¹ Colophons in the manuscripts point to the function of the collection: e.g., MS Bodleian, Ashmolean 42 fol. 245^v, reads, ‘Expliciunt euangelia dominicalia totius anni in vulgari lingua expo[si]ta.’ Google Scholar

² A standard metrical pattern used in Anglo-Norman verses and sermons from the middle of the thirteenth century. See MS Cambridge University, Gg.1.1, an important northern Anglo-Norman florilegium, s. xiii^ex . See also Ker, W. P., ‘Metrical Romances,’ in Cambridge History of English Literature (New York 1933) I 320–25.Google Scholar

³ Although somewhat dated, Mosher's, J. A. The Exemplum in the Early Religious and Didactic Literature of England (New York 1911) is still a good introduction to exempla used in preaching codices. See Gerould, G. H., The North English Homily Collection (Lancaster, Pennsylvania 1902).Google Scholar

⁴ Although the manuscript colophons specifically designate the collection as one containing dominical sermons, the earliest and best manuscripts, in addition to the dominical material, contain three important feasts in the liturgical year: the Purification of the Blessed Virgin Mary (2 February), the Annunciation (25 March), and the Ascension.Google Scholar

⁵ MS British Library, Harley 4196 fol. 88^v. There are remarkably vivid depictions of sloth, inattention, and the punishments attendant on these vices in such Middle English texts as Jacob's Well, ed. Brandeis, Arthur (EETS o.s. 115; London 1900) 10–11; and Gesta Romanorum , ed. Herrtage, Sidney J. H. (EETS e.s. 33; London 1879) 138. Google Scholar

⁶ Thomson, Clara L., ‘Legendaries and Chroniclers,’ in Cambridge History of English Literature I 381.Google Scholar

⁷ John Small edited the fragment extant in the Royal College of Physicians' manuscript; see his English Metrical Homilies from Manuscripts of the Fourteenth Century (Edinburgh 1862). Horstmann, Carl, Altenglische Legenden: Neue Folge (Heilbronn 1881), printed some exempla from MSS British Library, Harley 4196 and Cotton Tiberius E.VII; and Bodleian, Ashmolean 42.Google Scholar

⁸ Frere, W. H., Studies in Early Roman Liturgy: The Roman Gospel Lectionary (Alcuin Club Collections 30; London 1934) 59.Google Scholar

⁹ Horstmann, , Altenglische Legenden: Neue Folge iii–xxxix.Google Scholar

¹⁰ Small, , English Metrical Homilies iv–vi; Horstmann, , Altenglische Legenden: Neue Folge lvii, lix; Gerould, G. H., ‘The North-English Homily Collection,’ Modern Language Notes 22 (1907) 95–96; Mosher, , Exemplum 86–87; Gerould, G. H., Saints' Legends (Boston 1916) 169; Deanesly, M., The Lollard Bible and Other Medieval Biblical Versions (Cambridge 1920) 149; Tolkien, J. R. R., ‘Chaucer as Philologist,’ Transactions of Philological Society (1934), 64; Carver, J. E., The Northern Homily Cycle' (Ph.D. diss.; New York University 1938) 18–25, 73; Carver, J. E., ‘The Northern Homily Cycle, and Missionaries to the Saracens,’ Modern Language Notes 53 (1938) 261; Nevanlinna, Saara, ‘The Northern Homily Cycle: The Expanded Version in MSS Harley 4196 and Cotton Tiberius E.VII,’ Mémoires de la Société Néophilologique de Helsinki (Helsinki 1972) 123–26, 127–32.Google Scholar

¹¹ Maskell, William, Monumenta. Ritualia Ecclesiae Anglicanae, ‘Dissertation on Service Books’ (London 1846) iii–cxcvi; Wordsworth, C. and Littlehales, H., The Old Service Books of the English Church (2nd ed.; London 1910); Swete, Henry Barclay, Church Services and Service Books (London 1920). For a discussion of distinctiones see Wilmart, A., ‘Un répertoire d'exégèse composé en Angleterre vers le début du xiii^e siècle,’ Memorial Lagrange (Paris 1940) 307–46; Rouse, Richard H. and Rouse, Mary A., ‘Biblical Distinctions in the Thirteenth Century,’ Archives d'histoire doctrinale et littéraire du mogen âge 41 (1974) 27–37; and the bibliography cited there. For a discussion of various types of sermon composition aids see Rouse, Richard H. and Rouse, Mary A., Preachers, Florilegia and Sermons: Studies on the ‘Manipulus florum’ of Thomas of Ireland (Toronto 1979) 3–42.Google Scholar

