Pre-Conquest Anglo-Latin Prose’, in Aspects of the Language of Latin Prose, ed. by T. Reinhardt, M. Lapidge, and J. N. Adams, PBA 129 (Oxford, 2005), pp. 321–37.

31

Peter A. Stokes 3

community. They are also important for the debate over the production of royal charters.4 And they are of further interest because their authenticity has been debated for over a century. This latter debate is long and complex and can only be summarized briefly here. Two of the more recent protagonists are Simon Keynes and Susan Kelly; other important contributions include that by Eric John, and useful summarydiscussions have been published by both Charles Insley and John Hudson.5 In short, Simon Keynes (among others) has argued that only the latest of the group, S 876, is genuine and that the rest are forgeries, whereas Susan Kelly is one of several to argue that the earlier charters are genuine (with the exception of S 788, to which we shall return shortly). Both scholars have drawn on a long series of discussions which can be traced back nearly a century.6 The purpose of this article is not to solve the question of authenticity, although that question will certainly be in the background. Instead, the focus of this discussion is on one of these charters: the one from Pershore. This document, S 786, is unusual even by Orthodoxorum standards. It survives in an apparently original single sheet, the text of which is mostly legible but with patches of relatively extensive wear. The text is unusually long: the surviving single sheet is one of the largest to survive from Anglo-Saxon England and still the scribe could not fit all the text on the face despite his small hand but had to continue onto the dorse as well. The charter purports to be a pancart, namely a single document confirming a very large number – presumably all – of the estates held by the abbey. This format of the pancart was relatively common on the Continent but very few survive from Anglo-Saxon England, and all of the ones from there which we do have are questionable in some way; the very format is therefore grounds for suspicion.7 Given all these difficulties, the purpose of this paper is to compile and reevaluate the evidence which can be 13

14

15

16

17

For the significance of this group see especially C. Insley, ‘Where did all the Charters Go? Anglo-Saxon Charters and the New Politics of the Eleventh Century’, ANS 24 (2002), 109– 27, at 117. For this debate see especially S. Keynes, The Diplomas of King Æthelred ‘the Unready’, 978–1016: a Study in their Use as Historical Evidence (Cambridge, 1980), pp. 98–104, and Charters of Abingdon Abbey, ed. S. E. Kelly, Anglo-Saxon Charters 7–8, 2 vols. (Oxford, 2000–1) I, cxv–xxxi. Keynes, The Diplomas, pp. 98–100; Charters of Abingdon, ed. Kelly I, lxxxiv–cxv; E. John, Orbis Britanniae and Other Studies, Stud. in Early Eng. Hist. 4 (Leicester, 1966), pp. 199–206; Insley, ‘Where did all the Charters Go?’, pp. 112–13 and 116–17; Historia Ecclesie Abbendonensis: the History of the Church of Abingdon, ed. J. Hudson, 2 vols., OMT (Oxford, 2002–7) I, cxcv–cciv. For a full bibliography, see The Electronic Sawyer: Online Catalogue of Anglo-Saxon Charters <www.esawyer.org.uk> (last accessed 21 May 2008) under the Sawyer numbers listed above, n. 1. For pancartae, see especially John, Orbis Britanniae, p. 203; S. Keynes, ‘Regenbald the Chancellor (sic)’, ANS 10 (1988), 185–222, at 203–4; S. Keynes, ‘Giso, Bishop of Wells (1061–88)’, ANS 19 (1997), 203–71, at 237.

32

King Edgar’s Charter for Pershore (AD 972) gleaned from close examination of all the surviving manuscripts of S 786. The hope is that such a compilation will allow a better understanding of the Orthodoxorum charters in general and the Pershore one in particular. Indeed the importance of the manuscripts can readily be demonstrated as one of them, one which has long been known but apparently not closely examined, is not a copy of the surviving single-sheet charter as scholars have assumed but instead contains a significantly different version of the text, including three ‘new’ charter bounds which have not previously been studied. It is also of great importance for our understanding of Pershore Abbey, the transmission of documents, and the authenticity and larger context of the Orthodoxorum charters in general. the manuscript s Peter Sawyer’s Annotated List gives five surviving copies of S 786, and this list is essentially unchanged in the Electronic Sawyer.8 There is a sixth manuscript: a modern transcript of Sawyer’s MS 2 made before the original was damaged in the Cottonian fire; this copy is generally very accurate and thus provides some readings which have otherwise been lost. The six manuscripts are therefore as follows: A London, British Library, Cotton Augustus ii. 6 (s. x2) T London, British Library, Cotton Tiberius A. xiii, 163v–164r (s. xi2; contains only the bounds of Acton Beauchamp) V London, British Library, Cotton Vitellius D. vii, 29r–30v (s. xvi) D1 Oxford, Bodleian Library, Dodsworth 10 (S.C. 4152), 66r–67r (s. xvii; direct descendant of A; no bounds or witnesses) D2 Oxford, Bodleian Library, Dodsworth 78 (S.C. 5019), 2r–3v (s. xvii; direct descendant of A; no bounds or witnesses) R Oxford, Bodleian Library, Rawlinson B. 445, unfoliated; the text is labelled as from fol. ‘B. 160’ of exemplar (s. xvii; direct copy of T) These six manuscripts fall into three distinct textual groups, and these groups will now be discussed in further detail. The ‘Single Sheet’ Version (AD1D2) The earliest surviving copy of the document is Augustus ii. 6.9 This is a single sheet and is ostensibly original but, as noted above, its authenticity is by no means certain. It is unusually large: it is not perfectly square but measures 18 19

Sawyer, Anglo-Saxon Charters, pp. 250–1; Electronic Sawyer, no. 786. For another discussion of this manuscript see S. D. Thompson, Anglo-Saxon Royal Diplomas: a Palaeography, Publ. of the Manchester Centre for AS Stud. 6 (Woodbridge, 2006), pp. 142–5. An edition of the text and translation of the Latin is given below, pp. 43–53 and 73–6.

33

Peter A. Stokes approximately 635 ⫻ 530–40 mm, with a writing-frame of approximately 590 ⫻ 495 mm;10 it is written in fifty-six long lines on the face and has an additional seventeen lines on the dorse.11 The text is quite badly damaged in places, particularly along the horizontal folds, in the lower right-hand corner, and about two-thirds of the way up the right-hand side of the face. The parchment was repaired at some point after the charter was reproduced in the facsimileedition of 1877.12 Unfortunately these repairs have obscured letters, so the facsimile is still a valuable witness. The scribe wrote the boundary-clauses in a smaller script than that of the main text, as was normal from about 940 onwards,13 but he used the same Insular letter-forms for both Old English and Latin; this practice of script was common up until about the start of Æthelred’s reign, after which charters were normally written in Anglo-Caroline for Latin and either Square minuscule or Vernacular minuscule for Old English.14 There is some influence of Caroline script in this scribe’s hand, however, and he did admit Caroline forms, though very infrequently: the phrase coapostolo paulo dedicatum habetur monachis in the middle of line 11 was written with three of the four occurrences of a and the first d all Caroline, as shown in Figure 1. Indeed, Caroline d and a are evident elsewhere in the document, although the round-backed ‘uncial’ d and singlecompartment a are both much more common. Similarly, tall essentially Caroline s is found before t, but the round majuscule s was normally used elsewhere, although low Insular s was also used occasionally.15 Finally, the 10

11

12 13

14

15

Thompson has noted that this is one of the two largest single-sheet charters to survive from Anglo-Saxon England, the other being BL Cotton Augustus ii. 38 (S 876), also from the Othodoxorum group. My measurements of Augustus ii. 6 are rather different from hers, however, and agree with Susan Kelly’s. See Thompson, Anglo-Saxon Royal Diplomas, p. 20, and S. E. Kelly, ‘S 786’ (unpubl. material in preparation for her volume on the Midlands archives in the Anglo-Saxon Charters series). I thank Dr Kelly for generously providing me with a draft of her text well before publication. As noted by Thompson, Anglo-Saxon Royal Diplomas, p. 145, no are rulings visible but, pace her, it is unlikely that the parchment was never ruled. Prickings are clearly visible on the left and occasionally on the right, and the scribe consistently maintained a very straight and horizontal baseline despite the extremely long lines of text, a feat that would require extraordinary skill if the sheet was not ruled. Much more likely is that the ruling was light and is no longer visible due to the poor condition of the parchment. Facsimiles of Ancient Charters in the British Museum, ed. E. A. Bond (London, 1873–8) III, 30. P. A. Stokes, ‘English Vernacular Script, ca 990 – ca 1035’, 2 vols. (unpubl. Ph. D. dissertation University of Cambridge, 2005) I, 201–2; D. N. Dumville, ‘Specimina Codicum Palaeoanglicorum’, Collection of Essays in Commemoration of the 50th Anniversary of the Institute of Oriental and Occidental Studies (Suita, Osaka, 2001), pp. 1–24, at 8–9. For this distinction see especially D. N. Dumville, ‘English Square Minuscule Script: the MidCentury Phases’, ASE 23 (1994), 133–64, at 161–4. For these different forms of s in Anglo-Saxon script see N. R. Ker, Catalogue of Manuscripts containing Anglo-Saxon (Oxford, 1957), pp. xxx–xxxi.

34

King Edgar’s Charter for Pershore (AD 972) proportions are not obviously square in the way that one might expect for Square minuscule, and in particular the distinctive flat-topped a is entirely absent, the letter-form instead being more rounded and somewhat tear-drop shaped.16

Fig. 1 Variation in a, d and s in Augustus ii. 6

It is perhaps for these reasons that the script used to be dated to the eleventh century, but more recent palaeographers from T. A. M. Bishop onwards have tended to prefer the tenth century, and indeed the script seems not inconsistent with the claimed date of 972.17 In particular, as Dumville has shown, some Square minuscule which can be securely dated to the early 960s is unusually tall and narrow in its proportions and entirely lacks the flat-topped a, sometimes showing the Caroline form; it therefore has much in common with script of the early eleventh century.18 The hand of our single sheet is not so clearly tall and narrow as this form of Square minuscule, but it is written quite consistently 16

17

18

For the development of a at the end of the tenth century, see ibid., p. xxviii, and Stokes, ‘English Vernacular Script’, passim; for some other examples of tenth-century script showing non-Square a see Dumville, ‘English Square Minuscule: Mid-Century Phases’, pp. 151–6 and plate VI. See The Victoria History of the County of Worcester, ed. J. W. Willis-Bund and H. A. Doubleday, Victoria County Hist., 5 vols. (London, 1901–26) IV, 151 and note (‘written in a hand about a century after its nominal date’, citing Frank Stenton); W. H. Stevenson, ‘Yorkshire Surveys and Other Eleventh-Century Documents in the York Gospels’, EHR 27 (1912), 1–25, at 6, n. 17 (‘about the middle of the eleventh century’); but then see P. Chaplais, ‘The Anglo-Saxon Chancery: From the Diploma to the Writ’, Prisca Munimenta: Studies in Archival and Administrative History presented to Dr A. E. J. Hollaender, ed. F. Ranger (London, 1973), pp. 43–62, at 49 (‘the script is contemporary’); John, Orbis Britanniae, p. 199 (‘nothing inconsistent . . . with its alleged date’, citing N. R. Ker); Sawyer, Anglo-Saxon Charters, p. 250 (no. 786: ‘s. x2’). For a reproduction, see Facsimiles, ed. Bond III, 30. This script is Dumville’s Anglo-Saxon Square minuscule, Phase IV: see his ‘English Square Minuscule: Mid-Century Phases’, pp. 151–5. For the relationship between Phase IV Square minuscule, Anglo-Caroline, and the English Vernacular minuscule which emerged in the 990s, see especially Stokes, ‘English Vernacular Script’ I, 200–8, as well as D. N. Dumville, ‘Beowulf Come Lately: Some Notes on the Palaeography of the Nowell Codex’, ASNSL 225 (1988), 49–63, and Dumville, ‘Specimina’, pp. 8–9.

35

Peter A. Stokes throughout, probably too consistently to be an eleventh-century imitation. Furthermore the forms of tall æ and e in ligature, as well as the mixture of round, tall and low s, are paralleled quite closely in some hands which were certainly or possibly written at Worcester Cathedral around the time of Oswald’s episcopacy, although those hands are otherwise quite different from this one.19 Unfortunately a full history of Anglo-Saxon Square minuscule is still to be written for the period from 960 until its demise in the early years of the eleventh century, and so dating a hand from this time at all closely is a perilous exercise.20 Nevertheless, the similarity in letter-forms and appearance with other single-sheet charters dated to the 960s is striking.21 A later date is still possible, but the short stints of Caroline script, as illustrated in Fig. 1, show none of the features which are characteristic of Anglo-Caroline minuscule from about the second quarter of the eleventh century.22 If this document is a forgery, then, it was surely written not long after the purported date, and the script suggests no more than thirty-five or perhaps forty years later at most. The single sheet received a relatively large number of alterations. Some of these are minor changes in Old English orthography which seem to have been made by the original scribe and which do not seem particularly significant except to indicate that some care was taken in writing and correcting the document.23 Perhaps related are some erasures of the Latin text, most of which are short and of little obvious significance. However, one erasure is much longer 19

20

21

22

23

The hands are in BL Additional Charter 19792 (S 1326: Worcester, dated 969 and reproduced in Facsimiles, ed. Bond III, 28); Paris, Bibliothèque Nationale, latin 10575 (Worcester?, probably s. x/xi), and Cambridge, Corpus Christi College, MS 12 (Worcester provenance; s. x2). For the dating of BN lat. 10575, see D. N. Dumville, ‘On the Dating of Some Late Anglo-Saxon Liturgical Manuscripts’, Trans. of the Cambridge Bibliographical Soc. 10 (1991–5), 40–57, at 51; for CCCC 12 see Ker, Catalogue, pp. 41–2 (no. 30); for this form of Square minuscule, termed Phase VI by Dumville, see his ‘English Square Minuscule: Mid-Century Phases’, pp. 155–6, and Stokes, ‘English Vernacular Script’ I, 95–6. For now see Dumville, ‘Beowulf Come Lately’, and D. N. Dumville, ‘The Beowulf Manuscript and How Not to Date it’, Med. Stud. Eng. Newsletter (Tokyo) 39 (1998), 21–7. As well as BL Add. 19792, for which see above, n. 19, other examples include those by ‘Edgar A’, specifically BL Cotton Augustus ii. 40, Cotton Augustus ii. 39, BL Harley Charter 43. C. 3, BL Cotton Charter viii. 28, and BL Stowe Charter 29 (S 687, S 690, S 703, S 706, and S 717, reproduced in Facsimiles, ed. Bond III, 22, 23, 25, 24, and Facsimiles of Anglo-Saxon Manuscripts, ed. W. B. Sanders, 3 vols. [Southampton, Ordnance Survey, 1878–84] III, 30 respectively). All five charters are apparently original and dated 960–3. Similarities between the script of Augustus ii. 6 and that of ‘Edgar A’ have also been noted by Kelly, ‘S 786’, and Chaplais, ‘The Anglo-Saxon Chancery’, p. 49. For this script, called Style IV Anglo-Caroline by Dumville, see his English Caroline Script and Monastic History: Studies in Benedictinism, A.D. 950–1030, Stud. in AS Hist. 6 (Woodbridge, 1993), pp. 128–31. Features characteristic of this style include the form of a and s, wedges on minims, and tapered ascenders, none of which are present in the script of Augustus ii. 6. For a full account of these alterations, see the edition of the text below, pp. 43–52.

36

King Edgar’s Charter for Pershore (AD 972) than the others: it comes immediately after the list of estates and covers the space of about 125–30 letters or just over half a line of the charter.24 Erasures cannot usually be dated with any confidence, but this may be an exception: the last letter of the word which precedes the erasure, libertatis, seems to have been added or freshened-up: indeed, it looks as if this letter was accidentally erased along with the following passage and then written in again. Interestingly, this s has the same round form which is found elsewhere throughout the document and which is common enough in the tenth century but dropped out of use fairly quickly in the eleventh.25 The letter may have been written by a later scribe in imitation of the main hand, but if so then it was done with some sensitivity and skill; an alternative and perhaps more likely possibility is that the erasure and ‘freshening up’ were by the original scribe. One set of alterations seems to be quite different in character from the others. These are all found in the list of estates and hidages included in the grant. Several of the hidages have been altered, and these alterations do not seem to have been made by the main scribe: however, the hand looks Anglo-Saxon, insofar as one can tell from such a small sample, and so the changes were presumably made not long after the original document was written (although even a century later would be possible on palaeographical grounds, if not historical ones). In some cases, numbers were erased and different numbers were clearly written over the top. In other cases one cannot be certain of erasure but the spacing strongly suggests that this has happened. For example, the hidage for Sture now reads as ten (‘x’), but there is a gap after the numeral which suggests that the number was once longer. Similarly, the document does not specify the total number of hides, but there is a space where the number may once have been, and the letter immediately preceding the space looks like it was partially erased along with the hidage. Another possibility is that the hidages were left blank and filled in later, but most of the numerals do seem clearly to have been entered by the main scribe at the time of writing and so later erasure is the most likely explanation.

Fig. 2 Examples of altered hidages in Augustus ii. 6 24

25

This gap is very clearly an erasure, as noted also by Kelly, ‘S 786’, pace Thompson, Anglo-Saxon Royal Diplomas, p. 143. Stokes, ‘English Vernacular Script’ I, Chapters III–IV, passim, and p. 197.

37

Peter A. Stokes Finally, one other set of interventions is visible in the document. These are sporadic underlines and one large caret-shaped symbol in the proem, one vertical stroke in the list of estates and another after the end of the first boundaryclause, and perhaps also a red bracket before another boundary-clause which is now almost entirely lost due to damage in the parchment. These marks may well have been added at different times, but the underlines and the caretsymbol appear to be in similar or identical ink, and this ink is noticeably darker than that used elsewhere in this document. These underlines and their significance will be considered shortly.26 For now it needs only be said that the charter which now survives as Augustus ii. 6 received careful attention, both when it was first written and possibly for quite some time thereafter.

Fig. 3 Examples of underlines and the ‘caret’ symbol in Augustus ii. 6

Turning from this manuscript, there are two others which need also to be mentioned here. These are Dodsworth 10 and Dodsworth 78, manuscripts four and five in Sawyer’s handlist, both of which are now in the Bodleian Library in Oxford; the former is described in the summary catalogue as ‘a first draft of Dugdale and Dodsworth’s Monasticon, wherein practically the whole of its contents are incorporated’, and the latter as ‘notes from chartularies and monastic collections in the Cottonian Library’.27 Both copies descend from Augustus ii. 6 and both stop at the beginning of the vernacular bounds. Their relationship to Augustus ii. 6 is evident not only from the identical content but also because Dodsworth 78 begins with a sketch of the 〈␻ which is found at the start of Augustus ii. 6, and both Dodsworth 10 and Dodsworth 78 contain notes referring explicitly to an exemplar in Cotton’s library.28 Furthermore, some illegible portions of the single sheet, including the long erased passage, are represented by dots in both copies. The copies are therefore of little use in establishing the text, particularly as Dodsworth 10 is extremely 26 27

28

See below, pp. 71–2. F. Madan et al., A Summary Catalogue of Western Manuscripts in the Bodleian Library at Oxford, 7 vols. (Oxford, 1895–1953) II, 872 (no. 4152) and 912 (no. 5019) respectively. ‘Ex Carta Originali penes Thomas Cotton Baronettum’ (Dodsworth 10, 66r); ‘collecta . . . in bibliotheca Cottoniana mense Decembris 1639 per me Rogerum Dodsworthe eboracensem’ (Dodsworth 78, i recto: the passage is part of the heading of a table of contents which includes the copy of S 786).

38

King Edgar’s Charter for Pershore (AD 972) inaccurate, often containing lectiones faciliores which are ungrammatical or entirely nonsensical. Many of these errors can also be found in Dodsworth 78 but were subsequently corrected there, apparently by comparison with the original. These common errors suggest that the two copies were not made independently, and indeed one might assume that Dodsworth 10 was copied directly from Dodsworth 78.29 However, original and legible readings in Dodsworth 78 are left as lacunae in Dodsworth 10, a detail hard to explain if either one is a direct copy of the other. A case of eye-skip in Dodsworth 10 might seem to confirm copying from manuscript 78, as the skipped passage in the former (‘necnon . . . coapostolorum Paulo’) corresponds exactly to a complete line of text in the latter. However, this same passage also fits exactly between two vertical folds in Augustus ii. 6 and so the copyist may have skipped from one fold to the next while he was copying, a mistake which is easy to understand in a large document with such long lines. Indeed examination of separative variants seems to demonstrate that both copies were made from an intermediate and that Dodsworth 78 was then checked against Augustus ii. 6 at a later date. A sample of these variants is listed in Table 1, below. Augustus ii. 6 (A)

Dodsworth 10 (D1)

Dodsworth 78 (D2)

liminibus

luminibus die tu preclarus congregatio . . . . . . . . . . (series of dots) iuste aregeind the et LEANE, NAA, SUTN, LONGAH LONTRESNAA vrinam . . . (series of dots) eroba barratri . . . (series of dots) cum Saphyra iugiter . . . (series of dots)

liminibus (altered from luminibus) dictu (altered from die tu or perhaps dic tu) præcluens (altered from præclarus) congregatio apto elegerit consilio . . . . . (series of dots) iuste (clear; not altered or inserted) a rege uidelicet (altered from ?tregeind the et) LEAHE, HAA, SUTH, LONGAH (clear, not altered) 7 on TRESHAA (clear; not altered) ueniam nec in theorica (clear; not altered or inserted) barathri incendiis trusus cum (last word altered from ?lugubris; incendiis unclear) Saphyra iugiter miserrimus cruciatur. (clear; not altered or inserted)

dictu præcluens congregatio apto elegerit consilio secundum [. . .] abbatem iuste a rege uidelicet LEAHE, HAM, SUTH, LONGAN 7 on TRESHAM ueniam nec in theorica (written across fold) barathri incendiis trusus cum (written across fold) Saphyra iugiter miserrimus cruciatur.

Table 1 Sample collation from AD1D2 29

A pencilled note on Dodsworth 10, 66r, has an O with a circle around it followed by ‘fol. 2’, a clear reference to the copy in Dodsworth 78; for these shelfmarks of letters within shapes see J. Hunter, Three Catalogues: Describing the Contents of the Red Book of the Exchequer, of the Dodsworth Manuscripts in the Bodleian Library, and of the Manuscripts in the Library of the Honourable Society of Lincoln’s Inn (London, 1838), pp. 76–82. Madan also noted that Dodsworth 10 was transcribed out of other Dodsworth manuscripts including number 78 but did not specify which parts were copied from which manuscripts; he cites as evidence a list on folio 6v of Dodsworth 10, but that list does not specifically mention Pershore. See Madan, Summary Catalogue II, 872 (no. 4152).

39

Peter A. Stokes ‘Hemming’s Cartulary’ (TR) The second manuscript given in Peter Sawyer’s Annotated List is ‘Hemming’s Cartulary’ which was compiled towards the end of the eleventh century at Worcester.30 This manuscript does not contain a copy of S 786, however: instead it contains the boundary-clause for just one of the estates in our document, namely that of Acton Beauchamp, an estate which was claimed by Pershore, Worcester, and also Evesham in the eleventh century.31 The compiler may have had a full copy of S 786 but selected only one boundary clause for inclusion, but this seems unlikely. Furthermore, the boundary-points are the same in all three versions but the phrasing of each version is different from the others, and it is hard to imagine why the phrasing would have been altered so significantly while the text was being copied. On balance, it seems more likely that the copy in ‘Hemming’s Cartulary’ was drawn from a different exemplar than that of either Augustus ii. 6 or the transcript discussed below.32 The cartulary was damaged in the Cottonian fire, and material towards the front and back of the volume (including the bounds of Acton Beauchamp) can be difficult to read. However, a copy of the entire manuscript was made before the fire and is now preserved at Oxford; it is listed as R above. A note on the first flyleaf of the copy states that it was made for one Richard Graves of Mickleton and was used by Hearne in his edition of the cartulary. Several of the boundary-clauses in this copy have been recently collated against the original by the author of the present paper, and the transcript has generally proven to be very accurate and a useful witness for readings that are now lost.33 The ‘Transcript’ Version (V) This leaves Vitellius D. vii, a paper manuscript written in the sixteenth century which was burnt during the fire at Ashburnham House in 1731. The manuscript was made by John Joscelyn, Latin secretary to Matthew Parker, and is generally referred to as ‘Joscelyn’s notebook’ as it contains his transcripts of 30

31

32

33

The manuscript is BL Cotton Tiberius A. xiii, fols. 119–200. For a full edition, see Hemingi chartularium ecclesiæ Wigorniensis, ed. T. Hearne (Oxford, 1723), for the manuscript, see N. R. Ker, ‘Hemming’s Cartulary’, in his Books, Collectors and Libraries: Studies in the Medieval Heritage, ed. A. G. Watson (London, 1985), pp. 31–59, and for the scribe of this portion see P. A. Stokes, ‘The Vision of Leofric: Manuscript, Text and Content’, Peritia (forthcoming). Victoria History, ed. Willis-Bund and Doubleday IV, 224–7; Hemingi chartularium, ed. Hearne, pp. 250–1. This has also been suggested by Kelly, ‘S 786’. For the texts see the bounds of Acton Beauchamp below, pp. 47, 54–5, and 57. For these collations, see LangScape: the Language of Landscape; Reading the Anglo-Saxon Countryside <www.langscape.org.uk> version 0.9 (last accessed 15 October 2008), boundaries for S 80, S 104, S 121, S 174, S 180, S 201, S 217, S 401 and S 1335.

40

King Edgar’s Charter for Pershore (AD 972) charters, chronicles, and other historical and Anglo-Saxon texts.34 As a result of the fire the leaves are burnt all around the edges, usually with loss on all four sides, and comparison with descriptions in catalogues made before the fire reveals the loss of material at the start of the manuscript and the jumbled order of the leaves which remain.35 A few letters are lost at the edges of every page, and several lines are gone from the tops and bottoms. The pages are not ruled and the density of the writing varies significantly, but the leaves containing S 786 have between about forty-five and fifty-five long lines surviving on each page, with the remnants of several more lines visible at the bottoms of the pages. The text begins on a recto with the right-hand margin still visible, but the left-hand margin and the first few letters of each line are burnt away; similarly the right-hand edge of the text is lost on the following verso, and so on. The very end of the text has been burnt away but Wanley recorded a note which is now lost: ‘Habui ab Matthaeo Archiepiscopo Cant. et exhibita fuit per Parcivelum Creswel nomine Abbatis et Conventus de Parshoyer 15 Sept. an. 1537.’36 This seems to indicate that Joscelyn’s exemplar was at Pershore shortly before the abbey was dissolved in 1539 and that the original then came into the possession of Matthew Parker. The exemplar was not Augustus ii. 6, however, as Joscelyn transcribed a text significantly different to that of the surviving single sheet.37 The Latin proem is more or less identical, but the list of estates 34

36

37

For the activities of Matthew Parker and John Joscelyn with regard to Anglo-Saxon manuscripts, see especially R. I. Page, Matthew Parker and his Books: Sandars Lectures in Bibliography Delivered on 14, 16, and 18 May 1990 at the University of Cambridge (Kalamazoo, MI, 1993). For ‘Joscelyn’s notebook’ see especially The Recovery of the Past in Early Elizabethan England: Documents by John Bale and John Joscelyn from the Circle of Matthew Parker, ed. T. Graham and A. G. Watson (Cambridge, 1998), and J. S. Gale, ‘John Joscelyn’s Notebook: a Study of the Contents and Sources of B. L., Cotton MS. Vitellius D. vii’ (unpubl. M. Phil. thesis, University 35 of Nottingham, 1978). Gale, ‘John Joscelyn’s Notebook’, pp. 50–7. ‘I had it [the charter] from Matthew [Parker] Archbishop of Canterbury, and it was shown by Percival Creswell in the name of the Abbot and community of Pershore, 15 September 1537.’ H. Wanley, Librorum veterum septentrionalium . . . catalogus (Oxford, 1705), p. 240. This Percival Creswell seems likely to be the Catholic who worked for the financier Sir Richard Gresham and whose son was Joseph Creswell, a Jesuit exile during Elizabeth’s reign. See A. J. Loomie, ‘Creswell, Joseph (1556–1623)’, Oxford Dictionary of National Biography, ed. H. C. G. Matthew and B. H Harrison, 61 vols. (Oxford, 2004) XIV, 157–8, and I. Blanchard, ‘Gresham, Sir Richard (c. 1485–1549)’, ibid. XXIII, 760–4, and also F. Edwards, ‘The Strange Case of the Poisoned Chalice’, Archivum Historicum Societatis Iesu 56 (1987), 3–82, at 14. The name also appears in London, The National Archives, E 159/310, the record of a suit of 1532 against the vicar of Acton in Chester enforcing the prohibition against clerics holding leases; the document is available online at (last accessed 17 April 2008) where it is listed as L55. This difference was noticed by Gale who has printed the texts in Augustus ii. 6 and Vitellius D. vii. However, she has provided no discussion, noting simply that Joscelyn’s exemplar no longer survives. See Gale, ‘John Joscelyn’s Notebook’, pp. 194–5 and her Appendix II.

41

Peter A. Stokes is quite different, and three boundary-clauses, one very incomplete, are also included which are not known from anywhere else.38 the text s All six witnesses were fully collated when preparing this edition; however, as noted above, the Dodsworth transcripts are direct copies of the surviving single sheet and so are omitted from the apparatus here except where they provide evidence for otherwise lost or uncertain readings. Augustus ii. 6, Vitellius D. vii, and Tiberius A. xiii have all suffered fairly extensive damage and thus portions of each are now illegible or burnt away, but in many cases these readings can be restored with some confidence. The photograph of Augustus ii. 6 which was printed by the British Museum in their series of facsimiles clearly shows a number of readings which have since been covered by repairs;39 these are provided in the text without comment, as are readings which have been recovered by examination and enhancement of a high-quality digital photograph of the single sheet. Similarly, if one or two letters are lost from the burnt edges of the pages in Vitellius D. vii, and if the reading is otherwise consistent with the remaining copies, then these losses are not noted. Alterations are generally noted, however, and the distinction is made between material which has been crossed out, represented here in strikethrough, and erased, represented here by a note in the apparatus. The vernacular boundary-clauses present additional problems to the Latin text. First, the charter bounds are only preserved in the Augustus and Vitellius manuscripts, so the Dodsworth copies are of no use in establishing lost readings. Second, although very many of the boundary-points are the same in the two versions, nevertheless the phrasing is significantly different, as often is the spelling. These differences are important and should be recorded but they are also too numerous and complex to include in an apparatus. For this reason the largely vernacular portion of Vitellius D. vii from list of estates through to the end of the boundary-clauses are not collated against that of Augustus ii. 6 but are printed separately afterwards. Where the two versions are printed separately, lost readings are supplied in square brackets where this can be done with some confidence, thus: ‘re[con]struction’. If lost text can be postulated by comparison with the other version but without any further evidence to support it then this text is again printed in square brackets but is also italicized to emphasize its more speculative nature, thus: [tentative reconstruction]. Ellipses ‘. . .’ indicate lost text which cannot be reconstructed, and angled brackets <> indicate supplied readings for which there is no space in the manuscript. 38

See below, pp. 57–65.

42

39

See above, p. 34.

King Edgar’s Charter for Pershore (AD 972) Latin ę in Joscelyn’s transcript is silently normalized to e, as is j to i and v to u, but ę is preserved when used in Old English. In the portion of text which is common to the Augustus and Vitellius manuscripts, the Latin orthography of the single sheet is followed and minor variations in the transcript are not noted; these differences include ecclesia, ecclesiasticus, decussatim, proh, Saphira, Britannię and once dipinxi in Vitellius for æclesia, æclesiasticus, decusatim, pro, Saphyra, Brittanie and depinxi in Augustus. Similarly the practice of the single sheet in the use of æ, ę, and e is followed throughout the (Latin) portions printed in common, and variations in the transcript are not noted. Old English wynn (w) has been normalized to w in all texts, and all abbreviations in both Old English and Latin have been silently expanded except for the Tironian nota (7) when used in the vernacular; this last abbreviation has been preserved because the scribe of Augustus ii. 6 used both ond and and as well as the nota and so no consistent expansion can be provided. Crossed thorn (b) is silently expanded to  æt in the Augustus text and «æt in the Vitellius text in order to preserve the respective orthographies. No attempt is made to reproduce the punctuation or worddivision of either manuscript.40 BL Cotton Augustus ii. 6 + 〈␻ Orthodoxorum uigoris æclesiastici monitu creberrime instruimur utc illi oppido subiecti suppeditantes famulemur, qui totius mundi fabricam miro ineffabilique serie disponens, microcosmumd, Adam uidelicet, tandem quadriformi plasmatum materia almo ad sui similitudinem instinctum spiramine, uniuersis quę in infimis formauerate uno probandi causa excepto uetitoque preficiens, paradisiacae amoenitatisf iocunditate conlaterana Æua scilicet comite decentissimeg collocauit. Laruarica pro dolor seductus cauillatione, uersipellis suasibilisque tergiuersatione uiraginis pellectus anathematis alogiah ambro pomum momordit uetitum et, sibi ac posteris in hoc ærumnoso deiectus sæculo loetum promeruit perpetuum. Vaticinantibus siquidem profetisi et cælitus superni regis diuturna clandestino presagia dogmate promentibus, nitide orthodoxis eulogium ex supernis deferens, non ut Iudæorum seditiosa elingue fatetur loquacitas, sed priscorum atque modernorum lepidissimam ambiens facundiam, Arrianas Sabellianasque proterendo nenias anagogico infrustransj famine nosque ab obtunsi cæcitate umbraminis ad supernorum alacrimoniam patrimoniorum aduocans, angelus supernisk elapsus liminibus in aurem intemeratae uirginis ut euangelica promulgant a

40

b

Many of the texts have also been translated and more fully edited by D. Hooke, Worcestershire Anglo-Saxon Charter-Bounds, Stud. in Anglo-Saxon History 2 (Woodbridge, 1990), pp. 177–230 (no. 29) and D. Hooke, Warwickshire Anglo-Saxon Charter Bounds, Studies in Anglo-Saxon History 10 (Woodbridge, 1999), pp. 67–71 (no. 8). A full edition and discussion by Susan Kelly is also forthcoming as part of the British Academy series on Anglo-Saxon Charters, a draft of which is Kelly, ‘S 786’. At the time of writing the LangScape database contained information about the bounds in S 786 but the semi-diplomatic transcripts were not yet available for display or word searches. See ‘Archives’ in LangScape (under the ‘Resources’ submenu; last accessed 15 October 2008).

