¹ Although possibly of greater antiquity, the fragment, London, BL, Cotton Domitian ix, 11 r, contains extracts only: see Ker, N.R., Catalogue of Manuscripts containing Anglo-Saxon (Oxford, 1957), no. 151.Google Scholar On the translator's style and his selective approach to the text, see Whitelock, D., ‘The Old English Bede’, PBA 48 (1962), 57–90Google Scholar; ‘The Prose of Alfred's Reign’, Continuations and Beginnings, ed. Stanley, E.G. (London, 1966), pp. 67–103, at 77–9Google Scholar (both repr. in her From Bede to Alfred (London, 1980Google Scholar) as chs. VIII and VI); also Fry, D.K., ‘Bede Fortunate in his Translator: the Barking Nuns’, Studies in Earlier Old English Prose, ed. Szarmach, P. (Binghamton, NY, 1986), pp. 345–62.Google Scholar

² Ker, , Catalogue, no. 351, dated it s. x¹. The evidence for its date is considered further below.Google Scholar

³ See Gneuss, H., ‘A Preliminary List of Manuscripts written or owned in England up to 1100’, ASE 9 (1981), 1–60Google Scholar, with n. 160 below; also, ‘King Alfred and the History of Anglo-Saxon Libraries’, Modes of Interpretation in Old English Literature: Essays in honor of Stanley B. Greenfield, ed. Brown, P.R., Crampton, G.R. and Robinson, F.C. (Toronto, 1986), pp. 29–49Google Scholar; Morrish, J., ‘King Alfred's Letter as a Source on Learning in England’, Studies in Earlier Old English Prose, ed. Szarmach, , pp. 87–107Google Scholar; ‘Dated and Datable Manuscripts copied in England during the Ninth Century: a Preliminary List’, MS 50 (1988), 512–38.Google Scholar

⁴ The Old English Version of Bede's Ecclesiastical History of the English People, ed. Miller, T., 2 vols. in 4 parts, EETS os 95–6, 110–11 (London, 1890–1898).Google Scholar

⁵ Parkes, M.B., ‘The Palaeography of the Parker Manuscript of the Chronicle, Laws and Sedulius and Historiography at Winchester in the late Ninth and Tenth Centuries’, ASE 5 (1976), 149–71, at 157 and 161–3Google Scholar; Dumville, D.N., ‘English Square Minuscule Script: the Background and Earliest Phases’, ASE 16 (1987), 147–79, at 167–9Google Scholar; Gameson, R.G., ‘The Fabric of the Tanner Bede’, Bodleian Lib. Record (forthcoming).Google Scholar

⁶ Ed. Bately, J., EEMF 24 (Copenhagen, 1992).Google Scholar

⁷ Wormald, F., ‘Decorated Initials in English Manuscripts from A.D. 900 to 1100’, Archaeologia 91 (1945), 107–35CrossRefGoogle Scholar; repr. in his Collected Writings I: Studies in Medieval Art from the Sixth to the Twelfth Centuries, ed. Alexander, J.J.G., Brown, T.J. and Gibbs, J. (London and Oxford, 1984), pp. 47–75. The original and the reprint differ slightly in their illustrations. As the reproductions in Archaeologia are much larger and are of a greatly superior quality, it is advisable that reference be made to them.Google Scholar

⁸ See further Gameson, R.G., ‘Manuscript Art at Christ Church, Canterbury, in the Generation after St Dunstan’, in St Dunstan: His Life, Times and Cult, ed. Ramsay, N. et al. (Woodbridge, 1992), pp. 187–220, at 188–99.Google Scholar

⁹ On which see further Boutemy, A., ‘Le style franco-saxon, style de Saint-Amand’, Scriptorium 3 (1949), 260–4CrossRefGoogle Scholar; ‘Que fut le foyer du style franco-saxon?’, Annales du Congres archaeologique et historique de Tournai 83 (1949), 749–73Google Scholar; Guilmain, J., ‘The Illuminations of the Second Bible of Charles the Bald’, Speculum 41 (1966), 246–60CrossRefGoogle Scholar; ‘On the Classicism of the “Classic” Phase of Franco-Saxon Manuscript Illumination’, Art Bull. 49 (1967), 231–5Google Scholar; and Unterkircher, F., Karolingisches Sakramentar Vienna 958, Codices Selecti Phototypice Expressi 25 (Graz, 1971).Google Scholar

¹⁰ A notable exception is the crude specimen in London, BL, Harley 3020 (Bede, Historia abbatum, Vitae sanctorum, etc; s. xlⁱⁿ), 113r.Google Scholar

¹¹ Cambridge, UL, LI. 1. 10 (Pdatable to between 818 and 830): see Alexander, J.J.G., Insular Manuscripts 6th to the 9th Century (London, 1978), no. 66, and ills. 310–15Google Scholar; Robinson, P.R., Catalogue of Dated and Datable Manuscripts c. 737–1600 in Cambridge Libraries, 2 vols. (Woodbridge, 1988) I, no. 73 with II, ill. 3Google Scholar; and The Making of England: Anglo-Saxon Art and Culture AD 600–900, ed. Webster, L. and Backhouse, J. (London, 1991), no. 165.Google Scholar

¹² Vatican City, Biblioteca Apostolica Vaticana, Barberini lat. 570; London, BL, Harley 2965; Royal 2. A. XX (respectively, Alexander, Insular Manuscripts, nos. 36, 41 (with reference to two further manuscripts decorated in a comparable style) and 35, with ills. 133,169–72,137– 9; and The Making of England, ed. Webster, and Backhouse, , nos. 160, 164 and 163).Google Scholar Especially notable in this context is the use of a complete quadruped to stand for the cross stroke of the Ni n Royal 2. A. XX, 17r (Alexander, Insular Manuscripts, ill. 133). The most significant of the Canterbury manuscripts are London, BL, Royal 1. E. VI (gospels (originally part of a Bible)) and Cotton Tiberius C. ii (Bede, Historia ecclesiastica): ibid. nos. 20 and 33, with ills. 70–3,134, 165; and The Making of England, ed. Webster, and Backhouse, , nos. 171 and 170Google Scholar; cf. also Wilson, D.M., Anglo-Saxon Art (London, 1984), ills. 111, 114.Google Scholar See further Brown, M.P., ‘Paris, Bibliotheque Nationale, lat; 10861 and the Scriptorium of Christ Church, Canterbury’, ASE 15 (1986), 119–37Google Scholar; ‘A New Fragment of a Ninth-Century English Bible’, ASE 18 (1989), 33–43.Google Scholar

¹³ See An Ancient Manuscript of the Eighth or Ninth Century formerly belonging to St Mary's Abbey or Nunnaminster, Winchester, ed. de Gray Birch, W. (Winchester and London, 1889).Google ScholarThe potential relevance of its decoration for the design of later initials has been commented on, inter alia, by R. Deshman, ‘Anglo-Saxon Art after Alfred’, Art Bull. 56 (1974), 176–200, at 193Google Scholar; Alexander, , Insular Manuscripts, p. 65.Google Scholar Another eighth-century Anglo-Saxon book with decoration that is known to have been at Winchester c. 900 is Cambridge, Corpus Christi College 173, pt II (Sedulius, Carmen paschale) (see Lowe, E.A., Codices Latini Antiquiores, 11 vols. and supp. (Oxford, 1934–1971; 2nd ed. of vol. II, 1972) II, no. 123Google Scholar; Page, R., ‘The Study of Latin Texts in Late Anglo-Saxon England [2]: The Evidence of English Glosses’, Latin and the Vernacular in Early Medieval Britain, ed. Brooks, N. (Leicester, 1982), pp. 141–65, and pl. III). This, however, cannot be seen to have exerted an influence on the creators of the later style.Google Scholar

Especially 5v; see Ker, Catalogue, no. 198.

¹⁵ Ibid. no. 151.

¹⁶ Bishop, T.A.M., ‘An Early Example of the Square Minuscule’, Trans. of the Cambridge Bibliographical Soc. 4 (1964–1968), 246–52Google Scholar; Parkes, , ‘The Palaeography of the Parker Manuscript’, pp. 156–62Google Scholar; ‘A Fragment of an Early Tenth-Century Anglo-Saxon Manuscript and its Significance’, ASE 12 (1983), 129–40, at 131Google Scholar; Dumville, , ‘English Square Minuscule Script’, pp. 165–6 and 169–73Google Scholar; and Keynes, S., Anglo-Saxon Manuscripts in the Library of Trinity College, Cambridge, OEN Subsidia 18 (Binghamton, NY, 1992), no. 2, with pl. II.Google Scholar

¹⁷ James, M.R. and Jenkins, C., A Descriptive Catalogue of the Manuscripts in the Library of Lambeth Palace (Cambridge, 1930–1932), pp. 350–3.Google Scholar

¹⁸ Ker, , Catalogue, no. 127.Google Scholar

¹⁹ See 18r, 22v, 23v, 26v, 27r, 53v, 56v, 63v, 65v, 69v, 72r, 76r, 76v and 77v (scribe I); 95v, 108r, 123r and 140v (scribe II).

