¹ See Stanley, E. G., ‘Old English Poetic Diction and the Interpretation of The Wanderer, The Seafarer, and The Penitent's Prayer’, Anglia 73 (1956), 415–66Google Scholar; Henry, P. L., The Early English and Celtic Lyric (London, 1966)Google Scholar; and Rice, Robert C., ‘The Penitential Motif in Cynewulf's Fates of the Apostles and His Epilogues’, ASE 6 (1977), 105–19Google Scholar. Rice discusses legislative penitential sources to a limited extent in ‘Soul's Need: a Critical Study of the Penitential Motif in Old English Poetry’ (unpubl. Ph.D. dissertation, Univ. of Oregon, 1974)Google Scholar. I analyse the criticism of ‘penitential poetry’ in The Literature of Penance in Anglo-Saxon England (forthcoming).

² This material is conveniently listed under ‘Confession and penitence’, Ker, N. R., Catalogue of Manuscripts Containing Anglo-Saxon (Oxford, 1957), pp. 521–2Google Scholar. See also Cameron, Angus, ‘A List of Old English Texts’, A Plan for the Dictionary of Old English, ed. Roberta, Frank and Angus, Cameron (Toronto, 1973), pp. 123–6.Google Scholar

³ Oakley, Thomas P., English Penitential Discipline and Anglo-Saxon Law in their Joint Influence (New York, 1923; repr. 1969).Google Scholar

⁴ Councils and Ecclesiastical Documents Relating to Great Britain and Ireland, ed. Haddan, A. W. and Stubbs, W. 111 (Oxford, 1871; repr. 1964).Google Scholar

⁵ Wasserschleben, F. W. H., Die Bussordnungen der abendländischen Kirche (Halle, 1851; repr. 1958)Google Scholar, and Schmitz, H. J., Die Bussbücher und die Bussdisziplin der Kirche (Mainz, 1883)Google Scholar, and Die Bussbücher und das kanonische Bussverfahren (Düsseldorf, 1898; repr. 1958).

⁶ McNeill, John T. and Gamer, Helena M., Medieval Handbooks of Penance (New York, 1938; repr. 1965).Google Scholar

⁷ Das altenglische Bussbuch (sog. Confessionale Pseudo-Egberti), ed. Spindler, Robert (Leipzig, 1934)Google Scholar, and Die altenglische Version des Halitgar'schen Bussbuches (sog. Poenitentiale Pseudo-Ecgberti), ed. Raith, Josef, Bibliothek der angelsächsischen Prosa 13 (Hamburg, 1935; repr. with new foreword, 1964)Google Scholar. See, e.g., the former, pp. 22 –4 and 111, for references to Oakley's classification of the penitentials, and the latter, pp. xxxix and 66–7, n. 57.

⁸ The Irish handbooks have been edited by Ludwig Bieler (The Irish Penitentials, Scriptores Latini Hiberniae 5 (Dublin, 1963))Google Scholar. For recent scholarship concerning Frankish penitentials, see Kottje, Raymund, Die Bussbücher Halitgars von Cambrai und des Hrabanus Maurus, Beiträge zur Geschichte und Quellenkunde des Mittelalters 8 (Berlin and New York, 1980).CrossRefGoogle Scholar

⁹ Vogel, Cyrille, Les ‘Patnitentiales,’ Typologie des Sources du Moyen Āge Occidental, fasc. 27 (Turnhout, 1978), 31.Google Scholar

¹⁰ Vogel lists these among other ‘formules indifférenciées’, Ibid. p. 28.

¹¹ The ‘tariff’ formula is discussed by Vogel, Ibid. pp. 36–9; Oakley believed that penitentials urging the priest to adjust penances to the physical condition of the penitent were continental, but this form of discretion is found also in early Irish handbooks. See Oakley, Thomas P., ‘Alleviations of Penance in the Continental Penitentials’, Speculum 12 (1937), 488–502CrossRefGoogle Scholar, and Hughes, Kathleen, Early Christian Ireland: Introduction to the Sources (London, 1972), p. 86.Google Scholar

¹² See the prologue to the Penitential of Cummean (seventh century), The Irish Penitentials, ed. Bieler, pp. 108–11, which parallels a homily by Origen (see Bieler's n., p. 108); for an ordo confessionis known in both Frankish and English churches, see Schmitz, Die Bussbücher und das kanonische Bussverfahren, pp. 290–300 (from the Penitential of Halitgar), and (for translation) McNeill and Gamer, , Handbooks, pp. 297–302.Google Scholar

¹³ See Milton McC. Gatch, ‘The Medieval Church: Basic Christian Education from the Decline of Catechesis to the Rise of the Catechisms’ (forthcoming).

¹⁴ See Frantzen, Allen J., ‘The Significance of the Frankish Penitentials’, JEH 30 (1979), 412–13.Google Scholar

¹⁵ Hammer, Carl I. Jr, ‘Country Churches, Clerical Inventories and the Carolingian Renaissance in Bavaria’, Church Hist. 49 (1980), 5–19.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

¹⁶ Dating, origin and provenance established by Bischoff, Bernhard, Lorsch im Spiegel seiner Handschriften, Münchener Beiträge zur Mediävistik und Renaissance-Forschung (Munich, 1974), pp. 112–13Google Scholar. See also Lowe, E. A., Codices Latini Antiquiores (Oxford, 1934–1971) 1, 28Google Scholar(no. 95). Fols. 1–4 were probably written at Lorsch or in its vicinity, s. ix^¼.

¹⁷ Described by Ker as ‘a narrow thin book containing penitential and confessional collections, and offices for the sick and dying’ (Catalogue, pp. 419–22).

¹⁸ Bullough, D. A., ‘Roman Book and Carolingian Renovatio’, Stud. in Church Hist. 14 (1977), 23–50CrossRefGoogle Scholar, esp. 48–9.