43

Peter A. Stokes famina stupenda cecinisse uidetur carmina, cui æclesia tota catholica consona uoce altibohando proclamat: ‘Beata es uirgo Maria que credidisti, perficientur in te quæl dicta sunt tibi a Domino.’ Mirum dictu incarnatur uerbum et incorporatur, scilicet illud de quo euangelista supereminens uniuersorum altitudine sensuum inquit: ‘In principio erat uerbum et uerbum erat apud Deum et Deus erat uerbum’, et reliqua. Qua uidelicet sumpta de uirgine incarnatione antiquæ uirginis facinus demitur et cunctis mulieribus nitidis præcluens taumatibus decus irrogatur. Intacta igitur redolente Christi diuinitate passaque ipsius humanitate libertas addictis clementer contigit seruulis. Hinc ego Eadgar altithrono amminiculante Anglorum ceterarumque gentium in circuitu triuiatim persistentium basileus, ut huius libertatis altithroni moderatoris clementia merear optinere consortium, coenobio loco celebri qui ab huius prosapie solicolis Perscoranm nobili nuncupatur uocabulo situm, genetricique domini nostri semper uirgini Mariæ, necnon beato Petro apostolorum principi eiusque coapostolo Paulo, dedicatum habetur, monachis regulariter degentibus monastici aeternam priuilegiin concedo libertatem, quatenus post decessum Foldbrihtio abbatis egregii cuius temporibus hæc libertatis restauratio Christo suffragante concessa est quem sibi uniuersap præfati coenobii congregatio qapto elegerit consilio rsecundum regularia beati Benedicti instituta abbatemq r iuste ex eodem fratrum cuneo eligens constituats Huius priuilegii libertas deinceps usu perpetuot a cunctis teneatur catholicisu, nec extraneorum quispiam tyrannicav fretus contumacia inw prædicto xmonasterio ius arripiens exerceatx potestatis, sed eiusdem ycoenobii collegium perpetuæ ut prædixi libertatisy glorietur a2priuilegio. Sit autem prefatum monasterium omni terræne seruitutis eodem tenore liberum quo a precessore nostro, a rege uidelicet Coenulfo orthodoxe fidei strenuissimo, fuerat uti uetusto continetur priuilegio (Beornotho duce optinente) solutum, agri equidem qui ad usus monachorum domino nostroz Iesu Christo eiusque genitrici Marie, priscis modernisque temporibus, a regibus et religiosis utriusque sexus hominibus et a me ipso restituendo iure concessi sunt,a2 b2 Id est in Perscoran uidelicet [. . . . . .] mansic2, in Brihtulfingtuned2 x mansi, in Cumbrincgtune x mansi, in Pedneshamme ve2 mansi, in Eccyncgtune xvi mansi, in Byrlingahamme x mansi, in Deopanforda x mansi, in Strengesho x, in Bettesforda xf2, in Cromban [. . .]g2, in Stoce x, in Pyritune x, in Uuadbeorhan iiiih2, in Ciuincgtunei2 iiij2, in Broctunek2 iii, in Piplincgtunel2 x, in Snoddesbyri x, in Niuuantune vii, in Eadbrihtincgtune iiiim2, in Uuihtlafestune v, in Flæferthn2 v, in Graftune v, in Deormodesealdtune v, in Husantreo 7o2 on Meretune v, in Broctune iii, into Hleobyrip2 ii, [in] Langandune xxx, in Poincguuic vii, in Beornothesleahe iiiq2, in Actune iii, in Suthstocer2 7 on Hilleahes2 7 on Tresham 7 on Cyllincgcotan 7 on Ealdanbyri 7 Dydimeretunet2 7 Badimyncgtun 7 Uptun xlu2, in Deorham x, in Longanege v, on Lidanege vi, in Uuiggangeate vi, in Beoleahe vv2, Gyrdleahe vw2, in Sture xx2, in Bradanuuege xx, in Cumtuney2 v, in Uuiguuennanz2 x, et ad usum conficiendi salis duobus in locis xviii doliorum situs, on middelwic x, 7 on neodemestan wic viiia3, et duarum fornacium statio on Uuictune, et uas quod dicitur west rincge cum uno manso et dimidium mansi in loco qui dicitur Hortunb3: eiusdem perpetualiter sint libertatis. [. . .]c3

44

King Edgar’s Charter for Pershore (AD 972) Tempore siquidem quo rura quae domino deuoto concessi animo iniuste a sancta Dei æclesia ablata fuerant, perfidi quique nouas sibi hereditarias kartas usurpantes ediderunt sed in patris et filii et spiritus sancti nomine d3precipimus ut catholicorum nemo easdem recipiat, sed a cunctis repudiatę fidelibus in anathemate deputentur ueteri iugiter uigente priuilegio.d3 h3 Si quis uero tam epilempticus phylargirię seductus amentia (quod non optamus) hanc nostræ munificentiæ dapsilitatem ausu temerario infringere temptauerit, sit ipse alienatus a consortio sanctæ Dei æclesię, necnon et a participatione sacrosancti corporis et sanguinis Iesu Christi filii Dei, per quem totus terrarum orbis ab antiquo humani generis inimico liberatus est. Et cum Iuda Christi proditore sinistra in partee3 deputatus, ni prius hic digna satisfactione humilis penituerit quod contra sanctam Dei æclesiam rebellis agere pręsumpsit, nec in uita hac practica ueniam nec in theorica requiem apostata obtineat ullam, sed æternis barathri incendiis trusus cum Anania et Saphyra iugiterf3 miserrimus crucietur.g3 h3 Eis sindon ta lond gemæra tæra tun londa te into perscoran belimpae. [Pershore Estates] Ærest of piri forda on ta dic,i3 andlang dic on ta pyrigan, of tære pyrigan on tone long[an mapuldre, of  am mapuldre on ceap manna w]yllan, [of «ære wyllan] to tam hl[æwe, be] eære h[læwe to  am bænincges byrig, of b]ænincgesj3 byrig to wealh ge[ate], of we[alh gea]te to mæ[r] cnolle, of mær [c]nolle on lind hoh, of lind ho on clottes more, of clottes more on mær p[ul] , ondlongk3 pulles on afene, of afene on caldan wyllan, of caldan wyllan on wyre hlinc, of wyre hli[nce on hor p]yt, [o]f hor py[tte o]n culfran mere, of tæm mere on hag[an weg, of hagan wege on b]roc [h]rycg, of broc hrycge on ta ealdan dic, of e[ære dic] on swyne, of swyn[e] on reod dic, of eære dic on weorces mere, of tære mere on ta twycene, of tære twycenan on ta hæsel ræwe ondlong streames on hor wyllan, of hor wyllan ondlong dic on cymman le[a]h[e], of eære leahe on sæfern ondlong sæfern to ham stede, of ham stede on ropleah geat, of tæm geate ondlong dic tæt on east mor tær on ta rode, of eære rode on heaeeburhe weoreyg, of eæm woreige ondlong hrycges to bysceopes swyn hege, on[d]long heges on beartan weg, of beartan wege on calfan leahe, tæt ondlong dic to hæe halan, of hæe halan o[n] ta ealdan dic, ondlang dic on piddes meres weg, of tæm wege on ta ealdan dic, of eære dic on wad b[eor]gas, of wad beorgan to tam hlyp geate, of e[am] geate on sealtan mere, of tam mere on sue mæduan, of eære mæde ondlong sices tæt on yrse, ondlong yrse on hwitan dune, of hwitan dune on lus eorl3, of lus eorne on fulan pyt, of tam pytte on beornwynne den[e], ondlong dene tæt on hymel broc æt wudu forda, andlang broces on oxan ers, andla[ng] sices to tan stan gedelfe, of eam stan gedelfe on ta dic, ondlong dic on hunig burnan, 7lang burnan tæt on hymel broc, ondlang broces to beccan leahe, on ta ealdan dic 7lang mær weges on ceafor leahe, of tære leahe on ta heg stowe, of eære heg stowe on hennuc, a[ndl]ong hennuc tæt on ta eorn ræwe eastrihte tæt hit cyme to tan rah hege, æfter [t]amm3 hege a be tam ofre, tæt eft on ta dic, tæt on pidelan stream, 7lang streames on afene, andlang afene tæt eft on piri ford.n3 [Wihtlafestun (North Piddle), Abberton, Naunton and Ælflædetun (Flyford Flavell)] Wis sind tara feower tuna lond gemæra wihtlafes tun 7 eadbriht[i]ncg tun 7 niwan tun 7 ælflæde tun. Ærest of pidelan on ta eald[an dic, of] tære dic 7lang fura on

45

Peter A. Stokes t[a] heafda to winter burnan, of winter burnan on hina gemæran on tone ealdan weg, of tamo3 wege on tittan dune 7 of tittan dune on byligan fen, of byligan fenne on wixena broc, ondlang broces on pidelan, 7lang pidelan tæt eft on wihtlafes gemæra. [Flyford (Dormston?)] Eis sind ta lond ge<mæ>rap3 into fle[fere. Æ]res[t] of tam ealdan slæde on [wi]nter burnan, of tære burnan on tane swyn hege, 7lang heges on eomeres mæduan, of tam mæduan on hodes ac, of tære æc 7lang heges to tæm wege, 7lang weges on winter burnan, 7lang burnan on hereferees maduan, tonan in tæt sic, of tæm sice in tæne cumb, of tam cumbe on ta ealdan dic, 7lang dice in pidelan, 7lang pidelan to bradan hamme, a butan bradan hamm[e e]ft in pidelan, 7lang pidelan eft to tæm slæpe. [(Martin) Hussingtree] Wis sind ta lond gemæra to husan treo. Ærest of tære stræt 7long dic to bradan forde 7lang burnan onq3 seale weorpan, ondlang seale weorpan to col forda, of col forda 7lang tære miclan dic on alr broc, 7lang broces on eeornanr3 mor, of tam more 7lang dic on feower gemæra, of tæm gemæron to torn lehe, of torn lehe 7lang dic eft on ta stræt. [Longdon] Eis sind tæs londes gemæra into langan dune. Ærest of sæfern on wiferees mæduan hege, of tam heges3 on tone hricg, of tam hricge on tone wulf hagan midne of tam wulf hagan to tam erym gemeran, of tæm erym gemæran to pis brece, of pis brece to tidbrihticg hamme, of tan hamme on pyrt broc, 7lang broces to pyrtan heale, of peartan heal[e to ha]gan geate, of hagan geate to twy forde, of twy fyrde to luf bece, of luf bece betweonan dune, of tære dune on hwitant3 cumb, of tam cumbe on swyn geat, of swyn geate 7lang ecge tæt on hæe hricg, of hæe ricge on senet ricg, of senet ricge on sec mor, of secg more on alr, of alre on orices pul, of orices pulle efu3 on sæfern. [Chaceley, Eldersfield, Staunton, and Wynburh Edisc] Eis sindan ta lond gemæra into ceatewes leahe 7 to yldresv3 felda 7 to stan tune 7 to wynburhe edisce. Ærest of an burnan to cumbran weoree, of cumbran weorte to tære mæran æc, of eærew3 æc to stan hlincan, of stan hlincanx3 to reade burnan, of reade burnan to healrey3 mere, of healre mere to tære æc, of tære æc to hagan leahe, of tære leahe on secg broc, of secg broce to tan hean dore, ofz3 tan dore to bryd broce, 7lan[g b]roces tæt in glencincg, 7lang glencincg tæt in ledene, 7lang ledene to mær broce, of mær broce to brycg geleagan, of brycg geleagan on bradan ford on glencincg, 7lang glencincg to blacan mores forda, of blacan mores forda to tan halgan geate, of tan halgan geate to risc heale, of hrisc heale to tam ho, of tam ho a be wuda to tam [æsce], of tam æsce to tære ecge, of [tære ecge] to bradan leahe, of bradan leahe to fæles græfe, of fæles græfe to cram pulle to tam mær hege, of eæm hege on s[æ]fern, of sæfern eft on an burnan. [Powick] Wis sindon ta lond gemæra into poincg wican. Ærest up of sæfern on beornwoldes sætan, of beorwoldes sætan on hagan geat, of hagan geate on secg lages strod, of secg lahes strode on troh hrycg, of troh hrycge on tecles mor, of tæm [more] on baldan rycg, of baldan rycge on flotan rycg, of flotan rycgea4 on ta smeean ac, of eære æc on lin[d] rycg, of lind rycge on abban dunes wican, of abban dunes wican in baldan geat, of baldan geate on cust leahe, of cust leahe in eadwoldincg leahe middewearde of eadwolding leahe on steapan leahe, of steapan leahe in e[a] greatan lindan,

46

King Edgar’s Charter for Pershore (AD 972) of eære lindan on cardan stigele, of tær[e] stigele in wearman dene to hreod broc geate, of tam geate on wæee burnan, 7lang wæee burnan tæt wieutan tone snæd hege tæt to scir hylt geate, of scir hylt geate on codran ford, ondlang codran on c[r]om[a] tæt to eære ealdan stræt, ondlong eære stræt t[o] maw pul, 7lang pulles on temedan, 7lang temedan eft in s[æfern]. [Leigh] E[is sind]b4 t[a] land gemæra into beornoees leahe. Ærest of eadwoldincg leahe an æcer, of tæm æc[ere on mer he]ge, 7long mer[e hege]s on sceanp[an] h[y]l, [of scean]pan hylle on wæee burnan, of tære burnan on g[undenli]ng rycg, of tam rycge on codran, of codran to syl beame, of syl beame to crome, of crome to hwitan wyllan, of tære wyllan to hagan geate, of hagan geate to tæ[re grea]tanc4 æc, of eære æc on ta sand seaeas, of eam seaean in temedel, of temedel on ta lytlan becas tanan [on grindles bec]e, of grindles bece swa tæt gemære lige in tem[eda]n, of temedan onbutan eldres ege tæt eft in temedan, andlang temedan tæt eft in maw pul. [Acton (Beauchamp)] Wis sind ta lond gemæra into ac tune. Ærest on horsa broc, of horsa broce in heafoc rycg, of heafoc rycge on bilincg brocd4, of byling broce in at leahe geat, of at leahe geate in ta hlydan, of tære hlydan in bycera fald, of bycera [fal]de on sand ford, of sand forda in scotta pæe, of scottan pæee in gyslan ford, e4of gislan forda on sond burnan, of sond burnan on scead wællan, of scead wellan in lam seatane4, of lam seaean in ledene, of ledene in lin leahe, of lin leahe in saltera weg, of sealtera wege in hean ofer, of hean ofre in sue broc, of sue broce in we[st broc, of] west broce in clæg wyllan, of clæg wyllan in æeelstanes graf, of æeelstanes graue on hengestes healh, of h[en]gestes heale eft in horsa broc. [South Stoke] Eis sind tara vii land gemæra into sue stoce. Ærest of mæddene westeweardre on beaduc hyl 7lang dene on badan pyt, of tam pytte on æsc wyllan broc, 7lang broces on afene, 7lang afene on broc hardes for[d, of tam] forda on swyn burnan, of swyn burnan on funtnes burnan, of funtnes burnan on bremer leah, of bremer lea 7[l]ang dene on stan leah, of stan lea on seonecan dene, 7lang dene on ehan feldes geat tonne on gate wyllan, of gate wyllan on cyncges crundlu, of cyncges crundlan 7lang dene on risc mere, of risc mere on æsc [de]ne, of æsc dene on hord dene, of hord dene on tone holan weg on luhinc wudu on filee leahe, of filet leahe on æeelan wyllan, of tæm wyllan adune on stre[am], 7l[an]g streames up on hyrde wyllan, of hyrde wyllan on cyninga crundel, of cyninga crundele on rycg weg, 7lang weges on tone stapol, of tam stapole on ta hlydan, of tære hlydan up andlang streames, of eæm streamef4 be heafdan tæt on mihan lea easteweardne on tone garan up 7lang weges, of tam wege be heafdan tæt eft on mæd beorh. [Dyrham] Wis sind ta land gemæ[ra i]nto deor hamme. Ærest of sulan forda on lodd[ra] wellan, tonon on byd yncel bi abban grafe to b[ry]de wyllan, tæt swa on eccan treo, tonon on miclan mædua tæt on byd, eonne on hy geredincgg4 æceras 7 swa bi clop æcere ufa on sulig cumb, tonon on mus beorh tæt swa to æeeredes wellan, eonon on clæg weg be ciric stede tæt swa bi sadol hongranh4 on fearn beor[h . . . . . .]i4 wuda on gemær broc tæt eft on sulan broc. [Beoley] + Eis sind ta land gemæra into beo leahe. Ærest of beo leahe on cundincg æceras, of cundincg æceran on fearn healas, of fearn healan on burh leahe, of burh leahe on geahes ofer, of geahes ofre on stan geat, of stan geate on wulferes wyllan, of

47

Peter A. Stokes tære wyllan on deawes broc, of tæm broce on mapoldren [geat], of tæm geate on beardi[n]cgj4 ford, of bearding forda eft on beo leahe. [Yardley] Wis sind ta land gemæra into gyrd lea. Ærest of gyrd lea on colle, of colle on mær dic, of mær dice on blacan mearcan, of blacan mearcan on to[n]e hæe garan on dagarding weg, of dagarding wege on ac wyllan, of ac wyllan on bradan apoldr[e, o]f eære apoldre on mæres eorn, of ean eorne on smalan broc, of smalan broce on cinc tunes brock4, of tæm broce on dyrnan ford, of dyrnan for[da] on brom halas of brom halan on hwitan leahe, of hwitan leahe on leommannincg weg eonan on colle, of colle on meos mor, of meos more on ciondan, of ciondan on spel broc eonan on bulan wyllan, of bul[an] wyllan on ta langan æc, of eære langan æc [on] mundes dene, of mund[e]s dene on colle, of colle eft on gyrddl4 leahe. [Alderminster] Eis sind ta land gemæra tæs londes te lympem4 to sture, tæt is eonne, æt ærestan denewaldincg hommes ende scyt on sture, tonne scyt se dic [tæt hit] cyme foran to byrnan scylfe, tonne tonan 7lang tære ealdan stræte tæt hit cyme on mær bro[c], 7lang mær broces tæt hit cyme to langan dun[es e]nde tonon tæt hit cyme to po[s] hliwan, tonne of pos hliwan to sealt mere, of sealt mere on fugel mere, of fugel mere on steapan hlinc, of steapan hlince on bara broc, of bara broce ymb wydan cumb, of widan cum[be to h]æe hyll[e], to[non] on stan hlinces ende, tonon on r[u]m beorgas, tonne eonan to cealc seaean, of cealc se[ae]an to tileegnes triowan, tonan to meox b[eor]hym, tonan to pehtun[e]s triowan, fram pehtunes triowan to pioles clifan, tæt 7langn4 pioles clifes middeweardes to clop hyrste, tonne of clop hyrste on ta dic te lige on sture. [Broadway] Wis sind ta land gemæra to brada[n wege]. [Ærest] of mær cumbeo4 on pes broc, tonon on ta heafda æt west mæduwan, of west medwan on ta heaf[da] tæt on tistel me[re, of] tæm me[r]e 7lang slædes on pincan dene, of p[incan dene] tæt up on beornap4 dune ufew[ea]rde tonon on tone stapol, of eæm stapole ofe[r] tone ealdan feld tæt on fugel hlæw, of tæm [hlæwe] on egsan mor, of ean mor[e] up andlang dune tæt [on] bæddes wellan, of bæddes wellan on brer hlæw, of tæm hlæwe on nore ham onbutan nore ham 7lang tære ealdan dic tæt on sand broc, of sand broce on bord rieig, of bord rieig on hor pyttes ritig, of hor pytte 7lang fura tæt on cadan mynster tonon on ta ecge tæt on ta sealt stræt, 7lang stræt on ta ealdan dic æt nanes mannes lande, of eære dic onq4 [vii] wyllan, of [seo]fanq4 wyllan on tristlinga dene, of eristlinga dene ufeweardre tæt on ta ealdan dic æt wad beorhe, 7lang dic eft or4 mær cumbe. s4 Anno dominicæ incarnationis dcccc lxxiit4 scripta est huius munificentiæ singrapha his testibusu4 consentientibus quorum inferius nomina secundum uniuscuiusque dignitatem utriusque ordinis decusatim domino disponente caraxantur: v4 Ego Eadgar Brittannię Anglorum monarchus hoc taumate donum agie crucis roboraui. Ego Dunstan Dorobernensisw4 æclesie archiepiscopus eiusdem regisx4 beniuolentiam confirmaui. Ego Oswold Eboracensis basilicæ primas huic regali dono adsensum prebui. Ego Aeelwold Wintoniensis presul edis canonica subscriptione manu propria depinxi. Ego Ælfstan Lundoniensis cathedre pontifex signum sanctæ crucis lætus impressi.

48

King Edgar’s Charter for Pershore (AD 972) Ego Alfwold Scireburnensis cathedre antistes hoc intepidus donum corroboraui.y4 Ego Brihtelm plebi Dei famulus huius regis dapsilitati lætabundus aplausi. Ego Alfwold legis Dei catascopus testudinem agie crucis iussu regis impressi. z4 Ego Ælfstan Rofensis sedis archimandrita tau[ma]z4 crucis agie hilaris imposui. Ego Eadelm commissarum plebium speculator hoc eulogium gaudens firmaui. Ego Wynsige Dei allubescente gratia spiritalis ouilis opilio hanc largitionem consolidaui. Ego Aeulf domino codrus amminiculante hoc donum tropheo sancte crucis confirmaui. Ego Ælferyea5 præfati regis conlaterana hoc sintahma cum sigillo sancte crucis subscripsi. b5 Ego Ælfric abbas subscripsi. Ego Æscwig abbas conscripsi.c5 Ego Osgar abbas dictaui.d5 Ego Æeelgar abbas impressi. Ego Cynewearde5 abbas depinxi. Ego Foldbriht abbas descripsi.f5 Ego Ælfeahg5 abbas confirmaui. Ego Sideman abbash5 corroboraui. Ego Osweard abbas con[sensi].i5 Ego Brihteah abbas impressi. Ego Godwine abbas cons[ensi].j5 Ego Brihtnoe abbas ass[ensi].k5 Ego Germanus abbas firmaui. l5 Ego Ælfere dux. m5 Ego Oslac dux. Ego Æeelwine dux. Ego Brihtnoe dux.m5 Ego Æeelweard minister.n5 Ego Wulfstan minister. Ego Ælfweard minister. Ego Ælfsige minister. Ego Æeelsigeo5 minister. Ego Wulfricp5 minister. Ego Ælfwine minister. Ego Wulfgeat minister. Ego Wulfstan minister. q5 Ego Æeelmær minister. Ego Eanulf minister. Ego Eadwine minister. Ego Æeelweardr5 minister. Ego Ælfric minister. Ego Aeelwold minister. Ego Alfwold minister.

49

Peter A. Stokes Ego Wulfmær minister. Ego Ælfweard minister. Ego Ælfelm minister. Ego Ælfrics5 minister. Ego Leofwinet5 minister. Ego Leofric minister. u5 Ego Ælfelm minister. Ego Leofsige minister. Ego Wulfric minister. Ego Godwine minister. Ego Ælfric minister. v5 Ego Ealdred minister. Ego Ælfeah minister.v5 Ego Leofstan minister. Ego Ælfric minister. Ego Æeelweard minister. Ego Brihtric minister. w5 Ego Leofa minister. Ego Brihtric minister.w5 Prefatax5 quoque [. . .] trium iugerorum quantitas et duo predia, in famosa urbe quæ ab accolis dicitur Wygorneceastre accidunt, quæ sub eiusdem condicione libertatis perpetualiter in nomine domini nostri Iesu Christi haberi precipio. [Endorsement] y5[XP] EIS [IS SE FREOLSE] 7 TARA LANDA BOC [EE] EADG[AR] CINING GEUEE INTO PERSCORAN SWA HIS

YLDRAN HIT ÆR GESETTAN GODE TO LOFE 7 SANCTA MARIANy5 a

b c d e f g h i j k l m n o p q r s

Fundacio Abbathiae de Persor per Regem Edgarum Ex Carta Originali penes Thomas Cotton Baronettum heading in D1 Edgari carta originalis de Abbatia de Persor heading in D2 . . . 7 sce Benedicte . . . heading (mostly lost to fire) in V + 〈␻] om. VD1 ut] perhaps two letters lost at start of line V microcosmum] micocrosmum A formauerat] primauerat [fo]rmauerat V amoenitatis] e inserted A decentissime] ss underlined in pencil A alogia] alogie V profetis] prophetis V 6–8 letters erased after profetis A infrustrans] u altered from ?o V supernis] supernus V quæ] que tibi V Perscoran] Perscoram V c inserted A priuilegii] altered from priuilegium V Foldbrihti] Foldbrinti V quem sibi uniuersa] illegible A written as que . . . universa D1D2 apto . . . abbatem] illegible A written as a series of dots D1 secundum . . . abbatem] written as a series of dots D2 eligens constituat] eligens c lost to fire V

50

King Edgar’s Charter for Pershore (AD 972) t u v w x y z a2

b2 c2 d2 e2 f2 g2 h2 i2 j2 k2 l2 m2 n2 o2 p2 q2 r2 s2 t2 u2 v2 w2 x2 y2 z2 a3 b3 c3 d3

e3 f3 g3 h3 i3 j3 k3 l3 m3 n3 o3

deinceps usu perpetuo] usu perp lost to fire deinceps written twice V catholicis] lic lost to fold A extraneorum . . . tyrannica] neorum quispiam ty lost to fire V in] illegible A monasterio ius arripiens exerceat] lost to fire V very unclear A coenobii . . . libertatis] lost to fire V nostro] nostri D1 priuilegio . . . concessi sunt] lost to fire but passage seems to be followed by Tempore siquidem clause (see note d3 and pp. 60–1, Table 2) V large ^ added in black ink after sunt A Id est] collation against V ends here; for text of V see below, pp. 53–7. mansi] erasure before mansi in A Brihtulfingtune] i inserted, l on erasure A v] probably on erasure A x] possibly on erasure A . . .] numeral erased A iiii] on erasure A Ciuincgtune] g unclear; looks like c in A but clearly g in D1D2 iii] on erasure A Broctune] tune illegible in A but clear in D1D2 Piplincgtune] followed by illegible note in right-hand margin? A iiii] on erasure A Flæferth] l inserted A 7] om. D1 cl (but very unclear) D2 Hleobyri] h probably inserted (parchment damaged so unclear) A iii] perhaps altered A Suthstoce] S underlined A Hilleahe] second l inserted A Dydimeretune] second e perhaps on erasure A xl] very faint; perhaps partially erased or written in different ink A v] on erasure A v] unusual form; probably altered from x A x] probable erasure after which was part of numeral A Cumtune] first u unclear but fairly certain; perhaps o A Uuiguuennan] g unclear and perhaps c A Wicwennan D1 Uuicuuennan D2 viii] vertical line added after numeral A Hortun] underlined A Approximately 125–130 letters erased A precipimus ut catholicorum nemo . . . priuilegio] comes immediately before list of estates; first half of sentence (tempore siquidem . . . precipimus) lost to fire: see above, note a2 and below, pp. 57–8, 60–1, Table 2. V priuilegio underlined in brown ink A parte] ar illegible in A but clear in V, om. (rows of dots) in D1D2 iugiter] text ends here (with line of dots) D1 crucietur] underlined; remainder of line blank, perhaps erased A Si quis . . . crucietur] comes after bounds (see below, pp. 57–8, 60–1, Table 2) V dic] text ends here D2 bænincges] c inserted A ondlong] d inserted A eorn] eor A eam] inserted A ford] thin vertical line added after ford A tam] tan A

51

Peter A. Stokes p3 q3 r3 s3 t3 u3 v3 w3 x3 y3 z3 a4 b4 c4

d4 e4 f4 g4 h4 i4 j4 k4 l4 m4 n4 o4

p4 q4

r4 s4 t4 u4 v4 w4 x4 y4 z4 a5 b5

c5 d5 e5

f5 g5 h5

gemæra] gera A on] inserted A eeornan] cross-stroke of e extremely faint, probably added, but ascender long like that of e rather than d A hege] ge inserted A hwitan] h inserted A eft] ef A yldres] letter erased before y A of eære] of altered: letter before o erased, o formed from minim, f added; e perhaps also an alteration A hlincan] h inserted A healre] e inserted A of] inserted A rycge] e inserted A Eis sind] lost, but top of e visible, as is top of a red bracket which precedes it A greatan] Birch and others printed blacan but greatan seems more likely given evidence of V and probable traces of g. See Stokes, ‘Rewriting the Bounds’. broc] c inserted A of gislan forda . . . seatan] written in a smaller and more compressed hand A streame] a inserted A geredincg] c inserted A hongran] first n clumsily altered from ?r A beorh] approx. 5–6 letters lost after beorh; next word perhaps swa A beardincg] Bond and others printed beardyncg; obscured in manuscript but i clear in facsimile A broc] c inserted A gyrdd] perhaps on erasure; second d inserted A lympe] e inserted A 7lang] 7l probably on erasure A cumbe] first two letters unclear but pretty certainly cū, pace Bond and others, although suspension-stroke extremely faint and perhaps added A beorna] first letter unclear but pretty certainly b, pace Bond and others A vii . . . seofan] both extremely unclear; Bond printed asan for both, but V reads vii and this fits better for first word here; -san or -fan seems clear for second word; note also Seven Wells near modern Broadway at SP1235. A on] o A Text collated with V from here. dcccc lxxii] 972 (in ‘Arabic’ numerals) V his testibus] h inserted and est cramped; scribe first wrote iste for his te[stibus]? A Witness-list in five columns A Witness-list in long lines V Dorobernensis] altered from Dorbbernensis A regis] g inserted A corroboraui] conprobaui V (S 788 reads corroboraui) Ego . . . tauma] illegible in A Ego Ælftan [sic] . . . archimandrita tau[. . .] V tauma from S788 Ælferye] illegible; Bond printed Ælferye A Second column of witnesses begins here A New line begins here V verbs of subscription heavily abbreviated and sometimes ambiguous AV conscripsi] cons A coscrip V (so not consensi, pace Birch) dictaui] lost to fire V Cyneweard] y unclear but pretty certain; i unlikely, pace Bond, Birch and others A (S 788 reads Cineweard) Y clear in V abbas descripsi] lost to fire V Ælfeah] lfeah illegible; Bond and Birch printed Ælfhæh A Ælfhaeh clear in V Ego Sideman abbas] go . . . abbas illegible; Bond printed Ego Sideman abbas A clear in V

52

King Edgar’s Charter for Pershore (AD 972) i5

j5 k5

l5 m5 n5

o5 p5 q5 r5 s5 t5 u5 v5 w5 x5 y5

Ego . . . consensi] Ego Osweard abbas illegible; verb written as con so ambiguous A con[sensi] lost to fire V consensi] cons A cos V (abbreviations ambiguous) abbas assensi] abb ass A abbas assensi lost to fire V Abbreviation ambiguous; Birch printed assensim [sic] prebui, presumably supplied from Oswald of York’s attestation, but assensi not uncommon in witnesslists. (S 788 reads assensi) Third column of witnesses begins here A New line begins here V Ego Oslac . . . Brihtnoe dux] Ego Oslac, Æeelwine, Brihtnoe duces V Ego Æeelweard minister] begins new line; minister omitted; all occurrences of Ego and minister omitted or lost from here on V Æeelsige] sige illegible (but printed by Bond) A Wulfric] lost to fire V Fourth column of witnesses begins here A No new line here V Æeelweard] lost to fire V Ælfric] lfric lost to fire V Leofwine] lost to fire V Fifth column of witnesses begins here A No new line here V Ealdred, Ælfheah] lost to fire V Leofa, Brihtric] lost to fire; end of page so further material may be lost V prefata] sic; V reads praefato (see below) XP eis . . . Marian] badly worn; for reconstruction see below, pp. 66–7 A

BL Cotton Vitellius D. vii, 29v–30v The following is only the portion of text which is significantly different from that of Augustus ii. 6, namely the list of estates, the bounds, and the appurtenances. The first three paragraphs of the document, the dating-clause and the witness-list are therefore omitted here but are included in the apparatus for Augustus ii. 6 above. [Hec] sunt nomina terrarum quę ad Perscoram pertinent: Brintulfingtona, Cum[brincg]tun, Æccingtun, Byrlingaham, Depaford, Strengeshoh, Cromban, Pyrigtun, Wadbeorhas, Cyfington, Broctun, Piplingtun, Snoddesb[yri], Graftun, Deormodestunb, Broctun, Fleferth, Wihtlafestun, Eadby[ri]tingtun, Niwantun, Langandun e(Tresham, Cyllingcotan, Ealda[n]burh, Dydemeretun, Badymingtun, Guthbrihtingtunc, Deorham, H[. . .]tund, Langaneg, Lidaneg, Wiggangeat, Cumbtun)e Mortun, Wy[.]landf, Stithaneg, Ceatewesleh, Yldresfeld, Stantun, Wynbur Ediscg, Bettesfordh, Poingwic, Wicereshami, Beornothesleh, Hohisylan, Actun, Husantreo, Meretun, Beoleah, Gyrdleah, Tæflanlæh, Greotan Cwelaleahj, Sture, Bradanweg, Wicwynnan, Stoce, Uptun, Hyldesle[h]. Prefato quoque coenobio trium iugerorum quantitas et duo predia in famosa urbe quę ab accolis dicitur Wigornaceaster accidunt, quę sub eiusde[m] conditione libertatis perpetualiter in nomine domini nostri Iesu Christi haberi p[reci]pio, et ad usum conficiendi salis duobus in locis xviii doliorum situ[s] on middelwic x, 7 on neoeomestan wic viii, et duarum fornacium st[a]tio on Wictune et uas quod dicitur Westringe, cum uno manso e[t] dimidium mansi in loco qui dicitur Hortun, et dimidium mansi i[n] loco qui dicitur æt Westwuda; eiusdem perpetualiter sint libertati[s]. Hęc sunt termini illarum terrarum, quę in circuitu monasterii ualen[t] 150k manentes.

53

Peter A. Stokes [Pershore Estates] Ærest of pirigforda 7lang dic on ea pyri[gan], eanan on eane langan mapolder, eæt on ceap manna wyllan swa to n[. . .]l hlawe a be eęre ecge on mær cnol, eanan on lind hoh, eæt on clott[es] mor swa on mær pul, eæt on afene swa on caldanm wyllan, eæt on w[yr«]n hlinc, eanan on hor pyt, eæt on culfre mere swa on hagan weg, [eæt on] broc hricg, eanan on ea ealdan dic, eæt on swine swa on reod dic, eæt [on] weorces mere, eanan on ea twycene, eæt on ea hæsel ræwe swa [7]lang streames on hor wyllan, eanan on ea langan dic on cym[man] leahe swa on sæfern up 7lang streames to hamstede, ea[nan] 7lang stræt east to wuda, eæt on heaee burge weorei swa on hricges on bisceopes swyn hege, eæt on beartan weg, eanan [on calfan] leahe, eæt 7lang dic to hæe halan, eft 7lang dic on piddes meres w[eg on] wad beorhas, eanan on sealtan mere swa 7lang sices on yrs[e], 7lango yrse on hwitan dene, eanan east on eæne fulan py[t] on byrn wynne dene, eæt on hymel broc æt wuda forda, up 7lan[g bro]ces on oxan ears, eæt to ean stan gedelfe, eanan 7lang dic on [hunig] burnan, eæt eft on hymel broc, 7lang broces to beccan leahe [on] ea dic swa 7lang mære weges on ceafor leahe, eæt on ea hege sto[we, ea]nan on hennuc, eæt on ea eorne ręwe, eonan east on eone rah [hege], eæt be eam ofre eft on ea dic, eæt swa on pidelan stream up 7[lang] streames on ea ealdan dic, eæt 7lang fura on ea heafdu æ[t win]ter burnan swa on hereferees meduwan, eæt in eæt sic, eana[n on] eane cumb swa on ea ealdan dic, eæt in pidelan, eanan ymb [. . .] swa on pidelan, eæt on afene up 7lang afene eft on py[rig] ford. [Flyford (Dormston?)] Eis sint eæra fif hida land gemæra to flefere. Æ[rest] of eam ealdan slæpe on winter burnan, eanan on eone swyn [hege], eæt on et meres mæduan swa on hodes ac, eæt 7lang heges on [«one] weg, eonan on winter burnan swa on hereferees m[æduan, eanan] in eæt sic, eanan in eane cumb swa on ea ealdan di[c in pidelan], eanan ymbutan bradan hame eft in pidelan, ea[nan eft to eam] slæpe. [?, Chaceley and Longdon] Eis sind eæra xxx hida land gemæra [. . . . . . . . . .]p 7 to ceatewes leahe into langa[n] d[u]ne. Ærest [of sæfern on wi]ferees medua hege, [of «am hege . . .] to erim [. . .]q [Powick (including Leigh)] [Eis sind «æra . . . hida land gemæra to poincg wican. Ærest up of sæfern on beornwolde]s sæt[an «æt on hagan] geat, eæt on secg leah[e]s s[trod, «æt on troh hricg, «æt] on tecles more, eæt on baldan ricg swa on flotan ricg, eanan on ea [sme «an ac on l]ind ricg swa on abbandunes wican, eæt in baldan geat, eonan 7lang dune on Ea[dwoldi]ncg leahe middewearde 7 an æcer into beornoees leahe, of eam æcere on [. . .]r mær hege, eanan on scearpan hyl swa on wæee burnan, eæt on gundenling [ricg], eana on codran swa to syl beame, eæt in crame eanans on hwitan wyllan swa [on h]agan geat, eæt on ea greatan ac, eanan on ea sand seaeas swa in temedel, eæt on [ea l]itlan becas, eanan on gryndles bece, of eam bece swa eæt gemæra ligee, eæt on [tem]edan 7lang streames to eldres ege ymbutan yldres ege eæt eft in temedan, [7la]ng streames eft on sęfern. [Acton (Beauchamp)] Eis sind eæra iii hida land gemæra æt ac [tun]e. Ærestt of horsa broce on heafoc ricg, eanan on bylingu broc, eæt in at leahe [geat] swa in ea hlydan, eanan on bicera fald swa on sand ford, eæt on scotta [pæ]e, eanan on gislan ford, eæt on sand burnan swa on scead wyllan, eæt on ea lam [sea]eas, eanan on ledene, eæt in linleahe swa on saltera weg, eanan on hean ofer [in] sue broc, eonan in west

54

King Edgar’s Charter for Pershore (AD 972) broc swa in clæg wyllan, eanan on æeelstanes graf, [eanan] in henxtes halh, eæt eft in horsa broc. [Martin Hussingtree] Eis sind eara v hida land gemæra [æt] husan treo 7 æt mere tune. Ærest of eære stræt 7lang dic to bradan for[de 7]lang burnan on sala werpan 7lang streames to col forda, eanan 7lang [eær]e miclan dic on alr broc, eanan on dyrnan mor swa on ea dic, eæt on feower [gem]æra, eanan on eorn leahe swa on ea dic, eæt eft on ea stræt. [Beoley] Eis sind [eara] x hida land gemæra to beo leahe. Ærest of beo leahe on cunding æce[ras], eanan on fearn healas swa on burh leahe, eæt on iahes ofer, eanan on [stan] geat, eæt on wulferes wyllan swa on deawes broc, eæt on mapoldren geat, [eanan] on beardincg ford swa 7lang dic, eæt on arewe up 7lang streames on [. . .]v burnan, up 7lang burnan on febban leahe, eonan on beadegyee wyllan [. . .]stv rihte on byric æcer, eæt on blacan pyt, eanan on fos geat swa on [. . .]nv mere, eæt on fugges treo swa eft on beo leahe. [Yardley] Eis sind eara x hida [land] gemæra æt gyrd lea on colle. eanan on mær dic swa on blacan mearc[an eæt] on eane hæe garan swa on dægarding weg, eonan on ac wyllan, eæt on ea bra[dan a]poldre, eanan on mær eorn swa on smalan broc, eæt on cyng tunes broc, [eanan] on dyrnan ford swa on brom halas, eæt on hwitan leahe, eanan on Leof[mann]incg wic swa on colle, eæt on meos mor ufewearde eanan on deope dæl, eæt [cio]ndan swa on spel broc, eanan on bulan wyllan swa on ea langan æc, eæt on [mund]es dene, eanan on colle, eæt eft in gyrd leah. [Alderminster] Eis sindw eara x hida land ge[mæra] æt sture. Ærest of sture æt denewalding hemmes ende 7lang dic forn[on byr]na scylfe 7lang stræt on mær broc, swa on langan dunes ende, eæt on pos [hliwan, e]anan on sealt mere, eæt on fugel mere, swa on baldreding æceras, eanan on [steapa]n hlinc, eæt on horpyttes sic, eanan on baran broc, swa ymbe widan cumb [on hæ«] hylle, eanan on stan hlinces ende, eæt on rum beorhas, swa eonne on eone cealc [sea«an, ea]nan to tileegnes treowan, swa on meox beorh, eæt on peoles dene 7lang [. . .]nx clop hyrste, eanne 7lang dic in sture swa eæt ealde ea den beligee. [Broadway and (Childs) Wickham] Eis sind [eara ]xy hida land gemæra æt bradan wege 7 æt wicwennan. Ærest of mær [cumb]ez on pes broc, eanan on ea heafdu, eæt on west meduwa, swa eft on ea he[afdu], eæt on eistel mere 7lang slædes on pincan dene, eanan upon beorna [dune] ufeweard, et swa on eone stapol, eæt on fugel hlaw, eanan on egesan mor, [eana]n on langan dune, eæt on bæddes wyllan, eanan on brer hlaw, swa ymbutan [nor« h]am 7lang dic eæt on sand broc, of eæm broce on bord rieig, eanan on hor [pytte]s rieig swa up 7lang fura eæt on cadan mynster, eanan on ea ecge, eæt on [ea sea]lt stræt swa on ea dic æt nanes manes lande eæt on vii wyllan, eanan [on «ri]stinga dene up 7langa2 dene, eæt on ea dic æt wad beorgeb2, swa eft on hor [cumbe].z [(South) Stoke] [Eis sind] eara xc2 hida gemæra æt stoce. Ærest of mæddene westeweardre [on bead]o[c] hil, eæt 7lang middere dene on badan pyt swa on æsc wyllan, eæt on afene swa [on broc] heardes ford, eanon on swyn burnan, eæt on funtnes burnan swa on bre[mer lea]h 7lang dene on stan leah,d2 eanne 7lang seonecan dene middere [on ehan fe]ldes geate swa on gate wyllan, eæt on cynges crumblu 7lang dene on [risc mere s]wa on æsc dene, eæt ord dene, eæte2 on eone holan weg on luhhing [wudu on fil]ee leahe swa

55

Peter A. Stokes on sceortan graf, eonan on æeeling wyllan 7 [adune on stream] up on hyrd wyllan swa on cynges crundelf2, eæt on ricg wegg2, eanan [on «one stapol, «anan on] ea hlydan, of eam streame be eam heafdon on mihan leah [easteweardne on «one garan up 7lang weges, «anon] be eam heafdon, eæt on mæd be[orh.] [Dyrham] [Eis sind «ara . . . hida] land gemæra æt deor [hamme. Ærest of sulan forda on loddra wellan, «onon on by]d micel swa be abban [grafe to bryde wyllan, «æt swa on eccan treo, «onon on miclan] mæduwan, eæt [on byd, «onne on Hygeredincg æceras 7 swa bi clop æcere ufa in sulig cumb, «onon on mus beorh, «æt swa to æ«eredes wellan, «onon on clæg weg be ciric stede, «æt swa bi sadol hongran on fearn beorh wuda on gemær broc, «æt eft on sulan broc.] [Lydney] [. . .]anh2 bæce, eæt on mær broc, swa on neowern, eæt eft on sæferni2. [Wyegate] [Eis sind] eæra vi hida land gemæra æt wiggan geat. Ærest of weg on clor br[. . .]j2 on clor leah, eanan on preoste wyllan, eæt on grenan hlaw, swa on [. . .] eæt on smalan broc, eanan on mylen broc, eæt eft in weg. [Cumbtune] Eis sin[d eara] v hida land gemæra æt cumb tune. Ærest of besewe springe 7[lang] broces on ræges slæd up 7lang dune on cumbtunes broc, swa y[mb] ea fif æceras eæt on wad beorh, eanan on eneda mere, swa on ea [. . .] æt rudan ofre, eæt on holan cumb ufeweardne eanan on mot hyl[le 7]lang weges, on cycggan cumb ufeweardne swa eft on bes wyl sp[ringe]. 7 Wærfere bysceop gebocede anne hagan Æeelune into Cumbr[incg]tune on Wigorneceastre . lxx . p . xlv . p .k2 ¯ ¯ a b c d e f g

h i j k l m n o p q

r s t u v w x y

Brintulfingtune] for Brihtulfingtune Deormodestun] letter deleted after n (probably e) Guthbrihtingtun] prob. C altered to G H. . .tun] Approx. two or three letters lost to fire. (Tresham . . . Cumbtun)] sic: parentheses are in MS Wy[.]land] one or two letters lost; perhaps Wynland for Wenland (=Welland) Wynbur Edisc] two letters deleted after Wynbur (perhaps he?); fire-damage after Edisc but probably nothing lost (unless perhaps an e) Bettesford] + in left-hand margin before Bettesford Wiceresham] or perhaps Piceresham Cwelaleah] perhaps one letter lost after Cwela 150] sic (in Arabic numerals); cl deleted before number Approx. 2–3 letters lost. caldan] or perhaps ealdan (A reads caldan) wyre] x in left-hand margin before hlinc 7lang] 7land Approx. 12 letters lost. One line lost from medua hege to to erim, then approx. 15–16 lines lost. Lost text is approximately the same length as the bounds of Longdon in the single sheet. Approx. 5–7 letters lost. eanan] banan Ærest] æres byling] perhaps altered from byinig Approx. 3 letters lost. sind] snid (very clear, with no confusion of minims) Approx. 6–8 letters lost. eara x] letter immediately before x illegible and could be part of numeral or preceding word.

