^{page 63 note 1} The most useful treatment presently available is that of Blair, Peter Hunter, The World of Bede (London, 1970).Google Scholar

^{page 63 note 2} Quotations are from the edition of Plummer, C., Venerabilis Baedae Opera Historica 1 (Oxford, 1896Google Scholar; henceforward Plummer), 364–87.

^{page 63 note 3} This occurs as homily 13 of Bk 1; see the edition of D. Hurst (Corpus Christianorum, Series Latina 122 (Turnhout, 195 5), 93). The passage is quoted below, p. 68, n. 1.

^{page 63 note 4} ‘Facta autem citissime basilica [Wearmouth] operis eximii … abbas Benedictus Roman ire disposuit, ut librorum copiam sanctorum, reliquiarum beatorum martyrum memoriam dulcem, historiarum canonicarum picturam merito uenerandam, sed et alia, quae consuerat, peregrini orbis dona, patriam referret’ (Plummer, p. 391). This, as Peter Hunter Blair notes (The World of Bede, p. 172), is a statement of intention, rather than a description of what was actually brought back. The statement of the anonymous Life, in connection with the journey that followed the building of Jarrow, is even more summary: ‘Insuper et Romam ire festinabat, quatinus ea, quae necesse essent monasteriis, que condiderat, de peregri patriam bona referret’ (Plummer, p. 392).

^{page 63 note 5} Historia Abbatum 3 (Plummet, p. 367).Google Scholar

^{page 63 note 6} I retain Bede's numbering of the journeys from England to Rome, not the marginal numbering given by Plummer in his edition.

^{page 64 note 1} Hist. Abb. 4 (Plummer, p. 367).

^{page 64 note 2} ibid.

^{page 64 note 3} An Early Manuscript of the Æsop Fables of Avianus and Related Manuscripts (Princeton, 1947), pp. 33–4Google Scholar. Goldschmidt cannot have read Bede with any degree of real attention, otherwise he would have noticed that Wearmouth had not been founded at the time of the third visit (when Vienne is mentioned), and that Bede specifically links the Apocalypse paintings with Rome and Benedict's next visit there. Goldschmidt's hypothesis has been repeated, uncritically, in other works: see, for example, Snyder, James, ‘The Reconstruction of an Early Christian Cycle of Illustrations for the Book of Revelation – the Trier Apocalypse’, Vigiliae Christianae 18 (1964), 147CrossRefGoogle Scholar. Its validity was questioned, not on the basis of an analysis of Bede, but on art-historical grounds, by von Juraschek, Franz (Die Apokalypse von Valenciennes, Veröffentlichungen der Gesellschaft für Österreichische Frühmittelalterforschung 1 (Linz a. d. Donau, 1954), 28).Google Scholar

^{page 64 note 4} Plummer does not provide a note on the empticios in his second volume. James Campbell in his translation of Bede (The Ecclesiastical History of the English People and other Selections (New York, 1968), p. 374Google Scholar) gives: ‘When he came to Vienne on his way back, he took possession of the books which he had bought and entrusted to friends there.’ Blair, Peter Hunter (The World of Bede, p. 160Google Scholar) paraphrases thus: ‘Benedict … as he travelled down the Rhône valley, commissioned other friends to make purchases for him and these he collected at Vienne on his way back to England.’ The same general interpretation will be found in numerous other works.

^{page 64 note 5} See the Thesaurus Linguae Latinae, s.v., with examples from classical and Christian authors.

^{page 64 note 6} See below, pp. 75–6. where further comments will also be made on the possible significance of Vienne as a stage in the journey.

^{page 65 note 1} Hist. Abb. 6 (Plummer, p. 368).

^{page 65 note 2} Hist. Abb. 4 (Plummer, p. 367).

