Anglo-Saxon Exeter: A Tenth-century Cultural History 0851153070, 9780851153070

Citation preview

STUDIES IN ANGLO-SAXON HISTORY General Editor: David Dumville Editorial Advisors: Mark Blackburn Niels Lund James Campbell Roger Ray Simon Keynes Anton Scharer Editorial Manager: Delia Thomas

ANGLO-SAXON EXETER A Tenth-century Cultural History

ISSN 0950-3412 Already published I • A LOST ENGLISH COUNTY: WINCHCOMBESHIRE IN THE TENTH AND ELEVENTH CENTURIES Julian Whybra II • WORCESTERSHIRE ANGLO-SAXON CHARTER-BOUNDS Della Hooke HI • WESSEX AND ENGLAND FROM ALFRED TO EDGAR David N. Dumville

PATRICK W. CONNER

Forthcoming V • LITURGY AND THE ECCLESIASTICAL HISTORY OF LATE ANGLO-SAXON ENGLAND David N. Dumville VI • ENGLISH CAROLINE SCRIPT AND MONASTIC HISTORY David N. Dumville In preparation ANGLO-SAXON GLASTONBURY Lesley Abrams REFORMED ENGLISHWOMEN? WOMEN AND THE RELIGIOUS LIFE IN LATE ANGLO-SAXON ENGLAND Lesley Abrams & David Dumville (edd.) KINGS, CURRENCY, AND ALLIANCES Mark Blackburn & David Dumville (edd.) ENGLAND AND THE CELTIC WORLD DMTHE NINTH AND TENTH CENTURIES David N. Dumville ANGLO-SAXON MINSTERS Sarah Foot ANGLO-SAXON ELY Simon Keynes & Alin Kennedy THE NEW BEDE Roger Riy

THE BOYDELL PRESS

STUDIES IN ANGLO-SAXON HISTORY General Editor: David Dumville Editorial Advisors: Mark Blackburn Niels Lund James Campbell Roger Ray Simon Keynes Anton Scharer Editorial Manager: Delia Thomas

ANGLO-SAXON EXETER A Tenth-century Cultural History

ISSN 0950-3412 Already published I • A LOST ENGLISH COUNTY: WINCHCOMBESHIRE IN THE TENTH AND ELEVENTH CENTURIES Julian Whybra II • WORCESTERSHIRE ANGLO-SAXON CHARTER-BOUNDS Della Hooke HI • WESSEX AND ENGLAND FROM ALFRED TO EDGAR David N. Dumville

PATRICK W. CONNER

Forthcoming V • LITURGY AND THE ECCLESIASTICAL HISTORY OF LATE ANGLO-SAXON ENGLAND David N. Dumville VI • ENGLISH CAROLINE SCRIPT AND MONASTIC HISTORY David N. Dumville In preparation ANGLO-SAXON GLASTONBURY Lesley Abrams REFORMED ENGLISHWOMEN? WOMEN AND THE RELIGIOUS LIFE IN LATE ANGLO-SAXON ENGLAND Lesley Abrams & David Dumville (edd.) KINGS, CURRENCY, AND ALLIANCES Mark Blackburn & David Dumville (edd.) ENGLAND AND THE CELTIC WORLD DMTHE NINTH AND TENTH CENTURIES David N. Dumville ANGLO-SAXON MINSTERS Sarah Foot ANGLO-SAXON ELY Simon Keynes & Alin Kennedy THE NEW BEDE Roger Riy

THE BOYDELL PRESS

Studies in Anglo-Saxon History IV

ANGLO-SAXON EXETER

This is a study of the manuscripts and relics associated with Exeter before Leofric moved the see of Devon and Cornwall there in 1050. It originated in Patrick Conner's attempt to establish as much of a historical context for the famous 'Exeter Book* of Old English poetry as the records for the period will allow. His examination of the archaeological and textual records of Exeter have led him to significant new conclusions about monastic culture there in the tenth century, including the existence of a library dating from the time of King yEthelstan and an active scriptorium from at least the mid-century. He suggests that five important manuscripts, in addition to the ‘Exeter B ook' may have been written there in the mid- to late tenth century. A codicological examination of the *Exeter Book5leads to fresh conclusions about its composition and its literary context. The book concludes with six appendices, in which many documents important to the early history of Exeter are edited, including its relic-lists, the records of the removal of the see from Crediton to Exeter, Leofric^ Inventory, a series of legal rec­ ords which survive on a single leaf of an eighth-century gospel­ lectionary, and a study of the history of the 6Exeter Book* from A.D. 1050 to the present is Professor of English at West W ginia Univer­ sity. He is Executive Secretary of the International Society of Anglo-Saxonists.

P a t r ic k C o n n e r

0 Patrick W. Conner 1993

All Rights Reserved, Except as permitted under current legislation ito part of this work may be photocopied, stored in a retrieval system, published, performed in public, adapted, broadcast, transmitted, recorded or reproduced in any form or by any means, without the prior permission of the copyright owner

First published 1993 The Boydell Press, Woodbridge Transferred to digital printing ISBN 978-0-85115-307-0

CONTENTS

I II in IV V VI

List o f Plates Acknowledgments Lists o f Tables and Figures General Editor's Foreword Preface

vi vu viii x xi

Bishop Leofiric's Scriptorium and Library: an Introduction Background Two Groups of Tenth-century Manuscripts The Palaeographical Context of the Exeter Book The ‘Exeter Book’ ：Codicology Poetry and Cultural History

1 21 33 48 95 148

Appendix I: The Boydell Press is an imprint of TBoydell & ：Brewer Ltd PO Box 9, Woodbridge, Suffolk IP12 3DF, UK and of Boydell & Brewer Inc. 668 Mt Hope Avenue, Rochester, NY 14620, USA website: www.boydellandbrewer.com

Appendix II: Appendix in ： Appendix IV: Appendix V: Appendix YI:

The Eighth-century Gospel-book Fragment from Exeter The Records of Relics at Exeter Colophonic Inscriptions in the Lambeth Bede The Record of Moving the See of Devon from Crcditon to Exeter Bishop Leofric^ Inventory of Lands and Books The Reservation of the 4Exeter Book* since 1100

Bibliography Index o f Anglo-Saxon Charters Index o f Manuscripts General Index A catalogue record for this book is available from the British Library

This publication is printed on acid-free paper

165 171 210 215 226 236 255 269 270 272

PLATES The plates appear between pages 54 and 55 I

Exeter, Cathedral Library, MS. 3501,Booklet I, fo 20v [Christ*, lines 857-887] II Exeter, Cathedral Library, MS. 3501, Booklet II, fo 53r [*Azarias\ lines 1-28] ID Exeter, Cathedral Library, MS. 3501, Booklet IK, fo 98r [‘Homiletic Fragment in V S o u l & Body II’， lines 1—16] IV Exeter, Cathedral Library, MS. 3501, Booklet IE, fo lOOr [*Soul and Body lines 119-end; *Deor\ lines 1-22] V Exeter, Cathedral Library, MS. 3501, Booklet m , fo 125r [Riddles] VI Exeter, Cathedral Library, MS. 3501,Booklet IE, fo 125v [Riddles] VII Exeter, Cathedral Library, MS. 3501, development of the eth: (a) detail from Booklet I, fo 51v (b) detail from Booklet II, fo 57r (c) detail from Booklet II, fo 58v (d) detail from Booklet II, fo 63r (c) detail from Booklet H, fo 69r (f) detail from Booklet n, fo 72r (g) detail from Booklet II, fo 80r Vin London, Lambeth Palace Library, M S .149, fo 66r IX London, Lambeth Palace Library, MS. 149, fo 138v X Oxford, Bodleian Library, MS. Bodlcy 319 fo 27r XI Oxford, Bodleian Library, MS. Bodley 319 fo 74r XII Exeter, Cathedral Library, MS. 3507, fo 12v X in Exeter, Cathedral Library, MS. 3507, fo 68r XIV Oxford, Bodleian Library, MS. Bodley 718, fo 28v XV Paris, Bibliothèquc nationale, MS. latin 943, fo 29v XVI Drawings by A. Morris of Exeter, Cathedral Library, MS. 3501, to show drypoint design on membrane: (a) fo S9v (diagonal lines) (b) fo 64v (entwined plant) XVII Drawing by A. Morris of Exeter, Cathedral Library, MS. 3501,to show drypoint design on membrane: fo 78r (angers head)

XVin Drawings by A. Moms of Exeter, Cathedral Library, MS. 3501, to show drypoint design on membrane: (a) fo 80r (the letter D , twice; angeFs head visible from 78r) (b) fo 87v (robed figure, standing) XIX Drawings by A. Morris of Exeter, Cathedral Library, MS. 3501, to show drypoint design on membrane: (a) fo 95v (the letter P, and two human hands) (b) fo 123r (a mounted rider, turned upside down) XX Exeter, Cathedral Library, MS. 2570, dorse

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS The author is grateful for permission to reproduce plates and text, as follows. Plates I-VII, X I-X n ： the Dean and Chapter, Exeter Cathedral. Plates VIII-IX: His Grace the Archbishop of Canterbury and the Trustees of Lambeth Palace Library. Plates X, XI, XIV: the Bodleian Library, Oxford. Plate XV: La Bibliothèque Nationale, Paris. Excerpt from Poetry o f the Carolingian Renaissance by Peter Godman: Gerald Duckworth & Co. Ltd and the University of Oklahoma Press.

LIST OF TABLES For Vicki n v

I n I V

x

V I vu V I I X

Frequency of Attributions of Provenance for Manuscripts written before saec, XII123 Distribution of Manuscripts with an Exeter Provenance, compared with a Profile of all Anglo-Saxon Manuscripts Comparison of Ornamental Capitals in ‘Bald’s Leechbook， (London, British Library, Royal 12.D.xvii) and the *Exeter Book* Scribal Stints in the ‘Exeter Book’ Distribution of Y-forms by Stint Distribution of S-ligatures Dry-point Drawings in the ‘Exeter Book’ Tabulated Conclusions Poetic Genres in Booklet II Layers of Influence on the Booklet-Ei Collections

2 12 78 114 115 117 122 128 152 161

LIST OF FIGURES 5 6

4Excter Book* Letter-forms and Axes of Construction Ductus of Two Versions of the Square-minuscule a Ductus of Three Versions of the Square-minuscule d

6

1 2 3

GENERAL EDITOR’S FOREWORD In this volume, the fourth of Studies in Anglo-Saxon History, we have a detailed study of the sources for the ecclesiastical culture of Exeter in the tenth century (and, to some extent^ the eleventh). It forms one part of a major work of reinterpretation of the *Exctcr Book* of Old English poetry, a task to which the author has devoted much of the last two decades. His literary study, The Clois­ tered Scop, will appear elsewhere. Here I am delighted to be able to give a welcome to this study of manuscripts and cultural history. Professor Conner has given the closest possible consideration to the 4Exeter Book' and its scribal relatives: his many palacographical insights are of the greatest importance to our understanding of tenth-century English manuscript production. His conclu­ sions about the place of Exeter Abbey in that process will inevitably be highly controversial: oüier candidates for the proper localisation of these books are stiU in contention, not least Canterbury Cathedral; but I have thought it appropriate to encourage Patrick Conner to state in detail his impressive case and to situate it within a broad context. I am also indebted to him for taking up so readily the suggestion that the texts in appendices I-V should be edited here and thus put back into general scholarly circulation: his analyses have moved forward the study of these interesting works. The publication of this book will,I am certain, be a major landmark in study of the *Exeter Book* itself, of late Anglo-Saxon ecclesiastical culture, and of the history of Exeter in the tenth and eleventh centuries. The next two volumes will provide further explorations of manuscripts and ecclesiastical history and will then be followed by another investigation of a major Anglo-Saxon church, Lesley Abrams's book on Glastonbury Abbey and its endowment. David N. Dumville Girton College, Cambridge

PREFACE Many generous people have helped me with Anglo-Saxon Exeter in a multitude of ways. My thanks go first, however, to the Dean and Chapter of Exeter Cathedral for allowing me to examine the 'Exeter Book* for five weeks during the summer of 1984. I am particularly indebted to Audrey Erskine, sometime Cathedral Archivist, for her help, patience, and interest in this study; similarly, John C. Pope read much of the work in an earlier draft, and helped me to avoid several errors of judgment and fact. Kevin Kiernan urged me to undertake a full study of the *Exeter Book', and his support has been invaluable to me. David Dumville’s editing forced me to rethiAk each hypothesis and all of my data several times, he urged me to write the six appendices which make available the primary evidence on which my arguments stand, and he taught me more about the business of studying Anglo-Saxon culture than I ever expected to know. I am also indebted to John Allan, Richard Barber, Carl Berkhout, Esther Birdsall, Jim Hall, Tom Hill, Alexandra Morris, William Ravenhill, Fred Robinson, Bob Stevick, Michael Swanton, Peter Thomas, and Malcolm Todd for giving of their time and energies in dozens of ways. I have been fortunate to receive fellowships from the Bibliographical Society of America in 1985 and the National Endowment for the Humanities in 1987.1 have been supported by my University with a WVU Senate Research Grant in 1985, and by flie West Virginia University College of Arts and Sciences and by the Department of English with several timely research allowances. I am obliged to Rudy Almasy, the head of my department, and Gerald Lang, dean of my college, for their generous support. For access to their collections, I thank the staffs of the Bodleian Library at Oxford, the British Library, the Cambridge University Library, the Frick Fine Arts Library and the Hillman Library of the University of Rttsburgh, the Lambeth Palace Library, the Library of Congress, the McKeldin Library of the University of Maryland, the University of Exeter Library, the University of London Library, and the West Country Studies Library at Exeter, and particu­ larly the tireless staff of the Charles Wise Library at West Virginia University. Permission to publish a photograph or photographs has been granted by: the Dean and Chapter of Exeter Cathedral, Exeter plates I-VII, XU, XIII, XVIXX); the Bibliothèque Nationale, Paris (plate XV); the Bodleian Library, Ox­ ford (plates X, XI, XIV); and His Grace the Archbishop of Canterbury and the Trustees of Lambeth Palace Library, London (plates Vin, IX). Penultimately, I must thank many friends without whose encouragement this study would have been a bleak activity, indeed. These include Dennis Allen, Bill Fitzpatrick, M lliam French, Anita Oandolfo, Bill Ryan, Lee and Carolyn Seletzky, and numerous students whom 1 have led to believe that the answer to any question on Anglo-Saxon culture must always be 'Exeter'!

Ultimately, I am indebted to my family, to my mother and brothers and my son to whom it never occurred that lost histories are nearly impossible to recover. But most of all,I am grateful to my wife for more than dedications - or books - can say. P.W.C BISHOP LEOFRIC’S SCRIPTORIUM AND LIBRARY: AN INTRODUCTION

The cultural history of an early mediaeval community can be reconstructed in useful detail only with reference to the texts which informed the development of its culture and which now may be supposed to reflect that culture. This is not to suggest, of course, that culture may be defined only by written texts, for it is evident that much important mediaeval evidence has been lost which once existed in both oral and material contexts, and - likewise - much has certainly been lost which was indeed written down. But it is in the written texts more than anywhere else that we are now likely to discover the kind of carefully articu­ lated distinctions drawn among competing concepts in the intellectual domains of manners, morals, religion, civic conduct, and aesthetics which constitute a culture. To appreciate the written texts, however, we must first examine the contexts in which they are still to be found; consequentiy, in attempting to examine the cultural history of tenth-century Exeter, we must turn to the manu­ scripts which can be identified with the place and the period. This, however, is not a simple task. In 1050, Leofric, bishop of Devon and Cornwall, moved the episcopal sec from Crediton to Exeter, and thus took charge of whatever remained of Exeter's earlier history. Leofric rearranged the archives and manuscripts at Exeter as he laid claim to both lands and books, forging a charter here, writing his name into a book there, and generally reshap­ ing Exeter to fit its new, mid-eleventh-century episcopal role.1 To turn to the manuscripts of tenth-century Exeter therefore requires us first of all to find a way to identify which among our surviving Anglo-Saxon manuscripts might have been at Exeter in the tenth century, and which could conceivably have been written there. To that end, I have assembled as full a list as possible of surviving manuscripts which can in any way be associated with pre-Conquest Exeter. In the late middle ages, at any rate, Exeter Cathedral possessed a sizable collection of books; in 1964 N. R. Ker listed 141 items with a mediaeval Exeter provenance.2 Whether some of these manuscripts are post-Conquest copies of tenth-century texts which have subsequentiy been lost has not yet been deter­ mined, but it is likely that a survey of those manuscripts written before the 1 On the records of Leofric's removal of the see to Excttr, see appendix IV, *Tbe record of moving the see of Devon from Credtton to Exeter'; Leofric's handling of Exeter's charters has been discussed by Cbaplais, The authenticity'; see also Bishop, *Notes on Cambridge manuscripts、p p .196-7. 2 Ker, Medieval Librariis, pp. 81-5.

xU

Anglo-Saxon Exeter

Bishop Leofric's Scriptorium and Library

twelfth century will aid us in an attempt to define what remains of an earlier Exeter library. Sixty-seven extant manuscripts share an attribution of Exeter provenance earlier than the twelfth century. This is quite remarkable given the modest size usually attributed to the church of Exeter. Indeed, such a library is comparable with those at Durham, Salisbury, Winchester, and Worcester, as the following chart of attributions shows.3

comment appended to each item in my list describes the primary evidence for attributing an Exeter provenance to the manuscript. All references to specific eleventh-century Exeter scribes are based on Elaine Drage?s valuable study of Bishop Leofric's scriptorium.5

ï ：F r e q u e n c y o f A t t r ib u t i o n s o f P r o v e n a n c e FOR MANUSCRIPTS W RITTEN BEFORE SAEC. X I I 1

table

1. 2.

3. 4. 5. 6. 7.

C anterbury Salisbury W orcester E xeter W inchester D urham Bury

221

81 71 67 64 55 30

Only the number of manuscripts with a Canterbury provenance is dramatically larger than the number of items associated with Exeter; this is to be expected, because Canterbury was the metropolitan see and, moreover, the Canterbury books derive from two large religious houses, the cathedral priory of Christ Church and the abbey of St Augustine. On the other hand, to Glastonbury, Malmesbury, or York - well known centres - fewer than ten extant manuscripts can be attributed, and Abingdon, which was the locus of much early Benedic­ tine revivalist activity after the middle of the tenth century, has only twelve manuscripts said to be attributable to its library or scriptorium.4 Thus, while we may not argue that a lack of many manuscripts associated with a single eccle­ siastical centre proves a lack of concern there with contemporary cultural issues, neither may we argue the converse; many books do indeed bespeak a centre's interest in its own intellectual and cultural welfare. In this study， I shall try to show that the number and variety of manuscripts associable with the library and scriptorium at Exeter before 1100 attests not only the fifty years of intellectual activity there following Bishop Leofiric's removal of the see thither from Crediton in 1050, but also an extensive tradition of literary and cultural activities at Exeter as early as the tenth century, if not earlier indeed. The following list comprises a survey of each of the sixty-seven manuscripts in question. In addition to the modern library's name and pressmark, the re­ ceived date of the manuscript, and its major contents, I have also provided the manuscript's reference-number (in the form 'Oncuss 000*) in Helmut Gneuss^ list of Anglo-Saxon manuscripts and (in the form 4Ker 000') in N. R. Ker's Catalogue o f Manuscripts containing Anglo-Saxon, where appropriate. The 3 Based on Oneuas, *A preliminary list\ and De Ham«l, A History q f Illuminated Manuscripts, p. 204, plate 210. 4 Oneuis, *A preliminAry Uit'.

1 . Cambridge, University Library, MS. Hh.1.10 (1624). Saec. xi2. ^lfric, ‘Grammar’ （Latin & Old Énglish) and ‘Glossary’ （Latin & Old English). Gneuss 13. Ker 17. The manuscript was written by scribes identified with Leofric's scriptorium. 2. Cambridge, University Library, MS. Ii.2.4 (1737). Saec. xi2. King Alfred's Old English translation of Pope Gregory's Regula pastoralis. Gneuss 14. Ker 19. The manuscript was written by scribes identified with Leofric's scriptorium. 3. Cambridge, University Library, MS. Ii.2.11 (1744) [with Exeter, Cathedral Library, MS. 3501,fos 0-7]. Saec. xi2. Leofric's Inventory; Gospels (Old Eng­ lish); Gospel of Nicodemus (Old English); Vindicta Saluatoris (Old English); documents (partially Old English). Gneuss 15. Ker 20 The manuscript was written by scribes identified with Leofric's scriptorium. 4. Cambridge, Clare College, MS. 18. Saec. xi/xii. Orosius, Historiae aduersus paganos; Iustinus, Epitome historiarum (of Pompcius Trogus). Gneuss 32. The attribution is based on a recognised sharing of scribes and illuminators between Durham and Exeter during the late eleventh century; because Durham^ catalogues indicate that the two works contained in this manuscript were at Durham in different volumes, provenance is consequently assigned to Exeter.6 5. Cambridge, Corpus Christi College, MS. 4L Saec. xi1. Old English trans­ lation of Bede^ 'Ecclesiastical History*; sacramentary; charms (Old English); homilies (Old English). Gneuss 39. Ker 32. The manuscript contains Leofric's donation-inscription. 6. Cambridge, Corpus Christi College, MS. 190. Saec. xi1, saec. xi med. Penitentials (partidly Old English); ^Elfric, Pastoral Letters (partially Old Eng­ lish); Adso, de Anticristo; homilies (Old English), Gneuss 59. Ker 45. The manuscript contains additions written by scribes identified with Leofric's scrip­ torium. 7. Cambridge, Corpus Christi College, M S .191.Saec. xi2. Chrodegang, Regula canonicorum (Latin & Old English). Gneuss 60. Ker 46. The manuscript was written by scribes identified with Leofric's scriptorium. 8. Cambridge, Corpus Christi College, MS. 196. Saec, xi2. Old English Martyrology (Old English); Vindicta Saluatoris (Old English). Gneuss 62. Ker 47. The manuscript was written by scribes identified with Leofric's scriptorium.

5 Gneuss, *Apreliminary list'; Ker, Catalogue; Drage, 'Bishop Leofric*. pp. 29-70f 310-415. 6 Bishop, 'Notes on Cambridge manuiciipts\ p p .197-8.

Anglo-Saxon Exeter

Bishop Leofric*s Scriptorium and Library

9. Cambridge, Corpus Christi College, MS. 2 0 1 ,p p . 179-272. Saec. xi med. Theodulf of Orléans, Capitula (Latin & Old English); homily (Old English). Gneuss 66. Ker 50. The manuscript was written by scribes identified with Leofric's scriptorium.

Leofric's time; Exeter, Cathedral Library, MS. 3507 can be traced in the catalogue drawn up by Richard Brailegh, Sub-dean, for the information of Thomas de Hinton, Treasurer, in 1327.9 16. Exeter, Cathedral Library, MS. 3548A. Saec. x1.Missal (fragments). The manuscript fragments of this missal, written in Francia, remain at Exeter; they were taken from a printed copy of Galen which was probably locally bound.10 17. Exeter, Cathedral Library, MS. 3548C. Saec. x according to Gneuss, but saec. x2 according to Drage.11 Benedictional (fragment). Gneuss 259. This bi­ folium was used as a binding leaf for a book in Exeter's library at a date between 1606 and the late seventeenth century. 18. Exeter, Cathedral Library, MSS. FMS 1 ,2 , and 2a. Saec. x1.Orosius (fragments). These fragments of a manuscript, probably written in France, were used in and removed from a binding of which no record remains. There is accordingly no confirmation that the original, complete manuscript was in Exeter's possession. 19. Exeter, Cathedral Library, MS. FMS/3. Saec. x in. according to Gneuss, but ca 920s according to Dumville.12 Vita S. Basilii (fragments). Gneuss 260. The manuscript from which these remnants survive was certainly at Exeter by the fifteenth century when it was used to bind one of the chapter's account-books. 20. London, British Library, MS. Additional 28188. Saec. xi2. Pontifical; bene­ dictional. Gneuss 286. The manuscript was written by scribes identified with Leornc^ scriptorium. 2 1 . London, British Library, MS. Additional 62104 (and disiecta membra). Saec. xi med. Missal (fragment). The manuscript contains neums of the kind identifed with Exeter.13 22. London, British Library, MS. Cotton Cleopatra B.xiii, fos 1-58. Saec. xi2. Ten items in Old English, including seven homilies, a coronation-oath, the Lord's Prayer and Creed. Gneuss 322. Ker 144. Ker thought this manuscript 'evidently a fragment of a larger manuscript* and associated it with Lambeth Palace, MS. 489, item 28, below.14 The manuscript was written by scribes identified with Leofric's scriptorium. 23. London, British Library, MS. Cotton Tiberius B.v, vol 1 ,fo 75. Saec. viii for original text; manumissions and notice added in hands of saec. x1, saec. x med., and saec. xi1. Gospels (fragment). Gneuss 374. Ker 194. This remaining leaf of an eighth-century gospel-book must have been at Exeter in the early tenth century when a notice of a guild-assembly was added to it.15

10. Cambridge, Corpus Christi College, MS. 419. Saec. xi1. Homilies (Old English). Gneuss 108. Ker 68. Probably written at Canterbury, this is a companion volume to Cambridge, Corpus Christi College, MS. 421， which has a good claim to Exeter provenance; see item 11. 1 1 . Cambridge, Corpus Christi College, MS. 421. Saec. xi1, saec. xi2. Fifteen homilies (Old English), mostly for general use (partly by M ine). Gneuss 109. Ker 69. Probably written at Canterbury, this manuscript contains later eleventh-century additions written by the same scribe as London, Lambeth Palace, MS. 489 (fos lr-20r, 25r-58v), which is item 28, below. The two manuscripts have written areas or identical size and T.A.M. Bishop took them to be eiöier Companion volumes or each contains parts of two pre-existing volumes', and he also pointed out that the hand of the senbe in question Closely resembles, that of Cambridge, University Library, MS. Ii.2.4 (1737), item 2 above.7 12. Cambridge, Trinity College, MS. B.11.2 (241). Saec. x2. Amalarius, Liber officialis. Gneuss 174. Ker 84. Originally written at St Augustine^ Abbey, Canterbury, the manuscript contains Leofric’s donation-inscription. 13. Exeter, Cathedral Library, MS. 3500. Saec. xi ex. ^Exon Domesday'. Gneuss 256. Contains local material from the Domesday inquest of 1086; the codex is currently at Exeter with no record of its having ever been elsewhere, although Ker identified at least one of its scribes as a member of the Salisbury cathedral scriptorium.8 14. Exeter, Cathedral Library, MS. 3501, fos 8-130. 4The Exeter Book*. Saec. x2. ‘Christ’ （Old English); ‘öuthlac’ （Old English); ‘Azarias’ （Old English); Thocnix* (Old English);4Juliana1(Old English); Elegies (Old English); Riddles (Old English); miscellaneous short poems (Old English); Gneuss 257. Ker 116. The manuscript fits a description in Leofric’s donation-list: ‘an mycel englisc boc be gchwilcum J?ingum on le〇t?wisan geworht'. That that remains at Exeter as MS. 3501 is the most economical conclusion. 15. Exeter, Cathedral Library, MS. 3507. Saec. x2. Hrabanus Maurus, De compotu\ Isidorus, De natura rerum\ and several shorter texts mostly concerning computistical matters. Gneuss 258. Ker 116*. The manuscript remains at Exeter; it was written in the same hand as Oxford, Bodleian Library,.MS. Bodlcy 718 (S.C. 2632), which was in the library by

7 See Bishop, ibid,, p . 198 a Ker, Books, Collectors, p , 156.

9 The 1327 inventory was published by Oliver, Lives, pp. 301-10. 10 Ker, Medieval Manuscripts^ 11.839-40. 11 Drage, ‘Bishop Leofric’, p. 353. 12 Dumville, 'English Square minuscule script: the background and earliest phases', p .171. 13 Dc Hamel, A History o f Illuminated Manuscripts, p. 204, plate 210. 14 Ker, Catalogue, p .182 (no. 144). An edition of these texts with a Aill description of the ieaf comprises appendix I of this study, 4Tbe elgbtb-centuiy gospel-book ftHgment from Exeter'.

Anglo-Saxon Exeter

24. London, British Library, MS. Cotton Vitellius A.vii, fos 1-112. Saec. xi med. Pontifical. Gneuss 397. Ker 213. Lapidge has thought the manuscript probably of Ramsey origin', Bishop and Drage had already identified some of the manuscript's scribes with Leofric's scriptorium.16

25. London, British Library, MS. Harley 863. Saec. xi2. Psalter; canticles; litany; prayers. Gneuss 425. Ker 232. The manuscript was written by scribes identified with Leofric's scriptorium.

26. London, British Library, MS. Harléy 2961. Saec. xi med, Collectar; hymnal; sequences. Gneuss 431. Ker 236. The manuscript was written by scribes identified with Leofric's scriptorium.

27. London, British Library, MS. Royal ó.B.vii. Saec. xi2, Aldhelm, De laude uirginitatis (prose version with Old English gloss). Gneuss 466. Ker 255. The manuscript contains a list of relics identified with Exeter and which agrees substantially with a relic-list for Exeter in Oxford, Bodleian Library, MS. Bodley 579 (5.C. 2675) - item 5 1 ,below - which was certainly at Exeter in Lcofric’s time.

28. London, Lambeth Palace, MS. 149, fos 1-138. Saec. x2. Beda, InApocalypsin\ Augustinus, De adulterinis coniugiis. Gneuss 506. Ker 275. The manuscript was written by the scribe of Exeter, Cathedral Library, MS. 3501, the *Exeter Book1, and Oxford, Bodleian Library, MS. Bodley 319 (5.C. 2226), both of which arc listed in Leofric's donation-list, where this book, too, seems to be described.

29. London, Lambeth Palace, MS. 489. Saec. xi2. Old English homilies, in part by /E\inc. Gneuss 520. Ker 283. The manuscript was written by scribes identified with Leofric's scriptorium.

30. Oxford, Bodleian Library, MS. Auctarium D.2.16 (S.C. 2719). Saec. x, with additions of saec. xi2. Gospels in Latin; Leofric's Inventory and list of Exeter's relics in Old English. Gneuss 530. Ker 291. The manuscript, which was appar­ ently written at Landevennec in Brittany, also contains Leofric*s donationinscription. 31. Oxford, Bodleian Library, MS. Auctarium D. infra 2.9 (5.C 2638), fos 1-110. Saec. x2. Cassianus, De institutione monachorum. Gneuss 528. The manuscript can be traced in the 1327 and 1506 catalogues of Exeter Cathedral Library;17 it was written at Canterbury, but its first scribe also wrote Oxford, Bodleian Library, MS. Auct. F.1.15 {S.C. 2455), fos 1-77, which con­ tains one of Leofricfs donation-inscriptions.

32. Oxford, Bodleian Library, MS. Auctarium F.1.15 (5.C 2455), fos 1-77. Saec. x2. Boethius, De consolatione Philosophiae. Gneuss 533. Ker 294.

Lapidge, in The Angb-Saxon CHronicU, gen. edd. Dumville & Keynes, XVIl.xci. n. 49; Blftbq), English Caroline M in u scu ^ p. 24, n . 1;Dnge, 'Biibop Leofric', p . 146. 17 The 1327 and 1506 catalogues w m pubIMed by OUver, Uves, pp. 301-10,366-75.

Bishop Leofric fs Scriptorium and Library The manuscript, which was written at Canterbury at St Augustine's, but glossed by a Christ Church scribe, contains Leofric*s donation-inscription.18 33. Oxford, Bodleian Library, MS. Auctarium F.1.15 (5.C 2455), fos 78-93. Saec. x2 according to Gneuss; saec. x/xi according to Drage.19 Persius, Satirae^ Gneuss 534. Ker 294. Written in St Augustine^ Abbey at Canterbury by the same scribe who wrote MS. Auctarium F.1.15, fos 1-77 (item 32, above), the manuscript contains Leofric’s donation-inscription. 34. Oxford, Bodleian Library, MS. Auctarium R3.6 (S.C. 2666). Saec. xi1. Prudentius: Passio Romani; account of Prudentius; Cathemerinon; Apotheosis; Amartigenia; Passio Romani from Peristephanon\ Psychomachia; Peristephanon; Dittochaeon; glosses. Gneuss 537. Ker 296. The manuscript contains Leornc's donation-inscription. 35. Oxford, Bodleian Library, MS. Bodley 92 (S.C. 1901). Saec. xi/xii. Ambro­ sius, De oticus mmistrorum, uneuss 543. This manuscript was part of the presentation oi eighty-one volumes which the Dean and Chapter ot Exeter made to Thomas Bodley in 1602. 36. Oxford, Bodleian Library, MS. Bodley 94 (S.C. 1904). Saec. xi/xii. Ambro­ sius, De Isaac et anima, etc.; Hieronymus, Contra Iouinianum; etc. Gneuss 544. This manuscript was part of the presentation of eighty-one volumes which the Dean and Chapter of Exeter made to Thomas Bodley in 1602. 37. Oxford, Bodleian Library, MS. Bodley 135 (S.C. 1899). Saec. xi/xii. Augus­ tinus, Contra Faustum Manichaeum. Gneuss 550. This manuscript was part of the presentation of eighty-one volumes which the Dean and Chapter of Exeter made to Thomas Bodley in 1602. 38. Oxford, Bodleian Library, MS. Bodley 147 {S.C. 1918). Saec. xi/xii. Vigilius of Thapsus, De sancta Trinitate and Dialogus contra Arianos. Gneuss 552. This manuscript was part of the presentation of eighty-one volumes which the Dean and Chapter of Èxeter made to Thomas Bodley in 1602. 39. Oxford, Bodleian Library, MS. Bodley 148 〇S.C.1920). Saec. xi/xii. Augustinus, De consensu Euangelistarum. Gneuss 553. This manuscript was part of the presentation of cighty-one volumes which the Dean and Chapter of Exeter made to Thomas Bodley in 1602. 40. Oxford. Bodleian Library, MS. Bodley 193 (S.C. 2100). Saec. xi/xii. Gregor­ ius, Registrum epistolarum. Gneuss 556. This manuscript was part of the presentation of eighty-one volumes which the Dean and Chapter of Exeter made to Thomas Bodley in 1602. 4 1 .Oxford, Bodleian Library, MS. Bodley 229 (5.C 2120). Saec. xi1. Augus­ tinus, Sermones (.sixty-six sermons on gospel-texts). Gneuss 559. Though not written at Exeter, the manuscript contains a note on the order of the text in the hand of a scribe in Leofric's scriptorium; the manuscript was also part of the

16

18 Drage, *BUhop Leofric*, p. 387. p.389.

Anglo-Saxon Exeter

Bishop Leojric’s Scriptorium and Library

presentation of eighty-one volumes which the Dean and Chapter of Exeter made to Thomas Bodley in 1602. 42. Oxford, Bodleian Library, MS. Bodley 237 (S.C. 1939). Saec. xi/xii. Florus Diaconus, In Epistolas Pauli (excerpts from St Augustine). Gneuss 560. This manuscript was part of the presentation of eighty-one volumes which the Dean and Chapter of Exeter made to Thomas Bodley in 1602. 43. Oxford, Bodleian Library, MS. Bodley 239 (S.C. 2244). Saec. xi/xii. Isidorus, Etymologiae. Gneuss 561. This manuscript was part of the presentation of eighty-one volumes which the Dean and Chapter of Exeter made to Thomas Bodley in 1602. 44. Oxford, Bodleian Library, MS. Bodley 274 (S.C. 1942). Saec. xi/xii. Augus­ tinus, Epistolae. Gneuss 562. The manuscript was part of the presentation of eighty-one volumes which the Dean and Chapter of Exeter made to Thomas Bodley in 1602. 45. Oxford, Bodleian Library, MS. Bodley 3 0 1 (S.C. 2739). Saec. xi/xii. Augus­ tinus, In Euangelium Johannis. Gneuss 563. This manuscript was part of the presentation of eighty-one volumes which the Dean and Chapter of Exeter made to Thomas Bodley in 1602. 46. Oxford， Bodleian Library, MS. Bodley 3 1 1 (S.C. 2122). Sa况 • x2. Peniten­ tia l; Gregorius Magnus, Liöd /似 res/w/m’onw/n. Gneuss 565. Ker 307. The manuscript, written probably in France, can be traced in the 1327 and 1506 catalogues of the Exeter Cathedral Library;20 it was part of the presentation of cighty-onc volumes which the Dean and Chapter of Exeter made to Thomas Bodley in 1602. 47. Oxford， Bodleian Library，MS. Bodley 314 (S.C. 2129). S e n xi/xii. Gregor­ ius, Z/o/nWae £wa/zが " a. Gneuss 566. (For its flyleaves，see Gneuss 567.) This manuscript was part of the presentation of eighty-one volumes which the Dean and Chapter of Exeter made to Thomas Bodley in 1602. 48. Oxford, Bodleian Library, MS. Bodley 319 (S.C. 2226). Saec. x2. Isidorus, De fide catholica. Gneuss 568. Ker 308. This manuscript was written by the same scribe as Exeter, Cathedral Library, MS. 3501 (the 4Exetcr Book*), and London, Lambeth Palace, MS. 149; it can be traced in the 1506 catalogue of the library; furthermore, it was given by the Dean and Chapter of Exeter to Thomas Bodley in 1602.

50, Oxford, Bodleian Library, MS. Bodley 479 (5.C. 2013). Saec. xi/xii. Beda, De Tabemaculo. Gneuss 580. This manuscript was part of the presentation of eighty-one volumes which the Dean and Chapter of Exeter made to Thomas Bodley in 1602. 5 1 .Oxford, Bodleian Library, MS. Bodley 579 (5.C. 2675), the 'Leofric Mis­ sal'. Saec. ix2; saec. x2; saec, xi med. Sacramentary; kalendar; benedictions; manumissions; memoranda. Gneuss 585. Ker 315. This codex, its sacramentary written in northern France, contains Leofric's donation-inscription;24 it was part of the presentation of eighty-one volumes which the Dean and Chapter of Exeter made to Thomas Bodley in 1602. 52. Oxford, Bodleian Library, MS. Bodley 6 9 1 (5.C. 2740). Saec. xi ex. Augus­ tinus, De ciuitate Dei. Gneuss 587. This manuscript was part of the presentation of eighty-one volumes which the Dean and Chapter of Exeter made to Thomas Bodley in 1602. 53. Oxford, Bodleian Library, MS. Bodley 707 (S.C. 2608). Saec. xi ex. Grego­ rius, In Ezechielem. Gneuss 589. This manuscript was part of the presentation oi eighty-one volumes which the Dean and Chapter or Exeter made to Thomas Bodley in 1602. 54. Oxford, Bodleian Library, MS. Bodley 708 (S.C. 2609). Saec, x ex. Gneuss 590. Ker 316. Gregorius, Regula pastoralis. This manuscript, written at Ctirist Church, Canterbury, contains Leofric’s donation-inscription; it may be traced in the 1327 and 150ö inventories;25 moreover, it was part of the presentation of eighty-one volumes which the Dean and Chapter of Exeter made to Thomas Bodley in 1602. 55. Oxford, Bodleian Library, MS. Bodley 717 (S.C. 2631). Saec. xi/xii. Hiero­ nymus, In Isaiam. Gneuss 591. This manuscript was part of the presentation of eighty-one volumes which the Dean and Chapter of Exeter made to Thomas Bodley in 1602. 56. Oxford, Bodleian Library, MS. Bodley 718 (S.C. 2632). Saec. x/xi. Penitentials. Gneuss 592. The manuscript contains a letter (from Pope Leo DC on moving the see from Crediton to Exeter) in the hand of a scribe in Leofric's scriptorium; it may be traced in the 1327 catalogue of Exeter Cathedral Library;26 moreover, it was given by the Dean and Chapter of Exeter to Thomas Bodley in 1602. 57. Oxford, Bodleian Library, MS. Bodley 739 (S.C 2736). xi/xii. Ambrosius, De fide. Gneuss 593. This manuscript was part of the presentation of eighty-one volumes which the Dean and Chapter of Exeter made to Thomas Bodley in 1602. 58. Oxford, Bodleian Library, MS. Bodley 783 (S.C. 2610). Saec. xi/xii. Grego­ rius, Regula pastoralis. Gneuss 598.

49. Oxford, Bodleian Library, MS. Bodley 394 (S.C. 2225)， fos 1-84. Saec. xi and Continental according to Gneuss; saec. x2 according to Drage.21 Isidorus, De fide catholica. Gneuss 575. The manuscript contains three additions made at Exeter, perhaps in Leofric's time; it is apparently described in Lcofric's donation-list;22 it can be traced in the 1327 and 1506 caudogues of the library;23 it was among the books pTescnted by the Dean and Chapter of Exeter to Thomas Bodley in 1602. 20 Seen.17,above. ^ Drage, 'Bishop Leofric\ p. 402. 23 See below, pp. 234-5 (and n. 54). Seen.17,above.

24 But sec Hobler, *Some service-books', pp. 69-71, for the suggestion tbat the sacramentary was English in origin, in spite of its having been written by a Continental scribe. S een.17,above. 26 S een .17,above.

9

Anglo-Saxon Exeter This manuscript was part of the presentation of eighty-one volumes which the Dean and Chapter of Exeter made to Thomas Bodley in 1602. 59. Oxford, Bodleian Library MS. Bodiey 792 fS.C1. 2640). ä h xi/xii. Iulianus of Toledo, Prognosticon futuri saeculi\ Ambrosius, De uirginitate. Oncuss 599. This manuscript was part of the presentation of eighty-one volumes which the Dean and Chapter of Exeter made to Thomas Bodley in 1602. 60«Oxford, Bodleian Library, MS. Bodley 804 (5.C. 2663). Saec. xi/xii. Augus­ tinus, Contra mendacium and De anima. Gneuss 600. This manuscript was part of the presentation of eighty-one volumes which the Dean and Chapter of Exeter made to Thomas Bodley in 1602. 6 1 .Oxford, Bodleian Library, MS. Bodley 808 (S.C. 2667). Saec. xi/xii. Hieronymus, Liber quaestionum hebraicarum in Genesim. Gneuss 601. Tliis manuscript was part of the presentation of eighty-one volumes which the Dean and Chapter of Exeter made to Thomas Bodley in 1602. 62. Oxford， Bodleian Library, MS. Bodley 813 (S.C. 2681), S a D d /x ii, Augustinus, In Epistolam lohannis^ Gneuss 602. This manuscript was part of the presentation of eighty-one volumes which the Dean and Chapter of Exeter made to Thomas Bodley in 1602. 63. Oxford, Bodleian Library，MS. Bodley 815 (S.C. 2759). Saec. xi ßc. Augustinus, Confessiones. Gneuss 603. This manuscript was part of the presentation of eighty-one volumes which the Dean and Chapter of Exeter made to Thomas Bodley in 1602. 64. Oxford, Bodleian Library, MS. Bodley 849 (S.C. 2602). Saec. ix1 according to Gneuss; A.D. 818 exactly, according to Drage who has cited a scribal note at the end of the text: *Anno .dcccxviii. incarnatione domini nostri Iesu Qiristi, pascha .v. kalendas aprilcs, lune in pasca .xvii.*27 Beda, In Epistolas Catholicas. Gneuss 607. The manuscript, probably written in France， contains a notice in the hand of a scribe in Lcofric's scriptorium; it is probably described in Leofric^ donationlist;21 it was also part of the presentation of eighty-one volumes which the Dean and Chapter of Exeter made to Thomas Bodley in 1602. ¢5. Oxford, Bodleian Library, MS. Bodley 865 (5.C. 2737), fos 89-112. Saec. xi1. Colloquy (fragment); Theodulf of Orléans, Capitula (Latin & Old English) (fragment). Gneuss 608. Ker 318. Hans Sauer has argued that this, which was part of the presentation of eightyone volumes which the Dean and Chapter of Exeter made to Thomas Bodley in 1602, is a composite manuscript.29 66 Oxford, Bodleian Library, MS. Lat. bib. d.10. Saec, xi ex. Gospels (muti­ lated). Formerly owned by Dr A. N. L. Munby, the manuscript was purchased by the Bodleian Library in 1982. The main hand in which the manuscript was written has been identified with that of MS. Bodley 6 9 1 (S.C. 2740), item 52,37

.

37 Dnge, 'Bishop Leofric', p. 411. 31 See below, pp. 234-5 (and n. S8). » Thtodulfl Capitula, ed, Sauer, pp. 38-4S, S08-9.

10

Bishop Leofric's Scriptorium and Library above, and the fact that John Grandisson, bishop of Exeter 1327-69, added chapter-numbers to the text further establishes its Exeter provenance.30 67. Paris, Bibliothèque nationale, MS. latin 14782. Saec, xi2. Gospels. Gneuss 900. The evangelist-portraits and canon-tables were copied from Oxford, Bod­ leian Library, MS. Auctarium D.2.16 (S.C. 2719) (see item 30, above).31 As many as thirty-two of these manuscripts may be among the group described in Leofric^ donation-list if we simply match books dated no later than the second half of the eleventh century to the description of contents in that list, or as few as eight books might be named there if we insist on counting only those manuscripts which both display one of Leofric^s inscriptions and also match the descriptions in the list. The donation-list names, by the least conservative count, twice as many manuscripts as can now be associated with it. Nevertheless， there is littie reason to suppose that a selective destruction of the manuscripts has occurred such that the surviving items with an Exeter provenance are not representative in a general way of the collection once at the cathedral. Certainly, we should expect to find fewer older manuscripts than more recent ones in the collection simply because, the older a manuscript is, the longer it has been at the mercy of chance and therefore the greater the possibility that it would have been lost or destroyed. Nevertheless, to chart the frequency of these sixty-seven manuscripts for each possible date before saec. xii in. reveals an interesting pattern.32 The collection divides into two parts which are concentrated on the periods of the second half of the tenth century and the second half of the eleventh century. The chart shows that, proportionally, three times as many Exeter* manu­ scripts are preserved from the second half of the tenth century as are extant in the whole corpus of Anglo-Saxon manuscripts.33 Similarly， there are three times as many Exeter-related manuscripts preserved from the period saec. xi/xn as would be attributed to the period if the whole corpus were the same size as the Exeter collection. The related period, saec, xi2, has proportionally nearly twice as many examples in the Exeter collection as we find in the entire corpus.34This activity at the end of the eleventh century can be explained, of course, by Leofric's having moved the see of Devon and Cornwall to Exeter in 1050, and by his having set up a scriptorium which enthusiastically produced and

30 De la Mare, *A probable addition*, pp. 81,84. 31 The attribution was made by Alexander,4A little-known gospel book'. 32 Where a manuscript has been dated differently by Gneuss, Ker, and Drage, Ihave generally

preferred Drage*s date. 33 I obtained statistics on which to base a profile of all Anglo-Saxon manuscripts by counting

the number of manuscripts under each date in Gneuss’s ‘Ä preliminary list’_ To create a profile in the range of frequencies (1 to 20) exhibited by the Exeter manuscripts, I multiplied the absolute numbers of the manuscripts by 67/947, ttiat is the number of manuscripts of Exeter provenance divided by the total number of surviving manuscripts in Gneuss's list. 34 The smaller firtquencies for saec. xi med.t and saec. xi ex, are puzzling, but they may be explained by scholars' preference for xi1, xil t and xi/xii to xi in., xi med.t and xi ex Even if we allow for sucb an explanation, we still have a significantly greater proportion of lace eleventb-centiffy manuscripts preserved at Exeter than was preserved in the whole corpus of Anglo-Saxon manuscrlpu.

Bishop Leojrids Scriptorium and Library

T a b l e n ： d is t r ib u t io n o f m a n u s c r ip t s w it h a n E x e t e r p r o v e n a n c e , c o m p a r e d w it h a p r o f il e o f a l l A n g l o -S a x o n m a n u s c r i p t s

It follows, then, that something other than Leofric's book-collecting activities has affected the chronological distribution of surviving manuscripts with an Exeter provenance. I suggest here, and shall seek to demonstrate in subsequent chapters of this study, that the history of Exeter itself will explain this anomaly* According to John of Worcester, working in the first half of tiie twelfth century, Exeter was reformed in 968 as part of the efforts of the Benedictine revolution, and the subsequent scribal activity which we can expect to have accompanied that reform would have led to the production of manuscripts there.371 hope to demonstrate that a substantial separate collection of books preceded Leofric's collection at Exeter, and that it was incorporated by him into his collection. For the remainder of this chapter, I shall examine those twenty-nine manuscripts (of the sixty-seven listed above) which are not attributed to the date saec. xi2 or thereafter. It must be significant that all but one of the nine surviving examples of Leofric's donation-inscriptions occur in these twenty-nine manuscripts. The one book outside this set which includes the inscription is the Old English gospel-book, Cambridge, University Library, MS. Ii.2.11, written in the second half of the eleventh century. Leaves containing one of the two full copies of the donation-list, as well as other Exeter documents, are now Exeter, Cathedral Library, MS. 3501,fos 0-7, but were originally part of this gospel-book; so it is perhaps not surpnsing that the inscription should be found there, even though other books written in Leoiric's scriptorium or which he undoubtedly brought to Exeter do not have such inscriptions.*378 The inscribed manuscripts written at least inpartbeforeLeofric’sarrivalatExeterareasfollows.

-mb

Anglo-Saxon Exeter

• r o f M

pr

r

o

§

ript

s

E

ter Ma

r K. f

二o

sn u f k cr l p t s

orA ;

refurbished vanous books there. An indication of the extensive attention given to these activities in Leofric's scriptorium may be observed in the distinctive, calligraphic script(s), seemingly based on Square-minuscule forms, which were developed there.35 A scriptorium capable of developing its own script must also have both acquired and produced many books of a very high quality, and we should not be surprised, then, that Exeter can be associated with more manuscripts made during this period than was normal at most other places in England. It is much more surprising that the chart displays a similar peak in the number of manuscripts connected with Exeter and originating in the second half of the tenth century, but then shows a dearth of manuscripts belonging to the period from the last part of the tenth century to the first part of the eleventh. If Leofric had simply been collecting manuscripts for his cathedral library in any ordinary fashion, we should expect the distribution of manuscripts to correspond more nearly to the profile for all manuscripts, because we should not imagine that he would concentrate his collecting in one historical period. The process of buying or taking whatever might be useful to his library would have led to a collection of manuscripts distributed by date throughout the period for which manuscripts were available. The profile of aU manuscripts extant suggests that manuscripts for the period following the tenth century should have been slightly more readily available to him than those for the second half of the tenth century.36

M See, for example, Ker, Ca坩吻u«, pjate V, M My argument assumes that the profile of bU manuicripts extant will more or less represent the profile of all manuKripu written, Iomh hiving occurred fandomly, but Anglo-Saxon itudles 1« in need of a carefül Kttlittcal aiauiment of its manuscripc corpus, one which

1 . Cambridge, Corpus Christi College, MS. 41 2. Cambridge, Trinity College, MS. B.11.2 (241) 3. Oxford, Bodleian Library, MS. Auctarium D.2.16 (S.C. 2719) 4. Oxford, Bodleian Library, MS. Auctarium E l .15 (5.C. 2455), fos 1-77 5. Oxford, Bodleian Library, MS. Auctarium F.1.15 (S.C. 2455), fos 78-93 6. Oxford, Bodleian Library, MS. Auctarium F.3.6 (S.C. 2666) 7. Oxford, Bodleian Library, MS. Bodley 579 (S.C. 2675) 8. Oxford, Bodleian Library, MS. Bodley 708 (S.C. 2609) Furthermore, there are fourteen other manuscripts (among the collection of twenty-nine) which lack leaves either at the beginning or at the end, such that it is possible Üiat inscriptions may originally have been entered in these manu­ scripts in Leofric *s scriptorium. While we cannot now know which of these might once have had inscriptions, we may assume that some of Aem did so, for such inscriptions would have been doubly vulnerable to removal. First, such an inscription might have been removed from any book at almost any moment

would attempt to discover and to take into account the number of active scriptoria for each period, restrictions on production peculiar to each period, and the coirelaüon of these data with the numbers of extant manuscripts for each period. 37 See Monumenta, edd. Petrie & Sharpe, p. 577. 3> Samuel Knott, the first lay owner of London, British Library, MS. Harley 2961,which was written at Exeter by Leofric's scribes, claimed on fo 1 that he found the manuscript 'in Caemiterio S. Petri' at Exeter and that 'exunt firagmenta subsedpsionis saxonicae in laceris eiuremi foUi reUquili quibui opinor tMtatum(?} füit Leofricum eundem donaiK’.

Anglo-Saxon Exeter

Bishop Leofric's Scriptorium and Library

before the eighteenth century, because the inscription invokes eternal curses Upon anyone who alienated the book from Exeter.39

been inscribed in Leofric's scriptorium although they lack inscriptions them­ selves; nevertheless, it will be necessary to discuss them (as members of this collection) on an individual basis, since we can neither prove nor infer on the basis of an actual or possible inscription that they belonged to the library during Leofric’s time.

H unc llbrum dedit L eofricus episcopus ecclesie sancti Petri apostoli in E x o n ia ad utilltatem successorum suorum . Si quis ilium inde abstulerit, e tern e su b iaceatm aled ictlonl. Fiat, flat, fiat. D as boc g ef L eofric biscop sancto Petro 7 eallum his seftei^engum into E xancestre, O odc m id to J>enienne. 7 g if hig aenig m an utabrede, h®bbe h e C o d es curs 7 w ra9 8 e ealra halgena.

Even moving a book with such an anathema from the bishop's library to the chapter library might, depending on the librarian's or treasurer's temperament, be occasion to remove such a leaf. Furthermore, the inscriptions are found on folios at the beginning or end of the manuscripts, places where they would have been particularly vulnerable to damage and subsequent loss. Therefore, any or all of the following manuscripts could once have harboured such an inscription. 1 . Cambridge, Corpus Christi College, M S .190 2. Cambridge, Corpus Christi College, MS. 421 3. Exeter, Cathedral Library, MS. 3501,fos 8-130 4. Exeter, Cathedral Library, MS. 3507 5. Exeter, Cathedral Library, MS. 3548A 6. Exeter, Cathedral Library, MS. 3548C 7. Exeter, Cathedral Library, MSS. FMS/1,2, and 2a 8. Exeter, Cathedral Library, MS. FMS/3 9. London, British Library, MS. Cotton Tiberius B.v, v o l.1 ,fo 75 10. Oxford, Bodleian Library, MS. Bodlcy 319 (S.C. 2226) 11.Oxford, Bodleian Library, MS. Bodley 394 (S.C. 2225), fos 1-84 12. Oxford, Bodleian Library, MS. Bodley 718 (S.C. 2632) 13. Oxford, Bodleian Library, MS. Bodley 849 (S.C, 2602) 14. Oxford, Bodleian Library, MS. Bodley 865 (5.C. 2737), fos 89-112 It is, of course, statistically improbable that all of these manuscripts were at Exeter during Leofric's time; we do not, for example, know enough about the history of some of the Exeter binding fragments (items 5-8) to be certain that they had Exeter associations at this early date, but, as I hope to be able to show that they too fit patterns in the collection, I shall leave them in the list. There arc five books which physical collation shows to be complete (unless a gathering were added with an inscription and later removed),40 and which, therefore, are unlikely ever to have had an inscription. Because there is no reason to suppose that Leofric's scribes invariably put an inscription into every manuscript which came to hand, these five manuscripts might have been associ­ ated with the books which were so inscribed or with those which might have

39

See Förster, 'The donations'» p .11,n. 3. Oxford, Bodleian Library, MS. Auct. D.2,16 had two quirei added to the beginning of the manuscript, including the inicription, tnd, M th«M i n unrilated to the goipel-book which comprisoi the remainder of the volum«, thtir Ion - had It occurred - would not have been evident.