¹⁹ On the ‘commonplace’ collections, see Bateson, Mary, ‘A Worcester Cathedral Book of Ecclesiastical Collections, Made ca. 1000 A.D.’, EHR 10 (1895), 712–31CrossRefGoogle Scholar; and Bethurum, Dorothy, ‘Archbishop Wulfstan's Commonplace Book’, PMLA 57 (1942), 916–29.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

²⁰ See Pierce, Rosamond, ‘The “Frankish” Penitentials’, Stud. in Church Hist. 11 (1975), 31–9CrossRefGoogle Scholar, for the view that the Franks rejected the handbooks, and my reply, cited above, n. 14.

²¹ A still reliable guide to early editions is provided by Haddan, and Stubbs, , Councils 111, 173–6Google Scholar; their edition (Ibid. pp. 176–204) follows Wasserschleben's and is cited here, since it is the most easily available. The most complete survey of the manuscript tradition, and the most recent edition, is Finsterwalder, P. W., Die Canones Theodori Cantuariensis und ihre Überlieferungsformen (Weimar, 1929)Google Scholar. See also McNeill, and Gamer, , Handbooks, pp. 179–82Google Scholar, and their translation of the entire text (Ibid. pp. 182–215).

²² ‘Incipit praefatio libelli quern Pater Theodorus diversis interrogantibus ad remedium temperavit penitentiae’, Haddan, and Stubbs, , Councils 111, 173.Google Scholar There is a good discussion of the two-part structure of the work by Deanesly, Margaret, The Pre-Conquest Church in England (New York, 1961), pp. 126–30Google Scholar; see also Oakley, , English Penitential Discipline, pp. 105–17.Google Scholar

²³ Bk 1.V.2 (ordination of heretics) and 6 (baptism of heretics). See Haddan, and Stubbs, , Councils 111, 180–1Google Scholar; the ‘Discipulus’ discusses his sources in the preface, Ibid. pp. 176–7.

²⁴ Gabriel Le Bras speculated that oral tradition may have caused some of the confusion referred to by the ‘Discipulus’; see ‘Notes pour servir à l'histoire des collections canoniques’, Rev. Hist. de droit français et étranger 10 (1931), 103–14.Google Scholar

²⁵ The Capitula Dachariana are edited by Finsterwalder, , Canones, pp. 11–21Google Scholar (introduction) and 239–52 (text); for the Canones Gregorii, see pp. 22–53 (introduction) and 253–70 (text). For a comparison of the content of these texts with the Penitential, see pp. 232–5.

²⁶ See Finsterwalder, , Canones, pp. 65–6 and 72Google Scholar; for the prohibition of Irish customs, see bk 11.ix (Haddan, and Stubbs, , Councils 111, 197Google Scholar), and for public reconciliation, bk 1.xiii (Ibid. p. 187).

²⁷ Finsterwalder, , Canones, pp. 164–74Google Scholar. Le Bras argues English origins for all versions of these Theodoran texts; see ‘Notes’, pp. 112–14.

²⁸ Translated from Haddan, and Stubbs, , Councils 111, 176Google Scholar; see McNeill, and Gamer, , Handbooks, p. 195Google Scholar. The English mission to the continent is surveyed by Levison, Wilhelm, England and the Continent in the Eighth Century (Oxford, 1946), pp. 98–101.Google Scholar

²⁹ See the preface, Haddan, and Stubbs, , Councils 111, 176Google Scholar, and bk i.vii. 5 (p. 183); the reference is discussed by Oakley, , English Penitential Discipline, pp. 112–15Google Scholar. Finsterwalder, Both (Canones, pp. 201–5)Google Scholar and McNeill and Gamer, (Handbooks, p. 181)Google Scholar identify the ‘libellus scottorum’ with Cummean's Penitential.

³⁰ ‘But being still in doubt about this work, we connect with it passages in certain minor works that are necessary to it, especially in the booklet on penance’, quoted from McNeill, and Gamer, , Handbooks, p. 214.Google Scholar

³¹ Some of these manuscripts are cited by Meyvaert, Paul, ‘Bede's Text of the Libellus responsionum of Gregory the Great to Augustine of Canterbury’, England Before the Conquest: Essays in Primary Sources Presented to Dorothy Whitelock, ed. Clemoes, Peter and Hughes, Kathleen (Cambridge, 1971), pp. 15–53Google Scholar. See also the manuscripts listed in Das Poenitentiale Remense und der sogen. Excarpsus Cummeani, ed. Asbach, Franz (Regensburg, 1975)Google Scholar. Several of the earliest of these manuscripts contain only the second of the Penitential's two books; see Finsterwalder, , Canones, pp. xix and 80–8.Google Scholar

³² See Cummean's Penitential (Bieler, , The Irish Penitentials, pp. 108–35)Google Scholar for the structural use of the chief sins; the penitentials of Columbanus (Ibid. pp. 96–107) and Finnian (Ibid. pp. 74–95) follow no obvious pattern beyond the separation of monastic and lay offences.

³³ Intended solely for monks, or their lay clients, are such chapters in Cummean's Penitential as that on the ‘sinful playing of boys’ and ‘questions concerning the host’ (Bieler, The Irish Penitentials, pp. 126–33). On the lay clients, or manaig, see Kathleen Hughes, The Church in Early Irish Society (London, 1966), pp. 1 36–7.

³⁴ Theodore's Penitential includes a section on the customs of the Greeks and Romans (bk 11.viii; Haddan and Stubbs, Councils 111, 196–7). The sins of despair, sloth, vainglory and pride, cited in Cummean's Penitential (Bieler, The Irish Penitentials, pp. 120–5) are omitted in Theodore's.

³⁵ Useful surveys of Theodore's work are Henry Mayr-Harting, The Coming of Christianity to England (London, 1972), pp. 129–47; and D. P. Kirby, The Making of Early England (London, 1967), pp. 47–53.

³⁶ For references to Theodore in tenth-century penitentials, see below, pp. 44–5 and 53.

³⁷ Many manuscripts of Egbert's Penitential have been discovered since Haddan and Stubbs published their edition (Councils 111, 416–31 (the text cited here)), but only one edition based on new sources has subsequently appeared: see Schmitz, Die Bussbücher und das kanonische Bussverfahren, pp. 661–73, the first to use Vat. Pal. Lat. 554 (see above, n. 16).

