¹ On the discovery of the Bridlington Dialogue and for a description of the Bodleian codex see A Religious of G.S.M.V. [Sister Penelope] (ed.), Robert of Bridlington, The Bridlington Dialogue: an Exposition of the Rule of St. Augustine for the Life of the Clergy, Given through a Dialogue between Master and Disciple (London 1960) xii, xiv. Sister Penelope, by letter of 21 May 1961, granted me permission to name her as the editor. I shall commonly cite the Bridlington Dialogue as Bridl. Google Scholar

² London 1950. Dickinson treats the Dialogue on pp. 66, 67 n. 1, 120, 175, 183, 186-187, 193-194, 212 n. 10, 218-220, 228, 235-236, 271-272.Google Scholar

³ Sister Penelope, op. cit. xiii.Google Scholar

⁴ On the Durham text see ibid. xiii-xiv.Google Scholar

⁵ See supra n. 1.Google Scholar

⁶ Bridl. prol. (p. 4).Google Scholar

⁷ Bridl. 3 (p. 32).Google Scholar

⁸ Dickinson, Origins 66 n. 2.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

⁹ Ibid. 66.Google Scholar

¹⁰ Beryl Smalley, ‘Gilbertus Universalis,’ Recherches de thlologie ancienne et médiévale 7 (1935) 251.Google Scholar

¹¹ Sister Penelope, op. cit. ix.Google Scholar

¹² On St. Mary's Priory, Bridlington, see L. H. Cottineau, O.S.B., Répertoire topo-bibliographique des abbayes et priéures I (Macon 1935) 500, and David Knowles and R. N. Hadcock, Medieval Religious Houses: England and Wales (London 1953) 129; see also William Dugdale, Monasticon Anglicanum VI (London 1830) 284-291. Very few books have survived from the monastery: cf. N. R. Ker, Medieval Libraries of Great Britain: A List of Surviving Books (London 1941) 8; among the manuscripts rejected by Ker as formerly of Bridlington is Bodleian lat. tho d. 17.Google Scholar

¹³ See Sister Penelope, op. cit. viii-ix.Google Scholar

¹⁴ See the edition of the Matricularium in M. R. James, List of Manuscripts Formerly in Peterborough Abbey Library (Supplement to the Bibliographical Society's Transactions 5; Oxford 1926) 62.Google Scholar

¹⁵ See infra notes 17 and 18.Google Scholar

¹⁶ Bridl. 3 (p. 33).Google Scholar

¹⁷ Dickinson, Origins 220 n.Google Scholar

¹⁸ Sister Penelope, op. cit. 33 n. 2.Google Scholar

¹⁹ Dickinson, Origins 66.Google Scholar

²⁰ Ibid. 120.Google Scholar

²¹ Bridl. 9 (p. 112)Google Scholar

²² Dickinson, Origins 175Google Scholar

²³ Bridl. 15 (p. 163).Google Scholar

²⁴ Dickinson, Origins 186-187.Google Scholar

²⁵ Bridl. 3 (p. 33).Google Scholar

²⁶ Dickinson, Origins 219.Google Scholar

²⁷ See Quest, (which abbreviation designates the Latin text edited in the present paper) sects. 1, 11, 16.Google Scholar

²⁸ Dickinson, Origins 175 η. 1 (Quest. 11), 187 n. 1 (Quest. 16), 193 η. 1 (Quest. 14), 212 n. 10 — the English translation only (Quest. 1), 219 η. 1 (Quest. 1), 219 n. 2 (Quest. 2), 228 n. 5 (Quest. 13), 236 η. 1 (Quest. 15).Google Scholar

²⁹ It would seem that ‘amor’ of Sister Penelope's edition should be corrected to ‘amorem’: cf. Quest. 7.Google Scholar

³⁰ Aubrey Gwynn, S.J., ‘The Early History of St. Thomas’ Abbey, Dublin, The Journal of the Royal Society of Antiquaries of Ireland 84.1 (1954) 27.Google Scholar

