¹ George Philip Krapp, The Vercelli Book (New York, 1932), pp. 54–59. For a convenient English translation, see R. K. Gordon, Anglo-Saxon Poetry, no. 794 of Everyman's Library (London, n. d.), pp. 310–313.

² Max Förster, Die Vercelli-Homilien, Bibliothek der Angelsächsischen Prosa, xii (Hamburg, 1932), 82–103.

³ Bruno Assmann, Angelsächsische Homilien und Heiligenleben, Bibliothek der Angelsächsischen Prosa, iii (Kassel, 1889), p. 167.

⁴ Benjamin Thorpe, Ancient Laws and Institutes of England (London, 1849), folio. med., pp. 466 ff.

⁵ A. S. Napier, Wulfstan (Berlin, 1883), pp. 140–141.

⁶ For this, see Louise Dudley, “An Early Homily on the Body and Soul Theme,” JEGP, viii (1909), 225 ff., and The Egyptian Elements in the Legend of the Body and Soul (Baltimore, 1911), pp. 91 ff.

⁷ George Hickes, Antiquae Literaturae Septentrionalis Liber Alter, seu Humphredi Wanleii Librorum Vett. Septentrionalium, qui in Angliae Bibliothecis extant. nec non multorum Vett. Codd. Septentrionalium alibi extantium Catalogus Historico-Criticus … (Oxford, 1705), p. 44. (Generally referred to as ‘Wanley‘). Texts ii and iv are really the separated parts of one homily, as I show below.

⁸ Wanley, p. 165.

⁹ That is, from the appeal of the sun to the middle of the third judgement scene.

¹⁰ For a bibliography, see R. P. Casey, “The Apocalypse of Paul,” J. of Theolog. Stud., xxxiv (1933), 1–5.

¹¹ At about line 33 of p. 534 of Montague Rhodes James, The Apocryphal New Testament (Oxford, 1924). I believe, furthermore, that the beginning has been lost, and that something other than the present 2v, contained the true beginning of this Old English version of the apocalypse.

¹² Wanley, p. 44, under ii.

¹³ Napier, in manuscript notes written on his transcript of this Junius fragment, identified the matter on folio 2r as the conclusion of this homily, and as corresponding to the text printed by him in Wulfstan, p. 265, lines 13–20.

¹⁴ See below, p. 961, note. 18.

¹⁵ on pam alysende Gode ælmihtigum, se for Ðinum Ðingum manig feald wite þrowode, fol. 2v, ll. 15–16.

¹⁶ Pp. 979–980.

¹⁷ Assmann, p. 167, l. 102–; p. 168, l. 112.

¹⁸ Wanley, p. 165, describes it as manu recenti.

¹⁹ P. 409, l. 4.

²⁰ P. 410, l. 7.

²¹ P. 412, l. 20.

²² Migne, Patr. Lat., xl, col. 1354. For this identification I am indebted to Miss Eleanor H. Kellogg of New York University.

²³ Ibid., col. 1352. Section 1.

²⁴ Ibid., cols. 1355–57.

²⁵ Th. Batiouchkof, “Le Débat de l'Âme et du Corps,” Romania, xx (1891), 9–10, 576–578.

²⁶ See above, notes 4 and 5.

²⁷ Louise Dudley, op. cit., J.E.G.P., viii (1909), 225 ff. Bibliography on p. 225.

²⁸ H. Gaidoz, “Le Débat du Corps et de l'Âme en Irelande,” Revue Celtique, x (1889), 466: Dicens Augustinus; variant ut dixit Augustinus dicens.

²⁹ Robert Atkinson, The Passions and Homilies from Leabhar Breac (Royal Irish Academy, Todd Lecture Series), ii (Dublin, 1887), p. 507.

³⁰ Op. cit., p. 465.

³¹ Louise Dudley, The Egyptian Elements in the Legend rf the Body and Soul (Baltimore, 1911), pp. 164–165.

¹ Folio 2v. Large rubricated initial M. On the condition of this page Napier remarks: “The same late hand as on fol. 1 (I think it is Junius), has inked over the whole of this page with the exception of a few words, and it is, in most cases, impossible to see what was underneath. … I am not sure that in one or two places here and on folio 1, an older hand had not inked over the letters before Junius.” Quoted from Napier's notes on his transcript of this text.

² ge superscript.

³ þ inked over; space for at least two letters after þ.