²⁰ E.g. 44v, 45r, 50r and 50v. For a reproduction of 48r with two initials, albeit stylistically less pertinent here, see Robinson, Dated and Datable Manuscripts in Cambridge Libraries II, pi. 3; for a detail of the initial on 63r, see Temple, E., Anglo-Saxon Manuscripts 900–1066 (London, 1976), fig. 5.Google Scholar

²¹ See Dumville, , ‘English Square Minuscule Script’, p. 165.Google Scholar

²² Bishop, , ‘An Early Example of Square Minuscule’Google Scholar; Parkes, , ‘The Palaeography of the Parker Manuscript’, pp. 151 and 156, with pl. VGoogle Scholar; ‘Early Tenth-Century Anglo-Saxon Manuscript’, p. 131Google Scholar; Dumville, , ‘English Square Minuscule Script’, pp. 160—73Google Scholar; also The Anglo-Saxon Chronicle MS A, ed. Bately, J.M.Google Scholar, The Anglo-Saxon Chronicle: a Collaborative Edition, ed. Dumville, D. and Keynes, S. 3 (Cambridge, 1986), xvi–lxxi.Google Scholar Fols. 1–56 of this volume have been reproduced in facsimile: The Parker Chronicle and Laws, Corpus Christi College, Cambridge MS 173, ed. Flower, R. and Smith, H., EETS os 208 (Oxford, 1941).Google Scholar

²³ See Parkes, , ‘The Palaeography of the Parker Manuscript’, pi. V.Google Scholar

²⁴ Interesting comparison may be made with the decoration of the display capitals on the Incipit page of the Preface to Matthew's Gospel in the Essen Cathedral Treasury (s.n.) Gospels ofc. 800: Schardt, A., Das Initial: Pbantasie und Buchstabenmalerei des Friihenmittelalters (Berlin, 1938), pp. 24—30Google Scholar; Lowe, , Codices Latini Antiquiores VIII, no. 1192Google Scholar; and Charlemagne: Oeuvre, rayonnement et survivances (Aachen, 1965), no. 438.Google Scholar

²⁵ See Asser's Life of King Alfred, ed. Stevenson, W.H. (Oxford, 1904; repr. with supp. by Whitelock, D., 1959), p. 20 (ch. 23).Google Scholar

²⁶ Dumville, , ‘English Square Minuscule Script’, pp. 159–69.Google Scholar Further on the codicology and palaeography of late ninth-century English books, see Morrish, , ‘Dated and Datable Manuscripts copied in England during the Ninth Century’, pp. 531–7.Google Scholar

²⁷ See, in general, Whitelock, , ‘The Prose of Alfred's Reign’; Keynes, S. and Lapidge, M., Alfred the Great (Harmondsworth, 1983), pp. 25–37Google Scholar; and Frantzen, A.J., King Alfred (Boston, 1986).Google Scholar For the controversy surrounding the authorship of the O E translation of Bede's Historia ecclesiastica, see Whitelock, , ‘The Old English Bede’Google Scholar; Kuhn, S., ‘The Authorship of the Old English Bede Revisited’, ATM 73 (1972), 172–80Google Scholar; and Bately, J.M., ‘Old English Prose before and during the Reign of Alfred’, ASE 17 (1988), 93–138, at 98, 103–4 and 123–5.Google Scholar

²⁸ See The Pastoral Care, ed. Ker, N.R., EEMF 6 (Copenhagen, 1956)Google Scholar, where Anhang 19 is also reproduced. Horgan, D., ‘The Relationship between the Old English Manuscripts of King Alfred's Translation of Gregory's Pastoral Care’, Anglia 91 (1973), 153–69, esp. 155–6Google Scholar, as well as Clement, R.W. ‘The Production of the Pastoral Care: King Alfred and his Helpers’, Studies in Earlier Old English Prose, ed. Szarmach, , pp. 129–52, at 139–40, demonstrate that Hatton 20 was copied from an exemplar, not taken from dictation: it would be interesting to know whether similar initials were present in the exemplar.Google Scholar

²⁹ King Alfred's West Saxon Version of Gregory's Pastoral Care, ed. Sweet, H., 2 vols., EETS os 45 and 50 (Oxford, 1871) I, 8–9Google Scholar; see further Sisam, K., Studies in the History of Old English Literature (Oxford, 1953), pp. 140–7. The preface of Hatton 20 is addressed to Werferth, bishop of Worcester and is datable 890 x 896. Concerning the possible further dissemination of the text, it is to be noted that whilst Alfred stressed that the volume (and astet) should remain in the minster to which it was sent, he specifically permitted removal for purposes of lending and copying.Google Scholar

³⁰ Ker, , Catalogue, p. lvi and no. 175Google Scholar; Temple, , Anglo-Saxon Manuscripts, no. 46.Google Scholar

³¹ In contrast to the majority of the initials, the specimens on 22v (ibid. fig. 57) are of Type I, whilst that on 20v has a beast head and is comparable to initials in Hatton 20. It is regrettable that the initials, potentially very interesting in this context, were never added to the spaces that had been reserved for them in the sadly damaged copy of the Old English Boethius, De consolatione Philosophiae, of mid-tenth-century date, now London, BL, Cotton Otho A. vi (Ker, Catalogue, no. 167).

³² See The Pastoral Care, ed. Ker, Google Scholar; also Parkes, , ‘The Palaeography of the Parker Chronicle’, p. 160, n. 4.Google Scholar

³³ Reproduced in The Pastoral Care, ed. Ker, .Google Scholar

³⁴ See ibid, fo r a complet e facsimile. Other reproductions: Temple, , Anglo-Saxon Manuscripts, ills. 2–4Google Scholar; Alexander, J.J.G., Anglo-Saxon Illumination in Oxford Libraries (Oxford, 1970), pl. I (a and b)Google Scholar; Kendrick, T.D., Anglo-Saxon Art to A.D. 900 (London, 1938), pi. CI (1–5).Google Scholar

³⁵ Temple, , Anglo-Saxon Manuscripts, no. 2, with ills. 5, 6 and 9.Google ScholarMorrish, , ‘Date d an d Databl e Manuscripts Copied in England during the Ninth Century’, p. 535, suggests that he book is contemporary with Hatton 20. The initial sarehomogenous in style.Google Scholar

³⁶ Wormald, , ‘Initials’, pp. 113–14 (Collected Writings I, pp. 52–3)Google Scholar; ‘The Winchester School before St Æthelwold’;, England before the Conquest: Studies in Primary Sources presented to Dorothy Whitelock, ed. Clemoes, P. and Hughes, K. (Cambridge, 1971), pp. 305–12, at 306–7Google Scholar (repr. Collected Writings I, pp. 76–84, at 77).Google Scholar

³⁷ Temple, , Anglo-Saxon Manuscripts, no. 5, with ills. 15–17 and 30—3Google Scholar; Watson, A.G., Catalogue of Dated and Datable Manuscripts c. 700–1600 in the Department of Manuscripts, the British Library, 2 vols. (London, 1979) I, no. 532Google Scholar; Boutemy, A., ‘Un calendrier illustre du British Museum’, Bulletin de la Societe Nationale des Antiquaires de France (1970), 79–98, esp. 80–1Google Scholar, where he compares its original artwork with that of the Sacramentary of Stavelot (London, BL, Add. 16605), the decorated frames of which, incidentally, include similar foliate sprigs (17v and 18r); The Golden Age of Anglo-Saxon Art, ed. Backhouse, J., Turner, D.H. and Webster, L. (London, 1984), no. 4 (including an illustration of the initial to Ps. CI)Google Scholar; Keynes, S., ‘King Athelstan's Books’, Learning and Literature in Anglo-Saxon England, Studies presented to Peter Clemoes, ed. Lapidge, M. and Gneuss, H. (Cambridge, 1985), pp. 143–201, at 193–6.Google Scholar

³⁸ See Wilson, , Anglo-Saxon Art, ill. 111.Google Scholar

³⁹ London, BL, Cotto n Domitia n vii, fols. 15–4 5 (Liber Vitae ecciesiae Dunelmensis; nee non obituaria duo ejusdem ecclesiae, ed. Stevenson, J., Surtee s Soc. 13 (Durham and London, 1841)Google Scholar; facsimile ed. Thompson, A.H., Surtees Soc. 136 (Durham and London, 1923)). The initials in question (gold, outlined in red, with green in-filling) are found on 26r and 27r.Google Scholar

⁴⁰ Gasquet, F. and Bishop, E., The Bosworth Psalter (London, 1908), pp. 145–78, esp. 158–60Google Scholar; Ker, Catalogue, no. 319; Pacht, O. and Alexander, J.J.G., Illuminated Manuscripts in the Bodleian Library Oxford 111, English, Irish and Icelandic Schools (Oxford, 1973), no. 16, pl. I.Google Scholar

⁴¹ Durham Cathedral Library, A. IV. 19: Temple, , Anglo-Saxon Manuscripts, no. 4, with ills. 11–14Google Scholar; facsimile: The Durham Ritual, ed. Brown, T.J., EEM F 16 (Copenhagen, 1969).Google Scholar

⁴² See Temple, , Anglo-Saxon Manuscripts, no. 3, with ills. 7 and 10Google Scholar; Kendrick, T., Late Saxon and Viking Art (London, 1949), pl. XXVIII (5)Google Scholar; and The Making of England, ed. Webster, and Backhouse, , no. 59.Google ScholarThe most recent review of the date of these manuscripts is Dumville, ‘English Square Minuscule Script’, pp. 168–9 and 174.Google Scholar

⁴³ E.g. Royal 7. D. XXIV, 69r (which may be compared with the wiry initials in Oxford, Bodleian Library, Junius 27).

⁴⁴ E.g. Royal 7. D. XXIV, 86r, 147v and 162v (which are comparable to certain initials in Boulogne, Bibliotheque Municipale, 10); Durham A. IV. 19,6v, 18v, 25r, 29v, 30r, 30v, 41 v, 42v and 62r.