56

King Edgar’s Charter for Pershore (AD 972) z

a2 b2 c2 d2 e2 f2 g2 h2 i2 j2 k2

cumbe] first boundary-point in A is unclear but probably cumbe; last boundary-point in A is cumbe 7lang] 7land beorge] messy deletion of one letter after this word x] space initially left blank, x inserted in pencil or very faint ink stan leah] stan stan leah tæt] bonne crundel] crumbel weg] altered from wæg Approx. nine lines of manuscript lost. Last lost line perhaps ‘. . . weg swa . . .’ sæfern] fæfern br. . .] letters lost due to fire, but first letter after b probably r Text followed by anathema (si quis uero), dating-clause and witness-list as in A; see above, pp. 48–50.

Tiberius A. xiii, 163v–164r The text below is the portion of S 786 which is preserved in ‘Hemming’s Cartulary’, namely the bounds of Acton Beauchamp, as it appears in that manuscript but with lost readings supplied from the Rawlinson copy. [Acton (Beauchamp)] tis synd tara iii hida land gemæra æt ac tune. Ærest of horsa broce on heafoca hrycg, of heafoc hrycge tanon on byling broc 7 swa in at leahgesb geat 7 swa onc ta hlydan, of eære hlydan on bikera fald, of dbikera falde ond sand ford, of sand forda tæt on scottae pæe 7 swa on gislan ford, of gislan forda tæt on sand burnan, of tære burnan on scead wyllan 7 swa on ta lam seaeas, of tam seaean tæt on ledene, 7 of ledene in lin leahge, of lin leahge on saltera weg, of tam wegie on hean ofer 7 swa in sue broc, of sue broke on west broc, of west broke in clæg wyllan, of tære wællan on Ælfstanes graf, 7f of tam grafe in Henxtes halh, 7 of tam hale tæt eft in horsa broc. a b c d e f

heafoc] e inserted T leahges] h inserted R on] illegible due to fire-damage; probably inserted by original scribe T bikera falde on] illegible due to fire-damage T scotta] otta illegible due to fire-damage T 7] inserted T

Comparison of the Texts The larger structural differences between the two versions of S 786 are summarised in Table 2, along with the other charters in the Orthodoxorum group. There are many more differences in phrasing and detail than are listed here, but the similarities between them are still evident, and both versions of the Pershore charter belong clearly in this group. Comparing the two versions of S 786 shows that they have essentially the same content as each other but that the order of this content has been reworked. Both have the same core and are based on the same model, the primary difference being the position of the list of estates and the block of boundary-clauses, as well as the section beginning 57

Peter A. Stokes tempore siquidem. Indeed the transcript and S 788 are unique among the Orthodoxorum group in the way they position this section and this suggests that the transcript might be a reworking of the single sheet. Specifically, the structure of Augustus ii. 6 shows some influence from the model of S 658 but is otherwise almost identical to that of S 673, except for the added list of estates and section ‘prefato quoque coenobio’. One might therefore speculate that the single sheet was drawn up from a model very much like that of S 673 and that the list of estates was inserted and the ‘prefato quoque coenobio’ added at that time. Perhaps, then, this text was subsequently reworked to produce the transcript version, with the list of estates updated, some boundary clauses added and reworked, the ‘tempore siquidem’ clause moved, the bounds placed before the anathema, and the ‘prefato quoque coenobio’ integrated into the list of estates. This order of material seems more logical and is more consistent with the usual structure of Anglo-Saxon charters and so is more likely to be the result of revision than the other way around. Moving from structure to detail, one important difference between the two versions is the list of estates claimed by Pershore, as noted above and summarized in Table 3. The two lists share a common ancestry as blocks of names are identical or very similar in the two versions. However, the differences are not simply the result of scribal omission or uninformed alteration as two estates are included in the single sheet which are not in the transcript, and fourteen estates are in the transcript but not the single sheet.41 The differences have proven difficult to explain and do not seem to correspond with obvious patterns in location, organisation, or holdings before or after a given date. A full discussion of the complexities of Pershore’s land-holdings is beyond the scope of this article and so I simply note the differences here and observe that both lists seem to reflect a fairly thorough knowledge of the community’s holdings, presumably at two slightly different dates. The boundary clauses are also different, as shown in Table 4: the order of the bounds is different and each version has details (and indeed entire bounds) which are missing from the other, but the versions are nevertheless not entirely independent. Most bounds do appear in both versions, and most of those common bounds have identical boundary-points. Kelly has noted that the phrasing in the bounds of the single sheet is very homogeneous and probably reflects some degree of standardization by the copyist, and indeed the same applies to the transcript. Such homogenisation is particularly evident in the 41

The two estates are Pensham and Libbery, and the fourteen are Guthbrington, H[.]ton, Meretun (probably Castle Morton), Wy[.]land (perhaps Welland), Stithaneg, Chaceley, Eldersfield, Staunton and Wynburgh Edisc, Wiceresham, Hohislan, Tæflanleh, Greotan Cwelaleah (Great Whitley?), and Westwood (Westwood Park).

58

King Edgar’s Charter for Pershore (AD 972) single sheet where the first letter of each boundary-clause alternates between E and 2. The only exception to this is the combined bounds of Chaceley, Eldersfield, Staunton and Winburh Edisc, where E is used as in the previous bounds of Longdon. Although there is no clear evidence that the combined bounds were inserted, it is perhaps significant that Longdon, Chaceley, and perhaps Eldersfield, Staunton and Winburh Edisc as well, were all incorporated into a single boundary-clause in Vitellius D. vii. Furthermore the E which begins the second boundary-clause in the single sheet is the smallest and least prominent of all the initials in that copy. Despite this homogenization in both versions, however, the phrasing in each is consistently different from the other. The bounds in Augustus ii. 6 almost always repeat the boundary-point, normally using the formula ‘of A on B, of B on C’. Those in Vitellius D. vii, on the other hand, do not normally repeat the boundary-point and usually instead use either  æt on, «anan on, or less often swa on. Although the boundary-clauses in the two versions are usually very similar, some show large structural differences. Perhaps the most notable of these is Powick and Leigh: these are given two separate bounds in the single sheet but are presented as a single combined estate in the transcript.42 Similarly, as noted above, the estates of Chaceley and Longdon seem to be combined in the transcript but are separate in the single sheet. Another interesting case is that of Acton Beauchamp: as discussed above, the boundary-clause for this estate survives in three versions. Even here, though, the boundary-points in the three versions are essentially the same, and even the spelling is quite similar, but again the phrasing is different. The third copy, that in ‘Hemming’s Cartulary’, is much less formulaic than either of the Pershore texts and does not seem especially close to either one of them. Other differences between the two main versions are relatively small but still significant. Della Hooke has argued from the single sheet that the estate of Broadway included Childs Wickham, and indeed the transcript version states this explicitly and so confirms her argument.43 The bounds of Beoley in the transcript contain some additional points which are not included in the single sheet: where the former includes only the southern and eastern boundaries, the transcript lists some ten further points.44 Some of these points can be identified relatively easily: the boundary follows the River Arrow (‘eæt on arewe up 7lang streames’), then probably runs along Dagnell Brook, as the modern boundary still does (‘on . . . burnan, up 7lang 42

44

For a full discussion, see P. A. Stokes, ‘Rewriting the Bounds: Pershore’s Powick and Leigh’, Anglo-Saxon Landscapes, ed. N. Higham and M. Ryan, 2 vols. (Woodbridge, forth43 coming). Hooke, Worcestershire, p. 229, referring to S 1174. For these southern and eastern boundaries, see Hooke, Worcestershire, pp. 219–21 (no. 291).

59

Peter A. Stokes

Table 2 Structure of the Orthodoxorum charters. The dotted boxes indicate sections only found in S 786 and S788.

60

King Edgar’s Charter for Pershore (AD 972)

61

Peter A. Stokes 6
!,-),(
6
%(
,%$./&"%(#./(!
2
'(-%
%(
/',%(#./(!
2
'(-%

 
#
 
$% #!
&.!,! 


%(
3(#./(!
20%
'(-%

%(
3,&%(#$''!
2
'(-%


%(
!)*("), 
2
'(-%


%(
.,!(#!-$)
2

%(
!..!-"), 
2
$% #!
&.!,! 


%(
,)'(
!,-!
(/'!,&





%(
.)!
2



%(
3,%./(!
2


%(
/ !),$(
%%%%
$% #!
&.!,! 




%(
%0%(#./(!
%%%
$% #!
&.!,! 

%(
,)./(!
%%%



%(
%*&%(#./(!
2



%(
() !-3,%
2


%(
%//(./(!
0%%



%(
 ,%$.%(#./(!
%%%%
$ #
&.!,! 

%(
/%$.&"!-./(!
0


%(
&5"!,.$
0

%(
,"./(!
0


%(
!),') !-!& ./(!
0

%(
/-(.,!)


)(
!,!./(!
0


%(
,)./(!
%%%



!
%



%(
(#( /(!
222



%(
)%(#//%
0%%



%(
!),().$!-&!$!
%%%
$ #
&.!,!




%(
./(!
%%%


%(
/.$-.)!




)(
%&&!$!


)(
,!-$'



)(
3&&%(#).(



)(
& (3,%




3 %'!,!./(!


 %'3(#./(


*./(
2&
$% #!
&.!,! 


%(
!),$'
2

%(
)(#(!#!
0

)(
% (!#!
0%

%(
/%##(#!.!
0%



%(
!)&!$!
0
$ #
&.!,!
",)'
2

3, &!$!
0
$ #
&.!,!
",)'
2



%(
./,!
2
$% #!
&.!,! 

%(
, (//!#!
22

%(
)'./(!
0


%(
/%#//!(((
2




!.

/-/'
)("%%!( %
-&%-
/)/-
%(
&)%-
20%%%
)&%),/'
-%./-
)(
'% !&1%
2

)(
(!) !'!-.(
1%
0%%%
!.
/,/'
"),(%/'
6
)(
/%./(!
!.
/-
+/)
%%./,
1!-.
,%(#!
/'

'(-%
%(
6
),./(



6
!,-),'
6

,%$./&"%(#./(!


/',%(#./(!
4%(./(
3,&%(#$'
!*"),
.,!(#!-$)$


,)'(
3,%#./(
 !),$-



3"%(#./(
,)./(!
%*&%(#./(
() !-!,%
,"./(
!),') !-./(
,)./(
&!"!,.$
%0!
$% !-
%$.&"!-./(
 3,%.%(#./(
%1(./(
(#( /(


-%,!-$'


3&&%(#).(
& (/,$
3 !'!,!./(
 3'%(#./(
"!!!"
!),$'

$% !-
!"
(#(!#
% (!#
%##(#!.
%2
$% !-


)'./(


-%
%0!
$% !-

!"
%
!!

!$ 
 
!!"
%"
 

!..!-"),

)%(#1%
 
!),().$!-&!$
 %
./(
$,!!
$% !-
/-(.,!)
!,!./(
)#!.$!,
.
"%0!
$% !-
!)&!$
!(
$% !-
3, &!$
!(
$% !-
&&
!
$
./,!
!(
$% !-
, (1!#
%13(((
!(
$% !-
1%.$
, (1!#
.)!
!(
$% !-
&.!,
 %.%)(
*./(


3& !-&!$
6
!"
""
"!!
!
"


!.

/-/'
)("%%!( %
-&%-

/)/-
%(
&)%-
20%%%
)&%),/'
-%./-

)(
'% !&1%
2


)(
(!)
)'!-.(
1%
0%%%

!.
/,/'
"),(%/'
6
)(
1%./(!

!.
/-
+/)
%%./,
1!-.
,%(#!

/'

'(-%
%(
6
),./(
!
"
 
'
&!
$ !$"


Table 3 List of estates in Augustus ii. 6 (left column) and Vitellius D. vii (right column).

62

King Edgar’s Charter for Pershore (AD 972)


!

!
!
!

! !
 
!

 







&



&










&
$$$


&
'


 #

 
 
 ! 




&



&


#'
'


&
 







&



&
&

! 





"


&
&
!


&

!







$


&








$


&
&
%








$


 &
&
 !





$


&
&

#

&
##





$

&
&
 









&
&




&

&

#

#
&


&





"


&
&
#




 
&
"


&
&
!
!


&
%



'
 
! 
!

 







&
&
!


 






#
!

&
# 
!

  
!

#
!

&&
!






 & 
 
 





&

!






&

&
 

!








&
 
 #





%



 
!


#%!






&
 

#




 

&
 








&
 

!





"

&
 
!
 






& 
  











&
 








&
 
%







&
&


%

 !





&

 
#


Table 4 Order of boundary clauses in Augustus ii. 6 (left column) and Vitellus D. vii (right column)

63

Peter A. Stokes burnan’). The ‘lea’ and ‘Beadgyth’s spring’ or ‘well’ (‘febban leahe, eonan on beadegyee wyllan’) could have been somewhere around SP061738, where the modern boundary leaves the brook, and ‘byric æcer’ seems likely to have been Birch Acre, which is on the modern boundary at SP069734. ‘Fos geat’ cannot refer directly to the Fosse Way, as that road ran some twenty miles south-east of Beoley, but was presumably a ditch in the area.45 The Ordnance Survey maps also show many pits in the area, any one of which could have been the ‘black pit’ (‘blacan pyt’). To establish the bounds more securely requires further investigation but it seems that at least some of these new points can be securely located. Three boundary-clauses are found only in Vitellius D. vii and are therefore ‘new’ insofar as they have not been studied before. One of these can be identified easily, namely Wyegate in Gloucestershire (‘Wiggangeat’). The second is Cumbtune, presumably the Comtune of Augustus ii. 6 which has not been identified but which Kelly has suggested should be near Broadway and Childswickham.46 Indeed it is striking that the bounds of Broadway and Cumbtune both include references to wad beorh, ‘woad barrow’. If these references are both to the same place, and if Hooke is correct in her reconstruction of Broadway’s bounds, then Cumbtune must be immediately south of Broadway in modern Buckland or Snowshill, Gloucestershire.47 The bounds of Cumbtune are not inconsistent with this as they contain several references to steep slopes which match the geography of that area (slæd, ‘valley’; beorgh, ‘barrow’; ofre, ‘bank’; cumb, ‘coomb’; hyll, ‘hill’), but locating specific features has not yet proven possible and the location of the estate is by no means certain. The third boundary-clause is very incomplete, with only the last four boundary-points surviving, and so it cannot be identified with absolute certainty. However, one of these points is neowern, a good candidate for which is modern Newerne near Lydney. As Kelly has pointed out, only three estates are named in the list of Augustus ii. 6 but are not covered by the boundaryclauses of that document, namely Longney, Lydney and Wyegate, all in Gloucestershire. Wyegate and probably Lydney have now been accounted for, and it is entirely possible that the bounds for Longney preceded those of Lydney in the transcript but are now lost to fire. Finally, a rather cryptic comment is included in the transcript after the bounds: ‘7 Wærfere bysceop gebocede anne hagan Æeelune into Cumbr[incg]tune on Wigorneceastre . lxx 45

47

Perhaps relevant here is a moat at SP084715, or perhaps Moss Lane at SP080695 if some cor46 ruption is allowed in the text. Kelly, ‘S 786’. The common points are ‘on ta ealdan dic æt wad beorhe’ and ‘swa y[mb] ea fif æceras eæt on wad beorh’ respectively; for the former, see Hooke, Worcestershire, pp. 226 and 229. The ‘besewe springe’ in the bounds of Cumbtune might also be a corruption of Broadway’s ‘seofan wyllan’.

64

King Edgar’s Charter for Pershore (AD 972) 48

. p . xlv . p’. This ‘Wærfere’ was presumably Wærfrith, bishop of Worcester ¯ ⫻ 872¯⫺ 907 ⫻ 915, who appears in a number of charters and other 869 records from this time, but none of these refers to this transaction with Æthelhun.49 Indeed it is unclear who this Æthelhun was, as several possibilities are evident: perhaps the most intriguing is Wærfrith’s successor as bishop of Worcester (907 ⫻ 915 ⫺ 915 ⫻ 922), but other possibilities include three different abbots and a Mercian dux.50 S 788: Somers Charter 16 Given the similarities between the two main versions of S 786, and given the good Old English in both, it seems that the two versions’ boundary-clauses, like the lists of estates, were produced relatively close to each other in both time and place, and that both were produced with detailed knowledge not only of Pershore’s holdings but also of the landscape itself. The question remains how the two versions relate to each other and why two versions were produced, but to progress with this some further documents must be considered. The first of these, Somers Charter 16, is not a copy of S 786 but is integral to any discussion of the pancart from Pershore. The Somers charter is in favour of Worcester Cathedral and dated 972. The document is now lost but it was printed by Smith and also summarized by Patrick Young.51 It has long been recognized that this document is a forgery, and specifically that the text is based very closely on that of S 786.52 Indeed, much of the text is identical, and the few changes are very crude indeed, such as altering the name of the abbot from Foldbriht to ‘N’ (for nomen), presumably because the forger did not know what name to insert. Given that there are two versions of S 786, however, the question that naturally arises is which version was used when fabricating S 788. For once there is little doubt: examination of the documents’ structures makes it clear that the forger used the transcript-version, not the single sheet. S 788 has exactly the same structure as the transcript, including the relative positions 48

49

50 51

52

‘And Bishop Wærferth booked a haga to Æthelhune at Comberton in Worcester’. The numbers and abbreviations are obscure; possibilities include a sum of money (seventy pounds and forty-five pence) or an area of land (seventy perticae by forty-five perticae), but both of these seem much too large for a single haga. ‘Wærfrith 6’, Prosopography of Anglo-Saxon England (last accessed 10 January 2007). ‘Æthelun 12’ through ‘Æthelun 18’ in Prosopography of Anglo-Saxon England. Bede, Historia ecclesiastica gentis Anglorum, ed. J. Smith (Cambridge, 1722), pp. 775–7. Young’s text is preserved on 131r of Cotton Vitellius C. ix and has been described somewhat misleadingly as an incomplete copy of S 788; see Sawyer, Anglo-Saxon Charters, p. 252, and Electronic Sawyer, no. 788. E. John, Land Tenure in Early England: a Discussion of some Problems, rev. ed. (Leicester, 1960), p. 104; The Early Charters of the West Midlands, ed. H. P. R. Finberg, 2nd ed. (Leicester, 1972), p. 118 (no. 303).

65

Peter A. Stokes of the tempore siquidem and prefato quoque coenobio clauses.53 This means first of all that the forger was even less inventive than previously thought: his apparent changes to the structure of the single-sheet version are instead simply blind copying of the previously unnoticed transcript-version. More importantly, though, it suggests very strongly that a copy of the transcript-version was kept in the Worcester Cathedral archives. Indeed, to my knowledge the similarity of S 788 is the only evidence in favour of S 786 being described as from the archive of ‘Worcester (ex Pershore)’.54 The transcript-version might reasonably be described thus, but the cathedral archive may never have held a copy of the single sheet, let alone Augustus ii. 6 itself. The significance of S 788 in discussion of S 786 is manifold. It is important for questions of provenance, as has just been discussed. It is also useful for establishing the text of S 786 as it can supply lost readings, particularly given the extensive damage suffered by both Augustus ii. 6 and Vitellius D. vii. Of these lost readings, perhaps the most tantalizing is the endorsement. All but one of the Orthodoxorum charters has a rubric or endorsement of some sort, but for most this is the rather uninteresting Charta Eadgari Regis or similar. Those from Pershore and Worcester seem to have rather more to offer, but most of the evidence from Pershore is lost. Joscelyn’s transcript once had a heading of some sort but this has been almost entirely destroyed by fire; the only text to survive is the phrase 7 sancte Benedicte (‘and to Saint Benedict’). The single sheet had a lengthy endorsement but this was subsequently subjected to very heavy wear or erasure and has not hitherto been successfully read. However, new techniques in digital image-enhancement have helped significantly, and a large portion of the text can be recovered in this way.55 Furthermore, Smith printed 53 54

55

See above, Table 2. For this description see Electronic Sawyer no. 786, after P. H. Sawyer, Anglo-Saxon Charters: An Annotated List and Bibliography, revised ed. by S. E. Kelly (Cambridge, 1994), p. 506. Most of the text was recovered from a digital photograph of the endorsement by mixing the red and blue channels at -56% and 100% respectively, then adjusting the levels and overlaying the result on top of the original image. For these and other techniques, see especially J. Craig-McFeely and A. Lock, Digital Image Archive of Medieval Music: Digital Restoration Workbook, Oxford Select Specialist Catalogue Publications (Oxford, 2006) (last accessed 5 June 2008), and P. A. Stokes, ‘Recovering Anglo-Saxon Erasures: Some Questions, Tools and Techniques’, Palimpsests and the Literary Imagination of Medieval England, ed. R. Chai-Elsholz and T. Silec (forthcoming). Much more sophisticated techniques are being developed by Hao Zhang and Nick Kingsbury in the Department of Engineering at the University of Cambridge but these were not sufficiently developed at the time of writing. For the principles involved, see especially N. G. Kingsbury, ‘Complex Wavelets for Shift Invariant Analysis and Filtering of Signals’, Jnl of Applied and Computational Harmonic Analysis 10 (2001), 234–53 and I. W. Selesnick, R. G. Baraniuk and N. G. Kingsbury, ‘The Dual-Tree Complex Wavelet Transform’, IEEE Signal Processing Mag. 22 (2005), 123–51.

66

King Edgar’s Charter for Pershore (AD 972) a vernacular clause at the end of his text of S 788, and the position and formulation of this clause suggests very strongly that it was the endorsement of the original charter. The note reads ‘eis is se freolse 7 eara landa boc ee Eadgar cyning geute into Wigera ceastre Gode to lofe 7 Sancta Marian 7 Sancte Benedicte’.56 That which can be read of the endorsement of Augustus ii. 6 suggests that its text is very close to that printed by Smith for S 788. Combining this assumption with image-enhancement, different lighting, and the sizes and shapes of otherwise illegible letters, a likely reconstruction of the text is ‘[XP] eis [is se freolse] 7 tara landa boc [ee] Eadg[ar] cining geuee into Perscoran swa his yldran hit ær gesettan Gode to lofe 7 Sancta Marian’.57 Interestingly there is no sign of any reference to St Benedict here, unlike both S 788 and Joscelyn’s transcript; such a reference may have been particularly thoroughly worn but this seems unlikely and there is no evidence to suggest it, although there is sufficient space on the parchment. On the other hand, Sancte Benedicte is the one phrase that does survive in the transcript, and this with the other similarities in text suggest that the transcript-version once had an endorsement which was very close or identical to that of S 788, mutatis mutandis. provenance There are two pieces of evidence which demonstrate beyond reasonable doubt that at least one version of S 786 was at Worcester, probably by the late eleventh century and certainly by the mid-twelfth. The first of these is S 788, which was produced at Worcester and which draws very heavily on the transcript-version of S 786, as discussed above: this suggests very strongly that either Joscelyn’s exemplar or a descendent of it was at Worcester, and it may not be a coincidence that this version is the one which contains a note relating to Wærfrith who was bishop there.58 However, we must also remember Joscelyn’s note, which Wanley preserved and which implies that Parker obtained his exemplar directly from Pershore.59 This document may have gone from Pershore to Worcester and back again, but perhaps more likely is that another copy of the same version was held in the cathedral archives. The second piece of evidence is yet another document: BL Cotton Augustus ii. 7, the next in sequence after the single sheet from Pershore. Augustus ii. 7 is a comparatively small piece of parchment measuring approximately 56

57

58

‘This is the privilege and grant of lands which King Edgar gave to Worcester in praise of God and St Mary and St Benedict.’ ‘This is the privilege and grant of lands which King Edgar gave to Pershore just as his elders did previously in praise of God and St Mary.’ Letters in square brackets are postulated on the basis of S 788; all other letters have been read with a reasonable degree of confidence, either from the original manuscript or with the image-enhancement described above, n. 55. For the note, see above, pp. 64–5. 59 See above, p. 41.

67

Peter A. Stokes 240–5 ⫻ 72 mm. It is written in a hand of the twelfth century and consists of a letter from Godfrey, archdeacon of Worcester, to one ‘Pope A’.60 The archdeacon refers to a charter, specifically an ‘original of this copy’ which has three seals attached to it:61 although the evidence is circumstantial it seems reasonable to assume that the he was referring to Augustus ii. 6. Certainly the sequential numbering of the two documents in Cotton’s library suggests that they have been associated since the seventeenth century, but such an association may have resulted from early modern rather than medieval activity. There is somewhat stronger evidence to support an early connexion, however. One such piece of evidence relates to the seals which Godfrey described. These were apparently those of King Edgar, Dunstan archbishop of Canterbury, and Ælfhere earl of Mercia. They have presumably been lost or destroyed – they certainly have not been identified to my knowledge – but if they were attached to Augustus ii. 6 then one would expect evidence of this to remain in the parchment, and there are indeed slits at the bottom of the single sheet. The evidence is not entirely straightforward, however. Two slits are clearly visible, one about 20 mm long and starting about 45 mm in from the left-hand edge, and the other about the same length and starting about 175 mm from the same edge. The bottom of the charter is in poor condition around the middle and right-hand side, however, and it has been repaired in places; it is therefore difficult to tell where any further slits may have been. Fortunately the nineteenth-century facsimile was printed before the repairs took place but this clearly shows five slits, all of similar length.62 This evidence is further supported by some early descriptions of the document which also mention the slits, although the descriptions are not entirely consistent.63 None of the slits is 60

61 62 63

The text is edited and translated in Appendix II of this paper, and I thank Simon Keynes for bringing it to my attention. Godfrey was archdeacon 1144 –1156 ⫻ 7 and c. 1158 ⫻ 9 – 1167 ⫻ 8: see John Le Neve, Fasti ecclesiae Anglicanae, 1066–1300, ed. D. E. Greenway, J. S. Barrow and M. J. Pearson, 10 vols. (London, 1968–) II, 105, and English Episcopal Acta 33: Worcester 1062–1185, ed. M. Cheney, D. Smith, C. Brooke and P. M. Hoskin (Oxford, 2007), pp. 180–4. Unfortunately there were three popes in succession during this time with the initial ‘A’: Anastasius IV (1153–4), Adrian IV (1154–9), and Alexander III (1159–81). ‘Noverit . . . quod contrascripti huius scriptum originale . . . sigilla tria . . . commendant.’ Facsimiles, ed. Bond III, 30. For the fifth slit, see below, p. 70. G. Hickes, Dissertatio epistolaris, in vol. III of his Linguarum veterum septentrionalium thesaurus grammatico-criticus et archaeologicus 3 vols. (London, 1703–5), p. 71: ‘verum charta illa, cui in collectione Cottoniana, . . . non tres (quod pace Seldeni dictum velim) sed quinque . . . incisuras habet’ (‘but that charter in the Cottonian collection has not three but five slits, pace Selden’). Selden described S 786 unambiguously and referred also to the letter of Godfrey; he did not specify that the charter was Cotton’s but this seems clear in the context. See J. Selden, A Brief Discourse Touching the Office of Lord Chancellor of England (London, 1671), pp. 2–3 (Ch. 2). Finally, six slits were described by Stevenson, ‘Yorkshire Surveys’, p. 6, n. 17, but (judging from the facsimile) his sixth slit looks more like accidental damage than deliberate cutting.

68

King Edgar’s Charter for Pershore (AD 972) particularly neat or straight, nor are they any more than approximately parallel to the bottom edge, and it is possible that they are simply splits in the parchment, as can certainly be found elsewhere on the document. However, the presence of five such splits, all between the writing and the bottom edge of the parchment, all approximately horizontal and all approximately the same length, suggests human agency rather than accidental damage. The second piece of evidence for the letter’s association with the surviving single sheet begins with yet another early-modern manuscript. This is a copy of the archdeacon’s letter which was made by John Joscelyn and which survives in Corpus Christi College in Cambridge.64 The copy has the heading ‘Hoc scriptum appensum fuit magnæ chartæ de cœnobio Parshorensi in testimonium eius chartæ’.65 This states unambiguously that Godfrey’s letter was physically attached to the ‘great charter’ when Joscelyn saw it, and indeed it was apparently still so in the eighteenth century when it was described by George Hickes as being attached to a charter in Cotton’s collection.66 Joscelyn did not specify which ‘great charter’ he was describing, and so the letter could conceivably have been attached to the exemplar of Vitellius D. vii, but this would require an otherwise unknown charter to have been lost from Cotton’s collection some time after Hickes saw it. However, if the letter was indeed attached to the single sheet then one might expect to see physical evidence of this attachment. Neither Susan Kelly nor I have been able to find any evidence of stitching on either the charter or the letter,67 but other physical evidence suggests that the two documents were indeed joined. The pattern of folds in the single-sheet charter is somewhat unusual in that it has a pair of vertical folds down the centre, rather than a single fold. The two folds are about 18– 20 mm apart; the one to the left is approximately vertical, but the one on the right angles slightly towards the left as it comes down. Similarly, the twelfthcentury letter also shows two vertical folds which are themselves about 18 mm apart and again with the right-hand one angled slightly in to the left. Indeed, careful comparison of the two charters together reveals that the folds match 64

65

66

67

The copy is Cambridge, Corpus Christi College 111, p. 135, part of a small section written by Joscelyn and now bound between a twelfth-century cartulary from Bath Abbey and a set of transcripts by the antiquarian Robert Talbot. See M. R. James, A Descriptive Catalogue of the Manuscripts in the Library of Corpus Christi College, Cambridge, 2 vols. (Cambridge, 1909–12) I, 242–3 (no. 111). I again thank Simon Keynes for bringing this copy to my attention. ‘This writ had been attached to the great charter from the monastery of Pershore in witness to that charter.’ ‘Verum charta illa, cui in collectione Cottoniana, Godefridi litterae suffixae cernuntur . . .’ (‘But that charter in the Cottonian collection, to which Godfrey’s letter has been attached beneath . . .’): Hickes, Dissertatio epistolaris, p. 71. However, Wanley made no suggestion that the two documents were attached: see Wanley, Librorum veterum catalogus, p. 258. Kelly, ‘S 786’.

69

Peter A. Stokes extremely closely, and this indicates that the two pieces of parchment were once folded together. Specifically, the lower edge of Augustus ii. 7 was once aligned with the bottom line of text in Augustus ii. 6, and on the horizontal axis the letter was apparently placed approximately in the middle of the single sheet. The problem of stitch-marks remains, but even this can probably be accounted for. The letter has been trimmed, at least along the bottom edge, as the bottom of the letters in a sixteenth-century note on the dorse have been cut off.68 Much more significantly, Augustus ii. 6 has a slit on the bottom between the two vertical folds, and the letter also has a slit at the same point between its corresponding folds. Furthermore, the bottom five lines of writing on the single sheet seem to be slightly more smudged than those immediately above, and these lines correspond to the area that would have been covered by the letter if it had been attached as just described. This difference in smudging is very slight and may be due to any number of other circumstances, but it does match the other evidence very well. Finally, Hickes’s description of the letter as suffixa (‘attached below’), rather than the more general appensa (‘attached’) used by Joscelyn, also suggests attachment at the bottom, although Hickes may not have meant the word so literally.69 None of these points is conclusive in itself, but in combination it seems certain that Augustus ii. 7 was attached to Augustus ii. 6 before Joscelyn’s time and also that the document which Archdeacon Godfrey described was most likely our surviving single sheet. Some questions remain, however. Godfrey wrote that the seals were attached to ‘the copy of this charter’; this implies that his letter was referring to a copy which lacked seals rather than the original which had them, but it seems entirely reasonable that a copy of the letter would have been stored with the original charter. The evidence seems to suggest that Augustus ii. 6 was the original at Pershore; Godfrey’s copy was probably derived from this, unless it was a copy of the other version and he, like so many after him, failed to notice the difference. Another question is that if Joscelyn saw Augustus ii. 6 with the archdeacon’s letter attached, and if he thought that seals had been attached to 68 69

For the note, see below, p. 77. See above, note 66. It is perhaps relevant that surviving single-sheet charters with parchment attached seem to be stitched along the bottom, although this stitching need not have been (and in some cases was certainly not) Anglo-Saxon. Examples include BL Cotton Augustus ii. 98 (S 163; Facsimiles, ed. Bond II, 9), BL Stowe Charter 17 (S 293; Facsimiles, ed. Sanders III, 17), BL Cotton Charter viii. 16A (S 416; Facsimiles, ed. Bond III, 3), and perhaps BL Cotton Augustus ii. 29 (S 1171; Facsimiles, ed. Bond I, 2), although the holes in this last document look very different and seem to have served a different purpose. For these, including digital photographs, see S. Keynes et al., ‘A Classified List of Anglo-Saxon Charters on Single Sheets’ (last accessed 22 March 2008), nos. 33, 56, 91 and 2 respectively.

70

King Edgar’s Charter for Pershore (AD 972) this document – indeed the seals may still have been in place at that time70 – then why did he chose to copy the other version? Although there are many possibilities, perhaps the simplest is that he made his copy before he was aware of Augustus ii. 6. Joscelyn’s comment in his notebook that he obtained the original from Matthew Parker suggests that he may have copied it in Cambridge or Lambeth before going to Worcester or Pershore.71 Although it is unknown when Parker obtained the exemplar which Joscelyn copied, the comment at least allows the possibility that it was acquired not long after the abbey was dissolved in 1537, at a time when Parker was still Master of Corpus Christi College in Cambridge and when Joscelyn was still a young child. Furthermore, Augustus ii. 6 may never have been at Worcester at all: Godfrey could have travelled to Pershore, or the document could have travelled to the archdeacon. Joscelyn may then have found Augustus ii. 6 some time during the period 1560–77 when he was prebend at Hereford and spent time at Worcester collecting manuscripts and making transcripts, as demonstrated not only by the number of Anglo-Saxon books from Worcester Cathedral which entered Matthew Parker’s library but also by the number of texts in Vitellius D. vii which he copied directly from manuscripts at Worcester.72 Joscelyn would therefore have had ample opportunity to find any document if it was at Worcester, and it is entirely likely that he would also have travelled the nine miles or so to Pershore to examine the holdings there, just as Leland had done a generation or so before.73 Whatever the case, someone at some time seems to have compared the two versions and to have recognized the differences between them. As discussed above, some words in the single sheet have been underlined in a dark ink, and a caret-symbol added.74 These annotations are not random, however: the ones in dark ink all correspond precisely to the points where the two texts deviate (see below, Table 5, and compare above, Table 2). There is insufficient evidence to date the annotations at all closely, but the darker ink is not typically Anglo-Saxon, and a possible candidate for adding them must again be John Joscelyn. There is little doubt that he saw both versions of the charter, given 70

71 72

73

The seals were missing by the time Selden described the document in the 1670s (A Brief Discourse, pp. 2–3), but they may perhaps have been present still in the sixteenth century. See above, p. 41. Catalogus Librorum Manuscriptorum Bibliothecae Wigorniensis made in 1622–1623 by Patrick Young, ed. I. Atkins and N. R. Ker (Cambridge, 1944), pp. 9–11; see also N. R. Ker, Medieval Libraries of Great Britain, 2nd ed., Royal Hist. Soc. Guides and Handbooks 3 (London, 1964), p. 206; and M. Budny, Insular, Anglo-Saxon, and Early Anglo-Norman Manuscript Art at Corpus Christi College, Cambridge: an Illustrated Catalogue, 2 vols. (Kalamazoo, MI, 1997) I, xlv–xlvii. For Leland’s movements and acquisitions for King Henry VIII, see Catalogus Librorum, ed. Atkins and Ker, pp. 8–9, as well as J. Leland, De rebus Britannicis collectanea, 2nd ed., 6 vols. 74 (London, 1770) IV, 160. See above, p. 38.

71

Peter A. Stokes his copy of the one and his copy of the letter attached to the other. It may also be significant that dots are visible in the left-hand margin of Joscelyn’s notebook alongside the last three boundary-clauses. These dots appear to be in the same ink as the main text and are presumably Joscelyn’s. Unfortunately we cannot be certain if any other bounds had similar dots because the left-hand margins of most pages have been destroyed by fire. Nevertheless, it is a striking coincidence that the boundary-clauses which are so marked are precisely the ones which are not found in the single-sheet version, and this may also suggest comparison of the two versions. Perhaps, then, our early-modern antiquaries had noticed the difference in texts which most twentieth-century scholars had not.75 Annotation

Reading in Aug. ii.6

Reading in Vitell. D.vii

Pencil underline Ink ‘caret’ Ink underline Vertical line Ink underline Ink underline

decentissime collocauit concessi sunt. ^ Id est in Percoran Actun Suthstoce [Start of group] wic viii | et duarum fornacium Hortun: eiusdem perpetualiter . . . uigente priuilegio. Si quis uero . . .

Vertical line Red bracket

[Bounds of Whitlafston] [Between bounds of Powick and Leigh] crucietur. eis sindon ta lond gemæra

decentissime collocauit concessi sunt. Tempore siquidem Stock Upton [Not in group] wic viii et duarum fornacium Hortun, et dimidium mansi uigente priuilegio. [Hec] sunt nomina . . . [Bounds of Whitlafston omitted] [Powick and Leigh have single boundary-clause] libertatis. Hec sunt termini

Ink underline

Table 5 Annotations in Augustus ii. 6. Those in dark ink are given here with grey background.

c onclusion Many questions still remain from this discussion. The precise relationship between the two versions has not been fully elucidated, nor the question why they were both apparently produced at about the same time. Perhaps one hint towards an answer is the number of alterations to Augustus ii. 6; it almost looks as if this is an early working copy, although the script seems too careful and consistent for a simple draft, and even if it was first planned as such the seals clearly indicate that it was later deemed authoritative. However, Pershore’s land-holdings were very unstable during the first third or so of the eleventh 75

Another possibility is that these were added when the text was reworked to produce the transcript version, if this was the sequence of events; see above, p. 58.

