^{page 239 note 1} For the concentration of monasteries in the area south of the Humber in the later Anglo-Saxon period, see Cramp, Rosemary, ‘Monastic Sites’,The Archaeology of Anglo-Saxon England, ed. Wilson, David M. (London, 1976), p. 202Google Scholar, fig. 5.1.

^{page 239 note 2} E.g. London, British Library, Cotton Vespasian D. vi, a mid-tenth-century manuscript among whose texts is the ‘Kentish Hymn’ (Ker, N. R., Catalogue of Manuscripts containing Anglo-Saxon (Oxford, 1957)Google Scholar, no. 207). T. A. M. Bishop has noted various examples, e.g. a late-eleventh-century manuscript from the Exeter scriptorium, ‘Notes on Cambridge Manuscripts, II’, Trans. of the Cambridge Bibliographical Soc. 2 (1954–1958), 193.Google Scholar

^{page 239 note 3} Books were written and decorated by the secular clerks at Winchester before Æthelwold expelled them in 963; see Chaplais, Pierre, ‘The Anglo-Saxon Chancery: from the Diploma to the Writ’, Jnl of the Soc. of Archivists 3 (1965–1969), 163–5Google Scholar. For evidence that a lay scribe wrote for the community at Worcester when Oswald was bishop, see P. H. Sawyer, ‘Charters of the Reform Movement: the Worcester Archive’,Tenth-Century Studies. Essays in Commemoration of the Millennium of the Council of Winchester and ‘Regularis Concordia’, ed. Parsons, David (London and Chichester, 1975), pp. 92–3Google Scholar. See also Bishop, T. A. M., English Caroline Minuscule (Oxford, 1971Google Scholar; hereafter cited as ECM), pp. xvi–xvii.

^{page 239 note 4} The peak of achievement occurs in the last quarter of the tenth century and the first decade of the eleventh, when the drive to multiply texts seems to have been at its height; Ibid. pp. xxii–xxiii. 259

^{page 240 note 1} 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), 149–71Google Scholar, esp. 158–65; and Bishop, T. A. M., ‘Notes on Cambridge Manuscripts, IV’. Trans. of the Cambridge Bibliographical Soc. 2 (1954–1958), 331 and 333–4Google Scholar, and ECM, pp. xiv and xix.

^{page 240 note 2} An ecclesiastic may have personally owned a psalter, a gospel book or a martyrology; and he might leave his books to a layman. Ælfwold, bishop of Crediton, for example, left two manuscripts to the uncle of King Æthelred (English Historical Documents c.500–1042, ed. Whitelock, D. (London, 1955), p. 536)Google Scholar. In the 1020s Adémar of Chabannes, a monk at St Martial in Limoges, wrote and illustrated for himself a copy of several popular texts, including the astronomical treatise of Hyginus, the Psychomachia of Prudentius and a collection of fables. The amateurish look of his drawings may caution us against drawing inferences about the scriptorium in which such a manuscript was written. The manuscript survives as Leiden, University Library, Voss. lat. Q. 15. See Gaborit-Chopin, D., La Decoration des MSS a St Martial de Limoges et en Limousin (Paris, 1969), pp. 31, n. 1, and 53–4Google Scholar, and Stettiner, R., Die illustrierten Prudentius Handschriften (Berlin, 1905)Google Scholar, Taf. 19–30.

^{page 240 note 3} London, British Library, Cotton Vitellius A. xv.

^{page 240 note 4} London, British Library, Cotton Cleopatra A. vi. The manuscript preserves a good text of Donatus, a text ofInterrogationes on grammatical points, a short poem on Gregory the Great and a treatise on monosyllables. I am grateful to Jeffrey Huntsman for information about the texts in this manuscript, which appears to be a schoolmaster‘s handbook that he may have decorated and partly written himself.

^{page 240 note 5} The Vercelli Book, ed. Sisam, Celia, EEMF 19 (Copenhagen, 1976)Google Scholar; the editor suggests that the Vercelli Book might have been written for the nuns at Barking Abbey, but might the scribe have been a woman ? See also Whitelock, Dorothy, Some Anglo-Saxon Bishops of London (London, 1975), p. 30.Google Scholar

^{page 240 note 6} The scribe had difficulty in filling some of the blank spaces left for initials in the Vercelli Book; he drew an H on 49r rather well (though possibly in the wrong place; see Sisam, , Vercelli Book, p. 19Google Scholar), but had difficulty with a different style of initial, which occurs on two leaves (106v and 112r). These two Ms are set in the text and Sisam suggests they were drawn before the text. They can remind us that the relationship between initial and text is complex; scribes following an exemplar might leave a complicated pattern for a decorator to follow, which the decorator might disregard or fill in such a way that the initial seems to have preceded the text. In the Bosworth Psalter (London, British Library, Add. 37517), for example, the decorator sometimes ignores the space allowed and paints upon the script (101v, 102r and 106r). Some of the spaces left in Cambridge, Corpus Christi College 41 allow for initials to be fitted around text.

^{page 241 note 1} For example, the literary critical problem of the unity of Judith in the Beowulf manuscript depends on whether what survives is a fragment of a longer poem, and this question depends partly on how we interpret the section numbers that divide the poem; see Chamberlain, David, lsquo;Judith: a Fragmentary and Political poem’, Anglo-Saxon Poetry: Essays in Appreciation, ed. Nicholson, Lewis E. and Frese, Dolores Warwick (Notre Dame, Indiana, and London, 1975), pp. 135–41Google Scholar. Consideration of the problem might be helped by taking account of scribal practice in indicating sections in Latin prose or in earlier manuscripts of Latin poetry, such as CCCC 304, a manuscript of Juvencus written (s. VIII¹) continuously, not in verses. It was in England in the tenth century; see Codices Latini Antiquiores, ed. Lowen, E. A., 2nd ed. (Oxford, 1972)Google Scholar, no. 127. For remarks on manuscripts as evidence for the interpenetration of Latin and Old English writings, see Clemoes, Peter, ‘Late Old English Literature’, Tenth-Century Studies, ed. Parsons, , p. 106.Google Scholar

^{page 241 note 2} Survey of Manuscripts Illuminated in the Brit. Isles, gen. ed. J. J. G. Alexander 2 (London, 1976). Vol. 3 (C. M. Kauffmann, Romanesque Manuscripts) was published in 1975. Each volume in the series is to have the same parts and the same de luxe format, comparable to that adopted for Beckwith, John, Ivory Carvings in Early Medieval England (1972).Google Scholar

^{page 241 note 3} There are 106 items in each of the two volumes published so far, but under items 19 and 30 Temple lists eleven and eighteen manuscripts respectively (totalling twenty-nine, not twenty-eight as stated in her foreword).