^{page 65 note 3} This is another phrase of Bede that has often been misunderstood. Campbell, J. (The Ecclesiastical History, p. 375Google Scholar) translates, ‘to glaze the chapels, the porches and the refectories of his church’; Salzman, L. F. (Building in England down to 1540 (Oxford, 1952; repr., 1967), p. 173Google Scholar), ‘to make the windows of his chancels, chapels and cells’(!); Fisher, E. A. (The Greater Anglo-Saxon Churches (London, 1962), p. 85Google Scholar), ‘that they might glaze the windows of his Church, with the cloisters and refectories’; Taylor, H. M., (Anglo-Saxon Architecture iii (Cambridge, 1978)Google Scholar, 1061), ‘for covering the windows of this church, its cloisters and refectories’; and Davis-Weyer, C. (Early Medieval Art, 300–1150 (Englewood Cliffs, N.J., 1971), p. 73Google Scholar), ‘to glaze the windows of the Church, its side chapels and clerestory’. This last rendering comes closer to Bede but is not as accurate as that of Peter Hunter Blair (The World of Bede, p. 168), which I quote in my text. In addition to the reasons he puts forward for translating caenaculum as ‘upper storey’, I should point out that Bede consistently interprets this term to mean a room or place on a higher level; e.g. in his Commentary on Acts (‘cenaculum: locum in superiori designat’, ed. M. L. W. Laistner, of America Med. Acad. Pub. 35 (Cambridge, Mass., 1939), 9; see also pp. 14, 73 and 95), in his Commentary on Genesis (CCSL 118A, 110) and in his De Templo (CCSL 119A, 178, ‘cenacula in alto’, and passim). One is left wondering exactly how the ‘upper storeys’ of the church at Wearmouth were arranged, and whether they were not intended to have a symbolic link with Noah's ark and Solomon's temple. As regards the latticing (cancellare) of the windows with glass, it is worth noting Bede's comment on Proverbs vii.6 (‘De fenestra domus meae per cancellos prospexi’; Migne, Patrologia Latina 91, col. 962); ‘qui enim de fenestra per cancellos prospicit ipse ea quae foris aguntur plene considerare sufficit; nee tamen ipsum qui fotis est, intra legentem aspiciat’; Bede is clearly speaking from his own experience at Jarrow.

^{page 66 note 1} Hist. Abb. 5–6 (Plummer, p. 368): ‘Sed et cuncta quae ad altaris et aecclesiae ministerium competebant, uasa sancta, uel uestimenta, quia domi inuenire non potuit, de transmarinis regionibus aduectare religiosus emptor curabat. Et ut ea quoque quae nec in Gallia quidem repperiri ualebant, Romanis e finibus aecclesiae suae prouisor inpiger ornamenta uel munimenta conferret.’

^{page 66 note 2} ibid. 6 (Plummer, p. 369).

^{page 66 note 3} For a detailed discussion of these particular paintings, see below, pp. 72–4.

^{page 66 note 4} Blair, Hunter, The World of Bede, p. 176.Google Scholar

^{page 66 note 5} Hist. Abb. 9 (Plummer, p. 373).

^{page 67 note 1} ibid: ‘uerbi gratia, Isaac ligna, quibus inmolaretur portantem, et Dominum crucem in qua pateretur aeque portantem, proxima super inuicem regione, pictura coniunxit. Item serpenti in heremo a Moyse exaltato, Filium hominis in cruce exaltatum conparauit.’

^{page 67 note 2} A similar opinion was expressed by T. Frimmel, Die Apokalypse in den Bilderbandschriften des Mittelalters (Vienna, 1885), pp. 8–9. I know this reference only through Nolan, Barbara, The Gothic Visionary Perspective (Princeton, 1977), p. 56Google Scholar, n. 34.

^{page 67 note 3} E.g., Ernst Kitzinger, after alluding to the images spoken of by Bede, makes the following comment: ‘Intended for the adornment of the walls of the newly-built churches, these may well have been small-scale prototypes of the kind referred to, not more than a century later, in the Life of Saint Pancratius. However, the possibility cannot be excluded that they were full-sized paintings on wood or canvas that were bodily affixed to the walls’ (‘The Role of Miniature Painting in Mural Decoration’, The Place of Book Illumination in Byzantine Art (Princeton, 1975), pp. 118–19Google Scholar; emphasis mine).