14

1 . Cambridge, Corpus Christi College, MS. 419 2. London, Lambeth Palace Library, M S .149, fos 1-138 3. Oxford, Bodleian Library, MS. Auctarium D. infra 2.9 (S.C. 2638), fos 1-110 4. Oxford, Bodleian Library, MS. Bodley 229 (5.C. 2120) 5. Oxford, Bodleian Library, MS. Bodley 311(S.C. 2122) Cambridge, Corpus Christi College, MS. 419 and Oxford, Bodleian Library, MS. Auctarium D, infra 2.9 (S.C. 2638), fos 1-110 were probably written at Canterbury and we cannot therefore say when they were acquired for the church at Exeter. Nor was Oxford, Bodleian Library, MS. Bodley 229 (5.C. 2120) written at Exeter, although it contains a note in tke hand of Elaine Drage’s scribe 10, one of the two scribes who wrote the nine donation-inscriptions. Possibly the book was simply overlooked when inscriptions were added. These three books offer no evidence for or against the existence of a significant collection of books at Exeter before Leofric’s arrival， and it will be best to consider them as unable to be associated with any intellectual or scriptorial activity at Exeter predating the arrival of the bishop in 1050.41* The remaining two volumes show more clearly why they may have lacked the donation-inscriptions. London, Lambeth Palace Library, MS. 149, fos 1-138 and Oxford， Bodleian Library, MS. Bodley 3 1 1 21Ü) both have inscriptions (in contemporary hands) indicating that they were presented to a house dedicated to St Mary, and the inscription on fo 138v of Lambeth M S .149 dates the presentation of Öiat volume to 1018 (and also implies with the word quoque that a second book was presented, which may therefore have been MS. Bodley 311). These two manuscripts might therefore not have been available to Leofric during the period 1050 x 1072. What was the function of Leofricdonation-inscription? I think that it must be seen as having a purpose similar to a royal or episcopal seal: it proclaims that an individual with the power to do so has determined that the property in question belongs to an identified individual or institution. In this case, Leofric identifies the books with his inscription as the property of the church of St Peter the Apostle at Exeter. We need not imagine that these books had been gathered by him, nor that they existed in some private library of his, in order to appreciate Leofric^ right to 'give* the books to Exeter. As the pontiff of the see, he would have had the right and obligation to make pronouncements about churchproperty. Moving a see was hardly a matter of merely changing the eleventhOnly Oxford, Bodleian Library, MS. Auctarium D. infra 2.9 (5.C. 2638), fos 1-110 were written in the second half of the tenth century; so the elimination of these manuscripts from consideration will not significantly affect the distribution by date in the chart; in fact, if one were to remove Cambridge, Corpus Christi College, MS. 419 and Oxford, Bodleian Library, MS. Bodley 229 from the statistics for the first half of the eleventh centuiy, the charted distinction between the earlier group and the later group of manuscripts would appear even more dramatic.

IS

Anglo-Saxon Exeter

Bishop Leofric's Scriptorium and Library

century equivalent of modern letterhead-stationery, and Leofric undoubtedly had formally to assert his privileges as the new head of the community at Exeter. Therefore he used forms of the verb dare, *to give', to indicate that the books which he found at Exeter were henceforth to be considered the property of the episcopal church there (and not, it is on this argument implied, of the earlier community). This idea that the books already existed as a single collection before being inscribed is supported by evidence to indicate that all of the extant inscriptions were entered in them at one time. Elaine Drage has observed that only two scribes were used to write all nine extant inscriptions,42 which suggests that they were inscribed as a group for, if the books had been inscribed as each was added to the collection singly or in pairs, chance would dictate that more than two of the eleven scribes whom Drage identified with Leofric's scriptorium would have been involved. The alternative to this would be to assume that the two scribes were, in effect， librarians charged with adding the inscription as books were acquired. This is most unlikely, however, because the collection could not yet have been large enough to warrant such unprecedented attention by two persons.43 Drage has attempted to show how an analysis of the variants in one scribe's five copies of the inscription shows its evolutionary development between 1050 and 1072; the second scribe copied three of these almost exactly and created one original state of the inscription, and this (she has argued) shows his inscriptions to have been added shortly before and (in the case of his unmatched version) shortly after 10フ2, the date of Leofric’s death.441 cannot accept Dragc's analysis of the variants among the inscriptions, however, as an indication of when between 1050 and 1072 each inscription was written, be­ cause her analysis assumes that books were gathered in through the whole period, although she cannot demonstrate that this was the case. The variants might just as well be due to the inconsequential slips of memory and unimportant substitutions of synonyms which happen when one recalls an imperfectly learned formula in a context which does not require one to worry much about achieving verbatim fidelity to an original. The inscription needed only to assert that the books belonged on the bishop’s authority to St Peter’s Church and to add an anathema against their being alienated. The second scribe may have copied the first scribe's inscriptions until he learned the formula himself, but that is slim evidence on which to attempt to provide absolute dates. The amount of labour necessary to add inscriptions, even to twenty-nine books, would hardly have required a week's time, especially since endlcaves and blank folios provided ready foundations for many of the inscriptions. Whether we suppose that the inscribed books were already at Exeter or were acquired from elsewhere at some point during Leofric's time, it would seem more likely that the inscriptions wcrë added to all of the books so inscribed in one short period than that so similar a set of inscriptions (very similar in spite of minor differences) was achieved by two scribes working over &period of twenty-two years or more.45

The donation-inscriptions lead us to two important pieces of information about the pre-Conquest library at Exeter: a fairly large group of books was singled out to be especially identified with the new catheckal community; furthermore, the books in that group had all been written before Leofric took charge at Exeter. If the donation-inscription functioned to identify a collection of books which had been assembled over a period of time at Exeter or dscwhere, then those books bearing inscriptions, and one of those which might once have borne inscriptions, stand to be examined for their own internal coherence in order to determine whether anything would further confirm the nature of such an earlier collection. There are five manuscripts of the ninth and tenth centuries in the corpus, all of which were written in Francia, probably in northern France. 1 . Exeter, Cathedral Library, MS. 3548A. Saec. x1.Missal (fragments). Possible inscription 2. Exeter, Cathedral Library, MSS. FMS/1,2, and 2a. Saec. x1.Qrosius (fragments). Possible inscription 3. Oxford, Bodleian Library, MS. Bodley 311(S.C. 2122). Saec. x2. Penitentials. St Mary inscription 4. Oxford, Bodleian Library, MS. Bodley 579 (S.C. 2675). Saec. ix2, x2, xi. Missal. Leofnc-inscnption 5. Oxford, Bodleian Library, MS. Bodley 849 (S.C. 2602). ä h ix1. Beda. Possible inscription Again, we find an unusual distribution of items, by comparison with the whole corpus of Anglo-Saxon manuscripts, which suggests that some clement beyond mere chance has affected the Exeter collection. In the whole corpus there are sixty-four books attributed by Gneuss to the Continent - to Brittany, to France generally, or to some other more specific area of Francia.46 This is just about proportionately equal to the number of manuscripts with probable French origins in the Exeter collection; however, all the books in the Exeter collection are localised more specifically to northern France.47 In the whole corpus, only ten manuscripts are assigned specifically to northern France, including those more specifically assigned to Mont Saint-Michd and even to the Loire region. If the Exeter collection reflected the same proportion of these manuscripts as the whole corpus in its distribution of items, it would have no more than one, or possibly two, manuscripts from northern France.48

43 Drage, *Bisbop Leofric*, p. 31. ^ Cf. Thomson, *The Norman oonqueitand En|Uth libraries*, pp. 28-9. 44 Drage, "Biibop LeofHc*, p. 38.

^ All of the varianu were lilted by Pöntir, 'Tilt donAtioni\ p .11,n. 3.

16

46 A s elsewhere, I have based these statistics on Gneuss^s *A preliminary list*.

47 The localisation of the fragments - Exeter, Cathedral Lihraxy, MS. 3548A and Exeter, Cathedral Library, MSS. FMS/1,2, and 2a - cannot be considered certain, because not enough remains to allow localisation without any ambiguity; see Drage, 'Bishop Leotnc/ pp. 352, 355. Gneuss (*A preliminary list*) has listed Oxford, Bodleian Library, MS. Bodley 849 (S.C. 2602), as coming from the Loire region, but Drage (*Bishop Leofiric\ pp. 411-12) has specified North France. 48 See n. 33, above; 67/947 x 10 * 0.7; strictly speaking, the expected distribution for books of northern French origin in the Exeter collection should be no more than one, but, since the nature of what is being counted does not admit fractions, two bodks should not be considered out of the range of probability; five books, however, can hardly be the result of random distribution. Maddicott, 'Trade, industry', p. 24, has noted the excavation of pottery-sherds from these placei ai suggeitive of a commercial relationship with the same parts of Prance.

Anglo-Saxon Exeter This analysis assumes that the (Leofric Missal' - Oxford, Bodleian Library, MS. Bodley 579 (5.C. 2675) - could have been part of this early collection, because the core of that codex, a sacramentary written in the second half of the ninth century or possibly a little later, was executed in northeastern France, probably at Saint-Vaast. There is no compelling evidence that it must have come to Exeter with Leofric, although Leofric certainly caused it to be freely anno­ tated and augmented after the bishopric of Devon and Cornwall was moved to Exeter. The kalendar and related tables - datable ca 979 - on three contiguous gatherings in the "Leofric Missal' have been ascribed to Glastonbury for over a century now,49 but there is no evidence that the sacramentary could not have found its way to Exeter even before the kalendar was bound with i t If Exeter was reformed in 968 by Glastonbury monks, then a kalendar from Glastonbury could have been added to this sacramentary; in fact, it could even have been copied by one of the reforming monks at Exeter, and palaeographers would have to identify his script with Glastonbury because, presumably, the scribe would have been trained there and his hand would thus reflect the Glastonbury style.30 Robert Dcshman has shown that just a few years after elaborated figures and complex ornament were united in the so-called 'Winchester Style,* the same style can be found in the kalendar-gatherings of the "Leofric Missal*.51 While we do not know whether models for th e 4Winchester Style* existed during the second half of the tenth century at Glastonbury, we do know of a model possibly at Exeter at the time when the drawings in the "Leofric Missal5 were made. Exeter, Cathedral Library, MS. 3548C, one bifolium, is a fragment of a bencdictional which, in both its extant text and its script, appears to be closely related to the Bcncdictional of St iEthelwold (London, British Library, MS. Add. 49598).52 Thus, the particular combination of a Glastonbury scribe and 'Winchester Style* artwork in one place may be more easily explained as a function of events at Exeter ca 979 tüan at Glastonbury. The sacramentary to which the kalendar and tables are affixed need never have been at Glastonbury; it was recorded in the 'Leofric Missal* that three codices which King y^thelstan gave to the church of Exeter remained among the books there,53 and certainly the sacramentary from Saint-Vaast would have been very much in keeping with the books which the king is known for certain to have presented to other religious houses. These include London, British Library, MS. Cotton Tiberius A.ii, written possibly at Lobbes (and certainly on the Continent), at the end of the ninth or beginning of the tenth century; London, British Library, MS. Cotton Claudius B.v, which was written on the Continent at the end of the ninth century; London, British Library, MS. Royal l.A.xviii, 49 p〇 r ah accessible summary of the problems of dating the kalendar, see Deshman, *The Leofric M issal',pp.145-8; the most complete study is that by Drage, ^Bishop Leofric*, pp. 71-144. « OOn n the palaeography of the kalendar and tables in the *1Lcofiic Missal*, see Bishop, English Caroline Minuscule, p. xxii, and plates 1 k 2. 51 Deshman, 'The Leofiric Missal\ p . 173. ぬ Ker, Mni/fva/ Afanujcr初j, I.8^6*l; Robinson, ‘On 丨 fragment’；Drage, ‘Bishop Leofiric' pp. 353-4. ^ See appendix IV. kThe record of moving the Me of Devon from Crediton to Bxeter', for this

Bishop Leofri^s Scriptorium and Library written in Brittany at the end of the ninth or beginning of the tenth century; and London, British Library, MS. Cotton Otho B.ix, also from Brittany and dated to the same period.54 But whether Mhelstan presented the sacramentary portion of the 4Leofric Missal* to Exeter or not, the book certainly accords well with other French manuscripts of the late ninth and early tenth centuries which we can associate with Exeter, and it is not unreasonable to suppose that most or all of them were acquired as a group. We can be fairly certain that the sacramentary was in England before 940, for fo 12, both recto and verso, are written in an early Square-minuscule hand which has recently been dated to the 930s.55 Consequently, hypotheses which suggest that Dunstan was given the book while in exile in 956 are undermined by the inclusion of these prayers almost certainly copied in England fifteen to twenty-five years earlier.56 Indeed, the "Leofric Missal9 is the one volume in the whole collection of sixty-seven books with an Exeter provenance which - like an archaeological dig - may reflect successive levels of the history of the scriptorium at Exeter. The core of the book， the sacramentary， may bê classed with a collection of five manuscripts acquired in the late ninth and early tenth centuries, mostly from northern France, at the same time as King iCthelstan supposedly endowed the church at Exeter. The addition of the three gatherings containing the kalendar and other tables was made during the second half of the tenth century, when a dozen manuscripts were produced which have Exeter provenances, and when the monastery there supposedly underwent the reforms associated with the Benedictine revolution, llie numerous annotations and additions to the ‘Leofric Missal* must be attributed to the final phase of the pre-twelfth-century scriptor­ ium at Exeter, ca 1050 x ca 1100, the period following Leofric *s move of the southwestern see thither. The coherence of the northern French group in the collection of books with an Exeter provenance depends upon two things: all five of the books were written either at the end of the ninth century or at the beginning of the tenth century, and ail five were written in France, most likely northern France. Another group exists in the collection, however, the coherence of which depends upon palaeographical considerations. 1 . Exeter, Cathedral Library, MS. 3501,fos 8-130. Saec. x2. The 'Exeter Book5 2. Exeter, Cathedral Library, MS, 3507. Saec. x2. Hrabanus Maurus; Isidorus 3. London, Lambeth Palace, MS. 149, fos 1-138. Saec. x2. Beda; Augustinus 4. Oxford, Bodleian Library, MS. Bodley 319 (S.C. 2226). Saec. x2. Isidorus 5. Oxford, Bodleian Library, MS. Bodley 718 (S.C. 2632). Saec. x/xi. Pcnitentials To this group of manuscripts already inventoried as Exeter books, we should add a sixth volume - Paris, Bibliothèque nationale, MS. latin 943. saec. x2, x/xi,

34 Keynes, ‘King Athelstan’s books’, p p .147,159,165,170, & 195; for the sake of comparison,

I have taken the liberty of converting Dr Keynes^ dates to their formulaic equivalents in the system employed here. ^ Dumville, "English Square minuscule script: the background and earliest phases', p . 176. 56 For example, Grierson, *The relations'. On Hohler's argument ('Some service-books') that the saemmentary portion of the 'Leofric Missal' was copied by a French scribe from an English exemplar, ice Drage, 'Bishop Leofiric', pp. 84-98.

19

Anglo-Saxon Exeter xi /«., the 'Sherborne Pontifical1- which has never been considered to have an Exeter provenance, although it is written in the same hand as Exeter, Cathedral Library, MS. 3507 and Oxford, Bodleian Library, MS. Bodley 718 (and I shall argue in chapter HI of this study that the manuscript originated at Exeter). In fact, the main texts of these six manuscripts share the hands of two scribes whose work may be dated to the second half of the tenth century. Items 1,3, and 4 arc all in the same hand, and items 2, 5, and the *Sherborne Pontifical* are in the other, slightly later hand. The two subgroups are linked in item 3 (London, Lambeth Palace, MS. 149, fos 1-138), which is written in the hand of items 1 and 4f that is, the hand of the Exeter Book of Old English poetry, but is corrected in the hand of items 2, 5, and the ‘Sherborne Pontifical’. No other example of either of these hands is known to exist, and these six manuscripts can be shown to have solid connexions with Exeter. Thus, it is possible and - as I shall argue in chapter in - probable indeed that the (Exeter Book* and the 'Sherborne Pontifical' (to name the two most famous manuscripts in the group) were not only written in a single scriptorium, but that that scriptorium was at Exeter between the time of Exeter *s Benedictine reform in 968 and King Swegn's destructive raid in 1003 (recorded in the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle). We may conclude that there is a definable collection of manuscripts which can reasonably be identified with Exeter during the tenth century. They will provide the primary evidence for my examination, in the rest of this study, of the cultural development of tenth-century Exeter. One of these books in particular Exeter, Cathectal Library, MS. 3501» fos 8-130, the "Exeter Book* - will be mined deeper than the otiiers because its texts, structure, and palaeography can be shown to warrant such attention; but most of the rest of these have their own role to play in displaying the cultural history of late Anglo-Saxon Exeter. There­ fore I shall close this introduction to Exeter *s earliest identifiable bookcollcjction with a final inventory of those manuscripts which have the best claim to having been a part of Exeter’s tenth-century history. 1 . Exeter, Cathedral Library, MS. 3501, fos 8-130 2. Exeter, Cathedral Library, MS. 3507 3. Exeter, Cathedral Library, MS. 3548A 4. Exeter, Cathedral Library, MS. 3548C 5. Exeter, Cathedral Library, MSS. FMS/1,2, and 2a 6. Exeter, Cathedral Library, MS. FMS/3 7. London, British Library, MS. Cotton Tiberius B.v, v o l.1 ,fo 75 8. London, Lambeth Palace, MS. 149, fos 1-138 9. Oxford, Bodleian Library, MS. Auctarium D.2.16 (5.C. 2719) 10. Oxford, Bodleian Library, MS. Bodley 311(S.C. 2122) 11.Oxford, Bodleian Library, MS. Bodley 319 (S.C. 2226) 12. Oxford, Bodleian Library, MS. Bodley 394 (S.C. 2225), fos l-« 4 13. Oxford, Bodleian Library, MS. Bodley 579 (5.C. 2675) 14. Oxford, Bodleian Library, MS. Bodley 718 (S.C. 2632) 15. Oxford, Bodleian Library, MS. Bodley 849 (S.C. 2602) 16. Paris, Bibliothèque nationale, MS. Itdn 943

20

BACKGROUND

The assumption which scholars have made about Exeter^ poverty and resulting lack of development is in part derived from Leofric^ inventory, for the docu­ ment is clear in saying that there were, at Ide, but two hides of land (with six or seven bullocks) remaining under the institution's control. On the other hand, we know so little about Exeter ca 950 x 1050 that the image gleaned from the inventory of a place with but seven head of skinny cattle on the other side of town, six mouldy old books, and one grubby vestment for all seasons is the seemingly appropriate portrait of early eleventh-century Exeter, because it rein­ forces what we imagine the place must have been like after 19 August, 1003, when King Swegn, in retaliation for King yEthelred*s having murdered his sister, swept down on Exeter and, reportedly, *burnt the churches, in which numerous and precious libraries were kept, with their books*.1Many books may have been destroyed at this time, but that does not mean that some were not saved. The burns at the back of the Exeter Book prove that it, at least, was somehow saved from a conflagration， although we do not know when or where. In any case, we conclude that Swegn and his men attacked Exeter in retaliation for iEthclred's behaviour, not in an effort to plunder or destroy a library, but to punish the English king for his own actions by destroying something of value to him. The C, D, and E manuscripts of die Anglo-Saxon Chronicle all contain the same text for that year: *her was Exaccstcr tobrocen t>uruh J?one frenciscan ceorl Hugan 5e seo hlaefdige hire hafde geset to gerefan, 7 se here 3a J?a buruh mid ealle fordyde 7 micle herehyöe peer genamon， ；‘in this year Exeter was penetrated by means of the French freeman Hugh, whom the queen had ap­ pointed her steward, and the raiders ravaged the whole city and took much plunder there*. It is notable that Exeter was chosen, and that choice may have derived in part from whatever services Hugh could be counted upon to provide, although the city’s exposed location on the Exe may also account partly for the choice; nonetheless, it would not have been to Swcgn's advantage to destroy a place with little promise and, if the raiders took much plunder, as the Chronicle avers, then there must have been much to take. Certainly, it would indeed be 1 Oliver, The History, p. 21:'EcclesiSf in quibus numeross et priscae Bibliothecas continebantur, cum libris incenss sunt*. Oliver cited *Wm Malmes. lib. ii. cap/ wherein I have been unable to locate this passage. But in Book II, §165, of Gesta regum Anglorum (ed. Stubbs, 1.188), MUiam wrote, 'occidentalis piouincia, quas Deuenescire uocabirt pessundata, euersis monasteiiis et Exonia urbe incensa*; *The western province, by which Devonshire is meant, wai destroyed, tho monasteries cleaned out, and the city of Exeter burned*.

Anglo-Saxon Exeter

Background

strange if much of such plunder were not the minster's property.2 From this incident alone we may suspect that, by the end of the tenth century, Exeter had become an important, wealthy settlement in the South-west. But there is other information about Exeter during this period which has not been exploited to correct the view of the minster seemingly demanded by the inventory. Archaeological work carried out there in the last decade is now being published and it has been successful in establishing the sites of the ecclesiastical institutions in the city from the time when Boniface was schooled Exeter at the end of the seventh century. In fact, all of the ancient minsters which have been thought to have served Exeter since Boniface's time, including the minsterchurch which came to serve as Leofric's cathedral, were built more or less on the same site, about seventy-five feet west of the west front of the present cathedral, which was - as it happens - the site during the Roman period of the bathhouse, followed by a basilica and forum complex.3 The evidence of three successive cemeteries on the site suggests Christian institutional occupation here as early as the mid-fifth century.4 It may be presumed, then, that this was also the site of Abbot Wulfhard's monastery where Boniface fulfilled his novitiate, according to Willibald^ Life of Boniface. This discovery is important in identi­ fying an early library at Exeter, because Willibald's work tells us that the young Boniface's purpose in becoming a religious was 'to join himself to the study of sacred letters\5 His subsequent career shows that he was successful in getting at least the rudiments of a Christian education at Exeter, and his having done so means that books were necessarily available. But whatever manuscripts Wulfhard's library may have contained were perhaps lost in the ninth century and therefore unavailable to scribes working in the tenth century. On the other hand, King Alfred emphasised in his preface to his translation of Pope Gregory's Regula pastoralis that, before the Scandinavian invasions, the English churches stood filled with books and treasures.6 It is not necessary to imagine that all of these were lost or destroyed in the raids. Indeed, a le^* of an eighth-century gospel-book remains with Exeter memoranda added in a tenth-century hand.7 There is nothing improbable in the notion that this leaf came from a gospel-

book used in the earlier institution on the same site. In any case, it indicates that someone in tenth- century Exeter had access to at least one early service-book. The next churchman who can be connected with Exeter is Asser, who - as one of Alfred's bishops and also his biographer - is likewise to be associated with libraries and learning. In his Life of King Alfred, he claimed to have been given (Exeter with the whole jurisdiction belonging to it in England and in Comwair.8 This must have happened within the period 890 x 893, the same period when Exeter first became a burh and a mint was established there.9 We have no records that Asser gave books to Exeter, as Leofric claimed to have done, but it is unlikely that he, with his scholarly interests, would permit the destruction of any books remaining from earlier foundations or have discour­ aged their use. Exeter may have had no scriptorium at this time, but we do not have to assume that all of the books of earlier times were gone by the last quarter of the ninth century. Exeter's wealth, or its reputation for having once been a wealthy institution, may partly explain why King ^Ethelstan, a generation later, is supposed to have regarded the institution so highly. In or about the year 932, >Ethelstan allegedly founded a monastery at Exeter, dedicated to Saints Mary and Peter.10 In the eleventh century, at any rate, there was a strong house-tradition that iEthelstan had founded such a church.11

2 Sec Todd, The South West to AD 1000, p. 281, who, alluding to the inventory's assessment, has written that 'it is somewhat surprising that the monastic foundation at so prosperous a

3 4 5

6

7

place as Exeter was so modest in its achievements, in the eleventh century and later*. Henderson & Bidwell, 4The Saxon minster, , p . 148. Bidwell, The Legionary Bath-house, p p .112-13. After what he deemed a prophetic illness, Boniface's father ^directed the boy to the monas­ tery which is called by a name o f the ancients Ad-Escancastre, and ccnmnitted him to an embassy of trusty messengers to deliver to the faithful Wulfhard, who was abbot o f that monastery*: Willibald, Vita Sancti Bonifatii, §§ 1-3 (cd. Levison, pp. 4~ 13; cf. The Life, transl. Robinson). "Ad-Escancastre* has always been assumed to be Exeter. For an excellent survey of Devon ethnology of the Celtic, Saxon, and later mediaeval periods, see Ravenhill， ‘The evolution*. For Alfred's text, sèe Sweet's Anglo-Saxon Readtr, ed. Whitelcxk, pp. 4^7; for a commentary on the validity of Alfred's deiciipüon of education in English at tbe end of the ninth century, see Oneuas, ^King Alfred and (he hiuory'. Cf. Dumville, Wrss» and England, chapter VI. See London, British Library, MS. Cotton Hboriui B.v, vol.1,f〇 75t and the coaunentaries on (tak» leaf by Lowe, Coäicts, II,no . 190 and Ker, Catalogue pp. 256-7, no. 194.

22

§80 (81) (Assess Life o f King Alfred, ed. Stevenscm, p. 68 ): * ... dedit mihi Exanceastre, cum omni parochia, quae ad se pertinebat, in Saxonia et in Cornubia . . KParochiay has been thought problematic in this context, but see Whitelock, The Genuine Asser, p . 14, who accepted as possible the suggestion by Finberg, Lucerna, pp. 109-10, that Asser served as a chorepiscopus, thus using the endowments of the religious house or houses at Exeter to provide him with an income. Such an idea not only assumes that there was at least one religious community at Exeter at the end of the ninth century, but also that its income was sufficient to support one of the king*s favourite advisers. Nevertheless, see Keynes & Lapidge, Alfred the Great, p. 264, n . 193, according to whom Alfred's gift does not necessar­ ily imply that Asser was thus assigned any administrative or pastoral duties. I am indebted to Sarah Foot fca* valuable discussions concerning this passage in A sse rt Life of King Alfred and for providing me with a draft of her entry for Exeter in her forthcoming catalogue of early English minsters. Whitelock, The Genuine Asser, pp. 5-8 ；Henderson & Bidwell, *The Saxon minster*, p . 146; see also Hinton， Ayre 心 沿 / ^ dom, p . フ1 , who has pointed out that iEthelstan， a generation later, legislated the minting of one coinage to be accomplished by the number of moneyers necessary to the local demand made on any orq mint. Exeter - with Lewes, Southampton, WaiSiam, and Shaftesbury - is listed among those ports to which two moneyers were assigned. Only four settlements had more: London, 8 ; Canterbury, 7; Winchester, 6 ; and Rochester, 3. Other boroughs were accorded one moneyer. A useful summary of the activities o f the Exeter mint during the ninth and tenth centuries is px)vided by Todd, The South West to AD 1000y pp. 283-5. For a fuller study of Exeter's economic importance in the later Anglo-Saxon period* see Maddicott» 'Trade, industry*, pp. 17-51. 0 This dedication is attested in the early eleventh-century relic-list in Oxford, Bodleian Library, MS. A uct D.2.16 (S.C. 2719), fos ^-14, and in the *Exeter Book* (Exeter, Cathedral Library, MS. 3501),fo 2v; on fo 6 v, in the ‘Exeter Bode’, a dedication to St Mary alone is given. Tlie usual dedication after Leofric moved the see in 1050 was to St Peter.

11 For the possibility that the eleventh-century house-tradidon was based on diplomas lost in fires during Swcgn*s raid of 1003» see Chaplais, authenticity*, p. 7. i£thelstan*s found­ ing of St Peter and St Mary in 932 would have been seen by Leofiric's contemporaries as the foundation of the institution which the bishop raised to a see in 1050. If Athelstan's founda­ tion hAd not been viewed (by the various offlclali involved in granting and recognisins

23

Anglo-Saxon Exeter

Background

David Knowles repeated the story that the monks fled from this foundation in fear of further Danish incursions, but I think it to be highly unlikely that that is true.*12 William of Malmesbury, perhaps echoing a twelfth-century view of the peace and prosperity of 疋 thelstan’s reign, wrote, ‘Therefore, when he had got the city cleaned up, the people having been relieved of their troubles, he fortified it with towers and enclosed it with a wall of squared stones. And although the soil, barren and neglected, scarcely produced even the poorest oats, often bringing forth empty ears with no grain, nevertheless on account of the magnificence of the city and the wealth of its citizens, not to mention the crowds of out-of-towners, all kinds of manufactured goods were certainly in abundance here so that nothing considered necessary to a person^ comfort was lacking/13 Although this is the only record of iEthelstan's concern for the defences of any particular town, contemporary support for such an initiative in general may lie in iBthclstan^ lawcode, which stipulates that 4every borough is to be repaired by a fortnight after Rogation Days*.14 Certainly, this vision of Exeter during iEthelstanJs reign accords well with the Exeter Archaeological Field Unit's conclusion that there was no significant urban development in Exeter outside the area occupied by the religious com­ munity before the tenth century. Even such central areas of Exeter as the Guildhall site seem not to have been occupied until then, but after the beginning of the tenth century Exeter underwent rapid development.15 The discovery of the fragments of a church thirty-four metres long and ten metres wide suggests a scale of building which was too large to have been undertaken earlier than the second half of the ninth century， and ä tenth-century foundation would seem more probable. That the building was situated in a cemetery which had been in use for several centuries - indeed, since the fifth century16 - identifies it very probably with the late Saxon minster at Exeter, the same minster endowed or refounded by yEthelstan, according to two separate documents copied into the *Leofric Missal*.17 The design on a gold ring found in the cemetery fits best with

an early tenth-century date, and archaeologists have interpreted numerous burials in coffins with metal fittings and with ritual charcoal-deposits beneath them as evidence of the inhumation of wealthy aristocrats; this in turn fits with an institution which had come into royal favour.18 The continuity of the finds after this period suggests a continuous prosperity (some part of which must have benefited the minster) and the minster's need to develop procedures for re­ cording such quasi-civic memoranda as oaths, guild-notices, and manumissions even if it did not support a scriptorium engaged in book-production. Indeed, Exeter memoranda from the mid- to late tenth century are extant, most notably the previously mentioned guild notices in London, British Library, MS. Cotton Tiberius B.v, voL 1 ,fo 75, but also manumissions made by Ealdorman Ordgar, the founder of Tavistock Abbey, who was buried at Exeter; these latter are found in the 'Leofric Missal' on fo 8, a singleton.19 But perhaps more important in establishing the continuity of the community at Exeter in the tenth century are the lists of relics preserved under the king's name. In 1923, Joseph Armitage Robinson wrote that 1 shall not trouble you with the Exeter relics; the list comes from the Leofric Missal, and claims rather too boldly a third of all the relics that K. iEthelstan brought from abroad9.20The rhetoric of this comment was designed to allow Robinson to get on with his oral presentation rather than to impede its progress by carefully reconstructing Exeter's place in iEthelstan's donation for which there was no contemporary evidence in 1923. Robinson^ words are sometimes cited as if he had actually adduced hard evidence against Exeter's claim of an extensive endowment of relics. In fact, his discussion shows that he had not made a critical study of the texts of the Exeter relic-lists: it is not in the ^ o f r i c Missal*, but in the Old English list on fos 8r-14r of Oxford, Bodleian Library, MS. Auct. D.2.16 (5.C 2719), a tenth-century gospel-book with an Exeter provenance, that we find the reference to one third of ^Ethelstan's relics having come to Exeter, whereas the ^Leofric Missal5simply says that he gave quarum maximam partem, 4the great­ est (or noblest) part of which5, to Exeter.21 Robinson's implication that the attribution of Exeter's eleventh-century collection of relics might have been fostered on vEthelstan*s reputation is fair, but it cannot mean that the collection had no roots in the earlier tenth century, nor even that ^Ethelstan could not have

land-rights) as the valid foundation of that institution, then Leofiric*s forgeries and copies of his charters would hardly have been successful in regaining rights to fifteen estates. See also Blake， ‘Bishop Leofric*，p. 51. 12 Sec Knowles & Hadcock, Medieval Religious Houses: England and Wales, p. 425. Oliver, The History, p p . 17-18, seems to have been at a loss to explain the further lack of docu­ mentation on iEthelstan's foundation, and simply suggested that the English tem felam eiu would not support serious monasticism until the era o f Edgar and the Benedictine Reforma­ tion. On that general point, cf. Dumville, Wessex and England, chapter VI. 13 'Urbem igitur illam, quam contaminate gentis repurgio defaecauerat, tunibus muniuit, muro ex quadratis lapidibus cinxit E t licet solum illud, ieiunum et squalidum, uix steriles auenas et plerumque folliculum inanem sine grano pioducat, tarnen pro ciuitatis magnificentia, et incolanim opulentia, turn etiam conuenarum frequentia, omne ibi adeo abundat meicim oniuni,ut nihil fhistra desideres quod humano usui ccmducibile existimes. Pluxima eius insignia, tam in urbe ilia quam in flnitima regione, uisuntur, q u s melius indigenamm ore quam nostro stilo pinguntur.* William o f Malmesbury, Gesta regum Anslorum, 11.134 (ed. Stubbs, L148-9). 14 Hinton, Alfred's Kingdom, pp. 70-1. 19 Al)änt Medieval and Post-midieval Finds,up. 11,353. 16 The Legionary Bath-houstt W i 112-13. ^ See appendices D and IV (pp, 19〇 t 219,229).

24

is Todd, The South West to A D 1000, pp. 289-90; Henderson & Bidwell, 4The Saxon m inster\ p p . 153-5. is On MS. Cotton Tiberius B.v, v o l .1 , fo 75, see n. 8 , above. There are many additions of oravers and short memoranda in tenth-century hands in the 4Leofric M issal\ which Drage, "Bishop Leofric', pp. 103-9, has considered to have been made at Glastonbury. It is highly unlikely that Ordgar*s manumissions were made at Glastonbury, however, because the ealdorman’s domain was in Devon, centred on Exeter and Tavistock; indeed, he is reported to have been buried at Exeter, for a discussion of which infonnation, see Finberg, *The house of Ordgar*, p . 191. But also see ibid,, p . 196, where Finberg argued that the manumissions belong to an eleventh-century descendant of Ealdorman Ordgar; I do not fmd his argument on this point convincing, for palaeographical reasons, and agree with Drage (*Bishop Leofiric*, pp. 103-9) and with Warren, The Leofric MissaU pp. Ix-lxi, in dating these additions to tbe tentb century. 2〇Robinson, The Times, p. 78. The Exeter rclic-lisl in Oxford, Bodleian Library, MS. A uct D.2.16 was edited and analyied by Förster, *Zur Geschichte*, pp. 63-80.

21 See appendix II.

25

Anglo-Saxon Exeter

Background

provided the core of the collection. I. G. Thomas's more recent close study of English relics and relic-lists has led him to declare that ‘most houses had a far larger collection than could ever be imagined from a reading of their chronicles, as is apparent from the relic-lists which survive',22 a statement which suggests that Exeter's claim, based on its own lists, may have been more typical than Robinson imagined. Moreover, a note in the Teofric Missal*, fo 3v (on the removal of the see from Crediton to Exeter), while deploring the loss of much of Exeter’s wealth, mentions a casket of relics as one of the few items surviving from the earlier period until the time of Leofric^ installation at Exeter. Contemporary documentation of Exeter's relics begins in the early eleventh century. Four Exeter relic-lists survive, all written in hands of Leofric^ time; three are in Latin, one in the 'Leofric Missal*, one in London, British Library, MS. Royal ö.B.vii, a copy of Aldhelm's De laude uirginitatis written at Exeter in the second half of the eleventh century, and one remains at Exeter in the Cathedral Library as MS. 2861; one list in Old English is found in Oxford, Bodleian Library, MS. Auct. D.2.16 (S.C. 2719), one of Exeterss gospel-books.23 The Latin and Öld English lists are sufficiently different from one another that Laura Hibbard Loomis perceived them to be derived from textually independent traditions; she was undoubtedly correct.24 Max Förster, in an edition of the Old English list, argued convincingly that the compilation of this list antedates the extant copy by several years, having been made ca 1010. While the relics of three of the persons named in common by both the English and Latin lists could not have been given to Exeter by King iéthelstan since he died before they did, nevertheless the large number of Breton and Frankish saints in the lists corre­ sponds to what we know of iEthelstan*s sphere of influence. The three which postdate ^Ethelstan arc i€lfgifu (ob, 944), King Edward (ob. 978/9), and Oda (ob. 958), whose presence in the collection may indicate a particular interest in English saints following King vEthelstan*s death.25 This early eleventh-century date of the Old English relic-list is significant when it is recognised that this was the period during which the minster probably lost several of its estates (and Swegn^ raid seems to have caused losses of another sort). The loss of those endowments which Leofric later claimed to have regained has generally been considered the best argument for the poverty of the institution at the point of Leofric's takeover. But in his meticulous study of English relic-cults, I. G. Thomas has pointed out that relic-lists (were calculated to induce in the reader a sense of pride in the history and prestige of his house. The relics it possessed mighty like its land, be a source of revenue’ but also expressed its identity, by invoking its most celebrated members and patrons/26 In such a context, it may be that Exeter's relics provided the institution with an adequate income in spite of any loss of temporalities in the earlier eleventh

century; and the charcoal-burials, which are regularly associated with coffins having metal fittings, underscore the probability that the minster maintained the support of a number of people of some financial means. The rhetoric of the Old English relic-list shows clearly that the relics were displayed at Exeter during the reading of the list (which may have taken place at the mass for the feast of the relics since the text observes several homiletic conventions), and such a display would certainly have motivated monetary offerings it a congregation of powerful laymen were present, for they would understand the benefit of imitat­ ing their king in bestowing some of their wealth on the same institution to which by obtaining and donating holy relics he had (as the relic-list proclaims) given the fruits of his own wealth and power.27 Similarly, many - if not a ll - relics provided an income from the cults which adored them, attracting large numbers of people to such events as the annual celebration of the various feasts of their respective saints.28 Therefore, one testament to a flourishing community at Exeter dating from the first half of the tenth century until the raid in 1003 lies in the fact that Leofric neither gave nor claimed to give any relics to Exeter; as Drage has observed, *it seems to have been the one area in which the existing monastery at Exeter was not poorly endowed*.29 Leofric's restoration of Exeter's alienated lands probably marks a genuine increase in the wealth of an already powerful institution. In a way which we can no longer measure， Exeter may have been more highly regarded as a holy place than Crediton, in spite of the fact that the latter had since 909 been the seat of the bishop of Devon.30 Of course, the presence of the relics helped Bishop Leofric in his reclamation-project by authenticating the notion that 王 thelstan had endowed the church; the idea that, for the purpose of supporting his forged charters, Leofric could have completely forged two different relic-lists which neverthe­ less refer to the same basic collection is unlikely, although it is possible that he augmented an original house-tradition for this purpose.31 On the other himd， had iEthelstan^ supposed foundation really been deserted by its community, with no other community taking its place until Sidemann's abbacy thirty-six years later, it is difficult to credit that there would have been a house-tradition for Leofric to augment The graveyard, in regular use from sometime in the tenth century until the early twelfth century when the Norman cathedral was consecrated, offers further and perhaps conclusive testimony to the community's continuity, and possibly also to its wealth.32The right to sepulture required m itself a continuous institution at Exeter and would at the least have supported a small foundation. Whether that foundation had the resources in the earlier tenth century to support a library is impossible to say now, but there is evidence which may offer

M Thomas,‘The Cult’， p.40. 23 Ker, Ca如 叫 p.. 351，no. 291; Dra^e， ‘Bishop Leofiric' pp 228-32. See appendix D for editions and commentary for all four lists. M Loomis, 'The holy rclics\ pp. 447-Ä. u See appendix II; see also Eirêgc, *Bi»hop Leo&ic' pp, 231-2. 26 Thomas» 'The Cult*, pp. 337-8; the extensive influence of relics on rayiTpoUcy-deciiiona has been discussed by Rollason, 'Relic-culta*. and Saints and Relics, pp. 164-9S.

27 See appendix II. See also Rollason, 'Relic-cults', pp. 92-3. 2» /Wrf.,pp. 99-101. 29 Drage, bishop Leofric*, p. 228. 30 Thomas, 'The Cult*, pp. 327-37. 31 It has frequently been suggested tbat Leofric forged several charters necessary for reclaiming the lands which (he felt) had been alienated from Exeter. See, for example, Cfaaplais, "Tbe authenticity*; Blake, 'Bishop Leofric*, pp. 51-2. 32 Henderson & Bidwell, kTbe Saxon minster\ p .159.

26

27

Anglo-Saxon Exeter

Background

circumstantial testimony to its constitution. The previously mentioned note (in the Leofric Missal*, fo 3v), on the removal of the see from öediton to Exeter, suggests that Exeter in the past had had lands, books, and ecclesiastical orna­ ments which were plundered before Leofric arrived; the writer then recorded that, of the twenty-five estates which i€thelstan gave the church, only one almost useless piece survived, together with three books and a casket of relics. The syntax is ambiguous, but it can be read to suggest that Leofric viewed three of the books which he found at Exeter, as well as the relics and the land at Ide, as part of the original gift to the institution by iCthelstan.33 As we have seen in chapter I, fragments preserved from early modern bindings at Exeter (and dated to the tenth century by Neil Ker) include a sacramentary written in northern France (Exeter, Cathedral Library, MS. 3548A), a copy of Orosius (Cathedral Library, MSS. FM S/1,2, and 2a) also written in France, as well as a benedictional (Cathedral Library, MS. 35480 and a Life of St BasU (Cathedral Library, MS. FMS/3), both written in England.34 Any of these could indeed have orig­ inally been given to the minster by King ^Ethelstan, for manuscripts known to have been associated with him were written both in England and on the Conti­ nent. If any of these fragments represent books acquired for Exeter's library after iBthelstan^ supposed refoundation of the house, they may be a further indication of the Frankish connexion at Exeter demonstrated also by many of the saints represented in the relic-collcction.35 But if any of the fragments described above have a better claim than the others to an ancient provenance or even origin at Exeter, it would be the fragments of the Life of St Basil. Not only can the script be dated with some certainty to the earlier tenth century, but the Exeter relic-list in the 4Leofric Missal* includes items from the staff and tooth of St Basil, thus suggesting a motivation for Exeter's wanting (or even needing) a text to explain the relic when reference to St Basil is otherwise rare in AngloSaxon sanctorals and kalendars of the tenth century.36 Of course, such evidence

is largely ciicumstantial, but a fail probability remains that the tenth-century hagiographic fragments might constitute an original Exeter manuscript A recent dating of the early Square minuscule hand in which it was written to 'the 920s1 locates it in the period when ^Ethelstan was active as a relic-collector and during which he succeeded to the throne of Wessex.37 A text which almost certainly originated in early tenth-century Exeter is in London, British Library, MS. Cotton Tiberius B.v, v o l.1 ,fo 75, that leaf from the eighth-century gospel-book which has been attributed to Northumbria and which was at Exeter in the early tenth century on the evidence of an added notice of an Exeter guild-assembly.38Indeed, this entry is proof of the continuity of the community in (and into) the tenth century. Moreover, the likelihood that relics and books were maintained at Exeter from a time preceding the miacentury beginnings of the monastic reforms argues very strongly for a continu­ ing religious house at Exeter with a library and possibly, therefore, a scrip­ torium. According to a twelfth-century chronicler, in 968 King Edgar sent a colony of monks firom Glastonbury to Exeter in one of the early reforming efforts of English Benedictine monasticism. This group was headed by a monk named Sidemann who became abbot of the monastery at Exeter.39 In 973 Sidemann was made bishop of Crediton. He died four years later while attending a conference called at Kirtlington in Oxfordshire by King Edward. In spite of the fact that he wished to be buried at his cathedral church, Edward and Dunstan had his remains placed at Abingdon on the northern side of St PauFs Chapel in St M a r y ’s Church.40 Byrhtferth’s Life of St Oswald, written in 997 x 1005, states

« Fo 3v; 4Nam ex .xxvi. terris quos rex religiosus iEthelstanus illus dedit, uix una uilissima remansit et tres codices feretrumque reliquarum*. See ai^endix IV (p. 225). On manuscripts see Keynes， ‘King Athelstan’s b o o k s' 卯 . 145-7. ^ Kcrf Medieval Manuscripts, 11.839-41,845. Ker thought that Exeter, Cathedral Library, MS. 3548C was probably written in England and used as a partial cover for Krentzheim's Observationes chronologicae, at some point aftCT its publication in 1606. When the book was acquired by Exeter Cathedral or when or where the benedicäonal fragments were bound in is not known. Exeter, Cathedral Library, MS. FMS/3, the Basil fragments, were removed from the spine of Exeter, Cathedral Libraiy, MS. 3779, a cathedral capitular account-book running from 1499 to 1561, which was almost certainly bound locally. Ker recorded no information about the binding from which Exeter, Cathedral Library ，MSS. FM S/1，2 , and 2 a ， the Orosian fragments, were drawn. 33 Rollason, *Relic-cults\ p. 93, has pointed out that the Exeter list contains a large number of Frankish relics. 36 Ker, Medieval Manuscripts, 11.845, dated the fragments of Vita S. Basilii as *s. x in /. Cf. DumviUe, English Square minuscule script: the background and earliest phases*, p p .170-1. St Basil's relics are included in the relic-list in the 'Leofric M issal\ fo 6r. O f nineteen kalendars transcribed by Francis Woimald, English Kalendars brfore A . D , 1100, seven copied during the eleventh century name St Basil on his proper feast-day,14 June: London British Library. MS. Cotton Titus D.xxvü, fo 5v, firom the New Minster, Winchester, A.D. 1023 x 1035; Cambridge, TOnily CoUege, MS, R.15.32, p. 20 (on p. 15 his feast is also recorded on 1 January), firom New Miniter, Winchester, ca 1025; London, British L ibm y,

MS. Arundel 60, fo 4v, from Winchestw, ca 1060; London, British Library, MS. Cotton Vitellius E.xviii, fo 4v, firom W inchest^, ca 1060; Camteidge, Coipus Christi CoUege, MS. 3 9 1 ,p. 8 , &om Worcester Cathedral, second half of the eleventh century; Cambridge, Corpus Christi College, MS. 9, p. 8 , Worcester, ca 1060; Oxford, Bodleian Library, MS. Douce 296, fo 3v (fo lr also has his feast on 1 January), from Crowland, mid-eleventh century. The *Leofric Missal* (fo 41r) is unique in having a feast for Basil on 20 May, along with SS. Victorius and Basilissa, and is the earliest of the kalendars to name the saint at all. 37 Dumvilie, ^English Square minuscule script: the background and earliest phases*, pp. 170-1. 38 Rose-Troup, *The ancient monastery', p . 185; Ker, Catalogue, pp. 256-7, no. 194; Drage, *Bishop Leofric*, pp. 362-3. Probably coincidental, but interesting given the problem at hand, is the fact that London, British Library, MS. Cotton Otho B.ix, a Continental gospelbook given to the congregation of St Cuthbert at Chester-le-Street by iEthelstan, came to be laden with manumissions and notices in the same way as the leaf now bound into MS. Cotton Tiberius B.v, v o l . 1 , as fo 75. See Ker, Catalogue, pp. 223-4, no. 176. Drage, *Bishop L eo fric' p. 362, has speculated that the Cottonian leaf may have come from 社 book presented to Exeter by iEthelstan. 3» John of Worcester, Chronicle, s.a. (edd. Petrie & Sharpe, Monumenta, p. 577). 4Ó Anglo-Saxon Chronicle, 977C: *Her waes {wet myccle gemot ®t Kyrtlingtune ofer Eastron, 7 ö®r foröferde Sidemann bisceop on hr»dlican deat>e on .ii. kalendas Mai, se w®s Defnascire bisceop, 7 he wilnodc his licncst sceolde boon ®t Cridiantune ®t his bcsceopstole. t»a het Eadweard cing 7 Dunstan arcebisceop (>st hine man ferede to Sancta Marian mynstre bast is s t Abbandune, 7 man eac swa dydet 7 he is eac arwyrOlice bebyrged on |?a norÖhealfe on Sanctus Paulus portice.* But sec The Anglo-Saxon Chronicle, gen. edd. Dumville & Keynes, IV.56, for the same annal in MS. B; w e Simon l^ylor, lbld.%pp. xlix-1 on peculiarities in the deposition of the annal for 977 in MS. C and MS. B. For further study of theie interrelation-

28

29

Anglo-Saxon Exeter

Background

unequivocally that King Edward 4was learned in divine law, having been taught by Bishop Sidcmann\41 If Edward, who was born ca 962, received his tutor at the usual age of seven, then he would presumably have been educated by Sidemann at Exeter. Whether one is to understand from Byrhtferth's phrase, docente episcopo Sidemanno, that Sidemann himself provided the boy's instruc­ tion, or rather that Sidemann's monastery undertook to educate the prince, the institution probably provided the context. Although I cannot prove the assertion, it may be that Swegn deliberately chose to destroy Exeter in 1003 (in retaliation for ^Ethelred^ having executed his sister) because the sons of Edgar had been known to favour the city and minster.' Sidemann probably was sent to Exeter not to create a colony in a deserted monastery, but rather to establish the new Benedictine monasticism in an im­ portant, active minster; certainly, it is difficult to imagine that he would have been selected to tutor Edward in the first place were the monastery weak and undeveloped, or were the library without books, although the prince's presence would undoubtedly have improved the availability of resources. Sidemann's promotion to the bishopric of Devon in 973 and the concern shown to bury him at Abingdon in 977 prove that he enjoyed the friendship and devotion of both King Edgar and King Edward, for the former presumably approved the promo­ tion and the latter concerned himself with the burial. It is interesting that, just as Edgar’s tutor，i^thelwold， was given Abingdon to develop according to the tenets of the new monasticism,42 Edgar's son's tutor, Sidemann, was also pro­ vided with a minster to reform. Given his origins at Glastonbury, and Arch­ bishop Dunstan's necessary approval of his promotion and recommendation of his burial place, we may also assume that he enjoyed the friendship and support of the archbishop. In 968, Sidemann was one of the new-style, reforming abbots, and it is probably significant that he was promoted in 973, the same year as Edgar's coronation at Bath, for, as Eric John has argued,43 that coronation, designed by Dunstan and carried out fourteen years after the king's accession to all England in 959 on the death of Eadwig, was the ritualistic signification of the beginning of Edgar's reign as Christus Domini, sthe Lord's Anointed\ If Side­ mann were ordained bishop in concert with Edgar's coronation, then that ordi­ nation may have been intended - at least in part - to express symbolically the relationship between the Crown and the Church. That he was certainly deemed a symbolic figure in the new movement is indicated by Dunstan and Edward's concern with his memorial at Abingdon. According to ^thelw old's biographers, Abingdon had been deserted and its temporalities (consisting of forty hides) were given by Edgar to iEthelwold to support a monastery which followed new

Continental interpretations of the Rule of St Benedict.44 It became a model for the reform-movement, and Sidemann would not have been interred there against his own, albeit humble, desires to be buried at Crediton - had not Dunstan and King Edward felt that his tomb would be an appropriate monu­ ment in this particular monastery. Sidemann^ direct influence on Exeter, both as abbot and as bishop, lasted for nine years, from 968 to 977. We can expect that those nine years would have seen the minster at Exeter turned into a devout and disciplinea Benedictine monastery with a restored sense of mission and certainly a well developed library and scriptorium, since the Benedictine Rule assumes a literate brother­ hood. It is difficult to say with certainty whether the activity which we can expect to have been a part of life there under Sidemann's direction could have continued much past 980, but the unusual concentration of manuscripts of this period with an eleventh-century Exeter provenance may ultimately constitute evidence that it did.45 Simon Keynes’s study of King 疋 thelred’s diplomas shows two subsequent abbots, Brihthelm and Leofric, to have been active subscribers to royal charters. From 979 to 990, Abbot Leofric attested at least eleven surviving diplomas (and he may have attested as many as twenty-five, for his subscription is not always able to be distinguished from that of Muchelney's abbot of the same name). From 993 to 997, Abbot Brihthelm subscribed eleven extant diplomas.46 After Swegn's raid on the city in 1003, we should expect that the impetus to build, to compose, even to make carefully written manuscripts, would have been severely stifled - for the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle records tiiat the Danes destroyed the city and took much treasure. Nevertheless, Cnufs confirmation of privileges sixteen years later may, if genuine, suggest that at least a modicum of political influence continued to be exercised by the minster.47 We have no significant information about St Peter’s from this time until Leofric moved his see there in 1050, but that Leotnc appears to have recorded no major rebuilding programmes during his episcopacy, when he did note so many of his other accomplishments for the institution, perhaps suggests that whatever destruction the raid had caused had been repaired. From the time of jEthelstan?s alleged refoundation of the monastery of St Peter and St Mary in 932, there was most probably a continuously active religious house at Exeter for over a century, possibly even until 1050. From 932 to 968, it was a minster of unknown internal organisation. From 968 to 1003, the abéey of St Peter and St Mary was a reform-minded Benedictine monastery; we can expect it to have been a productive, flourishing institution, endowed with many of the temporalities which Leofric was later to reclaim. From 1003 to

44 But cf. Thacker, ^iEthelwold and Abingdon', p. 47, who has implied that too much may have

ships, see Hart, *The early section\ the General Editors^ note by Dumville & Keynes, The Anglo-Saxon Chroniclet IV.viii, and Conner, ibicL9XII. 41 *Erat doctus Diuina lege, docente episcopo Sidem anno. . Vita S. Oswaldi (ed. Raine, The Historians o f the Church o f York, I.lxv, 449). On tbe attribution of the Life to Byrhtferth, see Lapidge, 4Tbe hermeneutic style*, pp. 91-2. 43 For discussion, see John, Orbis Britannia$%pp, 137-Ó2. 43 John, "F beagcof Edgar*,pp. 181*9.

been made of Abingdon as a deserted minster at tbe time of 龙 thelwold’s assumption o f its abbacy. 45 See chapter I, table D ( p .12). 46 Keynes, The Diplomas o f King /Ethelredf tables 4 and S. 47 Sawyer, Anglo-Saxon Chart€rsf no. 954. No contemporary copies o f this diploma exist, and its authenticity has been questioned: C b ^ lais, T b e authenticity', p. 5, has agreed that the charter w ai poulbly forged after tbe Nonnan conquest.

31

Anglo-Saxon Exeter 1050, the monastery survived, but waned. It lost all its estates but one, accord­ ing to Leofric^ donation-list, and that consisted of only two hides of land with six head of cattle. Yet the relic-list may be offered as evidence of another source of income sufficient to finance the minster during that period. The important point, however, is that it was a continuing institution, one which in each period kept the books of an earlier age and may have added its own to them.

