¹ Ed. Anthony Hall (Oxford, 1709) 1, 114. Abbreviations used in the course of this article are: CLA = Lowe, E. A., Codices Latini Antiquiores (Oxford, 1934–1972);Google ScholarICUR = vol. 11, pt 1, of Inscriptiones Christianae Urbis Romae, ed. de Rossi, Giovanni B. (Rome, 1857–1888);Google ScholarICUR n.s. = Inscriptiones Christianae Urbis Romae n.s., ed. Silvagni, Angelo (Rome, 1922–);Google ScholarILCV = Inscriptiones Latinae Christianae Veteres, ed. Ernst Diehl, repr. with Supplementum, ed. Moreau, J. and Marrou, H. I. (Dublin and Zürich, 1967–1970).Google Scholar 1 should like to acknowledge the help I have received at various points from Professor Bernhard Bischoff, Herr Helmuth Domizlaff and my colleagues David Dumville, Michael Lapidge and Neil Wright.

² References to discussions of this point and of the letter are given in my ‘Cuthswith, Seventh-Century Abbess of Inkberrow, near Worcester, and the Würzburg Manuscript of Jerome on Ecclesiastes’, ASE 5 (1976), 16.Google Scholar I have discussed in detail the letter and the material mentioned in my next paragraph in a book on the dioceses of Worcester and Hereford in the seventh and eighth centuries, to be published by Cambridge University Press.

³ ‘John Leland and Milred of Worcester’, Manuscripta 21 (1977), 178–80.Google Scholar

⁴ ‘Some Remnants of Bede's Lost Liber Epigrammatum’, EHR 90 (1975). 798–820.Google Scholar

⁵ 1, 113.

⁶ Lapidge, , ‘Some Remnants’. This in most respects supersedes the edition in John Leland, Collectanea, ed. Hearne, Thomas, 2nd ed. (London, 1774) 111, at 114–18;Google Scholar but see below, nn. 15 and 60.

⁷ ‘Some Remnants’; but in view of the adjective sanctus it is unlikely that the verses are by Milred himself (Ibid. p. 802), and, for evidence that the manuscript was later than the eighth century, see below, p. 26.

⁸ In the book mentioned above, n. 2.

⁹ Cuð (which is distinct from Cudd) is not listed in Searle, William George, Onomasticon Anglo-Saxonicum (Cambridge, 1897).Google Scholar

¹⁰ The Book of Cerne, ed. Kuypers, A. B. (Cambridge, 1902), p. 218.Google Scholar

¹¹ See CLA 11, no. 215, and Ker, N. R., Catalogue of Manuscripts containing Anglo-Saxon (Oxford, 1957)Google Scholar, no. 248.

¹² Gesta Pontificum, ed. Hamilton, N. E. S. A., Rolls Ser. (London, 1870), p. 299.Google Scholar As to whether Cuthbert of Hereford was the same as the archbishop mentioned earlier, see my ‘Cuthswith’, p. 16, n. 5.

¹³ Leland, , Collectanea III, 265Google Scholar, and Commentarii 1, 134–5.

¹⁴ Gesta Pontificum, ed. Hamilton, , p. 629.Google Scholar

¹⁵ Lapidge prints only the interlineated readings (‘Some Remnants’, p. 812, n. 4), not what Leland originally wrote; for the latter one must return to Hearne's edition (cited above, n. 6).

¹⁶ Collectanea 111, 265.

¹⁷ Lapidge, , ‘Some Remnants’, pp. 813 and 820Google Scholar, and Thomson, Rodney M., ‘The Reading of William of Malmesbury: Addenda and Corrigenda’, RB 86 (1976), 330–1Google Scholar, and ‘William of Malmesbury's Edition of the Liber Pontificalis’, Archivum Historiae Pontificiae 16 (1978), 100–4 and 110.Google Scholar Their discussions of the variant readings of William and Leland need modification in view of the point made above, n. 15, but further enquiry vindicates both Lapidge and Thomson and supports the main thesis of this paper, as I show in ‘William of Malmesbury and “La Silloge Epigrafica di Cambridge’ (forthcoming).

