^{page 221 note 1} Turville-Petre, J., ‘Translations of a Lost Penitential Homily’, Traditio 19 (1963), 51.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

^{page 221 note 2} The best example is homily VII in the Second Series of Catholic Homilies (see The Homilies of the Anglo-Saxon Church: the First Part, containing the Sermones Catholici, or Homilies of Æfric, ed. B. Thorpe (London, 1844–1846)).Google Scholar

^{page 221 note 3} Turville-Petre, J., ‘Translations of a Lost Penitential Homily’, and ‘Sources of the Vernacular Homily in England, Norway and Iceland’, Arkiv för Nordisk Filologi 75 (1960)Google Scholar; and Cross, J. E., ‘Ubi Sunt Passages in Old English: Sources and Relationships’, Arsbok Vetenskaps-Societeten i Lund (1956)Google Scholar, and ‘The Dry Bones Speak-a Theme in some Old English Homilies’, JEGP 56 (1957).Google Scholar

^{page 221 note 4} J. Turville-Petre, ‘Translations of a Lost Penitential Homily’, p. 52.

^{page 222 note 1} Wulfstan's use of his own earlier work and of Ælfric is well documented in The Homilies of Wulfstan, ed. D. Bethurum (Oxford, 1957)Google Scholar. For the major examples of passages which Ælfric drew from his own earlier work see Clemoes, P. A. M., ‘The Chronology of Ælfric's Works', The Anglo-Saxons: Studies in some Aspects of their History and Culture presented to Bruce Dickins, ed. Clemoes, P. (London, 1959), pp. 246–7Google Scholar. Ælfric's use of the Old English translation of Bede was pointed out by Professor Whitelock in her lecture on ‘The Old English Bede’, Proc. of tie Brit. Acad. 48 (1962), 79Google Scholar, n. 10. Ælfric also reproduces a sentence from King Alfred's translation of the Pastoral Care (this has not, as far as I know, been noticed before): cf. Thorpe, , Catholic Homilies 11, 432Google Scholar, lines 317–4 with King Alfred's West-Saxon Version of Gregory's Pastoral Care, ed. H. Sweet, Early English Text Society o.s. 45 and 50 (London, 1871–1872), 1, 39Google Scholar, lines 16–18. The sentence comes originally from the Old Testament but the Old English is not a close rendering of the Latin and the identity of the two Old English versions cannot be coincidental.

^{page 223 note 1} The study which follows has benefited considerably from the advice of Professor P. A. M. Clemoes.

^{page 223 note 2} It has been printed by Thorpe, B. in his Ancient Laws and Institutes of England (London, 1840) 11, 130–6Google Scholar; by Spindler, R. in his Das altenglische Bussbuch (sog. Confessionale Pseudo-Egberti) (Leipzig, 1934), pp. 170–5Google Scholar; and most recently by J. Raith in the reprint of his Die altenglische Version des Halitgar' schen Bussbuches (sog. Poenitentiale Pseudo-Ecgberti), Bibliothek der angelsächsischen Prosa 13 (1933, repr. Darmstadt, 1964), pp. xli-xlvi. The title Ordo Confessionis is Raith's.

^{page 223 note 3} Spindler, , Confessionale Pseudo-Egberti, pp. 160 and 165–8.Google Scholar

^{page 223 note 4} ibid. p. 171.

^{page 223 note 5} Tiberius A. iii, 96V.

^{page 223 note 6} Logeman, H., ‘Anglo-Saxonica Minora’, Anglia 12 (1889), 513–15.Google Scholar

^{page 224 note 1} The equivalent passage is ch. 29 in The Old English Version of the Enlarged Rule of Chrodegang, ed. A. S. Napier, EETS o.s. 150 (London, 1916)Google Scholar, and ch. 31 in the Latin version printed in Migne, Patrologia Latina 89.

^{page 224 note 2} Thorpe, , Catholic Homilies 11, 98Google Scholar, lines 23–31 and 100, lines 97–11 and 19–22. For the corresponding passage in the address see Logeman, ‘Anglo-Saxonica Minora’, p. 513, line 30–p. 514, line 7 and p. 514, lines 16–21.

