Bede: Part 2 9789048530977

Citation preview

Bede – Part 2, Fascicles 1-4

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

Bede Part 2, Fascicles 1-4

George Hardin Brown and Frederick M. Biggs

Amsterdam University Press

Cover design: Coördesign, Leiden Lay-out: Crius Group, Hulshout isbn 978 94 6298 132 4 e-isbn 978 90 4853 097 7 (pdf) doi 10.5117/9789462981324 nur 684 © George Hardin Brown & Frederick M. Biggs / Amsterdam University Press B.V., Amsterdam 2018 All rights reserved. Without limiting the rights under copyright reserved above, no part of this book may be reproduced, stored in or introduced into a retrieval system, or transmitted, in any form or by any means (electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording or otherwise) without the written permission of both the copyright owner and the author of the book.

In memory of Paul Meyvaert, eminent scholar of Bede, distinguished editor, Executive Director of the Medieval Academy of America, and dear friend



Table of Contents

Introduction 9 Bible: Aids to Biblical Study

11

Bible: Chapter Divisions and Prologues

17

Bible: Commentaries

39

Bible: Homilies

147

Letters 229 Lost Works

277

Martyrology 279 Bibliography 293 Index 315

Introduction This second volume completes our survey of the reception of Bede’s writings in Anglo-Saxon England. Reading Bede through the works of his immediate followers makes us aware of how useful he was to them, providing the tools they needed to carry on, most prominently, recording history and spreading the faith through preaching. With its entries on the Historia ecclesiastica gentis Anglorum and the two chronicles that are part of De temporibus and De temporum ratione, volume one focused on the first topic. With those on Homilies and on the Extracts from the Commentaries on Mark and Luke, which served the same purpose, volume two is dominated by the latter. There is much else in both, but in these areas, geography, hagiography, metrics, orthography, rhetoric, and science, Bede primarily taught. Bede’s theology is only occasionally a focus of the entries in this volume, in part because he chose not to accentuate doctrinal differences. This is not to say he avoided these issues when they arose. As Faith Wallis (2013) and Peter Darby (2012) have demonstrated, it appears to have been his interest in combatting eschatological speculation around the year 700 that led to both his De temporibus and the Commentarius in Apocalypsim. Similarly, his unprecedented commentaries on the tabernacle and the temple demonstrate the degree to which Bede pursued topics that caught his interest. Here the study of Conor O’Brien (2015) breaks new ground in our understanding of Bede’s developing thought. Passing over much other scholarship, we would finally note the work of Benedicta Ward (1995) and Sarah Foot (2014) on Bede’s understanding of prayer, particularly as it applied to female monastic communities. There is much more to be learned in these areas; and yet, for the moment, it appears that Bede stood out from his contemporaries in having the time and inclination to read deeply in the Fathers and engage with their work in order to produce original commentaries on the Bible. So we return to Bede the preacher to conclude this introduction. The Vita Wulfstani, which survives in William of Malmesbury’s translation of Coleman’s Old English Life of Wulfstan (see Wulfstanus II in ACTA SANCTORUM), describes the new bishop’s first official act (ed. Darlington 1928 p 20; trans. Jones 1998 p 85, note 57): Altera enim ordinationis die beato Bede dedicauit ecclesiam, pulchre illi prime dedicationis prebens principium, qui fuisset literature princeps

10 

BEDE – PART 2

de gente Anglorum. Eo enim die tam proflua predicatione populum irrorauit, ut non dubitaretur Wlstanum per spiritum sanctum eadem niti facundia, que quondam linguam mouisset in Beda. (On the day following his ordination he dedicated a church to blessed Bede, appropriately offering the priority of his first dedication to him who had been foremost in learning among the English. For on that day he bedewed the people with such fluent preaching that there could be no doubt but that Wulfstan was, through the Holy Spirit, drawing on that same eloquence that had once inspired the tongue of Bede.)

In her entry on Wulfstan (ODNB) Emma Mason writes that he “played an important role in the transmission of Old English cultural and religious values to the Norman world.” Here, however, our labour ends.



Bible: Aids to Biblical Study

Gathered here in alphabetical order are four short works that, like the Commentaries, were written to help others understand scripture but that lack the sustained arguments of Bede’s exegesis. It would, of course, have been possible to include many other works here as well. Most obviously, the Chapter Divisions and Prologues for books of the Bible are in some ways similar to the Collectio Psalterii in that they distil complex texts into more understandable forms. Moreover, while M.L.W. Laistner (1939 p xxxvii) is somewhat dismissive of the Nomina regionum et locorum de Actibus apostolorum, calling it “a not very distinguished performance,” we are more impressed by Bede’s systematic study of diverse materials in order to acquire the knowledge he needed in order to understand God’s unfolding plan. The three geographical works included here appear to be like his early study of time that led to De temporibus and the Commentarius in Apocalypsim. Collectio Psalterii [BEDA.Coll.Psalt.]: CPL 1371. ed.: Browne 2001. MSS – Quots/Cits none. Refs ALCVIN.Epist.259, 417.9-11. This little florilegium consists of, usually, one to a dozen key verses selected from each of the Psalms. Noting ALCUIN’s “dicitur” in the reference listed above – which will be discussed in more detail in a moment – and the lack of any mention of this work in Bede’s list of his writings at the end of the Historia ecclesiastica gentis Anglorum (ed. Lapidge 2010 2.480-84), Michael Gorman (1998 pp 230-31) casts doubt on the attribution. Alcuin’s remark is, however, less ambiguous than Gorman suggests, and the work is, as he notes, identified as Bede’s in the three ninth-century manuscripts in which it survives. In a more extensive study of “Bede and the Psalter,” Benedicta Ward (1991 p 10) discusses Bede’s method in compiling the work: He selected the best text he knew, JEROME’s third psalter, iuxta hebriacos. From this, he selected verses from each psalm which could be used

12 

BEDE – PART 2

as direct prayer or praise, as food for meditation, plea for mercy, protest, contrition, or adoration and exultation. Sometimes one verse alone was used, sometimes several. The verses were also selected so that a sense of the meaning of the psalm as whole was retained; it would be possible to recall the whole psalm from these clues.

Indeed, she identifies only one that “seems not to have been properly represented, and that is, oddly enough psalm 136, the great psalm of compunction, Supra Flumina Babylonis, ‘By the waters of Babylon we sat down and wept.’” Here the phrase transmitted in two manuscripts, “Beatus homo qui amat dominum,” is neither from the Psalm nor expressive of its content. Ward concludes, “with this inexplicable exception, the text is both a compendium of the whole psalter and a key to each psalm, as well as a collection of phrases admirably suited to private and personal prayer.” In Epistola 259 to Arno, archbishop of Salzburg, Alcuin specif ied some of the contents in “the devotional book […] on different subjects” (trans. Allott 1974 p 148), which accompanied the letter: “est quoque in eo libello psalterium parvum, quod dicitur beati Bedae presbyteri psalterium, quem ille collegit per versus dulces in laude Dei et orationibus per singulos psalmos iuxta Hebraicam veritatem” (ed. MGH ECA 2.417; “there is also in this book an abbreviated psalter, which is called the Psalter of the blessed priest Bede, which he gathered in sweet verses in praise of God and for prayers from each of the psalms following the true Hebrew version”). As Ernst Dümmler’s note makes clear, the manuscript that Alcuin sent survives in the Domsbibliothek of Köln (Cologne), where the title reads, “Dicta Bedae pr(esbyter)i” and a marginal note adds, “de singulis psalmis.” The work has also been edited in CCSL 122.452-70. Benedicta Ward (1991 pp 888-902) provides a translation, as does Gerald M. Browne (2002). De locis sanctis [BEDA.Loc.sanct.]: CPL 2333; RBMA 1644. ed.: CCSL 175.245-48. MSS none. Lists ? Alcuin: ML 1.7. A-S Vers none.

Bible: Aids to Biblical Study

13

Quots/Cits 1. Loc.sanct., VII, 2-10: BEDA.Hist.eccl., V.xvi, 2-10. 2. Loc.sanct., II, 2-37: BEDA.Hist.eccl., V.xvi, 13-48. 3. Loc.sanct., VI, 2-24: BEDA.Hist.eccl., V. xvii, 3-24. 4. Loc.sanct., VIII, 3-10: BEDA.Hist.eccl., V.xvii, 26-38. 5. ? Loc.sanct. VI.9-19: ChristB (A3.1) 495. Refs ? BONIF.Epist. 76, 159.12. De locis sanctis is Bede’s revision of ADOMNÁN’s tract also known as De locis sanctis (ed. CCSL 175.185-234) into which he incorporated some descriptions from EUCHERIUS’s account of Jerusalem and of Judaea, and from Hegesippus’s adaptation of JOSEPHUS’s Bellum Iudaicum. He reproduced three of Adomnán’s four drawings (see Gorman 2006 p 37; the CCSL edition is misleading since it includes the diagrams in Bede’s but not Adomnán’s work). Bede did not list it among his writings at the end of the Historia ecclesiastica gentis Anglorum (ed. Lapidge 2010 2.480-84); he had, however, discussed it earlier in that work (V.xvi-xvii; and see below). On the basis of quotations from this work in the geographical glossary, Nomina regionum atque locorum de Actibus Apostolorum, which Bede appended to his Expositio Actuum Apostolorum, M.L.W. Laistner (1943 p 83) concludes that it “must have been written before 709, and very likely some time before.” He accepts, therefore, the conventional date, 702-03 (see also Foley in Foley and Holder 1999 p xxxiii), for its composition. Lists. For the ALCUIN booklist, see the introduction, BEDE, in volume 1. Quots/Cits 1-4. In the Ecclesiastical History V.xvi and xvii (ed. Lapidge 2010 2.398-404), Bede quoted almost entirely from his abridgement rather than from Adomnán’s original as his introductions imply, when he provided information about the places of Christ’s birth (Bethlehem), Passion and Resurrection (Jerusalem), and Ascension (the Mount of Olives) as well as the tombs of the patriarchs (Hebron). The main exception is his identification of Hebron as “metropolis regni Dauid, nunc ruinis tantum quid tunc fuerit ostendens,” which apparently derives from Adomnán (ed. CCSL 175.209). Laistner (1943 p 109) notes that these passages circulated independently of the Ecclesiastical History as a whole. Quots/Cits 5. The Old English poem Christ II (ed. ASPR 3.16, line 495) describes Christ’s Ascension as “through the temple’s roof.” In his edition originally published in 1900, A.S. Cook (1964 pp 122-24) credits James W. Bright with solving this “difficulty” by referring to the discussion of the

14 

BEDE – PART 2

mount of Olives in De locis sanctis, which, Bright notes, is reproduced in the Ecclesiastical History. Citing earlier editions, Cook adds the entry on the Ascension (5 May) in the OLD ENGLISH MARTYROLOGY (ed. Rauer 2013 p 96), Blickling Homily 11 (HomS 46, B3.2.46; ed. Kelly 2003 pp 82-90), as well as WILLIBALD’s account of the Holy Land included by HYGEBURG in her Vita Willibaldi (MGH Scriptores 15.98), claiming that the “passage from Willibald is perhaps quite as likely to have been in CYNEWULF’s mind as that from Bede.” We know, however, of no evidence for the circulation of this text or its descendants in Anglo-Saxon England. In contrast, Cook overlooks Adomnán, a more likely source for Christ II since it is considered by Johanna Kramer (2014 p 81) for the related passages in both the Old English Martyrology and Blickling Homily 11. In her entries in Fontes Anglo-Saxonici, Rohini Jayatilaka identifies a passage in De locis sanctis XI (ed. CCSL 175.272-73, lines 29-32), which describes the lasting effect of God’s punishment for the sins of Sodom and Gomorrha (Gn 19:28), as a multiple, possible source for a passage in the OLD ENGLISH OROSIUS (ed. Bately 1980 p 22, line 29 to p 23, line 11). The correspondence appears to be very general. Refs. For the reference to Bede in BONIFACE’s Epistola 75, see the introduction, BEDE, in volume 1. The text is also edited in CSEL 339.301-24. Nomina locorum ex Hieronymi et Flaui Iosephi collecta opusculis [BEDA. Nom.loc]: CPL 1346a. ed.: CCSL 119.273-87. MSS – Refs none. Appended to the Commentarius in primam partem Samuhelis in both of the ninth-century manuscripts from which David Hurst edits the text (ed. CCSL 119), this geographic dictionary has attracted little scholarly attention. Bede did not mention it in his list of works in Historia ecclesiastica gentis Anglorum V.xxiv (ed. Lapidge 2010 2.480-84). Michael Lapidge (2010 1.xlvii), however, considers it to be genuine. It seems very unlikely to be a late work, that is, composed after the completion of the Historia ecclesiastica in 731 if it was compiled at the same time as the Commentary, around 716-725, but even this appears late. Instead it seems to fit best with Bede’s early interest in biblical geography.

Bible: Aids to Biblical Study

15

In her entries in Fontes Anglo-Saxonici, Rohini Jayatilaka offers the clause “urbs quam nunc Antiochiam uocant” as a possible source for a passage in the OLD ENGLISH OROSIUS (ed. Bately 1980 p 152, line 27 to p 153, line 13), which does indeed mention Antioch. Since Antioch appears in the Latin text (CSEL 5.518, line 11), she is apparently pointing out a possible source for “þære byrig.” Nomina regionum atque locorum de Actibus apostolorum [BEDA.Nom. reg.]: CPL 1359. ed. CCSL 121.167-78. MSS – Refs none. As M.L.W. Laistner (1939 p xxxvii) establishes, Nomina regionum atque locorum de Actibus apostolorum was not composed as an independent work, but rather as an appendix to the Expositio Actuum Apostolorum. He writes (we expand his abbreviations), “it is surely significant that in thirteen out of sixteen early manuscripts – the fifteen on which our text is based and Orleans 81 – the geographical glossary follows immediately after the end of the Expositio, and in eight of these the explicit to the Expositio is placed not at the end of the Expositio, but at the conclusion of Nomina.” He also notes a case in the Retractatio in Actus apostolorum in which a comment on Mytilene (Acts 20:14) refers not to the Expositio as implied, but rather to this work. He states that it “was intended to help readers who wished to understand more fully the literal and the allegorical sense of Acts.” It can be dated to before 709, the likely date of the Expositio, although it is perhaps much earlier, part of the notes from which Bede worked in writing that Commentary. In her entries in Fontes Anglo-Saxonici, Rohini Jayatilaka identif ies thirteen places where passages from Nomina might be a possible, multiple source for details in the OLD ENGLISH OROSIUS (ed. Bately 1980). None appears compelling enough to warrant discussion here.



Bible: Chapter Divisions and Prologues

Three items in the list of works at the end of Historia ecclesiastica gentis Anglorum establish that Bede wrote sets of short summaries, which he called capitula lectionum and which he used to divide particular books of the Bible. In investigating these summaries, Paul Meyvaert (1995) also noted that since those for the Pauline Epistles had been connected to a set of prologues to the same letters, Bede must have been their author as well, even though he did not include them in his list of his works. Because Meyvaert’s study is essential for understanding both these chapter divisions and prologues and because the works themselves are found in similar sources, we will consider both in this section, beginning with the capitula lectionum. Most of the information that we present here derives from Meyvaert’s study. The first list of capitula lectionum in the Historia ecclesiastica, which is accurate even though it is a scribal addition, appears between the references to the Commentarius in Cantica canticorum and to the Commentarius in Ezram et Neemiam. It reads (ed. Lapidge 2010 2.480; trans. Colgrave and Mynors 1969 p 569), In Isaiam, Danihelem, XII prophetas et partem Hieremiae distinctiones capitulorum ex tractatu beati Hieronimi excerptas. (On Isaiah, Daniel, the twelve prophets, and part of Jeremiah: chapter divisions taken from the treatise of St Jerome.)

The second, which is authorial apart from its last seven words, appears at the end of the list of works on the Old Testament (ed. 2.482; trans. p 569, except for the last seven words): Item capitula lectionum in Pentateucum Mosi, Iosue, Iudicum; in libros Regum et Verba Dierum; in librum beati patris Iob; in Parabolas, Ecclesiasten et Cantica Canticorum; in Isaiam prophetam, Ezram quoque et Neemiam; item in libro Tobiae, Iudith et Aester. (Also, summaries of lessons on the Pentateuch of Moses, on Joshua and Judges, on the books of Kings and Chronicles, on the book of the blessed father Job, on Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, and the Song of Songs, on the prophets Isaiah, Ezra, and Nehemiah; the same on the book of Tobias, Judith, and Esther)

18 

BEDE – PART 2

The third, which is authorial, follows the list of works on the New Testament: “item capitula lectionem in totum Nouum Testamentum, excepto euangelio” (ed. 2.482; “also summaries of lessons on the whole of the New Testament except the Gospels”). The two authorial lists first announce themselves as such by their similar placement, at the ends of the groupings of Old Testament and New Testament books; the first entry interrupts this strategy. Moreover, it includes Isaiah, which also appears in the second list. It is unlikely that Bede would have identified two sets of capitula on a single book in this ambiguous way had he written them; there is, indeed, no other evidence that he did. It also contains a mistake, referring to Daniel rather than Ezechiel as a book for which he had written capitula. Finally, its “distinctiones capitulorum” does not follow Bede’s normal usage. The last seven words in the second item stand out in that they are not integrated into the order of the rest and, as Michael Lapidge notes without then removing them from his text, in their use of ablative rather than accusative constructions. We would suggest that Bede wrote these sets of summaries after finishing the Historia ecclesiastica in 731, and that after his death in 735 they were discovered on separate occasions by others, who added them to the house copy of the work (see the discussion of manuscripts in the entry on the Historia ecclesiastica and Biggs forthcoming). In any case, except for Daniel, which is a scribal mistake, some of those for Romans, and all of those for Ecclesiastes and Philemonem, Meyvaert has identified these capitula. The earliest evidence for Bede’s use of capitula lectionum appears in the Epistola ad Huaetberctum, which serves as the preface for the Commentarius in Apocalypsim, dated to around 701. Here, although Bede explained other divisions for this book, most notably TYCONIUS’s periochae, whose symbolic value he understood (see Wallis 2013 pp 59-60), he followed his own system to help readers move between the Commentary and the Bible: “nihilominus tamen, ut facilior quaerentius inuentio redderetur, eadem capitulorum intemerata series iuxta quod in ipso libello quondam praepositis breuibus distinxeram per omnia uidebatur esse seruanda” (ed. CCSL 121A.233; “nonetheless so that those who seek may more readily find, it will be seen that the same unbroken order of chapters ought to be preserved throughout, in accordance with the way in which I previously distinguished them in the chapter-headings which are prefaced to the book itself,” trans. Wallis 2013 pp 106-07). The following remark, which reveals the distance Bede felt between his own grasp of scripture and that of his contemporaries, indicates that in this case, the writing of the capitula and the Commentary went together (trans. p 106):

Bible: Chapter Divisions and Prologues

19

Aware as I am of the sloth of our race (that is, the English), which not long ago, in fact in the time of Pope Gregory the blessed, received the seed of faith, and has cultivated it rather lukewarmly, as far as reading is concerned, I decided not only to throw light on what [the text] says, but also to compress its meaning. For plain brevity usually makes a greater impression on the memory than wordy disputation.

While Meyvaert (1995 p 350) is certainly correct when he notes that Bede “considered these collections of brief summaries, amounting to no more than a few pages each, less important than his individual treatises on the Old and New Testament,” this passage indicates that he valued the capitula for their ability to distill significant biblical patterns. The capitula have survived in two places, at the beginnings of some of Bede’s commentaries on individual books of the Bible, and mixed in, without identification, in the sets of anonymous summaries in medieval Bibles. Many of these groups of summaries have been identified and published by Donatien De Bruyne (2014 reprinted from the original publication in 1914) in an edition with little critical apparatus because it was intended simply to aid the editors of the Vulgate being prepared under the direction of Francis Aidan Gasquet. This Biblia sacra iuxta Latinam Vulgatam Versionem, which began to appear in 1926, also records other groups of capitula. By looking in these two works for sets of related entries that appeared similar to Bede’s other writings, Meyvaert made his discovery. It rests, of course, on his understanding that prior to the so-called Alcuin Bibles of the Carolingian period, and to some extent even after this revolution in the production of Bibles, the text of scripture rarely circulated in a single volume. The Codex Amiatinus, produced at Monkwearmouth-Jarrow during Bede’s lifetime, is the exception rather than the rule; on its capitula lectionum, see Meyvaert (1995 pp 352-53 and 363, note 49). Instead, groups of related books circulated together. Meyvaert, for example, writes of New Testament manuscripts, “one would contain the Gospels, another Acts together with the Catholic Epistles and the Apocalypse, yet another the Pauline Epistles” (p 354). Each might have had its own set of capitula. Our point here, however, is not only to explain Meyvaert’s discovery but also to point out that the identifications in the following entries rest on editions that were created not to represent Bede’s work, but rather to record anonymous texts that circulated in medieval Bibles. So, for example, De Bruyne uses the abbreviation “Eln” to refer to sets of capitula lectionum by Bede that are found in the twelfth-century Bible from Saint-Amand (Elnone), now manuscripts 1-5 in the Bibliothèque municipale, Valenciennes (see Meyvaert p 358) and in other related manuscripts. Because other manuscripts

20 

BEDE – PART 2

of the Bible or, indeed, of Bede’s commentaries may eventually serve as the basis for better editions of these works, we will use De Bruyne’s abbreviations only insofar as they are necessary to designate particular texts that he prints. The one exception is the set of capitula that Bede wrote for the Apocalypse. Here the editor of Bede’s Commentarius in Apocalypsim, Roger Gryson (ed. CCSL 121A.137-39), edited the capitula from Rome, Biblioteca Vallicelliana, B. 6, Paris, Bibliothèque nationale de France, lat. 4, and Reims, Bibliothèque municipale, 2, and noted many parallels to the Commentary (pp 139-41 and apparatus passim). Eleven of the prologues to the Pauline Epistles, from Galatians through Hebrews, that Meyvaert is able to attribute to Bede also appear in the SaintAmand manuscript mentioned in the previous paragraph. Citing a study by Hermann J. Frede (1976 pp 125-26), Meyvaert asserts that these “prologues are demonstrably by the same author responsible for the capitula” (p 358). He also notes that to them De Bruyne had been able to add two more prologues, on 1 and 2 Corinthians, since these appear in another manuscript from St Amand, Valenciennes, Bibliothèque municipale 89 (82) along with the eleven others. Moreover, this manuscript contains Gilbert of Poitiers Glosatura, “which opens,” according to Meyvaert, “with a similar prologue to Romans.” He is able, then, to identify all fourteen of Bede’s prologues. They run from 3 to 12 lines in De Bruyne’s printing, and all deserve further study. Capitula lectionum (Genesis) [BEDA.Capit.(Gn)]. ed. Biblia Sacra iuxta Latinam Vulgatam Versionem 1.117-24. MSS – Refs none. In the article that announced his discovery of Bede’s capitula lectionum, Paul Meyvaert (1995 pp 369-71) turns to Genesis last because this series of summaries presents both particularly striking evidence of Bede’s authorship and a special problem, its difference from the series in the Codex Amiatinus. He not only notes similarities between the capitula and Bede’s other writings, but also discusses one case in which Bede incorporated an interpretation from one of AUGUSTINE’s works: “we know that Bede made extensive use of the Contra Faustum in his commentary on Genesis,” and so he concludes, “such patristic borrowings in capitula are so exceptional that they betray the hand of an eruditus like Bede.” Meyvaert (1995 p 371) explains the difference of these capitula from those in the Codex Amiatinus, the pandect made at Monkwearmouth-Jarrow

Bible: Chapter Divisions and Prologues

21

during Bede’s lifetime for presentation to St Peter’s, Rome, by invoking Bonifatius Fischer’s demonstration that “sets of capitula once viewed with favour were later discarded for others.” He writes, We must remember that during the abbacy of CEOLFRITH (690-716), in addition to Amiatinus, two earlier Pandects were produced for the monastic churches of Wearmouth and Jarrow. Only a few fragments of one of these Pandects survives, insufficient to allow any kind of serious comparison with Amiatinus. If we had all three Pandects we might well discover that the earliest had Bede’s capitula for Genesis, but that later, either in the next Pandect or in Amiatinus, Bede’s set was replaced by a much older series discovered in a manuscript that Wearmouth-Jarrow had recently acquired.

Another possibility, suggested by Bede’s having worked on the Commentarius in Genesim at different points in his career, is that he revised an initial set capitula on the book, included in the Codex Amiatinus, at a later point. In any case, the series in Amiatinus has 63 capitula; the series that Meyvaert ascribes to Bede has 38. Capitula lectionum (Exodus) [BEDA.Capit.(Ex)]. ed. Biblia Sacra iuxta Latinam Vulgatam Versionem 2.57-63. MSS – Refs none. Paul Meyvaert (1995 pp 366-67) analyses two of this set of 18 capitula, noting both verbal similarities with Bede’s other works and the care he exercised in writing them. Capitula lectionum (Leviticus) [BEDA.Capit.(Lv)]. ed. Biblia Sacra iuxta Latinam Vulgatam Versionem 2.316-18. MSS – Refs none. Paul Meyvaert (1995) identifies but does not discuss this set of 16 capitula.

22 

BEDE – PART 2

Capitula lectionum (Numeri) [BEDA.Capit.(Nm)]. ed. Biblia Sacra iuxta Latinam Vulgatam Versionem 3.42-47. MSS – Refs none. Paul Meyvaert (1995 pp 367-68) concludes from his analysis of capitulum 5 of this set of 20 that Bede had in mind “not only the text of Exodus but also the image of the Codex Grandior,” the pandect that inspired the writing of the Codex Amiatinus and that included an image of the tabernacle among its illustrations. Capitula lectionum (Deuteronomium) [BEDA.Capit.(Dt)]. ed. Biblia Sacra iuxta Latinam Vulgatam Versionem 3.322-30. MSS – Refs none. Paul Meyvaert (1995) identifies but does not discuss this set of 19 capitula. Capitula lectionum (Iosue) [BEDA.Capit.(Ios)]. ed. Biblia Sacra iuxta Latinam Vulgatam Versionem 4.32-35. MSS – Refs none. Paul Meyvaert (1995 pp 368-69) identifies one phrase, militiae caelestis, from this set of capitula, as “an expression of which Bede was fond.” Capitula lectionum (Iudicum) [BEDA.Capit.(Idc)]. ed. Biblia Sacra iuxta Latinam Vulgatam Versionem 4.206-12. MSS – Refs none. Paul Meyvaert (1995 p 369) compares Bede’s use of lasciua in capitulum 2 of this set to his description of his own age as an aetas lasciua in the Commentarius in Genesim book 2, lines 2043-49 (ed. CCSL 118A.130). He also writes, “although he was not averse to using the verb concitare (Judges 2:12 concitauerunt) he much prefers prouocare (87 times).”

Bible: Chapter Divisions and Prologues

23

Capitula lectionum (Samuhelis) [BEDA.Capit.(1 Sm)]. ed. CCSL 119.5-8. MSS – Refs none. Paul Meyvaert (1995 pp 353, note 22, and 365) draws attention to the 43 capitula that precede Bede’s Commentarius in primam partem Samuhelis (ed. CCSL 119.5-8). He suggests that “before tackling this commentary, he surveyed all four books of Kings, composing capitula for them to help fix the development of the narrative in his own mind.” Since they “may not have been intended to accompany a Teilhandschrift containing the four Books of Kings,” “they are unlikely to turn up in a Biblical manuscript.” Capitula lectionum (Verba dierum) [BEDA.Capit.(1&2Par)]. ed. De Bruyne 2014 pp 125-37, Carth. MSS – Refs none. The mention of capitula lectionem for Verba dierum in Historia ecclesiastica Gentis Anglorum V.xxv (ed. Lapidge 2010 2.282) covers two sets of summaries identified by Meyvaert (1995 p 365). 1 Paralipomenon contains 72 capitula and 2 Paralipomenon contains 88. Bede’s interest in this summary of biblical history from Adam to the Babylonian exile would fit well with his early study of chronology. Capitula lectionum (Ezras) [BEDA.Capit.(1&2Esr)]. ed. De Bruyne 2014 pp 141-42, Carth. MSS – Refs none. Working from the assumption that the Commentarius in Ezram et Neehiam is a late work, dating from between 725-31, Paul Meyvaert (1995 pp 364-65) concludes that in preparing to write it, “Bede must have carefully scrutinized the Biblical text once again, to see how it could best be divided into lectiones.” In a later article (2005), however, he argues that Bede began to write this Commentary before 716. In this case, the 67 capitula lectionum printed by De Bruyne, which are, in Meyvaert’s words, part of

24 

BEDE – PART 2

“the homogenous group” that includes sets for 1 and 2 Paralpomenon, Tobias, Judith, Esther, and Job, might well date from his earlier work on Esdras. Capitula lectionum (Ezras) [BEDA.Capit.(1&2Esr.Comm.)]. ed. CCSL 119A.238-40. MSS – Refs none. These capitula lectionum accompany the Commentarius in Ezram et Neehiam. They are translated by Scott DeGregorio (2006a pp 2-5). Capitula lectionum (Tobias) [BEDA.Capit.(Tb)]. ed. De Bruyne 2014 pp 145-46, Carth. MSS – Refs none. Although the capitula lectionum on Tobias are mentioned in a scribal addition to the list in Historia ecclesiastica gentis Anglorum V.xxiv (see the introduction), they are apparently by Bede. Paul Meyvaert (1995 p 363) comments, “one can also establish verbal links between the capitula for Tobias and Bede’s Commentary on this book.” Capitula lectionum (Iudith) [BEDA.Capit.(Idt)]. ed. De Bruyne 2014 pp 149-51, Carth. MSS – Refs none. Although the capitula lectionum on Judith are mentioned in a scribal addition to the list in Historia ecclesiastica gentis Anglorum V.xxiv (see the introduction), they are apparently by Bede. Capitula lectionum (Hester) [BEDA.Capit.(Est)] ed. De Bruyne 2014 p 153, Carth. MSS – Refs none.

Bible: Chapter Divisions and Prologues

25

Although the capitula lectionum on Esther are mentioned in a scribal addition to the list in Historia ecclesiastica gentis Anglorum V.xxiv (see the introduction), they are apparently by Bede. Capitula lectionum (Iob) [BEDA.Capit.(Iob)]. ed. De Bruyne 2014 pp 155-57, Carth. MSS – Refs none. Paul Meyvaert (1995 p 363) points out that of all the capitula lectionum for Job printed by Donatien De Bruyne (2014), this set “is the only one that can be shown to be based directly on the text of GREGORY’s Moralia”: “since Bede had quarried Jerome’s commentaries for the distinctiones capitulorum on the Prophets, it would have been only natural for him to seek the help of his beloved Gregory when composing the capitula for Job.” Capitula lectionum (Proverbia) [BEDA.Capit.(Prv)] ed. De Bruyne 2014 pp 167, Eln (Douai 3). MSS – Refs none. Noting that the seven capitula lectionum printed by Donatien De Bruyne (2014) are “made up of phrases repeated almost verbatim” from Bede’s Commentarius in Prouerbia, Paul Meyvaert (1995 p 365) finds it hard to decide whether they are “Bede’s own composition or the work of someone who has read Bede’s commentary with great attention, trying to discern the main divisions of the text.” Capitula lectionum (Ecclesiastes) [BEDA.Capit.(Ecl)]. Although Bede mentioned capitula lectionum on Ecclesiastes in his list in Historia ecclesiastica gentis Anglorum V.xxiv (ed. Lapidge 2010 2.482), Paul Meyvaert (1995) is not able to identify them.

26 

BEDE – PART 2

Capitula lectionum (Cantica Canticorum) [BEDA.Capit.(Ct)]. ed. CCSL 119B.181-84. MSS – Refs none. David Hurst prints 39 capitula lectionum at the beginning of his edition of the Commentarius in Cantica Canticorum (ed. CCSL 119B.181-84). In his translation, Arthur Holder (2011) introduces “them into the text at the appropriate places.” His assertion that there are 38 capitula is a mistake (see p 29); he includes 39 (see p 247). Capitula lectionum (Isaias) [BEDA.Capit.(Is)]. ed. De Bruyne 2014 pp 185-91, Eln. MSS – Refs none. Paul Meyvaert (1995) identifies but does not discuss this set of 173 capitula lectionum. Capitula lectionum (Hieremias) [BEDA.Capit.(Ier)]. ed. De Bruyne 2014 pp 195-203, Eln. MSS – Refs none. A scribal addition to Historia ecclesiastica gentis Anglorum V.xxiv (see the introduction) notes that Bede wrote capitula lectionum for part of Jeremias. In discussing this problem, Paul Meyvaert (1995 p 361) points out that all of the summaries on the Prophets printed by Donatien De Bruyne (2015 pp 185-238) under the heading Eln “are based on JEROME’s commentaries.” He continues, The capitula for Jeremiah number 141, but there is a marked change in their nature after number 103, at which point the dependence on Jerome ceases. Although the book of Jeremias has 52 chapters, Jerome’s commentary does not go beyond chapter 32 – which coincides with no. 104 of the Eln list – thus confirming Bede’s statement that his capitula covered only pars Hieremiae. Since this is the only set of Prophets capitula with a

Bible: Chapter Divisions and Prologues

27

link to Jerome’s commentaries there can be little doubt that it presents us with Bede’s work.

Capitula lectionum (Hiezechiel) [BEDA.Capit.(Ez)]. ed. De Bruyne 2014 pp 209-218, Eln. MSS – Refs none. Paul Meyvaert (1995) identifies but does not discuss this set of 135 capitula lectionum. Capitula lectionum (Osee) [BEDA.Capit.(Os)]. ed. De Bruyne 2014 pp 225-27, Eln. MSS – Refs none. Paul Meyvaert (1995) identifies but does not discuss this set of 32 capitula lectionum. Capitula lectionum (Iohel) [BEDA.Capit.(Ioel)]. ed. De Bruyne 2014 p 227, Eln. MSS – Refs none. Paul Meyvaert (1995) identifies but does not discuss this set of 15 capitula lectionum. Capitula lectionum (Amos) [BEDA.Capit.(Am)]. ed. De Bruyne 2014 pp 227-29, Eln. MSS – Refs none. Paul Meyvaert (1995) identifies but does not discuss this set of 28 capitula lectionum.

28 

BEDE – PART 2

Capitula lectionum (Abdias) [BEDA.Capit.(Abd)]. ed. De Bruyne 2014 pp 229-31, Eln. MSS – Refs none. Paul Meyvaert (1995) identifies but does not discuss this set of 6 capitula lectionum. Capitula lectionum (Ionas) [BEDA.Capit.(Ion)]. ed. De Bruyne 2014 p 231, Eln. MSS – Refs none. Paul Meyvaert (1995) identifies but does not discuss this set of 6 capitula lectionum. Capitula lectionum (Micha) [BEDA.Capit.(Mi)]. ed. De Bruyne 2014 pp 231-33, Eln. MSS – Refs none. Paul Meyvaert (1995) identifies but does not discuss this set of 19 capitula lectionum. Capitula lectionum (Naum) [BEDA.Capit.(Na)]. ed. De Bruyne 2014 p 233, Eln. MSS – Refs none. Paul Meyvaert (1995) identifies but does not discuss this set of 12 capitula lectionum.

Bible: Chapter Divisions and Prologues

29

Capitula lectionum (Abacuc) [BEDA.Capit.(Hab)]. ed. De Bruyne 2014 p 235, Eln. MSS – Refs none. Paul Meyvaert (1995) identifies but does not discuss this set of 10 capitula lectionum. Capitula lectionum (Sofonias) [BEDA.Capit.(So)]. ed. De Bruyne 2014 p 235, Eln. MSS – Refs none. Paul Meyvaert (1995) identifies but does not discuss this set of 8 capitula lectionum. Capitula lectionum (Aggeus) [BEDA.Capit.(Agg)]. ed. De Bruyne 2014 pp 235-37, Eln. MSS – Refs none. Paul Meyvaert (1995) identifies but does not discuss this set of 7 capitula lectionum. Capitula lectionum (Zaccharias) [BEDA.Capit.(Za)]. ed. De Bruyne 2014 p 237, Eln. MSS – Refs none. Paul Meyvaert (1995) identifies but does not discuss this set of 29 capitula lectionum.

30 

BEDE – PART 2

Capitula lectionum (Malachi) [BEDA.Capit.(Mal)]. ed. De Bruyne 2014 p 238, Eln. MSS – Refs none. Paul Meyvaert (1995) identifies but does not discuss this set of 11 capitula lectionum. Capitula lectionum (Actus apostolorum) [BEDA.Capit.(Act)]. ed. De Bruyne 2014 pp 371-81, Tur. MSS – Refs none. In the article that announced his discovery of most of Bede’s capitula lectionum, Paul Meyvaert (1995 p 355-58) turns first to those on Acts of the Apostles printed by Donatien De Bruyne (2014) under the abbreviation Tur, which, as he explains, stands for Tours. He suggests that ALCUIN probably brought a partial Bible containing Acts, the Catholic Epistles, and the Apocalypse, all with Bede’s capitula lectionum, which then were copied in the so-called Alcuin Bibles produced there. In the following discussion, which also includes examples from the Catholic Epistles and the Apocalypse, he identifies “vocabulary, which has a Bedan tone,” and themes “dear to Bede.” He concludes, “all these links, which could be further developed, suggest we are dealing with a single author and not with someone who might be borrowing from Bede.” Capitula lectionum (Epistula ad Romanos) [BEDA.Capit.(Rm)]. ed. De Bruyne 2014 p 315, Eln. MSS – Refs none. Paul Meyvaert (1995 pp 358-61) establishes Bede’s authorship of the capitula lectionum on the Pauline Epistles primarily by noting on their presence in the Saint-Amand (Elnone) Bible, now manuscripts 1-5 in the Bibliothèque municipale, Valenciennes. The set on Romans is incomplete, breaking off in chapter 6.

Bible: Chapter Divisions and Prologues

Capitula lectionum (Epistula ad Corinthios I) [BEDA.Capit.(1 Cor)]. ed. De Bruyne 2014 pp 320-24, Eln. MSS – Refs none. See the entry above on the capitula lectionem for Romans. Capitula lectionum (Epistula ad Corinthios II) [BEDA.Capit.(2 Cor)]. ed. De Bruyne 2014 pp 328-30, Eln. MSS – Refs none. See the entry above on the capitula lectionem for Romans. Capitula lectionum (Epistula ad Galatas) [BEDA.Capit.(Gal)]. ed. De Bruyne 2014 pp 33436, Eln. MSS – Refs none. See the entry above on the capitula lectionem for Romans. Capitula lectionum (Epistula ad Ephesios) [BEDA.Capit.(Eph)]. ed. De Bruyne 2014 pp 338-40, Eln. MSS – Refs none. See the entry above on the capitula lectionem for Romans. Capitula lectionum (Epistula ad Philippenses) [BEDA.Capit.(Phil)]. ed. De Bruyne 2014 p 342, Eln. MSS – Refs none. See the entry above on the capitula lectionem for Romans.

31

32 

BEDE – PART 2

Capitula lectionum (Epistula ad Colossenses) [BEDA.Capit.(Col)]. ed. De Bruyne 2014 p 347, Eln. MSS – Refs none. See the entry above on the capitula lectionem for Romans. Capitula lectionum (Epistula ad Thessalonicenses I) [BEDA.Capit.(1 Th)]. ed. De Bruyne 2014 p 349, Eln. MSS – Refs none. See the entry above on the capitula lectionem for Romans. Capitula lectionum (Epistula ad Thessalonicenses II) [BEDA.Capit.(2 Th)]. ed. De Bruyne 2014 p 350, Eln. MSS – Refs none. See the entry above on the capitula lectionem for Romans. Capitula lectionum (Epistula ad Timotheum I) [BEDA.Capit.(1 Tim)]. ed. De Bruyne 2014 p 352, Eln. MSS – Refs none. See the entry above on the capitula lectionem for Romans. Capitula lectionum (Epistula ad Timotheum II) [BEDA.Capit.(2 Tim)]. ed. De Bruyne 2014 p 356, Eln. MSS – Refs none. See the entry above on the capitula lectionem for Romans.

Bible: Chapter Divisions and Prologues

33

Capitula lectionum (Epistula ad Titum) [BEDA.Capit.(Tit)]. ed. De Bruyne 2014 p 361, Eln. MSS – Refs none. See the entry above on the capitula lectionem for Romans. Capitula lectionum (Epistula ad Philemonem) [BEDA.Capit.(Phlm)]. Unidentified. Capitula lectionum (Epistula ad Hebraeos) [BEDA.Capit.(Hbr)]. ed. De Bruyne 2014 pp 362-64, Eln. MSS – Refs none. See the entry above on the capitula lectionem for Romans. Capitula lectionum (Epistula Iacobi) [BEDA.Capit.(Iac)]. ed. De Bruyne 2014 pp 382-83, Tur. MSS – Refs none. Paul Meyvaert (1995 p 355) suggests that ALCUIN brought a partial Bible containing the Acts of the Apostles, the Catholic Epistles, and the Apocalypse with Bede’s capitula lectionum to Tours, where they were copied into the so-called Alcuin Bibles. Capitula lectionum (Epistula Petri I) [BEDA.Capit.(1 Pt)]. ed. De Bruyne 2014 p 384, Tur. MSS – Refs none. See the entry above on the capitula lectionem for James.

34 

BEDE – PART 2

Capitula lectionum (Epistula Petri II) [BEDA.Capit.(2 Pt)]. ed. De Bruyne 2014 p 386, Tur. MSS – Refs none. See the entry above on the capitula lectionem for James. Capitula lectionum (Epistula Iohannis I) [BEDA.Capit.(1 Io)]. ed. De Bruyne 2014 pp 387-88, Tur. MSS – Refs none. See the entry above on the capitula lectionem for James. Capitula lectionum (Epistula Iohannis II) [BEDA.Capit.(2 Io)]. ed. De Bruyne 2014 p 389, Tur. MSS – Refs none. See the entry above on the capitula lectionem for James. Capitula lectionum (Epistula Iohannis III) [BEDA.Capit.(3 Io)]. ed. De Bruyne 2014 p 389, Tur. MSS – Refs none. See the entry above on the capitula lectionem for James. Capitula lectionum (Epistula Iudae) [BEDA.Capit.(Iud)]. ed. De Bruyne 2014 p 390, Tur. MSS – Refs none. See the entry above on the capitula lectionem for James.

Bible: Chapter Divisions and Prologues

35

Capitula lectionum (Apocalypsis) [BEDA.Capit.(Apc)]. ed. CCSL 121A.137-39. MSS – Refs none. In his edition of the Commentarius in Apocalypsim (ed. CCSL 121A.13739), Roger Gryson edits these capitula lectionum from Rome, Biblioteca Vallicelliana, B. 6, Paris, Bibliothèque nationale de France, lat. 4, and Reims, Bibliothèque municipale, 2. He notes many parallels to the Commentary (pp 139-41 and apparatus passim). In the introduction to her translation of the Commentary, Faith Wallis (2013 pp 59-66) points out that although in his preface Bede discussed TYCONIUS’s division of the book into seven parts, he actually followed his own division of it into three books and these 38 capitula lectionum, which allow the reader to move between the Commentary and the Bible itself. In her analysis, they also “bring the complex interplay between the historic and prophetic strands of Revelation to the fore, and emphasize the central role assigned to Antichrist” (p 65). She notes that although they occur in many early manuscripts of the Commentarius in Apocalypsim, they become useless without a Bible that also contains them, and so “they tend to drop out of manuscripts of the Commentary over the course of time” (p 65). Faith Wallis (2013 pp 287-91) translates the capitula lectionum as edited by Roger Gryson. They are also printed by Donatien De Bruyne (2014 pp 393-97) under the abbreviation Tur (for Tours). Paul Meyvaert (1995 p 355) suggestions that ALCUIN brought a partial Bible containing the Acts of the Apostles, the Catholic Epistles, and the Apocalypse with Bede’s capitula lectionum to Tours, where they were copied into the so-called Alcuin Bibles. Prologus (Epistula ad Romanos) [BEDA.Prol.(Rm)]. ed. Meyvaert 1995 pp 376-77. MSS – Refs none. Paul Meyvaert (1995 pp 375-76) reasons that since the prologues for Galatians to Hebrews in the Glosatura on Paul by Gilbert of Poitiers are identical to those found in the Saint-Amand Bible (now manuscripts 1-5 in the Bibliothèque municipale, Valenciennes), those for Romans and 1 and 2 Corinthians, which are not in the Saint-Amand Bible, were copied by him from a related manuscript that contained the entire set. Since the prologues

36 

BEDE – PART 2

are related to the capitula lectionum, all must be by Bede. Meyvaert supports this point by demonstrating HAYMO OF AUXERRE’s use of the prologue in his Expositio in Epistolam ad Romanos (pp 376-78). He also identifies Bede’s source in a passage taken from a commentary on the Pauline Epistles attributed to AMBROSIASTER. Since the passage appears in the Book of Armagh (Dublin, Trinity College 52), Meyvaert suggests that “the text was circulating in other Irish or Insular manuscripts of the period, one of which became known to Bede” (p 379). Prologus (Epistula ad Corinthios I) [BEDA.Prol.(1 Cor)]. ed. De Bruyne 2015 p 243. MSS – Refs none. See the entry above on the Prologue for Romans. Prologus (Epistula ad Corinthios II) [BEDA.Prol.(2 Cor)]. ed. De Bruyne 2015 p 244. MSS – Refs none. See the entry above on the Prologue for Romans. Prologus (Epistula ad Galatas) [BEDA.Prol.(Gal)]. ed. De Bruyne 2015 p 244. MSS – Refs none. See the entry above on the Prologue for Romans. Prologus (Epistula ad Ephesios) [BEDA.Prol.(Eph)]. ed. De Bruyne 2015 p 244. MSS – Refs none. See the entry above on the Prologue for Romans.

Bible: Chapter Divisions and Prologues

Prologus (Epistula ad Philippenses) [BEDA.Prol.(Phil)]. ed. De Bruyne 2015 p 244. MSS – Refs none. See the entry above on the Prologue for Romans. Prologus (Epistula ad Colossenses) [BEDA.Prol.(Col)]. ed. De Bruyne 2015 p 244. MSS – Refs none. See the entry above on the Prologue for Romans. Prologus (Epistula ad Thessalonicenses I) [BEDA.Prol.(1 Th)]. ed. De Bruyne 2015 p 244. MSS – Refs none. See the entry above on the Prologue for Romans. Prologus (Epistula ad Thessalonicenses II) [BEDA.Prol.(2 Th)]. ed. De Bruyne 2015 p 245. MSS – Refs none. See the entry above on the Prologue for Romans. Prologus (Epistula ad Timotheum I) [BEDA.Prol.(1 Tim)]. ed. De Bruyne 2015 p 245. MSS – Refs none. See the entry above on the Prologue for Romans.

37

38 

Prologus (Epistula ad Timotheum II) [BEDA.Prol.(2 Tim)]. ed. De Bruyne 2015 p 245. MSS – Refs none. See the entry above on the Prologue for Romans. Prologus (Epistula ad Titum) [BEDA.Prol.(Tit)]. ed. De Bruyne 2015 p 245. MSS – Refs none. See the entry above on the Prologue for Romans. Prologus (Epistula ad Philemonem) [BEDA.Prol.(Phlm)]. ed. De Bruyne 2015 p 245. MSS – Refs none. See the entry above on the Prologue for Romans. Prologus (Epistula ad Hebraeos) [BEDA.Prol.(Hbr)]. ed. De Bruyne 2015 p 245. MSS – Refs none. See the entry above on the Prologue for Romans.

BEDE – PART 2



Bible: Commentaries

Although Bede is now known primarily as an historian, he considered himself foremost a biblical exegete, and most of his works are exegetical. He emphasized this role in the bio-bibliographic note at the end of the Historia ecclesiastica gentis Anglorum, which suggests that there were two overlapping phases in his study of the Bible. The first covered his entire intellectual and spiritual life, beginning when, at the age of seven, he was given to the abbey of Monkwearmouth (ed. Lapidge 2010 2.478-80; trans. Colgrave and Mynors 1969 p 567): Qui natus in territorio eiusdem monasterii, cum essem annorum VII, cura propinquorum datus sum educandus reuerentissimo abbati Benedicto, ac deinde Ceolfrido, cunctumque ex eo tempus uitae in eiusdem monasterii habitatione peragens, omnem meditandis scripturis operam dedi, atque inter obseruantiam disciplinae regularis, et cotidianam cantandi in ecclesia curam, semper aut discere aut docere aut scribere dulce habui. (I was born in the territory of this monastery. When I was seven years of age I was, by the care of my kinsmen, put into the charge of the reverend Abbot Benedict and then of Ceolfrith, to be educated. From then on I have spent all my life in this monastery, applying myself entirely to the study of the Scriptures; and amid the observance of the discipline of the Rule and the daily task of singing in the church, it has always been my delight to learn or to teach or to write.)

As this passage makes clear, his study of and meditation on scripture was a life-long occupation, fit in around his other duties in the monastery, observing the monastic rule, learning, teaching, and writing. After describing his ordinations as a deacon and a priest at the ages of nineteen and thirty, Bede focused more specifically on his biblical commentaries: “ex quo tempore accepti presbyteratus usque ad annum aetatis meae LVIIII haec in scripturam sanctam meae meorumque necessitati ex opusculis uenerabilium patrum breuiter adnotare, siue etiam ad formam sensus et interpretationis eorum superadicere curaui” (ed. Lapidge 2010 2.480; “from the time I became a priest until the fifty-ninth year of my life I have made it my business for my own benefit and that of my brothers, to make brief extracts from the works of the venerable fathers on the holy Scriptures, or to add notes of my own to clarify their sense and interpretation,”

40 

BEDE – PART 2

trans. Colgrave and Mynors 1969 p 567). His earliest datable work, De temporibus from 703 and so two years after he had become a priest, reveals his remarkable command of the Vulgate version of the BIBLE to redate world history in response to the millenarian speculation of his own day. His earliest biblical commentary, the Commentarius in Apocalypsim, written at this same time, grew out of this same concern. There followed a series of commentaries, most of which were dedicated to his friend and bishop, ACCA of Hexham, and whose order can be established primarily by a close reading of their prefatory LETTERS. Indeed, this chronology, when combined with the dating of the Commentarius in primam partem Samuhelis to the year or years immediately surrounding CEOLFRITH’s departure for Rome in 716, provides evidence for dating a number of his commentaries to after this event. In any case, Bede’s exposition of scripture seems to have been completed by 731: only the VIII quaestiones is not included in the list of works in Historia ecclesiastica gentis Anglorum V.xxiv, and this was probably compiled by him from earlier letters. And yet in his final years the Bible would still have been very much on his mind, through not only the celebration of the liturgy but also his lost translation of John’s Gospel into Old English (CUTHBERT’s Epistola de obitu Bedae, ed. Colgrave and Mynors 1969 p 583). Indeed, the scribal addition to the list of works in Historia ecclesiastica V.xxiv of two notices of other works, capitula lectionum on the Prophets, Tobias, Judith and Esther, suggests that he spent his last years reading and summarizing these parts of the Bible (see Bible: Chapter divisions and Prologues). Scripture was at the centre of Bede’s world. Indeed, Bede made this point near the end of the Historia ecclesiastica when he turned from his brief autobiographical passage to the justmentioned list of works completed by 731. That it was the Bible itself that was important and not his own intellectual development in writing the commentaries is a point he made clear by ordering the commentaries according to the progression of scripture rather than to the relative dates of their composition. It is this principle of organization that these entries will largely adopt, but we offer some warnings. First, Bede normally used the names of books of the Bible familiar to readers of the Vulgate, but he referred to I Kings as Samuel. Second, he included two works, De tabernaculo and De templo, that are not identified by a particular book; these are placed in the biblical chronology by their subject matter. Third, since Bede’s order at times differs from that of modern Bibles, we have, following the Clavis Patrum Latinorum, rearranged some entries. Fourth, although he included his Homiliae among his commentaries, we have, again following the CPL, placed them in the following section. Fifth, similarly we have created a

Bible: Commentaries

41

separate section, Bible: Chapter Divisions and Prologues, to discuss both his Capitula lectionum, summaries of lessons for groups of books of Old and New Testament Books, which he mentioned among his commentaries, and his Prologues on the Pauline Epistles, which he did not. The books of the Bible that Bede chose to interpret are of two types: those that were already favourites of the Fathers, such as the commentaries on Genesis and on Luke, and those that were largely ignored by earlier exegetes, such as the commentaries on Ezra and Nehemiah and on the New Testament Catholic Epistles. Both filled pedagogical needs; the former display Bede’s talents as an adapter and synthesizer, and the latter testify to his originality within the exegetical tradition. The former he undertook in order to sift and collate the best of the Fathers’ comments and to digest and simplify the material for the slower, less sophisticated English; the latter, in order to provide a complete supplement to the Fathers for his students and readers. Moreover, Bede was far more scrupulous than the majority of medieval commentators in acknowledging his principal authorities. In his prefaces he regularly informed his readers of his principal sources and, unusually for the medieval period, in the case of his commentaries on Mark and Luke by a designation in the margin of the author of the excerpt (A-V = AUGUSTINE, A-M = AMBROSE, H-R = Hieronymus, i.e. JEROME, and G-R = GREGORY). In the preface to his Commentarius in Lucam he specifically requests that those who copy his writings should on no account omit the marginal references to his sources that he has entered in his own copy. This practice fits with his emphasis on these four authorities, a special status that he was the first, as Bernice Kaczynski (2006) argues, to assert. The following entries demonstrate the popularity of these works on the Bible. They were in immediate demand by Bede’s contemporaries, some indeed such as the Commentarius in Canticum Habacuc having been written specifically in response to requests to explain parts of scripture. The letters of the Anglo-Saxon missionaries on the Continent demonstrate their central place in their efforts. ALCUIN apparently brought Bible manuscripts with Bede’s capitula in them to CHARLEMAGNE’s court since some were copied into the texts produced at Tours, from which then entered the mainstream of the European Christian tradition. While ÆLFRIC was probably more influenced by the Homilies, he knew these from Carolingian collections, particularly the Homiliary of PAUL THE DEACON and its descendants, where they were mixed in with extracts from Commentaries on Mark and Luke. He was certainly deeply influenced by Bede’s Commentarius in Genesim. Finally, although beyond our period, much of Bede’s

42 

BEDE – PART 2

exegesis found its way into the Glossa ordinaria, from which it became a staple of later thought. Scholarship on Bede’s writings on the Bible has flourished in recent years. It has been led by the reediting of texts in the Corpus Christianorum, where Roger Gryson’s edition of the Commentarius in Apocalypsim stands out as a stunning achievement, and by the translations particularly in the Cistercian Studies Series and the Translated Texts for Historians; here Faith Wallis’s (2013) rendering of the Apocalypse commentary deserves particular note. Two collections of essays by Scott DeGregorio (2006b and 2010a) are essential reading for anyone seeking orientation in the field. More specialized studies are also appearing: here we would call attention Peter Darby’s Bede and the End of Time (2012) and Conor O’Brien’s Bede’s Temple: An Image and its Interpretation (2015). Commentarius in Genesim [BEDA.Comm.Gen.]: CPL 1344; RBMA 1598. ed.: CCSL 118A. MSS none. Lists ? Alcuin: ML 1.7. A-S Vers none. Quots/Cits 1. ? Comm.Gen., I, 168-72: GenA (A1.1), 110b-12. 2. ? Comm.Gen., IV, 1204: GenA (A1.1), 2562. 3. Comm.Gen., I, 1485-87: ÆCHom I, 1 (B1.1.2), 74-83. 4. Comm.Gen., I, 727-36: ÆCHom I, 1 (B1.1.2), 110-14. 5. Comm.Gen., I, 1965-73: ÆCHom I, 1 (B1.1.2), 136-38. 6. Comm.Gen., I, 2215-18: ÆCHom I, 1 (B1.1.2), 149-50. 7. Comm.Gen., I, 1023-27: ÆCHom II, 12 (B1.2.14), 277-78. 8. Comm.Gen., I, 1080-92: ÆCHom II, 12 (B1.2.14), 277-85. 9. Comm.Gen., I, 1062-75: ÆCHom II, 12 (B1.2.14), 300-11. 10. Comm.Gen., II, 620-23: ÆHomM 11 (B1.4.11), 221-25. 11. Comm.Gen., I, 746-49: ÆGenPref (B8.1.7.1), 64-69. 12. Comm.Gen., II, 161-63: ÆGenPref (B8.1.7.1), 70-72. 13. ? Comm.Gen., I, 1703-13: ÆIntSig (B1.6.1), 87-91.

Bible: Commentaries

43

14. ? Comm.Gen., I, 2085-87: ÆIntSig (B1.6.1), 250. 15. ? Comm.Gen., I, 2301-10: ÆIntSig (B1.6.1), 291-96. 16. Comm.Gen., II, 161-70: ÆIntSig (B1.6.1), 298-300. 17. ? Comm.Gen., II, 2238-59: ÆIntSig (B1.6.1), 350-56 and 360-67. 18. ? Comm.Gen., III, 92-95: ÆIntSig (B1.6.1), 395-400. 19. ? Comm.Gen., III, 1661-62: ÆIntSig (B1.6.1), 408-09. 20. Comm.Gen., I, 39-43: ÆTemp (B1.9.4), 17-19. 21. Comm.Gen., I, 485-90: ÆTemp (B1.9.4), 48-51. 22. ? Comm.Gen., I, 479-83: ÆTemp (B1.9.4), 58-59. 23. ? Comm.Gen., I, 464-66: ÆTemp (B1.9.4), 60-63. 24. Comm.Gen., I, 333-37 and 348-50: ÆTemp (B1.9.4), 231-35. 25. Comm.Gen., I, 1-6: ÆHex (B1.5.13), 34-41. 26. Comm.Gen., I, 168-73 and 279-80: ÆHex (B1.5.13), 49-59. 27. Comm.Gen., I, 46-49: ÆHex (B1.5.13), 97. 28. Comm.Gen., I, 386-87: ÆHex (B1.5.13), 113-17. 29. Comm.Gen., I, 286-88: ÆHex (B1.5.13), 181-85. 30. Comm.Gen, I, 431-33: ÆHex (B1.5.13), 216-19. 31. Comm.Gen, I, 746-49: ÆHex (B1.5.13), 336-40. 32. Comm.Gen., I, 1024-27 and 1080-88: ÆHex (B1.5.13), 362-75. 33. Comm.Gen., I, 2233-35: ÆHex (B1.5.13), 413-17. 34. Comm.Gen., I, 1470-75: ÆHex (B1.5.13), 445-48. 35. Comm.Gen., I, 2285-330: ÆHex (B1.5.13), 501-12. 36. Comm.Gen., I, 948: Gen (B8.1.4), 99.14. 37. Comm.Gen., II, 2061-66: Gen (B8.1.4), 105.11-12. 38. Comm.Gen., IV, 1221: Gen (B8.1.4), 134.2. 39. ? Comm.Gen., I, 1825: ByrM (B20.20), III.i, 30-31. 40. Comm.Gen., II, 1016: BYRHT.Vit.Os., 94.19. 41. ? Comm. Gen., I, 319-20: ANON.Cart.S428, 401.5. Refs 1. ? BONIF.Epist. 75, 158.8-12. 2. ? BONIF.Epist. 76, 159.12-15. 3. ? ALCVIN.Vers.Eubor., 1306-08. The Commentarius in Genesim is clearly a composite work, parts of which were composed by Bede at at least three different times during his career. It is treated here in a single entry because, other than the Epistola ad Accam (Commentarius in Genesim), there is no evidence for the circulation of its separate parts in Anglo-Saxon England. Calvin B. Kendall (2008) provides a detailed overview of the work in the introduction to his translation; we

44 

BEDE – PART 2

have, however, reached different conclusions particularly with regard to the date of composition of the earlier, shorter version, which he would place between 717-18 (p 25). In a letter to ACCA probably written around 713, Bede stated that he was sending his bishop two books covering Genesis “up to the point where Adam, having been ejected from the paradise of pleasure, entered the exile of this temporal life” (trans. Kendall 2008 p 66); the quotation is from Genesis 3:24. Charles W. Jones, however, points out in the introduction to his edition (CCSL 118A.vii), that the two books “contrast in form and care of preparation.” He writes that the first, commenting on the first six days of creation (Gen. 1:1 to 2:3), “centers in the problems of the nature of the physical world, chronology, and paschal types and calculations, especially the type of the Six Days” (118A.vii). Modifying his discussion only slightly, we would associate it with Bede’s earliest works, the Commentarius in Apocalypsim, De natura rerum, and De temporibus, all written as part of Bede’s initial investigations into time. In Jones’s opinion, “it is a personal and original composition” (118A.vii). Michael Gorman (1996b p 303) identifies six manuscripts that contain just this section of the work; he argues, however, that they do not represent “a separate recension issued by the author” but rather the independent circulation of the first book after its initial publication with the second. It should be noted here that even in the last recension of the work, represented in Jones’s edition, this section comes to a conclusion with a summary statement linking the six days to the six ages and an explicit (see Kendall 2008 p 105 for the readings of the various manuscripts and his introduction pp 41-44). The second book of this earlier version of the work is, in Jones’s words, “merely a collectaneum, derived overwhelmingly from AUGUSTINE’s De Genesi ad litteram, largely word for word” (CCSL 118A.viii; see Kendall 2008 pp 41-42 for an opposing view). The correspondence between Bede and Acca (see Letters) suggests that Bede returned to commenting on Genesis following the completion of his Commentarius in Lucam, at a moment when he tried to fulfill his bishop’s request for these kinds of works. He stopped work on it at an appropriate point, the expulsion of Adam and Eve from Paradise, in order to consider more closely the figure of Ezra. Paul Meyvaert (1999 p 281) has related this decision to the production of the Ezra/Christ portrait in the Codex Amiatinus; see the entry on the Commentarius in Ezram et Neehiam. The later, longer version of the Commentary combines the two books of the earlier version into one, and adds three more books, continuing the exposition through the expulsion of Ishmael (Gen. 21:10). Following Charles

Bible: Commentaries

45

Plummer (1896 1.cxlix; see also Kendall 2008 pp 323-26), who points to a chronological problem posed by the length of time Noah spends in the ark (ed. CCSL 118A.126-27; trans. Kendall pp 198-99), we would consider it likely that Bede returned to writing his Commentary in 720. He included it Historia ecclesiastica gentis Anglorum V.xxiv: “in principium Genesis, usque ad natiuitatem Isaac et eiectionem Ismahelis” (ed. Lapidge 2010 2.480; “the beginning of Genesis up to the birth of Isaac and the casting out of Ishmael,” trans. Colgrave and Mynors 1969 p 567). Composite or not, the Commentary on Genesis belongs to the popular medieval hexameral tradition. According to Kendall (2008 p 8), it is “fundamental to Bede’s thinking that the events narrated in the Old Testament happened according to the letter of the text”; yet he adds, “Bede nearly always caps his analyses of biblical texts with an explanation of their spiritual significance, especially their moral import or the way in which they reconcile Christian practice with Old Testament precept” (see also Kendall 2006 pp 101-19). He structures his work around the concept of exile: “Book 1 (the original version of On Genesis) ends with the expulsion of Adam and Eve from paradise (Gen. 3:24), and book 4 ends with Sarah’s demand that Hagar and Ishmael be driven out into the desert (Gen. 21:9-10)” (Kendall p 14). This theme expressed for Bede “the fundamental metaphor for the condition of human life on earth” (p 14). His commentary on the six days of creation is also notable since it sets out Bede’s understanding of cosmology (see Kendall pp 28-36). MSS. M.L.W. Laistner (1943 p 41) comments that the Commentarius in Genesim “was not, to judge by the few extant MSS, either in its shorter or its longer form, one of [Bede’s] more popular books, probably because AMBROSE, and, for advanced readers, Augustine, had already preempted the field.” He lists five copies of the short version and thirteen of the longer one. None is from Anglo-Saxon England, although he notes that Paris, Bibliothèque nationale de France, lat. 13373 shows evidence of an Insular exemplar. Lists. For the ALCUIN booklist, see the introduction, BEDE, in volume 1. Quots/Cits 1-2. In arguing that Genesis A (A1.1; ed. ASPR 1) consistently favours literal over allegorical elaborations on the Bible, Charles D. Wright (2012) reviews its sources and at one point states, “a good case can be made for the poet’s knowledge of Bede’s commentary on Genesis, which does often invoke the spiritual sense, but everything that the poet draws from Bede relates to the letter.” That case would rest, most likely, on the passages identified by A.N. Doane in his first edition of the poem (1978; revised 2013), which he refined in his 1990 entries for Fontes Anglo-Saxonici. In Fontes he refers to Bede’s commentary eleven times (lines 110b-12, 185b, 210-17,

46 

BEDE – PART 2

1248-52, 1644, 1645-48, 1719-810, 1931b-44, 2196b-200, 2201-05, and 2542-99), but considers only the first and the last to be likely direct sources (and so they are listed above). The first (lines 110b-12) concerns the role of the Logos in creation (see also Wright 2012 p 129). The last (lines 2542-99) recounts the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrha, which Doane generally compares to Bede’s Commentary IV, lines 1145-62 (ed. CCSL 118A.226); his specific echo refers to the sound of the fiery destruction (“fyrgebræc”) that causes Lot’s wife to look back and be turned to salt (2013 p 384), a correspondence that Charles D. Wright accepts and supports with further evidence. Quots/Cits 3-6. Malcolm Godden (2000 pp 7-8), who characterizes ÆLFRIC’s first homily in the first series of Catholic Homilies (B1.1.2; ed. Clemoes 1997 pp 178-89) as “a very basic introduction to Christian history and a preliminary to the more specif ic discussions in the subsequent sermons,” concludes that “a wide range of reading and some deliberation on difficult points of doctrine lie behind this apparently simple account.” The strongest case for Ælfric’s reliance on the Commentarius in Genesim appears in the Ælfric’s interpretation of the skins used by God to clothe Adam and Eve following the fall (Gn 3:21): “ða deadan fell getacnodon þæt hí wæron ða deadlice. þe mihton beon undeadlice gif hi heoldon þæt eaðelice godes bebod” (ed. p 184; “the dead skins betokened that they were then mortal who might have been immortal, if they had held that easy command of God,” trans. Thorpe 1844-86 1.19). In the Commentary, Bede wrote: “nam huiusmodi indumento Dominus eos mortales iam factos fuisse insinuat. Pelles quippe, quae non nisi mortuis pecudibus subtrahuntur, mortis f iguram continent” (ed. CCSL 118A.69; “for by a garment of this kind the Lord teaches that they had now been made mortal. Skins, of course, which are not removed except from dead animals, contain the allegorical figure of death,” trans. Kendall 2008 p 136). Godden (2000 p 12) offers no other sources for this idea, and in his entries in Fontes Anglo-Saxonici he considers the Commentary a probable source. Given this connection, it appears likely that in the other three cases that Godden discusses, Bede was the immediate source. The first, concerning the purpose of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, derives from passage from Augustine’s De Genesi ad litteram. The second, on the interpretation of Genesis 1:26, “let us make man,” comes from a passage Bede has adapted from Augustine’s Confessiones; see also Calvin Kendall’s identification of the dependence of the conclusion of Bede’s passage (2008 p 89) on GREGORY’s Moralia in Iob. The third, about the opening of the eyes of those who eat of the fruit of the tree, was again drawn by Bede from De Genesi ad litteram.

Bible: Commentaries

47

Quots/Cits 7-9. When he reached the third commandment, on the Sabbath, in Homily 12 in the second series of Catholic Homilies (B1.2.14; ed. Godden 1979 pp 110-26), Ælfric offered “a substantial excursus on matters of fundamental doctrine” (Godden 2000 p 456). Indeed, Godden explains that this passage is very similar one entitled De Sabbato in the Excerptiones Pseudo-Egberti (ed. Thorpe 1840 p 329; also printed by Godden p 457), which he (1985 pp 282-85) has argued was written by Ælfric and so would be further evidence of his use of Bede. In any case, from the Commentarius in Genesim (ed. CCSL 118A.33-35), he took several ideas. God’s rest on the seventh day was not because he was weary. Instead it signifies that He ceased creating new kinds of things, as shown by John 5:17: “my Father worketh until now; and I work.” Finally, the Sabbath rest prefigures both Christ’s time in the tomb and the Christian hope of resurrection. As Godden indicates, Bede derived some of these ideas from Augustine, who might also have been a source for Ælfric. Quots/Cits 10. Mary Clayton (1993 p 15 and note 35) notes that the interpretation of Cain living until the seventh generation (Gn 4:24) in his Second Homily for the Feast of a Confessor commonly known as Assmann 4 (B1.4.11; ed. Assmann 1964 pp 49-64) “depends on a common exegesis found, for example, in Bede’s Commentarius in Genesim”; in her entries in Fontes Anglo-Saxonici she considers this a probable direct source. Quots/Cits 11-12. Bede’s Commentary on Genesis is also likely to have contributed to two passages in Ælfric’s Preface to Genesis (ed. Crawford 1922 pp 76-80; see also Wilcox 1994 pp 116-19 and the analysis in Griffith 2000). The first concerns the explanation that the shift from plural to singular verbs in the description of the creation of man (Gn 1:26-27; “let us make” and “God created”) reveals the working of the Trinity. Mark Griffith (2000 p 133) lists many possible sources, including BASIL, JEROME, Augustine, Alcuin, PSEUDO-BEDE, and HRABANUS, but indicates that the wording in Bede and Pseudo Bede is particularly close to the Old English. In his entries in Fontes Anglo-Saxonici, he lists both of these as certain “multiple” sources for this passage although indicating that the information came from one or the other. Bede appears the more, and indeed most likely source. The second concerns how Abel’s blood can cry to God from the earth (Gn 4:10). Griffith (p 140) shows that Ælfric’s direct source here is Alcuin’s Quaestiones in Genesim. He notes further, however, that part of the answer, “the moral interpretation of Abel’s blood as the sins of every man,” derives from his translation of Alcuin’s work, the Interrogationes Siguulfi in Genesin (ed. MacLean 1884), which incorporates this interpretation from Bede’s Commentary (Quots/ Cits 16). The conclusion Griffith draws is that Ælfric was working on both the Preface to Genesis and the Interrogationes at the same time.

48 

BEDE – PART 2

Quots/Cits 13-19. As the previous paragraph indicates, the problem of determining exclusive borrowing from this commentary in Ælfric’s Interrogationes Siguulfi in Genesin (ed. MacLean 1884) is complicated since the main source, Alcuin’s Quaestiones in Genesim is itself in the tradition of Bede and the patristic writings Bede also used. The one example (16), listed above without a question mark and considered a certain direct source in Fontes Anglo-Saxonici concerns Abel’s blood crying to the Lord from the earth (Gn 4:10); going beyond Alcuin and following Bede, Ælfric generalized this point to include the deeds of all men. The previous quotation, concerning God’s placing of Cherubim with a fiery sword to guard paradise (Gen. 3:24), is paralleled in Bede, but also in ISIDORE’s Quaestiones in uetus testamentum (ed. PL 83.222.33-38; see Fontes Anglo-Saxonici). Quots/Cits 20-24. Ælfric’s knowledge of the Commentarius in Genesim is further demonstrated by his uses of it in De temporibus anni (ed. Blake 2009). Quotations 20 (on the distinction between the heaven illuminated by stars and the other heavens), 21 (on the size of the sun), and 24 (on the seas) above are accepted by both Martin Blake (2009 see p 47 and his notes on these lines) and Heinrich Henel (1942). Quotation 22 (on the sun providing the light of the moon and stars) might be from either the Commentary or De natura rerum, as Henel (1942 p 13) indicates by printing passages from each. Quotation 23 (on the sun’s light overpowering the light of the moon and stars during the day) is considered by Blake to echo the passage Henel provides from Bede. Henel also considers a comment about lack of night in heaven (lines 94-96 in Blake’s edition; pp 18-21 in Henel) to derive from Bede’s Commentary I, lines 71-74 (ed. CCSL 118A.5), but the correspondence is not exact. Quots/Cits 25-35. S.J. Crawford’s notes to the Hexameron (1921 pp 75-85) demonstrate how extensively Ælfric used Bede’s Commentary. This work is not included in Fontes Anglo-Saxonici nor in Michael Lapidge’s Anglo-Saxon Library (2006). Quots/Cits 36-38. The first half of the translation of Genesis (Gn 1-24:22) in the OLD ENGLISH HEXATEUCH (ed. Crawford 1922; line references correspond to the text printed from Cambridge, University Library Ii. 1. 33), which is widely regarded as the work of Ælfric (see Jost 1927, Clemoes 1974 pp 49-53, and Marsden 2000 pp 42-43), contains six brief additions to the biblical text that apparently derive from the commentary tradition (see Biggs 1991). Because the comments are so brief and because the tradition they draw on is highly repetitive, exact source relationships are difficult to establish. A reasonable case can be made, however, that the Commentarius

Bible: Commentaries

49

in Genesim lies behind three of Ælfric’s additions. The claim that “the sons of God,” who married “the daughters of men” (Gn 6:2) at the beginning of the Flood narrative, were “gode men” (ed. p 99), relates generally to a tradition found in Augustine and elsewhere that they are the descendants of Seth. Bede’s “homines iusti” (ed. CCSL 118A.99), however, appears closest to Ælfric’s wording. Following the Flood, Ælfric qualified God’s statement that He would never again destroy the world (Gn 8:22) by adding, “mid wætere” (ed. p 105). In doing so, he followed Bede’s discussion of the verse if not his actually wording (ed. 118A.130). Finally, Ælfric commented that Lot’s wife was turned to salt “na for wiglunge, ac for gewisre getacnunge” (ed. p 134; “not because of sorcery but as a certain sign”). This remark may derive from Bede’s curious phrase, which comes in part from Augustine, that the pillar of salt is a “condimentum sapientiae” (ed. 118A.228; “a seasoning […] of wisdom,” trans. Kendall 2008 p 306). Quots/Cits 39-40. Evidence for BYRHTFERTH’s knowledge of the Commentary is slight. The gloss on De temporum ratione attributed to him in PL 90 (see the discussion in that entry) cites “Beda in Genesi” once (ed. PL 90.309, lines 39-40), but the following passage is drawn from Augustine’s De Genesi contra Manichaeos (ed. PL 34.174.25 to 175.2), a work Bede did use in his Commentary, but apparently not in this case. In the Enchiridion III.i, lines 30-31 (ed. Baker and Lapidge 1995 p 122), Byrhtferth provided the etymology of “Israhel,” but, as Peter S. Baker and Lapidge (1995 p 315) note, it can also be found in both Jerome and Augustine. Lapidge (2009 p 94 note 185) calls attention to the phrase “sereno corde” in the Vita Oswaldi, which he notes is “surprisingly rare.” Quots/Cits 41. In her entries in Fontes Anglo-Saxonici, Rosalind Love identifies the Commentarius in Genesim (ed. CCSL 118A.12) as a possible source for the phrase “totius mundi machina” in Sawyer Charter 428 (ed. Birch 2.401; see also the online Electronic Sawyer). The phrase occurs in a passage that Bede drew from the Pseudo-Clement Recognitions (see APOCRYPHA). Refs. For the references to Bede in BONIFACE’s Epistolae 75 and 76, see the introduction, BEDE, in volume 1. Alcuin’s reference in the Versus de sanctis Euboricensis ecclesiae (ed. Godman 1982 pp 102-03) is generally to Bede’s “many works unravelling the mysterious volumes of Holy Scripture,” and so could point to any of his biblical commentaries or his Homiliary. The work also appears in PL 91.9-190. For a translation see Calvin Kendall (2008). For an analysis of Bede’s writing on the Flood, see Daniel Anlezark (2006 pp 44-111).

50 

BEDE – PART 2

De mansionibus filiorum Israel: see Epistola ad Accam (De mansionibus filiorum Israel) in Letters. De tabernaculo [BEDA.Tabern.]: CPL 1345; RBMA 1602. ed.: CCSL 119A.3-139. MSS 1. Oxford, Bodleian Library, Bodley 385 (S.C. 2210): ASM 571. 2. Oxford, Bodleian Library, Bodley 479 (S.C. 2013): ASM 580. 3. Oxford, Trinity College, 28: ASM 690. 4. Salisbury, Cathedral Library, 165, fols. 1-87: ASM 749. 5. Oslo and London, The Schøyen Collection, 76: ASM 875.4. Lists ? Alcuin: ML 1.7. A-S Vers none. Quots/Cits 1. Tabern., II, 1-3: ÆGenPref (B8.1.7.1), 77-80. 2. Tabern., I, 243-45: ÆGenPref (B8.1.7.1), 83-84. 3. Tabern., I, 245-46: ÆGenPref (B8.1.7.1), 84-85. 4. Tabern., I, 260-62: ÆGenPref (B8.1.7.1), 85-86. 5. Tabern., I, 250-51: ÆGenPref (B8.1.7.1), 86-88 Refs 1. ? BONIF.Epist. 75, 158.8-12. 2. ? BONIF.Epist. 76, 159.12-15. 3. ? ALCVIN.Vers.Eubor., 1306-08. In contrast to his Commentarius in Genesim, this allegorical treatise on the tabernacle of Moses, the portable tent-shrine of the divinity described in Exodus 24:12 to 30:21, “shows,” as Arthur G. Holder (1994 p xvii) writes in the introduction to his translation of the work, “Bede as a creative and original exegete working without the benefit of extensive patristic models.” Conor O’Brien (2015 pp 2-3 et passim) details its relationship to many of Bede’s other works, but particularly De Templo and the Commentarius in Ezram et Neemiah, “a trilogy of major commentaries on the temple image.” In the list of his works in the Historia ecclesiastica gentis Anglorum (ed.

Bible: Commentaries

51

Lapidge 2010 2.480), Bede referred to it as “de tabernaculo et uasis eius ac uestibus sacerdotum, libros III” (“the tabernacle, its vessels, and the priestly vestments: three books,” trans. Colgrave and Mynors 1969 p 569). Mentioned in both De templo (ed. CCSL 119A.232) and the Commentarius in Marcum (ed. CCSL 120.464), De tabernaculo was probably written between 721 and 725 (see Holder p xvi). Linking it to a comment on Noah’s ark in the Genesis commentary, O’Brien (p 189) places it at the beginning of this period. While Bede established his topic at the opening of the work, he expressed its theme clearly at the beginning of book 2. The brief preface, which is notable because it does not draw on epistolary conventions (see Letters for the many epistles/prefaces addressed to ACCA), indicates the detail of the exegesis that will follow (trans. Holder 1994 p 1): Since with the Lord’s help we are going to speak about the figure of the tabernacle and its vessels and utensils, first we ought to examine and attentively consider the topography of the place and the circumstances that obtained when these things were commanded to be made. For all these things, as the Apostle says, happened to them in figure but were written down for us (1 Cor 10:11). “All these things” [includes] not only the deeds or words that are contained in the Sacred Writings, but also the description of the locations and hours and times and things themselves, as well as the circumstances under which they were done or said.

The significance of the tabernacle, however, is presented directly at the start of the next book by distinguishing it from the temple (trans. p 45): The tabernacle that Moses made for the Lord in the wilderness, like the temple that Solomon made in Jerusalem, designates the state of the Holy Church universal, part of which already reigns with the Lord in heaven, while part is still journeying in this present life away from the Lord, until its members die and follow after one another. The principal difference between the figures in the construction of the two houses is that the tabernacle designates the building of the present Church, which is daily employed in its labours, while the temple designates the repose of the future Church, which is daily being perfected as it receives souls departing from this [world] after their labours.

Although the tabernacle was destroyed in 587 BCE, what it represents in every detail for the Christian Church symbolically endures, Given this understanding of it and the temple, it is not surprising that Bede focused

52 

BEDE – PART 2

on the parts of the Bible where these structures are discussed, and in doing so created a new kind of commentary. MSS. M.L.W. Laistner (1943 pp 70-74) lists 68 manuscripts containing the entire Commentary and eight more with extracts from it. These have yet to be placed in a stemma. David Hurst’s edition in the CCSL relies on the readings of five ninth-century, Continental copies. The five manuscripts listed above, all from late in the Anglo-Saxon period and some having been written on the Continent, point toward the reintroduction of the work into England following the Norman Conquest. Lists. For the ALCUIN booklist, see the introduction, BEDE, in volume 1. Quots/Cits 1-5. In his Preface to Genesis (B8.1.7.1; ed. Crawford 1922 pp 76-80; see also Wilcox 1994 pp 116-19), ÆLFRIC turned to the building of the tabernacle as an example of an Old Testament event that has a new meaning following the Incarnation. In explaining this structure as “Godes gelaðunge” (ed. p 76; “God’s Church”), he followed the opening of book 2 of De tabernaculo; the end of this sentence, “which He himself established through his apostles with many adornments and fair customs,” is apparently his elaboration of Bede’s point. While it is possible, as Mark Griffith (2000 p 148) suggests, that Ælfric was also influenced by JEROME in his initial explanation of the tabernacle, the following correspondences all rely, as he documents in his entries in Fontes Anglo-Saxonici, on Bede’s explanation of Exodus 25:3-8 (ed. CCSL 119A.11), of the materials with which the tabernacle is adorned. Refs. For the references to Bede in BONIFACE’s Epistolae 75 and 76, see the introduction, BEDE, in volume 1. Alcuin’s reference in the Versus de sanctis Euboricensis ecclesiae (ed. Godman 1982 pp 102-03) is generally to Bede’s “many works unravelling the mysterious volumes of Holy Scripture,” and so could point to any of his biblical commentaries or his Homiliary. The work also appears in PL 91.393-498. For an English translation see Arthur G. Holder (1994); for a French translation see Christophe Vuillaume (2003). Commentarius in primam partem Samuhelis [BEDA.Comm.Sam.]: CPL 1346; RBMA 1603-04. ed.: CCSL 119.5-272. MSS none. Lists ? Alcuin: ML 1.7.

Bible: Commentaries

53

A-S Vers – Quots/Cits none. Refs 1. ? BONIF.Epist. 75, 158.8-12. 2. ? BONIF.Epist. 76, 159.12-15. 3. LULL.Epist. 125, 263.9-10. 4. ? ALCVIN.Vers.Eubor., 1306-08. The first two of the four books of Kings in the Vulgate were also referred to as 1 and 2 Samuel, the usage that Bede favoured judging from his reference to this Commentary in Historia ecclesiastica gentis Anglorum V.xxiv: “in primam partem Samuhelis, idest usque ad mortem Saulis, libros IIII” (ed. Lapidge 2010 2. 480; “the first book of Samuel, to the death of Saul: four books,” trans. Colgrave and Mynors 1969 p 569). Each book is preceded by a prologue (see the Epistolae ad Accam): in the fourth, Bede explained that the resignation of CEOLFRITH as abbot of Monkwearmouth-Jarrow and his departure for Rome had caused him to delay completing this work, which dates the first three books to before the summer of 716 (see the Historia abbatum). The fourth book, as this prologue suggests, was finished soon after this time. Bede’s largely allegorical commentary, a unique contribution to medieval biblical interpretation, is the least known of his scriptural studies both in England and on the Continent. M.L.W. Laistner (1943 pp 65-66) lists only eight manuscripts in which it survives, none directly linked to Anglo-Saxon England. For the ALCUIN booklist, which refers generally to Bede, see the introduction, BEDE, in volume 1. There are no Anglo-Saxon versions and it has not been identified as a source for particular passages in any later Anglo-Saxon work. In a survey, however, of Bede’s writings (including this work, the Commentarius in Prouerbia, the Commentarius in Cantica canticorum, the Commentarius in Lucam, Homiliae, and the Commentarius in Apocalypsim) in which Christ is described as feminine, Arthur G. Holder (2005b pp 117-18) notes three places where this idea may have influenced Alcuin: in the dedication of a church at York to Alma Sophia; in the invocation of Christ as “wisdom” (sapientia) at the beginning of his poem on the saints of York; and in his own epitaph. On the theme of the three ages present in this work and others by Bede, which appears in the works of ÆLFRIC and BYRHTFERTH, see De temporum ratione. For the references to Bede in BONIFACE’s Epistolae 75 and 76, and for LULL’s specific request for a copy of this Commentary from York, see the

54 

BEDE – PART 2

introduction, BEDE, in volume 1. Alcuin’s reference in the Versus de sanctis Euboricensis ecclesiae (ed. Godman 1982 pp 102-03) is generally to Bede’s “many works unravelling the mysterious volumes of Holy Scripture,” and so could point to any of his biblical commentaries or his Homiliary. The Commentarius in primam partem Samuhelis also appears in PL 91.499-714. An English translation by Scott DeGregorio and Rosalind Love is in preparation. On the work itself, see George H. Brown (2002) and (2006), and, for an analysis of its eschatology, Peter Darby (2012 pp 165-85). In Regum librum xxx quaestiones [BEDA.Quaest.Reg.]: CPL 1347; RBMA 1606. ed.: CCSL 119.293-322. MSS Cambridge, Pembroke College, 81: ASM 133. Lists ? Alcuin: ML 1.7. A-S Vers – Quots/Cits none. Refs 1. ? BONIF.Epist. 75, 158.8-12. 2. ? BONIF.Epist. 76, 159.12-15. 3. ? ALCVIN.Vers.Eubor., 1306-08. As its prologue, also discussed in Letters as the Epistola ad Nothelmum, makes clear, Bede composed this treatise in answer to questions about thirty passages from the four Vulgate books of Kings (also known as I and II Samuel and I and II Kings; see Foley and Holder 1999 p 82 for Bede’s usage) posed by Nothelm, later archbishop of Canterbury (735-39). He listed it in the Historia ecclesiastica gentis Anglorum V.xxiv as “in Regum librum xxx quaestionum” (ed. Lapidge 2010 p 480). Paul Meyvaert (1999) dates the work to around 715 by showing its close relationship to the Commentarius in primam partem Samuhelis. In the prologue, Bede said he would answer the questions by “following the paths of the Fathers” (ed. CCSL 119.293), but that apparently meant according to their spirit because other than a half dozen borrowings from JOSEPHUS and JEROME, the answers, all relatively brief, are his own. Many

Bible: Commentaries

55

are literal and textual, dealing with such matters as variant readings (“what your codex has is entirely false”; p 298), the use of hyperbole (p 302), or a puzzling detail (why snowy days enable Banaia to slay a lion in a pit; p 303). Some are allegorical, however, such as Samuel prefiguring Christ (p 296). Citing Bernhard Bischoff and Michael Lapidge (1994) and Lapidge (1995), W. Trent Foley (in Foley and Holder 1999 p 83) speculates that the work may represent Nothelm’s interest in the literal interpretation of scripture gained from his connection through Albinus to the Canterbury school under the direction of THEODORE and HADRIAN. Foley also details its sources (pp 84-86). MSS. M.L.W. Laistner (1943 pp 62-65) lists 44 manuscripts of the work, including the Pembroke College copy, which was used by David Hurst in his edition in the CCSL. This manuscript is included by Michael Lapidge (2006 p 168) in his list of “Ninth-Century Manuscripts of Continental Origin Having Pre-Conquest English Provenance.” Lists. For the ALCUIN booklist, see the introduction, BEDE, in volume 1. Refs. For the references to Bede in BONIFACE’s Epistolae 75 and 76, see the introduction, BEDE, in volume 1. Alcuin’s reference in the Versus de sanctis Euboricensis ecclesiae (ed. Godman 1982 pp 102-03) is generally to Bede’s “many works unravelling the mysterious volumes of Holy Scripture,” and so could point to any of his biblical commentaries or his Homiliary. The work also appears in PL 91.715-36. It is translated by W. Trent Foley in Foley and Holder (1999 pp 89-147). De templo [BEDA.Templ.]: CPL 1348; RBMA 1605. ed.: CCSL 119A.143-234. MSS Cambridge, Pembroke College, 81: ASM 133. Lists ? Alcuin: ML 1.7. A-S Vers none. Quots/Cits ? Templ. I, 452-81: Ex (A1.2), 389-96.

56 

BEDE – PART 2

Refs 1. ? BONIF.Epist. 75, 158.8-12. 2. ? BONIF.Epist. 76, 159.12-15). 3. LULL.Epist. 126, 264.9-12. 4. CUTHBERT.Epist. 127, 265.2. 5. ? ALCVIN.Vers.Eubor., 1306-08. Arguably Bede’s final sustained work of biblical exegesis, De templo draws together themes present throughout his writings, but developed with particular attention beginning in his earliest work on the Commentarius in Ezram et Neemiah, and developed in three homilies (Homiliae 2.1, 2.24, and 2.25) and in De tabernaculo. Listed in Historia ecclesiastica gentis Anglorum V.xxiv (ed. Lapidge 2010 2.480) as “de aedificatione templi allegoricae expositionis, sicut et cetera, libros II” (“on the building of the temple, an allegorical interpretation like the others, two books,” trans. Colgrave and Mynors 1969 p 569), it can be dated to shortly before 731, since in his Epistola ad Albinum that accompanied a copy of the Ecclesiastical History sent to Canterbury, Bede mentioned having recently (“nuper”) completed it. The Epistola ad Accam, which serves as its preface, can also be dated to between 729 and 731 since it acknowledges the time of difficulty for the bishop that eventually led to his removal from the see of Hexham. Since Bede did not refer to Acca as a bishop in the valediction, it was probably written in 731. De templo, a verse-by-verse explanation of Solomon’s temple in III Kings 5:6 to 7:51, builds and expands on New Testament texts, 1 Peter 2:4-10, I Corinthians 3:11, and especially Ephesians 2:20-22. Book 1 begins with a succinct summary of the meaning of the temple, “a figure of the holy universal Church which, from the first of the elect to the last to be born at the end of the world, is daily being built through the grace of the king of peace, namely, its redeemer” (trans. Connolly 1995 p 5). As Jennifer O’Reilly (1995) explains in her introduction to Seán Connolly’s translation, the Fathers from ORIGEN through AMBROSE and AUGUSTINE to GREGORY THE GREAT had discussed the temple, but this is the first commentary that develops this topic through a sustained allegorical analysis. However, Bede in this and in his other writings showed intense interest in and knowledge about building crafts and explained every element of the Temple, its construction, and adornment, expounding at both the literal and allegorical levels; see also Paul Meyvaert (1979). Henry Mayr-Harting (1976) has argued that De templo forms a “diptych” with the Ecclesiastical History, one recounting the building of the universal Church, the other the particular church among

Bible: Commentaries

57

the English; see in particular his appendix, “Bede’s Historia ecclesiastica and De templo.” Conor O’Brien (2015) places the work in the context of Bede’s developing interpretation on the idea of the temple, demonstrating its importance for his theology. MSS. M.L.W. Laistner (1943 pp 62-65) lists 45 manuscripts of the work and one with an excerpt from it. The Pembroke College copy, which was used by David Hurst in his edition in the CCSL, is included by Michael Lapidge (2006 p 168) in his list of “Ninth-Century Manuscripts of Continental Origin Having Pre-Conquest English Provenance.” Lists. For the ALCUIN booklist, see the introduction, BEDE, in volume 1. Quots/Cits. The digression on Abraham in the Old English Exodus (see the edition by Lucas 1994) identifies the site of the sacrifice of Isaac as where the temple would later be built. Samuel Moore (1911 p 101) notes that while this connection is based on Genesis 22:2 and 2 Paralipomenon (Chronicles) 3:1, it was made explicit by JOSEPHUS and repeated by JEROME. (The two other passages he cites as from Augustine and Bede are from works no longer accepted as by these authors.) Edward B. Irving (1972 p 315) identifies De templo as another place where it is made. In his entries in Fontes Anglo-Saxonici, Daniel C. Anlezark lists it as a possible multiple source. In writing on the first section of Christ I (Christ A, A3.1; see the edition of Burlin 1968), Johanna Kramer (2007 pp 98-99) offers book 1 of Bede’s work “as a conceptual and topical analogue to Lyric I.” For the references to Bede in BONIFACE’s Epistolae 75 and 76, see the introduction, BEDE, in volume 1. As also discussed there, in one of his letters, 126 (ed. Tangl 1955 pp 263-64), LULL requested three works, including this one, from CUTHBERT, abbot of Monkwearmouth-Jarrow (c. 764). In the following letter, 127, Cuthbert reported that he was sending it. Alcuin’s reference in the Versus de sanctis Euboricensis ecclesiae (ed. Godman 1982 pp 102-03) is generally to Bede’s “many works unravelling the mysterious volumes of Holy Scripture,” and so could point to any of his biblical commentaries or his Homiliary. De templo also appears in PL 91.735-808. For a translation, see Seán Connolly (1995). Commentarius in Ezram et Neemiam [BEDA.Comm.Ez.Neh.]: CPL 1349; RBMA 1607. ed.: CCSL 119A.237-392. MSS none.

58 

BEDE – PART 2

Lists ? Alcuin: ML 1.7. A-S Vers – Quots/Cits none. Refs 1. ? BONIF.Epist. 75,158.8-12. 2. ? BONIF.Epist. 76, 159.12-15. 3. LULL.Epist. 125, 263.11. 4. ? ALCVIN.Vers.Eubor., 1306-08. In his Prologus to Ezra, JEROME explained that “apud Hebraeos Ezrae Neemiaeque sermones in unum volumen coartantur” (ed. Weber and Gryson 2007 p 638); “the writings of Ezra and Nehemiah are gathered together into a single volume”). The second has a distinctive opening that marks a new beginning: “uerba Neemiae filii Echliae” (“the words of Nehemiah, the son of Hacaliah”). Together, these two books, referred to as 1 and 2 Ezra in the Vulgate and Ezra and Nehemiah in Protestant Bibles, recount the rebuilding of the temple under Persian rule following the Babylonian Exile. In his list of works in Historia ecclesiastica gentis Anglorum V.xxiv, Bede described his Commentary as “in Ezram et Neemiam libros III” (ed. Lapidge 2010 2.480), his first two books covering 1 Ezra and the third, Nehemiah. The verse by verse explanation of these texts is the only complete commentary during the Middle Ages; see Scott DeGregorio (2006a p xxii). Evidence that the Commentarius in Ezram et Neemiam was composed over more than a decade, from perhaps as early as 713 to sometime after 725 (but before, of course, 731), derives from three sources: internal evidence, the circumstantial evidence provided by the opening folios of the Codex Amiatinus, and external evidence in a reference to the work in the Epistola ad Accam (Commentarius in Genesim). When he reached the point in the Commentarius in Ezram et Neemiam when Nehemiah is allowed to travel to Jerusalem to begin rebuilding the temple (II Esd 2:1-20), Bede paused to explain that the year in which the work began had been foretold in an elaborate prophecy in Daniel involving both Christ and 70 weeks, which would lead “to the consummation and to the end” (Dan 9:24-27); the passage, then, would have been of interest to him from his earliest investigation of eschatology (see the Commentarius in Apocalypsim). In the Commentary on Ezra, he claimed specifically that “each week represents seven years” (trans. DeGregorio 2006 p 159), for a total of 490 years,

Bible: Commentaries

59

but, as signalled by Daniel’s opening remark that the seventy weeks “are shortened” (“adbreviatae sunt,” Dn 9:24), the years, too, are to be understood as lunar rather than solar, and so containing 354 days that add up to 475 years. Instead of making the point of this calculation clear, Bede referred to a longer discussion in De temporum ratione: “de qua tota prophetae sententia plenissime prout potui disserere in temporum libro curaui” (ed. CCSL 119A.342-43; “in the Reckoning of Time I have undertaken to discuss the prophet’s whole meaning in full, as best I could,” trans. DeGregorio 2006 p 160). In his second work on time, which can be dated to 725, he noted that 475 years passed from the rebuilding of the walls of Jerusalem to the crucifixion of Christ (trans. Wallis 1999 pp 36-39). This part of the Commentarius in Ezram et Neemiam appears to have been written after De temporum ratione (see DeGregorio 2006 pp xli-xlii and p 160, note 2). On the other hand, Paul Meyvaert (2005) has offered a compelling case for viewing Bede’s particular interest in Ezra as related to his misunderstanding of the portrait of CASSIODORUS in the Codex Grandior, which was used as a model for the Codex Amiatinus, prepared prior to 716 as a gift for St Peter’s, Rome. After describing many iconographic details that identify the figure as a Jewish high priest, Meyvaert writes, “looking at the seated ‘Ezra’ writing in his book, but at the same time fully attired as high priest, convinces me that the image was made at an early stage and by a younger, enthusiastic Bede, who had very recently convinced himself that the figure in the Codex Grandior showed Ezra and that Ezra had been a pontifex” (p 1125). By the time he had come to write De temporum ratione, he had recognized his mistake: “Ezra is referred to simply as ‘sacerdos et scriba legis Dei’” (p 1125). The letter to ACCA that serves as the preface to the Commentarius in Genesim offers a way to reconcile the opposing evidence since its discussion of the Commentarius in Ezram et Neemiam suggests that Bede wrote the first two books on Ezra before he composed the final one on Nehemiah. Explaining that he was interrupting his work on the Commentarius in Genesim, Bede introduced his new project (trans. Kendall 2008 pp 66-67): I shall write some things also about subsequent events of the sacred narrative, God willing, with the attendant help of your intercession, after I first investigate, however inadequately, the book of the holy prophet and priest Ezra, in which is found the sacraments of Christ and the Church under the allegorical figure of the release from the long captivity, the restoration of the temple, the rebuilding of the city, the return to Jerusalem of the vessels which had been taken away, the writing of the Law which had been burned, the purification of the people from the foreign wives, and

60 

BEDE – PART 2

the people’s conversion with one heart and soul to the service of God, as the prophet who was also a historian wrote; and after I explain more openly for the learned, with the help of God, some of these sacraments which I have mentioned.

As Meyvaert (1999 p 2811) writes, “this full description of the importance of Ezra, in terms of Christ and the Church, resembles the much longer statement about Ezra that we find at the end of book 2 of the Commentary on Ezra and Nehemiah, and it leads one to suspect that Bede was already at work on Ezra when he wrote the Genesis preface to Acca.” It would not be until some years later that he would return to this project to write on Nehemiah. Lists. For the ALCUIN booklist, see the introduction, BEDE, in volume 1. Meyvaert (2005 p 1112) specifically links the image of Ezra in the Codex Amiatinus to the Commentary, since both interpret Ezra as symbolizing Christ. Moreover, relying on a personal communication from Paul Dutton, he argues that the verse written over the image – “Codicibus sacris hostili clade perustis/Esdra Deo fervens hoc reparauit opus”; “The sacred books having been consumed by fire through enemy aggression, Ezra, zealous for God, restored this work” – reflects “the thinking that first went into the In Ezram” (p 1099). For BONIFACE’s general request for works by Bede in Epistola 75 (ed. MGH ES 1.158) and his more specific efforts in Epistola 76 (ed. MGH ES 1.159) to obtain texts on the Bible, see the introduction, BEDE, in volume 1. LULL’s request in Epistola 125 (ed. Tangl 1955 pp 262-3) for three commentaries from the library at York, is also discussed there. Mary Garrison (2012 pp 643-44), however, notes that unlike the other two works (the Commentarius in primam partem Samuhelis and the Commentarius in Marcum), in this case he used a title that does not closely match Bede’s own in the Historia ecclesiastica gentis Anglorum V.xxiv (ed. Lapidge 2010 2.480). Alcuin’s reference in the Versus de sanctis Euboricensis ecclesiae (ed. Godman 1982 pp 102-03) is generally to Bede’s “many works unravelling the mysterious volumes of Holy Scripture,” and so could point to any of his biblical commentaries or his Homiliary. On the theme of the three ages, which appears in the works of ÆLFRIC and BYRHTFERTH, see De temporum ratione. The work is also printed in PL 91.807-924. It was transmitted to the later Middle Ages by the Glossa ordinaria.

Bible: Commentaries

61

Commentarius in Tobiam [BEDA.Comm.Tob.]: CPL 1350; RBMA 1608. ed.: CCSL 119B.3-19. MSS Oxford, Bodleian Library, Hatton 23 (S.C. 4115): ASM 627. Lists ? Alcuin: ML 1.7. A-S Vers none. Quots/Cits ? Comm.Tob. VI, 43: ANON.Vit.Birin., 44.2-5. Refs 1. ? BONIF.Epist. 75, 158.8-12. 2. ? BONIF.Epist. 76, 159.12-15. 3. ? ALCVIN.Vers.Eubor., 1306-08. 4. ALCVIN.Epist., 191, 318.18. Considered apocryphal in Protestant Bibles and, indeed, noted by JEROME as excluded from the Hebrew scriptures of his day, Tobias recounts the lives of a father and son of the same name (in the Vulgate), who lived following the Assyrian conquest of the Northern Kingdom of Israel (722 BC). W. Trent Foley (Foley and Holder 1999 p 54) points out that Bede’s “is the first sustained commentary on this traditionally overlooked work of Scripture.” He refers to it in the Historia ecclesiastica gentis Anglorum V.xxiv as “in librum beati patris Tobiae explanationis allegoricae de Christo et ecclesia, librum I” (ed. Lapidge 2010 2.482; “on the book of the blessed father Tobias, an allegorical explanation concerning Christ and the Church, one book,” trans. Colgrave and Mynors 1969 p 568). While noting that there is “no evidence, internal or other,” to date the work, M.L.W. Laistner (1943 p 78) suggests that it may have been written shortly before 731 because, like De templo, it emphasizes allegorical interpretation. This connection appears less strong in light of Bede’s other allegorical commentaries, such as the Commentarius in primam partem Samuhelis. Indeed, we would suggest on the basis of the chronology established by his Letters that it was probably written after this commentary but before De tabernaculo, at a time when Bede was looking for Old

62 

BEDE – PART 2

Testament types of Christ such as Ezra. Unlike the temple imagery, however, the figure of Tobias did not open new avenues of exegesis. Foley (in Foley and Holder 1999 p 55) identifies “at least one continuous theme”: “the progression of salvation history toward its end during this the world’s sixth and final age, which lasts from the Incarnation of Christ to the end of the world.” He continues, “of special interest to Bede in that history are the salvation of the Jews and Jewish-Gentile relations.” MSS. Before listing 73 manuscripts of the work, Laistner (1943 p 78) calls attention to its “astonishing” popularity, especially in the twelfth century. The Hatton manuscript from the end of the eleventh century is used by David Hurst in his edition in the CCSL. Lists. For the ALCUIN booklist, see the introduction, BEDE, in volume 1. Quots/Cits. Rosalind Love (1996 p 44, note 2) identifies a possible borrowing in the Vita Birini (BHL 1361; see ACTA SANCTORUM, Birinus) from Bede’s explanation of Tobias’s fight with the enormous fish. Bede wrote, “now just as our Lord is the head of his Church, and the Church is truly his body, so too is the devil head of all the wicked and they are all his body, his members” (trans. Foley and Holder 1999 pp 65-66). In a passage addressed to Britain, Birinus’s deeds are recalled: “he drove idolatry out from you, a perverse race of sinners, evil inhabitants, with the devil at the head, and has introduced faith and all the good retinue of righteousness into you, peaceful inhabitants, with Christ at the head” (trans. Love 1994 p 45). While the identification of Christ as the head of the Church relies on Ephesians 5:23, the claim that the devil is the head of the wicked links the two passages. David Townsend (1989 p 130) dates the Vita to shortly after the Norman Conquest; Love, however, places it at the end of the century, associating it with the translation of Birinus’s relics to the new Anglo-Norman minster in 1093. Concerning this text, Love further concludes that “it is difficult to assemble a particularly convincing argument for GOSCELIN’s authorship on grounds of style and vocabulary” (p lix); however, she does associate it with the anonymous Vita Swithuni and Miracula Swithuni (ed. Lapidge 2003b pp 630-38 and 648-96; see also Lapidge’s discussions pp 611-22 and 641-42). Refs. For the references to Bede in BONIFACE’s Epistolae 75 and 76, see the introduction, BEDE, in volume 1. Alcuin’s reference in the Versus de sanctis Euboricensis ecclesiae (ed. Godman 1982 pp 102-03) is generally to Bede’s “many works unravelling the mysterious volumes of Holy Scripture,” and so could point to any of his biblical commentaries or his Homiliary. In letter 191 to Ricbodus, archbishop of Treves (ed. Dümmler 1895 p 318), Alcuin (at Tours) requested a copy of this work.

Bible: Commentaries

63

The work is also published in PL 91.923-38, It is translated by Seán Connolly (1997 pp 39-63) and W. Trent Foley and Arthur G. Holder (1999 pp 57-79). Collectio Psalterii: see Bible: Aids to Biblical Study. Commentarius in Prouerbia [BEDA.Comm.Prouerb.]: CPL 1351; RBMA 1609. ed.: CCSL 119B.23-163. MSS 1. Oxford, Bodleian Library Bodley, 819 (S.C. 2699): ASM 604. 2. Windsor Castle, St George’s Chapel, 5: ASM 760. Lists ? Alcuin: ML 1.7. A-S Vers – Quots/Cits none. Refs 1. ? BONIF.Epist. 75, 158.8-12. 2. ? BONIF.Epist. 76, 159.12-15. 3. BONIF.Epist. 91, 207.24. 4. ? ALCVIN.Vers.Eubor., 1306-08. It was once assumed that Bede based this commentary on Proverbs on the one attributed to Salonius (bishop of Geneva ca. 450), but Jean-Pierre Weiss (1969-70) and Valerie Flint (1970) have shown that “Salonius” was actually a late eleventh- or early twelfth-century commentator, perhaps Honorius Augustodunensis, who was in fact following Bede. The work is listed in Historia ecclesiastica gentis Anglorum V.xxiv (ed. Lapidge 2010 2.480) as “in Prouerbia Salomonis libros III”. As M.L.W. Laistner (1943 p 56) notes, “the alternative title found in some manuscripts, ‘In’ or ‘Super parabolas Salomonis’ is no doubt derived from the definition at the beginning of the commentary: ‘Parabolae Graece, Latine dicuntur similitudines.’” He also indicates that “the concluding portion of the commentary […] was sometimes copied alone with the title, ‘De muliere forti’” (see CCSL 119B.149). Arthur G. Holder (2005b pp 115-16) tentatively dates the Commentarius in Prouerbia to 709-16, but since Bede’s Letters from this period do not mention it, we would place it after CEOLFRITH’s departure to Rome in 716 and, indeed, after the completion of the Commentarius in primam partem

64 

BEDE – PART 2

Samuhelis. Its opening and final section, which tie the spiritual meaning of the work to the Church established by Christ, would then develop out of Bede’s thinking on the temple. It should be noted, however, that much of the central commentary is didactic, a practical explication of the maxims. As such, it represents a continuation of age-old pagan and Judeo-Christian sapiential literature. MSS. Laistner (1943 pp 56-61) lists 86 manuscripts of the entire work, four more that contain extracts, and fifteen of “De muliere forti.” MSS 1. The Oxford manuscript, which was used by David Hurst in his edition in the CCSL, is notable because it is likely to have been written at Monkwearmouth-Jarrow and to have been glossed by EALDRED (Aldred), provost of Chester-le-Street (c. 970). Of the manuscript, Michael Lapidge and Helmut Gneuss (ASM 604) write, “s. viii ex. or ix in (or s. viii1?) Northumbria, prob. Monkwearmouth-Jarrow, prov. Chester-le-Street, prov. Durham.” In the Summary Catalogue (S.C. 2699), Falconer Madan and H.H.E. Craster note that it contains “no title or author, being imperfect at beginning and end.” Hurst records that it begins in line 70 of book 1 (ed. CCSL 119B.35) and ends in line 549 of book 3 (ed. 119B.162); Madan and Craster note other lost leaves, including one “supplied by a 12th cent. copy.” The case for its origin at Bede’s monastery has been made by Malcolm Parkes (1982) and for Ealdred as the tenth-century glossator by N.R. Ker (1943). Verity L. Allan (2006 pp 87-124) provides much additional information and considers the manuscript’s relationship to Bede’s original. MSS 2. Lapidge and Gneuss place the copying of the Windsor Castle manuscript at the end of the eleventh or beginning of the twelfth century and note its provenance as Christ Church, Canterbury. Lists. For the ALCUIN booklist, see the introduction, BEDE, in volume 1. Refs. For the references to Bede in BONIFACE’s Epistolae 75 and 76, see the introduction, BEDE, in volume 1. In letter 91 (ed. Tangl 1955 pp 206-08), Boniface asked specifically for this work. Alcuin’s reference in the Versus de sanctis Euboricensis ecclesiae (ed. Godman 1982 pp 102-03) is generally to Bede’s “many works unravelling the mysterious volumes of Holy Scripture,” and so could point to any of his biblical commentaries or his Homiliary. For the possible influence on Alcuin of Bede’s discussion here and elsewhere of Christ as feminine, see the Commentarius in primam partem Samuhelis. The commentary also appears in PL 91.937-1040.

Bible: Commentaries

65

Commentarius in Cantica Canticorum [BEDA.Comm.Cant.]: CPL 1353; RBMA 1610. ed.: CCSL 119B.167-375. MSS none. Lists 1. ? Alcuin: ML 1.7. 2. Æthelwold: ML 4.14. A-S Vers ALCVIN.Comm.Cant. Quots/Cits 1. ? Comm.Cant., 274.3-9: ÆCHom I, 15 (B1.1.17), 135-39. 2. ? Comm.Cant., 274.3-9: ÆCHom I, 30 (B1.1.32), 76-80. 3. ? Comm.Cant., 274.3-9: ÆCHom II, 14 (B1.2.16), 298-301. Refs 1. ? BONIF.Epist. 75, 158.8-12. 2. ? BONIF.Epist. 76, 159.12-15. 3. LULL.Epist. 126, 264.10. 4. ? ALCVIN.Vers.Eubor., 1306-08. Described by Arthur G. Holder (2001 p 370) as “a theological allegory of world history focused on the Incarnation of the Word,” Bede’s Commentarius in Canticum canticorum is based on APONIUS’s Expositio in Canticum Canticorum (ed. CCSL 19). In Holder’s assessment, Bede “read Apponius carefully, digested what he had read, and then incorporated selected portions of it into his own commentary, often in a considerably altered form” (p 373). In contrast, although David Hurst identifies twenty “reminiscences” of ORIGEN’s commentaries and homilies on the Song of Songs that would have been available in Latin through the translations of JEROME and RUFINUS, Holder “is not persuaded that these indicate any direct dependence” (p 371); he similarly rules out Bede’s use of commentaries by Gregory of Elvira, Justus of Urgell, and ISIDORE of Seville. While Bede apparently did not know GREGORY THE GREAT’s Homiliae ii in Canticum Canticorum, he gathered in his final book, which is not included in Holder’s (2011) translation, 53 passages on this book from Gregory’s other works. While in line,

66 

BEDE – PART 2

then, with earlier patristic interpretation, Bede’s Commentarius in Canticum Canticorum provided the Latin West with a full, allegorical explanation of the Song of Songs, one which continued to influence later commentaries through its use in the Glossa ordinaria. It is referred to in the list of works at the end of the Historia ecclesiastica gentis Anglorum as “in Cantica Canticorum libros VII” (ed. Lapidge 2010 2.480), the number of books reflecting Bede’s own assessment at the beginning of book 7 (ed. CCSL 119B.359). The reading “VI” in the Canterbury copies of the Historia ecclesiastica indicates that here the preface was not considered a book. The long preface (ed. CCSL 119B.167-80), which is not translated by Holder (2011), constitutes a refutation of the literal reading of the Song of Songs as a celebration of sexuality found in the fifth-century Pelagian text, De amore, known to Bede as by JULIAN OF ECLANUM (see CPL 751, where it is listed under PELAGIUS). This is followed by five books of commentary on the Song, in which the figures of the spouse and his beloved are understood as Christ and his Church or tropologically every Christian soul (ed. CCSL 119B.190), a spiritualistic mode of interpretation traditional since Origen. The commentary also contains a wealth of naturalistic lore, whose inclusion Bede justified in the preface: “I have done this not out of a desire to seem presumptuous, but mindful of the ignorance that befalls me and my people as a result of having been born and bred far outside the world, that is on an island in the ocean, so that we cannot know about things that go on in the first parts of the world (I mean places like Arabia and India, Judea and Egypt), except through the writings of those who have lived there” (trans. Holder 2011 pp 28-29). As its inclusion in the list of Bede’s works in Historia ecclesiastica V.xxiv indicates, the Commentarius in Canticum Canticorum was written before 731. Since it lacks an epistolary preface and since Bede did not refer to it elsewhere in his writings, the only evidence for refining this date comes from comparisons to his other texts and an assessment of the chronology of Bede’s work as a whole. Holder (2005b p 113, note 21, and 2011 p 329, note 95) has noted that similar comments on verse 4:9 and 8:1 from the Song of Songs in book 4 of the Commentarius in primam partem Samuhelis and the Songs commentary suggest that the latter was written before the former. Indeed, stating that “it is quite possible that this work on the Song of Songs was the very first in Bede’s remarkable collection of Old Testament commentaries,” he concludes his earlier essay: “thus it may well be that the inception of Bede’s illustrious career as a commentator on the Old Testament can be attributed to the fervour of his anti-Pelagian convictions” (p 103). Since it is not mentioned in the Letters to ACCA from this period,

Bible: Commentaries

67

it appears more likely to be contemporary with the completion of the Commentary on Samuel, and so from around 717. MSS. Although, as M.L.W. Laistner’s (1943 pp 66-70) list of 67 manuscripts (including two which contain extracts) makes clear, the Commentarius in Canticum Canticorum survived in many copies, none is from Anglo-Saxon England. Lists. For the ALCUIN booklist, see the introduction, BEDE, in volume 1. Among the 21 or so books donated by ÆTHELWOLD, bishop of Winchester (963-84), to Peterborough is a “Commentum cantica canticorum”; while noting other possibilities, Michael Lapidge writes, “the commentary most likely to be in question is that of Bede.” A-S Vers. Alcuin’s Commentarius in Canticum Canticorum (ed. PL 100.641-64; CSLMA Auctores Galliae 2.116-19) is an abridgment of Bede’s work. Quots/Cits 1-3. As Malcolm Godden (2000 p 485) points out in a note on Homily 14 for Palm Sunday in the second series of Catholic Homilies (B1.2.16; ed. Godden 1979 pp 137-49), ÆLFRIC explained in this homily and in two others that the saints whose graves are opened and who arise at the time of the crucifixion (Mt 27:52) then ascend with Christ to heaven. In his entries in Fontes Anglo-Saxonici, he had identified Bede’s Commentarius in Cantica Canticorum (ed. CCSL 119B.274) as a possible source for the Palm Sunday homily. It appears, however, that all three passages derive from PASCHASIUS RADBERTUS, the certain source of the second. Refs. For the references to Bede in BONIFACE’s Epistolae 75 and 76 (ed. Tangl 1955 pp 156-59), see the introduction, BEDE, in volume 1. In letter 126 (ed. Tangl 1955 pp 263-64) LULL asked for this work. Alcuin’s reference in the Versus de sanctis Euboricensis ecclesiae (ed. Godman 1982 pp 102-03) is generally to Bede’s “many works unravelling the mysterious volumes of Holy Scripture,” and so could point to any of his biblical commentaries or his Homiliary. For the possible influence on Alcuin of Bede’s discussion here and elsewhere of Christ as feminine, see the Commentarius in primam partem Samuhelis. The work also appears in PL 91.1065-236. A translation (excluding chapters 1 and 7) appears in Arthur G. Holder (2011 pp 37-249). De eo quod ait Isaias: see Epistola ad Accam (De eo quod ait Isaias) in Letters.