^{page 241 note 4} The pages of plates are not numbered. The quality of reproduction is far higher in Temple's volume than in Kauffmann‘s, for the illustrations and most figures are printed on coated stock. It is surprising that only five libraries are specifically thanked by the publishers for permission to reproduce manuscripts (p. 123).

^{page 241 note 5} A psalter, two gospel lectionaries, a pontifical and two gospels. There is no plate to illustrate coloured outline drawings, the special contribution of English artists to book decoration.

^{page 241 note 6} The second of these is in two parts, the first of which is called ‘Types of Books’ (partly a list of authors and titles) and the second ‘Places of Origin’.

^{page 242 note 1} Liturgical manuscripts are easily identified, but non-liturgical manuscripts, particularly collections of poetry, are not treated consistently. E.g. three collections of vernacular homilies (two of them closely related textually) are entitled respectively ‘Homiliary’,‘Homilies in Anglo-Saxon’ and ‘Anglo-Saxon Homilies’ and three manuscripts of the works of Prudentius are called ‘Psychomachia and other Poems’, ‘Peristephanon, etc.’, and ‘Carmina, Miscellanea, etc.’. Although references are usually given to the catalogues where a manuscript's contents are listed, this information is lacking in a number of cases, e.g. CCCC 23 (no. 48).

^{page 242 note 2} The aims of the series are stated in the promotional brochure.

^{page 242 note 3} Describing colours presents difficulties; in the introductory volume to the Lindesfarne Gospels facsimile H. Roosen-Runge and A. E. A. Werner noted the confusion that impressionistic colour terms can create. See Codex L.indisfarnensis, ed. Kendrick, T. D., Brown, T. J., Mitford, R. Bruce, Roosen-Runge, H., Ross, A. S. C., Stanley, E. G. and Werner, A. E. A. (Lausanne, 1960) 11, 263–72Google Scholar, esp. 263. Temple has cited H. Roosen-Runge's study of colour and technique, Farbge bung und Technik frühmittelalterlicherBuchmdlerei (Munich, 1967)Google Scholar, which has particular reference to the pigments used in manuscripts of this period. It is possible to apply the names of pigments when describing a manuscript, as David Wright has done; see The Vespasian Psalter, ed. Wright, David H., EEMF 14 (Copenhagen, 1967), 19–21Google Scholar, but failing this, one might usefully cross-reference between the colour vocabulary used and the colour plates reproduced.

^{page 242 note 4} The publishers' brochure and the dust-jacket describe the bibliographies as ‘exhaustive’; they are indeed thorough with respect to the art-historical literature. But there is a notable omission: Wilson, David M., Anglo-Saxon Ornamental Metalwork 700–1100 in the British Museum (London, 1964), pp. 35–51Google Scholar, pl. VIII. For further comment on bibliography, see below, pp. 243f., n. 3.

^{page 243 note 1} Editor's preface in vol. 3 (which stands as an introduction to the series as a whole):‘It is desirable to set out briefly but clearly what evidence there might be of a date or a place of production. Too often conjectures are made on these matters which gradually come to pass as facts’ (p. 7).

^{page 243 note 2} ASE 5 (1976), 121–31.Google Scholar

^{page 243 note 3} For example, Temple attributes the Vercelli Book with a query to Worcester; she supports Förster's suggestion of Worcester with a parallel to an initial in a manuscript of probable Worcester provenance (p. 55; Bishop, ECM, no. 19). But linguistic evidence points to a south-eastern origin; see Scragg, D. G., ‘The Compilation of the Vercelli Book’, ASE 2 (1973), 189–207Google Scholar, and Sisam, , The Vercelli Book, pp. 32–6Google Scholar. 1 list below articles either not cited, or cited but not taken into account, in the descriptions:

Alexander, J. J. G.,‘The Benedictional of St Æthelwold and Anglo-Saxon Illumination of the Reform Period’, Tenth-Century Studies, ed. Parsons, , pp. 169–83Google Scholar; Deshman, Robert, ‘Anglo-Saxon Art after Alfred’, Art Bull. 56 (1974), 176–200CrossRefGoogle Scholar; ‘Christusrex et magireges: Kingship and Christology in Ottonian and Anglo-Saxon Art’, FS 10 (1976), 367–405Google Scholar and ‘The Leofric Missal and Tenth-Century English Art’,ASE 6 (1977), 145–73Google Scholar; Henderson, George, ‘The Programme of Illustrations in Bodleian MS Junius xi’, Studies in Memory of David Talbot Rice, ed. Robertson, G. and Henderson, G. (Edinburgh, 1975), pp. 113–45Google Scholar; Hinton, David A., A Catalogue of the Anglo-Saxon Ornamental Metalwork 700–1100 in the Department of Antiquities, Ashmolean Museum (Oxford, 1974)Google Scholar; Howlett, D. R.,‘The Iconography of the Alfred Jewel’,Oxoniensia 39 (1974), 44–52Google Scholar; Korhammer, P. M., ‘The Origin of the Bosworth Psalter’, ASE 2 (1973), 173–87Google Scholar; Milton McC. Gatch, , ‘Noah's Raven in Genesis A and the Illustrated Old English Hexateuch’, Gesta 14.2 (1975), 3–15Google Scholar; Mellinkoff, Ruth, The Horned Moses in Medieval Art and Thought (California, 1970)Google Scholar and ‘The Round, Cap-Shaped Hats Depicted on Jews in BM Cotton Claudius B. iv’, ASE 2 (1973), 155–65Google Scholar; Parkes, , ‘The Parker Manuscript’ Barbara Raw, ‘The Probable Derivation of Most of the Illustrations in Junius 11’, ASE 5 (1976), 133–48Google Scholar; and Voigts, Linda E., ‘A New Look at a Manuscript containing the Old English Translation of the Herbarium Apulei’, Manuscripta 20 (1976), 40–60.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Two facsimiles in the EEMF series have appeared, both with important implications for the study of manuscripts in the period: The Old English Illustrated Hexateuch, ed. Dodwell, C. R. and Clemoes, Peter, EEMF 18 (Copenhagen, 1974)Google Scholar, and Sisam, The VercelliBook. The former demonstrates the value of an art historian and a textual critic studying a manuscript in collaboration. It includes (pp. 54–8) a pioneering analysis, by Peter Clemoes, of the process by which a book with a complicated lay-out of short passages of text interspersed with pictures was organized and produced. More such studies are needed.

