■ 
 
Cornell University 
 Library 
 
 The original of this book is in 
 the Cornell University Library. 
 
 There are no known copyright restrictions in 
 the United States on the use of the text. 
 
 http://www.archive.org/details/cu31924029295644 
 
Cornell University Library 
 BS2851 .C46 
 
 Notes on the early history of the Vulgat 
 
 olin 
 
 3 1924 029 295 644 
 
NOTES ON THE 
 
 EARLY HISTORY OF THE 
 
 VULGATE GOSPELS 
 
 BY 
 
 DOM JOHN CHAPMAN, O.S.B. 
 
 OXFORD 
 
 AT THE CLARENDON PRESS 
 1908 
 
 ,■' ' K 
 U K ( 
 
HENRY FROWDE, M.A. 
 
 PUBLISHER TO THE UNIVERSITY OP OXFORD 
 
 LONDON, EDINBURGH 
 
 NEW YORK AND TORONTO 
 
PREFACE 
 
 This essay does not aim at any form of completeness, and 
 is published only in the hope that it may be found suggestive. 
 Having no opportunity of working new material, I have tried 
 to do my best with the riches amassed by Bishop Wordsworth 
 and the late M. Samuel Berger. I know the result must be 
 full of errors ; but I hope the search for these will lead others 
 to further stages on the same road. More comprehensive and 
 more certain conclusions will be reached when not only the 
 whole New Testament but the Old Testament too have been 
 critically edited from a large number of manuscripts. 
 
 After writing the last page of the last chapter this morning, 
 I saw in the Times the announcement that Pope Pius X has 
 ordered a new edition of the Vulgate to be undertaken, and 
 has confided the work to the Benedictine Order. My labour 
 has therefore perhaps been more to the purpose than I ex- 
 pected. It is by accident that I have dealt with the Vulgate, 
 my former studies having, on the contrary, delighted in the 
 Old Latin versions and the Greek text. It was in reviewing 
 Dr. Kiinstle's Antipriscilliana that the idea struck me that 
 Priscillian must be the author of the Monarchian Prologues. 
 The paper I published on the subject is reproduced in this 
 volume as Chapter xiii. It met with a kindly reception from 
 specialists in England and Germany ; but it was necessary to 
 determine how such heretical documents managed to attach 
 themselves to the Vulgate of St. Jerome, or (as a great 
 
iv PREFACE 
 
 scholar phrased it) 'how did Saul come among the prophets?' 
 The attempt to solve this question has produced all the other 
 chapters of the book, and I think they are the more interesting 
 the more they wander from the original investigation. I have 
 been led into the discussion of various lectionary systems, and 
 I hope the results will be acceptable to liturgical scholars. 
 I have not tried to study these thoroughly, but only in so far 
 as was necessary for the history of the texts to which they 
 belong. 
 
 So far I wrote on May ai, 1907. It has taken longer to 
 get the work through the press than it took to write it. If 
 many errors have been removed, this is principally due to the 
 kind friends who have read the proofs for me. I have to 
 thank for this ungrateful task my Father, Archdeacon 
 Chapman, the Rt. Rev. Abbot Gasquet, Dom Donatien De 
 Bruyne, Dom Lambert Nolle, and especially Mr. C. H. Turner, 
 who by his detailed annotations has saved me from innumer- 
 able obscurities or repetitions, and from many blunders, due 
 to carelessness or ignorance, and has also provided valuable 
 information. I have also had a few criticisms on the early 
 chapters from Dr. Sanday and the Rev. F. J. Bacchus. 
 I have thanked others in the course of the book. Last, not 
 least, I have to express my gratitude to the Delegates of the 
 University Press for their kindness in printing this volume, 
 and to the Secretaries and others for the trouble they have 
 taken with the proofs. 
 
 I have given a list of the signs used to denote the MSS M 
 to assist those readers who may not know them by heart. 
 As the argument is involved and hard to follow, I have made 
 the Table of Contents and the Index rather full, so that 
 I hope it will not be difficult to look up cross-references. 
 
PREFACE v 
 
 It will perhaps be as well to set down shortly the results 
 which seem to have been obtained for the restoration of 
 St. Jerome's text of the Gospels. The following are the lines 
 which seem to me to be pointed out by the evidence. 
 
 In the first place the readings of the venerable codex 
 possessed by Eugipius are to be determined by the witness 
 of the Northumbrian family AAH*SUX C07T Reg (a>*) on the 
 one hand, checked by the independent testimony of F on the 
 other. Where the reading remains doubtful, the witness of 
 OX* may perhaps be of some weight. The restored text 
 of Eugipius will not be infallibly right, even when it is certain, 
 but it will serve as a standard with which the other inde- 
 pendent families can be compared. 
 
 The Irish family will deserve no attention wherever its 
 readings are supported by the Old Latin. An apparently 
 good Vulgate reading in one or two members of the family 
 will have little weight. But the combined testimony of the 
 family against all Old Latin witnesses will be presumably 
 a Vulgate reading older than 432. 
 
 The Gallican or probably Gallican MSS. deserve more 
 study, and need comparing with the probably Gallican text 
 of the Irish tribe. 
 
 The Italian JMP, especially M (and no doubt also the 
 ancient St. Gall codex which Mr. Turner is publishing), will 
 furnish a most valuable corrective to the claims of the AF 
 text. 
 
 The Spanish MSS. need to be edited.' From C.T alone it 
 
 is hardly possible to reach with security an early Spanish text. 
 
 The outcome of such a system of restoration would not, 
 
 I imagine, differ substantially from the text given us by 
 
 Wordsworth and White. But in some difficult places the 
 
VI 
 
 PREFACE 
 
 verdict might be altered, or (what is just as important) 
 confirmed by stronger reasons. But the study of the whole 
 of the Bible in the light of careful collations is what is needed 
 most of all for the perfect. editing of any part of it. 
 
 Erdington Abbey, 
 Birmingham. 
 May 5, 1908. 
 
 NIHIL OBSTAT. 
 
 IMPRIMATUR. 
 
 May 8, 1908. 
 
 *F. AIDANUS GASQUET, O.S.B. 
 
 ABB. PRAESES CONG. ANGL. 
 CENSOR DEPUTATUS. 
 
 * EDUARDUS 
 
 EP. BIRMINGHAM. 
 
LIST OF MANUSCRIPTS 
 
 A. Codex Amiatinus, c. 700; Florence, Laurentian Library, MS. 1. 
 
 B. Bigotianus, 8th-9th cent., Paris lat. 281 and 298. 
 
 C. Cavensis, 9th cent., Abbey of Cava dei Tirreni, near Salerno. 
 
 D. Dublinensis, 'the book of Armagh,' A.D. 812, Trin. Coll. 
 
 E. Egerton Gospels, 8th~9th cent., Brit. Mus. Egerton 609. 
 
 F. Fuldensis, c. 545, preserved at Fulda. 
 
 G. San-Germanensis, 9th cent, (in St. Matt. 'g J ), Paris lat. 11553. 
 H. Hubertianus, 9th-ioth cent., Brit. Mus. Add. 24142. 
 
 I. Ingolstadiensis, 7th cent., Munich, Univ. 29. 
 
 J. Foro-Juliensis, 6th~7th cent., at Cividale in Friuli; parts at Prague 
 
 and Venice. 
 K. Karolinus, c* 840-76, Brit. Mus. Add. 10546. 
 L. Lichfeldensis, ' Gospels of St. Chad/ 7th-8th cent., Lichfield Cath. 
 M. Mediolanensis, 6th cent., Bibl. Ambrosiana, C. 39, Inf. 
 O. Oxoniensis, ' Gospels of St. Augustine/ 7th cent., Bodl. 857 (Auct. 
 
 D. 2. 14). 
 P. Perusinus, 6th cent, (fragment), Perugia, Chapter Library. 
 Q. Kenanensis, ' Book of Kells/ 7th-8th cent., Trin. Coll., Dublin. 
 R. Rushworthianus, ' Gospels of McRegol/ before 820, Bodl. Auct. 
 
 D. 2. 19. 
 S. Stonyhurstensis, 7th cent. (St. John only), Stonyhurst, near Blackburn. 
 T. Toletanus, loth cent., Madrid, National Library. 
 U. Ultratrajectina fragmenta, 7th-8th cent., attached to the Utrecht 
 
 Psalter, Univ. Libr. MS. eccl. 484. 
 V. Vallicellanus, 9th cent., Rome, Vallicella Library, B. 6. 
 W. William of Hales's Bible, A.D. 1294, Brit. Mus. Reg. I. B. xii. 
 X. Cantabrigiensis, 7th cent., ( Gospels of St. Augustine/ Corpus Christi 
 
 Coll., Cambridge, 286. 
 Y. * Ynsulae ' Lindisfarnensis, 7th-8th cent., Brit. Mus. Cotton Nero 
 
 D. iv. 
 Z. Harleianus, 6th-7th cent., Brit. Mus. Harl. 1775. 
 SF. Beneventanus, 8th~9th cent., Brit. Mus. Add. 5463. 
 A. Dunelmensis, 7th-8th cent., Durham Chapter Library, A. ii. 16. 
 5P. Epternacensis, 9th cent., Paris lat. 9389. 
 ®. Theodulfianus, 9th cent., Paris lat. 9380. 
 MT. Martino-Turonensis, 8th cent., Tours Library, 22. 
 
viii LIST OF MANUSCRIPTS 
 
 Burch. 'Gospels of St. Burchard,' 7th-8th cent., Wiirzburg Univ. 
 
 Library, Mp. Th. f. 68. 
 Reg. Brit. Mus. Reg. i. B. vii, 7th-8th cent. 
 
 First Class : 
 
 Northumbrian family, AAH*SUXcorryR e g(^*).| These three 
 South Italian, F. families are 
 
 Canterbury, OX (Roman ?). J closely related. 
 
 North Italian, JM(P). 
 Italian (?), Z. 
 
 Second Class : 
 
 Irish family, DELQRf&)*W0. 
 Gallican, BS'G. 
 Spanish, CT. 
 
 Recensions : 
 
 Theodulfian, H corj "© (fundamentally Spanish). 
 Alcuinian, KVKT (mainly Hiberno-Northumbrian). 
 Mediaeval, W. 
 
CONTENTS 
 
 CHAPTER PAGE 
 
 I. Preliminary. 
 
 i. The Northumbrian text of the Vulgate Gospels is said 
 
 to be from South Italy I 
 
 2. The Codex Amiatinus and the Codex grandior of 
 
 Cassiodorus 2 
 
 3. The Lindisfarne Gospels and Naples .... 8 
 
 4. Other connexions between England and South Italy . 14 
 
 II. The Cassiodorian Origin of the Northumbrian Text. 
 
 1. The text of the Codex Amiatinus is Cassiodorian . . 16 
 
 2. The Prologue on the purple leaf of A is the introduction 
 
 to the nine volumes 20 
 
 3. The Neapolitan lessons were marked in the margin of 
 
 the archetype of A 23 
 
 4. The Echternach Gospels have a Northumbrian element, 
 
 to which the note about Eugipius may well belong . 26 
 
 III. Cassiodorus and Eugipius. 
 
 1. It was not St. Victor of Capua who collated the Codex 
 
 of Eugipius 30 
 
 2. The note in the Echternach Gospels was written by 
 
 Cassiodorus 31 
 
 3. On the date of Cassiodorus's Institutio 33 
 
 4. Eugipius and his friends 39 
 
 5. The Manuscript of Eugipius and St. Jerome ... 42 
 
 IV. The Neapolitan Lectionary in Northumbria. 
 
 1. The Gospels of St. Burchard contain a undamentally 
 
 English text ... -45 
 
 2. The Naples lectionary and the Northumbrian summaries 51 
 
 3. The Naples liturgy in use at Jarrow .... 65 
 
 4. The feasts in St. Bede's Homilies 72 
 
 V. The Codex Fuldensis and Eugipius. 
 
 1. Victor of Capua possessed a Greek Diatessaron . . 78 
 
 2. St. Germanus of Capua and the Diatessaron ... 80 
 
x CONTENTS 
 
 CHAPTER PAGE 
 
 3. The Gospel text in the Codex Fuldensis is derived from 
 
 that of Eugipius 81 
 
 4. The Northumbrian summaries were composed by 
 
 Eugipius, and are quoted in F 84 
 
 5. The introductions to the Gospels in the Codex Fuldensis 
 
 and the Codex Amiatinus 9 2 
 
 VI. Eugipius and the Gallican Liturgy. 
 
 1. The connexion of Eugipius with Lerins .... 96 
 
 2. Eugipius and his Gallican lectionary . . • " ■ 99 
 
 3. Neapolitan additions to a Gallican lectionary . . 103 
 
 4. St. Burchard's additions to the Neapolitan use . .121 
 
 VII. The Pauline Lectionary of the Codex Fuldensis. 
 
 1. The list of lessons from St. Paul in F .... 130 
 
 2. Eugipius and the Capuan St. Paul 135 
 
 3. The liturgical notes in F compared with those of 
 
 Eugipius 137 
 
 VIII. The Capuan Mass-Books of Northumbria. 
 
 1. Capuan Saints in English books 144 
 
 2. The 'Old Mass-books' cited in the Anglo-Saxon 
 
 Martyrology were Capuan 146 
 
 3. The Echternach Martyrology 149 
 
 4. Capuan Saints in the Echternach Kalendar . . .151 
 
 5. The origin of the ' Older Mass-books ' . . . .154 
 
 6. The Capuan Mass-books and the Codex of Fulda . .157 
 
 IX. The Irish Text of the Vulgate Gospels. 
 
 1. The Vulgate and St. Patrick 162 
 
 2. The Gospel citations of St. Vincent of Lerins . .164 
 
 3. The Vulgate Gospels and Faustus of Riez . . . 167 
 
 4. The Vulgate Gospels and St. Eucherius of Lyons . . 173 
 
 5. The origin of the Irish text was from Lerins . . . 177 
 
 X. The Bodleian 'Gospels of St. Augustine'. 
 
 1. The Gospel books brought by St. Augustine to England 181 
 
 2. The home of the Bodleian * Gospels of St. Augustine ' . 189 
 
 3. The early lectionary annotations in O . . . . 191 
 
 4. The later lectionary annotations in O . . . . 199 
 
 XL The Vulgate Text of St. Gregory the Great. 
 
 1. Analysis of the text used by St. Gregory in his Homilies . 203 
 
 2. St. Gregory's influence on the Vulgate .... 208 
 
 3. St. Gregory and the ' Canterbury Gospels ' . . .210 
 
 4. The Canterbury text and the Northumbrian text . . 213 
 
CONTENTS xi 
 
 CHAPTER , PAGE 
 
 XII. The Four Prologues : their Text and Meaning. 
 
 1. The text of the Prologues 217 
 
 2. The meaning of the Prologue to St. Matthew . . 222 
 
 3. „ „ „ St. John . . ,226 
 
 4. „ „ „ St. Luke . . .229 
 
 5. » » » St. Mark . . .233 
 
 6. Some conclusions 236 
 
 XIII. Priscillian the Author of the Prologues. 
 
 1. Earlier theories as to the date of the Prologues . 238 
 
 2. Comparisons of matter and style 240 
 
 3. Results of the examination 250 
 
 XIV. Later Manipulations of the Prologues of Priscillian. 
 
 1. The Prologue to Acts ' Lucas natione Syrus ' . . 254 
 
 2. The Prologue to the Apocalypse * Iohannes, apostolus 
 
 et euangelista 1 256 
 
 3. The Prologues of Peregrinus 258 
 
 4. The Prologue to the Catholic Epistles 'Non idem 
 
 est ordo* 262 
 
 5. The 'canones noui testamenti ' 267 
 
 XV. The History of the Prologues. 
 
 1. The sources employed in the Prologues . . . .271 
 
 2. Citations of the Prologues by the Venerable Bede . . 276 
 
 3. The genealogy of the text of the Prologues . . . 277 
 
 4. Lerins and the Prologues 281 
 
 5. A conjectural history of the Prologues .... 284 
 
 Index 
 
 289 
 
CHAPTER I 
 
 PRELIMINARY 
 
 § i. The Northumbrian text of the Vulgate Gospels 
 is said to be from South Italy, 
 
 It is well known that the best text of the Vulgate Gospels 
 is handed down by the MSS. written in Northumbria, AASY, 
 and in a few others closely connected with these. No one 
 is likely to contest the verdict of Bishop Wordsworth that 
 these famous and beautiful codices have on the whole preserved 
 a purer Hieronymian strain than has any other family, while 
 perhaps the next best are those nearest to them, such as the 
 yet more ancient New Testament of Fulda. The history of 
 this Northumbrian family is therefore of the first interest from 
 a textual point of view, apart from the historical interest derived 
 from its connexion with great names such as those of Cuthbert 
 and Ceolfrid and Bede and Willibrord and Boniface and 
 Burchard. 
 
 It is agreed that it is in origin a text of South Italy. But 
 the reasons given for this belief are vague and inconclusive, 
 and in part incompatible with one another. I propose to 
 examine the evidence more closely in order to arrive at more 
 definite results. For this purpose it is necessary shortly to 
 summarize what has been already said by others, and to 
 estimate the value of their arguments. 
 
 Consequently the whole of this preliminary chapter will 
 be devoted to a short review of the evidence which has up till 
 now been put forward for the history of the Northumbrian 
 text. It will appear that a number of different lines converge 
 upon South Italy: 
 
 The first quaternion of the Codex Amiatinus (A), written 
 in Northumbria, has a close connexion with the Codex grandior 
 
a THE VULGATE GOSPELS 
 
 of the Old Latin version, which was written by order of 
 Cassiodorus in the extreme South of Italy (§ a). 
 
 In the Lindisfarne Gospels (Y) are found lists of Gospels for 
 the year's festivals according to the use of Naples (§ 3). 
 
 Both Northumbrian and South Italian saints are found as 
 additions in the Martyrology of St. Willibrord. Similarly 
 the Anglo-Saxon Martyrology, which was composed in the 
 North of England, contains a set of Capuan saints, whose 
 names were borrowed from Sacramentaries used in England. 
 The Codex Fuldensis, written at Capua, probably once belonged 
 to an Englishman, St Boniface. The Echternach Gospels, 
 which either belonged to St. Willibrord or were copied 
 frpm a MS. brought by him from England, contain a curious 
 note relating to the library of the Neapolitan abbot Eugipius 
 
 (§ 3). 
 
 Now these data are not easy to reconcile with one another, 
 nor is any clear evidence to be deduced from any of them, as 
 the rest of this chapter will show. 
 
 § 2. The Codex Amiatinus and the Codex grandior 
 of Cassiodorus. 
 
 There are few more interesting figures in history than the 
 long-lived Magnus Aurelius Cassiodorus Senator, the great 
 Roman Prime Minister of the Gothic king Theodoric. In the 
 first years of the sixth century his high birth gave him a place 
 in public affairs while scarcely more than a boy, and he 
 continued to play a leading part in politics until after 540. 
 Always a man of letters as well as a statesman, he had wished 
 to assist Pope Agapetus in founding a school of Christian 
 learning at Rome. Though this was not possible in those 
 troublous times, yet something was accomplished when 
 Cassiodorus himself retired from the world into a monastery 
 which he founded at Scyllacium oh the southern coast of the 
 toe of Italy. 1 There his Abbey of Fishponds ( Vivaria) was 
 intended to be a seminary of letters as well as of holiness. His 
 large library is so well described in his writings that Franz 
 
 1 Descriptions of Squillace as it is now will be found in By the Ionian Sea, by 
 the late George Gissing (1905). 
 
PRELIMINARY 3 
 
 has been able to make a catalogue of a great part of its 
 contents. There the aged Senator 1 passed peacefully the 
 latter part of his days, correcting the text of Holy Scripture, 
 collecting commentaries upon it, and himself commenting 
 upon the Psalms and the Catholic Epistles. To the history 
 of his own times contained in the documents published in his 
 Variae and to his History of the Goths he added in later life 
 a compilation of ecclesiastical history known as the ' Tripartite 
 history '. His useful labours closed at an age not very far 
 short of a hundred years. Though he died in the odour of 
 sanctity, his religious community had no future. St. Benedict, 
 whom he must have known, died about the year of.Cassio- 
 dorus's retirement to Squillace, and his legislation and no 
 other governed the monastic life of the following centuries. 
 Yet the literary labours of Cassiodorus bore much fruit, and 
 his Institutiones % written merely for his own monks, became 
 a guide for many ages in Scriptural learning. 
 
 The reasons for connecting the Codex Amiatinus (A) with 
 Cassiodorus are too well known to need repetition in full. 
 A history of De Rossi's famous discovery of the origin of that 
 codex, and of the literature which arose around it, has been 
 well written by Mr. H. J. White in Sttcdia Biblica, vol. ii. 2 It 
 is only necessary here to put together what seem to be the 
 most probable results of the voluminous discussions of the 
 subject. 
 
 The chief treasure with which Cassiodorus endowed his 
 Vivariense monasterium on the Gulf of Squillace was a 
 collection of the commentaries of the Fathers in Latin on the 
 various books of the Bible. These were bound in nine large 
 volumes, each volume containing in the first place those books 
 of Scripture to which the subsequent commentaries referred. 
 The contents of these volumes are enumerated in Cassiodorus's 
 work De Institutione Divinarum Litter arum^ capp. i-ix. The 
 text of Scripture given in them was that of St. Jerome, edited 
 and emended by the aged statesman himself, who was careful 
 
 1 Senator seems to be a honorific family surname, and not a title of office. 
 8 Oxford, 1890, pp. 273 foil. A complete list of the literature is given by 
 C. R. Gregory in his Prolegomena to Teschendorf, pp. 983-4. 
 
 B % 
 
4 THE VULGATE GOSPELS 
 
 (he says) even to preserve the Hieronymian line divisions per 
 cola et cornmata, and to correct the spelling according to the 
 most approved authorities. 
 
 Besides these volumes he provided a ' Pandect ' (or complete 
 Bible), written in a small hand, in fifty-three gatherings of six, 
 for convenience of handling : ' hunc autem pandecten propter 
 copiam lectionis minutiore manu in senionibus x quinquaginta 
 tribus aestimavimus conscribendum, ut quod lectio copiosa 
 tetendit, scripturae densitas adunata contraheret ' (ibid. xii). 
 This Pandect followed the order of books which Cassiodorus 
 describes as that of St. Jerome. In c. xiii he gives also the 
 order of St. Augustine from De Doctrina Christiana^ ii. 8. 
 
 A third list of the books of the Bible in another order, secun- 
 dum, antiquam translationem, was written out, with the others, 
 ' in codice grandiore littcra clariore conscripto, qui habet quater- 
 niones nonaginta quinque ; in quo septuaginta interpretum 
 translatio veteris testamenti in libris quadraginta quatuor 
 continetur; cui subiuncti sunt novi testamenti libri viginti 
 sex, fiuntque simul libri septuaginta, in illo palmarum numero 
 fortasse praesagati, quas in mansione Elim invenit populus 
 Hebraeorum. Hie textus multorum translatione variatus, 
 sicut in prologo Psalmorum positum est, patris Hieronymi 
 diligenti cura emendatus compositusque relictus est' (cap. 
 xiv). 
 
 It is evident that this Codex grandior contained three lists, and 
 that its text corresponded to the third list, that of the antiqua 
 translatio. It contained the Old Latin version of the Old 
 Testament, with the 'corrections of St. Jerome* wherever 
 that Father had edited a translation from the Septuagint, 
 as in the case of the Psalms, Job, Chronicles, and the books 
 of Solomon. 2 The New Testament was probably what we 
 should to-day call an ' Italian text \ 
 
 Cassiodorus also informs us that at the beginning of this 
 Codex grandior were pictures of the Tabernacle and of the 
 
 1 So the Bamberg MS. for quaternionibus , see Zahn, Gesch. des W. 7\ Kanons, 
 it 271. 
 
 1 Cassiodorus evidently believed St. Jerome to have revised the whole, as 
 St. Jerome indeed implies, c. Ruf. ii. 24, and Ep. Ixxi. 5 ; cxii. 19. See White in 
 Hastings*s Diet, of ike Bible, iv, p. 875. 
 
PRELIMINARY 5 
 
 Temple, as described by a blind man called Eusebius (c. v, 
 and Expos. Ps. xiv). 1 These are mentioned by the Venerable 
 Bede as having been seen by him ; but his words may per- 
 fectly well be taken in the sense that he saw a copy : 
 
 ' Ouomodo in pictura Cassiodori senatoris, cuius ipse in expositione 
 Psalmorum meminit, expressum vidimus.' — De Tabernaculo^ ii. 12. 
 
 ( Has vero porticus Cassiodorus senator in Pandectis, ut ipse Psal- 
 morum expositione commemorat, triplici ordine distinxit . . . Haec, ut in 
 pictura Cassiodori reperimus distincta, breviter annotare curavimus.' — De 
 Templo Sal. 16. 
 
 Now De Rossi discovered that the Codex Amiatinus (A) was 
 written by order of Ceolfrid, St. Bede's own abbot, and was 
 taken by him to Rome in 715. It contains the very picture 
 of the Tabernacle to which Bede refers, 2 though not that of 
 the Temple. The first quaternion, of which this picture forms 
 a part, is at present disarranged. It contains also (with some 
 differences) the three lists to which Cassiodorus refers, elabo- 
 rately adorned, each taking one page, the dedication verses 
 of St. Ceolfrid on another page ; also a purple leaf, containing 
 an introduction on the one side and the contents of the actual 
 codex on the other ; and finally, a picture described (perhaps 
 by a later hand) as Ezra writing the law. 3 The back of every 
 picture is blank, with the exception of that of the list of the 
 antiqua translation which is adorned with somewhat mysterious 
 circles representing the Pentateuch, painted in colours which 
 are said not to be found in the other pictures. (These may be 
 a later addition.) Evidently the purple leaf, which has ap- 
 parently no conjugate leaf and which alone is written on both 
 sides, is the only one which has any necessary connexion with 
 the actual text of the rest of the codex. The three lists corre- 
 spond pretty accurately with those placed by Cassiodorus in 
 his Codex grandior, when the bad text of his work is taken 
 
 1 His words are in the former place * in Pandecte Latino corporis grandioris ', and 
 in the latter * in pandectis maioris capite \ 
 
 2 With only a slight discrepancy, due either to the copyist of the picture, or to 
 Bede's forgetfulness. 
 
 s I have not given the actual order, which is a disarrangement by a modern 
 binder. 
 
6 THE VULGATE GOSPELS 
 
 into account. 1 The Tabernacle picture is his, while the figure 
 of Ezra is in all probability, I suggest, a portrait of the aged 
 senator himself, with an aureole perhaps placed there not by 
 the original artist at Vivarium, but by the copyist at Jarrow. 
 The figure sits before the Armarium which contains the nine 
 great volumes of commentaries. 2 Indeed the whole quaternion 
 seems to have been cut out of the copy of the Codex grandior 
 and bound into the magnificent Vulgate intended for the Pope. 
 An exception has to be made, of course, for the purple leaf, 
 which was perhaps put in the place of the picture of the 
 Temple, as Bishop Browne suggested. 3 But it seems that 
 Corssen was right in suggesting that the Prologue on this leaf 
 is the work of Cassiodorus. 
 
 In fact we know that an important Pandect of the vetusta 
 translatio (notice the Cassiodorian wording) was preserved at 
 Jarrow. The Venerable Bede writes of his Abbot Ceolfrid : 
 
 1 Bibliothecam utriusque monasterii, quam Benedictus abbas magna 
 coepit instantia, ipse non minori geminavit industria ; ita ut tres Pandectes 
 novae translationis, ad unutn vetustae translationis quern de Roma adtu- 
 lerat, ipse super adiungeret ; quorum unum senex Romam rediens secum 
 inter alia pro munere sumpsit, duos utrique monasterio reliquit. 1 — Hist, 
 Abbatum, cap. 15 (pp. 379-80, Plummer). 
 
 Further details are given in the anonymous Historia 
 Abbatum ; this work was written by some fellow monk of 
 St. Bede, but somewhat earlier than that holy doctor's work 
 (731), which is based upon it : 
 
 ' Et bibliothecam, quam de Roma vel ipse vel Benedictus adtulerat, 
 notabiliter ampliavit, ita ut inter alia tres Pandectes faceret describi, 
 quorum duo per totidem sua monasteria posuit in aecclesiis, ut cunctis 
 qui aliquod capitulum de utrolibet Testamento legere voluissent, in 
 
 1 See Mr. H. J. White, The Codex Atniatinus and its Birthplace {Studia 
 Bibliea, vol. ii), pp. 292-7, where a rather better text of Cassiodorus is given 
 from Brit. Mus. MSS. 
 
 2 So Samuel Berger, in Les Prifaces, p. 22. A photograph of the Ezra from 
 a water-colour drawing will be found in J, Willis Clark, The Care of Books, 
 frontispiece. Garrucci gives an outline. 
 
 3 So that Bede wrote of the Temple picture reperimus in the present, for it 
 remained at Jarrow, but of the view of the Tabernacle expressum vidimus, for it 
 had gone to Rome. So Bishop Browne. 
 
PRELIMINARY 7 
 
 promtu esset invenire quod cuperent ; tertium autem Romam profecturus 
 donum beato Petro Apostolorum principi offeree decrevit' (cap. 20, 
 Plummer, vol. i, p. 395). 
 
 The three Vulgate Pandects were therefore written not 
 in Italy but at Jarrow or Wearmouth by order of Ceolfrid. 1 
 Bede carefully distinguishes from these the Old Latin copy 
 which Ceolfrid had brought from Rome. Seven of the leaves 
 which we now find in Codex Amiatinus (which is the third 
 Vulgate Pandect) are either copies from the first quaternion 
 of the Old Latin Pandect, or actually leaves detached from 
 it and bound into the enormous Bible intended for the Prince 
 of the Apostles. 
 
 The two Pandects which Ceolfrid placed in the Churches of 
 Jarrow and Monkwearmouth are lost to us. But ASY and 
 Brit. Mus. Reg. i. B. vii, are presumably copies of them. 
 
 St. Benet Biscop founded the Abbey of St. Paul at Jarrow 
 in 681 or 682, and made Ceolfrid its Abbot. Ceolfrid had 
 accompanied Benet to Rome on his fourth journey in 678. It 
 will have been on this occasion that he brought back the 
 antiqua translation The three Pandects of the Vulgate were 
 written between 681 and 715, when Ceolfrid started on his 
 last journey. If the Stonyhurst St. John (S) was really 
 buried with St. Cuthbert (and there is nothing to be urged 
 against this tradition), it must have been written before 687, 
 the date of the death of the great Bishop of Lindisfarne. It 
 must have come to him as a purchase or a present from 
 Jarrow or Monkwearmouth, as the writing is Italian not 
 Irish. The Durham Gospels (A) are said by tradition to have 
 been written by St. Bede himself. 2 
 
 1 This would have been anyhow a probable conclusion from the fact that much 
 the same Italian writing as that of A is found in the fragments of St. Luke in the 
 Durham MS. A. ii. 1 7, and in the fragments of St Matthew and St. John bound 
 into the Utrecht Psalter. S is of the same school, only on a small scale and of 
 great delicacy. 
 
 3 A hand of c. 1300 has written in S : 'Euangelium Iohannis, quod inuentum 
 fuerat ad capud beati patris nostri Cuthberti in sepulcro iacens Anno Translacionis 
 ipsius,' but the tradition is older, for this note was copied from a somewhat earlier 
 one at the head of the Gospel, now erased. The opening of the coffin was in 1 104 ; 
 
8 THE VULGATE GOSPELS 
 
 It is thus clear that the Northumbrian Gospel text belongs 
 equally to the Abbeys of Biscop and to that of St. Cuthbert ; 
 it lies before us both in the exquisite Italian hand of AAS 
 and in the still more beautiful Irish hand of Y, the ' Gospels 
 of Lindisfarne \ while S seems a link between the two com- 
 munities. 
 
 But all this has given no result with regard to the origin 
 of the Northumbrian text, for the Cassiodorian leaves at the 
 beginning of A do not belong to the Vulgate text which 
 follows, but are interpolations from the Codex grandior of 
 the Old Latin. No evidence has been brought to deter- 
 mine whether the archetype of AASY was at Jarrow or at 
 Lindisfarne. Still less has it been proved that it was brought 
 from Italy by Ceolfrid together with the Codex grandior. 
 
 § 3. The Lindisfarne Gospels and Naples, 
 
 The ' Holy Island * of Lindisfarne was the centre of the Irish 
 missionary activity in Northumbria from the time of St. 
 Aidan's arrival in 635, for it was at once the Abbey of the 
 missionary monks and the Bishop's see. In 676 the Irish 
 monks and thirty of their English brethren, together with 
 the Abbot-Bishop Colman, retired to Iona, and later to 
 Ireland, in consequence of the decision of the Synod of 
 Whitby that the Roman calculation of Easter was everywhere 
 to be observed in England. From that time, under Abbot 
 Eata and his Prior St. Cuthbert, the monastery tended to 
 become as wholly Italo-Saxon as the neighbouring twin- 
 abbeys of Wearmouth and Jarrow, which Benet Biscop, the 
 former Abbot of the wholly Italian abbey of St. Peter 
 and St. Paul at Canterbury, founded in c. 674 and 682 on the 
 Wear and the Tyne. 
 
 The Irish school of writing, however, naturally continued 
 to flourish in the island, and its finest production is the famous 
 manuscript known as the Lindisfarne Gospels or as the 
 
 the evidence is therefore satisfactory enough, though not quite contemporary. As 
 to A, whether it was written by Bede himself or not, it gives at any rate a link 
 between A and Y, since it is said to be close to A in the fourth Gospel, but nearer 
 to Y in the other three. Wordsworth gives a collation of it for St. John only. 
 
PRELIMINARY 9 
 
 Evangeliarium of St. Cuthbert, a book which rivals in beauty 
 the Book of Kells, the masterpiece of the Mother house, 
 Iona, or of some abbey in Ireland. The codex (called Y by 
 Wordsworth) was written and illuminated in Holy Island 
 during the Episcopo-Abbacy of Eadfrith (698-721) — who 
 was himself the scribe, the illuminator being Oethilwald, 
 afterwards Bishop of Lindisfarne 725-40 — to the honour of 
 God, St. Cuthbert, and all the saints. 1 It is therefore precisely 
 contemporary with the Codex Amiatinus^ which, as we saw, 
 was written at Jarrow by order of Abbot Ceolfrid, doubtless 
 under the direction of the Venerable Bede, and taken by the 
 Abbot in 715 on his last journey to Rome as a present to 
 the Pope. 
 
 The holy isle of Aidan and Cuthbert was closely united 
 to the double abbey of St. Benet Biscop by mutual bonds 
 of respect and affection. These three abbeys were in one 
 diocese until its division by St. Theodore in 681. The 
 island monastery had clearly become quite Benedictine under 
 St. Cuthbert, and St. Bede wrote the life of that saint. Bede 
 visited Lindisfarne, and the Bishop promised to inscribe his 
 name on the roll of his community, album congregationis^ as 
 a participator in their common prayers. We are therefore 
 not surprised to find that the splendid Irish round hand of 
 Lindisfarne has preserved for us substantially the same text 
 of the Gospels that the not less beautiful Italian hand of 
 Jarrow has set down in A. 
 
 The British Museum contains another English MS. of the 
 Gospels, belonging to the same date, MS. Reg. i. B. vii. 2 
 I shall hereafter refer to this codex as ' Reg ' for short. Its 
 text is very close to that of Y. Scrivener says : £ The Rev. 
 G. M. Youngman, who has examined this MS. carefully, says 
 the text is very interesting though rather mixed ; has been 
 corrected throughout.' The card lying upon it in the show- 
 
 1 So we are informed at least by Aldred the glossator (tenth cent.) in his well- 
 known note. The jewelled binding, which no longer exists, was made by an 
 ankret, St. Billfrio 1 . 
 
 3 So Dom Morin dates it, and Scrivener (Introduction^ 1894, vol. ii, p. 75) and 
 the Brit. Mus. catalogue, and the paper which lies on it in the show-case. Berger, 
 however, says : l Ties-belle ecriture saxonne, paraissant du ix me siecle,' p. 386. 
 
io THE VULGATE GOSPELS 
 
 case in which it is exhibited says : ' The text is closely akin 
 to that of the celebrated Lindisfame Gospels, and belongs 
 to the best school of Vulgate MSS-* It has the same sum- 
 maries as AHVY. 1 I have collated its text of the four 
 Prologues, and I find in these also the closest connexion with 
 Y, even in mistakes and in spelling. 
 
 In these two MSS., Y and Reg, are four lists, one before 
 each Gospel, of liturgical feasts, entitled capitula? Mr. Ed- 
 mund Bishop noticed that these feasts are given in the order 
 in which their Gospels occur in the sacred text, and that they 
 belong to a complete liturgical system of Gospel pericopae 
 from Advent to Pentecost. He attempted with considerable 
 success to restore the exact pericopae intended. The lists are 
 shown to be Neapolitan by the feast of St. Januarius with 
 vigil, the dedication of the basilica of St. Stephen (the old 
 Cathedral of Naples) ; while the dedication of a font and of 
 St. Mary, and the feast of St. Vitus may also fit in with 
 Naples. Dom Germain Morin published Mr. Bishop's results 
 in the Revue Binidictine (vol. viii, 1891, pp. 477~94, and 
 529-37), giving the lists in full (Y after Skeat). 
 
 Dom Morin was fortunate enough to discover soon afterwards 
 the same lists in the margin of the ' Gospels of St. Burchard \ 
 a codex of the eighth century at Wiirzburg. The incipits and 
 explicits are marked in it by small crosses in the text, so that 
 the pericopae can in almost all cases be exactly recovered. A 
 number of additional feasts have, however, been inserted, 
 of Roman type, and in a few cases have superseded (or shifted 
 perhaps) an original Neapolitan lesson. The whole of these 
 marginal notes were published by Dom Morin in the Revue 
 B£ne'dictine y vol. x, 1893, pp. 113-26. St. Burchard was 
 an Englishman, and the liturgical notes have evidently the 
 same origin as those in Y and Reg. 3 
 
 1 V is the Vallicella MS. of Alcuin's revision. It was natural that Alcuin should 
 find the Northumbrian summaries in the books he had at York and sent for to France. 
 
 2 These lists, together with other preliminary matter, were omitted in the 
 edition of Y and Reg by Waring and Stevenson (Suttees Soc. t 1857, &c), but are 
 given in Professor Skeat's edition (1871-74-78-87). 
 
 3 Berger discovered another MS. containing the lists, Rheims, Public Library, 
 No. 41, tenth century (Revue Bhtid %i 1895, p. 392). 
 
PRELIMINARY n 
 
 Further, in restoring the original form of the two books 
 of the Venerable Bede's homilies on the Gospels of feast days, 
 Dom Morin pointed out that one or two unusual pericopae 
 used by Bede are found in the Naples lectionary. The 
 evidence suggests (though* it is not enough to do more) that 
 the Neapolitan pericopae of the Lindisfarne codex may have 
 influenced the liturgical use of Jarrow. 
 
 From all these interesting observations it may seem likely 
 that the text of Y Reg came from Naples. But be it observed 
 that no necessary connexion between the text of these MSS. 
 and their liturgical lists has been established. Evidently 
 the proper position of these is in the margin of a text, as in 
 St Burchard's Gospels. At the beginning of the Gospels where 
 they stand they are perfectly useless. It might be supposed 
 that the original marginal notes have been thus gathered into 
 lists in order to free the margin from disfigurement. But 
 since the lists are not in A, it might equally be held that they 
 have been copied in from some other codex, especially as the 
 text of Y Reg is rather more mixed than that of A. We 
 have therefore not arrived so far at any proof that the AY 
 text came from Naples. 
 
 How did the Neapolitan lists themselves come to the North ? 
 The received explanation has been up till now that which was 
 proposed by Dom Morin in 1891 in the first article in which 
 he drew attention to the lists in Y and Reg. He suggested 
 that these lists owed their origin to some lectionary brought 
 to England by St. Hadrian, Abbot of St. Augustine's at 
 Canterbury, who had formerly been Abbot of Nisitaor Nisida, 
 the little island close to Naples, just beyond Posilipo, well 
 known to tourists. 1 Hadrian had refused the Archbishopric 
 
 1 It is in reality extremely uncertain whether Hadrian the African was Abbot of 
 Nisida at all ; but the point is unimportant, as he certainly came from near Naples. 
 Smith's edition of Bede has : ' Erat autem in monasterio Hiridano [aL Niridano], 
 quod est non longe a Neapoli Campaniae, abbas Hadrianus, vir natione Afer,' &c 
 (Migne, P. L. 95, 171), with the note; ' Hiridano, ita codex Mori, sed codices 
 primaevae auctoritatis in hac voce differunt. Alii enim habent Niridano, et 
 quidem recte. Locus est iuxta montem Cassinum.' Is it ? But that is not near 
 Naples. Moberly*s edition (Oxford, 1881, Bk. iv. 1) has : ' Hiridano, unidentified,* 
 and quotes Smith ; adding as conjectures : * Nisidano, on the island of Nisida, by 
 Mazzocchi ; Aretiano, by Caraccioli ; Hadriano, by Hussey. See Greg. Epist. 
 
iz THE VULGATE GOSPELS 
 
 of Canterbury for himself, and had recommended for the office 
 his friend Theodore of Tarsus. Pope Vitalian accepted the 
 latter, but made Hadrian accompany him to England. This 
 was in 668. Theodore made Hadrian Abbot of the monastery 
 of St. Peter and St. Paul (afterwards called St. Augustine's) 
 without the walls of Canterbury, and the Abbot accompanied 
 the Archbishop in his visitations, even to the extreme North, 
 when he consecrated the wooden Cathedral of Lindisfarne 
 which St Aidan had built. 
 
 This hypothesis has been accepted without hesitation, and 
 by such authorities as Berger, Wordsworth, Duchesne, &c. It 
 might be improved, I think, by the suggestion that it was not 
 Hadrian himself who took the book to Northumbria. St. 
 Benet Biscop was on his third visit to Rome at the time of 
 St. Theodore's appointment, and he accompanied the new 
 Archbishop to England. Theodore made him Abbot of 
 St. Peter and Paul at Canterbury, but after two years sub- 
 stituted St. Hadrian in his place, 1 when the latter arrived from 
 
 xiii. 3/ (But this last place, mentioned by St. Gregory, was in Sicily !) In Mayor 
 and Lumby's edition (Cambridge, 1881, p. 293) Smith's note is quoted without 
 comment. Finally Plummer's excellent edition has the following critical note 
 (vol. i, p. 202): 'Niridano] sic B.C. AS.0 1 .0 3 _ 11 .0 14 _ M .D.R l ; hiridano 
 M.N.A X ; iridano H 1( ' and (vol. ii, p. 202) he comments: 'Niridano, this is 
 the right reading ; v. critical note. " Locus est iuxta Montem Cassinum," Smith » 
 N and H are very easily confused in MSS. " Nisidano" in Holder's text is a pure 
 conjecture, and has no MS. authority; Elmham has " Hiridano," p. 202.' It must 
 be admitted that the conjecture is an extremely plausible one. Dom Morin {Rev. 
 Binid. 1891, p. 482) has said : ( Mazzocchi a identified ce lieu avec la petite lie de 
 Nisita, entre Naples et Pouzzoles, la Nesis des anciens, mentionn^e dans le Liber 
 Pontificalis parmi les donations faites par Constantin a VEglise de Naples (Maz- 
 zocchi, De cathedr. eceles. Neap, vicibus, pp. 215-19 ; Duchesne, Liber Pontificalis, 
 i. 200, note 118). II y eut effectivement dans cette tie un m on as t ere qui a laisse 
 ca et la quelques traces dans Thistoire du septieme au treizieme siecle. 1 This 
 seems indeed to be the most probable solution. Bede himself may have written 
 the name wrong. But the matter remains uncertain. 
 
 1 So says Bede, Historia Abbatum, cap. 4 * duobus annis monasterium rexit ' ; 
 while in the Hist. Ecc.L, iv. 1 fin. he has : ' Qui [Hadrianus] statim ut ad ilium 
 [Theodorum] venit, dedit ei monasterium beati Petri apostoli, ubi archiepiscopi 
 Cantiae sepeliri . . . solent.' Unless statim is very loose and incorrect, Hadrian 
 must have been detained more than one year in Gaul by the famous mayor of the 
 palace Ebroin (though we should have supposed from iv. 1 that he was only 
 delayed a few months). This seems to be the right way of harmonizing these 
 two passages, though it does not appear to have been proposed before. 
 
PRELIMINARY 13 
 
 Gaul where he had been forcibly detained on suspicion of 
 having an embassy from the Emperor. What more natural 
 than that Biscop, who loved books so much, should have 
 received a present from Hadrian, his supplanter, as a peace- 
 offering? Thus would the liturgy of Naples have come to 
 J arrow. 
 
 Plausible as this may seem, I believe it to be entirely 
 mistaken. 
 
 A grave difficulty is caused by the fact that all the evidence 
 for Neapolitan influence comes from Northumbria, and none 
 of it from Canterbury. It is true that St. Burchard was very 
 likely a southerner like St. Boniface, who was probably born 
 at Crediton and was certainly a monk at Nutshell near South- 
 ampton. But even St Boniface in the matter of books is 
 connected perhaps with Jarrow rather than with Canterbury, 
 as will be seen further on, while the text of St. Burchard's 
 Gospels is near to A and not to the Canterbury Gospels X. 1 
 It is true that X has been corrected throughout so as to agree 
 very closely with A, and this was no doubt done at Canter- 
 bury. But we cannot infer from this that A was a Canterbury 
 text in origin, and not Northumbrian. If we did infer this, 
 then at least the connexion of the text of A with Cassiodorus 
 would have to be given up ; for the Codex grandior with its 
 pictures was brought from Italy by Ceolfrid, and not from 
 Canterbury. 
 
 If on the other hand we prefer to say that the AY text 
 is indeed Northumbrian, but the lists of Gospels in Y are 
 insertions, copied from a lectionary brought to the North by 
 St Hadrian, we are met by the difficulty that this lectionary 
 seems from St. Bede's Homilies to have exercised some 
 influence at Jarrow, but cannot be shown to have any con- 
 nexion with the South. The liturgical notes in O have no 
 resemblance whatever to the Neapolitan notes in Y; and 
 O has a text very close to that of the Canterbury X, and may 
 itself have been at Canterbury. 
 
 In just the same way the Capuan ' Mass-books ' and 
 kalendars used in England c. 700 were not at Canterbury but 
 
 1 The so-called * Gospels of St. Augustine ' at Corpus Christi Coll., Cambridge. 
 
i 4 THE VULGATE GOSPELS 
 
 in the North, and had presumably no connexion with Abbot 
 Hadrian, although his Abbey near Naples was necessarily not 
 far from Capua. Thus Dom Morin's hypothesis proves less 
 simple upon further examination than it seemed at first sight, 
 and it is quite insufficient to prove that the AY text belonged 
 to South Italy, even if it were accepted as an explanation of 
 the appearance of a Neapolitan system of Gospel lessons in 
 the North of England. 
 
 It should be added that we are not told by Bede that 
 Hadrian or Theodore brought books to England, though they 
 may very likely have done so. 
 
 We shall eventually, see that the Neapolitan lists came to 
 England by a more circuitous route. 
 
 § 4. Other connexions between England and South Italy. 
 
 It was Mgr. Duchesne x who pointed out that the Martyr- 
 ology of Echternach (brought thither from the North of 
 England by St. Willibrord) contains additional saints inter- 
 polated in England, some being English (chiefly Northern), 
 others being from South Italy. He naturally connected these 
 saints of South Italy with the Neapolitan liturgy which Dom 
 Morin believed to have been brought to Lindisfarne by Abbot 
 Hadrian of Canterbury. I hope to show that this is not so, 
 and that the origin of these additions is Capuan and not 
 Neapolitan. In all probability these Capuan saints were not 
 introduced by Abbot Hadrian, nor did they come from 
 Cassiodorus, nor have they any real relationship with the 
 AY text of the Gospels or with the Neapolitan lists in Y. 
 
 Lastly we have the note at the end of the Echternach 
 Gospels (JP). This MS. by its Irish-Saxon writing and its 
 presence at Echternach connects itself with St. Willibrord, 
 the Northumbrian Apostle of North Germany and Holland. 
 The note states that the text (of a parent MS.) was corrected 
 in the year 558 by a codex belonging to the Library of 
 Eugipius 2 (no doubt the Abbot of Lucullanum at Naples, who 
 
 * In Acta SS. Nov. vol. ii ; see chapter VIII, pp. 149-51. 
 3 The form Eugipius as given in 3> is preferred by Max Biidinger as the earliest, 
 Eugepius, Eugippius, and Eugyppius being later (Eugipius^ eine Untersuckung, in 
 
PRELIMINARY 15 
 
 had probably then been dead some years), a codex which was 
 reputed to have belonged to St. Jerome himself. But Bishop 
 Wordsworth laments, that the text of the codex does not 
 correspond to its promise. From what ancestry did it get this 
 note ? I think we shall see that in the answer to this is the 
 key to the whole history of the Northumbrian text, though 
 this note has until now been the most puzzling enigma 
 of all. 
 
 We have now to start afresh from these points, and add 
 what further evidence can be found, combining the data as 
 best we can, in hopes of more definite results. 
 
 Siizungsbtrichte der Kais, Akad. der JViss. t Wien, vol. xci, 1878, p. 795). Migne's 
 edition has Eugyppius ; but Knoll always writes Eugippius. As Budinger gives 
 his reasons and Knoll does not, I follow Budinger. 
 
CHAPTER II 
 
 THE CASSIODORIAN ORIGIN OF THE 
 NORTHUMBRIAN TEXT 
 
 § i. The text of the Codex Amiatinus is Cassiodorian. 
 
 We have now to investigate the important question whether 
 or no the only Cassiodorian portion of A is the portion inter- 
 polated out of the Codex grandior of Cassiodorus. 
 
 Two insufficient arguments may first be noticed, as they are 
 at least suggestions of the true solution. 
 
 i. The arrangement of the text per cola et commata after 
 the example of St. Jerome himself is not peculiar to A, but 
 the divisions seem to have been particularly well preserved in 
 it. 1 Now Cassiodorus had been careful with regard to this 
 very point, as he tells us in his Preface to the Institution 
 Hence Mr. White has given this point as in favour of the 
 Cassiodorian origin of the text of A. 2 
 
 a. The anonymous author of the Historia Abbatum and the 
 Venerable Bede both use the word Pandectes of A and its 
 fellows in the passages quoted above (pp. 4, 5, 6). Now Pan- 
 dectes is precisely the word used by Cassiodorus for a complete 
 Bible. 
 
 But neither the preservation of the cola et commata nor the 
 use of a word like Pandectes can prove anything, as they are 
 not unique but ordinary circumstances. 
 
 3. Let us turn to the order of the books in A and in the 
 list of its contents on the purple leaf of its first quaternion, and 
 compare this order with the order observed by Cassiodorus 
 in his corrected text. 
 
 1 They are followed in Wordsworth's edition. Tischendorf omitted to repro- 
 duce them in his rather unsatisfactory edition of A. 
 
 » In Hastings's Diet, of the Bible, art. ' Vulgate ', vol. iv, p. 878 ; also Words- 
 worth, p. xxxiiu 
 
THE NORTHUMBRIAN TEXT 
 
 17 
 
 Cassiodorus, in his Preface to the Institutio> makes it clear 
 that the Vulgate text so carefully emended by him in his 
 old age was that contained in his nine great volumes of texts 
 and commentaries on the whole of the Bible. The order 
 of the books in these volumes is given by him in the first 
 nine chapters of his Institutio ; it is also found thus on the 
 backs of the volumes seen in the cupboard behind the figure 
 of Ezra in the picture already spoken of: 
 OCT LIB REG 
 
 HEST 1 LIB PSALM LIB 
 
 SALOMON PROPH 
 
 EVANG IIII EPIST AP XXI 
 
 ACT APOSTOL APOCA 
 Let us compare the nine volumes and the Ezra list with 
 that of the antiqua translatio (as found in A and Inst, xiv) 
 and with the nine volumes described Inst, i-ix : 
 
 Ezra, 
 
 1. Oct. lib. 
 
 2. Reg. 
 
 3. Hest. lib. 
 
 4. Psalm lib. 
 
 5. Salomon. 
 
 6. Proph, 
 
 7. Evang. iiii. 
 
 8>. Epist. Ap. xxi. 
 
 9. Act. Apostol. 
 
 Apoca. 
 
 Antiqua translatio, 
 
 1. Octateuch. 
 
 2. Kings iv, Paral. ii. 
 
 3. Psalms. 
 
 4. Solomon v. 
 
 5. Prophets. 
 
 6. Hagiographa. 
 
 7. Gospels. 
 Acts. 
 
 8. Epistles. 
 
 The nine volumes, 
 
 1. Octateuchus. 
 
 2. Regum (iv + Paral.). 
 
 3. Prophetarum. 
 
 4. Psalterium. 
 
 5. Salomon (v). 
 
 6. Hagiographorum. 
 
 7. Evangelia. 
 
 8. Epistolae Apostolorum. 
 
 9. Actus et Apocalypsis. 
 
 9. Apocalypse. 
 
 The HEST (or HIST) LIB in Ezra's cupboard evidently 
 means the ' Hagiographa ' of the Institutes ; but 3 is in the 
 place of 6, and 6 is in the place of 3. This is a double differ- 
 ence. The central column is a mean between the two. If 
 we shift the Hagiographa to the third place in that column, we 
 get the order of the first column ; if we shift the Prophets 
 to the third place, we get the order of the third column. (See 
 Additional Note, p. 29.) 
 
 1 The Rev. H. J. White {Stud, Bibl,, ii, p. 291) gives HEST. Mr. Willis 
 Clark {The Care of Books, p. 42) gives HIST. He also omits APOCA and AP 
 after EPIST. It seems safe to follow Mr. White, who however gives REG LIB, 
 PSAL LIB, SAL . . . PROP . . , EVANGEL IIII. These readings are quite 
 unimportant for my present purpose. 
 
 CH, v. c. C 
 
1 8 THE CASSIODORIAN ORIGIN OF 
 
 Now turn to the purple leaf of A, which gives on its reverse 
 the list of contents of the codex. We find precisely the same 
 groups, only that naturally the artificial arrangement, by 
 which Acts was bound up in one volume with the Apocalypse, 
 is not preserved. I insert asterisks to divide the groups. 
 
 ' In hoc codice continentur ueteris et noui testamenti Libri N lxxi. 
 
 Genesis, Exodus, Leuiticus, Numeri, Deuteronomium, Iosue, Iudicum, 
 Ruth*, Samuhel, Malachias, Paralypomenon*, Lib. Psalmorum*, Pro- 
 uerbia, Ecclesiastes, Cantica Canticorum, Lib.Sapientiae, Ecclesiasticum*, 
 Esaias, Hieremias, Hiezechiel, Danihel, Osee, Iohel, Amos, Abdias, 
 Ionas, Michas, Naum, Habacuc, Soffonias, Aggeus, Zaccharias, Malachias, 
 *Iob, Thobias, Iudith, Hester, Ezras, Machabeorum lib. duo. 
 
 *Euangelium secundum Mattheum, secundum Marcum, secundum 
 Lucam, secundum Iohannem*, Actus Apostolorum*, Epistulae Paulli 
 Apost., ad Romanos i, ad Corintheos ii, ad Galatas i, ad Ephesios i, ad 
 Philippenses i, ad Colosenses i, ad Thessalon. ii, ad Timotheum ii, ad 
 Titum i, ad Philimon i, ad Hebreos i, Epist. Iacobi i, Petri i, Iohannis iii, 
 Iudae i*, Apocalypsis Iohan. Amen.' 
 
 There follow verses addressed to St. Jerome. The order of 
 the groups of books is that of the antiqua translatio. The 
 number of books enumerated (if we remember that there are 
 two books each of Samuel, Kings, Paralipomena, and Esdras) 
 come to forty-three for the Old Testament and twenty-six for 
 the New, i. e. LXIX. The scribe has wrongly counted LXXI, 
 ( = Augustine). But Petri i is a slip for Petri ii, as in the actual 
 text both Epistles are found. The prologue which precedes, 
 on the other side of the same purple leaf, announces correctly 
 that there are to be seventy books (as in the antiqua translatio). 
 
 We have arrived at the following results : 
 
 a. The nine volumes of Cassiodorus took their nine 
 groups from the antiqua translatio ; such grouping is unknown 
 in other Vulgate codices than A. Cassiodorus must have 
 adopted it with a view to uniformity of size for the nine 
 volumes. He shifted Acts to vol. ix for the same reason. 
 
 /3. The variation in the order of the groups as given in 
 the Insiitutio must be an oversight, since there is a different 
 variation in the picture of Ezra. Therefore Cassiodorus 
 intended to reproduce not merely the groups of the antiqua 
 translatio, but the order of the groups. 
 
THE NORTHUMBRIAN TEXT 19 
 
 y. In A we find both the groups and the order of the 
 groups preserved correctly. 
 
 4. We must now examine the order of the books them- 
 selves. 
 
 In A, the titles within the groups differ from those in the 
 antiqua translatio list. The second group is not of ' Regum 
 libri iiii, Paralipomenon duo', but gives the Hieronymian 
 forms 'Samuhel, Malachias (a slip for Malachim), Paraly- 
 pomenon ' ; for we are dealing with a Hieronymian text in an 
 artificial grouping. Again, the antiqua translatio gives for 
 Solomon the order Proverbs^ Wisdom^ Ecclesiasticus, Eccle- 
 siastes, Canticle ; whereas the Amiatine list and the text of 
 the codex itself have again the Hieronymian order Proverbs^ 
 Ecclesiastes, Canticle y followed by the deutero - canonical 
 Wisdom^ Ecclesiasticus. These are enumerated in the same 
 order by Cassiodorus in his description of his fifth volume 
 (c. 5). But he names the minor prophets in the order in which 
 he found them in the Commentaries, whereas the Amiatine 
 list has the order of St. Jerome's ' Prologus galeatus ' (in the 
 Hieronymian list of Cassiodorus and of the codex the order 
 of the twelve prophets is not given). The antiqua translatio 
 has a totally different order. In the New Testament the 
 usual order, that of St. Jerome, is followed, the antiqua 
 translatio being again deserted ; and Hebrews is supplied. 
 
 The Amiatine list, then, is a list of the books in St. Jerome's 
 version, arranged in the same nine groups as those of the 
 antiqua translatio and of the nine volumes of Cassiodorus. 
 But the interior order of the groups is that of St. Jerome. We 
 know that in Cassiodorus's nine volumes this was the case 
 in the volume of Solomon ; and in the volume of Epistles he 
 certainly put those of St. Paul first, and not last as in the 
 antiqua translatio. But the number of books is counted as 
 seventy with that list, and not as forty-nine with St. Jerome. 
 
 It seems to be plain that this grouping in the codex can 
 only be due to one cause, viz. that its text is derived from 
 that of the nine volumes of Cassiodorus. In these the grouping 
 was obviously due to the necessity of fitting the commentaries 
 into volumes of more or less equal size. It would not have 
 
 C % 
 
20 THE CASSI0D0RIAN ORIGIN OF 
 
 arisen independently in a codex which contained the Hierony- 
 mian Vulgate only without the commentaries. 
 
 5. Be it noted that the nine volumes in the picture of Ezra 
 are very large, in fact very much the size of the great Codex 
 Amiatinus, which again is the same size as was the Codex 
 grandior of the Old Translation. 
 
 It seems that we have a right to conclude that the great 
 Bible A is probably a copy of the Biblical text contained in' 
 the nine volumes of Cassiodorus. 
 
 § 2, The Prologue on the purple leaf of A is the introduction 
 to the nine volumes. 
 
 The beautiful prologue to the study of Holy Scripture on 
 the recto of the purple leaf of the first quaternion of A — the 
 same leaf which on its verso gives the contents of the codex — 
 is connected by its position on this leaf not with the seven 
 leaves interpolated from the Codex grandior ', but rather with 
 the actual contents of A itself. It has been recognized by 
 Corssen and others as probably a composition by Cassio- 
 dorus. 
 
 Now it is not only on the same leaf as the table of contents, 
 but it explicitly refers to a corpus which gives the number of 
 books as seventy. As it is unlikely to be referring to the 
 antiqua translation it is fairly certain that it refers to the 
 codex itself and its table of contents. This is an indica- 
 tion that the table of contents and the contents of A must 
 be Cassiodorian ; and our former results are confirmed. 
 
 The table of contents we have seen to be that of the 
 nine volumes of texts and commentaries. The Prologue 
 seems therefore to be nothing less than Cassiodorus's Preface 
 to the nine volumes— an introduction and exhortation to the 
 study of Holy Scripture, which is to be entered upon with 
 a pure heart, a good will and perseverance, and will then give 
 a foretaste of heaven to the student : 
 
 ( Si diuinout dignum est amore flammati adueram cupimus sapientiam 
 peruenire, et in hac uita fragili aeterni saeculi desideramus imaginem 
 contueri, Patrem luminum deprecemur ut nobis cor mundum tribuat, 
 actionem bonae uoluntatis inpertiat, perseuerantiam sua uirtute concedat, 
 
THE NORTHUMBRIAN TEXT 21 
 
 ut Scripturarum diuinarum palatia, ipsius misericordia largiente, possimus 
 fiducialiter introire, ne nobis dicatur : " Quare tu enarras iustitias meas, 
 et adsumis testamentum meum per os tuum ? " sed inuitati illud potius 
 audiamus : " Uenite ad me, omnes qui laboratis et onerati estis, et ego 
 uos reficiam." Magnum munus, inaestimabile beneficium, audire hominem 
 secreta Dei, et quemadmodum ad ipsum ueniatur institui. Festinemus 
 itaque, fratres, ad animarum fontem uiuum, salutaria remedia iussionum. 
 Quisquis enim in terris Scripturis talibus occupatur, paene caelestis iam 
 regni suauitate perfruitur.' 1 
 
 Such a paragraph was not written by le premier venu, but 
 by a man of holy thoughts and practised pen. The address 
 to fratres is just what we expect from Cassiodorus, just what 
 we find in the Institutio and de Artibus\ and in fact the nine 
 volumes, like those books, were carefully prepared for the use 
 of the monks of Vivarium. Diuinae scripturae is a favourite 
 phrase of Senator. The Prologue continues : 
 
 ' Nee uos moueat quod pater Augustinus in septuaginta unum libros 
 testamentum uetus nouumque diuisit ; doctissimus autem Hieronymus 
 idem uetus nouumque testamentum xlviiii sectionibus comprehendit. In 
 hoc autem corpore utrumque testamentum septuagenario numero probatur 
 impletum, in ilia palmarum quantitate forsitan praesagatus {sic) 2 quas in 
 mansione Helim inuenit populus Hebraeorum. Nam licet haec calculo 
 disparia uideantur, doctrina tamen patrum ad instructionem caelestis 
 ecclesiae concorditer uniuersa perducunt. Amen/ 
 
 The seventy palm-trees of Elim (Exodus xv. 27) are quoted 
 by Cassiodorus (as we have already seen) in his fourteenth 
 chapter with reference to the seventy books of the antiqua 
 translatio 3 . Here it is clear that the reference is to the list 
 of contents of A, which gives really seventy books as I said ; 
 for that list incontinently follows on the other side of this 
 same purple leaf. The mention of the various lists in con- 
 
 1 I copy from Mr. White in Studia Biblica^ ii, pp. 289-90, adding pnnctuation 
 in order to make the beauty of the passage more evident. 
 
 3 We must obviously read praesagatum. 
 
 9 The passage was quoted in chapter i, p. 4. It is repeated at the end of the 
 antiqua translatio list of A, fol. 7*. Notice the identity of wording : 
 
 A {list) ; ' in illo palmarum numerum fortasse praesagati quas in mansione 
 Helim inuenit populus Hebreorum.' 
 
 Instit. xiv : ' In illo palmarum numero fortasse praesagati quas in mansione 
 Helim inuenit populus Hebreorum.' 
 
 A (Prol.) : * in ilia palmarum quantitate forsitan praesagatus quas in mansione 
 Helim inuenit populus Hebraeorum.* 
 
22 THE CASSIODORIAN ORIGIN OF 
 
 nexion with the table of contents both connects the prologue 
 with Cassiodorus, and the contents of the codex with the 
 prologue. We need surely not hesitate to recognize Cassio- 
 dorus as the author of the prologue, and the prologue as the 
 introduction to the contents of the Codex Amiatinus, i.e. of 
 the nine volumes. 
 
 In confirmation of these natural conclusions we may note 
 that this second part of the prologue is an explanation of the 
 unusual order found in the MS. ( Do not be surprised/ 
 says Senator, e that there are seventy books in my collection, 
 whereas Augustine enumerates seventy-one, and Jerome counts 
 forty-nine, for these are only different methods of counting.' 
 He admits that the arrangement is an unusual one for a copy 
 of St. Jerome's text, and justifies it by the seventy palm-trees. 
 It is evident that this passage was penned earlier than the 
 chapters of the Institutio in which the various lists are given. 
 Those chapters describe the lists as inserted in the codex 
 grandior antiquae translations. The sequence seems to be as 
 follows : — First, Cassiodorus arranges the books of the Bible 
 in nine groups for his nine volumes according to the order of 
 groups in the antiqua translation though leaving St. Jerome's 
 order within each group. Secondly, he writes the above 
 preface to declare that this unusual order is not inconsistent 
 with the authority of Augustine and Jerome, though he gives 
 no explanation. Thirdly, when he has the antiqua translatio 
 copied in a large volume, he thinks it useful to put beside the 
 list of its contents the lists of Augustine and of Jerome for 
 comparison. Fourthly, in his Institutio he relates what he 
 has done, and enumerates the contents of the nine volumes 
 and of the three lists, thus demonstrating what he had merely 
 asserted in the Preface, viz. that all are quite in harmony with 
 each other. 1 
 
 1 The three lists of A and those of Inst, xii, xiii, and xiv are printed con- 
 veniently in parallel columns by Mr. White, 1. «., pp. 292-9, with remarks. The 
 chief differences are in the ant. transl. list. Some variations are doubtless due to 
 errors, intentional and unintentional, of the scribes of A and of its immediate 
 parent. Others may be due to alterations made by Cassiodorus himself when he 
 wrote the Institutio, or to carelessness on his part, venial in a man of his great 
 age. The most curious point is the remark in A at the end of the ant. transl. 
 
THE NORTHUMBRIAN TEXT 23 
 
 The Preface is therefore probably a Prologue to the nine 
 volumes of text and commentary, and the Codex Amiatinus 
 a copy of the text of the nine volumes, without the com- 
 mentaries. The purple page gives the Prologue to the nine and 
 their contents. The rest of the first quaternion was detached 
 from a copy of the Codex grandior and bound into the volume, 
 to enhance its value as a gift * to St. Peter, the Prince of the 
 Apostles'. It is possible that the idea of doing this was sug- 
 gested by the mention in the Prologue of the lists of Augustine 
 and Jerome ; the thought of adding these would be followed 
 by the perception that the pictures which accompanied them 
 would be a worthy addition to the incomparable MS. which 
 the aged Ceolfrid was to take to Rome. No doubt the work 
 was superintended by the Venerable Bede himself. 
 
 How did the archetype of A come to Jarrow ? The answer 
 is not difficult. As the archetype of the Cassiodorian antiqua 
 translatio with its pictures was brought by Ceolfrid, and as 
 we now see that the archetype of A and of its two fellow 
 pandects was presumably Cassiodorian, it would seem that 
 both were brought by Ceolfrid to Jarrow at the same time, 
 probably, as was said above, in 678, when Ceolfrid accom- 
 panied Biscop on the latter's third journey to Rome. 
 
 § 3. The Neapolitan lessons were marked in the margin of 
 the archetype of A. 
 
 It was pointed out in the first chapter that the Neapolitan 
 lectionary lists in Y and Reg have been made up out of 
 
 list : ' Sic flunt ueteris nouique Testamenti, sicut diuidit sanctus Hilarus (Hilarius, 
 m. p.) Romanae urbis antistes et Epiphanius Cyprius, quern latino fecimus sermoni 
 transferri, Libri hex, in illo palmarnm numerum,' &c. ; whereas Cassiodorus in 
 the corresponding passage (c. xiv) has : ' Unde licet mnlti sancti patres, id est, 
 sanctus Hilarius Pictauiensis urbis antistes, et Rufinus presbyter Aquileiensis, et 
 Epiphanius episcopus Cypri et Synodus Nicaena et Chalcedonensis non contraria 
 dixerint sed diversa ; onmes tamen per diuisiones suas libros diuinos sacramentis 
 competentibus aptaverunt.' The suggestion that any of the different computations 
 can be mystically explained reminds us of the apologetic tone of the end of the 
 Prologue. The scribe of A has transformed St. Hilary of Poitiers into Pope Hilarus, 
 but the statement that Cassiodorus had a translation of St. Epiphanius made 
 is important — though apparently only his list is meant. We should not gather 
 from the Institutio that Epiphanius and Hilary, any more than Rufinus and the 
 two councils, gave the preceding list. It is a coincidence that Epiphanius was 
 the name of the translator employed by Senator {Inst. 8). 
 
a 4 THE CASSIODORIAN ORIGIN OF 
 
 marginal notes in an earlier MS., and that Burch (let us 
 so call the 'Gospels of St. BurcharcT for convenience) has 
 preserved them in their original position, though in an inter- 
 polated form. As Y Reg certainly have a common ancestor 
 with A (and it can hardly be doubted that the common 
 ancestor was the Cassiodorian Vulgate Bible which we have 
 just gathered to have existed at J arrow, brought thither by 
 Ceolfrid), it is of the first importance to know whether there 
 are any traces of these liturgical notes in A ; and it is to me 
 very surprising that no one (so far as I am aware) has 
 examined this point. The four lists of Y Reg are, of course, 
 not to be found in A, nor are the marginal notes of Burch. 
 But Y Reg have a few additional liturgical notes, belonging 
 beyond doubt to the same system, and these have been care- 
 fully noted by Dom Morin after Skeat for Y. I add those 
 of Reg from my own notes : l 
 
 i. In Y Reg is found after the eighty-seventh capitulum 
 of the summary of St. Luke an interpolation, ' quod prope 
 pascha legendum est. 9 It is rubricated in Reg. 
 
 z. After the last capitulum (94) of the summary of Luke in Y 
 Reg is a note, 'Haec lectio in ebdomada pascaef &c. 2 In Reg 
 it is written like the summaries in black with red capitals. 
 
 3. In Y, after the fifteenth capitulum of the summary of 
 John, is found ( legenda pro defunctis \ 
 
 4. In Y, after the eighteenth capitulum of John, is found 
 * legenda in quadragesima \ 8 
 
 5. In Y Reg, after the forty-fifth capitulum of John, is found 
 a note, ' Quae lectio cum in natalej &c. (see p. 6$). In Reg 
 the first eighteen words are red. 
 
 It seems that when some scribe copied out the marginal 
 notes of his exemplar into four lists, he omitted these few 
 notes as clearly meaningless when no longer placed over 
 against the passages to which they refer, so inserted them 
 after the corresponding capitulum of the summary. 
 
 1 The position of these notes in Y is wrongly described by Dom Morin (L c). 
 They are all among the capitula of the summary, and not in the margin ; nor is 
 2 in the margin of the Gospel itself. They are given in capitals by Skeat. 
 
 3 The full text will be found in the notes to the reprint of the lists in ch. iv, p. 60. 
 
 3 I did not notice 3 and 4 in Reg. 
 
THE NORTHUMBRIAN TEXT 25 
 
 Let us turn to A. 
 
 Like Y, at the fifteenth capitulum of the summary of John 
 A has Hegendapro defunctis* ; at the nineteenth (not eighteenth) 
 it has c legenda in quadragesima \ It has also preserved two 
 other notes which are not found in Y Reg : at the seventeenth 
 capitulum of the John summary is the vague 'legenda circa 
 pascha\ and at the eighty-ninth capitulum of the Luke summary 
 is the convenient direction, * quae lectio potest quolibet tempore 
 dicu These two notes were apparently thought too indefinite 
 to be worth copying by the scribes of Y and Reg. The four 
 notes in A are rubricated. 
 
 I have taken them from Tischendorf s edition of the codex 
 (1850), p. xxv. He says they are written 'antiquissima quadam 
 manu rubris litteris \ He does not say that they are in the 
 margin of the summaries, but that they are ' capitulis . . . im- 
 mixtae \ If this means that they are among the capitula 9 as 
 in Y Reg, they must be by the original hand. But Tischendorf 
 is not clear. It is most unlikely a priori that these fragment- 
 ary survivals of a complete system should be additions by 
 a later hand. It is evident that the lists as found in Y Reg 
 and even the utilizable marginal notes in their original form 
 were not likely to be inserted in A. It was written for the 
 Pope, and Ceolfrid would not purposely have presented at 
 Rome a table of lessons belonging to some other church. 
 The four rubrics which have survived are fortunately sufficient 
 to attest that the archetype had the complete system of 
 lessons. 
 
 Thus we have arrived at the important result that the 
 Neapolitan lectionary belonged to the archetype of the Gospel 
 text of A Y Reg. 
 
 Now the text of A is apparently Cassiodorian. There is 
 no reason to suppose that the Gospels are not as Cassiodorian 
 as the rest, or that they are insertions from another source. 
 Consequently the Neapolitan liturgical notes were almost 
 certainly in the great Cassiodorian Vulgate Bible which 
 Ceolfrid brought to Jarrow. Only we have not so far seen 
 whether this text came from Cassiodorus to Jarrow through 
 Naples, or from Naples to Jarrow through Cassiodorus. 
 
26 THE CASSIODORIAN ORIGIN OF 
 
 § 4. The Echternach Gospels have a Northumbrian element, 
 to which the note about Eugipius may well belong. 
 
 The splendid * Gospels of Echternach ' (2P) now in the Biblio- 
 th£que Nationale at Paris (lat. 9389) are written in a semi-uncial 
 Saxon hand of the eighth century. The codex belonged to 
 the Abbey of Echternach (in Latin Epternacum) i which was 
 founded by the Northumbrian Apostle Willibrord, who died 
 in 739. The Northumbrian character of the Martyrology and 
 Kalendar which belonged to him 1 is very marked. The 
 manuscript of the Gospels in question may be early enough 
 to have been brought by him from England ; or it may have 
 been written at Echternach by one of his Saxon scribes, or 
 brought thither in the course of the century. 
 
 The Italian writing and the Cassiodorian text of Jarrow 
 and Monkwearmouth were in close relation to the Irish monas- 
 tery of Lindisfarne. We have seen that an Italian text in an 
 Italian hand, presumably of Jarrow, was buried with St. Cuth- 
 bert. Similarly in the Lindisfarne Gospels at the British 
 Museum we have a purely Italo-Northumbrian text without 
 Irish admixture, but the scribe wrote an Anglo-Irish hand of 
 unsurpassed beauty. The Echternach Gospels also show an 
 Anglo-Irish hand, but the text is more Irish than Italian. 
 The decorations are in the Irish taste, as usual in the eighth 
 century. 
 
