¹ John, E., ‘The Age of Edgar’, The Anglo-Saxons, ed. Campbell, J. (Oxford, 1982), pp. 160–89, at 182.Google Scholar

² To mention only two recent monographs: the European dimensions of the reform period and beyond have been explored by Ortenberg, V., The English Church and the Continent in the Tenth and Eleventh Centuries: Cultural, Spiritual, and Artistic Exchanges (Oxford, 1992)Google Scholar; the manuscript evidence of the time has been newly evaluated from a palaeographical point of view and set in a wider cultural context by Dumville, D. N., English Caroline Script and Monastic History: Studies in Benedictinism, A.D. 950–1030 (Woodbridge, 1993).Google Scholar For a classified selection of secondary literature on the monastic reform movement, see Keynes, S., Anglo-Saxon History. A Select Bibliography, 2nd ed., OEN Subsidia 13 (Binghamton, NY, 1993), nos. G100–276 (regularly updated).Google Scholar

³ Bishop Æthelwoid: his Career and Influence, ed. Yorke, B. (Woodbridge, 1988)Google Scholar; St Dunstan: his Life, Times and Cult, ed. Ramsay, N., Sparks, M. and Tatton-Brown, T. (Woodbridge, 1992).Google Scholar The proceedings of the 1992 Oswald memorial conference at Worcester are being edited by N. Brooks and C. Cubitt.

⁴ The titles and editions of the principal sources are conveniently listed in Keynes, Anglo-Saxon History, nos. G105–10. For an essential source-oriented study of Æthelwold's part in the monastic revival, see Lapidge's, Michael introduction to Wulfstan of Winchester: the Life of St Æthelwold, ed. Lapidge, M. and Winterbottom, M. (Oxford, 1991), pp. xiii–clxxxviii.Google Scholar

⁵ Dunstan's appointment as archbishop of Canterbury in 960 was followed by Æthelwold's advancement to the bishopric of Winchester in 963, while Oswald, who had been bishop of Worcester since 961, also became archbishop of York in 972. On the crucial role of King Edgar (959–75) in the monastic revival, see below, p. 102.

⁶ Die Regularis Concordia und ihre altenglische Interlinearversion. Mit Einleitung und Kommentar, ed. Kornexl, L., Münchener Universitäts-Schriften: Texte und Untersuchungen zur Englischen Philologie 17 (Munich, 1993).Google Scholar All subsequent references to paragraphs and line numbers of the RC are to this edition; for the editorial signs and symbols contained in citations drawn from it, see ibid. p. cclxv. The paragraph numbers correspond to the sections in DomThomas Symons's edition of the Latin text, which is accompanied by a Modern English translation: Regularis Concordia Anglicae Nationis Monachorum Sanctimonialiumque: the Monastic Agreement of the Monks and Nuns of the English Nation, ed. and trans. Symons, T. (London, 1953).Google Scholar

⁷ So far, very little is known about actual differences in observance preceding the implementation of the RC. David Knowles's statement that ‘all the houses … can be divided into three groups, according as they … owed some kind of spiritual allegiance respectively to Dunstan, Ethelwold and Oswald’ (The Monastic Order in England: A History of its Development from the Times of St Dunstan to the Fourth Lateran Council, 940–1216, 2nd ed. (Cambridge, 1963), pp. 48–9), has recently been taken up by David Dumville, who sees these party-allegiances reflected in different styles of Anglo-Caroline script (cf. above, n. 2).Google Scholar

⁸ For the dating of the translation to ‘around 970’, see Gneuss, H., ‘Die Benediktinerregel in England und ihre altenglische Übersetzung’, Die angelsächsischen Prosabearbeitungen der Benediktinerregel, ed. Schröer, A., 2nd ed. with a supplement by H. Gneuss, Bibliothek der angelsachsischen Prosa 2 (Darmstadt, 1964), 263–84, at 272–3.Google Scholar The chronology of Æthelwold's reform writings is examined in detail by Gretsch, M., ‘The Benedictine Rule in Old English: a Document of Bishop Æthelwold's Reform Polities’, Words, Texts and Manuscripts. Studies in Anglo-Saxon Culture presented to Helmut Gneuss on the Occasion of his Sixty-Fifth Birthday, ed. Korhammer, M. et al. (Cambridge, 1992), pp. 131–58.Google Scholar

⁹ Cf. Kornexl, , Regularis Concordia, p. xxiv, n. 1.Google Scholar

¹⁰ Symons, T., ‘Regularis Concordia: History and Derivation’, Tenth-Century Studies. Essays in Commemoration of the Millennium of the Council of Winchester and Regularis Concordia, ed. Parsons, D. (London, 1975), pp. 37–59 and 214–17, at 40–2.Google Scholar Symons's numerous publications on the RC in the context of the Benedictine Reform are listed in Kornexl, Regularis Concordia, pp. 412–13.Google Scholar