⁴ -ecegan eft dane lic in another hand [neither the scribe, the reviser, nor Junius] and larger letters. Napier remarks: “ecegan ist auf Rasur; eft dane dagegen scheint nicht auf Rasur zu sein.” The reading of line 27, hio hine eft seceþ, suggests that the original reading here may have been gesecan or gesecean, but that in revision and overwriting, in Old English times, the present reading, gesecgan, resulted.

⁵ See preceding note.

⁶ MS. dane; see note 4.

⁷ lic in another(?) hand in the right margin, line 4; between the left margin, line 5, and þissum there is space for ten or eleven letters, of which “and” (7) can be made out at about two letters distance to the left of þissum. The other letters are too faint to be traced. Napier remarks: “I almost fancy I can see faint traces of homan (or haman) at the beginning of the line, but it may be fancy.”

⁸ MS. gihyrstu. Napier remarks: “gihyrstu all inked over; the i was originally e.”

⁹ -fulla is very faint, but discernible; senis, probably the original spelling, though the letters have been inked over.

¹⁰ = wierge, “curse.”

¹¹ ge- superscript. Gesecge very faint.

¹² h superscript.

¹³ Superscript.

¹⁴ Napier remarks: “Hinter þæm Rasur von etwa zwei Buchstaben. Ich glaube es war Ðe.”

¹⁵ Napier notes that Junius, in re-inking forlærde, made fof out of for-.

¹⁶ 7 inserted within the line.

¹⁷ Space for about seven letters before alysende. I can make out m clearly. I supply on þa-.

¹⁸ And hie panne gyt clypaÐ seo is pure conjecture, and is supplied on the basis of lines 6–7 of folio 12r. The present reading of the manuscript is not original, and is the attempt of the reviser to bridge over the gap between folios 2v and 3r after the two were accidentally bound up together in this order in the present make-up of the manuscript. After þrowode the present reading is: God gefæste .xxxx. dage<s?> <t>os<o>mne and after Ðam fæstene he self w<æs on> rode gefœstnod his fet and his hand … ge næglum and Ðurh Ð<a> Ð<row>unge he us [continued at bottom of folio 3r] <w> olde of hylle <witum?> alysan. The passage is difficult to read, and the conjectured letters of Ða Ðrowunge … wolde of hellewitum are Napier's, the rest mine. On the state and significance of this matter, see above, pp. 958–959.

¹⁹ Cf. Atkinson, Passions and Homilies from Leabhar Breac, p. 511, where the soul addresses its body as “O stubborn body.”

²⁰ MS. hywylcere; y¹ struck out by original scribe.

²¹ r ² superscript.

²² Cf. Atkinson, op. cit., pp. 511–512, where the soul twice calls its body “maintenance of anger.”

²³ cyl erased before cwylmed.

²⁴ Napier remarks: “The i has been inked over by Junius. What was underneath I can't make out with certainty; it may possibly have been i, or it may have been another letter.” MS. œrginesse.

²⁵ See below, p. 963, note 7.

²⁶ = herige.

²⁷ Interesting occurrence of this poetical and Anglian word in a prose homily.

²⁸ Between s and t part of a letter has been erased.

²⁹ One or two letters erased after gyt.

³⁰ The original reading was ongœte, but this has been inked over by Junius to read ongete.

³¹ e superscript.

³² MS. þonne; one n is to be deleted.

³³ A letter erased after me.

³⁴ A later form; cf. the earlier above, line 26.

³⁵ A letter erased before ic.

³⁶ ni superscript.

³⁷ On this Anglian form see Gerhard Heidemann, “Die Flexion des Verb. Subst. im Ags.,” Archiv für das Studium der Neueren Sprachen, cxlvii (1924), 33–34.

³⁸ = gegearwod.

³⁹ = scearseax.

⁴⁰ MS. þum.

⁴² Concerning the continuation of this homily, see above, p. 959.

⁴¹ g erased before and.

¹ Page 412, line 13. For the preceding sections of this homily, see above, p. 960 ff.

² Ðe for se is characteristic of a twelfth-century text.

³ Unstressed form; cf. N.E.D., through.

⁴ h superscript.

⁵ se goda would be expected in Old English; see se leofa, l. 16. Another sign that this is a transitional text.

⁶ is before specÐ marked with punctum delens and partially erased.

⁷ = greteÐ; see Joseph and Elizabeth Mary Wright, Old English Grammar (Oxford, 1925), 3rd ed., §305.

⁸ MS. electio.

⁹ a originally e, but altered by original scribe to a by the addition of another stroke.