III TW O GROUPS OF TENTH-CENTURY MANUSCRIPTS

There is sufficient evidence to suggest tha‘ from the 930s to the end of the tenth century, the minster of Exeter was an important and active institution. The unexpected frequency of manuscripts dated to the second half of the tenth century and having a later Exeter provenance (as demonstrated in the first chapter of this study) can best be understood in the light of a reevaluation of the early history of Exeter. When we reexamine the relic-lists and early references to developments at Exeter in the light of the archaeological data which have accrued over the last decade, we are led to a very different picture of the minster^ power and wealth during the tenth century from that which is pro­ vided by the testimony of Leofric's inventory. The question which we must now ask is how much we can know about the scriptorium at Exeter before Leofric's episcopate. I have pursued this question by examining one coherent collection of Exeter manuscripts which， as a group， cannot be readily assigned to any other known scriptorium. While such a manuscript group would not necessarily have to have originated at Exeter, the possibility that it did deserves consideration. The hand of Exeter, Cathedral Library, MS. 3501, the 'Exeter Book* of Old English poetry, has not heretofore been convincingly ascribed to any scriptor­ ium, but the same hand is to be found in two other manuscripts: London, Lambeth Palace, MS. 149, containing Bede's Explanatto Apocalypsis and Augustine's De adulterinis coniugiis; and Oxford, Bodleian Library, MS. Bodley 319 (S.C. 2226) containing Isidore’s ふ car/iofica.1 The hand in question is a Square-minuscule script of the second half of the tenth century, which I shall endeavour to date more securely in chapter IV of this study. Exeter, Cathedral Library, MS. 3501 is a complex codex worthy of close scrutiny in any study of Anglo-Saxon cultural history, it is complex in that it comprises three separate booklets (all apparentiy written by the same scribe, although he may have been aided by a second scribe in one of the units), and pivotal in that it contains poems which can be argued to derive from two distinct cultural points of view.2 One major study has been made of the manuscript, / ^ See plates VIII, X, and XI; the Old English contents of the manuscripts were described by Ker, Catalogue, pp.153t 340 and 360-1 (nos 116,275, and 308); Ker's physical collation of Exeter 3501,the "Exeter Bcx>k\ is incorrect as printed in his Catalogue, p . 153 (no. 116); he acknowledged tbe defect and printed a correction in Medieval Manuscripts, 11.807. On the identity of the band in the three manuscripis, see Kcr, Catalogue, p.lvii. 2 For a preliminary account of the codicology of the 'Exeter B ook\ see Conner, *Tbe struc­ ture*.

32

33

Anglo-Saxon Exeter

Two Groups o f Tenth-century Manuscripts

undertaken to accompany the publication in 1933 of a complete facsimile edition.3 That this book was the mycel englisc boc be gehwilcum pingum on leodwisan geworhu 'one large English book with everything cast as poetry\

Palace, MS. 149, and the 4Exeter Book% although he attributed the recognition of the relationship to Kenneth Sisam. *The resemblance of the two scripts is so close,* Flower wrote, (there there can be little doubt that they were written, if not in the same scriptorium, in the same narrowly defined script area, and in the same period.'9 Flower saw several text-scribes at work in Lambeth 149, whereas I see but one. He may have been influenced by M. R. James in this, although James did not suggest several scribes, but two.10 Had Rower not perceived the work of multiple scribes in both this manuscript and the "Exeter Book\ he might have been more willing to declare that the two manuscripts were written in one scriptorium. I surmise that he was hesitant to locate both books in a single scriptorium since the variations among the hands which he perceived in one manuscript do not neatly replicate the variations in the other. I am convinced, however, that any differences between hands m the two manuscripts are a result of one scribed habits changing slightly over time and between languages. Therefore, I must assign Lambeth 149 to the same scriptorium as produced Bodley 319 and the ‘Exeter B ook' Lambeth 149 does, however, offer a perplexing inscription which has also seemed significant for the history of other books from Exeter. Robin Flower first exploited it to support his contention that this book, and the 'Exeter Book' too, may have been associated with ^Ethelweard the chronicler, iElfric the homilist's patron and lay founder of Cerne Abbas.11 The inscription on fo 138v reads thus:12

yhich is named in Leofric’s inventory has been assumed - and reasonably s o since the 1560s when John Joscdyn annotated a transcript of the inventory at this point with the comment [Hie] liber Saxonicus [habe]t quaternionem [injsutam in principio [que] continet harte [cajrtam cum aliis, *this Saxon book has a gathering sewn in at the beginning which contains this document with Others'.4 He was no doubt referring to the eight folios of preliminary material which had been bound with the Exeter Book since the early fifteenth century.5 No one has ever seriously contested the identification of the entry in Leofric^ inventory with the Exeter Book, but neither has anyone suggested that the manuscript's eleventh-century provenance may also have been its place of origin. Through his study of the hand of the Exeter Book, Robin Flower found no reason to attribute the manuscript to any specific institution. He did üoint out, however, that it *has the appearance of a manuscript written in an active and wcll-furmshed scriptorium of this time. The very individual character of the script suggests that it was written away from the main centres, although under their influence.*6 Oxford, Bodleian Library, MS. Bodley 319 (S.C. 2226), containing Isidore's De fide catholics is written in the same hand as the Exeter Book. A copy of Isidore's De miraculis Christi (an older designation iorD efide catholica) is also listed in Leofric*s inventory, although Max Förster and Elaine Drage identified that notice with MS. Bodley 394 (S.C. 2225) which also contains De fide catholica and in which Drage identified three short additions made at Exeter at the end of the eleventh century or the beginning of the twelfth.7 MS. Bodley 394 is also probably the *Ad Florentinam Iudei nepharia' in the Exeter inventory dated 1327; it is certainly the 4Ysidorus ad Florentinam t4De latere" [sic]9of the 1506 inventory. While Neil Ker identified Bodley 319 with the Liber Isidori de miraculis Christi of the inventory, Drage has thought that it must rather be that text's Liber Isidori de nouo et ueteri testamento. Nevertheless, both books were at Exeter in 1327 and 1506, according to the inventories made of the library during those years; both were given to the Bodleian Library in 1602.8 Regard­ less of which description MS. Bodley 319 best fits in the inventory, the relation­ ship between Bodley 319 and the 4Exeter Book* is unmistakable; not only is the hand the same, but the display-initials are of the same design in both manu­ scripts, as arc the marks used to indicate the ends of texts. We may safely conclude that MS. Bodley 319 and the *Exeter Book* were written in the same scriptorium. Robin Flower first described the relationship between London, Lambeth 」

The Exeter Book, facs. edd. Chambers et al.%p p .1-94. Cambridge, CoTpus Christi College, M S.101, fo 62; we Flower, *The script*, p. 91. See appendix VI (pp. 242-4). Flower. 'The script*, p. 84. Drage, *Bishop U ofnc\ p. 402; for the Uxt, m tofAui, Id. Mlgne, LXXXID.449-

I

538.

Hunc quoque uoluminem yEtheluuardus dux gratia Dei ad monasterium Sancte Mane genetricis Saluatoris nostri condonauit; quod est in loco qui dicitur.......... Hoc autem donum factum est anno ab incamacione redemptionis nostre .mxvui. Inai.1, By the grace of God, Ealdorman iEthelweard has given this volume too (quoque) to the monastery of Mary üic holy mother of our Saviour; that is in the place which is called ............Moreover, this gift is made in the 1018th year from the incarnation of our redemption, the first indiction. The name of the place where the gift was made is obscured from us by an application of reagent. Joyce Hill has examined the leaf carefully and has calculated that the obliterated word following dicitur 4may reasonably be presumed to have been anything from eleven to fourteen letters long.* She suggests variant Latin forms Oydfto/ze/ww or CWdfone/m’5, and Exo/we/wfs or Exoncestria for Crediton and Exeter respectively.13 I prefer to suggest that Attauistoca is also the right length, and has, I hope to show, a better claim.14 9 Flower, ‘The script’, p. 85. i〇 James & Jenkins, ^4 Descriptive Catalogue, 11.237. 11 Flower, *The script*, pp. 85-90; Lambeth 149 was described by James & Jenkins, A Descrip­ tive Catalogue, 11.237-9. 12 See Plate IX. »3 Hill, 'The Exeter Book and Lambeth Palace Library MS 149: a reconsideration% p . 115; Hill's description of fo 138v is the most detailed and accurate available, but see also Drage, 'Bishop Leofric', pp. 374-^. Attauistoca it attested in the abbey's foundation charter; see Finberg, Tavistock Abbey, p. 279. 14

33

Anglo-Saxon Exeter Robin Flower was convinced that iEthelweard^ generous donation of at least two books, of which Lambeth 149 is one, was most likely to have been made to the monastery of Saint Mary the Mother of Our Saviour at Crediton, because an Ealdorman v€thelweard witnessed a Crediton charter and a St Germans charter in 1018, and the see of St Germans was regularly associated with the see of Devon located since 909 at Crediton.1516As Hill, the most recent investigator of the inscription, has pointed out, ^thelw card^ attestation of a Gediton charter in 1018 and one for St Germans in the same year does not necessarily demon­ strate any particular interest in Crediton. iEthelweard would have been expected to witness Wessex documents generally during his period of office . . . .，16 Moreover, while the epithet *genetricis Saluatoris nostri* certainly is in keeping with the dedication of the monastery at Gediton, a similar dedication was used for Tavistock, genitrici semperque uirgini Mariae, which would also have been in iEthelweard's jurisdiction.17 H. R R. Finberg further identified two eleventhcentury manuscripts of iElfric's homilies as having a Tavistock provenance; these are Cambridge, University Library, MS. Ii.4.6, and London, British Library, MS. Cotton Vitellius C.v. He pointed out that iEthelweard, vElfric's patron, attested the Tavistock foundation-charter of A.D. 981.18 Hill has argued persuasively that the reference to the Marian dedication of the monasterium in question in the inscription in the Lambeth Bede points more likely to the house at Crediton than to St Peter^ at Exeter, and, given a choice between those two institutions, she is undoubtedly correct But Tavistock's is at least equally likely to have been the obliterated name in the inscription, since the name is the correct length, the church quite definitely had a Marian dedication, and other known manuscripts can be associated both with the house at Tavistock and because these contain /Elfric's works - with >Ethelwcard as well, for the reasons given by Flower.19 The inscription on fo 138v is dramatic in its suggestiveness about where the Lambeth Bede may have been presented, but it in fact gives us only negative information about where the book was written. Presumably, if the hiatus could be filled, then we should know where the manuscript was probably not written， but that is all. It seems to me that the more productive question is not what was written in the now obscured spot, because üiat is not discoverable with present technology, but why anyone had to apply reagent to the spot to begin with. Had someone already scraped away the name of the place in question, so that an early scholar tried to bring out by his heavy application of reagent what was already unreadable? Or is it possible that someone meant to obliterate by erasure the information in this inscription? What possible reason could there be for that unless it had been (or was suspected to have been) removed illegally

Two Groups o f Tenth-century Manuscripts from the library identified in the missing name? Certainly, the >Ethelweardinscription is a puzzle, and not one which seems likely to provide much evi­ dence at present about the history of Exeter books. Moreovo*, there is no reason to assume that, because Lambeth 149 was presented to a certain church, any other book associated with Exeter would have accompanied it.20 The inscription notwithstanding, we have a group of three manuscripts London, Lambeth Palace, MS. 149; Exeter, Cathedral Library, MS. 3501; and Oxford, Bodleian Library, MS. Bodley 319 - which were all written by the same scribe and presumptively in the same scriptorium.21 There are, however, three other books whose script is related to that of the *Exeter Book* and for which we can establish no associations earlier than those with Exeter. The hana is variously dated in the late tenth or early eleventh century, and it may be seen as a conservative evolution of the hand of the 'Exeter Book*. The first (and I think the oldest) of the three manuscripts in this second hand is Exeter, Cathedral Library, MS. 3507, which includes, among other works, Hrabanus Maurus*s De computo^ and Isidore^ De natura rerum?2 Although no one has ever succeeded in identifying the Exeter Hrabanus with any of the items in Leofiric's donation-list, scholars have generally assumed that, because the manuscript was written by the scribe who also wrote Oxford, Bodleian Library, MS. Bodley 718 (S.C. 2632) (which contains a copy of Pope Leo IX's letter to Edward the Confessor authorising the removal of the sec to Exeter, written in the hand of one of Leofric's scribes), MS. 3507 must have come to Exeter with Leofric as well. Neil Ker cited its entry in the Exeter inventory of 1327 and added that the book was at Exeter *no doubt much earlier1.23 We should not be suiprised by the absence of Exeter 3507 from Leofric^ inventory, given that a copy of the Old English translation of Bede^ Historia ecclesiastica (Cambridge, Corpus Christi College, MS. 41)even has a Leofric-inscription, but was omitted from the list.24 Bodley 718 too cannot be proved to be in the Leofric-inventory, because it has no inscription and its contents are not unambiguously described by any of

rium'; I am most grateful to Joyce Hill for her generosity in providing me with a copy of her study of the Exeter and Crediton dedications before its publication. ^ Flower, *The script*, pp, 87,89.

2〇It is possible that Leofric was responsible for returning Lambeth 149 to Exeter, and that he is responsible for removing the name of the location of the Church of St Mary as a part of this effort. Such a line of thought leads to several fascinating conjectures about how he might have known that the book belonged to Exeter in the first place. Was there an earlier cata­ logue, just as there were earlier relic-lists? Do letter-forms of some of the imitation Square minuscule produced in Leofric's scriptorium, which are similar to the forms in Lambeth MS. 149, indicate an awareness of an Exeter script-tradition which Leofric exploited to claim books already given to other houses? No evidence has yet been assembled lo support either conjecture. 21 Flower, *The script*, p. 83, suggested that several scribes wrote the ^Exeter Book', but he did not identify their stints; I have searched in vain for his papers and notes which might at least describe the tentative boundaries of scribal stints. Officials at the British Library have kindly obliged me in looking for these as well as the binder's notes from 1932 when the *Exeter Book* was rebound there, but these records do not seem to have been kept 22 Ker, Medieval Manuscripts, 11.813-1 4 ; Drage, 4Bishop L eofric\ pp. 349-50; see also Stevens, Scientific instruction1, pp. 99-100, where the contents of this manuscript have been compared with those of London, British Library, MS. Cotton Vitellius A.xii. 23 Ker, Medieval Manuscripts, 11.814. m Kert C aM /0fU f,pp.43^6(no.32).

36

37

15 Flower, *The script*, pp. 87-8. 16 Hill, *The Exeter Book and Lambeth Palace Libnuy MS 149: a reconsideration*, p p ,113-14. 17 See Finberg, Tavistock Abbey, p. 279; the tenth-century Tavistock foundation-charter has this

phrase twice, both limes in exactly this forni. 18 Ibid., p. 223, n . 1 .Hill, "The Exeter Book and Lambeth Palace Library MS 149: the monaste­

Anglo-Saxon Exeter

Two Groups o f Tenth-century Manuscripts

the inv〒 Uory.cntries; yet it was most certainly among the volumes available to Lcofric s scribes, for at least two items were added to the manuscript in Leofric's scriptorium at Exeter. The book was presented by the Dean and Chapter of Exeter Cathedral to Thomas Bodley at Oxford in 1602.25 Following a note in the Bodleian Library's Summary Catalogue, Otto Pacht and Jonathan Alexander pointed to the reference to St Felix in a litany on fo 16v, and recalled i€thclstan*s alleged bestowal on Exeter of a relic of Pope Felix the martyr.26 If it could be proved that the reference to Felix in the litany necessarily reflected such a gift, we should have an argument for the manuscript^ origin at Exeter. I have not, however, been able to find conclusive evidence for a special concern with any Felix, pope and martyr (at least three popes named Felix were mar­ tyred before the fifth century), at Exeter, although the presence of a relic there might indeed be sufficient reason to cause the name to be entered in the litany. Dorothy Bethurum noted that the contents of Bodley 718 overlap with the contents of several other manuscripts harbouring the liturgical, penitential, pas­ toral, and homiletic materials (often in similar arrangements) which Archbishop

College, MS. 190, containing additions in the hands of several of Leofric^ scribes and generally accepted as the o/z 7 脚 oc on ぎ/ in the inventory.32 The third manuscript in this second hand is Paris, Bibliothèque nationale, MS. Latin 943, the 'Sherborne Pontificar. This has been attributed to Canter­ bury on the basis of its initials and drawings, but its script is identical to that of Exeter, Cathderai Library, MS. 3507, and Bodley 718. An added list of the bishops of Sherborne witii a terminus ante quern of A.D. 1012 indicates that the book was at Sherborne quite soon after it was written, which is why it cannot be connected with Bishop Leofric.33 However, the arguments for ascribing the origin of the pontifical to either Canterbury or Sherborne are built, I think, on weaker evidence than we have for attributing it to Exeter. My attribution is based on the script which it shares with Bodley 718 and Exeter 3507, both of which have clear connexions with Exeter; on the two homilies annexed to the pontifical which occur elsewhere only in a manuscript known to have been written at Exeter - London, Lambeth Palace, MS. 489; and on the textual arrangement of the Frankish statutes, which it shares with Bodley 718. The Sherborne attribution is based on the fact that the manuscript contains a list of the bishops of Sherborne (fo lv), a letter addressed to Wulfsige (Wulfsinus), the first monastic bishop of the diocese (fos 2r~3r), and a letter by ^Ethelric, the next bishop of Sherborne (fo 170v) which was added to the last leaf of the manuscript. No one, I think, would question Sherborne as the early eleventh-century provenance for the manuscript, and the letter addressed by the archbishop of Canterbury to Bishop Wulfsige would seem to make the book a presentation-copy, which suggests that it may have come to Sherborne in 993 when he became bishop there. All of this, however, argues against its having been written at Sherborne. A recent attribution of the manuscript to Canterbury points to the drawings at the front of the book and to the one elaborated initial (an A on fo lOr) as

W u lfs ta n d re w u p o n in h is w o rk s. S h e p o s tu la te d th a t m o s t o f th e s e m a n u s c rip ts

were copied from, or in some fashion related to, a collection which Wulfstan himself had assembled at Worcester. As she noted, however, Bodley 718 ante­ dates Wulfstan*s incumbency there, although it contains the penitentials as they must have existed at Worcester just prior to Wulfstan's time.27 Nevertheless, there is no evidence that Bodley 718 was itself ever at Worcester, and thus no evidence that it was ever moved during the tenth century.28 If the manuscript had been written at Exeter, then it probably remained there until it was aug­ mented in Lcofric's scriptorium.29 Ultimately, the texts in Bodley 718 can be traced back to a collection of Frankish canons and statutes known as the Quadripartitus,30 Particularly noteworthy for any attempt to localise this manuscript is the fact that the prologue to the Penitential of Ecgberht in Bodley 718 is followed by a set of Frankish statutes headed Iura quae sacerdotes debent habere,11 The same unusual anangement is found in Paris, Bibliothèque nation­ ale, MS. latin 943, the *Shcrborne Pontifical1, written in the same hand as Bodley 718; in other pontificals of the late tenth century from the DevonCornwall area; and in manuscripts of the eleventh century which Bethurum noted as related to Wulfstan^ collection, including Cambridge, Corpus Christi w Drage, *Bishop Leofric*, pp. 407-10. M Pächt et al.. Illuminated Manuscripts, 111.5 (no. 36); Hunt et al., A Summary Catalogue, II, pt l,p p . 459-60 (no. 2632). Bethurum, ^Archbishop Wulfstan's commonplace book*, pp. 916,928. 2* Contra Frantzen, The Literature o f Penance, p . 131, who has inferred too much fitom Bethuium's remark (^Archbishop Wulfstan's commonplace book', p. 928) that Bodley 718 'contains merely ihc penitentials as they existed at Worcester in the tenth century'. On fo 179 are four notes in late eleventh-century hands relating to lands in Oxfordshire, specifically at Banbury, Aylesbury, and Thame. See Hunt et 〇 /., A Summary Catalogue, U, pt l* PP* 459-60 (no. 2632); also Drage, 'Bishop L eofric\ pp. 408» 410. If the manuscript was in Oxfordshire for a time, it was returned to Exeter before 1327, for k occun in the 1327 inventory and was presented to the Bodleian in 1601 30 Soe Kerff. Der Quadripardtus, pp. 20-1. Hohler, *Some service-booki\ pp. 72 and 223(-4), n. 47, has interpreted Ihli anangem ent as indicative o f a Slipshod stale of mind' on the part of the higher ranks of Old Bngltih clergy.

38

the art in a manscript can be shown to be intrinsically bound to the scribe's work, it is indeed possible that the artwork may not share a place of origin with the script. After all, there are numerous manuscripts extant which never re­ ceived the embellishments apparently planned for them.35 If the letter from the archbishop and at least some of the remarkable drawings in the Sherborne Pontifical, (on fos 4v, 5v, 6r, and 6v) had been made specifically as preliminary materials for this manuscript in order to prepare it as a presentation-copy for 32 Frantzen, The Literature o f Penance, p . 131; Bethumm, 'Archbishop Wulfstan*s common­ place book*, p. 919; Ker, Catalogue, p. 73 (no. 45); Drage, *Bishop L eofric\ pp. 317-21. The Frankish statutes are discussed further in connexion with Paris, Bibliothèque nationale, MS. latin 943, below* pp. 43-4. 33 For the Canterbury attribution and a bibüogrj^hy of the manuscript, see Temple, AngloSaxon Manuscripts, pp. 60-1 (no. 35); D. H. T\irner (in The Golden Age, edd. Backhouse et a i t p. 55 [no. 34]), contra Temple, supported the possibility of Sherborne as the manuscript^ place of origin. M Temple, Anglo-Saxon Manuscripts, pp. 60-1 (no. 3S). 33 Brownrigg, 'Manuscripts containing English decoration*, p. 241; Brownrigg has nevertheless agreed with Tbmple'i attribution of BN MS. latin 943 pp. 2SZ-3).

39

Anglo-Saxon Exeter

Two Groups ofTenth-century Manuscripts

Wulfsigc, that in itself argues neither for nor against the same scriptorium^ having been the origin of the main part of the book. Its drawings may be from Canterbury, accompanying as they do a letter of encouragement in his future work from Wulfsige's archbishop, specifically written, I should think, for the book in which it occurs. The skill of üie main scribe is obvious, so that he might have been commissioned by the archbishop to write the work, or the presenta­ tion may have been conceived in the scribe's own house, and the archbishop took the opportunity to add his letter to the drawings which his scriptorium provided. I should suspect that any liturgical book, such as a pontifical, would have to have something like the imprimatur of the archbishop, at least after the time of the council which produced Regularis concordia, so that it would not have been very strange if Wuifsige*s pontifical had come to Canterbury before going to the bishop at Sherborne, no matter where it was written. The argument has been advanced that BN MS. latin 943 was St Dunstan's own pontifical. The primary support for the position is the letter beginning on fo 7r, a copy of Pope John XII's grant of privileges to Dunstan in 960 when he gave him the archiepiscopal pallium.36 Certainly, it makes sense that Dunstan's pontifical would contain such a letter, and indeed the letter to Wulfsige seems to continue just such a tradition by providing a letter for the bishop, announcing his elevation and exhorting him to his pastoral duties, so that one might be disposed to agree that this must have been Dunstan^ pontifical which was prepared as a presentation to Wulfsige. It may be relevant, however, that the papal letter in the pontifical has an introductory rubric (fo 7r) which other mediaeval copies of the letter do not contain.37

the authority of the Church of St Peter; given this, the document would seem to serve a bishop particularly well who had in turn been consecrated by Dunstan. The extant kalendars from the second half of the tenth century all have Dunstan's feast added to 19 May in hands which may be dated to the end of the tenth century, and all kalendars written before 1100 (but after his death in 988) include the feast in the main hand.39 It appears thus that Dunstan was revered immediately upon his death.40 There is nothing improbable, then, in the hypo­ thesis that the letter conferring Dunstan's privileges would be an appropriate addition to a pontifical designed for a reforming bishop like Wulfsige. This is especially true when the pastoral nature of the letter of privileges is realised: its purpose was to identify Ae times when the pallium should be worn, and to lay down the principles which should guide an archbishops life and work.41 The same principles should also guide a bishop. By specifically associating Dunstan's archiepiscopal elevation with the altar of St Peter via the pallium, the rubric does in fact portray that elevation as a matter of the consensus and judgment of the whole Church, and not as the unilateral decision of a single pope who had probably died by the time when the pontifical was copied.42Thus, I should argue, pastoral authority as expressed in the letter is extended to the bishops consecrated through Canterbury since Dunstan *s time, because Canter­ bury's authority at the time of the Benedictine revolution descended from the ancient Church via the altar of St Peter, and not from the person of the Pope.43 Moreover, Wulfsige's reformation of Sherborne in 998, exactly ten years after the archbishop^ death, may have benefited from the display of such authority as Dunstan's letter of privileges would have represented by then.44 In any case, the letter, so prefaced, may be there for an audience different from Dunstan himself - perhaps an audience which did not readily accept the authority lying behind the Benedictine reforms which Wulfsige was to bring about.

Incipit aepistola priuilegii quam iubente Iohanne papa suscepta benedictione ab eo D unstan archiepiscopus a suis m anibus a c c e p t sed pallium a suis m anibus n o n accepit sed eo iubente ab altare Sancti Petri Apostoli. H ere begins the letter o f privilege w hich A rchbishop D unstan received upon decree from Pope John at his hand, having (already) obtained benediction from him ; b u t h e did n o t receive the pallium from him a t his h an d but by h is decree from the altar o f S t P eter th e Apostle.

If wc examine how the pallium was presented to Dunstan, to iEthelnoth in 1020, and to Lanfranc in 1072, we see that the presentation romano more required the new archbishop to take the pallium from the altar, and that a second pallium might be presented by the Pope as an indication of sui am o rist This preface then emphasises that Dunstan's privileges derive not from friendship, but from » The letter was edited by Whilelock et a l, Councils, 1.88-92. See also Holizmann, Papsturkünden, 1.242, and Zimmerman, Papsmrkunäen, 1.271-4.1 am much in Jane Rosenthal's debt for discussion and advice concerning the letter. v The letter occurs without the prefaces in William of Malmesbury's Life of St Dunstan, for which see Memorials, ed. Stubbs, pp. 296-8; in ihc same author's Gesia pontificum Anglorum, for which see Willelmi Malmesbiriensis monachi de Gestis pontfficum Anglorum* ed. Hamilton, pp. 61-2; and in Eadmer's Historia nouorum%for which see Eadmeri Historia Novorum, ed. Rule, p. 274. J, Councils, edd. Whitclock et a i %1.448. n. 5; 11.590-1 ,6 0 1 .

40

T h e c o n n e x io n b e tw e e n W u lfsig e a n d D u n s ta n seem s to h a v e b e e n a c lo se

one, so that we should not be surprised that a letter about Dunstan's privileges would occur in a pontifical for Wulfsige. Dunstan seems to have been something o f a m e n to r to W u lfs ig e ， su ch that in h is VZtó S a/icrt £>w似 W illia m o f Malmesbury listed Wulfsige with iEthelwold and Oswald as among Dunstan's exemplary students and described him as *of most pious memoryJ (sanctissimae

39 See English Kalendars before A J> ,1100, ed. Wormald: Dunstan's feast does not occur in n o . 1 (Oxford, Bodleian Library» MS. Digby 63, fo 42r) which Wormald dated to the ninth century; the feast was added to no. 2 (Salisbury, C a th e to l Library, M S .150, fo 5) dated by Wormald ca 969 x 978, and to no. 4 (Oxford, Bodleian Library, MS. Bodley 579, fo 41r) dated by Woimald ca 970; the feast is written in the main hand in the remaining kalendars which Wcamald analysed, all of which he dated in varying periods falling between 988 and

1100. 40 Stubbs, Memorials, pp. ix-x; see also Barlow, The English Church 1000-1066, pp. 62-71. Brodcs, The Early History, p. 244. 42 Pope John XIÏ died on 4 December 963; see Hughes, A History o f the Church, 11.449.

43 Undoubtedly the original reason for the rite of taking the pallium from the altar was to free the presentation of any taint of favouritism or simony and to associate the archepiscopal elevation with the will of the Church. 44 Barlow, The English Church J000~1066, pp. 64-3.

41

Anglo-Saxon Exeter

Two Groups of Tenth-century Manuscripts

memoriae) to Dunsten.« Moreover, WiUiam tells us in his Gesta pontificum Anglorum that Dunstan had promoted Wulfsige to be abbot at Westminster when he himself was bishop of London.« WiUiam's information, in both of his works, about Wulfsige's conversion of Sherborne to a Benedictine community is confirmed by a diploma of King 疋 thelred, dated 998, in favour of the bishop and the community, giving permission for just such a conversion. Recent students of the charter agree on its authenticity.^ Thus, all indications are that Wulfsige was indeed a protégé of Dunstan and that his purpose at Sherborne was to institute a reformed monastic community there; he is one of at least seven Glastonbury monks whose formation under Dunstan led them to high office during the Benedictine revolution.« The edited letter of Dunstan's privüeges would have been appropnate in a pontifical prepared for any of these men. London, Lambeth Palace, MS. 489, a manuscript from Leofric's scriptorium at Exeter, contains two homilies on the dedication of a church, one copied after the other on fos 44v-58v.49 These same homilies (with minor variations) are annexed to the Sherborne Pontifical*, where they are written in two different Squarc-nunuscule hands contemporary with the main hand of the pontifical Therefore, although the homiUes could have been added to the pontifical any­ where, the presence of the same texts in Lambeth 489, which was certainly written at Exeter, is a good argument for their having been added at Exeter In addition to sharing script and two homilies which can be identified with Exeter, the 'Sherborne Pontifical' also participates in a benedictional tradition which, in the tenth century, seems to have been localised at Winchester and Exeter, although it appears to have spread to Christ Church, Canterbury, in the eleventh century. Benedictions in the 'Sherborne Pontifical' have recently been identified with the shortened pontifical in the benedictional of ^thelwold (London.British Library, MS. Add. 49598) and with the so-caücd benedictional of Archbishop Robert* (Rouen, Bibliothèque municipale, MS. Y.7 [369]), both of which onginated at Winchester in the second half of the tenth century.50 Still extant in the Cathedral Library at Exeter is MS. 3548C, a bifolium-fragment of a benedictional which has been shown to be closely related to the ‘Benedic-

tional of St iEthelwold* in the texts wmch it preserves and in its script.51 In the tnird quarter of the eleventh century, a pontifical with benedictional was pro­ duced at Exeter, presumably tor Bishop Leofnc's use (now London, British Library, MS. Add. 28188).52 This might have been copied from Exeter MS. 3548C before the latter was broken up to be used in the binding of other books, or it may have been copied from another book which aenved directly or indirectiy from the tradition of ^Ethelwold's own benedictional from Winchester.53 In any case, the use of 疋 thelwold’s benedictions in the ‘Sherborne Pontifical’ may be yet another indication of its affiliation with Exeter, since there is no additional support for its origin at "Winchester. The 'Sherborne Pontifical* also participates in what looks like a penitential tradition localised at or near Exeter.54 Like MS. Bodley 718 written in the same hand, the Frankish collection of statutes with the rubric Iura quae sacerdotes debent tenere follows the prologue of the text known as the Penitential of Ecgberht on fos 149r-150v.5S Among the sixteen pontificals surviving from the Anglo-Saxon Church,56 this arrangement occurs also in the so-called *Ecgberht Pontifical* (Paris, Bibliothèque nationale, MS. latin 10575) and the lLanalet Pontifical' (Rouen, Bibliothèque municipale, MS. A.27 [368]).57 The most re­ cent editor of the 'Ecgberht PontificaI, noted a number of points of comparison between it and the 'Leofric Missal*; particularly important, beside similanues between their respective litanies, arc some features which suggest that the pontifical was copied from an exemplar which shared the northern French origins of the ‘Leofric M issal' Moreover, the ‘Ecgberht Pontifical， also shares a number of features with the *Lanalet Pontifical*, almost certainly a West Country production.58 The Xanalet Pontifical* declares itself on fo 196r to have

4S Memorials, ed. Stubbs, pp. 303-4. 44 * ? 1J « 1- HamUt〇n, p . 178); WUüam apparenüy confused this Wulfsige with an earlier bishop

**

of Sherborne of the same name; but information which can be verified by reference to ep tacy al lists makes it clear that the Wulfsige who became bishop o f Sherborne in 993 is intended; Knowles, The Monastic Order, p. 50, interpreted WilUam's en o r similarly here S»wyer. Anglo-Saxon Charters, no. 895; Keynes. The Diplomas ofK ingM thelred, p. 256. For 5.°"®, sur^!?y of Wulfsi8 e s career, see Barlow, The English Church 1000-1066, pp. 223-4 Knowles, TÄe Monastic Order, p. 65, n. 3, Usted In addition to Wulfsige «thelsar who lucceeded Dunstan as archbishop in 988; C^neward, who became Uihop of Wells in 974Lyfuig, who became archbishop in 1013; ÄlfWold, who bMUM blihop of Crediton in 988;

二 ご

ä

ä

一

1-27.

51 Ker, Medieval Manuscripts, 11.840- 1 ; Robinson, 'On a fragment*; Drage, ^Bishop Leofnc*,

pp. 353-4. See chapter I ( p . 18), above, for a suggestion concerning the relationship of this fragment to the drawings in Oxford, Bodleian Library, MS. Bodley 579, the *Leofric Missal*. 52 Prescott, *The te x t\ p . 144; BL Add. 28188 has been described by Drage, 'Bishop Leo&ic*, pp. 357-9; see Clayton, *Feasts of the Virgin*, for an explanation of a later connexion between Winchester and Exeter based on shared texts (from tiie third quarter of the eleventh century) for the celebration of the feast of the Conception in BL Add. 28188 and (added to) the ‘LeoMc Missal’. 53 Prescott， ‘The text’ ，p . 144. 54 See above, pp. 38-9, where this material is discussed in connexion with Oxford, Bodleian Library, MS. Bodley 718, wherein the preface to the Penitential of Ecgberht similarly precedes the same Frankish statutes. 35 Hohler， ‘Some service-books’，pp. 72 and 223(-4) ，n. 47, has interpreted the arrangement of the statutes as indicative of a ‘sÜpshod state o t mind’ on the part of the higher ranks of Old English clergy. (See above ，n. 31.) We have to wonder whether such an error - if error it is would have been perpetuated at the metropolitan seat in Canterbury. 36 Listed by Gneuss， ‘Liturgical books’，p . 1き2. 57 My collation of the prefaces in BN latin 943 and Bodley 718, however, shows either that the two manuscripts were not directly dependent on one another or that one was liberally edited as it was copied. Obviously, much more work remains to be done in this area. The two homilies, however, in the ^Sherborne Pontifical* and Lambeth 489, may be directly related. Seo above, p.42. 51 Banting, TWo Anglo-Saxon Pontificals^ pp. xv-xxxvii. Ker, Catalogui, p. 4 4 1 (no. 370).

43

Anglo-Saxon Exeter

Two Groups o f Tenth-century Manuscripts

been possessed by Bishop Lyfing, presumably the bishop of Crediton/St Oermans who died in 1046; moreover, it contains a form of excommunication which it attributes to the bishop of Lanalet Minster in Cornwall. Since the bishop of Crediton administered the see of Cornwall as well as that of Devon, the attribution of the book to Crediton is reasonable.59 Crediton is, of course, just ä few miles from Exeter, and thus all the localised manuscripts written in the second half of the tenth century and containing the Frankish canons inserted after the prologue to the Penitential of Ecgberht are found in the same area. The conclusion is that the 'Sherborne Pontifical' very plausibly could have been written at Exeter, given our present knowledge of the manuscript, in spite Of its artwork which might derive from Canterbury. Of course, we do not know that its drawings could not have been produced at Exeter; certainly, the general style seems to emanate from Glastonbury, as the drawing in lSt Dunstan's Classbook* suggests.60 Obviously, a great deal more work needs to be done with the three manuscripts written in this hand in order to examine their associations more carefully, and either to establish more fully or to demolish the hypothesis that they were written at Exeter. Exeter 3507, Bodley 718, and the 'Sherborne Pontifical' represent very considerable achievements in book-production, which may have been the natural evolution of the standards set by the 'Exeter Book' scribe himself and which may even owe their original impetus to /Ethelstan's reported endowment of the minster in the earlier tenth century. A very important link between these two groups of manuscripts, that is, the three codices in the hand of the 'Exeter Book' and the three in the hand of the 'Sherborne Pontifical', lies in London, Lambeth Palace, MS. 149. This manuicript, written in the same hand as the 'Exeter Book', has been extensively corrected by the scribe of the 'Sherborne Pontifical'.61 That fact allows us to argue the probability that these two related hands were associated with the same senptorium in the second half of the tenth century. Thus we have six instances of manuscripts which reflect a variety of attitudes and interests, none of which may have been inappropriate at Exeter, given its history from yEthelstan's alleged refoundation of the minster in the 930s to Swegn's raid in 1003.1 am unable to construct a hypothesis which will, while recognising the relationships of the scripts, posit another plausible origin for them and which is also conso­ nant with their other features: the connexions with Leofric^ donation-list or »criptorium, and the established presence at Exeter of all but one of them, the 'Sherborne Pontifical', which nevertheless contains two homilies known to have been available at Exeter in the second half of the eleventh century. In an important examination of the eleventh-century manuscripts from Exeter, T. A. M. Bishop has codified a principle concerning the establishment of origins

which is relevant as well to the earlier manuscripts with which we are concerned here.62

» Oneuss, *Linii»lcal books', p . 132; Ker, Catalogue, p. 448 (no. 374); on the possibility that p e ’Lancet Pontifi.car was written for use at Tkvistock, see Stéphan, ‘Tavistock et Jど ， and Bantin丨 • 抑 ■lSax ；i /*〇 /!/诉 ca/j, p. xxxi, n. 76; the man咖 issions in the 'Leofiic Missal' allow one to ar^ue for cither an Exeter or a Tavistock connexion, since Ordulf was the lay founder of the minster at Ikvistock; see above, pp. 35-6. m Roienthal/Three drawings'. pp.SSl-2. «1 See plate VIII.

T h a t these com e from the E xeter C athedral L ibrary is not p ro o f th a t they w ere w ritten a t E xeter; th e library contained M SS. o f w idely various origins. T h at they h av e a generic script in com m on is not p ro o f th a t they w ere all w ritten at a com m on centre; a m erely generic script m ight b e a m erely regional one. B ut the coincidence o f a com m on provenance and a com m on script suggests a com m on origin, and th a t in a n E xeter scriptorium .

Neither provenance nor script alone implies origin, but an identity of proven­ ance and script does, and the origin of these six manuscripts at Exeter is more probable than not. There are very distinct and identifiable hands in them, sharing the same letter-forms and the same general sense of layout, design of initials，油d use of ornament. Moreover， we are apparently dealing with only two hands, not the multiplicity of hands employed in the later manuscripts about which T. A. M. Bishop was writing. The two tenth-century groups arc linked by the fact that the hand of Exeter, Cathedral Library, MS. 3507 (which, as I shall demonstrate in chapter IV, is the later of the two hands), is the corrector’s hand in a codex written by the scribe of the ‘Exeter Book’. We have a generic script, exemplified here in the work of only two scribes, and with both hands associated in one of the six manuscripts. Each manuscript in the two linked groups can reasonably be associated with Exeter, and no example of cither of these hands can be unambiguously associated with any other centre. The simplest and best explanation of the facts is that the six manuscripts which survive of these scribes* work originated within a scriptorium at Exeter. A second result of the study of these manuscripts is that it calls into question the authority of Leofric^ inventory as a donation-list of the Exeter Cathedral Library, even in the second half of the eleventh century. At least half of the six books examined above are not mentioned in the donation-list, and yet one of them, Exeter 3507, may have been at Exeter at the time, since it was named in the 1327 inventory, can be traced at Exeter thereafter, and remains there today. It is difficult to imagine why Exeter would have wanted this book after the eleventh century (except as a curiosity), when its stiff script and runic alphabet would have made it appear strange indeed, so that its presence in the 1327 inventory favours the chance that it was there much earlier. This, u correct, provides two important pieces of information about LeoMc*s inventory. First, it is incomplete as an inventory. Secondly, it contains books which were almost certainly at Exeter when Lcofiric arrived there; that is, the bishop aia not procure them for the cathedral, although he may have moved them from one place in the institution to another. That, in turn, implies one very significant fact ![bout the history of Exeter. It was not merely a small provincial minster before Lcofric moved the see. The reference, then, which Lcofric made to the few books and churchly articles which existed at Exeter at his coming cither has been abridged or was meant to represent only what was left of, say, ^Ethelstan's

0

44

» B U hop/N otei on Cambridge m an u K rip u \p . 194.

45

Anglo-Saxon Exeter donations and not subsequent additions or provides yet another testimony to Lcofiric’s administrative style. Early mediaeval ecclesiastical libraries encompassed several separate bookcollcctions, at least in Benedictine monasteries. Some books were kept in the sacristy> some in the refectory, some in the chapter-house, and some were part of a permanent circulating collection made necessary by §48 of the Benedictine Rule.63 It is entirely possible that Leofric simply brought together in one place the books which, for the most part, were already at Exeter, and his inventory lists only the books which he found in the sacristy in 1050. The preamble, if Ï may so term it, to the whole inventory runs thus: (Her swutelaö on Sissere bee hwset Leofric bisceop hsfS gedon into Sancte Petres mynstre on Exanceastre， his bisccopstol is, \>xt ys, Jjaet he haefö geinnod \>xt xt geutod wses, Jjurh Godes fultun% 7 fjurh his forespraece 7 仁urh his gaersuma V l t is revealed here in this book what Bishop Leofric has done for St Peter's minster in Exeter, where his sec is, that is, what he has brought in which heretofore was out, by means of the help of God and by means of his intercession and by means of his wealth.，64 The choice of words, that he is bringing in what was not in, seems to imply that the item in question nevertheless belonged in the minster, although it had been alienated. Ot course, the preamble may apply more strictiy to the manors and lands which immediately follow it than to the books. The phrase used with the books (and other treasures as well) is he haeß piderinn gedon, 'he has got therein' Again, the choice of words is rather ambiguous, crediting Leofric as it does with bringing the items into the minster, without suggesting that Leofric was newly introducing the books and treasures. Regardless of Leofric*s intentions in his donation-list, Exeter seems already in the mid-eleventh century, even after the fires and invasions, to have been a wealthy and potentially powerful institution; that is why Leofric wanted to move the sec to Exeter.^ It had the potential to be greater than Crediton. The way in which Crediton faded out of view after the sec was moved suggests how quickly Exeter realised that potential and implies how obvious that potential must have been to an astute administrator like Leofric.66 A study of these six

Two Groups o f Tenth-century Manuscripts manuscripts associated with Exeter leads, at this point in the development of our knowledge of the issues involved, to no hard and fast conclusions, but it does give us ä b asis on w h ich to suggest, and from which to defend, two important ideas concerning the history of the tenth-century monastery there. Firs^w e need not assume that books came to Exeter initially only through leofric s efforts to a ssem b le a library, for it is likely that a number of the b〇i〇ks his inventory antedated his arrival there. Secondly, it is probable that at least tiiese six important manuscripts originated at Exeter, although the palaeographical evidence for this remains to be developed in chapter IV.

M Dumville, ‘English libraries before 1066’，p p .165-7. M The text is edited below, appendix V (pp. 230-5), w On the importance of siting a see in a powerful location， see Barlow» TVie C/uircA 1000-1066, pp. 164-8; Barlow {ibid., pp. 213-14) thought that Exeter must have been a 'decayed minster' when Leofric moved the see there in 1050. 66 Blake, b is h o p L eofric\ p. 49, has argued that Leofric moved the see because, as his charters say, he feared for his saifety at Crediton; Onne, 'The church in Crediton*, p. 99, has claimed that Leofric moved the see in order to get away from secular canons at Crediton and establish reformed canons under the Rule of Chrodegang at Exeter. Barlow, The English Church 1000-1066, p. 213, has cited safety and (the canonical rule that a bishop*s see should be in a city* as reasons for the move . 1 do not find any of these positions credible by themselves. Danish invaders had proved, many times over, that Exeter's walls provided very limited protection. That Leofric seemed to think that the pope would believe in Exeter's ability to protect his cathedral suggests that he did not think that the pope would be familiar with the extensive damage'which we assume to have been caused there by Swegn*s raid in 1003. Moreover, we do not know enough about secular canons at Crediton to suggest that they were more powerful than a bishop who had arrived in the new king*« retinue. Had the requirement that a see be located in a city been taken lorlouily, Crediton would not have been the only village to low iu bishop; WelU and Llchneld u e among those whtoh com t to mind.

46

47

The Palaeographical Context o f the *Exeter Book! abbess of St Mary's Minster on the Isle of Thanet, Boniface thanked her for books and vestments and asked her4

IV THE PALAEOGRAPHICAL CONTEXT OF THE ‘EXETER BOOK’

1 . IN T R O D U C TIO N

What were the traditions and habits of the tenth-century scriptorium which produced the six manuscripts now localised at Exeter? How much can be known about the books which were copied there? What were the principles on which texts were brought together into one book or booklet, and what were the necessities on which those principles were built? The purpose of this chapter is to provide the foundation for answering these questions. The method of estab­ lishing such a foundation is based on careful consideration of the various hands displayed in the relevant manuscripts and the subtle ways in which those hands indicate the relationships among the scribes and the scriptoria in which they wrote. A trail left by the scribe's moving hand, manifested in slight variations in letter-forms and ink, offers unintended indications of where and when he or she wrote and - to a lesser degree - why. The archaeological studies carried out at Exeter by the Exeter Archaeological Field Unit confirm that a religious foundation has existed in the present cathedral close since the seventh century. That such a house existed, ruled by an Anglo-Saxon abbot named Wulfhard, was made clear in Willibald's Life of Boniface1 but, before the excavations of the last decade were undertaken, we did not know where in Exeter that early house was located in which WynfrithBonifacc took his first vows and began his studies. Although we cannot at present recover any of the books which once existed in Abbot Wulfhard's institution, it will be useful to remember that the tenth-century minster probably stood on the same spot where Boniface was educated about 250 years earlier.2 While books still exist which are associated with Boniface, some containing the missionary^ own hand, there is no specific reason to allow that the creators of the script of the *Exeter Book* had access to these.3 Nevertheless, it is not unimaginable that the throwbacks to earlier styles found in the hand of the 'Exeter Book* have antecedents in books from this first period which were still available in tenth-century Exeter. In a letter to his friend Eadburh, a West Saxon princess who had become

1 Vita Sancti Bonifatii%§§ 1-3 (ed, Lcvison, pp. 4-13; transl. Robinson, The Life). 2 Henderson Sl Bldwcll, *Thc Saxon minster', pp. 148,150. 1 Parket, 'The bandwriting*, pp. 161-2.

48

. . . to add to w h a t you h av e done already by m aking a copy w ritten in gold o f th e E pistles o f m y m aster, St. P eter the A postie, to im press ho n o r an d reverence fo r the Sacred Scriptures visibly upon the carnally m inded to w hom I preach. I desire to have ev e r present before m e the w ords o f him w ho is m y guide upon this road. I am sending by th e p riest E oba the m aterials fo r your writing.

Boniface's tone, to the degree that it is recoverable, is not that of a man who is either exacting a difficult penance or asking for more than he has a right to expect. Yet he is requesting that Eadburh make, or have made, for him a volume like the few most treasured volumes which we have from that period. He seems to feel that, as long as he sends the materials to be expended in the work, the craftsmanship itself will represent no hardship for Eadburh. This attitude ap­ pears again when he asks Abbot Dudo, a former student, to send as many copies of books to him as he can.5 If Boniface's requests were no more unusual than he seems to regard them as being, then we might expect book-production on some scale, albeit small, to have occurred at religious establishments throughout the South, indeed throughout the island. Thus it appears that neither the house on Thanet nor Exeter itself need have been major ecclesiastical establishments, like St Augustine^ at Canterbury or the Old Minster at Winchester, to have partici­ pated in some sort of book-production in the early Anglo-Saxon period; indeed, Boniface5s early career at Exeter and Nursling suggests that these houses were not devoid of books and the monastic attitudes attendant upon their presence. That the production of books, as well as the reading of them, may have taken place at Nursling, located just to the southwest of Winchester, is indicated in another of Boniface's letters. In 742 x 746, the aging missionary wrote to Bishop Daniel at Winchester:6 4 Die Briefe, ed. Ik n g l,p . 60 (no. 35): * . . . ut augeas quod cepisti, id est, ut mihi cum auro cooscribas epistoias domini mei sancti Petri apostoli ad honorem et reuereniiam sanclaium scripturarum ante oculos carnalium in praedicando, et quia dicta eius, qui me in hoc iter direxit, maxime semper in presentia cupiam habere. Et ad scribendum hoc, quod rogo, per Eoban presbiteram destino/ Translated by Emerton, The Leners, pp. 64-5 (no. 26). Minster in Thanet was under the influence of the Canterbury scriptorium and we do indeed possess a manuscript most likely from Canterbury and of the kind which Bcmiface seems to have been requesting. This is the Codex Aureus (Stockholm, Kungliga Biblioteket, MS. A. 135); though written fifty or sixty years after Boniface's letter (dated by T^ngl to 735), it is heavily encrusted with gold which, in panelled lines on puzple-stained parchment, alternately fills the letters and the backgrounds of the letters. 3 Die Briefe, ed. Tangl,p. 59 (no. 34). * Ibid., p . 128 (no. 63): ^Preterea paternitatis uestrae clementiam de uno solatio peregrinationis mee intimis precibus diligenter rogare ueüm, is presumaxn, id est, ut libram jmjpheiarum, quern uenerande memoriae Uuinbertus abbas et magister quondam meust de hac uita ad Dominum migrans dereliquit, sex prophete in uno corpore Claris et absolutis litt^is scripti repeiientur, mihi transmittatis. Et si hoc Deus cordi uestro facere inspirauerit, maius solatium uite meae senectuti, et maius uobis premium mercedis transmittere non potestis, quia libmm prophetamm talem in hac terra, qualem desideio, acquirere non possum et caligantibus oculis, minutas titteras ac connexu clare disceie non possum, et propterea de iUo libro lupndicto f〇 go, quit tam clare diicredi et absolutis Utteris icriptus est' Translated by Bmerton, Th€ U tttrs, pp. 114-17 (no. SI).

49

Anglo-Saxon Exeter

The Palaeographical Context o f the 'Exeter Book

There is one solace in my mission I should like, if I may be so bold, to ask of your fatherly kindness, namely, that you send me the book of the Prophets which Abbot Winberht of reverend memoiy, my fonner teacher, left when he passed from this life to the Lord, and in which the six Prophets are contained in one volume in clear letters written in full. If God shall incline your heart to do this, you could not give me a greater comfort in my old age nor bring yourself greater assurance of reward. I cannot procure in this country such a book of the Prophets as I need， and with my fading sight I cannot read well writing which is small and filled with abbreviations. I am asking for this book because it is copied clearly, with all letters distinctiy written out

required by Boniface in his description of Winberht's book of prophets. It is a large, clear hand in good ink and its only abbreviations are of autem and the nomina sacra. We can find in the hand an example of the minuscule a (a), the uncial form of d (*〇) and Uncial and minuscule forms for s (both s and f ) which are at the foundation of the script of the 4Exeter Book1. It would be foolhardy to make too much of this, for any example of Insular Half-uncial or Hybrid minuscule would have done the same.10 Nonetheless, MS. Cotton Tiberius B.v, v o l . 1 ,fo 75, proves that one ancient model in the lineage and tradition of the great Insular gospel-books which probably influenced the development of Square minuscule was available at Exeter during the tenth century when the *Exeter Book' began to be written. Before the term 'Square minuscule5 was used, Edward Maunde Thompson considered the script of the ‘Exeter Book’ to be 4a standard example of the Anglo-Saxon hand of the tenth century'. By Standard% he meant the hand which tenth-century writers aspired to write.11 T he advance upon the writing of the ninth century is conspicuous in the growing squareness of the letters, in contrast with the more elegant pointed style of the older period; and yet some­ thing of that elegance remains in the balance of light and heavy strokes in the fomation of the letters.’12*The balance of light and heavy strokes in a well written Square minuscule is the result of the intersection of the strokes at right angles, or near right angles, to each other on square and diagonal axes. The following schematic diagram shows this alternation as it occurs in three letterforms employed by the scribe of the 'Exeter Book^ t n , and o . The t n demonstrates the thick verticals especially well; the b illustrates the alternation of thick and thin strokes on the square axis; the ^ shows the alternation of thick and thin on the diagonal axis.15

There is, of course, no way to tell whether the requested *Book of Prophets* was a volume written in Insular script or in English Uncial or was itself a book imported from a Continental church.7 Since Boniface describes the book as 4in clear letters and written in full', ligatures and abbreviations were apparently absent or limited; and, to achieve the clarity of which Boniface writes, it is likely that there was a relatively small number of long lines per page. The *Exeter Book', and indeed all the works of its scribe display the same merits of clarity through the spacing of words and lines and the relatively sparing use of abbreviations. If this scribe owes any special debt to such earlier models， to a degree not already assumed in the general evolution of Squareminuscule script, then it is a debt incurred in his attempt to achieve in his work a similar balance between space and ink as he must have observed in such an older book. One sample of Anglo-Saxon Half-uncial known to have been available at Exeter in the tenth century is extant. That is London, British Library, MS. Cotton Tiberius B.v, v o l . 1 , fo 75v.8 E. A. Lowe assigned its origin to eighthcentury Northumbria; it contains the Gospel of Matthew, 28:15-19. This lone folio, damaged by fire, has had its text erased from both the recto and the verso, except for the lower half of the outer column on which the remaining text appears. Although it is a paltry sample, we can at least be certain that the larger book from which this folio came was at Exeter in the tenth century because of the inclusion of tenth-century manumissions and guild-assembly notices, in the last of which Exeter is named.9 Most of the visible eighth-century hand is available in the plate published by Lowe. It could be said to be of the type

10 Bishop, 'An early example of the Square minuscule', pp. 246-7; the early development of

7 The Anglo-Saxons, ed. Campbell,pp. 92-3.

• London, British Library, MS. Cotton Tiberius B.v, v o l.1 ,excepting fos 75-76, + MS. Cotton Nero D.ii， fos 238-241， is ä collection of computistical, astrological, and geographical texts and diagrams whose twelfth-century provenance is Battle Abbey, Sussex; see An Eleventhcentury Anglo-Saxon Illustrated Miscellany, facs. edd. McGurk et a i. Tiberius B.v, v o l.1 ,fos 74 and 76, + Cambridge, University Library, MS. K k.1.24 (1958) + London, British Library, MS. Sloane 1044, fo 2, is an eighth-century gospel-book written in Anglo-Saxon Half-uncial containing added English documents in tenth- and eleventh-century hands; see Lowe, Codices^ VII, no. 138, and Ker, Catalogue, pp. 35-6, no. 22. Fo 75, which concerns us here, was bound in with fos 74 and 76, no doubt because of Cotton's perception of its similarity in bearing added documents. ^ See Lowe, Codices, VII, no. 190, and Kcr, Catalogue, pp. 256-7, no. 194. However, RoscTroup, 'The ancient monastery', pp. 184-5, speculativety and improbably associated this folio with Boniface himself.

50

Square minuscule and its dependence upon earlier manuscripts has been explored and chronicled by Dumville, ^English Square minuscule script: the background and earliest p h ases' 11 The history of the term "Square minuscule* has been discussed by Dumville, ibid., p p .152-3. »2 Thompson, An Introductiony pp. 394-5; Thompson's plate is reproduced from fo 19vl4-22, which include C hrist' 815-23 according to the number-system used by Chambers et al.r The Exeter Book. Unlike most of the illustrations in his remarkable book, Thompson^ plate for the *Exeter Book* was apparently not made from the plates produced for the Palaeographical Society, and its reproduction is much less successful in showing the 'balance of light and heavy strokes* which he described than is the corresponding plate in the facsimile published in 1933. » In describing the hand of tbe *Exeter Book* in sueb tenns, I have been particularly influenced by Glliftsen, VExpertise, pp. 16-54.