¹⁸ Natural History of Wiltshire, ed. Britton, John (London, 1847), p. 79.Google Scholar

¹⁹ ‘The Urbana Anglo-Saxon Sylloge of Latin Inscriptions’, Poetry and Poetics from Ancient Greece to the Renaissance: Studies in honor of James Hutton, ed. Kirkwood, G. M., Cornell Stud. in Classical Philol. 38 (Ithaca, N.Y., 1975), 134–51.Google Scholar Cf. Schaller, Dieter, ‘Bemerkungen zur Inschriften-Sylloge von Urbana’, Mittellateinisches Jahrbuch 12 (1977), 9–21.Google Scholar

²⁰ ‘Leland and Milred’, pp. 173–8.Google Scholar There are further marginalia, illegible in my microfilm, on iv–2r.

²¹ Traube, Ludwig, Vorlesungen und Abbandlungen, ed. Franz, Boll (Munich, 1909–1920) 111, 95–119.Google Scholar Cf. Coccia, Edmondo, ‘La cultura irlandese precarolingia: miracolo o mito?’, SM 3rd ser. 8 (1967), 318–20Google Scholar, and Lapidge, , ‘Some Remnants’, p. 805.Google Scholar

²² Re-edited by Schaller, , ‘Bemerkungen’, pp. 17–21.Google Scholar Was Leland's premia vitae (for pignora uite) suggested by the same cadence in Damasus, Epigram 1 (discussed below, pp. 33–4), or in ILCV, no. 1804 (where the word pignora also occurs)?

²³ ‘Les Inscriptions métriques de l'église de Péronne’, AB 78 (1960), 369–70.Google Scholar

²⁴ Edited from thirteenth-and fourteenth-century manuscripts by Esposito, Mario, ‘Conchubrani Vita Sanctae Monennae’, Proc. of the R. Irish Acad. 28, Sect. C (1910), 246Google Scholar (cf. pp. 205–6).

²⁵ Collectanea 111, 276. Sheerin's statement (‘Leland and Milred’, p. 175) that ‘Leland encountered this poem in two other MSS at Glastonbury’ is based on a misunderstanding of this passage. For the lengthening of -aă before sc- see Aldhelmi Opera, ed. Ehwald, R., Monumenta Germaniae Historica, Auct. Antiq. 15 (Berlin, 1919), 755Google Scholar, and Norberg, Dag, Introduction à l'étude de la versification latine médiévale, Studia Latina Stockholmiensia 5 (Stockholm, 1958), 8.Google Scholar

²⁶ ‘One may also perceive by the binding of old bookes how the old manuscripts went to wrack in those dayes’ (Aubrey, Natural History of Wiltshire, p. 79).Google Scholar

²⁷ Professor Bernhard Bischoff writes to me: ‘Etwa 1934, jedenfalls kurz nachdem Karl Christ Direktor der Berliner Handschriftenabteilung geworden war, arbeitete ich in Berlin. Dabei zeigte mir Christ oder Albert Boeckler das Fragment, das – wie ich glaube, von dem Erben eines Dr Amt(?) in Quedlinburg, eines Sammlers – soeben der Bibliothek zum Kauf angeboten worden war. Damals war man noch sparsam, und so konnte Christ sich nicht zum Ankauf entschliessen … Wie [das Fragment] in den Besitz des Quedlinburger Sammlers gekommen ist, ist mir unbekannt.’ The fragment was no. 1731 in Gerd Rosen's catalogue no. xxix, 2 Teil (pp. 42–3), which I have seen only in a photocopy kindly sent me by Herr Domizlaff.

²⁸ Catalogue 88: Fifty Mediaeval and Renaissance Manuscripts (New York [1958]), pp. 8–10 and 124.Google Scholar

²⁹ Ibid. p. 8; Wallach, , ‘Urbana Sylloge’, p. 151;Google ScholarSheerin, , ‘Leland and Milred’, p. 172Google Scholar and n. 2; and Schaller, , ‘Bemerkungen’, pp. 9 and 13.Google Scholar

³⁰ I rely here on the advice of my colleague D. N. Dumville.