⁴⁵ Fols. 3—20; Temple, , Anglo-Saxon Manuscripts, ills. 16—17.Google Scholar See further Keynes, , ‘Athelstan's Books’, pp. 194–5Google Scholar; Dumville, , ‘English Square Minuscule Script’, p. 161.Google Scholar For the metrical text of the calendar, see Bullough, D., ‘The Educational Tradition in England from Alfred to Ælfric: Teaching utriusque linguae' SettSpol 19 (1972), 453–94, at 462–3Google Scholar; Lapidge, M., ‘A Tenth- Century Metrical Calendar from Ramsey’, KB 94 (1984), 326–69, esp. 342–8Google Scholar; and McGurk, P., ‘The Metrical Calendar of Hampson, a New Edition’, AB 104 (1986), 79–125.Google Scholar

⁴⁶ Temple, , Anglo-Saxon Manuscripts, nos. 29, 6, 8, 7, 9 and 10 respectivelyGoogle Scholar; see further Keynes, , ‘Athelstan's Books’, pp. 182–3Google Scholar; Dumville, , ‘English Square Minuscule Script–2Google Scholar; Wormald, , ‘Initials’, pi. V (b), (Collected Writings, ill. 52). CCCC 183Google Scholar: Temple, , Anglo-Saxon Manuscripts, ills. 18–19Google Scholar; Kendrick, , Late Saxon and Viking Art, pl. XXVII (3–4)Google Scholar; Wormald, , ‘Initials’, pi. II (d)Google Scholar; Wilson, , Anglo-Saxon Art, ill. 193.Google Scholar Tollemache Orosius: Temple, , Anglo-Saxon Manuscripts, ill. 25Google Scholar; Wormald, , ‘Initials’, pi. V (a)Google Scholar; (Collected Writings I, ill. 58); facsimile: The Tollemache Orosius, ed. Campbell, A., EEMF 3 (Copenhagen, 1953).Google Scholar Junius 27: Temple, , Anglo-Saxon Manuscripts, ills. 20–4 and 26Google Scholar; Wormald, , ‘Initials’, pi. IV (c, A). (Collected Writings I, ills. 56–7)Google Scholar; Wilson, , Anglo-Saxon Art, ills. 212–15Google Scholar; Alexander, , Anglo-Saxon Illumination, pl. 2 (a-c). Tanner 10Google Scholar: Temple, , Anglo-Saxon Manuscripts, ills. 35–7 and 39—40Google Scholar (note that ill. 34 shows the work of a late s. xiii or s. xiv hand, not an Anglo-Saxon artist); Kendrick, , Late Saxon and Viking Art, pi. XXVIII (1, 2)Google Scholar; Wilson, , Anglo-Saxon Art, ills 195–6Google Scholar; Alexander, , Anglo-Saxon Illumination, pls. 3 (a) and 4 (a-c)Google Scholar; with the forthcoming facsimile, ed. Bately. Boulogne 10: Temple, , Anglo-Saxon Manuscripts, ill. 38Google Scholar; Tenth-Century Studies, ed. Parsons, D. (Chichester, 1975), pi. Ill (a, b).Google Scholar

⁴⁷ The very different nature of two of the four principal initials in Boulogne 10 (cf. below, n. 95) should be noted here.

⁴⁸ Thus the initial on 152v may be compared with the decorated initials in an English manuscript of the Heliand (London, BL, Cotton Caligula A. vii); those on 129v and 132v foreshadow the Type II style; 86r and 162r may be compared with Boulogne 10; 147v is comparable to examples in CCCC 183.

⁴⁹ Bishop, , ‘An Early Example of the Square Minuscule’, p. 247, n. 3.Google Scholar However, it is difficult in general to accept Temple's contention (Anglo-Saxon Manuscripts, p. 36) that the initials in Royal 7. D. XXIV closely resemble those in CCCC 183 and were probably executed by the same artist (cf. above, n. 48).Google Scholar

⁵⁰ Dumville, , ‘English Square Minuscule Script’.Google Scholar

⁵¹ For the first, second and fourth, see Temple, , Anglo-Saxon Manuscripts, nos. 33 (ills. 123–4), 58 (ill. 193) and 81 (ills. 258–61).Google Scholar For the third, see Ker, , Catalogue, no. 396Google Scholar, Beat's Ecclesiastical History of the English People, ed. Colgrave, B. and Mynors, R.A.B. (Oxford, 1969), pp. 1–liGoogle Scholar, and Potter, S., ‘The Winchester Bede’, Wessex, 32 (1935), 39–45.Google Scholar For additional illustrations of the initials in the Heliand, see Priebsch, R., The Heliand Manuscript (Oxford, 1925)Google Scholar; for those in Junius 11, see the facsimile, The Caedmon Manuscript, ed. Gollancz, I. (Oxford, 1927)Google Scholar, also Kennedy, C.W., The Caedmon Poems (London, 1916), frontispiece and p. 248.Google Scholar

⁵² Oxford, Bodleian Library, Auct. F. 4. 32, 37r. See the facsimile, St Dunstan's Classbook from Glastonbury, ed. Hunt, R.W., Umbrae Codicum Occidentalium 4 (Amsterdam, 1961)Google Scholar; Pächt, and Alexander, , Illuminated Manuscripts in the Bodleian Library III, no. 17, pl. I.Google Scholar The initial in the Leofric Missal (Oxford, Bodleian Library, Bodley 579, 154v) is illustrated ibid. no. 20, pi. II; see also Deshman, R., ‘The Leofric Missal and Tenth-Century English Art’, ASE 6 (1977), 145–73, at 148, and p1. I (b)Google Scholar

⁵³ Temple, , Anglo-Saxon Manuscripts, no. 18, and ills. 58–9Google Scholar; Wormald, , ‘Initials’, pi. V (d)Google Scholar; The Salisbury Psalter, ed. C. and Sisam, K., EETS os 242 (Oxford, 1959), 3–4Google Scholar, with endleaf facsimile of llOv. On the question of its origin, see Stroud, D., ‘The Provenance of the Salisbury Psalter’, The Library 6th ser. 1 (1979), 225–35.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

⁵⁴ Temple, , Anglo-Saxon Manuscripts, no. 27 and ill. 96. The aspect of the script of the first scribe is equally singular and deserves further investigation.Google Scholar

⁵⁵ See 82r. The conventional date of s. x^em seems late for this (complex) manuscript. Its contents include Ps.-Theodulf, Expositio missae; Theodulf of Orleans, De ordine baptismi; and Augustine, De magistro.

⁵⁶ Containing Gregory, Dialogi; the initial in question is on 51 r. (The other surviving initial is historiated.) Both are reproduced: Avril, F., Manuscrits normands Xl-XIIeme siicles (Rouen, 1975), no. 6, pp. 12–13.Google Scholar

⁵⁷ Containing Bede's verse Vita S. Cuthberti, etc.; it dates from s. x/xi. The initial in question, an h on 22v, does not appear to have been reproduced. It is four lines high, and is of crude workmanship; the leg of the letter consists of a single dragonesque beast which has a foliate tail and is biting its foot. The animal is coloured in blue-grey and set against a brown ground. There was possibly once another such initial at the start of the volume, but this has unfortunately been lost.

⁵⁸ Manuscripts of Canterbury or probable Canterbury origin with Type I initials include: Cambridge, Trinity College B. 11.2,6v, 64r and 90v; Cambridge, Trinity College, R. 14. 3,5r (Temple, , Anglo-Saxon Manuscripts, ill. 125)Google Scholar; London, BL, Harley 5431, fols. 74r, 86v, 89v, 90v, lOOr, lOlr (ibid. ill. 126) and 118v; Oxford, Bodleian Library, Rawlinson C. 570, 44v: ibid. ill. 100); Paris, BN, lat. 6401A, 15r (Avril, F. and Stirnemann, P., Manuscrits enlumines d-origine insulaire Vlle-XXe siecle (Paris, 1987), pl. V) and 32rGoogle Scholar; BN lat. 17814, 46r (Temple, , Anglo-Saxon Manuscripts, ill. 110); Rouen, A. 337, 51 r (see above, n. 56); and Vatican City, Biblioteca Apostolica Vaticana, Reg. lat. 489, 83r. Note should also be made of the drawing of a somersaulting Type I bird on an unfoliated endleaf in Cambridge, Pembroke College, 41.Google Scholar

⁵⁹ Thus, all three specimens in Trinity B. 11.2; Harley 5431, 100r and 118v; BN, lat. 6401 A, 15r; and lat. 17814, 46r.

⁶⁰ There are few close a rallels for the Type I style in other media; however, attention may be drawn to the Brasenos e dis c (see Wilson, D.M., Anglo-Saxon Ornamental Metalwork 700–1100 in the British Museum (London, 1964), pp. 47–8Google Scholar; Hinton, D., Catalogue of the Ornamental Metalwork 700–1100 in the Department ofAntiquities, Ashmolean Museum (Oxford, 1974), no. 27Google Scholar; The Golden Age of Anglo-Saxon Art, ed. Backhouse, et al. , no. 91)Google Scholar; the Sittingbourne Seax (Wilson, , Ornamental Metalwork, no. 80Google Scholar; The Golden Age of Anglo-Saxon Art, ed. Backhouse, et al. , no. 95)Google Scholar; and a curved mount in the British Museum (Beckwith, J., Ivory Carvings in Early Medieval England(London, 1972), no. 52, and pl. 106Google Scholar; The Golden Age of Anglo-Saxon Art, ed. Backhouse, et al. , no. 19Google Scholar - where an eminently reasonable date of c. 900 is favoured). Also there is an interesting similarity between the ornament on the lower cross-shaft at Ramsbury, Wiltshire (Wilson, , Anglo-Saxon Art, p. 146, pl. 135Google Scholar; Kendrick, , Anglo-Saxon Art, pp. 211–15Google Scholar and pl. C; and (the clearest reproduction) Brown, G. Baldwin, The Arts in Early England vol.VI, part II, Anglo-Saxon Sculpture (London, 1937), pi. CXII) and the initials in the Heliand manuscript Cotton Caligula A. vii.Google Scholar

⁶¹ See further Old English Bede, ed. Miller, , I.I, pp. xiii–xvGoogle Scholar; Ker, , Catalogue, p. 429.Google Scholar

⁶² Dumville, , ‘English Square Minuscule Script’, pp. 167–8.Google Scholar

⁶³ Ker, , Catalogue, p. 429.Google Scholar

⁶⁴ Old English Bede, ed. Miller, 1.2, pp. 358/30–382/20.Google Scholar

⁶⁵ The association seems to be made on the grounds of the affinity of its decoration to that of Junius 27 and the Tollemache Orosius: see Parkes, , ‘The Palaeography of the Parker Chronicle’, pp. 156–7. It is presumably this study that underlies the ascription to Winchester in Gneuss, ‘Handlist’, p. 42.Google Scholar

⁶⁶ The small letters that were inserted in four of them probably date from the fourteenth century.

⁶⁷ Since, to take one example, on 37v, the beginning of Ps. LI, in London, BL, Harley 863 (Gallican psalter, s. xi²), the initial Q and the following words, [Q]uid gloriaris in malitia, were never inserted, and the gap which remains in the first three lines of text that were written shows that the Q was subsequently to have been added with its tail extending down through the text.

