¹ Edited and translated, together with Bede's prose vita, in Colgrave, B., Two ‘Lives’ of Saint Cuthbert (Cambridge, 1940), pp. 60–138, with notes at pp. 310–40Google Scholar. For its context and interpretation, see especially the contributions of J. Campbell (‘Elements in the Background to the Life of St. Cuthbert and his Early Cult’) and Stancliffe, C. (‘Cuthbert and the Polarity between Pastor and Solitary’) to St. Cuthbert, bis Cult and his Community, to AD 1200, ed. Bonner, G., Rollason, D. and Stancliffe, C. (Woodbridge, 1989), pp. 3–19 and 21–44.Google Scholar

² For the Saint-Vaast manuscript, see below, p. 107, n. 6. The evidence of glosses to copies of Bede's prose Vita S. Cuthberti in English books of the tenth and later centuries for an earlier, Northumbrian, manuscript of the Anonymous Life that has not survived is considered below, pp. 120–2.

³ The unsatisfactory nature of the Bollandists' text (Acta Sanctorum Martii III (Antwerp, 1668), 117–24)Google Scholar may explain why Plummer included very few, but always apposite, references to it in his notes on Bede's account of Cuthbert in the Historia ecclesiastica (Plummer, C., Venerabilis Baedae Opera Historica, 2 vols. (Oxford, 1896) II, 265–71)Google Scholar. Compare the characteristically oblique remarks of Wallace-Hadrill, J. M., ‘Bede and Plummer’ (1973), repr. in his Bede's ‘Ecclesiastical History of the English People’: a Historical Commentary [hereafter Historical Commentary] (Oxford, 1988), pp. xxxii–xxxiiiGoogle Scholar: Plummer had (he observes) noted both the Anonymous's and Bede's debt to Sulpicius Severus's Vita S. Martini, although ‘whether directly or indirectly I am uncertain … There is so much of Sulpicius in Venantius’ Life of St. Martin that it may be from Venantius that the material was derived (my italics); and compare Historical Commentary, p. 170Google Scholar. At least with regard to the Anonymous, that uncertainty would surely have been dispelled by a simple comparison of the two texts. Venantius's Life is in verse with a distinctive proem and makes no use of Sulpicius's prefatory ‘Ch. 1’, the Anonymous's second preface is until its last sentence taken verbatim from Sulpicius; see further Thacker, A., ‘Lindisfarne and the Origins of the Cult of St Cuthbert’, St. Cuthbert, ed. Bonner, et al. , pp. 103–22, esp. 110–12Google Scholar. Conversely and surprisingly, there is no clear evidence that Bede, who used both Paulinus of Périgueux and Venantius in the composition of his Vita metrica, was familiar at first-hand with Sulpicius's Vita: Thacker, , ‘Lindisfarne and the Origins of the Cult of St Cuthbert’, p. 118.Google Scholar I have not seen Newlands, C. E., ‘Bede and Images of Saint Cuthbert’, Traditio 52 (1997), 73–109.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

⁴ , Colgrave, Two Lives, pp. 43–5Google Scholar, cf. pp. 16–20. The earlier Legendary is that in London, British Library, Harley 2800–2 (H), Brussels, Bibliothèque Royale, 207–8 (3132) (B) and - a late (fourteenth-century) and incomplete copy - Paris, Bibliothèque Nationale, lat. 5289 (P). The first of these is not merely from the Premonstratensian house at Arnstein (Lahn) but was evidently written there. Its similarities in both script and decoration with the ‘Arnstein Bible’ (London, BL, Harley2798 and 2799Google Scholar) and the Arnstein copy of Maurus's, HrabanusDe Laudibus Sanctae Crucis (BL, Harley3045Google Scholar, in which the late-twelfth-century Arnstein library catalogue was added on fols. 48v–49r) argue that this earliest testimony to the Trier Legendary is a full generation older than Levison (Levison, W., ‘Conspectus codicum hagiographicorum’, Passiones Vitaeque Sanctorum Aevi Merovingici, ed. Krusch, B. and Levison, W., MGH SS rer. Merov. 7 (Hanover, 1920), 529–706, at 537Google Scholar) and Colgrave supposed: see Schilling, R., ‘Studien zur deutschen Goldschmiedekunst des 12. u. 13.Jhts.’, Form und Inhalt, Kunstgeschichtliche Studien Otto Schmitt zum 60. Geburtstag dargebracht, ed. Wentzel, H. (Stuttgart, 1950), pp. 73–88, esp. 76–80Google Scholar; Turner, D. H., Romanesque Illuminated Manuscripts (London, 1966), pp. 17–18Google Scholar, with colour pl. IV and pl. 9; Köllner, H., ‘Ein Annalen-Fragment u. die Datierung der Arnsteiner Bibel in London’, Scriptorium 26 (1972), 34–50CrossRefGoogle Scholar (without reference to Turner). The Brussels copy has been connected on very tenuous grounds with another Premonstratensian house, Knechtsteden (nr Neuss); but there is no doubt that its late-medieval home was the Carthusian house (S. Barbara) at Cologne. The February-April portion of the later legendary (for St Maximin, Trier) is Trier, Stadtbibliothek, 1151/453 vol. I (Colgrave's T). For a possible provenance of the Trier text of the Vita Cuthberti, see below, p. 110, n. 18.

⁵ Two Lives, p. 45Google Scholar. It will be argued below that the manuscripts O₁ A and O₂ (Saint-Omer 715: s. xii) are further removed from the archetype than Colgrave thought, although they descend from a common hyparchetype.

⁶ Saint-Omer 267: there is no satisfactory modern account of this manuscript, and I rely on Colgrave's summary description and two bad photographs; the scribe of the Vita consistently uses ‘crossed d’, ‘wyn’ etc. Arras 1029: Gneuss, H., ‘A Preliminary List of Manuscripts Written or Owned in England up to 1100’, ASE 9 (1981), 1–60, no. 781Google Scholar, where it is dated ‘x ex, xi in. Bath?’; similarly Lapidge, M., ‘Surviving Booklists from Anglo-Saxon England’, Learning and Literature in Anglo-Saxon England: Studies presented to Peter Clemoes on the Occasion of his Sixty-Fifth Birthday, ed. Lapidge, M. and Gneuss, H. (Cambridge, 1985), pp. 33–89, at p. 61Google Scholar; but see now Dumville, D., English Caroline Script and Monastic History (Woodbridge, 1993), p. 147Google Scholar, where (n. 39) reference is made to M. Winterbottom's unpublished work on the manuscripts of the Vita Dunstani by ‘B.’. It is no. 19 in the record of Sæwold's donation in Arras, Bibliothèque Municipale, 849 (539), ed Lapidge, , ‘Surviving Booklists’, pp. 59–60.Google Scholar

⁷ Halm, C. et al. , Catalogus Codicum manuscriptorum Bibliothecae Regiae Monacensis IV.3 (Munich, 1878), 36Google Scholar. Beeson, C. H., Isidor-Studien, Quellen und Untersuchungen zur lateinischen Philologie des Mittelalters, IV.2 (Munich, 1913), 56, refers to it for its text of Isidore's Synonyma and correctly dates it ‘s.ix’, but unfortunately misprints the subject of the Vita as S. Audbercti!Google Scholar

⁸ Bischoff, B., Die Südostdeutschen Schreibschulen und Bibliotheken in der Karolingerzeit, 2 vols, [hereafter Bischoff, Schreibschulen] (Wiesbaden, 1974–1980) I, 141 (no. 118).Google Scholar

⁹ The only other reported ninth-century copy of the two works in conjunction is a dismembered and defective Florus of Lyons book, Lyons, Bibliothèque de la Ville, 788, fols. 67–74 and 603, 1r-v, possibly from the same exemplar (late antique? or early Carolingian?); and Benedict of Aniane quoted De pastoribus extensively, in both his Concordia and the 816 Aachen Council acta, from a copy belonging to the same textual tradition. The same sermo in a different textual tradition is the opening item of a collection of Augustine's shorter writings in the Maurdramnusscript Corbie book, Paris, Bibliothèque Nationale, lat. 12210. For all this, see Lambot, C., ‘Le sermon XLVI de Saint Augustin: De Pastoribus’, RB 63 (1953), 165–210, esp. 166–9Google Scholar (accepting the erroneous tenth-century dating of M). Augustine's major and minor works on baptism are in Salzburg, St Peter Stiftsbibliothek, a VIII 29 and in Munich, Bayerische Staatsbibliothek, Clm. 15814, for which see Bischoff, , Schreibschulen II, 141–3 (nos. 119 and 121).Google Scholar

¹⁰ The collection of material for the Mittellateinisches Wörterbuch at Munich includes no Carolingian-period example of actus used in this way: although Einhard's preface to his Vita Karoli famously has vix imitabiles actus, which even if it is (as Beumann supposed) an echo of Sulpicius's Vita Martini ch. 1 is not a quotation from it - the phrase in question reading ne is latent qui esset imitandus.

