The Regularis Concordia and its Old English gloss

AngloSaxon Englandhttp://journals.cambridge.org/ASE

Additional services for AngloSaxon England:

Email alerts: Click hereSubscriptions: Click hereCommercial reprints: Click hereTerms of use : Click here

The Regularis Concordia and its Old English gloss

Lucia Kornexl

AngloSaxon England / Volume 24 / December 1995, pp 95 130DOI: 10.1017/S0263675100004671, Published online: 26 September 2008

Link to this article: http://journals.cambridge.org/abstract_S0263675100004671

How to cite this article:Lucia Kornexl (1995). The Regularis Concordia and its Old English gloss. AngloSaxon England, 24, pp 95130 doi:10.1017/S0263675100004671

Request Permissions : Click here

Downloaded from http://journals.cambridge.org/ASE, IP address: 137.108.145.45 on 02 May 2013

The Regularis Concordia and its Old English

gloss

LUCIA KORNEXL

When writing about the tenth-century ecclesiastical reform in Englandthirteen years ago, Eric John rightly pointed out that 'the tenth and earlyeleventh centuries are the least studied and most taken for granted periods ofboth English and Continental history'.1 But today, this contention is no longertrue: investigation into different aspects of the monastic revival has resulted ina considerable number of special publications.2 In particular, the millennialcelebrations marking the deaths of the leading reformers, iEthelwold (d. 984),Dunstan (d. 988) and Oswald (d. 992), have been accompanied by areassessment of their activities and achievements, the fruits of which areassembled in three collections of essays by experts in a variety of fields.3 Therenewed interest in the reform era has naturally drawn scholarly attention tothe primary sources which provide first-hand information about the thought,aims and strategies of the reformers.4 Among such documents, the RegularisConcordia (henceforth R Q plays a major part as an object of historical andliturgical research; besides, it has turned out in recent years that the Latin text

1 E. John, 'The Age of Edgar', The Anglo-Saxons, ed. J. Campbell (Oxford, 1982), pp. 160-89,at 182.

2 To mention only two recent monographs: the European dimensions of the reform periodand beyond have been explored by V. Ortenberg, The English Church and the Continent in theTenth and Eleventh Centuries: Cultural, Spiritual, and Artistic Exchanges (Oxford, 1992); themanuscript evidence of the time has been newly evaluated from a palaeographical point ofview and set in a wider cultural context by D. N. Dumville, English Caroline Script and MonasticHistory: Studies in Benedictinism, A.D. 950-1030 (Woodbridge, 1993). For a classified selectionof secondary literature on the monastic reform movement, see S. Keynes, Anglo-SaxonHistory. A Select Bibliography, 2nd ed., OEN Subsidia 13 (Binghamton, NY, 1993), nos.Gl 00-276 (regularly updated).

3 Bishop JEthelwold: his Career and Influence, ed. B. Yorke (Woodbridge, 1988); St Dunstan: hisLife, Times and Cult, ed. N. Ramsay, M. Sparks and T. Tatton-Brown (Woodbridge, 1992).The proceedings of the 1992 Oswald memorial conference at Worcester are being edited byN. Brooks and C. Cubitt.

4 The titles and editions of the principal sources are conveniently listed in Keynes, Anglo-SaxonHistory, nos. G105-10. For an essential source-oriented study of jEthelwold's part in themonastic revival, see Michael Lapidge's introduction to Wulfstan of Winchester: the Life of StJEthelwold, ed. M. Lapidge and M. Winterbottom (Oxford, 1991), pp. xiii-clxxxviii.

95

Lucia Kornexl

and especially the Old English interlinear gloss of the consuetudinary alsooffer important material for the philologist and the historical linguist.

HISTORICAL BACKGROUND AND ORIGIN

The RC represents a fairly advanced stage in the history of the Benedictinereform movement, with its proponents having been promoted to keypositions in the ecclesiastical hierarchy under the auspices of a king whollydedicated to the monastic cause.5 The working out of the document can beseen as part of a carefully organized scheme to effect and secure the re-establishment of monasticism in England on a common spiritual and anequally firm material basis. The prologue of the RC (§§ 2 and 4)6 attests to theexistence of a sizeable number of monasteries and nunneries, invariablyadhering to the Benedictine Rule, but with certain unspecified divergences inobservance that called for a systematic co-ordination of practice.7 By translat-ing the Regula S. Benedict! into Old English,8 iEthelwold had made the basicunifying bond between the reformed houses more easily accessible to theuneducated aspiring to monastic vows, and at the same time increased its

5 Dunstan's appointment as archbishop of Canterbury in 960 was followed by /Ethelwold'sadvancement to the bishopric of Winchester in 963, while Oswald, who had been bishop ofWorcester since 961, also became archbishop of York in 972. On the crucial role of KingEdgar (959-75) in the monastic revival, see below, p. 102.

6 Die Regularis Concordia und ihre altenglische Interlimarversion. Mit Einleitung und Kommentar, ed.L. Kornexl, Miinchener Universitats-Schriften: Texte und Untersuchungen zur EnglischenPhilologie 17 (Munich, 1993). All subsequent references to paragraphs and line numbers ofthe RC are to this edition; for the editorial signs and symbols contained in citations drawnfrom it, see ibid. p. cclxv. The paragraph numbers correspond to the sections in DomThomasSymons's edition of the Latin text, which is accompanied by a Modern English translation:Regularis Concordia Anglicae Nationis Monachorum Sanctimonialiumque: the Monastic Agreement ofthe Monks and Nuns of the English Nation, ed. and trans. T. Symons (London, 1953).

7 So far, very little is known about actual differences in observance preceding the implemen-tation of the R C David Knowles's statement that 'all the houses . . . can be divided into threegroups, according as they . . . owed some kind of spiritual allegiance respectively to Dunstan,Ethelwold and Oswald' {The Monastic Order in England: A History of its Development from theTimes ofSt Dunstan to the Fourth Lateran Council, 940-1216,2nd ed. (Cambridge, 1963), pp. 4 8 -9), has recently been taken up by David DumvilJe, who sees these party-allegiances reflectedin different styles of Anglo-Caroline script (cf. above, n. 2).

8 For the dating of the translation to 'around 970', see H. Gneuss, 'Die Benediktinerregel inEngland und ihre altenglische Ubersetzung', Die angelsdchsischen Prosabearbeitungen derBenediktinerregel, ed. A. Schroer, 2nd ed. with a supplement by H. Gneuss, Bibliothek derangelsachsischen Prosa 2 (Darmstadt, 1964), 263-84, at 272-3. The chronology of vEthel-wold's reform writings is examined in detail by M. Gretsch, 'The Benedictine Rule in OldEnglish: a Document of Bishop jEthelwold's Reform Polities', Words, Texts and Manuscripts.Studies in Anglo-Saxon Culture presented to Helmut Gneuss on the Occasion of his Sixty-FifthBirthday, ed. M. Korhammer et al. (Cambridge, 1992), pp. 131-58.

96


appeal for a much wider secular audience. Destined to provide moral andpractical guidance of a rather timeless sort, the Regula was, however, notalways explicit enough to procure the desired uniformity in detail. In a furtherdecisive step, then, a synodal council of bishops, abbots and abbesses was heldat Winchester to lay down a body of regulations for monks and nunsthroughout the country, collected under the programmatic title Regularisconcordia Anglicae nationis monachorum sanctimonialiumque.

The meagre evidence for this major event comes exclusively from the RCitself, since contemporary Anglo-Saxon historiography exhibits a degree ofrandomness that need not make us overly suspicious about the silence of theAnglo-Saxon Chronicle(s) especially of manuscript A (the 'Parker Chronicle'),with its pronounced Winchester connections.9 The well documented progressof the reform allowed Dom Thomas Symons, at the end of a lifetime's researchon the RC, to suggest 973 as the most plausible date for the Council ofWinchester.10 The gathering need not necessarily have been contemporarywith the composition of the resultant document, though there are strongindications that the RC was propagated shortly after its substance had beenofficially agreed on. Just as the actual procedure of the assembly lies beyondour knowledge, so too do the process of compilation of the RC as well as theexact share which prominent individuals (and the synod as a whole) had in it.

THE QUESTION OF AUTHORSHIP

The RC describes itself as the fruit of a collective enterprise, its contentshaving been diligently selected by the participants of the Council of Winches-ter from a variety of sources.11 A heterogeneous compilation of this kindnaturally confounds modern concepts of authorship. Still, there is unequivo-cal evidence that the responsibility for producing the work lay with a singleperson who — referring to himself in the pluralis modestiae — states that he had

9 Cf. Kornexl, Regularis Concordia, p. xxiv, n. 1.10 T. Symons, 'Regularis Concordia: History and Derivation', Tenth-Century Studies. Essays in

Commemoration of the Millennium of the Council of Winchester and Regularis Concordia, ed. D.Parsons (London, 1975), pp. 37-59 and 214-17, at 40-2. Symons's numerous publications onthe RC in the context of the Benedictine Reform are listed in Kornexl, Regularis Concordia, pp.412-13.

11 '. . . non tantum episcopi, uerum etiam abbates ac abbatisse, . . . accitis Flor[iac]ensis beatiBenedict! necnon precipui coenobii, quod celebri Gent nuncupatur uocabulo, monachis,queque ex dignis eorum moribus honesta colligentes,. . . has morum consuetudines . . . hocexiguo apposuerunt c<odi>cello' (§§ 4-5, lines 52-76);'... the bishops, abbots and abbesses. . . summoned monks from St Benedict's monastery at Fleury and from that eminentmonastery which is known by the renowned name of Ghent, gathered from theirpraiseworthy customs much that was good and thus . . . the said monastic customs . . . were. . . embodied in this small book' {Regularis Concordia, ed. Symons, p. 3).

97

Lucia Kornexl

promised to perform the task.12 The identity of this writer can be establishedby various kinds of (mostly indirect) proof; however, all indications convinc-ingly point to ./Ethelwold.

In printed editions as well as in secondary literature, the RC had long beenattributed to Dunstan.13 It is difficult to say when and where this belief- and itis no more than that - originated. In trying to find an explanation, one musttake into consideration the break in tradition and collective memory that theNorman Conquest in many instances brought about, leaving room for moreor less disinterested surmise;14 moreover, scholarly superficiality and thought-less copying are always to be reckoned with. The earliest source held to testifyto the view that Dunstan was the author of the RC is a letter written in the1070s by Anselm of Canterbury, then still abbot of Bee, to ArchbishopLanfranc, in which the former enquires about a monastic rule purportedlyinstituted by Dunstan.15 Though this formulation may have come to beinterpreted in the above-mentioned sense, it clearly falls short of proof. Thatthe incumbent archbishop of Canterbury actually had a say in the introductionof the new customary is attested by two special provisions for the protection ofnuns which 'Dunstan, the noble archbishop of our country' is said to have'providently and wisely added' to the RC 'in order to confirm the delibe-rations of the aforesaid Synodal Council'.16 As has repeatedly been stressed,this direct reference to Dunstan in a tone of unadulterated praise makes him amost unlikely candidate for the authorship.17 That the RC continued to beassociated with Dunstan even when, towards the end of the nineteenthcentury, the search for factual evidence had led scholars on to the track ofiEthelwold, is due to a sophisticated distinction between literal and spiritual

12 Cf. the following extract from a long and complex passage at the end of the epilogue:'... deconsuetis sancte regule moribus,... sollicite, uti polliciti sumus,... scribendo dilucidemus'(§ 12, lines 199—208); '. . . in fulfilment of our promise, solicitously . . . we shall set forthplainly in writing those customs of the Holy Rule' (Regularis Concordia, ed. Symons, p. 8).

13 For details, see Kornexl, Regularis Concordia, pp. xxxi—xxxvii.14 The natural interest which English monasteries had in promoting the reputation of their

local saints was probably enhanced in reaction to oppressive tendencies after the invasion.According to Eric John, 'the over-emphasis of the part of Dunstan in the revival seems to goback to the immediate post-Conquest historians of English monastic history' ('The Sourcesof the English Monastic Reformation: a Comment', RB 70 (1960), 197-203, at 200, n. 1).

15 'Audivi quod sanctus DUNSTANUS Regulam vitae monachicae instituerit. Si igitur sic se res habet,vellem libenter famosam Vitam et Instituta tanti patris videre' (S. Anselmi CantuariensisArcbiepiscopi Opera Omnia. Volumen tertium continens orationes sive meditationes necnon epistolarumlibrum prim urn, ed. F. S. Schmitt (Edinburgh, 1946), p. 151, lines 59-61 (Ep. xxxix)).

16 'Hoc etenim Dunstanus, egregius huius patrie archiepiscopus . . . ad corroborandum prefatisinodalis conuentus conciliabulum prouide ac sapienter addidit . . . ' ( § 7, lines 92-5; trans.Regularis Concordia, ed. Symons, p. 4).