³⁸ See n. 16, and Oakley, English Penitential Discipline, pp. 122–3.

³⁹ These final chapters concern commutations; Vogel (Les ‘Libri’, p. 71) considers them of continental origin; for text, see Haddan and Stubbs, Councils 111, 430–1.

⁴⁰ Haddan and Stubbs, Councils in, 424 ('de auguriis vel divinationibus’); see McNeill and Gamer, Handbooks, p. 229, for the tradition forbidding the ‘sortes’ (using scriptural passages for divination), known to Augustine, and mentioned in one of Charlemagne's capitularies.

⁴¹ Wasserschleben (Die Bussordnungen, p. 259) cites parallels to Egbert's Penitential at this point in the anonymous Poenitentiale Merseburgense (ninth century); additional parallels not cited by Wasserschleben include the anonymous eighth-century Bobbio Penitential and the Paris Penitential (Haddan and Stubbs, Councils 111, 409 and 414). None of these texts is close either to Egbert, or to his source, Sermo xii of Caesarius of Aries; see M. L. W. Laistner, ‘Was Bede the Author of a Penitential?’, The Intellectual Heritage of the Early Middle Ages, ed. Chester G. Starr (Ithaca, 1957), pp. 165–77. Augustine's rejection of the ‘sortilegos’ is quoted in the Collectio Canonum Hibernensis, Die irische Kanonensammlung, ed. F. W. H. Wasserschleben, 2nd ed. (Leipzig, 1885), p. 230 (possibly one of Theodore's sources); the 'sortes’ is also forbidden in the early-eighth-century Vetus Gallica, Kirchenrecht und Reform im Frankenreich, ed. Hubert Mordek, Beiträge zur Geschichte und Quellenkunde des Mittelalters 1 (Berlin and New York, 1975), 522–3. Obviously the tradition was widespread and not exclusive to the continent.

⁴² Kottje, Die Bussbücher, refers throughout to this text as ‘pseudo-Egbert’; see esp. p. 210. A few scholars reject the text as Egbert's; among them is Bernhard Poschmann (Penance and the Anointing of the Sick, trans. Francis Courtney (New York, 1964), pp. 125–6). Neither Kottje nor Poschmann discusses the question of Egbert's authorship. The incipit is translated from Haddan and Stubbs, Councils 111, 416.

⁴³ See Oakley, English Penitential Discipline, pp. 124–5, for a brief discussion of Egbert's sources.

⁴⁴ Compare the first two chapters in Haddan and Stubbs, Councils 111, 418–19. False witness, theft and sodomy appear in both lists.

⁴⁵ Ibid. p. 419, where ‘de parricidiis vel fratricidiis’ constitutes the third chapter of the Penitential; the chapter is omitted from Oxford, Bodleian Library, Bodley 718 (s. x), 5v (variants printed by Haddan and Stubbs); in St Gallen, Stiftsbibliothek 677 (s. x, possibly from St Gallen), at p. 36, this sentence is part of ‘de minoribus peccatis’.

⁴⁶ For the text, see Haddan and Stubbs, Councils 111, 416–18.

⁴⁷ See Venerabilis Baedae: Opera Historica, ed. Charles Plummer (Oxford, 1896; repr. 1966), pp. clvii–clviii, for a vigorous denunciation of the penitentials, quoted in Schmitz, Die Bussbücher und das kanonische Bussverfabren, pp. 647–8. Agreeing with Plummer that Bede did not write a penitential is Laistner, ‘Was Bede the Author?’. Much of the evidence is reviewed by McNeill and Gamer, Handbooks, pp. 217–21, who accept the case for Bede's authorship.

⁴⁸ See Wasserschleben, Die Bussordnungen, pp. 37–9; Haddan and Stubbs, Councils 111, 326; and Oakley, English Penitential Discipline, pp. 125–9. Haddan and Stubbs, Councils 111, 326–34, reprint Wasserschleben's text (Die Bussordnungen, pp. 220–30). They note, p. 333, that the final chapters are later. The analysis which follows is taken from my ‘The Penitentials of Bede’, Speculum (forthcoming). My study of this material has been greatly assisted by Prof. Kottje, of the University of Bonn and by Reinhold Haggenmüller, of the University of Augsburg.

⁴⁹ Vienna, Nationalbibliothek, 2223, s. ix^⅓; dating and provenance by Bernhard Bischoff and Josef Hofmann, Libri Sancti Kyliani: Die Würzburger Schreibschule und die Dombibliothek im VIII und IX Jahrhundert (Würzburg, 1952), p. 53. The ‘excarpsum domini bedani presbyteri’ is found on 17V–22r; the Penitential of Egbert on 77V–87V; the two-part Penitential of Theodore on 11–171.

⁵⁰ Zürich, Zentralbibliothek, Carsons C. 176 (D64), s. ix^med-¾; dating and provenance by Kottje, Die Bussbücher, pp. 82–3; the penitential is on 94V–101V, and is preceded by the ‘Inquisitio sancti Hieronimi presbiteri de penitentiae’, 93r–94v, which comprises the final three chapters of the twelve-chapter penitential.

⁵¹ Montpellier, École de médecine 387, s. ix/x; dating and provenance by McNeill and Gamer, Handbooks, p. 446.

⁵² Schmitz, Die Bussbücher und das kanoniscbe Bussverfahren, pp. 654–59; Vatican City, Biblioteca Apostolica Vaticana, Pal. Lat. 294 (s. x/xi, Lorsch?), ‘In nomine triplo symplo’.

⁵³ Paris, Bibliothèque Nationale, lat. 2341, s. ix^2/4$$$ dating and provenance by Kottje, Die Bussbücher, pp. 50–1. ‘Bede’; 233rb–234vb; Egbert, 234va–b (incomplete). For additional manuscripts in this tradition, see Kottje, Die Bussbücher, pp. 121–2.

⁵⁴ Bruno Albers, ‘Wann sind die Beda-Egbert'schen Bussbücher verfasst worden, und wer ist ihr Verfasser?’, Archiv für katholisches Kirchenrecht 81 (1901), 393–420; the base text is Vatican City, Biblioteca Apostolica Vaticana, Barberinus Latinus 477, s. xiⁱⁿ (S. France); for dating and provenance see Kottje, Die Bussbücher, p. 122.