SI

Anglo-Saxon Exeter

m

m

m

FIGURE 1 : 4Exeter-Book, letter-forms and axes of construction

If, having observed this diagram, one studies plates I-VI provided with this study, one will begin to notice the horizontal line created by the tops of the letters without ascenders and the bottoms of the letters without descenders. It is not an inked line, but one which is suggested by the constant repetition of the joining of strokes which are pointed to the left for the top line and serifed to the right for the bottom line. This horiontal sweep is countered by the constant repetition of long vertical strokes, an effect achieved by extending ascenders and descenders as long agmn as the height of the line. The wedges on the tops of the ascenders unite them with the wedged first strokes of forms like p, t , tn , ft. 1*» ft, I", tt, jp, and p so that the whole text-block gives an impression of a particularly strong vertical axis. The pen was cut so that in the hand of this scribe its thickest strokes run diagonally uphill to the left, and its thinnest strokes run uphill to the right. The hairline-decorations over t and g harmonise with the similar finishing stroke of final a, the stem of the straight y, and the crossbar on 9, providing thin diagonal strokes to balance the heavy diagonal strokes in 5 , tS, t, *〇,and o. I have not been able to discover an example of Square minuscule which demonstrates such careful and thoughtful scribal control of its design and which also predates the middle of the tenth century. Nevertheless, T A. M. Bishop's discovery that the hands of Cambridge, Trinity College, MS. B.15.33 (368), constitute early attempts at Square minuscule is instructive in this elimination of the aspect of the hand of the sExeter Book'.14 The facsimiles provided in Bishop*s study of the Trinity Isidore indicate a hand whose scribe has succeeded in incorporating space and thus light into its design. The broadest possible forms of the letters have been created in order to accomplish this end, and ligatures, with the exception of the ampersand, have been eschewed. The final effect, however, is not a particularly happy one. The alternation of dark and light lacks the visual complexity required to make the script interesting to behold. In fact, the hand is entirely lacking in the critical essentials of a script which Sydney Cockerell summarised as simply *bcauty, character, and style'.15 Building on the minuscule forms which he had inherited, the scribe of C a m ­ bridge, Trinity College, MS. B.15.33 (368) was no doubt trying for the well spaced look of eighth-century Half-uncial, which meant leaving aside the 14 Bishop, *An early example of the Square minuscule'. 19 Cockerell, ^Good bandwriting', p. 257.

S2

The Palaeographical Context o f the 'Exeter Book' pointed character of most ninth-century hands. The same impetus probably lay behind the development of the hand found in the "Exeter Book\ but by then the efforts to derive a script to signify the return of serious intellectual endeavours to Wessex had accumulated more than a half-cem^ry of scribal tradition since the 890s; and the scribe of the 'Exeter Book*, unlike the scribe of the Trinity Isidore, had the advantage of inheriting an evolved script16 A good example of the sort of Square minuscule which w e might expect to have influenced the scribe of the *Exeter B o o k 5 is found in London, British Library, MS. Additional 47967, variously called the Tollemache, the Lauderdale，or the Helmingham Orosius.17 Ä page of the Orosius offers its viewer nothing like as dramatic an effect as a page of the *Exeter Book* - partly because of the close spacing of the lines, but also because of the lack of uniform serif-development at the bottoms of the letters, the lack of harmony between the t l , V, and wedges on tihe ascenders and the first strokes of p, t, tri, t l , |>} |v, J), and the scribe’ s unwillingness to exploit a pen-cut which would allow Aim to contrast and balance more effectively the thick and thin lines of which his pen might be capable. The aspect, as such effect is usually temied, is not a function of the evolution of Square minuscule alone, but is rather due to the scribe's attention to the consistency of his forms and to the overall impression which those forms leave on a page of writing. O n e might justifiably object that there was a calligraphic tradition for Square minuscule which the scribe of the Exeter Book inherited. Indeed, an example m a y be Salisbury, Cathedral Library, MS. 150, a Latin psalter which has been dated 969 x 987 and which is written in a handsome Square minuscule with a number of similarities to the script of the (Exeter B o o k 1.18 But unlike the Tollemache Orosius*, which (we can be reasonably sure) preceded the writing of the ‘ Exeter B o o k ’ ，the ‘ Salisbury Psalter’ m a y have followed the copying of the 'Exeter Book' and therefore depended upon its scribed (or scriptorium's) development of that script. The same remarks must be made about London, British Library, MS. Additional 37517, the *Bosworth Psalter*, whose hand has been compared with that in the *Exetcr Book*.19 W e shall return to both these manuscripts, however, in examining the letter-forms of the lExeter Book*.

16 See Dumville, 'English Square minuscule script; the background and earliestphases*, p.178; he has concluded that *anew canonical English script-fonn had been achieved by c. 930\ 17 For a complete facsimile see The Tollemache Orosius, ed. A. Campbell; for other commen­ tary, see The Anglo-Saxons, ed. J. Campbell,pp.158-9; Ker, Catalogue, pp.164-6 (no. 133)； Parkes, *The palaeography\ pp.156-60; Bately, The Old English Orosius, pp, xxiii-xxv, xxxi-xxxiii, xxxix-xlix. 18 KertCatalogue, pp. 449-51 (no. 379). 19 Flower (‘ The script' p. 84) seems to have been the first scholar to see a connexion between the scripts of the *Bosworth Psalter* and the *Exeter Book', but he restricted his comparisons to the letter a. In her Columbia University dissertation (Wessexy p. 75), Celia Hotchner, however, laid an unfair burden on Flower's observation when she argued that, "since the script of the Bosworth Psalter has been shown to bear similarity to that of the Exeter Book, and since the calendar predked to the Bosworlh Psalter may be traced to Glastonbury, it is quite possible that both manuscripts emanated from the scriptorium of this famous monastery'.

33

Anglo-Saxon Exeter

2. REGÏJSTER OF SCRIPT-FORMS USED IN THE ‘EXETER BOOK，

Having examined the several hands of the barker Chronicle, and its associated manuscripts, M. B. Parkes has pointed out that 4these developments and those in the display script spread to other manuscripts which have no demonstrable connection with Winchester'. In a footnote, he has identified the "Exeter Book' and the ^ercclli Book* as examples of these 4other manuscripts'.20 The register which follows is, then, a close examination and comparison of the letter-forms in these and other manuscripts in order to begin to focus as much as possible on the probable date of the writing of the 4Exeter Book*. N o hand, however, can be dated on the basis of letter-forms alone; in fact, it is letter-forms which are imitated in the imitative hands sometimes used in inauthentic charters. Rather, in order to determine the period of writing, it is necessary to combine what we might learn from dating the hand on the basis of letter-fonns with the general aspect of the script and with the display-scripts and initials. Nevertheless, the letter-forms of the *Exeter Book* adhere rather closely to what must have been the models which lay before mid-tenth-century scribes. Robin Flower dated this hand to 970 x 990, 4and rather early than late in that period*.211 think that the evidence suggests better a period of time before 970, as the following discussion should make clear.

1

1

卜《 ^ 卜 ^^

4

卜 口 み 《 1

1< ? j p t 吁 种 中 》产 ド 严 " tni冬mi 〇^ 〇^ ず 1»〇7«> 严 plan jvoJan Iw r ftibp yb 她 «ncjumr Wtr piド 卜

O N N E

pmtjw

她 職

《 #

30 Parkes, *The palaeography', p.163. 21 Flower, 'The script*, p. 89. 22 M y system is based on that of Ricbard Route, for which sec Dumville, ^Beowulf come

l«Wly\ pp. 36-7.

S4

ア

”

M ID F E R E ^ .

加

*

•

呼

^ tntxrp^ mW

jpjiWijt

ywtw

‘

phtitn^a p j

D A T E D O R D A T A B L E MAN U S C R I P T S E X A M I N E D

The following thirty English hands span the period 890 x 1001 and include formal or upgraded hands as well as plain or ordinary bookhands. Manuscripts and parts of manuscripts are arranged alphabetically according to the titles used to identify them in the register. These titles have been chosen in order to Associate the manuscripts* contents or historical connexions with their estab­ lished or probable dates in order to facilitate comprehension of the commentary. T w o conventions of dating are employed. Where clearly defined dates are known, I have indicated them and have identified in accompanying footnotes the scholarship relevant to establishing those dates. Where a precise date or dates cannot be given, I have used the following system of approximation: saec. x x m tó”似 ぬ x の:•B y m m . x //i. is meant the first third of the tenth century (or, possibly, the last few years of the ninth century); by saec. x med is tneftnt a date in the middle third of the century and explicitly excludes the beginning or end of the century as possible dates; by saec. x ex. is meant the final third of the tenth century (or, possibly, the first few years of the eleventh century).22 W h e n I have been unable to examine the whole text written in the hand in question, I have indicated the source and extent of m y sample in the accompanying footnote.30

15

■piiV

^ n w w fe'fJuy

^

« p ：-«»*! n*(gß»|»tc a«〇 4 talm iwtspftum |cön»tn «rfihDfiW

fertiwn ffttlfrfrPnwlif n p um41 WffrnnR-FPoV

*}TcpW j i t 卩 兮 y « 卜 》 下 x〒 卜 ” — {抑

1吶

x»]ivlrr pmilfHi Wt|ni

tW U f汗 tnofWrt 〇"fm

I. Exeter, Cathedral Library, MS* 3501， ‘Booklet 1’， fo 20v [‘Christ’， lines 857- 887]

p j j f i 卜tt p ”で卜穿、 piA1 pliiä?}!^- tilbvn filfjii

X11VlyitvP tmv Tjui?|'r ；\ I：U* V^lilvge ripÄm J|nfa]rqin

|pu |v.inlt- uttj im v p U u

fun |viiu aH*v.|t|ik' り

ド 、 ini|»u m a j m i ’ *

卜 !icmn liltV•卜 w

W h j jmfJi

-I 7 ImirTiP li^ V|uUv；t w u t n vfirhüij ^^inpd>fiaivi jfa|T|H?ltt) ac|vÄ* aIl|nftTO jmthfu mtiilrnnn jjnt» nif^ijr ^nth^amm Ijrjnntunna nu^u*j^lrcu; c|p^i |»(|i J^t>p ptiwn J»m^ *D〇nm^ 〇!iTtft?u r^li^anj pW *]p?ngp p^cF tfac Jmm^ |nüuii mj^ralT fp^tmtu jw ■ü^ui yah^ro gtj in |rcppflrp ^ j’tipli Krh， c* li却

^puni kjp|i

irup|»H: ppp ドト

Tr]ilra -nji iU-c^e -t u Iu t p cmtdijum

^ lh n m iti| w

llxon严

、 一由レ im 『i好“n

jjtmrvV Ini^ilrxi1 ト

プ

c W “u i ド}itiV

l^sun JC|ii^ij ilijmuin vu^uVe - 〇?V|irlirti^ J^hrtfiu^ T»v^|vmi* JwVjpvi ^liik» di|iv pea c»-|r iti| tuIt7)i^ ^li び jnnnan

iiKrain

linrT

VRV D/ES B6 HOFAf W U * k i a^lip lc Wtl^hir rarlt* viV idpj l)|t nth l”> v^yiic vtón.Hic loiir^'OiiiV o m A » aran 卜 ”i p xnhV um " i p . ^ ftiVtn^^Ttnn a^iftm

bibViJ' tftjp Inlfttn? ^d V

トリバ r 、 iし

trj\aV j^aptW

nnnuv j ^ w u lic^jii|>I l〇Ti j?crni^rTw* vlr|uw

tib pj^an

jjiTiVitoxm tpiÄc»Ti tn|^ yTrxÉhrw h tv o a ^ t liogpwii

p Imit jjKipihvp ||?u imn miitjj ^ p u l w Iホ 中 阳 卜

W p n l 啊 |rn]TP〇 n |^to

gBbtro ^ntw^funro

Inh^uin Tbycppie ]\a|io tnorngF \ ^ v A bxxdt>：^ [€ fi、 w t w ド ]^n 竹 m m x K i n j«i]T〇

ド ! ^

a!r«»ptw.

IV. Exetpr Cathedral Library， MS. 3501， ‘Booklet in ’ fo lOOr [4Soul and Body II\ lines 119-cnd; *Deor\ lines 1-22] ，

cnIfi»ltTPげ4 cp öutfiJ |〇m

1 竹

Ä^^nc a W ^ tm i; |m ir|ia l>u|^ JmV yc^ luom^jitn ai|» |»vt^ 0^1 tbw Jn|yij** jinttuö ： 7

,ê tu ^ tc

/

1

ipa mfli〇 an fra ア m t

rt\〇^> lulw tnonjy

|v jprc^* i ^ icp J»ay 0 ^ r t w

、、 5

叫 1*

vma

“ uti|* pine Jkiuuc

pjjcp 卜115 {»avWjjhpolKP onjirtUt j ^vtblw |»^y cj^x i t w

Xttro g ^ 〇 €-

WtmVc^'

宁、1 tifcw 卜时 ||>a tnvt{； :ブ

m hniilrrv ’ | n | ^

tqtth

tc 尸》 )iV c、 .m〆

hyju. t|H>^]ui vx\^ onp^mi tpa p p .

litb Okw i 产 す 中 论

iWx^/

^ I P *1 * ^ 4^.-

I^Tic^V W

pv-il^jp ouiitwt«-

w|U>njij> jmrofi caitoi» puth» ^ihn o p onpjfib

► ütw Inlw

1

K^i^jmuin T»^uicaï>* liplnm mft* ctir〇|um

pun

mi m-Dn； tb]il ib|ip|Hi 'qiftis；!h|| tw Inm -xog? p ^ e

L ” v|vdlan matnt

on

pj^ine |^ ; |t^a Ipftnc

p t tTiäuw 产

•咖u i :，

p^jKin \mw wi6 \mx> on h p v p

ä *thi,d 1t|u^«.

helium tir *〇'liY 〇|： W i ? \iarrv li^him

40 n o||nm! *|Jhi tlivun 卜 ïpli ttfV upm tmf luJmrt» p-|mmm ^oii ln^|>*ii： Iicim»inx> ^ hrloiijpc^i y t ^ w mi'Dinmnn tfb^iru pim rt^ Tjr^J *fr cmüTjiiKin jwttmtt

W

，

V. Exeter, Cathedral Library MS. 3501， ‘Booklet n i ’， fo 125r [Riddles] ，

f»»n*i 1^- vTu*

motto J p p p 於) ^ p T i w

j ..‘• } • ! ‘ 、 ▼ o’すかぃ口 n

マト丁phniti

^ r ? f nu*： * i.?： . :1 ： :u 1^1?'

tth|un^pAii

Iitt^ p l^pna|-

jtiK-*J' f| 1 tiw p«tïr epfi(1^|n tüp^ \ Sr ftlvf r

jtii卜す:1?由!11吁 p w 赚

p.luiT)' r^ t l^t*. iclnim1- ：• C ^ t ^ r o r で … ，神 ダ :你 レ ー pW p p デ , ， 令 ^一 iwu* w |i nuザ《u

detail from ‘Booklet 1 fo 51v

⑻

’

(b) detail from ‘Booklet n ’, fo 57r

，

^ r - n cr , ^énu1* ,

〖

p m ^ti|

p w jpljlll

|ri^Ä> lull

W

imib luTyxi't» p t ttej

|>4ar. cyr |ucuV c|m^

%n^

rihj*ï> t^^r» liamy tofK'n miloiip* IT"-«

\hb]ie ln\«!U n»% jp} rep- jiliTflt ntfm I*m Icj»^ syyc 3?)*^ I uum *ü]iii”《 ’ï yiVダ |、 +pv u“"e pj* j 中 ^ ’h :、 ^ 4t ホ Pv • • n i|i^ I I c卜ipiW y p d i い び ‘ phan h叫 ' 中 『r^々 :しr , jmrntl^r ptt^x j\ïm> rrtijnr1 » m lln ^ v v t t i r j^um^ iv^iu p p m nHa'mi vtiic?^

(c) detail from ‘Booklet II f 58v

’ ，

〇

⑹

detail from ‘Booklet II fo 63r

’

，

⑹

iilum *

detail from ‘Booklet IT, fo 69r

トー”.” ”； 、 |v jvl’ 叮 卜 cmcmn ......... p 今tHxk* ’ ,cth,’ド^^ド K’Tm化fu|*;^vrt 十

(f) detail from ‘Booklet II fo 72r

’ ，

(g) detail from ‘Booklet II fo 80r

’ ，

ëÊÊÊÊitnJ VI. Exeter, Cathedral Library, MS. 3501， ‘Booklet n i ’， fo 125v

[Riddles]

VII. Exeter, Cathedral Library, MS. 3501: development of the eth

， ‘ •， ' 一’、 .

ftcofutua "oonm ；

_PUHTLIßER SECVNÜVS■

ft： |lg^ia CpOflUTTl f t

l*o 十 K a W m w i T

no

xm o cjlofnam inn____ ?enajno m em yw e 9cvmap.io

如

llrr

umu«|tfrca|* im n wncaxuii ta m i ： ； Gvmulu im tiputta te o c a w %!n|niT tpu|ia p ia ie f m uLm

く. 、 暴 .•'ク■务

Ä D P O JIB m ^ D E A D V ra R l • —' 、

1

Ina^cano ciuiotcus im piftu

Jpy«nc 巧 山 备 ■ 占 ... • - fw m ftf waneyigl^efragotfawvioaMagOttiit^yTfjiyi. パ

xqr K attx«|-w m cm fqia ^ ； 0 c?inatrfiaixi curfio ftma|tgi|i3U9?h5-ï- otntnl^ hub

if A

m n i ^ t p a m r 切 《ny

ル 幽 ^ 芒 ^ 命 《« w

^571 ^ t a y o jv v y c

«

^

，め輪

^ d U > f 分 ， * * * * ^ 广 '* く^ p

u ^ h r m r etna； *• Q u a v m m nti ui|tu^ !ncm|io

八 画 卿 謝 觀 議 f 毳 猶

l a w n r ；G r t n * ü t n i f e l t t u t a t f l o n m a n ic

uanu t b a i f c o m i m c a o n ü Uninn+

im upftpannii Irrnty*

：

MV

c|uat>ticflr uroftar

で*%

b e o y«^ci|mxö m c c m m u n A i t n T m ^ 脚 c ^ a r >

js^umejm { « n f u T U t d i a j u a m |nxK«|yT a«u||tuicuT t aatm p^i rtoti

f ic j r r iö n e p o r t w

b \m 〒》 W m c〇 |t|w|rr«la |t*»crm tntpfd pact« nnr^i、 n 必 c^rna 'ttTi Tormitn panone t pproojv-cy|mcitu nnfi ^aciimi l*〇c « w mntwn

T

la

mtfi

^epö^HTtie 1y^uiui.ft•抑 lattice

inw m tlm >

Vin. London, Lambeth Palace Library, MS. 149, fo 66r

IX. London, Lambeth Palace Library, MS. 149, fo 138v

pcrniis *TK〇 7rai7n«?lii令 p in Imc^mrar^ hwTiiiTtilpni

im]uiTrctl' avque vicmiP? evitF tlint^rp- ptme^* Int^iuyal^ •pf^ptn lnconona c]uac〇|ionci ureum tna•!*〇--carwim'mlpine . cjuam ca-pra m s In ^o fo r fina^r^-^'^FOtV.pliirnPTniu -tx>^ tnlmy p c *〇icxr ： 3 ^ini]* *pü:caTü]iu p 〇 ]iu ct|icu vvxfvc mi? |X^ulu|'liic apux> epxam 'plairai vx lncjtnr tntrtinn rfa： Tain*6： e\*paTutn xirpice Tifiru-ua]'* fftrir aur#ipmas-Uviq ：c|tna -oegFimiX aptrqu ap_clia]iutn pnicxu ， *tuynpiucxu6 lustra 戸” Se*D{pma*5Tn〇]rn*3 frciiuas ^io a*orulir cjiftrcopiy X XX AVM卜Q v i A u e ^ T E c o c c n s e A In d v t v s *^ ； nuTTnautr hoc e6ata^ pjaophftu

ty~- ifre» quiu^nrr *Dee〇v)crm xnic-as upsnbus J1 wtcrpi crp^x .cpiape pubfui

ueSTim-amix u u Td^urnn

calcarraü lnx〇n 〇ila!u-てoiKulnjv Incjurr calann piny ； *® alcafie enim xo^ulayt 'pvjluTn le'Dprrr *

quia p lu -3

nnm*oi pa.caTii pa|poii# ftiyce

^TT*Sotu5 cj： •Dflicra ornmu y a n j a m e luo lauiT • 甘^

xn gum でü pcav押了 uR.TAcm了 ：-

lf 〇C^ pnopliftnpuin uoc«r? xp^miTaj-p e 6aia$©nx StcimUo arr‘Tiimcjua 〇11す c〇>〇ccificmf •M ftairajm is c〇]umixomwrrp^， *jicnonaptnr

▲ X. Oxford, Bodleian Library, MS. Bodley 319, fo 27r

XI. Oxford. Bodleian Library, MS. Bodley 319, fo 74r

iHio opfimtpfiiir i t p u m f oirniia opa tua | ^ p a m a ttutwr* vhiefabban ïmi öi t u i * nonfittcittf o m n ^ opuf axxm7Hi〒ii f〇Uf m m x i W T Ofo

In niiwm pk»;>um cuiuf m i a u m m p p c w i bcu lerrm u 〜vi ，a i p n m v nihum* locfunrpoou ainr Ain mixwi tpoofw ff»!«jiWptumr W

で _

n

%

5

x..i

IEXE5 T SOLIS ORI

^ E N T I S P K E X E N T I A Q W V X Q ：

Ho occawcn pfpuwmr* •Die«»

appel

lap! M>lft p p p f ttïioü* ajmi CW1K i»i|ifä 〇 föW • abuw 作 a^oüi* 〇 jmMi|\jufi}iio uenmr to occa|iim • Spana* ^itt 〇 u〇 f»nm? iiirpjt ^luptimn ttnoemp* mim •fte w ^xffb hapaftam ；^xim- fpatiutn hojicpu XII- paptw abu^iuf din q w pint mam ftnwpaw

m*

a n m -(liioavrui* populu^ atta^tscalftndt c fy e ^ nn^ioulttnlnic *Dimtt» {rf»& a^ptnn t u u m p > p n m o ttffvbv* $v^xsi anm-nl q mcmfi tiocvofr f ^ t m o n i r d^Dotmum » r nu r " « niuwiif a n w f u i m hoc m r ^civtititJllKi， pte肌 Th k tsc tjUtlK|t|U a m w nKipieim rube cltt|itti|prsnrnrnifan： m 2 » 0 m n i ^ r n^ctu

» ft-Mipppwna *I m n a öiftalit tübolif cjmi f u x x m v

aüi ahocca|*ii aliameoia nocop nam clmloft tifoU«» opu öiei intaum ptnuirc u>mm \z>Ipanum umim oifm ttppfUnirawt» *istp^ aiicem mimtia noetic ffiprfntif* din o ft^rm n tpn^unr pomam atiw n nmeoia/ nocct ojwfu o tm uolunr. ft inmfoto noent» pm p ； Di»tuiTwninp(!nKipiocipum cn uUimin^ liaHnipcttnc»ufn homint^U|^u Nunc auivfn arftirbfiit» 00111mwi urnonwt» afcfiucHn pow foenneeju« ppjuifmt： Mifcce tpocju^ o t ^ Imajinwi lipw» paparr warc emm Diei cittfitrof

amH|uu. .^pnrm a 卜 〇 朽 fbdoim 一 . dtf «ec ， ipapji叩 httn ^anifl t m r u ”肩叩於 餐 tjuiwirs anm^-^injiuilttir ccmplpcrdT^ rlidomada^ annoy* ^ bpMinu!|- .Duo uiörhttt iwnplnijr Iwni^

石

^

U|k於 0 ivm

aui ^(Hitintn|,； xi*fkp«um|Uim dtrmtf 供 mr-nonl”》 , pt〇|uu cpfuio hitn”“， uiino pnyi(0& adtctHiy t^oubi uM&uoöeciinu nuinf^tü

\

XU. Exeter, Cathedral Library, MS. 3507, fo 12v

XIII. Exeter, Cathedral Library, MS. 3507, fo 68r

fellauirUwpiTnaf rra^lamrpww

^w nirtuiä pt^u^ aptf jftwrlmnc laqnroty ipUf^änrr r f q w c t t t b p w o a n j m 零

poenttÖTOtt mbtt ap^r pout «itpaa irocmflriim^itin ccqtmf trcsf5|«lmi|-pf|i Inown 0Ü1n^u iKuxpi. pofc «püvtib p«rat»5. 5ii|pcic«1nt}»nc q%bqwpaaoh«c 却 細 wc.〇bpacr«>B〇r«HW »HU»*|

F

S>iW nxwcwcr»-今

^ w m c ö n r o .Oiff

し ' て、 I

urpxus ftiioxoTiu oprm eanrp e^pecxus / » . 1 1 ftw fiin n efir u fc| ；UW^ibftJmcmlrfhp*mc^lxft讲 Sil jujr 邮 jmn r tp l 产 _ 办 . onfÖroÄ’ p p a

S|m |rwtxD|i ontruro^ pux>oji cftr |uiw Tilttb pW hir r^KaJ'Offp fWYTfet Kt|*T〇pn -xDjpxÖ» tpfi>|Turn ac^an nön >a tcw cunne- ö>pl nut? din^ gf^pänmqn p4 t^J^am ap» "wjspvt^i onWpmu uj- &l p? jsi^cmv^ ponwï> y

EUVBBONFOLDnn

沪

トト 神

p ? ^ 5^]阿 瓜 ^ p na/ 1 7 み -"■ 与 b 中ÖVD ^ Ä M l t ^ ? | ) n 7 W 『 ll巾 p 邮 11va/

güt> mftrrut? mftilrcuni lÄ> |*un,D 〇|i 味

⑻ fo 59v (diagonallines)

(b) fo 64v (entwined plant)

XVI. Drawings by A. Morris of Exeter, Cathedral Library, MS. 3501 to show drypoint designs on membrane

Iip4c tnrt»an Jxfiricj?^

r へ，w

斗公

'

下 ^ ' x'

Tpi

^iile

l

卜n f t ? 匕 ： ^ : , ; I

abÉb-oait t

Ünc|i0 jH>]ro cp*PU|* p^t>
ks rather like Form II.

60

61

Anglo-Saxon Exeter

The Palaeographical Context o f the ‘Exeter Book ，

right-handed scribe - a much squarer letter than is achieved by the Form-I pattern and, if Form II dominated later in the tenth century than Form I, that might account for the less variable square a which Kcr and Flower noted as occurring in the latter half of the century. Certainly, Form II is the pattern of the letter as it appears in the ‘Exeter Book’. The development of the Form-II a as it was written by the scribe of the *Exeter Book* can, at least in part, be determined from a study of the Parker codex containing the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle, the Laws, and works of Caelius Scdulius. Turning to the annals, we notice that only Form I occurs in Tarker 891 x ca 9 2 0 \ In Tarkcr ca 911 x ca 930*, however, we find a different situation. Both Form I and Form II of the a were used.56 The Form-I variant tends to be rounder, and the Form-n variant squarer, but this is only a tendency, not a rule. The scribe of ^ o f r ic Missal ca 930 x ca 939', for example, uses a Form-II ductus to produce a very round version of the letter. If these hands are typical of their place and time, then West Saxon scribes of the first quarter of the tenth century wrote the letter with either ductus - or with both. In (Cenwald colophon ca 928 x 958*, wc find an odd ductus of Form II in which stroke 1 starts at about nine o^clock, and stroke 2 reaches down to join it in what is apparently meant to look like a single, unbroken stroke. Form H is exhibited in bóth hands of ‘Parker Laws ca 9 5 0 ' The second senbe of the Laws，however, consistently used the Form-II ductus and only that The first scribe used both Form-I and Form n patterns. Sec, for example heora in items xvn and xvm on to ^3r where the final vowel is written both ways. The senbe who wrote Tarker 946 x ca 955* employed the Form-II ductus to make a pointed a with a *fine straight stroke sloping steeply upwards* as Ker alliteratively put i t 57 *Junius Psalter saec. x in.' has a version of Form II which could be taken as a model for the letter, while Tarker 962 x 964* shows a variant of Form I in which strokes 1 and 2 are reduced to a semi-circle which is nmshed with stroke 3 slanting down towards the right. Ker claimed that the händ is influenced by the Carolineminuscule ductus, and this form may be an indication of that. ‘Parker 1001 x 101^* has a form very much like the previous scribe's, based on Form I, but stroke 3 begins with a projection to the left, similar to a shortened stroke 2 in Form n. 'Sherborne Pontifical,1001 x 1012* shows the same form. In all three cases, the effect is to produce a rather round a. Ker suggested that this too is the result of influence from the ductus of Caroline minuscule.36*38 It is perhaps significant that this last form is that found also in ^Salisbury Psalter, 969 x 987*, and it is the normal form in benedictine Rule, ca 965 x ca 984* and in *Blickling Homilies, saec. x /x i\ although Scribe B there wrote an occasional Form-II square a. Scribe 1 of *Royal -®lfric, ca 990* used both a Form-I round a like Tarker 962 x 964* and one like that of Tarker 1001 x 1013*, although *Royal ^Elfric' Scribe 2 used a definite Form-II square a. On the

other hand, 'Bosworth Psalter, saec. x ex/ has throughout a definite Form-II square a which has been compared with that of the 'Exeter Book'.59 '^thelstan 9^5’， ‘疋 thelstan 934 x 939’， ‘Glastonbury Augustine 940 x 957’， ‘Royal Psalter, saec. x med.\ 'Royal Pseudo-Hieronymus, saec. x medS and 'Sher­ borne Pontifical, saec. x ex ' all show the Form-II square a. In summary, we can say that square a was written in two distinct ways in native hands before the inftuence of Caroline minuscule obscured both of them. The standard earlier shape seems to have been Form I, which made a particu­ larly pointea letter, and that ductus continued to be used until Caroline minu­ scule became universal for Latin wnting in the early eleventh century, at which time the Form-I ductus had developed into a very round letter. In or about the third decade of the tenth century, concurrent with the formative phase of Square-minuscule script，however, Form II began to be used for the letter, and is found regularly by the middle of the century without any admixture with Form I.60 Form II, which often was used to make a rather pointed letter, as in *Royal Psalter, saec. x m ed9 and 'Royal Pseudo-Hieronymus, saec. x med.' (which were probably written by the same scribe), came to be used for a flatter form, as in Tarker Laws, ca 9 5 0 \ although a somewhat clumsy flat form of the letter appears in 'iEthelstan 925' and in *Bern 920 x 930'. Such a form still obtained towards the end of the century.61 OC：Although Flower thought that the Sporadic appearance of the form ap­ pears to be characteristic of the second half of the tenth century', Ker sub­ sequently pointed out that the last regular appearance of the Half-uncial a in a dated manuscript is in an episcopal charter from Worcester dated 969.62 It is a regular feature in Bishop's early examples of Square minuscule.63 There are seventy-nine occurrences of the letter in the poetic portion of the 'Exeter Book*; so it cannot be thought or in that context as an error or a trial form. This a usually is employed m Latin names and words in the ‘Exeter Book’， but the scribe did not adhere rigorously to this habit. Indeed, some words - the name Juliana* is an example - on occasion displayed one of each type. The Half­ uncial form also appears regularly in the same scribe's work in London, Lam­ beth Palace Library, M S .149 and in Oxford, Bodleian Library, MS. Bodley 319; so it seems to be a living part of his script and not a fossilised form from the exemplar. Elsewhere, it appears in 'Royal Aldhelm, saec. x in,9and l^Ethelstan 934 x 939’， and Neil Ker found the form twice in ‘Worcester Pastoral Care， 890 x 896’. The casual use of OC in the ‘Exeter Book’，then， supports a date for the hand before the end of the tnird quarter of the tenth century.64

59 Rower, lThe script*, p. 84. 60 See Dumville, ‘English Square minuscule script: the background and earliest phases' pp. 153-73, on the script's early development. Dumville, ibid,, p . 153, for a general history of the a form to which he has added, .. dennition of a script-type by a single letter-form is an unhappy task for inevitably, there are many specimens of Square minuscule in which it fails to occur consistently or at all’. 62 Sawyer, Anglo-Saxon Charters, no. 1326. See Ker, Catalogue, p. xxviii: the 'actual last appearance [of the fonn]t except as a copyist's archaism, seems to be in an ill-written addition to the annal for 1001 in the Parker Chronicle\ Bishop, *An early example of the Square minuscule*. 64 Muir« *A preliminary report*, p. 274, has counted seventy-nine occurrences ofoc in the ，

36 Sec J. M. Bately, ia The Anglo-Saxon Chronicle, gen. edd. DumvUle & Keynes, in.xxv. 57 Kcr, Catalogue, p. 58 (no. 39). Sl Ibid., p. 59; the form may occur twice in the ^Exeter Book', on fo 29rl2 (Uchoman), and on fo 40r9 (jwa), but this is hardly significant in a nmnuicrlpt of wch 纛 length, especially since the former of theie may be an o converted to an a, tnd (hf Utttr may be in the normal range of variation for square a.

62

63

Anglo-Saxon Exeter

The Palaeographical Context o f the ‘Exeter Book’

Y G E A R E re W.£S A G A N F R A M CRISTES'. The same sort of heading was used later for Tarker Laws, ca 950% ^ R Y H T E N W ^ S SPRECEN*. In examining the display-scripts in manuscripts related to the Tarker Chronicle, , Parkes came to Üie conclusion

Table m ：Comparison of Ornamental Capitals in ‘B ald ’s Leechbook，（ London, British library， royal 12.D.XVII) and the

•Ba l d ’ s Le e c h b o o k ，

‘Exeter book，

‘ Exeter b o o k /

H on 22v

H on 38v

V on 23v

P on 70v

H on 76r

H on 98r

E on 93v

E o n llOr

D o n 122r

D on 69r

NOTES Compare placement of brackets and finishing ornament. Compare intenor clotted brackets. Compare general shape of the letter. Compare general shape of the letter. 'Leechbook* has a heavy standard, but *Exeter Book* has a heavy bow.

The execution of the initials in ‘Bald’s Leechbook’ was not expertly done. While the hand in which the text is written is a practised hand, the initials are the work of a scribe who had either done little earlier initialling or never before attempted the style which he used here. The fact, however, that the display92 Förster, 'General description*, p. 6(). 95 For fo 20v, see plate I. 94 See my discussion of D below, pp, 12(K I.

78

95 Wright, Bald's Leechbook, p . 13; ^Bald^ Leechbook1 was written by a man named Cild, according to the inscription on fo 109r. 96 Dumville, 'English Square minuscule script: the background and earliest phases*, p.176. 97 In Booklet I, ^most a füll line of mcyuscules can be found on fos 14r, 20vt32v, and 44v; in Booklet II,almost a AjIIline of majuscules can be found on fos 5Svf65vt78vt84v; in Booklet III,almoit a №11line of majuscules can be found on fo 98r only.

79

Anglo-Saxon Exeter

The Palaeographical Context o f the *Exeter Book’

that ‘a “secondary” display script based on square capitals was therefore part of the equipment of some Anglo-Saxon scribes well before the introduction of Caroline minuscule proper into English scriptoria, and the use of these display forms in this group of manuscripts indicates an awareness of continental prac­ tices'.98910Given the relationship between the initials in the *Excter Book* and those of ‘Bald’s Leechbook’， which was written in the hand of ‘Parker 946 x 955*, it is not surprising to find that the *Exeter Book1 also contains Square Capitals employed in the context of a secondary display-script. In fact, the angular S,looking more like a backwards Z than an S, is to be found at the beginning of 'Worcester Pastoral Care, 890 x 896* and on fo 44v of the *Exeter Book*. Interestingly enough, it is also a regular part of the display-capitals in Exeter, Cathedral Library, MS. 3507, the palaeographically related copy of Hrabanus Maurus's De computo (Plate XIII).99 The main support which the display-script offers for the dating of the (Exeter Book' lies in its providing further analogues with the various manuscripts associated with the ^Parker Chronicle*. These analogues, by strengthening the connexion of the lExeter Book' with the Parker manuscript, increase our reasons for accepting a dating of the manuscript based largely on the develop­ ment of scripts in the 'Parker Chronicle\

miraculis Christi m Leofric^ inventory.104 However, Bodley 394, also with an

3. A S S O C I A T E D M A N U S C R I P T S GROUP A

One of the many benefits derived from the facsimile publication of the *Exeter Book* was the revelation of two other manuscripts written by the same scribe. Kenneth Sisam advised Robin Flower of the similarity between the *Exeter Book' and London, Lambeth Palace Library, MS. 149, which includes Bede's Exp/a/ia/fo Apoca/夕p 幻i 100 and Augustine’s Ó どödM/tónVui 〇?バfwがh .101 Lambeth 149 is probably to be identified with the Expositio Bede super Apocalipsin in Lcofric's inventory.102 In his review of the facsimile volume, Neil Ker noted the similarity in script between the ‘Exeter Book’ and Oxford， Bodleian Library, MS. Bodley 319 (S.C. 2226)， a copy of Isidore’s De/ïfite 〇)/ 的 Iudaeos, alüiough this relationship has received less notice than the connexion with Lambeth 149.103 Kcr thought that Bodley 319 was the Liber Isidori de 1

98 Parkes, 'The palaeography*, p.161; Bishop» English Caroline Minuscule, p. xiv, has identiued the earliest dated example of English Caroline minuscule in a document of 956. 99 Keynes, "King Athelstan's books', pp.155-6, is probably correct in suggesting that this type of display-capital istoo widespread for close dating or localisation. 100 Dekkers & Gaar, Clavis, pp. 231-2 (no. 1363). Ibid., p. 60 (no. 302). See plates VIII-IX. 102 Förster, 4The donations\ p. 29, made the identification without comment; Robertson, AngloSwcon Charters, p. 479, used the indicative 'is'to make the identification; Ker, Catalogue, p. 340 (no. 275), wrote *no doubt'; Drage, 'BUhop Leoftic\ p. 376, 'probably'; Lapidge, •Surviving booklists’ ,p. 68, ‘ possibly’ •

103 SeeKertM«^Mm^evMm2(1933)230;forth«MtieeDekkers&Oaar^C/av/j.p.207(no. 1198).

80

Exeter provenance, has been taken by Robertson, Drage, and Lapidge to be the item in question.105 It seems to me that the script of Bodley 319 - together with the facts that it was definitely listed in the 1506 Exeter inventory and that it was presented to Oxford in 1602 with other books from Exeter - makes it equally likely to be the book named in Leotric^ inventory. Other books not named in that text were then at Exeter, and Bodley 319 could have been one of those as well.106 There are four extant copies of Bede*s Explanatio Apocalypsis written or owned in England before 1100: one is a manuscript of Salisbury provenance, one of Durham provenance, and one of Christ Church, Canterbury, provenance, all written at the end of the eleventh or beginning of the twelfth century. The fourth is Lambeth 149 (written, as I suppose, in the mid-tenth century at Exeter).107 There are three extant early English copies of Augustine^ De adulterinis coniugiis: one is of Christ Church, Canterbury, provenance, written at the end of the eleventh or beginning of the twelfth century; another is of Salisbury provenance, written at the end of the eleventh century; and the third (Lambeth 149) is of Exeter provenance, written in the mid-tenth century.108 Lambeth 149 preserves the oldest surviving English manuscript copies of these two treatises, both of which were likely to have been important in the theological renewal of the Benedictine revival, because they are texts which are focussed on two issues central to the revival: the theology of celibacy which sustained the monastic vow of chastity, and the interpretation of the signs concerning the biblical prophecy of the Apocalypse of which the monk was to be continuously mindful. This volume also seems to be the only English manuscript to bring together these two treatises. There can be little doubt on the basis of letter-forms that the scribe of Lambeth 149 was the same as the scribe of the 4Exeter Book*.109 The aspect of

104 Also see Ker, Catalogue, pp. 360-1 (no. 308). 105 Robertson, Anglo-Saxon Charters, p. 479; Drage, *Bishop Leofiric\ pp. 402-3, has dated MS. Bodley 394 to saec. x2;Lapidge, ^Surviving booklists', p. 68, and Gneuss, *A prelimi­ nary list\ p. 37 (no. 575), have dated the manuscript to the eleventh century. 106 Orage, *Bishop Leofric*, pp. 401,403, has suggested that MS. Bodley 319 may be identified with the entry Liber Isidori de nouo et ueteri testamento, but Lapidge, 'Surviving bookUsts\ p. 68, has pointed to two other texts - Isidore^ In libros Ueteris ac Noui Testamenti prooemia, and Pseudo-Isidore's Quaesüones de Ueteri et Nouo Testamento (Dekkers & Gaar, Clavis, p. 206 [nos 1192, 1194, respectively]) - which have a better claim to this inventory-item by similarity of designations. The tkree-page elenchus which prefaces the text of MS. Bodley 319 describes events in Christas life and could hardly be taken to cover Old as well as New Testament events, tendencies to allegory or the inventorisfs ignorance of the text notwithstanding. 107 Gneuss, *A preliminary list*, pp. 6 (no.1),17 (no. 225), 43 (no. 685), and 33 (no. 506), respectively. 108 Ibid., pp.14 (no. 164), 46 (no. 729)» and 33 (no. 506), respectively. 109 James & Jenkins, A Descriptive Catalogue, 11.237, thought that more than one scribe wrote the manuscript and invited comparison of fo 54r with 54v, but I think that this may be due to misjudging nonnal variation in the hand horn stint to stint. See Parkes, The Scrip­ torium ofWtdrmouth-Jarrow, p. 20, in which a high standard of calligraphy is 'accompanied by a bewildoring amount of variation In tho handwriting, even within the stint of a single

81

Anglo-Saxon Exeter the hand, however, is another matter. The relative lack of ascenders and de­ scenders used in Latin as compared with Old English gives the page a com­ pletely different, and not entirely satisfactory, effect. In large measure, this is to be attributed to a predilection for writing Latin in very clean, unadorned lines, perhaps in imitation of similar lines established in Insular Half-uncial manuscripts. There is none of the elegant jumble which one sees in a line from a ninth-century minuscule manuscript such as the 4Book of Cerne* (Cambridge, University Library, MS., Ll.1.10 [2139]). When this Square minuscule is applied to Latin, it becomes even squarer. Not unexpectedly then, the major distinction between the hand of Lambeth 149 and that of the 4Exeter Book' is that, in writing the Latin, the scribe shortened his descenders for f, p, q, r, Py r, and y; P and r have been drastically reduced, although P does occasionally slip substan­ tially below the line.110 Indeed, M. R. James's sense of a scribal change on fo 54r of Lambeth 149 could be due to the scribe's sharpening his pen and consciously attempting to rein in his descenders even further. While there has been no obvious shortening of the ascenders, the absence of J> and 9 from Latin greatly decreases the number of ascenders available. The scribe has also made a deter­ mined effort to avoid the tall e although he has not been entirely successful in this, e continues to be used occasionally in ligatures, but barely creeps above the top line established by the minims when it does so. Therefore the rather com­ plex interaction of horizontal and vertical lines which produced the particularly artful aspect of the 4Exeter Book* has been reduced here to the single, horizontal sweep. W ien one compares this Latin version of the hand with Riddle 90 in the Exeter Book, fo 129v, which is also in Latin, one does not see the attempt to rein in the descenders found in Lambeth MS. 149; every ligature in the Riddle which can be made is made, except for the second e in tenetur (line lb).111 The same can be said of the macaronic lines at the end of *The Phoenix* (fo 65v8-14) and, although ^ is not found in that passage, every possible ligature with e has been made. The script of Lambeth 149 looks stiffer than the Latin passages in the *Exctcr Book* with which it may be compared. This is a case of the less effective script evolving out of the more effective. The ligatures can be used to give a relative dating to the manuscript Lambeth 149 displays examples of all of the possibilities with the e ligature, but the scribe did not consistently make use of them, unlike the situation in the *Exeter Book1 where they are always found where the rules for ligaturing permit. The long s occurs fairly frequently in the text (I count 786 appearances of the unligatured form before t), but it is ligatured only twenty-one times in the manner of the *Exetcr Book'. Moreover, I have found the Caroline-type ligature of tall s with I three times in the manuscript: on fo 53vl and 12, and on fo 8 2 v ll. The Caroline-minuscule d can be found on fo 122v21, deputamus. This manuscript was probably copied later than th e 4Exeter Book', but it would be difficult to say how much later. These four meagre lapses into Caroline minuscule should not be taken to signify more than that the scribe was acquainted with, and could scribe.* Coveney, *The ruling', p. SS, has noted the codicological similarities between Lambeth M S . 149 and the 'Exeter Book*, no For example, fo lr22, quasi ordinum. in Caroline d also occurs once in this riddle.

82

The Palaeographical Context o f the (Exeter Book' perhaps write, the imported script, as we should have expected even without these inclusions, for the advent of Anglo-Caroline minuscule in the 950s was contemporary with the early impulses of the monastic reforms.112 Undoubtedly, Caroline minuscule had a certain cosmopolitan authority, but the Insular script was, as Bishop has pointed out, *a script antecedently and concurrently written, equally esteemed and intimately associated*.113 The third manuscript in the same hand is Oxford, Bodleian Library, MS. Bodley 319, a copy of Isidore's De fide catholica. Excepting Bodley 394, which contains the same work and has an Exeter provenance， only one other copy of the text is extant from eleventh-century England. That is London, British Library, MS. Royal 5.E.xix from Anglo-Norman Salisbury.114 It is possible that MS. Royal 5,E.xix was based on one of the Exeter texts, since British Library MS. Cotton Vitellius A.xii, fos 4v-71r, contains a Salisbury copy of Hrabanus Maurus*s De computo which has been connected with Exeter, Cathedral Library, MS. 3507 and a kalendar which agrees 4almost letter for letter* with part of the kalendar in the 'Leofric Missal*, and that most certainly belonged to Exeter at the time when Royal 5.E.xix was written.115 There can be no doubt that the hand of MS. Bodley 319 is that of the scribe of the 'Exeter Book* and Lambeth MS. 149. The evidence is equally convincing that the Oxford manuscript was written after the London one. The aspect of the script is like that of Lambeth MS. 149, but without the variety which M. R. James attributed to multiple scribes.116 This may suggest that the scribe had gained more control of his Latin style. Certainly, the descenders are uniformly short, and I do not find the long s creeping occasionally further below the line than a uniform millimetre or two. Ker noted only one ligature with the long s of the type which prevails in the 4Exeter Book*, and that occurs in the first gathering, at fo 4r23. Ker noted also two Caroline ligatures of long s with t on fos 14r9 and 62v9.1171 have found one other, at fo llv 4 . The e-ligatures occur, but more rarely than in Lambeth 149. The initial form of t is not found, as likewise in Lambeth 149, and, although the final form in which the tail curls into a dot is present, Ker noticed that the dot alone has very often been erased.118 The importance of the script of MS. Bodley 319 to a study of the 'Exeter Book' is to reinforce the point iready made with regard to Lambeth MS. 149: the Latin texts most probably associated with monastic reform were apparently written after the 4Exeter Book*. The likelihood nevertheless exists that Lambeth 149 belongs to the period of monastic reform at Exeter, which we can expect Sidemann to have instituted on his arrival as abbot in 968. The two texts conjoined in this manuscript are

112 Bishop, English Caroline Minuscule, p. xi. 113 Ibid., p. xxi. H4 Gneuss, *A preliminary list', p. 36 (no. 568), has listed MS. Bodley 319; p. 37 (no. 574)MS. Bodley 394; p. 30 (no. 460) - British Library MS. Royal 5£.xix. Ker. Books, Collectors, pp.143-73, especially 159-^1.I have not tried to verify these relationships, however. H6 James & Jenkins, A Descriptive Catalogue111.237. "7 Ker, 2 (1933) 230. ibid,

83

Anglo-Saxon Exeter

The Palaeographical Context o f the *Exeter Book’

central to the scholarly interests fostered by the English Benedictine revolution. On the one hand we have Bede's commentary on the Apocalypse of St John the Divine, which brings to mind the renewed devotion to exegesis by presenting a linc-by-line analysis of the most abstruse of canonical writings and reminds one also of the approaching millennium and concern with the Apocalypse. On the other hand, we have Augustine^ tract against fornication and adultery - and at a time when renewed emphasis was being given to the monastic vows. Related to this is MS. Bodley 319 in the same hand, containing Isidore's De fide catholica which consists of letters written to his sister, Florentina, describing in the first part of the treatise Christas life as the proper model for her imitation and edification. If one were to ask to what use these texts by Bede, Augustine, and Isidore would be put, the obvious answer would be that in various ways they served to develop the comprehension of asceticism which gave the tenthcentury monastic revival its foundation and ultimately its strength. It may be that ^Elfric's disdain of the 'foolishness found in many English books written by unlearned men ignorant of much knowledge' - which spurred him to compose the First Series of the Sermones catholici - is an indictment not only of vernacular homiliaries like the Bückling and Vercelli collections but also of other vernacular writing as well, like much in the 4Exeter Book*.119120 Several important minsters remained unreformed in ^lfric's time. The most notable example may be the earlier seat of the bishop of western Wessex, Sherborne, which was not reformed until the advent of Bishop Wulfsige ca Everything we know about the tenth century in England suggests that such works as these by Bede, Augustine, and Isidore would have been most appreciated in a reformed monastery. It is not in itself improbable that an ecclesiastic working at Exeter in 950 could still be at his desk there after Exeter's reformation in 968. Clerks and monks who moved from house to house were the exception rather than the rule, and such moves as are recorded seem to have occurred for administrative reasons which should not have affected the composition of the rank and file of any community.121 The larger question is whether Sidemann would have kept those whom he inherited at Exeter or whether he would have expelled them.122

John of Worcester tells us only that Sidemann took with him a group of monks from Glastonbury to Exeter.123 The very fact that Sidemann could be named abbot for Exeter suggests that power which the established clergy may have held there had already been regulated by Archbishop Dunstan and King Edgar. Before the Benedictine revolution, election of abbots seems to have been a corrupt affair, controlled by powerful local families who in effect passed the abbacy among their own sons and nephews.124 In that situation resides the secular and political purpose for the king^ support of the Benedictine reforms: if successful, they would give to the Crown the loyalty of the Church, the key to which now resided in the monas­ teries. Given what little we know of the particular situation, we may presume that the appointment of Sidemann to Exeter was managed in such a way as to avoid the necessity of a real battle between the established local clergy and the new abbot Many difficulties with this proposition could be despatched if it were agreed that the scribe of the ‘Exeter Book’ was among the monks who accompanied Sidemann to Exeter, if he were not Sidemann himself. For instance, a monk in Sidemann’s retinue would in theory have been sufficiently instructed in Latin that he would have no trouble copying Latin manuscripts, whereas we might doubt a clerk's abilities to do so at that time. Similarly, a monk who came to Exeter with Sidemann would certainly have been available to do his bidding, whereas to explain the *Exeter Book*, we have to surmise that at least one clerk stayed on in tihe newly reformed monastery if he were not originally m Sidemann’s party)25 The first argument against a Glastonbury ongm for the scribe of the 4Exeter Book* is his script. The earliest dated attempt at Anglo-Caroline is in a royal diploma of A.D. 956, and the script developed with the monastic reformmovement which it accompanied-126 The importance of Caroline minuscule must have affected any professional senbe, yet its influence does not show sufficiently in the hand of the *Exeter Book* to suggest that its scribe received much training in the Continental minuscule, which one might expect him to have received at Glastonbury. Many later tenth-century scribes seem to have been capable of writing both Square minuscule and Caroline, using the former for Old English, and the latter for Latin. The scribe of the 4Exeter Book', however, also wrote three long, important Patristic treatises by the Latin writers most honoured in his era, and - except for a very few isolated forms - his hand shows no significant influence from Caroline minuscule. The changes which he made in the script when moving from Old English to Latin seem to reflect a development of Square minuscule and not the specific effect of the Caroline on the English hand. Robin Flower's observation that this scribe's hand was

9 9 3 1 2 0

119 Gatch, Preaching and Theology, pp. 7-8. 120 Knowles et a i, The Heads, p. 70; Robinson, The Saxon Bishops; S. Keynes, in Handbook, e4d. Fryde et aL, p. 222. 121 The Rule itself does not specify whether a monk may transfer from one house to another, presumably because St Benedict did not foresee that his Rule would become the basic form of Western monasticism and because the nature of the vocation would contradict purpose­ less transfers. Indeed, §66 strongly implies that the monastic craftsman should never leave his monastery: 'The monastery should, ifpossible, be so arranged that all necessary things, such as water, mill, garden, and various crafts may be within the enclosure, so that the monks may not be compelled to wander outside it, for that is not at all expedient for their souls'. To this, Benedict added a further admonition: 'We desire that this Rule be read aloud often in the community, so that no brother may excuse himself on the ground of ignorance'. Then follows §67, which explains the conditions under which the bretheren may be sent on a journey: The Rule o f St. Benedict, ed. & transl. McCann, pp. 152-3. 122 For examples of expulsion, see John, Orbis Britanniae, pp. 249-64, and Robinson, St Oswald.

84

123 Gatch, Preaching and Theology, p. 48; Hart, *The early seclion,,has suggested the credi­ bility of John's information for the period of the Benedictine revolution. 124 Admirably discussed by John, Orbis Britanniaey pp. 154-80; cf. Robinson, St Oswalds pp. 8-9. 125 A Qlastonbury origin for the 4Exeter Book* was firstadvanced by Hotchner, Wessex, p. 75. Bishop, Engtlsh Caroline Minuscule, pp. xl,xlx. 8S

Anglo-Saxon Exeter

The Palaeographical Context o f the ‘Exeter B ook’

written 'away from the main ccntres, could hardly be used to describe the hand of a Glastonbury-trained scribe who had been picked to participate in the spread of the Reform-movement.127 A second reason to eschew the notion that the scribe of the 'Exeter Book* came from Glastonbury is that the manuscript evidence indicates no tradition of copying vernacular texts there, not even of adding glosses in Old English.128 Nor is this surprising, given the fact that Dunstan became abbot there ca 940 and, even before he had himself experienced monastic changes on the Continent, he began to develop a model Benedictine monastery at Glastonbury. Even then, however, his model was based on the reform of Continental houses where Latin remained the medium of communication and composition.129 While Glastonbury scribes did turn out charters with vernacular bounds and memo­ randa, that is where their use of Old English seems to have stopped. There is every reason to imagine that tb.e *Exeter Book* represents far too great an expense of resources in membrane，talent, and time to have been encouraged at Glastonbury between ca 940 and 968.130*

scribes, can be attributed only to Exeter because Exeter is the sole point of reference which they all have in common. The evidence for the link between the group of manuscripts written in the hand of Exeter MS. 3507 on the one side and the group of manuscripts in the hand of the 'Exeter Book' on the other, lies on fo 66r of MS. Lambeth 149.135At the foot of that folio, a passage of four lines and a part of a fifth was added by a scribe whose hand is the same as that of the text and corrections of Exeter MS. 3507, and the texts of Bodley 718 and Paris, Bibliothèque nationale, MS. latin 943. Because of its significance, I shall support my identification of the corrector^ hand in Lambeth M S .149 in some detail. The scribe who added the correction was extremely skilled. Working without apparent guide-lines, he nevertheless managed to maintain complete consistency in the size of his letters and the evenness of the lines. However, the careful calligraphic nature of the script when it appears as a text-hand is at least partly absent in the downgraded corrector's addition to Exeter MS. 3507. The width of the strokes in the correc­ tor's version is lighter than one expects, given the weight of the script where it is the main text-hand. The reason for this is that the corrector was using a nib which had been cut to a size suitable for adding corrections between the lines, and therefore he wrote a thinner line than was his custom; this results in the downgraded appearance of the hand. An excellent aspectual comparison is between the corrector's hand in Lambeth M S .149 and the hand of the anti­ phons in Paris, Bibliothèque nationale, MS. latin 943, which were entered in a smaller hand with a sharper nib. There the scales of the two hands are more similar, although the scribed calligraphic intent in Paris, Bibliothèque nationale, MS. latin 943 remains responsible for some contrast between the two examples of the hand. Less subjective than aspect are the letter-forms themselves. The letter-forms of the corrector's hand in Lambeth M S .149 differ in no important instance from those used by the scribe of Exeter MS. 3507; MS. Bodley 718; and Paris, Bibliothèque nationale, MS. latin 943. There are, however, several traits which are noteworthy in both the corrector's hand and the main scribe's hand. The first stroke of the letters a, c, e, o, and q begins with a straight stroke down, slanted somewhat to the right.136 The similarity of these strokes one to another accounts in large measure for the stiff uniformity which the hand evinces in its upgraded versions. The e, moreover, is regularly ligatured only with t and then mostly as an ampersand; this is occasionally used also within words. A few other ligatures with e can be found, most notably in Bodley 718, but they are rare. In Lambeth MS. 149, and in MS. Bodley 718, the open letters - h, m, n, r, and u - embrace about the same amount of space between their parallel strokes.137 There is an obvious attempt to control space in a very regular way in

GROUPB

The second group of manuscripts to be examined here includes Oxford, Bodleian Library, MS. Bodley 718 (5.C. 2632), containing the Penitential of Ecgbcrht, archbishop of York, and books II-IV of Quadripartitus\m Exeter, Cathedral Library, MS. 3507, containing Hrabanus Maurus's De computo, Isidore's De natura rerum, and a number of shorter, related items;132 and Paris, Bibliothèque nationale, MS. latin 943, containing a pontifical, a benedictional, several letters and homilies.133 Several scholars have pointed out that all three of these manuscripts are in the same hand.134 This group is important to the present study, not because it directly tells us more about the script which we have been examining but because it increases the number of volumes which wc can associ­ ate with the library at Exeter before Leofric's arrival. Indeed, I have argued in chapter III that the six manuscripts in these two groups, written by but two 127 Flower, 4The script*, p. 84. 128 Ker, Catalogue, pp. 39 (no. 26), 355 (no. 297), noted a scribble in Old Enclish on a kalendar of Glastonbuiy origin, and an ill written copy of a homily of saec. x r now bound with unrelated materials which were at Glastonbury in the tenth century. 129 Bullough, *The continental background*, p. 27. 130 On manuscripts presently attributed to Glastonbury, see Gneuss,1A preliminary list*, pp. 6 (no. 3), 7 (no. 26), 35 (no. 538), 37 (no. 585), 39 (no. 628). Hearne, Johannis. . . Chronica^ 11.423-44, reprinted an inventory of Glastonbury's library from 1247; according to that document (ibid., 11.436,439), Glastonbury had five books in English: two homiliaries, two legendaries, and one medicinal. The second homiliaiy and the first legendary are bracketed and marked vetust. inutil, or ^ld and unusable*. 131 Pttcht et al. ,Illuminated Manuscripts, 111.5 (no. 36); Franteen, The Literature o f Penance f pp. 131,170; Kerff, Der Quadripartitus, See plate XIV. 132 Ker, Afedievflf Manwjcr如 II.8B-14. See plates XD-XIEL 133 Temple, Anglo-Saxon Manuscripts^ pp. 60-1 (no. 35); Leroquais, Les Pontificaux, 11.6-10 (no. 93). See plate XV. im p 〇 r example, Ker, Catalogue* pp. 437-9 (no. 364), and Medieval Manuscripts, 11.814; Drage, 'Bishop Leofric', pp. 350-410.

