New Light on the Textual History of Ælfric’s Catholic Homilies 1. 17

New Light on the Textual History of Ælfric’s Catholic Homilies 1. 17 ABSTRACT Ælfric’s homily for the second Sunday after Easter in the First Series of his Catholic Homilies (CH 1. 17) survives in two versions, the later one augmented by a lengthy addition. This article attempts to explain the noticeable discrepancies between the two parts of the augmented homily in scale, style, purpose, and argumentative structure by relating them to the broader context of Ælfric’s methods of augmentation elsewhere in the Catholic Homilies. Some of these features could be more easily accounted for if the later addition was originally an independent homily; the article identifies a possible ‘missing link’ supporting this hypothesis, an annotation in an early-thirteenth-century hand to the augmented text of CH 1. 17 in Cambridge, Corpus Christi College, MS 302. It argues that the content of the annotation, which supplies an introductory passage for the second part of the homily, need not (as has previously been assumed) be contemporary with its hand; it may instead preserve an otherwise lost but authentic fragment of Ælfric’s writing, deleted at the stage when the two homilies were combined. The textual history of the homily for the second Sunday after Easter in the First Series of Ælfric’s Catholic Homilies (CH 1. 17) is complicated, and in some ways problematic. It has come down to us in two different versions. The original version, which survives in eight manuscripts and a fragment, is an exposition of the Gospel reading for the day, John 10: 11–16 (‘Ego sum pastor bonus …’), in which Christ, speaking as the good shepherd, warns against the hirelings (mercenarii) who desert their flocks; it also touches briefly on the corresponding Old Testament prophecy, God’s warning to the bad shepherds of Israel in Ezekiel 34. The later version is found in five manuscripts, all reflecting the later phases of authorial revision (δ, ε, and ζ) identified by Peter Clemoes in his edition of the First Series.1 In this version, the original conclusion and doxology (316/87–9) have been replaced by an extended exposition of Ezek. 34: 2–16. The passage on Ezekiel in the original version, summarizing Ezek. 34: 5–16 and adding a warning to the laity not to imitate the bad behaviour of their pastors (315/59–73), has also been cut, but its material is treated at greater length in two passages in the addition (535/5–30 and 537/62–82). Although the augmented homily is presented as a single work in all the surviving manuscripts that contain it, there are some noticeable discrepancies between its two parts. In the first place, there is a marked disproportion in scale: at 253 lines, the addition is almost three times the length of the original homily, which is (in Malcolm Godden’s words) ‘easily the shortest of the First Series Homilies, a mere 89 lines.’2 Secondly, the two parts are clearly demarcated by style: the original homily is in ordinary prose, but the addition is in the rhythmical prose style that was developed by Ælfric during the composition of the Second Series of Catholic Homilies, and used habitually by him in his later works.3 Thirdly, the two parts seem to have different purposes, envisaging rather different kinds of audience and addressing them in different ways. The original homily provides an exposition of its two Scriptural texts at a level appropriate for a relatively uneducated audience, encouraging them to take personal responsibility for their spiritual welfare if they are failed by negligent pastors. While the addition still takes listeners of this kind into account (assuming at one point that they may not know who Ezekiel was4), it is more overtly learned, incorporating further Scriptural references, quoted in Latin as well as English.5 It also addresses more explicitly the problems caused by the ecclesiastical and political corruption of the time, focusing on the spiritual dangers faced by those in a position of responsibility, not only clerical but secular, and warning of the consequences if they fail to give proper guidance, whether by precept or by example, to those placed under their care.6 Finally, the argumentative fit between the original homily and the addition is less than perfect. Although the deletion of the material on Ezekiel from the original has reduced the potential overlap in content between the two parts, it has not removed it altogether (Godden notes that another passage in the addition, 536/31–46, is ‘in part a resumé of the arguments of the original homily’7); and the transition between the two parts is rather abrupt, switching without a bridging passage from Christ’s description of his role as the good shepherd to Ezekiel’s warning of the dangers faced by pastors who neglect their flocks. However problematic they may seem to the modern reader, these apparent discrepancies have parallels elsewhere in the Catholic Homilies, and they become more explicable if they are looked at in the context of the textual evolution of the Homilies as a whole. Ælfric continued to work on both sets of homilies after their initial composition, using a variety of methods, from small-scale correction and revision of grammar, phrasing, and content to much larger-scale reorganization and augmentation. It is these more broad-brush methods of alteration, which might entail the deletion of older material, the composition of new material, or the transfer of existing material from one homily (or even series) to another, that could lead to the creation of hybrid texts such as the later version of CH 1. 17. Although such methods of alteration are associated mainly with the later stages of development of the Catholic Homilies, some insight into Ælfric’s motives for using them is provided by two instances in the earliest surviving manuscript of the First Series, London, British Library, MS Royal 7. c. xii (A), produced in his lifetime and under his direct supervision. The first is in CH 1. 12, a homily for Mid-Lent Sunday, where a basic summary for less-knowing listeners of Moses’ role in Biblical history and the Ten Commandments (531/1–21) has been marked for deletion after folce 278/79; in a marginal note, Ælfric explains that since the subject is dealt with more fully in the second volume (i.e. in the Second Series, CH 2. 12), he has ordered the passage to be removed to avoid tedious repetition between the two volumes.8 The second is in CH 1. 38, for the feast of St Andrew, where the conclusion of the original 168-line homily—still present in the manuscript, probably through ‘scribal inadvertence’,9 but marked for deletion—has been replaced by a separate account of Andrew’s martyrdom with the heading PASSIO, at 181 lines slightly longer than the original homily. A sentence in the conclusion itself (531/1–532/4) suggests the motive for its replacement: ‘Hit wære gelimplic gif Þises dæges scortnys us geÞafian wolde Þæt we eow Þæs halgan apostoles andrees Þrowunge gerehton • ac we wyllað on oðrum sæle gif we gesundfulle beoð eow gelæstan gif we hwæt lytles hwonlicor gefyldon’ (‘It would be fitting, if the shortness of this day [i.e. 30 November] would permit us, to tell you of the holy apostle Andrew’s passion. But, if we have health, we will make it good for you another time, if we have fallen short in any detail.’).10 The second of these two instances goes some way towards explaining the disproportion in scale between the original and later parts of CH 1. 17; it reflects, as Kenneth Sisam said,11 the concern not to give short weight to the users of his homilies that Ælfric also expressed in the Latin preface to the Second Series.12 Given this concern, it would not be surprising to find, if anything, an inverse relationship between the length of an original homily and the length of its augmentation, and the augmented form of CH 1. 17 could be seen as an instance (if an extreme one) of this tendency. The stylistic discrepancy between the ordinary prose of the original version of CH 1. 17 and the rhythmical prose of the later addition also has parallels elsewhere in the Catholic Homilies. Godden notes that even in the relatively early addition to CH 1. 38 on the passion of St Andrew, Ælfric uses rhythmical prose towards the end, which ‘raises at least the possibility that he wrote this second section around the time when he was completing work on the Second Series’;13 and according to J. C. Pope, ‘at no time after the invention of the rhythmical form does Ælfric seem to have hesitated to insert a freshly composed rhythmical passage into an early homily written in ordinary prose, … to attach a rhythmical exemplum to an ordinary prose admonition, … or to include an early piece, partly ordinary, partly rhythmical, in an otherwise consistently rhythmical homily.’14 Since this stylistic difference between the two parts of CH 1. 17 is consistent with Ælfric’s usual practice, it could reflect nothing more than the later date at which the addition was composed. The apparent discrepancies between the purpose and argumentative structure of the two parts are rather harder to explain. In cases where Ælfric composed new material specifically to develop an existing homily further, his modifications sometimes produced homilies that were more rather than less coherent. In its original form, his ninety-two-line account of the martyrdom of SS. Alexander, Eventius, and Theodolus, the second of the two very short homilies that make up CH 2. 18, has, in Godden’s words, ‘a somewhat abrupt starting-point’; but at a later stage Ælfric added a 208-line prequel, completing the translation of the Latin source (the anonymous Acta Alexandri Papae) that he had drawn on for the original homily.15 A more complicated example is the history of CH 2. 23b. This account of two miracles by Christ was originally loosely appended (in four manuscripts it has the heading Alia Narratio de Euangelii Textu16) as a supplement to the short homily for the third Sunday after Pentecost, on the parable of the feast in Luke 14: 16–24. Ælfric conceded in his introduction to the passage that this was not the right place for it,17 and at a later stage incorporated it in a newly-composed sermon for the thirteenth Sunday after Pentecost (Pope 17) that included further miracles, linking its content both to a more appropriate pericope and to the theme of miracles in general.18 There is more potential for internal discrepancies when Ælfric uses what could be described as a cut-and-paste technique, combining one existing work—or an extract from it—with another, sometimes deleting surplus passages, but with little or no rewriting. An instance of this can be found in CH 1. 