⁵⁵ McNeill and Gamer, Handbooks, pp. 221–33; but see p. 238, where they admit uncertainty about Bede's authorship.

⁵⁶ Schmitz noticed that this penitential quoted only those chapters by ‘Bede’ also found in the ‘Liber de remediis peccatorum’ (Die Bussbücher und das kanonische Bussverfahren, p. 653). This makes it unlikely that the fourth ‘Bedan’ penitential descended from the nine- (or twelve-) chapter version.

⁵⁷ See Oakley, English Penitential Discipline, pp. 129–31; Wasserschleben (Die Bussordnungen, pp. 248–82) and Schmitz (Die Bussbücher und das kanonische Bussverfahren, pp. 679–701) edit the text; manuscripts are discussed by Kottje, Die Bussbücher, pp. 122–3.

⁵⁸ For Halitgar's career and writings, see Kottje, Die Bussbücher, pp. 1–11; for the ordo see above, n. 12.

⁵⁹ See Wasserschleben, Die Bussordnungen, p. 47, and Kottje, Die Bussbücher, p. 122.

⁶⁰ An example is Oxford, Bodleian Library, Bodley 572, s. xi^⅔, thought to be from northern France, bugt possibly Breton; it contains the letter only, 88r–90r; dating by Asbach, Poenitentiale Remense, p. 25.

⁶¹ For example, both have chapters on drunkenness, ‘Bede's’ taken entirely from Theodore's Penitential, Egbert's using some of the same material, but arranged differently, and adding to it tariffs taken from the Penitential of Cummean; this can be seen by comparing the parallels which Wasserschleben (Die Bussordnungen) listed on pp. 226–7 (‘Bede’) with those on pp. 242–3 (Egbert). With the exception of two sentences their chapters on theft are also different (cf. ‘Bede’ (p. 228), viii. 5–6, with Egbert (Ibid. p. 241), X. 3–4).

⁶² Reinhold Haggenmüller has compiled a list of over fifty manuscripts containing all or parts of the penitentials attributed to Bede and Egbert. This outnumbers manuscripts of Theodoran penitential texts, until now believed to be the most popular of all early handbooks.

⁶³ For editions of the anonymous penitentials, see Vogel, Les ‘Libri’, pp. 66–9 and 74–5.

⁶⁴ Editions are listed Ibid. pp. 76–9.

⁶⁵ Paul Fournier, ‘Études sur les Pénitentiels: Le Livre VI du Pénitentiel d'Halitgaire’, Rev. d'Hist. et de Littérature Religieuses 8 (1903), 528–53. The penitentials listed in the first of my three continental families correspond to those found in the first two of Fournier's three categories, pp. 533–44.

⁶⁶ The Poenitentiale Martenianum, for example, has been dated 802–13 by Paul Fournier and Gabriel Le Bras, Histoire des Collections Canoniques en Occident (Paris, 1931) 1, 90; see McNeill and Gamer, Handbooks, p. 219.

⁶⁷ Fournier remarks that organizational defects in these penitentials (provisions from the many sources synthesized in them naturally conflicted on important points) were among the problems attacked by the early Frankish reformers. See Fournier, ‘Halitgaire’, pp. 549–50.

⁶⁸ Edited by Schmitz, Die Bussbücher und das kanonische Bussverfahren, pp. 274–300; the manuscript tradition is described in detail by Kottje, Die Bussbücher, pp. 13–83. The sixth book, misleadingly known as the ‘Roman’ or ‘pseudo-Roman’ Penitential, is translated by McNeill and Gamer, Handbooks, pp. 297–314.

⁶⁹ For manuscripts containing Halitgar's work and various handbooks ascribed to Bede or Egbert, see Kottje, Die Bussbücher, pp. 111–31.

⁷⁰ The ordo's liturgical origins are outlined by Josef A. Jungmann, Die lateinischen Bussriten in ihrer geschichtlichen Entwicklung (Innsbruck, 1932), p. 48. Earlier than Halitgar's ordo, and also liturgical in character (i.e., with prayers for both priest and penitent), are shorter orders for confession found with penitentials from the eighth century (the Fleury Penitential and the Bobbio Penitential); they are translated by McNeill and Gamer, Handbooks, pp. 279–85.

⁷¹ Dating and provenance by Ker, Catalogue, p. 360. Several of the following manuscripts are discussed by F. A. Rella, ‘Continental Manuscripts Acquired for English Centers in the Tenth and Early Eleventh Centuries: a preliminary Checklist’, Anglia 98 (1980), 107–16.

⁷² See F. Madan and H. H. E. Craster, A Summary Catalogue of Western Manuscripts in the Bodleian Library at Oxford (Oxford, 1895–1955) 11.i, 220, and Bieler, The Irish Penitentials, pp. 6 and 13.

⁷³ See G. F. Warner and J. P. Gilson, Catalogue of Western Manuscripts in the Old Royal and King's Collection (London, 1921) 1, 116. Dating and provenance by Bernhard Bischoff, ‘Wendepunkte in der Geschichte der lateinischen Exegese im Frühmittelalter’, Sacris Erudiri 6 (1954), 221, n. 4.

⁷⁴ The text is not attributed to Bede and begins, ‘De remediis peccatorum’, 691:; Egbert is not cited where his Penitential begins, 73r–79r.

⁷⁵ See F. A. Gasquet and Edmund Bishop, The Bosworth Psalter (London, 1908), pp. 54–6, and below, nn. 158–65.

⁷⁶ Described by Kottje, Die Bussbücher, p. 48, and Madan and Craster, Summary Catalogue 11.i, 430–1.

⁷⁷ Dating and provenance by Ker, Catalogue, pp. 105–6 (no. 58).

⁷⁸ Haddan and Stubbs, Councilsui 111, 176, accept CCCC 320 as ‘not being later probably than the eighth century’. But this early date is rejected by M. R. James, A Descriptive Catalogue of the Manuscripts in the Library of Corpus Christi College, Cambridge (Cambridge, 1911–12) 11, 133.