72

King Edgar’s Charter for Pershore (AD 972) century, as Edward the Confessor gave most of its estates to Westminster.76 This instability may explain the need for alteration, if Augustus ii. 6 was indeed kept at Pershore and updated as events unfolded. The threat to Pershore’s holdings could also help to explain the need for two early charters, as additional documentation may well have helped any attempts to retain the land. It also suggests that both versions were drawn up between the purported date of 972 and the irrevocable loss of estates to Westminster during the Confessor’s reign. An alternative factor may be the fire which burnt down Pershore Abbey, apparently in the first few years of the eleventh century;77 the original document could have been destroyed then and a new version drawn up almost immediately afterwards, and the palaeography and philology both seem to allow such a date. The monks at Pershore may have already lodged a copy at Worcester before the fire but need not necessarily have used this when recreating their archive, instead updating the text by use of other records. This is all speculative but it might explain the need for two different versions produced in such quick succession, and the number of erasures and alterations in the single sheet could also reflect a somewhat haphazard production. Certainly the Orthodoxorum charters remain a fascinating but complex source of evidence for Anglo-Saxon England during the tenth century, but it is also worth remembering that their importance and interest extended well beyond the Norman Conquest, with the two versions from Pershore demonstrably receiving attention at least once in almost every century from the eleventh to today.78

appendix i: the translation of augustus ii. 6

This translation includes all of the Latin text but omits the bounds and witness-list. It was first made independently of Hudson’s edition and translation of the closely related 76

77

78

S 1143–46; compare also 174v–175r of Domesday book: Domesday Book: a Survey of the Counties of England ‘Liber de Wintonia’ compiled by direction of King William I, ed. and trans. J. Morris et al., History from the Sources, 38 vols (Chichester, 1975–) XVI.8 (174c–175b). Leland, Collectanea I, 242 and 244; J. Leland, The Itinerary of John Leland the Antiquary, 3rd ed., 9 vols. in 5 (Oxford, 1770) V, 2. Note also the statements of witnesses recorded in an attempt to establish Pershore’s holdings after the monastery was again burned down and their register destroyed in the thirteenth century; the document is BL Add. Charter 42,605 and was printed by R. Dodsworth and W. Dugdale, Monasticon Anglicanum, 3 vols. (London, 1655–73) I, 205–8; see also Victoria History, ed. Willis-Bund and Doubleday II, 128 and 130. I thank Rosalind Love for her comments on the translations in this paper, and Simon Keynes for his assistance and comments; any errors that remain are, of course, entirely my own. I also thank the Isaac Newton Trust and the Leverhulme Trust for their financial support, without which much of this would not have been possible.

73

Peter A. Stokes Orthodoxorum charters from Abingdon.79 However, his translation was used to help correct and improve this one, and my debt to him will be evident to anyone who compares the two. By the counsel of orthodox men of ecclesiastical strength we are most frequently instructed that we, entirely subjected subjects, serve Him who, arranging the fabric of the whole world in a marvellous and ineffable sequence, set up the microcosm (namely Adam), most fittingly with Eve side by side (namely as a companion) with the joy of paradisiacal delightfulness. Adam was formed at last with four-formed material and inspired with nourishing breath to a likeness of Himself, and He placed him over all things which He had formed in the world below except for one thing forbidden as a test. Led astray – oh woe! – by diabolical sophistry, enticed by the chameleonic and persuasive virago’s subterfuge, with the prohibition silenced, the glutton bit into the forbidden fruit, was cast down, and fully earned perpetual death for himself and his descendants in this wretched world. Since the prophets were foretelling and disclosing with hidden doctrine the highest king’s eternal prognostics from heaven, a shining angel brought down from on high the good word to the orthodox, not as the factious loquacity of the Jews speaks ineptly, but encompassing the most agreeable eloquence of the ancients and moderns, rendering useless the Arian and Sabellian incantations by crushing them under foot with mystical speech, and calling us from the blindness of powerless darkness to the tearlessness of heavenly inheritances; the angel slipped down from the thresholds on high and is seen to have sung amazing songs into the ear of the undefiled virgin, as the evangelical utterances promulgate; the whole (namely catholic) church cries out to her by bellowing high with one voice: ‘Blessed are you, virgin Mary, you who believed; those things will be fulfilled in you which were told to you by the Lord.’ Amazing to say, the word is made flesh and is made body, namely that of which the evangelist, towering above with the height of all perceptions, says ‘In the beginning was the Word and the Word was with God and the Word was God’, and so on. That is, after this incarnation was taken up from the virgin, the crime of the ancient virgin is removed and on all women is bestowed glory renowned in its shining marvels. Thus after the sweet-smelling divinity of Christ was left untouched, after his humanity had suffered, happily liberty came to the bounden servants. Hence I Edgar, by the support of the high-throned one ruler of the English and the other peoples living all around far and wide, so that I may deserve to obtain participation in this liberty by the mercy of the high-throned governor: to the monastery held to be located in that famous place which is named by the inhabitants of this race with the noble name Pershore, and dedicated to Mary the ever-virgin mother of our Lord and also to blessed Peter, chief of the apostles, and to his fellow apostle Paul; to monks living by the Rule I grant eternal liberty of monastic privilege, insofar as after the death of the exemplary abbot Foldbriht in whose times this restoration of liberty has been granted with Christ favouring it, let the whole congregation of the aforementioned monastery appoint as abbot him whom it will have elected for itself with a fitting council, choosing him rightly from that same troop of brothers according to the regulating institutes of blessed Benedict. 79

Historia Ecclesia, ed. Hudson I, 60–5 (S 658), 94–9 (S 673) and 140–50 (S 876).

74

King Edgar’s Charter for Pershore (AD 972) Let the liberty of this privilege be held hereafter in perpetual use by all catholic people, and let no outsider, relying on tyrannical obstinacy and seizing the right of power, exercise it in the aforementioned monastery, but may the community of the same monastery glory in the privilege of perpetual liberty as I have said before. Moreover let the aforesaid monastery be free of all earthly servitude in the same way in which it had been freed by our predecessor, namely by King Coenwulf, the most vigorous in orthodox faith, just as is contained in an ancient privilege which Earl Beornoth obtained: indeed the fields which were granted to our Lord Jesus Christ and his mother Mary by me myself restoring that right, for use of the monks in times ancient and modern, by kings and religious people of both sexes, that is namely [. . .] hides belonging to Pershore: ten hides at Bricklehampton, ten at Comberton, five at Pensham, sixteen at Eckington, ten at Birlingham, ten at Defford, ten at Strensham, ten at Besford, [. . .] at Croombe, ten at [Severn] Stoke, ten at Pirton, four at Wadborough, three at Chevington, three at Broughton, ten at Peopleton, ten at Snodsbury, seven at Naunton [Beauchamp], four at Abberton, five at Wihtlafestune, five at Flyford, five at Grafton [Flyford], five at Dormston, five at Martin Hussingtree, three at Broughton [Hackett], two at Libbery, thirty at Longdon, seven at Powick, three at Leigh, three at Acton [Beauchamp], forty at South Stoke, Hillesley, Tresham, Kilcott, Oldbury, Didmarton, Badminton and [Hawkesbury] Upton, ten at Dyrham, five at Longney, six at Lydney, six at Wyegate, five at Beoley, five at Yardley, ten at Alderminster, twenty at Broadway, five at Compton; ten at [Childs] Wickham, and sites of eighteen vats in two places for the purpose of manufacturing salt, ten at Middlewich and eight at Netherwich, and a station of two furnaces at Witton and a vat which is called Westrincge, with one and a half hides at the place called Horton [Hampton Lovett]; let them hold the same liberty in perpetuity. Since, at the time when the lands which I have granted with devout mind to the Lord had been unjustly taken away from the holy church of God, some treacherous men, usurping the hereditary charters, issued new ones to themselves, yet in the name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit we have commanded that no catholic should accept these same charters but they should be considered as having been repudiated in anathema by all the faithful with the old privilege thriving continually. But if some madman is so led astray with the folly of avarice (which we do not wish) that he should try with impudent daring to infringe this abundance of our munificence, may he be estranged from the community of the holy church of God and likewise from participation in the sacred body and blood of Jesus Christ the Son of God through whom the whole orb of lands has been freed from the ancient enemy of the human race, and may he be numbered on the left side with Judas, betrayer of Christ, unless first he shall have humbly repented with due satisfaction that he presumed to act as an insurgent against the holy church of God; may the apostate not obtain any forgiveness in this active life nor rest in the contemplative one, but may the most miserable man be driven into the eternal fires of the Pit with Ananias and Saphira and tormented without end. [. . .]80 80

The charter bounds are given here but these are not translated; for further details see above, n. 40.

75

Peter A. Stokes In the year of the Lord’s Incarnation 972 the written contract of this munificence was written with these witnesses agreeing whose names are recorded below, laid out each in its own order according to the authority of each, with God supporting. [. . .]81 Also to the monastery falls the aforementioned quantity of three iugera and two praedia in that well-known city which is called Worcester by its inhabitants, which (quantity) I grant to be held under condition of the same liberty in perpetuity in the name of Jesus Christ our Lord.

appendix ii: the letter from godfrey, archdeac on of worcester

The text and translation of Godfrey’s letter is provided below. Two manuscripts were collated for this text: A London, British Library, Cotton Augustus ii. 7 (s. xii) C Cambridge, Corpus Christi College 111, p. 135 (s. xvi) The principles of editing are the same as those used for S 786 above.82 text a

Reuerentissimo domino et patri A. summo pontifici, minimus sanctitatis suęb seruus Godefridus dictus Wigornensis archidiaconus, offerre domino incensum dignum in odorem suauitatis. Inter cetera uirtutum indumenta quę decent seruum bonum et fidelem presertim coram domino suo, ualde necessarium estimo sinceritatis et ueritatis ornamentum. Si quis enim huiuscemodi uestem nuptialem non habuerit, nonc intromittetur ad nuptias, sed eicietur foras, nec ascendet superius, ut sit honor ei coram simul discumbentibus. Quia qui sine ueritate est, patrifamilias placere non potest. Ego itaque, ut tamen non loquaturd os meum opera hominum, huius rei gratia ueritatis emulator existens, ad ueritatem uocatus, ueritati testimonium perhibeoe, ut ex temporali ueritatis exequutionef ab eo qui ueritas est ueritatem mereamini mercedis ęternę. Nouerit itaque sanctitas uestra uerum esse quod contrascriptig huius scriptum originale in uirtute sanctę trinitatis sigilla tria, trium personarum autenticarum, ad ueritatem triplici confirmatione commendant. Est autem sigillum primum illustris regis Ędgari, secundum Sancti Dunstani Cantuariensis Archiepiscopi, tercium Alferi ducis Merciorum. Sicut ex diligenti litterarum impressarum inspectione euidenter accepi. Operetur igitur si uobis placet filię uestrę sanctę Persorensis ęcclesię detrimentum intolerabile. Operetur inquam infra pietatis paterne uiscera compassionem, compassio restitutionem, restitutio consolationem, et quę ex toto fere defecit, quia non erat qui adiuuaret; nunc, nunc tandem, cum acceperitis tempus iustitias iudicandi, sentiat prophetam esse in Israelh, 81

The witness-list is found here, for which see above, pp. 48–50.

76

82

See above, p. 43.

King Edgar’s Charter for Pershore (AD 972) eoque efficatius, quoniam et domnusi abbas et ceteri fratres inibi Deo seruientes per uitę quę coram Deo est sanctitatem et ab hiis qui foris sunt testimonii sani meruere celebritatem. Valeat in perpetuum Sanctitas Vestra. n Hic A. fuit Alexander tertius cuius tempore Galfridus Nothus Henrici Secundi fuit Archidiaconus Wigornensis, Lincolnensis, etj Eboracensis et Cantuariensisk, et postea anno 1174 electus episcopus Lincolnensis. Ut Mattheus Parisiensis, et Mattheus Westmoniensis anno praedicto. Et anno 1178 decorauit eum cingulo militari. Et Florilegus anno 1182 dicit Galfridum renunciasse ministerium episcopalem ex superbia generis. Hic Galfridus fuit 32 Archiepiscopus Eboracensis anno dominil 1189 factus, et eo anno impetitus fuit per Hugonem Dunelmensem et Hubertum Sarum, ut eo anno scribit Walterus Couentrensis.m n Vide Wilhelmum Nouiburg libro secundo capitulo 22 et libro quarto capitulo 2.n a

b c d e f g h i j k l m n

Hoc scriptum appensum fuit magnæ chartæ de cœnobio Persoran Parshorensi in testimonium eius chartæ heading in C sue] tue C non] noti C loquatur] loquantur C perhibeo] exhibeo C exequutione] execucione C contrascripti] conscripsi C Israel] isrł A Israel C domnus] dominus C et] om. C et Cantuariensis] inserted A domini] om. C Hic . . . Couentrensis.] written on dorse in an early modern hand in A; written at end of text in C Vide . . . cap. 2.] marginal note to preceding paragraph in A; written after preceding paragraph in C

translation To the most reverend lord and father, Pope A, Godfrey, called Archdeacon of Worcester, the least servant of your Holiness to offer the lord an incense worthy in the odour of its sweetness.83 Among other clothing of virtues which above all befit a good and faithful servant before his lord, I hold especially necessary the ornament of sincerity and truth. For if anyone shall lack wedding clothes of this sort he shall not be admitted to the wedding but shall be thrown out the door,84 nor shall he go up higher so that at the same time there be honour for him before those sitting at the table.85 Because he who is without truth cannot please the head of the family. Accordingly, so that my mouth speaks not the works of men,86 for the sake of this matter being exceedingly zealous87 for the truth, called to truth, I offer witness to truth, so that, out of a moment’s execution of the truth, from him who is truth you might deserve the truth of eternal reward. And so may your Holiness know that it is true that three signs of three authenticating 83 87

Ecclus. XLV.16. Gal. I.14.

84

Matt. XXII.12–13.

77

85

Luke XIV.10.

86

Ps. XVI.4.

Peter A. Stokes people in virtue of the holy Trinity do commend the original of this copy to the truth with triple confirmation. For the first is the seal of the most famous King Edgar, the second of St Dunstan, archbishop of Canterbury, the third of Ælfhere, earl of Mercia; I have accepted it as evidently thus from careful inspection of the letters which have been stamped on it. It could, therefore, affect an intolerable loss for your daughter the holy church of Pershore if it pleases you. It could, I repeat, effect compassion with the mercy of paternal love, compassion could bring about restitution, restitution consolation, and that is something which has been almost entirely lacking because there was noone who would help; now, now at last, since you have accepted that it is time to judge with right judgements,88 let him know that there is a prophet in Israel,89 and all the more efficaciously, since both the lord abbot and the other brothers serving God there through the holiness of a life in God’s sight as well as from those who are outside the community have deserved a cause for celebration at sound testimony. May your Holiness fare well in perpetuity. This A. was Alexander III, in whose time Geoffrey90 the bastard son of Henry II was archdeacon of Worcester, Lincoln, and York (and Canterbury), and afterwards was elected bishop of Lincoln in 1174 (as Matthew Paris and Matthew of Westminster under the aforementioned year).91 And in 1178 he was knighted. And Florilegus says that in 1182 Geoffrey had renounced his bishopric out of pride of birth.92 This Geoffrey was made thirty-second archbishop of York in 1189, and in that year was attacked by Hugh of Durham and Hubert of Sarum, as Walter of Coventry writes for that year.93 See William of Newburgh, Book 2 Chapter 22, and Book 4 Chapter 2.94 88 90

91

92

93

94

89 Ps. LXXIV.3. IV Kings V.8. Sic: the author of this note has apparently confused Archdeacon Godfrey with Geoffrey Plantagenet, archbishop of York. Matthæi Parisiensis, monachi Sancti Albani, chronica majora, ed. H. R. Luard, RS [57], 7 vols. (London, 1872–83) II, 295. For Joscelyn’s knowledge of these texts, see Graham and Watson, The Recovery of the Past, pp. 89–90 and 100–101 (J2.77–8 and J2.100–101). For so-called ‘Matthew of Westminster’, see also Matthæi Parisiensis, monachi Sancti Albani, Historia Anglorum, sive, ut vulgo dicitur, Historia minor, item, ejusdem Abbreviatio chronicorum Angliæ, ed. F. Madden, RS [44], 3 vols. (London, 1866–9) I, xx–xxvii. ‘Florilegus’ is again ‘Matthew of Westminster’: see Historia Anglorum, ed. Madden, xx, for discussion, and Rogeri de Wendover liber qui dicitur Flores historiarum ab anno domini MCLIV, ed. H. G. Hewlett, RS [84], 3 vols. (London, 1886–9) II, 128–9 for the text. Memoriale fratris Walteri de Coventria: the Historical Collections of Walter Coventry, ed. W. Stubbs, RS [58], 2 vols. (London, 1872–3) I, 372; Graham and Watson, Recovery of the Past, pp. 85–6 (no. J2.69). Chronicles of the Reigns of Stephen, Henry II and Richard I, ed. R. Howlett, RS [82], 4 vols. (London, 1884–9) I, 154–5 and 300–301; for Book 2, see also William of Newburgh, The History of English Affairs, ed. P. G. Walsh and M. Kennedy, 2 vols. (Warminster, 1988–) II, 90–3 (text) and 189 (commentary); for Joscelyn’s knowledge of William of Newburgh, see Graham and Watson, Recovery of the Past, pp. 81–2 (no. J2.60).

78

Lost voices from Anglo-Saxon Lichfield gifford charles-edwards † and helen mckee

abstract Several dry-point glosses were added to the Lichfield Gospels during the tenth or eleventh century, apparently recording the names of members of the pre-Conquest community at Lichfield. We consider the relationship of these glosses to the list of Anglo-Saxon names on p. 141 of the Gospels, and discuss parallels from elsewhere in the Insular world.

The eighth-century gospel book Lichfield, Cathedral Library, Lich. 1 – more commonly referred to as the Lichfield Gospels or the Gospels of St Chad – is one of the outstanding examples of Insular manuscript art. Its origins are, however, unclear. Its earliest known provenance is Llandeilo Fawr in Carmarthenshire, south-west Wales (where it received various additions during the ninth century), but the lack of comparable manuscripts from Wales has prevented recognition of the Lichfield Gospels as an identifiably Welsh book. By the tenth century, it had reached Lichfield (Staffordshire), where it has remained.1 Situated at the heart of Mercia, Lichfield was an important AngloSaxon city (its cathedral had been founded by St Chad in 669). It is, however, 11

The entry Wynsi[ge] pr[e]sul on p. 6 of the Lichfield Gospels provides the earliest evidence for its presence in Mercia; a man of this name was bishop of Lichfield from 963 ⫻ 964 to 975. On the manuscript, see E. A. Lowe, Codices Latini Antiquiores [hereafter CLA], 12 vols. and supp. (Oxford, 1934–71) II, second edition (Oxford, 1972), no. 159; W. M. Lindsay, Early Welsh Script (Oxford, 1912), pp. 3–5; D. Huws, Medieval Welsh Manuscripts (Aberystwyth, 2000), p. 5 and plate I; D. Jenkins and M. E. Owen, ‘The Welsh Marginalia in the Lichfield Gospels’, Cambridge Medieval Celtic Studies [hereafter CMCS] 5 (Summer 1983), 37–66, and 7 (Summer 1984), 91–120; N. R. Ker, Catalogue of Manuscripts Containing Anglo-Saxon (Oxford, 1957; rev. imprint, 1990), p. 158 (no. 123); D. N. Dumville, A Palaeographer’s Review: the Insular System of Scripts in the Early Middle Ages, Volume One (Osaka, 1999), p. 123; R. Gameson, ‘The Insular Gospel Book at Hereford Cathedral’, Scriptorium 56 (2002), 48–79 (pp. 59–60, 67). A recently published discussion of the Lichfield Gospels has placed their origins firmly in Anglo-Saxon England: see M. P. Brown, ‘The Lichfield Angel and the Manuscript Context: Lichfield as a Centre of Insular Art’, Jnl of the British Archaeol. Assoc. 160 (2007), 8– 19, and compare Janet Backhouse’s assessment in The Making of England, ed. J. Backhouse and L. Webster (Toronto, 1991), no. 90 (p. 127). However, we would take issue with several of Professor Brown’s statements. In particular, we would note that the presence of runes in the Lichfield Gospels (specifically, four runic forms out of a total of 126 display letters) need not preclude Welsh origin. There is evidence from the earliest Welsh inscriptions (V. E.

79

Gifford Charles-Edwards and Helen McKee one from which regrettably little has survived – although an unexpected spotlight was shone on the shrine of St Chad c. 800 with the recent discovery of a magnificent sculpture of an angel, during archaeological investigations beneath the cathedral nave.2 One comparatively neglected feature of the Lichfield Gospels has been the existence of dry-point glosses – scratched with a stylus rather than written in ink – on several of its pages. Humfrey Wanley, and later Wendy Stein, observed several on pp. 217 and 226.3 Now that Gifford Charles-Edwards has identified additional stylus markings on p. 221 (the incipit page to Luke, one of the most heavily decorated in the book), a transcription and discussion of these glosses as a group seems appropriate. The rich decorative detail and precise penmanship of Insular gospel books focus the eyesight to operate at a certain specialized level. Dry-point glossing, an equally precise type of writing, may exist unnoticed on the same page, and is only revealed by close study. In order to see dry-point glosses clearly, the eye must focus in a quite different way, at an acute angle to the writing surface, and if possible in a raking light. Only by fixing the eye upon marks made by the flensing knife, or on follicles if the hair-side is being examined, will drypoint letters reveal themselves clearly. They are notoriously difficult to photograph, and those observed in the Lichfield Gospels are here presented as line drawings.

13

Nash-Williams, The Early Christian Monuments of Wales (Cardiff, 1950), Group 1) that Welsh letterers were making use of exotic alphabets. Moreover, there is a runic alphabet in the early ninth-century Welsh manuscript known as Liber Commonei: see Saint Dunstan’s Classbook from Glastonbury: Codex Biblioth. Bodleianae Oxon. Auct. F.4.32, facs. ed. R. W. Hunt (Amsterdam, 1961), f. 20r. We note in addition that the influence of runes on Insular display capitals, which has sometimes been affirmed (e.g. M. P. Brown, The Lindisfarne Gospels: Society, Spirituality and the Scribe (London, 2003), pp. 229, 236), is uncertain; the origins of the angularized letter forms in question lie in the epigraphic traditions of western Britain. Cf. C. Tedeschi, ‘Some Observations on the Palaeography of Early Christian Inscriptions in Britain’, in Roman, Runes and Ogham: Medieval Inscriptions in the Insular World and on the Continent, ed. J. Higgitt, K. Forsyth and D. N. Parsons (Donington, 2002), pp. 16–25 and G. Charles-Edwards, The Origin and Development of Insular Geometric Letters (Oxford, forthcoming). A good example of early geometric letter-forms from Wales is the Catacus inscription from Llanfihangel Cwm Du, Breconshire: A Corpus of Early Medieval Inscribed Stones and Stone Sculpture in Wales, I, ed. M. Redknap and J. M. Lewis (Cardiff, 2007), no. B21 2 (pp. 194–6). See Brown, ‘The Lichfield Angel’. H. Wanley, Librorum Vett. Septentrionalium . . . Catalogus Historico-Criticus (G. Hickes and H. Wanley, Antiquæ Literaturæ Septentrionalis Libri Duo (Oxford, 1703–5), II), p. 290, no. IX (bis); W. A. Stein, ‘The Lichfield Gospels’ (unpublished PhD dissertation, University of California at Berkeley, 1980), p. 6 (she referred incorrectly to p. 227 rather than 226). Cf. The Liber Vitae of the New Minster and Hyde Abbey, Winchester, ed. S. Keynes (Copenhagen, 1996), p. 55.

80

Lost voices from Anglo-Saxon Lichfield a

b

c

d

Fig. 4a–d Lichfield dry-points

There is a small but growing collection of dry-point writings to provide comparanda,4 and we might include with them the sgraffito constructional notes made by metalworkers on metal.5 A series of scratched glosses extensive enough to provide a complete alphabet and varieties of stroke combinations exists in Dublin, Trinity College, Ussher 1 (noted and listed by William 14

15

Recent discussions of Anglo-Saxon dry-points include P. G. Rusche, ‘Dry-Point Glosses to Aldhelm’s De laudibus virginitatis in Beinecke 401’, ASE 23 (1994), 195–213, and A. Falileyev and P. Russell, ‘The Dry-Point Glosses in Oxoniensis Posterior’, Yr Hen Iaith: Studies in Early Welsh, ed. P. Russell (Aberystwyth, 2003), pp. 95–101. M. P. Brown, ‘Paten and Purpose: the Derrynaflan Paten Inscriptions’, The Age of Migrating Ideas, ed. R. M. Spearman and J. Higgitt (Edinburgh, 1993), pp. 162–7.

81

Gifford Charles-Edwards and Helen McKee O’Sullivan in the front end-papers of the rebind).6 Such letters were made with firm pressure on the upright stylus. Devoid of the linking strokes of cursive hands, this minimalist alphabet reduced letter-forms to the simplest straight down-strokes and tightly curved bows; it was written with a body height as small as one-sixteenth of an inch. In the order that they appear in the manuscript, the Lichfield dry-points (Fig. 4a–d) read: p. 217

[at the lower left of the page, to the left of + Teudur + Ourdol +] Wulfun Alchelm Eadric

p. 221

[in the centre of the left-hand margin] [ ]DVLF 7 + Berht/elf [in the bottom margin, just by Teudubr] [Pas]t [+icc]7

p. 226

[in the bottom margin] Berhtfled Elfled Wulfild

The content of these scratched glosses – Anglo-Saxon personal names8 – encourages the assumption that they were written in Anglo-Saxon England. Their script harmonizes with this: a form of Insular minuscule on pp. 217 and 226, and mixed majuscules on p. 221. Insular minuscule of one kind or another is found in Anglo-Saxon manuscripts from the seventh century until after the Norman conquest (it was the most common script-form until the middle of the tenth century), while mixed majuscules were also regularly used by English scribes. The date of these glosses is potentially very important: were they written in the tenth century or later (when the Lichfield Gospels are already known to have been at Lichfield), or might they pre-date the manuscript’s sojourn at Llandeilo Fawr (thus providing evidence for its ultimate origin in Anglo-Saxon England)? 16

18

P. Ó Néill, ‘The Earliest Dry-point Glosses in Codex Usserianus Primus’, A Miracle of Learning: Studies in Manuscripts and Irish Learning. Essays in honour of William O’Sullivan, ed. T. Barnard, D. Ó Cróinín and K. Simms (Aldershot, 1998), pp. 1–28; G. Charles-Edwards, ‘The Springmount Bog Tablets: their Implications for Insular Epigraphy and Palaeography’, Studia 7 Celtica 36 (2002), 27–45 (pp. 32–3). This reading is extremely tentative. Wulfun, Alchelm, Eadric, [ ]ulf, and Berhtelf are male names; Berhtfled, Elfled, and Wulfild are female.

82

Lost voices from Anglo-Saxon Lichfield There is also the question of why these names were entered into the Lichfield Gospels. Significantly, they are not the only personal names which the manuscript contains. While in Wales, it received numerous names (many accompanied by crosses), which are most likely to record persons to be commemorated at the altar at Llandeilo.9 The gospel book appears to have continued to function as a liber vitae (if that is what it was) when it was taken to Mercia. Apart from the mention of a priest called Wynsige on p. 1,10 there is an extensive list of Anglo-Saxon names on p. 141 (surrounding the lower half of the Welsh ‘Surexit’ memorandum): this list is headed with alpha et omega and looks like a formal record of souls to be remembered.11 We should not expect memorials to be inscribed with a stylus, however, since this renders them effectively invisible. Should we characterize the drypoint glosses in the Lichfield Gospels as ‘tourist’ graffiti, almost comparable with ‘I was here’ on a modern-day wall?12 Another curious point is that six out of the nine scratched names also appear in the long list of names added to p. 141: Wulfun, Alchelm, Eadric, Berhtfled, Elfled and Wulfild. It is particularly striking that Eadric and Alchelm appear side by side on the penultimate line of p. 141, just as they are to be found scratched close together on p. 217, and that Berhtfled and Ælffled appear side by side (partly in Greek letters) a few lines above on p. 141, just as they are to be found together on p. 226. Could the copyist(s) of the list of names on p. 141 also have written some, or all, of the dry-point glosses?13 To answer this question we turn to the dry-points’ palaeography. It is important to emphasize at the beginning the non-standard nature of the glosses’ script. As indicated above, the process of scratching letters onto parchment with a hard point results in rather different letter-forms from those produced by pen and ink. For example, there are no Insular wedges at the tops of ascenders.14 In addition, because it is impossible when using a hard point to 19 11

12

13

14

10 Jenkins and Owen, ‘Welsh Marginalia’, p. 55. See n. 1 above. For reproductions, see The Text of the Book of Llan Dâv Reproduced from the Gwysaney Manuscript, ed. J. Gwenogvryn Evans (Oxford, 1893), plate facing p. xliii; Jenkins and Owen, ‘Welsh Marginalia’, plate A. Other examples of names scratched into manuscripts with a stylus are similarly difficult to assess. EADB and +E+ in Oxford, Bodleian Library, Selden supra 30 (S.C. 3418) may commemorate Eadburh, eighth-century abbess of Minster-in-Thanet, while Liofric sacerdos Garulf leuita in London, British Library, Cotton Caligula A.xv appears to record the names of two members of the ninth-century community at St Augustine’s Abbey, Canterbury: see Lowe, CLA, II, nos. 183, 257. The list of Anglo-Saxon names on p. 141 deserves much more attention than it has so far received. At first sight the entire block of text looks like the work of a single hand, but the number of scribes involved in this work is not certain: there may have been two or even three. Cf. A Palaeographer’s View: The Selected Writings of Julian Brown, ed. J. Bately, M. P. Brown and J. Roberts (London, 1993), pp. 189, 206–7.

83

Gifford Charles-Edwards and Helen McKee flow smoothly from one letter to the next, there is a high degree of separation, not only between individual letters, but also between parts of letters (especially noticeable on p. 217). The open e seen in, for example, Alchelm and Elfled is typical of this type of script.15 The number of hands involved in the execution of the Lichfield dry-points is not certain. While we may be dealing with three, four, or five – a different hand on each page, and perhaps two or even three on p. 221 – it is possible that the glosses on pp. 217 and 226 at least were by the same person. These two groups of three glosses each were scratched in the same type of minuscule script, and show similar variation of letter-forms, even within individual names (see l in Wulfild on p. 226 and u in Wulfun on p. 217). On the other hand, the higher visibility of gaps between pen-strokes on p. 217, and the use of rolled entry-strokes on p. 226 alone (see Berhtfled), mean that it is safer to assume that two different people were after all involved here, and that the resemblances between their contributions are simply owing to their having used the same (very common) script-type. (An interesting letter-form on p. 217 is the A of Alchelm, reminiscent of a display-capital A found in several high-grade Insular manuscripts.)16 The bottom inscription on p. 221, while also in a form of Insular minuscule, displays characteristics not seen on pp. 217 and 226, notably the a+s ligature (if that is what this is) and the convex top to t. It is also very difficult to decipher: its first letter (G? P? Æ?) appears anomalous, and [+ icc] does not make obvious sense. The two additional names which are visible on p. 221 contain letter-forms of a higher grade than those on the other pages. -DVLF and the ER- of Berhtelf are in Capitals of monumental, geometric type, although for htelf we see a shift down into minuscule again. It is possible that [ ]DVLF was written first, and that another hand was responsible for 7 + Berhtelf, connecting the two names with an et-nota. It is impossible to be certain as to the date of these glosses, partly because the normal morphology of the letter-forms has been distorted by the use of a hard point. The form of (rounded, single-compartment) a ligatured with e at the beginning of Eadric (p. 217) might suggest that we are not dealing with the tenth century, since during that period Anglo-Saxon minuscule script tended to feature square a (and this would have been easy to execute in ligature with the 15

16

Cf. Ó Néill, ‘Earliest Dry-point Glosses’, p. 4; Charles-Edwards, ‘Springmount Bog Tablets’, p. 33. Notably the Lindisfarne Gospels and the Book of Kells: see J. Higgitt, ‘The Display Script of the Book of Kells and the Tradition of Insular Decorated Capitals’, The Book of Kells: Proceedings of a Conference at Trinity College Dublin, 6–9 September 1992, ed. F. O’Mahony (Aldershot, 1994), pp. 209–33 (p. 225). For an additional example, see C. Nordenfalk, Celtic and Anglo-Saxon Painting (London, 1977), plate 13.

84

Lost voices from Anglo-Saxon Lichfield preceding e). However, the presence or absence of square a is not an invariable indicator of date. Single-compartment a is a regular feature of Insular minuscule from the earliest period, and it is not unknown in the tenth century. We may note that an e+a ligature very similar to that in Eadric appears in several examples of English Square minuscule, from the 960s in particular.18 It is also seen in later material, such as the second hand of the Beowulf-manuscript.19 Unfortunately, therefore, palaeography alone cannot assign a firm date to the dry-point glosses in the Lichfield Gospels. We can say, however, that their script would be consistent with a date in the tenth or eleventh century. We cannot rule out the possibility that they pre-date the episcopate of Wynsige (963/4–975), with whom the earliest identified Anglo-Saxon additions to the Gospels have been associated,20 but they are unlikely to pre-date it by much. This last is inferred not from palaeography but from their position on the page, which in two cases was evidently influenced by pre-existing Welsh additions to the Gospels.21 In other words, the Anglo-Saxon dry-points were made after the Lichfield Gospels had left Llandeilo Fawr, and do not provide evidence for any earlier provenance in England. We now return to the question of whether the Anglo-Saxon names on p. 141 of the Lichfield Gospels and the scratched glosses share a common hand. The answer appears to be in the negative. Although they were written in a mixture of minuscules and majuscules comparable to that in some of the dry-points, the Anglo-Saxon names on p. 141 include several different letter-forms (in addition to Greek majuscules). The most notable are minuscule a in the form ultimately derived from Uncial; f with cross-bar above the line of writing; and r usually without a descending stroke on the right. These forms are characteristic not of Insular minuscule but of Caroline minuscule, which was being written in English scriptoria from the 960s onwards.22 This specimen is likely 17

17

18

19

20 21

22

D. N. Dumville, ‘English Square Minuscule Script: the Background and Earliest Phases’, ASE 16 (1987), 147–79 (p. 153). See, for example, S 697 (A.D. 961) and S 1215 (A.D. 968). These manuscripts have been assigned respectively to ‘Phase V’ and ‘Phase VI’ of Anglo-Saxon Square minuscule: see D. N. Dumville, ‘English Square Minuscule Script: the Mid-Century Phases’, ASE 23 (1994), 133–64 (pp. 155 n. 122, 156 n. 123). London, British Library, Cotton Vitellius A.xv, ff. 129[132]–198[201] (saec. xi in.). Cf. D. N. Dumville, ‘Beowulf Come Lately: Some Notes on the Palaeography of the Nowell Codex’, Archiv für das Studium der neueren Sprachen und Literaturen 225 (1988), 49–63. See n. 1 above. The three names on p. 217 were placed in a small section of blank parchment to the left of + Teudur + Ourdol + and above ‘Chad 7’ (Jenkins and Owen, ‘Welsh Marginalia, Part I’, p. 55). On p. 221, the unreadable gloss [Pas]t[+icc] was tucked in above Teudubr. On the career of Caroline minuscule in England, see D. N. Dumville, English Caroline Script and Monastic History: Studies in Benedictinism AD 950–1030 (Woodbridge, 1993); R. Gameson, ‘The Colophon of the Eadwig Gospels’, ASE 31 (2001), 201–22.

85

Gifford Charles-Edwards and Helen McKee to date from relatively early in the career of Anglo-Caroline, and presumably no later than the second decade of the eleventh century (by which time English Caroline script had become the almost exclusive preserve of Latin material, and was in any case developing a range of new letter-forms). Its author may have been a priest: the prayer Domine benedic . . . which is written to the right of the names includes the phrase meis indignis precibus, suggesting an ecclesiastic’s private intercession. We have seen that the Anglo-Saxon names inscribed with a stylus in the Lichfield Gospels contain such standard Insular minuscule letter-forms that they are effectively undatable to any but the broadest bounds. It is suggestive, however, that they include several names which were also written in ink on p. 141.23 Two other names, while they appear only in the dry-points, do contain identical elements to some of the inked names: Wulfild (p. 226) may be compared with Wulfun and Wulfric on p. 141, and Berhtelf on p. 221 with Berhtfled on p. 141. We know that Anglo-Saxon children tended to be given names which included elements from their parents’ names.24 The similarities between the names in the dry-points and those in the collection on p. 141 may be merely coincidental, but it is not impossible that they relate to the same community. The simplest explanation for the personal names scratched into the Lichfield Gospels is that they represent informal commemorations of nine individuals from tenth- or eleventh-century Lichfield, presumably members of the religious community there. From its early history in Wales, the manuscript had served as a repository of both documents and names to be remembered, and it is not surprising that it was used for the same purposes in Anglo-Saxon England. However, the dry-point glosses which were added to the pages of the Gospels are puzzling in several respects. They are effectively invisible, unlike the inked names on p. 141, and their execution would not have been simple. By the time that they were added, not only must the volume have been a revered one, but the surface of the vellum would have hardened with age. How could anyone have approached so close to such a precious object that they could, slowly and painstakingly, have inscribed letters in it? It might have happened while the volume lay open upon an altar, but as good daylight is necessary to execute such work, this seems unlikely. The names have been written by hands accustomed to writing: we might speculate that the authors of the scratched glosses were in some way involved in the keeping of a library, or the 23

24

On the other hand, none of the names is uncommon; Berhtfled indeed occurs twice on p. 141 (towards the end of the bottom line, as well as next to Ælffled a little higher up). W. G. Searle, Onomasticon Anglo-Saxonicum (Cambridge, 1897), pp. xiii–xiv. For a recent discussion, see J. M. H. Smith, Europe After Rome. A New Cultural History 500–1000 (Oxford, 2005), pp. 90–2.

86

Lost voices from Anglo-Saxon Lichfield workings of a scriptorium. It appears that they wished to mark a personal link with the manuscript.25 Lemuel Hopkin-James discussed the significance of entering a name in a precious gospel book in his textual study of the Lichfield Gospels.26 He noted the ‘names by themselves with nothing but a cross before them’ which feature among the Welsh additions to the Lichfield Gospels, and made the parallel with those ‘whose names are in the book of life’ (Philippians IV.3). Entries in the (twelfth-century) Book of Llandaff indicate that names could be written in the ‘book of life’ (liber vitae) upon payment of a fee.27 Such entry of names, then, was a highly significant act. The difference between the names inserted via a commercial exchange and the dry-point entries with which we are concerned is that the former are visible and the latter invisible. This may support the suggestion that the scratched glosses record the names of monks and nuns who had a close connection with the keeping and display of the Lichfield Gospels, and of whom three or four had sufficient scribal knowledge to effect discreet dry-point entries. The glossators of p. 221 were attracted to a display opening as a prime site in the volume – perhaps aware that on such pages a discreet dry-point is even less likely to be noticed. In conclusion, the Lichfield scratched glosses are not able to provide us with an Anglo-Saxon provenance for the manuscript any earlier than that previously known; but they do allow us a momentary glimpse into the Lichfield community a few years, or decades, before the Norman conquest would change its composition forever.28 25

26 27

28

Richard Emms has drawn our attention to a possible parallel in the Gospels of St Augustine (Cambridge, Corpus Christi College, 286: cf. Lowe, CLA, II, no. 126). This manuscript (originally written in Italy during the sixth century) contains several English additions, including a list of relics in a late twelfth-century hand; beneath this list is what appears to be a series of six names, possibly the names of six monks who had responsibility for the relic collection. The Celtic Gospels, their Story and their Text (London, 1934), p. xvi. Aberystwyth, National Library of Wales, 17110E. For example: ‘Ilias, for his soul, and the inscription of his name in the book of life, gave a mansion in the middle of Abergavenny and four modii of land with it’, or ‘Erbig son of Elffin, for inscribing his name in the book of life, granted in alms to God and the Apostle Peter and SS. Dyfrig, Teilo and Euddogwy’ (cf. Text of the Book of Llan Dâv, ed. Gwenogvryn Evans, pp. 186, 197). We are very grateful to the Dean and Chapter of Lichfield Cathedral for allowing us access to the Lichfield Gospels, to Professor Simon Keynes for his helpful suggestions and to Dr Rosalind Love for her invaluable assistance in elucidating the Latin material.