17 Cf. the discussion and relevant bibliographical notes in Kornexl, Regularis Concordia, pp.xl-xli.

98


authorship gaining ground as a reaction to the new insights and epitomized inEdmund Bishop's catch-phrase: 'Dunstan the mind, Êthelwold the pen'.18

To measure the proportion of individual inspiration that went into the RCseems a futile enterprise, especially if we recall that in many respects the greatreformers fought a common cause. At any rate, it can be taken for granted thatthe pen was iEthelwold's. In the prologue to the so-called 'Letter to theMonks of Eynsham', a Latin adaptation of, and supplement to, the RC, hispupil iElfric ascribes the compilation of the consuetudinary to him, though itis worth remarking that the communal aspect of the enterprise and the eclecticnature of the product have contributed to the formulation: 'Ideoque haecpauca de libro consuetudinum, quern sanctus Athelwoldus Uuintoniensisepiscopus cum coepiscopis et abbatibus tempore Eadgari felicissimi regisAnglorum undique collegit ac monachis instituit, obseruandum scriptitandodemonstro . . .'19 There can also be no doubt that the 'certain abbot' who,according to the RC, was entrusted with the religious education of the youngKing Edgar, remains unnamed because Êthelwold did not want to exalthimself in this way.20 Besides, the RC shares significant thematic links withother texts most likely composed by iEthelwold, in particular with his prefaceto the Old English Benedictine Rule, known as 'An Account of King Edgar'sEstablishment of Monasteries', and with the 'New Minster FoundationCharter', commemorating and justifying the expulsion of the secular clerks in964.21 In his seminal studies on the so-called 'hermeneutic style', MichaelLapidge has also identified a number of idiosyncrasies in vocabulary andphrasing that constitute important verbal connections between these Êthel-woldian works.22

Although iEthelwold depicts his function in making the new consuetudin-ary as merely a matter of recording, it seems a reasonable assumption that hisown contribution to the RC was considerably greater than his modesty and

18 For the origin and promotion of this much-cited dictum, see Kornexl, Regularis Concordia, p.xxxvi and n. 20. A recent publication written in this vein is D.J. Dales, 'The Spirit of theRegularis Concordia and the Hand of St Dunstan', St Dunstan: his Life, Times and Cult, ed.Ramsay et al., pp. 45-56.

19 'Aelfrici abbatis epistula ad monachos Egneshamnenses directa', ed. H. Nocent, Consuetudi-num saeculi XjXIjXII monumenta non-Cluniacensia, ed. K. Hallinger, Corpus ConsuetudinumMonasticarum [CCM] 7.3 (Siegburg, 1984), 149-85, at 155: 'Therefore I present in writingthese few things from the Liber consuetudinum which St Êthelwold, bishop of Winchester,together with his fellow bishops and the abbots at the time of Edgar, the most blessed king ofthe English, collected from everywhere and imposed upon the monks for their observance. . .' (my translation deviates from Nocent's punctuation in placing the comma afterobseruandum).

20 ' a b b a t e q u o d a m a s s i d u o m o n e n t e ac r e g i a m ca tho l i ce fidei u i a m d e m o n s t r a n t e . . . ' ( § 1, l ines8-9). For scholarly comment on this passage, see the references cited in Kornexl, RegularisConcordia, pp. xxxix-xl. 21 See ibid. pp. xliii-xliv. ^ See below, p. 116.

99

Lucia Kornexl

the deference to those whio had approved the reformed customs (and were toimplement them) allowed him to concede. Unfortunately, the literary conven-tion to use the pluralis modestiae in pronominal self-references makes itimpossible to establish a clear formal distinction between individual authorialstatements and genuine plurals referring to the members of the synod or to thecommunity of Benedictines. On closer inspection, one finds, however, a fewpassages that stand out thematically as well as in rhetoric and style, and maywell have been included by iEthelwold over and above the stipulationssanctioned by the Council of Winchester. Thus it would appear that, afterwriting out the above-mentioned personal instructions of Dunstan in theprologue (§ 7, lines 92-103), ̂ Ethelwold took the opportunity to add what wasapparently a special concern of his: that the chanting of the daily intercessoryprayers for the royal couple be performed in a devout and fitting manner (§ 8,lines 104-15).23 Of the descriptions of liturgical elements within the consuetu-dinary proper that are highly suggestive of authorial addition,24 one deservesto be considered in more detail. In treating the 'Kyrie eleison custom' (T.Symons), to be performed on the three last days of Holy Week by variousgroups of singers positioned in different parts of the church, iEthelwoldwrites:

[i] Comperimus etiam in quoru<n>dam reli[gi]osorum aecclesiis quiddam fieri, quodad animarum conpunctionem spiritualis rei i<n>dicium exorsum est . . . (§ 37, lines873-6).[ii] Qui, ut reor, aecclesiastice conpun^ctionis) usus a catholicis ideo repertus est, uttenebrarum terror, qui tripertitum mundum dominica passione timore perculitinsolito, ac apostolice predicationis consolatio, que *universum mundum* Christumpatri usque ad mortem pro generis humani salute obediente[m] reuelerat, manifestis-sime designetur (lines 893-900).[iii] Hec ergo inserenda censuimus, ut, si quibus deuotionis gratia conplacuerint,habeant in his unde huius rei ignaros instruant. Qui autem noluerint, ad hoc agendumminime compellantur (lines 900-4).25

23 Cf. Kornexl, Kegularis Concordia, pp. xlv-xlvi and n. 59. As outlined below, yEthelwoldprobably played a major part in the codification of these prayers in the RC.

24 See ibid. pp. xlvii-1.25 [i] 'We have also heard that, in churches of certain religious men, a practice has grown up

whereby compunction of soul is aroused by means of the outward representation of thatwhich is spiritual . . .'[ii] 'This manner of arousing religious compunction was, I think, devised by Catholic menfor the purpose of setting forth clearly both the terror of that darkness which, at our Lord'sPassion, struck the tripartite world with unwonted fear, and the consolation of that apostolicpreaching which revealed to the whole world Christ obedient to his Father even unto deathfor the salvation of the human race.'[iii] 'Therefore it seemed good to us to insert these things so that if there be any to whosedevotion they are pleasing, they may find therein the means of instructing those who areignorant of this matter; no one, however, shall be forced to carry out this practice against hiswill' (Regularis Concordia, ed. Symons, pp. 36—7).

100


This is neither the factual tone nor the plain, enumerative style characteristicof most of the customary. There can be no doubt that these are Êthelwold'swords because his obvious emotional involvement in the matter made him forthe one and only time in the whole work lapse into the first person singular (»/reor, line 893). The verbose introduction [i], the even more long-windedtheological explanation of the custom's origin and significance [ii], and thescrupulously worded justification of its inclusion, accompanied by a repeatedassurance that it is by no means meant to be compulsory [iii], are all ratherunusual. On the Continent, the ceremony in question was known in variousversions, but the one described in the RC can clearly be attributed to Fleury.26

Therefore it seems a safe guess that iEthelwold had learnt about it from themonastic advisers who assisted in the making of the customary,27 and that hetook the liberty of augmenting the RC— in a way, though, that gives some ideaof the subtle persuasiveness evidently required to gain acceptance for anextraordinary new liturgical element.28

STRUCTURE AND CONTENTS

In its full form, the RC was provided with a prologue, a table of contentspreceding the actual text, and an epilogue; the surviving manuscript evidenceshows, however, that these components did not always share a commontransmission.29 The main part — the customary proper — is subdivided intotwelve chapters30 dealing primarily with everyday liturgical practice and withspecial rites and observances appropriate for certain seasons and for thehighlights of the Christian year. Further guidance is provided for individualconduct and social interaction within the cloister and for contacts with theworld outside. Most of the time, the RC refers to monks only, though, as speltout in its title, it was intended for monks and nuns. Throughout the document,there is a marked tendency to secure monastic privacy and seclusion; yet therepeated mention of a lay congregation sharing in the celebration of theprincipal mass on Sundays and other special services shows that the spiritual

26 K. Hallinger, 'Fleurys Einfluss auf die Synode von Winchester', Consuetudinum saeculiX\XI\XII monumenta: Introductions, ed. Hallinger, CCM 7.1 (Siegburg, 1984), 351-9, at 353.

27 Cf. above, n. 11. For the identity of these advisers, see M. Lapidge, 'jEthelwold as Scholarand Teacher', Bishop JEthelwold, ed. Yorke, pp. 89-117, at 98, and his introduction to Wulfstanof Winchester, ed. Lapidge and Winterbottom, p. lix.

28 In this context, it seems important to remember that, if faithfully adhered to, the RC put aheavy burden on the monks and nuns even outside special seasons. On the basis of thesummer horarium, Mary Berry arrives at the conclusion that, when retiring to bed around8.30 p.m., 'they had been up for about nineteen hours and of these about eleven had beenspent in singing' ('What the Saxon Monks Sang: Music in Winchester in the Late TenthCentury', Bishop JEthelwold, ed. Yorke, pp. 149-60, at 151). 29 See below, pp. 104-11.

30 For a summary of the contents, see Kornexl, Regularis Concordia, pp. lxi-lxxiii.

101

'Lucia Kornexl

impulse of the reform movement extended beyond claustral walls. Repeatedly,an explicit connection is established between the concern for religiousinstruction and elaborate liturgical symbolism.31 Following a general reformtrend, the RC attests to a great number of devotional additions to the DivineOffice as laid out in the Benedictine Rule.32 A unique feature of the customary,which in its given form may well have been initiated by ̂ thelwold, is the dailyseries of intercessory prayers for the royal house; these played a central role inthe give-and-take relationship between monasticism and monarchy thatconstituted an essential prerequisite for the success of the Benedictinerevival.33

This remarkable symbiosis takes up much of the prologue and the wholeepilogue of the RC3 4 The prologue exalts the role of the king as the mainpromoter of the reform and codifies the royal rights of interference inmonastic affairs, whereas the charter-like epilogue seeks to protect theproperty of religious houses against powerful secular interest. Both partsreflect a markedly reformist stance typical of yEthelwold. Written in defence ofmonastic claims to superiority against earlier forms of clerical organizationand economic arrangement, their informative value as historical documentsmust be viewed with due reservation, though in tackling moot points such asthe transformation of cathedral chapters into monasteries, there are also tracesof the more compromising tone which seems characteristic of yEthelwold'slater career.35

While being justly appreciated for the manifold insights which it gives intothe theory and practice of tenth-century English reformed monasticism, theRC has frequently been criticized for its lack of structural coherence.36 Tosome extent this is certainly due to the derivative nature of most of thecontents, but it seems very likely that the hurried circumstances of itscompilation and dissemination also exerted some influence on the rather

31 For embryonic forms of dramatic enactment in the performance of the liturgy, perhapscontributed to the RC by iEthelwold and expressly advocated by him, see ibid. p. lxvi and nn.46-7.

32 See ibid. p. lxiii, and the bibliographical references provided there; cf. also above, n. 28.33 See Lapidge, Wulfstan of Winchester, ed. Lapidge and Winterbottom, pp. lx, lxvii (and n. 112)

and lxxv; Kornexl, Kegularis Concordia, pp. xlvi (and n. 59), lxiii-lxiv (and n. 33) and clxxxvii,n. 14. M See ibid. pp. lxxiii-lxxxiii.

35 In contrast to the impression sometimes conveyed in scholarly publications, the typicallyEnglish institution of monastic cathedrals presided over by monk-bishops, for whichjEthelwold himself had set the model by expelling the secular clergy from the Old Minster inWinchester early in 964, is described in the RC as a potential configuration, but by no meansas the only one possible; cf. § 9, lines 132-3: '. . . ubicumque in sede episcopali monachiregulares conuersantur . . . ' ( ' . . . wherever monks live the monastic life in a bishop's see . . .';Kegularis Concordia, ed. Symons, p. 6). For a brief discussion and bibliographical references,see Kornexl, Kegularis Concordia, pp. lxxviii—lxxix. x See ibid. pp. lvii—lviii.

