^{Page 149 note 1} Ker, N. R., Catalogue of Manuscripts Containing Anglo-Saxon (Oxford, 1957), nos. 59 and 40Google Scholar. Wherever possible my references to the manuscript are to the facsimile edition of fols. 1–56 by Flower, Robin and Smith, Hugh, The Parker Chronicle and Laws, Early Eng. Text Soc., o.s. 208 (London, 1941, repr. 1973)Google Scholar. When citing the facsimile I follow the year numbers given there.

^{Page 149 note 2} I am indebted to Dr J. Bately, Mr T. A. M. Bishop, Prof. T. J. Brown, Dr P. Chaplais, Prof. P. A. M. Clemoes, Dr N. R. Ker, Miss P. R. Robinson, Dr E. Stone and Mr C. P. Wormald, who have either read this article or discussed aspects of it at various stages and who have contributed valuable suggestions, references and information, as well as correcting various errors. I am particularly grateful to Dr R. I. Page for valuable discussions and suggestions made whilst poring over the manuscript itself. For the errors, omissions, and for the views expressed I am solely responsible.

^{Page 149 note 3} The criteria for identifying ‘booklets’ have been listed by Robinson, P. R., ‘“The Booklet” a Self-contained Unit in Composite Manuscripts’, Codicologica 11, ed. Gruijs, A. and Gumbert, J. P., Litterae Textuales (Leiden)Google Scholar, forthcoming.

^{Page 149 note 4} See the following description, and the discussion below, p. 166.

^{Page 150 note 1} This singleton leaf could not have been the first leaf of a third quire. If it had been, then it is difficult to understand why scribe 2 should have added his own quire and have gone to the trouble of ‘tacking’ his work on to this original booklet by writing on the verso of this single leaf, thus using a ruling which he obviously found uncongenial.

^{Page 150 note 2} Two of the Saxon Chronicles Parallel, ed. John Earle and Charles Plummer (Oxford, 1892; repr. 1952 with contr. by Dorothy Whitelock) II, xciv.

^{Page 150 note 3} See below, p. 155.

^{Page 151 note 1} Lowe, E. A., Codices Latini Antiquiores II, 2nd ed. (Oxford, 1972)Google Scholar, no. 123.

^{Page 151 note 2} For the glosses see Meritt, Herbert D., ‘Old English Sedulius Glosses’, Amer. Jnl of Philology 57 (1936), 140–50CrossRefGoogle Scholar, and Old English Glosses, a Collection (New York, 1945), no. 28, and Page, R. I., ‘Anglo-Saxon Scratched Glosses in a Corpus Christi College, Cambridge, Manuscript’, Otium et Negotium: Studies in Onomatology and Library Science presented to Olof von Feilitzen, ed. Folke, Sandgren (Stockholm, 1973), pp. 209–15.Google Scholar

^{Page 151 note 3} Below, pp. 166–7.

^{Page 151 note 4} See below, p. 170.

^{Page 152 note 1} J[ames], T[homas], Ecloga Oxonio-Cantabrigiensis (London, 1600)Google Scholar, Bibl. Coll. S. Benet, no. 269. The form ‘Alfrici’ is probably based on a misreading of the heading added by Matthew Parker on the present fol. 1 of the manuscript.

^{Page 152 note 2} Antiquae Literaturae Septentrionalis liber alter, seu Humpbredi Wanleii Librorum Vett. Septentrionalium … Catalogus Historico-Criticus … (Oxford, 1705), p. 130. The entry in Bernard, E., Catalogi Librorum Manuscriptorum Angliae et Hiberniae in Unum Collecti (Oxford, 1697)Google Scholar, no. 1536, seems to have been taken direct from James's Ecloga since it includes the misreading ‘Alfrici’.

^{Page 152 note 3} See the conjecture by Ker (Catalogue, no. 39).

^{Page 152 note 4} [Stanley, W.] Catalogus Librorum MSS in Bibliotheca Collegii Corporis Christi in Cantabrigia quos legavit Matthaeus Parker (London, 1722), p. 57Google Scholar, no. s.xi.