39, a very short homily (111 lines) for the first Sunday in Advent that was extended at a later stage by a passage from the Old English preface to the First Series (174/57–176/119) on the coming of Antichrist. Although the passage has been modified by some minor revisions and the provision of a concluding exhortation and doxology, these may date from an intermediate textual phase when it was reworked as a free-standing piece, and Godden sees it as ‘not closely related to any of the issues discussed in the original homily’, although it is still ‘clearly appropriate to the expectations and celebrations of the second coming associated with the Advent period.’19 A similarly loose connection exists between the two parts of CH 1. 38, where the original homily expounds the Gospel reading for the day (Matt. 4: 18–22), on the calling of Andrew and his companions to become ‘fishers of men’, while the later addition gives an account of his passion. In the earlier manuscripts, the second part is marked off from the first by a variety of headings;20 at a later stage, Ælfric adds a sentence linking the two parts together, but phrased in a way that draws attention as much to their disjunction as to their connection: ‘We hæbbeð nu gesaed Þis godspell sceortlice. Nu wille we eow secgan hu se apostol andreas Þe we nu todæg wurÞiað his agen lif sealde for cristes geleafan for Þære lare Þe he bodode’ (‘I have now briefly related this gospel. Now I will tell you how the apostle Andrew, whom we honour today, gave up his own life because of his faith in Christ for the teaching that he expounded’).21 It is possible that in this case too the addition originated as a separate composition; in Godden’s view, ‘one interpretation of the cancelled conclusion is that he initially intended to cover the passion in the Second Series, rather as he divided Scriptural exegesis and hagiographical narrative for St Stephen’s day between the two Series; the passion narrative may thus have been written for the Second Series and transferred to the First before the latter was circulated.’22 Godden’s account of the textual development of CH 1. 17 assumes that its additional material is a purpose-built extension, expanded from the ‘germ’ of the passage on Ezekiel in the original homily;23 but the alternative hypothesis he proposes for CH 1. 38 might also be considered for CH 1. 17. In spite of the correspondences in content between the original passage and the later addition, there are no similarities in wording conclusive enough to demonstrate that the passage in its original form was reworked for the later version; it is possible that it functioned instead as a hook, suggesting a potential connection between the two homilies, and was subsequently deleted (like the passage on Moses in CH 1. 12) to avoid any overlap with Ælfric’s later and fuller treatment of the same material. The hypothesis that the additional material was originally a separate homily would account more satisfactorily both for the ‘shift in tone and treatment’ that Godden notes between the two parts of the homily24 and for the elements of discontinuity and repetition in its argument; and there is one passage in the manuscript tradition of CH 1. 17, not previously mentioned in this context, that could be adduced as supporting evidence. In Cambridge, Corpus Christi College, MS 302 (O), a collection of sermons by Ælfric and others copied in the late eleventh or early twelfth century, there are two annotations, both in the same early-thirteenth-century hand, in the lower margin of p. 189, marked for consecutive entry at the point in its text of CH 1. 17 where the later addition begins (Ge magon …). Fig. 1. View largeDownload slide Cambridge, Corpus Christi College, MS 302, p. 189. Fig. 1. View largeDownload slide Cambridge, Corpus Christi College, MS 302, p. 189. M. R. James’s description of the manuscript in his catalogue of the manuscripts of Corpus Christi College, Cambridge (1909–1913) refers to these annotations only briefly: ‘Two additions, alia manu, in lower margin.’25 They are described in much greater detail, however, in N. R. Ker’s 1957 Catalogue of Manuscripts Containing Anglo-Saxon. Ker notes that the conclusion to the original homily, omitted in the extended version, ‘has been added in the lower margin by a hand of s. xiii in.’, and that ‘Introductory lines to this part of the homily have been added in the lower margin of p. 189 by the hand of s. xiii.’ He also provides a transcription of the second annotation: ‘Men ða leffostan us lareowhum gedafenað Þa soðem lare ðe god silf gesette. ðurch vs halgan witegan. 7 Þurch hine silfne. eowh gelome seggan to eowhres lifes richtinge. And Ge magon gehiran on ðare’26 (the last five words repeat the beginning of the second part in the main text, pp. 189–90). Ker’s description of these annotations has largely determined the approach taken to them by later scholars. In particular, his comment on the second annotation seems to have been generally taken to mean—although Ker does not actually say this—that its content as well as its hand should be dated to the early thirteenth century. Margaret Laing’s 1993 Catalogue of Sources for a Linguistic Atlas of Early Medieval English includes this annotation, reproduced from Ker’s transcription, as one of its sources;27 and Kari Anne Rand’s 2009 volume of The Index of Middle English Prose, covering the manuscripts of Corpus Christi College, Cambridge, also includes it, retranscribed but with references to Ker and Laing.28 In his ground-breaking article of the early 1930s on the textual evolution of Ælfric’s Catholic Homilies, Kenneth Sisam deplored the continuing tendency of scholars to rely on Benjamin Thorpe’s unsatisfactory edition of 1844–184629 rather than properly investigating the evidence available in the manuscripts, even in cases where it had been made ‘easily accessible’. Criticizing what he saw as ‘a persistent restriction of curiosity’, he said of the two manuscripts he discussed in most detail, Oxford, Bodleian Library, MSS Bodley 340 and 342 (D), ‘If they still offer good gleaning, it is because the attention of the scholars who used them was concentrated on other things.’30 Researchers have since done much to remedy the problem that he described, focusing increasingly—particularly over the last few decades—on the later history of Ælfric’s works and the manuscripts that preserve them.31 But his analysis of its cause has not entirely lost its relevance; the history of the second annotation after it was made ‘easily accessible’ by Ker similarly reflects a ‘persistent restriction of curiosity’. In the first place, there appears to be no mention of it in the major editions of the Catholic Homilies published since the appearance of Ker’s 1957 Catalogue, presumably because it was assumed to be a thirteenth-century composition and hence irrelevant to the establishment of Ælfric’s text. In the second place, even those reference works in which it is cited have consistently followed a reading in Ker’s transcription, vs halgan witegan, that gives unsatisfactory sense.32 Although the letter-form in the manuscript is ambiguous, in context the first word of the phrase must be ys (=‘his’), not vs (‘us’).33 The phrase can hardly be parallel to us lareowhum (‘us teachers’) in the line above; if it were, it would presumably mean ‘through us holy wise men’, but it is clear from the later part of CH 1. 17 that Ælfric regarded many of the lareowas of his own time as neither holy nor wise. It must instead mean ‘through his holy prophets’: the point being made is that God’s teaching, which the lareowas are required to expound to their flocks, was transmitted indirectly through the prophets of the Old Testament as well as directly through Christ’s preaching on earth.34 Even so, the misreading remained unnoticed until very recently; it was not until sixty years after the publication of Ker’s Catalogue of Manuscripts Containing Anglo-Saxon that the annotation was looked at at all closely. In a recent article for The Review of English Studies, ‘Updating Ælfric around the Year 1200’, Stephen Pelle examined in detail the twelfth- and thirteenth-century scribal alterations to Cambridge, Corpus Christi College, MS 302, concentrating on the evidence that they contained for the later reception and use of Ælfric’s homilies.35 He was the first to notice and correct the misreading of ys as vs in the second annotation on p. 189;36 and he also offered new insights into the structural and literary context of the annotation as a whole, pointing out how well it fitted in with what followed it in the main text: ‘it functions perfectly as a homiletic introduction and contains several phrases occurring elsewhere in Ælfric’s works.’37 This article attempts to take Pelle’s findings one step further by reassessing the historical context of the annotation. How well-founded is the general inference from its date of entry in Cambridge, Corpus Christi College, MS 302 that it was composed in the early Middle English period? I shall be arguing that although the hand in which it is entered is dated to the early thirteenth century, its content is much earlier; that it is not only Ælfrician in its phrasing, but composed by Ælfric; and that it was originally an integral part of what has come down to us as the second part of CH 1. 