¹¹ ‘… non tantum episcopi, uerum etiam abbates ac abbatisse, … accitis Flor[iac]ensis beati Benedicti necnon precipui coenobii, quod celebri Gent nuncupatur uocabulo, monachis, queque ex dignis eorum moribus honesta colligentes,… has morum consuetudines … hoc exiguo apposuerunt c〈odi〉cello’ (§§ 4–5, lines 52–76); ‘… the bishops, abbots and abbesses … summoned monks from St Benedict's monastery at Fleury and from that eminent monastery which is known by the renowned name of Ghent, gathered from their praiseworthy customs much that was good and thus … the said monastic customs … were … embodied in this small book’ (Regularis Concordia, ed. Symons, , p. 3).Google Scholar

¹² Cf. the following extract from a long and complex passage at the end of the epilogue:‘… de consuetis sancte regule moribus,… sollicite, uti polliciti sumus,… scribendo dilucidemus’ (§ 12, lines 199—208); ‘… in fulfilment of our promise, solicitously … we shall set forth plainly in writing those customs of the Holy Rule’ (Regularis Concordia, ed. Symons, , p. 8).Google Scholar

¹³ For details, see Kornexl, , Regularis Concordia, pp. xxxi–xxxvii.Google Scholar

¹⁴ The natural interest which English monasteries had in promoting the reputation of their local saints was probably enhanced in reaction to oppressive tendencies after the invasion. According to Eric John, ‘the over-emphasis of the part of Dunstan in the revival seems to go back to the immediate post-Conquest historians of English monastic history’ (‘The Sources of the English Monastic Reformation: a Comment’, R.B 70 (1960), 197–203, at 200, n. 1).Google Scholar

¹⁵ ‘Audivi quod sanctus Dunstanus Regulam vitae monachicae instituerit. Si igitur sic se res habet, vellem libenter famosam Vitam et Instituta tanti patris videre’ (S. Anselmi Cantuariensis Archiepiscopi Opera Omnia. Volumen tertium continens orationes sine meditationes necnon epistolarum librum primum, ed. Schmitt, F. S. (Edinburgh, 1946), p. 151, lines 59–61 (Ep. xxxix)).Google Scholar

¹⁶ ‘Hoc etenim Dunstanus, egregius huius patrie archiepiscopus … ad corroborandum prefati sinodalis conuentus conciliabulum prouide ac sapienter addidit …’(§ 7, lines 92–5; trans. Regularis Concordia, ed. Symons, p. 4).Google Scholar

¹⁷ Cf. the discussion and relevant bibliographical notes in Kornexl, , Regularis Concordia, pp. xl–xli.Google Scholar

¹⁸ For the origin and promotion of this much-cited dictum, see Kornexl, , Regularis Concordia, p. xxxviGoogle Scholar and n. 20. A recent publication written in this vein is Dales, D. J., ‘The Spirit of the Regularis Concordia and the Hand of St Dunstan’, St Dunstan: his Life, Times and Cult, ed. Ramsay, et al. , pp. 45–56.Google Scholar

¹⁹ ‘Aelfrici abbatis epistula ad monachos Egneshamnenses directa’, ed. Nocent, H., Consuetudinum saeculi X/XI/XII monumenta non-Cluniacensia, ed. Hallinger, K., Corpus Consuetudinum Monasticarum [CCM] 7.3 (Siegburg, 1984), 149–85, at 155: ‘Therefore I present in writing these few things from the Liber consuetudinum which St Æthelwold, bishop of Winchester, together with his fellow bishops and the abbots at the time of Edgar, the most blessed king of the English, collected from everywhere and imposed upon the monks for their observance …’ (my translation deviates from Nocent's punctuation in placing the comma after obseruandum).Google Scholar

²⁰ ‘abbate quodam assiduo monente ac regiam catholice fidei uiam demonstrante …’(§ 1, lines 8–9). For scholarly comment on this passage, see the references cited in Kornexl, , Regularis Concordia, pp. xxxix–xl.Google Scholar

²¹ See ibid. pp. xliii–xliv.

²² See below, p. 116.Google Scholar

²³ Cf. Kornexl, , Regularis Concordia, pp. xlv–xlvi and n. 59. As outlined below, Æthelwold probably played a major part in the codification of these prayers in the RC.Google Scholar

²⁴ See ibid. pp. xlvii–I.

²⁵ [i] ‘We have also heard that, in churches of certain religious men, a practice has grown up whereby compunction of soul is aroused by means of the outward representation of that which is spiritual …’ [ii] ‘This manner of arousing religious compunction was, I think, devised by Catholic men for the purpose of setting forth clearly both the terror of that darkness which, at our Lord's Passion, struck the tripartite world with unwonted fear, and the consolation of that apostolic preaching which revealed to the whole world Christ obedient to his Father even unto death for the salvation of the human race.’ [iii] ‘Therefore it seemed good to us to insert these things so that if there be any to whose devotion they are pleasing, they may find therein the means of instructing those who are ignorant of this matter; no one, however, shall be forced to carry out this practice against his will’ (Regularis Concordia, ed. Symons, pp. 36–7).Google Scholar

²⁶ Hallinger, K., ‘Fleurys Einfluss auf die Synode von Winchester’, Consuetudinum saeculi X/XI/XII monumental Introductions, ed. Hallinger, , CCM 7.1 (Siegburg, 1984), 351–9, at 353.Google Scholar