¹⁰ A French spelling for dydest; cf. Karl Luick, Historische Grammatik der Englischen Sprache (Leipzig, 1914), §57.

¹¹ c superscript. u for y another French spelling; see preceding note. It is barely possible, of course, that scruddest is a new formation from scrud, and is thus the earliest recorded instance of the verb “to shroud.” On the other hand, the earliest observed instances of this are from the fourteenth century; cf. N.E.D., shroud, v ¹.

¹² æ altered by original scribe from e. MS. reads: leofe and wære and weorpe. wære is probably a transitional form for wæron. I have, therefore, deleted the first and.

¹³ MS. gode.

¹⁴ gepafiende would normally be expected in Old English; see abidende in the next line, but þafiend again in line 40.

¹⁵ On this form, see Luick, Historische Grammatik, §257.2 and note 2.

¹⁶ Possibly this agrees with deige, in which case the sentence is to be translated thus: “In all this thou wert consenting to me, and with all this thou didst make it possible for me await thee in good rest, when thou shalt arise from death, because thou art God's handiwork, on the great day which is destined for us both.” More probably gescapenum unc bam is, as Professor Max Förster suggests, an attempt to render an ablative absolute in the Latin original, and is to be taken with Godes handgeworc: “because thou art God's handiwork, who created us both.”

¹⁷ MS. un.

¹⁸ MS. worud.

¹⁹ Another spelling of u for y; see above, notes 10 and 11.

²⁰ See above, note 14.

²¹ Probably a miswriting of fulum, though it is not inconceivably an error for feolum. The inflected form of feola is very rare, however; but see efenfela (2), in T. Northcote Toller's Supplement to Bosworth-Toller's An Anglo-Saxon Dictionary. Another possibility is that folum is an early French spelling for fulum, with o for O.E. u. This occurs usually in the case of short u only, as long u, when it is not retained, is generally represented by ou. See Luick, §57.2.

²² y altered from e.

¹ This came to its full development in Middle English times. The development of the address itself, the interrelationship of the various texts of the address, and the relation of the address to the debate, are being fully studied by Miss Eleanor H. Kellogg, of New-York University. I confine myself to a consideration of the time at which the address is made.

² See above, p. 957, notes 4 and 5.

³ In another of the Wulfstan homilies, Number xlvi (pp. 235–237), the body, rather than the soul, cries out just before the separation. This is a variant of the death scene from the Apocalypse of Paul, with which is blended some material from the theme of the Three Utterances; on this, see Rudolph Willard, Two Apocrypha in Old English Homilies, Beiträge zur Englischen Philologie, xxx (Leipzig, 1935), pp. 74–76.

⁴ Atkinson, Passions and Homilies from Leabhar Breac, p. 512.

⁵ Ibid., p. 513.

⁶ Ibid., p. 514. In the Irish version of the Two Deaths, after the Third Utterance the sinful soul goes round its body on the left, and curses it before taking final leave of it; Carl Marstrander, “The Two Deaths,” Ériu, v (1911), 123, and Willard, Two Apocrypha, p. 45 [h].

⁶ a James, Apocryphal New Testament, pp. 531–534.

⁷ Th. Batiouchkof, “Le Débat de l'âme et du Corps,” Romania, xx (1891), 33–34.

⁸ Brandes, Visio S. Pauli, pp. 65–80, published only two Latin texts: Redactions i and iv. Redaction i has been shown to be two distinct texts, but neither of them is of such a nature as to alter Batiouchkof's impression of the sources in the Latin versions of the Apocalypse of Paul of our Body and Soul legend. The Latin form of the apocalypse generally known in print was Redaction iv. The whole matter of the various Latin texts and of their interrelationship is now set forth by Dr. H. Theodore Silverstein, Visio Sancti Pauli: The History of the Apocalypse in Latin together with Nine Texts, Studies and Documents, ed. Kirsopp and Silva Lake, iv (London, 1935).

⁹ Romania, xx, 18 and notes, 1, 3, and 5.

¹⁰ Contemporary, roughly speaking, with the Old English texts treated by Batiouchkof.

¹¹ Romania, xx, 22, 32.

¹² Montague Rhodes James, Apocrypha Anecdota, Texts and Studies, ii, 3 (Cambridge, 1893), pp. 1–42.

¹³ Romania, xx, 34.

¹⁴ Ibid., 5 ff.

¹⁵ Ibid., 34.

¹⁶ Romania, xx, 23.