¹¹ Bischoff, , Schreibschulen II, 141.Google Scholar

¹² , Vienna, Österreichische Nationalbibliothek, lat. 795Google Scholar, of which there is a complete facsimile under the title of Alkuin-Briefe und andere Traktate, with Introduction by Unterkircher, F., Codices Selecti 20 (Graz, 1969)Google Scholar. Examples of careless copying are Epistolae Karolini Aevi II, ed. Dümmler, E., MGH Epist. 4 (Berlin, 1895), 60, 61, 63, 64, 167–9, 171 etc.: apparatus with siglum S.Google Scholar

¹³ Bullough, D. A., ‘What has Ingeld to do with Lindisfarne?’, ASE 22 (1994), 93–125, at 96Google Scholar and n. 12, and for the manuscript, below, p. 129. See also below (p. 130) for the autograph ‘Cutbercht’ of a late-eighth-century Salzburg-area scribe.

¹⁴ For a collation of M, see the Appendix. I gratefully acknowledge the ready help of the Bayerische Staatsbibliothek in making the manuscript available for study and subsequendy supplying photographs.

¹⁵ Colgrave, in fact, not infrequently rejected the testimony of O₁ where he assumed - apparently - that it was due to scribal miscopying (or morphological error), as exspecta-, planiciem, electioni, pussilla (Vita II.3, Two Lives p. 80Google Scholar: the reading of both O₁, and A). The differences between the Larinity of the two Vita-authors are obscured in a contrary sense by Colgrave's preference for the evidence of twelfth-century manuscripts of Bede's Vita over the earliest group, on which his edition should have been based: see below, p. 120, n. 58. For the orthography of the Historia ecclesiastica, compare 111–12 and 113, n. 28, below.

¹⁶ For the former, see Adomnán's Life of Columba, ed. A. O. and Anderson, M. O., rev. Anderson, M. O. (Oxford, 1991)Google Scholar and Picard, J.-M., ‘The Schaffhausen Adomnán - a Unique Witness to Hiberno-Latin’, Peritia 1 (1982), 216–49CrossRefGoogle Scholar; for the latter (London, BL, Cotton Nero D. iv), see the facsimile edition Evangeliorum quattuor codex Lindisfarnensis ed. Kendrick, T. D., Brown, T. J. et al. (Olten and Lausanne, 1960)Google Scholar. See also Ludwig Bieler's remarks in Adamnan's ‘De Locis Sanctis’, ed. Meehan, D., Scriptores Latini Hiberniae 3 (Dublin, 1958), 33–4Google Scholar and the ‘Index Orthographicus’, pp. 124–6.Google Scholar

¹⁷ Examples are remis- in Mark III.29, Luke I.77, Luke III.3; ungere (which has, however, CILat. precedents) in Matt. VI.15, Mark VI. 13, XIV. 8 etc.; discendisset in Matt. VIII. 1 etc.; also gravatum for grabattum in Mark II.4 and 9, withwhich compare the Historia ecclesiastica spellings reported in n. 23.

¹⁸ Wilhelm Levison showed (‘Conspectus codicum hagiographicorum’, Passiones Vitaeque Sanctorum, ed. Krusch, B. and Levison, W., MGH SS rer. Merov., 7 (Hanover, 1920), 535–8)Google Scholar that among the sources of the two Trier Legendaries - but used by them independendy - was a version of the (Carolingian-period) ‘Salzburg Legendary’, the earliest form or nucleus of which is Vienna, Österreichisches Nationalbibliothek, 420 (Lowe, E. A., Codices Latini Antiquiores [hereafter CLA], X (Oxford, 1963)Google Scholar, no. 1479), written c. 800 at Saint-Amand (north east France) but very quickly taken to Salzburg (so Bischoff, , Schreibschulen II, 121–2 (no. 80)).Google Scholar Might the Vita S. Cuthberti have been among the additional texts included in that version (together with, for example, Alcuin's Lives of Vedastus and Richarius)? On the other hand, the Cuthbert Vita in the slightly later ‘Great Austrian Legendary’ (which also used the ‘Salzburg Legendary’), this part in Heiligenkreuz, Stiftsbibliothek, 11, of s.xii^ex, is said to be extracted from Bede's Historia ecclesiastica: Riain-Raedel, D. Ó, ‘Edith, Judith, Matilda: the Role of Royal Ladies in the Propagation of a Continental Cult’, Oswald, Northumbrian King to European Saint, ed. Stancliffe, C. and Cambridge, E. (Stamford, 1995), pp. 210–29, at 226Google Scholar. (Professor Robert Bartlett kindly directed me to this book.)

¹⁹ Norberg, D., Manuel pratique de latin mediéval, Connaissance des Langues (Paris, 1968), pp. 124, 127 and 145–6.Google Scholar Cf. the Vita's nesciebat etiam nec intellegens (so O₁, A) in II.7 (Two Lives, p. 92Google Scholar), which later copyists changed to intelitgebat or intellexit.

²⁰ Adomnán's ‘De Locis Sanctis’, ed. Meehan, , p. 98.Google Scholar

²¹ Adomnán's Life of Columba, ed. Anderson, and Anderson, , pp. 112, 104 and 102.Google Scholar

²² It is not even acknowledged in the most recent extended discussions of b/v in Vulgar and ‘Hibernian’ Latin, such as Löfstedt, B., Studien über die Sprache der langobardischen Gesetze (Stockholm, 1961), pp. 149–59Google Scholar and , Picard, ‘Schafthausen Adomnán’, pp. 238–9Google Scholar. For the (supposed) chronology of the ‘collapsing’ of intervocalic b/v compare Gratwick, A., ‘Latinitas Britannica: was British Latin Archaic?’, Latin and the Vernacular Languages in Early Medieval Britain, ed. Brooks, N., Stud, in the Early Hist, of Britain 1 (Leicester, 1982), 1–79, esp. 17–32 and 75Google Scholar, with the severe critique by McManus, D., ‘Linguarum Diversitar. Latin and the Vernaculars in Early Medieval Britain’, Peritia 3 (1984), 151–88, at 165–74.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

²³ See the complete facsimiles of the two manuscripts, The Leningrad Bede, ed. Arngart, O., EEMF 2 (Copenhagen, 1952)Google Scholar, and The Moore Bede, ed. Blair, P. Hunter, EEMF 9 (Copenhagen, 1959).Google Scholar The ‘Moore manuscript’, M, has many more ‘Hibernicisms’ or Vulgarisms than the St Petersburg manuscript, L, although confusion of a and u is much more common in the latter; and both have (for example) singling of -ii and gemination of consonants, if not often in the same place in the text! Both Plummer's and Colgrave and Mynors' editions of HE follow the ‘m-text’, which both those manuscripts transmit: but while Plummer sometimes (and very inconsistently) printed ‘Hibernicisms’ occurring in M, the Colgrave-Mynors text (apparently; the ‘Textual Introduction’ offers no guidance) often but by no means always admits ‘Hibernicisms’ found in L. Thus in HE 1.14 and 15 (ed. Plummer, 1, 30–1Google Scholar; ed. , Colgrave and Mynors, , pp. 46–52Google Scholar) Plummer has acerba, improbos, Cantuarii, Colgrave-Mynors acerva (the reading not only of L but also of M, C and N (Namur, Bibliothèque Communale, Fonds de la Ville 11)), inprobos, Cantuari (the reading of both L and M); in 1.21 (ed. Plummer, 1, 40Google Scholar; ed. Colgrave, and Mynors, , p. 66Google Scholar) Plummer and Colgrave-Mynors alike print curvatum, although both L and M have curbatum, in V.19 (ed. Plummer, I, 328Google Scholar; ed. Colgrave, and Mynors, , p. 526Google Scholar) Plummer prints grabato (gravato M), Colgrave-Mynors grabatto (so L). See further below, p. 113, n. 28.