86

S w plate VDI. 136 This isclearer for the letter c in the explicit/incipit which the corrector added on fo 59r than in bis addition on fo 66r. 137 This trait is not a part of the hand of Exeter MS. 3507 nor of that of Paris, Bibliothèque nationale, MS. latin 943, and itmight be used in connexion with other data for the relative dating of the hand in the four manugcripts.

87

Anglo-Saxon Exeter all of these hands. This, too, adds to the same quality of stiff uniformity. The g has a prominent, closed tail which swells slightly downward and to the left in all of the hands; it is one of this scribe's most identifiable traits. The horizontal stroke of both g and t frequentiy has a burr at the left, reminiscent of a similar feature in Insular Half-uncial manuscripts. It is largely a stylised attack-stroke and is more evident in the upgraded versions of the hand than in the corrector's script, although it is clearly found in both hands. Final t, which curls up to a dot, is often, but not always, found in these manuscripts. In Paris, Bibliothèque nationale, MS. latin 943, it was more often avoided; see, for example, fo 107r where post appears twenty-three times, with final, dotted t used only twice. A good example of this t in the corrector's hand in Lambeth M S . 149 is to be found at fo 64vl, est. The d, perhaps, is most varied in this series of manuscripts. In Exeter 3507, the letter changes its form slightly from about fo 8. Before this, there is an attempt to keep the whole letter below the minim-line. After fo 8 or so, the letter begins to develop an ascender, and then seems to m o v e back to the line at about fo 65. In Paris, Bibliothèque nationale, MS . latin 943, d tends to be more rounded and less likely to come much above the line, and the bowl is often closed with a hairline. In M S. Bodley 718, its humped back scarcely rises above the line. The d of the corrector's hand in Lambeth 149 corresponds exactiy with the letter in Exeter MS. 3507, fos 8-64: it has a curved ascender which is kept fairly short but which clearly rises above the line.138 r is ligatured when it is doubled; ƒ barely descends below the line, but rises very high above the line with a carefully arched head. It is thus one of the most identifiable letters in the script, its ascender even rising slightly above h, b, and 1.The descenders of low s, p, and f are the longest of the descending letters, the descender of r being slightly shorter.139 Robin Flower recognised the importance of folio 138v in Lambeth M S . 149 for the history of the 'Exeter Book'.140 However, more important for the issue at hand，than the m e m o r a n d u m of iEthelweard’ s presentation written there, is the inscription in green Capitals on the lower third of the leaf: A I N N O M I N E D OMINI + A M E N / LEOFRICUS + PATER/ I/P.141 The colour of the ink is a malachite green, the same - I feel certain - as is found in some of the capitals m Exeter 3507. Elaine Drage has observed that *this entry is in the same script and ink as the original headings’ .142 The Capitals and headings of Lambeth M S . 149 are not like those in the 'Exeter Book* and MS. Bodley 319, even though all three share the same main hand; instead, they are like the Capitals and headings in Exeter, Cathedral Library, MS. 3507 and Paris, Bibliothèque nationale, MS. latin 943, the main scribe of which corrected Lambeth MS. 149. Exeter MS. 3507 has a 138 itislike Fonn HI in the register above, p. 65. 139 This, tex), is more clearly seen in the expiicit/incipit on 59r than in the correction on fo 66r. See Drage, ‘ Bishop Leofric’ ，p. 375. 140 Flower, script*,p. 87; see plate IX; see also pp. 35-7, above. 141 Flower took the I and the P to be the initials for *In nomine / Pattis et Filii et Spiritus Sancti/1 think that they might just as well stand forIn Pace. If so» their arrangement above one another may be related to the evolution of the association of the chrismon with the letters in pax which ultimately led to the complex monograms on the (Pax* pennies in the eleventh century; see Keynes, "An interpretation*, p.166. 142 Drage, *Bishop Leofric*, p. 375.

88

The Palaeographical Context o f the ‘Exeter Book’ capital P on fo 27v very much like the letter P just below the Capital I in the inscription. M y identification is based on the gentle swell of the b o w of the letter above the level of the downstroke. Perhaps the same P of pater appears on fo 45r and on fo 5v of Paris, Bibliothèque nationale, MS. latin 943. The D in in nomine Domini of the Lambeth inscription, with a similar slight swelling of the b o w above the line, appears in Exeler MS. 3507, fo 37v. See also the examples of D on fo 24v and subsequent leaves of Paris, Bibliothèque nationale, MS. latin 943. The 〇 of the inscription, with its nearly squared proportions, is found in the last 〇 of Domino et Filio Sisebuto in Exeter MS. 3507, fo 67r. One ma y also compare the M in the inscription (nomine) with M on fo 70v of Exeter MS. 3507; with the Half-uncial M in amen, compare the form on fo 22v of Paris, Bibliothèque nationale, MS. latin 943. Similar comparisons can be made for all of the letters in the inscription, although several of them - in particular, I, L, and N - are rather unremarkable and thus difficult to investigate. I have not been able to find an example of the Capital A with a double-lined bridge among these manuscripts, but it does occur in Durham, Cathedral Library, MS. A.iv.19, fo 65r (the ‘ Durham Ritual’ ，augmented in 970 or 981). The evidence that the corrector's hand in Lambeth M S . 149 is the same as the main hand of the manuscripts under discussion, that the colour of the Capitals is the same in the inscription as in Exeter 3507, that the hand of the inscription matches the hand of the headings of Paris, Bibliothèque nationale, MS. latin 943 and of Exeter MS. 3507, and that the layout of this inscription as a whole ignores the original rulings on the folio, seems to constitute sufficient evidence that this inscription was added to Lambeth M S . 149 after it had been written, indeed quite probably after it had been corrected.143 Robin Flower assumed that Leofricus Pater was Bishop Leofric, but that is hardly likely in view of the fact that the manuscripts with Capitals and headings in the same hand as the inscription are usually dated either to the end of the tenth century or to the beginning of the eleventh century, at least forty years too early for such an identification.144 Elaine Drage has suggested that this Leofric m a y have been the scribe or the rubricator of Lambeth 149.145 1 should suggest that Leofricus Pater is a reference to Exeter's abbot of that name w h o sub­ scribed several of King i^Ethelred^ diplomas from 980 to 990, or 993 at the latest146 These dates conform to the dates usually given by scholars for the manuscripts in question, and the sobriquet, Pater, at this period, would suggest someone of authority, and not merely a priest "Father* would indeed be an appropriate tide for the abbot in the monastery itself.147 While it is possible that 143 See Hill， ‘ The Exeter Book and Lambeth Palace Library M S 149: a reconsideration’ ，p.114. 144 Flower, "The script', p. 87. 145 Drage，‘ Bishop Leoéric' p. 375. 146 Diplomas signed by Leofric include Sawyer, Angb-Saxon Charters, nos 837, 839, 841, 840, 848, 849, 844, 851,845, 855, 856, 858, 860, 861，864, 867, 865, 869, 870, 872, 877, 942, 944t and 874, but it is not always possible to tell whether the witness in question was the abbot of Exeter or of Muchelney. Leofric signed bis last charter in 990 and Bribthelm, presumably the next abbot, signed his firstextant charter in 993. See Keynes, The Diplomas o f King j€thelredt tables 4 and 5; also p. 236. Sec also Gatcb, Preaching and Theobgyt p. 48.

147

Rituale M onasticum , edd. Benedictines, p. 295, where tbe vow uttered by monks at the installation of an abbot recognises him with the title *P a ter\ and rhetorically connects him

89

Anglo-Saxon Exeter

The Palaeographical Context o f the 'Exeter Book'

Leofricus was the corrector of Lambeth 149, and therefore the scribe of the other three manuscripts, I do not think that that can be firmly concluded. The rather epigraphic appearance of the inscription lends it a formality unlike other scribal ‘ signatures’ ,丨 4« This, taken together with the likelihood that U was m a d e after the correction of the manuscript and not on the occasion of its original creation, suggests that it m a y have been the abbot's imprimatur on the corrected text The care with which the corrections have been made would certainly support this conclusion, although I know of no similar inscriptions in m a n u ­ 14849 But, whatever information the inscription was originally scripts of the period.* intended to convey, I think that it nevertheless offers furthers support for an Exeter ongin for both: both hands occur in Lambeth 149; all of these m a n u ­ scripts have very ancient Exeter associations; and the hand in which the name Leofricus is found was current at or about the time w h e n a m a n of that name was abbot at Exeter. Paris, Bibliothèque nationale, MS. latin 943 has never been localised at Exeter, and the three remarkable drawings of Christ which it contains justify the opinion that the manucript must have had a Canterbury provenance. The drawings, however, occur at the end of the first gathering and the beginning of the second, and the Square-minuscule hand which I have identified with Exeter does not occur in the first gathering of this manuscript. The first gathering comprises five folios, and the drawings are found on fo 5v in the first gathering, and on fo 6r and 6v of the second. While it is exceedingly difficult to ascertain the make-up of the manuscript，so tightly is it restrained in its Louis X V n i binding，w e can nevertheless be sure that the first gathering constitutes five folios, because the prickings have been made with a blade and not a point, while the rest of the manuscript was pricked with a point150 The contents of the first gathering are as follows.

lr Ongmally blank; n o w contains four miscellaneous antiphons and benedic­ tions, probably in the same hand in which a note is recorded from yEtheinc, bishop of Sherborne 1002-1012, to ^thelmasr on the back of the last leaf.

with Benedict through the use of the same title: *Pater, ego promitto tibi obedientiam secundum Regulam Beati Patris nostri Benedicti et constitutiones nostras usque ad mortem*, 'Father, I promise obedience to you according to the Rule of our blessed father, Benedict, and our constitutions until death'. The title, *Abbot\ means Talher* in its Semitic origin, and iElfric's use of feeder in De auguriis (Homilies o f j€lfrict ed. Pope, 11.790) also connects the designation with monasticism: 'Macharius wss gehaten sum hdJlg fieder on westene wunigende, fela wundra wyrcende, munuclifes mann\ 4a certain holy father, dwelling in the desert working many miracles, ä man of the monastic life， was named Macharius、Apparently, abbots were called 'Pater* from quite early times» as were monks who also took priestly orders. As priesthood became more common in the monastmes, so the title came to be applied generally, but itis difficult to date a more generalised use of the titlemuch before the twelfth centupr, and the chance is good, although the evidence is not conclusive, that 'Leofricus Pater* in the inscription specifically designates an Abbcn Leofric. 148 Kex, Catalogue, p.Wi. 149 But see Ker, Books. Collectors, pp.151-2. If Exeter had a programme and funds for correctio librorum at the end of the tenth century, like Salisbury at the end of the eleventh century, just such a protocol as this would probably have developed. iso M y analysis of this manuscript is dependent upon an examination of the manuscript itselfin Paris on 7 July.1987, a microfilm generously supplied by the Bibliothèque nationale, and the following printed descriptions: Thompson el al.y The New Palaeographical Society Facsimiles, First series, plates 111, 112; Leroquais, Les Pont(flcauxt 0.6-10; Lauert Cata­ logue général, I.33S-6.

90

lv Originally blank; n o w contains a benediction for the conversion of St Paul and a formula for excommunication, in different Anglo-Caroline hands. Below these is a list of the bishops of Sherborne from Aldhelra to ^Ethelric, written in a late Square-minuscule script. 2r Pastoral letter from the archbishop of Canterbury to Wulfsige (called here Wulfsinus) in a contemporary Anglo-Caroline hand. 2v Continuation of same. 3r Continuation of letter to Wulfsige. A collection of benedictions entitled

Benedictiones sanctae crwc[erasure]i follows in an Anglo-Caroline hand; the scribe used a heavy nib like the main scribe of the pontifical. 3v Continuation of benedictions in the same hand. 4r Continuation of Holy Cross benedictions for seven lines, followed by three benedictions in two hands. 4v Drawing of the Cruciiixion, with border-decoration similar to that in the drawing on 6v. 5r Blank 5v Drawing of Christ wearing a full crown, stepping beyond the frame which consists of two sets of parallel lines, like the drawing on 4v, but is undecorated. O n 6r and 6v are two more drawings of Christ, the one on fo 6r having a similar empty frame, like that on fo 5v, and the drawing on fo 6v having a frame decorated like that of the Crucifixion-drawing on fo 4v. There can be little or no doubt that the three illustrations on fos 5 and 6 were intended as part of a series.151 Because the drawings fall on the last leaf of the first gathering and the first leaf of the second gathering, one might argue that the items in the first gathering, particularly the letter of the archbishop of Canterbury to Wulfsige, were as much a part of the original plan for the manuscript as the drawings，and thus the pontifical could have been made as a presentation for the ne w bishop on w h o m the see of Sherborne was bestowed in 993. A reconstruction of the process by which Paris，Bibliothèque nationale, MS. latin 943 was constructed will help to explain h o w a hand identified with Exeter might be associated with drawings from another place. The main scribe wrote fos 7-154, leaving fo 6, the first leaf of his first quire, blank. T w o more gatherings of eight leaves each were added to the manuscript, either as early as the period immediately following the copying of the pontifical proper or as late as the book's arrival at Sherborne, since penitential formulae on the last leaf

1S1 Rosenthal, (Three drawings1, pp. 549-57t has demonstrated that these drawings represent not the Trinity, however, but aspects of Christ which she has labelled "Christ as King", 'Christ as God', and ^Christ as Man'.

91

Anglo-Saxon Exeter

The Palaeographical Context o f the 'Exeter Book'

refer to Wulfsige.152 The first of these gatherings, including fos 155-162, may have been prepared for this book, since it makes use of the same size of folio with twenty-five lines per side arranged over the same size of writing area. The hand, however, though a specimen of Square minuscule, is quite unlike the calligraphic hand used on fos 7-154, and the gathering looks as if it m a y have been meant to stand alone: its first leaf was originally blank, the first homily on the dedication of a church follows on fos 156r-160, and three leaves follow which were also blank until additions were made in the twelfth century.153 The final gathering (fos 163-170) was similarly fronted with a blank leaf, followed on fos 164r-170r by a second homily on the dedication of a church, with the remainder of fo 170r and all of fo 170v originally blank.154 While the dimen­ sions of the folios in this gathering are shorter by about 20 m m . than the previous gatherings and the scribe used nineteen rather than twenty-five lines per page, there are a few traits in the hand to suggest some association with the script of the main body of the text, such as the slanted first stroke of c and the exceedingly high and arched effect of the ascender of long s, but w e should not push such similarities very far. M u c h more important, I think, is the fact that London, Lambeth Palace Library, MS. 489, a manuscript from Leofric's scriptorium at Exeter, contains both homilies, one copied after the other on fos 44v~58v.155 If the main hand of Paris, Bibliothèque nationale, MS. latin 943 was written at Exeter, it is reasonable to assume that these homilies were added before the manuscript left Exeter, but there is no proof of that. The evidence is fairly clear that the first gathering and the drawings on what was originally the initial blank leaf at the front the second gathering were made at Canterbury, and probably at Christ Church. Jane Rosenthal has shown that the ritual of dedicating a church invokes the same iconography as w e find in the drawings of the three aspects of Christ,156 and - if so - that m ay be all that is needed to explain the addition of the two homilies at the end of the book. In any case, the programme of providing illustrations for the book also included pro­ viding the archbishop^ letter to his ne w bishop and a set of benedictions of the Holy Cross. The way in which these items fit together is best examined in the light of the probable make-up of the first gathering, as in the following diagram. 1

2

3

4

5132

132 See Brotanek, Texte, p. 41. 153 The homily, headed 'Incipit sermo de dediealione aecclesiae^ was edited by Brotanek, ibid., pp.1-15; see also p. 36. 154 The homily, beginning *Us is on {jysum daege to wuröigenne' was edited by Brotanek, ibid., pp.15-28. 155 Kcr, Catalogue, p. 345, no. 283. 156 Rosenthal, 'Three drawings', pp. 559-60.

92

It is highly unlikely that the centre-spread would contain a singleton, and even less likely that the singleton would be deliberately attached to the outer side of the quire; an examination of the membrane leads m e to think that fos 1 and 5 are conjugates. I do not k n o w that fo 4 rather than fo 2 is a singleton, but think that it must be. The first leaf was originally blank, which is the usual state of affairs; the archbishop's letter, written in a contemporary Anglo-Caroline hand, begins on fo 2r and ends with eleven lines on fo 3r. Line 11 contains the heading, Benedictiones sanctae crucis, and these benedictions continue in a larger but also contemporary Anglo-Caroline script to fo 4r. It makes sense that the Crucifixion-drawing following on 4v is a response to these same benedictions. If so, then the texts have determined the placement of the drawing, and therefore the drawings must have been made at Canterbury since that, clearly, is where the archbishop's letter would have originated. If the text had not forced the use of a singleton for the drawing on fo 4v, then w e should expect to find the illustration on fo 5r; but, to have it there, seven lines of the benedictions would have had to be omitted, which would hardly have been acceptable. O n the other hand, the drawings on fo 5v and fo 6r are such perfect companion-pieces, with similar borders, folds in the drapery, and other decorations, that it might reason­ ably have seemed inappropriate to split them up; indeed, they m a y already have been drawn before the letter and benedictions were entered in the gathering. It is undoubtedly significant that all of the original writing in the first gather­ ing is in Anglo-Caroline, for all of the original writing in the rest of the manuscript is in Square minuscule, whether in Latin or Old English. B y recog­ nising that the first gathering is made up of five and not four leaves, w e are forced to realise that the remarkable line-drawings are not part and parcel of the main text but were added to it, utilising the initial blank folio left by the main scribe; if the scribe w h o wrote the main text had been available when the first quire was prefixed, he would have been asked to write the archbishop's letter in Ä e same hand which he had used to write Dunstan’ s letter of privileges，and he would have also written the benedictions in the same hand which he had used to write benedictions in the main part of the pontifical. That he did not do so is best explained by his not having been at Canterbury. If the name of Leofricus in Lambeth 149 will ilow us to date the hand of Paris, Bibliothèque nationale, MS. latin 943, to the period of his abbacy at Exeter, which seems to have been ca 980 x ca 993, then the dates of our manuscripts mesh perfectly for a presentation-pontifical: Wulfsige became bishop of Sherborne in 993. If he originally came from Glastonbury before he became abbot of Westminster, there is nothing at all improbable in Abbot Leofric (or his successor) having the pontifical prepared in his scriptorium; after all, the reformed house at Exeter derived from Glastonbury twenty-five years earlier, and it can be expected to have rejoiced at the reformation of another house.157 Obviously, a great deal more work needs to be done with the three m a n u ­ scripts in this hand in order to examine their associations more carefully, and either to establish more fully or to demolish the hypothesis that they were

137 Knowlos, The Monastic Order, p. 50.

93

Anglo-Saxon Exeter written at Exeter. Exeter 3507, Bodley 718, and Paris, Bibliothèque nationale, MS. latin 943 represent very considerable achievements in book-production, which m a y have been the natural evolution of the standards set by the scribe of the ‘ Exeter Book’ ，and which m a y even owe its original impetus to 疋 thelstan’ s reputed endowment of the minster at Exeter.

V THE ‘ EXETER B O O K ， ：C O D I C O L O G Y

4. S U M M A R Y Six codices in two different hands, spanning the second half of the tenth century, display no institutional associations earlier than those with Exeter, and the hypothesis that the six were written at Exeter deserves attention. That all six m a y have been written at the same place is made probable by the identification of the second hand's occurrence as the corrector in a manuscript written in the first hand, and further by the fact that the second hand is formally related to the first, preserving several of its particular traits. That the place where these books were written was Exeter is suggested by their c o m m o n association with that house，and by an inscription in Lambeth MS. 149, which possibly names Exeter's abbot at the time when the book was corrected. A close analysis of its script suggests that the 'Exeter Book* began to be written probably after 950 and before 968, but the texts of Lambeth M S . 149 and MS . Bodley 319, in a later version of the same hand, suggest that they were copied in the context of a learned’ monastic community. Just such a community existed at Exeter after 968 when Dunstan sent a plantation of monks from Glastonbury under the care of an abbot named Sidemarm,

If what w e have learned thus far about Exeter and its scriptorium is correct, then the poetry of the 'Exeter Book* (Exeter, Cathedral Library, MS. 3501) must be viewed as a literary collection whose formation m a y have bridged the periods before and after the Benedictine reform of Exeter Abbey, and - unlike copies of the works of Augustine, Bede, and Isidore - m a y incorporate local preferences in its compilation, and perhaps in the composition of the poems themselves. If w e could establish the history of the 'Exeter Book', then the texts which it contains might be thought to reflect the culture of the periods encompassed in its production. In this chapter, w e shall attempt to discover that history, con­ sidered separately from that of the other manuscripts to which the *Exeter Book* m a y be related. The history of the institution which produced it is only part of the history of a manuscript book or codex. The history of its o w n production in as m u c h detail as can be determined is equally or more informative about the nature of and assumptions behind the texts which it contains. Institutional history can reveal information about the choice and forni of texts in a codex in showing, for example, that an early tenth-century vernacular copy of Boethius's De consoladone Philosophiae or of Gregory's Regula pastoralis must be related to King Alfred's educational reforms at the end of the previous century. A n institution's history m a y also account for the physical state in which a book survives as reflecting changing attitudes towards the book's contents. The damage in the 'Exeter Book* - caused by splashing, slashing, and burning - is probably best regarded as the result of incidents reflecting a certain state of mind about Old English texts at Exeter after the Conquest.1 The mediaeval production of a manuscript was a complex, albeit relatively commonplace, process. It demanded that one gather enough membrane for the project, which in itself depended upon the supply of animals available for slaughter or upon the resources available for barter or purchase. Once cured, the membrane had to be scraped, folded into quires, pricked，and ruled - not always in that order.2 Ink had to be made from pigments needing to be secured from some source, near or far, and ground; and the pens through which that ink flowed had to be plucked from the marsh or from a goose and sharpened. Pages had to be planned with reference to the

1 See appendix VI. 2 For a full account of parcbment and related membranes, their preparation and properties, see Reed, Ancient Skins; for an aocewible brief account with pertinent bibliography see Bischoff, Latin Palaiography, pp. 8-11.

94

95

Anglo-Saxon Exeter

The ‘Exeter B ook ’ ： Codicology

exemplar(s) of the chosen text so that all of the desired text could fit into the space available. Even the hands written, especially the display-hands chosen, had to be considered in terms of size, appropriateness, and effect If the book were to be illuminated, then an artist had to add the painting, which was sometimes done in several layers of thin washes. Finally, the quires had to be bound, either in a limp parchment-binding or in boards. If it was bound in boards, then a full range of ornamentation and artistry might be called for which, in effect, would repeat m a n y parts of the process just described.3 Each of these several processes involved a number of choices, and it is in the reconstruction of those choices that W e arrive at the core of the history of a mediaeval manuscript book. Since about 1950, scholars have referred to at­ tempts to reconstruct such choices as *codicology\4 It is the purpose of this chapter, then, to reconstruct the physical history, or the codicology, of the 'Exeter Book\ Certainly, such an archaeology of the manuscript will affect the wa y in which w e view the text of the 'Exeter Book'.5 The first step in the codicology of any manuscript is the establishment of a physical collation as a basis for determining the original state of the codex, before leaves were lost or moved.

The valuable quire-by-quire collation which M a x Forster made of the Exeter Book can never be disregarded, because it is the only such published study of the manuscript in an unbound condition. W e have, however, learned more about the original state of the gatherings in the last half century. The following full collation is offered in order to bring together everything which w e n o w know about the manuscript's structure.7 The most substantial recent contribution to our understanding of the collation of the 'Exeter Book* has been made by John C. Pope in a series of articles which culminated in a summary of this work entitled ‘ Palaeography and poetry: some solved and unsolved problems of the Exeter Book*.8 I have also included Neil Ker?s more recent collation.9 The collation offered here also reflects m y previously published study of the codex, in which I concluded that the ‘ Exeter B o o k ’is a collection of three originally separate booklets.10 The following schematic diagrams of ‘ Exeter-Book，quires employ triangular points to indicate the face (hair- or flesh-side) of the folio on which the rulings were made. R indicates the primary rulings; r indicates augmented or secondary rulings.11 Three rows of numbers, arranged in columns above the diagram, indicate place, status, and foliation respectively. The uppermost row gives the folio^ place in the quire by means of a series of cardinal numbers. The second row of numbers indicates the folio’ s status: an ordinal number indicates a bifolium in the position named, and the letters 'SG* indicate an original singleton. The third row of numbers gives the foliation of the leaf within the codex: an 'X ' in this row indicates the loss of a leaf with commensurate loss of text in that position, and 4C A N C / indicates a leaf which was cancelled when the quire was planned or copied, resulting in the loss of no text. The discussion of each diagram is restricted to defining the integrity of the gathering; a discussion of the techniques used in constructing the gatherings, using the information avail­ able here, is provided at the end of this chapter, pp. 128-47.

1.P H Y S I C A L C O L L A T I O N O F T H E M A N U S C R I P T A competent collation of the codex had not been published until the introduc­ tory essays for the facsimile edition of the lExeter B o o k , were published in 1933, although the eighteenth-century foliation - the more recent of two folia­ tions —assures us that nothing has been lost from the manuscript since at least 1705 (unless it were to have been lost from the very end of the book, where loss would not have affected the numerical sequence).6 Moreover, the late sixteenthcentury foliation suggests that nothing has been removed from the manuscript since ca 1550, although the carelessness of this foliation would have permitted the silent loss of a leaf with a repeated or missing number, but that is special pleading. Leaves missing from the manuscript were probably lost before the book was bound in the early fifteenth century, or possibly after it was bound but before it was foliated in the late sixteenth century. It is improbable that leaves were taken out between the time of binding and the first foliation (of the sixteenth century), and it is almost inconceivable that anything has been lost since the second foliation was made (around 1700), unless - as I have said - it were a leaf or two at the very end of the codex. 3 For a brief, elementary account of the process as related to one of the great Insular gospelbooks, see Backhouse, The Lindisfarne Gospelsypp. 27-32. For a fuller account of the whole process, see Ivy, *The bibliography*. 4 For a good survey of the development of the foundation of codicology to 1976, see Delaissé, •Towards a history’ .

5 On codicology as ‘archéologie du manuscril’， see Gruys, ‘De Ia “Bücherhandschriftenkünde'* \ pp, 31-2.

6 The foliation is authenticated by Wanley's recorded use of it in 1705, although it may

actually have been made in the lale 1690s. See pp. 244-7, below.

96

7 Förster, ^General description*, pp. 56-60. 8 The references in the foUowing collation are to Pope, Talaeography and poetry\ pp. 64-5. 9 Ker, Medieval Manuscripts, 11.807-8. Ker's account in his Catalogue, p.153, no. 116, is defective through a printer's or proofreader's error, which peraiits Vants V instead of wants 1/ and by not recognising that all quires except possibly the last were originally eight-leaf gatherings. Dr Ker supplied Exeter Cathedral Library with a revision of hi$ collation: it has been kept in that institution^ copy of the Catalogue, Although the printing error was corrected, research had not yet shown the first sixteen quires to be gatherings in eights, and an incorrect collation persisted in that revision. These errors were corrected by Ker, Medieval Manuscripts, 11.807-8. i〇 The evidence for this isfuUy discussed following the coUation (sec pp.110-28); the evidence for the thrcc-bortdet structure of the 'Exeter Book* has been given in briefer form by Conner, 'The structure1. • 11 Ihave adapted this lystem of Indicating ruling from Leroy, 'Quelques tystèmes de róglure'.

97

Anglo-Saxon Exeter

The *Exeter Book *: Codicology

Q U I R E I: (Christ* 1 [cyninge] to 490a [strengdu stapolfcestre])

John Pope discovered that a folio is missing from this gathering, resulting in a loss of forty-four manuscript lines of text.14 The importance of his discovery is that it makes the second gathering typical of the format of this book, a quire comprising eight leaves, two of which are singletons positioned exactly where they would be expected.15 The quire is entirely constructed of very thin, limp parchment with a heavily pounced (or chalked) flesh-side. Quires HI-V include some bifolia of this same type of membrane. The presence of the old foliation in proper sequence throughout this gathering indicates that the second leaf was lost before the end of the sixteenth century. The quire is pricked and ruled for twenty-two lines.

1 1st X

2 2nd 8 F H

3 3rd 9 H F

1

4 4th 10 H F r>

5 4th 11 F H

6 3rd 12 F H

7 2nd 13 H F

8 1st 14 F

1 1 1

QUIRE III: (Christ* 952a \fyllad mid fere] to 1499b [pcet ge bropor mine]) I8 (wants 1 ) (fos 8-14) [Förster, Ker, Pope] The missing folio, conjugate with fo 14, m a y have been a victim of the same activities which left their marks on fo 8. These include a circular stain ~ which has been attributed, perhaps too quickly, to the bottom of a tankard - and many straight, randomly made cuts, as if the book had been used as a pad on which to cleave or cut something.12 The resulting loss amounts to as much as forty-six manuscript lines of text, assuming that another gathering containing part of ‘ Christ I，did not precede this one; the p o e m ’ s Latin sources do not indicate a loss so great as to require our positing another quire before this one. In any case, fo 8r is sufficiently stained and darkened to allow the suggestion that it had existed for quite some time as the first leaf of the manuscript while the book was in an unbound state. Because the missing leaf was not counted in the old foliation, w e can be reasonably certain that ithad been lost before the end of the sixteenth century. The quire is pricked and ruled for twenty-three lines; nor­ mally there are twenty-two lines per page in this codex.

QUIRE n ： (iChristT 490b [on stowa gehware] to 951b [woruld mid storme])

ふ 15 H

R>

SG X

3 2nd 16 F H

s7〇 19 H F

8

2nd 20 H F

CANC.

1 1st 22 H F R>

2 2nd 23 H F

3 3rd 24 F H

4 4th 25 H F

5 4th 26 F H r>

6 3rd 27 H F

7 2nd 28 F H r>

,8st 29 F H

5 4th 41 F H

6 3rd 42 H F

7 2nd 43 F H

8 1st 44 H F parently designed to evoke an emotional response Independent of any nanaüve context. ^ Cf. dlscusiion by Dumville, W tsstx and England^ chapter VI.

149

Anglo-Saxon Exeter of Edward the Elder and v€thelstan,4 appears to have atrophied during the Benedictine revolution.5 Such vernacular literature as w e can with some cer­ tainty assign to the period of the Reform - the Bückling Homilies, the Vercclli Homilies, and ^Elfric's oeuvre at the end of it6 - do not represent a cosmopolitan world-view with a place for Boethius and Orosius, but they are instead a part of the cultural myopia of the Reform, which turned to the Bible, the Sanctoral, and similar sources for literary subject-matter. The broader heritage of Christian culture which had been developing since late Antiquity was rejected. This transmuted taste in literature, which ma y also be traced through the poetry of the three booklets of the ‘ Exeter Book' is a product of the Benedictine revolution’ s goal to return to St Benedict's o w n monasticism, for, in doing so, basic Christian texts and myths became the privileged sources in literary composition, and texts which once had served such monastic writers as Bede and Alcuin were n o w marginalised if not completely repudiated.7

ANALYSIS I. B O O K L E T II

Space here will not permit the kind of detailed analysis of each of the poems in Booklet II and its Frankish analogues which must eventually be provided before w e can properly assess the relationship of Continental influence to Old English poetry. A few general comments must serve to make the point W e do not know what sort of intellectual activities were pursued at Exeter after King Alfred expelled the vikings in 877/8 and 894/5.8 In the eleventh century, at least, it was believed that >Ethelstan had endowed the minster, and, if he did not in fact do so, then w e have to account for numerous, interlocking texts which say that he did, taking them either as an unnecessarily elaborate fraud or as an incredible set of coincidences. W e have three recensions of the Exeter relic-lists, whose simi­ larities in content suggest that they were based on the relics themselves; all the lists cite King 龙 thelstan’ s generosity to the minster; in a statement magmtying Bishop Leofric's accomplishments at Exeter, w e have the remark that three codices remained from ^Ethelstan's endowment (as well as a trunk of relics and some vestments), when it would have been just as easy and perhaps more effective rhetorically simply to say that nothing remained from the old

4 Lapidge, 4Some Latin poems*. Cf. Dumvilie, Wessex and England, chapters DI-VI. 5 Frantzen, King Alfred, pp.111-14, has cited several scholars who have noted the problem and several attempts to explain it To these should be added Gneuss, 'The origin of standard Old English1,pp. 63-71, and Knowles, The Monastic Order, p. 33. 6 On all these, see Gatch, Preaching and Theology. 7 This is but a sketch of the theory expressing the dichotomy between monastic culture before and after the Benedictine revolution, on which my analysis of the poetry of the *Exeter Book* isdependent. For more detail, see chapter 2 of my forthcoming study, The Cloistered Scop: a Study o f the Monastic Context o f Old English Poetry,

1 Cf. Simon l^ylortin The Anglo-Saxon Chronicle, gen. odd. Dumville & Keynes, IV.36,41~4. ISO

Poetry and Cultural History donation;9 and w e can identify seven manuscripts or fragments of manuscripts which might have been at Exeter as early as the first half of the tenth century, or even earlier. A hallmark of ^thelstan^ reign was the cultural liaison which was estab­ lished between England and the Continent. While Alfred's cultural projects transformed the wisdom of the ages into English, ^Ethelstan's literary interests appear to have been conditioned by contemporary poetry of the Frankish courts.10 W e have three short but difficult poems composed in England during iEthelstan's lifetime, ail of which make use of Continental conventions. Most notable among them for the present purpose is entitled Carta dinge gressus by its latest editor, a verse epistle (a form without other extant Latin precedents in England at the time) celebrating the pledge of Constantine and other Northern leaders to i€thelstan in 927. It is contained in London, Bntish Library, MS. Cotton Nero A.ii, an earlier eleventh-century manuscript (possibly from Exeter), and in Durham, Cathedral Library, MS. A.ii.l7.n Even though such poems may have been written by foreign clerks in the king's retinue, the forms and subjects of Carolingian poetry most certainly became known to the English by means of tneir king's patronage of it Nevertheless, one of the most vexing questions in the study of the history of Old English poetry concerns the degree to which Latin poetry influenced the development of English poetry. While it is sometimes possible to find echoes of specific Latin forms in Old English poetry - the encomium and ‘ The Ruin，serve as an obvious example12 - it is much more difficult to argue that a school, style, or genre of Latin poetry has affected a collection of poems in the vernacular, because the very items which consolidate the Latin grouping of poems often cannot be duplicated in Old English composition. For example, extensive ex­ perimentation with exotic vocabulary led to the style of Latin poetry being written in England which w e call Ethelstan gave the bishopric later known as St 14 On *Judith\ see Timmer, ywd/7A,pp.6-Ä; on 4The Riming Poem\ see Earl, TOspCTic style*. 15 Wcxxl, 'The making*; Robinson, The Times, pp. 74-5; see above, pp.17-19. 16 Acta Sanctorum, ed. Bollandus, February, 11.875-9. Glöde, ^Cynewulf's ''Juliana** thought that a somewhat different version of the Latin Life provided the source, but Garnett, 'The Latin*.found no basis for Glöde's hypothesis. 17>Oodman, Poetry, pp. 57-61, 306-9, has provided a basic bibliography, commentary, selections fh>m (he firstpart of the Life, and 丨 translation.

132

Of Sancte Germane J>am apostolican were J>e on J?isum lande, 7 eac on oörum landum gehwaer, manege wundra J)urh G o d geworhte. Of St Germanus, the apostolic m a n who, with God's help, wrought many miracles in this land and also in many other lands.

The description compresses a great deal of information, and might be derived from a martyrology or even a Life of St Germanus, such as Constantius^s, Heiric's, or some other writer's work. The epitome of the Life of St Juliana w m c h found its way into the Old English recension of the Exeter reiic-list clearly reflects a similar knowledge of her hagiography.20 Of Sancta Iuliana J)am halgan maedene, J>e on J>am gewinne hire martyrdomes, swa swide w a e s Jjurh godcundan gife gestrangod，J>aet heo pone dofol band 7 swang ，J>e hire on ö a m ewerterne to com. Of St Juliana, the holy maiden, who, in the struggle for her martyrdom, was by means of divine grace so strengthened that she bound and scourged the devil who came to her in prison.

Nevertheless, given our present knowledge of the texts involved, the argument cannot be pushed further than this; saint's Lives were versified for the court of Charles the Bald at the end of the ninth century, and the name of the subject of one of those lives, St Germanus, was supposed to have visited Cornwall and given his name to a place known to King ^thelstan, w h o donated - according to the relic-lists - one of the saints relics to Exeter. Cynewulf's poetry is not like Heine's, but there is a similarity of purpose in both poets' updating, as it were, a simpler, sentimental prose narrative，presumably for a more sophisticated audi_ ence.21 Certainly, Cynewulf did not have to be inspired by Heine, but the careful ritual framework of 'Juliana*, the rhetorical display (including even humour or, at least, irony) in speeches made by the several personae in the poem, and the skilful evocation of her accomplishments suggest that he was influenced by a sophisticated - and probably Continental- poet whose versified hagiographies he had read.22 *Azarias5, it must be remembered, is one of the few Old English poems to exist in a related form in another manuscript 'Daniel' in Oxford, Bodleian Library, MS. Junius 11,is closely related, and the Exeter Book poem should probably be considered contemporary with 4Danier. 'Daniel', in turn, probably has to be dated along with ‘ Genesis’and ‘ Exodus’ ，to which it is stylistically

18 Olson, Early Monasteries in Cornwall, pp. 60-6. 19 See below, appendix II,for the relic-listand a discussion of it. 20 Ibid.

21 The statement implies that Cynewulf was an early tcntb*century poet, as I think him to have been. Ihope to publish fbrtber on thU subject. 22 S te CBÜÓert Cynewu(ft pp, 165-70.

133

Anglo-Saxon Exeter

Poetry and Cultural History

related. A. N. Doane, a recent editor of *Genesis A \ has suggested a terminus ante quern for the composition of that p o e m ca 900, which is founded on the

catalogues fare better in Old English when they are subsumed into larger structures, such as narrative poems and verse-epistles. ‘ Widsith’is also a catalogue-poem, but it is proof, too, of m y last statement — that the catalogues need to be subsumed in a larger purpose. Tlie larger purpose of this p o e m is that of a royal encomium, one of only two such encomia in Old English. The other is T h e Battle of Brunanburh,, composed in honour of iEthelstan and his brother Edmund's triumph over the Northern coalition in 937. The encomium, or public panegyric (or publica carmina, to use Ovid^ phrase), was the sort of p o e m by which the Carolingian poet was measured.28 The form is, by decree of its conventions, highly patterned and artificial; yet it must crystallise one's vision of its subject so that the central image - usually one of political or social import - remains a contrived but compelling monument to an event or continuing situation. Poets w h o did this well were powerful, but those w h o attempted it without sufficient discipline courted political disaster because a failed encomium could be an embarrassment to its subject, the kind of embarrassment which a king or other politically powerful figure might not care to endure twice.29 Consequently, m a n y encomiastic poets had a dual agenda: to praise an individual or inaividuals, and to display themselves in the act of creating such praise.30 Widsith' is a p o e m about the political context of the encomium. In it, a poet is shown to spread the praise of Eormanric and Ealhhild who, being wise in the power of poetry, secure their o w n fame until the end of time. Wdsith begins his carmina by telling his auditors that he has travelled to Eormanric^ court where he learned that princes must succeed each other peawum, Virtuously \ in order for tneir lines of succession to prosper. H e then wanders through the tribes of the Germanic world, and returns to his queen, Ealhhild, w h o presented him with a ring. For that, he spread her praise, and the praise of his lord, Eormanric. After that, his catalogue of visitations is much more restricted to groups which might have held some connexions in the poet's mind with the Goths,31 and he concludes that, while those w h o are born to rule matter most in this world, the ruler w h o knows the value of poetry will gain the highest glory. The theme can be traced from Ovid to Alcuin to Theodulf to Ermoldus Nigcllus: encomiastic poetry gives glory permanence, not the praise­ worthy action itself. Thus, Widsith raises Ealhhild's praise under the heavens (lines 99-102) and magnifies it by setting it within the generations of Germanic rulers and tribes.32 This use of the catalogues is particularly reminiscent of

possibility that the p o e m might have been composed as late as the time when 'Genesis B* was combined with it, which could not have been much before the third quarter of the ninth century, since the Old Saxon original of the latter p o e m is from the second quarter of the ninth century.23 The terminus ante quem for the composition of the poems of the Junius manuscript should probably be revised to ca 968 (the latest date to which I a m willing to assign Booklet II of the 'Exeter Book* on the argument that it probably predates Sidemann's arrival as abbot) if w e suppose that the copying of *Azarias,represents a current interest in vernacular renderings of Biblical narrative. In any case, the first half of the tenth century well suits the subject-matter of 4Azarias\ The p o e m includes the story of the three young m e n in the fiery furnace, the dramatic context of the canticle called the Benedicite or the Ymnus trium puerorwn. W e k n o w that the canticle was regularly used at Exeter, because a special prayer accompanying it at the end of Ember Days was added to the *Leofric Missal9 in the eleventh century, and there is at least circumstantial evidence that it was in the missal in the early tenth century.24 Moreover this particular canticle was a favourite subject of Carolingian poets, one of the best examples being Walahfrid Strabo's version of it in the mid-ninth century as De ymno trium puerorum.25 The catalogue-poems - ‘ The Gifts of M e n ， ，‘ Precepts’ ，‘ The Fortunes of M e n ' and ‘ Maxims I，- are dependent upon the device of tke catalogue which was, like m a n y other conventions of Classical poets, also practised by the Carolingian poets, as Alcuin*s famous description of his library at York suggests, and as his contemporary, Theodulf, showed in his p o e m which begins 4N a m q u e ego suetus eram hos libros legisse frequenter5.26 The first eighteen lines of Theodulf^ p o e m constitute a list of writers, usually with evaluative adjectives attached, and the remaining forty-six lines of the p o e m develop a aiftercnt sort of catalogue of allegories to prove the premise that 'poets9writing is a vehicle for falsehood, philosophers bring truth; they transform the lies of poets into veracity*.27 The Old English catalogues lack the subtle symmetry and variety in the movement from one segment to the next of the catalogue which Theodulf shows in his poem. Even when they are judged not by the content of their individual segments but by the slight degree of sophistication in their organising principles, the Old English catalogue-poems nevertheless betray the lack of a developed English tradition in such poetry. Such a lack m a y be the best proof w e have of the essentially experimental nature of these poems, so that the

23 The Saxon Genesis, ed. Doane, p. 46; for a brief but useful summary of the relationships among MS. Junius 11,the Old Saxon Heliand, and the Old Saxon Genesis, see Wood» *The making’ ,p. 262. 24 See below, p.189. 23 For the text sec 尸oe/此， eddL Dtimmlcr e/ a/,,11.394-5; for a briefhistory of Walahfrid、work, sec Manitius, Geschichte, 1.302-15. 26 'These were the books which I was accustomed to read frequently*: Godman, Poetry, pp. 168-71. 27 Lines21-2;Godman ， 尸0 ^y,p. 168,

28 G oéram, Poets and Emperors, 29 lbid.9 p. 79. See Greenfield et a i 7 A New Critical History, f^>. 148-9, on Battle of Brunanburh"; on the one hand they recognised the poefs ^striking effects1and, on the other, they wrote that *the poem is a tissue of heroic formulaic cliché, themes, and stylistic variation*. In fact, the faults which they find in the poem are the source of the strengths which they observe. Anyone wishing to reconsider the accomplishments of the poet of *The Battle of Brunanburh' should consider Angilbert*s *The Batüe of Fontenoy\ starting with Peter Godman*sremarks on the poem's genre in Poetry, pp. 48-SO. 30 A modern study of the conventions of the Carolingian encomium has yet to be written, but see Godman, Poetry, pp. 29-31, and Curtius, European L ite r a tu r e ^ . 156-9. HiU, 'Widsiö*. 33 Catalogues are quite common in Carolingian encomiastic poetry. See the catalogues of saints tn the anonymoui *Kn Prtlie of Verona'; Oodman, Poetry, pp. 180-7.

IS4

153

Anglo-Saxon Exeter

Poetry and Cultural History

Ermoldus Nigellus*s extensive description of the paintings at Ingelheim in the first section of his lengthy encomium In honorem Hludouici Pii where the amassed detail of the paintings underscores the place of the Imperial family within universal history.33 W e expect an encomium to be directed at a living person or group of persons, or at a city or country. The Old English poetry which w e have, however, is seldom so specific. ‘ Widsith’proves that this lack of specificity does not reside in such things as limitations imposed by formulaic half-lines or even a lack of models, for, if Eormanric and his queen are central to that poem, then English rulers might also have taken centrd places in English poetry had poets wished to put them there. It is more likely that English poets simply could not find the context to permit the same Kind of personalised encomiastic poetry as w e find in the Frankish courts, because they could not rely on the same audiences. The Continental poets wrote in Latin, which assured them of a *courtiy audience of magnates, clerics and laymen, anxious to get on in a world whose leaders had made the written word more than the vehicle of the Christian faith'.34 The written word of the Christian faith, however, was not English. W h e n English poets composed in Old English for public performance, they could not assume a trained audience w h o would recognise conventions borrowed from the Latin poets, so that it m a y have been thought best simply not to attempt encomia in the same mode as the Carolingian poets.35 Whatever the reason for our inability to identify the gydda gleawne, geofum unhneawne, ^connoisseur of poems, generous with his gifts' (line 139), with an English ruler, 'Widsith' nevertheless sits more comfortably among those poems of the panegyric tradition produced in ninth-century France than it does as one of a kind, alone among Old English poems. In considering 'Vainglory', critics seem to have forgotten that the AngloSaxons had at their disposal the texts of the most favoured satirists from the pre-christian period, Juvenal and Persius, and the Carolingian poets had a strong tradition of satirical verse deriving from an interest in Horace as well as the two later satirists. 'Vainglory' is less about vainglory than about the process whereby one guards oneself against this and similar flaws of character, and that is the purpose of satire. But the part of this poem which challenged the poet's craftsmanship was surely the description of the over-proud thane in the hall, and it is this which is particularly reminiscent of Carolingian satirical models. Thcodulf's portrait of the Irishman Cadac-Andreas in Charlemagne's court will serve to make the comparison with the vainglorious m a n in the hall.36

While this is h^pening, while my poem is being read, let the miserable Irishman stand tihere, a lawless and raging thing, a dire thing, a hideous enemy, a horror of dullness, a terrible plague, a bane of quairdsomaiess, a wild thing， a great abomination

a wild thing, a foul thing, a lazy thing, a wicked thing, a thing hateful to the pious, a thing opposed to the good, with curved hands, its neck bent back a little, may it fold its crooked arms across its stupid chest. Doubting, astonished, trembling, raging, panting, let it stand there, unstable of hearing, hand, eyes, mind and step. With swift movement let it repress now one, now another feeling, at one moment bellowing forth mere groans, at another fierce words. The difference between this description of the mean-spirited Irishman and the proud thane in the Old English poem is that w e k n o w that Theodulf was specifically satirising Cadac-Andreas, but w e assume that the poet of Vain­ glory* was describing a type without specific identity.37 That is, of course, merely an assumption based on negative evidence.38

Sum on oferhygdo prymrne J)ringeö, printed him in innan ungemedemad mod; sindan to monige ^>aet! asfjxmca eal gefylled feondes fligepilum, facensearwum; breodaö he ond baelceö, boö his sylfes swijx>r micle J>onne se sella mon, fenced J)aet his wise welhwam f)ince eal unforcuj). Bip J?aes of>er swice J>onne he Ip^s facnes fmtan sceawaö. WrenceJ) he ond blencej), worn gej>encej) hinderhoca, hygegarleteö, scurum sceotej). He pd. scylde ne wat ，

faehj>e gefremede, feob his betran eorl fore aefstum, lseteo inwitflan

brecan bone burgweal,J>e him bebead meotud J?aethe paet wigsteal

sitej> symbelwlonc,

wergan sceolde,

searwum laeteö

wine gewaeged word ut faran, J>raefte {>ringan |>rymme gebyrmed, aefaestum onaeled, oferhygda ful， nij)um nearowrencum.

^ The identification was made by Bischoff, Mittelalterliche Studien^ 11.20-5.

« Ibid., pp. 46,250-5. 34 McKittcrick, The Carolingians, p. 232; but sec pp. 227-35 as a whole. 33 It is also possible that such poems did exist, of course, and that they provided models for the later Chronicle-poems, but that they are now lost. 36 Godman, Poe/ry, p.161; also see the relevant notes on pp. 11-13.150.

38 Lines 23b-44a: *One pride-filled fellow bulUshly puts himself forward, muscles his way forth in an unrestrained fashion; there are too many like that! He's filled up with mean* spiritedness, with mental darts and machinations of the DeviPs devising; he rants and bellows and boasts of tiimself a lot more than does a better man. He thinks that everyone will think ills manner quite acceptable. He will have another thought coming when he beholds the results of his evil deeds. He manoeuvres and be cheats and he thinks of a lot of tricks and trap%, wasting volleys of thought in vain showers. He accepts no guilt for the harm which be has done; he hates a better man merely out of envy; be lets the missies of malice break the very ramparts which he promised his lord he would protect. So he siu as ifhe were the host of the feast, but besotted with wine he sows discord, sending forth words puffed up in power, belching with would-bc majesty, burning with envy, fUlcd with pride - charged with in­ solence and etunity.'

136

137

，

Anglo-Saxon Exeter The poet continues，saying that no w that he has given his audience a ‘ few intimations' of the true nature of his subject, w e shall be able to recognise that son of Satan when w e meet him. The Carolingian poets regularly allegorised nature, and all such formal al­ legories in the Old English canon occur in Booklet II of the *Exeter Book' - in the poems ‘ The Phoenix’ ，T h e Order of the World’ ，‘ The Panther’ ，‘ The Whale', and 4The Partridge'. W e need not go into much detail here, since it has been shown elsewhere that the poems of the Physiologus - T h e Panther% T h e Whale', and 'The Partridge' - are dependent upon the Y-recension of the Latin prose text, and three manuscripts in that recension are extant from the Caroling­ ian period.39 The three poems of the Physiologus are very clear in their relationship to Continental materials, as is 4The Phoenix' which also has sources in the Physio­ logus. Bishop Radbod's poem on the swallow, written at Utrecht at the very end of the ninth century or possibly at the beginning of the tenth, comes closest, perhaps，to mirroring the spirit and attitude of ‘ The Phoenix’ .40 Radbod was writing in a tradition of nature-poetry whose aim was to blend the lyrical and the didactic very much in the Augustinian tradition which sought revelation in the enigmas of nature. Radbod and the poet of T h e Phoenix' integrate the metaphysical and the moralistic in the symbol of a bird which links the divine and natural worlds with the characteristics which they wish to explore.41 T h e Order of the World' works in the same way, utilising the journey of the sun as the linking symbol. The final group of Booklet-II poems to be defended as compositions probably indebted to a Carolingian poetic tradition are those generally called elegies: *The Wanderer', *The Seafarer', and 'The Riming P o c m ,. Certain develop­ ments in the late Carolingian elegy, particularly the influence of the eclogue upon it, combined to produce a form which always exploited a bleak - albeit idealised - setting and often hinted at a second voice or moralising persona, and these poems provided the models for T h e Wanderer’ ，‘ The Seafarer’ ，and ‘ The Riming P o e m ,in the second booklet. Both Walahfrid Strabo's and Gottschalk's works provide 纹 nalogies，but it is particularly difficult to read Walahfrid’ s 'Elegy on Reichenau' and not be struck by the similarity of images which the first half of the poem bears to both ‘ The Wanderer’and ‘ The Seafarer’ .42

Poetry and Cultural History 3.

4.

5.

6.

7.

8.

No kindly teacher consoles me, nor does any good master hearten me; the only thing that keeps my miserable body alive is the food I eat. Bitter cold assails my naked flesh, there is no warmth in my hands, goose-pimples stand out on my feet and my face flinches before the harsh winter. Indoors I suffer the icy cold, the sight of my frozen bed gives no pleasure, warm neither when I get up nor where I sleep, I snatch what rest I can. If only wisdom which I esteem could take hold in my mind even the smallest part of it, the warmth of my wits would make me safer. Alas, father, if only you were there you whom I have followed to the ends of the earth I believe that no harm would have corae to the poor little heart of your pupil. Look, tears burst forth as I recall how good was the peace I long ago enjoyed, when happy Reichenau gave me a modest roof over my head.

M u c h work remains to be done before w e can say without hesitation that the Booklet-II poems in the *Exeter Book* owe their subject-matter and form pri­ marily to previous generations of Frankish poets. But even so brief an examin­ ation of the subject as this has been leaves die impression that we can trace the derivation of this body of poetry from Carolingian poetry more completely than w e can trace it from any other tradition.43 Moreover, most of the earliest m a n u ­ scripts with an Exeter provenance are French, a large number of the relics said to have been bestowed throughout England by /Ethelstan are French, and several drawings of that king are modeled on Frankish prototypes.44

II. BOOKLET III 1.

2.