68 

BEDE – PART 2

Commentarius in canticum Habacuc [BEDA.Comm.Cant.Habac.]: CPL 1354; RBMA 1612. ed.: CCSL 119B.379-409. MSS Cambridge, Pembroke College, 81: ASM 133. Lists ? Alcuin: ML 1.7. A-S Vers – Quots/Cits none. Refs 1. ? BONIF.Epist. 75, 158.8-12. 2. ? BONIF.Epist. 76, 159.12-15. 3. ? ALCVIN.Vers.Eubor., 1306-08. This exposition of the third chapter of Habakkuk was written, as its opening line informs us, in response to an anonymous nun, who had asked Bede to explain the prophet’s canticle: “canticum prophetae Abacuc, quod tibi exponi petisti, dilectissima in Christo soror, sacramenta dominicae passionis maximo pronuntiat” (ed. CCSL 119B.381; “the canticle of the prophet Habakkuk, which you requested to have expounded to you, my dearly beloved sister in Christ, is mainly a proclamation of the mysteries of the Lord’s passion,” trans. Connolly 1997 p 65) The reason for the request becomes clearer in Bede’s following remark that its association with Christ’s crucifixion had led to inclusion in the liturgy “in laudibus matutinis” (“at the morning praises”) on Fridays (see Connolly’s note on the precise meaning of this term). The nun and, apparently, her community had turned to Bede to unfold the meaning of an obscure text that they knew well from regular recitation. The canticle, Bede added, “et incarnationis ipsius, resurrectionis, et ascensionis in caelos, fidei quoque gentium, et perfidiae iudaeorum mystice describit euentum” (ed. 119B.381; “also gives a mystical account of his incarnation, resurrection and ascension into heaven, as well as of the faith of the Gentiles and the unbelief of the Jews,” trans. p 65). The work’s source in the liturgy is further indicated by the text Bede used, not the Vulgate, but rather the Old Latin version, which is closely related to the Septuagint Greek. His verse by verse commentary is largely original, echoing only on occasion JEROME’s Commentarii in

Bible: Commentaries

69

Prophetas minores. For its position on educated women, see Benedicta Ward (1995) and Sarah Foot (2014); and on Jews, see Andrew Scheil (2004 pp 30-110). Bede listed the work in Historia ecclesiastica gentis Anglorum V.xxiv as “in Canticum Habacum” (ed. Lapidge 2010 2.480), which indicates that it was written before 731. We would also place it after c. 716; see the Epistola ad sororem in Letters. MSS. M.L.W. Laistner (1943 p 43) lists twelve manuscripts of the work, all of which were used by J.E. Hudson for his edition in the CCSL. The Pembroke College copy is included by Michael Lapidge (2006 p 168) in his list of “NinthCentury Manuscripts of Continental Origin Having Pre-Conquest English Provenance.” Lists. For the ALCUIN booklist, see the introduction, BEDE, in volume 1. Refs. For the references to Bede in BONIFACE’s Epistolae 75 and 76 (ed. Tangl 1955 pp 156-59), see the introduction, BEDE, in volume 1. Alcuin’s reference in the Versus de sanctis Euboricensis ecclesiae (ed. Godman 1982 pp 102-03) is generally to Bede’s “many works unravelling the mysterious volumes of Holy Scripture,” and so could point to any of his biblical commentaries or his Homiliary. The work also appears in PL 91.1235-54. It is translated by Seán Connolly (1997 pp 65-95). VIII quaestiones [BEDA.Quaest.viii.]: CPL 1364; CPPM 2.400. ed.: Gorman (1999 pp 62-74). MSS none. Lists ? Alcuin: ML 1.7. A-S Vers – Quots/Cits none. Refs 1. ? BONIF.Epist. 75, 158.8-12. 2. ? BONIF.Epist. 76, 159.12-15. 3. ? ALCVIN.Vers.Eubor., 1306-08.

70 

BEDE – PART 2

Although the eight questions edited by Michael Gorman (1999) are accepted as by Bede, it is not certain when he compiled them, if he indeed did, into a single work. The list of his writings in Historia ecclesiastica gentis Anglorum V.xxiv (ed. Lapidge 2010 2.480-84) contains nothing that might correspond to this text. On the other hand, as Gorman states, all nine of the manuscripts that preserve the VIII quaestiones attribute it to Bede and in five of them, where it follows In regum librum xxx quaestiones, it is preceded by the rubric “incipit ad eundem de octo subiectis quaestionibus” (“here begins the work to the same man on the eight questions which he has forwarded”; ed. and trans. Gorman 1999 p 34, who supplies Nothelm as the man in question). Moreover, Gorman discusses and prints (for the first time) eight chapter headings that precede the work in these five manuscripts. They are, as he writes, “very similar to those Bede composed for the XXX Quaestiones” (p 34). Finally, also relevant, as Paul Lehmann (1919 p 21, note 2) points out, is a letter from Abbot Lupus of Ferrières to Abbot Ealdsige of York requesting the “‘Questions’ of your Bede on both Testaments” (trans. EHD 878; ed. MGH ECA 4.62). Taken together, this information supports Gorman’s view that the VIII quaestiones was composed by Bede after the completion of the Historia ecclesiastica. In contrast, Arthur G. Holder (in Foley and Holder 1999 p 146) considers Paul Meyvaert’s (1997 p 277, note 33) suggestion that the VIII quaestiones “was a compilation of Bedan material put together by others at Wearmouth-Jarrow, probably after Bede’s death” more probable. It appears likely, however, that Bede drew the work from individual responses that he had written to Nothelm over a period of years, following his In regum librum xxx quaestiones; see Letters. Question one concerns the star of Bethlehem and the gifts of the Magi. Questions 2-5 discuss verses from Paul’s Epistles (2 Cor 11:24, 2 Cor 11:26, Rom 12:19, and Rom 15:5). Questions 6 and 8 consider passages from 2 Kings (2 Samuel): David’s lament for Saul and Jonathan (1:19-27) and his bringing of the ark into Jerusalem (6:1-23). Question 7 explains Psalm 118:40, “ignitum eloquium tuum vehementer,” God’s fiery speech. As Foley notes, “references to manuscript illumination in Question 2, and to wall painting in Question 6, provide precious information about the relationship between biblical exegesis and the visual arts in early Anglo-Saxon England”; and “in Question 3, Bede cites a gloss which he had heard attributed to THEODORE OF TARSUS, thereby giving us a tantalizing glimpse of the teaching offered at the famous seventh-century school at Canterbury” (p 147). Lists. For the ALCUIN booklist, see the introduction, BEDE, in volume 1. Refs 1-3. For the references to Bede in BONIFACE’s Epistolae 75 and 76 (ed. Tangl 1955 pp 156-59), see the introduction, BEDE, in volume 1. Alcuin’s

Bible: Commentaries

71

reference in the Versus de sanctis Euboricensis ecclesiae (ed. Godman 1982 pp 102-03) is generally to Bede’s “many works unravelling the mysterious volumes of Holy Scripture,” and so could point to any of his biblical commentaries or his Homiliary. The eight questions appear with seven more that are not considered genuine in PL 93.455-78. All are referred to as Aliquot quaestionum liber. The CPL and Michael Lapidge (2010 1.xlvii) use this same title to refer to the eight authentic questions (ed. PL 93.455-62 and Gorman 1997). The translation in W. Trent Foley and Arthur G. Holder (1999 pp 149-65) was first made from the text in PL, but then incorporated corrections from Gorman’s edition. Commentarius in Marcum [BEDA.Comm.Marc.]: CPL 1355; RBMA 1613. ed. CCSL 120.431-648. MSS see below. Lists 1. ? Alcuin: ML 1.7. 2. Æthelwold: ML 4.2. A-S Vers none. Quots/Cits 1. Comm.Marc., III, 1278-95: ALCVIN.Comm.Ioan., 909.38-910.2. 2. ? Comm.Marc., IV, 1867: Mart (B19.1; Mary Magdalen), 142.10-11. 3. ? Comm.Marc., III, 471-76 : ÆCHom I, 34 (B1.1.36), 211-16. 4. ? Comm.Marc., III, 48-84 : ÆCHom I, 34 (B1.1.36), 227-28. 5. Comm.Marc., IV, 616-19: ÆCHom II, 14 (B1.2.16), 54-58. 6. Comm.Marc., IV, 523-28: ÆCHom II, 14 (B1.2.16), 58-63. 7. Comm.Marc., IV, 621-28: ÆCHom II, 14 (B1.2.16), 63-68. 8. Comm.Marc., IV, 1253-85: ÆCHom II, 14 (B1.2.16), 210-18. 9. Comm.Marc., IV, 1598-99: ÆCHom II, 14 (B1.2.16), 289-91. 10. Comm.Marc., IV, 1586-88: ÆCHom II, 14 (B1.2.16), 295-98. 11. Comm.Marc., II, 75-76: ÆCHom II, 27 (B1.2.30), 140. 12. Comm.Marc., II, 3-6: ÆCHom II, 27 (B1.2.30), 142-46. 13. Comm.Marc., II, 134-38: ÆCHom II, 27 (B1.2.30), 179-82. 14. Comm.Marc., II, 198-200: ÆCHom II, 27 (B1.2.30), 182-85.

72 

BEDE – PART 2

15. Comm.Marc., II, 186-92: ÆCHom II, 27 (B1.2.30), 186-94. 16. ? Comm.Marc., II, 1083-87: ÆCHom II, 28 (B1.2.31), 86-92. 17. Comm.Marc.: ÆCHom II, 29 (B1.2.32). 18. Comm.Marc., III, 1518-20: ÆHom 8 (B1.4.8), 99-101. 19. Comm.Marc., III, 1521-28 : ÆHom 8 (B1.4.8), 106-18. 20. Comm.Marc., II, 1425-26: ÆHom 17 (B1.4.17), 78-81. 21. Comm.Marc., II, 75-76: ÆHom 17 (B1.4.17), 213. 22. Comm.Marc., II, 3-6: ÆHom 17 (B1.4.17), 215-19. 23. Comm.Marc., II, 134-38: ÆHom 17 (B1.4.17), 252-55. 24. Comm.Marc., II, 198-200: ÆHom 17 (B1.4.17), 256-57. 25. Comm.Marc., II, 186-92: ÆHom 17 (B1.4.17), 260-71. 26. Comm.Marc., IV, 163-65: ÆHom 18 (B1.4.18), 328-44. 27. Comm.Marc., IV, 173-185: ÆHom 18 (B1.4.18), 347-65. 28. Comm.Marc.: ÆHomM 11 (B1.4.11). 29. ? Comm.Marc., IV, 1819-20: ByrM (B20.20), IV.i, 85. Refs 1. ? BONIF.Epist. 75, 158.8-12. 2. ? BONIF.Epist. 76, 159.12-15. 3. LULL.Epist. 125. 263.9-10. 4. ? ALCVIN.Vers.Eubor., 1306-08. 5. BYRHT.Comp., IV, 25-26. As Bede stated in the preface, also discussed as the Epistola ad Accam (Commentarius in Marcum), this commentary was composed “many years” (ed. CCSL 120.432) after his Commentarius in Lucam, which can be dated to around 711. Since he also mentioned the Commentarius in primam partem Samuhelis, it must have been written after 716, when Bede was finishing this work. In any case, it was completed before 731 because he included it in his list of works in Historia ecclesiastica gentis Anglorum V.xxiv: “in euangelium Marci libros IIII” (ed. Lapidge 2010 2.482). Noting a correspondence in the Commentary (ed. CCSL 120.464) to a passage from De tabernaculo, probably written around 721, W. Trent Foley (2005 p 108) has specified 721-731 as the likely time of composition. The Commentary includes large blocks of the earlier Commentary on Luke whenever the two synoptic Gospels overlap. Nevertheless, it manifests some of Bede’s finest and most mature exegesis, interweaving appropriate sections from the Fathers with his own contributions. In the first section (ed. CCSL 120.437-38), for instance, he discussed on his own the differing time frames of the Gospels, and the appropriateness of those differences.

Bible: Commentaries

73

Although he mostly explicated the texts on a literal and historical level, he did not hesitate to indicate a tropological meaning when suitable; see, for example, his comments on Mark 11:11 concerning how, in entering a new town, one should visit the church first to pray before conducting other business (ed. CCSL 120.470). He elaborated spiritual meanings as when, for example, in the subsequent passage, which describes Christ driving the money changers from the temple, he pointed out that the individual soul is the temple that the Lord cleanses and purifies (ed. 120.473-74). MSS M.L.W. Laistner (1943 p 50) calls attention to the “remarkable” number of early manuscripts, some of which “still preserve the source-marks appended by the author to many of the passages that he borrowed from AMBROSE, JEROME, AUGUSTINE, and GREGORY.” Of the 95 copies and two excerpts that he identifies, none was written or known in Anglo-Saxon England. Three extracts (from book 2 lines 1515-680, book 3 lines 202-344, and book 3 lines 1823-949), however, circulated in the second part of the Homiliary of PAUL THE DEACON (Grégoire 1980 pp 464, 468, and 469; numbers 60, 82, and 87), which survives in modified forms in fourteen Anglo-Saxon manuscripts; see the introduction to Bible: Homilies and the entries on the extracts beginning with Mark 8:1 (II, 60) and Mark 9:16 (II, 82); II, 87 has not been identified in any Anglo-Saxon manuscript. The first of these homilies (exComm.Marc. 8:1) is significant for the discussion of ÆLFRIC’s Catholic Homily II, 25. Indeed, because it seems more likely that Ælfric would have worked from this homiletic extract rather than from the entire Commentary, the correspondences are mentioned in this entry, but listed and discussed in an entry below, Extract ex Comm.Marc., II, 1512-680. Moreover, modified forms of Paul the Deacon’s Homiliary circulated in Anglo-Saxon England and these include additional extracts, which have also been given separate entries below. Mary Clayton (1993 p 4 and note 16) calls attention to three “English versions of Paul the Deacon” – Cambridge, University Library Kk. 4. 13 (ASM 24); Lincoln, Cathedral Library, 158 (ASM 273); and London, British Library, Royal 2. C. iii (ASM 452) – that contain a homily whose second part is extracted from the Commentary (book 4, lines 341-66). She suggests that this sermon, rather than the Commentary itself, might be a source for Ælfric’s second homily for the feast of a Confessor known as Assmann 4 (B1.4.11; ed. Assmann 1964 pp 49-64). Following her lead, the correspondence is mentioned below, but listed and discussed in a following entry. In addition, David Dumville (1992 p 127) notes “acephalous lections derived from Bede’s commentary on Mark” in London, British Library, Cotton Nero E. i, vol. 2 (ASM 345).

74 

BEDE – PART 2

Lists. For the ALCUIN booklist, see the introduction, BEDE, in volume 1. The work is specif ically mentioned in the list of volumes donated by ÆTHELWOLD, bishop of Winchester, to the monastery at Peterborough: “Beda in Marcum” (ML 4.2). Quots/Cits 1. In his Commentarius in Iohannis euangelium (ed. PL 100.737-1008), Alcuin extracted one passage from Bede’s Commentary, which had brought together passages from Augustine and Jerome to explain the etymology of “Ossana” (Mc 11.9 and Io 12:13); see Michael Gorman (2009 p 76). Quots/Cits 2. In his discussion of the entry on Mary Magdalen in the OLD ENGLISH MARTYROLOGY (B19.1), J.E. Cross (1978 p 16) identifies the phrase “universa vitia” in Gregory the Great’s Homiliae in Euangelia 33 (ed. PL 76.1239, lines 41-42) as the source of the Old English “þæt wæs mid eallum uncystum” (“that was all the vices,” ed. and trans. Rauer 2013 pp 142-43). He also notes that Bede incorporated this passage from Gregory in his commentaries on both Mark and Luke. In her edition, Christine Rauer (2013 p 274) comments that “any or all” of these “could have been used by the martyrologist.” She does not specify exact correspondences in her entries in Fontes Anglo-Saxonici. Quots/Cits 3-4. In Homily 34 in the first series of the Catholic Homilies (B1.1.36; ed. Clemoes 1997 pp 465-75), Ælfric turned from the dedication of the Church of St Michael to the Gospel reading of the day, Matthew 18:1-10, drawing largely on a sermon of HAYMO OF AUXERRE. Yet, as Malcolm Godden (2000 p 282) notes, in a number of cases closer parallels can be found in earlier authorities, such as Jerome and Bede. Lines 211-16 and 227-28 provide two examples from the Commentary on Mark, both of which are considered possible sources by Godden in his entries in Fontes Anglo-Saxonici. In the first, Ælfric’s interpretation of Mark 9:41 – “he who enters upon a holy order in God’s church, and afterwards by instigation or by sinful life gives evil example to others, and perverts their understanding, then better were it for him that he alone perished in his worldly life, than that he in holy guise should draw others with him to perdition through his depraved morals” (trans. Thorpe 1844-46 1.515) – is indeed close to Bede. Although not noted in the CCSL, Bede here quoted Gregory the Great’s Regula pastoralis (I.2). The second interprets the “hand” of Mark 9:42 as “the needful friend, who with work and succour daily ministers to our need” (trans. 1.517). As Godden notes, both passages are repeated in ­SMARAGDUS’s Collectiones. Quots/Cits 5-10. Godden (2000 p 474) states that establishing precise sources for Ælfric’s discussion of the Last Supper and Passion in Homily 14 of the second series of Catholic Homilies (B1.2.16; ed. Godden 1979 pp

Bible: Commentaries

75

137-49) presents problems because the main ultimate sources, Jerome’s Commentary on Matthew and Augustine’s Tractates on John were also used by Bede in his commentaries on Mark and Luke, and all three fathers were used by HAYMO and Smaragdus. He parallels, however, lines 210-18, concerning the purple garments and crown of thorns Christ is forced to wear, with details drawn only from this Commentary. In his entries in Fontes Anglo-Saxonici, Godden divides this passage into five entries, considering Bede in each case to be a multiple possible source. The three earlier correspondences in Ælfric’s sermon (lines 54-58, 58-63, and 63-68), concerning Judas’s treachery and Christ’s blessing of the bread, could come from many places, as could the two following ones (lines 289-91 and 295-98), concerning Christ’s divinity as he dies and the rending of the veil of the temple. Quots/Cits 11-15. A passage appended to Catholic Homilies II, 23 (B1.2.30; ed. Godden 1979 pp 217-20), which Ælfric later incorporated into Homily 17 of his Supplementary Collection (B1.4.17; ed. Pope 1967-68 pp 567-80; see Godden 2000 p 550) and which discusses Christ’s calming of the tempest on the Sea of Galilee (Mt 8:23-27) and his casting out of a legion of devils (Mc 5:1-20), draws on Bede’s Commentary. The first correspondence (11) noted above rests on a single detail: sailors are mentioned as being present (Bede here follows Jerome) as well as the disciples at the first miracle. The second (12), which finds Christ’s two natures revealed by his sleeping and then calming the sea, comes directly from this Commentary. Godden (2000 p 555) considers the two correspondences proposed by John C. Pope for lines 179-82 (13; contrasting the devils who acknowledge Christ with the Jews who do not) and 182-85 (14; the devils enter the swine only with Christ’s leave) to be “loosely parallel”; in his entries in Fontes Anglo-Saxonici he had considered these certain direct sources. Finally, Godden finds the passage Pope proposed as the source for lines 186-94 (15; an analogy between the behaviour of sinful men and the habits of swine), to be “not at all similar,” offering instead a passage from the Old English version of Gregory’s Pastoral Care; in Fontes he had listed Bede as a possible source. Quots/Cits 16. Catholic Homilies II, 24 (B1.2.31; ed. Godden 1979 pp 221-29) concerning Peter’s release from prison by an angel (Act 12:1-23) and his walking on water (Mt 14:22-36) contains a passage interpreting the sea as this present world (lines 86-92) attributed to Augustine but, according to Godden (2000 p 560), “without close parallels”; he offers this Commentary as a possible source. Quots/Cits 17. Following Max Förster (1894 p 26) and Cyril Smetana (1959 p 199), Godden (2000 p 564) identifies Bede’s Commentarius in Marcum as the “main source” for Ælfric’s sermon on the feeding of the four thousand,

76 

BEDE – PART 2

Catholic Homilies II, 25 (B1.2.32; ed. Godden 1979 pp 230-34). Yet he also considers the possibility that Ælfric’s direct source was “the adapted commentary on the pericope found in a homily in Paul the Deacon” (565; see Grégoire 1980 p 464, II, 60). The thirteen quotations he lists, which demonstrate the variety of ways the Old English writer used his source, are discussed in a following entry, Extract ex Comm.Marc. II, 1512-680. Quots/Cits 18-19. Homily 8 in Ælfric’s Supplementary Collection (B1.4.8; ed. Pope 1967-68 pp 357-68), on John 16:23-30 and concerning the power of prayer, draws freely on a number of sources, including at one point the Commentarius in Marcum. After quoting and translating Mark 11:23 (“Amen I say to you, that whosoever shall say to this mountain, Be thou removed and be cast into the sea, and shall not stagger in his heart, but believe, that whatsoever he saith shall be done: it shall be done unto him”), Ælfric turned to the story of Gregory the Thaumaturgist who moves a mountain to build a church. The first quotation listed above (18), considered a certain direct source in Fontes Anglo-Saxonici, confirms that Bede is his inspiration here. Yet the rest of the account is closer in some details to other versions (see Pope 1967-68 p 369 and Fontes Anglo-Saxonici). The particular correspondence that Pope notes in 19 is between “in loco apto” (ed. CCSL 120.581) and “the place was fitting for monastic life” (ed. p 362, line 109, “þær wæs se stede myrige to þam mynsterlífe”). Quots/Cits 20-25. Ælfric devoted more than half of Homily 17 in the Supplementary Collection (mentioned above) to expounding the reading for the day, Mark 7:31-37, Christ’s healing of the person unable to hear or speak, at one point drawing on the Commentary on Mark for geographical information about Decapolis (see Pope 1967-68 p 565). The next five quotations (21-25) have been discussed in connection to Catholic Homily II, 23. Quots/Cits 26-27. Two passages in Homily 18, on the Last Judgement, in the Supplementary Collection (B1.4.18; ed. Pope 1967-68 pp 590-609) are likely to derive from Bede’s Commentary. The first concerns the spiritual meaning of Matthew 24:20 (cf. Mc 13:18), “but pray that your flight be not in the winter, or on the sabbath,” which Jerome interpreted (and Bede repeated) as commands not to let one’s faith in and love for Christ grow cold and not to grow lazy in the work of God. The second, on the following verse, discusses the great tribulations at the end of time, which Ælfric contrasted to the torments of the martyrs. Pope (1967-68 pp 605-06) prints an extract from Bede’s Commentary following one from Gregory, but the entire passage appears closer to Bede; Fontes Anglo-Saxonici considers Bede the probable direct source. Quots/Cits 28. Mary Clayton (1993 p 6) identifies the Commentary IV.35765 as the source for lines 47-50 in Ælfric’s homily commonly known as

Bible: Commentaries

77

Assmann 4 (B1.4.11; ed. Assmann 1964 pp 49-64). It is listed in a following entry, Extract ex Comm.Marc., IV, 331-66. Quots/Cits 29. As a transition to a discussion of the number five in his Enchiridion (ed. and trans. Baker and Lapidge 1995 pp 202-03) BYRHTFERTH wrote: “from four let us make a ‘Galilee’ to five.” In their notes, Peter S. Baker and Michael Lapidge (p 344) explain that Byrhtferth “idiosyncratically” used Galilea to mean “transition,” based ultimately on Jerome’s Liber interpretationis hebraicorum nominum, but also found in works by Augustine and Gregory the Great. Bede also repeated this information in his Homily II.7 and his Commentary on Mark, making it a possible source for Byrhtferth. Refs. For the references to Bede in BONIFACE’s Epistolae 75 and 76 and for LULL’s specific request for a copy of it from York, see the introduction, BEDE, in volume 1. Alcuin’s reference in the Versus de sanctis Euboricensis ecclesiae (ed. Godman 1982 pp 102-03) is generally to Bede’s “many works unravelling the mysterious volumes of Holy Scripture,” and so could point to any of his biblical commentaries or his Homiliary. In the “Epilogus” to his Computus (ed. Baker and Lapidge 1995 pp 375-79), Byrhtferth wrote that Bede “expounded more clearly than light some of the writings of the four evangelists,” which could refer to this work, his Commentarius in Lucam, or his Homiliae. The commentary is also edited in PL 92.131-302. For an overview of Bede’s work on the New Testament, see Arthur G. Holder (2010). Extract ex Comm.Marc., I, 1-123. ed.: CCSL 120.437-40. MSS Worcester, Cathedral Library, F. 92: ASM 763. Lists – Refs none. Bede’s discussion of Mark 1:1-3, the opening verses about the preaching of John the Baptist, circulated as a homily in an English version of the Homiliary of PAUL THE DEACON; see the introduction for Bible: Homilies. According to Rodney M. Thomson’s (2001 p 58) catalogue of the Worcester Cathedral Library, this extract opens its manuscript F. 92.

78 

BEDE – PART 2

Extract ex Comm.Marc., II, 729-825. ed.: CCSL 120.507-10. MSS 1. Cambridge, University Library, Kk. 4. 13: ASM 24. 2. Cambridge, Pembroke College, 24: ASM 130. 3. Canterbury, Cathedral Library and Archives, Add. 127/1: ASM 209. 4. Lincoln, Cathedral Library, 158 (C. 2. 2): ASM 273. 5. London, British Library, Royal 2. C. iii: ASM 452. 6. Worcester, Cathedral Library, F. 94: ASM 763.2. Lists – Refs none. James E. Cross and Thomas N. Hall (1993) have established that this extract from the Commentarius in Marcum about the death of John the Baptist as found in Mark 6:17-28 circulated in some English versions of the Homiliary of PAUL THE DEACON; see the introduction, Bible: Homilies. The fragment in Canterbury manuscript contains lines 803-24. See also Rodney M. Thomson’s (2001 p 66) catalogue of the Worcester Cathedral Library. Extract ex Comm.Marc., II, 1512-680. ed.: CCSL 120.527-31. MSS 1. Cambridge, University Library, Ii. 2. 19, fols. 1-216: ASM 16. 2. Cambridge, Pembroke College, 23: ASM 129. 3. Durham, Cathedral Library, A. III. 29: ASM 222. 4. London, British Library, Harley 652: ASM 424. 5. Worcester, Cathedral Library, F. 93: ASM 763.1. Lists – A-S Vers none. Quots/Cits 1. Comm.Marc., II, 1529-30: ÆCHom II, 29 (B1.2.32), 28-30. 2. Comm.Marc., II, 1515-23: ÆCHom II, 29 (B1.2.32), 32-34. 3. Comm.Marc., II, 1548-54: ÆCHom II, 29 (B1.2.32), 35-39. 4. Comm.Marc., II, 1554-58: ÆCHom II, 29 (B1.2.32), 39-45. 5. Comm.Marc., II, 1561-81: ÆCHom II, 29 (B1.2.32), 46-63.

Bible: Commentaries

79

6. Comm.Marc., II, 1583-85: ÆCHom II, 29 (B1.2.32), 64-66. 7. Comm.Marc., II, 1590-97: ÆCHom II, 29 (B1.2.32), 72-77. 8. Comm.Marc., II, 1622-26: ÆCHom II, 29 (B1.2.32), 97-101. 9. Comm.Marc., II, 1606-22: ÆCHom II, 29 (B1.2.32), 101-10. 10. ? Comm.Marc., II, 1630-33: ÆCHom II, 29 (B1.2.32), 111-13. 11. Comm.Marc., II, 1638-52: ÆCHom II, 29 (B1.2.32), 114-20. 12. Comm.Marc., II, 1661-69: ÆCHom II, 29 (B1.2.32), 121-27. 13. ? Comm.Marc., II, 1679-80: ÆCHom II, 29 (B1.2.28), 135-37. Refs none. Bede’s explanation of Mark 8:1-9, the feeding of the four thousand, was extracted as a homily in the PAUL THE DEACON’s Homiliary, II, 60 (Grégoire 1980 p 464; see also Bible: Homilies). As such it circulated separately from the rest of the Commentary in later Anglo-Saxon England. MSS. The manuscripts listed above, versions of Paul the Deacon’s Homiliary, are discussed in the introduction, Bible: Homilies. The presence of the homily in the Cambridge University and London manuscripts is noted by Mary Richards (1988 p 105). Rodney M. Thomson (2001 p 64) identifies it in the Worcester manuscript. Thomas Rud (1825 p 48) lists its incipit in the Durham manuscript. M.R. James (1905 p 22) specifies PL 94.280 for Pembroke College 23. Quots/Cits 1-13. Following Max Förster (1894 p 26) and Cyril Smetana (1959 p 199), Malcolm Godden (2000 p 564) identifies Bede’s Commentarius in Marcum, “perhaps in the form of the adapted commentary on the pericope” considered here, as the “main source” for ÆLFRIC’s sermon on the feeding of the four thousand, Catholic Homilies II, 25 (B1.2.32; ed. Godden 1979 pp 230-34). As Godden notes, “the one substantial point which catches his attention and interest is the distinction between the ordinary faithful and the perfect or elect who follow a higher ideal,” a point, too, which he takes from the Commentary even though not always at the same places. Godden (pp 564-65) explains that Ælfric adapted Bede’s “distinction between the ordinary faithful and the perfect or elect who follow a higher ideal,” expressed in his interpretations of “the few fishes of the story as the saints whose lives and passions serve as a model for others,” “the food which is left over” as “the higher teachings of perfection which only the sancti can follow,” and “the baskets in which it is collected” as “the qualities possessed by the sancti or electi.” While “Ælfric refuses to follow Bede in any of these interpretations,” he understood this miracle, as opposed to Christ’s

80 

BEDE – PART 2

feeding of the five thousand (Io 6:1-14, the subject of Catholic Homily I, 12), as embodying “the New Testament teaching to abandon the world and its possessions.” Godden concludes: “Ælfric is clearly aware of the distinctions which Bede is trying to find in the text but prefers to express it in his own terms and to concentrate on the ways in which the miracle applies to the multitude of the faithful rather than the perfect few.” He adds, “Something of Bede’s tone and focus does come over, however, in Ælfric’s repeated use of the term gecorenan, ‘the elect,’ at 36, 66, 68, 71, 125 (the first and last translate Bede’s electi but the others are not derived from his sources).” Crediting Cyril Smetana (1959), Godden (2000 p 566) notes that Ælfric’s opening comparison of this miracle to John 6:1-14 was probably influenced by HAYMO; yet his characterization of this story – “but in this refection were betokened the truth and the grace which were accomplished through Christ in the New Testament” (trans. Thorpe 1844-46 2.397) – derives directly from Bede. The idea for the next correspondence (2) comes from Bede, but as Godden states, “not the concise phrasing”: “through his true humanity he had compassion on the people’s want of food, and through his almighty Godhead he easily fed them” (trans. 2.397). The next three correspondences apply the story to the lives of Christians: just as “the people abode three days with Jesus for the healing of their sick,” “now daily God’s chosen, with belief, await the Holy Trinity” (trans. 2.397); “the Lord would not send the multitude from him to return fasting […] because he feeds those who by repentance turn to him, with the food of the holy doctrine”; and “some came from afar” just as some “turn to true repentance” having committed more serious sins (trans. 2.397-99). Translating Bede closely, Ælfric identified the seven loaves as “set in the mystery of the New Testament for the sevenfold grace of the Holy Ghost, which will be revealed and given to God’s chosen” (6; trans. 2.399). Again contrasting the two miracles and following Bede, he associated the grass with the “concupiscent pleasure” that the Old Law enjoins be pressed down and trod on and the earth with “transitory possessions” that the New Law enjoins be forsaken (7; trans. 2.399). Godden comments that the eighth correspondence, “the Lord thanked before he brake the loaves, manifesting how greatly he rejoices for the happiness of mankind; and thereby prompts us to thank him, as often as we nourish our bodies with earthly food or our souls with salutary doctrine” (trans. 2.401), is “very close to Bede.” Lines 101-10 are “loosely based on Bede,” yet with both using the same quotation from Lamentations (4:4): giving the food to the disciples symbolizes Christ’s teaching through them of “all believing nations,” which did not have “a teacher that was able to open to them the hidden lore, and incline them to the way of life” (9; trans. 2.401). In interpreting the fishes as “the teachers

Bible: Commentaries

81

who wrote the books of the law by direction of the Holy Ghost,” Ælfric, in Godden’s view, “must have knowingly rejected” Bede’s identification of them as the saints whose lives are recorded in the New Testament” (10; Godden 2000 pp 568-69). Godden identifies similar ideas in the PSEUDO-BEDE Commentary on Matthew and a commentary on Matthew attributed to HRABANUS MAURUS; yet since “there is little evidence that Ælfric knew either of these commentaries,” “the agreement perhaps reflects a variant version of Bede.” A different approach to this crux, however, may lie in recognizing Ælfric’s less sharp distinction between the evangelists and the saints; see Biggs (2007). In any case, Ælfric follows Bede in explaining Mark 8:8 (“and they did eat and were filled”) as an injunction not only to hear Christ’s instruction but also “through it [to] correct themselves” (11; trans. 2.401). In interpreting the left-over food, he passed over Bede’s view that it represents a higher teaching for the elect, but, by associating it with the rushes and palm twigs baskets, then used Bede’s explications of these details: “the rush grows usually in watery places, and the palm is the sign of victory; and it is befitting God’s chosen that they place the root of their hearts in the well of life, which is God, lest they become seared up from his eternal love” (12; trans. 2.403). Finally, Ælfric may have been influenced by the last line of the extract when he interpreted the four thousand as “the fourfold book of Christ, which through its lore daily feeds the believing” (13; trans. 2.403). It is Homily 6 in “liber III, homiliae subdititiae” of the PL’s printing of Bede’s homilies, PL 94.280-83; see CCSL 122.381-84. Extract ex Comm.Marc., III, 202-344. ed.: CCSL 120.547-50. MSS 1. Cambridge, University Library, Ii. 2. 19, fols. 1-216: ASM 16. 2. Cambridge, Pembroke College, 23: ASM 129. 3. London, British Library, Harley 652: ASM 424. 4. Salisbury, Cathedral Library, 179: ASM 753. 5. Worcester, Cathedral Library, F. 92: ASM 763. Lists – Refs none. Bede interpreted Mark 9:16-29, the healing of the epileptic child. This extract was included as homily II, 82 in PAUL THE DEACON’s Homiliary (see Grégoire 1980 p 468 and the introduction, Bible: Homilies). For the

82 

BEDE – PART 2

Cambridge and London manuscripts, see Mary P. Richards (1988 p 107); for the Worcester manuscript, see Rodney M. Thomson (2001 p 65). M.R. James (1905 p 22) specifies PL 94.312 for Pembroke College 23; here the extract begins in the second paragraph of Homily 21 in “liber III, homiliae subdititiae” of the PL’s printing of Bede’s homilies, PL 94.312-14 (see CCSL 122.381-84). The Salisbury manuscript is identified by Thomas N. Hall (see the introduction, Bible: Homilies). Extract ex Comm.Marc., III, 1913: see SMARAGDUS, Expositio Libri comitis. Rodney M. Thomson (2001 p 65) identifies item 137 in Worcester, Cathedral Library, F. 93 (ASM 763.1) as “extracts” from Bede’s Commentarius in Marcum, AUGUSTINE, Bede’s Commentarius in Lucam, and JEROME. The opening he cites is indeed from Bede’s Commentary on Mark (CCSL 120.590, book 3, line 1913), on Mark 12:32-33. He notes that the homily also appears in Cambridge, University Library Ii. 2. 19 (ASM 16) and London, British Library, Harley 652 (ASM 424). In his notes on Harley 652 (see the introduction, Bible: Homilies), Thomas N. Hall states that the Homily is adapted from SMARAGDUS, Expositio Libri comitis (ed. PL 102.472-73); the incipit listed by Thomson, however, corresponds to Bede’s “ostenditur” rather than to Smaragdus’s “ostendit” (line 22). Extract ex Comm.Marc., IV, 1-105. ed.: CCSL 120.595- 97. MSS 1. Cambridge, University Library, Kk. 4. 13: ASM 24. 2. Cambridge, Pembroke College, 24: ASM 130. 3. Lincoln, Cathedral Library, 158 (C. 2. 2): ASM 273. 4. London, British Library, Royal 2. C. iii: ASM 452. 5. Worcester, Cathedral Library, F. 94: ASM 763.2. Lists – Refs none. Bede interpreted Mark 13:1-13, Christ’s teaching on the signs of the end of time. Mary P. Richards (1988 p 100) identifies this extract in the Cambridge University, London and Lincoln manuscripts, all English versions of the Homiliary of PAUL THE DEACON (see the introduction, Bible: Homilies).

Bible: Commentaries

83

See Rodney M. Thomson (2001 p 67) for the Worcester manuscript and, for Pembroke 24, M.R. James (1905 p 23), who provides the incipit, “Recedente autem domino de templo,” and identifies the extract as for the feast of saints Gervasius and others. Extract ex Comm.Marc., IV, 331-66. ed.: CCSL 120.603-04. MSS 1. Cambridge, University Library, Kk. 4. 13: ASM 24. 2. Cambridge, Pembroke College, 24: ASM 130. 3. Lincoln, Cathedral Library, 158 (C. 2. 2): ASM 273. 4. London, British Library, Royal 2. C. iii: ASM 452. 5. Worcester, Cathedral Library, F. 94: ASM 763.2. Lists – A-S Vers none. Quots/Cits Comm.Marc. IV, 357-65: ÆHomM 11 (B1.4.11), 47-50. Refs none. Bede’s discussion of Mark 13:33-37, Christ’s teaching about the need for vigilance while waiting for the Last Judgement, was apparently extracted as a homily in English manuscripts of the Homiliary of PAUL THE DEACON (see Richards 1988 p 101 and the introduction, Bible: Homilies). In cataloguing Worcester, Cathedral Library, F. 94, Rodney M. Thomson (2001 p 67) lists two items (89 and 90) that might be this homily. The first appears under the rubric “in natali unius confessoris. Omelia excerpta de diuersis tractatoribus.” The incipit and explicit are, “Perspicue ostendit Dominus quare supradixerit de die […] in perpetuas aeternitates.” Thomson identifies this work as beginning with Bede’s Commentary and cites Hénri Barré (1962 p 343), which leads to the Homiliary of Pierre Quentell (p 194, item 52). The rubric of the second item is, “unde supra. Omelia uenerabilis Bedae presbiteri de eadem lectione.” Its incipit and explicit are, “Perspicue ostendit quare supradixerit de die […] de somno surgere.” Thomson’s reference to PL 92.266 corresponds to the lines of the CCSL edition cited above. In his catalogue of the Pembroke College Library, M.R. James (1905 p 25)

84 

BEDE – PART 2

identifies item 84 by referring to Homily 80 in “liber III, homiliae subdititiae” in the PL’s printing of Bede’s homilies, PL 94.470-71 (see CCSL 122.381-84), which begins “Perspicue ostendit Dominus quare dixerit.” The problem of distinguishing between the two or perhaps more homilies is further complicated because Bede’s opening is, as noted in the CCSL, drawn from JEROME. Mary Clayton (1993 p 6) suggests that the source for a discussion of the spiritual vigil against the devil based on Christ’s command to watch (Mc 13:37) in ÆLFRIC’s second homily for the feast of a confessor, a homily commonly known as Assmann 4 (B1.4.11; ed. Assmann 1964 pp 49-64), might be this extract. In her entries in Fontes Anglo-Saxonici she considers it a probable direct source. Commentarius in Lucam [BEDA.Comm.Luc.]: CPL 1356; RBMA 1614. ed.: CCSL 120.5-425. MSS 1. Cambridge, Pembroke College, 83: ASM 134. 2. Oxford, Bodleian Library, Bodley 218 (S.C. 2054): ASM 557. 3. Salisbury, Cathedral Library, 37: ASM 706. 4. Hannover, Kestner-Museum, Culemann I.71/72 (393/394) (with New Haven, Yale University, Beinecke Library, 441): ASM 831.2. Lists 1. ? Alcuin: ML 1.7. 2. Leofric: ML 10.43. A-S Vers none. Quots/Cits 1. ? Comm.Luc., III, 273: Mart (B19.1; Mary Magdalen), 142.10-11. 2. ? Comm.Luc., I, 1069-86: Or 5 (B9.2.6), 131.7-11. 3. ? Comm.Luc., I, 1051-53: Or 5 (B9.2.6), 131.12-14. 4. ? Comm.Luc., V, 2044-47: Or 5 (B9.2.6), 140.19. 5. ? Comm.Luc., I, 1047-55: HomS 1 (VercHom 5, B3.2.1), 45-52. 6. ? Comm.Luc., I, 1026-30: HomS 1 (VercHom 5, B3.2.1), 76-84. 7. ? Comm.Luc., I, 1026-30: HomU 10 (VercHom 6, B3.4.10), 18-22. 8. ? Comm.Luc., I, 1739-40: HomLS 19 (PurifMary, B3.3.19), 64-78. 9. Comm.Luc.: ÆCHom I, 2 (B1.1.3).

Bible: Commentaries

10. Comm.Luc., I, 1705-14: ÆCHom I, 9 (B1.1.10), 65-69. 11. Comm.Luc., I, 1742: ÆCHom I, 9 (B1.1.10), 84. 12. Comm.Luc., I, 2025-34: ÆCHom I, 9 (B1.1.10), 224-32. 13. Comm.Luc., I, 3092-95: ÆCHom I, 11 (B1.1.12), 82-84. 14. Comm.Luc., I, 3004: ÆCHom I, 11 (B1.1.12), 132. 15. Comm.Luc.: ÆCHom I, 13 (B1.1.14). 16. Comm.Luc., V, 1915-22: ÆCHom I, 14 (B1.1.15), 69-74. 17. Comm.Luc., VI, 2397-404: ÆCHom I, 21 (B1.1.23), 38-41. 18. Comm.Luc.: ÆCHom I, 33 (B1.1.35). 19. Comm.Luc., VI, 312-13: ÆCHom I, 40 (B1.1.42), 129-30. 20. Comm.Luc., VI, 332-36: ÆCHom I, 40 (B1.1.42), 157-65. 21. Comm.Luc., VI, 1697-99: ÆCHom II, 5 (B1.2.6), 140-42. 22. Comm.Luc., III, 323-25: ÆCHom II, 6 (B1.2.7), 53-55. 23. Comm.Luc., III, 312-18: ÆCHom II, 6 (B1.2.7), 55-63. 24. Comm.Luc., III, 325-33: ÆCHom II, 6 (B1.2.7), 64-72. 25. Comm.Luc., III, 379-86: ÆCHom II, 6 (B1.2.7), 72-78. 26. Comm.Luc., III, 335-39: ÆCHom II, 6 (B1.2.7), 79-89. 27. Comm.Luc., III, 409-19: ÆCHom II, 6 (B1.2.7), 90-105. 28. Comm.Luc., III, 435-47: ÆCHom II, 6 (B1.2.7), 115-35. 29. Comm.Luc., VI, 457-62: ÆCHom II, 14 (B1.2.16), 58-63. 30. Comm.Luc., VI, 1378-85: ÆCHom II, 14 (B1.2.16), 208-10. 31. Comm.Luc., VI, 1533-44: ÆCHom II, 14 (B1.2.16), 241-44. 32. Comm.Luc., VI, 1737-40: ÆCHom II, 14 (B1.2.16), 295-98. 33. Comm.Luc., VI, 1587-89: ÆCHom II, 14 (B1.2.16), 301-09. 34. Comm.Luc., VI, 2035-36: ÆCHom II, 16 (B1.2.19), 50-52. 35. Comm.Luc., VI, 2086-96: ÆCHom II, 16 (B1.2.19), 55-63. 36. Comm.Luc: ÆCHom II, 33 (B1.2.35). 37. Comm.Luc.: ÆCHom II, 36.1 (B1.2.38). 38. ? Comm.Luc., V, 1780-83: ÆCHom II, 43 (B1.2.47), 118-29. 39. Comm.Luc., IV, 86-101: ÆHom 2 (B1.4.2), 27-30. 40. Comm.Luc.: ÆHom 4 (B1.4.4). 41. Comm.Luc.: ÆHom 13 (B1.4.13). 42. Comm.Luc.: ÆHom 14 (B1.4.14). 43. Comm.Luc.: ÆHom 16 (B1.4.16). 44. Comm.Luc., V, 862-65: ÆHom 18 (B1.4.18), 60-61. 45. Comm.Luc., V, 903-09: ÆHom 18 (B1.4.18), 71. 46. Comm.Luc., V, 975-80: ÆHom 18 (B1.4.18), 89-94. 47. Comm.Luc., V, 981-87: ÆHom 18 (B1.4.18), 95-109. 48. Comm.Luc., V, 991-1000: ÆHom 18 (B1.4.18), 112-25. 49. Comm.Luc., V, 1009-11: ÆHom 18 (B1.4.18), 146-52.

85

86 

BEDE – PART 2

50. Comm.Luc., V, 1014-16: ÆHom 18 (B1.4.18), 200. 51. Comm.Luc., V, 1028-36: ÆHom 18 (B1.4.18), 206-21. 52. Comm.Luc., IV, 1039-48: ÆCHomM 11 (B1.5.11), 67-83. 53. Comm.Luc., IV, 1061-66: ÆCHomM 11 (B1.5.11), 84-89. 54. Comm.Luc., IV, 1056-60: ÆCHomM 11 (B1.5.11), 95-98. 55. Comm.Luc., IV, 1061-63: ÆCHomM 11 (B1.5.11), 101-04. 56. Comm.Luc., IV, 1106-14: ÆCHomM 11 (B1.5.11), 129-32. 57. Comm.Luc., IV, 1117-25: ÆCHomM 11 (B1.5.11), 159b-67. 58. ? Comm.Luc.I, 2178-79: BYRHT.Vit.Ecg., 244.9-10. Refs 1. ? BONIF.Epist. 75, 158.8-12. 2. ? BONIF.Epist. 76, 159.12-15. 3. ? ALCVIN.Vers.Eubor., 1306-08. 4. BYRHT.Comp., IV, 25-26. The prologue to this work takes the form of two letters, also discussed in Epistola ad Accam (Commentarius in Lucam). In the first, Bishop ACCA requested that Bede write a commentary on this Gospel. Bede’s response explains how he had done so. It must have been written after 709, the year in which Acca became bishop, and indeed after the Expositio Actuum apostolorum, since in the letter to Acca that serves as the preface to that work, Bede commented that he had not yet fulfilled his bishop’s request to write this commentary. It appears likely, however, that he completed it before he sent the first version of the Commentarius in Genesim to Acca since he did not mention it in that prefatory letter. On the basis of this evidence, we would date the Commentarius in Lucam to around 711. This date fits well with Bede’s statement in another letter to Acca, which opens the Commentarius in Marcum, that he had composed the Commentarius in Lucam “ante annos plurimos” (ed. CCSL 120.432; “many years before”). Both must have been written before 731 because they are included in his list of works in Historia ecclesiastica gentis Anglorum V.xxiv (ed. Lapidge 2010 2.482), the Commentarius in Lucam is listed as “in euangelium Lucae libros VI.” M.L.W. Laistner (1933 pp 350-54) notes that some of the manuscripts of the Commentarius in Lucam still retain the original source marks that Bede used to identify borrowings from AMBROSE, JEROME, AUGUSTINE, and GREGORY THE GREAT, the fathers to whom he turned to compose much of this work; see Michael Gorman (2002) on the significance of these marks

Bible: Commentaries

87

for modern editors. Bede discussed this practice in his prologue (trans. Holder 2010 p 147; ed. CCSL 120.7): Having gathered together the works of the Fathers as if they were the most eminent and most worthy craftsmen of such a great gift, I diligently undertook to examine what blessed Ambrose, what Augustine, and then what Gregory, the apostle of our nation who was “most watchful” in accordance with his [Greek] name, what Jerome the interpreter of sacred history, [and] what the rest of the Fathers thought and said about the words of blessed Luke […] Because it was laborious to insert their names every time and to indicate by name what had been said by which author, I found it convenient to note the first letters of their names in the margin and in this way to show where the discourse I have transcribed from each of the Fathers individually begins and where it ends. [This I have done] carefully throughout, lest it be said that I was stealing the words of my predecessors and putting them forth as my own. I very much pray and beseech my readers through the Lord that if anyone should perhaps judge these works of ours to be in any way worthy of transcription, they might remember also to add the aforementioned signs of the names as they find them in our exemplar.

As Arthur G. Holder (2010 p 147) points out, Bede “put his own stamp on the material” in order “to supplement and extend” the “labours” of the Fathers. MSS. Laistner (1943 p 44) notes that although fewer manuscripts copied before 900 of this work than of the Commentarius in Marcum survive, “it appears to have been hardly less popular.” In all, he lists 90 copies and one abbreviated version. David Hurst edits the text in the CCSL from seven manuscripts, one of the eighth, and five of the ninth century. The latter group includes Oxford, Bodleian Library, Bodley 218, which was written at Tours but which was in England by the tenth century (see ASM 557 and Lapidge 2006 p 171). A second ninth-century copy, Pembroke College 83, from Saint-Denis, was in Bury St Edmunds in the eleventh century (ASM 134). Three leaves from a late eighth- or early ninth-century manuscript are now in Hannover and New Haven (CLA 2.200 and Supplement 220); according to E.A. Lowe, they were written either in England or in an Anglo-Saxon centre in Germany (see also ASM 831.2). Barbara Shailor (1987 p 380) prints the incipit and explicit of the Beinecke manuscript; the fragment corresponds to book 2, lines 1933-2000 (ed. CCSL 120.149-51). Lowe identifies the fragments as from books 2 and 3; the plate he prints is from book 3 lines 360-65 and

88 

BEDE – PART 2

376-81 (Hannover fol. 72r). The Salisbury manuscript is from the end of the eleventh century. Moreover, as with the Commentarius in Marcum, extracts of the work circulated separately in homily collections, the most significant of which for Anglo-Saxon England is the Homiliary of PAUL THE DEACON, a work divided into parts to cover the winter and summer months (see Grégoire 1980 pp 423-78) of the liturgical year. The first part contains two relevant homilies, I, 41 and I, 90 (Grégoire 1980 pp 438 and 446); the second part sixteen, II, 19, 37, 57, 63, 64, 70, 74, 75, 76, 80, 84, 95, 96, 107, 114, and 129 (Grégoire 1980 pp 456-78). English manuscripts that contain homilies I, 90 and II, 19, 57, 63, 64, 70, 74, 75, 76, 80, 84, 107, and 129 are listed in following entries; for more information about the circulation of this material, see Bible: Homilies. Particularly relevant for ÆLFRIC, the key figure in this discussion, are II, 64, 75, 76, and 96 since these have been discussed in connection with the sources of his homilies. Specific correspondences between passages found in these extracts and Ælfric’s homilies are mentioned in this entry on the Commentrary but listed and discussed in following, individual entries; see Extracts ex Comm.Luc., V, 1118-92; V, 154-75 and IV, 846-938; II, 2260-339; and III, 865-1101. In addition to the extracts included in the original version of Paul the Deacon’s Homiliary, others have been identified in the fourteen English manuscripts of this collection. (On these manuscripts and on the growth of the collection, see Bible: Homilies). Again, these extracts are significant for understanding the form in which Ælfric knew this work. The manuscripts are all from the end of the period, increasing the uncertainty about what his copy would have contained. Moreover, there are many occasions when scholars, particularly Malcolm Godden (2000), have cited parts of the Commentary that are not yet known to have circulated in homiletic form. In the cases where extracts are known, any borrowing in Ælfric (or indeed in any other late work) might be either from them or from the Commentary itself. Following the practice used for extracts in the original Paul the Deacon, here too the correspondences in Ælfric will be mentioned in this main entry on the Commentarius in Lucam but listed in the individual, following entries: see Extract ex Comm.Luc., I, 425-631; I, 1008-328; II, 518-650; II, 1819-932; IV, 33-263; and V, 36-116. One of the extracts, ex Comm.Luc. V, 1495-620, also appears as lectiones IX-XII for the feast day In dedicatione ecclesiae in the eleventh-century Lanalet Pontifical, Rouen, Bibliothèque municipale, 368 (A.27): ASM 922. Lists. For the ALCUIN booklist, see the introduction, BEDE, in volume 1. A copy of the Commentarius in Lucam is one of three works by Bede procured

Bible: Commentaries

89

by Bishop LEOFRIC for the newly established cathedral at Exeter (1069-72): “expositio Bede super euuangelium Luce” (ML 10.43). Quots/Cits 1. In his discussion of the entry on Mary Magdalen in the OLD ENGLISH MARTYROLOGY (B19.1), J.E. Cross (1978 p 16) identifies the phrase “universa vitia” in Gregory the Great’s Homiliae in Euangelia 33 (ed. PL 76.1239, lines 41-42) as the source of the Old English “þæt wæs mid eallum uncystum” (“that was all the vices,” ed. and trans. Rauer 2013 pp 142-43). He also notes that Bede incorporated this passage from Gregory in his commentaries on both Luke and Mark. In her edition, Christine Rauer (2013 p 274) comments that “any or all” of these “could have been used by the martyrologist.” She does not specify exact correspondences in her entries in Fontes Anglo-Saxonici. Quots/Cits 2-4. In her edition of the OLD ENGLISH OROSIUS, Janet Bately (1980 p 319) offers a passage from the Commentary as a “possible influence” on the interpretation of the census in the Nativity story. Adding to its main source, the text states that the census signifies that at that time “would be born the one who would invite us all to a single meeting of kin, that is in the coming life” (ed. p 131). Bede noted that just as the census called each to his own city, now with the Church presiding, we must all travel to our heavenly home (ed. CCSL 120.46). In her entries in Fontes Anglo-Saxonici, Rohini Jayatilaka applies Bede’s passage to a longer one in Orosius (lines 7-21), considering it a multiple, possible source. In addition, she draws attention to “the theme of tribute” in both. She then lists Bede’s comment on Luke 19:43-44 as a possible source for the statement that Hadrian rebuilds Jerusalem “in another place” (ed. 120.347); Bede here repeated the comment of Gregory the Great that Bately (1980 p 326) had noted as a possible source. Quots/Cits 5-8. In discussing lines 46-49 of Vercelli Homily 5 (B3.2.1; ed. Scragg 1992 pp 111-21), on the Nativity, Donald G. Scragg remarks that J.E. Cross (1973) “suggests a blend” of the Catechesis Celtica (see HIBERNO-LATIN BIBLICAL COMMENTARIES) and Bede’s Commentary on Luke 2:1 (ed. CCSL 120.44-46). At issue more generally in lines 45-52 is the interpretation of the decree of Caesar Augustus as Christ’s universal decree sent out through the apostles. According to Cross, the Catechesis Celtica specifies the Father, not Christ here, and does not quote Mark 16:15, Christ’s command to the apostles, as both Vercelli Homily 5 and the Commentarius in Lucam (ed. 120.46) do. In his entries in Fontes Anglo-Saxonici Mark Atherton considers lines 45-49 and 50-52 separately, recording Bede as a multiple possible source for each. Vercelli Homilies 5 and 6 (B3.4.10; ed. Scragg 1992 pp 128-31), also for Christmas Day, contain passages that

90 

BEDE – PART 2

associate the pax Augusti with the peace of Christ; Atherton refers to Bede’s Commentary (ed. 120.45) as one of several multiple possible sources; see also Cross (1973 pp 212-13). Scragg does not include these suggestions in his edition. He does, however, claim that Vercelli Homily 17 (B3.3.19; ed. Scragg 1992 pp 281-86) “offers an interpretation of the sacrif icial birds which is dependent ultimately on Bede’s commentary on Luke: Christ’s parents brought a poor man’s offering to symbolize Christ’s gift to the poor (mention of Christ leading to a brief digression on the Incarnation, the Passion and the Redemption), and the birds themselves represent chastity and innocence” (p 279). Atherton specif ies a single sentence from the Commentary recorded above: “dominus ergo Christus Iesus cum diues esset pauper factus pro nobis” (ed. 120.63; “when he was rich, the lord Jesus Christ became poor for us”), considering it a possible source. This idea, however, and the assertions that Christ became poor to save mankind and that the two birds have specific meanings, appear together in Bede’s Homily I, 18. In any case, the passages from the Commentary appear in English manuscripts of the Homiliary of Paul the Deacon; see Extract ex Comm.Luc., I, 1008-328. Quots/Cits 9. In discussing lines 52-62 of Homily 2 in the first series of Ælfric’s Catholic Homilies (B1.1.3; ed. Clemoes 1997 pp 190-97), Godden (2000 p 16) finds “a hint” of the etymology of Augustus’s name in Bede’s Commentary (ed. CCSL 120.45). Yet since this comment was repeated by SMARAGDUS, he lists it in his entries in Fontes Anglo-Saxonici as a multiple possible source. The correspondence is included and discussed further in Extract ex Comm.Luc., I, 1008-328. Quots/Cits 10-12. Godden (2000 p 68) lists the Commentary as one of six main sources for Ælfric’s Catholic Homily I, 9 (B1.1.10; ed. Clemoes 1997 pp 249-57), on the Purification (Lc 2:22-40). He discusses three passages. The first (ed. CCSL 120.62 corresponding to lines 65-69 in Ælfric) offers a spiritual interpretation for the Old Testament offerings. Godden (p 71) notes, however, that while both agree that good thoughts should be given to God, they differ on the evil ones: “Bede’s pro singulis […] sensibus seems to mean ‘on behalf of the five senses (which have sinned)’ rather than Ælfric’s notion of repenting with the five senses.” The second (lines 80-85) draws mainly on Bede’s Homily I, 18, but one phrase, “heredes regni” (ed. 120.63) of the Commentary is reflected in Ælfric’s claim that Christ became man to give us “part in his kingdom” (trans. Thorpe 1844-46 1.141). The third (ed. 120.70-71) develops Bede’s interpretation of Luke 2:52, which explains that Christ grew in his human but not his divine nature. There is an extract from Bede’s Commentary covering Luke 2:33-40 that circulated in English

Bible: Commentaries

91

versions of the Homiliary of Paul the Deacon, and so relevant for the third quotation; see Extract ex Comm.Luc., I, 1904-2037. Quots/Cits 13-14. Godden (2000 pp 89 and 91) refers to the Commentarius in Lucam twice in discussing the sources of Catholic Homily I, 11 (B1.1.12; ed. Clemoes 1997 pp 266-74), on the Temptation, once in connection with the interpretation of how a man might tempt God (Lc 4:12; ed. CCSL 120.97) and again for the detail that Christ overcomes the devil not just with patience, but also with humility (ed. 120.95). Although not noted in the source notes of the CCSL even though the “A” in the margin indicates that Bede here followed Augustine, the first remark derives from the Quaestiones in Heptateuchum (ed. CCSL 33.24). Augustine’s comment, however, occurs in the context of Isaac’s marriage to Rebecca (Gn 24:14), making it more likely that Ælfric would have encountered the idea in Bede’s work. In the second case, Bede followed Jerome, making either a likely source. Quots/Cits 15. In discussing the sources of Catholic Homily I, 13 (B1.1.14; ed. Clemoes 1997 pp 281-89), on the Annunciation (Lc 1:26-38), Godden (2000 p 105) turns to the Commentarius in Lucam (ed. CCSL 120.31) in order to explain Ælfric’s statement that Mary might have been stoned had she not married (lines 82-84). It is included and discussed under Extract ex Comm.Luc., I, 425-631. Quots/Cits 16. As Godden (2000 p 113) explains, Catholic Homily I, 14 (B1.1.15; ed. Clemoes 1997 pp 290-98), on Christ’s triumphal entry into Jerusalem, draws on the Commentarius in Lucam (ed. CCSL 120.343-44; or perhaps on Smaragdus, who repeated Bede’s exegesis) for its identification of the owners of the beast on which Christ rides as “the chief men of every people” who “perversely oppose the preaching of God” (trans. Thorpe 1844-46 1.209). In his entries in Fontes Anglo-Saxonici, he considers Bede a probable direct source. Quots/Cits 17. Cross (1968 p 69) identifies one sentence near the beginning of Homily I, 21 (B1.1.23; ed. Clemoes 1997 pp 345-53) on the Ascension as “exactly” parallel to one in Bede’s Commentary (ed. CCSL 120.421): Christ ate after the Resurrection “through power not for need” (trans. Thorpe 1844-46 1.297). As Godden (2000 pp 168-69) demonstrates, Bede’s discussion also underlies Ælfric’s previous claim: “he ate and drank after his resurrection not because he then had need of earthly food, but because he would manifest his true body” (trans. p 297). Smaragdus repeated these comments. Quots/Cits 18. At the beginning of Homily I, 33 (B1.1.35; ed. Clemoes 1997 pp 459-64), on the resurrection of the widow’s son of Naim (Lc 7.11-16), Ælfric identified Bede “the commentator” (line 16; “se trahtnere”; see, however, Catholic Homilies II, 5.34 for a use of the term in relation to a homily) as

92 

BEDE – PART 2

his source. However, Cyril Smetana (1959 pp 193-94) points out that the two parts of the Luke Commentary that he used had been excerpted in the Homiliary of Paul the Deacon (II, 76 and 93; see Grégoire 1980 pp 467 and 471). Joyce Hill (1992) proposes that Smaragdus’s collection plays a significant role in this work, accounting as it does for the opening explanation of Naim’s name. Godden (2000 p 275) argues for yet another intermediate source, a sermon in late versions of Paul the Deacon’s Homiliary probably written by HERICUS OF AUXERRE; he does not list Smaragdus among Ælfric’s sources (see p 276, note 3). The fifteen correspondences noted by Godden have been placed in two following entries, Extract ex Comm.Luc. II, 2260-339, and Extract ex Comm.Luc. III, 865-1101. Quots/Cits 19-20. Godden (2000 pp 340 and 343) considers the Commentarius in Lucam a possible source for two passages in Catholic Homily I, 40 (B1.1.42; ed. Clemoes 1997 pp 524-30) on the end of the world (Lc 21:25-30). In the first, following Bede (ed. CCSL 120.370; or Haymo), Ælfric identified “generatio haec” (Lc 21:32) as the Jews. In the second, Ælfric, probably following a passage (ed. CCSL 120.371) that Bede took from Gregory’s Moralia, which was then copied by Smaragdus, expanded Christ’s statement that “heaven and earth shall pass away” (Lc 21:33) by invoking “the new heaven and the new earth” of Apocalypse 1:1. Quots/Cits 21. In discussing the salvation of the thief on the cross in the Homily 5 of the second series of his Catholic Homilies (B1.2.6; ed. Godden 1979 pp 41-51) on the parable of the vineyard (Mt 20:1-16), Ælfric diverted briefly from his main source, Gregory’s Homily 19, to remark that the thief was properly saved before Peter and the other apostles because he believed at that time in Christ. Cross (1969) notes the source for this idea in either another homily by Gregory or Bede’s Commentary (ed. CCSL 120.405). Godden (2000 p 381) uses this detail to indicate that Bede “gives greater weight to merit and justice” than Gregory had. Quots/Cits 22-28. Godden (2000 p 389) explains the problems associated with the sources of Catholic Homilies II, 6 (B1.2.7; ed. Godden 1979 pp 52-59) on the parable of the sower (Lc 8:4-15): Gregory’s Homily 15, Ælfric’s main source, was used in Bede’s Commentary and both Gregory and Bede were sources for Smaragdus and Haymo. “It is clear,” Godden writes, “that Ælfric did use Gregory directly, since he takes material not found in the others, and there is no trace of distinctive material from Haymo. He also used material from Bede’s commentary, but whether directly from Bede or via Smaragdus is impossible to say, since the latter copies verbatim.” Godden records Joyce Hill’s (1992 p 227) view that Smaragdus “is a much more likely immediate source” than Bede, but cites the correspondences listed above from Bede

Bible: Commentaries

93

since “there is some reason to think that Ælfric knew the text directly and Smaragdus has nothing of his own to add in this case.” The discussion of the three orders of society (lines 115-35) is identified by Godden as “probably” from the Commentary (ed. CCSL 120.177; or Smaragdus) since it is not in Gregory. See further his discussion in Fontes Anglo-Saxonici of Ælfric’s attribution of this passage to Augustine. The transition to Bede (ed. 120.174; or Smaragdus) occurs in lines 53-55: “it is befitting us that with pious belief we receive the Lord’s exposition, and that the things which he left for us to expound we should them comprise in a short discourse” (trans. Thorpe 1844-46 2.91); Ælfric shifted the position of the passage. He then followed his source (ed. 120.173-74) in noting that while Christ explains that the seed is the word of God, “the sower he left us to seek”: he is “the Son of God, who went out to sow his seed, when proceeding from the bosom of his Father, he came to this world that he might bear witness of the truth, and extinguish worldly error by his holy doctrine” (lines 55-63; trans. 2.91). Both explained the “double injury” of the seed that fell by the way (ed. 120.174; and lines 64-72), and then quoted Matthew 13:19 to explain the seizing of the seed by devils (ed. 120.175; and lines 72-78). The stony earth is “hard-heartedness” and moisture, “love and steadfastness” (lines 79-86; trans. 2.291-93; and ed. 120.174). Gregory, Bede (ed. 120.176), or Smaragdus might underlie lines 90-105, which elaborate on Christ’s explanation of “those who hear God’s word, but are busied with their riches, and choked with the pleasures of their life” (trans. 2.93). Ælfric noted that “two contrary things” are associated here: “solicitudes choke the mind, and evil desires relax it” (trans. 2.93). Quots/Cits 29-33. On the problems associated with the sources of Catholic Homilies II, 14 (B1.2.16; ed. Godden 1979 pp 137-49), see the discussion of Quots/Cits 5-10 in the entry on the Commentarius in Marcum. Godden (2000 p 483) considers lines 241-44, a description of Christ’s orientation on the cross, as “perhaps inspired” by a verse of CAELIUS SEDULIUS quoted by Bede in this Commentary (ed. CCSL 120.401); in Fontes Anglo-Saxonici, he considers it a probable source. Godden also cites the Commentary (ed. 120.403) in relation to Christ’s prayer from the cross for his slayers (Lc 23:34), “which might not be in vain” (lines 301-09; trans. Thorpe 1844-46 2.259). Godden (2000 pp 477-85) cites the Commentary three more times as one of many sources from which Ælfric might have derived particular ideas: lines 58-63 concern Judas’s treachery (ed. 120.374); lines 208-10, the choice of Barabbas rather than Christ (ed. 120.397); and lines 295-98, the rending of the veil of the temple (ed. 120.406-07). Quots/Cits 34-35. Godden (2000 p 503) refers to the Commentary twice in relation to Homily II, 16 (B1.2.19; ed. Godden 1979 pp 161-68) on Christ’s

94 

BEDE – PART 2

appearances to his disciples after the Resurrection; in both cases the relevant passages also appear in Smaragdus. In the first (ed. CCSL 120.414), Ælfric linked the first appearance to Christ’s promise to be present “where there are two or three gathered together in my name” (lines 50-52). In the second (ed. 120.415), alluding to Luke 24:25-26, he explained that Christians must both study scripture and put it into practice to be saved (lines 55-63). Quots/Cits 36. In discussing the sources of Homily II, 28 (B1.2.35; ed. Godden 1979 pp 249-54), on the parable of the Pharisee and the tax collector who prayed together in the temple (Lc 18:9-14), Godden (2000 p 583) writes, “Ælfric seems to have known and consulted a number of commentaries on the Gospel text included in versions of Paul the Deacon’s Homiliary.” The three correspondences he adduces from the Commentarius in Lucam are discussed in a following entry, Extract ex Comm.Luc., V, 1118-92. Quots/Cits 37. Ælfric opened his exposition of the reading for Catholic Homily II, 31 (B1.2.38; ed. Godden 1979 pp 268-71) by identifying his source, but his qualification – “Beda trahtnode sceortlice ðis godspel” – suggests that he worked from the extract of the Commentary that appears in the Homiliary of Paul the Deacon, which is indeed brief. The topic is Matthew 6:24-33, “no man can serve two masters” (cf. Lc 16:13 and 12:22-31). The six correspondence that Godden (2000 pp 600-04) identifies are discussed in a following entry, Extract ex Comm.Luc. V, 154-75 and IV, 846-938. Quots/Cits 38. Godden (2000 p 652) lists one possible borrowing from the Commentary (ed. CCSL 120.340) in Catholic Homilies II, 38 (B1.2.47; ed. Godden 1957 pp 318-26), on the parable of the talents (Mt 25:14-30): Ælfric departed from his main sources when he identified the increase as not just knowledge but also deeds. Quots/Cits 39. In the second homily of his Supplementary Collection (B1.4.2; ed. Pope 1967-68 pp 230-42), Ælfric turned briefly from his main topic, Christ’s healing of the lame man at the pond of Bethsaida (Io 5:2-9), to mention his healing of a man with a withered hand (Lc 6:6-10). Here Pope cites the Commentary (ed. CCSL 120.233) for the connection of this passage to giving alms. Without offering other possibilities, Rohini Jayatilaka considers it a multiple possible source in her entries in Fontes Anglo-Saxonici. Quots/Cits 40. Pope (1967-68 pp 259-60) identifies the Commentary as the principal source for Supplementary Homily 4 (B1.4.4; ed. Pope 1967-68 pp 264-80) on the Beelzebub controversy (Lc 11:14-22, Mt 12:22-30, and Mc 3:22-27), noting that the relevant passage is extracted as a homily in the collections of Paul the Deacon. The seventeen correspondences he adduces are discussed in a following entry, Extract ex Comm.Luc., IV, 33-263.

Bible: Commentaries

95

Quots/Cits 41. Ælfric’s “chief guide” (Pope 1967-68 p 494) for Supplementary Homily 13 (B1.4.13; ed. Pope 1967-68 pp 497-507), on part of the sermon on the plain (Lc 6:36-42), is the Commentary, although Pope notes sermons by Haymo and Hericus that both use Bede and are used by Ælfric. He specifies one passage, lines 120-22, as proving Ælfric’s direct knowledge of Bede, “for I have not found the relevant sentences […] in other commentators” (p 494). Although not noted by Pope, the passage circulated in English manuscripts of the Homiliary of Paul the Deacon and so the nine correspondences he lists are included and discussed in a following entry, Extract ex Comm. Luc., II, 1819-932. Quots/Cits 42. For his Supplementary Homily 14 (B1.4.14; ed. Pope 1967-68 pp 515-25), on the great catch of fish (Lc 5:1-11), Ælfric relied, as Pope (1967-68 p 512) notes, on both Bede’s Commentary and Haymo’s reworking of it: “verbal correspondences indicate that he studied both, and chose Bede as his guide a little more often than Haymo.” Yet Pope does not mention that an extract of the Commentary covering these verses circulated in the Homiliary of Paul the Deacon, II, 57. The fifteen passages he lists are, therefore, included and discussed under a following entry, Extract ex Comm.Luc., II, 518-650. Quots/Cits 43. Pope (1967-68 p 544) identifies the Commentary as one signif icant intermediary between Augustine’s influential writings on the parable of the unjust steward (Lc 16:1-9) and Ælfric’s Homily 16 in his Supplementary Collection (B1.4.16; ed. Pope 1967-68 pp 547-59); the other is a sermon by Haymo. Since an extract covering this material circulated in English manuscripts of the Homiliary of Paul the Deacon, the six correspondences that he notes are listed and discussed in a following entry, Extract ex Comm. Luc., V, 36-116. Quots/Cits 44-51. The Commentarius in Lucam (all of the passages discussed here are from CCSL 120.316-21) also underlies sections of Homily 18 in Ælfric’s Supplementary Collection (B1.4.18; ed. Pope 1967-68 pp 590-609), on the Last Judgement. Pope (1967-68 p 586) writes: “for the interpretation of the passage from Luke Ælfric probably relied chiefly on Bede’s commentary; but he found Bede only vaguely helpful for his comparatively simple purposes except at one point, the passage on the two men in one bed, the two women at the mill, the two men in the field” (Lc 17:34-35). At this point, Bede himself relied on Augustine, “but since Bede incorporates all that is needed and adds an elaboration about the figure of the mill that Ælfric probably took into account, it has seemed unnecessary to quote Augustine also” (pp 586-87). The first possible connection listed by Pope and considered a certain direct source by Rohini Jayatilaka in her entries

96 

BEDE – PART 2

in Fontes Anglo-Saxonici appears slight: both Bede and Ælfric referred to Noah and Lot as types of Judgement (see, however, Lc 17:26 and 28). Pope writes of the second, “Bede may have suggested the epithet ‘hellicum’ by his partially disagreeing comment on verse 29”; the connection is between sulphur and the fires of hell. The third and fourth concern the two men in one bed, who live in quiet; the fifth, the two women at the mill of worldly cares; and the sixth, the two men in the field of the Church. The seventh interprets the three states of the previous verses to be the three conditions of all men. Finally, Ælfric followed Bede in interpreting Luke 17:35 to refer to the good who are taken to heaven. Quots/Cits 52-57. In discussing Ælfric’s second homily for the feast of a confessor, known as Assmann 4 (B1.5.11; ed. Assmann 1964 pp 49-64), Mary Clayton (1993) identifies the Commentary (all of the passages discussed here are from CCSL 120.257-59) as a source, complicated by Bede’s reliance on a sermon by Gregory the Great and Haymo’s use of Bede’s work. The six correspondences listed above are based on her article, but are taken from her entries in Fontes Anglo-Saxonici. In the first, following Gregory, Bede and then Ælfric explained the three watches of Luke 12:38 (“and if he come in the second watch, or come in the third watch, and find them so, blessed are those servants”) as childhood, adolescence, and old age; the same division occurs in Haymo. In explaining that God does not want it known when the last day will be so all remain watchful, Ælfric again followed Bede, who quotes Gregory; here there is no exact parallel in Haymo. All four agree that the pater familias is the mind, the house the body, and the thief death; yet Bede quoting Gregory was the source for Ælfric’s comment that if the “hiredes ealdor” knew when the thief would come, he would repent. According to Clayton’s entries in Fontes Anglo-Saxonici, Bede was probably the direct source for Ælfric’s interpretation of the “measure of wheat” (Lc 12:42) as doctrine. Finally, the Commentarius in Lucam alone underlies Ælfric’s claim that the more one works, the greater reward one has in heaven. In his Letter to the Monks of Eynsham, Ælfric had an opportunity to cite Bede, but did not. The source for the opening sentence of his discussion of Good Friday, AMALARIUS OF METZ, identified Bede as the source for his explanation of Parasceue, “preparation.” Ælfric mentioned and paraphrased Amalarius. See Christopher A. Jones (1998 pp 131 and 195, note 211). Quots/Cits 58. In the Vita Ecgwine (ed. Lapidge 2009 pp 206-302), BYRHTFERTH recorded the saint alluding to the fourfold division of Judea by the tetrarchs. Lapidge (2009, p 244 note 28) comments that this division

Bible: Commentaries

97

“is mentioned in Luke 3:1 and described by JOSEPHUS, Antiquitates Iudaicae, XVII.13.2; but Byrhtferth more likely knew the discussion by Bede”; he cites this work (ed. CCSL 120.74), the De temporum ratione, and Homily II, 23. Refs. For the references to Bede in BONIFACE’s Epistolae 75 and 76 and for LULL’s specific request for a copy of it from York, see the introduction, BEDE, in volume 1. Alcuin’s reference in the Versus de sanctis Euboricensis ecclesiae (ed. Godman 1982 pp 102-03) is generally to Bede’s “many works unravelling the mysterious volumes of Holy Scripture,” and so could point to any of his biblical commentaries or his Homiliary. In the “Epilogus” to his Computus (ed. Baker and Lapidge 1995 pp 376), Byrhtferth wrote that Bede “expounded more clearly than light some of the writings of the four evangelists,” which could refer to this work, his Commentarius in Marcum, or his Homiliae. For the possible influence on Alcuin of Bede’s discussion here and elsewhere of Christ as feminine, see the Commentarius in primam partem Samuhelis. The commentary is also edited in PL 92.301-634. For an overview of Bede’s work on the New Testament, see Arthur G. Holder (2010). Extract ex Comm.Luc., I, 306-77. ed.: CCSL 120.27-28. MSS 1. Cambridge, University Library, Kk. 4. 13: ASM 24. 2. Lincoln, Cathedral Library, 158 (C. 2. 2): ASM 273. 3. London, British Library, Royal 2. C. iii: ASM 452. 4. Worcester, Cathedral Library, F. 94: ASM 763.2. Lists – Refs none. Bede interpreted Luke 1:18-25, the annunciation of the birth of John the Baptist. The extract circulated in English manuscripts of the Homiliary of PAUL THE DEACON; see the introduction, Bible: Homilies. Mary P. Richards (1988 p 99) identifies the extract in the Cambridge and London manuscripts. Rodney M. Thomson (1989 pp 146-47 and 2001 p 66) catalogues it in the Lincoln and Worcester manuscripts.

98 

BEDE – PART 2

Extract ex Comm.Luc., I, 425-631. ed.: CCSL 120.30-35. MSS 1. Cambridge, University Library, Kk. 4. 13: ASM 24. 2. Lincoln, Cathedral Library, 158 (C. 2. 2): ASM 273. 3. London, British Library, Royal 2. C. iii: ASM 452. Lists – A-S Vers none. Quots/Cits Comm.Luc., I, 462: ÆCHom I, 13 (B1.1.14), 82-84. Refs none. Bede interpreted Luke 1:26-38, the Annunciation. In her discussion of English manuscripts of the Homiliary of PAUL THE DEACON (see the introduction, Bible: Homilies) Mary P. Richards (1988 p 99) refers to PL 118.31-36, Homily 4 of HAYMO OF AUXERRE. However, Henri Barré (1962 p 51) identifies this text as taken from the Commentarius in Lucam and thus an interpolation into Haymo’s collection. Malcolm Godden (2000 p 105) refers to the Commentarius in Lucam for one detail in ÆLFRIC’s Homily 13 (B1.1.14; ed. Clemoes 1997 pp 281-89) in his first series of Catholic Homilies: as an adulteress, Mary risked being stoned. Since the other possibility he cites is Homily 4 of Haymo, Bede appears to have been Ælfric’s source. Indeed, Godden’s other sources for the text are Bede’s Homilies I.3 and I.4, both of which were included in Paul the Deacon’s Homiliary. Extract ex Comm.Luc., I, 1008-328. ed.: CCSL 120.44-52. MSS 1. Cambridge, University Library, Ii. 2. 19, fols. 1-216: ASM 16. 2. London, British Library, Harley 652: ASM 424. Lists – A-S Vers none.

Bible: Commentaries

99

Quots/Cits ? Comm.Luc., I, 1049-51: ÆCHom I, 2 (B1.1.3), 53-55. Refs none. Bede explicated Luke 2:1-12, the story of the Nativity from the decree of Caesar Augustus to the announcement to the shepherds. The extract circulated in English manuscripts of the Homiliary of PAUL THE DEACON (see the introduction, Bible: Homilies). Mary P. Richards (1988 p 105) identifies it in the Cambridge and London manuscripts. Although Homilies I.6 and I.7 are the main sources for ÆLFRIC’s Homily 2, on the Nativity (Lc 2:1-20), in the first series of Catholic Homilies (B1.1.3; ed. Clemoes 1997 pp 190-97), Malcolm Godden (2000 p 16) has reason to refer to the Commentarius in Lucam on one occasion, for a passage that falls within this extract. Explaining the time of Christ’s birth, Ælfric offered an etymology for Augustus, “increasing his empire,” and then continues: “the name befits the heavenly King Christ, who was born in his time, who increased his heavenly empire, and replenished with mankind the loss which the falling devil had caused in the host of angels” (trans. Thorpe 1844-46 1.33). Godden finds “a hint of the etymology and its significance in the Commentary: “qui uocabulum Augusti perfectissime complens utpote suos et augescere desiderans et ipse augere sufficiens” (ed. CCSL 120.45). He then cites ISIDORE and HERICUS before concluding, “Ælfric was perhaps drawing on the as yet unidentified source which gave him the etymology of Cyninus.” Since this comment was repeated by SMARAGDUS, Godden lists it in his entries in Fontes Anglo-Saxonici as a multiple, possible source. Extract ex Comm.Luc., I, 1329-449. ed.: CCSL 120.53-56. MSS 1. Cambridge, University Library, Ii. 2. 19, fols. 1-216: ASM 16. 2. London, British Library, Harley 652: ASM 424. 3. Worcester, Cathedral Library, F. 92: ASM 763. Lists – Refs none.

100 

BEDE – PART 2

Bede commented on Luke 2:15-20, the shepherds’ trip to the manger. The extract circulated in English manuscripts of the Homiliary of PAUL THE DEACON (see the introduction, Bible: Homilies). Mary P. Richards (1988 p 105) identifies it in the Cambridge and London manuscripts. Rodney M. Thomson (2001 p 59) catalogues it in the Worcester manuscript. Extract ex Comm.Luc. I., 1450-633. ed.: CCSL 120.56-60. MSS 1. Cambridge, University Library, Ii. 2. 19, fols. 1-216: ASM 16. 2. London, British Library, Harley 652: ASM 424. 3. Worcester, Cathedral Library, F. 92: ASM 763. Lists – Refs none. Bede explained Luke 2:21, “and after eight days were accomplished, that the child should be circumcised, his name was called Jesus, which was called by the angel, before he was conceived in the womb.” The extract circulated in English manuscripts of the Homiliary of PAUL THE DEACON (see the introduction, Bible: Homilies). Mary P. Richards (1988 p 105) identifies it in the Cambridge and London manuscripts. Rodney M. Thomson (2001 p 59) lists it in his catalogue of the Worcester Cathedral Library. Extract ex Comm.Luc., I., 1904-2037. ed.: CCSL 120.67-71. MSS 1. Cambridge, University Library, Ii. 2. 19, fols. 1-216: ASM 16. 2. London, British Library, Harley 652: ASM 424. 3. Worcester, Cathedral Library, F. 92: ASM 763. Lists – Refs none. Bede commented on Luke 2:33-40, the acclaiming of Christ by Simeon and Anna in the temple. The extract circulated in English manuscripts of the Homiliary of PAUL THE DEACON (see the introduction, Bible: Homilies). Mary P. see Richards (1988 p 107) lists it in the Cambridge and

Bible: Commentaries

101

London manuscripts. Rodney M. Thomson (2001 p 59) includes it in his description of the Worcester manuscript. ÆLFRIC’S Homily 9 (B1.1.10; ed. Clemoes 1997 pp 249-57), on the Purification, in his first series of Catholic Homilies discusses Luke 2:22-40. Malcolm Godden (2000 p 68) lists the Commentarius in Lucam as one of six main sources for it. The third correspondence (I, 2025-34: lines 224-32) can also be found in this extract. Extract ex Comm.Luc., II, 447-517. ed.: CCSL 120.111-13. MSS 1. Cambridge, University Library, Ii. 2. 19, fols. 1-216: ASM 16. 2. Cambridge, Pembroke College, 23: ASM 129. 3. London, British Library, Harley 652: ASM 424. Lists – Refs none. Bede’s text here is Christ’s healing of Peter’s mother-in-law, his healings and exorcisms at sunset, and his departure to a deserted place (Lc 4:38-42). In his notes on the London manuscript (see the introduction, Bible: Homilies), Thomas N. Hall discusses this extract, which circulated in English versions of the Homiliary of PAUL THE DEACON. Mary P. Richards (1988 p 105) had referred to HRABANUS MAURUS’s HOMILY 70 (ed. PL 110.278-79), which adds a homiletic closing. Hall’s explicit follows Bede. In his catalogue of the manuscripts in Pembroke College, M.R. James (1905 p 21) specifies PL 92.380, referring apparently to this extract. Extract ex Comm.Luc., II, 518-650. ed.: CCSL 120.113-16. MSS 1. Cambridge, University Library, Ii. 2. 19, fols. 1-216: ASM 16. 2. Cambridge, Pembroke College, 23: ASM 129. 3. Durham, Cathedral Library, A. III. 29: ASM 222. 4. London, British Library, Harley 652: ASM 424. 5. Worcester, Cathedral Library, F. 93: ASM 763.1.

102 

BEDE – PART 2

Lists – A-S Vers none. Quots/Cits 1. Comm.Luc., II, 519-32: ÆHom 14 (B1.4.14), 41-48. 2. Comm.Luc., II, 536-38: ÆHom 14 (B1.4.14), 51-52. 3. Comm.Luc., II, 536-38: ÆHom 14 (B1.4.14), 53-57. 4. Comm.Luc., II, 543-45 and 533-36: ÆHom 14 (B1.4.14), 58-65. 5. Comm.Luc., II, 546-49: ÆHom 14 (B1.4.14), 66-71. 6. Comm.Luc., II, 552-54: ÆHom 14 (B1.4.14), 72-74. 7. Comm.Luc., II, 557-59: ÆHom 14 (B1.4.14), 81-84. 8. Comm.Luc., II, 560-61: ÆHom 14 (B1.4.14), 91-97. 9. Comm.Luc., II, 563-70: ÆHom 14 (B1.4.14), 111-14. 10. Comm.Luc., II, 572-75: ÆHom 14 (B1.4.14), 119-25. 11. Comm.Luc., II, 580-83: ÆHom 14 (B1.4.14), 127b-31. 12. Comm.Luc., II, 587-93: ÆHom 14 (B1.4.14), 179-87. 13. Comm.Luc., II, 601: ÆHom 14 (B1.4.14), 190. 14. Comm.Luc., II, 620-24: ÆHom 14 (B1.4.14), 199-206. 15. Comm.Luc., II, 631-35: ÆHom 14 (B1.4.14), 219-25. Refs none. Bede commented on Luke 5:1-11, the great catch of fish. The extract circulated in the Homiliary of PAUL THE DEACON, II, 57; see Réginald Grégoire (1980 p 463) and the introduction, Bible: Homilies. Mary P. Richards (1988 p 105) identifies it in the Cambridge University and London manuscripts. Rodney M. Thomson (2001 p 64) notes its presence in the Worcester manuscript. Thomas Rud (1825 p 48) provides an incipit that allows its identification in the Durham manuscript. M.R. James (1905 p 21) identifies it as Homily 5 in “liber III, homiliae subdititiae” of the PL’s printing of Bede’s homilies, PL 94.278-80 (see CCSL 122.381-84). Although he does not consider this extract, John C. Pope (1967-68 p 511) identifies “two detailed and closely similar interpretations” of this Gospel reading as the sources for ÆLFRIC’s Homily 16 in his Supplementary Collection (B1.4.16; ed. Pope 1967-68 pp 547-59): one is Bede’s Commentarius in Lucam and the other a sermon by HAYMO OF AUXERRE. As he writes, since “for the most part Haymo merely expands and simplifies Bede, only occasionally introducing a different idea,” “it is hard to tell which of the two Ælfric is following; but verbal correspondences indicate that he studied both,

Bible: Commentaries

103

and chose Bede as his guide a little more often than Haymo” (pp 511-12). For the first correspondence, which concerns the physical characteristics of the lake of Genesareth, Pope cites only Bede even though Haymo included much of what he said. Like Bede, but unlike Haymo, Ælfric mentioned that the Jordan River flows into it. Both Bede and Haymo could have been the source of Ælfric’s gloss on the “multitudes who pressed upon Christ” (Lc 5:1) as a type for “all peoples who now hasten to him” (quoting Is 5:2); yet Ælfric’s concision mirrors Bede’s. In explaining the two ships (Lc 2:2) as the Jews and Gentiles among whom Christ knows his own (3), Ælfric’s wording is closer to Haymo than to Bede. A source for the next correspondence (4) appears only in Bede: Christ brings his chosen from the waves of this world to the stability of the next life. That the fishermen are teachers, who with their nets draw believers to God, could be from either Bede or Haymo (5). Ælfric used Bede when he elaborated on the casting of the nets as specifying the different tasks that teachers carry out at different times (6). Either Bede or Haymo could lie behind Ælfric’s claim that Peter’s ship (Lc 5:3) stands for the Jews who first turned to Christ (7). Pope considers lines 91-97 (8), concerning the apostles’ teaching, to be “perhaps suggested by Bede […] but mainly an independent deduction from 82, anticipating 112-14” (p 519). Following either Bede or Haymo, Ælfric explained that Christ first taught from the ship then commanded Peter to “launch out into the deep” (Lc 5:4) because Christ himself first taught in the land of the Jews and later this teaching spread to all lands (9). Lines 119-25, which use Psalm 126:1 (“unless the Lord build the house, they labour in vain that build it”) to explain the futility of the fishing prior to Christ’s command (Lc 5:5), are closer to Haymo than to Bede (10). Yet Bede (using GREGORY THE GREAT and AUGUSTINE) underlies Ælfric’s explanation of the breaking of the nets (Lc 5:6) as evil men who are drawn into the faith but then break out by living in error (11). The “other ship” (Lc 5:7) signifies the Gentiles (12), a point made by Bede and repeated by Haymo. Ælfric followed Bede in stating that the filling of the ships will continue until Doomsday (13) and that Christ does not follow Peter’s command that he leave (Lc 5:8) just as the clergy should not leave their congregations in times of trouble because God will aid them (14). Finally, he used Bede to explain Christ’s response to Peter: “fear not: from henceforth thou shalt catch men” (Lc 5:10). Extract ex Comm.Luc., II, 761-882. ed.: CCSL 120.119-22. MSS 1. Cambridge, University Library, Ii. 2. 19, fols. 1-216: ASM 16. 2. Cambridge, Pembroke College, 23: ASM 129.

104 

BEDE – PART 2

3. London, British Library, Harley 652: ASM 424. 4. Worcester, Cathedral Library, F. 93: ASM 763.1. Lists – Refs none. Bede explicated Luke 5:17-25, Christ’s healing of a paralyzed man and his response to the Pharisees. The extract is included in the Homiliary of PAUL THE DEACON, II, 84; see Réginald Grégoire (1980 p 468) and the introduction, Bible: Homilies. Mary P. Richards (1988 p 105) finds the extract in the Cambridge University and London manuscripts. Rodney M. Thomson (2001 p 64) identifies it in the Worcester manuscript. M.R. James (1905 p 21) refers to it by specifying PL 92.386. Extract ex Comm.Luc., II, 883-951. ed.: CCSL 120.122-24. MSS 1. Cambridge, University Library, Kk. 4. 13: ASM 24. 2. Lincoln, Cathedral Library, 158 (C. 2. 2): ASM 273. 3. London, British Library, Royal 2. C. iii: ASM 452. Lists – Refs none. Bede commented on Luke 5:27-32, the calling of Matthew (Levi). The extract circulated in English versions of the Homiliary of PAUL THE DEACON; see the introduction, Bible: Homilies. Mary P. Richards (1988 p 100) identifies it in the three manuscripts listed above. It is Homily 56 in “liber III, homiliae subdititiae” of the PL’s printing of Bede’s homilies, PL 94.419-20; see CCSL 122.381-84. Extract ex Comm.Luc., II, 1415-600. ed.: CCSL 120.136-41. MSS 1. Cambridge, University Library, Kk. 4. 13: ASM 24. 2. Lincoln, Cathedral Library, 158 (C. 2. 2): ASM 273. 3. London, British Library, Royal 2. C. iii: ASM 452. 4. Worcester, Cathedral Library, F. 94: ASM 763.2.

Bible: Commentaries

105

Lists – Refs none. Bede explicated Luke 6:17-23, the opening of the Sermon on the Plain, which includes the beatitudes. The extract appears in English manuscripts of the Homiliary of PAUL THE DEACON; see the introduction, Bible: Homilies. Mary P. Richards (1988 p 100) identifies it in the Cambridge and London manuscripts. Rodney M. Thomson (2001 p 67) lists it in the Worcester manuscript. It is Homily 69 in “liber III, homiliae subdititiae” of the PL’s printing of Bede’s homilies, PL 94.447-50; see CCSL 122.381-84. Extract ex Comm.Luc., II, 1476. Thomas Rud (1825 p 54) identifies a homily in Durham, Cathedral Library, A. III. 29 (ASM 222) with the incipit “etsi generaliter omnibus loquitur” as by Bede. It is the opening of Bede’s comment on Luke 6:20 (CCSL 120.137). In his description of Cambridge, Pembroke College, 24 (ASM 130), M.R. James (1905 p 24) identifies item 67 by referring to column 401 of PL 92, Bede’s Commentarius in Lucam, and so probably refers to the same extract. Extract ex Comm.Luc., II, 1819-932. ed.: CCSL 120.146-49. MSS 1. Cambridge, University Library, Ii. 2. 19, fols. 1-216: ASM 16. 2. Cambridge, Pembroke College, 23: ASM 129. 3. Durham, Cathedral Library, A. III. 29: ASM 222. 4. London, British Library, Harley 652: ASM 424. 5. Worcester, Cathedral Library, F. 93: ASM 763.1. Lists – A-S Vers none. Quots/Cits 1. Comm.Luc., II, 1827-42: ÆHom 13 (B1.4.13), 88-97. 2. Comm.Luc., II, 1851-52: ÆHom 13 (B1.4.13), 104-05. 3. Comm.Luc., II, 1851-52: ÆHom 13 (B1.4.13), 107-08. 4. Comm.Luc., II, 1858-60: ÆHom 13 (B1.4.13), 113-16. 5. Comm.Luc., II, 1866-70: ÆHom 13 (B1.4.13), 120-22.

106 

BEDE – PART 2

6. Comm.Luc., II, 1889-90: ÆHom 13 (B1.4.13), 128-33. 7. Comm.Luc., II, 1883-86: ÆHom 13 (B1.4.13), 136-40. 8. Comm.Luc., II, 1899-1911: ÆHom 13 (B1.4.13), 154-61. 9. Comm.Luc., II, 1911-14: ÆHom 13 (B1.4.13), 175-77. Refs none. Bede interpreted Luke 6:36-42, Christ’s teaching on judging others, which begins, “be ye therefore merciful as your Father also is merciful.” This extract was included by SMARAGDUS in his Expositio Libri comitis (ed. PL 102.368-70) with some changes, including the first word, “misericors” (for Bede’s “benignus”). For this reason, Mary P. Richards identifies the extract in the Cambridge and London manuscripts, English versions of the Homiliary of PAUL THE DEACON (see the introduction, Bible: Homilies), as by Smaragdus. Rodney M. Thomson (2001 p 64) lists it as by Bede. Thomas Rud (1825 p 48) provides the incipit (“misericors”) for the Durham manuscript and identifies it as by Bede. M.R. James (1905 p 21) specifies only PL 92.408 for the relevant item in Pembroke College 23. Although he did not know that this extract circulated in English manuscripts of Paul’s Homiliary and although his doubts about the attribution of Sermon 115 to HERICUS are no longer shared (see Barré 1962 p 174), John C. Pope’s (1967-68 pp 494) opening remarks about the sources of ÆLFRIC’s Supplementary Homily 13 (B1.4.13; ed. Pope 1967-68 pp 497-507) deserve to be quoted at length: Ælfric’s chief guide appears to have been the corresponding section of Bede’s commentary on Luke. Bede’s main ideas are evident in many passages, and at 120-22, Ælfric is almost certainly dependent on him, for I have not found the relevant sentences (the last two in the passage quoted) in other commentators. At several other places I think Bede’s language or sequence of ideas is closer to Ælfric than anything else I can find. But there are two homilies developed out of Bede’s commentary that Ælfric probably consulted also. One is HAYMO’s Homily 115 for the fifth Sunday after Pentecost. Haymo so frequently echoes or merely expands Bede that it is hard to tell which one to cite, but the passage quoted at 141-45 appears only in Haymo and is clearly responsible for Ælfric’s comment. The other homily, assigned to the same Sunday, is attributed to Hericus, a monk of Auxerre in the latter part of the ninth century. It is included in Migne’s edition of the homiliary of Paulus Diaconus (PL

Bible: Commentaries

107

95.1363-69), a collection of which some form was pretty certainly used by Ælfric. The homily is a painstaking development of Bede’s ideas, making them more explicit and simpler in expression but adding almost nothing. Here and there, as at 113-16 and at 175-77, it has seemed to me that Ælfric’s sequence of thought was under Hericus’s direct influence, but of this it is hard to be certain.

In the first correspondence Ælfric, generally following Bede (who followed AUGUSTINE and who was followed by both Haymo and Hericus), understood Luke 6:37, “judge not, and you shall not be judged,” not as an absolute statement but one qualified in various ways. The second, God’s command to forgive men for our injuries so he may forgive us our sins, matches Bede more closely than Haymo. The third, on the reward for almsgiving, could be from either Bede or Haymo; in his note (p 508), Pope explains that Ælfric’s development relies on other biblical passages and his discussion of the topic in Catholic Homilies II, 7, which in turn relies on a sermon of PSEUDO AUGUSTINE. Hericus’s rephrasing of Bede’s identification of God as the one who rewards the giving of alms underlies the fourth correspondence. Lines 120-22, identified by Pope as the passage dependent only on Bede, is considered by Rohini Jayatilaka in her entries in Fontes Anglo-Saxonici to derive directly from Psalm 61:13; yet it is Bede who cited this verse in this context. Pope writes that Ælfric developed the interpretations of Bede and Haymo for Luke 6:39 (“can the blind lead the blind? do they not both fall into the ditch”) “independently” (6), as he did for the following verse (“the disciple is not above his master”), when he stated in part that Christ’s followers will suffer much “for his naman” (see Lc 21:17 and Apc 2:3); in Fontes Anglo-Saxonici Jayatilaka mentions only Bede for lines 136-40, considering him a probable direct source. In connecting anger to hatred when interpreting Luke 6:41 (“why seest thou the mote in thy brother’s eye but the beam that is in thy own eye thou considerest not?”), Ælfric followed Bede or the development of his discussion by Haymo or Hericus (8). Finally, in defining a hypocrite as one who attempts to correct others when himself sinful, Ælfric used Bede, or more closely his restatement by Hericus (9), whom Jayatilaka in Fontes Anglo-Saxonici considers to be a certain direct source. Extract ex Comm.Luc., II, 2260-339. ed.: CCSL 120.157-59. MSS 1. Cambridge, University Library, Ii. 2. 19, fols. 1-216: ASM 16.

108 

BEDE – PART 2

2. Cambridge, Pembroke College, 23: ASM 129. 3. Durham, Cathedral Library, A. III. 29: ASM 222. 4. London, British Library, Harley 652: ASM 424. 5. Worcester, Cathedral Library, F. 93: ASM 763.1. Lists – A-S Vers none. Quots/Cits 1. Comm.Luc., II, 2266-71: ÆCHom I, 33 (B1.1.35), 17-19. 2. Comm.Luc., II, 2271-74: ÆCHom I, 33 (B1.1.35), 19-23. 3. Comm.Luc., II, 2274-78: ÆCHom I, 33 (B1.1.35), 23-27. 4. Comm.Luc., II, 2278-86: ÆCHom I, 33 (B1.1.35), 28-35. 5. Comm.Luc., II, 2302-06: ÆCHom I, 33 (B1.1.35), 36-38. 6. Comm.Luc., II, 2308-17: ÆCHom I, 33 (B1.1.35), 39-51. 7. Comm.Luc., II, 2317-22: ÆCHom I, 33 (B1.1.35), 54-58. 8. Comm.Luc., II, 2324-25: ÆCHom I, 33 (B1.1.35), 60-61. 9. Comm.Luc., II, 2327-28: ÆCHom I, 33 (B1.1.35), 62-64. 10. Comm.Luc., II, 2330-32: ÆCHom I, 33 (B1.1.35), 64-67. Refs ÆCHom I, 33 (B1.1.35), 16. The extract covers Luke 7:11-16, Christ’s reviving of the widow’s son at Naim. In his description of the Homiliary of PAUL THE DEACON (see the introduction, Bible: Homilies) Réginald Grégoire (1980 p 467) includes two items under II, 76: an extract from Bede’s Commentarius in Lucam and a homily for the nativity of Mary, that is, Bede’s Homily I.4. Mary P. Richards (1988 p 107) refers to II, 76 to identify the contents of the Cambridge and London manuscripts listed above. See Rodney M. Thomson (2001 p 64) for the Worcester manuscript, in which the explicit establishes that this manuscript contains only the first abstract, and Thomas Rud (1825 p 48) for the Durham manuscript. M.R. James (1905 p 22) specifies PL 94.300 (recte 299) for Pembroke College 23. At the beginning of Homily I, 33 (B1.1.35; ed. Clemoes 1997 pp 459-64) on the resurrection of the widow’s son of Naim (Lc 7.11-16) in his first series of Catholic Homilies, ÆLFRIC identified Bede “the commentator” (line 16; “se trahtnere”; see, however Catholic Homilies II, 5.34 for a use of the term in relation to a homily) as his source; however, Cyril Smetana (1959 pp 193-94) points out that two parts of the Luke Commentary that he used had been

Bible: Commentaries

109

excerpted in the Homiliary of Paul the Deacon (see Grégoire 1980 pp 467 and 471, nos. 76 and 96). Joyce Hill (1992) proposes that SMARAGDUS’S collection plays a significant role in this work, accounting as it does for the opening explanation of Naim’s name. Malcolm Godden (2000 p 275) argues for yet another intermediate source, a sermon in late versions of Paul the Deacon’s Homiliary probably written by HERICUS OF AUXERRE; he does not list Smaragdus among Ælfric’s sources (see p 276, note 3). The first correspondence concerns “the dead youth” as a symbol of “every sinful man” (trans. Thorpe 1844-46 1.493). Like Bede, but unlike Hericus, Ælfric immediately explained that as “the only born son of his mother,” the youth is like “every Christian man a son of holy church” (2; trans. 1.493). Both Bede and Hericus then provide possible sources for the next comment, “every servant of God, when he learns, is called a child: afterwards, when he teaches another, he is a mother, as the apostle Paul said of the fallen men, ‘Ye are my children, whom I now a second time conceive, until Christ is renewed in you’” (3; trans. 1.493). Only Bede, however, provides a source for the next three correspondences, which elaborate on the “port-gate” as “some bodily sense through which men sin” (4; trans. 1.493), Jesus’s compassion for the mother (5), and the bier as “the heedless mind of the hopeless sinful” with the bearers “the blandishments of flattering companions” (6; trans. 1.493). The next two correspondences (7 and 8), linked by the same verses from Luke (14-15), also appear only in Bede: the standing still of the men carrying the bier is like the mind of the sinful “touched by fear of heavenly doom,” which then “promptly answers” the call to eternal life (7; trans. 1.495) and “the requickened sits, when the sinful with divine stimulation quickens” (8; trans. 1.495). After a comment “unlike” either Bede or Hericus (Godden 2000 p 278), Ælfric returned to Bede for two more remarks, again linked by the same verse (Lc 7:16): “he is delievered to his mother, when through the priest’s authority he is associated in communion of the holy church” (9; trans. 1.495) and “for so as a man turns from great sins to God’s mercy, and corrects his conduct after God’s commandments, so more men will be turned through his example to the praise of God” (10; trans. 1.495). For the final remarks on the passage, however, Hericus, not Bede, provides the material Ælfric used. For many of the correspondences, Godden in his entries in Fontes Anglo-Saxonici lists the Commentary as the only source, but represents it as possible, rather than probable or certain. Instead, we would support Godden’s (2000 p 276) conclusion, without qualification: “one should perhaps conclude that Ælfric used both Bede and Hericus.” The extract is included as Homily 15 in “liber III, homiliae subdititiae” of the PL’s printing of Bede’s homilies (94.299-300; see CCSL 122.381-84).

110 

BEDE – PART 2

Extract ex Comm.Luc., III, 865-1101. ed.: CCSL 120.188-94. MSS Cambridge, Pembroke College, 23: ASM 129. Lists – A-S Vers none. Quots/Cits 1. Comm.Luc III, 1052-54: ÆCHom I, 33 (B1.1.23), 80-81. 2. Comm.Luc., III, 1055-59; ÆCHom I, 33 (B1.1.23), 87-92. 3. Comm.Luc., III, 1059-65: ÆCHom I, 33 (B1.1.35), 92-97. 4. Comm.Luc., III, 1065-72: ÆCHom I, 33 (B1.1.35), 98-105. 5. Comm.Luc., III, 1073-78: ÆCHom I, 33 (B1.1.35), 105-12. 6. Comm.Luc., III, 1079-80: ÆCHom I, 33 (B1.1.35), 112-13. 7. Comm.Luc., III, 1086-87: ÆCHom I, 33 (B1.1.35), 113-16. 8. Comm.Luc., III, 1080-84: ÆCHom I, 33 (B1.1.35), 117-21. Refs none. The extract covers Bede’s explication of Luke 8:41-56, Christ’s resurrection of the daughter of Jairus. Included as II, 96 in the Homiliary of PAUL THE DEACON (see Grégoire 1980 p 471 and the introduction, Bible: Homilies), this extract has been identified only in Pembroke College 23, and here on the basis of M.R. James (1905 p 22), who refers to PL 92.441. In the second half of his Homily 33 (B1.1.35; ed. Clemoes 1997 pp 459-64) in his first series of Catholic Homilies, ÆLFRIC, following a homily by HERICUS that he had used in the first half (see the previous entry), turned to two other resurrections, those of the daughter of Jairus and Lazarus. Yet the basic idea that holds these two parts together, “the resurrection of these three persons betokens the threefold resurrection of sinful souls” (trans. Thorpe 1844-46 1.497; 1), is from Bede, although the context suggests that Ælfric derived it directly from Hericus. Malcolm Godden (2000 pp 279-80) identifies all but one of the next seven correspondences as deriving from either Bede or Hericus. The first three (in Ælfric) distinguish between those who sin secretly, publicly, and habitually (2-4). Ælfric then followed either Bede or Hericus in developing the idea that like greater medication required for increasingly grave wounds, Christ’s actions in raising these three differed (5, 6, and 8). For

Bible: Commentaries

111

correspondence 7, however, Godden cites only Bede for Ælfric’s “secret sins shall be expiated secretly, and open openly” (trans. Thorpe 1844-46 1.499). In his entries in Fontes Anglo-Saxonici, Godden records only Bede as the source for quotations 2-8, considering him a possible source. As in the case of the previous entry, it appears more likely that Ælfric used both Bede and Hericus. Extract ex Comm.Luc. III, 1104-98. See HRABANUS MAURUS Homily 66. Homily 66 of HRABANUS MAURUS (ed. PL 110.271-73) is adapted from Bede’s Commentarius in Lucam (CCSL 120.194-96). Because the incipit and explicit are both from Bede, it is not yet clear if only Hrabanus’s adaptation circulated in English manuscripts of the Homiliary of PAUL THE DEACON (see the introduction, Bible: Homilies) or if an abstract just of Bede was present as well. Rodney M. Thomson identifies item 107 in Worcester, Cathedral Library, manuscript F. 93 (ASM 763.1) as Bede. Mary P. Richards lists Cambridge, University Library, Ii. 2. 19, fols. 1-216 (ASM 16) and London, British Library, Harley 652 (ASM 424) as containing Hrabanus. M.R. James (1905 p 21) specifies only PL 92.445. Thomas N. Hall’s notes on Harley 652 (see the introduction, Bible: Homilies) also identify it as including Hrabanus; yet his notes on Salisbury, Cathedral Library, 179 (ASM 753) both list the extract in this manuscript as from Bede and identify the Harley manuscript as containing the same work. Hall here also includes Cambridge, University Library, Ii. 2. 19 and Cambridge, Pembroke College, 23 (ASM 129). A problem that momentarily stumped Tom Hall is indeed a problem, and again we thank him for his help. Bede interpreted Luke 9:1-6, the commissioning of the twelve apostles. Homily ex Comm.Luc., III, 1407-89. ed.: CCSL 120.202-04. MSS 1. Cambridge, University Library, Kk. 4. 13: ASM 24. 2. Lincoln, Cathedral Library, 158 (C. 2. 2): ASM 273. 3. London, British Library, Royal 2. C. iii: ASM 452. Lists – Refs none. Bede discussed Luke 9:23-27, Christ’s teaching to his disciples that begins: “if any man will come after me, let him deny himself, and take up his

112 

BEDE – PART 2

cross daily, and follow me.” The extract circulated as a homily in English manuscripts of the Homiliary of PAUL THE DEACON; see the introduction, Bible: Homilies. Mary P. Richards (1988 p 99) identifies it in the manuscripts listed above. Extract ex Comm.Luc., III, 2172-310. ed.: CCSL 120.221-25. MSS 1. Cambridge, University Library, Ii. 2. 19, fols. 1-216: ASM 16. 2. Cambridge, Pembroke College, 23: ASM 129. 3. Durham, Cathedral Library, A. III. 29: ASM 222. 4. London, British Library, Harley 652: ASM 424. 5. Worcester, Cathedral Library, F. 93: ASM 763.1. Lists – Refs none. Bede explicated Luke 10:23-37, Christ’s words to the disciples beginning “blessed are the eyes that see the things which you see” and the following parable of the Good Samaritan. A shorter extract, concerning just the parable, circulated in the Homiliary of PAUL THE DEACON, II, 63; see Réginald Grégoire (1980 p 464) and the introduction, Bible: Homilies. It is to Grégoire that Richards (1988 p 107) refers in considering the Cambridge and London manuscripts. In his notes, however, Thomas N. Hall (see the introduction, Bible: Homilies) states that these manuscripts contain the longer extract, which corresponds to Rodney M. Thomson’s (2001 p 64) description of the Worcester manuscript. The incipit in Thomas Rud (1825 p 48) for the Durham manuscript also corresponds to the longer version; Hall notes that the extract in Durham is incomplete. M.R. James (1905 p 22) specifies PL 94.293 and lists the incipit, “Esayas quoque.” The extract also appears as Homilies 12 and 106 in “liber III, homiliae subdititiae” of the PL’s printing of Bede’s homilies (94.293-96 and 94.507-10; see CCSL 122.381-84). Extract ex Comm.Luc., III, 2311-77. ed.: CCSL 120.225-26. MSS 1. Cambridge, University Library, Kk. 4. 13: ASM 24.

Bible: Commentaries

113

2. Cambridge, Pembroke College, 24: ASM 130. 3. Lincoln, Cathedral Library, 158 (C. 2. 2): ASM 273. 4. London, British Library, Royal 2. C. iii: ASM 452. 5. Worcester, Cathedral Library, F. 94: ASM 763.2. Lists – Refs none. Bede explicated Luke 10:38-42, Christ’s exchange with Martha about her choices and those of her sister, Mary. By referring to Réginald Grégoire II, 70 (1980 pp 465-66), Mary P. Richards (1988 p 100) identifies the extract as appearing in the Homiliary of PAUL THE DEACON; see the introduction, Bible: Homilies. Grégoire notes that it is missing from early manuscripts of the collection, which do not contain the feast of the Assumption. See Richards (1988 p 100) for the Cambridge University and London manuscripts and Rodney M. Thomson (2001 p 66) for the Worcester manuscript. M.R. James (1905 p 24) specifies PL 94.420, Homily 57 in “liber III, homiliae subdititiae” of the PL’s printing of Bede’s homilies, PL 94.420-21 (see CCSL 122.381-84). This homily begins with the second sentence of the extract, “duae quippe istae domino dilectae sorores.” Extract ex Comm.Luc., III, 2432-63 and Homily II.14. ed.: PL 92.473, 14-55 and CCSL 122.272-79. MSS 1. Cambridge, University Library, Ii. 2. 19, fols. 1-216: ASM 16. 2. Cambridge, Pembroke College, 23: ASM 129. 3. Durham, Cathedral Library, A. III. 29: ASM 222. 4. London, British Library, Harley 652: ASM 424. 5. Salisbury, Cathedral Library, 179: ASM 753. 6. Worcester, Cathedral Library, F. 93: ASM 763.1. Lists – Refs none. Homily II, 19 in the Homiliary of PAUL THE DEACON (see the introduction, Bible: Homilies) begins with a passage from Bede’s Commentarius in Lucam corresponding to what is printed in PL 92.473, lines 14-55 (see CCSL 120.228) before continuing on with Bede’s Homily II.14 (see Grégoire 1980 p 457). Rodney M. Thomson’s (2001 p 64) incipit and explicit for item 85 in the

114 

BEDE – PART 2

Worcester manuscript indicate that the two parts are combined here. See also Mary P. Richards (1988 p 104), who identifies the Cambridge University and London manuscripts by referring to Réginald Grégoire (1980). Thomas Rud (1825 p 47) provides only the incipit for the Durham manuscript, but it is presumably this homily. Similarly, M.R. James (1905 p 21) refers only to the extract’s opening in PL 92.473. Thomas N. Hall (see the introduction, Bible: Homilies) identifies it in the Salisbury manuscript. Extract ex Comm.Luc., IV, 33-263. ed.: CCSL 120.231-37 and PL 94.422, 12-21. MSS 1. Cambridge, University Library, Kk. 4. 13: ASM 24. 2. Durham, Cathedral Library, B. II. 2: ASM 226. 3. Lincoln, Cathedral Library, 158 (C. 2. 2): ASM 273. 4. London, British Library, Royal 2. C. iii: ASM 452. 5. Worcester, Cathedral Library, F. 92: ASM 763. Lists – A-S Vers none. Quots/Cits 1. Comm.Luc., IV, 35-40: ÆHom 4 (B1.4.4), 59-71. 2. Comm.Luc., IV, 42-54: ÆHom 4 (B1.4.4), 76-89. 3. Comm.Luc., IV, 104-06: ÆHom 4 (B1.4.4), 139-49. 4. Comm.Luc., IV, 107-08: ÆHom 4 (B1.4.4), 150-52. 5. Comm.Luc., IV, 110-13: ÆHom 4 (B1.4.4), 158-62. 6. Comm.Luc., IV, 108-10: ÆHom 4 (B1.4.4), 163-72. 7. Comm.Luc., IV, 118-32: ÆHom 4 (B1.4.4), 188-96. 8. Comm.Luc., IV, 137-44: ÆHom 4 (B1.4.4), 200-11. 9. Comm.Luc., IV, 151-60: ÆHom 4 (B1.4.4), 216-19. 10. Comm.Luc., IV, 160-64: ÆHom 4 (B1.4.4), 220-30. 11. Comm.Luc., IV, 171-74: ÆHom 4 (B1.4.4), 242-45. 12. Comm.Luc., IV, 176-77: ÆHom 4 (B1.4.4), 249. 13. Comm.Luc., IV, 183-85: ÆHom 4 (B1.4.4), 255-57. 14. Comm.Luc., IV, 186-203: ÆHom 4 (B1.4.4), 258-68. 15. Comm.Luc., IV, 215-28: ÆHom 4 (B1.4.4), 273-81. 16. Comm.Luc., IV, 241-42: ÆHom 4 (B1.4.4), 282-86. 17. Comm.Luc., IV, 253-60: ÆHom 4 (B1.4.4), 289-94.

