^{page 223 note 1} This article owes a considerable debt to many earlier works, including Jost, Karl, Wulfstanstudien (Bern, 1950)Google Scholar; The Homilies of Wulfstan, ed. Bethurum, Dorothy (Oxford, 1957;Google Scholar cited as Bethurum); Ker, N. R., Catalogue of Manuscripts containing Anglo-Saxon (Oxford, 1957Google Scholar; cited as Ker); and Homilies of Ælfric: a Supplementary Collection, ed. Pope, John C., Early Eng. Text Soc. 259–60 (London, 1967–1968Google Scholar; cited as Pope). It also owes a great deal to conversations with Peter Clemoes who has brought me to an understanding beyond my native reach. Joyce Bazire, J. E. Cross and Malcolm Godden read an early draft and made many helpful suggestions and comments. I use the following further abbreviations: Assmann, = Angelsächsische Homilien und Heiligenleben, ed. Assmann, Bruno, Bibliothek, der angelsächsischen Prosa 3 (Kassel, 1889Google Scholar; repr., with supplementary intro. by Peter Clemoes, Darmstadt, 1964); Belfour, = Twelfth Century Homilies in MS Bodley 343, ed. Belfour, A. O., EETS o.s. 137 (London, 1909Google Scholar); Brotanek = Brotanek, R., Texte und Untersuchungen zur altenglischen Literatur und Kirchengeschichte (Halle, 1913)Google Scholar; Clemoes = the forthcoming edition of the First Series of Ælfric's Catholic Homilies by Peter Clemoes; Förster, = Die Vercelli-Homilien: I–VIII Homilie, ed. Förster, Max, BdaP 12 (Hamburg, 1932; repr., Darmstadt, 1964)Google Scholar; Godden, = Ælfric's Catholic Homilies: the Second Series, Text, ed. Godden, Malcolm, EETS s.s. 5 (London, 1979)Google Scholar; Napier, = Wulfstan: Sammlung der ihm zugeschriehenen Homilien, ed. Napier, Arthur (Berlin, 1883Google Scholar; repr., with a bibliographical supplement by Klaus Ostheeren, Dublin and Zurich, 1967); and Skeat, = Ælfric's Lives of Saints, ed. Skeat, Walter W., EETS o.s. 76, 82, 94 and 114 (London, 1881–1900)Google Scholar. A reference such as Assmann xiv indicates the homily so published whether the editor collated the manuscript in question or not; similarly a reference such as Vercelli 1 refers to a copy of the homily concerned wherever it occurs, not just to that in the manuscript named in the reference. I am grateful to the Master and Fellows of Corpus Christi College, Cambridge, and to the Keepers of manuscripts in the Bodleian Library and the British Library for giving me access to unpublished manuscripts in their care.

^{page 223 note 2} See especially The Life of St Chad, ed. Vleeskruyer, R. (Amsterdam, 1953).Google Scholar

^{page 224 note 1} Calls to confession of an individual are linked with other confessional texts, but they are associated by content with addresses to congregations which in turn are like homilies. Any boundary drawn in this area must be arbitrary.

^{page 224 note 2} Since some manuscripts draw upon a variety of sources, representing different stages of transmission, the siglum in such a case cannot reflect all the relations of the manuscript or its range of textual authority.

^{page 225 note 1} When ‘(S)’ follows a Ker number, see, as well as the main Catalogue, Ker, N. R., ‘A Supplement to Catalogue of Manuscripts containing Anglo-Saxon’, ASE 5 (1976), 121–31.Google Scholar

^{page 225 note 2} In each case I give the entry number that the manuscript has in Ker's Catalogue to facilitate reference to that work for further information, including bibliographical information for the period up to the publication of the Catalogue. Subsequent publications concerned with the Vercelli Book have included The Vercelli Book, ed. Sisam, Celia, EEMF 19 (Copenhagen, 1976)Google Scholar, and Scragg, D. G., ‘The Compilation of the Vercelli Book’, ASE 2 (1973), 189–207.Google Scholar

^{page 225 note 3} I give Ker's dating in each case. When my discussion is confined to part of a manuscript, I give only the dating relevant to that part.

^{page 225 note 4} Celia Sisam has suggested a date for the codex rather later than that usually accepted (The Vercelli Book, p. 36). On the basis of references in homily xi to the coming end of the world and to the spoliation of churches, she sees the book as being compiled after the payment of Danegeld began in 991 or even early in the eleventh century. But the comments, although they refer to present times of hardship, especially for the church, are far from specific, and Rudolph Willard's edition of the homily (‘Vercelli Homily xi and its Sources’ Speculum 24 (1949), 76–87Google Scholar) prints some pertinent parallels from earlier Latin tradition. In view of the palaeographical evidence, especially the distinctive g found in three charters of s. x(²) (see Sisam, ibid. introduction, p. 21, n. 4), it seems to me safer to accept the earlier date.

^{page 225 note 5} See Scragg, ‘Compilation’.

^{page 225 note 6} Throughout this survey an item is identified by the reference number given to it by Angus Cameron in his ‘A List of Old English Texts’, A Plan for the Dictionary of Old English, ed. Roberta Frank and Angus Cameron (Toronto, 1973). For reference to an edition or editions (if any) in which an item has been published, see the appendix, below, pp. 267–77, arranged under the Cameron numbers.

^{page 225 note 7} See below, p. 239.

^{page 225 note 8} See below, p. 248, n.4.