³¹ Ibid. pp. 27-31. The codex is partially described in H. Schenkl, Bibliolheca palrum latinorum Britannica no. 3308 (Sb. Akad. Vienna 133 [189Q] Heft 7, pp. 50-51); in T. K. Abbott, Catalogue of the Manuscripts in the Library of Trinity College, Dublin (Dublin 1900) 12; in Livarius Oliger, O.F.M., ‘Regulae tres reclusorum et eremitarum Angliaesaec. XIII-XIV,’ Antonianum 3 (1928) 152-154; in J. G. Smyly (ed.), Urbanus Magnus Danielis Becclesiensis (Dublin 1939) vii-viii.Google Scholar

³² PL 176.881-924.Google Scholar

³³ Ed. Edmond Martene, De antiquis ecclesiae ritibus III (Antwerp 1764) 251-291.Google Scholar

³⁴ Ed. Oliger, Op. cit. (supra n. 31) 170-183; Oliger used the Dublin codex also for his text of some supplementary material offering admonitions of a Robertto a Hugo the Anchorite (ibid. pp. 183-190).Google Scholar

³⁵ PL 176.925-952.Google Scholar

³⁶ Ed. Michele Maccarrone (Thesaurus Mundi 7; Lugano 1955); the codex is mentioned on p. xii.Google Scholar

³⁷ Ed. Smyly, Op. cit. (supra n. 31). Smyly based his edition upon the texts of the Dublin codex, Worcester Cathedral codex F. 47, and Gonville an.d Caius College Cambridge codex 61.Google Scholar

³⁸ This manuscript used by A. C. Friend for his edition, in Mediaeval Studies 16 (1954) 179-218.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

³⁹ Gwynn, Op. cit. (supra n. 30) 31.Google Scholar

⁴⁰ Ibid. 29.Google Scholar

⁴¹ Ed. Smyly, p. 59.Google Scholar

⁴² See ibid. 59 n.Google Scholar

⁴³ See infra n. 45.Google Scholar

⁴⁴ See William O'Sullivan, ‘ Ussher as a Collector of Manuscripts,’ Hermathena 88 (1956) 34-58.Google Scholar

⁴⁵ On the history of St. Thomas’ Abbey, Dublin, see Dugdale, Monasticon (cit. supra n. 12) VI 1140–1141; Mervyn Archdall, Monasticon Hibernicum or a History of the Abbeys, Priories, and Other Religious Houses in Ireland, ed. P. F. Moran, II (Dublin 1876) 30-55; Gwynn, op. cit. (supra n. 30) 1-35; Cottineau, op. cit. (supra n. 12) I 1003.Google Scholar