²⁴ Passiones Vitaeque Sanctorum Aevi Merovingici, ed. Krusch, B., MGH SS rer. Merov. 3 (Hanover, 1896), 300Google Scholar. For the manuscript, see Bischoff, , Schreibschulen II, 121–2 (no. 79).Google Scholar

²⁵ Beda: De Orthographia, ed. Jones, C. W., CCSL 123A (Turnhout, 1975), 12Google Scholar; but compare Dionisotti, A. C., ‘On Bede, Grammars, and Greek’, RB 92 (1982), 111–41, at 121Google Scholar; Alcuin, De orthographia versio II, Saint-Amand/Salzburg text (!) in Vienna 795, fol. 6.

²⁶ Ed. Plummer, I., 48–62Google Scholar; ed. Colgrave, and Mynors, , pp. 78–102.Google Scholar

²⁷ Adomnán's Life of Columba, ed. Anderson, , p. 110.Google Scholar

²⁸ The claim implicit in Picard's comments in ‘Schaffhausen Adomnán’, p. 229Google Scholar, n. 9, that this was also Bede's normal orthography (and similarly anchoretica al. -iticae and anchoritae) is probably mistaken: in HE V.28 and 29, the ‘Moore Bede’ has these spellings, duly adopted by Plummer; but ‘the Leningrad Bede’, now generally accepted as a Wearmouth-Jarrow book written only a few years after Bede's death, has (as Colgrave, and Mynors, print at pp. 326 and 434Google Scholar) anachoretica(e) and anachoritae.

²⁹ Bede's account of the same episode (Vita (pr.) ch. 10: ed. Colgrave, , Two Lives, p. 188Google Scholar) does not help with the textual problem direcdy, but his rephrasing is very instructive: favouring life-long virginity and perhaps indicating reservations about ‘double monasteries’, he characterizes Æbba as sanctimonialis FEMINA et mater ancillarum Christi nomine. In his account of the decline and destruction of Coldingham in HE IV. 26, however, she is mater congregations.

³⁰ Colgrave's translation of IV.9's orationem inter eos frequentatam renovavit as ‘renewed their frequent prayers together’ is hardly correct. Oratio frequentata is ‘prayer performed (said) in common’ or ‘prayer said over and over again’: the sense of the phrase is therefore that the two men ‘resumed the practice of praying (al. repeating prayers) together’.

³¹ Vita, ed. Colgrave, , pp. 84 and 321Google Scholar. For the sermon, see below, p. 115, n. 36.

³² As, for instance, in Cummian's De controversia paschali, ed. Walsh, M. and Cróinín, D. Ó, Stud, and Texts 86 (Toronto, 1988), 74, 80 etc.Google Scholar; in the authentic text of Bede's Vita (pr.) Cuthberti (below, p. 120 and n. 58); and consistently in Alcuin's letters (Epistolae Karolini Aevi, ed. Dümmler, , nos. 19, 100, 111Google Scholar etc., although the evidence is to be found more often in the apparatus than in the text).

³³ See further Lenker, U., Die westsächsischen Evangelienversion und die Perikopenordnungen im angelsächsis chen England, Münchener Universitäts-Schriften, Texte und Untersuchungen zur Englischen Philologie 20 (Munich, 1997Google Scholar) (which became available too late for me to take account of it in the text), esp. 301–2. In some Carolingian lectionaries (e.g. that accompanying the ‘Lorsch Gospels’: Vatican City, Biblioteca Apostolica Vaticana, Vat. lat. 50, 116r–124v) this pericope was the one to be read on the Octave of Epiphany, and Bede's homily was correspondingly prescribed for that day in office-homiliaries.

³⁴ The Gallican/Visigothic evidence is best summarized, with key references, by Frank, H., art. ‘Epiphanie (III. In der Liturgie)’, Lexikon für Theologie und Kirche, 2nd ed., 3 (Freiburg, 1959), 941–4Google Scholar; but compare also Frank, , ‘Die Vorrangstellung der Taufe Jesu in der altmailändischen Epiphanieliturgie und die Frage nach dem Dichter des Epiphaniehymnus Inluminans Altissimus’, Archiv für Liturgieiwissenschaft 13 (1971), 115–32.Google Scholar The principal evidence from Ireland is an incompletely preserved mid-seventh-century sacramentary: Das irische Palimpsestsakramentar im clm. 14429 der Staatsbibliothek München, ed. Dold, A. and Eizenhöfer, L., Texte und Arbeiten der Erzabtei Beuron 53/54 (Beuron, 1964), 51–7Google Scholar (texts and editors' notes).

³⁵ As Mayr-Harting, H. has rightly commented (The Coming of Christianity to Anglo-Saxon England, 3rd ed. (London, 1991), p. 164): ‘where we are ignorant about the religious practices of the Irish monasteries in Northumbria, it is not to be assumed that they were in every way busy Romanizing themselves after the Synod of Whitby’Google Scholar. Cf. Bede's assertion in his Vita (pr.) ch. 16 (ed. Colgrave, , p. 210)Google Scholar, which has no precise counterpart in Vita anon. III.1 (ed. Colgrave, , pp. 94–6)Google Scholar, that Erant autem quidam in monasterio fratres qui priscae suae consuetudini quam regulari mallent obtemperare custodie: and, for the continuing use of the ‘Gallican’ psalter-version, below, p. 116, n. 39.

³⁶ The pseudo-Augustinian sermo no. 136 (Clavis Patristica Pseudepigraphorum Medii Aevi 1, ed. Machielsen, J. (Turnhout, 1990)Google Scholar, no. 921) is ptd PL 39, cols. 2013–15. Other sermons in circulation before 800 are seemingly dependent on it or on a common source; and either one of these or the pseudo-Augustine sermon itself is evidently among the sources of the proper missa, inc. ‘Deus qui nobis ad relevandos’, in the Visigothic (‘Mozarabic’) sacramentary: Le Liber Mozarabicus Sacramentorum, ed. Férotin, M., Monumenta Ecclesiae Liturgicae 6 (Paris, 1912), cols. 87–8Google Scholar. The manuscript transmission of sermo no. 136 depends on two overlapping collections, both probably put together by Caesarius of Arles, the so-called collectio Germanica in Munich, Bayerische Staatsbibliothek, Clm. 6298 etc., and the collectio Gallicana: for the latter, see Étaix, R., ‘Nouvelle collection de sermons rassemblée par Saint Césaire’, RB 87 (1977), 7–32Google Scholar, this sermon no. 36 (at 13); but unlike the preceding Epiphany sermon (which does not refer to the feeding of the five thousand) it seems not to be credited to Augustine in the manuscripts. The precise wording of the Vita's characterization of Epiphany is indeed closer to the extant liturgical texts than to any published sermon: compare, e.g., Spiritus sanctus in specie (as Luke III.21 but not the other Vulgate Gospels) columbe ‥ descendit with lines 29–30 of the missa, Le Liber Mozarabicus, ed. Férotin, , col. 87Google Scholar; and in eodem quoque die with in hac quoque die (twice) in the Irish sacramentary immolatio missae for the feast, Das irische Palimpsestsakramentar, ed. Dold, and Eizenhöfer, , pp. 56 and 57Google Scholar. But while the Visigothic inlatio (Le Liber Mozarabicus, ed. Férotin, , col. 89Google Scholar lines 34–5), specifies the fishes in the form pisce geminato, in other respects the Vita's additional clause is closer to the sermon's de quinque panibus quinque millia hominum satiavit: and here the Agustino testante makes a liturgical origin unlikely.

³⁷ The Anonymous's ut impleatur prophetae dictum is abnormal but not unparalleled: had he perhaps misremembered the source of the tag?

³⁸ Colgrave correctly reports that et is the reading here of the three ‘Trier’ manuscripts.

³⁹ In Vita Cuthberti I.6, foeni (-ae-) textorum is the Ga(llicanum) reading of PS. CXXVIII.6, where the Ro(manum) and all other pre-Vulgate Psalters, except Verona, Biblioteca Capitolare, I, have aedificiorum. (The indirect quotations in Vita S. Cuthberti I.6 and III.2 are inconclusive.) The lemmata of the eighth-century Psalter commentary from an unidentified ?‘Columban’ church in Northumbria, Vatican City, Biblioteca Apostolica Vaticana, Pal. lat. 68 (CLA I, 78) are overwhelmingly Gallican: see McNamara, M., Glossa in Psalmos: the Hiberno-Latin Gloss on the Psalms of Codex Palatinus Latinus 68, Studi e Testi 310 (1986).Google Scholar Paul Meyvaert has drawn attention to a possible link between the commentary's exegesis of PS. CXLVIII and the iconography of the Ruthwell Cross: The Ruthwell Cross, ed. Cassidy, B. (Princeton, NJ, 1992), at pp. 128–9.Google Scholar By contrast, when Bede produced his own prose version of the vita, he included at least fifteen quotations from the Psalter; and although some of them are only two or three words, and many are ones where the Ga. and Ro. versions are identical, several short phrases or individual words (e.g. in ch. 12 Vita Cuthberti, ed. Colgrave, , p. 196Google Scholar: Ps. XXXIX.5 spes eius and in sanias) and two long quotations in particular - PS. XXXIII.18 and 19 in ch. 5: Ps. CXIII.8 and 9 in ch. 18 (ed. Colgrave, , pp. 170 and 218Google Scholar) - show clearly Bede's dependence on a psalterium Romanum. The account of Bede's Bible citations in Colgrave, Two Lives, p. 57Google Scholar, is unfortunately confused and misleading, and the italicization of his text is frequently erroneous.