 But yet the text is not wholly Irish, like that of DLQR or 
 even E, though the corrector (3 >7B( ') used an Irish MS. Bishop 
 Wordsworth writes : 
 
 'Amicus quidem noster S. Berger (pp. 52, 53) 3 Hibernicum uel potius 
 Scoticum esse textum huius codicis asserit, et cum forma Kenanensi (Q) 
 maxime consentire. Multae sunt tamen lectiones in eo proditae quae 
 aliam formam ostendant. Exempla quippe in praefatione nostra collecta 
 (pp. xxxiv-xxxvi), pro documentosunt quomodo et manus prima et corrector 
 non solum apud Matthaeum sed etiam per omnia Euangelia uacillent, et 
 interdum cum AY interdum cum Z in partes eant. Quod ad codices 
 Hiberno-Britannos attinet, cum formula DESPLQR non raro in notulis 
 
 1 See ch. viii, p. 145. 
 
 3 I. e. Histoire de la Vulgate, (Paris, 1893), to be frequently referred to. 
 
THE NORTHUMBRIAN TEXT 27 
 
 nostris appareat, orthographiae potius proprietatem quam lectiones tangit ; 
 et in lectionum uarietatibus "3?™° saepius quam 3>* cum DELQR con- 
 gruit. Considerantibus autem nobis omnia quae de huius codicis indole 
 obseruata sint, cum familia B-Z potius quam cum aliis facere uidetur, 
 saepius certe quam antea ferme creditum est' (p. 712). 
 
 He then gives examples to show that iP™ 9 rather than 3?* 
 agrees with the Irish MSS. Still it remains that the first 
 hand of the codex used Irish spelling as well as Irish em- 
 bellishments, and that he has imported a certain amount 
 of Irish contamination into the text itself. That the parentage 
 of the codex is really Irish is finally demonstrated by the 
 additional matter it contains. The summaries or capitula of 
 the Gospels are the Irish summaries, as found in the Book of 
 Armagh (D), the Book of Kells (Q), also in the Sanger- 
 manensis (g 1 and G), and some Old Latin MSS. The text 
 of the Prologues is the pure and ancient Irish text of DQ, 
 and the text of St. Jerome's letter Nouum opus is also Irish in 
 character. It is therefore surprising that the Gospel text 
 itself should be only moderately Irish, though the spelling 
 is consistently that of DELQR. 1 
 
 On the other hand we have to remember that it is a North- 
 umbrian MS., and as the text of Alcuin at a later date is 
 a compromise between the Irish influence from Iona and the 
 South Italian influence from Jarrow, so this codex exhibits 
 a mixed text — Irish in foundation, in all probability, but 
 largely corrected by the AY text of Jarrow and also by some 
 text of the B-Z family. For there is no doubt that it does 
 sometimes agree with AY, and such agreement in a North- 
 umbrian codex cannot be regarded as purely fortuitous. 2 
 
 1 The spelling agrees especially with D. There are occasional agreements, rare 
 but remarkable, with the Northumbrian spelling; e.g. Luke vii. 38 ungento 
 Aa , *HMXYZ°,«»^^Aa > HKMPQTVXY2 ^; 46 ungento A2P*FHMXYZ* e < c ; 
 John ii. 8-9 archetriclinus, i° AA^OY, 2 d0 AAS'HOY, 3* AA3»FH0Y; Luke 
 ix. 34 nubis AH*MOY (Irish DER have nubs with GT abcdlaur, the rest nubes). 
 
 8 I have not gone into this question exhaustively, as it has seemed to me too 
 obvious, in spite of the large agreement of 3? with the Irish and with the Z con- 
 tingent and others. The following examples of the agreement of 3? with AY 
 against all the Irish witnesses are taken at random from the four Gospels : 
 
 Matt, xviii. 26 orabat (for rogabat) A3>FH®JOWXY; xix. 10 muliere (for 
 uxore) A3>*FH0QX°Y; 12 castrauerunt X&FHQMOWXY be defff l ff 2 khvg. 
 
2,8 THE CASSIODORIAN ORIGIN OF 
 
 Now at the end of the Gospels of Echternach is found 
 a note of great interest on fol. %i% v in the writing of the 
 original scribe : 
 
 ' + proemendaui ut potui secundum codicem de bibliotheca eugipi prae- 
 spiteri quern ferunt fuisse sci hieronimi indictione . UI . p . con . bassilii 
 . UC . anno septimo decimo.' l 
 
 The date intended is 558, long before this eighth-century 
 codex was written, long before any MSS. had reached the 
 then heathen Saxons of Northumbria. The original of this 
 note must have existed in some book brought to Ireland or 
 to Northumbria from South Italy, for ' Eugipius ' is obviously 
 
 Mark ii. 26 domum A3 :> H*MM"0*y/, licet A3>0*Y, omit solis AS^HOKMV- 
 WXYZ a dff 2 i (all in one verse) ; ix. 15 stupef actus est expauerunt A3?*FH*Y ; 
 x. 19 adulteris A*3>H*0YZ*; 46 hierichum ABCS^KOVXYZ ; xi. 11 uespere 
 (for -ra) A3>*HIX (-ae) Y ; xiii. 9 conciliis (for in conciliis) ABC3>*H*JTY. 
 
 Luke xi. 28 quippini ASP*@*MKTOPXY Reg aur ; xiii. 2 1 add et cut A^HX^Y. 
 
 John ii. 13 properabat (for prope erat) A$FAiP*SX c Y ; iii. 10 omit in before 
 israhel A C 3>FJMSY b efff 2 IqS; 23 ueniebant Aa , JKOTVWX*Z vgabd (e) 
 qraur; iv. 16 omit hue AA3PFHSY aur ; v. 4 a* agrees with AAFH*l¥rSXY. 
 
 If the question is asked how the mixing took place in 3P, I must give as my own 
 opinion that the agreements with AY against the Irish look like survivals rathef 
 than corrections. I suggest that the action of the corrector (3""?) is merely the 
 continuation of a process that had been at work before ; that the MS. is very 
 much Hibernicized, especially in spelling, with some contamination from Z (or 
 some similar text) ; but I think the basis was Northumbrian. The agreements 
 with that text where supported by a part of the Irish family are very numerous, but 
 especially remarkable are the constant agreements with D (the ' Book of Armagh ') 
 and the AY text together, against the rest of the Irish. I suggest that 3? descends 
 from an AY text corrected to considerable uniformity with a D text ; and D itself 
 has from some good Vulgate source got many readings similar to those of AY. 
 These have remained in 3?*, together with a certain number of AY readings (such 
 as those given above) which are not in D or any Irish MS. Whether this con- 
 jecture, that the basis (of which little is left) of 5P is the AY text, be true or not, 
 at any rate the connexion is quite certain. But I cannot think that some of the 
 readings just given were introduced as corrections; notice how frequently the 
 other MSS. have been corrected as to these very peculiarities. Such variants as 
 stupefactus est expauerunt and quippini would never be introduced by a corrector. 
 Still this point is of no importance to my argument in the text. The note about 
 Eugipius might be a survival from an archetype ; it might equally have been 
 introduced from a copy used to correct by. We cannot a priori decide which was 
 the case. 
 
 1 I copy from Wordsworth, p. 649 (on p. xii he gives the words less exactly). 
 But Scrivener {Introd., ii. 80) reads deximo, and so does Berger, Hist, de la Vulgate, 
 p. 52. 
 
THE NORTHUMBRIAN TEXT 29 
 
 the well-known student of Holy Scripture and abbot of the 
 Lucullanum at Naples. On this Berger remarks (p. 53) : 
 
 ' Puisque nous savons qu'un manuscrit de Cassiodore, ou la copie de ce 
 manuscrit, est venu de Vivarium a Jarrow, que Lindisfarne avait regu un 
 livre d'£vangiles venant de Naples mgme, nous ne pouvons nous e*tonner 
 de rencontrer, dans un manuscrit anglo-saxon venu probablement d'York, 
 un texte corrige* sur ^original du celebie ^crivain napolitain.' 
 
 But Berger had his doubts, because he looked upon the text 
 of 3? as Irish ; yet he concludes (ibid.) : 
 
 ' II n'en reste pas moins prouve', par la souscription du manuscrit 
 d'Echternach, qu'il se conservait, dans les environs d'York, un manuscrit 
 napolitain du vi e siecle. Peut-Stre £tait-ce Toriginal du manuscrit de 
 Lindisfarne. 1 
 
 M. Berger is referring to the known presence at Jarrow 
 of a Cassiodorian Codex grandior, and to the Neapolitan lists 
 in Y. We have arrived at the result that the archetype of A, 
 of its two lost companion pandects and of Y Reg was a copy 
 of the text of Cassiodorus's nine volumes, and that the Nea- 
 politan lists were in the Gospel margins of that archetype. 
 Consequently the AY text did actually come from Naples. 
 Hence M. Berger's conjecture is strongly reinforced. 
 
 We may ask the question in this form : * 3? had ancestry of 
 of a DLQR type, of a B-Z type, and of an AY type — to 
 which of these lines of descent does 3* owe the note about 
 the library of Eugipius ? ' We cannot but reply : ' In all 
 probability to the AY line of ancestry, since that line leads 
 us to Naples and Squillace.' 
 
 Additional Note. — Mr. C. H. Turner sends me an important confirmation of 
 my argument on p. 17 as to the order of the groups in the nine volumes. He writes 
 of the Bamberg MS. of the Institutio (it is the oldest — eighth century) : * The MS- 
 keeps the same order of the chapters as the printed texts: 1. de octateucho. 2. 
 de libris Regum. 3. de Prophetis. 4. de Psalterio. 5. de salomone. 6. de 
 Hagiographis. Yet the text in chh. iii-v indicates that the order of these chapters 
 is not the order of the nine volumes. For in ch. iii it begins ; " Ex omni igitur pro- 
 phetarum codice quinto " ; in ch. iv : " Sequitur psalterii codex tertius " (though it 
 has " bis binum locum tenet in ordine ", meaning the order of description in the 
 Institutio) ; in ch. v : " Quartus codex est Salomonis '' ; in ch. vi : " Sequitur Agio- 
 graphorum codex sextus." In other words the true order of Cassiodorus's nine 
 volumes is what you have rightly conjectured to be the' proper order, namely 
 that of the antiqua translation 
 
CHAPTER III 
 
 CASSIODORUS AND EUGIPIUS 
 
 § i. // was not St. Victor of Capua who collated the 
 Codex of Eugipius. 
 
 There is at first sight a remarkable likeness between the 
 note in 3* (above, p. 38) and the autograph notes made by- 
 Victor, bishop of Capua, in the Codex Fuldensis (F). 
 
 At the end of Acts he has written : 
 
 + victor famulus xpi et eius gratia eptsc capuae legi non. mai. d. ind. 
 nona quinq. pc basilii uc 
 At the end of James : 
 
 legi meum + 
 At the end of the Apocalypse and of the whole book : 
 
 + victor famulus xpi et eius gratia \ eptsc capuae legi apud \ basilicam 
 consta . . . ianam \ d. xiii. kal. maias ind. nona \ q . . m pc basili u c 
 cos I Iterato legi ind. x die prid* iduum April. 
 
 When we come to a closer comparison the resemblance 
 is really only in the dating by indictions and post cons. Basilii 
 u. c. which was unavoidable at that period. Victor gives his 
 name and title and the day. The note in 3* is anonymous 
 and does not give the day of the month ; and its ut potui 
 with regard to so easy a task remains unexplained. 
 
 Anyhow that note cannot be Victor's, for he died Hi non. 
 April, ann. xiii p. c* basilii u. c. indictione secunda according 
 to his epitaph printed in M. Monaco's Sanctuarium Capuanum, 
 in Ughelli s Italia Sacra, and by Cardinal Pitra in Migne, 
 Pair. Lal. t 102, col. 1123. The note in 3? was made four years 
 later. 
 
 One is glad to have so absolute a proof that we have nothing 
 but a mere coincidence in the fact that Eugipius's codex was 
 
CASSIODORUS AND EUGIPIUS 31 
 
 the parent (as we shall see) of F as well as of A, and in the 
 fact that F was perhaps once at Jarrow. 
 
 § 2. The note in the Echternach Gospels was written 
 by Cassiodorus. 
 
 Since it was not Victor who wrote the note, who was it ? 
 If it belongs, as it probably does, to the AY element in 3P, it 
 belonged originally to the Cassiodorian exemplar which con- 
 tained the Neapolitan lectionary notes. Why should not 
 Cassiodorus himself have been the author of the note? He 
 was a diligent corrector of the text, the date is right, and the 
 very dating by indictions and post consulatum Basilii uiri 
 clarissimi (though of course all his contemporaries dated in 
 this way) makes us think of him, for the rules for calculating 
 the year of the indiction, of A. D., and of the consulship of 
 Basil are given in the little tract Computus Paschalis, written 
 apparently in $6%, four years later than the note in 3?, and 
 attributed by its first editor to Cassiodorus. 
 
 Let us examine the note itself : 
 
 1. The words UT POTUI would be more natural in a case 
 of conjectural and not mechanical emendation. Was the 
 corrector in a hurry, or ill? The answer is easy now that 
 we know on the one hand that the Codex Amiatinus repre- 
 sents the text given in the nine volumes of Cassiodorus, and 
 on the other hand that the note about Eugipius was most 
 probably found in the archetype of the Codex Amiatinus. 
 We have but to refer to the Preface to the Institutio divinarum 
 litferarum. There we read as follows in the passage where the 
 author describes the manner in which he prepared the text of 
 his nine volumes : 
 
 ' Quos ego cunctos nouem codices auctoritatis diuinae, UT senex 
 POTUI, sub collatione priscorum codicum, amicis ante me legentibus, 
 sedula lectione transiui. Ubi me multum laborasse, Domino adiuuante, 
 profiteor, quatenus nee eloquentiae modificatae deessem, nee libros sacros 
 temeraria praesumptione lacerarem/ 
 
 Therefore ' as best I could ' implies * considering my great 
 age', 1 an explanation which would suggest itself to every 
 
 1 Nearly the same expression occurs again in the Institution t . 30, where he 
 
32 CASSIODORUS AND EUGIP1US 
 
 disciple of the old Senator, when the date 558 was noted ; for 
 Cassiodorus was then at least sixty-eight years of age or even 
 much more. But he was doubtless well able to continue his 
 •labours, for he did not die until many years later ; and he 
 wrote his de Orthogrdphia at the age of ninety-three! 
 Besides we learn that he made the labour of correction 
 lighter by getting his friends to read the codices aloud to 
 him, amicis ante me legentibus. 
 
 a. Both scribes and correctors frequently sign their name 
 in a codex. An example is found in A, where at the beginning 
 of Leviticus is found OKYPIC CEPBANAOC A1TT0IHCEN 
 (6 Kvpios Sipfiavbos ^irouytrei;). We are not surprised to find 
 that an antiquarius at Squillace knew Greek. A corrector's 
 signature which occurs to me is 'Justinus emendavit Romae' 
 in Codex M of St. Cyprian, and we have just considered the 
 signatures set by Victor of Capua in the Codex Fuldensis. 
 
 But in 3? we have the surprising case of a corrector who 
 not only describes the codex he has used and its origin, but 
 gives the date and speaks in the first person, yet gives no 
 name. He supposes that his identity will be obvious and his 
 ut potui will be understood. I know of no other explanation 
 than that we have here Cassiodorus addressing his monks as 
 usual. 
 
 3. Proemendaui I cannot translate. I suppose praeemendaui 
 to be intended, with the meaning : ' I have previously corrected 
 the codex from which this copy was to be made.' 
 
 If the Preface to the Institutio divinarum litterarum was 
 written earlier than 558 we have two alternatives. Either we 
 may suppose that Cassiodorus procured the codex from the 
 library of his old friend Eugipius after the nine volumes were 
 completed, and thereupon corrected the text of the Gospels in 
 vol. vii in order that a new pandect might be made ; or else 
 we may suppose that the nine volumes were not really com- 
 pleted when the Preface was first written, for the present text 
 
 mentions his book De Ortkographia. He is therefore adding to the earlier book 
 when ninety-three years old, or more: * Quos ego [orthographos antiquos], 
 quantum potui, studiosa curiositate collegi.' He might here mean simply 'so far 
 as I have been able to obtain their works '. 
 
CASSIODORUS AND EUGIPIUS 33 
 
 of the Institutio contains additions written many ygars later 
 than the first draft. 
 
 But it seems to me more probable that the Institutio was not 
 written until after 558. The usual date given for its com- 
 position is 543-4, after Franz, M. Aurelius Cassiodorus Senator 
 (Breslau, 1872). But this date is quite impossible, as I shall 
 proceed to show, though it is followed without question by 
 Zahn, Rudinger, Wandinger (in Kircken-Lexicon), Barden- 
 hewer, &c. It will appear that 558 is just about the date 
 which suits the completion of the seventh of the nine volumes 
 containing the four Gospels ; consequently it is probable that 
 the note in 3? represents a note made by Cassiodorus in his 
 seventh volume, and that the passage just quoted from the 
 Preface to the Institutio was written subsequently. 
 
 I need not apologize for thus dragging in a discussion of 
 the chronology of Cassiodorus, as the subject is in itself 
 interesting. 
 
 § 3. On the date of Cassiodorus s Institutio. 
 
 The Institutio divinarum litterarum and the de Artibus ac 
 Disciplinis liberalium litterarum are one work in two books, 
 written not merely after Cassiodorus had retired to Squillace, 
 but after his monastery was in full working order, and when 
 the library, in particular, was complete. 
 
 The date of that retirement is uncertain. Dom Garet puts 
 it in 538-9 (Prolegomena, pars i, § Ix), Mabillon mentions it 
 under 545 (Annales Bened., i, p. 11 a), Franz gives 540-1, and 
 places the Institutio, and as I have said, in 543-4, 1 
 
 Now in three years we are to place all these labours of 
 the retired statesman. First, the Library ; the collection of 
 the best commentaries on all the books of the Bible, and 
 their transcription by his scribes into nine volumes ; the 
 
 J Cassiodorus was consul in 514, Magister officiorum c. 525-7, Praefectui prae^ 
 torio 533-7 (Mommsen, Mon. Germ., Auct. Anttq., 4*°, 1894, vol. xii, p. x). He 
 wrote the Chronica in 519, the Historiae Goihicae after the death of Theodoric 
 (Aug. 30, 526— Usener and Hodgkin say 'before') c. 526-33, and the Liber de 
 Anima after the death of Witigis in 540. This was before his retirement, which 
 was consequently, I think, after 540. 
 
 CH. V. G. D 
 
34 CASSIODORUS AND EUGIPIUS 
 
 correction of the text of the whole Bible with the best MSS. 
 of St. Jerome's version, and the emendation of its ortho- 
 graphy. This must surely have been a labour of many years, 
 ubi me multum laborasse profiteor. Then the Vulgate Bible 
 in fifty-three gatherings of six, the large Itala Bible, and the 
 Greek Bible were written ; then the writings mentioned in 
 caps, x seqq. were collected and perhaps copied (though a 
 number of them may have been already in the Senator's 
 possession before he left Ravenna). Then there are the 
 illustrations to the Codex grandior and the great map (cap. 25), 
 the Greek books in a special cupboard (cap. 8). Then a large 
 number of translations were made for Cassiodorus by a certain 
 Epiphanius and others from the Greek : Didymus on Proverbs, 
 St. Epiphanius on the Song of Songs, Homilies of Origen on 
 Esdras, Clement and Didymus on the Catholic ifpistles. On 
 several books of Holy Scripture commentaries were written 
 expressly for the nine volumes by the Priest Bellator ; there 
 was a collection of writers on the liberal arts. For all this 
 labour even ten years is surely a very small calculation. 
 
 Then it seems from cap. iv that the whole of Cassiodorus's 
 commentary on the Psalms was complete, and written into 
 the fourth of the nine volumes. 1 But in the same chapter 
 
 1 The words of Cassiodorus are : ' Sequitur Psalterium codex quartus, qui nobis 
 primus est in commentatorum labore, sed bis binum locum tenet in ordine. Ilunc 
 in quibusdam Psalmis beatus Hilarius, beatus Ambrosius et beatus Hieronymus, 
 in omnibus tamen beatus Augustinus studiose nimis latiusque tractauit. Ex quibus 
 iam duas decadas, Domino praestante, collegi ; a quo (ut fieri solet) mutilans 
 lumen de lumine, aliqua de ipso, Domino largiente, conscripsi ; ut illud in me 
 dictum Mantuani uatis ueraciter impleretur : " et argutos inter stiepit anser olores." ' 
 
 The text is perhaps corrupt ; at least the Latin is bad. Hunc means hunc 
 codicem Psalterii, where we should expect hoc. Lower down de ipso clearly 
 means de ipso Psalterio\ just before it a quo means ab Augustino beyond 
 doubt. As to ex quibus it ought to mean * out of these four writers ', but the 
 following a quo seems to limit it, and it means ' out of these Homilies of 
 St. Augustine on the Psalms \ Franz understands duas decadas to mean ' twenty 
 Psalms * ; and explains that, using the former commentators, Cassiodorus had 
 already made a commentary on the first twenty Psalms. It cannot be said that 
 this is the obvious meaning of ex quibus iam duas decadas collegi. But I think it 
 plain that Cassiodorus's commentary was copied into this fourth volume. This 
 is implied in the quotation from Virgil, and lower down when he says : ' Quem 
 post tales uiros fortasse si aliquis dignatus merit relegere, cognoscet,' &c. In the 
 same volume it was followed by the libellus Athanasii de libro Psalmorum t 
 
CASSIODORUS AND EUGIPIUS 35 
 
 we learn that this was the first of the nine volumes to be 
 taken in hand. It may have been some years, therefore, 
 before one volume of the nine was completed. 
 
 I know it is commonly said that the Commentary on the 
 Psalms was begun before the Institution but finished after 
 that work, on the ground that the Institutio is referred to as 
 already complete, in the Preface to the Commentary, cap. xv : 
 ' De cuius eloquentiae modis multi Patres latius prolixiusque 
 dixerunt, quorum nomina in libris introductoriis commemo- 
 randa perspeximus.' Similarly, on Psalm xcvi, verse 4, he refers 
 to his book on Geometry. But this is insufficient proof, for 
 I have already remarked that in his Institutio (caps. 15 and 
 30) he twice refers to his de Orthographic in which book 
 he distinctly states that the Institutio was an earlier work : 
 
 1. Post commenta Psalterii, ubi praestante Domino conversions meae 
 tempore primum studium laboris impendi, 
 
 2. deinde post institutiones quemadmodum diuinae et humanae debeant 
 intellegi lectiones, duobus libris (ut opinor) sufficienter impletis, ubi plus 
 utilitatis inuenies quam decoris, 
 
 3. post expositionem epistolae quae dicitur ad Romanes . . . , 
 
 therefore one might presume the commentary was complete, although it was in the 
 first written of all the nine volumes. But in fact there is no doubt whatever that 
 Cassiodorus means : 'Of these Enarrationes in Psalmos of St. Augustine I have 
 now managed to collect two decades ' ; for they were anciently divided into 
 1 decades ', as Cassiodorus himself tells us in the Preface to his own commentary '• 
 * Quocirca, memor infirmilatis meae, mare ipsius quorumdam Psalmorum fontibus 
 profusum, diuina misericordia largiente, in riuulos uadosos compendiosa breuitate 
 deduxi : uno codice tarn diffusa complectens, quae ille in decadas quindecim 
 mirabiliter explicauit.' Of this ancient (but not original) division the Benedictine 
 editors found traces in three MSS. only, ' uno Jolyano Kcclesiae Parisiensis, qui in 
 fronte praefert : Incipit liber decada domini Augustini a Psalmo i t Beatus uir, 
 usque fi, et duobus Colbertinis, quorum alter enarrationi psalmi quadragesimi 
 haec subdit : beati Aurelii Augustini episcopi finit decada de libro primo. Alter 
 uero compendium totius operis complectens, uersus quosdam in capite uoluminis 
 exhibet, qui cum praefationibus ac elogiis infra edendis locum habeant non indignos. 
 In his autem isthuc pertinet is uersus : Ter quints decadis grande peregit opus ' 
 (Pre/, to Tom. iv t P. Z., 36, col. 14). If Cassiodorus had only obtained two out 
 of fifteen decades, why does he not explain that he has sent everywhere to obtain 
 the rest, as in the case of the commentaries of St. Jerome on St. Paul ? He had 
 certainly not obtained all the fifteen (he says quorumdam) when he wrote the 
 Preface to his Commentary on the Psalms, I expect duos is a clerical error for xi 
 or some larger number ; for the text of the whole is very corrupt. The Preface is 
 addressed to a Pope, for, pace Dom Garet, ' Pater apostolice * can mean nothing else. 
 Whether Vigilius ( + 555) or Pelagius I ( + 559) is meant is not easy to decide. 
 
 D % 
 
36 CASSIODORUS AND EUGIPIUS 
 
 4. post codicem in quo artes Donati . . . et librum de Etymologia . . . 
 collegi . . . , 
 
 5. post librum titulorum, quern de diuina scriptura collectum, Memoria- 
 lem uolui nuncupari , 
 
 6. post complexiones in Epistolas Apostolorum et Actibus eorum et 
 Apocalypsi . . . , 
 
 7. ad amantissimos orthographos discutiendos anno aetatis meae non- 
 agesimo tertio, Domino adiuuante, perueni. 
 
 Dom Garet thought this was a chronological list, but that 
 it only gave the dates when these various works were begun. 1 
 Yet the revision of Pelagius's commentary on Romans, here 
 no, 3, is referred to in the Institutio as completed (cap. 8). 
 The old man probably set down the names as he happened 
 to remember them, and his list is not exhaustive. It must 
 have been at Vivarium that he arranged into a Tripartite 
 History the translations he had caused to be made of Socrates, 
 Sozomen, and Theodoret, but he does not mention this 
 troublesome work. 2 
 
 It is at any rate clear that our present text of the Institutio 
 contains additions made after Cassiodorus was ninety-three. It 
 was not intended to be published to the world. It was a testa- 
 ment in which the old man describes all he was leaving to 
 his monks — the library, the baths, the fishponds, the automatic 
 lamps and all. So far it would seem that the earliest redaction 
 of the work implies a stay in the monastery of ten to twelve 
 years as a minimum ; and this minimum surely implies very 
 hard work, and yet leaves twenty-six or twenty-eight years 
 before the composition of the de Orthograpkia> which was 
 written about 578, if we place Cassiodorus's birth as early 
 as 4 85- 3 
 
 1 Prolegomena^ ii, § xli, in Migne, P, Z., 69, 478. 
 
 3 The great collection of Variae and the lost History of the Goths are always 
 supposed to have been compiled before Cassiodorus's retirement from public life. 
 
 8 Unfortunately the date .even of the birth of Cassiodorus is uncertain. Franz 
 thought (1. c, p. 3) that the first batch of his official letters referred to matters 
 later than the accession of Theodoric (493) and earlier than 498. Franz argues 
 that if we suppose he became secretary to the king at twenty-five years old, he was 
 born about 470. This would make him no less than eighty-eight in 558, an age, 
 however, at which he would still be able to correct MSS. with the help of his 
 friends reading aloud to him, as even at eighty-eight he was five years younger 
 than when he composed his book on Orthography. But most authorities assume 
 that he was born about 477 (so Wandinger in Kirchen-Lex. of Welter und Wetze, 
 
CASSIODORUS AND EUGIPIUS 37 
 
 But the Institutio implies a complete monastery with many- 
 monks, besides the hermits on the mountain, and two abbots 
 (cap. 33), one for the hermits and one for the cenobites. All 
 this was the formation of many years. If the * conversion ' 
 of Cassiodorus was c. 540 and the de Orthographia in 578, 
 I do not feel inclined to put the first composition of the 
 Institutio before 560 at the earliest. 
 
 But it need not be later in order to suit the date of 558 
 for the correction of the seventh volume which contained the 
 Gospels. For Cassiodorus took the Psalms first, because 
 of his special interest in them, and the commentary he was 
 writing on them. He also took a special interest in the Prophets 
 and in the Epistles of the Apostles : ' in Psalterio tamen et 
 Prophetis et Epistolis Apostolorum studium maximum laboris 
 impendi, quoniam mihi visi sunt profundiores abyssos commo- 
 uere, et quasi arcem totius Scripturae diuinae atque altitudinem 
 gloriosissimam continere ' (Praef.). On the Epistles, and also 
 on Acts and the Apocalypse, he eventually composed short 
 commentaries or complexiones. We may perhaps infer that 
 he was likely to take the Prophets, Epistles, and Acts with 
 Apocalypse, before the other volumes. If he took the re- 
 mainder in order, the volume containing the Gospels would 
 be dealt with last of all. In this case the date 558 in the 
 
 and so Bardenhewer, &c.) and became secretary of Theodoric at the age of twenty. 
 But there has been a confusion of Cassiodorus with his father. The biographical 
 fragment, discovered by Holder and published by Usener since Franz wrote, has 
 the following words : ' iuuenis adeo, dum patris Cassiodori patricii et praefecti 
 praetorii consiliarius fieret et laudes Theodorichi regis Gothorum facundissime 
 recitasset, ab eo quaestor est factus, patricius et consul ordinarius/ &c. {Anec- 
 doton Holderi, by H. Usener, Bonn, 1877, pp. 3-4.) What does iuuenis adeo 
 imply? Cassiodorus was not consul until 514, when he was thirty-seven if born 
 in 477. or forty-four if born in 470. This was not young for a man of C a ssiod orris's 
 parentage and talents. I should compare Boethius, born apparently about 480, 
 whose two sons were both consuls in 522, when one can hardly suppose the 
 younger to have been more than twenty, if as much. Dr. Hodgkin {Italy and her 
 Invaders, 1885, vol. iii, p. 315, and The Letters of Cassiodorus, 1886, p. 9) thought 
 480 certain as an approximation ; he upholds.the dates given by Trithemius (479- 
 80, to 575, age 95). But Mommsen (1. c.) rightly despises Trithemius, and 
 establishes that Cassiodorus was quaestor not earlier than 507 nor later than 511. 
 He cannot have been consiliarius praef ecti praetorio to his father before 501, since 
 his father became prefect only in 500. Mommsen suggests 490, or somewhat 
 earlier, for his birth. Let us say 485-90 ; death c. 580-5. 
 
38 CASSIODORUS AND EUGIPIUS 
 
 note at the end of the Gospels would in fact be that of the 
 completion of the correcting of the whole Bible. 
 
 All this is necessarily uncertain, and the note about Eugipius 
 may after all refer to a new correction of the Gospel text, 
 carried out later, after the completion of the nine volumes. 
 But then so may the passage ut senex potui in the Preface 
 to the Institutio be later. That sentence might quite well be 
 a posterior insertion by the author himself, parallel to the 
 interpolated references to the de Orthographia in caps. 15 
 and 30. Anyhow it could hardly have been written in 543-4 ; 
 for it is difficult to imagine that a man of 53-59 who had still 
 some forty years of life before him should have found that 
 old age made it difficult for him to collate correctly even with 
 the aid of friends. 1 
 
 If there were no interpolations in the Institution the mention 
 of the condemnation of Origen by Pope Vigilius would be 
 a most important factor in determining its date. We find 
 in cap. 1 the following remark about Origen : ' Hunc licet tot 
 Patrum impugnet auctoritas, praesenti tamen tempore et 
 a Vigilio Papa uiro beatissimo denuo constat esse damnatum. 1 
 The decree of Justinian against Origen is placed by Hefele, 
 following the Ballerini, in 543, though Baronius gave 538, 
 Gamier 539 or 540. 2 A council of Constantinople in 543 
 dutifully followed the emperor s lead. According to Liberatus 
 (Breviarium, 23), 3 this decision was accepted and subscribed 
 by Pope Vigilius and by the Patriarchs of Alexandria, Antioch, 
 and Jerusalem. 4 If this contemporary but biased authority is 
 followed, we must at least put the Institutio as late as 544. 
 But the formal wording a Vigilio Papa uiro beatissimo may 
 suggest that Vigilius was dead (in similar language Pope 
 Agapetus is referred to in the first sentence of the Institutio, 
 cum beatissimo Agapito Papa urbis Romae, after his death). 
 
 1 The reference to age in cap. 8 also suggests something more than fifty-three, 
 though it does not necessitate it, for it may be again a later addition. 
 
 2 Hefele, Hist, of Councils ; Eng. tr., vol. iv, p. 220. 
 
 3 Franz refers to Migne, />. L. t 6i, 1064 ; the column should be 1046. 
 
 * In the fifth session of the fifth General Council Theodore Ascidas stated that 
 Vigilius had condemned Origen (Mansi, ix. 272 ; Franz refers to Hardouin, iii. 122, 
 for the same passage). See on this Hefele, Hist, of Councils, Eng. tr., iv. 310. 
 
CASSIODORUS AND EUGIPIUS 39 
 
 This would place the Institutio (or at least the remark about 
 Origen, which Cassiodorus might have interpolated later) 
 after January 5, 555, the date of Vigilius's death at Syracuse. 
 The words praesenti tempore are quite vague, and mean only 
 6 in our own day ' as opposed to the age of the Fathers. 
 
 On the whole, then, I conclude that the Institutio was 
 composed about 560, or even later, and that the aged author 
 added to it from time to time. The note in 5P reproduces 
 a note made by Cassiodorus himself at the end of the text of 
 the four Gospels in the seventh volume of the nine. This 
 note was found in the copy of the Biblical text of those nine 
 volumes which was brought by St. Ceolfrid from Rome to his 
 double monastery in Northumbria. It was not copied into A, 
 nor into the parent of Y Reg (which was probably one of the 
 two sister Pandects to A), but has survived by some chance 
 in 3?, itself a mixed text. It is not a bit surprising that these 
 anonymous words should have been omitted in such magnifi- 
 cent codices as A and Y. It is extremely surprising that even 
 in one descendant they should have by chance survived to 
 preserve to us a most interesting link in the genealogy of the 
 Northumbrian family. 
 
 § 4. Eugipius dnd his friends. 
 
 The only writing of Eugipius himself is his interesting life 
 of his spiritual father St. Severinus, with a prefatory letter 
 to the Roman deacon Paschasius. But his great work was 
 the collection of 348 excerpts from the works of St. Augustine. 
 These works have been carefully edited by Knoll (CSEL. 9 ix, 
 1885-6). In the life of St. Severinus there are scarcely any 
 citations from the New Testament ; so that it is impossible 
 to discover what kind of text the writer used. I have found 
 only the following (I give pages and lines of Knoll's edition) : 
 
 Matt v. 14-15 (p. i8 ao ) • Matt. vi. 3 (pp. 5 2 and 46 s ) ; 
 
 Matt. xx. 28, not Mark x. 45, as Knoll has it (p. 46 1 ). 
 These are mere references. Knoll gives six references to the 
 Epistles, to which I add Hebr. xi. 8 (p. 60 10 ) and xiii. 7 
 (p. 60 9 ). Only one quotation really calls for comment. It is 
 from Acts xx. 3a (p. 61 20 ) : 
 
40 CASSIODORUS AND EUGIPIUS 
 
 'et nunc commendo uos deo et uerbo gratiae eius, qui potens est 
 conseruare uos et dare haereditatem in omnibus sanctifieatis/ 
 eiuB, cum e gig Hieron (vii. 542) ; ipsius ceteri omnes. 
 conseruare uos, Eugip. solus ; aedificare ceteri. 
 in omnibus sanctifieatis (all Knoll's MSS. apparently, as he gives 
 no note), Eugip. solus ; in sanctificationibus, Eugip. ap. Migne, 
 (P. L., 62, 1 196) and D (the Book of Armagh); in sanctifieatis 
 omnibus, ceteri} 
 
 Probably Eugipius was quoting by heart. 
 
 He was a man much esteemed in his own day, as we learn 
 from his many friends, St. Fulgentius, St. Paschasius, Dionysius 
 Exiguus, Ferrandus of Carthage, and Cassiodorus. His 
 excerpts from St. Augustine became extremely popular, 
 as it was difficult to procure the complete works of so volu- 
 minous a writer : ( nam omnia illius habere uel inuenire quis 
 possit ? ' as Eugipius says in his dedicatory epistle to Proba. 
 He himself had to borrow many of them from friends : ' quae 
 praestantibus amicis integra legeram/ Still this implies that 
 he had a very good library, or he would not thus explain that 
 he did not possess all. 2 He declares, however, that the com- 
 plete works from which he gives extracts were to be found 
 (all of them ?) in Proba's own library, which was clearly a 
 notable one : • cum bibliothecae uestrae copia multiplex integra 
 de quibus pauca decerpsi contineat opera, placuit tamen 
 habere decerpta.' Eugipius certainly collected books. Diony- 
 sius the little sent him a translation of St. Gregory of Nyssa's 
 nepl Karao-Ktvrjs avOptairov ; St. Fulgentius sent him a copy 
 of his three books Ad Monimum. He also had at Lucullanum 
 a staff of trained antiquarii, for St. Fulgentius asks him to 
 have some books copied : ( obsecro ut libros quos opus habemus 
 serui tui describant de codicibus uestris * (Ep. 5 ad Eug. fin.). 
 
 1 The same reading in sanctificaiionibus is found in the Theodulphian MS. of 
 Le Pay (see Berger, Hist, de la Vulg^ p. 175), where it is evidently a clerical 
 error, since that MS. is but a contemporary copy of 0, which has the usual 
 
 a Biidinger says: *Das Material zu der grossen und noch lange gepriesenen 
 Arbeit fand er in Proba's Bibliothek in Rom.' This is very likely true to some 
 extent, and would give a reason for the dedication. But Eugipius does not say so. 
 He does not even say that Proba's library was in Rome ! A Roman lady might 
 well have lived in the country or at Naples. 
 
CASSIODORUS AND EUGIPIUS 41 
 
 The date of Eugipius's birth is not recorded. It is placed 
 after 455 by Herold and Budinger. 1 He aided St. Severinus 
 in his apostolic labours in Pannonia and was present at the 
 saint's death, Jan. 8, 482, and at his exhumation in 488, and 
 he helped to bring the body into Italy. At the invitation 
 of a noble lady named Barbaria, and by order of Pope Gelasius, 
 the body of St Severinus was placed in a mausoleum in the 
 little island of Lucullanum (now the Castel dell' Uovo) by 
 Victor, bishop of Naples. 2 A monastery was started in the 
 tiny island (part of which was occupied by a village for some 
 centuries) ; the first abbot was Lucillus, the second Marcianus, 
 and the third Eugipius himself. He was already abbot when 
 he wrote the life of St. Severinus in 511, but not yet when he 
 composed the Excerpta some years earlier. The two letters 
 of Ferrandus to him give the latest date at which he is 
 heard of. The former is just after the death of St. Fulgentius 
 (Jan. i, 533); the second is probably before the outbreak 
 of the war with the Ostrogoths in the autumn of 535. Eugipius 
 may have died soon after this. 
 
 From Cassiodorus alone we learn that Eugipius was a 
 great student of Holy Scripture. Senator had seen him, 
 but evidently this was many years before. 3 We know that 
 Cassiodorus sent in every direction for the books he wanted. 4 
 If the library left by Eugipius contained an especially valuable 
 MS. of the Gospels, we cannot doubt that he would hear of 
 it, and procure it as a loan or by purchase. 5 
 
 1 For the following facts see Budinger, Eugipius, eine Untersuckung, Sitzungs- 
 berichte der Kais. Akad. der Wissensch. t Vienna, 1878, vol. xci. 
 
 2 This took place necessarily after March 492, when Gelasius became Pope ; his 
 death was ia 496. 
 
 3 ' Quern nos quoque uidimus * implies this. It is another reason for placing the 
 Institutio at a late date. 
 
 4 Of the commentaries of St. Jerome on some Epistles he says {Institutio 8) : 
 ' Quas tamen continuo de dinersis partibus, ubi direximus inquirendas, suscepturos 
 nos esse Domini miseratione confidimus ; et ideo studiose sustinere debemus quod 
 nobis transmittendum esse cognouimus . . . quod si forsitan senectus nostra, prius- 
 quam haec compleantur iussione Domini cum remissione peccatorum (sicnt nos 
 orare deprecor) notiuo fine transient, ad uos, ut credere dignum est, quandoque res 
 sperata perueniet.' He had evidently sent to very great distances. 
 
 8 It is not improbable that the monastery at Naples may have lent the MS. to 
 Cassiodorus. ( There is abundant evidence of the existence of a system of lending 
 
4a CASSIODORUS AND EUGIPIUS 
 
 The words of Cassiodorus are as follows {Inst 33) : 
 
 ' Conuenit etiam ut presbyteri Eugippii opera necessario legere debeatis, 
 quern nos quoque uidimus, uirum quidem non usque adeo saecularibus 
 litteris eruditum, sed Scripturarum diuinarum lectione plenissimum. Hie ad 
 parentem nostram Probam uirginem sacram ex operibus sancti Augustini 
 ualde altissimas quaestiones ac sententias ac diuersas res deflorans, in uno 
 corpore necessaria nimis dispensatione collegit, et in trecentis triginta 
 octo capitulis collocauit. Qui codex, ut arbitror, utiliter legitur, quando 
 in uno corpore diligentia studiosi uiri potuit recondi, quod in magna 
 bibliotheca uix praeualet inueniri.' 
 
 The last sentence shows that Cassiodorus had been looking 
 at Eugipius's Preface. Since Proba was a relation of Cassio- 
 dorus, his connexion with Eugipius is the closer. 
 
 We note the title presbyteri Eugippii and compare it with 
 the Eugipi praespiteri of 3P. 
 
 § 5- The Manuscript of Eugipius and St. Jerome. 
 
 The position of the note on the last page of the Echternach 
 Gospels shows that the codex from the library of Eugipius 
 contained no more than the four Gospels. 
 
 It was said to have been St. Jerome s : ferunt fuisse sci 
 hieronimi. Was this true ? 
 
 1. The Vulgate Gospels were published by the saint in 
 Rome in the year 38a, only a century before Eugipius. The 
 Roman grandees to whom St. Jerome was a spiritual father, 
 and especially that Anician family whose greatness he cele- 
 brates, 1 will certainly have furnished themselves with copies 
 of the first edition. Nay, to some of them, especially to the 
 great ladies, and doubtless to his friend Proba, the author 
 must have given presentation copies. The later Proba, to 
 whom Eugipius dedicated his principal work and with whom 
 
 MSS. from one monastery to another for the purpose of transcription and com- 
 parison/ says Mr. Plummer {Bede^ H. £., Introduction^ p. xix), and he gives some 
 instances in a note : Alcuin to Abbess Gisla, Mon. Ale, p. 599 ; Bede, H. E.,iv. 18 
 (where John the Archcantor brings to England the Acts of the Lateran Council of 
 649, evidently by order of the Pope, and lends them to the Abbey of St. Benet 
 Biscop to be copied) ; Pertz, Mon. Ger., xiv. 313, on the borrowing of MSS. from 
 St. Martin's at Tournai, &c. But Cassiodorus may have bought the MS. from the 
 community ; he would be able and willing to offer a large sum. 
 
 1 Speaking of Proba, Ep. cxxx ; 7, p. 981 (I>. L. t 22, mi), ad Demetriadem. 
 
CASSIODORUS AND EUGIPIUS 43 
 
 St. Fulgentius corresponded, was of the same Anician gens, 
 which furnished most of the consuls of that day. She was 
 probably closely related (perhaps daughter or sister) to the 
 Probinus who was consul in 489. It is likely that her 
 great library was inherited ; and if so, nothing is more natural 
 than that she should have possessed a presentation copy of 
 St. Jerome's Gospels handed down from some ancestor or 
 ancestors who had known Jerome. 
 
 2. This is but guesswork. Anyhow it is not surprising 
 that Eugipius should have possessed such a volume, whether 
 by gift or legacy from Proba or otherwise And supposing 
 he was mistaken as to its origin from St. Jerome himself, it 
 will at least have been an old copy at the beginning of the 
 sixth century, and of Roman parentage. 
 
 3. Cassiodorus wrote "fertur ' — he was not certain, perhaps. 
 But it seems that the Codex Amiatinus is a very careful copy 
 of a good copy of Cassiodorus's codex which he corrected 
 by the codex attributed to St. Jerome. The incomparable 
 excellence of A as a witness to Hieronymian tradition is a 
 very strong confirmation of the truth of that attribution. 
 
 4. Let us notice that the Cassiodorian text in A is fre- 
 quently a very good one, in the Old and New Testaments, 
 but it never reaches elsewhere (so far as I know) the unique 
 position of authority which it holds in the Gospels. In Acts, 
 for instance, the five codices primarii are ranked in order of 
 merit thus by Wordsworth and White : GCAFD* It is true 
 that A has in Acts received some occasional corrections from 
 the strange Old Latin of the Codex Laudianus^ e} and these 
 were probably introduced at Jarrow, where the latter MS. was 
 apparently used by the Venerable Bede. But apart from 
 these peculiarities, the text of A is no longer unique and 
 supreme, as B is in Greek. This is surely a proof that the 
 excellence of the Cassiodorio-Northumbrian text in the 
 Gospels is due to its correction by a particularly good MS. of 
 the Gospels. 
 
 We now know how the Neapolitan lectionary came to 
 Jarrow. It came from the Gospel codex of Eugipius, and 
 1 Blass's E, and in Greek E**" 8 (Bodl. Laud. Gr. 35). 
 
44 CASSIODORUS AND EUGIPIUS 
 
 it must represent the use of the abbey of Lucullanum at 
 Naples earlier than the year 558, when one of Cassiodorus's 
 scribes copied these liturgical notes into the margin of the 
 Gospel text in volume vii of the great nine. It was rather 
 a useless thing to do, but perhaps the scribe thought they 
 were St. Jerome's own annotations ! Anyhow the old Cassio- 
 dorus did not know what his scribe was about, for he did 
 not read the codex himself, but his friends read it aloud 
 to him. 
 
 The lectionary therefore comes to England by Ceolfrid, 
 through Cassiodorus, from the tiny island of the ( Castle of 
 the Egg' at Naples, and not by Hadrian from the tiny 
 island of Nisida close by, and it dates before 558, not merely 
 before 668. The slight difference of place is unimportant 
 enough, but the date is seen to be far earlier than Hadrian. 
 
 And in fact we might well be surprised that Abbot Hadrian 
 in the second half of the seventh century should be so far 
 behind Roman development in liturgical matters. The 
 Neapolitan lectionary is so poor in feasts as to be in some 
 points archaic. It is not astonishing to find that it is anterior 
 to Gregory the Great. 
 
 Was this system in general use in Naples or in Campania 
 at large? Or was it rather a monastic use ? We must devote 
 the next chapter to an examination of the Kalendar laid down 
 and of the corresponding pericopae. Eventually we shall learn 
 much about the Vulgate text as well as about liturgical 
 history. 
 
CHAPTER IV 
 
 THE NEAPOLITAN LECTIONARY IN 
 NORTHUMBRIA 
 
 § i. The Gospels of St. Burchard contain a fundamentally 
 English text 
 
 Something has already been said about Y and Reg, the 
 MSS. in which the liturgical lists are found, and of A, in 
 which traces of them remain. It is necessary to say a few 
 words also about the MS. in which the items of the lists 
 appear in their proper positions as marginal notes. 
 
 The fine Gospels in the University Library of Wurzburg, 
 Mp. th. f. 68, which are traditionally said to have belonged 
 to St. Burchard, are catalogued as sixth century, but Dom 
 Morin shows reason for thinking that they were written later. 
 In fact the codex was probably written in England in the 
 seventh century. The liturgical notes are inscribed in its 
 margin in an exquisitely delicate small uncial, and the com- 
 mencement of each pericope is indicated by a tiny cross. 
 These notes are attributed by Dom Morin to the very first 
 years of the eighth century. They are therefore exactly 
 contemporary with A Y Reg. 
 
 There is no particular reason for doubting the tradition 
 that this MS. belonged to St. Burchard. This saint was 
 an Englishman, who joined St. Boniface in his apostolic 
 work in Germany about the year 725, and was made by him 
 Bishop of Wurzburg. The traditional origin of the codex is 
 strongly supported by its contents. Schepss says of the 
 character of its text : ' The text shows indeed for long 
 stretches a great likeness with the Amiatinus, but often 
 breaks loose from the latter, and exhibits (as it seems to me, 
 particularly in the Gospel of St. John) a rich wealth at all events 
 of Itala readings ' (Die dltesten Evangelien-Handschriften der 
 Wurzburger Universitats-Bibltothek, Wurzburg, 1887, p. 14). 
 
4 6 
 
 THE NEAPOLITAN LECTIONARY 
 
 Herr Schepss has also given a collation of large parts of the 
 MS., using the Clementine Vulgate as a basis, and adding 
 the readings of Old Latin MSS. These are quite useless 
 in the case of the Synoptic Gospels, as most of the variations 
 of Burch. from the Clem. Vg assimilate it to Wordsworth's 
 text and that of AY. I give almost all the cases where the 
 readings quoted by Schepss differ from Wordsworth in 
 St. Matthew, and I add a good number from the other 
 Gospels. I have added the MSS. cited in Wordsworth's 
 edition and a few Old Latin MSS. It will therefore be easy 
 to see in what direction. Burch. varies from the AY text, 
 which is pretty constantly followed by Wordsworth. 
 
 
 Matt. 
 
 I 
 
 i. 2 
 
 2 
 
 ii. 6 
 
 3 
 
 11 
 
 4 
 
 M 
 
 5 
 
 23 
 
 6 
 
 v. 22 
 
 7 
 
 X. 12 
 
 
 38 
 
 8 
 
 xx. 34 
 
 9 
 
 xxi. 4 
 
 10 
 
 28 
 
 ii 
 
 31 
 
 12 
 
 
 13 
 
 xxiv. 41 
 
 14 
 
 XXV. II 
 
 *5 
 
 
 16 
 
 
 >7 
 
 14 
 
 18 
 
 xxvii. 1 
 
 *9 
 
 2 
 
 20 
 
 5 
 
 21 
 
 6 
 
 22 
 
 8 
 
 23 
 
 M 
 
 24 
 
 16 
 
 n 
 
 
 om autem HKKTXZ/; 
 
 regat Ea > *H c 0JRTWX* corr uat mg a bfg x aur vg 
 + in {after intrantes) D a bf 
 secessit DJLRW vgff x g x 
 prophetam (H) Z* a bfff x aur 
 + sine causa BEO uett {not aur) 
 + dicentes pax huic domui BCDEa^FHQJKLWO^QRTVWX 
 
 YZ vgab c dfff x g x h q aur 
 omitted by homoeotel., as in Wurzburg cod. of St. Chilian, and in 
 
 Cod. Bezae 
 om eorum {added by 2nd hand above line) ET 
 + totum {but erased) ERW gat g 2 q 
 om qnidam AB3>*FH*JL0YZ* {added in mg with CDEa^H 2 © 
 
 KMNTQRTVWXZ 3 vg uett exc. d aur) 
 + ei after dicunt BDESP^KMNTRV aur vg 
 nouissimus {for primus) ABC3 > FH*JLORTXYZ* add eff v a g x h 
 
 r r 2 aur {apparently the true reading, against Wordsw.) {but 
 
 1st hand has erased, and substit. primus DEH^KMKTVWZ 1 
 
 gat cfqS cor uat &c.) 
 + duo in lecto . . . BEH^ORTXZ {later hand has deleted) uett 
 nouissimae {for -me) BQX b 
 + uero W fjf\ vg 
 uenerunt ffORW/ 
 om peregre CFH*JXZ* gx {added later) 
 consilium fecerunt BLO*QR af 
 duxerunt E a 
 secessit DE a b aur 
 princeps H* (Q) a 
 
 + hoc est BH« 0JKMNTOV WX*Z vg a dff v aur 
 om ad {added later) T a bfff x g x aur 
 habebant E0KLM a bf aur 
 om tunc EQZ* b aur 
 
IN NORTHUMBRIA 
 
 47 
 
 Matt. 
 
 26 
 
 xxvii. 
 
 16 
 
 27 
 
 
 20 
 
 28 
 
 
 29 
 
 29 
 
 
 3i 
 
 30 
 
 
 33 
 
 31 
 
 
 35 
 
 32 
 
 
 37 
 
 33 
 
 
 40 
 
 34 
 
 
 44 
 
 35 
 
 
 46 
 
 36 
 
 
 55 
 
 37 
 
 
 65 
 
 38 
 
 xxviii 
 
 • 5 
 
 39 
 
 
 9 
 
 40 
 
 
 20 
 
 
 Mark 
 
 1 
 
 ii. 
 
 ■ 23 
 
 a 
 
 iii. 
 
 , 12 
 
 3 
 
 
 14 
 
 4 
 
 iv 
 
 . 6 
 
 5 
 
 
 7 
 
 6 
 
 
 29 
 
 7 
 
 V 
 
 . 6 
 
 8 
 
 
 
 9 
 
 
 13 
 
 10 
 
 
 14 
 
 11 
 
 
 15 
 
 12 
 
 
 18 
 
 13 
 
 
 J 9 
 
 H 
 
 
 
 15 
 
 
 29 
 
 16 
 
 
 3^ 
 
 17 
 
 
 34 
 
 18 
 
 
 40 
 
 
 Luke 
 
 1 
 
 vii. 
 
 1 
 
 2 
 
 
 10 
 
 3 
 
 
 13 
 
 4 
 
 
 22 
 
 5 
 
 
 27 
 
 
 ix. 
 
 9 
 
 6 
 
 
 45 
 
 7 
 
 
 62 
 
 + unum BEKM"O c RVWX°Z^ 2 
 princeps ACFH*MXY/A q 
 + habeBCHO*T<z£/ 
 clamidem BE^FQR 
 
 uenientem obuiam sibi B3 )m 'IL0 1 RX*Y c Z (E, 0H m * Q) a b cf? 2 k 
 + ut inpleatur . . . sortem ABE2P m tfH o 0KKrO*QWXYZ cor uat 
 
 uett pi , 
 om Ifts (added above line) om DEH^HQW a b ff x q 
 + ua BDH> m ?ILO c QR a b aur (uah EH C 0KKTO*VZ vg) 
 fixiA*CH*TXYZ*^ 
 me derel. EJLO^RT (DQ) a bfff x aur 
 a longe + uidentes DE uett pi 
 custodes J uett pi 
 + dniBEH 1 0OXZ* 
 habete BCH^HOT a bfaur 
 om eos after docentes NT [added above line) 
 
 coepissent 0Z 
 
 + quia Of aur 
 
 om euangelium {added smaller by ut hand, with AD5PGH0LKT 
 
 OXY uett pi) 
 aestuauit BEOX*Z* (CTL) aur 
 in spinis ACH*IMWY afgat 
 adest tempos messis H'0 aur 
 autem a longe ihm O b 
 occurrit FH ! ®Z aur 
 man CDE3>0IJHORTVWX C Z bf 2 vg 
 in ciuitate CD£P*FLT b aur 
 + qui habuerat legionem BH^KTO aur 
 + a (before daem.) CDEa , ^0KKTTVWZ* bfaur vg 
 et non (corr into ifis autem 0KVZ bff 2 aur) 
 admisit (corr into permisit cff 2 aur) 
 corpori BCGIKTXZ aur 
 illins CSP^KLQRTVZ 
 ille (corr into ihs with D3»*0KTO a bf) 
 ingredinntur DEH^IKKTORVWZ aur 
 &c. 
 
 + in before Caph. BDSTJKOXZ a 
 languebatffQX^/ 
 
 super earn B^FGHJMDQTVWZ vgbceqrh 
 renuntiate BD^KKTOVWXZ vg {corr into nuntiate with ASFCF 
 
 HQlJUqYbfqaur) 
 praeparauit BCFGOTZ* a bfaur 
 audio talia/7 
 ilium KKTOVZ aur 
 respiciens GR vgb dfl qh 
 &c. 
 
48 THE NEAPOLITAN LECTIONARY 
 
 + est after uita aFCDEH™* JRT gat a be efjf 2 q aur Aug 
 + enim ENT b aur 
 quodquod CGO 
 
 gratia et ueritate BG a b c efff z 8 aur Iren Aug 
 dicitur a b d eff 2 1 q r 
 conturbabat aur 
 abiit D a dff* I aur 
 ait philippo solus 
 
 om quid {added later) omZbd eff 2 * Iqr aur 
 qui in hunc mundum uenit^i / r 
 + quicquam DH^KRT gat b r aur 
 nobis corpus suum a m aur 
 
 dicebat autem de iuda (EH)0K(O)QVWXZ a b e ef(ff^) I r (aur) 
 hie enim incipiebat tradere enm dff 2 * aur 
 + discipulos a b e aur 
 
 cor CIKO c TVW vgb d eff 2 m 5 (corr 2nd hand) 
 + iudae DX* cor uat r aur \?nd hand adds iudas simon scariothis ; 
 om D^j aur ; simon {for simonis) BCEJO*RV gat e] 
 1 8 4 surrexit a e d efm qr aur (corr later) 
 
 + autem solus ? (erased later) 
 posuit ETX ac efm q r aur (corr later) 
 om si deus . . . in eo EFGH*X*Z a b c d ff 2 /* aur* Tert Ambr 
 
 (added later) 
 gabbatha (for lithostrotus) aur 
 
 gennetha (for gabbatha) b gennethar r gennathatfgenetha^^ aur 
 om et tunicam a b cff 2 * r aur 
 + diniserunt J uett omnes 
 confringentes solus (confringetis a b efff^ n aur) 
 
 The following tables give the number of times each MS. 
 appears in the above tables for the Synoptic Gospels : 
 
 A H* Y; F; D E H>* ( + 2P m <0 L Q R; J M; 
 
 Matt. 5 12 7 6 8 18 5 12 9 8 13 94 
 
 Mark 1112442 4 213 1 
 
 Luke 1 22 23 212 
 
 Total 6 14 8 10 14 22 9 19 11 11 17 11 5 
 
 
 John 
 
 
 I 
 
 1. 
 
 4 
 
 2 
 
 
 9 
 
 3 
 
 
 12 
 
 4 
 
 
 H 
 
 5 
 
 v. 
 
 2 
 
 6 
 
 
 
 7 
 
 VI. 
 
 3 
 
 8 
 
 
 5 
 
 9 
 
 
 7 
 
 10 
 
 
 14 
 
 11 
 
 
 39 
 
 12 
 
 
 52 
 
 13 
 
 
 7i 
 
 M 
 
 
 
 15 
 
 Xlll. 
 
 1 
 
 16 
 
 
 2 
 
 *7 
 
 
 
 19 
 
 
 20 
 
 32 
 
 21 xix. 13 
 
 22 
 
 
 23 
 
 23 
 
 24 
 
 25 
 
 24 
 36 
 
 Northumbr. Capuan Irish Italian 
 
 O 0° X ; C T H° ; B Z ; W. Aur 
 
 10 6 13 7 10 7 5 15 13 9 15 
 
 6 2 6584 39 4 10 
 
 J 3 1 2 3 5 a 2 
 
 21 6 18 14 17 15 9 21 27 15 27 
 
 Canterbury Spanish Mediaev. 
 
 The groundwork of Burch. is assumed to be the North- 
 umbrian text, and the above table shows that it follows AHY 
 
IN NORTHUMBRIA 49 
 
 even where Wordsworth has deserted them. It shows no 
 special affinity with the Irish family as a whole, and has little 
 likeness to the purest Irish MSS. DLQ. It is nearer to the 
 later type R, and of all MSS. it is nearest to E, an Irish 
 MS. written on the Continent, 1 and to aur. B Z are also near. 
 If we look at Matt. Nos. 10, 13, it will seem that the reading 
 of A has been corrected to that of E ; similarly Matt. No. 32 
 and Mark No. 3 the reading of E has been corrected to that 
 of A. 2 I think the scribe had a codex which like E was con- 
 taminated with readings of the BZ family, and that he often 
 followed it, sometimes changing his mind after making his 
 choice. But the correspondence of the corrections in Mark v. 
 19 and 34 with © are also noticeable. 
 
 In St. John the coincidences are with the Old Latin. Those 
 with Vulgate MSS. are of no importance, as they are roughly 
 in proportion to the Old Latin element in the various codices. 
 The results may be thus tabulated : 
 
 A A H* S Y; F; DE H™* L 
 
 001001 45 2 ° 
 
 C T 0; G B Z; W. abed 
 
 341 312 2 10 12 87 
 
 1 E is the 'Egerton Gospels' or 'Gospels of Marmoutier \ called mm by 
 Teschendorf. Though apparently written at Tours (in an Irish hand) the text is 
 so fundamentally Irish that I regard it with Wordsworth simply as one of the Irish 
 family DELQR. But none of these are purely Irish, and E has more admixture 
 than DLQ. This admixture is roughly of th.e type called by Wordsworth 
 the B-Z family, though perhaps * tribe T would be a better name. The origin of 
 this type seems to me extremely obscure. Z seems to be Italian, while the Irish 
 character in B may be a. real survival of the early Gallican text from which 
 I believe the Irish text to be derived. That E should derive its Irish character 
 from Old Gallican texts seems to me quite impossible. Its text is as definitely 
 from Ireland as its script. The prologues have been elaborately corrected through- 
 out to agree with the OXYZ type, the Irish text scarcely appearing except in the 
 Prologue to John, where there is a conflation of the two types. This suggests that 
 the variations in the Gospels from the Irish text are due to the use of a codex 
 closely related to Z. The archetype may have come from England just as well as 
 from Ireland, and the Egerton MS. may be a copy of an Anglo-Irish MS. brought 
 by Alcuin. In fact this seems to me the most probable view. But I do not claim 
 to have made any special study of this MS., and I speak with diffidence. It should 
 be remembered that Alcuin had a large library at York, which he sent for to Tours. 
 Alcuin's own text is mainly a mingling of Northumbrian and Irish readings — that 
 is to say, a really Northumbrian mixture, for the Christianity of Northumbria was 
 a mixture of the Irish type of Aidan and Cuthbert, with the Roman type of Benet 
 Biscop and Wilfrid. 1 2 In Luke No. 4, E has a lacuna f 
 
 CH. V. G. E 
 
 Q 
 
 R; J M; O X; 
 
 1 
 
 2 20 24 
 
 e 
 
 / ff 2 I m q r 8 our 
 
 9 
 
 5 12 6 4 5 10 2 17 
 
50 THE NEAPOLITAN LECTIONARY 
 
 The readings are of European type, a 6ff 29 especially the 
 last being very close. But the coincidences with the codex 
 aureus Holmiensis are not merely the most numerous of all, 
 but also the most striking. That well-known manuscript was 
 bought by * Alfred the alderman ' for the use of Christ Church, 
 Canterbury, 'from the pagans/ when Alfred was king and 
 Ethelbert archbishop (871-89). It had probably been looted 
 from some English monastery by the Danes, and may have 
 been written in England in the eighth century, not much later 
 than Burch. It is a Vulgate text, with many Old Latin 
 readings. 
 
 The Eusebian canons occupy the first nine pages of Burch. 
 It has also the Prologues, and its summaries have the follow- 
 ing number of titles : Matt. 75, Mark 46, Luke 77, John 36. 
 These must be the Old Latin summaries, found in ff % and 
 aur> as well as in c g x h r, and the Irish DIPQ — the number- 
 ing varies slightly in different MSS. There are no summaries 
 in E. Those in aur are added by a later hand. 
 
 Now E belonged to St. Martin's famous monastery of Mar- 
 moutier near Tours, and it has a certain family likeness to two 
 other MSS. of Tours, that of St. Gatien {gat, Bibl. Nat. 1587) 
 and the Gospels of St. Martin on which the kings of France 
 used to take the oath as canons of that basilica. I have just 
 pointed out that there is no reason to doubt that the mixed 
 Irish text of E came to Tours with Alcuin's library from 
 York. 
 
 The principal elements in the text of Burch. seem therefore 
 to be of the three types AY, E, and aur. St. Burchard was an 
 Englishman, but it is not known from what part of England. 
 AY and the liturgical annotations take us to Jarrow, while E 
 may suggest York, 
 
IN NORTHUMBRIA 51 
 
 § a. The Naples lectionary and the Northumbrian 
 summaries. 
 
 The lists of feasts in Y Reg reappear in Burch. as marginal 
 notes, referring to accurately indicated pericopae. These notes 
 were published in full by Dom G. Morin in the Revue BM- 
 dictine in 1893 (vol. x, pp. 113 foil.). He has italicized those 
 notes which do not appear in Y Reg. The additions of Burch. 
 are Roman, including the ferias of Lent with the Roman statio 
 named, and some Roman saints. The manuscript is so well 
 preserved that it cannot have been much used. 
 
 The notes belonged originally to the codex of Eugipius, and 
 accompanied his text to Squillace and to Jarrow — this follows 
 from what we have proved in former chapters. But we may 
 go on to discover a very close relationship between the text 
 and the notes in its margin. To the AY text belongs a par- 
 ticular set of Gospel summaries. They are found in AY Reg, 
 in the semi-Northumbrian, semi-Theodulphian H (for Mark, 
 Luke, John — for Matthew H keeps with 0), in the North- 
 umbrian fragment U (for Matthew), and in a few other early 
 MSS., all having derived them from the one Cassiodorian 
 archetype at Jarrow. 
 
 If we compare these summaries with the Neapolitan peri- 
 copae, we shall find that they march together in a surprisingly 
 exact manner, as will be seen in the following table, in which 
 the numbers and divisions of the Northumbrian summaries are 
 placed side by side with the pericopae as found in the Gospels 
 of St. Burchard. The Roman additions interpolated in that 
 MS. are italicized in the list. The few notes found in AY 
 Reg but omitted in Burch. are added. 
 
 I give the divisions of the summaries from Skeat's edition 
 of Y ; but in some cases the figures are omitted in the margin 
 of that MS., and occasionally the marginal indication is 
 evidently wrongs when the passage is compared with the 
 summary itself. 
 
 E % 
 
5* 
 
 THE NEAPOLITAN LECTIONARY 
 
 In the first column I give the numbers of the AHVY summaries from Wordsworth 
 and White ; and against them I have set the passages of the Gospels to which they 
 refer. The third column gives Dom Morin's numbering of the Naples pericopae 
 of Y Reg ; the fourth column gives his numbering of those in Burch. The fifth 
 column gives the incipits of the pericopae as marked in Burch. The sixth column 
 gives the notes from the margin of Burch. ; those which are not in Y Reg are itali- 
 cized; those of Y Reg which are omitted by Burch. are added in small capitals. 
 The corresponding pericopae are, of course, conjectural for these last. Burch. is 
 cited as B ; Y Reg are cited as N ( = Naples). The variants of N (or of Y or Reg 
 separately) from Burch. are given at foot. 
 
 The lists in Y are given in Skeat's edition of that codex, but not in the earlier 
 Surtees Society edition. Dom Morin gave them with the variants of Reg in Revue 
 Btnidictine, 1891, pp. 485-93, and without variants in Anccdota Maredsolana, 
 vol. i, pp. 426-35. The list extracted from Burch. was published by him in Revue 
 Bintdictine, 1893, pp. 118-26. 
 
 St. Matthew. 
 
 Summary of 
 
 VJ! 
 
 vS' 
 
 
 
 AVYReg 
 
 fc^ 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 5> ^ 
 
 11 
 
 
 Lessons. 
 
 Notes in Gospels of St. Burckard. 
 
 
 
 
 Section. 
 
 .g^- 
 ^ 
 
 
 
 
 i 
 
 i. 1 
 
 
 
 ii 
 
 18 
 
 X 
 
 I 
 
 i. 18 
 
 In uigilias de natale domini 
 
 iii 
 
 ii. 1 
 
 2 
 
 2 
 
 ii. 1 
 
 In stilla domini ad missa puplica 
 
 iiii 
 
 13 
 
 3 
 
 3 
 
 13 
 
 Innocentum 
 
 
 
 
 4 
 
 19 
 
 In uigilias de Thcophania 
 
 v 
 
 iii. 1 
 
 4 
 
 5 
 
 iii. 1 
 
 Post ii dominica feria iiii de aduentum 
 
 vi 
 
 13 
 
 5 
 
 6 
 
 13 
 
 In stilla domini nocte 
 
 vii 
 
 iv. 1 
 
 6 
 
 7 
 
 iv. 1 
 
 In XLgisima pascae 
 
 viii 
 
 12 
 
 7 
 
 8 
 
 12 
 
 In ieiunium de silla domini 
 
 ix 
 
 18 
 
 8 
 
 9 
 
 18 
 
 In ieiunium sancte Andreae 
 
 X 
 
 23 
 
 
 
 
 
 xi 
 
 v. 1 
 
 9 
 
 10 
 
 V. I 
 
 In sanctorum de beatitudinem 
 
 xii 
 
 13 
 
 10 
 
 11 
 
 13 
 
 Cottidiana 
 
 xiii 
 
 17 
 
 11 
 
 12 
 
 17 
 
 In XLgisima feria ii 
 
 
 
 
 13 
 
 20 
 
 Ebdomada iipost natale apostolorum 
 
 
 
 
 14 
 
 27 
 
 Cottidiana 
 
 xiiii 
 
 35 
 
 
 
 
 
 XV 
 
 3i 
 
 
 
 
 
 xvi 
 
 43 
 
 12 
 
 
 43 
 
 Postsec.dominicaXLgisimaferiaii 
 
 xvii 
 
 VI. 1 
 
 
 
 
 
 xv iii 
 
 7 
 
 13 
 
 
 vi. 7 
 
 Dominica iiii qUando orationem 
 acc1piant n 
 
 | xix 
 
 16 
 
 14 
 
 15 
 
 
 Post sec. dominica XLgisima feria vi 
 
 Neapolitan Variants. — i. 18 Pridie natale domini ii. 1 misa Reg pu- 
 blica iii. 1 secunda iii {for iiii) iv. 1 XLgissima Reg {regularly) iv. 12 
 stella Reg iv. 18 sancti Andrae Reg v. 15 cotidiana v. 17 In] De 
 
 vi. 16 secunda. 
 
 N 12. It is impossible to say whether this title belongs to v. 25, 31, 43, or 
 vi. 1, as it is omitted by B. B 15. The + is wanting. The marginal note corre- 
 sponds with vi. 16, an obvious lesson for Lent. 
 
IN NORTHUMBRIA 
 
 53 
 
 Summary of 
 AVYReg 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 3." 
 
 Lessons. 
 
 Notes in Gospels of St, Burekard. 
 
 
 
 
 Section* 
 
 5 ^ 
 
 
 
 XX 
 
 vi. 22 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 16 
 
 vi. 25 
 
 In XLgisima feria vi 
 
 xxi 
 
 vii. i 
 
 n 
 
 17 
 
 vii. 1 
 
 Cottidiana 
 
 xxii 
 
 6 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 18 
 
 7 
 
 Cottidiana 
 
 
 
 
 J 9 
 
 12 
 
 Cottidiana 
 
 xxiii 
 
 r 3 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 20 
 
 15 
 
 Cottidiana 
 
 xxiiii 
 
 21 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 16 
 
 21 
 
 24 
 
 In dedicationem 
 
 
 
 17 
 
 22 
 
 28 
 
 Cottidiana 
 
 XXV 
 
 viii. I 
 
 
 
 
 
 xxvi 
 
 5 
 
 18 
 
 33 
 
 viii. 5 
 
 Cottidiana de puerum centurionis 
 
 xxvii 
 
 14 
 
 
 
 
 
 xxviii 
 
 19 
 
 
 
 
 
 xxix 
 
 33 
 
 J 9 
 
 34 
 
 33 
 
 Cottidiana 
 
 XXX 
 
 28 
 
 20 
 
 35 
 
 28 
 
 Cottidiana 
 
 xxxi 
 
 ix. 1 
 
 21 
 
 36 
 
 ix, 1 
 
 Cottidiana 
 
 xxxii 
 
 9 
 
 22 * 
 
 27 
 
 9 
 
 Cottidiana 
 
 De XLgisima feria vi 
 
 
 
 24 
 
 28 
 
 10 
 
 Post penti. feria vi in ieiunium 
 
 xxxiii 
 
 18 
 
 2 5 
 
 29 
 
 18 
 
 Cottidiana 
 
 xxxiiii 
 
 27 
 
 26 
 
 30 
 
 37 
 
 Cottidiana 
 
 XXXV 
 
 35 
 
 27 
 
 3* 
 
 35 
 
 In sancti Viti et in apostolorum 
 
 
 
 28 
 
 3 2 
 
 x. 7 
 
 In ordinatione episcopi et in sanctorum 
 
 xxxvi 
 
 x. 16 
 
 29 
 
 33 
 
 16 
 
 In apostolorum et in natale sancti Syxti 
 
 
 
 
 34 
 
 33 
 
 In natale sanctorum Proti et Iacynthi 
 
 
 
 30 
 
 35 
 
 26 
 
 In unins confessoris et in natale sancti 
 Cyriaci 
 
 xxxvii 
 
 34 
 
 
 36 
 
 34 
 
 Natale sancti Gordiani 
 
 
 
 
 37 
 
 37 
 
 In uigilias sancti Laurenti 
 
 xxxviii 
 
 xi. 2 
 
 3 1 
 
 38 
 
 xi. 2 
 
 Dominica secunda de aduentum 
 
 
 
 
 39 
 
 16 
 
 Cottidiana 
 
 xxxix 
 
 .20 
 
 
 
 
 
 xl 
 
 35 
 
 
 40 
 
 35 
 
 Cottidiana et in natale martyrum 
 
 xli 
 
 xii. 1 
 
 33 
 
 4 1 
 
 xii. 1 
 
 Cottidiana per messes 
 
 xlii 
 
 9 
 
 33 
 
 42 
 
 9 
 
 Item alia 
 
 
 
 
 43 
 
 14 
 
 Cottidiana 
 
 xliii 
 
 22 
 
 
 
 
 
 xliiii 
 
 38 
 
 34 
 
 
 38 
 
 POSTVDOMINICAS DEXLGISI MA FERIA 
 SECUNDA (?) 
 
 xlv 
 
 46 
 
 35 
 
 44 
 
 46 
 
 In martyra 
 
 xlvi 
 
 xiii. t 
 
 36 
 
 45 
 
 xiii. 1 
 
 In XLgisima pascae 
 
 Neapolitan Variants.— vii. 1 Cotidiana {et sic saepe Reg) t but t added above 
 line in Y here and elsewhere viii. 23 Item alia ix. 10 penticosten x. 26 
 confessores xi. 2 omit secunda xii. 38 Post quinque Reg xii. 46 
 
 martyras Y martiras Reg xiii. 1 paschae Y pascha Reg 
 
 B 16. This seems a substitution by B for N 23 below. N 23. Perhaps the same 
 lesson as 24 was meant. Verses 14-15 refer to fasting. N 34. This seems the 
 
 best point to introduce this N lesson omitted by B. Matt. xii. 34 is now read on 
 Ember Wed. of Lent 
 
54 
 
 THE NEAPOLITAN LECTIONARY 
 
 Summary of 
 
 Vc 
 
 V* 
 
 
 
 AVY 
 
 Reg 
 
 Is* 
 
 fc< 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 Lessons. 
 
 Notes in Gospels of St. Burckard. 
 
 
 
 
 Section. 
 