⁷⁹ The Poenitentiale Sangermanense was edited by Wasserschleben from a copy of CCCC 3 20; see Wasserschleben, Die Bussordnungen, pp. 348–52; the ordo is on fols. 72–8.

⁸⁰ Dating and provenance by Mordek, Kirchenrecht, p. 172; for possession of the manuscript at Worcester before Wulfstan arrived, see Bethurum, ‘Archbishop Wulfstan's Commonplace Book’, p. 928.

⁸¹ See Ker, Catalogue, pp. 437–8 (no. 364).

⁸² The canonical collection is known as the Quadripartitus, an extensive compilation including penitential material; it has been edited by Franz Josef Kerff, ‘Der Quadripartitus: Überlieferung, Quellen und Bedeutung’ (unpubl. diss., Rheinisch-Westfälische Technische Hochschule, Aachen, 1979; publication is planned); it is also ptd Die Gesetze der Angelsachsen, ed. Felix Liebermann, 3 vols. (Halle, 1903) 1, 529–46.

⁸³ One ordo is numbered as ch. 19 of Egbert's Penitential, 14V–15V; the second ordo, 15V–21r, is longer, and includes a litany.

⁸⁴ Dated by Ker, Catalogue, p. 278 (no. 212).

⁸⁵ The prayer was printed by Henri Logeman, ‘Anglo-Saxonica Minora’, Anglia 11 (1889), 97–100. The ordo begins on 4r and continues for almost forty sides; also included is a form for the imposition of hands (beg. 51r).

⁸⁶ For example, 42r, ‘Tune dicit sacerdos’; again, 63r, a reference to confession made openly before the priest.

⁸⁷ Dated by Ker s. x^med (Catalogue, pp. 277–8), and discussed by Finsterwalder, Canones, pp. 62–74. This is one of two Theodoran texts which have no continental manuscript tradition; Finsterwalder (Canones, pp. 64–5) believed that this manuscript might have come from the continent, a possibility dismissed by Le Bras (‘Notes’, p. 109), who suggests Winchester or Canterbury as its place of origin. Also without a continental tradition is the pseudo-Theodore text cited below, nn. 90–1.

⁸⁸ The term ‘commonplace book’ has never been adequately defined. The manuscripts so designated differ in purpose and content, so that the current list can hardly be said to be homogeneous. Bethurum lists Bodley 718 among the ‘commonplace’ collections (‘Archbishop Wulfstan's Commonplace Book’, p. 919; the list is repeated in Wulfstan's Canons of Edgar, ed. Roger Fowler, EETS o.s. 266 (London, 1972), lv–lviii). Most ‘commonplace books’ are legislative collections; it is difficult to see why this liturgical manuscript has been included among them. For another manuscript wrongly listed among the ‘commonplace books’, see below, n. 164.

⁸⁹ Dating and provenance by Ker, Catalogue, pp. 92–4 for CCCC 265 (no. 53); for Barlow 37, see Madan and Craster, Summary Catalogue, 11.ii, 1057. These manuscripts have recently been analysed by Hans Sauer, ‘Zur Überlieferung und Anlage von Erzbischof Wulfstans “Handbuch”’, DAEM 36 (1980), 341–84.

⁹⁰ Dating and provenance by Ker, Catalogue, pp. 70–3 (no. 45).

⁹¹ Ibid. pp. 8–10 (no. 10).

⁹² The penitential fragments are listed by James, Descriptive Catalogue n, 14–21. Bede is cited on 51r, following a section which corresponds to chapter 11 of the penitential printed in Haddan and Stubbs, Councils 111, 334.

⁹³ Dating and provenance of Junius 121 by Ker, Catalogue, pp. 412–18 (no. 343); the contents of all three manuscripts are listed by Raith, Altenglische Version, pp. x–xviii.

⁹⁴ See Ker, Catalogue, pp. 9 and 420.

⁹⁵ Raith, Altenglische Version, p. xii, and Spindler, Altenglische Bussbuch, p. 170.

⁹⁶ See Raith's list, Altenglische Version, pp. xii–xiii.

⁹⁷ I wish to thank Professor Peter Clemoes for his suggestions concerning the incipit.

⁹⁸ See Raith, Altenglische Version, p. xii. Raith cites Max Förster's suggestion that the texts as a group form the ‘scrift boc’ listed in Leofric's donation to Exeter Cathedral; see Förster's remarks in Max Förster and Robin Flower, The Exeter Book of Old English Poetry, with introductory chapters by R. W. Chambers (London, 1933), pp. 27–8. We should perhaps distinguish between a ‘scrift boc’ as seen by the scribe of CCCC 190 and a ‘scrift boc’ as seen by a scribe cataloguing entries for an episcopal donation. The latter may have used the term to refer to an entire collection of vernacular texts, but this is not proof that the scribe of CCCC 190 did also.

⁹⁹ Benjamin Thorpe, Ancient Laws and Institutes of England, 2 vols. (London, 1840) 11, 128–69. David Wilkins, Concilia Magnae Britanniae (London, 1737), printed a Latin translation of the ‘Scrift boc’ (not his own); Thorpe printed both the vernacular and the Latin translation, and Wasserschleben reprinted the Latin only, thus creating the impression that the ‘Scrift boc’ existed in CCCC 190 in both a Latin and a vernacular version. Oakley evidently thought so; see English Penitential Discipline, p. 132, n. 2.

¹⁰⁰ Spindler argues that the text was originally East Mercian and tenth-century; see Altenglische Bussbuch, pp. 112–25.

¹⁰¹ As Spindler notes, the author of the ‘Scrift boc’ probably knew Egbert's Penitential in Latin, recognized portions of that Penitential in the ‘Scrift boc’ and concluded that Egbert had translated it; see Altenglische Bussbuch, p. 125. Bede's letter to Egbert is edited by Plummer, Opera Historica 1, 405–23.

¹⁰² Spindler comments on the literal quality of the translation evident in the ‘Scrift boc’ Altenglische Bussbuch, p. 14; see also p. 124.

¹⁰³ See above, n. 70.