⁴⁰ Cox, B., ‘The Place-Names of the Earliest English Records’, JEPNS 8 (1975–1976), 12–66.Google Scholar For names in the Vita (and for those in Bede's vita prosaica likewise), Cox relied exclusively on Colgrave's text, without reference to manuscript variants.

⁴¹ Note that (contra Cox, ibid. p. 42) Ripon's early spellings with Hryp- or Hrip- include Bede's prose Vita S. Cuthberti, i.e. in the earliest and most trustworthy manuscripts. The in Ripum spelling is that of twelfth-century and later manuscripts: cf. the apparatus to Colgrave's, edition, Two Lives, P. 175Google Scholar

⁴² Jackson, K., Language and History in Early Britain (Edinburgh, 1953), pp. 326–7Google Scholar, explained the spelling Mailros (cited from Bede, not from the Lindisfarne vita) as a ‘Hibernicisation’ of the Primitive Welsh toponym: ‘the Irish monks substituted their own, cognate, mail, “bald”, for Pr.W. *mel’; it has to be said, however, that there is no independent evidence that the seventh-century community was ever one of Irish-origin monks. There is still no satisfactory discussion of Niuduera, which must surely be located in Fife or Angus.

⁴³ Smith, A. H., English Place-Name Elements, 2 pts, EPNS 25–6 (London, 1956) I, 85–7Google Scholar; Campbell, J., ‘Bede's Words for Places’, in his Essays in Anglo-Saxon History (London, 1986), pp. 99–120, esp. 99–101 and 116–17Google Scholar. For the first element, from a Romano-British Con-cang-, see Rivet, A. L. F. and Smith, C., The Place-Names of Roman Britain (London, 1979), p. 314Google Scholar. The entry in Ekwall's, E.Concise Oxford Dictionary of English Place-Names, 4th ed. (Oxford, 1960), p. 101Google Scholar, has given the misleading impression that Cunceceastre etc. is not documented before the midtenth/early-eleventh-century Historia de sancto Cuthberto (in Symeonis Monachi Opera Omnia, ed. Arnold, T., 2 vols., RS (London, 1882–1885) I, 208, 210).Google Scholar

⁴⁴ There is now sufficient evidence that the monastic burh familiar to Cuthbert and Coldingham were two different but adjacent sites: see Alcock, L., Alcock, E. A. and Foster, S. M., ‘Reconnaissance Excavations on Early Historic Fortifications and other Royal Sites in Scotland, 1974–80: 1, Excavations near St Abb's Head, Berwickshire, 1980’, Proc. of the Soc. of Antiquaries of Scotland 166 (1980), 261–79Google Scholar; also, for the documented name-forms of the two places, Nicolaisen, W. H. F., Scottish Place-names (London, 1976), pp. 20–1 and 72–3.Google Scholar But the change to the -byrig (dat. sing.) form must surely have taken place in an Insular writing-centre.

⁴⁵ Colgrave, , Two Lives, p. 262 app. 3Google Scholar; below, pp. 120–1.

⁴⁶ Cox, accepting Colgrave's conjecture as fact, interprets the name as ‘Hill of Ofa's people’: ‘Place-Names of the Earliest English Records’, p. 25.Google Scholar Is there any significance in the final -m in M as well as in the manuscripts TP? If so (as Prof. K. Cameron has observed in correspondence), the generic and name make no obvious sense. It is unfortunate that among the chapters omitted from M is Vita III.6. But O₁, and A's Cocþœdesœ for Coquet Island is perfecdy acceptable: Bede's Vita (pr.) Cuthberti ch. 24 (ed. Colgrave, , p. 234Google Scholar, with the spelling Coquedi) refers to it as insula quae Cocuedi fluminis hostio praeiacens ab eodem nomen accepit. Cox, discussing the name in ‘Place-Names of the Earliest English Records’, pp. 19 and 43Google Scholar, had evidendy forgotten that the river-name figures in the Ravenna Geographer, most probably as Coccuveda: see Richmond, I. A. and Crawford, O. G. S. (with linguistic notes by I. Williams), ‘The British Section of the Ravenna Cosmography’, Archaeologia 93 (1949), 1–50, at 14 and 29CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Rivet, and Smith, , Place-Names, p. 311.Google Scholar

⁴⁷ Ad civitatem quae Luel dicitur. Bede's re-writing of this episode in Vita (pr.) Cuthberti ch. 32 (ed. Colgrave, , pp. 256–8)Google Scholar, and earlier in his Vita metrica ch. 26, omits the name of the informant (abandoning also the oratio recta-form of his report) and all the names of places. Revising the Anonymous's account (IV.8: ed. Colgrave, , p. 122Google Scholar) of the bishop's presence at Carlisle in 685, however, Bede has previously changed ad civitatem Luel pergens to venit ad Lugubaliam civitatem quae a populis Anglorum corrupte Luel vocatur. ch. 27, ed. Colgrave, , p. 242Google Scholar; ad eandem Lugubaliam civitatem also in ch. 28, Colgrave, , p. 248Google Scholar, and in the corresponding passage in HE IV.29. The use of ‘some written source’ for the form Lugubalia is rightly assumed by Wallace-Hadrill, in Historical Commentary, p. 172Google Scholar; but his further comment is not entirely happy since (following Thomas, C., Early Christian Archaeology of Northern Britain (Oxford, 1971), p. 18Google Scholar) it misrepresents what Bede has actually said in his Vita (pr.) and obscures the fact that Luel is the Pr. Cumbr. name-form (subsequent stages of the evolution of which are documented by Symeon of Durham) taken over by the English incomers. Was the ‘written source’ perhaps an inscription (cf. Rivet, and Smith, , Place-Names, p. 402Google Scholar) rather than the ‘lost annals’ or a similarly lost ecclesiastical source beloved of ‘Arthurians’ and others?

⁴⁸ Bates, C., ‘The Names of Persons and Places Mentioned in the Early Lives of St Cuthbert’, AAe ns 16 (1894), 81–92.Google ScholarBarrow, G. W. S., The Kingdom of the Scots (London, 1975), p. 67Google Scholar n., says ‘possibly represented by Haltwhistle’. This is perfectly possible topographically; but I know of nothing to support the suggestion, unless the alienation of its church by the king of the Scots, which took place a full five centuries later in ?1178 (The Acts Of William I, King of Scots 1165–1214, ed. Barrow, G. W. S., Regesta Regum Scottorum 2 (Edinburgh, 1971), 251Google Scholar (no. 197), cf. 270 (no. 227)), is somehow thought to do so. Note that the name-form Hakatwisel in the first of these, if correctly rendered, rules out Ekwall's explanation of the first element as OE heafod and points instead to hacca.

⁴⁹ Jackson, , Language and History, pp. 523–5 and 324.Google Scholar Jackson's claim that (A)Esica etc. are to be regarded as ‘fossilized spellings’ (in both the Notitia Dignitatum and the Ravenna Cosmography!) is hardly acceptable: for a different view of Clausentum and a different approach to Aesica's -s-, see Rivet, and Smith, , Place-Names, pp. 308–9 and 242.Google Scholar

⁵⁰ Is the -ch- of Æchse the Pr. Cumb. [X]? Compare Jackson, , Language and History, pp. 565–73Google Scholar and (simplified) ‘The British Language during the Period of the English Settlements’, Studies in Early British History, ed. Chadwick, N. K. (Cambridge, 1954), pp. 74–5.Google Scholar There is inevitably no evidence for the ‘normal’ development after (Br.) es-.