^{page 224 note 3} Logeman, ibid. p. 513.

^{page 224 note 4} Spindler, , Confessionale Pseudo-Egberti, pp. 132–5.Google Scholar

^{page 224 note 5} Ker, N. R., ‘Three Old English Texts in a Salisbury Pontifical, Cotton Tiberius C. i’, The Anglo-Saxons, ed. Clemoes, pp. 262–79.Google Scholar

^{page 224 note 6} These texts are part of a pseudo-Bede penitential (printed by Wasserschleben, F. W. H., Die Bussordnungen der abendländischen Kirche (Halle, 1851), pp. 252–6Google Scholar) and part of the Rule of Chrodegang (ch. 32 in the PL edition).

^{page 225 note 1} Ker, ‘Three OE Texts’, p. 276, lines 38–9.

^{page 225 note 2} Cf. Ker, ‘Three OE Texts’, p. 278, lines 4–10 with Spindler, , Confessianale Pseudo-Egberti, lines 15–19Google Scholar and Ker p. 279, lines 2–5 with Spindler lines 22–6.

^{page 225 note 3} Ker, ibid. p. 279, lines 9–13.

^{page 225 note 4} 4 See below, p. 226.

^{page 225 note 5} I was led to this text by the admirable index and the description of this manuscript in Ker's, N. R.Catalogue of Manuscripts containing Anglo-Saxon (Oxford, 1957).Google Scholar

^{page 225 note 6} Wulfstan: Sammlung der ihm zugeschriebenen Homilien, ed. A. Napier (Berlin, 1883), pp. 134–43.Google Scholar

^{page 226 note 1} All these parallels were noted by Jost, K., Wulfstanstudien (Berne, 1950), pp. 203–7Google Scholar, with the exception of the text in Laud Misc. 482, whose resemblance to part of Napier xxix was pointed out by Ker, N. R., Catalogue, p. 421.Google Scholar

^{page 226 note 2} Napier, , Wulfstan, p. 136Google Scholar, lines 1–5.

^{page 226 note 3} Jost, , Wulfstanstudien, pp. 204–5.Google Scholar

^{page 226 note 4} Old English Homilies of the Twelfth and Thirteenth Centuries, ed. R. Morris, EETS o.s. 34 (London, 1868)Google Scholar (Lambeth Homilies).

^{page 226 note 5} Sisam, C., ‘The Scribal Tradition of the Lambeth Homilies’, RES n.s. 2 (1951), 110Google Scholar, n. 4. Her reasons with regard to this particular item are not clear to me.

^{page 227 note 1} See Morris, , Lambeth Homilies, pp. 27–9Google Scholar; Napier, , Wulfstan, p. 135Google Scholar, lines 25–32; Ker, ‘Three OE Texts’, p. 279, lines 9–13; and ULC Ii.4.6, 228V 11–15.

^{page 227 note 2} See Morris, , Lambeth Homilies, p. 33Google Scholar; Die Vercelli-Homilien, ed. M. Förster, Bibliothek der angelsächsischen Prosa 12 (1932)Google Scholar, homily rv, lines 21–4; and Napier, Wulfstan, p. 148, lines 11–14.

^{page 227 note 3} See Morris, , Lambeth Homilies, p. 39Google Scholar and Thorpe, , Catholic Homilies 11, 102Google Scholar, lines 11–13.

^{page 227 note 4} Morris, , ‘Lambeth Homilies, p. 35Google Scholar, line 34–p. 37, line 2.

^{page 227 note 5} Thorpe, , Catholic Homilies 11, 602–8.Google Scholar

^{page 227 note 6} See Jost, , Wulfstanstudien, p. 205Google Scholar, n. 1.

^{page 227 note 7} See Sisam, K., Studies in the History of Old English Literature (Oxford, 1953), p. 166Google Scholar; Clemoes, ‘The Chronology of Ælfric's Works’, p. 218; and Pope, John C., Homilies of Ælfric: a Supplementary Collection, EETS 259–60 (London, 1967–1968), 1, 144Google Scholar, where the De Penitentia is listed as part of the Ælfric canon; and Jost, ibid.

