1. The most important studies are those of the late Max Förster: e.g., “Zu den Blicking Homilies,” Archiv für das Studiurn der neueren Sprachen und Litteraturen, XCI (1893), 179–206Google Scholar; “Der Vercelli-Codex CXVII nebst Abdruck einiger altenglischer Homilien der Handschrift,” in F. Holthausen and H. Spies, eds., Festschrift für Lorenz Morsbach… (Studien zur Philologie, L [1913]) 20–179Google Scholar [henceforward, Morsbach Festschrift]. See also Willard, Rudolph, “Vercelli Homily XI and its Sources,” Speculum, XXIV (1949), 76–87CrossRefGoogle Scholar; and Two Apocrypha in Old English Homilies (“Beiträge zur Eaglischen Philologie,” XXX [Leipzig, 1935]).Google Scholar

2. As early as 1884, John Earle hailed the publication of the Blickling Homilies in his nglo-Saxon Literature (London, 1884)Google Scholar as an important eventproviding background for the study of Ælfric's work: “They are plainly ofthe age before the great Church re form of the tenth century, when the line was very dimly drawn betweencanoneal and uncanonical, and when quotations, legends, and arguments were admissible which now surprise us in a sermon” (p. 213).

3. Willard's, “The Address of the Soul to the Body,” (P.M.L.A., L [1935], 957–983)Google Scholar and his Two Apocrypha are the most valuable, concerted efforts to reconstruct the legends which lie behind apocalyptic fragments in the O. E. literature.

4. Morris, B., ed, The Blickling Homilies of th Tenth Century… (Early English Text Society, Original Series 58, 63. 73; London, 1874-1880)Google Scholar [henceforward, Morris]. The text of Horn. VII (“Dominica Pascha”) with trans. is at pp. 82–97. MS. reproduced in Willard, , ed., The Blickling Homilies, The John H. Seheide Library, Titusville, Pennsylvanio [now Princeton] (“Early English MSS. in Facsimile,” X; Copenhagen, 1960).Google Scholar MS. described and sources listed in Ker, N., Catalogue of Manuscripts containing Anglo-Saxon (Oxford, 1957), 382Google Scholar, art 7 [henceforward, Ker with citation to catalogue number of ms. in question and article of ms.].

5. Codex never completely published, though a facsimile (Förster, , ed., Il Codice Vercellese con Omelie e Poesie in Lingua Anglosossone [Rome, 1913])Google Scholar exists and Förster's article in Mornsbach Festschrift and his uncompleted edu. (Die Vercelli-Homilien… [I Hälfte; “Bibliothek der Angelsächsisehen Prosa,” XII; Hamburg, 1932]Google Scholar print many of the homilies. The text of Homily XV (cf. Ker 394, art. 17) is printed in Morsbach Festschrift, 117–128.

6. Cf. Ker 32, art. 12 (written in the margin c. 1100). Printed in Förster, , “A New Version of the Apocalypse of Thomas in Old English,” Anglia, LXXIII (N.F. LXI; 1955), 17–27;Google Scholar concluding portion, except final paragraph, printed in Willard, , Two Apocrypha, 4–6.Google Scholar

7. Cf. Kcr 38, art. 37 (c. 1020) and 33, art. 26 (c. 1100), the latter only printed by Förster, in Morsbach Festschrift, 128–137.Google Scholar Some readings from the former in Förster, , Anglia, LXXIII (1955), 27–33.Google Scholar

8. Förster, , Anglia, LXXIII (1955), 12–13.Google Scholar

9. Ibid., 11–12. At pp. 9–10, Förster lists the six extant Latin versions. The historical allusions to Theodosius I, Areadius and Honorius are discussed by Hauler, E., “Zn den neuen lateinischen Bruchstücken der Thomas-Apokalypse und eines apostolischen Sendschreibens im Codex Vind. Nr. 16,” Wiener Stedien, XXX (1909), 330–340.Google Scholar Trans. of the two types of text by James, M. B. in Apocryphal New Testament (1st edn., corrected; Oxford, 1955), 556–562.Google Scholar A Latin text is given by Wilhelm, F., Deutsche Legende and Legendare Leipzig, 1907), 40*. 42*.Google Scholar

10. Förster, in Morsbach Festschrift, 76.Google Scholar The decretal is published in P.L., LIX, 157. 164.Google Scholar It was probably known to Ælfric for it is reproduced in a ms. closely associated with him (cf. Raynes, E. M., “MS. Boulogne-sur-Mer 63 and Ælfric,” Medium Ævum, XXVI [1957], 71).Google Scholar

11. To the works cited by Förster in Anglia, LXXIII (1955), add Heist, W. W., The Fifteen Signs before Doomsday (East Lansing, Michigan, 1952).Google Scholar

12. Förster, , Anglia, LXXIII (1955), 11. 12.Google Scholar James, (Apocryphal N.T., 556)Google Scholar is inclined to regard the Latin as original.