⁵¹ Such as the vicus regis inlustris qui vocatur Ad Murum al. in villa regia… quae cognominatur Ad Murum where Bishop Finan of Lindisfarne twice baptized kings and their followings from other English kingdoms: HE III.21 and 22; in the second passage it is described as being ‘about twelve miles from the east coast’, which accords reasonably well with an identification with Walbottle. The archaeological evidence for fifth-century ‘high-status British’ and sixth-century Anglo-Saxon reoccupation of sites on and near the Wall has been reviewed by Dark, K. R., ‘A Sub-Roman Re-Defence of Hadrian's Wall?’, Britannia 23 (1992), 111–20, esp. 111–13 and 119–20.CrossRefGoogle Scholar Dark's speculations (esp. p. 118) on the possible implications for the region's post-Roman military and political history take no account of later evidence for local administrative regiones which may be of pre-English origin. For these, Barrow, , Kingdom of the Scots, pp. 7–68, esp. pp. 19–22, 24–36 and 66–7Google Scholar, remains the most authoritative and best account.

⁵² For Hexham and its regio, see The Life of Bishop Wilfrid by Eddius Stephanus, ed. Colgrave, B. (Cambridge, 1927), pp. 44–6Google Scholar; Barrow, , Kingdom of the Scots, p. 32Google Scholar; Bullough, D. A., ‘The Place-Name Hexham and its Interpretation’ (forthcoming).Google Scholar The location of the regio quae dicitur Kintis al. Hintis (Colgrave, , Two Lives, p. 114Google Scholar) is unknown, except that it was in Cuthbert's diocese. Assuming that the spelling with K- is the more correct name-form, a connection with Brit. *cunetiu, from which the river-names Kennet, Kent etc. are derived, is possible. Hintis is, however, the reading not only of the late manuscripts TP but also of a gloss to the corresponding chapter of Bede's Vita (pr.) Cuthberti (ch. 29) in post-1066 Durham manuscripts, the source of which I believe to be a lost eighth-century ?Wearmouth-Jarrow manuscript of the Vita anon. (below, pp. 120–2); for a Shropshire and Staffordshire place-name Hints, the latter an early Roman occupation site, compare Ekwall, , Concise Dictionary, p. 241Google Scholar with Jackson, , Language and History, p. 519.Google Scholar

⁵³ Ed. Colgrave, , Two Lives, pp. 196 (Bedae Vita) and 84 (Vita anon.).Google Scholar

⁵⁴ For the OE spelling –œ–, see Jackson, , Language and History, pp. 324 and 326Google Scholar, and cf. 488 (the Devon Tavy). Note that the mid-tenth-/early-eleventh-century Historia de S. Cuthberto records a Tefegedmuthe in connection with Bishop Ecgred of Lindisfarne (830–45): Symeonis Opera, ed. Arnold, I, 201.Google Scholar

⁵⁵ Lapidge, M., ‘The Study of Latin Texts in Late Anglo-Saxon England: 1. The Evidence of Latin Glosses’, Latin and the Vernacular Languages, ed. Brooks, , pp. 99–140Google Scholar, repr. in his Anglo-Latin Literature 600–899 (London, 1996), pp. 455–98 and 516Google Scholar, is concerned neither with hagiographic texts nor (directly) with post-1066 manuscripts: it nonetheless provides the best guide to glosses in general in early English books and to the proper methodology of their study.

⁵⁶ Dumville, D. N., ‘English Square Minuscule Script: the Mid-Century Phases’, ASE 23 (1994), 133–64, esp. 137 and 139Google Scholar; Gneuss, , ‘Preliminary List’, no. 401.Google Scholar The added ‘Alleluia texts with neumes’ on fols. 88 and 89 might provide a clue to its later home, but hitherto they have not done so.

⁵⁷ James, M. R., The Western Manuscripts in the Library of Trinity College, Cambridge, 3 vols. (Cambridge, 1902) III, 241–3 (no. 1227)Google Scholar; Colgrave, , Two Lives, pp. 21–2.Google Scholar

⁵⁸ It is beyond serious doubt that V, with the Æthelstan book, Cambridge, Corpus Christi College 183 (Colgrave's C₁) and the Christ Church, Canterbury book of s.x.^ex, London, BL, Harley 1117 (H) - if it is not simply a copy of V for this text (for its text of the Vita metrica compare Lapidge, M., ‘Artistic and Literary Patronage in Anglo-Saxon England’, SettSpol 39 (1991), 137–98, at 174–5Google Scholar (repr. in his Anglo-Latin Literature 600–899, pp. 37–91 and 499–500, at 74–5Google Scholar)) - should be the basis of any edition of the prose Vita. Colgrave unaccountably preferred a group of manuscripts of the twelfth century and later, with considerable implications for the text of the Vita and for our notions of Bede's Latinity, as was already pointed out in reviews of the edition by Souter, A. in JTS 41 (1940), 321–4CrossRefGoogle Scholar and by Laistner, M. L. W. in AHR 46 (1941), 379–81.Google Scholar Typical additional examples of the consequential changes to Colgrave's edition are (p. 220) adpropians (not appropinquans: compare HE IV.29, ed. Colgrave, and Mynors, , p. 440Google Scholar; already common in both the Vetus latina ‘Itala’ and the Vulgate, although other patristic authors prefer the uncompounded propiare); (p. 240) vespertina hora (not vespera); (p. 274) contra fidei fortitudinem (not c.f. virtutem); the spellings hymnos and harena (always spelt per aspirationem by Bede), sollemni-(not solenni-), Agustinus etc.

⁵⁹ For the terminology, see Lapidge, , ‘The Evidence of Latin Glosses’, p. 106.Google Scholar A typical syntactical gloss is id est similiter to ch. 3's Nec non etiam (ed. Colgrave, , p. 160)Google Scholar: an early medieval reader could well require guidance on the force of the ‘double negative’; cf. Norberg, , Manuel pratique, pp. 116 and 171.Google Scholar Other characteristic examples are to Vita, chs. 4, 11, 21 and 28 (ed. Colgrave, , pp. 164, 194, 226 and 248).Google Scholar Almost every gloss in this group (although apparently none from the other two groups) is repeated in H. Of particular interest for their linked ‘text-history’ is that to ch. 21: scilicet debuit esse; in both books it is over the word iuxta, but clearly belongs with supponenda (erat).

⁶⁰ Colgrave, , Two Lives, pp. 200Google Scholar (app. 9 and 13) and 204 (app. 7). The ‘Lindisfarne’ Liber Vitae always spells the name Cuoen- (four examples, plus one of Cuoem-). But both the Leningrad and the Moore manuscripts of HE spell Edwin's first wife Quoenburga.

⁶¹ The very first of the name-glosses not to be found in V, but common to C₃ and O₃, is nomen presbyteri Tydi to ch. 13 (ed. Colgrave, , p. 192Google Scholar; corresponding to Vita anon. II.4, ed. Colgrave, , p. 84Google Scholar - with the spelling Tidi in M). Glosses to the later chs. of C₃ and O₃ include nomen insule Cocue<dade>deseu (ch. 24: ed. Colgrave, , p. 234)Google Scholar, nomen comitis Sibca (al. Sibul) (ch. 25: ed. Colgrave, , p. 240Google Scholar; with which compare Vita anon. IV.7, ed. Colgrave, , p. 120)Google Scholar, nomen loci Hintis. nomen comitis Hemni (ch. 29: ed. Colgrave, , p. 252)Google Scholar and nomen loci Bœdesfelth (ch. 30: ed. Colgrave, , p. 254Google Scholar). Apparently only in O₃ are nomen viculi Medeluong and nomen presbiteri Tydi (ch. 33: ed. Colgrave, , p. 260)Google Scholar, with which compare Vita anon. IV.6 (ed. Colgrave, , p. 118).Google Scholar

⁶² Ed. Colgrave, , pp. 262, 264, 266, 288 and 304 (apparatus).Google Scholar

⁶³ I am grateful to Dr S. Keynes and the Librarian of Trinity College for providing me with photocopies.

⁶⁴ Jackson, , Language and History, pp. 488, 490 and 612–13Google Scholar; cf. pp. 413–15.

⁶⁵ The copy used by Bede in the composition of his own Vitae Cuthberti? Another copy, made possibly at Wearmouth-Jarrow? Compare the ‘Romanizing’ of the Psalter quotation in M (above, p. 116).