17. An examination of how the annotation is related to its context needs to take into account a previously unnoticed feature of its style: it is written, like the part of the homily that follows it in the manuscript, in the rhythmical prose used by Ælfric in his later works. In the edited text below, which fits the content unique to the annotation (in square brackets) into the introductory passage that immediately follows it (as edited by Clemoes, 535/1–5), I have modernized punctuation and capitalization, and lineated both passages as verse: [Men ða leffostan, us lareowhum gedafenað Þa soðem lare ðe god silf gesette ðurch ys halgan witegan and Þurch hine silfne eowh gelome seggan to eowhres lifes richtinge; and] ge magon gehyran on ðæran halgan lare on hu micelre frecednysse we moton beon gif we eow ne secgað eowre sawle Þearfe. We aweriað us sylfe gif we hi secgað eow, and gif we mid weorcum eow wel bysniað; elles we beoð gehatene yfele hyrdas, Þe lætað Godes scep losian Þurh gymeleaste. ([Dearest men, it is proper for us teachers to speak to you often, for correction of your lives, about the true teaching that God himself decreed through his holy prophets and in his own person; and] you can hear in that holy teaching what great danger we must be in if we do not say to you what is needed for your souls. We protect ourselves if we say these things to you, and if we give you a good example through our own actions; else we shall have the name of bad shepherds, who allow God’s sheep to be lost by neglect.) The two passages are unified not only by style, but by structure: a closely-argued sequence of points is developed within a complex but well-controlled syntactical framework. Less immediately obvious, but perhaps more significant, is that the second passage makes better sense in conjunction with the first than without it. In the augmented version of CH 1. 17 as it survives in the manuscripts, the argumentative transition between the original homily and the later addition is unsignalled, and on ðæran halgan lare has no obvious antecedent. Although lare is mentioned in lines 27 and 28, the word there refers to one of the duties, along with prayer, of the bishop or lareow rather than to the content of his teaching. The annotation clearly marks off the addition to CH 1. 17 as structurally independent, and supplies a direct grammatical antecedent for on ðæran halgan lare (‘Þa soðem lare … Þurch hine silfne’) that defines it more sharply as the word of God and incorporates it into a more complex argument. There remains the problem that the annotation was entered in Cambridge, Corpus Christi College, MS 302 two centuries later than Ælfric’s composition and revision of the Catholic Homilies, and its content is not otherwise attested in the textual tradition of his works. Might it be, rather than an authentic fragment of Ælfric’s writing, a convincing imitation by a later user of his work (whether the annotator himself or someone else)? There are two reasons, however, for seeing this as less likely, the first general, the second more specific. The first is the lack of other evidence for direct imitation of this kind, either in Ælfric’s time or later. J. C. Pope says of Ælfric’s rhythmical prose style, ‘This form is so distinctive that it is a strong indication of [his] authorship wherever it appears.’ He does allow for a possible exception among Ælfric’s contemporaries, ‘certain compilers who may have had reason to imitate him for a few sentences’; but Mary Clayton has made a strong case for attributing the one instance he discusses, a three-line bridging passage in the augmented version of Ælfric’s homily De auguriis, to Ælfric himself.38 Composition at a later period would in any case make accurate imitation of Ælfric’s style less likely; Pope is rightly unconvinced by Dorothy Bethurum’s arguments for the direct influence of Ælfric’s rhythmical prose on the saints’ lives of the ‘Katherine Group’, which were composed in the late twelfth or early thirteenth century (‘In spite of the resemblance I agree with those who hesitate to call the Katherine Group metrical, even in the loose Ælfrician sense’).39 The second, more specific, reason is that there is one item of vocabulary in the annotation itself, the word gedafenað, that points to a much earlier date of composition than the thirteenth century. All the instances of the verb (i)dafenan and the related adjective idafenlich cited in MED are from post-Conquest copies of pre-Conquest works, and all but one are from a single manuscript of the second half of the twelfth century, Oxford, Bodleian Library, Bodley 343 (B), containing works by Ælfric and others40 (the exception is from the version of Ælfric’s De Initio Creaturae in London, British Library, MS Cotton Vespasian A. 22 (Xg) (c.1200), where the scribe miswrites the adjective as ʒedanfenlich).41 Pelle comments on the twelfth- and thirteenth-century scribal alterations to Cambridge, Corpus Christi College, MS 302, ‘The motivation for most of the glosses and substitutions in the manuscript seems to have been lexical modernization—that is to say, the replacement of obsolescent English words with words that were more common in the late twelfth century’,42 and he notes that some of the words glossed are found only in later copies of pre-Conquest works. In this context, it seems less likely that a newly-composed sermon introduction, even if its author was imitating Ælfric’s phraseology, would make use of a verb that was likely to be unfamiliar to its contemporary users. There is a case here for the use of Occam’s razor: since the passage is consistently Ælfrician in language, style, and content, the most economical hypothesis is that it was composed by Ælfric himself, probably (as its close integration with the material that follows suggests) as part of the original introduction to the second part of CH 1. 17. That the passage is not found elsewhere in the manuscripts is not necessarily an objection; from the late twelfth century onwards, the increasing obsolescence of the language of the Catholic Homilies and the advent of new preaching methods combined to reduce their usefulness as preaching material,43 and more manuscripts containing them have been lost than have survived.44 In addition, if the passage was selected for deletion by Ælfric at the point when the material it had originally introduced was added to the first version of CH 1. 17, its chances of survival would have been reduced still further (as in the case of the original conclusion of CH 1. 38, which is known to us only because of the copyist’s accidental failure to delete it). The second of these points, however, raises the question of how the passage nevertheless reached the annotator of Cambridge, Corpus Christi College, MS 302 in the early thirteenth century. The simplest answer is that the ‘two additions, alia manu, at the foot of p. 189’ constitute more of a matching pair than has generally been assumed. The first annotation, apart from the ‘rather idiosyncratic’ spelling that might, as Pelle says, ‘be expected from a thirteenth-century scribe writing Old English’,45 is an almost verbatim reproduction of the original conclusion of CH 1. 17 as edited by Clemoes, 316/87–9 (the only variant is the omission of mid before halgum in the last line of the annotation); and a reasonable inference from the evidence discussed so far is that the second annotation reproduces, with a similar degree of accuracy, the opening lines of the original introduction to its second part. The symmetrical layout of the two annotations at the foot of the page suggests that they were entered at the same time, and this is most easily explained by the assumption that they came from the same source—that is, another manuscript, now lost, reflecting an intermediate phase of textual development, in which the two parts of CH 1. 17 were already juxtaposed but as separate works, before the process of selective deletion that conflated them into a single homily (i.e. the δ phase of revision to which Clemoes assigns the augmented homily). A history of this kind would be consistent with the model of textual development raised as a possibility by Godden for CH 1. 38, where the original homily may have been augmented by a later homily initially produced for a different context, losing its original conclusion by deletion in the process. The augmented version of CH 1. 17 is in fact more thematically unified than some of Ælfric’s other augmented homilies, complementing the exposition of the Gospel reading from John 10 in its first part with a much fuller exploration of its Old Testament counterpart in Ezekiel 34 than the original short homily had offered; but there are still discrepancies between the two parts in scale, style, purpose, and argumentative structure that need to be accounted for. The most likely explanation, on the evidence discussed here, is that the original version was augmented by a longer, later, and more ambitious homily, initially composed for delivery to an audience including members of the higher clergy and aristocracy;46 and that the method used to combine the two homilies, by juxtaposition and deletion rather than rewriting, did not resolve their differences in tone and treatment, and only partly resolved the discontinuities of argument arising from their combination. I am most grateful to the RES readers for their detailed comments and for further references, and to Stephen Pelle for sharing with me his final draft of the article discussed below. I would also like to thank the Master and Fellows of Corpus Christi College, Cambridge, for permission to reproduce part of their digital image of Cambridge, Corpus Christi College, MS 302, p. 189. Footnotes 1 See Ælfric’s Catholic Homilies: The First Series, Text, ed. Peter Clemoes, EETS S.S. 17 (1997), 64–97. Clemoes assigns Cambridge, Cambridge University Library, MS Ii.4.6 (M), London, British Library, MS Cotton Faustina A. ix (N), and Cambridge, Corpus Christi College, MS 302 (O) to the δ phase; Cambridge, Corpus Christi College, MS 188 (Q) to the ε phase; and Cambridge, Trinity College, MS B.15.34 (U), to the ζ phase. All references to the homilies of the First Series are to Clemoes’s edition, and the manuscript sigla cited are those used by Clemoes. 2 Malcolm Godden, Ælfric’s Catholic Homilies: Introduction, Commentary and Glossary, EETS S.S. 18 (2000), 136. 3 See Homilies of Ælfric: A Supplementary Collection, ed. John C. Pope, EETS O.S. 259, 260 (1967–1968), 1. 105–36. 4 535/5–6; see fn. 34 below. 5 The quotations from Phil. 2: 21, Sir. 2: 1, and 2 Tim. 3: 12 are taken over from Ælfric’s Latin source (Augustine, sermon 46; see Godden, Ælfric’s Catholic Homilies (2000), 137); those from Isa. 49: 15, Ps. 33: 20, 1 Tim. 6: 10, and 1 Cor. 3: 19 are supplied by Ælfric. 6 On the purpose and audience of the Catholic Homilies in general, and the contexts in which they might have been preached, see Mary Clayton, ‘Homiliaries and Preaching in Anglo-Saxon England’, Peritia, 4 (1985), 207–42 (at 230–9), and Godden, Ælfric’s Catholic Homilies (2000), xxi–xxvii. The possible audience of the revised version of CH 1. 