⁶⁸ See The Durham Ritual, ed. Brown, , pp. 18 and 21–3Google Scholar; The Salisbury Psalter, ed. Sisam, and Sisam, , p. 3.Google Scholar

⁶⁹ For representative reproductions, see Wormald, , ‘Initials’, pl. Vl(a-c); Collected Writings I, ills. 61, 66 and 68–9Google Scholar; Temple, , Anglo-Saxon Manuscripts, ills. 50, 62–81, 83, 97, 103–22, 130–2, 138Google Scholar; Kendrick, , Late Saxon and Viking Art, pls. XXX–XXXIIGoogle Scholar; and Alexander, , Anglo-Saxon Illumination, pls. 12–14.Google Scholar

⁷⁰ The seeds of the style are possibly to be found in the emaciated, single strand interlace terminals of, for example, the initials in the eighth-century Northumbrian copy of Cassiodorus, Expositio psalmorum, now Durham, Cathedral Library, B. II. 30 (Alexander, , Insular Manuscripts, no. 17)Google Scholar, the initial on 42r of the ninth-century Royal 1. E. VI Bible fragment from Canterbury, and that on 53v of Cotton Tiberius C. ii. The possibility of influence from Irish calligraphy should also be considered. Irish influence is perceptible in Anglo-Saxon script of ninth- to tenth-century date (Dumville, , ‘English Square Minuscule Script’, pp. 159–61Google Scholar) and the example of initials such as those in the late ninth-century MacDurnan Gospels (London, Lambeth Palace Library, 1370: Alexander, , Insular Manu- scripts, no. 70, and ills. 321–4Google Scholar; Henry, F., Irish Art during the Viking Invasions 800–1020 A.D. (London, 1970), p. 43)Google Scholar which are defined by a double stroke and have wiry interlace, knots and beast head terminals, could have been a formative force in the development of the Type II style. Given that the developed Type II style first appears around the middle of the tenth century predominantly in manuscripts associated with St Augustine's, it is interesting to recall that the MacDurnan Gospels were in Canterbury, albeit at Christ Church, from the second quarter of the tenth century. London, BL, Add. 40618 (Alexander, , Insular Manuscripts, no. 46) provides an example of another late ninth-century Irish gospelbook that was in England by the early tenth century; however its initials were supplied in England, not Ireland.Google Scholar

⁷¹ See 3r, 5r, 6v (Temple, , Anglo-Saxon Manuscripts, ill. 5), 10r, 12v, 23r, 24v, 30r, 32r, 34r, 34v, 35r and 39v.Google Scholar

⁷² See 36r, 36v, 41 r, 43r, 46v and 60r.

⁷³ See 4r and 5r.

⁷⁴ E.g. 148v (Temple, , Anglo-Saxon Manuscripts, ill. 24).Google Scholar

⁷⁵ See 94r (ibid. ill. 25).

⁷⁶ E.g. (with Old English texts): Exeter, Cathedral Library, 3501 (see the facsimile: The Exeter Book of Old English Poetry, ed. Chambers, R.W., Forster, M. and Flower, R. (London, 1933))Google Scholar; London, BL, Royal 12. D. XVII (facsimile: Bald's Leechbook, ed. Wright, C.E., EEMF 5 (Copenhagen, 1955))Google Scholar; and London, BL, Cotton Otho B. xi (Bede, OE, Anglo-Saxon Chronicle, Laws)Google Scholar (see Ker, , Catalogue, no. 180).Google Scholar With Latin texts: London, BL, Royal 2. B. V. (psalter) (ibid. no. 249) - the scribe of this book was also responsible for Royal 4. A. XIV (Ps.-Jerome, Inpsalmos) (ibid. no. 250) which is introduced by a single initial in the same style; Paris, BN, lat. 5574 (Liberpassionarius) (Avril and Stirnemann, Manuscrits enlumines, no. 12 bis and pi. Ill; and BN, lat. 10575 (Benedictional, Pontifical) (ibid. no. 13, p1. III).

⁷⁷ E.g. the Lexicon of Tironian notae, London, BL, Add. 37518 (Saint-Germain-des-Pres; s. ix1); the Gelasian Sacramentary, Vatican City, Biblioteca Apostolica Vaticana, Reg. lat. 316 (Chelles, s. viiimed) (see La Nemtrie, Us pays au nordde la Loire de Dagobert a Charles U Chauve (vii^c-ix^e siècles), ed. Perin, P. and Feffer, L.-G. (Rouen, 1985), nos. 90 and 17).Google Scholar

⁷⁸ Oxford, Bodleia n Library, Hatto n 48; see Lowe, , Codices Latini Antiquiores II, no. 240Google Scholar; also Regula S. Benedict. Specimina Sekcta e Codice Antiquissimo Oxoniensi (Oxford, 1929)Google Scholar; and The Rule ofSt Benedict, ed. Farmer, D.H., EEM F 15 (Copenhagen, 1968).Google Scholar Cf. also the secondary display capitals in St Petersburg, Public Library, Q. v. I. 18 (Bede, Historia ecclesiastica), 3 v an d 26 v (Alexander, , Insular Manuscripts, no. 19, ills. 83–4)Google Scholar

⁷⁹ E.g. Harley 2965,37r (Alexander, , Insular Manuscripts, ill. 138)Google Scholar; CUL, LI. 1.10,48 r (Robinson, , Dated and Datable Manuscripts in Cambridge Libraries II, pi. 3).Google Scholar

⁸⁰ Temple, , Anglo-Saxon Manuscripts, ill. 34.Google Scholar

⁸¹ Such interest is unusual at this date. For brief comments on the comprehension of Old English after 1200, see Ker, , Catalogue, pp. xlix–1.Google Scholar

⁸² Furthermore, whilst scribe i's litterae notabiliores are always exactly one line high (extending from one dry point ruled line to the next), these are smaller in scale and are set lower in relation to the ruled line.

⁸³ E.g. the Barberini Gospels, 80r (Alexander, , Insular Manuscripts, ill. 171); Hatton 20,34v, 38v, 39v and 58v.Google Scholar

⁸⁴ E.g. Durham A. IV. 19,27v and 35v; Boulogne 10,30r; Royal 7. D. XXIV, 99v; Cambridge, Corpus Christi College 23 (Prudentius, Psychomachia, Peristephanon, etc; s. x^ex), 39r (postdating the original writing of the book); Hereford, Cathedral Library, P. 11. 5 (Heraclides, Paradisus; Vitae sanctorum; s. xi^ex); Cambridge, UL, Ii. 3. 33 (Gregory, Registrum epistolarum, etc.; s. xi/xii).Google Scholar

⁸⁵ Ten initials remain uncoloured (81 v, 82v, 83r, 89r, 90r, 95r, 99r, 115v and 116v), whilst one is partially coloured (101v). The initials on 85r, 86r and 93r, incidentally are fully coloured.

⁸⁶ E.g. dry point sketches can be seen beneath three of the five decorated Type 1 initials in the Tollemache Orosius (5v, 31 v and 48 v), and beneath some of the plain capitals in Cambridge, UL, Ii. 2. 4 (OE Pastoral Care; s. xi², Exeter); faint ink sketches are visible beneath the superlative Type II initials in Cambridge, Corpus Christi College 389 (Jerome, Vita S. Pauli; Felix, Vita S. Gutblaci; s. x², St Augustine's, Canterbury) (Temple, , Anglo-Saxon Manuscripts, no. 36, ill. 130).Google Scholar

⁸⁷ Gameson, ‘Fabric’.

⁸⁸ Old English Bede, ed. Miller, I.I, p. xv.Google Scholar

⁸⁹ Decorated initials were drawn in ink at the beginning of bks I–V in the Orosius, but the space reserved for one at bk VI was left unfilled. All the initials in Salisbury 150 were drawn, but whilst most were fully painted, those from 140r were left uncoloured.

⁹⁰ Exceptions occur on 23v (to which paint was added only in the form of red lines following the ink lines of the design), 40r (the outline of which and the sprays within which are painted, whilst the background is uncoloured) and, most notably, 70r (a lion shaded with intermittent red lines as if to simulate fur).

⁹¹ Junius 27, Boulogne 10, Royal 7. D. XXIV, CCCC183, Salisbury 150 and Cotton Caligula A. vii all have numerous examples. For colour plates of Junius 27, 135v, 118r and 148v, see Temple, , Anglo-Saxon Manuscripts, ill. 1Google Scholar, and Wilson, , Anglo-Saxon Art, ills. 212–15.Google Scholar

⁹² Notable exceptions are London, BL, Royal 5. E. XI (Temple, , Anglo-Saxon Manuscripts, ill. 75)Google Scholar; Add. 37517 (the ‘Bosworth’ Psalter) (for colour reproductions of 33r and 74r, see The Golden Age ofAnglo-Saxon Art, ed. Backhouse, et al. pl. VGoogle Scholar; and Ramsay, N. and Sparks, M., The Image of St Dunstan (Canterbury, 1988), p. 22)Google Scholar; Cambridge, Trinity College, B. 11. 2 (Wormald, , ‘Initials’, pl. V (e)Google Scholar; Kendrick, , Late Saxon and Viking Art, pl. XXXI, 1–3Google Scholar; Temple, , Anglo-Saxon Manuscripts, ills. 79–80)Google Scholar; Trinity College O. 3. 7 (ibid. ills. 76–8).

⁹³ For a splendid colour reproduction of Harley 5431 (Regula S. Bendicti: St Augustine's, Canterbury, s. x²), 6v–7r, see Ramsay, and Sparks, , Image of St Dunstan, p. 23.Google Scholar

⁹⁴ The Ms on 12v, 43r and 81 r, and the thorns on 14v, 47r and 51 v, are similar in design (though not in colouring) to each other. Some repetition is almost inevitable in books with numerous decorated initials, but a relatively restricted number of initial letters. Thus the artist of Royal 7. D. XXIV, to mention a comparable case, repeated a design for S which consists of a simple, two-headed serpent (142r, 152v (pl. IXb) and 155r).