102


unsystematic make-up of the document.37 Different reasons account for thescarcity of detail which the RC sometimes exhibits, much to the disappoint-ment of historical liturgists. Here we must bear in mind that the consuetudin-ary was primarily intended to consolidate the achievements of the monasticrenewal; in other words, it addresses itself to insiders with 'a workingknowledge of existing custom'.38 Besides, the RC presupposes a practicalacquaintance with a number of liturgical books that have not come down to usor have survived in insufficient copies only.39

THE SOURCES

As outlined above, the RC was intended to reinforce, expound and supple-ment the instructions of the Regula S. Benedict!, and it frequently reminds itsreaders of this purpose by citing the Rule and by invoking its authority. Muchemphasis is also put on Benedictine customs sanctioned by tradition. Some ofthese, like the above-mentioned prayers for the king and benefactors, areexplicitly stated to be indigenous, but the majority are of continental origin.Here the RC draws most heavily on the Carolingian reform decrees enacted bythe emperor Louis the Pious (814-40) and the great reforming abbot Benedictof Aniane, especially on a customary known as MemorialeQualiter. More recentlinks are suggested by iEthelwold's mention in the prologue of monasticadvisers from Fleury and Ghent who helped to work out the RC; to theseinfluences can be added the personal experiences English reformers hadgained in monastic houses across the Channel.40

For a long time the paucity of foreign materials close enough to the RC insubject and date to be considered suitable for comparison made the search forexact sources very difficult; the prevailing opinion was that the RC repre-sented mainly Lotharingian observance as practised in Ghent. The discovery

37 See below, pp. 109-11.38 S y m o n s , Kegularis Concordia, p . xxix.39 References sometimes tend to be very general (see Kornexl, Kegularis Concordia, pp. lix-lx);

cf. '. . . canentes antiphonas, que in antiphoniario continentur' (§ 34, lines 785-6); '. . . .nocturnale officium agatur secundum quod in antiphonario habetur' (§ 37, lines 872—3; myitalics). As demonstrated by these examples, the matter may be further complicated byterminological ambiguity: the first reference here is to a gradual, the second to an antiphoner(cf. notes on lines 785 and 873). For a detailed treatment of this complex field, see H. Gneuss,'Liturgical Books in Anglo-Saxon England and their Old English Terminology', 'Learningand Literature in Anglo-Saxon England. Studies presented to Peter Clemoes on the Occasion of hisSixty-Fifth Birthday, ed. M. Lapidge and H. Gneuss (Cambridge, 1985), pp. 91-141, and idem,'Linguistic Borrowing and Old English Lexicography: Old English Terms for the Books ofthe Liturgy', Problems of Old English Lexicography. Studies in Memory of Angus Cameron, ed. A.Bammesberger (Regensburg , 1985), pp . 107-29.

40 For a more detailed account of the state of scholarship concern ing the sources of the R C , seeKornexl , Kegularis Concordia, pp . lxxxiv-xcv.

103

Lucia Kornexl

of the so-called Consuetudines Floriacenses Antiquiores,^ a set of monasticcustoms written down by the monk Theoderic after he had left Fleury forAmorbach in 1002, but reflecting the late-tenth-century practice of Fleury, hasthrown new light on the question of indebtedness. A comparison ofTheoderic's Consuetudines with the stipulations of the RC42 has producedstriking parallels in points of liturgy and organizational structure. Theensuing claim that Fleury influence was dominant in shaping the RC has,however, been strongly contradicted by Kassius Hallinger.43 Further researchwill therefore be required to weigh up the RCs debts to continental models; toarrive at valid conclusions, the degree of correspondence or difference inpractice between the reformed monasteries in question needs to be establishedmore precisely.

MANUSCRIPT EVIDENCE AND TEXTUAL TRANSMISSION

The RC has survived in two copies that were both written at Christ Church,Canterbury, around the middle of the eleventh century.44 They are related by anumber of peculiar readings, irregularities and mistakes, but the evidence doesnot suffice to determine their relative position in a hypothetical stemma.45 Thereconstruction of their textual history has been further complicated by SirRobert Cotton's notorious treatment of medieval manuscripts in his erstwhilepossession.

The defective Latin RCtext contained in London, British Library, CottonFaustina B. iii, 159r—198r, has no genetic link with the late Middle Englishmaterials with which it is now bound up.46 It formerly constituted the core of asmall, structurally independent collection of RC materials. In accordance withP. R. Robinson's terminology, I refer to it as the 'RC-booklet'.47 As a self-

"i See A. Davril, 'Un coutumier de Fleury du debut du XI* siecle', RB 76 (1966), 351-4;'Consuetudines Floriacenses antiquiores', ed. A. Davril and L. Donnat, Consuetudinum saeculiXjXIjXlI monumenta non-Cluniacensia, ed. Hallinger, CCM 7.3, 3-60.

42 A. Davril, 'Un moine de Fleury aux environs de l'an mil: Thierry, dit d'Amorbach', Etudeslige'riennes d'histoire et d'arcbe'ologie me'diivales, e d . R . L o u i s ( A u x e r r e , 1 9 7 5 ) , p p . 97—104.

43 See Hallinger's investigation into 'Fleurys Einfluss auf die Synode von Winchester' (citedabove, n. 26), especially his resume at p. 354.

44 On the manuscripts - London, British Library, Cotton Faustina B. iii and Cotton Tiberius A.i i i -seeN.R. Ker, Catalogue ofManuscripts Containing Anglo-Saxon (Oxford, 1957), nos. 155and 186. For the earlier dating of the Faustina text of the RC - s. i ° as compared to s. ximcd -cf. Kornexl, Regu/aris Concordia, p. cii.

45 For details, see ibid. pp. cxliii-cxlvii. ** See ibid. pp. xcvi-c.47 P.R. Robinson, 'Self-Contained Units in Composite Manuscripts of the Anglo-Saxon

Period', ASE 7 (1978), 231-8, and idem, 'The "Booklet": a Self-Contained Unit inComposite Manuscripts', Coduologica 3: Essais typologiques (1980), 46-69. As indicated bythese titles, 'booklets' were often combined to form composite volumes, but there is alsoevidence that they could circulate independently (cf. 'The "Booklet"', pp. 52-4) and 'mayhave been bound with others at any time, even long after the Anglo-Saxon period' ('Self-Contained Units', p. 234).

104


contained codicological unit, it may well have led a separate existence allthrough the Middle Ages. Its original contents and make-up can be ascer-tained primarily with the help of a late-sixteenth-century copy (London,British Library, Harley 552) produced by an amanuensis of ArchbishopParker48 before the exemplar was dismembered in the Cottonian library.49 Thebooklet once comprised:

probably an originally blank leaf, later (s. xi/xii) filled with a Ust of Roman emperors(now Faustina B. iii, fol. 158);50

a fragmentary Old English translation of the RC (now Tiberius A. iii, fols. 174-6);the RCin Latin (now Faustina B. iii, 159r—198r, concluded in Tiberius A. iii, fol. 177);three standardized obituary notices (one of them on the verso of Faustina B. iii, fol.

198, the other two at the end of the RCtext in what is now Tiberius A. iii, 177v).

Cotton was no doubt ignorant about the identity of the RC items in thebooklet and the intimate connection between them. Otherwise he wouldscarcely have separated the Old English translation fragment from the Latintext of the RC and attached it to the 'Benedictine section' of Tiberius A. iii,together with the last leaf of the booklet which he failed to recognize as anintegral part of the preceding customary. Neither was he aware of the closerelation between these regrouped items and the other RC text in Tiberius A. iiiwhich, in rearranging the manuscript, he removed from this section.51

A good deal of the scholarly error and confusion surrounding the textualhistory of the Faustina version of the RC was no doubt due to peculiarities anddefects inherited from an earlier stage of transmission.52 The unusualarrangement of the finishing sections of the Faustina text, however, must havebeen specially worked out in the Christ Church scriptorium between the mainscribe (A), responsible for the RC text, and a second, more authoritative hand

48 For the reconstruction of the RC-booklet, which we chiefly owe to T. Symons and N. R. Ker,and for its largely unknown transmission, see Kornexl, Regularis Concordia, pp. cxii-cxvi. Kerwas, however, wrong in attributing the Harley copy to Laurence Nowell (cf. ibid. p. cxiii-cxiv and nn. 69-70).

49 Traces of a probably early modern binding on the first page of the Latin RC text (nowFaustina B. iii, 159r) suggest that it may first have been destined to be kept separately but thenbecame incorporated in the newly formed Faustina codex. Such subsequent regrouping wasnot unusual for Cotton and, in a different way, has also affected the Benedictine documentsthat originally preceded the other RC text in Tiberius A. iii (see below, n. 60).

50 For indications that this leaf shared a common transmission with the actual booklet, see Ker,Catalogue, no. 155 (the subsequently inserted items on Faustina B. iii, fol. 158, are thereerroneously described as a 'list of popes'). Signs of wear on this single leaf may be indicativeof its former function as the front part of a cover provided for the RC-booklet.

51 See below, p. 107.52 See below, pp. 109-11. A major flaw was the lack of the original title which, by contrast,

made the Tiberius text clearly identifiable as the 'Regularis concordia'. For the long-winded,periphrastic designations applied to the Faustina version in early modern library catalogues,see Kornexl, Regularis Concordia, p. cvi, n. 46,

105

Lucia Kornexl

(B). It may be schematized as follows ('F' and "F standing for Faustina B. iiiand Tiberius A. iii respectively):53

F, 198r A: RC text up to 'fuerat unitus' (§ 67, line 1627)B: 'in ordinis communione. VALETE.' (subsequently added)

F, 198v B: obituary notice IT, 177r A: RC text continued:'in ordinis communione. Quod si... '

B: two neumed chants for the dead (right margin)T, 177v A: RC text completed (without the epilogue)

B: obituary notices II and III.

The change in layout was necessitated by a big hole in the parchment in thelower half of fol. 198 which had already affected the textual distribution of theRC on the recto and was now to be evaded by A's skipping the verso, theupper half of the damaged page offering just enough space for an obituarynotice to be written by hand B. This model letter, informing affiliated housesabout a death within the community, the two variant death notices which Badded at the end of the RC text,54 and the two chants for the dead55 which heplaced in the wider margin that had especially been provided by scribe A onwhat is now Tiberius A. iii, 177r, all constitute separate items. In theme,however, they are closely related to the neighbouring RC text, which dealswith the provisions on the death of a monk. Copying out the model obituarycontained in the RC itself (§ 67, lines 1619-27), scribe A - in the slavishmanner characteristic of him — presumably followed his exemplar in leavingthe last three words ('in ordinis communione') for a new page, in this case anew leaf (now Tiberius A. iii, fol. 177). The result was that - probably due tothe adjustments necessary on account of the hole - nearly half a line was leftblank at the bottom of Faustina B. iii, 198r. By filling in the missing threewords and in particular by personally adding the concluding formula'VALETE', scribe B misled Cotton into believing that the text of the customaryended here.

The specification of the sender in two superscript additions provided byhand B in the above-mentioned obituary notice,56 and the explicit mention ofthe archbishop together with a local monastic community at the beginning ofthe three variant forms written by the same hand,57 afford conclusive proof

53 See ibid. pp. cix-cxi and the facsimiles of the pertinent folios on pp. cdxxiv-cclxxvii.M Printed ibid. pp. 148-9.55 'Hodie in pace' and 'Redemptor animarum', printed ibid. app. crit. line 1634, with a brief

comment on pp. cx-cxi.56 See RC§ 67, lines 1619-20 and a/>/>. crit.: 'Domnus ille, abbas monasterii illius,...', abbas with

uel episcopus, illius w i t h fcclesia Cbristi in s u p e r s c r i p t .57 The first of these additional obituary notices begins as follows: 'Gratia Dei archiepiscopus

ille humilisque Christi ecclesie monachorum cetus . . .' {ibid. p. 148); for the slightly different

106


that the Faustina version of the RC is a Christ Church product. Significantly,this line of transmission with its obviously practical orientation lacks theepilogue (§ 69). The hypothesis that, because missing there, this final sectionmay not have been part of the original work, can be refuted on thematic as wellas on stylistic grounds.58 It seems more likely that the anachronistic decree - acharacteristic outflow of Edgarian reform policy - was deliberately omitted inexchange for material of more immediate relevance to the then monasticcommunity. Other indications in the Faustina version of the RCalso point tosome sort of practical use: the poor quality of the parchment, the inexper-ienced scribe (Neil Ker speaks of an 'irregular, uncalligraphic hand'59), thepartial adaptation of the text to suit local conditions, and its codicologicalarrangement in a booklet.

The other surviving RC copy, written at the same place (that is, the ChristChurch scriptorium) at about the same time (s. ximed), evidently had a different,more elevated status. Incorporated into a large composite volume - TiberiusA. iii - at the end of a standard compilation of Benedictine texts, it formed partof a carefully planned scheme that has, however, partly been obscured byCottonian interference. In moving the RC to the front position (fols. 3-27) ofthe frequently studied Tiberius codex, Sir Robert Cotton destroyed its well-thought-out thematic and codicological setting, yet helped to increasescholarly familiarity with the text.60

The rearranged items appear in their original order in an early-twelfth-century table of contents now on 117r. The RC, which comes second inposition after the Regula S. Benedicti, goes by the strange title of 'Regula eluricibate glosata anglice'. The reform document is again called 'Regula Aluricii' in

wording of the introductory formula in the two other Christ Church variants, see ibid. p. 149,and p. cii, n. 22. Depending on their earlier dating (s. xex), T. Symons took the three notices as'clear evidence of the presence of monks at Christ Church, Canterbury, in the last years of thetenth century or at the beginning of the eleventh' ('The Introduction of Monks at ChristChurch, Canterbury', JTS 27 (1926), 409-11, at 411). As N. Brooks has shown, however, noprecise date can be given for the establishment of monks at Christ Church (The Early Historyof the Church of Canterbury. Christ Church from 597 to 1066 (Leicester, 1984), pp. 255-60), thoughrecent excavations suggest that a monastic community may have existed there rather early inthe reform period (private communication from Professor Brooks).