^{page 229 note 1} I See below, p. 247.

^{page 229 note 2} See below, p. 249.

^{page 229 note 3} See Turville-Petre, Joan, ‘Translations of a Lost Penitential Homily’, Traditio 19 (1963), 51–78.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

^{page 229 note 4} See ibid.

^{page 229 note 5} See below, p. 239.

^{page 229 note 6} See Förster, p. 80, lines 78–80, where to A's ne mæg se fæder helpan pam suna ne sunu pam fæder D adds ne dobtor pære meder and R ne seomodor pære dehter ne seo dohtor pære meder. But the expansion is an obvious one and may have been made independently. R is unlikely to derive from D (although both manuscripts are associated with Exeter) since it avoids D's error of ær for ber in line 4.

^{page 229 note 7} See Scragg, D. G., ‘Napier's “Wulfstan” Homily xxx: its Sources, its Relationship to the Vercelli Book and its Style’, ASE 6 (1977), 197–211.Google Scholar

^{page 229 note 8} See below, p. 238.

^{page 229 note 9} See Scragg, ‘Compilation’, pp. 190–1.

^{page 229 note 10} The corrupt passages are dealt with very fully in Förster's notes. Mistakes occur in both English and Latin. Many are corrected in E by an eleventh-century annotator.

^{page 229 note 11} See below, p. 233, n. 1.

^{page 230 note 1} See below, p. 247.

^{page 230 note 2} See below, pp. 232 and 243.

^{page 230 note 3} See below, p. 249, n. 3.

^{page 230 note 4} A's text is unpublished; N is printed by Napier, with collations from B and K (his A, b and D).

^{page 230 note 5} See below, p. 232.

^{page 230 note 6} They have occasional additions in common, e.g. smice (smece) at Napier 264.1, and a reference to the laity at 263.20. (The references to Napier are by page and line.)

^{page 230 note 7} Usually these are of word order, inflection and spelling. More rarely they are of substance, e.g. 258.15 A woruldrice, K worulde, JkN woruldlife (k = the shortened version in K); 259.3–4 A eall bit is min, K min hit is eall, JkN min is eal (l) þæt þu bæfst (bafast).

^{page 230 note 8} Compare A's preamble (65r-v): he sylf gecwæð his halegan muðe: ‘Þeah man anum men godspel secge, þonne bio ic þæronmiddan’. 7 þam bioð synna forgifene þe ðæt godspel segð 7 gecwið, 7 synna bam bioð forgifene þe hit for Godes naman lustlice gehyreð, 7 bam bið wa æfre geworht þe secgan can 7 nele, forðam men sculon þurh ða godcundan lare becuman to life.

Napier XLIV (219.15–21): Forþon þe Crist selfa cwæp: ‘Þeah mann anum men godspyl secge, þonne bio ic an hiora midle’. 7 þæm biþ be þæt godspel sagaþ forgefen hund synny, 7 þam fiftig þe hit for Godes naman lustlice gehereb, 7 þam biþ wa æfre geborenum þe hit secgan can 7 ne wile, forþan men sculan þurh þa godspellican lare becuman to liues wige.

Napier XLIII (213.21–8): Forðon þæt Godes folc sceal becuman to lifes wege þurh þa godspellican lare, 7 æghwylcum men is beboden … ðæt swa hwylc man swa þis godspell hæbbe on his gewealde, þæt; he hit cyðe Godes folce.

Vercelli ix in L (143v–4r): Wa þæm þe cunnon godspel secgean 7 Godes folc læran 7 ne willaþ for heora gemelæste. Þæm bið wa æfre geborenum þe hit ne wille mid inneweardre heortan geheran 7 healdan.

^{page 231 note 1} Förster, Max, ‘A New Version of the Apocalypse of Thomas in Old English’, Anglia 73 (1955), 6–36.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

^{page 231 note 2} Printed by Hulme, William H., ‘The Old English Gospel of Nicodemus’, MP 1 (1904), 579–614.Google Scholar

^{page 231 note 3} There are slight differences obscured by this summary, e.g. the address to the saved souls, based on Matthew xxv.34–40, comes before the locking of hell in Vercelli xv and after it in DH.

^{page 231 note 4} See below, p. 246, n. 5.

^{page 231 note 5} See below, p. 245.

^{page 231 note 6} It is nearest to the DH homily, which alone has a phrase comparable with Assmann line 126 mid swipum geswungen (Hulme p. 34: swang mid swipan; cf. Christ 1441 mid sweopum slogun). But the phrase reflects the ultimate source, Caesarius's flagellis caesus (see Irving, Edward B. Jr, ‘Latin Prose Sources for Old English Verse’, JEGP 56 (1957), 588–95Google Scholar, esp. 594) and Assmann is otherwise unlike DH.

^{page 232 note 1} See Arthur Napier, S., ‘Notes on the Blickling Homilies’, MP 1 (1903–1904), 303–8.Google Scholar

^{page 232 note 2} See below, p. 243.

^{page 232 note 3} For details, see Ker, p. 183.

^{page 232 note 4} ‘Lost Penitential Homily’, p. 56.

^{page 232 note 5} See Scragg, ‘Compilation’, pp. 203–4.

^{page 232 note 6} See Scragg, ‘Napier's “Wulfstan” Homily xxx’.