^{page 67 note 4} E.g. in the various passages where Bede disposes of the interpretation given by some commentators to III Kings vi.8: ‘quam uidelicet sententiam nonnulli ita intelligent … quod longe aliter fuit. Nam si hoc uellet intellegi scriptura posset breuiter dicere …’ (In Genesim ii; CCSL 118A, 109); ‘quidam hunc locum male intellegentes putant … non attendentes quia si hoc significare uoluisset scriptura non ita diceret … sed ita potius simpliciter’ (De Templo 1; CCSL 119A, 165); and ‘non ut quidam putant hoc indicat … alioquin simpliciter diceret scriptura’ (In Regum, Quaest. xii; CCSL 119, 304).

^{page 67 note 5} Plummer (introduction, p. liii), makes this remark about Bede's style: ‘Bede's command of Latin is excellent, and his style is clear and limpid, and it is very seldom that we have to pause to think of the meaning of a sentence.’

^{page 68 note 1} It is particularly interesting to see how the enumeration is given in the homily on Benedict Biscop (Hom. 1.13; CCSL 122, 93): ‘Toties mari transito numquam ut est consuetudinis quibusdam uacuus et inutilis rediit sed nunc librorum copiam sanctorum nunc reliquiarum beatorum martyrum Christi munus uenerabile detulit nunc architectos ecdesiae fabricandae nunc uitrifactores ad fenestras eiusdem ornandas pariter ac muniendas nunc cantandi et in ecclesia per totum annum ministrandi secum magistros adduxit nunc epistulam priuilegii a domno papa missam qua nostra libertas ab omni extrinseca incursione tutaretur adportauit nunc pincturas sanctarum historiarum quae non ad ornamentum solummodo ecclesiae uerum et ad instructionem intuentium proponerentur aduexit uidelicet ut qui litterarum lectionem non possent opera domini et saluatoris nostri per ipsarum contuitum discerent imaginum’ (emphasis mine).

^{page 68 note 2} HE 1.25 (Plummer, p. 46).

^{page 68 note 3} It is not mentioned by Kitzinger, E., ‘The Cult of Images in the Age before Iconoclasm’, Dumbarton Oaks Papers 8 (1954), 85–150.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

^{page 68 note 4} In Bede and Gregory the Great (Jarrow Lecture 1964, 1 and 10) I suggested why the allusions to Gregory the Great in a passage of the De Templo might be linked with the arrival of Nothhelm at Jarrow with copies of the Gregorian letters. It is unusual for Bede to introduce later historical references into his scriptural commentaries. So the reflections on painting which occur here, and have no echo in any other work, seem to break into the thread of the commentary, and were probably prompted by some external event such as the news brought by Nothhelm. Bede specifically uses the present tense in introducing his defence: ‘notandum sane hoc in loco quia sunt qui putant …’ (De Templo ii; CCSL 119A, 212).

^{page 69 note 1} De Templo ii (CCSL 119A, 212–13); I quote only the last section: ‘Si enim licebat serpentem exaltari aeneum in ligno quern aspicientes filii Israhel uiuerent, cur non licet exaltationem domini saluatoris in cruce qua mortem uicit ad memoriam fidelibus depingendo reduci uel etiam alia eius miracula et sanationes quibus de eodem mortis auctore mirabiliter triumphauit cum horum aspectus multum saepe compunctionis soleat praestare contuentibus et eis quoque qui litteras ignorant quasi uiuam dominicae historiae pandere lectionem? Nam et pictura Graece id est uiua scriptura, uocatur. Si licuit duodecim boues aeneos facere qui mare superpositum ferentes quattuor mundi plagas terni respicerent, quid prohibet duodecim apostolos pingere quomodo euntes docerent omnes gentes baptizantes eos in nomine patris et filii et spiritus sancti uiua ut ita dixerim prae oculis omnium designare scriptura? Si eidem legi contrarium non fuit in eodem mari scalpturas histriatas in gyro decem cubitorum fieri, quomodo legi contrarium putabatur si historias sanctorum ac martyrum Christi sculpamus siue pingamus in tabulis qui per custodiam diuinae legis ad gloriam meruerunt aeternae retributionis attingere.’ Elsewhere (ibid. p. 209) Bede explains sculptura bistriata as ‘scalptura … quae historias rerum aliquas imitatur’.