58 See Kornexl, Regularis Concordia, pp. lxxxii-lxxxiii, and the references given there.59 Ker, Catalogue, p. 197 (no. 155); for further palaeographical details, see Kornexl, Regularis

Concordia, pp. ciii-cv.60 For a brief description of the history of the manuscript and the reconstruction of its original

compilation - fols. 117-73, followed by fols. 2-116 - see ibid. pp. cxxi-cxxix. The dividedentry no. 155 for Tiberius A. iii in London, British Library, Harley 6018, a library cataloguedating from Cotton's lifetime, where the items now on fols. 118—79 have been added by adifferent hand on a separate leaf, may indicate that Cotton had initially planned to remove thispart entirely from the manuscript.

107

Lucia Kornexl

a medieval library catalogue of Christ Church, Canterbury (London, BritishLibrary, Cotton Galba E. iv {c. 1330)); yet it seems highly doubtful if therelevant entry, thought to refer to Tiberius A. iii (or at least part of it), may becounted as independent evidence. There are other notes in both sources thatmysteriously associate the name JElinc Bata with the Tiberius collection.Perhaps this pupil of iElfric (if it is actually he who is meant) acted as amediator and provided Christ Church with texts which must have been verywelcome there, especially after the place had suffered from the Viking raids in1011/12. Dr Ker interpreted the above-mentioned twelfth-century designa-tion of the RC as 'Regula elurici bate' as an indication of contemporary ChristChurch opinion about authorship.61 Such a genitive may, however, stand forvarious types of relations; here it possibly denotes the owner of an examplarlent out for copying. In any case, the unknown composer of the Tiberius tableof contents does not appear to be a very reliable authority; he did a rathersummary job and may well have been a Norman monk unfamiliar with localEnglish tradition.

The Tiberius version of the RC represents a unique addition to theoriginally preceding set of Benedictine texts, comprising the Rule and anumber of Carolingian reform decrees.62 In being written by a different hand,the RC also stands visually apart. Its incorporation clearly changed thecharacter of the collection which, according to the surviving manuscriptevidence, had been instrumental in the promulgation of reformist ideas in theinitial phase of the Benedictine revival. As the native customary encompassingthe fruits of these efforts, the RC now constituted the crowning element inwhat in its entirety may be regarded as a documentation of the English reformmovement, carefully set out for transmission to posterity. The systematicapproach taken by the redactor of the 'Benedictine section' of Tiberius A. iii isattested by yet another innovation: with two minor exceptions only, all theitems are provided with an Old English gloss.

In such a context one would expect an exemplary and authoritative version,and although the Tiberius text of the RC does not fully attain this ideal, itundoubtedly surpasses the other surviving copy in terms of completeness andauthenticity. The Tiberius manuscript contains a full version of the originaldocument, including its title, table of contents and epilogue. Facing the firstpage of the consuetudinary, there is a symbol-laden frontispiece (2v),63 whichRobert Deshman assumes to have been derived 'from one of the original

61 Ker, Catalogue, p. 241 (no. 186). /Elfric Bata's involvement with the RC version in TiberiusA. iii and with this volume requires further investigation; for a brief discussion of theevidence, see Kornexl, Regu/aris Concordia, pp. cxxx-cxxxiv.

62 For details and bibliographical references, see ibid. pp. cxxxv-cxxxviii.63 See ibid. pp. cxxxviii-cxli.

108


tenth-century dedication copies of the Regularis Concordia'.64 On account ofsome basic shortcomings which can scarcely have resulted from later corrup-tion, it seems, however, rather unlikely that the accompanying RC text alsostems from one of these hypothetical de luxe editions. This would mean thattext and drawing came from different exemplars; Mildred Budny's identifica-tion of the illustrator as an artist working in St Augustine's, Canterbury,65 mayeven imply a different Mai- and Schriftheimat for the two components,effectively combined by the compiler to complete the 'Benedictine section' inTiberius A. iii.

The differences between the two surviving RC copies, and especially theirimperfections,66 raise important questions about the character and quality ofthe original version as drawn up by iEthelwold. Though this runs counter tothe expressed purpose of the document (§ 8, lines 115-27), one must of coursetake into account the possibility of subsequent modification. The intention ofkeeping the customary in line with changing liturgical practice may even haveinvited such interferences. Our main concern here, however, is with a numberof shortcomings that seem to reflect the imperfect nature of the draft stage andvarying degrees of competence and versatility on the part of the scribes.

After the synodal agreement, the promoters of the reform must have had avested interest in the speedy composition and dissemination of the code,probably from ./Ethelwold's scriptorium at the Old Minster in Winchester.There are strong indications that the RC was compiled under considerabletime pressure; the process of copying presumably began before there was afinal version of the customary, fully written out and arranged in the definitiveorder. By faithfully following his equally thoughtless predecessors, each of thecopyists of the two surviving versions in his own way provides us withvaluable evidence for the nature of the original. Thus, instead of the table ofcontents contained in Tiberius (§ 13, lines 214-40), Faustina gives theinstruction — rather nonsensical in this context — 'Hie inserenda sunt capitula'{app. crit. line 187). As regards the chapter-headings within the text, it issignificant that none of the two versions has them all and that those preservedshow different types of mistakes. Faustina has mixed up the sequence ofelements in the second half of the prologue67 so that, for example, the lastsection (§ 12) with its concluding doxology ('ubi est rex Deus, . . . in seculaseculorum. Amen', lines 211—13) oddly enough appears in the middle of § 10 of

M R. Deshman, 'Benedictus Monarcha et Monachus: Early Medieval Ruler Theology and theAnglo-Saxon Reform', FS 22 (1988), 204-40 and pis. XVIII-XXVIII, at 210.

65 M.O. Budny, 'British Library Manuscript Royal 1 E. VI: the Anatomy of an Anglo-SaxonBible Fragment' (unpubl. PhD dissertation, Univ. of London, 1984), p. 252.

66 F o r a detai led analysis a n d c o m p a r i s o n of b o t h ve r s ions , see K o r n e x l , Regularis Concordia, p p .cxliii—cxlvii. 67 See ibid. p p . cvi—cvii.

109

Lucia Kornexl

the text. But even in the more logical order preserved in Tiberius A. iii, partsof the introductory section look like a rather haphazard collection ofindividual points, loosely sketched out and then perhaps regrouped by meansof symbols that the first scribe of the Faustina branch may have failed toperceive or to interpret correctly.

Lack of systematic structuring - possibly also in codicological terms - hascaused similar defects in the main body of the consuetudinary common to bothextant copies. A striking example is the thematic break effected by theinsertion of ch. VII on the duties of the so-called circa,68 the official responsiblefor monastic discipline, between chs. VI and VIII, which belong to thehitherto mainly chronological treatment of observances throughout theliturgical year. The misleading note 'EXPLICUIT LIBER' (§ 68, line 1648),uncritically copied into the Tiberius version six lines before the main part ofthe RC actually ends, allows us to take a glance at successive stages of thework's completion. There can be no doubt that the regulation that follows,concerning special intercessory prayers for a monastery's benefactors in caseof serious illness, is an authentic 'postscript' by ./Ethelwold.69

Different scribal handling of an original that in its presumed form mayscarcely be called a mastercopy has probably produced certain differences inthe way liturgical practices and devotions are referred to and cited in the RC.On the whole, Faustina can be said to be the more explicit version, specifyingfor instance the kind of liturgical text whose incipit is subsequently given(versus, oratio, psalmus, etc.), and repeating a prayer for the king, queen andbenefactors (§ 16, lines 286-91) in full, where Tiberius restricts itself to a briefreference ('requiras in precedenti folio', § 18, line 324). This would fit theassumption that the Faustina copy was used for instruction. The irregularitiesin writing and layout, especially in the two passages listing the lessons, prayersand canticles for the vigils of Easter and Whitsuntide, where each of the twoextant versions goes its own confused way,70 suggest that even the act ofcopying itself may have been a sort of practical exercise in liturgy, the scribehaving to insert what then was current local use. In connection with suchvariation one might recall the dearth of detail which the RC at times provides,summarily referring to particular servicebooks whose use is taken forgranted.71 As we have seen, it was obviously left to the first copyists of the RC

68 For the linguistic aspects of this term (cf. Med. Lat. circator), see ibid. pp. ccxxxi and 347—8,note on line 1377.

69 See ibid. p. lxxiii, and pp. 383-4, note on line 1648. This stipulation attests to the fact that inpursuing their aims, the reformers not only depended on royal protection but also on thesupport of powerful laymen, likewise repaid by monastic prayer.

70 See ibid. pp. 318, note on lines 1171-6, and 353-6, note on lines 1406-14.71 See above, p. 103 and n. 39.

110


to insert in their appropriate places the table of contents and the chapter-headings, which during the drafting of the document had apparently beenjotted down separately. For reasons of economy, the liturgical instructions forthe above-mentioned ceremonies perhaps, in a similar manner, had to besupplied from other liturgical sources. This would mean for instance that theblame for what Christopher Hohler calls 'the Concordia muddle on WhitsunEve'72 must be laid on the amanuenses of the RC author, the books consultedby them and probably also on later scribes and users.

THE PROMULGATION OF THE MONASTIC CODE: RELATED TEXTS

AND TRANSLATIONS

The RC must have been circulated to every reformed monastery in Anglo-Saxon England. Two remaining copies constitute a rather poor survival rate,but having been produced some seventy-five years after the composition ofthe original, these no doubt attest to a prolonged interest in the document.Due to the scarcity of pertinent evidence, the actual degree of adherence to theRC and its long-term impact on monastic life in England remain very much amatter of speculation. Modern scholars have frequently voiced their doubts asto the practicability of this elaborate code and the willingness of thoseconcerned to comply with it.73 At any rate, a distinction must be made betweenpurely religious matter and those stipulations that had a political dimensionand thus by their nature were much more short-lived. The so-called 'anti-monastic reaction' after King Edgar's sudden death in 975 was not in essenceanti-Benedictine, but primarily an aristocratic protest against the loss oftraditional rights of control over religious houses as codified in the prologueand the epilogue of the RC. The fact that Archbishop Lanfranc chose toignore the native consuetudinary when drawing up his own post-Conquestconstitutions for the Christ Church monks from, as he says, 'the customs ofthose monasteries which in our day have the greatest prestige in the monasticorder',74 is representative of Norman attitudes towards English practice ratherthan of this practice itself.

The main testimony for the appreciation and use of the RC after the heyday

72 C. Hohler, 'Some Service-Books of the Later Saxon Church', Tenth-Century Studies, ed.Parsons, pp. 60-83 and 217-27, at 74. Hohler's remark that 'lessons and tracts in the 10thcentury were commonly in separate books, with inadequate cross-references' (p. 223, n. 46)supports the above suspicion.

73 For a discussion of the evidence and full references, see Kornexl, Kegularis Concordia, pp.li-lvi.

74 'ex consuetudinibus eorum cenobiorum, quae nostro tempore maioris auctoritatis sunt inordine monachorum' {The Monastic Constitutions of Lanfranc, ed. and trans. D. Knowles(London, 1951), p. 1; corrected reprint under the title Deereta Lanfranci Monachis Cantuariensi-bus Transmissa, CCM 3 (Siegburg, 1967), 1-149).

I l l

h,ucia Kornexl

of the reform is the previously mentioned 'Letter to the Monks of Eynsham'(Cambridge, Corpus Christi College 265, pp. 237-68 (s. ximed)), an abbreviatedand supplemented Latin version of the customary composed by JEliric for thenewly founded community at Eynsham in about 1005.75 Major evidence is alsopresented by two fragmentary Old English prose translations of the RC,76

made independently of each other and of the Old English gloss to the Tiberiustext; there is strong evidence that each of the two fragments was originally partof a more complete vernacular version. As described above, the extractpreserved in Tiberius A. iii, fols. 174-6,77 once preceded the Latin text nowincorporated in Faustina B. iii; both items, formerly combined in the 'RC-booklet',78 are probably in the same Canterbury hand. The text of the secondRC fragment, contained in part A of Cambridge, Corpus Christi College 201,pp. 1—7 (s. xim),79 shows remarkable correspondences with the so-called'Winchester vocabulary' as propagated by iEthelwold and his school.80

Another characteristic that has been connected with the proposed Winchesterorigin of the translation is its partial adaptation for female use. A single suchtrace is also to be found in the Tiberius translation fragment as well as in theTiberius text of the RC,S1 though these are exceptional cases taking account ofthe inclusion of female communities in monastic confraternitates.%2 A number offurther adaptations in Latin and Old English attest to the use of RC material innon-monastic liturgical contexts, too.83 On the whole, verbal debts to the RC,especially minor ones, seem difficult to verify, considering that the customaryis essentially derivative in nature and may itself have shown some variationfrom the very beginning of its transmission.