 It 
 
 
 
 
 xlvii 
 
 xiii. 24 
 
 
 46 
 
 xiii. 24 
 
 Cottidiana 
 
 
 
 
 47 
 
 3i 
 
 Item alia 
 
 xlviii 
 
 44 
 
 37 
 
 48 
 
 44 
 
 In inuentione crucis dfii Hi 
 
 xlix 
 
 54 
 
 
 
 
 
 1 
 
 xiv. 1 
 
 38 
 
 49 
 
 xiv. 1 
 
 In decolatione sancte Iohannis baptistae 
 
 li 
 
 13 
 
 39 
 
 5° 
 
 13 
 
 Cottidiana 
 
 Hi 
 
 22 
 
 40 
 
 5i 
 
 22 
 
 Cottidiana et in octabas apostolorum 
 
 liii 
 
 XV. 1 
 
 41 
 
 52 
 
 XV. 1 
 
 In Lxxgisima ebd» iiiifer. iiii ad san- 
 ctum Syxtum et cottidiana 
 
 liiii 
 
 21 
 
 42 
 
 53 
 
 21 
 
 Cottidiana 
 
 lv 
 
 29 
 
 43 
 
 54 
 
 29 
 
 In XLgisima feria vi 
 
 
 
 
 55 
 
 32 
 
 Cottidiana 
 
 Ivi 
 
 xvi. 1 
 
 
 
 
 
 lvii 
 
 5 
 
 
 
 
 
 lviii 
 
 13 
 
 44 
 
 56 
 
 xvi. 13 
 
 In natale sancti Petri 
 
 lix 
 
 21 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 45 
 
 57 
 
 24 
 
 In nnius martyris 
 
 lx 
 
 xvi. 28 
 
 46 
 
 
 
 In dedicationem N 
 
 
 
 
 58 
 
 xvii. 1 
 
 In Lxxgisima ebd. ii feria vii ad san- 
 ctum Petrum et cottidiana B 
 
 Ixi 
 
 xvii. 14 
 
 47 
 
 59 
 
 14 
 
 Post ii dominica XLgisima feria iiii 
 
 lxii 
 
 33 
 
 
 60 
 
 23 
 
 Cottidiana 
 
 
 
 48 
 
 61 
 
 xviii. 1 
 
 In XLgisima feria iiii 
 
 lxiii 
 
 12 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 62 
 
 15 
 
 In Lxxgisima ebd. iiii feria Hi ad 
 sancta Podentiana 
 
 
 
 
 63 
 
 21 
 
 Cottidiana 
 
 lxiiii 
 
 xix. I 
 
 49 
 
 64 
 
 xix. 1 
 
 Cottidiana 
 
 lxv 
 
 13 
 
 
 65 
 
 13 
 
 Cottidiana 
 
 lxvi 
 
 16 
 
 5° 
 
 66 
 
 16 
 
 Cottidiana 
 
 
 
 51 
 
 67 
 
 27 
 
 In ieiunium sancti Petri 
 
 lxvii 
 
 XX. I 
 
 52 
 
 68 
 
 XX. I 
 
 In Lxxgisima die dominico ad sanctum 
 Laurentium B Dominica tertia 
 
 QUANDO PSALMI ACCIPIUNT N 
 
 Ixviii 
 
 17 
 
 
 69 
 
 17 
 
 In Lxxgisima ebd. Hi feria iiii ad 
 sancta Cecilia 
 
 
 
 53 
 
 70 
 
 20. 
 
 In natale sanctorum Iohannis et Pauli 
 
 lxix 
 
 29 
 
 
 7i 
 
 29 
 
 Post penticosten feria vii ad sanctum 
 Petrum 
 
 lxx 
 
 xxi. 1 
 
 
 72 
 
 xxi. 1 
 
 In LXXgisimaebd. Had sancta Anastasia 
 
 
 
 54 
 
 73 
 
 12 
 
 In dedicationem sancte Stephani 
 
 Ixxi 
 
 *7 
 
 
 
 
 
 lxxii 
 
 23 
 
 
 
 
 
 Neapolitan Variants. — xiii. 44 omit in nostri ihesu xpi xiv. 1 decolla- 
 tione sancti xv. 29 De XLgisima feria vi xvii. 14 secunda XLgissima 
 xviii. 1 De {for in) xxi. 12 In dedicacione basilicae stephani 
 
 N 46. This notice, omitted by Burch., probably did not combine with his new 
 entry. Hence it probably coincided with the summary at xvi. 28, rather than 
 with Burch.'s xvii. 1. B 6$-6. Which two out of these four cottidianae lectiones 
 were added by B can only be guessed. 
 
IN NORTHUMBRIA 
 
 55 
 
 Summary of 
 
 Vc 
 
 V8' 
 
 
 
 AVYReg 
 
 
 
 Lessons. 
 
 Notes in Gospels of St. Burckard. 
 
 
 Section, 
 
 
 
 Ixxiii 
 
 xxi. 33 
 
 55 
 
 74 
 
 xxi- 33 
 
 Dominica v quando symbulum accipiunt 
 
 lxxiiii 
 
 xxii. i 
 
 
 75 
 
 xxii. 1 
 
 In txxgisimaebd.iiiferiaviin Vestine 
 
 lxxv 
 
 T 5 
 
 
 
 
 
 lxxvi 
 
 2 3 
 
 
 76 
 
 3 3 
 
 Cottidiana 
 
 lxxvii 
 
 35 
 
 
 77 
 
 35 
 
 Cotidiana 
 
 lxxviii 
 
 4 1 
 
 
 
 
 
 lxxix 
 
 xxiii. i 
 
 
 78 
 
 xxiii. 1 
 
 In txxgisima ebd. Hi feria Hi ad 
 sancta Balbina 
 
 lxxx 
 
 29 
 
 56 
 
 79 
 
 29 
 
 In sancti Stephani 
 
 
 
 
 80 
 
 34? 
 
 Item alia 
 
 lxxxi 
 
 xxiv. 1 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 57 
 
 81 
 
 xxiv. 3 
 
 Post secunda dominica de adnentnm 
 feria vi 
 
 
 
 58 
 
 82 
 
 23 
 
 Post iii dominica de aduentum feria iiii 
 
 
 
 59 
 
 83 
 
 34 
 
 Post iii dominica de adnentnm feria vi 
 
 lxxxii 
 
 42 
 
 
 84 
 
 42 
 
 In natale sancti Eusebii 
 
 
 
 
 85 
 
 45 
 
 In sancti Grigori 
 
 
 
 60 
 
 •86 
 
 xxv. 1 
 
 In martyra 
 
 lxxxiii 
 
 xxv. 14 
 
 61 
 
 87 
 
 14 
 
 In nat sancti Ianuari 
 
 lxxxiiii 
 
 31 
 
 62 
 
 88 
 
 31 
 
 In Lxxgisima ebd. it feria iiadVincula B 
 Dominica v quando symbulum 
 accipiunt N 
 
 lxxxv 
 
 xxvi. 1 
 
 63 
 
 89 
 
 xxvi. 1 
 
 Ebd. vi die dominico ad Lateranis 
 legitur passio dM B Die sabbati 
 
 PRIMA PASSIONEM DOMINI NOSTRI 
 IHESU XPI N 
 
 Ixxxvi 
 
 30 
 
 
 
 
 
 lxxxvii 
 
 xxviii. 1 
 
 64 
 
 90 
 
 xxviii. 1 
 
 In sab. sancto ad missa 
 
 lxxxviii 
 
 16 
 
 65 
 
 9i 
 
 16 
 
 Feria vipascaeadMdrtyres'BDoMimCA 
 
 SANCTA PASCHA AD MISA PUBLICA N 
 
 Neapolitan Variants. — xxi. 33 simbulum Reg xxiv. 3 feria iii xxiv. 23 
 dominicas xxiv. 34 tertias dominicas xxv. 31 simbolum Reg xxviii. 1 
 Sabbato sancto ad sero 
 
 lxxxv. This number has been omitted in the margin of Y. 
 
.56 
 
 THE NEAPOLITAN LECTIONARY 
 
 
 
 
 
 St 
 
 Mark. 
 
 Summary of 
 
 
 tt 
 
 
 
 AHVYReg 
 
 
 
 
 H 
 
 92 
 
 Lessons. 
 
 Notes in Gospels of St. Burchard. 
 
 ■ 
 
 Section. 
 
 V 
 
 i. 29 
 
 i. 29 
 
 Cottidiana 
 
 vi 
 
 40 
 
 
 93 
 
 40 
 
 Cottidiana 
 
 vii 
 
 ii. 13 
 
 
 
 
 
 viii 
 
 23 
 
 
 94 
 
 ii. 23 
 
 * 
 
 Cottidiana 
 
 * * * * * * 
 
 XV 
 
 vi. 1 
 
 
 95 
 
 vi. 1 
 
 Cottidiana 
 
 xvi 
 
 7 
 
 
 
 
 
 xvii 
 
 H 
 
 
 96 
 
 14 
 
 Depositio Helisei et sancti Iohannis baptist ac 
 
 xviii 
 
 3° 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 97 
 
 34 
 
 Cottidiana 
 
 xix 
 
 46 
 
 
 
 
 
 XX 
 
 vii. 1 
 
 
 
 
 
 xxi 
 
 24 
 
 
 98 
 
 vii. 24 
 
 Cottidiana 
 
 xxii 
 
 3 1 
 
 66 
 
 99 
 
 3 2 
 
 In sabbato sancto mane 
 
 xxiii 
 
 viii. 1 
 
 
 100 
 
 viii. 1 
 
 Ebdomada Hi post natale apostolorum 
 
 
 
 
 1 01 
 
 10 
 
 Post octabas apostolorum feria vi 
 
 xxiiii 
 
 11 
 
 
 
 * 
 
 ****** 
 
 xxviii 
 
 ix. 14 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 67 
 
 102 
 
 ix. 16 
 
 * 
 
 Post penticosten in ieiunium feria iiii 
 ** * * * * i 
 
 xxxii 
 
 *. 17 
 
 
 103 
 
 x. 17 
 
 Post octabas apostolorum feria iiii 
 
 xxxiii 
 
 3 2 
 
 
 
 
 
 xxxiiii 
 
 4 6 
 
 68 
 
 104 
 
 46 
 
 Cottidiana 
 
 XXXV 
 
 xi. 1 
 
 
 
 
 
 xxxvi 
 
 11 
 
 
 105 
 
 xi. 11 
 
 * 
 
 Cottidiana 
 
 ****** 
 
 xlii 
 
 xiii. 1 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 106 
 
 xiii. 18 
 
 iiii ebd. de aduentum 
 
 xliii 
 
 32 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 69 
 
 107 
 
 xiv. 1 
 
 Die dominico de indulgentia passio dni Si 
 ihesu xpi 
 
 xliiii 
 
 xiv. 3 
 
 
 
 
 
 xlv 
 
 26 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 108 
 
 xvi. 1 
 
 Dotninicum pascae ad sancta Maria 
 
 xlvi 
 
 xvi. 2 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 70 
 
 109 
 
 8 
 
 Feria vi de albas pascae 
 
 
 
 
 no 
 
 14 
 
 Feria v in ascensa domini 
 
 Neapolitan Variants. — vii. 32 omit in xiv. 1 dominica Y xvi. 8 paschae 
 
 xxii. This nnmber is at v. 31 in Y, not at 32. B 100. Rougher writing. 
 B 104-5. It is impossible to say which of these two cottidianas is the Naples one. 
 B 106. N has not this entry ; but Dom Morin conjectures that B's entry is Neapolitan, 
 since the Naples list has nothing for the fourth week of Advent. 
 
IN N0RTHUMBRIA 
 St. Luke. 
 
 57 
 
 Summary of 
 
 
 V£ 
 
 
 
 AHVYReg 
 
 
 
 Lessons, 
 
 
 
 Section, 
 
 7§ 
 
 
 Notes in Gospels of St. Burckard. 
 
 i 
 
 i. i 
 
 
 
 ii 
 
 5 
 
 7i 
 
 in 
 
 i- 5 
 
 In ieiuninm sancti Iohannis baptistae 
 
 iii 
 
 26 
 
 72 
 
 112 
 
 26 
 
 Dominica iii de aduentnm 
 
 
 
 
 113 
 
 39 
 
 Feria vi ad Apostolos 
 
 iiii 
 
 57 
 
 73 
 
 114 
 
 57 
 
 In natale sancti Iohannis baptistae 
 
 V 
 
 ii. 1 
 
 74 
 
 "5 
 
 ii. 1 
 
 In natale dm* ad missa publica 
 
 
 
 
 116 
 
 13 
 
 Dominica post natale dni 
 
 vi 
 
 15 
 
 
 117 
 
 15 
 
 Natale dili node 
 
 vii 
 
 21 
 
 75 
 
 118 
 
 21 
 
 In octabas dfii 
 
 
 
 
 119 
 
 33 
 
 Dominica i post natale dfli 
 
 viii 
 
 42 
 
 76 
 
 120 
 
 42 
 
 Dominica iiii post epiphania 
 
 ix 
 
 iii. 1 
 iv. 1 
 
 77 
 
 121 
 
 iii. 1 
 
 Dominica iiii de aduentum dfli fii ihesu xpi 
 
 xi 
 
 
 
 
 
 xii 
 
 14 
 
 78 
 
 122 
 
 iv. 14 
 
 v dominica de aduentnm 
 
 
 
 
 123 
 
 23 
 
 In XLgisima ebd. iii feria ii ad son- 
 
 cttim Mar cum 
 
 xiii 
 
 31 
 
 79 
 
 124 
 
 3i 
 
 Cottidiana 
 
 xiv 
 
 38 
 
 80 
 
 "5 
 
 38 
 
 In ieiunium apostolorum 
 
 XV 
 
 v. 1 
 
 81 
 
 126 
 
 v. 1 
 
 Cottidiana 
 
 xvi 
 
 12 
 
 
 127 
 
 12 
 
 Cottidiana 
 
 xvii 
 
 >7 
 
 
 128 
 
 *7 
 
 Cottidiana 
 
 
 
 
 129 
 
 18 
 
 Post penticosten feria vi ad Apostolos 
 
 xviii 
 
 .27 
 
 82a 
 
 130 
 
 27 
 
 Cottidiana 
 
 xix 
 
 vi. 1 
 
 82^ 
 
 131 
 
 vi. 1 
 
 Per messes 
 
 XX 
 
 6 
 
 83 
 
 132 
 
 6 
 
 Post penticosten in ieiunium die sabbati 
 
 xxi 
 
 12 
 
 84 
 
 133 
 
 12 
 
 In apostolorum 
 
 
 
 85 
 
 134 
 
 17 
 
 In sanctorum 
 
 xxii 
 
 20 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 135 
 
 36 
 
 In laetania maior ad sanctum Petrum 
 
 xxiii 
 
 37 
 
 86 
 
 
 37 
 
 Post in dominicas XLgisima feria ii 
 
 xxiiii 
 
 vn. 1 
 
 
 
 
 
 XXV 
 
 11 
 
 87 
 
 136 
 
 vii. 11 
 
 Cottidiana 
 
 xxvi 
 
 34 
 
 
 
 
 
 xxvii 
 
 36 
 
 88 
 
 137 
 
 36 
 
 Cottidiana 
 
 Neapolitan Variants. — i. 5 omit in Y babtistae Reg ii. 1 misa puplica 
 Reg ii. 21 domiui nostri ihesu xpi ii. 42 Post dominica iiii de epiphania 
 
 iii. 1 Dominica prima domini nostri iv. 14 Post v dominicas vi. 1 per 
 
 menses Reg pentecosten Reg 87-8 in one line in Reg 
 
 B 113. Rougher writing. B 116-17. Dom Morin suggests that these may 
 
 have been omitted by mistake in the Naples list. B has 1 16 again at 1 19. But 
 ii- 13-15 cannot be a pericope. B 119. Rougher writing. B 121. The 
 
 iiii is written over an erasure where prima seems to have stood as in N. xxi. 
 
 In Y this number is wanting in the margin, and xxi is written against vi. 20, xxii 
 against vi. 31. This does not correspond with the words of the capitula. N 86. 
 The place of this notice is uncertain; somewhere between 85 and 87. xxvi. 
 This number is not in the margin of Y ; perhaps it was forgotten, because no 
 lesson corresponded with it. 
 
58 
 
 THE NEAPOLITAN LECTIONARY 
 
 Summary of 
 
 vS" 
 
 
 
 
 AHVYReg 
 
 b ^ 
 
 
 
 
 
 lit 
 
 -3^ 
 8 •*; 
 
 Lessons. 
 
 Notes in Gospels of St. Burchard. 
 
 
 
 
 Section, 
 
 ^ F 
 ^ 
 
 5 ^ 
 
 
 
 xxviii 
 
 viii. i 
 
 89 
 
 138 
 
 viii. 1 
 
 In martyras 
 
 
 
 
 x 39 
 
 4 
 
 In LXgisima ad sanctum Paulum 
 
 xxix 
 
 16 
 
 90? 
 
 140 
 
 16? 
 
 Cottidiana 
 
 XXX 
 
 22 
 
 
 141 
 
 22 
 
 Cottidian 
 
 xxxi 
 
 26 
 
 
 
 
 
 xxxii 
 
 40 
 
 91? 
 
 142 
 
 40 
 
 Cottidiana etpost octabas penticosten feria 
 
 vii 
 Cottidiana et in sanctorum 
 
 xxxiii 
 
 ix. 1 
 
 92? 
 
 M3 
 
 ix. 1 
 
 xxxiiii 
 
 7 
 
 
 
 
 
 XXXV 
 
 12 
 
 
 144 
 
 12 
 
 Post octabas penticosten feria iiii 
 
 xxxvi 
 
 18 
 
 
 
 
 
 xxxvii 
 
 23 
 
 
 145 
 
 23 
 
 In sanctorum 
 
 xxxviii 
 
 37 
 
 93? 
 
 146 
 
 37 
 
 Cottidiana 
 
 xxxix 
 
 43 ^ 
 
 
 
 
 
 xl 
 
 5 1 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 147 
 
 57 
 
 In ordinatione diaconi 
 
 xli 
 
 JL. 1 
 
 
 148 
 
 A. 1 
 
 In sanctorum 
 
 xlii 
 
 21 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 149 
 
 23 
 
 Cottidiana 
 
 xliii 
 
 25 
 
 
 150 
 
 25 
 
 Cottidiana 
 
 xliiii 
 
 38 
 
 94 
 
 151 
 
 38 
 
 In martyras 
 
 xlv 
 
 xi. 1 
 
 95? 
 
 '52 
 
 xi. 1 
 
 Cottidiana 
 
 xlvi 
 
 5 
 
 
 x 53 
 
 5 
 
 In lactania maior ad sanctum Petrum 
 
 xlvti 
 
 M 
 
 
 154 
 
 H 
 
 In XLgisima ebd. Hi ad sanctum Lauren- 
 Hum martyrem 
 
 xlviii 
 
 27 
 
 95? 
 
 *55 
 
 27 
 
 Cottidiana 
 
 xlix 
 
 33 
 
 
 
 
 
 1 
 
 37 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 156 
 
 47 
 
 In natale sanctorum Cornili Cipriani 
 
 li 
 
 xii. 1 
 
 96 
 
 157 
 
 xii. 1 
 
 In ieiuniom sanctorum Iohannis et Fauli 
 
 
 
 97 
 
 158 
 
 9 
 
 In unius confessoris 
 
 lii 
 
 13 
 
 98 
 
 1 59 
 
 13 
 
 Cottidiana 
 
 
 
 
 160 
 
 22 
 
 Cottidiana 
 
 liii 
 
 3 a 
 
 99 
 
 161 
 
 33 
 
 Post i dominica de aduentnm feria iiii 
 
 
 
 
 162 
 
 35 
 
 In natale sanctorum sancti Felicis Simplici 
 Faustini et Beatrici 
 
 
 
 100 
 
 163 
 
 39 
 
 Post i dominica de aduentnm feria vi 
 
 
 
 IOI 
 
 164 
 
 4* 
 
 In natale eyiscopiet inordinationepresdyteri 
 
 Neapolitan Variants. — - 
 xii. 9 confessores Y xii, 
 
 xii. 39 prima 
 
 viii. 1 in martiras viii. 16. B cross ( + ) is wanting 
 32 prima om. dominica in ieiunium feria iiii 
 
 N 90-3. We have to insert for N between 89 and 94 (the place of these is 
 certain), 90 Cottidiana, 91 Cottidiana, 92 In sanctorum, 93 Cottidiana. Of these, 
 92 will coincide with B 143, 145 or 148 ; one cannot guess which, and then the 
 cottidianas must be fitted in accordingly. On the whole it will be best to identify 
 N 92 with the double notice B 143, and N 91 with the double notice B 142. Thus 
 N 93 = B 146. In each case there is agreement with the divisions of the summary. 
 xxxvii. The margin ofY has xxxvii at ix. 27, not at 23; but this does not correspond 
 with the wording of the summary. N 95. Another doubtful ascription, 
 
 li. In Y this number is found against xi. 45, but this does not correspond with the 
 words of the cap. 
 
IN NORTHUMBRIA 
 
 59 
 
 Summary of 
 
 1* 
 
 VC 
 
 
 
 AHVYReg 
 
 
 Lessons'. 
 
 Notes in Gospels of St, Burchard. 
 
 
 Section* 
 
 
 05 
 
 Hiii 
 
 xii.49 
 
 
 
 lv 
 
 xiii. 1 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 102? 
 
 165 
 
 xiii. 10 
 
 Cottidiana 
 
 lvi 
 
 18 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 166 
 
 22 
 
 Cottidiana 
 
 lvii 
 
 31 
 
 
 
 
 
 lviii 
 
 xiv. 1 
 
 103? 
 
 167 
 
 xiv. 1 
 
 Cottidiana 
 
 
 
 104 
 
 168 
 
 7 
 
 In natale sancti Laurenti 
 
 lix 
 
 16 
 
 IOfi 
 
 169 
 
 16 
 
 In ieiunium sancti Laurenti 
 
 lx 
 
 25 
 
 106 
 
 170 
 
 25 
 
 In unius martyris et in nat, sancti Timotkei 
 
 lxi 
 
 XV. I 
 
 
 171 
 
 XV. I 
 
 Post dab as penticosten feria vi 
 
 Ixii 
 
 II 
 
 107 
 
 172 
 
 II 
 
 In Lxxgisima ebd. Hi feria vii ad sanctum 
 Petrum et Marcellinum et cottidiana 
 
 lxiii 
 
 xvi. 1 
 
 108 
 
 ^73 
 
 xvi. 1 
 
 Cottidiana 
 
 lxiiii 
 
 13 
 
 
 
 
 
 lxv 
 
 19 
 
 109 
 
 r 74 
 
 19 
 
 Cottidiana 
 
 lxvi 
 
 xvii. 1 
 
 
 
 
 
 lxvii 
 
 5 
 
 
 
 
 
 lxviii 
 
 XI 
 
 no 
 
 175 
 
 xvii. 11 
 
 In XLgisima pascae 
 
 lxix 
 
 20 
 
 
 
 
 
 lxx 
 
 xviii. 1 
 
 III 
 
 176 
 
 xviii. 1 
 
 Cottidiana 
 
 lxxi 
 
 9 
 
 112 
 
 177 
 
 10 
 
 Post iii dominica XLgisima feria iiii 
 
 lxxii 
 
 H 
 
 
 
 
 
 lxxiii 
 
 18 
 
 
 
 
 
 lxxiiii 
 
 3i 
 
 "3 
 
 178 
 
 3i 
 
 In Lgisima ad sanctum PetrumH FERIA 
 
 III DE EBDOMADA MAIORA N 
 
 Ixxv 
 
 35 
 
 
 
 
 
 lxxvi 
 
 xix. 1 
 
 114 
 
 179 
 
 xix. 1 
 
 Cottidiana 
 
 lxxvii 
 
 12 
 
 
 180 
 
 12 
 
 Cottidiana 
 
 lxxviii 
 
 29 
 
 
 
 
 
 Ixxix 
 
 4* 
 
 
 
 
 
 lxxx 
 
 XX. I 
 
 
 181 
 
 XX. 1 
 
 Cottidiana 
 
 Ixxxi 
 
 9 
 
 
 182 
 
 9 
 
 In natale sanctorum Marcellini Petri 
 
 lxxxii 
 
 20 
 
 
 
 
 
 lxxxiii 
 
 37 
 
 
 
 
 
 lxxxiiii 
 
 4 1 
 
 
 
 
 
 lxxxv 
 
 xxi. 5 
 
 
 
 
 
 lxxxvi 
 
 20 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 115 
 
 183 
 
 xxi. 25 
 
 De aduentum et cottidiana 
 
 lxxxvii 
 
 2%b 
 
 
 
 
 
 Neapolitan Variants. — xviii. 10 dominicas post tertia Reg xxi. 25 item 
 alia (or higher up) xxi. 28 b after lxxxvii N has quod prope pascha 
 
 LEGENDUM EST 
 
 N 102-3. Two cottidianas to be fitted as we please to B 165-6-7, or thereabouts, 
 lvi. Wrongly marked in Y at xiii. 6. lxxi. Y gives v. 9, whereas Burch. {teste 
 
 Dom Moving gives v, 10. N 1 1 3. This is evidently the place intended. N 1 14. 
 This cottidiana may be anywhere between B 178 and B 183. N 115 is probably 
 represented by the double notice B 183. 
 
 N 115. In Y Quodprope t &c.is at the top of fol. 135 £ before Ixxxviii. In .fog-the 
 words occur in the column after lxxxvii, but are distinguished by being rubricated. 
 
6o 
 
 THE NEAPOLITAN LECTIONARY 
 
 Summary of 
 AHVYRcg 
 
 4*. 
 
 It 
 
 
 Lessons. 
 
 Notes in Gospels of St. Burchard* 
 
 
 Section. 
 
 Ixxxviii 
 
 Ixxxix 
 
 xc 
 
 xci 
 
 xcii 
 
 xciii 
 
 xciiii 
 
 xxii. i 
 
 2 
 
 24 
 
 39 
 xxiii. 34 
 xxiv. 1 
 
 13 
 
 36 
 
 n6 
 
 117 
 
 us 
 ii 9 
 
 120 
 
 121 
 
 1 84 
 
 185 
 
 186 
 I8 7 
 
 188 
 
 I89 
 
 xxii. 1 
 
 24 
 
 xxiv. 1 
 13 
 
 36 
 44 
 
 In XLgisima ebd, vi feria Hit legitur t>a$sio 
 dftiV 
 FERIA V MANE IN CENA DOMINI AD 
 
 MISSA. PASSIO DOMINI NOSTRI IHU 
 
 XPI 
 
 In apostolorum et in not. sancti Apollinaris 
 
 Die sabbato de albas pascae 
 Feria it pascae ad sanctum Petrum B 
 FERIA III DE ALBAS PASCAE N 
 
 Feria iii pascae ad sanctum Paulum B 
 
 FERIA V DE ALBAS PASCAE N 
 In ascensa dm ni ihn xpi 
 
 St. John. 
 
 i 
 
 i. 1 
 
 122 
 
 190 
 
 i. 1 
 
 11 
 
 19 
 
 
 191 
 
 19 
 
 
 
 123 
 
 192 
 
 29 
 
 iii 
 
 35 
 
 124 
 
 193 
 
 35 
 
 iiii 
 
 11. 1 
 
 "5 
 
 194 
 
 ii. 1 
 
 v 
 
 12 
 
 126 
 
 195 
 
 12 
 
 vi 
 
 iii. 1 
 
 127 
 
 196 
 
 iii. 1 
 
 
 
 128 
 
 197 
 
 16 
 
 vii 
 
 22 
 
 129a 
 
 198 
 
 22 
 
 VUl 
 
 IV. 1 
 
 5 
 
 129^ 
 
 199 
 
 IV. 1 
 
 5 
 
 ix 
 
 46 
 
 130 
 
 200 
 
 46 
 
 In sancti Iohannis euangelistae 
 
 Ebd. i ante natale dHi 
 
 Post epiphania dominica i 
 
 Post epiphania dominica ii 
 
 In uelanda 
 
 In Lxxgisima ebd. v feria ii ad iiii Coro- 
 
 natus et in dedicatione sanctae Mariae 
 Dominica ii XL pascae et in pasca an- 
 
 notina et in octabas de penticosten 
 Post octabas dfii ab is et post penticosten 
 
 feria ii 
 Post epiphania dominica iii 
 De muliere samaritanae N 
 In LXXgisima ebd. iiii feria vi in Lu- 
 
 cina 
 De XLgisima feria iiii 
 
 Neapolitan Variants. — xxii. 1 misa Reg xxii. 24 At tit. Ixxxix is fonnd 
 in A quae lectio potest quolibet tempore dici xxiv. 1 sabbati pasce Y pasche 
 Reg xxiv. 13 pasce Reg xxiv. 36 pasce Reg John i. 1 apostoli et 
 
 euangelistae (-ista Y) i. 29 prima i. 35 secunda ephifania Y iii. I 
 XLgisima paschae iii. 16 domini nostri ihu xpi iii. 22 Post iii dominicas de 
 ephifania 
 
 N 1 20-1. After the last cap. of the summary in Y Reg is found the fol- 
 lowing : ' Haec lectio in ebdomada paschae dum legitur nnitur in loco ubi ait 
 " quoadnsque induamini uirtutem ex alto *\ Cum autem in ascensione legitur 
 alio loco incoanda est quo dicit discipulis "haec sunt uerba quae locntus sum 
 uobis cum athuc essem uobiscum " usque in finem enangeli.' (In Reg black with 
 red initials to Haec and Cum, as in the case of the capitula after which it stands.) 
 N 122. After in Y has an illegible sign (= natalef). B 191. Coarser writing. 
 
 B 197. Though ab \K\is is not in N, it probably belongs to N, as in N 161 and 
 163 below. ix. Here Y gives v. 44, perhaps wrongly, for 46. 
 
IN NORTHUMBRIA 
 
 61 
 
 Summary of 
 
 Vc 
 
 
 
 
 AHVYReg 
 
 2* 
 
 
 
 
 
 !* 
 
 •3^ 
 
 Lessons. 
 
 Notes in Gospels of St. Burchard. 
 
 
 
 
 Section. 
 
 It 
 
 5 * 
 
 
 
 X 
 
 V. I 
 
 131-2 
 
 20I 
 202 
 
 v. 1 
 
 InLXXgisima ebd. iiferia viadApostolos 
 etin dedicationemfontis B In sancti 
 angeli et in dedicatione foutis N 
 
 Ad missa defunctorum 
 
 XI 
 
 19 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 133 
 
 203 
 
 
 Item alia B Cottidiana N 
 
 xii 
 
 3i 
 
 
 
 
 
 xiii 
 
 vi. 1 
 
 134 
 
 204 
 
 vi. 1 
 
 In Lxxgisima ebd. v die dominico in 
 Suxurio et nat. sancte Andreae 
 
 
 
 135 
 
 205 
 
 16? 
 
 Cottidiana 
 
 xiv 
 
 22 
 
 
 
 
 
 XV 
 
 35 
 
 136 a 
 
 [136*] 
 
 206 
 
 36? 
 
 Post iiii dominica XLgisima feiia iiii 
 Legenda PRO DEFUNCTIS 
 
 xvi 
 
 4 1 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 207 
 
 43 
 
 Post penticosten feria iiii ad sancta 
 Maria et cottidiana 
 
 
 
 137 
 
 208 
 
 5 1 
 
 Post iiii dominica XLgisima feria iii 
 
 
 
 138" 
 
 209 
 
 55 
 
 Post iiii dominica XLgisima feria ii 
 
 xvii 
 
 63 
 
 
 
 
 
 xviii 
 
 vii. 1 
 
 138^ 
 
 210 
 
 vii. 1 
 
 In Lxxgisima ebd. vi feria iii ad san- 
 ctum Cyriacum BLegenda in Quad- 
 ragesima N 
 
 
 
 139 
 
 211 
 
 14 
 
 Post iiii dominica XLgisima die sabbati 
 
 xix 
 
 3 1 
 
 140 
 
 212 
 
 33 
 
 In Lxxgisima ebd. vi feria ii ad san- 
 ctum Crisogonum B Post v domi- 
 nica XLgisima feria hi 
 
 
 
 141 
 
 213 
 
 40 
 
 Sab'bato sancto penticosten 
 
 XX 
 
 viii. i 
 
 
 214 
 
 viii. 1 
 
 In Lxxgisima ebd. iiii feria vii ad 
 sancta Susanna 
 
 xxi 
 
 12 
 
 142 
 
 2*5 
 
 13 
 
 In Lxxgisima v ebd. feria iiii ad san- 
 ctum Paulum B Post v dominica 
 XLgisima feria iiii 
 
 xxii 
 
 31 
 
 
 216 
 
 ? 
 
 In Lxxgisima iii ebd. feria ii ad san- 
 ctum Clementem 
 
 xxiii 
 
 3i 
 
 M3 
 
 217 
 
 31 
 
 Post v dominica XLgisima die sabbati 
 
 xxiiii 
 
 5i 
 
 
 
 
 
 Neapolitan Variants.— vi. 1 In natale sancti Andreae (Andrae Reg t ardreae Y) 
 vi. 51 feria iiii Y vi. 63 Legenda CIRCA PASCHA A {teste Tisck.) viu. 31 
 
 dominicas Y 
 
 N 133. Cottidiana anywhere between 132 and 134- B 205* The ? ross is not 
 
 given. B 206. Dom Morin gives vi. 36, but this seems a strange beginning. Is 
 not v. 35 meant ? N 136 b. This note is fonnd at the fifteenth number of the 
 
 summary in AY. Was v. 18 meant ? Or the modern Gospel for Mtssa quotidiana, 
 vi. 48-* <; ? N 138 b. Found at the eighteenth number of the summary in Y ; at 
 the nineteenth in A. B 215. The addition of ad S. Paul, to the Naples notice 
 
 is probably an error. The composer of the later system ought^to have^omitted jit, 
 since he has introduced a new lesson for the same day 218. 
 has marked no verse. 
 
 B 216. Dom Morin 
 
6a 
 
 THE NEAPOLITAN LECTIONARY 
 
 Summary of 
 AHVY Reg 
 
 *l 
 
 144 
 
 218 
 
 Lessons. 
 
 
 Section* 
 
 XXV 
 
 ix. i 
 
 ix. 1 
 
 xxvi 
 
 a. I 
 
 
 219 
 
 x. 1 
 
 
 
 145 
 
 220 
 
 11 
 
 xxvii 
 
 *7 
 
 146 
 
 221 
 
 22 
 
 xxviii 
 
 xi. 1 
 
 J 47 
 148 
 
 232 
 
 223 
 
 30 
 xi. 1 
 
 xxix 
 
 47 
 
 149 
 150? 
 
 224 
 225 
 
 25 
 47 
 
 
 
 Ho 
 H* 
 
 226 
 
 55? 
 
 Xll. 1 
 
 XXX 
 
 xxxi 
 xxxil 
 
 xii. ia 
 20 
 
 27 
 
 152 
 153 
 
 227 
 
 228 
 
 20 
 
 33 
 
 xxxiii 
 
 xiii. 1 
 
 154 
 
 229 
 
 xiii. 1 
 
 xxxiiii 
 
 XXXV 
 
 xxxvi 
 xxxvii 
 
 16 
 xiv. 1 
 
 XV. I 
 
 155 
 156 
 157 
 
 158 
 
 23O 
 23I 
 332 
 233 
 234 
 235 
 
 236 
 
 237 
 238 
 
 33 
 xiv. 1 
 
 15 
 23 
 
 27 
 
 XV. I 
 
 5 
 
 7 
 
 12 
 
 Notes in Gospels of St. Burckard. 
 
 In Lxxgisima v ebd. feria iiii ad san- 
 ctum Paulutn Post hi dominicas 
 
 XLGISIMA FERIA VI 
 
 Post penticosten feria Hi ad sancta Ana- 
 stasia 
 
 Dc XLgisima post iii dominicas sab- 
 mane post scrutinium 
 
 In Lxxgisima vi ebd. feria iiii ad san- 
 ctum Marcellum A XLgisima post 
 hi dominicas die sabbati in 
 ieiunium 
 
 Post iii dominicas XLgisima feria vi 
 
 In Lxxgisima v ebd. feria vi ad sanctum 
 Eusebium Post v dominicas de 
 XLgisima feria vi de lazarum 
 
 In agendas 
 
 In Lxxgisima vi ebd. fkria vi ad san- 
 ctum Stephanum B 
 
 Dominica vi de indulgentia 
 
 In LXgisima i ebd. feria ii ad sanctos 
 Nereum et Arckilleum B Feria ii de 
 ebdomada maiorem 
 
 In natale sanctorum Iohannis et Panli 
 
 In ieiunium sancti Ianuari et nat. sancti 
 
 Laurenti 
 In LXgisima iiii ebd* feria vi ad sancta 
 
 Prisca Feria v ieiunium de cena 
 
 domini 
 
 Feria i de ebdomada maiore 
 
 Post octauas pascae dominica v 
 
 Sabbato sancto penticosten 
 
 Dominica sancta penticosden 
 
 In natale sanctorum Philippi et lacobi 
 
 Post albas pascae i dominica et in nat. 
 
 sancti Vitalis 
 Nat. sancti Hadriani 
 In ebd. post ascensa dfii feria iiii 
 In sanctorum 
 
 Neapolitan Variants. — ix. 1 XLgisma Y x. n sabbato x. 30 iiii dom. 
 xi. 25 agendis Y xiii. 33 iiii (rightly) maiorem xiv. 1 Post albas paschae 
 dominica ii xiv. 15 Dominica sancta penticosten xv. 1 dominica prima 
 
 B 218. Same as 215. B 229. The cross was originally wanting, but has been 
 supplied in a coarse hand. B 232. Dom Morin observes that the words 
 Sabbato sancto are written over an erasure, and conjectures that the scribe had 
 originally written Dominica sancta^ because he found these words here (and not at 
 V, 33) in N. 
 
IN NORTHUMBRIA 
 
 63 
 
 Summary of 
 AHVYReg 
 
 V8 
 
 .** 
 11 
 
 159 
 160 
 
 161 
 
 162 
 163 
 
 164 
 165 
 
 166 
 
 167 
 
 16S 
 169 
 170 
 171 
 
 <; » 
 
 Lessons. 
 
 Notes in Gospels of St. Bur chard. 
 
 
 Section. 
 
 xxxviii 
 xxxix 
 
 xl 
 
 xli 
 
 xlii 
 xliii 
 
 xliiii 
 
 xlv 
 
 xv. 17 
 xvi. 16 
 
 xvii. 1 
 xviii. 1 
 
 XX. 1 
 
 19 
 
 xxi. 1 
 15 
 
 339 
 
 240 
 
 241 
 
 242 
 
 243 
 
 244 
 245 
 
 246 
 
 247 
 248 
 249 
 
 250 
 
 251 
 
 252 
 
 253 
 
 xv. 17 
 
 26 
 xvi. 5 
 
 15? 
 16 
 
 23 
 
 xvii. 1 
 
 11 
 
 xviii. 1 
 
 XX. I 
 
 11 
 
 19 
 
 24 
 
 xxi. 1 
 
 19 
 
 In natale sancti Pancrati [ef] post 
 
 ascensa dfii 
 Post albas pascae dominica iii 
 Ebdomada iiii post pascha 
 Post albas pascae iiii dominica 
 Post hi dominicas XLgisima feria 
 
 iiii ab his et 
 Post albas pascae v dominica 
 Post hi dominica die sabbati ab 
 
 HIS ET 
 POST ALBAS PASCAE DOMINICA IIII 
 
 Feria ii post albas pascae et in ui~ 
 
 gilias de ascensa dM 
 Post albas pascae feria iiii 
 In ebd. maiore feria vi ad Hierusalem 
 
 legitur passio dM B Feria vi de 
 
 EBDOMADA MAIORE PASSIO DOMINI 
 NOSTRI IHU XPI N 
 
 Feria ii pascae 
 Feria v pascae ad Apostolos 
 Feria vii pascae ad Lateranis 
 Die dominico octabas pascae 
 Feria iiii pascae ad sanctum Laurentium 
 In natale sancti Petri et Pauli 
 In adsumptione sancte Iohannis euan- 
 gelistae 
 
 Neapolitan Variants.— *xv. 17 domini xv. 26 paschae 
 dominica iiii Reg Dominica v Y xvii. 1 om. pascae xx. 
 xx. 24 om. die octabo xxi. 19 assumptione Y 
 
 sancti 
 
 xvi. 23 elbas 
 secunda feria 
 aeuangelistae Y 
 
 B 239. et is added above the line. B 241. Coarser writing. N 159-65, 
 
 B 239-44. I hay e here identified N 162 with B 243; but so N 163-4 have no 
 lesson. The real order I shall explain presently. xxxix. In Y this number is 
 
 wrongly written at xvi. 15, on account of the homoeoteleuton of w. 14 and 15. 
 B 245. Dom Morin conjectures that this lesson was accidentally omitted in N. 
 xlv. This number has been accidentally omitted in the margin of Y. N 171. 
 
 At the forty-fifth cap. of the summary in Y Reg is found : ( Quae lectio cum in 
 natale sancti petri legitur a loco incoatur [indicatur Reg] quo ait " Dicit simoni 
 petio iesus simon iohannis diligis me plus his" usque ad locum ubi dicit 
 *'significans qua [quo Y] morte clarificaturus essetdeum" Cum uero in natali 
 (natale Y) sci iohannis euangelistae inchoanda est a loco quo ait "dicit ei" hoc 
 est dominus simoni petro " sequere me " usque ubi dicit " et scimus quia uerum est 
 testimonium eius ".' (In Reg all is rubricated as far as simon inclusively.) 
 
 It will be seen in the above table that the Naples lessons 
 always coincide with the divisions of the summaries in the 
 Synoptists except in about eighteen cases, not a very large 
 number out of i%i lessons. In some cases we cannot be 
 
64 THE NEAPOLITAN LECTIONARY 
 
 certain that the codex of St. Burchard has preserved the 
 original Naples incipit\ for this may have been altered 
 into the Roman use. 
 
 On the other hand, out of about 68 Roman additions in 
 St. Burchard's MS., no less than 34, or half, do not agree 
 with the chapters of the summary. The commencements 
 of Matthew and Luke in the table should be inspected, for 
 the sake of observing the contrast' between N and B. 
 
 It seems, therefore, that the capitula of the summaries 
 for the first three Gospels are founded on the Neapolitan 
 system of lessons. 1 These are carefully composed, and are 
 somewhat longer and more literary than other summaries. 
 
 Those for the fourth Gospel are clearly in the same style 
 and by the same author. But the correspondence with the 
 Naples lectionary is far less exact, for there are 18 diver- 
 gences — as many as in the other three Gospels together — 
 but on only 50 lessons. The additions of Burchard, about 14 
 in number, show 10 divergences. These phenomena might be 
 explained by two considerations : first, the author of the capi- 
 tula had grown lazy, and has only given 45 numbers, as against 
 88 for Matthew, 94 for Luke, and 46 even for Mark ; secondly, 
 he has followed the divisions of the older summaries to some 
 extent, as may be seen by merely turning over the pages of 
 Wordsworth's parallel edition of them. These are sufficient 
 reasons for the moment. The real explanation will appear in 
 chapter vi, p. 131. 
 
 If we look at his page 18 (supplemented by p. 676) we shall 
 see no less than eleven types of summary, nine from MSS., 
 one from St. Hilary, and one from Rhabanus Maurus. Yet a 
 careful inspection shows that all these, except the first column, 
 go back to one original of which they are varieties. They have 
 
 1 The reader may suggest the alternative that the lessons were marked out 
 according to the divisions of the summary. This is a priori unlikely, for the 
 lessons are in many cases traditional and far more ancient than the Northumbrian 
 summaries can possibly be. In ch. vii, p, 136, we shall see that it was the original 
 method of reference to the lessons which suggested the advisability of composing 
 new summaries ; and also that the small number of capitula of the summary of 
 John is on account of the originally very small number of pericopae from that 
 Gospel, 
 
IN NORTHUMBRIA 65 
 
 been rewritten, redivided, and altered in the course of centuries, 
 and there are great differences between them ; but there are 
 yet more remarkable coincidences, which demonstrate that 
 they are recensions of a single archetype. The Irish variety 
 is in close relation with the divisions of the Codex Vaticanus, 
 so that it evidently came to the Old Latin from the Greek. 
 They seem also to bear some relation to the Latin lec- 
 tionaries. 1 
 
 But the first column of Wordsworth, the Northumbrian 
 summary, is very different in character, as a very short inspec- 
 tion will show. It is edited by Wordsworth from AHUVY, 2 
 and is found also in Reg and in other MSS. enumerated by 
 Berger (Hist. Vulg., p. 355, ii). It may possibly have been 
 adopted by Alcuin, as it is in V, though not in K. The place 
 and date of origin will appear later on. 
 
 § 3. The Naples liturgy in use at Jarrow, 
 
 In 189a Dom G. Morin published an article on the b recueiL 
 primitif des homelies de Bede sur I'Evangile ', 3 in which he 
 showed that the Venerable Doctor followed a liturgical system 
 which has interesting coincidences with the Neapolitan lists of 
 YReg. Dom Morin had not then discovered, the liturgical 
 notes in the Gospels of St. Burchard ; his work needs there- 
 fore some completion. 
 
 He has shown that the collection of fifty homilies of Bede 
 (known to Paul Warnefrid, and obviously identical with 
 the Omeliarum Evangelii libri II of which Bede himself 
 speaks in the last chapter of his History) has been preserved 
 in certain MSS. A Cluny MS. gives the homily on St. Benet 
 Biscop in the last place, where Paul the deacon found it ; but 
 Dom Morin is inclined to prefer the order given by a Boulogne 
 
 1 So Berger, Hist, de la Vulgate ', p. 311: 'II y a peut-etre rapport entre 
 l'original de cette division ancienne et les Evangiles des dimanches et f&es de 
 l'Eglise romaine (le Comes) qui sont, probablement, en grande partie antirieurs au 
 pape saint Le*on le Grand. Tl paralt en Stre de mSme des liturgies gallicane et 
 mozarabe.' (I doubt whether any edition of the Comes is purely Roman.) 
 
 a H has the common form of summary for Matthew (thus agreeing with 0.) 
 but in the other Gospels agrees with AY. U exists only for Matthew. 
 
 8 Revue BMdictine^ 1892, pp. 316 foil. 
 
66 THE NEAPOLITAN LECTIONARY 
 
 MS. used by Giles, where that homily occurs in the twelfth 
 place, according to the date of St. Benet Biscop's feast, 
 January ia, the day before the Octave day of the Epiphany. 
 Most people will agree with him that it was natural outside 
 England to shift this outlandish saint to the last. I add that 
 the Boulogne MS. shifts the homily on the Midnight Mass of 
 Christmas to the last place ; in the MS. of Cluny it is sixth. 
 Now Bede perhaps followed the common custom (in South 
 Italy we find it in the letter of pseudo-Jerome to Constantius, 
 though not in the Capuan pericopae of St Paul in Cod. 
 Fuld.) of beginning the ecclesiastical year with Christmas. 
 It was thus perfectly natural to look upon the Christmas 
 Midnight Mass as the last, as well as the first, of the year. 
 
 The order of both codices seems to me to be disturbed. 1 
 The first two lessons are for Advent, and the third for Christ- 
 mas Eve. But on the other hand the forty-ninth, or last but 
 one, and the forty-eighth are also for Advent. Now this divi- 
 sion of Advent between the beginning and the end of the fifty 
 homilies is comprehensible if we suppose that the transference 
 of the homily on St. Benet Biscop was only one of many 
 alterations made to suit a Roman use. We may conjecture 
 that Bede had put all the Advent homilies at the end, and 
 that some of them were shifted to the beginning by a copyist 
 or editor who followed the practice of beginning the year with 
 Advent. If this be so, the original collection commenced with 
 5 and 6, the homilies on the second and third Masses of 
 Christmas. Of course the converse — viz. that all the Advent 
 homilies were originally at the beginning — is also possible, 
 and such an arrangement might be disturbed in Italy. 
 
 Again, the second book opens with the twenty-sixth homily, 
 for Easter Eve ; but the nineteenth homily (on Mark vii. 31) 
 was certainly also for Easter Eve, while those before it and 
 after it are certainly for Lent. This seems to be a dislocation 
 made by a copyist who had never heard of the Gospel for the 
 rite of Effetatio on Holy Saturday. Consequently we should 
 pay little attention to the occasional coincidences with the 
 Roman order of the Gospels, for these may be later adapta- 
 
 ' See the table further on, p. 68. 
 
IN NORTHUMBRIA 67 
 
 tions ; whereas deviations from it will be important, as likely 
 to be original. 
 
 The lists {capitulationes) published by Mabillon from two 
 MSS. of De Thou (Migne, P. L. t vol. 90, col. 30) give an order 
 possibly still more Romanized, for the last two homilies of the 
 second book according to the order of the Boulogne and Cluny 
 MSS. have here become first and second, so that the four 
 Advent homilies open the collection. The titles given in 
 these lists are interesting, but are in many cases adaptations, 
 and cannot express Bede's own intention. Their agreement 
 with B or N is shown by small capitals in the following list. 
 
 It will be seen that I have utilized Dom Morin's excellent 
 table (Revue B/n/d. y I.e.). In the last column italics signify 
 an addition of B, while small capitals stand for a note of N 
 omitted by B, as in the former table. 
 
 F 3 
 
68 
 
 THE NEAPOLITAN LECTIONARY 
 
 J** 
 
 "8 
 
 it 
 
 Cq 
 
 
 S tt § 
 
 
 o 
 
 CM 
 
 ft 
 
 
 W -* •* Q 
 
 in 
 
 Sis 
 
 o \ . 
 
 ,0 *N • 
 
 
 
 ■si 
 
 l3l- 
 
 .Jr cm 
 
 J3 Tfl 
 
 II u 
 
 II II 
 
 fl 8 « 
 
 
 « tH 
 
 I 
 
 <3 » 
 
 CO 
 
 CO 
 
 ■5 
 
 
 <a e 
 
 
 s 
 
 rt 
 
 
 CO 
 
 u 
 
 < 
 
 
 a 
 
 
 ►-* 
 
 
 CO 
 
 
 « 
 
 
 M 
 
 
 rt 
 
 
 | 
 
 ttf 
 
 ri 
 
 2 
 
 a 
 
 
 C 
 
 .3 
 
 
 
 :S 
 
 fc 
 
 
 
 rt 
 
 , , 
 
 o 
 
 fH 
 
 a 
 
 «s! 
 
 a 
 
 oi 
 
 o 
 
 w 
 
 U 
 
 [H 
 
 ^ 
 
 I 
 
 I 
 
 o 
 
 < 
 
 SI 
 
 is 
 
 Qco 
 ^^ ^ 
 
 § d 
 
 d a 
 
 h- t H- i h- I I— 1 
 
 s ° 
 
 ^ h d -g 2; T3 
 
 ■H U rt .d m ■*-» 
 
 fl ,5 (5(3(3,9 
 
 O rt 
 "CO 
 
 
 d 
 
 S5"C 
 
 §CM 
 
 S 
 o 
 
 P 
 
 00 « « ^.k. 
 
 OS 
 
 HI U)ts, 3" CO 
 
 t « A. « 
 
 « ^ M ? « 
 c u J e u 
 1 — .1— J S »— »i-J 1 
 
 ON 
 
 I 
 
 CO « 
 
 -I I 
 
 -2 d 
 rt-d 
 
 fo uiunfoj 
 
 'uotftpa s t s9ftf) 
 
 'uotftq 
 
 co tJ- invo -t^oo 
 
 0\0 H COM t-N.-^-USI^. Tt-00 
 
 H M « H 
 
 *SW 'tt£o/noff 
 
 « co -^ %r>\o i^-co on O 
 
 n rt^- in vo 
 
IN NORTHUMBRIA 
 
 6 9 
 
 *z «s\s 
 
 .!"§«< 
 
 O « M *~ 
 
 cO-S< W^J 
 
 - H 
 
 Z% 8 
 O. <u 
 
 £"$ .3 
 m a 
 
 p S .3 
 
 M O cj .,- 
 
 * o ^ .2 .a 
 Si SI 
 *■$**.§ 
 
 s 
 
 w 
 
 II 
 
 s 
 
 .a 
 
 II 
 
 a 
 
 B 
 
 
 n) 
 
 a 
 C 
 
 Z 
 
 S 
 
 Pi 
 
 a 
 o 
 P 
 
 <! 
 2 
 
 W 
 
 o 
 
 *p -a * -is 
 
 I I* I 
 
 O O kH o 
 
 CO 
 
 00 
 
 O 
 
 M 
 M 
 
 c* « 
 
 M 11 
 
 O 
 
 co 
 >-< 
 
 
 o 
 
 
 Os 
 
 fc4 
 o 
 o 
 w 
 
 £1 
 
 I « 
 
 11a 
 
 "S3 
 
 Pco M 
 
 u <l o 
 
 2 3 2 
 
 s g 3 
 
 R '£ 
 
 o 
 
 ^2 8^ 
 
 is*?* 
 
 SON., 
 
 jt^ -.a 
 
 ON . c* 'd 
 
 SO 
 
 8 1?.! 
 
 Ph .<a . g 
 
 ■a N, s^ e^* a* 
 -I *1 «.g h_§ « j 
 
 ■a < 
 
 ! cs - ■ 
 
 , Q ^ 
 
 i -^ O 
 
 I! 
 
 ~ p 
 o — 
 o 
 
 M 
 II 
 
 z 
 
 H 
 «) 
 O 
 
 o 
 
 i Z 
 
 3 pu 
 
 W 
 
 ^ ii 5 
 
 II U 
 
 
 IX) 
 
 T3 
 
 CO 
 
 4-1 
 
 « J3 
 II tl 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 M 
 
 
 
 
 rt 
 
 
 ui 
 
 
 
 
 
 z 
 
 
 
 
 rJO 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 l-l 
 
 
 
 
 rt 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 S 
 o 
 
 
 
 
 tl 
 
 
 H 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 O 
 
 
 O 
 
 
 
 
 
 p 
 
 
 
 
 H 
 O 
 
 
 CM 
 
 
 
 
 
 ■< z 
 
 
 <! 
 
 < 
 
 
 < 
 
 
 
 
 s 
 
 £2 M 
 Z H 
 W « 
 
 u o 
 
 en O 
 
 <g 
 
 ^ Z 
 
 ° ft 
 ft Ph 
 
 
 u 
 
 X 
 
 V 
 
 in 
 
 &4 
 
 
 u 
 
 5 
 
 
 
 o 
 
 1-4 
 
 ■0 
 
 PL, 
 
 < 
 
 Ph 
 
 .a 
 
 < 
 
 .a 
 
 ■ r-l 
 
 
 o 
 P 
 
 < 
 
 
 < 
 
 o 
 
 p 
 
 .2 
 "3 
 
 2 
 
 > 
 
 
 
 >-< 
 
 H 
 
 u 
 
 5S 
 
 
 W 
 
 z 
 w 
 
 <3 
 
 
 c 
 
 Ed 
 
 
 £ 
 
 
 
 
 
 z 
 
 1— 1 
 
 Z 
 
 i— i 
 
 ^^ 
 
 o 
 
 £0^ 
 
 o 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 CO 
 
 ^ 
 
 HH 
 
 « T 
 
 N 
 
 cq 
 
 
 
 
 O 
 
 
 »o 
 
 • M 
 
 1 
 
 M 
 
 ^^e. 
 
 SO 
 
 I 
 
 
 U; 
 
 
 CO 
 1 
 
 CO 
 
 4 
 
 'P 7 
 
 
 o\« 
 
 
 vn 
 
 
 1 
 
 
 CO 
 
 
 "* 
 
 1 
 
 
 1 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 ^ 
 
 > 
 
 so « 
 
 
 X 
 
 M 
 
 
 W 
 
 
 X 
 
 X 
 
 X 
 
 4-> 
 
 H .JS 
 
 J-J 
 
 4-* 
 
 1 
 
 
 c 
 
 ■8 
 
 
 a 
 
 •s 
 
 1—1 
 
 3 
 
 3 
 
 ° a 
 
 oo 
 1 — »» — > 
 
 ro 
 
 OsOV 
 
 *d- 
 
 ^ 
 
 
 on 
 
 
 CO 
 
 CO 
 
 -* 
 
 M OS 
 
 
 "4- CO 
 
 Tf 
 
 «5 
 
 
 lO 
 
 
 SO 
 
 so 
 
 r^. 
 
 CO CO 
 
 ■* 
 
 
 SO 
 
 M 
 
 
 N 
 
 
 CO 
 
 us 
 
 ui 
 
 CO OS 
 
 M 
 
 Tfei 
 
 CO 
 
 tO 
 
 
 o 
 
 
 x^- 
 
 CO 
 
 OS 
 
 O ii 
 
 M 11 
 
 .^ 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 •F- 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 - 
 
 « cO 
 
 t(- 
 
 U5 
 
 
 so 
 
 
 J>- 
 
 CO 
 
 OS 
 
 O n 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 " - 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
7° 
 
 THE NEAPOLITAN LECTIONARY 
 
 
 O 
 
 o 
 
 fc.f 
 
 P 
 $ 
 
 i 
 
 ■H5 
 
 ^8 
 
 "ST: 
 
 w 
 
 rt 
 
 1 I 
 
 7! i3 PL O 
 
 5 "S w •-< 
 
 I I 
 
 Ph V 
 
 1 8 
 
 « "S -i PLi d 
 
 § y 5 
 
 n -< rt» ^ 
 
 O (? O *J 
 
 rl 
 
 
 J 3 
 
 — 1 
 
 O 
 1— 1 
 
 
 •fc 
 
 1— 1 
 
 '43 
 o 
 
 
 
 H 
 en 
 
 9 
 
 
 « 
 
 O 
 
 
 
 ft 
 
 
 <D 
 
 
 
 <; 
 
 R 
 
 
 '& 
 
 l-H 
 
 
 
 f/1 
 
 3 
 
 in 
 
 
 o 
 
 
 
 H-l 
 
 H3 
 
 ■a rr - 
 
 < 
 
 S« 
 
 CO 
 
 
 « 
 
 
 ■«■ 
 
 
 II II 
 
 II 
 
 *0 cO " — i 
 
 si Q 
 
 § § C 
 U "** > r ^ -h 
 
 d ■ w 
 
 S«i 'a 
 
 d "^ _i 
 St, -d 
 
 g * S g 
 
 ■* "K fl 
 
 pq 
 
 CO 
 
 o 
 ci 
 t> 
 II 
 
 d 
 
 pq 
 
 CO 
 v. 
 O 
 
 Ph 
 
 13 
 
 > 
 
 II II 
 
 :9 
 
 
 
 a 
 
 T3 t3 . 
 
 
 d <u - c 
 
 C/i 
 
 "<^[K| 
 
 o 
 
 CO K Jh 
 
 
 V- (U 4J 
 
 h 
 
 
 II 
 
 pww 
 
 ■a 
 
 5 
 
 H 
 
 PQ 
 
 en <n J5 
 
 g s * 
 
 « Is 
 
 £ So 
 
 H "-t CO 
 
 ^ CO ^j 
 
 < I I 
 
 s :& < 
 
 o > & 
 
 B5 5S S5 
 
 P 
 
 p< 
 
 Ph 
 
 H 
 W 
 Ph 
 
 
 
 
 
 rt 
 
 *g 
 
 H 
 
 o 
 
 W 
 
 cw 
 
 Ph 
 
 < 
 
 
 
 en 
 
 
 O 
 
 w 
 
 Ph 
 
 ^ 
 
 < 
 
 al 
 
 s 
 
 
 Ph 
 
 ^ «5 
 
 o 
 
 CO 
 
 w 
 < 
 
 H 
 <! 
 S5 
 
 % 
 O 
 
 i— i -^ 
 
 H v 
 
 < d 
 
 Qpq « 
 
 4-> "t3 
 
 CO co" 
 
 d d 
 
 m ** 
 
 « 1? 
 
 B "fl H *§ 
 
 ^ 
 
 ^ 
 
 3 
 
 S 
 
 
 oo 
 
 CO 
 
 «oo m 
 
 1 
 
 •t* 
 
 ^-ro«s 
 
 
 o\ 
 
 t 1 1 
 
 • r^ 
 
 M 
 
 
 > 
 
 
 ■ r^ *»H -i-J 
 
 V 
 
 +j 
 
 John 
 Luke 
 
 
 ri 
 
 3 
 
 fo UUttlfOQ 
 
 
 o 
 
 o 
 
 0\ 
 i-i 
 
 ■* 
 
 « 
 
 CO 
 
 
 
 CO 
 
 CO 
 
 OS 
 
 ■«■ 
 
 SO OS »o 
 
 CO 
 CO 
 
 uoiftp? spj}D 
 
 ^O 
 
 OS 
 fO 
 
 
 
 
 M 
 
 
 Hi 
 CO 
 
 
 o 
 
 CO 
 
 CO <*■ 1 ^- 
 
 
 'uotfiq 
 
 
 rO 
 
 ^~ 
 
 VO 
 
 «i 
 
 CO 
 
 o 
 
 M 
 C* 
 
 1 
 
 
 CO M « 
 
 1 
 
 'SM QttSoinog 
 
 p» 
 
 WO 
 
 «4- 
 
 U) 
 
 >o 
 
 r*» 
 
 CO 
 
 OS 
 
 o 
 
 M 
 
 M « « 
 
 
IN NORTHUMBRIA 71 
 
 It will be seen from the table that Bede most certainly 
 agrees with the Neapolitan lectionary against the Roman 
 system in all the following cases. (On the first three see 
 Dom Morin, I.e., pp. 322-3.) I cite other lectionaries thus : 
 Lux. = Lectionary of Luxueil (Mabillon) ; Comic. = Liber 
 Comicus of Toledo (ed. Morin, 1893) ; Bob. = Bobbio Missal 
 (Mabillon) ; Moz. = Mozarabic use ; q — marginal notes in the 
 Old Latin codex, Munich lat. 6224 (see p. 102, note), &c. More 
 will be said about these feasts in chapter vi. 
 
 Horn. i. 9. Epiphany. This pericope is not now in use, but 
 occurs in Lux. Bob. q. 
 
 i. 19. Holy Saturday. This is the Gospel for the rite of 
 Effetatio performed on the Catechumens, as in Comic. 1 
 
 ii. 9. Ascension Day. This pericope is unknown to the 
 Roman use, but is ascribed by Bede and by the Neapolitan 
 lists to Ascension Day, with Bob. Comic. Ambros. q. 
 
 ii. 16. The homily on John xxi is for the feast of SS. Peter 
 and Paul, and not for the vigil, as it explicitly declares : 
 'Verum quia cum memoria beati Petri etiam coapostoli eius 
 Pauli hodie natalitia celebramus/ Mabillon's lists have given 
 the Roman attributions to 15 and 16, and have reversed the 
 order accordingly. The order of the Cluny and Boulogne 
 MSS. implies that 15 (on Matt, xvi, the Roman Gospel for the 
 feast of SS. Peter and Paul, and for both feasts of St. Peter's 
 chair) was intended for the vigil, and there is nothing in the 
 homily to contradict this implication ; the homily would apply, 
 however, far more suitably to the feast of the Cathedra. The 
 Naples list gives In natale S. Petri for John xxi, which St. 
 Burchard's MS. emphasizes by the addition of et Pauli, and 
 for Matt, xvi it also has in natale sancti Petri — probably de 
 cathedra is to be understood. At all events ii. 16 is in agree- 
 ment with NB, if not ii. 15 also. 
 
 ii. 17. In this homily there is nothing whatever about the 
 feast of St. James, and nothing in honour of that Apostle 
 particularly. It seems hardly possible that Bede (who has so 
 much about the saint celebrated in his homilies on SS. Peter 
 and Paul, Matthew and John Baptist) should have meant this 
 1 On this ceremony see Dom F^rotin, Liber ordinum, col. 27, note 1. 
 
1 % THE NEAPOLITAN LECTIONARY 
 
 homily for St. James's day. 1 It is far more reasonable to 
 suppose that it was for the feast of SS. John and Paul, as in 
 N and B. There was no occasion for mentioning these two 
 martyrs in explaining the Gospel. (The feast of St. James is 
 not in N, nor even in B.) 
 
 ii. 1 8. The decollation of St. John Baptist : the Gospel is 
 that of NB, with Bob. Lux. Com. q\ it is unknown to the 
 Roman use. 
 
 These instances might in themselves merely prove that 
 Gallican influence had affected the liturgy of Jarrow. But as 
 we know already that the archetype of our various copies of 
 the Neapolitan list belonged to that abbey, there is hardly 
 room for doubt that the influence is not Gallican, but directly 
 from the Neapolitan use of Eugipius. 
 
 § 4. The feasts in St. Bedels Homilies. 
 
 There are probably further likenesses between Bede and 
 NB ; but I prefer to give them separately, because they are 
 not necessary to my argument. I do not intend, however, 
 to give a full liturgical commentary on the system of Bede, 
 I merely offer a few suggestions. 
 
 1. Christmas. The list will begin with the second and 
 third Mass of Christmas, viz. horn. i. 4 and 5. The title in B 
 (No. 117) for Luke ii. 15-20 Natale domini node is an obvious 
 slip ; the scribe had retained in No. 115 (Luke ii. 1-14) the 
 title found in N, In natale dni ad missa publica, and taking 
 this for the Aurora Mass, placed the Midnight Mass after it, 
 instead of reversing the places. But N had only one Christ- 
 mas Mass. B evidently means three, like Bede, but has not 
 marked the third at John i. 1. 
 
 2. Epiphany. The Purification is not found in NB, but 
 we are not surprised to find it added by Bede. Roman 
 identifications give sermons for second and first Sundays after 
 Epiphany, and for the Octave. The order is absurd ; Ma- 
 billon-s lists give the first before the second. We see that the 
 order of Boul. and Cluny is not wholly Roman, or not wholly 
 
 1 It would be far more suitable for the ancient feast of SS. James and John 
 after Christmas. The Gospel is the right one. 
 
IN NORTHUMBRIA 73 
 
 Romanized. The lesson for the Octave is said to be for the 
 third Sunday by Mabillon's list, evidently on account of its 
 position after the first and second. But the Gospel for the 
 Epiphany, as we saw, is not Roman ; and i. 15 (John i. 43-51) 
 is not Roman, except as the second half of theu Gospel for the 
 Vigil of St. Andrew. The former half is found in ii. 22, and 
 is called in Mab. lists In natale S. Andreae, but there is no 
 panegyric of that Apostle, on the contrary much more is said 
 about St. Peter. The whole pericope in N is attributed to the 
 second Sunday after Epiphany. Now in N there is no third 
 Sunday, for the post Epiphania dominica iii (No. 98) of B 
 appears as post iii dominicas de Epiphania (No. 76). It looks 
 as though the change in B was made on purpose, in order 
 to supply a pericope for the third Sunday. If we assume 
 that John i. 43-51 (the second half of N's long pericope i. 35-51 
 for the second Sunday) was used at Jarrow for the third 
 Sunday, we get the following symmetrical scheme : 
 
 Bede. Naples. Mabillon. Roman. 
 
 i. 9. Matt. iii. 13-17 Epiphany Epiphany Epiphany — 
 
 i. 13. John i. 29-34 i Sunday i Sunday iii Sunday Octave 
 
 «■ 22. „ i. 35-42 ii „ 1 Vig. St. Andr. > , 
 
 i.i5. „ i. 43-51 "i „ { " <Po S tTheophaniaM Vlg - StAndr ' 
 
 i. ir. Luke ii. 42-52 iiii „ iiii }j i Sunday i Sunday 
 
 There remains i. 10 on John ii. 1-11, which is marked by 
 N In uelanda. The homily does not seem intended for a wed - 
 ding occasion ; though it praises virginity, and says much of 
 Christ the Bridegroom. The pericope naturally follows after 
 those for the first, second, and third Sundays, all from John i. 
 The marriage in Cana is so well known as one of the Epiphany 
 mysteries that it is natural that Bede should have added it to 
 the Naples Gospels for that period. We may presume that at 
 Jarrow it was added for the fifth Sunday, or interpolated as 
 the fourth in its natural sequence. Or it is equally possible 
 that it was the Gospel for the octave day, which is not given 
 in N. If all this restoration seems too bold, yet it should be 
 remembered that it is based on the fact that the Epiphany 
 Gospel of Bede is the Naples one, and on the difficulty of ex- 
 plaining i. 15 andii. 22. The work I ascribe to the editor of 
 Boul. and Cluny is simple. If 10 was, in Bede, for the octave, 
 
74 THE NEAPOLITAN LECTIONARY 
 
 he left it (changing only the title) and the feast of St. Benet 
 Biscop after it, but before the latter he naturally put what he 
 believed to be the first Sunday, and after it the third Sunday. 
 i. 15 and ii. 1% puzzle him. The latter he takes to be 
 suitable for the feast of St. Andrew, the former he leaves 
 where he found it, with the vague designation Post Theopkania. 
 3. Lent. i. 19, for Easter Eve, is obviously out of place. 
 For the rest it seems that the Roman use is followed in Lent, 
 as by St. Burchard, the Naples directions being rather con- 
 fused. We get the following list : 
 
 16 Ember Saturday BRom (and 2nd Sunday Rom, Mab.) 
 
 17 Cottidiana BN, but 2nd Sunday Alcuin 
 
 18 Saturday before 4th Sunday B Rom, but 3rd Sunday Mab. 
 / 19 Holy Saturday BN 
 
 ) 20 Monday after 4th Sunday B Rom, et in Ded. S. Mariae BN 
 
 ( 21 Ember Friday B Rom, in sancti angeli (N) et in ded.fontis (BN) 
 
 22 4th Sunday B Rom (for 4th Sunday N has Gospel of Lord's Prayer) 
 
 23 Palm Sunday N 
 
 24 Palm Sunday (at Blessing of Palms) Rom 
 
 25 Holy Thursday, ad mandatum, BN Rom 
 
 It will be seen that 19, 20, 21 are out of place, but that the 
 rest are in order, if we accept Alcuin's Gospel for the second 
 Sunday (which has the same Gospel as the Saturday in the 
 Roman use). We get 
 
 Si. Sat. bef. 2nd Sunday 
 2. 2nd Sunday 
 53. Sat. bef. 4th Sunday 
 4. 4th Sunday 
 { 5. 6th Sunday, < de Indulgentia* 
 ( 6. 6th Sunday, 'In Palmis' 
 7. Holy Thursday 
 
 A very methodical arrangement. There are similarly a pair 
 of sermons for Holy Saturday: i. 19 and ii. 1. To all these 
 must be prefixed i. 21, for Ember Friday, which will come in 
 well before Ember Saturday ; while i. 20 comes immediately 
 after No. 4. Thus we get triplets instead of couples : 
 
 1. Ember Friday 
 
 i. 21 
 
 f 7. Palm Sunday, 'De Indulgentia' 
 
 2. Ember Saturday 
 
 i. 16 
 
 ) i- 23 
 
 3. 2nd Sunday 
 
 i. 17 
 
 J 8. Blessing of Palms i. 24 
 
 4. Sat. bef. 4th Sunday 
 
 i. 18 
 
 *■ 9. Washing of Feet, Thursday i. 25 
 
 5. 4th Sunday 
 
 i. 22 
 
 / 10. Easter Eve, morning i. 19 
 
 6. Monday after 4th Sunday 
 
 i. 20 
 
 ) 11. Easter Eve, vigil ii. 1 
 (12. (Easter Day) ii. 4 
 
» IN NORTHUMBRIA 75 
 
 The symmetry is inexact, and the large gaps are curious ; 
 but the arrangement looks intentional rather than accidental. 
 
 4. Easter. The reviser of Mabillon's lists has twice 
 been puzzled, and has left two blanks ; furthermore, he has 
 got no sermon for Easter Day ! The second of his blanks is 
 an accident, but the former is not against a Roman lesson, 
 and is actually at the Easter Gospel of Gallican and Bobbio 
 uses, which N has for Saturday in Albis. This is surely 
 another agreement, not with Bobbio and Gaul, but with N 
 against Rom. But more remarkable is the fact that ii. 4, 
 which Rom, Mab, and B all agree in ascribing to Friday after 
 Easter, is actually the Easter Gospel in N. St. Bede's sermon 
 is apparently for Easter Day itself : ' Euangelica lectio, fr. c, 
 quam modo audiuirrius, et iuxta litteram gaudio plena refulget, 
 quia triumphum Rederriptoris nostri simul et redemptionis 
 nostrae dona piano sermone describit.' This was not an 
 obvious remark to make, had the preacher not been determined 
 to find Easter joy in Matt, xxviii. 16-20, where the Resurrec- 
 tion is not even mentioned. The enumeration which he gives 
 of the appearances of the risen Christ are also suitable to the 
 first of a series of Easter sermons. As for Easter Day we 
 cannot follow Rom, and ought evidently to prefer N to Gaul 
 or Ireland, let us try to restore Bede's Easter lectionary with 
 the help of N, as corrected in a future chapter (p. 117). 
 We get a complete sequence : 
 
 i. 19 Mark vii. 32-7 In Sabbato sancto mane N 
 
 ii. 1 Matt, xxviii. 1-10 In Sabbato sancto ad sero N 
 
 ii. 4 „ „ 16-20 Dominica s. pascba ad misa publica N 
 
 ii. 3 Luke xxiv. 36-47 Feria v de albas pasce N 
 
 ii. 2 „ „ 1-9 Die Sabbato de albas pasce N 
 
 ii. 6 John xvi. 5-15 Post albas pascae dominica iii N 
 «■ 7 >> » 23-30 „ „ „ iiiiN 
 
 ii. 5 „ „ 16-22 „ „ „ vN 
 
 [ii. 8 Luke xi. 9-13 In laetania maior B] 
 
 ii. 9 Luke xxiv. 44-53 In ascensa domini nostri ihu xpi N 
 
 ii. 10 John xv. 26-xvi. 4 Post ascensa domini N 
 
 ii. 11 John xiv. 15-21 Dominica sancta penticosten N ? 
 
 The last point confirms (or rather, it suggested) that N had 
 this lesson for Whit Sunday, and not xiv. 23 with B Rom> 
 for if we suppose St. Bede meant his homily for the eve (with 
 
76 THE NEAPOLITAN LECTIONARY 
 
 B Rom), he has provided no homily for the feast itself. There 
 remains one homily, ii. 12, which gives difficulty. For in 
 N this Gospel is set down for the second Sunday of Lent ; but 
 it does not seem that Bede usually follows N in Lent, and he 
 apparently had another homily for that Sunday, viz. i. 17. 
 B has two entries, in pascha annotina et in octdbas de penti- 
 costen. The latter corresponds with Alcuin and with many 
 ancient lectionaries ; and the inscription of Mabillon's list In 
 octav. Pentecost, is presumably a remains of the original head- 
 ing, since for a wonder it is not the Roman pericope} 
 
 5. Dedications. The two sermons, ii. 19, 30, placed after 
 the Decollation of St. John Baptist and before St. Matthew, 
 imply feasts between Aug. 29 and Sept. ai- Dom Morin 
 remarks that this does not suit Jarrow, for the Church of that 
 monastery was dedicated on April 2<$. 2 But all the same it 
 seems obvious to suppose that the Churches of the double 
 monastery of Monkwearmouth and Jarrow are intended. 
 The date of the former is unknown. We may assume that it 
 was in September, and that the sermon for the dedication of 
 the daughter abbey of Jarrow was placed next after it. 
 
 We thus get the following conjectural restoration of the collec- 
 tion of St. Bede's Homilies. Much of it, here and there, must 
 remain uncertain. But it seems beyond cavil that most of it is 
 based on the Neapolitan use, as Dom Morin acutely guessed : 
 
 i. 10 Epiphany, octave ? 
 
 i. 13 „ 1st Sunday after 
 
 ii. 22 „ 2nd „ 
 
 i- 15 „ 3^ 
 
 i. 11 „ 4 th 
 
 i. 14 Purification 
 
 i. 21 Lent, Ember Friday t 
 
 i. 16 „ „ Saturday > 
 
 i. 17 „ 2nd Sunday ) 
 
 i. 18 „ 3rd Saturday J 
 
 i. 22 „ 4th Sunday | 
 
 i. 20 „ 4th Monday ) 
 
 1 As to Advent it may be remarked that possibly Bede intended three Sundays, as 
 inN. 
 
 3 Dom Morin wrongly gives 24th, after Mabillon ; but the existing inscription 
 has viiii kl not viii kl — it is reproduced in Dugdale's Monasticon, and, from 
 a photograph, in Plummer's Bede, vol. ii, p. 361. 
 