^{page 233 note 1} For example, it has recently been pointed out that Förster was wrong to reject a passage in A's version of Vercelli viii as a late addition because it does not occur in E and F. The source makes it clear that A is closest to the original, although itself corrupt. (See Trahern, Joseph B. Jr, ‘Caesarius of Arles and Old English Literature’, ASE 5 (1976), 105–19Google Scholar, esp. 110.) We should beware of making similar assumptions about other obscure passages in A until source studies are further advanced.

^{page 233 note 2} ‘Compilation’.

^{page 233 note 3} The Vercelli Book, pp. 32–5.

^{page 233 note 4} For a facsimile of the whole manuscript, see The Blickling Homilies, ed. Willard, Rudolph, EEMF 10 (Copenhagen, 1960).Google Scholar

^{page 233 note 5} In references to the Blickling homilies by number, I refer to the actual homilies rather than to The Blickling Homilies, ed. Morris, R., EETS o.s. 58,65 and 73 (London, 1874–1880Google Scholar; repr., 1967), for Morris's xvi is a detached leaf of homily rv, and his xvii–xix are thus properly xvi–xviii.

^{page 234 note 1} See below, p. 254, n. 7.

^{page 234 note 2} See below, p. 255. On the source, see above, p. 231.

^{page 234 note 3} See below, p. 241.

^{page 234 note 4} Willard, Rudolph, ‘On Blickling Homily xiii: The Assumption of the Virgin’, RES 12 (1936), 1–17.Google Scholar

^{page 234 note 5} Review of The Blickling Homilits, ed. Willard, , MÆ 31 (1962), 60–3.Google Scholar

^{page 235 note 1} See below, pp. 245–6.

^{page 235 note 2} Ker, p. 410.

^{page 235 note 3} See Willard, Rudolph, Two Apocrypha in Old English Homilies (Leipzig, 1935), pp. 35 ff.Google Scholar

^{page 236 note 1} For the text, see Willard, Rudolph, ‘The Address of the Soul to the Body’, PMLA 50 (1935), 957–83CrossRefGoogle Scholar, esp. 961, n. 18.

^{page 236 note 2} The ornamental brackets mentioned by Ker, p. 411, and some notable spellings, e.g. frequent yo for WS eo (yorðan, ýodan, dyofld) and ch for medial g (þare balchan famnan).

^{page 236 note 3} See Godden, pp. lix-lx. I am most grateful to Dr Godden for allowing me to see his work in advance of publication.

^{page 236 note 4} Willard (Two Apocrypha, pp. 2–3) writes of a number of hands responsible for the additions, but Ker (p. 45) states that there is probably only one.

^{page 237 note 1} Ker 12 opens with a translation of the Apocalypse of Thomas (see above, p. 231), Ker 13 concludes with a translation of the source of the end of Vercelli xv (see above, p. 231) and Ker 18 is a translation of Matthew xxvi and xxvn independent of the homily based on the same source in EFG (B.3.2.18).

^{page 237 note 2} See the linguistic summary at the end of Förster, ‘Apocalypse of Thomas’, and the io (yo) spellings in Hulme, ‘Gospel of Nicodemus’.

^{page 237 note 3} See Ker, p. 45.

^{page 237 note 4} ‘Apocalypse of Thomas’, p. 11.

^{page 237 note 5} See Sisam, Kenneth, ‘MSS. Bodley 340 and 342: Ælfric's Catholic Homilies’, Studies in the History of Old English Literature (Oxford, 1953), pp. 148–98Google Scholar, esp. 151–2.

^{page 237 note 6} ibid.

^{page 237 note 7} ‘Lost Penitential Homily’, p.74.

^{page 238 note 1} See above, p. 232.

^{page 238 note 2} See above, p. 229 and n. 10.

^{page 238 note 3} For details of parallels in other manuscripts, see above, p. 229.

^{page 238 note 4} See Scragg, ‘Compilation’, p. 193.

^{page 238 note 5} See The Homilies of the Anglo-Saxon Church. The First Part containing the Sermones Catbolici or Homilies of Ælfric, ed. Thorpe, Benjamin 1 (London, 1844), 218Google Scholar: ‘Circlice ðeawas forbeodað to secgenne ænig spel on þam prym swig-dagum’.

^{page 239 note 1} The preamble is omitted from H, which otherwise follows E's text rather than A's.

^{page 239 note 2} ‘Lost Penitential Homily’, p. 75.

^{page 239 note 3} ‘Einige Wulfstantexte und ihre Quellen’, Anglia 56 (1932), 306–7.Google Scholar

^{page 239 note 4} See Trahern,’Caesarius of Arles and Old English Literature’, p. 118.

^{page 239 note 5} Review of Förster, , Die Vercelli-Homilien, Speculum 9 (1934), 225–31.Google Scholar

^{page 239 note 6} As there are, e.g., in the three Rogation homilies, Vercelli xi–XIII.

^{page 239 note 7} Assmann xiii, line 261.

^{page 240 note 1} Compare Ker 24 (Assmann xiii, lines 25–7): ‘þæt halige husul, þætte þæt wæs ærest on ðysum dæge gehalgod mancynne eces lifes to wedde, forðan æghwylc þæra manna, se ðe þam rihtlice onfehð, æghwylc þæra onfehð eces lifes wed’ with Ker 26 (1521, lines 2–7): ‘7 þær [at the altar] þam halgan husle onfon, þæt us is her on middanearde gesealde eces lifes to wedde… forðan æghwylc þara manna se ðe þam rihtlice onfehð ælc þæra onfehð eces lifes wed’.