17 is discussed in detail in Robert K. Upchurch, ‘A Big Dog Barks: Ælfric of Eynsham’s Indictment of the English Pastorate and “Witan”’, Speculum, 85 (2010), 505–33 (at 524–32); Upchurch argues that it was probably composed for delivery by a bishop or archbishop ‘at a meeting of either the witan [i.e. the king’s council] or shire court’ (p. 530) to a mixed audience of clergy and laity (on the broad social range of those attending events of this kind, see p. 530 fn. 133). 7 Godden, Ælfric’s Catholic Homilies (2000), 141. 8 See Clemoes, Ælfric’s Catholic Homilies, 65: ‘Ðeos racu [is] fullicor on ð[ære] oðre bec. 7 w[e hi] forbudon on ðys]sere Þy læs þe h[it æ]Þryt Þince gif [heo] on ægðre bec b[eo;]’. 9 Ibid., 65; see also the discussion in Kenneth Sisam, ‘MSS. Bodley 340 and 342: Ælfric’s Catholic Homilies’, RES, 8 (1932), 51–68 (at 58–9). 10 Translation based on Sisam’s (‘MSS. Bodley 340 and 342’, RES, 8 (1932), 58). I am grateful to Stephen Pelle for his advice on the interpretation of this passage. 11 Sisam, ‘MSS. Bodley 340 and 342’, 58–9. 12 Ælfric tells Archbishop Sigeric that he is sending him forty sermons, as he did for the First Series, ‘quamuis aliquae illarum breuitate angustentur’(‘although some of them are limited by their shortness’), citing as an excuse the recent disruption caused by Viking raids (Ælfric’s Catholic Homilies: The Second Series, Text, ed. Malcolm Godden, EETS S.S. 5 (1979), Praefatio, 1/18–19). 13 Godden, Ælfric’s Catholic Homilies (2000), 318. 14 Pope, Homilies of Ælfric, 1. 116–17 (on the last point, see also 2. 614). 15 See Godden, Ælfric’s Catholic Homilies (2000), 514; the additional material, which survives only in one manuscript, is edited as item 23 in Pope, Homilies of Ælfric, 2. 734–48. 16 See Pope, Homilies of Ælfric, 2. 575, app. crit. for lines 203–76, 203. 17 217/128–9: ‘We synd gecnæwe Þæt we hit forgymeleasodon on ðæm dæge Þe mann Þæt godspel rædde’ (‘I confess that I neglected to use it on the day on which that gospel was read’). 18 See the detailed discussion of its textual history in Pope, Homilies of Ælfric, 2. 563–5. 19 Godden, Ælfric’s Catholic Homilies (2000), 329–30; see also his more detailed discussion of the textual history of the passage (ibid., 4). 20 See Clemoes, Ælfric’s Catholic Homilies, 513, app. crit. for line 169. 21 Ibid., app. crit. for line 168. 22 Godden, Ælfric’s Catholic Homilies (2000), 318. 23 Ibid., 136. The same assumption is made by Upchurch, ‘A Big Dog Barks’, 510: ‘The passage from Ezekiel provides the seed from which the generalized critique in the original homily grows in the revised version into an attack on the failings of the Anglo-Saxon clergy and the misconduct of the English ruling class.’ 24 Godden, Ælfric’s Catholic Homilies (2000), 136. 25 M. R. James, A Descriptive Catalogue of the Manuscripts in the Library of Corpus Christi College, Cambridge, 2 vols (Cambridge, 1909–1913), vol. 2, part 1, 94. 26 N. R. Ker, Catalogue of Manuscripts Containing Anglo-Saxon (Oxford, 1957), 98 (item 56, art. 29). 27 Margaret Laing, Catalogue of Sources for a Linguistic Atlas of Early Medieval English (Cambridge, 1993), 23 (since Laing’s datings follow ‘the generally accepted authorities’ (8), the description in this entry of the hand of the annotation as ‘of the turn of C13 (1300)’, is probably a slip). 28 Kari Anne Rand, The Index of Middle English Prose, Handlist XX: Manuscripts in the Library of Corpus Christi College, Cambridge (Cambridge, 2009), 67–8. 29 The Homilies of the Anglo-Saxon Church: The First Part, Containing the Sermones Catholici, or Homilies of Ælfric, ed. B. Thorpe, 2 vols (London, 1844–1846). 30 Kenneth Sisam, ‘MSS Bodley 340 and 342: Ælfric’s Catholic Homilies’, RES, 7 (1931), 7–22, 8 (1932), 51–68, and 9 (1933), 1–12; quotations from RES, 9 (1933), 12. 31 See the survey by Hugh Magennis, ‘Ælfric Scholarship’, in A Companion to Ælfric, ed. Hugh Magennis and Mary Swan, Brill’s Companions to the Christian Tradition, 18 (Leiden, 2009), 5–34. 32 This is true even of the retranscribed texts in Timothy Graham, Raymond J. S. Grant, Peter J. Lucas, and Elaine Treharne, Anglo-Saxon Manuscripts in Microfiche Facsimile, Vol. 11: Corpus Christi College, Cambridge, 1 (Tempe, AZ, 2003), 52 (re-used in Orietta da Rold, Takako Kato, Mary Swan and Elaine Treharne (eds), The Production and Use of English Manuscripts 1060 to 1220 (pubd online 2010–2013), http://www.le.ac.uk/english/em1060to1220/mss/EM.CCCC.302.htm accessed 9 February 2017), and in Rand, The Index of Middle English Prose, Handlist XX, 68. These transcriptions also introduce an additional misreading, be for Ge in the third line of the annotation, that makes no sense at all; the letter-form in the manuscript looks more like a rather clumsy attempt to imitate the capital G of Ge in the last line of the main text above, at the point where the addition to CH 1. 17 begins (which would explain why it is capitalized in the annotation, even though it no longer begins a sentence). 33 For the short-tailed form of <y> used here, cf. (in a less ambiguous context) synd in the first line of the first annotation; note also the spelling us (rather than vs) for ‘us’ in the first line of the second annotation. 34 The role of the prophets is explicitly distinguished from that of the lareowas in the addition to CH 1. 17, 535/5–6: ‘Be swylcum cwæð god sylf to sumum his witegan ezechiel gehaten. 7 he hit sette on bócum. 7 we hit magon eow secgan…’ (‘God himself spoke to one of his prophets, called Ezekiel, about such things, and he recorded it in the scriptures, and we can tell it to you…’) . Stephen Pelle has noted that Ælfric uses the same phrase in CH 1. 36 (see fn. 37 below). There it translates per sanctos prophetas et famulos suos (‘through his holy prophets and servants’) in the Latin source (see Godden, Ælfric’s Catholic Homilies (2000), 304–5), and is used in a similar context: God ‘gesette Þurh his halgan witegan Þa læssan bebodu. iudeiscre Þeode Þe mid ogan Þa gyt gebunden wæs · 7 he gesette Þurh his agenne sunu Þa maran bebodu cristenum folce Þa he mid soÞre lufe to alysenne com’ (492/169–73) (‘decreed the lesser commandments through his holy prophets to the Jewish nation, which was still bound by fear; and he decreed the greater commandments through his own son to the Christian people, who he came to save with true love’). 35 Stephen Pelle, ‘Updating Ælfric around the Year 1200’, RES (2017). DOI: https://doi.org/10.1093/res/hgx014. 36 Ibid., n. 68. 37 Pelle, ‘Updating Ælfric’. The references he gives are to Lareowum gedafenað, CH 2. 41, 308/133; Þurh his halgan witegan, CH 1. 36, 492/170; and to heora lifes rihtinge, CH 1. 37, 498/25. He also notes that the phrase Þa soðan lare is ‘found only in the works of Ælfric (8x) in the DOE corpus.’ To these verbal parallels might be added the phrase Men Þa leofostan; although it is not limited in OE to Ælfric’s works, five of the eight instances in the DOE Corpus are recorded from Ælfric’s homilies (CH 1. 23, 367/81; CH 1. 37, 497/4; CH 2. 7, 60/1; CH 2. 15, 150/1; and Pope 2, 230/1). 38 See Pope, Homilies of Ælfric, 1. 62–4 and 2. 786–8, and Mary Clayton, ‘Ælfric’s De Auguriis and Cambridge, Corpus Christi College 178’, in Latin Learning and English Lore: Studies in Anglo-Saxon Literature for Michael Lapidge, ed. Katherine O’Brien O’Keeffe and Andy Orchard, 2 vols, Toronto Old English Series, 14 (Toronto, 2005), vol. 2, 376–94. Although an accurate contemporary imitation of Ælfric’s rhythmical prose would not be impossible in theory, where the surviving evidence is consistent with Ælfric’s authorship it is methodologically simpler, as Clayton says, to accept the passage in question as authentic than ‘to postulate…an Ælfric clone’ (382). 39 Pope, Homilies of Ælfric, 1. 103, 105, 106 (in fn. 2 to p. 105). On the claim in Bethurum’s article (‘The Connection of the Katherine Group with Old English Prose’, JEGP, 34 (1935), 553–64) that the style of the saints’ lives of the Group was directly influenced by Ælfric’s Lives of the Saints, see further Bella Millett’s ‘The Saints’ Lives of the Katherine Group and the Alliterative Tradition’, JEGP, 87 (1988), 16–34, which concludes that the stylistic influence of the OE homiletic tradition on the KG saints’ lives was probably indirect rather than direct, and that their rhythmical prose has closer affinities with Wulfstan’s style than with Ælfric’s. 40 In Bodley 343, dafeneð is found in the History of the Holy Rood Tree and Vercelli Homily 3. All three instances of idafenen, and the other instance of idafenlich, are in Ælfric’s homily for Wednesday of the fourth week in Lent, edited by Susan Irvine as item 3 in Old English Homilies from MS Bodley 343, EETS O.S. 302 (1993), 48–76 (this is one of four homilies by Ælfric preserved only in this late manuscript; see also Irvine’s discussion of their authenticity, xv–xviii). 41 Old English Homilies and Homiletic Treatises…of the Twelfth and Thirteenth Centuries: First Series, ed. Richard Morris, EETS O.S. 29, 34 (1868), 221/34 (from gedafenlic in the OE text, Ælfric’s Catholic Homilies, ed. Clemoes, 181/86). 42 Pelle, ‘Updating Ælfric’. 43 Ker, Catalogue of Manuscripts Containing Anglo-Saxon, xlix, cites some evidence ‘that manuscripts in OE were considered to be practically without value in the thirteenth and fourteenth centuries’, including a marginal note in a hand of about 1300 in a collection of homilies and saints’ lives by Ælfric (Cambridge, University Library, MS Ii.I.33 (L), from the second half of the twelfth century), ‘Hoc uolumen continet multam copiam sermonum in anglico. non apreciatum propter ydioma incognitum’ (‘This volume contains a great many sermons in English, not valued because of the unfamiliar language’). 44 Sisam, ‘MSS Bodley 340 and 342’, RES, 8 (1932), 61–2, argues that the earliest manuscripts of the First Series of the Catholic Homilies must represent ‘a tiny fraction of the copies that existed in Ælfric’s lifetime’ (62); Clemoes, Ælfric’s Catholic Homilies, 162, says that the thirty-four surviving manuscripts produced outside Ælfric’s scriptorium ‘testify to the existence of some fifty others’, and adds that ‘about fifty is a conservative estimate’ (see 162, fn. 3). 45 Pelle, ‘Updating Ælfric’. 46 See fn. 6 above. © The Author 2017. Published by Oxford University Press 2017; all rights reserved http://www.deepdyve.com/assets/images/DeepDyve-Logo-lg.png The Review of English Studies Oxford University Press