¹⁰⁴ Malcolm Godden comments on the vernacular introduction and its relationship to the penitentials in Editing Medieval Texts: English, French and Latin Written in England, ed. George Rigg (New York, 1977), pp. 15–16.

¹⁰⁵ The text is printed by Raith, Altenglische Version, pp. xli-xlvi, and Spindler, Altenglische Bussbuch, pp. 170–6.

¹⁰⁶ Spindler lists sources, Altenglische Bussbuch, pp. 140–58; see also Raith's Latin parallels, Altenglische Version, pp. xli–xlvi. On the Regula of Chrodegang (d. 766), see G. Hocquard, ‘La Régie de saint Chrodegang: etat de quelques questiones’, Saint Chrodegang: Communications présentées au colloque tenu à Metz (Metz, 1967).

¹⁰⁷ Raith, Altenglische Version, pp. xii–xiii.

¹⁰⁸ Ibid. p. xvii.

¹⁰⁹ Ibid. pp. xiv–xv.

¹¹⁰ Spindler, Altenglische Bussbuch, p. 167; see also Ker, Catalogue, p. 415.

¹¹¹ Printed by Raith, Altenglische Version, pp. 46–7.

¹¹² As Raith notes, Ibid. p. 52 (he prints the ‘additamenta’, pp. 69–70).

¹¹³ Raith lists the parallels between the ‘Scrift boc’ and the ‘Penitential’, Ibid. pp. 60–5.

¹¹⁴ Spindler reconstructs the archetype, Altenglische Bussbuch, pp. 165–8.

¹¹⁵ Spindler summarizes the sources, Ibid. pp. 87–90.

¹¹⁶ Ibid. pp. 22–3.

¹¹⁷ The canonical material is found in chs. 9–15 of Spindler's edition (Ibid. pp. 179–83) and deals with baptism and marriage; very few penitential tariffs are listed in these chapters.

¹¹⁸ Spindler emphatically rejects the possibility of a single source, Ibid. p. 22.

¹¹⁹ Sources are listed by Raith, Altenglische Version, pp. xxx–xxxvii.

¹²⁰ The tradition is outlined by Kottje, Die Bussbücher, pp. 113–14; Raith lists several manuscripts (continental), Altenglische Version, p. xxxii.

¹²¹ See Ker, Catalogue, pp. 420 and 9.

¹²² Ibid. p. 420; the Old English follows the order of the Latin.

¹²³ See The Old English Illustrated Hexateuch, ed. C. R. Dodwell and Peter Clemoes, EEMF 18 (Copenhagen, 1974), 49–52. The translator of the ‘Penitential’ added certain refrains to his sources, e.g., ‘beten swa hira scrift tæce’ (p. 27), ‘bete swa his scrift him tæce’ (p. 33), ‘fæste swa (him) his scrift tæce’ (p. 34). A close study of his style of translation and his idiom would be very useful.

¹²⁴ The second book pertains to the laity, the third to the clergy and the fourth to both.

¹²⁵ Thorpe, Ancient Laws 11, 260–88. Raith outlines the contents of the ‘Handbook’ in an appendix, Altenglische Version, pp. 73–6.

¹²⁶ Roger Fowler, ed., ‘A Late OE Handbook for the Use of a Confessor’, Anglia 83 (1965), 1–34; quotation from p. 1.

¹²⁷ Fowler lists these, Ibid. p. 1, and their probable sources, pp. 13–14.

¹²⁸ Ibid. pp. 1–2.

¹²⁹ Dating and provenance of CCCC 201 by Ker, Catalogue, pp. 82–90 (no. 49). For the arrangement of the ‘Handbook’ here, see Fowler, ‘Late OE Handbook’, p. 2.

¹³⁰ Dating and provenance by Ker, Catalogue, pp. 240–8 (no. 186); see Fowler, ‘Late OE Handbook’, p. 2.

¹³¹ Ibid. pp. 2–3. Note that neither of these manuscripts contains either a tariff manual at this point or the ordo confessionis and prayer (parts one, two and four); it is difficult to see that they comprise even ‘less complete’ versions of a manual to be used in private confession.

¹³² Ibid. p. 3.

¹³³ Ibid. p. 2, and Ker, Catalogue, p. 244. Thorpe edited these three parts of Tiberius A. iii (Ancient Laws 11, 260–4), found on 55rv–56rv; the tariff manual (part four of the ‘Handbook’) is represented only by the final paragraph (95 r). Once again, it is difficult to see how this manuscript comprises even a ‘less complete’ version of the ‘Handbook’.

¹³⁴ Fowler, ‘Late OE Handbook’, p. 13, and see above, n. 85.

¹³⁵ Fowler, ‘Late OE Handbook’, p. 2, and Ker, Catalogue, p. 90; the ritual is on pp. 170–6.

¹³⁶ Because the ruling is the same at this point as on preceding pages the scribe may have imitated a service book's appearance. A similar text – the ordo, followed by confessional prayers – is found in Bodley 718, 15v–21r; see above, nn. 80–3.

¹³⁷ E.g., see ‘Ordo L’ in Michel Andrieu, Les ‘Ordines Romani’ du haul moyen âge, 5 vols. (Louvain, 1931–61) v, 108–27, and in the so-called Pontificals Romano-Germanicum, ed. Cyrille Vogel and Reinhard Elze, Le pontifical romano-ger manique du dixième siècle II: Le texte, Studi e Testi 227 (Rome, 1963), 16–17. This ordo is also found in Cambridge, Corpus Christi College 163 (s. xi), pp. 1–149; see James, Descriptive Catalogue 1, 368–9.

¹³⁸ London, British Library, Cotton Tiberius C. i, 161r–v; this prayer is printed by Max Förster, ‘Zur Liturgik der angelsächsischen Kirche’, Anglia 66 (1942), 12–20; it is in Old English. In CCCC 190 this prayer occurs immediately before the ‘scrift boc’, p. 365.

¹³⁹ Fowler notices this, ‘Late OE Handbook’, p. 2.

¹⁴⁰ Ibid. p. 6, where Fowler observes that the texts of Tiberius A. iii and CCCC 201 are not close.