87

APPENDIX

T H E L I S T O F A N G L O - S A X O N N A M E S O N P . 141 O F T H E L I C H F I E L D G O S P E L S

A et ⍀ Atulf. Ælfheh. æ Wulfmer. Wulfgeat. [.]iii Wulfric. 1

Domine benedic, sicut uis et scis, sic fac,2 omnes q[ui] me ‘[W]’3 docuerunt, et ‘omnes qui’ meis indignis precibus se commendauerunt,4 qui confesi fuerint,5 et omnes qui batismum acceperunt.6 + Wulfun. Wulfere.7 Wuftryt. Wulferye. Wihtmund. Berhtfled. [Pater eius Hehwyn].8 Ælffled. Leofe.9 Wynsige. Wulfric. Æeelfled. 11

12 13

14

15

16

18 19

This passage now reads as a single prayer. It was probably written in stages, however. The first part to be committed to parchment was probably Omnes qui me W. docuerunt et omnes qui meis indignis precibus se commendauerunt (following the first line of names). The scribe (who from the above was probably a priest) then added the introductory Domine benedic sicut uis et scis sic fac crammed in at the end of the line above. The remaining portion of the prayer, qui confesi fuerint et omnes qui batismum acceperunt, must have been written after the lines of names beginning + Wulfun and Berhtfled, since it has also been crammed into the blank space at their end. Fiat fiat is written (in the same hand) in the right-hand margin beside this prayer. I take this to represent the scribe’s initial. It is tempting, but unprovable, to guess that W stands for one of the names on p. 141 which begins with a W: perhaps Wulfmer, which was one of the first names to be written and is in majuscules, or Wulfun, the only name to be preceded by a cross. This section of the text is partly written in Greek letters, as are several of the Anglo-Saxon names below. The eta in SH (i.e. se) appears to be constructed like a runic letter (D), which may have been influenced by its use on two of the Lichfield incipit pages. Perhaps influenced by I John I.9, often used in confessional prayers in the form si confessi fuerimus peccata nostra . . . Alternatively, the f may be an error for s (i.e. sunt). Wanley transcribed this passage as omnes qui beatis sunt mu acæ (reading sunt instead of -p[er]unt, and assuming that mu acæ / -mu[m] acce, written above, was intended to follow). He explained 17 sunt mu acæ as sanctimoniales. There appears to be an erasure in the middle of this name. Pater eius Hehwyn is written above Berhtfled, and seems most likely to refer to him. Berhtfled, Ælffled and Leofe (i.e. Leofi?) are partly in Greek letters. In Berhtfled an original F has been changed to ⌽; in Ælffled we find ⌽ and F side by side. There are two marks over Leofe which look like is, perhaps indicating that the name should be written Liofi (although there is something similar over the next name, Wynsige).

88

Lost voices from Anglo-Saxon Lichfield Elfehere. Wulfwyn. Wulfild. Hehfled. B[enedic]. d[omine]. Æ. Æ. S. Wulfmær. W. L. B.10 (PART OF THE SUREXIT MEMORANDUM)11 Æ. Æ. [Æ]. Æ. Burhelm. Æ. Wulsi. I. L. S. Wærulf. Æ. B. Æeelwyn. E. W. T. W. Æ. L. [Pufa]12 Eadric. Alchelm. Ælfric. Wilaf. [benedicam]. Ælferyt13 Burhild. Wulfric. Wulfhelm. Wulffled.14 Ea et ert.15 E. Behtfled. Wulgar. Ælfric. 10

11

13

14 15

The list of letters here and in the line below is puzzling. The easiest explanation may be that they represent more names, which the scribe did not write out in full (all but one of the letters in question are commonly found at the beginning of Anglo-Saxon names; the exception is I, but even this is occasionally attested). Alternatively, they may represent a code, although if so this has yet to be decoded (for a discussion of two codes which were known in Anglo-Saxon England, see Bernhard Bischoff, Latin Palaeography: Antiquity and the Middle Ages, translated by Dáibhí Ó Cróinín and David Ganz (Cambridge, 1990), pp. 177–8). A third possibility might be that the letters are the initials of words in a prayer, but this possibility may be dismissed: it is unlikely that the words of any prayer could begin with the letters in question. The two groups of Anglo-Saxon names are separated by part of the Welsh Surexit memorandum, that is, Teliau tist Gurgint tist . . . quicumque frangerit maladictus erit. Cf. Jenkins and Owen, 12 ‘Welsh Marginalia Part II’, p. 91. This reading is very tentative. This line is indented in order to avoid the Old Welsh names B[ussi] and Ourcein[t] which had been added to this part of the page. Over Wulffled (and under Alchelm, which is immediately above it on the page) is written alia. This part is not clear; Ettier  or even Exier  are both possibilities, but Ea7er  (as it was transcribed by Wanley) is the best reading.

89

Plate I Lichfield, Cathedral Library, Lich. 1, p. 141

The Old English Promissio regis mary clayton

abstract The Old English Promissio regis is a translation of the threefold promise made at their coronations by Anglo-Saxon kings in the tenth and eleventh centuries followed by two paragraphs on the duties of kingship; it is preserved in one eleventh-century manuscript and we have two copies of a second. This article reviews discussions of the text, looks at the manuscript evidence for what it can tell about its authorship and history, examines its sources and function and suggests a close connection with Wulfstan, archbishop of York. A new edition of the text concludes the piece.

The Promissio regis is an Old English text composed of a translation of the threefold promise made at their coronations by Anglo-Saxon kings in the tenth and eleventh centuries, followed by two paragraphs on the duties of kingship, addressed to king and people. According to the text itself, it is copied letter by letter from the document which Dunstan, archbishop of Canterbury from 959 to 988, gave to the king, ‘urum hlaforde’, when he was consecrated king at Kingston. From this, we can deduce that the text was addressed to an AngloSaxon king who had been consecrated by Dunstan and who was still alive at the time of writing. While the promise has been printed many times, most notably by Liebermann in his monumental edition of Anglo-Saxon law, and has been discussed by historians, little detailed attention has been paid to the other two paragraphs.1 These two paragraphs on kingship have not yet been included in the Toronto Dictionary of Old English Web Corpus, as this took its text from Liebermann’s edition of the promise only. The entire text was printed by Hickes in 1689 from London, British Library, Cotton Vitellius A. vii, by Arthur Taylor in The Glory of Regality in 1820 from London, British Library, Cotton Cleopatra B. xiii, by Wright and Halliwell in 1843 from Cleopatra B. xiii and by Stubbs in his Memorials of St Dunstan in 1874, again from the Cleopatra version, but it has not been edited since Stubbs. 2 His edition, while 11

12

Die Gesetze der Angelsachsen, ed. and translated by F. Liebermann, 3 vols. (Halle, 1903–16) I, 214–17. The omission of the sermon from the Dictionary of Old English Web Corpus (http://www.doe.utoronto.ca/pub/webcorpus.html) has hindered the recognition of some striking features of its vocabulary. G. Hickes, Institutiones grammaticae Anglo-Saxonicae et Moeso-Gothicae (Oxford, 1689); A. Taylor, The Glory of Regality (London, 1820); Reliquæ Antiquæ, ed. T. Wright and J. O. Halliwell, 2 vols

91

Mary Clayton accurate, is not easily obtainable, his use of th for both  and  is not in accord with modern practice, and, as the text is printed only in an appendix to his book, there is no introduction or notes to the text. This article will, therefore, include an edition of the text. Discussions of the text since Stubbs’s edition have been brief. Plummer suggested that the Promissio might be the address referred to in the entries for 1043 in two versions of the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle, C and E, which describe Archbishop’s Eadsige’s address to the newly consecrated Edward the Confessor, quoted here from the C Chronicle: ‘Her wæs Eadward gehalgod to cinge on Wincestre on forman Easter dæig mid myccelum wyrscupe . . . Eadsige arcebisceop hine halgade. 7 to foran eallum am folce hine wel lærde. 7 to his agenre neode 7 ealles folces wel manude.’3 Liebermann set out the relationship of the promises to the Latin promises preserved in coronation ordines from Anglo-Saxon England and argued that the vernacular version was for the coronation of Edward the Martyr (in 975) or of Æthelred (in 979); Dunstan certainly consecrated Æthelred at Kingston but we do not know where Edward the Martyr was consecrated, though it is highly probable that it was also at Kingston with Dunstan officiating.4 Dunstan had already consecrated Edgar in 973, but that coronation was in Bath and so cannot be the one referred to here. Although we do not have any documentary evidence of it, it is highly likely that Edgar had previously been consecrated c. 960, soon after he came to the throne, and in that case it is possible that Dunstan, who became archbishop in 959, also consecrated Edgar then, again most probably at Kingston, the favoured place for royal consecrations.5 Liebermann dated the translation of the promise 973 to 988 (Dunstan died in 988), saying that it ‘entstand vielleicht schon 973–78 oder bald nachher’.6 Given the youth of both Edward and Æthelred when consecrated (Edward was at least eleven at his father’s death in

13

14

15

16

(London, 1841–3) II, 194; Memorials of St Dunstan, ed. W. Stubbs, RS 63 (London, 1874), 355–7. Two of the Saxon Chronicles Parallel, ed. C. Plummer, 2 vols. (Oxford, 1892–9) I, 162: ‘In this year Edward was consecrated king in Winchester on the first day of Easter with great dignity . . . Archbishop Eadsige consecrated him and instructed him well before all the people, and advised him well for his own sake and for the sake of all the people.’ See S. Keynes’s entry on Kingston in the Blackwell Encyclopaedia of Anglo-Saxon England, ed. M. Lapidge, J. Blair, S. Keynes and D. Scragg (Oxford, 1999), p. 272. On the date of Æthelred’s accession and coronation, see S. Keynes, The Diplomas of King Æthelred ‘the Unready’ 978–1016 (Cambridge, 1980), p. 233, n. 7. J. Nelson, ‘Inauguration Rituals’, Early Medieval Kingship, ed. P. H. Sawyer and I. N. Ward (Leeds, 1977), pp. 50–71; repr. in her Politics and Ritual in Early Medieval Europe (London, 1986), pp. 283–307, esp. 296–303. Liebermann, Gesetze III, 144 (the 978 date was based on the assumption that Edward the Martyr was crowned in that year).

92

The Old English Promissio regis 975, when he became king, but may not have been much older, and Æthelred was probably about thirteen when he was crowned in 979),7 a vernacular promise might have been considered particularly appropriate at their consecrations. Liebermann was cautious on the question of the accompanying address. He pointed out that it is, in parts, very like Institutes of Polity and Napier L,8 both by Wulfstan, and said that it is possibly by the translator of the promise and that, judging by the language and the dates of the manuscripts, it was written, at the latest, by 1030–60.9 If it is by the translator of the promise, then, given Liebermann’s own dating of the vernacular promise, it would have to be from the 970s or 980s. Robertson, in her edition of the promise, reiterated Liebermann’s indications of the similarities between the address and the Wulfstan texts and further pointed out that: ‘In tone and phraseology also it suggests comparison with V and VI Æthelred’, two of Wulfstan’s lawcodes.10 A common assumption about the address over the last forty years is that it is a coronation address. Janet Nelson describes the king reading out the vernacular promise and says that the ‘manuscript evidence shows that the vernacular promise was linked with an address, also in Anglo-Saxon, to the new king, exhorting him to keep his promises’.11 Patrick Wormald in 1978 assumed that 17 18

19 10

11

For the ages of Edgar’s sons at his death, see Keynes, Diplomas of Æthelred, p. 164. Liebermann, Gesetze III, 145: ‘Sie lautet z.T. wörtlich gleich Polity ed. Thorpe 422. 428 und der Homilie nach Wulfstan ed. Napier 266f. Sie macht den König am Jüngsten Gericht verantwortlich für das Wohl seines Volkes in genau denselben Ausdrücken, wie sonst der Bischof für seine Herde verantwortlich gilt. Dass sie vom Übersetzer des Sacr[amentum] cor[onationis] herrühre, ist möglich. Laut des Alters der Sprache und der Hss. entstand sie spätestens um 1030–60.’ K. Jost, Wulfstanstudien, Swiss Stud. in Eng. 23 (Bern, 1950), 249–61, thought that Napier L was not by Wulfstan, though composed of a mosaic-like collection of excerpts from Wulfstan’s works, but it is now recognised as his. D. Bethurum, The Homilies of Wulfstan (Oxford, 1957), pp. 39–41, accepted that it must be by Wulfstan but did not include it in her edition as she did not regard it as a homily. A. G. Kennedy, ‘Cnut’s Law Code of 1018’, ASE 11 (1983), 57–81, at 65, argues that Jost’s arguments against Wulfstan’s composition of Napier L cannot be sustained. It is also accepted as genuine by P. Wormald, The Making of English Law: King Alfred to the Twelfth Century, I: Legislation and its Limits (Oxford, 1999), p. 463, who suggests that it was ‘probably linked with a law-making council, perhaps that of 1018’, and by J. Wilcox, ‘The Dissemination of Wulfstan’s Homilies: the Wulfstan Tradition in Eleventh-Century Vernacular Preaching’, in England in the Eleventh Century, ed. C. Hicks, Harlaxton Med. Stud. 2 (Stamford, 1992), 206–23, at 201. The homily was edited in Wulfstan: Sammlung der ihm zugeschriebenen Homilien nebst Untersuchungen über ihre Echtheit, ed. A. Napier (Berlin, 1883), pp. 266–74; it is analysed by J. T. Lionarons, ‘Napier Homily L: Wulfstan’s Eschatology at the Close of his Career’, Wulfstan, Archbishop of York: the Proceedings of the Second Alcuin Conference, ed. M. Townend, Stud. in the Early Middle Ages 10 (Turnhout, 2004), 413–28. Liebermann, Gesetze III, 145. The Laws of the Kings of England from Edmund to Henry I, ed. A. J. Robertson (Cambridge, 1925), p. 41. J. Nelson, ‘Ritual and Reality in the Early Medieval Ordines’, The Materials, Sources and Methods of Ecclesiastical History, ed. D. Baker, Stud. in Church Hist. 11 (Oxford, 1975), 41–51, repr. in her Politics and Ritual, pp. 329–39, at p. 337.

93

Mary Clayton Dunstan was the author of the sermon, as he termed it, and that it was delivered at Æthelred’s coronation; he also said that, while it was ‘true that ten-yearolds do not usually listen attentively to sermons’, ‘Æthelred will have heard such sentiments many times, not least from Wulfstan, whose chapter on kingship in his Institutes of Polity is couched in similar terms.’12 Wormald argues that Æthelred’s laws ‘can be read as a whole series of illustrations of the principles expounded at his coronation [i.e. in the Promissio regis]: equity, widows, adultery, incest and witchcraft are all there’.13 Wormald places the text firmly within the traditions of theocratic or pastoral kingship.14 Pauline Stafford, in her article on the laws of Cnut and the history of Anglo-Saxon royal promises, writes of the ‘admonition as delivered by Dunstan’ and, while mentioning that Wulfstan knew the sermon and that it inspired sections of Napier L and the Institutes of Polity, argues that it is ‘reminiscent of ninth-century Frankia and should probably be associated with Dunstan’.15 Stafford also adds to the Wulfstan connections by saying that: ‘Both the oath and the sermon are glossed extensively by the laws of Cnut’;16 Wulfstan was, of course, also responsible for the laws of Cnut. In a footnote, however, she says that the sermon ‘is not in Wulfstan’s distinct style and its manuscript traditions do not suggest connection with him. Cleopatra B. xiii was an Exeter book and the mutilated Vitellius A. vii from which Junius made his transcript was a Ramsey manuscript.’17 Douglas Dales, in his 1988 book on Dunstan, declared that: ‘This [the Promissio regis’s] miniatory and homiletic approach by an archbishop to royal justice and law making is normally associated with Wulfstan of York in the reign of Ethelred. But it was by no means his invention, and Dunstan here is in the long tradition of popes and bishops, notably Carolingian bishops like Hincmar of Rheims, who, drawing on Old Testament prophetic tradition, addressed kings in this fearless manner.’18 Jane Rosenthal in 1992 again accepted that the sermon was delivered by Dunstan in 975 or 979 or both.19 Patrick Wormald returned to the promise and the sermon in The Making of English Law in 1999, with somewhat different 12

13 15

16

17 18 19

P. Wormald, ‘Æthelred the Lawmaker’, Ethelred the Unready: Papers from the Millenary Conference, ed. D. Hill, BAR British Series 59 (Oxford, 1978), 47–80, at 74–5. 14 Wormald, ‘Æthelred the Lawmaker’, pp. 74–5. Ibid. P. Stafford, ‘The Laws of Cnut and the History of Anglo-Saxon Royal Promises’, ASE 10 (1982), 173–90, at 186, n. 52. Ibid., p. 179. She goes on to say that ‘Cnut’s laws thus make more explicit the ideas expressed in the king’s coronation oath, constituting, as they do, an extensive statement on the duties of Christian kingship’ (p. 180). Ibid., p. 186, n. 53. D. Dales, Dunstan: Saint and Statesman (Cambridge, 1988), pp. 91–2. J. Rosenthal, ‘The Pontifical of St Dunstan’, St Dunstan: His Life, Times and Cult, ed. N. Ramsay, M. Sparks and T. Tatton-Brown (Woodbridge, 1992), pp. 143–63, at p. 151.

94

The Old English Promissio regis views from his earlier treatment. While asserting that ‘a king consecrated by Dunstan at Kingston, and still reigning at the time of writing, can only have been Æthelred’,20 he suggests that since ‘Vitellius was originally a Ramsey MS, and in the light of Byrhtferth’s wellknown interest in coronations, it might – at the risk of fathering further unwanted progeny on Byrhtferth – be worth pondering his possible role in the oath’s translation.’21 Of the sermon, he says that: ‘The idiom, though not the language, is already that of Wulfstan’;22 he also argues that the sermon ‘may correspond to that said by two of the Chronicles to have been preached to Edward the Confessor in 1043’.23 Wormald is the only one to have commented on the source of the sermon, pointing out that the sermon’s ‘source (which is very close), [is] the section on the “Rex iniquus”, in pseudo-Cyprian’.24 Pseudo-Cyprian is De duodecim abusiuis, a seventh-century Hiberno-Latin text on the twelve abuses of the world; the ninth abuse, the unjust king, had a profound influence on Western ideas of kingship.25 To sum up this review of discussions of the Promissio regis, it is clear that the prevailing assumption is that this is a coronation sermon for Æthelred’s consecration, which might have been used also for Edward the Confessor’s. There is not total agreement about the authorship of the text, but a number of historians have assumed that Dunstan was responsible for it. We find in the literature repeated references to the text’s similarities with various texts of Wulfstan’s, but no-one attributes the text to Wulfstan. The similarities are instead seen as being due to Wulfstan drawing on or being inspired by the Promissio and/or to Æthelred taking seriously the promises made by him at his coronation and ensuring that they were closely reflected in his legislation, much of which was written by Wulfstan. It is notable that Wulfstan scholars other than Wormald have not engaged with the Promissio. There has been very little discussion of the Promissio’s sources and content, other than Liebermann’s comparision of the three promises to the Latin forms of the promises in consecration rituals from Anglo-Saxon England and Wormald’s drawing attention to the text’s close dependence on De duodecim abusiuis. In this article, therefore, in addition to providing a new edition of the Promissio regis, I will explore the sources and the ideology of the text and look again at the question of its authorship and function. 20 22 25

21 Wormald, Making of English Law, pp. 447–8. Ibid., p. 448, n. 118. 23 24 Ibid. p. 448, n. 119. Ibid. p. 448. Ibid. p. 448, n. 119. S. Hellmann, ‘Pseudo-Cyprianus de XII abusivis saeculi’, Texte und Untersuchungen zur Geschichte der altchristlichen Literatur, Reihe 3, Band 4, Heft 1 (Leipzig, 1909), pp. 1–62; the ninth abuse is on pp. 51–3.

95

Mary Clayton the manuscript s London, British Library, Cotton Cleopatra B. xiii (Part 1) The vernacular Promissio regis is now found only in an eleventh-century Exeter manuscript, London, British Library, Cotton Cleopatra B. xiii (Part 1).26 Part 1 (fols. 1–58) of Cleopatra B. xiii contains Old English homilies and some other short pieces. As Cleopatra B. xiii is one of the manuscripts produced in the scriptorium established by Leofric in Exeter, it can be dated fairly accurately. Leofric transferred his see from Crediton to Exeter in 1050, therefore the manuscript must have been produced between 1050 and the year of Leofric’s death, 1072.27 Cleopatra B. xiii is a small, easily portable manuscript, now measuring, after cropping, 184 ⫻ 124 mm.; the written space is 170 ⫻ 80 mm. It is ruled for nineteen lines to the page, except for fol. 57 with twenty-three lines and fol. 58 with twenty-eight lines. The contents are: Fol. 1r: Seventeenth-century table of contents for entire manuscript Fol. 1v: Parkerian table of contents for Part 1 11. Fols. 2r–7v: In die iudicii (Wulfstan, ed. Napier, XL; collated by Scragg, Vercelli Homilies, homily II) 12. Fols. 7v–12r: Ælfric, Catholic Homilies I.XVII (for the Second Sunday after Easter) 13. Fols. 13r–31r: Ælfric, Catholic Homilies I.I (on the Creation, quando uolueris) 14. Fols. 31r–38r: Homilies of Wulfstan, ed. Bethurum, no. XVIII (for the dedication of a church) 15. Fols. 38r–43r: Wulfstan, ed. Napier, XXXVII (for the consecration of a bishop)28 16. Fols. 44r–55v: Vercelli XIX with passages from Ælfric, Catholic Homilies, I.XVIII; ed. Luiselli Fadda29 and collated by Scragg, Vercelli Homilies (homily XIX) 26

27

28 29

See J. Wilcox, Wulfstan Texts and Other Homiletic Materials, AS Manuscripts in Microfiche Facsimile 8, MRTS 219 (Tempe, Arizona, 2000), 23. The manuscript is described on pp. 23– 9. Part 1 is now joined to Part 2, containing the revised version of ‘B’’s Vita Sancti Dunstani from St Augustine’s, Canterbury, and Part 3, a chronicle attributed to Peter of Ickham; the three parts were probably joined together by Sir Robert Cotton. A. Watson, Catalogue of Dated and Datable Manuscripts c. 700–1600 in the Department of Manuscripts, The British Library, 2 vols. (London, 1979) I, 101 (no. 524). This in part corresponds to Homilies of Wulfstan, ed. Bethurum, XVII. A. M. Luiselli Fadda, Nuove omelie Anglosassoni della rinascenza Benedittina, Filologia Germanica Testi e Studi 1 (Florence, 1977), homily 4.

96

The Old English Promissio regis 17. Fols. 56r–57r: Promissio regis 18. Fol. 57v: Homilies of Ælfric, ed. Pope, no. VIII, lines 1–19 (on the meaning of gospel) 19. Fol. 58r: Fragment (the last eight lines) of Wulfstan, ed. Napier, XXVII 10. Fol. 58r, line 12–v: Ælfric’s translation of the Paternoster and the Creed.30 There have been varying views on the number of scribes involved in producing this manuscript. Ker says that there were seven or eight scribes and Drage that there were seven. Both ascribe the Promissio regis to scribe 5; Ker ascribes no other item to this scribe whereas Drage thinks that the item on fol. 57v was also written by this scribe.31 Elaine Treharne, in a forthcoming article, suggests very different scribal stints, however, and drastically reduces the number of scribes involved, suggesting that Ker and Drage’s scribes 1 and 2 were the one person who was also responsible for 38r to 57v and 58r, line 12 to 58v.32 This would mean that the scribe of the Promissio regis was the main scribe of Cleopatra, writing all but items 4 and 9 in the list above. Cleopatra B. xiii has links with other Exeter manuscripts. Bishop believed that either Cleopatra B. xiii and London, Lambeth Palace 489 ‘are companion volumes or each contains parts of two pre-existing volumes’.33 Ker felt that Cleopatra B. xiii was ‘evidently a fragment of a larger manuscript’34 and similarly suggested that it was perhaps once part of Lambeth 489, arguing that ‘the script, the use of c-shaped accents, the format and the number of lines to the page’ associate Cleopatra with the Lambeth manuscript and also with Cambridge, Corpus Christi College 421, Part 1.35 Both Lambeth 489 and CCCC 421, Part 1 (confusingly, the later part of this manuscript), were also written in Exeter and contain Old English homilies, many of them by Ælfric and Wulfstan and some anonymous. 36 The hand of article 10 in Cleopatra B. 30 31

32

33

34 36

Sermones Catholici, or Homilies of Ælfric, ed. B. Thorpe, 2 vols. (London, 1844–6) II, 596. N. Ker, A Catalogue of Manuscripts Containing Anglo-Saxon (Oxford, 1957), p. 184, and E. Drage, ‘Bishop Leofric and the Exeter Cathedral Chapter, 1050–1072: a Reassessment of the Manuscript Evidence’ (unpubl. DPhil. dissertation, Oxford Univ., 1978), p. 360. E. Treharne, ‘The Bishop’s Book: Leofric’s Homiliary and Eleventh-Century Exeter’ (forthcoming). T. A. M. Bishop, ‘Notes on Cambridge Manuscripts Part III: Manuscripts Connected with Exeter’, Trans. of the Cambridge Bibliographical Soc. 2 (1954–8), 192–9, at 198. 35 Ker, Catalogue, p. 182. Ibid. p. 184. See Wilcox, Wulfstan Texts and Other Homiletic Materials, pp. 7–13 and 79–82; Ælfric’s Catholic Homilies. The Second Series. Text, ed. M. Godden, EETS ss 5 (Oxford, 1979), xlii and lxxi–lxxii; Ælfric’s Catholic Homilies. The First Series. Text, ed. P. Clemoes, EETS ss 17 (Oxford, 1997), pp. 21–24 and 46–48. The Exeter additions to CCCC 421 were made to a collection of homilies which may have been written in Canterbury in the first half of the eleventh century (see

97

Mary Clayton xiii ‘is closely similar to and perhaps identical with’ that of one of the scribes of Lambeth 489, Ker felt.37 Lambeth 489 and CCCC 421 also share a scribe, as the hand responsible for CCCC 421, Part 1, wrote part of Lambeth 489.38 It is possible, as Clemoes suggests, that ‘in Cleopatra B. xiii, Lambeth 489, and Vb [CCCC 421, Part 1] we have parts of a once connected collection of homiletic material, the original arrangement of which we cannot now determine’.39 Elaine Treharne has now developed this in a discussion of the three manuscripts, arguing that there are only two scribes in Lambeth 489 and that the hand which wrote all but 20v–24v of Lambeth is the principal scribe of Cleopatra and the hand responsible for most of the additions to CCCC 421 (pp. 3–93 and 209–24).40 If this is the case, all three manuscripts, then, would have been written by one principal scribe, with short stints by other scribes in Cleopatra and Lambeth. This supports the view that all three manuscripts represent a single, planned collection and Treharne attempts a reconstruction of it.41 It is also possible that the collection was assembled in booklet form, and Pamela Robinson points that Cleopatra Part 1 and Lambeth 489 together make up ‘three small, portable booklets’ which could have been used in preaching.42 Regardless of whether the collection once consisted of Cleopatra and Lambeth only or of Cleopatra, Lambeth and CCCC 421, Part 1, it does not seem as if the original arrangement was in the order of the liturgical year and the collection seems more of the kind designed for use on particular occasions or suited to preaching on any occasion.43 Malcolm Godden has suggested that the collection in Cleopatra B. xiii and Lambeth 489 was ‘probably for the use of a bishop, since it includes four homilies for the dedication of a church, one for the consecration of a bishop, and a coronation oath’.44 This suggestion is undoubtedly correct and has been developed by Treharne, who argues that it was Leofric’s personal

38

39

41 42

43

Clemoes, Ælfric’s Catholic Homilies, p. 47, but, for caution on the Canterbury origin, Wilcox, Wulfstan Texts and Other Homiletic Materials, pp. 7–8). Part 1 of CCCC 421 consists of pp. 3–98 and pp. 209–24; pp. 209–24 once followed p. 98, as the ‘offset of p. 98 is of writing on p. 209’ (Ker, Catalogue, p. 117). We do not know whether Part 1 was joined to Part 2 in Exeter or 37 later. Ker, Catalogue, p. 345. See Bishop, ‘Notes on Cambridge Manuscripts Part III’, p. 198, and Drage, ‘Bishop Leofric’, p. 151. Ælfric’s Catholic Homilies, ed. Clemoes, p. 22. Clemoes and Godden assign a single sigil, J, to 40 Cleopatra B. xiii and Lambeth 489. Treharne, ‘Bishop’s Book’ (forthcoming). Ibid. P. Robinson, ‘Self-Contained Units in Composite Manuscripts of the Anglo-Saxon Period’, ASE 7 (1978), 231–8, at 238. See Drage, ‘Bishop Leofric’, p. 261; see also D. Scragg, The Vercelli Homilies, EETS os 300 44 (Oxford, 1992), xxxiii. Ælfric’s Catholic Homilies, ed. Godden, p. xlii.

98

The Old English Promissio regis 45

homiliary. Given the diversity of items, it appears likely that the scribes drew on different sources in assembling the collection.46 The Wulfstan items in the manuscript are particularly interesting, as Bethurum XVIII, for the dedication of a church, survives only in this manuscript47 and Napier XXXVII (corresponding in part to Bethurum XVII), for the consecration of a bishop, is preserved only here and, in a different form, in Hatton 113, where it is divided between two items, the first 43 lines in Bethurum’s edition of homily XVII as item 30 on 93v–94v and, with a beginning that is not in Cleopatra B. xiii, lines 36 to 79 in item 26, fols. 83–84v.48 Neither item in Hatton 113 has the substantial ending of the text in Cleopatra B. xiii;49 Bethurum rejected this ‘because it has not much organic relation to what precedes, and, though the separate phrases are Wulfstan’s and can be paralleled in his other writings, the whole has the effect of an ill-considered scribal addition’.50 The Cleopatra version of the homily is, however, accepted as genuine by Wilcox, who calls attention to Bethurum’s unsatisfactory editing of this piece.51 As with Cleopatra B. xiii, the Exeter additions to CCCC 421 contain an interesting Wulfstan text; Napier L, beginning ‘We secgea urum cynehlaforde and eallum folce cyan wylla’, an address to king and people, is found here and nowhere else.52 The make-up of the last part of the Old English section of Cleopatra B. xiii is irregular. Six quires of eight folios are followed by a quire which now wants a leaf after fol. 55.53 Fol. 55*, not included in the early modern numbering 45

46

47

48 49 50 51

52 53

E. Treharne, ‘Producing a Library in Late Anglo-Saxon England’, RES n.s. 54 (2003), 155–72, at 165–8, and ‘The Bishop’s Book’ (forthcoming). See Homilies of Ælfric: a Supplementary Collection, 2 vols, ed. J. Pope, EETS 259 and 260 (Oxford, 1967–8) I, 34: ‘Evidently the miscellaneous selections in these two volumes were drawn from older manuscripts of diverse origin. Clemoes has assigned to the CH I homilies a position indicating a textual state just earlier than that of Thorpe’s manuscript, K. One or more exemplars representing a later state must account for the other Ælfrician items, at least for Brotanek I, the excerpts from the Lives of Saints, and the first paragraph of VIII, which was probably the last to be composed, though it may not be later than the turn of the century. The bits from Wulfstan must belong to a still later stratum.’ D. Scragg, ‘The Corpus of Vernacular Homilies and Prose Saints’ Lives before Ælfric’, ASE 8 (1979) 223–77, at 255, n. 2, and Wilcox, ‘The Dissemination of Wulfstan’s Homilies’, p. 212. Bethurum, Homilies of Wulfstan, collates Hatton 114 for lines 124–49, but the Hatton text is a separate anonymous homily, drawing on the Wulfstan text. Homilies of Wulfstan, ed. Bethurum, XVII. Wulfstan, ed. Napier, XXXVII, p. 178, line 19–p. 179, line 22. Homilies of Wulfstan, ed. Bethurum, p. 351. J. Wilcox, ‘The Wolf on Shepherds: Wulfstan, Bishops, and the Context of the Sermo Lupi ad Anglos’, Old English Prose: Basic Readings, ed. P. Szarmach (New York, 2000), pp. 395–418, at pp. 404–6; see also his review of Bethurum’s edition by J. Ure, MÆ 28 (1959), 112–15, at 114. Wulfstan, ed. Napier, L, p. 266, lines 1–2. For this homily, see n. 8 above. See, however, Treharne, ‘Bishop’s Book’ (forthcoming), who argues, persuasively, that the homily which is currently item 3, Ælfric’s Catholic Homilies I, I, De initio creaturae, was designed as the opening text in the manuscript.

99

Mary Clayton which runs through all three parts of the manuscript, is a blank folio. Fols. 56, 57 and 58 are singletons; 56 is now bound with the preceding quire and fols. 57 and 58 are now bound into the beginning of the next quire.54 The present binding was done in 1970; when Ker examined the manuscript, however, he recorded that the three singletons, fols. 56, 57 and 58, were bound together.55 Fol. 56r, containing the beginning of the Promissio, is very worn. The first folio of the Promissio is ruled for nineteen lines to the page, as is the entire manuscript up to this point, but the ruling changes towards the end of the second section, when the scribe started 57r, which is ruled for twenty-three lines; fol. 58, containing the Paternoster and the Creed, is ruled for twenty-eight lines. The Promissio finishes on line 17 of 57r and the remainder of the page is blank. Fol. 58, containing items 9 and 10, is, as Ker pointed out, unlikely to be in its original position as ‘a wormhole in ff. 56–7, larger on 57 than on 56, does not appear on f. 58.’56 The blank folio, the addition of three singletons and the changes in ruling suggest that the last texts may have been something of an afterthought, added perhaps as they became available, although, given that the same scribe wrote items 3 and 8, they must have been added within a fairly short space of time and within the same Exeter scriptorium.57 The title Promissio regis is in black rustic capitals and the text is divided into three sections, each beginning with ‘an enlarged pen-drawn initial, a technique that is used elsewhere in the manuscript to demonstrate a shift in topic within a single item’.58 The word FINIT is in capital letters at the end of the first section. Two thirds of a line is left blank at the end of the second section. Some corrections have been made: in at least three places, i has been altered to y; this is a feature of the manuscript noted by Ker.59 London, British Library, Cotton Vitellius A. vii, fols. 1–112 The second manuscript which contained this text is London, British Library, Cotton Vitellius A. vii, fols. 1–112, a Latin pontifical, also produced in Exeter under Leofric, and therefore also dated to between 1050 and 1072.60 For a long time, until (and after) Bishop pointed out its Exeter characteristics, this manuscript was considered to be a Ramsey manuscript and this has had an 54 55 57

58 59

60

See Wilcox, Wulfstan Texts and Other Homiletic Materials, p. 25. 56 Ker, Catalogue, p. 184. Ibid. Ker suggests the identity of the hands of these two items. Treharne, as outlined above, argues that the scribe of fols. 58r line 12–58v is the main scribe of the manuscript. Treharne, ‘Bishop’s Book’ (forthcoming). Ker, Catalogue, p. 183. The alterations are not very easy to detect and are noticeable chiefly by the uprightness of the first stroke, written originally as an i; in the usual form of the letter y the first stroke is slanted. The altering hand has inserted an extra stroke and a dot to form y. Watson, Catalogue, I, 109–10 (no. 573).

100

The Old English Promissio regis unfortunate influence on discussions of the Promissio regis.61 The Promissio regis was formerly on fol. ‘7’ but the first fourteen folios were destroyed in the Cotton fire of 1731 and the remainder of the manuscript damaged. Before the fire, however, the Promissio had been copied by Junius in Oxford, Bodleian Library, Junius 60, fol. 2, a paper manuscript containing this text only, in a copy of the original hand, and by Hickes, who published the text in the Preface to his Institutiones grammaticae Anglo Saxonicae, et Moeso-Gothicae of 1689. Vitellius A. vii now starts with an incomplete coronation ordo on the original fol. 15. It originally started with the ordo for the consecration of an archbishop and bishop, followed by the ordo for confirmation, the examination of a bishop for ordination and then the Promissio regis, all preceding De consecratione regis et reginae.62 The manuscript contains three other short vernacular texts: one entitled Incipit coniuratio hominis ante communis (also in the Durham Ritual, Durham, Cathedral A. IV. 19) and translations of two Latin forms of exorcism, the Latin preceding the Old English in each case (both also in Cambridge, Corpus Christi College 146, another pontifical). It looks as if vernacular translations of texts were copied into Vitellius A. vii when they were available. As well as the vernacular texts and the Latin texts for services performed by bishops, the manuscript contains two Latin sermons based on sermons 10 and 13 by Abbo of Saint-Germain-des-Prés.63 The same two abbreviated forms of the Abbo sermons appear in manuscripts associated with Archbishop Wulfstan: in CCCC 190 and Cotton Nero A. i; both are sermons for the reconciliation of penitents on Maundy Thursday.64 A third, similar abridged Abbo sermon is found only in CCCC 190 (based on Abbo’s sermon 12). The full text of Abbo sermons 10 and 13 is found, along with seven other Abbo sermons, in 61

62

63

64

T. A. M. Bishop, English Caroline Minuscule (Oxford, 1971), p. 24; Ker, Catalogue, p. 279, had said that the manuscript was ‘almost certainly’ from Ramsey on the basis of the saints included in its litanies. J. Brückmann, ‘Latin Manuscript Pontificals and Benedictionals in England and Wales’, Traditio 29 (1973), 391–458, at 437, calls the manuscript the ‘Pontifical of Ramsey’ and D. Dumville, Liturgy and the Ecclesiastical History of Late Anglo-Saxon England (Woodbridge, 1992), p. 79, also considers it to be from Ramsey. See the description in T. Smith, Catalogus librorum manuscriptorum Bibliothecae Cottonianae (Oxford, 1696), p. 81. These texts are on 63v–68r of Vitellius A. vii. See The Copenhagen Wulfstan Collection: Copenhagen Kongelige Bibliotek Gl. kgl. Sam 1595, ed. J. E. Cross and J. Morrish Tunberg, EEMF 25 (Copenhagen, Baltimore and London, 1993), 17, and J. E. Cross and A. Brown, ‘Abbo of Saint-Germain: Sermons’, Sources of Anglo-Saxon Literary Culture I, ed. F. M. Biggs, T. D. Hill, P. E. Szarmach and E. G. Whatley (Kalamazoo, 2001), pp. 18–22. The sermons of Abbo are edited by U. Önnerfors, Abbo von Saint-Germain-des-Prés, 22 Predigten: kritische Ausgabe und Kommentar (Frankfurt-am Main, 1985). See J. E. Cross and A. Brown, ‘Wulfstan and Abbo of Saint-Germain-des-Près’, Mediaevalia 15 (1993 for 1989), 71–91, and the brief account in Cross and Brown, ‘Abbo of Saint-Germain: Sermons’, pp. 21–2.