75 See Kornexl, Regularis Concordia, pp. clii—cliv.76 See ibid. pp. cxlix-clii.77 Printed by A. Schroer, 'De Consuetudine Monachorum', Engliscbe Studien 9 (1886), 290-6,

and E. Breck (see below, n. 90). The translation comprises §§ 36—43, lines 839-1038, of theRC. 78 Cf. above, pp. 104-5.

79 Ed. J. Zupitza, 'Ein weiteres Bruchstiick der Regularis concordia in altenglischer Sprache',ASNSL 84 (1890), 1-24 (corresponding to §§ 14-19, lines 241-356 of the RQ.

80 See below, p. 129.81 For the incipit 'Anime fratrum nostrorum', as given in RC§ 19, lines 349—50 — marking a

prayer for departed brethren said daily after prime - the translation fragment offers theextended reading: 'Anime fratrum 7sororum nostrarum requiescant in pace' ('De ConsuetudineMonachorum', ed. Schroer, p. 296.27—8; my italics). Similarly, in a prayer for a deceasedmonk, to be said instantaneously after receiving the news of his death from an affiliatedmonastery, the Tiberius version of the RC has uel earn inserted above eum in the phrase 'neeeum patiaris cruciari gehennalibus flammis' (§ 68, lines 1640—1, and see note on line 1640).

82 On particular forms of commemoration attested in the RC, see Kornexl, Regularis Concordia,p. lxxiii, with references to relevant literature.

83 See ibid. p. civ; the whole complex has recently been investigated in detail by J. Hill, 'The"Regularis Concordia" and its Latin and Old English Reflexes', RB 101 (1991), 299-315.

112


THE EDITORIAL HISTORY

Until late in the nineteenth century, scholars had no clear idea regarding thenumber of surviving RC texts, their exact nature and the relationshipsbetween them. The editorial history of the customary84 began in 1623, whenJohn Selden in a note to his edition of Eadmer's Histories Novorum printed theprologue and the epilogue of the RC text in Tiberius A. iii together with itsOld English gloss in order to provide documentary proof for the refoundationof monasteries during the reign of King Edgar. Representing the only fullversion known, the Tiberius text was to form the sole basis of all subsequenteditions — whether complete or partial ones — until the end of the last century.As outlined above, this text had the advantage of being clearly identifiable byits heading; accompanied by a striking illustration, and placed first in themanuscript by Sir Robert Cotton, it could scarcely be overlooked.85 Bycontrast, the other, untitled version, after having been used but not accuratelyidentified by John Joscelyn and other sixteenth-century antiquaries,86 wasdoomed to fall into oblivion when Cotton decided to remove it from theoriginal thematic collection and put it in the middle of the miscellaneousFaustina volume. Cotton's dismembering of the RC-booklet had another fatalconsequence: at the end of the Old English translation fragment (nowTiberius A. iii, fols. 174-6), John Joscelyn had written a note referring to theRC text that started on the opposite page.87 After this fragment had beennewly bound up with Tiberius A. iii, the note was mistaken for a description ofthe preceding translation, which thus came to be known as iEthelwold's 'DeConsuetudine Monachorum',88 while the RCas represented in Tiberius A. iii,fols. 3—27, passed for a different work: the 'Concordia Regularis S. Dunstani'.This title was given to the text when first printed in full length (yet without theOld English gloss) in Clement Reyner's Apostolatus Benedictinorum in Anglia(1626) to corroborate.the claim that from the earliest times there had been a

84 For a more comprehensive account, see Kornexl, Regularis Concordia, pp. clvi-clxvi;annotated lists with bibliographical references to earlier, full and partial, editions of the RCand to major extracts printed from manuscript are to be found on pp. clxvii—clxix.

85 On the extensive excerpts made for the purpose of linguistic and thematic studies byFranciscus Junius from the glossed text, see ibid. pp. cxli-cxlii.

86 See ibid. pp. cxv-cxvi.87 'Liber de consuetudine monachorum, qui est aut idem quern iEthelwoldus Wintoniensis

episcopus cum coepiscopis et abbatibus tempore Eadgari regis Anglorum collegit (de quomentionem facit jElfricus Abbas in epistola ad Egneshamenses fratres) aut certe ex eodem estdesumptus.'

88 Cf. the titles chosen by Schroer (above, n. 77) and Breck (below, n. 90) for their editions ofthe translation fragment.

113

Lucia Kornexl

Benedictine congregation in England. The next two editions in an enlargedversion of Dugdale's Monasticon Anglkanum (1817) and in the PatrologiaLatina (1853) were reprints of the Apostolatus text, with slight alterations only.

In 1891, Willem S. Logeman broke new editorial ground when he printedthe whole Tiberius text of the RC together with the Old English interlinearversion.89 The title chosen by him - 'De Consuetudine Monachorum' -reflected the current state of scholarship: in his dissertation published fouryears earlier, Eduard Breck had pointed out that it was the text at thebeginning of the Tiberius manuscript, until then known as 'Dunstan's Rule',that represented 'the original "De Consuetudine Monachorum" of Êthel-wold', and not the Old English translation fragment in Tiberius A. iii, fols.174-6, as had hitherto been thought.90 However, neither Breck nor othercontemporary scholars realized that this name, as originally applied byJoscelyn, meant the Faustina text of the RC. This text was rediscovered andcorrectly identified by Mary Bateson in 1894, who unfortunately mentionedher new findings only in passing.91 In any case, the discovery came too late tobe included in Logeman's semi-diplomatic edition which, owing to typogra-phical constraints and a considerable number of mistakes, defeated its expresspurpose of providing a nearly exact reproduction of the original, while beingunnecessarily difficult to read. Logeman's sketchy introduction was publishedseparately, together with sporadic notes and corrections, in 1893.92

The first to collate the two extant versions - though not very systematically-was Dom Thomas Symons in his 1953 edition of the Latin RCtext, chieflytaken from Tiberius, with a Modern English facing translation. Symons'sinterests were clearly on the theological rather than on the philological side;his introduction and liturgical notes to the edition and his division of the RCtext into sixty-nine sections are the combined fruits of more than thirty yearsof detailed study. Much of this has gone into the extensive thematiccommentary of the collaborative Latin edition in the Corpus ConsuetudinumMonasticarum series published in 1984, which takes Faustina as its base text,but rather unfortunately establishes its own system of textual divisions andheadings.93

89 W.S. Logeman, 'De Consuetudine Monachorum', Anglia 13 (1891), 365-454.90 E . Breck , Fragment of JElfric's Translation of JEthelwold's De Consuetudine Monachorum and its

Relation to Other MSS., Critically Edited from the MS. Cotton Tib. A . III. in the British Museum(Leipzig, 1887), p. 7. As his title reveals, Breck falsely ascribed the translation fragment toISXinc.

91 M. Bateson, 'Rules for Monks and Secular Canons after the Revival under King Edgar',EHR 9 (1894), 690-708, at 700, n.*, and 701.

92 W.S. Logeman, 'De Consuetudine Monachorum', Anglia 15 (1893), 20-40.93 'Regularis concordia Anglicae nationis', ed. T. Symons, S. Spath, M. Wegener and K.

Hallinger, Consuetudinum saeculi XjXljXH monumenta non-Cluniacensia, ed. Hallinger, CCM

114


Starting with Selden's above-mentioned publication of the RCs prologueand epilogue, these and other parts of the customary have repeatedly beenreproduced from manuscript (again mostly from Tiberius A. iii) in textualcollections and monographs. Such extracts attest to the manifold importanceof the RC in English cultural history, for example as prime evidence for thebeginnings of religious drama in medieval England.94

During the last two decades, the RC has increasingly become an object oflinguistic study, too. Besides its Anglo-Latin base, it is above all thecontinuous interlinear gloss that constitutes an unusually rich source for theinvestigation of regional variation in Old English.95 In my new edition of theRC, based on the glossed version in Tiberius A. iii, with Latin variant readingsfrom Faustina B. iii recorded in the critical apparatus, I have tried to present areliable text with notes that focus primarily on linguistic peculiarities andproblems.96

THE LATINITY OF THE RC

Scholarly opinion of the Latinity of the RC97 was traditionally very unfavour-able and mostly consisted in sweeping generalizations. A proper evaluation ofits linguistic and literary quality must take into account the essentially eclecticnature of the document and its primarily practical function. With regard to therelatively frequent errors and mistakes, we must also recall that each of the twosurviving texts has gone through an unknown number of copying stages. TheFaustina scribe is undoubtedly the less competent, but the one responsible forTiberius also preserved or produced a considerable number of corrupt forms;quite often, however, these bear a correct gloss, thus attesting to the fact thatthe interlinear version cannot have been modelled on the Latin text as we haveit. Both versions have individual features characteristic of medieval Latin; acollation of relevant readings suggests that in its basic adherence to classicalLatin orthography the original was much more consistent than either of theremaining copies. Sporadically, an unusual Latin spelling may reflect OldEnglish phonological influence.98

7.3, 61-147. Though named first among those who prepared the text, Symons's role in themaking of this edition remains largely obscure (see Kornexl, Regularis Concordia, p. clxvi andn. 57).

94 See ibid. p. dxiv. Modern scholarship has, however, deprecated the idea of a linear evolutionof medieval English drama, beginning with the famous Quern guaeritis-trope in the Easteroffice of the RC (§ 51, lines 1223-54). '5 See below, pp. 128-30.

96 An outline of editorial policy and textual treatment is provided in ch. VII of my introduction.97 For a more detailed presentation of the evidence and full bibliographical references, see

Kornexl, Regularis Concordia, pp. clxx—clxxxiii.98 E .g . lariente, larigente, largente (F , lines 28 , 107 a n d 134) for largiente ( T ) , o r reliosorum ( T , l ine

244; T F , l ine 874) for religiosorum.

115

Lucia Kornexl

Former criticism of the RC chiefly focused on its allegedly 'stilted','inflated' and 'obscure' language. As Michael Lapidge has shown, suchjudgements unconsciously reflected scholarly distaste for the so-called 'herme-neutic style' as practised by iEthelwold and other Anglo-Latin authors." Itsdistinctive traits such as the display of rare Latin vocabulary, in particularAldhelmian words and phrases, are by no means typical of the document as awhole, as the above-mentioned judgements would imply, but mostly pertainto the prologue and the epilogue. Here, iEthelwold was free to choose his ownwords, independent of given sources, though similarities in matter andfunction made him draw on the form and diction of contemporary charters. Inthese two parts, the accomplished scholar could also work unhampered bydidactic considerations, which probably made him refrain from overly stylisticrefinement in the main body of the customary. Nevertheless, the beginning ofthe first chapter still seems to be very much in the 'hermeneutic' vein. Specifictraces of authorship can also be discerned in a fe%w other passages within thecustomary proper that take the nature of a comment and stand out by theirunusual length, their elaborate wording and syntactic complexity.100 It is inthese specimens of sophisticated theological reasoning that Êthelwold revealshimself as a committed reformer and emerges from the anonymity of hiscompilation to give us a taste of his accomplishment as 'a proficientLatinist'.101

THE OLD ENGLISH GLOSS, ITS PURPOSE, QUALITY AND

TRANSMISSION

The Tiberius text of the RC is accompanied by a continuous Old Englishinterlinear gloss, with only a few (and mostly regular) exceptions such asrubrics, proper names, liturgical incipits and technical terms from themonastic sphere that either lack a native equivalent or are expressed by aloanword closely corresponding to the Latin lemma. Before trying to answerthe question why the text was glossed, it should be asked why it was glossedrather than translated. After all, glossing was only one way of making a pieceof writing accessible to the unlatinate or those not (yet) completely at homewith that language. It definitely was an approach in its own right and notmerely a kind of primitive forerunner of a fully fledged prose translation(though glosses may sometimes have helped to render a text into vernacularprose). Glossing clearly had an advantage over translating, where study of the

99 M. Lapidge, 'The Hermeneutic Style in Tenth-Century Anglo-Latin Literature', ASE 4(1975), 67-111; for a study of pertinent elements in the prologue of the RC, attesting to./Ethelwold's authorship, see idem, 'iEthelwold as Scholar and Teacher' (cited above, n. 27),pp. 98-100. >oo See the example cited above, p. 100.