 1. 
 
 1 
 
 Advent 
 
 i. 
 ii. 
 ii. 
 i. 
 
 2 
 
 23 
 
 24 
 
 3 
 
 V 
 
 „ 3rd Sunday 
 ,, Ember Friday 
 Christmas Eve 
 
 ii. 
 
 25 
 
 ,, 1st Mass 
 
 i. 
 i. 
 i. 
 
 i. 
 
 4 
 5 
 6 
 
 7 
 
 >i 2nd „ 
 » 3rd „ 
 
 St. John Evang. 
 
 H. Innocents 
 
 i. 
 
 8 
 
 Circumcision 
 
 i. 
 
 9 
 
 Epiphany 
 
IN NORTHUMBRIA 
 
 77 
 
 i. 
 
 24 
 
 Lent 
 
 , Blessing of Palms j i 
 
 i. 1 
 
 i. 
 
 23 
 
 a 
 
 Ephphetha, Sunday [ i 
 
 i. 12 
 
 i. 
 
 25 
 
 n 
 
 Washing of feet, Thurs. J 
 
 i. 12 
 
 i. 
 
 *9 
 
 Easter Eve, morning i 
 
 *• 15 
 
 ii. 
 
 1 
 
 tt 
 
 „ evening i 
 
 i. 13 
 
 ii. 
 
 4 
 
 n 
 
 Day i 
 
 i. 14 
 
 ii. 
 
 3 
 
 a 
 
 Thursday i 
 
 i. 17 
 
 ii. 
 
 2 
 
 jj 
 
 Sat. in Albis i 
 
 i. 16 
 
 ii. 
 
 6 
 
 >» 
 
 3rd Sunday after i 
 
 i. 18 
 
 ii. 
 
 7 
 
 it 
 
 4th „ „ i 
 
 i. 19 
 
 ii. 
 
 5 
 
 a 
 
 5th „ 
 
 
 ii. 
 
 18 
 
 Rogation litanies ii. 20 
 
 ii. 
 
 9 
 
 Ascension Day ii. 21 
 
 ii. 
 
 10 
 
 
 , after the 
 
 
 Pentecost 
 
 ,, octave ? 
 Feast of St Benet Biscop 
 Feast of St Peter's Chair ? 
 Vigil of St. John Baptist 
 Nativity of St. John Baptist 
 Feast of SS. John and Paul 
 „ „ SS. Peter and Paul 
 „ „ Decollation of St. J. B. 
 Dedication (of Wearmouth 
 
 Church ?) 
 Dedication (of Jarrow Church ?) 
 Feast of St.. Matthew 
 
CHAPTER V 
 THE CODEX FULDENSIS AND EUGIPIUS 
 § i. Victor of Capua possessed a Greek Diatessaron* 
 
 Before we enter upon the consideration of Eugipius's 
 lectionary use, we must give our attention to a MS. older than 
 the Northumbrian texts, indeed half a century older than 
 Anglo-Saxon Christianity. The Codex of Fulda is said to 
 have been placed in that abbey by St. Boniface, and it remains 
 in the library at Fulda to the present day, though there is an 
 abbey there no longer. It was written at Capua under the 
 direction of Victor, who was bishop from 541 to 554. The 
 Gospels in it are arranged in a Diatessaron, and this arrange- 
 ment has produced considerable mixture in the passages from 
 the Synoptists ; but yet the text is seen to be a good one, and 
 to have a close relationship with the Northumbrian text, which 
 we may now call the Cassiodorio-Eugipian text. An examina- 
 tion of this famous MS. will show us further points of contact 
 with the AY family, and will lead us to very important 
 results. 
 
 Victor of Capua showed considerable critical acumen when 
 he decided that the Diatessaron which he discovered was that 
 of Tatian rather than that of Ammonius. But what did he 
 discover ? A Latin Diatessaron, according to Zahn, 1 prob- 
 ably put together not earlier than 500. It will be remembered 
 that the Codex Fuldensis was read through by Victor on 
 April 19, 546, and again on April ia, 547.2 The writing of it 
 will have been begun later than his accession to the episcopate 
 of Capua in 541. But if Victor found a Latin Diatessaron 
 ready made, the difficulty concerning its origin is only shifted 
 a little further back. It is indefinitely unlikely that it should 
 
 1 Forsckungen t i, p. 310. 
 
 3 St. Victor's notes were given above, ch. iii, § 1 . 
 
THE CODEX FULDENSIS AND EUGIPIUS 79 
 
 have been composed directly from a Syriac model. It is ex- 
 tremely likely that Greek copies would have occasionally been 
 made, although we do not happen to possess a record of any. 
 Victor begins his Preface thus : 
 
 'Dum fortuito in manus meas incideret unum ex quatuor euangelium 
 compositum, et absente titulo, non inuenirem nomen auctoris, diligenter 
 inquirens quis gesta uel dicta domini et Saluatoris nostri, euangelica 
 lectione discreta, in ordinem quo se consequi uidebantur, non minimo 
 studii labore redegerit, reperi Ammonium quemdam Alexandrinum . , . 
 sicut Eusebius episcopus Carpiano cuidam scribens, in praefatione 
 editionis suae qua canones memorati euangelii edidit, refert. ... Ex 
 historia quoque eius comperi quod Tatianus uir eruditissimus, et orator 
 illius temporis clarissimus, unum ex quatuor compaginauerit euangelium, 
 cui titulum Diapente imposuit.' 
 
 There is nothing here to tell us whether the book found by 
 Victor was in Latin or not.. But it is quite evident that he 
 expected to find that it was composed by a Greek writer. 
 He certainly has no idea that it came from a Syriac original, 
 or he would not have suggested Ammonius. His words are 
 evidently consistent with its having been a Greek work which 
 he found. Further on he does not tell us that he translated 
 it. 1 But then, in any case, he did not translate it, but adapted 
 a very good Vulgate text to the scheme he found. We cannot 
 infer that he did not transfer this scheme from Greek to Latin, 
 because he does not say so ; just as we cannot infer that he did 
 not simply have it copied, because he does not say so. As a 
 fact he merely tells us that he added the Ammonian sections. 
 But his Preface placed at the beginning of the volume shows 
 us that he had the present copy made under his careful super- 
 vision, while we may fairly infer that the Preface implies by 
 its very existence that Victor looked upon the work as his 
 own in its present form. 
 
 1 The following words of Victor in his Preface are ambiguous : ' Verumtamen 
 uel si iam heresiarches huius editionis auctor exstjtit Tatianus, uerba Domini mei 
 cognoscens, libenter amplector interpretation em ; si fuisset eius propria, procul 
 abicerem.' By interpretatio he might mean 'translation*; but it does not 
 appear whether he embraces so willingly a translation which he discovered, or 
 whether he rather means 'I willingly set myself to the work of translating*. 
 Perhaps he means that he knew the Greek he found to be a translation from the 
 Syriac. But he may also mean Tatian's ' interpretation ' or arrangement. 
 
80 THE CODEX FULDENSIS AND EUGIPIUS 
 
 Now it is certain that Victor knew Greek. It is also certain 
 that he occupied himself a good deal with Holy Scripture, for 
 a great many of his scholia have been preserved in catenae or 
 by Smaragdus. What is especially important is the fact that 
 he quoted a great many early Greek writers whose works are 
 lost to us, Polycarp, Origen, Severus Gabalitanus, Diodorus 
 of Tarsus, as Cardinal Pitra has shown by the fragments he 
 published. 1 Especially famous are the five fragments of pseudo- 
 Polycarp published by Feuardent. 2 
 
 Victor of Capua is therefore just the man who was likely to 
 stumble upon a Greek recension of Tatian's ' Gospel of the 
 mixed \ To shift the difficulty back some forty years with 
 Zahn will not help us to find an individual so likely to have 
 known such a writing or to have adapted it as Victor. 
 
 The care with which Victor corrected the whole MS. (which 
 is a complete New Testament) is in character with the minute 
 accuracy with which the mosaic of the Diatessaron is adjusted. 
 
 If this view is right — and I can see no real ground for Zahn's 
 view — it follows that St. Victor of Capua had in his possession 
 a very good Vulgate text of the Gospels, and one which was 
 closely related to the text which Cassiodorus borrowed from 
 the library of Eugipius at Naples. The resemblance between 
 Victor's codex and that of Eugipius is unlikely to be for- 
 tuitous. 
 
 § %. St. Germanus of Capua and the Diatessaron. 
 
 How did Victor happen to come across so many early frag- 
 ments of Greek Christian literature? His age was not one 
 for much learning. Dionysius the Little was indeed a Greek 
 scholar, but then he was not an Italian but a Scythian. 
 Cassiodorus had many works translated from the Greek by a 
 certain Epiphanius, and provided Greek books ' in the eighth 
 cupboard ' for such as could read them, as well as a Greek 
 Pandect. But such knowledge was rare ; and at the end of 
 
 1 See his words in Migne, P. L. t 102, col. 1122 ; the fragments will be found in 
 Spicilegium Solesmense, vol. i, and Analecta sacra et classic a, vol. 5. 
 
 2 The form of them is obviously Victor's own style. The matter I believe to be 
 Papias not Polycarp. 
 
THE CODEX FULDENSIS AND EUGIPIUS 81 
 
 the same century St. Gregory the Great was able to pass 
 several years at Constantinople without learning Greek at all. 
 
 St. Victor of Capua was the successor, and no doubt the 
 disciple and friend, of a bishop of Capua who knew the East 
 well. St. Germanus of Capua had been the head of the em- 
 bassy sent by Pope Hormisdas in 519 to the Emperor Justin 
 for the reunion of East and West after the death of the 
 heretical Emperor Anastasius. We possess the instructions 
 taken with them by the legates, and many letters of the Pope 
 to them. 1 We have also many reports sent to Rome by 
 St. Germanus 2 and by the deacon St. Dioscorus. 3 St. Ger- 
 manus lived on until 541, if we may trust the epitaph of 
 Victor printed by Ughelli. 4 His death was revealed to St. 
 Benedict, who saw his soul go to heaven in a globe of light. 5 
 
 Now when St. Victor tells us that he found the Diatessaron 
 by chance we do not gather that he bought it by chance. 
 Rather he found it among some books he had about him at 
 Capua. It is natural to suppose that he found it in the same 
 collection of Greek Christian writers upon which he drew for 
 his scholia on the Pentateuch and for other writings. It is 
 probable that he did not form this collection himself, as he did 
 not know what it contained. 
 
 It is obvious, therefore, to hazard the guess that he inherited 
 from his predecessor St. Germanus a library of Greek Fathers 
 which that bishop had collected while in the East. Victor's 
 knowledge of Greek will not surprise us, since he could have 
 learnt it from Germanus or in his entourage. 
 
 § 3. The Gospel text in the Codex Fuldensis is derived 
 from that of Eugipius. 
 
 The text of this Latin Diatessaron is mixed, where the same 
 passage occurs in more than one Gospel. I take, for an instance, 
 the passage cited by Mgr. Kaulen (Vulgata, p. %%i) from 
 
 1 Mansi, vol. 8, pp. 441 and 460-1, 467-8, 471, 474-7- 
 * Ibid., pp. 449-50, 453, 475, 480, 482, 488. 
 
 3 Ibid., pp. 454, 479, 486, 490. Also in Migne, P. L., Ixiii. 
 
 4 Italia Sacra, cited by Pitra, in Migne, P. Z», cii, 1123. 
 
 5 St. Gregory, Dial., ii. 35. 
 
 CH. V. G. G 
 
8a THE CODEX FULDENSIS AND EUGIPIUS 
 
 cap. cvi, representing Matt. xix. 16, Mark x. 17, and Luke 
 xviii. 18. 
 
 Et cum egressus esset in uiam procurrens quidam genu flexu ante 
 eum . rogabat eum— Mark, 
 
 Magister bone . quid boni faciam ut habeam uitam aeternam . qui dixit 
 ei . quid me interrogas de bono. — Matthew, 
 
 nemo bonus . nisi unus deus. — Mark. 
 
 Si autem uis ad uitam ingredi . serua mandata . dixit illi . quae .ihesus 
 autem dixit. — Matthew. 
 
 non occides.— Luke. 
 
 non adulterabis. — Matthew. 
 
 non furtum facies. — Luke, 
 
 non falsum testimonium dices. — Luke and Matthew. 
 
 honora patrem tuum et matrem. — Luke and Mark. 
 
 et diligis proximum tuum sicut teipsum . Dicit illi adulescens . Omnia 
 haec custodiui — Matthew. 
 
 a iuuentute mea — Mark and Luke. 
 
 quid adhuc mihi deest. — Matthew. 
 
 This is an extremely elaborate mosaic, hardly adequately 
 described by Bishop Wordsworth in these mild words : c Huius 
 codicis indoles non facile aestimatur cum euangelium unum ex 
 quatuor exhibeat ; unde scriba per similitudinem locorum a 
 recta uia abduci potuit ' (p. 711). One may well say boldly 
 that Victor has carefully weighed every word, supplied every 
 expression which was wanting in one Gospel but found in 
 another, e.g. (above) ' Et diligis (sic) proximum/ &c. [Mark 
 and Luke omit] ; ' quid adhuc mihi deest ' [Mark and Luke 
 omit] ; ' a iuventute mea ' [Matthew omits] ; he chooses the 
 better wording ( : non occides ' for ( ne occidas ' or * non homi- 
 cidium facies ' ; e non furtum facies ' for * non facies furtum * or 
 * ne fureris '). He prefers the longer, harder, and more preg- 
 nant phrase to the simpler (■ Quid me interrogas de bono ? ' 
 rather than 'quid me dicis bonum ? '). The harmonizing is 
 exceedingly well done ; indeed it would be difficult to im- 
 prove upon it in this involved passage. It is clearly the work 
 of the learned and acute critic who wrote the preface to the 
 harmony. 
 
 Bishop Wordsworth continues in the same passage: ( Sed 
 stat plerumque sine dubio cum familia Northumbrica AY. 
 Non tamen ita arete cum illis sociatur ut libertate non frua- 
 
THE CODEX FULDENSIS AND EUGIPIUS 83 
 
 tur. Tres ergo AFY simul iuncti duobus AY praeferendi 
 sunt.' The chief differences are in spelling, such as will be 
 seen from the examples I give in the note below. 1 Most of 
 these are due to carelessness ; but sometimes, we cannot 
 doubt, AY will reflect the theories of orthography taught by 
 Cassiodorus. Of the differences of reading in the note, uiderant 
 is a clerical error of F. But omnibus (= Greek) in Luke i. 3 
 (mihi adsecuto a principio omnibus) may well have been re- 
 jected by Cassiodorus as unintelligible or ungrammatical, even 
 though he found it in Eugipius's copy. 
 
 Thus it is clear that AFY form one family in the Gospels ; 
 and this means that they are descended from a common an- 
 cestor. The Fuldensis is earlier than the collation by Cassio- 
 dorus of Eugipius's codex in 558, which was the origin of the 
 Northumbrian text of the Gospels. Therefore it is the codex 
 of Eugipius and F which had a common parent. But this is 
 impossible if the Eugipian MS. was so old as to be supposed a 
 copy of St. Jerome s first edition. It remains that F must be 
 a derivative of Eugipius's codex. 
 
 This is not in itself a difficult supposition. Capua is the 
 nearest large town to Naples on the main road to Rome, 
 whether by the Latin or the Appian Way. Somewhat further 
 on towards Rome lay St. Benedict's monastery of Montecassino 
 on the Latin Way, where that saint tells us guests were never 
 wanting. 2 If travellers constantly mounted that steep ascent 
 when journeying along the Via Latina they certainly stopped, 
 and more easily, at Capua, where that road joined the Appian 
 
 1 I give from Wordsworth's edition the points where F is opposed to A, adding 
 the readings of Y (i. e. I give AY<F and A<FY, but not AF<Y) in Matt. i. 
 1-16 : zara F {cum gr.) t zarad AY ; rachab F, racab AY ; obed F, obeth AY ; 
 autem om, FY ; abia abia FY, abiam abia A ; manassen F, manasse A, manassem 
 Y ; in transmigration F, -nem AY ; salatihel F, salathiel AY ; matthan matthan 
 FY, matthan mattham A. Again Luke i. 1-22: conpletae F, completae AY; 
 uiderant F (solus)> uiderant AY iceteri) ; omnibus F {p/ures), omnia AY {pauci) ; 
 theofyle F, theofile A, theophile Y; iudae F, iudaeae AY; auia F, abia AY; elisabeth 
 F, elisabet AY {et sic pluries) ; quaerella FY, querella A ; sterilis F, sterelis AY ; 
 zaccharia(s) quater F, zacharia(s) semel F, semper AY ; depraecatio FY, deprecatio 
 A. This comparison suggests that F has to some extent preserved the spelling of the 
 codex of Eugipius, whereas A has to some extent preserved the corrected spelling 
 introduced by that professor of orthography Cassiodorus. 
 
 1 St. Bened., S. Reg,, cap. 53. 
 
 G % 
 
84 THE CODEX FULDENSIS AND EUGIPIUS 
 
 Way, and where the Campanian Way branched off. Eugipius 
 was in communication with all the learned men of his day. 
 He cannot have been unacquainted with St. Benedict's friend 
 St. Germanus, or with Victor, who was probably deacon or 
 priest under the latter. Eugipius himself may have been dead 
 when Victor became bishop in 541. 
 
 The composition of the Diatessaron was a work demanding 
 great care. Victor must have used a codex in which he marked 
 the extracts to be made, and by means of which he compared 
 and fused the parallel passages. This can hardly have been 
 Eugipius's own precious book, but was probably a copy of it 
 made by that abbot's practised scribes, of whom St. Fulgentius 
 told us. 
 
 We are obliged, I think, to conclude that Victor had a Greek 
 text of the Diatessaron before him. It seems impossible that 
 he should have taken so much trouble to re-edit an Old Latin 
 Diatessaron according to St. Jerome's translation. With this 
 Greek Diatessaron and a copy of Eugipius's codex — the four 
 Gospels bound separately to make comparison possible — 
 Victor could compose the Diatessaron of the Codex Fuldensis, 
 but (it seems to me) not otherwise. 
 
 § 4. The Northumbrian summaries were composed by Eugipius 
 and are quoted in F. 
 
 It was impossible for St. Victor to insert in his codex such 
 summaries as he found in the codex of Eugipius, for four sum- 
 maries of four Gospels would not be suitable to a Diatessaron. 
 He therefore composed a single summary and prefixed it to 
 the Diatessaron, heading it Praefatio, In Migne's very, un- 
 trustworthy edition * the whole Diatessaron is broken up into 
 chapters, each with its own title from this summary ; the 
 titles are emendated and altered ; wherever the first word is 
 ubi (as it generally is), it is omitted. Ranke in his excellent 
 edition of the Codex (Marburg, 1868) has printed them care- 
 fully in their proper position. As Wordsworth and White 
 have not given them I reprint them here from Ranke, since his 
 little book is not always accessible. 
 
 1 Pair. laU t vol. 68, coll. 351 foil. 
 
THE CODEX FULDENSIS AND EUGIPIUS 85 
 Praefatio. 
 
 u In principio uerbum deus apud deum per quern facta sunt omnia 
 
 ij. de sacerdotium zacchariae 
 
 iij. ubi angelus gabrihel . ad mariam loquitur 
 
 iiij. Natiuitatem iohannis baptistae 
 
 v. de generationem uel natiuitate Christi 
 
 vj. ubi angelus apparuit pastoribus 
 
 vij. ubi ihesus 1 ductus est a parentibus ut circumcideretur 
 
 viij. de magis qui uenerunt ab oriente 
 
 viiij. ubi infugatus ihesus et parentes eius in aegypto 
 
 x. ubi herodes interfecit pueros 
 
 xj. ubi ihesus reuocatur ab aegypto 
 
 xij. ubi ihesus remansit in templo hierosolymis 
 
 xiij. ubi iohannes baptista apparuit in israhel 
 
 xiiij. ubi ihesus baptizatur ab iohanne 
 
 xv. ubi ihesus ductus est ab spiritu in deserto 
 
 xvj. ubi duo discipuli iohannis secuti sunt ihesum 
 
 xvij. de philippo et de nathanahel 
 
 xviij. ubi ihesus in synagoga legit librum esaiae 
 
 xviiij. Ubi ihesus uocauit petrum et andream . iacobum et iohannem 
 
 xx. Ubi ihesus uocauit mattheum publicanum 
 
 xxj. Ubi ihesus audiens quod iohannes traditus esset secessit in finibus 
 zabulon et nepthalim 
 
 xxij. Ubi ihesus circumibat omnes regiones . et sedens in monte elegit xii 
 discipulos et docuit eos de beatitudinem regni caelorum et quae secuntur 
 
 xxiij. Increpatio diuitum 
 
 xxiiij. Ubi dicit uos estis sal terrae 
 
 xxv. uos estis lux huius mundi et iterum comparationes de praeceptis legis 
 
 xxvj. iracundiae 
 
 xxvij. de relinquendo munus ad altare 
 
 xxviij. de adulterio concupiscentiae 
 
 xxviiij. de repudio 
 
 xxx. de iuramento 
 
 xxxj. de oculum pro oculo 
 
 xxxij, de diligendo proximum 
 
 xxxiij. de occulta elemosyna 
 
 xxxiiij. de secreta oratione 
 
 xxxv. de occulto ieiunio 
 
 xxxvj. de non thesaurizando super terram 
 
 xxxvij. quia nemo potest duobus dominis seruire 
 
 xxxviij. non debere solliciti esse de esca uel de indumento 
 
 xxxviiij. non debere quemquam iudicare uel condemnare 
 
 1 Ranke writes in full ihesus , though the manuscript itself has simply iHs, See 
 Wordsworth on Matt. i. X. 
 
86 THE CODEX FULDENSIS AND EUGIPIUS 
 
 xl. parabola de amico uel de tribus panibus petendum quaerendum 
 pulsandum 
 
 xlj. de cauendo a falsis prophetis 
 
 xlij. non hi intrabunt in regno caelorumqui tantum dicunt domine domine 
 
 xliij. comparatio in his omnibus de sapiente et insipiente aedificatoribus 
 
 xliiij. ubi ihesus mittit xii discipulus suos docere et curare omnes in- 
 firmitates 
 
 xlv. ubi ihesus in chanan galileae aqua uinum fecit 
 
 xlvj. ubi ihesus mundat leprosum 
 
 xlvij. ubi ihesus puerum centurionis paralyticum curauit 
 
 xlviij. ubi socrum petri a febribus sanauit 
 
 xlviiij. ubi ihesus in ciuitatem naim mortuum resuscitauit 
 
 1. ubi omnes infirmitates curat. ut adimplerentur scribturae prophetarum 
 
 lj. ubi uolenti eum sequi dixit . uulpes foueas habent 
 
 lij. ubi nauigans increpauit tempestati et cessauit 
 
 liij. Ubi curauit trans fretum daemoniacum qui in monumentis manebant 
 
 liiij. Ubi curauit paralyticum quern deposuerunt per tectum 
 
 lv. Ubi filium subreguli absentem curauit 
 
 Ivj. Ubi leui publicanus conuiuium ei fecit. Et dicentes scribae et 
 pharisaei discipulis quare cum publicanis et peccatoribus manducat uester 
 
 lvij. Ubi scribae signum petunt ab eo et eis multa dicit 
 
 lviij. Ubi quaedam mulier de turba . clamauit ad ihesum beatus uenter 
 qui te portauit 
 
 lviiij. Ubi nuntiatur ihesu . quia mater tua et fratres tui uolunt et 
 uidere 
 
 lx. Ubi ihesus mulierem quae fluxu sanguinis patiebatur curauit et 
 filiam iahiri principis synagogae mortuam suscitauit 
 
 Ixj. Ubi dos caecos curauit et daemonium . surdum et mutum eicit 
 
 lxij. Ubi pharisaei dicunt de ihesu in behelzebub hie eicit daemonia 
 
 lxiij. Ubi marta suscepit ihesu in domo sua 
 
 lxiiij. Ubi iohannes de carcere misit ad ihesum interrogare eum 
 
 lxv. Ubi exprobrat ciuitatibus in quibus factae sunt plurimae uirtutes 
 
 lxvj. Ubi apostoli reuertuntur ad ihesum de praedicationem 
 
 lxvij. Ubi ihesus elegit alios lxxii discipulos et adiungens parabolam 
 turrem aedificantis et regis ad proelium parantis 
 
 Ixviij. Ubi die sabbato in synagoga curauit manum aridam 
 
 lxviiij. Ubi ihesus in montem orat et iuxta mare turbis et discipulis suis 
 plurima in parabolis locutus est 
 
 lxx. Ecce exiit qui seminat seminare 
 
 lxxj. De eo qui seminauit bonum semen in agro suo et de zizania 
 
 lxxij. De grano sinapis 
 
 lxxiij. De fermento quod abscondit mulier et alia multa discipulis 
 
 Ixxiiij. Ubi discipulis disseret parabulam seminantis 
 
 lxxv. Qui seminat semen et uadit dormitu uel surgit et discipulis 
 parabulam zizaniorum agri disserit 
 
THE CODEX FULDENSIS AND EUGIPIUS 87 
 
 Ixxvj. de thesauro abscondito in agro et negotiationem margaritarum. 
 sagena missa in mare et de patre familias qui profert de thesauro suo 
 noua et uetera 
 
 lxxvij. Ubi adcontra ihesutn dues eius indignati sunt dicentes unde 
 huic tanta sapientia 
 
 lxxviij. Ubi de herodis conuiuio et de iohannis interfectione exponit 
 
 Ixxviiij. Ubi ihesus in deserto de quinque panibus v milia hominum 
 saturauit 
 
 lxxx. Ubi ihesus supra mare pedibus ambulauit . et petrum mergentem 
 liberat 
 
 lxxxj. Ubi transfretantes uenerunt in terram gennesar . et turbae secutae 
 sunt trans mare de manna in deserto 
 
 lxxxij. de murmuratione iudaeorum . eo quod ait ihesos ego sum panis 
 uiuus 
 
 lxxxiij. Ubi quidam pharisaeus rogauit ihesum adprandium et cogitabat 
 quare non fuerit baptizatus 
 
 lxxxiiij. de apostolis quare non lotis manibus manducarunt 
 
 lxxxv. de muliere syrophonissa quae pro filia sua petebat 
 
 Ixxxvj. Ubi ihesus super puteum iacob . mulieri samaritanae Iocutus est 
 
 Ixxxvij. Ubi ihesus surdum et mutam curauit 
 
 lxxxviij. Ubi hierosolymis infirmum curauit . qui xxxviij annis iacuit 
 infirmitate et multa cum iudaeis eius occasione disputauit 
 
 lxxxviiij. Ubi ihesus de vij panes . et paucos pisces iiij hominum 
 saturauit et precepit apostolis cauere a fermento pharisaeorum 
 
 xc. Ubi ihesus interrogat apostolos . quern me dicunt homines esse et 
 quae secuntur et dicit petro scandalum mihi es 
 
 xcj. Ubi ihesus dicit et quidam astantibus non gustare mortem et in 
 monte transfiguratur 
 
 xcij. Ubi pharasaei dicunt ad ihesum . discede hinc quia herodes uult 
 te occidere et curauit lunaticum 
 
 xciij. Ubi ihesus de passione sua . discipulis patefecit et capharnaum 
 pro se . et Petro didragma exactoribus reddit 
 
 xciiij. Ubi ihesus interrogatus a discipulis suis . quis maior erit in 
 regno caelorum instruit eos his exemplis ut humilient se sicut paruulus 
 
 xcv. Non debere prohiberi eos qui faciunt signa in nomine ihesu 
 
 xcvj. Non debere contemnere unum de pusillis adiungens similitudinem 
 de oue perdita et de dragma 
 
 xcvij. De filio qui substantiam patris deuorauit 
 
 xcviij. De remittendo fratribus ex corde 
 
 xcviiij. Similitudo de rege qui posuit rationem cum seruis suis 
 
 c. Ubi ihesus interrogator a pharisaeis si liceat uxorem dimittere qua- 
 cumque ex causa 
 
 cj. Ubi ihesus imposuit manum infantibus et pharisaei murmurant de 
 ihesu quod sic recepit peccatores 
 
 cij. Ubi ihesus sanat in synagoga mulierem aridam et curbatam 
 
88 THE CODEX FULDENSIS AND EUGIPIUS 
 
 ciij. Ubi ihesus ascendit hierosolyma in die festo scenopegiae 
 
 ciiij. Ubi ihesus instruit eos qui annuntiauerunt ei de galilaeis . quos 
 interfecit pilatus adiungens similitudinem arboris fici in uinea 
 
 cv. Non debere prohiberi eos qui faciunt signa in nomine ihesu 
 
 cvj. Non debere contemnere unum de pusillis adiungens similitudinem 
 de oue perdita et de dragma 
 
 cvij. de diuite et lazaro 
 
 cviij. de uilico infidele 
 
 cviiij. de patre familias qui exiit primo mane conducere mercennarios in 
 uineam suam 
 
 ex. Ubi in domo pharisaei sanat ihesus hydropicum et instruit eos qui 
 primos accubitus in conuiuiis elegebant 
 
 cxj. Ubi ihesus x leprosos mundauit 
 
 cxij. Ubi ihesus de passione sua discipulis suis iterum indicauit et mater 
 filiorum zebedaei rogat pro filiis suis 
 
 cxiij. Ubi ihesus responsum dat dicenti sibi domine pauci sunt qui 
 salui fiant 
 
 cxiiij. de zaccheo publicano 
 
 cxv. Ubi ihesus iterum duos caecos curauit 
 
 cxvj. Ubi ihesus asinum sedens hierosolyma ingreditur 
 
 cxvij. Ubi ihesus eicit de templo ementes et uendentes et dat responsum 
 pharisaeis 
 
 cxviij. Ubi ihesus praetulit ceteris uiduam propter duo aera minuta . 
 adiungens parabulam de pharisaeo et publicano contra eos qui se extollunt 
 
 cxviiij. de nicodemo qui uenit ad ihesum nocte 
 
 cxx. de muliere a iudaeis in adulterio deprehensa 
 
 exxj. Ubi ihesus maledixit ficulneam et aruit 
 
 exxij. Ubi ihesus dicit parabolam ad discipulos propter orandi instantiam 
 de iudice duro et uidua 
 
 exxiij. Ubi ihesus interrogatur a principibus sacerdotum in qua potestate 
 haec facis . adiungens parabulam de duobus filiis in uineam missis 
 
 exxiiij. parabulam de patre familias . qui uineam suam locauit agricolis 
 
 exxv. Simile est regnum caelorum homini regi qui fecit nuptias filio suo 
 
 exxvj. Ubi pharisaei mittunt ad ihesum dolo interrogantes si licet 
 tributum reddere caesari 
 
 exxvij. de sudducaeis qui dicunt non esse resurectionem et interrogant 
 de vij fratibus qui unam uxorem habuerunt 
 
 exxviij. Ubi scriba interrogat ihesum quod mandatum maximum est 
 in lege 
 
 exxviiij. Ubi docente ihesu in templo miserunt pharisaei eum com- 
 prehendere 
 
 exxx. Ubi ihesus interrogat pharisaeos . cuius Alius est christus 
 
 exxxj. Ubi ihesus docet . ego sum lux mundi 
 
 exxxij. Ubi ihesus faciens lutum de sputo ponens super oculos caeci 
 nati curauit eum 
 
THE CODEX FULDENSIS AND EUGIPIUS 89 
 
 cxxxiij. Ubi ihesus agnitus est eidemcaeco'et contendit multacumiudaeis 
 cxxxiiij. Ubi interrogatur ihesus a iudaeis si tu es christus die nobis 
 
 manifeste 
 
 exxxv. Ubi ihesus resuscitat lazarum a mortuis et principes concilium 
 
 faciunt ut interficerent ihesum 
 
 exxxvj. Ubi non receptus in ciuitate samaritana . iohannes et iacobus 
 
 dicunt ad ihesum si uis dicimus ut ignis discendat de caelo 
 exxxvij. Ubi ihesus uenit in bethaniam et multi iudaeorum euntes 
 
 propter lazarum crediderunt in eum 
 exxxviij. Ubi maria fudit alabastrum ungenti in capite ihesu . et increpat 
 
 pharisaeo 
 
 exxxviiij. Ubi hierosolymis graeci uidere uolunt ihesum 
 
 cxl. Ubi pharisaei interrogant ihesum quando uenit regnum dei 
 
 cxlj. Ubi ihesus loquitur ad turbas et discipulos de scribis et pharisaeis 
 
 cxlij. Ubi ihesus lamentat super hierusalem 
 
 cxliij. Ubi multi ex principibus crediderunt in eum et non confitebantur 
 
 ne de synagoga eicerentur 
 cxliiij. Ubi ostendunt discipuli ihesu structuram templi 
 cxlv. Ubi sedente ihesu . in montem oliueti interrogant eum discipuli . 
 
 quod signum erit aduentus tui uel eorum quae dixisti . et praedicat eis . de 
 
 euersione hierusalem et signis et prodigiis 
 cxlvj. de parabola ficulneae 
 cxlvij. Ubi ihesus diem iudicii aduersus tempora noe et loth adsimi- 
 
 Iauit et de fidele et prudente dispensatore 
 cxlviij. de decern uirginibus 
 
 cxlviiij. de eo qui peregre proficiscens talenta semis suis distribuit 
 cl. Ut Iumbi semper praecincti sint et lucernae ardentes 
 clj. de eo qui peregre accipere sibi regnum proficiscens x mnas seruis 
 
 suis dedit 
 clij. Cum uenerit filius hominis in sede maiestatis suae 
 cliij. Ubi iterum consilium ficiunt principes et uadit iudas ad eos 
 cliiij. Ubi ihesus lauat pedes discipulorum 
 civ. Ubi ihesus mittet discipulos praeparare sibi pascha et dicit eis quod 
 
 unus ex uobis tradit me 
 
 clvj. Ubi ihesus tradet de sacramento corporis et sanguinis sui 
 
 clvij. Ubi ihesus dicit ad petrum . expetiuit satanas ut uos uentilet . et 
 
 omnes hodie in me scandalizamini 
 clviij. Ubi ihesus hortatur discipulos suos ut non pauefiat cor uestrum 
 clviiij. Ubi ihesus dicit discipulis suis qui quod habet baiulet 
 clx. Ubi ihesus dicit . ego sum uitis et uos palmites 
 clxj. Ubi ihesus uenit in gesemani et orat ut transferat calicem istum 
 clxij. Ubi iudas uenit cum turbis comprehendere ihesum 
 clxiij. Ubi adulescens quidam indutus sindone sequebatur ihesum 
 clxiiij. Ubi interrogat princeps sacerdotum ihesum de discipulis et de 
 
 doctrina eius 
 
90 THE CODEX FULDENSIS AND EUGIPIUS 
 
 clxv. Ubi falsi testes aduersus ihesum quaerebantur 
 
 clxyj. Ubi principes sacerdotum adiurat ihesum . si tu es christus die 
 nobis 
 
 clxvij. Ubi traditur pilato ihesus et paenitetur iudas 
 
 clxviij. Ubi pilatus audit inter iudaeos et dominum et mittit eum ad 
 haerodem 
 
 clxviiij. Ubi uxor pilati misit ad eum dicens nihil tibi sit et iusto illi 
 
 clxx. Ubi pilatus dimisit barabban . et tradidit christumad crucifigendum 
 
 clxxj. Ubi duo latrones cum christo crucifigi ducuntur . et ubi ihesus de 
 cruce de matre sua dixit ad discipulum quum diligebat . ecce mater tua 
 
 clxxij. Ubi ioseph petit corpus ihesu a pilato et sepelit una cum 
 nicodemo 
 
 clxxiij. Ubi iudaei signant monumentum 
 
 clxxiiij. Ubi prima die sabbati suscitatur ihesus a mortuis 
 
 clxxv. Ubi custodes monumenti annuntiauerunt sacerdotibus . de re- 
 surrectione christi 
 
 clxxvj. Ubi ihesus apparuit mulieribus post resurrectionem 
 
 clxxvij. Ubi ihesus duobus euntibus in castellum apparuit 
 
 clxxviij. Ubi ihesus apparuit discipulis suis 
 
 clxxviiij. Ubi ihesus iterum apparuit thomae 
 
 clxxx. Ubi iterum apparuit ihesus discipulis super mare tiberiadis 
 
 clxxxj. Ubi ihesus ter dicit petro diligis me 
 
 clxxxij. Ubi discipuli euntes in galilaeam uiderunt et adorauerunt 
 dominum et assumptus est in caelis coram eis 
 
 A comparison with the many summaries printed by Words- 
 worth before each of the Gospels and in his Epilogue is a 
 laborious work. I have carried the comparison as far as the 
 sixtieth chapter of F. The result is that I find no striking 
 likeness in F to any of the various summaries, except at the 
 beginning, where Victor has used the Northumbrian sum- 
 maries. His first heading (' In principio uerbum deus apud 
 deum per quern facta sunt omnia ') is taken verbally from the 
 first Northumbrian heading to St. John (Wordsworth, p. 492) : 
 ' In principio uerbum deus apud deum per quern facta sunt 
 omnia et iohannes missus refertur ante eum qui recipientes se 
 facit filios dei per gratiam suam.' 
 
 Victor has determined that all his headings shall be very 
 short. He has quoted the beginning of the AHVY summary, 
 but his omission of the main verb refertur has spoilt the con- 
 struction. 
 
 The second heading, ' De sacerdotium zacchariae,' is from 
 
THE CODEX FULDENSIS AND EUGIPIUS 91 
 
 AHVY to Luke, No. % (Wordsworth, p. 274) : ' Sacerdotium 
 iusti zacchariae refertur et uisio in templo/ &c. Again Victor 
 has adopted the first words, and has omitted the verb and all 
 that follows. It is important to notice that none of the other 
 types of summary have anything at all which corresponds with 
 these first two headings of F. 
 
 The third : ' Ubi angelus Gabrihel ad Mariam loquitur/ 
 corresponds to AHVY Luke, No. 3 : ' Missus angelus ad 
 Mariam nasciturum loquitur Saluatorem,' &c. After this the 
 coincidences are but slight. It would seem that Victor found 
 it far less trouble to compose short headings for himself than 
 to turn up with great difficulty the corresponding number in 
 one of the four summaries in Eugipius's codex. Among the 
 occasional coincidences I will signalize the following : — 
 
 No. 4. ( De generationem uel natiuitate Christi/ Victor 
 may have taken the first words of the first and second 
 heading of the AUVY summary to Matthew : ' i. Generatio- 
 num quadraginta duarum ... ii. Natiuitas Iesu Christi . . .' 
 Uel means * and \ 
 
 No. 40. ' Parabola de amico uel de tribus panibus petendum 
 quaerendum pulsandum.' The AUVY summary to Matthew 
 (Wordsworth, p. %%) No. 22 has : ' Sanctum canibus porcisque 
 nondandum, sed petendum quaerendumpttlsandutnguepraeftcit 1 ; 
 the Spanish C also has ' VI iii. Petendum querendum et pul- 
 sandum ', while the ordinary summaries (BAOJT, &c.) have 
 * De margaritis ante porcos non mittendis petendum quaeren- 
 dum et pulsandum ' (Wordsworth, ibid.). It appears that by 
 chance Victor referred to the summary here and there, though 
 he usually invented his own headings. 
 
 This proof that Victor had the AHVY summaries before 
 him — though he could not incorporate them, as they were, in 
 his codex — is of great importance. 
 
 1. In the first place it shows that the summaries were not 
 composed at Jarrow nor even by Cassiodorus 1 f but were older 
 yet. 
 
 1 Cassiodorus composed summaries for certain books of Holy Scripture, and he 
 is careful to tell us which ; his reason being that he found none for those books. 
 This reason could not apply to the Gospels, and we might a priori be certain that 
 he composed no Gospel summaries. 
 
9* THE CODEX FULDENSIS AND EUGIPIUS 
 
 %. Their intimate connexion with the Neapolitan lectionary 
 system forces us to conclude that they came to Cassiodorus, 
 like the lectionary notes, in the codex of Eugipius. 
 
 3. Thus our former conclusion is made practically certain, 
 that Victor of Capua employed a copy of Eugipius's codex 
 for the formation of his Diatessaron. 
 
 Conjecture may carry us somewhat further. As the North- 
 umbrian summaries are found in no other early family, we 
 have a right to assume that they are not much older than F. 
 The codex of Eugipius was an old one in his day, so that it is 
 unlikely the summaries should have originally belonged to it. 
 It is more probable that they were inserted by him, and in fact 
 composed by him. We have already learned from Cassio- 
 dorus that Eugipius was a great Scriptural scholar ; possibly 
 this reputation was partly based upon these Gospel summaries, 
 which are in some ways by far the best that have come down 
 to us. 
 
 This hypothesis is confirmed by the fact that the Neapolitan 
 lectionary notes were certainly added to the MS. at Naples, 
 and, of course, under the supervision of Abbot Eugipius him- 
 self. The summaries are based upon the lectionary division, 
 therefore they also were composed at Naples. 
 
 In chapter vii we shall see what reason induced Eugipius 
 to compose them and in ch. vi why he keeps less accurately 
 to the lectionary divisions in the fourth Gospel. 
 
 § 5. The introductions to the Gospels in the Codex Fuldensis 
 and the Codex Amiatinus. 
 
 There are no introductions, prefaces or prologues to the 
 Gospels in the Codex Fuldensis. 
 
 The form of the Gospels, being a Diatessaron, did not 
 admit any of the usual prefatory matter, and Victor has 
 simply substituted a preface of his own about his discovery, 
 together with the Eusebian canons and the Diatessaric sum- 
 mary which was given above. 
 
 But he had prefatory matter before him. 
 
 1. To begin with, he knew the letter of Eusebius to 
 
THE CODEX FULDENSIS AND EUGIPIUS 93 
 
 Carpianus, which is found in Y Reg, but not in A. But it 
 is astonishing to note that his citation of it implies the use 
 of a different translation, or more probably of the original 
 Greek, since he knew Greek : 
 
 Y. F. 
 
 Ammonius quidem Alexandrinus Ammonius quidem Alexandrinus 
 
 magno studio atque industria unum multum, ut arbitror, laboris et studii 
 
 nobis pro quatuor euangeliis dere- impendens, unum ex quatuor nobis 
 
 liquit. reliquit euangelium. 
 
 Victor immediately afterwards proceeds to quote from 
 Eusebius's History, but then he clearly uses Rufinus's trans- 
 lation of iv. 39, as his expression unum ex quatuor shows, for 
 these words are not represented in the Greek, but are added 
 by Rufinus. The rest of the passage is freely paraphrased. 
 
 2. Together with the letter of Eusebius to Carpianus (which 
 Victor quotes a second time to show that Ammonius made 
 St. Matthew his standard Gospel), Victor had a series of 
 Ammonian sections before him. If he had the letter of 
 Eusebius in Greek, we might expect him to take the numbers 
 from a Greek codex. But he expressly tells us he used the 
 Vulgate : c Ipsos quoque numeros in unum pariter congregatos 
 in modum quo eos sanctus Hieronymus digessit, curaui de- 
 scribere. ) He inserts them immediately after his preface, and 
 he tells us that he did so because the Diatessaron which was 
 his model had them incorrectly written in the margin. He 
 therefore took the Eusebian canons out of his Latin Gospels, 
 no doubt from those of Eugipius. 
 
 3. His explanation of them seems to show that he had also 
 before him St. Jerome's explanation given in his letter to St. 
 Damasus Nouum opus (Wordsworth, p. 1). Why does he not 
 give the letter in his codex ? Evidently because the explana- 
 tion he has given in his own Preface seems to him sufficient. 
 
 We have reason therefore to presume that the codex used 
 by Victor contained the letter Nouum opus, the table of canons, 
 as well as the AHVY summaries, but not the letter to Carpi- 
 anus. This is just what we find in the Codex Amiatinus, 
 which has not the letter of Eusebius to Carpianus, though 
 this is found in Y and Reg. But A as well as Y Reg con- 
 
94 THE CODEX FULDENSIS AND EUGIPIUS 
 
 tains the Preface of St. Jerome from the Commentary on 
 St. Matthew Plures fuisse, and also the four ' Monarchian ' 
 Prologues of Priscillian. Were these also in Eugipius's 
 manuscript ? 
 
 4. Victor prefixes to Acts and Apocalypse the usual Pro- 
 logues, which are made up out of the ( Monarchian ' Prologues 
 to Luke and John. Consequently Victor probably knew 
 the latter also. Now we shall see in chapter xv that the 
 compiler of the Prologue to Acts has also used as a source 
 St. Jerome's letter to Paulinus, from which he has borrowed 
 a few words, and the Prologue to the Apocalypse similarly 
 shows some similarity to the Plures fuisse in the insertion of the 
 words apostolus et euangelista and ut in caena super pectus 
 eius recu?nberet> neither of which expressions occurs in the 
 Prologue to John. It is obvious, therefore, that Victor might 
 have known the Monarchian Prologues and the Plures fuisse. 
 
 Further, it is certain that the compiler of the Northumbrian 
 summaries — no doubt Eugipius himself — had the Monarchian 
 Prologues before him, for he actually quotes them. The 
 fourth capitulum of the AHVY summary of John runs thus : 
 
 iiii. In nuptiis aquam conuertit in uinum quo facto cognoscitur quod 
 ubi ipse fuerit inuitatus uinum necesse sit deficere nuptiarum. 
 
 This is from the Prologue to John, as Wordsworth has 
 pointed out : 
 
 ' ut ostendens quod erat ipse Iegentibus demonstraret quod ubi dominus 
 inuitatur deficere nuptiarum uinum debeat, ut ueteribus inmutatis noua 
 omnia quae a Christo instituuntur appareant.' 
 
 Again, the Prologue to Matthew lays stress on the thrice 
 fourteen generations. The AHVY summary almost alone of 
 all summaries mentions forty-two generations : ' Generationum 
 quadraginta duarum ab abraham usque ad Christum ordo 
 narratur.' The older forms of summary omit the genealogy 
 altogether and begin with the Nativity. The Prologue to 
 Luke emphasizes the genealogy which runs backwards and 
 ends in God, 'introitu recurrentis in deum generationis ad- 
 misso.' Accordingly alone of all summaries to Luke that of 
 AHVY gives e X. Herodes carceri dat iohannem et xxx anno- 
 rum baptizato domino trinitatis in baptismo mysterium decla- 
 
THE CODEX FULDENSIS AND EUGIPIUS 95 
 
 ratur generationum lxvii a Christo SURSUM UERSUS AD DEUM 
 ordo contexitur \ In the Prologue to Mark we find ' Iohannem 
 filium Zachariae in uoce angeli adnuntiantis emissum ', and 
 correspondingly the first cap. to the AHVY summary of Mark 
 has: 'Esaiae testimonio iohannes angelus id est nuntius appella- 
 tur et praedicatro eius baptismusque refertur/ As Eugipius 
 thus used the Prologues, and apparently valued them, we may 
 assume that he added them to his codex with the summaries. 
 
 There is consequently reason to believe that Victor knew 
 and deliberately omitted the Prologues and the Nouum opus, 
 probably also the Pluresfuisse, all of which are found in the 
 Codex Amiatinus. He did not, however, know the Epistle of 
 Eusebius to Carpianus in Latin, though he had it in Greek. 
 This letter is not in A, though it is in Y and Reg. 
 
 On the other hand Eugipius had the Prologues before him. 
 
 I conclude that it is highly probable that the whole col- 
 lection of Prefaces in A (viz. (1) Nouum opus y (2) Canons, 
 (3) Plures fuisse y and before each Gospel (4) Monarchian 
 Prologues, (5) Summaries) were in Eugipius's codex, besides 
 the liturgical notes in the margins. The first, second, and 
 third of these documents were perhaps prefixed by St. Jerome 
 himself, and were pretty sure to be in the codex before it came 
 to Eugipius. The summaries Eugipius seems to have com- 
 posed himself, basing them on the liturgical divisions, and 
 quoting the Prologues in them. 
 
 But the letter to Carpianus was not included. This seems 
 to confirm the suspicion that the translation is not St. Jerome's, 
 and that he did not himself prefix it to the Vulgate Gospels. 
 The absence in so many MSS. is one argument ; its contents 
 supply another — Jerome had given all that mattered of them 
 in his letter Nouum opus, which is the dedication of his work 
 to St. Damasus ; he did not, therefore, intend to add the letter 
 of Eusebius which says the same things over again. 
 
CHAPTER VI 
 
 EUGIPIUS AND THE GALLICAN LITURGY 
 
 § i. The connexion of Eugipius with Lerins. 
 
 EUGIPIUS thus opens his dedicatory letter to Proba, which 
 he prefixed to his Treasury of Excerpts from St. Augustine : 
 1 Excerptorum codicem quern de nonnullis operibus sancti 
 Augustini, cohortante domino meo Marino abbate uel ceteris 
 Sanctis fratribus, quomodocunque conpegeram, continuo trans- 
 ferri uobis, sancto quo polletis studio, uoluistis.' At this date 
 uel means ' and ', as (for instance) in the contemporary Rule of 
 St. Benedict. We should naturally suppose Marinus and the 
 holy brethren to be the abbot and community of Lucullanum. 
 But though Eugipius was not yet abbot himself, we know that 
 his predecessors were first Lucillus the priest 1 ( Vita S. 
 Severing c. 41), to whom St. Severinus had committed the 
 care of bringing his body to Italy, and then Marcianus, who 
 was succeeded by Eugipius before the year 511 (ibid., c. 45, 
 ' Marcianum monachum, qui postea presbyter ante nos mona- 
 sterio praefuit'). Biidinger has argued that the words 
 domino meo must imply that Eugipius had lived some time 
 in another monastery under the rule of this Marinus, though 
 the words might be simply honorific. The only Marinus (or 
 Marianus) mentioned by Eugipius elsewhere is the primicerius 
 cantorum of the Church of Naples (ibid., 60) who was cured of 
 violent headache by the merits of St. Severinus. 
 
 But the ingenuity of Mabillon solved the difficulty by the 
 suggestion that this Marinus was the Abbot of Lerins who is 
 commemorated as a saint on the first of January. The date 
 harmonizes, for this St. Marinus was the founder of the mona- 
 stery of St. Maurice (Agaunum) in 515 {Ann. Ord. 5. Ben. % 
 vol. i, p. 176). The only other mention of him is at the end of 
 the life of St. Eugendus or Augendus (in French St. Oyand), 
 
 1 So Eugipius himself is regularly called ' Presbyter % apparently a honorific 
 title for the Abbot, who was probably the only priest in the community. 
 
EUGIPIUS AND THE GALLICAN LITURGY 97 
 
 the third abbot of Condat in the Jura, who died between 510 
 and 517. The contemporary author of the lives of the first 
 three abbots of Condat ends his life of the last of them by 
 referring his readers to another book he has written ; ' mstituta 
 quoque quae de formatione monasterii nostri Agaunensis 
 coenobiij Sancto Marino presbytero, insulae Lirinensis abbate, 
 compellente, digessimus.' l This passage is curiously parallel 
 to that of Eugipius. The date is almost the same. It is 
 natural to infer that the same Abbot Marinus of Lerins who 
 founded the Abbey of Agaunum, and recommended the 
 anonymous monk to write an account of the foundation, must 
 have been the same as the Abbot Marinus who urged Eugipius 
 to make his collection of extracts from St. Augustine. If so, we 
 must suppose, with Biidinger, that the acquaintance of Eugipius 
 with the abbot was made at Lerins, and that Eugipius had 
 passed some time in that famous retreat. St. Severinus had 
 given no written rule to his disciples, nor was there any in 
 Eugipius's time at Lucullanum, although St. Isidore informs 
 us that Eugipius, at his death, bequeathed a written rule to his 
 monks. In those days the abbot was the living rule, for it was 
 only in the last years of Eugipius that his famous neighbour 
 penned at Montecassino the short code which was to be for cen- 
 turies the law of all the religious of the western world. Until 
 St. Benedict it was customary to learn perfection by travel- 
 ling to some famous teacher or to some well-known monastery ; 
 and next to St Martin's monastery in the caves of Marmoutier, 
 by far the most famous school of asceticism was the lovely 
 island of St. Honoratus. From Lerins had proceeded number- 
 less holy bishops throughout the fifth century, some of whom 
 like Honoratus himself and Hilary, Germanus and Lupus, 
 Eucherius and his two sons, Veranius and Salonius, were 
 famous everywhere. But these had been in former days ; the 
 glories of Lerins were being now renewed in the great St. 
 Caesarius, who was but at the beginning of his long episcopate 
 (503-42). Imitations of Lerins had caused the Mediterranean 
 to be fringed with island monasteries. Nisida and Lucullanum 
 
 1 Acta SS. t Jan., vol. i, p. 54. Notice the use of presbyter for the abbot, as by 
 Eugipius. 
 
 ch. v. c. H 
 
98 EUGIPIUS AND THE GALLICAN LITURGY 
 
 at Naples are among these. 1 At all events there was no 
 place which Eugipius was more likely to visit than Lerins in 
 order to learn the traditions of religious life. 
 
 A direct connexion between Lerins and the disciples of St. 
 Severinus was pointed out by Dom Mabillon, in the person of 
 Blessed Antonius of Lerins, of whom all that is known is 
 contained in a vague and fulsome panegyric by Ennodius. 2 
 Antonius was born of noble parents in Pannonia, but they died 
 when he was eight years old. He came then to St. Severinus, 
 and after the death of that saint he became a candidate for 
 the clerical state under his uncle Constantius, bishop of 
 Laureacum. 3 When the country was ravaged by the Franks, 
 Heruli, and Saxons, Antonius was taken by servants (he was 
 evidently still a boy), to Italy. At first he gave himself to the 
 guidance of a holy priest called Marius ; then he became 
 a hermit ; finally, out of humility, he retired to Lerins, 
 where he died two years later. The date is not given, but 
 the account by Ennodius was probably written before the 
 author became bishop of Pavia about 513, like all his letters 
 and most of his other opuscula. 4 Antonius must have been 
 well known to Eugipius in Pannonia, evidently having lived as 
 a boy in the community in which Eugipius was a monk. 5 If 
 Lerins was the monastery of his choice, it may well have been 
 the chosen school of Eugipius also. Direct proof, however, 
 that Eugipius was ever at Lerins or that he borrowed any 
 customs from thence is wanting. But Mabillon's conjecture is 
 very strongly supported by the fact that his monastery used 
 an elaborate Gallican liturgy, as will now be proved. 
 
 1 So in the North, the Mont S. Michel, lona, Lindisfarne, Innisboffin, &c, rise 
 to the memory. 
 
 3 p. z., 63, 239. 
 
 8 Ennodius has : * qui [Constantius] eum inter ecclesiasticos exceptores iussit 
 ordiri,' which seems to mean ( ordered him to make a beginning among the 
 ecclesiastical scribes or notaries 1 ; but he did not become an ecclesiastic, for he left 
 Marius to avoid receiving Orders. 
 
 * It was written at the request of a certain abbot Leontius, to whom a letter is 
 addressed Bk. V, Ep. 6. 
 
 6 Eugipius dedicated his life of St. Severinus to St. Paschasius the Roman 
 deacon, who was the leader of the opposition to Pope Symmachus. The life of 
 St. Severinus's other disciple, Antonius, is written on the contrary by the Pope's 
 chief defender, Ennodius ! 
 
EUGIPIUS AND THE GALLICAN LITURGY 99 
 
 § 2. Eugipius and his Galilean lectionary. 
 
 Since the whole system of Gospels for the liturgical year as 
 used in the Lucullanum has been preserved to us, it becomes 
 necessary to inquire whence this use took its origin. Did 
 Eugipius, or did the abbots, his predecessors, simply take the 
 liturgy they found in use in the city of Naples ? The contem- 
 porary of Eugipius, St. Benedict, half-way between Naples and 
 Rome, composed a Breviary office in which he borrowed from 
 the Roman office, but which was mainly his own. We do not 
 know whether he used the Roman Mass without alteration ; 
 but it is probable that the Gospels (which were sung at 
 Mattins as well as at Mass) were at least not so immutably 
 fixed that the abbot could not vary them. It seems likely, if 
 we judge by later times, that monasteries even in the sixth 
 century would have their own liturgical uses, borrowed rather 
 from some model monastery than from the diocese in which 
 they happened to be. 
 
 It is clear that Eugipius's Kalendar adopted local feasts, for 
 it is from these that Mr. Bishop was able to discover the home 
 of the Lindisfarne lists to be Naples. The feast of St. Januarius 
 with its vigil and the Dedication of St. Stephen (the Cathedral 
 of»NapIes) are certainly local ; so is the feast of St. Vitus ; and 
 Dom Morin is probably right in supposing the Dedicatio 
 sanctae Mariae to be that of the Basilica called Ecclesia Maior^ 
 built by the contemporary bishop of Naples, Pomponius, 
 whose episcopate was c. 514-36 ; and further, the Dedicatio 
 fontis may refer to the great baptistery built by Bishop Soter 
 towards the end of the fifth century. 1 
 
 There is no peculiarity in the fact of the celebration of the 
 feasts of St. John, St. Peter, St. John Baptist's nativity, 
 St. Laurence, SS. John and Paul, though there are peculiarities 
 with regard to the manner of celebrating some of these feasts, 
 to which we shall recur later. But among the special holy 
 days two famous Gallican feasts strike the eye, the Invention 
 of Holy Cross and the Decollation of St. John Baptist. The 
 former is found in the Berne and Wolfenbiittel MSS. of the 
 
 1 Revue Bene'd., 1891, p. 491. 
 H % 
 
ioo EUGIPIUS AND THE GALLICAN LITURGY 
 
 Hieronymian Martyrology (i. e. Gaul, seventh century), in 
 the Bobbio and Gothic (Autun) Missals, and in the Gelasian 
 sacramentary. Duchesne has remarked that it may have been 
 introduced in Gaul no earlier than the seventh century. But 
 now we find it at Naples in the sixth. The Beheading of the 
 Baptist is in the Hieronymian Martyrology (c. 590-600), and 
 in the Luxeuil, Bobbio, Gothic uses, &c., though the day 
 seems to have varied on which it was kept in the late summer. 
 Far earlier than this we find it ordered to be kept with a Vigil 
 by Perpetuus, bishop of Tours, c. 48o. x 
 
 It is impossible to suppose that these feasts originated in 
 Naples. On the other hand in chapter iv we observed some 
 remarkable points of contact between the Naples use and the 
 oldest Gallican books. We are driven to the hypothesis that 
 the system employed by Eugipius is Gallican, and that he 
 borrowed it for his abbey from Lerins 2 — the monastery 
 whence he had also probably taken the model of religious 
 discipline for his house. To verify this hypothesis we must 
 search through the Gospels of the Neapolitan lists. We will 
 begin with the two feasts just mentioned. 
 
 1. For the Invention of Holy Cross (37) we find the Gospel, 
 Matt. xiii. 44, as in the Bobbio Missal, but not (I think) 
 elsewhere. • 
 
 3. For the Decollation (38) we find Matt, xiv, with the 
 Bobbio Missal, the Luxueil lectionary (Paris ?), the Liber 
 Comicus of Toledo, and q z \ whereas Rom has the corre- 
 sponding Mark vi. (Henceforward I shall use abbreviations, 
 Goth, Bob, Lux, Comic, &c.) 
 
 These two coincidences with ancient Gallican lessons are 
 encouraging at the commencement of our quest. 
 
 3. In stilla domini node (6), Matt. iii. 13 ; so Bede, Lux, 
 Bob, q 4 (in Ambros. for Vigil of Epiph.). Unknown to the 
 Roman use. 
 
 4. Palm Sunday (150), John xi. 55-xii. 13 ; Bede, Lux, Bob, 
 
 1 St. Greg. Turon., x. 31, 6. 
 
 2 For it is unlikely that it was the system used by St. Severinus in Pannonia. 
 
 3 On the old Latin text q (Munich lot. 6224) see p. 102, note, below. 
 
 4 In q is found 'lege in apparitionem dnV, in the hand of the original scribe. 
 
EUGIPIUS AND THE GALLICAN LITURGY 101 
 
 Moz, Comic, Ambr. From this Gospel of the anointing 
 St. Ildephonsus calls this Sunday the dies unctionis {De Cogn. 
 Bapt., 34). The Blessing of Palms may have been unknown to 
 Eugipius, though it was introduced in St. Burchard's lectionary, 
 but the pericope presumably began at xi. 47 and was continued 
 to xii. 20, thus including the entry into Jerusalem. 
 
 5. In Sabbato sancto mane (66), Mark vii. 32 ; Bede, Comic. 
 A very peculiar and interesting use. 
 
 6. Ascension Day (121), Luke xxiv. 44 ; Bede (for Bob, 
 Comic, (Lux), Ambros, q, see p. 115). This pericope is wholly 
 unused in the Roman liturgy. 
 
 7. Pentecost, John xiv. 1,5-22 ; Lux, Bob, Ambros. In the 
 Roman use this Gospel is for the Vigil, and it has been shifted 
 in B accordingly. 
 
 These are a striking series of coincidences with Gaul for 
 great feasts. We have only to add Easter (Matt, xxviii. 16 — 
 only Naples and Bede) and Christmas. 
 
 8. In the latter case we have only one Mass, as in all early 
 forms of the Gallican use, and the Gospel is Luke ii. 1, as in 
 a fragment of an ancient Paris lectionary (see Revue Bene'd^ 
 1893, P* 44°)i Lux, Comic, q. It may be objected that the 
 entry (74) for this, In natale dni ad missa publica, implies 
 a night Mass also ; just as on the Epiphany we find node as 
 well as ad missa publica. But it seems that this does not 
 follow ; for at Easter (65) we find Dominica sancta pascha ad 
 missa publica, and yet there is no other Mass provided. 
 
 Some further detailed coincidences are interesting. 
 
 9. In dedicationem (16), Matt. vii. 24 = Comic : in sacra- 
 tione basilicae. 
 
 10. In dedicationem (46), Matt. xvii. 1 (the Transfigura- 
 tion) = Bob [Dedication of] St. Michael ; cf. q In dedecation, 
 Mark ix. 2-8, the parallel passage. 
 
 11. In uelanda (125), John ii. 1 (the Marriage in Cana), for 
 the bridal veiling = Comic : De nubentibus. 
 
 All these coincidences have been pointed out already by 
 Dom Morin, either in his notes to the Naples lists or in those 
 to his discussion of Bede's homilies. But now that they are 
 united we see that they amount to a complete proof that the 
 
ioa EUGIPIUS AND THE GALLICAN LITURGY 
 
 Neapolitan lists are based upon a system borrowed from 
 Gaul. 
 
 I say a complete proof — for a minuter comparison of the 
 proprium de tempore is quite impossible. The Bobbio order 
 for Lent is quite poor and vague, and offers no parallel to the 
 elaborate Naples system. That of Luxeuil is lost. The 
 Lent of the Liber Comicus is peculiar, all the Gospels being 
 taken from St. John and the Epistles from the Catholic 
 Epistles. Similarly with Advent and Easter, we can make no 
 real comparisons between the fragments of Gallican uses and 
 the very full Naples system. This system of Eugipius for Lent 
 is probably unique like that of the Liber Comicus. 
 
 But precisely the regular weekday Masses in Advent 
 (Wednesday and Friday) and Lent (Monday, Wednesday, 
 and Friday ; at the end of Lent Tuesday and Saturday also) 
 suggest that the use is not for a parish or a diocese, but for 
 a monastery where the liturgical functions were multiplied as 
 far as possible. Even were the date of the system not proved, 
 it would be impossible to take this fullness of Lent and Advent 
 to be a sign of later date, for there are other signs of a very 
 early date. There is, for instance, no feast of our Lady, 
 neither the Gallican feast in January nor the Purification, 
 though both were of early introduction. The former was 
 already celebrated in the sixth century, and, since it is unknown 
 to Eugipius, we seem to have before us an extremely early 
 Gallican use. 
 
 The date of the introduction of this liturgy into the 
 monastery of Lucullanum lies between the first arrival of the 
 monks in the island, c. 492-6, and the collation by Cassio- 
 dorus of Eugipius's codex in 558. The use may have begun 
 with the beginning of the monastery. Probably, however, 
 it will have been commenced by Eugipius himself when he 
 became abbot, and therefore c. 510-35. 1 
 
 1 The Old Latin codex q (Munich, 6224) contains some cnrious liturgical notes, 
 which were published by Mr. H. J. White in his edition of the MS. (0. Z. 
 Biblical Texts t iiii, p. liii), and again rather more fully by Dom G. Morin in the 
 Revue Binidictine % 1893, p. 246 foil. The system is not complete; and it appears 
 sometimes to agree with Gaul, sometimes with Milan, sometimes with Rome. The 
 agreements with N are as follows : 
 
EUGIPIUS AND THE GALLICAN LITURGY 103 
 
 § 3. Neapolitan additions to a Gallican lectionary. 
 
 Can we discover how much was added at Naples to the 
 liturgy brought from Lerins? No doubt we cannot dis- 
 criminate in every case, but in many instances we shall see 
 that it is possible to discover the Italian interpolations. 
 
 Let us first take numbers 150 and 1511 The former is the 
 Gallican Palm Sunday lesson, John xi. 55-xii. 13. The latter 
 is for the following day, John xii. 1-20, and is the Roman 
 pericope for that day, feria it de ebdomada maiorem. It is 
 quite impossible that the same passage should have been read 
 two days running ; and the coincidence with a Roman lesson 
 is very rare. It seems unavoidable to assume that the Monday 
 lesson was introduced at Naples. 
 
 Now we noticed that most of the additions made in St. 
 Burchard's lectionary did not coincide with the divisions of 
 the Northumbrian summaries. It is the same with this Roman 
 lesson for the Monday of Holy Week. Let us turn to the 
 certain Neapolitan interpolations : (54) In dedicatione basilicae 
 
 A. The two notes by the original scribe (7th cent.) : 
 
 1. In natiuitate dotnini Luke ii. 1 = Christmas 
 
 2. Lege in apparitionem dHi Matt. iii. 13 = stilla dili nocte 
 The second is noticeable. 
 
 The remaining notes are in hands of 8th~9th cent. 
 
 1. de aduento Luke iii. 1-7 = Dom. i ada. 
 
 2. „ „ „ i. 26-9 = Dom. iii adu. 
 
 3. Initium led. de natiuitate dhi Matt. i. 18-22 « Pridie. nat. d2i 
 
 4. In natale dni Luke ii. 1 = Christmas (as above) 
 
 5. In octaba drli „ ii. 21 =* In oct. d3i 
 
 6. in die sco epefanie lectio prima Matt. ii. (i-)i3 = stilla d2i ad missa 
 
 7. lectio in uigiliis pasce per altare ,, xxviii. 1-8 = Sabb s. ad sero 
 
 8. in die ascensiones dfli nostri ifiu 
 
 x$i second carnem lectio euan- 
 
 gelii secondum luca Luke xxiv.44*-ad fin. — In ascens. 
 
 The lessons for Lent, Easter week, and Sundays after Easter do not agree. 
 
 9. lectio sZi iohannis bapteste Matt. xiv. 1-15 = In DecoU. S. J. 
 
 Bapt. 
 10. lectio sZi iohanni Luke i. (57— )67 = In Nat S. J. Bapt 
 
 ii. in timotheiet in . . . Matt, xvi (21-?) = In unius mart. 
 
 (xvi. 24) 
 The first seven coincidences are all rather obvious. But 8 and 9 seem to have 
 a Gallican origin. The codex q belonged to the Abbey of St Corbinian at 
 Freisingen. 
 
104 EUGIPIUS AND THE GALLICAN LITURGY 
 
 stephani does not coincide, nor does (153) in ieiunium s. 
 ianuarii. But (61) in natale s. ianuarii does, for its pericope 
 Matt. xxv. 14 (the Parable of the Talents) could not have been 
 passed over in any lectionary. In the original Gallican system 
 it may have been in sanctorum or (as in Lux) de uno confessore ; 
 in Bob it is for St. Martin. Again (126) in dedic. S. Mariae 
 corresponds to a title of the summary, but (132) in dedicatione 
 fontis is added to in sancti angelic and is consequently very 
 likely to be an addition. Sancti angeli may perhaps mean 
 the (dedication) feast of St. Michael found in Bob. 
 
 It has been said above that the Northumbrian summaries 
 were based on the lectionary. From these new facts we 
 should gather that the summaries were composed before the 
 Naples additions were interpolated. With this hypothesis let 
 us examine the proprium de tempore of the Neapolitan lists. 
 We will begin with Advent and Christmas. In the following 
 table an asterisk signifies that the beginning of the lesson does 
 not coincide with that of a title of the summary. We shall 
 see that the hypothesis verifies itself with a regularity that is 
 almost uncanny. 
 
 Advent 
 Dom. i de aduentum d. n. I, C. 
 Post i de adu. in ieiunium feria iiii 
 „ dom. de adu. feria vi 
 Dom. [ii] l de aduentum 
 
 Post ii dom. feria iiii de adu. 
 „ „ de adu. feria vi 
 Dom. iii de aduentum 
 Post iii dom. de adu. feria iiii 
 
 tt st *» y> VI 
 
 [iiii ebd. de aduentum a 
 Post v dominicas de aduentum 
 
 It is clear that we have a complete system for an Advent 
 of three weeks, with two liturgical fast-days for each week. 
 But four of the six weekday Gospels are asterisked, as not 
 corresponding with the summary. On the other hand we find 
 the remains of a fifth week Post v dominicas t de aduentum. 
 
 1 Secunda is omitted in Y Reg, but is supplied by Burch. 
 
 2 Not in Y Reg ; but was thought by Dom Morin to belong to N, though in 
 Burch. only; but this is most improbable, for it has no Wed. and Fri. 
 
 77 
 
 Luke iii. i 
 
 99 
 
 ,1 xii. 32 
 
 100* 
 
 „ xii. 39 
 
 3i 
 
 Matt xi. ■£ 
 
 4 
 
 „ iii. 1 
 
 57* 
 
 „ xxiv. 3 
 
 72 
 
 Luke i. 26 
 
 58* 
 
 Matt. xxiv. 23 
 
 59* 
 
 „ xxiv. 34 
 
 [106 B*] 
 
 Mark xiii. 18] 
 
 78 
 
 Luke iv. 14 
 
EUGIPIUS AND THE GALLICAN LITURGY 105 
 
 It seems that originally there was a longer Advent. The 
 weekdays are apparently Neapolitan additions. We may 
 suppose an original Advent of many Sundays, and only a 
 weekday or two ad libitum, of which 99 or 4 may be remains. 
 
 The Gospel for the second Sunday is suspicious, for the 
 word Secunda occurs in Burch. only, and it is the only agree- 
 ment throughout Advent with the Roman use} Perhaps it was 
 originally the Gospel for the fourth, fifth, or sixth Sunday, and 
 was used at Naples for the second, the original number having 
 been expunged in the marginal note. 
 
 Post v dominicas seems to be the only indication of original 
 weekdays definitely recognized ; perhaps corresponding to 
 the Ember days in the week preceding Christmas week. In 
 this case the original number of Sundays must have been six. 
 
 This is precisely the ancient Gallican system for Advent. 
 Among the fasts regulated by Perpetuus, bishop of Tours, 
 c. 480, we find : ' a depositione domni Martini usque Natale 
 Domini terna in septimana ieiunia ' ; but this sentence is 
 absent from one MS. of St. Gregory of Tours (Bk. X. 31, 6) 
 according to Ruinart, so that it cannot quite be depended 
 upon. But the same rule is given (Monday, Wednesday, and 
 Friday, from Martinmas) by a synod of Tours in 563, and by one 
 of Macon in 581. 2 This is further developed than the Naples 
 custom, which has Wednesday and Friday only. The essence 
 is a short forty days before Christmas, a Christmas Lent 
 corresponding to the ' Quadragesima Paschae '. The mention 
 of St. Martin is accidental, and is owing to the use having 
 originated at Tours. The six Sundays are an imitation 
 of the six Sundays of Lent, and provide a length of thirty-six 
 days, or forty-two, if we count the Sundays. The lost com- 
 mencement of Lux contained six Masses for Advent, corre- 
 sponding to the six Sundays given in the fragment of a Paris 
 lectionary, 3 but these have no weekday Masses. The Ambro- 
 
 1 This Gospel is also the only one which corresponds with those given in the 
 fragment of a seventh-century Paris lectionary, published by Dom G. Morin. The 
 Paris note gives this Gospel for the third Sunday ; it is the description given by our 
 Lord of St. John Baptist. 
 
 2 Diet. tPArchtol ChrSt., art. 'Avert,' col. 3223-4 (1906), by Abbot F. Cabrol. 
 
 3 So Dom Morin pointed out, Revue Bfriid., 1893, p. 441. 
 
106 EUGIPIUS AND THE GALLICAN LITURGY 
 
 sian and Mozarabic rites similarly give six Sundays. The 
 Liber Comicus has five, the Gregorianum also. Alcuin had 
 the Roman number of four. 1 It seems that the Gallicanum 
 uetus, like the Bobbio Missal, had but three Sundays. 
 Dom Cagin believes this part of the Bobbio Missal to be as 
 old as the former half of the fifth century, and therefore earlier 
 than the introduction into Gaul of the long Advent. But 
 see Cabrol, Mabillon et les it. lit p. 17 (Liguge, 1908). 
 
 29 
 
 Christmas 
 
 
 
 Pridie natale Domini 
 
 1 
 
 Matt. i. 18 
 
 In natale domini ad missa publica 
 
 74 
 
 Luke ii. 1 
 
 In sci Stepbani 
 
 56 
 
 Matt, xxiii. 2 
 
 In sci Iohannis apost. et euan. J 
 In adsumptione sci Iohannis euan. ( 
 
 122 
 
 John i. 1 
 
 171* 
 
 „ xxi. 19 
 
 Innocentum 
 
 3 
 
 Matt. ii. 13 
 
 [Dominica post natale dfii 
 
 [116 B]* 
 
 Luke ii. 13] 
 
 In octabas d. n. I. C. 
 
 75 
 
 „ ii. a 1 
 
 Post octabas d. n. I. C. ab is 
 
 128* 
 
 John iii. 16 
 
 In the Christmas season three asterisks occur. But one of 
 these is attached to a note found in Burch. only; I have 
 inserted it because Dom Morin attributes it to N. It is true 
 that B has lower down at Lk. ii. 33, 119 Dominica ipost natale 
 Dfii, but this is a correction in the later coarse hand, which is 
 found just in places where the earlier scribe had made a mis- 
 take. And the entry at Lk. ii. 13 is manifestly a mistake, for 
 no pericope could begin at that verse, whereas ii. 33 is the 
 correct Roman Gospel. I take it that B 116 is not only not 
 Neapolitan, but that it is simply an error of the scribe of Burch., 
 the right entry being supplied by the later hand. 
 