⁶⁶ S. Bonifatii et Lulli Epistolae, ed. Tangl, M.. MGH, Epist. select 1 (Berlin, 1916), no. 116 (p. 251)Google Scholar; Hohler, C., ‘The Type of Sacramentary used by St. Boniface’, Sankt Bonifatius: Gedenkgabe zum Zwölfhundertsten Todestag (Fulda, 1954), pp. 89–93, at 92Google Scholar; and below, p. 125. Lapidge has suggested a Fulda-Mainz connection pre-800 for the Bedan materials, including the unique copy of a ‘first version’ of the Vita metr. Cuthberti, in the mid-ninth-century German manuscript Besançon, Bibliothèque Municipale, 186: Lapidge, M., ‘Bede's Metrical Vita S. Cuthberti’, St Cuthbert, ed. Bonner, et al. , pp. 77–93, at 84.Google Scholar The continental-European cult of the saint is otherwise barely touched on in that volume.

⁶⁷ At Bobbio a vita [S.] Cuthberti figures both in the main ‘Old’ catalogue (which I believe to be in great part of the early ninth century at latest) and among the gifts of Theodorus presbyter, datable to the second third of the century; the two lists were edited from an early-eighteenth-century transcript as a single document by Muratori, L. A., whose text is most accessible in Catalogi Bibliothecarum Antiqui, ed. Becker, G. (Bonn, 1885), pp. 64–73Google Scholar (no. 32), the Vita at 68 and 72; and from the same (?) transcript, with a much-improved text, by Tosi, M., ‘Index MSS.rum Codicum Bobiensis’, Archivant Bobiense 6/7 (1984–1985), 135–44Google Scholar, the Vita at 141–2 (no. 305) and 149 (no. 593). For the Cologne manuscript, see Decker, A., ‘Die Hildebold'sche [sic, but falsely] Manuskriptensammlung des Kölner Domes’, Festschrift der 43. Versammlung deutscher Philologen u. Schulmänner, dargetboten von Höheren Lehranstalten Kölns (Cologne, 1895), pp. 224–9Google Scholar (also paginated 10–15), at 227 (no. 88). The mid-ninth-century Saint-Gallen catalogue has an entry De miraculis Gudperti episcopi: Mittelalterliche Bibliothekskataloge Deutschlands und der Schweiz 1, ed. Lehmann, P. (Munich, 1918), p. 75Google Scholar; this was probably Bede's Vita pr. At Lorsch, a vita sancti Cuthberti figures among the works of Bede in the related catalogues of holdings c. 850 in Vatican City, Biblioteca Apostolica Vaticana, Pal. lat. 1877, fols. 1–34 and Pal. lat. 57, fols. 1–7, the former with a duplicate entry on the opening leaf (‘sacristy’ books?): see the conflate and chaotic edition in Catalogi Bibliothecarum Antiqui, ed. Becker, , pp. 82–119Google Scholar (as partly unscrambled by Bischoff, B., Die Abtei Lorsch im Spiegel ihrer Handschriften, 2nd ed. (Lorsch, 1989), pp. 19 and 26–8), at 100 (item no. 280), 82 (item no. 38) and 121 (item no. 24).Google Scholar

⁶⁸ I.e. in the ?Prüm manuscript (not Lorsch, and the calendar's Jarrow nucleus augmented at York c. 780, not Mainz) now Berlin, Deutsche Staatsbibliothek, Phillipps 1869, in the ?lower-Rhine manuscript now Milan, Biblioteca Ambrosiana, M. 12 sup., and in other books. The earliest reflection of the (abbreviated Hieronymian) martyrology is, I believe, the ‘metrical calendar of York’ (Wilmart, A., ‘Un témoin anglo-saxon du Calendrier métrique de York’, RB 46 (1934), 41–69Google Scholar, the text on 65–7; Lapidge, M., ‘A Tenth-Century Metrical Calendar from Ramsey’ (1984)Google Scholar, repr. in his Anglo-Latin Literature 900–1066 (London, 1993), pp. 343–86 and 489, at 345–6).Google Scholar I try to explain the whole complex in a forthcoming study provisionally titled ‘The Eighth-Century “Schools of York” and the Calendar in Berlin, Phillips 1869Google Scholar’. Cuthbert duly figures in the York text in the form Cuthbertus denas tenuit ternasque kalendas (ed. Wilmart, p.66)Google Scholar. In the later ‘Metrical Calendar of Hampson’ (McGurk, P., ‘The Metrical Calendar of Hampson. A New Edition’, AB 104 (1986), 79–125Google Scholar) the Cuthbert entry (ibid. p. 95) is Tresdecimis sanctus Cuthberhtus scandit ad altum, the text in London, BL, Cotton Julius A. vi having, however, the “Northumbrian’ orthography Cuthberchtus. The possibility of more links with the older ‘martyrological calendar’ tradition than McGurk recognized (ibid. p. 82) is suggested by the immediately preceding line Gregorius fulget denis quadrisque kalendis (‘presumably the octave’ of his dies natalis, ibid. p. 116): for in Milan, Biblioteca Ambrosiana, M. 12 sup. and some related calendars the ordinatio sci. Gregorii pp. is commemorated at 19 March.

⁶⁹ Rotae: Vatican City, Biblioteca Apostolica Vaticana, Reg. lat. 309, fol. 2; Monza, Biblioteca Capitolare, f.9/176 (cclxvi), fol. 9. Fulda calendar: Gallen, St, Stiftsbibliothek, 878, pp. 324–7Google Scholar; Munding, E., Die Kalendarien von St. Gallen, Text u. Arbeiten herausgegeben durch die Erzabtei Beuron, 1/36 (Beuron, 1948), 19–20Google Scholar and 35–91 (Cuthbert at 45); Bischoff, B., ‘Eine Sammelhandschrift Walahfrid Strabos’, Mittelalterliche Studien, 3 vols. (Stuttgart, 1966–1981) II, 34–51, esp. 42–3.Google Scholar If Bischoff's ‘absolute chronology’ of Walahfrid's four successive script- styles is accepted, the calendar was necessarily copied c. 827–9: but for doubts, see Harting-Corrêa, A. L., Walahfrid Strabo's “Libellus de exordiis…”: a Translation and Liturgical Commentary (Leiden, 1996), pp. 11–12.Google Scholar Most of the early Oswald commemorations are brought together in an excellent recent study by Thacker, A., ‘Membra Disjecta: the Division of the Body and the Diffusion of the Cult’, Oswald, ed. Stancliffe, and Cambridge, , pp. 97–127, at 115–17Google Scholar: the treatment of the relationships of the calendarial and martyrological texts needs, however, substantial amendment; compare provisionally the preceding note. The overlapping remarks of Riain-Raedel, D. Ó, ‘Edith, Judith and Matilda’, pp. 210–11Google Scholar, are confused and confusing: Bede, HE III. 13 does not attest the presence of an Oswald cult at Echternach but, as context and chronological reference show, at Utrecht and in Frisia; the Oswald entry in Wandelbert of Prüm's metrical martyrology is more likely to be dependent on the Phillipps 1869 calendar or its exemplar, since this also accounts for the otherwise inexplicable Cassianus at 15 July, and (rather than from Bede) quite possibly for Ciricus on the same day and perhaps Firminus at 25 September (cf. Dubois, J., ‘Le martyrologe métrique de Wandelbert’, AB 79 (1961), 257–93, at 271–2)Google Scholar; while the tenth-century Fulda calendar ‘now in St Gall’ must surely be a reference to Basel, Universitätsbibliothek, N. 11. 31.

⁷⁰ Hohler, C. E., ‘Some Service Books of the Later Saxon Church’, Tenth-Century Studies, ed. Parsons, D. (London and Chichester, 1975), pp. 60–83 and 217–27, at 66.Google Scholar The mass-set has been edited by Orchard, N., ‘A Note on the Masses for St Cuthbert’, RB 105 (1995), 79–98, at 97.Google Scholar The collect, in which Cuthbert is martyr mirabilis atque potens anachorita, is adapted from a prayer in the Bangor Antiphoner (The Antiphonary of Bangor, 2 vols., ed. Warren, F. E., HBS 4 and 10 (London, 1893–1895) II, 32Google Scholar (no. 124)), and seems not to be found elsewhere. The post-communion Satiatis, Domine, numerum is the same as that for St Aidan at 31 Aug. in the (later) English ?West-country sacramentary London, BL, Cotton Vitellius A. xviii, incompletely ptd in The Leofric Missal, ed. Warren, F. E. (Oxford, 1883), pp. 303–7Google Scholar, here 306. For the distinctive preface, see below, p. 127.

⁷¹ Vita IV.15, 16 and 17 (ed. , Colgrave pp. 132, 134, 136Google Scholar and - possibly - 138); in IV.15, T substitutes other words for martyris (details in the collation ad locc. in the Appendix). For the Irish evidence, see Gougaud, L., ‘Les conceptions du martyre chez les Irlandais’, RB 24 (1907), 360–73Google Scholar; Stancliffe, C., ‘Red, White and Blue Martyrdom’, Ireland in Early Mediaeval Europe, ed. Whitelock, D., McKitterick, R. and Dumville, D. (Cambridge, 1982), pp. 21–46Google Scholar, the quotation in the text at 21.