^{page 228 note 1} Professor Clemoes (‘The Chronology of Ælfric's Works’, p. 222, n. 4) takes the view that the De Penitentia was an extract from an otherwise unknown letter by Ælfric.

^{page 228 note 2} Again I am indebted to Ker's, N. R.Catalogu for this reference (p. 81).Google Scholar

^{page 228 note 3} The Blicking Homilies, ed. R.Morris, EETSo.s. 58,63 and 73 (London, 1874–1880), 111Google Scholar, line 15–115, line 25.

^{page 229 note 1} Ælfric's Lives of Saints, ed. W. W. Skeat, EETS o.s. 76, 82, 94 and 114 (London, 1881–1900).Google Scholar

^{page 229 note 2} Clemoes, ‘The Chronology of Ælfric's Works’, p. 221, n. 2.

^{page 229 note 3} Catalogue, p. 344.

^{page 229 note 4} See Napier, , Wulfstan, p. 122Google Scholar, lines 4–9, p. 151, lines 9–14 and p. 306, lines 8–13, and ULC Ii.4.6, 230113–20.

^{page 229 note 5} Bethurum, , Homilies of Wulfstan, no. VIIIC, lines 148–53Google Scholar, and Napier, , Wulfstan, p. 302Google Scholar, lines 3–8.

^{page 229 note 6} As Professor Clemoes points out (‘The Chronology of Æfric's Works’, p. 221, n. 2), one small variation connects the Lambeth text more closely with the Lives of Saints homily than with the De Penitentia.

^{page 229 note 7} Lambeth 489, 35V25–3612.

^{page 230 note 1} Thus Napier XLVI, p. 241, line 13–p. 242, line 1 also occurs as Napier XXX, p. 151, lines 14–27; Napier XLVI, p. 232, line 24–p. 253, line 1 and p. 239, lines 8–12 also occurs as Napier LVIII, p. 302, line 28–p. 303, line 12; and the dialogue between a man's sins and his soul also occurs alongside the Institutes of Polity in Junius 121.

^{page 230 note 2} Napier, , Wulfstan, p. 238Google Scholar, lines 10–13.

^{page 230 note 3} Pope drew attention (Homilies of ÆIfric, pp. 772–4) not only to this example of the motif but also to the ones in Napier XXIX, Napier XLVI and the De Penitentia.

^{page 231 note 1} Pope, ibid. p. 772.

^{page 231 note 2} Cf. ‘Ealle þa synna be we her wyrceað, ealle hi beoð eft on us sylfum gesewene and geopenode, buton hiæher her on worulde gebette beon’ (Pope XXVII, lines 121–3) and ‘ðær þonne beoð on us sylfum gesyne and opene ealle ba gyltas, þe we æfre gefremedon and gedydon on þisum life ongean godes willan, buton hi beon ær her on worulde gebette gode to willan and us sylfum to bearfe’ (Napier, , Wulfstan, p. 149Google Scholar, lines 23–7).

^{page 231 note 3} Vercelli VIII, lines 12–15. Here and in other quotations from the Vercelli homilies I have silently incorporated minor corrections to the text proposed by the editor.

^{page 232 note 1} See helow, p. 237.

^{page 232 note 2} R. Willard, ‘Vercelli Homily VII and thev Christv’, PMLA 42 (1927).

^{page 232 note 3} 1272–81. I quote from Tie Exeter Book, ed. G. P. Krapp and E. V. K. Dobbie, The Anglo-Saxon Poetic Records 3 (New York, 1936).Google Scholar

^{page 233 note 1} E. B. Irving, ‘Latin Prose Sources for Old English Verse’, JEGP 56 (1957), 588–95.

^{page 233 note 2} For the provenance of all these manuscripts, see Ker, Catalogue.

^{page 233 note 3} See Clemoes, ‘The Chronology of Ælfric's Works’.

^{page 234 note 1} See Spindler, , Confessionals Pseudo-Egberti, p. 172Google Scholar, n. to line 31.