 Two asterisks remain. The former shows that the usual 
 Roman Gospel for the feast of St. John (John xxi. 19) is an 
 addition by Eugipius. The Gospel at Lerins was the Prologue 
 of the Saint's own Gospel, a peculiar and interesting use. 
 We thus learn that the long note attached to the last capitulum 
 of the summary is from the pen of Eugipius : 
 
 * Quae lectio cum in natale sancti Petri legitur, a loco incoatur quo ait 
 " Dicit Simoni Petro Iesus, Simon Iohannis, diligis me plus his" usque ad 
 locum ubi dicit " significans qua morte clarificaturus esset Deum ". Cum 
 
 1 See Dom Morin in Rev, B4n4d* t 1892, p. 494. 
 
EUGIPIUS AND THE GALLICAN LITURGY 107 
 
 uero in natali sci iohannis euangelistae, inchoanda est a loco quo ait 
 "dicit ei" (hoc est Dominus Simoni Petro) "sequere me" usque ubi dicit 
 " et scimus quia uerum est testimonium eius "/ 
 
 The reason for the note is now clear. There was but one 
 title of the summary for both lessons. It was therefore need- 
 ful to point out accurately where the lesson for St. John began. 
 The title of the summary runs as follows (Wordsworth, p. 506) : 
 
 'xlv. Usque tertio dicit petro amas me quia ter eum negauerat et 
 pascendas oues aeque tertio commendans extensione manuum significat 
 ei quod crucis morte foret martyrio coronandus.' 
 
 All is concerned with St. Peter, not a word of St. John. 
 Thus our conclusion is confirmed that the Gallican Gospel for 
 St. Peter's feast (at Rome it would have been called SS. Peter 
 and Paul, as it is in Burch.) was the original one, the Roman 
 Gospel for St. John's feast being an addition later than the 
 summary. 
 
 The other asterisk is at the note of N Post octabas dm 
 nostri ihu xpi (128), which appears in B thus : Post octabas 
 dni ab is et post penticosien feria ii. The words ab \Ji\is 
 imply at first sight that the lesson had not the same incipit as 
 the Roman lesson for Whit Monday, John iii. 16, with which 
 it is coupled. But there appears to be no indication in the 
 MS. of another incipit The same ab his occurs N 161-3 and 
 1 63-4 (B 342-3), where there are also coupled feasts. Perhaps 
 this pericope began iii. 14. Anyhow it cannot correspond 
 with a division of the summary, and it is therefore Eugipian 
 not Gallican. 
 
 The next table is for Epiphany tide. 
 
 Epiphany 
 
 
 
 In ieiunium de Stella domini 
 la Stella domini nocte 
 „ „ „ ad missa publica 
 Post epipbania dominica i 
 
 7 
 
 5 
 
 2 
 
 123* 
 
 Matt. iv. 12 
 
 >j i». 13 
 
 „ ii. 1 
 John i. 29 
 
 jj ft a ' * l 
 
 124 
 
 » i- 35 
 
 t? tt a J11 
 
 129 
 
 ,, iii. 22 
 
 „ „ „ iiii 76 Lnke ii. 42 
 
 Only one asterisk appears. But this Gospel happens to be 
 the only one of the four for Sundays which coincides with the 
 Roman use. Surely it is a Naples alteration. 
 
to8 EUGIPIUS AND THE GALLICAN LITURGY 
 
 It is difficult to suppose that there were two Masses for the 
 Epiphany at Lerins, when there was only one for Christmas 
 and one for Easter. We saw that Matt. iii. 13 is the old 
 Gallican Mass. Matt. ii. 1, the Roman Mass, is probably 
 a Neapolitan interpolation. This Gospel of the three kings 
 had perhaps been read at Lerins on the Sunday within the 
 octave ; for by this hypothesis we can explain why a new 
 pericope, John i. 29, had to be introduced for that day by 
 Eugipius, and why Matt. ii. 1 is not asterisked. 
 
 We now come to Lent. There is no good Gallican parallel 
 to employ, for the Bobbio Missal gives nine Masses only, and 
 these are in disorder ; Lux is wanting up to Palm Sunday ; 
 the Liber Comicus is peculiar in giving all the Lent Gospels 
 from St. John. 1 
 
 Lent. 
 
 First Week 
 In XLgisima paschae 
 
 >> ?s 
 
 ») >t 
 
 De XLgisima feria ii 
 
 » i"i } 
 1? j» >} * 
 
 » » vi ) 
 
 Second Week 
 Dominica ii XLgisima paschae 
 Post sec. dom. XLgis. feria ii 
 „ „ » ii" 
 
 » „ vi 
 
 Third Week 
 -Dominica iii quando Psalmi accipiunt 
 Post iii dom. XLgisima feria ii 
 
 » >, » i»i 
 
 „ „ „ „ ab his j 
 
 »j » >» V1 
 
 De XLg. post iii dom. sabb. mane post 
 
 scrutinium 
 De XLg. post iii dom. die sabb. in ieiunium ) 
 Post iii dttica die sabb. ab his ) 
 
 36 
 
 Matt. xiii. i 
 
 110 
 
 Luke xvii. 1 1 
 
 6 
 
 Matt. iv. 1 
 
 11 
 
 » v. 17 
 
 48* 
 
 ,, xviii. 1 
 
 130 
 
 John iv. 46 2 
 
 23* 
 
 Matt. ix. 9 
 
 43 
 
 „ xv. 29 
 
 127 
 
 John iii. i 
 
 12 
 
 Matt. v. 43? 
 
 47 
 
 „ xvii. 14 
 
 H 
 
 „ vi. 25 
 
 52 
 
 Matt. xx. 1 
 
 86 
 
 Luke vi. 41 ? 
 
 112*? 
 
 „ xviii. 9-10 
 
 161*? 
 
 John xvi. 16? 
 
 144 
 
 „ ix. 1 
 
 145* 
 
 John x. 11 
 
 146*? 
 
 „ x. 22 ? 
 
 163*? 
 
 „ xvi. 23 
 
 1 The Roman use has all the Gospels from St. John in the fourth or fifth weeks ; 
 except for the Thursdays, the Masses for which are later additions. 
 3 Here Y gives iv. 44, not 46, for the capitulum, probably wrongly. 
 
EUGIPIUS AND THE GALLICAN LITURGY 109 
 
 Fourth Week 
 Dnica iiii quando orationem accipiunt 
 Post iiii dnica XLgis. feria ii 
 
 J) )> 
 
 „ m 
 
 ii it 
 
 » iiii 
 
 ») »> 
 
 » vi 
 
 J» >J 
 
 die sabbati 
 
 Fifth Week 
 
 
 Dnica v quando symbnlum accipiunt ) 
 
 Post v dnica de xLg. feria ii 
 
 111 
 iiii 
 
 „ ,, die sabbati 
 
 Die sabbati prima passionem d. n. I. C. 
 
 Holy Week 
 Dom. vi de indulgentia 
 
 ,, „ Passio d. 
 
 Feria ii de ebdom. maiorem 
 
 11. 1. C. J 
 
 „ v mane in cena domini ad missa. 
 Passio d. n. I. C. 
 Feria v in ieiunium de cena dfii 
 
 „ vi de ebd. maiore, passio d. n. I. C. 
 Sabbato sco mane j 
 ., ., ad sero ) 
 
 13 
 
 Matt. vi. 7 
 
 138* 
 
 John vi. 55 
 
 137* 
 
 „ ^ 5i 
 
 136 
 
 „ vi. 36 
 
 147* 
 
 „ x. 30 
 
 139* 
 
 „ vii. 14 
 
 55 
 
 Matt. xxi. 33 
 
 62 
 
 „ xxv. 31 
 
 34 
 
 „ xii. 38? 
 
 140* 
 
 John vii. 32 
 
 142 
 
 „ viii. 12 
 
 148 
 
 ,, xi. 1 
 
 143 
 
 » viii. 31 
 
 63 
 
 Matt. xxvi. 1 
 
 150*? 
 
 John xi, 55 ? 
 
 69* 
 
 Mark xiv. 1 
 
 i5i* 
 
 John xii. 1 
 
 113 
 
 Luke xviii. 31 
 
 155* 
 
 John xiii. 33 
 
 116 
 
 Luke xxii. 1 ? 
 
 154 
 
 John xiii. 1 
 
 166 
 
 „ xviii. 1 
 
 66 
 
 Mark vii. 32 * 
 
 64 
 
 Matt, xxviii. 1 
 
 It is difficult to deal with the first three entries. In 
 XLgisima paschae seems to mean the first Sunday of Lent, 
 and the first week is called de XLgisima. Matt. iv. 1 is 
 the obvious lesson (the forty days' fast of Christ), as in the 
 Roman, Ambrosian, Bobbio, and Comic lectionaries. Dom 
 Morin has suggested that the two other lessons are for 
 the preceding Sundays, Quinquagesima and Sexagesima. 
 This is confirmed by the fact that Matt. xiii. 1, the Parable 
 of the Sower, is read (in honour of St. Paul — for this 
 see later, p. 196) on Sexagesima Sunday in Ambros; 
 also in the marginal notes of O, where it is named in sci 
 pauliy see ch. x, p. 196; the parallel, Luke viii, is used in 
 
 1 In Y verse 31 is marked, not verse 32, but the difference seems to be accidental. 
 The Gospel is undoubtedly Gallican. 
 
no EUGIPIUS AND THE GALLICAN LITURGY 
 
 Rom, &c. But there exist no Quinquagesima and Sexa- 
 gesima in Bob, Lux, Comic. 1 So far as I know it is only in 
 Gaul that we hear of Quinqu. and Sex. without Sept The 
 Codex Fuldensis has this peculiarity it is true, but then this 
 will be one among the many proofs to be given in the next 
 chapter that the list of Pauline pericopae in it is not wholly 
 Italian, but is Gallican in origin. The contemporary council 
 of Orleans in 541 condemns the practice of keeping Quinqua- 
 gesima and Sexagesima, but has evidently never heard of 
 Septuagesima : c Hoc etiam decernimus obseruandum ut quadra- 
 gesima ab omnibus ecclesiis aequaliter teneatur ; neque quin- 
 quagesimam aut sexagesimam ante Pascha quilibet sacerdos 
 praesumat indicere ' ( Can. 2). 2 No bishop {sacerdos) is to 
 order this extension of Lent. If I am right in attributing 
 Eugipius's use to Lerins (and also that of the Codex Fuldensis^ 
 as we shall see later), then we have in it not an episcopal 
 ordinance, but a monastic observance. Some of the many 
 bishops who had been monks of Lerins or of some other 
 monastery might perhaps be inclined to enforce their own 
 habits on their flocks, a severity which the synod of 541 
 rebukes. 
 
 Now as all three Gospels correspond with the summaries 
 and have no asterisk, it would seem that they are not Eugipian 
 but Gallican. We have therefore arrived at a probable solu- 
 tion of our difficulty. They are the Gospels for Quadragesima, 
 Quinquagesima, and Sexagesima in a Gallican monastic use. 
 Since Quinq. and Sex. were unknown in Italy in the sixth 
 century, the scribes of Eugipius or of Cassiodorus wrote 
 XLgisima thrice by mistake. 
 
 The first week of Lent is very easy to understand. The 
 two Gospels each for Wednesday and for Friday are at first 
 sight startling enough. We now see plainly that (48) and 
 (23), which do not correspond with the summary, are the 
 
 1 Duchesne says : ' It was about this time [seventh century] also that the stational 
 Masses for the three Sundays in Septuagesima, in Sexagesima, and in Quinqua- 
 gesima were instituted.' He has forgotten the Codex Fuldensis (Origines, Eng. tr., 
 p. 244). 
 
 3 Mansi, ix. 113 : see Duchesne, Origines, p. 245, note; Eng. tr., p. 245, note. 
 The pages are always the same in these two editions, a most admirable arrangement. 
 
EUGIPIUS AND THE GALLICAN LITURGY in 
 
 Neapolitan Gospels, while the original Lerins pericopae are 
 (130) and (43). 
 
 The second week is at first sight untouched. 
 
 In the third week the Wednesday Gospel (161) is evidently 
 an interpolation, for it is joined to a Gospel for the fifth Sunday 
 after Easter, which begins (as we shall see) at xvi. 16 and 
 coincides with the summary ; but it is distinguished by the 
 words ab his, which clearly show that it had a different com- 
 mencement, and therefore did not coincide. Another ab his 
 occurs on the Saturday (163)5 and we must reject it. also, 
 (though the Sunday Gospel (164) to which it is attached does 
 not coincide with the summary) ; for it is obvious by now that 
 every case of ab his is an Eugipian interpolation. 
 
 But on the other hand (145) and (146) must certainly go ; 
 for the summary has but two titles in John, ch. x, viz. v. 1 and 
 v. 17. We must suppose that three Gospels were interpolated 
 at Naples on the same Saturday. 
 
 In the fourth and fifth weeks the Tuesdays are seen to 
 be Eugipian additions. The Saturday of the fourth week 
 is certainly also an interpolation, and in consequence the 
 Saturday of the fifth week is suspicious (the Passion according 
 to St. Matthew). Its incipit is uncertain, as it is omitted 
 by B. 
 
 The Mondays for all these five weeks cause some difficulty. 
 The lesson for the first Monday agrees with the summary — 
 this may be by chance. That for the fourth week is asterisked ; 
 those for the second, third, and fifth weeks are doubtful, for 
 they are not in B. It seems pretty certain that we must 
 accept the indication given by the fourth week, and account all 
 the Mondays Neapolitan. Consequently the original Gallican 
 system will have provided in Lent for Sundays, Wednesdays, 
 and Fridays only. 
 
 In the fourth week (147) for the Friday is an interpolation, 
 and there is no other lesson for this day. Why has the 
 original lesson disappeared in this case only ? I think it has, 
 in fact, survived. After the eighteenth title of the summary 
 of St. John in Y and at the nineteenth in A we find legenda in 
 quadragesima. As this entry belongs to the capitulum of the 
 
ii2 EUGIPIUS AND THE GALLICAN LITURGY 
 
 summary, it is probably an original Gallican note. The 
 Gospel indicated in Y is John vii. i, and it clearly fits in here 
 perfectly, after John vi. 36. 
 
 On the fifth Sunday quando symbolum accipiunt^ there may 
 have been really two Gospels, one for the ceremony of giving 
 the creed, the other for the Mass. 
 
 In Holy Week several asterisks occur. On Palm Sunday 
 this happens, because in the table (above, p. 109) I have put 
 the commencement of the Gospel at John xi. 55 as in Comic, 
 Ambros. But in Lux it begins at xii. 1. As the Gospel is 
 clearly Gallican not Eugipian, it must have begun at Lerins 
 at xi. 47, where the summary has the division. 
 
 If we must take away the lessons for Monday and Wednesday, 
 we ask ourselves what was read at Lerins, since these are 
 Eugipian. As before, we find that the original pericopae 
 have been placed among the capitula of the summaries, 
 with vague directions only. One of them is at the eighty- 
 seventh capitulum of the summary of Luke in Y Reg : e quod 
 prope Pascha legendum est ' ; it is admirably adapted to intro- 
 duce Holy Week ; Luke xxi. 28 : c His autem fieri incipien- 
 tibus respicite et leuate capita uestra quoniam appropin- 
 quat redemptio uestra/ with the parable of the fig-tree. (At 
 this point probably belongs N 115 item alia, sc. cottidiana> 
 being a Neapolitan lesson substituted when the older lesson 
 for the Monday of Holy Week was turned out and consigned 
 to the summary ; see note p. 59.) 
 
 The other lesson wanted is found at the seventeenth capi- 
 tulum of the summary of John in A : 4 legenda circa pascha,' 
 viz. John vi. 63 : ( Spiritus est qui uiuificat/ with the prophecy 
 of the betrayal by Judas — a most natural and suitable choice 
 for the Wednesday of Holy Week. 
 
 The reading of the four Passions is given for Saturday, 
 Sunday, Thursday, and Friday. Burch. has omitted the titles 
 of N for Saturday, Thursday, and Friday, substituting the 
 Roman use. But the original Sunday title (Mark) has re- 
 mained. This pericope ought to have been assigned to Tuesday 
 according to the present Roman use. 
 
EUGIPIUS AND THE GALLICAN LITURGY 113 
 
 Naples. 
 63. Die sabbati prima passionem 
 
 domini nostri ihesu xpi. 
 69. Die dominico de indulgentia 
 
 passio dfii rSi ihesu xpi. 
 116. Feria v mane in coena domini 
 ad missa. Passio domini 
 nostri ihu xpi. 
 166, Feria vi de ebdomada maiore 
 passio domini nostri ihu xpi. 
 
 BURCH. 
 89. Ebd. vi die dominico ad La- Matt. xxvi. i 
 teranis legitnr passio dfii 
 107. a s JV. Mark xiv. i 
 
 184. In XLgisima ebd. vi feria Luke xxii. I 
 iiii legitnr passio dSi 
 
 246. In ebd. maiore feria vi ad John xviii. I 
 Hierusalemlegitur passio 
 d3i 
 
 Burch. gives the Roman incipits. We cannot infer even in 
 the case of Mark that he has preserved the earlier beginnings. 
 Now in the summaries the four Passions are clearly indicated : 
 
 Matt, cap. 86 : Series passionis enarratur, &c. 
 
 Mark, cap. 45 : Traditionis ae passionis eius gesta nar- 
 
 rantur, &c. 
 Luke, cap. 90 ; Passionis eius gesta n arrant ur, &c. 
 John, cap. 41 : Traditionis ac passionis eius per ordinem 
 
 gesta riarrantnr, &c. 
 
 xxvi. 30— end of xxvii 
 xiv. 26 — xvi. I 
 
 xxii. 39— xxiii. 33 ? 
 xviii. 1 — end of xix 
 
 In the first three cases the incipits thus indicated are different, 
 and probably give the Gallican use. We cannot tell whether 
 even before Burch. the Roman incipits had been introduced 
 by Eugipius into the list- 
 In the Saturday of the third week, above, the distinction of 
 mane and in ieiunium appeared to be Eugipian, not Gallican. 
 This fact casts some suspicion on the same distinction where 
 it occurs on Maundy Thursday. Possibly the Gallican use 
 had the Passion only, and the Roman Gospel (John xiii. i , 
 both for the Mass and for the Mandatum or ' Maundy \ as our 
 fathers called it) may be a Neapolitan addition. Perhaps at 
 the washing of the feet at Lerins the Gospel was not sung, but 
 only the usual antiphons. 1 
 
 Again on Holy Saturday Mark vii. 32 is Gallican as we 
 saw, whereas Matt, xxviii is the Roman Gospel. The latter 
 may possibly be a Eugipian addition ; but it is probably 
 
 1 The contemporary of Eugipius, St. Benedict, enjoins that after the washing of 
 the feet of strangers (during the ceremony the usual antiphons and hymn were 
 doubtless sung) the brethren shall sing Suscepimus Deus misericordiam Tuam in 
 medio tetnpli Tut. He does not mention the singing of a Gospel (S. Regula, 
 53) J but then this was not for Maundy Thursday. 
 
 CH.V.G. J 
 
1X4 EUGIPIUS AND THE GALLICAN LITURGY 
 
 Gallican, for the same Gospel is found in Lux, g, Bob, 1 Comic, 
 Ambros, &c. 
 
 Eastertide 
 Dom. sea Pascha ad missa publica 
 Secunda feria paschae 
 Feria iii de albas paschae 
 
 Die sabbati de albas paschae 
 
 Dominico octabo paschae 
 
 Feria ii post albas 
 
 [Post albas pascae feria iiii 
 
 Post albas 
 
 paschae 
 
 dom. 
 
 i 
 
 jj 
 
 » 
 
 )> 
 
 ii 
 
 »> 
 
 si 
 
 >> 
 
 iii 
 
 » 
 
 >> 
 
 a 
 
 iiii 
 
 )» 
 
 )> 
 
 J) 
 
 V 
 
 In ascensa 
 
 d.n. I.C. 
 
 
 Post ascensa Dni 
 
 
 
 65 
 
 Matt, xxviii. 16 
 
 167 
 
 John xx. 1 
 
 119 
 
 Luke xxiv. 13 
 
 169 
 
 John xxi. 1 
 
 120 
 
 Luke xxiv. 36 ? 
 
 70* 
 
 [Mark xvi. 8] 
 
 11S 
 
 Luke xxiv. 1 
 
 168* 
 
 John xx. 24 
 
 165 
 
 „ xvii. 1 
 
 B245* 
 
 „ xvii. 11] 
 
 158 
 
 „ XV. 1 
 
 156 
 
 „ xiv. 1 
 
 160* 
 
 „ xvi. 5 
 
 164* 
 
 „ xvi. 23? 
 
 162 
 
 „ xvi, 16 
 
 121*? 
 
 Luke xxiv. 44 
 
 159 
 
 John xv. 17 
 
 Easter week shows but one asterisk. But the cause of this 
 one is not far to seek. In Burch. we find : 
 
 108. Mark xvi. 1 Domimcum pascae ad satuta Maria. 
 
 109. „ 8 Feria vi de albas pascae (— N 70). 
 
 1 10. „ 14 Feria v in ascensa dominu 
 
 That is to say, Burch. has introduced the Roman Gospel for 
 Easter Day = xvi. 1-7, and the Roman Gospel for Ascension 
 Day = xvi. 14, and has therefore shifted the Naples title to 
 the intervening space. It did not matter to this interpolator 
 that he thereby introduced an utterly impossible lection 
 xvi. 8-14, for his own Gospel for that day was (91) Matt, 
 xxviii. 16. But it is obvious for us that 8-14 could not be 
 used as a Gospel, and that the chapter was read from v. % 
 to the end on Easter Friday, both at Lerins and at Naples. 
 
 The query against (120) will be explained by looking at the 
 asterisk against Ascension Day (iai). In Burch. we find : 
 
 Luke xxiv. 36. 188 Feria iii pascae adS. Paulum [Feria v de albas pascae N 1 20]. 
 „ 44. 189 In ascensa d. n. I. C. (= N 121). 
 
 1 Bob has Mane, Matt, xxvii. 6a, and ad Miss am, Matt, xxviii to end. 
 
EUGIPIUS AND THE GALLICAN LITURGY 115 
 
 The pericope xxiv. 44-53 ^ the Neapolitan one for the 
 Ascension ; it was used by St. Bede (above, p. 7 1), and is found 
 in q ; but it is otherwise unknown. The Gallican Gospel in 
 Bob, Comic, Ambfos is xxiv. 36-53. 1 Verse $6 corresponds 
 with the last division of the summary of Luke. We infer that 
 the Lerins Gospel for the Ascension was exactly that of Bob, 
 Comic, Ambros, that there was no Gospel for the Thursday 
 after Easter, and that Eugipius divided the Gospel of Ascension 
 Thursday in order to supply the omission. Hence the unique 
 Gospel of N and Bede. 
 
 The Thursdays in Lent were without station, not only at 
 Lerins and Naples, but even in the Roman system of Burch. 
 It will the less surprise us to find none on the Thursday after 
 Easter at Lerins, if we remember that up to the present day 
 the Mass of Whit Sunday is repeated on the Thursday following, 
 except for the Epistle and Gospel, which are now proper. 
 
 Thus we have an explanation of the long note in the margin 
 of Y, Luke xxiv, and after the last capitulum of the summary 
 in Reg : 
 
 ' Haec lectio in ebdomada pascae dum legitur, finitur in loco ubi ait 
 "quoadusque induamini uirtutem ex alto". Cum autem in ascensione 
 legitur, alio loco incoanda est, quo dicit discipulis " haec sunt uerba quae 
 locutus sum uobiscum " usque ad finem euangelhV 
 
 It is a note by Eugipius, when he divided the older Gospel 
 for the Ascension, and gave the first half of it to the Thursday 
 after Easter, which till then had been ( aliturgical \ 
 
 The asterisk for Low Sunday (168) is due to B, which 
 divides the usual pericope, John xx. 19, between Saturday and 
 Sunday. The summary gives xx. 19, and doubtless this was 
 the commencement of the Sunday Gospel both at Lerins and 
 at Naples ; it is also that of Rom. Of course the passage is 
 unavoidable for Low Sunday in any system. 
 
 Onferia ii post albas something will be said in chapter vii, 
 p. 140. It evidently represents the Pascha annotinum. The 
 next title, post albas pascae feria iiii, looks like a division of 
 the former lesson by Eugipius ; though it is found only in 
 
 1 Lux, after its fashion, has a Gospel compounded of John xiii. 33-5, ibid., 
 xiv. 1-14, and Luke xxiv. 49-53. 
 
 I % 
 
n6 EUGIPIUS AND THE GALLICAN LITURGY 
 
 Burch. But as a fact it certainly does not belong to N at all, 
 for it is found in the thoroughly Roman systems of Spires and 
 Rheinau (p. iaa). The apparent connexion with N 165 is 
 therefore misleading. We shall see in the next section how 
 close a connexion there is between Burch. and these two 
 German systems of pericopae. 
 
 The Sundays after Easter demand special attention, for they 
 have clearly got shifted in Burch. : 
 
 Naples. Burch. 
 
 156 Post albas paschae dominica ii 231 Post octauas pascae dominica v 
 
 157 Dominica sancta penticosten 232 Sabbato sancto penticosten 
 
 233 Dominica saD eta pent ecosten 
 235 Post albas pascae i dominica 
 237 In ebd. post ascensa dfii feria iiii 
 
 239 In natale sancti Pancrati [et] 
 post ascensa d3i 
 
 240 Post albas pascae dominica ill 
 [241 Ebdomada iiii post pascha 
 
 158 Post albas paschae dominica 
 prima 
 
 i 59 Post ascensa dfli 
 
 160 Post albas paschae dominica Hi 
 
 x6i-2 Post iii dominicas XLgisima 
 
 feria iiii ab his l et post elbas 
 
 pascae dominica v 
 163-4 ^ ost * u dominica die sabbati 
 
 ab his ' et post albas pascae 
 
 dominica iiii 
 
 John 
 
 xiv. 
 
 1 
 
 xiv. 
 
 15 
 
 xiv. 
 
 23 
 
 XT. 
 
 1 
 
 XV. 
 
 7 
 
 XV. 
 
 17 
 
 XV. 
 
 26 
 
 xvi. 
 
 5] 
 
 242 Post albas pascae iiii dominica xvi. 15 
 
 243 Post albas pascae v dominica xvi. 23 
 
 It is evident that xv. %6-xyl 5 ought to be read after the 
 Ascension in preparation for Pentecost. The et in Burch. (239) 
 is above the line, and ought never to have been inserted ; the 
 feast of St. Pancras alone should have xv. 17, while post ascensa 
 should have been placed against xv. 26, and consequently/^/ 
 albas pascae dom. iii should be against xvi. 5. A later scribe 
 saw this last point, and wrote in a coarse hand the equivalent 
 ebdomada iiii post pascha against that verse. Thus we get the 
 pericopae settled; but the numbers of the Sundays vary 
 
 in N and B. 
 
 N. B. 
 
 Post albas dom. ii .dom. v John xiv. i 
 
 1 
 
 •»> 
 
 1 
 
 91 
 
 XV. 1 
 
 iii 
 
 j) 
 
 iii 
 
 >j 
 
 xvi. 5 
 
 V 
 
 >» 
 
 iiii 
 
 >> 
 
 », 16 
 
 iiii 
 
 jj 
 
 V 
 
 >* 
 
 1. n 
 
 1 Ab his in N 162-4 seems to denote that the Lenten lessons began at v. 15 and 
 v. 23, whereas the Easter lessons certainly began at v. 16 and v. 23 #. B 237 is 
 not now a Roman pericope, and Dom Morin has attributed it to N. But it is 
 certainly an insertion by B, for it is in the system of Rheinau and Spires. 
 
John xiv. i 
 
 
 i. e. 3rd after Easter 
 
 „ XV. I 
 
 
 2nd „ 
 
 „ xv. 26 
 
 = R 
 
 S. after Asc 
 
 „ xvi. 5 
 
 = R 
 
 4th after Easter 
 
 ,, xvi. 16 x 
 
 (=R 
 
 3rd „ ) 
 
 „ xvi. 23 
 
 = R 
 
 5tH „ 
 
 EUGIPIUS AND THE GALLICAN LITURGY 117 
 
 In B the sequence iii, iiii, v is suspicious, and there is no 
 second Sunday. We must clearly follow N. Thus we get : 
 
 Post albas dom. ii 156 
 
 » i 158 
 
 Post ascensa dSi 159* 
 
 Post albas dom. iii 160* 
 
 „ „ v 162 
 
 „ „ iiii 164* 
 
 Observe the result. There are three asterisks, and in just 
 these three cases the lesson coincides with R. These are 
 evidently Eugipian insertions. 
 
 But the post albas dom, v is surprising. There are only five 
 Sundays after Easter, so that this fifth post albas is the Sunday 
 after Ascension day. But post Ascensa dhi is probably meant 
 for the same day, for it can hardly be for a ferial Mass. We 
 may think (162) to be the Lerins Gospel, superseded by 
 Eugipius's (159). But another solution is possible. The peri- 
 cope xvi. 16 is in R for the second Sunday post albas. If 
 Eugipius inserted it for that Sunday, it would not be astonish- 
 ing if a scribe, finding the second Sunday twice over, should 
 change ii into v, thus introducing a sixth Sunday after Easter. 
 In B ii has twice been altered into v, probably in the former 
 place to avoid the double ii, while the sequence iii, iiii, v 
 was a subsequent correction. If this conjecture be adopted, 
 Eugipius gave Roman Gospels for all the Sundays after Easter, 
 except for the second Sunday, the pericope for which should be 
 John x. 11 : this was already the lesson for a Saturday of Lent. 
 
 Pentecost 
 Sabbato sancto penticosten 
 Dominica sancta „ 
 Post penti. in ieiunium feria iiii 
 
 ,, • feria vi in ieiuninm 
 
 „ in ieiunium in die sabbati 
 
 The Gospel for Whit Sunday agrees with Lux, Bob, Ambros, 
 but in the Roman system is the Gospel for the Vigil ; B gives 
 the Vigil against xiv. 15, and the feast (as R) against xiv. 33 ; 
 but the scribe has written the words Sabbato sancto over an 
 
 1 The division of the summary in Y is at verse 15, and the note in B is also at 
 the same point. But v. 16 is right for the summary, and the lesson has followed 
 its mistake. 
 
 41* 
 
 John vii. 40 
 
 57 
 
 „ xiv. 15 
 
 67* 
 
 Mark ix. 16 
 
 24* 
 
 Matt ix. 10 
 
 83 
 
 Luke vi. 8 
 
n8 EUGIPIUS AND THE GALLICAN LITURGY 
 
 erasure, so that Dom Morin is evidently right in assuming 
 that he had at first written Dominica sancla, which he found 
 in his copy of N, and changed it. 
 
 The asterisk shows that there was no Gospel for the Vigil of 
 Pentecost at Lerins ; we find the same omission in Lux, Bob, 
 q, Goth. Nos. 6j and 24 begin only one verse later than the 
 corresponding title of the summary. But this is probably 
 enough to enable us to reject them as not Gallican, and conse- 
 quently 83 with them. Thus there were perhaps no proper 
 Masses for the Octave of Pentecost at Lerins, just as there are 
 none in Bob, Lux, Comic, Ambros. But the four insertions 
 by Eugipius are not Roman. That for the vigil could not 
 be, for the Roman pericope was taken by the feast. But we 
 remember that Eugipius did not introduce Quatuor Tempora 
 for Advent or Lent, and did not Romanize Lent itself. 
 Perhaps we may infer that the Gospels for the Roman station 
 days were not yet fixed in his time. 
 
 We now come to the Proprium Sanctorum, We have 
 already spoken of several feasts. There remain the following : 
 
 In sancti Viti 
 
 27 . 
 
 . Matt. ix. 35 
 
 In ieinnium S. Iohannis Bapt. . 
 
 • 7* 
 
 . Luke i. 5 
 
 „ natale „ „ . 
 
 73 
 
 . Luke i. 57 
 
 Id ieiunium SS. Iohannis et Pauli . 
 
 96 
 
 . Luke xii. 1 
 
 „ natale „ „ 
 
 53* 
 
 . Matt. xx. 20 
 
 )J 11 M 11 • ' 
 
 152 
 
 . John xii. 20 
 
 In ieiunium S. Petri 
 
 5i* 
 
 . Matt. xix. 27 
 
 „ natale „ 
 
 44 
 
 . Matt. xvi. 13 
 
 ji » )>••••■ 
 
 170 
 
 . John xxi. 1 5 
 
 In ieiunium S. Laurenti . 
 
 ">5 
 
 . Luke xiv. 16 
 
 „ natale ,, . . . , 
 
 104* 
 
 . Luke xiv. 7 
 
 In ieiunium S. Andreae . 
 
 8 
 
 . Matt. iv. 18 
 
 „ natale ,, 
 
 •*.. TTV * _ *VT 1 U.'i! . 1 
 
 *34 
 
 . John vi. 1 
 
 St. Vitus is a Naples addition : c Saint Vit y fut honore" avant 
 d'etre transport^ a Saint-Denis et de la k Prague' (S. Berger, 
 Hist, de la Vulg., p. 40). 
 
 One of the two Gospels for SS. John and Paul is Eugipian, 
 as we should expect. St. Laurence is naturally Roman. 
 
 But both Gospels for St. Peter remain ; (44) is no doubt for 
 St. Peter's Chair ' natale S. Petri de cathedra ', and (170) for 
 June 39 ; to make this clear Burch. has added ' et Fault*. The 
 Roman use has the Gospel of St. Matthew for both feasts ; but 
 
EUGIPIUS AND THE GALLICAN LITURGY 119 
 
 Bob has the same arrangement as Naples, only it prefixes two 
 verses from St. Mark (i. 16-17) on June 29. 1 
 
 On the other hand the Gospel for the Vigil is Neapolitan. 
 But then there is no Vigil of SS. Peter and Paul in Lux, 
 Bob, Goth, Comic. 
 
 Still it is strictly possible that the Feast of the Chair was 
 introduced at Naples, and that in the Lerins order Matt. xvi. 
 13 was the Gospel for the Vigil, June 28, as in Ambros. But 
 I do not think this likely, for the parallel with Bob is far more 
 important', and the February feast is so prominent in Lux 
 that the Sundays are counted from it. 
 
 We come to the Commune Sanctorum^ including those which 
 
 C UCCU U15CUWCU tiuuvc, p. 1UJ. 
 
 In dedicationem 
 
 16* . 
 
 Matt. vii. 24 
 
 , 3 ,, . . . 
 
 46 . . 
 
 „ xvi. 28? 
 
 In ordinatione episcopi . 
 
 28* . 
 
 » *. 7 
 
 In natale „ 
 
 101* . 
 
 Luke xi. 42 
 
 In ieiunium apostolorum . 
 
 80 . 
 
 »> iv. 38 
 
 In apostolorum .... 
 
 29 . 
 
 Matt. x. 16 
 
 >> ji .... 
 
 84 - 
 
 Luke vi. 1 2 
 
 )> »» .... 
 
 . 117*? 
 
 „ xxii. 24 
 
 In martyras 
 
 • 35 • 
 
 . Matt. xii. 46 
 
 )> >)••*• 
 
 . 89 . 
 
 . Luke viii. 1 
 
 „ ,,..,.. 
 
 ■ 94 . 
 
 „ x. 38 
 
 In martyra 
 
 . 60* . 
 
 . Matt. xxv. 1 
 
 In unius martyris 
 
 • 45* • 
 
 „ xvi. 24 
 
 ») jj .... 
 
 . 106 . 
 
 , Luke xiv. 25 
 
 In unius confessoris .... 
 
 . 30* - 
 
 Matt. x. 26 
 
 a »»••*• 
 
 • 97* . 
 
 Luke xii. 9 
 
 In sanctorum 
 
 . 85* . 
 
 ,, vi. 17 
 
 JJ Si 
 
 . 92 . 
 
 . ? 
 
 ,, ,, de beatitudinem . 
 
 • 9 
 
 Matt. v. 1 
 
 In uelanda 
 
 . 125 . 
 
 John ii. 1 
 
 In agendas 
 
 . 149* . 
 
 „ xi. 25 
 
 In this table it is not one of a pair that disappears, but 
 whole categories. The ordination of a bishop and the anni- 
 versary of it go out together (38, 101). The whole of in unius, 
 whether of martyrs or confessors, must be Eugipian substitu- 
 tions for the Gospels in martyras t and the coincidence of 
 (106) with a title of the summary is a mere chance. Appa- 
 rently only one in sanctorum is an addition and one in 
 
 1 Lux combines both Gospels for the Feast of the Chair. Comic has Matt, xvi 
 for that feast ; neither gives either of these Gospels for June 29. 
 
iao EUGIPIUS AND THE GALLICAN LITURGY 
 
 apostolorum} Though the pericope for (92) cannot be 
 identified, it is unlikely not to have coincided with one of the 
 many vacant titles of the summary near it. It is not surprising 
 that in agendas should be Neapolitan, for agenda > (feminine 
 singular) is used by Eugipius's neighbour and contemporary 
 St Benedict in his Rule to mean a 'service'. Here it means 
 a funeral, agenda mortitorum* One of the two in dedicationem 
 is Eugipian, perhaps both. 
 
 The legenda pro defunctis noted at the fifteenth number of 
 the summary to St. John is presumably the earlier Gallican 
 Gospel for the dead, on account of its connexion with the 
 summary. 
 
 Among the lessons marked * Cottidiana ' some have to be 
 asterisked : possibly some others coincide only by chance 
 with the summary. For (115) see above, p. \\%. 
 
 Cottidiana 
 
 • 
 
 • 
 
 
 10 
 
 . 15 . 
 
 . Matt. v. 13 
 „ vii. 1 
 
 3J 
 
 . 
 
 . 
 
 
 . 17* . 
 
 „ vii. 28 
 
 » d 
 
 g puerum c 
 
 enturionis 
 
 
 . 18 . 
 
 » viii. 5 
 
 Item alia 
 
 . 
 
 . 
 
 
 . 19 . 
 
 ,, viii. 23 
 
 Cottidiana 
 
 . 
 
 . 
 
 
 20 
 
 ,, viii. 28 
 
 j) 
 
 ■ 
 
 . 
 
 
 21 
 
 » ix. 1 
 
 » 
 
 . 
 
 . 
 
 
 22 
 
 » ix. 9 
 
 » 
 
 . 
 
 . 
 
 
 • 25 . 
 
 „ ix. 18 
 
 » 
 
 • 
 
 . 
 
 
 . 26 . 
 
 „ ix. 27 
 
 >* P< 
 
 »r messes . 
 
 . 
 
 
 • 32 - 
 
 „ xii. 1 
 
 Item alia 
 
 . 
 
 . 
 
 
 33 • 
 
 » xii. 9 
 
 Cottidiana 
 
 . 
 
 . 
 
 
 39 ■' 
 
 „ xiv. 13 
 
 7* ' 
 
 • 
 
 • 
 
 
 40 . 
 
 „ xiv. 22 
 
 >» 
 
 • 
 
 ■ 
 
 
 41 . 
 
 » XV. 1 
 
 » < 
 
 • 
 
 • 
 
 
 42 - 
 
 „ XV. 21 
 
 » 
 
 • 
 
 - 
 
 
 49 • 
 
 „ xix. 1 
 
 >7 ' 
 
 . 
 
 . 
 
 
 50 . 
 
 „ xix. 16 
 
 9* • 
 
 , , 
 
 . . 
 
 
 68 . 
 
 79 • • 
 
 Mark x. 46 
 Luke iv. 31 
 
 » 
 
 . 
 
 . 
 
 
 81 . 
 
 ,, v. 1 
 
 »> 
 
 . 
 
 . 
 
 
 . 82a* . 
 
 » v. 27 
 
 Per messes . 
 
 . 
 
 . 
 
 
 82^ . 
 
 „ vi. 1 
 
 Cottidiana . 
 
 . 
 
 . 
 
 
 87 . . 
 
 „ vii. 11 
 
 » • 
 
 • 
 
 ■ 
 
 
 88 . 
 
 „ vii. 36 
 
 1 In Apostolorum (117) Luke xxii. 24 corresponds with the summary, but I have 
 asterisked it because it is a Eugipian interpolation which has ousted the note 
 preserved by A only at this (the eighty-ninth) title of the summary : * quae lectio 
 potest quolibet tempore did? 
 
EUGIPIUS AND THE GALLICAN LITURGY iai 
 
 Cottidiana . 
 
 
 
 
 
 . 90 . 
 
 . Luke viii. 16? 
 
 17 ' ' 
 
 
 
 
 
 91 . 
 
 ,, viii. 40? 
 
 J) 
 
 
 
 
 
 93 • 
 
 » ix.47? 
 
 )J • 
 
 
 
 
 
 95 • 
 
 „ xi. 1 ? 
 
 JJ ■ • 
 
 
 
 
 
 98 . . 
 
 „ xii. 13? 
 
 it 
 
 
 
 
 
 102 . , 
 
 „ xiii. 10? 
 
 J» * 
 
 
 
 
 
 103 . 
 
 „ xiv. 1? 
 
 ») • 
 
 
 
 
 
 107 
 
 „ XV. II 
 
 JJ ' 
 
 
 
 
 
 108 . 
 
 „ xvi. 1 
 
 )) 
 
 
 
 
 
 109* . 
 
 „ xvi. 19 
 
 » 
 
 
 
 
 
 111 
 
 „ xviii. 1 
 
 S) 
 
 
 
 
 
 114 . 
 
 ,, xix. 1 ? 
 
 J» » ■ 
 
 
 
 
 
 133* • 
 
 John v. 24 ? 
 
 If 
 
 
 
 
 
 135* . 
 
 „ vi. 16? 
 
 It seems that no cottidiana was taken from St. John at 
 Lerins. Eugipius added only two. His additions do not 
 seem to have been very numerous in general. Perhaps not 
 more than half a dozen other cottidianae are his. 
 
 In conclusion it must be noted that we have now discovered 
 why the lessons and the summary so often disagree in the 
 fourth Gospel. It is simply that there were much fewer 
 lessons from St. John than from St. Luke and St. Matthew in 
 the Lerinese use, while Eugipius added more in St. John than 
 elsewhere. He made the summaries (as we said) before he 
 inserted the additions ; hence in the fourth Gospel he fre- 
 quently followed the divisions of the older summaries, because 
 he had no guidance from any Lerins pericope. It is interesting 
 to remark that there must consequently have been an older 
 summary in the copy of the Gospels he received from Lerins. 
 Why he superseded it by a new composition of his own we 
 shall learn in chapter vii (p. 136). 
 
 § 4. St. Burchards additions to the Neapolitan use. 
 
 When Dom Morin published the liturgical notes found in 
 the ' Gospels of St. Burchard ' he contented himself with 
 pointing out that the additions made in that MS. to the 
 Neapolitan list of lessons were Roman in character, without 
 troubling to extract them and arrange them in liturgical 
 order. It will, however, be worth our while to do this, as it is 
 a simple matter. 
 
 The following tables give the additions of Burch., which 
 
i%% EUGIPIUS AND THE GALLICAN LITURGY 
 
 were italicized in the former table (above, pp. 53-63). In these 
 tables, on the contrary, the words italicized belong to the 
 Neapolitan original. The numerals in the first column refer 
 to the fourth column of the former table. The additions by 
 a somewhat later hand in coarse writing are put in square 
 brackets. R means ' Roman \ 
 
 183 
 
 38 
 
 191 
 
 114 
 
 117 
 116 
 119 
 
 4 
 
 38 
 
 Advent and Christmas 
 De aduentum .... 
 Dominica secunda de aduentum . 
 [Ebd. i ante natale dSi 
 [Feria vi ad Apostolos 
 Dominica iiii de aduentum d. n. I. C. 
 
 In tiigilias de natale domini . 
 Natale dni nocte . 
 Dominica post natale dHi 
 [Dominica i post natale d2i . 
 In uigilias de theophania 
 
 Dominica de aduentum N 
 
 Luke xxi. 25 R 
 Matt. xi. 2 R 
 John i. 39] R 
 Luke i. 19] R 
 „ iii. 1 R 
 
 Matt. i. 18 R 
 Luke ii. 15 
 
 » ii. 33] R 
 Matt. ii. 19 R 
 
 1 14 Dominica prima de adu. d. u. I. C. N. 
 
 1 Pridie natale domini N 
 
 The whole Advent system is intended to be Roman. It was 
 incomplete, and the later hand has rilled up and corrected. 
 Ember Wednesday is omitted. The entry of N remains at 
 its Gospel, Luke i. 26, Dom. iii de adu., and the third Sunday 
 had to be supplied by the later hand. As Christmas occurs 
 in the fourth week of Advent (or at latest on the following 
 Sunday) ebd. i ante nat d%i means the third week, as in the 
 lectionaries of Rheinau and Spires. These two Gospel lists 
 were reprinted by E. Ranke in his work Das kirchliche Peri- 
 copensystem (Berlin, 1847) from Gerbert's Monumenta Veteris 
 Liturgiae Alemannicae, torn, i, p. 418. We shall see that they 
 often show a close agreement with Burch. 
 
 The single Mass of N for Christmas had the Roman midnight 
 lesson. In error the Roman Mass of Aurora has been added 
 by B, and called nocte, because that of N was ad missa publica* 
 One of N's lessons for Epiphany was Roman, but the Roman 
 lesson for the vigil is now given. It was pointed out (p.106, 
 above) that 116 was a mere slip of the scribe, 119 being the 
 right lesson. No Sundays after Epiphany are given, none of 
 N's being omitted, though only one of them is Roman. 
 
EUGIPIUS AND THE GALLICAN LITURGY 133 
 
 Septuagesima and Lent 
 68 In Lxxgisima die dominico ad S. Laurentium 
 139 Id LXgisima ad S. Paulum .... 
 J 78 In Lgisima ad S. Pelrum .... 
 
 7 In xi-gisima pascae (N) .... 
 88 In Lxxgisima ebd. ii feria ii ad Vincula 
 72 „ „ „ [feria iii] ad S, Anastasia 
 
 [Wed. wanting] 
 201 „ „ „ „ vi ad Apostolos . 
 
 58 „ „ „ „ vii ad S. Petrum . 
 
 [Sunday has Gospel of S t. repeated 
 In Lxxgisima iii ebd. feria ii ad S. Clementem 
 „ ,, ebd. iii „ iii ad S. Balbina 
 
 „ „ „ „ iiii ad S. Cecilia . 
 
 ,, „ „ „ viinVestine 
 
 inR] 
 
 216 
 
 78 
 69 
 
 75 
 172 
 
 vii ad S. Petrum etMarcellinum Luke xv. n 
 
 154 In XLgisima ebd. iii ad S. Laurentium martyrem 
 
 123 „ „ ,, feria ii ad S. Marcum . 
 
 62 In Lxxgisima ebd. iiii „ iii ad S. Podentiana 
 
 52 „ „ „ „ iiii ad S. Syxtum . 
 
 199 „ „ „ „ viinLucina . 
 
 214 „ „ „ v „ vii ad S. Susanna . 
 
 204 „ j, ebd. v die dominico in Suxurio . 
 
 195 „ ,, „ feria ii ad iiii Coronatus 
 
 [Tues. wanting] 
 
 218 ., „ v ebd. „ iiii ad S. Paulum . 
 
 223 „ ,, „ „ vi ad S. Euscbium 
 
 215 „ „ „ „ [iiii ad S. Paulum] 
 
 Matt. xx. 1 R 
 
 Luke viii. 4 R 
 
 „ xviii. 31 R 
 
 Matt. iv. 1 R 
 „ xxv. 31 R 
 „ xxi. 1 
 
 John v. 1 
 Matt. xvii. 
 
 R 
 R 
 
 John viii. (21) R 
 Matt, xxiii. 1 R 
 
 „ xx. 17 R 
 
 ., xxii. 1 
 
 Luke xi. 14 
 » iv. 23 
 
 R 
 R 
 R 
 
 Matt, xviii. 1 5 R 
 
 „ xv. I 
 
 John iv. 5 
 
 „ viii. 1 
 
 „ vi. 1 
 
 „ ii. 12 
 
 „ ix. 1 
 
 „ xi. 1 
 
 „ viii. 12 
 
 R 
 R 
 R 
 
 R 
 R 
 
 R 
 R 
 R 
 
 88. So Spir. Feria ii ad Vincula without ad S. Petrum, 
 72. I have supplied feria iii. The Roman lesson is xxi. 10. This is a mere 
 slip of B. 
 
 216. The + to denote the verse is wanting in B. 
 75. The Roman pericope is really xxi. 33. The titulus Vestinae (from the 
 name of its foundress) is called in the present R Missal by the name of the patron, 
 S. Vitalis. It was the title assigned to the martyred Bp. Fisher (Via Nazionale). 
 Rhein. has ad Apostolos in titulo Vestinae. 
 
 154, 123. The quadragesima is curious; correctly called third week. 
 
 204. in Suxurio, so Rhein. also, for Sessoriana, i. e. Sta Croce in Jerusalemme. 
 
 215. This is the right pericope for Saturday Sitientes; but the scribe has 
 written Wednesday against it. He should have said Feria vii ad S. Laurentium 
 according to Spir. and Rhein., but the modern Missal has ad S. Nicolaum in 
 carcere. Passion Sunday (ad S. Petrum, John viii. 46) is also omitted, and the 
 following Saturday, where again Rhein. differs from the Roman Missal. The 
 latter has ad S. loannem ante portam latinam^ John xii. 10 ; Rhein. has ( datur 
 fermentum in consistorio Lateranense ', Mark xiv. 10-16, and a later hand has 
 substituted John xvii. 11. It is curious that the omission of these two Saturdays 
 in B should coincide with the differences between the German MSS. and the 
 R Missal. 
 
124 EUGIPIUS AND THE GALLICAN LITURGY 
 
 [Passion Sunday wanting] 
 
 212 In LXXgisima ebd. vi feria ii ad S. Crisogonum . . John vii. 32 R 
 
 210 „ „ „ „ iii ad S. Cyriacum . . M vii. 1 R 
 
 221 „ „ vi ebd. „ iiii ad S. Marcellum . . „ x. 22 R 
 
 225 „ „ „ „ vi ad S. Stephanmn . . „ xi. 47 R 
 
 [Saturday wanting] 
 
 Holy Week 
 
 89 Ebd. vi die dominico ad Lateranis legitur passio dffi . Matt. xxvi. 1 R 
 
 226 In LXgisima i ebd. feria ii ad SS. Nereum et Archillenm John xii. 1 R 
 229 ,, iiii ebd. feria vi ad S. Prisca „ xiii. 1 
 
 184 in XLgisimaebd. vi feria iiii legitur passio dfii . . Luke xxii. 1 R 
 
 [Thursday wanting] 
 
 246 In ebd. maiore feria vi ad Hierusalem legitur passio d3i John xviii. 1 R 
 
 90 In sab. sancto ad missa N Matt, xxviii. 1 R 
 
 226. So Rhein. The R Missal and Spir. have ad S* Praxedem. We must 
 of course read In Lxxgisima vii ebd. or in XLgisima vi ebd., and the same for 229. 
 
 229. Read feria iii. Rhein. and Spir. give this lesson ; the R Missal gives the 
 Passion according to St. Mark, which is left unread in Rhein. Spir. Burch. There is 
 consequently no pericope for the Thursday. Rhein. Spir. indeed repeat xiii. 1, 
 but B has even omitted N's ( feria v in ieiunium de cena d3i \ N 64 serves for 
 B 90 also. The + to mark 229 is in a later coarse hand. 
 
 We see that throughout Lent the stations are the same as 
 in the Roman Missal, except Saturday in fourth week and 
 Tuesday of Holy Week ; the lessons are given wrongly only 
 twice. The name Septuagesima is curious ; it seems to mean 
 seven weeks, and in fact seven weeks are counted, yet the first 
 week is passed over in silence. But the week following the 
 first Sunday could hardly be called the second week, unless 
 Lent already began, as it now does, on the Wednesday of the 
 week before. The older and more usual reckoning is used for 
 the preceding Sundays, which appear as LXX, LX, and Lgisima, 
 while the first Sunday of Lent retains its title from N 
 ' XLgisima pascae \ 
 
 In Holy Week the lesson for the Tuesday (see note) is 
 remarkable. The Thursdays throughout Lent have no station, 
 as always before Gregory II. But we shall find one for 
 Thursday after Easter; and Maundy Thursday had two 
 Gospels in the much older N. The omission of a Gospel for 
 that great day is curious ; probably John xiii. 1 is to be 
 repeated as in the German MSS. 
 
EUGIPIUS AND THE GALLICAN LITURGY 135 
 
 108 
 
 187 
 18s 
 
 n i 
 24s 
 
 9 1 
 249 
 
 250 
 
 245 
 196 
 
 Easter 
 
 Dominicnm pascae ad sancta Mar; 
 Feria ii pascae ad S. Petrum 
 
 111 
 iiii 
 
 VI 
 
 vii 
 
 ad S. Paulum 
 
 ad S. Lauren tium 
 ad Apostolos 
 ad Martyres 
 
 ad Lateranis 
 
 Die dominico octabas pascae 
 Post albas pascae feria iiii 
 In pasca annotina 
 
 [241 Ebd. iiii post pascha . 
 
 244 et in vigilias de ascensa dfSi 
 
 no Feria v in ascensa dSi . 
 
 237 In ebd. post ascensa dHi feria iiii 
 
 Mark xvi. i R 
 Luke xxiv. 13 R 
 
 „ xxiv. 36 R 
 John xxi. 1 R 
 
 „ xx. 11 R 
 Matt.xxviii. 16R 
 John xx. 19 
 
 „ xx. 24 
 
 „ xvii. n 
 
 „ iii. 1 
 
 „ xvi. 5] R 
 
 „ xvii. 1 R 
 
 Mark xvi. 14 R 
 
 John xv. 7 
 
 249. So Rhein. Spir. The latter adds the Roman Gospel, John xx. 1. R has 
 xx. 19 for the Sunday, but Rhein. Spir. give John xx. 24. Again an omission in B 
 corresponds with a difference between the German MSS. and R. 
 
 245, 196, 237 are not liturgical days in R Missal ; but all three are found with 
 these lessons in Rhein. Spir. The Comes published by Pamelius (Ranke, p. Hi) 
 gives the same for 196 and 237. 
 
 John xiv. 15 
 
 R 
 
 „ xiv. 23 
 
 R 
 
 „ iii. 16 
 
 R 
 
 t, x. 1 
 
 R 
 
 » vi. 43 
 
 R 
 
 Luke v. 18 
 
 R 
 
 John iii. 1 
 
 
 Luke ix. 12 
 
 
 „ XV. l 
 
 
 „ via. 40 
 
 
 Pentecost ' 
 
 232 Sabbato sancto penticosten . 
 
 233 Dominica sancta pentecosden 
 197 et post penticosten feria ii 
 219 Post penticosten feria iii ad S. Anastasia 
 207 » j, t t iiii ad S. Maria . 
 129 „ „ „ vi ad Apostolos . 
 
 [Sat. wanting] 
 196 et in octabas de penticosten . 
 
 144 Post octabas de penticosten feria iiii 
 *7 X » » » vi . 
 
 142 „ „ „ vii . 
 
 In R the Mass of Pentecost is repeated on Thursday, but a new Epistle and Gospel 
 are given; these are not yet given in B Rhein. Spir. The Gospel 196 is not 
 that of R. Again Rhein. and Spir. disagree with R, giving two Gospels for the 
 Saturday, Matt. xx. 29 and Luke vi. 36 (R has Luke iv. 38), and for the Sunday, 
 John iii. 1 as B. 
 
 144, 171, 142 are not liturgical days in R, but are found in Rhein. Spir. 
 
 Saints' Days 
 Aug. 6. 33 S. Sixtus 
 Sept. 11. 34 SS. Protus and Hyacinthus 
 Aug. 8. 35 S. Cyriacus 
 May 10. 36 S. Gordianus 
 Au g- 9- 37 Vigilia S. Laurentii 
 
 Matt. x. 16 | 
 
 RhS 
 
 » x. 23 
 
 RhS 
 
 „ x. 26 
 
 }■ RhS 
 
 „ x. 34 
 
 [Matt. v. 17 RhS] 
 
 » x. 37 j 
 
 [ „ xvi. 24 Rh S] 
 
126 EUGIPIUS AND THE GALLICAN LITURGY 
 Saints' Days 
 
 Aug. 14. 
 
 84 S. Eusebius 
 
 Matt. xxiv. 42 
 
 
 RhS 
 
 Mar. 12. 
 
 85 S. Gregorius 
 
 „ xxiv. 45 J 
 
 [xxiv. 42 Rh, not in S] 
 
 Sept, 16. 
 
 156 SS. Cornelius et Cyprianus 
 
 Luke xi. 47 \ 
 
 RhS 
 
 July 29. 
 
 162 SS. Felix, Simpl., Faust., 
 
 
 
 
 Beatrix 
 
 „ xii. 35 ) 
 
 RhS 
 
 Aug. 22. 
 
 170 S. Timotheus 
 
 „ xiv. 25 
 
 RhS 
 
 June 2. 
 
 182 SS. Marcellinus et Petrus 
 
 „ xxi. 9 ) 
 „ xxii. 24 \ 
 
 RhS 
 
 July 23. 
 
 185 S. Apollinaris 
 
 RhS 
 
 Aug. 10. 
 
 228 S. Laurentius 
 
 John xii. 33 
 
 [xii. 24 R RhS] 
 
 May 1. 
 
 234 SS. Philippus et Iacobus 
 
 „ xiv. 27 
 
 
 [xiv. 1 RRhS] 
 
 Apr. 28. 
 
 235 S. Vitalis' 
 
 » xv. 1 
 
 
 RhS 
 
 Sept. 8. 
 
 236 S. Hadrian us 
 
 » xv. 5 
 
 
 [xv. 1 Rh S] 
 
 May 12. 
 
 339 S. Pancratius 
 
 „ xv. 17 
 
 
 RhS 
 
 Aug. 29. 
 
 96 Depositio Helisaei et S. Io- 
 
 
 
 
 hannis baptistae 
 
 Mark vi. 14 
 
 
 
 Notice how the days are grouped into a very few chapters. 
 It is remarkable that on no Saint's day does B agree with R 
 On the other hand I have marked in the table its agreements 
 with Rhein. and Spir. Most of these days have a Gospel from 
 the common of martyrs in the modern Roman Missal. If it 
 is surprising that B has not even got the Roman Gospel for 
 St. Laurence, it is still more remarkable that it has left the 
 Gallican Gospels for St. Peter (and Paul he has added to 
 the title), No. 252, besides retaining nearly all the feasts of N 
 with their Gospels. 
 
 On the one feast that is not Roman (which I have therefore 
 put separately), Dom Morin remarks (Rev. Bin. y 1893, p. 96) : 
 1 "Lb. mention du prophete Elis^e conjointement avec saint Jean 
 au 29 aout se retrouve dans un certain nombre de martyro- 
 loges et de lectionnaires, entre autres dans le bel eVang&iaire 
 sur pourpre, ms. latin 9451 de la Bibliotheque Nationale de 
 Paris. Saint JeVdme nous apprend que Ton conservait, a 
 S^baste, les reliques de ces deux saints personnages (Ep. 108, 
 p. 13 ; Migne, 22, 889). II y a done lieu de croire que cette 
 seconde fete de saint Jean au mois d'aout est originaire de la 
 Palestine.' 
 
 135 in laetania maior ad S. Petrum Luke vi. 36 
 
 I 53 )> » )» »» xi. 5 R 
 
 51 et in octabas apostolorum Matt. xiv. 2a RRhS 
 
 103 post „ „ feriaiiii Mark x. 17 RhS 
 
EUGIPIUS AND THE GALLICAN LITURGY 127 
 
 101 post octabas apostolorum feria vi Mark viii. 10 Rh S 
 
 13 ebd. ii post natale apostolorum Matt. v. 20 (R) 
 
 [100 „ iii „ „ „ Mark viii. 1] (R) 
 
 Here we see that at least the octave day of the Apostles 
 (July 6) has a Roman pericope. No. 13 and No. 100 are the 
 Roman Gospels for the fifth and sixth Sundays after Pentecost, 
 which would roughly come about July 6. In Rh S they 
 have been calculated to come two weeks earlier, as we find 
 them called first and second Sundays post natale Apostolorum. 
 
 It is not worth while to collect the commune sanctorum and 
 cottidianae of B. I will note only 
 
 202 Ad missa defunctornm John v. 18 
 
 203 Item alia „ v. 24 
 
 The first Roman Mass has v. 25. 
 
 We have no difficulty now in describing the general charac- 
 teristics of B's system of lessons. It is not a syncretistic 
 combination of N with B. On the contrary, nearly all N is 
 superseded ; but the Roman additions are not complete. 
 Even in Lent a few days are omitted. Two of the Sundays 
 after Easter were not Roman in N, yet no substitution is made. 
 No new Sundays after Epiphany have been introduced, and 
 only two after Pentecost, viz. ii and iii r after the octave of the 
 Apostles'. Of saints those were copied who were found 
 together in certain chapters of the copy — five in Matt, x, two 
 in xxiv, &c. No doubt many have been omitted. 
 
 The Roman use will have been inscribed in the parent in 
 a different hand from that which wrote N ; all are copied into 
 Burch. by a single scribe, though a coarser hand has supplied 
 an omission here and there. The use itself is later than 
 St. Gregory (whose feast appears) and than the dedication of 
 the Pantheon, c. 607. But it acknowledges as yet no feast 
 of our Lady ; is this accident ? It has no Thursday office for 
 Lent and Pentecost (not even for Maundy Thursday), but it 
 gives the Thursday after Easter. We cannot be sure that the 
 writer did not know the September Ember days ; but we note 
 that the Ember Friday of Advent is in the later hand. 
 
 It is difficult, therefore, to see in this list a copy of one 
 obtained by St. Boniface at Rome in the first half of the 
 eighth century ; he would have obtained one more up to date. 
 
ia8 EUGIPIUS AND THE GALLICAN LITURGY 
 
 It is far more likely that the original was, like that of the 
 N portion, a Roman use introduced into England at the end 
 of the seventh century, or at least (as Dom Morin says) not 
 many years later than 700. 
 
 But the same use seems certainly to be at the base of the 
 two lists of Rheinau and Spires. Whether they are really 
 derived or not from some system introduced by St. Boniface 
 or one of his companions, such as St. Burchard, at least they 
 are considerably later than B. They give Thursday Masses 
 all through Lent, four feasts of our Lady (Hypapante, Annun- 
 ciation, Pausatio and Nativity), &c, but not the feast of All 
 Saints on Nov. 1, though Rhein. has Dedicatio ecclesiae 
 S. Mariae ad Mar tyres on May 14. The absence of All 
 Saints' day suggests an origin earlier than c. 730. The four 
 feasts of our Lady were not known at Rome in St. Gregory's 
 time, but were introduced in the course of the seventh century. 1 
 Therefore I presume that B represents, on the whole, a 
 Roman use of c. 650 rather than c. 700. 2 
 
 We saw that Burch. has an AY element in its text ; its AY 
 ancestor brought to it the Neapolitan lectionary notes, whose 
 English home was at Jarrow. 
 
 We saw that it had another element very close to the Codex 
 aureus Holniiensis, which was once at Canterbury. The 
 Roman lectionary notes may perhaps be from this source, and 
 may have come from Canterbury, which is quite certain to 
 have kept up a Roman use from St. Augustine's time onward. 
 But we must notice that neither this use nor N is Anglicized ; 
 they have no English saints, not even St. Augustine is in B, 
 nor are St. Paulinus and St. Benet Biscop in N. Consequently 
 they are copied from evangeliaries which, like Burch. itself, 
 had not been used as liturgical books, but had preserved an 
 Italian use unaltered. 
 
 1 These four feasts first appear in the West at the end of the seventh century. 
 There was scarcely any intercourse between East and West from the time of the 
 condemnation of the typus of Constans at the Lateran Council of 649 until the sixth 
 General Council in 680. I venture to suggest that the feasts may have been brought 
 into the West by the Greek monks who had settled at Rome and in Sardinia, and 
 presented a petition at the Lateran Council. 
 
 2 The Spires MS. was said to be eighth century ; that of Rheinau tenth century. 
 
EUGIPIUS AND THE GALLICAN LITURGY 139 
 
 One very important point in B is the proof it affords of the 
 antiquity of the Sunday and Lenten pericopae of the Roman 
 Missal. Dom G. Morin has noted 1 that in the same Wiirz- 
 burg library there is a seventh- or eighth-century MS. in Irish 
 writing, containing a list of the stations, followed by the 
 corresponding Epistles and Gospels (Mp. th. f. 63). As I am 
 writing on the Vulgate text and not on feasts, I have made no 
 inquiries about this interesting volume. It is to be hoped 
 it will soon be published. 
 
 1 Revue BhUd, % 1893, p. 116, note. 
 
CHAPTER VII 
 
 THE PAULINE LECTIONARY OF THE CODEX 
 FULDENSIS 
 
 § i. The list of lessons from St. Paul in F. 
 
 Mention has already been made of the list of lessons 
 prefixed to the Epistles of St. Paul in the Codex Fuldensis. 
 At first sight it has little resemblance to the Neapolitan 
 lectionary of Eugipius ; but a more minute examination 
 reveals a very close correspondence. 
 
 Besides the list there are usually marginal notes and crosses 
 in the text to show where the lessons begin. The latter have 
 been printed over against the corresponding titles of the list 
 by Dom Germain Morin in an appendix to his edition of the 
 Liber Comicus (Anecd. Mareds., vol. i, p. 436), and he has 
 added the incipits and explicits of the lessons. I subjoin an 
 abridgement of his table. 1 
 
 List. Marginal references, 
 
 De Adventu 
 
 1 ad romanos sub titulo xviii De aduentu Domini Rom. viii. 3-17 
 
 2 „ „ „ „ xxxviii „ „ „ xi. 25-36 
 
 3 ,, Galatas „ „ xiii De aduentu Domini lectio Gal. iii. 15-26 
 
 cotidiana 
 
 4 „ thessall. i „ „ xxi De aduentu Domini 1 Thess. v. 14-23 
 
 5 Pridie natale Domini Pridie ncUale domini . et Phil. iv. 4-9 
 
 ad philipp. sub titulo xiii in noctu sancta 
 
 \_Lect. in noctu sancta „ iii. 1- ] 
 mane et pridie natale 
 domini (tit. ix) 
 
 6 In natale Domini In natale domini Heb. i. 1- 
 
 ad hebreos principium epistulae 
 
 7 In natale sancti Iohannis In natale sancti Iohannis 2 Tim.iii. 16-iv. 8 
 
 ad timotheum ii sub titulo xvii 
 
 1 I have verified it fromE. Ranke's Codex Fuldensis^ pp. 165-8, whence Morin 
 drew his materials. Nearly all the numbers in the MS. show traces of correction 
 after erasure. Some are still incorrect. Evidently the list was already an old one, 
 and had been copied several times, in Victor's day. 
 
PAULINE LECTIONARY OF COD. FULDENSIS 131 
 
 8 In natale innocentum In natale Innocentum Rom. v. 1-5 
 
 ad romanos sab titulo xi 
 
 9 De circumcisione domini De circumcisione in ocla- Rom. xv. 8-14 
 
 ad romanos sab titulo li bos domini 
 
 10 De eodem die contra idola Lectio in octabas domini 1 Cor.viii. i-ix. 22 
 
 ad corintheos sub titulo xxxviii contra idola 
 [xxxviiii] 
 
 11 De eodem die Item de circumcisione 1 Cor. a. 14-33 
 
 ad corintheos i sub titulo xlvii 
 
 12 in ieiunio Epifaniorum In ieiunio epifaniorum Col. i. 9-19 l 
 
 ad colossenses sub titulo ii 
 
 13 in epifania mane In epifania mane 2 Cor. iv. 6-18 
 
 ad corintheos ii sub titulo x 
 
 14 in eodem die epifaniorum Lectio in epifania Tit. ii. 11-iii. 6 
 
 ad titum sub titulo iiii 
 
 15 in eodem die epifaniorum Lectio in Epifania Gal. iii. 27-iv. 7 
 
 ad galatas sub titulo x [xvi] 
 
 16 Cottidiana post epifania Lectio cotidiana Rom. xii. 6-16 
 
 ad romanos sub titulo xlii 
 
 17 Cottidiana Lectio cotidiana Heb. xii. 25-28 a 
 
 ad hebreos sab titulo xii 
 
 There follow nine more times cottidiana, with lectio cotidiana in margin. 
 Then:— 
 
 27 In sexagesima Lectio in Sexagesima 1 Tim. iii. 16-iv. 8 
 
 ad timotheum i sub titulo viiii 
 
 28 Cottidiana Lectio post Sexagesima 1 Cor. ix. 24-27 
 
 ad corintheos i sub titulo xlii 
 
 29 In quinquagesima Lectio in Quinquagesima Rom. xiv. io^-ioa 
 
 ad romanos sub titulo xlviii 
 
 30 In Quadragesima Lectio in caput Quadra- 2 Cor. vi. 2 a-10 
 
 ad corintheos sub titulo xlii gesime 
 (read ad Cor. ii sub t xvii) 
 
 31 In ieiunio 1 in Quadragesima Lectio in Quadragesima Rom. vi. 12-23 
 
 ad romanos sub titulo xvi ieiunio primo 
 
 32 Ieiunio ii in Quadragesima Lectio in Quadragesima Rom. xii. 1-5 
 
 ad romanos initium sab titulo xl sec undo ieiunio 
 
 33 In Quadragesima Dominica II Lectio in Quadragesima Rom.xiii.8fl-xiv.4 
 
 ad romanos sub titulo xliiii secunda deminica 
 
 34 In Quadragesima ieiunio III Lectio in Quadragesima Gal. v. 14-vi. 2 
 
 ad galatas sub titulo xxviii ieiunio tertio 
 
 35 In Quadragesima ieiunio IIII Lectio in Quadragesima Eph. iv. 17-22 
 
 ad ephesios sub titulo xvi ieiunio iiii 
 
 36 Inquadragesimadominicaiii Lectio in Quadragesima Eph. iv. 23-32 
 
 ad ephesios sub titulo xvii dominica iii 
 
 37 In Quadragesima ieiunio V Lectio in Quadragesima Eph. v. 1-5 
 
 ad ephesios sub titulo xx ieiunio v 
 
 38 In Quadragesima ieiunio VI Lectio in Quadragesima Eph. vi. 10-17 
 
 ad ephesios sub titulo xxx ieiunium vi 
 
 1 The cross is between the words inhabitare and corporaliter (added in F from ii. 9), 
 
 K % 
 
132 THE PAULINE LECTIONARY OF THE 
 
 39 IN QUADRAGESIMA DOMINICA 
 
 mi 
 ad galatas sub titulo iiii 
 
 40 IN QUADRAGESIMA IEIUNIO VII 
 
 ad thessall. i sub titulo xiii 
 
 41 IN QUADRAGESIMA IEIUNIO VIII 
 
 ad thessall. ii sub titulo vi 
 
 42 IN QUADRAGESIMA DOMINICA V 
 
 ad colossenses sub titulo v 
 
 43 IN QUADRAGESIMA IEIUNIO 
 
 Villi 
 ad romanos sub titulo 1 
 
 44 IN QUADRAGESIMA IEIUNIO X 
 
 ad corintheos ii sub titulo vii 
 
 45 Dominica ante octo dies 
 
 PASCHAE 
 
 ad corintheos ii sub titulo v L 
 
 46 In ebdoma maiore 
 
 ad corintheos ii sub titulo xxv 
 [xxvi] 
 
 47 InsecundaferiaantePascha 
 
 ebdoma maiore 
 ad galatas sub titulo vii [viii] 
 
 48 In tertia feria ante Pascha 
 
 ad galatas sub titulo vim 
 
 49 In quarta feria antePascha 
 
 ad ephesios sub titulo vii 
 
 50 In quinta feria antePascha 
 
 ad corintheos i sub titulo xxiii 
 
 5 1 In quinta feria ad uesperam 
 
 cenam domini 
 ad corintheos i sub titulo lvi 
 
 52 In sexta feria ante noctu 
 
 magna 
 ad philippenses sub titulo v 
 
 53 In noctu sca. mane 
 
 ad philippenses sub titulo xiii 
 
 54 In noctu sca. noctu 
 
 ad corintheos i sub titulo xliiii 
 
 55 In scm. Pascha 
 
 ad colossenses sub titulo xi 
 
 56 In secunda feria paschae 
 
 ad romanos sub titulo xv 
 
 57 In ter feria paschae 
 
 ad romanos sub titulo xii 
 
 Lectio in quadragesima Gal. i. 11-24 
 dominica iiii 
 
 Lectio in quadragesima 1 Thess. iv. 1-9 
 
 ieiunio vii 
 Lectio in quadragesima 2 Thess. iii. 4-16 
 
 ieiunio viii 
 Lectio in quadragesima Col. ii. 4-10 
 
 dominica v 
 Lectio in quadragesima Rom. xiv. 19-23 
 
 ieiunio viiii (or xv. 6) 
 
 Lect. in quadragesima 2 Cor. iii. 2-17 
 ieiunio x 
 
 ? ? 
 
 Lectio de indulgentia 2 Cor. xi. 19-31 
 
 Lectio post indulgentia Gal. ii. 19— iii. 6 
 feria ii 
 
 Led. post indulgentia Gal. iii. 7-14 
 
 feria iii 
 Lectio post indulgentiam Eph. ii. 13— iii. 12 
 
 feria iiii 
 Lect. in cena domini 1 Cor. v. 6 3-vi. 1 1 
 
 mane 
 Lectio in cena domini ad 1 Cor. xi. 20-33 
 
 sero 
 
 Lect. in sexta feria ante Phil. ii. 5-1 1 
 noctu sancta 
 
 Pridie natale domini . et Phil. iv. 4-9 
 
 in noctu sancta 
 \_Lect. in noctu sancta Phil. iii. 1- ] 
 
 mane et pridie natale 
 
 domini (tit. ix) 
 Lect. in node sancta ad 1 Cor. x. 1-4 
 
 sero 
 Lect. in sanctum Pascha Col. iii. 1-11 
 
 dominica 
 Lect. in secunda feria Rom. vi. 3-1 1 
 
 Faschae 
 Lect. in tertia feria Rom. v. 6-na 
 
 Paschae 
 
 1 The title 3 Cor. v is ch, ii. i-n, which seems unsuitable, 
 corresponding marginal note there or elsewhere. 
 
 There is no 
 
CODEX FULDENSIS 
 
 133 
 
 58 In quarta feria Paschae 
 
 ad ephesios sub titulo iiii 
 
 59 In pascha annotina 
 
 ad ephesios sub titulo xiii 
 
 60 In natale scorum Petri et 
 
 Pauli 
 ad romanos sub titulo xxxii 
 
 61 In ieiunium sci. laurenti 
 
 ad timotheum ii sub titulo xxiii 
 
 62 In natale eodem 
 
 ad corintheos ii sub titulo xxii 
 
 63 In ieiunio sci. andreae 
 
 ad timotheum ii sub titulo v 
 
 64 In natale sancti andreae 
 
 ad corintheos i sub titulo vii 
 
 65 De martyribus 
 
 ad hebreos sub titulo xii 
 
 66 De martyribus 
 
 ad hebraeos sub titulo xii 
 
 67 Demartyrisgeneralisfemi- 
 
 nini 
 ad corintheos ii sub titulo xxiii 
 
 68 De martyribus 
 
 ad hebreos sub titulo xii 
 
 69 De martyribus 
 
 ad timotheum ii sub titulo ii 
 
 70 De martyribus 
 
 ad romanos sub titulo xxi 
 
 71 In dedicatione 
 
 ad corintheos i sub titulo xi 
 
 72 In dedicatione 
 
 ad hebreos sub titulo ii [iii] 
 
 73 In dedicatione 
 
 ad ephesios sub titulo vi 
 
 74 De natale episcopi 
 
 ad hebreos 
 
 75 De ordination ibus 
 
 ad timotheum i sub titulo viii 
 
 76 De ordination ibus diaco- 
 
 norum 
 
 77 De agendis 
 
 ad thessall. i sub titulo xvii 2 
 
 Lect. in quarta feria 
 
 Pasche 
 Lect. in Pascha anno- 
 
 tinuni 
 Lect. in natale sancti 
 
 Petri et Pauli 
 
 Lect. in ieiunio sancti 
 
 Laurenti 
 In natale sancti Laurenti 
 
 Lect. in ieiunio sancti 
 
 Andreae 
 [no marginal note] 
 
 Lect. de martyrib. 
 