¹² MS BL, Add. 35285, is a precentor's book s. xiv¹ containing both missal and breviary, and is from the house of Austin Canons at Guisborough Priory, York; MS Bodleian, Auct. D.5.9, English Dominican s. xiii², a Gospel and Epistle list; MS Bodleian, Rawl. G.8, Sarum use, Epistle and Gospel list, s. xiv; MS Huntington Library 26960, monastic English, s. xiii^in., codex of sermons, exempla, and distinctiones; MS Cambridge, St. John's College A.15, is a collection of booklets from s. xiii to s. xv containing distinctiones, exegetical texts, and sermons (see James, M. R., A Descriptive Catalogue of the Manuscripts in the Library of St John's College Cambridge [Cambridge 1913] no. 115). The sermons were written by an English scribe s. xiii^ex and contain verse translations between sermons; see fol. 120^v for a fine English verse rendering of St. Augustine's ‘Candet nudatum pectus.’ Manuscripts designed to facilitate vernacular preaching, although much less common than those in Latin, do exist. See MS Cambridge, Trinity College B.14.39, s. xiii², which contains Latin, French, and English verses on penance, Latin prayers for vesting at mass, the Vita Sanctae Margharete in English long lines, and a variety of tales complementing the liturgical Gospels for the temporale in French verse. MS Cambridge, Trinity College B.1.38, s. xiv, contains the only discussion I know of in English of how to make use of patristic sources in English sermon composition. MS Cambridge, Corpus Christi College 392, s. xv¹, contains sermons and exempla in English. MS Cambridge, Corpus Christi College 437, s. xiii, a Latin codex, contains large sections of the Bible, themes for sermons in alphabetical order, sermons for the temporale, a list of Epistles and Gospels, and a list showing various topics in the Gospels suitable for preaching. MS Cambridge, Pembroke College 285, contains Pecham's ‘Ignorancia sacerdotum’ in Latin, followed by such items as the fourteen articles of faith, the Ten Commandments, the exposition of the ‘Pater Noster’ and ‘Ave,’ the seven vices and virtues, and a sermon on the seven deadly sins, all of which are in English. MS BL, Royal 7.C.1, s. xiv², is a Latin codex which contains Odo of Cheriton's fables, St. Bernard's meditations, Robert of Basevorn's Forma predicandi, Alain de Lille's De planctu Naturae, moralizations on the nineteen books of Aristotle's zoological work De animalibus, and Robert Holcot's popular Convertimini — all texts which were used by the compilers of vernacular sermon manuscripts.Google Scholar

¹³ The opening line in the prologue in MS Lambeth Palace 260 fol. 1^r reads, ‘In no[m]ine ihesu incipit prologus euangeliorum dominicae in anglia edicionem translatus.’ The latinity of this line is strained. One would prefer dominicalium following euangeliorum; however, ultra-violet examination reveals that the scribe intended dominicae. The unclear in anglia edicionem translates (translated into an edition in England) may be a scribal error or the result of some textual corruption and may have originally read in anglicanam edicionem translates (translated into an English edition). This emended reading has the virtue of being more sensitive to the context of the work that follows. My transcription agrees with that of James, M. R., ed., A Descriptive Catalogue of the Manuscripts in the Library of Lambeth Palace (London 1932) 406, and with that of Horstmann, Altenglische Legenden lx.Google Scholar

¹⁴ Durandus, Guilielmus, Rationale divinorum officiorum (Venice 1499).Google Scholar