⁹⁵ Apart from Temple, , Anglo-Saxon Manuscripts, pp. 40–1Google Scholar, palaeographical/art-historical discussion of this manuscript seems to be limited to the brief comments of Alexander, J.J.G., ‘The Benedictional of St iEthelwold and Anglo-Saxon Illumination of the Reform Period’, Tenth Century Studies, ed. Parsons, , pp. 169–70Google Scholar; Brownrigg, L., ‘Manuscripts containing English Decoration 871–1066, Catalogued and Illustrated: a Review’, ASE 7 (1978), 239–66, at 251Google Scholar; and Dumville, , ‘English Square Minuscule Script’, p. 175.Google Scholar Interestingly, unlike most of the early manuscripts with Type I initials, the decoration of Boulogne 10 is not homogenous within the context of the book itself. The Is heading the gospels of Mark and John are conceived in a different idiom, being filled with crude knotwork and having spiral upper terminals. These letters are comparable to the initials in manuscripts such as Boulogne, Bibliotheque Municipale, 8; London, BL, Add. 9381; Oxford, Bodleian Library, Auct. D. 5. 3, all gospelbooks of late ninth-century date and Breton origin. A similar style was used in the later tenth century for the initials (only partially completed) in London, BL, Royal 1. D. Il l (the ‘Goda’ Gospels): see Warner, G.F. and Gilson, J.P., Catalogue of Western Manuscripts in the OldRoyal and King's Collections,4 vols. (London, 1921)1,16-where the book is ascribed to the eleventh century — and IV, pl. 11. Boulogne 10 would clearly repay more detailed investigation.Google Scholar

⁹⁶ Cf. Temple, , Anglo-Saxon Manuscripts, ill. 19Google Scholar; Kendrick, , Late Saxon and Viking Art, pl. XXVIII (3–4)Google Scholar; Wilson, , Anglo-Saxon Art, ill. 193.Google Scholar

⁹⁷ London, BL, Cotton Nero D. iv: see Alexander, Insular anuscripts, no. 9Google Scholar; Lowe, Codices Latini Antiquiores II, no. 187.Google Scholar

⁹⁸ Respectively, Paris, BN, lat. 1 (Tours, A D 845–6); lat. 2 (Saint-Amand, A D 871–3). For colou r plates, see Mütherich, F. and Gaehde, J., Carolingian Painting (London, 1976), pls. 21–3 and 48Google Scholar; Van Moe, E.A., Illuminated Initials in Medieval Manuscripts (London, 1950)Google Scholar, passim. Similarly, the engaging rampant lions that decorate the initials in a ninth-century book from Bobbio, Milan, Biblioteca Ambrosiana, D. 30 inf., are merely ornamental additions to the outside of regularly shaped letters drawn in a firm, undecorated outline; the panels of interlace that fill the internal spaces are likewise subsidiary to, and play no part in defining, its basic structure (see Gabriel, A.L., ‘The Decorated Initials of the IXth-Xth century Manuscripts from Bobbio in the Ambrosian Library, Milano’, Paläographie 1981, ed. Silagi, G.Google Scholar, Münchener Beitrage zur Mediavistik und Renaissance-Forschung 32 (Munich, 1982), 159–83, at 169–73).Google Scholar

⁹⁹ For relevant colour plates, see Hubert, J., Porcher, J. and Volbach, W.F., Europe in the Dark Ages (London, 1969), pp. 164–200Google Scholar; Grabar, A. and Nordenfalk, C., Early Medieval Painting (Geneva, 1957), pp. 126–35Google Scholar; and Van Moe, Illuminated Initials, passim.Google Scholar

¹⁰⁰ St Gallen, Stadtbibliothek, 292 (Merton, A., Die Bucbmalerei in St Gallen (Leipzig, 1912), pl. VII)Google Scholar; St Gallen, Stiftsbibliothek, 83 (ibid. pl. XVI).

¹⁰¹ Paris, BN, lat. 8(Gaborit-Chopin, D., La decoration des manuscrits a Saint-Martial de Limoges et en Limousin du IX^e au XII^e siecle (Paris and Geneva, 1969), passimGoogle Scholar; Cahn, W., Romanesque Bible Illumination (Ithaca, NY, 1982), no. 85).Google Scholar

¹⁰² See, in general, Cahn, , Romanesque Bible IlluminationGoogle Scholar, and Kauffmann, C.M., English Romanesque Manuscripts 1066–1190 (London, 1975).Google Scholar

¹⁰³ Cambridge, Trinity College R. 3. 30, 84v (a splendid A constructed from three fighting beasts); Glasgow, University Library, Hunter 438 (V. 5. 8), 74r; and 279 (IV. 5. 19), 54v (Thorp, N., The Glory of the Page: Medieval and Renaissance Manuscripts from Glasgow University Library (London, 1987), nos. 11, 13, with ills, on pp. 59 and 61) may be cited as specimen exceptions.Google Scholar

¹⁰⁴ Dublin, , Royal Irish Academy s. n.Google Scholar: Alexander, , Insular Manuscripts, no. 4Google Scholar; Lowe, , Codices Latini Antiquiores II, no. 266.Google Scholar See also Nordenfalk, C., ‘Before the Book of Durrow’, Acta Archaeologica 18 (1947), 151–9.Google Scholar

¹⁰⁵ See, e.g., Alexander, , Insular Manuscripts, ills. 134, 137, 143–5, 148–51, 157, 165 and 171–2.Google Scholar

¹⁰⁶ No capitals follow the initials in the Durham Ritual; a single unbrushed capital commonly follows those in CCCC 183, while one (very occasionally two) was sometimes deployed in Royal 7. D. XXIV (see pl. IXb and c). One brushed capital always follows the initials in Junius 27, except at a few significant divisions in the text (e.g. 118r (Ps. CIX): Temple, , Anglo-Saxon Manuscripts, ill. 26).Google Scholar

¹⁰⁷ In contrast to Tanner, but corresponding to the initials in the book itself, these capitals are, without exception, uncoloured.

¹⁰⁸ Ker, , Catalogue, p. xxxvi. To cite just one example, see Cambridge, UL, Ii. 2. 4, lOv (OE Pastoral Care; Exeter, s. xi²) (Robinson, Dated and Datable Manuscripts in Cambridge Libraries I, no. 54; II, p1. 21 (not a page showing this feature)).Google Scholar

¹⁰⁹ Notable departures include: Insular E (40r); forked A, (99r); uncial M (80 and lOlv); angular S, (99r and 116v); angular Y (116v).

¹¹⁰ See Ancient Manuscript, ed. Birch, , frontispiece. In contrast with Tanner, here there is little distinction between the weight of horizontals and verticals and wedge-shaped serifs are pre-eminent. Notable forms used here but not continued in Tanner are: diamond O, curvilinear G, grid M and angular S (although see previous note). Much the same alphabet is used for the display capitals on 126r of Cotton Tiberius C. ii.Google Scholar

¹¹¹ See Parker Chronicle and Laws, ed. Flower, and Smith, , lr. This pertains more closely to Roman/Carolingian square capitals in general aspect than Tanner, but makes the same distinction both in weight and serifing between vertical and horizontal strokes. Similar curvilinear S, square G and curling tailed Y are used, but, in contrast to Tanner, rounded C is preferred.Google Scholar

¹¹² See lr. The principal distinction is the use of angular S. Further on ninth-century display script, see Morrish, , ‘Dated and Datable Manuscripts copied in England during the Ninth Century’, pp. 533–4.Google Scholar

¹¹³ London, Lambeth Palace Library, 1370, 3v. See Keynes, , ‘Athelstan's Books’, pp. 153–9, esp. 155–6, and pl. V. Notable in this inscription is the variation between triangular and round point to indicate word separation, the alternation of round and diamond-shaped O, and the use of N with half-length final stroke. In contrast with Tanner and the Parker Chronicle, there is little distinction between horizontal and vertical strokes, wedge-shaped serifs being consistently used; also angular S is favoured.Google Scholar

¹¹⁴ See The Relics of St Cuthbert, ed. Battiscombe, C.F. (Oxford, 1956), pls. XXIV–XXV and XXXIII–XXXIV.Google Scholar

¹¹⁵ A more exuberant version of the forms appears in Cotton Cleopatra A. vi.

¹¹⁶ See The Caedmon Manuscript, ed. Gollancz, . Distinctive amongst this version of the forms are rounded E and S, the knee added to the leg of R, the knob in the cross-bar of H.Google Scholar

¹¹⁷ See iir and iiv (where they appear alongside other forms). Untidily written, unevenly spaced and displaying a notable variety of letter forms (although C and G are always square, both rounded and angular S are used; O may be round, diamond-shaped or even square), these amateurish inscriptions give an impression of uncertain direction amidst a variety of traditions. It is hoped that future work on this page (and on the manuscript as a whole) will shed further light on its affinities and date.

¹¹⁸ Pure square capitals and uncials were deployed in the Winchester Benedictionals, Paris, BN, lat. 987; London, BL, Add. 49598; Rouen, Bibliotheque Municipale, Y. 7; and the psalter London, BL, Harley 2904 (Temple, , Anglo-Saxon Manuscripts, nos. 25, 23, 24, 41Google Scholar; on the display script of the Benedictional of St Æthelwold, see The Benedictional of St Æthelwold, ed. Warner, G.F. and Wilson, H.A. (Oxford, 1910), pp. x–xii).Google Scholar Hybrid square and rustic capitals were used in Canterbury manuscripts (see pi. XlVe; and Temple, , Anglo-Saxon Manuscripts, ills. 107, 111, 113–17, 125–6, 130Google Scholar; also Bishop, T.A.M., ‘Notes on Cambridge Manuscripts VII: the Early Minuscule of Christ Church, Canterbury’, Trans. of the Cambridge Bibliographical Soc. 3 (1959–1963), 413–23, pl. XV).Google Scholar Echoes of the earlier display script survive in the square letter forms favoured in the Canterbury hybrid square capital alphabet.

¹¹⁹ Parallels are scarce, but note may be made of the comparable form in the display script on Harley 2965, 38r (where it was only used in order to allow the rest of the word to be accommodated beneath the shortened stroke), and in that of Oxford, Bodleian Library, Bodley 572, l r (Missa S. Germani, s. x). Here the contrast in the length of the two legs contributes to the effect of diminution after the initial.