New Light on the Textual History of Ælfric’s Catholic Homilies 1. 17

Loading next page...
 
/lp/ou_press/new-light-on-the-textual-history-of-lfric-s-catholic-homilies-1-17-lVGQ1R7JxK
Publisher
Oxford University Press
Copyright
© The Author 2017. Published by Oxford University Press 2017; all rights reserved
ISSN
0034-6551
eISSN
1471-6968
D.O.I.
10.1093/res/hgx055
Publisher site
See Article on Publisher Site

Abstract

ABSTRACT Ælfric’s homily for the second Sunday after Easter in the First Series of his Catholic Homilies (CH 1. 17) survives in two versions, the later one augmented by a lengthy addition. This article attempts to explain the noticeable discrepancies between the two parts of the augmented homily in scale, style, purpose, and argumentative structure by relating them to the broader context of Ælfric’s methods of augmentation elsewhere in the Catholic Homilies. Some of these features could be more easily accounted for if the later addition was originally an independent homily; the article identifies a possible ‘missing link’ supporting this hypothesis, an annotation in an early-thirteenth-century hand to the augmented text of CH 1. 17 in Cambridge, Corpus Christi College, MS 302. It argues that the content of the annotation, which supplies an introductory passage for the second part of the homily, need not (as has previously been assumed) be contemporary with its hand; it may instead preserve an otherwise lost but authentic fragment of Ælfric’s writing, deleted at the stage when the two homilies were combined. The textual history of the homily for the second Sunday after Easter in the First Series of Ælfric’s Catholic Homilies (CH 1. 17) is complicated, and in some ways problematic. It has come down to us in two different versions. The original version, which survives in eight manuscripts and a fragment, is an exposition of the Gospel reading for the day, John 10: 11–16 (‘Ego sum pastor bonus …’), in which Christ, speaking as the good shepherd, warns against the hirelings (mercenarii) who desert their flocks; it also touches briefly on the corresponding Old Testament prophecy, God’s warning to the bad shepherds of Israel in Ezekiel 34. The later version is found in five manuscripts, all reflecting the later phases of authorial revision (δ, ε, and ζ) identified by Peter Clemoes in his edition of the First Series.1 In this version, the original conclusion and doxology (316/87–9) have been replaced by an extended exposition of Ezek. 34: 2–16. The passage on Ezekiel in the original version, summarizing Ezek. 34: 5–16 and adding a warning to the laity not to imitate the bad behaviour of their pastors (315/59–73), has also been cut, but its material is treated at greater length in two passages in the addition (535/5–30 and 537/62–82). Although the augmented homily is presented as a single work in all the surviving manuscripts that contain it, there are some noticeable discrepancies between its two parts. In the first place, there is a marked disproportion in scale: at 253 lines, the addition is almost three times the length of the original homily, which is (in Malcolm Godden’s words) ‘easily the shortest of the First Series Homilies, a mere 89 lines.’2 Secondly, the two parts are clearly demarcated by style: the original homily is in ordinary prose, but the addition is in the rhythmical prose style that was developed by Ælfric during the composition of the Second Series of Catholic Homilies, and used habitually by him in his later works.3 Thirdly, the two parts seem to have different purposes, envisaging rather different kinds of audience and addressing them in different ways. The original homily provides an exposition of its two Scriptural texts at a level appropriate for a relatively uneducated audience, encouraging them to take personal responsibility for their spiritual welfare if they are failed by negligent pastors. While the addition still takes listeners of this kind into account (assuming at one point that they may not know who Ezekiel was4), it is more overtly learned, incorporating further Scriptural references, quoted in Latin as well as English.5 It also addresses more explicitly the problems caused by the ecclesiastical and political corruption of the time, focusing on the spiritual dangers faced by those in a position of responsibility, not only clerical but secular, and warning of the consequences if they fail to give proper guidance, whether by precept or by example, to those placed under their care.6 Finally, the argumentative fit between the original homily and the addition is less than perfect. Although the deletion of the material on Ezekiel from the original has reduced the potential overlap in content between the two parts, it has not removed it altogether (Godden notes that another passage in the addition, 536/31–46, is ‘in part a resumé of the arguments of the original homily’7); and the transition between the two parts is rather abrupt, switching without a bridging passage from Christ’s description of his role as the good shepherd to Ezekiel’s warning of the dangers faced by pastors who neglect their flocks. However problematic they may seem to the modern reader, these apparent discrepancies have parallels elsewhere in the Catholic Homilies, and they become more explicable if they are looked at in the context of the textual evolution of the Homilies as a whole. Ælfric continued to work on both sets of homilies after their initial composition, using a variety of methods, from small-scale correction and revision of grammar, phrasing, and content to much larger-scale reorganization and augmentation. It is these more broad-brush methods of alteration, which might entail the deletion of older material, the composition of new material, or the transfer of existing material from one homily (or even series) to another, that could lead to the creation of hybrid texts such as the later version of CH 1. 17. Although such methods of alteration are associated mainly with the later stages of development of the Catholic Homilies, some insight into Ælfric’s motives for using them is provided by two instances in the earliest surviving manuscript of the First Series, London, British Library, MS Royal 7. c. xii (A), produced in his lifetime and under his direct supervision. The first is in CH 1. 12, a homily for Mid-Lent Sunday, where a basic summary for less-knowing listeners of Moses’ role in Biblical history and the Ten Commandments (531/1–21) has been marked for deletion after folce 278/79; in a marginal note, Ælfric explains that since the subject is dealt with more fully in the second volume (i.e. in the Second Series, CH 2. 12), he has ordered the passage to be removed to avoid tedious repetition between the two volumes.8 The second is in CH 1. 38, for the feast of St Andrew, where the conclusion of the original 168-line homily—still present in the manuscript, probably through ‘scribal inadvertence’,9 but marked for deletion—has been replaced by a separate account of Andrew’s martyrdom with the heading PASSIO, at 181 lines slightly longer than the original homily. A sentence in the conclusion itself (531/1–532/4) suggests the motive for its replacement: ‘Hit wære gelimplic gif Þises dæges scortnys us geÞafian wolde Þæt we eow Þæs halgan apostoles andrees Þrowunge gerehton • ac we wyllað on oðrum sæle gif we gesundfulle beoð eow gelæstan gif we hwæt lytles hwonlicor gefyldon’ (‘It would be fitting, if the shortness of this day [i.e. 30 November] would permit us, to tell you of the holy apostle Andrew’s passion. But, if we have health, we will make it good for you another time, if we have fallen short in any detail.’).10 The second of these two instances goes some way towards explaining the disproportion in scale between the original and later parts of CH 1. 17; it reflects, as Kenneth Sisam said,11 the concern not to give short weight to the users of his homilies that Ælfric also expressed in the Latin preface to the Second Series.12 Given this concern, it would not be surprising to find, if anything, an inverse relationship between the length of an original homily and the length of its augmentation, and the augmented form of CH 1. 17 could be seen as an instance (if an extreme one) of this tendency. The stylistic discrepancy between the ordinary prose of the original version of CH 1. 17 and the rhythmical prose of the later addition also has parallels elsewhere in the Catholic Homilies. Godden notes that even in the relatively early addition to CH 1. 38 on the passion of St Andrew, Ælfric uses rhythmical prose towards the end, which ‘raises at least the possibility that he wrote this second section around the time when he was completing work on the Second Series’;13 and according to J. C. Pope, ‘at no time after the invention of the rhythmical form does Ælfric seem to have hesitated to insert a freshly composed rhythmical passage into an early homily written in ordinary prose, … to attach a rhythmical exemplum to an ordinary prose admonition, … or to include an early piece, partly ordinary, partly rhythmical, in an otherwise consistently rhythmical homily.’14 Since this stylistic difference between the two parts of CH 1. 17 is consistent with Ælfric’s usual practice, it could reflect nothing more than the later date at which the addition was composed. The apparent discrepancies between the purpose and argumentative structure of the two parts are rather harder to explain. In cases where Ælfric composed new material specifically to develop an existing homily further, his modifications sometimes produced homilies that were more rather than less coherent. In its original form, his ninety-two-line account of the martyrdom of SS. Alexander, Eventius, and Theodolus, the second of the two very short homilies that make up CH 2. 18, has, in Godden’s words, ‘a somewhat abrupt starting-point’; but at a later stage Ælfric added a 208-line prequel, completing the translation of the Latin source (the anonymous Acta Alexandri Papae) that he had drawn on for the original homily.15 A more complicated example is the history of CH 2. 23b. This account of two miracles by Christ was originally loosely appended (in four manuscripts it has the heading Alia Narratio de Euangelii Textu16) as a supplement to the short homily for the third Sunday after Pentecost, on the parable of the feast in Luke 14: 16–24. Ælfric conceded in his introduction to the passage that this was not the right place for it,17 and at a later stage incorporated it in a newly-composed sermon for the thirteenth Sunday after Pentecost (Pope 17) that included further miracles, linking its content both to a more appropriate pericope and to the theme of miracles in general.18 There is more potential for internal discrepancies when Ælfric uses what could be described as a cut-and-paste technique, combining one existing work—or an extract from it—with another, sometimes deleting surplus passages, but with little or no rewriting. An instance of this can be found in CH 1. 