Sister Muse, lament for m y pain, speak of m y sad parting, alas, from the land of m y fathers, ceaselessly harassed as I was by shameful penury. Wretched, I seek heart-felt wisdom, and so I leave m y homeland, stricken by many kinds of hardship, Ilament, loathed and in exile.

The third booklet of the 4Exeter Book' was copied second, and it appears to be a mixture of several types of poems interspersed among ninety-five riddles. There is evidence that two separate collections of riddles have been copied together into one manuscript which the Exeter-Book* scribe then copied into Booklet in. Poems which were not riddles were appended to the beginning and end of each collection, so that the final arrangement was obtained. 43 〇 ]d Norse Eddie poems are sometimes suggested as analogues for some of these Old English poems, but \t must always be borne in mind that they are almost never dated before ca 1200; see Harris, "Eddie poetryFtpp. 75-7. The supposed Celtic analogues usually predate the Old English material, but they do not seem to be particularly connected in style, purpose, or technique; u e Calder & Ailen, S ource and Analogues^ II,passim. 44 Woodi *The making*, pp. 267-9» b u lummarised these.

39 Henkel, Studien, p. 25, n. 23. 40 Gcxlman, Poetry, pp. 316-19 (no. 56). ⑽/.,p.64. « Ibid., pp. 225-7.

158

159

Poetry and Cultural History

Anglo-Saxon Exeter The hypothesis that Booklet HI consists of two separate collections to which other poems had been added before being copied again is based on analyses of the riddles which show that the two collections share riddles with similar solutions, a trait not found in the Latin riddling traditions, and the hypothesis is m u c h strengthened by the presence of 'Riddle 30' in both collections. Certainly, in this case w e are dealing with a single text; it is by no means a case of two similar riddles on a single subject. The presence of the same text in two different states does not, of course, preclude the possibility that all of the riddles in Booklet HI were part of a single collection, but the burden of proof is on the person w h o would argue that there are not two collections to explain w h y the riddle is repeated. The one Anglo-Saxon instance which I can discover where a work is repeated in the same collection of shorter texts appears in Cambridge, University Library, MS. Ll.1.10, the *Book of Cerne\ In èie prayer-section of the manuscript, prayers 3 and 52, and 30 and 69 are exactly the same. The editor*s analysis of that situation is parallel to this: manuscripts have been conflated in the process of copying.45 That several other poems are found between the two riddle-collections in Booklet HI increases the probability that Riddles 1-59 were not, for at least a significant portion of their history, associ­ ated with Riddles 30b to 95. The present state of Booklet III suggests that the two riddle-collections, with their attendant texts, had probably already come together as one unit before they were copied at Exeter.46 Using a definition of ‘ monastic’to include texts probably appreciated by the tastes formed during the tenth-century Benedictine revolution, and a definition of Clerical' to include the kinds of styles and subjects which have been ob­ served in the Booklet-II poems, one can see strata of poems which surround the riddles as if they were layers arranged about a core. In both collections the riddles are preceded by poems which have spiritual value, like *Deor* and 'The Ruin’ ，but which probably belong to the same sort of literary milieu as ‘ Widsith’ and *The Wanderer*. The only condition required for this scheme is that *The Wife's Lament' follow the first set of riddles, an adjustment supported by the regular inclusion of short texts on the back sheet of any number of manuscripts. Certainly, ‘ The Wife’ s Lament’is more appropriately grouped with ‘ Deor’and *Wulf and Eadwacer' than it would be with the 'monastic' poems of Collection B, although this effects a genuine divorce between the *Wife . . / and the

Kuypers, The P ra y e r Book, pp. xiv-xviii. Cf. Dumville, "Liturgical drama*, for further discussion. 46 See above, pp. 139-41; the scribe was apparently working with a crowded exemplar which did not make the beginning and endings of the riddles, or anything else, particularly clear. For examplethe inserted an endmark in ^Riddle I T before the riddle had come to an end, and he ran riddles 42 and 43 and riddles 47 and 48 together. From fo 112v, however, he began to provide some white space between each poem, either by leaving blank the white space following a short, final line, or by shortening the first line of the next text if the last filled out the previous line. This system begins with 'Riddle 46\ although the scribe still managed lo n m together Riddles 46 and 47 before the technique became fully effective, and . continues throughout the booklet. I conjecture that the fact that the scribe felt the need to use short first linesof texts throughout the remainder of Booklet DI suggests that he was working with the same crowded exemplar, or with one very much like iu 45

160

Table X：layers of Influence on the Booklet-III collections C ollection B

Collection A Monastic

‘ Homiletic Fragment HI，

*Thc Descent into Hell*

‘ Soul and Body IT

*AImsgiving, ‘ Pharaoh’ ‘ The Lord’ s Prayer I’ ‘ Homiletic Fragment n ， Clerical

‘ Deor,

(Riddle 30b*

*Wulf and Eadwacer*

‘ Riddle 60’ *The Husband's Message* The Ruin， Riddles

Riddles 1-59

Riddles 61-95 Clerical

The Wife’ s Lament，

[final poems, if any, are lost] Monastic

(Judgment Day T ‘ Resignation A ’ ‘ Resignation B ’

runically-inclined h u s b a n d 1.471 should also note that it is impossible to decide whether any of the tmonastic, poems at the beginning of Collection B were originally at the end of Collection A. The sequence is the same, however, whether these poems originally fell at the end of one collection or at the beginning of the other.

47

Howlett* ‘“ xhe wife’ s Lament”’ ，lias seen a structural connexion between the two poems， which m y hypothesis would completely deny. I rather think that, ifthe scribe had perceived the same structural connexions, he would have moved the poems into juxtaposition in the manuscript, or they would at least be a&sociated with the same riddle-collection. Leslie, Three Old English Elegies^ pp. 18-20, explored the possibility that the poems had a common link in Gennanlc legend; I do not think that we know enough about such Oermanic legend among the Anglo-Saxons to say that they did.

161

Anglo-Saxon Exeter

Poetry and Cultural History

Booklet HI contains a dramatic demonstration of the effects of the Benedic­ tine revolution. Its core is made up of riddles, both religious and secular; to these have been appended poems of the type which have been examined in connexion with Booklet II， including ‘ Deor’ ，‘ Wulf and Eadwacer’ ，‘ The W f e ’ s Lament， ，‘ The Husband’ s Message’ ，and ‘ The Ruin’ . The last of these is this manuscript's only p o e m whose generic affiliations have been effectively exam­ ined in a Latin context.4849The next layer of poems signals an entirely n ew sensibility. The poems which I have labelled Monastic* m a y make use of some of the same rhetorical techniques as the earlier poetry - designation B 1 is elegiac, for example - but the subject-matter and the poet's restricted approach to it represent the influence of a very different sensibility. All of the 'monastic* poems are limited to monastic concerns: they dwell on penance, the liturgy, or salvation-history, and they lack the development of complex personae， ideaÜsed settings, subtle arrangement of parts, or any similar means of rhetorical devel­ opment which one finds in several of the Booklet-II poems. If these poems were added to Booklet III as another layer in a preexisting manuscript, as I conjecture that they were, they suggest that extensive changes were wrought in poetry by the Benedictine revolution. O n e expects literary tastes to evolve, as they seem to have done in France from the time of Venantius Fortunatus, the second half of the sixth century, to that of Toeta Saxo\ ca 888 x 891; here, literary tastes seem suddenly to have been transformed. If the Monastic' poems were the last to be added to the exemplar, and if they represent a radical change of taste as they seem to do’w h y were they added to an old manuscript of unfashionable poems rather than being eopieä into theix o w n fresh quire? Whatever the answer, it seems safe to say that Üie older poetry was, at least* not viewed as poetry to be imitated. Booklet ni is, whether or not the dual collection hypothesis be conect, a transitional booklet which demonstrates that the literary sensibilities of the community at Exeter underwent a radical change. It would seem safe to assume that, as tastes in the subject-matter of poetry changed, so did other cultural attitudes.

provides the hagiographic model in the training of the soul within a monastic rule, and ‘ Guthlac B ’is concerned with death in a m o n k ’ s life, asserting that a disciplined life leads to a confident death. All five poems develop the monastic themes with explicit artistry and apparent lcarnedness. The 'monastic* poems of Booklet III， such as ‘ Soul and Body II’and ‘ Judgment D ay 1’ ，seem crude in comparison with those of Booklet I. It is, in fact, the degree of learning in the Booklet-I poems which provides us with a glimpse of the intellectual side of the Benedictine revolution. In *Christ V w e are not dealing with a poet w h o knew a single set of antiphons for Christmas and used them as a basis for a poem, but rather with a poet w h o must have known no fewer than fifteen *0' antiphons for the season, a number which is quite unknown elsewhere.50 A m o n g m a n y other texts, Cynewulf knew Gregory’ s twenty-ninth homily in his collection, ‘ Forty Homilies on the Gospels’ ，and Bede’ s 40 n the Lord’ s Ascension’ .51 The poet of ‘ Christ UI’had need of an extensive library at her or his disposal. The poem indicates access to a collection of Augustine's sermons, including the pseudo-Augustinian Sermon 155; a collection of works by Bede including the alphabetic hymn, T h e Day of Judgment ’ ；a collection of sermons by Caesarius of Arles; the sermon entitled lThe Day of Judgment% by Ephrem Syrus; Gregory's Forty Homilies on the Gospels and the Moralia or Exposition of Job; and Prudentius's Liber Cathemerinon.52 'Guthlac A' is dependent upon die Benedictine Rule and Smaragdus’ s Commentary on the Rule， 53 while ‘ Guthlac B ’ derives from Felix’ s Life of St Guthlac. It would be rash to suppose that all five of these poems were composed at Exeter, but it would not be rash to suppose that all five were composed only after the full influence of the Benedictine revolution was felt. Some scholars will object to attributing Cynewulf's work to the tenth century, but I should argue that the tenth century is a more likely period for it than any other, since Cynewulf^ oeuvre appears only in tenth-century manuscripts, the crucial phonological test which was originally adduced against an eighth-century date does not negate a tenth-century dating, the presence of rhyme and near-rhyme in 'Elene9 is otherwise restricted almost entirely to late, datable poems, and the major source for 'The Fates of the Aposties' was written in 875.54 A n important question raised by this study is whether Cynewulf's oeuvre spanned the devel-

III. B O O K L E T I

Booklet I contains five poems: ‘ Christ 1’ ，‘ Christ II’ ，‘ Christ 111’ ，‘ Guthlac A ’ ， and 'Guthlac B \ All of the Booklet-I poems focus on the 'greater realities of salvation* as these were realised by people w h o had banded together for the sole purpose of ‘ devotion to heaven， .49 ‘ Christ I，is a celebration of the images and symbols which make monasticism possible: the Incarnation, which gave the m o n k his model in Christ; the Virgin-birth, which provided the m o n k with the highest precedent for personal intimacy with God; and the fellowship of angels, which justified the monk's labour in die divine service, just as angels* labours are spent in praising the Godhead. *Christ II* is the paradigmatic expression of the monk's eventual union with Christ, prefigured in the Ascension. 'Christ in' dramatises the triumph of the soul disciplined in the monastic life. *Guthlac A'

48 49

Howlett, *Two Old English encomia*. Leclcrcq, The Love o f Learning, p. 66 .

162

Rankin, 4The liturgical background% p. 333; Rankin has interpreted this as evidence that 'Christ T was composed betee the late eighth century, since the number of *0* antiphons 'appears to have contracted^ under Frankish influence. I should argue that there is no reason to suspect such contraction except in so far as it might have been a result of liturgical regularisation imposed by Regularis Concordia^ but that work does not mention the *0* antiphons. 51 Clemoes, 'Cynewulf s imaged; Brown, 'The descent-ascent motir； Calder & Allen, Sources and Analogues^ 11.78. 52 Äid., 1.84-107. 33 I presented the details of these influences on "Guthlac A* to the biennial meeting of the International Association of Anglo-Saxonists, Durham, 1989; for the complete study, see m y forthcoming paper, 'Source stupes, the Old English Guthlac A and the English Benedictine reformation*. H I hope to argue this case In a füture study.

50

163

Anglo-Saxon Exeter opment of Old English poetry between the time when it was influenced by Carolingian models, such as w e find in Booklet II and among the riddles of Booklet HI, and the establishment of the ne w poetry of the Benedictine revol­ ution as displayed in Booklet L A primary desideratum for further studies on Cynewulf is a chronology of his works, which will probably have to be based on source-studies untrammelled by preconceptions about his dates. Scholars of Old English culture have not always reckoned with the over­ whelming changes imposed by the Benedictine revolution, but the development of poetry in the 'Exeter Book* suggests that it was swifter and more thorough than w e often imagine. The poems in Booklet I are not lacking in subtlety, a charge which can be levelled with some justification against the Monastic1 poems of Booklet in. Monastic poems in the third and first booklets are the compositions of intellectuals which demand the critical skills of an audience educated in Christian Latin texts; in fact, these poems are permeated with monastic sources, including learned sermons and liturgical texts. W e find there only the merest concern with the older subjects, the fictions of the hall, the Germanic backgrounds of the Anglo-Saxons, or repeated references to poets and the power of poetry. If the first booklet of the 4Exeter Book* is a fair representation of what poets were producing in English after the Benedictine revolution, Carolingian subject-matter no longer had a place in their writings, although the techniques learned in the earlier period undoubtedly made it possible for them to create poetry of such exceedingly high quality in a very short time.

APPENDIX I THE mGHTH-CENTURY GOSPEし B O O K F R A G M E N T F R O M EXETER

(LONDON, BRmSH LIBRARY, MS. COTTON TIBERIUS B.V, VOL. I, FOLIO 75) INTRODUCTION The memoranda on the sole remaining leaf of an eighth-century gospel-book, n o w fo 7s m London, British Library, MS . Cotton Tiberius B.v, vol.1,are important as proof that the minster at Exeter carried out civic duties as early as the first half of the tenth century. This date is established on the basis of two texts on what is n o w the recto of the leaf, but was onginally its verso.1 The first of these texts, edited here as item I, is a manumission of Abunet Alfnoö, the churchwarden at Exeter.2 Witnesses of the contract w h o can be assigned dates are Daniel, bishop of Cornwall, w h o served the see 955 x 963, and King Eadwig, w h o was crowned in November 955 and died on 1 October, 959.3 ^Ethelwold, the ealdorman of East Anglia and eldest son of iCthelstan 4Half-king\ is also named as a witness, and it m a y be relevant to assessing Exeter's fortunes at this period to note that he married ^Elfthryth, the daughter of Ordgar, ealdonnan of Devon, w h o was a major source of the manumissions in Oxford, Bodleian Library, M S. Bodley 579 (S.C. 2675).4 The same ^£lfthryth was King E d g arthird wife and the mother of E d m u n d (ob. 971) and i€thelred.5 At any rate, the entry is datable 955 x 959.6 Item I is written in a Square-minuscule script which N. R. Ker dated to the mid-tenth century.7 Item II is a set of rules or by-laws for an Exeter guild. Because Item I was added to the top margin of the folio after item n was copied, Finberg stated a date of ca 950 tor this text. Ker dated the script of the entry to the first half of the tenth century (under the influence of Anglo-Saxon majuscule'. The text is particularly relevant to any assessment of Exeter^s resources because itrequired that the guild meet at least three times each year, that dues be paid, and that masses and psalms be said at each meeting. The last of these, at least, would have required the presence of priests sufficientiy well trained to sing public masses. Item in comprises verses 15-19 of chapter 28 of the Gospel of Matthew. This

1 2

3 4 5 6

7

164

Ker, Catalogue, p. 256, no. 194, pointed out that the leaf is bound into the codex *the wrong way round*. See the discussion on the distribution of texts on fo 75: below, pp.167-8. Rose-Troup, *The ancient monastery*, pp. 194-5, speculated that, on the basis of the name Abunet Alfnod, the manumitted person was an Arab craftsman. This is unlikely. Handbook, edd. Fryde et al.t pp. 27,215. See The Leofric Missal, ed. Warren, pp. lviii-lx; Hart, The Early Charters o f Northern Eng landt pp. 294-5. John» Orbis Britanniae, pp. 211,291; Hart, The Early Charters o f Northern England, pp. 272-4. Finberg, Tht Early Charters o f Wessen p« 12* no. 31. Ker, Catalogue, p. 256, no, 194.

163

Anglo-Saxon Exeter

The eighth-century Gospel-book Fragment from Exeter

was the original text in the manuscript; it was written (probably in Northumbria) in - according to E. A. L o w e - *a not very expert type of Anglo-Saxon majus­ cule* which he dated to the eighth century.8 Verse 20, the final verse in the gospel, fell at the top of the second column, and was subsequently erased.9 The state of the surviving text offers some information about the book from which it was taken. The words feria .vi. paschae, which occur on lines 1-2 of the surviving gospel-text, constitute a rubric, presumably to identify the liturgi­ cal use of the subsequent text, Matthew 28:16-20, which is the gospel-lection for Feria VI in the octave of Easter. The rubric is embedded in the text and the scribe allowed no distinction in ink, letter-form, or pen-cut between the gospeltext and feria .vi. paschae, so that it is unlikely that this (and any similar labels which m a y have existed in the text in its pristine form) could have functioned to help locate a reading. Given the small amount of text which survives, w e cannot be certain that the original book was not derived from a gospel-lectionary rather than a gospel-book.10 Matthew 28:8-15, a portion of the last two words of which are preserved in the remaining text on fo 75v, immediately before the lection Matthew 28:16, was the reading for Feria VI in the second week of Easter. Therefore，all of the surviving text in item IH would have been found in a gospel-lectionary as readily as in the gospel itself. That the scribe did not give the surviving rubric any special notice suggests that the primary purpose of the text was not liturgical. There is only one variant reading which might be significant in determining the text*s affiliation. This is eius, the fourth word in verse 16: *.XI. autem discipuli eius abierunt in Galilaeam in montem ubi constituerat illis Iesus\ Eius is elsewhere found in an Insular context only in the text of the Gospel of Matthew in Oxford, Bodleian Library, MS. Auct. D.2.19 (S.C. 3946), the socalled Rushworth or MacRegol Gospels.11 E. A. L o w e dated the script of the text edited below to the eighth century, and he dated the script of the *Rushworth Gospels' to the late eighth or early ninth century, because M a c Regol, one of its scribes, died in 822. This single variant in manuscripts of the same approximate age suggests that the two texts share an affiliation of some kind, but I do not have enough information to define the relationship further.12 Item IV is a legal record in a script which Ker attributed to the first half of the eleventh century.13 H. P. R. Finberg described the entry as the Record of the

purchase of a slave by the lady Hunnaflffid*, but byegan (gebohte is the form in the text) m a y mean either lto purchase* or *to redeem\ and the record has been considered a manumission.14 Nevertheless, the fact that the toll or purchaseprice* was transferred through a beadle or warrant-officer with a separate set of witnesses m a y suggest a more complex situation than either the simple m a n u ­ mission of an indentured servant or the purchase of a slave. The text occurs at the bottom of the inner column of the folio; originally, this would have been the outer recto column. The texts are distnouted on the folio as the necessary chronology of events would have dictated. The gospel of Matthew ended on what is n o w fo 75v but was originally a recto. The original verso (now fo 7^r) was - according to L o w e 一 left W a n k at first, which would be appropriate at the end of the gospel.15 The top of fo 75v appears to have been scrubbed exceedingly clean from the top d o w n for six centimetres. Fragments of descenders along the upper edge suggest that this page was cut down significantly from its original size, and there arc several unreadable traces or ink on the top-line, probably from an earlier text. A n examination under ultraviolet light at tie ßntish Library showed that a reagent had been applied to this top line in a weak wash, but anything brought out by reagent is no longer visiole. Just above the remaining ongmal text, there is a m u c h heavier application of reagent, made obvious under ultraviolet light by the brush marks left behind by the applicator, although in ordi­ nary white light this appears as a mere chalky-white deposit. Item I, which is narrowly datable on the basis of the witnesses named, was entered in 955 x 959 in the top margin of fo 75r; this suggests that, by the mid-tenth century, blank space was at a premium on this leaf. That in turn suggests that gospel-text had not yet been erased from fo 75v, since item I would have been entered on the top of fo 75v, had the space been available.16 The manumission entered on fo 75v - and edited below as item IV - was dated to the first half of the eleventh century by Ker on palaeographical grounds.17 It would seem that this memorandum, too, was entered on the page before the top-half was scrubbed, since w e should expect to have found it at the top of the page, had that been scraped and prepared as it stands today. Item IV was, instead, written in the blank space at the end of the gospel-text in what is n o w the inner column, so that it lay adjacent to the remaining verses of Matthew at the bottom of the leaf in what is n o w the outer column. W h e n the leaf was scrubbed, all text was removed from the point immediately above item IV for the full breadth of the leaf. The remaining descenders at the top edge suggest that the leaf had, by this time, been removed from its original book and had been cut down to its present size, before it was erased. H a d the leaf not been so trimmed before it was erased, these descenders would have been scrubbed

* Lowe, CoäiceSy II, no. 190. The facsimile provided for item 190 shows the first eight lines of the surviving gospel-text (edited below as item QI) from its beginning, including the words fe r ia .vi. paschae (see below, p.170), and most of the adjacent memorandum (edited below as item IV). 9 Rose-Troupf 4The ancient monastery*, pp. 184-5, wrote (confusedly) that she had learned from Robin Rower that the script is similar to that of the 'Book of Armagh* and other majuscule gospel-books, and she fancied that the book from which this leaf was derived had been sent to Exeter from Fulda ‘ as a precious treasure because it had been associated with [Boniface]*. >〇On the gospel-lectionary. see Gneuss, 'Liturgical books*, p.107. 11 For a collation, see The Gospel according to Saint Matthew^ ed. Skeat; Nouum Testamentwn , Latine, edd. Wordsworth & White, p. 80. Lowe, Codices, D (nos 190,231. 13 Ker, Catalogue, p. 256, no. 194.

166

Ker, ibid,; cf. Finberg, The Early Charters c f Wessex, p.13, no. 46; Drage, ^Bishop Leofric', p. 362. 15 Lowe, Codices, D, no. 190. 16 On the rapid development of Exeter at this time, see Allan, Medieval and Post-medieval Finds, pp.11,353; see also above, p. 24.

14

17 Ker, Catalogut, p. 256, no. 194.

167

The Eighth-century Gospel-book Fragment from Exeter

Anglo-Saxon Exeter away, an effect which is more difficult to achieve when the free edge of the leaf can curl away from the scraper. There is a cut d o w n the inner edge of the present verso of the leaf, almost at the inner bounding line, which seems to have been made in the scraping pro­ cess. Thus, the whole top of fo 75v was apparently erased at once, but the lower segment was saved, presumably to preserve WulfgyJ)^ manumission. Neverthe­ less, the erasure must have been motivated by some desire other than the need for more white space on the leaf, because the remaining gospel-text (which should have been erased if gaining clean membrane motivated the scraping) was left standing. Presumably, then, something which was no longer wanted - for whatever reason —was erased at some point after item IV was entered in the early eleventh century; it is unlikely that this was more of the gospel, because then w e cannot explain w h y the extant verses from Matthew were not erased as well.18 O n the other hand, w e have no indication of what else might have been there. TEXTS [f〇 75r] J [I] Manumission of Abunet ^ifnoö. Datable A.D. 955 x 959: contemporary and somewhat informal script (75r, two lines in upper margin with text following 'ByThtrices' arranged in eleven short lines down the right-hand - viz, outer margin). E a d w i cing het gefreon Abunet iElfnoö cyrceweard19 an Exanceastre fryo 7 faere

wyrbe on A^elwoldes ealdermannes gewitnesse 7 Daniel bisceop 7 Byrhtrices profastes, 7 on Wulfirices cyTcweardes 7 Eadwi cing heo[m] hit brygtdef)] Bryhtri[c] her binn[an] on Criste[s] bee. King Eadwig commanded that Abunet >Elfnoö, the churchwarden at Exeter, be free and worthy of protection in his conduct, with Ealdorman A{>elwold, Bishop Daniel, and Provost Byrhtric as witnesses, and before Churchwarden Wulfric and King Eadwig, Bryhtric conveyed that here in the book of Christ.13

msssän, ojjre side to Sancte Nfänan mscssan ofer nudne winter; |)ridd3n sibe on eallhffilegna msssedaeg ofer Eastron. 7 haebbe $lc gegilda .ii. sesteras mealtes 7 aelc cniht anne 7 sceat huniges. 7 se messepreost asinge twa maessan21 - oJ)re for lyfigendan frynd, o]?ere for J>a forögefarenan - st aelcere mittinge; 7 aelc gemasnes hades broöur twegen saiteras sealma - oöerne for ba lifgendan frynd, ojjerne for Jja forögefarenan. 7 st forösijue sic m o n n .vi. msssan o59e .vi. salteras sealma;22 7 £Et sujjfore aelc m o n .v. peninge; 7 aet husbiyne sic m o n anne ^eninge. 7 gif hwylc m a n J)〇ne andagan forgemelèasige aet forman cyrre .iii. messan, aet o^erun cyrre .v., aet ^riddan cyrre ne scire his nan m a n butun hit sie for mettrumnesse o59e for hlafordes neode. 7 gif hwylc m o n n J)〇ne andagan oferhebbe st his gescote bete be twifealdun; 7 gief hwylc m o n n of {?is geferscipe o^erne misgrete, gebete mid .xxx. peninge. Ponne biddap w e for Godes lufun aelc m a n n Jjsbs gemittinge mid rihte healde swa w e hit mid rihte geraedod habbaj). G o d us to J)sm gefultumige. This council is convened at Exeter for the love of G o d and for our souls" need, both for our welfare in life and in the afterlife too, which w e hope m a y be granted us as God's judgment on our lives. To that end, w e have agreed that w e shall have three meetings in twelve months: one at St Michael's Mass; a second time at St Mary's Mass after midwinter; a third time at All Saints' Massday after Easter. A n d each guildsman shall have two sesters of malt and each retainer one, and a sceat's worth of honey. A n d the priest shall sing two masses - one for friends w h o are living, the other for those passed away - at each meeting; and each brother of c o m m o n degree, two psalters of psalms - one for friends w h o are living, the other for those passed away. A n d for a death, each m a n [is assessed] six masses or six psalters of psalms; and for a pilgrimage south, each m a n [is assessed] fivepence; and for a house-fire, each m a n [is assessed] one penny. A n d if anyone misses the stipulated day, he [is assessed] three masses for the first instance, five masses for the second instance, and for the third instance he m a y not exculpate himself except it be on account of sickness or his lord's needs. A n d if any m a n omits his payment for that day, let him pay double in compensation; and if any m a n from this fraternity insult another, let him pay in compensation thirty pence. So w e ask for the love of G o d that each m a n duly observe this assembly as w e have duly ordered it. M a y G o d support us in this.23

[13] The Exeter GuUd-statutes. Datable before [1]; in early Square-minuscule script of the first half of the tenth century (75rl-23). + I>eos gesamnung is gesamnod on Exanceastre for Godes lufun 7 for usse saule bearfe, sg^er 'ge^ be usses20 lifes gesundfulnesse ge eac be t)aem sfteran daegun be w e to Godes dome for us sylfe beon willa^». ^onng habbaf) w e geeweden p s t me mytting sie J^riwa on .xii. monöum: ane to Sancte Michaeles

1*

But if the top of the leaf did indeed contain more of the Gospel of Matthew and no other texts, the scraping and cleaning process might have been undertaken to prepare for a record which was never made. >« The first -e- may have been altered: itis not a clearly formed letter. » An erasure 2 cm. (six letters) In length follows usses in the manuscript

168

A letter has been erased before the first-s-. 22 A lai^e cross was inserted after sealma before a hole in the membrane. 23 u?n»lation of •**««•»* w u given by Whilelock, English Historical Documents, p. 605, and by Whitelock, el a i, Councils, 1.58-60. 21

169

Anglo-Saxon Exeter [fo 7 S v 】

[III] From the Gospel of Matthew (28:15-19); in eighth-century script (75va).

A P P E N D I X II

[28:15] . . . n u m diem. Feria .vi. paschae.24 [16] .XI.25 autem discipuli eius26 abierunt in Galileam in montem ubi constituerat ülis Iesus [17] et uidcntes eu m et Worauerunt27 quidam autem dubitauerunt [18] et accedens Iesus locutus est eis dicens，“Data est mihi omnis potestas28 in caelo et in terra [19] euntes ergo nunc docete___

T H E R E C O R D S O F RELICS AT E X E T E R

(OXFORD, BODLEIAN LIBRARY, MS. AUCT. D.2.16 [S.C. 2719], fos 8r-14r; OXFORD, BODLEIAN LIBRARY, MS. BODLHY 579 [5.C. 2675], fo 6r/v; LONDON, BRmSH LIBRARY, MS. ROYAL 6.B.VII, fos 54v-55r; EXETER, CATHEDRAL LIBRARY, MS. 2861)

[IV] Manumission (or purchase) of Wulfgyf) ； script of the first half of the eleventh century (75vb). + Her cylp on Ipissc bee peer Hunnefl . ,29 gebohte WulfgyJ)e aet ^Elfrice stanes sun[a] ^^elminges on Winemines gewitnisse eald portgerefan 7 on Godrices his suna 7 on i€lfwines mannan suna 7 on Leofrices cildes set N y m e d 7 on iClfrices ^Elfhelmes suna geongan 7 Brun bydel na m \>cet toll on ^Elfstanes gewitnisse maessepreostes 7 on Leofrices Winemines 30 suna 7 on m[ae]l.31 + Here it is made known by this book that Hunneflasd redeemed Wulfgy^ from iClfric，the son of Aj>elstan 龙 仁 elming by witness of Winemine，the former port-reeve, and of Godric's son, and of the son of iElfwine's man, and of Leofric cild at N y m e d and of ^lfric, the young son of ^lfhelm; and Brun the beadle took the payment by witness of the priest ^Ifstan and of Leofric, the son of Winemine, and at the [proper] time.

.v L p a sch a e appears to be a rubric or an addition from a lectionary which has been copied with the gospel-text itself. See above, p.166. Triangles of dots stand above F e ria and M .t perh^s to indicate transposition. 25 Ia m unaware of other instances of this text where undecim is written in numerals. 26 E iu s is rest: stricted in the Insular versions of this text to the present instance and to Oxfonl, Bodleian Lib Library, MS. Auct. D.2.19 (5.C. 3946), the 'Rushworth Gospels*. See above, p.166, n. 11. 27 etorauerunt, MS., with ad written above e t ma . !aterand more cursive hand. 28 This word is written as a run-over on the line above. 29 Expanded by Finberg to H un n efta d ; see Finberg, The E a rly C harters o f Wessex, p.13, no. 46. ^ the final-s stands on an erasure. 31 mj./, MS., with one illegible character.

24 F e ria

170

INTRODUCTION The relics which vEthclstan was said to have given to Exeter are of considerable importance in establishing the history of the minster there, because they reflect the continuity and strength of that institution - at least, to the degree that the records attesting to their existence are valid. Exeter had at least four lists of its relics before the end of the twelfth century. The first of these is found in Oxford, Bodleian Library, MS. Auct D.2.16 (S.C. 2719), fos 8r-14r. Written in Old English, it was copied on folios added to the beginning of this ninth- or tenthcentury Breton gospel-book, and its rhetoric suggests that it was read publicly, possibly at the time for the homily in a mass for the relies. It is the single witness of the Old English recension of Exeter's relic-list The second record is a simple inventory in Latin on one leaf of the *Leofric Missal* (Oxford, B o d ­ leian Library, MS. Bodley 579 [S.C. 2675], fo 6r/v), and this document is the oldest extant version of the Latin recension of the Exeter relic-lists. The third record - London, British Library, MS. Royal 6.B.vii, fos 54v-55r - is a late eleventh-century copy of this document，incorporating a few additions to the collection. Exeter, Cathedral Library, MS. 2861 is a late twelfth-century Latin version of the relic-list; its relationship to the earlier Latin lists is unclear, for while itcontains almost all of the same relics - the order in which they appear in the list is not always the same and the short descriptions of the saints whose relics were kept often differ. The following abbreviations will be used in this appendix to indicate the four manuscripts: A L R E

Oxford, Bodleian Library, MS. Auct. D.2.16, fos 8r-14r; Oxford, Bodleian Library, MS. Bodley 579, fo 6r/v; London, British Library, MS. Royal ó.B.vii, fos 54v-55r; Exeter, Cathedral Library, MS. 2861.

The relationship between the Old English document and the i^atin recension is not entirely clear. That St We n n o c ^ name is spelt 'Wernoco* with an intrusive r in both English and Latin - which m a y be dialectal or might have been an n taken to be an Insular r - suggests a common, written source.1 Scribes were not, of course, philologists, and the similarities of the spelling of names in both languages in the lists arc very numerous; this argues strongly for their having

1 POrster, 'Zur Qeichlchte', pp. 93-7.

171

Anglo-Saxon Exeter

The Records o f Relics at Exeter

been derived from some c o m m o n written source. The arrangement of the items in the lists, however, is not similar, and it is impossible that either the Old English document or the Latin recension could have derived from the other form of the record, unless w e maintain that one scribe deliberately disregarded the sequence of items in the other lists. The best explanation for the relationship of the Old English and Latin reliclists is that they are separately dependent upon the same labels attached to the relics themselves.2 A large number of relic-labels from France survives from before the eleventh century and the kinds of descriptions borne by them are completely in keeping with the short comments on each saint which w e find in the Exeter lists. W h e n the similarities of the descriptions of individual relics (whether in Old English or Latin) are noted, in spite of the fact that the order of these relics differs from list to list, the simplest conclusion is that two or more of the lists were based on the labels of relics which had been rearranged between the copying of the lists. The individual descriptions are too short for a rear­ rangement of folios to account for all of the differences in the sequences of the texts, but labels from the relics would readily account for both similarities in individual descriptions and differences in their order within the lists. Further­ more, if the relic-lists were based on earlier labels, then the fact that the earliest list - Oxford, Bodleian Library, MS. Auct. D.2.16, fos 8r-14r - does not antedate the mid eleventh century is not reason in itself to doubt that it contains genuine references to relics given by King >Ethelstan to Exeter.3 This explana­ tion also accords well with the note at the end of the list in the ^ofric Missal*: *they have several other relics of saints in addition to these, about which w e are ignorant, since w e do not find their names written'.4 The syntax m a y be a m ­ biguous, but the writer is not suggesting that he knows very little about the activities of the saints represented by the additional relics; for - unlike the writer of the list in MS. Auct. D.2.16 - he has not provided such information for any of the saints w h o m he lists. The writer of the Latin document in the 'Leofric Missal* was suggesting that he did not know even so m u c h as the names of the saints to w h o m some of the relics belonged, and that is a complaint which could have been remedied only by labels; the fragments of desiccated h uman tissue, typical of the items identified with Exeter's collection, would have defied practi­ cal description for the purposes of identification in a document not physically attached to them. Throughout the tenth century, records of relics seem to have been entirely restricted to labels which seldom provided more than a name for the saint whose relic was contained within the packet Separate lists from Bath

and Wells were made in the eleventh century and are presumably based on such labels.5 Not all the relics named in c o m m o n by the two lists could have been given to Exeter by King ^Ethelstan; vElfgifu died in 944, Edward was assassinated in 978, and O da died in 958. Nevertheless, the large number of Breton and Frank­ ish saints corresponds with what w e k n o w about iEthclstan's sphere of influence，and it wouid be surprising indeed if the community at the minster, and the cathedral later, had not added other relics to the collection when such became available. Edward the Martyr, of w h o m a relic was kept, was effectively canonised in 1008, a date which provided M a x Förster with terminus post quem for the composition of the Old English version.6 In fact, Edward's relics do not effectively date the composition of relic-list A or L - Edward is the latest saint named in both of these lists - but rather the inclusion of Edward^ relics indicates the earliest date at which the latest relic m a y have been acquired. Certainly, relics of saints w h o lived much earlier than Edward might have been acquired after his were obtained. W e should also recognise that the basic text of either or both recension(s) of the relic-lists could be older than any date in the eleventh century, and the interpolated names of the saints whose relics were added to the collection would not look as if they had been added once the list was (re)copied. The latest possible date to which the composition of A, L, and R can “ assigned is dependent upon the scripts in which they are written，and in all cases, the second half of the eleventh century is probably a tair assessment of the hands in question.

Loomis， ‘ The holy relics’ ,pp. 447-8. Facsimiles of relic-labels may be seen in Chartae Latinae antiquiores, edd. Bruckner & MarichaJ, XVIII.84-108, and XIX.26-7,40-61,75-7. 4 4His exceptis plurime alie ibi habent sanctorum reliquie, quarum quia non inuenimus nomina scripta, que sint ignoramus* (§159); cf. below, *The Old English Relic List/ § 6 . A similar comment is written at the end of Exeter, Cathedral Library, MS. 2861(§156): (Et muite alie innumerabiles quarum nomina scripta non inuenimus\ (And innumerable others whose names we do not find wriaen*. Ifthe comment in MS. E is not simply a recasting of the note at the end of MS. L (and at the end of MS. R)( then the two versions provide separate testimony to a written source for information about the relics. 2 3

172

THE OLD ENGLISH RELIC-LIST I. OXFORD, B O D L E I A N LIBRARY ， MS. MJCT. 1X2.16, FOS 8R-14R

The only Old English record of Exeter's relics survives in a gospel-book, Oxford, Bodleian Library, MS. Auct D.2.16, fos 8r-14r (abbreviated here as A), written, according to Neil Ker, probably at the abbey of Landévennec in Bnttany* in the tenth century.7 The list of relics is the sole item in the second gathering of the codex. The first gathering contains a copy of Bishop Leofric s inventory of lands and books, and Latin and Old English versions or Leomc's inscription. The two gatherings are the work of different scribes with different training. Different scripts were used for Old English and Latin in the first gathering and the writing space measures 200 m m . x 130 mm..8 In the second gathering，the hand evinces knowledge of only one script-type，a late Insular

Thomas， ‘ TheCult’ ， p_52. Förster, "Zur Geschichte*, pp. 38-9. He wrote that 'mithin kann die uns vorliegende Fassung der Reliquienliste frühestens zu Beginn des 11.Jahrhunderts entstanden sein*. On the decree of the witan in 1(X)8 that 18 March was to be Edward the Martyr's feast-day, see Die Gesetze, ed. Liebermann, 1.240. 7 Ker, Catalogue, p. 351, no. 291. 1 Drage, *Biihop Leoftic*, p. 381; KertCatalogue, p. 351, no. 291, measured the written space asca 2 0 0 mm.x 125 mm..

5 6

173

Anglo-Saxon Exeter

The Records of Relics at Exeter

minuscule which can probably be dated to the second half of the eleventh century,9 and the writing space measures 180 m m . x 115 mm..10 The first leaf of the second gathering (fo 7) is blank, which is typical of a gathering intended as the first quire of an unbound book or as an independent booklet, where the blank leaf might have served as a cover.11 That the first gathering was created to be bound into the beginning of the present gospel-book is suggested by the similarity of the sizes of the leaf and the writing space in comparison with these same measurements in the gospel-book proper, where the height of the writing space is only 2 m m . less than the height of the writing space in the first gathering (200:198), and the widths of the writing spaces in both sections of the codex are the same (130:130).12 The reference to a gospel-book in the preamble to the inventory - *Her swutelaö on pissere Cristes bee hwaet Leofric bisceop heefö gedon in to Sancte Petres minster on Exanceastre' ‘ Here it is revealed in this gospel-book what Bishop Leofric has brought into St Peter’ s minister at Exeter’- is a further indication that the first gathering was designed to be added to the codex. The parallel diction in the preambles of the inventory and the relic-list raises the possibility that the record of iCthelstan's donation and the inventory somehow influenced one another. 'Her swutelaö on J^isum gewrite be J?am halgum reliquium, iEJ?elstan se wuröfuüakyninggeafintoSanctaMarian 7 SanctePetresmynstreonExanccstre*, *Hcre it is revealed in this writing concerning the holy relics which the worthy King >Ethelstan gave into St Mary and St Peter*s minster at Exeter', is very m u c h like the opening of the inventory already quoted and which precedes it in the codex. If related, the inventory's opening sentence must have been modelled on the relic-list's opening, because the inventory is more specific in expressing its inclusion in the gospel-book; and that detail need not have been changed by the writer of the relic-list, had he copied the opening from the inventory. Moreover, the first sentence of the relic-list is recalled in §6 of the same document; thus, rhetorically it appears to have been more intrinsic to the composition of the relic-list than to Öie inventory where it serves only as an introductory clause. This suggests that the opening of the inventory might have been based on the relic-list, but that §6 and the opening of the relic-list are less likely to have been based on the inventory.13 The scribes w h o wrote the two

documents seem to have been roughly contemporary, and an analysis of the script is not likely to establish that one of the two documents is earlier. Elaine Drage did not identify the scribe of the relic-list with any of the twelve scribes whose hands she traced in Leornc's scriptorium. The Latin recension preserves four names not found in MS. Auct. D.2.16 (Anastasius, Gordian, Wtuualus, and the Holy Innocents), but the Old English text preserves the names of Crispus, Eustace, Gertrude, Juliana, Maximian, Michael, Sigebran, and Werburh, which are not found m any of the Latin versions, even the late twelfth-century text in Exeter, Cathedral Library, MS. 2861.1 assume that the relic-lists are based on a collection of objects taken to be genuine relics, and that that loss of eight items throughout the Latin recension suggests that the extant Latin lists were, as a group’composed later than the Old English list. This would date the composition ot the A-text to the first half or middle of the eleventh century. The Old English relic-list is particularly interesting as a work of literature.14 Its genre has been identified as a sermon, appropriate to the mass or procession for the feast of the relics at Exeter.15 Its declamatory rhetoric is obvious. Once the background of yEthelstan's interest in the minster has been recorded, the diction clearly indicates the oral nature of the body of the text16*

9 Thus KerfCatalogue, p. 351, no. 291, where this hand is described as "somewhat later* than the hand of the inventory, which Ker placed ca 1070. 10 Drage, "Bishop Leofric\ p. 381; Ker, Catalogue, p. 351, no. 291.

See m y discussion (above, pp. 90-3) of a similar firstleafin the ^Sherborne Pontifical',Paris, Bibliolhèque nationale, MS. latin 943. 13 The second copy of Leofric^s inventory was originally part of the codex containing the West Saxon gospels (Cambridge, University Library, MS. Ii.2.11), although it was moved to the 4Exeter Book 1 (Exeter, Cathedral Library, MS. 3501)in the sixteenth century. On that move, see below, pp. 242-4. The usual size of the writing space for this codex, including the inventory, is 245 mm. x 138 mm.. 13 Healey & Venezky, ^4 Microfiche Concordance, have given thirty-eight examples, under swutelap, of the formula Her swutelaö on pisum gewrite/bec in the Old English corpus; many of these are used in manumissions, but manumissions added to books at Exeter - including those added to the *1x 0 ^ Missal\ and those to the West Saxon gospels (Cambridge, Univenity Library, MS. li.2.11) which were later moved to the "Exeter Book* - employ the fonnula, H tr kyd on öissere boc.

11

174

N u wille we eow segcan butan ©leere leasunge hwact se haligdom is, pe her of J>isum halgan mynstre is, i gewrytu forömid,Ipt geswuteliaö butan aelcere tweonunge, hwaet anra gehwile haligdoma beo. N o w we shall teil you without any deceit what the relics are which are here in this holy minster, and tell you this document straightaway, which reveals without any deception what each one of the relics is. The phrase 7 gewrytu fordmid recalls the document to which attention was drawn by its o w n first sentence. This establishes the writing itself as a proxy for the relics in a presentation designed to feature them, so that not each and every one would have had to be displayed. Certainly, the repeated use of the adverb her11 suggests that *The iEthelstan Donation*, to use Swanton's title for the document, was read in the presence of the relics themselves, but the emphasis on the oral performance of the text alone as capable of revealing the extent of Exeter^ spiritualities makes this document extremely important in the history of ceremonial texts.18 Merely displaying its 138 relics would not have been an

The text was first printed by Dugdale, Monasticon Anglicanumy IL527-9; it was edited by Förster, *Zur Geschichte\ pp. 63-^0; ithas been translated by Swantmi, Anglo-Saxon Prose, pp. 15-19. 15 Rose-IVoup, 'The ancient monastery*, p. 212. On finding the date of the feast of the relics at Exeter in the twelfth century, see Förster, (Zur Geschichte*, p. 51» n. 2. 16 For a survey of the problems in translating the phrase 7 gewrytufordmid, see Förster, ibid.t p. 6 8 ,n. 2 . 17 See, for example, S871 and 124 in the edited text,below. 18 Ä Latin poem,.In festo Reliquiarum Ëxoniensis Ecclesie ad pxocessionem' added in a ihirteenth-century hand in a blank space on fo 7v of London, British Library, MS. Harley 863,丨manuKri^t written by Leofrlc's scribes, probably indicates the continuity and evolution of such ceromoniei at Bxeter; we below, pp. 200-1.

14

175

Anglo-Saxon Exeter

The Records o f Relics at Exeter

effective w a y to convince an audience of the importance of the relics, especially if their response might have significant implications for the future of A e minster; therefore，a text was written to publicise properly the extent of the reliccollection at Exeter.19 ‘ The iCthelstan Donation’manages to provide a text in which this experience is effectively organised by creating a sense of their great quantity through extensive catalogues, and by invoking emotion with short, masterful sketches of the saints，passions interspersed within the catalogues in such a w ay as to balance and organise them. II. EDITION OF OXFORD, BODLEIAN LIBRARY, MS. AUCT. D.2.16, FOS 8R-I4R

III. TRANSLATION

[ 1 ] < H > E R swutclaö on Jjisum gewrite be pdm halgum rcliquium, pc >Ej)dsta se wuröfulla kyning geaf into Sancta Marian 7 Sancte Petres mynstre on Exancestre, Code to lofe, for his sawle alisednisse, callum J?am pc f)a halgan stowwc gesecaB 7 gewuröiaö to eccre haele. [2] Wytodlice se üca kyning iEöelstaくn>，pa J)a he aefter his feeder Edwarde cyncrice onfeng, 7 ^urh Godes gife ana geweold ealles Englalandes J>e aer him manege cyningas betwix h e o m haefdon, c o m he on sumne sael hider to Exancestre, swa swa hit of soöfaestxa manna sage gefyrn gesaed was; 7 he ongan smeagan 7 f>eahtian hwjet him seelost w$re to geforöienne of his cynclicum m a d m u m Gode to lofe, 7 him silfum, 7 his öeode to ecere J)earfe. [3] Sc aelmihoga God, pa. eallum {?am pc wel J>enca3, simlc is fültum 7 firpriend，gesende J)am godan cyninge [fo é v ] 仁 one gepanc on, pact he mié J>am gewytendlicum m a d m u m , J>a unateoriendlican m a d m a s begitan sceolde. [4] H e sende J?a ofer sae getriwe me n 7 gesccadwise, 7 hig ferdon swa wide landes swa hig faran mihton, 7 mid J)am m a d m u m begeaton J^a deorwuröestan madmas sefre ofer eoröan begitene mihton beon, \>xt waes haligdom sc imesta, ot gehwilcum stowum wydan 7 sydan gegaderod, 7 hig bone J?am foresaedan cyninge brohton, 7 se cyning mid miceirc blysse Gode Jjaes {jancode. [5] H e bebead f)a, J?aet m a n her on Exancestre - J^aer him aer G o d J?one nyttwiroan getane on besende - mynster araeran sceoldc Gode to wuröminte, 7 Jjaerc hcofenlican cwenc Sancta Marian Cristcs meder, 7 Sancte Petrc |?aera apostola ealdre - J?one sc ylca cyning him to mundboran gecoren haefde 7 he geaf fnaerinn six 7 twentig cottlia, 7 t>cme pryddan dael paes foresaedan halig[fo 9r]domes byderinn let don, his sawle to ecere alysednisse, 7 eallum J?am to hylpe pe jf>a halgan stowwe se haligdom on is mid geleafan gesecaö 7 wuröiap. [6] N u wille w e eow segcan butan aelcere leasunge hw$t se haligdom is, f>e her on J)isum halgan mynstre is, 7 gcwrytu forömid, )pc geswutcliaö butan ffilccrc tweonunge, hwat anra gehwilc Jjaera haligdoma beo.

[1] At this place is set out in this document what concerns the holy relics which Athelstan the honourable king gave to the minster of St Mary & St Peter at Exeter for God*s praise, for the deliverance of his o w n soul and for the eternal salvation of all those w h o seek out and worship the holy place. [2] Certainly, it was the same King ^Ethelstan, when he had succeeded to kingship after his father Edward and through God*s grace ruled all of England alone which before him m a n y kings held among themselves, w h o then came on one occasion here to Exeter, as was said long ago in the declarations of the most honourable men; and he began to meditate and to consider h o w best to use his royal treasury to further praise to God, and to himself, and to the everlasting profit of his people. [3] Almighty God, w h o is an aid and supporter to all those wh o mean to do well, sent the notion to the good king that with perishable treasures he could obtain imperishable ones. [4] H e üten sent honest, discerning m e n over the sea, and they travelled as widely as they could travel, and with his treasures they purchased the most precious treasures which might ever be purchased on this earth, which was the greatest of relic-collections，gathered far and wide from every place，and they brought the collection to the foresaid king，and with great joy the king thanked G o d for it. [5] Then he commanded that here m Exeter - here where G o d had sent him the enlightening idea - a minster ought to be erected to the honour of G o d and to the heavenly queen, St Mary, the mother of Christ, and to St Peter, the foremost of the aposties ( w h o m this king had chosen as his patron), and he gave twenty-six manors for that purpose, and he had one third of the aforementioned collection of relics bestowed for the eternal deliverance of his soul, and as a help to all w h o seek out and faithfully worship the holy place where the rclic-collection is kept. [6] Now, without any fabrication, w e shall tell you what the relic-collection contains which is here in this holy minster, and tell you forthwith the writing which reveals without any duplicity what each one of the relics in the collection is.

^ The fonnat of Exeter, Cathedral Library, MS. 2861-a single tall, narrow sheet of parchment

- may reflect a later development in displaying the extent of the relic-collection by means of exhibiting a formal document. That the audience may have included laypeople is suggested by the need to explain confessorum as andettera (874); sec Förster, 'Zur Geschichte*, p. 57. On the political and social significance of relics generally, see Rollason, 'Relic-cults', and Rollason,5aM»a/ui^Wicj,pp. 164-9S.

176

177

Anglo-Saxon Exeter

The Records o f Relics at Exeter

[7] prost,0 of J3am sylfan deorwyröan treowe, IpxxQ halgan rode, f>e Crist on Jjrowodc 7 us ealle J>aeron of f)aes deofles anwalde alysde. [8] Of Drihtenes byrgene. [9] Of J)am gyrlan ure drihten silf on him h£efde J)a J)a her on worulde bctwix m a n n u m wses. [10] Of t>aere bynne Ipe ure Drihten onlaeg pa. 3a he wjbs of Sancta Marian acenned. [11] Of Iordane pe ure Drihten wjes ongefullod. [fo 9v] [12] Of f)am spere ures Drihtenes halige syd wses mid geopenod on J)gere rode. [13] Of J>am beode se Haelend onuppan hine gcreordode mid his twelf apostolum. [14] Of J?£ere dune Synay, p x r öaer G o d anuppan atiwde ^>am halgan Moyse, 7 him öaer fa ealdan £e geswutelode. [15] Of f>am J?ornJ?ifelc Ipt wundorlice barn, 7 '^eah" u n g e w e m m e d waes frarn aelcere baerninge öa G o d silf of jpaere ilcan >yrnan sprac wiö >one halgan Moysen. [16] Of f)aere dune ure Drihten onuppan faeste. [17] Of J)aere candeie Se Godcs engel ontende mid hcofenlicum leohte aet ures Drihtenes sepulchre on Eastersefen. [18] Of J)am altare ure Drihten silf gehalgode. [19] Of J^aere stowwe f>e ure drihten waes on geeacnod. [20] Of Oliuctes dune, uppan J^jere se Haelend hine gebjed gebigedum cneoww u m to his heofenlican feder, aer his J?rowunge, 7 eft he of ^aere ilcan dune [fo lOr] to heofcnum astah.fe [21] Of J)am girlan J?aere heofenlican hlafdian, Sancta Marian. O f pzm heafodclaöe paerc ilcan Godcs modor 7 of hire fexe. [22] Of sumere halignisse pe se heahengel Michahel on eorj^an geswutelode. [23] Of Sanctus Iohannes lichaman ^ses fulluhtcres 7 of his gewaedum. [24] Of Sanctus Petrus apostoles berde. Of Sanctus Petres fexe. Of Sanctus Petrus girlan. [25] Of Sanctus Paules apostoles swurbane, 7 of his claöon. [26] Of Sanctus Andreas stafe pses apostoles. [27] Of Sanctus Iohannes claöon \>xs apostoles 7 godspelleres, ure Drihten to Son swiöc lufode, p x t he act his gercorde uppan his breost hlinodc, 7 t>a öa he on J)aere rode for us örowode, f>a betahte he f>am ilcan Iohanne his dyrlinge, Sancta Mariam his leofan modor, }pxt he hire begiman sceolde. [28] Eac her is of ^ a m heofenlican mete [fo lOv] pc waes funden on Iohannes byrgene apostoles. [29] Of Sanctus Bartholomeus heafde ^)ses apostoles. [30] Of Sanctus Iacobes reliquion p x s apostoles.c [31] Of Sanctus Stefanes heafde forman Cristes martyres, 7 '〇r his halgan blode, 7 of {>am stane öc he w a s mid oftorfod.

[7] First, from that same precious tree, the holy cross, on which Christ suffered and thereon delivered us all from the power of the Devil. [8] From the Lord's tomb. [9] F r o m the garment which our Lord himself had on when he was here in the world among men. [10] From the manger in which our Lord lay when he was born of St Mary. [11] From Jordan in which our Lord was baptised. [12] From the spear with which our Lord's holy side was opened on the cross. [13] From the table around which the Saviour supped with his twelve aposties. [14] From Mount Sinai whereupon G o d led the holy man, Moses, and re­ vealed to him there the old law. [15] From the thorn-bush which burned miraculously, and was nevertheless unscorched by each burning when G o d himself spoke through the same thorn with the holy man, Moses. [16] From the mount upon which our Lord fasted. [17] From the candle which G o d ?s angel kindled with heavenly light at our Lord's sepulchre on the Easter-vigil. [18] From the altar which our Lord himself consecrated. [19] From the place where our Lord was conceived. [20] From Mount Olivet, upon which the Saviour himself prayed to His heavenly father on bended knees before his suffering, and afterwards he as­ cended into heaven from the same hill. [21] From the robe of the celestial lady, St Mary. From the head-dress of the same woman, the mother of God, and from her hair. [22] From a certain sanctuary, which the Archangel Michael disclosed on earth. [23] From the body of St John the Baptist and from his clothes. [24] From the beard of St Peter the Apostle. From St Peter's hair. From St Peter's robe. [25] From the neckbone of St Paul the Apostle, and from his clothes. [26] From the staff of St Andrew the Apostie. [27] From the clothes of St John the Apostle and Evangelist, w h o was loved so much by our Lord that at His supper, H e leaned upon his breast, and then when H e suffered for us on the cross, he entrusted St Mary, his dear mother, to the same John, his favourite, so that he should look after her. [28] Here is also some of the divine food found in the tomb of John the Apostie. [29] From the head of St Bartholomew the apostle. [30] From the relics of St James the Apostle. [31] From the head of St Stephen, the first martyr for Christ, and from his holy blood, and from the stone witifi which he was killed.

fl ^rost begins a new section of text. But itstands alone on itsline, and the two following lines (9rl3~14) arc blank. A new section then starts with o f (capitaliseid in the manuscript). b The remainder of lOrl is blank, as are the three following lines, c The remainder of 10v4 and the whole of lOvS are blank.