101 Lapidge, 'yEthelwold as Scholar and Teacher', p. 100.

116


original Latin text was required. Though the RC, unlike the Benedictine Rule,had no place in the daily Office, it must have been part of the curriculum inreformed English monasteries at least for some time after its composition, theOld English interlinear version aiding in the comprehension of the Latinoriginal.102

This sounds all rather vague and unsatisfactory, but for a number of reasonsone cannot honestly be more precise than that. Systematic research intoglossing has only just begun, and the intended functions of interlinearversions are far from clear. Above all, what we have in Tiberius A. iii is not theoriginal RC gloss, whose function may have been quite different from the oneit was to serve when copied into this codex. The provision of glosses for mostof the 'Benedictine section' there - whether imported or, in the case of the RC,home-made ones - shows that the interest in the underlying documents wasnot merely of an antiquarian nature. On the whole, the large and variedTiberius collection, increasingly unsystematic in its arrangement, seems to fitthe concept of a library copy much more than that of a genuine classbook.103 Inany case, it appears doubtful if full interlinear versions were ideally suited forthe latter purpose: a word-for-word rendering, including even the mostsimple items, seems a rather unpractical tool for a teacher who, with such anexemplar before him, may actually have had difficulties in seeing the individual,tree for the wood. Conversely, for private study it would have been importantthat the reader could consult a systematic gloss whenever he or she felt theneed to do so. An interlinear version to a text used for instruction, such as theRC, may document in full what Anglo-Saxon pupils had to master step bystep, under a teacher's guidance and on their own.104 The idea of a glossrepresenting a kind of teaching documentation may even imply that it was a

102 For the kinds of 'basic' (mostly liturgical) texts which, according to our manuscriptevidence, received systematic Old English glossing, see G. Wieland, 'Latin Lemma — LatinGloss: the Stepchild of Glossologists', Mittellateiniscbes Jabrbuch 19 (1984), 91-9, at 91, n. 1;and H. Gneuss, 'Glossen, Glossare: IV. Englische Literatur', Lexikon des Mittelalters IV(Munich, 1989), cols. 1513-14, at 1513. The pre-Conquest evidence for the library andscriptorium of Christ Church, Canterbury, where the RC gloss most probably originated, isassembled and evaluated in Brooks, Early History, pp. 266-78; see especially pp. 276-7 onwhat 'is shown to be a monastic library by its contents'.

103 For scholarly discussion of the controversial concept of the 'classbook', see Kornexl,Regularis Concordia, p p . d x x x v — c l x x x v i .

104 On 'The World of Anglo-Saxon Learning' - yet to be fully explored - see P. Lendinara, TheCambridge Companion to Old English Literature, ed. M. Godden and M. Lapidge (Cambridge,1991), pp. 264-81. With reference to a passage in /Elfric's Colloquy, Professor Lendinarastates that 'Latin was the language of instruction; the vernacular had no place inecclesiastical schools' (p. 269). There is no room here for discussing this remark, whoselatter part touches immediately on our topic. At any rate, in the light of Êlfric's ownbilingual Grammar this notion seems somewhat strange.

117

Lucia Kornexl

team work. Though the RC gloss does not offer conclusive proof for such aprocedure, it no doubt provides insights into the kind of knowledge and theinstructional techniques acquired in the classroom by the glossator. Asoutlined below, it is this educational background which, to some extent atleast, had to be shared by the users of a gloss so that it could develop its fullexplanatory potential.

Various types of irregularities attest to the fact that the RC gloss aspreserved in Tiberius A. iii is already a copy; these comprise misplaced glosses,corrupt lemmata which are rendered by correct glosses without bearing anysign of correction, glosses that accord with Latin variants (usually attested inthe Faustina text), glosses to which there is no Latin lemma, faulty or senselessOld English readings that represent typical copyist's errors, glosses which byalterations in spelling and/or spacing have been changed into a differentreading without regard to the underlying Latin item, and Latin words thathave been inserted later, together with the Old English gloss.105

Despite the discrepancies which show up in these cases, we may confidentlyassume that the original RC gloss was modelled on a Latin text that basicallycorresponded to the one surviving in Tiberius A. iii and that text and glosswere copied from one exemplar.106 The comparatively large number ofdistorted readings and mistakes in both sections suggests that the Tiberiusgloss was not copied directly from the original version. Further evidence forseveral stages of transmission comes from some Latin words and phraseswhich, attested only in the Tiberius text, very likely qualify as later additions.That these have been supplied at different times is suggested by the fact that,contrary to the glossator's habit, two of the pertinent items were leftuntranslated.107 In discussing the problems of the gloss, a clear distinctionmust therefore be made between the glossator and an unknown number ofscribes, though their respective share in anomalies is often impossible toascertain.

GLOSSING TECHNIQUE

On the whole, the RC glossator's performance is certainly not an outstandingone; there are many instances where the gloss is obviously faulty or where itcould be more consistent and so probably more helpful. On the other hand, itdoes not conform to the standard notion of a mechanical word-for-wordtranslation; though there are considerable differences in method and quality,we may safely assume that no Old English interlinear version really does so,because such a procedure would clearly have run counter to the aim of105 For a documentation of these various types of evidence, see Kornexl, Kegularis Concordia, pp.

clxxxviii-cxcv. 106 See ibid. p. cxcvi. l07 See ibid. p. cxlvi, n. 20.

118

The Regularis Concordia and its Old Unglish gloss

elucidating a Latin text. This can best be demonstrated by occasional gravemistranslations, resulting from the glossator's failure to take account of thecontext, for example in RC line 81: fere glossed neah*, where the Latin noun,meaning 'wild beasts', was mistaken for its medieval Latin homograph, theadverb 'nearly'. Of course, for the specific type of translation represented byglosses the limits of acceptability must have been fairly wide, because muchgreater restraints were put on a glossator than on a prose translator. From amodern point of view, these limits are often very difficult to determine. As richstores of contrastive word pairs, for example, interlinear versions were surelyinstrumental in vocabulary learning and in some sense may have served as asubstitute for dictionaries, then not yet available. These functions could befulfilled by any possible translation equivalent for a given lemma, not just theone appropriate in the given context.108 Usually, however, the RC glossatortried to provide contextual meanings; occasionally, he even opted for a morespecific term in Old English, thus interpreting rather than translating his Latinmodel.109

Instead of jumping from item to item, the glossator would also have toprogress in at least small syntactical units, if he was not to violate basic rules ofhis native grammar, thereby making comprehension more difficult. Thus, inprepositional phrases in which the Latin construction differs from the oneused in Old English, the gloss for the noun phrase normally takes the casegoverning the Old English preposition, for example (line 1063): Lat. antecrucem sanctam (ace.) versus OE toforan rode haligre (dat.). Where Old Englishlacked a certain grammatical form or, as in the case of the analytic past, had notyet fully developed it, we usually find standardized substitutes such as an OldEnglish past tense corresponding to a Latin pluperfect.

The physical arrangement of an interlinear version tends to conceal itsinherent complexity. By the same token, modern scholarly preoccupationwith the semantic aspect of glosses has tended to obscure the widereducational purposes for which they were designed. The first systematicattempt to establish an analytical taxonomy of glossing was made by Gernot

108 For the pertinent distinction between 'Vokabeliibersetzung' and 'Kontextiibersetzung', seeH. Gotz, 'Zur Bedeutungsanalyse und Darstellung althochdeutscher Glossen', Beitrdge %urBedeutungserschliessung im althocbdeutschen Wortschat^, ed. R. Grosse, S. Blum and H. Gotz,Sitzungsberichte der Sachsischen Akademie det Wissenschaften zu Leipzig, Phil.-hist.Klasse, 118.1 (Berlin, 1977), 53-208, esp. 64-91.

109 In this way, we sometimes get subtle 'corrections' of the original text: cf. OE singan 'sing'glossing Lat. dicere 'say' in lines 285 {he singe sealmas - dicat psalmos) and 612 {beon gesungenmhymnas — dicantur hymni); OE sittan 'sit' rendering Lat. recumbere 'lie down' in line 605(sittendum him - recumbentibus eis), indicating that the above devotions were sung, and that themonks were sit/ing in their beds during the nightly asperges.

119

Lucia Kornexl

Wieland in 1983 on the basis of sporadic Latin glosses.110 His useful schemecannot, however, simply be adopted for continuous interlinear versions inOld English, which by their very nature are much more coherent andconsequently less open to clear-cut categorization. Rather than speaking ofindividual types of glosses, I therefore prefer to talk about various types ofglossing in the RC, to avoid the misleading impression of a one-to-onerelationship of gloss and function.111

Lexical glossing is primarily concerned with the meaning, but very often inthe RC gloss, also with the morphological structure of the lemma. Specialkinds of morpho-semantic relationships will be briefly dealt with later.112 Dueto its factual nature, the RC text does not reflect the sophisticated interpre-tation which is found, for instance, in the exegetical glosses in various psalterversions.

Grammatical glossing not only concerned inflexions but also the additionalsupply of function words to specify grammatical categories which OldEnglish inflexional marking was not able to express as unambiguously as thecorresponding Latin ending. A typical example is the insertion of prepositionssuch as mid, on or after, to indicate a Latin ablative. In addition, characteristicelements of English grammar were often supplied, as, for example, the definitearticle or the pertinent nominative form of the personal pronoun in conjunc-tion with the finite verb. Frequently, such grammatical devices also served asyntactic function, creating cohesion and thus turning the gloss into a readablebit of Old English text; cf. line 118: se intinga forpam bitysgedon, with se and hitinserted to gloss Lat. negotium, pro quo agitur.

Syntactic glossing with lexical means (as the only form attested in the RC)113

involved the special arrangement of glosses according to Old Englishstructural patterns (for example, line 29: OE y his gemaccean corresponding toLat. coniugique sue), and the moving of supplied function words to their

110 G.R. Wieland, The Latin Glosses on Arator and Prudentius in Cambridge University Library, MSGg.5.35 (Toronto, 1983); for a summary of the classification applied there, see idem, 'LatinLemma — Latin Gloss', pp. 96—7. Wieland distinguishes the following five categories:glosses on prosody, lexical glosses, grammatical glosses, syntactical glosses and commen-tary glosses.

111 For an exemplification of these types, see Kornexl, Kegularis Concordia, pp. ccxvii-ccxx.112 See below, pp. 126—7.113 For syntactic glossing using signs and symbols, see F.C. Robinson, 'Syntactical Glosses in

Latin Manuscripts of Anglo-Saxon Provenance', Speculum 48 (1973), 443-75; and M.Korhammer, 'Mittelalterliche Konstruktionshilfen und altenglische Wortstellung', Scrip-torium 34 (1980), 18-58. The two basic types of syntactic glossing - one using non-lexicalcodes, the other words - probably operate at two different levels. According to DrKorhammer, syntactical glosses employing codes help the reader to understand theunderlying Latin construction and cannot usually be taken as a transformational guide tonatural Old English syntax. This effect is, however, partly achieved by lexical means.

120


appropriate positions, if necessary. Thus, a personal pronoun would normallybe placed in front of a finite verb form; but cf. lines 762-3: OE odpat hi... papam massepreoste bringan glossing Lat. donee . . . ea sacerdoti offerant, where O E hiwas inserted in subject position.

Such means of making individual items or sequences of glosses explicitlyconform to English grammar and syntax are not consistently employed in theRC gloss. Wherever they appear, they could, however, provide a sort ofapplied contrastive grammar for those who had been trained to 'read' aninterlinear version.

The fact that glosses usually combine a semantic and a grammatical functionis evidenced in an idiosyncratic way by forms which, exploiting only one ofthese potentials, were deliberately left incomplete. Such 'merographs'114 areconsidered to be brief reminders only and, compared to the service of a fullrendering, pose a more or less serious intellectual challenge to the 'reader'.The RC gloss contains a small number of word fragments, such as unde*instead of under (line 182), midpe* instead of midpeawe (line 1155) and inn* forfaulty Lat. ingessi* (read: ingressi, line 1341). Judged on their own as*well as inthe context of the complete version, these examples may be explained not somuch as consciously employed shortened forms, but rather as attestations ofscribal negligence or, as in the last instance, uncertainty on the part of theglossator.

These incomplete glosses contrast with a few double glosses — elevenaltogether, with one of them occurring twice.115 In the case of such word pairs,one must reckon with the possibility of the second element having been addedlater, yet the RC gloss does not afford any significant palaeographical clues onthat score. In any event, the decisive question is not when and by whom thesetwin forms were produced but why this procedure was followed at all. On thewhole, the Latin lemmata in question are comparatively basic and straightfor-ward terms that would scarcely vex a glossator's mind. Most of the lemmata areattested several times throughout the gloss, but bear nevertheless a singletranslation. The Old English words, marked as alternatives by I 'or', areusually 'synonymous' in varying degrees, such as litlun I athwega for Lat.paulatim 'somewhat, a little' (line 10). What seems remarkable in a gloss thatdoes not allow for stylistic effect in the normal sense, is the occurrence ofalliterative pairs — cf.Jyrst l/ac for Lat. intervallum 'space of time' (lines 327 and650), mysan I mete for Lat. mensam 'table, meal' (line 670) - and of collocationsestablished as such in Old English prose, for example, dihte I scifte, hereglossing dictauerit 'require' (line 189).116 A sense of style also manifests itself in

114 See Kornexl, Regularis Concordia, pp. ccxx-ccxxi. " 5 See ibid. pp. ccxxii-ccxxiv.116 For a more detailed comment on these and further examples cited here, see the notes to the

relevant lines.

