^{Page 85 note 1} I should like to acknowledge the kindness of Peter Dronke and Alistair Campbell, who read this article in typescript and made numerous valuable suggestions.

^{Page 85 note 2} This poem is listed in Walther, H., Initia Carminum ac Ver suum Medii Aevi Posterioris Latinorum (Göttingen, 1959)Google Scholar, no. 3883. For some reason the other two poems (which are listed on the same page of the Cambridge University Library catalogue) are omitted by Walther.

^{Page 85 note 3} Aetna, ed. H. A. J. Munro (Cambridge, 1867), p. 29.Google Scholar

^{Page 86 note 1} For example, his editions of Frithegodi monachi Breuiloquium vitae beati Wilfredi et Wulfstani cantoris Narratio metrica de sancto Swithuno, Thesaurus Mundi 1 (Zürich, 1950)Google Scholar; Chronicon Æthelweardi (London, 1962)Google Scholar and Æthelwulf, , de abbatibus (Oxford, 1967)Google Scholar; also his paper entitled ‘Some Linguistic Features of Early Anglo-Latin Verse and its use of Classical Models’, TPS (1953), pp. 1–20.Google Scholar

^{Page 86 note 2} Chronicon Ætheweardi, p. xlv; ‘Linguistic Features of Early Anglo-Latin Verse’, p. 11.

^{Page 86 note 3} Nor is the following list meant to be exhaustive. Campbell has drawn my attention, for example, to the use of the abl. sg. of the gerund (with -ō) as a participle-equivalent in Anglo-Latin poetry. I have been directly concerned with features well attested in the poems printed here.

^{Page 86 note 4} See Löfstedt, B., ‘Zum Gebrauch der lateinischen distributiven Zahlwörter’, Eranos 56 (1958), 71–117 and 188–223Google Scholar. Löfstedt's treatment of medieval Latin prose (pp. 87–9) is excellent; it is perhaps regrettable that he considers medieval Latin poetry only briefly (p. 95).

^{Page 86 note 5} Axelson, B., Unpoetische Wörter (Lund, 1945), p. 96.Google Scholar

^{Page 86 note 6} See Klotz, A., Hermes 61 (1926), 33–4Google Scholar and Skutsch, F., Kleine Schriften (Leipzig, 1914), p. 160, n. 1.Google Scholar

^{Page 87 note 1} The only study of such nouns is by Norden, E., Ennius und Vergilius (Leipzig, 1915), pp. 27–9Google Scholar. Norden is concerned with the use of nouns in -amen as against those in -mentum and does not study the use of terminations in -amine in dactylic feet.

^{Page 87 note 2} Bede's Vita Cuthberti (ed. W. Jaager, Palaestra 198 (Leipzig, 1935))Google Scholar is distinctly Anglo-Latin in this respect. Bede closes his hexameters with solamine (161, 465 and 760), medicamine (157 and 906), fundamina (34 and 459), luctamine (48), examine (98), tutamine (135) fragmina (197), iuvamina (264), precamina (340) and modulamine (798).

^{Page 88 note 1} Bailey, C. (T. Lucreti Cari de rerum natura (Oxford, 1947) 1, 84Google Scholar) observes that there are forty-eight occurrences of the -ier form in Lucretius as against 468 occurrences of the normal -i form.

^{Page 88 note 2} Kühner-Holzweissig, Ausfübrliche Grammatik derlateinischen Sprache 1,691–3. Of classical poets the list omits Varro Atacinus, torquerier (Fragmenta Poetarum Latinorum, ed. W. Morel, p. 97) and Julius Montanus, spargier (FPL, p. 120).

^{Page 88 note 3} E.g. Pease, A. S. (P. Vergili Maronis Aeneidos Liber Quartus (Cambridge, Mass., 1935), p. 407Google Scholar ad 4.493), who observes that this form is ‘apparently disappearing only after Ausonius’.

^{Page 88 note 4} I do not argue that this poetic helpmeet was used in the Middle Ages exclusively by Anglo-Latin poets; the Ecbasis Captivi once has scrutarier (735) and Radbod once perflarier (Monumenta Germaniae Historica, Poetae 4, 169), to choose two random examples from approximately contemporary poetry.

^{Page 88 note 5} On this question see Norberg, D., Beiträge zur spätlateinischen Syntax (Uppsala, 1944), p. 115Google Scholar. Norberg gives a few examples from early medieval Latin prose as well as three examples from Carolingian poetry. He is concerned with demonstrating that confusions such as necne for necnon arose in a period when Latin was no longer a living language. For the Anglo-Latin poets at least there was no confusion: necnon was used when a long, necne when a short syllable was needed.