178

179

Anglo-Saxon Exeter

The Records o f Relics at Exeter

[32] Of Sancto Oflamno pam mart^e, p t wjes Petrus maeg J?aes apostoles. [33] Of Sanctus Laurentius reliquion f)aes aeöelan martjo'es 7 of psm glaedon )pt he waes mid for Cristes naman gebrjedd. [34] Of Sancto Uincentio J>am dyacone 7 martyre. [35] Of Sanctus Georgies b a num p x s maeran Cristes cempan 7 martyres. [36] Of Sancte Sebastiane {?am martyre manege ban. [37] Of reliquion f)aera twegra broöra 7 martyra Tyburtius 7 Ualerianes. [38] Of Sancto Urbane f>am papan 7 martyre. [39] Of Sancto Apoilonare pam biscop 7 martyre. [40] Of Sancte Candides banum J)£es martyres. [41] Of Sanctus Mauricies reliquion Saes martyres. [42] Of Sancto Quintino 访 a m martyre. [43] Of ^ a m martyrum Luciane 7 Maximiane. [44] Of Sancto Quirino martyre. [fo Hr] [45] Of Sancto Cornelio J>am papan 7 martyre. [46] Of Sancto Marcellc.[.... I20 [47] Of Sancto Petre J)am martyre. [48] Of Sancto Iuliane martyre. [49] Of reliquion Sanctus Cyriaces Ipxs wuröfullan dyacones 7 martyres. [50] Of reliquion Cnsantes J)aes martyres [ 5 1 ] 7 Darian maedenes. [52] Of Sancto Geruasie ^ a m martyre. [53] O f Sancto Cristofore p a m martyre. [54] Ot Sancte Conones lichaman p x s martyres. [55] O f Sancto Uite J?axn martyre. [56] Oi f>am deorwiröum martyrum Crispine 7 Crispimane. [57] Ot Sanctus Nicasies reliquion J?2es martyres. [58] Of Sancte Iuuenales reliquion, 7 of his earme. [59] Of Sancto Tiburtio J?am martyre. [60] Of Sancte Uiuianes blode 衿 aes martyres. [61] Of J?am martyre Eresie. [62] Of Sanctus Benignes banon martyres. [63] Of Sancto Pancratio21 ^>am eeOelan martyres. [64] Of Sancto Desiderio p a m martyre. [65] Of Sancto Iusto J?am martyre [66] 7 of Sancte Ladio. [67] Of Sancto Felice p m \ papan. [68] Of Sanctus Cesaries banum J?aes martyres, 7 of his claoon. [69] Of Sancte Eustachie pam martyre. [70] Ot Sanctus Eadwardes reliquion cyninges, J)e waes unsceööig aeweaid, ac hine siööan Cnst wuröode mid maenigfealdum taenum. [ 7 1 ] Eac her beoö manegra martyra rcliquias on Hierusalem for Cristes naman waeron [fo 11 v] gemartyrode.

[32] From St Oflamnus the martyr, w h o was Peter the apostle's kinsman. [33J From the relics of St Laurence, the noble martyr, and from the coals with which he was scorched for the name of Christ. [34] From St Vincent, deacon and martyr. [35] From the bones of St George, the great champion and martyr for Christ. [36] M a n y bones from St Sebastian, the martyr. [37] From the relics of the two brothers and martyrs, Tiburtius and Valerian. [38] From St Urban, pope and martyr, [39] From St Apollinaris, bishop and martyr. [40] From the bones of St Candidus the martyr. [41] From the relics of St Maurice the martyr. [42] From St Quintinus the martyr. [43] From the martyrs Lucian and Maximian. [44] From St Quirinus the martyr. [45] From St Cornelius the pope and martyr. [46] From St MarceUus. [47] From St Peter the martyr. [48] From St Julian the martyr. [49] From the relics of St Cyriacus, the honourable deacon and martyr. [50] From the relics of Crisantus the martyr [51] and Daria the virgin. [52] From St Gervase the martyr. [53] From St Christopher the martyr. [54] From the body of St Conan the martyr. [55] From St Vitus the martyr. [56] From the precious martyrs Crispin and Crispianus. [57] From the relics of St Nicasius the martyr. [58] From the relics of St Juvenal, and from his arm. [59] From St Tiburtius the martyr. [60] From the blood of St Vivian the martyr. [61] From the martyr Euresius. [62] From the bones of St Benignus the martyr. [63] From St Pancras the martyr. [64] From St Desiderius the martyr. [65] From St Justus the martyr. [66] From St Laudus. [67] From St Felix the pope. [68] From the bones of St Caesarius the martyr, and from his clothes. [69] From St Eustace the martyr. [70] From the relics of St Edward the king, who, guiltless, was killed, but Christ honoured him afterwards with diverse signs. [71] There arc also here the relics of m a n y martyrs w h o were martyred at Jerusalem for Christ's name.

30 31

Space for about five characters is unfilled. Space for about throe characters is unßlled.

180

181

Anglo-Saxon Exeter

The Records o f Relics at Exeter

[72] Of Sancto Uitale J?am unoferswiöodan martyre, se w ëes swa cucu for Cristes naman on eoröan bcdolfcn, 7 mid eoröan 7 stanum to deaöe ofhroren, ac he lifaö nu mid Wisse on )pm\ heofenlican rodere, 7 eallum J?am her on eoröan mid geleafan to him clypiaö to Criste pingaö welwillendlice. [73] Her is eac Sanctus Mauricies toj)诊 ges eadigan martyres，诠 e under Maxi­ miane p a m Casere for Cristes naman prowode ， 7 six öusend 7 six 7 sixtig martyra for5 mid him |3rowedon; ^aegc calle \>vah his tyhtinge to J>am wuldorbeage martyrdomes becomon.rf[fo 12r] [74] tns sind cac reliquias f)aera haligra confessorum, is Cnstes andettcra; f)2ege forsegon J)as swicolan woruld, 7 mid saöre drohtnunge heofenlicc rice geearnodon. [75] ?rost of Sanctus Martines reliquion J)aes wuldorfullan biscopes, se her on life betwix m a n e g u m oorum taenum, p n m e n of deaöe to life araerde mid his gebedum. [76] Of Sancto Siluestre f)am wuröfullan papan. [77] Of Sancto Gregorie. [78] Ot Sancto Hieronime J3am £e|)elan lareowe, se pe bewix oOrum manigfealdum bocum pe he gedihte, J>a mycelan bibliothecan on öaere beoö twa 7 hundscofentig boca, of Ebreisce 7 of Grcccisce, to Ledene aeöelicc awende. [79] Of reliquion Sanctus Augustines p x s wisan 7 t>aes snoteran biscopes se gedihte an f)usend boca Cnste to lofe, 7 ealre Cristes gelaöunge to ecere nyttwirönisse. [80] Oi Sancte Germane pam apostolican were \>e on J)isum lande, 7 eac on oSrum landum gehwser, manege wundra Ourh G o d gcworhtc. [81] Of Sanctus Basilius toöe, 7 of his biscopstafc. [fo 12v] [82] Of Sanctus Euurties lichaman f>aes biscopcs J)am atiwde dextera Dei, J?aet is Godcs swiore f)a öa he m©ssode, 7 offrunge mid heofenlicre blctsunge gebletsode. [83] Of Sanctus Audoenes reliquion. [84j Of Sancte Medardes banum わ 出 s biscopes. [85] Of Sancto Qispino. [86] Of Sancte Maurilic J)am biscope. [87] Of Sancto Galle f>am biscope. [88] O f Sancto Lupo S a m biscope. [89] Of Sancte Benedicte ^>am halgan abbude. [90] Of Sancte Remigies reliquion deorwiroan biscopes f)e eall Francrice to Cristes geleafan gebigde, 7 of his kappan 7 of his tunecan 7 of his haeran 〇e he werode. [91] Of Sancte Anianes lichaman f>aes halgan biscopes. [92] Of Sancte Maximines lichaman confessoris. [93] O f Sanctus Wulfiranmes reliquion |?ses biscopes. [94] O f Sancto Crispo. [95] Of Sanctus Nicolaus reliquion arfaestan 7 bentydan biscopes pe ^>urh Godes mihte manege godnissa gehwser kyo on sae 7 on lande, ^ a m pe him Innwerdlice mid geleafan on Godes naman to clypiao.

[72J From St vltalis, the unconquered martyr, w h o was thus buried alive in the earth for Chrisfs name, and he was there smothered to death with the earth and stones, but he lives n o w in joy in the heavenly firmament and benevolently intercedes for all those here on earth w h o call out to Christ faithfully. [73] Here also is a tooth of St Maurice the blessed martjn* w h o suffered for Chnst's name under Maximian Caesar - and six thousand and sixty-six martyrs also suffered with him; they all attained the glorious crown of martyrdom through his exhortation. [74] These are also the relics of the holy confessors, that is those wh o recog­ nised Christ and renounced the false world and attained the heavenly kingdom through an austere way of life. [75] First, from the relics of St Martin, the glorious bishop who, among many other signs while he was living here, raised three men from death to life with his prayers. [76] From St Silvester, the excellent pope. [77] From St Gregory. [78] From St Jerome, the noble teacher who, among a multitude of other books which he wrote, excellently translated the great Bible with its seventy-two books from Hebrew and Greek to Latin. [79] From the relics of St Augustine, the wise and sagacious bishop w h o wrote a thousand books in praise of Christ and for the eternal salvation of all those assembled in Christ. [80] From St Germanus, the apostolic m a n who, in this country and also in other lands everywhere, wrought many miracles through God. [81] From the tooth of St Basil and from his crozier. [82] From the body of St Evurtius the bishop wh o was shown the dextera Dei, that is the right hand of God, when he celebrated the Mass, and the offering was blessed with a heavenly blessing. [83] From the relics of St Audocnus. [84] From the bones of St Médard the bishop. [85] From St Crispin. [86] From St Maurilius the bishop [87] From St Gall the bishop. [88] From St Lupus the bishop. [89] From St Benedict, the holy abbot. [90] From the relics of St Remigius, the celebrated bishop w h o brought the whole Frankish kingdom to the Christian iaith, and from his cope and his tunic and the hair-shirt which he wore. [91] From the body of St Anianus, the holy bishop. [92] From the body of St Maximinus the confessor. [93] From the relics of St Wulfram the bishop. [94] From St Crispus. [95] From the relics of St Nicholas, the pious and esteemed bishop who, through God's power, makes known many good things on land and sea to those w h o call on him in the neune of O od with inward faith.

ä The remainder of this page (llvlS-24) isblank.

182

183

Anglo-Saxon Exeter [96] Of Sancte Petroces banum 7 of his fexe 7 of his claöon, [97] Of Sancte Winwaloe, J)am abbode. [98] Of Sancte Winarde biscope. [99] Of Sancte Wernoco. [100] Of Sancte Wigenoce. [ 1 0 1 ] Of Sancte Tutes hseron Szes biscopes, [fo 13r] [102] Of Sanctus Odones reliquion J?aes maeran biscopes. [103] Sancte Iuuenales earm biscopes. [104] Of Sancte Dyonetes earme J?aes biscopes. [105] Of Sancte Ipotemies earme Cristes andetteres. [106] Of Sancte Concanes heafde 7 of his earme. [107] Of Sancte Designates reliquion. [108] Sanctus Auites ribb biscopes. [109] Of Sanctus Melanies banon p x s biscopes. [110] O f Sancte Wiöenoces lichaman f>aes biscopes. [111] Of Sancte Ualerianes reliquion. [112] Of Sancte Tuduale. [113] O f Sancte Simcones scpulchro. [114] O f f)am stane ]>t Sanctus Siluinus baer öriwa to Rome. [115] Of Sancte Saluines claöon. [116] Of Sancte Maioce [117] 7 Sancte Ermelane. [118] Of Sancte Liudgere ^>am biscope. [119] Of Sancte Sigebrane. [120] O f Sancte Marcelle p a m deorwiröan Cristes halgan， [ 1 2 1 ] 7 of Sancte Uiuiane. [122] Of Sancte Wulmare pam halgan abbode. [123] Of Sanctus Petrus reliquion ^>$s halgan dyacones, J>e wass Sanctus Gregorics leorningcnyht aeöelan papan, J)e us engliscum m a n n u m cristend o m 7 fuiluht hydcr to lande äsende.^ [fo 13v] [124] Eac her beo9 reliqui^ of m a n e g u m halgum faemnum, 7 of {)am halgum Cristes mgedenum J>aege furh Godes gife pone ealdan deofol 7 e^lle fkesclice unlustas oferswiödon, 7 sume purh haliges lifes drohtnunge, sume J?urh sigefaestne martyrdom J)am heofenlican bridguman Criste beoö ge^eodde. [125] Erost of Sancta Maria Magdalene fingerliöe, sco ]pc her on life urcs Drihtenes fet mid hire tearum ajwoh; 拎 aege ure Drihten to >on swiöe lufode 7 wuröode p x t he hire firmest atiwan wolde J?a 5a he of deaöc aras. [126】 Sancta Elisabeth. [127] Of Sancta AgaSa reliquion of hire toOon sume .iiii. 7 of hire haligrefte. [128] O f Sancta Iuliana Ipmi halgan maïdene, on ^ a m gewinne hire martyrdomes，swa swiöe w a s purh öa godcundan gife gestrangod，pact heo 3〇nc deofol band 7 swang pe hire on 〇a m cwcrterne to com. 129] Of Sancta Cecilia J)am seöelan maedene. 1130] O f Sancta Agnete. 1 3 1 ] Of Sancta Praxede ^>am maedene. [fo 14r]•

The Records o f Relics at Exeter [96] From the bones of St Petroc, and from his hair, and from his clothes. [97] From St W m w a l o e the abbot. [98] From St Winard the bishop. [99] F r o m St Wennoc. [100] From St Wigenoc. [ 1 0 1 ] From the hair-shirt of St Tuda the bishop. [102] From the relics of St Oda, the glorious bishop. [103] The arm of St Juvenal the bishop. [104] From the arm of St Donatus the bishop. [105] From the arm of St Hypot(h)emius, a confessor of Christ, f106] From the head and arm of St Conogan. [107] From the relics of St Designatus. [108] The rib of St Avitus the bishop. [109] From the bones of St Melanius the bishop. [110] From the body of St Withenoc the bishop. [111] From the relics of St Valerian. [112] From StTudwal. [113] From the sepulchre of St Simeon. [114] From the stone which St Silvin thrice carried to Rome. [115] From the clothes of St Salvinus. [116] From St Maioc [117] and St Ermolan. [118] From St Ludger the bishop. [119] From St Sigebran. [120] From St Marcellus, the holy m a n esteemed by Christ [ 1 2 1 ] and from St Vivian. [122] From St Wulfmar, the holy abbot [123] F r o m the relics of St Peter the holy deacon, w h o was disciple to St Gregory, the noble pope, w h o sent Christianity and baptism to us, the English. [124] There arc also here the relics of m a n y holy w o m e n and of the holy virgins of Christ; through God's grace, they triumphed over the ancient devil and all fleshly desires, and some by living a holy life and some by victorious martyrdom are joined to Christ, their heavenly bridegroom. [125] First from the finger-bone of St Mary Magdalene who, while alive here, washed our Lord’ s feet with her tears; Our Lord loved and honoured these so greatly that H e appeared to her first of all when he arose from the dead. [126] From St Elisabeth. [127] From the relics of St Agatha, including four of her teeth and from her holy veil. [128] From St Juliana, the holy virgin w h o was, in the struggle for her martyr­ dom, so very much strengthened through divine grace that she bound and flogged the devil w h o appeared to her in prison. [129] From St Cecilia, the noble virgin. [130] From St Agnes. [ 1 3 1 ] From St Praxcdcs the virgin.

• The remainder of 13r22 and the whole of lines 23-24 are blank.

184

185

Anglo-Saxon Exeter

The Records o f Relics at Exeter

[132] Of Sancta Eugenia. [133] Sancta Fclicula ribb t>aes halgan maedenes. [134] Of Sancta Margareta. [135] Of Sancta Lucia. [136] Of Sancta Mamilla. [137] Of Sancta Balthilde f>jere halgan cwene. [138] Of Sancta Leonilla. [139] Of Sancta Gerethrude {Dam se^elan mzedene. [140] Of Sancta Genouefa reliquion. [141〗 Of Sancta Morenna. [142] Of Sancta Alfgiua t>aere halgan Cristes Sinene, seo wolde djeghwamlice hire andettnissc don, zer heo into cyTcan eode. [143] Of Sancta Satiuola {3am bylewitan macdene, seo w » s unsceööiglice acweald fram hire fasder maedmannum , i G o d selmihtig siööan ®t hire birgene geswutelode maenigfealde wundra. [144] O f Sancta Sigeburga. [145] Of Sancta Waerburga. [146] Of Sancta Brigida hleorbane p x s deorwirSan msedenes, pe manege wundra her on life {)urh G o d geworhte，7 manegra manna heortan onlihte {?urh bisnc hire halgan drohtnunge.

[132] From St Eugenia. [133] The rib of St Felicula the holy virgin. [134] F r o m St Margaret. [135] F r o m St Lucia. [136] From St Mamilla. [137] From St Balthild the holy queen. [138] From St Leonilla. [139] From St Gertrude, the noble virgin. [140] From the relics of St Genevieve. [ 1 4 1 ] From St Morenna. [142] From St vElfgifu, the holy servant of Christ, w h o would go to confession daily, before she went to church. [143] F r o m St Sativola, the innocent virgin who, guiltless, was killed by her father's pasture-man, and G o d Almighty afterwards revealed a multitude of miracles at her tomb. [144] From St Sigeburh. [145] F r o m St Werburh. [146] From the cheekbone of St Brigit, the esteemed virgin, wh o wrought m a n y miracles through G o d while living and inspired the hearts of m a n y people through the example of her holy way of life.

186

187

Anglo-Saxon Exeter

T H E LAT I N R E C E N S I O N O F T H E RELIC-LIST I. OXFORD, B O D L E I A N LIBRARY, MS. B O D L E Y 579, F O 6 R/V

The relic-list from the *Leofric Missal* - Oxford, Bodleian Library, MS . Bodley 579 (abbreviated here as L) - is found on fo 6r/v in the first gathering of the codex as n o w constituted.22 The structure of this codex is exceedingly complex, and there is no reason to assume that materials have not been moved from place to place in the book between the time when its oldest parts were copied in thelate ninth century and when it apparently fell out of use ca 1100. Because most of the items in the first gathering were copied by identifiable scribes in Bishop Leofric's scriptorium, and because the first four items in the gathering are obviously related to Leofiric's interests and activities,23 it is easy to assume (but erroneously) that the whole gathering, including the relic-list, contains texts which were first added to the codex during Leofric's episcopate and for his purposes. However, the remaining texts in the gathering - except for a collect of seven lines in the hand of Scribe 4 - are in the hand of Scribe 10. Scribe 10 must have survived Leofric, because he was responsible for the account of the bishop's death on fo 3v.24 The texts which Scribe 10 copied could arguably have come from an older, worn-out gathering of four leaves which existed before Leofric's interest in the missal and which, having been copied on to the blank folios of quire I, was then removed from the missal. The second and third gatherings are made up of miscellaneous tenth-century materials in quires of four leaves each, and they (as well as fo 8, a singleton which precedes them) are so rubbed that the texts arc n o w difficult to read and are in danger of being lost.25 Ha d an earlier gathering once existed before the present second and third gatherings, it would have deteriorated too and would probably have been in a worse condition than the extant tenth-century gatherings. Scribe 10 m a y have chosen to remedy this by copying out the contents of the old gathering in the blank folios of quire I. Drage thought that this was done, but - by assuming an See Drage, *Bishop Leofric\ p. 73. These include Leofric's donation-inscription in Latin and Old English (fo Ir); the account, of the founding of the see of Credition, sometimes called *The Plegmund narrative* (fos 2r-3r); and the associated accounts of Leofric*s anointment to the see and its subsequent removal to Exeter (fo 3r7-3v; edited in appendix IV), written by three scribes. The fourth item is a set of five manumissions in another eleventh-century hand, entered in the space following the donation-inscription where much of the recto and all of the verso had originally been left blank. 24 Drage/BishopLeofric’ tpp.73J22, 25 Drage, p. 75. Quire II contains a blessing for the bells (fo 9r), the names of the living and dead (fo 9r), blessings for major feasts in TempOTal and Commcm before a meal and for food and drink (fos 9v-llv), and three prayers (fo \2rlv); an agreement between Abbess Hadgifu and Abbot Leofric in Old English inserted after the blessings (fo Hvl8-23) has been dated saec. xi1 by Drage. Quire IQ contains four prayers (fo Hr/v), a blessing for die king at the time of a syncxl (fos 13v-14r), intercessions addressed to the Holy Trinity for various . groups (fos 14v-15v), blessings for an individual and for a traveller (fos 15v-16r)f three miscellaneous prayers (fo 16r),and three intercessions for a priest at Mass, the lastof which breaks off incomplete.

22 23

ibid.,

188

The Records o f Relics at Exeter orderly pattern of scribes consecutively adding materials - she concluded that the donation_inscriptions were written on fo Ir and every page was left blank between fo lv and fo 4r where a mass was added. She suggested that the texts on fos 2r-3v were added at some later date，after the second half of the quire had been written.261 fail to see evidence for a date at which the second half of the quire m a y have been written, given the fact that Scribe 10 remained active after Leofric's death (in 1072). If the scribe did incorporate an earlier gathering of four folios into the first gathering of eight folios, then the Latin relic-list m a y derive from a list of the relics at Exeter, made at an earlier period，although it might have been augmented with the insertions of later names, the traces of such augmentation having been obliterated in retransmission of the list. Other texts in the second half of the gathering provide some support for this. The relic-list is followed by a set of collects and benedictions which have erroneously been described as an ‘ ö/*do for Holy Saturday and prayer after h y m n to the three boys\27 They constitute, in fact, the ordo for the Ember Days, 狂nd the texts are funäamentally the same as those found in the Sacrame/itohM/n Fuldense of the tenth century, which was central to the development of the R o m a n Missal.28 In the CJelasian missal, the third of the three Ember Days in each quarter - Saturday, or Sabbato in XII lectionibus - developed into an elaborate vigil-mass culminating in Sunday^ mass.29 In this mass, the canticle Benedicite or Hymnum trium puerorum was sung after the postcommunionprayer, followed by the prayer Deus cuius adorandae potentiam maiestatis and this is the exact arrangement on fo 5r of the *Leofric Missal1 where the rubric post ymnum trium puerorum precedes the incipit Deus cuius adorandae poten­ tiam maiestatis.30 The Ember-Day ordo and die accompanying prayer for the canticle of the ‘ The three young m e n ’in the form in which they occur here， then, probably represent an English ordo for the Ember Days during the tenth century. The question requires further investigation but, until then, w e m a y not assume that the Ember-Day service was added to the X e o m c Missal' during the second half of the eleventh century rather than during some earlier period.31 Most of fo 5v is blank; the relic-list follows on 6r/v; 7r is blank. O n 7v is an ordo of a mass for the Apparition of St Michael the Archangel, which was celebrated on 8 May. The Old English relic-list (A), which seems to predate L, records a relic connected with Michael in §22. Moreover, the terms under w m c h the early tenth-century guild met at Exeter, as described in London’British Library, MS. Cotton Tiberius B.v, vol.1,fo 75r, required three assemblies per year: at St Mary's Mass-Day 'after midwinter*, which must have been Purifica­ tion on 2 February; All Saints* Mass-Day, which was 1 November; and St Michael's Mass-Day, which must mean the feast on 8 May, since the feast of the

ibid.,

26 Drage, p.122; see appendix IV, below. 27 Drage,仿tó., p.73. 28 Sacramentarium Fuldense, edd. Richter & Schönfelder, pp.

174-6. 29 In spite of its title, no extant has twelve lessons; six at most are found. 30 See Cabrol, 'Benedicite*. col. 663; Jungmann» La Liturgie, pp. 213-16; the Fulda Sacra­ mentary also gives the prayer but records the use of the prayer as limited to the collect for the Mast on Saturday In the Bmber Days during Pentecost.

ordo

31 H ohler,'Som eiervice-booki'.p. 80.

189

Anglo-Saxon Exeter

The Records o f Relics at Exeter

Dedication of the Basilica on 29 September would seem too close to the meeting on All Saints* Day to be a likely date.32 If this logic is correct, then MS . Cotton Tiberius B,v，fo 75, provides another reason for supposing that the onto for a mass for the Apparition of St Michael to be celebrated on 8 M a y might orig­ inally have been added to the *Leofric Missal' at Exeter in the first half of the tenth century. Unlike the Old English text, the relic-list in the lLeofric Missal9 is not a sermon, nor is it meant for public presentation. It is a simple inventory of items, with a few items added in other hands and at least one item erased. (All such changes are noted in the edition, below.) Relics were grouped according to class, with those pertaining to Christ, Mary, and the apostles coming first, followed by those of martyrs, confessors, and then holy virgins. A similar division was used in A, the Old English list, but L does not follow the organisation within the subgroupings of A. M a n y (but not all) of the items have been marked above with small crosses which seem to indicate that they were being checked off against another list or against the collection itself. The preface to the list in L is especially noteworthy for what it tell us about the collection of relics at Exeter.

in the 'Leotnc Missal* - those for Cnspus, Eustace, Gertrude, Juliana, Maxi­ mian, Michael, Sigebran, and Werberh - m a y even have been lost, either through sale or theft, during the first half of the eleventh century after Swegn's raid undoubtedly reduced the minster's fortunes considerably.34

These are the names of the holy relics which are kept at Exeter in the minster of St Mary and St Peter the Apostle, the largest part of which the most glorious and victorious King i€thelstan, that is to say, the first patron of the place, gave to it

The Old English list is quite definite in saying that iEthelstan presented all the relics to Exeter, which he could not have done since he predeceased three of the saints named. The Latin list does not say that iEthelstan gave all of the relics to Exeter, but maximam partem, 4the largest part*. Certainly, the tone here is quite different from the encomiastic rhetoric used in both the Old English relic-list and Leofric's inventory, and the writer appears to be interested only in enumer­ ating the relics. It is also noteworthy that there are no relics unique to the list in the *Leofiric Missal*, although each of the other three relic-lists contains one or more unique items. Perhaps this should be interpreted as a testimony to Leofric's careful husbanding of his resources. N o relics seem to have been lost or sold after Leofric's scribe recorded them in the missal. The subsequent witnesses to the relic-collection at Exeter (London, British Library, MS. Royal ó.B.vii, fos 54v55r, and Exeter, Cathedral Library, MS, 2862) indicate the addition of relics to the chapter's hoard, but none listed in earlier Latin manuscripts is overlooked in the w ay in which eight items in the Old English list are missing from the list in the *Leofric Missal*. If M a x Förster was correct in dating the composition of the Old English list to ca 1010,33*then * the items which are not mentioned in the list The intended feast may be 29 September, however, because the writer of the memorandum stipulates that the intended All Saints1 Day is o f er Eastron, *after East^\ and the Roman Martyrology celebrated Ail Martyrs on 13 May, although I have not found the feast so marked in English kalendars of the tenth and eieventh centuries. See Thurstan & Attwater, Butler*s Lives^ IV.234-5. The subject would repay systematic investigation. For an edition of the guild-notice, see above, pp.168-9. ^ Förster, (ZurGeschichte\p. 24. 32

190

II. L O N D O N , BRITISH LIBRARY, MS. R O Y A L 6 .B.VII, FOS 54V-55R

The relic-list (referred to here as R) in London, British Library, MS. Royal ó.B.vii is found on fos 54-55 which, according to Neil Ker, were added to the end of the book. The folios are n o w 300 m m . tall x 200 mm., with a writing space of 218 m m . x 150 m m . containing thirty-four lines. The manuscript bears a copy of A l d h d m ’ s /flwde wrgiVuïa/ü in prose’with Old English glosses. The text and glosses are in the same hand, dated by Ker to the second half of the eleventh century. MS. R agrees substantially with L, which was certainly at Exeter in Leomc's time; moreover, R must have been written after L, not only because it indicates the addition of a few items and shows no losses (additions include: §2, De sanguine Doming §32, De capite Sancti Barnabe apostoli; §56, Et dens eius following §55, De capite sancti Ciriaci martyris), but also because the writer of R appears to have attempted to revise L. The text in MS. R adds De Sancto Medard after §122 although St Médard had already been named in §76; Wtuuali in L (§92) was changed to Winnuualoe in R, although the scribe had already recorded Winuualoi in §101.In §89, the scribe added id est discipuli Gregorii to the reference to Peter the Deacon.35 The scribe of MS. R omitted the second reference to St Sebastian's relics (§43), probably because he had just noted a similar item in §38. §§108-111 provide the best evidence that MS. R was copied after MS. L. The latter manuscript has ^Reliquiae Sancti Liudgeri, episcopi/ D e o s s i b u s capülis, et de uestimentis Sancti Petroci confessoris. Costa Sancti Auiti confessoris. Reliquiae Sancti Rcmigii*, where the references to St Ludger's relics and St Petroc's hair are interpolations. R, however, has *De ossibus et capillae et de uestimentis Sancti Petroci confessoris. Costa Sancti The theft of relics, often by one monastery from the treasury of another, is well documented in the Anglo-Saxon period: see Rollason, Saints and Relics, pp. 180-3; see also Stubbs, Memorials, pp. cxv-cxvii. The sale of relics is not as well documented. Nevertheless, a twelfth-century Peterborough addition to the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle, s.a. 1013 ti,indicates that poverty due to Scandinavian raids did indeed seem to constitute a reason for a monastery to sell some of its relics: *7 öa hwile seo tefdige mid hire broj^er w»s gegondon sae, iClfsige abbud of Burh, Jx Jjaer waes mid hire, for to Jsone mynstre }?e is gehaten Boneual bar Sancle Florentines lichama l®g. Fand bïer aerm stede, arm abbot, 7 srarme muneces fortan }>e hi forhergode wsN'on. Bohte |?a psr et Ipcmt abbud 7 set |>e muneces Sancte Florentines lichaman - eall buton be heafod - to .v. hundred punda, 7 )^a ]?e he ongean com, ba ofïrede hit Crist 7 Sancte Peter*;(And during the time that the lady was with her brother beyond the sea. Abbot iClfsige of Peterborough, who was with her, went to the monastery which is called Bonneval where St Florentine's body lay. There he found an impoverished place, an impoverished abbot, and impoverished monks, because they had been raided by pirates. Then he bought St Florentine's body from the abbot and the monks - all except the head - for five hundrad pounds, and when he returned again, then he presented it to Christ and St Peter.' See TWo In MS. R, where itis an integral part of the text, et precedes. 45 The remainder of the line spears to have been erased. 46 MS. R: reliqu^ (a subpuncted § and the supiascript lett^s is in the main hand indicate that

42

t h e s c r ib e r e a lis e d h is e r r o r ) .

St Oflamnus's relics are mentioned in MS. but St Gordian's are Hrst mentioned in the Latin recension of the list. MS. E follows L in the phrasing and placing of these two saints1 relics. 57.. .37 7 he phrase has been erased from R; use of a reagent has caused staining. 31.38 The phrase has been erased from R; use of a reagent has caused staining. 39^.39 xhe phrase has been erased from R; use of a reagent has caused staining. 40.. .40 phrase has been erased from R; use of a reagent has caused staining. 41 This entry occurs in R, but not in L 36

192

4 7 ...4 7

m

s

.

de 〇n

th e lin e w ith

rubo a n d de w r i t t e n

a b o v e it, a ll in th e m a in h a n d .

4S The scribe of R lefta space for about five letters here. 49 quern, MS. R. 49aThe crosses found in L do not occur in R. 3°Subpuncted //- in L; om. R. ^ A following entry (which once occupied the remaining two thirds of this line) has been erased firomL. 32...S2 This entry occurs only in MS. R; itmay have been the record erased from L after §31.

193

Anglo-Saxon Exeter

The Records o f Relics at Exeter

M 53 [33] D e sanguine sancti Stephani protomartyris, et de reliquiis eius. Item de capite sancti Stephani martyris. [34] D e lapide sancti Stephani .M ' [35] D e sancto Uincentio martyre. [36] D e sancto Uitale martyre. [37] D e carbone sancti v+^ Laurentii martyris vet de reliquiis eius".54* [38] D e sancto Sebastiano martyre. [39] D e v+" reliquiis Tiburtii [40] et Ualeriani martyrum. [41] ^ I t e m V 5 de ossibus sancti Laurentii .54 [42] Reliquiae sancti 56Quirini martyris.56 [43] 57Reliquiae v+" sancti Sebastiani martyris.57 [44] Reliquiae sanctorum Crisanti [45] et Dari^ martyrum. [46] Reliquiae s a n c t i U r b a n i pape58 martyris.59 [47] Reliquiae sancti Uitalis martyris. [48] Ossa sancti Candidi martyris. [49] D e cap/fó et reliquiis 60 Pancrantii, R fwith second -n- underpointed. 69c DereUquiis ， R. 70.. .70 jhe entries for St Oordlan and St Oflan are added in another hand to the last line of the leafln L; in R, the same infonnation has been appended to {61.

63 53

M

is w r i t t e n i n t h e i n n e r m a r g i n ; i t s ig n if ie s i n L t h a t t h e f o l l o w i n g r e l ic s a r e t h o s e o f m a r t y r s ;

t h e s ig n is n o t f o u n d h e r e in R . 54

T h e ta g s p e a r s in R , b u t n o t in L .

54# P a r t o f t h e t e x t i n M S . R .

55 Item

is a d d e d a b o v e t h e li n e in th e h a n d o f th e m a in s c r ib e in R ; i t d o e s n o t

3 6 ..

appear i n

L .

.56 T h e h a n d i s o f ä s l i g h t l y d i f f e r e n t s c a l e f o r t h i s e n t r y , a n d i t m a y h a v e b e e n a d d e d a f t e r t h e lis t w a s w r itte n .

5 7 ..

.57 T h e e n t r y i s m i s s i n g f r o m

38

om . R .

39

M

fo r

化

is a d d e d t o M S . f t a s a R u s t ic C a p i t a l ， w h i c h h a d n o t b e e n t h is s c r i b e ’ s h a b i t ;

th e le tte r m a y h a v e b e e n a d d e d a f t e r th e lis t w a s w r itte n .

60. .

.60

x h e p h r a s e is a d d e d a b o v e th e li n e i n th e h a n d o f t h e m a in s c r ib e in R ; i t d o e s n o t o c c u r in

L .

61..

.61 〇m. R.

6\»CyriacitMS.R, 6 1 .6 2

T h e p h ra s e o c c u rs in

R, w h e r e

i t is i n t e r l i n e d , b u t n o t i n L .

« n デ MS.R.

71 m afn/hubeen addedinR above Che line.

71.. 72 The ipeciflcaüon occuri in R (where itis intorllnod),but not ln L.

194

195

The Records o f Relics at Exeter

Anglo-Saxon Exeter [90] Reliquiae sancti Maurilii. [91] Reliquiae s a n c t i W l m a r i confessoris. [92] Reliquiae Wtuuali73 confessoris. [93] Reliquiae Crispini confessoris. [94] Reliquiae sancti Siluestri confessoris. [95] Reliquiae sancti Galli episcopi. [96] D e vreliquiis 74et" cilicio74 sancti Remigii; [97] 7r+ de planeta et tunica et crismali sancti Remigii".75 [98] Reliquiae sancti Lupi episcopi. [99] D e capillis sancti Tuti.76 [100] Reliquiae sancti Odonis episcopi. [ 1 0 1 ] 77Reliquiae Winuualoi confessoris.77 [102] Reliquiae sancti Winardi confessoris. [103] D c brachio sancti Dioneti episcopi. [104] D c brachio sancti Ipotemii confessoris. [105] Brachium sancti Uuennali confessoris. [106] D e capita et de brach/o sancti Conocani confessoris. [107] Reliquiae Designati. [108] 7r Reliquiae sancti Liudgeri episcopi".78 [109] D e ossibus 79"et capillis"79 et de uestimentis sancti Petroci confessoris. [110] Costa sancti Auiti confessoris. [111] Reliquiae sancti Remigii.80 [112] D e corpore sancti Aniani episcopi. [113] D e corpore sancti Maximini confessoris. [114] D e monumento sancti Wlframni episcopi. [115] 8rD e sancto W e m o c o confessoris".81 [116] Reliquiae sancti Quonoquani confessoris. [117] Ossa sancti Melani'i"82 confessoris. [118] D e corpore 83sancti Withenoci83 confessoris. [119] D e corpora84 sancti Maioci85 confessoris. 73 MS. R: Winuualoei, (The item for Winuualoi in §101 has been erased from R.) 74 74 om. R, The whole entry has been underlined in R. 75.. .75 jhis entry for St Remigius's vestments has been added in üie margin in another hand. In

MS. R this is placed after §111(crismale, R). The initial T is written over an erasure in L. 77 77 om. R; cf. §92 (n. 73). 78._.78 The entry was added in the margin by the same scribe who added the entry on Remigius. See n. 75 above. In MS. R itprecedes §112. 19.. .19 Added above the line in L in another hand. Itis part of the text in R. 80 In MS. R this entry is followed by §97 and then §108. 81'8l The entry was added in L after the listwas written; part of itwas carried to the line above. It ispart of the text in R, where itbegins fo 55r. 82 Förster, ^ur Geschichte\ p.100, n. 2, criticised Warren, The Leofric MissaU p. 5, for indulging in hypercorrection of the genitive inflexion of Melanii; in fact, the correction was made in the manuscript itself,afterthe listwas written, although Warren does note itin square brackets as if it were his own emendation, instead of in round brackets as is his custom with corrections in the manuscript Another i has been interlined above -e~. MS. R reads Melani. » MS. R: WidenocL M .In MS. R, re of corpore is written above the line. 15 See Förster, 4Zur Geschichte', p.108, for implicatioiM of the possibly original reading Macoti in place of MaiocL The name has certainly been altered ln L. 76

196

[120] Reliquiae sancti Tuduuuali.86 [ 1 2 1 ] 87D e digito87 sancti Hieronimi.88 [122] Reliquiae89 sancti' Gregorii.90 [123] Reliquiae sancti Ualeriani. [124] Reliquiae sancti Uuigenoci confessoris. [125] D e sepulchro sancti Simeonis. [126] D e lapide sancti Siluini, quern portauit R o m a m tribus uicibus. [127] 91D e capitc sancti Nicolai episcopi. [128] Item reliquiae sancti Audoeni.91 [129] D e capite sancti Benedicti abbatis. [130] D e uestimento sancti Saluini.91* [ 1 3 1 ] Reliquiae sancti Ermelani. [132] 9r Reliquiae Gispini [133] et Crispiniani， 92 .93 y94

[134] ^ D e d i g i t o 948 sancte Mari? Magdalen^. [135] 95VD e sancta Elisabeth".95 [136] D e s+ y sancta Cecilia. [137] D e v+" sancta Agatha uirgine. [138] D e sancta Agnete. [139] Reliquiae sancti Praxedis [140] et sanct? Eugeni^ [ 1 4 1 ] etFeliculc. [142] Costa v+" sancta Felicul^958 uirginis. [143] D e capite sancte Margaret^ uirginis. [144] D e s a nc t aL uc i a. [145] Item de sancta Eugenia [146] et de sancta Felicula. [147] Ossa sanct? Mamill? uirginis. [148] Reliquiae sanctae Genouef^ uirginis. [149] Ossa sanct? Balthildis95b [150] 96et sancte Genouef?.96 Transcribed incorrectly by Förster, ibid.t p.105, N 107, as Tuduuali (the reading of MS. R). 81.. 87 MS. R: De digito altered io Digitus. Cf. §134. ** M S.R iIeronim i. 89 MS. R: De reliquiis. 90 MS. R has De sancto Medardo additionally here, but St Médard had already been named in §76. There isa space of about ten characters at line-end in MS. L. 91.. .91 The entries have been underlined in MS. R. 9U SiluiniyR. 91.92 The entry was added in L after the listwas written. Itispart of the original text in R. 93 The word is included in MS. R, but not in L. w V is written in L in the outer margin; itsignifies that the following relics are those of virgins. Itis not in MS. R. 94.. ..941 oigUus, MS. R, altered as in 9121. 95.. .95 The entry was added in L above the line after the list had been written. It is part of the original text in R. 9$> In R, the saini'i name has been underlined. 95b Battildls, R. m om. R. 86

197

Anglo-Saxon Exeter

The Records o f Relics at Exeter

[151] Rehquiae sancte Leonill?.963 [152] Reliquiae sanct^ Morenn^ uirginis. [153] Rchquiae sanct? Satiuiol? uirginis. [154] D e sancta Alfgiua. [155] Reliquiae sancte Sigeburg? uirginis. [156] D e uclamine sanct^ Agath^ uirginis, 9rct dentes eius/97 [157] Reliquiae........ ^ [158] 'Maxilla sancte Brigid^ uirginis/98* [159] His exceptis plurim? ali? ibi habentur sanctorum reliqui^, quarum quia non inucnimus98b nomina scripta, qu? sint ignoramus.980

confessors, and three to the list of virginsノ00 Eight of the n e w relics would have been quite old, if genuine, and do not help to date the list; these include relics of the Holy Martyrs of Jerusalem, St Cerbonius, St Eucherius, St Faustinus, St Felicity, St Gregory of Spoleto, St Rusticus, and the Theban Legion. The six remaining n e w names - St Blaise; St Catherine; St Justine; St Magnus; St Mary, St Martha, and St Lazarus; and St Thomas of Canterbury - all have twelfthcentury associations. Of these, St Catherine (§156) and St Blaise (§78) offer only circumstantial evidence for dating E. The cult of the former does not begin in the West until the eleventh century, and the latter was the patron-saint of woolcombers, whose favour the Church m a y have sought as the wool-trade became highly lucrative in England during the twelfth and thirteenth cen­ turies.101 St Justine lived sometime before the sixth century, but the discovery of her relics in 1117 in the church dedicated to her at Padua m a y constitute a terminus post quem for any list of relics in which she is included.102 St Magnus died in 1116, and his uita was (re)composed several times in the ensuing decades; it was doubtless responsible for creating an interest in his relics.103 The most securely dated saint in the list, however, is St Thomas ä Becket w h o was assassinated in 1170 and canonised in 1173. Since he was popularly vener­ ated before he was officially canonised - indeed, his first uita was written by Edward Grim only two years after his death, and three more Latin uitae fol­ lowed in the next two years104 relics described as including pars magna cilicii (4a large part of his hair-shirt1) and maxima pars eius camisie intincta sanguine (‘ most of his undershirt soaked in his blood’ ）could only have been obtained shortly after his death, because large parts of the saint's o w n clothing simply would not have been available as time passed and the demand tor a piece of it continued to grow. Moreover, it is hard to imagine that the bishop and his familia (or the dean and canons) at Exeter would have purchased a fraudulent relic of St Thomas from a third party when they had direct connexions with Canterbury, the ultimate source for the n e w saint's legitimate relics.105 Bishop Bartholomew (1161-1184) had offered to join Thomas in exile if he chose to leave England and was selected by his fellow-bishops to preach at the reconcil­ iation at the cathedral church of Canterbury on 21 December, 1172 (which was

IV. EXETCR, C A T H E D R A L LIBRARY, MS. 2861

The only witness, to the tradition of Exeter's pre-Conquest relic-collection, still at Exeter is Cathedral Library MS, 2861 (referred to here as E), a single sheet of membrane, somewhat irregularly shaped and measuring approximately 545 m m . x 215 mm..99*The document was laid out in two columns of sixty lines each, although the preamble and the list of items associated with Christ were written across the whole width of the writing space; the Marian relics are the first to be listed in columnar arrangement. E was written on both its face and dorse in a practised (but not expert) Gothic hand of the late twelfth century; blacK initials for the preamble, the relics of Christ, Mary, and the major categorical divisions (apostles, martyrs, confessors, and virgins) suggest that the list was intended for some kind of formal display. The list of relics for virgins on the document's dorse is headed De Uirginibus, all in Rustic Capitals; this is the only such heading in E. The relics of six saints listed in A, L, and R escape mention in E; these are the entries for St Ermoian, St James, St Salvinus, St Silvin, St Wigenoc, and St Wulfram. These saints appear to have nothing in common, so that the loss of their relics, or simply of their names from the relic-list, cannot easily be attributed to historical or devotional circumstances; but it is unlikely that all six names were merely overlooked. Moreover, fourteen relics have been added to E in the hand of the document's original scribe, and it is possible that the six missing relics were traded to another church or monastery for some of the n ew relics acquired in the twelfth century. All of the relics unique to E, and therefore presumed to represent additions to the collection, were entered at the end of the category to which they belonged: seven names were added to the list of martyrs, four names to the list of

96iThe remainder of the line (space for a dozen characters) isblank in L. 97...97 The addition was made in the inner margin, slightly above the line. It ispart of the text in MS. R. 98 In L at this point a space for about sixteen letters has been erased. The entry is not in R This enliy is an insertion in both L (where itseems to stand on an erasure) and R. 9lb The spacing of the preceding four words in L is suspiciously generous. 9k tt cetera added in MS. R in a much laterhand 99 These dimensions are based on a photocq>y generously provided by Mr Peter Thomas, Librarian, Exeter Cathedral Library.

The relics of St Maurice are listed a second time in §77, immediately after the entry for the Theban Legion; his relics had already been mentioned in §46, and L and R have but one entry to St Maurice (§57), but A listshim twice (§§41 & 73). Possibly, one of his relics was lost between the copying of A and L(R), and restored before E was copied; it is equally possible that the copyist of L merely overlooked the second relic of St Maurice, and the copyist of R did not catch this oversight 101 Thurstan & Attwater, Butler's Lives, 1.239, IV.420-1. ⑽ 紙 IV.51. 似 胸 .•11.103*4. 104 See Legge, Anglo-Norman Literature, p. 248; see also English Historical Documents, transl. Douglas & Greenaway, pp. 761-8. For Grim's narrative, see Materials fo r the History o f Thomas Becked edd. Robertson & Sheppard, 11.430-8. 105 Itmay also be significant in this context that Thomas's uitae specifxcaily name the hair-shirt and undergannents as having been preserved as Teücs by the monks atCanterbury. See ibid,, 11.15, in which Benedict of Peterborough's account of the stripping of the body and the discovefy of the hair-shirt Is given; lee alio English Historical Documents, transl. Douglas & Greenaway, 11.76ft-9.

198

199

⑽

Anglo-Saxon Exeter

The Records o f Relics at Exeter

Thomas*s birthday); subsequentiy, he was among those w h o composed an ac­ count of the archbishop's life. Given these connexions, Exeter might have acquired significant, genuine relics of Thomas ä Becket, and these probably would have been obtained just before or just after his canonisation.1061 think, then, that the earliest date at which E could have been written in its present form is 1172. Finally, the new saints also provide evidence that the list could have been written as late as shortly after 1187. The reference to the relics of SS. Mary, Martha, and Lazarus (§§153-155) presumably depends on the mediaeval belief that the two sisters and their broüier, Lazarus, evangelised Provence. Relics purported to be theirs were found in Tarascon in 1187. Presumably the relics named in E derived from knowledge of this discovery.107 Furthermore, the relics for Mary, Martha, and Lazarus are in the penultimate position in the list of Virgins. Only a vial of the oil which was supposed to flow annually from St Catherine's tomb on Sinai is listed after the holy family of Bethany, and the oil might have been obtained at any time. Allowing a short time to negotiate with the church at Tarascon for a portion of the relics, I should suggest that the terminus ante quern for the composition of E must therefore be ca 1190. Thus E m a y be dated to 1172 x ca 1190. The latter date would, of course, be preferable if w e knew more about the distribution of the relics of Mary, Martha, and Lazarus. T w o significant additions were made to E in a late thirteenth- or very early fourteenth-century hand. O n the dorse of the document, at the end of the list of confessors, is entered *Item brachium Sancti Pyrani confessoris'. St Piran was a Cornish saint and the apparent centre of his cult, the church of Pcrranzabuloe, was granted to Exeter by King Henry I, sometime during the first third of the twelfth century.108 Exeter might have obtained a relic of Piran at any time, for the church's connexions with Cornwall are quite ancient; but the king's grant provides a particular motivation either for die clergy of St Piran to present Exeter with a relic of the founder or for Exeter to express its desire for one. However, the hand in which the relic is recorded m a y postdate such a grant by as m u c h as a century. It is not possible to say n o w whether the addition was made to E after an inventory of the relies, or whether the relic was acquired at the same time as itwas entered here. In any case, the addition of the reference to this relic indicates that someone at Exeter still perceived the need to keep the relic-list up to date as much as a century after it was written. At the end of the second column, the same scribe w h o noted St Piran*s relic added, *Sanctum dierum uenie omnibus uere penitentibus et coneritis' (Truly, venerate the saint of the day with all [due] penitences and you will be secure'). Beneath that is written，Wfjcxcvf (‘ Versicle. Psalm 36’ ). The thirty-sixth Psalm (*Noli aemulari in malignantibus, neque zelaueris facientcs iniquitatem*, etc.) is used in the matins of the second feria, according to the Benedictine office; more importantly, extracts from this psalm were often used for the tract and gradual

(and for other parts) of the c o m m o n masses for the saints. Presumably the thirteenth-century annotator here noted a versicle to be used in such a context. At least w e k n o w that the feast of the relics was a cause for ceremonial elabora­ tion at Exeter in the thirteenth century, because London ，British Library, MS. Harley 863, fo 7v, contains a h y m n labelled 4In festo reliquiarum Exoniensis ecclesiae ad processionem, ('For the procession on the feast of relics at the church of Exeter*).109 Elaine Drage has written that the whole manuscript, which is a complete psalter with a contemporary Old English gloss, is one of twelve manuscripts written in toto at Exeter in the later eleventh century.110 The h y m n for the feast of relics is written in a thirteenth-century hand, but the psalter has been annotated with notes from as late as the early fourteenth centuiy, sugges­ ting that it was in use up to the period when E was annotated;111 indeed, E probably served as the official list of relics for Exeter throughout the thirteenth century. In such a way, the relics attributed to King yEthelstan continued to provide the bulk of relics venerated at Exeter for almost four hundred years. V.

E D m O N

O F

E X E T E R , C A T H E D R A L

L IB R A R Y , M S .

2861

For ease of reference, this relic-list has been assigned a series of sectionnumbers for the principal clauses and as a reference to each saint separately. Where saints are listed together (for example, Reliquie sanctorum Tiburcii et Ualeriani martiris), they have been assigned separate section-numbers in this edition: [31] Reliquie sanctorum Tiburcii [32] et Ualeriani martiris. N o effort has been made to separate multiple relics for the same saint under different section-numbers, except for the relics associated with Christ. In tran­ scribing the list, I have silently expanded abbreviations in accordance with the orthographical habits demonstrated throughout the document

[face】

[ 1 ] H E C S U N T N O M I N A S A N C T A R U M R E L I Q U A R U M que habentur in ecclesia sanctc Marie et sancti Petri Exonie ecclcsic, quarum m a x i m a m partem gloriossimus rex >®delstanus eiusdem ccclesie primus fundator ibidem contulit. [2] D e ligno Domini. [3] D e uestimento Domini. [4] D e presepe Domini. [5] D e lancea et mucrone unde latus Domini apertum est. [6] D c mensa Christi in qua ipsemet cenabat. [7] D e candela q u a m angelus D o n u m in sepulcro Christi irradiauit.

106 See Oliver, The History^ pp. 48-9. ]?7 See Leclercq, kLazare\ for an account of the discovery of the relics of the holy family of Bethany. io« Olson, Early Monasteries in Cornwall, p. 97.

The hymn begins 4Salue festa dies toto uenerabilis aeuo. / Qua datur in sanctis gloria digna Deo*. For an editon of the whole twenty-four-line song, sec Bishop, Liturgica Historica, p. 407. no Drage, *Biihop Loofde', p.146. 111 Ker, pp. 306-7, no. 232.

200

201

109

Anglo-Saxon Exeter [8] [9] [10] [11] [12]

Item dc presipio et sepulcro Domini. D e rubo de quo locutus est Dominus M O Y S I . D e loco unde Dominus ascendit in celum. D e altari quod ipse Dominus benedixit D e loco in quo Dominus fuit incarnatus.

[13] 112De sancta Maria matre Domini. [14] D e uestimento sancte Marie matris Domini. D e capillis eius. D e uelamine eiusdem et de sepulcro eius. [15] D e corpore sancti Iohannis Baptiste. Et de uestimento eiusdem. [16] D e reliquiis sanctorum Innocentium. DEAPOSTOLIS [17] D e barba sancti Petri apostoli et de capillis et de uestimento eiusdem. [18] D e collo sancti Pauli et dc uestc eiusdem. [19] D e baculo sancti Andree apostoli. [20] D e manna et de uestimento sancti Iohannis euugcliste.113 PI] D e capite sancti Bartolomei apostoli, [22] D e reliquiis sancti Iacobi apostoli. [23] D e reliquiis sancti Mathie apostoli.114

De martiribus. [24] D e sanguine sancti Stephani prothomartiris, et de reliquiis eiusdem, et de capite eius et de lapide eius. [25] D e ossibus sancti Laurentii martins. [26] D c carbone et reliquiis eiusdem. [27] Reliquie sancti Uincentii martins. [28] Reliquie sancti Uitalis martins. [29] Reliquie sancti Sebastiani martiris. [30] Reliquie sanctorum Tiburcii [31] et Ualeriani martirum. [32] Reliquie sancti Quirini martiris. [33] Item reliquic sancti Sebastiani martiris. [34] Reliquie sanctorum Crisanti [35] et Dane martirum. [36] Ossa sancti Urbani pape ct martiris. [37] Item reliquie sancti Uitalis martiris. [38] +Brachium sancti Candidi martiris. [39] +Brachium sancti Georgii martiris. D e capite eiusdem. [40] Reliquie sancti Apollinaris episcopi et martiris. [41] Reliquie sancti Quintini martiris. [42] Reliquie sancti Comelii martiris. [43] Reliquie sancti Marcelli115 pape et martiris. [44] Reliquie sancti Petri martins. [45] D e capite sancti Ciriaci martiris.

112 At this point, the scribe began to lay out the relic-list in two columns. 113 MS. E: euugriste. i m ' a space of two lines without entries follows in this column. 119 A second e was written above the e in M arceUi, apparently by the scribe of the text.