¹⁵ Since the Dominicans have been suggested as the group most likely to have been behind the NHC, it is well to show some example of their public care for liturgical volumes. For example, see Denifle, Heinrich, ‘Die Constitutionen des Prediger-Ordens vom Jahre 1228,’ in Archiv für Litteratur- und Kirchengeschichte des Mittelalters 1 (1885) 165–227; and Galbraith, G. R., The Constitution of the Dominican Order (Manchester 1925) 196, 252. These constitutions are drawn from MS BL Add. 23935, written between 1258 and 1363. See also Reichert, B. M., Monumenta Ordinis Fratrum Praedicatorum historica, ‘Acta Capitulorum Generalium Ordinis Praedicatorum’ (Rome 1898) I 29; in the general chapter for 1244 we read, ‘Item. Volumus et mandamus, ut diffinitores proximo [anno] sequentis capituli generalis. pro concordando officio. portent secum ad dictum capitulum omnes rubricas et notulas breviarii nocturni et diurni. et gradualis et missalis.’ Such concern for uniformity undoubtedly was to lead to the liturgical reform of the order within a decade, and underscores the growing zeal in the community for congruency. See also Gleeson, Philip, ‘Dominican Liturgical Manuscripts from before 1254,’ Archivum Fratrum Praedicatorum 42 (1972) 81–135; William R. Bonniwell, A History of the Dominican Liturgy 1215–1945 (New York 1945) 173–96. The agreement in the liturgical Gospels within Dominican houses was carefully maintained in areas as far removed as England and Germany. See MSS Bodleian, Auct. D.5.9, an English Dominican Gospel and Epistle list 1250–90; and Bodleian, Rawl. G.15, a Gospel list of the third quarter of the 13th century with a possible provenance of Worms. For the Carmelites see King, A. A., Liturgies of the Religious Orders (London 1955) 240; and Rickert, Margaret, ed., The Reconstructed Carmelite Missal (Chicago 1952), for a fragment of a late fourteenth-century English Carmelite missal. For the Cistercians see J. M. Canivez, Statuta capitulorum generalium Ordinis Cisterciensis ab anno 1116 ad annum 1768 (Louvain 1933–39) II xxvii and 13. For the Gilbertine Canons see Dugdale, W., Monasticon Anglicanum (London 1846) VI pt. 2 p. xxxi canon XV.Google Scholar

¹⁶ Such diocesan concern can be seen in the statutes of the English episcopal synods following the reforming spirit of the Fourth Lateran Council of 1215. It was deemed necessary to have such order in the liturgical volumes if the church was to avoid organizational and spiritual dismemderment. For this argument see the remarks of Othobono (on the need for uniformity of practice) in his London Constitutions of 1268, canon XI, ‘Ne una ecclesia in plures dividatur,’ in Wilkins, D., Concilia (London 1737) II 7.Google Scholar

¹⁷ Henderson, W. G., ed., Missale ad usum ecclesiae Eboracensis (Surtees Society 59; Durham 1874) 10; Lawley, S. W., Breviarium ad usum ecclesie Eboracensis (Surtees Society 71; Durham 1879), 226.Google Scholar

¹⁸ Procter, F. and Wordsworth, C., edd., Breviarium ad usum insignis ecclesiae Sarum (Cambridge 1882-86) III cccclxviii; Legg, J. W., ed., The Sarum Missal (Oxford 1916) 44.Google Scholar

¹⁹ The Benedictine practice, although varied, on this point followed the practice of the diocesan cathedral. See MS Huntington Library, HM 903. This volume contains two items: Robert de Grethans' Miroir, a mid-13th-century collection of dominical Gospel sermons in Anglo-Norman verse; and Waddington's Manuel des péchés. The Huntington MS dates s. xiv², and ownership marks identify it as having belonged to the Benedictine house of St. Mary's, York. It contains a striking instance of a Benedictine house correcting its Mass books according to the use of the diocesan cathedral. The Miroir was written in Durham ca. 1250–60, and follows the Sarum use for the Gospel reading for the 5th Sunday following the Epiphany, Mt. 13.24–30. But the scribe (monastic?) of MS HM 903, noting a defect in the MS, points out that the York use, which is Lk. 4.14–22, is to be followed, See fol. 170^v, ‘Nota quod deficit hic exposicio V diei dominici post octavam epiphanie scilicet Regressus est ihesus in virtute spiritus sancti in galileam & fama erat per universam regionem adeo.’ Because the latinity of this line is curious, I think the following translation is in order: ‘Note that the reading (exposicio) of the Fifth Sunday after the Octave of the Epiphany is wrong here (deficit hic — using hic adverbially), to wit (scilicet), Jesus returned in the power of the Holy Spirit into Galilee and his fame was indeed throughout the entire region.’ The expression diei dominici in Medieval Latin has the force of a liturgical idiom meaning simply the fifth Sunday. Dominici is a genitive singular form of the adjective dominicus (from the noun Dominus) and agrees with its noun diei (a noun which can be either masculine or feminine in Medieval Latin, and here is obviously the former). Adeo, which I have translated as ‘indeed,’ is an adverb here used enclitically to indicate in a more intense manner the statement just preceeding it — a usage found in both Classical and Medieval Latin. Professor Richard Rouse, after examining the line in the manuscript, agrees with the correctness of my transcription. For the Benedictines in Durham Cathedral following the Sarum use with respect to their missal, see MS BL, Harley 5289 fol. 45^r, s. xiv¹ — a handsome illuminated monastic missal used by Durham priory, and one following the Sarum use. For other Sarum missals used in the diocese of Durham, see MS Bodleian, Rawl. Liturg. E.41, s. xiv^ex, plundered for illumination and now lacking its temporale; MS BM, Laud Misc. 302 fol. 36^v, s. xivⁱⁿ, monastic?; MS Bodleian, Rawl. Liturg. E.2, s. xviⁱⁿ .Google Scholar