^{page 244 note 1} I, ch. 1. Two earlier essays had surveyed Anglo-Saxon art of this period, a laudatory essay by Haseloff, A. (in Michel, A., L'Histoire de l'art I (Paris, 1905)Google Scholar, pt 1) and two chapters in Herbert's, J. A.English Illumination (London, 1911)Google Scholar, treating outline drawings and paintings. Writing in 1923, H. P. Mitchell commented on the English failure to appreciate the artistic achievements of the tenth and eleventh centuries, citing Herbert's ‘curious contempt’ as opposed to the German Haseloff's appreciation: ‘If this Anglo-Saxon school existed in Germany, its products would have been studied and reproduced until their excellence was a part of general knowledge.’ Mitchell demanded a‘comprehensive, adequately illustrated survey of the subject’, which ‘calls loudly for popular presentation’ (‘The Flotsam of Later Anglo-Saxon Art, IV’, Burlington Mag. 43 (July-Dec. 1923), 117Google Scholar). Millar's thirty-one plates provided a wider selection than had previously been made available in one volume; although most of the manuscripts represented were in the British Museum, he included plates from the Vatican Psalter (Reg. Lat. 12), from the two liturgical manuscripts donated to Jumićges (Rouen, Bibliotheque Municipale, Y. 6 and Y. 7) and from the Trinity Gospels (Cambridge, Trinity College, B. 10. 4).

^{page 245 note 1} Westwood, J., Fac-Similes of the Miniatures and Ornaments in Anglo-Saxon and Irish Manuscripts (London, 1868)Google Scholar. Despite its date this remains a useful work; there is a notable selection of initials from Oxford, Bodleian Library, Junius 27 and London, Lambeth Palace Library, 200, as well as pages from Boulogne, Bibliothéque Municipale, 20, the psalter of Odbert of St Bertin. Westwood also reproduced drawings of the signs of the zodiac in London, British Library, Cotton Galba A. xviii and Salisbury, Cathedral Library, 150.

^{page 245 note 2} Palaeographical Society, Facsimiles of Miniatures and Inscriptions 1st and 2nd ser. (London, 1873–1894)Google Scholar, and New Palaeographical Society, Facsimiles of Ancient Manuscripts, etc. rst and 2nd ser. (1903–30).

^{page 245 note 3} The Missal of Robert of ]umiléges, ed. Wilson, H. A., Henry Bradshaw Soc. II (London, 1896)Google Scholar; pls. 1–15 reproduce the thirteen illuminated pages from the sacramentary. Other editions of liturgical manuscripts were similarly useful, among them The Benedictional of Archbishop Robert, ed. Wilson, H. A., HBS 14 (London, 1903)Google Scholar; The Leofric Missal, ed. Warren, F. E. (Oxford, 1883)Google Scholar; and The Bosworth Psalter, ed. Gasquet, F. A. and Bishop, E. (London, 1908)Google Scholar. They all reproduce litho-graphs or photographs of script and decoration.

Another resource should be noted. The catalogues of western manuscripts in the libraries of Cambridge colleges compiled by M. R. James included a few plates. James also inventoried the subjects in Canon Table decorations, and transcribed tituli, acrostics and the like. These helpfully complement Temple's descriptions of such manuscripts as Cambridge, Pembroke College 301 (no. 73) and Cambridge, Trinity College B. 10. 4 (no. 65).

H. P. Mitchell's four articles inThe Burlington Mag., with their ironic title (see above, p. 244, n. 1), called attention to the parallels between manuscript drawings and paintings and the arts of ivory carving and metal-work. He offered excellent photographs of the tiny porphyry and silver portable altar (10¼ x 5¼ in) now in the Cluny Museum, Paris (Burlington Mag. 42 (Jan.–June 1923), 63–71, 162–8 and 303–4, and 43Google Scholar (July–Dec.1923), 104–17).

^{page 245 note 4} Millar noted that the photographs in the exhibition catalogue indicated the relative proportions of manuscripts in a way that his photographs, which reduced each page to a standard size, could not. (The catalogue reproduced photographs of the manuscripts displayed in the exhibition cases.) It is essential to indicate whether a photograph is enlarged or reduced if one is not to lose all sense of a differentiation among books.

^{page 245 note 5} The Benedictional of St Æthelaold, ed. Warner, G. F. and Wilson, H. A. (Oxford, 1910)Google Scholar. Warner's work stressed the dependence of the Winchester manuscripts on Carolingian models, manu-scripts and ivories, and the independence and vigour of the compositions themselves. The hall-mark of the Winchester school was the elaborate foliate frame in which the acanthus leaves were extended to cover partly and envelop the framework (p. xxxix).

^{page 246 note 1} Die Anfänge der Malschule von Winchester im X. Jahrhundert (Leipzig).

^{page 246 note 2} Ibid, pp.5 and 6. Homburger reviewed Millar's English Illuminated Manuscripts for the Art Bull, in 1926 (10, 309–402); he noted their differences over the attribution of London, British Library, Harley 2904, and over London, British Library, Add. 34890 and Royal 1. D. ix, but also acknowledged that Millar could not treat such questions at length in a book designed for a wide public. Homburger continued to link a group of manuscripts with Canterbury, and cited three in the British Library - Cotton Julius A. vi, the Harley psalter (Harley 603) and Cotton Cleopatra C. viii together with the pontifical in Paris (Bibliotheque Nationale, Lat. 943), the Arenberg Gospels (New York, Pierpont Morgan Library, 869), an Aldhelm in Oxford (Bodleian Library, Bodley 577) and the addition made to CCCC 411. The group of manuscripts from ‘a more inclusive school probably dispersed to a number of places and characterized by a style entirely different from that of the Winchester school’ included also Oxford, Bodleian Library, Bodley 718; London, Lambeth Palace Library, 200; London, British Library, Add. 37517 (the Bosworth Psalter); and CCCC 23 (the so-called Malmesbury Prudentius).

Harley 2904 with its tinted outline drawing of the crucifixion was a crucial manuscript for Homburger's argument, since in his view outline drawing was not characteristic of the Win-chester school. Recent scholarship, however, both liturgical and palaeographical, has firmly established its Winchester origin; see Temple, p. 64. Yet most of the manuscripts cited above have been shown by T. A. M. Bishop to be products of either St Augustine‘s or Christ Church, Canterbury. See ‘Notes, IV’; and‘Notes on Cambridge Manuscripts, VII’, Trans, of the Cambridge Bibliographical Soc. 3 (1959–1963), 413–20.Google Scholar

^{page 247 note 1} His remark (p. xi) had particular relevance to later manuscripts, to the question as to whether hands could be identified and whether work was sent out to an atelier.