13. James, , Aprocryphal N.T., 559–562.Google Scholar

14. Cp. the text at Morsbach Festschrift, 121, ff. with Bousset, W., The Antichrist Legend, trans. Keene, A. H. (London, 1896), 121Google Scholar, ff. James, (Apocryphal N.T., 562)Google Scholar notes dependence of the Latin passage on apocalypses of the Daniel type.

15. On the relationship of the versions, the accounts of Nölle and Grau (cf.Förster, , Anglia, LXXIII [1955], 16)Google Scholar are now displaced by Heist, The Fifteen Signs before Doomsday. See esp. the derivation charts at pp. 99, 100, 102 and pp. 193, ff. For a 12th century O. E. Quindecim Signa, see Assmann, B., “Vorzeichen des jüngsten Geriehts,” Anglia, XI (1889) 369–371.Google Scholar

16. Förster, , Anglia, LXXIII (1955), 13.Google Scholar

17. Morsbach, Festschrift, 129Google Scholar (translations mine).

18. Ibid., 130.

19. Ibid., 130–131.

20. Ibid., 131–133; Fbörster, , Anglia, LXXIII (1955), 27–33.Google Scholar

21. Morsbach Festschrift, 133–137.

22. Morris, 91–95. Förster, in Anglia, LXXIII (1955), 6–36Google Scholar, compares this text with the other O. E. versions.

23. Cf. Ker 382, art. 7; Förster, , Archiv, XCI (1893), 182Google Scholar; Förster, , “Altenglisehe Predigtquellen,” Archiv, CXVI (1906), 301, ff.Google Scholar

24. Morsbach, Festschrift, 116.Google Scholar

25. Ibid., 117–120.

26. Ibid., 126–128.

27. Ibid., 128.

28. Förster, , Anglia, LXXIII (1955), 17–18.Google Scholar

29. Ibid., 18–19.

30. Ibid., 19–26.

31. Ibid., 26–27.

32. For a study of this apocryphon, see Willard, , Two Apocrypha, 1–30Google Scholar, and, for the conclusion of the Exeter text, pp. 4–7. The apocryphon occurs in O. E. only here, but it is preserved also in Latin and in the Old Irish, notably in the Vision of Adamnan and the Evernew Tongue. Ultimately perhaps a Priscillianist document, with traces, at any rate, of a gnostic concept of the progression of the soul, the apoeryphon was very popular in Ireland. Willard speculates that it may also have been widely known in England, but have been discarded in favor of the developed doctrine of Purgatory or of the popular Visio Pauli or that the texts may have been destroyed by the monastic reformers (p. 30). This Version—which according to Förster, (Anglia, LXXIII [1955], 33–35)Google Scholar has phonological traces of the Old Mercian of c. 800–850—is nonetheless a curious relic; perhaps the Exeter scribe's source is an old heterodox collection of homilies which survived both the Daues and the reformers in remote Devonshire.

33. Förster, , Anghia, LXXIII (1955), 13.Google Scholar

34. Ibid., 14.

35. James, , Apocryphal N.T., 525–526, 555Google Scholar; text trans. at 526–554; Silverstein, T., Visio Sancti Pauli (“Studies and Documents,” IV; London, 1935), 3–90.Google Scholar As with the Apocalypse of Thomas, I have not attempted here to assemble a complete bibliography, but refer the reader to Silverstein and to the notes in Willard, , P.M.L.A., L (1935), 957–983.Google Scholar

36. Silverstein, , Visio Sancti Pauli, 5.Google Scholar

37. For a hypothetical reconstruction of the descent of some of these documents, see Dudley, L., “An early Homily on the ‘Body and Soul’ Theme,” Journal of English and Germanic Philology, VIII (1909), 225–253.Google Scholar The descent of the portions of the homilarics with winch we are concerned via Latin homilies is discussed by Willard, in P.M.L.A., L (1935), 957–983Google Scholar; this article is the basis of my remarks on the O.E. literature. The Soul and Body remains are not the only evidences of the survival of the Visio Pauli in the O.E. period: Ælfric condemns the work (Thorpe, B., ed., The Homilies of the Anglo-Saxon Church:… The Sermoaes Catholici, or Homilies of Ælfric [2 vols.; London, 1844, 1846], II, 332)Google Scholar; it is used in Blickling Homilies IV and XVI (cf. Ker 382, arts 4 and 16): additional references cited by Silversein, , Visio Sancti Pauli, 6–12Google Scholar and notes 34–55 to Chap. I; an unedited, fragmentary O. E. trans. of the work survives in Ker's 336, art. 4. There is a remarkable similarity between the Blickling XVI passage (Morris, 209–211) and lines 1357, ff., of Beowulf (for the literature, cf. Klaeber, F., ed. Beowalf and The Fight at Finnsburg [3rd ed. with 1st and 2nd Supplements; Boston, 1950], 182–183, 456).Google Scholar