¹⁴¹ Fowler finds no source for these ‘lax provisions for vicarious penance by the rich’ (Ibid. p.14); special allowances for both the feeble and the mighty are traditional, however, and the custom of vicarious penance was denounced at the Council of Clovesho in 747. See Vogel, Les ‘Libri’, pp. 49–54, and Haddan and Stubbs, Councils 111, 373–4.

¹⁴² Public penance is cited in the ‘Penitential's’ first book (Raith, Altenglische Version, p. 10), and in the ‘Handbook’ (the paragraph taken from the ‘Penitential’ with minor variations), p. 20.

¹⁴³ On pp. 23–4 of the ‘Handbook’ bishops are omitted from a series of tariffs for manslaughter and fornication derived from the ‘Penitential's’ fourth book, pp. 47–9; the ‘Handbook’ does include bishops in a tariff concerning manslaughter on p. 21. Thorpe noted this, Ancient Laws, 11, 100.

¹⁴⁴ This view is very different from Fowler's, ‘Late OE Handbook’, pp. 4–5; he believes that the ‘Handbook’ existed in short (four-part) and long (six-part) versions ‘probably not stages of one man's composition, but of the progressive accumulation of relevant texts’. The relationship of the third and fifth parts is imperfect, but even so the four-part ‘short’ version is a satisfactory handbook of penance, if not evolved to its final stage.

¹⁴⁵ On CCCC 191, and its relation to an earlier Winchester manuscript, see Ker, , Catalogue, p. 74Google Scholar (no. 46) and p. 520 for fragmentary copies; The Old English Version of the Enlarged Rule of Chrodegang together with the Latin Original, ed. Napier, A. S., EETS o.s. 150 (London, 1916)Google Scholar; see pp. 38–41 for the orbo. See also Langefeld, B., ‘Die lateinische Vorlage der altenglischen Chrodegang-Regel’, Anglia 98 (1980), 403–16.Google Scholar The connection between the ‘Handbook’ at this point and the Regula was suggested by Forster, ‘Zur Liturgik’, pp. 22–3.

¹⁴⁶ The ‘Handbook’ contains only a few lines of such a devotional text; see Fowler, ‘Late OE Handbook’, p. 16; (he suggests a source – a Latin letter, possibly eighth century – p. 13). A full version is found in Vespasian D. xx; see above, n. 84.

¹⁴⁷ See Raith, , Altenglische Version, pp. xxxviii–xxxix.Google Scholar

¹⁴⁸ Spindler, , Altenglische Bussbuch, pp. 111–12 and 124–5.Google Scholar The monastery was probably founded in 969.

¹⁴⁹ Raith, , Altenglische Version, p. xxxviii.Google Scholar

¹⁵⁰ For convenience I quote the translation by Whitelock, Dorothy from English Historical Documents l, c. 500–1042, 2nd ed. (London, 1979), 407Google Scholar ff. For quotation, see Ibid. p. 409, no. 1.2 and no. 1.8.

¹⁵¹ Ibid. p. 411, no. 14.

¹⁵² For Athelstan's code, see Ibid. pp. 417–22; see p. 422, nos. 26 and 26.1. The code was issued between 926 and 930.

¹⁵³ Wallace-Hadrill, J. M., ‘The Franks and the English in the Ninth Century’, Early Medieval History (Oxford, 1975), pp. 209–16.Google Scholar

¹⁵⁴ Hincmar's use of public and private penance is outlined by Devisse, Jean, Hincmar, archevêque de Reims, 3 vols. (Geneva, 1976)Google Scholar, see 1, 339, 547–8 (private), and 1, 548 and 11, 881 (public). On the importance of Rheims, see Hartmann, W., Das Konzil von Worms 868: Überlieferung und Bedeutung, Abhandlungen der Akademie der Wissenschaften in Göttingen, phil. hist. Kl. 3, 105 (Göttingen, 1977).Google Scholar

¹⁵⁵ On Fulk's work as a reformer, see Contreni, John J., The Cathedral School of Laon from 850 to 930: its Manuscripts and Masters, Münchener Beiträge zur Mediävistik und Renaissance-Forschung 29 (Munich, 1978), 42–3 and 142–4.Google Scholar On the correspondence, see note, Whitelock's, EHD, p. 883Google Scholar, and the letter translated there, pp. 883–7.

¹⁵⁶ Robinson, J. A., The Times of St Dunstan (Oxford, 1923; repr. 1969), pp. 13–14.Google Scholar

¹⁵⁷ See John, Eric, ‘The King and the Monks in the Tenth-Century Reformation’, Orbis Britanniae (Bristol, 1966), pp. 154–80.Google Scholar

¹⁵⁸ The importance of Brittany as a source for English ecclesiastical manuscripts in the early tenth century is the subject of David N. Dumville's 1978 O'Donnell lectures (forthcoming). In addition to Gasquet, and Bishop, , Bosworth Psalter, pp. 54–6Google Scholar, see Regularis Concordia, ed. Symons, Thomas (London, 1953), pp. x–xiGoogle Scholar. For the Chronicle, see EHD, no. 25 (PP. 354–6).

¹⁵⁹ Bullough, Donald A., ‘The Educational Tradition in England from Alfred to Ælfric: Teaching Utriusque Lingua’, Settimane di Studio del Centro Italiano di Studi sull' Alto Medioevo 19 (Spoleto, 1972), 474–76.Google Scholar

¹⁶⁰ See Sisam's, Kenneth essay on the poem, Studies in the History of Old English Literature (Oxford, 1953), pp. 55–6.Google Scholar

¹⁶¹ Royal 5. E. xiii; see above, n. 73.

¹⁶² The Bigotian Penitential is edited by Bieler, , The Irish Penitentials, pp. 198–239.Google Scholar See Spindler, , Altenglische Bussbuch, p. 89.Google Scholar

¹⁶³ See Bieler, , The Irish Penitentials, p. 22Google Scholar, for references to Paris, Bibliothéque Nationale, lat. 12021, s. xⁱⁿ from Corbie, and Paris, Bibliothéque Nationale, lat. 3182, s. x¹ (possibly from Fécamp).