³¹ Cf. above, n. 7.

³² Lapidge, , ‘Some Remnants’, p. 811.Google Scholar Mr Neil Wright points out that dominumque deumque originates in Juvencus (1, 24).

³³ Wallach gives less exact parallels and overlooks uitae spes unica in Juvencus (111, 521).

³⁴ Most of these are printed in ICUR. For a useful survey with tables, see ICUR n.s. 1, xvii–xxviii.Google Scholar

³⁵ If fol. 2 came earlier than fol. 1 the order would be L1–8, U10–13, U14–15 (= L9–10), U16, (some of L11–29?), U1–9, (the rest of) L11–29.

³⁶ On the evidence of the Codex Bertinianus, see, further, below.

³⁷ So Wallach, , ‘Urbana Sylloge’, p. 149;Google Scholar cf. Schaller, , ‘Bemerkungen’, p. 11Google Scholar, n. 5.

³⁸ The location is discussed in ICUR n.s. 11, at 121–2, and Epigrammata Damasiana, ed. Ferrua, Antonio (Vatican City, 1942), at pp. 213–15.Google Scholar If, as Silvagni argues in the former, it refers to the basilica on the Via Portuensis, it is perhaps significant that in U it stands next to the verses from St Mary over Tiber.

³⁹ See Meiggs, Russell, Roman Ostia, 2nd ed. (Oxford, 1973), pp. 213 and 399–400Google Scholar (and cf. p. 525).

⁴⁰ SLQ is edited, ICUR, pp. 95–118. Cf. Wallach, , ‘Urbana Sylloge’, pp. 148 and 151Google Scholar, and Schaller, , ‘Bemerkungen’, p. 11.Google Scholar

⁴¹ ICUR, n.s. 1, xxvii. Silvagni's theory that every sylloge derives from one or other of two archetypes (p. xxviii) is implausible and will be disregarded.

⁴² Wallach, , ‘Urbana Sylloge’, p. 148Google Scholar, and Schaller, , ‘Bemerkungen’, p. 11Google Scholar and n. 8.

⁴³ ICUR, p. 254.

⁴⁴ ICUR, pp. 80, n. 12, 114, n. 82, and 254, n. 5, ICUR, n.s. 11, 20.

⁴⁵ ICUR, pp. 80, no. 12, and 114, no. 82; misprinted Migne, Patrologia Latina, Suppl. III, col. 1246.

⁴⁶ ICUR, pp. 134, no. 1, 157, no. 10, 286, no. 11, 290, no. 2, and nn.

⁴⁷ In ICUR, n.s. 1 at xxii a third text is noted in the Sylloge Wirceburgensis (no. 3); but it is not certain that it refers to the same church of St Laurence (see ICUR, p. 155, n. 3). See also Le Liber Pontificalis, ed. Duchesne, L. (Paris, 1886–1957) 1, 310Google Scholar, n. 5, and 111, 92–3.

⁴⁸ ICUR, pp. 63–4, nos. 10 and 9 respectively.

⁴⁹ ILCV, no. 3360, and ICUR, p. 172, no. 31 and n.

⁵⁰ ‘Some Remnants’, p. 809.

⁵¹ ICUR, p. 151, no. 22; cf. ICUR, n.s. 1, xxvi, no. 232. On the date of this sylloge see Ibid. p. xix, and cf. Fichtenau, Heinrich, ‘Karl der Grosse und das Kaisertum’, Mitttilungcn des Instituts für österreichische Geschichtsforschung 61 (1953), 300.Google Scholar

⁵² See ICUR, pp. 58 9, 250–4, 275 and 462, and ICUR, n.s. 1, xix–xx, nos. 15 and 19. On Voss. Lat. F. 82 (fol. 155) and Q. 69 (18v–19r), see CLA x, nos. 1582 and 1585, and De Meyier, K. A., Codices Vossiani Latini (Leiden, 1973–1975) 1, 178–82, and 11, 159–63.Google Scholar In Q. 69 the Anthologia etc. is followed on 19v by a poem of Eugenius of Toledo.