Bible: Commentaries

115

Refs none. Homily I, 90 in the Homiliary of PAUL THE DEACON (see Grégoire 1980 p 446 and the introduction, Bible: Homilies) is extracted from Bede’s Commentarius in Lucam (Lc 11:14-28, the discussion of casting out demons) with a final passage (printed in the PL) that is not by Bede. It is included as two homilies, 49 and 58, in “liber III, homiliae subdititiae” of the PL’s printing of Bede’s homilies (94.380-82 and 421-22; see CCSL 122.381-84). Indeed, in analysing the Cambridge, Lincoln, and London manuscripts, Mary P. Richards (1988 p 98) lists the two parts separately, one for the third Sunday in Quadragesima, and the other for the octave of the assumption of Mary. Rodney M. Thomson (2001 p 61) includes an explicit that establishes that the Worcester manuscript contains the passage by Bede but not the one printed in the PL. Thomas Rud (1825 p 96) identifies only the beginning of the homily in the Durham manuscript. John C. Pope (1967-68 pp 259-60) identif ies the Commentary on Luke as the principal source for Supplementary Homily 4 (B1.4.4; ed. Pope 1967-68 pp 264-80) on the Beelzebub controversy (Lc 11:14-22, Mt 12:2230, and Mc 3:22-27), noting that the relevant passage is extracted in the Homiliary of Paul the Deacon, which is repeated by SMARAGDUS and then rewritten by HAYMO, whom Ælfric followed in “a number of small details.” As Pope notes, Bede himself had relied on JEROME’s Commentarii in euangelium Matthaei, to which Ælfric returned at certain points. The f irst correspondence concerns a passage that Bede had drawn directly from Jerome: following his source Ælfric specified that the man is cured of his madness, muteness, and blindness, just as spiritually, each day, God performs the same miracle among believers, when a sinner forsakes the devil, has the light of faith, and praises his Lord. Pope (1967-68 pp 268-69) quotes Bede as the source of lines 76-89, which develop the etymology of Beelzebub, although for the end of the passage (lines 80-85) he also cites Haymo. Similarly, Bede (quoting Jerome) lies behind lines 139-49 and 150-52, an elaboration of the meaning of the “finger of God” (Lc 11:20), although Haymo provides the wording for the opening clause: “truly this finger overcame the magicians before Pharaoh in the land of Egypt.” Bede (relying on AUGUSTINE and revised by Haymo) linked the “finger” to the gifts of the Holy Ghost (5), stressing the equality of the persons of the Trinity (6). For lines 188-96, which identify the “strong man” (Lc 11:21) as the devil and the “stronger” (11:22) as Christ, Pope cites only Bede; in

116 

BEDE – PART 2

her entries in Fontes Anglo-Saxonici Rohini Jayatilaka records a similar passage in Haymo. In contrasting the deeds of Christ and the devil (8), Ælfric followed Bede (Jerome) occasionally as modified by Haymo. The beginning of Ælfric’s interpretation of Luke 11:24 (“when the unclean spirit is gone out of a man, he walketh through places without water, seeking rest”) relies on both Bede and Haymo, but for the end (10), which quotes and discusses Job 40:16, only Bede has been cited. Similarly, only Bede is cited for the gloss that links Luke 11:25 and 26: “the man is cleansed through baptism, but if he is then empty of good works and through hypocrisy adorned by the devil…” (11). The identification of the seven spirits with the seven deadly sins (lines 249-51) leads to Pope’s long note on this tradition since it has implications for the chronology of Ælfric’s work (see pp 284-85); according to Jayatilaka in Fontes Anglo-Saxonici Bede is the certain direct source of line 249. Only Bede is cited for Ælfric’s comment that it would be better for one reinhabited by evil spirits had he never known the way of truth (13). Like Bede, who relied on Jerome, Ælfric then turned to Matthew 12:45 (“so shall it be also to this wicked generation”) to interpret the parable as explaining God’s relationship to the Jews and Gentiles (14). Either Bede or Haymo could account for Ælfric’s interpretation of Luke 11:27, the response of a woman in the crowd (15 and 16). Of the final correspondence, the explanation of Luke 11:28 (17), Pope writes, “Haymo simplifies helpfully but leaves out the substance of 291-92”: Mary is blessed because she bore Christ, but more blessed because she loved and held God’s word; blessed are all who hear God’s word and hold it with love. Extract ex Comm.Luc., IV, 213-63. ed. CCSL 120.236-37. MSS 1. Cambridge, University Library, Kk. 4. 13: ASM 24. 2. Durham, Cathedral Library, B. II. 2: ASM 226. 3. Lincoln, Cathedral Library, 158 (C. 2. 2): ASM 273. 4. London, British Library, Royal 2. C. iii: ASM 452. Lists – Refs none. See Extract ex Comm.Luc., IV, 33-263.

Bible: Commentaries

117

Extract ex Comm.Luc., IV, 321-74. ed.: CCSL 120.239-40. MSS 1. Cambridge, University Library, Kk. 4. 13: ASM 24. 2. Cambridge, Pembroke College, 24: ASM 130. 3. Durham, Cathedral Library, A. III. 29: ASM 222. 4. Lincoln, Cathedral Library, 158 (C. 2. 2): ASM 273. 5. London, British Library, Royal 2. C. iii: ASM 452. 6. Worcester, Cathedral Library, F. 94: ASM 763.2. Lists – Refs none. Bede interpreted Luke 11:33-36, Christ’s teaching summarized in the last verse: “if then thy whole body be lightsome, having no part of darkness, the whole shall be lightsome, and as a bright lamp, shall enlighten thee.” The extract was included in the Homiliary of PAUL THE DEACON, II, 107; see Réginald Grégoire (1980 p 473), who notes an addition at the end not by Bede. Mary P. Richards (1988 p 100) lists the Cambridge University, Lincoln, and London manuscripts. See Rodney M. Thomson (2001 p 67) for the Worcester manuscript; Thomas Rud (1825 p 50) for the Durham manuscript; and M.R. James (1905 p 25) for Pembroke College 24. On the circulation of this extract see the introduction, Bible: Homilies. The extract is printed as Homily 77 in “liber III, homiliae subdititiae” of the PL’s edition of Bede’s homilies, PL 94.465; see CCSL 122.381-84. Extract ex Comm.Luc., IV, 594-765. ed.: CCSL 120.245-250. MSS Cambridge, Pembroke College, 24: ASM 130. Lists – Refs none. The extract covers Luke 12:1-10, Christ’s teaching to his disciples, which begins “beware ye of the leaven of the Pharisees, which is hypocrisy” and ends “and whosoever speaketh a word against the Son of man, it shall be forgiven him, but to him that shall blaspheme against the Holy Ghost, it shall

118 

BEDE – PART 2

not be forgiven.” In his catalogue of the Pembroke College Library, M.R. James (1905 p 23) identifies item 11 of manuscript 24 by referring to the PL edition of the Commentarius in Lucam (92.487) and Homily 83 in “liber III, homiliae subdititiae” of the PL’s printing of Bede’s homilies, PL 94.457 (see CCSL 122.381-84). Extract ex Comm.Luc., IV, 1706-40. ed.: CCSL 120.273-74. MSS Cambridge, Pembroke College, 24: ASM 130. Lists – Refs none. The extract covers Luke 13:34-35, Christ’s teaching that begins, “Jerusalem, Jerusalem, that killest the prophets.” In his catalogue of the Pembroke College Library, M.R. James (1905 p 23) identifies item 30 as Homily 83 in “liber III, homiliae subdititiae” of the PL’s printing of Bede’s homilies, PL 94.475 (see CCSL 122.381-84), although he lists the column as 472. Extract ex Comm.Luc., IV, 1741-854. ed.: CCSL 120.274-77. MSS 1. Cambridge, University Library, Ii. 2. 19, fols. 1-216: ASM 16. 2. Cambridge, Pembroke College, 23: ASM 129. 3. Durham, Cathedral Library, A. III. 29: ASM 222. 4. London, British Library, Harley 652: ASM 424. 5. Worcester, Cathedral Library, F. 93: ASM 763.1. Lists – Refs none. Bede explicated Luke 14:1-11, Christ’s healing of a man with dropsy on the Sabbath and his parable about selecting seats at a wedding. The extract circulated in the Homiliary of PAUL THE DEACON, II, 80; see Réginald Grégoire (1980 p 468) and the introduction, Bible: Homilies. Mary P. Richards (1988 p 107) lists the Cambridge University and London manuscripts. See Rodney M. Thomson (2001 pp 64-65) for the Worcester manuscript and

Bible: Commentaries

119

Thomas Rud (1825 p 48) for the Durham manuscript. M.R. James (1905 p 22) specifies PL 94.300 for Pembroke College, 23. The extract is Homily 16 in “liber III, homiliae subdititiae” of the PL’s printing of Bede’s homilies (94.300-02; see CCSL 122.381-84). Extract ex Comm.Luc., V, 36-116. ed.: CCSL 120.296-98. MSS 1. Cambridge, University Library, Ii. 2. 19, fols. 1-216: ASM 16. 2. London, British Library, Harley 652: ASM 424. 3. Worcester, Cathedral Library, F. 93: ASM 763.1. Lists – A-S Vers none. Quots/Cits 1. Comm.Luc., V, 60-69: ÆHom 16 (B1.4.16), 103-20. 2. Comm.Luc., V, 36-44: ÆHom 16 (B1.4.16), 146-58. 3. Comm.Luc., V, 81-84: ÆHom 16 (B1.4.16), 173-82. 4. Comm.Luc., V, 47-49: ÆHom 16 (B1.4.16), 207-09. 5. Comm.Luc., V, 104-11: ÆHom 16 (B1.4.16), 262-68. 6. Comm.Luc., V, 111-16: ÆHom 16 (B1.4.16), 269-78. Refs none. Bede explicated Luke 16:1-9, the parable of the unjust steward. John C. Pope (1967-68 p 544) notes that Bede used (and quoted in full) one of AUGUSTINE’s two influential interpretations of the parable, chapter 34 of his Quaestiones euangeliorum (but not his Sermon 113): “Augustine was concerned in both these writings to extract the obviously intended lesson about the practical advantages of almsgiving, and at the same time to reject the fraudulence of the steward.” Pope finds this same emphasis in Bede and HAYMO OF AUXERRE, the two main sources for the homily he is discussing, ÆLFRIC’s Homily 16 in his Supplementary Collection (B1.4.16; ed. Pope 1967-68 pp 547-59). Homily 131 of HRABANUS MAURUS (ed. PL 110.396-98) is adapted with few changes from this extract; yet one, the syntax of the final sentence, may indicate that the extract, rather than its adaptation, circulated in

120 

BEDE – PART 2

English manuscripts of the Homiliary of PAUL THE DEACON (see the introduction, Bible: Homilies). Hrabanus rephrased Bede’s question to fit into his closing statement. Rodney M. Thomson (2001 p 64) records the question as the explicit in the Worcester manuscript. Mary P. Richards (1988 p 105) identifies the homily in the Cambridge and London manuscripts as Hrabanus; Thomas N. Hall’s notes (see the introduction, Bible: Homilies) on the London manuscript record Bede’s question. Returning to Ælfric, the first correspondence involves the interpretation of Luke 16:3, the steward’s interior monologue: “what shall I do, because my lord taketh away from me the stewardship? To dig I am not able; to beg I am ashamed.” Following Bede and quoting the same biblical passages (Mt 25:8 and Prv 20:4), Ælfric related these lines to the next life when we are no longer able to do good deeds. Commenting on Luke 16:7 and following Bede’s quotation of Augustine, Ælfric understood the steward’s unjust actions as teaching that good deeds will be rewarded with a place in the “eternal temple” (2). In lines 173-82 (3), Ælfric turned to the salvation of Zacheus (Lc 19:2-10) as an example of one who distributes alms and is saved. The main source is the Bible; yet because Ælfric commented first on Zacheus’s “unrighteousness,” Pope (1967-68 p 554) cites Augustine’s Sermon 113 as the source, commenting that Bede and Haymo mentioned him only “as an example of liberality.” That Zacheus has done wrong seems a likely conclusion to draw from 19:8 (“if I have wronged any man of any thing, I restore him fourfold”). In her entries in Fontes Anglo-Saxonici Rohini Jayatilaka cites only Bede and Haymo for these lines, but also notes that Ælfric had previously told the story of Luke 19:2-8 in Catholic Homily II, 38 (lines 80-95) in a way that assumes the steward’s unjust behaviour. Bede’s quotation of Augustine underlies Ælfric’s comments that the Lord praises with better praise his true steward, who performs his will (4) and that righteous men place their hope not in worldly riches but in heavenly rewards (5). Finally, Ælfric followed Bede in claiming that those who give alms will have a place in heaven (6). Extract ex Comm.Luc., V, 154-75 and IV, 846-938. ed.: CCSL 120.299-300 and 252-54. MSS 1. Cambridge, University Library, Ii. 2. 19, fols. 1-216: ASM 16. 2. Cambridge, Pembroke College, 23: ASM 129. 3. London, British Library, Harley 652: ASM 424.

Bible: Commentaries

121

Lists – A-S Vers none. Quots/Cits 1. Comm.Luc., V, 154-65: ÆCHom II, 36.1 (B1.2.38), 24-34. 2. Comm.Luc., IV, 853-54: ÆCHom II, 36.1 (B1.2.38), 38-40. 3. Comm.Luc., IV, 855-64: ÆCHom II, 36.1 (B1.2.38), 41-47. 4. Comm.Luc., IV, 871-88: ÆCHom II, 36.1 (B1.2.38), 50-66. 5. Comm.Luc., IV, 897-904: ÆCHom II, 36.1 (B1.2.38), 67-84. 6. Comm.Luc., IV, 934-38: ÆCHom II, 36.1 (B1.2.38), 85-102. Refs ÆCHom II, 36.1 (B1.2.24), 24. Homily II, 75 in the Homiliary of PAUL THE DEACON (see Grégoire 1980 pp 466-67 and the introduction, Bible: Homilies) is composed of two extracts from Bede’s Commentarius in Lucam. The first covers Luke 16:13 (“no servant can serve two masters”) and the second Luke 12:22-31, Christ’s teaching to the disciples, “be not solicitous for your life, what you shall eat, nor for your body, what you shall put on.” The two parts have been joined because the verses appear together in Matthew 6:24-33. There is some uncertainty about the manuscripts listed above since the extract on 16:13 also serves as the opening of Homily 14 in “liber III, homiliae subdititiae” of the PL’s printing of Bede’s homilies, PL 94.298.26-52 (see CCSL 122.381-84). Mary P. Richards (1988 p 107) identifies the Cambridge University and London manuscripts by referring to Réginald Grégoire (1980). For Pembroke College 23, however, M.R. James (1905 p 22) specifies PL 94.298. It seems likely that all refer to the extract that circulated in Paul the Deacon’s Homiliary. Following his rendering of the Gospel reading, Matthew 6:24-33, ÆLFRIC identified his main source for Homily 31 (B1.2.38; ed. Godden 1979 pp 268-71) in his second series of Catholic Homiles, presumably this extract: “Beda trahtnode sceortlice ðis godspel” (24; emphasis added). Malcolm Godden (2000 p 601) writes, “Bede’s exposition is in fact almost entirely derived, word-for-word, from AUGUSTINE’s commentary on the sermon on the Mount and JEROME’s commentary on Matthew, but it is Bede that he specifies and there is no sign that he has gone behind Bede to consult his sources.” Godden also notes that Ælfric “probably also knew the more extended allegorical treatments by HERICUS (included in [the expanded version of Paul the Deacon’s Homiliary printed in PL 95]) and HAYMO,

122 

BEDE – PART 2

but shows little if any sign of influence from them.” With respect to Bede, Godden states that while Ælfric’s “general line of argument is similar,” he “does not follow him at all closely and gradually moves further away as the homily develops.” In contrast to Bede, who “is chiefly concerned to explain away the possible implications of the text, arguing that man is meant to take reasonable thought for food and clothing,” Ælfric “uses the text to illustrate the divine scheme more as it applies to the afterlife.” In lines 24-34, Ælfric followed Bede “fairly closely” (Godden 2000 p 602), writing for example, “he who is the servant of his possessions, serves them as a master, and he who is the master of his possessions, deals them as a master” (trans. Thorpe 1844-46 2.463). In developing this idea, he commented on the need for labour following the Fall, an idea which Godden finds in Bede (2). Both note that God, who created soul and body, can easily provide food and clothing (3) and that since he provides for birds, which pass away, “how much more will God provide for our sustenance, we who are eternal in our souls” (trans. 2.463; 4). Like Bede, Ælfric reflected on the rose as well as the lily, and explained that in scripture “tomorrow” means “future time” (5). Godden notes that “the last part of Ælfric’s exposition” (lines 85-102) “owes little to Bede”; yet the passage he quotes points toward his discussion of eternal life (6). Extract ex Comm.Luc., V, 657-777. ed.: CCSL 120.312-15. MSS 1. Cambridge, University Library, Ii. 2. 19, fols. 1-216: ASM 16. 2. Cambridge, Pembroke College, 23: ASM 129. 3. London, British Library, Harley 652: ASM 424. Lists – Refs none. Bede interpreted Luke 17:11-19, the cleansing of ten lepers. The extract circulated in the Homiliary of PAUL THE DEACON, II, 74; see Réginald Grégoire (1980 p 466) and the introduction, Bible: Homilies. Mary P. Richards (1988 p 107) identifies the Cambridge University and London manuscripts. M.R. James (1905 p 22) specifies PL 94.296 for Pembroke College 23. The extract is Homily 13 in “liber III, homiliae subdititiae” of the PL’s printing of Bede’s homilies, PL 94.296-98; see CCSL 122.381-84.

Bible: Commentaries

123

Extract ex Comm.Luc., V, 1118-92. ed.: CCSL 120.323-25. MSS 1. Cambridge, University Library, Ii. 2. 19, fols. 1-216: ASM 16. 2. Cambridge, Pembroke College, 23: ASM 129. 3. Durham, Cathedral Library, A. III. 29: ASM 222. 4. London, British Library, Harley 652: ASM 424. 5. Worcester, Cathedral Library, F. 93: ASM 763.1. Lists – A-S Vers none. Quots/Cits 1. Comm.Luc. V, 1171-78: ÆCHom II, 33 (B1.2.35), 17-25. 2. Comm.Luc., V, 1143-48: ÆCHom II, 33 (B1.2.35), 25-28. 3. Comm.Luc., V, 1152-64: ÆCHom II, 33 (B1.2.35), 64-82. Refs none. Bede commented on Luke 18:9-14, the parable of the Pharisee and the publican. This extract is included in the Homiliary of PAUL THE DEACON, II, 64; see Réginald Grégoire (1980 pp 464-65) and the introduction, Bible: Homilies. Mary P. Richards (1988 p 105) lists the Cambridge University and London manuscripts and Rodney M. Thomson (2001 p 64) the Worcester manuscript. Thomas Rud (1825 p 48) provides the incipit of the Durham manuscript. M.R. James (1905 p 22) specifies PL 94.289 for Pembroke College 23. Malcolm Godden (2000 p 583) identifies “a number of commentaries on the Gospel text included in versions of Paul the Deacon’s homiliary” as the main sources for ÆLFRIC’s Homily 28 (B1.2.35; ed. Godden 1979 pp 249-54) in his second series of Catholic Homilies; among these is Bede’s extract. As is often the case, overlap in the sources causes some doubt about which ones Ælfric actually used. Here Godden states that the related homily by HAYMO “mostly draws on Bede and offers nothing new that is relevant, except perhaps in its reference to great men destroyed for their pride.” Similarly, “the homily by SMARAGDUS was no doubt known to Ælfric but draws heavily on Bede and has contributed nothing.” In contrast, Godden turns specifically to HERICUS for some details. Of the three passages that Godden relates to Bede, the first distinguishes the two men as representatives of the

124 

BEDE – PART 2

Jews and the Gentiles. Following his source, Ælfric explained: “The Jewish people were, as it were, exalted through the righteousness of the old law, and for which they praised themselves; and the heathen folk, far from God, confessed their sins with humility, and became near to God and exalted.” (trans. Thorpe 1844-46 2.429) Although Ælfric emphasized a different kind of pride – considering one’s virtues to derive from one’s merits – than Bede did in explaining the Pharisee’s fault, Godden again considers the extract the source for lines 25-28. Finally, Ælfric followed Bede in associating the Pharisee’s moral blindness with Ezekiel’s vision of the four beasts and wheels with eyes (Ez 1:18). In his entries in Fontes Anglo-Saxonici Godden considers all three to be probable direct sources. The extract is Homily 10 in “liber III, homiliae subdititiae” of the PL’s printing of Bede’s homilies, PL 94.289-90; see CCSL 122.381-84. ? Extract ex Comm.Luc., V, 1358-73. ed.: CCSL 120.329-30. MSS Canterbury, Cathedral Library and Archives, Add. 127/1: ASM 209. Lists – Refs none. J.E. Cross and Thomas N. Hall (1993 p 189) identify the fragment in the Canterbury manuscript as coming from Bede’s Commentarius in Lucam (V, 1358-73), on Luke 18:29-30. This does not correspond with any known extract. Extract ex Comm.Luc., V.1495-620. ed.: CCSL 120.333-36. MSS 1. Cambridge, University Library, Kk. 4. 13: ASM 24. 2. Cambridge, Pembroke College, 24: ASM 130. 3. Canterbury, Cathedral Library and Archives, Add. 127/1: ASM 209. 4. Durham, Cathedral Library, A. III. 29: ASM 222. 5. London, British Library, Royal 2. C. iii: ASM 452. 6. Worcester, Cathedral Library, F. 94: ASM 763.2. 7. Rouen, Bibliothèque municipale, 368 (A. 27) (the “Lanalet Pontifical”): ASM 922.

Bible: Commentaries

125

Lists – Refs none. Bede interpreted Luke 19:1-10, Zacheus’s salvation. The extract appears in the Homiliary of PAUL THE DEACON, II, 129; see Réginald Grégoire (1980 pp 477-78) and the introduction, Bible: Homilies. J.E. Cross and Thomas N. Hall (1993 p 190) identify the Canterbury fragment. For the Cambridge University and London manuscripts, see also Mary P. Richards (1988 p 101); for the Worcester manuscript, Rodney M. Thomson (2001 p 68); for the Durham manuscript, Thomas Rud (1825 p 55); and for Pembroke 24, M.R. James (1905 p 25). It also appears as lectiones IX-XII for the feast day In dedicatione ecclesiae in the eleventh-century Lanalet Pontifical; see G.H. Doble (1937). It is Homily 66 in “liber III, homiliae subdititiae” of the PL’s printing of Bede’s homilies, PL 94.439-41; see CCSL 122.381-84. Extract ex Comm.Luc., V, 1635-833. ed. CCSL 120.336-41. MSS 1. Cambridge, University Library, Kk. 4. 13: ASM 24. 2. Canterbury, Cathedral Library and Archives, Add. 127/1: ASM 209. 3. Lincoln, Cathedral Library, 158 (C. 2. 2): ASM 273. 4. London, British Library, Royal 2. C. iii: ASM 452. 5. Worcester, Cathedral Library, F. 94: ASM 763. Lists – Refs none. Bede commented on Luke 19:12-27, the parable of the ten pounds. J.E. Cross and Thomas N. Hall (1993 pp 189-90) identify the Canterbury fragment and list the other manuscripts, which are all English versions of the Homiliary of PAUL THE DEACON; see the introduction, Bible: Homilies. They also note that Cambridge, Pembroke College, 24 (ASM 130) “has a shorter passage from Bede’s commentary (ibid, lines 1636-821) on Luke 19:12-26, with the same incipit.” See also Mary P. Richards (1988 p 100) and Rodney M. Thomson (2001 p 67).

126 

BEDE – PART 2

Extract ex Comm.Luc., V, 2419-76. ed. CCSL 120.356-57. MSS Cambridge, Pembroke College, 23: ASM 129. Lists – Refs none. In his catalogue of the Pembroke College Library, M.R. James (1905 p 22) identifies item 69 by referring to PL 94.307, Homily 19 in “liber III, homiliae subdititiae” of the PL’s printing of Bede’s homilies (see CCSL 122.381-84). This extract covers Luke 20:20-26, the questioning of Christ over the paying of tribute to Caesar. Extract ex Comm.Luc. VI, 681-782. ed.: CCSL 120.380-82. MSS 1. Cambridge, University Library, Kk. 4. 13: ASM 24. 2. Lincoln, Cathedral Library, 158 (C. 2. 2): ASM 273. 3. Lincoln, Cathedral Library, 182 (C. 2. 8) : ASM 274. 4. London, British Library, Royal 2. C. iii: ASM 452. 5. Worcester, Cathedral Library, F. 94: ASM 763.2. Lists – Refs none. Bede interpreted Luke 22:24-30, Christ’s answer at the Last Supper to the dispute among the disciples about who would “seem to be the greater.” The extract is included in the most complete manuscript of Bede’s homilies, Lincoln, Cathedral Library 182 (see Thomson 1989 pp 146-47) as well as in English versions of the Homiliary of PAUL THE DEACON (see Richards 1988 p 100 and Thomson 2001 p 67 as well as the introduction, Bible: Homilies). It is Homily 60 in “liber III, homiliae subdititiae” of the PL’s printing of Bede’s homilies, PL 94.423-25; see CCSL 122.381-84.

Bible: Commentaries

127

Extract ex Comm.Luc., VI, 2368. ed.: CCSL 120.422. MSS ? Cambridge, Pembroke College, 23: ASM 129. Lists – Refs none. As item 29 in his catalogue of Pembroke College, M.R. James (1905 p 21) lists “promissum patris spiritus sancti gratiam” (see Joh. xiv) Octave of Ascension.” The incipit corresponds to Bede’s Commentarius in Lucam VI, 2368 on Luke 24:48-49. Expositio Actuum apostolorum [BEDA.Exp.Act.apost.]: CPL 1357. ed.: CCSL 121.3-99. MSS none. Lists ? Alcuin: ML 1.7. A-S Vers none. Quots/Cits 1. ? Exp.Act.apost., XII, 1-17 : ChronA (Bately, B17.1), anno 45, 4.13-14. 2. Exp.Act.apost., II, 16-20: ANON.Cart.S581, 1-2. 3. Exp.Act.apost., praef., 36: LANTFR.Trans.mir.Swith., III, 133-34. 4. Exp.Act.apost., I, 208-09: ÆCHom I, 20 (B1.1.22) 227-28. 5. Exp.Act.apost., I, 88-91: ÆCHom I, 21 (B1.1.23), 68-71. 6. Exp.Act.apost., I, 92-96: ÆCHom I, 21 (B1.1.23), 73-81. 7. Exp.Act.apost., I, 103-08: ÆCHom I, 21 (B1.1.23), 86-93. 8. Exp.Act.apost., I, 198-200: ÆCHom II, 14.1 (B1.2.16), 154-55. 9. Exp.Act.apost., I, 193-94: ÆCHom II, 14.1 (B1.2.16), 159-62. 10. Exp.Act.apost., I, 200-06: ÆCHom II, 14.1 (B1.2.16), 164-66. 11. Exp.Act.apost., XII, 1-17: ÆCHom II, 28 (B1.2.31), 42-48.

128 

BEDE – PART 2

Refs 1. ? BONIF.Epist. 75, 158.8-12. 2. ? BONIF.Epist. 76, 159.12-15. 3. ? ALCVIN.Vers.Eubor., 1306-08. In Historia ecclesiastica gentis Anglorum V.xxiv Bede stated that he had written two books on the Acts of the Apostles: “in Actus Apostolorum libros II” (ed. Lapidge 2010 2.482). In his edition M.L.W. Laistner (1939 pp xiii-xiv) argues convincingly from manuscript evidence and from internal references that the two books are the texts modern scholars consider, as we do in these entries, separately as the Expositio Actuum apostolorum and the Retractatio in Actus apostolorum (see the following entry). Laistner’s view, moreover, is supported by Bede’s own comment in the preface to the Retractatio. Explaining that he followed AUGUSTINE in composing this work, he wrote: “cuius industriam nobis quoque pro modulo nostro placuit imitari, ut post expositionem actuum apostolorum, quam ante annos plures rogatu uenerabilis episcopi Accae quanta ualuimus sollertia conscripsimus, nunc in idem uolumen breuem retractationis libellum condamus…” (ed. CCSL 121.103; “it pleases us to take his assiduity as our model so that, after the Expositio Actuum apostolorum, which we wrote, as well as we were able, many years ago at the request of the venerable bishop Acca, we may join a brief book of Retractatio in the same volume…”). This statement, which confirms the relationship between the two works, provides a glimpse into the way Bede visualized his works shelved in the library. In any case, also related to the Expositio is the Nomina regionum atque locorum de Actibus apostolorum, a glossary of the geographical names mentioned in Acts that circulated with the Expositio but that we also treat separately in Bible: Aids to Biblical Study. The date of the work is established by the references in the preface, also discussed in the Epistola ad Accam (Expositio Actuum apostolorum), to both Acca episcopus and frater Eusebius. The former, to whom the letter is dedicated, became bishop of Hexham in 709. The latter, Bede’s fellow monk known by his English name, HWÆTBERHT, became abbot of Monkwearmouth-Jarrow in 716. The commentary, then, must have been written between these years. When considered in the context of the other prefatory epistles to ACCA, it appears likely to have been the first letter to Acca that has survived, placing the Commentary in or around 709. In considering the problem of the date further, M.L.W. Laistner (1939 p xv-xvii) draws attention to a mistake in the Expositio concerning the lengths of the reigns of Samuel and Saul – he assigned 20 years to each – that Bede both had not made in the earlier De temporibus and corrected in the

Bible: Commentaries

129

Retractatio. Citing Bede’s comment in the prefatory letter to Acca that he had “put [the Expositio] out as quickly as time permitted in corrected form” (trans. Martin 1989 p 3; “uelocissime quantum tempus dederat […] emendatum […] indideram,” ed. CCSL 121.3), Laistner suggests that he had worked quickly from notes made before 703. The Expositio Actuum apostolorum filled an important exegetical gap because earlier commentators had generally neglected treating this important book, the continuation of the Lucan Gospel and the formative history of the Church. Indeed, the possibility that Bede composed it from notes points to this book’s chronological and geographical information as the material that, in part, drew him to the project. In the introduction to his translation, Lawrence T. Martin (1989 p xx) offers Bede’s explanation of Acts 21:27 as one of “many comments” that demonstrate “his eagerness to elucidate the literal meaning of Acts by clarifying […] the still troubling uncertainties about the details of the chronology of Paul’s life” and his exposition of 21:38 as characteristic of his struggle to reconcile “the scriptural account of events and the testimony of the historian JOSEPHUS.” The Nomina regionum atque locorum de Actibus apostolorum attests to his interest in geography. Martin adds, however, that Bede’s attention to “the long speeches of Peter, Stephen, and Paul” reflects his “early works on grammar and his treatise De schematibus et tropis, where he set out to show that all the figures of speech used in classical rhetoric are to be found in the Bible.” Indeed, in his prefatory letter to Acca, Bede identified ARATOR as an inspiration for the work: “he went straight through the same book [Acts] using heroic verse, and in the same meter he added not a few flowers of allegory, giving me the opportunity either to bring together others of these, or to explain the same ones more clearly” (trans. p 4; see also Martin’s discussion of Bede’s borrowings from Arator’s De actibus apostolorum, p 7, note 3). And yet, it may finally have been the remarkable holdings of different versions of Acts in the libraries of Monkwearmouth-Jarrow, which included Oxford, Bodleian Library, Laud gr. 35 (S.C. 1119; ASM 654) with its Latin and Greek texts in facing columns (a facsimile is available online through the Polonsky Foundation Digitization Project; see Laistner [1937] for a discussion of the Old Latin and Vulgate versions of Acts that Bede also used) that led Bede to study this work with such care. By the time he returned to Acts to write the Retractatio he was able, in Martin’s (p xxiii) assessment, “to make independent judgements based on a real understanding of the Greek text of Acts, an ability which is not evident in the Commentary.” MSS. Although there are no extant manuscripts of the Expositio from AngloSaxon England (Oxford, Bodleian Library, Bodley 808 [S.C. 2667; ASM 601]

130 

BEDE – PART 2

contains only the Nomina regionum atque locorum de Actibus apostolorum), Laistner’s (1939 p xxiv) conclusions about the ones that circulated in two main recensions on the Continent bear repeating: “the great diversity of readings within the two classes, as well as the occasional ‘crossing’ of MSS belonging to one class with MSS belonging to the other, leads to the belief that the demand for Ex became considerable soon after it was composed and that copies were multiplied during the eighth century.” After a discussion of some examples of marginal glosses that were incorporated into later copies, he notes, “as this addition occurs in seven MSS, representing not less than four different exemplars, it surely takes us back to some eighth-century critic who misunderstood Bede’s meaning and inserted a superfluous negative in the margin or between the lines of the text.” While it is impossible to know how much of this reading and misreading happened in England, the early demand for the Expositio indicates at least a strong interest among Bede’s contemporaries. Lists. For the ALCUIN booklist, see the introduction, BEDE, in volume 1. Quots/Cits 1. In her entries in Fontes Anglo-Saxonici, Susan Irvine identifies the Expositio Actuum apostolorum as a source that might have been used for the entry in the northern recension of the ANGLO-SAXON CHRONICLE for the year 45; it is quoted here from the A manuscript since it is part of the “common stock”: “her Herodes aswalt, se þe Iacobum ofslog ane geare ær his agnum deaþe” (ed. Bately 1986 p 4; “in this year died Herod, who had killed James one year before his own death,” trans. EHD 150). Acts 12:1-2, “and at the same time Herod, the king, stretched forth his hands to afflict some of the church and he killed James, the brother of John, with the sword,” itself rather than the discussion in Bede’s Expositio provides most of the material in the entry; the date could perhaps have been established by the comment that Herod “died in the third year of Claudius’s reign” (trans. Martin 1989 p 111). Quots/Cits 2. In her entries for Fontes Anglo-Saxonici, Rosalind Love identifies the direct borrowing of a passage from the commentary on Acts 2:1 (ed. CCSL 121.15) in the opening formula of Sawyer Charter 581 (see the edition online at the Electronic Sawyer). Following an elaborate explanation of the relationship of “the forty days during which the Lord kept company with his disciples after the resurrection” and “the fiftieth day, upon which the Holy Spirit was received,” Bede commented that “the figural meaning of this computation is easily accessible, for [our] present struggle is, as it were, imperceptibly generating for us the everlasting joy of the jubilee. As the Apostle says, ‘For our minor tribulation at the present time is working out for us an eternal weight of glory (2 Cor 4:17)’” (trans. Martin 1989 p 27). The charter begins “regnante Domino nostro Iesu Christo, summe beate trinitatis cuius composita facillime patet figura”; the rest of the passage

Bible: Commentaries

131

through the quotation of 2 Corinthians follows. The charter records King Eadwig’s granting of ten hides of land at Hendred, Berkshire, to Brihtric. Although it is dated to 955, R. C. Kelly (2000-01 2.223) states that “it seems almost certain that the true date is 956.” Quots/Cits 3. In his edition of LANTFRED OF WINCHESTER’s Translatio et miracula S. Swithuni, Michael Lapidge (2003b p 284, note 157) links the comment of a sick man cured by the saint that he has been “shaken with extreme astonishment” (“perculsus stupore nimio”) to similar phrases in either the preface to this commentary or the Commentarius in Apocalypsim. In this case, Bede used the phrase “uehementissimo stupore perculsus” (ed. CCSL 121.4) to describe his state of mind when he discovered that Luke (Lc 3:34-36) recorded eleven, rather than ten, generations from the flood to Abraham. Quots/Cits 4. Near the end of his narration of the story of the heretic Arius in Homily 20 in his first series of Catholic Homilies (B1.1.22; ed. Clemoes 1997 pp 335-44), ÆLFRIC commented: “he wæs swa geæmtogod on his innoðe swa swa he wæs ær on his geleafan” (ed. p 343; trans. Thorpe 1844-46 1.291, “he was as void in his inside as he had before been in his belief”). In a private communication to John C. Pope (see 1967-68 pp 394-95, note 3) J.E. Cross offers Bede’s commentary on Acts 1:18 in which Bede compared the fate of Judas to Arius, concluding, “so they both perished empty of entrails just as they had lived devoid of sense” (trans. Martin 1989 p 18). In his entries in Fontes Anglo-Saxonici, Malcolm Godden considers Bede a possible source here; in his Commentary (2000 p 165) he records Cross’s suggestion without comment. Quots/Cits 5-7. In introducing Ælfric’s Homily on Ascension Day, 21 in his first series of Catholic Homilies (B1.1.23; ed. Clemoes 1997 pp 345-53), Godden (2000 pp 166-67) states that it relies on “at least eight different sources”: “for the exposition of Acts 1:3-15 Ælfric uses not only Bede’s commentary on Acts but also his homily on Christ’s appearance to the disciples at Luke 24:36-47 (Hom. II.9, for the period after Easter) and the discussion of the same episode in his commentary on Luke.” The three passages listed above, taken from his analysis, concern the receiving of Christ by the clouds, the white garments of the angels, and the explanation that at the Last Judgement Christ will be in human form but that the damned will not be allowed to see him. Quots/Cits 8-10. As Godden (2000 p 480) notes, in Homily 14 (B1.2.16; ed. Godden 1979 pp 137-49) in his second series of Catholic Homilies, Ælfric used three passages from the Expositio in describing Judas’s fate after his betrayal of Christ. The first two are straightforward: Judas bound his throat “justly” (trans. Thorpe 1844-46 2.251) because he had used it to betray Christ; and in committing suicide he sinned against himself eternally. The third,

132 

BEDE – PART 2

however, is surprising. According to Ælfric, Judas was not “deposited in any grave” (trans. 2.251), an idea that, according to Godden, “perhaps reflects Bede’s fanciful notion that Judas, being loathsome to both heaven and earth, dissolved into the air.” Quots/Cits 11. Godden (2000 p 559) points out that although Ælfric explicitly stated that he had taken his information about the three Herods in Homily 24 (B1.2.31; ed. Godden 1979 pp 221-29) in his second series of Catholic Homilies from RUFINUS’s Latin version of EUSEBIUS’s Historia ecclesiastica gentis Anglorum, Bede’s commentary on Acts 12:1 gives “the requisite details.” Refs. For the references to Bede in BONIFACE’s Epistolae 75 and 76 (ed. Tangl 1955 pp 156-59), see the introduction, BEDE, in volume 1. Alcuin’s reference in the Versus de sanctis Euboricensis ecclesiae (ed. Godman 1982 pp 102-03) is generally to Bede’s “many works unravelling the mysterious volumes of Holy Scripture,” and so could point to any of his biblical commentaries or his Homiliary. Christopher Jones (1998 pp 200-01, note 230) shows that a passage from AMALARIUS’s Liber officiis I.xxvii.2, which quotes from Bede’s commentary on Acts, was adapted by Ælfric in his Letter to the Monks of Eynsham (p 134, lines 2-4). The CCSL reprints Laistner’s 1939 edition of the work but without the valuable introduction in the earlier publication. It has been translated by Lawrence T. Martin (1989). Retractatio in Actus apostolorum [BEDA.Retract.Act.]: CPL 1358; RBMA 1615-17. ed.: CCSL 121.103-63. MSS none. Lists ? Alcuin: ML 1.7. A-S Vers – Quots/Cits none. Refs 1. ? BONIF.Epist. 75, 158.8-12. 2. ? BONIF.Epist. 76, 159.12-15. 3. ? ALCVIN.Vers.Eubor., 1306-08.

Bible: Commentaries

133

In the list of his works in Historia Ecclesiastica gentis Anglorum V.xxiv, Bede included “in Actus Apostolorum libros II” (ed. Lapidge 2010 2.482), referring almost certainly to the Expositio Actuum apostolorum and this work, the Retractatio in Actus apostolorum (see Laistner 1939 pp xiiixiv). Citing AUGUSTINE’s Retractationes as his model, Bede explained his reason for writing the work in his preface (ed. CCSL 121.103; the following translation is by Bolton 1967 p 109, note 14, with a few changes: see the previous entry): I know that, when he was older, the distinguished teacher and bishop Augustine wrote books of retractions on some of his works which he had written as a youth, as he learned things better in later time out of practice of frequent reading and the gift of heavenly bounty; not as though erroneous in his early inexperience, but taking pleasure at his greater growth he should publish it in written monuments and leave it to be read by later ages. And it has pleased me to take his labour as a model for myself, so that after my exposition of the Acts of the Apostles, which I wrote as far as my skill enabled me to, many years before, at the request of the venerable Bishop ACCA, now I may add a small book of retractions to that same volume, either by adding what seems to be missing or by correcting what seems to be wrong, with the greatest diligence.

Lawrence T. Martin (1989 p xxiii) writes of the work, “the Retractatio corrects a small number of errors made in the earlier work, presents Bede’s defence against his critics on a few points, and adds much new material based on his continued meditation on the Acts text and his reading of other sources.” He decides against translating the work, instead offering “detailed notes on those passages from the Retractatio in which Bede has actually corrected an earlier statement or changed his mind about an earlier interpretation” (p xxiv). Bede composed the Retractatio, as the passage quoted from the preface above indicates, “many years” after the composition of the Expositio, itself dated to around 709. Laistner (1939 pp xiv-xv) considers but then dismisses its “only piece of internal evidence” relevant to this question, a reference in the discussion of Acts 19:12 to Pope Gregory. Unfortunately, two popes of this name led the Church from 715-41: “on the basis of the slight information that has come down to us about these popes one is inclined to say that either could have been in the position to give the required information to Bede.” Of course, dating the work to 731, since it was listed in the Historia ecclesiastica finished in that year, establishes the pope as Gregory II. The reference to

134 

BEDE – PART 2

“Bishop Acca” provides further reason to date it before 731 since it was in that year that Acca was removed from the see of Hexham. Indeed, this event may be used to argue that it was composed before the Epistola ad Accam that served as the preface to De templo, which addressed this issue. Lists. For the ALCUIN booklist, see the introduction, BEDE, in volume 1. Refs. For the references to Bede in BONIFACE’s Epistolae 75 and 76 (ed. Tangl 1955 pp 156-59), see the introduction, BEDE, in volume 1. Alcuin’s reference in the Versus de sanctis Euboricensis ecclesiae (ed. Godman 1982 pp 102-03) is generally to Bede’s “many works unravelling the mysterious volumes of Holy Scripture,” and so could point to any of his biblical commentaries or his Homiliary. The CCSL reprints Laistner’s 1939 edition of the work but without the valuable introduction in the earlier publication. Collectio ex opusculis Augustini in epistulas Pauli [BEDA.Coll.opusc.]: CPL 1360. trans.: Hurst (1999). MSS none. Lists ? Alcuin: ML 1.7. A-S Vers – Quots/Cits none. Refs 1. ? BONIF.Epist. 75, 158.8-12. 2. ? BONIF.Epist. 76, 159.12-15. 3. ? ALCVIN.Vers.Eubor., 1306-08. The Collectio ex opusculis Augustini in epistulas Pauli has never been printed. Bede listed it in Historia ecclesiastica V.xxiv (ed. Lapidge 2010 2.482): “in Apostolum quaecumque in opusculis sancti Augustini exposita inueni, cuncta per ordinem transscribere curaui” (“on the Apostle [Paul], I have transcribed in order whatever I found in the works of St Augustine,” trans. Colgrave and Mynors 1969 p 569). Its 457 items have been described by PaulIrénée Fransen (1961), who, bringing together the work of earlier scholars, identifies eleven manuscripts in which it is preserved; Laistner (1939 p 38)

Bible: Commentaries

135

lists seven. Then, following the best manuscript, Saint-Omer, Bibliothèque municipale, 91, Fransen records in each case the biblical lemma (adding a reference to the letter, chapter, and verse according to modern usage in parentheses), the name of the Augustinian work as given in the manuscript, the incipit and explicit, and, finally a reference (again within parentheses) to where the extract appears in the PL. His “Table des extraits augustiniens” (pp 63-70) provides a list of Augustine’s works according to their modern titles and references back to the items. David Hurst (1999 p 10) explains that his translation was “made from a preliminary critical text consisting of a collation of five early manuscripts.” He too includes 457 extracts, although it should be noted that his 208 does not appear in Fransen’s description, and he does not include Fransen’s 394. Otherwise his translation is similar to Fransen’s description. He places Bede’s titles at the end of each extract and records the modern equivalent at the bottom of the page. Fransen is unable to identify two extracts, 244 and 263. Hurst agrees that the first (his 245), from what Bede identified as a letter to Vitalis (AUGUSTINE, Letter 217) “is not included in the MSS of the letters now extant” (p 188, note 245). Hurst (p 202, note 264) states that the second (his 264) is not in “our printed editions” of Augustine’s De diuersis quaestionibus lxxxiii, and refers instead to Augustine Sermon 101 (ed. PL 38.605-11 and PLS 2.743; CPL 284; it is not clear why Hurst attributes this sermon to CAESARIUS OF ARLES), which does contain a similar passage. Moreover, as Hurst points out, the first extract is not from Augustine, but rather QUODVULTDEUS (Sermo 10; CPL 410), whose works travelled under Augustine’s name. Finally, we would call attention to François Dolbeau’s (1996a and 1996b) discovery of complete versions of genuine sermons by Augustine in a fifteenth-century manuscript in Mainz previously known only from extracts including Bede’s. Bede apparently decided on his own to create a commentary on the Pauline Epistles from Augustine’s writings. In his Institutiones, CASSIODORUS mentioned that he had requested a copy of a similar work by Peter of Tripoli (Petrus Tripolitanus; see CPL 360), but there is no evidence that he received it or even that it circulated in the early Middle Ages (see Wilmart 1926 for mis­ identifications of it by later scholars). Moreover, as Paul Meyvaert (2005 p 1100) has again asserted, it appears that Bede did not know the Institutiones. On the other hand, Bede both knew and used the 348 passages that EUGIPPIUS (CPL 676) had taken from Augustine’s works. As Fransen (1987) explains, the earlier work differs greatly from Bede’s in that its author selected passages not to comment on a particular part of the Bible, but rather to construct his own argument. The Collectio is more like the final book of the Commentarius in Cantica canticorum, in which Bede gathered quotations from the

136 

BEDE – PART 2

works of GREGORY THE GREAT. While there is no compelling evidence other than that provided by its inclusion in the list of works at the end of the Historia ecclesiastica to date it more precisely, we would suggest that Bede began it early in his career when he extracted other texts that eventually led to his Kalendarium ad usum computandi and his Martyrologium. MSS. André Wilmart (1926 pp 39-40) speculates that the scribes of Saint-Omer 91 were English monks on the Continent who retained “leurs habitudes insulaires, notamment pour les abréviations” and who worked from an eighth-century English exemplar. Lists. For the ALCUIN booklist, see the introduction, BEDE, in volume 1. Refs. For the references to Bede in BONIFACE’s Epistolae 75 and 76 (ed. Tangl 1955 pp 156-59), see the introduction, BEDE, in volume 1. Alcuin’s reference in the Versus de sanctis Euboricensis ecclesiae (ed. Godman 1982 pp 102-03) is generally to Bede’s “many works unravelling the mysterious volumes of Holy Scripture,” and so could point to any of his biblical commentaries or his Homiliary. Although it is likely that Bede’s Collectio was the inspiration for FLORUS OF LYONS’s Commentarius in epistolas Pauli, the precise relationship between the two has yet to be determined; see Paul-Irénée Fransen (1955) for a discussion of some of the problems involved in resolving this question. Commentarius in epistolas septem catholicas [BEDA.Comm.epist.cath.]: CPL 1362; RBMA 1632-38. ed.: CCSL 121.179-342. MSS 1. Cambridge, University Library Gg. 4. 15, fols. 1-108: ASM 11.5. 2. Oxford, Bodleian Library, Bodley 849 (S.C. 2602): ASM 607. 3. Oxford, Oriel College, 34, fols. 57-153: ASM 681, NRK 359. Lists 1. ? Alcuin: ML 1.7. 2. Sæwold: ML 8.16. 3. Leofric: ML 10.45. A-S Vers none. Quots/Cits 1. Comm.epist.cath., Jude, 66-73: Sat (A1.4), 19-33.

Bible: Commentaries

137

2. Comm.epist.cath., James 3, 119-22: Sat (A1.4), 261-64. 3. Comm.epist.cath., 1 Pt 2, 93-98: ÆCHom II, 45 (B1.2.49) 108-17. 4. Comm.epist.cath., 1 Pt 2, 61-67: ÆCHom II, 45 (B1.2.49), 125-31. Refs 1. ? BONIF.Epist. 75, 158.8-12. 2. ? BONIF.Epist. 76, 159.12-15. 3. ? ALCVIN.Vers.Eubor., 1306-08. 4. ALCVIN.Epist. 88, 132.35-36. The seven epistles of James, 1-2 Peter, 1-3 John, and Jude, which appear together in the New Testament after the Letter to the Hebrews, received only spotty exegetical attention before and after Bede. The lengthy exegesis of 1 John differs from that of the other letters since Bede used AUGUSTINE’s In Ioannis epistulam ad Parthos tractatus x as a source. The entire Commentary proved one of his most popular. In it he concentrated on the literal and historical meaning with a strong moral bent rather than on the allegorical. Bede referred to it in Historia ecclesiastica V.xxiv (ed. Lapidge 2010 2.482) as “in epistulas VII catholicas libros singulos.” In the Epistola ad Accam that accompanied the Expositio Actuum apostolorum, Bede explained that he was also including “a very short explanation of the epistle of the most blessed evangelist John” (trans. Martin 1989 p 6), which dates this part of the work to before 709. That he did not include the rest suggests that he had not yet written it. On the other hand, his Epigram, Iacobus Cephas Iohannes Thaddeus uno, which serves as one of two prologues to the Commentarius in epistolas septem catholicas, also points to an early interest in the topic. On the evidence of the Letters as a whole, we would suggest a date of after 716 for Bede’s completion of it. MSS. M.L.W. Laistner (1939 pp 31-37) lists 112 manuscripts of the work. In his edition in the CCSL, David Hurst provides readings from ten of these, all from the ninth century, including Oxford, Bodleian Library, Bodley 849. This manuscript was written in France – Helmut Gneuss and Michael Lapidge suggest the Loire region – and is dated by its explicit to 818. Falconer Madan and H.H.E. Craster (S.C. 2602) comment that “this is perhaps the oldest dated MS. in book form in which the expression ‘anno […] ab Incarnatione Domini’ is used.” They also suggest that it is one of the volumes given by Leofric to Exeter Cathedral (see Lists 3). The Oriel College manuscript contains a single gloss “.i. miht” (OccGl 41 [Ker, C41]) over “potestas”; see N.R. Ker (NRK 359), who dates it to the eleventh century. He also writes, “Bede’s prologue, f. 1,

138 

BEDE – PART 2

appears to be in English caroline minuscule, s. xi; the rest of the manuscript is in a continental hand, s. x.” Michael Lapidge and Helmut Gneuss date the prologue to “s. xi/xii or xii in.” The Cambridge manuscript is described by Lapidge and Gneuss as “s. xi/xii (prov. Eynsham).” Lists. For the ALCUIN booklist, see the introduction, BEDE, in volume 1, discussed there because the reference is general. The other two lists, however, refer specifically to the Commentarius in epistolas septem catholicas. Among the 33 books that Sæwold, the former abbot of Bath, gave to the church of Saint-Vaast in Arras around 1070 was a “librum Bede super VII epistolas canonicas.” While Michael Lapidge (ML p 59) acknowledges that some of the books may have belonged to the abbey, he considers the list as a whole to be “evidence of the personal library of an English ecclesiastic at the time of the Conquest.” In contrast, the Leofric list records the sixty-six books procured by the bishop after he moved the see from Crediton to Exeter (1050). Among the three works by Bede is the “expositio Bede super .vii. epistolas canonicas.” Quots/Cits 1-2. In the introduction to his discussion of the sources of Christ and Satan (A.1.4; ed. ASPR 1.135-36 and 144), Robert E. Finnegan (1977 p 37) writes that the poem “draws its inspiration from many things,” including “the commentaries of various churchmen, particularly, I think, GREGORY THE GREAT” and “perhaps Bede.” He refers specifically to the Commentarius in epistolas septem catholicas on two occasions. In the first, he notes that “Bede supplies the detail that the proud apostate angels were defeated by Christ the Son” (p 40): “first it must be remembered in this statement also, as in the preceding one, that Jesus our Lord punished the angels who transgressed” (ed. CCSL 121.336; trans. Hurst 1985 p 242). As Finnegan recognizes, this idea is suggested in Jude 1:6: “and the angels who kept not their principality but forsook their own habitation he [Christ] hath reserved under darkness in everlasting chains unto the judgement of the great day.” But as he does not note, the Commentarius is also a possible source for the preceding idea in Christ and Satan, that Christ “distributed joys to the host and to the people; Adam originally and that glorious race, the princes of angels, which subsequently came to ruin” (trans. Clayton 2013 p 303). Bede wrote, “For he who was born of the virgin as a human being at the end of the ages received the name of Jesus at the message of an angel, having been born God of the Father before all ages, he with the Father provided for every created being when he willed” (trans. p 243). While the description of hell suggested by Bede’s statement that the angels were damned “sub caligine aeris” (ed. p 336, lines 71-72; “in the darkness of this air,” trans. p 243), differs greatly from that in Christ and Satan, the poet might simply have been following Jude 1:6, and, more generally, a familiar understanding of hell;

Bible: Commentaries

139

see Finnegan’s (pp 42-44) discussion, which mentions the passage in the Commentarius on James 3:6, “and the tongue is placed among our members, which defileth the whole body and setteth on fire the wheel of our nativity, being set on fire by hell.” As Finnegan (p 43, note 32) mentions, “the detail that makes even those devils flying in the air bearers of their own hell finds a point of contact in Christ and Satan, lines 261-64.” The poem reads, “Now this multitude here must remain subject to sin, some speeding through the air, flying over the earth; fire surrounds each one even if he be up in the air” (trans. pp 319-21). Bede wrote about devils “who always everywhere take with them the torments of flames, whether they fly in the air or wander on the earth or beneath the earth” (trans. p 39). Quots/Cits 3-4. In the last of the forty homilies (B1.2.49; ed. Godden 1979 pp 335-45) in his second series of Catholic Homilies, ÆLFRIC turned to the Commentarius in epistolas septem catholicas for two passages that allowed him to develop his discussion of the Church as constructed from “living stones” (1 Pt 2:5), that is, believers. Indeed, it is from this part of Bede’s Commentary that he drew them, reversing their order and separating them with a comment derived from HAYMO OF AUXERRE’s Expositio in Pauli epistolas; these identifications are made by Malcolm Godden (2000 pp 664-65). Part of the f irst passage reads (trans. Thorpe 1844-46 pp 581-83): we are the living stones that are built over Christ in ghostly houses; for many churches are, as we before said, accounted one. God’s houses are now many, but, nevertheless one, because of the unity of the true belief which they all profess. Many are the nations that praise God in diverse tongues, but, nevertheless, they all have one belief, and worship one true God, though their tongues and prayer-houses are many.

These remarks rework Bede’s comment, “thus he says that they ought to become spiritual houses, although there is one house of Christ made up of all the elect angels and human beings, in the same way as although there is one catholic Church spread throughout the whole world they are frequently called ‘churches’ in the plural, namely on account of the gatherings of the faithful in many places spread over many tribes, tongues, and peoples” (trans. Hurst 1985 p 84). The second passage renders Bede more closely. Ælfric wrote (trans. p 583): In the earthly church, stone lies over stone, and each bears other, so likewise in God’s congregation, the believing hold up each his after-comer, by

140 

BEDE – PART 2

precept and patience, until the building comes to the last righteous one, and he will have no after-comer whom he may bear. But he who holds all the building, and whom no one bears, is Jesus Christ, who holds us all, and none of us may hold him.

Although Godden considered these source relationships as probable rather than certain in his entries in Fontes Anglo-Saxonici, together they demonstrate Ælfric’s use of this Commentary. In contrast, the parallel between passages in the Commentarius and in Ælfric’s homily commonly known as Assmann 5 (ÆHomM4 [Ass 5] ed. Assmann 1889 pp 73-80) that M.B. Bedingfield lists as possible in his entries in Fontes Anglo-Saxonici is not compelling. Ælfric’s point is about the similarity of Jewish priests and Christian bishops (lines 153-54a). Bede identified the “holy priesthood” (1 Pt 2:5) as “the entire Church” (trans. Hurst 1985 p 84; ed. CCSL 121.235; 1 Pt 2, lines 107-09). Refs. For the references to Bede in BONIFACE’s Epistolae 75 and 76 (ed. Tangl 1955 pp 156-59), see the introduction, BEDE, in volume 1. Alcuin’s reference in the Versus de sanctis Euboricensis ecclesiae (ed. Godman 1982 pp 102-03) is generally to Bede’s “many works unravelling the mysterious volumes of Holy Scripture,” and so could point to any of his biblical commentaries or his Homiliary. In contrast in Epistola 88 (ed. MGH ECA 2.132), addressed to “my very dear son and animal,” Alcuin explained that he could not send a copy of Bede’s “tractatus” on the “epistolae apostolorum” because “soror mea Gysla habet” (“my sister Gisela has it); Ernst Dümmler identifies Gisela as CHARLEMAGNE’s sister, the abbess of Chelles. Alcuin promised to send it to him when she returned it. The Commentarius in epistolas septem catholicas also appears in PL 93.9130. David Hurst’s (1985) translation omits the poetic prologue. Commentarius in Apocalypsim [BEDA.Comm.Apc.]: CPL 1363; RBMA 1640. ed.: CCSL 121A. MSS 1. Aberdeen, University Library, 216: ASM 1. 2. Durham, Cathedral Library, A. IV. 28: ASM 225. 3. London, Lambeth Palace Library, 149, fols 1-139: ASM 506. 4. Oxford, St John’s College, 89: ASM 685. 5. ? Paris, Bibliothèque nationale de France, lat. 10400: CLA 5.598.

Bible: Commentaries

141

Lists 1. ? Alcuin: ML 1.7. 2. Leofric: ML 10.44. A-S Vers 1. ALCVIN.Exp.Apc. 2. FRITH.Ciues. Quots/Cits Comm.Apc., XXXVIII, 20: LANTFR.Trans.mir.Swith., III, 133-34. Refs 1. ? BONIF.Epist. 75, 158.8-12. 2. ? BONIF.Epist. 76, 159.12-15. 3. ? ALCVIN.Vers.Eubor., 1306-08. 4. ALCVIN.Exp.Apc., 1087.3. The study of the Commentarius in Apocalypsim, which Bede listed in Historia ecclesiastica V.xxiv as “in Apocalypsin sancti Iohannis libros III” (ed. Lapidge 2010 2.482), has been advanced significantly by both the edition of Roger Gryson (CCSL 121A) and the translation, with a substantial introduction and notes, by Faith Wallis (2013). Wallis (p 4) explains that in “fashioning the first impeccably authoritative and orthodox reading of Revelation in Latin” Bede did “something bold and creative.” She continues (although we change her titles here and throughout this entry for Bede’s other works to conform to the practice of this volume): His readers agreed, for the Commentary enjoyed an extraordinary fortuna. It was the most widely diffused of all pre-Carolingian commentaries on Revelation, and was the fourth most popular work of Bede’s after the Historia ecclesiastica, De temporum ratione, and the Commentarius in epistolas septem catholicas. It exerted a powerful and formative influence on Carolingian exegesis, and was mined for the Revelation section of the Glossa ordinaria, the standard compilation of running commentary on Scripture used in the universities of the later medieval period.

That the Commentarius had less influence in Anglo-Saxon England may remind us of Bede’s position as one of very few English writers before the Conquest who had the resources and the inclination to engage in profound theological issues. Or it might suggest that he won the debate, calming apocalyptic speculation

142 

BEDE – PART 2

in the following centuries. Wallis’s conclusion, that the Commentary “deserves closer study” (p 5), holds true for its influence in our period as well. Wallis (2013 pp 23-25) explains the work’s commaticum format, relating it to the Late Antique practice of copying the Bible per cola et commata (“by clauses and sections”), and so each clause starts a new line. Citing Gryson’s introduction to his edition, she writes, “this was the approach taken by Bede’s foundational sources, TYCONIUS and PRIMASIUS, and it may have had a special stylistic appeal for commentators on Revelation: as Gryson points out, it lends an air of nervous urgency not out of keeping with the gripping prophetic character of the Biblical text.” Bede, she notes, accentuated this effect since his “lemmata are much shorter than those of his sources.” She draws attention, however, to two exceptions to this approach, “the lengthy treatment of the signing of the Twelve Tribes” (Apc 7:5-8) and “the allegorical interpretation of the twelve precious stones that constitute the foundations of the heavenly Jerusalem” (Apc 21:19-20). A following comment has, if true, implications for dating Bede’s Homilies: “these two passages look like embedded sermons, particularly as each ends with a peroration.” In any case, she notes that Bede “deployed the commaticum style in his earliest commentaries, namely those on Revelation and Acts”: “by 716 at the latest (when the Commentarius in primam partem Samuhelis was written) he had adopted a more expansive exegetical voice.” The Commentarius in Apocalypsim must have been written before 716 since one of its two prefaces, the Epistola ad Huaetberctum, is addressed to “brother Eusebius,” using the Latin name for Bede’s friend and colleague, HWÆTBERHT, who became abbot of Monkwearmouth-Jarrow in that year. Faith Wallis (2013 p 49), however, argues convincingly that the Commentarius in Apocalypsim was written around 701 in response to growing panic that only a century remained until the end of the world. The Epistola ad Accam that serves as the preface to the Expositio Actuum apostolorum supports this early date, as does the poetic form of the second preface for the work, the epigram Exul ab humano dum pellitur orbe Iohannes. Although she overlooks the poetic preface to the Expositio Actuum apostolorum, another early work, she is, in our opinion, right when she states that this practice “may have been a youthful affectation, for the other works equipped with poetic prologues are also early, namely De natura rerum and its companion De temporibus (703) and De locis sanctis, probably composed around 702-703.” MSS 1-6. In his edition in CCSL 121A, Gryson describes 113 manuscripts that contain the Commentarius in Apocalypsim. He groups most of them into three large families, from northern France, from the area around Tours,

Bible: Commentaries

143

and from the region surrounding Lake Constance; all go back to lost late eighth-century exemplars. A fourth, smaller family contains manuscripts that rely on a continuous tradition of copying in England. MSS 1 and 5. The two fragments in the Paris manuscript are the only possible direct representatives of a copy of the work from a scriptorium in Anglo-Saxon England. They are described by E.A. Lowe (CLA 5.598) as “written in England or in a continental centre under Anglo-Saxon influence, such as Echternach”; see also Michael Lapidge (2006 p 156). Gryson identifies their contents as lines 95-125 of the preface (ed. CCSL 121A.229-31) and book 11, line 51 to book 12, line 67 of the Commentarius (ed. CCSL 121A.337-43). He places them in his third Continental group, from around Lake Constance, and considers but finally dismisses the possibility that the manuscript from which they came was the exemplar of others in this group (p 113). The Aberdeen manuscript, written in Salisbury at the end of the eleventh century (ASM 1), is also in this group, and so represents a text reintroduced into England. MSS 3. The Lambeth Palace manuscript was written in south-west England in the second half of the tenth century (ASM 506) by the scribe of the Exeter Book (Exeter, Cathedral Library, 3507). Gryson (CCSL 121A.50) mistakenly places its origin at Exeter; this claim has been made by Patrick W. Conner (1993), but see Richard Gameson (1996). A note on folio 139v records its donation by Æthelweard, “dux,” to a monasterium of St Mary in 1018; the location of this monastery has been effaced. M.R. James (1932 p 238) identifies it as the copy of the Commentarius given by Leofric to the Exeter; see Lists 2. As a member of Gryson’s second group of manuscripts, which can be traced back to the area around Tours, its exemplar came from the Continent. MSS 2 and 4. The Durham and Oxford manuscripts are both part of the fourth group, which represent a tradition of continuous copying in England; Gryson (CCSL 121A.122) notes, however, that the text it contains is not superior to that in the other families. The Durham manuscript, from the end of the eleventh or the beginning of the twelfth century (ASM 225), is one of the two members of this group that he uses for his edition. The other, Kassel, Gesamthochschulbibliothek 2o MS.theol. 25, descends, according to Gryson (CCSL 121A.123), from an exemplar sent by either Hwætberht or ECGBERHT, archbishop of York, to BONIFACE (see Refs 1-2). He notes, however, that its text is corrupted by readings from the group of manuscripts emanating from the region around Lake Constance. The Oxford manuscript is also from the end of the eleventh or the beginning of the twelfth century; it was written at Christchurch, Canterbury (ASM 685). Lists. For the ALCUIN booklist, see the introduction, BEDE, in volume 1. The Leofric list records it among the sixty-six books procured by the bishop

144 

BEDE – PART 2

after he moved the see from Crediton to Exeter (1050): “expositio Bede super apocalipsin.” Lapidge writes that “the book possibly survives in London, Lambeth Palace Library, 149”; see MSS 3. A-S Vers 1 and Refs 4. Alcuin began his Expositio Apocalypsis (ed. PL 100.1087-156; CSLMA Auctores Galliae 735-987 2.368-69) by invoking Bede: “Beatus Beda in septem periochis dicit Apocalypsin consistere” (ed. PL 100.1087; “Bede stated that the Apocalypse is made up of seven sections”). This statement is an abridgment of Bede’s own opening: “Apocalypsis sancti Iohannis, in qua bella et incendia intestina ecclesiae suae deus uerbis figurisque reuelare dignatus est, septem mihi, frater Eusebi, uidetur esse diuisa periochis” (ed. CCSL 121A.221; “the Revelation of St John, in which God has deigned to reveal in words and symbolic imagery the wars and inward conflagrations of his Church, seems to me, brother Eusebius, to be divided into seven sections,” trans. Wallis 2013 p 101). Alcuin then summarized these divisions by selecting phrases from Bede’s text. Still following Bede and using the same method, he turned next to Tyconius’s seven rules for interpreting scripture. His concluding sentence, “hae septem regulae, non solum in Apocalypsi, sed in aliis libris inveniuntur, maxime autem in propheticis” (ed. 100.1087; “these seven rules are to be found not only in the Apocalypse but also in other books, especially in the prophets”) again condenses the Commentarius in Apocalypsim: “has igitur regulas non in Apocalypsi tantum, id est reuelatione sancti iohannis apostoli […] uerum in omni quoque scriptura canonica et praecipue prophitica easdem uigere regulas quisque uigilanter intenderit inueniet”(ed. 231; “whoever carefully investigates these things will find that these rules do not apply to the Apocalypse (that is the revelation of St John) alone; rather, [they are valid] for the whole of canonical Scripture, particularly prophetic Scripture,” trans. p 105). Although Alcuin’s Expositio begins prominently with Bede, the rest follows AMBROSIUS AUTPERTUS (see Mackay 2001 p 31). A second work by Alcuin, the Explanatio Apocalypsis per interrogationem et responsionem, which has not been edited, must be mentioned here. According to Marie-Hélène Jullien and Françoise Perelman (CSLMA Auctores Galliae 735-987 2.367-68), the answers to questions taken from the Apocalypse are extracts from Bede’s commentary. An edition by Thomas W. Mackay has been announced. A-S Vers 2. FRITHEGOD of Canterbury, a Frankish monk brought to England by Oda, later archbishop of Canterbury (941-58), and best known for his Breuiloquium uita Wilfridi, has been identified by Michael Lapidge (1988b) as the author of Ciues celestis patrie, a poem of sixteen octosyllabic six-line stanzas on the twelve jewels of the Apocalypse (Apc

Bible: Commentaries

145

21:19-20). Peter Kitson (1983), who edits and translates the poem, describes it as “a versification of Bede’s jewel passage”: “not only does Bede provide all its factual information about jewels and the substance of its allegories (so that Explanatio Apocalypsis, as well as finding verbal echoes, usefully elucidates some of its obscurer phrases); but also his opening and closing paragraphs are transmuted into its general stanzas, 1 and 14-16” (p 120). The final detail “confirms that it was written using Explanatio Apocalypsis as against one of the many derivative works.” As Kitson notes and as Bede himself acknowledged, this section of the Commentarius in Apocalypsim differs in scope from the rest of the work (trans. Wallis 2013 p 277): Perhaps I may seem to have discussed the precious stones at greater length than was suitable for this summary style of commentary [commaticum interpretandi genus]. However, it was necessary carefully to explain their natures and native lands, and then more subtly to investigate their symbolic meaning, but also to follow their sequence and number. Considering the depth of this subject, it would seem to me that I have said very little, and that in a brief and condensed way. As a suppliant I beseech the reader to give thanks to God if he sees that I have travelled along the right path. But should he detect that it has turned out other than as I wished, let him pray with me that God may forgive my error.

In Kitson’s view, Bede intended this “extended tractate on the jewels” to “form the climax of his commentary” (p 75). His brief but insightful discussion of Frithegod’s reworking of Bede’s Commentary may be invoked here by quoting his last point (p 121): The finest touch lies in working into stanza 15, which draws the threads together, a double echo of the Psalms not hinted at by Bede, combining Psalm 120:4 with the following mention, in Psalm 121:7, of the “towers” of the holy city. Where glossators and commentators, including Bede, treat the coloured stones as separate entities, this author invites us imaginatively to do more: to raise our eyes for a moment from the foundations of the city to the light on its single skyline; for a moment, till we turn wholly to the final goal, which is God.

Having found a copy of Bede’s Commentarius in Apocalypsim in the library at Canterbury, Frithegod reworked its most powerful section into poetic form, as Bede himself had done in his Epigrams.

146 

BEDE – PART 2

Quots/Cits. In his edition of LANTFRED OF WINCHESTER’s Translatio et miracula S. Swithuni, Michael Lapidge (2003b p 284, note 157) links the comment of a sick man cured by the saint that he has been “shaken with extreme astonishment” (“perculsus stupore nimio”) to similar phrases in either this commentary or the Expositio Actuum apostolorum. Here Bede used the phrase in explaining Apocalypse 22:8 (“and after I had heard and seen, I fell down to adore before the feet of the angel who shewed me these things”): “aut semel factum iterauit, quod cohibitus non est ausus repetere, aut magno uisionum stupore perculsus adorare se uoluisse iterum confitetur” (ed. CCSL 121A.569; “either [John] did a second time what he had done once, and which being forbidden to do, he dared not repeat, or else he is admitting that in a state of extreme bewilderment on account of the vision, he desired once again to adore [the angel],” trans. Wallis 2013 p 282). As the notes make clear, Bede quoted here from Primasius’s Commentarius in Apocalypsin. For the possible influence on Alcuin of Bede’s discussion here and elsewhere of Christ as feminine, see the Commentarius in primam partem Samuhelis. Refs 1-3. For the references to Bede in BONIFACE’s Epistolae 75 and 76 (ed. Tangl 1955 pp 156-59), see the introduction, BEDE, in volume 1. Alcuin’s reference in the Versus de sanctis Euboricensis ecclesiae (ed. Godman 1982 pp 102-03) is generally to Bede’s “many works unravelling the mysterious volumes of Holy Scripture,” and so could point to any of his biblical commentaries or his Homiliary. The Commentarius in Apocalypsim is also printed in PL 93.129-206. For Bede’s use of Tyconius, see Jean-Marc Vercruysse (2002). In the introduction to her translation, Faith Wallis (2013) reviews this and Bede’s other sources.



Bible: Homilies

Although the homilies in the work that Bede referred to in Historia ecclesiastica gentis Anglorum V.xxiv as “omeliarum euangelii libros II” (ed. Lapidge 2010 2.482; “homilies on the Gospel: two books,” trans. Colgrave and Mynors 1969 p 569) have been identified (Morin 1913), edited (CCSL 122), and translated (Martin and Hurst 1991), their popularity has, for three reason, left many basic questions about their circulation unanswered. First, Bede’s careful fashioning of his collection was quickly obscured by PAUL THE DEACON’s dismemberment of it for his own widely-influential Homiliary, commissioned by CHARLEMAGNE before he became emperor; see Réginald Grégoire (1980 p 422). This work contains 36 sermons from Bede’s Homiliary (Grégoire pp 427-78; Homily I.4 appears twice, in I, 12 and II, 76, Grégoire pp 432 and 467). Second, similar passages from Bede’s other works – the Commentarius in Marcum, the Commentarius in Lucam and, in a few cases, the Historia ecclesiastica itself – readily adapted to the same purposes of preaching and spiritual reading were extracted and disseminated alongside of his actual homilies. Paul the Deacon included 22 such passages (two are used together in II, 75, Grégoire pp 466-67), all taken from the Commentaries on Mark and Luke (Grégoire pp 427-78), and later English versions of his Homiliary contain around 40 more. Finally, following in Bede’s footsteps, Carolingian writers, especially HAYMO OF AUXERRE, SMARAGDUS, and HEIRIC OF AUXERRE, used both his works and his main sources, AUGUSTINE and GREGORY THE GREAT, in writing sermons similar to Bede’s. The result is that while we know in this case as in most others what Bede wrote, establishing the form in which his words were read or heard by later Anglo-Saxons is often still unclear. To respond to this problem, we have separated this section on the homilies, which consists of an entry on the collection as a whole, and individual ones on each homily, from Bede’s other exegetical works among which he included his “two books” in the list in the Historia ecclesiastica, where they follow the Commentarius in Lucam and precede the Collectio ex opusculis Augustini in epistulas Pauli. On the other hand, we have placed the entries on the extracts that serve as homilies not here but following the works from which they were taken. So, for example, Bede’s exegesis of the feeding of the four thousand (Mc 8:1-9) from the Commentarius in Marcum (ed. CCSL 120.527-31), which circulated in the original Homiliary of Paul the Deacon and which ÆLFRIC used, probably from Paul’s collection, in Homily 25 (B1.2.32; ed. Godden 1979 pp 230-34) of the second series of

148 

BEDE – PART 2

Catholic Homilies, appears as a separate entry, Extract ex Comm. Marc., II, 1512-680 (referring to book 2 lines 1512-680) after the main entry on the Commentary in Bible: Commentaries. Similarly, extracts from the Historia ecclesiastica follow that entry in Histories. These decisions allow us to discuss in their proper places the particular information about the parts of these works that had separate transmissions. They also allow us to introduce here the evidence common to the circulation of these texts, their manuscripts, and to a lesser extent their later use as sources. Even though they appear in many of the same manuscripts, the genuine homilies and the extracts from the Commentaries present different problems. Thanks to Germain Morin’s (1913) discovery and David Hurst’s (1955) edition in CCSL 122, catalogues and scholarly studies accurately describe the presence of individual homilies by Bede in manuscripts of Paul the Deacon’s Homiliary. We have, therefore, simply listed the relevant information in the headnotes of these entries without further comment. In contrast, since the extracts have been less precisely identified, references in these catalogues and studies of individual texts are less reliable. As a result, we have referred to the relevant sources of information in each entry, noting whenever possible the limits of their information. One manuscript from Anglo-Saxon England, Lincoln, Cathedral Library, 182 (C. 2. 8) [with 184, fol. 1] (ASM 274), which preserves 47 of Bede’s original 50 homilies divided into two books, confirms Morin’s (1913) identification of the original homilies that Bede collected; its significance and its differences from other early manuscripts are discussed in the following entry. Since it was used by Hurst in his edition, this information is obviously reliable. The other manuscript evidence, taken from versions of Paul the Deacon’s Homiliary, must be used with caution since it does not rest on a complete analysis of the codices. Paul’s collection was not only augmented (and reduced) over the years but also reshaped in order to bring it into line with changing liturgical practices. The most important development for these entries is “the Carolingian tendency,” as Joyce Hill (2007 p 86) puts it, “to separate out temporale and sanctorale by assembling preaching and reading materials for these two differently organized cycles in separate sets.” In other words, while Paul had combined materials for, say, Easter, a moveable feast tied to the lunar calendar and so part of the temporale, with, for example, the Feast of Peter and Paul (29 June), associated with a particular day in the solar calendar, later collections separated out this material. Without a complete analysis of all the manuscripts, it is difficult to know exactly what they contain. The main sources of information are as follows.

Bible: Homilies

149

Rodney M. Thomson’s (2001) descriptions of the three manuscripts in the Cathedral Library of Worcester, F. 92 (ASM 763), F. 93 (ASM 763.1), and F. 94 (ASM 763.2) are precise and detailed, although his references to the PL have been replaced with ones to the CCSL and occasionally his identifications are changed in light of other information. The manuscripts themselves are companion volumes from Worcester dating to the late eleventh or early twelfth century. F. 92, a temporale, covers Advent to Easter and F. 93, another temporale, Easter to Advent. F. 94 is a sanctorale from 3 May to 30 November with a Commune Sanctorum. Mary P. Richards (1988 pp 98-101, 104-05, and 107-08) has analysed five more manuscripts, and her findings are the basis for the identifications from them, although these have been supplemented with other information. The manuscripts are the following: 1. Cambridge, University Library, Ii. 2. 19, fols. 1-216 (ASM 16), a temporale, the Easter vigil to the Fourth Sunday after Epiphany; 2. Cambridge, University Library, Kk. 4. 13 (ASM 24), a temporale, Septuagesima to the Easter vigil; a sanctorale; and a Commune Sanctorum; 3. Lincoln, Cathedral Library, 158 (C. 2. 2) (ASM 273), a temporale, Lent to the Easter vigil; a sanctorale, 25 January to 30 November; and a Commune Sanctorum; 4. London, British Library, Harley 652 (ASM 424), a temporale, Easter Saturday to the Fourth Sunday after Epiphany; and 5. London, British Library, Royal 2. C. iii (ASM 452), a temporale, Septuagesima to Holy Saturday; a sanctorale; and a Commune Sanctorum. The first two volumes are companions, covering the liturgical year. Both are dated by Michael Lapidge and Helmut Gneuss (ASM 16 and 24) “s. xi/ xii” and both have Norwich provenances. Closely related in content to the first manuscript, Cambridge Ii. 2. 19, is the Harley manuscript (4). It too was written at the end of the eleventh or the beginning of the twelfth century, but is from St Augustine’s, Canterbury. Similarly, Royal 2. C. iii (5) shares content with Cambridge Kk. 4. 13 (2). It dates from the same period as the other manuscripts and has a Rochester provenance. Richards (1988 p 97) considers manuscripts 2, 3, and 5 (Cambridge Kk. 4. 13, Lincoln 158, and London Royal 2. C. iii) to have been a distinctive form of part of Paul’s Homiliary that circulated in England soon after the Norman Conquest. J.E. Cross and Thomas N. Hall (1993) have described the fragments that survive in Canterbury, Cathedral Library and Archives, Add. 127/1 (ASM 209). Lapidge and Gneuss date it “s. xi1.” In addition, Thomas N. Hall has provided us with notes on Salisbury, Cathedral Library, 179 (ASM 753), a

150 

BEDE – PART 2

sanctorale, Easter to All Saints, and a Commune Sanctorum. It was written at Salisbury at the end of the eleventh century. Hall has also shared his detailed notes on Harley 652, which lists other places its homilies and sermons are found. His information has been invaluable in sorting out problematic identifications. M.R. James’s (1905) cataloguing of Cambridge, Pembroke College manuscripts 23 (ASM 129) and 24 (ASM 130) was completed before the genuine homilies had been published in a critical edition, and so his references are to the PL. More difficult to assess, however, are his references to the Commentaries since here they consist of column numbers in PL 92: in some cases, one can make informed guesses about where the extract is likely to begin, but certainty awaits checking the manuscripts. Three of his items have eluded any identification. Item 41 in the catalogue of Pembroke 24 refers to the PSEUDO BEDE Commentary on Matthew (ed. PL 92.70): none of the passages here appears to overlap with genuine works by Bede. Moreover, items 47 and 73 in Pembroke 24 both refer to PL 92.485, but this part of the Commentary does not correspond to extracts known from other manuscripts. Other problems will be discussed in individual entries. The two manuscripts are a set: 23, a temporale, from Easter to Advent, and 24, a sanctorale. Lapidge and Gneuss describe them both: “s. xi2, France (Saint-Denis?), prov. by x. xi/xii England, (prov. Bury St Edmunds).” Thomas Rud’s (1825) catalogue of the Cathedral Library of Durham, in which two manuscripts of Paul the Deacon’s Homiliary survive, provides information on each homily that can, in most but not all cases, lead to fairly certain identifications. The name of the author and an incipit (with sometimes a reference to the Gospel reading) does not necessarily mean that the entire homily Bede wrote or indeed the extract made from his work survives; yet identifications drawn from this information are included in the following entries. The two manuscripts, A. III. 29 (ASM 222), a temporale, Easter to 25th Sunday after Pentecost and a sanctorale from May to December, and B. II. 2 (ASM 226), a temporale yet incomplete (now Christmas to Good Friday), are both from Durham and dated to the late eleventh century (before 1096). See in particular Joyce Hill (2007 pp 89-91) for further information and, of course, for more recent bibliography Lapidge and Gneuss (ASM 222 and 226). The main sources of quotations in the following entries (Quots/Cits) are ALCUIN’s Commentarius in Iohannis euangelium and Ælfric’s Homilies, particularly the Catholic Homilies; Ælfric is again the main source of information about the use of extracts from the Commentaries on Mark and Luke in later Anglo-Saxon England. For Alcuin’s use of Bede’s homilies,

Bible: Homilies

151

the following entries rely on the work of Michael Gorman (2009 pp 69-83) even though the references themselves look quite different because Gorman cites Alcuin’s in the PL using columns and letters (A-D; where we use columns and line numbers) and Bede’s in the CCSL by page and line number (we use only line numbers). For Ælfric’s use of the texts, the scholarship of Malcolm Godden (2000) stands above all other work on this topic; most of the identifications we record reflect his notes. Godden of course relied on earlier scholars, whose work he acknowledges; particularly relevant for the following entries are Max Förster (1892 and 1894), Cyril Smetana (1959), John C. Pope (1967-68), J.E. Cross (1963b and 1968), and Patrick H. Zettel (1979). The case he presents, however, is so much more comprehensive than the previous studies that it seems proper on most occasions simply to cite him. Scholars interested in particular passages should return to his notes. It should be noted that his work, Ælfric’s Catholic Homilies: Introduction, Commentary and Glossary (i.e. Godden 2000), is the basis for the relevant entries in Fontes Anglo-Saxonici. In writing the following entries, we have consulted both even though we tend to refer only to one or the other unless they disagree in some significant way. Even with Godden’s systematic study of two of Ælfric’s collections of homilies, many questions, as Godden himself often acknowledges, about the role of Bede’s homilies in Ælfric’s process of composition remain. As noted above, Bede himself relied on earlier sources, which Ælfric at times used directly. Indeed, there are occasions when he both turned to Bede and returned to his sources, particularly Augustine and Gregory the Great. Moreover, in addition to being influenced by the Homiliary of Paul the Deacon, Ælfric also knew the collections of Smaragdus (Expositio Libri comitis), Haymo of Auxerre (Homiliae de tempore), and Heiric of Auxerre (Homiliae in circulum anni); see Mary Clayton (1985; reprinted 2000 with some corrections), Godden (2000 pp xli-lx), and Hill (1992, 1998, and 2007). Similarly, he knew Alcuin’s Commentary on John. These authors often incorporated Bede’s writing into their own and so it is at times difficult to establish Ælfric’s direct source. More extracts and quotations from Bede’s Homiliary and homiletic extracts made from his Commentaries may emerge as anonymous homilies in Latin are more closely analysed. For example, Homily I, 41 in the Homiliary of Paul the Deacon (see Grégoire 1980 p 438) begins with one of ORIGEN’s homilies, but then concludes with an extract from Bede’s Commentary on Luke (CCSL 120.70-71, book 1, lines 2012-37). Bede’s collection of fifty homilies has been translated by Lawrence T. Martin and David Hurst (1991). For discussions of his approach to preaching,

152 

BEDE – PART 2

see Martin (2006 and 2010). For the account of Wulfstan, bishop of Worcester, preaching with “that same eloquence that had once inspired the tongue of Bede” (trans. Jones 1998 p 85, note 58) as he dedicated a church to Bede on the day following his ordination, see the introduction to this volume. Homiliary [BEDA.Hom.]: CPL 1367. ed.: CCSL 122.1-403. MSS Lincoln, Cathedral Library, 182 (C. 2. 8) [with 184 fol. 1]: ASM 274. Lists ? Alcuin: ML 1.7. A-S Vers none. Quots/Cits see the following entries. Refs 1. ? BONIF.Epist. 75, 158.8-12. 2. ? BONIF.Epist. 76, 159.12-15. 3. BONIF.Epist. 91, 207.24. 4. ? ALCVIN.Vers.Eubor., 1306-08. 5. BYRHT.Comp., IV, 25-26. That Bede’s Homiliary was divided into two books is clear from his description of it in his list of writings in Historia ecclesiastica gentis Anglorum V.xxiv: “omeliarum euangelii libros II” (ed. Lapidge 2010 2.482). That it contained fifty homilies was established by Germain Morin (1913), who noted that PAUL THE DEACON referred to Bede’s Homily on Benedict Biscop (I.13) as both the fiftieth and the last in the collection he knew (see PL 95.1574 and 1577). Morin then identified a manuscript, Paris, Bibliothèque nationale de France, nouv. acq. lat. 1450, that corresponds to Paul’s description. Its fifty homilies are the same as those in other early manuscripts even though its ordering of the texts differs from theirs. Indeed, the question of Bede’s original structure remains unresolved. In a Master’s thesis submitted to Oxford University in 2006 and available online, Verity L. Allan criticizes David Hurst’s decision to favour liturgical tradition over manuscript

Bible: Homilies

153

evidence in his edition in CCSL 122 and she provides a cogent argument for a different order. (All references in SASLC are, however, to Hurst’s edition and follow his order.) In any case, it is now clear that Bede gathered his work in this genre into two books, each containing twenty-five homilies, ordering them around the liturgical year. From his placement of the work in his account of his writings where it follows the Commentarius in Lucam and precedes the Collectio ex opusculis Augustini in epistulas Pauli, it is also evident that he considered it similar to his other exegetical works. Lacking a preface, the Homiliary does not offer explicit information about Bede’s intent in writing it or clues about its date of composition. The two questions are of course related, both arising from the unresolved issue of whether Bede preached these homilies or simply wrote them, expecting that they would be used by others for this purpose or for spiritual reading. Benedicta Ward (1991 pp v-vi) speculates that after becoming a priest, Bede, although not a bishop or abbot, preached “perhaps in place of one of his abbots during their frequent journeys abroad,” and that “at least fifty of his sermons were written down, presumably by Bede himself either before or after preaching.” Potentially revealing in this context are comments scattered throughout the homilies. For example, in II.24, on the anniversary of the dedication of his own monastic church at Jarrow, Bede completed the explanation of the Gospel reading (Io 10:22-30, Christ’s questioning in the temple on the feast of its dedication), and then he continued: “but I would like to discuss with this fraternal gathering more fully the solemnity of the dedication, which was being celebrated then at Jerusalem, and which we are celebrating today” (trans. Martin and Hurst 1991 2.247; see also II.1 and II.25, trans. pp 9 and 267). Lawrence Martin (2010) offers a different, although not mutually exclusive, starting point: since Bede’s fifty homilies overlap with GREGORY THE GREAT’s Homiliae xl in euangelia in only one pericope – Luke 2:1-14, the nativity, which Gregory said he had to pass over quickly – it is possible that Bede saw his work “as a supplement to Gregory’s.” As specific homilies are compared to Bede’s other works, the circumstances of their composition may become clearer. For example, Conor O’Brien (2015 p 190) has dated Homily II.1, on Christ’s cleansing of the temple (Io 2:12-22), to “the decade or so after 715” on the basis of a change in Bede’s interpretation of the event in his Commentaries on Luke and Mark. Regardless of when the individual homilies were composed, some form of the collection must have existed by 731 since Bede mentioned it in the Historia ecclesiastica. While the collection is based largely on the Neapolitan system of Gospel pericopes (see Lenker 1997 pp 133-46 and 494-46; but see also Allan’s 2006 critique of Hurst’s use of the liturgical evidence), Bede selected the feasts for

154 

BEDE – PART 2

which he composed his homilies. That he did not repeat discussions from his Commentaries is evident simply from the pericopes on which he wrote: only two (I.1 and II.6) are from Mark and thirteen (I.3, I.4, I.6, I.7, I.11, I.18, I.19, II.9, II.10, II.14, II.15, II.19, and II.20) are from Luke. Fourteen (I.5, I.10, I.12, I.13, I.20, I.21, I.22, I. 24, II.3, II.7, II.8, II.21, II.23, and II.25) are from Matthew, but the largest number, 21, are from John (I.2, I.8, I.9, I.14, I.15, I.16, I.17, I.23, I.25, II.1, II.2, II.4, II.5, II.11, II.12, II.13, II.16, II.17, II.18, II.22, and II.24). Allan (2006 p 51) points out that ten of the pericopes from John are from the first six chapters of the Gospel: “these chapters (especially the first on which Bede wrote no less than five homilies), are concerned with Christ’s divinity and the call of the Apostles.” Bede also turned to John for two of the other main themes that Allan (p 50) identifies in the collection as a whole, “the resurrection and the promise of the heavenly kingdom, whether after death or at the second coming.” As Martin (2006 p 190) notes, these homilies also differ from the Commentaries in having “almost no direct quotations from patristic sources.” While at times, Martin writes, “Bede simply seems to paraphrase his patristic source,” at other points “the earlier writer’s ideas are freely adapted by Bede in a highly innovative way to his own homiletic themes and purposes regarding the spiritual life of his monastic listeners and readers” (pp 190-91). They remind one of the complex simplicity of Gregorian chant, in contrast to the bravura of a polyphonic orchestrated chorale achieved by Bede’s patristic sources. MSS. As mentioned in the introduction, there is only one manuscript from Anglo-Saxon England, which is now in the Lincoln Cathedral Library, that represents the collection as a whole. It begins imperfectly, but the rubrics separating books I and II (fol. 77r-v) identify the work as “Omeliarum beati Bedae Presbiteri”; see Rodney M. Thomson (1989 pp 146-47). According to Thomson, the order is I, 1-2, 5, 7-12, 14, 19, 13 (he provides additional analysis here), 15, 18, 25; II, 6, 1; I, 23; II, 2, 4, 3, 5 (he identifies Book II as beginning here), 7, 10, 9, 8, 13, 11-12, 14-20; I, 20; II, 22, 21, 23-25; I, 21, 16, 3-4, and 6. It lacks, then, homilies I.17, I.22, and I.24. Thomson notes that “features of the script suggest a Continental exemplar” and that there is an Old English gloss on 27v (“geþafa nu” for “Sine modo”). Like N.R. Ker (1957 p 158), he dates the writing of this gloss to “s. x-xi.” It should also be noted that Worcester, Cathedral Library F. 92 contains six homilies (I.1, I.2, I.22, I.23, I.25, and II.1) and F. 94 one more (I.17) that did not circulate in the Homiliary of Paul the Deacon. Information on other manuscripts can be found in M.L.W. Laistner’s Hand-List (1943 pp 116-18), Hurst’s edition (CCSL 122.xvii-xxi), and Allan’s thesis (2006 pp 107-24 and 152-64). These sources make it clear that there is still much to learn from the manuscripts about the transmission of the Homiliary both on the Continent and in Anglo-Saxon England.

Bible: Homilies

155

Quots/Cits. The Commentarius in Iohannis euangelium, dated to 801 (CSLMA Auctores Galliae 735-987 2.371) makes it clear that ALCUIN had access to more of Bede’s homilies than circulated in the Homiliary of Paul the Deacon, and so presumably to the entire collection. It still not clear in what forms ÆLFRIC knew these works. That he used Paul’s Homiliary is beyond doubt (see Godden 2000 p xli), and it is always possible that additional homilies that he used were in the augmented collections of this work. There are, however, some indications that he might have known the entire collection. Lists. For the Alcuin booklist, see the introduction, BEDE, in volume 1. Refs. For the references to Bede in BONIFACE’s Epistolae 75, 76 and 91, see the introduction, BEDE, in volume 1. Alcuin’s reference in the Versus de sanctis Euboricensis ecclesiae (ed. Godman 1982 pp 102-03) is generally to Bede’s “many works unravelling the mysterious volumes of Holy Scripture,” and so could point to any of his biblical commentaries or his Homiliary. In the “Epilogus” to his Computus (ed. Baker and Lapidge 1995 pp 375-79), BYRHTFERTH wrote that Bede “expounded more clearly than light some of the writings of the four evangelists,” which could refer to this work, his Commentarius in Marcum, or his Commentarius in Lucam. For the possible influence on Alcuin of Bede’s discussion here and elsewhere of Christ as feminine, see the Commentarius in primam partem Samuhelis. In addition to identifying the texts in Bede’s Homiliary, Germain Morin (1913) critiques previous editions, including that in the PL. Verity L. Allan’s (2006) Master’s thesis provides a detailed analysis of the work. Homily I.1 [BEDA.Hom. I.1]. ed.: CCSL 122.1-6. MSS 1. Lincoln, Cathedral Library, 182 (C. 2. 8) [with 184 fol. 1]: ASM 274. 2. Worcester, Cathedral Library, F. 92: ASM 763. Lists – Refs none. The collection begins in Advent with the Gospel reading on John the Baptist, Mark 1:4-8. Bede distinguished between John’s baptism of “repentance for the confession and correction of sins” and Christ’s, in which “the

156 

BEDE – PART 2

forgiveness of sins is granted to us” (trans. Martin and Hurst 1991 1.1). He blended literal (John baptizes “so that the Pharisees and scribes, in their envious contentiousness, might not find fault with the Lord’s dispensation because he himself was the first to give baptism to human beings”; trans. p 2) and allegorical (“typologically, however, the desert where John remained separated from the allurements of the world designates the lives of the saints, who, whether they live as solitaries or mingled with the crowds, always reject the desires of the present world with the whole intention of their minds”; trans. p 2) readings to cover the verses, concluding with the question of whether Christ also baptized not just with the Spirit but also with water, which leads to a final admonition to preserve his grace (trans. pp 7-8). MSS. The Lincoln Cathedral manuscript, which has lost its opening leaves, now begins in mid-homily; see Rodney M. Thomson (1989 pp 146-47). Malcolm Godden (2000 p 203) attributes “the careful distinction between John’s baptism and Christ’s” in lines 50-56 of Homily 25 in ÆLFRIC’s first series of Catholic Homilies (B1.1.27; ed. Clemoes 1997 pp 379-87) to a sermon by GREGORY THE GREAT; yet the point is also made in the opening of Bede’s homily (ed. CCSL 112.1-2, lines 4-15). Godden (2000 p L) suggests that Ælfric’s knowledge of Bede’s homilies is restricted to those in PAUL THE DEACON’s Homiliary (see Grégoire 1980 pp 400-78), which would then exclude this homily The homily is also edited in PL 94.22-26. A translation appears in Lawrence T. Martin and David Hurst (1991 1.1-8). Homily I.2 [BEDA.Hom. I.2]. ed.: CCSL 122.7-13. MSS 1. Lincoln, Cathedral Library, 182 (C. 2. 8) [with 184 fol. 1]: ASM 274. 2. Worcester, Cathedral Library, F. 92: ASM 763. Lists – A-S Vers none. Quots/Cits 1. Hom. I.2, 1-56: ALCVIN.Comm.Ioan., 749.50 to 751.2. 2. Hom. I.2, 69-82: ALCVIN.Comm.Ioan., 751.2-19. 3. Hom. I.2, 107-154: ALCVIN.Comm.Ioan., 751.34 to 752.34. 4. Hom. I.2, 169-204: ALCVIN.Comm.Ioan., 752.35 to 753.23.

Bible: Homilies

157

Refs None. Bede explicated John 1:15-18, John the Baptist’s witnessing to Christ. Bede began by asserting that John’s testimony proclaims “the eminence of his humanity and at the same time […] the eternity of his divinity” (trans. Martin and Hurst 1991 1.9). In his Commentarius in Iohannis euangelium (ed. PL 100.737-1008), ALCUIN extracted four passages, which he combined into two; for these identif ications, see Michael Gorman (2009 p 69). The f irst turns from Christ’s dual nature to the issue of grace. The second then contrasts the law given to Moses with Christ’s grace through which the faithful will be saved. These passages constitute most of the sermon. Since the homily is not part of PAUL THE DEACON’s Homiliary (see Grégoire 1980 pp 400-78), it indicates that Alcuin knew Bede’s homilies from another source. The homily is also edited in PL 94.26-31. A translation appears in Lawrence T. Martin and David Hurst (1991 1.9-17). Homily I.3 [BEDA.Hom. I.3]. ed.: CCSL 122.14-20. MSS 1. Cambridge, University Library, Ii. 2. 19, fols. 1-216: ASM 16. 2. Lincoln, Cathedral Library, 182 (C. 2. 8) [with 184 fol. 1]: ASM 274. 3. London, British Library, Harley 652: ASM 424. 4. Worcester, Cathedral Library, F. 92: ASM 763. Lists – A-S Vers none. Quots/Cits 1. ? Hom. I.3, 23-28: HomU 18 (B3.4.18), 84-88. 2. ? Hom. I.3, 219-20: HomU 18 (B3.4.18), 90-92. 3. ? Hom. I.3, 219-20: HomU 18 (B3.4.18), 140-42. 4. Hom. I.3, 1-5 and 10-17: ÆCHom I, 13 (B1.1.14), 65-73. 5. Hom. I.3, 23-28: ÆCHom I, 13 (B1.1.14), 73-78. 6. Hom. I.3, 38-42: ÆCHom I, 13 (B1.1.14), 79-87. 7. Hom. I.3, 42-50: ÆCHom I, 13 (B1.1.14), 98-102. 8. Hom. I.3, 64-66: ÆCHom I, 13 (B1.1.14), 103-06. 9. Hom. I.3, 69-72: ÆCHom I, 13 (B1.1.14), 108-10.

158 

BEDE – PART 2

10. Hom. I.3, 86-87, 83-84, and 88-90: ÆCHom I, 13 (B1.1.14), 112-17. 11. Hom. I.3, 101-03: ÆCHom I, 13 (B1.1.14), 117-24. 12. Hom. I.3, 129-31: ÆCHom I, 13 (B1.1.14), 125-28. 13. Hom. I.3, 151-55: ÆCHom I, 13 (B1.1.14), 132-35. 14. Hom. I.3, 160-66: ÆCHom I, 13 (B1.1.14), 136-41. 15. Hom. I.3, 219-20: ÆCHom I, 13 (B1.1.14), 143-48. 16. Hom. I.3, 229-31: ÆCHom I, 13 (B1.1.14), 148-52. Refs none. Bede’s topic was the Annunciation (Lc 1:26-38). He began by contrasting the restoration of mankind through the sending of an angel to a woman with the fall brought about by the sending of the devil to Eve. The rest of the homily remains on the whole close to its biblical source. MSS. Noting that Durham, Cathedral Library, B. II. 2 (ASM 226) is a “a very faithful copy” of PAUL THE DEACON’s Homiliary and that its opening leaves have been lost, Joyce Hill (2007 p 89) writes: “we must presume that the preceding homilies were once present.” These would include this homily by Bede; see Réginald Grégoire (1980 p 432; I, 11). Quots/Cits 1-3. In her entries in Fontes Anglo-Saxonici Mary Clayton identifies three passages in Blickling Homily 1 (ed. Kelly 2003 pp 2-8) as possibly derived from this homily. The first concerns the interpretation of Gabriel’s name as “strength of God”; the other two discuss Mary’s humility. Quots/Cits 4-16. Malcolm Godden (2000 p 102) identifies this homily and Homily I.4 as the main sources for ÆLFRIC’s homily on the Annunciation in the first series of Catholic Homilies (B1.1.13; ed. Clemoes 1997 pp 281-89). The correspondences listed above are drawn from his notes. Condensing Bede’s opening and changing some minor details, Ælfric began his explanation of the Gospel reading by relating the Annunciation to man’s redemption, explaining that it is appropriate for mankind to be saved through a woman since it was through another that the fall occurred (4). He then followed Bede in many of his interpretations of Luke 1:2635: the meaning of Gabriel’s name (5), the reason for Mary’s marriage (6, although Godden notes that his wording is closer to Bede’s Commentarius in Lucam), Joseph’s role in caring for both Mary and Christ (7), Mary’s grace and blessedness (8 and 9), the meaning of Jesus’s name and his dual nature (10), Christ’s holding of David’s throne (11), Mary’s questioning of her ability to conceive (12), the overshadowing of Mary (13), the conception and birth of Christ without sin (14), Mary’s humility (15), and her acquiescence

Bible: Homilies

159

to God’s will (16). The last two passages are drawn from a later portion of Bede’s sermon, but provide a rhetorically effective end for the exposition. Godden (2000 p 104) also notes that Ælfric’s rephrasing of Luke 1:27 in lines 44-45 so the phrase “of the house of David” applies not to Joseph but to Mary “incorporates the argument of Bede’s commentary” (ed. CCSL 122.14, lines 30-31). The homily is also edited in PL 94.9-14. A translation appears in Lawrence T. Martin and David Hurst (1991 1.19-28). Homily I.4 [BEDA.Hom. I.4]. ed.: CCSL 122.21-31. MSS 1. Cambridge, University Library, Ii. 2. 19, fols. 1-216: ASM 16. 2. Lincoln, Cathedral Library, 182 (C. 2. 8) [with 184 fol. 1]: ASM 274. 3. London, British Library, Harley 652: ASM 424. 4. Worcester, Cathedral Library, F. 92: ASM 763. Lists – A-S Vers none. Quots/Cits 1. Hom. I, 4, 49: ÆCHom I, 13 (B1.1.14), 178-79. 2. Hom. I.4, 349-51: ÆCHom I, 13 (B1.1.14), 183-84. 3. Hom. I.4, 244-46: ÆCHom I, 13 (B1.1.14), 195-96. 4. Hom. I.4, 252-54: ÆCHom I, 13 (B1.1.14), 196-99. 5. Hom. I.4, 271-72: ÆCHom I, 13 (B1.1.14), 202-03. 6. Hom. I.4, 265-67: ÆCHom I, 13 (B1.1.14), 206-09. 7. Hom. I.4, 284-85 and 290-91: ÆCHom I, 13 (B1.1.14), 209-12. 8. Hom. I.4, 304-12: ÆCHom I, 13 (B1.1.14), 214-16. 9. Hom. I.4, 312-22: ÆCHom I, 13 (B1.1.14), 216-19. 10. Hom. I.4, 322-25: ÆCHom I, 13 (B1.1.14), 219-21. Refs none. Writing on the Visitation (Lc 1:39-55), Bede linked this homily to the previous one by recalling Mary’s humility at the Annunciation and then stressing it again in her visit to Elizabeth. The homily ends with an extended reflection on the Magnificat, which he noted is chanted daily in the evening office.

160 

BEDE – PART 2

Rodney M. Thomson (2001 p 59 item 18) notes that the Homily breaks off at line 231 in the Worcester Cathedral Library manuscript. Commenting that Durham, Cathedral Library, B. II. 2 (ASM 226) is a “a very faithful copy” of PAUL THE DEACON’s Homiliary and that its opening leaves have been lost, Joyce Hill (2007 p 89) writes: “we must presume that the preceding homilies were once present.” These would include this homily by Bede; see Réginald Grégoire (1980 p 432; I, 12). Grégoire (p 467) refers again to this homily in the second item of II, 76. “in natiuitate Sanctae Mariae.” As noted in the previous entry, Malcolm Godden (2000 p 102) identifies this homily and Homily I.3 as the main sources for ÆLFRIC’s Catholic Homily I, 13 (B1.1.13; ed. Clemoes 1997 pp 281-89). The main borrowings (3-6) are drawn from Bede’s explanation of the Magnificat. In his entries in Fontes Anglo-Saxonici Godden records the first quotation, which concerns the claim that John leaps in his mother’s womb since he cannot greet Christ by speaking; Godden (2000 p 108) identifies another possible source in a sermon by QUODVULTDEUS. The second refers to the singing of the Magnificat at evensong. “He hath put down the mighty from their seat” (Lc 1:52): “these are the proud, who lift themselves above their degree” (trans. Thorpe 1844-86 1.203; 3). “And hath exalted the humble” (Lc 1:52): “as Christ himself said in his gospel, ‘Every one who exalteth himself shall be humbled; and he who humbleth himself shall be exalted’” (trans. p 203; 4). Godden points out that “the opening and closing lines on the damnation of the rich and proud” (Lc 1:53) in I, 13 (ed., lines 202-09) “draw on Bede” (5 and 6). Similarly, Ælfric explained Luke 1:54 (“He hath received Israel his servant”) by combining two of Bede’s phrases (7). Following Bede, the mention of Abraham (Lc 1:55) led Ælfric to note that Mary and, through her, Christ, descend from Abraham (8) and that believers are “spiritually” “of Abraham’s race” (9). The song ends as it does “because our promise, which God hath promised to us, continueth for ever and ever without end” (trans. 1.205; 10). The homily is also edited in PL 94.15-22. A translation appears in Lawrence T. Martin and David Hurst (1991a pp 30-43). Homily I.5 [BEDA.Hom. I.5]. ed.: CCSL 122.32-36. MSS Lincoln, Cathedral Library, 182 (C. 2. 8) [with 184 fol. 1]: ASM 274. Lists – Refs none.

Bible: Homilies

161

For Christmas eve, the Gospel reading is Matthew 1:18-25. Bede focused on the virgin birth, explaining many practical details. Joseph, for example, “had read in Isaiah that a virgin of the house of David would conceive and give birth to the Lord” and so “all at once changed his intention for a better one, so that to preserve Mary’s reputation he would receive her as his wife, celebrating the marriage feast, but he would keep her perpetually chaste” (trans. Martin and Hurst 1991 1.45-46). Christ is called Mary’s “f irst-born son” not because he had actual brothers but “because prior to begetting any other creature by making it, the Father begot a Son coeternal with himself” (trans. 1.48-49). He concluded by relating the name Christ to chrism, “that is an anointing with holy oil” and explaining that Christians are “those who share this anointing, that is, spiritual grace” (trans. 1.50). The homily is also edited in PL 94.31-34. A translation appears in Lawrence T. Martin and David Hurst (1991 1.44-50). Homily I.6 [BEDA.Hom. I.6]. ed.: CCSL 122.37-45. MSS Lincoln, Cathedral Library, 182 (C. 2. 8) [with 184 fol. 1]: ASM 274. Lists – A-S Vers none. Quots/Cits 1. ? Hom. I, 6, 1-22: HomS 1 (VercHom 5, B3.2.1), 76-84. 2. ? Hom. I, 6, 1-22: HomU 10 (VercHom 6, B3.4.10), 18-22. 3. Hom. I.6, 34-36, 12-15, and 19-22: ÆCHom I, 2 (B1.1.3), 45-52. 4. Hom. I.6, 44-49: ÆCHom I, 2 (B1.1.3), 62-65. 5. Hom. I.6, 51-52: ÆCHom I, 2 (B1.1.3), 65-75. 6. ? Hom. I.6, 102-05: ÆCHom I, 2 (B1.1.3), 79-80. 7. Hom. I.6, 108-09: ÆCHom I, 2 (B1.1.3), 80-85. 8. Hom. I.6, 143-53: ÆCHom I, 2 (B1.1.3), 88-92. 9. Hom. I.6, 167-70: ÆCHom I, 2 (B1.1.3), 92-94. 10. Hom. I.6, 175-77 and 162-64: ÆCHom I, 2 (B1.1.3), 94-100. 11. ? Hom. I.6, 158-59: ÆCHom I, 2 (B1.1.3), 100-02. 12. ? Hom. I.6, 238-40: ÆCHom I, 2 (B1.1.3), 118-20. 13. Hom. I.6, 248-60, 264-66, and 270-73: ÆCHom I, 2 (B1.1.3), 120-27. 14. Hom. I.6, 51-52: ÆCHom II, 45 (B1.2.49), 81-82.

162 

BEDE – PART 2

Refs none. Bede here treated the Nativity, following Luke 2:1-14, from Augustus’s decree through the glorifying of God by the heavenly host. Quots/Cits 1-2. Vercelli Homilies 5 and 6 (B3.2.1 and B3.4.10; ed. Scragg 1992 pp 111-21 and 128-31), both for Christmas Day, contain passages that associate the pax Augusti with the peace of Christ. In his entries in Fontes Anglo-Saxonici Donald Scragg refers to Bede’s homily as one of multiple possible sources; see also J.E. Cross (1973). Scragg does not, however, include these suggestions in his edition. The issue has been reopened by Thomas N. Hall (2009) in the context of a larger discussion of the “portents at Christ’s birth” in ten analogues for the passages in the Vercelli homilies. He offers two conclusions (p 97): “the set of portents in Vercelli V is in broad agreement with a tradition current in Hiberno-Latin exegetical literature by the late seventh or early eighth century that was best represented by the tenth-century Catechesis Celtica [see HIBERNO-LATIN BIBLICAL COMMENTARIES] and with an important later reflex in the Icelandic Homily book, which like Vercelli V is probably dependent on a text transmitted via a version of the Carolingian Homiliary of Saint-Père de Chartres [see HOMILARIES]”; and “Vercelli VI is also indebted to the same tradition at some level, but it has abandoned the Augustan framework and the pattern of symbolic interpretation that characterize the core of the tradition, and has freely selected and reshaped a number of the constituent elements, all of which might reasonably be taken as signs that the tradition was undergoing decay by the time it reached the author of Vercelli VI.” Quots/Cits 3-13. Malcolm Godden (2000 p 14) identifies this homily and Homily I.7 as the main sources for ÆLFRIC’s Homily 2, on the Nativity (Lc 2:1-20), in the first series of Catholic Homilies (B1.1.3; ed. Clemoes 1997 pp 190-97). He writes: “Ælfric is rarely close to Bede in wording, but that is frequently the case in his use of Bede’s exegetical writing, and he also takes a decidedly different line from Bede on several points of interpretation, but much of the thought and information in Ælfric’s piece does have parallels in Bede’s two homilies, which were probably available to him in PAUL THE DEACON’s Homiliary.” While I.7 is part of the original Homiliary, I.6 is not, nor has it been identified in any of the versions that circulated in Anglo-Saxon England. It is number nineteen in the expanded version printed in PL 95, at column 1167; see Cyril Smetana (1959 p 182 and 1978 pp 87-89). In any case, there are seven passages that Ælfric drew directly from Bede; they concern the peace between angels and men at Christ’s birth

Bible: Homilies

163

(3), the tax (4), the name Bethlehem (7), Christ as first-born (8), Christ’s brothers (9), the manger and the crowded inn (10), and the announcement that Christ is born “today” rather than “tonight” (13). In addition, Godden suggests that Bede’s interpretation of the command to each to return to his own city as anticipating the Christian’s need to return to the Church may be the source for Ælfric’s exhortation to his audience to gather themselves into Christ’s holy congregation (5; in Fontes Anglo-Saxonici he considers this a possible source). Godden notes that Bede’s explanation that Christ was not born where he was conceived so as to hide the birth from his enemies may underlie Ælfric’s remark that by being born on a journey Christ was concealed from his persecutors (6); yet Godden offers a closer parallel in HEIRIC OF AUXERRE. The final two correspondences that Godden notes are slight, but in the context of the others they seem likely sources for Ælfric’s comments that Christ does not ask for anything as a reward for his toil (11) and that the joy announced by the angels is eternal (12). Quots/Cits 14. In Homily 40 in his second series of Catholic Homilies (B1.2.49; ed. Godden 1979 pp 335-45), Ælfric again commented on the peace between angels and men; citing Catholic Homilies I, 2, Godden (2000 p 664) identifies Bede’s Homily I.6 as the source. The homily is also edited in PL 94.334-39. A translation appears in Lawrence T. Martin and David Hurst (1991 1.52-64). Homily I.7 [BEDA.Hom. I.7]. ed.: CCSL 122.46-51. MSS 1. Cambridge, University Library, Ii. 2. 19, fols. 1-216: ASM 16. 2. Lincoln, Cathedral Library, 182 (C. 2. 8) [with 184 fol. 1]: ASM 274. 3. London, British Library, Harley 652: ASM 424. 4. Worcester, Cathedral Library, F. 92: ASM 763. Lists – A-S Vers none. Quots/Cits 1. Hom. I.7, 17-18: ÆCHom I, 2 (B1.1.3), 102-11. 2. Hom. I.7, 6-11: ÆCHom I, 2 (B1.1.3), 111-15. 3. Hom. I.7, 11-17: ÆCHom I, 2 (B1.1.3), 132-38. 4. Hom. I.7, 51-57: ÆCHom I, 2 (B1.1.3), 165-85. 5. Hom. I.7, 93-97: ÆCHom I, 2 (B1.1.3), 199-202.

164 

BEDE – PART 2

6. Hom. I.7, 119-50: ÆCHom I, 2 (B1.1.3), 204-17. 7. Hom. I.7, 145-49: ÆCHom I, 2 (B1.1.3), 218-19. Refs none. Bede continued the Nativity story from Luke, begun in the previous homily, explicating the visit of the shepherds to the manger (Lc 2:15-20). As noted in the previous entry, Malcolm Godden (2000 p 14) identifies this homily and Homily I.6 as the main sources for ÆLFRIC’s homily on the Nativity (Lc 2:1-20) in the first series of Catholic Homilies (B1.1.3; ed. Clemoes 1997 pp 190-97). The transition between the two sources is blurred in part because Bede began the second by looking back to the first and because Ælfric turned to the second for the interpretation of the shepherds as teachers (1) before he had finished with his explanation of all the details in the first half of the story. The following detail in Ælfric most likely from this sermon, the appearance of light with the angels (2), also appears, as Godden notes, in I.6. However, Ælfric’s explanation of the appearance of the host of angels (3) is directly from this sermon. The next three correspondences (4-6) come from Bede’s explanations of the reading for the day and concern the “word” the shepherds seek (4), their new knowledge of God gained as they recognize the child (5), and the significance of Mary’s contemplation on the events (6). One piece of information that Bede had included in his discussion of Mary’s contemplation, the survival of a monument to the shepherds near Bethlehem, was used by Ælfric to end his homily (7). The identifcation in Fontes, however, of a parallel between Bede’s Homily 1.7 lines 17-18 and lines 55-57 of Ælfric’s homily appears to be a mistake. The homily is also edited in PL 94.34-38. A translation appears in Lawrence T. Martin and David Hurst (1991 1.65-71). Homily I.8 [BEDA.Hom. I.8]. ed.: CCSL 122.52-59. MSS 1. Cambridge, University Library, Ii. 2. 19, fols. 1-216: ASM 16. 2. Lincoln, Cathedral Library, 182 (C. 2. 8) [with 184 fol. 1]: ASM 274. 3. London, British Library, Harley 652: ASM 424. 4. Worcester, Cathedral Library, F. 92: ASM 763.