²⁰ The seven most complete manuscripts used for comparison in this paper are: A, Bodleian, Ashmolean 42; L, Lambeth Palace Library 260; B, Bute; D and G, Cambridge University Dd. I.1 and Gg. V.31; M, University of Minnesota Library Z822.N81; and H, Huntington Library 129.Google Scholar

²¹ Procter and Wordsworth, III mccciii; Legg, , Sarum Missal 176.Google Scholar

²² Henderson, , Missale … Eboracensis 221; Lawley, , Breviarium … Eboracensis 566.Google Scholar

²³ MSS: A, B, D, G, H, L, and M; see note 20, above.Google Scholar

²⁴ Frere, W. H., The Use of Sarum: The Ordinal and Tonal (Cambridge 1901) xxx. The spread of the Sarum liturgy in the north is underscored by the proliferation of Sarum liturgical books with northern provenance from the last quarter of the fourteenth century. See also Frere, W. H., ‘York Service Books,’ in W. H. Frere: A Collection of his Papers on Liturgical Subjects , edd. Arnold, J. H. and Wyatt, E. G. P. (Alcuin Club Collections 35; London 1940) 159–62. Google Scholar

²⁵ Barlow, F., Durham Jurisdictional Peculiars (London 1950), especially the introduction; Emsley, K., ‘The Yorkshire Enclaves of the Bishops of Durham,’ Yorkshire Archaeological Journal 47 (1975) 103–108.Google Scholar

²⁶ Procter, and Wordsworth, , Breviarium … Sarum , III mccccxxxiii; Legg, , Sarum Missal 189; Lawley, , Breviarium … Eboracensis 641; Henderson, , Missale … Eboracensis 245; Frere, W. H. and Brown, L. E. G., The Hereford Breviary (Henry Bradshaw Society 26; London 1904) 472; and Henderson, W. G., Missale ad usum percelebris ecclesiae Herfordensis (Leeds 1874) 205.Google Scholar

²⁷ Legg, J. W., Missale ad usum Ecclesie Westmonasteriensis (Henry Bradshaw Society 12; London 1897) 1495. See also MS BL, Harley 5289 fol. 263^v, a s. xiv^in. missal used in Durham Cathedral Priory. For Abingdon see also MS BL, Harley 4664 fol. 121^rb, s. xiv, following Coldingham's practice. I have found one instance of a Sarum Missal s. xv^in. used in Durham, perhaps by Benedictines: MS Bodleian, Laud 302 fol. 154^v, which reads ‘Accesserunt.’ Google Scholar

²⁸ MS Bodleian, Auct. D.5.9. fol. 687^v, s. xiii^ex, a Gospel and Epistle list. One can see the uniformity with which Dominicans maintained their rubrics in this instance by noting the high degree of congruency between this MS and MS Bodleian, Rawl. G. 15 fol. 5^vb, another Dominican Gospel list of s. xiii^ex., but one whose provenance is German (Worms?).Google Scholar

²⁹ Legg, , Missale … Westmonasteriensis 1495.Google Scholar

³⁰ MS BL, Add. 35285, s. xiv¹ (ca. 1322?). This is a precentor's book from Guisborough Priory, Yorkshire; note the use of two different opening phrases in the missal and in the breviary. The missal, fol. 132^vb, opens with the phrase ‘pharisei audientes,’ while the breviary, fol. 314^vb, reads ‘Accesserunt ad ih[esu]m.’ I discuss this penchant for variety in the Augustinian liturgical rubrics below.Google Scholar