^{page 247 note 2} Saunders, O. Elfrida, English Illumination (London, 1928)Google Scholar, did not affect the subject greatly; see vol. 1, ch. 2 and pis. 17–33. Saunders took account of Homburger's suggestions to the extent of reproducing an informative plate, with an initial from the insular manuscript of Cassiodorus (Durham, Cathedral Library, B. II. 30) and initials from London, Lambeth Palace Library, 200 (from St Augustine's). She repeated a confusion about the work of Odbert of St Bertin, whom she described as‘an Anglo-Saxon artist, employed at St Bertin’ (p. 31). Odbert‘s work was thought to be English by J. Westwood, who reproduced several pages from the Boulogne Psalter (Bibliotheque Municipale 20), but this view was corrected by Millar. Odbert's work is closely bound up with English illustration and decoration, but whether the locus of the connection is in the south-west or at Canterbury is not yet clear. On Odbert see Kelleher, Claire, ‘Illumination at St Bertin at Saint-Omer under the Abbacy of Odbert’ (unpubl. Ph.D. thesis, London, 1968)Google Scholar, and Voigts, , ‘A New Look at a Manuscript containing the Old English Translation of the Herbarium Apulei’, pp. 48–51.Google Scholar

^{page 247 note 3} ‘Decorated Initials in English Manuscripts from AD 900 to 1100’, Arcbaeologia 91 (1945), 107–35.Google Scholar

^{page 247 note 4} English Drawings of the Tenth and Eleventh Centuries (London, 1952).Google Scholar

^{page 247 note 5} His dates apply to the drawings, not to the manuscripts.

^{page 247 note 6} English Drawings, pp. 20–1. He illustrates the contrast between the two styles with reference to the drawing of Philosophy which prefaces Cambridge, Trinity College O. 3.7, in the ‘first style’, and the drawing of the Virgin in the crucifixion of Harley 2904: ‘Even allowing for the calm of Philosophy and the grief of the Virgin, the i wo drawings are quite different; and this difference lies in the use of the line. In the Philosophy this is more continuous than in the drawing of the Virgin, where the line is composed of quick, short, calligraphic strokes’ (pp. 29–30).

^{page 247 note 7} A Carolingian gospel book with an inscription bearing the name ‘Ada ancilla Dei’, gave the name ‘Ada school’ to manuscripts and ivories with the same style of decoration, produced at the court of Charlemagne. InDie karolingischen Miniaturen II: Die Hofschule Karls des Grossen (Berlin1958), William Koehler criticized the use of the term, and today ‘court school’ is in common use. See, e.g., Mutherich, Florentine, ‘Die Buchmalerei am Hofe Karls des Grossen‘, Karolingiscbe Kunst, ed. Wolfgang, Braunfels and Hermann, Schnitzler(Karlder Grosse. Lebenswerk und JSSachleben, ed. Wolfgang, Braunfels in, Diisseldorf, 1965), pp. 9–53Google Scholar, and Mutherich, F. and Gaehde, Joachim E., Carolingian Painting (New York, 1976), pp. 8–11.Google Scholar

^{page 248 note 1} ‘The drawings of the late tenth and early eleventh centuries do certainly divide conveniently into the two groups which have just been discussed, but the matter is complicated by the fact that unlike some continental schools of illumination these styles cannot be associated with a particular locality. It is improbable that it will ever be possible to make a division of this kind. … Stylistic differences are much more likely to have arisen from the artist being influenced, in one way or another, by his archetypes rather than by a definite training in a single local style‘(p. 35). But see Bishop, ‘Notes, VII‘, p. 416, n. 1.

^{page 248 note 2} English Art 871–1100, Oxford Hist, of Eng. Art (Oxford, 1952Google Scholar), ch. vn, ‘Manuscript Painting’. Rice's attributions are tenuous. For example, taking provenance in the sense of origin, he assigned to Bury manuscripts which include one that was written before that house was founded, the copy of an illustrated Psychomachia (London, British Library, Add. 24199). Temple has assigned a key manuscript - which might have been written at Bury if it had had a scriptorium by c. 1050 to Christ Church (London, British Library, Harley 76; no. 75), and considers it highly probable that another manuscript, the psalter now in Rome (Vatican Library, Reg. Lat. 12), was written and illustrated at Christ Church. The evidence is reviewed and a different conclusion reached by Thomson, R. M., ‘The Library of Bury St Edmunds Abbey in the Eleventh and Twelfth Centuries’, Speculum 47 (1972), 517–24CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Thomson suggests that the illustrator of the psalter might have been employed by the abbey (which by then had reached an economic position which would have allowed it to produce its own books). For a further discussion of the problems of origin and provenance, see below, pp. 261–6.

^{page 248 note 3} Painting in Britain, the Middle Ages, Pelican Hist, of Art (London, 1965Google Scholar), ch. 11. Rickert's comprehensive, amply documented survey clarified many of the obscurities that had arisen in previous criticism and analysis and she offered detailed descriptions of painting techniques. On the other hand, as part of a much larger work, her survey of Anglo-Saxon art necessarily omits, or describes only very briefly, a number of manuscripts. In her summary (p. 52) she contrasts the influence of the ‘Ada school’ at Winchester and that of manuscripts from Rheims, especially the Utrecht Psalter, at Canterbury in the late tenth century; in the eleventh century the two influences ‘became mingled and diffused to other centres’.

^{page 249 note 1} Although earlier writers, among them G. H. Warner and Otto Homburger, had discussed iconography and its sources, the interest is largely a more recent development. In ‘The Image of the Disappearing Christ’,Gazette des Beaux-Arts 6th ser. 23 (1943), 135–52Google Scholar, Schapiro first drew attention to the peculiar character of English iconography in this period - its inventiveness and dramatic and emotional quality, in which ‘vehemence of style’ was linked with ‘discoveries of descriptive detail’. He pointed out how the ‘imagination was disposed toward the concrete and the tangible’, which led to the creation of such new motifs as the midwife's tenderly placing a pillow behind the Virgin's head in the nativity scene (Temple, ill. 90).

Schapiro's focus was on the new iconography for the Ascension of Christ, in which Christ's feet are seen, framed by a mandorla, his body having disappeared into the clouds. The earliest survival of the new iconography is in the gospel book decorated by Odbert of St Bertin early in the eleventh century, now New York, Pierpont Morgan Library, 333 (Temple, no. 30(xiii)); on its anticipation by more than a century in Cynewulf's vernacular poem on the Ascension, see Clemoes, Peter, Rhythm and Cosmic Order in Old English Christian Literature (an Inaugural Lecture, Cambridge, 1970), p. 14Google Scholar and n. 13, and ‘Cynewulf's Image of the Ascension’, England before the Conquest: Studies in Primary Sources presented to Dorothy Whitelock, ed. Clemoes, Peter and Hughes, Kathleen (Cambridge, 1971), p. 300Google Scholar. Apart from the variation of Ascension iconography in liturgical books, there is a contrast in the treatment of the ascension of Hope in two manuscripts of the Psychomachia. The copy now in CCCC 23 show the Virtues in a group, looking up: Hope has disappeared into the clouds above their heads (Temple, ill. 157). In the contemporary manu-script written at Christ Church (London, British Library, Cotton Cleopatra C. viii) Hope is winged as though an angel and is shown in flight; this image corresponds to Prudentius's text (line 639). H. P. Mitchell compared the two drawings (‘Flotsam, II‘, pp. 113–17).