¹⁷ Patr. Lat., xxxix, col. 2207. See Albert Stanburrough Cook, The Christ of Cynemulf (Boston, 1900), p. 210, and Rudolph Willard, “Vercelli Homili VIII and the Christ,” PMLA, xiii (1927), 314 ff.

¹⁸ Montague Rhodes James, The Apocryphal New Testament (Oxford, 1924), pp. 547–549, sections 43 and 44. For a discussion of the theology (popular and sentimental) of the Respite, and of its early history, see Arturo Graf, “A Proposito della ‘Visio Pauli’,” Giornale Storico della Litteratura Italiana, xi (1888), 344–362.

¹⁹ This might be explained as accidental, and as resulting from a lacuna observable in the text at this point. Casey feels that this omission is probably to be attributed to the deliberate intention of the redactor, who was not in sympathy with the idea of the Respite, and who handled his material clumsily; Jl. Theolog. Stud., xxxiv, 18–19.

²⁰ Casey, op. cit., gives these variants succinctly.

²¹ Not in MS.; added from the related text in MS. 20 of Corpus Christi College, Cambridge. I quote from MS. Latin 2625 of the Staatsbibliothek, Munich. This text belongs to Brandes Redaction iii (Visio S. Pauli, pp. 29–34). The existence of this text of the apocalypse has been overlooked, because it was not listed in the catalogues of manuscripts in the Munich library. A page containing the beginning of the apocalypse is missing. The text now opens abruptly, folio 56r, in the midst of a description of the hundred-headed infernal dragon, which it calls Pathmot or Pathinot (see Brandes, op. cit., p. 26 and p. 102, last note). The conclusion of the preceding text, a Pseudo-Melitus Assumption of the Virgin (Tischendorf's B-text [cf. James, Apocryphal New Testament, p. 194 and 209]), is also lost, so that the cataloguer, who had caught the rubricated title of the Assumption, and reasoned from the absence of any rubricated title or break later in the text, assumed, therefore, that the remainder of the book was occupied with this same matter. This loss of a leaf between folios 55 and 56 is not at all apparent to one who is not actually reading the text carefully. The missing portion of the Assumption and of the Apocalypse of Paul (judging from the closely related text in MS. 20 of Corpus Christi College, Cambridge) is just enough to fill easily the missing folio. The numbering of the manuscript has been done since the loss of this page, as it is continuous without break: folio 55v is the last page at present of the Assumption, and folio 56r is the truncated beginning of the Apocalypse of Paul. This Manuscript, ascribed by the catalogue to the thirteenth century, is a remarkable little volume (its dimensions are 10.15×7 cm.), in that its contents are almost entirely apocryphal matter: the Gospel of Nicodemus, the Infancy Gospel, the Signs of the Doom, the Sunday Epistle, the Assumption of the Virgin, and Redaction iii of the Apocalypse of Paul. It must have been as much an entertaining as an edifying addition to the monastery library at Aldersbach, to which it formerly belonged. This text of the Sunday Epistle, fol. 39 ff., is to be added to the list of Latin Manuscripts of this document given by E. Renoir in his article in Cabrol's Dictionnaire; see below, note 31.

²² The Paris text, which exists in an eighth-century manuscript, “has been assigned on philological grounds to the fifth or sixth century, but may be earlier”; Casey, Jl. of Theolog. Stud., xxxiv, 2.

²³ Before the twelfth century, certainly; cf. H. Theodore Silverstein, “The Vision of St Paul,” Speculum, viii (1933), 354.

²⁴ So I translate de hora nona sabbati usque ad secundam feriam hore prime.

²⁶ Speculum, viii, 354.

²⁵ Brandes, Visio S. Pauli, p. 75, ll. 1–2.

²⁷ Brandes, op. cit., pp. 101–102, On the Benedictions of Sunday or the Dignatio diei Dominici, as they are also called, see Les Bénédictions du Dimanche, by H. Dumaine, in Cabrol's Dictionnaire, iv, 986–990, Robert Priebsch, M.L.R., ii (1906), 143 (no. 14), and the very fine text, De Die Dominico, recently published by Dom André Wilmart from MS. Regina Latin 49 of the Vatican Library, in Analecta Reginensia, Studi e Testi, lxix, (Città del Vaticano, 1933), pp. 111–112.

²⁸ See Israel Levy, “La Recommandation de Vendredi,” Mélusine, iv (1888–1889), coll. 133–135 and 204.