⁴⁶ On the history of the Abbey of St. Victor, Paris, see Bonnard, Fourier, Histoire de l'abbaye royale et de l'ordre des chanoines réguliers de Saint-Victor in Paris (Paris 1904, 1907). Despite great shortcomings, Bonnard's work still remains the standard history of the abbey: Dumeige (cf. infra in this note) 177 calls the volumes of Bonnard ‘le seul livre qui nous ayons sur l'histoire de Saint-Victor,’ and Chatillon, J. (cf. infra in this note) 142 says that this work ‘vieilli sans doute, et sur beaucoup de points dépassé, reste indispensable.’ On the history of the abbey, see also Luchaire, Achille, Études sur quelques manuscrits de Rome et de Paris (Université de Paris: Bibl. de la Faculté des Lettres 8; Paris 1899) 31-150 (‘Les recueils épistolaires de l'abbaye de Saint-Victor’); Gerhard Laeli*, ‘Aus den Briefsammlungen von St. Victor,’ Festschrift Albert Brackmann, ed. Leo Santifaller (Weimar 1931) 402-413; Cottineau, op. cit. II (1937) 2221–2222; Ott, Ludwig, Untersuchungen zur theologischen Briefliteratur der Frühscholastik unter besonderer Berüchsichtigung des Viktorir^rkreises (Beiträge zur Geschichte der Philosophie und Theologie des Mittelalters 34; Münster i. W. 1937); de Ghellinck, J., S. J., L'essor de la littérature latine au XII^e siècle (2nd ed. Brussels 1954) 50-60; Dickinson, , Origins 78, 85-86, 190-191; Pourrat, P., La spiritualité chrétienne (Paris 1951) 154-159; Dumeige, Gervais, Richard de Saint-Victor et l'idée chrétienne de l'amour (Bibl. de philosophie contemporaine; Paris 1952) 11-35; Smalley, Beryl, The Study of the Bible in the Middle Ages (Oxford 1952) 83-111; Chatillon, J., ‘De Guillaume JL° Cham- peaux à Thomas Gallus: Chronique d'histoire littéraire et doctrinale de l'école de Saint- Victor,’ Revue du moyen âge latin 8 (1952) 139-162, 247-272; Petry, R. C., Late Medieval Mysticism (The Library of Christian Classics 13; Philadelphia 1957) 79; Kirchberger, Clare (trans.), Richard of Saint-Victor, Selected Writings on Contemplation (London 1957) 15-17. Important, largely unpublished (cf. infra nn. 48 and 66), histories of the abbey were written in the seventeenth century by a canon of St. Victor, Jean de Toulouse: Jean's Antiquitatum regal is abbatiae S. Victoris libri XII are preserved in Paris B.N. lat. 14677, 14678, 14375, 14376, and. his Annales abbatiae S. Victoris are preserved in Paris B.N. lat. 14368-14374, 14679, 14680-14683 — see Delisle, L., ‘Inventaire des manuscrits latins de Saint-Victor conservés à la Bibliothèque impériale sous les numéros 14232-15175,’ Bibl.de l'École des Chartes 30 (1869) 10, 38, 39. A catalogue of the manuscript collection in the Abbey of St. Victor was prepared in 1514 by Claude de Grandrue, in two volumes: now MSS B.N. lat. 14767 (listing contents of the books) and 14768 (listing alphabetically the authors; see Delisle, op. cit. 47). I am much indebted to M. Gilbert Ouy, who has examined for me the Grandrue catalogue and reported, by letter of 3 March 1961, that no commentary on the Rule of St. Augustine by Richard of St. Victor is recorded in the catalogue. A small selective list of manuscripts of the abbey was printed by Bernard Montfaucon, O.S.B., in his Bibliotheca bibliothecarum manuscrip- torum noua II (Paris 1739) 1369–1375. After the dissolution of the abbey in 1792, its manuscripts went to the Bibliothèque royale, now the Bibliothèque nationale. An inventory of these codices appears in Delisle, op. cit. pp. 1-79. Lastly may be mentioned a work of ‘Le bibliophile Jaccb’ [Paul Lacroix], Catalogue de la Bibliothèque de l'Abbaye de Saint- Victor au seizième siècle, rédigé par François Rabelais (Paris 1862). But concerning this book Alfred Franklin, Les anciennes bibliothèques de Paris I (Paris 1867) 150, remarks ‘Rabelais s'en est moqué aussi; il a donné un long catalogue d'ouvrages qui y étaient conservés, mais dont il a, à dessein, travesti les titres sous des dénominations équivoques et railleuses.’ A new catalogue of the surviving codices from the Abbey of Saint Victor is now under preparation by Monsieur Ouy.Google Scholar

⁴⁷ On the history of the abbey library of St. Victor, see: Silvestre, A. J., ‘Notice sur l'ancienne bibliothèque de Saint-Victor,’ Revue archéologique 8 (1851) 354–363; Lacroix, op. cit. 3-46 (the serious introduction by Lacroix); Franklin, op. cit. 135-187 and his Histoire de la bibliothèque de l'Abbaye de Saint- Victor à Paris d'après des documents inédits (Paris 1865).Google Scholar

⁴⁸ Consider the lament of Jean de Toulouse, canon of St. Victor in the seventeenth century (cited from his Antiquit. abbat. S. Victoris [cf. supra η. 46] by Lacroix, op. cit. 24 η. 1): ‘Sed uno uerbo uelim omnibus satisfactum fore, si dixero, quod multis notum est, non infrequentes uiros, ab uno saeculo amplius, praetextu dediscendae [szc; leg. discendae] rei nouae familiarem conuersationem cum nostris junxisse, quorum benigno fauore in ipsam bibliothecam frequentius admissi, libros integros, tractatus, opuscula, et caetera huiusmodi sibi grata uisa exsciderunt, transtulerunt, et rapuerunt.’ This laxness in administering the library seems to contrast with the treatment accorded the learned Benedictine Montfaucon, who complains (op. cit. 1375) ‘a Bibliothecario expetii ut Catalogum mihi suum exploran- dum commodaret; uerum dum alii non pauci nec roganti mihi Catalogos suos offerunt, hie suum concedendum esse non censuit.’Google Scholar

