^{page 175 note 1} Stenton, F. M., Anglo-Saxon England, 3rd ed. (Oxford, 1971), p. 460.Google Scholar

^{page 175 note 2} Notable exceptions are Professor Clemoes's analyses of two passages in which he describes their style, especially their regular rhythm, as phases in the expression of a continuously developing, thematic sequence of thought. For references, see below, p. 182, n. 1, and p. 188, n. I.

^{page 176 note 1} Sermo Lupi ad Anglos, ed. Dorothy, Whitelock, 1st ed. (London, 1939), p. 17Google Scholar; but cf. 3rd ed. (London, 1963), pp. 36–7Google Scholar. All subsequent references are to the 3rd edition.

^{page 176 note 2} On the three versions, BH, C and El, see The Homilies of Wulfstan, ed. Dorothy, Bethurum (Oxford, 1957), pp. 22–4Google Scholar; for their text, see pp. 255–75. All my citations of text refer to this edition by line number.

^{page 176 note 3} Ibid. pp. 22–3.

^{page 176 note 4} Stephanie, Dien, ‘Sermo Lupi ad Anglos: The Order and Date of the Three Versions’, NM 64 (1975), 561–70Google Scholar. I am indebted to Professor Clemoes who, since the publication of the 1975 article, has drawn my attention to two articles (cited below, p. 177, n. 1, and p. 185, n. 2) which bear on the arguments contained in it.

^{page 176 note 5} London, British Library, Cotton Nero A. i. For a facsimile of the whole manuscript see A Wulfstan Manuscript, ed. Loyn, Henry R., EEMF 17 (Copenhagen, 1971)Google Scholar. I quote from the EI version (as printed by Bethurum), enclosing in square brackets readings peculiar to manuscripts other than I.

^{page 177 note 1} See Neil, Ker, ‘The Handwriting of Archbishop Wulfstan’, England Before the Conquest: Studies in Primary Sources Presented to Dorothy Whitelock, ed. Peter, Clemoes and Kathleen, Hughes (Cambridge, 1971), pp. 315–31Google Scholar, esp. 321–4. I do not agree with Bethurum (Homilies, pp. 23–4) that this occurrence of Wulfstan's handwriting clinches the argument in favour of EI being the last of the three versions.

^{page 177 note 2} 112r. See Ker, , ‘Handwriting’, p. 322Google Scholar, and Whitelock's, textual notes, Sermo Lupi, p. 57.Google Scholar

^{page 177 note 3} See Bethurum, , Homilies, p. 22Google Scholar, and Whitelock, , Sermo Lupi, p. 5Google Scholar. As noted by Pope, J. C. in his review of Bethurum, Homilies (MLN 74 (1959), 338–9)Google Scholar, it is surprising that Wulfstan did not make good this defect in I.

^{page 177 note 4} See Cross, J. E., ‘Aspects of Microcosm and Macrocosm in Old English Literature’, Studies in Old English Literature in Honor of Arthur G. Brodeur, ed. Greenfield, Stanley B. (Eugene, Oregon, 1963). pp. 1–22.Google Scholar

^{page 178 note 1} Whitelock, , Sermo Lupi, p. 47 (n. to 4–8)Google Scholar; see also Bethurum, , Homilies, p. 356 (n. to 7–10).Google Scholar

^{page 178 note 2} For other parallels see Whitelock, , Sermo Lupi, p. 47 (n. to 4–8).Google Scholar

^{page 181 note 1} The interpretation of cradolcild as a reference to the orphaned is perhaps slightly strained, but, since mention is made of the other two of the three categories of people which the prophetic books name as those needing special protection, it seems appropriate to recall that the child sold into slavery would probably be separated from one or both of its parents. Wulfstan's reworking of extracts from Isaiah in Bethurum xi reveals his familiarity with this aspect of the prophetic books.

^{page 182 note 1} On 37–52, cf. Peter, Clemoes, Rhythm and Cosmic Order in Old English Christian Literature, an Inaugural Lecture (Cambridge, 1970), pp. 21–3.Google Scholar

^{page 183 note 1} The existence of rhetorical units in this sermon is pointed out by Roger, Fowler, ‘Some Stylistic Features of the Sermo Lupi’, JEGP 65 (1966), 14–17Google Scholar. He does not appear, however, to consider that the whole of a Wulfstan sermon can be divided into units each linked internally by lexical and syntactic repetition, and he does not relate the stylistically defined units to divisions in subject matter.

^{page 184 note 1} See Bethurum, , Homilies, p. 360 (n. to 55–61)Google Scholar and Whitelock, , Sermo Lupi, pp. 53–4 (n. to 56 ff.).Google Scholar

^{page 184 note 2} See Cross, , ‘Microcosm and Macrocosm’, pp. 5–15.Google Scholar

^{page 185 note 1} See particularly Bethurum xii and vi.

^{page 185 note 2} On Wulfstan's views of the Christian king, see Loomis, Dorothy Bethurum, ‘Regnum and Sacerdotium in the Early Eleventh Century’, England Before the Conquest, pp. 129–45, esp. 136–8Google Scholar. Strictly speaking, of course, Cnut was king of a heathen people rather than a heathen king: it would appear that the distinction was not one that interested Wulfstan at this point of his career.: Wulfstan's usual term for priests is Godes þenan, but Godes þeowas is a more inclusive term (see Whitelock, , Sermo Lupi, p. 50 (n. to 32))Google Scholar. He would have been particularly conscious of the irony of the term gedwolgpda þenan, since he attempted to ‘improve the standing of the clergy by awarding thane's rank to celibate priests’ (Bethurum, , Homilies, p. 357 (n. to 33–4)).Google Scholar

^{page 187 note 1} See 66, 69, 70–1, 95–6 and 99.

^{page 188 note 1} On 160–9 cf. Peter, Clemoes, ‘Late Old English Literature’, Tenth-Century Studies. Essays in Commemoration of the Millenium of the Council of Winchester and ‘Regtilaris Concordia’, ed. David, Parsons (London and Chichester, 1975), pp. 103–14 and 229–32, at 113–14.Google Scholar

^{page 189 note 1} Whitelock, , Sermo Lupi, p. 55 (n. to 73).Google Scholar

^{page 189 note 2} The view that secular law should correspond to God's law is evident in the enumeration of the duties of the king in Polity as well as in Bethurum xxi.

^{page 190 note 1} See particularly Bethurum ix, 107–end.

^{page 190 note 2} Bethurum ix, 131–2.

^{page 193 note 1} See 50, 51, 84–5, 95, 99 and 107–8.

^{page 193 note 2} See 53, 98, 128 and 168.

^{page 194 note 1} Wrenn, C. L., A Study of Old English Literature (London, 1967), p. 241.Google Scholar