²⁹ Folio 191r. For much the same thing in twelfth-century English, see the homily, In Diebus Dominicis, from MS. Lambeth 487, published by Richard Morris, Old English Homilies: First Series, EETS, xxix (London, 1867), pp. 41–47.

³⁰ On Sunday and Sunday Observance, and the contrast between the joyous and free early apostolic, and the later highly restricted and formalized, observance of Sunday, see the extensive article by H. Dumaine, Dimanche, in Fernand Cabrol's Dictionnaire d'Archéologie Chrétienne et du Liturgie (Paris, 1921), iv, coll. 858–994.

³¹ On the Sunday Epistle, see Robert Preibsch, “The chief Sources of Some Anglo-Saxon Homilies,” Otia Merseiana, i (Liverpool, 1899), 129–147, and “Quelle und Abfassungszeit der Sonntagsepistel in der Irischen ‘Cain Domnaig’, ” MLR, ii (1906), 138–154, Hippolyte Delehaye, “Note sur la Légende de la Lettre du Christ Tombée du Ciel,” Bulletin de la Classe des Lettres et des Sciences Morales et Politiques et de la Classe des Beaux-Arts, Académie Royale de Belgique (Brussels, 1899), Classe des Lettres, pp. 171–213, and the comprehensive treatment and bibliography in E. Renoir's article, Christ (Lettre du) Tombée du Ciel, in Cabrol's Dictionnaire (Paris, 1914), iii, coll. 1534 ff. To the list of Latin Manuscripts of the Epistle might be added MS. Latin 2625, of the Bayerische Staatsbibliothek, Munich, fol. 39 ff; see above note 23.

³² On the influence of the Sunday Epistle, see Levy, Der Sabbath in England, pp. 65–67.

³³ Ibid., p. 66. Cf. Priebsch, M. L. Rev. ii, 138: “Und sie [the Sunday Epistle] lebt, zum Schutzbrief gegen Kugel, Krankheit und Kindsnöte geworden, noch heutigen Tags.” For a Middle English example of the Schutzbrief, see Max Förster, “Ein Mittelenglischer Himmels-Schutzbrief (ca. 1470),” published as the ninth of his Kleinere Mittelenglische Texte, in Anglia, xlii, (1918), 217–219. For a popular account of this Schutzbrief, see R. Stübe, “Der Himmelsbrief,” Westermanns Monatshefte, cxxiii, (1917–1918) 699–702.

³⁴ M. L. R., ii, 149–153.

³⁵ See above, pp. 967–970.

³⁶ See above, p. 968.

³⁷ See Levy, Der Sabbath in England, pp. 57–58.

³⁸ Ibid., p. 62.

³⁹ J. G. O'Keeffe, “Cáin Domnaig,” Ériu, ii, (1905), 194, no. 6, quoted by Priebsch, MLR, ii, 141.

⁴⁰ Hippolyte Delehaye, “Note sur la Légende de la Lettre du Christ Tombée du Ciel,” Bulletin, Académie Royale de Belgique, Classe des Lettres (1899) pp. 179–181.

⁴¹ See above, note 20.

⁴² Homily xliv, Napier, Wulfstan, pp. 215–226; on Pehtred, see Priebsch, M.L.R., ii, 149.

⁴³ Wulfstan, p. 211, 20–23.

⁴⁴ Batiouchkof, Romania, xx, 35–36. On this see Emil Freistedt, Allchristliche Totengedächtnistage und ihre Beziehung zum Jenseits Glauben und Totenkultes der Antike, Liturgiegsechichtliche Quellen und Forschungen, xxiv, (Münster in Wesft., 1928), pp. 52 ff., and 16 ff. Miss Dudley, The Egyptian Elements in the Legend of the Body and Soul (Baltimore, 1911), pp. 74 ff.

⁴⁵ See above, pp. 965–966.

⁴⁶ Dudley, op. cit., pp. 145–150, and J.E.G.Ph., viii, 251–253.

⁴⁶ a Krapp, The Vercelli Book, pp. 54–59.

⁴⁷ Richard Morris, The Blickling Homilies, E.E.T.S., lviii (London, 1880) p. 45, l. 31. The variant reading in MS. Junius 86, fol. 49r, is ymbe. vii. niht.

⁴⁸ James, Apocryphal New Testament, p. 548, and the passage quoted above, p. 968, from Redaction iii in MS. Munich Latin 2625.

⁴⁹ MS. gesecegan, but see note 20.