^{Page 89 note 1} Translatio et miracula S. Swithuni, ed. E. P. Sauvage, AB 4 (1885), 367–410Google Scholar. For the interchange of necne and necnon see e.g. pp. 375.18, 382.21, 385.14, 388.15, 391.15, 392.20 and 393.25.

^{Page 89 note 2} Ibid. p. 406.30. The possibility that this phrase was expanded from Aldhelm's ‘sed manet in tempis paradisi hactenus heros’ (Carm. de virg. 272) is remote. Instead see my note to Altircatio 45, below, p. 114.

^{Page 91 note 1} Ælfric's Life of Æthelwold is found in Chronicon Monasterii de Abingdon, ed. J. Stevenson, Rolls Series (1858) 11, 255–66Google Scholar; the excerpt quoted is found on pp. 262–3; cf. also ‘quam benignus extitit erga studiosos ….’ (p. 265).

^{Page 91 note 2} See Ælfric's letter to the monks of Eynsham, ed. Bateson, M., Compotus Rolls of the Obedientiaries of St Swithun's Priory, Winchester, ed. Kitchin, G. W. (Hampshire Record Society, 1892), p. 175Google Scholar: ‘liber consuetudinum quem sanctus atheluuoldus uuintoniensis episcopus cum coepiscopis et abbatibus … undique collegit ac monachis instituit obseruandum’.

^{Page 91 note 3} Ptd Schröer, A., Die angelsächsischen Prosabearbeitung der Benedictinerregel (Kassel, 1888; repr. with contr. by H. Gneuss, Darmstadt, 1964).Google Scholar

^{Page 91 note 4} This piece is printed in Cockayne, O., Leechdoms, Wortcunning and Starcraft, RS (1866) 111, 432–44Google Scholar. That this piece is incontestably by Æthelwold has been demonstrated recently by Professor Whitelock, D., ‘The Authorship of the Account of King Edgar's Establishment of the Monasteries’, Philological Essays: Studies in Old and Middle English Language and Literature in Honour of Herbert Dean Meritt, ed. Rosier, J. L. (The Hague, 1970), pp. 125–36.Google Scholar

^{Page 91 note 5} The reader may conveniently be directed to the evidence and bibliographical information pertaining to Æthelwold's literary activity which Professor Gneuss has assembled. See above, pp. 73–4.

^{Page 91 note 6} The works of Ælfric are well known, but those of Wulfstan deserve to be collected and studied. There is the Narratio de S. Swithuno. There are the three poems to Winchester saints edited by C. Blume in the Sitzungsberichte d. k. Akad. d. Wiss. in Wien 146, 3 (Vienna, 1903), pp. 1 ff. Finally, it has been suggested that the Vita Æthelwoldi is not a late Norman copy of Ælfric's Vita Æthelwoldi, but may have antedated it and may have been its source; it is in all likelihood by Wulfstan (see Fisher, D. J. V., ‘The Early Biographers of St Æthelwold’, EHR 67 (1952), 381–91).CrossRefGoogle Scholar

^{Page 91 note 7} One interesting piece of information: the Altercatio was drawn among other things from a bestiary (see lines 1–10); like much Anglo-Latin verse of the time it is charged with Greek words. It is remarkable then that Æthelwold sent to his foundation at Peterborough both a ‘liber bestiarum’ and a ‘liber de litteris grecorum’ (Cartularium Saxonicum, ed. W. de Gray Birch (London, 1885–1899), no. 1128)Google Scholar. Apparently Æthelwold considered that such books were essential to literary study; the Altercatio would seem to be the product of such study.