 Lect. de martyribus 
 
 Lect. in natale martyris 
 
 [no third marginal note] 
 [no marginal note] 
 Lect. in natale martyrum 
 Lectio in dedicatione 
 Lect. in dedicatione 
 [no marginal note] 
 [no marginal note] 
 Lect. de ordinationib. 
 Lect. de ordinationib. 
 Lect. de agendis 
 
 Eph. ii. 4-10 
 Eph. iv. 1-13 
 Rom. x. 11- 
 
 2 Tim. iv. 16-18 
 2 Cor. ix. 6-9 
 2 Tim. ii. 4-10 a 1 
 [1 Cor. ii. 1-8] 
 Heb. x. 32-9 
 Heb. xl 33-40 
 2 Cor. x. 17-xi. * 
 
 [2 Tim. i. 8-12] 
 Rom. viii. 28-39 
 1 Cor. iii. 8-17 
 Heb. iii. 1-6 
 ?Eph. ii. 11-22 
 (Heb. v. 1?) 
 1 Tim. iii. 8-15 
 1 Tim. iv. 9-16 
 iThess. iv. 13-17 
 
 1 The ending is marked before the words in gloria caelesti, no doubt in order to 
 get as final words the conclusion in Chr. lesu. 
 
 2 With regard to the references to Hebrews, it must be remarked that the 
 Epistle is divided into 125 chapters (a unique division), with no corresponding 
 list at the commencement. Another system of division is also given, which 
 reaches xii at ch. ix. 11, and goes no further. The tituli referred to in the list 
 of lessons are these latter, and consequently all the lessons from the later chapters 
 
134 THE PAULINE LECTIONARY OF THE 
 
 I find the following agreements with the Liber Comicus of 
 Toledo, the Ambrosian, Bobbio, Luxeuil, and Roman uses 
 ( = C,A,B,L,R): 
 
 i. De adventu B 65. De(plur.) mart. R(Heb. x. 32) 
 
 2. „ „ AC 66. „ „ R(Heb.xi,34- 9 ) 
 
 4. „ „ C 67. De virgine CR 
 
 5. Christmas Eve B 69. (De Sanctis) C 
 
 6. „ Day ABCLR 71. Dedication ACBL 
 9. Circumcision C 73. „ L 
 
 11. )f CL 74. De natale episcopi ? L (Heb. xii. 
 
 14. Epiphany (A)BCL 82-xiii. 21) 
 
 30. 1st Sunday Lent ABCLR 75. De ordinationibus (diac.) L 
 
 51. Maundy Thursday ABR 77. De agendis AR 
 
 62. St. Laurence CR 
 
 There are also a few casual agreements of feasts with the 
 common of ACR, and of the common with feasts. The eight 
 coincidences with R are unimportant. Those with C and L 
 are more important, e.g. 9, 11, 14 ; and the system is clearly 
 rather Gallican than Roman, but not purely so. 
 
 In Lent, except in the case of the first Sunday, there are no 
 agreements. The Lent of Lux is lost ; in Rom only the 
 Sunday Epistles are from the New Testament, in Ambr 
 only those of Saturday and Sunday. But we may notice that 
 (33) second Sunday = Ambr Saturday before second Sunday, 
 and (37) third Monday = Ambr Saturday before third Sunday, 
 while (40) fourth Monday = Ambr fourth Sunday. On the 
 whole the Lent of F appears to be a private venture. 1 
 
 The Mass contra idola for the first of January is Spanish 
 and probably Gallican, not Roman. Sexagesima without 
 Septuagesima we saw above (p. no) to be Gallican. The 
 
 of the Epistle are given under tit. xii.- A corresponding capitulatio of thirteen 
 sentences, numbered up to x only, precedes the Epistle. The same list is found in 
 Corssen's R (Tommasi's Reg. Suec. 9) and has been printed by Tommasi. On the 
 connexion between F and R see p. 282. The cottidianae (which I have omitted 
 above) from Hebrews are sub tit. xii (xii. 25-8), sub tit. viii (vi. 9-15), and sub 
 tit. xii (xii. 29-xiii. 8). 
 
 1 It is astonishing to find a lesson from St. Paul on the feast of St. John (7) 
 instead of the usual 1 John i. If we turn to Ambros we find the same passage 
 (2 Tim. iii. 16-iv. 8) on the previous day, the feast of St. Stephen. Is the note in 
 F an error? On the other hand, the passage of 2 Tim. is more suitable to the 
 Evangelist than to the Protomartyr; while the lesson for St. Stephen would naturally 
 be from Acts, as in Lux, Comic, Rom. The question therefore remains open. 
 
CODEX FULDENSIS 135 
 
 Epistle for Sexagesima to be Roman should have been all 
 about St. Paul, for at Rome this was his feast. 1 The Pascha 
 annotina is also Gallican, but it seems to have been cele- 
 brated in places which derived their liturgy from Rome. 
 
 § %. Eugipius and the Capuan St. Paul. 
 
 1. We saw that the additions made by Eugipius to his 
 Gospel lectionary were Roman additions to a Gallican original. 
 Presumably, therefore, the liturgy used in the city of Naples 
 was Roman. Similarly at Montecassino St. Benedict ordered 
 the canticles for ferial Lauds to be sung stent psallit Romana 
 ecclesia. We should expect the liturgy of Capua to be Roman 
 also. But we have found it to be decidedly Gallican. There 
 is nothing to connect it with Capua — none of the Capuan 
 saints represented (see ch. viii) in the yet earlier apse of San 
 Prisco — nor is there St. Januarius to connect it with Naples. 
 
 a. Now we have seen in chapter v that Victor of Capua 
 used a copy of Eugipius's Gospel codex for the formation of 
 his Diatessaron, and immediately after the Diatessaron in F 
 come the Epistles of St. Paul followed by Acts. This very 
 unusual order suggests investigations. We have seen that St. 
 Victor probably had before him precisely the same set of 
 introductions, &c, to the Gospels which we find in A (p. 95). 
 Now for the Epistles of St. Paul (except Hebrews) A and F 
 have just the same (1) text-divisions throughout, (2) Prologues 
 (Marcionite), (3) Summaries (except the first twenty-three 
 chapters of Romans in F), (4) Introductions (i.e. Primum 
 quaeritur . . . Romani qui ex Iudaeis . . . and canons). On the 
 other hand for Acts, Catholic Epistles, and Apocalypse A and 
 F have almost always different text-divisions, summaries, and 
 introductions ; in particular A, unlike F, has not the three 
 ordinary Prologues to Acts, Cath. Epp., Apoc. 2 Now as 
 Cassiodorus probably got all the Gospel introductions, &c, 
 in A from Eugipius, it is a priori not unlikely that those to 
 St. Paul in A and F came to Victor and to Cassiodorus 
 respectively from the same source. The text of St. Paul in 
 A and F differs very much, it is true. But that of F is funda- 
 
 1 See p. 196. 
 
 3 The Prologues to James and I Peter are the same in A and F. 
 
136 THE PAULINE LECTIONARY OF THE 
 
 mentally an Old Latin text. 1 Cassiodorus may well be 
 supposed to have procured a better text, represented by A, but 
 to have preserved the text-divisions, summaries, and intro- 
 ductions of Eugipius. 
 
 3. The Gospel codex of Eugipius had marginal lectionary 
 notes. Cassiodorus's scribe copied these ; Victor's scribe 
 could not do so, for he had cut up the Gospel text into 
 a mosaic of scraps. But he did find lectionary notes to St. 
 Paul in his copy, and he copied them ; and there are no 
 other notes of the kind in any other part of F. We shall see 
 presently that the notes in F seem to represent the same 
 system as those of Eugipius, in fact to be Eugipian ; for the 
 moment we are merely going through the a priori evidence 
 that they ought to turn out Eugipian. 
 
 4. Another consideration will, I think, raise this antecedent 
 probability to a very high degree. 
 
 The method of reference in the list of F is a peculiar one: 
 ad romanos sub titulo xviii, and so on. The lessons are found 
 under such and such a title of the summaries. The summaries 
 themselves are the common ones (except the first twenty-three 
 titles of that to Romans), found in the largest number of 
 MSS. 2 They are very much older than the Vulgate, and 
 perhaps of very early date. The summary of Romans in 
 particular is famous for its omission to give any account of 
 the last two chapters. Now the divisions of these summaries 
 do not in the least correspond with the divisions of the lessons. 
 This suggests an explanation for the fact that Eugipius com- 
 posed a new summary for the Gospels. The codex he 
 received from Gaul, or brought from Gaul, will have had the 
 liturgical Gospels marked in the margin, and these were 
 probably collected in a list at the beginning of the book, which 
 referred to the titles under which the lessons would be found. 
 When Eugipius transferred these liturgical directions to the 
 codex of St. Jerome — which had presumably no summaries 
 
 1 So P. Corssen, Epist ad Galat (Berlin, 1885), p. 21 : < Non tantum Vulgata 
 corrupta quam antiquior quaedam uersio ad Vulgatam accommodata.' 
 
 9 Enumerated by Berger, Hist de la Vulg., p. 357. The summaries will be 
 found in Ranke's edition of F and (substantially) in Tommasi, Ofip. } vol. i (1747), 
 pp. 388, 442, 448, &c, and in Teschendorf s Codex Amiatinus. 
 
CODEX FULDENSIS 137 
 
 and divisions into titles — he thought it would be more con- 
 venient if he made a new division, with a new and more 
 literary series of summaries, which should correspond exactly 
 to the liturgical lessons. He subsequently added to the lists. 
 
 In F the old summaries of St. Paul do not at all correspond 
 to the incipits and explicits of the lessons. They are Old 
 Latin summaries belonging to the Old Latin text they 
 accompany. Why did Eugipius not compose new ones ? 
 Clearly because he had no venerable codex of St. Jerome's 
 to which he had to transfer them ; he left them with the text 
 with which he found them. 
 
 5. We have conjectured that Eugipius got his lectionary 
 from Lerins. Now the text of the Pauline Epistles in F is 
 precisely the sort of text we should expect him to get from 
 Lerins— an Old Latin text, corrected according to the Vulgate, 
 in Corssen's opinion — of just the same character as the Gospel 
 texts used not long before by Faustus of Riez, and earlier by 
 Eucherius, and by St. Patrick, all monks of Lerins. 1 
 
 These five points have, I think, established a well-grounded 
 a priori expectation that the liturgical list of Epistles in F 
 may be Eugipian. 2 
 
 § 3. The liturgical notes of F compared with those of Eugipius. 
 
 The preceding a priori arguments make a detailed examina- 
 tion necessary with regard to the correspondence of F with the 
 Naples lectionary (N). 
 
 At first sight I confess I supposed the differences to be very 
 great. A detailed examination shows the resemblances to be 
 very remarkable. 
 
 In the first place the list in the Codex Fuldensis is a com- 
 plete one. It is true that it stops abruptly at the Wednesday 
 after Easter and the Pascha annotinum. But this merely means 
 that there were no lessons from St. Paul from then till Pentecost. 
 
 1 The reasons for this statement will be given at length in chapter ix. 
 
 2 It may be worth remarking that the list in F has all the names of feasts 
 rubricated : * Omnes hae inscriptiones turn minio tnm uncialibus maioribus atque 
 rigidioribus quam quibus alibi ntitur scriba, exaratae stint' (Ranke, Cod. Fuld., 
 P- 475)* Now we saw that the names of feasts inserted in the summaries of A Reg 
 are rubricated. In Y they are in larger letters, and also red, I think. 
 
138 THE PAULINE LECTIONARY OF THE 
 
 This is not surprising. The list has given far more lessons from 
 the Apostle in Lent than are found in Rom and Ambr, as 
 we saw. In Easter week again it has more. All this time 
 Comic has had none, but has used only the Apocalypse and 
 the Catholic Epistles. So after Easter Lux has no lessons 
 from St. Paul from Easter to Pentecost inclusively ; Comic 
 has only a lesson from Ephesians on the Sunday after Ascen- 
 sion, and one from Corinthians on the Vigil of Pentecost, 
 all the other days having Acts or Apocalypse or both. Bob 
 has no Pauline lessons for Easter or Pentecost. Ambr has 
 indeed a certain number of lessons from St. Paul after Easter, 
 but it stands alone ; for in the Roman use there are no lessons 
 from St. Paul from Easter Day till the Saturday after Pentecost 
 exclusively, except on the Vigil of the Ascension, a day not 
 recognized in Eugipius's Kalendar. 
 
 1 . The Capuan list is therefore perfect so far as St. Paul is 
 concerned, but the full system clearly contained no provision 
 for Sundays after Pentecost ; and herein is the first agreement 
 (and a noticeable one) with the Neapolitan use. The 
 cottidianae are all inserted after Epiphany. 
 
 2. Advent. We find three Sundays and one lectio colli- 
 diana. The three weeks give a remarkable agreement with 
 Eugipius, and a disagreement with the five or six weeks of 
 the Gallican original. But the single Epistle for a weekday 
 contrasts with the Wednesday and Friday Gospel for each 
 week added in N. It maybe the original Gallican Epistle for 
 Advent ferias ad libitum, while it is quite possible that the 
 Neapolitan Masses for Wednesdays and Fridays had lessons 
 from Isaiah, and none from the New Testament. The Gospels 
 provided are concerned in five cases out of the six with the 
 second Advent ; the corresponding lessons may equally, there- 
 fore, have been from the Apocalypse, or St. Peter, &c. 
 
 3. Christmas. A vigil and a single Mass, agreeing with 
 N in this. St. John and Holy Innocents next, St. Stephen x 
 being omitted, not having a lesson from St. Paul but from 
 Acts. The wording pridie and natale domini are the same as 
 in N, but these are obvious expressions. 
 
 1 Or St. John ? See above, p. 134, note. 
 
CODEX FULDENSIS 139 
 
 The first of January is called the Circumcision (the Gospel 
 in N was of this mystery), but also as in N ' octabas domini \ 
 Three epistles are given ; but all may have been read at one 
 Mass at Naples. 
 
 4. Epiphany. The name stella domini does not occur, 
 but Epifania, a name N also employs. We find as in N a 
 vigil and more than one Mass, though Christmas had only one. 
 In Epifania mane corresponds to in stilla domini node. The 
 two other lessons were perhaps both read at the missa publica i 
 or one may be Lerinese and the other Eugipian. There cannot 
 have been three Masses. No Sundays after Epiphany are 
 given. If they existed in the full Kalendar, they must have 
 had lessons from some other part of the New Testament. 
 
 5. Sexagesima and Quinquagesima. These are appa- 
 rently to be supplied in N 1 ; and if so, the coincidence in the 
 absence of Septuagesima is very noticeable. 
 
 6. Lent. It should be noticed that quadragesima means 
 the first Sunday, as in N. Except in Holy Week, only the 
 Wednesdays and Fridays have Epistles, just as in the Gallican 
 system before the Eugipian additions. 2 
 
 7. Holy Week. The use of indulgentia for Palm Sunday 
 is a very striking correspondence. Notice also ebdomada maior 
 in both, and the likeness of mane in cena domini N to in cena 
 domini mane F, and of sabbato sancto mane and ad sero to in 
 noctu sancta mane and ad sero. But the correspondence of 
 the offices is really remarkable. Eugipius's revised kalendar 
 gives two lessons for Palm Sunday, two for the Thursday, two 
 for the Saturday, and only one for each of the other days. F 
 gives exactly the same allowance. When we take into account 
 the identity of nomenclature, it is clear that the two lists 
 belong to one another. 
 
 8. Easter. There is one Mass only for the feast, as in N. 
 
 1 See above, p. no. 
 
 ' 2 We must remember that in Eugipius's list of Gospels he left the disused 
 references, so that we frequently find two Gospels for one day, one Lerinese, one 
 Eugipian. Consequently it is possible that Eugipius provided a new and complete 
 set of Epistles for Lent, none of them from St. Paul — possibly all from the Catholic 
 Epistles, as in the Liber Comicus ; or that he used only Old Testament lessons, as 
 in the modern Ambr and Rom, so that F's lessons would be survivals. 
 
i4o THE PAULINE LECTIONARY OF THE 
 
 The first three ferias have lessons from St. Paul. The rest of 
 the week was doubtless supplied from Acts. 
 
 At first sight Pascha annotinum (that is to say the celebra- 
 tion of the date of the Easter of the preceding year) seems to 
 be wanting in N. But this feast naturally fell as often as not 
 in Lent, and was therefore either often or always celebrated 
 on the first free day, viz. the Monday after Low Sunday. 1 
 This explains the otherwise unaccountable and unique entry 
 in N : ' Feria it post albas ', John xvii. i.' It is clearly nothing 
 else than the Pascha annotinum, 
 
 9. Proprium Sanctorum. We find SS. Peter and Paul 
 without a vigil, as in N. St. Peter's Chair would have a lesson 
 from 1 Peter. We find St. Laurence and St. Andrew each 
 with a vigil. The other saints in N presumably had lessons 
 not taken from St. Paul. 
 
 10. Commune Sanctorum. We find two epistles for 
 martyrs, then one for a female martyr, then three more for 
 martyrs. Similarly in N we have two in unius martyris 9 one in 
 mariyra (feminine, it seems), and three Gallican survivals in 
 martyras. The correspondence is strangely exact. 
 
 But the three Neapolitan Gospels for Apostles, with one 
 for their vigils, the two for confessors, and three for ' saints ', 
 have no counterpart in F. We are driven to suppose that 
 they all had lessons from some other part of the New Testa- 
 ment than St. Paul. 2 
 
 N has two in dedicationem, whereas F has three ; one of 
 these may stand for the dedicatio sanctae Mariae or basilicae 
 Siephani — by adding in these, N has four ; the fourth would 
 perhaps have the obvious lesson from Apoc. xx. 
 
 In natale episcopi appears in both lists. The de ordina- 
 tionibus (75) of F is shown by the lesson, 1 Tim. iii. 8-15, to 
 
 1 An interesting note will be found in Grotefend, Zeitrechnung des Mittelalters, 
 vol. i, s. v. * Pascha annotinum ', p. 150, who quotes from ordines of Cambrai, 
 Chartres, Farfa, and Paris. Those of Chartres and Paris enjoin the Monday after 
 Quasimodo* 
 
 2 To-day we should suggest Wisdom and Ecclus. ; but I presume that Eugipius 
 would have both a lesson from the Old Testament and one from the Epistles, Acts 
 or Apocalypse, on feast days. I have suggested that on ferias (and ferias only) an 
 Old Testament lesson may have sufficed. 
 
CODEX FULDENSIS 141 
 
 be for deacons ; but (76) de ordinationibus diaconorum seems 
 to have an Epistle (1 Tim. iv. 9-16) meant for bishops — the 
 two references have perhaps been interchanged. If so (76) 
 will correspond to N (28) in ordinatione episcopi. It is certainly 
 unaccountable that no in ordinatione diaconorum should be 
 found in N, unless we suppose that this title was added in F 
 by the Bishop of Capua. It should be remembered that 
 in naiale episcopi and in ordinatione episcopi in N appeared to 
 be additions made at Naples by Eugipius to the Gallican 
 monastic use. 
 
 There is no Epistle fot N (125) in uelanda, which presum- 
 ably had the lesson from 1 Peter about ( amazement ', well 
 known to the modern Englishman. 
 
 In agendas, for funerals, reappears with a suitable Epistle. 1 
 
 I think we sum up this examination by observing that the 
 only certain discrepancy between the two lists is in the fact 
 that N has no Gospel for the ordination of deacons. Possibly 
 the contra idola for the first of January was also a separate 
 Mass, for which a Gospel would be expected in N, as in 
 Comic. It may have been omitted by Eugipius. 
 
 That there are no Pauline lessons after Easter week, and none 
 for Apostles or Confessors, nor for St. John Baptist and one 
 or two other Saints, is less remarkable on the whole than that 
 there are so many Pauline lessons for Lent and Easter week. 
 
 The disagreements so far have always been easy to explain- 
 On the other hand the chief agreements are inexplicable as 
 mere coincidences, especially the three weeks of Advent, one 
 Mass for Christmas, Sexagesima and Quinquagesima without 
 Septuagesima, the exact correspondence in Lent and Holy 
 Week, no vigil for SS. Peter and Paul, the precise parallel in 
 the common of martyrs. Even had we no proof of Victor 
 having used a codex from the library of Eugipius, we could not 
 have doubted a connexion between a Gallican use at Capua 
 and a contemporaneous Gallican use at Naples. 
 
 1 The expression, though not uncommon = agenda mortuorum, is curious. 
 St. Benedict uses it in the singular for a * service ', agenda uespertina = Vespers. 
 On the analogy of the word ' undertaker* one might render it * undertaking ' ! So 
 in French * service* commonly means the Office and Mass of the Dead. 
 
14* THE PAULINE LECTIONARY OF THE 
 
 Thus it seems that the list of F is Eugipian, and that it 
 acknowledges Eugipius's Roman additions. Let us therefore 
 note that we found in F four Roman epistles which were not 
 also Gallican : 65 (R) de martyribus, 66 (R) ditto, 6j (CR) de 
 martyris gener(al)is f emitting and 77 (AR) de agendis. Now 
 we saw that the common of martyrs is divided in F into two 
 groups, 65 and 66 de martyribus, then (after 67, female 
 martyrs) 68, 69, 70 de martyribus, exactly answering to N 
 which has twice in unius martyris, thrice in martyras, and 
 once in martyr a (with Gospel of Virgins). We saw (p. 119) 
 that the three in martyras were probably Gallican, the 
 two in unius martyris and the female martyr probably 
 additions by Eugipius. We may now note that in F the 
 pair of martyrs (65, 66) and the female martyr have Roman 
 epistles. 1 Similarly the ( Agenda ' is an addition by Eugipius, 
 and both Gospel and Epistle are Roman. 
 
 One other Epistle in F has CR against it, that for St. Laurence. 
 Now in N the Gospel for St. Laurence does not coincide with 
 the summaries, and we therefore had to put it down as 
 a Roman addition by Eugipius, though it is not the modern 
 Roman Gospel. But at least the Epistle is Roman. 
 
 Thus we conclude that the list of F is certainly Eugipian, and 
 that it confirms our former inferences that Eugipius made 
 Roman additions to a Gallican use. N carried us back to 
 Eugipius, c. 530 ; the Lerins original carried us back to Abbot 
 Marinus, c. 510. 
 
 So far liturgical results. For the history of the Vulgate we 
 get the conclusion that the Vulgatized Old Latin of the Pauline 
 Epistles in F was very likely copied from a Lerinese codex 
 borrowed by Victor from Eugipius ; that the text-divisions, 
 Prologues (Marcionite), summaries, and introductions to the 
 Pauline Epistles in A are from the same source, though 
 a far better text of the Epistles has been substituted by 
 
 1 Though it is possible that one of the two pericopae from Hebrews given to 
 65 and 66 belongs to 68. The Gospels for the two in unius m. and the one in 
 martyra in N are Roman also (i. e. in the Masses, Statuit, Sacerdotes Dei, and 
 Loquebar or Dilexisti) ; the three Epistles are for the Mass Salus autem, an alia 
 Epistola for this Mass, and for Dilexisti. Thus the first two Gospels are now for 
 ' one Martyr Pontiff', the two Epistles are for ' Many martyrs \ 
 
CODEX FULDENSIS 143 
 
 Cassiodorus. 1 Further, we see that the Prologues to the 
 Gospels in A are all probably derived from the Hieronymian 
 Gospel codex of Eugipius, and that Eugipius probably had 
 them copied into that codex out of the Gallican codex 
 to which the liturgical lists originally belonged. But the 
 Plures fuisse, letter to Damasus, and canons may quite well 
 have belonged to the Hieronymian codex itself, and not have 
 come from Gaul. 
 
 1 The text of St. Paul in F has been corrected throughout according to a codex 
 resembling Corssen's R (see p. 282), and from it the summary of Hebrews was 
 borrowed by Victor. Evidently the references of the list to that summary must 
 have been inserted by Victor's scribe. The Christmas lesson (6) is not referred to 
 the summary, but is simply principium epistulae* I note that, besides (65) and 
 (66), (74) is Eugipian (= N 101 *) and probably also 72 (— N 16*). The same 
 may be true of the cottidianae from Hebrews. 
 
CHAPTER VIII 
 
 THE CAPUAN MASS-BOOKS OF NORTHUMBRIA 
 
 § i. Capuan Saints in English books. 
 
 This chapter will have nothing whatever to do with the 
 text of the Vulgate, except negatively. But it cannot be 
 omitted, for it is necessary to show that the presence of South 
 Italian saints in certain English Martyrologies, Kalendars, and 
 Sacramentaries has no real connexion with the Neapolitan 
 liturgy which we found at Jarrow and at Wiirzburg. Still, 
 when we have seen that these saints came to England from 
 Capua and not from Naples, we may hazard a guess that they 
 accompanied the Codex of Fulda to Northumbria, if that book 
 did come (as I think it did) to England. 
 
 The National Library at Paris contains a precious volume 
 in which St. Willibrord's Kalendar and his Martyrology are 
 bound together (10837, olim Suppl. lat. 1680). Both books 
 were brought from Northumbria to Echternach by St. Willi- 
 brord himself. The Kalendar has never been published in 
 full. The Martyrology has been carefully edited by De Rossi 
 in Acta SS. t November, vol. ii, pp. [i]-[i56] (1894). The 
 Kalendar was written in Northumbria, c. 702-6 ; in 728 St. 
 Willibrord wrote in it in his own hand the record of his 
 episcopal consecration at Rome in 695. It contains many 
 English and especially Northumbrian saints. The Martyrology 
 was written later, say 712, by a scribe named Laurentius, who 
 wrote three diplomas for St. Willibrord in the years 704, 710, 
 and 711, and also signed in his old age the Gospels of 
 St. Arnoul, belonging to Prince Oettingen-Wallerstein. 1 
 
 This horribly corrupt but deeply interesting book is not 
 merely the oldest MS. of the so-called Hieronymian martyro- 
 
 1 Duchesne (Act. SS., I.e., p. [viii]), Berger, Vuigate, p. 52. 
 
CAPUAN MASS-BOOKS OF NORTHUMBRIA 145 
 
 logy, but it gives the oldest of the forms of it extant. 
 I have suggested elsewhere that the ancestor of this vener- 
 able book may have been brought by St. Augustine from 
 Autun to England. 1 The Echternach copy is derived from a 
 Northumbrian exemplar. It has five English saints added : 
 Augustine, Paulinus, Cuthbert, Oswald, Oidiwald. The first 
 named was inevitable. The other four connect it with the 
 North, and indeed with Lindisfarne. But it is more to our 
 purpose that it has received no less than twelve additional 
 South Italian saints. 2 This Gallican martyrology cannot 
 have come to England from Italy, where only the Fontenelle 
 revision (after the middle of the eighth century) was ever 
 in all probability known. We must therefore suppose that 
 these saints of South Italy formed a part of the Northumbrian 
 additions, and that they were taken frorn a Neapolitan 
 Kalendar existing in Northumbria. They are not notices 
 such as the ninth-century historical martyrologies would give, 
 but mere names, such as might be found in a Kalendar : In 
 Brundi(sio) Leuci y In Vulturno Castrensis, &c. 
 
 It was natural that Mgr. Duchesne in editing the Echternach 
 Martyrology should connect these additions, undoubtedly 
 made in England, with the Neapolitan lists in the Lindisfarne 
 Gospels, and assume that they had a common origin from 
 St. Hadrian. I hold on the contrary that neither has any 
 connexion with St. Hadrian, and that the additions to the 
 Martyrology are not Neapolitan at all, but Capuan. 
 
 In the first place there is the Kalendar to be remembered. 
 It has never been published, but I am able to give its saints 
 of South Italy from a copy kindly communicated to me 
 by my confrere Dom Quentin of Appuldurcombe (see p. 151). 
 
 In the second place there are the curious citations from 
 ' Mass-books ' in the Anglo-Saxon Martyrology. My attention 
 was drawn to these by the Rev. Herbert Thurston, S. J., in 
 this connexion ; had it not been for this suggestion of his 
 I should certainly have gone off on a wrong tack altogether, 
 
 1 In an articled propos des martyrofoges, Revue Btne'dictine, 1903, torn, xx, 
 p. 293. 
 
 3 Duchesne in Acta SS. t 1. c, p. [ix]. 
 ch. v. c. L 
 
r 4 6 CAPUAN MASS-BOOKS OF*NORTHUMBRIA 
 
 We will consider this Martyrology first of all, on account 
 of the clearness of its evidence. 
 
 § 2. The 'old Mass-books' cited in the Anglo-Saxon 
 Martyrology were Capuan. 
 
 The Anglo-Saxon Martyrology, first published by Cockayne 
 in The Shrine, and carefully edited from the MSS. for the Early 
 English Text Society 1 by Dr. George Herzfeld, is found in 
 ninth- and tenth-century codices. According to Dr. Herzfeld 
 its Anglo-Saxon text cannot be later than 900, probably 
 about 850 is the date, and this on linguistic grounds. The 
 matter is probably a composition of c. 750, for the latest death 
 entered is that of Abbot Hygebald, about 740, while St. 
 Boniface is not inserted, though a synod under Cuthbert 
 of Canterbury, held almost immediately after St. Boniface's 
 death in 755, decreed that his feast should be celebrated in 
 England. At all events this Old English Martyrology is 
 a most venerable document, and contains some most interest- 
 ing evidence in certain short notices which occasionally serve 
 instead of the life of a saint. In these rare cases no historical 
 notice is given, and evidently nothing is known to the author 
 about the saints mentioned, except the fact that a Mass was 
 given for them in the old or the new Missals. 2 I cite these 
 entries from Herzfeld's English translation. 
 
 June i. To the first day of the month belong two mass-songs. The 
 former is in the old sacramentorium^ that is in the old mass-book, to the 
 memory of St. Priscus the martyr ; the second is in the new book to 
 the memory of St. Nicomedes the martyr. 
 
 June 17. On the seventeenth day of the month is the festival of the 
 martyr St. Nicander, whose memory is to be celebrated with mass-songs, 
 and his mass is appointed in the older mass-books. 
 
 1 No. 116, 1900. 
 
 2 Iny. 71 S., vol. Hi, p. 429 (April, 1902), Mr. W.C. Bishop has attempted, but 
 without definite result, to trace these Masses in Roman and in later English Sacra- 
 mentaries. He speaks of the notices in the A.-S. Martyrology as ' instructions as 
 to the Mass to be said on the days in question '. This does not seem to me to be 
 likely. I prefer to think that the compiler simply nsed the * old ' and ( new ' Mass- 
 books as quarries for the enlargement of the Martyrology he was copying, and that 
 he is sufficiently conscientious and intelligent to name his source. I cannot imagine 
 that the Martyrology was meant to be used as a Kalendar. 
 
CAPUAN MASS-BOOKS OF NORTHUMBRIA 147 
 
 August 18. On the eighteenth day of the month is the festival of the 
 martyr St. Agapetus in Rome, whose service can be found by him who 
 looks for it in the later sacramentary, that is in the new mass-book. 
 
 August 19. On the nineteenth day of the month is the festival of the 
 martyr St. Magnus, whose service is met with in the older mass-books. 
 
 August 27. On the twenty-seventh day of the month is the festival of 
 the martyr St. Rufus, whose mass is found in the older mass-books. 
 
 August 29. On the same day is the festival of the woman St. Sabina 
 at Rome, whose mass is found in the later books. 
 
 September i. On the first day of the month is the festival of the 
 martyr St. Priscus, whose mass is to be found in the older mass-books. 
 
 September 5. On the fifth day of the month is the festival of the con- 
 fessor of God St. Quintus, whose mass is found in the older mass-books. 
 
 September 7. On the seventh day of the month is the festival of the 
 martyr St. Synotus, whose mass is found in the older mass-books. 
 
 October 15. On the fifteenth day of the month is the festival of the 
 martyr St. Lupulus, whose mass is found in the older mass-books. 
 
 The new Mass-books need not detain us ; they are clearly 
 Roman sacramentaries. The saints added from them are 
 Roman : St. Sabina of the Aventine, and St. Agapetus of 
 Praeneste, the former being found in the Gregorian Sacra- 
 mentary, the latter in the Gelasian also. St. Nicomedes 
 on June 1 is the dedication of his Church in Rome, as in the 
 Gregorian Sacramentary, and the Martyrologies, Florus, Ado, 
 Romanum paruum^ Usuard, &c. 
 
 As to the 'new Mass-books' Dr. Herzfeld says in his 
 Introduction, p. xxxiii : ' It may be observed that most of the 
 saints whose names we find in the mass-books come from 
 Campania, and that Cockayne is certainly right in remark- 
 ing that the books were probably imported by Theodorus and 
 Hadrianus, the latter having been abbot of a monastery near 
 Capua/ Whether Hadrian came from near Capua or not (and 
 Bede says ' near Naples* and not 'near Capua'), it is at any 
 rate certain that the 'old Mass-books 1 came from Capua, as 
 Father Thurston pointed out to me. Eight saints are given, 
 or rather seven, for Priscus, June 1, is doubtless the same 
 person as Priscus, September 1. Of these Nicander belongs 
 to Venafrum, some 60 kilometres to the north of Capua; 
 St. Magnus was venerated (according to the Echternach 
 Martyrology) at Fabrateria, not far from Aquinum on the 
 
 L a 
 
148 CAPUAN MASS-BOOKS OF NORTHUMBRIA 
 
 Latin Way ; the five remaining saints were all Capuan — Priscus, 
 Rufus, Quintus, Synotus, Lupulus. We shall find that 
 precisely these five saints are represented in the ancient apse 
 of the Church of San Prisco in old Capua, now the village 
 of S. Maria di Capua, at a short distance from the modern 
 town. These mosaics are figured in Garrucci, Storia delV 
 Arte cristiana, vol. iv, p. 64, and with less precision in 
 Michael Monachus, Sanctuarium Capuanum (1630), p. 132. 
 The latter drawing is reproduced in the Acta Sanctorum, 
 October, vol. vii, pt. 1, p. 7. 1 Sixteen figures are represented 
 in the following order : 
 
 7*>5432 1 — 8 9 — 10 1 1 12 13 14 15 16. 
 Of these 8 and 9 are children between St Peter and 
 St. Priscus, patron of the Church : 
 
 1. Peter 8. Quartus 10. Priscus 
 
 z. Laurence 9. Quintus 11. Lupulus 
 
 3. Paul 13. Sinotus 
 
 4. Cyprian 13. Rufus 
 
 5. Sushis 14. Marcellus 
 
 6. Timotheas 15. Augustine 
 
 7. Agnes 16. Felicitas 
 
 The connexion between the seven saints of the older Mass- 
 books and the mosaics of San Prisco is obviously very close. 
 The days given in the older Mass-books are the same as in 
 martyrologies and kalendars, except St. Priscus, June i. Why 
 two feasts for this saint, unless June i — unique, as it seems — 
 is the dedication of his Church ? For the moment this is but 
 a guess. 
 
 The name Susius should be noticed. Garrucci reads 
 Sustus (i.e. Sixtus or Xystus), but Sosius or Sossius, the 
 deacon, of Misenum, was specially venerated at Capua, as we 
 shall see, and Michele Monaco, who was a canon of Capua, 
 is apparently right in his reading of the mosaic inscription : 
 but see the list on p. 153. Note also Augustine and Felicitas. 
 
 1 The date of this apse (and of the dome to be mentioned later) can only be 
 roughly determined. Both were destroyed in 1766 on the occasion of the re- 
 storation. Garrucci gives an inscription showing that the basilica of St. Priscus 
 was begun under Zeno (died 491), and finished under Gelasius (492-6), but con- 
 secrated only under Symmachus in 506. Presumably the mosaics are to be 
 placed c. 490. 
 
CAPUAN MASS-BOOKS OF NORTHUMBRIA 149 
 
 As to the seven saints in detail : 
 
 1. St. Priscus is given by M. Monaco as two persons, one 
 a bishop and martyr, the other a bishop and confessor, both 
 September 1 ; probably groundlessly. The one was called 
 the first bishop of Capua, the other was said to be an exiled 
 African bishop. At any rate the body of one at least was 
 in old Capua at San Prisco. See also Acta SS,, September, 
 vol. i. 
 
 2. St. Rufus, August 27, is called a bishop of Capua and 
 martyr (Acta SS. y August, vol. vi, p. 9). 
 
 3. St. Quintus, martyr, September 5, is coupled with 
 St. Quartus by M. Monaco also ; he is also joined to 
 Arcontius and Donatus (Acta SS. } September, ii, p. 526). 
 He is always connected with Capua. 
 
 4. St. Synotus, September 7, was argued to be second 
 bishop of Capua by Michele Monaco (Sanct, Cap., p. 134), on 
 very poor grounds (Acta SS., September, Hi, p. 5). 
 
 5. St. Lupulus, martyr, October 15, is coupled with St. 
 Modestus(Acta SS.fictober, vii.pp. 6-7), and is a Capuan saint. 
 
 All the above five saints figure in nearly all martyrologies 
 and kalendars, and as Capuan saints. 
 
 6. St. Magnus, August 19, bishop and martyr, translated 
 from Fundi on the Appian Way to Verulae, in the hills north 
 of the Latin Way. Fabrateria noua and vetus are just between 
 those two towns. The translation is said to have taken place 
 under John VII I, or in consequence of incursions of the Saracens. 
 The saint was later translated to Anagni (Acta SS. t August, 
 vol. iii, p. 701). 
 
 7. St. Nicander, June 17, with St. Marcian was venerated 
 at Atina and Venafrum, but also at Capua ; for his name 
 is found in all the four ancient Capuan kalendars printed 
 in the Sanctuarium Capuanum y and his life was written by 
 Adenulphus, archbishop of Capua before 1056. His arm 
 is said to have been preserved at Capua. 
 
 § 3. The Echternach Martyrology, 
 
 This venerable document is the oldest codex, as we have 
 said, of the so-called ' Martyrology of St. Jerome ', and has been 
 
150 CAPUAN MASS-BOOKS OF NORTHUMBRIA 
 
 carefully edited by De Rossi with the MSS. of Berne and 
 Weissenburg in parallel columns. 1 Where these three agree 
 we are in the presence of a French edition of the Martyrology 
 belonging to the last years of the sixth century. Each MS. 
 has additions of its own. Those in St. Willibrord's copy 
 are few — saints from the North of England and from the 
 South of Italy, all evidently added in Northumbria. In Mgr. 
 Duchesne's introduction to Comm. De Rossi's edition the 
 Italian additions are cited as follows (op. cit, p. [ix]) : 
 
 vj idian. In Brundi[sio] Leuci k sept. In Casino Constanti 
 
 iij idfeb. In Vulturno Castrensis iij non sept. In Caudis Vitaliani 
 
 xiijkmart. InCamp[ania]Cumbas viiij k oct. In Miseno Sossi 
 
 nat Iulianae iij k nov. In Comsa Maximi 
 xiij k aug. In Casino Severi non nov. In Ecas Marciepiscopi 
 
 xiiij k sept In Fabriteria Magni xvj k dec. In Capua Augustini et 
 
 • ksept. InApuliaFelicisetDonati Felicitatis 
 
 It was natural that Mgr. Duchesne should think of Naples. 
 Capua is mentioned but once. Augustine and Felicitas we 
 saw in the Capuan mosaics. Cutnbas seems to be an error, for 
 no veneration is known of St. Juliana in that place, while her 
 connexion with Cumae is well established. Cumbae is also 
 further off, while Cumae is close to Misenum and not far from 
 Naples and Capua. This last city, on the junction of the Via 
 Latina and the Via Appia, is a centre to all the rest geographically: 
 
 Fabrateria 
 
 i 
 
 Casinum 
 
 I /Aecae 
 
 1 Caudium — Beneventum/ 
 
 Xapua \ 
 
 Vulturnum/ / \ 
 
 / Compsa 
 
 Cumae \ 
 
 / to Brundisium 
 
 Misenum 
 
 It should be noted that St. Castrensis was venerated at Capua 
 as well as at Vulturnum, which latter place was in the diocese 
 of Capua and its port at the mouth of the river Vulturnus. 
 St. Sosius of Misenum had also a cultus at Capua, and we 
 
 1 In Acta Sanctorum^ November, vol. ii, pp. [i]-[i56], 1894. 
 
CAPUAN MASS-BOOKS OF NORTHUMBRIA 151 
 
 saw that he was represented in the apse of San Prisco. But 
 there is only a single coincidence with the Capuan saints 
 of the * older Mass-books \ and this is St. Magnus, just the 
 only one of these who is not represented in the mosaics and 
 had no particular connexion with Capua. How can we 
 connect the Echternach saints with Capua, since none of the 
 five Capuan saints have been added? The answer is very 
 simple. They could not be added, for they were already 
 in the Martyrology when it was brought to England. In fact 
 Priscus, Rufus, Quintus, Synotus, are all found on their proper 
 days in all copies of the Martyrology of St. Jerome. St. 
 Lupulus is in all but the Echternach MS., where he is omitted 
 by an error of the scribe, who has been even more careless 
 and incorrect than usual just about that place. 
 
 Further examination shows additional evidence. On Sep- 
 tember 1, where St. Constantius and SS. Felix and Donatus 
 have been added, St. Priscus has been placed between them, 
 instead of occupying the less prominent position he holds in 
 Bern, and Wiss. MSS. Again, on August 27, Rufus has been 
 transferred to the first place in the laterculus for that day. 
 
 Thus the connexion of the Italian additions to the Echter- 
 nach Martyrology with the Capuan saints of the ' older Mass- 
 books ' seems to be most probable. It will be made practically 
 certain by the evidence of the Echternach Kalendar that the 
 two sets of saints had a common origin. 
 
 § 4. Capuan Saints in the Echternach Kalendar. 
 
 I have copied the following saints roughly from Dom 
 Quentin's MS. transcript. He tells me that the various hands 
 in the original are difficult to distinguish and that he has not 
 as yet sufficiently studied them (March, 1907); but he has 
 marked nearly all the following notices as being additions 
 in a different hand or different hands : 
 
 iii id Feb. Castrensis mar 
 
 xiiij kl mar. nat scae iulianae 
 
 kl iun. ad scm priscum et scae teclae virg 
 
 xv kl iul. sci nicandri mar 
 
 kl sept, sci prisci in capua 
 
 nonas sept, quinti confes 
 
152 CAPUAN MASS-BOOKS OF NORTHUMBRIA 
 
 vij idus sept, sergii pap romae sinoti mar 
 
 viiij kl oct. sossi mart 
 
 idus oct. sci lupuli 
 
 xvj kl decern, agustini et felicitatis 
 
 The close connexion with the Echt. Mart, is presupposed, 
 but notice that in both lists St. Juliana alone among 
 the Capuan saints has nat added, though of course naU is 
 common enough in both documents, and the spelling sossi is 
 repeated. Four of the Echternach additions reappear, viz. 1. 
 Castrensis, 2. Juliana, 3. Sosius, and 4. Augustine-Felicitas. Of 
 these four the last two are just those names of the Echt. Mart. 
 where it is supported by the apse of San Prisco, and the first 
 (Castrensis) we saw to be Capuan. The agreement with the 
 1 older Mass-books ' is equally close ; the hitherto unique 
 mention of St. Priscus on June 1 reappears, and we have 
 Priscus again, Nicander, Quintus, Synotus, Lupulus. Only 
 Rufus and Magnus are forgotten. Thus the Kalendar is a link 
 between the Anglo-Saxon and Echternach Martyrologies. 
 
 An important point is June 1 Ad Sanctum Priscum, that 
 is to say, a festival at the Church of St. Priscus. Our con- 
 jecture that this second feast of St. Priscus was the dedication 
 of his Church was suggested by the close connexion between 
 the saints of the ' older Mass-books ' and the mosaics of the 
 apse. The expression in the kalendar confirms it. We thus 
 get an explanation of the omission of St. Priscus on that day in 
 the Echternach Martyrology, for that codex invariably omits 
 dedication feasts. 1 
 
 It should further be noticed that we cannot infer that SS. 
 Castrensis and Juliana were absent from the * older Mass- 
 books ', for the Anglo-Saxon Martyrology is defective in the 
 month of February. As for St. Sosius he was doubtless 
 in the Mass-books, but a short life of him is given in the A.-S. 
 Martyrology, and consequently nothing is said there about 
 the Mass-books, which are only brought in when a saint had 
 a Mass in them but nothing else was known of him. Conse- 
 quently there is no certain omission in the * older Mass-books ' 
 
 1 As Dom Quentin has pointed out, Le martyroL kiiron. et lesfltes de SU Benoft, 
 Revue Binid.^ 1903, p. 359 (Octobre), 
 
CAPUAN MASS-BOOKS OF NORTHUMBRIA 153 
 
 of any Capuan saints found in the Capuan apse or added 
 in the Echternach Kalendar, except only SS. Augustine and 
 Felicitas. But it is probable that the Anglo-Saxon compiler 
 omitted to mention these two because he identified them with 
 St. Augustine of Hippo and St. Felicitas of Rome or of 
 Carthage. Perhaps he was right. But Michele Monaco makes 
 Augustine a bishop of Capua. 
 
 Another mosaic from San Prisco in old Capua is also figured in 
 Garrucci (plate 155), and by M. Monaco in the Sanctuarium 
 Capuanum. In the lower circle of a dome are eight pairs 
 of saints : 
 
 1. St. Priscus. St. Felix % 
 
 2. St. Lupulus. St. Rufus. 
 
 3. St. Augustine. St. Marcellus. 
 
 4. St. Hippolytus. St. Canio. 
 
 5. St. Xystus. St. Cyprian. 
 
 6. St. Festus. St. Desiderius. 
 
 7. St. Eutices- St. Sosius. 
 S. St. Artimas. St. Aesimus. 
 
 I add this Capuan witness to the following table for complete- 
 ness. An asterisk shows where in the Echternach Martyrology 
 the scribe found the saint already in the archetype, and 
 where the Anglo-Saxon had Sosius in his authority for the 
 lives of the saints. 
 
 
 
 Echt. 
 
 Echt. 
 
 Mass- 
 
 Apse 
 
 Dome 
 
 
 
 Mart. 
 
 Kal. 
 
 books. 
 
 S. Prisco 
 
 S.Prisco 
 
 Jan. 8 
 
 Leucius 
 
 __ 
 
 
 
 
 
 Feb. 1 1 
 
 Castrensis 
 
 — 
 
 — 
 
 [ ] 
 
 
 
 „ 16 
 
 Juliana 
 
 — 
 
 — 
 
 [ ] 
 
 
 
 June 1 
 
 Piiscus (Dedic.) 
 
 
 — 
 
 — 
 
 
 
 „ 17 
 
 Nicander 
 
 * 
 
 — 
 
 — 
 
 
 
 July 20 
 
 Severus 
 
 — 
 
 
 
 
 
 Aug. 19 
 
 Magnus 
 
 — 
 
 
 — 
 
 
 
 » 27 
 
 Rufus 
 
 * 
 
 
 — 
 
 — 
 
 — 
 
 Sept. 1 
 
 Priscus 
 
 Felix and Donatus 
 
 Con stan tins 
 
 * 
 
 
 
 
 = 
 
 » 3 
 
 "Vitalian 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 » 5 
 
 Quintus 
 
 * 
 
 — 
 
 — 
 
 — 
 
 
 » 7 
 
 Synotus 
 
 * 
 
 — 
 
 — 
 
 — 
 
 
 » 33 
 
 Sosius 
 
 
 
 — 
 
 * 
 
 — 
 
 
 
 Oct. 15 
 
 Lupulus 
 
 [ ] 
 
 — 
 
 — 
 
 — 
 
 — 
 
 >, 30 
 
 Maximus 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 Nov. 5 
 
 Marcus 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 Dec. 16 
 
 Augustine and Felicitas 
 
 — 
 
 — 
 
 
 — 
 
 — 
 
154 CAPUAN MASS-BOOKS OF NORTHUMBRIA 
 
 I think this table will have made my argument clear : 
 i. The Mass-books were certainly from Capua, probably 
 from San Prisco. 
 
 2. The Echternach Kalendar has used the Mass-books. 
 
 3. The Echternach Martyrology has also used the Mass- 
 books. 
 
 4. The additional saints in the Echternach Martyrology 
 who are not quoted by the Anglo-Saxon Martyrology as being 
 in the Mass-books presumably come from the Mass-books, for 
 (a) we need not invent a second source, ((3) they are geo- 
 graphically connected with Capua, (y) the Kalendar strengthens 
 this hypothesis in the case of Castrensis, Juliana, Sosius, 
 Augustine-Felicitas. 
 
 5. But the Mass-book saints of the Anglo-Saxon Mar- 
 tyrology were those who had special Masses provided, as that 
 book expressly informs us. Those added in the Echternach 
 Martyrology were presumably found in the Kalendar at the 
 beginning of the Mass-book, for the place is given with each. 
 This would always be so in a Kalendar and never in the 
 heading of a special Mass in a Sacramentary. An ancient 
 Sacramentary had regularly a Kalendar at the commence- 
 ment, though it has frequently been lost, owing to the 
 destruction of the first pages. 
 
 6. Castrensis and Juliana were very probably in the lost 
 pages of the Anglo-Saxon Martyrology. Sosius is in that Mar- 
 tyrology, and was pretty certainly in the Mass-books. But the 
 Anglo-Saxon martyrologist happened to possess a life of him. 
 
 § 5. The origin of the ( older Mass-books \ 
 
 The citations from the Anglo-Saxon Martyrology given 
 above, pp. 146-7, lapse from August 27 onwards into a stereo- 
 typed formula : ' On such a day is the festival of such a 
 saint, whose Mass is to be found in the older Mass-books/ 
 August 19 had the same, with the exception of 'service' (i.e. 
 mxssesang) instead of simply maesse. The earlier notices 
 vary. On June 1 we have the explanation ' the old sacra- 
 mentorium (sic) t that is the old Mass-book ', and similarly on 
 August 18 * the later sacramentorium^ that is the new Mass- 
 
CAPUAN MASS-BOOKS OF NORTHUMBRIA 155 
 
 book \ Again ' two Mass-songs belong to ' June 1 ; the 
 memory of St. Nicander ' is to be celebrated with Mass- 
 songs, and his Mass is appointed in the older Mass-books'. 
 The Mass-song of St. Agapetus * can be found by the curious 
 in the later sacramentary \ 
 
 The older sacramentary was Capuan. It had been supple- 
 mented or (more probably) supplanted lately by a new one 
 from Rome. We may be sure that the new book was really 
 Roman, because it calls the Praeneste martyr Agapetus 
 * of Rome ', that is to say, it contains his feast because it was 
 kept somewhere in Rome, not because it was kept at Praeneste. 
 
 The Capuan books, besides the feasts of great saints whose 
 lives are given in the Martyrology, contained special Masses 
 for the eight feasts, i. e. five Capuan saints, plus the dedica- 
 tion of St. Priscus, St. Nicander of Venafrum near Capua, 
 and St. Magnus of Fabrateria (later known as St. Magnus 
 of Anagni). Like other Sacramentaries the Capuan book 
 evidently contained a Kalendar at the beginning. Besides 
 the saints for whom special Masses are provided, the Kalendar 
 would mention the feast days of other saints well known at 
 Capua, and venerated in neighbouring cities. Perhaps their 
 feasts were celebrated with lessons de communi. (We saw 
 that the Gospel system of Eugipius provided a common 
 of apostles, of male and female martyrs, one or many, in 
 apostolorum, in martyras^ in martyr -a , in sanctorum.) The 
 Kalendar gave the place as well as the saint ; the heading 
 of the special Mass did not. The Echternach Martyrology 
 has used the Kalendar ; the Anglo-Saxon one has only drawn 
 upon the special Masses ; the Echternach Kalendar again has 
 given the saints who had special Masses, adding the place 
 only in the case of St. Priscus. 
 
 So much for the contents of the old Sacramentary. As for 
 its place of origin it was undoubtedly Capua, and perhaps 
 the Church of St. Priscus. 
 
 What was the date of the books ? 
 
 The translation of St. Magnus does not help us. The date 
 of St. Severus of Casino may be early fourth century, but 
 is quite uncertain. St. Mark, bishop of Luceria, but born and 
 
J56 CAPUAN MASS-BOOKS OF NORTHUMBRIA 
 
 buried at Aecae, may be of the same date. St. Juliana gives 
 a more useful clue, if I was justified in reading Cumas for 
 Cumbas. She is said to have been martyred at Nicomedia, 
 and translated to Puteoli. She was again translated after 
 568 (so it is said) to Cumae, and at length in 1207 to Naples. 
 (See Acta Sanctorum, February, vol. ii, pp. 885-8.) If my con- 
 jecture is correct and if the date is right the Mass-books 
 are later than 568. 
 
 St. Constantius gives a certain terminus a quo. The day, 
 Sept. 1, shows that the bishop of Aquino twice mentioned 
 by St. Gregory is meant : 'qui nuper praedecessoris mei tem- 
 pore beatae memoriae Ioannis Papae defunctus est ' (Dial., iii. 
 8). No doubt John III is meant, whose reign began in 561. 
 Constantius was bishop already before the death of St. Bene- 
 dict, c. 543 (ibid., ii. 16). St. Gregory relates that Constantius 
 prophesied of the bishops who should follow him : 
 
 Post Constantram mulionem, post mulionem. 
 Fullonem, O te, Aqulne, et hoc habes. 
 
 I fancy these are elegiacs. If so, even Commodian would have 
 been ashamed of them. The successor of Constantius was in 
 fact his deacon Andrew 3 who had really been ostler in the 
 posting stables ; and after him came Jovinus, a fuller. In his 
 time Aquinum was so devastated that no bishop succeeded 
 him. So St. Gregory (Dzal n iii. 8). 
 
 Here we seem to find the explanation of in Casino Con- 
 stant^ where we should have expected in Aquino. Aquinum 
 was ruined, so the feast of Constantius was celebrated in 
 Casinum, the nearest town. 1 If this was on the same occasion 
 (c. 589) when the monastery of Montecassino was destroyed, 
 we should be surprised if the town at the foot of the mountain 
 was spared when the abbey on the summit was plundered. 
 One may conjecture that Casinum was restored earlier than 
 Aquinum. Both must have continued at least as posting 
 stations on the much frequented Latin Way. 
 
 1 Aquinum is just half-way between Fabrateria noua and Casinum. The latter 
 was later called San Germano, and still had this name when I passed it in 1882. 
 But the modern Italians have ordered it to be called Cassino, preferring the un- 
 important classical memories connected with the name to the Christian recollection 
 of the legate of Pope Hormisdas and friend of St. Benedict. 
 
CAPUAN MASS-BOOKS OF NORTHUMBRIA 157 
 
 However this may be, the Mass-books are at any rate later 
 than 561, and probably not earlier than 600. But they are 
 earlier than 700, for the Echternach Kalendar was written 
 before 706. 
 
 We could have no temptation to connect them with Eugipius 
 or Cassiodorus. Nor can we connect them with Monte- 
 cassino, in spite of the twofold mention of Casinum ; for 
 the monastery was in ruins till the eighth century. 
 
 How did they get to England ? 
 
 § 6. The Capuan Mass-books and the Codex of Fuida. 
 
 On the fifteenth- or sixteenth-century binding of the Codex 
 Fuldensis is inscribed Sanctus boni \ f actus presenti \ libro 
 functus I est dm uixit. There is no reason to doubt that the 
 MS. has actually been at Fulda ever since the monas- 
 tery was founded by St. Boniface. 1 An Anglo-Saxon hand 
 of the eighth century has added a gloss to the Epistle of 
 St. James; and this is traditionally said to be the saint's own 
 handwriting. Though it is impossible to prove this, it is in 
 itself quite likely, according to Ernest Ranke. 2 
 
 Did St. Boniface bring it from Italy? England was in his 
 time as literary as Italy, with its splendid schools of Italian 
 writing at Canterbury and Jarrow, and its Irish school 
 developing a native hand at Lindisfarne and elsewhere. 
 Abbeys were numerous and books plentiful. Sjt. Willibrord 
 had brought his Kalendar, his Martyrology, his Gospels from 
 Northumbria at an earlier date. St. Boniface's companion 
 Burchard brought an Evangeliarium. Presumably it was 
 from England that St. Boniface brought the codex which 
 had belonged to Victor of Capua. 
 
 From what part of England? From Wessex? From 
 Nutshell ? 
 
 A. There is another book which seems to have been taken 
 to Germany by St. Boniface, the well-known Codex Laudianus 
 of Acts, which is proved by inscriptions which exist in it 
 
 1 The foundation cross was planted by St. Sturmius in 744 on behalf of his 
 leader. 
 3 Introduction to his edition, p. xvi. 
 
158 CAPUAN MASS-BOOKS OF NORTHUMBRIA 
 
 to have been in Germany at an early date (at Wurzburg, 
 Mr. Turner thinks). But in St. Bede's time it was at Jarrow, 
 for it was proved by Mill and afterwards by Woide x that it 
 served that saint for the corrections made in his Retractations 
 on Acts. We are not surprised to find that the Codex 
 Amiatinus was corrected by it in the same way, no doubt 
 under Bede's direction. 2 Again, we have seen that St. Burchard 
 took to Germany an Amiatine text of the Gospels, containing 
 the Neapolitan notes in its margin. This also came from 
 Jarrow, mediately or immediately. 
 
 It is natural to suppose that the Codex Fuldensis came 
 from England, and like the Codex Laudianus and St. Bur- 
 chard's Gospels (or at least their archetype) from Jarrow 
 or Wearmouth. 
 
 1 References are given by Scrivener, Introd., i. 170 (1894), and by Gregory 
 Proleg,?. 412 (1894). 
 
 3 Bp. Wordsworth says (Acts, p. ix) of the Codex Laudianns : ' Fuit ut nidetnr 
 inter libros quos Theodoras Tarsensis Archiepiscopus Cantuar. secum Angliam 
 apportauit A. D. 668.' [did he bring any ?] * Ibi usque ad Northumbrian! peruenit ' 
 [begged, borrowed or stolen ?] ' ubi uenerabilis Beda eum uidit et in commentariis 
 suis (' Expositione * sc. et ' Retractatione * in Actus) saepe citauit ; et forsan scriba 
 codicis Amiatini textum suum ad eius auctoritatem interdum correxit. Postea 
 Bonifacius uel quidam ex discipulis eius in Germaniam exportauit ubi aliquantulum 
 moratus est codex ut testantur notae etc. in ultimis paginis manu Teutonica scriptae.' 
 At an earlier period the codex was in Sardinia. It will be remembered that there 
 were Greek monks in Sardinia in the seventh century who played a part in the 
 Monothelite controversy. There is no summary in the codex, but divisions of the 
 text are marked in the margin by a hand which may be tenth century, but is 
 difficult to date. It is probably German, for the divisions bear no relation to any 
 of the summaries printed by Wordsworth except to the Donatist summaries from 
 MS. Munich lat. 6230, Bamberg A. 1. 7, and Metz 7. The first eighteen divisions 
 are as follows : 
 
 1 i. 1 
 
 7 ii. 38 
 
 13 v. 
 
 12 
 
 2 12 
 
 8 iii. 1 
 
 H 
 
 34 
 
 3 i5 
 
 9 ** 
 
 15 vi. 
 
 1 
 
 4 ii. 1 
 
 10 iv. 1 
 
 16 vii. 
 
 1 
 
 5 H 
 
 ii 19 
 
 17 
 
 54 
 
 6 22 
 
 12 32 
 
 18 viii. 
 
 5 
 
 These divisions seem to run almost exactly (if not quite) with the Donatist 
 divisions. At viii 5 A has reached its twentieth title, and so have the great 
 number of MSS. with F, while the Spanish CT and V have only got to the fifteenth. 
 It is a great pity that Bp. Wordsworth should not have added to all the summaries 
 he has published the text- divisions corresponding to them as found in the MSS. 
 
CAPUAN MASS-BOOKS OF NORTHUMBRIA i$9 
 
 B. On the other hand the Capuan Mass-books come from 
 Northumbria. This is easily shown. 
 
 i. The Echternach Kalendar has Northumbrian saints as 
 well as Capuan. It does not admit Mellitus, Justus, and 
 Laurentius, so that it has no possible connexion with Canter- 
 bury. This' is what we should expect in the case of St. 
 Willibrord the Northumbrian. 
 
 2. The Echternach Martyrology is exactly in a similar case, 
 as was said above, p. 145. 
 
 3. The Anglo-Saxon Martyrology is possibly, or rather 
 probably, Mercian in its present ninth-century form ; at least 
 its dialect is considered to be Mercian. But its composition 
 in the eighth century takes us further north. Augustine 
 is the only southern saint contained in it except St. Ethel- 
 burga of Barking. Her name has no doubt been taken from 
 Bede's History y to which the compiler is greatly indebted and 
 to which he repeatedly refers. He has also used material 
 from St. Gregory, St. Aldhelm, and Adamnan. Of East 
 Anglian saints we find St. Fursey of Burgh Castle in Norfolk, 
 St. Etheldreda of Ely, St Guthlac of Croyland and his sister 
 St. Pega, St. Hygebald of Bardney. These last have suggested 
 to Dr. Herzfeld that the present edition of the Martyrology 
 hails from Lincolnshire. The proof is.insufficient. For Hyge- 
 bald the writer appeals to Bede. Guthlac and Etheldreda 
 were too famous to be omitted in any list ; while the latter 
 was wife of Egfrid of Northumbria. 
 
 If we turn to the northern saints we find Columchille from 
 Iona ; Aidan, Cuthbert, Ethelwald, Eadbercht, all from Lindis- 
 farne ; Benet Biscop, Eastorwine and Ceolfrith of Wearmouth 
 and Jarrow ; Yorkshire gives John of Beverley, Hilda, Cedd ; 
 Northumbria gives Wilfrid of Hexham and King Oswald, 
 whose relics are said to be at Bamborough, Lindsey, and 
 Bardney. 1 It is impossible to say precisely where the compiler 
 lived. But he is clearly in close relation with both Wearmouth 
 and Lindisfarne. 
 
 The simplest hypothesis is that the Mass-books from Capua 
 
 1 Dr. Herzfeld in his Intro dnction thinks the reference to relics of St. Aidan at 
 Glastonbury to be a later Insertion, p. xxx. 
 
160 CAPUAN MASS-BOOKS OF NORTHUMBRIA 
 
 had their home in Benet Biscop's double monastery. 1 The 
 Capuan Masses were probably not actually used ; but the rest 
 of the book would give an ordinary Italian use of the early 
 seventh century, and would be employed at Wearmouth and 
 Jarrow, and copied for other monasteries. 
 
 Such a Sacramentary must have been originally the property 
 of a Church at Capua. The Codex Fuldensis also probably 
 was bequeathed by St. Victor to his successors. Both books 
 must have come into the market as plunder. There is no 
 reason to suppose two different occasions upon which these 
 books were looted from Capua, nor to invent two different 
 roads by which they came to England. Neither has any 
 connexion with the South of England, and therefore neither 
 was brought by St. Hadrian. And as a fact St. Bede never 
 mentions any books having been brought to England by that 
 learned man. Had the Codex Fuldensis or the Gospels of 
 Eugipius been brought to the North by Hadrian, had the 
 Codex Laudianus been the property of Theodore (as Scrivener 
 and others and Wordsworth have thought) and lent or given 
 to Jarrow, surely Bede would have said something about the 
 introduction by them into England of such precious volumes. 
 But according to Bede it was the Englishmen, Benet Biscop 
 and Ceolfrid, who imported the most valuable books they 
 could find. 
 
 I am rather inclined to the view that the Laudianus and 
 the Fuldensis were not brought to Germany by St. Boniface 
 himself, but that they had been already taken there by 
 St. Willibrord, who will have presented them to St. Boniface ; 
 for St. Willibrord was the more likely of the two to receive 
 handsome presents from Jarrow for his mission. The North- 
 umbrian text of the Gospels of Burchard, Boniface's dis- 
 ciple, shows indeed a connexion with the North. But then 
 no one knows what part of England gave birth to St. 
 Burchard. He may have been a northerner. 
 
 Our general conclusions are therefore that the Capuan 
 saints in the Anglo-Saxon Martyrology, the Echternach 
 
 1 Another possibility is evidently that St. Wilfrid brought them from Italy, and 
 that they were used at Hexham or Ripon. 
 
CAPUAN MASS-BOOKS OF NORTHUMBRIA 161 
 
 Martyrology, and the Echternach Kalendar were introduced 
 into them from certain Sacramentaries in use in the North of 
 England. The archetype of these Mass- books seems to have 
 belonged to the Church of San Prisco at Capua, c. 600-50. It 
 may have been among the books bought in Italy by St. Benet 
 Biscop. As the Codex Fuldensis, like the Codex Laudianus 
 of Acts and the Gospels of St. Burchard, probably came to 
 Germany from the North of England, it is probable that it 
 was plunder obtained from Capua at the same time as the 
 Sacramentary, and that they were sold together to an English 
 buyer. 
 
 M 
 
CHAPTER IX 
 
 THE IRISH TEXT OF THE VULGATE GOSPELS 
 
 § i. The Vulgate and St. Patrick. 
 
 It seems to be an accepted opinion among experts that 
 the Vulgate must have been introduced into Ireland later 
 than St. Patrick's time, since that saint used an Old Latin 
 version. Whitley Stokes urges in proof of the authenticity of 
 the Confessio and of the letter to the subjects of Coroticus 
 the quotations in both documents from an ante-Hieronymian 
 Bible. 1 Monsignor Kaulen showed that St. Patrick used the 
 Old Latin by referring to his citation of Isaiah xxxiii. 4 ; 2 
 and indeed it seems unquestionable that he did employ the 
 Old Latin in the Old Testament. 
 
 But we are now concerned with his use of the Gospels. 
 The following table is compiled from Whitley Stokes's edition. 
 The MSS. cited are from Wordsworth and White's Vulgate. 
 I will remind the reader that the principal Irish MSS. are 
 DLRQ with E3>* and 3> m ', while the Alcuinian KETV have 
 also apparently much Irish blood in their veins. I have 
 added the readings of a b f ff % g x q wherever Wordsworth has 
 not cited the Old Latin witnesses. * Vulg.' means the reading 
 of Wordsworth and White's text, whereas vg means the 
 Clementine Vulgate. 
 
 From the Confession of St. Patrick: 
 
 1. p. 359. Matt. xii. 36 = Vulg. (otiossum D). 
 
 2. p. 363. Matt. x. 20 = Vulg. 
 
 3. p. 366. Matt. xxiv. 14 = Vulg. 
 
 4. p. 368. Matt. viii. n (and Lukexiii. 29) : ' Venient ab oriente et occidente et 
 
 ab austro et ab aquilone et recumbent cum Abraam et Issac et Iacob ' 
 {for multi ab or. et occ. uenient, solus), aquil. et austro is intro- 
 duced {in reversed order) from Luke, recumbent as Matt. {Luke 
 has accumbent, except CENT recumb.) Issac D. 
 
 1 Tripartite Life of St. Patrick^ 1887 (Rolls Series), pp. xciii and ci. 
 8 Geschichte der Vulgata, 1868, p. 195. 
 
5- 
 6. 
 
 7- 
 
 p. 368. 
 p. 368. 
 p. 368. 
 
 8. 
 9- 
 
 p. 369. 
 p. 369. 
 
 IRISH TEXT OF THE VULGATE GOSPELS 163 
 
 Matt. iv. 19 — Vulg. 
 
 Luke vi. 17 = Vulg. (copiossa D). 
 
 Matt, xxviii. 19: 'Euntes ergo nunc docete omnes gentes, babtizantes 
 
 eas in Nomine Patris et Filii et Spiritus Sancti.' 
 + nunc DELQR a b. babt. DH»LRT. eas (for eos) DR. 
 Mark xvi. 5 = Vulg. 
 Matt. xxiv. 14: ' Praedicabitur hoc enangelium regni in uniuerso 
 
 mundo in testimonium omnibus gentibus, et tunc ueniet finis.* 
 
 mundo E (for orbe). (in is omitted in Mignis ed. of the Conf, 
 
 so D.) 
 finis fq (for consummatio,y?w« xxiv. 6 and 1 Cor. xv. 24). 
 
 I add from Acts : 
 
 10. p. 368. Acts xiii. 47 : ' Posui te lumen in gentibus, ut sis in salutem usque ad 
 
 extremum terrae. 1 lumen in gentibus D0 ; and 
 
 11. p. 360. ' ut sis . . . ad ultimum terrae, 1 ultimum d gig. 
 
 12. p. 369. Acts ii. 17-18 = Vulg. (exc. filii for iuuenes, solus). 
 
 13. p. 370. Acts xx. 22 = Vulg. 
 
 From the Epistle to the subjects of Coroticus : 
 
 *4« P« 376. John viii. 32 : ' Qui facit peccatum seruns est [peccati].' (MS. Cotton 
 of St. Pair, omits peccati, with b d andT)O r .) 
 
 15. p. 376. Matt. xvi. 19 : ' Quos ligarent super terram ligatos esse et in celis.' 
 
 + et EH^vffeQRW vgbg x f (in Matt, xviii all have alligaveritis 
 and et in caelo, except et in caelis ESP^Q/ and in caelo aff x q). 
 
 16. p. 377. Matt. xvi. 26 (Mark viii. 27): 'Quid prodest homini ut totum 
 
 mundum lucretur et ut animae suae detrimentum patiatur ? * 
 ut (for si) solus, totum mundum (for universum m.) R af (Mark 
 has mundum totum). 
 J 7- P- 377- Matt. xii. 30 = Vulg. 
 
 18. p. 379. Matt. viii. 11 : ' Venient ab oriente et occid.' &c. (for multi ab or. et 
 
 occ. venient) solus, as 4, above. 
 
 19. p. 380. Mark xvi. 16 ■* Vulg. (condempnabitur SPGH©). 
 
 As the Confession is edited from the Book of Armagh (D) 
 by Stokes, the agreement in spelling with the Gospels in the 
 same MS. is not surprising. The only quotations to be con- 
 sidered are 7, 9, io, 14, 15, 16. The witness may be thus 
 tabulated : 
 
 15. Matt. xvi. 19 
 
 IF0W 
 
 E2P*"* 
 
 QR 
 
 */A 
 
 16. „ xvi. 26 
 
 
 
 R 
 
 « / 
 
 9. „ xxiv. 14 
 
 
 DE 
 
 
 f q 
 
 7. „ xxviii. 19 
 
 
 DE 
 
 LQR 
 
 ab 
 
 »» 
 
 
 D 
 
 R 
 
 
 14. [John viii. 32 
 
 
 
 
 «G 
 
 10. Acts xiii. 47 
 
 
 
 D 
 
 
 
 "• [ n v 
 
 
 
 
 d Sii\ 
 
 M % 
 
164 IRISH TEXT OF THE VULGATE GOSPELS 
 
 The important point to notice is that five out of six readings 
 in Matthew are supported by the Old Latin ; but equally five 
 out of six by the Irish Vulgate MSS. On this meagre 
 evidence it is obviously a tenable hypothesis that St. Patrick 
 used an Irish Vulgate, rather than an Old Latin copy 
 unaffected by the Vulgate. 
 
 § 2. The Gospel citations of St Vincent of Levins. 
 
 It is apparently highly probable that St. Patrick was 
 for a time at least in the famous monastery of Lerins, then 
 recently founded by St. Honoratus. Professor Bury supposes 
 him to have been there from 411 or 413 until 414 or 415, 
 to have returned to Britain for a year, and then to have 
 stayed at Auxerre until consecrated bishop in 43a by St. 
 Germanus. The arguments for the long stay at Auxerre are 
 ingenious, but not wholly convincing. Presumably Patrick 
 became a monk at Lerins, in which case he was hardly likely 
 to live sixteen years as a deacon at Auxerre. 1 St. Germanus 
 became bishop of that see in 418, and it is far more likely 
 that it was this famous monk of Lerins who attracted Patrick 
 to his diocese. It was in 429 that St. Germanus and another 
 Lerinese, St. Lupus, bishop of Troyes, made their well-known 
 visit to Britain. One might rather have guessed that it was 
 not until after this that Patrick came to Germanus. He was 
 still only a boy when he returned to Britain to his parents. 
 Why should he have left them to return to Gaul? The 
 vision of Victoricus might have made him desire the clerical 
 state, but this he would receive more naturally in his own 
 country. The desire to emigrate was usually connected in 
 those days with the call of Abraham, ' Egredere de terra tua 
 et de cognatione tua et de domo patris tui,' and meant the 
 wish to embrace the religious life. One would imagine that if 
 the saint was at Lerins he would be likely to persevere there 
 for a longer time than two years. When he speaks in his 
 Confession of his willingness to return to Britain he says : 
 ' Et libentissime paratus irem, quasi ad patriam et parentes : 
 
 1 Whitley Stokes, p. 561, cites from Lebor na hUidre, p. 4, col. 1: 'Patrick 
 went southwards to learn, and he read the canon with Germanus.' 
 
IRISH TEXT OF THE VULGATE GOSPELS 165 
 
 non id solum, sed etiam usque ad Gallias uisitare fratres et ut 
 uiderem faciem sanctorum Domini mei.' One would naturally 
 understand fratres to mean ' religious brethren ', for it will not 
 mean simply ' friends ', and would hardly suggest ' clerical 
 brethren \ And who were the ' saints of God ' ? Hardly the 
 holy bishops he had known, such as Germanus and Lupus, for 
 he will have been aware that they were dead. Surely it will 
 mean the holy monks who lived to God in their tiny island 
 cut off from the world. 1 
 
 However this may be — and the life of St. Patrick is 
 altogether vague and misty — at least his text of the Gospels 
 would in all probability be brought by him either from the 
 Lerinese St. Germanus or from Lerins. It is for this reason 
 that, on noticing the similarities of his citations to the Irish 
 
 1 Archbishop Healy, in his recent Life and Writings of St. Patrick, is inclined 
 to accept the various traditions, that St. Patrick was at Marmoutier under St. 
 Martin, at Lerins, at Aries, and with St. Germanus at Auxerre (chapter v). At 
 first sight it looks somewhat as if legend had tried to bring St. Patrick into 
 relation with the most famous persons and places of his time. But on the other 
 hand, it was but natural for a fervent religious of those days to seek instruction both 
 from St. Martin and from St. Honoratus, and the local tradition about St. Patrick 
 at Tours is very strong (Healy, p. 75 ; cp. Berger, Vulgate, p. 47). 
 