⁴⁹ Vincent of Beauvais, Speculum historiale 27.58 (Douai edition [1624] 1116). The passage of Vincent was reprinted by C. E. Bulaeus in his Historia Universitatis Parisiensis II (Paris 1665) 770-771.Google Scholar

⁵⁰ Alberic of Trois-Fontaines, Chronica an. 1156 (MGH SS 23.843).Google Scholar

⁵¹ Henry of Ghent, De illustribus ecclesie scriptoribus 26, ed. J. A. Fabricius, Bibliotheca ecclesiastica (Hamburg 1718) 122.Google Scholar

⁵² The catalogue in the Manipulus florum (completed in 1306) of Thomas de Hibernia is published by Ott, op. cit. (supra n. 46) 562-563.Google Scholar

⁵³ Iohannes Trithemius, De scriptoribus ecclesiasticis 375, ed. Fabricius, op. cit. 95-96.Google Scholar

⁵⁴ John Bale, Scriptorum illustrium maioris Britanniae, quam nunc Angliam et Scotiam uocant, catalogus (Basel 1557), centuria decimaquarta pp. 212-213.Google Scholar

⁵⁵ Cf. Delisle, op. cit. (supra n. 46) 1. The catalogue is published in Ott, op. cit. 563-564.Google Scholar

⁵⁶ Cf. Ott, op. cit. 564.Google Scholar

⁵⁷ Cf. Chatillon, J. and Tulloch, W. J. (edd.), Richard de Saint-Victor, Sermons et opuscules spirituels inédits I: L'édit d'Alexandre ou les trois processions (Bibl. de spiritualité médiévale; Paris 1951) xxiii: ‘les bibliographes du continent, sauf erreur, ne font jamais mention du Super exiit edictum, sans doute, parce qu'ils n'en ont jamais rencontré que des manuscrits anonymes.’Google Scholar

⁵⁸ Mgr. Flavien Hugonin in PL 196.xvii-xxxii.Google Scholar

⁵⁹ Dumeige, op. cit. (supra n. 46) 167-173.Google Scholar

⁶⁰ Fritz, G., ‘Richard de Saint-Victor,’ DThC 13.2 (1937) 2677–2680.Google Scholar

⁶¹ Ottaviano, Carmelo, ‘Riccardo di S. Vittore, la vita, le opere, il pensiero,’ Memorie Accad. Lincei ⁶ 4.5 (1933) 422–446, 534, 539-541.Google Scholar

⁶² Kirchberger, op. cit. (supra n. 46) 257-261.Google Scholar

⁶³ Chatillon, J., op. cit. (supra n. 46) 254-264.Google Scholar

⁶⁴ Chatillon, J. and Tulloch, op. cit. (supra n. 57) ix-xi, xv-xviii.Google Scholar

^64a Current scholarship sees little objection to retaining the traditional attribution of the commentary to Hugo. Baron, Roger, ‘Hugues de Saint-Victor, Est-il l'auteur d'un commentaire de la règle de saint Augustin?’ Revue des sciences religieuses 43 (1955) 342-360, discusses the problem and concludes (p. 360) ‘rien n'oblige, pour l'heure, à nier l'authenticité hugonienne du Commentaire.’ Baron claims (ibid.) that this authorship is ‘solidement probable.’ The same conclusion is expressed by Baron in his ‘Hugues de Saint-Victor: Contribution à un nouvel examen de son œuvre,’ Traditio 15 (1959) 285. Unlike the commentary by Richard, the work attributed to Hugo was immensely popular. Baron lists forty-five manuscripts of Hugo's commentary (Traditio 15.283-284); our Dublinensis would be a forty-sixth.Google Scholar