^{page 70 note 1} I allude here specifically to the paintings brought by Benedict Biscop and mentioned in the Historia Abbatum. Elsewhere it is clear that Bede uses pictura to speak of manuscript illumination: e.g., in Aliquot Quaestionum Liber, Qwest, ii (PL 93, col. 456), ‘testatur pictura eiusdem libri, quam … Cudum Orientalium Anglorum antistes ueniens a Roma secum in Brittaniam detulit’; also in De Tabernaculo ii (CCSL H9A, 81), ‘in pictura Cassiodori Senatoris’; and De Templo ii (CCSL 119A, 192), ‘Cassiodorus Senator in pictura templi quam in pandecte posuit.’ It is less easy to see what medium he has in mind in his allusion to wall paintings in Quaest. vi of the Aliquot Quaestionum Liber (PL 93, col. 459): ‘Sicut ergo in paginis librorum quouis colore et mala possumus et bona absque ulla reprehensione figurare … Sicut autem in pictura parietum, neque obscurum Aethiopem candido, neque candidi corporis siue capilli Saxonem atro decet colore depingi …’ This suggests the work of local artists (rather than Roman ones) depicting the blond hair of the Saxons. A few art historians have taken it for granted that Benedict Biscop brought back panel paintings; for example, Henderson, George, Early Medieval [Style and Civilization] (Haimondsworth, 1972), p. 121.Google Scholar

^{page 70 note 2} Hist. Abb. 6 (Plummer, p. 369).

^{page 70 note 3} ibid. 9 (Plummer, p. 373).

^{page 70 note 4} ibid. 6 (Plummer, p. 369).

^{page 70 note 5} See, e.g., In Ezram et Neemiam iii (CCSL 119A, 370), ‘in Palestina non habent culmina in domibus sed aequales sunt domorum omnium summitates superpositis trabibus ac tabulatis’; and De Templo i (CCSL 119A, 169), ‘hie supremum ipsum domus tectum dicitur, id est tabulatum illud quod supremis trabibus superpositum erat’.

^{page 71 note 1} See De Templo i (CCSL 119A, 164), ‘Trabes … quae intrinsecus domum muniebant et ornabant tantae erant longitudinis ut capita earum forinsecus prominerent … atque in eisdem capitibus earum tabulata componerentur nequaquam muris ternpli infixa sed iuxta muros trabibus quae de muris exierant superposita.’

^{page 71 note 2} See, e.g., In Regum, Quaest. xiii (CCSL 119, 305–6), ‘Hoc … tabulatum in extrema summitate murorum templi uice cancellorum erat erectum ne qui ad superiora conscendens dum ad terminum tecti perueniret incaute progiediendo dilaberetur ad ima … Quibus uidelicet tabulatis uel muris uel cancellis cum ad tutelam uiae ponuntur uulgus luricularum nomen indidit.’

^{page 71 note 3} See De Templo i (CCSL 119A, 171), ‘tabulata quae interiorem domum ab exteriore separabant … Relictum uero erat supra haec tabulata apertum et inane … per quam nimirum ianuam fumus incensorum … solebat ascendere.’

^{page 71 note 4} See De Templo i (CCSL 119A, 173), ‘habetque domus in tabulis cedrinis tornaturas suas et coniuncturas fabre factas … tornaturae quae iuncturis tabularum apponebantur ut unum ex omnibus fieret tabulatum …‘

^{page 71 note 5} See De Templo i (CCSL 119A, 167), ‘Laquearia sunt tabulata quae magno decore composita et ornata ab inferiori parte trabibus adfiguntur’; In Regum, Quaest. xiii (CCSL 119, 305), ‘Laquearia sunt tabulata quae supposita trabibus adfiguntur clauibus decoremque picturae suae solent aspectantibus praemonstrare mirandum’; and In Cant. Cant. (PL 91, col. 1100), ‘Tigna et laquearia … in alto solent poni, sed tigna ad munitionem fiunt; laquearia uero magis decori domorutn quam munitione proficiunt.’ There is an interesting passage in ch. 26 of Bede's De Temporum Ratione (Baedae Opera de Temporibus, ed. C. W. Jones, Med. Acad. of America Pub. 41 (Cambridge, Mass., 1943), 229) that seems to reflect his experience at Jarrow or in some other church he had visited: ‘intrabis noctu in aliquam domum pergrandem, certe ecdesiam, longitudine latitudine et altitudine praestantem, et innumera lucernarum ardentium copia pro illius cuius natal is est martyris honore repletam. Inter quas duae maximae ac mirandi operis fari suis quaeque suspensae ad laquearia catensis … oculos ad faros et per faros ad contraposita laqueariorum vel parietis loca sustuleris …’

^{page 71 note 6} E.g., De Tabernaculo ii (CCSL 119A, 43), ‘erat tabernaculum domus … cuius quidem parietes tres … de tabulis sunt compacti ligneis …’, and passim.