 Professor Bury's argument {Life of St. Patrick, 1905, pp. 347-8 and 336-8) is 
 drawn from the statement of Muirchu Maccu-Machtheni that St. Patrick was 
 consecrated bishop after the death of Palladius ab Amatorege sancto episcopo (Whitley 
 Stokes, p. 273), whom Professor Bury identifies with St. Amator, predecessor 
 of St. Germanus. As St. Amator cannot have consecrated St. Patrick, for he died 
 in 418, he must have ordained him deacon ; therefore Patrick must have remained 
 at Auxerre from c. 416-18 till 432. This is merely hypothesis. Amatorege is just 
 as likely to be a corruption of Autissiodorensis, mistaken for a proper name. 
 I take it that St. Patrick stopped at Lerins before returning to Britain. When he 
 had seen his relations after his long absence and captivity, he returned there as 
 a monk. Thence St. Germanus (who had been a monk there with him) summoned 
 him to Auxerre, perhaps with a view to his going to Britain or to Ireland. This 
 explanation is at least simple, and more in accordance with the practice of those 
 days and with the saint's own words. Lerins was fruitful of bishops just then, 
 and St. Celestine complained that it was a seminarium episcoporum (unless he 
 means Tours). One would think that Germanus and Lupus would have been 
 certain to choose a monk of Lerins for consecration, if the choice in any way lay 
 with them. I am glad to see that Professor Bury agrees that the insola Arala- 
 nensis of Tirechan (Whitley Stokes, p. 302, whose suggestion A relatensis is hardly 
 acceptable !) was Lerins ; Tirechan says he was there thirty years, mihi testante 
 Ultano episcopo, an exaggeration perhaps, but it suggests a stay of many years, 
 necessarily after the return from Britain ; for when in Britain he was still a boy, 
 addressed as ' sancte puer ' in his vision. 
 
i66 IRISH TEXT OF THE VULGATE GOSPELS 
 
 Vulgate, I turned to the contemporary writings of Lerinese 
 monks to investigate the nature of the Gospel text used 
 by them. As St. Vincent of Lerins wrote his Commonitorium 
 two years after St. Patrick went to Ireland, it was natural 
 to take him first. Unfortunately he scarcely ever quotes the 
 Gospels. Mr. White, following Kaulen, 1 rightly states that 
 Vincent used the Vulgate, but the very scanty evidence shows 
 that he used a very impure Hieronymian text of the Gospels. 
 But then he writes half a century after the publication of 
 St. Jerome's edition, and it is certain that the great types 
 of text of any much copied work arise within the first century 
 (or even half century) of its existence. This is, for instance, 
 conspicuously true of the Greek text of the New Testament, 
 of St. Cyprian's writings, and (Abbot Butler once told me) of 
 Palladius. There are only two Gospel citations in the Com- 
 monitorium worth mentioning ; and the evidence is less clear 
 in that the editions are not trustworthy. These two texts are 
 cited from Migne (vol. 50) : 
 
 c. xxv. Matt. vii. 15: ' Attendite uobis a pseudoprophetis, 
 qui ueniunt ad uos in uestitu ouium, ab intus autem sunt lupi 
 rapaces ; ex fructibus eorum cognoscetis eos.' 
 
 + nobis DH^^LQR bg x pseudo proph. {for falsis proph.) solus 
 
 uestitu {for uestimentis) a bfg x 
 ab intus {for intrinsecus) aq (intus bg x ) 
 ex {for a) BD. 
 
 c. xxvi. Matt. iv. 5: 'Tunc assumpsit ilium diabolus, et 
 statuit ilium super pinnaculum templi, et dixit ei : si filius 
 Dei esj mitte te deorsum ; scriptum est enim quod angelis 
 suis mandauit de te ut custodiant te in omnibus uiis tuis ; 
 in manibus tollent te, ne forte offendas ad lapidem pedem 
 tuum.' 
 
 ilium solus super {for supra Vulg. veil.) DSPWZ* vg. 
 
 quod {for quia) b 
 
 + ut custodiant te EitPR a {om. Vulg. veil, rell.) 
 
 + in omnibus uiis tuis itPR {om Vulg. vett.) 
 
 om. et {before in manibus) solus, 
 
 1 H. J. White, art. ' Vulgate' in Hastings, Diet, of the Bible, vol. iv, p. 887 a ; 
 Kaulen, Vulg., p. 198. 
 
IRISH TEXT OF THE VULGATE GOSPELS 167 
 
 The first text might be simply from the Old Latin ; 
 uestitu and ab intus are only Old Latin, ex is only Irish, 
 whereas nobis has the whole Irish contingent for it and two 
 Old Latin. 
 
 The second citation is more important. Pinnaeulnm is the 
 reading of St. Jerome in all MSS. (except 3? Wff ) while pinnam 
 is that of all the Old Latin, so that Vincent is apparently 
 using the Vulgate ; super is Irish and not Old Latin, and the 
 addition of ut custodiant te in omnibus uiis tuis is charac- 
 teristically Irish, without any Old Latin witness, except a for 
 part of it. 
 
 It is clear that on the whole St. Vincent of Lerins affords 
 a close parallel to St. Patrick, and encourages an investigation 
 of the more copious and certain evidence supplied by the 
 Lerinese writers Faustus and Eucherius, whose works have 
 fortunately been recently re-edited for the Vienna Corpus* 
 
 § 3. The Vulgate Gospels and Faustus of Riez. 
 
 In the year which intervened between the consecration 
 of St Patrick in 433 and the composition of St. Vincent's 
 Commonitorium in 434 Faustus became abbot of Lerins. 
 Though it seems he was already in the monastery before the 
 death of St. Honoratus in 436, he must have been a very young 
 abbot, as he wrote De Gratia c. 473, and some of his letters in 
 exile are of c. 480. He became bishop of Reii before 463, 
 perhaps in 453. He had thus been a younger contemporary 
 at Lerins with Vincent and with Patrick, who was his country- 
 man, for Faustus was a Briton by birth. In the following 
 tables I use Engelbrecht's text of his treatises De Gratia and 
 De Spiritu Sancto, his Sermons and his Epistles. I give the 
 pages and lines of that edition (CSEL., vol. 31). The MSS. 
 are cited from Wordsworth. I have added the testimony 
 of a b f ff g 1 q wherever Wordsworth omits it, a b ff x from 
 Bianchini, / from Wordsworth, ff 2 g x q from Old Latin Biblical 
 Texts, parts i and iii. I have not troubled to give the arbi- 
 trary c or d or the African e k. The sermons are mainly by 
 Caesarius, but embody fragments of Faustus. 
 
168 IRISH TEXT OF THE VULGATE GOSPELS 
 
 St. Matthew. 
 
 Work Page and Chapter 
 
 cited. line, and verse. 
 
 i Ep. 7 202 fi i. 23 concipiet E (as in Isaiah) [in utero con- 
 
 cipiet a bff x g{\ 
 
 2 Ep. 5 187* iii. 12 in horreum suum BTX*Z*^i g x 
 
 3 Serm. 11 263" v. 5 lugent + nunc DES'LRYc' 
 
 but Serm. 16, p. 286 18 nunc is omitted 
 
 4 Gra. i. 4 19 15 v. 16 bona opera uestra D (Gra. i. 4) 
 
 Serm. 17 289 but opera uestra bona E3?L0QTW vg 
 
 abfg x q (Serm. 17) 
 omnibus hominibus solus; est in caelis 
 BFH0Y 
 
 Serm. 3 235* v. 23-4 i° offers (ar offeris cod. D) Faustus: offers 
 
 H°VW vgfff Xi offeris D3»R£i 
 2 offeres (offeris cod. D) Faustus: offeres 
 DEHQKKTO^TVWY^f flf *, offeris 
 Q*R. reconciliari (£«* -are fo£ D of 
 Faustus = Wordsw. et codd.pl.) H*FH° 
 0ORW 
 
 5 Serm. 17 291* vi. 4 absconso B*DJLMQR a £/£i £ 
 
 226* vi. 12 (demitteca/. D = BFHKM , 0*VY 226 and 
 
 3o8,fl«(/demittimus *'» 308 = B c KKTLO* 
 VXZ 2 ) the rest of the codd, of Faustus 
 have dimitte, and all in Serm. 24, 319" 
 peccata (for delictaaf in v. is)*E 
 om. et after dimittet DLR a bfg x q 
 but has et 234 u 
 
 dimittet + nobis DES^LQRW 1^ a bf 
 ff\ Si ?• debita (for peccata) solus 
 + ab (before hominibus) EH 5 ™" 
 ergo DEQR a bfg x (for autem) 
 praestabuntur D b g x 
 stipulam (solus, but also e in Lk. vi. 41). 
 ButincommentingFaustus ^ajfistucam. 
 The spelling fist, is found in Matt, in 
 Da > HL*QR(fyst.E),?»Z«^mDH ) GX 
 (v. 41) and in D3> (v. 42 bis) 
 
 12 Serm. 25 32 7 14 vii. 12 + ita BDEJQ a b g x q (+ bona ita 5P m * 
 
 LRW) 
 
 1 3 illis DEH > KM , ORVWX*Z vg a bfff x g x q 
 
 (eis ceteri) 
 + similiter solus 
 
 14 Ep. 5 192" vii. 22-3 innominetuo&rAYw£*(£wDTX*a£/ 1 £) 
 
 15 Sp.S.ii.4 141* viii. 20 nidos ACH0KMKTVWX C Y g x vg Hier 
 
 [EFJRQT abchq(ff x )add ubi requie- 
 scant (-cent)] 
 
 16 + suum Ea»QT a b g x (but not Ep. 7, 
 
 p. 204=*) 
 
 17 Gra. i. 9 27 s5 ix. 12-13 sanisBHX* ab g x q qui male habent sofas 
 
 6 Serm. 24 
 
 320 9 
 
 vi. 14 
 
 7 
 
 
 
 Serm. 3 
 
 234 11 
 
 vi. 14 
 
 8 Serm. 3 
 
 234 18 
 
 vi. 15 
 
 9 Serm. 17 
 
 290* 
 
 vi. 17-18 
 
 10 Serm. 17 
 
 291 s5 
 
 vi. 33 
 
 11 
 
 
 
 Serm. 6 
 
 245" 
 
 vii. 3 
 
IRISH TEXT OF THE VULGATE GOSPELS 169 
 
 Work 
 cited. 
 
 18 Gra. i. 9 
 
 19 Serm. 13 
 
 20 Ep. 6 
 
 21 Gia. ii. 5 
 
 22 Serm. 18 
 
 23 Gra. i. 12 
 
 24 Gra. ii. 5 
 Gra. ii. 5 
 
 » i) 
 
 25 Serm. 12 
 Serm. 20 
 
 26 Ep. 6 
 
 27 Gra. i. 9 
 
 28 Serm. 12 
 Gra. 3 
 
 29 Serm. 12 
 
 30 Gra. 18 
 31 
 
 32 Serm. 5 
 
 33 Serm. 12 
 
 34 
 
 35 Serm. 25 
 
 36 
 37 
 38 
 
 Page and 
 line. 
 
 199" 
 6 9 10 
 294" 
 
 57 9 
 
 243 11 
 
 271" 
 
 325 1 
 
 Chapter 
 and verse. 
 ix. 12-13 
 x. 19 
 
 xi. 12 
 xii. 43-5 
 
 43 M 
 
 xiii. 12 
 
 68 2 
 
 a 
 
 69 30 
 
 xiii. 15 
 
 7o 2s 
 
 »» 
 
 270 13 
 
 xiii. 43 
 
 304 1 
 
 jj 
 
 i 99 » 
 
 xvi. 24 
 
 29 s 
 
 xvi. 27 
 
 267 s 
 
 >) 
 
 i7 5 
 
 xvii. 21 
 
 2 70" 
 
 xxii. 30 
 
 xxiii. 37 
 
 ; M I 
 
 XXV 
 
 •35. 
 
 43 
 
 it 
 
 40,45 
 
 t) 
 
 41 
 
 
 39 Serm. 16 288" xxvi. 41 
 
 Sp. S. i. 8 
 
 Sp. S. ii.4 
 
 II 4 M 
 I38 8 
 
 ii. 19 ) 
 
 it ) 
 
 + ad paenitentiam H©Q g l 
 om dabitur . . . loquamini QZ* g x . prae- 
 
 meditari solus 
 diripiunt B^KKTOTVXZ abcdg l hkl 
 perambulate (£«/ambulat, 294 12 ) 
 inueniet CT b ff 2 inuenietis) but 294 12 
 
 quaerit (solus) et non invenit 
 illi TfJ\. superabundant solus 
 etiam {for et) E 
 clausernnt {for clns.) plures 
 ne forte solus 
 eornm {for sui) BCDEH^HOJKLXTQ 
 
 RTVWvgabtf ll2 la 
 seipsum sibi LQ q (seipsnm ER) for se- 
 
 metipsnm (se sibi a bff% g t ) 
 opera E0JLQRTW vg a bff i g 1 q 
 sua {for eius) R 
 
 +■ daemonii a c (an explanation only ?) 
 erunt for sunt DEJQR g x {Bianck. , but 
 
 sunt Wordsw. 0* Z. Texts, i.p. 35) 
 sizxitfor quemadmodnm DE a 
 alas + suas DE5PH0LQT abg x q 
 percipite Cyprian 
 
 regnum quod uobis paratum est DR Cypr 
 ab origine (272 1 , not 243 13 ) DER c d ff x 8 
 {bis) fni {for eram) Cypr 
 snscepistis {for collegistis) solus 
 ex minimis istis^ 2 2<i0 
 paratus {for praepar.) BCDE®JO*WZ* 
 
 ««■/ 
 ne {for ut non) LR {see on Mark xiv. 38 
 
 below) 
 ite baptizate solus {but Serm. 31, 346 s3 
 
 euntes baptizate) 
 
 St. Mark. 
 
 40 Gr. i. 16 52 s ' ix. 24 credo + domine BFH C 0IKKTOQTVW 
 
 XZ vgab cf{q) 5 aur 
 
 41 Sp.S.1.7 iii 2S xiii. 11 uos estis {for e. u.) DS'KTRTW aff 2 vg 
 
 42 Gr. i. 3 17 2 xiv. 38 ne af (ut ne r 3^ m n J ) for ut non {cp. on 
 
 Matt. xxvi. 41 above) 
 
 St. Luke. 
 
 Ep. 3 178" i. 19 dominnm {for deum) cod, S of Faustus, 
 
 with DG bff % 
 Serm. 2 228 s i. 35 obumbrauit cod. D of Faustus D*GO* (5 
 
170 IRISH TEXT OF THE VULGATE GOSPELS 
 
 Work Page and Chapter 
 
 cited. line. and verse. 
 
 43 Ep. 7 202 s i. 35 + ex te BDGH0MKTO C PT C W vgacer 
 
 44 Serm. 2 231 11 i. 38 + sum D 
 
 45 Sp.S.ii.7 148 1 i. 68 plebis {for plebi) aFDSPWJKLKTQRVWX vg 
 
 b cfff 2 $ ? &ur 
 
 46 Serm. 25 324* ii. 14 in excelsis D3?*GLOP afl q rS our 
 
 47 Sp. S. ii. 7 148 5 ii. 26 a {for ab) D3™*IJKLMKTQRVWY aff^ q vg 
 48Sp.S. i. 8 115 1 iii. 22 conplacui (for conplacuit mihi) f q 8 (cp. 
 
 DKVZ°(W) conplacui mihi) 
 
 49 Serm. 4 238 12 vi. 37 dimittetur nobis (for dimittemini) JKOVX*Z 
 
 c e r aur 
 
 50 Gra. i. 8 25" ix. 23 + sibi c 
 
 51 Gra. i. 9 28 a8 ix. 24 et qui (for nam qui) R a\ (inueniet solus) 
 
 52 Sp. S.i. 8 U3 1S xi. 20 + ego cff 2 d (q) (daemones solus) 
 
 53 Sp.S.i.7 112 1 xii. 11 om aut quid respondeatis CMT 
 
 54 xii. 12 ilia (for ipsa) cff 2 
 
 55 Ep. 5 188 1 xvi. 28 hunc locum (for 1. h.) BCGKT vgacd eff % 
 
 Imr 
 
 56 Gra. i. 16 51 s8 xviii. 12 qnaecumque (for quae) a eff % i q 8 
 
 St. John. 
 
 tertia (for tertio) I*KQRYXZ 3 vgvett rell 
 
 fiebant a I 
 
 om tunc a eff^ I q 
 
 + vero KR^ / aur 
 
 nunc (for adhuc) D* q (but adhuc ^. 252") 
 
 + sancto CDERTW aff 2 m r aur 
 
 intrare (for introire) Bar 
 
 de caelo descendit D C EHZ* vett (ex c.) 
 
 ne quid tibi deterius E a b (d) e fff 2 I q r 
 Iren Cypr 
 
 (but 68 w ne deterius tibi aliquid as Vulg.) 
 
 iam sanus (bis) solus 
 
 + quam egodahofq 8 
 
 ex discipulis a bfq 
 
 cum illo non BF dfff 2 $ aur 
 
 autem b d; (om simon solus) 
 
 credimus CDEFGJKORTVWY*Z° c ef 2 lr 5 
 aur Tert Cypr 
 
 + ego sum solus (not in 170 21 ) 
 
 principium quod DEH^GeM/^ Iqlgat 
 
 si mihi non creditis 8 (with many Gk.) 
 
 currite (for ambulate) solus (so in Reg. S. Bene- 
 dict^ Prologue) 
 
 cor eorum vgab c efff 2 1 q r Aug (but eorum 
 cor. 67 18 as Vulg.) 
 
 obdurauit (bis) solus ; ( + Jesus (bis) solus) 
 
 credite (for creditis) DE vett (exc.f) Aug 
 
 57 Serm. 7 
 
 250 5 
 
 ii. 1 
 
 58 
 
 
 
 59 
 
 251 s 
 
 ii. 10 
 
 60 
 
 
 
 61 
 
 
 
 62 Sp. S. ii. 4 
 
 M4 15 
 
 iii- 5 I 
 
 63 » ii. 7 
 
 I49 14 
 
 64Sp.S.ii.4 
 
 140 6 
 
 iii. 13 
 
 65 Serm. 18 
 
 295 19 
 
 v. 14 
 
 Gra. ii. 5 
 
 68" 
 
 
 66 Gra. i. 16 
 
 50" 
 
 vi. 51 
 
 67 Gra. i. 16 
 
 53 12 
 
 vi. 66 
 
 68 
 
 
 
 69 
 
 
 68 
 
 70 
 
 
 69 
 
 Sp. S. ii. 4 
 
 106" 
 
 viii. 25 ) 
 
 7i Ep. 3 
 
 170 21 
 
 72 Serm. 26 
 
 33o 5 
 
 x. 38 
 
 Serm. 15 
 
 284 s 
 
 xii. 35 
 
 73 Sp.S.i.7 
 
 112 35 
 
 xii. 40 \ 
 
 Gra. ii. 5 
 
 67 18 
 
 \ 
 
 74 Sp. S. i. 2 
 
 105 9 
 
 xiv. 1 
 
IRISH TEXT OF THE VULGATE GOSPELS 171 
 
 Work Page and 
 
 Chapter 
 
 
 cited. 
 
 line. 
 
 and verse. 
 
 
 75Sp.S.i.6 
 
 109" 
 
 xiv. 9 ) 
 
 uidet (for uidit bis) B?DEJKTRW vg S Tert 
 
 Serm. 30 
 
 343 
 
 Iren? 
 
 76Sp.S.i.io 
 
 120 9 
 
 xiv. 17 
 
 + hie {before mtindus) vett pi 
 
 77 Serm. 10 
 
 261 3 
 
 xvi. 20 
 
 tristes eritis {for contristabimini) Gab efq r 
 
 78 
 
 
 
 conuertetur GKT*R a b r 
 
 79 Serm. 10 
 
 261 1 
 
 xvi. 33 1 
 
 j» 1 
 
 + hoc {before mundo) b cfff 2 
 
 Serm. 13 
 
 274 s 
 
 
 8oSp.S.i.9 
 
 116 
 
 XX. 22 \ 
 
 dixit {for dicit) CH0T cor uat tng f q Aug 
 
 81 Serm. 31 
 
 345" 
 
 om eis q 
 
 Engelbrecht, in his index scriptorum, gives a list of 70 
 citations of St. Matthew, 8 of St. Mark, 41 of St. Luke, 
 and 47 of St. John. Out of these I have 32 of St. Matthew, 
 3 of St. Mark, 15 of St. Luke, and 17 of St. John. The 
 rest all have the readings of Wordsworth exactly. Omitting 
 numbers 4, 15, 3a, 35-6, we have 34 variant readings in 
 St. Matthew, of which 15 are not from the sermons. The 
 MSS. appear as follows, the second number being pure 
 Faustus, i.e. not counting the sermons: 
 
 D E & WW L Q R; BZ; KKTV;JM;C 
 16.4 17.6 6.3 3.3 9.3 12.5 13.3; 7.3 4.1; 3.1 3.1 3.1; 1 1; 4.1 
 
 T; O X; A F H Y, 0. a b f ff x g x q 
 5-5; 3- 1 4-3; i- 1 ° 6 -3 J- 1 6.3. 13.6 14.5 6.1 8.3 15.6 10.4. 
 
 Only Nos. 21, 22, 37 are supported by no Irish witness. 
 Nos. 3, 4, 24, 28, 29, 39 are not witnessed by the Old Latin 
 so far as I have quoted it. So that the general testimony 
 of Faustus is an exact parallel to the scanty evidence from 
 St. Patrick and St. Vincent. 
 
 If we inquire into more detail, we must remember that the 
 correspondence with AY is far closer than the numbers 
 suggest, for in pretty well all the passages I have not had 
 cause to cite, the exact agreement of Faustus with Wordsworth 
 means an agreement with AY. The agreement with the 
 Alcuinian KMV, the North Italian JM, the Spanish CT, and 
 the Canterbury OX is insignificant, except (naturally) where 
 they agree with AY and Wordsworth. 
 
 Among the Irish Codices DE are the nearest to Faustus, 
 and QR follow them closely. The Old Latin text on which 
 
172 IRISH TEXT OF THE VULGATE GOSPELS 
 
 that of Faustus was founded was clearly e European ' (a bff 2i g 1 q) t 
 though mixed with ' Italian ' elements (/). This again agrees 
 wifh the scanty evidence from Vincent (a, b,g x each thrice,/^ 
 each once); (Patrick a #/each twice, g x once). 
 
 The text used by Faustus was thus in Matthew mixed 
 Vulgate and European Latin ; viz. either a Vulgate text 
 spoilt by recollections of a European text, or (far more 
 probably) a European text corrected considerably, but incom- 
 pletely, from St. Jerome's revision. I take the Irish text to 
 be explained in the same way ; it is a ' European text ' 
 corrected considerably by the revision of St. Jerome, and all 
 existing MSS. of it have been still further revised, some 
 more, some less. The remarkable point is that nearly all the 
 ' European readings ' found in the Lerinese writers we have 
 examined are still attested in some at least of our Irish MSS. 
 
 The evidence from Mark and Luke is scantier, but not in 
 disaccord. Out of seventeen places the Old Latin is alone 
 in as many as five. Three of the remaining readings, Nos. 
 49> 53> 55> are supported by no Irish MSS. ; but 53 is unim- 
 portant, and the other two places have the semi-Irish witness 
 of KV or BGK. In the remaining nine places D appears 
 seven times, R four times : 
 
 D a* 2P"* LQR; Btf'GZ; KKTV; JM; 
 
 7.4 2.1 2.2 3.2 3.3 4.4; 3.3 1.1 4.3 2.1; 5.4 5.5 5.3; 3-3 3-3J 
 
 CT;OX;AFHY; ©. 
 2.2 4.4; 4.1 3.2; o 1.1 1.1 1.1 ; 2.2. 
 
 The Alcuinian KKTV are more Irish than they appeared in 
 Matthew. This is mere chance. 
 
 abcdtfff^qrZ 
 9.8 4.2 8.7 2.2 4.3 5.4 8.7 6.4 5.3 3.3 
 
 Now that^Y 1 has disappeared a takes the lead. 
 
 When we turn to St. John everything changes. Every single 
 text has an Old Latin witness. Nine out of twenty-five have 
 no other witness. D and R still take a prominent place, but evi- 
 dently on account of the large Old Latin element they contain. 
 One cannot venture on this evidence to say that Faustus used 
 
 1 This MS. everywhere but in Matthew is Vulgate and called G. 
 
IRISH TEXT OF THE VULGATE GOSPELS 173 
 
 simply an Old Latin text of St. John. But one must at least 
 affirm that it was more full of Old Latin elements than was 
 his text of the Synoptists. The Old Latin elements are 
 slightly more Italian and less European than before : 
 
 d e a» a* 77 * 
 
 Q 
 
 R; 
 
 B W G Z; K KT V; 
 
 J M 
 
 6.5 8.6 1.1 
 
 2 
 
 6.3; 
 
 ; 1.1 1.1 4.2 l.i ; 2.1 2.1 I.I ; 
 
 2.2 1.1 
 
 C T ; O 
 
 X; 
 
 A 
 
 F H S Y 
 
 
 3.3 3.2 2.2; 1 
 
 1 ; 
 
 
 
 l.l 2.2 2.1 
 
 
 a b c 
 
 d 
 
 e 
 
 f ff 2 i I m q r 
 
 8 aur 
 
 12.6 1 1.5 5.3 
 
 5-4 
 
 9-4 
 
 10.7 12.7 3.2 9.5 4.3 13.8 10.6 
 
 8.6 6.5 
 
 § 4. The Vulgate Gospels and St. Eucherius of Lyons, 
 
 The founder of the monastery of Lerins, St. Honoratus, was 
 joined in 410 by Eucherius, who became in 429 bishop of 
 Lyons, and died about 450-5. Eucherius and Patrick must 
 have been companions in monastic life. 
 
 Eucherius is commonly said to have used the Vulgate, but 
 not exclusively (cp. Instr., xli, p. 97 26 ). It is difficult to estimate 
 the nature of his text, from the fact that he cites very freely. 
 One would guess that he had an excellent memory, and was 
 wont to quote even long passages by heart. In the following 
 list none of the passages where he agrees with Wordsworth 
 are given, and of apparently free quotation only specimens are 
 included, especially those cases where the reading looks as 
 though it may have been really found in a MS. I give 
 pages and lines of Wotke's edition (CSEL., xxx, part i) of 
 which the second volume has not appeared. Pp. 3-62 refer to 
 the Formulae Spiritalis Intellegentiae i pp. 65-139 to the 
 Instruc tiones f Book I. In Book II there are no citations, and 
 there are none of importance in the Passio Agaunensium 
 martyrum and De laude eremi. 
 
 St. Matthew. 
 Page and Chapter 
 line. and verse. 
 1 14 18 iii. 9 potensest (/^potest) BEH C ©JKNTWX*(V*) abfff x qvg 
 
 107 13 iii. 11 see Luke iii. 16. 
 
 15 20 iii. 12 [Codex S of Eucherius omits suum and reads in horreo 
 
 suo ; compare in horreum suum Faustus BTX*Z* ff x g{\ 
 45" v. 15 nemo accendit solus (free) 
 
174 IRISH TEXT OF THE VULGATE GOSPELS 
 
 lnmen uestrum (for lux uestra) d k q 
 
 turn (for tunc) solus 
 
 fistucam (so spelt) Faustus DH>HL*QR (fyst. E) 
 
 similis est a b g 1 
 
 super i° D3>*LQRZ* (2 Euch. has supra with Vulg.) 
 
 aduenerunt {for uenerant) a b g x q 
 
 om flauerunt uenti solus 
 
 sine mortui sepeliant a (re»/itte mortuos sine mortm 
 
 sepeliant) q (sine mortuos sepelire) for dimitte m. 
 
 sepelire 
 cinere et cilicio (for cin. et cil.) solus 
 lene (for suaue) solus 
 dabunt (for dabant) bis EQ g x k q 
 [centensimum, spelt so EZ*b ; sexagens. bis CEiPZ* b q ; 
 
 tricens. C3>FZ* b] 
 + hie (before mundus) DES^QR a bfg x q (Eucherius 
 
 has est hie mundus with D^F"? Q a bfg x q; omest 
 
 R; hie m. est E) 
 + eius (after pullum) BEH a ® 
 om dei (after angeli) EZ* bfq 
 foris (for aforis) FH*T 
 sicut (for quemadmodum) Faustus DE a 
 alis suis FR / (for alas Vulg. ; but Faustus DEH»H0 
 
 LQT a b £j q alas suas) 
 ne (for ut non) R 
 ubi (for ubicumque) solus 
 assimilabitur solus 
 
 13 lampadas(/£>r-des)BFH*OX*Z*/?; exillis (forexeh) 
 
 solus ; sapientes (for prudentes) solus (cfliturg.antiph. 
 ' haec est virgo sapiens et una de numero prudentum ') 
 fatuae autem q 
 
 14 + suis (after lampadibus) DES""^ bf 
 adsumpserunt (for sumps.) solus 
 
 om prudentes . . . oleum solus (putff x has in uasis after 
 secum, continuing prudentes . . . oleum secum) 
 
 15 + suis (after lampadibus 2 ) DH*"WQ b q (but om 
 
 before lampad.) 
 parauerunt (for ornauerunt) solus 
 statuit (for statuet) OR 
 quo (for cum) LQ 
 
 ad dexteram (for a dextris) H^LR a bfq 
 ite baptizate as Faustus 
 
 St. Luke. 
 
 siceram (for sicera) CD3*GIJ®IJKM , 2 QRTVWZ vg 
 
 beffrl rh aur 
 collis et mons (for mons et collis) solus (b om mons et) 
 om in before Spiritu B (not Matt. iii. 11) 
 
 
 Page and Chapter 
 
 
 line. 
 
 and verse. 
 
 2 
 
 45 9 
 
 v. 16 
 
 
 4 6 u 
 
 vii. 5 
 
 3 
 
 119 16 
 
 vii. 24-5 
 
 4 
 
 
 
 5 
 
 
 
 
 34 u 
 
 viii. 22 
 
 
 39* 
 
 xi. 21 
 
 
 108 2 * 
 
 xi. 30 
 
 6 
 
 6i*and 21 xiii. 8 
 
 7 
 
 14" 
 
 xiii. 38 
 
 
 278 
 
 xxi. 7 
 
 S 
 
 129 11 
 
 xxii. 30 
 
 9 
 
 35 1 
 
 xxiii. 27 
 
 10 
 
 24 15 
 
 xxiii. 37 
 
 11 
 
 
 
 12 
 
 io9 a 
 
 xxiv. 20 
 
 
 22 » 
 
 xxiv. 28 
 
 
 I20 ,fl 
 
 xxv. 1-3 
 
 
 45 fl 
 
 XXV. 
 
 7 
 
 16 
 
 5°' 7 
 
 xxv. 
 
 33 
 
 17 
 
 109 12 
 
 xxvi. 
 
 29 
 
 18 
 
 109 18 
 
 xxvi. 
 
 64 
 
 
 67" 
 
 xxviii. 
 
 19 
 
 19 
 
 4 o«) 
 
 I2I 10 f 
 
 >• 
 
 15 
 
 
 I 4 5 
 
 iii. 
 
 4 
 
 20 
 
 I07" 
 
 iii. 
 
 16 
 
IRISH TEXT OF THE VULGATE GOSPELS 175 
 
 Page and Chapter 
 line. and verse. 
 6i ls iv. 1-2 in deserto {for in desertum) C3*GH0IKrOTXZ a b 
 
 dff 2 q rd aur 
 46 s v. 4 mitte {for laxate, al. laxa, d mittite) solus 
 
 om uestra solus 
 33 1 * v. 31 sani {for qui sani sunt) /> af 8 
 
 male habentes (/v qui male habent) f<7/wj 
 
 mitti debet solus {free) 
 
 super (/>?- supra) CEGPQR ac d efi q 
 
 suscipiens DitPHOPQY a dff 2 l*q r 5 aur gig Wordsw. 
 
 {ike rest is freely cited but note cum uidisset e f) 
 ueniens {for cum uenerit) c dft 
 + uacantem fir 
 
 + et ornatam ERW a 2 bfff % i q r 8 cor uat 
 ueterascant {for -cunt) solus 
 accincti c 
 -i 3 iunior c e {for adulescentior) 
 
 om ex illis patri e (illi c) ; the rest is free 
 
 manu {for raanum, and so one cod. ofJSuch.) JFCEG0M 
 
 KTTW abcfilqraur 
 pauper {for mendicus) vett pi 
 
 uidit {for uidebat) ^E^GQIKKTOVWZ vg bfiqS 
 de longe {for a 1.) E m r 
 
 St. John. 
 
 36 23" i. 32 sicut {for quasi) (E)QR {a b e r) but E a b e r have 
 
 the order sicut col. desc, while Euch. QR have Vulg. 
 order) 
 
 quia {for qui) solus 
 
 deus dat {for dat deus) solus 
 
 me misit {for misit me) SFCGNT add ejff 2 I m q 
 
 + patris / 
 
 om festum 1 ° loco, solus 
 
 eum {for ilium) a> m *R 
 
 perhibuit {for perhibet) solus 
 
 om ipso {after me) a b de I Tert 
 
 diabolo patre {for patre diab.) E 
 
 liniuit {for unxit) d (linuit) \cp. superliniuit b (/) / r\ 
 
 + ante me dgatfoss Lucif ITier* 
 
 fuerunt {for sunt) solus 
 
 cor eorum {for eor. cor) vett {but not p. 85 s3 ) 
 
 om a patre D q 
 
 perhibet {for perhibebit) OQRZ c 5 
 
 exiit BCDiPKTT 
 
 remittentur ADKTRSX eff % q r {but codd. A V of Euch. 
 have -tuntur) 
 46 retenta erunt E aur 
 
 A large number of the above cases are very uncertain. 
 
 
 42 3 
 
 v. 38 
 
 23 
 
 3° 4 
 
 A . 19 
 
 24 
 
 121 10 
 
 x. 30 
 
 35 
 
 
 
 26 
 
 47 9 
 
 xi. 25 
 
 27 
 
 
 
 28 
 
 
 
 
 41" 
 
 xii. 33 
 
 29 
 
 45 8 
 
 xii. 35 
 
 30 
 
 122 11 
 
 XV. II- 
 
 31 
 
 
 
 32 
 
 47 15 
 
 XV. 22 
 
 33 
 
 33 21 
 
 xvi. 20 
 
 34 
 
 "3 U 
 
 xvi. 23 
 
 35 
 
 
 
 
 88" 
 
 111. 18 
 
 
 114 s5 
 
 iii. 34 
 
 37 
 
 4 i» 
 
 iv. 34 
 
 
 115 8 
 
 vii. 8 
 
 33 
 
 us" 
 
 vii. 30 
 
 
 138 10 
 
 viii. 18 
 
 39 
 
 
 
 40 
 
 116 10 
 
 viii. 44 
 
 
 I3 20 
 
 ix. 11 
 
 4i 
 
 5 8« 
 
 x. 8 
 
 
 86 a 
 
 xii. 40 
 
 42 
 
 138 1 * 
 
 xv. 26 
 
 43 
 
 
 
 44 
 
 137" 
 
 xix. 35 
 
 45 
 
 i34 38 
 
 xx. 23 
 
176 IRISH TEXT OF THE VULGATE GOSPELS 
 
 It is always possible that Eucherius may have had an Old 
 Latin copy of the Gospels almost by heart, while he sometimes 
 referred to a Vulgate copy before him. But it seems more 
 likely that, like Faustus, he used an Old Latin copy largely 
 corrected to the Vulgate ; for the general testimony of the 
 table is closely parallel to what we learned about Faustus. 
 
 Out of forty-six readings, thirty-seven are Old Latin, 
 thirty are Irish. In twenty-three cases (exactly half) the Old 
 Latin and Irish coincide : 
 
 Old Latin |J ; Irish |§ ; 
 
 Old Latin only ^f ; Irish only ^. 
 
 In twenty cases other MSS. appear (but only one MS. in 
 four of these cases, viz. Nos. 4, 8, 23, 2,8), and in a few cases 
 the reading is a widespread one (viz. 1, 13, 19, 31, 33). In 
 fifteen out of the twenty cases the other MSS. are with both 
 Irish and Old Latin (viz. 1, 4, 8, 11, 13, 19, 31, 23, 34, 28, 32, 
 34, 37, 43, 45). In only two cases (9, 20) are readings sup- 
 ported merely by non-Irish and non-Old Latin MSS. ; the 
 former case is unimportant (forts for aforis)\ the second is 
 supported by one MS. only (B, semi-Irish) and is probably 
 a slip. The various MSS. appear as follows, offering an exact 
 parallel to Faustus in the case of the Vulgate : 
 
 J M; 
 
 D E 3> H"V 
 
 L 
 
 Q R; 
 
 
 B & 
 
 G 
 
 Z 
 
 » 
 
 K KT 
 
 V; 
 
 6 5 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 10 13 11 
 
 3 
 
 11 14; 
 
 
 4 3 
 
 6 
 
 7 
 
 » 
 
 3 8 
 
 2 ; 
 
 C T; OX; 
 
 A 
 
 F H Y 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 65; 64; 
 
 1 
 
 3 5 1 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 Mark, Luke, John 
 Matt. 
 
 a 
 
 7 
 6 
 
 bed 
 7 7 8 
 8 
 
 e 
 
 7 
 
 f ft 
 9 6 
 
 7 
 
 Si 
 4 
 
 * 
 
 5 
 
 5 
 
 q r 8 
 8 6 6 
 9 
 
 aur 
 5 
 
 Total 
 
 13 
 
 15 
 
 
 16 
 
 
 
 
 17 
 
 
 On the Vulgate MSS. no remarks need be made, as there 
 is nothing to be said which was not said with regard to 
 Faustus. As to the Old Latin, the evidence for Matthew is 
 too scanty to make the unimportance of g x noticeable. But/ 
 (that is the ' Italian ' element) is fairly prominent, much more 
 so than it was in the text of Faustus. But this is not 
 enough to offer any real contrast to the evidence from Faustus, 
 
IRISH TEXT OF THE VULGATE GOSPELS 177 
 
 whose Matthew text seemed to be more European, and his 
 John text less Irish, and indeed hardly Vulgate at all. We 
 should expect some considerable difference between the codices 
 used by the two Lerinese monks, whether we regard them as 
 two Gallic texts or even as two books copied at Lerins. But 
 the general witness is certainly practically the same,, and the 
 important point is that it harmonizes perfectly with the scantier 
 witness from St. Vincent of Lerins and from St. Patrick. 
 
 The passages where Faustus and Eucherius meet are few ; see 
 Matt. iii. 12 ; vii. 5 ; and John xii. 40, where there are actually 
 coincidences though unimportant ones. But Matt, xxviii. 19 
 is really remarkable, for Eucherius, like Faustus, quotes * ite 
 baptizate omnes gentes' for ' euntes docete omnes gentes 
 baptizantes eos *. Did their codices really present them with 
 this possibly unexampled corruption of a well-known text ? 
 
 § 5. The origin of the Irish text was from Lerins. 
 
 To sum up. 1. The Irish text of the Vulgate Gospels is 
 a text containing three elements : first, a strain of pure 
 Hieronymian readings which place it in the front rank of 
 witnesses, and which show that it branched off from the other 
 families at a very early date ; secondly, a considerable admixture 
 of Old Latin elements, neither purely ' Italian ' nor purely 
 ' European ' ; thirdly, certain well-known Irish characteristics, 1 
 many of which may have arisen in Ireland. 
 
 2. Similarly, the writers of Lerins in the first half of the 
 fifth century use a Vulgate text which largely agrees with the 
 true text restored by Wordsworth, as their early date would 
 lead us to expect. But there is also a large element of Old 
 Latin readings or reminiscences in their quotations, larger than 
 in the Irish text. Still the greater number of these variants 
 are actually found in the Irish text as well, and they exhibit 
 other variants which are attested by some or all of our Irish 
 MSS.,but by no known Old Latin copies. On the other hand 
 
 1 Viz. * redundantia locutionum ' and ' verborum inversio ', see Wordsworth and 
 White, pp. 713-14, who give under five heads what I have summed for convenience 
 under three. 
 
 CH. v. u. N 
 
178 IRISH TEXT OF THE VULGATE GOSPELS 
 
 these writers show no affinities whatever in their text with 
 any other Vulgate families than the Irish. 
 
 3. St. Patrick, probably a monk of Lerins, shows in his 
 writings just the same phenomena which we have observed 
 in Vincent, Faustus, and Eucherius. His relationship to the 
 Irish text is naturally explained by the supposition that he 
 introduced that text into Ireland in 43a. 
 
 The evidence is in itself by no means conclusive ; but the 
 solution to which it points is one so obvious and expected 
 that the uncertainty of the evidence is of less moment. The 
 independent and ancient character of the Irish text is strongly 
 in favour of this hypothesis, which isolates it already at the 
 beginning of the fifth century. We shall find a still stronger 
 confirmation when in chapter xv, p. 279 we consider the Irish 
 text of the Prologues to the Gospels, a text which alone of all 
 others has preserved the original readings, whereas all the 
 remaining families, Northumbrian, Canterbury, Spanish, &c, 
 exhibit varieties of a single later recension of the Prologues. 
 
 Further, we have seen that a thoroughly corrupt Vulgate 
 text can hardly be presumed at Lerins so early as 410-30 ; the 
 mixed text of Eucherius and Faustus is surely an Old Latin 
 text corrected to the Vulgate, not a Vulgate text corrupted 
 by the Old Latin. And this is in itself a natural presumption. 
 St. Jerome made no new translation of the Gospels, but a 
 revision only. The Old Latin copies in use would be simply 
 corrected according to his revision. The Lerins text (or shall 
 we say the text of South Gaul ? — I think not) was systemati- 
 cally but not thoroughly corrected. It seems that in Faustus's 
 copy the corrector grew lazy when he arrived at the fourth 
 Gospel. 
 
 St. Patrick's copy may have been rather better corrected 
 (unless we prefer to think that Faustus and Eucherius had the 
 Old Latin in their memories); but anyhow the Irish MSS. 
 which we possess to-day have received fresh revision according 
 to the Vulgate (and even according to the Greek) in varying 
 measure. In consequence of this they exhibit fewer Old Latin 
 readings than we found in Eucherius and Faustus ; and 
 whereas some of the readings of those Fathers are found in all 
 
IRISH TEXT OF THE VULGATE GOSPELS 179 
 
 our Irish witnesses, there are others which have survived in 
 only one or two of them. Let us remember that the oldest 
 of our Irish MSS. are nearly three hundred years younger 
 than St. Patrick's mission ; L and Q are seventh to eighth 
 century, D 1 E 3P eighth to ninth, R was completed before 820. 
 If we judge by the evidence of Eucherius and Faustus, L is 
 the most altered from the original type. This is the less to be 
 wondered at if Bradshaw was right in his view that it came 
 originally from LlandafTto Lichfield. 3? has become a better 
 witness through its marginal corrections. Of DEQR on the 
 whole D seems to have preserved the Old Latin element with 
 the greatest fidelity ; and this is the more interesting because 
 this famous e Book of Armagh' contains a Corpus Patricianum 
 of the highest importance, and adds at the end of the Con- 
 fession of St. Patrick the interesting words : ( Hue usque 
 uolumen quod Patricius manu conscripsit sua. Septima decima 
 Martii die translatus est Patricius ad caelos.' 
 
 A further indication that the Irish Gospel text is funda- 
 mentally an Old Latin text vulgatized may be found in the 
 Irish summaries, as found in D3PQ durm. These are essentially 
 Old Latin summaries in the earliest form, and are thus found 
 in cff 2 g x (Matt.) g 2 (Mark, Luke, John) h r aur, &c. The usual 
 form (BJ and CTH0, &c.) is a later and improved edition, 
 though it is as early as St. Hilary ; unless we regard the Irish 
 and c ff % g h form as an adaptation of the usual form to the 
 Greek divisions as found in the Codex Vaticanus. At any 
 rate the Irish form is found in comparatively few Vulgate MSS., 
 and these have mostly got it from the Irish family. 
 
 On the other hand B, £F, and G (in Matt. = gj are probably 
 Gallican MSS. 2 I do not think it by any means certain 
 that they have Irish contamination. It is quite possible that 
 they are descendants of MSS. somewhat of the kind used by 
 Eucherius and Faustus in the fifth century. 
 
 Note. — The view that St. Patrick probably introduced into Ireland the 
 
 1 Some part of D was written in 807 ; see Whitley Stokes, Tripart. Life, p. xci. 
 
 * On 9*" see Berger, Hist, de la Vulg., pp. 91-2, who is obviously right in 
 thinking this Benevento codex to be Gallican in its sympathies, whatever its 
 ultimate origin. 
 
 N % 
 
180 IRISH TEXT OF THE VULGATE GOSPELS 
 
 Vulgate Gospels as used at Lerins may suggest further connexions. I hazard 
 one suggestion. The Irish tradition with regard to the authorship of the Te 
 Deum by Niceta may have come from Lerins. Dom Cagin has established 
 the fact that in many of the most ancient Irish liturgical MSS. this attribution 
 is not given. But it is found in later MSS. in very different places, and 
 their agreement carries us back to a very early date. The tradition is 
 probably true, on other grounds ; and it is evident that Lerins was a place 
 where the truth might well be known in St. Patrick's time. Niceta's 
 friend Paulinus had constant relations with Southern Gaul. This con- 
 jecture is not, so far as I know, susceptible of proof, but it may suggest 
 some line of inquiry. 
 
CHAPTER X 
 THE BODLEIAN 'GOSPELS OF ST AUGUSTINE' 
 § i. The Gospel books brought by St. Augustine to England. 
 
 The Venerable Bede tells us that when St. Gregory the 
 Great sent to St. Augustine a number of helpers, of whom the 
 principal were Mellitus, Justus, Paulinus, and Rufinianus, he 
 sent by them all that was necessary for the worship of the 
 Church, and very many books : 
 
 'Et per eos generaliter uniuersa quae ad cultum erant ac ministerium 
 ecclesiae necessaria, uasa uidelicet sacra et uestimenta altarium, ornamenta 
 quoque ecclesiarum, et sacerdotalia uel clericalia indumenta, sanctorum 
 etiam apostolorum ac martyrum reliquias nee non et codices plurimos ' 
 (H. E., i. 29). 
 
 This passage is quoted by John the deacon in his life of 
 St. Gregory, ii. 37, and (what is more to the purpose) by 
 Thomas of Elmham in his history of the monastery of 
 St. Augustine of Canterbury, titulus ii (Rolls Series, p. 94). 
 Writing about the year 1414, this monk of St. Augustine's, 
 Canterbury, gives a list of the remains of the presents sent by 
 St. Gregory, or of what were in his day considered to be such. 
 In the sixth paragraph he gives the names of the books then 
 preserved : 
 
 1, Biblia Gregoriana. The Gospels in the British Museum, 
 Reg i. E vi, are considered by some to be a fragment of the 
 second volume of this Pandect. This book did belong to 
 St. Augustine's. 1 
 
 %. Psalterium Augustini. Elmham gives a complete list 
 of its contents. These first two books were in the library. 
 
 3. Textus euangeliorunt) in the uestiarium^ ' in cuius principio 
 x. canones annotantur ; et uocatur textus sanctae Mildredae, 
 
 1 A more common, but less probable, identification is with the Bible Reg i. E 
 vii-viii, of the ninth or tenth century. 
 
183 BODLEIAN ' GOSPELS OF ST. AUGUSTINE' 
 
 eo quod quidam rusticus in Thaneto, super eundem textum 
 falsum iurans, oculos amittere perhibetur.' 
 
 4. Psalterium, kept on the High Altar ; the contents are 
 enumerated by Elmham. They correspond with those of the 
 ' Psalter of St. Augustine', Cotton. Vesp. A 1. 
 
 5. Textus euangeliorum 6 in quo x canones praeponuntur, 
 cum prologo, qui sic incipit u Prologus Canonum " \ 
 
 6. On the High Altar a book of the Passions of the Apostles. 
 
 7. Also on the High Altar a Passionarium Sanctorum, 
 
 8. Expositio super epistolas et euangelia^ also on the High 
 Altar. The books thus placed were in splendid bindings of 
 engraved silver or adorned with jewels. 
 
 Thomas ends : * et haec sunt primitiae librorum totius 
 ecclesiae Anglicanae.' On this Plummer (on Bede i. 29) 
 remarks that the primitiae were the books brought by 
 Augustine himself, and not those sent later by Mellitus and 
 his companions. But Elmham is speaking of surviving books, 
 and probably did not intend to assert positively that these 
 individual books were all brought by Mellitus and not by 
 St. Augustine. 1 
 
 It is not certain whether any of these books can be now 
 identified. The Gospels Reg i. E vi are attributed to the 
 eighth century. The so-called Psalter of St. Augustine (Brit. 
 Mus. Cotton. Vesp. A 1) is of the ninth. It is often assumed 
 
 1 Egbert, Archbishop of York (732-66), mentions two books as sent with 
 St. Augustine by St. Gregory, the Antiphonary and the Missal of that Pope : * Nos 
 antem in ecclesia Anglorum idem primi mensis ieiunium (ut noster didascalus beatus 
 Gregorius in suo antiphonario et missali libro per paedagogum nostrum beatum 
 Augustinum transmisit ordinatum et rescriptum) indifferenter de prima hebdomada 
 quadragesimae seruamus . . . secundum ieiunium quarti mensis . . . hoc autem 
 ieiunium idem beatus Gregorius per praefatum legatum, in antiphonario suo et 
 missali, in plena hebdomada post Pentecosten, Anglorum ecclesiae celebrandum 
 destinauit. Quod non solum nostra testantur antiphonaria, sed et ipsa quae cum 
 missalibus suis conspeximus apud apostolorum Petri et Pauli limina' {De in- 
 stitutione catkolica dialogus, Resp. xvi. 1 and 2, P. L. 89, col. 441 ; Mansi, Concilia^ 
 vol. xii. 487). Mr. Martin Rule understands the last words of this passage to refer 
 to the monastery of St. Peter and St. Paul at Canterbury {Missal of St. Augustine's, 
 Cant.) 1896, p. ix). This is, of course, quite impossible. The limina apostolorum 
 implied then what they signify now — Rome. Egbert means to say that his own 
 Missals at York were in accordance with those sent by St. Gregory with 
 St. Augustine, and he proves it by saying that those he had seen at ome gave the 
 same witness. 
 
BODLEIAN 'GOSPELS OF ST. AUGUSTINE' 183 
 
 that Wanley was right in identifying the two textus. euan- 
 geliorum with the since famous ' Gospels of St. Augustine ' at 
 Corpus Christi, Cambridge (cclxxxvi), and in the Bodleian 
 (Bodl. 857 or Auct. D 2, 4). The former certainly belonged to 
 St. Augustine's, Canterbury, a thousand years ago, and they 
 are not later than the seventh century. 
 
 But it is more in fashion to say that they were written in 
 England. In the first place we have the opinion of Samuel 
 Berger. Of the Cambridge volume he says : ' N^anmoins le 
 manuscrit ne vient tres-probablement pas de Rome. Son 
 texte est un texte un peu mete, exempt des grandes inter- 
 polations irlandaises, et qui parait admettre certaines lecons 
 espagnoles remarquables, mais qui, dans le detail, semble tenir 
 par bien des points aux textes irlandais et anglo-saxons/ 
 And in a note : ' Je renvoie pour les preuves a l'ddition de 
 M. Wordsworth, et je me borne a citer Matth. i. 17* : Omnes 
 itaque generationes . . . sunt xlii et Luc xi. 3*: Fiat voluntas 
 tua sicut in caelo et in terra.' Of the Oxford codex he says : 
 ' Le manuscrit n'est pourtant copid, quant a son texte, ni sur 
 le manuscrit de Corpus ni sur son modele, mais il contient 
 plusieurs lecons qui paraissent irlandaises, et il est certaine- 
 ment parent du manuscrit de Corpus^ auquel le rattache plus 
 d'une particularity. Ainsi Matth. xxii. 19, Tun et l'autre ont, 
 pour nomisma y la singuliere lecon nouissima. Le texte de ces 
 deux manuscrits parait £tre a la base du ddveloppement du 
 texte anglo-saxon. Apres ce qui vient d'etre dit, nous com- 
 prendrons que si nos manuscrits portent le nom de St. 
 Augustin, c'est qu'ils proviennent de l'abbaye qui est con- 
 sacr^e au souvenir du grand missionnaire ' (Hist, de la Vulg., 
 pp. 35-6). The last sentence is incorrect. The two MSS. in 
 recent years received the name of St. Augustine because they 
 were believed to be identical with those which, in his 
 monastery, bore his name in the first years of the fifteenth 
 century. 
 
 Mr. H. J. White has adopted Berger's view. Of the Bodley 
 MS. he writes : ' From the point of view of age the MS. 
 might well have been brought to Canterbury by some of the 
 later followers of Augustine, but the text shows it to be of 
 
1 84 BODLEIAN 'GOSPELS OF ST. AUGUSTINE' 
 
 native origin ; it is fairly near to Amiatinus, but has a large 
 number of characteristics partly Irish, partly early Anglo- 
 Saxon ; as Berger says (p. 36) it may be placed at the base of 
 the Anglo-Saxon type of text, and must owe its name not to 
 being the personal property of Augustine, but to belonging 
 to the abbey at Canterbury, which was consecrated to his 
 memory ' (in Hastings, Diet, of the Bible, 1902, art. 'Vulgate \ 
 p. 887 a). Mr. White was capable of giving a far more 
 valuable judgement than was M. Berger, but we see that he 
 has contented himself with paraphrasing the French writer, 
 and has adopted his mistake. I may note that the monastery 
 called ' St. Augustine's ' was * consecrated to the memory of ' 
 , St. Peter and St. Paul. 
 
 Mr. White continues of the Corpus MS. : ' It was, according 
 to tradition, sent by Pope Gregory to Augustine; but the text 
 does not bear out this supposition ; it closely resembles that of 
 the preceding MS., and is really Anglo-Saxon, though it has 
 been corrected throughout in accordance with a MS. of the 
 Amiatinus type \ In fact X c is a good AY text, but this 
 does not help us to discover the origin of X* ; it only shows 
 that it was early recognized by the Canterbury monks that 
 the Eugipio-Cassiodorian text of Jarrow was better than 
 their own. 
 
 Bishop Wordsworth wrote more carefully and prudently 
 in the epilogue to his Vulgate (1898): 'Codices OX, qui 
 Cantuarienses sunt, ex Roma facile ab Augustino aut quodam 
 alio sub finem s. vii. [sic] aduecti credebantur, uel postea a 
 Gregorio Magno transmissi ; uide Baedam . . . Lectiones 
 autem in iisdem proditae huic opinioni non fauent, ut iudicat 
 S. Berger, Hist, de la Vulgate, pp. 35-6. Mixtae enim sunt, 
 et una cum lectionibus antiquis Hieronymianis Hiberna 
 quaedam additamenta et ueterum Latinorum traditiones 
 ostendunt. Iudicium de horum codicum origine maxime 
 difficile est. Non enim penitus a missione Romana separandos 
 credimus : sed opinionem probabilem de eis proferre non 
 possumus ' (p. 706). It is plain enough that the bishop does 
 not think M. Berger's arguments convincing, and that he is 
 only prevented from disagreeing with them because of the 
 
BODLEIAN < GOSPELS OF ST. AUGUSTINE ' 185 
 
 difficulty of establishing the view to which he inclines, with all 
 the certainty he could wish. 
 
 I am constitutionally less cautious, and I will say boldly that 
 I think the late M. Berger's arguments are valueless. 
 
 The examples he gives do not prove his point, and perhaps 
 he meant them merely as curiosities. Of the Corpus MS., X, 
 he says: 'Je me borne a citer Matth. i. 17*: Omnes itaque 
 generationes . . . sunt xlii, et Luc. xi. 2* : Fiat uoluntas tua 
 sicut in caelo et in terra! 
 
 1. Matt. i. 17 has this addition in DH0X*, but in X* sunt 
 {teste Wordswortkio) is omitted ; the addition is also in the Old 
 Latin b c and the Aethiopic. It is not likely that Theodulf 
 (H0) got it from the Irish, as only one Irish MS. has it. Surely 
 it is simply an O. L. reading in X, and it has many such. 
 
 2. Luke xi. a. This interpolation from St. Matthew is 
 in nearly all Greek MSS., as every one knows, and in all O. L. 
 copies except ff 2 (a has only fiat uoluntas tua, b has the African 
 form). It is found in the Vulgate MSS. Bff D2>* OPQRTX* 
 Reg° or A. It is therefore in all the Irish MSS., and this is not 
 surprising, as they have an Old Latin basis. But there is no 
 more reason for supposing X to have borrowed from the Irish 
 than to suppose it of P. 
 
 Of the Oxford MS., O, Berger has: ' Je citerai seulement 
 deux passages de ce MS. Matt. xx. 15* : quod uolo facer e de 
 rem meam. — ib. 28 : Vos autem quaeritis de modico crescere et 
 de maximo minui. Cum autem introeritis, &c. 
 
 3. Matt. xx. 15. Wordsworth quotes X as reading 
 
 quod uolo facer e de re mea, so also^ 2 
 
 dare (sic) mea quod uolo facere QR 
 
 quod uolo facere . . . meis a 
 
 facere de mettm quod uolo f 
 
 facere quod uolo in propriis meis q. 
 Here we clearly have an Old Latin reading, not an Irish one, 
 for the two Irish MSS. do not agree with X, whereas the 
 Italian-African ff 2 does. 
 
 4. Matt. xx. 28. This famous and lengthy interpolation is 
 found (with many varieties) in no Irish MSS., but in the 
 Theodulphian H m 00 as well as in O, and in nearly all the 
 
186 BODLEIAN 'GOSPELS OF ST. AUGUSTINE' 
 
 Old Latin copies : a b c d e ff lt 2 (g ± partly,^ P art ly) n r - 
 The same form as in H^QO is found in the gorgeous 
 Gospels of St. Emmeran at Munich (14,000, Cimelie 55)} 
 Has. this MS. been influenced by O or by 0? 
 
 But it is worth while to gauge more closely what Berger 
 thought to be Irish or Anglo-Saxon readings. From the Biblia 
 Gregoriana above mentioned (Reg i. E vi) he cites five passages. 
 
 5. Matt. v. 5 lugunt It is in AYZ f q. Not Irish certainly. 
 But are we to call AY 'Anglo- Saxon'? As this volume is 
 later than St. Augustine without doubt, it might have been 
 influenced by the spelling of AY, butfq are more probable 
 relations. 
 
 6. Matt, x, 29 Sine patris uoluntate. This is the reading 
 of Cyprian (Ep. 59, 5) and Tertullian (sine dei uolunt., freely) 
 Res. 35 ; sine cuius uoL Scorp. 9, Fug. 3, Cast. 1 ; Ronsch. 
 N.T. Tert. p. 97); k however has been corrected to the 
 Vulgate (sine patre uestro) and d likewise. We find also 
 
 sine patris uestri uol. D Iren 
 sine uol. patris uestri Qa f ff 2 g\ 
 sine uoL patris uestri qui est in caelis b 
 sine uol. dei patris uestri qui in caelis est Q. 
 
 Here the Bibl. Greg, does not agree with the Irish, but with 
 
 an older reading. 
 
 7. Matt. xiii. $$. Nonne hie est fabri filius ? This is the 
 reading of nearly all MSS. Does M. Berger mean that 
 Bibl. Greg, omits the words, with X*Z* ? I think this likely, 
 as a coincidence with Z* is probable. Or did he forget to 
 add Joseph ? This addition is found in the Irish contingent 
 D3PQR with a b ff 2 g x h gat — another O. L. reading. 
 
 8. Matt. xxvi. 9 : praetio multo, with DL^ 2 . The Vulgate 
 has multo only, with dk g x \ BEJY°y"have multo praetio \abq 
 have simply praetio. No one will think J borrows from the 
 Irish text. 2 
 
 1 This MS. is one of the Bibles of Charles the Bald, and was written 870, after 
 his death passing to Saint Denys and to St. Emmeran at Ratisbon, where it was 
 sumptuously bound before c 900. Possibly copied at Corbie, it anyhow belongs 
 to the school of Alcuin. 
 
 9 For J is sixth or seventh century, and Irish influence at Milan or thereabouts is 
 
BODLEIAN < GOSPELS OF ST. AUGUSTINE' 187 
 
 9. Matt. vi. 16: demoliuntur (for the exterminant of nearly 
 all MSS.). Wordsworth reads demoliuntur on the ground 
 that Jerome declares it in his commentary to be the right 
 reading ; probably on the same ground it has been inserted 
 in E2PKG*(Q)R(Z* P). 1 There is no more reason for thinking 
 that Q borrowed from the Irish than that Z did. Still this 
 passage, which I have given last, is the only one of the nine in 
 which the likeness to the Irish MSS. is at all striking. 
 
 Now as to the 'Anglo-Saxon' element : 'Le texte de ces 
 deux manuscrits parait etre a la base du developpement du 
 texte anglo-saxon/ No doubt. But Berger writes almost 
 as if he supposed these two MSS. could have borrowed from 
 Anglo-Saxon MSS. earlier than St. Augustine ! 2 If they did 
 not become contaminated with Irish readings they must have 
 remained pure ; for there was no indigenous element in the 
 seventh century by which they could have been tainted. 
 They are certainly too early to have been influenced by the 
 Cassiodorian Bible brought by Benet Biscop to Wearmouth. 
 Probably they were written before Theodore and Hadrian 
 came to England ; and we do not know that these holy men 
 brought libraries with them. O and X may be the archetypes 
 but cannot be the children of an 'Anglo-Saxon text*. Con- 
 sequently there is no meaning in M. Berger's final conclusion : 
 ' Les textes qui se r^clament du nom de St. Augustin sont de 
 beaux textes et des textes tres-anciens, mais ce sont deja des 
 
 most improbable at so early a date. It is true that the summaries (capituld) of Mark 
 in J are the same as in the Irish, but then the corresponding summaries of J for the 
 other Gospels are based on these Irish-Old Latin summaries. On this question 
 see p. 215. 
 
 1 I cannot but think that Jerome left exterminant, in spite of his strongly 
 expressed opinion. 
 
 3 Some light is thrown on Berger's idea of an * Anglo-Saxon ' text by his words 
 about A: ' Quant au texte lui-meme (of A), celui qui donterait de son caractere 
 anglais n'a qu'a Itudier les variantes que M. Wordsworth a r^unies dans son 
 edition des Evangiles, il y verra que le Codex Amiatinus se plait en la compagnie 
 des manuscrits anglo-saxons et particulierement des fragments d*Utrecht et du 
 Book of Lindisfame, Nous avons deja constate, et nous verrons par de nouveaux 
 exemples, que les copistes saxons ne savaient pas copier un texte etranger sans lui 
 donner, pour ainsi dire, la couleur locale des textes de leur pays/ It seems never 
 to have struck M. Berger that the ' local colour' could not possibly be indigenous, 
 and that precisely it was derived from such foreign MSS. as the parent of A ! 
 
1 88 BODLEIAN 'GOSPELS OF ST. AUGUSTINE' 
 
 textes saxons, ce ne sont plus de purs textes romains/ On the 
 contrary, they are either foreign texts, or else they are foreign 
 texts with Irish readings introduced. The second of these 
 alternatives is certainly not proved. 
 
 Lastly, the explanation that these two books are called 
 1 Gospels of St. Augustine * because they belonged to his 
 monastery is not really false (as we saw), but it is misleading ; 
 for it disguises the fact that these two books were supposed to 
 be two of those which in 1414 were traditionally believed in 
 that monastery to have come down from St. Augustine. The 
 Codex Fuldensis and the Codex Laudianus of Acts are 
 possibly two of the volumes brought to Northumbria by 
 St Benet Biscop, and they still survive. There is no reason 
 why some of the books brought by St. Augustine should not 
 survive also, and they need not be so ancient as E acts and F 
 (sixth century). It is true that Mr. Coxe is said to have 
 declared that O was not written before 650 ; l but even so 
 great a palaeographer is not infallible; and we have just 
 heard Mr. White state emphatically that both codices might 
 well, so far as age is concerned, have been brought by Mellitus 
 and his companions. Mr. E. W. B. Nicholson declares that 
 O might be of the late sixth century. 
 
 I am not concerned to prove that the tradition is true. It 
 seems unlikely, however, that none of the eight volumes revered 
 at St. Augustine's should have been genuine. The four whose 
 bindings destined them to grace the High Altar on Feast days 
 might more easily gain a fictitious importance and a legendary 
 history. 2 The two noble volumes of Gospels are old enough 
 to be what they were believed to be; and I do not think the 
 internal evidence of their readings can be shown to make this 
 impossible. 
 
 1 Quoted iii Plummer's Bedis EccL Hist., vol. ii, p. 56, from Dr. Bright. 
 
 2 Westwood had a theory with regard to the Psalter of St. Augustine (at the 
 end of his description of it, in Palaeographia Sacra Pictoria — a book in which 
 neither the plates nor the pages are numbered — this plate is near the end) that the 
 leaves written in rustic Roman capitals are really of Roman origin, while the text 
 of the Psalter (in Roman uncial, with Saxon illuminated capitals) has been 
 supplied because the original Psalter was worn out. But his view seems not to 
 have been accepted. 
 
BODLEIAN 'GOSPELS OF ST. AUGUSTINE* 189 
 
 § 3. The home of the Bodleian ' Gospels of St. Augustine \ 
 
 But it is said to be a mistake to suppose that O (the Bodleian 
 codex) belonged to Canterbury. In its show-case it is now- 
 labelled : ' Uncial 7th cent, written by a Gallican scribe, and 
 perhaps given to Lichfield about 669 by St. Wilfrid. 1 This is 
 a conjecture based solely on an inscription in a rather early 
 Irish hand upside down at the bottom of fol. i49 v : 
 
 ' Elegit e dns sacerdote sibi ad sacrificandum ei h(ostiam) | laudis ic est 
 sacerdos magnos qui in diebus suis placuit | do confessor sci et sacerdos 
 magni beati see ceadda.' 
 
 Now elegit . . . laudis is a versicle and response, and hie est 
 ( = ecce) . . . deo part of an antiphon, both from the common of 
 Confessor Pontiffs, which any monk would know by heart ; 
 the remainder confessor . . . ceadda is pure nonsense ; it is evident 
 that a scribe was trying his pen or showing another his style 
 of writing. Either St. Chad was his special patron or he was 
 writing on St. Chad's day. But we cannot infer that the 
 codex was given to Lichfield about 669 by St. Wilfrid, or that 
 it had any connexion whatever with Lichfield. 
 
 On the other hand Macray {Annals of Bodl. Libr. y ed. 3, 
 p. 30) suggested that O belonged to the Abbey of Bury St. 
 Edmunds, and Dr. M. R. James approves of this (Ancient 
 Libraries of Cant and Dover, p. Ixviii), on account of some 
 writing on a loose leaf now bound in at the end of the volume. 
 It is half the height of the other pages, and the writing is of 
 the eleventh or twelfth century in English. It runs somewhat 
 as follows: 
 
 pas bocas haue^ Salomon pfst . )>is )>ecodspel traht 
 & }>e martyrluia . & )> al[leluia] & foeglisce saltere 
 & J>e crane (?) $e tropere 
 
 & VJxxXfmertild (?) . }>e at te leuaui . & pistelari • & ]>e • . . 
 5 & ie imnere & ^ captelari ...&)> spel boc . 
 Sigar pfst . )> lece boc . & Blake had boc 
 oeilmer the grete sater do 
 
 & ^e litle troper . for beande . & donatum 
 .xv. bocas 
 
igo BODLEIAN 'GOSPELS OF ST. AUGUSTINE' 
 
 Ealfric . Aeilwine . Godric . 
 io & Bealdewuine abb . & freoden . & hu[. . .] & %uregisel. 
 
 2. leluia has been erased. 3, 4, 5. Italics show where a word has been written 
 over an erasure. 4, 5. Erasures after fe and captelari, 8. do written above 
 donatum. 
 
 This fragment greatly resembles another list of Mass vest- 
 ments and books in the possession of monks at Bury in the 
 time of Abbot Leofstan (1044-65), part of which is given by 
 James (On the Abbey of St. Edmund at Bury, 1895, p. 6). The 
 portion about books runs thus : 
 
 * Blakere haef^ i. winter raeding boc Brihtric haefS i maesse reaf calix 
 & disc & i maesse boc . & winter raeding boc ..& sumer boc . Smerdus 
 haefS an maesse reaf & an maesse boc . and Leofstan an handboc . Aej>eric 
 an maesseboc & capitularia . Durstan an psalter - Oskytel haeftS an 
 maessereaf & an maesseboc & an Ad te leuaui.' 
 
 If Baldwin is really the Abbot of Bury (1065-1097/8), 
 Ealfric and Ailwyne will be the two bishops of Elmham 
 (1039 and 1032) who were great benefactors of the Abbey. 1 
 Who Godric, Freoden, Hugh, and Thuregisilus may have been 
 I do not know. 
 
 On the other side of the fragment is a prayer, preceded by 
 yf and #, for use before the door from the cloister to the 
 church on returning from the lustration of the monastery with 
 holy water — at least we use the prayer so to-day. 2 
 
 The leaf was probably found in the binding of the MS., 
 when its present modern binding was made. If the earlier 
 binding was post-Reformation we can only infer that the frag- 
 ment came from Bury, not that the codex itself was ever in 
 that monastery. 
 
 We are therefore reduced to the internal evidence of 
 the codex itself. Now a seventh-century MS. is more 
 likely to have been at - Canterbury than at Bury. The close 
 connexion between O and X is strongly in favour of Canter- 
 bury. For X, the C.C.C.C. MS., contains two Charters of 
 St. Augustine's Abbey, one of 844, the other of 949^ inscribed 
 
 1 Dugdale, Monasticon (1821), iii. 99 and iv. 1. 
 
 9 Rituale Monasticum sec. usum Congr. Beuron^ Tournai, 1895, p. 15 a. 
 
 ■ The former of these is printed in Westwood's Palaeographia Sacra Pittoria* 
 
BODLEIAN 'GOSPELS OF ST. AUGUSTINE* 191 
 
 on pages which had been left blank. Nothing has ever shaken 
 the extreme probability of the identification of this MS. with 
 one of the two evangeliaria mentioned by Thomas of Elmham. 
 The similarity of the text of O certainly goes far to establish 
 the view that it was the other. It is improbable that either 
 MS. was written in England ; it is consequently highly prob- 
 able that they were imported together. 
 
 Mr. E. W. B. Nicholson thinks there is great resemblance 
 between O and Z (Harl. 1775), though Z is more delicately 
 written and may be somewhat earlier. He attributes both to 
 a Gallican scribe on account of the split horizontal strokes of F. 
 But a Gallican hand might be written in England or at Rome. 
 
 § 3. The early lectionary annotations in O. 
 
 There are three sets of liturgical annotations in O, all of 
 which I copied some years ago from the MS. Having mislaid 
 this transcript, however, I have copied them once more, with 
 the advantage of using a transcript made by the librarian, 
 Mr. E. W. B. Nicholson, which he kindly lent me, of the 
 earlier sets of notes. Without this assistance I should prob- 
 ably have overlooked one or other of them. 
 
 1. The earliest annotator has made but six notes in small 
 and very neat uncials in the margin. The ink is the same 
 faded brown ink which the scribe of the whole codex has 
 used, and the writing seems to betray the same hand, beyond 
 all doubt, in spite of the difference of size. I have asterisked 
 them in the following lists, and have given the notes in small 
 capitals. 
 
 3. The second annotator writes in a scrawling and inclined 
 uncial, especially inclined when he writes in the inner margin ; 
 it is therefore clear that the book was bound when he wrote, 
 and somewhat tightly and newly bound. His ink is very pale 
 yellow. A good many of the letters of his notes have been 
 cut off when the pages have been sheared. These I have 
 supplied in italics. His date is apparently the seventh 
 century. 
 
 3. The third annotator has corrected St. Matthew nearly to 
 the end, and has made coarse crosses to divide the Gospel into 
 
192 BODLEIAN 'GOSPELS OF ST. AUGUSTINE' 
 
 sections. At first sight some of the writing looks like eighth 
 century, and the forms of the letters vary considerably. But 
 Mr. F. Madan has convinced me that the uncial forms are 
 imitative, and that the writer's own handwriting is seen in his 
 note on the interpolation Matt. xx. 28, where he exclaims : 
 c Mirum unde istud additum,' &C 1 His ink is very dark 
 brownish black, and his date probably tenth century. I have 
 copied his notes, since a tenth-century English use, though 
 only extant for St. Matthew, is of some interest in itself. 
 
 I shall cite these three annotators as O*, O a and O b re- 
 spectively. In the following table of O* and O a the incipit of 
 the lesson is not always certain within a line or two, as the 
 marginal Ammonian sections (inserted by the original scribe) 
 have prevented the marginal liturgical notes from being exactly 
 against the commencement of the pericope. Most of the 
 notes are headed by a cross, but no cross is given in the text 
 Wherever a pericope agrees with the modern Roman use 
 (modern but very ancient) I have added R. The Gallican 
 liturgy of Eugipius is designated by N ; the additions by 
 Eugipius himself to the Gallican original are signified by E. 
 B means St. Burchard's Roman additions to the Naples lec- 
 tionary. G means that the pericope is the subject of a homily 
 by St. Gregory the Great. 
 
 {The beginning of the MS, is lost, as far as iv. 14, andviii. 29-ix. 18.) 
 
 vl. 
 
 Incipit 
 
 
 St 
 
 4 
 
 
 3$ 
 
 I 
 
 Matt. 
 
 iv. 18 
 
 in natale sci andree 
 
 
 
 G 
 
 R 
 
 7 T 
 
 it 
 
 x. 1 
 
 in ordi«atio»e episo^i 
 
 
 
 (G)? 
 
 
 8 
 
 )» 
 
 x. 16 
 
 in sco rum 
 
 
 (N) 
 
 
 
 8 T 
 
 J> 
 
 x. 32 
 
 in scorum 
 
 
 
 
 R 
 
 9 
 
 ti 
 
 xi. 2 
 
 de aduentu 
 
 
 N 
 
 G 
 
 R 
 
 10 
 
 »i 
 
 xii. 1 
 
 in x. lect de pe (?) 
 
 
 
 
 
 12 
 
 »1 
 
 xiii. $b 
 
 in sci pauli 
 
 
 (N) 
 
 (G) 
 
 (R> 
 
 n T 
 
 » 
 
 xiv. 23 
 
 octabas set petri 
 
 B 
 
 
 
 R 
 
 if 
 
 )J 
 
 xvi. 13 
 
 in nat sci petri 
 
 
 N 
 
 
 R 
 
 18 
 
 J> 
 
 xvi. 24 
 
 in scot 
 
 
 (E) 
 
 (G) 
 
 R 
 
 23 
 24 
 
 it 
 
 >> 
 
 xx. 17 
 xxi. 10 
 
 de passione 
 
 in dedication* ecc&siae 
 
 (B) 
 
 (E) 
 
 (G) 
 
 (R) 
 
 28 T 
 
 » 
 
 xxiii. 34 
 
 in sci stdkni 
 
 (B) 
 
 
 ■ 
 
 R 
 
 The note is given by Wordsworth in loco. 
 
BODLEIAN 'GOSPELS OF ST. AUGUSTINE' 193 
 
 foL 
 
 Incipit 
 
 
 
 ! 
 