Bible: Homilies

165

Lists – A-S Vers none. Quots/Cits 1. Hom. I.8, 8-24: ALCVIN.Comm.Ioan., 743.46 to 745.4. 2. Hom. I.8, 24-31: ALCVIN.Comm.Ioan., 745.33-41. 3. Hom. I.8, 31-34: ALCVIN.Comm.Ioan., 745.46-50. 4. Hom. I.8, 71-86: ALCVIN.Comm.Ioan., 745.49-746.11. 5. Hom. I.8, 87-106: ALCVIN.Comm.Ioan., 746.16-39. 6. Hom. I.8, 117-265: ALCVIN.Comm.Ioan., 746.43 to 749.48. 7. Hom I.8, 107: LANTFR.Trans.mir.Swith., xxxv, 55. 8. Hom. I.8, 1-11: ÆHom 1 (B1.4.1), 1-9. 9. Hom. I.8, 11-14: ÆHom 1 (B1.4.1), 10-16. 10. Hom. I.8, 22-32: ÆHom 1 (B1.4.1), 17-19. 11. Hom. I.8, 37-58: ÆHom 1 (B1.4.1), 151-60. 12. Hom. I.8, 66-73: ÆHom 1 (B1.4.1), 169-70. 13. Hom. I.8, 88: ÆHom 1 (B1.4.1), 279. 14. Hom. I.8, 99-106: ÆHom 1 (B1.4.1), 294-98. 15. Hom. I.8, 129-44: ÆHom 1 (B1.4.1), 311-23. 16. Hom. I.8, 142-47: ÆHom 1 (B1.4.1), 330-35. 17. Hom. I.8, 151-82: ÆHom 1 (B1.4.1), 338-49. 18. Hom. I.8, 185-96: ÆHom 1 (B1.4.1), 352-63. 19. Hom. I.8, 187-89: ÆHom 1 (B1.4.1), 386-90. 20. Hom. I.8, 210-16: ÆHom 1 (B1.4.1), 391-402. 21. Hom. I.8, 224-38: ÆHom 1 (B1.4.1), 404-09. 22. Hom. I.8, 241-49: ÆHom 1 (B1.4.1), 429-36. 23. Hom. I.8, 253-65: ÆHom 1 (B1.4.1), 457-60. Refs none. Turning from the story of the Nativity in the synoptic Gospels, Bede here explicated John 1:1-14, which explains Christ’s divine nature. Quots/Cits 1-6. As Michael Gorman (2009 p 69) notes, ALCUIN began his Commentarius in Iohannis euangelium (ed. PL 100.737-1008) by quoting the passage near the start of I.8 in which Bede explained that it is “not without reason” that at the Last Supper John “leaned upon the breast of the Lord Jesus” since “through this we are taught typologically that he drank the draught of the heavenly wisdom from the most holy font of [Jesus’s] breast in a more outstanding way than the other [evangelists]”

166 

BEDE – PART 2

(trans. Martin and Hurst 1991 1.73). Alcuin returned (in 2 and 3) to I.8 when he commented specifically on John 1:1, “in the beginning was the word,” noting that “the other evangelists describe Christ born in time; John bears witness that this same [Christ] was in the beginning” (trans. 1.74). He used I.8 again (4 and 5) in commenting on John 1:3-5, following Bede (who in turn followed AUGUSTINE; see the note in Martin and Hurst 1991 1.84) in dividing these verses in a way unfamiliar to modern readers: “All things were made by him, and without him nothing was made”; “that which was made, in him was life”; “And the life was the light of human beings”; and “And the light gives light in the darkness, and the darkness did not comprehend it” (trans. 1.75-77). From John 9:6, “There was a man sent from God whose name was John,” to 9:14, “And the Word was made flesh and dwelt among us, (and we saw his glory, the glory as it were of the only begotten of the Father) full of grace and truth,” Alcuin repeated Bede. In other words, Alcuin used almost all of I.8. Quots/Cits 7. In his edition of LANTFRED’s Translatio et miracula S. Swithuni, Michael Lapidge (2003b p 328) refers to this homily in considering the phrase “salutis medelam” (“remedy for his health”), which occurs in the account of the healing of a paralytic. Bede used the phrase in discussing John 1:5, the darkness which did not comprehend the light, commenting “nevertheless, heavenly benevolence does not entirely despise such ones, but employs for them the cure of salvation, by which they may be able to come to see the light” (trans. Martin and Hurst 1991 1.77). Quots/Cits 8-23. In discussing ÆLFRIC’s first homily in his Supplementary Collection (B1.4.1; ed. Pope 1967-68 pp 196-216), John C. Pope identifies this homily as one of its two main sources, the other being Augustine’s Tractatus in euangelium Ioannis, which Bede also used. He writes: “Sometimes, to be sure, Bede comes so close to repeating Augustine, and Ælfric’s treatment of the common idea is so free, that it is hard to tell which author has influenced him more; but there are enough decisive passages to assure us that he had studied the interpretations of both authors with some care.” This situation is further complicated by the fact that Bede’s homily was also used by Alcuin and HAYMO OF AUXERRE, but again Pope offers reasons to believe that, while Ælfric relied on both these works, he also knew Bede directly. Indeed, Pope concludes: “certainly the design of the whole was largely inspired by the clear, firm, and inclusive outlines of the homily by Bede” (p 193). Quots/Cits 8-23. As Pope’s source notes allow one to recognize, from Bede’s opening Ælfric drew three main points: John’s chaste life made him worthy to learn of Christ’s divine nature (8); the eagle is thus a fitting symbol

Bible: Homilies

167

for him (9); and his Gospel is unlike the others, which discuss Christ’s human nature (10). When Ælfric began a verse by verse explication of the reading, he turned back to Bede, using John 1:1 to refute various heresies (11) and John 1:3 to assert that Christ is not created (12). Quotation 13 is a single phrase, “þæt liflice gescead,” in a passage from Augustine; it corresponds to “uitalis ratio” (ed. CCSL 122.54). The remaining ten correspondences all follow directly after the quotation of a particular verse; only in the cases of 1:4 and 1:6 (1:7 is not quoted again) did Ælfric apparently not use this homily. The unrighteous are unable to see with their minds Christ’s light (Io 1:5; 14). For John 1:8, Ælfric rearranged several of Bede’s points, noting that it is Christ’s light, which illumines John and the apostles, that also enlighten men with their holy teaching (15). The true light of John 1:9 is Christ (16). Quotation 17 draws on several points that Bede made about John 1:10; Pope (1967-68 p 211) notes, “Ælfric’s abridgement obscures Bede’s distinction between the world’s not recognizing God in the creation and its not receiving him when he came into it in the flesh.” Following Bede, Ælfric emphasized the great goodness of Christ in giving men the power to become the sons of God (Io 1:12; 18); he returned to Bede at the end of the explication of this verse to state that Christ did not wish to remain alone, but descended to collect brothers to whom he could give his kingdom (19). Quotation 20 stresses that believers are born of God through baptism and the Holy Ghost (Io 1:13). The last three passages comment on what we would now consider one verse, John 1:14: Christ becomes man through the incarnation (21); the apostles saw his miracles (22); and he is full of grace and truth in his dual nature (23). In her entries in Fontes Anglo-Saxonici Rohini Jayatilaka breaks down some of these correspondences in more detail and also considers other passages from the homily as possible sources for Ælfric. Homily I.8 is in the original Homiliary of PAUL THE DEACON; see Réginald Grégoire (1980 p 435; I, 26). It is also edited in PL 94.38-44 and a translation appears in Lawrence T. Martin and David Hurst (1991 1.73-83). Homily I.9 [BEDA.Hom. I.9]. ed.: CCSL 122.60-67. MSS 1. Cambridge, University Library, Ii. 2. 19, fols. 1-216: ASM 16. 2. Durham, Cathedral Library, B. II. 2: ASM 226. 3. Lincoln, Cathedral Library, 182 (C. 2. 8) [with 184 fol. 1]: ASM 274. 4. London, British Library, Harley 652: ASM 424. 5. Worcester, Cathedral Library, F. 92: ASM 763.

168 

BEDE – PART 2

Lists – A-S Vers none. Quots/Cits 1. Hom. I.9, 218-40: ALCVIN.Comm.Ioan.Epist., 741.9-39. 2. Hom. I.9, 4-9: ALCVIN.Comm.Ioan., 1003.26-33. 3. Hom. I.9, 31-151: ALCVIN.Comm.Ioan., 1003.33 to 1006.5. 4. Hom. I.9, 180-92: ALCVIN.Comm.Ioan., 1006.5-20. 5. Hom. I.9, 197-201: ALCVIN.Comm.Ioan., 1006.20-24. 6. Hom. I.9, 210-56: ALCVIN.Comm.Ioan., 1006.56 to 1007.26. 7. Hom. I.9, 55-69: ÆCHom I, 4 (B1.1.5), 1-20. 8. Hom. I.9, 125-34: ÆCHom I, 4 (B1.1.5), 20-31. 9. Hom. I.9, 227-29: ÆCHom I, 4 (B1.1.5), 33-36. 10. ? Hom. I.9: ÆCHom I, 4 (B1.1.5), 174-93. 11. Hom. I.9, 142-43: ÆCHom I, 4 (B1.1.5), 274-76. 12. Hom. I.9, 125-28: ÆCHom I, 37 (B1.1.39), 245-49. 13. Hom. I.9, 227-240: ÆHom 1 (B1.4.1), 20-27. Refs none. For the feast of St John, the Gospel reading is John 21:19-24, Christ’s words to Peter concerning Peter’s death, the exchange between Peter and Christ about John, Christ’s comment about John’s death, and John’s self-identification as the writer of the Gospel. MSS. A brief extract of the homily (lines 151-69) appears in London, British Library, Cotton Vespasian, A. xiv, fols. 114-79 (“Letter-book of Archbishop WULFSTAN”; ASM 383) under the title “De actiua uita et contemplatiua”; see Gareth Mann (2004 pp 268-75), who makes the identification and posits HAYMO OF HALBERSTADT as a possible intermediary. Bede, however, appears to be a closer source for the extract than Haymo. Quots/Cits 1-6. As John C. Pope (1967-68 p 197) notes, ALCUIN quoted Bede’s account of the writing of the fourth Gospel (itself drawn from JEROME’s Prologue to his Commentarii in euangelium Matthaei) in the prefatory epistle (to Gislam and Rodtrudam) of his Commentarius in Iohannis euangelium (ed. PL 100.740-44). Michael Gorman (2009 p 83) identifies five more excerpts from the homily in Alcuin’s commentary, the last of which (6) is a longer extract from Bede’s account of the writing of John’s Gospel. Quotation 2 is Bede’s summary of the Gospel reading’s significance (trans. Martin and Hurst 1991 1.85):

Bible: Homilies

169

For the most blessed evangelist and apostle John sets down for us the privilege of the preeminent love by which he deserved to be more amply honored by the Lord than the other apostles. He sets down the testimony of the Gospel description which, since it rests on divine truth, none of the faithful is permitted to deny. He sets down the tranquil release from his flesh which he attained in a special way when the Lord visited him.

Quotation 3 covers Bede’s exposition of John 21:19, John’s explanation of Christ’s words in 21:18, which concern Peter’s martyrdom, through the opening of his discussion of the difference between the lives of Peter and Paul as a contrast between the active and contemplative lives. Quotation 4 then focuses specifically on the contrasting deaths of Peter and John; and quotation 5, which concludes Alcuin’s discussion of this issue, notes that the “contemplative happiness […], which commences here, will be made perfect without end when the presence of the heavenly citizens and of the Lord himself will be seen, not through a mirror and in a dark manner as now, but face to face” (trans. 1.92). Quots/Cits 7-11. As Malcolm Godden (2000 pp 28-45) demonstrates, ÆLFRIC drew the opening of Homily 4, on the assumption of John the Evangelist in the first series of Catholic Homilies (B1.1.5; ed. Clemoes 1997 pp 206-16) from I.9. Following Bede, he stressed John’s chastity as the reason for Christ’s special favour (7), although he went beyond this source in identifying John’s mother as Mary’s sister and the marriage ceremony from which Christ called John as the wedding at Cana (Io 2:1-12); on the latter, Bede said only that “stories handed down say that [Christ] called [John] from his marriage ceremony” (trans. Martin and Hurst 1991 1.87). His following account of John’s persecution under Domitian and his exile to Patmos (8), is also drawn (except for its first sentence) from Bede. Ælfric then turned primarily to his main source for the homily (the Pseudo-Mellito Martyrdom of John; see APOCRYPHA), but one detail, Nerva’s role in allowing John to return from exile, is taken from I.9 (9), or, as Godden notes, from HAYMO OF AUXERRE’s adaptation. According to Godden, Ælfric’s account of the writing of the fourth Gospel (10) is closest to Haymo’s version, but this derives from I.9. Finally, a comment from the description of his death, “he departed as joyfully from the pain of death, from this present life, as he was exempt from bodily defilement” (trans. Thorpe 1844-46 1.77), corresponds most closely to I.9 (11). Quots/Cits 12-13. A single detail in Catholic Homilies I, 37 (B1.1.39; ed. Clemoes 1997 pp 497-506), Domitian’s attempt to kill John in boiling oil, is, according to Godden, (2000 p 317-18) “slightly closer” in wording to Bede

170 

BEDE – PART 2

than to Ælfric’s Catholic Homily I, 4 (12). Ælfric returned to the topic of the writing of the fourth Gospel near the beginning of his first homily in his Supplementary Collection (B1.4.1; ed. Pope 1967-68 pp 196-216), here following Bede (13). Homily 1.9 is in the Homiliary of PAUL THE DEACON; see Réginald Grégoire (1980 p 436; I, 33). It is also edited in PL 94.44-49 and a translation appears in Lawrence T. Martin and David Hurst (1991 1.85-94). Homily I.10 [BEDA.Hom. I.10]. ed.: CCSL 122.68-72. MSS 1. Cambridge, University Library, Ii. 2. 19, fols. 1-216: ASM 16. 2. Lincoln, Cathedral Library, 182 (C. 2. 8) [with 184 fol. 1]: ASM 274. 3. London, British Library, Harley 652: ASM 424. 4. Worcester, Cathedral Library, F. 92: ASM 763. Lists – A-S Vers none. Quots/Cits Hom. I.10, 31-37: ÆCHom I, 5 (B1.1.6), 117-22. Refs none. The reading for the feast of the Holy Innocents is Matthew 2:13-23, which Bede interpreted as representing “the precious death of all Christ’s martyrs” (trans. Martin and Hurst 1991 1.96). MSS. A brief extract from this Homily (lines 86-113) serves as the opening of a composite homily in Worcester, Cathedral Library, F. 92 (ASM 763); see Rodney M. Thomson (2001 p 59 item 4). Quots/Cits. One passage in ÆLFRIC’s Homily 5, on the nativity of the Innocents in the first series of Catholic Homilies (B1.1.6; ed. Clemoes 1997 pp 217-23), is identified by Malcolm Godden (2000 p 43) as drawn from Bede, HAYMO OF AUXERRE, or SMARAGDUS. In commenting on 2:18, Rachel’s weeping for her children and her refusal to be consoled, Bede wrote: “the fact that Rachel is said to have bewailed her children and not wished to be consoled because they are not signifies that the Church bewails the removal of the saints from this world, but she does not wish to be consoled in such

Bible: Homilies

171

a way that those who have been victorious over the world by death should return once again to bear with her the strife of the world, for surely they should no longer be called back into the world from whose hardships they have once escaped to Christ for their crowning” (trans. Martin and Hurst 1991 1.97). Godden finds this wording closest to Ælfric’s. Homily I.10 is in the Homiliary of PAUL THE DEACON; see Réginald Grégoire (1980 p 437; I, 36). It is also edited in PL 94.50-53 and a translation appears in Lawrence T. Martin and David Hurst (1991 1.96-102). Homily I.11 [BEDA.Hom. I.11]. ed.: CCSL 122.73-79. MSS 1. Cambridge, University Library, Ii. 2. 19, fols. 1-216: ASM 16. 2. ? Durham, Cathedral Library, B. II. 2: ASM 226. 3. Lincoln, Cathedral Library, 182 (C. 2. 8) [with 184 fol. 1]: ASM 274. 4. London, British Library, Harley 652: ASM 424. 5. Worcester, Cathedral Library, F. 92: ASM 763. Lists – A-S Vers none. Quots/Cits 1. Hom. I.11, 1-3: ÆCHom I, 6 (B1.1.7), 3-5. 2. Hom. I.11, 83-90: ÆCHom I, 6 (B1.1.7), 33-40. 3. Hom. I.11, 41-48: ÆCHom I, 6 (B1.1.7), 53-60. 4. Hom. I.11, 48-53: ÆCHom I, 6 (B1.1.7), 61-65. 5. Hom. I.11, 28-34: ÆCHom I, 6 (B1.1.7), 66-72. 6. ? Hom. I.11, 175-211: ÆCHom I, 6 (B1.1.7), 102-06. 7. Hom. I.11, 111-21: ÆCHom I, 6 (B1.1.7), 106-10. 8. Hom. I.11, 90-95: ÆCHom I, 6 (B1.1.7), 110-16. 9. Hom. I.11, 100-05: ÆCHom I, 6 (B1.1.7), 116-20. 10. Hom. I.11, 153-58: ÆCHom I, 6 (B1.1.7), 121-25. 11. Hom. I.11, 211-16: ÆCHom I, 6 (B1.1.7), 126-29. Refs none. Written for the feast of the Circumcision, Bede explicated Luke 2:21, noting the similarities between circumcision in the Old Law and baptism in the

172 

BEDE – PART 2

New as well as the connection between these rituals and the giving of new names. He associated the feast with the eighth day, the time of the resurrection, when following “complete circumcision” the bodies of the saved will become incorruptible. MSS. Thomas Rud (1825 p 94) provides the incipit “hanc tam venerandam” for a homily by Bede on Luke 2:21 for the feast of the Circumcision in the Durham Cathedral Library manuscript. Bede’s homily begins, “Sanctam uenerandamque,” making it likely that Rud’s reference is indeed to this work. Homily I.11 is, moreover, in the Homiliary of PAUL THE DEACON; see Réginald Grégoire (1980 p 437; I, 40). Quots/Cits 1-11. The opening lines of the sixth homily in ÆLFRIC’s first series of Catholic Homilies (B1.1.7; ed. Clemoes 1997 pp 224-31) echoes the opening of homily I.11; in his entries in Fontes Anglo-Saxonici Malcolm Godden considers it a certain, direct source. The following quotations listed above, drawn from Godden (2000 pp 47-51), indicate the extent of Ælfric’s use of it. In one case (6), Ælfric might have followed HAYMO OF AUXERRE’s reworking of Bede more closely than Bede himself, but there is no doubt that he knew the original. Details that Ælfric drew from Homily I.11 include the discussion of the changing of Abraham’s name (2) and the use of Isaiah (7) and Galatians (8) in this context; the changing of Sarah’s name (9); the comparison of circumcision to baptism (3 and 4); the explanation of Christ’s following of the Old Law (5; yet see also the passage Godden quotes from Haymo); the association of the eighth day with the eighth age (10); and the identification of the stone knife used in circumcision with Christ (11). The homily is also edited in PL 94.53-58. A translation appears in Lawrence T. Martin and David Hurst (1991 1.103-11). Homily I.12 [BEDA.Hom. I.12]. ed.: CCSL 122.80-87. MSS 1. Cambridge, University Library, Ii. 2. 19, fols. 1-216: ASM 16. 2. Durham, Cathedral Library, B. II. 2: ASM 226. 3. Lincoln, Cathedral Library, 182 (C. 2. 8) [with 184 fol. 1]: ASM 274. 4. London, British Library, Harley 652: ASM 424. 5. Worcester, Cathedral Library, F. 92: ASM 763. Lists – A-S Vers none.

Bible: Homilies

173

Quots/Cits 1. Hom. I.12, 72-76: ÆCHom II, 3 (B1.2.4), 91-96. 2. Hom. I.12, 22-24: ÆCHom II, 3 (B1.2.4), 91-92 3. Hom. I.12, 1-8: ÆCHom II, 3 (B1.2.4), 98-101. 4. Hom. I.12, 56-57: ÆCHom II, 3 (B1.2.4), 101-03. 5. Hom. I.12, 63-65: ÆCHom II, 3 (B1.2.4), 104-07. 6. Hom. I.12, 83-94: ÆCHom II, 3 (B1.2.4), 109-14. 7. Hom. I.12, 135-38: ÆCHom II, 3 (B1.2.4), 118-21. 8. Hom. I.12, 201-11: ÆCHom II, 3 (B1.2.4), 150-67. 9. Hom. I.12, 140-41: ÆCHom II, 3 (B1.2.4), 155-58. 10. Hom. I.12, 205-07: ÆCHom II, 3 (B1.2.4), 172-73. 11. Hom. I.12, 243-45: ByrM (B20.20), IV.i, 173. 12. ? Hom. I.12, 19: BYRHT.Vit.Os., 148.2. Refs none. The pericope is Matthew 3:13-17, Christ’s baptism. Bede compared the humility and grandeur of Christ and John the Baptist inherent in the beginning and end of the reading before offering a more detailed interpretation of the passage, stressing its moral significance for the audience. Quots/Cits 1-10. In his second homily for Epiphany, II, 3 in his second series of Catholic Homilies (B1.2.4; ed. Godden 1979 pp 19-28), ÆLFRIC discussed baptism, drawing “freely” on a number of sources, none of which “acted as a model for the piece as a whole,” as Malcolm Godden (2000 p 363) explains. Ælfric’s discussion in lines 91-121 (quotations 1-7 above), however, of the events described in Matthew 3:13-17 are, as Godden’s notes make clear, drawn largely from Bede’s homily: Christ is baptized not because he needed to be freed from sin, but to set an example for men; both Christ and John are humble; and by being baptized, Christ, who remains always with the Father and Holy Ghost, opens the kingdom of heaven to mankind. Godden also calls attention to the homily when, contrasting the form of the Holy Ghost at Christ’s baptism and Pentecost, Ælfric described the dove as innocent, feeding on fruits rather than worms (8), and mild to the world (9). Finally, Godden considers the possibility that Ælfric developed a detail in quotation 8, the claim that like the dove we not use our teeth as weapons and arrows, in his description of the dove as committing no rapine nor persecuting any man (10). Quots/Cits 11. In his discussion of the number seven in his Enchiridion (ed. and trans. Baker and Lapidge 1995 p 208-09) BYRHTFERTH commented

174 

BEDE – PART 2

that “doves have seven natural characteristics.” In their commentary, Peter S. Baker and Michael Lapidge (1995 p 352) offer both Bede and HAYMO OF AUXERRE as possible sources. Quots/Cits 12. In part 5, section 1 of his Vita Oswaldi (ed. Lapidge 2009 p 48), Byrhtferth introduced the topic of the miracles the saint achieved through prayer with the clause “quia uero superius breuiter prelibauimus” (“but because we have previously indicated in a few words”); Lapidge notes similar phrases in this homily, Homilies I.17, II.2; and in AMBROSE’s De spiritu sancto. Homily I.12 is in the Homiliary of PAUL THE DEACON; see Réginald Grégoire (1980 p 440; I, 58). It is also edited in PL 94.58-63 and a translation appears in Lawrence T. Martin and David Hurst (1991 1.113-23). Homily I.13 [BEDA.Hom. I.13]. ed.: Grocock and Wood (2013 pp 2-18). MSS 1. Lincoln, Cathedral Library, 182 (C. 2. 8) [with 184 fol. 1]: ASM 274. 2. London, British Library, Harley 3020, fols. 1-34: ASM 433. 3. Worcester, Cathedral Library, F. 92: ASM 763. Lists – A-S Vers none. Quots/Cits 1. Hom. I.13, 4.22-25: ÆCHom I, 27 (B1.1.29), 176-77. 2. Hom. I.13, 8.12-13: BYRHT.Vit.Os., 152.14. Refs none. The rubric in the Harley manuscript identifies the topic that makes this homily stand out from the others in the collection (trans. Grocock and Wood 2013 p 3): The sermon of the blessed priest and confessor Bede for the nativity of the holy abbot Benedict. He was the builder of the monastery of saint Peter prince of the apostles, which is called the church of Wearmouth in the province in Northumbria.

Bible: Homilies

175

The reading is Matthew 19:27-29, in which Peter questions Christ about the reward for the apostles who have left everything to follow him and Christ responds that “you, who have followed me, in the regeneration, when the Son of man shall sit on the seat of his majesty, you also shall sit on the twelve seats judging the twelve tribes of Israel” and that “every one that hath left house or brethren, or sisters, or father, or mother, or wife, or children, or lands for my name’s sake, shall receive an hundredfold, and shall possess life everlasting.” Bede first explained the Gospel passage, setting out, for example, a fourfold division of souls at judgement. He then interpreted the “hundredfold” to refer to monastic experience, providing a transition to Benedict Biscop. In a number of manuscripts, a discussion of BENEDICT OF NURSIA appears instead; see Christopher Grocock and I.N. Wood (2013 pp 10 and 181-87). MSS. Grocock and Wood (2013 p xcvi) explain that their use of the Harley manuscript, which Hurst had not consulted for his edition in the CCSL, led to a reediting of the text. They describe the manuscript as containing at its beginning (although written last) a section of Bedan material, this homily, the Historia Abbatum and the Vita Ceolfridi (see ACTA SANCTORUM). They cite Michael Lapidge (2008a p 75), who states that this part was “very probably written at Glastonbury c. 1000.” David Dumville (1992 p 110, note 92) places this manuscript in the context of other libelli written for particular saints. Rodney M. Thomson (2001 p 60 item 87) notes that in the Worcester, Cathedral Library manuscript the text breaks off in line 93 of the CCSL edition, so on page 8, line 25 in Grocock and Wood (2013). The homily is not included by PAUL THE DEACON in his Homiliary. The Lincoln Cathedral manuscript alters the end of the homily to refer to Benedict of Nursia. In his edition (CCSL 122.xix), David Hurst explains this change by commenting that outside of Northumbria Benedict Biscop would not have been well-known. In contrast, Grocock and Wood, who print the ending from the Lincoln Cathedral manuscript as well as three more from the twelfth century, now in Oxford Colleges, describe it as “the ‘Continental variant’ conclusion to Homily I.13” (p 181). Quots/Cits 1. Although Malcolm Godden (2000 p L) considers Homily I.13 a “very doubtful” source for Homily 27 in the first series of Catholic Homilies (B1.1.29; ed. Clemoes 1997 pp 400-09), the correspondence he identifies is close. (The quotation above refers to the edition by Grocock and Wood; see CCSL 122.89, lines 35-38). Both state that it is not just the apostles but also those who have followed their example who will be judges with Christ when he comes again. In his entries in Fontes Anglo-Saxonici Godden considers Bede a possible source here but lists no others. In his Commentary Godden

176 

BEDE – PART 2

notes that the previous passage (lines 164-75) is ultimately from this homily, but he considers an adaptation by SMARAGDUS to be closer. Similarly, the following passage (lines 177-92) also contains ideas found in Bede, but Godden finds the “particular formulation” closer to the Prognosticon of JULIAN OF TOLEDO. Quots/Cits 2. In part five, section three of his Vita Oswaldi (ed. and trans. Lapidge 2009 p 152-53), BYRHTFERTH used the phrase “munera deferentes eximia” (“bringing excellent gifts”) in describing gifts brought to the saint. Michael Lapidge (p 153, note 33) provides a reference to this homily. The homily is also edited in CCSL 122.88-94 and PL 34.224-28; a translation of the text in the Corpus Christianorum appears in Lawrence T. Martin and David Hurst (1991 1.125-32). Christopher Grocock and I.N. Wood (2013 pp 3-19) provide a translation of their text. Homily I.14 [BEDA.Hom. I.14]. ed.: CCSL 122.95-104. MSS 1. Cambridge, University Library, Ii. 2. 19, fols. 1-216: ASM 16. 2. Durham, Cathedral Library, B. II. 2: ASM 226. 3. Lincoln, Cathedral Library, 182 (C. 2. 8) [with 184 fol. 1]: ASM 274. 4. London, British Library, Harley 652: ASM 424. 5. Worcester, Cathedral Library, F. 92: ASM 763. Lists – A-S Vers none. Quots/Cits 1. Hom. I.14, 45-94: ALCVIN.Comm.Ioan., 766.13 to 767.16. 2. Hom. I.14, 95-273: ALCVIN.Comm.Ioan., 767.31 to 771.25. 3. Hom. I.14, 273-291: ALCVIN.Comm.Ioan., 772.5-27. 4. Hom. I.14, 1-16: ÆCHom II, 4 (B1.2.5), 25-29. 5. Hom. I.14, 31-33: ÆCHom II, 4 (B1.2.5), 29-36. 6. Hom. I.14, 53-59: ÆCHom II, 4 (B1.2.5), 37-44. 7. Hom. I.14, 59-62: ÆCHom II, 4 (B1.2.5), 45-47. 8. Hom. I.14, 78-86: ÆCHom II, 4 (B1.2.5), 48-51. 9. Hom. I.14, 97-100: ÆCHom II, 4 (B1.2.5), 52-55. 10. Hom. I.14, 62-68: ÆCHom II, 4 (B1.2.5), 58-60. 11. Hom. I.14, 124-27: ÆCHom II, 4 (B1.2.5), 60-67. 12. Hom. I.14, 134-36 and 127-32: ÆCHom II, 4 (B1.2.5), 92-99.

Bible: Homilies

177

13. Hom. I.14, 136-37, 145-47, and 150-51: ÆCHom II, 4 (B1.2.5), 104-10. 14. Hom. I.14, 152-54, 158-61, and 164-67: ÆCHom II, 4 (B1.2.5), 111-22. 15. Hom. I.14, 167-72: ÆCHom II, 4 (B1.2.5), 131-60. 16. Hom. I.14, 174-82: ÆCHom II, 4 (B1.2.5), 161-78. 17. Hom. I.14, 182-85: ÆCHom II, 4 (B1.2.5), 179-99. 18. Hom. I.14, 188-95: ÆCHom II, 4 (B1.2.5), 200-09. 19. Hom. I.14, 195-99: ÆCHom II, 4 (B1.2.5), 210-29. 20. Hom. I.14, 202-14: ÆCHom II, 4 (B1.2.5), 230-39. 21. Hom. I.14, 214-17: ÆCHom II, 4 (B1.2.5), 276-81. 22. Hom. I.14, 231-39: ÆCHom II, 4 (B1.2.5), 281-93. 23. Hom. I.14, 277-78: ÆCHom II, 4 (B1.2.5), 308-11. 24. Hom. I.14, 282-85: ÆCHom II, 4 (B1.2.5), 320-23. 25. Hom. I.14, 31-33: ÆHomM 8 (Ass 3; B1.5.8), 87-88. Refs 1. ÆCHom II, 4 (B1.2.5), 25. 2. ÆCHom II, 4 (B1.2.5), 294. 3. ? ÆCHom II, 4 (B1.2.5), 297. Bede discovered in the account of the marriage at Cana (Io 2:1-11) a plenitude of literal and spiritual meanings. Quots/Cits 1-3. Although Bede followed the order of the narrative less obviously than in other homilies, ALCUIN still found it possible to include most of I.14 in his Commentarius in Iohannis euangelium (ed. PL 100.737-1008; see Gorman 2009 p 69). Avoiding Bede’s opening remarks, he broke in with the discussion of verse 1: “and it is not devoid of mystical meaning that the marriage is reported to have taken place on the third day after those things which the preceding discourse of the Gospel described” since this “indicates that the Lord came to link the Church to himself during the third age,” referring here to a three-age scheme “of the patriarchs before the law,” “of the prophets under the law,” and “of the evangelists in the time of grace” (trans. Martin and Hurst 1991 1.136; 1). He included all of Bede’s associations of the six hydrias (Io 2:6) with the six ages (2). Finally, he used Bede’s brief explanations of verses 10 and 11, the steward’s words to the bridegroom and John’s concluding remark (3). Quots/Cits 4-24. Most of the quotations listed above are taken from Homily 4 in ÆLFRIC’s second series of Catholic Homilies (B1.2.5; ed. Godden 1979 pp 29-40). Malcolm Godden (2000 p 371) notes that “Ælfric specifies Bede as source at the beginning of his exposition, and does seem to have drawn extensively on his homily,” adding that PAUL THE DEACON

178 

BEDE – PART 2

used it for the occasion in his Homiliary; see Réginald Grégoire (1980 p 441; I, 60). Yet, Godden continues, the problem is complicated by homilies of SMARAGDUS and HAYMO OF AUXERRE: “it is hard to say which was the precise source at any particular point, since Ælfric often abbreviates material in a similar way to Smaragdus and expands in a manner resembling Haymo, but there are occasional points which suggest a debt to both as well as Bede.” While when writing in Fontes Anglo-Saxonici he considers none of the correspondences to be certain, when taken together, the evidence is overwhelming and can only be summarized here. Fontes’s probable direct sources include the following ideas common to both homilies: the value of chaste marriage (4); the manifestation of Christ’s divinity (7, 8, and 24); the symbolism of water as sacred scripture, which cleans sin (9); the ending of the Old Law in Christ’s birth (10); the expression of the Trinity in the two or three measures of water (11); Christ and the Church signified in David (18); the beginning of the sixth age with the appearance of Christ (21); the association of circumcision and baptism (22); and the difference of the water/Old Law from the wine of the new grace of the Gospel (23). Quots/Cits 4-24. Bede’s homily also provided Ælfric with the scheme of, and much of the material for, his discussion for the first five of the six ages. In both, the first focuses on Abel (13), the second on the Flood (14), the third on the testing of Abraham (15 and 16); the fourth on David (17); and the fifth on the Babylonian Captivity (19 and 20). Finally, the homily is likely to be the source for other passages: the discussion of Christ as the bridegroom and the Church as the bride (5); the significance of the etymologies of Cana and Galilee (6); and the meaning of using water to make the wine (12). Quots/Cits 25. As Mary Clayton notes in her entries in Fontes AngloSaxonici, the identification of Christ as the bridegroom and the Church as the bride also occurs in Ælfric’s “Homily for the Nativity of the Blessed Virgin Mary” (B1.5.8; ed. Assmann 1964 pp 25-48). She lists it as a “multiple analogue,” offering Haymo as another possible source. Refs. As noted above, Ælfric referred specifically to Bede at the beginning of II, 4: “se láreow beda cwæð…” (line 25). Godden (2000 p 371) adds, “the trahtnere to whom he refers at 297 is in fact Haymo not Bede,” although his note on lines 297-305 mentions the possibility that the passage in question from Haymo may have been included in the manuscript of Bede that Ælfric used. Ælfric’s reference in line 294 is apparently to Bede’s homily. On the theme of the three ages, which appears in the works of Ælfric and BYRHTFERTH, see De temporum ratione. The homily is also edited in PL 94.68-74. A translation appears in Lawrence T. Martin and David Hurst (1991 1.134-46).

Bible: Homilies

179

Homily I.15 [BEDA.Hom. I.15]. ed.: CCSL 122.105-10. MSS 1. Cambridge, University Library, Ii. 2. 19, fols. 1-216: ASM 16. 2. Durham, Cathedral Library, B. II. 2: ASM 226. 3. Lincoln, Cathedral Library, 182 (C. 2. 8) [with 184 fol. 1]: ASM 274. 4. London, British Library, Harley 652: ASM 424. 5. Worcester, Cathedral Library, F. 92: ASM 763. Lists – A-S Vers none. Quots/Cits 1. Hom. I.15, 4-15: ALCVIN.Comm.Ioan., 755.51 to 756.7. 2. Hom. I.15, 38-96: ALCVIN.Comm.Ioan., 756.9 to 757.23. 3. Hom. I.15, 108-20: ALCVIN.Comm.Ioan., 757.23-41. 4. Hom. I.15, 134-51: ALCVIN.Comm.Ioan., 757.41 to 758.4. 5. Hom. I.15, 163-208: ALCVIN.Comm.Ioan., 758.5 to 759.3. Refs none. The Gospel reading is John’s more abstract account of Christ’s baptism (Io 1:29-34), in which John the Baptist calls Christ the “Lamb of God,” and proclaims his superiority. Quots/Cits 1-5. ALCUIN extracted slightly more than half of this homily in his Commentarius in Iohannis euangelium (ed. PL 100.737-1008); see Michael Gorman (2009 p 69). Christ is the “Lamb of God” because he is free from sin and, echoing 1 Peter 1:19, he takes away the sins of the world with his “precious blood” (trans. Martin and Hurst 1991 1.148; 1). Covering verses 30-32, quotation 2 finds in John’s words affirmations of Christ’s human and divine natures, explaining, for example, that John did not know Christ in that the descent of the Holy Spirit on him allowed John to recognize “at a more profound level the power of his majesty” (trans. 1.151). It is only Christ who baptizes in the Holy Spirit “for no one except him is capable of releasing the bonds of sins or of bestowing the gifts of the Holy Spirit” (3; trans. 1.152). It is, moreover, only in Christ (and not in the Saints) that “the Spirit remains continually” (4; trans. 1.153). Quotation 5, roughly the last fifth of the homily, draws together these themes.

180 

BEDE – PART 2

Malcolm Godden (2000 p 366) refers to this homily in connection with ÆLFRIC’s Catholic Homily II, 3, lines 79-84 (Epiphany; B1.2.4; ed. Godden 1979 pp 19-28) since both discuss Christ as lamb in connection with Exodus, but he notes the wording is not similar. In his entries in Fontes Anglo-Saxonici he does not include this possible connection. Homily I.15 is in the Homiliary of PAUL THE DEACON; see Réginald Grégoire (1980 p 439; I, 49). It is also edited in PL 94.74-79 and a translation appears in Lawrence T. Martin and David Hurst (1991 1.148-55). Homily I.16 [BEDA.Hom. I.16]. ed.: CCSL 122.111-18. MSS 1. Cambridge, University Library, Kk. 4. 13: ASM 24. 2. Cambridge, Pembroke College, 24: ASM 130. 3. Durham, Cathedral Library, A. III. 29: ASM 222. 4. Lincoln, Cathedral Library, 158 (C. 2. 2): ASM 273. 5. Lincoln, Cathedral Library, 182 (C. 2. 8) [with 184 fol. 1]: ASM 274. 6. London, British Library, Royal 2. C. iii: ASM 452. 7. Worcester, Cathedral Library, F. 94: ASM 763.2. Lists – A-S Vers none. Quots/Cits 1. Hom I.16, 198-200: LANTFR.Trans.mir.Swith., i, 52-54. 2. Hom. I.16, 25: BYRHT.Vit.Os., 188.17-18. Refs none. The Gospel reading is John 1:35-42, John’s account of the calling of the first apostles. The opening, a reflection on “the sublimity of divine scripture” (trans. Martin and Hurst 1991 1.156), provides a number of insights into Bede’s approach to writing these homilies. It is not only what is “said by holy people or by our Lord” but also “the circumstantial details” that are “full of spiritual mysteries.” As an example of the former, Bede offered three reasons why John the Baptist called Christ “the Lamb of God,” the last of which is “because of his own volition he was going to lavish [upon us] the gift of his wool, from which we can make for ourselves a wedding garment – that is he was going to

Bible: Homilies

181

leave us an example of living by which we ought to be warmed in love” (trans. 1.156). This interpretation leads to the insight that “this testimony of the Lord’s precursor, because it is easily accessible to the faithful, quickly pours into the hearts of those who hear it a fountain of the deepest love” (trans. p 156). Although the end of the homily focuses on the etymology of Peter as “rock,” Bede alluded obliquely to the earlier theme: “it has been a pleasure to speak so extensively in explaining these things concerning the mystery of the spiritual rock from which the first shepherd of the Church received his name, and upon which the whole fabric of holy Church continues immovable and unshaken, and through which the Church itself is born and nourished” (trans. 1.164). Quots/Cits 1. In his edition of the Translatio et miracula S. Swithuni (ed. Lapidge 2003b pp 263-64, note 58), Michael Lapidge cites Bede’s comment in I.16, “indeed Christ is called a rock because he bestowed a stronghold incapable of being captured upon those fleeing to him for protection” (trans. Martin and Hurst 1991 1.163), in connection with LANTFRED OF WINCHESTER’s remark about a smith, whom the saint had commanded to undertake a journey: “as he was getting up from his prayers, sensing some relief to his illness, he realised then and there that his prayer had been heard in heaven by the Lord Who grants eternal life to all those who take refuge in him” (trans. Lapidge 2003b p 263). The correspondence, “ad se confugientibus,” is also found in ALCUIN’s Letter 27 (ed. MGH ECA 2.69, line 3). Quots/Cits 2. In part five, section sixteen of his Vita Oswaldi (ed. and trans. Lapidge 2009 pp 188-89), BYRHTFERTH adapted Bede’s comment about John, “he had already ascended that great summit of the soul’s perfection from which he rightfully deserved to look upon the eminence of divine majesty” (trans. Martin and Hurst 1991 1.157), so it would apply to Oswald, “he used to chant the fifteen [‘gradual’] psalms, hoping greatly thereby to ascend the slopes of Mt Sion and to call out to God from the depths of this life, so that he could ‘gaze on the glory of the divine majesty’” (trans. Lapidge 2009 p 189). Michael Lapidge comments that “Bede’s words here are apparently a reminiscence in turn of GREGORY’s Moralia in Iob. Homily I.15 is in the Homiliary of PAUL THE DEACON; see Réginald Grégoire (1980 p 471; II, 97). It is also edited in PL 94.256-61 and a translation appears in Lawrence T. Martin and David Hurst (1991 1.156-65). Homily I.17 [BEDA.Hom. I.17]. ed.: CCSL 122.119-27. MSS Worcester, Cathedral Library, F. 94: ASM 763.2.

182 

BEDE – PART 2

Lists – A-S Vers none. Quots/Cits 1. Hom. I.17, 26-80: ALCVIN.Comm.Ioan., 760.59 to 762.15. 2. Hom. I.17, 97-279: ALCVIN.Comm.Ioan., 762.15 to 766.10. 3. ? Hom. I.17, 22-23: BYRHT.Vit.Os., 148.2. Refs none. Following directly on Homily 16, the reading for Homily I.17 is John 1:4351, the calling of Philip and Christ’s exchange with Nathaniel. Both, in Bede’s interpretation, reveal proper faith and the love of God and of one’s neighbour. Indicative of the homily as a whole is that Bede, following AUGUSTINE, understood verse 46 not as a question (“can anything good come from Nazareth?”) but as a statement: “assenting then to the words which brought him the good news, Nathanael said to Philip ‘Something good can come out of Nazareth,’ as if he were clearly saying, ‘It can happen that from a city with such a great name something of supreme grace may arise for us – namely the very Lord and Savior of the world, who is in a unique way holy, innocent, undefiled, separated from sins [Hbr 7:26, with the attested var. ‘from sins’ instead of ‘from sinners’]; who says in the Song of Songs, “I am the flower of the field and the lily of the valleys” (Ct 2:1); and concerning whom the prophet says, There shall go forth a branch out of the root of Jesse, and a nazareus (that is, a flower) will go up from his root [Is 11:1; nazareus, for the Vulg. flos] – an extraordinary teacher may be sent [from there] to proclaim to us the flower of virtues and the cleanliness of sanctity’” (trans. Martin and Hurst 1991 1.170 with their biblical citations and comments on the readings included within brackets; see also their note, 1.178). Quots/Cits 1-2. In his Commentarius in Iohannis euangelium (ed. PL 100.737-1008; see Gorman 2009 p 69), ALCUIN, who did not use Homily 16, excerpted almost all of this homily, omitting only Bede’s opening and closing remarks, and one brief passage (lines 81-97) in which Bede provided further supporting evidence from Habacuc and Zacharias. Quots/Cits 3. In part five, section one of his Vita Oswaldi (ed. and trans. Lapidge 2009 pp 148-49), BYRHTFERTH introduced the topic of the miracles the saint achieved through prayer with the clause “quia uero superius breuiter prelibauimus” (“but because we have previously indicated in a few

Bible: Homilies

183

words”). Michael Lapidge notes similar phrases in this homily, Homilies I.12 and II.2, and in AMBROSE’s De spiritu sancto. This homily is also edited twice in PL 94, in columns 89-96 and 26168.A translation appears in Lawrence T. Martin and David Hurst (1991 1.166-77). Homily I.18 [BEDA.Hom. I.18]. ed.: CCSL 122.128-33. MSS 1. Cambridge, University Library, Kk. 4. 13: ASM 24. 2. Durham, Cathedral Library, B. II. 2: ASM 226. 3. Lincoln, Cathedral Library, 158 (C. 2. 2): ASM 273. 4. Lincoln, Cathedral Library, 182 (C. 2. 8) [with 184 fol. 1]: ASM 274. 5. London, British Library, Royal 2. C. iii: ASM 452. 6. Worcester, Cathedral Library, F. 92: ASM 763. Lists – A-S Vers none. Quots/Cits 1. Hom. I.18, 48-58: HomLS 19 (PurifMary, B3.3.19), 64-78. 2. Hom. I.18, 11-17 and 20-25: ÆCHom I, 9 (B1.1.10), 4-12. 3. Hom. I.18, 17-20: ÆCHom I, 9 (B1.1.10), 59-64. 4. Hom. I.18, 44-47: ÆCHom I, 9 (B1.1.10), 75-80. 5. Hom. I.18, 43-44 and 48-51: ÆCHom I, 9 (B1.1.10), 80-85. 6. Hom. I.18, 56-59 and 64: ÆCHom I, 9 (B1.1.10), 110-16. 7. Hom. I.18.65-71: ÆCHom I, 9 (B1.1.10), 117-23. Refs none. For the feast of the Purification, the Gospel reading is Luke 2:22-35, the Presentation in the temple. In discussing the sources of Vercelli Homily 17 (B3.3.19; ed. Scragg 1992 pp 281-86), on the Purification, Donald Scragg (1992 p 279) suggests that the interpretation of the sacrificial birds is “dependent ultimately” on Bede’s Commentarius in Lucam. This homily, however, provides another source for that idea and the two related ones in the Vercelli Homily: Christ became poor to save mankind and the birds have specific meanings. Both agree that

184 

BEDE – PART 2

the turtledove indicates chastity; for Bede the pigeon stood for simplicity while for Ælfric it represented innocence. Following I.18 (see Godden 2000 pp 68-77 for this and the subsequent correspondences), ÆLFRIC began his Homily 9, on the Purification in the first series of Catholic Homilies (B1.1.10; ed. Clemoes 1997 pp 249-57) with a summary of Leviticus 12:2-6. Bede explained in detail that, as a virgin, Mary was not required to obey these laws, but that she did so anyway to show her humility (ed. CCSL 122.157, lines 25-41); Ælfric commented only that “nevertheless” she was “mindful of God’s commands” (trans. Thorpe 1844-46 1.135). When he returned to his summary of the Old Law later in the homily, Ælfric again followed Bede (3 and 4). Moreover, he used Bede’s interpretation of the lesser gifts offered for Christ: “therefore the Lord, mindful in everything of our salvation, not only deigned for our sake to become a human being, though he was God, but he also deigned to become poor for us, though he was rich, so that by his poverty along with his humanity he might grant to us to become sharers in his riches and his divinity” (trans. Martin and Hurst 1991 1.181; 5). For the interpretation of pigeons as innocent and turtle-doves as chaste (6), Ælfric again followed Bede or HAYMO. His interpretation of their moaning sound, unlike the song of other birds, as like the “groaning of holy men in this life” (trans. Thorpe 1844-46 1.143) is, according to Godden, directly from Bede (7); he considers it a probable source in his entries in Fontes Anglo-Saxonici. Homily I.18 is in the Homiliary of PAUL THE DEACON; see Réginald Grégoire (1980 p 442; I, 67). It is also edited in PL 94.79-83 and a translation appears in Lawrence T. Martin and David Hurst (1991 1.179-86). Homily I.19 [BEDA.Hom. I.19]. ed.: CCSL 122.134-40. MSS 1. Cambridge, University Library, Ii. 2. 19, fols. 1-216: ASM 16. 2. Durham, Cathedral Library, B. II. 2: ASM 226. 3. Lincoln, Cathedral Library, 182 (C. 2. 8) [with 184 fol. 1]: ASM 274. 4. London, British Library, Harley 652: ASM 424. 5. Worcester, Cathedral Library, F. 92: ASM 763. Lists – Refs none. Writing on Luke 2:42-52, Bede drew from the story of Jesus in the temple indications of Christ’s human and divine natures, stressing his humility,

Bible: Homilies

185

which he exhorted his audience to follow. He interpreted, for example, the final verse (“and Jesus advanced in wisdom and age and grace before God and human beings”): “this indicates the nature of his true humanity, in respect of which he willed to advance through time, though with respect to his divinity he is the same and his years have no end” (trans. Martin and Hurst 1991 1.193). Homily I.19 is in the Homiliary of PAUL THE DEACON; see Réginald Grégoire (1980 p 441; I, 59). It is also edited in PL 94.63-68 and a translation appears in Lawrence T. Martin and David Hurst (1991 1.187-94). Homily I.20 [BEDA.Hom. I.20]. ed.: CCSL 122.141-47. MSS 1. Cambridge, University Library, Kk. 4. 13: ASM 24. 2. Cambridge, Pembroke College, 24: ASM 130. 3. Durham, Cathedral Library, A. III. 29: ASM 222. 4. Lincoln, Cathedral Library, 158 (C. 2. 2): ASM 273. 5. Lincoln, Cathedral Library, 182 (C. 2. 8) [with 184 fol. 1]: ASM 274. 6. London, British Library, Royal 2. C. iii: ASM 452. 7. Worcester, Cathedral Library, F. 94: ASM 763.2. Lists – A-S Vers none. Quots/Cits 1. Hom. I.20, 14-16: ÆCHom I, 26 (B1.1.28), 17-22. 2. Hom. I.20, 20-24 and 26-30: ÆCHom I, 26 (B1.1.28), 22-26. 3. Hom. I.20, 43-46: ÆCHom I, 26 (B1.1.28), 28-33. 4. Hom. I.20, 48-53: ÆCHom I, 26 (B1.1.28), 34-45. 5. Hom. I.20, 78-86: ÆCHom I, 26 (B1.1.28), 52-55. 6. Hom. I.20, 122-34: ÆCHom I, 26 (B1.1.28), 60-71. 7. Hom. I.20, 135-37 and 144-48: ÆCHom I, 26 (B1.1.28), 72-78. 8. Hom. I.20, 165-71: ÆCHom I, 26 (B1.1.28), 83-87 9. Hom. I.20, 185-91: ÆCHom I, 26 (B1.1.28), 92-96. Refs ÆCHom I, 26 (B1.1.28), 17. The Gospel reading is Matthew 16:13-19, Peter’s confession of faith at Caesarea Philippi, a passage that Bede implored his audience to keep in

186 

BEDE – PART 2

mind “since it sets forth for us the great perfection of faith, and likewise demonstrates that same perfect faith’s firmness against all trials” (trans. Martin and Hurst 1991 1.196). Quots/Cits 1-9 and Refs. Immediately following his translation of the Gospel reading (Mt 16:13-19) in Homily 26 in the first series of Catholic Homilies (B1.1.28; ed. Clemoes 1997 pp 388-99), ÆLFRIC identified Bede as his source: “Bede the expositor reveals to us the mystery of this reading” (trans. Thorpe 1844-46 1.365). Malcolm Godden (2000 pp 209-21) acknow­ ledges this claim, but adds “he probably also used the homily by HEIRIC OF AUXERRE which is included under the same heading in late versions of the Homiliary [of PAUL THE DEACON].” The first correspondence concerns the founding and naming of Caesarea Philippi; as Godden notes, the additional information provided by Heiric also appears in some manuscripts of Bede (see CCSL 122.142, note on line 19, and Martin and Hurst 1991 1.197). In the second, Ælfric agreed with Bede’s claim that Christ did not need to be told what was being said about him, but Ælfric then altered the explanation for the question: for Bede it proves that Peter’s answer relies on divine revelation while for him it is simply to “destroy the false imagination of erring men” (trans. 1.367). In the third, Ælfric interpreted Christ’s reference (in Bede’s paraphrase of Matthew 16:15 following Psalm 82:6) to the apostles as “gods.” He then followed Bede in his remarks on the phrases “the Son of the living God” (4), “son of a dove” (5), “upon this rock” (6), and “the gates of hell” (7). Heiric provided the source for Ælfric’s statement that the key given to Peter “is not of gold nor of silver, nor forged of any substance” (lines 78-79), but the general idea that at issue is not a physical object but the power to control entrance into heaven is from Bede (ed. 122.145, lines 159-61). The final two correspondences concern the extension of Peter’s power to the other apostles (9), but its relevance specifically for him is as a sign of the unity of faith (10). In discussing lines 60-73 of Catholic Homily I, 26, Godden (2000 p 213) notes that although here Ælfric did not identify Matthew 16:18 as the moment when Christ gave Simon the name Peter, he did do so in his homily on Andrew (I, 38; B1.1.40; ed. Clemoes 1997 pp 507-19, lines 156-61) and in Homily 24 in the Second Series on Peter (B1.2.28; ed. Godden 1979 pp 221-29, lines 146 ff.). In these cases, Bede would be a source for this point. Homily I.20 is in the Homiliary of Paul the Deacon; see Réginald Grégoire (1980 p 462; II, 52). It is also edited in PL 94.219-24 and a translation appears in Lawrence T. Martin and David Hurst (1991 1.196-204).

Bible: Homilies

187

Homily I.21 [BEDA.Hom. I.21]. ed.: CCSL 122.148-55. MSS 1. Cambridge, University Library, Kk. 4. 13: ASM 24. 2. Cambridge, Pembroke College, 24: ASM 130. 3. Canterbury, Cathedral Library and Archives, Add. 127/1: ASM 209. 4. Durham, Cathedral Library, A. III. 29: ASM 222. 5. Lincoln, Cathedral Library, 158 (C. 2. 2): ASM 273. 6. Lincoln, Cathedral Library, 182 (C. 2. 8) [with 184 fol. 1]: ASM 274. 7. London, British Library, Royal 2. C. iii: ASM 452. 8. Worcester, Cathedral Library, F. 94: ASM 763.2. Lists – A-S Vers none. Quots/Cits 1. Hom. I.21, 9-14 and 32-34: ÆCHom II, 37 (B1.2.40), 20-24. 2. Hom. I.21, 22-23 and 55-59: ÆCHom II, 37 (B1.2.40), 24-30. 3. Hom. I.21, 72-73: ÆCHom II, 37 (B1.2.40), 31-33. 4. Hom. I.21, 109-14: ÆCHom II, 37 (B1.2.40), 35-40. 5. Hom. I.21, 127-32: ÆCHom II, 37 (B1.2.40), 44-48. 6. ? Hom. I.21, 148-51: ÆCHom II, 37 (B1.2.40), 53-54. 7. Hom. I.21, 104-10: ÆCHom II, 37 (B1.2.40), 68-73. 8. ? Hom. I.21, 230-32: ÆLS (Mark) (B1.3.16), 127-36. 9. ? Hom I.21, 221-23: ÆLS (Mark) (B1.3.16), 137-38. Refs none. Bede found a message for all sinners in the tax collector in the Gospel reading, the calling of Matthew (Mt 9:9-13): “doubtlessly the reason why heavenly providence arranged for this to happen was so that neither the enormity of one’s wicked deeds nor their great number should dissuade anyone from hoping for pardon, since one could look at this man [Matthew], who had been freed from such bonds of the world and made heavenly in order to become, in fact and in name, an evangelist, sharing this name with the angelic spirits” (trans. Martin and Hurst 1991 1.205-06).

188 

BEDE – PART 2

MSS. The manuscripts listed here (with the exception of Lincoln 182) are from J.E. Cross and Thomas N. Hall (1993 p 188). The Canterbury fragment contains lines 202-68. Quots/Cits 1-7. In spite of the specific correspondences recorded above (adapted from his entries in Fontes Anglo-Saxonici), Malcolm Godden (2000 pp 605-06) notes that ÆLFRIC’s Homily 32 in his second series of Catholic Homilies (B1.2.41; ed. Godden 1979 pp 272-79) differs from Bede’s emphasis on tax-collectors as sinful: “he translates publicanus as gerefan, ‘officers,’ and leaves it to be supposed that these may be distinct from the sinners of whom the Pharisees complain.” Bede’s homily is, then, a possible source for the two examples, Catholic Homilies II, 16 (B1.2.16; ed. Godden 1979 pp 161-68, lines 132-42) and II, 28 (B1.2.35; ed. Godden 1979 pp 249-54, lines 6-7), where Ælfric followed Bede in this view. Although Ælfric rearranged and changed some details, the specific correspondences between Homily 32 and Bede are numerous. Matthew is a Hebrew name that means “given” in Latin, which is appropriate since he was given the grace to write a Gospel (1). Christ saw him “not alone with bodily sight, but also with inward compassion” and he commanded him to follow “not only by walking on foot, but also in the imitation of good practices” (2; trans. Thorpe 1844-46 1.469). Christ not only called Matthew, “but taught him inwardly with an invisible impulse so that he followed [him]” (3; trans. Martin and Hurst 1991 1.207). The feast that Matthew prepares is not just “an entertainment in his house,” but also “a much more thankworthy feast in his heart” (4; Thorpe 1844-46 1.469; both then cited the same biblical verse to support this point). In criticizing Christ’s action, the “Pharisees were bound by a double error”: “they blamed Christ’s mercy on the sinful and they accounted themselves righteous” (5; trans. Thorpe 1844-46 1.471). For quotation 6, Godden’s entry in Fontes AngloSaxonici considers Bede a possible source: both generally discussed Christ’s healing the sick of their sins. In correspondence 7, Ælfric developed Bede’s comment, “he calls sinners so they may be corrected through repentance; he calls the just so that they may become more and more just” (trans. Martin and Hurst 1991 1.212), with his own biblical verses. Quots/Cits 8-9. In her entries in Fontes Anglo-Saxonici Rohini Jayatilaka considers the homily a possible source (since there are others) for the discussion of Matthew’s Gospel in Ælfric’s homily on Mark (B1.3.16; ed. Skeat 1966 1.320-36) in his Lives of Saints. Quotation 8 concerns Matthew having written the first Gospel for the Jews in Hebrew; on this tradition, see Charles D. Wright (1983). Ælfric also specified (9) that Matthew wrote his Gospel before leaving to teach “heathen nations” and Bede, a possible source, stated that he converted the Ethiopians; see Frederick M. Biggs (2007 p 235).

Bible: Homilies

189

Homily I.21 is in the Homiliary of PAUL THE DEACON; see Réginald Grégoire (1980 p 472; II, 99). It is also edited in PL 94.249-56 and a translation appears in Lawrence T. Martin and David Hurst (1991 1.205-14). Homily I.22 [BEDA.Hom. I.22]. ed.: CCSL 122.156-60. MSS Worcester, Cathedral Library, F. 92: ASM 763. Lists – Refs none. Bede turned the account of the faith of the Canaanite woman, Matthew 15:21-28, into a reflection on several related themes: Christ’s mission first to the Jews but then, through the apostles, to the gentiles; the proper response to one’s vices; and the nature of prayer. “This woman, by nature a gentile, but constant and believing in her heart, rightly signifies the faith and devotion of the Church gathered from the nations, which holy preachers expelled from Judaea inspired with the word and the mysteries of heavenly grace” (trans. Martin and Hurst 1991 1.217). “Also, if one of us has a conscience polluted by the stain of avarice, conceit, vain-glory, indignation, irascibility, or envy and the other vices, he has a daughter badly troubled by a demon” (trans. 1.219). “Meanwhile, we must note that this tenacity in praying can only deserve to bear fruit if what we ask for with our mouth we also meditate on in our mind, and if the crying of our lips is not cut apart in another direction from the focus of our thoughts” (trans. 1.220). The homily is also edited in PL 94.102-05. A translation appears in Lawrence T. Martin and David Hurst (1991 1.215-21). Homily I.23 [BEDA.Hom. I.23]. ed.: CCSL 122.161-69. MSS 1. Lincoln, Cathedral Library, 182 (C. 2. 8) [with 184 fol. 1]: ASM 274. 2. Worcester, Cathedral Library, F. 92: ASM 763. Lists – A-S Vers none.

190 

BEDE – PART 2

Quots/Cits 1. Hom. I.23, 1-6: ALCVIN.Comm.Ioan., 803.18-24. 2. Hom. I.23, 6-155: ALCVIN.Comm.Ioan., 803.40 to 807.17. 3. Hom. I.23, 201-20: ALCVIN.Comm.Ioan., 807.27-52. 4. Hom. I.23, 248-70: ALCVIN.Comm.Ioan., 808.8-37. Refs none. Bede discussed the events at the pool of Bethsaida, John 5:1-18, which he identified as containing “two miracles of human healing […] one displayed invisibly through an angel’s ministration, the other visibly through our Lord’s presence” (trans. Martin and Hurst 1991 1.222). In the first, the pool is “the Jewish people, protected on all sides by the guardianship of the law so that they would not sin,” and the angel is Christ, who “clothed in flesh […] descended into the water […] as a herald of the Father’s will” (trans. 1.222-23). In the second, “it is set forth that one person was healed, not because the benevolence of the almighty Savior was unable to heal everyone whom he found ailing there, but so that he might teach that there is no place of salvation accessible to anyone outside the unity of the catholic faith” (trans. 1.224). Quots/Cits 1-4. ALCUIN extracted four passages from the homily in his Commentarius in Iohannis euangelium (ed. PL 100.737-1008; see Gorman 2009 p 70): the opening (quoted above); the explication of the narrative through verse 14, Christ’s command that the man sin no more; Bede’s analysis of the laws governing the Sabbath, which leads to his claim that the Jews failed to “attend to the fact that on the seventh day the Maker did not cease from the work governing the world, and from the annual and even daily replacement of created things, but [only] from the new production of creatures” (trans. Martin and Hurst 1991 1.230); and the interpretation of verses 17-18. In discussing Homily 2 in ÆLFRIC’s Supplementary Collection (ed. Pope 1967-68 pp 230-42), John C. Pope calls attention to two passages (lines 220-31 and 276-86) that demonstrate that Ælfric worked from Alcuin’s extracts rather than from Bede’s homily since he continued to follow Alcuin after the quotation from Bede had ended. In her entries in Fontes AngloSaxonici Rohini Jayatilaka supports this analysis. The homily is also edited in PL 94.83-89. A translation appears in Martin and Hurst (1991 1.222-33).

Bible: Homilies

191

Homily I.24 [BEDA.Hom. I.24]. ed.: CCSL 122.170-77. MSS Durham, Cathedral Library, B. II. 2: ASM 226. Lists – Refs none. The Gospel reading combines Christ’s description of the Second Coming, Matthew 16:27-28, with the account of the Transfiguration, Matthew 17:1-9. Bede used it to meditate on the “palm of eternal rewards,” which, following “the labors of this life,” is “the life of future blessedness” (trans. Martin and Hurst 1991 1.234). The saved will experience it following the Last Judgement as do the disciples, momentarily, at the Transfiguration. From the passage, Bede drew an immediate moral: “let us return to our conscience and, if it delights in seeing the Lord’s glory, let us ascend the mountain of virtues when we have passed beyond our fleshly desires” (trans. 1.243). MSS. Item 128 in Rodney M. Thomson’s (2001 p 661) description of Worcester, Cathedral Library, F. 92 contains a mistake: the reference should not be to this Homily but rather to II.4. Homily I.24 is in the Homiliary of PAUL THE DEACON; see Réginald Grégoire (1980 p 445; I, 87). It is also edited in PL 94.96-101 and translation appears in Lawrence T. Martin and David Hurst (1991 1.234-44). Homily I.25 [BEDA.Hom. I.25]. ed.: CCSL 122.178-83. MSS 1. Lincoln, Cathedral Library, 182 (C. 2. 8) [with 184 fol. 1]: ASM 274. 2. Worcester, Cathedral Library, F. 92: ASM 763. Lists – A-S Vers none. Quots/Cits 1. Hom. I.25, 14-101: ALCVIN.Comm.Ioan., 853.25 to 855.3. 2. Hom. I.25, 106-13: ALCVIN.Comm.Ioan., 855.10-19. 3.Hom. I.25, 127-36: ALCVIN.Comm.Ioan., 855.19-31. 4. Hom. I.25, 157-64: ALCVIN.Comm.Ioan., 855.35-49.

192 

BEDE – PART 2

5. Hom. I.25, 176-80: ALCVIN.Comm.Ioan., 856.1-5. 6. ? Hom. I.25, 46-50: ÆHom 14 (B1.4.14), 208-11. Refs none. Bede interpreted the story of the woman taken in adultery, John 8:1-12, as revealing “our Maker’s greatest gift,” mercy (trans. Martin and Hurst 1991 1.245). Quots/Cits 1-5. ALCUIN included five passages from the homily in his Commentarius in Iohannis euangelium (ed. PL 100.737-1008; see Gorman 2009 p 72), using virtually all of Bede’s explanations of particular verses. Quots/Cits 6. John C. Pope identifies a single passage from Homily I.25 as a source for ÆLFRIC’s Homily 13 in his Supplementary Collection (B1.4.14; ed. Pope 1967-68 pp 497-507). After discussing the Gospel reading for the day, Luke 6:36-42 (“be ye therefore merciful, as your Father also is merciful…”), Ælfric offered another example of his theme, the story of the woman taken in adultery, adding to the biblical account only an explanation of the Pharisees’ motives, which Pope considers “common property” since it can be found in JEROME and AUGUSTINE. Yet, he continues, “Bede’s phrasing in his Lenten homily on the text […] seems as close as any” (p 496). The problem is further complicated because Bede’s comment is repeated in Alcuin’s Commentary on John and in a sermon by HAYMO OF AUXERRE. In her entries in Fontes Anglo-Saxonici Rohini Jayatilaka considers Bede to be a certain direct source for this passage. If so, it would be a further indication that Ælfric knew of Bede’s homilies independently of the Carolingian collections, particularly that of PAUL THE DEACON (see Grégoire 1980 pp 430-78). The homily is also edited in PL 94.106-10. A translation appears in Lawrence T. Martin and David Hurst (1991 1.245-52). Homily II.1 [BEDA.Hom. II.1]. ed.: CCSL 122.184-92. MSS 1. Lincoln, Cathedral Library, 182 (C. 2. 8) [with 184 fol. 1]: ASM 274. 2. Worcester, Cathedral Library, F. 92: ASM 763. Lists – A-S Vers none.

Bible: Homilies

193

Quots/Cits Hom. I.2, 1-208: ALCVIN.Comm.Ioan., 771.49 to 777.8. Refs none. The Gospel reading is John 2:12-22, Christ’s cleansing the temple of the sellers of offerings and money changers. Quoting other biblical examples, Bede quickly dismissed an issue that he noted “tends to disturb some people,” the reference to Christ’s “brethren” (2:12; trans. Martin and Hurst 1991 2.1): “we should, as I have said, understand that the relatives of Mary and Joseph are called our Lord’s brothers.” The homily then links the literal details of the story to an exhortation on how Christians should behave in church and cleanse themselves, “the temple of God by […] baptism” (trans. 2.4), of sin. Following AUGUSTINE, he explained Christ’s exchange with the Jews – “‘destroy this temple, and in three days I will raise it up.’ The Jews then said: ‘Six and forty years was this temple in building and wilt thou raise it up in three days” (Io 2:19) – to refer to the number of days it takes a human to form in the uterus. Bede concluded with a discussion of the temple. Conor O’Brien (2015 pp 189-90) notes that, when discussing the cleansing of the temple in his Commentarius in Lucam, Bede relied heavily on GREGORY THE GREAT, but that, when he returned to the topic in his Commentarius in Marcum, “he added a new and substantially original interpretation: a lecture on appropriate behaviour in a church.” He suggests that “a new interpretation of the temple entered Bede’s thought […] when Bede had to compose his homily on John’s account of the cleansing.” He therefore dates the work to “the decade or so after 715.” ALCUIN included the opening two-thirds of this homily in his Commentarius in Iohannis euangelium (ed. PL 100.737-1008; see Gorman 2009 p 69), omitting only Bede’s discussion of the structure of the temple. The homily is also edited in PL 94.114-20. A translation appears in Lawrence T. Martin and David Hurst (1991 2.1-12). Homily II.2 [BEDA.Hom. II.2]. ed.: CCSL 122.193-99. MSS 1. Cambridge, University Library, Kk. 4. 13: ASM 24. 2. Lincoln, Cathedral Library, 158 (C. 2. 2): ASM 273. 3. Lincoln, Cathedral Library, 182 (C. 2. 8) [with 184 fol. 1]: ASM 274.

194 

BEDE – PART 2

4. London, British Library, Royal 2. C. iii: ASM 452. 5. Worcester, Cathedral Library, F. 92: ASM 763. Lists – A-S Vers none. Quots/Cits 1. Hom. II.2, 28-124: ALCVIN.Comm.Ioan., 819.22 to 821.46. 2. Hom. II.2, 124-217: ALCVIN.Comm.Ioan., 822.1 to 824.6. 3. Hom. II.2, 94-98: ÆCHom I, 12 (B1.1.13), 39-44. 4. Hom. II.2, 132-34: ÆCHom I, 12 (B1.1.13), 84 (Latin gloss). 5. Hom. II.2, 132-36: ÆCHom I, 12 (B1.1.13), 84-87. 6. Hom. II.2, 118-22: ÆCHom I, 12 (B1.1.13), 102-06. 7. Hom. II.2, 142-47: ÆCHom I, 12 (B1.1.13), 106-11. 8. Hom. II.2, 150-52 and 155-57: ÆCHom I, 12 (B1.1.13), 117-20. 9. Hom. II.2, 204-05: ÆCHom I, 12 (B1.1.13), 141-43. 10. Hom. II.2, 207-13: ÆCHom I, 12 (B1.1.13), 141-48. 11. ? Hom. II.2. 25: BYRHT.Vit.Os., 148.2. Refs none. After a general reflection on the proper way to understand the “signs and miracles of our Lord” found in scripture, Bede interpreted John 6:1-14, the feeding of the five thousand. Quots/Cits 1-2. In his Commentarius in Iohannis euangelium (ed. PL 100.737-1008; see Gorman 2009 p 77) ALCUIN turned directly to Bede’s explication of the Gospel reading, extracting two passages that constitute most of the homily. Quots/Cits 3-10. Although Malcolm Godden (2000 p 94) identifies AUGUSTINE as ÆLFRIC’s primary source for his Homily 12 in his first series of Catholic Homilies (B1.1.13; ed. Clemoes 1997 pp 275-80), he demonstrates that Bede’s reworking of this earlier text also influenced it. The problem is further complicated since HAYMO OF AUXERRE’s adaptation of Bede was also used by Ælfric. Directly from Bede is the explanation of Christ lifting up his eyes (Io 6:5), which shows his grace toward those who seek to meet him (3). Even more certain is a Latin note that Ælfric drew from II.3, explaining that in the other accounts of this miracle Christ does not distribute the loaves and fishes directly, but rather through his disciples; the gloss is printed in the critical apparatus to line 84 in Peter Clemoes’s edition

Bible: Homilies

195

(1997 p 278). This point and Bede’s interpretation of it – the disciples carry Christ’s teaching throughout the world – appear in the following passage (5). Like Bede, Ælfric interpreted the two fishes as the Psalms and the Prophets (6). He also followed Bede’s understanding of the significance of the grass as “bodily concupiscence” that must be repressed (7) and of the number one thousand, “beyond which no calculation of ours extends,” and which “ordinarily indicates the fullness of the things which are being treated of” (8; trans. Martin and Hurst 1991 2.19). In both, Christ is “a true prophet” since he will “redeem the world from the power of the devil” (trans. Thorpe 1844-46 1.191; 9). Finally, the previous correspondence is part of a more general reflection on the difference between the understanding of those who were present at the miracle and those who were Bede’s and Ælfric’s contemporaries (10). Godden (2000 pp 94-101) also refers to this homily in discussing lines 26-38 (the sea and the mountain; Io 6:1 and 3); lines 91-96 (the barley loaves; Io 6:9); and lines 112-17 (the men; Io 6:10); lines 121-26 (the leftover food; Io 6:13); and lines 130-35 (Christ as a prophet; Io 6:14). In these cases, however, passages from Augustine or Haymo appear closer. Quots/Cits 11. In part 5, section 1, of his Vita Oswaldi (ed. Lapidge 2009 p 148), BYRHTFERTH introduced the topic of the miracles the saint achieved through prayer with the clause “quia uero superius breuiter prelibauimus” (“but because we have previously indicated in a few words”; Michael Lapidge notes similar phrases in this homily, Homilies I, 12 and I, 17; and in AMBROSE’s De spiritu sancto. Homily II.2 is in the Homiliary of PAUL THE DEACON; see Réginald Grégoire (1980 p 446; I, 92). It is also edited in PL 94.110-14 and a translation appears in Lawrence T. Martin and David Hurst (1991 2.13-21). Homily II.3 [BEDA.Hom. II.3]. ed.: CCSL 122.200-06. MSS 1. Cambridge, University Library, Kk. 4. 13: ASM 24. 2. Durham, Cathedral Library, B. II. 2: ASM 226. 3. Lincoln, Cathedral Library, 158 (C. 2. 2): ASM 273. 4. Lincoln, Cathedral Library, 182 (C. 2. 8) [with 184 fol. 1]: ASM 274. 5. London, British Library, Royal 2. C. iii: ASM 452. 6. Worcester, Cathedral Library, F. 92: ASM 763. Lists – A-S Vers none.

196 

BEDE – PART 2

Quots/Cits 1. Hom. II.3, 58-61: ÆCHom I, 14 (B1.1.15), 34-41. 2. Hom. II.3, 36-38: ÆCHom I, 14 (B1.1.15), 42-45. 3. Hom. II.3, 64-65: ÆCHom I, 14 (B1.1.15), 45-47. 4. Hom. II.3, 109-18: ÆCHom I, 14 (B1.1.15), 98-110. 5. Hom. II.3, 120-26: ÆCHom I, 14 (B1.1.15), 122-27. 6. Hom. II.3, 128-34: ÆCHom I, 14 (B1.1.15), 133-37. 7. Hom. II.3, 136-42: ÆCHom I, 14 (B1.1.15), 137-48. 8. Hom. II.3, 167-73: ÆCHom I, 14 (B1.1.15), 151-56. Refs none. Bede’s reading for Palm Sunday was Matthew 21:1-9, the entry into Jerusalem. Quots/Cits 1-8. Malcolm Godden (2000 p 110) considers II.3 “a major source” for Homily 14 in ÆLFRIC’s f irst series of Catholic Homilies (B1.1.15; ed. Clemoes 1997 pp 290-98). Indeed, Ælfric turned to it as soon as he began explicating the text, identifying the two disciples who are sent for the ass as “the teachers whom God sends to instruct mankind” through their learning and good examples (trans. Thorpe 1844-46 1.207; 1). Similarly, he followed Bede in associating the ass and the foal as the Jews and the gentiles both bound in sin (2 and 3) and the garments the disciples place on the ass as works of righteousness (both citing Psalm 37:11; 4). As Godden (2000 p 116) puts it, for lines 122-46 (5), “Ælfric takes his cue from Bede’s homily in interpreting those who cast garments under the ass’s feet as the martyrs.” He also followed him in identifying those who “hewed branches of trees and with them prepared Christ’s way” as “the teachers in God’s church, who cull the sayings of the apostles and their successors, and with them direct God’s people to the faith of Christ, that they may be prepared for his way” (trans. 1.213-15; 6). Those who went before and after Christ are “the patriarchs and prophets” and “those who inclined to Christ after his birth” (trans. 1.215; 7); and “the Saviour’s advent and his passion were salutary both to men and angels because we increase their host which the fallen devil had diminished” (trans. 1.215; 8). Godden (2000 p 113) also mentions Bede in connection with Ælfric’s distinction between the ass and the foal in lines 61-68, but here he finds that HAYMO provided a closer parallel. Homily II.3 is in the Homiliary of PAUL THE DEACON; see Réginald Grégoire (1980 p 447; I, 97). It is also edited in PL 94.121-25. A translation appears in Lawrence T. Martin and David Hurst (1991 2.23-31).

Bible: Homilies

197

Homily II.4 [BEDA.Hom. II.4]. ed.: CCSL 122.207-13. MSS 1. Durham, Cathedral Library, B. II. 2: ASM 226. 2. Lincoln, Cathedral Library, 182 (C. 2. 8) [with 184 fol. 1]: ASM 274. 3. Worcester, Cathedral Library, F. 92: ASM 763. Lists – A-S Vers none. Quots/Cits 1. Hom. II.4, 30-38: ALCVIN.Comm.Ioan., 905.22-32. 2. Hom. II.4, 46-57: ALCVIN.Comm.Ioan., 905.45 to 906.2. 3. Hom. II.4, 57-65: ALCVIN.Comm.Ioan., 906.48-57. 4. Hom. II.4, 69-88: ALCVIN.Comm.Ioan., 906.57 to 907.24. 5. Hom. II.4, 129-201: ALCVIN.Comm.Ioan., 907.47 to 909.14. Refs none. Bede opened this homily on John 11:55 to 12:11, which frames the story of Mary anointing Christ’s feet with the plotting of the Jews to kill him, by exhorting his audience “to learn devotion to virtue from the example of those who loved Christ, but [also] to consider the lack of faith of those who persecuted [him], and having considered it, to turn quickly away from it” (trans. Martin and Hurst 1991 2.33). MSS. Item 128 in Rodney M. Thomson’s (2001 p 661) description of Worcester, Cathedral Library, F. 92 contains a mistake: the reference should be to this Homily not I.24. Quots/Cits 1-5. In his Commentarius in Iohannis euangelium (ed. PL 100.737-1008; see Gorman 2009 p 76) ALCUIN extracted five passages. Unlike the Jews who seek Christ “with evil intent,” we should “converse with one another in psalms, hymns, [and] spiritual canticles, imploring him, with [the help of his] grace, that he may deign to come to our festival day and illumine us with his presence by sanctifying his gifts for us” (1; trans. Martin and Hurst 1991 2.34). The second contrasts the two locations: “[He came] to Jerusalem so that he might die there, but to Bethany so that the raising up of Lazarus might be imprinted more deeply on the memory of all” (trans. 2.35). The third contains two main points: Lazarus’s presence at the dinner proves

198 

BEDE – PART 2

he is not just an apparition and the dinner itself designates “mystically” the faith of the Church which works through love” (trans. 2.35). The fourth explains the significance of the participants and the place: Martha is “the faithful soul” who “commits itself [to doing] the work of its devotion to the Lord”; Lazarus, “one of those who are reclining [at table] with our Lord when those too who, after the death of sin have been restored to righteousness, are one with those who have remained in their righteousness”; Bethany, “the house of obedience,” is the Church; and Mary, “the holy service of other souls faithful to God” (trans. 2.35-36). The fifth covers the remainder of the reading: Judas’s questioning of Mary’s actions; Christ’s response; the gathering of a great crowd; and the priests’ plotting to put Lazarus to death. Homily II.4 is in the Homiliary of PAUL THE DEACON; see Réginald Grégoire (1980 p 447; I, 99). It is also edited in PL 94.125-29 and a translation appears in Lawrence T. Martin and David Hurst (1991 2.33-41). Homily II.5 [BEDA.Hom. II.5]. ed.: CCSL 122.214-19. MSS 1. Cambridge, University Library, Kk. 4. 13: ASM 24. 2. Durham, Cathedral Library, B. II. 2: ASM 226. 3. Lincoln, Cathedral Library, 158 (C. 2. 2): ASM 273. 4. Lincoln, Cathedral Library, 182 (C. 2. 8) [with 184 fol. 1]: ASM 274. 5. London, British Library, Royal 2. C. iii: ASM 452. 6. Worcester, Cathedral Library, F. 92: ASM 763. Lists – A-S Vers none. Quots/Cits ? Hom. II.5, 7-27: ÆCHom II, 16 (B1.2.19), 324-35. Refs none. The reading for Holy Thursday is John 13:1-17, from the beginning of the Last Supper through Christ’s washing of the disciples’ feet. Theodore H. Leinbaugh (1986) proposes this homily as a direct source for ÆLFRIC’s Homily 15 in his second series of Catholic Homilies (B1.2.19; ed. Godden 1979 pp 150-60). The passages in question concern the

Bible: Homilies

199

typological relationship between the Old Testament Exodus and the New Testament Resurrection of Christ. Leinbaugh considers AUGUSTINE’s Tractatus in euangelium Ioannis to be the ultimate source for both; yet he finds in Bede’s adaptation four levels of exegesis that Ælfric in turn used. Godden f inds the correspondence “faint and doubtful” (Godden 2000 p li), “though there is a fleeting reference to the tropological level which Augustine neglects” (p 500); he then quotes II.5, lines 13-16. In his entries in Fontes Anglo-Saxonici he considers it a multiple possible source. Homily II.5 is in the Homiliary of PAUL THE DEACON; see Réginald Grégoire (1980 p 448; I, 105). It is also edited in PL 94.130-34 and a translation appears in Lawrence T. Martin and David Hurst (1991 2.43-50). Homily II.6 [BEDA.Hom. II.6]. ed.: CCSL 122.220-24. MSS 1. Cambridge, University Library, Ii. 2. 19, fols. 1-216: ASM 16. 2. Cambridge, Pembroke College, 23: ASM 129. 3. Durham, Cathedral Library, A. III. 29: ASM 222. 4. Lincoln, Cathedral Library, 182 (C. 2. 8) [with 184 fol. 1]: ASM 274. 5. London, British Library, Harley 652: ASM 424. 6. Worcester, Cathedral Library, F. 93: ASM 763.1. Lists – A-S Vers none. Quots/Cits 1. Hom. II.6, 15-21: ÆHom 18 (B1.4.18), 67-72. 2. Hom. II.6, 21-26: ÆHom 18 (B1.4.18), 73-75. 3. Hom. II.6, 1-6: ÆHom 18 (B1.4.18), 85-90. 4. Hom. II.6, 6-7: ÆHom 18 (B1.4.18), 91-93. 5. Hom. II.6, 28-30: ÆHom 18 (B1.4.18), 99-102. 6. Hom. II.6, 30-31: ÆHom 18 (B1.4.18), 106-12. 7. Hom. II.6, 55-57 and 60-64: ÆHom 18 (B1.4.18), 113-19. 8. Hom. II.6, 37-41 and 43-46: ÆHom 18 (B1.4.18), 120-29. 9. Hom. II.6, 41-43: ÆHom 18 (B1.4.18), 131-34. 10. Hom. II.6, 73-78: ÆHom 18 (B1.4.18), 138-48. 11. Hom. II.6, 78-80: ÆHom 18 (B1.4.18), 149-51. 12. Hom. II.6, 80-91: ÆHom 18 (B1.4.18), 152-67.

200 

BEDE – PART 2

13. Hom. II.6, 112-15 and 122-28: ÆHom 18 (B1.4.18), 171-79. 14. Hom. II.6, 133-41: ÆHom 18 (B1.4.18),187-202. Refs none. Bede related the miracle of Christ’s healing of the person unable to hear or speak, Mark 7:31-37, to the story of the Fall, when man was made unable to hear or declare “the praises of his Maker” (trans. Martin and Hurst 1991 2.51); to baptism; and to the proper way for believers to lead their lives. Quots/Cits 1-14. As John C. Pope (1967-68 pp 563-66) notes, the main source for the part of Homily 17, on Mark 7:31-37, in ÆLFRIC’s Supplementary Collection (B1.4.18; ed. Pope 1967-68 pp 567-80) is Bede’s homily, which “was assigned to mid-August (I Post Laurentii) and later to the thirteenth Sunday after Pentecost” in the Homiliary of PAUL THE DEACON; see Réginald Grégoire (1980 p 465; II, 69). Pope also considers a related homily by HAYMO OF AUXERRE, but finds that Ælfric used it “less frequently than might be expected from his practice in some other homilies” (p 565). With some minor revisions, Rohini Jayatilaka’s entries in Fontes Anglo-Saxonici accept Pope’s identifications as certain direct sources. Quots/Cits 1-14. Ælfric first adapted Bede’s remarks about the location of the miracle (1 and 2) before rendering his opening comment about the individual Christ heals: “the deaf-mute […] represents those members of the human race who merit being freed by divine grace from the error brought on by the devil’s deceit. Man became deaf, unable to hear the word of life after, puffed up [as he was] against God, he listened to the serpent’s deadly words” (trans. Martin and Hurst 1991 2.51; 3). Quotation 4 reinforces this point: since the man cannot ask Christ to heal him, his friends ask for him (5). Like Bede, Ælfric considered the moral import of this detail (6), drawing also on Haymo. Adapting both Bede and Haymo, Ælfric explained that Christ leads the man away from the others to demonstrate that to be healed one must first change one’s habits (7). The fingers Christ places on the man’s ears signify the “gifts of the Holy Spirit” (trans. 2.53; 8). Ælfric’s text for the next correspondence (9) is corrupt, but enough remains to make it clear that he was adapting Bede: “spitting he touches the tongue of a person who is mute to enable him to speak when, through the ministry of preaching, he endows [someone] with the grasp of faith he must confess” (trans. 2.52-53). Christ looks to heaven and groans because “we, whom he had created to possess heavenly things, were cast far away” and because “our return to these joys must be accomplished by groaning and sighing” (trans. 2.54; 10).

Bible: Homilies

201

“Effeta” means “be opened” (11). These actions are still part of the ritual of baptism (12). Just as the man, after being healed, “spoke right” (Mc 7:35) we too should speak “rihtlice on rihtum geleafan” (ed. p 573, line 171; 11); Pope comments that “Ælfric’s treatment of the sentiment retains only a few of Bede’s details” (1967-68 p 574). Quotation 12 concerns Christ’s command that the miracle remain secret, which was not followed; Ælfric again drew on both Bede and Haymo. The homily is also edited in PL 94.234-37. A translation appears in Lawrence T. Martin and David Hurst (1991 2.51-57). Homily II.7 [BEDA.Hom. II.7]. ed.: CCSL 122.225-32. MSS 1. Cambridge, University Library, Ii. 2. 19, fols. 1-216: ASM 16. 2. Cambridge, Pembroke College, 23: ASM 129. 3. Durham, Cathedral Library, A. III. 29: ASM 222. 4. Lincoln, Cathedral Library, 182 (C. 2. 8) [with 184 fol. 1]: ASM 274. 5. London, British Library, Harley 652: ASM 424. 6. Salisbury, Cathedral Library, 179: ASM 753. 7. Worcester, Cathedral Library, F. 93: ASM 763.1. Lists – A-S Vers none. Quots/Cits 1. Hom. II.7, 91-96: ÆCHom I, 15 (B1.1.17), 85-89. 2. Hom. II.7, 160: ByrM (B20.20), IV.i, 85. Refs none. Bede’s reading for the Easter vigil is Matthew 28:1-10, the women at the tomb. He began by explaining the significance of the times of the Crucifixion and Resurrection: “he brought the mystery of his victorious passion to fulfilment about three o’clock in the afternoon, when day was already declining toward evening […] a clear suggestion that he had submitted to the gibbet of the cross in order to take away the wicked deeds by which we fell away from divine light and love into the night of this estrangement [from him]. He rose on the morning of Sunday, which is now called the Lord’s day, clearly

202 

BEDE – PART 2

teaching that he would bring us, once we had been raised up again from the death of our souls, into the light of everlasting bliss” (trans. Martin and Hurst 1991 2.58-59). Following an explanation of the verses of the passage, he turned to the story of the Exodus from Egypt: “the redemption of that people unquestionably bore within it a type of our spiritual redemption, which was brought to completion on this night by our Lord’s rising from the dead” (trans. 2.65). From these he drew his final exhortation: “let us […] devote ourselves during this night to a worthy vigil to God […] Let us celebrate the new people of a spiritual adoption, taken away from Egyptian domination […] Let us immolate anew to God […] the most holy body and precious blood of our Lamb, by which we have been redeemed from our sins […] And […] let us strive, dearly beloved, to lay hold of these mysteries by the interior love of our minds, and always keep a grasp on them by living them” (trans. 2.67). MSS. Thomas N. Hall (see the introduction above) states that the Salisbury manuscript begins in mid-homily, with “domino debuit exsoluit” (ed. CCSL 122.227, line 88). Quots/Cits 1. In Homily 15 in his first series of Catholic Homilies (B1.1.17; ed. Clemoes 1997 pp 290-98), ÆLFRIC turned to Bede’s homily for a single detail, the explanation of the angel rolling away the stone, “not to throw open a way for our Lord to come forth, but to provide evidence to the people that he had already come forth” (trans. Martin and Hurst 1991 2.61). As David Hurst’s note in CCSL 122.227 indicates, following AUGUSTINE, Bede continued: “if as a mortal human being he could at his birth enter the world although the Virgin’s womb was closed, without any doubt, now that he had become immortal, he could at his rising leave the world although the sepulchre was closed” (trans. p 61). In his entries in Fontes Anglo-Saxonici Malcolm Godden considers Bede a probable source. In his Commentary (2000 p 123) he adds, “the Old English passage was perhaps an authorial afterthought, since it was added on a supplementary slip in MS A and derives from a different source; but since both this and the following passage begin with the same phrase, it could alternatively have been omitted in error by the scribe.” Quots/Cits 2. As a transition to a discussion of the number five in his Enchiridion (ed. and trans. Baker and Lapidge 1995 pp 202-03) BYRHTFERTH wrote: “from four let us make a ‘Galilee’ to five.” In their notes, Peter S. Baker and Michael Lapidge (p 344) explain that Byrhtferth “idiosyncratically” used Galilea to mean “transition,” based ultimately on JEROME’s Liber interpretationis hebraicorum nominum, but also found in works by Augustine and GREGORY THE GREAT. Bede also repeated this information in his Commentarius in Marcum and Homily II.7, making it a possible source for Byrhtferth.

Bible: Homilies

203

Homily II.7 is in the Homiliary of PAUL THE DEACON; see Réginald Grégoire (1980 p 454; II, 2). It is also edited in PL 94.133-39 and a translation appears in Lawrence T. Martin and David Hurst (1991 2.58-68). Homily II.8 [BEDA.Hom. II.8]. ed.: CCSL 122.233-38. MSS 1. Cambridge, University Library, Ii. 2. 19, fols. 1-216: ASM 16. 2. Cambridge, Pembroke College, 23: ASM 129. 3. Durham, Cathedral Library, A. III. 29: ASM 222. 4. Lincoln, Cathedral Library, 182 (C. 2. 8) [with 184 fol. 1]: ASM 274. 5. London, British Library, Harley 652: ASM 424. 6. Salisbury, Cathedral Library, 179: ASM 753. 7. Worcester, Cathedral Library, F. 93: ASM 763.1. Lists – A-S Vers none. Quots/Cits Hom. II.8, 146-65: ALCVIN.Comm.Ioan., 1000.3-34. Refs none. The reading for Easter is Matthew 28:16-20, the commissioning of the disciples. Bede began by noting that, “even in its literal sense,” it “shines out full of joy […] because it describes in precise words the triumph of our Redeemer, and at the same time the gifts of our redemption” (trans. Martin and Hurst 1991 2.69). He also promises to explain its spiritual meaning since “God’s word [is] indeed like spices – the more finely it is crushed by handling and sifting, the greater is the fragrance of its inner power that it gives forth” (trans. 2.69). Michael Gorman (2009 p 82) calls attention to the close similarity between Bede’s listing of Christ’s ten appearances after the Resurrection and a similar one in ALCUIN’s Commentarius in Iohannis euangelium (ed. PL 100.737-1008). Homily II.8 is in the Homiliary of PAUL THE DEACON; see Réginald Grégoire (1980 p 455; II, 13). It is also edited in PL 94.144-49 and a translation appears in Lawrence T. Martin and David Hurst (1991 2.69-77).

204 

BEDE – PART 2

Homily II.9 [BEDA.Hom. II.9]. ed.: CCSL 122.239-45. MSS 1. Cambridge, University Library, Ii. 2. 19, fols. 1-216: ASM 16. 2. Cambridge, Pembroke College, 23: ASM 129. 3. Durham, Cathedral Library, A. III. 29: ASM 222. 4. Lincoln, Cathedral Library, 182 (C. 2. 8) [with 184 fol. 1]: ASM 274. 5. London, British Library, Harley 652: ASM 424. 6. Salisbury, Cathedral Library, 179: ASM 753. 7. Worcester, Cathedral Library, F. 93: ASM 763.1. Lists – A-S Vers none. Quots/Cits 1. Hom. II.9, 177-84: ÆCHom I, 21 (B1.1.23), 41-47. 2. Hom. II.9, 132-37: ÆCHom I, 21 (B1.1.23), 88-91. Refs none. Bede explicated Luke 24:36-47, Christ’s final appearance to the disciples. He placed this event in the context of Christ’s other appearances, explaining “our Lord and Redeemer revealed the glory of his resurrection to his disciples gradually and over a period of time, undoubtedly because so great was the virtue of the miracle that the weak hearts of mortals could not grasp [the significance of] this all at once” (trans. Martin and Hurst 1991 2.78). As J.E. Cross (1968) showed, Homily 21 in ÆLFRIC’s first series of Catholic Homilies (B1.1.23; ed. Clemoes 1997 pp 345-53) draws on two passages from II.9. The first begins with the striking simile of Christ’s eating as being like the consumption of water by fire, and then continues: “we must believe that our bodies too, after their resurrection will be endowed with heavenly glory, and will have the greatest facility to do whatever they wish, and to go wherever they please” (trans. Martin and Hurst 1991 2.85). The second concerns the coming of Christ in human form to the Last Judgement so the damned will recognize him and the justice of their punishment. In Fontes Anglo-Saxonici Malcolm Godden considers this a multiple, probable source. He discusses both in his Commentary (2000 pp 166-75), indicating that II.9 is

Bible: Homilies

205

the source of the first, but adding a passage from Bede’s Expositio Actuum apostolorum as another possible source for the second. Homily II.9 is in the Homiliary of PAUL THE DEACON; see Réginald Grégoire (1980 p 455; II, 10). It is also edited in PL 94.139-44 and a translation appears in Lawrence T. Martin and David Hurst (1991 2.78-87). Homily II.10 [BEDA.Hom. II.10]. ed.: CCSL 122.246-52. MSS Lincoln, Cathedral Library, 182 (C. 2. 8) [with 184 fol. 1]: ASM 274. Lists – Refs none. Bede opened this homily on Luke 24:1-9, the story of the women at the tomb, by stating “there is no need to labour to explain here the well-known mysteries of our faith which are related here in the gospel account, but rather to tell briefly what we should be doing in imitation of this reading” (trans. Martin and Hurst 1991 2.88). That, for example, the women arrive early presents “a typological example: if we desire to find the Lord, and to be strengthened by the presence of angels, we should cast off the works of darkness and put on the armor of light, and we should walk honorably as in the day” (Rm 13:12-13; trans. 2.89). Bede drew the homily to a close with a description of the tomb from ADOMNÁN’s De locis sanctis, which he used in his own work of that name, that confirms the prophecy of Isaiah: “his sepulcher is glorious (Is 11:10), because he has kept the place in which he demolished the kingdom of death memorable by the signs of everlasting glory” (trans. 2.96). The homily is also edited in PL 94.149-54. A translation appears in Lawrence T. Martin and David Hurst (1991 2.88-97). Homily II.11 [BEDA.Hom. II.11]. ed.: CCSL 122.253-59. MSS 1. Cambridge, University Library, Ii. 2. 19, fols. 1-216: ASM 16. 2. Cambridge, Pembroke College, 23: ASM 129. 3. Durham, Cathedral Library, A. III. 29: ASM 222. 4. Lincoln, Cathedral Library, 182 (C. 2. 8) [with 184 fol. 1]: ASM 274.

206 

BEDE – PART 2

5. London, British Library, Harley 652: ASM 424. 6. Salisbury, Cathedral Library, 179: ASM 753. 7. Worcester, Cathedral Library, F. 93: ASM 763.1. Lists – A-S Vers none. Quots/Cits 1. Hom. II.11, 31-55: ALCVIN.Comm.Ioan., 951.16-39. 2. Hom. II.11, 75-79: ALCVIN.Comm.Ioan., 952.6-13. 3. Hom. II.11, 82-113: ALCVIN.Comm.Ioan., 952.14-55. 4. Hom. II.11, 120-26: ALCVIN.Comm.Ioan., 953.9-17. 5. Hom. II.11, 131-39: ALCVIN.Comm.Ioan., 953.17-31. 6. Hom. II.11, 140-52: ALCVIN.Comm.Ioan., 953.31-50. 7. Hom. II.11, 158-75: ALCVIN.Comm.Ioan., 953.53 to 954.18. 8. Hom. II.11, 180-86: ALCVIN.Comm.Ioan., 954.21-27. Refs none. Bede summarized the Gospel reading, John 16:5-15: “our Lord and Redeemer disclosed to his disciples, when the moment of his passion was near, both the glory of the ascension by which he was to be honored after his death and resurrection, and the coming of the Holy Spirit, by which they were to be enlightened” (trans. Martin and Hurst 1991 2.98). Quots/Cits 1-8. In his Commentarius in Iohannis euangelium (ed. PL 100.737-1008; see Gorman 2009 pp 79-80), ALCUIN extracted eight passages from the homily. The first, commenting on John 16:7, explains that by desiring to be in heaven with the ascended Christ, the apostles’ “hearts may be raised up to things on high” so they may “then become capable of receiving the gifts of the Holy Spirit” (trans. Martin and Hurst 1991 2.99). The second, on 16:9, identifies the “sin of unbelief” as “the basis of the vices” (trans. 2.101). The third, on 16:10-11, notes in part that “the ruler of this world” is the devil, who was judged when he was cast out of heaven, when Christ cast out demons, and when Christ gave his apostles “power over the enemy” (trans. 2.102). The fourth, on 16:12-13 (first clause), states that the coming of the Holy Spirit strengthens the apostles’ “knowledge of the truth”; “nevertheless, we must not suppose that in this life anyone can comprehend all the truth” (trans. 2.102). The fifth continues the discussion of the fourth, using the example of Paul, who was “caught up to the third

Bible: Homilies

207

heaven” to show that “we know [the truth] partially” (trans. 2.102-03). The sixth, which discusses the final clauses of 16:13, stresses the unity of the Trinity. The seventh identifies the knowledge of “things which are to come” imparted by the Holy Spirit as “the memory of the joys of the heavenly fatherland” and “the desire for the kingdom which has been promised us in heaven” (trans. 2.104), and comments on 16:14: the Holy Spirit honored Christ by inspiring the apostles and “holy teachers […] in order that […] they might convert the entire world to faith in Christ” (trans. 2.104). The eighth, on 16:15, returns to the nature of the Trinity. John C. Pope (1967-68 pp 337-38) identifies “the chief source” for ÆLFRIC’s seventh homily in his Supplementary Collection (B1.4.7; ed. Pope 1967-68 pp 342-50) as Alcuin’s Commentary on John, which as noted above contains extensive extracts from Bede’s Homily II.11. Since II.11 is in the original collection of PAUL THE DEACON (see Grégoire 1980 p 457; II, 22), “Ælfric could hardly have failed to read it”; but, Pope adds, “I have found no evidence that he made use of anything in it that Alcuin did not include” (p 338). His notes on the relevant passages (lines 47-51, 53-57, 62-72, 86-89, 164-70, 173-86, 196-206, 208-11, 215-18, and 221-26), then quote Alcuin but identify Bede in parentheses. The homily is also edited in PL 94.158-63. A translation appears in Lawrence T. Martin and David Hurst (1991 2.98-107). Homily II.12 [BEDA.Hom. II.12]. ed.: CCSL 122.260-66. MSS 1. Cambridge, University Library, Ii. 2. 19, fols. 1-216: ASM 16. 2. Cambridge, Pembroke College, 23: ASM 129. 3. Durham, Cathedral Library, A. III. 29: ASM 222. 4. Lincoln, Cathedral Library, 182 (C. 2. 8) [with 184 fol. 1]: ASM 274. 5. London, British Library, Harley 652: ASM 424. 6. Salisbury, Cathedral Library, 179: ASM 753. 7. Worcester, Cathedral Library, F. 93: ASM 763.1. Lists – A-S Vers none. Quots/Cits 1. Hom. II.12, 48-51: ALCVIN.Comm.Ioan., 957.10-13. 2. Hom. II.12, 61-62: ALCVIN.Comm.Ioan., 957.19-20.

208 

BEDE – PART 2

3. Hom. II.12, 69-75: ALCVIN.Comm.Ioan., 957.20-28. 4. Hom. II.12, 81-83: ALCVIN.Comm.Ioan., 957.29-31. 5. Hom. II.12, 86-92: ALCVIN.Comm.Ioan., 957.40-47. 6. Hom. II.12, 133-40: ALCVIN.Comm.Ioan., 958.2-11. 7. Hom. II.12, 145-49: ALCVIN.Comm.Ioan., 958.13-18. 8. Hom. II.12, 154-58: ALCVIN.Comm.Ioan., 958.19-24. 9. Hom. II.12, 160-87: ALCVIN.Comm.Ioan., 958.27 to 959.1 10. ? Hom. II.12, 15-23: ÆHom 8 (B1.4.8), 66-68. 11. Hom. II.12, 48-51: ÆHom 8 (B1.4.8), 159-62. 12. Hom. II.12, 61-62: ÆHom 8 (B1.4.8), 164-66. 13. Hom. II.12, 93-94 and 104-07: ÆHom 8 (B1.4.8), 180-82. 14. Hom. II.12, 122-23: ÆHom 8 (B1.4.8), 208-12. 15. Hom. II.12, 160-70: ÆHom 8 (B1.4.8), 221-24. 16. Hom. II.12, 184-89: ÆHom 8 (B1.4.8), 244-49. Refs none. The Gospel reading, John 16:23-30, led Bede to investigate why many of the things people ask of the Father in Christ’s name are not received. His final exhortations sum up the homily: “let us ask for heavenly clemency, which is truly to ask in the name of the Saviour, that he may provide us with both purity of heart and efficacy of good works. And above all, let us recall with an attentive mind that hour, and let us wish for it to come very quickly, wherein the Lord will no longer speak to us through the scriptures, but will plainly make known to us the Father…” (trans. Martin and Hurst 1991 2.116). Quots/Cits 1-9. ALCUIN included nine passages from this homily in his Commentarius in Iohannis euangelium (ed. PL 100.737-1008; see Gorman 2009 p 80). When Christ was with them, the disciples did not ask anything in his name since “they had not lifted up the gaze of their minds to the invisible gifts of salvation” (1; trans. Martin and Hurst 1991 2.110). “Full” joy (Io 16:24) is “the happiness of lasting peace” (2 and 3; trans. 2.11011). One can only pray for heavenly things if one stops “being involved, by living wickedly, in things that are below” (4; trans. 2.111). The “hour” of John 16:25 is when, following his Crucifixion and Resurrection, Christ gives the apostles the Holy Spirit (5). Christ uses the future tense in John 16:26 since, when “the saints are received into internal peace, there will be no need for anything to be prayed for on their behalf” (6; trans. 2.113). In quotations 7 and 8, Bede stated that John 16:27 should be understood to mean that God’s “gratuitous love” precedes the apostles’ “love and belief in the Son” and that

Bible: Homilies

209

“whoever loves the Son properly loves him together with the Father and the Spirit” (trans. 2.113-14). Quotation 9, which expounds John 16:28-30, reviews salvation history and the apostles’ developing understanding of it. Quots/Cits 10-16. John C. Pope (1967-68 p 352) writes that “for the basic exposition of the gospel” ÆLFRIC’s Homily 8 in his Supplementary Collection (B1.4.8; ed. Pope 1967-68 pp 357-68) “depends chiefly on Bede, Homily II, 12,” and he prints the relevant passages at the bottom of the page. Three of the correspondences (11, 12, and 15) involve passages extracted by Alcuin (1, 2, and 9); all are considered certain direct sources by Rohini Jayatilaka in her entries in Fontes Anglo-Saxonici. Quotation 13 expounds John 16:26 by explaining that the day on which the apostles will ask nothing of Christ refers to “the future life” not the “darkness of distress […] in the present life” (trans. Martin and Hurst 1991 2.111-12); Jayatilaka considers this a multiple source because she divides the passage from Bede. For quotation 14, which explicates John 16:28, Pope includes passages from Bede and HAYMO OF AUXERRE; Jayatilaka considers both to be certain multiple sources. See, however, Pope’s note, which explains that Ælfric “gives a different meaning from that which Bede and Haymo assume” (pp 370-71). Quotation 16, which concerns John 16:30, goes beyond the passage excerpted by Alcuin: Christ knows all things including the “hearts of all men.” Finally, quotation 10, considered by Jayatilaka to be a possible source, concerns the need to turn from evil before one’s prayers will be heard. Homily II.12 is in the Homiliary of PAUL THE DEACON; see Réginald Grégoire (1980 pp 457-58; II, 24). It is also edited in PL 94.163-68 and a translation appears in Lawrence T. Martin and David Hurst (1991 2.108-16). Homily II.13 [BEDA.Hom. II.13]. ed.: CCSL 122.267-71. MSS 1. Cambridge, University Library, Ii. 2. 19, fols. 1-216: ASM 16. 2. Cambridge, Pembroke College, 23: ASM 129. 3. Durham, Cathedral Library, A. III. 29: ASM 222. 4. Lincoln, Cathedral Library, 182 (C. 2. 8) [with 184 fol. 1]: ASM 274. 5. London, British Library, Harley 652: ASM 424. 6. Salisbury, Cathedral Library, 179: ASM 753. 7. Worcester, Cathedral Library, F. 93: ASM 763.1. Lists – A-S Vers none.

210 

BEDE – PART 2

Quots/Cits 1. Hom. II.13, 5-14: ALCVIN.Comm.Ioan., 954.44-54. 2. Hom. II.13, 23-28: ALCVIN.Comm.Ioan., 955.9-15. 3. Hom. II.13, 44-59: ALCVIN.Comm.Ioan., 955.23-41. 4. Hom. II.13, 78-81: ALCVIN.Comm.Ioan., 955.50-53. 5. Hom. II.13, 94-123: ALCVIN.Comm.Ioan., 955.53 to 956.31. 6. Hom. II.13, 147-48: ALCVIN.Comm.Ioan., 955.36-38. 7. Hom. II.13, 11-21: ÆHomM 5 (Ass 6; B1.5.5), 40-55. 8. Hom. II.13, 47-48: ÆHomM 5 (Ass 6; B1.5.5), 65-71. 9. Hom. II.13, 50-52: ÆHomM 5 (Ass 6; B1.5.5), 71-76. 10. Hom. II.13, 53-56: ÆHomM 5 (Ass 6; B1.5.5), 84-86. 11. Hom. II.13, 56-59: ÆHomM 5 (Ass 6; B1.5.5), 86-88. 12. Hom. II.13, 78: ÆHomM 5 (Ass 6; B1.5.5), 93-94. 13. Hom. II.13, 96-101: ÆHomM 5 (Ass 6; B1.5.5), 99-104. 14. Hom. II.13, 105-06: ÆHomM 5 (Ass 6; B1.5.5), 105. 15. Hom. II.13, 108-15: ÆHomM 5 (Ass 6; B1.5.5), 116-23. 16. Hom. II.13, 120-48: ÆHomM 5 (Ass 6; B1.5.5), 135-48. Refs none. Bede expounded the Gospel reading, John 16:16-22, “a little while, and now you shall not see me; and again a little while, and you shall see me, because I go to the Father.” Quots/Cits 1-6. ALCUIN’s first extract from this homily in his Commentarius in Iohannis euangelium (ed. PL 100.737-1008; see Gorman 2009 p 80) includes Bede’s opening comment that while all the verses in the reading are “appropriate to those who heard them from the Lord in person,” some are “most suitably fitting also to us who have come to believe in the Lord after his passion and resurrection” (trans. Martin and Hurst 1991 2.117); it then explicates 16:16 in this way. The second explains the phrase “because I go to the Father” (16:16): “the divinely-arranged plan of my taking mortality upon myself has been fulfilled, together with the triumph of my resurrection” (trans. 2.118). The third relates 16:20 not only to the sorrows and joys of the disciples but also to “all believers who are striving to arrive at eternal joys through the tears and distress of the present life” (trans. 2.119). The woman of 16:21 is “holy Church” because of her “fruitfulness in good works and because she never ceases to beget spiritual children for God” (4; trans. 2.120). The “birth” of martyrs and confessors” occurs when they die, “released from the bonds of flesh and raised up to eternal light”

Bible: Homilies

211

(5; trans. 2.121). Finally, “the Lord sees his chosen ones after their sorrow (Io 16:22), when, their assailant having been condemned, he rewards their patience” (6; trans. 2.122). Quots/Cits 7-16. In discussing the sources for ÆLFRIC’s Supplementary Homily 7, Pope (1967-68 p 339) comments briefly on those of Assmann Homily 6 (B1.5.5; ed. Assmann 1964 pp 73-80): “the first part, lines 1-148, is a straightforward exposition of John 16:16-22, based on Bede’s homily on the text.” In her entries in Fontes Anglo-Saxonici Rohini Jayatilaka fills in the details, which are recorded above. Unlike Supplementary Homily 7 (discussed above under Homily II.11), here Alcuin’s extracts cannot account for all the material Ælfric used. Indeed, Jayatilaka considers two of the correspondences (10 and 11) to be certain direct sources; four (7, 8, 13, and 16) are probable direct sources; and one (14) a possible direct source. The status of the last three is complicated by a sermon by HAYMO OF AUXERRE, which Jayatilaka considers in two cases (9 and 12) to be a source in addition to Bede and, in the last (15), an alternative to Bede. Homily II.13 is in the Homiliary of PAUL THE DEACON; see Réginald Grégoire (1980 p 457; II, 21). It is also edited in PL 94.154-58 and a translation appears in Lawrence T. Martin and David Hurst (1991 2.117-23). Homily II.14 [BEDA.Hom. II.14]. ed.: CCSL 122.272-79. MSS 1. Cambridge, University Library, Ii. 2. 19, fols. 1-216: ASM 16. 2. Cambridge, Pembroke College, 23: ASM 129. 3. Durham, Cathedral Library, A. III. 29: ASM 222. 4. Lincoln, Cathedral Library, 182 (C. 2. 8) [with 184 fol. 1]: ASM 274. 5. London, British Library, Harley 652: ASM 424. 6. Salisbury, Cathedral Library, 179: ASM 753. 7. Worcester, Cathedral Library, F. 93: ASM 763.1. Lists – Refs none. The reading for the Greater Litany is Luke 11:9-13, “ask and it will be given to you…” “Our Lord and Saviour,” Bede began, “desiring that we arrive at the joys of the heavenly kingdom, taught us to ask these joys of him, and promised that he would give them to us if we asked for them” (trans. Martin and Hurst 1991 2.124). He used Psalm 145:18, “the Lord is near to all who call

212 

BEDE – PART 2

upon him in truth,” to distinguish between correct and incorrect ways to pray. Following GREGORY THE GREAT, for example, he wrote: “the citizens of the heavenly fatherland, while they are pilgrims on this earth, are not forbidden to ask the Lord for peaceful times, bodily health, abundant crops, good weather, and other necessities of this life, if these things are not asked for inordinately, and if they are asked for only for this reason, that with abundant food for the journey in this present [life], they may more freely reach out toward future gifts. But because there are some who look for temporal rest and prosperity from their Creator, not that they may obey their Creator with more devoted souls, but that they may be free for more abundant eating and drinking, that they may serve their concupiscences and the allurements of their flesh with less anxiety and restraint: such people as these are rightly said to be asking wrongly” (trans. 2.128). MSS 1-3 and 5-7. In the Homiliary of PAUL THE DEACON this homily is preceded by an excerpt from Bede’s Commentarius in Lucam (CCSL 120.228, book 3, lines 2432-63; see Grégoire 1980 p 457, II, 19), and so listed as the Extract ex Comm.Luc., III, 2432-63. The homily is also edited in PL 94.168-74. A translation appears in Lawrence T. Martin and David Hurst (1991 2.124-33). Homily II.15 [BEDA.Hom. II.15]. ed.: CCSL 122.280-89. MSS Lincoln, Cathedral Library, 182 (C. 2. 8) [with 184 fol. 1]: ASM 274. Lists – Refs none. The reading for the Ascension is Luke 24:44-53. Following GREGORY THE GREAT, Bede used the occasion first to stress the unity of the faith of those who lived before and after Christ’s “coming in the flesh”: “just as we are saved through faith in his incarnation, passion and resurrection which have been accomplished, so they, by believing most certainly in his incarnation, passion and resurrection to come, hoped that they would be saved through the same Author of life” (trans. Martin and Hurst 1991 2.136-37). To support this point, he introduced a variety of biblical passages including Numbers 12:23, which describes the cluster of grapes carried back by two men from the land of Canaan to Moses. He then turned to the growth of the Church, which appropriately begins in Jerusalem: “where the splendor of his teaching and

Bible: Homilies

213

virtues, where the triumph of his passion, where the joy of his resurrection and ascension were accomplished, there the first root of faith in him would be brought forth; [there] the first shoot of the burgeoning Church, like that of some kind of great vine, would be planted” (trans. 2.137-38). The homily is also edited in PL 94.174-81. A translation appears in Lawrence T. Martin and David Hurst (1991 2.135-47). Homily II.16 [BEDA.Hom. II.16]. ed.: CCSL 122.290-300. MSS 1. Cambridge, University Library, Ii. 2. 19, fols. 1-216: ASM 16. 2. Cambridge, Pembroke College, 23: ASM 129. 3. Durham, Cathedral Library, A. III. 29: ASM 222. 4. Lincoln, Cathedral Library, 182 (C. 2. 8) [with 184 fol. 1]: ASM 274. 5. London, British Library, Harley 652: ASM 424. 6. Salisbury, Cathedral Library, 179: ASM 753. 7. Worcester, Cathedral Library, F. 93: ASM 763.1. Lists – A-S Vers none. Quots/Cits 1. Hom. II.16, 1-6: ALCVIN.Comm.Ioan., 949.6-13. 2. Hom. II.16, 42-46: ALCVIN.Comm.Ioan., 949.41-47. 3. Hom. II.16, 73-76: ALCVIN.Comm.Ioan., 950.3-6. 4. Hom. II.16, 85-89: ALCVIN.Comm.Ioan., 950.10-14. 5. Hom. II.16, 100-05: ALCVIN.Comm.Ioan., 950.14-21. 6. Hom. II.16, 106-09: ALCVIN.Comm.Ioan., 950.30-35. 7. ? Hom. II.16, 317-19: ÆCHom I, 22 (B1.1.24) 228-33. Refs none. Bede explicated the Gospel reading, John 15:26-16:4, the part of Christ’s teaching at the Last Supper that concerns the sending of the Holy Spirit. Quots/Cits 1-6. ALCUIN included six passages from the homily in his Commentarius in Iohannis euangelium (ed. PL 100.737-1008; see Gorman 2009 p 79). To John 15:26 he assigned Bede’s opening: “we find from many places in the holy gospel that before the coming of the Holy Spirit, the

214 

BEDE – PART 2

disciples were less capable of understanding the hidden mysteries of the divine sublimity, and were less brave in tolerating the adversities brought on by human depravity” (trans. Martin and Hurst 1991 2.149). Bede interpreted John 15:26-27 as referring to the apostles’ teaching, inspired by the Holy Spirit (2) and 16:1 as a warning of their “future battles with the wicked” (3; trans. 2.151). In killing the apostles, the Jews act with zeal but without knowledge (4) and defend “the law given by a servant when they refused to receive the grace the Son himself offered them” (5; trans. 2.152). Of 16:3 Bede wrote, “since the Son is in the Father and the Father is in the Son, and the one who sees the Son sees the Father too, it is evident that all who resist belief in the Son with stubborn mind are proven not to know the Father” (6; trans. 2.153). Quots/Cits 7. Malcolm Godden (2000 p 182) includes the possible parallel noted above between II.16 and Homily 22 in ÆLFRIC’s first series of Catholic Homilies (B1.1.22; ed. Clemoes 1997 pp 354-64). Both associate the seven gifts of the Holy Spirit with the seven days of hymns for Pentecost. Bede’s point, Godden notes, was repeated by AMALARIUS. In his entries in Fontes Anglo-Saxonici he considers it a possible multiple source. Homily II.16 is in the Homiliary of PAUL THE DEACON; see Réginald Grégoire (1980 p 458; II, 29). It is also edited in PL 94.181-89 and a translation appears in Lawrence T. Martin and David Hurst (1991 2.149-62). Homily II.17 [BEDA.Hom. II.17]. ed.: CCSL 122.301-10. MSS 1. Cambridge, University Library, Ii. 2. 19, fols. 1-216: ASM 16. 2. Cambridge, Pembroke College, 23: ASM 129. 3. Durham, Cathedral Library, A. III. 29: ASM 222. 4. Lincoln, Cathedral Library, 182 (C. 2. 8) [with 184 fol. 1]: ASM 274. 5. London, British Library, Harley 652: ASM 424. 6. Salisbury, Cathedral Library, 179: ASM 753. 7. Worcester, Cathedral Library, F. 93: ASM 763.1. Lists – A-S Vers none. Quots/Cits 1. Hom. II.17, 11-14: ALCVIN.Comm.Ioan., 935.33-37. 2. Hom. II.17, 23-27: ALCVIN.Comm.Ioan., 935.45-50.