⁶⁵ On the life and thought of Richard of Saint Victor, see especially: de Toulouse, Jean, Antiquitafes abbatiae S. Victoris 5.55 (PL 196.ix-xiv); Bonnard, op. cit. (supra n. 46) I (1904) 101-106, 108, 110-112, 114-115, 116-119; A. Fonck, ‘Mystique,’ DThC 10.2 (1929) 2613–2618; Ottaviano, op. cit. (supra n. 61) 411-422, 431-538, esp. 533, who indicates the historical documents in support of the chief events of Richard's life; Max Manitius, Gc- ^v schichte der lateinischen Literatur des Mittelalters III (Munich 1931) 118-120; Marcel Leng- lart, La théorie de la contemplation mystique dans l'oeuvre de Richard de Saint- Victor (Paris 1935); Fritz, op. cit. (supra n. 60) 2680–2694; de Ghellinck, op. cit. (supra n. 46) 58-60; J. Chatillon, ‘Autour des Miscellanea attribués à Hugues de Saint-Victor: Note sur la rédaction brève de quelques ouvrages ou opuscules spirituels du prieur Richard,’ Revue d'ascétique et de mystique 25 (1949) 299-305; Pourrat, op. cit. (supra n. 46) 191; J. Chatillon and Tulloch, op. cit. (supra n. 57) viii-ix; Dumeige, op. cit. (supra n. 46) 36-167, esp. 165 listing the historical documents relevant to Richard; Smalley, op. cit. (supra n. 46) 107-111; Kirchberger, op. cit. (supra n. 46) 15-31, 37-47; Petry, op. cit. (supra n. 46) 79-80; Jean Ribaillier (ed.), Richard de Saint-Victor, De Trinitate (Textes philosophiques du moyen âge 6; Paris 1958); John Bligh, S.J., ‘Richard of St. Victor's De Trinitate: Augustinian or Abelardian ? ‘ Heythrop Journal 1 (1960) 118-139; J. N. Garvin, C.S.C., review of Kirchberger (cf. supra n. 46), Speculum 36 (1961) 169-172. Consult also the bibliographies mentioned in notes 59-64 supra. Omitted from these bibliographies is the Polish work: Mieczy- slaw Gogacz, Filozofia bytu w “Beniamin Major” Ryszarda ze Swiçtego Wiktora (Lublin 1957).Google Scholar

⁶⁶ Chatillon, J. and Tulloch, , op. cit. (supra n. 57) vii, declare that Richard is ‘un des fondateurs, en somme, de cette science très particulière à laquelle les siècles suivants devaient donner le nom de théologie mystique.’ J. Chatillon (ed.), Richard de Saint-Victor, Liber Exceptionum (Textes philosophiques du moyen âge 5; Paris 1958) 7, similarly states: ‘Richard de Saint-Victor passe en effet pour être un des fondateurs de ce qu'on appelle parfois le mysticisme spéculatif.’ Pourrat, op. cit. (supra n. 46) 191, says of Richard: ‘Richard est un des écrivains mystiques qui ont donné le plus de détails sur la contemplation et l'extase. ‘Google Scholar

^66a Cf. Éthier, A. M., O.P., Le ‘De Trinitate’ de Richard de Saint-Victor (Publications de l'Institut d'études médiévales d'Ottawa 9; Paris and Ottawa 1939) 7 η. 1 (‘Les renseignements biographiques sur notre auteur sont assez sommaires’) and Chatillon, J., op. cit. (supra n. 46) 254 (‘Sa carrière sans doute est bien mal connue’).Google Scholar

⁶⁷ The collected works of Richard of Saint Victor may be found in PL 196.1-1366. For bibliographies of Richard's writings with indication of editions, consult the references cited in footnotes 59-64 supra and see supra n. 65.Google Scholar

⁶⁸ See supra η. 65.Google Scholar

⁶⁹ Sister Penelope, op. cit. (supra n. 1) viii-ix.Google Scholar

⁷⁰ See the description of the Emmanuel College manuscript of Robert's commentary on the Epistles of St. Paul in M. R. James, The Western Manuscripts in the Library of Emmanuel College (Cambridge 1904) 5.Google Scholar

⁷¹ On the invention of sources see Friedrich Wilhelm, ‘Antike und Mittelalter I: Ueber fabulistische Quellenangaben,’ Beiträge zur Geschichte der deutschen Sprache und Literatur 33 (1908) 286-339, esp. 289-305. See also Margrit Koch, Sankt Fridolin und sein Biograph Balther (Geist und Werk der Zeiten 3; Zürich 1959) 25-26.Google Scholar