^{page 240 note 2} The links here are slight, but echoes of the opening and close of Assmann xiii (lines 9–10 ‘he to manna fotum onhnah 7 his þegna fet þwoh’ and lines 258–61 ‘þa ongan he drihten heom endleofenum openlice his þa halgan browunge secgan 7 eall þa þing, þe he wolde 7 geteohhad hæfde, þæt be him geweorðan sceolde. Sægeð man eft to merigenne, hu þæt geworden wære.’) may be intended in the (unpublished) preamble to Ker 25 (1361, lines 1–8: ‘7 he ba georstandæg to manna fótum onhnah 7 his discipula fét þwoh. 7 he hi æfter þan god fæder bebead swylce he him eac his þa halgan þrowunge 7 þa wundorlican ærist 7 þa eadigan upastigennysse. 7 ealle þa þing þe he wolde 7 geteohhod hæfde, þæset be him geweorðan sceolde, ealle he ða sweotolum wordum sæde 7 mynegade.’).

^{page 240 note 3} Note the reference to the closing of Christ's tomb with a stone (Förster, p. 42, n. 197) added from Matthew to John's account of the Passion. The Good Friday homily is based on the St John Gospel, but Saturday's sermon gives Matthew's account of the resurrection, where the rolling back of the stone is significant.

^{page 240 note 4} Förster, pp. 35–6, lines 300–5 is in E, 147V–8r.

^{page 240 note 5} Noted by Arthur Napier, S., Contributions to Old English Lexicography, repr. from TPS 1903–1906Google Scholar; Förster; and Willard, Rudolph, ‘Gleanings in Old English Lexicography’, Anglia 54 (1930), 8–24.Google Scholar

^{page 240 note 6} See Sisam, Studies.

^{page 240 note 7} ibid.

^{page 240 note 8} See Godden.

^{page 241 note 1} Studies, p. 155.

^{page 241 note 2} Godden (p. xxxiii and n. 2) reports a similar situation in some Ælfric items. Förster (p. 1) on the other hand paired E and F against G in Vercelli 1 but was wrong to do so in that FG have in that homily alone fifty-six readings in common which are not shared by E. Where G departs from E and F is in minor details of spelling and syntax on which the scribe of G (or a predecessor) had independent views. A similar position in the Holy Saturday homily is reported by Ruth Evans in her unpublished Manchester MA thesis, an edition of that homily.

^{page 241 note 3} See Ker, p. 82, for details of western spellings in Part III; the book was later annotated by the tremulous hand.

^{page 241 note 4} One of the Part II scribes is the rubricator of Part I and another completed the last i tem in Part I; see Ker, ibid.

^{page 241 note 5} This usefulness is diminished slightly in that F and G lack some of the archaism of E because a common antecedent of F Part I and G underwent partial modernization.

^{page 242 note 1} See Pope, pp. 22–3.

^{page 242 note 2} Jost, Karl (Wulfstanstudien (Bern, 1950), pp. 221–36Google Scholar) considers their relationship.

^{page 242 note 3} The style and language of the anonymous section are typical of many early pieces and the date of the manuscript suggests composition no later than the tenth century. The piece is worthy of further linguistic study.

^{page 242 note 4} P. 23.

^{page 242 note 5} See above, p. 241.

^{page 242 note 6} P.xxxii.

^{page 242 note 7} P. 56.

^{page 242 note 8} London, British Library, Royal 6. C. i.

^{page 243 note 1} Förster's stemma (p. 1) shows the relationship very differently, but he was relying on the fact that H, like A, lacks the preamble found in E (see above, p. 239). This does not mean, however, that H and A derive from a common source not shared by E, for H and A have different opening formulae (Förster did not have available Maier's transcript of the opening in A which is now obscured in the manuscript; see Sisam, Celia, The Vercelli Book, pl. ivGoogle Scholar) and H throughout has readings in common with E where E and A diverge. Also some alterations and marginal additions in E by hands of the later eleventh century are incorporated into the text of H, a fact that leads me to assume that H derives from E. There is also evidence that H has attempted to make sense of part of the text corrupted by an intermediary between E and H.

^{page 243 note 2} I.e. it has a unique introduction and conclusion and is a much-conflated account compared with that of all other versions. It also has some significant spellings, e.g. three instances of cb within eighteen lines, which, in the context of relative conservatism in the manuscript as a whole, may point to a scribe writing more freely than usual (although it may simply indicate a different exemplar).

^{page 243 note 3} See above, p. 230.

^{page 243 note 4} Godden (p. xxxv, n. 3) has suggested this, noting that other scholars at work on Vercelli xix and xx disagree. I reached Godden's conclusion independently, but a detailed examination of the evidence (as for a number of statements made in this article) must await publication of my edition of the Vercelli homilies.

^{page 243 note 5} P. 99.

^{page 243 note 6} P. xxxvi.

^{page 244 note 1} P. 105.

^{page 244 note 2} For the details, see Godden, pp. xxxvii–xxxviii.

^{page 244 note 3} EETS o.s. 103 (London, 1894).

^{page 244 note 4} See Scragg, ‘Compilation’, p. 201.

^{page 244 note 5} See Förster, line 109, AE leahtras, FGI (ge)ðohtas (I–as). There are other examples.