⁵³ ICUR, pp. 250, 254, n. 7, and 462, and ICUR, n.s. 1, xxv, no. 200, and 11, 16. On Chintila and Rome, see ICUR, p. 254, n. 7, and Thompson, E. A., The Goths in Spain (Oxford, 1969), pp. 184–5.Google Scholar

⁵⁴ ICUR, pp. 273, no. 2, and 267, no. 16. On BN lat. 8093, see ICUR, pp. 271 and 292–3; Bischoff, Bernhard, Mittelalterliche Studien (Stuttgart, 1966–1967) 1, 292;Google Scholar and Meyier, De, Codices Vossiani Latini 1, 235–40.Google Scholar (For Visigoths at Lyons, see CLA vi, no. 774c). On BN lat. 2832, see ICUR, pp. 262–5 and 460, and Samaran, Charles and Marichal, Robert, Catalogue des manuscrits en écriture latine portant des indications de date, de lieu ou de copiste (Paris, 1959–) 11 (text), 131.Google Scholar On the connection between the two manuscripts in the transmission of Eugenius of Toledo, see Eugenii Toletani Episcopi Carmina et Epistulae, ed. Vollmer, Friedrich, MGH, Auct. Antiq. 14 (Berlin, 1905), xix–xx, xxii, xl–xli, xlv and xlvi;Google Scholar also Bernt, Gunter, Das lateinische Epigramm im Übergang von der Spätantike zum frühen Mittelalter, Münchener Beiträge zur Mediävistik und Renaissance-Forschung 2 (Munich, 1968), 142–5 and 184.Google Scholar Cf. above, n. 52, and below, n. 63.

⁵⁵ ICUR, pp. 252, n. 2, 271 and 273, no. 2. I quote from the manuscript. De Rossi says ‘nomen Vassi (Bassi) exaratum est in litura’ (Ibid. p. 273, n. 2); but there is no sign of any erasure, merely that the manuscript is worn. He also emends inlustrissime to inl(ustris) (Ibid. p. 252, n. 2).

⁵⁶ Only two other manuscripts of the epitaph (other than ones of the Anthologia Isidoriana) are mentioned in ICUR, at pp. 252, n. 2, 271 and 290, n. 7, and in PL Suppl. 111, at col. 1246: ‘EPITAPHIUM BEATAE MONICAE GENETRICIS BEATI AUGUSTINI’ in a miscellaneous context in BN lat. 8094, at 57r (s. xi), a manuscript of Ausonius (etc.) not used in Schenkl's edition; and ‘EPITAPHIU M S ANCTI AUGUSTINI’ in BN lat. 5315, at 48v (formerly pt 11, 2v), a manuscript of Victor of Vita not used in the modern editions, but printed (inaccurately) PL 58, col. 186, n. c, after Ruinart. The latter manuscript is dated ‘s. xii’ in the Bollandists’ Catalogus Codicum Hagiograpbicorum Latinorum qui Asservantur in Bibliotheca Nationali Parisiensi (Brussels, 1889–1893) 11, at 87.Google Scholar I have no information about the origin of either manuscript.

⁵⁷ I quote the original (in capitals) from Casamassa, Antonio, Scritti Patristici (Rome, 1955–1956) 1, pl. iiiGoogle Scholar (his printed text on p. 218 is misprinted). I quote U from the Kraus facsimile, as Wallach is inaccurate. The last two lines are missing from U because iv ends here; I supply them (in italics) from the Anthologia Isidoriana. Casamassa's subole has no manuscript support: see ICUR, p. 253, n. 2.

⁵⁸ Wallach misprints institutis, following the erroneous reading of ILCV Suppl., p. 2. In BN lat. 5315 between the u and i of instituis a letter (a minim?) has been erased.

⁵⁹ ICUR, p. 253, n. 2, accepting the alleged reading of a lost manuscript.

