^{page 131 note 1} Holschneider, A., Die Organa von Winchester (Hildesheim, 1968) with complete bibliographyGoogle Scholar; Bishop, T. A. M., English Caroline Minuscule (Oxford, 1971), p. xiGoogle Scholar, n. 1 and item 27.

^{page 131 note 2} There is a pressing need for a full length study of the first portion of BM Cotton Caligula A. xiv, involving the cooperative efforts of scholars in art history, medieval Latin poetry, palaeography and music. I offer a small point as a possible incentive for such a study. The first miniature in the manuscript, that of St Stephen on 3v, is an addition. It is the only painting to have a gold border and the only one to have the writing around the outside border set on a rather dark piece of vellum. It is almost as though the artist responsible for obliterating the original writing (and/or another miniature ?) was unable to execute the task successfully.

^{page 131 note 3} BM Egerton 3759 (s. xiii¹) (see Turner, D. H., ‘The Crowland Gradual: an English Benedictine Manuscript’, Ephemerides Lifurgicae 74 (1960), 168–74);Google Scholar BM Add. 52359 (s. xiv in.)(see Turner, D. H., ‘The Penwortham Breviary’, Brit. Museum Quarterly 28 (1964), 85–8)CrossRefGoogle Scholar; New York, Pierpont Morgan Library, M. 926 (s. xi, containing the earliest recension of the Office of St Alban and a practically complete portion of the music for an Office of St Birinus) (see Hartzell, K. D., ‘A St Albans Miscellany in New York’, Mittellateinisches Jahrbuch 10 (1975), 20–61).Google Scholar. Hohler, C., ‘The Durham Services in Honour of St Cuthbert’, The Relics of Saint Cutbbert, ed. Battiscombe, C. F. (Durham, 1956), pp. 155–91Google Scholar, is a seminal paper for many areas.

^{page 132 note 1} The Winchester Troper, ed. Frere, W. H., Henry Bradshaw Soc. 8 (London, 1894)Google Scholar; Frere, W. H., Bibliotheca Musico-Liturgica, Plainsong and Med. Music Soc, 4 fascicles in 2 vols. (London, 1894–1932Google Scholar; repr. Hildesheim, 1967); Anselm, Hughes, Anglo-French Sequelae Edited from the Papers of the Late Henry Marriott Bannister (Burnham and London, 1934)Google Scholar; Husmann, H., Tropen-und Sequenzenhandscbriften (Munich, 1964).Google Scholar

^{page 132 note 2} An exception is Holschneider, Die Organa von Winchester. Gjerløw, L. has published the English missal fragment in Oslo and a few facsimiles in Adoratio Crucis (Oslo, 1961).Google Scholar Sotheby's sale catalogue of 12 July 1971 contains a plate of a noted folio of the recently discovered ‘Anderson’ Pontifical, now BM Add. 57357. This important manuscript is inventoried in Brückmann, J., ‘Latin Manuscript Pontificals and Benedictionals in England and Wales’, Traditio 29 (1975), 391–458CrossRefGoogle Scholar, a valuable bibliographical survey, which, unaccountably and incredibly, does not state which of the sources contain music. No comprehensive listing of service books with music other than Frere's exists, but such a list can be initiated by consulting the publications of the Henry Bradshaw Society.

^{page 132 note 3} Mynors, R. A. B., Durbam Cathedral Manuscripts to the End of the Twelfth Century (Durham, 1939).Google Scholar

^{page 132 note 4} Rud's catalogue was printed by Raine, J. (Catalogi Veteres Librorum Ecclesiae Cathedralis Dunelmensis, Surtees Soc. 1 (London, 1838), 139–91)Google Scholar. The description of the Cosin Gradual is on p. 179.

^{page 132 note 5} Professor Gneuss has kindly informed me that he has referred to the manuscript three times in print: see his review of Ker, N. R., English Manuscripts in the Century after the Norman Conquest, Anglia 78 (1960), 493f.Google Scholar; Hymnar und Hymnen im englischen Mittelalter (Tübingen, 1968), p. 245; ‘Latin Hymns in Medieval England: Future Research’, Chaucer and Middle English Studies in Honour of Rossell Hope Robbins, ed. Rowland, B. (London, 1974), p. 424, n. 41.Google Scholar

^{page 133 note 1} Published by the rector of Jarrow, Jarrow on Tyne, 1972.