⁷² Compare Orchard, ‘Masses for St. Cuthbert’, p. 97Google Scholar, with Two Anglo-Saxon Pontificals., ed. Banting, H. M. J., HBS 104 (London, 1989), 169–70Google Scholar: the rest of the ‘Sidney Sussex’ mass-set is distinct from that of ‘Ratoldus’. Hohler's suggestions (‘Some Service Books’, p. 67)Google Scholar, tied in with a supposed West-country origin for the pontifical, of a Glastonbury origin for the Ratold mass-set has not won much favour: Dumville, D. has latterly connected the pontifical with Oswald and Ramsey (Liturgy and the Ecclesiastical History of Late Anglo-Saxon England (Woodbridge, 1992), pp. 75–6Google Scholar and passim). The origin of the mass can, however, be uncoupled from that of either book, although if it is ‘West-country’ it must be later than (probably) 944/5. Is there some link with the probably West-country origin of the ‘Lanalet Pontifical’ (and benedictional), Rouen, Bibliothèque Municipale, A.27 (368)), in which a benediction for St Benedict in the Benedictional of Æthelwold and the Canterbury Benedictional is adapted for Cuthbert (Pontificale Lanalatense, ed. Doble, G. H., HBS 74 (London, 1937), 92Google Scholar: retaining the phrase quae in domo Dei ex vita patroni huius recitantur)?

⁷³ Orchard, , ‘Masses for St Cuthbert’, pp. 80–6Google Scholar, with a convenient tabulation at 95.

⁷⁴ , Hohler, ‘Some Service Books’, p. 66Google Scholar; also in The Relics of Saint Cuthbert, ed. Battiscombe, C. F. (Oxford, 1956), pp. 157–8Google Scholar; , Orchard, ‘Masses for St Cuthbert’, pp. 86–7 and 94Google Scholar; ibid. pp. 83–4 for the secreta in the mid-eleventh-century Tegernsee-supplemented sacramentary, Cambridge, Fitzwilliam Museum, McClean 48 (84v). The passio of the otherwise unrecorded Roman saint Quirinus (at 25 March, al. 24: Biblioteca Hagiographica Latina [hereafter BHL], 2 vols, and Supplement (Brussels, 1898–1986Google Scholar) no. 7029) was composed at Tegernsee in or shortly before 921: see Passiones Vitaeque Sanctorum Aevi Merovingici, ed. Krusch, B., MGH SS rer. Merov. 3 (Hanover, 1896), 8Google Scholar; Schmeidler, B., Studien zur Geschichtsschreibung des Klosters Tegernsee vom 11.–16. Jh. (Munich, 1935), pp. 96–100.Google Scholar A translatio of the relics, previously brought from Rome, to a more distinguished place in Tegernsee's monastic church or in the complex of churches there on 16 June 804 is, however, recorded in a contemporary Freising charter and in an early-ninth-century addition to a calendar ultimately of Northumbrian origin: Bitterauf, T., Die Traditionen des Hochstifts Freising, 2 vols. (Munich, 1905–1909) I, no. 197 (p. 188)Google Scholar; Bauerreiss, R., ‘Ein angelsächsische Kalendarfragment des bayrischen Haupstaatsarchiv in München’ [CLA IX, 1236], Studien und Mitteilungen O.S.B. 51 (1933), 177–82, at 179.Google Scholar Only later was the 16 June commemoration understood as that of the arrival of the relics from Rome - the ‘correction’ of the document's testimony by H. Löwe and others being misconceived. It is not known when the church's original dedication, to the Salvator mundi (see Passiones Vitaeque Sanctorum, ed. Krusch, , p. 15)Google Scholar, was changed. The McClean 48 calendar, at 20 October, has dedic. ecclesie S. Quirini. but this is not reflected in the early-ninth-century collection of Tegernsee tituli in Karlsruhe, Landesbibliothek, Aug. perg. 205 and as an ?Ilmmünster addition to Munich, Staatsbibliothek, Clm. 19410. Finally, the beginnings of die cult of St Oswald in south and south-east Germany seems to be a phenomenon of the late tenth/eleventh centuries: Thacker, , ‘Membra disjecta’, pp. 117–18 and 123–4Google Scholar; to whose evidence might be added the apparent lack of manuscript-texts of the Vita Oswaldi made up of extracts from Bede's Historia ecclesiastica (BHL no. 6361), exemplified by the Weingarten book Stuttgart, Landesbibliothek, HB. XIV. 6, 90r-99v, that are older than the twelfth century.

⁷⁵ Vatican City, Biblioteca Apostolica Vaticana, Reg. lat. 317: Missale Gothicum, ed. Bannister, H. M., 2 vols., HBS 52 and 54 (London, 1917–1919) I, no. 457Google Scholar; Missale Gothicum, ed. Mohlberg, L. C., Rerum Ecclesiasticarum Documenta 5 (Rome, 1961)Google Scholar, no. 457. It must be assumed that a considerable number of ‘Gallican’ mass-books similar to the Vatican ‘Missale Gothicum’ formerly existed; and it is impossible to say whether composers of new masses in the eighth century are less or more likely to have encountered the text in northern England (via Ireland?) or in Francia.

⁷⁶ Le sacramentaire grégorien, ed. Deshusses, J., I, 2nd ed., Spicilegium Friburgense 16 (Fribourg, 1979), 691Google Scholar; II, Spicilegium Friburgense 24 (Fribourg, 1979), 303; Sacramentarium Fuldense saec. X, ed. Richter, G. and Schönfelder, A. (Fulda, 1912), pp. 119–21Google Scholar, nos. 1025(=1031), 1026, 1027(=1033), 1028–9: in all three the praefatio is inc. ‘Diemque natalicium’. The evidence for an Emmeram mass also composed by Alcuin is the two Oratio[nes] in natali sancti Emmerammimarty<ris> included in the collectar-pontifical of Bishop Baturich of Regensburg: Dos Kollektar-Pontifikale des Bischofs Baturich von Regensburg (817–848), ed. Unterkircher, F. and Gamber, K., Spicilegium Friburgense 8 (Fribourg, 1962), 67 (nos. 114–15)Google Scholar, corresponding to Sacramentaire grégorien, ed. Deshusses, I, 691, nos. 59* and 62*.Google Scholar As Orchard notes (‘Masses for St. Cuthbert’, pp. 84–5Google Scholar) the ‘St. Vaast’ prayer (no. 63*) occurs also as a super populum in the mass for a confessor in the original, s. ix/x, section of the ‘Leofric Missal’, Oxford, Bodleian Library, Bodley 579 (Leofric Missal, ed. Warren, , p. 173)Google Scholar; but his further comment that the mass-set prayers ‘are those of the late ninth-century sacramentary from St.-Maurice [cathedral], Tours, mediated through north-eastern France’ may mislead. The mass in natale unius confessoris is a standard one in the Gregorian supplementum ‘Amianense’, the fifth of a group of eight (Sacramentaire Grégorien, ed. Deshusses, I, 412–17Google Scholar, Supplement mass-nos. XLVIII-LV), which is also present complete and with only minor variants in Paris, Bibliothèque Nationale, lat. n.a. 1589 (Tours cathedral), 80r-83v, and in Bodley 579, fols. 204–9 (with vigil masses intercalated) + 216 (Leofric Missal, ed. Warren, , pp. 170–4 and 179)Google Scholar; here, however, the masses in the main group have an added preface, sometimes also a benedictio, and - with one exception - a concluding prayer ad populum, all of which (except for a single preface) are lacking in the corresponding Tours mass-sets.

⁷⁷ The words ita virtus … victorem cuius are taken from an ‘eighth-century Gelasian’ preface found in (e.g.) Liber Sacramentorum Gellonensis, ed. Dumas, A. and Deshusses, J., CCSL 159 (Turnhout, 1981)Google Scholar, no. 1364 and Liber Sacramentorum Engolismensis, ed. Saint-Roch, P., CCSL 159C (Turnhout, 1987)Google Scholar, no. 1241; for aerias potestates, see, e.g., Hrabanus Maurus, Homiliae de festis praecipuis, PL 110, cols. 9–134, at col. 60A (hom. no. 31). Alcuin uses aereas turmas in Alcuin: the Bishops, Kings and Saints of York, ed. Godman, P. (Oxford, 1982)Google Scholar, line 1328 and hostis invisibilis in Epistolae Karolini Aevi, ed. Dümmler, , nos. 18 (p. 52), 19 (p. 56)Google Scholar etc. I hope to be able to demonstrate else where the early Insular and other textual links of the Sidney Sussex Pontifical preface.