^{Page 92 note 1} In the traditional view, Æthelwold was seen as subordinate to Dunstan in this movement. See Symons, T., ‘The English Monastic Reform of the Tenth Century’, Downside Review 60 (1942), 1–22, 196–222 and 268–79CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Robinson, J. A., The Times of St Dunstan (Oxford, 1923; repr. 1969), pp. 104–22Google Scholar; and Knowles, D., The Monastic Order in England (Cambridge, 1940; repr. 1963), pp. 39–42Google Scholar. This view has most recently been upheld by Dauphin, H., ‘Le Renouveau Monastique en Angleterre au Xe Siècle et ses Rapports avec la Réforme de S. Gérard de Brogne’, RB 70 (1960), 185–6.Google Scholar This traditional view has been challenged notably by John, E., ‘The King and the Monks in the Tenth-Century Reformation’, Bull, of the John Rylands Lib. 42 (1959–1960), 61–87CrossRefGoogle Scholar; idem, ‘The Sources of the English Monastic Reformation’, RB 70 (1960), 197–203; and Deanesly, M., The Pre-Conquest Church in England, 2nd ed. (London, 1963), pp. 304–5 and 312–16.Google Scholar

^{Page 92 note 2} See John, E., ‘Some Latin Charters of the Tenth-Century Reformation in England’, RB 70 (1960), 333–59Google Scholar, and especially Chaplais, F., ‘The Origin and Authenticity of the Royal Anglo-Saxon Diploma’, Jnl of the Soc. of Archivists 3, 2 (1965), 48–61.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

^{Page 92 note 3} Some idea of what Winchester cathedral might have looked like may be gathered from R. N. Quirk's exhaustive examination of the extant written sources (‘Winchester Cathedral in the Tenth Century’, Arch] 114 (1957), 28–68Google Scholar; see esp. pp. 29–30 concerning Æthelwold's accomplishments). More recently, excavation has been begun at Winchester (and is still under way) under the direction of M. Biddle. Since 1964 reports of this excavation have been published in AntJ, the most recent report being published in 1971.

^{Page 93 note 1} Ælfric's Life of Æthelwold, ed. Stevenson 11, 259: ‘misit Osgarum monachum trans mare ad monasterium Sancti Benedicti Floriacense, ut mores regulares illic disceret’.

^{Page 93 note 2} Ibid. 1, 129.

^{Page 93 note 3} Regularis Concordia, ed. Symons, T. (London, 1953), p. 3.Google Scholar

^{Page 93 note 4} Ælfric calls him se ofersæwisca (‘the foreigner’); Ælfric's Lives of the Saints, ed. W. W. Skeat, Early English Text Society o.s. 76, 82, 94 and 114 (London, 1881–1900), 1, 466Google Scholar, line 402.

^{Page 93 note 5} Æthelwold is without doubt the ‘certain abbot’ whom the Regularis Concordia mentions in connection with King Edgar's religious education: ‘attamen respectu diuino attactus, abbate quodam assiduo monente ac regiam catholicae fidei uiam demonstrante, coepit magnopere Deum timere, diligere ac uenerari’ (Regularis Concordia, ed. Symons, p. 1). See Knowles, D., The Monastic Order in England, p. 40Google Scholar, n. 5 and E. John, ‘The King and the Monks in the Tenth-Century Reformation’, who rightly conjectures that the tutelage must have taken place at Abingdon.

^{Page 94 note 1} The manuscript is discussed by Öhler, T., Rbeinisches Museum für Philologie n.s. 1 (1842), 135–6Google Scholar; Munro, H. A. J., Aetna (1867), p. 29Google Scholar; Peiper, R., Fleckeisens Jahrbücher f. klass. Philologie, Suppl. bd. 11 (1880), 283Google Scholar; Baehrens, E., Poetae Latini Minores (Leipzig, 1880) 11, 11Google Scholar; and Ellis, R., Aetna (1901), pp. vii, xii and liii–liv.Google Scholar

^{Page 94 note 2} ‘C, Cantabrigiensis, saeculi X–XI (huic enim aetati ego attribuo) …’ (PLM 11, 11).

^{Page 94 note 3} Vollmer, F., ‘P. Virgili Maronis iuvenalis ludi libellus’, Sitzungsberichte d. k. Akad. d. Wiss. zu München (Munich, 1908) 11, p. 34.Google Scholar

^{Page 94 note 4} Liber Vitae: Register and Martyrology of New Minster and Hyde Abbey, Winchester, ed. de Gray Birch, W. (London, 1892).Google Scholar

^{Page 95 note 1} Liber Vitae, p. 35, line 8 (not line 6, as Vollmer reports).

^{Page 95 note 2} I am very grateful to Mr Bishop for re-examining this manuscript for me and for placing his knowledge of English manuscripts at my disposal. It is unfortunate that very few manuscripts in Winchester literary script (as distinct from (say) the script of the Winchester Benedictional) have survived; the best known surviving example is the manuscript of Bede's Historia Ecclesiastica at Winchester (see Potter, S., ‘The Winchester Bede’, Wessex 3, 2 (1935), 39–49Google Scholar for a facsimile of one folio of this manuscript). The script of Kk.5.34 is strikingly similar to (but not identical with) that of the Winchester Bede.