²⁷ Cf. above, n. 11. For the identity of these advisers, see Lapidge, M., ‘Æthelwold as Scholar and Teacher’, Bishop Æthelwold, ed. Yorke, , pp. 89–117, at 98Google Scholar, and his introduction to Wulfstan of Winchester, ed. Lapidge, and Winterbottom, , p. lix.Google Scholar

²⁸ In this context, it seems important to remember that, if faithfully adhered to, the RC put a heavy burden on the monks and nuns even outside special seasons. On the basis of the summer horarium, Mary Berry arrives at the conclusion that, when retiring to bed around 8.30 p.m., ‘they had been up for about nineteen hours and of these about eleven had been spent in singing’ (‘What the Saxon Monks Sang: Music in Winchester in the Late Tenth Century’, Bishop Æthelwold, ed. Yorke, , pp. 149–60, at 151).Google Scholar

²⁹ See below, pp. 104–11.Google Scholar

³⁰ For a summary of the contents, see Kornexl, , Regularis Concordia, pp. Ixi–Ixxiii.Google Scholar

³¹ For embryonic forms of dramatic enactment in the performance of the liturgy, perhaps contributed to the RC by Æthelwold and expressly advocated by him, see ibid. p. Ixvi and nn. 46–7.

³² See ibid. p. Ixiii, and the bibliographical references provided there; cf. also above, n. 28.

³³ See Lapidge, , Wulfstan of Winchester, ed. Lapidge, and Winterbottom, , pp. Ix, lxvii (and n. 112) and lxxvGoogle Scholar; Kornexl, , Regularis Concordia, pp. xlvi (and n. 59), lxiii–lxiv (and n. 33) and clxxxvii, n. 14.Google Scholar

³⁴ See ibid. pp. lxxiii–lxxxiii.

³⁵ In contrast to the impression sometimes conveyed in scholarly publications, the typically English institution of monastic cathedrals presided over by monk-bishops, for which Æthelwold himself had set the model by expelling the secular clergy from the Old Minster in Winchester early in 964, is described in the RC as a potential configuration, but by no means as the only one possible; cf. § 9, lines 132–3: ‘… ubicumque in sede episcopali monachi regulares conuersantur …’(‘… wherever monks live the monastic life in a bishop's see …’; Regularis Concordia, ed. Symons, p. 6)Google Scholar. For a brief discussion and bibliographical references, see Kornexl, , Regularis Concordia, pp. Ixxviii–lxxix.Google Scholar

³⁶ See ibid. pp. lvii–lviii.

³⁷ See below, pp. 109–11.Google Scholar

³⁸ Symons, , Regularis Concordia, p. xxix.Google Scholar

³⁹ References sometimes tend to be very general (see Kornexl, , Regularis Concordia, pp. lix–lx)Google Scholar; cf. ‘… canentes antiphonas, que in antiphoniario continentur’ (§ 34, lines 785–6); ‘… nocturnale officium agatur secundum quod in antiphonario habetur’ (§ 37, lines 872–3; my italics). As demonstrated by these examples, the matter may be further complicated by terminological ambiguity: the first reference here is to a gradual, the second to an antiphoner (cf. notes on lines 785 and 873). For a detailed treatment of this complex field, see Gneuss, H., ‘Liturgical Books in Anglo-Saxon England and their Old English Terminology’, Learning and Literature in Anglo-Saxon England. Studies presented to Peter Clemoes on the Occasion of his Sixty-Fifth Birthday, ed. Lapidge, M. and Gneuss, H. (Cambridge, 1985), pp. 91–141Google Scholar, and idem, ‘Linguistic Borrowing and Old English Lexicography: Old English Terms for the Books of the Liturgy’, Problems of Old English Lexicography. Studies in Memory of Angus Cameron, ed. Bammesberger, A. (Regensburg, 1985), pp. 107–29.Google Scholar

⁴⁰ For a more detailed account of the state of scholarship concerning the sources of the RC, see Kornexl, , Regularis Concordia, pp. Ixxxiv–xcv.Google Scholar

⁴¹ .See Davril, A., ‘Un coutumier de Fleury du début du XI^e siècle’, RB 76 (1966), 351–4Google Scholar; ‘Consuetudines Floriacenses antiquiores’, ed. Davril, A. and Donnat, L., Consuetudinum saeculi X/XI/XII monumenta non-Cluniacensia, ed. Hallinger, , CCM 7.3, 3–60.Google Scholar

⁴² Davril, A., ‘Un moine de Fleury aux environs de l'an mil: Thierry, dit d'Amorbach’, Études ligériennes d'histoire et d' archéologie médiévales, ed. Louis, R. (Auxerre, 1975), pp. 97–104.Google Scholar

⁴³ See Hallinger's, investigation into ‘Fleurys Einfluss auf die Synode von Winchester’ (cited above, n. 26), especially his resumé at p. 354.Google Scholar

⁴⁴ On the manuscripts-London, British Library, Cotton Faustina B. iii and Cotton Tiberius A. iii – see Ker, N. R., Catalogue of Manuscripts Containing Anglo-Saxon (Oxford, 1957)Google Scholar, nos. 155 and 186. For the earlier dating of the Faustina text of the RC – s. x^ex as compared to s. xi^med – cf. Kornexl, , Regularis Concordia, p. cii.Google Scholar

⁴⁵ For details, see ibid. pp. cxliii–cxlvii.