⁷⁸ Sacramentaire grégorien, ed. Deshusses, 1, 46–7 and 64–6Google Scholar; ibid. II, 25–8.

⁷⁹ The evidence for which is assembled and discussed in my Alcuin: Achievement and Reputation (forthcoming), pt II ch. 3.

⁸⁰ Poetae Latini Carolini Aevi I, ed. Dümmler, E., MGH PLAC 1 (Berlin, 1881), 229–35Google Scholar (carm, ix); Epistolae Karolini Aevi, ed. Dümmler, , nos. 16–21Google Scholar, also (somewhat later) no. 22, with the promise that cum domnus noster rex Karolus… domum revertetur, nos Deo iuvante ad eum venire disponimus etc. in no. 20. For whatever reason, none of the letters is addressed to anyone on the Continent (for the later recopying and circulation of several of those addressed to English recipients, see below): and contrary to the impression sometimes given by modern works, there is no reference to the attack in any of the contemporary continental annals - nor in Irish Annals, which however record the vastatio omnium insolarum Britanniȩ in 794, and cf. the long annal for 825 which concludes with ‘the martyrdom of Blamac … at the hands of the heathens’ at lona (The Annals of Ulster, ed. Airt, S. Mac and Niocail, G. Mac (Dublin, 1983), pp. 250 and 282).Google Scholar Even the English record is less satisfactory than is commonly supposed. The ‘correct’ date of 8 June is found only in Simeon of Durham's Historia Dunelmensis Ecclesiae (in Symeonis Opera, ed. Arnold, I., 50Google Scholar) although the ‘Id. Ian.’ date in ASC E (also D) (Two of the Saxon Chronicles Parallel, ed. Plummer, C., 2 vols. (Oxford, 1892–1899) I, 57Google Scholar, cf. II, 62) is acceptable evidence that the version of the ‘Northumbrian Annals’ used by the Chronicler gave that date (omitted in the Byrhtferth version).

⁸¹ Vita Alcuini, ch. 4, ed. Arndt, W. (Vitae Aliaeque Historiae Minores, MGH SS, 15.1 (Hanover, 1887), 182–97, at 186).Google Scholar But also, more remarkably, via Theodore (of Canterbury), thus partially anticipating a later Aquitanian monk's view of the traditio studii in early England: Delisle, L., Notices et extraits des manuscrits de la Bibliothèque Nationale et autres Bibliothèques 35 (Paris, 1890), 241–357, at 311–2Google Scholar (cited by Stevenson, J., The ‘Laterculus Malalianus’ and the School of Archbishop Theodore, CSASE 14 (Cambridge, 1995), 2, n. 3).CrossRefGoogle Scholar

⁸² For its origin at the Aachen Court, the work - probably - of scribes temporarily there, see Bullough, D. A., Carolingian Renewal: Sources and Heritage (Manchester, 1991), pp. 239–40 and 252–3.Google Scholar

⁸³ The litany (Cologne, Dombibliothek, 106, fol. 74) is printed by Coens, M., Receuil d'études bollan-diennes (Brussels, 1963), pp. 140–4Google Scholar, here 143. Note that neither E(c)gbert nor Bede figures in any pre-1100 litany of English origin, as may be gathered from Anglo-Saxon Litanies of the Saints, ed. Lapidge, M., HBS 106 (London, 1991)Google Scholar: for Bede in the litany in Cambridge, Corpus Christi College 391, pp. 221–5 (Worcester, s. xi² but this part rewritten in s.xii¹), see Litanies, ed. Lapidge, , pp. 115–19Google Scholar, at 117, and cf. ibid. p. 65.

⁸⁴ For the Bedan sources of the ‘York poem's’ account of Cuthbert, see Bishops, Kings and Saints of York, ed. Godman, , lines 646–740Google Scholar and notes, also the Introduction, ibid. pp. lii-liii. Surprisingly, there is no ninth-century copy of the Historia from either Salzburg or Saint-Amand, and no high-medieval copies that might depend on a lost Carolingian exemplar from either centre. In contrast, the earliest complete copy of the ‘discipulus Umbrensium’ version of Theodore's Penitential and book of canons (supplemented by a text of the Interrogationes Augustini et Responsiones Gregorii), Vienna, Nationalbibliothek, lat. 2195 (CLA X, 1508; Bischoff, , Schreibschulen II, 84–5Google Scholar (no. 3)) was written at Salzburg in Arno's earlier years.

⁸⁵ Epistolae Karelini Aevi, ed. Dümmler, , nos. 17–20Google Scholar are copied with omissions and/or slight modifications to the text in the Salzburg book Vienna, Nationalbibliothek, lat. 808, written in 802 or 803; and the same version of no. 19 is among the letters copied in Munich, Clm. 13581 (which, contra Bischoff, I believe to have been written in the Salzburg area, although not in its regular scriptorium). The small group of Alcuin's carmina copied in the Vienna manuscript concludes on fol. 233 with the last ten lines (only) of Alcuin's lament for the island-church: these do not contain any reference to the place (which in any case cannot be fitted into a hexameter) or to the saint; and there is no evidence to show whether Salzburg had been sent a copy of the entire poem.

⁸⁶ Symeonis Opera, ed. Arnold, II, 55.Google Scholar

⁸⁷ For the latter, see St Cuthbert, ed. , Bonner et al. , pt 3.Google Scholar For the former, see the Historia de S. Cuthberto, ch. 9 (in Symeonis Opera, ed. Arnold, I., 201)Google Scholar. The Historia's account of the transfer to Norham is accepted without comment by Cambridge, E., ‘Why did the Community of St. Cuthbert Settle at Chester-le-Street?’, St Cuthbert, ed. Bonner, et al. , pp. 367–95, at 371Google Scholar; but compare the more sceptical view of Rollason, D. in the same volume, pp. 416–17Google Scholar and esp. n. 17. That the church in which Cuthbert was originally buried was a wooden one is explicit (as Dr S. Keynes reminded me) in HE III.25 (ed. Plummer, I, 181Google Scholar; ed. Colgrave, and Mynors, , p. 294).Google Scholar But as this same passage makes clear, its construction non de lapide sed de robore secta (‘not of stone but of hewn oak’) was the work of Aidan's successor Finan and not of Aidan, as the author of the Historia believed; and Bede adds that subsequently Bishop Eadberht covered the church's walls and roof with sheets of lead.

⁸⁸ Hohler, , ‘Type of Sacramentary’, p. 92.Google Scholar Similarly, it cannot be assumed (as does Campbell, A., Æthelwulf ‘De Abbatibus’ (Oxford, 1967), p. xxxGoogle Scholar) that the devotions of Eadfrith teacher of Æthelwulf at the tumbam Cudberchti corpore … almam (lines 752–3, at p. 59Google Scholar) must have been before 793.

⁸⁹ CLA X, 1500; Bischoff, , Schreibschulen II, 95–6Google Scholar (no. 24). Bischoff believed that the same scribe was probably also responsible for corrections to the fragmentary Prophets, now Kremsmünster, Stiftsbibliothek, Fragm.I/1. (CLA X, 1462): Schreibschulen II, 85Google Scholar (no. 4). There is, Bischoff emphasized (ibid. p. 58), no other Anglo-Saxon scribe at Salzburg in the Virgil/early Arno period. He does not figure in the Salzburg Liber Vitae; and his floruit seems to be too early for Alcuin's (epistolary) links with the church there to be invoked for his presence in the Salzburg area.

⁹⁰ And very different, therefore, from another English saint, the ‘royal martyr’ Oswald, whose cult was being actively promoted, although in a limited number of places, without an independent Vita: Thacker, , ‘Membra Disjecta’, esp. pp. 116–19Google Scholar and cf. pp. 123–5.

⁹¹ Thanks are due to Professor K. Cameron, Professor H. Hine and Mrs Veronica Smart for their critical comments on an earlier version of this paper, and above all to Dr Simon Keynes for his substantial editorial improvements. I take this opportunity of thanking also the Monumenta Germaniae Historica (Munich) and its successive presidents for their hospitality during 1991–5, which enabled me to explore the manuscript riches of the Munich Staatsbibliothek.

⁹² For the other manuscript-testimonies, see above, p. 117.