³¹ MSS Bodleian, Ashmolean 42, and BL, Add. 38010, ‘Audientes …’; MS Cambridge, Gg. V.31, ‘Pharisei …’; MSS Lambeth Palace and Bute, ‘Accesserunt …’; and MSS University of Minnesota Z822.N81 and Hungtington Library 129, ‘Convenerunt…’ Google Scholar

³² Willis, G. G., St. Augustine's Lectionary (Alcuin Club Collections 44; London 1962) 6, 58.Google Scholar

³³ Frere, and Brown, , edd., The Hereford Breviary 98; Legg, , Sarum Missal 15; Procter and Wordsworth, Breviarium … ecclesiae Sarum, I, col. xxvii; Henderson, , Missale ecclesiae Eboracensis I 2; Lawley, , ed., Breviarium … ecclesie Eboracensis I 12. This use of Mk. 1, although not nearly as widespread, was recognized by medieval liturgists; see Bernold of Constance, Micrologus de ecclesiasticis observationibus, PL 151.1003, and Durandus, G., Rationale divinorum officiorum, fol. 73^vb. Hereford's idiosyncratic use of this gospel may reflect the influence of the regular canons who were established there before the Norman reorganization.Google Scholar

³⁴ Batiffol, Pierre, History of the Roman Breviary, trans. Baylay, A. M. Y. (London 1912) 120; Van Dijk, S. J. P., ‘Ursprung und Inhalt der franziskanischen Liturgie des 13. Jahrhunderts,’ Franziskanische Studien 51 (1969) 86–116; idem, The Origins of the Modern Roman Liturgy (London 1959) 190–253. The English Franciscan missals and breviaries extant from s. xiii^ex to s. xiv² confirm the adoption of the Roman Gospels: see, e.g., MSS Bodleian, Latin liturg. f. 26, ca. 1250, a missal, and Bodleian Tanner 334, ca. 1350 (Canterbury?), a Franciscan missal. For Austin Friars see Roth, Francis, The English Austin Friars 1249–1538 (Cassiciacum: Studies in St. Augustine and the Augustinian Order 6; New York 1966) 191.Google Scholar

³⁵ Although there is evidence of ad populum preaching by Cistercians, e.g., Alain de Lille, I know of no evidence of a regular program of ad populum Sunday preaching. For a recent discussion and bibliography on this subject see Roberts, Phyllis Barzillay, Stephanus de Lingua-Tonante: Studies in the Sermons of Stephen Langton (Toronto 1968) 38–56. Of course such preaching might have been viewed as simply elementary, obligatory catechesis and never recorded. There is some evidence that the anti-clerical satire of the reformist poets, like Langland, was not only well known to Cistercian preachers but was used by some of them; see O'Brien, R., ‘Two Sermons at York Synod of William Rymyngton,’ Cîteaux 19 (1968) 49, the paragraph beginning ‘0 miserabilis moderna conditio clericorum….’ Indeed the Cistercians in the north, at least the first generation, exhibited a strong aversion to a pastoral ministry; see Desmond, Lawrence A., ‘The Appropriation of Churches by the Cistercians in England to 1400,’ Analecta Cisterciensia 31 (1976) especially 247–48, for the account of Abbot Alexander of Kirkstall (1147–1182) ordering the church of the vill of Barnoldswick torn down despite the protests of the villagers. Note also that, although the sermons of William Rymyngton were often topical and pointed, they were preached expressly to the pastoral clergy delegated to administer the affairs of the archdiocese; see O'Brien, , ‘Two Sermons at York’ 42.Google Scholar

³⁶ Cheney, C. R., ‘English Cistercian Libraries: The First Century,’ in Medieval Texts and Studies (Oxford 1973) 343. Although Cheney's remarks refer more to the twelfth century, the interest of Cistercians in the composition of vernacular manuals, treatises, confessional aids, devotional handbooks, and homiletic collections never approached that of either their regular, secular, or canonical brethren.Google Scholar

³⁷ See Bodleian, MS, Digby 3, believed to be a Gilbertine portable rubricated breviary.Google Scholar

³⁸ Dugdale, W., Monasticon Anglicanum VI pt. ii pp. 947 xi–xii.Google Scholar

³⁹ Dugdale, W., Monasticon Anglicanum VI pt. ii; for the Giibertine Constitutions see pp. xxvii–xlvi. Cf. Woolley, R. M., ed., The Gilbertine Rite (Henry Bradshaw Society 59; London 1921) xxv.Google Scholar