101

Mary Clayton Copenhagen, Kongelige Bibliotek, Gl. Kgl. Sam 1595, a manuscript closely connected with Wulfstan and which contains his hand.65 The abridgement of the Abbo texts was probably done by Wulfstan himself and Wulfstan’s Old English homily XV was based on the abbreviation of Abbo’s Sermo 13.66 It seems highly likely that these Latin sermons in Vitellius were added at Exeter, rather than having been in the exemplar, as they are also found in CCCC 190; this manuscript was at Exeter by the middle of the eleventh century, when extensive additions were made to it, and the hand of Leofric himself is found on the same page of CCCC 190 as one of these sermons (on p. 247).67 Presumably, Leofric read the sermons in the original, non-Exeter part of CCCC 190 and then directed that they be included in his pontifical. Although neither Junius nor Hickes records it, the title of the text in Vitellius was Promissio regis; this is recorded by both Wanley and Smith.68 The text was divided into the same three sections as in Cleopatra B. xiii, as is obvious from both Junius and Hickes, though they do not have the FINIT at the end of the first section in Cleopatra. There are some differences between Junius’s and Hickes’s text, as is evident from the textual notes in my edition. The beginning of the Latin ordo for the consecration of a king is missing in Vitellius A. vii, so we cannot compare the form of the Latin promise which was presumably part of the ordo with the vernacular version; as the Old English texts in the manuscript all translate Latin texts included in the manuscript, then Vitellius, like other contemporary coronation ordines, must have included the Latin promise. The manuscript does not seem to have contained a Latin text corresponding to sections 2 and 3 of the vernacular Promissio, however, as Hickes supplied his own translation of the entire vernacular text, something which would not have been necessary had it been in Vitellius A. vii before the fire. He clearly did not use even the Latin text of the three promises from the Vitellius ordo, as his Latin version is very different to any extant version.69 65

66

68

69

Cross and Brown, ‘Abbo of Saint-Germain: Sermons’, pp. 18–22. One of the seven is sermon 12. Cross and Brown, ‘Wulfstan and Abbo’, p. 80. There is also an anonymous Old English version of this abridged Abbo text in CCCC 190, pp. 353–9, and there has been some discussion of whether or not Wulfstan used this vernacular version in the composition of his text; see Bethurum, Homilies of Wulfstan, p. 346, P. Clemoes, ‘The Old English Benedictine Office, Corpus Christi College, Cambridge, MS 190, and the Relations between Ælfric and Wulfstan: a Reconsideration’, Anglia 78 (1960), 265–83, at 271–2, and Cross and Brown, 67 ‘Wulfstan and Abbo’, p. 72. See Drage, ‘Bishop Leofric’, p. 149. H. Wanley, Librorum veterum septentrionalium catalogus, vol. II of Linguarum veterum septentrionalium thesaurus, ed. G. Hickes (Oxford, 1705), p. 241; Smith, Catalogus, p. 81. Junius entitles the text Sacramentum vel promissio Regis in consecratione. Hickes’s Latin text teads: ‘Apographum hoc descriptum fuit ad literam ex scripto illo, quod Dunstanus Archiepiscopus tradidit Domino nostro apud Kingeston eodem die quo in Regem consecratus fuit, & interdixit illi nequid aliud pignus daret, præter hoc, quod ipse in Christi

102

The Old English Promissio regis The surviving folios of Vitellius A. vii were written by three scribes; the first wrote fols. 1–15 and 54v–72v, line 12; the second 15v–54r; and the third 72v, line 12–112v.70 Drage identifies the hand which wrote the third stint and which also played an important role in adapting the Leofric Missal as the hand of Leofric himself, ‘the only accomplished scribe who does not write in an Exeter-type hand or in some derivative of that style’.71 Watson identifies the first hand as that of 38–55v of Cleopatra B. xiii,72 although Drage does not assign any of Vitellius to the scribe of these folios of Cleopatra.73 If Vitellius and Cleopatra are connected to each other in this way, then they also form part of a group ‘interconnected by Exeter provenance and script and by the hands of some of the scribes’.74 Given that Leofric himself wrote part of the Vitellius Pontifical, it was presumably in accordance with his wishes that vernacular texts were included in it.

70

71

72 73

74

altare posuerat, sic (autem) illi Episcopus dictabat: IN NOMINE SS. TRINITATIS Ego tria promitto populo Christiano, & subditis meis. Primum quod Ecclesia Dei, & populus Christianus omnis ditionis meæ vera pace perfruetur. Secundum est, quod Ego latrocinium, & injustitiam omnimodam omnibus hominum ordinibus prohibebo. Tertium autem, quod spondeo, & præcipio in judiciis omnibus justitiam, & misericordiam adhibendam esse, ut nobis etiam omnibus pro æterna sua clementia ignoscat benignus, & misericors Deus, qui vivit, & regnat, etc. Rex Christianus, qui hæc custodit, temporalem sibi ipsi honorem promeretur, atque Deus insuper se propitium ille præbebit, & in præsenti vita, & in æterna etiam illa, quæ nunquam deficiet. Si quando autem violaverit quod Deo promissum erat, regni sui status quam citissime in pejus ruet, & in fine omnia in exitium vertentur, nisi dum vita suppetat, hæc prius emendaverit. O dilecte domine! cave præ omnibus diligenter tibi ipsi. Recogita hoc frequenter, quod ipse gregem, cujus in hac vita pastor creatus es, ad Dei judicium produces, atque præibis, & tunc cognosces te illum (scil. gregem) gubernare, quem olim Christus ipse suo sanguine redemit. Consecrati regis officium est neminem injuste judicare, viduas, & orphanos, & peregrinos protegere, ac tueri, furta prohibere, adulteria punire, incesta conjugia discindere, & penitus impedire, sagas, & incantatores delere, parricidas, & perjuros exterminare, egenos eleemolynis pascere, insuper senes, sapientes, & sobrios à consiliis habere, & homines justos in ministros constituere. Quandoquidem quæcunque ipsi inique fecerint ejus culpa, eorundem omnium ipse (Rex) rationem reddet in die judicii.’ On the hands, see Bishop, English Caroline Minuscule, p. 24; Drage, ‘Bishop Leofric’, p. 365; and Watson, Catalogue of Dated and Datable Manuscripts I, 109–10 and I, 71; I, 101; I, 120; and I, 130. Drage, ‘Bishop Leofric’, p. 139; see also pp. 140–1. This view is accepted in The Leofric Missal, ed. N. Orchard, 2 vols., HBS 113 and 114 (London, 2002) I, 140–1. Watson, Catalogue of Dated and Datable Manuscripts I, 101 (no. 524) and I, 110 (no. 573). Ibid. I, 71; see Drage, ‘Bishop Leofric’, p. 155. Treharne, of course, attributes much more of Cleopatra to this scribe but does not discuss Cleopatra’s connections with Latin manuscripts from Exeter. Watson, Catalogue of Dated and Datable Manuscripts I, 71. Watson states that the same scribe also wrote parts of London, British Library, Add. 28188 (a pontifical and benedictional), London, British Library, Harley 863 (the ‘Leofric Psalter’) and London, British Library, Harley 2961 (the ‘Leofric Collectar’); the ‘Leofric Missal’, Oxford, Bodleian Library, Bodley 579, is also linked with these manuscripts through the additions it received in Exeter.

103

Mary Clayton In contents, the incomplete pontifical in Addit. 28188 is related to that in Vitellius A. vii.75 There is no Old English in Addit. 28188, but its pontifical does not include the Latin texts for which translations were supplied in Vitellius. Likewise, Addit. 28188 does not include a coronation ordo; that in Vitellius A. vii comes before the point at which it begins to correspond to Addit. 28188. Vitellius and Addit. 28188 both have strong East Anglian connections and seem to be modelled on a book from that region; Ramsey has been suggested for both manuscripts.76 Nicholas Orchard, however, argues that Ramsey is not likely as a place of origin for the model as pontificals are bishops’ books and Ramsey was a monastic community. He suggests instead that: In view of the fact that much of Vitellius A. vii’s text descends in parallel with that of Cambridge, Corpus Christi College 44 from a pontifical drawn up by Stigand at Christ Church Canterbury in the 1050s, North Elmham seems likeliest. Stigand’s brother Æthelmær was bishop of the house from 1047 until his expulsion in 1070.77

One would like to see more evidence for this claim but, if Vitellius A. vii is closely connected with CCCC 44, then this also suggests that the vernacular texts were added to the pontifical in Exeter, rather than being copied from the exemplar; CCCC 44 has two short vernacular texts at the beginning of the manuscript, but they do not correspond to the vernacular texts in Vitellius A. vii. the relationship of the text s The texts of the Promissio regis in Cleopatra B. xiii and Vitellius A. vii were both produced in the same scriptorium in the same time period.78 Drage suggests that the manuscripts associated with Leofric were produced ‘over a fairly short period of time’79 and that ‘the bulk of the activity at Exeter may well have taken place in the 1050s, rather than being spread evenly throughout the period of Leofric’s episcopate.’80 It is likely, therefore, that the manuscripts were written within the same decade. The variations between the texts are minor, being confined largely to / variation; Cleopatra has ac for Vitellius’s eac in line X, but 75

76

78

80

See J. Brückmann, ‘Latin Manuscript Pontificals and Benedictionals in England and Wales’, Traditio 29 (1973), 391–458, at 437, and M. Lapidge, Anglo-Saxon Litanies of the Saints, HBS 106 (London, 1991), p. 73. See above, n. 61. Brückmann, ‘Latin Manuscript Pontificals’, pp. 426 and 437, considered BL, Add. 28188 East Anglian and Vitellius a Ramsey pontifical. Dumville, Liturgy and Ecclesiastical History, p. 79, suggests that Vitellius might have been written for Ælfweard, the Ramsey monk who became abbot of Evesham and bishop of London. As pointed out above, however, 77 Vitellius is an Exeter manuscript. Leofric Missal, ed. Orchard, I, 141. For convenience, I will talk about Vitellius A. vii’s text, though it has not, of course, survived 79 in that manuscript. Drage, ‘Bishop Leofric’, pp. 185–6. Ibid. p. 187. Treharne, ‘The Bishop’s Book’, supports this argument.

104

The Old English Promissio regis the ac may be due to the e of the preceding word, ge, misleading the scribe, rather than being a dialectal variant. Cleopatra finishes the first section of the text with FINIT, which is not in Hickes’s or Junius’s transcriptions and which was, therefore, presumably missing from Vitellius. Liebermann argued that Vitellius was copied from Cleopatra because, where i has been corrected to y in Cleopatra, Vitellius had y. This would mean that the corrections in Cleopatra would have had to be made very shortly after the text was written, as Vitellius seems to have been copied within the same decade as Cleopatra; Liebermann, of course, was not aware that the two manuscripts had been produced in such a short time-frame. Other explanations for this observation are also possible, however: Cleopatra and Vitellius could have been copied from a common exemplar, with i being a scribal form later corrected from the exemplar in Cleopatra or, indeed, Cleopatra could have been copied from Vitellius and corrected from it. The i to y correction is not restricted to this text in Cleopatra, but is a feature of other homilies in the manuscript also, as Ker pointed out;81 this makes it more difficult to assess its significance for the relationship between the two copies of the Promissio. Ker pointed to four manuscripts which contain i to y corrections;82 Jonathan Wilcox, in his PhD thesis, then observed that three of these four manuscripts are Exeter manuscripts and that this correction therefore seems to be an Exeter characteristic.83 The three Exeter manuscripts are CCCC 190, CCCC 419+421 and Cleopatra B. xiii. In CCCC 190 the i to y correction is found in items 20 and 21, the two anonymous vernacular translations of sermons by Abbo of St-Germain.84 Ker says that the hand which added articles 17 to 21 to CCCC 190 was ‘very like that in no. 69 [CCCC 421], pp. 3–96 and 209–41’ (that is, the similar hands responsible for the Exeter additions to CCCC 421, discussed above),85 so the three manuscripts are connected. It is even possible that this correction may have something to do with Leofric himself, given that both Cleopatra and CCCC 421 were probably part of his personal homiliary and that the corrected texts in CCCC 190 were intended to be preached by a bishop and that Leofric’s own hand is found elsewhere in this manuscript.86 81 83

84

85 86

82 Ker, Catalogue, p. 183. Ibid. p. xlviii. ‘The Compilation of Old English Homilies in MSS Cambridge, Corpus Christi College, 419 and 421’, unpubl. PhD dissertation, Univ. of Cambridge (1987), p. 31. The fourth manuscript noted by Ker is London, British Library, Cotton Tiberius B. i, where ‘the principle of alteration may be different’ (Wilcox, ‘The Compilation of Old English Homilies’, p. 31). The first of these texts, on pp. 351–3 of CCCC 190, was edited by Cross and Brown, ‘Wulfstan and Abbo’, pp. 87–91, along with its Latin source, and the second was edited in an appendix by Bethurum, Homilies of Wulfstan, pp. 366–73, also with its Latin source. Ker, Catalogue, p. 73. As is proved by the reference to ‘we biscopas’ in the vernacular version of the Sermo in cena domini ad penitentes (Bethurum, Homilies of Wulfstan, p. 368, line 56), and the fact that the Latin

105

Mary Clayton Wormald suggested that Cleopatra could have been copied from Vitellius, but only on the basis of an erroneous date and place of origin for Vitellius: ‘Given their respective dates as assigned by Ker and Drage, Cotton Vitellius A. vii can hardly have been copied from Cotton Cleopatra B. xiii, as Liebermann supposes, but since Cleopatra is an Exeter manuscript, and Vitellius found its way to Exeter, the relationship may well be the other way around.’87 Given that Vitellius and Cleopatra share a date and place of origin, however, this argument does not hold up. The evidence for the relationship of the two texts is not conclusive, therefore. It is inherently more probable that the text came to Exeter in the context of a collection of Old English sermons rather than in a liturgical book, as vernacular sermons in pontificals are very rare: only one other pontifical from AngloSaxon England (Paris, Bibliothèque Nationale, lat. 943) contains vernacular sermons for occasions on which a bishop would preach.88 It appears from the inclusion of the abridged Abbo sermons in Vitellius A. vii that Leofric himself played an active role in directing the production of his pontifical89 and the inclusion of the Promissio is probably another instance of this. If Vitellius A. vii is closely related to CCCC 44, then, as noted above, this also indicates that the sermon was probably not in the model but was inserted in Exeter. The most likely possibility is that the Promissio came to Exeter as part of a collection of sermons. sources and analo gues The manuscript layout clearly distinguishes three sections in the Promissio regis. The first section, as is evident from the text, is largely dependent on the threefold promise which was part of the liturgy for the coronation of Anglo-Saxon kings. Patrick Wormald has pointed out that the text also draws on the section on unjust kings, the ninth abuse, in De duodecim abusiuis. The use of this source is very evident in the third section of the Promissio. The middle section does not appear to have as direct a source as the other two, but the ideas contained in it were very much a part of the intellectual and spiritual climate of late Anglo-

87

88

sermons from which they were translated are found in bishops’ books. On Leofric’s homiliary, see Treharne, ‘The Bishop’s Book’ (forthcoming). Wormald, Making of English Law, p. 448, n. 118. Ker dated Cleopatra to s. xi (3rd quarter) and Vitellius to s. xi1. Two sermons for the dedication of a church, printed by R. Brotanek, Texte und Untersuchungen zur altenglischen Literatur und Kirchengeschichte (Halle, 1913); CCCC 44, an English pontifical from the first half of the eleventh century, also contains two short vernacular texts, before the Latin texts begin (see T. Graham, ‘The Old English Prefatory Texts in the Corpus-Canterbury Pontifical’, Anglia 113 (1995) 1–15), and other pontificals contain short texts such as vernac89 ular forms of exorcism. See above, p. 102.

106

The Old English Promissio regis Saxon England. Liebermann noted that some of the ‘ermahnende Anrede an den König’ in sections two and three was word for word like part of Polity and Napier L and made the king responsible for the welfare of his people at the Last Judgement in the same terms that the bishop had been responsible for his flock.90 In discussing the sources and analogues, I will take each of the three sections separately. (a) Section One This section consists of the introductory sentence, recounting the circumstances in which the reigning king made the threefold promise, and a close translation of the promise. We have no independent verification of a custom of the Anglo-Saxon king placing a text of the promise on the altar at his coronation, and the Latin ordines do not mention such an action; they describe the king being led by the hand by two bishops to the church, prostrating himself before the altar while a hymn was sung and then rising from the floor and making the promise.91 However, given that the text addresses the king whose coronation is being described, it was presumably true, at least on this occasion. It may have been a standard feature of the consecration rite or could have been a feature unique to this ceremony; the text stresses that the king did this at the direction of Dunstan, ‘swa se bisceop him dihte’. We have, however, other evidence for particularly important texts being placed on the altar92 and a striking parallel and probable model is that Benedictine monks, at their profession, had to place a copy of their promise on the altar of their church;93 this may well have been the inspiration for the king’s action. The ordo for the profession of monks opens with the monk placing his written promise on the altar – as in, for example, the ordo in the Benedictional of Archbishop Robert: Ego frater .N. deo datus. promitto stabilitatem meam et conuersionem morum meorum et oboedientiam secundum regulam sancti benedicti coram deo et sanctis eius in presentia domini .N. episcopi. Inposita uero propria manu promissione super altare.94

90 91

92

93 94

Gesetze, ed. Liebermann, III, 145. See, for example, the ordo in the Claudius Pontifical (Claudius II): The Claudius Pontificals, ed. D. Turner, HBS 97 (London, 1971), p. 89. See P. Chaplais, ‘The Authenticity of the Royal Anglo-Saxon Diplomas of Exeter’, Bull. of the Inst. of Hist. Research 39 (1966), 1–34, at 29–34, and F. E. Harmer, Anglo-Saxon Writs (Manchester, 1952), pp. 170–1. See Benedicti regula, ed. R. Hanslik, CSEL 75 (Vienna, 1960), LVIII.17–20. Benedictional of Archbishop Robert, ed. Wilson, p. 131: ‘I, brother N. given to God, promise stability and conversion of my life and obedience according to the rule of St Benedict, before God and his saints in the presence of N., the lord bishop. So placing the promise with his own hand on the altar.’

107

Mary Clayton According to Schramm, Frankish kings also placed their coronation promises on a holy place.95 The threefold promise is a fairly faithful translation of a version of the Latin threefold promise and is similar but not identical to the promise found in a variety of pontificals from Anglo-Saxon England. The promise is closest to the form in what is known as the Second English Coronation ordo. Here a short excursus on the early history of the English coronation ordines is necessary. What is known as the first English ordo for the consecration of a king is found in three manuscripts: Oxford, Bodleian Library, Bodleian 579 (the Leofric Missal), Paris, Bibliothèque Nationale, lat. 10575 (the so-called Egbert Pontifical) and Rouen, Bibliothèque Municipale A.27 (the so-called Lanalet Pontifical).96 This ordo was in existence by the middle of the ninth century, at the latest.97 This first English ordo concludes with an acclamation of the king by the people and his enthronement, after which the principes kiss him, and this is followed by the issuing of three commands to his people, his first acts as law-giver. The rubric and the text of the precepta in the Leofric Missal read: Rectitudo regis est nouiter ordinati et in solium sublimati, populo tria precepta sibi subdito precipere. Inprimis, ut ecclesia dei, et omnis populus christianus, ueram pacem seruent, in omnipotenti deo. R. Amen. Aliud est, ut rapacitates et omnes iniquitates, omnibus gradibus interdicat. R. Amen. Tertium est, ut in omnibus iudiciis, aequitatem et misericordiam precipiat, ut per hoc nobis indulgeat suam misericordiam clemens et misericors deus. R. Amen.98

The Second English ordo draws on the First English ordo and ninth-century West Frankish sources and exists in two versions, termed A and B by Janet Nelson.99 Unlike the First English ordo, the second includes a coronation. The A version is represented by the Sacramentary of Ratoldus (second half of the tenth 95 96

97 98

99

P. Shramm, A History of the English Coronation (Oxford, 1937), p. 184. See J. Nelson, ‘The Earliest Royal ordo: Some Liturgical and Historical Aspects’, Authority and Power: Studies in Medieval Law and Government Presented to Walter Ullmann (Cambridge, 1980), pp. 29–48; repr. in Politics and Ritual, pp. 341–60. The Leofric Missal ordo is edited in Orchard, Leofric Missal, pp. 429–32. The Egbert Pontifical is edited by H. M. J. Banting in Two AngloSaxon Pontificals (the Egbert and Sidney Sussex Pontificals, HBS 104 (London, 1989). For the Lanalet Pontifical, see Pontificale Lanaletense, ed. G. H. Doble, HBS 74 (London, 1937). Nelson, ‘The Earliest Royal ordo’. Leofric Missal, ed. Orchard, II, 432: ‘It is the righteousness of a king newly ordained and raised to the throne to enjoin on the people subject to him three precepts. First, that the Church of God and all Christian people preserve true peace, in God the omnipotent. Response: Amen. The second is that he should forbid robbery and all injustices to all ranks. Response: Amen. The third is that in all judgements he should order justice and mercy so that through that the kind and merciful God may grant us his mercy. Response: Amen.’ (my translation) Nelson, ‘The Second English ordo’ in Politics and Ritual, pp. 361–74, at 369.

108

The Old English Promissio regis century, before 986) and by a number of French manuscripts.100 B appears in seven manuscripts written in England in the later tenth and the eleventh century, representing two sub-versions. The Benedictional of Archbishop Robert (Rouen, Bibliothèque Municipale, Y 7, from Winchester, s. x2) is the sole representative of one sub-version of this ordo.101 The following six manuscripts contain a second sub-version of the Second ordo: the Pontifical of Dunstan (Paris, Bibliothèque Nationale, lat. 943, s. x2, probably made in Canterbury, and in Sherborne by the beginning of the eleventh century);102 the Anderson Pontifical (London, British Library, Additional 57337, probably from Canterbury, s. x/xi); Cambridge, Corpus Christi College 146 (a Winchester pontifical, s. xiin); Cambridge, Corpus Christi College 44 (Canterbury, s. xi); London, British Library, Cotton Claudius A. iii (the Claudius Pontifical II, from Canterbury, s. xiex);103 and Vitellius A. vii, the Exeter pontifical from the third quarter of the eleventh century which contained the Promissio regis and whose coronation ordo is incomplete, due to the loss of part of the manuscript in the Cotton fire. This second sub-version made only ‘minor verbal changes’ to the version represented by the Benedictional of Robert.104 Janet Nelson suggests a date of c. 900 for the A version of the Second ordo;105 the Robert sub-version of B perhaps dates from the beginning of Edgar’s reign, c. 960,106 and the other B sub-version, which made only minor verbal changes to the Robert sub-version, may date from Edgar’s imperial consecration in Bath in 973.107 She tentatively associates the Robert sub-version of B with Æthelwold, but does not associate any name with the other B sub-version.108 While the A version of the Second ordo preserves the three precepta of the First ordo, in the B version the ‘single significant innovation’ is that the commands are replaced by a threefold promise or coronation oath, placed now at the beginning, rather than the end, of the ceremony: 100

101 102

103 104

105 106

The ordo is edited by P. Ward, ‘An Early Version of the Anglo-Saxon Coronation Ceremony’, EHR 57 (1942), 345–61. The Benedictional of Archbishop Robert, ed. H. A. Wilson, HBS 24 (London, 1903). See Rosenthal, ‘The Pontifical of St Dunstan’ and R. Gameson, ‘The Origin of the Exeter Book of Old English Poetry’, ASE 25 (1996), 135–85, at 173–5. The Claudius Pontificals, ed. Turner. See J. Nelson, ‘The Second English ordo’, p. 369; her list does not include CCCC 44, as it includes only manuscripts from the first half of the eleventh century. CCCC 44 has been variously dated from the first half of the eleventh century (Ker, Catalogue, p. 46; H. Gneuss, ‘Liturgical Books in Anglo-Saxon England and their Old English Terminology’, Learning and Literature in Anglo-Saxon England: Studies Presented to Peter Clemoes on the Occasion of his Sixty-Fifth Birthday (Cambridge, 1985), pp. 91–142, at p. 132) to the middle or second half of the century (M. Budny, Insular, Anglo-Saxon and early Anglo-Norman Manuscript Art at Corpus Christi College, Cambridge: an Illustrated Catalogue (Kalamazoo, MI, 1997), p. 675. Ibid. pp. 365–7. Ibid. p. 370–1. 107 Ibid. pp. 372–4. 108 Ibid. pp. 370–2.

109

Mary Clayton Its substance was derived from the three-fold precept, originally the concluding section of the First English ordo and taken from it into the A version of the Second ordo. But the change in place meant a change in function: what had been a royal declaration of intent, a kind of programmatic statement issued literally from the throne by the newlyinstalled king, was turned by the reviser into a promise that was essentially a precondition of the ensuing consecration.109

The Benedictional of Robert has the same text of the promise as the other B sub-version and the transformation of precepts into promise must therefore date from c. 960, in the version tentatively associated with Æthelwold by Nelson. If the placing of a text of the promise on the altar was a standard feature of the consecration ceremony, then it may well have been introduced when the precepts were changed to a promise, as it is more likely that the king would place a promise which bound him on the altar than a set of commands to his people. Of the manuscripts listed above, Vitellius A. vii no longer preserves the part of the Latin text containing the promise, which means that six liturgical manuscripts now contain the Latin promissio. However, a further text of the threefold promise is included in Byrhtferth’s Vita Oswaldi, which contains a very detailed description of Edgar’s 973 coronation, clearly following a text of the Second ordo; Byrhtferth gives most of the text of the promise, though with slight variations from the texts in pontificals.110 All of the manuscripts containing the B version of the Second ordo have very similar texts of the threefold promise and I quote here that from the Anderson Pontifical, as it is not yet available in print: Haec tria populo christiano et mihi subdito in Christi promitto nomine. Inprimis ut aecclesia dei et omnis populus christianus ueram pacem nostro arbitrio in omni tempore seruet. Aliud ut rapacitates et omnes iniquitates omnibus gradibus interdicam. Tertium ut in omnibus iudiciis aequitatem et misericordiam precipiam, ut mihi et uobis indulgeat suam misericordiam clemens et misericors deus, qui uiuit et regnat.111

The title of the vernacular Promissio regis, with promissio rather than precepta, reflects the B version of the Second ordo. Liebermann compared the English text with a variety of Latin versions, drawing on Cotton Claudius A. iii, the 109 110

111

Ibid. p. 369. Vita Oswaldi, ed. J. Raine, in Historians of the Church of York, 2 vols., RS (London, 1879), I, 436–8; Byrhtferth’s text omits the first sentence (‘Haec tria . . .), inserts promitto after inprimis, has conseruet instead of seruet and inserts another promitto after aliud. MS fol. 57v: ‘I promise these three things in the name of Christ to the Christian people and those subject to me. First that the church of God and all Christian people preserve true peace in our dominion at all times. Second that I forbid robberies and all injustices to all ranks. The third that in all judgements I order justice and mercy so that the kind and merciful God may grant me and you his mercy, who lives and reigns.’ (my translation)

110

The Old English Promissio regis Vita Oswaldi, CCCC 44, Paris, Bibliothèque Nationale, lat. 10575 and the Leofric Missal; he therefore had a mixture of First and Second ordo manuscripts. His conclusions were that the Old English text followed the First ordo in some points and the Second in others.112 It follows the Second ordo in the introduction (‘Haec tria populo christiano et mihi subdito in christi promitto nomine’); in the first person forms (interdicam, precipiam), appropriate for a promise, rather than the third person forms in the First ordo (interdicat, precipiat), appropriate for a command; and minra gewealda in the first promise translates nostro arbitrio which is found in all of the Second ordo manuscripts but not in the First. However, Liebermann pointed out that in the third promise the First ordo has per hoc, an expression absent from all surviving manuscripts of the Second ordo; the Old English urh æt must be a translation of per hoc.113 The Second ordo has mihi et uobis in the third promise where the corresponding form in the First ordo is nobis;114 the Old English us eallum is somewhat closer to nobis. A further point, not noted by Liebermann, where the Old English follows the First ordo is in having aliud est, oer is, instead of the Second ordo’s aliud at the beginning of the second promise. Liebermann’s conclusion was that the Old English used an exemplar which stood between the two recensions.115 This is problematic, however, as it seems to suggest that the alterations to the Latin text were made piecemeal, whereas it has since become very clear, from Janet Nelson’s work in particular, that the B sub-version of the Second ordo revised the threefold precept to become a threefold promise and that this was a single act of revision. There is no Latin text with a mixture of forms – all of the Second ordo texts with the threefold promise are unanimous in all of the points noted above, including the version in the Benedictional of Archbishop Robert.116 There are also some points at which the Old English does not correspond to any extant manuscript. In the introduction to the promise, the Old English has ‘On ære halgan rynnesse naman’, whereas all of the Second ordo manuscripts (the First ordo has a different introduction, as quoted above)117 agree on in Christi promitto nomine. It is possible that the Old English redactor felt that invoking the trinity was more appropriate for a threefold promise; invoking the trinity also, of course, gives the alliterative sound effect of rynnesse/reo. 112 113

114 115 116

Liebermann, Gesetze III, 144. The Leofric Missal and the so-called Egbert Pontifical have per hoc; the Lanalet Pontifical does not. In the Leofric Missal and the Egbert Pontifical; the Lanalet Pontifical has ‘sibi et nobis’. Liebermann, Gesetze III, 144. I am most grateful to Gill Cannell, of the Parker Library, Corpus Christi College, Cambridge, for making a copy of the promise in CCCC 146 available to me and to Birgit Ebersperger for 117 sending me a text of the promise from the Dunstan Pontifical. See above, p. 108.

111

Mary Clayton Another departure from the Latin is in the omission of an Old English equivalent to in omni tempore in the first part of the promise: all of the surviving manuscripts, in First and Second ordines, contain this, apart from the Leofric Missal, which has instead in omnipotenti deo (this form is not represented in the Old English either). It is hard to know whether this was a deliberate or inadvertent omission or whether an Old English phrase corresponding to this has been lost. The Old English also translates the Latin precipiam in the third promise with behate and bebeode; translating one Latin word with a pair of Old English words is very common in Old English prose and the Old English here strengthens the personal aspect of this part of the promise, though this behate is somewhat redundant as the clause is governed by the first behate. No pontifical finishes the threefold promise with FINIT, as Cleopatra B. xiii does. Deviations from the Latin are unlikely to be the result of the Old English author misremembering the Latin forms, as a coronation ordo is a text generally used rarely and therefore unlikely to be committed to memory. There was no coronation between 979 and 1016. The Old English, therefore, does not correspond exactly to any extant Latin version from Anglo-Saxon England. It seems that the translator of the promise must have had before him two different ordines, one of the First ordo and the other of the B version of the Second ordo, and that, while essentially following the Second ordo, he introduced some First ordo forms into his translation, as well as making some independent changes (the introduction of the Trinity, the addition of behate in the third part). The use of features of two different ordines suggests that the translator had available to him two pontificals, each containing a different version. As pontificals are bishops’ books, this in turn suggests that the translator was a bishop or archbishop or at least worked in a cathedral setting where pontificals would have been available. That the translator of the promise must have taken some liberties in translating the Latin text raises a question about the insistence at the beginning that it is copied ‘stæf be stæfe. be am gewrite e dunstan arcebisceop sealde urum hlaforde æt cingestune’. We have Dunstan’s own pontifical, with a Latin text of the Second ordo promise, and one would expect him to have used this – or, at any rate, a translation of this – at any coronation at which he officiated. Moreover, this is the only place in the Toronto Old English corpus where the phrase ‘stæf be stæfe’ occurs and letter-by-letter copying is not something which we usually associate with the vernacular in this period. This in turn prompts the question of which language, Latin or the vernacular, the threefold promise at the coronation was in. The situation envisaged for the delivery of this text seems to be one where the speaker displayed a document containing the threefold promise to his audience, telling them that it is a copy of that used at the coronation. Presumably the king would have 112

The Old English Promissio regis placed a single sheet with his promise on the altar but, when (and if) this text was delivered to an audience, the speaker could have either held up to the audience the text of this address or he could have displayed a separate single sheet, similar to that which the king had used. If the preacher showed a single, separate sheet to his audience, then the promise contained on that sheet could have been in Latin or English. We do not know whether AngloSaxon kings took the promise in Latin or in the vernacular but the ordines for the coronation ceremonies, including the promise, are in Latin in AngloSaxon pontificals. As pointed out above, however, both Edward and Æthelred were very young when consecrated and it is possible that a vernacular promise would have been considered appropriate for their consecrations. Yet it is perfectly conceivable that, in delivering the Promissio, the speaker could have held up a Latin text while providing a vernacular version in the sermon. This clearly has a bearing on whether the author of the Promissio is responsible for the translation of the promise or whether he incorporated a pre-existing vernacular promise into his text – was the text copied ‘stæf be stæfe’ a Latin text on a separate sheet or an already existing Old English text which the author of the Promissio regis incorporated in his own text? In terms of orthography, there are no striking differences between the promise and the remainder of this text, suggesting that the vernacular version could have been created for this text, rather than for the coronation, and that the reference to letter-by-letter copying could be a rhetorical feature, intended to stress the closeness of the text to the eminent archbishop known to have performed the coronation. (b) Section Two The second section recounts the happy consequences for the king, in this life and the next, of keeping his coronation promise and the disastrous consequences for both him and his people if he breaks it; this is followed by a direct appeal to the king to protect himself and a reminder that he, as shepherd, will have to lead his herd to judgement and account for his rule. The linking of the kingdom’s welfare to the behaviour of the king in this section is generally indebted to the influence of the ninth abuse, the unjust king, in the seventhcentury Hiberno-Latin tract De duodecim abusiuis, but there are none of the verbal parallels which are so evident in the third section of the Promissio. As the ninth abuse is central to the third section as well as being of significance for the second, I shall outline it briefly here. The rex iniquus chapter begins by explaining that the unjust king does not maintain the dignity of his name, even though the rex should be rector and should rule and guide the wicked. It follows this with a list of what the righteousness of the king consists in, concluding: ‘Haec regni prosperitatem in praesenti faciunt et regem ad caelestia regna 113

Mary Clayton 118

meliora perducunt.’ Then come the evil effects for the kingdom of a bad ruler: the peace of the people disturbed, the fruits of the earth reduced, deaths of loved ones, hostile invasions, storms, and sons and grandsons failing to inherit. The happy effects for the kingdom of a good king are then enumerated, including peace, protection, temperate weather, still seas, a fruitful earth and the sure inheritance of his children. The ninth abuse ends with a warning to the king that, just as he is set highest among men on earth, he will be given the foremost place of punishment in hell unless he administers justice and that he will be punished in the next world for the sinners he allowed under him. De duodecim abusiuis was ‘one of the most profoundly influential formulations of Christian political obligations in the entire Middle Ages’ and had an enormous influence on later ideas of kingship; 119 the text was very widely disseminated, with over five hundred extant manuscripts.120 The linking of the welfare of the kingdom to the behaviour of the king was taken up in Carolingian texts and can be found in the works of Anglo-Saxons at the court of Charlemagne such as Cathwulf, in his Letter to Charlemagne (c. 775), and Alcuin, and in the works of other Carolingian scholars.121 De duodecim abusiuis was also known in England in the tenth and eleventh centuries: Æthelwold donated a copy of the Latin to Peterborough and Ælfric produced an Old English adaptation of the entire text, as well as using it in Catholic Homilies II.XIX.122 118

119

120

121

122

Hellmann, ‘Pseudo-Cyprianus de XII abusivis saeculi’, p. 52 (‘These things create prosperity in the present kingdom and bring the king to the better heavenly realms.’) P. Wormald, ‘Celtic and Anglo-Saxon Kingship: Some Further Thoughts’, Sources of AngloSaxon Culture, ed. P. Szarmach (Kalamazoo, MI, 1986), pp. 151–83, at p. 161. For the influence of De duodecim abusiuis on later texts on kingship, see H. Anton, ‘De duodecim abusivis saeculi and sein Einfluß auf den Kontinent, insbesondere auf die karolingischen Fürstenspiegel’, Die Iren und Europa im früheren Mittelalter, ed. H. Lowe (Stuttgart, 1982) II, 568–617. For the manuscripts, see A. Breen’s edition, ‘Towards a Critical Edition of De XII abusiuis: Introductory Essays with a provisional Edition of the Text’, unpubl. PhD dissertation, Trinity College, Dublin (1988). See H. Anton, Fürstenspiegel und Herrscherethos in der Karolingerzeit, Bonner Historische Forschungen 32 (Bonn, 1968), 75–9; 103–7; M. Moore, ‘La monarchie carolingienne et les anciens modèles irlandais’, Annales 51 (1996), 307–24, at 307–16; and R. Meens, ‘Politics, Mirrors of Princes and the Bible: Sins, Kings and the Well-Being of the Realm’, EME 7 (1998), 345–57. The influence of the ninth abuse can be seen very clearly in Alcuin’s Epistula ad Aeelredum regem (1), lines 94–110 (Alcuin Letter Books, ed. C. Chase, Toronto Med. Latin Texts 5 (Toronto, 1975), 42). De duodecim abusiuis had already been known to Boniface (see Anton, Fürstenspiegel und Herrscherethos, p. 74). The complete Ælfric text is in Old English Homilies, ed. R. Morris, EETS, OS 29 and 34 (London, 1867–8), pp. 296–304; for the Peterborough copy, see M. Lapidge, ‘Surviving Booklists from Anglo-Saxon England’, Learning and Literature in Anglo-Saxon England: Studies Presented to Peter Clemoes on the Occasion of His Sixty-Fifth Birthday, ed. M. Lapidge and H. Gneuss (Cambridge, 1985), pp. 33–89, at 53.