^{Page 152 note 5} Nasmith, J., Catalogus librorum MSS quos Collegia Corporis Christi et B. Mariae Virginis in Academia Cantabrigiensis legavit … Matthaeus Parker … (Cambridge, 1777)Google Scholar, no. clxxiii.

^{Page 152 note 6} The Ancient Libraries of Canterbury and Dover (Cambridge, 1903), no. 311.

^{Page 152 note 7} Although in the twelfth century Gaimar attributed to Alfred the production of both a chronicle and laws in the vernacular (Lestorie des engles, ed. Thomas Duffus Hardy and C. Trice Martin, Rolls Ser. (1888–9), lines 3451 ff.), it is unlikely that he knew the Parker manuscript. He refers specifically to a book at Winchester (Ibid. 2331 ff.), a reference which might indicate London, British Library, Cotton Otho B. xi or an older manuscript. See Two Saxon Chronicles, ed. Earle and Plummer 11, cxii, n., and cv, n., and the discussion by Dorothy Whitelock (in a review of the facsimile of the Parker manuscript), EHR 57 (1942), 120–2. The note in London, Lambeth Palace Library, 1213 (s. xiii-xiv) that the acts of Lanfranc entered in that manuscript ‘excerpta sunt de antiquo libro anglico ecclesie Christi’ can refer only to the second booklet of the Parker manuscript. There is thus no independent evidence for the fact that the ‘Parker’ laws remained bound up with the annals from the beginning of the eleventh century until the sixteenth century.

^{Page 153 note 1} Two Saxon Chronicles, ed. Earle and Plummer II, xxiv.

^{Page 153 note 2} A Descriptive Catalogue of the Manuscripts in the Library of Corpus Christi College, Cambridge (Cambridge, 1912). Compare the description of the manuscript given in New Palaeographical Soc., Facsimiles of Ancient Manuscripts … 1st ser. (London, 1905–1912), pl. 134: ‘the last article … originally formed a distinct MS’. However, this description seems also to recognize the independence of the other units in the manuscript.

^{Page 153 note 3} Catalogue, nos. 39 and 40.

^{Page 153 note 4} Summarized by Whitelock, Dorothy, The Anglo-Saxon Chronicle, trans. Whitelock, Dorothy with Douglas, David C. and Tucker, Susie I. (London, 1961), p. xxi.Google Scholar

^{Page 154 note 1} If the scribe had wished to cancel the first leaf he would have been able to replace the whole bifolium.

^{Page 154 note 2} Ker, , Catalogue, p. lixGoogle Scholar, emphasizes the difficulty of identifying different scribes in this particular part of the manuscript. Although I disagree with his suggestion (Catalogue, no. 39) that there was only one main scribe, I agree with his identification of different features in the handwriting of the following passages: 23V12–15, 24V22–5 and 2511–7. I suspect that the first and last passages represent lapses from standard on the part of scribe 3.

^{Page 154 note 3} See esp. 16VI, 17r24 (with dots omitted), 17V19, 19V10 and 2 ov 8.

^{Page 154 note 4} See esp. 22r4, 22V3, 24r5, 24V3 and 8 and 25r23. All the corrections listed here and in the preceding note are unmistakably in the hands of the main scribes: they were all made at the time of writing. Not only is the colour of the ink the same as that used for the text but also the amount of ink in the pen at the time is appropriate. By contrast all other corrections (e.g. at 17VI and 24, 20V20 and 23r14) have been made by other hands at different times.

^{Page 155 note 1} That of scribe 2 is visible at lines 14, 20 and in the year numbers, that of scribe 3 at lines 24 and 26.

^{Page 155 note 2} As, e.g., in stemn gesetenne (17r1) and wifum (17r18).

^{Page 155 note 3} See below, p. 170.

^{Page 155 note 4} ‘The Narrative Mode of The Anglo-Saxon Chronicle before the Conquest’, England Before the Conquest: Studies in Primary Sources presented to Dorothy Whitelock, ed. Peter Clemoes and Kathleen Hughes (Cambridge, 1971), pp. 215–35, esp. 221–4.