^{page 133 note 2} The proses are as follows (RH = Chevalier, U., Repertorium Hynmologicum, 6 vols. (Louvain. 1892–1921)Google Scholar, and AH = Dreves, G. M., Blume, C. and Bannister, H. M., Anakcta Hymnica Medii, Aevi, 55 vols. (Leipzig, 1886–1922)Google Scholar):

^{page 134 note 1} The first three prosulae are those found in the series in Worcester, Cathedral Librar F. 160, printed in The Winchester Troper, ed. Frere, pp. 125ff. For the term ‘prosula’, cf. Evans, P.The Early Trope Repertory of Saint Martial de Limoges (Princeton, 1970), pp. 9–15.Google Scholar

^{page 134 note 2} The Kyries and Glorias with textual addition are as follows (WT = The Winches Troper, ed. Frere, , a WT page number in triple figures signifying a trope which is not in either Winchester manuscriptsGoogle Scholar; numbers from RH are given where thought necessary):

^{page 135 note 1} I should like to thank Mr T. A. M. Bishop for confirming this. He is inclined to date the scribe possibly very late-eleventh-century or early-twelfth. Dr N. R. Ker has also informed me that he believes it to date from s. xi–xii.

^{page 135 note 2} Kantorowicz, E., Laudes regiae (Berkeley, 1946)Google Scholar and Opfermann, B., Die liturgiscben Herrscberakklamationen des Mittelalters (Weimar, 1953).Google Scholar

^{page 135 note 3} The Sanctus and Agnus settings with textual addition are as follows:

^{page 136 note 1} Huglo, M., Les Tonaires (Paris, 1971).Google Scholar

^{page 136 note 2} The proses are as follows:

^{page 136 note 3} See above, p. 135, n. 2. The Laudes are on pls. 201 and 202.

^{page 136 note 4} I owe this point to Professor Gneuss.

^{page 136 note 5} The manuscript may have originally contained at least three other decorated initials. The Kyriale opens imperfectly but may have only one leaf missing. The Temporale may also have only one leaf missing. A hypothetical lay-out of the pages preceding each imperfect beginning confirms these points. The R of Resurrexi, the first word of the Introit for Easter, almost certainly would have been elaborately decorated, thus making at least three other initials to add to the two now existing. I do not include the clumsy G which introduces the settings of Gloria in excelsis in this list of initials.

^{page 137 note 1} C. R. Dodwell kindly confirmed this a few years ago. See Dodwell, , The Canterbury School of Illumination 1066–1200 (Cambridge, 1954).Google Scholar. The colouring in Cosin V. V. 6 is not so strong as that found in some of the ‘Lanfranc’ books such as Cambridge, Trinity College B. 5. 28 or Cambridge, University Library, Ff. 3. 9.

^{page 137 note 2} Abbaye Saint-Pierre de, Solesmes, Le Graduel Romain, Édition Critique par les Moines de Solesmes, pt II, Les Sources (Solesmes, 1957).Google Scholar

^{page 137 note 3} Le Graduel Romain, pt IV, Le Texfe Neumatique, 1: Le Groupement des Manuscrits (Solesmes, 1960).

^{page 137 note 4} I hope to publish a detailed explanation of this project in the near future.

^{page 137 note 5} The Missal of the New Minster, Winchester, ed. Turner, D. H., Henry Bradshaw Soc. 93 (London, 1962), App., p. 3.Google Scholar

^{page 138 note 1} Worcester F. 160 and Rawlinson C. 892 are closer to each other than to any of the other sources. This is not surprising when we recall that Worcester is known to have derived some of its pre-Conquest liturgical books from Winchester. Worcester, F. 173, a substantial fragment of an early-eleventh-century noted missal, was written at Winchester. Warren, F. E., ‘An Anglo-Saxon Missal at Worcester’, The Academy, 12 12 1885, pp. 394–5.Google Scholar For more on the Corbie-St, Denis-Worcester-Ireland ‘cocoon’, see Le Groupement des Manuscrits, p. 245.Google Scholar

^{page 138 note 2} See below, Appendix.