^{page 244 note 6} See the reprint of Die altenglische Version des Halitgar'schen Bussbuches (sog. Poenitentiale Pseudo-Ecgberti), ed. Raith, J., BdaP 13 (1933; repr., Darmstadt, 1964), xli–xlvi.Google Scholar

^{page 244 note 7} For details, see below, p. 251.

^{page 245 note 1} Belfour 104.32–106.24 = Napier 283.18–284.17. (The references to Belfour are by page and line.)

^{page 245 note 2} See Cross, J. E., ‘The Dry Bones Speak – a Theme in some Old English Homilies’, JEGP 57 (1957), 434–9.Google Scholar

^{page 245 note 3} Belfour 128.29.

^{page 245 note 4} See above, p. 230, n. 6.

^{page 245 note 5} Cross, J. E., ‘“Ubi sunt” Passages in Old English – Sources and Relationships’, Vetenskaps-Societen i Lund Arshok 1956, 25–44Google Scholar, esp. 30–1.

^{page 245 note 6} See Pope, p. 18.

^{page 245 note 7} See Ker, p. 374.

^{page 245 note 8} See Pope, pp. 48–52.

^{page 245 note 9} See Willard, , Two Apocrypha, pp. 31 ff.Google Scholar

^{page 246 note 1} Napier XL (182.2 variant reading): ‘ure drihten ælmihtig god us pus singallice manað and lære ð þurh his ða halgan bec, þaelig;t we soð and riht (N riht and soð) don her on worulde in urum life …‘ Assmann xiv, lines 1–4; ‘ure drihten ælmihtig god us singalice mynegað þurh his halgan bec mid þam gastlicum wordum, þe he sylf mid his muðe bebead, þat we synna and mandæda forleton and soð and riht dydon þa hwile, þe we on þyssum lænan life beon’.

^{page 246 note 2} Assmann xiv, lines 7–76.

^{page 246 note 3} Lines 76–112.

^{page 246 note 4} Lines 130–9.

^{page 246 note 5} The likelihood that it comes from a copy of Vercelli xv, rather than from a different translation of the Latin source, such as that in D and H (see above, p. 231), is strengthened by the fact that Vercelli xv in A is from the same source as that of Vercelli xviii, which survives not only in A but also in B and C.

^{page 246 note 6} Lines 112–30.

^{page 246 note 7} For the argument that some of it once formed part of Vercelli xv, see above, p. 231.

^{page 246 note 8} See above, p. 230 and n. 7.

^{page 246 note 9} See above, pp. 238–40.

^{page 246 note 10} E.g. homoeoteleuton at Assmann xiii, lines 20–1.

^{page 246 note 11} Pope (pp. 42–8) shows how J and K (his N and O) are related to X^b (his M) which is from Winchester, but it is clear that J and K have a common ancestor not shared by the Winchester manuscript. Clemoes and Godden believe this to be a Canterbury or perhaps Rochester manuscript; see Godden, pp. l–li.

^{page 247 note 1} See below, p. 254, §9.

^{page 247 note 2} See above, p. 246, under J, Ker 6.

^{page 247 note 3} See above, p. 230 and n. 6.

^{page 247 note 4} Napier XLIX 252.19, variant reading.

^{page 247 note 5} See Ker, p. 403.

^{page 247 note 6} E.g., it supplies a phrase omitted by homoeoteleuton from the AE version. Compare Förster, Max, ‘Der Vercelli-Codex CXVII nebst Abdruck einiger altenglischer Homilien der Handschrift’, Studicn zur englischen Philologie 50 (1913), 21–179Google Scholar, esp. 109, line 1 (from A): ‘hæbbe æghwylc siofon tungan’ with L (not cited by Förster): ‘æghwylc hæbbe seofun heafdu þara ælc seofun tungan‘.

^{page 247 note 7} See above, p. 229.

^{page 247 note 8} The interpolation in L is parallel to Napier XL, 187.7–188.10. A's Vercelli 11 parallel with Napier XL ends at 188.2 (cf. Förster, p. 51, line 90). But after leaving Napier XL, L's interpolation continues briefly with A's Vercelli 11 (equivalent to Förster, lines 95–9). In other words L's text appears to derive either from a fuller version of Vercelli 11 than survives in A or from a version of Napier XL which had more of the original Vercelli 11 homily in it than surviving copies show.

^{page 248 note 1} See Ker, p. 403.

^{page 248 note 2} See ibid. p. 399. On this quire as a ‘folded booklet’, see Robinson, P. R., ‘Self-Contained Units in Composite Manuscripts of the Anglo-Saxon Period’, ASE 7 (1978), 231–8.Google Scholar

^{page 248 note 3} See above, p. 244 and n. 6.

^{page 248 note 4} On 81v M has a sequence that parallels Vercelli 1 (Förster, pp. 32–4), lines 277–87. The account of the Passion in Vercelli 1 follows St John's Gospel closely, but at this point, where John misquotes a prophecy in ps. xxi.19 as Partiti sunt …, A is faithful to John while EFG correct to Diviserunt sibi …, the reading of the psalm and of Matthew xxvii.35. M has this correction. If this is an indication that M is following the EFG revision of Vercelli 1 here, it is important to note that in the translation of the previous verse the Vulgate's description of each soldier taking his share of Christ's garments, unicuique militi partem, is represented in A as ‘ælcum hiora feowora his dæl’, but in EFG the sense is clarified in ‘feng ælc to his dæle’. M has ‘hiora ælcum his dæl’. The relationship of the texts will be examined more fully in my edition of Vercelli 1, but it is apparent here that M is drawing upon a text somewhere between those of A and EFG.