⁴⁶ See ibid. pp. xcvi–c.

⁴⁷ Robinson, P. R., ‘Self-Contained Units in Composite Manuscripts of the Anglo-Saxon Period’, ASE 7 (1978), 231–8Google Scholar, and idem, ‘The “Booklet”: a Self-Contained Unit in Composite Manuscripts’, Codicologica 3: Essais typologiques (1980), 46–69Google Scholar. As indicated by these titles, ‘booklets’ were often combined to form composite volumes, but there is also evidence that they could circulate independently (cf. ‘The “Booklet”’, pp. 52–4)Google Scholar and ‘may have been bound with others at any time, even long after the Anglo-Saxon period’ (‘Self- Contained Units’, p. 234).Google Scholar

⁴⁸ For the reconstruction of the RC-booklet, which we chiefly owe to T. Symons and N. R. Ker, and for its largely unknown transmission, see Kornexl, , Regularis Concordia, pp. cxii–cxviGoogle Scholar. Ker was, however, wrong in attributing the Harley copy to Laurence Nowell (cf. ibid. p. cxiii–cxiv and nn. 69–70).

⁴⁹ Traces of a probably early modern binding on the first page of the Latin RC text (now Faustina B. iii, 159r) suggest that it may first have been destined to be kept separately but then became incorporated in the newly formed Faustina codex. Such subsequent regrouping was not unusual for Cotton and, in a different way, has also affected the Benedictine documents that originally preceded the other RC text in Tiberius A. iii (see below, n. 60).

⁵⁰ For indications that this leaf shared a common transmission with the actual booklet, see Ker, Catalogue, no. 155 (the subsequently inserted items on Faustina B. iii, fol. 158, are there erroneously described as a ‘list of popes’). Signs of wear on this single leaf may be indicative of its former function as the front part of a cover provided for the RC-booklet.

⁵¹ See below, p. 107.Google Scholar

⁵² See below, pp. 109–11Google Scholar. A major flaw was the lack of the original title which, by contrast, made the Tiberius text clearly identifiable as the ‘Regularis concordia’. For the long-winded, periphrastic designations applied to the Faustina version in early modern library catalogues, see Kornexl, , Regularis Concordia, p. cvi, n. 46.Google Scholar

⁵³ See ibid. pp. cix–cxi and the facsimiles of the pertinent folios on pp. cclxxiv–cclxxvii.

⁵⁴ Printed ibid. pp. 148–9.

⁵⁵ ‘Hodie in pace’ and ‘Redemptor animarum’, printed ibid.app. frit, line 1634, with a brief comment on pp. cx–cxi.

⁵⁶ See RC § 67, lines 1619–20 and app. crit.: ‘Domnus ille, abbas monasterii illius,…’, abbas with uel episcopus, illius with ęcclesiæ Cbristi in superscript.

⁵⁷ The first of these additional obituary notices begins as follows: ‘Gratia Dei archiepiscopus ille humilisque Christi ęcclesię monachorum cetus …’ (ibid. p. 148); for the slightly different wording of the introductory formula in the two other Christ Church variants, see ibid. p. 149, and p. cii, n. 22. Depending on their earlier dating (S. X^ex), T. Symons took the three notices as ‘clear evidence of the presence of monks at Christ Church, Canterbury, in the last years of the tenth century or at the beginning of the eleventh’ (‘The Introduction of Monks at Christ Church, Canterbury’, JTS 27 (1926), 409–11, at 411)Google Scholar. As N. Brooks has shown, however, no precise date can be given for the establishment of monks at Christ Church (The Early History of the Church of Canterbury. Christ Church from 597 to 1066 (Leicester, 1984), pp. 255–60), though recent excavations suggest that a monastic community may have existed there rather early in the reform period (private communication from Professor Brooks).Google Scholar

⁵⁸ See Kornexl, , Regularis Concordia, pp. lxxxii–lxxxiii, and the references given there.Google Scholar

⁵⁹ Ker, , Catalogue, p. 197 (no. 155); for further palaeographical detailsGoogle Scholar, see Kornexl, , Regularis Concordia, pp. ciii–cv.Google Scholar

⁶⁰ For a brief description of the history of the manuscript and the reconstruction of its original compilation – fols. 117–73, followed by fols. 2–116 – see ibid. pp. cxxi–cxxix. The divided entry no. 155 for Tiberius A. iii in London, British Library, Harley 6018, a library catalogue dating from Cotton's lifetime, where the items now on fols. 118–79 have been added by a different hand on a separate leaf, may indicate that Cotton had initially planned to remove this part entirely from the manuscript.

⁶¹ Ker, , Catalogue, p. 241Google Scholar (no. 186). Ælfric Bata's involvement with the RC version in Tiberius A. iii and with this volume requires further investigation; for a brief discussion of the evidence, see Kornexl, , Regularis Concordia, pp. cxxx–cxxxiv.Google Scholar

⁶² For details and bibliographical references, see ibid. pp. cxxxv–cxxxviii.