Bible: Homilies

215

3. Hom. II.17, 37-39: ALCVIN.Comm.Ioan., 935.50-52. 4. Hom. II.17, 31-34: ALCVIN.Comm.Ioan., 935.52-56. 5. Hom. II.17, 58-59: ALCVIN.Comm.Ioan., 936.2-3. 6. Hom. II.17, 74-94: ALCVIN.Comm.Ioan., 936.8-32. 7. Hom. II.17, 98-101: ALCVIN.Comm.Ioan., 936.34-38. 8. Hom. II.17, 123-27: ALCVIN.Comm.Ioan., 936.53 to 937.2. 9. Hom. II.17, 131-35: ALCVIN.Comm.Ioan., 937.4-7. 10. Hom. II.17, 148-51: ALCVIN.Comm.Ioan., 937.13-17. 11. Hom. II.17, 160-68: ALCVIN.Comm.Ioan., 937.22-31. 12. ? Hom. II.17, 317-19: ÆCHom I, 22 (B1.1.24), 228-33. Refs none. The Gospel reading for Pentecost is John 14:15-21, Christ’s words to the apostles as he promises them that the Father will send them the Holy Spirit. Quots/Cits 1-11. ALCUIN placed eleven short passages from the first half of the homily into his Commentarius in Iohannis euangelium (ed. PL 100.737-1008; see Gorman 2009 p 78). “The Holy Spirit is correctly called a Paraclete because, by producing a desire for heavenly life, he raises up and restores the hearts of believers lest they falter amidst the adversities of this age” (1; trans. Martin and Hurst 1991 2.164). The disciples first possessed “the Paraclete himself, namely our Lord” when he was on earth (2; trans. 2.165). Christ “will ask the Father through his humanity, and will give [us another Paraclete] with the Father through his divinity” (3; trans. 2.165). The Paraclete “abides eternally with the saints” (4; trans. 2.165). The “world” that cannot receive the Paraclete refers to “those who are given over to love of” the world (5; trans. 2.166). Unlike the unbelievers, who were incapable of recognizing Christ as the Son of God, the disciples were provided “the grace of recognizing him invisibly” (6; Martin and Hurst refer to AUGUSTINE in their note, trans. 2.167) and “only the just, who were saddened by his death, were worthy to see the joy of his resurrection” (7; trans. 2.167). “The apostles then knew that Christ was in the Father through his being united with the undivided divinity; they knew that they were in Christ through their reception of his faith and sacraments; they knew that Christ was in them through their love for him and their observances of his commandments” (8; trans. 2.168). “On the day of their resurrection” the just will “know more perfectly all things” since they will “endlessly look […] at the very font of knowledge” (9; trans. 2.168). To love God “truly […] we ought to observe in our actions the commandments of Christ” (10; trans. 2.169). The future tense

216 

BEDE – PART 2

in John 14:21 reveals that those who love God “may come to the vision of the truth of which they had had a taste through faith” (11; trans. 2.169-70). Quots/Cits 12. Max Förster (1894 pp 20-21) offered II.17 as a source for the discussion of Pentecost at the beginning of ÆLFRIC’s Homily 22 in his first series of Catholic Homilies (B1.1.22; ed. Clemoes 1997 pp 354-64). Malcolm Godden (2000 p 177) notes that like Bede Ælfric summarized “the Exodus with the precise chronology, and draws parallels between the lamb of the Passover and Christ, between the granting of the law when God descended on Mount Sinai and the granting of grace with the descent of the Holy Spirit, and between the observation of the Mosaic law and the preaching of the Gospel.” “But,” he continues, “the wording is not close, and where Bede says firmly that God established the festival of Pentecost in memory of the giving of the law, Ælfric is careful to attribute only the festival of Easter to God’s ordinance.” Homily II.17 is in the Homiliary of PAUL THE DEACON; see Réginald Grégoire (1980 p 459; II, 30). It is also edited in PL 94.189-97 and a translation appears in Lawrence T. Martin and David Hurst (1991 2.164-77). Homily II.18 [BEDA.Hom. II.18]. ed.: CCSL 122.311-17. MSS 1. Cambridge, University Library, Ii. 2. 19, fols. 1-216: ASM 16. 2. Cambridge, Pembroke College, 23: ASM 129. 3. Durham, Cathedral Library, A. III. 29: ASM 222. 4. Lincoln, Cathedral Library, 182 (C. 2. 8) [with 184 fol. 1]: ASM 274. 5. London, British Library, Harley 652: ASM 424. 6. Worcester, Cathedral Library, F. 93: ASM 763.1. Lists – A-S Vers none. Quots/Cits 1. Hom. II.18, 2-237: ALCVIN.Comm.Ioan., 778.12 to 783.12. 2. Hom. II.18, 119-21 and 125-28: ÆCHom II, 24 (B1.1.31), 100-06. 3. Hom. II.18, 128-31: ÆCHom II, 24 (B1.1.31), 109-13. 4. Hom. II.18, 139-53: ÆCHom II, 24 (B1.1.31), 116-25. 5. Hom. II.18, 1-10: ÆHom 12 (B1.4.12), 59-65. 6. Hom. II.18, 23-28: ÆHom 12 (B1.4.12), 69-73. 7. Hom. II.18, 35-38 and 40-46: ÆHom 12 (B1.4.12), 78-90.

Bible: Homilies

217

8. Hom. II.18, 56-62: ÆHom 12 (B1.4.12), 118-29. 9. Hom. II.18, 62-68, 76-77, and 80-81: ÆHom 12 (B1.4.12), 130-38. 10. Hom. II.18, 88-96: ÆHom 12 (B1.4.12), 159-64. 11. Hom. II.18, 98-101: ÆHom 12 (B1.4.12), 168-72. 12. Hom. II.18, 103-15: ÆHom 12 (B1.4.12), 189-96. 13. Hom. II.18, 139-43, 144-46, and 149-53.: ÆHom 12 (B1.4.12), 200-11. 14. Hom. II.18, 119-31: ÆHom 12 (B1.4.12), 212-15. 15. Hom. II.18, 175-82: ÆHom 12 (B1.4.12), 227-32. 16. Hom. II.18, 186-90 and 195-203: ÆHom 12 (B1.4.12), 233-38. Refs none. Bede summarized the main messages of this homily on John 3:1-16 when he explained what Nicodemus gained from his exchange with Christ: “he perceived the hidden mysteries of both of his births – the divine and the human – as well as the hidden mysteries of his passion and ascension. He also learned about the way of second birth, and entry into the heavenly kingdom, and many other sacramental mysteries” (trans. Martin and Hurst 1991 2.178-79). Quots/Cits 1. For his Commentarius in Iohannis euangelium (ed. PL 100.737-1008; see Gorman 2009 p 69), ALCUIN extracted Bede’s entire homily, omitting only his opening phrase (“as you have heard…”) and his final appeal to his audience (“hence we must attempt…”; trans. Martin and Hurst 1991 2.178 and 186). Quots/Cits 2-4. In Homily 24 in his second series of Catholic Homilies (B1.2.31; ed. Godden 1979 pp 221-29) ÆLFRIC used this homily as he digressed to explain the significance of the opening setting of the Gospel reading he was expounding, Matthew 14:22-36 (Peter’s walking on water) – the mountain where Christ prays. As Malcolm Godden (2000 p 561) notes about quotations 2 and 3, which are separated by a clarification from HAYMO, he turned to it to explain that Christ’s two natures are revealed in John 3:13, “no man hath ascended into heaven, but he that descended from heaven, the Son of man who is in heaven.” After a further digression, taken this time from AUGUSTINE, Ælfric returned to Bede’s homily to explain that the saved will eventually ascend to heaven, but as members in Christ’s body (4). As Godden (2000 p 556) remarks in his opening comments on the homily, Ælfric “ventures deep into allegorical interpretation and problems of dogma, draw[ing] on a wide range of sources for his exposition.” Quots/Cits 5-16. In Homily 12 in his Supplementary Collection (B1.4.12; ed. Pope 1967-68 pp 479-89), Ælfric turned directly to John 3:1-15, and while

218 

BEDE – PART 2

he had little more to say about the question that concerned him in his earlier homily, he did use other parts of Bede’s work, again in conjunction with Haymo. As John C. Pope puts it, “more often than not I have found Bede somewhat closer than Haymo” (p 477). The correspondences listed above are drawn from Pope’s sources although informed and modified by Rohini Jayatilaka’s entries in Fontes Anglo-Saxonici. Nicodemus “wisely” approaches Christ because he has perceived that he is from God and so wants to receive “secret” instruction (5). His approach by night reveals his ignorance (6). Christ’s comment about being reborn does not mean one can be rebaptized (7). Physical birth is visible; spiritual invisible (8). “Only the Church, a mother who gives birth” (trans. Martin and Hurst 1991 2.180) knows of the spiritual rebirth that takes place in baptism (9). One cannot see the Holy Spirit enter someone else (10). Christ asks “are you a teacher in Israel, and ignorant of these things” (trans. 2.181), not as a reproach but to inspire humility (11). Since the Jews were not able to understand Christ when he spoke of earthly things such as his Passion and Resurrection, how is Nicodemus to understand him when he speaks of spiritual things (12)? Quotations 13 and 14 cover the material discussed above in connection with Catholic Homily II, 24. The bronze serpent that Moses makes heals the wounds caused by the fiery serpents (15). The raising up of the bronze serpent is “our Redeemer’s suffering on the cross, for only by faith in him is the kingdom of death and sin overcome” (trans. 2.184). In addition to these direct borrowings Pope mentions II.18 at other points in his notes; see lines 142-45, 150-52, and 156-58. Homily II.18 is in the Homiliary of PAUL THE DEACON; see Réginald Grégoire (1980 p 456; II, 16). It is also edited in PL 94.197-202 and a translation appears in Lawrence T. Martin and David Hurst (1991 2.178-186). Homily II.19 [BEDA.Hom. II.19]. ed.: CCSL 122.318-27. MSS 1. Cambridge, University Library, Kk. 4. 13: ASM 24. 2. Cambridge, Pembroke College, 24: ASM 130. 3. Lincoln, Cathedral Library, 158 (C. 2. 2): ASM 273. 4. Lincoln, Cathedral Library, 182 (C. 2. 8) [with 184 fol. 1]: ASM 274. 5. London, British Library, Royal 2. C. iii: ASM 452. 6. Salisbury, Cathedral Library, 179: ASM 753. 7. Worcester, Cathedral Library, F. 94: ASM 763.2.

Bible: Homilies

219

Lists – A-S Vers none. Quots/Cits ? Hom. II.19, 5-9: ÆCHom I, 25 (B1.1.27), 80-83. Refs none. The reading for the vigil of the nativity of John the Baptist is Luke 1:5-17, the story of the appearance of the angel to Zachary announcing John’s birth. Following AUGUSTINE and quoting Luke 16:16, Bede established John as “a kind of dividing line between law and gospel, figure and truth” (trans. Martin and Hurst 1991 2.188). Indeed, it is this passage that Malcolm Godden (2000 p 204) considers a possible source for Homily 25 in ÆLFRIC’s first series of Catholic Homilies (B1.1.25; ed. Clemoes 1997 pp 379-87; see also his entries in Fontes Anglo-Saxonici). If so, it appears he drew nothing else from a homily whose profound importance Bede acknowledged: “I have explained these details about the observance of this festivity under the law so fully in order that you, dear ones, may acknowledge how appropriately the proclamations of new grace took their starting-point from it, in which, in so many ways, the working out of this grace and the redemption of the whole world is expressed” (trans. Martin and Hurst 1991 2.195). Homily II.19 is in the Homiliary of PAUL THE DEACON; see Réginald Grégoire (1980 p 460; II, 40). It is also edited in PL 94.202-10 and a translation appears in Lawrence T. Martin and David Hurst (1991 2.188-200). Homily II.20 [BEDA.Hom. II.20]. ed.: CCSL 122.328-34. MSS 1. Cambridge, University Library, Kk. 4. 13: ASM 24. 2. Cambridge, Pembroke College, 24: ASM 130. 3. Durham, Cathedral Library, A. III. 29: ASM 222. 4. Lincoln, Cathedral Library, 158 (C. 2. 2): ASM 273. 5. Lincoln, Cathedral Library, 182 (C. 2. 8) [with 184 fol. 1]: ASM 274. 6. London, British Library, Royal 2. C. iii: ASM 452. 7. Worcester, Cathedral Library, F. 94: ASM 763.2.

220 

BEDE – PART 2

Lists – A-S Vers none. Quots/Cits 1. Hom. II.20, 1-8: ÆCHom I, 25 (B1.1.27), 57-66. 2. Hom. II.20, 12-16: ÆCHom I, 25 (B1.1.27), 67-79. 3. Hom. II.20, 109-16: ÆCHom I, 25 (B1.1.27), 93-96. 4. Hom. II.20, 32-37: ÆCHom I, 25 (B1.1.27), 108-14. 5. Hom. II.20, 61-71: ÆCHom I, 25 (B1.1.27), 118-34. 6. Hom. II.20, 12-16: ÆHomM 8 (Ass 3; B1.5.8), 29-46. Refs none. For the nativity of John the Baptist, Bede explicated Luke 1:57-68, the story of the miracle of John’s naming and the beginning of Zachary prophecy. Quots/Cits 1-5. Malcolm Godden (2000 p 203) notes that ÆLFRIC adapted the opening of II.20 in Homily 25 in the first series of Catholic Homilies (B1.1.27; ed. Clemoes 1997 pp 379-87), since both focus on the many miracles that accompany John’s birth. Both, as Godden points out, continue to assert that unlike the martyrs, who are commemorated on the day of their deaths, only Christ and John (and, Ælfric added, Mary) are celebrated on their birthdays (2; Godden does not include this correspondence in his entries in Fontes Anglo-Saxonici). Both interpret Luke 1:60, Elizabeth’s refusal to name the child after his father, with the same etymologies (3) and both contrast John’s fleeing from sin to Christ’s living among sinners (4). Finally, Ælfric followed Bede in explaining the “mystical meaning” of John’s birth occurring on day “when the [length of the] day started to lessen” while Christ’s happened “when the [length of the] day started to increase” (trans. Martin and Hurst 1991 2.204, who note Bede’s sources, which might have been used by Ælfric). Quots/Cits 6. Although Godden does not include the correspondence noted above concerning the liturgical celebration of the actual births of Christ and John the Baptist (and Mary) in his entries in Fontes AngloSaxonici, he does record one between the comments that set up this point in both homilies: the feasts of most saints mark their deaths. In her entries in Fontes Anglo-Saxonici Mary Clayton notes the same point in Ælfric’s homily on the “Nativity of the Blessed Virgin Mary,” commonly known as Assmann 3 (B1.5.8; ed. Assmann 1964 pp 24-48). The correspondence is

Bible: Homilies

221

more compelling since the ideas travel together, which is reflected in the line numbers in quotation 6. See further Clayton (1986 p 297). Homily II.20 is in the Homiliary of PAUL THE DEACON; see Réginald Grégoire (1980 p 461; II, 44). It is also edited in PL 94.210-14. A translation appears in Martin and Hurst (1991 2.202-10). Homily II.21 [BEDA.Hom. II.21]. ed.: CCSL 122.335-41. MSS Lincoln, Cathedral Library, 182 (C. 2. 8) [with 184 fol. 1]: ASM 274. Lists – A-S Vers none. Quots/Cits 1. Hom. II.21, 48-51: ÆCHom II, 31-32 (B1.2.34), 3-5. 2. Hom. II.21, 184-85: ÆCHom II, 42 (B1.2.46), 148. Refs none. According to the CCSL, most manuscripts assign this homily to the feast of James although two assign it to John and Paul. The reading is Matthew 20:20-23, the exchange between Christ and his disciples when the mother of the sons of Zebedee asks that her sons might sit on Christ’s right and left hands in his kingdom. Interpreting Christ’s response, “can you drink the chalice that I shall drink?” as referring to his own and their deaths, Bede reflected on the need “to bear patiently the adversities of the present age as well as death itself” in order to be worthy of the reward of eternal life (trans. Martin and Hurst 1991 2.211). Quots/Cits 1. In the opening comment of Homily 27 in the second series of Catholic Homilies (B1.2.34; ed. Godden 1979 pp 241-48), ÆLFRIC remarked that Christ often took the two brothers, John and James, and Peter into private conversation, “as we read everywhere in the gospels.” Malcolm Godden (2000 p 577) notes that “a source for the idea of Christ’s special concern with James, John and Peter is scarcely needed, but there is a close parallel” in II.21. He then quotes the passage listed above. In his entries in Fontes Anglo-Saxonici he considers it a probable source.

222 

BEDE – PART 2

Quots/Cits 2. In discussing lines 129-54 in Catholic Homily II, 37 (B1.2.46; ed. Godden 1979 pp 310-17), Godden (2000 p 645) writes that “the phrase on sibbe at 148 perhaps shows the influence of Bede’s in pace” in II.21; both are discussing whether John’s “peaceful” death can be considered drinking Christ’s chalice. His entries in Fontes Anglo-Saxonici cover lines 129-52 more broadly; citing GREGORY THE GREAT as well as Bede, he considers Homily II.21 a multiple possible source. At issue is Ælfric’s knowledge of homilies not included in the Homiliary of PAUL THE DEACON; see Réginald Grégoire (1980 pp 423-86). The homily is also edited in PL 94.228-33. A translation appears in Lawrence T. Martin and David Hurst (1991 2.211-19). Homily II.22 [BEDA.Hom. II.22]. ed.: CCSL 122.342-48. MSS 1. Cambridge, University Library, Kk. 4. 13: ASM 24. 2. Cambridge, Pembroke College, 24: ASM 130. 3. Durham, Cathedral Library, A. III. 29: ASM 222. 4. Lincoln, Cathedral Library, 158 (C. 2. 2): ASM 273. 5. Lincoln, Cathedral Library, 182 (C. 2. 8) [with 184 fol. 1]: ASM 274. 6. London, British Library, Royal 2. C. iii: ASM 452. 7. Salisbury, Cathedral Library, 179: ASM 753. 8. Worcester, Cathedral Library, F. 94: ASM 763.2. Lists – A-S Vers none. Quots/Cits 1. Hom. II.22, 1-113: ALCVIN.Comm.Ioan., 1000.47 to 1002.29. 2. Hom. II.22, 127-72: ALCVIN.Comm.Ioan., 1002.34 to 1003.19. Refs none. The reading for the feast of saints Peter and Paul is John 21:15-19, Peter’s affirming his love of Christ three times, and Christ’s foretelling of Peter’s death. Bede began: “the present reading from the holy gospel commends to us the virtue of perfect love. Perfect love is that by which we are ordered to love the Lord with our whole heart, our whole soul and our whole strength, and our neighbor as ourselves” (trans. Martin and Hurst 1991 2.220).

Bible: Homilies

223

Quots/Cits 1-2. ALCUIN included two lengthy passages from the Homily in his Commentarius in Iohannis euangelium (ed. PL 100.737-1008; see Gorman 2009 pp 82-83). The first runs from Bede’s opening through his first comment on Christ’s command in John 21:17, “feed my sheep.” After a brief comment of his own, Alcuin returned to Bede, following him through his initial remark on John 21:19: “Peter glorified God by his death when by this evidence he showed everyone how much God was to be worshipped and loved” (trans. Martin and Hurst 1991 2.226). Homily II.22 is in the Homiliary of PAUL THE DEACON; see Réginald Grégoire (1980 p 461; II, 45). It is also edited in PL 94.214-19. A translation appears in Lawrence T. Martin and David Hurst (1991 2.220-28). Homily II.23 [BEDA.Hom. II.23]. ed.: CCSL 122.349-57. MSS 1. Cambridge, Pembroke College, 24: ASM 130. 2. Durham, Cathedral Library, A. III. 29: ASM 222. 3. Lincoln, Cathedral Library, 182 (C. 2. 8) [with 184 fol. 1]: ASM 274. Lists – A-S Vers none. Quots/Cits 1. Hom. II.23, 48-51: ÆCHom I, 32 (B1.1.34), 33-36. 2. Hom. II.23, 51-63: ÆCHom I, 32 (B1.1.34), 43-54. 3. Hom. II.23, 89-105: ÆCHom I, 32 (B1.1.34), 87-110. 4. Hom. II.23, 110-20: ÆCHom I, 32 (B1.1.34), 110-17. 5. Hom. II.23, 120-32: ÆCHom I, 32 (B1.1.34), 118-28. 6. Hom. II.23, 76-86: ÆCHom I, 32 (B1.1.34), 128-40. 7. Hom. II.23, 145-52: ÆCHom I, 32 (B1.1.34), 141-45. 8. Hom. II.23, 176-82: ÆCHom I, 32 (B1.1.34), 145-50. 9. Hom. II.23, 224-26: ÆCHom I, 32 (B1.1.34), 151-52. 10. Hom. II.23, 228-38: ÆCHom I, 32 (B1.1.34), 156-62. 11. Hom. II.23, 240-50 and 272-81: ÆCHom I, 32 (B1.1.34), 162-71. 12. Hom. II.23, 51-59: ÆHomM 6 (Irvine 1; B1.5.6), 48-56. 13. ? Hom. II.23, 55-59 : BYRHT.Vit.Ecg., 244.9-10. Refs none.

224 

BEDE – PART 2

The reading for the feast of the beheading of John the Baptist is the story as told in Matthew 14:1-12. Bede explained that “we must not only recall with pious devotion his steadfastness in suffering, but also turn into weapons of salvation the malice of those at whose hands he suffered” (trans. Martin and Hurst 1991 2.229). Quots/Cits 1-11. Although ÆLFRIC used Mark 6:17-29 as his Gospel reading, his “main source,” according to Malcolm Godden (2000 pp 266-67), for Homily 32 in his first series of Catholic Homilies (B1.1.34; ed. Clemoes 1997 pp 451-58) was Bede’s Homily II.23, which “provided much of the moral commentary on the reading and a fair amount of historical detail.” “This Herod, who had John the Baptist beheaded, and who was in agreement with Pilate during our Redeemer’s passion, was the son of the Herod during whose reign our Lord was born” (trans. Martin and Hurst 1991 2.231; 1). For the details in quotation 2 about the elder Herod, Bede drew on RUFINUS, to whom Ælfric also turned; “Rufinus, however, reports that Herod seized Herodias from Philip and that her father Areta waged war on him in revenge; Ælfric followed Bede’s version, that it was Areta himself who took his daughter from Philip and gave her to Herod” (see Godden p 269). Ælfric closely followed Bede’s interpretation of Matthew 14:6-7: “we hear at the same time of three evil deeds [done by] wicked people: the inauspicious celebration of a birthday, the lewd dancing of a girl, and the rash oath of a king” (trans. 2.232); this correspondence (3) also includes explicit moral comments and supporting biblical verses. Following Bede (4), Ælfric developed the discussion of swearing: “if we anywhere heedlessly swear, and the oath compel us to a worse deed, then will it be more advisable for us to avoid the greater guilt, and atone to God for the oath” (trans. Thorpe 1844-46 1.483), a point both supported with the example of David and Abigail (I Sm 25). Both related the previous point to Herod (5). Ælfric then turned to an earlier passage in Bede’s homily that contrasts Herod’s increasing fall into sin with John’s increasing sanctity (6). Herod’s sadness (Mt 14:9) is feigned (7). John is not asked to deny Christ, but sheds his blood for truth, anticipating Christ’s death just as his “earlier birth, preaching, and baptizing bore testimony to the one who was going to be born, to preach, and to baptize” (trans. Martin and Hurst 2.235; 8). John’s body is buried in Sebaste and his head in Jerusalem (9). Ælfric alone of these authors recounted a heretical story about John’s head, but then followed Bede in retelling other miracles associated with it, and in including the final resting place of his bones in Alexandria (10). In quotation 11, Ælfric combined two passages from Bede to reflect on why God allows his servants to suffer.

Bible: Homilies

225

Quots/Cits 12. In his homily on John 4:46-53 (B1.5.6; ed. Irvine 1993 pp 19-25), the healing of the king’s son, Ælfric returned to part of the material he used in quotation 2, the division of the Jewish kingdom into four parts under Augustus, as an example of under-kings. In her entries in Fontes Anglo-Saxonici Susan Irvine considers this a certain direct source. Quots/Cits 13. In the Vita Ecgwine (ed. Lapidge 2009 pp 206-302), BYRHTFERTH recorded the saint alluding to the fourfold division of Judea by the tetrarchs. Michael Lapidge (2009 p 244, note 28) comments that this division “is mentioned in Luke 3:1 and described by JOSEPHUS, Antiquitates Iudaicae, XVII.13.2; but Byrhtferth more likely knew the discussion by Bede”; he cites this work, the Commentarius in Lucam, and De temporum ratione. Homily II.23 is in the Homiliary of PAUL THE DEACON; see Réginald Grégoire (1980 p 466; II, 73). It is also edited in PL 94.237-43. A translation appears in Martin and Hurst (1991 2.229-39). Homily II.24 [BEDA.Hom. II.24]. ed.: CCSL 122.358-67. MSS 1. Cambridge, Pembroke College, 24: ASM 130. 2. Durham, Cathedral Library, A. III. 29: ASM 222. 3. Lincoln, Cathedral Library, 182 (C. 2. 8) [with 184 fol. 1]: ASM 274. 4. Salisbury, Cathedral Library, 179: ASM 753. 5. Worcester, Cathedral Library, F. 94: ASM 763.2. Lists – A-S Vers none. Quots/Cits 1. Hom. II.24, 2-4: ALCVIN.Comm.Ioan., 891.20-23. 2. Hom. II.24, 177-87: ALCVIN.Comm.Ioan., 891.23-35. 3. Hom. II.24, 13-28: ALCVIN.Comm.Ioan., 891.43 to 892.3. 4. Hom. II.24, 42-43: ALCVIN.Comm.Ioan., 892.9-11. 5. Hom. II.24, 142-54: ALCVIN.Comm.Ioan., 893.44 to 894.1. 6. Hom. II.24, 234-37: ÆCHom II, 45 (B1.2.49), 85-89. Refs none.

226 

BEDE – PART 2

The reading for the dedication of a church is John 10:22-30, Christ’s confrontation with the Jews in the temple when they ask if he is the Messiah. Quots/Cits 1-5. ALCUIN used only five brief passages from the homily in his Commentarius in Iohannis euangelium (ed. PL 100.737-1008; see Gorman 2009 p 75). “This ‘feast of the dedication’ referred to the solemn observance of the dedication of the temple, which God’s people used to celebrate each year according to the ancient tradition of their ancestors” (1; trans. Martin and Hurst 1991 2.241). He then turned to Bede’s later specification that the dedication in question is not of the first but of the third temple (2). Christians are also the Lord’s temple (3). The Jews ask if he is the Christ not “as seeking the truth of the faith but laying snares” (4; trans. 2.242-43). Finally, Christ makes it clear in the comment that “no man shall pluck them out of my hand” (Io 10:28) that “his power is one and the same with that of his Father,” an idea stated explicitly in John 10:30, which answers not only his Jewish interlocutors but also future heretics (trans. 2.246). Quots/Cits 5. ÆLFRIC adapted one idea from this homily in his Homily 40 (B1.2.49; ed. Godden 1979 pp 335-45) in his second series of Catholic Homilies. Bede wrote, “the temple which he built is his catholic Church, which he gathers into the one structure of his faith and charity from all the believers throughout the world, as if it were from living stones” (trans. Martin and Hurst 1991 2.249; see Godden 2000 p 664). Ælfric rendered this idea: “the peaceful Solomon reared the great house of earthly material to the honour of God, and the peaceful Christ constructed the ghostly church, not with dead stones, but with living souls…” (trans. Thorpe 1844-46 2.581). Homily II.24 is in the Homiliary of PAUL THE DEACON; see Réginald Grégoire (1980 p 477; II, 126). It is also edited in PL 94.243-50 and a translation appears in Lawrence T. Martin and David Hurst (1991 2.241-53). Homily II.25 [BEDA.Hom. II.25]. ed.: CCSL 122.368-78. MSS 1. Cambridge, Pembroke College, 24: ASM 130. 2. Durham, Cathedral Library, A. III. 29: ASM 222. 3. Lincoln, Cathedral Library, 182 (C. 2. 8) [with 184 fol. 1]: ASM 274. 4. Salisbury, Cathedral Library, 179: ASM 753. 5. Worcester, Cathedral Library, F. 94: ASM 763.2. Lists – Refs none.

Bible: Homilies

227

Bede related the reading, Luke 6:43-48, to the feast of the dedication of the church being celebrated: “just as we traditionally spend the night vigil joyfully singing additional psalms and [hearing] a larger number of lessons, in a church where many lights are burning and the walls are adorned more lavishly than usual, so should we always embellish the innermost recesses of our hearts with the indispensable adornments of good work; the flames of divine as well as of fraternal charity should always increase within us; remembrance of the heavenly commands and the holy sweetness of evangelical praise should always resound in the sanctuary of our breast. These are the fruits of the good tree, these are the treasures of the good heart, these are the foundations of the good architect which today’s reading from the holy gospel commends to us – not only the outward appearance of piety, but rather its power” (trans. Martin and Hurst 1991 2.255). He provided a detailed explanation of the tabernacle and the temple as images of the Church, concluding: “it has been pleasant, dearly beloved, for me to explain to this fraternal gathering, as part of the joy of our present festival, a few of the many details concerning the building of the temple. [I did this] so that the marvelous workmanship that went into the construction of the Lord’s earthly house might delight you as you heard about it, and so that these details, spiritually understood, might arouse our minds to more ardent love of our heavenly dwelling place” (trans. 2.267). Homily II.25 is in the Homiliary of PAUL THE DEACON; see Réginald Grégoire (1980 p 477; II, 125). It is also edited in PL 94.433-39 and a translation appears in Lawrence T. Martin and David Hurst (1991 2.255-67).

Letters The relationship of Bede’s letters to his other works is more complex than his statement in Historia ecclesiastica gentis Anglorum V.xxiv (ed. Lapidge 2010 2.482) that he placed five in a Liber epistolarum suggests. While we could have limited this section to these five and to two more, the Epistola ad Albinum and the Epistola ad Ecgberctum, that also circulated independently, to do so would have been to overlook what even they indicate about the different ways that Bede used this genre. Instead we discuss these seven letters along with fourteen additional texts that, while serving as prefaces to other works and so considered primarily as such in these fascicles on Bede, either began as letters or follow epistolary conventions; we exclude, however, prefaces without these conventions. We also include two letters, the Epistola ad Naitonum (Nechtan mac Derile) and the Epistola ad Gregorium papam, which Bede wrote for successive abbots, CEOLFRITH and HWÆTBERHT, and then included in other works, the Historia ecclesiastica and the Historia abbatum. As a group these letters reveal a surprising fluidity in Bede’s manipulation of generic conventions. Moreover, on a practical level, considering them together helps us not only to assess the immediate reception of these texts but also to date much of Bede’s corpus. The survival of the original letter, datable to 704/5, from WEALDHERE, bishop of London, to BEORHTWALD, archbishop of Canterbury, provides a dramatic reminder that sending and receiving epistolae would have been a normal (and yet not constantly interrupting) part of Bede’s life. From his reading, he would have understood that this experience was part of a much older practice, which we may recall here with a few examples that appear to have been significant to him. Both his Collectio ex opusculis Augustini in Epistulas Pauli and his Commentarius in epistolas septem catholicas attest to the importance he placed on the New Testament Epistles. Indeed, the latter work begins with a comment about the Epistle of James that establishes a letter’s ability to stand in for its author: “therefore, because he had been ordained an apostle for the circumcised, he took care both to teach those present from among the circumcised by speaking to them and also to encourage, instruct, rebuke, and correct the absent by letter” (trans. Hurst 1985 p 7). Moreover, many of JEROME’s prefaces for groups of biblical books such as the Pentateuch and the Gospels in the Vulgate take the form of letters. These chronicle his work as a translator, a role for which Bede held him in high regard (see, for example, his epigrams

230 

BEDE – PART 2

Hieronyme interpres uariis doctissime linguis and Hieronymus reserat dum mystica claustra uidentum). Bede would have known similar prefatory epistles in other works, for example AUGUSTINE’s De ciuitate Dei, and he almost certainly drew on collections of letters of both of these fathers throughout his writings (see Lapidge 2006 pp 201 and 217). Finally, his extensive use of the correspondence primarily between GREGORY THE GREAT and AUGUSTINE, archbishop of Canterbury, in Historia ecclesiastica I.xxiii-xxiv and xxvii-xxxii, demonstrates his respect for letters as historical sources (see further the Epistola ad Albinum below). While one might, then, consider the letters that serve as prefaces in modern editions to be only parts of those works and thus undeserving of separate entries, this literary context and indeed the evidence itself suggests that Bede recognized various forms and functions of the genre and exploited them in different ways. As its opening demonstrates, the Epistola ad Huaetberctum, which introduces the Commentarius in Apocalypsim, was composed as a formal preface: “the Revelation of St John, in which God has deigned to reveal in words and symbolic imagery the wars and inward conflagrations of his Church, seems to me, brother Eusebius, to be divided into seven sections” (trans. Wallis 2013 p 101). The reference to frater Eusebius here allows scholars to date this work to before 716 since Eusebius was the Latin name used by Bede and his colleagues for Hwætberht, who became abbot of Monkwearmouth-Jarrow in that year (Lapidge 2010 1.xlix). The confident tone of this letter, however, supports Faith Wallis’s (2014) argument that it and the Commentary itself were written early in Bede’s career in conjunction with De temporibus as he developed his response to the apocalyptic speculation of his day. This tone differs sharply from that of the Epistola ad Pleguinam, written in 708, in which Bede responded to an accusation of heresy linked to this same issue. Its opening offers a dramatic example of the mixing of oral and written culture exemplified by letters (trans. Wallis 1999 p 405): Two days ago, beloved brother, a messenger from your Sanctity came to me, bearing gladsome words of peaceful salutation from you. But soon thereafter he threw these into disorder by adding something very unfortunate, namely that you had heard it babbled out by lewd rustics in their cups that I was a heretic. I confess I was aghast; blanching, I asked of what heresy I was accused.

The ordered communication of a written letter, invoked by the “peaceful salutation” of the messenger – a necessary part in conveying missives at

Letters

231

this time – highlights the contrast to the charge made during a drunken feast. Moreover, as Wallis (2015) has shown, these events appear again in the Epistola ad Accam that precedes the Expositio Actuum apostolorum, where it serves as both an introduction to the work and a report to Bede’s friend and bishop about his literary activities. Since this letter also mentions “a very short explanation of the epistle of the most blessed evangelist John,” (trans. Martin 1989 p 6) it also dates Bede’s initial work on the Commentarius in Epistolas septem catholicas to this same period, around 709. Further evidence that some of Bede’s letters that accompanied his works were indeed considered personal missives rather than formal prefaces is provided by the Epistola ad Albinum. Written to travel with a copy of the Historia ecclesiastica and to thank the abbot of St Peter’s and St Paul’s Canterbury for having sent Nothhelm with the letters of Gregory and Augustine of Canterbury that Bede used in that work, this letter was known until recently only from its printing by Jean Mabillon (1675 p 9) from a subsequently lost manuscript. Joshua Westgard (2010a) has found two copies of it in Continental manuscripts of De templo, a work sent, as the letter indicates, to Albinus at the same time. Following Westgard (p 211), we must imagine a piece of parchment that was then placed in one volume rather than the other. Taken together, Bede’s letters also demonstrate not only the diversity in the basic literacy of his immediate community but also the complex relationship of oral to written culture at the time. At one extreme was John of Beverley, who ordained Bede both deacon and priest and to whose miracles Bede devoted five chapters in the Historia ecclesiastica (ed. Lapidge 2010 2.480 and 330-50). As the letter, the Epistola ad Iohannem, that serves as the preface to the metrical Vita Cuthberti reveals, Bede revised this difficult work for John in order to provide him with suitable reading material on what Bede believed would be his journey to Rome in 716 (see Biggs 2015). One detail deserves particular comment here, Bede’s remark about Cuthbert’s posthumous miracles: “ex quibus unum est, quod in me ipso sicut jam tibi dixi, per linguae curationem, dum miracula eius canerem, expertus sum” (ed. Jaager 1935 p 57; “among [them] is one, as I have already told you, that happened to me through the guiding of my tongue while I was singing his miracles”). In directing Bede’s “tongue” as he revised the written work, Cuthbert himself entered the oral/written conversation between the two friends, one that Bede appeared certain John would understand. At the other extreme is Helmwald, known only from Bede’s letter to him. As it makes clear, Helmwald, who was then separated from Bede “through vast distances of land and sea” (trans. Wallis 1999 p 416), had written him in

232 

BEDE – PART 2

order to learn more about leap-year day. Bede’s response, however, reveals that Helmwald was barely literate, having just begun “to devote some effort to reading” (trans. p 416). It seems likely, then, that he dictated rather than wrote his now lost letter to Bede. Yet Bede’s respect for him seems genuine, and, while omitting the salutation, he incorporated the rest of the letter into De temporum ratione. In contrast, the Epistola ad Wicthedum arose out of a discussion Bede had with a monk at another unidentified monastery, who knew one of Bede’s sources for De temporum ratione well enough to challenge him on his use of it. After returning to Monkwearmouth-Jarrow, Bede received letters from Wicthed continuing their discussions and so he responded by “promptly” copying out the chapters requested by him and composing a new explanation of their main point of disagreement. Letters again bridged the gap between speech and writing, a theme that Bede developed a final time in his Epistola ad Ecgberctum. The letters themselves may be introduced by their groups. Immediately following his biblical commentaries in the list of his works at the end of the Historia ecclesiastica, Bede named five, which are more like scholarly treatises than occasional missives, contained in another book (ed. Lapidge 2010 2.482; trans. Colgrave and Mynors 1969 p 569): Item librum epistularum ad diuersos: quarum de sex aetatibus saeculi una est, de mansionibus filiorum Israel una, una de eo quod ait Isaias Et claudentur ibi in carcerem et post multos dies uisitabuntur, de ratione bissexti una, de aequinoctio iuxta Anatolium una. (Also a book of letters to various people: one of these is on the six ages of the world; one on the resting places of the children of Israel; one on the words of Isaiah, “And they shall be shut up in the prison, and after many days shall they be visited”; one on the reason for leap year; and one on the equinox, after Anatolius.)

While the book itself has left no evidence of its circulation in Anglo-Saxon England, its five letters have survived, and are discussed below in separate entries, each identified by its recipient: the Epistola ad Accam (De eo quod ait Isaias), the Epistola ad Accam (De mansionibus filiorum Israel), the Epistola ad Helmualdum (De ratione bissexti), the Epistola ad Pleguinam (De sex aetatibus saeculi), and the Epistola ad Wicthedum (De aequinoctio iuxta Anatolium). In the case of ACCA, bishop of Hexham, the titles distinguish various letters that he received and so we consider them part of the name of the letter. The Epistola ad Ecgberctum differs from these

Letters

233

five letters in that it was written after 731 and so was not mentioned in the Historia ecclesiastica. Three similar works require comment. Bede listed In Regum librum xxx quaestiones among his biblical commentaries in Historia ecclesiastica V.xxiv, and so we too have placed the main entry on this work there. Its preface, however, demonstrates that the work was written in response to questions sent to him, presumably in a letter, by Nothhelm, later archbishop of Canterbury (735-39). In any case, since the response takes the form of a lengthy epistle, we discuss its epistolary preface here, using the title, Epistola ad Nothelmum, as well as mentioning it in the main entry on the work as a whole. Related to this text is the VIII quaestiones, which appears to have been drawn by Bede from letters he wrote to Nothhelm in the years following In regum librum xxx quaestiones, so after 715. However, because Bede stripped away the epistolary form of his answers when he compiled this work, it does not receive a separate entry in this section on letters. Finally, like In Regum librum xxx quaestiones, the Commentarius in Canticum Habacuc was written at the request of an anonymous nun, who apparently contacted Bede sometime after he had established his reputation as a commentator on scripture. Although it lacks a formal salutation and valediction, the nun is addressed at both the beginning and end of the work. Since, however, Bede included it in the list of his works in Historia ecclesiastica V.xxiv, our main entry for this commentary is there; we treat it here under the title Epistola ad sororem only in the context of his other letters. As the previous paragraph indicates, the most complicated group of letters to define are those that were written or have come to serve as prefaces. They are so precisely because Bede himself often fused and then played on these generic expectations, as is most clear in his letters to Acca. As already mentioned, the one that precedes the Expositio Actuum apostolorum is a genuine letter, serving other purposes than to introduce the Commentary. The preface to the Commentarius in Lucam is actually two letters, one from Acca to Bede requesting the work, and Bede’s response as he delivered it. Three more works, the Commentarius in Genesim, the Epistola ad Accam (De mansionibus filiorum Israel), and the Epistola ad Accam (De eo quod ait Isaias), begin with formal salutations; in the case of the last two, the valedictions appear at the ends of the works. Finally, three prefaces, those for the Commentarius in primam partem Samuhelis, the Commentarius in Ezram et Neemiam, and De templo, omit salutations, but then, at later points, address Acca directly. In De templo this address takes the form of a salutation. When taken together, this evidence suggests a chronology for these letters, which extends from Bede’s first, excited missive when

234 

BEDE – PART 2

he learned of his friend’s appointment to the see of Hexham, to a farewell, written at a moment when he feared that Acca would indeed be removed from his post as Bede’s bishop. Although the entries in this section are organized alphabetically, the following list, which dispenses with our normal practice of putting the first mention of a work in bold, small capitals, orders the letters according to when they were written. c. 701

Epistola ad Huaetberctum (Commentarius in Apocalypsim): preface.

703-25

Epistola ad Helmualdum: named in the Liber epistolarum and partially included in De temporum ratione.

708

Epistola ad Pleguinam: named in the Liber epistolarum.

c. 709

Epistola ad Accam (Expositio Actuum apostolorum): preface.

c. 710-16 Epistola ad Naitonum: recorded in the Historia ecclesiastica. c. 711

Epistola ad Accam (Commentarius in Lucam): preface.

c. 713

Epistola ad Accam (Commentarius in Genesim): preface.

c. 713-16 Epistola ad Iohannem: preface to the revision of the Vita Cuthberti metrica. c. 715

Epistola ad Nothelmum: preface to In Regum librum xxx quaestiones.

c. 715-17 Epistolae ad Accam (Commentarius in primam partem Samuhelis): preface. 716

Epistola ad Gregorium papam: recorded in the Historia abbatum.

c. 716-17 Epistola ad Accam (De mansionibus filiorum Israel): named in the Liber epistolarum. c. 716-17 Epistola ad Accam (De eo quod ait Isaias): named in the Liber epistolarum.

235

Letters

c. 717-31 Epistola ad sororem: preface to the Commentarius in canticum Habacuc. c. 720-31 Epistola ad Accam (Commentarius in Marcum): preface. c. 721

Epistola ad Eadfridum: preface to the Vita Cuthberti prosa.

725

Epistola ad Huaetberctum: preface to De temporum ratione.

725-31

Epistola ad Wicthedum: named in the Liber epistolarum.

725-31

Epistola ad Accam (Commentarius in Ezram et Neemiam): preface.

731

Epistola ad Accam (De templo): preface.

731

Epistola ad Albinum: sent to Canterbury with the Historia ecclesiastica and De templo.

731

Epistola ad Ceoluulfum: preface to the Historia ecclesiastica.

734

Epistola ad Ecgberctum.

Although not a study of Bede’s letters, Dorothy Whitelock’s 1976 essay, “Bede and His Teachers and Friends,” draws on them to provide many insights into Bede’s immediate circle. The PL (94.655-710) prints sixteen texts as Bede’s epistolae: 1. Epistola ad Albinum (94.655-57); 2. Epistola ad Ecgberctum (94.657-69); 3. Epistola ad Pleguinam (94.669-75); 4. Epistola ad Wicthedum ( 94.675-80); 5. Epistola ad Accam (Commentarius in Genesim) (94.684-85); 6. Epistola ad Accam (De templo) (94.685-87); 7. Epistola ad Nothelmum (94.687); 8. Epistola ad Accam (Commentarius in Marcum) (94.688-89); 9. Epistola ad Accam (Commentarius in Lucam) (94.689-92); 10. Epistola ad Accam (Expositio Actuum apostolorum) (94.692-94); 11. the preface to the Retractatio in Actus apostolorum (94.694); 12. Epistola ad Huaetberctum (Commentarius in Apocalypsim) (94.694-97); 13. Epistolae ad Accam (Commentarius in primam partem Samuhelis) (94.697-99; only the prologue to book 1); 14. Epistola ad Accam (De mansionibus filiorum Israel) (94.699-702); Epistola ad Accam (De eo quod ait Isaias) (94.702-710); and 16. the preface to the Commentarius in epistolas septem catholicas (94.710).

236 

BEDE – PART 2

Liber epistolarum. MSS none. Lists ? Alcuin: ML 1.7. A-S Vers – Quots/Cits none. Refs ? BONIF.Epist. 75, 158.8-12. There is no specific evidence from Anglo-Saxon England of the circulation of this work, listed in Historia ecclesiastica gentis Anglorum V.xxiv (ed. Lapidge 2010 2.482). We mention it here because ALCUIN’s general reference to Bede in Michael Lapidge’s first booklist (ML 1), the section of his Versus de sanctis Euboricensis ecclesiae (ed. and trans. Godman 1982 p 122) that describes the books he was given by Ælberht, archbishop of York, could refer to it. Similarly, BONIFACE’s request in his Epistola 75 (ed. MGH ES 1.158) for copies of Bede’s works might also reflect his knowledge of it; see the introduction, BEDE, in volume 1. The question of which letters Bede included in this book may be pursued by considering three manuscripts that are not copies of other works and that contain more than one letter. Two preserve only letters that Bede listed in the Historia ecclesiastica. According to the online catalogue (http:// archivesetmanuscrits.bnf.fr/), Paris, Bibliothèque nationale de France, lat. 2840, from the ninth century, has copies of the Epistola ad Accam (De mansionibus filiorum Israel), the Epistola ad Accam (De eo quod ait Isaias), and the Epistola ad Wicthedum. [Rome], Città del Vaticano, Biblioteca Apostolica Vaticana, Reg. lat. 123, written in 1056, contains the Epistola ad Wicthedum and the Epistola ad pleguinam (see Wilmart 1937 pp 289-92). Finally, a fifteenth-century manuscript in Merton College Oxford, 49, contains all five of the letters named by Bede in the list in Historia ecclesiastica V.xxiv, and the Epistola ad Ecgberctum. This evidence, then, suggests that the Liber epistolarum contained only the letters listed by Bede and, as an addition after 731, his last, long letter. It is, however, both slight and late. To it can be added the continued circulation of the Epistola ad Accam that accompanied the first, shorter version of

Letters

237

the Commentarius in Genesim with the second version, which suggests that this letter was kept at the front of the house copy. In contrast, if, as the rubric at the opening of the VIII quaestiones (“here begins the work to the same man on the eight questions which he has forwarded”; ed. and trans. Gorman 1999 p 34) suggests, Bede created this work out of his responses to questions posed most likely by Nothhelm at different times, he must have kept copies of his letters, perhaps with if not in his Liber epistolarum. Epistola ad Accam (Commentarius in Ezram et Neemiam) [BEDA.Comm. Ez.Neh.]. ed.: CCSL 119A.237. MSS – Refs none. The brief prologue to the Commentarius in Ezram et Neemiam is included here as a letter on the strength of its direct address to ACCA, bishop of Hexham (709-31), near its opening: “quapropter reuerendissime antistes Acca tuis diligenter obsecundans hortamentis considerando eidem uolumini operam dedi confidens uero adiutore et consolatore domino ac saluatore nostro Iesu Christo quia donet nobis propitius retecto cortice litterae altius aliud et sacratius in medulla sensus spiritalis inuenire quod uidelicet ipsum dominum ac templum et ciuitatem eius quae nos sumus propheticis quidem f iguris sed manifesta ratione designet” (ed. CCSL 119A.237; “and so, most reverend Bishop Acca, complying diligently with your exhortations, I have put my effort into considering this volume, trusting in our true Helper and Consoler, our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ, that he may be gracious to give us [the ability] to find, when the bark of the text is peeled back, something deeper and more sacred in the marrow of the spiritual sense, since by prophetic figures but in a clear way it designates the Lord himself and his temple and city, which we are,” trans. DeGregorio 2006 pp 1-2). As Scott DeGregorio explains in the introduction to his translation (trans. p xxvi), the metaphors of “bark” (cortex) and “marrow” (medulla) echoed the passage from Epistola 53 of JEROME that he had just quoted. Indeed, Bede returned to Jerome at the end of the prologue, identifying him as the main source for the Commentary: “in this work the greatest help to us was the aforementioned teacher of the Church, Jerome, in his explanation of the prophets, who themselves had foretold that the same events which Ezra and Nehemiah wrote about would be carried out under the figure of Christ and the Church” (trans. p 2).

238 

BEDE – PART 2

The date of the Commentary and so of its prefatory letter has not been settled. Arguing against Paul Meyvaert (1996, 1999, and 2005), DeGregorio places the work late in Bede’s career by emphasizing “Bede’s presentation of Ezra as scholar, priest, and religious reformer” (2006 p xxxv), and thus linking it to the theme of reform that Alan Thacker (1983) finds especially in the Epistola ad Ecgberctum, written in 734. The arguments are complex, but both the tone and the content of the prologue support Meyvaert’s position that Bede began work on the Commentary when he confronted the unusual portrait of CASSIODORUS that had been placed in the opening folios of the Codex Grandior, the now lost inspiration of the Codex Amiatinus. Unable to identify its actual subject, Bede interpreted it as representing Ezra as a model for Christ (see Codicibus sacris hostili clade perustis in Poetry: Epigrams). Since this interpretation underlies the new image in the Codex Amiatinus, Meyvaert places Bede’s work on the Commentary in the period immediately preceding CEOLFRITH’s departure to Rome in 716 with the codex. On the other hand, as DeGregorio rightly stresses (2006a pp xxxvii-xli) Bede’s explicit reference in book 3 to De temporum ratione, completed in 725, means that at least this part of the work – or indeed the work as a whole, as DeGregorio argues – must have been written after that date. Bede’s comment, “de qua tota prophetae sententia plenissime prout potui disserere in temporum libro curaui” (ed. CCSL 119A.342-43; “in the Reckoning of Time I have undertaken to discuss the prophet’s whole meaning in full, as best I could,” trans. DeGregorio 2006 p 160), is uncharacteristic, but cannot be dismissed as a gloss that was later incorporated into the text, since it comes at the end of a long discussion of a passage from Daniel that bears on Nehemiah only because Bede connected the two. His unravelling of the “seventy prophetic weeks” in chapter 9 of De temporum ratione, which has no equivalent in his earlier De temporibus (see Wallis 1999 pp 279-80), is the source for the passage as a whole. The issue can be resolved by postulating that Bede interrupted his work on the Commentarius in Genesim, as its Epistola ad Accam discussed in the next entry indicates, to research the figure of Ezra, whom he believed to be represented in the owner-portrait of the Codex Grandior. Although we differ with some of his dates for individual commentaries, we endorse both Conor O’Brien’s (2015) approach to unfolding Bede’s theology around the image of the temple and his conclusion that “the core of Bede’s interest in that image, which reached fruition in the temple commentaries, developed in the years immediately preceding 716” (p 188). This letter, then, was written when, sometime after 725, Bede added book 3 on Nehemiah to material he had previously written on Ezra, and sent the work to Acca, overstating slightly his influence on its origin.

Letters

239

Epistola ad Accam (Commentarius in Genesim) [BEDA.Comm.Gen.]. ed.: CCSL 118A.1-2. MSS – Refs none. The Commentarius in Genesim, which this letter to ACCA accompanies, has resisted a firm dating in part because it is a composite text, written at different times, and in part because the letter discusses the Commentarius in ezram et neemiam, which itself has been associated by Paul Meyvaert (1996, 1999, and 2005) with the production of the Ezra portrait in the Codex Amiatinus, and so to before 716 and by Scott DeGregorio (2002, 2004, and 2006a) with a perceived shift late in Bede’s career toward Church reform, and so after 725. Recognizing the letter’s place in the correspondence between Bede to Acca allows us to resolve both issues. After the composition of the Epistola ad Accam (Commentarius in Lucam) in around 711 but before the writing of the next two letters, the Epistola ad Accam (De mansionibus filiorum Israel) and the Epistola ad Accam (De eo quod ait Isaias), from shortly after CEOLFRITH’s departure for Rome in 716, Bede did indeed turn to writing a commentary on Ezra; he did not, however, complete it and send it to Acca with its accompanying letter until much later, after 725. The first, shorter version of the Commentarius in Genesim, then, joins the initial work on the Commentarius in Ezram et Neemiam, the Commentarius in primam partem Samuhelis, which includes its own Epistolae ad Accam, In Regum librum xxx quaestiones, with its Epistola ad Nothelmum, and the revision of the metrical Vita Cuthberti, with its Epistola ad Iohannem, as the texts on which Bede was working in the years prior to the summer of 716. This letter to Acca makes it clear that the Commentarius in Genesim existed in two versions, a shorter one in two books covering Genesis 1:1-3:4 and a later one, which, combining the original two books into one, continuing the exposition of Genesis through the birth of Isaac and the expulsion of Ishmael (Gen 21:9-10). In describing the work’s structure, Bede reminded Acca that he had indeed requested this volume, making it unlikely that Bede wrote it before completing the Commentarius in Lucam, a work that had been requested earlier by his bishop (see the following entry). Here, after summarizing the major commentaries on Genesis written by the Fathers, Bede continued (ed. CCSL 118A.1; trans. Kendall 2008 p 66),

240 

BEDE – PART 2

Verum quia haec tam copiosa tam sunt alta ut uix nisi a locupletioribus tot uolumina adquiri, uix tam profunda nisi ab eruditioribus ualeant perscrutari, placuit uestrae sanctitati id nobis officii iniungere ut de omnibus his, uelut de amoenissimis late florentis paradisi campis, quae infirmorum uiderentur necessitati sufficere decerperemus. Nec segnior in exequendo quae iubere es dignatus extiti, quin potius statim perspectis patrum uoluminibus collegi ex his ac duobus in libellis distinxi, quae rudem adhuc possent instituere lectorem, quibus eruditus ad altiorem disceret fortioremque maiorum ascendere lectionem. (But because these are so copious and deep that so many volumes can scarcely be acquired except by the very wealthy and such profound matter can scarcely be studied except by the very learned, it pleased your holiness to place the duty upon me to gather from all these, as if from the most delightful fields of a widely blooming paradise, those things which would seem sufficient for the needs of the weak. I have not been tardy in carrying out what you deigned to command, but rather, after thoroughly perusing the volumes of the fathers, I immediately selected from them, and arranged in two books, those things which could instruct a still inexperienced reader and by which a scholar might learn to climb to the higher and more powerful reading of our elders.)

The surprise is that when Bede returned to this Commentary, perhaps around 720 (Kendall 2008 pp 46-47), he did not write a new preface for it. Michael Gorman (1996b p 306) concludes from a study of its thirteen manuscripts that the letter “remained attached to the commentary.” From this evidence, we would draw two further conclusions. First, although he included the work in Historia ecclesiastica gentis Anglorum V.xxiv as “in principium Genesis, usque ad natiuitatem Isaac et eiectionem Ismahelis” (ed. Lapidge 2010 2.480; “the beginning of Genesis up to the birth of Isaac and the casting out of Ishmael,” Colgrave and Mynors 1969 p 567), he might still have considered it only a “beginning,” in need of further work. Second, Bede added to the work simply by placing new quires next to those that already existed, so these then were all copied together at later times. This detail reveals the shape of the house copy of the work and at least one place where Bede preserved a copy of this letter. As he reinforced the point just discussed – the recognition that he would need to return to the Commentary on Genesis to complete it – Bede hinted at why he was interrupting his work: another project had captured his attention. As Meyvaert (1996 pp 881-82 and 1999 p 281) explains, Bede was at

Letters

241

this moment both at the beginning of his work, not recognizing for example that he would eventually write on both Ezra and Nehemiah, and quite far along since his “full description of the importance of Ezra, in terms of Christ and the Church, resembles the much longer statement about Ezra that we find at the end of book 2 of the Commentary on Ezra and Nehemiah” (p 281). The passage in the letter is as follows (ed. CCSL 118A.2; trans. Kendall 2008 pp 66-67): Aliqua etiam de sequentibus sacrae historiae, si Deus uoluerit auxilio uestrae intercessionis comitante, scripturus, dum primo librum sancti Esrae prophetae ac sacerdotis in quo Christi et ecclesiae sacramenta sub f igura, solutae longae captiuitatis, restaurati templi, reaedif icatae ciuitatis, reductorum in Hierosolimam uasorum quae abducta, rescriptae legis Dei quae incensa fuerat, castigati ab uxoribus alienigenis populi, et uno corde atque anima in Dei seruitium conuersi, ut propheta simul et historicus conscripsit, parum perscrutatus fuero, et aliqua ex his quae commemoraui sacramentis apertiora studiosis, Deo fauente, reddidero. (I shall write some things also about subsequent events of the sacred narrative, God willing, with the attendant help of your intercession, after I first investigate, however inadequately, the book of the holy prophet and priest Ezra, in which is found the sacraments of Christ and the Church under the allegorical figure of the release from the long captivity, the restoration of the temple, the rebuilding of the city, the return to Jerusalem of the vessels which had been taken away, the rewriting of the Law which had been burned, the purification of the people from the foreign wives, and the people’s conversion with one heart and soul to the service of God, as the prophet who was also a historian wrote; and after I explain more openly for the learned, with the help of God, some of these sacraments which I have mentioned.)

The result of this research, as Meyvaert has demonstrated, was the transformation of the portrait of CASSIODORUS that Bede and his community found in the Codex Grandior into the Ezra/Christ portrait placed in the Codex Amiatinus, which departed with Ceolfrith for Rome in 716. Before completing the Commentarius in Ezram et Neemiam, Bede undertook a more extensive study of the Old Testament, turning first to the Commentarius in primam partem Samuhelis, since it was on this that he was working when Ceolfrith departed.

242 

BEDE – PART 2

Epistola ad Accam (Commentarius in Lucam) [BEDA.Comm.Luc.]. ed.: CCSL 120.5-10. MSS 1. Cambridge, Pembroke College, 83: ASM 134. 2. Oxford, Bodleian Library, Bodley 218 (S.C. 2054): ASM 557. 3. Salisbury, Cathedral Library, 37: ASM 706. Lists – Refs none. The prologue to the Commentarius in Lucam consists of two letters, the first from ACCA to Bede and the second from Bede to Acca. It must have been written after 709, the year Acca became bishop of Hexham, because Bede addressed him using the title episcopus. It was also certainly written after the Expositio Actuum apostolorum, dated to around that year, since in the Epistola ad Accam that precedes this work, the Commentarius in Lucam, is mentioned as not yet having been composed. Finally, in the Epistola ad Accam that precedes the Commentarius in Marcum, Bede mentioned that he had written the Commentary on Luke “ante annos plurimos” (ed. CCSL 120.432; “many years before”); recorded in the list of works in Historia ecclesiastica gentis Anglorum V.xxiv (ed. Lapidge 2010 2.482), this work must have been written before 731. On the basis of this information, the two works can be placed at the opposite ends of 709-731. There is circumstantial evidence that would place these letters and the Commentary they introduce around 711. Most compelling is Bede’s discussion of the work in the letter to Acca that precedes the Expositio Actuum apostolorum, which makes it clear that Acca had repeatedly suggested that Bede write a commentary on Luke “following in the footsteps of the fathers” (trans. Martin 1989 p 3). Although Acca’s letter to Bede does not correspond exactly to this earlier letter, it too states that Acca often asked Bede to compose this work: “saepe quidem tuae sanctae fraternitati et absens scribendo et conloquendo praesens suggessi ut post expositionem actuum apostolorum in euangelium quoque Lucae scribere digneris” (ed. CCSL 120.5; “often indeed did I, in writing when apart and in speech when together, advise your holy brotherhood that, following the Expositio Actuum apostolorum, you agree to write on the Gospel of Luke”). Moreover, since there is no further mention of this Commentary in Bede’s subsequent letters to Acca accompanying other expositions of the Bible, it appears the request was fulfilled before he turned to them. In our opinion, the next to

Letters

243

be written is the Commentarius in Genesim, which also is preceded by an Epistola ad Accam. Acca requested that Bede write on this Gospel even though it had been commented on by AMBROSE and others since the earlier works were too erudite and complex for his students. Bede’s response pointed out how he had gone about the difficult task, explaining his careful use and citation of patristic sources (ed. CCSL 120.7). He then noted that he had added some things which “mihi auctor lucis aperuit proprii sudoris indicia” (ed. 120.7; “the Lord of light has revealed to me as marks of my own sweat”). He hastened to point out, though, that those who had accused him of idiosyncratic originality, as, for instance, in his assigning the symbol of the lion to Matthew and of the man to Mark in his earlier Commentarius in Apocalypsim, ought to realize that it was not his notion but AUGUSTINE’s. He then quoted Augustine at length from De consensu evangelistarum to prove it. MSS Since David Hurst’s edition in the CCSL uses the Oxford manuscript, the prologue certainly appears in it. It is also apparently included in the other two manuscripts. As yet, there is no English translation of the letter. Epistola ad Accam (Commentarius in Marcum) [BEDA.Comm.Marc.]. ed.: CCSL 120.431-32. MSS – Refs none. Although David Hurst identifies the first long quotation in this prologue to the Commentarius in Marcum as drawn from the so-called Monarchian prologue to Mark’s Gospel, Bede actually used a passage from RUFINUS’s Latin version of EUSEBIUS’s Historia ecclesiastica gentis Anglorum (ed. Schwarz and Mommsen 1999 1.141). In it, Eusebius explained that Mark wrote his Gospel at the request of Peter’s followers. Bede then, as Hurst notes, drew on JEROME’s De uiribus inlustribus to recount Mark’s preaching in Egypt. Following these opening remarks, he addressed ACCA, bishop of Hexham (709-31), at whose request he had written this commentary. Since he also mentioned the Commentarius in primam partem Samuhelis, it must have been composed after 716. Moreover, his comment that he had written his Commentarius in Lucam “many years before” (“ante annos plurimos,” ed. CCSL 120.432) makes it more likely that it is a work of the 720s (see also the main entry). As yet, there is no English translation of the prologue.

244 

BEDE – PART 2

Epistolae ad Accam (Commentarius in primam partem Samuhelis) [BEDA. Comm.Sam.]. ed.: CCSL 119.9-10, 68-70, 137, and 212. MSS – Refs none. The complex process of Bede’s writing of the Commentarius in primam partem Samuhelis is reflected in its four prologues, one preceding each book, two of which contain direct addresses to ACCA. Following De eo quod ait Isaias, this is Bede’s first letter to his bishop that does not begin with a formal salutation. His next letter to him, the preface to the Commentarius in Marcum, also lacks the characteristic form of an epistle. Since the opening prologue mentions both the Commentarius in Lucam and the Expositio Actuum apostolorum, it confirms that these works were written before it. On the other hand, the failure to mention the Commentarius in Genesim and the Commentarius in Ezra et Neemiam means only that Bede did not complete these during this period. The fourth prologue allows us to date the first three books of the Commentary to before the summer of 716. In it, Bede explained that after a little rest he was ready to take on the last section, but the resignation of his abbot CEOLFRITH and his departure as a pilgrim to Rome (and to the other life) gave him such a shock he was unable to continue for a time. But now with the new abbot, HWÆTBERHT, chosen by the community, Bede would finish the commentary, taking up at the place where David defeats the Philistines at Celia (Keilah), namely 1 Samuel 23:1, and provide it with a “mystical” interpretation. The first prologue, which addresses Acca near its middle, establishes the authority for Bede’s allegorical approach to this historical book. Bede opened with three passages from the Bible, two from Paul’s letters and a third from Peter’s teachings: “for what things soever were written, were written for our learning” (Rom 15:4); “Now all these things happened to them in figure: and they were written for our correction, on whom the ends of the world have come” (1 Cor 10:11); and “And all the prophets, from Samuel and afterwards, who have spoken, have told of these days” (Acts 3:24). Building on the reference to Samuel, Bede claimed he would carve out (exsculpere) the allegorical heart of the text, so that to the historical literal reading favoured by the Jewish tradition he would, with Christ’s help, add the spiritual symbolic meaning. He then closed the prologue with a rhetorical envelope, invoking the aid of Peter, whom he had quoted at the beginning.

Letters

245

The surprising second prologue addresses “matters of chronology” (ed. CCSL 119.68). The third, which again addresses Acca directly, summarizes the first two books and introduces the main allegorical meaning of the third: Saul, who represents the rule of the Jews, will give way to the rule of Christ’s church. A translation by Scott DeGregorio and Rosalind Love is in preparation. Epistola ad Accam (De eo quod ait Isaias) [BEDA.Epist.Acc.eo.]: CPL 1366. ed.: PL 94.702-10 MSS – Refs none. Chronologically the second of two letters written to ACCA in 716 (see the following entry for the other), Bede referred to it as part of his collection of letters in Historia ecclesiastica gentis Anglorum V.xxiv: “de eo quod ait Isaias, Et claudentur ibi in carcerem et post multos dies uisitabuntur” (ed. Lapidge 2010 2.482; “on the words of Isaiah, ‘And they shall be shut up in the prison and after many days shall they be visited,’” trans. Colgrave and Mynors 1969 p 569), the quotation being from Isaias 24:22. At issue is the eternal punishment of the damned. While the wording in Isaiah might suggest some relief from or indeed an end to their suffering, Bede interpreted this verse in the context of the resurrection and judgement and so not opposed to other scriptural passages on the conditions after these events. This discussion then led him to consider the time of judgement. As suggested in the following entry, Acca might have posed these questions to Bede following CEOLFRITH’s unexpected departure for Rome in 716 as a way to help Bede begin writing again. If so, Acca might perhaps not have actually misunderstood what Bede had written on this topic in his Commentarius in primam partem Samuhelis, but only seemed to as a way of asking a question he was sure Bede could answer. Bede apparently remained unaware of his friend’s good intentions and spent more time reiterating his position on this matter than in responding to Acca’s other question. For a translation, see W. Trent Foley and Arthur G. Holder (1999 pp 29-34). Epistola ad Accam (De mansionibus filiorum Israel) [BEDA.Epist.Acc. mans.]: CPL 1365. ed.: PL 94.699-702. MSS – Refs none.

246 

BEDE – PART 2

At the beginning of this letter, Bede informed ACCA, bishop of Hexham, that he had set aside writing his Commentarius in primam partem Samuhelis to answer his two questions in a pair of letters, discussed here and in the previous entry. The work is usually referred to by the title given in the Historia ecclesiastica gentis Anglorum, “de mansionibus filiorum Israel” (ed. Lapidge 2010 2.482; “on the resting-places of the children of Israel,” trans. Colgrave and Mynors 1969 p 568). Its subject is the listing in Numbers 33 of the forty-two encampments of the Israelites during their forty-year journey from Egypt to Canaan. Bede explained that he understood them to refer only to those of the first, second, and fortieth years, allowing him at the end of the letter to explain, following JEROME, the moral significance of relating this information in this way: it represents the Church’s and the individual soul’s ascent to God. Since Bede was working on the Commentarius in primam partem Samuhelis in 716 when his abbot, CEOLFRITH, left suddenly for Rome, this letter and the related one to Acca, De eo quod ait Isaias, were written around this time. We would place the date more precisely in the months following the departure. According to the Historia abbatum (ed. Grocock and Wood 2013 p 68), Acca visited Monkwearmouth-Jarrow in order to confirm HWÆTBERHT in his new position as the successor to Ceolfrith. Here he would have found Bede, according to Bede’s own account at the beginning of book 4 of the Commentary on Samuel, unable to write because of anxiety caused by the recent events. Acca asked his friend an obscure question that might resonate with his thoughts about his former abbot’s journey to help him begin writing again. Although Bede’s reply suggests that he had already returned to work, he answered this request quickly, demonstrating his impressive command of all parts of the Bible. For a translation, see W. Trent Foley and Arthur G. Holder (1999 pp 29-34). Epistola ad Accam (De templo) [BEDA.Templ.]. ed.: CCSL 119A.143-45. MSS Cambridge, Pembroke College, 81: ASM 133. Lists – Refs none. With its salutation, “bene uale semper dilectissime et pro nobis intercede” (ed. CCSL 119A.145; “farewell my ever most beloved friend and intercede for

Letters

247

us,” trans. Connolly 1995 p 4), the preface to De templo suggests that Bede recognized this work as the last that he would address to ACCA to whom he had been sending his commentaries for around twenty years, while he would still be bishop of Hexham. Acca’s name is not mentioned, and yet it appears certain that Bede was addressing him. The date of De templo is not in question: since it is included in the list of Bede’s works in Historia ecclesiastica gentis Anglorum V.xxiv (ed. Lapidge 2010 2.480), it must have been written before 731. Moreover, the Epistola ad Albinum, which accompanied copies of the two texts when they were sent to Canterbury around that time, describes the De templo as having been “recently” (“nuper,” ed. Westgard 2010a p 214) completed. At that point Acca was still bishop of Hexham. However, as the first entry in the continuation of Bede’s chronological epitome in Historia ecclesiastica V.xxiv that is found in the Moore manuscript states, in that year “Acca episcopus de sua sede fugatus” (“Bishop Acca was driven from his see,” ed. and trans. Colgrave and Mynors 1969 pp 572-73). Citing these facts, Dorothy Whitelock (1976 p 27) comments that “Bede’s later years must have been saddened by Acca’s troubles,” which she suggests began when Ceolwulf came to the throne in 729. It is, then, as the final chapter in the long intellectual exchange between these two that this letter should be read. Opening with Romans 15:4, “for what things soever were written were written for our learning, that through patience and the comfort of the scriptures we might have hope,” Bede turned quickly to the “punishments imposed by the just judge” and “the dark affliction those eminent Fathers of the Church and the bright luminaries of the Church have often borne even during this life” (trans. Connolly 1995 p 1). In the face of these difficulties, the scriptures offer consolation, a truth, Bede stated, that Acca already knew: “quarum nunc consolatione et te dilectissime antistitum praesentes rerum temporalium angores cotidie alleuare atque ad uidenda bona domini in terra uiuentium transcensis malis hominum quae regnant in terra morientium sublimiter animari non ambigo utpote abundanter non tantum diuinarum paginis litterarum sed et piis eorum expositionibus quas ueneranda patrum nobis scriptura reliquit” (ed. CCSL 119A.144; “I have no doubt that now, thanks to the consolation they afford, you too, most beloved of bishops, daily gain relief from the present worries of temporal affairs, and are fired with a lofty ambition to see the good things of the Lord in the land of the living, having risen above the evils of human beings which reign in the land of the dying, inasmuch as [this consolation] is to be found in abundance not only in the pages of God’s word but also in the devout expositions which the revered writing of the Fathers has left us,” trans. pp 2-3). Sharing Bede’s understanding of the Bible and biblical exegesis, Acca

248 

BEDE – PART 2

did not need his new commentary. However, “because what is novel is sometimes more appealing” (trans. p 3), Bede sent it to him. Although no further correspondence between these two men survives, it appears that Acca spent his retirement until his death around 740 productively, with indeed his friend on his mind, as he created a Latin martyrology modelled on Bede’s Martyrologium, which became of Vorlage of the OLD ENGLISH MARTYROLOGY (see Lapidge 2005b). MSS. In his edition in the CCSL, David Hurst records readings from the Cambridge manuscript. For a translation, see Seán Connolly (1995 pp 1-4). Epistola ad Accam (Expositio Actuum apostolorum) [BEDA.Exp.Act. apost.]. ed.: CCSL 121.3-5. MSS – A-S Vers none. Quots/Cits Exp.Act.apost., praef., 36: LANTFR.Trans.mir.Swith., III, 133-34. Refs none. Written to accompany the recently completed Expositio Actuum apostolorum, this letter is, apparently, the first to survive to ACCA, bishop of Hexham (709-31). Establishing its date is significant because in it Bede mentioned several of his other works, the completed Commentarius in apocalypsim, the projected Commentarius in Lucam, and the first section of the Commentarius in epistolas septem catholicas. The starting point for untangling its date and relationships to these other texts is provided by Bede’s comment that Acca was “very much aware” of “the demands of annoying matters” (trans. Martin 1989 p 3). Faith Wallis (2013 pp 42-45) has argued that the obstrepens causae was the accusation of heresy concerning the age of the world – linked of course to the question of the end of time – to which Bede responded in the Epistola ad Pleguinam, written in 708 (see also Laistner 1939 p xvi). This letter to Acca, then, can be dated to soon after Acca became bishop in 709. If Wallis’s (2014 p 28) suggestion that the reference to “David” in the Epistola Pleguinam is actually to Acca, then it appears likely that Bede

Letters

249

was on familiar terms with his future bishop before he took on this office. Her suggestion is supported by the brief biography of Acca in Historia ecclesiastica gentis Anglorum V.xx, which indicates that Bede knew of his early life (ed. Lapidge 2010 2.430; trans. Colgrave and Mynors pp 531-33): Nam et ipse episcopus Acca cantator erat peritissimus, quomodo etiam in litteris sanctis doctissimus et in catholicae fidei confessione castissimus, in ecclesiasticae quoque institutionis regulis sollertissimus extiterat; et usque dum praemia piae deuotionis accipiat, existere non desistit, utpote qui a pueritia in clero sanctissimi ac Deo dilecti Bosa Eboracensis episcopi nutritus atque eruditus est; deinde ad Vilfridum episcopum spe melioris propositi adueniens, omnem in eius obsequio usque ad obitum illius expleuit aetatem; cum quo etiam Romam uniens multa illic, quae in patria nequiuerat, ecclesiae sanctae institutis utilia didicit. (Bishop Acca was himself a musician of great experience as well as a very learned theologian, untainted in his confession of the catholic faith and thoroughly familiar with the rules of ecclesiastical custom; and he will not cease to be so until he gains the reward of his piety and devotion. He was brought up from childhood with the clergy of the holy Bosa, beloved of God, bishop of York, and was instructed by them. Then he came to Bishop Wilfrid in the hope of finding a better way of life and remained in his service all his days until Wilfrid’s death; he also went to Rome with him and learned many valuable things about the institutions of the holy Church which he could not have learned in his native land.)

Wallis points to Acca’s musical talent to explain the name David. Moreover, Bede had called particular attention to Acca in the previous chapter when he related Wilfrid’s vision, following a sickness in Gaul, that promised Wilfrid the restoration of “the greater part of [his] possessions” and a peaceful death in four years (ed. 2.424; trans. p 529); Wilfrid related this vision specifically to Acca. Although salutations are by convention hyperbolic, one may perhaps hear Bede’s pleasure in Acca’s appointment as his bishop in this letter’s opening: “Domino in Christo desiderantissimo et uere beatissimo Accan episcopo Beda perpetuam in domino salutem” (ed. CCSL 121.3; “to his Beatitude, most blessed in Christ, Lord Bishop Acca, Bede [sends] everlasting greetings in the Lord,” trans. Martin 1989 p 3). It is worth noting here that all of the letters to Acca that we would date before 716 begin with a formal salutation; the ones after this date address him within the texts.

250 

BEDE – PART 2

Because it suggests Acca’s exclusive interest in biblical commentaries, this letter indicates that by 709 Bede had written only the Commentarius in Apocalypsim (c. 701) and the Expositio Actuum apostolorum, finished “ante non multos dies” (ed. CCSL 121.3; “not many days ago,” trans. Martin 1989 p 3). Bede’s comment about the first work, which reveals that he had received many letters (“creberrimas […] litteras”) from Acca, offers further reason to identify Acca with the David mentioned in the Epistola ad Pleguinam, since it refers to “our brother Eusebius’s” (“fratris nostri Eusebii”) involvement with the work. Acca not only knew HWÆTBERHT, but was part of the circle that used these Latin names. In any case, Bede’s statement that he had had the Commentarius in Apocalypsim transcribed for Acca fits in with its having been written earlier and with Acca’s appointment to the bishopric of Hexham having been recent: Bede immediately sent him, along with the recently completed Commentary on the Acts of the Apostles, his most impressive biblical commentary. He also sent an “explanatiunculam epistolae beatissimi euangelistae Iohannis” (ed. CCSL 121.5; “a very short explanation of the epistle of the most blessed evangelist John”), the beginning of what would become his Commentarius in epistolas septem catholicas. Finally, it seems reasonable to assume that Bede turned next to the Commentarius in Lucam. Quots/Cits For the possible use of a phrase from this letter in LANTFRED OF WINCHESTER’s Translatio et miracula S. Swithuni, see the entry on the Expositio Actuum apostolorum. For an English translation, see Lawrence T. Martin (1989 pp 3-6). Epistola ad Albinum [BEDA.Epist.Alb.]: CPL 1374. ed.: Westgard 2010a p 214. MSS – Refs none. Bede sent this brief letter along with copies of the recently completed Historia ecclesiastica gentis Anglorum as well as of De templo to Albinus, abbot of the monastery of Saints Peter and Paul at Canterbury. Until recently, it was known only in a printed version transcribed from a now lost manuscript of the monastery of St Arnoul in Metz; see Michael Lapidge (2008a p 96 correcting Laistner 1943 p 119). Joshua A. Westgard (2010) has discovered two copies in twelfth-century German manuscripts of De templo, where it is found between that work’s prologue (see the Epistola ad Accam) and the list of chapters. He comments, “though it is unlikely

Letters

251

that Bede would himself have placed the letter there, it is easy to imagine that a scribe who found the letter at Canterbury, perhaps on a loose leaf of parchment inserted into the house copy of De templo, may have chosen to insert the letter in that position, thus transforming it into a second preface to De templo in much the same way Plummer prefixed the letter to his edition of the Historia ecclesiastica.” From its placement in these manuscripts, he is able to identify a tenth-century Metz manuscript, which was destroyed in 1944, containing De templo as the likely source for the earlier printed version. He concludes, “With the discovery of medieval copies of the letter to Albinus, any lingering doubts about its authenticity can now safely be laid to rest, for it is difficult to see what the purpose of forging this letter would have been in the twelfth century (or in the tenth, if the above hypothesis about the identity of the lost Metz copy is accepted).” The letter supports Bede’s statement in the Epistola ad Ceoluulfum, which serves as a preface to the Ecclesiastical History, that Albinus and his assistant Nothhelm provided essential information for the work (ed. Lapidge 1.8; trans. Colgrave and Mynors 1969 pp 3-5): My principal authority and helper in this modest work has been the revered Abbot Albinus, a man of universal learning who was educated in the Kentish Church by Archbishop Theodore and Abbot Hadrian of blessed memory, both venerable and learned men. There he carefully ascertained, from written records or from the old traditions, all that the disciples of St. Gregory had done in the kingdom of Kent or in the neighbouring kingdoms. He passed on to me whatever seemed worth remembering through Nothhelm, a godly priest of the Church in London, either in writing or by word of mouth. Afterwards Nothhelm went to Rome and got permission from the present Pope Gregory to search through the archives of the holy Roman church and there found some letters of St. Gregory and of other popes. On the advice of Father Albinus, he brought them to us on his return to be included in our History.

In the letter, Bede wrote that he “was most grateful for the letter in which you [Albinus] have taken care, now for the second time, to assist and instruct me so abundantly in the history of the church among our people, a history that some time ago you encouraged me to write” (trans. Westgard 2010 p 215). He also identified Nothhelm, “our venerable brother,” as the one who has carried the messages. In conjunction with the information contained in the preface to the Ecclesiastical History and in the prologue to the prose Vita Cuthberti, this

252 

BEDE – PART 2

letter tells us something of Bede’s publishing procedures: he sent out drafts (schedulae) for verification and correction, then a fair copy (membranulae) for final approval and copying; on this issue, see further Paul Meyvaert (2002). The letter also appears in PL 94.655-57. It is translated by Joshua Westgard (2010a p 215) with his edition. Epistola ad Ceoluulfum [BEDA.Hist.eccl.]. ed.: Lapidge 2010 1.6-12. MSS 1. Cambridge, University Library, Kk. 5. 16 (the “Moore Bede”): ASM 25; EMMF 9. 2. Cambridge, Corpus Christi College, 270, fols. 1 and 197: ASM 75. 3. Cambridge, Trinity College, R. 7. 5 (743): ASM 181. 4. Durham, Cathedral Library, B. II. 35, fols. 38-118: ASM 238. 5. London, British Library, Cotton Tiberius C. ii: ASM 377. 6. London, British Library, Royal 13. C. v: ASM 487. 7. Oxford, Bodleian Library, Bodley 163 (S.C. 2016), fols. 1-227 and 250-51: ASM 555; ASMMF 10. 8. Oxford, Bodleian Library, Hatton 43 (S.C. 4106): ASM 630. 9. Winchester, Cathedral Library, 1 (with London, British Library, Cotton Tiberius D. iv, vol. 2, fols. 158-66): ASM 759. 10. St Petersburg, Russian National Library Q. v. I. 18 (the “Leningrad Bede”): ASM 846; EMMF 2. Lists none. A-S Vers Bede (B9.6). Quots/Cits Hist.eccl., praefatio, 1-5: BYRHT.Hist.reg., 42.14-18. Refs none. Although this letter is often read as an integral part of the Historia ecclesiastica gentis Anglorum, the wording of its opening, which follows the salutation to Ceolwulf, king of Northumbria, indicates that it was written

Letters

253

after the work as a whole: “your Majesty has asked to see the History of the English Church and Nation which I have lately published” (ed. Lapidge 2010 1.6; trans. Colgrave and Mynors 1969 p 3). In contrast, its closing request for prayers from “all who either read this history of our nation or hear it read” is more general: “since I have diligently sought to put on record concerning each of the kingdoms and the more important places, those events which I believe to be worthy of remembrance and likely to be welcome to the inhabitants, let me reap among them all, the harvest of their charitable intercessions” (trans. p 7). It appears, then, that once he had written it, Bede recognized the value of this letter as a preface and so not only sent it with an otherwise unattested copy of the Historia ecclesiastica to the king but also placed it with what Michael Lapidge (2008a p 91) has identified as the house copy of the work kept at Monkwearmouth-Jarrow for further transcribing. The letter is justly admired for the information it conveys about Bede’s process in writing the Historia ecclesiastica and his aims in doing so. N J. Higham (2006 p 11) draws particular attention to the way Bede engaged with Ceolwulf, both reminding him that he had already had an opportunity to study and criticize the work, and encouraging him to use it for his own instruction and the instruction of his people. Also relevant to this discussion of letters is Bede’s reference to Nothhelm’s journey to Rome where he received permission “to search through the archives of the holy Roman church and there found some letters of St Gregory and other popes” (ed. Lapidge 2010 1.8; trans. Colgrave and Mynors 1969 p 5). Bede of course included these epistles in the work (see Lapidge’s notes, 1.280-81). More generally, his detailed discussion of his sources for the histories of other parts of England again indicates that Bede learned from his brethren not only by word of mouth but also through letters. This section ends with Bede’s request that the reader not blame him if he “finds anything other than the truth”: “for, in accordance with the principles of true history, I have simply sought to commit to writing what I have collected from common report, for the instruction of posterity” (trans. p 7); on the vera lex historiae, see in particular Roger Ray (1980) and Walter Goffart (2005). MSS. Since all of the early manuscripts that Lapidge (2008a and 2010 1.lxxxv-cxxvi) uses to establish his stemma for the Historia ecclesiastica and that still preserve the opening of the text include the letter, we must conclude either that Bede wrote it before a copy was sent to Canterbury or that the monks at Canterbury added it to their copy once they had received it. The manuscripts that establish this point are London, British Library, Cotton Tiberius C. ii and Oxford, Bodleian Library, Hatton 43; see the main entry on the Historia ecclesiastica for further information. It is also present in both

254 

BEDE – PART 2

the Moore and so-called Leningrad Bedes, which descend directly from the Monkwearmouth-Jarrow house copy, as well as the other manuscripts of the work written or owned in England before 1100. Two flyleaves identified as folios 1 and 197 of Cambridge, Corpus Christi College, 270, which were written by separate scribes and ruled differently, contain fragments from the letter as well as a later section of the Historia ecclesiastica. The first begins with “Beda famulus Christi” (ed. Lapidge 2010 1.6, lines 1-2), lacking “gloriosissimo regi Ceoluulfo.” It breaks off mid-sentence, “Orientalium Anglorum” (p 8 lines 47; see Parker Library on the Web, http://parkerweb. stanford.edu/parker/actions/page_turner.do?ms_no=270). A-S Vers. The Anglo-Saxon version of the Historia ecclesiastica (Bede; C9.6; ed. EETS OS 95.3-6; see the OLD ENGLISH HISTORIA ECCLESIASTICA) begins with a preface that preserves much of Bede’s Epistola ad Ceoluulfum. The salutation, which conflates two grammatical constructions, places Bede first: “I, Bede, servant of Christ and priest, hail (and send to greet) the well-beloved King Ceolwulf, and I send you the history…” (trans. Klaeber 2015 p 5; see also his analysis of the passage). Quots/Cits. In recording the death of Ceolwulf in the Historia regum (ed. Arnold 1885 2.42; on the attribution of this part of the work, once considered in its entirety to be by Symeon of Durham, see Lapidge 1993c), BYRHTFERTH noted that it was to him that Bede, “historiographus veridicus,” had sent a letter beginning, “Gloriosissimo regi Ceolwlfo Beda famulus Christi et presbyter. Historiam gentis Anglorum quam nuper edideram libentissime tibi desideranti, rex, et prius ad legendum et nunc ad scribendum ac plenius ex tempore meditaturum transmitto” (ed. 2.42). Arnold draws attention to “meditaturum,” which is the reading in Cotton Tiberius C. ii (see Lapidge 2010 1.7). Byrhtferth (ed. Lapidge 2010 2.482) shortened Bede’s opening by omitting some words. For a translation, see Bertram Colgrave and R.A.B. Mynors (1969 pp 3-7). Epistola ad Eadfridum [BEDA. Vit.Cuthb.pr.]. ed.: Colgrave 1940 pp 142-46. MSS 1. Cambridge, Corpus Christi College, 183: ASM 56. 2. London, British Library, Cotton Vitellius A. xix: ASM 401; ASMMF 10. 3. London, British Library, Harley 1117: ASM 427; ASMMF 10. 4. Oxford, Bodleian Library, Bodley 109 (S.C. 1962), fols. 1-60: ASM 546. 5. Oxford, Bodleian Library, Bodley 596 (S.C. 2376), fols. 175-214: ASM 586. 7. Paris, Bibliothèque nationale de France, lat. 5362, fols. 1-84: ASM 885.3.

Letters

255

Quots/Cits 1. ? Vit.Cuthb.pr., 142.6-7: FELIX.Vit.Guth., 60.6-7. 2. ? Vit.Cuthb.pr., 142.17: FELIX.Vit.Guth., 62.27. 3. Vit.Cuthb.pr., 142.12-13: FELIX.Vit.Guth., 64.2-3. 4. Vit.Cuthb.pr., 142.14-18: FELIX.Vit.Guth., 64.4-8. 5. Vit.Cuthb.pr., 142.20: FELIX.Vit.Guth., 64.9. 6. Vit.Cuthb.pr., 144.3: FELIX.Vit.Guth., 64.9-10. 7. Vit.Cuthb.pr., 144.4-5: FELIX.Vit.Guth., 64.11-12. Refs none. Unlike the personal Epistola ad iohannem, which was written to accompany the Vita Cuthberti metrica, this letter, which serves as the preface to the Vita Cuthberti prosa, was addressed to Bishop Eadfrith and “the whole congregation of brethren who serve Christ on the island of Lindisfarne” (trans. Colgrave 1940 p 143). It also stands in sharp contrast to the preface to the anonymous Vita Cuthberti (see Cuthbertus in ACTA SANCTORUM), which Bede used and which reveals little about its author’s identity since it is taken almost entirely from two other sources, VICTORIUS OF AQUITAINE’s Cursus paschalis and SULPICIUS SEVERUS’s Vita Martini (see Colgrave 1940 pp 60-64). Bede’s letter provides a detailed account of how he wrote the life of this saint. It can be dated to around 721, the year in which Eadfrith died, since Bede mentioned it in De temporum ratione (725) as having been written “recently” (trans. Wallis 1999 p 232; “nuper,” ed. CCSL 123B.530). It follows the revision of the Vita Cuthberti metrica, from around 716, since Bede both promised in its prefatory epistle to write more on the saint and recalled that promise in this one (ed. Colgrave 1940 p 146). As Bede explained, once he had accepted Eadfrith’s request to compose a new version of Cuthbert’s life, he began writing notes from what he learned from “credible witnesses” (trans. Colgrave 1940 p 43); surprisingly, he did not mention the anonymous Vita Cuthberti, which he certainly knew, having used it in composing the Vita Cuthberti metrica and again mentioning it in the preface to the Historia ecclesiastica gentis Anglorum (ed. Lapidge 2010 1.10). He then shared preliminary drafts with members of the Lindisfarne community: “further, when my little work was arranged, though still kept in the form of notes, I often showed what I had written both to our most reverend brother, Herefrith, when he came hither, and to others who had lived some considerable time with the man of God and were fully

256 

BEDE – PART 2

conversant with his life, so that they might read and revise it at their leisure; and I diligently amended some things in accordance with their judgement, as seemed good to them” (trans. p 145). A formal presentation of the work, presumably at Lindisfarne, followed: “and when I had done this with the help of the Lord, and my little work had been read for two days before the elders and teachers of your congregation and carefully weighed in every detail under your examination, no word of any sort was found which had to be changed, but everything that was written was pronounced by common assent to be, without question, worthy of being read, and of being delivered to those whose pious zeal moved them to copy it” (trans. p 145). Although Eadfrith himself suggested additions at this point, Bede tactfully offered his reasons for rejecting them: “but, consulting together in our presence, you brought forward many other facts concerning the life and virtues of the blessed man no less important than those which we have written down, which well deserved to be mentioned if it had not seemed scarcely fitting and proper to insert new matter or add to a work which was planned and complete” (trans. p 145). This explanation supports Walter Berschin’s (1989) argument that Bede considered his work superior to the anonymous life because it contained a significant number (forty-six) of chapters (see the entry in Saints’ Lives). MSS. All but one of the manuscripts written or owned in England before 1100 that contain the Vita Cuthberti prosa include the preface (see the entry in Saints’ Lives). The exception is Oxford, Bodleian Library, Digby 175 (S.C. 1776; ASM 614), which according to Colgrave (1940 p 22) has lost its first quire. Colgrave also notes that the first three folios of the Paris manuscript “are badly discoloured and illegible in places” (p 35). Quots/Cits. For a discussion of Felix’s use of this letter in the prologue to his own Vita Guthlaci, see the entry on the Vita Cuthberti prosa in Saints’ Lives. For a translation, see Bertram Colgrave (1940 pp 143-47). Epistola ad Ecgberctum [BEDA.Epist.Ecgb.]: CPL 1376; EHD pp 799-810. ed. Grocock and Wood 2013 pp 124-60. MSS – A-S Vers none. Quots/Cits 1. ? Epist.Ecgb., 140.7-13: ALCVIN.Vers.Eubor., 205-10. 2. ? Epist.Ecgb., 150.20-22: ALCVIN.Vers.Eubor., 672-73.

Letters

257

3. Epist.Ecgb., 152.26-154.1: ÆHom 20 (B1.4.20), 119-21. Refs none. Bede wrote his last letter, which following its valediction he dated 5 November 734, to his former pupil Ecgberht, the bishop (?732-35) who would become first archbishop of York (735-66). It is a plea for reform and a critical assessment of the state of the Church, decrying the abusive established custom of familial monasteriola. Since it was composed after the completion of the Historia ecclesiastica gentis Anglorum, it is not mentioned in Bede’s list of works (ed. Lapidge 2010 2.480-84). There is some evidence that Bede included it in his Liber Epistolarum. The letter’s opening deepens our understanding of the literary and specif ically epistolary culture of Bede’s immediate associates. Bede reminded Ecgberht that the year before they had agreed to meet again: “memini te hesterno dixisse anno cum tecum aliquot diebus legendi gratia in monasterio demorarer, quod hoc etiam anno uelles, cum in deuenires locos, me quoque, ob commune legendi studium, ad tuum accipere colloquium” (“I remember that last year, when I stayed in your monastery in order to read with you for a few days, you said that you also wanted to invite me this year as well when you came to that same place, to a discussion with you, because of our shared passion for reading,” ed. and trans. Grocock and Wood 2013 pp 124-25). Because Bede was too sick to travel – he died six months later, on 26 May 735 (see CUTHBERT’s Epistola de obitu Bedae, ed. Colgrave and Mynors 1969 p 580) – he was forced to write: “precorque te per Dominum, ne harum apices litterarum arrogantiae supercilium esse suspiceris, sed obsequium potius humilitatis ac pietatis ueraciter esse cognoscas” (“I pray you in the Lord not to suppose that the expression behind this letter is an arrogant frown, but rather recognize it as a humble and fervent plea,” ed. and trans. pp 124-25). This theme of oral and written communication continues to shape the letter as Bede urged the bishop to keep himself “from storytelling, gossip, and other plagues of an unbridled tongue” and instead to stay busy “with the divine declarations and meditations of the Scriptures, and especially by reading the letters of the blessed Paul the apostle to Timothy and Titus and also the words of the most holy Pope Gregory, with which he discourses very attentively on both the conduct and the failings of rulers, either in the book of Pastoral Care or in his homilies on the gospels, so that your conversation, always seasoned with the salt of wisdom, may rise above

258 

BEDE – PART 2

common speech and may shine forth more worthily for God to hear it” (trans. p 127). This theme carries Bede into his first suggestion for reform, “ordaining priests and appointing teachers who in each little village can set about preaching God’s word and celebrating the mysteries of heaven” (trans. p 131). In his influential article, “Bede’s Ideal of Reform,” Alan Thacker (1986 pp 132-33) points to this letter as the “definitive expression” of Bede’s “growing anxiety about the state of Church and society in his day.” In the introduction to their edition, Christopher Grocock and I.N. Wood (2013 pp l-lix) spell out the “small number of overlapping themes”: pastoral care, bogus monasteries, a crisis in landholding, and a crisis in the military. From the literary evidence, one might conclude that this powerful jeremiad letter remained generally unheeded. It survives in only three manuscripts, none of which were written or owned in Anglo-Saxon England (see Grocock and Wood 2013 pp cxiv-cxvi, but note that their dating of London, British Library, Harley 4688 to the tenth century is incorrect: see the online catalogue of illuminated manuscripts in the British Library that places it in the first half of the twelfth century). Neither of the two uses identified by Peter Godman (1982 p 145) in ALCUIN’s Versus de sanctis Euboricensis ecclesiae is conclusive. The first concerns GREGORY THE GREAT’s intention to establish archbishops in York (ed. Godman 1982 lines 205-210). This detail rests ultimately on Gregory’s letter to Augustine of Canterbury recorded in Historia ecclesiastica I.xxix (ed. Lapidge 2010 1.13842). The second possible borrowing involves the common motif of Church leaders’ protecting their sheep from wolves. The correspondence suggested by W. Braekman (1963 p 152) from Homily 19 (B1.4.20; ed. Pope 1967-68 pp 622-35) in ÆLFRIC’s Supplementary Collection is more compelling. Ælfric supported his claim that Christians should receive communion more often than they do by noting that this is the practice “þær ðær man þone Cristendom wel hylt” (ed. p 628; “where one practices the faith well”). Bede wrote, “quam salutaris sit omni Christianorum generi cotidiana dominici corporis ac sanguinis perceptio, iuxta quod ecclesiam Christi per Italiam, Galliam, Africam, Greciam, ac totum orientem sollerter agere nosti” (“how spiritually beneficial for all types of Christians is the daily partaking of the Lord’s body and blood, a practice which you know is carefully observed by the Church of Christ throughout Italy, Gaul, Africa, Greece, and the whole of the East,” ed. and trans. Grocock and Wood 2013 pp 152-55). In her entries in Fontes Anglo-Saxonici, Rohini Jayatilaka considers the Epistola ad Ecgberctum as possible source. The REGULARIS CONCORDIA (ed. Symons 1953 p 19) also recommended daily mass, but here the sources appear to be

Letters

259

AUGUSTINE and AMBROSE (see Symons’ notes in his edition and Symons 1941 pp 157-58). Other evidence, however, indicates that Bede’s Epistola ad Ecgberctum influenced later bishops and kings. Dorothy Whitelock (EHD 830) suggests that a letter of POPE PAUL I to Ecgberht, archbishop of York, and Eadberht, king of Northumbria “would seem to suggest” that the brothers “have been carrying out Bede’s advice on the suppression of spurious monasteries” since the pope reproaches them for having taken three of them from “the religious Abbot Forthred” and granting them “to a certain ‘patrician,’ his brother Moll.” Moreover, in his first note on the letter, Charles Plummer (1896 2.378) writes, “It may be compared throughout with the decrees of the Council of Clovesho held thirteen years later.” John Blair (2005 pp 100-17) provides an extensive review of the evidence, noting similar themes in some of BONIFACE’s Letters. Bringing in the Council of Gumley, Grocock and Wood write, “in all probability, we should understand the Anglo-Saxon bishops who tried to address the problems as responding not just to Boniface, but also to Bede’s Epistola.” The letter appears in PL 94.657-68. It has also been edited by Charles Plummer (1896), 1.405-19. The edition of Christopher Grocock and I.N. Wood (2013 pp 125-61) contains a translation. For other translations, see Dorothy Whitelock (1979 pp 799-810) and Judith McClure and Roger Collins (1994 pp 343-57). For the letter’s relationship to Bede’s Commentarius in Ezram et Neemiam, see Scott DeGregorio (2004 and 2006c pp 156-62) and its relationship to charters, see Patrick Wormald (2006 pp 153-54). Epistola ad Eusebium (Commentarius in Apocalypsim). see Epistola ad Huaetberctum (Commentarius in Apocalypsim). Epistola ad Gregorium papam [BEDA.Hist.abb. and ANON.Vit.Ceolf.]. ed. Grocock and Wood 2013 pp 66-68 and 108-10. MSS London, British Library, Harley 3020, fols. 1-34: ASM 433. Lists – Refs none. Among the events surrounding CEOLFRITH’s sudden abdication of the abbacy of Monkweamouth-Jarrow and departure for Rome, Bede recorded “uersus aliquot” (“some lines”) from the “letter of commendation”

260 

BEDE – PART 2

(“commendatoriam […] epistolam”) that he took with him “apostolico papae Gregorio deferendam” (“for delivery to Pope Gregory of the apostolic see,” ed. and trans. Grocock and Wood 2013 pp 66-67). It begins with the salutation, “Domino in Domino dominorum dilectissimo terque beatissimo papae Gregorio Huetberctus humilis seruus uester abbas coenobii beatissimi apostolorum principis Petri ad Saxonia, perpetuam in Domino salutem” (“To his lord the most beloved of the Lord of Lords the thriceblessed Pope Gregory, Hwætberht, your humble servant and abbot of the community of the blessed chief of the apostles Peter in the land of the Saxons, wishes everlasting salvation in the Lord”) and breaks off, following a request that the pope administer last rites to Ceolfrith, with Bede’s comment: “et cetera, quae epistolae sequentia continent” (“then follows the rest of the contents of the letter,” ed. and trans. pp 68-69). The anonymous VITA CEOLFRIDI (ed. and trans. Grocock and Wood 2013 pp 108-111; and see ACTA SANCTORUM) records the same part of the letter, without the comment that it had been abridged. This source, however, adds that HWÆTBERHT, who had been chosen to replace Ceolfrith, composed the missive: “this abbot-elect therefore quickly wrote a letter by which he commended his father and predecessor to the apostolic father” (trans. p 109). There is little doubt that Hwætberht could have written this letter. Having been educated with Bede from the time they were both boys (see the Epistola ad Huaetberctum (Commentarius in Apocalypsim)) and as the likely author of Aenigmata (see Andy Orchard 1994 pp 243 and 254), the new abbot undoubtedly had a strong command of Latin. However, the opening phrase of the salutation, “domino in domino dominorum,” is distinctive, and was used by Bede in the Epistola ad Iohannem that serves as a preface to his revision of the Vita Cuthberti metrica. The letter also contains Bede’s distinctive way of referring to Rome as the “beatorum apostolorum limina” (“the threshold of the blessed apostles”; see Lapidge 2009 p 104, note 45). Finally, although Christopher Grocock and I.N. Wood demonstrated that the Vita Ceolfridi is dependent on the Historia abbatum, it is still revealing that Bede did not state that Hwætberht wrote the letter. While expressing his new abbot’s sentiments, Bede included, as he wrote the Epistola ad Gregorium papam, his own as well. MSS. The first section of the Harley manuscript includes both the Historia abbatum and the Vita Ceolfridi. Michael Lapidge (2008a p 75) asserts that it was “very probably written at Glastonbury c. 1000”; and David N. Dumville (1992 p 110, note 92) places it in the context of other libelli written for saints.

Letters

261

The letter is translated by Christopher Grocock and I.N. Wood (2013 pp 67-69 and 109-11). Epistola ad Helmualdum [BEDA.Epist.Helm.]: CPL 2322. ed. CCSL 123C.629, CCSL 123B.399-404, and Giles 1851 pp 5-6. MSS – Refs none. Bede began his discussion of leap-year in De temporum ratione by referring to this letter: “I have no wish to contrive anything new on the subject of the leap-year day, but rather to incorporate into this little work what I once said in a letter responding to a friend’s inquiry” (trans. Wallis 1999 p 105). He then divided it into two chapters, “The Calculation of the Leap-Year Day” (38) and “Measuring the Leap-Year Increment” (39). The second ends with a long quotation from AUGUSTINE’s De trinitate, after which Bede wrote: “It is a pleasure to excerpt these words from the writings of such a great authority, so that in re-reading the views of my insignificant self on the nature of the bissextus, you might understand, out of the mouth of this most learned expositor, not only that the bissextus grows each year by six hours, but also the many-sided perfection of this number six, by which the year itself is constituted” (trans. p 109). A fifteenth-century copy of the letter in Oxford, Merton College manuscript 49 provides the rest of the letter. Printed by John A. Giles (1851 pp 1-6), it contains an explanation of the Greek letter-numerals that Bede also discussed at the end of the first chapter of De temporum ratione (ed. CCSL 123B.272-73; see also Wallis 1999 pp 261-63). In any case, it appears certain that this letter is the one that Bede referred to in Historia ecclesiastica gentis Anglorum V.xxiv as “de ratione bissexti una” (ed. Lapidge 2010 p 482). It can be dated to the period between De temporibus (703) and De temporum ratione (725). Helmwald is known only from this letter. Since Bede addressed him as “brother,” it is clear that he was a monk; however, it appears from Bede’s opening remark that his conversion had been recent: “I confess that I rejoiced greatly, dearest brother in Christ, to learn that in the place where, at the will of God, you joined the long-desired pilgrimage, you begin to pursue peace and virtue, and even to devote some effort to reading” (trans. Wallis 1999 p 416). In any case, he had, according to the letter, “asked to have explained […] briefly and plainly, the calculation of the fourth year which is called bissextus, in so far as this is possible, and, if I may so express it, to have opened up to the full view of free and serene understanding the

262 

BEDE – PART 2

depths of more secret nature by the keys of straightforward writing” (trans. p 416). In the commentary on her translation of De temporum ratione, Faith Wallis writes that “Bede’s goal in these two chapters is to explain leap-year day without overcomplicating the issue”: “For the sake of students with little scientific background or mathematical aptitude, he omits elaborate calculations of the leap-year increment, and focusses on more basic issues: why an extra day accumulates over four years, and why it is important to intercalate it accurately” (Wallis 1999 p 323). Chapters 38 and 39 of De temporum ratione appear in Faith Wallis’s (1999 pp 105-09) translation. Epistola ad Huaetberctum (Commentarius in Apocalypsim) [BEDA. Comm.Apc.]. ed.: CCSL 121A.221-33. MSS 1. Aberdeen, University Library, 216: ASM 1. 2. Durham, Cathedral Library, A. IV. 28: ASM 225. 3. London, Lambeth Palace Library, 149, fols 1-139: ASM 506. 4. Oxford, St John’s College, 89: ASM 685. 5. ? Paris, Bibliothèque nationale de France, lat. 10400: CLA 5.598. Lists – Refs none. The preface to the Commentarius in Apocalypsim, probably Bede’s earliest biblical commentary, takes the form of a letter to “Eusebius,” the Latin name of HWÆTBERHT, but plays with the genre by also directly introducing the work. It begins: “Apocalypsis sancti Iohannis, in qua bella et incendia intestina ecclesiae suae deus uerbis figurisque reuelare dignatus est, septem mihi, frater Eusebi, uidetur esse diuisa periochis” (ed. CCSL 123A.221; “the Revelation of St John, in which God has deigned to reveal in words and symbolic imagery the wars and inward conflagrations of his Church, seems to me, brother Eusebius, to be divided into seven sections,” trans. Wallis 2013 p 101). Since Hwætberht became abbot of Monkwearmouth-Jarrow in 716, as Bede related in the Historia abbatum (ed. Grocock and Wood 2013 pp 6466), this work addressed to “frater” Eusebius must have been written before that time (see Lapidge 2010 1.xlix). From an extensive review of this work, De temporibus, De natura rerum, and the Epistola ad pleguinam, Faith Wallis (2013 p 49) argues convincingly that the Commentarius in

Letters

263

Apocalypsim, and hence this letter, were written around 701 in response to growing panic caused by the belief that only a century remained until the end of the world. The dedication to Hwætberht reinforces Wallis’s argument that the Commentarius in Apocalypsim was indeed an early work: Bede’s circle of readers was still largely limited to his own monastery (on a later dedication to Hwætberht, see the following entry). Neither De natura rerum or De temporibus contains a preface, although the former is preceded by an introductory epigram, Naturas rerum uarias labentis et aeui. (Its own epigram Exul ab humano dum pellitur orbe Iohannes, also points to an early date; see Wallis 2013 p 49). Bede’s remarks about his new abbot in the Historia abbatum establish that the two were about the same age and must have known each other from childhood, both, as Bede said of Hwætberht, “working hard at writing, singing, reading, and writing” (trans. Grocock and Wood 2013 p 67). Unlike Bede, Hwætberht “hastened to Rome in the days of Pope Sergius, and during a stay of no little duration he researched, copied out, and brought home whatever he decided he needed” (trans. p 67). Both must have been ordained around 704. In the context of discussing Hwætberht’s election to the abbacy at the beginning of book IV of the Commentarius in primam partem Samuhelis (ed. CCSL 119.212), Bede explained that he had been given the name Eusebius because of his love and zeal for piety. Although Bede might have anticipated a small readership at this point, he appeared confident that he would be understood, at least by his closest friend. The preface is also significant, as Wallis (2013 pp 59-66) explains, because it provides the earliest evidence of Bede’s division of a book of the Bible using his own Capitula lectionum (see Bible: Aids to Biblical Study). Although in this letter Bede explained the seven periochae or sections used by TYCONIUS, a major source throughout the work, to divide Apocalypse, when he turned to the Commentary itself, he followed his own system: “nonetheless so that those who seek may more readily find, it will be seen that the same unbroken order of chapters [capitulorum intemerata series] ought to be preserved throughout, in accordance with the way in which I previously distinguished them in the chapter-headings which are prefaced [praepositis brevibus] to the book [of the commentary] itself” (trans. Wallis 2013 pp 105-06). Moreover, it surveys Tyconius’s principles for interpreting biblical texts (see Wallis 2013 pp 67-73). MSS. The two fragments of the Commentarius in Apocalypsim that survive in the Paris manuscript are the only possible direct representatives of a copy of the work from a scriptorium in Anglo-Saxon England. They are described

264 

BEDE – PART 2

by E.A. Lowe (CLA 5.598) as “written in England or in a continental centre under Anglo-Saxon influence, such as Echternach”; see also Michael Lapidge (2006 p 156). In his edition in the CCSL, Roger Gryson identifies the first as containing lines 96-125 of the preface (CCSL 121A.229-31). The other manuscripts contain the entire work. For more information, see the main entry. The Epistola ad Huaetberctum (Commentarius in Apocalypsim) is also printed in 94.694-97. It is translated by Faith Wallis (2013 pp 101-06). Epistola ad Huaetberctum (De temporum ratione) [BEDA.Temp.rat.]. ed.: CCSL 123B.263-65. MSS 1. Cambridge, Corpus Christi College, 291: ASM 85. 2. London, British Library, Royal 12. D. iv: ASM 478.5. 3. London, British Library, Royal 13. A. xi: ASM 483. 4. London, British Library, Royal 15. B. xix, fols. 36-78: ASM 492. 5. Salisbury, Cathedral Library 158, fols. 9-83: ASM 744. Lists – Refs none. Although the preface to De temporum ratione bears little resemblance to a formal letter, it is included here because of its direct address near the end of the text to HWÆTBERHT (trans. Wallis 1999 p 4): But however they who read my writings take them, I offer this little book, now completed to the best of my ability, to you first of all, my most beloved Abbot Hwætberht, that you may read it through and examine it, earnestly beseeching you that should you find anything reprehensible in it, you make it known to me immediately so that I can correct it. But if you perceive that something has been done reasonably and properly, then devoutly thank God with me, Who gave this gift, and without Whom we can do nothing.

The work and hence the epistle can be dated on internal evidence to 725. By addressing De temporum ratione primarily to his abbot, who was also his contemporary and close friend at Monkwearmouth-Jarrow (see the previous entry), Bede emphasized that it was written out of his teaching in the monastery and directed to a wider audience through this official capacity. Indeed, the epistle’s opening makes this point as well in first

Letters

265

describing the work’s development from two earlier classroom texts, De natura rerum and De temporibus, neither of which has a preface, but then explaining how other colleagues, apparently both within and outside Monkwearmouth-Jarrow, found it difficult to understand (trans. Wallis 1999 p 3): Some time ago I wrote two short books in a summary style which were, I judged, necessary for my students; these concerned the nature of things, and the reckoning of time. When I undertook to present and explain them to some of my brethren, they said that they were much more concise than they would have wished, especially the book on time, which was, it seems, rather more in demand because of the calculation of Easter.