¹⁶⁴ The manuscript in question is BN lat. 3182, included in the list of ‘commonplace books’ by Bethurum, , ‘Archbishop Wulfstan's Commonplace Book’, p. 919Google Scholar; also in The Homilies of Wulfstan (Oxford, 1957), p. 98Google Scholar; and by Fowler, , Wulfstan's Canons, p. lv.Google Scholar In ‘The Latin Canonical Tradition in Late Anglo–Saxon England: the “Excerptiones Egberti”’ (unpubl. Ph.D. thesis, Columbia University, 1974)Google Scholar Robin Ann Aronstam suggests that the ‘commonplace’ tradition began with the Paris collection. The first to separate BN lat. 3182 from the ‘commonplace’ group was Sauer, Hans, Theodulfi Capitula in England (Munich, 1978), pp. 60–2Google Scholar; see also Sauer, ‘Zur Überlieferung’, pp. 357–9.

¹⁶⁵ See Aronstam, ‘Canonical Tradition’, pp. 3—6 and 130–8. The Breton manuscript tradition of the Collectio was first described by Bradshaw, Henry, The Early Collection of Canons Known as the Hibernensis: Two Unfinished Papers (Cambridge, 1893)Google Scholar. Many of these manuscripts found their way to England.

¹⁶⁶ The manuscript is Paris, Bibliothèque Nationale, lat. 10575, s. x; see Ker, , Catalogue, p. 441Google Scholar (no. 370) (Ker's reference to the letter is a misprint; it is found at Haddan, and Stubbs, , Ćouncils III, 415Google Scholar, not 41).

¹⁶⁷ Bethurum, , Homilies, p. 347Google Scholar; Oakley, , English Penitential Discipline, pp. 79–81.Google Scholar

¹⁶⁸ Bethurum, , Homilies, p. 347Google Scholar; with the Pontifical taken as tenth-rather than eighth-century evidence, all references to public penance cited by Bethurum are tenth-century and not earlier. Oakley produced very little evidence for an earlier tradition of public penance (English Penitential Discipline, pp. 77–81); there was some form of public penance known in Ireland before the eighth century and it would be expected that such customs as the imposition of hands by the bishop and public ceremonies of reconciliation were known wherever penance was practised. What we find only in tenth-century sources and later in England is a systematic practice of public penance, with evidence from liturgies and handbooks used by confessors.

¹⁶⁹ Examples could be multiplied. For instance, a supposedly Egbertian confessional prayer cited by Förster, ‘Zur Liturgik’, pp. 2–3, is from a mid-ninth-century manuscript from Nonantola (Rome, Biblioteca Nazionale, 2081 (Sessorianus 95)) and has no connection with Egbert; see Sims-Williams, Patrick, ‘Thought, Word and Deed: an Irish Triad’, Ériu 29 (1978), 105–6.Google Scholar The connection of the Excerptiones with Egbert has long been questioned; see Aronstam, ‘Canonical Tradition’.

¹⁷⁰ Spindler, , Altenglische Bussbuch, pp. 89–90.Google Scholar

¹⁷¹ Described by Ker, as ‘perhaps in the nature of a handbook for the use of Wulfstan … including a number of his own compositions as well as earlier texts of interest to him’: Catalogue, pp. 211–15Google Scholar (no. 164); A Wulfstan Manuscript, ed. Loyn, H. R., EEMF 17 (Copenhagen, 1971).Google Scholar

¹⁷² Some of the liturgical prayers are printed by Förster, ‘Zur Liturgik’, and by Logeman, ‘Anglo-Saxonica Minora’, Anglia 12 (1889), 497–518Google Scholar; directions for the confessor from Tiberius A. iii have been re-edited by Sauer, Hans, ‘Zwei spätaltenglische Beichtermahnungen aus Hs. Cotton Tiberius A. Ill’, Anglia 98 (1980), 1–33.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

¹⁷³ These prayers are in Die kleineren althochdeutschen Sprachdenkmäer, ed. Steinmeyer, E. (Berlin, 1916), pp. 306–36Google Scholar; for commentary on Frankish vernacular traditions see McKitterick, Rosamond, The Frankish Church and the Carolingian Reforms, 789–895, R. Hist. Soc. Stud. in Hist. 2 (London, 1977), 184–205.Google Scholar

¹⁷⁴ Hohler, C. E., ‘Some Service Books of the Later Saxon Church’, Tenth-Century Studies, ed. Parsons, David (Chichester, 1975), pp. 60–83Google Scholar; see John's, Eric review, EHR 92 (1977), 411–12.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

¹⁷⁵ Vienna, Nationalbibliothek, 2171, s. ix^¾, south-west Germany; dating and provenance by Kottje, , Die Bussbücher, p. 121Google Scholar; the ordo begins 48va, after Egbert's fifth chapter, and ends 49va, at which point Egbert's sixth chapter appears.

¹⁷⁶ Barlow, Frank, The English Church 1000–1066: a Constitutional History, 2nd ed. (London and New York, 1979), pp. 268–69.Google Scholar

¹⁷⁷ See Spindler, , Altenglische Bussbuch, pp. 132–3Google Scholar, for use of the ‘Scrift boc's’ introduction in sources outside the handbooks, and Raith, , Altenglische Version, pp. xxxix–xlGoogle Scholar; much space could be devoted to an analysis of the penitential materials known to either figure, and especially to the many homilies in which Ælfric discusses the topic.

¹⁷⁸ A point made by Gatch, Milton McC., Preachingand Theology in Anglo-Saxon England: Ælfric and Wulfstan (Toronto, 1977), p. 121.Google Scholar

¹⁷⁹ The canonical and penitential writing of Regino of Prüm, for example, who died in 906, seems to have been unknown in the tenth-century English church or in the eleventh century in England. Raith, Altenglische Version, p. xxxvii, notes that the reformers looked backward to Halitgar's work and not ahead.

¹⁸⁰ Funding for this research has been provided by Loyola University of Chicago and the American Philosophical Society. I would like to acknowledge the helpful suggestions of David Dumville, Franz Josef Kerff and Michael Lapidge.