⁶³ See ibid. pp. cxxxviii–cxli.

⁶⁴ Deshman, R., ‘Benedictus Monarcha et Monachus: Early Medieval Ruler Theology and the Anglo-Saxon Reform’, FS 22 (1988), 204–40 and pls. XVIII–XXVIII, at 210.Google Scholar

⁶⁵ Budny, M. O., ‘British Library Manuscript Royal 1 E. VI: the Anatomy of an Anglo-Saxon Bible Fragment’ (unpubl. PhD dissertation, Univ. of London, 1984), p. 252.Google Scholar

⁶⁶ For a detailed analysis and comparison of both versions, see Kornexl, , Regularis Concordia, pp. cxliii–cxlvii.Google Scholar

⁶⁷ See ibid. pp. cvi–cvii.

⁶⁸ For the linguistic aspects of this term (cf. Med. Lat. circator), see ibid. pp. ccxxxi and 347–8, note on line 1377.

⁶⁹ See ibid. p. lxxiii, and pp. 383–4, note on line 1648. This stipulation attests to the fact that in pursuing their aims, the reformers not only depended on royal protection but also on the support of powerful laymen, likewise repaid by monastic prayer.

⁷⁰ See ibid. pp. 318, note on lines 1171–6, and 353–6, note on lines 1406–14.

⁷¹ See above, p. 103 and n. 39.

⁷² Hohler, C., ‘Some Service-Books of the Later Saxon Church’, Tenth-Century Studies, ed. Parsons, , pp. 60–83 and 217–27, at 74Google Scholar. Hohler's remark that ‘lessons and tracts in the 10th century were commonly in separate books, with inadequate cross-references’ (p. 223, n. 46) supports the above suspicion.Google Scholar

⁷³ For a discussion of the evidence and full references, see Kornexl, , Regularis Concordia, pp. li–lvi.Google Scholar

⁷⁴ ‘ex consuetudinibus eorum cenobiorum, quae nostro tempore maioris auctoritatis sunt in ordine monachorum’ (The Monastic Constitutions of Lanfranc, ed. and trans. Knowles, D. (London, 1951), p. 1Google Scholar; corrected reprint under the title Decreta Lanfranci Monachis Cantuariensibus Transmissa, CCM 3 (Siegburg, 1967), 1–149).Google Scholar

⁷⁵ See Kornexl, , Regularis Concordia, pp. clii–cliv.Google Scholar

⁷⁶ See ibid. pp. cxlix–clii.

⁷⁷ Printed by Schröer, A., ‘De Consuetudine Monachorum’, Englische Studien 9 (1886), 290–6Google Scholar, and E. Breck (see below, n. 90). The translation comprises §§ 36–43, lines 839–1038, of the RC.

⁷⁸ Cf. above, pp. 104–5.

⁷⁹ Ed. Zupitza, J., ‘Ein weiteres Bruchstück der Regularis concordia in altenglischer Sprache’, ASNSL 84 1890), 1–24 (corresponding to §§ 14–19, lines 241–356 of the RC.Google Scholar

⁸⁰ See below, p. 129.Google Scholar

⁸¹ For the incipit ‘Animę fratrum nostrorum’, as given in RC § 19, lines 349–50 — marking a prayer for departed brethren said daily after prime – the translation fragment offers the extended reading: ‘Anime fratrum 7 sororum nostrarum requiescant in pace’ (‘De Consuetudine Monachorum’, ed. Schröer, , p. 296.27–8Google Scholar; my italics). Similarly, in a prayer for a deceased monk, to be said instantaneously after receiving the news of his death from an affiliated monastery, the Tiberius version of the RC has uel eam inserted above eum in the phrase ‘nec eum patiaris cruciari gehennalibus flammis’ (§ 68, lines 1640–1, and see note on line 1640).

⁸² On particular forms of commemoration attested in the RC, see Kornexl, , Regularis Concordia, p. lxxiii, with references to relevant literature.Google Scholar

⁸³ See ibid. p. clv; the whole complex has recently been investigated in detail by Hill, J., ‘The “Regularis Concordia” and its Latin and Old English Reflexes’, RB 101 (1991), 299–315.Google Scholar

⁸⁴ For a more comprehensive account, see Kornexl, , Regularis Concordia, pp. clvi–clxviGoogle Scholar; annotated lists with bibliographical references to earlier, full and partial, editions of the RC and to major extracts printed from manuscript are to be found on pp. clxvii–clxix.

⁸⁵ On the extensive excerpts made for the purpose of linguistic and thematic studies by Franciscus Junius from the glossed text, see ibid. pp. cxli–cxlii.

⁸⁶ See ibid. pp. cxv–cxvi.

⁸⁷ ‘Liber de consuetudine monachorum, qui est aut idem quem Æthelwoldus Wintoniensis episcopus cum coepiscopis et abbatibus tempore Eadgari regis Anglorum collegit (de quo mentionem facit Ælfricus Abbas in epistola ad Egneshamenses fratres) aut certe ex eodem est desumptus.’