A more serious problem, however, then emerges: “so they persuaded me to discuss certain matters concerning the nature, course, and end of time at greater length” (trans. p 3). As Faith Wallis (1999 pp xxx-xxxi) points out in the introduction to her translation, the question of the “end of time” alludes to “the chronology of World Ages” that Bede had proposed in De temporibus and that had led to an accusation of heresy against him (see the Epistola ad Pleguinam): “the Reckoning of Time is therefore not a textbook, but an extended pièce justificative for the world-chronicle in chapter 66, where Bede reiterates and fleshes out the controversial chronology.” “Proof,” she writes, “is that he summarized the Letter to Plegwin in the preface of The Reckoning of Time.” While lacking a valediction, the preface closes in a way that recalls other epistles, emphasizing as it does the author’s shared community with his readers. After invoking AUGUSTINE’s De trinitate to explain why “it is necessary for many men to make many books, Bede suggested that a reader displeased with his work simply ignore it, “dimittat ea legenda, si qui uelint” (ed. CCSL 123B.265; “let him discard this book, if that is what he wants,” trans. Wallis 1999 p 4). And yet, reaffirming that his position is the teaching of the Church, Bede then admonished such a reader – with wording that anticipates the closing prayer of the Historia ecclesiastica (see Lapidge 2010 2.484) – drinking with him “de communibus patrum fontibus” (“from the common wellspring of the Fathers”) to “guard uncorrupted the duty he owes to fraternal feeling” (trans. p 4; “debita fraternitatis intemerata iura custodiat,” ed. CCSL 123B.265). MSS. In his edition Charles W. Jones lists 245 manuscripts of the work (CCSL 123B.242-56); Michael Lapidge (2008a p 71, note 29) has criticized this list because its unexplained sigla leave many questions, particularly about

266 

BEDE – PART 2

the contents of individual manuscripts, unanswered. In regards to this letter, Jones includes London, British Library, Cotton Vespasian B. vi, fols 1-103 (ASM 384) in the list of manuscripts he has used in editing it (p 262), but in his description (p 247, number 92) indicates that it does not contain this part of the work. His lack of readings from it suggest that the description is correct. He does include London, British Library, Royal 15. B. xix, fols. 36-78 on his list, and records readings from it. The other manuscripts listed above also apparently contain the letter. The Epistola ad Huaetberctum (De temporum ratione) is translated by Faith Wallis (1999 pp 3-4). Epistola ad Iohannem [BEDA.Vit.Cuthb.metr.]. ed.: Jaager 1935 pp 65-67. MSS 1. Cambridge, Corpus Christi College, 183: ASM 56. 2. London, British Library, Cotton Vitellius A. xix: ASM 401; ASMMF 10. 3. London, British Library, Harley 526, fols. 1-27: ASM 419. ASMMF 10. 4. London, British Library, Harley 1117: ASM 427; ASMMF 10. 5. Oxford, Bodleian Library, Bodley 109 (S.C. 1962), fols 1-60: ASM 546. 6. Oxford, Bodleian Library, Digby 175 (S.C. 1776): ASM 614. 7. [Rome] Città del Vaticano, Biblioteca Apostolica Vaticana, Reg. lat. 204: ASM 913. Lists – A-S Vers none. Quots/Cits 1. Vit.Cuthb.metr., prol., 1: BEDA.Hist.abb., 66.19. 2. Vit.Cuthb.metr., prol., 1: ANON.Vit.Ceolfr., 108.16. 3. Vit.Cuthb.metr., prol., 1: ANON.Vit.Guthl., 60.2. 4. Vit.Cuthb.metr., prol., 1: ALCVIN.Epist. 139, 220.13. 5. Vit.Cuthb.metr., prol., 1: ALCVIN.Epist. 177, 292.9 6. Vit.Cuthb.metr., prol., 1: ALCVIN.Epist. 234, 379.12. Refs none. The main problem in identifying John of Beverley as the recipient of this Epistola ad Iohannem, which serves as the preface to Bede’s revision of

Letters

267

his Vita Cuthberti metrica, is the salutation, which refers to Bede’s addressee with a term, dominus, appropriate for a bishop, which John was, but specifically calls him a priest: “domino in domino dominorum dilectissimo Johanni presbytero Beda famulus Christi salutem” (ed. Jaager 1935 p 56; “to his lord, John, priest, most beloved in the Lord of lords, Bede, servant of Christ, sends health”). It is resolved, however, by recognizing that this opening echoes that of AUGUSTINE’s Epistola 194, which explains his views on the Pelagian heresy: “domino in domino dominorum dilectissimo fratri sancto et conpresbytero Sixto Augustinus in domino salutem” (ed. CSEL 57.176; “to his lord, Sixtus, most beloved brother and fellow-priest in the Lord of lords, Augustine sends greetings in the Lord”). Writing to Sixtus, who after Augustine’s death became Pope Sixtus III, the bishop Augustine used this playful opening to show respect for his addressee. Bede adopted it in a similar vein to address his close friend, John of Beverley, at the moment when Bede believed he would step down from the bishopric of York to lead a party carrying the Codex Amiatinus to Rome (see Biggs 2015). The conjunction of these events date the letter to 716. MSS 1-7. The Epistola ad Iohannem circulated in all of the complete manuscripts of the Vita Cuthberti metrica known in Anglo-Saxon England. See the main entry on the work, which summarizes the study of Michael Lapidge (2008a pp 112-20). Readings from these manuscripts are recorded in Werner Jaager’s (1935 pp 65-67) edition. Quots/Cits 1-6. The distinctive opening, “domino in domino dominorum,” also appears in the letter written for CEOLFRITH, the departing abbot of Monkwearmouth-Jarrow, to carry to Rome, as is recorded in both Bede’s Historia abbatum and the anonymous VITA CEOLFRIDI (see ACTA SANCTORUM). While the salutation identifies the new abbot, HWÆTBERHT, as its author, the wording reveals Bede’s hand in writing the letter. The phrase was then picked up by the author of the VITA GUTHLACI (see ACTA SANCTORUM) and ALCUIN. It also appears in other Carolingian letters as well as one attributed to ALDHELM, which is preserved only by William of Malmesbury and so not recorded here (see Biggs 2015 p 25, note 43). A translation appears in J.A. Giles (1845 pp 1-2). Epistola ad Naitonum [BEDA.Hist.eccl.]. ed. Lapidge 2010 2.432-60. MSS 1. Cambridge, University Library, Kk. 5. 16 (the “Moore Bede”): ASM 25; EMMF 9.

268 

BEDE – PART 2

2. Cambridge, Trinity College, R. 7. 5 (743): ASM 181. 3. Durham, Cathedral Library, B. II. 35, fols. 38-118: ASM 238. 4. London, British Library, Cotton Tiberius A. xiv: ASM 367. 5. London, British Library, Cotton Tiberius C. ii: ASM 377. 6. London, British Library, Royal 13. C. v: ASM 487. 7. Oxford, Bodleian Library, Bodley 163 (S.C. 2016), fols. 1-227 and 250-51: ASM 555; ASMMF 10. 8. Oxford, Bodleian Library, Hatton 43 (S.C. 4106): ASM 630. 9. Winchester, Cathedral Library, 1 (with London, British Library, Cotton Tiberius D. iv, vol. 2, fols. 158-66): ASM 759. 10. Kassel, Gesamthochschulbibliothek 4o MS.theol. 2: ASM 835. 11. St Petersburg, Russian National Library Q. v. I. 18 (the “Leningrad Bede”): ASM 846; EMMF 2. Lists – Refs none. As J.M. Wallace-Hadrill (1988 p 196) explains, Bede introduced the Epistola ad Naitonum, addressed to the king of the Picts known from Irish annals as Nechtan mac Derile, in a way that “does not state that [it] is the precise reply sent by CEOLFRITH […] but only that it was composed ‘in hunc modum’” (ed. Lapidge 2010 2.432). At issue, then, are the questions of who wrote the original letter and whether Bede revised it for inclusion in the Historia ecclesiastica gentis Anglorum. As Bede recounted the story, Nechtan, “having been convinced by his assiduous study of ecclesiastical writings, renounced the error which he and his race had until then held about the observance of Easter, and led all his people to celebrate with him the catholic time of keeping the Lord’s resurrection” (trans. Colgrave and Mynors 1969 p 533). To support this change, he sent “legatarios” to Ceolfrith, abbot of Monkwearmouth-Jarrow, seeking “exhortatorias […] litteras” that he could use “to confute more convincingly” incorrect practices concerning the celebration of Easter and the administering of the tonsure; he also asked for builders to construct “a church of stone […] after the Roman fashion.” The epistolary response that Bede included in full in Historia ecclesiastica V.xxi is a detailed explanation of these customs, which rehearses the central theme of work, the conversion of the Anglo-Saxons and, insofar as it happened, their Celtic neighbours to Roman Christianity. As such, it balances the epistolary exchange between GREGORY THE GREAT and AUGUSTINE of Canterbury in book 1, identifying Bede’s own monastery as a centre from which true belief spreads. In any case, the opening phrase, “eo

Letters

269

tempore,” of the Bede’s account is, as Charles Plummer (1896 2.331) writes, “commonly taken to indicate the year 710; but we have seen that we cannot always interpret these time references in Bede so strictly.” The original letter must have been written before 716 when Ceolfrith stepped down from the abbacy of Monkwearmouth-Jarrow. The Historia ecclesiastica was written in 731. According to Plummer (1896 2.332) “though the letter runs in Ceolfrid’s name, there can be little doubt that it is the composition of Bede himself.” Its lively recounting of a conversation between Ceolfrith and ADOMNÁN can be seen, following Wallace-Hadrill (1988 p 197), as “oratio recta […] typical of Bede.” Moreover, as Plummer’s notes demonstrate, the case for Bede’s authorship is strengthened by “the likeness to his other works on similar subjects,” which “amounts in many cases to verbal identity.” Michael Lapidge (2010 2.715), however, is more cautious. Drawing attention to the specific correspondences between the Epistola ad Naitonum and De temporum ratione, completed in 725, he concludes that an original letter composed by Ceolfrith was retouched by Bede as he recorded it in the Historia ecclesiastica. In supporting Plummer’s position, we would note that while Bede identified Ceolfrith as one of his teachers (Historia ecclesiastica V.xxiv), raising the possibility that he instructed him in computus (see Kendall 2010 p 102), with the possible exception of this letter, it was only Bede who wrote on this topic. Moreover, Bede began doing so in De temporibus, dated to 703 and, as Faith Wallis (1999 pp xvii-xxxiv) explains in the introduction to her translation of De temporum ratione, he used his own teaching to develop his understanding of the topic. His description in the Epistola ad Huaetberctum (De temporum ratione) of the sources of the later work refers not to his teachers but rather to “what can be found scattered here and there in the writings of the ancients” (trans. Wallis 1999 p 4). Finally, the Epistola ad Helmualdum provides an example of Bede taking material from a letter to reuse in De temporum ratione: it is, we would suggest, as likely that his original letter written for Ceolfrith to send to Nechtan influenced his discussion in his second work on time as it is that De temporum ratione influenced his revision. For these reasons, we attribute the letter in substantially the same form as it appears in Historia ecclesiastica V.xxi to Bede, and date it to around 710. MSS. The Epistola ad Naitonum appears in all complete manuscripts of the Historia ecclesiastica; see the main entry for more information about them.

270 

BEDE – PART 2

For a translation of the letter, see the edition of Bertram Colgrave and R.A.B. Mynors (1969 pp 535-51). Epistola ad Nothelmum [BEDA.Quaest.Reg.]. ed.: CCSL 119.293. MSS Cambridge, Pembroke College 81: ASM 133. Lists – Refs none. Serving as the prologue to In regum librum xxx quaestiones, this letter makes it clear that the work, like the Epistola ad Accam (De eo quod ait Isaias), the Epistola ad Accam (De mansionibus filiorum Israel), the Epistola ad Helmualdum (De ratione bissexti), and the Epistola ad Wicthedum (De aequinoctio iuxta Anatolium), was written in response to specific questions sent to Bede. It differs from them in that Bede did not include it in his Liber epistolarum, instead listing it as a separate work in Historia ecclesiastica V.xxiv (ed. Lapidge 2010 2.480). According to Paul Meyvaert (1999 p 276-77), Nothhelm first met Bede when he visited Monkwearmouth-Jarrow in 714/15, having been sent by Albinus, archbishop of Canterbury. At this time Bede would have been writing his Commentarius in primam partem Samuhelis. “After returning home from this visit,” Meyvaert writes, “Nothhelm was apparently prompted to read this portion of Scripture more carefully and then to send his new friend some queries about various verses.” MSS. The Cambridge manuscript is used by David Hurst in his edition (CCSL 119). The Epistola ad Nothelmum is also printed in PL 94.687. A translation appears in W. Trent Foley and Arthur G. Holder (1999 pp 89-90). Epistola ad Pleguinam [BEDA.Epist.Pleg.]: CPL 2319. ed. CCSL 123C.617-26. MSS – Refs none. Written in 708 to defend statements he had made in De Temboribus about the length of time from creation to the Incarnation, Bede returned

Letters

271

to this letter in the preface to De temporum ratione to reiterate his main claim that JEROME’s translation of the Hebrew Bible must be the source for this chronological information. In the Historia ecclesiastica gentis Anglorum he referred to it as “de sex aetatibus saeculi” (ed. Lapidge 2010 2.482), one of five letters that he identified as included in a Liber epistolarum. The date of the letter is established by Bede’s comment in it (ed. CCSL 123C.618-19) that he had written De temporibus, itself dated on internal evidence to 703, five years previously. As Michael Lapidge (2010 1.liii) points out, it must have been written before 709 since Bede instructed its otherwise unknown recipient to have the letter read to Wilfrid, then bishop of Hexham and so Bede’s direct superior, who died in that year. While not ruling out Hexham as the origin for the accusation against Bede that prompted the letter and so the likely home of Plegwine, Peter Darby (2012 pp 36-39) explains that Wilfrid probably administered his diocese from Ripon, his first monastic establishment and the place to which his body was returned following his death on pilgrimage to Rome. Faith Wallis (2014) has proposed that the person identified as David who was to read the letter to Wilfrid was actually ACCA, the future bishop of Hexham and recipient of many of Bede’s letters. The letter is memorable for its vivid portrayal of eschatological speculation in England at the beginning of the eighth century. It opens with Bede’s shock at learning that he had been accused in Plegwine’s presence “by lewd rustics in their cups” of “being a heretic” (trans. Wallis 1999 p 405). In preparing to conclude, however, Bede revealed that he was often challenged on this subject (trans. Wallis 1999 pp 413-14): On this matter I confess I am quite grieved, and often irritated to the limit of what is permissible, or even beyond, when every day I am asked by rustics how many years are left in the final millennium of the world, or learn from them that they know that the final millennium is in progress, when our Lord in the Gospel did not testify that the time of His advent was near at hand or far off, but commanded us to keep watch with our loins girded and our lamps lit and to wait for Him until He should come (cf. Luke 12:35-37). For I notice that when in conversation with the brothers the occasion arises for us to dispute concerning the Ages of the world, certain of the less learned ones allege that we are speaking of 6,000 years, and there are those who think that this world will end at 7,000 years because it unfolded in seven days.

272 

BEDE – PART 2

In analysing this passage, Darby (2012 pp 49-64) focuses first on the terms “rustics” (rustici) and “brothers” ( fratres), noting that the former “should be read as a disdainful reference to the perceived educational abilities of those troubling Bede with their questions” (p 50). Bede’s attack, then, was directed at his fellow monks, many of whom, he alleged, associated the end of the world with one of two variant forms of the millennial week, which predicted the end of the world in either 6000 or 7000 annus mundi. Developing the work of Faith Wallis (1999 pp 361-62), Darby traces these ideas in two works associated with the Canterbury school of Archbishop THEODORE and Abbot Hadrian, the Laterculus Malalianus and ALDHELM’s De uirginitate. The Epistola ad Pleguinam appears in London, British Library, Cotton Vitellius A. xii, but beyond the part (fols. 4-77, see ASM 398) written before 1100. This manuscript and two others were used by Charles W. Jones for his edition (CCSL 123C), where he lists two more manuscripts. This letter is also printed in PL 94.669-75. It is translated by Faith Wallis (1999 pp 405-15). Epistola ad sororem [BEDA.Comm.Cant.Habac.]. ed.: CCSL 119B.381-409. MSS Cambridge, Pembroke College, 81: ASM 133. Lists – Refs none. Although Bede wrote about women such as Æthelthryth, whom he respected, in his earliest compositions (see, for example, Alma Deus trinitas quae saecula cuncta gubernas in Poetry: Epigrams) and continued to do so throughout his life, this letter is the only surviving example of his communicating directly with one, an anonymous nun, and, by extension, her community. As its opening establishes, Bede was requested by her to explain the third chapter of Habbakkuk: “Canticum prophetae Habacuc, quod tibi exponi petisti, dilectissima in Christo soror, sacramenta dominicae passionis maximo pronuntiat” (ed. CCSL 119B.381; “the canticle of the prophet Habakkuk, which you requested to have expounded to you, my dearly beloved sister in Christ, is mainly a proclamation of the mysteries of the Lord’s passion,” trans. Connolly 1997 p 65).

Letters

273

Benedicta Ward (1995) and Sarah Foot (2014) have explained that Bede’s reply is notable in its treatment of his female audience as, in Ward’s memorable phrase, “co-workers in the art of arts, prayer” (p 107). Focusing specifically on Bede’s exposition of Habakkuk 3:10, Foot develops Ward’s insight (p 61): We have already observed that Bede devoted much of his text to advise his female reader to listen to the teaching of male preachers. Yet here he goes further in arguing that this religious woman should not just listen, but should act on the teaching she has heard.

She then asks, “is it far-fetched to imagine that Bede envisaged that the nun for whom he wrote was herself engaged in oral preaching, or teaching as well as in bringing other to faith by her example of holy living?” (p 62). After offering much evidence to support the answer “not at all,” Foot concludes (p 75): Like Hild, Ælfflæd, Eadburg and Leoba, Bede’s dedicatee possessed the inner capacity to act as a teacher and impart the light of truth to others. With her more celebrated sisters, she owed that capability not merely to her learning and her meditation and reflection on the word of God revealed through scripture, but fundamentally to her capacity to root that contemplation deep in the prayers that were constantly on her lips and in her heart.

Indeed, Bede intertwined this message with the epistolary form, again addressing his interlocutor at the letter’s end: It is to be noted, on the other hand, now that Habakkuk’s prayer or canticle has been expounded, that his name too, which means “embracing,” is in keeping with the meaning of this prayer. For it is manifest that he, who bears witness that he gloried and rejoiced in him alone, embraced the Lord with the inward love of his heart, and clung close to him. Now, dearly beloved sister and virgin of Christ, would that we too, by loving him, might become worthy of such a name. For if we embrace him with our whole heart, our whole soul and our whole strength, he too will deign to clasp us in the arms of his love, mindful of his promise in which he says: “The one who loves me will be loved by my Father and I will love him and will reveal myself to him” (Io 14:21); and so we shall merit to be reckoned among the members of that bride who, full of joy, is accustomed to sing to her creator, i.e. her heavenly bridegroom: “His left hand is under my head, and his right hand shall embrace me” (Ct 2:6). Amen.

274 

BEDE – PART 2

Ward (p 109) comments that Bede “took up the word ‘Habakkuk’ and accepting JEROME’s interpretation of it as meaning in Hebrew ‘embraced’ or ‘embracing’ applied it with warmth to the affection between himself and ‘my very dear sister and virgin of Christ,’ both being ‘embraced’ together with Christ in the embrace of the Trinity of love.” Scholars have yet to identify any compelling details that would date this letter. As the development of Bede’s exegetical writing is better understood, it may be possible to resolve this issue by linking it to other works. In the meantime, it is worth noting that the anonymity of the recipient, which implies that Bede did not know to whom he was writing, suggests that her request was made after he had established himself as an expounder of scripture, and so following the dissemination of his commentaries to ACCA that began following his appointment to the see of Hexham in 709. It must have been written by 731 since Bede included it in the list of his works in Historia ecclesiastica gentis Anglorum V.xxiv (ed. Lapidge 2010 p 480). We would, then, suggest c. 716-731. MSS. The Cambridge manuscript is used by J.E. Hudson (CCSL 119B.381-82). The Epistola ad sororem is translated by Seán Connolly (1997 pp 65-67). Epistola ad Wicthedum [BEDA.Epist.Wic.]: CPL 2321. ed. CCSL 123C.635-42. MSS 1. Cambridge, Corpus Christi College 291: ASM 85. 2. London, British Library, Royal 13. A. xi: ASM 483. Lists – Refs none. As noted in the introduction to this section, the Epistola ad Wicthedum was written following a conversation at the otherwise unknown recipient’s monastery, which Bede was visiting. Charles W. Jones (1943 pp 138-39) has argued that the discussion was provoked by Bede’s use of Anatolius in De temporum ratione to support his claim that the spring equinox falls on 21 March. However, his source, RUFINUS’s abbreviated Latin version of EUSEBIUS’s Historia ecclesiastica, which Wicthed apparently also knew, stated that the equinox was on 22 March. Having returned to Monkwearmouth-Jarrow, Bede wrote a longer response. Since he listed the letter, “de aequinoctio iuxta Anatolium,” in Historia ecclesiastica gentis Anglorum V.xxiv (ed. Lapidge 2010 2.482), it must have been

Letters

275

written, as Jones argues, between 725, the date of De temporum ratione and 731, the completion of the Historia ecclesiastica. At issue is the earliest date on which Easter can be celebrated, which is determined by the spring equinox. Bede argued that Anatolius’s reference to 22 March reflects the final two years of the leap-year cycle, in which the equinox is considered to happen at sunset or midnight, and so pertains to the following day; see Faith Wallis (1999 pp 417 and 419). MSS. M.L.W. Laistner (1943 p 119) comments that the letter survives “in a good many manuscripts, no doubt because of its scientific interest.” Charles W. Jones (CCSL 123C.633-34) lists 34 manuscripts, noting that these fall into two separate traditions, one in which it “travels as part of a computus containing De temporum ratione,” the other “in which it is independent or part of a gathering of Bede’s other letters.” Both copies listed above are in the first tradition. Of Corpus Christi College 291, Helmut Gneuss and Michael Lapidge (ASM 85) write, “s. xi/xii, Canterbury, StA.” Of London, British Library, Royal 13. A. xi, they (ASM 483) write, “s. xi/xii or xii in., Normandy or NW France rather than England?, not in England by 1100?” This letter is also printed in PL 90. 599-605 and 94.675-80. In both, it is followed by a spurious paragraph “primo anno circuli decennovenalis xxx est luna,” which is discussed and edited by Charles W. Jones (1939 pp 41-44 and 104-06). A following “fragmentum” is also discussed by Jones (1939 p 44). Faith Wallis (1999 pp 417-24) translates the letter.



Lost Works

Bede’s list in Historia ecclesiastica gentis Anglorum V.xxiv (ed. Lapidge 2010.480-84) establishes not only what he had written up to 731 but, more remarkably, what he considered a work to be even though here he ingeniously avoided using any word to characterize his own compositions. From it Michael Lapidge (2010 1.xliv-xlvi) enumerates 30 items. While most can be identified with a simple reference to the Clavis Patrum Latinorum, a few problems, to which we will turn in a moment, appear. Lapidge then lists nine “altre opere” that can be attributed to Bede “con certezza.” While we accept Lapidge’s judgement that Bede composed them, we would point out that he might not have considered all to be, as we do, opera. Clearly, the Epistola ad Ecgberctum is both a work and was considered one by Bede, as the slight but significant evidence of a fifteenth-century manuscript now in Merton College Oxford indicates: after he wrote it in 734, he placed a copy into his Liber epistolarum. Would he, however, have viewed the Magnus circulus seu Tabula paschalis annis Domini dxxxii ad mlxiii and the Pagina regularum, tables designed to help students as they studied De temporum ratione, opera? That we do calls attention to perhaps other lost handouts, other lost letters that Bede must have sent, other verse that he might have included in his Liber hymnorum and his Liber epigrammatum, and three are listed there: other Homilies that he probably preached. Two more potentially lost works were mentioned by CUTHBERT in his Epistola de obitu Bedae (ed. and trans. Colgrave and Mynors 1969 pp 580-87), a translation of John’s Gospel (to 6:9) and selections from ISIDORE’s De natura rerum. That there are so few lost works is a mark of the respect Bede has been given over the centuries. While the work of editing, translating, and interpreting the corpus is ongoing, identifying what Bede wrote has been largely accomplished, as several recent discoveries may make clear. Paul Meyvaert and Carmela Vircillo Franklin (1982) pick out the Passio Anastasii that Bede mentioned in Historia ecclesiastica V.xxiv from among the anonymous versions of this work; Franklin (2004) edits and analyzes it. Lapidge (1996c) has identified the first version of the Vita Cuthberti metrica, which he will edit in Bede’s Latin Poetry. Meyvaert (2002b) defines the Kalendarium ad usum computandi that Bede apparently began first for his own use, but later distributed to his students. Finally, because it brings us to actual still lost works, Meyvaert (1995) distinguishes most of the Capitula lectionum that Bede mentioned in Historia ecclesiastica V.xxiv from the anonymous

278 

BEDE – PART 2

summaries that circulated in medieval Bibles. Related to these are a set of Prologues on the Pauline Epistles that Bede did not mention. Capitula lectionum (Ecclesiastes) [BEDA.Capit.(Ecl)]. unidentified. Capitula lectionum (Epistula ad Romos) [BEDA.Capit.(Rm)]. ed. De Bruyne 2015 p 315, Eln. This work breaks off in the middle of chapter 6. Capitula lectionum (Epistula ad Philemonem) [BEDA.Capit.(Phlm)]. unidentified.

Martyrology Since Bede’s Martyrologium is related to several of his other works, particularly the Kalendarium ad usum computandi, which he used to teach computus (see Educational Works), but also his Histories and his Saints’ Lives, it is treated here in its own section. According to Jacques Dubois (1978 p 13), the word “martyrologium” was first used in the Latin West by Bede in Historia ecclesiastica gentis Anglorum V.xxiv (ed. Lapidge 2010 2.484) when he applied it to his own work. It was, however, a term that he would have both heard and spoken throughout his life, especially if the text that influenced his own work, the MARTYROLOGIUM HIERONYMIANUM, was indeed brought to Monkwearmouth in 679 by John the Arch-Chanter, as both Pádraig Ó Riain (1993 p 1 and 2002 pp 338-39) and Michael Lapidge (2005b p 45) have argued. Bede would have been six or seven at this time, and might well have also just arrived, if in humbler fashion, at the monastery. Even if not instructed directly by this new teacher, he would have been influenced by the changes to the liturgy that John would have introduced. It also seems likely that the Martyrologium Hieronymianum, a document that combined the local celebrations of saints throughout the Christian world and so a source of geographical and historical information, would have fascinated the young Bede. His own interest in local saints, although not martyrs, is recorded, for example, in his metrical Vita Cuthberti and his hymn to Æthelthryth, Alma Deus Trinitas quae saecula cuncta gubernas. Yet Bede’s thoughts moved well beyond Northumbria as he sought to understand God’s plan as it unfolded throughout the world and time. Like the opening of Genesis and the Acts of the Apostles, the Martyrologium Hieronymianum would have been a primary source for plotting the spread of the faith. Unlike Genesis or Acts, however, it had, as a historical document, a serious defect: as a list of places and names associated with particular days of the year, it lacked the narrative details necessary to keep the accounts of the separate martyrdoms distinct. Bede solved this problem by creating a new kind of work, the historical martyrology, providing identifying material for each saint he included. He did so by systematically reading full vitae and passiones, and when their information about the day on which a martyrdom occurred corresponded to the Martyrologium Hieronymianum, he included a new entry in his own work, with details that would allow his readers to be certain of the identity of the person being celebrated.

280 

BEDE – PART 2

A problem with the story we have just constructed is that Bede’s Martyrologium is currently considered a late work because it incorporates material from De temporum ratione, completed in 725; see Henri Quentin (1908 pp 102-07) and Michael Lapidge (2010 1.lv). While we would suggest that in these cases the line of transmission was actually from the Martyrologium to De temporum ratione, the entry on the translation of AUGUSTINE’s relics from Sardinia to Pavia in 725 dates at least that entry to between that year and 731, when Bede recorded the Martyrologium in the Historia ecclesiastica; he might, of course, have continued to add this and other individual entries after 731, but in this case the adverb nuper indicates a composition close in time to the event. That Bede began composing the work much earlier is, we would argue, evident from the presence of his entry on Almachus in the Codex Epternacensis, Paris, Bibliothèque nationale de France, 10837, a manuscript containing the Martyrologium Hieronymianum, which was copied by Laurentius for Archbishop Willibrord in the first decades of the eighth century (see Biggs 2016). It appears likely that Bede began this study early in his career and that his discoveries had almost immediate impact (see Biggs 2016 pp 241-78). Martyrologium [BEDA.Mart.]: CPL 2032. ed.: DuBois and Renaud 1976. MSS ? St Gallen, Stiftsbibliothek 451. Lists ? Alcuin: ML 1.7. A-S Vers 1. Mart (B19.1; Paul the Hermit). 2. Mart (B19.1; Hilary of Poitiers). 3. Mart (B19.1; Felix). 4. Mart (B19.1; Pope Marcellus). 5. Mart (B19.1; Sebastian). 6. Mart (B19.1; Marius, Martha, Audifax, and Abacuc). 7. Mart (B19.1; Emerentiana). 8. Mart (B19.1; Discovery of the Head of St John the Baptist). 9. Mart (B19.1; Mark). 10. Mart (B19.1; Calepodius). 11. Mart (B19.1; Ferreolus and Ferrucio). 12. Mart (B19.1; Phocas).

Mart yrology

281

13. Mart (B19.1; Symphorosa and her Seven Sons). 14. Mart (B19.1; Donatus and Hilarinus). 15. Mart (B19.1; Cassian). 16. Mart (B19.1; Augustine of Hippo). 17. Mart (B19.1; Januarius etc.). 18. Mart (B19.1; Fausta and Evilasius). 19. Mart (B19.1; Andochius, Thyrsus, and Felix). 20. Mart (B19.1; Cyrilla). Quots/Cits 1. Mart., 13.5: Mart (B19.1; Felix), 48.4. 2. Mart., 149.15: Mart (B19.1; Cassian), 160.18. 3. Mart., 149.16-17: Mart (B19.1; Cassian), 160.19-20. 4. Mart., 223.8-9: Mart (B19.1; Lucy), 224.10. 5. Mart., 189.3-4: ÆLS (Mark) (B1.3.16), 152. 6. Mart., 189.6-7: ÆLS (Mark) (B1.3.16), 157-58. Refs ? BONIF.Epist. 75, 158.8-12. An understanding of the later uses of the Martyrologium is complicated by our uncertainty about the exact contents of this work. Bede described it in the list of his writings at the end of the Historia ecclesiastica gentis Anglorum as “martyrologium de nataliciis sanctorum martyrum diebus, in quo omnes, quos inuenire potui, non solum qua die uerum etiam quo genere certaminis uel sub quo iudice mundum uicerint, diligenter adnotare studui” (ed. Lapidge 2010 2.484; “a martyrology of the festivals of the holy martyrs, in which I have diligently tried to note down all that I could find about them, not only on what day, but also by what sort of combat and under what judge they overcame the world,” trans. Colgrave and Mynors 1969 p 571). Henri Quentin (1908 p 47) states that the early manuscripts of the work agree in providing “114 notices de caractère historique”; later in the same work (p 115), he refers to “115 notices,” which indeed corresponds to his analysis of their sources (pp 57-111) and which is the number that Felice Lifshitz (2000 p 175) mentions in her translation of the work. All are printed by Jacques Dubois and Geneviève Renaud (1976), although they include the entry on Germanus twice, correctly under 1 August, but again under 1 October (see p 180; this doubling may have happened because one of the early manuscripts of the Martyrologium, Munich, Bayerische Staatsbibliothek, clm 15818, mentions the deposition of Germanus at this point). While these

282 

BEDE – PART 2

entries differ in both the kind and the amount of information they include, they conform to Bede’s own description of the contents of the work. More difficult to assess are the many brief notices that appear in the early manuscripts of the work. At the beginning of the discussion of Bede’s Martyrologium, Quentin (1908 p 48) leaves the question of their attribution to Bede unresolved when he writes, “a côte de ces notices historiques […], tous les manuscrits présentent aussi un certain nombre de mentions brèves.” Commenting that these “brief notices” differ considerably in the two main families of the text, he then lists them (pp 48-49). His concluding remark, “tout nous porte à coire que nous avons dans notre première famille de manuscrits l’œuvre de Bède, à trés peu de chose près, telle qu’elle est sortie de ses mains” (p 119), reflects his view that many of these brief notices were included by Bede. Dubois and Renaud (1976) print both sets of them in their edition, using one siglum (“B”) to represent the 115 longer notices and the brief ones that appear in the St Gallen manuscript listed above, a representative of the first family, which breaks off at 25 July. They use a second siglum (“B2”) to identify brief notices that appear exclusively in manuscripts of the second family up to 25 July, and those that appear in manuscripts of both families following that date. In contrast, Lifshitz (2000 p 175) comments about the brief mentions that “it is not clear which, if any, of those entries were the responsibility of Bede himself”; she does not include any of them in her translation. Michael Lapidge (2005b p 47-48), however, accepts Bede’s authorship for “a substantial number of briefer notices in the form (for example) natale sancti Timothei apostoli [24 Jan.]”: “according to my own reckoning, Bede’s Martyrologium may originally have included 256 notices (including narrative entries as well as brief commemorations).” As Lapidge recognizes, some of these cannot be by Bede, most obviously the entries on 4 June (ed. Dubois and Renaud 1976 p 103) recording the martyrdom of Boniface and his companions in Frisia in 754 that appear in both families of manuscripts. Indeed, we consider it unlikely that any of the brief entries were written by Bede since they do not fit his description of the work (see Biggs 2016 pp 241-55). The date of the Martyrologium is tied up with questions about its relationship to its sources, particularly other works by Bede. One entry, however, on the translation of the relics of AUGUSTINE of Hippo to Pavia, deserves more attention than it has received because it dates at least this notice to around 725, the year assigned to it by Bede in the Chronica maiora (chapter 66 of De Temporum ratione; ed. CCSL 123B.535). This assessment fits in well with the view that since Bede used the Chronica maiora in writing the entries on Æthelthryth and Anastasius (see Ætheldrytha and Anastasius in ACTA SANCTORUM) the work as a whole was written between 725, the

Mart yrology

283

year De temporum ratione was completed, and 731, when Bede listed the Martyrologium as among his works in the Historia ecclesiastica; see Quentin (1908 p 106) and Lapidge (2010 p lv), who also refers to the evidence about the commemoration of the Discovery of the head of John the Baptist found in Bede’s Commentarius in Marcum. Alan Thacker (2011 pp 129 and 140-41) has suggested that the work was composed during the course of Bede’s life, corresponding closely to the concerns of the end of his career. We would claim that Bede began work on his Martyrologium early in his studies, perhaps around the time he began the Kalendarium ad usum computandi, but recording this different information in a separate place. While his inspiration was almost certainly the Martyrologium Hieronymianum, which was probably brought to Monkwearmouth in 679 by John the Arch-Chanter and which was quickly disseminated from there (see Ó Riain 1993 p 1, Ó Riain 2002 pp 338-39, and Lapidge 2005b p 45), he set out to do something new, to write longer “historical” entries on selected saints. Although his work was almost immediately augmented by entries from both his main source and other hagiographic material including his own writings, it served as the inspiration for later historical martyrologies such as those by FLORUS OF LYONS, ADO OF VIENNE, and USUARD OF SAINT-GERMAIN-DES-PRÉS (see Quentin 1908). The influence of Bede’s Martyrologium in Anglo-Saxon England is found most clearly in the OLD ENGLISH MARTYROLOGY, or, more precisely, in the lost Latin Vorlage of that work, which has been identified by Lapidge (2005b) and attributed by him to ACCA, bishop of Hexham. Indeed, this identification has clarified the relationship between the two works, since the later date of the vernacular one, which, as the earliest manuscripts indicate, was in circulation at the end of the ninth century, had opened the possibility that its author would have known the Carolingian martyrologies that descended from Bede’s rather than his original version. In reviewing this evidence prior to Lapidge’s discovery, Günter Kotzor (1986 pp 322) had discussed “the lack of a direct and striking relationship” between any of the Latin martyrologies and the Old English work, but singles out Bede’s text as particularly dissimilar. Similarly, in her handlist of sources of the Old English Martyrology, Christine Rauer (2003 p 104) had included “one or more unidentified calendars and/or martyrologies, possibly including Bede’s Martyrologium or one or more continental martyrologies.” With the focus, however, shifted to Acca, to whom Bede dedicated nine of his works on the Bible (see Letters and Lapidge 2010 1.l-li), there can be no doubt of a direct relationship between the Martyrologium and the lost Vorlage. As Lapidge (2005b p 69) writes of their authors, “it is inconceivable

284 

BEDE – PART 2

that either of them could have compiled a Latin martyrology without the other’s knowledge.” Should, then, credit for creating the new genre of the historical martyrology be assigned to Acca rather than to Bede? Probably not, for several reasons. Bede’s description of his own work quoted at the beginning of this entry suggests that it was he who decided to gather and record additional information about the saints. Moreover, his lengthy account of Acca’s accomplishments as bishop of Hexham in Historia ecclesiastica V.xx (ed. Lapidge 2010 2.428-30) would have been a likely place to have noted his friend’s efforts in this area. Indeed, since the Old English Martyrology attributes information about eight entries (Chad, John of Beverley, Augustine of Canterbury, Germanus, the Two Hewalds, Æthelburh, Cedd, and Hygebald) to the Historia ecclesiastica (see Refs in that entry in Histories and, for other possible uses, Quots/Cits), at least these must have been written after 731. Lapidge (2005b pp 68-69), then, seems justified in attributing the composition of the Vorlage to the final nine years of Acca’s life, following his expulsion from the bishopric at Hexham in 731. The many differences between the Martyrologium and the Old English Martyrology make it clear that rather than revising or augmenting Bede’s work, Acca set out to write one of his own. Even the few close borrowings, which are listed in Quots/Cits and which were identified by J.E. Cross (1985 pp 240-42 and 1986 p 280), are less certain proof of a direct literary relationship than they would normally be since Bede and Acca might well have been working from precisely the same as yet unidentified or lost sources; as Lapidge (2005b p 70) writes, “it is entirely natural to suppose that they each made available to the other texts in their possession, especially those difficult of access.” More significant, then, are the Anglo-Saxon Versions listed above since these reveal how Acca adapted Bede’s work. Before turning to the specific examples, it should be noted that 86 of Bede’s entries have corresponding ones in the Old English Martyrology, 18 do not, and the remaining nine are uncertain due to the loss of entries in the vernacular work (see Rauer 2013 pp 18, 59, and 65; and Lapidge 2005b p 39, note 23; we exclude the entries on Dula and the Seven Virgins of Sirmium from our count). The examples discussed here are those identified by George Herzfeld (1900 pp xxxvi-xlii) and Lapidge (2006 p 234). Referring to the Old English Martyrology, Herzfeld (p xxxiv) admits to being “not quite sure about the connexion of our text with Bede’s Martyrology”: “there are a number of literal agreements, but these can be explained by the fact that both writers go back to the same sources.” In contrast, Lapidge ends his list of four entries (Paul the Hermit, Felix, Phocas, and Cassian) with “et passim.”

Mart yrology

285

The reworking of the Martyrologium into later martyrologies, particularly those of HRABANUS MAURUS, Florus of Lyon, Ado of Vienne, and Usuard of Saint-Germain-des-Près, makes precise identifications of later uses difficult. One work certainly not influenced by it is Fates of the Apostles (A2.2; ASPR 2.51-54) even though Kenneth R. Brooks (1961 p xxx) still lists it as among the Old English poem’s possible sources (see McCulluch 2000 on the question of CYNEWULF’s possible use of a later martyrology). Although Bede wrote entries on both Mark and Luke, he did not include Matthew, John, or, indeed, any of the apostles, perhaps reflecting his concern, expressed in his Retractatio in Actus apostolorum (ed. CCSL 121.106), that their passiones are apocryphal (see Biggs 2003b pp 13-14). On the other hand, two phrases in ÆLFRIC’s brief remarks about Luke in the homily on Mark in his Lives of Saints probably derive ultimately from the Martyrologium; see Quots/Cits 5 and 6. MSS. Building on the work of Quentin (1908 pp 18-45), M.L.W. Laistner (1943 pp 90-92) lists twenty-one manuscripts of the Martyrologium. None is from Anglo-Saxon England. The St Gallen manuscript listed above is notable for its Anglo-Saxon script from the late ninth or early tenth century (a facsimile is available at http://www.e-codices.unifr.ch/en/csg/045; see also Scarpatetti 2008 p 8-9). Lists. The list of books given by Ælberht, archbishop of York, to ALCUIN does not specify a particular work by “Beda magister,” so might refer to the Martyrologium (ML 1.7; ed. Godman 1982 p 124); see the introduction, BEDE, in volume 1. A-S Vers 1. Even though the main source for the entry in the Old English Martyrology on Paul the Hermit (see Paulus Thebaeus in ACTA SANCTORUM) is JEROME’s Vita Pauli (see Rauer 2013 p 235), two details that shape its beginning and end derive from Bede’s much briefer account. (The entry is mistakenly identified in Dubois and Renaud 1976 p 11: it is by Bede and appears in the St Gallen manuscript.) Following the Martyrologium, the vernacular notice opens by noting that the saint “was sixteen years old when he first went into the desert, and he stayed there until he was 113 years old” (trans. Rauer 2013 p 47). Similarly, near the end it notes that “Antony saw Paul’s soul, as white as snow, ascend to heaven among hosts of angels, and hosts of saints” (p 47). Aside from the description of the snow-white soul, which is paralleled in the Vita, the remark derives from the Martyrologium: “cujus animam inter apostolorum et prophetarum choros ad caelum ferri ab angelis Antonius vidit” (ed. p 11; “Anthony saw his soul carried by angels to heaven among a chorus of apostles and prophets,” trans. Lifshitz 2000 p 179).

286 

BEDE – PART 2

A-S Vers 2. In his entry on Hilary, bishop of Poitiers (see Hilarius Pictavensis in ACTA SANCTORUM), Bede commented that, “inter alias virtutes, fertur quod orando mortuum suscitaverit” (ed. Dubois and Renaud 1976 p 12; “among other virtues, it is said that he revived a dead man by praying,” trans. Lifshitz 2000 p 179). Before turning to this detail, the Old English Martyrology remarks, “se wæs Sancte Martines lareow” (“he was the teacher of St Martin,” ed. and trans. Rauer 2013 pp 46-47), which leads the editor to comment that Bede’s Martyrologium “cannot be the sole source” (p 236; Rauer does not include the notice in her entries in Fontes Anglo-Saxonici). Since, however, the entry on Martin in this vernacular work establishes that its author knew SULPICIUS SEVERUS’s Vita Martini (see Rauer’s entries in Fontes Anglo-Saxonici), which identifies Martin as Hilary’s pupil but does not mention the miracle, it is the latter that requires a source. Bede’s Martyrologium, then, is not only the likely inspiration for the entry but also the direct source for this detail. A-S Vers 3. The confusion in the entry for 14 January in the Old English Martyrology of Felix “priest of Nola” and Felix “priest of Rome” (see Felix Nolanus presbyter in ACTA SANCTORUM) was probably introduced not by Acca of Hexham in the Latin Vorlage, but rather by the translator, who, following a calendar or liturgical book, assumed the Roman saint would be more important of the two. According to J.E. Cross (1985 p 241), the following details concerning the saint’s incarceration and liberation by an angel rely on both the Martyrologium and Bede’s Vita felicis (see Saints’ Lives). As noted under Quots/Cits 1 and discussed below, the conclusive evidence for the use of the Martyrologium is the description of “sea-shells” on the floor of the prison: while the Vita mentions “fragmenta […] testarum” (ed. PL 94.790), which could refer to shells, the Martyrologium’s “cochleis ac testulis” is closer to the Old English, “mid sæscellum ond mid scearpum stanum” (ed. Rauer 2013 p 48). A-S Vers 4. Although Herzfeld (1900 p xxxvii) identifies the Martyrologium as the source for the entry on Pope Marcellus in the Old English Martyrology (ed. Rauer 2013 p 48), the LIBER PONTIFICALIS accounts for all of its details (Rauer 2013 p 236). As E. Gordon Whatley notes, however, in the entry Marcellus papa in ACTA SANCTORUM, the vernacular work also omits the separate entries that Bede created from his source, which he referred to as the Gesta Marcelli papae. It would appear, then, that Acca did not know the Passio Marcelli and so either he or, more likely, a later writer adapted Bede’s work to reflect the sources at hand. A-S Vers 5. Cross (1988 p 41) points to two details about Sebastian (see Sebastianus in ACTA SANCTORUM) – the saint is “killed with cudgels”

Mart yrology

287

and “he gives up his spirit” (see Rauer 2013 pp 52-53) – in the Old English Martyrology that are drawn exclusively from the Passio to counter Herzfeld’s (1900 p xxxvii) view that the Martyrologium was the source of this entry. As Cross notes, however, the other information, including the date of the martyrdom (20 January), is found in Bede’s work. A-S Vers 6. Acca, or more likely a later writer, constructed the brief entry for 20 January on Marius, Martha, Audifax, and Abacuc from Bede’s much fuller notice in the Martyrologium (neither the 19 January date nor the order, Marius and Martha, Fabian, and Sebastian, given in Dubois and Renaud 1976 pp 16-17 reflects the St Gallen manuscript listed and discussed above; the date here for Marius and Martha is 20 January and it follows the two other entries, as in the Old English Martyrology). As Whatley points out in his entry on Marius et Martha in ACTA SANCTORUM, “the Martyrology’s short notice on June 17 for the military tribune Blastus […], another martyr buried by Marius and Martha, and not mentioned by Bede, confirms the martyrologist’s indebtedness to the passio,” which was also Bede’s source. In this case, then, Acca would have relied exclusively on Bede’s abridgment for this entry even though he knew the full version of the legend. A-S Vers 7. For Emerentiana (see ACTA SANCTORUM), Acca followed the Martyrologium in identifying the saint as the foster sister of Agnes and in noting that she was stoned to death. He returned to the Passio Agnetis for other details, such as the thunder and lightening that “killed most of the pagans who had stoned her” (trans. Rauer 2013 p 57). A-S Vers 8. Bede’s brief entry on the Decollation of John the Baptist (29 August) focuses exclusively on the saint’s relics: “who was first preserved in Samaria, and now is in Alexandria; furthermore, his head was brought from Jerusalem to Emesa, a city in Phoenicia” (trans. Lifshitz 2000 p 190). The entry for this date in the Old English Martyrology instead tells the biblical story of his death (see Rauer 2013 p 168). However, following a gap in the manuscripts, the Old English Martyrology also contains a partial entry at the end of February devoted to the Discovery of John’s Head, which thus covers some of the material Bede treated. Bede’s source for the discussion of John’s head, the Chronicon of MARCELLINUS COMES (ed. MGH AA 11.60-104), was also used by Acca (see Cross 1975 pp 154 and 158-60), but does not contain the reference to Phoenicia, which derives from the Martyrologium. It appears, then, that while Bede and Acca agreed on the narrative of the Discovery, they disagreed on the date when it should be celebrated. A-S Vers 9. While Cross (1981 pp 188-89) correctly notes that the Martyrologium is not “a sufficient source” even for the description of Mark’s martyrdom in the Old English Martyrology (ed. Rauer 2013 p 86), Bede

288 

BEDE – PART 2

selected many of the details from the Passio Marci (BHL 5276) that Acca also included. A-S Vers 10. As Quentin (1908 pp 66-67) notes, Bede drew three entries for his Martyrologium from the Passio Callisti (BHL 1523): Pope Callistus I (14 October), Calepodius (10 May), and Asterius (21 October). As Whatley writes, “the author of the Old English Martyrology shows his independence of Bede by drawing his entire notice for Callistus […] from the Liber Pontificalis XVII, not from the passio (see Cross 1979 pp 191 and 202)” (Callistus in ACTA SANCTORUM). One may assume, then, that Acca did not have access to the passio and so the brief entry for Calepodius, “on the same day is the passion of the old priest St Calepodius” (trans. Rauer 2013 p 103), from Bede’s account, was probably not written by Acca. A-S Vers 11. The correspondences between the entries on Ferreolus and Ferrucio in the Martyrologium and the Old English Martyrology include the opening identifications of the saints as a priest and a deacon, their miraculous ability to speak even after their tongues had been cut out, and their eventual martyrdoms by a sword; see Rauer (2013 p 116). As in other cases, Acca returned to the passio (BHL 2903; although see Ferreolus et Ferrucio in ACTA SANCTORUM where Whatley recommends a fresh sourcing which would consider the primitive passio BHL 2903b) for additional details. A-S Vers 12. The detail that links the entries on Phocas, a gardener of Sinope on the Black Sea later identified as a bishop (see ACTA SANCTORUM) in the Martyrologium and the Old English Martyrology (ed. Rauer 2013 p 136) is the veneration of the saint’s relics in Vienne. Indeed, Whatley connects these comments to Benedict Biscop’s stay in the city as he gathered books for Monkwearmouth in the 670s (see Historia abbatum, IV). Otherwise, the two accounts overlap, but Bede was not Acca’s sole source. The problem is complicated by uncertainty about Bede’s own source. Rather than placing the relevant passages from the passio (BHL 6838) opposite his entry, Quentin (1908 pp 88-89) puts them in a note, identifying not only similarities but also points where the accounts differ. In her entries in Fontes Anglo-Saxonici, Rauer considers the passio a probable source for most of the details in the Old English Martyrology, including the memorable scene in which, following his death under Trajan, the saint “appeared before the emperor’s gate and called to the emperor and told him that hell was opened up for him and its torments were ready, and told him to hurry up to get there; and soon after that the emperor died” (trans. Rauer p 137). There is no similar event in the Martyrologium. A-S Vers 13. If Acca wrote the brief entry on Symphorosa and her Seven Sons that lies behind the one in the Old English Martyrology, he added only

Mart yrology

289

two details, that she was a widow and that “many miracles have happened at their bodies” (trans. Rauer 2013 p 141). Whatley (see Symphorosa in ACTA SANCTORUM) notes that the names of the seven sons are in the same order as in Bede’s more extensive but fragmentary account. Dubois and Renaud (1976 p 130) place this entry under 18 July; the St Gallen manuscript includes it under 21 July. A-S Vers 14. Although the entry in the Old English Martyrology includes additional details almost certainly from a passio of Donatus, the second bishop of Arezzo (Donatus Aretii in ACTA SANCTORUM for a discussion of the various texts), its main event, the restoration of a chalice after it had been broken by pagans (see Rauer, 2013 pp 154-56), was also used by Bede, who specifically attributes it to GREGORY THE GREAT’s Dialogi. A-S Vers 15. Cross (1985 pp 241-42) identifies two clauses in the account of Cassianus Ludimagister (see ACTA SANCTORUM) as “nearer to Bede’s words than to those of variant texts of the passio”; these are listed in Quots/ Cits. The boys beat the saint to death “with their writing tablets” and “his suffering was even more prolonged and more brutal, as their hands were hardly strong enough to kill him” (trans. Rauer, 2013 p 161). Here Acca or a later writer had clearly condensed Bede’s longer account. A-S Vers 16. Acca’s determination to surpass Bede’s Martyrologium is evident in the entries on the translation of the relics of AUGUSTINE OF HIPPO to Pavia. Bede’s entry is slightly shorter than a similar account that closes the Chronica maiora (chapter 66 of De temporum ratione). It is from the second that Acca took the details that the king “bought Augustine’s body for a large price” (trans. Rauer 2013 p 171). A-S Vers 17. Bede’s Martyrologium and the Old English Martyrology both contain entries on 19 and 23 September related to seven Campanian saints whose martyrdoms are told in the Passio Ianuarii et Sosii (see ACTA SANCTORUM); the separate dates occur because the feasts are celebrated on the different days when the saints were buried (see Quentin 1908 pp 75-77). Both entries in the vernacular work are substantially shorter than Bede’s and contain errors that would certainly not have been made by Acca. In the first, for example, the place of the martyrdom is said to be Benevento rather than Pozzuoli (Januarius was bishop of Benevento) and one of the martyrs, Desiderius, is identified as a deacon rather than a lector (ed. Rauer 2013 p 184). In the second, Januarius is called Sosius’s teacher (ed., p 189). Thus, although Cross (1986 pp 236-37; see also Cross 1985 p 241, note 72) offers one example of a detail that could be explained by a variant version of the passio, it appears more likely a later, less careful writer than Acca abridged Bede’s entries.

290 

BEDE – PART 2

A-S Vers 18. Following Kotzor (1981 2.212) and Cross (1985 p 241, note 71), Whatley (Fausta et Evilasius in ACTA SANCTORUM) writes that the entry in the Old English Martyrology on Fausta and Evilasius derives from Bede’s Martyrologium rather than from any of the passiones. A-S Vers 19. Although the Martyrologium cannot account for all the information in the entry on Andochius, Thyrsus, and Felix in the Old English Martyrology (ed. Rauer 2013 p 190), it does include many of the shared details, including the origin of the saints in the East and their martyrdom in Gaul under Aurelian, who ordered that their necks be broken with poles. Inspired by Bede’s entry, Acca returned to a version of the passion of Androcius (see ACTA SANCTORUM). A-S Vers 20. From the entry on Cyrilla (see ACTA SANCTORUM) in the Martyrologium, Acca preserved the details that the saint was the daughter of the emperor Decius, that she was martyred at the command of emperor Claudius by a sword, and that she was buried by the priest Justinus (ed. Rauer 2013 p 206). He changed and added other details, such as the emperor’s command to have her body “thrown to the dogs” (trans. Rauer 2013 p 207). Quots/Cits 1-4. The Old English Martyrology (ed. Rauer 2013 p 48) describes the floor of the prison to which Felix as made up of “sea-shells,” a “fair rendering” (Cross 1985 p 241) of Bede’s “cochleis” (ed. Dubois and Renaud 1976 p 13). In the entries in both martyrologies on Cassian (Dubois and Renaud p 149; Rauer p 160), the boys beat the saint to death with their writing tablets but the martyrdom is prolonged because they lack strength. When the guards try to remove Lucy from the presence of Paschasius, they are unable to move her in any direction “þa ne myhton hig nahwyder hig onstyrian” (p 224) an “exact equivalent” (Cross 1986 p 280) for Bede’s “nullatenus eam movere potuerunt” (p 223). Not listed above is Cross’s (1985 p 242) identification of the source for the names of the three boys murdered with Babylas (Urbanus, Prilidanus, and Epolanus,” ed. Rauer p 58) since it appears in one of the brief entries. The issue is significant because the names appear in GREGORY OF TOURS, Historia Francorum: if this entry was written by Bede, it is, in Gordon Whatley’s words, “a precious witness to Bede’s knowledge of Gregory” (see Babylas in ACTA SANCTORUM). Quots/Cits 5-6. In his brief remarks on Luke in the homily on Mark in his Lives of Saints, Ælfric stated that the saint served God “without any sin” and went to him “filled with the Holy Ghost, when he was four and eighty years of age” (trans. Skeat 1966 1.331). J. Heinrich Ott (1892 p 42) points to the Martyrologium as the source for these details, a suggestion accepted by Rohini Jayatilaka in her entries in Fontes Anglo-Saxonici (see also Biggs 2007 pp 238-41). While it seems unlikely that Ælfric would have known the work

Mart yrology

291

as a whole in the form that Bede wrote it, this particular entry incorporated or rewritten in some later work was probably his source. Refs For the reference of Boniface to Bede in Epistola 75 (ed. Tangl 1955, 158.8-12), see the introduction, BEDE, in volume 1. The fundamental study the Martyrologium remains Henri Quentin (1908). Although his topic is the use of Bede’s work by Acca of Hexham, Michael Lapidge (2005b) adds much new information about the earlier text. The edition by Jacques Dubois and Geneviève Renaud (1976) has been criticized by Lapidge (p 46, note 54) as “so riddled with errors that it cannot be cited with confidence.” As noted above, a facsimile of the most important manuscript is available online. Felice Lifshitz’s translation (2000) was made initially from Quentin’s printing of the entries and then later checked against the manuscripts. It appears, however, to follow at least at times the order of Dubois and Renaud against the manuscripts (see for example the entries for September 17-20). It should also be noted that the claim that Æthelthryth’s body was “buried when she was sixteen years old” (p 186) is a mistake in translation. For the background on the two texts printed in PL 94.799-1148, see John M. McCulloh (2000 pp 68-69). Biggs (2016) developed out of our work on this entry.

Bibliography Alcamesi, Filippa. 2010. “Ælfric’s Interrogationes Sigewulfi in Genesin: An Educational Dialogue.” In Bremmer and Dekker 2010 pp 175-202. Allan, Verity L. 2006. “Theological Works of the Venerable Bede and their Literary and Manuscript Presentation, with Special Reference to the Gospel Homilies.” M.Litt. thesis, Oxford University. Allen, Michael J.B., and Daniel G. Calder, trans. 1976. Sources and Analogues of Old English Poetry: The Major Latin Texts in Translation. Totowa, NJ. Anderson, O.S. 1941. The Old English Material in the Leningrad Manuscript of Bede’s Ecclesiastical History. Acta Regiae Societatis Humaniorum Litterarum Lundensis 31. Lund. Anlezark, Daniel. 2006. Water and Fire: The Myth of the Flood in Anglo-Saxon England. Manchester. Arngart, O., ed. 1952. The Leningrad Bede: An Eighth Century Manuscript of the Venerable Bede’s Historia Ecclesiastica Gentis Anglorum in the Public Library, Leningrad. EMMF 2. Copenhagen. Arnold, Thomas, ed. 1885. Symeonis Monachi Opera Omnia. 2 vols. RS 75. London. Assmann, Bruno. 1964. Angelsächsische Homilien und Heiligenleben. BaP 3. Darmstadt. Reprinted with an Introduction by Peter Clemoes. Baker, Peter S. 1982. “Byrhtferth’s Enchiridion and the Computus in Oxford, St John’s College 17.” Anglo-Saxon England 10: 123-42. —, ed. 2000. The Anglo-Saxon Chronicle: A Collaborative Edition. Volume 8: MS F. Cambridge. —, and Michael Lapidge, eds. 1995. Byrhtferth’s Enchiridion. EETS SS 15. Oxford. Banting, H.M.J., ed. 1989. Two Anglo-Saxon Pontificals (the Egbert and Sidney Sussex Pontificals). HBS 104. London. Barnwell, P.S. 1991. “Epistula Hieronimi de gradus Romanorum: An English Schoolbook.” Historical Research 64: 77-86. Barré, Henri. 1962. Les homiliaires carolingiens de l’école d’Auxerre. Studi e Testi 225. Vatican. Barrow, Julia S., and N.P. Brooks, eds. 2005. St Wulfstan and His World. Studies in Early Medieval Britain 4. Aldershot. Bately, Janet. 1979. “Bede and the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle.” In King and Stevens 1979 pp 233-54. —. 1988. “Old English Prose Before and During the Reign of Alfred.” Anglo-Saxon England 17: 191-215. —, ed. 1992. The Tanner Bede: The Old English Version of Bede’s Historia Ecclesiastica, Oxford Bodleian Library Tanner 10, together with the Mediaeval Binding Leaves, Oxford Bodleian Library Tanner 10* and the Domitian Extracts, London British Library Cotton Domitian A. IX Fol. 11. EMMF 24. Copenhagen. —. 1993. Anonymous Old English Homilies: A Preliminary Bibliography of Source Studies. Binghamton. Bazire, Joyce and J.E. Cross, eds. 1982. Eleven Old English Rogationtide Homilies. Toronto Old English Series 7. Toronto. Becker, Gustav Heinrich. 1885. Catalogi Bibliothecarum Antiqui. Bonn. Beeson, Charles H. 1947. “The Manuscripts of Bede.” Classical Philology 42: 73-87. Berkhout, Carl T. 2006a. “A Doubtful Old English Gloss in Bede’s Vita sancti Cuthberti.” Notes and Queries n.s. 53: 10. —. 2006b. “An Early Insular Fragment of Bede’s De schematibus et tropis.” Notes and Queries n.s. 53: 10-12. Berschin, Walter. 1989. “Opus deliberatum ac perfectum: Why Did the Venerable Bede Write a Second Prose Life of St Cuthbert?” In Bonner, Rollason, and Stancliffe 1989 pp 95-102.

294 

BEDE – PART 2

—. 2001. “An Unpublished Library Catalogue from Eighth-Century Lombard Italy.” Journal of Medieval Latin 11: 201-09. Bieler, Ludwig. 1976. “Ireland’s Contribution to the Culture of Northumbria.” In Bonner 1976 pp 210-28. Biggs, Frederick M. 1991. “Biblical Glosses in Ælfric’s Translation of Genesis.” Notes and Queries ns 38: 286-92. —. 1997. “Deor’s Threatened ‘Blame Poem.’” Studies in Philology 94: 297-320. —. 2003. Review of Caie 2000 in Modern Language Review 98: 153-54. —. 2003b. “An Introduction and Overview of Recent Work.” In Apocryphal Texts and Traditions in Anglo-Saxon England.” Ed. Kathryn Powell and Donald Scragg, 1-25. Cambridge. —. 2007. “Ælfric’s Mark, Other Things, and Apostolic Authority.” Studies in Philology 104: 227-49. —. 2015. “Domino in domino dominorum: Bede and John of Beverley.” Anglo-Saxon England 44:17-30. —. 2016. “Bede’s Martyrologium and the Martyrologium Hieronymianum.” Analecta Bollandiana 134: 241-78. —. forthcoming. “Christ III and ‘Apparebit repentina dies magna Domini.’” In Old English Tradition: Essays in Honor of J.R. Hall. Ed. Lindy Brady. Birch, Walter de Gray. 1885-99. Cartularium Saxonicum: A Collection of Charters relating to Anglo-Saxon History. 3 vols. London. Bischoff, Bernhard. 1965. “Panorama der Handschriftenüberlieferung aus der Zeit Karls des Grossen.” In Karl der Grosse. Lebenswerk und Nachleben, II. Das geistige Leben. Ed. Bischoff, 233-54. Düsseldorf. Reprinted in Bischoff 1966-81, III.5-38. —. 1966-81. Mittelalterliche Studien. Ausgewählte Aufsätze zur Schriftkunde und Literaturgeschichte. 3 vols. Stuttgart. —. 1994. Manuscripts and Libraries in the Age of Charlemagne. Trans. Michael Gorman. Cambridge Studies in Palaeography and Codicology 1. Cambridge. —. 1998-2014. Katalog der festländischen Handschriften des 9. Jahrhunderts (mit Ausnahme der wisigotischen). 3 vols. Ed. Birgit Ebersperger. Wiesbaden. Bischoff, Bernhard and Michael Lapidge. 1994. Biblical Commentaries from the Canterbury School of Theodore and Hadrian. Cambridge Studies in Anglo-Saxon England 10. Cambridge. Blair, John. 2005. The Church in Anglo-Saxon Society. Oxford. Blake, Martin, ed. 2009. Ælfric’s De temporibus anni. Anglo-Saxon Texts 6. Cambridge. Blanton, Virginia. 2007. Signs of Devotion: The Cult of St. Æthelthryth in Medieval England, 695-1615. University Park, PA. Blokhuis, B.A. 1996. “Bede and Ælfric: The Sources of the Homily on St Cuthbert.” In Houwen and MacDonald 1996 pp 107-38. Bolton, W.F. 1962. “A Bede Bibliography: 1935-1960.” Traditio 18: 436-45. —. 1967. A History of Anglo-Latin Literature, 597-1066. Princeton. Bonner, Gerald, ed. 1976. Famulus Christi: Essays in Commemoration of the Thirteenth Centenary of the Birth of the Venerable Bede. London. —, D.W. Rollason, and Clare Stancliffe, eds. 1989. St. Cuthbert, His Cult and His Community to AD 1200. Woodbridge, Suffolk. Borst, Arno. 1998. Die karolingische Kalenderreform. MGH Schriften 46. Hannover. —. 2001. Der Karolingische Reichskalender und seine Überlieferung bis ins 12. Jahrhundert. MGH Libri Memoriales. 3 vols. Hannover. Bower, Calvin M. 1988. “Boethius’s De institutione musica: A Handlist of Manuscripts.” Scriptorium 42: 205-51. Braekman, W. 1963. “Ælfric’s Old English Homily ‘De Doctrina Apostolica’: An Edition.” Studia Germanica Gandensia 5: 141-73.

Bibliography

295

Bredehoft, Thomas A. 2005. Early English Metre. Toronto Old English Series 15. Toronto. Bremmer, Rolf H. and Kees Dekker, eds. 2007. Foundations of Learning: The Transfer of Encyclopaedic Knowledge in the Early Middle Ages. Mediaevalia Groningana New Series 9. Paris. —, eds. 2010. Practice in Learning: The Transfer of Encyclopaedic Knowledge in the Early Middle Ages. Mediaevalia Groningana New Series 16. Paris. Brinegar, John H. 2000. “’Books Most Necessary’: The Literary and Cultural Contexts of Alfred’s Boethius.” Ph.D. dissertation, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill. Brooks, Kenneth R. 1961. Andreas and the Fates of the Apostles. Oxford. Reprinted 1998. Brooks, Nicholas. 1989. “The Formation of the Mercian Kingdom.” In The Origins of Anglo-Saxon Kingdoms. Ed. Steven Bassett, 159-70. London. —. and Catherine Cubitt, eds. 1996. St Oswald of Worcester: Life and Influence. London. Brotanek, Rudolf, ed. 1913. Texte und Untersuchungen zur altenglischen Literatur- und Kirchengeschichte. Halle. —. 1940. “Nachlese zu den Hss. der Epistola Cuthberti und des Sterbespruches Bedas.” Anglia 64: 159-90. Brown, George Hardin. 1987. Bede the Venerable. Boston. —. 1996. Bede the Educator. Jarrow Lecture 1996. Jarrow. —. 1997. “The Preservation and Transmission of Northumbrian Culture on the Continent: Alcuin’s Debt to Bede.” In Szarmach and Rosenthal 1997 pp 159-75. —. 2002. “Le commentaire problématique de Bède sur le Premier Livre de Samuel.” In Lebecq, Perrin, and Szerwiniack 2002 pp 87-96. —. 2005. “Bede’s Commentary on 1 Samuel.” In Leonardi and Orlandi 2005 pp 77-90. —. 2006. “Bede’s Neglected Commentary on Samuel.” In DeGregorio 2006b pp 121-42. —. 2007. The Bedan Legacy: The Impact of the Venerable Bede’s Works on Western Culture. Publications of the Journal of Medieval Latin 7. Turnhout. —. 2009. A Companion to Bede. Woodbridge, Suffolk. Brown, T. Julian. ed. 1969. The Durham Ritual: A Southern English Collectar of the Tenth Century with Northumbrian Additions. Durham Cathedral Library A.IV.19. EMMF 16. Copenhagen. Browne, Gerald M., ed. 2001. Collectio Psalterii Bedae Venerabili Adscripta. Bibliotheca Scriptorum Graecorum et Romanorum Teubneriana. Munich. —, trans. 2002. The Abbreviated Psalter of the Venerable Bede. Grand Rapids, MI. Bruni, Sandra, ed. 1997. Alcuino: De orthographia. Millennio Medievale 2, Testi 2. Florence. Bullough, Donald A. 1998. “Alcuin’s Cultural Influence: The Evidence of the Manuscripts.” In Houwen and MacDonald 1998 pp 1-26. —. 2004. Alcuin: Achievement and Reputation. Being Part of the Ford Lectures Delivered in Oxford in Hilary Term 1980. Education and Society in the Middle Ages and Renaissance 16. Leiden and Boston. Bulst, Walther. 1959. “Bedae Opera rhythmica?” Zeitschrift für Deutsches Alterum und Deutsche Literatur. 89: 83-91. Burlin, Robert B. 1968. The Old English ‘Advent’: A Typological Commentary. New Haven, CT. Caie, Graham D., ed. 2000. The Old English Poem ‘Judgement Day II’: A Critical Edition with Editions of Bede’s ‘De die iudicii’ and the Hatton 113 Homily ‘Be domes dæge’. Anglo-Saxon Texts 2. Cambridge. Calder, Daniel G. 1981. Cynewulf. Boston. Campbell, A., ed. 1962. The Chronicle of Æthelweard. London. —, ed. 1967. Æthelwulf, De Abbatibus. Oxford.

296 

BEDE – PART 2

Campbell, Jackson J. 1982. “To Hell and Back: Latin Tradition and Literary Use of the ‘Descensus ad Infernos’ in Old English.” Viator 13: 107-58. Cassander, Georg. 1556. Hymni ecclesiastici, praesertim qui Ambrosiani dicuntur, multis in locis recogniti et multorum hymnorum accessione locupletati. Cologne. Cavill, Paul. 2000. “The Manuscripts of Cædmon’s Hymn.” Anglia 118: 499-530. Chazelle, Celia. 2003. “Ceolfrid’s Gift to St. Peter: The First Quire of the Codex Amiatinus and the Evidence of its Roman Destination.” Early Medieval Europe 12: 129-57. Chickering, Howell D., Jr. 1976. “Some Contexts for Bede’s Death-Song.” PMLA 91:91-100. Clayton, Mary. 1985. “Homiliaries and Preaching in Anglo-Saxon England.” Peritia 4: 207-42. Reprinted in Szarmach and Oosterhouse 2000 pp 151-98. —. 1986. “Ælfric and the Nativity of the Blessed Virgin Mary.” Anglia 104: 286-315. —. 1993. “Of Mice and Men: Ælfric’s Second Homily for the Feast of a Confessor.” Leeds Studies in English ns 24: 1-26. —, ed. and trans. 2013. Old English Poems of Christ and His Saints. Dumbarton Oaks Medieval Library 27. Cambridge, MA. Clemoes, Peter. 1974. “The Composition of the Old English Text.” In The Old English Illustrated Hexateuch: British Museum Cotton Claudius B. IV. EMMF 18. Ed. C. R. Dodwell and Clemoes, 42-53. Copenhagen. —, ed. 1997. Ælfric’s Catholic Homilies: The First Series. Text. EETS SS 17. Oxford. Colgrave, Bertram, ed. 1940. Two Lives of Saint Cuthbert: A Life by an Anonymous Monk of Lindisfarne and Bede’s Prose Life. Cambridge. Reprinted 1985. —, ed. 1956. Felix’s Life of Saint Guthlac. Cambridge. Reprinted 1985. —, and R.A.B. Mynors, eds. 1969. Bede’s Ecclesiastical History of the English People. Oxford. Conner, Patrick W. 1993. Anglo-Saxon Exeter: A Tenth-Century Cultural History. Studies in AngloSaxon History. Woodbridge, Suffolk. Connolly, Seán, trans. 1995. Bede: On the Temple. Introduction by Jennifer O’Reilly. Translated Texts for Historians 21. Liverpool. —, trans. 1997. Bede: On Tobit and on the Canticle of Habakkuk. Dublin. Constantinescu, Radu. 1974. “Alcuin et les ‘Libelli precum’ de l’époque carolingienne.” Revue de l’histoire de la spiritualité. 50: 17-56. Contreni, John J. 2005. “Bede’s Scientific Works in the Carolingian Age.” In Lebecq, Perrin, and Szerwiniack 2002 pp 247-59. Cook, Albert S. 1909. The Christ of Cynewulf. 2nd ed. Boston. Reprinted, with a new Preface by John C. Pope, Hamden CT 1964. Crawford, S.J., ed. 1921. Exameron Anglice or The Old English Hexameron. BaP 10. Hamburg. —, ed. 1922. The Old English Version of the Heptateuch, Ælfric’s Treatise on the Old and New Testament and his Preface to Genesis. EETS OS 160. London. Cross, James E. 1963. Ælfric and the Medieval Homiliary: Objection and Contribution. Scripta Minora Regiae Societatis Humaniorum Litterarum Lundensis 4. Lund. —. 1968. “More Sources for Two of Ælfric’s Catholic Homilies.” Anglia 86: 59-78. —. 1969. “Ælfric: Mainly on Memory and Creative Method in Two Catholic Homilies.” Studia Neophilologica 41: 135-55. —. 1972. “The Literate Anglo-Saxon – On Sources and Disseminations.” Proceedings of the British Academy. 58: 67-100. —. 1973. “Portents and Events at Christ’s Birth: Comments on Vercelli V and VI and the Old English Martyrology.” Anglo-Saxon England 2: 209-20. —. 1975. “Blickling Homily XIV and the Old English Martyrology on John the Baptist.” Anglia 93: 145-60.

Bibliography

297

—. 1982. “A Lost Life of Hilda of Whitby: The Evidence of the Old English Martyrology.” In The Early Middle Ages. Acta: Center for Medieval and Early Renaissance Studies 6. Ed. W.H. Snyder, 21-43. Binghamton. —. 1985. “On the Library of the Old English Martyrologist.” In Lapidge and Gneuss 1985 pp 227-49. —. 1986. “The Latinity of the Ninth-Century Old English Martyrologist.” In Szarmach 1986 pp 275-99. —. 1986b. “Identification: Towards Criticism.” In Modes of Interpretation in Old English Literature: Essays in Honour of Stanley B. Greenfield. Ed. Phyllis Rugg Brown, Georgia Ronan Crampton, and Fred C. Robinson, 229-46. Toronto. —. 1987. Cambridge Pembroke College MS. 25: A Carolingian Sermonary Used by Anglo-Saxon Preachers. King’s College London Medieval Studies 1. London. —. 1988. “The Use of a Passio S. Sebastiani in the Old English Martyrology.” Mediaevalia 14: 39-50. —. 1996. “Bede’s Influence at Home and Abroad: An Introduction.” In Houwen and MacDonald 1996 pp 17-29. —, and Thomas N. Hall. 1993. “The Fragments of Homiliaries in Canterbury Cathedral Library Ms. Addit. 127/1 and in Kent, County Archives Office, Maidstone, Ms. PRC 49/2.” Scriptorium 47: 186-92. —, and Andrew Hamer, eds. 1999. Wulfstan’s Canon Law Collection. Anglo-Saxon Texts 1. Cambridge. Cubitt, Catherine. 2000. “Monastic Memory and Identity in Anglo-Saxon England.” In Social Identity in Early Medieval Britain. Ed. William O. Frazer and Andrew Tyrell, 253-76. London. Darby, Peter. 2012. Bede and the End of Time. Studies in Early Medieval Britain. Farnham, Surrey. —, and Faith Wallis, eds. 2014. Bede and the Future. Studies in Early Medieval Britain and Ireland. Farnham, Surrey. Darlington, Reginald P., ed., 1928. The Vita Wulfstani of William of Malmesbury. London. Davis, R.H.C. 1989. “Bede after Bede.” In Studies in Medieval History Presented to R. Allen Brown. Ed. Christopher Harper-Bill, Christopher J. Holdworth, and Janet L. Nelson, 103-16. Woodbridge. De Bruyne, Donatien. 2014. Summaries, Divisions and Rubrics of the Latin Bible. Turnhout. Reprint of Sommaires, divisions et rubriques de la Bible latine (Namur, 1914) with Introductions by Pierre-Maurice Bogaert and Thomas O’Loughlin. —. 2015. Prefaces to the Latin Bible. Reprint of Préfaces de la Bible Latine (Namur, 1920) with Introductions by Pierre-Maurice Bogaert and Thomas O’Loughlin. DeGregorio, Scott. 2002. “Bede’s In Ezram et Neemiam: A Document in Church Reform?” In Lebecq, Perrin, and Szerwiniack 2002 pp 97-107. —. 2004. “Bede’s In Ezram et Neemiam and the Reform of the Northumbrian Church.” Speculum 79: 1-25. —, trans. 2006a. Bede on Ezra and Nehemiah. Translated Texts for Historians 47. Liverpool. —, ed. 2006b. Innovation and Tradition in the Writings of the Venerable Bede. Morgantown. —. 2006c. “In Footsteps of His Own: Bede’s Commentary on Ezra-Nehemiah.” In DeGregorio 2006b pp 143-68. —, ed. 2010a. The Cambridge Companion to Bede. Cambridge. —. 2010b. “Bede and the Old Testament.” In DeGregorio 2010a pp 127-41. —. 2014. “Visions of Reform: Bede’s Later Writings in Context.” In Darby and Wallis 2014 pp 207-32. Deshman, Robert. 1995. The Benedictional of Æthelwold. Princeton. Dionisotti, Anna Carlotta. 1982. “On Bede, Grammars, and Greek.” Revue Bénédictine 92: 111-41.

298 

BEDE – PART 2

Di Sciacca, Claudia. 2008. Finding the Right Words: Isidore’s Synonyma in Anglo-Saxon England. Toronto. Doane, A.N., ed. 2013. Genesis A: A New Edition, Revised. Tempe. Dobbie, Elliott Van Kirk. 1937. The Manuscripts of Cædmon’s Hymn and Bede’s Death Song: With a Critical Text of the Epistula Cuthberti de obitu Bedæ. Columbia University Studies in English and Comparative Literature 128. New York. Doble, G.H., ed. 1937. Pontificale Lanaletense (Bibliothèque de la ville de Rouen A. 27. cat. 368.): A Pontifical formerly in Use at St. Germans, Cornwall. HBS 74. London. Dolbeau, François. 1996a. “Le Sermonnaire augustinien de Mayence (Mainz, Stadtbibliothek I 9): analyse et histoire.” Revue Bénédictine 106: 5-52. —. 1996b. “Bède, lecteur des sermons d’Augustin.” Filologia mediolatina 3: 105-33. Dreves, Guido M., ed. 1907. Lateinische Hymnendichter des Mittelalters. Vol. 2. AH 50. Leipzig. Reprinted New York 1961. Dronke, Peter, Michael Lapidge and Peter Stotz. 1982. “Die unveröffentlichten Gedichte der Cambridger Liederhandschrift (CUL Gg.5.35).” Mittellateinisches Jahrbuch 17: 54-95. Dubois, Jacques. 1978. Les martyrologes du Moyen Âge latin. Typologie des sources du Moyen Âge occidental 26. Turnhout. —, and Geneviève Renaud, eds. 1976. Édition pratique des martyrologes de Bède, de l’anonyme lyonnais et de Florus. Paris. Dümmler, Ernst. 1895. Epistolae Karolini aevi. Vol. 2. Berlin. Dumville, David N. 1986. “The West Saxon Genealogical Regnal Lists: Manuscripts and Texts.” Anglia 104: 1-32. —. 1987. “English Square Minuscule Script: The Background and Earliest Phases.” Anglo-Saxon England 16: 147-79. —. 1992. Liturgy and the Ecclesiastical History of Late Anglo-Saxon England: Four Studies. Studies in Anglo-Saxon History. Woodbridge, Suffolk. —. 2007. “The Two Earliest Manuscripts of Bede’s Ecclesiastical History?” Anglo-Saxon 1: 55-108. Ebersperger, Birgit. 1999. Die angelsächsischen Handschriften in den Pariser Bibliotheken: mit einer Edition von Ælfrics Kirchweihhomilie aus der Handschrift Paris, BN lat. 943. Heidelberg. Eckenrode, Thomas. 1985. “The Venerable Bede: A Bibliographical Essay, 1970-81.” American Benedictine Review 36: 172-94. Elfassi, Jacques. 2002. “L’occultation du paganisme dans la Chronique mineure de Bède le Vénérable.” In Lebecq, Perrin, and Szerwiniack 2002 pp 63-69. Fehr, Bernhard. 1914. Die Hirtenbriefe Ælfrics in altenglischer und lateinischer Fassung. BaP 9. Reprinted with supplementary introduction by Peter Clemoes. Darmstadt, 1966. Finnegan, R.E., ed. 1977. Christ and Satan: A Critical Editon. Waterloo, Ont. Flint, Valerie I.J. 1970. “The True Author of the Salonii Commentarii in Parabolas Salomonis et in Ecclesiasten.” Recherches de théologie ancienne et médiévale 37: 174-186. Floyer, John Kestell and Sidney Graves Hamilton. 1906. Catalogue of Manuscripts preserved in the Chapter Library of Worcester Cathedral. Worcester. Förster, Max. 1892. Über die Quellen von Aelfrics Homiliae Catholicae: I. Legenden. Berlin. —. 1894. “Über die Quellen von Aelfrics exegetischen Homiliae Catholicae,” Anglia 16: 1-61. Foley, W. Trent. 2005. “Bede’s Exegesis of Passages Unique to the Gospel of Mark.” In Leonardi and Orlandi 2005 pp 105-24. Foley, W. Trent, and Arthur G. Holder, trans. 1999. Bede: A Biblical Miscellany. Translated Texts for Historians 28. Liverpool.

Bibliography

299

Fontaine, Jacques, ed. 1960. Isidore de Seville: Traité de la nature. Bibliothèque de l’École des hautes études hispaniques 28. Bordeaux. Foot, Sarah. 2014. “Women, Prayer and Preaching in the Early English Church.” In Prayer and Thought in Monastic Tradition: Essays in Honour of Benedicta Ward, SLG. Ed. Santha Bhattacharji, Rowan Williams, and Dominic Mattos, 59-75. London. Fox, Michael and Manish Sharma, eds. 2012. Old English Literature and the Old Testament. Toronto. Franklin, Carmela Vircillo. 2000. “The Date of Composition of Bede’s De schematibus et tropis and De arte metrica.” Revue Bénédictine 110: 199-203. —. 2004. The Latin Dossier of Anastasius the Persian: Hagiographic Translations and Transformations. Studies and Texts 147. Toronto. —, and Paul J. Meyvaert. 1982. “Has Bede’s Version of the Passio S. Anastasii Come Down to Us in BHL 408?” Analecta Bollandiana 100: 373-400. Fransen, Paul-Irénée. 1955. “Les commentaires de Bède et de Florus sur l’Apȏtre et saint Césaire d’Arles.” Revue Bénédictine 65: 262-66. —. 1961. “Description de la collection de Bède le Vénérable sur l’Apȏtre.” Revue Bénédictine 71: 22-70. —. 1987. “D’Eugippius à Bède le Vénérable à propos de leurs florilèges Augustiniens.” Revue Bénédictine 97: 187-94. Frede, Hermann Josef. 1976. Vetus Latina: Die Reste der altlateinischen Bible. Vol. 25. Freiburg. Friesen, Bill. 2011. “The Opus Geminatum and Anglo-Saxon Literature.” Neophilologus 95: 123-44. Fry, Donald K. 1991. “Two Bede Bibliographies: A Progress Report.” Old English Newsletter 25/1: 34-36. Fulk, R.D. 1992. A History of Old English Meter. University of Pennsylvania Middle Ages Series. Philadelphia. Gameson, Richard. 1996. “The Origin of the Exeter Book of Old English Poetry.” Anglo-Saxon England 25: 135-85 and plates II-IX. —. 1999. The Manuscripts of Early Norman England (c. 1066-1130). Oxford. —, ed. 2012a. The Cambridge History of the Book in Britain. Volume. I: 400-1100. —. 2012b. “Anglo-Saxon Scribes and Scriptoria.” In Gameson 2012a pp 94-120. Ganz, David. 2004. “Le De Laude Dei d’Alcuin.” Annales de Bretagne et des Pays de l’Ouest 111/3: 389-92. —. 2006. “Anglo-Saxon England.” In The Cambridge History of Libraries in Britain and Ireland. Volume I: From the Early Middle Ages to the Civil War. Ed. Elisabeth Leedham-Green and Teresa Webber, 91-108. Cambridge. Garrison, Mary. 2012. “The Library of Alcuin of York.” In Gameson 2012a pp 633-64. Gatch, Milton McC. 1992. “Piety and Liturgy in the Old English ‘Vision of Leofric.’” In Words, Texts and Manuscripts: Studies in Anglo-Saxon Culture Presented to Helmut Gneuss on the Occasion of his Sixty-Fifth Birthday. Ed. Michael Korhammer, 159-79. Cambridge. Geyer, Paul, ed. 1898. Itinera Hierosolymitana saecvli IIII-VIII. CSEL 39. Vienna. Giles, J.A., ed. 1843-44. The Complete Works of Venerable Bede, in the Original Latin. 12 vols. London. Reprinted 1967. —, ed. 1845. The Biographical Writings and Letters of Venerable Bede. London. —, ed. 1851. Anecdota Bedae, Lanfranci, et Aliorum. Inedited Tracts, Letters, Poems, &c. of Venerable Bede, Lanfranc, Tatwin, and Others. London. Reprinted New York, 1967. —, ed. 1854. Vita quorundum Anglo-Saxonum: Original Lives of Anglo-Saxons and Others, Who Lived before the Conquest. London. Reprinted New York, 1967.

300 

BEDE – PART 2

Gneuss, Helmut. 1968. Hymnar und Hymnen im englischen Mittelalter. Munich. —. 2001. Handlist of Anglo-Saxon Manuscripts: A List of Manuscripts and Manuscript Fragments Written or Owned in England up to 1100. Medieval and Renaissance Texts and Studies 241. Tempe. —, and Michael Lapidge. 2003. “The Earliest Manuscript of Bede’s Metrical Vita S. Cudbercti.” Anglo-Saxon England 32: 43-54. Godden, Malcolm, ed. 1979. Ælfric’s Catholic Homilies: The Second Series. Text. EETS SS 5. Oxford. —. 1985. “Anglo-Saxons on the Mind.” In Lapidge and Gneuss 1985 pp 271-98. —. 2000. Ælfric’s Catholic Homilies: Introduction, Commentary and Glossary. EETS SS 18. Oxford. Godman, Peter. 1981. “The Anglo-Latin opus geminatum: From Aldhelm to Alcuin.” Medium Ævum 50: 215-29. —, ed. 1982. Alcuin, The Bishops, Kings, and Saints of York. Oxford Medieval Texts. Oxford. Goffart, Walter. 1990. “The Historia Ecclesiastica: Bede’s Agenda and Ours.” Haskins Society Journal 2: 29-45. —. 2005. “Bede’s uera lex historiae Explained.” Anglo-Saxon England 34: 111-16. Gorman, Michael M. 1996. “The Glosses on Bede’s De temporum ratione attributed to Byrhtferth of Ramsey.” Anglo-Saxon England 25: 209-32. Reprinted in Biblical Commentaries from the Early Middle Ages, Florence, 2002 pp 175-98. —. 1996b. “The Commentary on the Pentateuch Attributed to Bede in PL 91.189-394.” Revue Bénédictine 106: 61-108 and 255-307. —. 1998. “The Argumenta and Explanationes on the Psalms Attributed to Bede.” Revue Bénédictine 108: 214-39. Reprinted in Gorman 2007 pp 20-45. —. 1999. “Bede’s VIII Quaestiones and Carolingian Biblical Scholarship.”Revue Bénédictine 109: 32-74. Reprinted in Gorman 2007 pp 62-104. —. 2001. “The Canon of Bede’s Works and the World of Ps. Bede.” Revue Bénédictine 111: 399-445. Reprinted in Gorman 2007 pp 299-345. —. 2002. “Source Marks and Chapter Divisions in Bede’s Commentary on Luke.” Revue Bénédictine 112: 246-90. Reprinted in Gorman 2007 pp 378-422. —. 2006. “Adomnán’s De locis sanctis: The Diagrams and the Sources.” Revue Bénédictine 116:5-41. —. 2007. The Study of the Bible in the Early Middle Ages. Florence. —. 2009. “Rewriting Augustine: Alcuin’s Commentary on the Gospel of John.” Revue Bénédictine 119: 36-85. Graham, Timothy. 1997. “Robert Talbot’s ‘Old Saxonice Bede.’” In Books and Collectors, 1200-1700: Essays Presented to Andrew Watson. Ed. James P. Carley and Colin G.C. Tite, 295-316. London. Gransden, Antonia. 1981. “Bede’s Reputation as an Historian in Medieval England.” Journal of Ecclesiastical History 32: 397-425. Reprinted with an additional note in her Legends, Traditions and History in Medieval England, 1-29. London and Rio Grande, Ohio, 1992. Grégoire, Réginald. 1966. Les homéliaires du moyen âge: Inventaire et analyse de manuscrits. Rerum Ecclesiasticarum Documenta, Series Maior, Fontes 6. Rome. —. 1980. Homéliaires liturgiques médiévaux: Analyse de manuscrits. Spoleto. Gretsch, Mechthild. 2001. “Ælfric and Gregory the Great.” In Scragg 2001 pp 11-54. —. 2005. Ælfric and the Cult of the Saints in Late Anglo-Saxon England. Cambridge Studies in Anglo-Saxon England 34. Cambridge. Grierson, Ph[ilip]. 1940a. “La bibliothèque de St-Vaast d’Arras au XIIe siècle.” Revue Bénédictine 52: 117-40. —. 1940b. “Les livres de l’Abbé Seiwold de Bath.” Revue Bénédictine 52: 96-116. Griffith, Mark. 2001. Review of Caie 2000 in Medium Ævum 70: 322-23.

Bibliography

301

Grinda, Klaus R. and Claus-Dieter Wetzel. 1999. Anglo-Saxonica: Beiträge zur Vor- und Früh­ geschichte der englischen Sprache und zur altenglischen Literatur: Festschrift für Hans Schabram zum 65. Geburtstag. Munich. Grocock, Christopher and I.N. Wood, eds. 2013. Abbots of Wearmouth and Jarrow: Bede’s Homily i. 13 on Benedict Biscop; Bede’s History of the Abbots of Wearmouth and Jarrow; the Anonymous Life of Ceolfrith; Bede’s Letter to Ecgbert, Bishop of York. Oxford. Gryson, Roger, ed. 2001. Bedae Presbyteri Expositio Apocalypseos. CCSL 121. Turnhout. Gullick, Michael. 1998. “The Hand of Symeon of Durham: Further Observations on the Durham Martyrology Scribe.” In Symeon of Durham: Historian of Durham and the North. Ed. David Rollason, 14-31. Stamford. Günzel, Beate, ed. 1993. Ælfwine’s Prayerbook (London, British Library, Cotton Titus D xxvi. + xxviii.). HBS 108. London. Gunn, Vicky. 2009. Bede’s Historiae: Genre, Rhetoric, and the Construction of Anglo-Saxon Church History. Woodbridge, Suffolk. Gwara, Scott. 1994. “Newly Identified Eleventh-Century Fragments in a Bagford Album, Now London, British Library, MS Harley 5977.” Manuscripta 38: 228-36. Hall, Thomas N. 2007. “Latin Sermons for Saints in Early English Homiliaries and Legendaries.” In Kleist 2007 pp 227-63. —. 2008. “The Development of the Common of Saints in the Early English Versions of Paul the Deacon’s Homiliary.” In Anglo-Saxon Books and Their Readers: Essays in Celebration of Helmut Gneuss’s Handlist of Anglo-Saxon Manuscripts. Publications of the Richard Rawlinson Center. Ed. Hall and Donald Scragg, 31-67. Kalamazoo, MI. —. 2009. “The Portents at Christ’s Birth in Vercelli Homilies V and VI: Some Analogues from Medieval Sermons and Biblical Commentaries.” In Zacher and Orchard 2009 pp 62-97. Halm, Karl, ed. 1863. Rhetores Latini Minores. Leipzig. Reprinted Frankfurt am Main, 1964. Hart, Cyril. 2003. Learning and Culture in Late Anglo-Saxon England and the Influence of Ramsey Abbey on the Major English Monastic Schools: The New Curriculum in Monastic Schools. Mediaeval Studies 17. Lewiston, NY. —, ed. and trans. 2006. Byrhtferth’s Northumbrian Chronicle: An Edition and Translation of the Old English and Latin Annals. The Early Chronicles of England 2. Lewiston, NY. Hawkes, Jane and Susan Mills. 1999. Northumbria’s Golden Age. Stroud. Heikkinen, Sappo. 2012. “The Christianisation of Latin Metre: A Study of Bede’s De arte metrica.” Ph.D. dissertation, University of Helsinki. Henel, Heinrich. 1934. Studien zum altenglischen Computus. Beiträge zur englischen Philologie 26. Leipzig. —, ed. 1942. Ælfric’s De Temporibus Anni. EETS OS 213. London. Reprinted 1970. Hervey, Francis. 1907. Corollla Sancti Eadmundi. The Garland of Saint Edmund King and Martyr. London. Herwagen, Johann [the Younger], ed. 1563. Opera Bedae Venerabilis presbyteri Anglo-Saxonis. 8 vols in 4. Basel. Higham, N.J. 2006. (Re-)reading Bede: The Ecclesiastical History in Context. London. Hill, Joyce. 1992. “Ælfric and Smaragdus.” Anglo-Saxon England 21: 203-37. —. 1998. Bede and the Benedictine Reform. Jarrow Lecture 1998. —. 2007. “Ælfric’s Manuscript of Paul the Deacon’s Homiliary: A Provisional Analysis.” In Kleist 2007 pp 67-96. Hohler, Christopher. 1956. “Durham Services in Honour of St Cuthbert.” In The Relics of Saint Cuthbert: Studies by Various Authors. Ed. C.F. Battiscombe, 155-91. Oxford.

302 

BEDE – PART 2

Holder, Arthur G., trans. 1994. Bede: On the Tabernacle. Translated Texts for Historians 18. Liverpool. —. 1999. “(Un)Dating Bede’s De arte metrica.” In Hawkes and Mills 1999 pp 390-95. —. 2001. “The Patristic Sources of Bede’s Commentary on the Song of Songs.” Studia Patristica 34: 370-75. —. 2005a. “The Anti-Pelagian Character of Bede’s Commentary on the Song of Songs.” In Leonardi and Orlando 2005 pp 91-103. —. 2005b. “The Feminine Christ in Bede’s Biblical Commentaries.” In Lebecq, Perrin, and Szerwiniack 2002 pp 109-18. —. 2006. “Christ as Incarnate Wisdom in Bede’s Commentary on the Song of Songs.” In DeGregorio 2006b pp 169-88. —. 2010. “Bede and the New Testament.” In DeGregorio 2010a pp 142-55. —, trans. 2011. On the Song of Songs and Selected Writings. New York. —, trans. forthcoming. Bede: The Proverbs of Solomon. Cistercian Studies Series. Kalamazoo, MI. Holtz, Louis. 2002. “Bède et la tradition grammaticale latine.” In Lebecq, Perrin, and Szerwiniack 2002 pp 9-18. Hoste, A., C.H. Talbot, and Gaetano Raciti, eds. 1971-2005. Aelredi Rievallensis Opera Omnia. 4 vols to date. CCCM 1, 2A, 2B, 2D. Turnhout. Houwen, L.A.J.R., and A.A. MacDonald, eds. 1996. Beda Venerabilis: Historian, Monk, & Northumbrian. Mediaevalia Groningana 19. Groningen. —, eds. 1998. Alcuin of York: Scholar at the Carolingian Court. Mediaevalia Groningana 22. Groningen. Howatson, M.C., ed. 1989. The Oxford Companion to Classical Literature. 2nd ed. Oxford. Humphreys, K.W., and Alan S.C. Ross. 1975. “Further Manuscripts of Bede’s ‘Historia Ecclesiastica,’ of the ‘Epistola Cuthberti de Obitu Bedae,’ and Further Anglo-Saxon Texts of ‘Cædmon’s Hymn’ and ‘Bede’s Death Song.’” Notes and Queries n.s. 22: 50-55. Hunter Blair, Peter, ed. 1959. The Moore Bede: Cambridge University Library MS Kk. 5. 16. With a contribution by Professor R.A.B. Mynors. EMMF 9. Copenhagen. Hurst, David, ed. 1955. Bedae venerabilis opera. Pars III: Opera homiletica. Pars IV: Opera rhythmica. CCSL 122. Turnhout. —, trans. 1985. The Commentary on the Seven Catholic Epistles of Bede the Venerable. Cistercian Studies Series 82. Kalamazoo, MI. —, trans. 1999. Bede the Venerable: Excerpts from the Works of Saint Augustine on the Letters of the Blessed Apostle Paul. Cistercian Studies Series 183. Kalamazoo, MI. Husner, Georg, ed. 1500. Ecclesiastica historia diui Eusebii et Ecclesiastica historia gentis Anglorum venerabilis Bede: cu[m] vtraru[m]q[ue] historiaru[m] per singulos libros recollecta capitulorum annotatione. Strasbourg. Irvine, Susan, ed. 2004. The Anglo-Saxon Chronicle: A Collaborative Edition. Volume 7. MS. E. Cambridge. Irving, Edward B. 1972. “New Notes on the Old English Exodus.” Anglia 90: 289-324. Jaager, Werner, ed. 1935. Bedas metrische Vita Sancti Cuthberti. Palaestra 198. Leipzig. James, Montague Rhodes. 1905. A Descriptive Catalogue of the Manuscripts in the Library of Pembroke College, Cambridge. Cambridge. —. 1912. A Descriptive Catalogue of the Manuscripts in the Library of Corpus Christi College, Cambridge. Cambridge.

Bibliography

303

—. 1932. A Descriptive Catalogue of the Manuscripts in the Library of Lambeth Palace: The Mediaeval Manuscripts. Cambridge. Jan, Ludwig von, and Karl Friedrich Theodor Mayhoff, eds. 1875-1906. C. Plini Secundi. Naturalis historiae libri XXXVII. 5 vols. Leipzig. Jebson, Tony, ed. 2006. The Anglo-Saxon Chronicle. http://asc.jebbo.co.uk/. Johnson South, Ted, ed. 2002. Historia de Sancto Cuthberto: A History of Saint Cuthbert and a Record of His Patrimony. Anglo-Saxon Texts 3. Woodbridge, Suffolk. Jones, Charles W., ed. 1939. Bedae Pseudepigrapha: Scientific Writings Falsely Attributed to Bede. Ithaca, NY. —, ed. 1943. Bedae opera de temporibus. Cambridge, MA. —. 1976. “Bede’s Place in Medieval Schools.” In Bonner 1976 pp 261-85. Jones, Christopher A., ed. and trans. 1998. Ælfric’s Letter to the Monks of Eynsham. Cambridge Studies in Anglo-Saxon England 24. Cambridge. Jost, Karl. 1927. “Unechte Ælfrictexte.” Anglia 51: 81-103 and 177-219. Kaczynski, Bernice, M. 2006. “The Authority of the Fathers: Patristic Texts in Early Medieval Libraries and Scriptoria,” Journal of Medieval Latin. 16: 1-27. Kelly, Richard J. 2003. The Blickling Homilies: Edition and Translation. London. Kelly, S.E. 2000-01. Charters of Abingdon Abbey. 2 vols. Anglo-Saxon Charters 7-8. Oxford. Kendall, Calvin B., ed. and trans. 1991. Libri II De arte metrica et De schematibus et tropis / The Art of Poetry and Rhetoric / Bede: The Latin Text with an English Translation, Introduction and Notes. Bibliotheca Germanica, series nova 2. Saarbrücken. —. 2006. “The Responsibility of Auctoritas: Method and Meaning in Bede’s Commentary on Genesis.” In DeGregorio 2006b pp 101-19. —, trans. 2008. Bede: On Genesis. Translated Texts for Historians 48. Liverpool. —. 2010. “Bede and Education.” In DeGregorio 2010a pp 99-112. —, and Faith Wallis, trans. 2010. Bede: On the Nature of Things and On Times. Translated Texts for Historians 56. Liverpool. Ker, N.R. 1943. “Aldred the Scribe.” Essays and Studies 28: 7-12. Reprinted in his Books, Collectors and Libraries: Studies in the Medieval Heritage. Ed. A.G. Watson. London, 1985. —. 1944. Review of Laistner 1943 in Medium Ævum 13: 36-40. —. 1957. Catalogue of Manuscripts Containing Anglo-Saxon. Oxford. —. 1969-2002. Medieval Manuscripts in British Libraries. 5 vols. Oxford. [vol IV by Ker and A.J. Piper; vol V edited by I. C. Cunningham and A.G. Watson] Keynes, Simon. 1985. “King Athelstan’s Books.” In Learning and Literature in Anglo-Saxon England: Studies Presented to Peter Clemoes on the Occasion of his Sixty-Fifth Birthday. Ed. Michael Lapidge and Helmut Gneuss, 143-201. Cambridge. —, and Michael Lapidge, trans. 1983. Alfred the Great. Asser’s Life of King Alfred and Other Contemporary Sources. Harmondsworth, Middlesex. King, Margot H., and Wesley M. Stevens, eds. 1979. Saints, Scholars, and Heroes: Studies in Medieval Culture in Honor of Charles W. Jones. Collegeville, MN. Kitson, Peter. 1983. “Lapidary Traditions in Anglo-Saxon England: Part II, Bede’s Explanatio Apocalypsis and Related Works.” Anglo-Saxon England 12: 73-123. Klaeber, Frederick. 2015. A Commentary on the Old English Version of Bede’s Ecclesiastical History. Translated and edited by Valentine A. Pakis; introduction by Sharon M. Rowley. Old English Publications: Studies and Criticism 2. Tempe. [Translated from “Zur altenglischen Bedaübersetzung,” Anglia 25 (1902): 257-315; and 27 (1904): 243-82 and 399-435)].

304 

BEDE – PART 2

Kleist, Aaron J, ed. 2007. The Old English Homily: Precedent, Practice, and Appropriation. Studies in the Early Middle Ages 17. Turnhout. Knappe, Gabriele. 1996. Traditionen der klassischen Rhetorik im angelsächsischen England. Anglistische Forschungen 236. Heidelberg. Kotzor, Günter, ed. 1981. Das altenglische Martyrologium. 2 vols. Bayerische Akademie der Wissenschaften, phil.-hist. Klasse, Abhandlungen, n.F. 88. Munich. —. 1986. “The Latin Tradition of Martyrologies and the Old English Martyrology.” In Szarmach 1986 pp 301-33. Kramer, Johanna. 2007. “’Đu eart se weallstan’: Architectural Metaphor and Christological Imagery in the Old English Christ I and the Book of Kells.” In Wright, Biggs, and Hall 2007 pp 90-112. —. 2014. Between Earth and Heaven: Liminality and the Ascension of Christ in Anglo-Saxon Literature. Manchester Medieval Literature and Culture. Manchester. Kuypers, A.B., ed. 1902. The Prayer Book of Aedeluald the Bishop, Commonly Called the Book of Cerne. Cambridge. Laistner, M.L.W. 1933. “Source-Marks in Bede Manuscripts.” Journal of Theological Studies 1933: 350-54. —. 1937. “The Latin Versions of Acts Known to the Venerable Bede.” Harvard Theological Review 30: 37-50. —, ed. 1939. Bedae Venerabilis Expositio Actuum Apostolorum et Retractatio. Mediaeval Academy of America Publication 35. Cambridge, MA. —, with the collaboration of H.H. King. 1943. A Hand-List of Bede Manuscripts. Ithaca, NY. La Penna, Antonio. 1957. Publi Ovidi Nasonis Ibis. Biblioteca di studi superiori 34. Florence. Lapidge, Michael. 1988a. Abbreviations for Sources and Specification of Standard Editions for Sources. Binghamton. —. 1988b. “A Frankish Scholar in Tenth-century England: Frithegod of Canterbury/Fredegaud of Brioude.” Anglo-Saxon England 17: 45-65. —. 1993a. Anglo-Latin Literature 900-1066. London. —. 1993b. “Byrhtferth and the Vita S. Ecgwini.” In Lapidge 1993a pp 293-315 and 487. Reprinted with additional notes from Mediaeval Studies 41 (1979): 331-53. —. 1993c. “Byrhtferth of Ramsey and the Early Sections of the Historia Regum attributed to Symeon of Durham.” In Lapidge 1993a pp 317-42 and 488. Reprinted with additional notes from Anglo-Saxon England 10 (1981): 97-122. —. 1993d. “Æthelwold as Scholar and Teacher.” In Lapidge 1993a pp 183-211 and 482. Reprinted with additional notes from Bishop Æthelwold: His Career and Influence. Ed. Barbara Yorke, 89-117. Ipswich, 1988. —, ed. 1994. Bede and His World: The Jarrow Lectures, 1958-1993. 2 vols. Aldershot. —, ed. 1995a. Archbishop Theodore: Commemorative Studies on his Life and Influence. Cambridge Studies in Anglo-Saxon Literature 11. Cambridge. —. 1995b. “Prolegomena to an Edition of Bede’s Metrical Vita Sancti Cuthberti.” Filologia Mediolatina 2: 127-63. —. 1996a. Anglo-Latin Literature 600-899. London. —. 1996b. “Bede the Poet.” In Lapidge 1996a pp 314-38 and 508. Reprinted with additional notes from the Jarrow Lecture 1993. —. 1996c. “Bede’s Metrical Vita S. Cuthberti.” In Lapidge 1996a pp 339-55 and 509. Reprinted with additional notes from Bonner, Rollason, and Stancliffe 1989 pp 77-93.

Bibliography

305

—. 1996d. “Some Remnants of Bede’s Lost Liber Epigrammatum.” In Lapidge 1996a pp 357-79, 510-12. Reprinted with additional notes from English Historical Review 90 (1975): 798-820. —. 1996e. “Aediluulf and the School of York.” In Lapidge 1996a pp 381-98 and 513. Reprinted with additional notes from Lateinische Kultur im VIII. Jahrhundert. Traube-Gedenkschrift. Ed. Albert Lehner and Walter Berschin, 161-78. St. Ottilien, 1990. —. 1996f. “Byrhtferth and Oswald.” In Brooks and Cubitt 1996 pp 64-83. —. 2003a. “Asser’s Reading.” In Alfred the Great: Papers from the Eleventh Century Conferences. Ed. Timothy Reuter, 27-47. Aldershot. —. 2003b. The Cult of St Swithun. With contributions by John Crook, Robert Deshman, and Susan Rankin. Winchester Studies 4.ii. Oxford. —. 2004. “Bede and the ‘Versus de die iudicii.’” In Nova de veteribus: Mittel- und neulateinische Studien für Paul Gerhard Schmidt. Ed. Andreas Bihrer and Elisabeth Stein, 103-11. Munich. —. 2005a. “Bede and the Poetic Diction of Vergil.” In Poesía latina medieval (siglos V-XV): actas del IV Congreso del “Internationales Mittellateinerkomitee,” Santiago de Compostela, 12-15 de septimbre de 2002. Ed. Manuel C. Díaz y Díaz and José M. Diáz de Bustamente, 739-48. Florence. —. 2005b. “Acca of Hexham and the Origin of the Old English Martyrology.” Analecta Bollandiana 123: 29-78. —. 2006. The Anglo-Saxon Library. Oxford. —. 2008a. “Beda Venerabilis.” In La trasmissione dei testi latini del Medioevo 3. Medieval Latin Texts and their Transmission: Te. Tra. 3, 44-137. Florence. —. 2008b. “Byrhtferth of Ramsey and the Glossae Bridferti in Bedam.” Journal of Medieval Latin 17: 384-400. —. 2008c. “The Latin Exemplar of the Old English Bede.” In Tuo serto di fiori in man recando. Scritti in onore di Maria Amelia D’Aronco. Ed. Patrizia Lendinara. 2 vols. 2.235-46. Undine. —, ed. 2009. Byrhtferth of Ramsey: The Lives of St Oswald and St Ecgwine. Oxford. —, ed. 2010. Beda. Storia degli Inglesi. 2 vols. Scrittori Greci e Latini. 3rd ed. of vol. 1. [Rome.] —. 2013. “The Earliest Anglo-Latin Poet: Lutting of Lindisfarne.” Anglo-Saxon England 42: 1-26. —. Forthcoming. Bede’s Latin Poetry. Oxford. —, and Helmut Gneuss, eds. 1985. Learning and Literature in Anglo-Saxon England: Studies Presented to Peter Clemoes on the Occasion of his Sixty-Fifth Birthday. Cambridge. —, and Michael Winterbottom, eds. 1991. Wulfstan of Winchester: The Life of St Æthelwold. Oxford. Lebecq, Stéphane, Michel Perrin, and Olivier Szerwiniack, eds. 2002. Bède le Vénérable entre tradition et posterité / The Venerable Bede, Tradition and Posterity. Colloque organisé à Villeneuve d’Ascq et Amiens par le CRHEN-O (Université de Lille 3) et Textes, Images et Spiritualité (Université de Picardie-Jules Verne) du 3 au 6 juillet 2002. Collection “Histoire de l’Europe du Nord-Ouest.” Lille. Lehmann, Paul. 1919. “Wert und Echtheit einer Beda abgesprochenen Schrift.” Sitzungsberichte der Bayerischen Akademie der Wissenschaften 4: 3-21. Leinbaugh, Theodore H. 1986. “The Sources for Ælfric’s Easter Sermon: The History of the Controversy and a New Source.” Notes & Queries, n.s. 33: 294-311. Leland, John. 1770. Joannis Lelandi Antiquarii de Rebvs Britannicis Collectanea. Editio altera. 6 vols. London. Lendinara, Patrizia. 2001. “Alcuino e il De die iudicii.” In Miscellanea di studi in memoria di Cataldo Roccaro [= Pan (Palermo) 18-19] Palermo pp 303-24. —. 2007a. “The Versus de die iudicii: Its Circulation and Use as a School Text in Late Anglo-Saxon England.” In Bremmer and Dekker 2007 pp 175-212.

306 

BEDE – PART 2

—. 2007b. “Translating Doomsday: De die iudicii and its Old English Translation.” In Beowulf and Beyond. Ed. Hans Sauer and Renate Bauer, 17-67. Frankfurt am Main. Lenker, Ursula. 1997. Die westsächsische Evangelienversion und die Perikopenordnungen im angelsächsischen England. Texte und Untersuchungen zur englischen Philologie 20. Munich. Leonardi, Claudio and Giovanni Orlandi, eds. 2005. Biblical Studies in the Early Middle Ages; Proceedings of the Conference on Biblical Studies in the Early Middle Ages. Millennio Medievale 52; Atti di Convegni 16. Florence. Levison, Wilhelm. 1935. “Bede as Historian.” in Thompson 1935 pp 111-51. —. 1946. England and the Continent in the Eighth Century: The Ford Lectures Delivered in the University of Oxford in the Hilary Term, 1943. Oxford. Lifshitz, Felice. 2000. “Bede, Martyrology.” In Medieval Hagiography: An Anthology. Ed. Thomas Head, 169-97. New York. Lohrmann, Dietrich. 1993. “Alcuins Korrespondenz mit Karl dem Grossen über Kalender und Astronomie.” In Science in Western and Eastern Civilization in Carolingian Times. Ed. P.L. Butzer and Lohrmann, 79-114. Basel. Love, Rosalind C., ed. and trans. 1996. Three Eleventh-Century Anglo-Latin Saints’ Lives: Vita S. Birini, Vita et Miracula S. Kenelmi and Vita S. Rumwoldi. Oxford Medieval Texts. Oxford. —. 2012. “The Library of the Venerable Bede.” In Gameson 2012a pp 606-32. Lowe, E.A. 1926. “A New Manuscript Fragment of Bede’s ‘Historia Ecclesiastica.’” English Historical Review 41: 244-46. Lucas, Peter J. ed. 1994. Exodus. Revised. Exeter. Mabillon, Jean. 1675. Veterum analectorum tomus I complectens varia fragmenta & epistolia scriptorum ecclesiasticorum, tam prosa, quam metro, hactenus inedita. Paris. Mackay, Thomas William. 1971. “A Critical Edition of Bede’s Vita Felicis.” Ph.D. dissertation, Stanford University. —. 1976. “Bede’s Hagiographic Method: His Knowledge and Use of Paulinus of Nola.” In Bonner 1976 pp 77-92. —. 2001. “Apocalypse Comments by Primasius, Bede, and Alcuin: Interrelationship, Dependency and Individuality.” Studia Patristica 36: 28-34. MacLean, George E. 1883. “Ælfric’s Anglo-Saxon Version of Alcuini Interrogationes Sigeuulfi in Genesin.” Anglia 6: 425-73. —. 1884. “Ælfric’s Anglo-Saxon Version of Alcuini Interrogationes Sigeuulfi in Genesin (Forsetzung).” Anglia 7: 1-59. Malaspina, Elena. 1979. “Tre meditazioni salmiche di Beda il Venerabile.” In Studi di poesia in onore di Antonio Traglia. 2 vols. 2.973-87. Storia e litteratura 147. Rome. Mann, Gareth. 2004. “The Development of Wulfstan’s Alcuin Manuscript.” In Wulfstan, Archbishop of York: The Proceedings of the Second Alcuin Conference. Ed. Matthew Townend, 235-78. Studies in the Early Middle Ages 10. Turnhout. Marenbon, John. 2004. “Candidus [Hwita, Wizo].” ODNB 9.888-89. Marsden, Richard. 2000. “Translation by Committee? The ‘Anonymous’ Text of the Old English Hexateuch.” In The Old English Hexateuch: Aspects and Approaches. Ed. Rebecca Barnhouse and Benjamin C. Withers, 41-89. Kalamazoo, MI. Marshall, Edward, trans. 1878. The Explanation of the Apocalypse by Venerable Bede. Oxford. Marsili, Aldo, ed. 1952. Alcuini Orthographia. Pisa. Martin, Lawrence T., trans. 1989. The Venerable Bede: Commentary on the Acts of the Apostles. Cistercian Studies Series 117. Kalamazoo, MI.

Bibliography

307

—. 2006. “Bede’s Originality in his Use of the Book of Wisdom in his Homilies on the Gospels.” In DeGregorio 2006b pp 189-202. —. 2010. “Bede and Preaching.” In DeGregorio 2010a pp 156-69. —, and David Hurst, trans. 1991. Bede the Venerable: Homilies on the Gospels. 2 vols. Cistercian Studies Series 110-11. Kalamazoo, MI. Mayr-Harting, Henry. 1976. The Venerable Bede, the Rule of St Benedict, and Social Class. Jarrow Lecture 1976. Reprinted in Lapidge 1994 1.407-34. McClure, Judith. 1984. “Bede and the Life of Ceolfrid.” Peritia 3: 71-84. McClure, Judith, and Roger Collins, eds. 1994. The Ecclesiastical History of the English People; The Greater Chronicle; Bede’s Letter to Egbert. Oxford. McCoy, Adam Dunbar. 1973. “The Use of the Writings of English Authors in Old English Homiletic Literature.” Ph.D. dissertation, Cornell University. McCulloh, John M. 2000. “Did Cynewulf Use a Martyrology: Reconsidering the Sources of Fates of the Apostles.” Anglo-Saxon England 29: 67-83. McDaniel, Rhonda L. 2013. “Agnes among the Anglo-Saxons: Patristic Influences in Anglo-Latin and Anglo-Saxon Versions of the Passio of St Agnes, Virgin and Martyr.” In Szarmach 2013 pp 217-48. McGurk, P. 1986. “The Metrical Calendar of Hampson: A New Edition.” Analecta Bollandiana 104: 79-125. McKitterick, Rosamond. 1989. “The Anglo-Saxon Missionaries in Germany: Reflections on the Manuscript Evidence.” Transactions of the Cambridge Bibliographical Society 9: 291-329. Reprinted in her Books, Scribes and Learning in the Frankish Kingdoms, 6th-9th Centuries, no. IV. Aldershot, 1994. —. 2002. “Kulturelle Verbindungen zwischen England und den fränkischen Reichen in der Zeit der Karolinger: Kontexte und Implikationen.” In Deutschland und der Westen Europas im Mittelalter. Ed. Joachim Ehlers, 121-48. Vorträge und Forschungen 56. Stuttgart. —. 2011. “Exchanges between the British Isles and the Continent.” In Gameson 2011a pp 311-37. McMullen, A. Joseph. 2014. “Rewriting the Ecclesiastical Landscape of Early Medieval Northumbria in the Lives of Cuthbert.” Anglo-Saxon England 43: 57-98. McRoberts, David. 1973. “A ‘Continuatio Bedae’ from Whithorn?” The Innes Review 24: 69-71. Mearns, James. 1913. Early Latin Hymnaries: An Index of Hymns and Hymnaries before 1100, with an Appendix from Later Sources. Cambridge. Meritt, Herbert Dean. 1945. Old English Glosses: A Collection. New York. Reprinted 1971. Meyer, Wilhelm. 1917. “Poetische Nachlese aus dem sogenannten Book of Cerne in Cambridge und aus dem Londoner Codex Regius 2.A.XX.” Nachrichten von der königlichen Gesellschaft der Wissenschaften zu Göttingen, phil.-hist. Klasse, 597-625. Meyvaert, Paul. 1976. “Bede the Scholar.” In Bonner 1976 pp 40-69. —. 1979. “Bede and the Church Paintings at Wearmouth-Jarrow.” Anglo-Saxon England 8: 63-77. —. 1995. “Bede’s Capitula Lectionum for the Old and New Testaments.” Revue Bénédictine 105: 348-80. —. 1996. “Bede, Cassiodorus, and the Codex Amiatinus.” Speculum 71: 827-83. —. 1999. “The Date of Bede’s Thirty Questions on the Books of Kings to Nothelm.” In The Limits of Ancient Christianity: Essays in Late Antique Thought and Culture in Honor of R.A. Markus, ed. William E Klingshirn and Mark Vessey, 267-86. Ann Arbor. —. 2002a. “Medieval Notions of Publication: The ‘Unpublished’ Opus Caroli regis contra synodum and the Council of Frankfort (794).” Journal of Medieval Latin 12: 78-89. —. 2002b. “Discovering the Calendar (annalis libellus) Attached to Bede’s Own Copy of De temporum ratione.” Analecta Bollandiana 120: 5-64.