^{Page 156 note 1} The vertical ruling is visible in the facsimile on 22r, 23r and 24r and the unused last ruled line is visible on 24V.

^{Page 156 note 2} As, e.g., in London, British Library, Cotton Tiberius A. vi (s. x²) and Cotton Tiberius B. i (s. xi¹-s. xi²).

^{Page 156 note 3} ‘An Early Example of the Square Minuscule’, Trans. of the Cambridge Bibliographical Soc. 4 (1964–1968), 246–52, esp. pls. xviii and xix.

^{Page 156 note 4} Facsimile edition, The Tollemache Orosius, ed. Alistair Campbell, EEMF 3 (Copenhagen, 1953). Examples of the characteristic method of indicating omissions can be seen at pp. 31 line 11 (bie), 95 line 31 (nu) and 150 line 16 (mar-). Examples of the gap before m or n when not in ligature can be seen at pp. 102 line 26 (fætenne), 128 line 8 (ongunnen) and 140 line 10 (be tæcan).

^{Page 157 note 1} Facsimile, New Palaeographical Soc., Facsimiles of Ancient Manuscripts … 2nd ser. (London, 1913–1930), pl. 62; see Wormald, Francis, ‘Decorated Initials in English MSS from AD 900 to 1100’, Archaeologia 91 (1945), 107–35CrossRefGoogle Scholar, esp. 118, and Otto Pächt and Alexander, J. J. G., Illuminated Manuscripts in the Bodleian Library, Oxford III (Oxford, 1973)Google Scholar, no. 21. I suspect that scribe 2 was also responsible for the Junius Psalter. However this was clearly a special book and since all the corrections were made over erasure, and since the scribe was more careful in his placing of the strokes (hence less likely to leave the characteristic gaps before m and n), I cannot demonstrate the identity of the scribe on the criteria already adduced. Nevertheless a careful comparison of the main hand of the psalter with the work of scribes 2 and 3 and with hands of related style (e.g., those of the additions to Bern, Burgerbibliothek, 671; cf. Homburger, O., Die illustrierten Handscbriften der Burgerbibliothek Bern (Bern, 1962), p. 31)Google Scholar has convinced me that the hand of the Junius Psalter is most closely related to that of scribe 2. If the chronology of his work is to be based on his progress in achieving standardization of the handwriting (see below, p. 159), I would conjecture that the manuscripts were produced in the order Tollemache Orosius, Junius Psalter, Parker Chronicle.

^{Page 157 note 2} Facsimile, Ker, Catalogue, pl. I; see Francis Wormald, ‘The “Winchester School” before St Æthelwold’, England Before the Conquest, ed. Clemoes and Hughes, pp. 305–13, esp. 305–7, and Pächt and Alexander, Illuminated Manuscripts in the Bodleian Library III, no. 22.

^{Page 157 note 3} On 13V, I4r, 14V and 16r in the section prepared by scribe 1 and on 20r and 20v in the section copied by scribe 2.

^{Page 157 note 4} E.g., compare primatum in the first line of the insertion in the bottom margin of the Trinity Isidore with uiderunt in the first line of the addition in the Junius Psalter.

^{Page 158 note 1} E.g., with the work of the main scribes of Oxford, Bodleian Library, Hatton 20 (facsimile edition The Pastoral Care), ed. N. R. Ker, EEMF 6 (Copenhagen, 1956); with London, British Library, Royal 5 F. iii (facsimile, Warner, G. F. and Gilson, J. P., Catalogue of Western Manuscripts in the Old Royal and King's Collections in the British Museum (London, 1921), pl. 44)Google Scholar; and with the Durham Ritual (facsimile edition, The Durham Ritual, ed. T. J. Brown et al., EEMF 16 (Copenhagen, 1969)). Note especially the differences in handwriting, display script and decoration and in the arrangement and ruling of the sheets.

^{Page 158 note 2} Ker, , Catalogue, p. lixGoogle Scholar, and Bishop, ‘An Early Example of the Square Minuscule’, pp. 246–8.