114

The Old English Promissio regis The ideas contained in this section of De duodecim abusiuis were also disseminated through inclusion of parts of the ninth abuse in a variety of other texts. The Collectio canonum Hibernensis, an eighth-century Hiberno-Latin collection, also popular and influential, used most of the ninth abuse in its section on kingship;123 ch. 3 of Liber XXV, De regno, is headed De eo, quod malorum regum opera destruantur, and attributes to Patricius a paragraph which begins with the rex/rector explanation from the ninth abuse, then continues with the account of the effects of an unjust king on his kingdom. 124 Ch. 4 of Liber XXV of the Hibernensis is headed De eo, quod bonorum regum opera aedificent; it is again attributed to Patricius and begins: ‘iustitia vero regis iusti haec est . . .’. It returns to the beginning of the ninth abuse in De duodecim abusiuis for the qualities of the just king and combines this with the last paragraph of the ninth abuse, where the effects on the kingdom of having a just king are described.125 The Hibernensis’s text in these two chapters is, then, a carefully edited version of the ninth abuse. Other chapters in Liber XXV deal with other aspects of kingship, drawing on different sources. The Collectio canonum Hibernensis was well known in England in the tenth and eleventh centuries: Oda of Canterbury drew upon the collection for his Constitutions;126 four manuscripts containing versions of the Hibernensis, all from Brittany or Northern France, were in Anglo-Saxon England (three in Worcester, one in Canterbury) in the late Anglo-Saxon period;127 and extracts are found in manuscripts 123

124

125

126

127

The Hibernensis is extant in two recensions, A and B. Unfortunately, only A has been published: see H. Wasserschleben, Die irische Kanonensammlung, 2nd ed. (Leipzig, 1885) and it is to this that I refer here. For the two recensions and for some shortcomings of Wasserschleben’s edition, see M. Sheehy, ‘The Collectio canonum Hibernensis: A Celtic Phenomenon’, Die Iren und Europa im früheren Mittelalter, ed. H. Löwe (Stuttgart, 1982) I, 525–35, at 534–5. Lines 1–6 of ch. 3 of the Hibernensis correspond to Hellmann, ‘Pseudo-Cyprianus de XII abusivis saeculi’, p. 51, lines 3–8, and lines 6–16 of ch. 3 of the Hibernensis correspond to Hellmann, ‘Pseudo-Cyprianus de XII abusivis saeculi’, p. 52, line 11–p. 53, line 5. Ch. 4, lines 1–14 correspond to Hellmann, ‘Pseudo-Cyprianus de XII abusivis saeculi’, p. 51, line 9–p. 52, line 6; ch. 4, lines 14–19 correspond to Hellmann, ‘Pseudo-Cyprianus de XII abusivis saeculi’, p. 53, lines 7–10. ‘The “Constitutions of Archbishop Oda”’ are edited in Councils and Synods with Other Documents Relating to the English Church, ed. D. Whitelock, M. Brett and C. N. L. Brooke (Oxford, 1981) I, 67–74. See p. 68 for details of Oda’s use of the Hibernensis. Oxford, Bodleian Library, Hatton 42, from Brittany, contains the Hibernensis and other collections of canons and was in England by the tenth century, as was London, British Library Royal 5. E. xiii (Northern France or Brittany), also containing the Hibernensis; Cambridge, Corpus Christi College 279 (North-West France) was in England by c. 1000, and London, British Library, Cotton Otho E. xiii, a Breton manuscript, was probably in Canterbury in the tenth century. See S. Ambrose, ‘The Collectio canonum Hibernensis and the Literature of the Anglo-Saxon Benedictine Reform’, Viator 36 (2005), 107–118, at 108–9; H. Gneuss, A Handlist of Anglo-Saxon Manuscripts, MRTS 241 (Tempe, 2001), nos. 629, 459, 81 and 361; see also Wormald, Making of English Law, p. 344.

115

Mary Clayton 128

associated with Wulfstan. Wulfstan’s so-called ‘commonplace Book’, of which we have multiple versions, includes, in CCCC 265 and Oxford, Bodleian Library, Barlow 37 (neither, however, contemporary with Wulfstan), a section headed De rege, which draws on Sedulius Scottus, the Hibernensis and Isidore;129 the Hibernensis extracts are Liber XXV, ch. 3 (last sentence), ch. 4, ch. 7 and ch. 15. Chapters 3 and 4 are the chapters based on the ninth abuse. The ninth abuse was also quoted by Bishop Jonas of Orléans in his De institutione regali and in the acts of the Council of Paris in 829, for which Jonas was also responsible; the section quoted is that beginning ‘Iusticia regis est’.130 Abbo of Fleury, in compiling his Collectio canonum in the early 990s, adopted the same quotation, taking it from Ansegisus’s capitulary which included the acts of the Council of Paris;131 however, we have no evidence for knowledge of Abbo’s Collectio canonum in England, despite Abbo’s stay in Ramsey from 985 to 987, which one would expect would have led to copies of his later works being sent to England.132 Ansegisus’s capitulary, however, was known in England, and book 1 is in Oxford, Bodleian Library, Hatton 42, and was annotated by Wulfstan. There were, therefore, several channels by which the ideas of the De duodecim abusiuis on kingship were disseminated. The ideas in De duodecim abusiuis’s treatment of kingship were quite well known in English church circles, then, and we can see their influence, adapted to suit the context of an address on the coronation promise, in the Promissio’s affirmation that the king who rules with the peace and justice demanded by the threefold promise will be rewarded in this life and the next and that the king who reneges on his promise will have disastrous results for his people (see below, p. 149, for translation): Se cristena cyng e as ing gehealde. he geearna him sylfum woroldlicne weormynt. and him éce god. æger gemiltsa. ge on andwerdum life. ge eac on am ecean e æfre ne ateora; Gif he onne æt awæg. æt gode wæs beháten. onne sceal hit 128

129

130 131 132

There is a good brief account of manuscripts associated with Wulfstan in P. Wormald, ‘Wulfstan (d. 1023)’, Oxford Dictionary of National Biography, ed. H. Matthew and B. Harrison (Oxford, 2004). . See P. Wormald, ‘Archbishop Wulfstan and the Holiness of Society’, Anglo-Saxon History: Basic Readings, ed. D. Pelteret (New York, London, 2000), pp. 191–224, at 201–2, and H. Sauer, ‘The Transmission and Structure of Archbishop Wulfstan’s “Commonplace Book”’, in Old English Prose: Basic Readings, ed. P. Szarmach (New York and London, 2000), pp. 339– 93, at pp. 351 and 369–70. On the unsatisfactory term ‘commonplace book’, see Wormald, Making of English Law, pp. 218–19. M. Mostert, The Political Theology of Abbo of Fleury (Hilversum, 1987), p. 68. It corresponds exactly to the paragraph quoted below from De duodecim abusiuis (p. 126). Abbo’s Collectio canonum is not mentioned in the entry on him by P. Lendinara in Sources of Anglo-Saxon Literary Culture, I, ed. Biggs et al., pp. 1–15.

116

The Old English Promissio regis syan. wyrsian swye. sóna on his eode. and eall hit on ende. gehwyrf on æt wyrste. butan he on his liffæce. ǽr hit gebéte.

The statement ‘onne sceal hit syan. wyrsian swye. sóna on his eode. and eall hit on ende. gehwyrf on æt wyrste’ reads almost like a vernacular summary of the list of ill-effects given in the ninth abuse and texts dependent on it. This first part of the second section of the Promissio, then, shows the influence of ideas from De duodecim abusiuis but the very summary treatment does not allow us to determine an exact source. The same ideas are reflected also in vernacular texts by Ælfric and Wulfstan, but without verbal similarities to the Promissio. Ælfric, in his Catholic Homilies II text for the Monday in Rogationtide, drawing on De duodecim abusiuis, says that: ‘æt folc bi gesælig urh snoterne cyning. sigefæst. and gesundful. urh gesceadwisne reccend; And hi beo geyrmede urh unwisne cyning. on manegum ungelimpum. for his misræde’;133 In his adaptation of the full Hiberno-Latin text, Ælfric gives more detail: Gif se cyning wile mid carfulnysse healdan as foresædan beboda. onne by his rice gesundfull on life. 7 æfter life he mot faran to am ecan [rice] for his arfæstnysse. Gif he onne forsyh as gesetnyssa 7 lare. onne by his eard geyrmed for oft. æger ge on heregunge ge on hunger. ge on cwealme. ge on ungewyderum. ge on wildeorum.134

Wulfstan, in his Institutes of Polity, has several statements of how the king’s right rule will benefit him and his kingdom. In his treatment of kingship in the first edition of Polity, he says that: And urh æt he sceal geeon Gode, e he riht lufige and unriht ascunige.135

He expanded this in the revision of the first edition: Foram urh æt he sceal sylf firmest geeon 133

134

135

Catholic Homilies II, ed. Godden, XIX, 96–9: ‘The people will be fortunate by means of a wise king, victorious and prosperous by means of a sagacious ruler. And they will be afflicted with many misfortunes by means of an unwise king, because of his misguidance.’ Old English Homilies, ed. Morris, pp. 296–304, at p. 302: ‘If the king will keep the aforementioned commands with care, then his kingdom will be prosperous during his life and after life he will be allowed to go to the eternal kingdom because of his virtue. If then he despises these decrees and teaching, then his land will be afflicted very often, both by ravaging and by hunger, by plague and bad weather and wild animals.’ Die ‘Institutes of Polity, Civil and Ecclesiastical’, ed. K. Jost, Swiss Studies in English 47 (Bern, 1959), I. 5 (from CCCC 201): ‘And through loving what is right and avoiding wrongful behaviour, he will achieve favour with God.’

117

Mary Clayton and his eodscipe eac swa, e he riht lufige for Gode and for worolde.136

In this same revision, Wulfstan also added Polity I.11, clearly drawing on Ælfric’s Catholic Homilies II.XIX: urh cyninges wisdom folc wyr gesælig, gesundful and sigefæst.137

In his final reworking of Polity, Wulfstan amplified this with another passage influenced by the same Ælfric homily, this time dealing with the ill-effects for the kingdom of an unwise king: Þurh unwisne cyning folc wyr geyrmed for oft, næs ane, for his misræde.138

Wulfstan’s address to king and people, Napier L, also includes a passage identical to the revised Polity I. 5.139 No other late-tenth-century or early-eleventhcentury vernacular author includes similar ideas. The remainder of the second section of the Promissio is the quintessential expression of pastoral kingship in Old English. The author appeals to the king, as shepherd of his flock, to protect himself by acting in accordance with his coronation promise and reminds him that he will have to lead his flock at the Last Judgement and render account of how he has ruled them: ‘Eala leof hlaford beorh huruinga georne e sylfum. Geenc æt gelome æt u scealt a heorde. for æt godes dóme. ywan and lǽdan. e u eart to hyrde gescyft on ysum life. and onne gecennan hu u geheolde. æt crist ǽr gebohte. sylf mid his blóde.’ While I have not been able to find a source for the appeal to the king to protect himself, analogous appeals addressed to a congregation to protect themselves can be found in Old English texts and are a feature of Wulfstan’s work, in particular; Ælfric, while he uses the word gebeorgan, does not seem to use it in this kind of appeal to his audience to protect themselves spiritually, though anonymous texts occasionally include such passages. While other texts do not single out an individual and appeal to him directly, then, the 136

137

138

Institutes of Polity, ed. Jost, I.5 (from London, Cotton Nero A. i): ‘Because through loving what is right as regards God and as regards this world, he will himself prosper best and his people likewise.’ Ibid. I.11: ‘Through the wisdom of the king, the people will be fortunate, prosperous and victorious.’ Ibid. II.13: ‘Through an unwise king, the people will be afflicted, very often, not once, 139 because of his misguidance.’ Wulfstan, ed. Napier, L, p. 266, lines 18–22.

118

The Old English Promissio regis Promissio’s petition is similar to passages in Wulfstan, as in this selection of examples from Wulfstan’s Homily III, Homily XVII, Homily XX, Napier L, the Institutes of Polity and his laws: Eala, leofan men, utan don swa us earf is, beorgan us georne wi æne egesan . . .140 Leofan men, warnia eow be swylcan 7 uton we ealle don swa us earf is, beorgan us georne wi Godes yrre.141 Ac la, on Godes naman utan don swa us neod is, beorgan us sylfum swa we geornost magon e læs we ætgædere ealle forweoran.142 betan a nu georne, a e yssere eode nu sceolan rædan, swa swa god wyle, gif hig gode willan rihtlice cweman and on am myclan dæge heom sylfum gebeorgan, bet, onne a dydon, e beforan wæron . . .143 and ealle Godes eowas we bidda and læra and huru inga mæssepreostas, æt hig gode hyran and heora clænnysse healdan and beorgan heom sylfum wi godes yrre . . .144 Ac do freonda gehwylc, eallswa hit earf is, warnige hine georne and beorge him sylfum . . .145 7 ealle mæssepreostas we bidda 7 læra, æt hy beorgan heom sylfum wi Godes yrre.146

Similar passages in anonymous texts are very few, but include: ‘Foram we bidda eow and beoda on godes naman and on his haligra, æt ge beorgan eow wi one egefullan godes dom and ealle eowre synna andetton . . .’147 There is certainly a family likeness between these appeals and that in the Promissio, suggesting that the author of the Promissio was familiar with this kind of entreaty. 140

141

142

143

144

145

146

147

Homilies of Wulfstan, ed. Bethurum, III, 74–5: ‘O, dear people, let us do what is needful, protect ourselves eagerly against the terror . . .’ Ibid. XVII, 63–4: ‘Dear people, be warned about this and let us do what is needful, protect ourselves eagerly against God’s anger.’ Ibid. XX, 117–19: ‘But oh, in God’s name let us do what is necessary, protect ourselves as we most eagerly may lest we all perish together.’ Wulfstan, ed. Napier, L, p. 268, 8–11: ‘let those who must now advise this people, as God may wish, eagerly atone now if they wish to please God rightly and protect themselves better on that great day, than they did, who came before . . .’ Ibid. L, p. 269, 16–19: ‘and we beseech and instruct all God’s servants, and especially priests, that they obey God and preserve their chastity and protect themselves against God’s anger . . .’ Institutes of Polity, ed. Jost, II.93: ‘But let every friend, just as is needful, eagerly take warning and protect himself . . .’ V Æthelred, ed. Liebermann, I, 238 (§9): ‘and we entreat and instruct all priests, that they protect themselves against God’s anger’; see also VI Æthelred, I, 248, (§5); I Cnut, I, 288 (§6.1). Wulfstan, ed. Napier, XXIX, p. 135, 25–8: ‘Because we beseech you and command in the name of God and of his saints, that you protect yourselves against the terrible judgement of

119

Mary Clayton In calling the king a shepherd the Promissio author was drawing on a long Christian tradition of pastoral kingship, going back as far as Eusebius of Caesarea proclaiming Constantine ‘the good shepherd’, though the tradition was elaborated slowly.148 Even before this the term ‘shepherd of the people’ is used as a formulaic designation for a leader of the people in Homeric verse.149 In Old English poetry such formulaic phrases as folces hyrde or rices hyrde are commonly used of kings and are part of a ‘formulaic system in which an A verse, /x/x, is filled by a noun in the genitive ⫹ hyrde.’150 It seems likely that this formulaic system goes back before well the introduction of Christianity;151 in Old English poetry the metaphoric possibilities of the phrase are not, however, exploited and it does not encompass spiritual responsibility for the people. One of the important influences on the way it developed was the Benedictine Rule and its treatment of the abbot: the Rule took over the New Testament metaphor of Christ as shepherd (John X.11–16, Hebrews XIII.20, I Peter II.15 and I Peter V.4) and transferred it to the abbot, seeing him as a shepherd with responsibility for the souls of those over whom he rules, who would have to account for them as well as for himself at the Last Judgement.152 The same idea was applied to bishops. An important influence which contributed to this nexus of ideas and to viewing the king’s office as a spiritual one analogous to the bishop’s was Gregory the Great’s Regula pastoralis, his handbook for bishops. In it, he favoured the word rector for the episcopal office, a term just as appropriate for a secular ruler, and this contributed to seeing both as similar ministries. For Gregory, ‘bishop, priest and king could all be symbolised by the image of the shepherd’.153 In England, we find Alcuin, at the end of the eighth century, exhorting the Northumbrian King Ethelred and his nobles to be shepherds of their people, not plunderers.154 At the end of the

148

149

151

152

153

154

God and confess all your sins . . .’. This text is not accepted as Wulfstan’s by D. Whitelock, ed., Sermo Lupi ad Anglos, 3rd ed. (London, 1963), p. 14, n. 1, or by Wilcox, ‘The Dissemination of Wulfstan’s Homilies’, pp. 200–1. G. Brown, ‘The Carolingian Renaissance’, Carolingian Culture: Emulation and Innovation, ed. R. McKitterick (Cambridge, 1994), pp. 1–51, at pp. 1–2. On Homer’s use of this epithet, see A. Klinck, ‘Folces hyrde and ␲␱␫␮␧␯␣ Ⲑ᎑␫␭␣␻⬘␯: A Generic Epithet in Old English and Homeric Verse’, Papers in Language and Literature, 19 (1983), 150 117–23. Ibid. p. 119. Klinck, ibid. p. 118, comments: ‘“keeper”, rather than “shepherd” is probably the best allround translation of hyrde’. On the king as shepherd in Indo-European cultures, see now M. L. West, Indo-European Poetry and Myth (Oxford, 2007), pp. 131 and 421. See Benedicti Regula, ed. Hanslik, II. 6–10 and II. 36–40, and R. Deshman, ‘Benedictus monarcha et monachus: Early Medieval Ruler Theology and the Anglo-Saxon Reform’, FS 22 (1988), 201–40, esp. 207–10. R. A. Markus, ‘The Latin Fathers’, The Cambridge History of Medieval Political Thought c. 350–c. 1450, ed. J. H. Burns (Cambridge, 1988), pp. 92–122, at p. 120. Alcuin’s Epistula ad Aeelredum regem (2), lines 95–6 (Alcuin Letter-Books, ed. Chase, p. 56).

120

The Old English Promissio regis ninth century, in the Old English translation of Gregory’s Regula pastoralis, ‘the bishop’s office and king’s come rather closer together’, as Patrick Wormald pointed out.155 The king as shepherd is found in two key texts of the AngloSaxon Benedictine Reform, and the Reform also brought the offices of king and abbot closer together.156 In the New Minster Charter, Edgar exhorts his successors as king to defend the Lord’s flock, calling them most faithful shepherds, pastores fidissimi, and the Charter says that the king must protect his creator’s pastures and flock.157 The Prologue to the Regularis concordia states that King Edgar, like the pastorum pastor, defended the sheep, in this case the reformed monks.158 In the tenth and eleventh centuries in England, then, kings, along with abbots, bishops and priests, could be seen as shepherds with responsibility for their flocks in texts which develop the pastoral imagery implicit in the metaphor.159 However, the majority of texts which speak of shepherds do so with regard to bishops and priests, and in vernacular texts only Ælfric (once only) and Wulfstan speak of the king as shepherd. Ælfric, in his homily for the Sunday after the Ascension, probably written c. 1000, introduces what Pope called a ‘tangential passage’ on the duties of the king where he calls the king Christ’s vicar and says he is consecrated as his people’s shepherd: for an e se cyning is Cristes sylfes speligend ofer am Cristenan folce e Crist sylf alysde, him to hyrde gehalgod, æt he hi healdan sceole, mid æs folces fultume, wi onfeohtende here, and him sige biddan æt am soan Hælende . . .160 155

156

157

158 159

160

Making of English Law, p. 428. On ideas of kingship in England in the Alfredian period, see M. Kempshall, ‘No Bishop, No King: the Ministerial Ideology of Kingship in Asser’s Res Gestae Alfredi’, Belief and Culture in the Middle Ages: Studies Presented to Henry Mayr-Harting, ed. R. Gameson and H. Leyser (Oxford, 2001), pp. 106–28, and D. Pratt, The Political Thought of Alfred the Great (Cambridge, 2007). See the discussions by Deshman, ‘Benedictus monarcha et monachus’, pp. 207–11, and M. Silverman, ‘Ælfric’s Designation of the King as “Cristes sylfes speligend”’ RES n.s. 35 (1984), 332–4. See the edition by A. Rumble in Property and Piety in Early Medieval Winchester: Documents Relating to the Topography of the Anglo-Saxon and Norman City and its Minsters, Winchester Studies 4.iii. (Oxford and New York, 2002), at 88–9. Regularis concordia, ed. T. Symons (London, 1953), p. 2. On priests see, for example, Ælfric’s Catholic Homilies I, 17, ed. Clemoes, p. 314, lines 23–4: ‘Ælc biscop & ælc lareow is to hyrde geset godes folce: æt hi sceolon æt folc wi am wulfe gescyldan,’ or Wulfstan’s Institutes of Polity, ed. Jost, II.108 and II.109. Homilies of Ælfric: a Supplementary Collection, ed. Pope, IX, 48–52 (my italics): ‘because the king is Christ’s own vicar over the Christian people whom Christ himself redeemed, consecrated as their shepherd, so that he should guard them, with the help of the people, against an attacking army and pray for victory for them from the true Saviour . . .’. As Silverman, ‘Ælfric’s Designation of the King as ‘Cristes sylfes speligend’, pointed out, both terms are used in the New Minster Charter.

121

Mary Clayton In his first edition of Polity, Wulfstan termed the king Cristes gespeliga but in his expansion of this edition of Polity, he replaced this with rihtwis hyrde: Cristenum cyninge gebyre on cristenre eode, æt he sy, ealswa hit riht is, folces frofer and rihtwis hyrde ofer cristenre heorde.161

The same idea is repeated in identical words in Napier L,162 and Wulfstan reworked it in the second edition of Polity: Cristenum cyninge gebyre swye rihte, æt he cristen folc rihtlice healde, and æt he sy, swa hit riht is, folces frofer and rihtwis hyrde cristenre heorde.163

Pope pointed out that both Cristes gespeliga and hyrde are found in the Ælfric passage just quoted and suggested that Wulfstan had taken both from this Ælfric passage.164 It is certainly a striking coincidence that the two terms which Wulfstan used in successive versions of Polity are found in the same sentence in Ælfric’s homily165 and neither term is used by any other Old English prose author for the king, only for various ecclesiastical ministries. The final major ideas in this second section of the Promissio are the idea that the king will lead his people at the Last Judgement and that he will have to render an account of how he has ruled them, and these again depend on seeing 161

162 163

164 165

Institutes of Polity, ed. Jost, Ib.1: ‘a Christian king is fitting in a Christian people, that he may be, as is right, a comfort to the people and a righteous shepherd over the Christian flock.’ Wulfstan, ed. Napier, L, p. 266, lines 12–14. Institutes of Polity, ed. Jost, II.4 (quoted from London, British Library, Cotton Nero A. i): ‘It very rightly befits a Christian king that he guard the Christian people rightly and that he be, as is right, a comfort to the people and a righteous shepherd of the Christian flock.’ Homilies of Ælfric, ed. Pope, I, 377. Wulfstan does not, however, otherwise use this Ælfric text. Ibid. I, 390–91, note to line 52. There is an extra line in one manuscript of this Ælfric homily, the Worcester Wulfstan manuscript Oxford, Bodleian Library, Junius 121, from the third quarter of the eleventh century. Although the line is similar to a line in Ælfric’s version of the ninth abuse in his adaptation of De duodecim abusiuis, Pope puts forward several reasons for not attributing it to Ælfric and instead suggests Wulfstan was responsible for it. If Pope’s argument that Wulfstan himself composed this extra line is correct (and it is, of course, not provable) then this would mean that Wulfstan certainly knew this Ælfric homily and derived these phrases from it.

122

The Old English Promissio regis the king’s office as a spiritual one. The Promissio regis appears to be the only text from Anglo-Saxon England which describes the king leading his people on the Last Day, but there are a number of examples of spiritual leaders so described. The primary source for this motif seems to be Gregory the Great’s Homilae in evangelia 17, where Gregory exhorts pastors to keep in mind the Day of Judgement when the shepherds with their flocks will come before God; he describes Peter leading a converted Judea; Paul leading a converted world; Andrew Achaia; John Asia Minor; and Thomas India. Gregory then asks what ‘we’, those pastors who will have no flocks to lead, will do: ‘Cum igitur tot pastores cum gregibus suis ante aeterni pastoris oculos uenerint, quid nos miseri dicturi sumus, qui ad Dominum nostrum post negotium uacui redimus, qui pastorum nomen habuimus, et oues quas ex nutrimento nostro debeamus ostendere non habemus? Hic pastores uocati sumus, et ibi gregem non ducimus.’166 The influence of Gregory can be seen in Bede’s letter to Archbishop Egbert of York about the state of the English church, in which he implores Egbert to behave as a good shepherd and asks him to take care that, when, on the Last Day, Peter and the other ‘leaders of the flocks of the faithful’ offer the fruits of their pastoral care to Christ, none of his sheep be condemned to eternal punishment.167 Ælfric used the Gregory homily as a source in his Catholic Homilies II text for the feast of a confessor, where he describes the apostles leading forth, at the Last Judgement, the peoples for whose conversion they have been responsible. He follows this by describing all preachers entrusting their spiritual profit to God and receiving an appropriate reward: ‘and swa gehwilc godes bydela ær betæh a gastlican teolunge am heofenlican deman. and hí underfo æt him heora mede be heora geswinces mæe’.168 While Ælfric clearly uses this motif of contemporary preachers having to lead their flock at the Last Judgement in this homily, it is not very developed and not something which recurs in his work. Wulfstan, on the other hand, takes up this motif from Gregory and uses it on a number of occasions. In a supplement to his Institutes 166

167

168

Gregorius Magnus Homiliae in evangelia, ed. R. Étaix, CCSL 141 (Turnhout, 1999), homilia XVII, 400–5: ‘When so many shepherds with their flocks come before the eternal shepherd, what will we say, we unfortunate ones who return to our master empty-handed after our trading? We have no sheep to show as a result of our care. Now we are called shepherds but we have no flock to lead on the day of judgement.’ (transl. D. Hurst, Forty Gospel Homilies by Gregory the Great, Cistercian Studies 23 (Kalamazoo, 1990), p. 148). Venerabilis Baedae Opera historica, ed. C. Plummer (Oxford, 1896) I, pp. 405–23, at 417–18 (ch. 14). That the Gregory homily is Bede’s source is rendered more likely by the fact that he exhorts Egbert in this same letter to read Gregory’s homilies on the Gospels. Catholic Homilies II, ed. Godden, XXXVIII, 182–6: ‘and so each of God’s messengers will there entrust their spiritual profit to the heavenly judge and they will receive from him their reward according to the extent of their labour’. For the source, see M. Godden, Ælfric’s Catholic Homilies: Introduction, Commentary and Glossary, EETS, ss 18 (Oxford, 2000), p. 653.

123

Mary Clayton of Polity and in his second lawcode for Cnut, he describes the joy of the shepherd (here priests) who can lead his flock into heaven: Eallum us (uel eow) is micel earf, æt we (uel ge) God lufian and Godes lagum filigan and godcundan lareowan geornlice hyran; foram hig us (uel eow) sculon lædan for æt am dome, onne God deme manna gehwilcum be ærran gewyrhtan. And gesæli bi[] se hyrda, e onne his heorde into Godes rice and to heofonlicre myrhe blie mot lædan for ærran gewirhtan.169

The lines quoted here are repeated word for word in the ‘homiletic exordium’ at the end of Cnut’s second lawcode, where sections 84–84.4b are identical to part of this CCCC 201 text.170 In Wulfstan’s sermon for the consecration of a bishop, as transmitted in Cleopatra B. xiii, he exhorts Christians to obey their shepherds, who will lead them on Judgement Day: ‘Ac don cristene men, swa swa we læra, hyran gode georne and am godcundan hyrdan, e æt godes dome hy for scylan lædan’.171 The same idea is found also in the so-called Poenitentiale Pseudo-Egberti or Old English Penitential, edited by Raith; this text occurs in manuscripts associated with Archbishop Wulfstan and was known by him.172 In Book III, chapter 16, part of the text which, in general, closely follows the Latin source (the Penitential of Halitgar), the Old English version adds a sentence to the end of the chapter which is not paralleled in the source: ‘Eall is is gecweden be biscopon 7 be <mæsse>preoston e godes folc on domesdæg to am dome lædan sceolon: ælc æne dæl e him her on life ær betæht wæs.’173 169

170

171

172

173

Institutes of Polity, ed. Jost, p. 260, 147–8: ‘It is very necessary for all of us (or you) that we (or you) love God and follow God’s laws and eagerly obey spiritual teachers; because they will have to lead us (or you) forth at the judgement, when God will judge every person according to their previous deeds. And that shepherd will be fortunate who may then lead his flock into God’s kingdom and to heavenly bliss on account of previous deeds.’ These lines are preserved only in CCCC 201 which has a text of the first edition of Polity on pp. 87–93 and an item headed Be sacerdan, from which these lines are taken, on pp. 130–1. Liebermann, Gesetze I, 368 (II Cnut, §84, 1–§84, 2); the phrase ‘homiletic exordium’ is Wormald’s, Making of English Law, p. 354. Wulfstan, ed. Napier, XXXVII, p. 178, line 21–p. 179, line 1: ‘But let Christian people, as we instruct, obey God eagerly and the spiritual shepherds, who will have to lead them forth at God’s judgement.’ J. Raith, Die altenglische Version des Halitgar’schen Bussbuches, Bibliothek der angelsächsischen Prosa 13 (Hamburg, 1933, repr. Darmstadt, 1964); the manuscripts are described on pp. ix–xx. See also R. Fowler, ‘A Late Old English Handbook for the Use of a Confessor’, Anglia 83 (1965), 1–34, at 1–12. Raith, Die altenglische Version des Halitgar’schen Bussbuches, p. 46: ‘All this is said regarding bishops and priests who will have to lead God’s people to judgement on the day of judgement: each one the portion previously entrusted to him here in this life.’

124

The Old English Promissio regis The idea that those in positions of spiritual authority will lead their flocks at the Last Judgement is also found in an early-eleventh-century record of decisions at a bishops’ synod, preserved in Paris, Bibliothèque Nationale, lat. 943, the ‘Dunstan Pontifical’, which was at Sherborne when this and other additions were made to it.174 This declares: ‘We greta eac ealle ure gebrora 7 geswustra e abbudhades syn 7 abbudyssan swye blielice, 7 hy geornlice myngia 7 eadmodlice bidda æt hy for Godes lufon heora agenne earfe 7 æra e hy æt Godes dome for lædan sceolon georne beenceon.’175 It is very likely that this text shows the influence of Wulfstan, whose role at bishops’ synods in the early eleventh century was doubtless prominent. It is clear, then, that the idea that spiritual leaders would lead their people on the Day of Judgement was known in late-tenth- and early-eleventh-century Anglo-Saxon England and that the author of the Promissio adapts the motif to describe the king so doing. The motif is found chiefly in Wulfstan and he uses wording similar to the Promissio’s, with the verb sculan and the phrase for lædan; what makes the Promissio unique, however, is that it is the king who leads, not a bishop or priest. The final part of this second paragraph exhorts the king to think of how he will have to account at the Last Judgement for his government of the people whom Christ himself bought with his blood. That the king will have to render account for his rule on the Last Day is a Carolingian theme which was known too in Anglo-Saxon England.176 Cathwulf reminded Charlemagne that he was the vice-regent of God who would have to render account on the Day of Judgement.177 Bishop Oda of Canterbury’s Constitutions, written between 942 and 946 and preserved in a manuscript compiled for Wulfstan, London, British Library, Cotton Vespasian A. xiv, reminds kings and all those in authority: ‘Quia etsi omni homini necessarium est, Christi custodire mandata, precipue tamen regibus et omnibus in sublimitate positis, qui et pro se ipsis etiam et pro universis sibi subiectis in die districti examinis iusto iudici rationem sunt reddituri.’178 Robert Deshman has demonstrated how Æthelwold’s Prologue to 174 175

176

177 178

See above, p. 109, for this pontifical. ‘Some decisions at a bishops’ synod’, Councils and Synods, ed. Whitelock, Brett and Brooke, pp. 402–6, at p. 405: ‘We greet also very kindly all our brothers and sisters who are of the rank of abbot or abbess, and exhort them eagerly and pray them humbly that for the love of God they eagerly consider their own benefit and that of those who they must bring forth at God’s judgement.’ See T. Noble, ‘The Monastic Ideal as a Model for Empire: the Case of Louis the Pious’, RB 86 (1976), 235–50, at 243–4. Epistolae Karolini aevi, II, MGH, Epist. IV, ed. E. Dümmler (Berlin, 1895), pp. 501–5, at 503. Councils and Synods, ed. Whitelock, Brett and Brooke, I, 67–74, at 70–1: ‘Because although it is necessary for all men to keep the commands of Christ, nevertheless it is especially so for kings and all those in lofty positions, who will have to render account both for themselves and also for all their subjects on the day of the severe examination by the just judge.’

125

Mary Clayton the Regularis concordia and the iconography of the frontispiece to the copy of the Regularis concordia in London, British Library, Cotton Tiberius A. iii ‘both stress that the fear of the Last Judgement motivates the ruler, whether a king or an abbot, to govern his subjects virtuously’.179 This second section, then, stresses that the welfare of the people depends on their king and that his worldly and eternal welfare depends on keeping his coronation promise; it appeals urgently to the king, as shepherd of his people, to save himself and to bear in mind that he will have to account for his rule on the Last Day. His office here is conceived as a spiritual one and motifs common in treatments of bishops and priests are applied to it. (c) Section Three The third section is clearly dependent on the account of what the justice of the king consists of in the ninth abuse in De duodecim abusiuis or on a text which draws on the ninth abuse: Iustitia uero regis est neminem iniuste per potentiam opprimere, sine acceptione personarum inter uirum et proximum suum iudicare, aduenis et pupillis et uiduis defensorem esse, furta cohibere, adulteria punire, iniquos non exaltare, impudicos et striones non nutrire, impios de terra perdere, parricidas et periurantes uiuere non sinere, ecclesias defendere, pauperes elemosynis alere, iustos super regni negotia constituere, senes et sapientes et sobrios consiliarios habere, magorum et hariolorum et pythonissarum superstitionibus non intendere, iracundiam differre, patriam fortiter et iuste contra aduersarios defendere, per omnia in Deo confidere, prosperitatibus animum non eleuare, cuncta aduersaria patienter ferre, fidem catholicam in Deum habere, filios suos non sinere impie agere, certis horis orationibus insistere, ante horas congruas non gustare cibum. Vae enim terrae, cuius rex est puer et cuius principes mane comedunt. Haec regni prosperitatem in praesenti faciunt et regem ad caelestia regna meliora perducunt.180 179 180

Deshman, ‘Benedictus monarcha’, p. 22. Hellmann, ‘Pseudo-Cyprianus de XII abusivis saeculi’, pp. 51–2: ‘Truly the justice of a king is to oppress no man unjustly through the exercise of power, to judge between one man and another without regard to persons, to be the defender of strangers, orphans and widows, to restrain theft, to punish adultery, not to promote the wicked to high office, not to support the shameless and actors, to destroy the impious from the land, not to permit parricides and perjurers to live, to defend the churches, to nourish the poor with alms, to set just men over the affairs of the kingdom, to have those who are old and wise and temperate as counsellors, not to attend to the superstitions of magicians and soothsayers and sorceresses, to delay anger, to defend his country bravely and justly against adversaries, to put his trust in God in all things, not to be elated in spirit in good fortune, to bear all adversities patiently, to have orthodox faith in God, not to allow his sons to act impiously, to apply himself to prayers at certain times, not to taste food before the proper hours. For woe to the land, whose king is a child and whose princes dine in the morning! These things make a kingdom prosperous in this world and afterwards bring the king to the better heavenly kingdom.’

126

The Old English Promissio regis This same passage, but not including the last two sentences, constitutes Book XXV, ch. 4 of the Hibernensis.181 The Old English begins ‘Gehalgodes cynges riht is. æt he nænigne man ne fordéme’, again tying in with the coronation promise by the introduction of gehalgod, and then seems to combine the next two clauses of the Latin, translating ‘neminem iudicare’ and omitting the passage in between these words. As noted in the notes to the edition, a word like unrihtlice or a phrase such as on unriht appears to be missing here. This passage in the Old English is particularly important as it may give us a clue to the version of the ninth abuse that was the source for this text. The Hibernensis, instead of De duodecim abusiuis’s ‘neminem iniuste per potentiam opprimere, sine acceptione personarum inter uirum et proximum suum iudicare’, reads ‘neminem iniuste iudicare’; like the Old English, therefore, it takes the beginning of one clause in De duodecim abusiuis and the end of the next, but it includes the iniuste which is necessary to the sense. While it is dangerous to argue from omissions, given the numerous omissions from the source in this section, nevertheless the beginning of this section is translated fairly closely and this agreement with the Hibernensis may, then, be significant. The next characteristic of the just king is translated closely in the Old English, the only changes being in the order of those defended and in the employment of a pair of rhyming verbs for the phrase defensorem esse: ‘and æt he wuduwan and steopcild and æleodige werige and amundige’. The third again continues to follow the Latin source closely: ‘stala forbeode’ corresponding to ‘furta cohibere’. ‘Unrihthæmedu gebete’ corresponds to ‘adulteria punire’ but changes the meaning somewhat, insofar as gebetan means to ‘correct, reform, amend’ rather than ‘punish’; unrihthæmed can mean adultery or fornication. The next phrase in the Old English stipulates that the king should separate those committing incest, something not specifically mentioned in De duodecim abusiuis or the Hibernensis; in the Latin text, the next roles of the king are ‘iniquos non exaltare, impudicos et histriones non nutrire’ (this is the order in De duodecim abusiuis while in the Hibernensis these clauses are reversed). The Old English does not mention that the king should not raise up the wicked or support actors, and, indeed, there is no vernacular equivalent to the verbs exaltare or nutrire. It is possible, however, that the Latin impudicos suggested those who commit incest to the Old English author who was here choosing a particular kind of unchaste behaviour. Specifying incest here is interesting, as is the word sibleger itself; sibleger is attested only in Wulfstan and incest is a preoccupation of his and figures in several of his lawcodes.182 181 182

Die irische Kanonensammlung, ed. Wasserschleben, p. 77. On sibleger as unique to Wulfstan, see D. Whitelock, ‘Wulfstan and the so-called Laws of Edward and Guthrum’, EHR 56 (1941), 1–21, at 8: she points out that: ‘The offence itself is

127

Mary Clayton The Old English then translates several other characteristics of the good king from the Latin, but in a different order. The king’s duty that he ‘grundlunga. forbeode. wiccan. and galdra adilige’ corresponds to De duodecim abusiuis’s ‘magorum et ariolorum phitonissarumque superstitionibus non intendere’ or the Hibernensis’s ‘magorum et pythonissarum et auguriorum superstitionibus non intendere’, but the Old English, with the adverb grundlunga and forbeode and adilige as the verbs, is phrased much more strongly than the Latin. The next clause stipulates that the king ‘mægmyrran and manswaran of earde adrife’;183 this is clearly inspired by the De duodecim abusiuis or Hibernensis reading ‘parricidas et periurantes uiuere non sinere’, but with a change from not allowing parricides and perjurers to live to driving them out of the country.184 The Old English continues with ‘earfan mid ælmyssan fede’, unproblematically translating De duodecim abusiuis/Hibernensis ‘pauperes elemosynis alere’ and with ‘ealde. and wise and. syfre him to geeahterum hæbbe’, translating ‘senes et sapientes et sobrios consiliarios habere’. The final thing that the just king must do, according to the Old English, is ‘rihtwise mæn him to wicnerum sette’; again, this is paralleled in De duodecim abusiuis and the Hibernensis. A number of features of the good king, as found in De duodecim abusiuis and the Hibernensis, are omitted and it is worth mentioning these briefly: not to promote the impious to high office, not to support actors, to destroy the wicked from the earth, to defend the churches, to delay anger, to defend his country bravely and justly against adversaries, to trust in God, not to be raised up in spirit by good fortune, to endure misfortune patiently, to have orthodox faith in God, not to allow his children to act wickedly, to devote himself at certain hours to prayers, not to dine before the proper hours. Some of these omissions seem surprising. The author of the Old English has here made the clauses relating to advisors and officers of the king the climax of his list, leading into the final statement, which, like the concluding statement of the second section, is concerned with the Last Judgement. There is no parallel in De duodecim abusiuis or the Hibernensis to the final part of the Old English: ‘for an swa hwæt swa hig to unrihte gedo urh his aful. he his sceal ealles gescead agyldan on domes dæg.’ De duodecim abusiuis, but not the Hibernensis, continues by saying that the king who has

183

184

not dealt with in other laws, so one cannot judge if the term itself is an innovation. Yet it is perhaps worth noting that the penitential literature does not use it, but some much more wordy expression.’ See also R. Dance, ‘Sound, Fury, and Signifiers; or Wulfstan’s Language’ in Wulfstan, ed. Townend, pp. 29–61, at 59. Sibleger can mean incest or those who commit incest – see note to line 20. Mægmyrra is attested eight times in the DOE Web Corpus; one occurrence is in the Old English translation of Gregory’s Dialogues and the other seven are in glossaries, five of them to Aldhelm, glossing parricida. The ninth abuse specifies, however, ‘impios de terra perdere’.