308 

BEDE – PART 2

—. 2005. “The Date of Bede’s In Ezram and His Image of Ezra in the Codex Amiatinus.” Speculum 80: 1087-1133. —. 2006. “Dissension in Bede’s Community Shown by a Quire of the Codex Amiatinus.” Revue Bénédictine 116: 295-309. Milfull, Inge B. 1996. The Hymns of the Anglo-Saxon Church: A Study and Edition of the ‘Durham Hymnal’. Cambridge Studies in Anglo-Saxon England 17. Cambridge. Millar, E.G., ed. 1927-30. The Library of A. Chester Beatty: A Descriptive Catalogue of the Western Manuscripts. 2 vols in 4. Oxford. Miller, Thomas, ed. 1890-98. The Old English Version of Bede’s Ecclesiastical of the English People. 4 vols. EETS OS 95, 96, 110, 111. London. Reprinted 1997. Moore, Samuel. 1911. “On the Sources of the Old English Exodus.” Modern Philology 9: 83-108. Morin, Germain. 1892. “Le recueil primitif des homélies de Bède sur l’évangile.” Revue Bénédictine 9: 316-26. Murphy, James J. 1970. “The Rhetorical Lore of the Boceras in Byrhtferth’s Manual.” In Philological Essays: Studies in Old and Middle English Language and Literature in Honour of Herbert Dean Meritt. Ed. J.L. Rosier, 111-24. The Hague. Napier, Arthur, ed. 1883. Wulfstan. Sammlung der ihm zugeschriebenen Homilien nebst Untersuchungen über ihre Echtheit. I. Text und Varianten. Berlin. —. 1900. Old English Glosses, Chiefly Unpublished. Anecdota Oxoniensia, Mediaeval and Modern Series 11. Oxford. Reprinted Hildesheim, 1967. —. 1907-10. “An Old English Vision of Leofric, Earl of Mercia.” Transactions of the Philological Society: 180-88. O’Brien, Conor. 2015. Bede’s Temple: An Image and Its Interpretation. Oxford Theology and Religion Monographs. Oxford. O’Brien O’Keeffe, Katherine. 1978-79. “The Use of Bede’s Writings on Genesis in Alcuin’s Interrogationes.” Sacris Erudiri 23: 463-83. —, ed. 2001. The Anglo-Saxon Chronicle: A Collaborative Edition. Volume 5. MS. C. Cambridge. Ó Cróinín, Dáibhí. 1983. “The Irish Provenance of Bede’s Computus.” Peritia 2: 238-42. O’Donnell, Daniel Paul. 2002. “The Accuracy of the ‘St Petersburg Bede.’” Notes & Queries, n.s. 49: 4-6. —, ed. with the assistance of Dawn Collins. 2005. Cædmon’s Hymn: A Multimedia Study, Archive and Edition. With CD-ROM. Cambridge. Orchard, Andy. 1994. The Poetic Art of Aldhelm. Cambridge Studies in Anglo-Saxon England 8. Cambridge. —. 2000. “Wish You Were Here: Alcuin’s Courtly Poetry and the Boys Back Home.” In Courts and Regions in Medieval Europe. Ed. Sarah Rees Jones, Richard Marks, and A.J. Minnis, 21-43. York. —. 2005. “Parallel Lives: Wulfstan, William, Coleman and Christ.” In Barrow and Brooks 2005 pp 39-57. Orchard, Nicholas. 1995. “A Note on the Masses for St Cuthbert.” Revue Bénédictine 105: 79-98. —, ed. 2002. The Leofric Missal. 2 vols. HBS 113-14. London. O’Reilly, Jennifer. 1995. “Introduction.” In Connolly 1995 pp xvii-lv. Ó Riain, Pádraig. 1993. Anglo-Saxon Ireland: The Evidence of the Martyrology of Tallaght. H.M. Chadwick Memorial Lectures, vol. 3. Cambridge. —. 2002. “A Northern Phase in the Foundation of the Hieronymian Martyrology: The Evidence of the Martyrology of Tallaght.” Analecta Bollandiana 120: 311-63. Orton, P.R. 1983. “Cædmon and Christian Poetry.” Neuphilologische Mitteilungen 84: 163-70.

Bibliography

309

Ott, J. Heinrich. 1892. Über die Quellen der Heiligenleben in Aelfrics Lives of Saints I. Ph.D. thesis, Halle-Wittenberg. Palmer, Robert B. 1959. “Bede as Textbook Writer: A Study of his De arte metrica.” Speculum 34: 573-84. Parkes, M.B. 1982. The Scriptorium of Wearmouth-Jarrow. Jarrow Lecture 1982. Reprinted in Lapidge 1994 2.555-86. Peden, A.M. 2003. Abbo of Fleury and Ramsey: Commentary on the Calculus of Victorius of Aquitaine. Auctores Britannici Medii Aevi 15. Oxford. Pfaff, Richard W. 1993. “Bede among the Fathers? The Evidence from Liturgical Commemoration.” Studia Patristica 28: 225-29. Picard, Jean-Michel. 2002. “Bède et ses sources irlandaises.” In Lebecq, Perrin, and Szerwiniack 2002 pp 43-61. Plummer, Charles, ed. 1896. Venerabilis Baedae Historiam Ecclesiasticam Gentis Anglorum, Historiam Abbatum, Epistolam ad Ecgberctum, una cum Historia Abbatum Auctore Anonymo. 2 vols in 1. Oxford. Reprinted 1946. —, ed. 1892-99. Two of the Saxon Chronicles Parallel. 2 vols. Reprinted with additional biblio­ graphy and a new note by Dorothy Whitelock, Oxford 1952. Pope, John C., ed. 1967-68. Homilies of Ælfric: A Supplementary Collection, Being Twenty-One Full Homilies of His Middle and Later Career for the Most Part not Previously Edited with Some Shorter Pieces Mainly Passages Added to the Second and Third Series. 2 vols. EETS OS 259-60. London, New York. Porter, David W., ed. 2002. Excerptiones de Prisciano: The Source for Ælfric’s Latin-Old English Grammar. Anglo-Saxon Texts 4. Cambridge. Quacquarelli, Antonio. 1989. Il triplice frutto della vita cristiana: 100, 60 e 30 (Matteo XIII-8) nelle diverse interpretazioni. 2nd ed. Bari. Quentin, Henri. 1908. Les martyrologes historiques du Moyen Age. Paris. Rädle, Fidel. 1993. “Bedas Hymnus über das Sechstagewerk und die Weltalter.” In Grinda and Wetzel 1999 pp 53-73. Rauer, Christine. 2003. “The Sources of the Old English Martyrology.” Anglo-Saxon England 32: 89-109. —, ed. 2013. The Old English Martyrology: Edition, Translation and Commentary. Anglo-Saxon Texts 10. Cambridge. Ray, Roger. 1980. “Bede’s Vera lex Historiae.” Speculum 55: 1-21. —. 1987. “Bede and Cicero.” Anglo-Saxon England 16: 1-15. —. 1997. Bede, Rhetoric, and the Creation of Christian Latin Culture. Jarrow Lecture 1997. Jarrow. —. 2006. “Who did Bede think He was?” In DeGregorio 2006b pp 11-35. Richards, Mary P. 1988. Texts and Their Traditions in the Medieval Library of Rochester Cathedral Priory. Transactions of the American Philosophical Society 78/3. Philadelphia. Richter, Michael, ed. 1973. Canterbury Professions. The Canterbury and York Society vol. 67. Torquay. Roberts, Jane. 2000. “Old English Saints Remembered in Old English Anonymous Homilies.” In Old English Prose: Basic Readings. Ed. Paul E. Szarmach, 433-61. New York. Robinson, Fred C., and E.G. Stanley, eds. 1991. Old English Verse Texts from Many Sources: A Comprehensive Collection. EMMF 23. Copenhagen. Rollason, David, with Derek Gore and Gillian Fellows-Jensen, eds. 1998. Sources for York History to AD 1100. Archaeology of York 1. York.

310 

BEDE – PART 2

Roper, Michael. 1983. “A Fragment of Bede’s De Temporum Ratione in the Public Record Office.” Anglo-Saxon England 12: 125-28. Rositzke, H.A., ed. 1951. The Peterborough Chronicle. Records of Civilization, Sources and Studies 44. New York. Ross, Alan S.C. 1969. “A Connection between Bede and the Anglo-Saxon Gloss to the Lindisfarne Gospels?” Journal of Theological Studies n.s. 20: 482-94. Rouse, Richard H. 1966. “Bostonus Buriensis and the Author of the Catalogus Scriptorum Ecclesiae.” Speculum 41: 471-99. Rowley, Sharon M. 2010. “Bede in Later Anglo-Saxon England.” In DeGregorio 2010a pp 216-28. Rud, Thomas. 1825. Codicum Manuscriptorum Ecclesiae Cathedralis Dunelmensis Catalogus Classicus. With an appendix by John Raine. Durham. Ruff, Carin. 2005. “The Place of Metrics in Anglo-Saxon Latin Education.” JEGP 104: 149-70. Scarpatetti, Beat Matthias von. 2008. Die Handschriften der Stiftsbibliothek St. Gallen: beschreibendes Verzeichnis / 2 Abt. III/2: Codices 450-546, Liturgica, Libri precum, deutsche Gebetbücher, Spiritualia, Musikhandschriften 9. -16. Jahrhundert. Wiesbaden. Schaller, Dieter. 1977. “Bemerkungen zur Inschriften-Sylloge von Urbana.” Mittellateinisches Jahrbuch 12: 9-21. Scheil, Andrew P. 2004. The Footsteps of Israel: Understanding Jews in Anglo-Saxon England. Ann Arbor. Schmitz, Gerhard. 2010. “Bonifatius und Alkuin: Ein Beitrag zur Glaubensverkündigung in der Karolingerzeit.” In Alkuin von York und die geistige Grundlegung Europas: Akten der Tagung vom 30. September bis zum 2 Oktober in der Stiftsbibliothek St. Gallen. Monasterium Sancti Galli 5. Ed. E. Tremp and K. Schmucki, 73-90. St. Gall. Schwartz, Eduard and Theodor Mommsen. 1999. Eusebius Werke. Die Kirchengeschichte. 3 vols. GCS nf 6.1-3. Berlin. Scragg, Donald, ed. 1992. The Vercelli Homilies and Related Texts. EETS OS 300. Oxford. —, ed. 2001. Ælfric’s Lives of Canonised Popes. Old English Newsletter Subsidia 30. Kalamazoo, MI. Shailor, Barbara A. 1987. Catalogue of Medieval and Renaissance Manuscripts in the Beinecke Rare Book and Manuscript Library, Yale University: Volume II: MSS 251-500. Medieval & Renaissance Texts & Studies 48. Binghamton. Shanzer, Danuta. 2007. “Bede’s Style: A Neglected Historiographical Model for the Style of the Historia Ecclesiastica?” In Wright, Biggs, and Hall 2007 pp 329-52. Sharpe, Richard. 2001. Handlist of the Latin Writers of Great Britain and Ireland Before 1540. Publications of the Journal of Medieval Latin 1. Turnhout. Sharpe, Richard, J.P. Carley, R.M. Thomson, and A.G. Watson, eds. 1996. English Benedictine Libraries: The Shorter Catalogues. Corpus of British Medieval Library Catalogues 4. London. Skeat, Walter W. 1966. Ælfric’s Lives of Saints. EETS OS 76, 82, 94, and 114. Reprinted from the original 4 vols of 1881-1900 as 2. Oxford. Silvestre, Hubert. 1963. “À propos de quelques manuscrits de Bède.” Scriptorium 17: 110-13. Sims-Williams, Patrick. 1982. “Milred of Worcester’s Collection of Latin Epigrams and its Continental Counterparts.” Anglo-Saxon England 10: 21-38. —. 1983. “William of Malmesbury and La Silloge Epigrafica di Cambridge.” Archivum Historiae Pontificiae 21: 9-33. —. 1990. Religion and Literature in Western England, 600-800. Cambridge. Sisam, Kenneth. 1953a. Studies in the History of Old English Literature. Oxford. —. 1953b. “Mss. Bodley 340 and 342: Ælfric’s Catholic Homilies.” In Sisam 1953a pp 148-98. Reprinted from Review of English Studies 7 (1937): 7-22; 8 (1932): 51-68; and 9 (1933): 1-12.

Bibliography

311

Slade, Benjamin. 2003. “Bede’s Account of the Poet Caedmon.” http://www.heorot.dk/bedecaedmon-i-txt.html. Smetana, Cyril. L. 1959. “Ælfric and the Early Medieval Homiliary.” Traditio 15: 163-204. —. 1978. “Paul the Deacon’s Patristic Anthology.” In Szarmach and Huppé 1978 pp 75-97. Smith, John, ed. 1722. Historiae Ecclesiasticae Gentis Anglorum Libri Quinque. Cambridge. Sole, L.M. 1998. “Some Anglo-Saxon Cuthbert Liturgica: The Manuscript Evidence.” Revue Bénédictine 108: 104-44. Sparks, Nicholas A. 2013. “An Insular Fragment of Bede’s Historia ecclesiastica.” Anglo-Saxon England 42: 27-50. Springsfeld, Kerstin. 2002. Alkuins Einfluß auf die Komputistik zur Zeit Karls des Großen. Stuttgart. Stancliffe, Clare. 1989. “Cuthbert and the Polarity between Pastor and Solitary.” In Bonner, Rollason, and Stancliffe pp 1989 21-44. Stancliffe, Clare, and Eric Cambridge, eds. 1995. Oswald: Northumbrian King to European Saint. Paul Watkins Medieval Studies 14. Stamford. Stanley, E.G. 1971. “Studies in the Prosaic Vocabulary of Old English Verse.” Neuphilologische Mitteilungen 72: 385-418. Stapleton, Thomas. 1565. The History of the Church of Englande. Compiled by Venerable Bede, Englishman. Translated out of Latin into English by Thomas Stapleton Student in Diuinite. Antwerp. Reprinted with an appendix by Philip Hereford, Oxford, 1930. Steen, Janie. 2008. Verse and Virtuosity: The Adaptation of Latin Rhetoric in Old English Poetry. Toronto. Stevens, Wesley M. 1985. Bede’s Scientific Achievement. Jarrow Lecture 1985. Jarrow. —. 1995. “Bede’s Scientific Achievement: The Jarrow Lecture 1985 (Revised 1995).” In his Cycles of Time and Scientific Learning in Medieval Europe, no. II. Collected Studies Series. Aldershot. Stevenson, William Henry, ed. 1959. Asser’s Life of King Alfred Together with the Annals of Saint Neots erroneously ascribed to Asser. New impression with article on Asser’s life by Dorothy Whitelock. Oxford. Stock, Brian, and Edward A. Synan. 1979. “A Tenth-Century Preface to Bede’s De temporum ratione.” Manuscripta 23: 113-15. Stoneman, William P. 1997. “‘Writ in Ancient Character and of No Further Use’: Anglo-Saxon Manuscripts in American Collections.” In Szarmach and Rosenthal 1997 pp 99-138. Story, Joanna. 1999. “‘Concerning the Bishops of Whithorn and Their Subjection to the Archbishops of York’: Some Observations on the Manuscript Evidence and Its Links with Durham.” Durham Archaeological Journal 14-15: 77-83. Stubbs, William. 1874. Memorials of Saint Dunstan, Archbishop of Canterbury. RS 66. London. Sweet, Henry, ed. 1885. The Oldest English Texts. EETS OS 83. London. Symons, Thomas. 1941. “Sources of the Regularis Concordia.” Downside Review 59: 14-36, 143-70, and 264-89. —, ed. and trans. 1953. Regularis Concordia Anglicae Nationis Monachorum Sanctimonialiumque; The Monastic Agreement of the Monks and Nuns of the English Nation. Oxford. Szarmach, Paul E., ed. 1986. Studies in Earlier Old English Prose: Sixteen Original Contributions. Albany. —, ed. 2013. Writing Women Saints in Anglo-Saxon England. Toronto. Szarmach, Paul E., and Deborah A. Oosterhouse, eds. 2000. Old English Prose: Basic Readings. Garland Reference Library of the Humanities 1447. New York. Szarmach, Paul E., and Bernard F. Huppé. 1978. The Old English Homily and Its Backgrounds. Albany.

312 

BEDE – PART 2

Szarmach, Paul E., and Joel T. Rosenthal, eds. 1997. The Preservation and Transmission of Anglo-Saxon Culture: Selected Papers from the 1991 Meeting of the International Society of Anglo-Saxonists. Studies in Medieval Culture 40. Kalamazoo, MI. Tanenhaus, Gussie Hecht. 1962. “Bede’s De schematibus et tropis – a Translation.” Quarterly Journal of Speech 48: 237-53. Thacker, Alan. 1983. “Bede’s Ideal of Reform.” In Wormald 1983 pp 130-53. —. 1989. “Lindisfarne and the Origins of the Cult of St Cuthbert.” In Bonner, Rollason, and Stancliffe 1989 pp 103-22. —. 1996. “Bede and the Irish.” In Houwen and Mac Donald 1996 pp 31-59. —. 2006. “Bede and the Ordering of Understanding.” In DeGregorio 2006b pp 37-63. —. 2011. “Bede and His Martyrology.” In Listen O Isles unto me: Studies in Medieval Word and Image in honour of Jennifer O’Reilly. Ed. Elizabeth Mullins and Diarmuid Scully, 126-41 and 350-53. Cork. Thompson, A. Hamilton, ed. 1935. Bede: His Life, Times, and Writings: Essays in Commemoration of the Twelfth Centenary of his Death. Oxford. Thomson, Rodney M. 1989. Catalogue of the Manuscripts of Lincoln Cathedral Chapter Library. Woodbridge, Suffolk. —. 2001 A Descriptive Catalogue of the Medieval Manuscripts in Worcester Cathedral Library. Woodbridge, Suffolk. —. 2009. A Descriptive Catalogue of the Medieval Manuscripts of Merton College, Oxford. Woodbridge, Suffolk. Thornbury, Emily V. 2014. Becoming a Poet in Anglo-Saxon England. Cambridge Studies in Medieval Literature. Cambridge. Thorpe, Benjamin, ed. 1840. Ancient Laws and Institutes of England, Comprising Laws Enacted under the Anglo-Saxon Kings from Æthelbirht to Cnut: With an English Translation of the Saxon: The Laws Called Edward the Confessor’s, the Laws of William the Conqueror, and Those Ascribed to Henry the First: Also, Monumenta Ecclesiastica Anglicana, from the Seventh to the Tenth Century, and the Ancient Latin Version of the Anglo-Saxon Laws: With a Compendious Glossary, &c. 2 vols. London. —, ed. 1844-46. The Homilies of the Anglo-Saxon Church. The First Part containing the Sermones Catholici or Homilies of Ælfric. 2 vols. London. Toswell, M.J. 2014. The Anglo-Saxon Psalter. Turnhout. Townsend, David. 1989. “An Eleventh-Century Life of Birinus of Wessex.” Analecta Bollandiana 107: 129-59. Traube, Ludwig. 1900. “Perrona Scottorum.” Sitzungsberichte der phil.-hist. Classe der königlich bayerischen Akademie der Wissenschaften zu München pp 469-538. Van Els, T. J.M., ed. 1972. The Kassel Manuscript of Bede’s ‘Historia Ecclesiastica Gentis Anglorum’ and Its Old English Material. Assen. Vercruysse, Jean-Marc. 2002. “Bède lecteur de Tyconius dans l’Expositio Apocalypseos.” In Lebecq, Perrin, and Szerwiniack 2002 pp 19-30. Vleeskruyer, Rudolf, ed. 1953. The Life of St. Chad: An Old English Homily. Amsterdam. Vuillaume, Christophe, ed. 2003. Bède le Vénérable. Le Tabernacle. Sources chrétiennes 475. Paris. Wallace-Hadrill, J.M. 1988. Bede’s Ecclesiastical History of the English People: A Historical Commentary. Oxford Medieval Texts. Oxford.

Bibliography

313

Wallach, Luitpold. 1975. “The Urbana Anglo-Saxon Sylloge of Latin Inscriptions.” In Poetry and Poetics from Ancient Greece to the Renaissance: Studies in Honor of James Hutton. Ed. Gordon M. Kirkwood, 134-51. Ithaca. Wallis, Faith, trans. 1999. Bede: The Reckoning of Time. Translated Texts for Historians 29. Liverpool. Reprinted with corrections 2004. —. 2006. “Si Naturam Quaeras: Reframing Bede’s ‘Science.’” In DeGregorio 2006b pp 65-99. —. 2010. “Bede and Science.” In DeGregorio 2010a pp 113-26. —, trans. 2013. Bede: Commentary on Revelation. Translated Texts for Historians 58. Liverpool. —. 2014. “Why did Bede Write a Commentary on Revelation?” In Darby and Wallis 2014 pp 23-45. Walpole, A.S. 1922. Early Latin Hymns. Cambridge. Ward, Benedicta. 1991. Bede and the Psalter. Jarrow Lecture 1991. Jarrow. Reprinted in Lapidge 1994 2.871-902. —. 1995. “To my dearest Sister’: Bede and the Educated Woman.” In Women, the Book, and the Godly: Selected Proceedings of the St. Hilda’s Conference, 1993. Ed. Lesley Smith and Jane H.M. Taylor, 105-11. Woodbridge, Suffolk. Watson, Andrew G., ed. 1987. Medieval Libraries of Great Britain: A List of Surviving Books. Supplement to the Second Edition. Royal Historical Society Guides and Handbooks 15. London. Webb, Nicholas Hart. 1988. “Early Medieval Welsh Book-Production.” Ph.D. dissertation, King’s College London. Webber, Teresa. 2015. “Bede’s Historia Ecclesiastica as a Source of Lections in Pre- and PostConquest England.” In The Long Twelfth-Century View of the Anglo-Saxon Past. Ed. Martin Brett and David A. Woodman, 47-76. London. Weiss, Jean-Pierre. 1969-70. “Essai de datation du Commentaire sur les Proverbes attribué abusivement à Salonius.” Sacris Erudiri 19: 77-114. Westgard, Joshua A. 2006. “Evidence for the Presence of M-Type Manuscripts of Bede’s Historia Ecclesiastica in Northern England after ca. 800.” Revue Bénédictine 116: 310-315. —. 2010a. “New Manuscripts of Bede’s Letter to Albinus.” Revue Bénédictine 120: 208-15. —. 2010b. “Bede and the Continent in the Carolingian Age and Beyond.” In DeGregorio 2010a pp 201-215. Wharton, Henry, ed. 1693. Bedæ Venerabilis Opera Quædam Theologica, nunc Primùm Edita, necnon Historica Antea Semel Edita : Accesserunt Egberti Archiepiscopi Eboracensis Dialogus de Ecclesiasticâ Institutione : et Aldhelmi Episcopi Scireburnensis Liber de Virginitate, ex Codice Antiquissimo Emendatus. London. Whitbread, L. 1966. “The Old English Poem Judgment Day II and Its Latin Source.” Philological Quarterly 45: 635-56. —. 1967. “After Bede: The Influence and Dissemination of His Doomsday Verses.” Archiv für das Studium der neueren Sprachen und Literaturen 204: 250-66. Whitelock, Dorothy. 1960. After Bede. Jarrow Lecture 1960. Jarrow. Reprinted in Lapidge 1994 1.35-50. —. 1962. “The Old English Bede.” Sir Israel Gollancz Memorial Lecture 1962. Proceedings of the British Academy 48: 57-90. —. 1970. “The Authorship of the Account of King Edgar’s Establishment of Monasteries.” In Philological Essays: Studies in Old and Middle English Language and Literature in Honour of Herbert Dean Meritt. Ed. James L. Rosier, 125-136. The Hague. —. 1974. “The List of Chapter-Headings in the Old English Bede.” In Old English Studies in Honour of John C. Pope. Ed. Robert B. Burlin and Edward B. Irving, 263-84. Toronto. —. 1976. “Bede and His Teachers and Friends.” In Bonner 1976 pp 19-39.

314 

BEDE – PART 2

—, M. Brett, and C.N.L. Brooke, eds. 1981. Councils & Synods with Other Documents Relating to the English Church. I: A.D. 871-1204. 2 vols. Oxford. Wieland, Gernot. 1981. “Geminus Stilus: Studies in Anglo-Latin Hagiography.” In Insular Latin Studies: Papers on Latin Texts and Manuscripts of the British Isles: 550-1066. Ed. Michael W. Herren, 113-33. Toronto. Wilcox, Jonathan, ed. 1994. Ælfric’s Prefaces. Durham Medieval Texts 9. Durham. Wilmart, André. 1937. Codices Reginenses Latini. Vol. 1. Codices 1-250. Vatican. Wilson, H.A., ed. 1896. The Missal of Robert of Jumièges. HBS 11. London. Reprinted Woodbridge, Suffolk, 1994. Winterbottom, Michael, ed. 1972. Three Lives of English Saints. Toronto Medieval Latin Texts. Toronto. Wormald, Francis. 1934. English Kalendars before A.D. 1100. Henry Bradshaw Society 72. Reprinted Woodbridge, Suffolk, 1988. Wormald, Patrick, ed. 1983. Ideal and Reality in Frankish and Anglo-Saxon Society: Studies presented to J.M. Wallace-Hadrill. With Donald Bullough and Roger Collins. Oxford. —. 2006. The Times of Bede. Ed. Stephen Baxter. Oxford. Wright, Charles D. 1983. “Matthew’s Hebrew Gospel in Andreas and in Old English Prose.” Notes & Queries, n.s. 30: 101-04. —. 2012. “Genesis A ad litteram.” In Fox and Sharma 2012 pp 121-71. —. 2015. Manuscripts in Austria and Germany. ASMMF 24. Tempe. —. 2016. “The Fate of Lot’s Wife: A Canterbury School Gloss in Genesis A.” In Old English Philology: Studies in Honour of R.D. Fulk. Anglo-Saxon Studies 31. Ed. Leonard Neidorf, Rafael J. Pascual, and Tom Shippey, 292-310. Cambridge. —, Frederick M. Biggs, and Thomas N. Hall, eds. 2007. Source of Wisdom: Old English and Early Medieval Latin Studies in Honour of Thomas D. Hill. Toronto. Wright, Neil. 1981-82. “Bede and Vergil.” Romanobarbarica 6: 361-79. Reprinted in his History and Literature in Late Antiquity and the Early Medieval West, no. XI. Aldershot, 1995. Zacher, Samantha and Andy Orchard. 2009. New Readings in the Vercelli Book. Toronto. Zettel, Patrick H. 1979. “Ælfric’s Hagiographic Sources and the Latin Legendary Preserved in B.L. MS Cotton Nero E. i and CCCC MS 9 and Other Manuscripts.” Ph.D. dissertation, Oxford University. Zechiel-Eckes, Klaus. 2003. Katalog der frühmittelalterlichen Fragmente der Universitäts- und Landesbibliothek Düsseldorf. Vom beginnenden achten bis zum ausgehenden neunten Jahrhundert. Wiesbaden.

Index Abbo of Fleury 1.44, 1.51, 1.82, 1.155 Explanatio in Calculo Victorii 1.102-03 94.14-15 1.102 95.19-20 1.102 101.29-30 1.102 105.20-23 1.102 114.27-115.6 1.102-03 Passio Eadmundi 1.155 i 13-17 1.155 Abbonian commentary on De temporum ratione 1.96 Acca, bishop of Hexham 1.132, 1.159, 1.171, 1.194, 1.209, 1.210, 1.212, 1.213, 1.220, 2.40, 2.44, 2.51, 2.56, 2.86, 2.128, 2.133, 2.134, 2.231, 2.237-50, 2.271, 2.283-84, 2.286-91 Account of King Edgar’s Establishment of Monasteries 1.34, 1.154-55 Ado of Vienne, Martyrologium 2.283, 2.285 Adomnán of Iona, De locis sanctis 2.13, 2.205, 2.269 Aetas lunae in alphabetis distincta 1.92, 1.117 Agroecius of Sens 1.22, 1.70, 1.73 Ars de orthographia 1.149 Alcuin of York, abbot of Tours 1.17, 1.97, 1.119, 1.25, 1.33, 1.34-35, 1.69, 1,72 1.146 1.188, 1.209, 1.210, 1.225, 1.247, 2.19, 2.30, 2.33, 2.35, 2.41, 2.47, 2.53; books 1.32-33, 1.45, 1.52, 1.72, 1.76, 1.82, 1.96, 1.97, 1.128, 1.152, 1.158-59, 1.185, 1.223, 1.244, 1.275, 1.292, 2.13, 2.45, 2.52, 2.53, 2.55, 2.57, 2.60, 2.62, 2.64, 2.67, 2.69, 2.70, 2.74, 2.88, 2.130, 2.134, 2.136, 2.138, 2.155, 2.236, 2.285 Calculatio Albini magistri 1.98 Carmen 9 (De clade Lindisfarnensis monasterii) 1.159 167-68 1.159 171-78 1.286-87 Carmen 12 3 1.213 Carmen 20 22 1.215 Carmen 23 3-4 1.214-15 Carmen 28 14 1.213 26 1.213 Carmen 29 1-2 1.213 Carmen 69 1.225, 1.229 Carmen 72 1.116 Carmen 76 21 1.215 Carmen 88 xv 16 1.213-14

Carmen 89 xiii 1 1.215 Carmen 90 i 2 1.215 xxvi 8 1.215 Carmen 99 xii 5 1.215 Carmen 100 i 13 1.215 Carmen 101 13 1.213 Carmen 109 iv 1 1.215 Carmen 110 iv 1 1.215 Commentarius in Canticum Canticorum 2.67 Commentarius in Iohannis euangelium 2.150-51, 2.155 741.9-39 2.168 743.46-745.4 2.165-66 745.33-41 2.166 745.46-50 2.166 745.49-746.11 2.166 746.16-39 2.166 746.43-749.48 2.166 749.50-751.2 2.157 751.2-19 2.157 751.34-752.34 2.157 752.35-753.23 2.157 755.51-756.7 2.179 756.9-757.23 2.179 757.23-41 2.179 757.41-758.4 2.179 758.5-759.3 2.179 760.59-762.15 2.182 762.15-766.10 2.182 766.13-767.16 2.177 767.31-771.25 2.177 771.49-777.8 2.193 772.5-27 2.177 778.12-783.12 2.217 803.18-24 2.190 803.40-807.17 2.190 807.27-52 2.190 808.8-37 2.190 819.22-821.46 2.194 822.1-824.6 2.194

316  853.25-855.3 2.192 855.10-19 2.192 855.19-31 2.192 855.35-49 2.192 856.1-5 2.192 905.22-32 2.197 905.45-906.2 2.197 906.48-57 2.197-98 906.57-907.24 2.198 907.47-909.14 2.198 909.38-910.2 2.74 935.33-37 2.215 935.45-50 2.215 935.50-52 2.215 935.52-56 2.215 936.2-3 2.215 936.8-32 2.215 936.34-38 2.215 936.53-937.2 2.215 937.4-7 2.215 937.13-17 2.215 937.22-31 2.215-16 949.6-13 2.213-14 949.41-47 2.214 950.3-6 2.214 950.10-14 2.214 950.14-21 2.214 950.30-35 2.214 951.16-39 2.206 952.6-13 2.206 952.14-55 2.206 953.9-17 2.206 953.17-31 2.206-07 953.31-50 2.207 953.53-954.18 2.207 954.21-27 2.207 954.44-54 2.210 955.9-15 2.210 955.23-41 2.210 955.50-53 2.210 955.53-956.31 2.210-11 957.10-13 2.208 957.19-20 2.208 957.20-28 2.208 957.29-31 2.208 957.40-47 2.208 958.2-11 2.208 958.13-18 2.208-09 958.19-24 2.208-09 958.27-959.1 2.209 1000.47-1002.49 223 1002.34-1003.19 223 1003.26-33 2.168-69 1003.33-1006.5 2.169 1006.5-20 2.169 1006.20-24 2.169 1006.56-1007.26 2.169 De bissexto 1.98

BEDE – PART 2

De laude Dei 1.222, 1.224, 1.229, 1.233, 1.235, 1.237, 1.241-42, 1.244, 1.247, 1.249, 1.250, 1.251, 1.252, 1.257, 1.258, 1.259, 1.260, 1.261 De orthographia 1.69, 1.71-72 3.15 1.72 3.16 1.72 3.17-18 1.72-73 5.10 1.73 20.21 1.73 De saltu lunae 1.98 Epistola 27 69.3 2.181 Epistola 29 71.14 1.213 Epistola 65 109.25 1.213 Epistola 88 132.35-36 2.140 Epistola 95 140.12 1.213 Epistola 102 149.27 1.213 Epistola 126 1.98 186.10 1.98 186.38-187.3 1.98 187.3-4 1.98 187.13-17 1.98 Epistola 139 1.276 220.13 2.267 Epistola 145 1.98 231.27-28 1.98 232.4 1.98 Epistola 148 1.98 238.14-15 1.98 Epistola 155 1.52, 1.98 250.38 1.98 250.41-251.1 1.52 251.2 1.52 251.12-13 1.98 251.21 1.98 Epistola 177 1.276 292.9 2.267 Epistola 191 318.18 2.62 Epistola 234 1.276 379.12 2.267 380.19 1.213 Epistola 252 408.25 1.213 Epistola 259 2.11 417.9-11 2.12 417.14-15 1.217 Epistola 262 420.28 1.213 Epistola 294 1.34 452.18 1.214 Epistola ad Offam 1.159 245.5-9 1.159

Index

245.9-13 1.159 245.16-22 1.159 Explanatio Apocalypsis per interrogationem et responsionem 2.144 Expositio Apocalypsis 2.144 Quaestiones in Genesin 1.107, 2.47, 2.48 Ratio de luna 1.98 Versus de sanctis Euboricensis ecclesiae 1.32-33, 1.34, 1.47, 1.97, 1.116, 1.124, 1.15659, 1.276-280, 1.294 19-37 1.157 22-23 1.157 24 1.157 88 1.157 140-41 1.260, 1.279 164 1.280 205-10 2.258 381-82 1.279 390 1.279 469-70 1.214 615 1.280 636 1.214 646-47 1.278 646-84 1.277, 1.279 656 1.279 672-73 2.258 684 1.279 685-87 1.277, 1.286, 1.294 688 1.277 688-740 1.277 690 1.277 706-07 1.294 713 1.277 729 1.279 731-32 1.277-78 733-34 1.294 737-38 1.294 741-46 1.278 760 1.157-58 781-82 1.246-47 869-70 1.158, 1.294 910-14 1.214 1000.3-34 2.203 1207-09 1.158, 1.187 1288-1314 1.187 1291-318 1.158 1293-94 1.158 1306-08 2.49, 2.52, 2.54, 2.55, 2.60, 2.62, 2.64, 2.67, 2.69, 2.70-71, 2.77, 2.97, 2.132, 2.134, 2.136, 2.140, 2.146, 2.155 1306-12 1.33, 1.158-59 1308 1.47, 1.223 1309-11 1.97 1440-49 1.97 1547 1.32-33, 1.159 1558-62 1.33 Vita Willibrordi metrica xxiv

317 9 1.213 10 1.213 xxxii 10 1.214 Vita Willibrordi prosa 1.279 Aldhelm, abbot of Malmesbury, bishop of Sherborne 1.17, 1.27, 1.32, 1.47, 1.73, 1.171, 1.185, 1.257, 1.279, 1.285, 2.267 Carmina ecclesiastica IV.ii 36 1.213 De uirginitate (metrical) 1.227, 1.258, 1.267, 2.272 De uirginitate (prose) 1.258, 1.267, 2.272 Alfred the Great, king of Wessex 1.17, 1.54, 1.101, 1.153, 1.172, 1.187 Amalarius of Metz 2.96, 2.132. 2.214 Ambrose, bishop of Milan 1.20, 1.32, 1.40, 1.41, 1.54, 1.242-43, 1.257, 1.258, 1.299, 2.41, 2.45, 2.56, 2.73, 2.86-87, 2.243, 2.258 De spiritu sancto 2.174, 2.183, 2.195 Ambrosiaster 2.36 Ambrosius Autpertus 2.144 Anatolius 2.274 Anglo-Saxon Chronicle 1.146, 1.154, 1.100, 1.165-75, 1.196; “common stock” 1.100, 1.165, 166-67, 1.168-72, 1.173, 1.174, 1.175; northern recension 1.100, 1.165-66, 1.167, 1.168, 1.169-73, 1.174; prefaces 1.172; “York Annals” (“First Set of Northern Annals”) 1.166 A 1.167, 1.168, 1.169-72; 1.173-75; preface 1.172 2.10-13 1.171 4.13-14 2.130 4.15-18 1.171-72 8.35-9.1 1.170 9.24-25 1.171-72 14.34-15.1 1.171-72 15.32-33 1.171-72 16.24-26 1.169-70 17.16-17 1.171-72 17.17-21 1.171-72 17.17-21 1.171-72 18.2-5 1.173 21.23-24 1.170 21.26-27 1.170 22.5-6 1.170 23.14-16 1.173-74 25.28-30 1.170 25.30-31 1.170 26.1 1.171-72 26.4-5 1.171-72 26.12 1.171-72 26.13-14 1.171-72 27.8 1.171-72 27.9 1.171-72 28.3-4 1.170 28.5-6 1.174

318  28.7-8 1.174 28.13-14 1.171-72 28.20 1.170 28.21-22 1.171-72 28.22-23 1.171-72 28.24-25 1.171-72 28.26-28 1.170 28.29-31 1.170 28.36 1.171-72 29.5-6 1.171-72 29.7 1.171-72 29.8-9 1.171-72 29.10-11 1.171-72 29.13-14 1.170 29.14 1.170 29.20-21 1.170 29.22-23 1.170 29.26-27 170 29.28 1.170 29.30-30.1 1.171-72 30.5-6 1.170 30.9-11 1.174 30.13-16 1.170 30.21-22 1.175 30.27-30 1.171-72 30.30-31 1.171-72 31.1-2 1.171-72 31.5-6 170 31.6-8 170 31.14-15 170 31.15-16 170 31.22-23 170 31.26-27 170 31.29-31 1.171-72 31.32 1.171-72 31.32-33 1.171-72 31.33-32.3 170 32.9 1.175 32.22-23 1.171-72 32.24-26 1.171-72 33.3 1.170, 1.175 33.14 170 33.16-18 170 33.19-20 1.171-72 33.37-38 1.170 33.38-39 1.170 33.39 1.170 33.39-34.1 1.170 34.2-3 1.170 34.6-8 1.170 35.1 1.170 35.6-7 1.171-72 C 1.169 35.17-19 170 E 1.165, 1.167, 1.168-75 preface 1.172 3.1 1.172 3.1-19 1.172 3.20-32 1.171

BEDE – PART 2

5.15-21 1.171-72 8.15 1.173 8.30-31 1.170 9.10-15 1.171-72 11.32 1.172-73 13.41 1.172-73 14.3-7 1.171-72 14.7-8 1.171-72 14.39-43 1.171-72 15.13 1.172-73 16.4-6 1.172-73 16.6-7 1.172-73 16.17 1.171-72 16.18-19 1.171-72 16.19-23 1.171-72 16.23-33 1.171-72 20.8 1.170 20.31-32 1.173-74 20.32-21.2 1.173-74 21.28 1.172-73 22.4 1.172-73 22.27-31 1.171-72 22.32-37 1.171-72 22.38-23.4 1.171-72 23.18-19 1.171-72 23.20-25 1.171-72 23.25-28 1.171-72 23.28-29 1.171-72 23.29-32 1.171-72 23.33-34 1.172-73 23.34-35 1.172-73 23.35-36 1.172-73 24.1 1.172-73 24.9-17 1.174 24.17-22 1.174 24.24-26 1.171-72 24.26-28 1.171-72 24.28-30 1.171-72 24.30-31 1.171-72 24.38-25.3 1.171-72 25.3-7 1.171-72 25.8-10 1.171-72 25.10-13 1.171-72 25.13-16 1.171-72 25,27-31 1.171-72 25.33-34 1.171-72 25.34-35 1.171-72 25.35-36 1.171-72 25.36-37 1.171-72 25.39-26.2 1.171-72 26.4-6 1.171-72 26.6-7 1.171-72 26.16-17 1.170 26.17-18 1.170 26.23-24 1.170 26.25-26 1.171-72 26.28-29 1.171-72 26.36-37 1.171-72 27.1-2 1.172-73

Index

30.16-18 1.171-72 30.18-20 1.171-72 30.20 1.171-72 30.20-21 1.171-72 30.21-22 1.171-72 30.25-27 1.172-73 30.28-29 1.171-72 32.35-33.2 1.171-72 33.3-4 1.171-72 33.4 1.171-72 33.4-5 1.171-72 33.9-10 1.172-73 33.14-16 1.172-73 33.37-34.3 1.171-72 34.3-5 1.171-72 34.10-11 1.172-73 34.12-13 1.172-73 34.14-16 1.172-73 34.16-17 1.172-73 34.23 1.172-73 34.26 1.172-73 34.34 1.171-72 34.35 1.171-72 34.39-35.2 1.171-72 35.32-34 1.172-73 36.6 1.172-73 36.6-7 1.172-73 36.9 1.171-72 36.9-11 1.171-72 F 1.100-01, 1.167-68, 169-74 preface 1.172 1.5-7 1.168 1.35-37 1.168 1.37-2.1 1.172 2.1-15 1.172 2.28-3.1 1.171 6.2-4 1.171-72 9.23 1.100 10.11 1.100 11.15-16 1.100 11.32 1.167 12.11-13 1.100, 1.171-72 12.30 1.172-73 17.10-11 1.171-72 18.10-11 1.171-72 19.5-6 1.169-70 19.28-30 1.100-01 20.3 1.100-01 20.4-6 1.100-01 20.6-10 1.100-01 20.10-12 1.100-01 22.12-16 1.101 25.11-12 1.170 25.16-17 1.170 25.29 1.170 27.15-16 1.173-74 28.31-32 1.170 28.33-29.2 1.170, 1.172-73 29.6-12 1.170

319 29.21-22 1.171-72 31.10-11 1.171-72 31.17-18 1.171-72 31.18 1.171-72 31.20 1.171-72 32.21-22 1.171-72 32.22-25 1.171-72 34.13-15 1.171-72 35.2-4 1.170 36.33-37.1 1.170 37.15-17 1.171-72 38.1-3 1.170 46.6-8 1.170 47.3-4 1.171-72 G 1.173 Anglo-Saxon missionaries/scholars on the Continent 1.25, 1.28; see also Alcuin, Boniface, Willibrord animals ass 2.196; beasts 1.97; birds 1.97; cattle 1.97; dove 1.46, 1.226, 1.227; dragon 1.229; foal 2.196; lamb 1.228, 1.229, 1.277, 2.179, 2.180, 2.202, 2.216; lion 1.59, 2.243; serpent 2.200, 2.218; swine 2.75; turtledove 2.184 anonymous Latin verse ICL 474 (Agmina sacra poli iubilent modulammine dulci) see Wulfstan Cantor, Agmina sacra poli ICL 591 (Alma lucerna micat, sol aureus arva serenat) see Wulfstan Cantor, Alma lucerna micat ICL 963 (Arbiter altithronus, solus Deus omnicreator) see Hymnus Nynie episcopi ICL 1409a (Aula superna poli reboet modulamine dulci) see Wulfstan Cantor, Aula superna poli ICL 1443 (Aurea lux patrie Wentana splendet in urbe) see Wulfstan Cantor, Aurea lux patrie ICL 1479 (Aureus ac simul Iustinus fera proelia mundi) 1.45 ICL 1530 (Auxilium, Domine, qui te rogitantibus adfers) see Wulfstan Cantor, Auxilium Domine ICL 4323 (Egregius meritis pausat Ferrutius istic) 1.234 ICL 6579 (Hic pater et pastor humilis doctusque sacerdos) 1.234 ICL 7000 (Hoc iacet in tumulo uenerabilis abba Sichardus) 1.234 ICL 9947 (Mystica Daviticae si te modulamina musae) 1.234 ICL 11092 (Obduxere polum nubilia caeli) 1.46-47 ICL 14261 (Rex deus aeternus, patris ueneranda potestas) see Miracula Nynie episcopi ICL 15644 (Squalent arua soli puluere multo) 1.47

320  ICL 16463 (Tres orbes, Saturne, tuos, pater optime uixi 1.223 apocalyptic anxiety/speculation 1.92-93, 1.120, 1.123, 1.228, 2.141-42 Apocalypse of Paul (Visio Pauli) 1.180 Apocalypse of Thomas 1.180 Aponius, Expositio in Canticum Canticorum 2.65 Arator 1.18, 1.215, 1.228, 1.267, 1.281, 1.285, 2.129 Historia apostolica (De actibus apostolorum) 2.129 I 592 1.213 Arianism 1.190 ark of the covenant 2.70 Arno, bishop of Salzburg 1.210, 1.247, 2.12 Aristotle 1.32 Asser De rebus gestis Ælfredi 1.101 iv 4-8 1.175 xxii 14-15 1.175 xxiv 5-6 1.101 xxvi 34-35 1.175-76 xci 28-29 1.176 xcix 24-25 1.101 Audax 1.43 Augustine, archbishop of Canterbury 1.30, 1.40, 1.41, 1.115, 1.152, 1.154, 1.155, 1.158, 1.161, 1.169, 1.170, 1.172-73, 1.176, 1.177-78, 1.182, 1.184, 1.186, 1.190, 1.198-99, 1.222, 1.294, 1.299, 2.45, 2.49, 2.230, 2.268, 2.284 Augustine, bishop of Hippo Regius 1.18, 1.20-21, 1.32, 1.41, 1.70, 1.99, 1.113, 1.175, 1.180, 1.220, 1.221, 1.228, 1.291, 2.41, 2.46, 2.47, 2.56, 2.57, 2.73, 2.74, 2.75, 2.77, 2.82, 2.86-87, 2.93, 2.95, 2.103, 2.107, 2.121, 2.128, 2.134-36, 2.147, 2.150, 2.166-67, 2.182, 2.192, 2.193, 2.194, 2.195, 2.202, 2.215, 2.217, 2.219, 2.243, 2.258, 2.280, 2.282, 2.289 Confessiones 2.46 Contra Faustum 2.20 De ciuitate Dei preface 2.230 De consensu evangelistarum 2.243 De diuersis quaestionibus lxxxiii 1.205, 2.135 De Genesi ad litteram 2.44, 2.46 De Genesi contra Manichaeos 2.49 De trinitate 1.112, 2.261, 2.265 Epistolae 2.230 194 1.276, 2.267 217 2.135 In Ioannis epistulam ad Parthos tractatus x 2.137 Quaestiones euangeliorum 2.119-20

BEDE – PART 2

Quaestiones in Heptateuchum 2.91 Retractationes 2.133 Sermones 1.21 101 2.135 113 2.118 Tractatus in euangelium Ioannis 2.74-75, 2.166, 2.199 “Aureus ac simul iustinus fera praelia mundi” see anonymous Latin verse, ICL 1479 Ælfric of Winchester, sometime abbot of Eynsham 1.17, 1.34, 1.146, 1.153, 1.58-62, 1.186, 1.201-02, 2.41, 2.88, 2.150-51, 2.155; and the Bible 2.217; and Winchester 1.58, 1.103-04, 1.195-97; education 1.58, 1.103-04; Genesis, translation 2.48, (see the Old English Hexateuch); Homilies 1.23, 2.73 Assmann (homilies) 3 29-46 2.220 87-88 2.178 4 (Second Homily for the Feast of a Confessor) 2.73, 2.84 47-50 2.76-77 67-83 2.96 84-89 2.96 95-98 2.96 101-04 2.96 129-32 2.96 159b-67 2.96 221-25 2.47 5 2.140 6 2.211 40-55 2.211 65-71 2.211 71-76 2.211 84-86 2.211 86-88 2.211 93-94 2.211 99-104 2.211 105 2.211 116-23 2.211 135-48 2.211 Catholic Homilies, First Series 1 2.46 74-83 2.46 110-14 2.46 136-38 2.46 149-50 2.46 2 2.162 45-52 2.162-63 52-62 2.90 53-55 2.99 55-57 2.164 62-65 2.162-63 65-75 2.163 79-80 2.163 80-85 2.162-63 88-92 2.162-63 92-94 2.162-63

321

Index

4

5

94-100 2.162-63 100-02 2.163 102-11 2.164 111-15 2.164 118-20 2.163 120-27 2.162-63 132-38 2.164 165-85 2.164 199-202 2.164 204-17 2.164 218-19 2.164 1-20 2.169 20-31 2.169 33-36 2.169 174-93 2.169 274-76 2.169

117-22 2.170-71 6 1.82, 1.83, 1.103, 1.106, 1.108 3-5 2.172 33-40 2.172 53-60 2.172 61-65 2.172 102-06 2.172 106-10 2.172 110-16 2.172 116-20 2.172 121-25 2.172 126-29 2.172 132-32 1.103 141-43 1.103 142 1.83 148-59 1.103-04 157 1.103 191-93 1.104 103-95 1.104 196-99 1.104 9 2.90-91 4-12 2.184 59-64 2.184 65-69 2.90 75-80 2.184 80-85 2.184 84 2.90 110-16 2.184 117-23 2.184 224-32 2.90, 2.101 11 2.91 82-84 2.91 132 2.91 12 2.80-81, 2.194 26-38 2.195 39-44 2.194 84 2.194-95 84-87 2.195 91-96 2.195 102-06 2.195 106-11 2.195

112-17 2.195 117-20 2.195 121-26 2.195 130-35 2.195 141-43 2.195 141-48 2.195 13 2.91 65-73 2.158 73-78 2.158 79-87 2.158 82-84 2.98 98-102 2.158 103-06 2.158 108-10 2.158 112-17 2.158 117-24 2.158 125-28 2.158 132-35 2.158 136-41 2.158 143-48 2.158-59 148-52 2.158-59 178-79 2.160 183-84 2.160 195-96 2.160 196-99 2.160 202-03 2.160 206-09 2.160 209-12 2.160 214-16 2.160 216-19 2.160 219-21 2.160 14 2.196 34-41 2.196 42-45 2.196 45-47 2.196 69-74 2.91 98-110 2.196 122-27 2.196 133-37 2.196 137-48 2.196 151-56 2.196 15 85-89 2.202 135-39 2.67 20 227-28 2.131 21 2.131 38-41 2.91 41-47 2.204-05 68-71 2.131 73-81 2.131 86-93 2.131 88-91 2.204-05 22 33-38 1.115 228-33 2.214, 2.216 25 50-56 2.156 57-66 2.220

322 

BEDE – PART 2

67-79 2.220 80-83 2.219 93-96 2.220 108-14 2.220 118-34 2.220 26 2.186 17-22 2.186 22-26 2.186 28-33 2.186 34-45 2.186 52-55 2.186 60-71 2.186 72-78 2.186 78-79 2.186 83-87 2.186 92-96 2.186 27 164-75 2.175-76 176-77 2.175 177-92 2.176 30 76-80 2.67 32 224 33-36 2.224 43-54 2.224 87-110 2.224 110-17 2.224 118-28 2.224 128-40 2.224 141-45 2.224 145-50 2.224 151-52 2.224 156-62 2.224 162-71 2.224 33 2.91-92, 2.108-09 17-19 2.109 19-23 2.109 23-27 2.109 28-35 2.109 36-38 2.109 39-51 2.109 54-58 2.109 60-61 2.109 62-64 2.109 64-67 2.109 80-81 2.110-11 87-92 2.110-11 92-97 2.110-11 98-105 2.110-11 105-112 2.110-11 112-13 2.110-11 113-16 2.110-11 117-21 2.110-11 34 2.74 211-16 2.74 227-28 2.74 37 245-49 2.169-70

38 2.186 40 1.58, 1.104-05 39-42 1.58, 1.104 42-44 1.58 129-30 2.92 147-50 1.105 150-53 1.104-05 153-54 1.105 157-65 2.92 163-65 1.105 Catholic Homilies, Second Series 3 79-84 2.180 91-92 2.173 91-96 2.173 98-101 2.173 101-03 2.173 104-07 2.173 109-14 2.173 118-21 2.173 150-67 2.173 155-58 2.173 172-73 2.173 4 2.177-78 25-29 2.178 29-36 2.178 37-44 2.178 45-47 2.178 48-51 2.178 52-55 2.178 58-60 2.178 60-67 2.178 92-99 2.178 104-10 2.178 111-22 2.178 131-60 2.178 161-78 2.178 179-99 2.178 200-09 2.178 210-29 2.178 230-39 2.178 276-81 2.178 281-93 2.178 308-11 2.178 320-23 2.178 5 34 2.91 6 2.92 53-55 2.93 55-63 2.93 64-72 2.93 72-78 2.93 79-89 2.93 90-105 2.93 115-35 2.93 7 2.107 9 1.177-78 3-6 1.178

323

Index

6-8 1.153, 1.187 53-88 1.178 175-253 1.178-79 10 1.34, 1.282-85, 1.287, 1.295-98 3-6 1.282-83 8-25 1.283 25-27 1.296 28-29 1.296 28-35 1.283 33-34 1.296 35-39 1.283, 1.296 39-43 1.283 44-47 1.296 48-51 1.283, 1.296 51-58 1.283 52 1.296 53 1.296 59-60 1.296 59-63 1.283 66-73 1.296-97 74-94 1.283 76-77 1.297 97-112 1.283-84 102 1.297 112-26 1.284, 1.297 127-31 1.284 131-36 1.179, 1.297 133 1.179 137-40 1.297 137-57 1.284 141-42 1.284 143-53 1.297 153-57 1.284 159-62 1.284 162-70 1.297 171-76 1.284, 1.297 176-83 1.179, 1.297 180-81 1.179 184-90 1.297 190-200 1.284 201-09 1.297 210-12 1.284, 1.297 1.297 212-38 1.284 239-52 1.179-80, 1.298 244 1.179-80 252-58 1.298 259-64 1.298 259-71 1.180, 1.284 261 1.180 265-67 1.180 272-75 1.284 275-77 1.284 277-81 1.284 282-86 1.298 286-91 1.284 292-94 1.298 308-22 1.298 324-31 1.285, 1.298

12

331-33 1.298 333-38 1.298

7-16 1.115 277-78 2.47 277-85 2.47 300-11 2.47 14 2.93 54-58 2.75 58-63 2.75, 2.93 63-68 2.75 154-55 2.131 159-61 2.131 164-66 2.131-32 208-10 2.93 210-18 2.75 241-44 2.93 289-91 2.75 295-98 2.75, 2.93 298-301 2.67 301-09 2.93 15 324-35 2.199 16 50-52 2.94 55-63 2.94 132-42 2.188 20 19 1.181 21 1.204 1-2 1.181, 1.187 3-5 1.181 4-5 1.181 18 1.181 21-22 1.181 130-37 1.181-82 142-43 1.181, 1.187 143-50 1.181 23 140 2.75 142-46 2.75 179-82 2.75 182-85 2.75 186-94 2.75 24 2.186, 2.217 42-48 2.132 86-92 2.75 100-06 2.217 109-13 2.217 116-25 2.217 25 2.73, 2.75-76, 2.79-80, 2.147-48 28-30 2.80 32-34 2.80 35-39 2.80 39-45 2.80 46-63 2.80 64-66 2.80 72-77 2.80

324 

BEDE – PART 2

27

97-101 2.80 101-10 2.80 111-13 2.80-81 114-20 2.81 121-27 2.81 135-37 2.81

3-5 2.221 28 2.94 6-7 2.188 17-25 2.123-24 25-28 2.123-24 64-82 2.123-24 31 2.94, 2.121-22 24-34 2.122 38-40 2.122 41-47 2.122 50-66 2.122 67-84 2.122 85-102 2.122 32 2.188 20-24 2.188 24-30 2.188 31-33 2.188 35-40 2.188 44-48 2.188 53-54 2.188 68-73 2.188 37 148 2.222 38 80-95 2.120 118-29 2.94 40 81-82 2.163 85-89 2.226 108-17 2.139-40 125-31 2.139-40 De Sabbato 2.47 De temporibus anni 1.58-61, 1.82-83, 1.105 1.106-07, 1.108; chapter headings 1.59, 1.105 14-17 1.59-60 17-19 2.48 22-23 1.60 23-25 1.106 41-42 1.83 43-45 1.60 45-48 1.108 48-51 2.48 58-59 2.48 60-63 2.48 76 1.105 77-79 1.106-07 79-84 1.106-07 84-87 1.106-07 87-91 1.106-07 93 1.83, 1.105

94 1.83 94-96 2.48 96-97 1.83 110-11 1.60 120-25 1.60 125-32 1.83 134-40 1.106-07 141 1.105 156-59 1.83 169-70 1.107 216-19 1.60 221 1.59 222 1.60 224-28 1.60 231-35 2.48 236 1.84, 1.105 246-50 1.106-07 282-92 1.60 293 1.84, 1.105 319 1.84, 1.105 335-37 1.107 342-45 1.60, 1.107 345-46 1.60, 1.107 347-50 1.111 362-64 1.60 412-13 1.60-61 419 1.59 443 1.59 445 1.59 448 1.59 Epistola ad monachos Egneshamienses 1.116, 1.256, 2.96, 2.132 Excerptiones de Prisciano 1.95 First Old English Letter for Wulfstan 1.115-16 Hexameron 1.62, 1.108, 2.48 107-17 108 130-38 1.62 140-48 1.108 216-23 1.108 229-35 1.62 236-38 1.108 Homilies, Supplementary Collection 1 2.166 1-9 2.166-67 10-16 2.166-67 17-19 2.166-67 20-27 2.170 151-60 2.167 169-70 2.167 279 2.167 294-98 2.167 311-23 2.167 330-35 2.167 338-49 2.167 352-63 2.167 386-90 2.167 391-402 2.167

325

Index

2

404-09 2.167 429-36 2.167 457-60 2.167

27-30 2.94 220-31 2.190 276-86 2.190 4 2.94, 2.115 59-71 2.115 76-89 2.115 139-49 2.115 150-52 2.115 158-62 2.115 163-72 2.115 188-96 2.115-16 200-11 2.116 216-19 2.116 220-30 2.116 242-45 2.116 249 2.116 255-57 2.116 258-68 2.116 273-81 2.116 282-86 2.116 289-94 2.116 7 2.207 8 2.209 66-68 2.209 159-62 2.209 164-66 2.209 180-82 2.209 208-12 2.209 221-24 2.209 244-49 2.209 11 1.181-82 200-42 1.181-82 12 2.217-18 59-65 2.218 69-73 2.218 78-90 2.218 118-29 2.218 130-38 2.218 159-64 2.218 168-72 2.218 189-96 2.218 200-11 2.218 212-15 2.218 227-32 2.218 233-39 2.218 13 2.95 88-97 2.106-07 104-05 2.106-07 107-08 2.106-07 113-16 2.106-07 120-22 2.95, 2.106-07 128-33 2.106-07 136-40 2.106-07 154-61 2.106-07

175-77 2.106-07 208-11 2.192 14 2.95 16 2.95, 2.102, 2.119-20 41-48 2.103 51-52 2.103 53-57 2.103 58-65 2.103 66-71 2.103 72-74 2.103 81-84 2.103 91-97 2.103 103-20 2.120 111-14 2.103 119-25 2.103 127b-31 2.103 146-58 2.120 173-82 2.120 179-87 2.103 190 2.103 199-206 2.103 207-09 2.120 219-25 2.103 262-68 2.120 269-78 2.120 17 2.75, 2.76, 2.200 67-72 2.200 73-75 2.200 78-81 2.76 85-90 2.200 91-93 2.200 99-102 2.200 106-12 2.200 113-19 2.200 120-29 2.200 131-34 2.200 138-48 2.200 149-51 2.201 152-67 2.201 171-79 2.201 187-202 2.201 213 2.76 215-19 2.76 252-55 2.76 256-57 2.76 260-71 2.76 18 2.95 60-61 2.95-96 71 2.96 89-94 2.96 95-109 2.96 112-25 2.96 146-52 2.96 200 2.96 206-21 2.96 328-44 2.76 347-65 2.76 19 (De doctrina Apostolica) 1.182, 1.206

326  119-21 2.258 137 1.182 138-201 1.182 202-07 1.182 208 1.182 208-45 1.182 21 (De falsis diis) 1.62, 1.107-08 181-86 1.62, 1.108 Interrogationes Sigeuulfi in Genesin 1.60; 1.61-62, 1.107, 2.47 111 1.61 113 1.61 114-15 1.60 115-17 1.61 115-44 1.61, 1.107 119-20 1.61 121-35 1.107-08 121-42 1.61-62 131 1.107 133 1.107 135-42 1.62 250 2.48 291-96 2.48 Irvine (homilies) 1 48-56 2.225 Lives of Saints 7 (Agnes) 1.258 15 (Mark) 2,285, 2.290-91 127-36 2.188 137-38 2.188 152 2,290-91 157-58 2,290-91 19 (Alban) 1.190 1-12 1.190 13-15 1.190 16-132 1.190 92 1.190 111-15 1.190 133-37 1.190 138-42 1.190 143-46 1.190 147-51 1.190 20 (Æthelthryth) 1.246 7 1.201 5-118 1.201-02 26 (Oswald) 1.193-94 17-29 1.193-94 30-33 1.193-94 33 1.193 34-39 1.193-94 92 1.194 95 1.194 102-03 1.194 109-10 1.194 144-61 1.194 176-91 1.194 192-268 1.194 239-68 1.194

BEDE – PART 2

272-76 1.193 277-78 1.194 279-82 1.283, 1.296 Preface to Genesis 2.47 64-69 2.47 70-72 2.47 77-80 2.52 80-83 2.52 83-88 2.52 Ælfwine’s Prayerbook 1.51-52, 1.59, 1.60 1.95, 1.105 Æthelberht (Ælberht), archbishop of York 1.27-32, 1.32-33, 1.97, 1.156; books 1.32-33, 1.45, 1.52, 1.72, 1.76, 1.82, 1.96, 1.97, 1.127, 1.152, 1.158-59, 1.223, 1.244, 1.275, 1.291, 2.236, 2.285 Epistola 124 1.32, 1.213 413.11 1.213 Æthelstan (Athelstan) the grammarian 1.45 Æthelweard, ealdorman of the Western Provinces Chronica 1.154 5.30-6.2 1.154 Æthelwold, bishop of Winchester 1.17, 1.34, 1.104, 1.148, 1.176, 1.196-97, 1.198, 1.247, 2.67; see also An Account of King Edgar’s Establishment of Monasteries Regularis concordia 1.256-57, 2.258 71.14-72.1 1.177 Æthelwulf De abbatibus 1.281 95-98 1.281 204 1.215 702 1.281 794 1.213 B’s Vita Dunstani 1.177 6.14 1.177 Basil, bishop of Caesarea 1.41, 1.104, 1.146, 2.47 Hexameron 1.41, 1.146 battles Degsastan 1.171; Hatfield Chase 1.174; Maserfield 1.194 Baugulf, abbot of Fulda 1.44 Bede and the Bible 1.17-18, 1,19, 1,20, 1.40-41, 1.69-70, 1.75, 1.217, 1.230-31, 1.263-64, 2.11-12, 2.18-19, 2.39, 2.45, 2.51, 2.53, 2.54-55, 2.56, 2.61-62, 2.65-66, 2.72-73, 2.244, 2.246, 2.247, 2.270; and Church reform 1.22, 1.27, 2.238, 2.239, 2.256-59; and classical learning 1.21-22, 1.27, 1.40-41, 1.75, 1.246; and computus 1.27, 1.41, 1.80-81, 1.91, 1.103, 1.117-18, 2.261-62, 2.264-64, 2.267-69, 2.270-72, 2.274-75; and cosmography 1.41, 1.50, 1.91; and Creation 1.41, 1.50, 1.55-56, 1.59, 1.101, 1.103; and eschatological speculation 1.81, 2.9, 2.40, 2.58, 2.230, 2.270-72; and the Fathers 2.41, 2.54, 2.56, 2.72, 2.73, 2.86-87, 2.154, 2.239-40, 2.241, 2.243, 2.247; and Germanic traditions 1.22; and God 1.17-18, 1.29, 1.30, 1.41, 1.124, 1.127, 1.144-45, 2.11; and Greek 1.69, 1.72, 1.73, 1.265, 2.129; and

Index

history 1.123-24, 1.263-64, 1.265, 2.9, 2.65, 2.253, 2.255, 2.279-80; and Isidore 1.20, 1.60, 2.277; and Judgement 1.217-18, 1.224, 1.236, 1.250-51; and the library 1.18, 1.19-21, 1.39; and prayer 2.9, 2.11-12, 2.253, 2.265, 2.272-73; and preaching 2.9-10, 2.153, 2.154, 2.257-58; and publishing 2.251-52, 2.255-56; and saints’ lives 1.21-23, 1.264-65, 2.255, 2.279-91; and science 1.41, 1.50; and theology 1.263-64, 2.9; and women 2.9, 2.272-74; accusation of heresy 1.22, 1.81, 2.230-31, 2.270-72; assessment of his own writings 1.17, 1.39, 2.277; autograph 1.230; brethren 1.19, 1.97, 1.225, 1.227, 2.229-75, 2.253, 2.270-72, 2.274-75; choirmaster 1.41; chronology of works 1.21-22, 1.39, 1.43, 1.50, 1.69, 1.80, 1.117-18, 1.123-24, 1.127-29, 1.144, 1.210, 1.221, 1.228, 1.266-67, 1.300, 2.11, 2.13, 2.14, 2.15, 2.18, 2.23-24, 2.40, 2.45, 2.51, 2.54, 2.56, 2.58, 2.61-62, 2.63-64, 2.66-67, 2.69, 270, 2.72, 2.86, 2.128-29, 2.134-35, 2.137, 2.142, 2.153, 2.193, 2.234-75, 2.282-83; Continental reception 1.24, 1,119, 1.26-27, 1.27-32, 1.41, 1.81-82, 1.92-93, 1.95, 1.146-47, 1.150-51, 2.12, 2.52, 2.141, 2.142-43; death 1.18, 1.19-20, 1.217-18, 1.268; departure of Ceolfrith 1.22, 1.123, 2.244, 2.245, 2.246; education 1.17, 1.80, 1.97, 1.153, 2.39; epitaph 1.223; extracts from his writings 1.25-27, 1.92-93; famulus Christi/ Dei 1.144, 1.147, 1.151, 1.184, 1.233, 1.234; metrics 1.43; orthography 1.268; plague 1.35; reading 1.17, 1.19; reputation 127-32, 1.34; scholarship 1.35-36; significance 1.17, 1.35, 1.50, 1.55-56, 1.75, 1.80-81, 1.91, 1.144, 1.166; teaching 1.17, 1.39, 1.41, 1.47, 1.69, 1.94, 1.97, 1.116, 1.118, 1.145, 1.261, 2.41, 2.264-65; time-reckoning 1.41, 1.80-81, 1.91, 1.101, 2.11; transmission of works (see also Continenal recpetion) 1.24, 1.44, 1.51, 1.69, 1,81-83, 1.93-94, 1.128, 1.210-11, 1.246, 1.265, 2.142-43, 2.154; use of sources 1.17, 1.18, 1.19, 1.20-21, 1.50, 1.55-56, 1.145-46, 1.226; writings 1.36 Bible: Aids to Biblical Study 1.23, 2.11-15 Collectio Psalterii 1.207, 1.233, 2.11-12 De locis sanctis 1.221, 1.226, 2.12-14, 2.142 II 2-37 2.13 VI 2-24 2.13 9-19 2.13-14 VII 2-10 2.13 VIII 3-10 2.13 XI 29-32 2.14 Nomina locorum ex Hieronymi et Flaui Iosephi collecta opusculis 2.13, 2.14-15

327 Nomina regionum atque locorum de Actibus apostolorum 2.11, 2.15, 2.128, 2.129 Bible: Chapter Divisions and Prologues 1.23, 1.221, 1.231, 2.11, 2.17-38, 2.40-41 Capitula lectionum (Abacuc) 2.29 Capitula lectionum (Abdias) 2.28 Capitula lectionum (Actus apostolorum) 2.30 Capitula lectionum (Aggeus) 2.29 Capitula lectionum (Amos) 2.27 Capitula lectionum (Apocalypsis) 2.35, 2.263 Capitula lectionum (Cantica Canticorum) 2.26 Capitula lectionum (Deuteronomium) 2.22 Capitula lectionum (Ecclesiastes) 2.25 Capitula lectionum (Epistula ad Colossenses) 2.32 Capitula lectionum (Epistula ad Corinthios I) 2.31 Capitula lectionum (Epistula ad Corinthios II) 2.31 Capitula lectionum (Epistula ad Ephesios) 2.31 Capitula lectionum (Epistula ad Galatas) 2.31 Capitula lectionum (Epistula ad Hebraeos) 2.33 Capitula lectionum (Epistula ad Iacobi) 2.33 Capitula lectionum (Epistula ad Iohannis I) 2.34 Capitula lectionum (Epistula ad Iohannis II) 2.34 Capitula lectionum (Epistula ad Iohannis III) 2.34 Capitula lectionum (Epistula ad Iudae) 2.34 Capitula lectionum (Epistula ad Petri I) 2.33 Capitula lectionum (Epistula ad Petri II) 2.34 Capitula lectionum (Epistula ad Philemonem) 2.33 Capitula lectionum (Epistula ad Philippenses) 2.31 Capitula lectionum (Epistula ad Romanos) 2.30 Capitula lectionum (Epistula ad Thessalonicenses I) 2.32 Capitula lectionum (Epistula ad Thessalonicenses II) 2.32 Capitula lectionum (Epistula ad Timotheum I) 2.32 Capitula lectionum (Epistula ad Timotheum II) 2.32

328  Capitula lectionum (Epistula ad Titum) 2.33 Capitula lectionum (Exodus) 2.21 Capitula lectionum (Ezras) 2.23 Capitula lectionum (Ezras)(Comm.) 2.24 Capitula lectionum (Genesis) 2.20 Capitula lectionum (Hester) 2.24-25 Capitula lectionum (Hieremias) 2.26-27 Capitula lectionum (Hiezechiel) 2.27 Capitula lectionum (Iob) 2.25 Capitula lectionum (Iohel) 2.27 Capitula lectionum (Ionas) 2.28 Capitula lectionum (Iosue) 2.22 Capitula lectionum (Isaias) 2.26 Capitula lectionum (Iudicum) 2.22 Capitula lectionum (Iudith) 2.24 Capitula lectionum (Leviticus) 2.21 Capitula lectionum (Malachi) 2.30 Capitula lectionum (Micha) 2.28 Capitula lectionum (Naum) 2.28 Capitula lectionum (Numeri) 2.22 Capitula lectionum (Osee) 2.27 Capitula lectionum (Proverbia) 2.25 Capitula lectionum (Samuhelis) 2.23 Capitula lectionum (Sofonias) 2.29 Capitula lectionum (Tobias) 2.24 Capitula lectionum (Verba dierum) 2.23 Capitula lectionum (Zaccharias) 2.29 Prologus (Epistula ad Colossenses) 2.37 Prologus (Epistula ad Corinthios I) 2.36 Prologus (Epistula ad Corinthios II) 2.36 Prologus (Epistula ad Ephesios) 2.36 Prologus (Epistula ad Galatas) 2.36 Prologus (Epistula ad Hebraeos) 2.38 Prologus (Epistula ad Philemonem) 2.38 Prologus (Epistula ad Philippenses) 2.37 Prologus (Epistula ad Romanos) 2.35-36 Prologus (Epistula ad Thessalonicenses I) 2.37 Prologus (Epistula ad Thessalonicensis II) 2.37 Prologus (Epistula ad Timotheum I) 2.37 Prologus (Epistula ad Timotheum II) 2.38 Prologus (Epistula ad Titum) 2.38 Bible: Commentaries 1.17, 1.21, 1.23, 1.32, 1.39, 1.123 Aliquot quaestionum liber see VIII quaestiones Collectio ex opusculis Augustini in Epistulas Pauli 1.20, 2.134-36, 2.147, 2.153, 2.229 Commentarius in Apocalypsim 1.21, 1.123, 1.221, 1.228, 2.9, 2.11, 2.18, 2.20, 2.35, 2.40, 2.42, 2.44, 2.53, 2.58, 2.131, 2.140-46, 2.230, 2.248, 2.249 Praef. 2.262-63 Commentarius in Cantica Canticorum 1.31-32, 1.156, 2.26, 2.53, 2.65-67 274.3-9 2.67

BEDE – PART 2

Commentarius in canticum Habacuc 2.41, 2.68-69, 2.135-36, 2.233 Commentarius in epistolas septem catholicas 1.221, 1.232, 2.41, 2.136-40, 2.141, 2.229, 2.231, 2.235, 2.248, 2.250 James 3 119-22 2.139 1 Peter 2 61-67 2.139-40 93-98 2.139-40 Jude 66-73 2.138-39 Commentarius in Ezram et Neemiam 1.19, 1.31, 1.41, 1.156, 1.225, 2.23, 2.24, 2.41, 2.44, 2.50, 2.56, 2.57-60, 2.233, 2.237, 2.239-41, 2.244, 2.259 Praef. 2.237-38 I 1783-94 1.41 II 1847-48 1.115 1854-56 1.41 Commentarius in Genesim 1.59, 1.103, 1.260-61, 2.21, 2.41, 2.42-49, 2.50, 2.58-60, 2.86, 2.233, 2.237, 2,238, 2.239-40, 2.242-43, 2.244 Praef. 2.238, 2.239-40 I 39-43 2.48 71-74 2.48 168-72 2.46 333-37 2.48 348-50 2.48 464-66 2.48 479-83 2.48 485-90 2.48 561-67 1.103 727-36 2.46 746-49 2.47 948 2.49 1023-27 2.47 1062-75 2.47 1080-92 2.47 1485-87 2.46 1825 2.49 1965-73 2.46 2215-18 2.46 2301-10 2.48 II 161-63 2.47 161-70 2.48 620-23 2.47 1016 2.49 2043-49 2.22 2061-66 2.49 IV 1204 2.46 1221 2.49

329

Index

Commentarius in Lucam 1.20, 1.25-26, 1.115, 1.245, 2.9, 2.41, 2.44, 2.53, 2.72, 2.74-75, 2.82, 2.84-126, 2.147, 2.153, 2.158, 2.183, 2.193, 2.212, 2.224, 2.233, 2.243, 2.244, 2.248 Praef. 2.242-43 I 306-77 2.97 425-631 2.88, 2.91, 2.98 462 2.98 1008-328 2.88, 2.90, 2.98-99 1026-30 2.89-90 1047-55 2.89 1049-51 2.99 1051-53 2.89 1069-86 2.89 1329-449 2.99-100 1450-633 2.100 1705-14 2.90 1739-40 2.90 1742 2.90 1904-2037 2.90-91, 2.100-01 2012-37 2.151 2025-34 2.90, 2.101 2178-79 2.96-97 3004 2.91 3092-92 2.91 II 447-517 2.101 518-650 2.88, 2.95, 2.101-02 519-32 2.103 536-38 2.103 543-45 2.103 546-49 2.103 552-54 2.103 557-59 2.103 560-61 2.103 563-70 2.103 572-75 2.103 580-83 2.103 587-93 2.103 601 2.103 620-24 2.103 631-35 2.103 761-82 2.103-04 883-951 2.104 1415-600 2.104-05 1476 2.105 1819-932 2.88, 2.95, 2.105-07 1827-42 2.106-07 1851-52 2.106-07 1858-60 2.106-07 1866-70 2.106-07 1883-86 2.106-07 1889-90 2.106-07 1899-911 2.106-07 1911-14 2.106-07 1933-2000 2.87 2260-339 2.88, 2.92, 2.107-09

2266-71 2.109 2271-74 2.109 2274-78 2.109 2278-86 2.109 2302-06 2.109 2308-17 2.109 2317-22 2.109 2324-25 2.109 2327-28 2.109 2330-32 2.109 III 273 2.89 312-18 2.93 323-25 2.93 325-33 2.93 335-39 2.93 360-65 2.87-88 376-81 2.87-88 379-86 2.93 409-19 2.93 435-47 2.93 865-1101 2.88, 2.92, 2.110-11 1052-54 2.110-11 1055-59 2.110-11 1059-65 2.110-11 1065-72 2.110-11 1073-78 2.110-11 1079-80 2.110-11 1080-84 2.110-11 1086-87 2.110-11 1104-98 2.111 1407-89 2.111-12 2172-310 2.112 2311-77 2.112-13 2432-63 2.113-14, 2.212 IV 33-263 2.88, 2.94, 2.114-16 35-40 2.115 42-54 2.115 86-101 2.94 104-06 2.115 107-08 2.115 108-10 2.115 110-13 2.115 118-32 2.115-16 137-44 2.116 151-60 2.116 160-64 2.116 171-74 2.116 176-77 2.116 183-85 2.116 186-203 2.116 213-63 2.116 215-28 2.116 241-42 2.116 253-60 2.116 321-74 2.117 594-765 2.117-18 846-938 2.88, 2.94, 2.120-22

330 

BEDE – PART 2

853-54 2.122 855-64 2.122 871-88 2.122 897-904 2.122 934-38 2.122 1039-48 2.96 1056-60 2.96 1061-63 2.96 1061-66 2.96 1106-14 2.96 1117-25 2.96 1706-40 2.118 1741-854 2.118-19 V 36-44 2.120 36-116 2.88, 2.95, 2.119-20 47-49 2.120 60-69 2.120 81-84 2.120 104-11 2.120 111-16 2.120 154-75 2.88, 2.94, 2.120-22 657-777 2.122 862-65 2.95-96 903-09 2.96 975-80 2.96 981-87 2.96 991-1000 2.96 1009-11 2.96 1014-16 2.96 1028-36 2.96 1118-92 2.88, 2.94, 2.123-24 1143-48 2.123-24 1152-64 2.123-24 1171-78 2.123-24 1358-73 2.124 1495-620 2.88, 2.124-25 1635-833 2.125 1780-83 2.94 1915-22 2.91 2044-47 2.89 2419-76 2.126 VI 312-13 2.92 332-36 2.92 457-62 2.93 681-782 2.126 1378-85 2.93 1533-44 2.93 1587-89 2.93 1697-99 2.92 1737-40 2.93 2035-36 2.94 2086-96 2.94 2368 2.126 2397-404 2.91 Commentarius in Marcum 1.20, 1.25-26, 1.31, 1.156, 2.9, 2.41, 2.51, 2.60, 2.71-84,

2.86, 2.87, 2.88, 2.89, 2.147, 2.193, 2.202, 2.242, 2.244, 2.282 Praef. 2.243 I 1-123 2.77 II 3-6 2.75 75-76 2.75, 2.76 134-38 2.75, 2.76 186-92 2.75, 2.76 198-200 2.75, 2.76 1083-87 2.75, 2.76 1425-26 2.76 1512-680 2.73, 2.76, 2.147-48 1515-23 2.80 1529-30 2.80 1548-54 2.80 1554-58 2.80 1561-81 2.80 1583-85 2.80 1590-97 2.80 1606-22 2.80 1622-26 2.80 1630-33 2.80-81 1638-52 2.81 1661-69 2.81 1679-80 2.81 III 48-84 2.74 202-344 2.73, 2.81-82 471-76 2.74 1278-95 2.74 1823-949 2.73 1913 2.82 IV 163-65 2.76 173-85 2.76 331-66 2.83 357-65 2.76-77 523-28 2.75 616-19 2.75 621-28 2.75 1253-85 2.75 1586-88 2.75 1598-99 2.75 1819-20 2.77 1867 2.74 Commentarius in primam partem Samuhelis 1.21-22, 1.31, 1.40-41, 1.156, 1.285, 2.14, 2.23, 2.40, 2.52-54, 2.54, 2.60, 2.61-62, 2.63-64, 2.66-67, 2.72, 2.142, 2.233, 2.239, 2.241, 2.243, 2.245, 2.246, 2.270 Praef. 2.244 II Praef. 2.245 637-38 1.115 III Praef. 2.245

331

Index

IV Praef. 1.244, 2.263 2345-47 1.40-41 Commentarius in Prouerbia 1.29, 1.40, 2.25, 2.53, 2.63-64; “De muliere forti” 2.63, 2.64 I.vii 73-77 1.40 Commentarius in Tobiam 1.24, 2.61-63 VI 43 2.62 De mansionibus filiorum Israel: see Letters, Epistola ad Accam (De mansionibus filiorum Israel) De tabernaculo 2.9, 2.40, 2.50-52, 2.56, 2.61-62, 2.72 I 243-45 2.52 245-46 2.52 260-62 2.52 250-51 2.52 II 1-3 2.52 De templo 1.31-32, 1.156, 1.263, 2.9, 2.40, 2.50, 2.51, 2.55-57, 2.61-62, 2.134, 2.231, 2.233, 2.247, 2.250-51 Praef. 2.246-48 I 452-81 2.57 Expositio Actuum apostolorum 1.43, 2.13, 2.15, 2.86, 2.127-32, 2.133, 2.20405, 2.231, 2.233, 2.242, 2.244, 2.249 Praef. 2.248-50 36 2.131 I 88-91 2.131 92-96 2.131 103-08 2.131 193-93 2.131 198-200 2.131 200-06 2.131-32 208-209 2.131 II 16-20 130-31 XII 1-17 2.130, 2.132 In Regum librum xxx quaestiones 2.54-55, 2.233, 2.239, 2.270 VIII quaestiones 2.40, 2.69-71, 2.233, 2.237; Aliquot quaestiones liber 2.71 Retractatio in Actus apostolorum 1.43, 2.15, 2.128-29, 2.130, 2.132-34, 2.235, 2.285 Bible: Homilies 1.23, 1.25-26, 1.29, 1.32, 1.245, 2.9, 2.40, 2.41, 2.53, 2.147-227 Homiliary 2.147, 2.148, 2.152-55 I.1 2.154, 2.155-56 4-15 2.156 I.2 2.154, 2.156-57

I.3

1.4

I.5 I.6

I.7

I.8

1-56 2.157 69-82 2.157 107-54 2.157 169-204 2.157 2.98, 2.154, 2.157-59, 2.160 1-5 2.158 10-17 2.158 23-28 2.158 38-42 2.158 42-50 2.158 64-66 2.158 69-72 2.158 83-84 2.158 86-87 2.158 88-90 2.158 101-03 2.158 129-31 2.158 151-55 2.158 160-66 2.158 219-20 2.158-59 229-31 2.158-59 2.98, 2.108, 2.147, 2.154, 2.158, 2.159-60 49 2.160 244-46 2.160 252-54 2.160 265-67 2.160 271-72 2.160 284-85 2.160 304-12 2.160 312-22 2.160 322-25 2.160 349-51 2.160 2.154, 2.160-61 2.154, 2.161-63, 2.164 1-22 2.162 34-36 2.162-63 44-49 2.162-63 51-52 2.163 102-05 2.163 108-09 2.162-63 143-53 2.162-63 158-59 2.163 167-70 2.162-63 175-77 2.162-63 238-40 2.163 248-60 2.162-63 2.154, 2.162, 2.163-64 6-11 2.164 11-17 2.164 17-18 2.164 51-57 2.164 93-97 2.164 119-50 2.164 145-49 2.164 2.154, 2.164-67 1-11 2.166-67 8-24 2.165-66 11-14 2.166-67

332 

BEDE – PART 2

22-32 2.166-67 24-31 2.166 31-34 2.166 37-58 2.167 66-73 2.167 71-86 2.166 87-106 2.166 88 2.167 99-106 2.167 107 2.166 117-265 2.166 129-44 2.167 142-47 2.167 151-82 2.167 185-96 2.167 187-89 2.167 210-16 2.167 224-38 2.167 241-49 2.167 253-65 2.167 I.9 2.154, 2.167-70 4-9 2.168-69 31-151 2.169 55-69 2.169 125-28 2.169-70 125-34 2.169 142-43 2.169 151-69 2.168 180-92 2.169 197-201 2.169 210-56 2.169 218-40 2.168 227-29 2.169 227-40 2.170 I.10 2.154, 2.170-71 31-37 2.170-71 86-113 2.170 I.11 2.154, 2.171-72 1-3 2.172 28-34 2.172 41-48 2.172 48-53 2.172 83-90 2.172 90-95 2.172 100-105 2.172 111-21 2.172 153-58 2.172 211-16 2.172 I.12 2.154, 2.172-74, 2.183, 2.195 1-8 2.173 19 2.174 22-24 2.173 56-57 2.173 63-65 2.173 72-76 2.173 83-94 2.173 135-38 2.173 140-41 2.173

201-11 2.173 205-07 2.173 243-45 2.173-74 I.13 1.128, 1.132, 2.152, 2.154, 2.174-76 8.12-13 2.176 4.22-25 2.175-76 I.14 2.154, 2.176-78 1-16 2.178 31-33 2.178 45-94 2.177 49-51 1.115 53-59 2.178 59-62 2.178 62-68 2.178 78-86 2.178 95-273 2.177 97-100 2.178 124-27 2.178 127-32 2.178 134-36 2.178 136-37 2.178 145-47 2.178 150-51 2.178 152-54 2.178 158-61 2.178 164-67 2.178 167-72 2.178 174-82 2.178 182-85 2.178 188-95 2.178 195-99 2.178 202-14 2.178 214-17 2.178 231-39 2.178 273-91 2.177 277-78 2.178 282-85 2.178 I.15 2.154, 2.179-80 4-15 2.179 38-96 2.179 108-20 2.179 134-51 2.179 163-208 2.179 I.16 2.154, 2.180-81, 2.182 25 2.180 198-200 2.181 I.17 2.154, 2.174, 2.181, 2.181-83, 2.195 22-23 2.182-83 26-80 2.182 97-279 2.182 I.18 1.119, 2.90, 2.154, 2.183-84 11-17 2.184 17-20 2.184 43-44 2.184 44-47 2.184 48-58 2.183-84 56-59 2.184 65-71 2.184

333

Index

I.19 2.154, 2.184-85 I.20 2.154, 2.185-86 14-16 2.186 20-24 2.186 26-30 2.186 43-46 2.186 48-53 2.186 78-86 2.186 122-34 2.186 135-37 2.186 159-61 2.186 165-71 2.186 185-91 2.186 I.21 2.154, 2.187-89 9-14 2.188 22-23 2.188 32-34 2.188 55-59 2.188 72-73 2.188 104-10 2.188 109-14 2.188 127-32 2.188 148-51 2.188 202-68 2.188 221-32 2.188 230-32 2.188 I.22 2.154, 2.189 I.23 1.23, 1.113, 2.154, 2.189-90 1-6 2.190 6-155 2.190 201-20 2.190 248-70 2.190 I.24 2.154, 2.191 I.25 2.154, 2.191-92 14-101 2.192 46-50 2.192 106-13 2.192 127-36 2.192 157-64 2.192 176-80 2.192 II.1 2.56, 2.153, 2.154, 2.192-93 1-208 2.193 II.2 2.154, 2.174, 2.183, 2.193-95 25 2.195 28-124 2.194 94-98 2.194 118-22 2.195 124-217 2.193 132-34 2.194-95 132-36 2.195 142-47 2.195 150-52 2.195 204-05 2.195 207-13 2.195 II.3 2.154, 2.195-96 36-38 2.196 58-61 2.196 64-65 2.196

109-18 2.196 120-26 2.196 128-34 2.196 136-42 2.196 167-73 2.196 II.4 2.154, 2.197-98 30-38 2.197 46-57 2.197 57-65 2.197-98 69-88 2.198 129-201 2.198 II.5 2.154, 2.198-99 7-27 2.199 13-16 2.199 II.6 2.154, 2.199-201 1-6 2.200 6-7 2.200 15-21 2.200 21-26 2.200 28-30 2.200 30-31 2.200 37-41 2.200 41-43 2.200 43-46 2.200 55-57 2.200 73-78 2.200 78-80 2.201 80-91 2.201 112-15 2.201 133-41 2.201 II.7 2.77, 2.154, 2.201-03 91-96 2.202 160 2.202 II.8 2.154, 2.203 146-65 2.203 II.9 2.131, 2.154, 2.104-05 132-37 2.204-05 177-84 2.204-05 II.10 2.154, 2.205 II.11 2.154, 2.205-07 31-55 2.206 75-79 2.206 82-113 2.206 120-26 2.206 131-39 2.206-07 140-52 2.207 158-75 2.207 180-86 2.207 II.12 2.154, 2.207-09 15-23 2.209 48-51 2.208, 2.209 61-62 2.208, 2.209 69-75 2.208 81-83 2.208 86-92 2.208 93-94 2.209 122-23 2.209 133-40 2.208

334 

BEDE – PART 2

145-49 2.208-09 154-58 2.208-09 160-70 2.209 160-87 2.209 184-89 2.209 II.13 2.154, 2.209-11 5-14 2.210 11-21 2.211 23-28 2.210 44-58 2.210 47-48 2.211 50-52 2.211 53-56 2.211 56-59 2.211 78 2.211 78-81 2.210 94-123 2.210-11 96-101 2.211 105-06 2.211 108-15 2.211 120-48 2.211 147-48 2.211 II.14 2.113-14, 2.211-12 II.15 2.154, 2.212-13 II.16 2.154, 2,213-14 1-6 2.213-14 42-46 2.214 73-76 2.214 85-89 2.214 100-05 2.214 106-09 2.214 317-19 2.214 II.17 2.154, 2.214-16 11-14 2.215 23-27 2.215 31-34 2.215 37-39 2.215 58-59 2.215 74-94 2.215 98-101 2.215 123-27 2.215 131-35 2.215 148-51 2.215 160-68 2.215-16 317-19 2.216 II.18 2.154, 2.216-18 1-10 2.218 2-237 2.217 23-28 2.218 35-38 2.218 40-46 2.218 56-62 2.218 62-68 2.218 76-77 2.218 80-81 2.218 88-96 2.218 98-101 2.218 103-15 2.218 119-21 2.217

119-31 2.218 125-28 2.217 128-31 2.217 139-53 2.217, 2.218 175-82 2.218 186-90 2.218 195-203 2.218 II.19 2.154, 2.218-19 5-9 2.219 II.20 2.154, 2.219-21 1-8 2.220 12-16 2.220, 2.221 32-37 2.220 61-71 2.220 109-16 2.220 II.21 2.154, 2.221-22 48-51 2.221 184-85 2.222 II.22 2.154, 2.222-23 1-113 223 127-72 223 II.23 1.115, 2.97, 2.154, 2.223-25 48-51 224 51-63 224 55-59 225 76-86 224 89-105 224 110-20 224 120-32 224 145-52 224 176-82 224 224-26 224 228-38 224 240-50 224 251-59 225 II.24 2.56, 2.153, 2.154, 2.225-26 2-4 226 13-28 226 42-43 226 142-54 226 177-87 226 234-37 226 II.25 2.56, 2.153, 2.154, 2.226-27 Educational Works 1.23, 1.39-121 De arte metrica 1.21-22, 1.24, 1.33, 1.39, 1.42-47, 1.75, 1.76, 1.221, 1.300 i 2-8 1.46 iii 13-138 1.44 74-75 1.220 iv 1.44 vii 24-46 1.44 viii 1.44 ix 1.44 x 2-16 1.44 13-16 1.46

Index

xi 1.44 xii 1.44 xiii 1.44 xiii 5-9 1.45 xiii 11-13 1.46 xiii 13-16 1.46 xiv 1.44 xv 1.44 xvi 1.44 xix, 3 1.47 26 1.46-47 xxii 14 1.47 xxiii 8 1.47 xxiv 26 1.44 28-31 1.249 xxv 4-7 1.46 xxv 20-22 1.46 De natura rerum 1.24, 1.32, 1.33, 1.39-41, 1.47-63, 1.80, 1.81, 1.82-83, 1.91, 1.104, 1.105, 1.112, 1.115, 1.221, 1.234, 2.44, 2.48, 2.142, 2.262, 2.264-65; chapter headings 1.59 ii 1 1.59 iii 1 1.59 2-6 1.62-63 3-4 1.57 5-7 1.57 iv 2 1.55-56 3-9 1.56 9-10 1.55-56 v 2 1.57 xi 2 1.57 xi-xii 1.58 xii 1.60, 1.61 2-3 1.61 2-4 1.61, 1.62 6-7 1.61 xiii 1.60, 1.61-62 2 1.58, 1.60 3 1.58 xvii 1.51 xxi 2 1.52 3-4 1.52 xxii 2-3 1.54

335 xxiv 2-4 1.58, 1.62-63 xxvii 1.60-61 2-5 1.62-63 xxviii 1 1.59 xxxi 1.51-52 xxxiii 1 1.59 xxxiv 1 1.59 xxxv 1 1.59 xxxvi 1.51-52 xxxvi 2-11 1.60 xxxix 7 1.62 xl 5-6 1.55 xlii 5-6 1.52-53 xliv 2-8 1.56-57 xlv 5-6 1.57 l 6-7 1.52-53, 1.54-55 De orthographia 1.22, 1.24, 1.39, 1.63-73, 1.149 37 1.71 45-46 1.72 47 1.72 61-62 1,72-73 91-92 1.71 102 1.71 154-55 1.71 385 1.73 702-03 1.73 1095-97 1.73 1104-05 1,73 De schematibus et tropis 1.21-22, 1.24, 1.39-40, 1.43, 1.44, 1.74-79, 1.209, 2.129 i 3-4 1.76 25-29 1.76 34-40 1.76 42-48 1.76 51-79 1.76-77 72-74 1.79 80-83 1.77 83-89 1.77 90-102 1.77 108 1.77 144-57 1.78 ii 2-3 1,78 3-10 1.78 8-11 1.78

336 

BEDE – PART 2

213-14 1.78-79 290-301 1.75 De temporibus 1.21, 1.22, 1.23, 1.24, 1.32, 1.39, 1.41, 1.50, 1.51, 1.52, 1.58-59, 1.79-84, 1.91, 1.93, 1.96-97, 1.105, 1.114; 1.123, 1.234, 1.260-61, 2.9, 2.11, 2.40, 2.44, 2.128-29, 2.142, 2.230, 2.238, 2.261, 2.262, 2.264-65, 2.269, 2.270-71 iii 1 1.83 2 1.83 2-3 1.83 5-12 1.83 11-12 1.83 viii 1.81 ix 1.83, 1.110 xiv 1.81, 1.121 xvi 1.81 xxix.11-18 1.100 De temporum ratione 1.21, 1.23, 1.24, 1.26-27, 1.32, 1.33, 1.37, 1.39, 1.41, 1.51, 1.52, 1.58- 59, 1.60, 1.61, 1.80, 1.82-83, 1.84-116, 1.117-18, 1.119, 1.120, 1.121, 1.127-29, 1.163, 1.167, 1.173, 1.183, 1.260-61, 1.265, 1.266, 2.9, 2.59, 2,97, 2.141, 2.224, 2.232, 2.238, 2.255, 2.269, 2.270, 2.274-75, 2.277, 2.280, 2.282, 2.289; chapter headings 1.105 Praef. 2.264-66 i 1.95 25-71 1.102-03 37-38 1.113 42-43 1.113 89-105 1.102 i-lxv 1.92-93 ii 5 1.101 iii 12-14 1.102, 1.111 34-39 1.98 48 1.101-02 iv 1.95 8 1.102 34-37 1.98 v 2 1.102 7-8 1.108 vi 1.105, 1.106-07, 1.108 1 1.105 1-30 1.103-04 2-10 1.106-07 9-11 1.103 13-16 1.106-07 15 1.101 24-28 1.106-07 29 103 77-81 1.106-07 vii 1 1.105

17-20 1.104 viii 30-35 1.107-08 46 1.101-02, 1.107 49-51 107 51 107 51-52 107 52-53 107 54 107 56-57 107 xii 1.98 37-40 1.99 82-83 1.98-99 xv 1.98 7-8 1.99 13-14 1.99 41-44 1.99 50-52 1.110-11 xvi 79-81 1.98 xviii 2-3 1.98 xix 1.94, 1.109 xx 1.109 xxi 1.109 xxii 1.120 xxiii 1.109 xxiv 1.109 2-21 1.112 xxv 1.107 xxvi 1.95 xxvi-xxviii 1.93 xxvii 1.104 4-8 1.104 20-22 1.104 xxviii 1.104 16-17 1.111 20-32 1.104 38-42 1.104 47-49 1.111 xxix 1-16 1.104 3-6 1.112 11-19 1.100, 1.104 49-50 1.112 92-93 1.112 50-53 1.112 xxx 1.108-09 1 1.105, 1.108-09 86-93 1.106-07 xxxv 1.94 7-14 1.110 7-31 1.110 xxxvi 1.83 1 1.105 8-9 1.110 14-16 1.110 16-18 1.110 18-19 1.110

337

Index

30-31 1.110 44-46 1.98, 1.103 xxxviii 1 1.105 29-31 1.98 xxxviii-xxxix 2.261-62 xxxix 22 1.112 26-34 1.112 42 1.112 59-60 1.112 111-20 1.112 xlii 1.98 1 1.105 2-3 1.98 11-21 1.110 14-21 1.98 66-71 1.98 xliv 1.120 xliv-lxii 1.121 xlv 4-6 1.110 31 1.98 xlvi 7-8 1.110 xlvi-l 1.93 xlvii 1.95 xlix 44-46 1.111 52-55 1.111 60-62 1.111 l 1.94 li 1.94 liii 5-12 1.109-10 18-26 1.109-10 lvi 1.94 lvi-lix 1.93 lviii 1.94 lix 60-62 1.106-07 lxiii-lxiv 1.93 lxiv 27-30 1.115 lxvi 1.92-93 205-06 1.100 360 1.100 370-71 1.100 400-01 1.100 627-28 1.100 786-87 1.100 926-28 1.100 963-64 1.100 964-65 1.100 985-87 1.115 1203-04 1.99 1403-14 1.100 1580-81 1.100 1618-20 1.100-01

1622-24 1.101 1624 1.101 1626-28 1.101 1706-07 1.101 1920-28 1.246 lxvi-lxxi 1.92-93 lxvii 40-52 1.113 lix-lxxi 1.250-51 lxx 31-35 1.105 46-59 1.104-05 72-74 1.105 80-85 1.105 Kalendarium ad usum computandi 1.19, 1.39, 1.92, 1.117-20, 1.121, 2.136, 2.277, 279, 2.283 Magnus circulus seu Tabula paschalis annis Domini DXXXII ad MLXIII 1,39, 1.92, 1.120-21, 2.277 Pagina regularum 1.36, 1.39, 1.92, 1.117, 1.121, 2.277 Histories 1.23, 1.39, 1.123-25 Chronica maiora 1.23, 1.24, 1.92, 1.99, 1.100, 1.127-28, 1.163, 2.9, 2.282, 2.289; see De temporum ratione Chronica minora 1.23, 1.24, 1.80, 1.123, 2.9; see De temporibus Historia abbatum 1.23, 1.24, 1.33, 1.35, 1.117-18, 1.123, 1.125-32, 1.145, 1.158, 1.161, 1.183, 1.216, 1.264, 1.276, 2.53, 2.175, 2.229, 2.246, 2.260, 2.262, 2.288 I.i 22.6-9 1.129 22.15-24.13 1.131 22.16-24.2 1.129 I.i-iv 1.129 I.ii 1.285 24.14-18 1.131 26.4-5 1.131 26.7-12 1.131 I.iv 30.12-14 1.129 I.i-iv 1.129 I.vi 1.18, 1.129 I.vii-viii 1.129 I.viii 40.15-17 1.129 40.17-21 1.129 I.ix 1.18 42.25-26 1.129-30 II.xiv 1.129 II.xv 1.18 56.13-15 1.129 II.xvi 60.17-62.5 1.129 II.xvii 62.11-12 II.xix

338 

BEDE – PART 2

66.19 2.267 II.xxi 1.129 70.15-21 1.129 70.21-72.2 1.129 II.xxiii 1.129 72.3 1.129 72.11-18 1.129 Historia ecclesiastica gentis Anglorum 1.17-18, 1.20, 1.21, 1.22, 1.23, 1.24, 1.26, 1.28, 1.29, 1.31, 1.32, 1.33-34, 1.70, 1.100; 1.123, 1.132-206, 1.278, 1.298-99, 2.56-57, 2.141, 2.229, 2.247, 2.250-51, 2.283; and homilies 2.147, 2.148; transmission of 1.24, 1.26, 1.70, 1.146-47, 1.147-51, 2.9, 2.66 Praef. 2.252-54, 2.255 1-2 1.144 1-5 1.183-84, 2.254 1-47 1.151 65-68 1.239 73-80 1.267, 1.290-91 I.i 1.146, 1.157, 1.172 1 1.176-77 1-5 1.172 51-90 1.172 62 168 62-62 1.172 71-85 1.172 I.ii 1.171 2-iii, 34 1.151 I.iii 1-26 1.171-72 I.iv 1-3 1.173 7-9 1.170 I.v 1-20 1.171-72 15-18 1.171-72 I.vi 1-3 1.190 17-22 1.190 I.vii 1.152 1 1.167, 1.172-73, 1.190 5-100 1.190 7-32 1.189-90 46-48 1.185 72-91 1.189-90 100-02 1.190 107-11 1.190 I.vi-vii 1.189-90 I.vii-viii 1.189 I.ix 1-3 1.172-73 8-17 1.171-72 I.x 3-5 1.171-72 12-13 1.220 18 1.157 I.xi

16-19 1.171-72 21-22 1.154 I.xii-xv 1.154 I.xiii 1-2 1.172-73 4-6 1.172-73 I.xiv 29-34 1.172-73 32-34 1.171-72 I.xv 1.155 1-5 1.182 1-7 1.171-72 4 1.171-72 5 1.171-72 7-12 1.171-72 16-35 1.171-72 29-30 1.171-72 30-32 1.173 I.xvi 1.146 I.xvii 1.146 10-12 1.162 I.xvii-xxi 1.162 I.xix 23 1.185 I.xxi 1.146 I.xxii 1.146, 1.154 I.xxiii 1.152 1-2 1.172-73 3-5 1.172-73 26-37 1.178 30-36 1.186 I.xxiii-xxiv 2.230 I.xxiii-xxvi 1.34, 1.155 I.xxv 1-18 1.178 37-48 1.178 38-41 1.198 I.xxv-xxvi 1.154 I.xxvi 1-11 1.178 5-12 1.178-79 12-15 1.178 19-29 1.178 I.xxvii 1.158, 1.294 1-8 1.178 9 1.178-79 28-29 1.158 49-54 1.177 308-19 1.182 331-36 1.182 I.xxvii-xxxii 2.230 I.xxviii 1.155 I.xxix 2.258 1-5 1.186 1-12 1.179 26-27 1.186 26-32 1.159 I.xxxii 1-5 1.178-79

339

Index

I.xxxiii 1.155 1-5 1.184 2-3 1.176 I.xxxiv 12-23 1.171-72 II.i 1.34, 1.152, 1.155, 1.222 1-38 1.171 5-12 1.178 16 1.171-72 187-226 1.178 204-06 1.278-79 II.ii 73-108 1.171-72 23-32 1.161 II.iii 1.161, 1.222 1-19 1.171-72 3-6 1.175 7-8 1.157 36-42 1.161 II.iii-iv 1.152 II.iv 8-11 1.184 56-63 1.163 II.iv-v 1.184-85 II.v 1-5 1.171-72, 1.216 5 1.185 16-18 1.172-73 38-42 1.183 43-44 1.171-72 43-48 1.171-72 47-48 1.171-72 II.vi 1-3 1.184 1-24 1.171-72 7-8 1.171-72 9 1.171-72 17 1.171-72 17-18 1.171-72 28-30 1.171-72 II.vii 1-6 1.171-72 22 1.199 38-42 1.172-73 38-viii, 3 1.171-72 II.viii 40-46 1.186 II.ix 1-4 1.170 14-16 1.186 48-80 1.174 II.xii 96-99 1.172-73 II.xiv 1-4 1.171-72 1-12 1.174 13-17 1.194 II.xv 1-4 170

25-29 170 II.xvi 1-5 1.171-72 25-28 1.177 II.xvii 1-5 1.171-72 II.xvii-xviii 1.159 II.xviii 1-6 1.171-72 2-6 1.159 8-12 1.159 26-27 1.201 II.xix 1-6 1.171-72 II.xx 1-16 1.171-72 1-41 1.174 8 1.186-87 31-32 1.194 35-37 1.171-72 35-39 1.186-87 50-56 1.187 67-68 1.185 II.xxviii 30-31 1.185 III.i 1-8 1.171-72 8-10 1.172-73 26-33 1.171-72 34-36 1.193-94 III.i-ii, xi 1.152 III.ii 2-15 1.193-94 15-21 1.193-94 44-63 1.193-94 III.iii 1.295 III.iv 1.161 3 1.161 4-5 1.161 20-23 1.161 35-40 1.161 40 1.161 III.vi 3-8 1.193 11-26 1.194 III.vii 1.172, 1.197 1-3 1.171-72 1-12 1.171-72 1-26 1.194 3-4 1.198 12-21 170 22-23 1.198 27-28 1.171-72 30-33 1.174 35 1.201 31-32 170 33-34 170 42-44 170 47-50 1.171-72

340 

BEDE – PART 2

48-52 170 52-57 1.164-65 69-74 170 III.viii 1-23 1.171-72 4-6 1.183 III.ix 1-2 1.193, 1.194 8-12 1.171-72, 1.193, 1.194 21-24 1.193 III.xi 7-26 1.194 7-32 1.193 III.xii 16-20 1.193 24-30 1.193 26-30 1.194 31-32 1.171-72 35-36 1.193 36 1.171-72 III.xiii 1-2 1.171-72 1-3 1.193 III.xiv 1.161 1-3 1.171-72 7-11 1.171-72 17-22 1.171-72 21 1.161 24-39 1.170 88-90 1.170 III.xv-xvii 1.295 III.xvi 1.159 III.xviii 28-30 1.170 III.xix 1.152 24 1.181 114-17 1.199-200 III.xx 7-9 1.170 9-11 1.170 10-14 1.172-73 III.xxi 1-3 170 III.xxii 59 1.185 III.xxiii 1.163 1-2 1.163 48-51 1.163 52-53 1.163 III.xxiv 27-32 1.171-72 80-81 1.171-72 84-86 1.171-72 84-89 170 III.xxv 208-10 1.184 III.xxvi 1.295 III.xxvii 1-9 1.171-72

III.xxviii 1.160 7-13 1.164-65 20-22 1.164-65 III.xxix 1-13 1.172-73 60-xxx, 26 1.151 IV.i 2-3 1.171-72 3-4 1.171-72 5-6 1.171-72 8-18 1.172-73 22-24 1.175-76 49-52 1.171-72 IV.ii 1.160 1-7 1.164-65 21 1.185 32-IV.iii, 183 1.164-65 IV.iii 1.160, 1.164 104-05 1.185 150-57 1.163 IV.v 1-10 170 IV.vi 1-20 1.162-63 21-28 1.162-63 IV.vii 1.162 1-35 1.201 65-107 1.201-02 IV.viii-ix 1.152 IV.ix 1.152 IV.xi 1.162 IV.xii 6-7 1.199 30-45 1.171-72 44-47 1.239 53-56 1.172-73 IV.xiii 9-14 1.175 IV.xiv 1.152 41-46 1.194 86-87 1.175 IV.xvii 1.152, 1.246 1-51 1.201 26-30 170 43-45 1.171-72 61-85 1.201 109-12 1.177 IV.xviii 1.246, 1.263 1-5 1.245-46 IV.xix 1-3 1.171-72 IV.xxi 1-3 1.163 6-9 1.163 9-10 1.163 43-46 1.163 95-107 1.163 163-67 1.163 IV.xxii 1.22

341

Index

40-41 1.175 65-67 1.218 IV.xxiii 1-5 1.171-72 IV.xxiv 1-5 1.172-73 56-57 1.170, 1.175 IV.xxv 1.158 29-44 1.179 38 1.179 71-73 1.158 IV.xxv-xxx 1.160-61, 1.202, 1.277, 1.282-84, 1.295, 1.297 IV.xxvi 23-32 1.179 25-26 1.179 26-54 1.179-80 42 1.179-80 66-78 1.180 66-67 1.180 71-73 1.180 IV.xxvii 1.161 35-37 1.161 IV.xxvii-xxviii 1.152 IV.xxviii 47-49 1.202 IV.xxix 23-24 1.185 IV.xxix-xxx 1.180, 1.202-03 V.ii 8-58 1.161 V.vi 77-80 1.172-73 V.vii 1.220, 1.222 1-15 1.171-72 1-19 1.171-72 5 1.185 38 1.157-58 42 1.185 53-55 1.171-72 53-viii, 2 1.171-72 54-57 1.170 V.viii 1.222 27-33 33-34 1.172-73 34-39 1.172-73 V.ix 1.161 V.x 1.162 16-19 1.162 20-21 1.162 52-53 1.162 1.172-73 54-61 1.162 V.xii 1.181, 1.266 1-25 1.181 28-48 1.181 29 1.172-73 31-36 1.214 160-80 1.181 177-79 1.181

194-95 1.181 197-98 1.181 V.xiii-xiv 1.206 V.xvi 2-10 2.13 13-48 2.13 V.xvii 3-25 2.13 26-38 2.13 V.xviii 1-2 1.171-72 3 1.171-72 18-20 1.171-72 V.xviii 4-6 170 V.xix 1.152, 1.184, 1.222 8-9 1.184 12 1.185 45 1.185 121-22 1.164-65 225 1.184 V.xix-xx 1.151 V.xx 2.249 V.xxi 2.267-69 46-62 1.103 240-41 1.115 V.xxii 5-6 1.170 V.xxiii 1.216 1-3 1.170 6-7 1.172-73 15-16 1.172-73 17-18 1.171-72 28-34 1.171-72 31-32 1.170 38-47 1.183 48-82 1.183 55-56 1.239 84-87 1.144 V.xxiv 1-105 (epitome) 1.166-67, 1.168-71 3-5 1.171 6-9 1.171-72 10-13 1.170 14-16 1.171-72 17-18 1.171-72 19-20 1.171-72 21-22 1.169-70 23-24 1.171-72 24-25 1.171-72 26-27 170 28-29 170 30-31 1.170 31 1.170 34-35 170 36-37 170 38-40 1.170 41 1.171-72 42 1.171-72

342  42-43 1.171-72 44 1.171-72 45 1.171-72 46-47 170 48-49 1.174 50 1.171-72 51 1.171-72 52 1.171-72 53 1.171-72 54 1.171-72 54-55 1.171-72 56-57 1.170 58-59 170 60 1.171-72 61-64 1.171-72 62 1.171-72 63-64 1.171-72 65 1.171-72 66 170 67-69 170 70-71 170 72 170 73-74 1.171-72 76 1.171-72 77-80 170 90-91 170 92 1.171-72 96 170 96-97 170 97-99 170 101-02 1.171-72 106-25 (autobiography) 1.17-18, 1.21 1.39, 1.50, 1.158, 1.171, 1.216, 2.39-40, 2.269 112 1.158 112-18 1.183 117-18 1.158, 1.183 119-20 1.267 121-24 1.183 126-84 (list of works) 1.23, 1.27-32, 1.33, 1.36, 1.39, 1.43, 1.50, 1.69, 1.75, 1.80, 1.92, 1.124, 1.127, 1.144, 1.158-59, 1.207, 1.209, 1.217, 1.219, 1.231, 1.241, 1.243, 1.264-65, 1.285, 2.11, 2.13, 2.14, 2.17-18, 2.24-25, 2.26, 2.40, 2.44, 2.45, 2.50-51, 2.53, 2.54, 2.56, 2.58, 2.60, 2.61, 2.63, 2.66, 2.69, 2.70, 2.72, 2.86, 2.128, 2.133, 2.134, 2.137, 2.141, 2.147, 2,152, 2.229, 2.232, 2.236, 2.240, 2.241, 2.245, 2.246, 2.247, 2.257, 2.261, 2.270, 2.271, 2.274, 2.277, 2.279, 2.281 Letters 1.23, 2.40, 2.44, 2.51, 2.61-62, 2.6364, 2.66-67, 2.70, 2.137, 2.229-75, 2.283 Epistola ad Accam (Commentarius in Ezram et Neemiam) 2.235, 2.237-38