¹²⁰ The same tendency is sometimes noticeable in the capital Ss used at the beginning of words in scribe i's work. Cf. the backwards-leaning duct of the rounded minuscule S in the otherwise more retrospective litterae notabiliores of Royal 5. F. Il l (Temple, , Anglo-Saxon Manuscripts, ill. 9).Google Scholar

¹²¹ Following the duct of scribe i's minuscule y. It is paralleled as a capital in the inscriptions on 21 r of the ‘Athelstan’ Psalter (ibid. ill. 33).

¹²² Nor, of course, was it the only or even the best solution to this problem: the more calligraphic answer of writing the entire text in capitals, but some of smaller size, and interspersing the smaller ones in between the larger, throughout the text, was followed in Carolingian manuscript art (e.g. the Bible of Theodulf, Paris, BN, lat. 9380: La Neustrie, , ed. Perin, and Feffer, , no. 107)Google Scholar, contemporary Anglo-Saxon (e.g. CCCC183,2r) and later Anglo-Saxon art (e.g. Add. 49598, 70r: Wormald, F., The Benedictional of St Æthelwold (London, 1959), pl. 5).Google Scholar Another alternative was to reduce the size of the capitals towards the end of the line: on CCCC 183, 6r (Temple, , Anglo-Saxon Manuscripts, ill. 18)Google Scholar, the M at the end of the capitalized (P)rincipium was reduced in size in order that it should not overrun the vertical dry-point ruling that delineates the right hand margin of the text block. Cf., for example, the Gospel Book of Saint-Martin-les-Champs, Paris, Bibl. de l'Arsenal, 559,134r (Court School of Charlemagne, s. viii^ex: Charlemagne, Oeuvre, rayonnement et survivances, no. 412). Fo r th e opportunist use of both approaches in a single piece of text, see, for example, London, BL, Harley 2788, 109r (the ‘Harley Golden Gospels’; Court School of Charlemagne s. ixⁱⁿ): Alexander, J.J.G., The Decorated Letter (London, 1978), p1. 5.Google Scholar

¹²³ It is worth noting in this context that scribe i used diminuendo in the rubric on 59r.

¹²⁴ Cf. also Junius 11, p. 21 (Genesis B, line 389).

¹²⁵ The Lindisfarne Gospels, 8r; the ‘Lothian Psalter’, New York, Pierpont Morgan Library, M. 776, 7r and 27r(Alexander, , Insular Manuscripts, ills. 41 and 148–9).Google Scholar

¹²⁶ Temple, , Anglo-Saxon Manuscripts, ill. 33.Google Scholar

¹²⁷ Ibid. no. 32 and ill. 94; Avril, and Stirnemann, , Manuscrits enluminis, no. 19, p1. B.Google Scholar

¹²⁸ Temple, , Anglo-Saxon Manuscripts, ill. 36.Google Scholar

¹²⁹ He has been decapitated by subsequent trimming.

¹³⁰ Wormald, , Collected Writings I, ill. 62.Google Scholar

¹³¹ Temple, , Anglo-Saxon Manuscripts, ill. 37.Google Scholar

¹³² See Alexander, , Anglo-Saxon Illumination, pl. 2(c).Google Scholar On the figural style of these works as a whole, see further Wormald, , ‘The Winchester School before St Æthelwold’, esp. pp. 307–8Google Scholar, with the important refinements of Deshman, ‘Anglo-Saxon Art after Alfred’, p. 190.Google Scholar

¹³³ The Golden Age of Anglo-Saxon Art, ed. Backhouse, et al. , no. 25Google Scholar; Wilson, , Anglo-Saxon Art, pp. 155–6 and pl. 204 (in colour, but back-to-front).Google Scholar

¹³⁴ See The Relics of St Cuthbert, ed. Battiscombe, , pp. 396–432.Google Scholar

¹³⁵ Cambridge, Trinity College, B. 16. 3 (Deshman, , ‘Anglo-Saxon Art after Alfred’, pp. 183 and 195Google Scholar; Temple, , Anglo-Saxon Manuscripts, no. 14Google Scholar; Keynes, , Anglo-Saxon Manuscripts, no. 3).Google Scholar

¹³⁶ Bodleian Library, Auct. F. 4. 32, lr; Oxford, St John's College 28 (Gregory, , Kegula pastoralis), 2rGoogle Scholar; Paris, BN, lat. 943 (Pontifical; Benedictional; etc.), 4v, 5v, 6r and 6v. Also Cambridge, Trinity College O. 3. 7 (Boethius, , De consolatione Philosophiae), lrGoogle Scholar; London, Lambeth Palace Library, 200 (Gregory, Dialogi; Ephrem the Syrian, De compunctione cordis), 68v, Temple, , Anglo-Saxon Manuscripts, ills. 41–2, 134–7, 44 and 132 respectively.Google Scholar See further Wormald, F., English Drawings of the Tenth and Eleventh Centuries (London, 1952), pp. 25–9.Google Scholar

¹³⁷ Romanesque manuscripts in whose initials the figures do define the structure include: the eleventh-century bible from the Limousin, now Paris, BN, lat. 52 (Van, Moé, Illuminated Initials, p. 113)Google Scholar; the eleventh-century copy olvitae sanctorum from Limoges, now Paris, BN, lat. 5301 (ibid. pp. 22, 68 and 73: but contrast pp. 52 and 92); and the Christ Church, Canterbury copy of Josephus, Antiquitates ludaicae dating from c. 1130, now Cambridge, UL, Dd. 1.4 + Cambridge, St John'ps College A. 8 (Kauffmann, , Romanesque Manuscripts, nos. 43–4).Google Scholar

¹³⁸ St Petersburg, Public Library, Q. v. I. 18: Alexander, Insular Manuscripts, no. 19; facsimile: The Leningrad Bede, ed. Arngart, O., EEMF 2 (Copenhagen, 1952)Google Scholar; Schapiro, M., ‘TheDecoration of the Leningrad Bede’, Scriptorium 12 (1958), 191–207CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Parkes, M.B., The Scriptorium of Wearmouth-Jarrow (Jarrow Lecture, 1982).Google Scholar The other manuscript is the Vespasian Psalter: London, BL, Cotton Vespasian A. i (Lowe, Codices Latini Antiquiores II, no. 193; Alexander, , Insular Manuscripts, no. 29Google Scholar; facsimile: The Vespasian Psalter, ed. Wright, D., EEM F 14 (Copenhagen, 1967)).Google Scholar

¹³⁹ Dublin, Trinity College, A. 1. 6 (Alexander, , Insular Manuscripts, no. 52Google Scholar; for a recent discussion, see Henderson, G., From Durroiv to Kells: the Insular Gospel Books 650–800 (London, 1987), pp. 158–9).Google Scholar Note may also be made of the presence of human heads amidst the decoration of the initial pages to Matthew, Mark and John in the ninth-century, Irish, Macregol Gospels (Oxford, Bodleian Library, Auct. D. 2. 19, lr, 52r and 127r: Alexander, Insular Manuscripts; no. 54); of the complete human figures that were used to decorate the initials of a ninth-century Irish copy of Priscian, Institutiones grammaticae (Gallen, St, Stiftsbibliothek, 904Google Scholar; s. ix^med: ibid. no. 68 and ill. 318); and of the few figural initials in Cambrai, Bibliotheque Municipale, 470, a copy of Philippus, In lob, dating from the first half of the eighth century and ascribed to a continental centre under Anglo-Saxon influence (Lowe, , Codices Lalini Antiquiores VI, no. 740).Google Scholar

¹⁴⁰ Amiens, Bibliothéque Municipale, 18: Leroquais, V., Les psautiers manuscrits latins des bibliothèques publiques de France, 3 vols. (Mâcon, 1940–1941) I, no. 4 (pp. 6–9) and III, pis. III–VIGoogle Scholar; Desobry, J., ‘Le manuscrit 18 de la Bibliotheque Municipale d'Amiens’, Techniques narratives au moyen âge, Actes du colloque de I' Association des Médievistes anglicistes de I'enseigmment supérieur, ed. Crepin, A. (Amiens, 1974), pp. 73–125Google Scholar; and Kuder, U., Vie lnitialen des Amienspsalters (Munich, 1977).Google Scholar

¹⁴¹ E.g. The Harley Golden Gospels (see above, n. 122), 109r; and the Golden Psalter of St Gallen (St Gallen, Stiftsbibliothek, 22), p. 160 (see The Culture ofthe Abbey ofSt Gall, ed. King, J.C. and Vogler, W. (Zürich, 1991), ill. 31).Google Scholar

¹⁴² Paris, BN, lat. 9428 (Metz, AD 850–5): Miitherich, F., Drogo Sakramentar, Ms Lat. 9428, Bibliothèque Nationale, Paris, Codices Selecti 49 (Graz, 1974).Google Scholar

¹⁴³ E.g. the Gellone Sacramentary, Paris, BN, lat. 12048; also the Corbie Psalter (see above, n. 140).

¹⁴⁴ See 43r, 50r, 52v, 55v (Wormald, , Collected Writings I, ill. 83Google Scholar), 56r, 61r, 62v, 72v, 86r, 112v (Alexander, , Anglo-Saxon Illumination, pi. 2(c)), 114v and 115v.Google Scholar

¹⁴⁵ See 118c: Alexander, , Anglo-Saxon Illumination, pi. 2(a).Google Scholar

¹⁴⁶ See 135v: ibid. pi. 2(b); Temple, , Anglo-Saxon Manuscripts, ill. 1 (colour).Google Scholar

¹⁴⁷ Hatton 20, the Durham Ritual, Boulogne 82, Cotton Cleopatra A. vi and the Anglo-Saxon addition to Bodley 579 (Temple, , Anglo-Saxon Manuscripts, ill. 53).Google Scholar

¹⁴⁸ An I made from a standing man bearing a book and a cross-tipped staff, and N the final upright of which is represented by a woman (63r, 60v: ibid. ill. 58). Several similar initials may well have been amongst those excised.