^{Page 96 note 1} Hirzel, R., Der Dialog: ein literarhistorischer Versuch, 2 vols. (Leipzig, 1895).Google Scholar

^{Page 96 note 2} Migne, Patrologia Graeca 6, cols. 471–800.

^{Page 96 note 3} Ed. E. Bratke, Corpus Scriptorum Ecclesiasticorum Latinorum 45. This work is thought to be based on a lost work of Ariston of Pella.

^{Page 96 note 4} See Hirzel, Der Dialog 11, 368–9. Three works of Augustine should be included here: the contra Academicos, the de vita beata and the de ordine. The pseudo-Augustinian Altercatio ecclesiae et synagogae (Migne, Patrologia Latina 42, cols. 1131–40) is unquestionably later.

^{Page 96 note 5} PG 47, cols. 5–82; cf. Coleman-Norton, P. R., ‘The Use of Dialogue in the Vita Sanctorum’, JTS 27 (1926), 388–95CrossRefGoogle Scholar, and more recently, Hoffmann, M., Der Dialog bei den christlichen Schriftstellern der ersten vier Jahrhunderte, Texte und Untersuchungen zur Gesch. d. altchr. Literatur (Berlin, 1966).Google Scholar

^{Page 96 note 6} MGH, Script. 10, 11–15.

^{Page 96 note 7} Migne, Patrologia Latina 141, cols. 1026–90.

^{Page 96 note 8} See Plezia, M., ‘L'Histoire Dialoguée: Procédé d'Origine Patristique dans l'Historiographie Médiévale’, Stndia Patristica 4 (1961), 490–6.Google Scholar

^{Page 96 note 9} See Bardy, G., ‘La Littérature Patristique des Quaestiones et Responsiones sur l'Écriture Sainte’, Revue Biblique 41 (1932), 211–36, 341–69 and 515–37Google Scholar; and 42 (1933), 11–30, 211–29 and 328–52.

^{Page 97 note 1} See the brief comments by Dronke, P., Poetic Individuality in the Middle Ages (Oxford, 1970), pp. 84–7Google Scholar, and the extensive discussion in Walther, H., Das Streitgedicht in der lateinischen Literatur des Mittelalters (Munich, 1920)Google Scholar, esp. pp. 34 ff. and 93 ff.

^{Page 97 note 2} Keil, Grammatici Latini 4, 355–66. Works in this form are generally concerned with expounding grammar, but there is also the medical work of Caelius Aurelianus and the rhetorical work of Chirius Fortunatianus in this form.

^{Page 97 note 3} Ed. C. Wotke, CSEL 31, 63–161. A dialogue of similar form by Salonius, Eucherius's son, is found in PL 53, cols. 967–1012.

^{Page 97 note 4} PL 68, cols. 15–42.

^{Page 97 note 5} PL 96, cols. 595–704. It has been argued that the earliest such didactic dialogue was to be found in a manuscript at Schlettstadt dated c. 700; see Förster, M., ‘Das älteste mittellateinische Gesprächbüchlein’, Romanische Forschungen 27 (1910), 342–8.Google Scholar

^{Page 97 note 6} Ed. R. Ehwald, MGH, Auct. Antiq. 15, 150–204.

^{Page 97 note 7} PL 90, cols. 613–32.

^{Page 97 note 8} Ed. Calder, G., Auraicept na N-Eces (Edinburgh, 1917).Google Scholar This so-called ‘scholar's primer’ is a grammatical treatise derived largely from Isidore and Vergilius the Grammarian.

^{Page 97 note 9} Ed. Tolkien, J., Philologus Suppl. bd. 20, 3.Google Scholar

^{Page 97 note 10} These works are found in PL 101: Grammatica (cols. 849–902), de orthographia (cols. 903–20), Dialogus de rhetorica et virtutibus (cols. 919–50) and de dialectica (cols. 951–76). These four are in the form of dialogues between Alcuin the master and Charlemagne the pupil. The Disputatio puerorum per interrogations et responsiones (PL 101, cols. 1097–144) is not certainly by Alcuin.