⁴⁰ Dugdale, W., Monasticon Anglicanum IV t. ii pt. ii p. 678.Google Scholar

⁴¹ MS Bodleian, Digby 3 fol. 50^v .Google Scholar

⁴² Despite the fact that certain of the Gilbertine Constitutions restricted the copying of books (see Dugdale, , Monasticon Anglicanum VI, pt. ii p. xxxi c. xix), there is a clear precedent for such activity at this time in a similar work of pastoral catechesis, i.e., Robert Mannyng of Brunne's Handlyng Synne. Google Scholar

⁴³ Dickinson, John Compton, ‘English Regular Canons and the Continent in the Twelfth Century,’ Transactions of the Royal Historical Society 5th ser. 1 (1951) 71. See also Giroud, Charles, L'order des chanoines réguliers de saint-Augustin et ses diverses formes de régime interne (Martigny 1961) 31–43.Google Scholar

⁴⁴ Dickinson, J. C., ‘Early Suppressions of English Houses of Austin Canons,’ in Medieval Studies Presented to Rose Graham, edd. Ruffer, Veronica and Taylor, A. J. (Oxford 1950) 72. Undoubtedly this is related to their lack of a minimum number of canons per house — a house might contain as few as two or three brethren. For a list of their houses in England see Salter, H. E., Chapters of the Augustinian Canons (Oxford 1922) Appendix iii p. 268, taken from MS BL, Additional 38665, s. xiv². See also Knowles, David and Neville Hadcock, R., Medieval Religious Houses: England and Wales (London 1953) 125–60.Google Scholar

⁴⁵ Colvin, H. M., The White Canons in England (Oxford 1951); Van den Broeck, G., ‘Les Frères convers dans la législation des Prémontres,’ Analecta Praemonstratensia 44 (1968) 215–46; Milis, Ludovicus, Constitutiones Canonicorum Regularium Ordinis Arroasiensis (CCL, CM 20; Turnhout 1970); and Clark, John Willis, The Observances in Use at the Augustinian Priory of S. Giles and S. Andrew at Barnwell, Cambridge (Cambridge 1897), a translation of MS BL, Harley 3601, ca. 1290–1300; see p. xlii for rules concerning the writing and attention given to books.Google Scholar

⁴⁶ Hamilton Thompson, A., Historical and Architectural Description of the Priory of St. Mary in Bolton-in-Wharfedale (Publications of the Thoresby Society 30; Leeds 1928) 8: ‘… each [house] formed, as it were, an order in itself.’ For a discussion of the governance of the order and of the individual houses, see Giroud, Charles, L'order des chanoines réguliers de Saint-Augustin et ses diverses formes de régime interne 81–130.Google Scholar

⁴⁷ The Register of William Wickwane Lord Archbishop of York, 1279–1285, ed. Brown, William (Surtees Society 114; Durham 1907) 294–95, no. 724, ‘… deformitatis materiam necessarium censuimus amputare…. Usuum, igitur, diversitates, apud vos hactenus reprobe acceptatas, ad unicum usum compendiosum in hac vestra congregacione studiosius redigatis. Et quia usum ecclesie nostre Eboracensis communiter credimus convenire, usum ipsum in singulis conventibus vestris statuatis decetero observandum; alias disparitates quaslibet, quibus hucusque, non sine ordinis vestri vituperio, adhesistis, ad pares observancias per singula circumspeccius revocantes.’ For Archbishop Melton's remarks see Thompson, , Historical and Architectural Description of the Priory of St. Mary in Bolton-in-Wharfedale 41–42; and for Melton's directive of 1323 to the Augustinian Canons of Hexham in the diocese of Durham to adopt the ‘usum ecclesie nostre Ebor….,’ see Eeles, Francis C., ‘On a Fifteenth-Century York Missal Formerly Used at Broughton-in-Amounderness,’ Chetham Miscellanies n.s. 94 (1935) 2. The local variation within the Augustinian rite continued throughout the later Middle Ages, as is evident from Cardinal Wolsey's edict directing the Augustinians toward uniformity in their liturgical practices; see Wilkins, , Concilia III 683, and Francis C. Eeles, ed., The Holyrood Ordinale (The Book of the Old Edinburgh Club 7; Edinburgh 1914) xxix–xxx, 143.Google Scholar