⁸⁸ Cf. the titles chosen by Schröer (above, n. 77) and Breck (below, n. 90) for their editions of the translation fragment.

⁸⁹ Logeman, W. S., ‘De Consuetudine Monachorum’, Anglia 13 (1891), 365–454.Google Scholar

⁹⁰ Breck, E., Fragment of Ælfric's Translation of Æthelwold's De Consuetudine Monachorum and its delation to Other MSS., Critically Edited from the MS. Cotton Tib. A. III. in the British Museum (Leipzig, 1887), p. 7. As his title reveals, Breck falsely ascribed the translation fragment to Ælfric.Google Scholar

⁹¹ Bateson, M., ‘Rules for Monks and Secular Canons after the Revival under King Edgar’, EHR 9 (1894), 690–708, at 700, n.*, and 701.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

⁹² Logeman, W. S., ‘De Consuetudine Monachorum’, Anglia 15 (1893), 20–40.Google Scholar

⁹³ ‘Regularis concordia Anglicae nationis’, ed. Symons, T., Spath, S., Wegener, M. and Hallinger, K., Consuetudinum saeculi X/XI/XII monumenta non-Cluniacensia, ed. Hallinger, CCM 7.3, 61–147Google Scholar. Though named first among those who prepared the text, Symons's role in the making of this edition remains largely obscure (see Kornexl, , Regularis Concordia, p. clxvi and n. 57).Google Scholar

⁹⁴ See ibid. p. clxiv. Modern scholarship has, however, deprecated the idea of a linear evolution of medieval English drama, beginning with the famous Quem quaeritis-trope in the Easter office of the RC (§ 51, lines 1223–54).

⁹⁵ See below, pp. 128–30.Google Scholar

⁹⁶ An outline of editorial policy and textual treatment is provided in ch. VII of my introduction.

⁹⁷ For a more detailed presentation of the evidence and full bibliographical references, see Kornexl, , Regularis Concordia, pp. clxx–clxxxiii.Google Scholar

⁹⁸ E.g. lariente, larigente, largente (F, lines 28, 107 and 134) for largiente (T), or reliosorum (T, line 244; TF, line 874) for religiosorum.

⁹⁹ Lapidge, M., ‘The Hermeneutic Style in Tenth-Century Anglo-Latin Literature’, ASE 4 (1975), 67–111Google Scholar; for a study of pertinent elements in the prologue of the RC, attesting to Æthelwold's authorship, see idem, ‘Æthelwold as Scholar and Teacher’ (cited above, n. 27), pp. 98–100.Google Scholar

¹⁰⁰ See the example cited above, p. 100.

¹⁰¹ Lapidge, , ‘Æthelwold as Scholar and Teacher’, p. 100.Google Scholar

¹⁰² For the kinds of ‘basic’ (mostly liturgical) texts which, according to our manuscript evidence, received systematic Old English glossing, see Wieland, G., ‘Latin Lemma – Latin Gloss: the Stepchild of Glossologists’, Mittellateinisches Jahrbuch 19 (1984), 91–9, at 91, n. 1Google Scholar; and Gneuss, H., ‘Glossen, Glossare: IV. Englische Literatur’, Lexicon des Mittelalters IV (Munich, 1989)Google Scholar, cols. 1513–14, at 1513. The pre-Conquest evidence for the library and scriptorium of Christ Church, Canterbury, where the RC gloss most probably originated, is assembled and evaluated in Brooks, , Early History, pp. 266–78; see especially pp. 276–7 on what ‘is shown to be a monastic library by its contents’.Google Scholar

¹⁰³ For scholarly discussion of the controversial concept of the ‘classbook’, see Kornexl, , Regularis Concordia, pp. clxxxv–clxxxvi.Google Scholar

¹⁰⁴ On ‘The World of Anglo-Saxon Learning’–yet to be fully explored – see Lendinara, P., The Cambridge Companion to Old English Literature, ed. Godden, M. and Lapidge, M. (Cambridge, 1991), pp. 264–81CrossRefGoogle Scholar. With reference to a passage in Ælfric's Colloquy, Professor Lendinara states that ‘Latin was the language of instruction; the vernacular had no place in ecclesiastical schools’ (p. 269). There is no room here for discussing this remark, whose latter part touches immediately on our topic. At any rate, in the light of Ælfric's own bilingual Grammar this notion seems somewhat strange.Google Scholar

¹⁰⁵ For a documentation of these various types of evidence, see Kornexl, , Regularis Concordia, pp. clxxxviii–cxcv.Google Scholar

¹⁰⁶ See ibid. p. cxcvi.

¹⁰⁷ See ibid. p. cxlvi, n. 20.