⁶⁰ The manuscripts have dictum, ductum, deductum, dicatum (cf. ICUR, p. 254, n. 7, and Lapidge, , ‘Some Remnants’, p. 808Google Scholar, n. 6). Note that L agrees with the Anthologia in the use of the dative (Romae) which was not used in prose in the classical period, though it occurs in Medieval Latin prose; Leland puts two points under the -ae (Collectanea 111, 115, n. d) to indicate his surprise. (Lapidge omits these marks in his edition; see ‘Some Remnants’, p. 801, n. 5.)

⁶¹ See CLA x, no. 1474. ‘S. ix¹’ is given by Bernt, , Das lateinische Epigramm, p. 114.Google Scholar

⁶² See, e.g., Ullman, B. L., ‘The Transmission of the Text of Catullus’, Studi in Onore di Luigi Castiglioni, ed. Rostagni, A. et al. (Florence, 1960) 11, 1028Google Scholar, n. 3. Facsimile in Pervigilium Veneris, ed. Clementi, Cecil, 3rd ed. (Oxford, 1936), pp. 172–3.Google Scholar

⁶³ See, e.g., CLA x, no. 1474. I would not, therefore, attach much importance to the fact noted by Schaller, (‘Bemerkungen’, p. 12)Google Scholar that it contains works of Eugenius, like BN lat. 8093 and 2832 (discussed above, p. 30 and n. 54; cf. Eugenii Carmina, ed. Vollmer, pp. xli and xlv–xlvi) and the Valenciennes manuscript of the Anthologia Isidoriana.Google Scholar

⁶⁴ Edited in two halves in ICUR, at pp. 56–7 (§v) and 244–9 (§xxi). Cf. ICUR n.s. 1, xix. no. 14. It is not clear where the cento begins. The only large initials are at xxi.2 and 6 and v.13 and 18b. A little more is legible than de Rossi prints.

⁶⁵ ICUR, p. 244 (XXI.I). Elbern, Victor H., ‘Der eucharistische Kelch im frühen Mittelalter’, Zeitschrift des deutschen Vereins für Kunstwissenschaft 17 (1963), 3–12, 63–6, 68–9 and 123.Google Scholar

⁶⁶ Line 8 of xxi.4 (‘Horridum hoc animal genuit Germa[nic]a tellus’) echoes Boniface, Aenigmata, ix, line 4 (‘Ob quod semper amauit me Germanica tellus’), ed. Glorie, F., Corpus Christianorum Series Latina 133 (Turnhout, 1968), 339.Google Scholar

⁶⁷ Lapidge, Michael, ‘The Authorship of the Adonic Verses “Ad Fidolium” attributed to Columbanus’, SM 3rd ser. 18 (1977), 249–314.Google Scholar The Angilramm poem is re-edited by von Winterfeld, P. and Strecker, K., Poetae Latini Aevi Carolini iv, MGH, Poetae Latini 4 (Berlin, 1899–1923), 1043.Google Scholar The epitaph mentioning Columbanus is reprinted PL, Suppl. iv, col. 1611. Note that it is textually related to the epitaph of Chrodegang of Metz (Poetae Latini Aevi Carolini, 1, ed. Dümmler, Ernst, MGH, Poetae Latini 1 (Berlin, 1881), 109–10)Google Scholar and to the latter's model by Fortunatus.

⁶⁸ Traube, (Vorlesungen III, 89)Google Scholar identified xxi.6 as Porphyrius, Carmina, xxv lines 1, 3, 2 and 4. These lines were often transmitted separately.

⁶⁹ Note Traube's correction, Ibid. p. 89, to the text in ICUR, at p. 248 (xxii. 13).

⁷⁰ ‘Bemerkungen’, p. 21, n. 49. But note that L2 seems to be echoed in lines 1534–6 of Alcuin's poem on York (Poetae 1, ed. Dümmler, p. 203)Google Scholar. Moreover L2's last line (‘cernit apostolicis equiperata tubis’) is modelled on line 386 of Venantius Fortunatus, Carmina viii.iii (‘quod dat apostolica Paulus ab ore tuba’), a poem much quoted by Bede (see Michael Lapidge's appendix to Hunt, R. W., ‘Manuscript Evidence for Knowledge of the Poems of Venantius Fortunatus in Late Anglo-Saxon England’, ASE 8 (1979), 291).Google Scholar Compare also the last line of Bede's elegiacs on Cuthbert: ‘Cum tremet angelicis, mundus ab axe tubis’ (Two Lives of Saint Cuthbert, ed. and trans. Colgrave, Bertram (Cambridge, 1940), p. 294).Google Scholar I owe all these parallels to Mr Neil Wright.