^{page 249 note 2} One can only suggest summarily some of the more important ones: in the Journal of the Warburgand Courtauld Institutes B. Raw (I8, 1955), G.Henderson (25,1962), R.M.Harris (26,1963) and A. Heimann (28, 1965, and 29, 1966); in the Art Bulletin E. Kantorowicz (29, 1947) and D. Tsellos (41, 1959); the articles and books cited above, pp. 243f., n. 3, by Deshman, Howlett, Gatch, Mellinkoff and Voigts; Nordenfalk, Carl, ‘The Draped Lectern: a Motif in Anglo-Saxon Evangelist Portraits’, Intuition und kunstwissenscbaft: Festschrift für Hanns Swarzenski (Berlin, 1973), pp. 81–100Google Scholar; Mersmann, Wiltrud, ‘Das Elfenbeinkreuz der Sammlung Topic-Mimara’, WallrafRichartz-Jahrbuch 25 (1963), 7–108Google Scholar; Wormald, Francis, ‘Late Saxon Art: some Questions and Suggestions’, Studies in Western Art, ed. Millard, Meiss 1 (Princeton, 1963), 19–26.Google Scholar

^{page 249 note 3} Two doctoral theses from Princeton University have shown in detail the relation between iconography and its diverse sources, and it is to be hoped both will be published: R. M. Harris,‘The Marginal Drawings of the Bury St Edmunds Psalter’ (Princeton, i960), and R. Deshman, ‘The Iconography of the Full-Page Miniatures of the Benedictional of Aethelwold’ (Princeton, 1970).

^{page 250 note 1} It is a pity that one cannot easily tell what is her own analysis and what may be quoted from the literature, but a very casual form of citation makes this difficult. Parenthetical citation is used without page reference, sometimes to cite a source, sometimes to indicate a disagreement. In one instance important conclusions reached in an unpublished thesis are repeated without acknowledgment: R. M. Harris argued for a tenth-century English exemplar behind the marginal drawings in the Boulogne Psalter (Bibliotheque Municipale, 20) and the Bury Psalter (Vatican Library, Reg. Lat. 12; no. 84); Temple states his argument (p. 100) without citing his thesis, although it is one of some forty items listed in the bibliography of no. 84 (see Harris, ‘Marginal Drawings’, pp. 102–42).

^{page 250 note 2} Now with its supplement; see above, p. 243, n. 2.

^{page 250 note 3} ‘Notes, II’ (Bury St Edmunds); ‘Notes on Cambridge Manuscripts, III’, Trans, of the Cambridge bibliographicalSoc. 2 (1954–1958), 192–9Google Scholar (Exeter); ‘Notes, I V (St Augustine's, Canterbury); ’Notes on Cambridge Manuscripts, V and VI’,Ibid. 3 (1959–63), 93–5 and 412–13 (St Augustine's, Canterbury); and ‘Notes, VII’ (Christ Church, Canterbury).

^{page 250 note 4} ‘The Copenhagen Gospel Book‘,’ Nordisk Tidskrift for Bok och Biblioteksvasen 1967, 33–41Google Scholar; ‘Lincoln Cathedral Manuscript 182’,Lincolnshire Hist, and Archaeology 1967, 73–6;Google Scholar and Aethici IstriciCosmographia: Codex Leidensis Scaligeranus 69, Umbrae Codicum Occidentalium TO (Amsterdam, 1966).Google Scholar

^{page 250 note 5} See above, p. 239, n. 3; the volume contains plates from twenty-nine manuscripts.

^{page 251 note 1} Bishop noted that some sixty repositories hold the manuscripts and documents essential to an account of English Caroline minuscule script (ECM, p. 5). There is a great need for a hand-list of Latin manuscripts written in England in the tenth and eleventh centuries. Many today are in continental libraries whose catalogues vary widely in accuracy and completeness.

^{page 251 note 2} Temple‘s date is’ mid-tenth-century ‘(p. 40). The script, however, does not meet the criteria for the earliest examples of square minuscule script (for which see Bishop, , ‘An Early Example of the Square Minuscule’, Trans. of the Cambridge Bibliographical Soc. 4 (1964–1948), 246–52Google Scholar). The number of hands in the manuscript has not been determined; one scribe uses both minuscule s and halfuncial s, square a and half-uncial a, and ti ligatures. For a small portion of the script, see Temple, ill. 38.

^{page 252 note 1} Christ, seated on the rainbow, with the Virgin, Dove and Lamb (ill. 167), and Christ treading on the beasts (ill. 168).

^{page 252 note 2} Temple calls this branch a ‘virga’ (p. 60), but might it not be a palm branch The figure of Luke added to the continental gospel book now New York, Pierpont Morgan Library, 827 holds what Harms Swarzenski called a palm branch that ‘looks like an elongated feather pen’ (he considered it‘iconographically meaningless’); so too do the uncrowned ancestors of Christ in Boulogne, Bibliothéque Municipale, 11 (no. 44); Swarzenski, Harms, ‘The Anhalt-Morgan Gospels’, Art Bull. 31 (1949), 78CrossRefGoogle Scholar, figs. 6 and 8, and Temple, ill. 147.

^{page 253 note 1} One might compare the rondel with the lamb sketched on a fly-leaf of the Tollemache Orosius, London, British Library, Add. 47967 (no. 8, ill. 28). The porphyry portable altar with a silver border engraved with figures offers parallels to the Arenberg Gospels illustrations; see Mitchell, ‘Flotsam, I’, pp. 63–4, pi. 1. E.g. the angel, identified as Gabriel by an inscription, holds a disc with a cross inscribed on it.

^{page 253 note 2} Raw, ‘The Probable Derivation of Most of the Illustrations in Junius II’, p. 138 and n. 2.

^{page 253 note 3} Temple, p. 59; see also ‘The “Winchester School” before St Æthelwold’, England before the Conquest, ed. Cletnoes, and Hughes, , pp. 305–13.Google Scholar

^{page 253 note 4} The Canterbury School of Illumination, 1066–1200 (Cambridge, 1954), p. 4.Google Scholar

^{page 254 note 1} A Catalogue of drawings, not of manuscrips; Wormald offers a date in the main entry and treats provenance in the text.