¹⁴⁹ London, BL, Royal 6. B. VIII (s. x/xi: ibid. no. 54 and ill. 164).

¹⁵⁰ They are an E, the cross stroke of which is represented by a hanging man; an S with a woman taking the place of the lower curve; an M containing a standing man; and an eth in which a depiction of Christ on the cross stands for the upright of the cross-stroke. See further ibid. no. 81.

¹⁵¹ Cambridge, UL, Ff. 1. 23 (s. xi^med;? Winchcombe). The letters are a C containing two naked men; an I with a man clinging to it; an I represented by a man with an axe; an M constructed from two men; and an L consisting of a standing man: respectively 13v (Wormald, , Collected Writings I, ill. 64Google Scholar), 17v, 169r (Temple, , Anglo-Saxon Manuscripts, ill. 252Google Scholar), 189v and 208v (Wormald, , ‘Initials’, p1. VII(c); Collected Writings I, ill. 65).Google Scholar

¹⁵² As examples from the late eleventh century it may suffice to cite Cambridge, Corpus Christi College, 253, fols. 1—132 (Augustine, Confessiones): Page, R., Matthew Parker's Legacy (Cambridge, 1975), no. 8 with pl.Google Scholar; Cambridge, Trinity College, O. 2. 51, pt ii (Priscian, , Institutions grammaticae, De accentibus)Google Scholar: Kauffmann, , Romanesque Manuscripts, no. 8 and ills. 13–16; and Durham, Cathedral Library, B. II. 16 (Augustine, In Evangelium Iobannis)Google Scholar: Mynors, R.A.B., Durham Cathedral Manuscripts to the end of the Twelfth Century (Oxford, 1939), no. 35 and p1. 24.Google Scholar

¹⁵³ Six lines were originally left blank on 115r. Bk III ended halfway down 66v; fol. 67 (which is now covered with doodles and sketches of twelfth- and sixteenth-century date) was originally completely blank.

¹⁵⁴ Note also the more limited interweaving of the secondary capitals in the Incipit to the Gospel of Mark in St Petersburg, Public Library, F. v. I. 8 (Alexander, , Insular Manuscripts, no. 39 and ill. 192).Google Scholar

¹⁵⁵ See 3v, 34r, 34v and 35r.

¹⁵⁶ On 60r a three-line-high plain capital A is followed by a decorated E; on 94r (Temple, , Anglo- Saxon Manuscripts, ill. 25) a decorated A is followed by a plain one-line-high E — although in this case the two are in effect linked, since the beast that makes up par t of the A grips the E in its mouth.Google Scholar

¹⁵⁷ Royal 5. F. Ill, 8r and 32r; Boulogne 10, 23r (chi-rho) are the few notable examples.

¹⁵⁸ See Ker, , Catalogue, pp. xxxvii–xxxix.Google Scholar

¹⁵⁹ Its most important rival is Junius 11; however, although this volume contains illustrations as well as decorated initials, the work of the first artist is decidedly second rateand the initials are uncoloured.

¹⁶⁰ Items of Anglo-Saxon origin appear in Gneuss, ‘Handlist’ as follows: s. ix^ex: nos. 52, 282, 375, 620 (to which I would add 511); s. ix/x: nos. 298, 462; s. xⁱⁿ: nos. 176,223, 260,300, 330, 641,668 (Tanner 10), 844,848; s. x¹: nos. 56,69,114,473,484,643,803 and 808. The increase from s. x^med is marked: nos. 3, 97, 110, 157, 178, 189, 246, 319, 326, 347, 357, 389, 393, 401, 455, 479, 542, 628, 682 and 798 (to which should be added 174,195 an d 692 at least). Future research will undoubtedly refine further the picture this presents. The non-liturgical texts represented from the period s. ix^ex-x¹are: Anglo-Saxon Chronicle; OE Bede, Historia ecclesiastica; OE Kegula pastoralis; Laws; OE Martyrology; OE Orosios, Historiae adversum paganos; Alcuin, De orthographia and Epistolae (Lambeth 218); Aldhel m prose De virginitate; Amalarius, De ecclesiasticis officiis; Bede, De orthographia and vitae S. Cutbberti; Chrodegang, Kegula canonicorum; genealogies; grammatical texts; Isidore, Synonyma; medical texts; Prosper, Epigrammata; Vita S. Basili; Vita S. Guthlaci.

¹⁶¹ See Parkes ‘Palaeography of the Parker Chronicle’; ‘Tenth-Century Anglo-Saxon Manus- cript’. The argument now requires modification in various respects.

¹⁶² Asser's Life of King Alfred, ed. Stevenson, , chs. 3, 49, 81, 92–3, 98 and 102.Google Scholar

¹⁶³ See Sawyer, P.H., Anglo-Saxon Charters: an Annotated List and Bibliography, R.Hist.Soc. Guides and Handbooks 8 (London, 1968), nos. 221 and 1442.Google Scholar

¹⁶⁴ See Knowles, D. and Hadcock, R.N., Medieval Religious Houses: England and Wales, 2nd ed. (London, 1971), p. 265Google Scholar; Meyer, M.A., ‘Patronage of the West Saxon Royal Nunneries in Late Anglo-Saxon England’, KB 91 (1981), 332–58, esp. 350.Google Scholar

¹⁶⁵ Blair, J., ‘Secular Minster Churches in Domesday Book’, Domesday Book: a Reassessment, ed. Sawyer, P. (London, 1985), pp. 104–42, esp. 117–19Google Scholar; ‘Introduction: from Minster to Parish Church’, Minsters and Parish Churches: the Local Church in Transition 950–1200, ed. Blair, J. (Oxford, 1988), pp. 1–19, esp. 2–3; Haslam, J., ‘Parishes, Churches, Wards and Gates in Eastern London’Google Scholar, ibid. pp. 33–43.

¹⁶⁶ The Monastic Order in England,.2nd ed. (Cambridge, 1963), esp. pp. 31–6, with Appendix I.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

¹⁶⁷ For a recent elucidation of the problematic but nonetheless important history of Abingdon in the period before the monastic reform, see Thacker, A., ‘Æthelwold and Abingdon’, Bishop Etheltnold, his Career and Influence, ed. Yorke, B. (Woodbridge, 1988), pp. 43–64, esp. 43–51.Google Scholar For Sherborne, see Finberg, H.P.R., ‘Sherbome, Glastonbury and the Expansion of Wessex’, TRHS 5th ser. 3 (1953), 101–24, esp. 115–19.Google Scholar

¹⁶⁸ Bishop, , English Caroline Minuscule, p. xvii, very reasonably speculated that clerical communi- ties may have been responsible forsome of the extant manuscripts which are written in Square minuscule.Google Scholar

¹⁶⁹ Asser's Life of King Alfred, ed. Stevenson, , p. 87 (ch. 101).Google Scholar

¹⁷⁰ Rodwell, W., Wells Cathedral Excavations and Discoveries, 3rd ed. (Wells, 1987), p. 7 and ill. 6Google Scholar; West, J.K., ‘A Carved Slab Fragment from St Oswald's Priory, Gloucester’, Studies in Medieval Sculpture, ed. Thompson, F.H. (London, 1983), pp. 41–53Google Scholar; The Golden Age of Anglo-Saxon Art, ed. Backhouse, et al. , no. 24.Google Scholar

¹⁷¹ Tweddle, D., ‘Anglo-Saxon Sculpture in South East England before c. 950’, Studies in Medieval Sculpture, ed. Thompson, , pp. 18–40, esp. 22–30Google Scholar; Kendrick, , Late Saxon and Viking Art, p. 40 and p1. XXXIV.Google Scholar

¹⁷² Tweddle, , ‘Anglo-Saxon Sculpture in South East England’, pp. 30–5Google Scholar; [idem in The Golden Age of Anglo-Saxon Art, ed. Backhouse, et al. , no. 22Google Scholar; but cf. Wilson, , Anglo-Saxon Art, pp. 71–2.Google Scholar

¹⁷³ See Morrish, , ‘Alfred's Letter as a Source on Learning'; 'Dated and Datable Manuscripts Copied in England during the Ninth Century’.Google Scholar

¹⁷⁴ King Alfred's West Saxon Version of Gregory's Pastoral Care, ed. Sweet, H., 2 vols., EET S o s 4 5 and 50 (London, 1871–1872) 1, 8–9.Google Scholar Addressed to bishops, this was no doubt designed to flatter; the view he expressed in the verse preface (ibid.) was decidedly less optimistic. On the other hand, this contrast in tone could reflect a real improvement in the situation from the time when the probably earlier verse preface was composed. (On the relative chronology of the prefaces, see Sisam, , Studies, pp. 144–5.)Google Scholar

¹⁷⁵ Keynes, , ‘Athelstan's Books’, pp. 193–8.Google Scholar For the Winchester ascription, see, e.g., Deshman, , ‘Anglo-Saxon Art after Alfred’, p. 176Google Scholar; Temple, , Anglo-Saxon Manuscripts, pp. 36–7Google Scholar; also, more extreme, Wood, M., ‘The Making of King Athelstan's Empire: an English Charle-magne”, Ideal and Reality in Frankish and Anglo-Saxon Society, ed. Wormald, P. et al. (Oxford, 1983), pp. 250–72, at 252–4.Google Scholar

¹⁷⁶ Dumville, D., ‘The Anglian Collection of Royal Genealogies and Regnal Lists’, ASE 5 (1976), 23–50, at 25–6Google Scholar; Keynes, , ‘Athelstan's Books’, pp. 184–5Google Scholar; Dumville, , ‘English Square Minuscule Script’, pp. 174 and 177–8.Google Scholar See also the recent comments of Rollason, D., ‘St Cuthbert and Wessex: the Evidence of Cambridge, Corpus Christi College MS 183’, St Cuthbert: his Cult and his Community to AD 1200, ed. Bonner, G., Rollason, D. and Stancliffe, C. (Woodbridge, 1989), pp. 413–24. Glastonbury is an attractive alternative.Google Scholar

¹⁷⁷ The fact that the Hrabanus Maurus is veritably a book fit for a king in no way proves that it was made at Winchester, particularly in view of the fact that the royal volume CCCC 183 was almost certainly not made there.