38. P.M.L.A., L (1935), 965.Google Scholar

39. Ker's 331, art. 22, printed by Napier, A. in Wulfstan: Sammlung der ihm zugeschriebenen Homilien…Erste Abteilung: Text und Varianten (“Sammlung Englischer Denkmäler in kritischen Ausgaben,” IV; Berlin, 1883), 140Google Scholar line 3–141 line 25. The other version, which Jost, K. (Wulfstanstudien [“Swiss Studies in English,” XXIII; Bern, 1950], 206–207)Google Scholar thinks was used by the composer of the pseudo-Wulfstan piece is printed in Thorpe, B., ed., Ancient Laws and Institutes of England (Folio edn.; London, 1840)Google Scholar, 466 lines 24–34 and 467 line 49–468 llne 52 (cf. Ker 50, art. 2).

40. Secs. 14–16 in the version trans. by James, Apocryphal N.T., 531–534.

41. Napier, , Wulfstan, 136Google Scholar line 28 - 140 line 2.

42. Ibid., 140 line 9 - 141 line 25.

43. Ibid., 235–237; Cf.Willard, , P.M.L.A., L (1935), 965Google Scholar, n. 3. On the fusion of this Visio Pauli motif with the apocryphon of the Three Utterances of the Soul, see Willard, , Two Apocrypha, 74–76.Google Scholar

44. Secs. 43–44, James, , Apocryphal N.T., 547–549Google Scholar; Willard, , P.M.L.A., L (1935), 966–979.Google Scholar

45. G.P., Krapp and E.V.K., Dobbie. eds., The Anglo-Saxon Poetic Records: A Collective Edition (6 vols; New York, 1931-1953), II, 54–59Google Scholar (Vercelli) and III, 174–178 (Exeter).

46. The expression, “and I was a soul in you sent from God” (Vercelli, line 46), may be a relic of the doctrine of pre-existauce but can no longer be said to intend such an idea, but rather the concept of the soul as the life—or motivating—force of the body.

47. For a comparison of this image with other similar, but less sharp, ones (but, I think, not for the Manichacan mediation of the notion), see Kurtz, B.P., “Gifer the Worm: an Essay toward the History of an Idea.” University of California Publications in English, II (1929), 235–261.Google Scholar

48. Ker 336, art. 2; the Soul-Body sections printed by Willard, , P.M.L.A., L (1935), 961–963.Google Scholar Note that art. 4 of the same MS., in a different hand, is a trans. of a large portion of the Visio Pauli (secs. 4–17), the only premodern vernacular text (unedited).

49. Willard, , P.M.L.A., I (1935), 959,Google Scholar gives a summary of the end of the homily which emphasizes the last times.

50. Ker 18, art. 40 (late 12th century) partinent sections printed by Willard, . P.M.L.A.. L (1935). 963–965Google Scholar, the rest summarized, 960. The first part is trans. from pseudo-Augustine. Ad fratres in erenia, LXVIII (P.L.. XL, 1354)Google Scholar and the part after the address from the same collection, LXVI (P. L., XL, 1352Google Scholar, see. 1), so the sonl-body portions may also be from a ps-Aug. source now unknown.

51. For the evolution from an annual to a weekly return, see Willard, , P.M.L.A., L (1935), 968–974.Google Scholar

52. On the problem of purgatory in the O.E homilies, see my The Eschotology of the Anglo-Saxou Homilists (unpublished Ph.D. diss; Dept. of Religion, Yale University, 1963)Google Scholar, passim. In general, it can be said that, while the homilies contain the materials for a doctrine of purgatory, the homilists show no desire to define the doctrine and that problems of ambiguity are raised when these facts are viewed in. conjunction with the strong emphasis placed on Doomsday materials.

53. Ker 50, art. 11, and 153, art. 5; the former is printed, the latter collated, by Assmann, B., ed., Angelsächsische Homilien und Heiligenleben, (“Bibliothek der Angelsächsischen Prosa,” III; Kassel, 1889), 164–169Google Scholar, with the Address at 167, ff.

54. P.M.L.A., L (1935), 980.Google Scholar

55. Förster, , Die Vercelli-Homilien, 72–107.Google Scholar Cf. Wifiard's, analysis in P.M.L.A., L (1935), 980–982.Google Scholar

56. Pörster, , Die Vercelli-Homilien, 89.Google Scholar

57. It is interesting, however, that the Vercelli Book contains reference only to the interim return (Soul and Body) and the Judgment addresses (Homily IV) and the Blickling (Homs. IV and XVI) only to visionary materials and exhortations to intercession, while the death-day scene and the Visio itself occur, with the interim and Doomsday versions, only in later mss.

58. Religious Visions: The Development of the esohatological Elements in medieval English religious Literature (Amsterdam, 1932), 177.Google Scholar

59. P.M.L.A., L (1935), 982–983.Google Scholar