^{page 255 note 1} Or he can look at Ker'sCatalogue, where the ‘Index of the Contents of the Manuscripts’ gives both‘Beowulf’ and ‘Poetry’ and where running heads in the text give both the city and the library along with the catalogue number. In Temple's ‘Index of Manuscripts’ the page references do not include a reference to the main entry. It is to be hoped that future volumes in the series will be better indexed. The so-called ‘Analysis of anuscripts’ is an unreliable guide to authors and titles: for instance, only three of the five manuscripts of Boethius are listed; ‘Calendars’ omits London, British Library, Cotton Galba A. xviii (no. 5); and the homilies of Gregory the Great on Ezekiel are not found under the sub-entry ‘Gregory the Great’. Thirty undifferentiated numbers follow the entry ‘Gospels’, including a ghost entry ‘32(xvi)’ (a useful sub-entry would have been ‘Gospels with Later Additions’). The typographical style for indicating titles of works changes between columns one and two. In the index entitled ‘Places of Origin’, all question marks are omitted from the references to manuscripts with a queried Christ Church origin.

^{page 255 note 2} Temple dates the manuscriptc. 1000, a conventional date in the literature; see Rickert,Painting in Britain, p. 225, n. 80, for a summary of the evidence. Ker's date is x–xi¹, xi¹. Wormald (English Drawings, pp. 38–9) dated it to the second quarter of the eleventh century on the basis of ‘Scandanavianisms’ in the style. Following Rickert, Temple cites Holmqvist, W. against Wormald (‘Viking Art in the Eleventh Century’, Ada Archaeologica 22 (1951), 1–56Google Scholar). Holmqvist argued that the Scandinavian Ringerike style of the eleventh century was English in origin; but his view has not been accepted; see Wilson, D. M. and Klindt-Jensen, O., Viking Art (London, 1966), pp. 121 and 141–5Google Scholar, esp. 145. See also Raw, ‘The Probable Derivation of Most of the Illustrations in Junius II’, p. 134. Temple does not consider the script, which supports the date 1000–25. The manuscript may have been left unfinished for some years; the second artist and the second scribal group may have worked c. 1020. The date and origin of Junius 11 are still an open question.

^{page 255 note 3} Copenhagen, Kongelige Bibliotek, G. K. S. IO. 2°; cf. Besançon, Bibliothéque Municipale, 14 (no. 76).

^{page 256 note 1} Warsaw, Biblioteka Narodowa, i. 3311 (pp. 107–8, ills. 281–4 and figs 51–5 on p. 29 and fig. 59 on p. 243).

^{page 256 note 2} P. 102; cf. Wormald, , English Drawings, p. 72Google Scholar. There are other manuscripts in the catalogue to which drawings have been added (e.g. Oxford, St John‘s College 194); in all other instances, however, the texts are identified.

^{page 256 note 3} Bishop, ‘Notes, IV’, p. 329. The glossary is discussed by Laistner, M. L. W. (‘Notes on Greek from the Lectures of a Ninth-Century Monastery Teacher’, Bull. of the John RylandsLib. 7 (1922–1923), 421–56CrossRefGoogle Scholar), who identifies the text as lecture notes on Greek given by Martin of Laon.

^{page 257 note 1} Rigg, A. G. and Wieland, G. R., ‘A Canterbury Classbook of the Mid-Eleventh Century (the “Cambridge Songs” Manuscript)’,ASE 4 (1975), 113–30Google Scholar, esp. 116. Rigg and Wieland do not describe the figures, however.

^{page 257 note 2} Pp. 46–7 and 55–8. These manuscripts are contemporary and often are written by the same scribe or scribes.

^{page 257 note 3} It might be useful to distinguish between the terms ‘illuminated’ and ‘decorated’. If ‘illumination’ were restricted to illustrations and initials painted in body-colour which reflects light, particularly where metal leaf is used,‘decoration’ could refer to the broader class comprising, as well as the above, illustrations and ornamental initials drawn in coloured or black ink or bistre. By error the name of the series is given on one occasion (p. 7) as ‘Survey of Manuscripts Illustrated in the British Isles’; this points to the need for classification of the terminology.

^{page 257 note 4} The first is a copy of Isidore'sSynonyms, the second, a very interesting inclusion, is a copy (c. 1000) of King Alfred's vernacular prose version of Gregory's Cur a pastoralis, with unusually retrospective initials, as Temple points out. This manuscript might have been written in London, as it derives from the copy which the king sent to the bishop of London; see Whitelock, , Some Anglo-Saxon Bishops of London, p. 30.Google Scholar

^{page 257 note 5} I will use ‘scribe’ to stand for both the writer of the text and the person who ornamented it with initials, although it is probable that few scribes were capable of drawing the calligraphic initials found in tenth-century books.

^{page 257 note 6} The initials served as devices to indicate the divisions of the text and sometimes they may have had liturgical significance; see the discussion of the minor initials, Kendrick, et al., Codex Lindisfarnensis 11, 35 and 38–42.Google Scholar

^{page 257 note 7} Cambridge, University Library, LI. 1. 10.

^{page 258 note 1} See Wright, , The Vespasian Psalter, pp. 42–3Google Scholar, for the probable origin of the Psalter (London, British Library, Cotton Vespasian A. i). It was at Christ Church in the early eleventh century, when liturgical additions were made by Eadui Basan; see Bishop, ECM, no. 25. CCCC 144 (the Corpus Glossary) is decorated with graceful pen-line initials filled with colour. One of its glossaries is related to a Latin-Old English glossary copied into a glossary collection by St Augustine's scribes. This last is now London, British Library, Cotton Cleopatra A. iii; see Bishop,‘Notes, V’, p. 93, and Stryker, William, ‘The Old English Glosses in Cotton Cleopatra A III’ (unpubl. Ph.D. thesis, Stanford, 1951)Google Scholar, for an identification of the glosses and their sources. See too John J. Quinn, ‘The Minor Latin—OE Glossaries in MS Cotton Cleopatra A III’ (unpubl. Ph.D. thesis, Stanford, 1956). I hope to consider the problem of initial style in greater detail in a study of display in tenth-century manuscripts. I would also like to thank Mildred Budny for many helpful discussions about scribal habits and the development of initial styles in insular and continental manuscripts.