^{page 248 note 5} Napier 219.12–21 is from the unique introductory paragraph in A's copy of Vercelli x (see above, p. 230 and n. 8). The other principal expansions are 217.31–218.16, 219.25–8, 220.1–6, 9–20 and 25–9 and 221.7–223.16. M lacks a long section in N (Napier XLIII, 207.12–210.10) which is a series of sentences from Wulfstan on church dues (see below, p. 250).

^{page 249 note 1} For details, see below, p. 250.

^{page 249 note 2} See Robinson, Fred C., ‘The Devil's Account of the Next World’, NM 73 (1972), 362–71.Google Scholar

^{page 249 note 3} E.g. the introduction which defines the anchorite as living ‘on Þebeigdan lande’. It should be noted that M's quotations from the opening of Vercelli ix at the end of its Ker 17 are not in L, which has a different opening from that of Vercelli ix in A and E. Probably M is closest to L because in the parts of the homily that are original to Vercelli ix L's text is more reliable than that in A and E (see above, p. 247).

^{page 249 note 4} See below, p. 254.

^{page 249 note 5} Ker, p. 248.

^{page 249 note 6} Bethurum, p. 42.

^{page 249 note 7} Compare Napier XLII (202.15–19): ‘La hwæt, we nu ungesælige syn, þæt we us bet ne warniað wið þone egsan, þe toweard is, and þæt we us ne ondrædað þone toweardan dæg þæs miclan domes. Se is yrmða dæg and ealra earfoæa dæg.’. with Napier XL (187.7–9): ‘La hwæt, we nu ungesælige syndon, þact we us bet ne warniað, and þæt we ne ondrædað us be swyðor …’ and earlier (185.17–19): ‘La, hwæt þence we, þæt we us ne ondrædað þone toweardan dæg þaelig;s micclan domes? Se is yrmða dæg and ealra earfoða dæg.’ Napier XL is adapting Vercelli n here; see Forster, lines 43–4 and 78. Also compare Napier XLII (204.23–205.3): ‘Dær næfre leofe ne gedælað, ne laðe ne gemetað, ne næfre dæg ætter dæge, ne niht ærfter nihte, ac þær bið ece bliss and ece wuldor and ece gefea mid urum drihtne and mid his þam halgum heapum a on worulda woruld a butan ende’ with Napier XL (190.1–6): ‘ðær næfre leofe ne todælað ne laðe ne gemetað, ac bar halige heapas symle wuniað on wlite and on wuldre and on wynsumnesse æfre. Þær byð mærð and myrhð and ece blis mid gode sylfum and mid his halgum in ealra worulda woruld a butan ende’ and with Vercelli ii (Förster, p. 53, lines 145–8): ‘Þær hie næfre leofe gedalaþ ne laþe gesamniab, ne næfre dæg ne cymeð æfter dæge, ne niht æfter nihte. Ac þær bið ece leoht 7 blis 7 ece wuldor 7 ece gefea mid uru w Dryhtne…’

^{page 250 note 1} Napier 207.29–209.25 is from Napier xxiii (Gnut's laws) and Napier xxii/ Bethurum xiii.

^{page 250 note 2} Napier 214.12–13, 214.21–215.3 and 215.9–12 are quotations from Vercelli ix.

^{page 250 note 3} See Bethurum xiii, line 86, where only N (Miss Bethurum's B) is recorded as having the additional sentence ‘Bær is benda bite 7 dynta dyne; ðær is wyrma slite 7 ealra wædla gripe’, which corresponds exactly to Napier XLIII 209.17–18. Similar unique correspondences can be found between Napier XLIII and Napier xxiii.

^{page 250 note 4} See Förster, ‘Der Vercelli-Codex CXVII’, p. 108, line 1 11–p. 109, line 3.

^{page 250 note 5} Napier XLIII 215.9–12 corresponds to Förster, ‘Der Vercelli-Codex CXVII’, p. 101, lines 10–14. Napier XLIV 225.13–226.8 corresponds to Förster, ‘Der Vercelli-Codex CXVII’, p. 100, line 20–p. 101, line 7 and p. 101, line 18–p. 102, line 10.

^{page 250 note 6} For details, see Jost, , Wulfstanstudien, pp. 226–7.Google Scholar

^{page 251 note 1} See above, pp. 245–6.

^{page 251 note 2} E.g., Napier 185.2: NX^dmæge, OP mihte, Vercelli 11 mage; Napier 185.15: NX^dþas willan ne (ge)wyrcan, OP nellað pas willan gewyrcan, Vercelli 11 þas willan ne wyrceap.

^{page 251 note 3} See Napier 182.15 n.

^{page 251 note 4} The parallel between Napier XL and A's copy of Vercelli 11 ends at Napier 188.2, but the para-graph from Vercelli n in L indicates that Napier XL as far as 188.10 is from Vercelli 11 as it originally existed. See above, p. 247.

^{page 251 note 5} Napier XLVI 232.23–233.1 and 239.9–12 = Napier LVIII 302.29–303.2 and 303.8–12; Napier XLVI 238.10–18 = Pope lines 114–21; Napier XLVI 241.13–242.I = Napier xxx 151.15–27; Napier XLVI 241.8–13 = Napier XL 187.11–188.10.