39, a very short homily (111 lines) for the first Sunday in Advent that was extended at a later stage by a passage from the Old English preface to the First Series (174/57–176/119) on the coming of Antichrist. Although the passage has been modified by some minor revisions and the provision of a concluding exhortation and doxology, these may date from an intermediate textual phase when it was reworked as a free-standing piece, and Godden sees it as ‘not closely related to any of the issues discussed in the original homily’, although it is still ‘clearly appropriate to the expectations and celebrations of the second coming associated with the Advent period.’19 A similarly loose connection exists between the two parts of CH 1. 38, where the original homily expounds the Gospel reading for the day (Matt. 4: 18–22), on the calling of Andrew and his companions to become ‘fishers of men’, while the later addition gives an account of his passion. In the earlier manuscripts, the second part is marked off from the first by a variety of headings;20 at a later stage, Ælfric adds a sentence linking the two parts together, but phrased in a way that draws attention as much to their disjunction as to their connection: ‘We hæbbeð nu gesaed Þis godspell sceortlice. Nu wille we eow secgan hu se apostol andreas Þe we nu todæg wurÞiað his agen lif sealde for cristes geleafan for Þære lare Þe he bodode’ (‘I have now briefly related this gospel. Now I will tell you how the apostle Andrew, whom we honour today, gave up his own life because of his faith in Christ for the teaching that he expounded’).21 It is possible that in this case too the addition originated as a separate composition; in Godden’s view, ‘one interpretation of the cancelled conclusion is that he initially intended to cover the passion in the Second Series, rather as he divided Scriptural exegesis and hagiographical narrative for St Stephen’s day between the two Series; the passion narrative may thus have been written for the Second Series and transferred to the First before the latter was circulated.’22 Godden’s account of the textual development of CH 1. 17 assumes that its additional material is a purpose-built extension, expanded from the ‘germ’ of the passage on Ezekiel in the original homily;23 but the alternative hypothesis he proposes for CH 1. 38 might also be considered for CH 1. 17. In spite of the correspondences in content between the original passage and the later addition, there are no similarities in wording conclusive enough to demonstrate that the passage in its original form was reworked for the later version; it is possible that it functioned instead as a hook, suggesting a potential connection between the two homilies, and was subsequently deleted (like the passage on Moses in CH 1. 12) to avoid any overlap with Ælfric’s later and fuller treatment of the same material. The hypothesis that the additional material was originally a separate homily would account more satisfactorily both for the ‘shift in tone and treatment’ that Godden notes between the two parts of the homily24 and for the elements of discontinuity and repetition in its argument; and there is one passage in the manuscript tradition of CH 1. 17, not previously mentioned in this context, that could be adduced as supporting evidence. In Cambridge, Corpus Christi College, MS 302 (O), a collection of sermons by Ælfric and others copied in the late eleventh or early twelfth century, there are two annotations, both in the same early-thirteenth-century hand, in the lower margin of p. 189, marked for consecutive entry at the point in its text of CH 1. 17 where the later addition begins (Ge magon …). Fig. 1. View largeDownload slide Cambridge, Corpus Christi College, MS 302, p. 189. Fig. 1. View largeDownload slide Cambridge, Corpus Christi College, MS 302, p. 189. M. R. James’s description of the manuscript in his catalogue of the manuscripts of Corpus Christi College, Cambridge (1909–1913) refers to these annotations only briefly: ‘Two additions, alia manu, in lower margin.’25 They are described in much greater detail, however, in N. R. Ker’s 1957 Catalogue of Manuscripts Containing Anglo-Saxon. Ker notes that the conclusion to the original homily, omitted in the extended version, ‘has been added in the lower margin by a hand of s. xiii in.’, and that ‘Introductory lines to this part of the homily have been added in the lower margin of p. 189 by the hand of s. xiii.’ He also provides a transcription of the second annotation: ‘Men ða leffostan us lareowhum gedafenað Þa soðem lare ðe god silf gesette. ðurch vs halgan witegan. 7 Þurch hine silfne. eowh gelome seggan to eowhres lifes richtinge. And Ge magon gehiran on ðare’26 (the last five words repeat the beginning of the second part in the main text, pp. 189–90). Ker’s description of these annotations has largely determined the approach taken to them by later scholars. In particular, his comment on the second annotation seems to have been generally taken to mean—although Ker does not actually say this—that its content as well as its hand should be dated to the early thirteenth century. Margaret Laing’s 1993 Catalogue of Sources for a Linguistic Atlas of Early Medieval English includes this annotation, reproduced from Ker’s transcription, as one of its sources;27 and Kari Anne Rand’s 2009 volume of The Index of Middle English Prose, covering the manuscripts of Corpus Christi College, Cambridge, also includes it, retranscribed but with references to Ker and Laing.28 In his ground-breaking article of the early 1930s on the textual evolution of Ælfric’s Catholic Homilies, Kenneth Sisam deplored the continuing tendency of scholars to rely on Benjamin Thorpe’s unsatisfactory edition of 1844–184629 rather than properly investigating the evidence available in the manuscripts, even in cases where it had been made ‘easily accessible’. Criticizing what he saw as ‘a persistent restriction of curiosity’, he said of the two manuscripts he discussed in most detail, Oxford, Bodleian Library, MSS Bodley 340 and 342 (D), ‘If they still offer good gleaning, it is because the attention of the scholars who used them was concentrated on other things.’30 Researchers have since done much to remedy the problem that he described, focusing increasingly—particularly over the last few decades—on the later history of Ælfric’s works and the manuscripts that preserve them.31 But his analysis of its cause has not entirely lost its relevance; the history of the second annotation after it was made ‘easily accessible’ by Ker similarly reflects a ‘persistent restriction of curiosity’. In the first place, there appears to be no mention of it in the major editions of the Catholic Homilies published since the appearance of Ker’s 1957 Catalogue, presumably because it was assumed to be a thirteenth-century composition and hence irrelevant to the establishment of Ælfric’s text. In the second place, even those reference works in which it is cited have consistently followed a reading in Ker’s transcription, vs halgan witegan, that gives unsatisfactory sense.32 Although the letter-form in the manuscript is ambiguous, in context the first word of the phrase must be ys (=‘his’), not vs (‘us’).33 The phrase can hardly be parallel to us lareowhum (‘us teachers’) in the line above; if it were, it would presumably mean ‘through us holy wise men’, but it is clear from the later part of CH 1. 17 that Ælfric regarded many of the lareowas of his own time as neither holy nor wise. It must instead mean ‘through his holy prophets’: the point being made is that God’s teaching, which the lareowas are required to expound to their flocks, was transmitted indirectly through the prophets of the Old Testament as well as directly through Christ’s preaching on earth.34 Even so, the misreading remained unnoticed until very recently; it was not until sixty years after the publication of Ker’s Catalogue of Manuscripts Containing Anglo-Saxon that the annotation was looked at at all closely. In a recent article for The Review of English Studies, ‘Updating Ælfric around the Year 1200’, Stephen Pelle examined in detail the twelfth- and thirteenth-century scribal alterations to Cambridge, Corpus Christi College, MS 302, concentrating on the evidence that they contained for the later reception and use of Ælfric’s homilies.35 He was the first to notice and correct the misreading of ys as vs in the second annotation on p. 189;36 and he also offered new insights into the structural and literary context of the annotation as a whole, pointing out how well it fitted in with what followed it in the main text: ‘it functions perfectly as a homiletic introduction and contains several phrases occurring elsewhere in Ælfric’s works.’37 This article attempts to take Pelle’s findings one step further by reassessing the historical context of the annotation. How well-founded is the general inference from its date of entry in Cambridge, Corpus Christi College, MS 302 that it was composed in the early Middle English period? I shall be arguing that although the hand in which it is entered is dated to the early thirteenth century, its content is much earlier; that it is not only Ælfrician in its phrasing, but composed by Ælfric; and that it was originally an integral part of what has come down to us as the second part of CH 1. 17. An examination of how the annotation is related to its context needs to take into account a previously unnoticed feature of its style: it is written, like the part of the homily that follows it in the manuscript, in the rhythmical prose used by Ælfric in his later works. In the edited text below, which fits the content unique to the annotation (in square brackets) into the introductory passage that immediately follows it (as edited by Clemoes, 535/1–5), I have modernized punctuation and capitalization, and lineated both passages as verse: [Men ða leffostan, us lareowhum gedafenað Þa soðem lare ðe god silf gesette ðurch ys halgan witegan and Þurch hine silfne eowh gelome seggan to eowhres lifes richtinge; and] ge magon gehyran on ðæran halgan lare on hu micelre frecednysse we moton beon gif we eow ne secgað eowre sawle Þearfe. We aweriað us sylfe gif we hi secgað eow, and gif we mid weorcum eow wel bysniað; elles we beoð gehatene yfele hyrdas, Þe lætað Godes scep losian Þurh gymeleaste. ([Dearest men, it is proper for us teachers to speak to you often, for correction of your lives, about the true teaching that God himself decreed through his holy prophets and in his own person; and] you can hear in that holy teaching what great danger we must be in if we do not say to you what is needed for your souls. We protect ourselves if we say these things to you, and if we give you a good example through our own actions; else we shall have the name of bad shepherds, who allow God’s sheep to be lost by neglect.) The two passages are unified not only by style, but by structure: a closely-argued sequence of points is developed within a complex but well-controlled syntactical framework. Less immediately obvious, but perhaps more significant, is that the second passage makes better sense in conjunction with the first than without it. In the augmented version of CH 1. 