^71a To be sure, Jocelin of Brakelond, in introducing his excursus about Henry of Essex, says ‘iuxta preceptum Senece quicquid ab aliquo bene dictum est, mihi inpresumptuose ascribo’ (Chronica de rebus gestis Samsonis abbatis monasterii sancti Edmundi, ed. H. E. Butler [Medieval Classics; New York 1949] 68) — Jocelin here echoes Seneca's celebrated remark ‘Quod uerum est meum est’ (Ep. 12.11). Yet Jocelin (loc. cit.) clearly names his source, his namesake Jocelin ‘eleinosinarius noster. ‘Google Scholar

⁷² Bridl. prol. (pp. 12-14).Google Scholar

⁷³ Eusebius, Historic/, ecclesiastica 2.15 trans. Rufinus, ed. Baehrens, GCS: Eusebius 2.1 (Leipzig 1903) 141.11-13.Google Scholar

⁷⁴ Cf. Terence, Eunuchus 41 (quoted by St. Jerome, Comm. in Eccles. 1 [PI 23.1019]).Google Scholar

^74a The problem of which manuscript of the Dialogue is more closely related to the Ques- tiones is taken up in Appendix II to the present paper.Google Scholar

⁷⁵ On Ervisius and. the troubles of the Abbey of Saint Victor under him, see: Jean de Toulouse, Antiquitates abbatiae S. Victoris 5.55 (PL 196. ix-xii); Bonnard, op. cit. (supra n. 46) I (1904) 213-245; Fritz, op. cit. (supra n. 60) 2676; J. Chatillon and Tulloch, op. cit. (supra n. 57) xxxvi-xxxix; Kirchberger, op. cit. (supra n. 46) 19-20. According to Jean de Toulouse, op. cit. ix-x, Pope Alexander III once complained of Ervisius ‘uelut alter Caesar contra statuta ordinis omnia suo nutu ordinat et disponit.’Google Scholar

^75a On the monastery of St. Albans see: Dugdale, Monasticon (cit. supra n. 12) II (1819) 178-255; L. F. R. Williams, History of the Abbey of St. Alban (London 1917); Cottineau, op. cit. (supra n. 12) II (1937) 2578–2579; Knowles and Hadcock, op. cit. (supra n. 12) 75.Google Scholar

⁷⁶ On this Simon of St. Albans see: Gesta abbatum monasterii sancti Albani, ed. H. T. Riley, I (Rolls series; 1867) 165, 183-194, 265; Dugdale, op. cit. (supra n. 12) II (1819) 187; Williams, op. cit. (supra n. 75a) 78-82; Ott, op. cit. (supra n. 46) 555; Kirchberger, op. cit. (supra n. 46) 19.Google Scholar

⁷⁷ Gesta abbatum monasterii sancti Albani, ed. cit. I J83.Google Scholar

⁷⁸ Ibid. 184.Google Scholar

⁷⁹ Ibid. 192.Google Scholar

⁸⁰ PL 196.1228–1229.Google Scholar

⁸¹ See ibid. 1227–1228, 1230.Google Scholar

⁸² Ibid. 1230.Google Scholar

⁸³ Ibid. Google Scholar

⁸⁴ A. Wilmart, ‘Les homélies attribuées à S. Anselme,’ Archives d'histoire doctrinale et littéraire du moyen âge 2 (1927) 28: ‘On déplore qu'aucun catalogue de la bibliothèque de saint-Albans, dont les volumes se trouvent maintenant éparillés en diverses séries, ne soit venu jusqu'à nous.’Google Scholar

⁸⁵ Gesta abbatum monasterii sancti Albani, ed. cit. (supra n. 76) I 58, 94, 184, 233-234, 483 and II (1867) 201, 363; Annales monasterii s. Albani, ed. H. T. Riley, II (Rolls series; 1871) 268-271.Google Scholar

⁸⁶ James, M. R., A Descriptive Catalogue of the Manuscripts in the Library of Lambeth Palace (Cambridge 1932) 580. James dates the script of the manuscript-list of codices as late thirteenth century with a query.Google Scholar