^{page 251 note 6} Wulfstanstudien, pp. 240–1.

^{page 252 note 1} See below, p. 261.

^{page 252 note 2} Sec below, p. 262.

^{page 252 note 3} See above, p. 230.

^{page 252 note 4} See Pope, p. 82.

^{page 252 note 5} Bethurum, pp. 9–11.

^{page 252 note 6} Pp. 799–803.

^{page 253 note 1} ibid. pp. 82–3.

^{page 253 note 2} E.g. in Napier XLIX: sacgan, acerdan (WS y), welm.

^{page 253 note 3} Ker numbers the items in the two Hatton manuscripts in a single series.

^{page 253 note 4} See above, p. 251.

^{page 253 note 5} The phrase oft 7 gelome, typical of Wulfstan, occurs once, but the piece is not Wulfstan's.

^{page 253 note 6} See Sermo Lupi ad Anglos, ed. Whitelock, Dorothy, 3rd ed. (London, 1963), p. 22.Google Scholar

^{page 254 note 1} See Ker, Neil, ‘The Handwriting of Archbishop Wulfstan’, England before the Conquest: Studies in Primary Sources presented to Dorothy Whitelock, ed. Peter, Clemoes and Kathleen, Hughes (Cambridge, 1971), pp. 315–31.Google Scholar

^{page 254 note 2} Napier 134.12–135.25. See also above, p. 244, under Napier LVI in I, and below, p. 260, under the exhortation to confession in X^e.

^{page 254 note 3} Napier 136.1–5; see Godden, M. R., ‘An Old English Penitential Motif’, ASE 2 (1973), 221–39Google Scholar, esp. 226.

^{page 254 note 4} Napier 136.28–140.2.

^{page 254 note 5} Napier 140.3–141.25.

^{page 254 note 6} Napier 141.32–142.9 from Skeat xii.

^{page 254 note 7} Napier 142.26–143.2.

^{page 254 note 8} See Scragg,‘Napier's “Wulfstan” Homily xxx’.

^{page 254 note 9} See ibid. pp. 204–5 and 207, n. 4.

^{page 254 note 10} Napier xxx 150.21–2and 151.9–14 = Napier LVII 306.8–14. On X^b see below, p. 259.

^{page 254 note 11} See Bethurum, p. 38.

^{page 254 note 12} See above, p. 245.

^{page 254 note 13} Sec Sermo Lupi, ed. Whitelock, pp. 22–3.

^{page 254 note 14} See above, p. 247.

^{page 254 note 15} Similar material, in independent translations, appears in homilies in C and JK.

^{page 255 note 1} See Ker, p. 416.

^{page 255 note 2} Cameron B.2.3.6, ascribed to Wulfstan, but wrongly, since he was responsible only for the last paragraph. Placed after B.3.2.50 in app., below, p. 272.

^{page 255 note 3} See Willard, , Two Apocrypha, and Trahem., ‘Caesarius of Aries’, p. 116.Google Scholar

^{page 255 note 4} P. 182.

^{page 255 note 5} See Szarmach, Paul E., ‘Three Versions of the Jonah Story: an Investigation of Narrative Technique in Old English Homilies’, ASE 1 (1972), 183–92.Google Scholar

^{page 256 note 1} For details, see Ker, p. 344.

^{page 256 note 2} For details, see ibid. p. 345.

^{page 256 note 3} See ibid. p. 438.

^{page 256 note 4} See ibid. p. 76.

^{page 256 note 5} See above, p. 229.

^{page 256 note 6} See Cross,‘“Ubi sunt” Passages’, pp. 32–3.

^{page 256 note 7} See Zupitza, Julius, ‘Zu “Seele und Leib”’, ASNL 91 (1893), 369–404.Google Scholar

^{page 256 note 8} See above, p. 254. Napier xxix is not drawn independently from Macarius as Zupitza suggests, nor is it directly dependent on Vercelli rv as Whitbread, L. supposed in ‘“Wulfstan” Homilies XXIX, xxx and some Related Texts’, Anglia 81 (1963), 347–64.Google Scholar

^{page 256 note 9} See Ker, p. 76.

^{page 256 note 10} ibid. p. 23.

^{page 257 note 1} P. 38.

^{page 257 note 2} See also above, p. 248, and below, p. 261.

^{page 257 note 3} Pp. 38–9.

^{page 257 note 4} See St Chad. ed. Vleeskruyer.

^{page 257 note 5} See Ker, p. 406.

^{page 257 note 6} See ibid. p. 355.

^{page 258 note 1} For a full discussion ofthe manuscript, see Sisam, Studies, pp. 199–224.

^{page 258 note 2} See Ker, p. 424.

^{page 258 note 3} See the introduction to the facsimile of London, British Library, Cotton Claudius B. iv (The Old English Illustrated Hexateuch, ed. Dodwell, C. R. and Clemoes, Peter, EEMF 18 (Copenhagen, 1974))Google Scholar

^{page 259 note 1} See Godden, M. R., ‘Old English Composite Homilies from Winchester’, ASE 4 (1975), 57–65.Google Scholar

^{page 259 note 2} Napier xxx 149.14–152.5.

^{page 259 note 3} See Bishop, T. A. M., English Caroline Minuscule (Oxford, 1971), p. xvGoogle Scholar, n. 2.

^{page 259 note 4} London, British Library, Cotton Vitellius A. vii and Cotton Nero A. i.