^{Page 158 note 3} London, British Library, Harley 2965: CLA II, no. 199; facsimile also, Palaeographical Soc., Facsimiles of Manuscripts and Inscriptions 1st ser. (London, 1873–1883), pl. 163. On 40V a hand closely resembling that of scribe 1 of the Parker manuscript has entered the boundaries of land at Winchester held by Ealhswith, wife of King Alfred: Ker, Catalogue, no. 237.

^{Page 158 note 4} According to Professor Bischoff, the development of distinctive local styles characterized by the elimination of variant forms, and the acceptance of new standards in handwriting, which were dominated by a taste for calligraphy, were the principal impulses behind the evolution of the Carolingian minuscules in the eighth and ninth centuries (Bischoff, B., ‘La Minuscule Caroline et le Renouveau Culturel sous Charlemagne’, Bulletin de l'institut de Recherche et d'histoire des Textes 15 (1967–1968), 333–6Google Scholar, esp. 334).

^{Page 159 note 1} For a typical specimen of the second scribe's work see Bishop, ‘An Early Example of the Square Minuscule’, pl. xix b. Note the appearance of T with descender in pullulauit in line 3. This form survives in the hand of scribe 1 of the Parker manuscript (cf. Bishop's pl. xix a) and also in that of scribe 2 in the Orosius (see below).

^{Page 159 note 2} E.g., Octauianus in the annal for the year 1, iohannes in the annal for 30, domitianus in the annal for 84 and maximianus in the annal for 381.

^{Page 159 note 3} See the facsimile edition for examples in the Latin names in the table of contents on pp. 2 and 3, and in the English words heofonisce (p. 1 line 7), beswac (p. 2 line 2) and se (p. 5 line 27).

^{Page 159 note 4} For an example of cursive ti ligature see that in Antiocha (p. 168 line 14). Examples of subscript letters are listed by Campbell in his introduction to the facsimile edition (p. 18). Note also the survival of T with descender (found also in the hands of the Trinity Isidore and scribe 1) which can be seen in æfter (p. 36 line 6) and wintra (p. 38 line 5).

^{Page 159 note 5} At 18r6 and 10 and 19r20. There is no instance of T with descender.

^{Page 160 note 1} Bischoff, ‘La Minuscule Caroline’, p. 336.

^{Page 160 note 2} E.g., the pages from the Godscalc and Ada Gospels and from the Alcuin bibles illustrated by Steffens, F., Lateinische Paläographie, 2nd ed. (Berlin and Leipzig, 1929)Google Scholar, taf. 45–7.

^{Page 160 note 3} E.g., Oxford, Bodleian Library, Douce 140 (CLA 11, no. 237), Royal 5 F. iii and the Durham Ritual (see above, p. 158, n. 1). See also T. J. Brown's introduction to the facsimile edition of the Durham Ritual, p. 19.

^{Page 160 note 4} Facsimile in The Pastoral Care, EEMF 6. This cannot be construed as an argument for the Winchester origin of Hatton 20, but it might be taken as an argument for the Winchester origin of the inscription and possibly of the bifolium added at the beginning of the manuscript. I believe that this bifolium containing Alfred's letter may have been copied at Winchester, but that the part of the manuscript containing the text was most probably copied at Worcester. I think further arguments may be adduced for the Worcester origin of this copy of the text, but at this stage it would be premature to raise the issue while studies of the textual relationships are still in progress; see Horgan's, Dorothy M. preliminary discussion, Anglia 91 (1973), 153–69.Google Scholar

^{Page 160 note 5} He used O and N on 18r, H on 19V and the form of D based on square capital D on 18v.

^{Page 160 note 6} By contrast with the severity of the forms used in this first line, some of the litterae notabiliores at the beginnings of the individual sections of the laws seem to be influenced by forms like those used in the Tollemache Orosius.

^{Page 160 note 7} See the facsimile edition, and compare the forms on pp. 43, 158 and 159 with the ‘standardized’ forms on pp. 31, 38, 44, 45, 60 and 64.

^{Page 160 note 8} In the psalter each verse of the psalms was regarded as a periodus.