^{page 138 note 3} Huglo, M., ‘Les Listes Alleluiatiques dans les Temoins du Graduel Grégorien’, Speculum Musicae Artis. Festschrift Heinricb Husmann zum 60. Geburtstag (Munich, 1969), pp. 219–27.Google ScholarThe Bee Missal, ed. Hughes, A., Henry Bradshaw Soc. 94 (London, 1963), xi–xiiiGoogle Scholar, the work of D. H. Turner. Leningrad O. v. 1. 6 and Cosin V. V. 6 should be added to his list. For the Leningrad manuscript, see Consuetudines Beccenses, ed. Dickson, M. P., Corpus Consuetudinum Monasticarum 4 (Siegburg, 1967), xii, n. 19.Google Scholar

^{page 139 note 1} The Monastic Constitutions of Lanfranc, ed. Knowles, D. (London, 1951), p. xxii.Google Scholar

^{page 139 note 2} Knowles, ibid. p. xxiii. quoting Mynors, Durham Cathedral Manuscripts, p. 45. Durham B. II. 10, letters of St Jerome, came to Durham from Christ Church in this period: ‘in a hand characteristic of Christ Church, Canterbury’ (Mynors, ibid. p. 37); ‘was, I believe, brought from Christ Church’ (Dodwell, Canterbury School of Illumination, p. 116, n. 2). The beginning of the passage DORMIENTEM TE ET MULTO iam tempore shown by Mynors's pl. 26 exhibits the same type of structure in the passage in capitals as that in the passage in Cosin V. V. 6 PUER NATUS est nobis (3or), i.e., some letters are made to fit inside others if space is lacking on the line but not to protrude outside the horizontal guidelines. Another such passage in V. V. 6 is the beginning of the settings of Gloria in excelsis on 13r. Many of the Carilef books have no such crowding of letters. They are simply strung out in common style.

^{page 140 note 1} So T. A. M. Bishop.

^{page 140 note 2} For English and Norman writing in the late eleventh century, see Ker, N. R., English Manuscripts in the Century after the Norman Conquest (Oxford, 1960), ch. v, pp. 22–32.Google Scholar

^{page 140 note 3} The listing of post-Pentecost alleluias in Missale ad Usum Ecclesiae Westmonasteriensis (ed. Wick-ham Legg, J., 3 vols., Henry Bradshaw Soc. 1, 5 and 12 (London, 1891–1897), 111, 1487–501)Google Scholar doesnot faithfully include all of those mentioned in the Harley Missal.

^{page 140 note 4} See above, p. 132, n. 4.

^{page 141 note 1} An earlier version of this paper was read at the Eighth Conference on Medieval Studies at Western Michigan University. I would like to thank the Research Foundation of the State University of New York for generous support in 1971 and 1972 in the form of Faculty Research Fellowships. I would also like to thank Messrs Bishop, Doyle, Gneuss, Hohler and Ker for reading this paper and for making comments, many of which I have tried to follow. I am especially grateful to Christopher Hohler for discussing the implications of the computer study at great length.

^{page 142 note 1} The original reading was C. It was altered to B very soon after writing. At the third appearance of the motive, the reading, unaltered, is C.

^{page 142 note 2} A later hand has entered C. As far as I can tell, that is what the original read. The first neum began below the bottom line of the three-line staff and the repeated os are all faintly visible between the bottom two lines. The passage is at present noted on a three-line staff.

^{page 142 note 3} A later hand has entered B. As far as I can tell, that is what the original read. This case was difficult to decide. The passage is at present noted on a three-line staff.

^{page 142 note 4} A later hand has entered B. As far as I can tell, that is what the original read. The passage is at present noted on a three-line staff.

^{page 143 note 1} Taking the reading in the Graduate Romanum as a guide, 102 seems to be B. I argue from the manner in which the parchment has been disturbed. Part of the neum on ‘fa-ciet” is still visible.

^{page 143 note 2} This appears to be A, but it is very hard to read.

^{page 143 note 3} This also appears to be A, but again it is very hard to read. My decision is based on the neums before it and on the location of the erasures.

^{page 143 note 4} A later hand has entered A. As far as I can tell, that is what the original read. The passage is at present noted on a three-line staff.