^{page 258 note 2} The revival of the scriptorium at Winchester under Alfred may have been directed by Grimbald of St Bertin, who came to Englandfrom Rheims; seeParkes, ‘The Parker Manuscript’, pp. 163– 4. The gifts Athelstan received are listed by Robinson, J. Armitage, The Times of St Dunstan (Oxford, 1923), pp. 51–71Google Scholar. For Corbie, see Bishop,ECM, p. xi, n. 1, and no. 14. Relations with Fleury are well known; see, e.g., Gougard, L., ‘Relations de Fleury-sur-Loire avec La Bretagne et les ???lies Britanniques (x^e et xi^e siedes)’, Mémoires de la société de l'histoire de Bretagne (1923), pp. 1–30.Google Scholar English artists added drawings and paintings to manuscripts most probably written at Fleury: London, British Library, Harley 2506 (no. 42, an Aratea); Orleans, Bibliotheque Municipale, 175 (no. 43, Gregory's homilies on Ezekiel); and Paris, Bibliothéque Nationale, 6401 (no. 32, Boethius).

^{page 258 note 3} There seems to have been a ‘house style’ which developed at Canterbury and which may distinguish books written there from those written at Winchester and in scriptoria associated with Æthelwold.

^{page 258 note 4} Above, p. 246.

^{page 258 note 5} Durham Cathedral Manuscripts to the End of the Twelfth Century (Oxford, 1939).Google Scholar

^{page 259 note 1} Commonly called ‘dragons’, they are winged creatures with round heads; often they are winged bipeds; often they have teeth and foliate tails.

^{page 259 note 2} ‘Decorated Initials’, p. 123.

^{page 259 note 3} P. 12; Kendrick, T. D. (Late Saxon and Viking Art (London, 1949), pp. 27–38Google Scholar) classified the initials in a ‘soft style’ and a ‘hard style’.

^{page 259 note 4} Boulogne, Bibliothéque Municipale, 10 (no. 10) and 82 (no. 29); Salisbury, Cathedral Library, ijo(no. 18); Vercelli, Cathedral Library, io7(no. 28);London, British Library, Cotton Caligula A. vii(no. 33,Heliand) and Royal 6. A. vii (no. 60); Oxford, Bodleian Library, junius n(no. 58); Cambridge, University Library, Ff. 1. 23 (no. 80); and CCCC 41 (no. 81). Unlike those of Type II, Type I initials occur over a longer period and are mostly in manuscripts whose origins are unknown. Wormald's list included London, British Library, Harley 585. Other examples of Type I initials are in Oxford, Bodleian Library, Bodley 340 (no. 30(xvii), 22r and 57r) and in Rouen, Bibliotheque Municipale, A. 337 (51 r); see n. 6 below.

^{page 259 note 5} Cambridge, Trinity College B. 11. 2 (no. 21); London, British Library, Harley 5431 (no. 38); and London, Lambeth Palace Library, 200 (no. 39); all from St Augustine's.

^{page 259 note 6} It is to be hoped that Temple will publish a full list elsewhere. Her two present lists include all manuscripts listed by Wormald except CCCC 274 and all manuscripts listed by Bishop except Vatican Library, Reg. Lat. 489. Another example is in the copy of Boethius,De consolatione pbilosophiae, now in the Martin Bodmer collection, Geneva; see Bolton, D. K., ‘The Study of The Consolation of Philosophy in Anglo-Saxon England’, Archives d's histoire littéraire et doctrinale 44 (1977), 33–78Google Scholar, esp. 51–60. I am grateful to Professor T. J. Brown, who called my attention to a Type II initial in Oxford, Queen's College 320 Isidore,Etymologid).

It is hard to understand why a manuscript with both an historiated initial and a Type I initial was not included - Rouen, Bibliotheque Municipale, A. 337 (Gregory the Great's Dialogues). Alexander, J. J. G.(Norman Illumination at Mont St Michel 966–1100 (Oxford, 1970), p. 236Google Scholar, n. 4) noted the initials and Francois Avril (Manuscrits normands Xl-XIUme sihles (Rouen, 1975)Google Scholar, no. 6 (pp. 12–13)) has published them. The historiated initial apparently introduces bk 3 of the Dialogues and shows Paulinus, bishop of Nola, offering himself as a slave to the Vandals in place of the widow‘s son. The point of the exemplum is that Paulinus, in making himself a slave, was imitating Christ. The manuscript was noted by Bishop(ECM, p. xxvi); it is from Canterbury, possibly Christ Church.

^{page 260 note 1} For example, she includes initials by two hands who decorated Salisbury, Cathedral Library, 38 (no.19(v); ills. 65–7 Aldhelm, De virginitate), a manuscript whose initials have not been published elsewhere; one of them (ill. 65) is an exact copy of an N in Oxford, St John‘s College 28 (no. 13; 8r; from St Augustine's).

^{page 260 note 2} Bishop, ‘Notes, V’, p. 94.

^{page 260 note 3} A certain example is the Q in the Trinity Arator (Cambridge, Trinity College B. 14. 3). Possible examples are Rouen, Bibliothéque Municipale, A. 337; Cambridge, Trinity College B. 10. 4 (no. 65); and Oxford, Bodleian Library, Junius 11 (no. 58), and Bodley 342 (no. 30(xvii)).

^{page 260 note 4} See Parkes, ‘The Parker Manuscript’, p. 159, for the distinction between‘primary’, ‘secondary’ and ‘tertiary’ display. Secondary initials occur in great number. In her descriptions, Temple notes ‘numerous small initials’, which may mean as many as ninety zoomorphic initials in a work such as the De officiis ecclesiasticis of Amalarius of Metz.

^{page 260 note 5} It should be standard practice to give the fraction of reduction or otherwise to indicate scale as part of the identification ofa photograph; see, e.g., Wilson Anglo-Saxon Ornamental Metalwork, or O. Pächt and Alexander, J. J. G., Illuminated Manuscripts in the Bodleian Library, Oxford i–III (Oxford, 1966–1973).Google Scholar

^{page 261 note 1} The L is slightly larger than ordinary verse initials and is followed by a line of angular capitals, indicating that the psalm (CXLVIII) was read in the monastic office. Unlike most surviving con-temporary psalters, the Bosworth Psalter indicates by an initial of somewhat greater size and by a line of display script each of the psalms which were sung in the monastic office, not merely the psalms which were sung first at Matins on the various weekdays and the psalm which was sung first at Vespers on Sundays (I, xxvi, xxxvIII, LII, LXVIII, LXXX, XCVII and cix); see Gasquet, and Bishop, , The Bosworth Psalter, p. 10Google Scholar, pl. II, and Wright, , The Vespasian Psalter, pp. 47–8Google Scholar. There are certain inconsistencies in the identification of initials in the captions to the illustrations. Anglo-Saxon letters are not identified (ills. 2, 3, 4, 36, 39 and 40) and it is not pointed out that the initial on Oxford, Bodleian Library, Tanner 10, 1311 (ill. 34), apparently a thorn introducing bk v, ch. 13 of the Old English Bede, is a later addition. In identifying an uncial H lower case is used, a practice sometimes extended to an uncial D (ill. 126) but not to an uncial M or Q.