^{Page 161 note 1} Bishop, T. A. M. (English Caroline Minuscule (Oxford, 1971), p. xiv)Google Scholar assigns the introduction of Caroline minuscule to the mid-tenth century: the earliest dated English attempt at Caroline minuscule is contained in a document of 956 (Ibid. p. xix).

^{Page 161 note 2} On the differences between insular and continental practices see Lowe, , CLA 11Google Scholar (2nd ed.), x; Rand, Edward Kennard, A Survey of the Manuscripts of Tours 1 (Cambridge, Mass., 1929), 18Google Scholar; and Bishop, , English Caroline Minuscule, p. xii.Google Scholar

^{Page 162 note 1} ‘Decorated Initials’, pp. 117–18, and ‘The “Winchester School’”, pp. 306–7. Note in particular the contrast he draws between the decoration of these manuscripts and that of the Royal Aldhelms and the Durham Ritual.

^{Page 162 note 2} ‘An Early Example of Square Minuscule’, pp. 249–51.

^{Page 162 note 3} Bischoff, Bernhard, ‘Die europäische Verbreitung der Werke Isidors von Sevilla’, Mittelalterliche Studien 1 (Stuttgart, 1966), 171–94Google Scholar, esp. 186–7.

^{Page 162 note 4} Liturgica Historica (Oxford, 1918), pp. 254–5.

^{Page 162 note 5} Ibid.

^{Page 162 note 6} Sawyer, P. H., Anglo-Saxon Charters: an Annotated List and Bibliography (London, 1968)Google Scholar, cited by charter number.

^{Page 162 note 7} Cotton Charter Augustus ii. 44; reproduced, Facsimiles of Ancient Charters in the British Museum, ed. E. A. Bond (London, 1873–1878; cited hereafter as BMFacs) III, 16. Chaplais, Pierre, ‘The Origin and Authenticity of the Royal Anglo-Saxon Diploma’, Jnl of the Soc. of Archivists 3 (1965), 59–60Google Scholar: the scribe is Chaplais's ‘scribe 3’. Dr Ker kindly tells me that he thinks that the hand of the supply leaves is closer in appearance to that of this charter than it is to that of Cotton Tiberius A. vi (as suggested in his Catalogue, no. 351). The fourteenth-century provenance of Tanner 10 was Thorney, one of the monasteries founded by Æthelwold whilst bishop of Winchester.

^{Page 163 note 1} Wormald, ‘The “Winchester School’”, p. 307. The vestments are illustrated, Saxl, F. and Wittkover, R., British Art and the Mediterranean (Oxford, 1948), pl. 19.Google Scholar

^{Page 163 note 2} Some of the forms are visible in Rickert, Margaret, Painting in Britain: the Middle Ages (Harmondsworth, 1965), pl. 20Google Scholarb.

^{Page 163 note 3} Ker, , Catalogue, nos. 264 and 180Google Scholar, and cf. pp. xxv and lix.

^{Page 163 note 4} ‘The Origin and Authenticity of the Royal Anglo-Saxon Diploma’, pp. 59–60. Examples of the work of Chaplais's ‘scribe 2’ are reproduced BMFacs III, 9 (Sawyer 447) and 10 (Sawyer 464) and examples of his ‘scribe 3’ BMFacs III, 12 (Sawyer 510), 13 (Sawyer 528) and 16 (Sawyer 552). However other Winchester scribes retained some of these forms: e.g., Chaplais's ‘scribe 5’ (Sawyer 624), the hand of Cambridge, Corpus Christi College 183 which is connected by its art and decoration to the early Winchester manuscripts (Wormald, ‘Decorated Initials’, p. 117 and pl. IVa), of London, British Library, Royal 2 B. v (Warner and Gilson, Catalogue of Royal Manuscripts, pl. 22) and of Royal 4 A. xiv (Ibid. pl. 34), although the Winchester attribution of these last two is doubtful. Nevertheless there were potentially three scriptoria at Winchester (Old Minster, New Minster and Nunnaminster) and the problem needs more detailed investigation than is possible here.