BEDE – PART 2

Epistola ad Accam (Commentarius in Genesim) 2.43-44, 2.58-60, 2.234, 2.235, 2.236, 2.239-40, 2.242-43 Epistola ad Accam (Commentarius in Lucam) 2.86, 2.234, 2.235, 2.239, 2.242-43 Epistola ad Accam (Commentarius in Marcum) 2.72, 2.235, 2.242, 2.243 Epistola ad Accam (De eo quod ait Isaias) 2.232, 2.233, 2.234, 2.235, 2.236, 2.239, 2.244, 2.245, 2.246, 2.270 Epistola ad Accam (De mansionibus filiorum Israel) 2.232, 2.233, 2.234, 2.235, 2.236, 2.239, 2.245-46, 2.270 Epistola ad Accam (De templo) 2.56, 2.134, 2.235, 2.246-48, 2.250 Epistola ad Accam (Expositio Actuum apostolorum) 2.128, 2.137, 2.142, 2.231, 2.234, 2.235, 2.241, 2.248-50 Epistola ad Albinum 2.56, 2.229, 2.231, 2.235, 2.247, 2.250-52 Epistola ad Ceoluulfum 2.235, 2.251, 2.252-54 Epistola ad Eadfridum 2.235, 2.254-56 Epistola ad Ecgberctum 1.21, 1.28, 1.132, 2.18, 2.229, 2.232-33, 2.235, 2.236, 2.238, 2.256-59, 2.277 140.7-13 2.258 150.20-22 2.258 152.26-154.1 2.258 Epistola ad Gregorium papam 1.276, 1.285, 2.229, 2.234, 2.259-60 Epistola ad Helmualdum 1.92, 2.232, 2.234, 2.261-62, 2.269, 2.270 Epistola ad Huaetberctum (Commentarius in Apocalypsim) 2.142, 2.234, 2.235, 2.260, 2.262-63 Epistola ad Huaetberctum (De temporum ratione) 1.97, 2.235, 2.264-66, 2.269 Epistola ad Iohannem 2.231, 2.234, 2.239, 2.255, 2.260, 2.266-67 Prol. 1 2.267 Epistola ad Naitonum 2.229, 2.234, 2.239, 2.267-69 Epistola ad Nothelmum 2.54, 2.233, 2.234, 2.235, 2.270 Epistola ad Pleguinam 1.19, 1.81, 1.114, 2.230, 2.232, 2.234, 2.235, 2.236, 2.248, 2.250, 2.262, 2.265, 2.270-72 Epistola ad sororem 2.233, 2.235, 2.272-74 Epistola ad Wicthedum 1.51, 1.92, 1.96, 2.232, 2.235, 2.236, 2.270, 2.274-75 Epistolae ad Accam (Commentarius in primam partem Samuhelis) 2.53, 2.234, 2.235, 2.239, 2.244-45 Liber epistolarum 2.229, 2.232, 2.236-37, 2.257, 2.270, 2.271, 2.277

Index

Lost Works 1.23, 2.277-78 Selections from Isidore’s De natura rerum 1.20, 2.277 Translation of John’s Gospel 1.20, 1.22, 2.277 Martyrologium 1.23, 1.118, 1.123, 1.124; 1.160, 1.246, 1.264, 1.265, 1.301, 2.136, 2.248, 2.279-91 13.5 2,290 149.15 2,290 149.16-17 2,290 189.3-4 2,290-91 198.6-7 2,290-91 2238-9 2,290 Poetry: De die iudicii 1.21-22, 1.23, 1.24, 1.33, 1.34-35. 1.207-16 1-3 1.214-15 6 1.216 7 1.216 8-9 1.216 10 1.216 15 1.215 19 1.215-16 24 1.215 30 1.214 35 1.214 49 1.215 57-63 1.34-35 58 1.34, 1.213-14 59-71 1.216 95 1.214 142 1.215 148 1.215 156-57 1.213 157 1.213 161 1.213 Poetry: Epigrams 1.21-22, 1.23, 1.24, 1.33, 1.207, 1.217-40, 1.241, 2.145, 2.277 Bede’s Death Song 1.36, 1.217-18 Ceruus ut ad fontes sitiens festinat aquarum 1.222, 1.223-24, 1.232, 1.236, 1.241 Codicibus sacris hostili clade perustis 1.19, 1.223, 1.224-25, 2.60, 2.238 Descripsi breuiter finesque situsque locorum 1.221, 1.226 Epigramma Bedae ad S. Michaelem (lost) 1.220 Epigramma Bedae ad S. Mariam de consecratione ecclesiae in eius honorem (lost) 1.220 Eloquium domini quaecunque uolumina pandunt 1.223, 1.224-25, 1.226-27 Exul ab humano dum pellitur orbe Iohannes 1.221, 1.227-29, 2.142, 2.263 Gaudebunt mea cum tibi decantauero labra 1.222, 1.229-30

343 Hieronyme interpres uariis doctissime linguis 1.223, 1.224-25, 1.230-31, 2.229-30 Hieronymus reserat dum mystica claustra uidentum 1.227, 1.231, 2.229-30 Hoc tibi Christe Deus uitae spes unica terris 1.231-32 Hos Albine tibi merito venerabilis abba 1.221 Iacobus Cephas Iohannes Thaddeus uno 1.221, 1.232, 2.137 Laudate Altithronum pueri laudate tonantem 1.222, 1.232, 1.232-33, 1.241 Lector adesto uigil pagina quaeque canit 1.217, 1.223, 1.233-34 Liber epigrammatum 1.24, 1.31-32, 1.156, 1.218-23, 1.224, 1.233, 1.236, 1.244 Naturas rerum uarias labentis et aeui 1.50, 1.221, 1.234, 1.234-35, 2.263 Non circumdantis timeo milia plebis 1.222, 1.235 O Deus aeternae mundo spes unica uitae 1.217, 1.222, 1.232, 1.235-36, 1.236 Quam dilecta tui fulgent sacraria templi 1.222, 1.224, 1.236 Quem metuant fines terrarum funditus omnes 1.222, 1.236-37 Quis Domini expediet coelestia munera dictcis 1.222-23, 1.237-38, 1.240, 1.295 Splendet apostolici radio locus iste dicatus 1.220, 1.238-39 Versus eiusdem in porticu ecclesiae S. Mariae ab Wilfrido episcopo constructa, in quibus mentionem facit Accae episcopi (lost) 1.220 Vilfridus hic magnus requiescit corpore praesul 1.222, 1.239-40 Poetry: Hymns 1.21-22,1.23, 1.24, 1.33, 1.207, 1.209, 1.241-61, 2.277 Adesto Christe uocibus 1,244-45 Alma deus Trinitas quae saecula cuncta gubernas 1.201, 1.232, 1.240, 1.241, 1.245-48, 1.263, 2.272, 2.279 Apostolorum gloriam 1.248-49 Apparebit repentina dies magna Domini 1.211, 1.241, 1.249-50 Apparebunt ante summum saeculorum iudicem 1.241, 1.250-51 Emitte Christe Spiritus 1.251 Hymnos canamus gloriae1.243, 1.244; 1.252-57 Hymnum canentes martyrum 1.257 Illuxit alma saeculis 1,257-58 Liber hymnorum 1.24, 1.241, 1.243-44 Nunc Andreae sollemnia 1.258-59, 1.261 Praecessor almus gratiae 1.259 Praecursor alti luminis 1.259-60

344  Primo Deus caeli globum 1.260-61 Salue tropaeum gloriae 1.259, 1.261 Saints’ Lives 1.21-22, 1.23, 1.123, 1.124, 1.263-301 Vita Anastasii 1.263, 1.264-65, 2.277 Vita Cuthberti (metrica) 1.21, 1.22, 1.23, 1.24, 1.27, 1.33, 1.34 1.123, 1.157, 1.179, 1.202, 1.207, 1.209, 1.246, 1.263, 1.264, 1.265-87, 1.290, 1.295, 2.231, 2.239, 2.277, 2.279 Prol. 2.255, 2.260, 2.266-67 1 1.276 21 1.285 9 1.266-67 Vita 1-2 1.280 8 1.280 21-22 1.279 25-29 1.278 32-33 1.280 54-61 1.283 91 1.277 104 1.277 120-21 1.277 152 1.281 187 1.277-78 208 1.281 235 1.280 340 1.280 379-80 1.281 462-70 1.284 489 1.285 490-91 1.277 536 1.280 653 1.281-82 855 1.277-78 918-28 1.281 Vita Cuthberti (prosa) 1.22, 1.27, 1.34, 1.156, 1.158, 1.160-61, 1.179, 1.195, 1.202, 1.222-23, 1.237-38, 1.246, 1.263, 1.264, 1.266-68, 1.276, 1.277, 1.282-85, 1.286-87, 1.287-300, 2.251-52 Praef. 2.254-56 142.6-7 1.292 142.17 1.292 142.12-13 1.292-93 142.14-18 1.293 142.20 1.293 144.3 1.293 144.4-5 1.293 144.9 1.293 146.18-19 1.267 158.5-7 1.296 158.22-23 1.296 160.2-3 1.296 160.5-9 1.296 160.13-16 1.296 160.21-164.16 1.298 164.17-166.2 1.296

BEDE – PART 2

164.23-166.1 1.296 166.20-23 1.296 166.24 1.295 168.13-14 1.296 168.30-170.1 1.296 172.4 1.296 174.17-18 1.298 176.23-178.7 1.296-97 178.13-16 1.294-95 180.8 1.299 184.14-186.25 1.297, 1.299 188.19-21 1.297 192.3-4 1.293-94 192.11-12 1.298 192.34 1.293-94 194.27-28 1.297 198.1-2 1.297 202.25-206.20 1.299 204.1-7 1.297 204.12-13 1.297 204.13-206.3 1.297 214.16-30 1.297 214.23-26 1.293 214.27-28 1.299 216.28-218.7 1.297 220.14-28 1.297 220.28-222.9 1.297 224.20-22 1.293 224.24-31 1.293 226.2-26 1.297 228.1-230.14 1.297 228.3-11 1.294 228.10 1.294 232.8-10 1.294 238.4-18 1.298 238.20-25 1.298 240.29-242.5 1.298 248.20-250.15 1.298 256.28-258.23 1.298 262.2-13 1.298 262.27 1.298 264.14-17 1.294-95 266.3-10 1.295 266.20 1.299 270.14-284.26 1.298 270.27-272.17 1.294 272.25-32 1.294 282.12-15 1.294 284.23-26 1.294 284.25-26 1.298-99 286.19-20 1.295 288.1-306.5 1.298 288.13-14 1.299 290.27-294.31 1.298 290.29-292.19 1.294 292.1 1.295 292.7-8 1.295 292.11-12 1.295 292.19-22 1.295

345

Index

292.23-28 1.295 292.32-294.1 1.295 294.3-7 1.295 294.9-26 1.295 296.5-6 1.295 296.8 1.299 304.3-4 1.299 Vita Felicis 1.263, 1.300-01, 2.286 790.21-29 1.301 790.41-791.24 1.301 795.33 1.301 798.21-26 1.301 Benedict Biscop, abbot of MonkwearmouthJarrow 1.17; 1.18, 1.19; 1.117-18, 1.124, 1.127, 1.129-32, 2.39, 2.152, 2.174-75, 2.288 Benedict of Nursia 1.101, 1.130-31, 2.175 Benedictine Reform 1.176, 1.244 Benedictional of Æthelwold see manuscripts, London, British Library, Add. 49598 Beorhtwald, archbishop of Canterbury 2.229 Beowulf-poet 1.17 Bible 1.17; and chronology 1.81, 1.114-15; and salvation 2.94; Alcuin Bible 2.19, 2.30, 2.31, 2.35; figures of speech 1.69-70, 1.76; four levels of exegesis 2.199; geography 1.265; Hebrew Scriptures 1.69-70; “hebraica ueritas” 1.19; Law, Old and New 2.80, 2.157, 2.171-72, 2.178, 2.184, 2.190, 2.216, 2.219; per cola et commata 2.142; Septuagint 1.69-70, 1.114-15; transmission 1.69-70; Vetus latina 1.19, 1.69-70, 1.73, 1.230, 2.68, 2.129; see also Jerome, Vulgate Genesis 1:1-2:3 2.44 1:1-3:4 2.239 1:1-24:22 2.48 1:26 2.46 1:26-27 2.47 2:3 1.113 2:10 2.44 2:22 2.57 3:21 2.46 3:24 2.44, 2.45, 2.48 4:10 2.47, 2.48 4:24 2.47 6:2 2.49 8:22 2.49 19:28 2.14 21:9-10 2.45, 2.239 24:14 2.91 Exodus 1.237-38 12:2 1.103 24:12-30:21 2.50 25:3-8 2.52 28 1.237-38 Leviticus 12:2-6 2.184 Numbers 12:23 2.212 33 2.246

Joshua 1:7 1.111 Judges 2:12 2.22 1 Kings (Samuel) 2.40 25 224 1-4 Kings 2.53, 2.54 2 Kings 1:19-27 2.70 6:1-23 2.70 3 Kings 5:6-7:51 2.56 2 Paralipomenon 3:1 2.57 1-2 Ezra 2.58 2 Ezra (Nehemias) 2.238 1:1 2.58 2:1-20 2.58 Tobias 2.40 Judith 2.40 Esther 2.40 Job 40:16 2.116 Psalms 2.11-12, 2.195 3:7 1.222, 1.235 23:7 and 9 1.253 37-11 2.196 41 1.224, 1.232 61:13 2.107 66:8 1.222, 1.237 70:23 1.222, 1.229 81 1.224 82:6 2.186 83 1.236 126:1 2.103 136 2.12 103:5 1.57 112 1.233 118:40 2.70 120:4 2.145 121:7 2.145 145:18 2.211-12 Proverbs 7 1.40 20:4 2.120 Canticle of Canticles 2:1 2.182 2:6 2.273 Prophets 2.40, 2.195 Isaias 2.161 2:2 2.103 11:1 1.247, 2.182 11:10 2.205 24:22 2.245 30:26 1.105 Lamentations 4:4 2.80 Ezechiel 1:18 2.124

346  Daniel 2.238 3 1.237-38 9:24 2.58-59 9:24-27 2.58 Jonas 2:11 1.237-38 Habacuc 2.182 3 2.272 Zacharias 2.182 Malachi 4:6:1.251 Matthew 2.154 1:18-25 2.161 2:1-9 2.196 2:13-23 2.170 3:13-17 2.173 6:24-33 2.94, 2.121 8:23-27 2.75 9:9-13 2.187 12:22-30 2.94, 2.115 12:25 2.116 13:3-8 1.113-14 13:19 2.93 14:1-12 224 14:6-7 224 14:9 224 14:22-36 2.75, 2.217 15:21-28 2.189 16:13-19 2.185, 2.186 16:15 2.186 16:18 2.186 16:27-28 2.191 17:1-9 2.191 18:1-10 2.74 18:20 2.94 19:27-29 2.175 20:1-16 2.92 24:20 2.76 24:30-43 1.250 25:8 2.120 25:14-30 2.94 25:31-46 1.250 27:52 2.67 28:1-10 2.20 28:16-20 2.203 Mark 2.154 1:1-3 2.77 1:4-8 2.155 3:22-27 2.94, 2.115 5:1-20 2.75 6:17-28 2.78 6:17-29 224 7:31-37 2.76, 2.200 7:35 2.201 8:1-9 2.79, 2.147 8:8 2.81 9:16-29 2.81 9:41 2.74 9:42 2.74

BEDE – PART 2

11:9 2.74 11:11 2.73 11:23 2.76 12:32-33 2.82 13:1-13 2.82 13:18 2.76 13:33-37 2.83 13:37 2.84 16:15 2.89 Luke 2.154 1:5-17 2.219 1:18-25 2.97, 2.131 1:26-38 2.91, 2.98, 2.158 1:27 2.159 1:39-55 2.159 1:52 2.160 1:53 2.160 1:54 2.160 1:55 2.160 1:57-68 2.220 1:60 2.220 2:1 2.171-72 2:1-12 2.99 2:1-14 2.153, 2.162 2:1-20 2.99, 2.162, 2.164 2:15-20 2.100, 2.164 2:21 1.103, 2.100 2:22-35 2.183 2:22-40 2.90, 2.100 2:33-40 2.90-91, 2.100 2:52 2.90 3:1 1.115, 2.225 3:34-36 2.131 4:12 2.91 4:38-41 2.101 5:1 2.103 5:1-11 2.95, 2.102 5:2 2.103 5:3 2.103 5:4 2.103 5:5 2.103 5:6 2.103 5:7 2.103 5:8 2.103 5:10 2.103 5:17-25 2.104 5:27-32 2.104 6:6-10 2.94 6:17-23 2.105 6:20 2.105 6:36-42 2.95, 2.106, 2.192 6:37 2.107 6:39 2.107 6:41 2.107 6:43-44 227 7:16 2.109 7:11-16 2.91, 2.108 8:4-15 2.92 8:41-56 2.110-11

347

Index

9:1-6 2.111 9:23-27 2.111-12 10:23-37 2.112 10:38-42 2.113 11:9-13 2.211 11:14-22 2.94, 2.115 11:14-28 2.115 11:20 2.115 11:21 2.115 11:22 2.115 11:24 2.116 11:25-26 2.116 11:27 2.116 11:28 2.116 11:33-36 2.117 12:1-10 2.117-18 12:22-31 2.94, 2.121 12:35-37 2.271 12:38 2.96 12:42 2.96 13:34-35 2.118 14:1-11 2.118 16:1-9 2.95, 2.119 16:3 2.120, 2.121 16:7 2.120 16:13 2.94 16:16 2.219 17:11-19 2.122 17:26 2.95-96 17:28 2.95-96 17:29 2.96 17:34-35 2.95 18:9-14 2.123 18:29-30 2.124 18:35 2.96 19:1-10 2.125 19:2-8 2.120 19:2-10 2.120 19:8 2.120 19:12-26 2.125 19:12-27 2.125 20:20-26 2.126 21:17 2.107 21:25-30 2.92 21:32 2.92 21:33 2.92 22:24-30 2.126 23:24 2.93 24:1-9 2.205 24:25-26 2.94 24:36-47 2.131, 2.204 24:44-53 2.212 24:48-49 2.126 John 2.154, 2.277 1:1 2.166, 2.167 1:1-14 2.165 1:3-5 2.166 1:5 2.166, 2.167 1:9 2.167

1:10 2.167 1:12 2.167 1:13 2.167 1:14 2.167 1:15-18 2.157 1:29-34 2.179 1:35-42 2.180 1:43-51 2.182 2:1-11 2.177 2:1-12 2.169 2:6 2.177 2:12-22 2.193 2:19 2.193 3:1-16 2.217 3:13 2.217 4:46-53 225 5:1-18 2.190 5:2-9 2.94 5:17 2.47 6:1 2.195 6:1-14 2.80, 2.194 6:3 2.195 6:5 2.194 6:9 2.195 6:10 2.195 6:13 2.195 6:14 2.195 8:1-12 2.192 9:6 2.166 9:14 2.166 10:22-30 2.153, 2.226 10:28 226 10:30 226 11:55-12:11 2.197 12:13 2.74 13:1-17 2.198 14:15-21 2.215 14:21 2.215-16, 2.273 15:26 2.213 15:26-27 2.214 15.26-16.4 2.213 16:3 2.214 16:5-15 2.206 16:7 2.206 16:9 2.206 16:10-11 2.206 16:12-13 2.206 16:13 2.207 16:14 2.207 16:15 2.207 16:16 2.210 16:16-22 2.210 16:20 2.210 16:21 2.210 16:22 2.211 16:23-30 2.76, 2.208 16:25 2.208 16:26 2.208, 2.209 16:27 2.208-09

348  16:28 2.209 16-28-30 2.209 16:30 2.209 19:43-44 2.89 21:15-19 222 21:17 223 21:18 2.169 21:19 2.169, 2.223 21:19-24 2.168 Acts of the Apostles 1:3-15 2.131 1:9-12 1.252 1:18 2.131 2 1.251 2:1 2.130 3:24 2.244 12:1-2 2.130 12:1-23 2.75, 2.132 19:1-12 2.134 20:14 2.15 21:27 2.129 21:38 2.129 Pauline Epistles 1.20-21, 2.17, 2.20, 2,30, 2.36. 2.41, 2.135, 2.244, 2.257, 2.278 Romans 12:19 2.70 13:12 2.205 15:4 2.244, 2.247 15:5 2.70 1 Corinthians 3:11 2.56 10:11 2.51, 2.244 2 Corinthians 4:17 2.130 11:24 2.70 11:26 2.70 Ephesians 2:20-22 2.56 5:23 2.62 6:16-17 1.299 1 Thessalonians 4:16 1.104 1 and 2 Timothy 2.257 Titus 2.257 Hebrews 7:26 2.182 Catholic Epistles 2.19, 2.30, 2.33, 2.35, 2.41, 2.136-40 James 2.229 3:6 2.139 1 Peter 1:19 2.179 2:4-10 2.56 2:5 2.139, 2.140 Jude 1:6 2.138-39 Apocalypse 1:1 2.92 2:3 2.107

BEDE – PART 2

7:5-8 2.142 10:3-4 ?1.59 21:19-20 2.142, 2.144-45 22:8 2.146 bishops, consecration of 1.159 Blickling Homilies 1 84-88 2.158 90-92 2.158 140-42 2.158 11 2.14 Boethius De consolatione Philosophiae 1.54, 1.176 Boniface (Wynfrith), archbishop of Mainz 1.17, 1.25, 1.27-32, 1.81-82, 1.93, 1.184, 2.143, 2.259, 2.282 Epistola 73 1.28 Epistola 75 1.27-32, 2.236 Epistola 76 1.27-32 Epistola 91 1.127-32, 2.64 Book of Cerne see manuscripts, Cambridge, University Library, Ll. 1.10 booklists 1.32-33; Athelstan 1.45, 1.238, 1.275, 1.291; Bury St Edmunds II 1.255; Leofric 1.255, 2.88-89, 2.137, 2.138, 2.143-44; Peterborough 1.153, 2.67, 2.74; Sæwold 1.152-53, 2.138; Sherburn-in-Elmet 1.255; Worcester 1.82, 1.96-97, 1.153, 1.255; Würzburg 1.153; see also Alcuin, books Bosworth Psalter, the see manuscripts, London, British Library, Add. 37517 Byrhtferth of Ramsey 1.27, 1.94, 1.110, 1.130, 1.146 Computus 1.52, 1.81, 1.96, 1.108; “Epilogus” 1.108 iv 25-26 2.77, 2.97, 2.155 27-32 1.108 36-38 1.183 54-64 1.108-09, 1.116 59-60 1.108 62-62 1/108-09 67-70 1.109 vi 2 1.109 11 1.109 xvii 1.109 xx 1.109 lxvii 1.109 Enchridion 1.27, 1.45-46, 1.62-63, 1.76-78, 1.109-10, 1.130 figure 26 1.46 I.i 163-231 1.110 173-74 1.110 182-83 1.110 186-87 1.110 191-92 1.110 193-94 1.110 197-98 1.110

Index

199-206 1.110 207-13 1.110 I.ii 45-52 1.109-10 54-62 1.109-10 I.iii 11-12 1.130 II.i 174-77 1.116 179-88 1.110 392-416 1.110 424-503 1.45 447-48 1.45-46 466-70 1.78 470-76 1.45-46 476-79 1.45-46 480-82 1.45 483-86 1.45 487-89 1.45 491-96 1.46 498-501 1.46 II.iii 213-25 1.110-11 234-36 1.62-63 III.i 30-31 2.49 49-51 1.111 51-53 1.111 53-56 1.111 III.ii 124 1.111 131 1.111 131-32 1.111-12 131-38 1.62 132-33 1.112 134-36 1.112 137-38 1.112 168-89 1.112 III.iii 6-13 1.46 14-17 1.46 17-18 1.46 22-127 1.76 22-23 1.76 23-24 1.76 25 1.76 25-30 1.76 29-30 1.76 31 1.76 31-32 1.76 37 1.76 42-58 1.76-77 59-63 1.77 64-69 1.77 70-85 1.77 86-109 1.77-78 90 1.77 90-91 1.77 103 1.77

349 104 1.77-78 110-19 1.78 111 1.78 IV.i 18 1.62 24-27 1.115-16 32-84 1.110 51-52 1.62-63 54 1.62-63 85 2.77, 2.202 108 1.112 111-12 1.112 111-18 1.112 173 2.173-74 188-94 1.113 190-94 1.113 214-15 1.130 317-18 1.113 318-19 1.113 IV.ii 5-6 1.114-15 6-10 1.114-15 98-102 1.216 Historia regum 1.63, 1.124, 1.130, 1.209, 1.211 3.18-22 1.183 3.26-29 1.183 5.16-17 1.114 15.12-15 1.130 15.24-16.12 1.131 16.13-17 1.131 16.18 1.131 16.19-22 1.131 16.25-27 1.131 16.31-17.3 1.131 17.3 1.131 17.4 1.131 17.10-14 1.131 17.25-18.2 1.131 18.9-11 1.131 18.12-19.24 1.131 19.28-29 1.130, 1.131 19.30-35 1.131 19.35-20.9 1.131 20.10-34 1.131 21.1-25 1.131 21.26-22.21 1.131-32 22.24-25 1.132 23.4-5 1.132 23.24-28 1.216 28.10-20 1.183 28.21-29.23 1.183 29.26-34 1.183 29.28-29 1.132, 1.187 40.16-21 1.63 42.14-18 2.254 54.34-55.1 1.63 55.19-20 1.130 61.29-30 1.130 Vita Ecgwini 1.73, 1.110, 1.130, 1.184-85

350  210.15-17 1.110 224.9-10 1.115 224.15-17 1.114 224.24-25 1.185 226.1-2 1.216 226.3 1.216 226.5-6 1.216 226.7-8 1.216 228.9-10 1.130 230.5-6 1.185 234.12-236.9 1.184-85 234.14-16 1.184 238.15 1.184 239.12 1.130 244.9-10 2.96-97, 2.225 254.10-11 1.184 256.13 1.184 278.14-25 1.112-13 Vita Oswaldi 1.46-47, 1.73, 1.78-79, 1.130, 1.177, 1.184-85 Prol. 2.2-3 1.46 2.10-11 1.46-47 6.3 1.47 6.11-12 1.47 8.4 1.78-79 Vita 12.5 1.79 14.10-11 1.130 22.20-22 1.114 26.7 1.184 26.17-20 1.114 40.1-2 1.298 48.7 1.298 48.14-15 1.47 72.13 1.177 86.11-12 1.130 94.19 2.49 96.3 1.185 104.1 1.185 104.7 1.185 106.15 1.185 106.18-19 1.73 112.8-9 1.184 120.12 1.130 134.17-19 1.298 136.1 1.177 136.14-15 1.215-16 136.21-22 1.185 138.18 1.298 142.29-144.1 1.185, 1.298-99 147.7 1.299 148.2 2.174, 2.182-83, 2.195 148.11 1.299 152.14 2.176 158.15-19 1.110 160.12 1.73 168.37 1.47 170.6 1.130

BEDE – PART 2

172.9 1.130 174.8 1.185 184.18 1.185 188.17-18 2.181 192.7 1.185 192.8 1.299 194.6 1.185 200.1-2 1.185 200.11-12 1.185, 1.301 “Byrhtferth Glosses” 1.63, 1.94 De natura rerum 1.95, 1.115 De temporum ratione 1.115, 1.182 309.39-40 2.49 356.53-59 1.182, 1.187 Caelius Sedulius see Sedulius, Caelius Caesarius of Arles 2.135 calendars 1.196 Caper, Flavius 1.70 Cassander, Georg 1.211, 1.241-42, 1.244, 1.249, 1.250, 1.251, 1.252, 1.257, 1.258, 1.259, 1.260, 1.261 Cassian, John 1.301 Cassiodorus (Flauius Magnus Aurelius Cassiodorus) 1.18; 1.32, 1.70, 1.78, 1.185, 1.230, 1.298-99; Cassiodorus/Ezra portrait 1.19, 1.225, 2.59, 2.238, 2.239, 2.241 De orthographia 1.70, 1.72 In Psalmos 1.75 Institutiones 1.225, 2.135 Catechesis Celtica 2.89, 2.162 Cædmon 1.22 Hymn 1.22, 1.151, 1.152, 1.175, 1.218 Cellanus of Péronne, Istam Patricius sanctus sibi vindicat aulam 1.219, 1.220 Ceolfrith, abbot of Monkwearmouth-Jarrow 1.17, 1.18-19, 1.35, 1.117-18, 1.127, 1.131-32, 1.230, 2.21, 2.39, 2.229, 2.268-69; death 1.123, 1.12728, 1.129, 1.158; departure for Rome 1.22, 1.35, 1.123-24, 1.225, 1.276, 2.5, 2.40. 2.63-64, 2.238, 2.239, 2.241, 2.59-60, 2.267 Charlemagne 1.44, 1.52, 1.72, 1.94, 1.97, 1.98, 1.116, 1.119, 1.150, 1.225, 2.140, 2.147 charters 1.176-77, 2.259 S428 2.49 S509 1 1.176 S546 7 1.176 S555 1-2 1.176 S581 1-2 130-31 S726 1 1.176 S735 1 1.176 S743 1 1.176

Index

S745 30-31 1.176 S841 2 1.176 Christ I 1-17 2.57 Christ II see Cynewulf Christ III 1.250 Christ and Satan 2.138 19-33 2.138-39 261-64 2.139 Christian of Stavelot, Commentarius in Matthaeum 1.244 Church 1.22, 1.29-30, 1.93, 1.155, 1.177, 2.51-52, 2.56-57, 2.59-60, 2.61-62, 2.64, 2.66, 2.74, 2.89, 2.109, 2.129, 2.139-40, 2.144, 2.163, 2.170-71, 2.177-78, 2.181, 2.189, 2.196, 2.197-98, 2.210, 2.212-13, 2.218, 2.226, 2.227, 2.230, 2.241, 2.246, 2.245, 2.258, 2.262; English 1.34, 1.124, 1.145, 1.177, 1.185, 1.186, 1.216, 2.250-51, 1.276; Kentish 1.146, 2.251; Northumbrian 1.28, 1.125; corruption 2.74, 2.258; heresies 2.166; reform 1.22, 1.155 Cicero (M. Tullius Cicero) 1.22 Claudian (Claudius Claudianus) 1.21 Codex Amiatinus see manuscripts, Florence, Biblioteca Medicea Laurenziana, Amiatino 1 Codex cosmographiorum 1.117-18 Codex Grandior 1.18-19; Cassiodorus/Ezra portrait 1.19, 1.225, 1.230, 2.59, 2.238, 2.241; tabernacle 2.22 Coleman, cancellarius 2.9 computus 1,26-27, 1.40, 1.80-81, 1.91, 2.44; calendar, Julian 1.91, 1.118; Carolingian study of 1.26-27, 1.94; “Computus Cottonianus” 1.51; concurrents 1.109-10, 1.120; Deseos 1.118; Easter 1.97, 1.106-07, 1.108-09, 1.111, 1.240, 2.268-69; embolisms 1.118; endecas 1.118; epacts 1.121; equinox 1.101, 1.103, 1.106-07, 1.108, 1118; leap year day 2.231-32, 2.261-62; lunar letters 1.109; lunar regulars 1.109, 1.121; months, Egyptian 1.118; nineteen-year cycle 1.80-81, 1.91; ogdoas 1.118; pascal cycle/ table 1.80, 1.91; saltus lunae (leap of the moon) 1.98, 1.110, 1.118; seasons 1.118; seventy prophetic weeks 2.238; shadows (none at Meroe in Egypt) 1.118; solar regulars 1.109; solstices 1.118; start of new year 1.83, 1.98, 1.99, 1.106-07; teaching of 1.94, 1.97; “Weather Signs” 1.52, 1.95, 1.107; world’s first day 103-04, 1.118; zodiac 1.118; zodiac table 1.109; see also phenomena, astrological and terrestrial; Bede, De temporibus, De temporum ratione, Kalendarium ad usum computandi, Magnus circulus, Pagina regularum Constantius of Lyon, Vita Germani 1.146 “Continuatio Bedae” 1.150, 1.205

351 cosmology 1.40, 1.50, 1.57, 1.91; and the hexameron 1.40; classical 1.41 councils 2.259 Council of Clovesho 2.259 Council of Gumley 2.259 cross 1.261, 1.265 Crowland 1.293 Cuthbert, abbot (previously deacon?) of Monkwearmouth-Jarrow 1.27-32, 1.43, 1.144, 1.156 Epistola 116 1.27-32, 1.285-86 Epistola 127 1.27-32, 2.57 Cuthbert, deacon addressed in De arte metrica (same as following?) 1.43 Cuthbert, deacon (later abbot?) of Monkwearmouth-Jarrow 1.18, 1.19-20 Epistola de obitu Bedae 1.18, 1.19-20, 1.144, 1.217, 2.257 Cuthbert, bishop of Hexham and Lindisfarne 1.23, 1.27-28, 1.30, 1.34, 1.152, 1.156, 1.160-61, 1.179-80, 1.196, 1.263, 1.265-300, 2.231 Cynewulf 1.17 Christ II 1.252-53, 2.13-14 Fates of the Apostles 2,285 Damasus I, pope 1.220 Dee, John 1.211 “De muliere forti” see Bede, Commentarius in Prouerbia dictionaries 1.70 Dionysius Exiguus 1.39, 1.120-21 Cyclus paschalis magnus 1.120-21 Donatus, Aelius 1.43, 1.78-79 Ars grammatica (Ars maior) 1.75 De pedibus 1.43 Dream of the Rood, the 1.261 Dunstan, abbot of Glastonbury and archbishop of Canterbury 1.17, 1.93, 1.151, 1.176-77 Eadfrith, bishop of Lindisfarne 1.22, 1.266, 1.285, 1.290, 1.291, 2.255-56 Ealdred, provost of Chester-le-Street 2.64 Ecgberht (Egbert), archbishop of York 1.27-32, 1.157, 1.187, 2.143, 2.256-59 education Carolingian 1.26-27, 1.41, 1.92, 1.94; classical 1.40, 1.70, 1.75; monastic 1.40, 1.75; scholastic 1.41; students 1.54, 1.80; women’s 2.69 etymologies Augustus 2.90, 2.99; Beelzebub 2.115; Bethany 2.198; Cana 2.178; Christ 2.161; Cyninus 2.99; Ely 1.177; Gabriel 2.158; Galilee 2.178; Gregory 2.87; Jerusalem 2.49; Jesus 2.158; Matthew 2.188; Ossana 2.74; Peter 2.181 Eucharius of Lyon 2.13 Eugippius 2.135 Eusebius of Caesarea 1.145 Chronicon (translated by Jerome) 1.81

352  Historia Ecclesiastica (translated by Rufinus) 1.145, 2.132, 2.224, 2.243, 2.274 Eusebius, abbot of Monkwearmouth-Jarrow see Hwætberht Eutropius 1.146 events, New Testament (see also people from/in the Bible) annunciation 2.91, 2.98, 2.158-59, 2.159-60; Apocalypse, signs of 1.58, 1.104, 1.209, 2.82; ascension 2.68, 2.91, 2.126, 2.131, 2.206, 2.217; baptism, Christ’s 2.173, 2.179; Christ’s post-resurrection appearances 2.203, 2.204; Christ’s calming of a tempest 2.75; Christ (young) in the temple 2.184-85; circumcision 1.103, 2.100, 2.171-72, 2.183; cleansing of lepers 2.112; cleansing of the temple 2.193; commissioning of apostles 2.111; crucifixion 1.214, 2.47, 2.93, 2.96, 2.196, 2.201, 2.208, 2.210, 2.212-13, 2.215, 2.217, 2.218; division of Judea 1.115, 2.225; entry into Jerusalem 2.91, 2.196; exorcism of devils 2.75; feeding of the five thousand 2.194; feeding of the four thousand 2.79; flagellation 2.75; great catch of fish 2.95, 2.102; Harrowing of Hell 1.254; healing at Bethsaida 2.94, 2.190; healing of epileptic child 2.81; healing of paralyzed man 2.104; healing of hearing and speech 2.76, 2.200; healing of withered hand 2.94; healing on the Sabbeth 2.118; incarnation 2.62, 2.68, 2.167, 2.196, 2.212; Last Judgement 1.104-05, 1.123, 1.209-16, 1.218, 1.225, 1.228, 1.238, 1.249-50, 1.254, 2.62, 2.76, 2.83, 2.92, 2.95, 2.103, 2.131, 2.154, 2.191, 2.204-05, 2.245; last supper 2.75, 2.126, 2.165, 2.198, 2.214; nativity 2.70, 2.89-90, 2.99, 2.100, 2.116, 2.161, 2.162, 2.164, 2.165; parable of the Good Samaritan 2.112; parable of the Pharisee and the tax collector 2.94, 2.123-24; parable of the sower 2.93; parable of the talents 2.94; parable of the ten pounds 2.125; parable of the unjust steward 2.95, 2.118; parable of the vineyard 2.93; parable of the wedding feast 2.118; parable of the woman taken in adultery 2.192; Pentecost 1.251, 2.173, 2.206, 2.208, 2.213-14, 2.215-16; response to Pharisees 2.104; resurrection 2.47, 2.68, 2.91, 2.93-94, 2.172, 2.198-99, 2.201, 2.206, 2.208, 2.210, 2.212-13, 2.215; sermon on the plain 2.95, 2.105; temptation 2.90; transfiguration 2.191; visitation 2.159; wedding at Cana 2.169; widow’s son of Naim 2.91-92, 2.108-09 events, Old Testament Babylonian captivity 1.225, 2.58, 2.178; creation 1.40, 1.41, 1.50, 1.57, 1.59-60, 1.101, 1.103, 1.104, 1.106-07, 1.108, 1.260, 2.44, 2.46; destruction of the tabernacle 2.51; Exodus 1.103, 2.198-99, 2.202, 2.216; expulsion from Paradise 2.44, 2.48; expulsion of Ishmael 2.44; Fall 2.46, 2.122, 2.200; fiery furnace (Daniel) 1.237-38;

BEDE – PART 2

Flood 2.45, 2.49, 2.51, 2.178; Jonah, saving of 1.237-38; rebuilding of the temple 2.58; renewal of garments (Exodus) 1.237-38; Sabbeth rest 2.46; Sodom and Gomorrha 2.46; Excerptiones Pseudo-Egberti 2.47 Exeter Book see manuscripts, Exeter, Cathedral Library, 3501 Exodus 2.57 Expositio hymnorum 1.256 feast days Andrew 1.259, 1.261; Agnes 1.258; All Saints 1.248; Ascension 1.252-57, 2.14, 2.131, 2.212; Æthelwold 1.248; Birinus 1.248; Christmas 1.243; Cuthbert 1.299; dedication of a church 2.226, 2.227; Easter 1.243, 1.256, 1.261, 2.147, 2.203. 2.216; Epiphany 2.173; Gervasius 2.82: Greater Litany 2.211; Holy Innocents 1.257, 2.170; John the Baptist 1.259, 2.224; John the Baptist (decollation) 2.287; John the Baptist (nativity) 1.260, 2.155, 2.219, 2.220; John the Evangelist 1.243, 2.168; nativity 2.89-90; Mary (nativity) 2.220, 2.244; Paul1.243; Pentecost 1.251, 1.256, 2.216; Peter and Paul 1.243, 1.249, 2.147, 2.222; Purification 2.183; Swithun 1.248 Felix, Vita Guthlaci 1.292-94 Prol. 2 1.276 Vita 60.6-7 1.292 60.8-9 1.293 62.27 1.292 64.2-3 1.292-93 64.4-8 1.293 64.9 1.293 64.9-10 1.293 64.11-12 1.293 88.16-18 1.293 120.15-22 1.293 122.28-31 1.293 132.14-15 1.293-94 134.17-18 1.293-94 138.4-17 1.294 138.14 1.294 150.12 1.294 152.10-27 1.294 154.8-12 1.294 154.30-156.6 1.294 158.10-13 1.294 160.14-162.3 1.294 164.16 1.294 168.15-16 1.294 Florus of Lyons Commentarius in Epistolas Pauli 2.136 Martyrologium 2.283, 2.285 Frithegod 2.144-45 Breuiloquium uita Wilfridi 2.144 Ciues celestris patrie 2.144-45

Index

Geffrei Gaimar, L’Estoire des Engleis 1.174 Genesis A 2.45-46 110b-12 2.46 2542-99 2.46 genres, poetic 1.46; aenigmata 1.217, 1.291; dedications (tituli) 1.217, 1.220-21, 1.223, 1.230-31; epigrams 1.217-40; epigraphs 1.220, 1.221, 1.228; epitaphs 1.217, 1.222-23, 1.239-40; opus geminatum 1.263, 1.267; sapiential literature 2.64; sententiae 1.217, 221-23 Gilbert of Poitiers, Glossatura 2.20 Gildas 1.146 Giles, J.A. 1.36 Glossa ordinaria 2.41-42, 2.60, 2.66, 2.141 glosses 1.45, 1.94, 1.95, 1.96, 1.238, 2.130; Old Irish 1.94; Latin 1.95, 1.212, 1.291, 2.194-95; liturgical 1.151-52, 1.291-92; Old English 1.95, 1.152, 1.203-04, 1.212, 1.229, 1.255, 1.256, 1.275, 1.291, 2.154 Bede, De schematibus et tropis (Remigian gloss) 1.76-78 Byrhtferth, Vita Ecgwini (Cotton Nero E. i) 1.73 God 1.17-18, 1.55, 1.57, 1.155, 2.107, 2.124, 2.145; and Adam and Eve 2.46; and the Bible 1.227; and creation 1.50, 1.101, 1.103, 1.106, 1.113, 1.263, 2.47; and judgement 1.105, 1.115, 1.121; Christ 1.225, 1.228-29, 1.245, 1.246, 1.247, 1.251, 1.254, 1.256, 1.259, 1.261, 1.278, 2.46, 2.53, 2.55, 2.56, 2.59-60, 2.61-62, 2.64, 2.65, 2.66, 2.73, 2.75, 2.76, 2.79-81, 2.89-90, 2.91, 2.92, 2.93, 2.94, 2.99, 2.100, 2.101, 2.103, 2.106-07, 2.109, 2.110, 2.115-16, 2.117-18, 2.130, 2.131, 2.138-39, 2.157, 2.158-59, 2.160, 2.161, 2.162-63, 2.164, 2.165-67, 2.169-70, 2.172, 2.173, 2.175, 2.177-78, 2.179, 2.180-81, 2.182, 2.183-84, 2.185, 2.186, 2.190, 2.192, 2.193, 2.194-95, 2.196, 2.197-98, 2.200-01, 2.202, 2.203, 2.204, 2.206-07, 2.208-09, 2.210-11, 2.212, 2.213, 2.214, 2.215, 2.216, 2.217-18, 2.220, 2.222, 2.223, 2.241, 2.273; Father 1.256, 2.89, 2.90, 2.93, 2.138, 2.139-40, 2.154, 2.155-56, 2.161, 2.173, 2.190, 2.208-09, 2.210, 2.214, 2.215, 2.273; fiery speech 2.70; finger 2.115; Holy Spirit 1.226, 1.227, 1.251, 2.80, 2.115, 2.117-18, 2.130, 2.156, 2.167, 2.173, 2.179, 2.200, 2.206-07, 2.208-09, 2.213-14, 2.215, 2.218; Trinity 1.62, 2.47, 2.80, 2.115, 2.207, 2.273; word 2.93, 2.116 gods, pagan 1.62; classical 1.228 Goscelin of Saint-Bertin 1.197, 2.62 Gospel of Nicodemus 1.253 grammar 1.40 1.43, 1.70, 1.95; teaching of 1.75 grammars, anonymous 1.70; Charisian Group 1.70 Gregory I, pope (the Great) 1.20, 1.27, 1.32, 1.40, 1.58, 1.73, 1.102, 1.104, 1.152, 1.155, 1.157, 1.158, 1.159, 1.169, 1.171, 1.172-73, 1.222, 1.242-43, 1.298-99, 2.41, 2.56, 2.65, 2.73, 2.76, 2.77,

353 2.86-87, 2.89, 2.96, 2.134, 2.135-36, 2.147, 2.151, 2.193, 2.202, 2.222; and the conversion of England 1.27, 1.154, 1.155, 1.157, 1.169, 1.170, 1.173, 1.177-79, 1.186, 1.190, 2.18-19, 2.84, 2.103, 2.156, 2.212; correspondence with Augustine of Canterbury 1.27-29, 1.30, 1.104, 1.115, 1.131, 1.158, 1.159, 1.177, 1.178-79, 1.182, 1.294, 2.230, 2.231, 2.251, 2.253, 2.258, 2.268 Dialogi 1.130-31, 1.180, 1.185, 1.204, 1.215, 2.289 Homiliae ii in Canticum Canticorum 2.65 Homiliae xl in euangelia 2.74, 2.153, 2.257 I 10 1.102 XV 2.92-93 XIX 2.92 XXXIII 41-42 2.74, 2.89 Moralia in Iob 1.299, 2.25, 2.46, 2.92, 2.181, 2.257 Regula pastoralis 2.74, 2.75 Gregory of Elvira 2.65 Gregory of Tours, Historia Francorum 1.145, 1.177-78, 2.290 Hadrian, abbot of St Peter’s and St Paul’s, Canterbury 1.17, 1.131, 1.146, 1.300, 2.55, 2.251, 2.272 Haymo of Auxerre 1.104, 1.113, 2.74, 2.74-75 , 2.80, 2.92, 2.95, 2.96, 2.98, 2.102-03, 2.106-07, 2.115-16, 2.119-20, 2.121-22, 2.123, 2.147, 2.166, 2.169, 2.170, 2.174, 2.178, 2.184, 2.194, 2.195, 2.200-01, 2.211, 2.217, 2.218 Expositio in Pauli epistolas 2.36, 2.139 Homiliae de tempore 2.151 Haymo of Halberstadt 2.168 Hegesippus 2.13 Heiricus of Auxerre 1.27, 2.92, 2.95, 2.99, 2.106-07, 2.109, 2.110-11, 2.121-22, 2.123, 2.147, 2.163, 2.186, 2.192, 2.209 Homiliae in circulu anni 2.151 Henry of Kirkestede 1.244 Herwagen, Johann, the Younger 1.36, 1.63, 1.115 hexameron 1.40, 1.59-60, 2.45 Hilary of Poitiers 1.47, 1.279, 2.286 Hincmar of Rheims 1.115 Historia de Sancto Cuthberto 1.156, 1.299 Homer Iliad 1.46 Odyssey 1.46 homiliaries 1.25, 2.148-50 Homiliary of Saint-Père de Chartres 2.162 Homily on Paulinus 1.186-87 151.18-19 1.186 151.21-22 1.186 151.24-25 1.186 151.25-26 1.186-87 151.27-152.4 1.186-87 152.4-6 1.187

354  Honorius Augustodunensis 2.63 Horace (Q. Horatius Flaccus) 1.22; Sermones 1.219 Hrabanus Maurus 1.115, 2.47, 2.81 Homeliae de festiis praecipuis 70 2.101 131 2.119-20 Martyrologium 2.285 humanity 1.111; ages of, four 1.110; ages of, three 2.96, alms 2.94, 2.107, 2.119-20; anger 2.189; avarice 2.189; baptism 2.116, 2.155-56, 2.167, 2.171-72, 2.173, 2.178, 2.179, 2.193, 2.201, 2.218; blindness 2.115, 2.124; body 1.202, 1.245, 2.96, 2.122, 2.172, 2.204-05, 2.212; charity 2.74; chastity 1.250, 2.90, 2.178, 2.183-84; circumcision 2.171-72, 2.178; clothing 2.122; commandments 2.215; conceit 2.189; confessors 2.210; damnation 2.204-05; death 2.96, 2.154; doctrine 2.80, 2.93, 2.103; elect 2.79-81, 2.211; envy 2.189; evangelists 2.81, 2.177, 2.187; faith 2.76, 2.79-81, 2.182, 2.185-86, 2.189, 2.190, 2.196, 2.198, 2.205, 2.207, 2.208-09, 2.212-13, 2.215-16; food 2.122, 2.195, 2.197-98, 2.212; good deeds 2.120, 2.208, 2.210; grace 2.157, 2.161, 2.178, 2.200, 2.214, 2.216, 2.219; hard-heartedness 2.93; humility 2.173, 2.184, 2.185; hymns/songs 2.197, 2.214; hypocrite 2.107; indignation 2.189; innocence 2.90, 2.183-84; insanity 2.115; laws, Jewish 2.190; lives, active and contemplative 2.168, 2.169; love 2.93, 2.182, 2.197, 2.198, 2.202, 2.208-09, 2.215, 2.222; martyrdom 1.258, 1.259, 2.76, 2.170, 2.196, 2.210, 2.220, 2.221-22, 2.224; mercy 2.192; mind 2.96; monastic life 1.258, 2.76, 2.175; muteness 2.115; naming 2.171-72; opponents of preachers 2.91; patience 2.211; peace 2.208, 2.212; persecution 2.173, 2.197; prayer(s) 1.13, 1.101, 1.124, 1.144, 1.159, 1.174, 1.177, 1.188, 1.193, 1.194, 1.214, 1.215, 1.226, 1.233, 1.234, 1.235, 1.236, 1.252, 1.256, 1.261, 1.294, 1.295, 1.297, 2.9, 2.11-12, 2.76, 2.93, 2.174, 2.181, 2.182, 2.189, 2.195, 2.208-09, 2.11-12, 2.253, 2.265, 2.272-73; preachers/preaching 2.80-81, 2.147, 2.189, 2.216; pride 2.124, 2.160; purity 2.208; reading 2.147; resurrection 2.154, 2.204-05; riches 2.120; righteous 1.104-05, 2.62, 2.129, 2.139-40, 2.188, 2.196; sacraments 2.215; saints 1.22, 1.26, 1.113, 1.118, 1.124, 1.128, 1.163, 1.164, 1.181, 1.197, 1.199, 1.201, 1.203, 1.246, 1.263-301, 2.67, 2.81, 2.156, 2.170-71, 2.179, 2.208; salvation 1.145, 2.94, 2.96, 2.120, 2.122, 2.154, 2.157, 2.158, 2.166, 2.173, 2.190, 2.191, 2.208-09, 2.211, 2.212, 2.219, 2.221-22; senses 2.90; simplicity 2.183-84; sin 2.75, 2.109, 2.110-11, 2.115-16, 2.120, 2.173, 2.178, 2.179, 2.190, 2.193, 2.212, 2.220, 2.224; sinners 2.62, 2.167, 2.182, 2.187, 2.188, 2.204-05, 2.220; sins, seven deadly 2.116; society, three orders 2.93; soul 1.223, 2.66, 2.73, 2.122;

BEDE – PART 2

steadfastness 2.93; swearing 2.224; teachers/ teaching 2.80-81, 2.164, 2.167, 2.196, 2.207, 2.214; truth 2.206, 2.215-16; unbelief 2.206, 2.215; vain-glory 2.189; vices 2.189, 2.206; vigilance 2.83-84; virginity 1.114, 1.201-02, 1.245, 1.247; wealth 2.160 Hwætberht (Eusebius), abbot of Monkwearmouth-Jarrow 1.27-32, 1.37, 1.97, 1.123, 1.127, 1.132, 2.128, 2.142, 2.143, 2.144, 2.229, 2.230, 2.244, 2.246, 2.250, 2.260, 2.262-66, 2.267 Aenigmata 2.260 Epistola ad Gregorium papam see Bede, Epistola ad Gregorium papam Hygeburg, Vita Willibaldi 2.14 Hymnal, New 1.244, 1.252, 1.254, 1.256-57 Hymnal, Old 1.243, 1.244 Hymnus Nynie episcopi (ICL 963; Ariter altithronus, solus Deus omnicreator) 1.247 illuminations/illustrations 2.70; Cassiodorus/ Ezra 1.19, 1.225, 2.44; Cuthbert 1.291; Holy Land 2.13; Holy Spirit (dove) 1.227; tabernacle 2.22 Isidore, bishop of Seville 1.20, 1.32, 1.54, 1.77-79, 1.115, 1.167, 1.185, 2.65, 2.99; and cosmography 1.41 De differentiis uerborum 1.73 83.17-21 1.73 De natura rerum 1.20, 1.41, 1.50, 1.53, 1.55, 1.57, 1.58-59, 1.60, 1.83, 1.105, 2.277; chapter headings 1.59 Etymologiae 1.53, 1.58-59, 1.72, 1.80, 1.111 Quaestiones in uetus testamentum Etymologiae 2.48 Versus de (in) bibliotheca 1.230 Íslensk hómilíubók 2.162 Jerome (Hieronymus) 1.19, 1.20, 122, 1.32, 1.40, 1.70, 1.77, 1.167, 1.185, 1.207, 2.26-27, 2.41, 2.49, 2.52, 2.54, 2.57, 2.61, 2.73, 2.74, 2.76, 2.82, 2.84, 2.86-87, 2.91, 2.121, 2.192, 2.246, 2.273; and the Vulgate 1.227, 2.129 Aduersus Iouinianum 1.113-14 Commentarii in Isaiam 1.231 Commentarius in euangelium Matthaei 2.74-75, 2.115-16, 2.168 Commentarii in Prophetas minores 2.68-69 De uiribus inlustribus 2.243 Epistolae 2.230 53 2.237 Liber interpretationis hebraicorum nominum 2.77, 2.202 Vita Pauli 2,285 Vulgate 1.19, 1.69-70, 1.114-15, 1.230, 2.11, 2.68, 2.270; prefaces 2.229 Prologus in libro Ezrae 2.58 John of Boston (Bostonus Buriensis) 1.244 Josephus, Flavius 1.81, 2.54, 2.57, 2.129 Antiquitates Iudaicae 1.115, 2.96-97, 2.225

Index

Bellum Iudaicum 2.13 Judgment Day II 1.33, 1.209, 1.211, 1.212-13 Julian of Eclanum, De amore seu Commentarius in Canticum Canticorum 2.66 Julian of Toledo, Prognosticon 2.176 Juvencus (C. Vettius Aquilinus Iuuencus) 1.225, 1.267, 1.281 Lanalet Pontifical see Rouen, Bibliothèque municipale, 368 (A.27) Lantfred Translatio et miracula S. Swithuni 1.101-02 Praef. 54 1.177 I 52-54 2.181 II 53 1.101-02 III 133-34 2.131, 2.146 XX 18 1.101-02 XXXV 55 2.166 Laterculus Malalianus 2.272 Leland, John 1.219, 1.220, 1.221, 1.223, 1.226-27, 1.231, 1.239 “Leningrad Bede” see manuscripts, St Petersburg, Russian National Library, Q. v. I. 18 Leofric Collectar see manuscripts, London, British Library, Harley 2961 “Letter of Protest from the Bishops of Britain to the Pope” see Omnes episcopi et sacerdotes totius Britannie insule Liber pontificalis 1.146, 2.286, 2.288 Life of Chad 1.164 10-226 1.165 15-17 1.165 16-17 1.165 literacy 2.231 liturgical notes 1.151-52 liturgy 2.148; Magnificat 2.159-60; Lucan (M. Annaeus Lucanus) 1.21 Lull, archbishop of Mainz 1.27-32, 1.156, 1.285-86 Epistola 125 1.27-32, 1.156, 2.60, 2.77 Epistola 126 1.27-32, 2.57, 2.67 Lupus, abbot of Ferrières 2.70 Macrobius, Saturnalia 1.99 Manno of Laon 1.27 manuscripts Continental 1.24, 1.25; libelli for saints 2.175; research tools 1.24-25 Aberdeen, University Library, 216 (ASM 1) 1.229, 2.143, 2.264 Avranches, Bibliothèque municipale, 236 (ASM 784) 1.43-44, 1.96

355 Berlin, Staatsbibliothek zu Berlin, Preussischer Kulturbesitz, Grimm 132, 1 (with Budapest, National Széchény Library, Cod. lat. 442, fols. 1-2; Budapest, University Library, Fragm. lat. 1; Munich, Stadtarchiv, Historischer Verein Oberbayern, Hs. 733/16) (ASM 791.9) 1.274 Berlin, Staatsbibliothek zu Berlin, Preussischer Kulturbesitz, Phillipps 1869 1.119 Bescançon, Bibliothèque municipale, 186 1.266, 1.274, 1.277 Bloomington, Lilly Library, Ricketts 177 + Düsseldorf, Universitäts- und Landesbibliothek, KB1: B 216 1.204-06 Braunschweig, Stadtbibliothek, Fragm. 70 1,93-94 Brussels, Bibliothèque royale, 8245-57 1.151 Bückeburg, Niedersächsisches Staatsarchiv, Depot 3/1 1.93, 1.120 Cambridge, University Library, Gg. 4.15, fols. 1-108 (ASM 11.5) 2.138 Cambridge, University Library, Gg. 5. 35 (ASM 12) 1.210-11, 1.219, 1.240 Cambridge, University Library, Ii. 1. 33 2.48 Cambridge, University Library, Ii. 2. 19, fols. 1-216 (ASM16) 2.79, 2.81-82, 2.82, 2.99, 2.100-01, 2.102, 2.104, 2.106, 2.108, 2.111, 2.112, 2.114, 2.118, 2.119-20, 2.121, 2.122, 2.123, 2.149, 2.212 Cambridge, University Library, Kk. 4. 13 (ASM 24) 2.73, 2.78, 2.82, 2.83, 2.97, 2.98, 2.104, 2.105, 2.112, 2.113, 2.115, 2.117, 2.125, 2.126, 2.149, 2.188 Cambridge, University Library, Kk. 5. 16 (ASM 25) 1.148-51, 1.240, 2.253-54, 2.269 Cambridge, University Library, Kk. 5.32 (ASM 26) 1.119, 1.120 Cambridge, University Library, Ll. 1. 10 (ASM 28) 1.233 Cambridge, Corpus Christi College, 9 (ASM 36) 1.119, 1.120 Cambridge, Corpus Christi College, 44 (ASM 40) 1.188 Cambridge, Corpus Christi College, 139 1.212 Cambridge, Corpus Christi College, 146 (ASM 46) 1.188 Cambridge, Corpus Christi College, 183 (ASM 56) 1.202, 1.238, 1.274-76, 1.291, 1.299, 2.256, 2.267 Cambridge, Corpus Christi College, 201 (ASM 65) 1.212 Cambridge, Corpus Christi College, 221, fols. 1-24 (ASM 69) 1.71 Cambridge, Corpus Christi College, 270, fols. 1 and 197 (ASM 75) 1.151, 2.254

356  Cambridge, Corpus Christi College, 291 (ASM 85) 1.96, 2.266, 2.275 Cambridge, Corpus Christi College, 391 (ASM 104) 1.119, 1.120, 1.254, 1.256 Cambridge, Corpus Christi College, 422 (ASM 111) 1.119, 1.120 Cambridge, Corpus Christi College, 473 (ASM 116) 1.254, 1.256 Cambridge, Pembroke College, 23 (ASM 129) 2.79, 2.81-82, 2.101, 2.102, 2.104, 2.106, 2.108, 2.110, 2.111, 2.112, 2.114, 2.119, 2.121, 2.122, 2.123, 2.126, 2.127, 2.150, 2.212 Cambridge, Pembroke College, 24 (ASM 130) 2.78, 2.82-83, 2.83-84, 2.105, 2.113, 2.117, 2.118, 2.125, 2.150, 2.168 Cambridge, Pembroke College, 81 (ASM 133) 2.55, 2.57, 2.69, 2.248, 2.274 Cambridge, Pembroke College, 83 (ASM 134) 2.87, 2.243 Cambridge, Trinity College, B. 3. 5 (84) (ASM 161) 1.81 Cambridge, Trinity College, O. 2. 24 (1128) 1.274-75 Cambridge, Trinity College, O. 2. 31 (1135) (ASM 190) 1.211 Cambridge, Trinity College, R. 5 .22 1.152 Cambridge, Trinity College, R. 7. 5 (743) (ASM 181) 1.149, 1.240, 2.269 Cambridge, Trinity College, R. 15. 32 (945) (ASM 186) 1.119, 1.120 Canterbury, Cathedral Library and Archives, Add. 127/1 (ASM 209) 2.78, 2.125, 2.149, 2.188 Columbia, University of Missouri Library, Fragmenta manuscripta, F.M. 2 (ASM 809.9) 1.71 Copenhagen, Kongelige Bibliotek, G.K.S. 2034 (4o) (ASM815) 1.274, 1.275 Darmstadt, Hessiche Landes- und Hochschulbibliothek, 4262 1.93 Dijon, Bibliothèque municipale, 574 1.151 Dublin, Trinity College, 52 1.36 Durham, Cathedral Library, A. III. 29 (ASM 222) 2.79, 2.102, 2.104, 2.106, 2.108, 2.112, 2.114, 2.117, 2.119, 2.123, 2.125, 2.150, 2.188, 2.212 Durham, Cathedral Library, A. IV. 28 (ASM 225) 1.229, 2.143, 2.264 Durham, Cathedral Library, B. II. 2 (ASM 226) 2.115, 2.150, 2.158, 2.160, 2.172 Durham, Cathedral Library, B. II. 35 (ASM 238) 1.128, 1.149-50, 1.240, 2.269 Durham, Cathedral Library, B. III. 32 (ASM 244) 1.254-55 Exeter, Cathedral Library, 3501, fols. 8-130 (the Exeter Book) 1.252, 2.143 Florence, Biblioteca Medicea Laurenziana, Amiatino 1 (the Codex Amiatinus; ASM 825) 18-19, 1.128-29, 1.218, 1.223, 1.224-25,

BEDE – PART 2

1.226-27, 2.19, 2.20-21, 2.22, 2.44, 2.58, 2.59, 2.238, 2.241, 2.267 Hannover, Kestner-Museum, Culemann I.71/72 (393/394) (with New Haven, Yale University, Beinecke Library, 441) (ASM 831.2) 2.87-88 Hereford, Cathedral Library, P. V. 1 1.152 Karlsruhe, Badische Landesbibliothek, Aug. perg. 135 1.229 Kassel, Universitātsbibliothek – Landesbibliothek und Murhardsche Bibliothek der Stadt, 4o MS.theol. 2 (ASM 835) 1.148, 1.149, 1.169, 2.269 Kassel, Universitātsbibliothek – Landesbibliothek und Murhardsche Bibliothek der Stadt, 4o MS.theol. 25 2.143 Lincoln, Cathedral Library, 158 (C. 2. 2) (ASM 273) 2.73, 2.78, 2.82, 2.83, 2.97, 2.98, 2.104, 2.105, 2.112, 2.113, 2.115, 2.117, 2.125, 2.126, 2.149, 2.188 Lincoln, Cathedral Library, 182 (C. 2. 8) (ASM 274) 2.126, 2.148, 2.154, 2.156, 2.175, 2.188, 2.212 London, British Library, Add. 11034 (ASM 280) 1.210-11 London, British Library, Add. 37517 (ASM 291) 1.120, 1.254 London, British Library, Add. 49598 (the Benedictional of Æthelwold) (ASM 301) 1.247 London, British Library, Add. 57337 (ASM 302) 1.188 London, British Library, Arundel 60 (ASM 304) 1.119, 1.120 London, British Library, Arundel 155 (ASM 306) 1.119, 1.120, 1.254 London, British Library, Cotton Caligula A. xv, fols. 3-117 (ASM 311) 1.51 London, British Library, Cotton Domitian A. i, fols 2-55 (ASM 326) 1.52, 1.211, 1.212, 1.216 London, British Library, Cotton Galba A. xviii (ASM 334) 1.119, 1.120 London, British Library, Cotton Julius A. vi (ASM 337) 1.119, 1.120, 1.256 London, British Library, Cotton Nero A. ii (ASM 342) 1.119, 1.120 London, British Library, Cotton Nero C. viii, fols. 80-84 1.52, 1.81, 1.96 London, British Library, Cotton Nero E. i, vol. I, and vol. II, fols. 1-155 (ASM 344) 1.73, 2.73 London, British Library, Cotton Otho A.vi, fols. 1-129 (ASM 347) 1.53 London, British Library, Cotton Tiberius A. xiv (ASM 367) 1.148-50, 1.240, 2.269 London, British Library, Cotton Tiberius B. v (ASM 373) 1.81, 1.105, 1.119

Index

London, British Library, Cotton Tiberius C. ii (ASM 377) 1.148-50, 1.169, 1.240, 2.253, 2.254, 2.269 London, British Library, Cotton Tiberius D. iv, vol. 2, fols. 158-66 (ASM 759) 1.150 London, British Library, Cotton Tiberius E. iv 1.52, 1.81, 1.96, 1.108 London, British Library, Cotton Titus B. v 1.120 London, British Library, Cotton Titus D. xxvi and xxvii (ASM 380) 1.51-52, 1.95, 1.119, 1.120 London, British Library, Cotton Vespasian A. xiv (ASM 383) 2.168 London, British Library, Cotton Vespasian B. vi, fols. 1-103 (ASM 384) 1.95, 2.265-66 London, British Library, Cotton Vespasian D. xii (ASM 391) 1.254, 1.256 London, British Library, Cotton Vitellius A. xii (ASM 398) 1.119, 1.120, 2.272 London, British Library, Cotton Vitellius A. xviii (ASM 400) 1.119, 1.120 London, British Library, Cotton Vitellius A. xix (ASM 401) 1.202-03, 1.238, 1.274, 1.275, 1.290-91, 2.256, 2.267 London, British Library, Cotton Vitellius E. xviii (ASM 407) 1.119, 1.120 London, British Library, Egerton 3278 (ASM 410.5) 1.151, 1.240 London, British Library, Harley 521, fol. 2 (ASM 418.8) 1.75 London, British Library, Harley 526, fols. 1-27 (ASM 419) 1.274, 1.275, 2.267 London, British Library, Harley 652 (ASM 424) 2.79, 2.81-82, 2.82, 2.99, 2.100-01, 2.102, 2.104, 2.106, 2.108, 2.111, 2.112, 2.114, 2.118, 2.119-20, 2.121, 2.122, 2.123, 2.149, 2.150, 2.212 London, British Library, Harley 1117 (ASM 427) 1.202-03, 1.238, 1.274, 1.275, 1.290-91, 2.256, 2.267 London, British Library, Harley 2961 (the Leofric Collectar) (ASM 431) 1.243, 1,254 London, British Library, Harley 3017 (ASM 432.5) 1.94, 1.119 London, British Library, Harley 3020, fols. 1-34 (ASM 433) 1.128, 2.174, 2.175, 2.260 London, British Library, Harley 3826 (ASM 438) 1.71 London, British Library, Harley 4688 2.258 London, British Library, Royal 2. A. xx (ASM 450) 1.236 London, British Library, Royal 2. B. v (ASM 451) 1.81 London, British Library, Royal 2. C. iii (ASM 452) 2.73, 2.78, 2.82, 2.83, 2.97, 2.98, 2.104, 2.105, 2.112, 2.113, 2.115, 2.117, 2.125, 2.126, 2.149, 2.188

357 London, British Library, Royal 12. D. iv (ASM 478.5) 1.96, 1.118, 1.120, 2.266 London, British Library, Royal 13. A. xi (ASM 483) 1.96, 2.266 London, British Library, Royal 13. A. xi (ASM 483) 1.52, 1.81, 1.235, 2.275 London, British Library, Royal 13. C. v (ASM 487) 1.150, 1.151-52, 1.189, 1.240, 2.269 London, British Library, Royal 15. B. xix, fols. 36-78 (ASM 492) 1.95-96, 2.266 London, British Library, Royal 15. B. xix, fols. 79-199 (ASM 493) 1.210 London, College of Arms, sine numero 1.152 London, Lambeth Palace Library, 149, fols. 1.139 (ASM 506) 1.229, 2.143, 2.144, 2.264 London, Lambeth Palace Library, 173, fols. 157-221 (ASM 508) 1.203-04, 1.206 London, The National Archive, PRO SP 46/125, fol. 302 (ASM 521.7) 1.95 Munich, Bayerische Staatsbibliothek, clm 15818 2.281 Münster in Westfalen, Staatsarchiv, MSC I. 243 1.93, 1.120 Münster in Westfalen, Universitäts- und Landesbibliothek, Fragmentenkapsel 1, no. 3 (ASM 856.2) 1.151 New York, Morgan Library and Museum, M 826 (ASM 863) 1.151, 1.152-53 New York, Morgan Library and Museum, M 926, fols. 42-52 (ASM 865.1) 1.189 Nürnberg, Germanisches Nationalmuseum, Kupferstichkabinett, Kapsel 536/SD 285 1.95 Orléans, Bibliothèque municipale, 81 2.15 Oslo and London, The Schøyen Collection, 76 (ASM 875.4) 2.52 Oxford, Bodleian Library, Bodley 109, fols. 1-60 (S.C. 1962; ASM 546) 1.238, 1.274, 1.275, 2.256, 2.267 Oxford, Bodleian Library, Bodley 163, fols. 1-227 and 250-51 (S.C. 2016; ASM 555) 1.150, 1.151-52, 1.240, 2.269 Oxford, Bodleian Library, Bodley 180 (S.C. 2079; ASM 555.5) 1.53 Oxford, Bodelian Library, Bodley 218 (S.C. 2054; ASM 557) 2.87, 2.243 Oxford, Bodleian Library, Bodley 342 (S.C. 2405; ASM 569) 1.186 Oxford, Bodleian Library, Bodley 385 (S.C. 2210; ASM 571) 2.52 Oxford, Bodleian Library, Bodley 479 (S.C. 2013; ASM 580) 2.52 Oxford, Bodleian Library, Bodley 579 (S.C. 2675; ASM 585) 1.119, 1.120 Oxford, Bodleian Library, Bodley 596, fols. 175-214 (S.C. 2376; ASM 586) 1.238, 1.274, 2.256 Oxford, Bodleian Library, Bodley 808 (S.C. 2667; ASM 601) 2.129-30

358  Oxford, Bodleian Library, Bodley 819 (S.C. 2699; ASM 604) 2.64 Oxford, Bodleian Library, Bodley 849 (S.C. 2602; ASM 607) 2.137 Oxford, Bodleian Library, Digby 39 (S.C. 1640; ASM 609) 1.197-98 Oxford, Bodleian Library, Digby 63 (S.C. 1664; ASM 611) 1.119, 1.120 Oxford, Bodleian Library, Digby 175 (S.C. 1776; ASM 614) 1.192, 1.195, 1.203, 1.238, 1.274, 1.291, 2.267 Oxford, Bodleian Library, Douce 296 (S.C. 21870; ASM 617) 1.119, 1.120 Oxford, Bodeian Library, e Mus. 93 (S.C. 3632) 1.152 Oxford, Bodleian Library, Hatton 23 (S.C. 4115; ASM 627) 2.62 Oxford, Bodelian Library, Hatton 43 (S.C. 4106; ASM 630) 1.148-50, 1.152, 1.169, 1.240, 2.253, 2.269 Oxford, Bodleian Library, Hatton 113 (S.C. 5210; ASM 637) 1.119, 1.120, 1.212 Oxford, Bodleian Library, Hatton 116 1.164-65 Oxford, Bodleian Library, Junius 27 (S.C. 5139; ASM 641) 1.119, 1.120 Oxford, Bodleian Library, Laud gr. 35 (S.C. 1119; ASM 654) 2.129 Oxford, Bodeian Library, Laud misc. 243 1.152 Oxford, Lincoln College, 31 1.152 Oxford, Magdalen College, lat. 105 1.152 Oxford, Merton College, 49 2.236, 2.261, 2.277 Oxford, Oriel College, 34, fols. 57-153 (ASM 681) 2.137-38 Oxford, St John’s College, 17 1.52, 1.62, 1.81, 1.82, 1.96, 1.108, 1.111 Oxford, St John’s College, 89 (ASM 685) 2.143, 2.262 Oxford, Trinity College, 28 2.52 Oxford, University College, 165 1.291 Paris, Bibliothèque nationale de France, lat. 4 2.20, 2.35 Paris, Bibliothèque nationale de France, lat. 943 (ASM 879) 1.187-88 Paris, Bibliothèque nationale de France, lat. 2825, fols. 57-81 (ASM 882) ) 1.274, 1.275 Paris, Bibliothèque nationale de France, lat. 2840 2.236 Paris, Bibliothèque nationale de France, lat. 5237 1.151 Paris, Biblothèque nationale de France, lat. 5362, fols. 1-84 (ASM 885.3) 1.192-93, 1.197, 1.201, 1.203, 1.238, 1.246, 1.291, 2.256 Paris, Bibliothèque nationale de France, lat. 8092 (ASM 890) 1.210-11 Paris, Bibliothèque nationale de France, lat. 10400 2.143, 2.263-64

BEDE – PART 2

Paris, Bibliothèque nationale de France, lat. 10837 2.280 Paris, Bibliothèque nationale de France, lat. 13373 2.45 Paris, Bibliothèque nationale de France, lat. 14088 1,44 Paris, Bibliothèque nationale de France, lat. 16668 1.44 Paris, Bibliothèque nationale de France, nouv. acq. lat. 586, fols 16-132 (ASM 902) 1.95 Paris, Bibliothèque nationale de France, nouv. acq. lat. 1450 2.152 Reims, Bibliothèque municaple, 2 2.20, 2.35 Ripon, Cathedral Library, MS. frag. 2 (ASM 696) 1.256 Rome, Biblioteca Vallicelliana, B. 6 2.20, 2.35 [Rome] Città del Vaticano, Biblioteca Apostolica Vaticana, Reg. lat. 12 (ASM 912) 1.119 [Rome] Città del Vaticano, Biblioteca Apostolica Vaticana, Reg. lat. 123 2.236 [Rome] Città del Vaticano, Biblioteca Apostolica Vaticana, Reg. lat. 204 (ASM 913) 1.274, 1.275, 2.267 Rouen, Bibliothèque municipale, 274 (Y. 6) (ASM 921) 1.120 Rouen, Bibliothèque municipale, 231 (A. 44) (ASM 920) 1.254 Rouen, Bibliothèque municipale, 368 (A.27) (ASM 922) 1.188, 2.88, 2.125 Rouen, Bibliothèque municipale, 369 (Y.7) (ASM 923) 1.188 Salisbury, Cathedral Library, 37 (ASM 706) 2.88, 2.243 Salisbury, Cathedral Library, 150 (ASM 740) 1.119, 1.120 Salisbury, Cathedral Library, 158, fols. 9-83 (ASM 744) 1.95-96, 2.266 Salisbury, Cathedral Library, 165, fols. 1-87 (ASM 749) 2.52 Salisbury, Cathedral Library, 168 (ASM 750) 1.211 Salisbury, Cathedral Library, 179 (ASM 753) 2.82, 2.111, 2.114, 2.149-50, 2.202, 2.212 Saint-Omer, Bibliothèque municipale, 91 2.136 San Marino, Huntington Library, HM 35300 1.152 St Gallen, Stiftsbibliothek, 451 2.282, 2.285, 2.287, 2.289 St Petersburg, Russian National Library Q. v. I. 18 (ASM 846) 1.148-49, 1.240, 2.253-54, 2.269 Tournai, Bibliothèque municipale, 134 1.152 Urbana, University of Illinois Rare Book and Manuscript Library, Pre-1650 MS 128 (ASM 938) 1.219, 1.232, 1.239

Index

Valenciennes, Bibliothèque municipale, 1-5 2.19, 2.30, 2.36 Valenciennes, Bibliothèque municipale, 89 (82) 2.20 Winchester, Cathedral Library, 1 (ASM 759) 1.150, 1.151-52, 1.240, 2.269 Windsor Castle, St George’s Chapel, 5 (ASM 760) 2.64 Worcester, Cathedral Library, F. 92 (ASM 763) 2.77, 2.81-82, 2.100, 2.101, 2.115, 2.149, 2.154, 2.160, 2.170, 2.175, 2.191, 2.197 Worcester, Cathedral Library, F. 93 (ASM 763.1) 2.79, 2.82, 2.102, 2.104, 2.106, 2.108, 2.111, 2.112, 2.113-14, 2.118, 2.119-20, 2.123, 2.149, 2.212 Worcester, Cathedral Library, F. 94 (ASM763.2) 2.78, 2.83, 2.97, 2.105, 2.114, 2.117, 2.125, 2.126, 2.149, 2.154, 2.188 Worcester, Cathedral Library, Q. 5 (ASM765) 1.42-45 Marcellinus Comes, Chronicon 2.287 Martial (M. Valerius Martialis), Epigrammata 1.230 Martianus Capella, De nuptiis Philologiae et Mercurii 1.27 Martin of Laon (Martin the Irishman) 1.27 Martyrologium Hieronymianum 2.279-80 Matthew Paris 1.147 Meters of Boethius see also the Old English Boethius Meter 4 10-12 1.54 Meter 8 46-51 1.54-55 Meter 20 1.55-56 63-64 1.55 65-66 1.55 66-85 1.56 90-106 1.56-57 153-56 1.57 161-68 1.57 Meter 24 22-24 1.58 Meter 28 25-27 1.58 metrics 1.43, 1.45-46; caesura 1.45-46; isosyllabic stress rhythm (accentual metre) 1.43; mora 1.46; scansion 1.45-46; synaloepha 1.45, 1.46 Milred, bishop of Worcester, Sylloge 1.219, 1.220, 1.223, 1.226-27, 1.231, 1.232, 1.239 miracles 1.263-64, 1.277-78, 1.280, 1.281, 1.283, 1.284, 1.293-99, 2.79-80, 2.146, 2.182-83, 2.190, 2.195, 2.200-01 Miracula Nynie Episcopi (ICL 14261; Rex deus aeternus, patris ueneranda potestas) 1.247, 1.280 15-16 1.280 66 1.281

359 118 1.280 154 1.280 206 1.280 214 1.281 408 1.281 454 1.280 Miracula Swithuni 1.197, 2.62 Missal of Robert of Jumièges 1.106 missions, Anglo-Saxon 1.25,1.27-32, 1.81-82, 1.93, 1.162, 1.205-06, 2.41 Monkwearmouth-Jarrow 1.18, 1.123-24, 1.127, 1.131-32, 1.35, 1.230, 2.153, 2.174; dedications of churches 1.249; foundation of Jarrow 1.35, 1.127, 1.131; foundation of Monkwearmouth 1.35, 1.127, 1.129, 1.131; libraries 1.18, 1,19, 1.20; scriptoria 1.18, 1.19. 1.93, 1.230-31 Moore Bede see manuscripts, Cambridge, University Library, Gg. 5. 35 Moore Continuation, Bede’s Historia ecclesiastica 2.247 Napier 29 1.212-13 Nothhelm, archbishop of Canterbury 1.148, 2.54-55, 2.70, 2.231, 2.233, 2.237, 2.252, 2.253, 2.270 numbers 1.97; finger-reco 1.59, 1.102-03, 1.113-14; four 1.110, 2.224; fractions 1.102; Greek letter-numerals 2.261; jubilee 2.130; one thousand 2.195; seven 2.173; six 1.112-13; thirty/sixty/hundred 1.113-14; forty-six 2.256 Oda, bishop of Ramsbury and archbishop of Canterbury 1.114. 1.285 Old English Bede (Old English Historia ecclesiastica) 1.33, 1.153-54, 1.164, 1.164-65, 1.178, 1.187, 2.254 Old English Boethius 1.53-58; attribution to Alfred the Great 1.54; editions of 1.53-54 iv 6-7 1.54 xv 17-21 1.54-55 xxiv 19-23 1.55 xxxiii 142-251 1.55 167 1.55-56 167-69 1.55-66 170-76 1.56 178-85 1.56-57 206-09 1.57 210-14 1.57 xxxiv 15-16 1.55 103-04 1.57 115-18 1.55 xxxvi 49-50 1.58

360  xxxix 60-61 1.58 Old English Dialogues see Wærfrith Old English Hexateuch 99.14 2.49 105.11-12 2.49 134.2 2.49 Old English Martyrology 1.129, 1.146, 1.159-64, 1.164, 1.187, 1.294-95, 2.247, 2.283-84 42.1-3 1.98-99 42.3 1.99 46.17-18 1.129 46.19 1.129 46.21-22 1.129 48.1 1.301 48.3-5 1.301 48.4 2,290 48.5-6 1.301 48.16-18 1.199-200 62.1-3 1.99 62.13-14 1.129 62.15-17 1.129 66.1 1.161 66.2 1.161 68.3-4 1.294-95 68.4-5 1.295 68.5-6 1.294-95 82.25-84.3 1.281 82.23-24 1.295 92.2-5 1.99 96.9-98.13 2.14 98.14-100.4 1.238, 1.295 100.6 1.161 108.5-7 1.161 108.8 1.161 114.3-4 1.161 114.4 1.161 114.4-6 1.161 120.18-22 1.189-90 120.22-25 1.189-90 120.25-27 1.190 122.2-15 1.201 122.15-18 1.201 142.10-11 2.74, 2.89 148.12-14 1.99 150.13-14 1.162 154.5-14 1.193 160.18 2,290 160.19-20 2,290 172.11-12 1.295 190.10-23 1.129 196.1-5 1.162 198.2-4 1.162-63 198.4-5 1.162-63 206.2-5 1.163 206.3-4 1.163 208.15-20 1.163 216.1-9 1.163 224.10 2,290

BEDE – PART 2

Old English Orosius 1.52-53, 1.54-55, 1.99-100, 2.15 10.7-8 1.52-53 10.14-15 1.52-53 11.11 1.100 11.17-20 1.53 22.29-23.11 2.14 24.31-32 1.100 36.31-32 1.100 45.17 1.100 50.25-27 1.53, 1.54-55 77.30-32 1.100 81.2 1.100 127.29 1.100 129.16 1.100 129.18-19 1.100 131.7-11 2.89 131.12-14 2.89 133.9-10 1.100 140.19 2.89 145.5-14 1.100 148.10-20 1.100 149.17-18 1.100 152.27-153.13 2.15 153.8 1.100 156.22-23 1.100 50.25-27 1.52-53 Old English Vision of Leofric 1.200, 1.204 O inclite confessor Christi 1.177 Omnes episcopi et sacerdotes totius Britannie insule (“Letter of Protest from the Bishops of Britain to the Pope”) 1.33-34, 1.185-86, 1.187, 1.188 445.3-5 1.186 445.7-10 1.186 446.3-9 1.186 Order of the World 1.100 53b-54 1.100 Origen 2.56, 2.151 Commentarius in Canticum Canticorum (trans. Rufinus) 2.65 Homiliae in Canticum Canticorum (trans. Jerome) 2.65 Orosius, Paulus 1.146 Historiae aduersum paganos 1.52-53, 1.99 Ovid (P. Ouidius Naso) 1.21 Ibis 207 1.213 pallium 1.34 Paschasius Radbertus 2.67 Passio Agnetis (BHL 156) 1.258 Passio Callisti (BHL 1523) 2,288 Paul I, pope 2.259 Paul the Deacon Homiliary 2.41, 2.73, 2.76, 2.77-83, 2.90, 2.91, 2.92, 2.94, 2.95, 2.98-126, 2.147-48, 2.149, 2.150, 2.152, 2.154, 2.155, 2.156, 2.157, 2.158, 2.162, 2.175, 2.186, 2.192, 2.222

Index

I, 11 2.158 I, 12 2.147, 2.160 I, 26 2.167 I, 33 2.170 I, 36 2.171 I, 40 2.172 I, 41 2.151 I, 49 2.180 I, 58 2.174 I, 59 2.185 I, 60 2.177-78 I, 67 2.184 I, 87 2.191 I, 92 2.195 I, 97 2.196 I, 99 2.198 I, 105 2.199 II, 2 2.203 II, 10 2.205 II, 13 2.203 II, 16 2.218 II, 19 2.212 II, 21 2.211 II, 22 2.207 II, 24 2.209 II, 29 2.214 II, 30 2.216 II, 40 2.219 II, 44 2.221 II, 45 223 II, 52 2.186 II, 69 2.200 II, 73 225 II, 75 2.147 II, 76 2.147, 2.160 II, 97 2.181 II, 125 227 II, 126 226 Vita Gregorii 1.177-78 Paulinus of Nola 1.185, 1.263, 1.279, 1.300-01 Carmen 15 1.300 Carmen 16 1.300 Carmen 18 1.300 Carmen 28 1.300 Pelagius and Pelegian heresy 1.157, 1.162, 1.220, 2.66, 2.267 people from/in the Bible Abel 2.47, 2.48, 2.178; Abigail 2.224; Abraham 2.57, 2.160, 2.172, 2.178; Adam 2.44, 2.45, 2.46, 2.138; Ahab 1.266; Andrew 1.259; angel(s) 1.253, 1.256, 1.277-28, 1.283, 1.294, 1.296-97, 2.48, 2.75, 2.131, 2.138-39, 2.146, 2.158, 2.162-63, 2.164, 2.196, 2.202, 2.205, 2.219; Anna 2.100; Antichrist 1.251. 2.35; apostles 1.256, 2.92, 2.103, 2.154, 2.167, 2.175, 2.180, 2.186, 2.189, 2.194, 2.195, 2.196, 2.198, 2.203, 2.204-05, 2.206-07, 2.208-09, 2.210, 2.213-14, 2.215; Areta 2.224; Barabbas 2.93; Beelzebub 2.94, 2.115; brothers of Christ 2.193; Cain 2.47;

361 Canaanite woman 2.189; daughter of Jairus 2.110; David 2.70, 2.158, 2.159, 2.161, 2.178, 2.224, 2.244; devil(s) 2.75, 2.91, 2.93, 2.99, 2.115-16, 2.138-39, 2.158, 2.189, 2.196, 2.200, 2.206; Elijah 1.250-51; Elizabeth 2.159-60; Enoch 1.250-51; Eve 2.44, 2.45, 2.46, 2.158, 2.220; Ezekiel 2.124; Ezra 1.225, 2.44, 2.5960, 2.238, 2.241; Hagar 2.45; Herods, three 2.130, 2.132, 2.224; Herodias 2.224; Isaac 2.45, 2.57, 2.91, 2.239; Isaiah 2.172; Ishmael 2.44-45, 2.239; James (brother of John) 2.130, 2.221; Jesse (tree of) 1.247; John the Baptist 1.100, 1.259, 1.260, 2.77, 2.78, 2.97, 2.155-56, 2.157, 2.160, 2.173, 2.179, 2.180, 2.219, 2.220, 2.224, 2.287; John the Evangelist 1.228, 2.130, 2.165-67, 2.168-70, 2.181, 2.221, 2.222, 2.285; Jonathan 2.70; Joseph 2.158, 2.159, 2.161, 2.193; Josiah 1.266; Judas 2.75, 2.93, 2.131, 2.132, 2.198; Lazarus 2.110, 2.197-98; Lot 2.95-96; Lot’s wife 2.46, 2.49; Luke 2.285; Magi 2.70; Mark 2.243, 2.295, 2.287-88; Martha and Mary (also Mary Magdalen) 2.74, 2.113, 2.197-98; Mary 1.119, 1.214, 1.220, 1.244, 1.246, 1.247, 1.256, 2.91, 2.116, 2.158-59, 2.160, 2.161, 2.164, 2.169, 2.184, 2.193, 2.202, 2.220; Matthew 2.187-88, 2.243, 2.285; Michael 1.214, 1.220, 1.251, 2.74; Moses 2.157, 2.212; Nathaniel 2.182; Nicodemus 2.217, 2.218; Noah 2.25, 2.51, 2.95-96; patriarchs 2.13, 2.177, 2.196; Paul 1.20-21, 2.109, 2.129, 2.206-07, 2.221; Peter 1.186, 2.75, 2.92, 2.103, 2.129, 2.168-69, 2.175, 2.181, 2.186, 2.217, 2.221, 2.222, 2.243, 2.244; Peter and Paul 1.278, 2.168, 2.222; Pharaoh 2.115; Pharisees 2.104, 2.117, 2.156, 2.188, 2.192; Philip 2.182; Pilate 2.224; prophets 2.118, 2.177, 2.196; priests 2.198; Rachel 2.170-71; Rebecca 2.91; Samuel 2.55, 2.128-29; Sarah 2.45, 2.172; Satan 1.22829; Saul 2.70, 2.128-29, 2.245; Seth 2.49; shepherds 2.99-100, 2.164; Simeon 2.100; Solomon 1.293, 2.51, 2.56; Stephen 2.129; thief crucified with Christ 2.92; Timothy 2.282; Tobias 2.61; women at Christ’s tomb 2.205; Zachary 2.219, 2.220; Zacheus 1.225; Zebedee 2.221 people (notable) in charters, chronicles, histories, martyrologies, saints’ lives, and sermons Aetherius of Lyon (Etherius) 1.186; Agatha 1.246; Agilbert 1.170, 1.197; Agnes 1.246, 1.258, 2.287; Aidan 1.159, 1.160, 1.170, 1.194, 1.195, 1.203, 1.277, 1.283, 1.295, 1.296, 1.299; Alban 1.146, 1.152, 1.157, 1.160, 1.167. 1.172-73, 1.185, 1.189-90; Albinus, abbot of St Peter’s and St Paul’s, Canterbury 1.146, 1.148, 1.221, 2.55, 2.231, 2.250-52, 2.270; Aldfrith, king of Northumbria 1.117-18, 1.171-72; All Saints 1.99, 1.163, 1.248; Almachus 2.280; Anastasius 1.99, 1.264-65, 2.282; Andocius, Thyrsus, and Felix 2.290; Anna, king of East

362  Anglia 1.170, 1.201; Anthony the Hermit 1.99, 2.285; Antonius (Pius) 1.100; Antony 1.99, 1.100; Arius 2.131; Asterius 2.288; Augustus 1.99, 2.89-90, 2.99, 2.162, 2.225; Ælfflæd, abbess of Whitby 1.284, 1.298, 2.273; Ælfwald, king of East Anglia 1.276, 1.292; Ælfwine (brother of Ecgfrith, king of Northumbria) 1.171-72, 1.173, 1.181; Æthelbald, king of Mercia 1.28, 1.170, 1.184; Æthelberht, king of Kent (d. 616) 1.114, 1.171-72, 1.175, 1.178, 1.182-83, 1.198; Æthelburg (Æthelburh), daughter of Æthelberht 1.186-87; Æthelburg (Æthelburh), abbess of Barking 1.152, 1.162-63, 2.284; Æthelfrith, king of Northumbria 1.172-73; Æthelheard (Ethelhard) 1.159; Æthelred, king of Mercia 1.169, 1.170, 1.181, 1.184; Æthelred (? brother of Æthelberht) 1.114; Æthelstan (Athelstan), king of the English 1.202,1.275-76; Æthelthryth, queen of Northumbria and abbess of Ely 1.152, 1.157-58, 1.160, 1.170, 1.171-72, 1.200-02, 1.241, 1.245-48, 1.263, 2.272. 2.279, 2.282, 2.291; Æthelwald (Æthilwald), abbot of Melrose 1.242; Æthelwald, bishop of Lindisfarne 1.266; Æthelwald, hermit 1.281, 1.295; Æthelwalh (Æthelwealh) 1.175; Babylas 2.290; Bebbe 1.159; Beorhtfrith (Brihtferth), ealdorman in Northumbria 1.171; Beorhtred (Berhtred), dux in Northumbria 1.172-73; Beorhtric, king of Wessex 1.154; Beorhtwald (Berhtwald), archbishop of Canterbury 1.173, 1.183; Bertha, queen 1.178; Birinus 1.171-72, 1.192-93, 1.195-97, 1.248; Boisil 1.299; Boniface IV, pope 1.163; Boniface V, pope 1.184; Bosa 1.158; Briht 1.172-73; Brihthelm 1.172-73; Caesar, Julius 1.151, 1.171; Calepodius 2.288; Callistus I, pope 2.288; Cassian of Imola 2.284, 2.289, 2.290; Cædwalla 1.157-58, 1.169, 1.171-72, 1.175, 1.185, 1.192-93, 1.222; Ceadda 1.171-72; Cecilia 1.246; Cecrops 1.100; Cedd 1.160, 1.163, 1.164, 284; Cenred, king of Mercia 1.169, 1.170, 1.171, 1.182, 2.205; Cenwealh, king of Wessex 1.170, 1.171-72, 1.174, 1.197; Ceolred, king of Mercia 1.170, 1.171, 1.184; Ceolwulf, king of Wessex 1.154; Ceolwulf, king of Northumbria 1.144-45, 1.149; Cerdic, king of Wessex 1.172; Chad 1.160, 1.163, 1.164, 164-65, 2.284; Cissa, priest 1.293; Claudius 1.171-72, 2.130; Cleopatra 1.99, 1.100; Colmán (Colman), bishop of Lindisfarne 1.171-72, 1.184; Columba (Colum Cille) 1.160, 1.161, 1.173-74; Constantine 1.100; Cuthbald, abbot near Oundle 1.240; Cwichelm, king of Wessex 1.170, 1.172; Cyneberht, bishop of Lindsay 1.239; Cynefrith, physician 1.201-02; Cynegils, king of Wessex 1.170. 1.172, 1.193, 1.196, 1.197; Cynric, king of Wessex 1.172; Cyrilla 2.290;

BEDE – PART 2

Cyrus 1.100; Darius 1.100; Deusdedit, archbishop of Canterbury 1.171-72, 1.172-73; Diocletian 1.189-90; Domitian 2.169-70; Donatus of Arezzo 2.289; Dryhthelm 1.172-73, 1.180-82, 1.200, 1.203-04, 1.206, 1.214; Eadbald, king of Kent 1.171-72, 1.183; Eadberht, bishop of Lindisfarne 1.237-38, 1.295; Eadberht, king of Northumbria 2.259; Eadburg, abbess of Thanet 2.273; Eadred, king of the English 1.176; Eadwig, king of the English 2.131; Ealdsige 2.70; Ealdwulf, bishop of Rochester 1.172-73; Eanflæd, queen in Northumbria 1.174; Eata, bishop of Hexham and of Lindisfarne 1.156, 1.299; Ecgberht, king of the Dwellers in Kent 1.172-73; Ecgberht, monk and priest 1.160, 1.162, 1.164, 1.171-72; Ecgfrith, king of Northumbria 1.127, 1.129, 1.131, 1.157-58, 1.169, 1.170, 1.171, 1.172, 1.173, 1.181, 1.245, 1.277, 1.284-85, 1.298; Ecgwine, bishop of Worcester 1.184; Edgar, king of the English 1.34, 1.73, 1.155, 1.176, 1.177; Edmund, king of the English 1.176; Edward the Martyr, king of the English 1.298-99; Edwin (Eadwine), king of Northumbria 1.170, 1.171-72, 1.174, 1.177, 1.186-87, 1.192, 1.194; Eleutherius, pope 1.170; Emerentiana 2.287; Eorcenberht 1.171-72, 1.183; Eorcenwald (Erkenwald), bishop of the East Saxons 1.162-63; Eormenric 1.183; Eorpwald 1.170; Eosterwine 1.124, 1.127, 1.129, 1.130, 1.131; Eulalia 1.246; Euphemia 1.246; Eustochium 1.227; Fausta and Evilasius 2.290; Felix, bishop of East Anglia 1.170; Felix of Nola 1.263, 1.300-01, 2.284, 2.286; Felix of Rome 2.286, 2.290; Ferreolus and Ferrucio 2.288; Forthhere, bishop of Sherborne 1.171; Forthred, abbot 2.259; Fursey (Fursa) 1.152, 1.160, 1.180-82, 1.200, 1.204; Germanus, bishop of Auxerre 1.146, 1.162, 2.284; Gisela, abbess of Chelles2.140; Gratian 1.172-73; Gregory II, pope 2.134, 2.259-60; Gregory the Thaumaturgist 2.76; Hadrian 1.100, 1.175-76, 2.89; Hædde, bishop of Wincester 1.170, 1.196, 1.199; Helen of Troy 1.246; Helmwald 2.231-32; Hengist 1.183; Hengist and Horsa 1.100, 1.171-72, 1.173, 1.190; Hereberht, hermit 1.284-85, 1.298; Herefrith, abbot of Lindisfarne 2.255; Hewalds (two) 1.162, 2.284; Hild, abbess of Whitby 1.160, 1.163-64, 1.170, 2.273; Hlothhere 1.169; Honorius, archbishop of Canterbury 1.170, 1.186, 1.188; Honorius I, pope 1.186, 1.188, 1.196; Hygebald (Higebald), abbot in Lindsey 1.160, 1.164, 2.284; Ida, king of Bernicia 1.170; Imma, Northumbrian retainer 1.181; Ine 1.170, 1.171-72; Januarius 2.289; Jænberht 1.159; John of Beverley 1.158, 1.161, 1.172-73, 1.266-67, 1.273, 2.231, 2.266-67, 2.284; John the Arch-Chanter 2.279, 2.283; Justus,

Index

archbishop of Canterbury 1.170, 1.186; Justus of Urgell 2.65; Kentish royal geneology 1.154; Laurence, archbishop of Canterbury 1.184, 1.186; Leo III, pope 1.213; Leoba, abbess of Bischofsheim 2.273; Leofric, bishop of Exeter 2.143-44; Leuthere, bishop of Winchester 1.170, 1.197; Lucius, king of Britain 1.100, 1.170; Lucy 2.290; Marcellus I, pope 2.286; Marcian 1.10-01; Marcus Antonius (recte Marcus Aurelius) 1.173; Marcus Aurelius (“Marcus Antonius” and “Aurelius his brother”) 1.173; Marius and Martha, Persian nobles 2.287; Martin of Tours 2.286; Mauricius 1.173; Maximus 1.171-72; Mellitus 1.152, 1.172-73, 1.186; Moll, patricius 2.259; Nechtan mac Derile 2.268; Nerva 2.169; Ninian 1.173, 1.247; Numintor 1.100; Ochta (Octa) 1.183; Oeric 1.183; Offa, king of the Mercians 1.159, 1.171, 1.184; Osred, king of Northumbria (d. 716) 1.170, 1.266; Osric, king of Northumbria 1.170; Osthryth 1.172-73; Oswald, bishop of Worcester and archbishop of York 1.17, 1.114, 1.184-85; Oswald, king of Northumbria 1.152, 1.160, 1.171-72, 1.192-94, 1.196, 1.203, 1.214, 1.283, 1.296; Oswine, king of Deira 1.170, 1.299; Oswiu 1.170, 1.172-73; Palladius 1.154, 1.169-70; Patrick 1.169-70; Paul the Hermit 2.284, 2.285; Paulinus, bishop of York 1.170, 1.171-72, 1.174, 1.186-87, 1.279; Peada 1.170; Pehthelm 1.205, 1.247; Pelagius 1.157; Penda 1.170, 1.171-72, 1.174; Perpetua and Felicity 1.99; Phocas of Sinope 2.284, 2.288; Plegwine 2.270-72; Pompey 1.100; Ptolomy 1.100; Quintinus 1.119; regnal list, West Saxon 1.172; Ricbodus, archbishop of Treves 2.62; Riculf, archbishop of Mainz 1.234; Salonius, bishop of Geneva 2.63; Sebastian 2.286-87; Sebbe (Sebbi), king of the East Saxons 1.162; Seleucus 1.100; Severus 1.100, 1.171-72; Seaxburg (Sexaburh), queen of Kent and abbess of Ely 1.201; Sichard, abbot of Farfa 1.234; Sigefrith (Sicgfrith), abbot of Monkwearmouth 1.124, 1.127; Sixtus III, pope 2.267; Sosius 2.289; Swæfheard 1.172-73; Swithhun (Swithun), bishop of Winchester 1.215, 1.248; Symphorosa 2.288; Thecla 1.246; Theodosius 1.172-73; Tobias, bishop of Rochester 1.172-73; Trajan 2.288; Trumwine, bishop of the Picts 1.172-73; Tunberht, bishop of Hexham 1.172-73; Valentinian 1.100-01; Vortigern 1.171-72; Wicthed 2.232; Wigheard, archbishop of Canterbury-elect 1.172-73; Wihtred, king of Kent 1.170, 1.171, 1.172-73, 1.175; William of St Calais (Carilef) 1.149-50; Willibrord, bishop of Echternach 1.162, 1.279, 2.280; Wine, bishop of Winchester and London 1.165, 1.170, 1.197; Wulfhere, king of Mercia1.170,

363 1.175; Wulfstan, bishop of Worcester 2.9-10, 2.151 peoples Angles 1.182, 1.278-79; Angles, Saxon, and Jutes 1.155; Britons 1.155, 1.162, 1.172-73, 1.174, 1.194; East Saxons 1.171; English (“gens Anglorum”) 1.100-01, 1.193, 2.18-19; Ethiopians 2.188; Galatians 2.172; Gentiles 2.68, 2.103, 2.116, 2.123-24, 2.189, 2.196; Goths 1.100, 1.154; Irish (Gaels) 1.161, 1.172, 1.194; Israhel 2.49; Jews 2.62, 2.68, 2.75, 2.92, 2.103, 2.116, 2.123-24, 2.189, 2.190, 2.193, 2.196, 2.214, 2.218, 2.226, 2.245; Mercians 1.160, 1.171-72; Middle Angles 1.170; Old Saxons 1.162; Picts 1.161, 1.168, 1.171, 1.172, 1.173, 1.298; Philistines 2.244; Romans 1.154; Scots 1.172; West Saxons 1.172, 1.194, 1.196, 1.197, 1.199 Persius (A. Persius Flaccus) 1.21, 1.77 Peter of Tripoli 2.135 phenomena and entities, astrological and terrestrial 1.50, 1.91, 2.44; aether 1.57; air 1.56, 1.62, 1.97, 1.102; atomospheric events 1.50; clouds 1.107; comets 1.58, 1.62-63, 1.104, 1.171-72; constellations 1.118; distance, earth to moon 1.95; distance, earth to sun 1.95; distance, earth to zodiac 1.95; earth 1.50, 1.56, 1.57, 1.59-60, 1.97, 2.92; earthquakes 1.50; eclipses 1.54, 1.58, 1.59-60, 1.63, 1.104, 1.170, 1.171-72; elements (four) 1.54, 1.55-56, 1.57, 1.62-63, 1.110; equinox 1.101, 1.103, 1.10607, 1.108, 1.118; fire 1.56, 1.57, 1.105, 2.204-05; fires of hell 2.96; hail 1.59; harmony of the spheres 1.97; heavens, motion of 1.60, 1.61-62; humours (four) 1.110; jewels 2.144-45; Jupiter (Jove) 1.107, 1.111; light 1.102, 1.107; lightning 1.59; luminaries 1.101, 1.103, 106-07, 1.108; Mars 1.107, 1.111; Mercury 1.62, 1.102, 1.107, 1.108, 1.111; moon 1.51-52, 1.54, 1.59-60, 1.62, 1.63, 1.91, 1.97, 1.98, 1.100, 1.103, 1.105, 1.107, 1.108, 1.111, 1.112; moon, influence of 1.104, 1.111-12, 2.48; mountains 2.76, 2.195; oceans 1.50; planets 1.50, 1.58, 1.60, 1.61-62, 1.97, 1.107, 1.108; rain 1.59; rainbow 1.51-52; rivers 1.50, 1.55, 1.57; Saturn 1.58, 1.107, 1.111; sea 1.55, 1.56-57, 1.59-60, 1.97, 1.111-12, 2.48, 2.75, 2.195; seasons (four) 1.110; signs of the end of time 1.58, 1.104; snow 1.59; solstices 1.118; spices 2.203; springs 1.55, 1.57; stars 1.50, 1.57, 1.58, 1.59. 1.60, 1.62, 1.97, 1.101, 1.103, 1.107, 2.48; sulphur 2.96; sun 1.51-52, 1.54, 1.57, 1.59-60, 1.62, 1.91, 1.97, 1.98, 1.100, 1.102, 1.103, 1.105, 1.107, 1.108, 1.111, 2.48; thunder 1.59; tides 1.62-63, 1.100, 1.104, 1.111-12; Venus 1.111; vines 2.212-13; volcanoes 1.50; water 1.56, 2.204-05; water, circulation of 1.55, 1.56-57; weather 2.212; weather, signs for predicting 1.51-52, 1.60, 1.107; winds 1.59, 1.60-61, 1.62-63; zodiac 1.52, 1.58, 1.61-62, 1.83, 1.95, 1.98, 1.109, 1.118, 1.121 Pierre Quentell, Homiliary 2.83

364  places Abingdon 1.176, 1.198; Africa 1.100; Alexandria 2.224, 2.287; Antioch 2.15; Arabia 2.66; Babylon 1.225, 1.228-29; Bardney 1.194; Barking 1.162-63; Bath 1.176; Bethany 2.19798; Bethlehem 1.231, 2.13, 2.70, 2.163, 2.164; Bury St Edmunds 1.244, 2.87, 2.150; Caesarea Philippi 2.185-86; Cana 2.178; Canaan 2.212, 2.246; Canterbury 1.70, 1.100, 1.148, 1.149-50, 1.154, 1.159, 1.161, 1.169, 1.171, 1.174, 1.254, 1.256, 2.70, 2.145; Carthage 1.99; Celia 2.244; Chester-le-Street 1.275; Denisesburn 1.192; Dorchester 1.193, 1.196, 1.198; Echternach 2.143; Egypt 2.66, 2.115, 2.243, 2.246; Egyptian Sea 1.53; Ely 1.170, 1.177, 1.201, 1.245; Emesa 2.287; Essex 1.175; Fleury 1.298; Frisia 1.162; Galilee 2.77, 2.178, 2.202; Genesareth 2.103; Gihon 1.100; Glastonbury 1.176, 1.276; heaven 1.54, 1.57, 1.59-60, 1.61, 1.97, 1.105 1.108, 1.223, 1.228, 1.254, 2.48, 2.67, 2,68, 2.89, 2.92, 2.96, 2.120, 2.132, 2.154, 2.173, 2.186, 2.206-07, 2.211-12, 2.217, 2.227, 2.285; Hebron 2.13; hell 1.53, 1.54-55, 1.180-82, 1.299, 1.223-24, 1.228-29, 1.252, 1.254, 2.96, 2.138-39, 2.186, 2.288; Hendred, Berkshire 2.131; Hexham 1.81, 1.259; India 2.66; Iona (Hii) 1.161, 1.173; Ireland 1.169-70, 1.172-73, 1.200; Isle of Wight 1.175; Jerusalem 1.225, 1.228-29, 2.13, 2.51, 2.58, 2.59, 2.70, 2.89, 2.91, 2.118, 2.142, 2.153, 2.196, 2.197, 2.212-13, 2.224, 2.241, 2.287; Jordan River 2.103; Judea 1.115, 2.13, 2.66, 2.96-97, 2.189, 2.224; Kent 1.170; Lastingham 1.160, 1.163; Lérins 1.131; Lichfield 1.159, 1.160; Lindisfarne 1.263, 1.279, 1.281, 1.297; London 1.157, 1.175; Mainz 1.28; Meonware, province of 1.175; Mercia 1.175; Mount Etna 1.53, 1.54-55; Mount of Olives 2.13-14; Mount Sinai 2.216; Mount Sion 2.181; Mytilene 2.15; Nazareth 2.182; Nile 1.52, 1.59-60, 1.100; Nola 1.300; Northern Ireland 1.168; Oundle 1.171; paradise 2.44; Paris 1.170; Patmos 2.169; Pavia 2.280, 2.282, 2.289; Peonnan 1.174; Persian Gulf 1.52-52; Poitiers 1.279; Red Sea 1.52-53; Ramsey 1.44, 1.51; Ripon 1.116, 1.166, 1.171, 1.240; Rochester 1.187; Rome 1.18-19, 1.22, 1.34, 1.118-19, 1.123, 1.127-28, 1.129, 1.131, 1.154, 1.169, 1.170, 1.171, 1.172, 1.173, 1.185, 1.188 1.249, 1.263; Rome, monastery ad Aquas salvias 1.265; Rome, Pantheon 1.163; Rome, St Peter’s 1.18-19, 1.225, 2.21; Samaria 2.287; Sardinia 2.280; Scotland 1.172; Scythia 1.68; Seville 1.230; Sicily 1.54; Sebaste 2.224; Spain 1.100; Transhumbrentium 1.161; Whitby 1.164, 1.184; Winchester 1.58, 1.104, 1.171-72, 1.196-97, 1.198, 1.254, 1.256-57; Worcester 1.176; York 1.157, 1.166, 1.247, 2.53, 2.60, 2.258 Pliny the Elder (C. Plinius Secundus) 1.18, 1.54, 1.56, 1.57, 1.58, 1.95, 1.104, 1.146 Historia naturalis 1.41, 1.50, 1.52, 1.56, 1.63, 1.97, 1.118, 1.176 poets, Christian Latin 1.280

BEDE – PART 2

Pompeius (Latin grammarian) 1.43 Presbyter hic Beda requiescit, carne sepultus 1.223 Priscian (Priscianus Caesariensis), Institutiones grammaticae 1.72 Prismasius of Hadrumetum 2.142 Commentarius in Apocalypsin 2.146 prognostica 1.51-52, 1.58, 1.60, 1.95, 1.107 Prosper (Prosper Tiro) of Aquitaine 1.47, 1.146, 1.157, 1.221 Epigrammata 1.220 Epigrammata in obtrectatorem Augustini 1.220 Prudentius (Aurelius Prudentius Clemens) 1.216, 1.228, 1.279, 1.301 Pseudo-Augustine 2.107 Pseudo-Bede 2.47 Adesto Christe cordibus 1.242 Expositio in euangelium Matthaei 2.81, 2.150 Laetare caelum desuper 1.242 Me legat annales cupiat qui noscere menses 1.216 Pseudo-Boniface, De fide recta 1.205 Pseudo-Clement Recognitions 2.49 Pseudo-Isidore De ordine creaturarum 1.50 Pseudo-Jerome, Epistola de gradus Romanorum 1.205 Pseudo-Mellito Martyrdom of John 2.169 Quodvultdeus 2.160 Sermones 10 2.135 Remigius of Auxerre 1.47 Commentarius in Bedae Schemata et tropos 1.76-78 Revival of Monasticism see Account of King Edgar’s Establishment of Monasteries rhetoric 1.40, 1.75; allegory 1.75; rhetorical terms 1.76-79 Rufinus 1.167; see Eusebius, Historia ecclesiastica Sacramentary of Ratoldus, the 1.176-77 49.21-22 1.176-77 49.28-29 1.176-77 saints’ lives 1.21-22, 1.264-65 scribes, Continental 1.25 Sedulius, Caelius 1.45, 1.73, 1.77, 1.185, 1.228, 1.267, 1.285, 2.93 Septuagint see Bible Sergius 1.43 sermon for the feast of Birinus 1.198 120.10 1.198 120.13 1.198 120.20-23 1.198 120.34-35 1.198

Index

Servius (Marius Seuius Honoratus grammaticus) 1.43 De finalibus metrorum 1.43 Sidney Sussex Pontifical, the 1.299 Smaragdus, abbot of Saint-Mihiel 2.74-75, 2.90, 2.91, 2.92-93, 2.94, 2.99, 2.109, 2.115, 2.123, 2.147, 2.170, 2.176, 2.178 Collectiones epistularum et euangeliorum de tempore et de sanctiis seu Expositio libri comitis 2.74 Expositio Libri comitis 2.82, 2.106, 2.151 Solinus (C. Iulius Solinus) 1.146 soul 1.57 Statius (P. Papinius Statius) 1.228 Stephen of Ripon Vita Wilfridi 1.240 Sulpicius Severus Vita Martini 1.165, 2.255, 2.286 Symeon of Durham 1.182-83, 1.274 synods Hatfield 1.170; Hertford 1.170; Whitby 1.184 Tatwine, archbishop of Canterbury 1.148, 1.183 tabernacle 1.116, 2.9, 2.22, 2.50-53, 2.227 temple 1.31, 1.225, 2.9, 2.13, 2.50, 2.51-52, 2.56-57, 2.58, 2.59-60, 2.62, 2.64, 2.73, 2.75, 2.90, 2.93, 2.94, 2.100, 2.120, 2.193, 2.226, 2.227, 2.237, 2.238. 2.241 Theodore, archbishop of Canterbury 1.17, 1.131, 1.146, 1.160, 1.165, 1.170-72, 1.205, 1.222, 1.265, 2.55, 2.70, 2.251, 2.272 Theophilus of Alexandria 1.111 time and the Gospels 2.72; ages of man, four 1.110; ages of the world, eighth 1.113, 1.114-15, 1.261, 2.172; ages of the world, seventh 1.113, 1.114-15, 1.261; ages of the world, six 1.91, 1.114-15, 1.123, 1.261, 2.44, 2.177, 2.178; ages of the world, sixth 2.62, 2.178, 2.270-71; ages of the world, third 2.177; ages of the world, three 1.115-16, 2.177, 2.178; day 1.108, 2.48; days of creation, eighth 2.172; days of creation, seventh 2.190; divisions/units of 1.59, 1.80-83, 1.91, 1.101, 1.102, 1.108; end of 1.91. 1.92-93, 1.123, 2.270-72; future 1.91; historical time 1.91; hour 1.111, 1.112; months 1.98-99, 1.110-11; night 2.48; seasons, four 1.110; year 1.110; see computus, hexameron and Bede, De temporibus and De temporum ratione Tyconius 1.228, 2.18, 2.35, 2.142, 2.144, 2.263 Usuard of Saint-Germain-des-Près, Martyrologium 2.283, 2.285 Vegetius (Flauius Vegetius Renatus) 1.146 Venantius Fortunatus (Venantius Honorius Clementianus Fortunatus) 1.157, 1.190 Vercelli Homilies 5 2.89-90 45-52 2.89 76-84 2.89-90, 2.162

365 6 2.89-90 18-22 2.89-90, 2.162 17 64-78 2.90 Vergil (P. Vergilius Maro);1.18, 1.21-22, 1.32, 1.41, 1.43, 1.46, 1.75, 1.228, 1.246, 1.267, 1.280 Aeneis 1.46 I 147 1.228 Eclogae v 68 1.281 Georgica III 357 1.279 Victorius of Aquitaine Cursus paschalis 2.255 Viking raids 1.155 Virgilius Maro Grammaticus 1.70 Vita Birini 1.198, 2.62 20.26 1.198-99 34.7-11 1.199 44.2-5 2.62 44.16-17 1.199 Vita Ceolfridi 1.35, 1.127-29, 1.132, 1.264, 1.276, 2.175, 2.260 ix-xii 1.18 xx 1.18 xxx 108.16 2.267 Vita Cuthberti 1.123, 1.156, 1.179, 1.202, 1.263, 1.267, 1.274, 1.282-84, 1.285, 1.290-91, 1.295-96, 2.255 Vita Fursei 1.200 Vita Guthlaci 60.2 2.267 Vita Swithuni 1.197, 2.62 Vita Wulfstani see William of Malmesbury Vulgate see Jerome Wærfrith, bishop of Worcester Old English Dialogues 1.164 Wealdhere, bishop of London 2.229 Wilfrid, bishop of Hexham, Ripon, and York 1.81, 1.152, 1.160, 1.171-72, 1.184, 1.214, 1.220, 1.222, 1.239-40, 1.259, 1.293, 2.249, 2.271 William of Malmesbury 1.71-72, 1.147, 1.223, 2.9 Vita Wulfstani 2.9 William of Newburgh 1.147 Willibald, bishop of Eichstätt 2.14 “Winchester Computus” 1.106 Winchester Troper see manuscripts, Cambridge, Corpus Christi College, 473 Wulfstan, archbishop of York 1.17, 1.33-34, 1.146, 1.182, 1.188; 2.168 Collectio canonum 1.182 92.2-5 1.182 92.6-9 1.182 Letter of Protest from the Biships of Britain to the Pope see Omnes episcopi et sacerdotes totius Britannie insule

366  Wulfstan Cantor (of Wincester) 1.247 Agmina sacra poli 1.248 Alma lucerna micat 1.248 Aula superna poli 1.248 Aurea lux patrie 1.248 Auxilium Domine 1.248 Narratio metrica de Swithuno I 589 1.281-82 1477 1.281-82

BEDE – PART 2

II 462-65 1.177 567 1.215 608 1.281 1145 1.215 Vita Æthelwoldi 1.130, 1.291 6.23-24 1.130 38.8-10 1.177 Würzburg Inventory 1.153