^{page 261 note 2} Francis Wormald (‘Anglo-Saxon Initials in a Paris Boethius Manuscript’, Gazette des Beaux-Arts 62 (1963), 63–9Google Scholar) noted the similarities between the two manuscripts and reproduced the H from each (figs. 2 and 3); see also Bishop, ‘Notes, VII’, pp. 417–18.

^{page 261 note 3} Anglo-Saxon Charters, ed. Robertson, A. J. (Cambridge, 1939)Google Scholar, no. xxxix.

^{page 261 note 4} See Rheims, Bibliothè Municipale, 9 (no. 105).

^{page 261 note 5} Ælfwold, bishop of Crediton, left a ‘Hrabanus Maurus’ and a martyrology to uncle of the king as well as three service books to Crediton (Whitelock, EHD, p. 536) and Theodred, bishop of London, left his massbook to St Paul's and a second massbook to another Theodred (Ibid. p. 510). The implications of these bequests are discussed by Wormald, C. P., ‘The Uses of Literacy in Anglo-Saxon England and its Neighbours’, TRHS 5th ser. 27 (1977), 95–114Google Scholar, esp. 107–13.

^{page 262 note 1} The story of Seiwold, abbot of Bath, who took a library of thirty-three volumes with him to St Vaast, is well known; see Grierson, Philip, ‘Les Livres de l'abbé Seiwold de Bath’, RB 52 (1940), 73–111.Google Scholar

^{page 262 note 2} A part of these totals are Bishop's attributions of the manuscripts listed in nos. 19 and 30.

^{page 262 note 3} Temple summarizes the evidence (p. 117). The division of ps. LXXVII at verse 40 is noted in four psalters with a fairly certain Winchester origin; see The Salisbury Psalter, ed. C., and Sisam, K., Early Eng. Text Soc. 242 (London, 1959), 5Google Scholar, n. 3.

^{page 263 note 1} Temple, p. 93.

^{page 263 note 2} Ibid. pp. 9 2 and 98; see also Homilies of Ælfric: a Supplementary Collection, ed. Pope, John C., EETS 259–60 (London, 1967–1968), 77–80.Google Scholar

^{page 263 note 3} P. 81.

^{page 263 note 4} Ker, , Catalogue, p. 285Google Scholar. Temple suggests that the manuscript may have been on loan to another house.

^{page 263 note 5} Voigts, ‘A New Look at a Manuscript containing the Old English Herbarium Apulei’.

^{page 264 note 1} London, British Library, Royal 1. D. ix (no. 70).

^{page 264 note 2} Bishop (‘The Copenhagen Gospel Book’, pp. 33–41) discusses the relationship among this group of manuscripts. Excellent monochrome facsimiles of six pages are found in Mackeprang, M. and Petersen, C. S., Greek and Latin Illuminated Manuscripts, X-XIII Centuries, in Danish Collections (Copenhagen, 1921)Google Scholar, pls. v–x; see also the discussion Kendrick et al., Codex Lindisfarnensis 11, 149–57, and Alexander, J. J. G., Insular Manuscripts 6th to the 9th Century, Survey of Manuscripts Illuminated in the Brit. Isles 1 (London, 1978), 38–9.Google Scholar

^{page 264 note 3} Hohler, Christopher, ‘Les Saints insulaires dans le missel de l'Archev???que Robert’, Jumieges, Congrès scientifique du Xllle centenaire (Rouen, 1955), 1, 301.Google Scholar

^{page 264 note 4} London, British Library, Loan 11.

^{page 264 note 5} When documents were added by a Christ Church scribe; see below, p. 266.

^{page 264 note 6} The texts in this manuscript may suggest Peterborough: the Historia ecclesiastica is followed by a copy of Æthelwulf's poem, De abbatibus, which concerns a Lindisfarne dependency. Another hand has added a vocabulary list based on the third book of Abbo's Bella Parisiacae urbis, a book which Æthelwold gave to Peterborough; see Lapidge, Michael, ‘The Hermeneutic Style in Tenth-Century Anglo-Latin Literature’, ASB. 4 (1975), p. 75Google Scholar, n. 2, and Robertson, Charters, no. xxxix. See also Ætbelwulj De abbatibus, ed. Campbell, A. (Oxford, 1967)Google Scholar, p. x.

^{page 265 note 1} Temple cites an early comment of Bishop: ‘T. A. M. Bishop quotes Ker, moreover, as saying that owing to the fire at Peterborough in 1116, the “Peterborough” manuscripts of earlier date may be of external origin (cf.Notes [i.e. ‘Notes, II’])’ however, in ECM (no. 23, the Pembroke Gospels) Bishop notes, ‘For the provenance (Peterborough), for the survival, after the fire of 1120, of at least part of the early Peterborough library (including books presented by Æthelwold Bishop of Winchester)… see Ker…’.

^{page 265 note 2} Glunz, H. H. (History of the Vulgate in England from Alcuin to Roger Bacon (Cambridge, 1933), pp. 133–48Google Scholar) found that the text of the Pembroke Gospels varies from that of a group including the Trinity Gospels and Royal 1. D. ix (the Kederminster Gospels were not considered); seep. p.141.

^{page 265 note 3} In the Pembroke Gospels group the texts are in short paragraphs. Gold uncials and capitals in the margin denote secondary divisions of the text. In the two earlier gospels the text is written as a block, with coloured angular capitals to mark secondary divisions and rustic capitals to mark tertiary ones.

^{page 266 note 1} Temple, p. 20 (cited in support of the provenance of the Trinity Gospels) and pp. 83–4 (‘The manuscript was probably produced at Christ Church, Canterbury’).

^{page 266 note 2} For the identity of the hand, see Bishop, ECM, nos. 23 and 24; see also‘The Copenhagen Gospel Book’, pp. 40 and 41. For the gift to Christ Church, see ECM, p. xv.

^{page 266 note 3} ASC, s.a. 1013; cf. Frank Barlow,The English Church 1000–1066 (London, 1963), p. 103, n. 1.

^{page 266 note 4} Pp. 43–5.

^{page 266 note 5} I am greatly indebted to Dr Alan Bernstein, Professor T. J. Brown, Dr George Brown, Ms Mildred Budny, Dr Paul Hyams and Mr Malcolm Parkes for their helpful criticisms and insights.