17 as it survives in the manuscripts, the argumentative transition between the original homily and the later addition is unsignalled, and on ðæran halgan lare has no obvious antecedent. Although lare is mentioned in lines 27 and 28, the word there refers to one of the duties, along with prayer, of the bishop or lareow rather than to the content of his teaching. The annotation clearly marks off the addition to CH 1. 17 as structurally independent, and supplies a direct grammatical antecedent for on ðæran halgan lare (‘Þa soðem lare … Þurch hine silfne’) that defines it more sharply as the word of God and incorporates it into a more complex argument. There remains the problem that the annotation was entered in Cambridge, Corpus Christi College, MS 302 two centuries later than Ælfric’s composition and revision of the Catholic Homilies, and its content is not otherwise attested in the textual tradition of his works. Might it be, rather than an authentic fragment of Ælfric’s writing, a convincing imitation by a later user of his work (whether the annotator himself or someone else)? There are two reasons, however, for seeing this as less likely, the first general, the second more specific. The first is the lack of other evidence for direct imitation of this kind, either in Ælfric’s time or later. J. C. Pope says of Ælfric’s rhythmical prose style, ‘This form is so distinctive that it is a strong indication of [his] authorship wherever it appears.’ He does allow for a possible exception among Ælfric’s contemporaries, ‘certain compilers who may have had reason to imitate him for a few sentences’; but Mary Clayton has made a strong case for attributing the one instance he discusses, a three-line bridging passage in the augmented version of Ælfric’s homily De auguriis, to Ælfric himself.38 Composition at a later period would in any case make accurate imitation of Ælfric’s style less likely; Pope is rightly unconvinced by Dorothy Bethurum’s arguments for the direct influence of Ælfric’s rhythmical prose on the saints’ lives of the ‘Katherine Group’, which were composed in the late twelfth or early thirteenth century (‘In spite of the resemblance I agree with those who hesitate to call the Katherine Group metrical, even in the loose Ælfrician sense’).39 The second, more specific, reason is that there is one item of vocabulary in the annotation itself, the word gedafenað, that points to a much earlier date of composition than the thirteenth century. All the instances of the verb (i)dafenan and the related adjective idafenlich cited in MED are from post-Conquest copies of pre-Conquest works, and all but one are from a single manuscript of the second half of the twelfth century, Oxford, Bodleian Library, Bodley 343 (B), containing works by Ælfric and others40 (the exception is from the version of Ælfric’s De Initio Creaturae in London, British Library, MS Cotton Vespasian A. 22 (Xg) (c.1200), where the scribe miswrites the adjective as ʒedanfenlich).41 Pelle comments on the twelfth- and thirteenth-century scribal alterations to Cambridge, Corpus Christi College, MS 302, ‘The motivation for most of the glosses and substitutions in the manuscript seems to have been lexical modernization—that is to say, the replacement of obsolescent English words with words that were more common in the late twelfth century’,42 and he notes that some of the words glossed are found only in later copies of pre-Conquest works. In this context, it seems less likely that a newly-composed sermon introduction, even if its author was imitating Ælfric’s phraseology, would make use of a verb that was likely to be unfamiliar to its contemporary users. There is a case here for the use of Occam’s razor: since the passage is consistently Ælfrician in language, style, and content, the most economical hypothesis is that it was composed by Ælfric himself, probably (as its close integration with the material that follows suggests) as part of the original introduction to the second part of CH 1. 17. That the passage is not found elsewhere in the manuscripts is not necessarily an objection; from the late twelfth century onwards, the increasing obsolescence of the language of the Catholic Homilies and the advent of new preaching methods combined to reduce their usefulness as preaching material,43 and more manuscripts containing them have been lost than have survived.44 In addition, if the passage was selected for deletion by Ælfric at the point when the material it had originally introduced was added to the first version of CH 1. 17, its chances of survival would have been reduced still further (as in the case of the original conclusion of CH 1. 38, which is known to us only because of the copyist’s accidental failure to delete it). The second of these points, however, raises the question of how the passage nevertheless reached the annotator of Cambridge, Corpus Christi College, MS 302 in the early thirteenth century. The simplest answer is that the ‘two additions, alia manu, at the foot of p. 189’ constitute more of a matching pair than has generally been assumed. The first annotation, apart from the ‘rather idiosyncratic’ spelling that might, as Pelle says, ‘be expected from a thirteenth-century scribe writing Old English’,45 is an almost verbatim reproduction of the original conclusion of CH 1. 17 as edited by Clemoes, 316/87–9 (the only variant is the omission of mid before halgum in the last line of the annotation); and a reasonable inference from the evidence discussed so far is that the second annotation reproduces, with a similar degree of accuracy, the opening lines of the original introduction to its second part. The symmetrical layout of the two annotations at the foot of the page suggests that they were entered at the same time, and this is most easily explained by the assumption that they came from the same source—that is, another manuscript, now lost, reflecting an intermediate phase of textual development, in which the two parts of CH 1. 17 were already juxtaposed but as separate works, before the process of selective deletion that conflated them into a single homily (i.e. the δ phase of revision to which Clemoes assigns the augmented homily). A history of this kind would be consistent with the model of textual development raised as a possibility by Godden for CH 1. 38, where the original homily may have been augmented by a later homily initially produced for a different context, losing its original conclusion by deletion in the process. The augmented version of CH 1. 17 is in fact more thematically unified than some of Ælfric’s other augmented homilies, complementing the exposition of the Gospel reading from John 10 in its first part with a much fuller exploration of its Old Testament counterpart in Ezekiel 34 than the original short homily had offered; but there are still discrepancies between the two parts in scale, style, purpose, and argumentative structure that need to be accounted for. The most likely explanation, on the evidence discussed here, is that the original version was augmented by a longer, later, and more ambitious homily, initially composed for delivery to an audience including members of the higher clergy and aristocracy;46 and that the method used to combine the two homilies, by juxtaposition and deletion rather than rewriting, did not resolve their differences in tone and treatment, and only partly resolved the discontinuities of argument arising from their combination. I am most grateful to the RES readers for their detailed comments and for further references, and to Stephen Pelle for sharing with me his final draft of the article discussed below. I would also like to thank the Master and Fellows of Corpus Christi College, Cambridge, for permission to reproduce part of their digital image of Cambridge, Corpus Christi College, MS 302, p. 189. Footnotes 1 See Ælfric’s Catholic Homilies: The First Series, Text, ed. Peter Clemoes, EETS S.S. 17 (1997), 64–97. Clemoes assigns Cambridge, Cambridge University Library, MS Ii.4.6 (M), London, British Library, MS Cotton Faustina A. ix (N), and Cambridge, Corpus Christi College, MS 302 (O) to the δ phase; Cambridge, Corpus Christi College, MS 188 (Q) to the ε phase; and Cambridge, Trinity College, MS B.15.34 (U), to the ζ phase. All references to the homilies of the First Series are to Clemoes’s edition, and the manuscript sigla cited are those used by Clemoes. 2 Malcolm Godden, Ælfric’s Catholic Homilies: Introduction, Commentary and Glossary, EETS S.S. 18 (2000), 136. 3 See Homilies of Ælfric: A Supplementary Collection, ed. John C. Pope, EETS O.S. 259, 260 (1967–1968), 1. 105–36. 4 535/5–6; see fn. 34 below. 5 The quotations from Phil. 2: 21, Sir. 2: 1, and 2 Tim. 3: 12 are taken over from Ælfric’s Latin source (Augustine, sermon 46; see Godden, Ælfric’s Catholic Homilies (2000), 137); those from Isa. 49: 15, Ps. 33: 20, 1 Tim. 6: 10, and 1 Cor. 3: 19 are supplied by Ælfric. 6 On the purpose and audience of the Catholic Homilies in general, and the contexts in which they might have been preached, see Mary Clayton, ‘Homiliaries and Preaching in Anglo-Saxon England’, Peritia, 4 (1985), 207–42 (at 230–9), and Godden, Ælfric’s Catholic Homilies (2000), xxi–xxvii. The possible audience of the revised version of CH 1. 17 is discussed in detail in Robert K. Upchurch, ‘A Big Dog Barks: Ælfric of Eynsham’s Indictment of the English Pastorate and “Witan”’, Speculum, 85 (2010), 505–33 (at 524–32); Upchurch argues that it was probably composed for delivery by a bishop or archbishop ‘at a meeting of either the witan [i.e. the king’s council] or shire court’ (p. 530) to a mixed audience of clergy and laity (on the broad social range of those attending events of this kind, see p. 530 fn. 133). 7 Godden, Ælfric’s Catholic Homilies (2000), 141. 8 See Clemoes, Ælfric’s Catholic Homilies, 65: ‘Ðeos racu [is] fullicor on ð[ære] oðre bec. 7 w[e hi] forbudon on ðys]sere Þy læs þe h[it æ]Þryt Þince gif [heo] on ægðre bec b[eo;]’. 9 Ibid., 65; see also the discussion in Kenneth Sisam, ‘MSS. Bodley 340 and 342: Ælfric’s Catholic Homilies’, RES, 8 (1932), 51–68 (at 58–9). 