128

The Old English Promissio regis transgressors under him will be punished in the next world for them but has nothing like the Promissio’s concern about the king’s responsibility for that which is done by means of his power or about the Day of Judgement. Instead, the Promissio author is here drawing again on accounts of how spiritual leaders will be held responsible, on Judgement Day, for the actions of those in their care. The ultimate source for this treatment of the theme is the Benedictine Rule, where the abbot has to account for his care of those under him; this theme occurs several times in the Rule, as in these examples from Æthelwold’s Old English translation: Wite eac se abbod, æt se e onfeh saula to ræccænne, he gearwa hine selfne to dome on æm dome on domesdæge, and ær he sceal riht agyldan for ealle, a e he onfeng, and eac for his agene saule. Geænce eahhwæere se abbod, æt he Gode ælmihtigum gescead agyldan sceal be eallum his dædum and domum . . .185

Similar passages can be found in the Old English Rule of Chrodegang186 and the Old English Theofulfi Capitula.187 Ælfric too says that each teacher will have responsibility for the souls of others as well as his own: ‘Ælc lareow sceal agyldan gescead gode ealra æra manna sawla e him betæhte syndon. toeacan his agenre sawle’;188 and Wulfstan, talking about bishops and priests, makes the same point in several different texts, again in terms very similar to the Benedictine Rule: Gyf u onne æt ne dest ac forsuwast hit 7 nelt folce his earfe gecyan, onne scealt u ealra æra sawla on domesdæg gescead agyldan e urh æt losia, e hy nabba a lare & a mynegunge e hy beorfton.189

185

186

187 188

189

Die angelsächsischen Prosabearbeitungen der Benediktinerregel, ed. A. Schröer, Bibliothek angelsächsischen Prosa 2 (Kassel, 1885–8; repr. with appendix by H. Gneuss, Darmstadt, 1964); the first quotation is from Chapter 2, p. 14, lines 16–20 (‘Let the abbot know also, that he who receives souls to govern prepares himself for judgement at the judgement on judgement day, and there he will have to render an account for all those whom he received and also for his own soul.’), and the second from chapter 65, p. 126, lines 9–10: ‘Nevertheless let the abbot bear in mind, that he will have to render account to almighty God for all his deeds and his judgements . . .’. For example, The Old English Version of the Enlarged Rule of Chrodegang, ed. B. Langefeld, Münchener Universitätsschriften 26 (Frankfurt, 2003), ch. 79, 38–9. Theodulfi Capitula in England, ed. H. Sauer (Munich, 1978), ch. 1 (p. 307). Catholic Homilies II, ed. Godden, III, 238–9: ‘Each teacher must render account to God for the souls of all the people who are entrusted to him, in addition to his own soul.’ Bethurum, Homilies of Wulfstan, VI, 10–14; this is identical to Polity, II.138: ‘If you do not do this but are silent about it and do not wish to make known to the people what is necessary for them, then you will have to render account at judgement day for all the souls who are lost through that, because they do not have the teaching and the warning that they needed.’

129

Mary Clayton And æger hi scylon æt Godes dome gescead agyldan, ge heora sylfra dæda ge ealles æs folces, e hi to Godes handa healdan sceolan.190

The Promissio, then, seems to be influenced by other vernacular texts in this passage, but, while the other texts are all concerned with abbots, bishops, priests and canons, the Promissio tailors this theme to the office of king, by stressing his responsibility for injustice committed in his name. It is noteworthy that the Promissio does not have a conventional ending, such as one would expect in an address to king and people such as this appears to be. The final words, ‘for an swa hwæt swa hig to unrihte gedo urh his aful. he his sceal ealles gescead agyldan on domesdæg’, do not feel like a conclusion, and one would expect them to be followed by another plea to the king or, at least, a prayer-like finish. Napier L, addressed to king and people, ends with the prayer that every Christian will turn from sin and earn the heavenly kingdom ‘ær is ece blis and æfre bi mid am, e leofa and rixa a butan ende. amen’.191 The lack of a conventional ending may be an indication that the Promissio was never completed. the function of the text As is evident from the review of discussions of the Promissio at the beginning of this article, the majority view to date is that this text was composed as a coronation text, probably by Dunstan.192 The presence of the text in a pontifical, Vitellius A. vii, before the ordo for the coronation, naturally lends support to this view and one can imagine that it would be relatively easy to adapt the Promissio for a coronation address. However, the text itself makes very clear that it was not composed for preaching at a coronation. The first sentence introduces the translation of the promise by referring back to Dunstan’s coronation of ‘urum hlaforde’. The coronation of this king, who is still reigning, is in the past, ‘a on dæg a hine man halgode to cinge’; it is not something which is taking place on the occasion at which this sermon was delivered. The Promissio regis, then, is addressed to the same king whom Dunstan directed to lay the promise on the altar, but it makes no claim to be by Dunstan himself or 190

191

192

Institutes of Polity, ed. Jost, II.104 (quoted from Oxford, Bodleian Library, Junius 121, but the text is more or less identical in Cotton Nero A. i and in London, British Library, Cotton Tiberius A. iii): ‘And they will have to render account at God’s judgement both for their own deeds and for those all the people, whom they had to hold from God.’ It is very similar to Napier LII, also by Wulfstan (Wulfstan, ed. Napier, p. 275, lines 18–19). Wulfstan, ed. Napier, L, p. 274, lines 3–5: ‘where there is eternal bliss and always will be with him, who lives and rules forever without end. amen’. Stafford, ‘The laws of Cnut’, p. 187, suggests that this text may even be the consecration address which Wulfstan made to Cnut. See, for example, Nelson, ‘Ritual and Reality’, p. 337; Wormald, ‘Æthelred the Lawmaker’, p. 74; Stafford, ‘The Laws of Cnut’, p. 179.

130

The Old English Promissio regis to be a sermon preached at the coronation ceremony. Instead, it is a sermon addressed to the king (‘Eala, leof hlaford’) and people (addressed particularly in the first sentence, when the story of the coronation is recounted to them), publicly reminding both king and people of the promises made to the people at the king’s coronation. The translation of the promise concludes with ‘FINIT’, drawing a distinct boundary between the promise and the remainder of the text, which is devoted to explaining the consequences for the king and people of his fulfilling or breaking these promises and to detailing in what the justice of the king consists. The function for which the text was composed seems, then, to have been one where the preacher, who must, one imagines, have been a very senior figure in the Anglo-Saxon church, addressed king and people jointly. This does not preclude other uses, of course: that Leofric had the text copied into one of his pontificals, alongside the coronation ordo, and into a preaching manuscript probably indicates that he felt it could be adapted to use at a coronation and/or as a preaching text to a congregation that included king and people, as in the original context. Elaine Treharne, building on Patrick Wormald’s discussion of this text, suggests that it could have been used by Leofric in preaching at the royal council held at Exeter in 1050.193 The occasion for which the text was composed seems to have been one of some importance; there is a tone of compelling and even exasperated urgency in the exhortation to the king that he should save himself at least and in the reminder, at the end of the second and third sections, that he will have to account at Judgement Day for his use of his power, including injustices perpetrated in his name. It would not, I think, have been a very comfortable experience for the king in question to listen to this address. authorship The only authors to whom the Promissio regis has been attributed have been Dunstan, who has been thought to have delivered the text at one or more coronation ceremonies, and, as a hypothesis worth exploring, Byrhtferth.194 Stafford almost raised the possibility of Wulfstan’s being the author, only to dismiss it on the grounds that the manuscripts have no Wulfstan connections and that the piece is not in Wulfstan’s distinct style. The Dunstan attribution arose because of the mention of the archbishop at the beginning of the text: ‘is gewrit is gewriten stæf be stæfe be am gewrite e Dunstan arcebisceop sealde urum hlaforde æt Cingestune.’ However, the opening paragraph makes 193 194

Wormald, Making of English Law, pp. 447–8, and Treharne, ‘The Bishop’s Book’ (forthcoming). For Dunstan, see the references in n. 188 above. For Byrhtferth as a suggestion, see Wormald, Making of English Law, p. 448, n. 118.

131

Mary Clayton clear that what Dunstan was responsible for was handing the promise to the king and directing him to place the text of the promise on the altar; the gewrit alluded to seems to be the text of the promise only, not this text as a whole. Indeed, the reference to Dunstan rather suggests that the text is the work of someone else, as Dunstan would be unlikely to refer to himself in the third person, and that he is being used here to give further authority to the address. Given that Vitellius A. vii is not a Ramsey manuscript and that we have no proof or even indication of any Ramsey connections for this text, Wormald’s suggestion, based on a Ramsey origin for Vitellius and Byrhtferth’s interest in coronations, that ‘it might – at the risk of fathering further unwarranted progeny on Byrthferth – be worth pondering his possible role in the oath’s translation’ does not have any evidence to support it.195 Had Byrhtferth been responsible for the Promissio, one would also expect the version of the threefold promise to correspond to that in his Vita Oswaldi and this is not the case in all details.196 The third Anglo-Saxon author whose name is constantly connected with the text, but without its being attributed to him, is Wulfstan, archbishop of York. Liebermann pointed to the Promissio’s similarities to passages in Napier L and to the Institutes of Polity;197 Robertson added similarities with Wulfstan’s V and VI Æthelred, without going into detail; Jost pointed out that the word afol is found only in the Promissio and in Wulfstan; Stafford showed that ‘[b]oth the oath and the sermon are glossed extensively by the laws of Cnut’ and Wormald said that the ‘idiom, though not the language, is already that of Wulfstan’.198 Wulfstan has already been quoted extensively in this article as offering parallels to the Promissio, both in ideas and wording. One obstacle Stafford raised to Wulfstan’s authorship was the manuscripts’ lack of connection with Wulfstan and it is true that Exeter has not been viewed as a centre in which one might expect to find Wulfstan texts unattested in Worcester or York. However, this is precisely what we find in the case of Napier L, Bethurum XVIII and Napier XXXVII;199 these three texts are all transmitted only in Exeter manuscripts, Cleopatra B. xiii and the Exeter additions to CCCC 421, two closely connected manuscripts. While the preservation in Exeter only of three Wulfstan sermons does not necessarily say anything about the author195 196

197

198 199

Wormald, Making of English Law, p. 448, n. 118. The differences between the Promissio’s text and Byrthtferth’s (and all other texts of the Second ordo) are outlined above, pp. 110–12. The passages in Polity to which he alludes are the section Be eorlicum cyninge and a section on bishops (corresponding to Jost, Institutes of Polity, pp. 211ff, though the latter does not have any striking similarities to the Promissio). Wormald, Making of English Law, p. 448, n. 119. On this last text, see above, p. 99; it corresponds in part to Bethurum XVII.

132

The Old English Promissio regis ship of the Promissio regis, it does mean that an attribution to Wulfstan cannot be dismissed on the grounds that the manuscripts have no connection with him. Given that the manuscript evidence does not rule out a Wulfstan connection, it is worth considering other possible indications of his involvement. There are some suggestive features of the vocabulary of the text. Jost pointed out that the word afol is attested only in the Promissio and in Wulfstan, with a question mark as to whether abal in Genesis B was the same word.200 Afol is found in the first edition (in CCCC 201) of the Institutes of Polity I.3, in a passage on kings: And him gebira eac, æt he eallum his afole Cristendom lufige . . .201

Afol was replaced in subsequent versions of the Institutes of Polity with mægene,202 and Jost explains this by suggesting that Wulfstan himself replaced a littleknown word with a better-known one.203 Wulfstan uses woroldafelum in homily XII, line 38; this text is Wulfstan’s reworking of Ælfric’s De falsis deis and here he writes ‘e mihtige wurdan on woruldafelum’ for Ælfric’s ‘e mihtige wæron on woruldlicum geincum’.204 He uses it again in his Canons of Edgar, where he says that any priest who cannot or does not dare compel a man to penance for woruldafole must declare this at a synod.205 Sara Pons-Sanz has recently discussed afol and suggests that it is not, as had been thought, a Norse loanword, but is more likely to be of native origin, with abal as an alternative spelling; in this case, she says, ‘the preservation of its spelling in Old English solely in Wulfstan’s works should simply be understood as one of Fortune’s whims.’206 While too much weight cannot be placed on Wulfstan’s use of afol, then, it nevertheless remains the case that this is a rare word, with three of its four attestations in Wulfstan (that is, including the attestations of woruldafol), and its use in the Promissio could be a pointer towards Wulfstan’s involvement with this text. Apart from its use in the Promissio, the word sibleger is also found only in Wulfstan, and Audrey Meaney suggests that it may be Wulfstan’s own 200 201 202 204

205 206

Institutes of Polity, ed. Jost, p. 18. Ibid. I.3: ‘And it befits him also, that he should love Christianity with all his might . . .’. 203 Institutes of Polity, ed. Jost, Ib.3 and II.5. Ibid., p. 18. Homilies of Wulfstan, ed. Bethurum, XII, 38 (‘who were powerful in worldly might’); Homilies of Ælfric, ed. Pope, XXI, 102 (‘who were powerful in worldly ranks’). Wulfstan’s Canons of Edgar, ed. R. Fowler, EETS 266 (Oxford, 1972), 6, p. 2. ‘The Norse Origin of OE AFOL/ME AFELL: is Evidence Strong Enough?’, ELN 43 (2005), 1–7, at 7.

133

Mary Clayton 207

coinage. Dorothy Whitelock used the occurrence of sibleger in the so-called ‘Peace of Edward and Guthrum’ as part of her argument that the code was composed by Wulfstan, rather than in the first half of the tenth century, pointing out that the word occurs in this code and in Cnut’s laws and in other texts by Wulfstan, but nowhere else.208 Other features of the vocabulary also fit Wulfstan. Jost points out that ‘Wulfstans übliches Wort für ‘befehlen, gebieten’ ist bebeodan, für ‘versprechen’ behatan, nicht gehatan’;209 in the Promissio we find ‘ic behate and bebeode’. The phrase ‘e u eart to hyrde gescyft on ysum life’ contains another characteristic expression of Wulfstan’s: there are eight occurrences of gescyft or gescyfte in the Old English corpus, which does not yet include the occurrence in the Promissio, of which six are in Wulfstan’s works.210 Wulfstan prefers the word geweald, as in the Promissio’s minra gewealda, to the anweald which is frequent in Alfred and Ælfric.211 The phrase mægmyrran and manswaran is again reminiscent of Wulfstan; Dance, drawing on the work of Chapman, remarks on ‘the various permutations of phrases involving any two or more compounds formed on mann- (“man, person”), man- (“crime, sin”), mor(or)- (“murder”), and sometimes also mæg- (“kin”) which recur especially frequently in Wulfstan’s writing’.212 Wulfstan, however, never uses mægmyrran, though he uses similar compounds and possibly coined the compound bearnmyrra, attested three times, all in his works. Instead, in his catalogues of sinners, he generally couples mansworan with morwyrhtan or sometimes manslagan or mororwyrhtan.213 Given that the Promissio’s reading is a translation of ‘parricidas et periurantes’, it is possible that Wulfstan, if it was he, varied his normal pairings to accommodate the source. While the Promissio does not have many of the intensifiers so typical of Wulfstan, it does have some: swye, huruinga and georne. Grundlunga is less 207

208 209 210

211 213

A. Meaney, ‘ “And we forbeoda eornostlice ælcne hæenscipe”: Wulfstan and Late AngloSaxon and Norse “Heathenism” ’, in Wulfstan, ed. Townend, pp. 461–500, at p. 479; see also R. Dance, ‘Sound, Fury, and Signifiers: or Wulfstan’s Language’ in Wulfstan, ed. Townend, pp. 29–61, at p. 59. ‘Wulfstan and the So-Called Laws of Edward and Guthrum’, EHR 56 (1941), 1–21, at 8. Jost, Wulfstanstudien, p. 119. The remaining two are in glosses to the Regularis concordia; the Wulfstan occurrences are in his homilies, laws and in Episcopus. An example from Bethurum homily 17 is: ‘nu wylle we swutelian am e hit nystan hu bisceophadas wurdan ærest astealde & be Godes dihte mannum gescyfte’; compare this to ‘e u eart to hyrde gescyft on ysum life’. 212 DOE ‘anweald’. Dance, ‘Sound, Fury and Signifiers’, p. 59, n. 96. In Homilies of Wulfstan, ed. Bethurum, VII, 130, Wulfstan says ‘mansworan 7 morwyrhtan’; in XIII, 92–2, ‘manslagan 7 . . . mansworan’; in XX (EI), 162–3, ‘mansworan 7 mororwyrhtan’; in the ‘Peace of Edward and Guthrum’, ‘mansworan oe morwyrhtan’; in Cnut’s letter proclamation of 1020, ‘mægslagan 7 morslagan 7 mansworan’ and in Wulfstan’s Be hæendome (ed. Meaney, ‘And we forbeoda eornostlice ælcne hæenscipe’, p. 482), ‘morwyrhtan oe mansworan’.

134

The Old English Promissio regis typical of Wulfstan, but is used in his homily II, line 33, with the spelling grundlinga. Wulfstan’s works also contain passages similar to other parts of the Promissio. The notion that the joy of eternal life will never fade is a common one in Old English homilies, often expressed by Ælfric, for example, in a phrase like ‘e him næfre ne ateora’214 and this is similar to the Promissio’s ‘ge eac on am ecean e æfre ne ateora’; it is, however, also paralleled in Wulfstan’s homily 7, where even the unusual æfre, rather than næfre, is found: ‘And se e to am gesælig bi æt he to am mærum 7 to am myrhum cym, ne ateoria hy him æfre.’215 The appeal to the king to protect himself is similar to the many appeals to the congregation or readers that Wulfstan made in his sermons, laws and Institutes of Polity to protect themselves, all using the verb beorgan, as in the examples quoted above.216 These pleas to enlightened self-interest – if for no other reason, people should behave righteously for the sake of their own salvation – are characteristic of his work and the Dictionary of Old English says that the verb, which occurs altogether c. 130 times, is ‘disproportionately frequent in Wulfstan’.217 The Promissio’s appeal to the king, Eala leof hlaford, is again similar to the many addresses to his audience in Wulfstan’s work, generally in his characteristic form leofan men and often prefaced with Eala.218 This is not a feature of the work of other Old English homilists; Ælfric does use Eala leof x in speeches within his texts, but not in addressing a congregation, while anonymous homilists prefer Eala men a leofestan. Like the joys of heaven never fading, the concept of Christ buying salvation with his blood or his life is a common enough one in Old English homilies, but nevertheless it is very frequent in Wulfstan and his work contains striking parallels to the Promissio’s ‘hu u geheolde. æt crist ǽr gebohte. sylf mid his blóde’: from V Æthelred, ‘ac beorge man georne, æt man a sawla ne forfare, e Crist mid his agenum life gebohte’219 and from Wulfstan homily XIII, ‘Ac he gebohte us a ealle mid his deorwuran blode of helle wite.’220 In the revised Polity, Wulfstan asks what will happen to shepherds (here priests) on the Last Day if they did not guard or rule 214 215

216 218

219

220

Ælfric’s Catholic Homilies, ed. Clemoes, VIII, 176. Homilies of Wulfstan, ed. Bethurum, VII, 155–7 (‘And he who will be so fortunate that he will come to those glories and to those joys, they will never come to an end’); see also XIII, 15. 217 See p. 119. Dictionary of Old English, ‘beorgan’. See, e.g., III, 74; VI, 214; VII, 104; Xc, 39; XIX, 41 (all from Homilies of Wulfstan, ed. Bethurum). V Æthelred, 2, Liebermann, Gesetze, I, 238 (‘but let one protect oneself eagerly that one does not bring to ruin the souls which Christ bought with his own life’; compare VI Æthelred 9, Liebermann, Gesetze I, 250, and II Cnut 3, Liebermann, Gesetze, I, 310. Homilies of Wulfstan, ed. Bethurum, XIII, 45–6 (‘But then he redeemed us all with his precious blood from the torment of hell’); see also II Cnut 3.

135

Mary Clayton (healdan) their flock, in a passage that contains parallels to geheolde and Crist . . . gebohte: And gefara onne æt Godes egeslican dome a hyrdas, e ne cunnon gehealdon a godcundan heorde, e Crist mid his agenum life gebohte, and e hi healdon sceoldan, gif hi cuan?221

As well as features of vocabulary and turns of phrase, the concerns of this address are shared by Wulfstan. It is not only the word sibleger itself that points to Wulfstan, but also the interest in incest. Incest was a preoccupation of Wulfstan’s and something that he asked Ælfric about early in his archepiscopate, receiving a less than helpful reply.222 Texts dealing with incest are also included in his ‘commonplace book’.223 In the ‘Peace of Edward and Guthrum’, dated before 1008, he stipulated the punishment for incest;224 in VI Æthelred Wulfstan defined the forbidden degrees of marriage,225 repeating them in I Cnut,226 and in II Cnut he came back again to the topic, pointing out that the compensation had to reflect the degree of consanguinity involved.227 Incest is included in the list of sins of the English in the Sermo Lupi and in Napier XXVII, another Wulfstan homily.228 It would be in keeping with Wulfstan’s marked interest in the topic that he would introduce it in the Promissio, without warrant from the source. Both the topic and the word chosen to express it point, then, to Wulfstan. That the justice of the king includes that he should ‘grundlunga. forbeode. wiccan. and galdra adilige’ is again characteristic of Wulfstan’s interests: in the ‘Peace of Edward and Guthrum’, in VI Æthelred, and in II Cnut, it is ordained that witches are to be driven out or completely destroyed.229 In Cnut’s letterproclamation of 1020, Wulfstan lists as examples of unriht ‘mægslagan 7 221

222

223

224

226 228

Institutes of Polity, ed. Jost, II.114: ‘And what will happen the shepherds then, at God’s terrifying judgement, who did not know how to rule the flock belonging to God whom Christ bought with his own life and whom they should rule, if they knew how?’ See M. Godden, ‘The Relations of Wulfstan and Ælfric’ in Wulfstan, ed. Townend, pp. 353– 74, at p. 354. Incest for Wulfstan covered all degrees of prohibited union between blood and spiritual relations. See Sauer, ‘The Transmission and Structure of Archbishop Wulfstan’s “Commonplace Book”’, p. 348 (item 19). The text is edited in Councils and Synods I, ed. Whitelock, Brett and Brooke, pp. 302–12; the 225 clause on incest is §4, p. 307. Liebermann, Gesetze I, 250, §12. 227 Ibid. I, 290, §7. Ibid. I, 346, §§51–52. Homilies of Wulfstan, ed. Bethurum, XX (BH), 95; XX (C), 136; Wulfstan, ed. Napier, XXVII, 229 p. 130, ll. 4–5. Liebermann, Gesetze, I, 134, §11; I, 248, §7; I, 310, §4a.

136

The Old English Promissio regis morslagan 7 mansworan 7 wiccean 7 wælcyrian 7 æwbrecan 7 syblegeru.’230 In his homily VIIIc, he exhorts the congregation ‘And ne gyman ge galdra ne idelra hwata, ne wigelunga ne wiccecræft’ and in the Canons of Edgar galdra are included in a list of things which every priest must forbid.231 The similarities in terms of law, then, are with Wulfstan’s laws. This is true again of the next clause of the Promissio, stipulating that the king ‘mægmyrran and manswaran of earde adrife’; this is clearly inspired by De xii abusiuis/Hibernensis ‘parricidas et periurantes uiuere non sinere’, but with a change from not allowing parricides and perjurers to live to driving them out of the country. The ‘Peace of Edward and Guthrum’ pronounces: ‘Gif wiccan oe wigleras, mansworan oe morwyrhtan oe fule, afylede, æbære horcwenan ahwar on lande wuran agytene, onne fyse hi man of earde 7 clænsie a eode, oe on earde forfare hy mid ealle, buton hig geswican 7 e deoppor gebetan’; the same paragraph is included in VI Æthelred and II Cnut.232 While these features are to be found in the source, nevertheless the selection is significant and fits with Wulfstan’s known interests. The mention of Dunstan in the Promissio can also be associated with Wulfstan. Twice elsewhere, Wulfstan invokes Dunstan: once in the second edition of the Canons of Edgar and the second time in his letter to Cnut and Aelfgifu.233 Wormald suggests that the names of Edgar and Dunstan in the Canons of Edgar ‘may imply attempts to (re)create suitable standards for the clergy of Wulfstan’s dioceses’;234 it is possible that the mention of Dunstan in the Promissio was also intended to create a link back to a time associated with the founding fathers of the Reform and their moral authority. The king as shepherd leading his flock to the Last Judgement is a memorable image that is difficult to associate with anyone but Wulfstan. The shepherd metaphor was one that he exploited throughout his career: Jonathan Wilcox’s article, ‘The Wolf on Shepherds’, details how he used it in his work on bishops; he exploited it in Polity and Napier L in his discussions of kingship; and, towards the end of his life, he even extended his use of the metaphor and wrote 230

231

232

233

234

Ibid. I, 274, §15: ‘parricides and murderers and perjurors and witches and valkyries and adulterers and those who commit incest’. Homilies of Wulfstan, ed. Bethurum, VIIIc, 165–6 (‘And do not pay heed to spells or idle auguries, or sorceries or witchcraft’); Wulfstan’s Canons of Edgar, ed. Fowler, 16. Liebermann, Gesetze I, 134, §11 (‘If witches or soothsayers, perjurors or murderers or foul, corrupted prostitutes are found anywhere in the country, then drive them out of the country and cleanse the people, or destroy them completely in the country, unless they cease and repent deeply’); see also VI Æthelred, §7 (Liebermann, I, 248 and II Cnut, §4a (Liebermann, I, 310). Wulfstan’s Canons of Edgar, ed. Fowler, §68c; the letter is reproduced in Homilies of Wulfstan, ed. Bethurum, pp. 352–3 (‘Dunstan e god wæs’, p. 353). Wormald, Making of English Law, p. 391, n. 579.

137

Mary Clayton a chapter in Polity II on the reeves of his day as failed shepherds, unlike those reeves of Edgar’s day who were chosen as shepherds for the people, ‘folce to hyrdum’.235 He also repeatedly used the motif of the shepherd leading his flock at the Last Judgement. In terms of access to sources, Wulfstan, as archbishop, would naturally have had access to one, or probably more, pontificals236 and we know that Wulfstan was acquainted with the source for the third section, on what the justice of the king consists of, because it is preserved in two manuscripts of his pastoral handbook, and, as part of the Hibernensis, in Hatton 42, which we know he consulted.237 As mentioned earlier, CCCC 265 and Barlow 37 include a section headed De rege containing texts about kingship. These comprise: 1. an extract from Sedulius Scottus’s Liber de rectoribus christianis, ch. X, on the eight columns which support the kingdom of the just king; 2. Hibernensis, Book XXV, ch. 15, on the seven things which befit a king; 3. a passage on wisdom as the ornament of the king; 4. Hibernensis, Book XXV, ch. 4, taken from the ninth abuse in De duodecim abusiuis, beginning ‘Iustitia iusti regis est neminem iniuste iudicare’; 5. a passage beginning ‘Iustitia boni regis patriam aedificat, iniustitia iniusti regis patriam destruit . . .’; 6. a passage from Hibernensis, Book XXV, ch. 3, also drawn from the ninth abuse in De duodecim abusiuis, on the benefits for the kingdom of a just king; 7. Hibernensis, Book XXV, ch. 7 (an extract from Gregory Nazianzenus); 8. a passage on the shortness and uncertainty of life. The fourth passage reads: Iustitia iusti regis est neminem iniuste iudicare. Aduenis et pupillis et uiduis. defensorem esse. furta cohibere. adulteria punire. inpudicos non nutrire. iniquos non exaltare. impios de terra perdere. parricidas et periurantes de terra expellere. ecclesias dei defendere. pauperes pascere. iustos super regni negotia constituere. Senes et sapientes. ac domini timentes consiliaros habere. Magorum phitonissarum. atque insipientium superstitionibus non intendere. patriam fortiter contra aduersarios defendere. per omnia in deum confidere . . .238 235

236

237

238

Institutes of Polity, ed. Jost, II.94–101; the reeves are termed ryperas ‘e scoldon beon hyrdas cristenes folces’. C. Jones discusses the only surviving Wulfstan pontifical, ‘Claudius Pontifical I’ in his ‘Wulfstan’s Liturgical Interests’, in Wulfstan, ed. Townend, pp. 325–52, at pp. 334–46. Wulfstan annotated some of a chapter of the Hibernensis in Hatton 42; on this, see N. Ker, ‘The Handwriting of Archbishop Wulfstan’, England before the Conquest, ed. P. Clemoes and K. Hughes (Cambridge, 1971), pp. 315–31, at p. 328. Quoted from CCCC 265, p. 149: ‘The justice of a just king is to judge no-one injustly; to be the defender of strangers and orphans and widows; to punish adultery; not to support the

138

The Old English Promissio regis There are some details in this passage in CCCC 265 which are not identical to the text translated in the Promissio, however, suggesting that this was not the source for the third section of the vernacular text. Where, for example, De duodecim abusiuis has ‘senes et sapientes et sobrios consiliarios habere’, translated in the Promissio with ‘ealde. and wise. and syfre him to geeahterum hæbbe’, and the A text of the Hibernensis printed by Wasserschleben has ‘senes sapientes et sobrios consiliarios habere’, the passage in CCCC 265 reads ‘Senes et sapientes. ac domini timentes consiliaros habere’. The Promissio here is clearly closest to De duodecim abusiuis. The CCCC 265 wording may be influenced by the immediately preceding extract, which includes: ‘Initium sapientie timor domini. Salomon dicit. Timor domini apponit dies et anni impiorum breuiabuntur.’239 The Promissio’s ‘earfan mid ælmyssan fede’ is closer to the De duodecim abusiuis/Hibernensis reading ‘pauperes elemosynis alere’ than CCCC 265’s ‘pauperes pascere’. On the other hand, the CCCC 265 reading ‘parricidas et periurantes de terra expellere’ exactly corresponds to the Promissio’s ‘mægmyrran and manswaran of earde adrife’, rather than the De duodecim abusiuis/Hibernensis reading ‘parricidas et periurantes uiuere non sinere’. The first sentence corresponds to the Promissio’s ‘æt he nænigne man ne fordéme’, like other texts of the Hibernensis, apart from the vernacular’s omission of a word corresponding to iniuste. While it has some points in common with the Promissio, then, it departs from it in others and does not seem to be the direct source of the third section of the vernacular text. The same lack of agreement can be seen in the relationship between one of the other passages (the second in the list above) in this De rege section and a passage in Wulfstan’s Polity. Where the passage on the seven things which befit a king in Polity reads ‘æt he æfre rihtwisnesse lufige’, glossed in CCCC 201 with ‘ueritatem diligere’, CCCC 265 has the reading ‘ueritatem iudicare’, casting doubt on this version being the direct source.240 Given that Wulfstan was certainly responsible for the passage in Polity on the seven things which befit a king, but that it does not correspond in all details to the Latin text in

239

240

shameless; not to promote the wicked to high office; to destroy the impious from the land; to expel parricides and perjurors from the country; to defend the churches of God; to feed the poor; to set just men over the affairs of the kingdom; to have old and wise and Godfearing counsellors; not to attend to the superstitions of magicians, sorcercesses and the foolish; to defend his country bravely against adversaries; to put his trust in God in all things.’ ‘The beginning of wisdom is the fear of the Lord. Salomon said: The fear of the Lord shall prolong days and the years of the wicked shall be shortened.’ Sauer, ‘The Transmission and Structure of Archbishop Wulfstan’s “Commonplace Book”’, p. 369, says that Wulfstan was here translating from his commonplace book, but the difference in reading does not bear this out; it is true that the Wulfstan reading is closer to CCCC 265 than it is to Wasserschleben’s edition of the Hibernensis, but he was not translating the CCCC 265 reading.

139

Mary Clayton CCCC 265, the similar relationship between the Promissio and the CCCC 265 does not constitute conclusive proof that he was not responsible for the vernacular text. Wulfstan also had access to the Hibernensis in Hatton 42 and personally annotated part of Book XXVI, immediately after Book XXV on kingship. It contains a text of the B version of the Hibernensis and the passage on the justice of a king reads here: Patricius: Iustitia uero regis iusti haec est: Neminem iniuste iudicare, aduenis et uiduis et pupillis defensorem esse, furta cohibere, adulteria punire, impudicos et histriones non nutrire, iniquos non exaltare, impios de terra perdere, parricidas et periurantes uiuere non sinere, ecclesias defendere, pauperes elemosinis alere, iustos super regni negotia constituere, senes sapientes et sobrios consiliarios habere, magorum et pythonissarum et auguriorum superstitionibus non intendere, patriam fortiter et iuste contra aduersarios defendere, per omnia in Deo confidere . . .

This manuscript, like De duodecim abusiuis and Hibernensis A, has ‘parricidas et periurantes uiuere non sinere’, but is otherwise very close to the Promissio. A point which might tell against Wulfstan as author is that Jost adduces some evidence, though not very substantial, which indicates that Wulfstan knew Ælfric’s De duodecim abusiuis, which, of course, contains a version of the ninth abuse; if this were the case, then we might expect him to have drawn on it for the Promissio, given his tendency to use Ælfric as a source. The two versions of the ninth abuse material are very different, however, and the Promissio shows no traces of influence from Ælfric. It is possible, however, that Wulfstan was not acquainted with Ælfric’s full version of De duodecim abusiuis, though he certainly knew Catholic Homilies II.XIX, which draws on the Hiberno-Latin text. Jost’s main evidence is that Wulfstan uses for oft in Polity II.13, echoing, he says, Ælfric’s for oft in his full De duodecim abusiuis.241 He also points to Wulfstan’s use of for mid in Polity II.112, a paragraph on bishops, which phrase is, he says, also taken from Ælfric’s full De duodecim abusiuis, although none of the rest of the section has any verbal echoes of Ælfric.242 The evidence consists of such minute points that it seems rather flimsy. However, Ælfric’s text is part of the Worcester manuscripts CCCC 178 and Oxford, Bodleian Library, Hatton 115, whose contents display striking similarities with the list of Ælfric texts Wulfstan is known to have used.243 Even if he knew Ælfric’s full version of De duodecim abusiuis, if the Promissio is by Wulfstan it is very possible that his 241 242

243

Institutes of Polity, ed. Jost, p. 38, n. 3. Ibid. p. 92, note to II.112. Jost also says that fedan earfan in Ælfric’s De duodecim abusiuis prompted Wulfstan’s Polity II.28, but Wulfstan is here translating pauperes pascere from the Hibernensis and it seems highly unlikely that he would consult an Ælfric text for his wording. See M. Godden, ‘The Relations of Wulfstan and Ælfric’, pp. 366–7.

140

The Old English Promissio regis source for the last section was the Hibernensis, so that Ælfric’s text of the twelve abuses might not have even occurred to him as relevant. Some features of the text’s vocabulary do not point to Wulfstan. Wulfstan does not use forgifan in the sense of ‘to give’, as in the Promissio’s ‘his ecean miltse forgyfe’; Jost points out that Wulfstan uses forgifan only in the sense of ‘forgive’ and this is borne out by the DOE Corpus.244 Jost also points out that nænig is very unusual in Wulfstan,245 but it is found occasionally in his work, and is in the Promissio.246 Ar and its derivatives, including arfaest, are also not found in Wulfstan, except where he is adapting Ælfric, when he does employ it; 247 the Promissio has arfæst in line 8. Unusual too is the translation of the Latin ‘iustos super regni negotia constituere, senes et sapientes et sobrios consiliarios habere’ as ‘ealde. and wise. and syfre him to geeahterum hæbbe. and rihtwise mæn him to wicnerum sette’. Ælfric’s translation of this same passage is: ‘Witan him sceolon rædan . . . He sceal sofæste men settan him to gerefan’, making his text very immediate for an Anglo-Saxon audience. The Promissio’s ‘to geeahterum’ and ‘to wicnerum’ do not convey the same sense of Anglo-Saxon institutions, whereas, if Wulfstan were the author, one would expect him to do this. Geeahtere is not attested in Wulfstan and wicnere only in VIII Æthelred, where it refers to the officers of abbots.248 Had Wulfstan translated this passage and come up with his own equivalent of those responsible for regni negotia and of consiliarios, we might expect something more like Ælfric’s witan or the ‘eorlan and heretogan, deman and gerefan’ whom he addressed in Napier L.249 It is notable that these uncharacteristic vocabulary items are all in the sections directly dependent on sources, that is, in the translation of the promise and of the ninth abuse/Hibernensis extract. The other crucial factor in any attribution to Wulfstan is his style, and the style of the Promissio has not been associated with him. It is true that the Promissio lacks the density of rhetorical features that we regard as most typical of Wulfstan; however, it is most certainly not entirely lacking in them and Wulfstan’s texts vary in the degree to which they employ his high style.250 The Promissio contains many two-stress phrases, alliteration, and some doublets and rhyme. These can be found in all parts of the text to some extent; for example, 244 246

248

249 250

245 Wulfstanstudien, p. 120. Ibid. pp. 159–62; see also Institutes of Polity, p. 21. nænig is found in Wulfstan’s Canons of Edgar, ed. Fowler, ch. 4; Institutes of Polity, ed. Jost, I.88 ; 247 II.182; II.188. Jost, Wulfstanstudien, p. 127. ‘And se cyngc beode eallum his gerefan on æghwilcere stowe, æt ge am abbodan æt eallum worldneodum beorgan, swa ge betst magon, & be am e ge willan Godes oe minne freondscipe habban, filstan heora wicneran æghwar to rihte, æt heo sylfe magan e oftor on mynstrum fæste gewunian & regollice libban.’ (Gesetze, ed. Liebermann, I, 267, §32) Wulfstan, ed. Napier, L, p. 267, lines 25–6. See I. M. Hollowell, ‘Linguistic Factors Underlying Style Levels in Four Homilies by Wulfstan’, Neophilologus 61 (1977), 287–96.

141

Mary Clayton this passage from the first section, which falls naturally into two-stress phrases, with alliteration in the last line: æt godes cyrice and eall cristen folc minra gewealda soe sibbe healde

or the doublet ‘ic behate and bebeode’, with its rhyme and alliteration. What is striking, however, is that the middle section, which does not depend on a direct source in the way that the other two sections do, is composed – and punctuated in Cleopatra B. xiii – in two-stress phrases throughout, such as are invariably associated with Wulfstan: Se cristena cyng e as ing gehealde. he geearna him sylfum woroldlicne weormynt. and him éce god. æger gemiltsa. ge on andwerdum life. ge eac on am ecean e æfre ne ateora; Gif he onne æt awæg. æt gode wæs beháten. onne sceal hit syan. wyrsian swye. sóna on his eode. and eall hit on ende. gehwyrf on æt wyrste. butan he on his liffæce. ǽr hit gebéte. Eala leof hlaford beorh huruinga georne e sylfum. Geenc æt gelome æt u scealt a heorde. for æt godes dóme. ywan and lǽdan. e u eart to hyrde gescyft on ysum life. and onne gecennan hu u geheolde. æt crist ǽr gebohte. sylf mid his blóde.

142

The Old English Promissio regis This section also has a lot of grammatical rhyme, on the -e endings, again very typical of Wulfstan’s style. Alliteration is frequent: cristena cyng; woroldlicne weormynt; eac / ecean; æfre / ateora and so on. I think that in the case of this section there can be little doubt that, stylistic