^{Page 98 note 1} PL 101, cols. 975–80; also ed. Wilmanns, W., ZDA 14 (1869), 530–55.Google Scholar

^{Page 98 note 2} Ed. W. Suchier, with introduction and commentary by Daly, L. W., Illinois Stud, in Lang, and Lit. 24 (1939), pp. 1–168Google Scholar. Daly's introduction to this work is by far the most extensive treatment of question-and-answer dialogue literature.

^{Page 98 note 3} See Garmonsway, G. N., ‘The Development of the Colloquy’, The Anglo-Saxons: Studies in some Aspects of their History and Culture presented to Bruce Dickius, ed. Clemoes, P. (London, 1959), pp. 248–61.Google Scholar

^{Page 98 note 4} E.g. the third colloquy in Early Scholastic Colloquies, ed. W. H. Stevenson (Oxford, 1929), pp. 21–6Google Scholar, which contains phrases such as ‘quanam in parte uultis properare uel pergere?’ and the (suggested) reply, ‘Romam uolumus ire, et uisitare reliquias Sancti Petri Apostoli …’ etc.

^{Page 98 note 5} Ælfric's Colloquy, ed. G. N. Garmonsway (London, 1939)Google Scholar. In English one might compare the Dialogues of Solomon and Saturn, ed. R. J. Menner (New York, 1941)Google Scholar, and the Middle English ‘Questiones by-twene the Maister of Oxenford and hisClerke’, ed. C. Horstmann, ES tn 8 (1885), 284–7Google Scholar. See also Merrill, E., The Dialogue in English Literature, Yale Studies in English (New York, 1911).Google Scholar

^{Page 98 note 6} This is most evident in the second, fifth, sixth and seventh colloquies printed in Stevenson, Early Scholastic Colloquies.

^{Page 98 note 7} There are also flytings preserved in the Eddaic Helgakviða Hundingsbana II, st. 24–9 (between Guðmundr and Sinfjǫtli) and the Helgakviða Hjǫrvarðssonar, st. 12–30 (between Atli and Hrimgerðr). See Phillpotts, B., The Elder Edda and Ancient Scandinavian Drama (Cambridge, 1920), pp. 156–9Google Scholar. In Anglo-Saxon, the exchange between Unferth and Beowulf might be considered a flyting. Saxo Grammaticus, Gesta Danorum, records three flytings: between Fridleif and the giant (6.178), between Grep and Erik (5.132ff.) and between Gotvar and Erik (5.139).

^{Page 99 note 1} The exchange between Oðinn and Vafþruðnir is concerned with the revelation of secret lore; as such it is a member of a huge corpus of riddle literature common in Norse and Anglo-Saxon as well as Irish. For example, Heiðrek in the Old Norse Hervarar saga forfeits his life because he is unable to answer Oðinn's questions. In Irish literature one might compare the exchange between Cuchulainn and Emer in the Tochmarc Emire or that between the two scholars in the Immacallam in dá Thuarad (ed. Stokes, W., Revue Celtique 26 (1905), 4–64Google Scholar).

^{Page 99 note 2} The ‘bardic contentions’ are edited by McKenna, L., Irish Texts Society 20–1 (London, 1918)Google Scholar. See also Knott, E. and Murphy, G., Early Irish Literature (London, 1966), pp. 88–92.Google Scholar

^{Page 99 note 3} In a consideration of the development of this genre, the comments by Walther (Das Streitgedicht, pp. 17ff.) concerning the importance of the diatribe in rhetorical education are very relevant.

^{Page 99 note 4} Damon, P. W., ‘The Meaning of the Hisperica Famina’, Amer. Jnl of Philol. 74 (1953), 398–406.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

^{Page 99 note 5} Ed. Jenkinson, F. J. H. (Cambridge, 1908)Google Scholar. A new edition of the Hisperica Famina by M. Herren is soon to be published by the Pontifical Institute of Mediaeval Studies, Toronto.

^{Page 100 note 1} See, however, the comments by Grosjean, P., ‘Confusa caligo: Remarques sur les Hisperica Famina’, Cellica 3 (1956), 64.Google Scholar

^{Page 100 note 2} Bischoff, B. and Hofmann, J., Libri Sancti Kyliani, Quellen und Forschungen zur Geschichte des Bistums und Hochstifts Würzburg 6 (Würzburg, 1952), 38 and 130Google Scholar. (Mr Malcolm Parkes very kindly supplied me with this reference.)

^{Page 100 note 3} ‘Bruckstück eines Gedichtes aus der Karolinger-Zeit’, Nachrichten d. k. Gesells. d. Wiss. z. Göttingen, phil.-hist. Kl. (1917), pp. 589–93.Google Scholar

^{Page 100 note 4} MGH, Poetae 4, 1086.