⁷¹ See Sheerin, , ‘Leland and Milred’, p. 175Google Scholar, and above, pp. 24–5.

⁷² Identified by Traube, Vorlesungen 111, 89. See Aviti Opera, ed. Peiper, R., MGH, Auct. Antiq. 6, ii (Berlin, 1883), 224Google Scholar (bk iii, lines 12–19). The text in P agrees with his a group of manuscripts (Gallicani) against his β group (Germanici); cf. Ibid. p. 200.

⁷³ Cf. ICUR, p. 441, and Epigrammata Damasiana, ed. Ferrua, no. 1.Google Scholar

⁷⁴ Epigrammata Damasiana, ed. Ferrua, pp. 83–7.Google Scholar

⁷⁵ CLA 11, no. 123. On this manuscript, see 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.Google Scholar I quote from the manuscript as Ferrua's collation is incomplete.

⁷⁶ ICUR, p. 248, prints nocteque diemque, failing to note that the second -q ue is abbreviated. These seem to be the only examples of nocteque.

⁷⁷ This spelling occurs also in London, BL, Harley 1772 (s. ix), 4r; see The Epistles and Apocalypse from the Codex Harleianus, ed. Buchanan, E. S. (London, 1912).Google Scholar

⁷⁸ See above, n. 38.

⁷⁹ It is xxi.9 (ICUR, p. 247) and is edited Ibid. p. 190; ICUR n.s. 11, 120–2; and Epigrammata Damasiana, ed. Ferrua, no. 59.Google Scholar

⁸⁰ See the variants and discussion in the three editions noted above, n. 79. Cf. Bernt, , Das lateinische Epigramm, p. 81.Google Scholar

⁸¹ Gamber, Klaus, ‘Die kampanische Lektionsordnung’, Sacris Erudiri 13 (1962), 326–52CrossRefGoogle Scholar, and Willis, G. G., Further Essays in Early Roman Liturgy (London, 1968), pp. 214–19.Google Scholar Cf. Levison, Wilhelm, England and the Continent in the Eighth Century (Oxford, 1946), p. 143Google Scholar, n. 2.

⁸² The latter possibility is supported by the title of Monica's epitaph in U (see above, p. 31).

⁸³ ICUR, pp. 154–7; see Bischoff, Bernhard and Hofmann, Josef, Libri Sancti Kyliani (Würzburg, 1952), pp. 20, 36, 43, 133–4, 171 and 199.Google Scholar

⁸⁴ ICUR, pp. 154–5.

⁸⁵ Cebrasse in the Sylloge Turonensis (manuscripts of s. xii) is presumably an independent error. SLQ 46 has the correct reading. See ICUR, pp. 64 and 106.

⁸⁶ See Sims-Williams, , ‘Cuthswith’, pp. 1–21.Google Scholar

⁸⁷ Schaller, , ‘Bemerkungen’, pp. 13–17.Google Scholar Cf. Thomson, , ‘William of Malmesbury's Liber Pontificalis’, p. 103.Google Scholar

⁸⁸ Alcuuini Opera, ed. Quercetanus, A. [Duchesne] (Paris, 1617), cols. 1673–746.Google Scholar

⁸⁹ See Schaller, , ‘Bermerkungen’, p. 14;Google ScholarPoetae 1, ed. Dümmler, p. 164.Google Scholar B1 = Ibid. p. 349, no. cxxi. On Rusticus see Bernt, , Das lateinische Epigramm, pp. 74–5.Google Scholar

⁹⁰ ICUR, pp. 285–6, and Poetae 1, ed. Dümmler, pp. 344–7.Google Scholar

⁹¹ ICUR, pp. 281 and 285–6, nn. 3–5.