^{page 71 note 7} For a good reproduction showing this feature see pl. vii of Bruce-Mitford's Jarrow lecture mentioned below. It is worth pointing out that this painting is erroneously described in many scholarly art books or articles as the ‘inner building of the temple at Jerusalem’; thus, to give only two examples, Bruce-Mitford, R. L. S., ‘The Art of Codex Amiatinus’ (Jarrow Lecture 1967), JBAA 3rd ser. 32 (1969), 15Google Scholar, ill. D and pl. vii, and Alexander, J. J. G., Insular Manuscripts, Sixth to the Ninth Century (London, 1978), p. 33Google Scholar and ill. 23. The evidence connected with this matter can be briefly summarized thus. We know from Cassiodorus's statements in his Commentary on ps. ixxxvi l (CCSL 98, 789) and in his Institutions i.v.2 (ed. R. A. B. Mynors (Oxford, 1937), p. 23) that he had caused images both of the tabernacle and of the temple to be inserted in his greater Latin pandect. This large copy of the bible eventually reached Jarrow, and Bede, as we know from his statements in De Tabernaculo ii (CCSL 119A, 81) and De Templo ii (CCSL 119A, 192), was familiar with both these images. The image on 2v of Codex Amiatinus, however, reproduces only the Cassiodoran image of the tabernacle. One can easily verify this by examining this image with Bede's treatise on the tabernacle in hand. All the features of the image correspond, and correspond only, with the details of the tabernacle. If the image of the temple was ever included in Amiatinus it has now been lost. To know whether any trace of it (or of the Cassiodoran image) survives we will need to await the study which Dr Christel Meier and Dr Heinz Meyer of the University of Miinster are preparing on the theme of the temple viewed as the Heavenly Jerusalem in the Middle Ages.

^{page 72 note 1} In Genesim ii (CCSL 118A, 112): ‘Tabulaeque ipsius tabernaculi, quae denos cubitos longitudinis ac latitudinis cubitum et semissem habere dicuntur, sexagenos cubitos longitudinis et nouenos latitudinis habebant; maioresque fuerunt quam uel generales siluae gignere soleant, uel tali aedificio conuenire aut manibus hominum circumferri facile possent.’

^{page 72 note 2} De Tabernaculo ii (CCSL 119A, 59): ‘Tabulae tabemaculo apostolos eorumque successores per quorum sermonem ecclesia per orbem dilatata est designant.’

^{page 72 note 3} De Tabernaculo ii (CCSL 119A, 60): ‘Denique uideamus unam de tabulis tabernaculi uidelicet apostolum Paulum …’

^{page 72 note 4} P. 70.

^{page 72 note 5} The World of Bede, p. 173.

^{page 73 note 1} HE i.12.

^{page 73 note 2} ibid.v.24.

^{page 73 note 3} ibid.iii.2.

^{page 73 note 4} Salzman, , Buildingin England, p. 160.Google Scholar

^{page 73 note 5} This is the rendering of Campbell, , The Ecclesiastical History, p. 376.Google Scholar

^{page 73 note 6} The World of Bede, p. 173.