¹⁷⁸ On the limited number of important scriptoria writing English Caroline minuscule, see Bishop, , English Caroline Minuscule, esp. pp. xi and xv–xvi.Google Scholar

¹⁷⁹ Likely candidates are the calendar in the ‘Athelstan’ Psalter, Junius 27, the Tollemache Orosius, the Durham Ritual and Royal 5. F. III.

¹⁸⁰ Anglo-Saxon Chronicle (A, B, C and D) and Symeon of Durham, Historia regum (see English Historical Documents 1, c. 500–1042, ed. Whitelock, D., 2nd ed. (London, 1979), pp. 207–18 and 227–8).Google Scholar For his two law codes, see The Laws of the Earliest English Kings, ed. Attenborough, F.L. (Cambridge, 1922), pp. 114–21Google Scholar; for the coinage, see Metcalf, D.M., ‘The Monetary History of England in the Tenth Century viewed in the Perspective of the Eleventh’, Anglo-Saxon Monetary History: Essays in Memory of Michael Dolley, ed. Blackburn, M.A.S. (Leicester, 1986), pp. 133–57, esp. 140–4Google Scholar; on the lack of valid charter evidence, see Stenton, F.M., The Latin Charters of the Anglo-Saxon Period (Oxford, 1955), pp. 51–3.Google Scholar For modern accounts, see Stenton, F.M., Anglo-Saxon England, 3rd ed. (Oxford, 1971), pp. 319–39Google Scholar; Wainwright, F.T., ‘The Submission to Edward the Elder’, History n.s. 27 (1952), 114–30CrossRefGoogle Scholar; and Stafford, P., Unification and Conquest: a Political and Social History of England in the Tenthand Eleventh Centuries (London, 1989), pp. 5–11 and 24–44.Google Scholar

¹⁸¹ On whom see Wainwright, F.T., ‘Æthelflaed Lady of the Mercians’, The Anglo-Saxons: Studies in Some Aspects of their History and Culture presented to Bruce Dickins, ed. Clemoes, P. (London, 1959), pp. 53–69.Google Scholar

¹⁸² See Fleming, R., ‘Monastic Lands and England's Defence in the Viking Age’, EHR 100 (1985), 247–65, at 252–4.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

¹⁸³ It is worth noting here that the plaster fragments with figural painting that were excavated at Colchester have been ascribed to the period of the refoundation of the town after Edward's successful reconquest of it: for the campaign, see Anglo-Saxon Chronicle (A) 920 ( = 921), Two of the Saxon Chronicles Parallel, ed. Plummer, C., 2 vols. (Oxford, 1892–1899) I, 102Google Scholar; for the plaster, see Drury, P.J., ‘Anglo-Saxon Painted Plaster Excavated at Colchester Castle, Essex’, Early Medieval Wall Painting and Painted Sculpture in England, ed. Cather, S., Park, D. and Williamson, P., BAR Brit. ser. 216 (Oxford, 1990), 111–22. Unfortunately the remains are too fragmentary for stylistic analysis to contribute to the question of their date.Google Scholar

¹⁸⁴ Select Historical Documents of the Ninth and Tenth Centuries, ed. Harmer, F.E. (Cambridge, 1914), no. 16.Google Scholar

¹⁸⁵ See further Ridyard, S.J., The Royal Saints of Anglo-Saxon England (Cambridge, 1988), pp. 31–5, 96–103 and 263–6.Google Scholar

¹⁸⁶ FlorentiiWigorniensis Monachi Chronicon ex Chronicis, ed. Thorpe, B., 2 vols. (London, 1848) I, 141.Google ScholarWillelmi Malmesbiriensis Monachi De Gestis Regum Anglorum, ed. Stubbs, W., 2 vols., RS (London, 1887–1889) I, 137.Google Scholar See further Crittal, E., ‘Abbey of Wilton’, Victoria County History for Wiltshire 6 (London, 1956), 231–41.Google Scholar

¹⁸⁷ Heighway, C., ‘Anglo-Saxon Gloucester to AD 1000’, Studies in Late Anglo-Saxon Settlement, ed. Faull, M.L. (Oxford, 1984), pp. 35–53, esp. 45–6.Google Scholar

¹⁸⁸ Stenton, , Anglo-Saxon England, pp. 438–40Google Scholar; Brooks, N.P., The Early History of the Church of Canterbury (Leicester, 1984), pp. 210–13.Google Scholar

¹⁸⁹ See Dolley, M., Anglo-Saxon Pennies (London, 1964), pp. 20–1Google Scholar; Bu'Lock, J.D., Pre-Conquest Cheshire (Chester, 1972), pl. 11.Google Scholar

¹⁹⁰ On the state of education and learning in the first half of the tenth century, see further Bullough, , ‘Educational Tradition’, pp. 465–78Google Scholar, and Lapidge, M., ‘Schools, Learning and Literature in Tenth-Century England’, SettSpol 38 (1991), 951–98, at 962–6.Google Scholar

¹⁹¹ Paris, BN, lat. 9388: Van, Moé, Illuminated Initials, pp. 58, 65 and 89.Google Scholar

¹⁹² Alexander, , Insular Manuscripts, no. 32.Google Scholar

¹⁹³ See, for example, Stenton, , Anglo-Saxon England, pp. 339–56Google Scholar; Wood, , ‘Athelstan's Empire’, pp. 258–72.Google Scholar

¹⁹⁴ See, for example, Wallace-Hadrill, J.M., ‘The Franks and the English in the Ninth Century: some Common Historical Interests’ in his Early Medieval History (Oxford, 1975), 201–16Google Scholar; Keynes, , ‘Athelstan's Books’Google Scholar; Lapidge, M., ‘Some Latin Poems as Evidence for the Reign of Athelstan’, ASE 9 (1981), 61–98Google Scholar; ‘The Revival of Latin Learning in late Anglo-Saxon England’, Manuscripts at Oxford: R. W. Hunt Memorial Exhibition, ed. de la Mare, A.C. and Barker-Benfield, B. (Oxford, 1980), pp. 18–22Google Scholar; and Frantzen, A.J., The Literature of Penance in Anglo Saxon England (New Brunswick, NJ, 1983), pp. 122–9.Google Scholar

¹⁹⁵ Conversely Talbot-Rice, D., English Art 871–1100 (Oxford, 1953), provides in general a sobering example of the dangers of overestimating Byzantine influence. See Deshman, ‘Anglo-Saxon Art after Alfred’ for an exemplary, carefully controlled evaluation of the probable pictorial sources of one book, the ‘Athelstan’ Psalter.Google Scholar

¹⁹⁶ Particularly when later, more credible dates are assigned to the artwork of two books which Wormald (‘Winchester School’, pp. 309–12Google Scholar) saw in direct relation to, and discussed as an immediate continuation of, the art of the early tenth century. Avril, and Stirnemann, , Manuscrits enlumines, pp. 15—16Google Scholar, reasonably date Paris, BN, lat. 6401 to c. 1000; correspondingly it is difficult to reconcile the style of the Anglo-Saxon evangelists that were added to the late ninth-century Irish gospelbook, London, BL, Add. 40618 (Temple, Anglo-Saxon Manuscripts, no. 15) with a date much before the Benedictional of St iEthelwold (for which the outer limits are 963 and 984, and a date between 971 and 984 is most likely). The co- existence in the paintings of these two books of singular features with stylistic mannerisms that are generally associated with the last quarter of the tenth century suggest production in less progressive centres or by individually conservative artists, not an early date. The isolated drawing on the fly-leaf (now lv) of Oxford, St John's College 194, a crucial testimony to Carolingian influence on one late Anglo-Saxon artist, is regrettably of uncertain date (contrast Temple, , Anglo-Saxon Manuscripts, no. 12Google Scholar; and Wormald, , English Drawings, pp. 23, 77, no. 52, pl. 40). Possibly produced in the mid-tenth century, it may be a work with which the Trinity Hrabanus could be compared.Google Scholar

¹⁹⁷ Two of the early manuscripts with Type I initials, Royal 7. D. XXIV and Royal 5. F. Ill, are copies of Aldhelm's prose De virginitate. If, as has been suggested, England lacked texts of Aldhelm's works at the beginning of the tenth century and they had to be imported (see Lapidge, , ‘Revival of Latin Learning’, pp. 18–20) these Royal manuscripts may be interesting examples of ‘transliteration’ - Anglo-Saxon scribes substituting an Insular minuscule and indigenous initials for the Caroline minuscule and square, rustic or uncial capitals of their presumed exemplars.Google Scholar

¹⁹⁸ Watson, A.G., Dated and Datable Manuscripts in Oxford Libraries, 2 vols. (Oxford, 1984) I, no. 519 and II, pl. 14. That this was nevertheless a transitional work is revealed by the irregularity of its preparation - three quires were pricked in both inner and outer margins, the remainder in the outer only; in one quire (III) the parchment is arranged in accordance with Insular principles, five (I, V-VIII) follow the continental system, three are irregular (II, IV and IX) - and also by the echoes in the lettering of the colophon on 73v of the alphabet that was used for display script in Anglo-Saxon books of ninth- to tenth-century date, as discussed above.Google Scholar

¹⁹⁹ St Dunstan's Classbook, ed. Hunt, Google Scholar; Bishop, , English Caroline Minuscule, no.1, pl.I.Google Scholar

²⁰⁰ See Temple, , Anglo-Saxon Manuscripts, no. 11Google Scholar; Wormald, , English Drawings, pp. 24–5, 74, no. 46, pl. I.Google Scholar

²⁰¹ On the exceptional asperity of Æthelwold's concept of reform, see Wormald, P., ‘Æthelwold and his Continental Counterparts: Contact, Comparison, Contrast’, Bishop Æthelwold, ed. Yorke, , pp. 13–42.Google Scholar

²⁰² I am very grateful to Bruce Barker-Benfield for his assistance during the final stages of preparing this article. Tanner 10 is currently unavailable to scholars because of its fragile, disbound state; the examination of it on which this study rests was undertaken while preparing a record of its fabric for the Bodleian Library, prior to treatment by the conservation section and eventual rebinding.