^{page 234 note 2} Thorpe, , Catholic Homilies 11, 604Google Scholar, lines 2–3; and Pope, , Homilies of Ælfric, no. XXVII, lines 121–3.Google Scholar

^{page 234 note 3} Vercelli VII, lines 17–20; Napier, Wulfstan, p. 136, lines 5–8; and Logeman, ‘Anglo-Saxonica Minora’, p. 513, lines 14–16.

^{page 234 note 4} 1310–11a.

^{page 234 note 5} Vercelli VIII, lines 10–11; Napier, Wulfstan, p. 135, lines 7–14; and Morris, Lambeth Homilies, p. 35, lines 30–1.

^{page 234 note 6} G See above, pp. 230 and 226.

^{page 235 note 1} See above, p. 229.

^{page 235 note 2} Spindler, , Confessionale Pseudo-Egberti, p. 147.Google Scholar

^{page 235 note 3} PL 100, col. 502. The letter is also edited as no. 280 in Dümmler, E., Epistolae Karolini Ævi IIGoogle Scholar, Monumenta Germanise Histoiica, Epistolae 4.

^{page 235 note 4} The manuscript is BM Harley 208. For the provenance, see Ker, , Catalogue, p. 304.Google Scholar

^{page 236 note 1} Sermo iv § 6 (PL 89, col. 85 ID). The authenticity of the fifteen sermons attributed to Boniface is in doubt. Objections have been raised by, amongst others, Giles, J. A. (Sancti Bonifacii Opera Omnia (London, 1844) ii, 268Google Scholar) and Hahn, H. (‘Die angeblichen Predigten des Bonifaz’, Forschungen zur deutschen Geschichte 24 (1884))Google Scholar. Both scholars consider the sermons to be more characteristic of a period slightly later than the time of Boniface.

^{page 236 note 2} See Spindler's discussion of the Ordo in the introduction to his edition; Jost, , Wuljstanstudien, pp. 204–5Google Scholar; and Pope, , Homilies of Ælfric, p. 774Google Scholar and n. 2.

^{page 236 note 3} The version of the motif in the Tiberius manuscript of the Ordo, which Spindler printed as a variant, is closer to the Boniface sentence than is the version in Spindler's main text, based on the Cambridge and Oxford manuscripts.

^{page 236 note 4} See above, p. 225.

^{page 236 note 5} Spindler, ‘Confessionale Psetudo-Egberti, p. 160.

^{page 236 note 6} See above, p. 233.

^{page 236 note 7} See above, p. 225.

^{page 237 note 1} See above, pp. 231–2.

^{page 237 note 2} See II Codice Vercellese, ed. M. Förster (Rome, 1913)Google Scholar, 66v20. Another version of this homily, Napier XLIX, has the devils as well as the other two hosts at this point; see below, p. 238.

^{page 237 note 3} See below, p. 238.

^{page 237 note 4} Vercelli VIII, lines 44–7.

^{page 237 note 5} The variant version of Vercelli 1 occurs in CCCC 162, CCCC 198 and CCCC 303, and Oxford, Bodeleian Library, Bodley 340. See the variant readings reported by Förster in his edition.

^{page 238 note 1} Assuming that the ‘Boniface’ sermons are authentic; see above, p. 236, n. 1. If, as Hahn argues, they are Carolingian in origin, the use of the motif may reflect the influence of Alcuin.

^{page 238 note 2} Napier, , Wulfstan, p. 254Google Scholar, lines 11–17.

^{page 239 note 1} Vercelli IV, lines 107–14.

^{page 239 note 2} Morris, , Blickling Homilies, p. 83Google Scholar, lines 8–10.

^{page 239 note 3} The Anglo-Saxon Minor Poems, ed. E. V. K. Dobbie, ASPR 6 (New York, 1942)Google Scholar, lines 93–5. Similarities between parts of this poem and the motif as it appears in Napier XXIX have been noted by Whitbread, L. (‘“Wulfstan” Homilies XXIX, XXX and Some Related Texts’, Anglia 81 (1963))Google Scholar, who suggests that the poem was a source for the motif. The evidence adduced does not seem to me to substantiate this view; the sermon by Boniface affords a much closer parallel to the motif than the poem does.

^{page 239 note 4} Bethurum, Homilies of Wulfstan, no. VII, lines 107–9 and 115–16.