^{Page 101 note 1} Cf. the request made by the student in the Responsio: ‘desine iam nos/rodere uerbis’ (72–3). The debate between Terentius and his delusor (MGH, Poetae 4, 1088–90) assumes a form similar to these debates between master and student. In this poem the delusor taunts Terentius to demonstrate the utility of his verse (‘dic, vetus auctor, in hoc quae iacet utilitas?’). In the face of an extremely virulent attack Terentius is led to ask, ‘cur, furiose, tuis lacerasti carmina verbis’ (p. 1090, line 48)? So the student in the Responsio had been led to ask of his magister, ‘cur mea falso/carmina blasmas’ (12–13)?

^{Page 101 note 2} Ed. Omont, H., ‘Satire de Gamier de Rouen contre le Poète Moriuht’, Annuaire-Bulletin de la Société de I'Histoire de France 31 (1894), 193–210.Google Scholar

^{Page 101 note 3} Ed. Musset, L., ‘Le Satiriste Gamier de Rouen et son Milieu’, Revue du Moyen Âge Latin 10 (1954), 237–66Google Scholar. The poem is certainly a dialogue but Musset's designations of speakers are not always certain.

^{Page 102 note 1} Omont, ‘Satire de Gamier’, p. 206; doctiloquos (355) should be emended to doctiloquis.

^{Page 103 note 1} There are abundant manuscripts of the ninth and tenth centuries and also abundant commentaries. In the ninth century there is the anonymous St Gall commentary and the Vat.Lat. 3363 commentary, not to mention the Anglo-Saxon translation by Alfred and the Old High German glosses by Notker. In the tenth century there are the commentaries by Remigius of Auxerre and the anonymous Parisinus lat. 10400, those by Bovo of Corvey and Adalbold of Utrecht, as well as several others. See discussion by Courcelle, P., La Consolation de Philosophie dans la Tradition Littéraire (Paris, 1967), pp. 241–74.Google Scholar

^{Page 104 note 1} Although the author of the de libero arbitrio was from the continent, one should not overlook the fact that there was an established tradition of Boethian interpretation in England, most fully attested by Alfred's translation. In particular, the notion of God rewarding the good and punishing the evil is germane to both Alfred's Boethius and to the de libero arbitrio. On the other hand, the poem's literal fidelity to Boethius's conception of the chain of fate (fatalis series) has no parallel in Alfred. See Otten, K., Köing Alfreds Boethius (Tübingen, 1964), pp. 54–5 and 58–60.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

^{Page 104 note 2} Gottschalk, , de praedestinatione, Oeuvres Théologiques et Grammaticales de Godescalc d'Orbais, ed. Lambot, D. C. (Louvain, 1945), pp. 180–258Google Scholar; John Scotus Eriugena, de praedestinatione, PL 122, cols. 355–440.

^{Page 105 note 1} Hincmar, de praedestinatione dei et libero arbitrio, PL 125, cols. 65–474; Prudentius, de praedestinatione contra J. Scottum, PL 115, cols. 1009–366; Ratramnus, de praedestinatione dei, PL 121, cols. 11–80.

^{Page 105 note 2} It is well known that Æthelwold imported monks from Corbie to instruct the Winchester monks in plain-chant (see above, p. 93). Could it have been a monk from Corbie, familiar there with the writings of Ratramnus, who had come to England and written the de libero arbitrio ?

^{Page 105 note 3} PL 121, col. 15.

^{Page 105 note 4} Ibid.

^{Page 105 note 5} Ibid.

^{Page 105 note 6} Ibid. col. 68.

^{Page 105 note 7} See above, p. 85.

^{Page 106 note 1} See my note to Altercatio 120, below, pp. 120–1.

^{Page 106 note 2} William of Malmesbury, de gestis regum Anglorum, ed. W. Stubbs, RS (1887) 1, 167: ‘fecit et aliud opus De Tonorum Harmonia valde utile’.

^{Page 106 note 3} These two manuscripts (Cambridge, Corpus Christi College 473 and Oxford, Bodleian Library 775) are edited by Frere, W. H., The Winchester Troper, Henry Bradshaw Society (London, 1894)Google Scholar. J. Handschin, however, has argued that both manuscripts are eleventh-century (‘The Two Winchester Tropers’, JTS 37 (1936), 34–49 and 156–72)Google Scholar.