10 Translation based on Sisam’s (‘MSS. Bodley 340 and 342’, RES, 8 (1932), 58). I am grateful to Stephen Pelle for his advice on the interpretation of this passage. 11 Sisam, ‘MSS. Bodley 340 and 342’, 58–9. 12 Ælfric tells Archbishop Sigeric that he is sending him forty sermons, as he did for the First Series, ‘quamuis aliquae illarum breuitate angustentur’(‘although some of them are limited by their shortness’), citing as an excuse the recent disruption caused by Viking raids (Ælfric’s Catholic Homilies: The Second Series, Text, ed. Malcolm Godden, EETS S.S. 5 (1979), Praefatio, 1/18–19). 13 Godden, Ælfric’s Catholic Homilies (2000), 318. 14 Pope, Homilies of Ælfric, 1. 116–17 (on the last point, see also 2. 614). 15 See Godden, Ælfric’s Catholic Homilies (2000), 514; the additional material, which survives only in one manuscript, is edited as item 23 in Pope, Homilies of Ælfric, 2. 734–48. 16 See Pope, Homilies of Ælfric, 2. 575, app. crit. for lines 203–76, 203. 17 217/128–9: ‘We synd gecnæwe Þæt we hit forgymeleasodon on ðæm dæge Þe mann Þæt godspel rædde’ (‘I confess that I neglected to use it on the day on which that gospel was read’). 18 See the detailed discussion of its textual history in Pope, Homilies of Ælfric, 2. 563–5. 19 Godden, Ælfric’s Catholic Homilies (2000), 329–30; see also his more detailed discussion of the textual history of the passage (ibid., 4). 20 See Clemoes, Ælfric’s Catholic Homilies, 513, app. crit. for line 169. 21 Ibid., app. crit. for line 168. 22 Godden, Ælfric’s Catholic Homilies (2000), 318. 23 Ibid., 136. The same assumption is made by Upchurch, ‘A Big Dog Barks’, 510: ‘The passage from Ezekiel provides the seed from which the generalized critique in the original homily grows in the revised version into an attack on the failings of the Anglo-Saxon clergy and the misconduct of the English ruling class.’ 24 Godden, Ælfric’s Catholic Homilies (2000), 136. 25 M. R. James, A Descriptive Catalogue of the Manuscripts in the Library of Corpus Christi College, Cambridge, 2 vols (Cambridge, 1909–1913), vol. 2, part 1, 94. 26 N. R. Ker, Catalogue of Manuscripts Containing Anglo-Saxon (Oxford, 1957), 98 (item 56, art. 29). 27 Margaret Laing, Catalogue of Sources for a Linguistic Atlas of Early Medieval English (Cambridge, 1993), 23 (since Laing’s datings follow ‘the generally accepted authorities’ (8), the description in this entry of the hand of the annotation as ‘of the turn of C13 (1300)’, is probably a slip). 28 Kari Anne Rand, The Index of Middle English Prose, Handlist XX: Manuscripts in the Library of Corpus Christi College, Cambridge (Cambridge, 2009), 67–8. 29 The Homilies of the Anglo-Saxon Church: The First Part, Containing the Sermones Catholici, or Homilies of Ælfric, ed. B. Thorpe, 2 vols (London, 1844–1846). 30 Kenneth Sisam, ‘MSS Bodley 340 and 342: Ælfric’s Catholic Homilies’, RES, 7 (1931), 7–22, 8 (1932), 51–68, and 9 (1933), 1–12; quotations from RES, 9 (1933), 12. 31 See the survey by Hugh Magennis, ‘Ælfric Scholarship’, in A Companion to Ælfric, ed. Hugh Magennis and Mary Swan, Brill’s Companions to the Christian Tradition, 18 (Leiden, 2009), 5–34. 32 This is true even of the retranscribed texts in Timothy Graham, Raymond J. S. Grant, Peter J. Lucas, and Elaine Treharne, Anglo-Saxon Manuscripts in Microfiche Facsimile, Vol. 11: Corpus Christi College, Cambridge, 1 (Tempe, AZ, 2003), 52 (re-used in Orietta da Rold, Takako Kato, Mary Swan and Elaine Treharne (eds), The Production and Use of English Manuscripts 1060 to 1220 (pubd online 2010–2013), http://www.le.ac.uk/english/em1060to1220/mss/EM.CCCC.302.htm accessed 9 February 2017), and in Rand, The Index of Middle English Prose, Handlist XX, 68. These transcriptions also introduce an additional misreading, be for Ge in the third line of the annotation, that makes no sense at all; the letter-form in the manuscript looks more like a rather clumsy attempt to imitate the capital G of Ge in the last line of the main text above, at the point where the addition to CH 1. 17 begins (which would explain why it is capitalized in the annotation, even though it no longer begins a sentence). 33 For the short-tailed form of <y> used here, cf. (in a less ambiguous context) synd in the first line of the first annotation; note also the spelling us (rather than vs) for ‘us’ in the first line of the second annotation. 34 The role of the prophets is explicitly distinguished from that of the lareowas in the addition to CH 1. 17, 535/5–6: ‘Be swylcum cwæð god sylf to sumum his witegan ezechiel gehaten. 7 he hit sette on bócum. 7 we hit magon eow secgan…’ (‘God himself spoke to one of his prophets, called Ezekiel, about such things, and he recorded it in the scriptures, and we can tell it to you…’) . Stephen Pelle has noted that Ælfric uses the same phrase in CH 1. 36 (see fn. 37 below). There it translates per sanctos prophetas et famulos suos (‘through his holy prophets and servants’) in the Latin source (see Godden, Ælfric’s Catholic Homilies (2000), 304–5), and is used in a similar context: God ‘gesette Þurh his halgan witegan Þa læssan bebodu. iudeiscre Þeode Þe mid ogan Þa gyt gebunden wæs · 7 he gesette Þurh his agenne sunu Þa maran bebodu cristenum folce Þa he mid soÞre lufe to alysenne com’ (492/169–73) (‘decreed the lesser commandments through his holy prophets to the Jewish nation, which was still bound by fear; and he decreed the greater commandments through his own son to the Christian people, who he came to save with true love’). 35 Stephen Pelle, ‘Updating Ælfric around the Year 1200’, RES (2017). DOI: https://doi.org/10.1093/res/hgx014. 36 Ibid., n. 68. 37 Pelle, ‘Updating Ælfric’. The references he gives are to Lareowum gedafenað, CH 2. 41, 308/133; Þurh his halgan witegan, CH 1. 36, 492/170; and to heora lifes rihtinge, CH 1. 37, 498/25. He also notes that the phrase Þa soðan lare is ‘found only in the works of Ælfric (8x) in the DOE corpus.’ To these verbal parallels might be added the phrase Men Þa leofostan; although it is not limited in OE to Ælfric’s works, five of the eight instances in the DOE Corpus are recorded from Ælfric’s homilies (CH 1. 23, 367/81; CH 1. 37, 497/4; CH 2. 7, 60/1; CH 2. 15, 150/1; and Pope 2, 230/1). 38 See Pope, Homilies of Ælfric, 1. 62–4 and 2. 786–8, and Mary Clayton, ‘Ælfric’s De Auguriis and Cambridge, Corpus Christi College 178’, in Latin Learning and English Lore: Studies in Anglo-Saxon Literature for Michael Lapidge, ed. Katherine O’Brien O’Keeffe and Andy Orchard, 2 vols, Toronto Old English Series, 14 (Toronto, 2005), vol. 2, 376–94. Although an accurate contemporary imitation of Ælfric’s rhythmical prose would not be impossible in theory, where the surviving evidence is consistent with Ælfric’s authorship it is methodologically simpler, as Clayton says, to accept the passage in question as authentic than ‘to postulate…an Ælfric clone’ (382). 39 Pope, Homilies of Ælfric, 1. 103, 105, 106 (in fn. 2 to p. 105). On the claim in Bethurum’s article (‘The Connection of the Katherine Group with Old English Prose’, JEGP, 34 (1935), 553–64) that the style of the saints’ lives of the Group was directly influenced by Ælfric’s Lives of the Saints, see further Bella Millett’s ‘The Saints’ Lives of the Katherine Group and the Alliterative Tradition’, JEGP, 87 (1988), 16–34, which concludes that the stylistic influence of the OE homiletic tradition on the KG saints’ lives was probably indirect rather than direct, and that their rhythmical prose has closer affinities with Wulfstan’s style than with Ælfric’s. 40 In Bodley 343, dafeneð is found in the History of the Holy Rood Tree and Vercelli Homily 3. All three instances of idafenen, and the other instance of idafenlich, are in Ælfric’s homily for Wednesday of the fourth week in Lent, edited by Susan Irvine as item 3 in Old English Homilies from MS Bodley 343, EETS O.S. 302 (1993), 48–76 (this is one of four homilies by Ælfric preserved only in this late manuscript; see also Irvine’s discussion of their authenticity, xv–xviii). 41 Old English Homilies and Homiletic Treatises…of the Twelfth and Thirteenth Centuries: First Series, ed. Richard Morris, EETS O.S. 29, 34 (1868), 221/34 (from gedafenlic in the OE text, Ælfric’s Catholic Homilies, ed. Clemoes, 181/86). 42 Pelle, ‘Updating Ælfric’. 43 Ker, Catalogue of Manuscripts Containing Anglo-Saxon, xlix, cites some evidence ‘that manuscripts in OE were considered to be practically without value in the thirteenth and fourteenth centuries’, including a marginal note in a hand of about 1300 in a collection of homilies and saints’ lives by Ælfric (Cambridge, University Library, MS Ii.I.33 (L), from the second half of the twelfth century), ‘Hoc uolumen continet multam copiam sermonum in anglico. non apreciatum propter ydioma incognitum’ (‘This volume contains a great many sermons in English, not valued because of the unfamiliar language’). 44 Sisam, ‘MSS Bodley 340 and 342’, RES, 8 (1932), 61–2, argues that the earliest manuscripts of the First Series of the Catholic Homilies must represent ‘a tiny fraction of the copies that existed in Ælfric’s lifetime’ (62); Clemoes, Ælfric’s Catholic Homilies, 162, says that the thirty-four surviving manuscripts produced outside Ælfric’s scriptorium ‘testify to the existence of some fifty others’, and adds that ‘about fifty is a conservative estimate’ (see 162, fn. 3). 45 Pelle, ‘Updating Ælfric’. 46 See fn. 6 above. © The Author 2017. Published by Oxford University Press 2017; all rights reserved

Journal

The Review of English StudiesOxford University Press

Published: Feb 1, 2018

There are no references for this article.

You’re reading a free preview. Subscribe to read the entire article.


DeepDyve is your
personal research library

It’s your single place to instantly
discover and read the research
that matters to you.

Enjoy affordable access to
over 18 million articles from more than
15,000 peer-reviewed journals.

All for just $49/month

Explore the DeepDyve Library

Search

Query the DeepDyve database, plus search all of PubMed and Google Scholar seamlessly

Organize

Save any article or search result from DeepDyve, PubMed, and Google Scholar... all in one place.

Access

Get unlimited, online access to over 18 million full-text articles from more than 15,000 scientific journals.

Your journals are on DeepDyve

Read from thousands of the leading scholarly journals from SpringerNature, Elsevier, Wiley-Blackwell, Oxford University Press and more.

All the latest content is available, no embargo periods.

See the journals in your area

DeepDyve

Freelancer

DeepDyve

Pro

Price

FREE

$49/month
$360/year

Save searches from
Google Scholar,
PubMed

Create lists to
organize your research

Export lists, citations

Read DeepDyve articles

Abstract access only

Unlimited access to over
18 million full-text articles

Print

20 pages / month

PDF Discount

20% off