⁸⁷ John Leland, De rebus Britannicis collectanea IV (London 1770) 163.Google Scholar

⁸⁸ Ker, op. cit. (supra n. 12) 93-95.Google Scholar

⁸⁹ Ibid. 95.Google Scholar

⁹⁰ Dickinson, Origins 133 n. 3. On the relationship between the Abbey of St. Victor and England, see ibid. 74-79, 86-89, 284-285; Bonnard, op. cit. (supra n. 46) I (1904) 116-117; Ott, op. cit. (supra n. 46) 549-557; Kirchberger, op. cit. (supra n. 46) 18-19. On the influence in turn of English regular canons on the continent, see Dickinson, ‘English Regular Canons and the Continent in the Twelfth Century,’ Transactions of the Royal Historical Society⁵ 1 (1951) 71-89. Although not a few daughter-houses of the Abbey of St. Victor were in the area of Somerset, no commentary on the Rule of St. Augustine by Richard of Saint Victor is listed among the inventories within T. W. Williams, Somerset Mediaeval Libraries and Miscellaneous Notices of Books in Somerset Prior to the Dissolution of the Monasteries (London 1898).Google Scholar

⁹¹ I do not wish to enter into a discussion, or to give an exhaustive bibliography, on the history or textual problems of the Augustinian Rule(s), especially since important studies in this field are currently in progress and it is expected that the investigations of such scholars as Melchior Verheijen, O.S.Α., and Winfrid Hümpfner, Ο.S.Α., will solve many perplexing problems (cf. Sister Penelope, op. cit. [supra n. 1] xii, xiii). However, persons interested in the history of the Augustinian Rule(s) and in the history of the canons regular will find the following works of particular benefit: A. C. Vega, O.S.Α., (ed.), La regia de san Augustin (El Escorial 1933) 5-41; Pierre Mandonnet, O.P., Saint Dominique (Paris 1938) II 107-162; Ε. A. Foran, O.S.Α., The Augustinians from St. Augustine to the Union, 1256 (London 1938) esp. pp. 169-175; Aubrey Gwynn, S.J., The English Austin Friars in the Time of Wyclif (Oxford and London 1940) esp. pp. 1-12; Charles Dereine, S.J., ‘Vie commune, Règle de saint Augustin et chanoines réguliers au xi^e siècle,’ Revue d'histoire ecclésiastique 41 (1946) 365-406; Winfrid Hümpfner and Adolar Zumkeller, O.S.Α., ‘Augustinus,’ in Die grossen Ordensregeln, ed. H. Urs von Balthasar (Einsiedeln 1948) 99-133; C. Dereine, S.J., ‘Enquête sur la règle de saint Augustin,’ Scriptorium 2 (1948) 28-36; Dickinson, Origins, esp. pp. 54-58, 62-72, 163-166, 173, 177, 178, 180-183, 193-194, 255-272 — Dickinson gives a useful bibliography of works on the Augustinian Rule on p. 255 f. n. 2; Adolar Zumkeller, Das Mönchtum des heiligen Augustinus (Würzburg 1950), esp. pp. 215-230; M. Verheijen, Ο.S.Α., ‘Les manuscrits de la lettre ccxi de saint Augustin,’ Revue du moyen âge latin 8 (1952) 97-122; F. Chatillon, ‘ Etiam … (Animadversiones Augustinianae),’ Revue du moyen âge latin 9 (1953) 307-327; Alois van Ette, Les chanoines réguliers de saint Augustin: aperçu historique (Cholet 1953); M. Verheijen, ‘The Rule and the Order,’ The Tagastan 21 (1959) 69-78.Google Scholar

⁹² See supra n. 28Google Scholar

⁹³ See supra n. 46.Google Scholar

⁹⁴ Chatillon, J. and Tulloch, op. cit. (supra n. 57) vii.Google Scholar

⁹⁵ In the critical apparatus to my edition of the Questiones, I designate the Dublin manuscript as T, and, following the recent editor of the Bridlington Dialogue, I refer to the Bodleian and Durham manuscripts of the Dialogue as Β and D respectively.Google Scholar