^{page 259 note 5} Bethurum xv. Miss Bethurum (p. 346) postulates that Wulfstan did not translate the homily himself but ‘assigned the translation partly as an educational exercise to some member of his familia‘.

^{page 260 note 1} See above, p. 253.

^{page 260 note 2} See above, p. 254.

^{page 260 note 3} See above, p. 251.

^{page 260 note 4} But see also Bethurum, pp. 33–4.

^{page 260 note 5} See above, p. 253.

^{page 260 note 6} ‘Ic eow bidde 7 eadmodlice lære…‘

^{page 260 note 7} See Ker, N. R., ‘Three Old English Texts in a Salisbury Pontifical, Cotton Tiberius C i’, The Anglo-Saxons: Studies in their History and Culture presented to Bruce Dickins, ed. Peter, Clemoes (London, 1959), pp. 262–79Google Scholar, esp. 270.

^{page 261 note 1} Cf. Sievers, Eduard, Brunner, Karl, Altenglisthe Grammatik, 2nd ed. (Halle, 1951)Google Scholar, §281.1, Anm. 3.

^{page 261 note 2} See Ker, p. 261, and ‘Three Old English Texts’.

^{page 261 note 3} E.g. Ker44, Ralph d'Escures, and Ker 48 and 49, Honorius of Autun.

^{page 261 note 4} See above, p. 241.

^{page 261 note 5} ‘British Museum MS. Cotton Vespasian D. xiv’, N&Q 21 (1974), 245–50.Google Scholar

^{page 261 note 6} Napier xxn / Bethurum xiii, but slightly closer to the extract from this in the anonymous Sunday letter homily, Napier XLIII.

^{page 261 note 7} See Godden, ‘Penitential Motif’, pp. 231–2. The parallel with Ælfric's De Penitentia cited by Pope (p. 772) is not so close, as Godden shows.

^{page 261 note 8} Godden (‘Penitential Motif’, p. 237) suggests that the sentence shared by Napier XLVI and Pope XXVII may stem ultimately from Ælfric.

^{page 261 note 9} The sentence common to Napier xxx and Pope xxvii may be from part of Vercelli ix now lost; see Scragg, ‘Napier's “Wulfstan” Homily xxx’, p. 204.

^{page 262 note 1} Wulfstanstudien, pp. 240–3.

^{page 262 note 2} E.g. typical vocative phrases, such as þu wynsuma man, þu aðela wer, occur throughout.

^{page 262 note 3} See Pope, pp. 58–9.

^{page 262 note 4} See above, p. 260.

^{page 262 note 5} See Godden, p. lvii.

^{page 263 note 1} See above, p. 254.

^{page 263 note 2} Pp. 226–7.

^{page 263 note 3} See above, p. 230.

^{page 263 note 4} Repr. Ker, p. 229.

^{page 264 note 1} See above, pp. 232, 238 and 254.

^{page 265 note 1} The importance of source studies is emphasized by a point made by Szarmach, Paul E., ‘Caesarius of Aries and the Vercelli Homilies’, Traditio 26 (1970), 315–23CrossRefGoogle Scholar. He shows that Vercelli xi and xiv, which are linked by rubrics in the manuscript so that one is led to assume that they have been associated for some time, at one point translate the same Caesarian passage quite differently and are therefore unlikely to be by the same author.

^{page 265 note 2} E.g. Vercelli xvi, Vercelli xvin / Blickling xvn, Blickling xi and B.3.2.25 (in EFG) have variations upon the incipit ‘Magon we nu hwylcumhwego wordum secgan be …’ While undoubtedly there are links between these four pieces, both in terms of their language and of their manuscript associations, it has yet to be shown that they share linguistic or stylistic features found nowhere else.

^{page 265 note 3} ‘Das altenglische saperbia-Wortgut: eine Nachlese’, Festschrift Prof. Dr. Herbert Koziol zum siebzigsten Geburtstag, Wiener Beiträge zur englischen Philologie 75 (Vienna, 1973), 272–9Google Scholar, esp. 273–5.

^{page 265 note 4} Undoubtedly the most useful is Schabram, H., Superbia: Studien zum altenglischen Wortschatz (Munich, 1965)Google Scholar. For further studies see Funke, O., ‘Altenglische Wortgeographie (Eine bibliographische Überschau)’, Anglistische Studien. Festschrift zum 70. Geburtstag von Prof. Dr. Friedrich Wild, Wiener Beiträge zur englischen Philologie 66 (Vienna, 1958), 39–51.Google Scholar

^{page 265 note 5} ‘The Origin of Standard Old English and Æthelwold's School at Winchester’, ASE. 1 (1972), 63–83Google Scholar. Gneuss is tantalisingly reticent when it comes to listing Æthelwold's lexical preferences because he is unwilling to anticipate the work of his students. Cf. further the theses he cites, p. 75, n. 4, and Gretsch, Mechthild, ‘Æthelwold's Translation of the Regula Sancti Benedicti and its Latin Exemplar’, ASE 3 (1974), 125–51.Google Scholar

^{page 265 note 6} While it is unlikely that Canterbury scribes had the sort of strict training postulated for those at Winchester under Æthelwold, they may have had preferences suggested to them, and an analysis of a range of known Canterbury texts from the tenth and eleventh centuries might reveal these.

^{page 266 note 1} See above, p. 258.

^{page 266 note 2} See, e.g., above, p. 231.

^{page 266 note 3} P. 237.