⁵⁰ Cambridge has preserved another sentence from the Latin original, and that from the address of the righteous soul to its body; see above, pp. 963, ll. 14–15.

⁵¹ MS. C. U. L. Ii. 1.33, p. 412, l. 17–p. 413, l. 5.

⁵² See below, pp. 975–976.

⁵³ See below, p. 977.

⁵⁴ Richard Buchholz, “Die Fragmente der Redender Seele an den Leichnam in Zwei Handschriften zu Worcester und Oxford,” Erlanger Beiträge zur Englischen Philologie, vi (Erlange, 1890).

⁵⁵ James, Apocryphal New Testament, pp. 531–534.

⁵⁶ Romania, xx, 23.

⁵⁷ Folios 3r–11v.

⁵⁸ Egyptian Elements, p. 149.

⁵⁹ See above, pp. 965–966.

⁶⁰ Max Förster, Il Codice Vercellese (Rome, 1913) fol. 103r, ll. 19–20. Krapp, The Vercelli Book, p. 58, ll. 125–126.

⁶¹ R. W. Chambers, Max Förster and Robin, Flower, The Exeter Book of Old English Poetry (London, 1934), folio 100r, ll. 6–7. This folio is reproduced likewise in W. S. Mackie, The Exeter Book, Part II, EETS, cxciv, (London, 1934) immediately after the preface.

⁶² Cf. Förster, Il Codice Vercellese, fol. 103r. l. 19.

⁶³ The Exeter Book of Old English Poetry, fol. 100r, l. 6.

⁶⁴ See below, p. 980.

⁶⁵ F. C. Burkitt, Jewish and Christian Apocalypses, The Sweich Lectures, 1913 (London, 1914) p. 1, has beautifully illustrated the place of the Last Judgement from the decoration of the Sistine Chapel.

⁶⁶ See Willard, Two Apocrypha, pp. 38, 69–74.

⁶⁷ Assmann, Homilien und Heiligenleben, pp. 164 ff.

⁶⁸ Förster, Die Vercelli-Homilien, pp. 72 ff.

⁶⁹ Assmann, p. 169.

⁷⁰ Förster, Der Vercelli-Codex cxvii, p. 128.

⁷¹ P. 301; see Wiliam H. Hulme, “The Old English Gospel of Nicodemus,” Mod. Phil., i, 1904–1905, 610–614.

⁷² For the Latin, see Patr. Lat. xxxix, col. 2207.

⁷³ Ll. 1379 ff; for the sources, see A. S. Cook, The Christ of Cynewulf, pp. 208–210.

⁷⁴ Förster, Die Vercelli-Homilien, pp. 153 ff., and Rudolph Willard, “Vercelli Homily VIII and the Christ,” PMLA, xlii (1927), 314 ff.

⁷⁵ Fol. 109v ff. This homily I am preparing for publication.

⁷⁶ Pp. 299 ff.; see Hulme, op. cit.

⁷⁷ As the angels receive the soul, they praise it in almost the identical words of the receiving angels in the Junius version of the Three Utterances. Vercelli reads: Eadigu eart Ðu, sawl, forÐan þu name on þe gode eardunge, Förster, Vercelli-Homilien, p. 84, ll. 135–136; Junius reads: Beatus quem elegisti: replebimur [Psalms 64 (65), 5–6]. Hie cweÐaÐ, ‘Eadig eart Ðu, sawl: Ðu name gode eardunge in Ðinum huse, and we nu gefyllaÐ mid gode Ðin huse …‘; Willard, Two Apocrypha, p. 55 [Jm]. Junius would support the reading of Vercelli against that of Q; see Förster, Die Vercelli-Homilien, p. 84, note 73.

⁷⁸ This is reminiscent of the judgement of the sinful soul in the Apocalypse of Paul, in which the Judge greets the sinful soul thus: “Where is thy fruit which thou hast yielded, worthy of those good things which thou hast received?,” Apocryphal New Testament, p. 533.

⁷⁹ It is akin to the farewell to the body in the legend of the bringing forth of the soul, especially to that in the Irish version in Atkinson, Passions and Homilies from Leabhar Breac, pp. 509–514.

⁸⁰ Folio 66v and 67r.

⁸¹ Napier, Wulfstan, p. 254.

⁸² See above, p. 960.

⁸³ See above, p. 980.

⁸⁴ Brandes, Visio S. Pauli, p. 78, l. 19.

⁸⁵ James, Apocryphal New Testament, pp. 532–534.