¹⁰⁸ For the pertinent distinction between ‘Vokabelübersetzung’ and ‘Kontextübersetzung’, see Götz, H., ‘Zur Bedeutungsanalyse und Darstellung althochdeutscher Glossen’, Beiträge zur Bedeutungserschliessung im althochdeutschen Wortschatz, ed. Grosse, R., Blum, S. and Götz, H., Sitzungsberichte der Sächsischen Akademie der Wissenschaften zu Leipzig, Phil. hist. Klasse, 118.1 (Berlin, 1977), 53–208, esp. 64–91.Google Scholar

¹⁰⁹ In this way, we sometimes get subtle ‘corrections’ of the original text: cf. OE singan ‘sing’ glossing Lat. dicere ‘say’ in lines 285 (be singe sealmas – dicat psalmos) and 612 (beon gesungenne hymnas – dicantur hymni); OE sittan ‘sit’ rendering Lat. recumbere ‘lie down’ in line 605 (sittendum him – recumbentibus eis), indicating that the above devotions were sung, and that the monks were sitting in their beds during the nightly asperges.

¹¹⁰ Wieland, G. R., The Latin Glosses on Arator and Prudentius in Cambridge University Library, MS Gg.5.35 (Toronto, 1983)Google Scholar; for a summary of the classification applied there, see idem, ‘Latin Lemma – Latin Gloss’, pp. 96–7. Wieland distinguishes the following five categories: glosses on prosody, lexical glosses, grammatical glosses, syntactical glosses and commentary glosses.Google Scholar

¹¹¹ For an exemplification of these types, see Kornexl, , Regularis Concordia, pp. ccxvii–ccxx.Google Scholar

¹¹² See below, pp. 126–7.Google Scholar

¹¹³ For syntactic glossing using signs and symbols, see Robinson, F. C., ‘Syntactical Glosses in Latin Manuscripts of Anglo-Saxon Provenance’, Speculum 48 (1973), 443–75CrossRefGoogle Scholar; and Korhammer, M., ‘Mittelalterliche Konstruktionshilfen und altenglische Wortstellung’, Scriptorium 34 (1980), 18–58. The two basic types of syntactic glossing – one using non-lexical codes, the other words – probably operate at two different levels. According to Dr Korhammer, syntactical glosses employing codes help the reader to understand the underlying Latin construction and cannot usually be taken as a transformational guide to natural Old English syntax. This effect is, however, partly achieved by lexical means.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

¹¹⁴ See Kornexl, , Regularis Concordia, pp. ccxx–ccxxi.Google Scholar

¹¹⁵ See ibid. pp. ccxxii–ccxxiv.

¹¹⁶ For a more detailed comment on these and further examples cited here, see the notes to the relevant lines.

¹¹⁷ Christopher Hohler's sceptical remark: ‘I should, on the contrary, quibble about the precise sense in which BM Cott. Tib. A. iii is a Christ Church book’ (‘Some Service-Books’, p. 220, n. 10)Google Scholar presumably refers to the texts assembled in this manuscript – and there can be no doubt that the exemplars of most of these were ‘imports’. The evidence for the Christ Church links of Tiberius A. iii needs to be systematically collected and newly evaluated in the light of recent research; for earlier work, see Förster, M., ‘Vom Fortleben antiker Sammellunare im Englischen und in anderen Volkssprachen’, Anglia 67/68 (1944), 1–171, at 43–54.Google Scholar

¹¹⁸ See the following linguistic analysis of the RC gloss, especially the section on its lexis (below, pp. 128–30). According to Hofstetter, W., Winchester and der spätaltenglische Sprachgebrauch. Untersuchungen zur geographischen und zeitlichen Verbreitung altenglischer Synonyme (Munich; 1987), nos. 14–15, the proportion of ‘Winchester words’ in the Old English gloss to the Benedictine Rule and to the Memoriale Qualiter amounts to 96.5% and 100%, respectively. Though both interlinear versions very likely originated in Winchester, their complex transmission presumably did not run on parallel paths; as shown by the above percentages and by the phonological evidence, they were also subject in different degrees to Canterbury influence.Google Scholar

¹¹⁹ See Brooks, , Early History, p. 276Google Scholar. The intensive study of Aldhelm at Canterbury in the reform period and the heavy glossing which texts by this author received there (cf. Hofstetter, Winchester, text no. 17), is reflected in a number of Aldhelmian glosses attested in the RC (see Kornexl, , Regularis Concordia, p. ccxxxv, n. 146).Google Scholar

¹²⁰ For a detailed account, see ibid. pp. cxcix–ccvi.

¹²¹ See ibid. p. cciii and nn. 59 and 61.

¹²² See ibid. pp. ccvi–ccxi.

¹²³ See e.g. notes on line 644, to uigilian = ad uigiliam, and line 1415, latanias = letanie.

¹²⁴ Funke, O., Die gelehrten lateinischen Lehn- und Fremdwörter in der altenglischen Literatur von der Mitte des X. Jahrhunderts bis um das Jahr 1066 (Halle, 1914), p. 44.Google Scholar

¹²⁵ Paper delivered at a workshop on Tiberius A. iii at the British Library on 9 August 1993 (organized by the Research Group on Manuscript Evidence at the Parker Library), and to be published.

¹²⁶ Cf. the remarks of Ball, C. J. E. in ‘The Form of the Dictionary of Old English’, A Plan for the Dictionary of Old English, ed. Frank, R. and Cameron, A. (Toronto, 1973), pp. 5–7, at 6.Google Scholar

¹²⁷ On the resultant types of loan-formations, see Kornexl, , Regularis Concordia, pp. ccxxvi–ccxxxGoogle Scholar. Characteristically, such formations are prevalent among hapax legomena and words that are attested several times in the RC gloss only; for lists of these two types of lexemes, see ibid. pp. ccxxxvii–ccxxxix.