121

Lucia Kornexl

occasional alliterating glosses that seem to have been deliberately chosen forthis effect; compare, for example, rices rympe - regni amplitudinem (line 23), withrympp being a hapax legomenon belonging to a rather rare word-formationaltype. The role which interlinear versions played in systematic word study,both as sources and as fields of application for synonyms, formulas, and thelike, still remains to be explored. The double glosses in the RC are stronglyreminiscent of vocabulary definitions, firmly imprinted in fixed combinationson a student's mind, that would be recalled automatically when the corres-ponding Latin signal word turned up. It may be significant that ten out of theeleven word pairs occur within the prologue and the first two chapters of theRC. Should the making of the RC gloss be connected in any way with theclassroom, then this remarkable concentration may reflect a contemporarydidactic focus.

THE LANGUAGE OF THE GLOSS

Linguistic evidence often proves indispensable for the dating and localizationof a text and may also offer valuable clues as to the original exemplar fromwhich a surviving manuscript derives. We are in a rather unfortunate positionas regards the date of the RC gloss: the interlinear version must have beenproduced some time after the compilation of the Latin text in the early 970sand before the writing of the Tiberius manuscript (s. ximed), but thiscomparatively short period within what is called 'Late Old English' is notlikely to offer much significant material for precise dating. However, thelanguage of the RC gloss enables us to establish its place of origin with someconfidence. There can, of course, be no absolute certainty in this respect, as theglossator's dialect need not necessarily have been identical with the onespoken in the place where he worked, and the same qualification applies to theunknown number of copyists. Furthermore, not all dialect forms are distinc-tive enough to be attributable to a single, well-defined area, and for someapparent dialect features other, equally plausible explanations can be found,such as interference from neighbouring sounds, letters or forms — a phenome-non quite typical of glosses, and especially of copied ones.

Fortunately, there is enough evidence to place the linguistic features of theRC gloss in perspective. As stated above, the Canterbury provenance ofTiberius A. iii, and thus the provenance of the glossed RCcopy contained init, are beyond doubt;117 the writing - though perhaps not the illuminator's117 Christopher Hohler's sceptical remark: 'I should, on the contrary, quibble about the precise

sense in which BM Cott. Tib. A. iii is a Christ Church book' ('Some Service-Books', p. 220,n. 10) presumably refers to the texts assembled in this manuscript - and there can be nodoubt that the exemplars of most of these were 'imports'. The evidence for the ChristChurch links of Tiberius A. iii needs to be systematically collected and newly evaluated inthe light of recent research; for earlier work, see M. Forster, 'Vom Fortleben antikerSammellunare im Englischen und in anderen Volkssprachen', Anglia 67/68 (1944), 1-171, at43-54.

122


work - was most likely performed in the scriptorium of Christ Church. Weknow that the RC copy got appended there to an established set of Benedictinetexts whose Old English interlinear versions have more or less pronouncedWinchester connections - quite in contrast to the one newly added.118 We alsohave material proof that in the wake of the Benedictine Reform the ChristChurch scriptorium distinguished itself as a centre of glossing with a specialfocus on the production of interlinear versions in the vernacular.119

Spelling, phonology and inflexional morphology

Against this background, it may seem disappointing that in spelling andphonology120 the RC gloss largely conforms to the Late West Saxon standard.Actually, there is only one genuine Kenticism — unnet 'inopinate' (line 80), with/e/ for West Saxon (WS) /y/ from West Germanic /u/ by /-mutation; furtherevidence for this dialectal trait comes from three inverted spellings with (y)for <e>: afhynde 'absens' (line 435), rysta 'requiem' (line 599, probablyinfluenced by preceding hyra), and — with a long vowel — brymum 'celebri' (line64). A Kentish environment may have encouraged a number of spellings thatcould be attributed to the above categories if they were not also indicative ofLate Old English vowel reduction: (a) compounds with emb(e)- instead of

ymb(e)-, such as embhwjrft (line 4) and embepance (line 152); and (b) readings likemynecyna (lines 21,30 and 97) Andjyrmystan (line 276), most of which also have a(y) in the initial, stressed syllable.

The situation is very similar for phonological features which Kentishshared with Anglian or one of its subdialects: there are not more than a handfulof attestations, partly lending themselves also to non-dialectal interpretation.A few peculiar forms, such as se (line 298) and seo (line 1117) instead of theusual subjunctive singular si, suggest scribal familiarity with non-West Saxon(here, in particular, Kentish) variants. In cases of error like bernende* for berende(Lat. ferentes 'carrying', line 959) and taporbernendum* for taporberendum (Lat.acolitis 'acolytes, candlebearers', line 1168) by context-induced association

118 See the following linguistic analysis of the RC gloss, especially the section on its lexis(below, pp. 128-30). According to W. Hofstetter, Winchester und der spdtaltenglischeSprachgebrauch. Untersuchungen %ur geographischen und ̂ eitlichen lêrbreitung altenglischer Synonyme(Munich; 1987), nos. 14-15, the proportion of'Winchester words' in the Old English glossto the Benedictine Rule and to the Memoriale Qualiter amounts to 96.5% and 100%,respectively. Though both interlinear versions very likely originated in Winchester, theircomplex transmission presumably did not run on parallel paths; as shown by the abovepercentages and by the phonological evidence, they were also subject in different degrees toCanterbury influence.

119 See Brooks, Early History, p. 276. The intensive study of Aldhelm at Canterbury in thereform period and the heavy glossing which texts by this author received there (cf.Hofstetter, Winchester, text no. 17), is reflected in a number of Aldhelmian glosses attested inthe RC (see Kornexl, Regularis Concordia, p. ccxxxv, n. 146).

120 For a detailed account, see ibid. pp. cxcix-ccvi.

123

Lucia Kornexl

with bernan (WS barnan) 'burn', we can be quite sure that it was a copyist andnot the glossator himself who unconsciously slipped into non-West Saxonterritory. Among the peculiarities of the RC gloss that merit furtherconsideration is the interchange of<ea> and <eo>, both phonologically shortand long, in stressed syllables, with predominantly <ea>-spellings supplantingetymologically correct (eo>, as in earnustlice (lines 900, 1235 and 1566).Interestingly enough, this feature, classed as non-West Saxon in historicalgrammars, but not yet fully explained, has been traced in some other texts ofthe Tiberius manuscript, too.121 On the consonantal level, the RC glossexhibits a penchant for doubling, especially <nn)-spellings, which in cases likegesungenne (lines 613, 621 and 627, nom. pi. masc.) and panne (lines 1050 and1051, ace. sg. masc. of the demonstrative pronoun in relative function) blurgrammatical and in the latter instance also lexical distinctions. Yet within thegloss as a whole, these are clear exceptions that can confidently be put down toscribal influence. Two characteristics occur, however, with such greatregularity that they most likely come from the glossator's own hand: first,there is a marked tendency to replace <̂o)> by <̂ u) in unstressed syllables (forexample, abbud, regut) as well as in certain inflexions (for example, -ur, -ust forthe comparison of adjectives, -ude, -ud for past tense and past participle of weakverbs, class 2); second, nearly all attestations of the present subjunctive pluralinstead of -en end in -an and are thus identical with the infinitive.

Otherwise, the inflexional morphology of the RC gloss122 comparativelyrarely allows us to catch a glimpse of the phonological reality at the time of itscomposition, when final syllables were already liable to levelling. A number ofendings that differ from the then prevailing regularized spelling habits havepresumably been shaped either by the corresponding lemma (for example, Lat.cautela-OTL warnyssa, with dat. sg. -a for -e, line 266) or by neighbouring glossforms (for example, forgyfenysse misdade for gen. pi. -dceda, line 702).

Deviation from regular inflexional patterns is disproportionally frequentamong Latin loans of the 'learned' type, that is, technical vocabulary from theecclesiastical and monastic sphere (for example, alban, letanian, with dat. pi. -anfor -um, lines 848 and 1654). Such instances must be treated as a separatecategory; we are here in a sort of Latin-Old English twilight zone that isnotoriously difficult to penetrate. Significantly, for quite a number of such'hard words' that obviously caused the RC glossator problems, the OldEnglish corpus does not provide a full and consistent inflexional paradigm.123

The glossator was in the unenviable position of having to produce grammati-cal equivalents for Latin lemmata embedded in constructions that he himselfwould perhaps have avoided when having to use these Latinisms in his native121 See ibid. p. cciii and nn. 59 and 61. l22 See ibid. pp. ccvi-ccxi.123 See e.g. notes on line 644, to uigilian — ad uigiliam, and line 1415, latanias = letanie.

124


Old English. In Otto Funke's taxonomy,124 such unadapted loans qualify as'foreign words' (Fremdworter), as opposed to 'learned loanwords' (gelehrteLehnworter), fully assimilated in grammatical terms. The underlying idea is oneof gradual integration into a regular system that was, however, alreadydisintegrating when the RC gloss was made. Insecurities of usage certainlycontributed to inflexional irregularities, but it seems also plausible that fornon-native material translators and scribes felt less bound by the orthographi-cal conventions of the day, thus attesting to the profound phonological andstructural changes operative in Late Old English.

The linguistic evidence outlined so far does not suffice to confirm the validassumption that the interlinear version to the RC was made in Canterbury.The surviving copy appears, however, in what one might call a Kentishenvironment: according to an investigation by Professor Gneuss, virtually allOld English texts assembled in Tiberius A. iii exhibit traces of Kentish speechin varying degrees.125 Such corroborating evidence relating to the manuscriptas a whole is essential under the special conditions that apply to the RC gloss asa Late Old English product of presumptive Canterbury origin. The predomi-nance of a West Saxon-based standard was apparently reinforced by the factthat in linguistic matters Canterbury consciously kept a low profile. As regardsthe marking of inflexions, there may have been a further, practical reason forinterlinear versions to aim at supra-regionality and standardization, especiallywith non-local and later users in view: despite the continuous erosion of theinflexional system, an adherence to established spelling conventions to a largeextent still produced grammatically distinctive forms, which in turn facilitatedthe formal identification of the Latin lemma. A good deal of the linguisticpeculiarities in the RC gloss have apparently crept in during the process oftransmission, by mechanical copying or, as some erasures and correctionssuggest, by conscious alteration. From this we may infer that the original glossnot only was more regular and more conservative in its inflexional morpho-logy than the surviving copy, but that it also contained fewer non-West Saxondialectal features.

The lexis of the gloss: loan-formations and technical terms

Like any other gloss, the interlinear version of the RC mainly consists of whatmay be classed as 'ordinary' Old English words on account of their frequencyand distribution. The other, more interesting, type of lexemes, that seem to

124 O . F u n k e , Die gelehrten lateinischen Lebn- und Fremdo/orler in der altenglischen Literatur von derMitte des X. Jahrhunderts bis urn das Jair 1066 ( H a l l e , 1914) , p . 4 4 .

125 Paper delivered at a workshop on Tiberius A. iii at the British Library on 9 August 1993(organized by the Research Group on Manuscript Evidence at the Parker Library), and to bepublished.

125

Lucia Kornexl

justify 'a healthy suspicion of glosses as indicators of normal usage',126 has notyet been sufficiently studied as a separate class, so that, for the time being, validconclusions can only be drawn on a rather limited scale.

Not all vocabulary peculiar to glosses can be identified as such at first sight.Words such as findincg (Lat. adinuentio, line 1534), nyperlecgincg (Lat. depositio,line 1108) and topenung (Lat. amministratio, line 1540), are all hapax legomena butdo not seem in any way specific because they follow a very common OldEnglish word-formational pattern — the derivation of abstract nouns fromverbs by suffixation with -ing\-ung. These are, however, ad hoc formationswhich occur typically in glosses: they owe their existence to the fact that,according to the rules of the genre, the glossator was expected to provide alexical equivalent of the same word class as the lemma, whereas in unrestrictedconditions he would perhaps have chosen a different — probably verbal —construction. On a wider scale, such 'induced' formations, inconspicuous asthey are, can tell us something about productive types of Old English word-formation, and about possible standard Latin-Old English equivalents in thisfield (cf. the correspondence of Lat. -to with OE -ingj-ung in the aboveexamples).