^{Page 163 note 5} E.g., the ‘Exeter Book’ and the ‘Vercelli Book’; facsimile of the former, The Exeter Book of Old English Poetry, ed. R. W. Chambers, Max Förster and Robin Flower (London, 1933), and of the latter, Il Codice Vercellese, ed. M. Förster (Rome, 1913).

^{Page 164 note 1} Grierson, Philip, ‘Grimbald of St Bertin's’, EHR 55 (1940), 529–61.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

^{Page 164 note 2} Liturgica Historica, p. 256.

^{Page 164 note 3} Carey, Frederick M., ‘The Scriptorium of Reims during the Archbishopric of Hincmar’, Classical and Mediaeval Studies in honor of Edward Kennard Rand, ed. Jones, Leslie Webber (New York, 1938), pp. 41–60Google Scholar, esp. 48.

^{Page 164 note 4} E.g., Rheims, Bibliothèque Municipale, 296, 384, 385, 390, 414, 425 and 438.

^{Page 164 note 5} In each case the first line of the text begins with an initial followed by a series of square capital forms. In each case the first line ends with a divided word and uncial forms are used for that part of the word needed to complete the first line.

^{Page 164 note 6} The best account is by Wallace-Hadrill, J. M. (The Long-Haired Kings (London, 1962), pp. 100–5)Google Scholar. Further details, Manitius, M., Geschichte der lateinischen Literatur des Mittelalters 1 (1911), 339.Google Scholar

^{Page 165 note 1} See Whitelock, review of the facsimile of the Parker manuscript, p. 121.

^{Page 165 note 2} I am not convinced by SirStenton's, Frank suggestion (‘The South-Western Element in the Old English Chronicle’, repr. Preparatory to ‘Anglo-Saxon England’, ed. Stenton, Doris Mary (Oxford, 1970). pp. 106–15)Google Scholar that the Chronicle was compiled somewhere in the Somerset area. Although south-western sources must have provided much of the material on which the recension was based, on Stenton's own evidence there is a strong case for Winchester as the centre where the reworking took place. The more obvious explanation for the evidence he cites in support of his suggestion, and in particular that of Æthelweard's chronicle, is that Æthelweard's collection of the annals had been annotated by somebody in the south-west in much the same way as the Parker manuscript was annotated at Winchester and Canterbury.

^{Page 165 note 3} E.g., Grierson, , ‘Grimbald of St Benin's’. Eric John (Orbis Britanniae (Leicester, 1966), p. 39)Google Scholar hints at a ‘Frankish’ annalist.

^{Page 166 note 1} On which see Schramm, P. E., ‘Die Krönung bei den Westfranken und Angelsachsen’, Zeitschrift für Rechtsgeschichte 54, Kan. Abt. 23 (1934), 117–242.Google Scholar

^{Page 166 note 2} ‘The Problem of King Alfred's Royal Anointing’, JEH 18 (1967), 145–63, esp. 158, where is cited Hincmar's Adnuntiatio preceding the consecration of Charles the Bald as king of Lorraine in 869 (Monumenta Germaniae Historica, Capitularia II, ed. Alfred Borelius and Victor Krause (1897), 340); cf. also Hincmar's Vita Remigii (MGH, Script. Rer. Merov. III, ed. Bruno Krusch (1896), 298).

^{Page 166 note 3} Wallace-Hadrill, J. M., ‘The Franks and the English in the Ninth Century: some Common Historical Interests’, History 35 (1950), 202–18CrossRefGoogle Scholar, esp. 213 ff. Schütt, Marie, ‘The Literary Form of Asser's Vita Alfredi’, EHR 72 (1957), 209–20CrossRefGoogle Scholar, demonstrates Asser's independence of Einhard. Note also the curious scribal error in the lost manuscript as recorded in the transcript used by Wise, (Asser's Life of King Alfred, ed. Stevenson, W. H. (repr. with contr. by D. Whitelock, Oxford, 1959), p. 22Google Scholar, n.): in the heading ‘Anno Dominicae Incarnationis DCCCLXVII, nativitatis Ælfredi praefati regis decimo nono’ the original scribe had written ‘Karoli’ instead of ‘Ælfredi’. On the general backround of kingship and on the consecration of Judith by Hincmar on the occasion of her marriage to Æthelwulf, see Wallace-Hadrill, J. M., Early Germanic Kingship in England and on the Continent (Oxford, 1971), pp. 135–6.Google Scholar

^{Page 166 note 4} The leaf which must have contained the quire signature ‘d’ is now missing (after fol. 32) from the beginning of quire v which forms the first quire of booklet 3.