202

The Records o f Relics at Exeter [46] Dens sancti Mauricii martiris. D e reliquiis eiusdem. [47] D e reliquiis Iuliani martiris. [48] Reliquie sancti Lucani116 martiris. Hoc est de corpore eius. [49] Reliquie sancti Geruasii martiris. [50] D e capite sancti Christofori martiris. [51] D e corpore sancti Cononis martiris. [52] Ossa sancti Anastasii martiris. [53] Reliquie sancti Uiti martiris. [54] Reliquie sancti Nichasii martiris. [55] Brachium sancti Iuuenalis martiris. D e corpore eiusdem. [56] Reliquie sancti Tiburcii martiris. [57] 117 D e sanguine sancti Uiuiani martiris. [58] Reliquie sancti Eresii martiris. [59] Item reliquie sancti Ciriaci martiris. [60] Ossa sancti Ccsarii martiris ct de ueste eiusdem. [61] Ossa sancti Benigni martiris. [62] Reliquie sancti Iusti martiris. [63] Reliquie sancti Laudi martiris. [64] Reliquie sancti Eduardi martiris. [65] Reliquie sancti Desiderii martiris. [66] Reliquie sancti Pancratii118 martiris. [67] Reliquie sancti Felicis pape et martins. [68] Reliquie sancti Gordiani martiris. [69] Reliquie sancti Ofla/nni consobiini sancti Petri apostoli. [70] Reliquie sanctorum Crispini [ 7 1 ] et Crispiniani118* martirum. [72] Reliquie sanctorum martirum qui in Ierusalem fuerunt martirizati. [73] D e ossibus sancti Faustini martiris. [74] D e reliquiis sanctorum .xl. martirum. [75] D e reliquiis sancti Magni episcopis et martiris. [76] D e legione Thebeorum, id est sancti Mauricii sociorum"que eius". [77] D e reliquiis sancti Blasii. [78] D e capite et sanguine sancti T h o m e martiris. Et pars magna cilicii ipsius, et maxima pars eius camisie intincta sanguine ipsius.119 D e confessoribus. [79] Reliquie sancti Martini episcopi et confessoris. [80] D c capite sancti Nicholai episcopi et confessoris. [81] Reliquie sancti Gregorii pape et confessoris. [82] Reliquie sancti Augustini magni. [83] D e digito sancti Ieronimi presbyteri. [84] Reliquie sancti Germani Autisiodorensis episcopi.

116 MS. E: Lucani; L has L u cia ni, which can hardly refer to a different saint, since it also contains the description, unique in these lists, id est de corpore eius, 117 This entry is the flret in the second column on the document's face. 111 MS. E b u P ra n c ra tii (with a subpuncted first r). UI«MS. B has C rispia nia ni (with a tubpuncted flrit a). 119 A ip ic e of flve Unei without entriei follow« in thU column.

203

Anglo-Saxon Exeter

The Records o f Relics at Exeter

[85] D e capite sancti Benedicti abbatis. [86] D e dente et de uirga sancti Basilii episcopi. [87] D e corpore sancti Euurcii episcopi. [88] Reliquie sancti Medardi episcopi. [89] Reliquie sancti Audoeni episcopi. [90] Reliquie sancti Petri diaconi sancti Gregorii. [91] Reliquie sancti Maurilii episcopi. [92] Reliquie sancti WImari episcopi. [93] Reliquie sancti Wtuuali. [94] Reliquie sancti Orispini confessoris. [95] Reliquie sancti Siluestri pape et confessoris. [96] Reliquie sancti Galli episcopi. [97] Reliquie sancti Remigii episcopi. D e cilicio eius et de planeta et tunica et crismali eius. [98] Reliquie sancti Lupi episcopi.

[126] D e reliquiis sancti Eucharii episcopi. [127J D e reliauiis sancti Cerbonis episcopi et confessoris. [128] 122VItem brachium sancti Pyrani confessoris".122 D E V I R G I N I B V S 123 [129] D e digito sancte Marie Magdalene. [130] D e sancta Elisabeth. [ 1 3 1 ] Reliquie sancte Cecilie uirgmis et martiris. [132J Reliquie sancte Agathe uirginis et martins. D e uelamine eiusdem, et dentes eius. [133] Reliquie sancte Agnetis uirgmis et martiris. [134] Reliquie sancte Praxedis uirgmis et martins. [135] Reliquie sancte Eugenie f136] et Felicule uirginum. Costa sancte Felicule uirgmis. [137] D e capite sancte Margarete uirginis et martins. [138] Reliquie sancte Lucie uirgmis et martins. [139] Item de sanctis Eugenia f14〇j et Fdicula uirginibus. [ 1 4 1 ] Ossa sancte Mamille uirginis. [142] Reliquie sancte Genouefe uirginis. [143] Ossa sancte Babtildis124 regine. [144] Reliquie sancte Leonille uirginis. [145] Reliquie sancte Morenne uirginis. [146] Reliquie sancte Satiuole uirginis et martins. [147] Reliquie sancte Alume regine. [148] Reliquie sancte Sigeburge uirginis. [149] Maxilla sancte Bngide uirginis. [150] D e ossibus sancte Iustine matris Felicis125 Treuerensis episcopi. [ 1 5 1 ] D e reliquiis sancte Felicitatis. [152] D e reliquiis sancte Marie [153] etMarthe [154] et sancti Lazari fratris earum. [155] D e oleo sancte Katerine uirginis et martins.126 [156] Et muite alie innumerabiles quarum nomina scripta non inuenimus.127 128'Sanctarum dierum ucnie omnibus uere penitentibus et coneritis. ¥ .lx.xxvi/128

[dorse]120 [99] D e capillis sancti Tuti confessoris. [100] Reliquie sancti Odonis episcopi. [ 1 0 1 ] Reliquie sancti Wlnwaloi confessoris. [102] Reliquie sancti Wmnaidi confessoris. [103] Brachium sancti Iuuenaiis confessoris. [104] D e brachio sancti Dioneti episcopi. [105] D e brachio sancti Ipotemii confessoris. [106] D e brachio et de capite sancti Cococani confessoris. [107] Reliquie sancti Designati confessoris. [108] D e ossibus et de capillis et de uestimentis et una costa integra sancti Petroci. [109] Costa sancti Auiti episcopi. [110] Item reliquie sancti Remigii. [111] Reliquie sancti Liugerii episcopi. [112] D e corpore sancti Aniani episcopi. [113] D e corpore sancti Maximi episcopi. [114] Reliquie sancti Wernoci confessoris. [ 1 1 5 ] 121+ Brachium sancti Quonaquani confessoris.121 [116] Ossa sancti Melanii episcopi, [117] D e corpore sancti Wüienoci confessoris. [118] D e corpore sancti Maioci confessoris. [119] Reliquie sancti Tuduwali confessoris. [120] Reliquie sancti Ualeriani. [ 1 2 1 ] Item reliquie sancti Audoeni episcopi. [122] Reliquie sancti Ermelani confessoris. [123] D e sancto Erchenwaldo. [124] D c costa sancti Gregorii Spoletani episcopi. [125] D e reliquiis sancti Rustici archiepiscopi et confessoris. t2〇.T he dorse of MS. 2861 continues the two-column format established on the face of the document. m …ui The entry has been struck out with a single, thin line from another pen.

m...丨 The entry was added in a thirteenth- or early fourteenth-century hand. 123 The heading for the relics of virgins is the first item in the second column on the document's dorse. ^ For Baltildis: cf. MSS. L and Rt 8149» and MS. A, §137. MS. E has Feliscis (with the first s subpuncted). 126 A space of six lines without entries follows in this column. U7 A space of two lines without entries follows in this column. 1U...12I1 Tho entry is added in a thirteenth- or early fourteenth-century hand, the same hand in ^hlch w u added 1128, the relic of St Ptran. which

204

205

2 2

The Records o f Relics at Exeter

Anglo-Saxon Exeter IN D E X

O F

L IS T E D

S A IN T S IN

W H O S E

E X E T E R 'S

R E L IC S

A R E

R E C O R D S

There follows a lemmatised index of names of the saints whose relics are listed in the manuscripts discussed above. The form, or forms, in which the name appears in each document is given, accompanied by a number corresponding to the numbers used in the editing of the respective documents for this appendix. L refers to the edition of MSS. L and R together. The form of the lemma is the form in English assigned to the saint’ s name by Thurston & Attwater’ s‘ General Index of Names', Butler's Lives of the Saints, IV.681-707, and Michael Swanton's translation of Oxford, Bodleian Library, MS. Auct. D.2.16, fos 8r-14r, as *The Athclstan Donation* (Anglo-Saxon Prose, p p . 15-19). Where these two have disagreed on the spelling of a name, I have chosen one form as the lemma and provided a cross-reference to it at the place of the other spelling. iELFGIFU: Alfgiua 142 (A); Alfgiua 154 (L); Aluiue 147 (E). A G A T H A : AgaSa 127 (A); Agatha 137,156 (L); Agathe 132 (E). A G N E S : Agnete 130 (A); Agneta 138 (L); Agnetis 133 (E). A N A S T A S I U S : Anastasii 63 (L); Anastasii 52 (E). A N D R E W : Andreas 26 (A); Andree 29 (L); Andree 19 (E). A N I A N U S : Anianes 9 1 (A); Aniani 112 (L); Aniani 112 (E). A P O L L I N A R I S : Apollonare 39 (A); Apollonaris 50 (L); Apollinaris 40 (E). A U D O E N : Audoenes 83 (A); Audoeni 77,128 (L); Audoeni 89,121(E). A U G U S T I N E : Augustines 79 (A); Augustini 87 (L); Augustini 82 (E). AVITUS: Auites 108 (A); Auiti 110 (L); Auiti 109 (E). B A L T H I L D : Balthilde 137 (A); BalthUdis 149 (L); Babtildis 143 (E). B A R N A B U S : Barnabe 32 (L). B A R T H O L O M E W : Barthoiomeus 29 (A); Bartholomei 30 (L); Bartolomei 2 1 (E). BASIL: Basilius 8 1 (A); Basilii 74 (L); Basilii 86 (E). B E N E D I C T : Benedicte 89 (A); Bcnedicti 129 (L); Benedicti 85 (E). B E N I G N U S : Benignes 62 (A); Benigni 78 (L); Benigni 6 1 (E). BLAISE: Blasii 77 (E). BRIGIT: Brigida 146 (A); Brigide 158 (L); Brigide 149 (E). C A E S A R I U S : Cesaries 68 (A); Cesarii 72 (L); Ccsarii 60 (E). C A N D K ) U S : Candides 40 (A); Candidi 48 (L); Candidi 38 (E). C A T H E R I N E : Katerine 155 (E). CECILIA: Cecilia 129 (A); Cecilia 136 (L); Cecilie 1 3 1 (E). C E R B O N I U S : Cerbonis 127 (E). CHRIST: Crist 7; Cristes 31,33; Haelend 13, 20; Drihtcn 9-11,16,18,19, 27; Drihtenes 8,12,17 (A); Christi 10; Dominus 7, 9,19-21; Domini 2-6, 8, 11-13 (L); Christi 6,7; Dominus 9-12; Domini 2-5, 8,14 (E). C H R I S T O P H E R : Christofore 53 (A); Christofori 6 1 (L); Christofori 50 (E). C O N A N : Conones 54 (A); Cononi 62 (L); Cononis 5 1 (E). v C O N O G A N : Concanes 106 (A); Conocani 106 (L); Quonoquani 116 (L); Cococani 106; Quonaquani 11$ (E). C O R N E L I U S : Cornclio 45 (A); Corndii 52 (L); Cornclii 42 (E). C R I S A N T U S : Crisantcs 50 (A); Crisanti 44 (L); Crisanti 34 (E). CRISPIN: Crispine 56; Crispino 85 (A); Qrispini 93,132 (L); Crispini 70,96 (E).

206

CRISPINIANUS: Crispiniane 56 (A); Crispiniani 133 (L); Crispiniani 7 1 (E). CRISPUS: Crispo 94 (A). C Y R I A C U S : Cyriaces 49 (A); Ciriaci 55,56,70 (L); Ciriaci 45,59 (E). D A R I A : Darian 5 1 (A); Darie 45 (L); Darie 35 (E). DESBDERIUS: Desiderio 64 (A); Desiderii 82 (L); Desiderii 65 (E). D E S I G N A T U S : Designates 107 (A); Designati 107 (L); Designati 107 (E). D I O N E T U S : Dyonetes 104 (A); Dioneti 103 (L); Dioneti 104 (E). E D W A R D : Eadwardes 70 (A); Eduuardo 8 1 (L); Eduardi 64 (E). E L I S A B E T H : Elisabeth 126 (A); Elisabeth 135 (L); EUsabeth 130 (E). E R K E N W A L D : Erchenwaldo 123 (E). E R M O L A N : Ermelane 117 (A); Ermelani 1 3 1 (L); Ermelani 122 (E). E U C H E R I U S : Eucharii 126 (E). E U G E N I A : Eugenia 132 (A); Eugenia 145; Eugenie 140 (L); Eugenia 139 (E); Eugenie 135 (E). E U R E S I U S : Eresie 6 1 (A); Ercsii 69 (L); Eresii 58 (E). E U S T A C E : Eustachie 69 (A). E V U R T I U S : Euurties 82 (A); Euurtii 75 (L); Euurcii 87 (E). F A U S T Ï N U S : Faustini 73 (E). FELICITY: Felicitatis 1 5 1 (E). F E L I C U L A : Felicula 133 (A); Felicula 146, Felicule 141, Felicule 142 (L); Felicula 140, Feücule 136 (E). FELIX: FeUce 67 (A); Felicis 84 (L); Felicis 67,150 (E). G A L L : GaUe 87 (A); Galli 95 (L); Galli 96 (E). G E N E V I E V E : Genouesa 140 (A); Genouefe 148,150 (L); Genouefe 142 (E). G E O R G E : Georgies 35 (A); Georgii 49 (L); Georgii 39 (E). G E R M A N U S O F A U X E R R E : Germane 80 (A); Germani 88 (L); Germani 84 (E). G E R T R U D E : Gerethrude 139 (A). G E R V A S E : Geruasie 52 (A); Geruasii 60 (L); Geruasii 49 (E). G O R D I A N : Gordiano 85 (L); Gordiani 68 (E). G R E G O R Y : Gregorie 77; Gregories 123 (A); Gregorii 89,122 (L); Gregorii 81, 90(E). G R E G O R Y O F S P O L E T O : Gregorii 124 (E). G U D W A L ( ? ) : Wtuuali 92 (L); Wtuuali 93 (E). H O L Y I N N O C E N T S : sanctorum innocentium 17 (L); sanctorum Innocentium 16(E). H O L Y M A R T Y R S O F J E R U S A L E M : see J E R U S A L E M , H O L Y M A R T Y R S OF. H Y P O T ( H ) E M I U S : Ipotemies 105 (A); Ipotemii 104 (L); Ipotemii 105 (E). J A M E S : Iacobcs 30 (A); Iacobi 3 1 (L); Iacobi 22 (E), J E R O M E : Hieronime 78 (A); Hieronimi 12 1 (L); Ieronimi 83 (E). J E R U S A L E M , H O L Y M A R T Y R S OF: martyra ... on Hicrusalem 7 1 (A); martynun... in Hierusalem (A); sanctorum martyrum... in Ierusalem 72 (E). J O H N T H E A P O S T L E : Iohannes ... f)aes apostoles 27, 28 (A); Iohannis euangeliste 27,28 (L); Iohannis euangeliste 20 (E). J O H N T H E BAPTIST: Iohannes ... pms fulluhteres 23 (A); Iohannis Baptiste 16t22 (L); Iohannis Bapti&te IS (E).

JULIAN: Iuliane 48 (A); Iuliani 38 (L); Iuliani 47 (E). JULIANA: Iuliana 128 (A).

207

Anglo-Saxon Exeter

The Records o f Relics at Exeter

JUSTINE: Iustine 150 (E). JUSTUS: Iusto 65 (A); Iusti 79 (L); Iusti 62 (E). J U V E N A L : Iuuenales 58,103 (A); Uuennali 105; Iuuenalis 66 (L); Iuuenalis 55; Iuuenali 103 (E). K A T E R I N A : see C A T H E R I N E . L A U D U S : Ladio 66 (A); Ladii 80 (L); Laudi 63 (E). L A U R E N C E : Laurentius 33 (A); Laurentii 3 7 , 4 1 (L); Laurentii 25, 26 (E). L A Z A R U S : Lazari 154 (E). L E O N I L L A : LeoniJla 138 (A); Leonille 1 5 1 (L); Leonille 144(E). L I U D G E R : see L U D G E R . LUCIA: Lucia 135 (A); Lucia 144 (L); Lucie 138 (E). L U C I A N : Luciane 43 (A); Luciani 59 (L); Luciani [MS. Lucani] 48 (E). L U D G E R : Liudgere 118 (A); Liudgeri 108 (L); Liugerii 111 (E). L U P U S : Lupo 88 (A); Lupi 98 (L); Lupi 98 (E). M A G N U S : Magni 75 (E). M A I O C : Maioce 116 (A); Maioci 119 (L); Maioci 118 (E). M A M E L L A : Mamilla 136 (A); Mamille 147 (L); Mamille 141(E). M A R C E L L U S : Marcelle 46,120 (A); Marcclli 53 (L); MarccUi 43 (E). M A R G A R E T : Margareta 134 (A); Margarete 143 (L); Margarete 137 (E). M A R T H A : Marthe 153 (E). M A R T I N : Marlines 75 (A); Martini 73 (L); Martini 79 (E). M A R T Y R S O F S E B A S T E A , T H E FORT Y : .xl. martirum 74 (E). M A R Y : Mariam 27; Marian 10, 2 1 (A); Marie 13,14,15 (L); Maria 13; Marie 14 (E). M A R Y M A G D A L E N E : Maria Magdalene 125 (A); Marie Magdalene 134 (L); Marie Magdalene 129 (E). M A R Y O F B E T H A N Y ：Marie 152 (E). M A T H I A S : Mathie 23 (E). M A U R I C E : Mauricies 41,73 (A); Mauricii 57 (L); Mauricii 46 (E); Mauricii sociorum'que eius" 76 (E). M A U R I L I U S : Maurilie 86 (A); Maurilii 90 (L); Maurilii 9 1 (E). M A X I M I A N : Maximiane 43 (A). M A X I M Ï N : see M A X I M I N U S . M A X I M I N U S : Maximines 92 (A); Maximini 113 (L); Maximi 113 (E). M E D A R D : Medardes 84 (A); Medardi 76 (L); Medardi 88 (E). M E L A N I U S : Melanies 109 (A); Mclanii 117 (L); Melanii 116 (E). M I C H A E L : Michahel 22 (A). M O R W E N N A : Morenna 1 4 1 (A); Morenne 152 (L); Morenne 145 (E). M O S E S : Moyse 14 ; Moysen 15 (A); Moysi 18 (L); Moysi 9 (E). NICASIUS: Nicasies 57 (A); Nicasü 65 (L); Nichasii 54 (E). N I C H O L A S : Nicholaus 95 (A); Nicolai 127 (L); Nicholai 80 (E). O D O : Odones 102 (A); Odonis 100 (L); Odonis 100 (E). O F L A M N U S ( ? ) : Oflamno 32 (A); Oflawmi 86 (L); Oflanni 69 (E). P A N C R A S : Pancratio 63 (A); Pancratii 83 (L); Pancratii 66 (E). PAUL: Paules 25 (A); Pauli 26 (L); Pauli 18 (E). P E T E R T H E A P O S T L E : Pctrcs apostolcs 24; Petrus 32 (A); Petri apostoli 23, *24, 25 (L); Petri apostoli 17 (E).

P E T E R T H E D E A C O N : Petrus ... J>aes halgan dyacones 123 (A); Petri diaconi 89 (L); Petri diaconi 90 (E). P E T E R T H E M A R T Y R : Petrc \>mi martyre 47 (A); Petri martyris 54 (L); Petri martins 44 (E). P E T R O C : Petroces 96 (A); Petroci 109 (L); Petroci 108 (E). PIRAN: Pyrani 128 (E). PÏIAXEDES: Praxede 1 3 1 (A); Praxedis 139 (L); Praxedis 134 (E). Q U I N T I N U S : Quintino 42 (A); Quintini 5 1 (L); Quintini 4 1 (E). Q U I R I N U S : Quirino 44 (A); Quirini 42 (L); Quirini 32 (E). Q U O N O Q U A N U S : seeCONOGAN. R E M I G I U S : Remigies 90 (A); Remigii 96, 97,111 (L); Remigii 97,110 (E). R U S T I C U S : Rustici 125 (E). S A L V I N U S : Saluines 115 (A); Saluini 130 (L). S A T I V O L A : see S I D W E L L . S E B A S T I A N ; Sebastiane 36 (A); Sebastiane 38; Sebastiani 43 (L); Sebastiani 29, 33 (E). S I D W E L L (SATIVOLA): Satiuola 143 (A); Satiuiole 153 (L); Satiuole 146 (E). S I G E B R A N : Sigebrane 119 (A). S I G E B U R H : Sigeburga 144 (A); Sigeburge 155 (L); Sigeburge 148 (E). SILVESTER: Siluestre 76 (A); Siluestri 94 (L); Siluestri 95 (E). SILVIN: Siluinus 114 (A); Siluini 126 (L). S I M E O N : Simeones 113 (A); Simeonis 125 (L). S T E P H E N : Stefanes 3 1 (A); Stephani 33,34 (L); Stephani 24 (E). T H E B A N L E G I O N : D e legione Thebeorum 76 (E). a . M A U R I C E . T H O M A S O F C A N T E R B U R Y : T h o m e フ8 (E). TIBURTIUS: Tiburtio 59; Tyburtius 37 (A); Tiburtii 39, 67 (L); Tiburcii 30, 56 (E). T U D A : Tutes 10 1 (A); Tuti 99 (L); Tuti 99 (E). T U D W A L : Tuduale 112 (A); Tuduuuali 120 (L); Tuduwali 119 (E). U R B A N : Urbane 38 (A); Urbani 46 (L); Urbani 36 (E). V A L E R I A N : Ualerianes 37,111 (A); Ualeriani 40,123 (L); Ualeriani 31,120 (E). V I N C E N T ; Uincentio 34 (A); Uincentio 35 (L); Uincentii 27 (E). VITALIS: Uitale 72 (A); Uitale 36; Uitalis 47 (L); UitaUs 28, 37 (E). VITUS: Uite 55 (A); Uiti 64 (L); Uiti 53 (E). VIVIAN: Uiuiane 121; Uiuianes 60 (A); Uiuiani 68 (L); Uiuiani 57 (E). W E N N O C : Wernoco 99 (A); Wernoco 115 (L); Wernoci 114 (E). W E R B U R H : Wsrburga 145 (A). W E R N O C : see W E N N O C . W I G E N O C : Wignocc 100 (A); Uuigenoci 124 (L). W I N A R D : Winarde 98 (A); Winardi 102 (L); Winnardi 102 (E). W I N W A L O E : Winwaloc 97 (A); Winuualoi 101(L); Winwaloi 101(E). W I T H E N O C : Wiöenoccs 110 (A); Withcnoci 118 (L); Withcnoci 117 (E). W T U U A L U S : see G U D W A L (?). W U L F M A R : Wulmarc 122 (A); Wlmari 9 1 (L); Wlmari 94 (E). W U L F R A M : Wulframncs 93 (A); Wulframni 114 (L).

208

209

Colophonic Inscriptions in the Lambeth Bede A P P E N D I X III

C O L O P H O N I C INSCRI P T I O N S IN T H E L A M B E T H B E D E (L O N D O N ,

L A M B E T H

P A L A C E

L IB R A R Y , M S .

149, F O

1 38V )

London, Lambeth Palace Library, MS. 149, has a bifolium (fos 137-138)1 after the seventeenth gathering to allow completion of St Augustine's De adulterinis coniugiis, begun on fo 96v. O n fo 138v, the texts edited here occur. I. The concluding rubric for St Augustine's De adulterinis coniugiis.23 II. A n inscription dated A.D, 1018 which purports to record the presentation of this volume and at least one other to a monasteriwn dedicated to St Mary in a place whose name has been obliterated by erasure (presumably) and sub­ sequently by reagent in. A version of the Pater noster, ineptly copied by a poorly trained scribe. IV. A n apparent colophon naming *Leofricus Pater* and including two large initials, an I and a P, the former arranged above the latter. Additionally, there are several pen-trials on the page and the words /Ethel and

/Ethelwine^ Item I, the rubric, is contemporary with the writing of the manuscript itself. It is in the same hand and ink as used for the opening rubric of the first text in this manuscript, Bede's Expositio super apocalypsin.4 The scribe w h o wrote item I and the opening to the Bedan text was not the main scribe of the manuscript but is probably to be identified with the scribe w h o wrote Oxford, Bodleian Library, MS. Bodlcy 718 (S.C. 2632); Exeter, Cathedral Library, M S. 3507; and Paris, Bibliothèque nationale, MS. latin 943. Similar lines of such Capitals appear in all three of these manuscripts.5 Item II, the donation-inscription, is potentially an historical document of great importance. Until technology allows us to discover the name of the place to which the book was donated, however, w e shall not be able to make very much use of the information which it provides. Lambeth Palace M S . 149 was probably at Exeter in Lcofric's time, and it is listed in the inventories compiled in 1327 and 1506.6 The manuscript was also seen at Exeter by John Leland.7 It must have belonged to Richard Bancroft - archbishop of Canterbury - before

1

D ra g e ,

'B is h o p

L e o fr ic \

p.

3 7 5 , to o k

fo

138

to

be

a

s in g le to n

added

a t

th e

m a n u s c r ip t, a n d a n a ly s e d th e p r e c e d in g q u ir e a s o n e o f te n fo lio s : * 1 7 10 (fo s fa c t, th e

p r e c e d in g

q u ir e

is

1 7 10 ( 7

c a n c .)

(fo s

1 2 8 -1 3 6 ).

T h e

e ig h t e e n t h

end

o f th e

D e k k e rs &

G a a rf

Clavis, n o .

g a th e r in g

is

a

Clavis, n o .

s e e a l s o D r a g e , (B i s h o p L e o f r i c % p . 3 7 6 . 9

See above, p p . 8 0 -6 .

B o o k a n d L a m b e th

302.

D e k k e rs &

5

S ee ab o ve, pp . 8 8 -9 .

1363.

11

1 4 9 : a r e c o n s id e r a tio n

6

S e c b e lo w , a p p e n d ix V ; f o r th e t w o la te r in v e n to r ie s , s ee O liv e r ,

7

L e la n d ,

The Lives, p p .

15

H e a rn e , IV .151.

210

s o m e tim e s v a g u e ly

r e s e m b le s

it , a n d

打- s i g n .

303, 367.

’ ；H

i l l , ‘T h e E x e t e r B o o k a n d

1 4 9 : th e m o n a s t c r iu m * ; s e c a ls o a b o v e , p p . 3 5 - 7 .

S e e p la te I X .

«e, w h ic h

e d

P a la c e L i b r a r y M S

L a m b e t h P a la c e L i b r a r y M S

>2 T h i s s c r i b e u s e d s e f o r & . I t h i n k t h a t ( s ) b e m u s t h a v e c o n f u s e d

4

Collectanea:

T h e r e f e r e n c e is t o b e f o u n d o n f o 7 9 v o f t h e c a t a lo g u e o f A r c h b is h o p B a n c r o f t 's m a n u s c r ip t;

10 F o r i m p o r t a n t d i s c u s s i o n s o f t h e i s s u e , s e e R o w e r , ^ T h e s c r i p t 1, p p . 8 5 - 9 0 ; H i l l , * T h e E x e t e r

3 See Hill， ‘The Exeter Bode and Lambeth Palace Library MS 149: a reconsideraÜon，， p . 115, for a careful description of the pen-trials. G a a r,

8

1 2 8 -1 3 7 )* . In

b if o liu m : 1 8 2 (fo s 1 3 7 -1 3 8 ). 3

1612, because at that time it was listed in the catalogue of his manuscripts at Lambeth.8 Whether ^Ethelweard gave the book to Exeter, Crediton, Tavistock, or somewhere else, it is most likely to have been at Exeter before 1072; if it had been written at Exeter - as I have argued here9 - then it would not have been presented to Exeter but must have been given to some institution whose history can account for its return to Exeter.10 The amount of corruption in the text of the Pater nosier in item III is quite astounding and suggests that the scribe depended upon her or his knowledge of the prayer in oral form instead of following a written exemplar. The idea of an oral source in this instance is strengthened by the nature of the errors which the scribe made: ƒ〇/“ 咖 is written for the aspirate on Aödie is missing; k is apparently written for es; a nasal has twice been dropped; and Latin regnum is written rehnum, as if the scribe imagined that the Old English velar tncative (as in nihu for example) were more appropriate to her/his pronunciation; moreover, the scribe could not control the size of her/his letter-forms, nor could (s)he keep them on the pre-ruled line.11 (S)he was aware of the use of a macron as an abbreviation used by practised scribes, although that m a y reflect only an ability to read and not any training in a scriptorium.12 The repeütion of passages at the end of the prayer suggests that this text must be a pen-trial or of a similarly ephemeral purpose, and not a pious attempt to complete the donationinscription (item II) which breaks off with the conjunction quod after referring to the death of King E d m u n d in 1016. Nevertheless, since the Pater noster was clearly what the scribe intended to write, one must wonder w h y (s)he aid not reach its end {libera nos a malo\ I shall return to this in consioenng the order in which the four items were written. Item IV, the malachite-green Colophon' including the name Leofricus Pater and the letters I and P, is of singular importance in the history of Lambeth MS. 149. If it refers to Bishop Leofric, then it establishes the book as the Expositio Bede super Apocalipsin in the inventory; if, however, it refers to the Leofric w h o attested royal diplomas as Exeter's abbot 980 x 993, then it is an important link between the scriptorium at Exeter and the two scribal hands which have been examined in this study.131 shall examine the weight of evidence for each of these two positions, but a third possibility also exists: the name *Leofric, was quite c o m m o n (Muchelney had an abbot of that name at about the same time), and the credibility of any identification with one of the m e n at Exeter by that name is largely dependent upon the weight given to other evidence for associa­ ting the manuscript with Exeter.

See above, pp . 8 9 -9 0 .

211

s o c o m b in e d

&

w itb th e S q u a r e -m in u s c u le

a and

e

to c r e a te h e r /h is o w n

Anglo-Saxon Exeter

Colophonic Inscriptions in the Lambeth Bede

Item IV is not in the same hand as item I; they are related hands, but not identical. Item IV is written in a malachite-green ink (and a similar green ink has been used to fill the letters in CON1VG1ÏS in item I and for the pen-trial /Epel in the outer margin); its form of O is squarer and less mandorla-shaped than in item I; the foot of the second leg of N lacks a serif, which it usually does not in item I; E is rounded, not square as in item I; and the bows of P, R, and D swell above the point of onset, which does not happen in item I. Because simple Capitals are difficult to date, because a book containing the same text is named in Bishop Leofric's inventory, and because item IV comes at the bottom of the leaf after one item entered during or after 1018 followed by another dated palaeographically to the first half of the eleventh century, the least complicated explanation for the evidence is certainly that the Leofric-colophon must have been added after the second item, which would date the entry of item IV to the eleventh century and would seem to identify the name in the colophon with Bishop Leofric. Further apparent support for this interpretation of the evidence lies in the presence of the name /Elpel an entry in green ink in the outer margin with no discernible textual status. Robin Flower thought that this must have been inspired by the same word in an inscription on fo 138r where + cepel + cepelwerd ealderman gret appears at the bottom of the folio in a hand dated palaeographically to the first half of the eleventh century; and the fact that the pen-trial is in the colour of the Leofric-colophon provides a further link to support dating that colophon to the same period. Another explanation of the evidence, however, would associate the Leofriccolophon with the period ca 980 x ca 993, üie dates w h e n w e k n o w that a m a n named Leofric attested royal diplomas as abbot at Exeter. Such an argument deliberately ignores the spatial order of the texts on the folio, and assumes that they could have been written in the order I, IV, n, III. While the hands of item I and item IV are different, there are close similarities which ought not to be ignored. W e find extended samples of the hand of item I in MSS. Bodley 718, Exeter 3507, and Paris, B.N., latin 943.14 Every variation of the letter-forms used in the Leofric-colophon can also be found in those samples, except A with a double-lined bridge, and that can be seen in Durham, Cathedral Library, MS. A.iv.19, fo 65r (the ^Durham Ritual,), in an addition which was written ca 970 x 981.Moreover, the same green ink is found at several places in Exeter 3507.15 In spite of the fact that the Leofric-colophon succeeds eleventh-century texts on this folio, the inscription is consistent with tenth-century forms established in related performances. Recalling that the scribe w ho wrote item III - the Pater noster - did not complete the prayer, w e m a y note that (s)he had written one line of text for each of the four empty ruled lines between items II and IV (although [s]he had not managed to keep the baseline of the writing to the respective ruled lines). That the Pater noster was not completed constitutes

evidence that item IV, the Leofric-colophon, was already in place when item III, the prayer, was written. The large I and P were taken by Flower to signify I[n nomine] P[atris et Filii et Spiritus Sancti}.16*The arrangement of the letters have rather the look of a monogram in the making, and I should like to suggest that they may have been intended to read I[n] P[ace].11 I conclude, therefore, that the items were written in the following order and at the following dates.

14 For details, see above, pp. 88-9. 15 The green pen-trial,/Ethel, isperhaps unlikely to have been in place when this page was first written, because itappears to deface it.Itcould have been added by anyone who cared to test •the result of a recipe for green ink against (ho green in the Leofric-colq)hon; the letters in CONiVGUS may have been filledat the same time.

212

First, item I. The concluding rubric for St Augustine's De adulterinis coniugiis, dated to ca 980 x ca 993 on the basis of palaeographical similarities to item IV. Second, item IV. A n apparent colophon naming 'Leofricus Pater\ in a hand associated with manuscripts dated to the last quarter of the tenth century and assigned to ca 980 x ca 993 because an abbot of Exeter named Leofric attested royal diplomas during that period. Third, item II. A n inscription dated A.D. 1018 which purports to record the presentation of this volume and at least one other to a monasterium dedicated to St Mary in a place whose name has been obliterated Fourth, item III. A version of the Pater noster, ineptly copied in barbarous Latin by a poorly trained scribe and entered on fo 138v in the first half of the eleventh century but after 1018, the earliest date which w e can assign to item II. Item II was certainly written earlier, because part of the bar of a t in the first line of item III is written over the descender of a q in the last line of item n. E X P LICIT . L I B E R . S E C V N D V S . A D P O L L E N T I V M .D E A D V L T E R I N I S . C O N I V G I I S : . - 18 Hunc quoque uoluminem aethelu'v'ardus dux gratia d^i admonasterium sanct^ m a n ? genetricis saluatoris condonauit; Quod est in loco qui dicitur [.............. ] Hoc autem donum factum est anno ab incarnatione redemptionis nostt^ vm^ xviii. Indictione .i. Et factum est ergo post obitum regis Eadmundi qwod19 patr20 no&ter qui is21 in celis sactificetur22 nomen tuMm adueniat rehnum23 tuwm fiat foluttas24 tua siccut in clo25 & 'i"n tera26 panem

16

F l o w e r , ‘ T h e s c r i p t ’ ，p . 8 7 .

17 C f . K e y n e s , * A n i n t e i p r e t a t i o n ' . D u r i n g t h e r e i g n o f E d w a r d t h e C o n f e s s o r m o n e y e r s d e m o n ­ s tra te d

an

in g e n io u s

and

s o ^ J is ü c a te d

t a le n t f o r d e s ig n in g

a n d c h a r te r s , w h ic h u s u a lly b o re th e w o r d

pax.

T h e

I

and

P

c o m p le x

e b r is m o x is o n

p e n n ie s

h e r e m a y re p re s e n t s o m e e a r lie r

r e s p o n s e t o t h e s a m e im p u ls e . 18

T h e s c r ib e c h a n g e d a f t e r th is p o in t.

19

T h e s c r ib e c h a n g e d a fte r th is p o in t.

20

s ic M S . * f o r p a / e r .

21

s ic M S . , f o r

22

s ic M S . , f o r

23

s ic M S . , f o r

es. D r a g e , * B i s b o p sanctificetur. regnum. uoluntas.

24

s ic M S . , f o r

25

s ic M S . , f o r c tfto .

26

s ic M S . , f o r w r r a .

L e o f r ic ', p . 3 7 4 , r e a d

213

qus,

w h ic h s h e h a s a n a ly s e d a s

qui e ^ .

Anglo-Saxon Exeter

nostrum, cotidiano da nobis odie27 & dimite28 nobis [....... ]29 nobis dcbita notera303*2siccut in celo & in terra panem nostrum^ A 12 IN N O M I N E DOMINI + A M £ A ^ LEOFRICt/5 + P A T E R I P

A P P E N D I X IV

T H E R E C O R D O F M O V I N G T H E SEE O F D E V O N F R O M CREDITON TO EXETER (OXFORD, B O D L E I A N LIBRARY, MS. B O D L E Y 579 [S.C. 2675], FOS 2r-3v; L O N D O N , B R m S H LIBRARY, MS. ADDITIONAL 7138; L O N D O N , BRITISH LIBRARY, MS. ADDITIONAL 15350, F O 112; L O N D O N , BRITISH LIBRARY, MS. C O T T O N CLEOPATRA E.i, FOS 45v-46r; L O N D O N , B R m S H LIBRARY, MS. C O T T O N FAUSTINA B.vi, V O L . 1,F O 98; OXFORD, B O D L E I A N LIBRARY, MS. B O D L E Y 718 [S.C. 2632}, F O 180v)

The extraordinarily irregular abbreviations used in the Lord’ s Prayer should be noted: nor = noster, nostrum; qi -q u i\ tcra = terra.

INTRODUCTION

Documents related to the removal of the see of Devon and Cornwall from Crediton to Exeter occupy Oxford, Bodleian Library, MS. Bodley 579 (the 'Leofric Missal'),fos 2r-3v. To judge from the scribes9 use of initials, the material was divided into seven sections, as it is therefore in this edition. I have identified the three separate scribes of the seven sections as *A\ and 4C respectively. [1]A narrative on the division of the see of Sherborne in 909, often called *The Plegmund narrative*. §1 was written by Scribe A, with corrections entered probably by Scribe B. The same text survives as London, British Library, MS. Additional 7138, writte in the second half of the tenth century.1

1

27 28 29 30

sic MS., for/w^/e. sic MS., for dimirte. Erasure of about eight letters. sic MS., for nostra, perhaps by mistaking an st ligature.

51 The scribe changed after thispoint.

may be expanded as Accipiet, Alleluia, Aetema, or^we, depending upon the purpose of the inscription. See Cappelli, Lexicon, p. 429.

32 A

214

Keynes, Facsimiles o f Anglo-Saxon Chartersy p. 5, no. 9. Chaplais, *The letto1from Bishop WealdhCTe\ p.16, n. 24, has identified the scribe of London, British Library, MS. Add. 7138 with the scribe of Oxford, St John's College, MS. 28 and Cambridge, Corpus Christi College, MS. 389. Since the mediaeval provenance of the latter manuscript was St Augustine's, Canterbury, then the tenth-centuiy copy of the Plegmund narrative would seem to have originated in the same place. I have been unable to examine Cambridge, Cozpus Christi College, MS. 389, but I do not think that the scribe who wrote MS. Add. 7138 was the same one who wrote Oxford, St John's College, MS. 28. A comparison of the facsimile page of the latter,published by T. A. M. Bishop in English Caroline Minuscule, p. 3, no. 5, with Keynes's facsimile of MS. Add. 7138 (plate IX) reveals numerous diffwences between the two hands. MS. Add. 7138 shows two forms of the Square-minuscule g, an open-tailed variety in itsfirst three lines and a closed variety thereafter. This may indicate that the copyist was working from an exemplar which used the open-tailed g， a common form in the earli汉 periods of Square minuscule (see Dumville, "English Square minuscule script: the background and earliest phases', plates I-VII); in any case, the open-tailed g is not used in MS. 28. Moreover, the closéd-taileè g differs in the way in which óie loop formed by the closed tail is oriented on the vertical axis of the letter: the loop in MS. 28 iscentred on the vertical axis, whereas in MS. Add. 7138 itis mostly drawn to the right of the axis. The tongue of the e is more often lower and more closely parallel to the line of writing in MS. 28 than is the case in MS. Add. 7138. The tick at the lower left stroke of x curls down in MS. 28, but 叩 in MS. Add. 7138. Moreover, the aspects of the two hands differ to a degree not to be reconciled by the appearance that MS. Add. 7138 is written in an upgraded script, while MS. 28 is not. In fact, the script of MS. Add. 7138 harmoniies better with those of Oxford, Bodleian Libary, MS. Bodley 718; Bxeter, Cathedral Library, MS. 3507; Parif, Blbliothèque natloruüe, MS. latin

213

Anglo-Saxon Exeter

[2] A narrative relating the coming of Edward the Confessor to England, his appointment of Leofric to the sees of Crediton and Cornwall, the threats which the episcopal cathedral at Crediton suffered from brigands, and Leofric's request to Pope Leo DC to write on his behalf to King Edward requesting that the see be moved to Exeter. §2 was copied by Scribe B. [3] A brief preface identifying §4 as the letter which Pope Leo DC wrote to King Edward. §3 was copied by Scribe B. [4] A letter of Pope Leo EX,* 2 copied by Scribe B, a similar version of which was also copied into Oxford, Bodleian Library, MS. Bodley 718 (5.C. 2632), fo 180v, where it was written (on the verso of the penultimate leaf of the book) by Scribe A.3 Since Scribe A wrote §1,above, which was corrected by Scribe B, as well as a version of the text which was written into the 'Leofric Missal,as §4 by Scribe B, both scribes were obviously concerned with the preservation of the texts in §§1 and 4; if the two scribes were not contemporaries, then Scribe A preceded Scribe B by only a few years.4 [5] A brief narrative recording that King Edward's response was to give the

monasterium of St Mary and St Peter to Leoftic and that, after some months, the king and queen formally installed Leofric as bishop there. §5 was copied by Scribe C. [6] A n encomiastic passage on Leofric's accomplishments at Exeter, praising him primarily for restoring the institution^ lands. §6 was copied by Scribe C. [7] A notice of Leofric's death and burial, and a request for the reader's prayer. §7 was copied by Scribe C. This seven-part text appears to have been added on blank folios in quire I of the 'Leofric Missal1 after the second half of the gathering had already been written

943; and the ccwrrector's hand in London, Lambeth Palace Liteary, MS. 149; all of which (I have argued) were written at Exeter by a single scribe. The whict of MS. Add. 7138 may not be that scribe, but the design, weight, proportions, and scale of his script suggest that he learned his hand in the same scriptorium or under the same tutor (see above, pp. 86 -8 ).The fact that the text of MS. Add. 7138 isfavourable to Crediton's claim to three Cornish estates when Archbishop Dunstan favoured Cornwall in the same claim requires us to explain Canterbury^ motivation in making a faircopy of the Plegmund narrative ifwe are to posit an origin for the manuscript at Canterbury, whereas the motivation for copying the manuscript locally at Crediton or Exeter at the end of the tenth century is obvious. It is possible that, in his effort to settle the dispute between Cornwall and Credition over the Cornish estates, Dunstan requested MS. A & L 7138 to be made from a Credition original， and that Crediton requested an admired scribe from nearby Exeter to make the copy. 2 See Regesta pontificum romanorum, ed. Jaffé, no. 4208. 3 The identification was made by Drage, 'Bishop Leofrïc\ p. 409 and plate XItWho labelled the hand that of ‘ Scribe 9’ . 4 W e can date Scribe A after 1050, since the date given to Pope Leo IV*s letter, which Scribe A copied into MS. Bodley 718, is 1050; post 1050 is also the only date which we can assign to the texts written by Scribe B, since §2 (which Scribe B copied) could hardly have been composed before the papal letterhad been received in 1050.

216

The Record o f Moving the See o f Devon on in Leofric's scriptorium.5 The seven of the text constitute a rough but united chronicle of the see of Devon. Support for seeing §1，the ‘ Plegmund narrative’ ， as the intentional commencement of this chronicle is the reference in §2 (the narrative preceding and introducing Pope Leo DC*s letter) to Eduuardum predic­ tum, 4the aforementioned Edward*, viz, Edward the Elder. The author of §2 would have had no reason to mention §1 if it were not connected in his mind with the materials which he was introducing, and - in fact - the Tlegmund narrative* supports both Gediton's episcopal legitimacy and its dominion over estates in Cornwall, both of which would have been important points for Leofric to maintain in order to insist on the same privileges for Exeter once the see had been moved there. Palaeographical considerations reinforce the notion that the Tlegmund narrative' was intended to be read as background to Üie events described in §§2-7, but with one qualification. The scribe w h o wrote §1 employed a large Caroline script which sprawled across fo 2 and on to 3r. Scribes B and C crowded §§2-7 on to the remaining portion of fo 3 by writing two lines of text for each ruled line, and by extending both the recto and verso of the folio beyond the last original ruling with two lines of the smaller script. This suggests that, originally, the 'Plegmund narrative' was introduced into tiie blank leaves remaining at the front of the missal with no thought of its being continued;6 otherwise, w e should expect the scribe to have been more eco­ nomical in his use of space, were he aware of a plan to add more material which was 8 6 % larger than the piece which he was about to copy.7 The scribe w h o wrote §§2-4 appears to have been the corrector of §1,although the corrections are slightly upgraded from the writing in §§2-4. The evidence for this identification lies in his use of a short, serifed descender for the long s in the st-ligature， the onset and serif of i, and the decided angle on the finish of the first stroke of b which causes the bowl of the letter to appear pointed (a trait which is observ­ able in the work of both Scribe B and Scribe C). T w o specific corrections are also important in understanding the process by which the seven sections were composed. W h e n it was decided that the letter from Pope Leo IV granting the right to move the see, §4, should be included in the *Leofric Missal*, two prefaces were prepared for it O n e of these is §3, which simply identifies the sender and receiver of the papal letter. Preceding that, however, is §2, which refers to the Tlegmund narrative, before it by naming ‘ the aforementioned Edward' and fills in pertinent information about the problems which the Church in Devon encountered with its episcopal seat located in Crediton. If Scribe B, w h o wrote §2, is also the corrector of §1,then he had indeed compared the text for §1 in the *LeoMc Missal* with either its exemplar or another copy of the same text. This is evident

Drage» 'Bishop Leofric\ p.122; cf. pp. 186-8, above. The firstfolio of the gathering (and of the Missal) seems originally to have been blank except for Leofric'sinscription in Latin and English; the five manumissions were, I presume» added. ? I count 2235 charactera in the edited version of the Tlegmund narrative' and 4169 characters in SS2-7. Therefore the scribe used more than one-half (57%) of tho space available for what turns out to have boen about one third (35%) of the material ontorod on foi 2^-3.

5

217

The Record o f Moving the See o f Devon

Anglo-Saxon Exeter because the corrector has inserted two readings in this short text which are found in the main hand in the tenth-century copy of the same text in London, British Library, MS. Additional 7138.8 It is very lücely that the Tlegmund narrative*, to which Dunstan alluded in extenso in a letter datable 981 x 988,9 was taken to Exeter from Crediton by Leofric to support an actual or anticipated claim that its n e w episcopal status gave Exeter income from those lands earlier granted to Crediton in recognition of its episcopal status. At any rate, the *Exon Domesday* indicates that two of the three Cornish estates in question remained under Exeter's control at the time of the Domesday inquest (1086).10 Moreover, not only would the Tlcgmund nanrative' have provided the background to the development of the see, but it would also have provided a recognisable precedent for settling diocesan issues by papal intervention, an important precedent when w e recall that the central document of this collection was a papal letter supporting Leofric's desire to remove the see to Exeter. Ä case can thus be made for considering all seven shorter texts as a single composite text, beginning with §1,the Tlegmund narrative\ which provides the history of Crediton's episcopal authority. §2 describes in orderly narrative style the events leading up to §4, the papal letter which forms the centre-piece of the series. §3 was written for such a purpose as it serves here, that is, to link the papal letter itself to the foregoing §§1 & 2; this preface does not appear in the separate transcript of Pope Leo*s letter in MS. Bodley 718. §4 is a copy of that letter, and §5 is another narrative, describing events following receipt of the letter. §5 is written in a different hand, that of Scribe C, but is rhetorically more consistent with the narrative of §2 than with the panegyric nature of §6, which recounts and praises Leofric’ s activities ät Exeter. H a d the change in scribes concurred with the change in rhetoric, the case for an unplanned set of related entries would be stronger. Finally, the understated notice of Bishop Leomc's death in §7 provides the closure which w e expect in a planned narra­ tive and suggests that the whole piece m a y be seen as a single composition concerning Lcofric's place in the history of the see. If so, the discourse on moving the see and Leofiric's subsequent activities could have been added to the 'Lcofric Missal* only after the latest date mentioned in it, which is 10 February, 1072.I11 Given the likelihood that §1 was not incorporated into the plan of the narrative when it was first written into the *Leofric Missal*, but became a part of the whole plan with the composition of §2, and the fact that Scribe B ended his stint with §4 - the letter from Pope Leo IV there is no indication that the composer of §2 expected §§5-7 to follow. H e m a y simply have tied in what went before and then have added transitional material for the letter which he copied. But just as the author of §2 was certainly aware that he was in effect continuing §1,so the rhetoric of §5 would seem to suggest that

the author of that section was aware that he was continuing what had been begun in §§1-4. The account changed with accretions, each one of which represents a state in the reception of the foregoing texts. The final composite text is, to all intents and purposes, a chronicle of the see of Devon from 909 to 1072. §6 is central to the discourse because it describes what Lcofric attempted and what he accomplished. The verbs chosen to describe his work at Exeter are restaurauit and emendauit: *he restored* and *he corrected* the losses caused by the characterisation that Exeter despoliatus erat, that the institution to which King iEthelstan had given twenty-six properties ‘ had been despoiled'12 It is not probable that despoliatus signifies active plundering of the sort associated with robbers, since to get away from that was a stated reason for moving the see from Crediton. It is more probable that despoliatus meant that goods had been 'dispersed', whether ^dissipated* or 'consumed out of necessity*, or forced out of the minster *s possession or control by local, lay pressures.13 While §6 states unequivocally that iéthelstan gave Exeter twenty-six estates, it is ambiguous about whether die king presented the institution with any books or relics. It does state that a casket of relics and three books had survived there in addition to the single small estate which remained for the support of the institution, but this need not be read as associating the books and relics with the king. The relic-lists themselves do, however, associate the relics with /Ethtlstan s donation.14 W h a t follows is the first unified edition of the whole seven-part text on moving the see of Devon and Cornwall from Crediton to Exeter.15 Although Warren edited these same texts, he does not appear to have appreciated their function as an epistolaxy chronicle of the see. The following edition uses the texts of the ‘ Leofric Missal’ ，whose sigliun is ‘ L’ ，as the base-text for what is

A full reproduction of the manuscript is available in Facsimiles o f Anglo-Saxon Charters, ed. Keynes, plate IX. « For Dunstanletter see Councils, edd. Whitelock et a i, 1.166-7,169-73. Kob)ii9〇 i\t TheSaxon Bishops.pp. 18-27. II Four days before the ides of Febniary, 1071 (old style).

The ^oposition that i^thelstan endowed the minster fits with four extant charters from Exeter fabricated during the mid-eleventh century which purport to record grants of land to the minster of St Petw and St Mary by that king. See Sawyer, Anglo-Saxon Charters, nos 386,387,389, and 433. Whether these were eleventh-century reconstructions of documents lost during Swegn's raid in 1003, as Finberg thought (The Early Charters o f Devon and Cornwall, pp. 4-5), or simply spurious charters, as Chaplais has suggested ("The authen­ ticity", pp. 4-9), writings from the mid-eleventh century repeatedly asserted ^Cthelstan's benevolence to the institution. The best argument that his interest in Exeter is fact> and was not manufactured by Leofric to obtain estates foe the su^)〇 rt of his cathedral church, lies in the four relic-lists; these appear to have been based on an actual collection representing i€thelstan's known connexions on the Continent and tagged with labels typical of tenthcentury collections. See pp. 172-3, above. 13 See John, Orbis Britanniaef pp. 181-209, in which the tension between hereditary claims to Church-lands and the desire to elect bishops and abbots for their spiritual merits and not for their political connexions is examined. Monastic endowments were certain to be preserved only where itwas possible for an abbot or monk-bishop to exploits royal connexion. Ä lack of royal support after Swegn's raid in 1003 may account for Exeter's lands having been lost to local control before Leofric arrived there. 14 See above, appendix II. 13 Warren, The Leofric Missal, pp. lxl, 1-2, introduced and edited the texts in question, but he was not aware of all of the manuscript witnesses to SI. or of the relationships of the seven section雇 one to the other.

218

219

I

12

Anglo-Saxon Exeter usually termed a ^st-text' edition. Readings from the other suwiving m a n u ­ script witnesses are provided in the notes, and are substituted for readings in L only if they correct obvious enors in the base-text Both §§1 and 4 are extant in copies which are arguably more authoritative than the versions of the same text in L; however, in the context of the composite narrative concerning the history of the see, U s collection is the unique surviving witness and appears - from its position at the beginning of Bishop Lcofric^ ow n missal- to have been con­ ceived as the authoritative history of the see up to the time of Leofric*s death.

The Record o f Moving the See o f Devon EDI T I O N

[fo2r] [l]16 17A n n o illo quo transacti sunt a natiuitate Domini nostri Iesu Christi annT18 .dccccv.， 1718amisit Formosus pontifex apostolicus roman や ^cclesi?18* in terram Anglorum ad regem Eduuardum,18b I9filium Alfridi,19 motus20 c u m magna iracundia ac deuotatione,2121act mandauit ei21a c u m suis omnibus maledictionem contra benedictionem q u a m beatus papa22 Gregorius per sanctum uirum23 Augustinum23a genti Anglorum antea24 misit,25 nisi c u m episcopis instituisset26 destitutas parrochias episcoporum, secundum antiquam traditionem qu? tradita est genti Anglorum a sede sancti27 Petri. N a m per .vu. annos plene dcstituta est regio Ieuuissorum28 29'uel Uuestsaxonum"29 ab omni cpiscopo. Q u o facto,30 congregauit Eaduuardus30* rex synodum senatorum gentis Anglorum, in quo3015 presidebat Plegmundus306 archiepiscopus, regi recitans et30d disputans districta

、

16 The text of § 1 survives in five manuscripts: Oxford, Bodleian Library, MS. Bodley 579, fo 2

(=L); London, British Library, MS. Additional 7138 (= A); London, British Library, MS. Cotton Cleopatra E.i, fos 45v-4Ä* (= C); London, British Library, MS. Cotton Faustina B.vi, vol.1,fo 98r/v (= F); London, British Library, MS. Additional15350 (Codex Wintoniensis), fo!12r/v(=W). 17.. .17 ALW; Anno dominie^ incarnationis nongentesimo quinto, CF. 18 See Councils, edd Whilelcx:k et a i, 1.167, where itis noted that a m i isadded *in laterhand* in L. Certainly anni was inserted after part of the line was written (if not the whole docu­ ment), because itis written above a mark of insertion entered into the space between Christi and .dccccv.. The wonl is not in ACFW. Itcannot be inferred that the scribe who wrote most of the corrections and additions was not a contemporary of the the main scribe. i8a...i8a AiLW; Formosuspapa misit.CK 18b L; Eadueardum, A; Edmrdum, C; Eadwaräum, FW. 19.. .19 l； 〇 m .ACFW. The necessity to identify King Edward with Edward the Elder by means of the patronymic^/^/um^Z/riぬ•（ in which バ-isan alteration), in the ‘ Leofric Missal’ indicates ä desire there that he not be confused with King Edwanl the Confessor. It is possible that the copyist (or someone who prepared the exemplar for him; was aware that dcx:uments men­ tioning the latterKing Edward would follow. 2〇AFLW; om. C. 21 MS. W: deuotione. Cf. Councils, edd. Whitelock et a/., 1.167, n.1:'this rare word [deuotatione] may have been taken from the genuine letterof Formosus* (forthat textsee ibid., 1.35-8). 2ia...2U ALW; eique mandauit, CF. 22 ACFL; om. W. 23 ALW;om. CF. 23> CFLW ； Agustinum A. w ALW; om. CF. 25 ALW; ffi/wrfl/,CF. 26 ALW; restituisset, CF. 27 ALW; beati, CF. 28 AL; Geuui放)rum, C; üewüsorumt F; /ewt’ 故}rum* W (where thepreceding、 reが〆isundefined〉 . 29-m L;om. ACFW. ALW; awd/to, CF. L; Eaduueard, A; Edwardus, W; Eduardus, C ； Eadwaräus, F. ALW;