^{page 73 note 7} Above, p. 71, n. 4, I quoted Bede's comment on how the cedar planks in the temple were joined together: ‘tornaturae quae iuncturis tabularum apponebantur ut unum ex omnibus fieret tabulatum’, that is, planks dowelled one to another, the dowels or round pegs having been produced on a lathe. Now there is a vivid passage in Bede's commentary on the Canticle of Canticles (PL 91, cols. 1166–7), which shows that he was personally familiar with lathe-work; see also De Templo i; CCSL 119A, 184. Examples of lathe-work in stone at Wearmouth and Jarrow dating from Bede's day still survive; see Cramp, Rosemary, Early Northumbrian Sculpture (Jarrow Lecture, 1965), p. 4Google Scholar and pl. 4. Was lathe-work in wood also performed at Wearmouth? If so, it would be interesting to speculate about whether the tabulatum that stretched across the church could have been held together in the same way as the one in the temple. It is not altogether clear from Bede's words whether the paintings were placed on a tabulatum, or perhaps formed the tabulatum.

^{page 74 note 1} Davis-Weyer, Early Medieval Art, p. 74, translates testudo as ‘arch’: ‘the similitude of the blessed mother of God and ever Virgin Mary, and also of the twelve apostles, with the which he might compass the central arch of the said church by means of a board running along from wall to wall’.

^{page 74 note 2} See Fisher, , The Greater Anglo-Saxon Churches, p. 87Google Scholar; Taylor, H. M. and Taylor, J., Anglo-Saxon Architecture i (Cambridge, 1965), 440Google Scholar: ‘The nave is of extraordinary height and length in proportion to its width, its internal dimensions being about 30 ft in height, 64 ft in length, and 18½ ft in width. Only the west wall now remains of the original structure, but this serves to fix the height and breadth beyond doubt.’ The remarkable height suggests what Bede indicates (see above, p. 65, n. j) that there were upper galleries or caenacula.

^{page 74 note 3} This may be a very conservative figure, but it is hard to know on what basis a calculation can be made. It would seem too hazardous to base oneself on the cycles of paintings (of the Apocalypse, for example) found in illuminated manuscripts, and try and relate what appears to be an average figure to the dimensions of the church. We know that the Apocalypse cycle was on the north wall (see above, p. 70). We also know that the length was 64 ft (see previous note). If 17 in., the width of the panels forming the tabulatum, could be considered an average width, we might attempt a division of length of the wall. But the fact that there was room to place Old and New Testament concordances one over the other leaves us uncertain about how many registers of paintings there were on a single wall, including the wall that displayed the Apocalypse.

^{page 75 note 1} ‘The Library of the Venerable Bede’, Bede, his Life, Times and Writings (Oxford, 1935), pp. 263–6Google Scholar. Professor Roger Ray, of Toledo University, and I hope some day to provide an updated list of this catalogue.

^{page 75 note 2} Vezin, J., ‘La Réalisation matérielle des manuscrits latins pendant le haut Moyen Age’, Codicologica 2 (Leiden, 1978), 38Google Scholar, points out that soft leather coverings were the exception, and that in the early Middle Ages wooden boards, about 1 cm thick, mainly of oak, were the rule. Such boards (total thickness of both together about ¾ in), would have added greatly to the weight of books.

^{page 75 note 3} The Homilies on Ezekiel would occupy two codices of about 300 folios each (cf. Codices Latini Antiquiores, ed. Lowe, E. A. (Oxford, 1934–1971Google Scholar) xi, no. 1597), the Homilies on the Gospel one codex of 337 folios (CLA xi, no. 1627), the Dialogues one codex of 242 folios (CLA iii, no. 309, erroneously cited as the Moralia), the Reguia Pastoralis one codex of at least 156 folios (CLA vi, no. 838). No complete early copy of the Moralia has survived, but we know that Gregory divided it into six parts or codices. On the basis of CLA v, no. 542 I have calculated that these could amount to about 1,134 folios in all. It should be remembered that Codex Amiatinus (the entire bible) actually contains 1,030 folios, its dimensions are about 14 x 20 in., its thickness in leaves alone is 8½ in. and including its boards 10 in.; the weight of this single, though admittedly exceptional codex is 75½ 1b 1 (See Bruce-Mitford, ‘The Art of Codex Amiatinus’, p. 2.)

^{page 75 note 4} Hist. Abb. 21 (Plummer, p. 385).

^{page 75 note 5} ibid. 34 (Plummer, p. 401).