¹²⁸ For the probable connection between loan-translating and Anglo-Saxon methods of etymological analysis, see Gneuss, H., ‘Anglicae linguae interpretatio: Language Contact, Lexical Borrowing and Glossing in Anglo-Saxon England’, PBA 82 (1993), 107–48, at 147–8.Google Scholar

¹²⁹ See Carpenter, C. W., The Systematic Exploitation of the Verbal Calque in German (Frankfurt am Main, 1973), p. 120, no. 203.7.Google Scholar

¹³⁰ See the two glossaries of religious terms, with or without Old English equivalents, in Kornexl, , Regularis Concordia, pp. ccxl–cclviiiGoogle Scholar, and the brief discussion of such vocabulary on p. ccxxxi.Google Scholar

¹³¹ Robinson, F. C., ‘Latin for Old English in Anglo-Saxon Manuscripts’, Language Form and Linguistic Variation. Papers dedicated to Angus McIntosh, ed. Anderson, J. (Amsterdam, 1982), pp. 395–400, at 398.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

¹³² A Microfiche Concordance to Old English, compiled by Healey, A. diPaolo, Venezky, R. L. and Butler, S. (Toronto, 1980)Google Scholar; A Microfiche Concordance to Old English: The High Frequency Words, compiled by Venezky, R. L. and Butler, S. (Toronto, 1985)Google Scholar; Dictionary of Old English, ed. Healey, A. diPaolo et al. (Toronto, 1986).Google Scholar

¹³³ Wenisch, F., Spezifisch anglisches Wortgut in den nordhumbrischen Interlinearglossierungen des Lukasevangeliums (Heidelberg, 1979)Google Scholar. The words in question are: be( a )cn (12 × ), lin (3 ×, plus an attestation of linwæda, not recorded by Wenisch), nænig (2 × ), foregan (1 × ), samnunga (1 ×), ambiht(hus) (1 × ); see ibid. pp. 131, n. 239, and 148–9 and nn. 354–8, and the evaluation on p. 327; for line references, cf. Kornexl, , Regularis Concordia, p. ccxxxii.Google Scholar

¹³⁴ Gneuss, H., ‘The Origin of Standard Old English and Æthelwold's School at Winchester’, ASE 1 (1972), 63–83Google Scholar; Hofstetter, Winchester (cited above, n. 118); for an outline of the method and results of this study, see idem, ‘Winchester and the Standardization of Old English Vocabulary’, ASE 17 (1988), 139–61.Google Scholar

¹³⁵ See Kornexl, , Regularis Concordia, pp. ccxxxii–ccxxxiii and note on line 766. According to Hofstetter (Winchester text no. 214), the one occurrence of gearcian amounts to a proportion of 3.13% ‘A words’ characteristic of Winchester usage in the RC gloss.Google Scholar

¹³⁶ See Seebold, E., ‘Die ae. Entsprechungen von lat. sapiens und prudens: Eine Untersuchung über die mundartliche Gliederung der ae. Literatur’, Anglia 92 (1974), 291–333Google Scholar; idem, ‘Was ist jütisch? Was ist kentisch?’, Britain 400–600: Language and History, ed. Bammesberger, A. and Wollmann, A. (Heidelberg, 1990), pp. 335–52Google Scholar; idem, ‘Kentish – and Old English Texts from Kent’, Words, Texts and Manuscripts, ed. Korhammer, et al. , pp. 409–34, at 422.Google Scholar

¹³⁷ Hofstetter, , Winchester, nos. 212–18Google Scholar, comprising the following works: Defensor's Liberscintillarum and the closely related De vitiis et peccatis in London, British Library, Royal 7. C. IV, the RC, prayers and forms of confession in London, British Library, Arundel 155, two sets of prognostics in Tiberius A. iii, 27v–32v and 32v–35v (the so-called Somniale Danielis and a ‘Sammellunar’), and the glosses to Prudentius in Boulogne-sur-Mer, Bibliotheque Municipale, 189, which have a Christ Church origin at least in part.

¹³⁸ For some further relevant items, see Kornexl, , Regularis Concordia, p. ccxxxiv.Google Scholar

¹³⁹ E.g. the adjective prinen ‘trinus’, also attested in the Arundel 155 prayers (see ibid, pp. 203–4, note on line 300, and the references there cited), and the loan-translation betwuxsendan ‘intermittere’, which, probably on account of the partial synonymy of Lat. intermittere and interpolare in the sense ‘interpolate, interrupt’, was found apt to render the latter lemma in the Durham Hymnal (see ibid. pp. 178–80, note on line 148). For a summary of the complex history of this text and its Old English gloss, and for the deviations from Winchester usage which copying and adaptation in Canterbury brought about, see Hofstetter, Winchester, text no. 12.

¹⁴⁰ I wish to thank Professors Helmut Gneuss and Michael Lapidge for reading an earlier version of this article and making valuable suggestions for improvement.