Presumably as a consequence of its derivation from classroom techniques,the RC gloss in general exhibits a strong tendency to illustrate the structure ofthe lemmata by replicating it.127 This tendency is actually visible in themanuscript, where many glosses - and occasionally also their Latin models -are not written as one word but are divided into morphological units. Amongthe numerous loan-formations, items like beforangangan glossing Lat.praecedere'to go before, in front' (line 390) and embutongan glossing Lat. circumire 'goround (among)' (line 1005) constitute a relatively unproblematic category,because they are fully transparent in morphological and semantic terms andmight just as well have been formed without foreign instigation. They are,however, a headache for historical lexicographers who have to decide whetherto classify such items as verbal compounds that are given a separate entry, or totake them as groups of adverb and verb. With regard to their syntacticbehaviour in Old English prose contexts, where the adverbial 'prefix' may bedetached from the verbal base, the question is a particularly vexed one, but forglosses corresponding to foreign lexical units the compound option seems theonly one appropriate, especially if the complex Latin model is lexicalized andthus not analysable in semantic terms; for example, OE purhdreogan, a loan-

126 Cf. the remarks of C. J. E. Ball in 'The Form of the Dictionary of Old English', A Plan for theDictionary of Old English, ed. R. Frank and A. Cameron (Toronto, 1973), pp. 5-7, at 6.

127 On the resultant types of loan-formations, see Kornexl, Regalaris Concordia, pp. ccxxvi-ccxxx. Characteristically, such formations are prevalent among hapax legomena and wordsthat are attested several times in the RC gloss only; for lists of these two types of lexemes, seeibid. pp. ccxxxvii—ccxxxix.

126


translation not attested outside the RC gloss, formed to render Lat.peragere 'tobear oneself (line 578), 'to perform' (line 1145).

This example shows that the attempt to provide not merely lexical butword-formational equivalents at times produced results that are difficult toassess from a modern point of view: OE dreogan alone would have sufficed toconvey the two meanings of Lat. peragere noted above, and the prefix per- canno longer be counted as semantically relevant in this combination. However,rather than dismissing exact replicas like purh-dreogan as confused (andconfusing) attestations of over-exact imitation, it seems more rewarding to tryand find out more about Anglo-Saxon ideas of the way their own language,and the one they learnt and studied, were structured, how they worked andrelated to each other, and how such ideas possibly manifested themselves inpedagogical concepts and techniques.128

This applies also to other types of morpho-semantic relationships attestedin the RC gloss. A recurrent problem, again of practical relevance to historicallexicography, concerns the semantics of gloss-specific loan-formationsmodelled on lexicalized Latin lemmata, for example, OE nehstandan - Lat.assistere 'assist' (line 1009, a hapax legomenori), O E forpclypian - Lat. prouocare'provoke' (line 110, with ten more occurrences in other interlinear versionsfrom Christ Church, Canterbury). May we regard these as instances ofsemantic borrowing? In other words, can we assign the meaning of the Latinlemma to the gloss in question? Without further corroborating evidence frommaterial other than glosses, it seems best to leave the question open, becauseeven if, as in the case of forp(ge)clypian, the number of attestations suggeststhat a gloss-formation had some currency in a certain place, its real status andusage remain doubtful. We cannot know if it ever gained an existenceindependent of its lemma, outside the study, though the fact that in the abovecase the corresponding loan-translation into German (hervorruferi) has stoodthe test of time129 should serve as a warning not to jump to conclusions asregards the supposed clumsiness and artificiality of such formations.

Literal as opposed to idiomatic translation need not necessarily attest to aglossator's lack of knowledge and accomplishment, but both types oftranslation may have been consciously exploited for their different explanatorypotential. This becomes particularly obvious in the field of ecclesiastical andmonastic vocabulary that is naturally well represented in the RC.130 Mechani-128 For the probable connection between loan-translating and Anglo-Saxon methods of

etymological analysis, see H. Gneuss, 'Anglicae linguae interpretation. Language Contact,Lexical Borrowing and Glossing in Anglo-Saxon England', PBA 82 (1993), 107—48, at147-8.

129 SeeC.W. Carpenter, The Systematic Exploitation of the Verbal Caique in German (Frankfurt amMain, 1973), p. 120, no. 203.7.

130 See the two glossaries of religious terms, with or without Old English equivalents, inKornexl, Regularis Concordia, pp. ccxl-cclviii, and the brief discussion of such vocabulary onp. ccxxxi.

127

Lucia Kornexl

cal as it may seem, for example, the rendering of Lat. psalmigraduum 'GradualPsalms' by sea/mas stapa (line 304) preserves the underlying notion of literaland spiritual progress which the idiomatic Old English equivalent fiftynesealmas (line 833) is not apt to convey.

Quite a number of such technical terms are only sporadically glossed orcarry no translation at all. There can be no doubt that in an otherwise verysystematic interlinear version, such gaps are significant, reminding us that theworld of liturgy and monasticism was essentially Latin-dominated and thatthere was probably something like an Anglo-Latin/Old English monasticjargon. The question of how to interpret these gaps in linguistic terms is avalid one because in three instances the 'reader' is explicitly told to transfer theLatin lemma to the gloss section and accept it as an Old English loan: thus, inlines 1183 and 1419, Lat. adaltare is glossed by to pam only; in line 1601, Lat.coram sancto a/tare* — O E beforanpam halgan, the correct Latin ablative ending -/(as attested in the Faustina reading) has apparently even been altered to -e toaccord with the Old English dative form of the loan to be expected in theincomplete prepositional phrase. Altar(e) is sufficiently documented in OldEnglish contexts to pass as a loanword. However, the RC glossator'sprocedure in the above cases poses more general questions about thepossibility of definite assignments in a cultural setting characterized by'teaching, learning and thinking utriusque linguae'.m On a practical level, thiseffects the criteria to be applied in the selection of slightly assimilated orunadapted Latin terms for our Old English dictionaries, suggesting that forthe sake of comprehensiveness a search that is already complicated enoughshould be extended to Latin contexts as well.

Dialect vocabulary and lexical links with other glosses

The Kentish affiliations of the RC gloss, of which there are only faint andapparently accidental phonological traces, come out much more clearly in itsvocabulary. In recent years, the RCglossator's work has increasingly attractedscholarly attention in connection with the reassessment of the manuscriptevidence for Old English dialectal variation and distribution on the basis ofthe magnificent research tools provided by the Dictionary of Old Englishproject.132 Though interlinear versions do not normally rank among linguists'favourites, the RC gloss is of considerable value as an extensive and apparently131 F. C. Robinson, 'Latin for Old English in Anglo-Saxon Manuscripts', Language Form and

Linguistic Variation. Papers dedicated to Angus Mclntosh, ed. J. Anderson (Amsterdam, 1982),pp. 395-400, at 398.

132 A Microfiche Concordance to Old English, compiled by A. diPaolo Healey, R. L. Venezky and S.Butler (Toronto, 1980); A Microfiche Concordance to Old English: The High Frequency Words,compiled by R. L. Venezky and S. Butler (Toronto, 1985); Dictionary of Old English, ed. A.diPaolo Healey el al. (Toronto, 1986-).

128


homogeneous source of more than 10,000 lexical items, and as a potentialrepresentative of Kentish, a variety that, as we know, is poorly attested andnotoriously difficult to grasp.

In his investigation of Anglian dialect vocabulary - which was carried outbefore the days of the Microfiche Concordance - Franz Wenisch found six of hisAnglian words attested in the RC gloss. He put down these occurrences -twenty-one in all - chiefly to the influence of a 'Kirchensprache' tinged withMercian features,133 but did not substantiate this claim (and on account of theinsufficient evidence probably would not have been able to do so). Valuablefindings of a negative sort came from Walter Hofstetter in his comprehensivestudy of Winchester usage and the standardization of Old English vocabulary,based on a pioneering paper by Professor Gneuss.134 Dr Hofstetter showedconvincingly that due to its almost total lack of Winchester words, the RCgloss can hardly have originated at the Old Minster in the time of ./Ethelwoldand those who continued his teaching tradition. There is only a singleattestation of gearcian 'prepare' in line 766, where the faulty form betwuxgear-cud* glosses intermittatur; this very much looks like an unhappy expefimentwith a not really familiar word.135

The position of the RC gloss within various distinctive text groups has beenfurther specified in a number of articles about Old English word-geographyand dialectology by Professor Seebold. Having examined the controversialissue of 'Kentish' as a variety in no way comparable with West Saxon andAnglian, Seebold classified the RC gloss together with the interlinear versionto the Liber Scintillarum as 'the most important examples of texts with avocabulary which is typical of Kent'.136

As documented in Dr Hofstetter's study, significant verbal links can be

133 F . W e n i s c h , Speîfisch anglisches Wortgut in den nordhumbriscben Interlinearglossierungen desLukasevangeliums (Heidelberg, 1979). The words in question are: be(a)cn (12 x ), I'm (3 x ,plus an attestation of limvatda, not recorded by Wenisch), nanig (2 x ),foregan (1 x ), samnunga(1 x) , ambiht(hus) (1 x ); see ibid. pp. 131, n. 239, and 148-9 and nn. 354-8, and theevaluation on p. 327; for line references, cf. Kornexl, Regularis Concordia, p. ccxxxii.

134 H. Gneuss, 'The Origin of Standard Old English and ^Lthelwold's School at Winchester',ASE 1 (1972), 63-83; Hofstetter, Winchester (cited above, n. 118); for an outline of themethod and results of this study, see idem, 'Winchester and the Standardization of OldEnglish Vocabulary', ASE 17 (1988), 139-61.

135 See Kornexl, Regularis Concordia, pp. ccxxxii-ccxxxiii and note on line 766. According toHofstetter (Winchester, text no. 214), the one occurrence oigearcian amounts to a proportionof 3.13% 'A words' characteristic of Winchester usage in the RC gloss.

136 See E. Seebold, 'Die ae. Entsprechungen von lat. sapiens und prudens: Eine Untersuchungiiber die mundartliche Gliederung der ae. Literatur', Anglia 92 (1974), 291-333; idem, 'Wasist jutisch? Was ist kentisch?', Britain 400-600:Language and History, ed. A. Bammesbergerand A. Wollmann (Heidelberg, 1990), pp. 335-52; idem, 'Kentish -and Old English Textsfrom Kent', Words, Texts and Manuscripts, ed. Korhammer et a/., pp. 409-34, at 422.

129

Lucia Kornexl

established between these two and five other interlinear glosses produced atChrist Church, Canterbury, in the first half or around the middle of theeleventh century.137 A systematic search is likely to reveal even more suchcommon word material.138 The eight words in question — fordimmian, fyndel,oferprut, togang, forgyting, ha/bare, bewerung and reafol — are not identical withSeebold's regional forms and require further investigation as to their originand character. From what we know about the lexis of interlinear versions,glosses that qualify as loan-formations need in particular to be studiedcarefully. Formations which, on account of their manuscript distribution,appear to be lexical characteristics of Canterbury, may first and foremost bespecific to the genre. However, this does not preclude the possibility of linkingidiosyncratic gloss-formations to a particular 'school'. Outside the above-mentioned Christ Church group of interlinear versions there are, for example,conspicuous lexical ties between the RC gloss and the interlinear gloss to theDurham Hymnal (Durham, Cathedral Library B. iii. 32, fols. 1-43, s. xi1).139

These serve as a reminder that in exploring the apparently diverse nature ofCanterbury usage and its full extent, we must also take account of importedmaterials adapted by Christ Church glossators. As a local product ofsubstantial length, the RC gloss assumes a key role in establishing andconfirming such evidence. And although at first sight, like so many otherworks of this sort, it tends to convey the impression of being 'good dull work',this gloss and the underlying Latin text will no doubt repay further scholarlyattention.140

137 Hofstetter, Winchester, nos. 212-18, comprising the following works: Defensor's Liberscintillarum and the closely related De vitiis etpeccatis in London, British Library, Royal 7. C.IV, the RC, prayers and forms of confession in London, British Library, Arundel 155, twosets of prognostics in Tiberius A. iii, 27v—32v and 32v—35v (the so-called Somniale Danielisand a 'Sammellunar'), and the glosses to Prudentius in Boulogne-sur-Mer, BibliothequeMunicipale, 189, which have a Christ Church origin at least in part.

138 F o r s o m e fur ther re levan t i tems, see K o r n e x l , Regularis Concordia, p . ccxxxiv.139 E.g. the adjectiveprinen 'trinus', also attested in the Arundel 155 prayers (see ibid. pp. 203-4,

note on line 300, and the references there cited), and the loan-translation betwuxsendan'intermittere', which, probably on account of the partial synonymy of Lat. intermittere andinterpolare in the sense 'interpolate, interrupt', was found apt to render the latter lemma in theDurham Hymnal (see ibid. pp. 178—80, note on line 148). For a summary of the complexhistory of this text and its Old English gloss, and for the deviations from Winchester usagewhich copying and adaptation in Canterbury brought about, see Hofstetter, Winchester, textno. 12.

140 j w j s n to thank Professors Helmut Gneuss and Michael Lapidge for reading an earlierversion of this article and making valuable suggestions for improvement.

130

Date post:	08-Dec-2016
Category:	Documents
Upload:	lucia
View:	213 times
Download:	0 times

The Regularis Concordia and its Old English gloss

Documents