⁹² ICUR, p. 110, n. 64. Cf. Aratoris De Actibus Apostolorum, ed. McKinlay, A. P., Corpus Scriptorum Ecclesiasticorum Latinorum 72 (Vienna, 1951), xxviiiGoogle Scholar, and Raby, F. J. E., A History of Christian-Latin Poetry, 2nd ed. (Oxford, 1953), pp. 118–19Google Scholar (quoting the relevant lines). In his note on bk 1, line 1076, McKinlay notes that Alcuin was influenced by this line in his own verse.

⁹³ ILCV, no. 981, and ICUR, pp. 55, no. 12, 56, no. 17a, 80, no. 8, and 144, no. 3.

⁹⁴ ICUR, p. 56 (v.17a).

⁹⁵ An error (by Leland?) for quod.

⁹⁶ ‘Some Remnants’, p. 803; PL 32, col. 64, and 95, col. 1531; ICUR, pp. 277 and 279; and Schaller, Dieter and Könsgen, Ewald, Initia Carminum Latinorum Sacculo Undecimo Antiquiorum (Göttingen, 1977), no. 17464.Google Scholar

⁹⁷ ICUR, p. 279, no. 4. Cf. PL 81, col. 838, and Wilmart, A., Codices Reginenses Latini (Vatican City, 1937–) 11, 513–14.Google Scholar (In the text in ICUR, at p. 277, de Rossi prints vate(m); presumably the manuscript has uate for uatē.)

⁹⁸ ‘Bermerkungen’, pp. 16–17.

⁹⁹ See Bischoff, Bernhard, ‘Paläographische Fragen deutscher Denkmäler der Karolingerzeit’, FS 5 (1971), 125–6.Google Scholar

¹⁰⁰ Nearly all are ptd Poetae 1, ed. Dümmler, pp. 266–8Google Scholar (on the manuscript, cf. p. 168).

¹⁰¹ ICUR, p. 286 (cf. p. 281).

¹⁰² ‘Bemerkungen’, p. 17. His suggestion is perhaps supported by the recurrence of the first poem on p. 51 in a manuscript written for Arn. See Poetae 1, ed. Dümmler, pp. 166 and 266Google Scholar (n. on no. Lv, 1).

¹⁰³ ICUR, p. 286, no. 11.

¹⁰⁴ See above, p. 28 and n. 46.

¹⁰⁵ Printed ICUR, p. 286, n. 13. Cf. ‘obsecro quisq ue legis’ in Bede's poem on Cyneberht's church (see Schaller, , ‘Bemerkungen’, p. 21)Google Scholar and Bede's prefatory epigram to his De Natura Rerum (ed. Jones, C. W., CCSL 123a (Turnhout, 1975), 189):Google Scholar

Naturas rerum uarias labentis et aeui

Perstrinxi titulis, tempora lata citis,

Beda Dei famulus. Tu fixa, obsecro, perennem,

Qui legis, astra super mente tuere diem.

¹⁰⁶ See his valuable study cited above, n. 4. On Bede's Liber Epigrammatum, see, further, , Bernt, , Das lateinische Epigramm, pp. 164–71Google Scholar, and Luiselli, Bruno, ‘Sul perduto “liber epigrammatum” di Beda’, Poesia latina in frammenti: miscellanea filologica, Publicazioni dell'Instituto di Filologica Classica dell'Università di Genova 39 (Genoa, 1974), 367–79.Google Scholar It is interesting to note that one of the earliest manuscripts of Bede's poetry is BL Royal 2 A. xx (discussed above, pp. 23 and 26), which contains two of his poems in elegiacs on fol. 26, immediately before the Versus Cvð de Sancta Trinitate. They are edited Fraipont, J., Bedae Venerabilis Opera, Pars iv, CCSL 122 (Turnhout, 1955), pp. 445–6 and 449.Google Scholar They may have formed part of the Liber Epigrammatum, despite Luiselli, who thinks it entirely lost.