^{page 75 note 6} The Life of Bishop Wilfrid by Eddius Stepbanus, ed. Colgrave, B. (Cambridge, 1927)Google Scholar, c. 13, p. 28: ‘isti sodales sancti ponincis nostri bene armati, viriles animo, pauci numero-erant enim centum viginiti viri in numero …’

^{page 76 note 1} This is suggested by the series of Gregory's letters to the bishops of Marseilles, Aries, Vienne’ Lyons and Autun.

^{page 76 note 2} In HE iv. 1 Bede writes, ‘qui cum per mare ad Massiliam ac deinde terram Arhelas [Aries] pervenissent’, and in Hist. Abb. 3 (Plummer, pp. 366–7) he indicates that Benedict Biscop accompanied them on this occasion.

^{page 76 note 3} Benedict Biscop's first contact with Vienne, near Lyons, probably dated from his first journey to Rome, which he began in the company of Wilfrid, as we know, not through Bede, but through Eddius's Life of Wilfrid, c. 3 (ed. Colgrave.p. 8). Wilfrid tarried at Lyons and Benedict, apparently annoyed at his delay, continued on to Italy without him.

^{page 76 note 4} On travel routes to Italy, see G. B. Parks, The ‘English Traveler to Italy, 1, The Middle Ages to 1525 (Rome, 1954). This work, however, is not altogether satisfactory for the period we are studying. Parks (p. 49) states that Benedict Biscop always travelled to Rome by land. This is by no means certain and Parks evidently overlooked the evidence linking Benedict's journey with that of Hadrian and Theodore by the sea route. There is no satisfactory study of the use of the Rhône for travel to and from Italy. The fact that the Rhône (unlike the Saône) was a fast-flowing river would certainly have presented advantages. We know that at the beginning of the nineteenth century, before the introduction of steamboats, boats could make the down trip, from Lyons to Aries, in two or three days, while the return journey, against the current and with the help of tow animals, might take from thirty to thirty-five days. The roads on the banks of the Rhône were good ones and had been in constant use since Roman times. See Faucher, Daniel, L'Homme et le Rhône (Paris, 1968), pp. 186–9Google Scholar. Even without the use of the Rhône from Aries to Vienne, the transportation of goods from Rome to Marseilles by boat would have saved considerable time and effort.

^{page 76 note 5} Charlemagne, however, was able to have heavy loads of marble (slabs and columns) and an equestrian statue in bronze brought all the way from Rome and Ravenna over the Alps to Aachen! I think that we seriously underrate the means of transportation which seventh- and eighth-century travellers had at their disposal to haul heavy loads over long distances.

^{page 76 note 6} See White, Lynn Jr, Medieval Technology and Social Change (Oxford, 1962), pp. 57–69Google Scholar. In default of explicit allusions in the sources it would seem legitimate to argue that if heavy loads were carried over long distances the means to effect such transportation were available.

^{page 77 note 1} If one wishes to examine this problem accurately, all its ramifications need to be kept in mind. To prove, for example, that the Valenciennes Apocalypse had an insular copy as its model (see Alexander, J. J. G., Insular Manuscripts, pp. 82–3Google Scholar and bibliography), establishes no necessary relationship between this copy and the painted Apocalypse panels in the church at Wearmouth. There seems little reason to doubt that many illuminated manuscripts must have crossed the Channel to England, both with Benedict Biscop and with other Anglo-Saxon travellers. The manuscript affiliations that can be established probably do not involve panel painting at any given stage; otherwise it would be hard to understand why only the Apocalypse panels were transposed onto parchment, and not the several other picture cycles present, as we have seen, at Wearmouth and Jarrow. Yet the illuminated manuscripts that survive – I think for example of the St Augustine Gospel book studied by F. Wormwald, or the Trier Apocalypse studied by R. Laufner and Peter Klein – to the extent that they can be shown to derive from Roman archtypes can help to give us some idea of the kind of paintings that Benedict Biscop brought back from Rome to hang on the walls of his two monastic churches.

^{page 77 note 2} This at least is the claim of Laistner, M. L. W., ‘The Latin Version of Acts Known to the Venerable Bede’, Harvard Theological Rev. 30 (1937), 37–50CrossRefGoogle Scholar, and Bedae Venerabilis Expositio Actuum Apostolorum et Retractatio (Cambridge, Mass., 1939), pp. xxxix–xl.Google Scholar