^{Page 167 note 1} ‘The Origin and Authenticity of the Royal Anglo-Saxon Diploma’, pp. 59–60.

^{Page 167 note 2} Facsimile, , BMFacs III, 16.Google Scholar

^{Page 167 note 3} De Gestis Regum Anglorum, ed. W. Stubbs, RS (1887–1889), 1, 145.

^{Page 167 note 4} Carey, ‘The Scriptorium of Reims’, pp. 57–8.

^{Page 168 note 1} On Hincmar's association with the Lex Salica see Wallace-Hadrill, J. M., ‘Archbishop Hincmar and the Authorship of Lex Salica’, The Long-Haired Kings, pp. 95–120Google Scholar. The reflection of this interest in dynastic achievement in legislation is being studied by C. P. Wormald in his forth-coming D.Phil. thesis for the University of Oxford, ‘The English Legislative Tradition and its Analogues: Alfred the Great to Archbishop Wulfstan’.

^{Page 168 note 2} Catalogue, no. 40; cf. Bishop, English Caroline Minuscule, pl. 11 (dated 961).

^{Page 168 note 3} Ed. Walter de Gray Birch, Hampshire Record Soc. (1892), p. 99.

^{Page 169 note 1} Memorials of St Dunstan, ed. W. Stubbs, RS (1874), p. lxxv, n. I omit the Frithestan charters from my argument because all authorities regard them with varying degrees of suspicion.

^{Page 169 note 2} Saxl, and Wittkover, , British Art and the Mediterranean, pl. 19.Google Scholar

^{Page 169 note 3} English Historical Documents c. 500–1042, ed. Dorothy Whitelock (London, 1955), p. 110.

^{Page 169 note 4} Those for 937 and 942 are common to MSS ABCD, those for 973 and 975 to MSS ABC.

^{Page 169 note 5} Cf. the panegyric on the death of Athelstan used by William of Malmesbury in the De Gestis Regum Anglorum, cited above.

^{Page 169 note 6} Vaughan, Richard, ‘The Chronology of the Parker Chronicle, 890–970’, EHR 69 (1954), 59–66CrossRefGoogle Scholar, esp. 65–6.

^{Page 170 note 1} For the item numbers, see above, pp. 150–1. For details of the reconstructed contents of Cotton Otho B. xi, see Ker, Catalogue, no. 180.

^{Page 170 note 2} Robinson, J. Armitage, The Times of St. Dunstan (Oxford, 1923), p. 20Google Scholar, and Vaughan, ‘The Chronology of the Parker Chronicle’, p. 59.

^{Page 170 note 3} Note the implications about the care of books contained in Alfred's instructions concerning the Cura Pastoralis, in particular, his insistence on the book's remaining in the house as though this were something unusual: ‘…ic bebiode on Godes naman ???æt nan mon ???one æstel from ???ære bec ne do, ne ???a boc from ???æm mynstre… For ???y ic wolde ???ætte hie ealneg æt ???ære stowe wæren, buton se biscep hie mid him habban wille, o??????e hio hwær to læne sie, o??????e hwa o???re bi write.’

^{Page 171 note 1} Sawyer 376 (BMFacs iv, 10), which, according to Dr Chaplais (personal communication) is a ‘Winchester forgery of s. x ex. – xi in.’

^{Page 171 note 2} See the discussion of historical studies and their background at Canterbury by Southern, R. W. (St Anselm and his Biographer (Cambridge, 1963), pp. 229–336).Google Scholar

^{Page 171 note 3} Two Saxon Chronicles, ed. Earle and Plummer II, 183.