⁴⁸ Wickwane in his visitation of Thurgaton Priory, Lincolnshire, indicated that those canons of Thurgaton serving in bordering places should not absent themselves for more than a fortnight at a time. See Colvin, H. M., The White Canons in England 146.Google Scholar

⁴⁹ Brown, W., ed., Cartularium Prioratus de Gyseburne Ebor. Dioceseos Ordinis S. Augustini (Surtees Society 89; Durham 1891) xvii, 375–78.Google Scholar

⁵⁰ Fraser, C. M., Records of Anthony Bec Bishop and Patriarch 1283-1311 (Surtees Society 162; Durham 1947) 14–15, ‘… ita quod eidem vicarie per duos honestos et discretos canonicos faciant interim congrue, debite et assidue deserviri et hospitalitatem pauperum in eadem vicaria quatenus poterunt observari. Nolumus tamen quod prior, conventus de Gyseburn aut canonici ibidem deservientes possint post decessum predicti Willelmi nunc Prioris eorumdem quicquam iuris vel usus in eadem vicaria ex huiusmodi gracia vendicare set in decessu vel cessione ipsius Willelmi earn vicariam volumus et decernimus prorsus vacare, adeo quod nisi ad ipsam a tempore decessus vel cessionis huiusmodi infra tempus a canone prefinitum canonice presentaverint extunc ad nos sive successores nostros ius conferendi per lapsum temporis libere devolvatur.’ Google Scholar

⁵¹ It is interesting to note in a missal and breviary from Guisborough Priory (now bound together as MS BL, Add. 35285) the differing system accorded to rubrication: the missal records Sundays in the temporale following Trinity Sunday as ‘post [festum] Pentecostes,’ fol. 127^rb, whereas the breviary records ‘post Trinitatem,’ fol. 310^ra .Google Scholar

⁵² Those which follow the feast are MSS Cambridge University, Dd. I.1 and Gg. V.31; Bodleian, Ashmolean 42; and Lambeth Palace 260. Those which follow the octave are MSS Bute; BL, Add. 38010; and University of Minnesota Z822.N81.Google Scholar

⁵³ For an illustration of this in MS Huntington 903, see note 19 above. But mark the case of the Benedictine House of Barking Abbey, which illustrates how far this individual house of Benedictines carried their liturgical eclecticism. In a MS s. xiv^ex of this house we read, ‘… quod conventus predictus tres modos diversos habeat sui servitii dicendi: primo horas suas dicat secundum regulam Sancti Benedicti: Psalterium suum secundum cursum Curiae Romanae; Missam vero secundum usum ecclesiae Sancti Pauli Londiniarum’; Dugdale, W., Monasticon Anglicanum I 437.Google Scholar

⁵⁴ On this exemption from episcopal visitation for the Gilbertines, see Crosby, Ruth, ‘Robert Mannyng of Brunne: A New Biography,’ Publications of the Modern Language Association 57 (1942) 19. Although in theory houses of Austin Canons were subject to episcopal visitation, in practice, since the houses were so small and numerous and the medieval diocese so large, the visitation of these houses was left to the Augustinian general chapter; see Dickinson, , ‘Early Suppressions’ 57.Google Scholar

⁵⁵ For those following the octave see MSS Bodleian, Auct. D.3.2 fol. 474^vb, and British Library, Add. 35285 fol. 127^rb. For an example of the practice of reckoning immediately after the Sunday, see MS Bodleian, 547 fol. 71^r .Google Scholar

⁵⁶ The difficulty of making coherent generalizations about the medieval liturgy is exemplified in an otherwise interesting book by Boyd, Beverly, Chaucer and the Liturgy (Philadelphia 1967) 1–8. Vogel has come far closer to illustrating the complexity of medieval liturgy in his remark, ‘Le moyen âge n'a pas connu d'uniformité liturgique, même pas à l'intérieur d'une même province; diverses variétés culturelles divergeant notablement entre elles ont coexisté à l'intérieur d'une même famille liturgique, sans parler des families liturgiques différentes qui furent en usage dans un même pays ou une même région …’; see his Introduction aux sources de l'histoire du culte chrétien au moyen âge (Biblioteca degli studi medievali; Spoleto 1965) 5–6.Google Scholar