 5^* 
 53* 
 
 
 30 T 
 
 Matt. 
 
 xxiv. 45 
 
 zn confessoru//z 
 
 (B) 
 
 
 
 R 
 
 »» 
 
 it 
 
 XXV. 1 
 
 de martyras 
 
 
 £ 
 
 G 
 
 R 
 
 3* 
 
 it 
 
 xxv. 14 
 
 in martytas 
 
 
 (E) 
 
 G 
 
 (R) 
 
 38 
 
 it 
 
 xxviii. 1 
 
 in nocte sea 
 
 
 N 
 
 
 R 
 
 64 
 
 Mark 
 
 XIV. I 
 
 pas 
 
 
 N 
 
 
 R 
 
 69 
 
 tt 
 
 xvi. 1 
 
 in d5wzea sea 
 
 B 
 
 
 G 
 
 R 
 
 70 
 
 it 
 
 xvi. 15 
 
 ia ascensa 
 
 B 
 
 
 G 
 
 R 
 
 73 
 
 Luke 
 
 i- 5 
 
 In 'uigilias sci iohannis ba- 
 ptiste 
 
 
 N 
 
 
 R 
 
 74 
 
 it 
 
 i. 36 
 
 de aduentu 
 
 
 N 
 
 
 R 
 
 it 
 
 it 
 
 *• 39 
 
 aAwntu 
 
 B 
 
 
 
 R 
 
 75 
 
 }> 
 
 *■ 57 
 
 in natale sci iofi 
 
 
 IN 
 
 
 R 
 
 •76 
 
 J' 
 
 ii. 1 
 ii. 1 
 
 IN NATALE DNI ) 
 in nat diri ) 
 
 
 N 
 
 G 
 
 R 
 
 76 T 
 
 ft 
 
 ii. ax 
 
 in octabas dm 
 
 
 N 
 
 
 R 
 
 78 
 
 )1 
 
 iii. 1 
 
 de aduentu 
 
 
 N 
 
 G 
 
 R 
 
 87 T 
 
 ») 
 
 vii. 19 
 
 ad n n (aduentam?) 
 
 
 
 
 
 I25 T 
 
 )) 
 
 xxiv. 1 
 
 in secunda firia 
 
 
 (N) 
 
 
 
 
 »» 
 
 xxiv. 13 
 
 in tertt'a firia 
 
 
 N 
 
 G? 
 
 
 130 
 
 John 
 
 i. 1 
 
 in natale d»* 
 
 
 
 
 R 
 
 130* 
 
 n 
 
 i. 19 
 
 de aduentu 
 
 B 
 
 
 G 
 
 R 
 
 131 
 
 it 
 
 i. 29? 
 
 in uigili&s sci andree 
 
 
 
 
 R 
 
 *i 44 
 
 ti 
 
 vii. 14 
 
 IN M£DIO PENTICOSTE 
 
 
 
 
 
 '152 
 
 11 
 
 x. 22 
 
 IN DIDICATIONE 
 
 
 
 
 
 *r6o T 
 
 jj 
 
 xiv. 15 
 
 W SAB BATO PETECOSTE 
 
 B 
 
 
 
 R 
 
 "161 
 
 t, 
 
 xiv. 23 
 
 IN PENTICOSTE 
 
 B 
 
 
 G 
 
 R 
 
 *i6r* 
 
 ti 
 
 xviii. 1 
 
 PASSIO 
 
 
 N 
 
 
 R 
 
 JNOTES. 
 
 Matt. x. 1. St. Greg. Horn, iv, on x. 5-10. 
 
 „ x. 16. In apostolorum N. 
 
 ,, xiii. 3 b. In XLgisima pascae N (read LX ?} xiii. 1. On Luke viii. 4 G. 
 
 , y xvi. 24. In unius martyris E (on Luke ix. 23 G). 1 
 
 „ xx. 17. In Lxxgisima ebd. iii feria iiii B (on Luke xviii. 31 G). 
 
 „ xxi. 10. In ded. S. Stephani E. 
 
 „ xxiii. 34. Item alia B (after xxiii. 29 In S. Stephani N). 
 
 ,, xxiv. 45. In sancti Grigori, B. 
 
 „ xxv. 14. In nat. S. Ianuarii, £. For Confessors R. 
 Mark xvi. 15. Begins at 14 BGR. 
 Luke xxiv. 1. (For the Saturday N ; Bede has a homily for this pericope.) 
 
 1. The six notes by O* show two divergences from the 
 Roman use. John x. 22 in didicatione is paralleled by the 
 Gallican, Lux, and Bob, and by Ambros. Are we to conclude 
 
 CH. V.G. O 
 
194 BODLEIAN 'GOSPELS OF ST. AUGUSTINE' 
 
 that the scribe was Gallican, as Mr. Nicholson suggested ? x 
 The attribution was at all events very obvious : ' Facta sunt 
 autem encaenia in Ierosolymis.' 
 
 Luke ii. i in natale dhi is common to all uses. John xviii 
 pdssio is equally inevitable. But it should be noted that 
 the Gallican, Ambrosian, and Mozarabic liturgies are inclined 
 to read scraps and centos rather than the whole Passion from 
 each evangelist. 
 
 The three Pentecost notes are more definite. The Vigil of 
 Pentecost is unknown to Lux, Bob, g, Goth ; we saw that 
 Eugipius introduced it into his Gallican lectionary ; it seems 
 therefore to be not early Gallican. The lessons for feast and 
 vigil are the Roman lessons, whereas for Whit Sunday Lux, 
 Bob, Ambros, M, r s Naples, have the Roman pericope of the 
 vigil. 
 
 John vii. 14 in medio penticoste is very interesting. This 
 pericope, * iam autem die festo mediante/ is in the middle of 
 Lent in the Gallican use, 2 viz. : 
 
 Saturday after fourth Sunday Naples (Eugipius). 
 Fourth Sunday Mozar, Cdmic. 
 
 Tuesday after fourth Sunday Modern Roman. 
 
 But the Greek use, at least as early as the fifth century, 
 placed this pericope on the twenty-fifth day after Easter. 
 Traces of this use are found in the West An early Ambrosian 
 list gives the Wednesday after the third Sunday after Easter 3 ; 
 the feast is given also in M (seventh to eighth century, Milan 
 or thereabouts) and / (eighth century, Aquileia). But it is 
 
 1 Above, p. 191. 
 
 9 See more on this question by Mr. C. L. Feltoe and Mr. F. £. Brightman in 
 J. T. S., vol. ii, p. 130 (Oct. 1900), especially on the Saturday of the mediana 
 hchdomada as an Ordination day. 
 
 s That published by Pamelius, Liturg. Lot. , i, pp. 368-9. In the note just 
 mentioned on In mediante die festo in J. T. S,, p. 134, Mr. C. L. Feltoementions 
 three Ambrosian Sacramentaries described by Ebner (Quellen und Forschungen y 
 pp. 76, 93, no) of the ninth to the twelfth centuries containing a Mass after 
 Easter for this feast, with the Gospel John vii. 14. Of these Sacramentaries, one 
 places the feast between the second and third Sundays after the Octave of Easter ; 
 in another it occurs in a gap after the second Sunday after Easter, but is followed 
 by the Thursday after Easter ; in the third it. is between the third and fourth Sundays 
 after Pentecost. (See the references given by Mr. Feltoe.) The occurrence of the 
 feast in the notes to M, O, and / was not known to Mr. Feltoe. 
 
BODLEIAN 'GOSPELS OF ST. AUGUSTINE' 195 
 
 above all interesting to note with Dom Morin that the eighty- 
 fifth sermon of St. Peter Chrysologus, bishop of Ravenna, was 
 preached on the media Pentecostes} Thus, though we have 
 no proof that it was known at Rome, at least it is not Gallican 
 or Spanish, but was early in the use of Milan and Aquileia, and 
 was kept at Ravenna in the fifth century. We must conclude 
 that the six notes by the original scribe of O are rather Italian 
 than Gallican. As O has an element of likeness to J, these 
 notes may have been derived from a North Italian archetype, 
 but it is more natural to suppose that the scribe himself fol- 
 lowed a more or less Roman use. 
 
 2. The system of O a is incomplete, but perfectly Roman. 
 There is only one coincidence with N alone, Luke xxiv. 13, 
 and on all the great feasts N and 0° are at variance. 
 « For Advent six lessons are given, if Luke vii. 9 is for Ad- 
 vent ; but this lesson is a mere duplicate of Matt. xi. a. The 
 remaining five are the actual Roman Gospels for Advent, 
 omitting the first Sunday, viz. second Sunday, Matt. xi. % ; 
 third Sunday, John i. 19 ; Ember Wednesday, Luke i. 26 ; 
 Ember Friday, Luke i. 39 ; Ember Saturday and fourth 
 Sunday, Luke iii. 1. The coincidence is interesting, as show- 
 ing the antiquity of our present scanty Advent Masses. 2 
 St. Luke is not annotated from iii. 1 to xxiv. 1 (except for the 
 incorrect note at vii. 9), so that the absence of Luke xxi. 35 for 
 the first Sunday is probably accidental. There are Homilies 
 of St. Gregory for Luke xxi. 25, Matt. xi. a, John i. 19, and 
 Luke iii. 1, i.e. for the four Sundays. 3 
 
 Two of the Christmas Masses are marked by O , viz. the 
 first and third. But when he wrote in nat dhi under 0*'s *# 
 natale dhi a little after, ii. 1, he probably made a blunder, in- 
 tending to mark the incipit of the second Mass Gospel a few 
 lines further on, at ii. 15. The Roman Gospel for St. Stephen 
 
 x Dom G. Morin in Revue BSnid. t 1889, p. 201 (U antique solenniti du 
 mediante diefesio). 
 
 2 We saw that St. Burchard's Advent was incomplete. 
 
 3 Horn, i, vi, vii, xx. The later titles call them homilies for the second, third, 
 fifth Sundays, and Ember Saturday ; i and vii were preached in St. Peter, vi in 
 SS. MarceUinus and Peter, xx in the Lateran. The statio for the third Sunday 
 is, in fact, in St. Peter's, but the others do not correspond. 
 
 O 2 
 
196 BODLEIAN 'GOSPELS OF ST. AUGUSTINE' 
 
 is given, and the inevitable Gospel for the octave of Christmas 
 (called in Gaul ( Circumcision \ but not at Rome). The Gospels 
 for Christmas Eve, Epiphany, and Holy Innocents were no 
 doubt duly marked in the lost pages at Matt. i. 18, ii. i, and 
 ii. 13. But the feast of St. John (or of James and John) is 
 absent. 
 
 Lent is non-existent. But the Passion is set down in 
 Mark and John, and the Roman pericopae are duly set 
 down for Easter Eve and Easter. It is impossible to say 
 whether the system was contented with lessons for the two 
 great feasts after Easter, Monday and Tuesday ; for the rest of 
 the week may have been supplied from Matt, xxviii and John 
 xx-xxi which are not annotated. But the use differs from the 
 Roman ; for the Roman lesson for Easter Monday, Luke 
 xxiv. 15, appears on Tuesday 1 — an almost solitary agreement 
 with the Naples use ; and the Monday lesson, xxiv. 1, is not 
 in the Roman Missal. Ascension Day, however, has the 
 Roman (not the Gallican) pericope, Mark xvi. 15 (14). The 
 notes of O* for Pentecost and its vigil, being Roman, were 
 probably accepted by 0°- 
 
 St. Andrew and St. John Baptist with their vigils have the 
 Roman lessons, not the Gallican as Eugipius had, and the 
 same is true of St. Peter and his octave. Probably the vigil 
 of St. Peter, like the feast of St. John, should be marked with 
 R in John xxi, where the annotator has not worked. 
 
 The pericope for St. Paul seems at first sight unique. But it 
 is not meant for the feast of January a5> which was not Roman 
 but Gallican in origin, but for Sexagesima Sunday, the Collect 
 for which is of St. Paul, while the Epistle recounts his labours.* 
 The Gospel is now (and was in St Gregory's time,cp. Horn, xv) 
 Luke viii. 14, the Parable of the Sower, most suitable to the 
 great Apostle who sowed the Word of God among the 
 
 1 St. Gregory's twenty-third homily is on this Gospel, but the inscription in 
 crastino paschae is later. 
 
 1 Mgr. Duchesne {Origines du Culte Chrit.^ p. 281, note) explains the absence 
 of an early Roman feast of St. Paul alone by saying : ' We must bear in mind, 
 however, that the Roman mass for Sexagesima is really a mass an honour of 
 St. Paul.' But I think this is the first time an order has been published in which 
 it is actually called in sancti Fault* 
 
BODLEIAN ' GOSPELS OF ST. AUGUSTINE' 197 
 
 Gentiles. 0° simply substitutes the parallel passage of St. 
 Matthew, xiii. 3. Thus we get a parallel for the addition by 
 Eugipius of Matt, xiii as in XLgisima pascae (we should read 
 Sexagesima) to his Gallican liturgy, and so O 6 and Ambros. 
 
 The dedication feast is not in the Roman office to-day, 
 Matt. xxi. 10 ; it is another parallel to Eugipius's additional 
 feasts (in dedicatione S. Stephani). In ordinatione episcopi is 
 paralleled by a homily of St. Gregory (iv, de Apostolis) 1 but he 
 begins only at verse 5, after the enumeration of the Apostles 
 is completed. It may have been preached at an ordination, 
 for the Pope first thunders against simony among the clergy, 
 and then turns to the people, 'Vos, fratres carissimi, quos 
 saecularis habitus tenet, cum quae sint nostra cognoscitis, 
 mentis oculos ad uestra reuocate.' 
 
 Three pericopae are given as in sanctorum, Matt. x. 16, 33, 
 xvi. 24. All these are very obvious and usual. The Roman 
 pericopae for Martyrs are x. a6 t 34, and xvi. 24, while the 
 passage of St. Luke x. 1 corresponding to Matt. x. 16 is for 
 Evangelists and Confessors. For Confessors Matt. xxiv. 45 (?) 
 is found in the Roman Missal as Matt. xxiv. 42, which may be 
 meant here. 
 
 Of two pericopae, de martyr as xxv. 1 and 14, the former is 
 evidently for Virgins, as in the Roman use ; the latter is now 
 used for Confessors. 
 
 I subjoin a table of the agreements with the pericopae used 
 by St. Gregory. 1 
 
 
 
 0°. 
 
 
 St. 
 
 Greg 
 
 
 No. of 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 Horn* 
 
 Second Sunday of Advent 
 
 Matt. 
 
 xi. 
 
 2 
 
 
 
 
 vi 
 
 Third 
 
 John 
 
 i. 
 
 19 
 
 
 
 
 vii 
 
 Fourth „ „ 
 
 Luke 
 
 iii. 
 
 1 
 
 
 
 
 XX 
 
 Christmas Day 
 
 »> 
 
 ii. 
 
 1 
 
 
 
 
 viii 
 
 Sexagesima (in S. Pauli) 
 
 Matt 
 
 xiii. 
 
 3* 
 
 ** Luke 
 
 viii. 
 
 4 
 
 XV 
 
 Quinquagesima (de passione) ? 
 
 » 
 
 XX. 
 
 17 
 
 " »> 
 
 xviii. 
 
 3i 
 
 ii 
 
 Easter Day 
 
 Mark 
 
 xvi. 
 
 1 
 
 
 
 
 xxi 
 
 Easter Tuesday (Monday ?) 
 
 Luke 
 
 xxiv. 
 
 13 
 
 
 
 
 xxxiii 
 
 ' It looks as though certain pericopae had been purposely shifted from Luke to 
 Matthew in the archetype, in order to avoid using a volume containing Luke, or 
 because part of that Gospel was damaged or lost. But Matt, xiii is paralleled 
 in Ambros N and O b , as above. 
 
J98 BODLEIAN ' GOSPELS OF ST. AUGUSTINE' 
 
 0°. St. Greg. No. of 
 Horn. 
 
 'Ascension Day Mark xvi. 15 {v. 14) xxix 
 
 Pentecost (O*) John xiv. 23 xxx 
 
 St. Andrew Matt. iv. 18 v 
 
 Consecration of a bishop „ x. I (v. 5) iv 
 
 Martyrs (St. Agnes) „ xxv. 1 xii 
 
 Martyrs (St. Silvester Conf.) „ xxv. 14 ix 
 
 Martyrs (in scorum) „ xvi. 24 «= Luke ix. 23 xxxii 
 
 The remaining homilies of St. Gregory offer no divergences 
 from 0°, and no agreements ; the only discrepancies in the table 
 are those for Quinquagesima (?) and Sexagesima. Where we 
 can be certain of St. Gregory's use, it agrees like O a with R. 
 
 To sum up : we found St. Burchard's codex supplementing 
 the Neapolitan lectionary with a Roman use ; we now find a 
 Roman use inscribed in O in the seventh century. It agrees 
 with the rare interpolations made by Eugipius in his Gallican 
 lectionary, and with the Homilies of St. Gregory the Great. 
 It is therefore a Roman use of the sixth century. The octave 
 of St. Peter suggests Rome itself, and so does the name of 
 ' St. Paul's day ' given to Sexagesima Sunday, for the solemn 
 station of that day was held in San Paolo fuori Ie mura. 
 
 Only the inevitable St. Stephen and St. John Baptist appear 
 among the saints, together with the ancient feast of St. An- 
 drew, with its vigil. No Roman martyrs appear, (not even 
 St. Laurence), nor St. John, the vigil of St Peter and his 
 chair — all these and some martyrs (for whom a commune 
 sanctorum is provided) and confessors (e.g. St. Silvester) were 
 kept as certainly as Lent was kept, but the entries are incom- 
 plete. But let us note that all the principal days are given 
 (the page containing the Epiphany is lost). We might infer 
 that St. Andrew, with vigil, was one of the greater feasts ; but 
 it is perhaps going rather far to suggest the conclusion that 
 the list originated in the mother abbey of the English Church, 
 St. Andrew's on the Caelian ! 
 
 But at least we have arrived at two probable conclusions : 
 
 I. O* the original scribe of the codex, wrote not in Gaul 
 but in Italy or England ; or at least took his six liturgical notes 
 from an Italian exemplar. 
 
BODLEIAN 'GOSPELS OF ST. AUGUSTINE 1 199 
 
 %. 0°, not long afterwards, inserted a purely Roman litur- 
 gical use in the margin. 
 
 These points cannot in any way prove that the MS. O 
 has any connexion with the mission of St. Augustine; but 
 they are perfectly in harmony with such a supposition. O* 
 may perfectly well have lived in a Roman abbey. O a may 
 quite easily have been a seventh-century monk of SS. Peter 
 and Paul at Canterbury. Consequently we may sum up the 
 probabilities or possibilities as follows : 
 
 and X are descended from a common progenitor, judging 
 by the coincidences in their text. In the Prologues also they 
 show close relationship. X belonged to St. Augustine's Abbey 
 at Canterbury. O may quite well have belonged to the same 
 library ; at any rate it is closely related to the Canterbury MS. 
 
 There is no reason for thinking that either has any Irish 
 contamination in its text Though related to the AY text, 
 their date is too early to have been contaminated by it in 
 England. 
 
 An Italian or Roman origin is postulated for the archetype 
 of X by the classical ornamentation of its picture of St. Luke. 
 The liturgical notes by the original scribe of O are Italian, if 
 not Roman. The seventh-century notes of 0° give a purely 
 Roman system of lessons. 
 
 The writing of Z resembles that of O. The Prologues in 
 O, X, and Z are extremely close in type. The Gospel text of 
 Z is dissimilar, but may have influenced O. 
 
 § 4. The later lectionary annotations in O. 
 
 The tenth-century annotations by O 6 are all between Matt, 
 viii. 33 and Matt. xxv. 1, except for a solitary note on fol. 158, 
 which runs thus: 'hoc euangeliuw legitur in cena dni ad 
 colationem . sicut consuetudines docent ; ' A large + before 
 John xvii. 1 and another at the end of the chapter define the 
 portion to be read. This note shows that O 6 was a monk. 
 
 1 do not vouch for the following table as absolutely com- 
 plete ; it is difficult also to be sure of the incipits. ' R ' points 
 out identity with the Roman lessons. In most cases I have 
 left the lessons for verification by professed liturgiologists. 
 
aoo BODLEIAN ' GOSPELS OF ST. AUGUSTINE ' 
 
 6* 
 
 Matt 
 
 . viii. 23 
 
 Dom iiii p' theopli (iiii above line) 
 
 R 
 
 7 
 
 jj 
 
 ix. 23 
 
 FRvi 
 
 
 t> 
 
 )» 
 
 ix. 27 
 
 in sa . . . xii t 
 
 
 » 
 
 it 
 
 ix. 32 
 
 FR 
 
 
 8 
 
 1* 
 
 x. 16 
 
 de martyr . 
 
 
 ii 
 
 ti 
 
 X. 22 
 
 FR 
 
 
 « 
 
 ** 
 
 x. 25 <$ 
 
 nnius mf 1 
 
 
 9 
 
 11 
 
 xi. 1 
 
 dom de aduentu dni 2 
 
 (xi. 2) R 
 
 10 
 
 » 
 
 xL.25? 
 
 de sapientia 
 
 
 12 
 
 » 
 
 xiii. 3 /' 
 
 dom . in . lx . 
 
 (R) 
 
 13 
 
 j> 
 
 xiii. 24 
 
 FR xxiii 
 
 
 *3 T 
 
 j* 
 
 xiii. 31 
 
 FR 
 
 
 14 
 
 11 
 
 xiii. 44 
 
 de uirginib. s 
 
 R 
 
 H r 
 
 » 
 
 xiv. 22 
 
 in tvtabas apta petri et pauli 
 
 R 
 
 i6* 
 
 j> 
 
 XV. 21 
 
 m in . ii . et m xl 
 
 
 i8- 
 
 
 
 unitu max 
 
 
 i8 T 
 
 jj 
 
 xvii. 1 
 
 $aBb . i . xl 4 
 
 R 
 
 19 
 
 jj 
 
 xvii. 14 
 
 in xii t B 
 
 
 i 9 T 
 
 ii 
 
 xvii. 24 
 
 FR 
 
 
 » 
 
 jj 
 
 xviii. 1 
 
 de sco mihaele 
 
 R 
 
 20 
 
 jj 
 
 xviii. 15 
 
 i . xl FR . in ^ ebd. iii 6 
 
 R 
 
 20 T 
 
 jj 
 
 xviii. 23 
 
 dom . xxii . p* pent \ 
 
 (xxxi R) 
 
 2I T 
 
 jj 
 
 xix. 13 
 
 ad paruulos 
 
 
 22 
 
 jj 
 
 xix. 27 
 
 iafisto sci petri 
 
 
 22*" 
 
 »* 
 
 XX. I 
 
 in dom . lxx 
 
 R 
 
 33 
 
 ij 
 
 xx. 17 
 
 FR iiii in . XL 
 
 
 23 
 
 JJ 
 
 xx. 20 
 
 de iac[obo] 
 
 R 
 
 n r 
 
 JJ 
 
 xx. 29 
 
 in sabU . xii . f p' pent. 
 
 
 H 
 
 
 
 dom . i . in aduentu dni 
 
 
 24 
 
 JJ 
 
 xxi. 10 
 
 in • i . FR . i . . . in . x , • . 
 
 
 a 4 T 
 
 JJ 
 
 xxi. 18 
 
 FR 
 
 
 I* 
 
 II 
 
 xxi. 23? 
 
 FR 
 
 
 25 
 
 JI 
 
 xxi. 33 
 
 FR . vi . in XL . in . ii . 
 
 R 
 
 26 
 
 JI 
 
 xxii. 1 
 
 dom xx . p" pen 
 
 (xixR) 
 
 26 T 
 
 J* 
 
 xxii. 15 
 
 dom . xxv p' pt 
 
 (xxii R) 
 
 27 
 
 JJ 
 
 xxii. 34 
 
 BB . xviii . dom -p' ptn 
 
 (xviiR) 
 
 39 
 
 II 
 
 xxiv. 1 
 
 de martlb; 
 
 
 29* 
 
 i» 
 
 xxiv. 26 
 
 FRvi 
 
 
 3 o T 
 
 71 
 
 XXV. 1 
 
 de uirginib; 
 
 R 
 
 The Lenten system is correctly Roman. The fourth 
 Sunday after Epiphany is also right, and so are some minor 
 points. But Dom. prima in aduentu Domini^ about the end of 
 
 1 A + after 32 and after 33 (by homoeotel.). 
 
 ■ A + at xi. 1 ; dom and dni are added by this annotator to the uncial de aduentu 
 of the earlier liturgist, who meant xi. 2. 
 8 A + after 52. * A + after 13. 
 
 * A + after 20 a (uestram). 8 A + after io # another after 14. 
 
BODLEIAN 'GOSPELS OF ST. AUGUSTINE' 201 
 
 xx or beginning of xxi, is strange ; and so is xix. 37 in festo 
 S. Petri. 
 
 The Sundays after Pentecost are not quite in harmony with 
 the Roman usage. The English use preserved the officium 
 (introit, &c.) of the Roman Missal, but introduced new Collects, 
 Epistle, and Gospel for the third Sunday, and shifted all the 
 others one place. The introduction of Trinity Sunday in the 
 eleventh or twelfth century shifted all the Sundays one place 
 further. Thus in the Sarum Missal and in the Benedictine 
 Westminster Missal the numbers run with R for the Gospels, 
 Matt, xviii. 33, xxi. 1, and xxi. 34, but they are counted from 
 Trinity Sunday and from the Octave of Pentecost respectively, 
 not from Pentecost. O b represents an intermediate stage, i.e. 
 Matt, xviii. 23 = R twenty-first Sunday = O 6 twenty-second 
 = Westminster twenty-third after Pentecost, and so forth. 
 In the eleventh-century Leofric Missal (Exeter) and in the 
 twelfth-century Missal of St. Augustine's at Canterbury 
 the Gospels are not given, but by the c Octave of Pentecost ' 
 the Saturday after Pentecost is meant. In the latter book, 
 therefore, the numbers should tally with O 6 , but that there is a 
 disturbance in the order from the seventeenth Sunday onwards. 
 In the Leofric Missal the Masses are shifted by the interpola- 
 tion of a new Mass for the first Sunday. From the eighteenth 
 Sunday onwards we find the same disturbance as in the Can- 
 terbury book, only one Sunday later, and the Roman Collects 
 for the twenty-first Sunday appear on the twenty-fifth, thus 
 suggesting that there was a chance coincidence in the Gospel, 
 Matt. xxii. 15, with OK 1 
 
 Possibly ad paruulos (xix. 13) is a direction for private 
 reading, and also de sapientia (xi. 25). There is a Mass * ad 
 impetrandam sapientiam ' in the Missal of St. Augustine's 
 and in the Leofric Missal. 
 
 Matt. xvii. 1 for the first Saturday of Lent is Roman, but 
 
 1 The Roman collects for the twenty-third Sunday appear at Canterbury on the 
 seventeenth (Leofr. eighteenth) ; there are new collects for the eighteenth ; then 
 R sixteenth appears on C nineteenth, R seventeenth on C twentieth, &c, but R 
 twenty-fourth on C twenty-fifth, R twenty-second being omitted. In O's time 
 there was no disturbance until after the twenty-second Sunday. 
 
%o% BODLEIAN 'GOSPELS OF ST. AUGUSTINE' 
 
 the other Ordination Saturdays are not, viz. Matt. ix. 27 in 
 sa . . . xii I, xvii. 14 in xii I. If these could mean in sancto 
 duodecim lectionum the explanation would be simple, for semi- 
 doubles and doubles have twelve lessons in the monastic office, 
 for the Roman nine. But they seem to be meant for the 
 Ember Saturdays of Advent and September. The fourth is 
 xx. 29, in sdbb. xii. I. p* pent., and this lesson is found for that 
 day in the Westminster Missal. These Saturdays were called 
 1 of twelve lessons ', because (as Amalarius explains, De EccL 
 Off., ii. 1) the six lessons at the Mass were once read in Greek 
 also. Note that ix. 37 like xx. 29 is the account of the healing 
 of two blind men. 
 
CHAPTER XI 
 
 THE VULGATE TEXT OF ST. GREGORY 
 THE GREAT 
 
 § i. Analysis of the text used by St. Gregory in his Homilies, 
 
 To the forty homilies of St. Gregory the Great are prefixed 
 the Gospels on which he comments. The Benedictine edition 
 of these appears on the whole fairly to be relied on. The 
 editors have given some various readings in the notes, and 
 the comments in the homilies themselves are able to establish 
 certain readings with security. 
 
 The following table gives pretty well all the readings which 
 differ from Wordsworth's text. Where the Old Latin evidence 
 is omitted by Wordsworth, I have supplied ab f ff % g x q, and 
 sometimes d k and others. 
 
 Book I. 
 Horn. i. Luke xxi. 25-32 
 
 1 27 in nubibus SFHOZ c efff 2 il qr Ambr 
 
 Horn. ii. Luke xviii. 31-44 
 
 2 31 duodecim + discipulos a (-lis) bfff* i r cor ua£* (ex Matt. xx. 17) 
 
 + suos Greg solus (?) 
 Hierosolymam {for -ma) {fere omnes) 
 
 3 34 erat autem [for et erat) KOVWX*Z aur 
 
 4 38 exclamauit {for clamauit) a d efff % r 
 
 5 42 et dixit ill! Iesus Greg et respondens d.i.lad cff % i I 
 
 Horn. iii. Matt. xii. 46-50 
 
 6 49 discipulos + suos BDE^FH^JKLBTR (suo) TVWX*Z vg abcdf 
 
 #1,3 g\hkq 
 
 7 50 om et before frater DEKLQWX C Z vg a dfg x k q 
 
 Horn. iv. Matt. x. 5-10 
 
 8 10 est enim {for enim est) CEH'HJKTY a b dfg x q 
 
 Horn. v. Matt. iv. 18-22 
 Horn. vi. Matt. xi. 2-10 
 
 9 2 ex(/^de)D^j^i 
 
 10 10 est enim (for enim est) BDE3 3 0KLNTQRTVWX*Z vgfff x q; 
 
204 THE VULGATE TEXT OF ST. GREGORY 
 
 Horn. vii. John i. 19-28 
 1 1 26 nescitis {for non scitis) CDEGHRT vg cor uat mg,c f I qh aur Aug 
 ia 27 om ego DERX* q Cypr 
 
 13 soluere {for ut soluam) ab efq r Cypr 
 Horn. viii. Luke ii. 1-14 
 
 14 2 apraeside {for praeside) BCD^HQIKLKTOQRTVWYZ vgbcff % F 
 
 5 aur 
 
 15 4 + in before ciuitatem abed eff 2 I qr 
 
 16 7 ei {for eh) ff'D3 , KLW 
 
 17 8 super (for supra) BDS^LPW vg a 
 
 18 13 caelestis + exercitus DL (cp. cor uat) 
 
 19 14 hominibus {for in hom.) ST>a>H0KLKrPQRTWY vg a b c e f \f 2 
 
 I qr aur 
 
 Hom. ix. Matt. xxv. 14-30 
 
 20 17 similiter + et DHLQW vgaf(ff^) g 1 q 
 
 I 21 20 tradidisti mihi {for mihi trad.) 3PRTW vg {so antipk.for Conf.) 
 
 2 2 om. et before ecce CI>EH0KLQR«« ! TVWX*Z vga bfff 2 g l q {so antiph. ) 
 
 23 21 super (3 d0 , for supra) ABCDE^FejLOQRTVWY vga bfff 2 g t 
 
 24 23 super (2<*>, for supra) CDEiTO*© JLKTQRVW vg bff 2 g t 
 
 25 24 om et {after es) BCDEJKLKTRTVWXZ vg a bfff % g x 
 
 27 dare {for mittere) / (but three MSS. of Greg, have committere with 
 DF0LOQRVWX*Z a bfq) 
 
 26 ego ueniens {for uen. ego) KR/^" 2 
 
 Hom. x. Matt. ii. 1-1 2 
 
 27 1 Iudae (for Iudaeae) CDKLNTQRVWXZ / 
 
 28 5 Iudae (for Iudaeae) CDFHKLKTRVWZ/^i h* 
 
 29 6 regat EH>*H C @JRTWX* corr uat mg Hieron vgab dfg t q 
 
 Hom. xi. Matt xiii. 44-52 
 
 30 47 + piscium ABDE3 > ©KM'0 C QRTVWXYZ vga be efff x , % g v hqr^ 
 
 31 51 utique {for etiam) a bfg l q 
 
 Hom. xii. Matt. xxv. 1-13 
 Hom. xiii. Luke xii. 35-40 
 
 32 35 + in manibus uestris EW vg cor uat* c Cypr 
 
 33 39 quoniam (for quia) ASFH0MQWXY vg cor uat mg 
 40 + ideo Greg solus (?) 
 
 34 ueniet {for uenit) ABE , GH I 0JKQT ffl ?VWX*Y vg 5 
 
 Hom. xiv. John x. 11- 16 
 
 35 1 1 ponit (for dat) KOQX*Z aefl aur cor uat { l graecusj antiqui ') 7ert 
 
 (Cypr) Lucif Cal Ambr 
 
 36 ■ + suis a*T>EH> m *0KOQTVWXZ vg b eff 2 r aur cor uat 
 
 37 12 + autem T vg Cypr uett exc a aur 
 
 38 14 + ones c ef aur cor uat* (not mg.) 
 
 39 15 + meis CDEG*H0IKMKTOQSTVWXZ vguett exc add 
 
 Hom. xv. Luke viii. 4-15 
 
 9 interrogant (? misprint) Greg solus 
 
 40 12 quod (for qui) ef 
 
THE VULGATE TEXT OF ST. GREGORY 205 
 
 41 hi sunt qui EH©X a WZ vgabc eff 2 Iqr Orig 
 
 42 13 quod (for qui) e 
 
 43 + hi snnt/^ 2 q (r) aur 
 
 44 15 +cecidit£(/) 
 
 Horn. xvi. Matt. iv. i-i I 
 
 45 6 mandauit (for mandabit) ABDEH>FLQRWXYZ* a b d f ff x g v k 
 
 Hieron 
 8 assumpsit paene omnes (exc AFM Y) 
 
 46 9 omnia tibi (for tibi omnia) EQRTWZ 1 vga.b dfff x g x k 
 
 Horn. xvii. Luke x. 1-9 
 
 47 6 ilium (for illam) PT C cor uaf* (et in mg ' alii illam ') vg a df q 
 Horn, xviii. John viii. 46-69. 
 
 48 46 arguet (for -it) CG0JKTWX vg uett rell (exc 8) 
 
 49 47 ex deo est (fir est ex d.) QR vgaff % q r 
 
 50 49 inhonorastis (for -atis) A(E)H > FH0IK(M)RTVWX c Z vgelS Aug 
 
 51 50 quaerat et iudicet (for -it et -at) CH^IKOTWX* vgac efff % l c q 
 
 our Aug (op. H*KFQZ*) 
 
 52 52 mortem non gustabit (for non gust, mor.) W (e) I Aug 
 
 Horn. xix. Matt xx. 1-16 
 
 53 4 dixit illis (for illis dixit) 3POR vg aff 2 
 
 54 + meam C^HQJLKTOQRTW afff % g x 
 
 55 7 +meamBE3 )m '0LOQRTWXa£//2<rx 
 
 56 16 enim sunt (for sunt enim) CEH0KOQTW vgfff*g x 
 
 57 uero (for autem) EH^HO^QR vgff 2 
 
 Horn. xx. Luke iii. 1-11 
 
 58 a domini (for dei) DH>GH0IJKLKTRVWXY vg c df 2 q r aur Ambr 
 
 59 8 potens est (for potest) H0KMX vgac d efff 2 Iqr Iren (ter) Ambr 
 
 60 9 arboris (for arborum) KXZ 
 
 61 + bonum Si , CDS , H 1 0IJKLNrRTVWZ vgbcd effff Iqrt 
 
 62 excidetur ffCD3>H0IJKKrOPQRTVW Y vga b c defff 2 lq r 5 aur Iren 
 
 63 mittetur ff CD^H0IJKNTPQRTVWZ a vg a b c efff % IqSaur Iren 
 
 Book II. 
 Horn. xxi. Mark xvi. 1-7 
 
 64 4 uiderunt a wi »H 1 0IKM , OQRVWX*Z vg l c q 5 
 
 65 6 dixit (for dicit) di c it X dixit L dk 
 
 66 7 praecedet (for -dit) H0W 
 
 Horn. xxii. John xx. 1-9 
 ,67 1 uidit (for uidet) DEa ) H0IJKVWzif cor uat b q r 8 aur gat Aug 
 2 dixit (for dicit) Greg solus 
 (diligebat ? with dff 2 gat) 
 
 68 4 prior (some AfSS. t and so text of homily, fir primus) CTW a b c dfff t 
 
 q r aur 
 
 69 9 scripturas (for -am) T (/) aur 
 
 70 oporteret AAEH )n H'H0IJRSWX o Y/«?r uat 
 
3o6 THE VULGATE TEXT OF ST. GREGORY 
 
 Horn, xxiii. Luke xxiv. 13-35 
 
 71 16 illorum CG0IJKORTVWX 1 Z vgff*laur 
 
 72 30 tradiderunt eum (for eum trad.) BCDH > 0JKOQRTVWX*Z S aur 
 
 73 21+ est (before hodie) B^EHQKKTOQTVWXZ vg cor uat abfl aur 
 
 74 24 inuenerunt (MSS.pl, but two MSS. uidenrat as Vulg) A£F3»FGH0IK 
 
 MM'O (in super tin.) VWXY vg 
 
 75 25illosEa/ 
 
 76 26 om ita F a c d eff% r $ 
 
 77 28 +se(a/&rfinxit) A*HOK MX Y b cfj), aur 
 
 78 31 ab oculis (for ex oc.) Greg, solus (?) 
 
 79 34 quia (for quod)/ 
 
 Horn. xxiv. John xxi. 1-14 
 
 80 1 + discipnlis suis ab c df q r 
 
 81 4 om iam after autem c e r 
 6 +et Greg solus 
 
 82 prae (for a) B0KOVWX*Z vgabefqr aur 
 
 83 7 + ergo Bde q 
 
 84 12 discumbentium ABa , CDE3 , FH 1 0IKKTOSTVWXYZ vg c aur Aug 
 
 85 14 discipulis + suis B310RTW vgbcdfr Aug 
 
 Horn. xxv. John xx. 11-18 
 
 86 14 uidit (for uidet) ffDEH^FG'HOIKMKTRTVW vgcql aur Aug 
 
 87 17 om et before deum meum CE0 vg a efjfc* Aug 
 
 Horn. xxvi. John xx. 19-31 
 
 88 19 die ilia (for die illo) a bfr 5 Aug 
 
 89 +cong«gati BEH©IKM KTOVWXZ 3 vgcfrh Aug 
 
 90 in medio + eorum M gat 
 
 91 20 cum hoc (for hoc cum) ff , AE3 , KVWX*Z vgc efjf% Aug 
 
 92 22 dixit (for dicit) CH0T <w uat mgfq Aug 
 
 93 24 de (for ex) E3 ,n WMR at c r aur 
 
 29 me + Thoma. cor uat mg(sedcancellatum est in codue. ,.)vg(cp.antiph. 
 for feast of St. Thomas') 
 
 Horn, xxvii. John xv. 12-16 
 
 94 13 ponat quis (for quis ponat) G0M vg Aug (so antipk.) 
 
 95 15 dicam (for dico) SWY* (ut uidetur) q Jren codd (Massuet) 
 
 faciat (for facit) BCE (faciet) ff l F0JKKTQRTVWXZ vg a c efq r 
 5 Iren Aug 
 
 Horn, xxviii. John iv. 46-53 
 
 96 47 ueniret (for aduen-) Greg solus 
 
 97 53 quia (for quod) [all but AA3?FHMQSXY quod, and add quoniam] 
 
 dixerat (for dixit) solus 
 
 Horn. xxix. Mark xvi. 14-20 
 
 98 14 eorum D3PMQY vg 
 
 99 crediderunt (for -rant) D5PLNTQR vg 
 
 100 18 aegros (for aegrotos) BDIJKOQRVWX*Z vg 
 
 101 19 quidem + Iesus BH^KLKTOTVWXZ vgcoqlaur 
 
 102 sedet (for sedit) BKLW 
 
 Horn. xxx. John xiv. 23-31 
 
THE VULGATE TEXT OF ST. GREGORY 207 
 
 Horn, xxxi, Luke xiii. 6-13 
 
 103 8 didt (for dixit) vgfq 
 
 104 cophinum stercoris (for stercora) NT vett (exc e d 5) 
 
 105 12 uideret {for uidisset) CD5P"^JMQRTZ* vg cor uat bff 2 i I 
 
 Horn, xxxii. Luke ix. 23-7 
 
 106 24 et {for nam) R a 
 
 salaam earn faciet (for saluam faciet illam) Greg solus [earn DR 
 dfjfcrf] 
 
 107 25 prodest hommi (for proficit homo) c f (b d e I prodeest) si totum 
 
 mundum lucretur Greg solus (totum a c d e) om ipsum bff 2 / r 
 
 Horn, xxxiii. Luke vii 36-50 
 
 108 36 Pharisaeus (for ex Pharisaeis) G a bff 2 Iqr aur 
 
 37 [quod + Iesus (some MSS. of Greg.) E r cor uat* Ambr\ 
 
 109 accubuisset {for recub-) ff KKTOVXZ 5 cor uat* 
 
 I io 39 qualis + est SFKKTVWZ vgaqr aur ( after mulier H0X b cfeor uat*) 
 in 41 quingentos + et DKOP(?)QVWXZ vg afff 2 1 q r aur 
 
 112 42 diligit {for diliget) ffEHQIJKKTOPTVW vg dfff 2 I q aur (dilegit 
 
 D5PQ) 
 
 113 44 lacrimis + suis D bcfq 
 
 1 14 47 remittuntur {for -tentur) ffDEJKKTOVWZ vga r 5 aur 
 
 115 48 peccata + tua E gatfff % I 
 
 Horn, xxxiv. Luke xv. 1-10 
 
 1 16 7 agente (for habente) ^Ea*® (post ras) IKKTRVWX*Z vg c dff 2 c r aur 
 
 117 8 decem + et Eadelr 
 
 [euertit cum codd. paene omnibus] 
 
 1 1 8 inuen iat + earn c r 
 
 Horn. xxxv. Luke xxi. 9-19 
 
 119 13 contingent BDG 
 
 haec nobis Greg solus [nobis haec D (I r) *] 
 
 120 17 omnibus + hominibns Q cfff 2 i q r gat cor uat* 
 
 Horn, xxxvi. Luke xiv. 16-24 
 Horn, xxxvii. Luke xiv. 25-35 
 
 121 26 esse discipulus (for disc, esse) AEIPG0IKTQRWXY vg aur 
 
 122 28 habeat (for habet) BS^KKTOVZ vg a 
 
 123 29 uiderint ( for uident)/ 1 
 
 Horn, xxxviii. Matt xxii. 1-13 
 
 1 24 4 occisa + sunt Q a bfff 2 
 
 135 6 contumeliis (for -elia) BH 1 ® vgfcor uat mg 
 
 13 ligatis manibus eius et pedibus (for ligatis ped. eius et man.) corr uat 
 [man. et ped. eius B vg; man. et ped. DELR] 
 
 126 14 enim (for autem) RW vgfff 2 9 
 
 Horn, xxxix. Luke xix. 42-7 
 Horn. xl. Luke xvi. 19-31 
 
 127 21 + et nemo illi dabat KTW / m (from xv. 16) 
 
 128 23 uidit (for uidebat) ffEa > G0IKM , OVWZ vg bfiql aur 
 
 139 28 in hunc locum (for in locum hunc) BCGKT vgac d eff % Imr 
 
ao8 THE VULGATE TEXT OF ST. GREGORY 
 
 § %. St. Gregory's influence on the Vulgate. 
 
 From very early times St. Gregory's homilies have been 
 read in the liturgy of the Church, and in the Roman Breviary 
 a part of most of them still appears. They have consequently 
 exercised an effect on the history of the Vulgate, such as no 
 other external influences have been able to exert. The above 
 table supplies some interesting instances of this. 
 
 i. To begin with the latest, the sign vg occurs oftener than 
 the name of any MS., except W and / (vg6^, f 67, W 64). In 
 Wordsworth and White's edition this stands for the agreement 
 of the Sixtine and Clementine Vulgates, and the editions of 
 Stephanus (1546) andHentenius (r547)« It represents, there- 
 fore, the current text, which is based upon that of the later 
 middle ages. I think no one will hesitate to decide that the 
 agreement with St. Gregory is not fortuitous but intentional, 
 The authority of the great Pope (and also the frequent 
 repetition in the Office of his sermons, so that both scribes 
 and correctors had them by rote) caused the text he used to 
 be reverenced and accepted as a standard. 
 
 2. If proof is needed, let us note the extraordinarily fre- 
 quent occurrence of the sign cor uat — twice in the homilies 
 on Matthew, ten times in Luke, eight times in John. This 
 refers to the correctorium in MS. Vat. lat. 3466 (called N by 
 Vercellone) of the thirteenth century. It is quite clear that 
 the corrector habitually noted (sometimes in the margin) 
 where the reading of St. Gregory disagreed. If we assume 
 that the current Clementine Vulgate roughly represents the 
 Paris correctoria of the same century, we shall be in a position 
 to infer that the correctors of the Paris University exhibited 
 a similar respect for what they might well consider to be the 
 Roman official text of c. 600 a.d. 
 
 3. Similarly in W— the codex of William of Hales, of 
 Salisbury, written in 1254 — we find, as I have said, no less 
 than sixty-four agreements with St. Gregory against Words- 
 worth, and this cannot be the result of chance. 
 
 4. It is by no means astonishing that we are able to trace 
 the same phenomenon in earlier ages. A corrector of the 
 
THE VULGATE TEXT OF ST. GREGORY 209 
 
 ninth century, Theodulph, bishop of Orleans, did the same 
 that his successors did in the thirteenth — he corrected his 
 Vulgate text to the norm of St. Gregory the Great. He had 
 a Spanish text to work upon. Now our Spanish MSS. C 
 and T give twenty-five and forty-one agreements with St 
 Gregory, so that in the latter codex some accidental influence 
 of St. Gregory's homilies is already to be assumed. But 
 St. Theodulph's MS. gives no less than forty-eight 
 agreements. The Theodulphian MS. H has a Northumbrian 
 (AY) text of the Gospels on the whole, but it gives twenty- 
 nine agreements, and the Theodulphian corrector has added 
 ten more, making thirty-nine, as against nine in A and sixteen 
 in Y. 
 
 5. The Alcuinian codictes KKTV give fifty-three, thirty-four, 
 forty ; their basis is Northumbrian and Irish. The Irish 
 (that is, the Old Latin) element in them necessitated a con- 
 siderable agreement with St. Gregory, but it is wholly by 
 chance ; except, obviously, in K, the Bible of Grandval, called 
 also Codex Karolinus> where we find a most evident assimilation 
 to St. Gregory's readings. 
 
 These extremely interesting facts are paralleled by another 
 of equal interest. It will be seen that in the case of the 
 homilies on St. John there are no less than fifteen agreements 
 of St. Gregory with St. Augustine ; yet the evidence of the 
 Old Latin MSS. shows that St. Gregory's text has otherwise 
 the same character in St. John as elsewhere. It may be urged 
 that it is in the fourth Gospel alone that we can adequately 
 restore the text used by the bishop of Hippo ; and this is no 
 doubt true. But yet St. Augustine's Old Latin text is con- 
 spicuously more African than the Italian text of St. Gregory. 1 
 It is, on the other hand, certain that St. Gregory's theology 
 
 1 St. Gregory agrees with e very often, but then e is not a purely African, but 
 a late Italianized African text. The agreement with Cyprian in Horn, xiv is a 
 case where all the Old Latin agree. In Horn, vii, of the three agreements with 
 Cyprian not only nescitis is in Augustine, but soluere also ; for the Benedictine 
 text of Tract, iv in loann, 9 gives ut soluam once and soluere once. Similarly it 
 gives cuius ego non sum digitus once, and non sum. dignus ego once ; but this may 
 be St. Augustine's own alteration. After all the text of both doctors is uncertain ; 
 but the coincidences of St. Gregory with St. Cyprian are merely accidental. 
 
 CH. V.G. P 
 
2io THE VULGATE TEXT OF ST. GREGORY 
 
 was modelled upon Augustine, and that his exegesis is pro- 
 foundly influenced by him. It is evident that the Pope has 
 used St. Augustine's tractates on St. John in composing his 
 own homilies, and that he has modified his text to suit that of 
 the earlier doctor. 
 
 § 3. St. Gregory and the ' Canterbury Gospels '. 
 
 We must now analyse the results of the table of readings. 
 There are extremely few readings which are not supported by 
 one or two at least of the Old Latin copies. On the other 
 hand four of the homilies offer practically no variant from the 
 text of Wordsworth and White (viz. v, xxx, xxxvi, xxxix), 
 four show but one variant each (i, iv, xii, xvii), and two have 
 two variants (iii, xxxv). St. Gregory's well-known statement 
 that the Roman Church accepted both the Old Latin and 
 St. Jerome's version is exemplified by his practice, for he 
 mingles the two elements. 
 
 The following table gives the totals for the four Gospels of 
 the appearances of the various MSS. : 
 
 
 A A H S 
 
 Y 
 
 F 
 
 O X 
 
 Z 
 
 8 2 
 
 3 
 
 I7 1 
 
 7 1 
 
 35* 
 *4 a 
 
 J M P 
 
 Matthew . . . 
 Mark .... 
 Luke .... 
 John .... 
 
 3 $ 
 
 5 I3 a 
 2 3 8* 4 
 
 5 
 1 
 8 
 3 l 
 
 4 
 
 2 
 4 
 
 5 3 9 l 
 
 3 4 
 
 13 i3 a 
 
 8 12 1 
 
 7 
 
 1 1 
 
 11 4 7 
 4 6 l 
 
 Total 
 
 10 3 29 10 4 
 
 I7 1 
 
 10 
 6 
 
 29" 38* 
 
 23H 1 7 
 
 (Luke and John) 
 
 7 3 a* 4 4 
 
 11 1 
 
 21 25 s 
 
 15 io 1 7 
 
 
 D E a> L Q R 
 
 Bff G 
 
 KKTV 
 
 © 
 
 11 
 
 3 
 
 19 
 
 15 
 
 C T 
 
 W vg 
 
 Matthew . . 
 Mark . . . 
 Luke . . . 
 John . . . 
 
 13 15 n a 13 14 18 1 
 
 3 2 1 4 4 3 
 15 11 13 1 7 12 13 
 
 7 15 5 5 5 9 
 
 8 
 
 3 
 
 8 16 9 
 
 5 5 5 
 
 xi 8 9 
 
 4 3 3 
 25 17 18 
 13 6 10 
 
 9 *3 
 
 8 13 2 
 8 14 
 
 19 17 
 
 5 i 
 24 26 
 
 16 16 
 
 Total 
 
 38 41 31* 24 35 43 1 
 
 24 21 14 
 
 53 34 40 
 
 48 
 34 
 
 25 4* 2 
 
 64 63 
 
 (Luke & John) 
 
 22 26 18* 7 17 22 
 
 13 21 14 
 
 38 23 28 
 
 16 27* 
 
 40 43 
 
THE VULGATE TEXT OF ST. GREGORY an 
 
 
 a b c d efffzg^hiklq r (8) aur 
 
 Matthew . . . 
 Mark .... 
 Luke .... 
 John .... 
 
 16 13 2 6 1 23 14 18 2 5 10 
 
 211 I0 1 2 21 
 23 15 21 13 17 25 16 6 20 1 20 23 7 18 
 13 11 16 6 16 19 15 6 3 17 14 11 12 
 
 Total 
 
 52 41 40 26 34 67 45 18 2 6 6 26* 49 37 20 31 
 
 (Luke and John) 
 
 36 28 37 19 33 44 31 6 26 s 37 37 18 30 
 
 A small figure (thus 7 4 ) means corrections by a later hand, e. g. H x or H°. 
 
 The Old Latin MSS. are only fully given in Luke and 
 John, but the Codex Brixianus f, the typical ' Italian type \ 
 always takes the lead ; ac e q r are not far behind ; ff 2 would 
 be almost by the side of f in all probability, were it not for its 
 lacunae. 
 
 In considering the Vulgate families we will put aside W, vg y 
 H 1 ©, K, as being influenced by St. Gregory's text. The same 
 is perhaps the case with E in St. John, as its extraordinary 
 agreement here only is otherwise inexplicable. The sudden 
 rise of 3P in Luke is less remarkable. 
 
 The Eugipian families AASYF do not appear often, because 
 they are so near to Wordsworth's text. The North Italian J 
 is more prominent. 
 
 We expect the Irish family DE3*LQR to show a large 
 proportion of agreements with St. Gregory, on account of its 
 Old Latin element ; but in spite of this the family is not more 
 prominent than the Spanish T and the Canterbury OX. It 
 will be remembered that in the case of Faustus and Eucherius 
 the numbers attached to the symbols of the Irish MSS. were 
 far larger than the rest, and equalled the most prominent of 
 the Old Latin codices. Further we were able to infer a decided 
 connexion between those writers and the Irish text, not only 
 by the coincidence of both parties with the Old Latin, but by 
 their agreement in a large number of readings which are not 
 found in any existing Old Latin MS. In the present case the 
 fairly large agreement of St Gregory with the Irish text is 
 simply due to the fundamentally Italian character of that text. 
 
 But O, X, and Z showed little agreement in the case of 
 Faustus and Eucherius. In the present case these three MSS. 
 
 P % 
 
aia THE VULGATE TEXT OF ST. GREGORY 
 
 are as prominent as the Irish, in spite of the fact that they 
 contain a smaller Old Latin element. When we have put 
 aside W0KT as being all more or less influenced by St. 
 Gregory's Homilies, OX and Z take their place by the side of 
 the Irish MSS. in the first place. That is to say, such Old 
 Latin elements as OXZ contain are very much those which are 
 found in St. Gregory. 
 
 In other words, there is no reason to suppose that the Old 
 Latin element in O and X is borrowed from Irish MSS., but 
 they have it in common with St. Gregory, though far less of it 
 that the Pope has. 
 
 On the other hand it is now O, now X, alone, which agrees 
 with St. Gregory ; they had a common ancestor ; it seems 
 to be the most plausible hypothesis to conjecture that the 
 common grandfather of both had a far larger Old Latin 
 element than either, and therefore had a far nearer resemblance 
 to St. Gregory's text. The actual numbers (omitting E) are 
 
 as follows : 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 O 
 
 X z 
 
 D H> 
 
 L Q 
 
 R 
 
 Matthew 
 
 5 
 
 9 8 
 
 13 n 3 
 
 13 14 
 
 18 
 
 Luke and John 
 
 21 
 
 25 24 
 
 22 IS 
 
 17 
 
 22 
 
 In Matthew the two Canterbury MSS. agree but little 
 with St. Gregory, but in Luke and John they surpass the Irish, 
 and indeed all (not counting W, K, 0, E) except T and V, 
 This phenomenon is best explained by supposing that the 
 archetype (or the immediate parents) of both MSS. have been 
 corrected according to St. Jerome in the first Gospel, but 
 much less in the others. There is no reason for thinking that 
 (on the contrary) the later Gospels have received Irish 
 interpolations. 
 
 If the two Canterbury MSS. have a text in Luke and John 
 which retains considerable traces of the mixed Vulgate and 
 Old Latin used by St. Gregory, then the same is true of Z. 
 There is so much textual resemblance here and there between 
 X and Z that I cannot help suspecting some link between 
 them. It has already been pointed out that O and Z are 
 similar in the style of writing, 1 and that the text of the Pro- 
 
 1 Seep. 191. 
 
THE VULGATE TEXT OF ST. GREGORY 313 
 
 logues in OXZ is extremely uniform. We have put aside the 
 idea that there is Irish blood in O and X as not proven; it 
 would be just as easy to assert Irish relationship for Z. This 
 codex is apparently of the sixth century, and therefore could 
 not have been written in England by the heathen Saxons. Pre- 
 sumably it was written in Italy. It was stolen from the Paris 
 Library by Jean Aymon. I venture to conjecture that Z is 
 really one of the books brought to England by St. Augustine 
 or his companions, though its history is quite unknown. As to 
 O and X there seems no strong reason to doubt that either they 
 are Italian books brought by St. Mellitus or else that they 
 are very early copies of such books, written while the Italian 
 hand was still in use at Canterbury. The original of the well- 
 known picture of St. Luke in X is not merely Italian, but 
 probably goes back to an early date. 
 
 On the other hand it must be admitted that the evidence 
 from St. Gregory is negative. Yet I venture to draw the 
 following conclusions : O and X are evidently first cousins. 
 The immediate parent of each has been corrected (though in 
 different ways) to agree better with the Vulgate : 
 
 Mixed Archetype 
 
 (O 1 ) (X 1 ) 
 
 I i 
 
 But in spite of this there remains a certain Old Latin 
 element, agreeing with St. Gregory. That the archetype 
 agreed still more is merely a probability — but it is quite a 
 probability. I see no reason why that archetype, with its fine 
 figure of St. Luke, should not have been at the Abbey of 
 St. Andrew on the Caelian Hill when St. Gregory was Abbot. 
 
 § 4. The Canterbury text and the Northumbrian text* 
 
 We heard M. Berger declare that the two Canterbury 
 MSS. are not only at the base of the Saxon text of the 
 Vulgate, but that they are themselves to be considered Saxon 
 texts. He probably meant that there is no little resemblance 
 between the Canterbury Gospels and the AY text of North- 
 
214 THE VULGATE TEXT OF ST. GREGORY 
 
 umbria. The fact at least is incontestable ; the agreement 
 of both O and X* with AY is frequent and striking. 
 
 Now X has actually been corrected into agreement with 
 AY after it was written. But it is inconceivable that OX 
 should have been written in England so late that their parents 
 had already been corrected in England according to the AY 
 text, for the Cassiodorian archetype of that text was only 
 brought to Monkwearmouth by St. Benet Biscop in the year 
 678. Allowing a few years for the fame of the Northumbrian 
 text to spread to Canterbury, we should have to place the 
 writing of these two MSS. not earlier than 700, a date at 
 which one would expect some English (i.e. Irish) influence 
 would be traceable in the writing of the Canterbury school, 
 either in the letters or at least in the ornamentation, for the 
 monastery of St. Peter and St. Paul had then flourished 
 a hundred years. 
 
 But influence from the AY text is natural enough at 
 Rome. Both Eugipius and Cassiodorus had an immense 
 reputation. When a half-Old Latin MS. was to be cor- 
 rected at St. Andrew's on the Caelian, we should not be 
 surprised if a Eugipian or a Cassiodorian codex was em- 
 ployed for comparison. It is a simple hypothesis to suppose 
 that the respective parents of O and X received their AFY 
 element in this way. X especially has also been contaminated 
 by the JZ family — an Italian family — very likely by Z itself. 
 
 These conjectures receive strong support from the text of 
 the Prologues, where Z and O and X are so close together, 
 and so close to Y. We shall see * that it is the Y Reg text 
 of the Prologues, and not that of A, which must represent the 
 Cassiodorian text, a text which Cassiodorus presumably 
 obtained from Eugipius. Now the likeness of the Gospel text 
 of OX to that of AY need not be dissociated from the likeness 
 of the Prologue text of OX to that of Y. Sincg the text of 
 OX is fundamentally Old Latin, corrected into a good Vulgate 
 text by a codex of the AY type, the Old Latin ancestor 
 would not have had the Prologues, and we know that they are 
 wanting in the Italian J and Z, as in M. It remains therefore 
 1 Chap, xv, pp. 279-80. 
 
THE VULGATE TEXT OF ST. GREGORY 21$ 
 
 that the parent of OX received the Prologues from the AY 
 codex according to which it was corrected to the Vulgate. 
 
 To sum up these conjectures, whose only merit is that they 
 appear to fit the facts : 
 
 1. O, X, and Z are closely connected, since O and X must 
 be derived from a single ancestor, X and Z have readings in 
 common, and O and Z belong to the same school of calli- 
 graphy. 
 
 a. As X was already at St. Augustine's at Canterbury as 
 early as 844, and as none of the three MSS. was probably 
 written in England, it is likely that all three came at one time 
 from one place, and all to Canterbury. 
 
 3. This would naturally be with Augustine or Mellitus, who 
 are known to have brought books. The date tallies, since 
 the consensus of opinion seems to place O and X about the 
 year 600, and Z perhaps somewhat earlier. 
 
 4. The general agreement of St. Gregory's text of the 
 Gospels with OX confirms this, and the classical figure of 
 St. Luke in X is in favour of a Roman origin. 
 
 5. The likeness of OX to AY — often so striking — cannot 
 be explained by contamination in England, so that it is most 
 probable that the ancestor of OX was an Old Latin codex, 
 corrected to the Vulgate by means of a codex of the AY text, 
 obtained either from the workshop of Eugipius or that of 
 Cassiodorus, and from this MS. the Prologues of XZ, so like 
 those of Y, were borrowed. 
 
 6. The common parent of OX probably greatly resembled 
 the text used by St. Gregory. The immediate parent of each 
 has received independent correction (that of X partly by Z or 
 by a relation of Z). 
 
 These, I have said, are conjectures, and are very far from 
 being proved. I put them forward as a contribution towards 
 the solution of a problem which interests me greatly. 
 
 Additional note on the summaries of] and OX. The summaries for 
 Matthew are lost in O and X. J has two sets of summaries. The one 
 set is called capitula in Matthew and breues in the other Gospels ; the 
 other set is called breues in Matthew and capitula in the other Gospels. 
 
 1. The latter are in J only, so far as I know. They are based upon the 
 
ai 6 THE VULGATE TEXT OF ST. GREGORY 
 
 Old Latin and Irish summaries found in cff 2 h r g x g i9 and in D3>Q and 
 the Gospels of MacDurnan (of course in Mark, Luke, and John of G) ; 
 but these Old Latin summaries have been rewritten and greatly improved 
 in J. I have remarked in an earlier chapter that these summaries are 
 almost unknown in Vulgate MSS., except the Irish, and that this helps 
 us in our view that the Irish MSS. are fundamentally Old Latin, and 
 only superficially Vulgate. 
 
 2. The other set of summaries in J is very often found, and is diffused 
 in many countries. It is known in two forms in Matthew, Mark, and 
 Luke, of which the second is mainly Spanish. The MSS. giving a revised 
 form are in brackets in the following table. St. Hilary gives a summary 
 very close indeed to the revised form : 
 
 Matthew J (cap) B (C) T 
 
 Mark Jidreu) OX (C T 0) 
 
 Luke ]\breu) OX B (C T) © 
 
 John ](dreu) O X 3> C T 
 
 To these may be added more Spanish MSS., such as leg 1 * a , aem, osc, 
 comply also Paul, of course puy ; and of the Old Latin, ^J for Matthew 
 only. Long lists of MSS. will be found in Berger, Hist de la Vulg., 
 pp. 355-6, iii. 1 and 2 (many of the latter list have a different summary 
 for John, Pharisaeorum leuitae). Thus we find these summaries in Gaul 
 (3> ?, B, Hilary), in Spain, in Theodulph, and in Italy (JOX). They are 
 closely related to the Irish-Old Latin ones ; all seem to be from one 
 original. On their connexion with the Greek see Berger, op. cit., 
 pp. 311-12. 
 
CHAPTER XII 
 
 THE FOUR PROLOGUES : THEIR TEXT AND 
 THEIR MEANING 
 
 § i. The text of t/te Prologues. 
 
 In discussing the history, the authorship, the meaning of 
 the ' Monarchian ' Prologues, it will be so often necessary 
 to refer to their text and the MS. readings that for con- 
 venience I print them here at length, with a selection of 
 variants from the Critical Notes of Wordsworth and of 
 Corssen. 1 I have restored roughly the Irish text found in 
 D3?Q and also in A, but not in E. We shall see that this 
 text has almost always preserved the true reading, more often 
 even than Bishop Wordsworth thought. Where the Irish 
 reading is obviously a mistake or a correction I have italicized 
 it, giving in the note the true reading in capitals. The MS. 
 evidence will be fully discussed in Chapter XV. 
 
 Argumentum Matthei. 
 
 Mattheus ex Iudaeis 1 sicut in ordine primus ponitur, ita 2 
 euangelium in Iudaea primus scripsit, cuius uocatio ad dominunft 
 ex publicanis actibus fuit, duorum in generatione Christi 
 principia praesumens, unius cuius prima circumcisio in carne 4 , 
 alterius cuius secundum cor electio fuit ; et ex utrisque in 
 patribus Christus 5 . Sicque 6 quaterno denario 7 numero tri- 
 formiter posito, principium a credendi fide in electionis tempus 
 porrigens, et ex electione 8 in transmigrationis diem dirigens, 
 atque a transmigratione usque ad 9 Christum definiens, de- 
 cursam 10 aduentus domini ostendit generationem, ut et numero 
 
 1 The corrections made by Wordsworth in his list of errata, pp. 739 foil, are 
 taken into account. I have not used Corssen 's additional MSS., because I do not 
 know enough about their general text, relationships, and history. 
 
218 THE FOUR PROLOGUES: 
 
 satisfaciens et tempori u et se 12 quod esset ostenderet 13 s et dei 
 in se opus monstrans, etiam in his 14 , quorum genus posuit, 
 Christi operantis a principio testimonium non negaret. Quarum 
 omnium rerum tempus, ordo, numerus, dispositio 15 uel ratio, 
 quod fidei necessarium est, deus Christus est ; qui factus 16 
 est 17 ex muliere, factus sub lege, natus ex uirgine, passus 
 in carne, omnia in cruce fixit, 18 triumphans ea in semetipso, 
 resurgens in corpore, ut patris 18 nomen in patribus filio, et filii 
 nomen patri restitueret 19 in filiis 20 , sine principio, sine fine, 
 ostendens unum se cum patre esse, quia unus est. In quo 
 euangelio utile 21 (est) 22 desiderantibus deum sic prima uel 
 media uel perfecta cognoscere, ut et uocationem apostoli et 
 opus euangelii et dilectionem dei in carne nascentis, per 
 uniuersa legentes, intellegant, atque id in eo in quo 23 adpre- 
 hensi sunt et adprehendere expetunt recognoscant. Nobis 
 enim hoc in studio 24 argumenti fuit, et fidem factae rei tradere, 
 et operantis dei intellegendam 26 diligenter esse 26 dispositionem 
 quaerentibus non tacere. 
 
 i. ex iudaeis D^Q ex iudaea BCH0 in iudaea AYZ om EKKTV 2. + ita 
 BC^HQQ om cet 3. dominum D3?Q DEUM ceteri 4. in came ABCD3* 
 
 H0Q carnis EKKTVYZ c 5. +est ADV 6. sicque ACD^KVQ sitque 
 
 BEH0KTYZ 7. quaterao denario CDH>Q quaternario denario BEH0KKTVZ 
 
 quaterdenario AY 8. ex electione ABCDa > (H)0KQ (electione C) electio 
 
 EKTVYZ 9. usqne ad DEH^OTV c usque in ABCH0QYZ* 10. 
 
 decursam ABD3>HQV e decursum CE0*KKTYZ 11. numero satisfaciens et 
 
 tempori ABCDH>HQ n. satisfaceret et KKTV c numerositatis et temporis E0*YZ 
 12. et se ACa > 0KKTQVZ* se D esse BEHY et se esse c 13. ostenderet 
 
 ABCD3*HQ ostendens E0KKTVYZ c 14. om in his EYZ 15. dis- 
 
 positio] disputatio BCH 16. factus] natus BCD 17 '- om est D 18. 
 
 triumphans . . . ut patris D3>] ut triumphans . . . et patris rell 19. restitueret 
 
 ABCD^HQ restituens E0OTVYZ c 20. in filiis] et filii EZ et in filiis ©Y 
 
 21. utile] ut ille DEQ 22. est ABCa , 0HQK om DEKTVYZ 23. id 
 
 in eo in quo AD3PQ in eo in quo V in eo quo BCEH0KNTZ c (quod CH) quo Y 
 
 24. hoc in studio BDa»H0KQ in hoc st. A hoc st. CEKTVYZ c studium BCH 
 
 25. intellegendam] intellegentiam EYZ c 26. om esse BCKKTV. 
 
 Argumentum Iohannis. 
 
 Hie est x Iohannes euangelista, unus ex discipulis dei, qui 
 uirgo electus a deo est, quern de nuptiis uolentem nubere 
 uocauit 2 deus. Cui uirginitatis 3 in hoc duplex testimonium 
 in euangelio datur, quod et prae ceteris dilectus a deo 4 dicitur, 
 
THEIR TEXT AND THEIR MEANING 219 
 
 et huic matrem suam iens 5 ad crucem 6 commendauit deus 7 , ut 
 uirginem uirgo seruaret Denique manifestans in euangelio 
 quod erat ipse, incorruptibilis uerbi opus inchoans, solus 
 uerbum caro 8 factum esse, nee lucem 9 a tenebris compre- 
 hensam 9 fuisse, testatur, primum signum ponens quod in 
 nuptiis fecit deus 10 , ut " ostendens quod erat ipse 12 , legentibus 
 demonstraret, quod ubi dominus inuitatur 13 , deficere nuptiarum 
 uinum debeat, ut u ueteribus immutatis, noua omnia quae a 
 Christo instituuntur appareant ; 16 de quo singula quaeque in 
 ministerio l6 acta uel dicta euangelii ratio quaerentibus mon- 
 strat 16 . Hoc autem euangelium scripsit in Asia, posteaquam 17 
 in Pathmos insula apocalypsin scripserat, ut cui 18 in principio 
 canonis incorruptibile 19 principium in Genesi et incorruptibilis 
 finis per uirginem in apocalypsi redderetur, dicente Christo 
 ( Ego sum A et 12 \ Et hie est Iohannes, qui sciens superuenisse 
 diem recessus sui, conuocatis discipulis suis in Epheso, per 
 multa signorum experimenta conprobans 20 Christum, de- 
 scendens in defossum sepulturae suae locum, facta oratione, 
 positus est ad patres suos, tarn extraneus a dolore mortis 
 quam a corruptione carnis inuenitur alienus. 21 fQui etsi post 
 omnes euangelium scripsisse dicitur, tamen dispositione canonis 
 ordinati post Mattheum ponitur ; quoniam in domino, quae 
 nouissima sunt, non uelut .extrema et abiecta numero sed 
 plenitudinis opere perfecta sunt ; et hoc uirgini debebatur. 1 21 
 Quorum tamen uel scriptorum 22 tempore dispositio uel librorum 
 ordinatio ideo per singula a nobis non exponitur, ut, sciendi 23 
 desiderio conlocato 24 , et quaerentibus fructus laboris, et deo 
 magisterii doctrina, seruetur. 
 
 1, hie est CDE^KQTVW c om Aff , 0*KTOYZ* aur a. uocauit] reuocauit 
 
 0KTQY 3. uirginitas ffKTOXYZ 4. deo] domino ffEKO 5. iens] 
 
 moriens E pendens KVW 6. de cruce E0INT c aur in cruce KVW 7. 
 
 deus] dominus EIOX c om deus KT aur 8. carnem ©IX c 9. lucem 
 
 D3?QW lumen reli, and comprehensam D3? aur comprehensum rell io. 
 
 deus] dominus EIKO c om A*X 11. ut ADH'OQX aur et CE0KKTZ c om 
 
 ffVWY 12. erat ipse ffCDE^QKKTOQWY ipse erat AVXZ* c 13. 
 
 inuitatur AD3P0KQVW aur inuitatus ffCEIKTOXYZ c 14. ut ADS'M'Q 
 
 ut et ffEIOX et 0WY ac CKVZ c 15. de quo . . . monstrat ADE^KTQ 
 
 om 8FC0IKOVWXYZ 1 aur 16. mysterio] ministerio BOTQ 17. 
 
 postquam AD0Y 18. cui £FCDE3 , 0KWTOVWZ c aur cum AQXY 19! 
 
 corraptibile 3P*Q 20. conprobans D5PQ promens rell 21. Wordsworth 
 
33o THE FOUR PROLOGUES: 
 
 inserts here et hoc nirgini debebatnr without MS. authority. Qui etsi . . . debe- 
 batur DiPKKTQ : Tamen post omnes euangelium scripsit et hoc uirgini debebatur 
 AEFC0IOVXYZ c aur (E combines both readings, W has an elaborate alteration) 
 23. scriptorum DaTOKOTQVW scripturarum AffCEOXYZ 23. sciendi 
 
 D^QVW c aur scienti A8FCE0IKETOXYZ 24 conlocato CD3>VW c con- 
 
 locata AffE0KKTO*YZ collata X conlocatio IQ 
 
 Argumentum Lucae. 
 Lucas Syrus, natione 1 Antiochensis, arte medicus, discipulus 
 apostolorum, postea 2 Paulum secutus usque ad confessionem 3 
 eius, seruiens deo 4 sine crimine. Nam neque uxorem umquam 
 habens 5 neque filios 6 , xxxiin. 7 annorum obiit in Bithynia, 
 plenus Spiritu Sancto. Qui cum iam descripta 8 essent 
 euangelia, per Mattheum quidem 9 in Iudaea, per Marcum 
 autem in Italia, Sancto instigante Spiritu in Achaiae partibus 
 hoc scripsit euangelium, significans etiam ipse in principio 
 ante alia esse descripta. Cui extra ea quae ordo euangelicae 
 dispositionis exposcit, ea maxime 10 necessitas fuit laboris 11 , 
 ut primum Graecis fidelibus, omni perfectione 12 uenturi in 
 carnem 13 dei manifestata u , ne iudaicis fabulis intenti 15 in 
 solo legis desiderio tenerentur, uel ne 16 hereticis fabulis et 
 stultis sollicitationibus seducti excederent 17 a ueritate, elabo- 
 raret ; dehinc ut in principio euangelii 18 , Iohannis natiuitate 
 praesumpta, cui euangelium scriberet, et in quo electus 
 scriberet, indicaret, contestificans * 9 in se completa esse quae- 
 essent ab aliis inchoata. Cui ideo, post baptismum filii dei, a 
 perfectione generationis in Christo impletae et 2Q repetendae 
 a principio natiuitatis humanae potestas permissa est, ut 
 requirentibus demonstraret in quo adprehendens erat 21 , per 
 Nathan filium introitu recurrentis in deum generationis ad- 
 misso 22 , indispartibilis iZ deus 24 ut 25 praedicans in hominibus 
 Christum suum, perfecti opus hominis redire in se per filium 
 faceret, qui per Dauid patrem uenientibus iter praebebat in 
 Christo. Cui Lucae non inmerito etiam scribendorum apo- 
 stolicorum Actuum potestas in ministerio 26 datur, ut deo in 
 deum pleno, ac 27 filio perditionis 28 extincto, oratione ab 
 apostolis facta, sorte domini electionis numerus compleretur, 
 sicque Paulus * consummationem apostolicis Actibus daret, 
 
 1 The right reading is certainly Paulum, as in the Prologue to Acts. See 
 later, p. 255. 
 
THEIR TEXT AND THEIR MEANING 32i 
 
 quem diu contra stimulos recalcitrantem dominus elegisset. 
 Quod legentibus ac requirentibus deum etsi per singula 
 expediri a nobis utile fuerat, scientes 29 tamen quod operantem 
 agricolam oporteat de fructibus suis edere, uitamus 30 publicam 
 curiositatem, ne non tam demonstrare 3I uolentibus deum 
 uideremur quam fastidientibus prodidisse. - 
 
 i. natione AD^HGKQVX c (nat. Syr.) om BOYZ / aur 2. +uero 
 
 HOW c 3. confessionem] passionem KKTVWZ c 4. deo DQ domino 
 
 rell 5. habuit H0 c 6. add procreanit H0 7. -lxxiiii. ADH'KT 
 
 QVYZ lxx & quattuor septuaginta et quattuor BW c I aur LXX et tres H* 
 hoctuginta et quattuor CT {and so ProU to Acts) 8. descripta] scripta BOTO 
 VWXYZr/ aur 9. om quidem D3P 10. maxima OXZ* n. rait 
 
 laboris ABD3>0V (Corssen gives only AD3>) lab. rait HKKTOWXYZ c I aur 
 13. perfectione A*D3 D prophetatione rell 13. carne AH0V 14. manifestata 
 AD3?Q manifestata humanitas KKTVZ (m. humanitate e) manifesta humanitas BH 
 0OXY / aur 15. intenti AD3>Q attenti rell 16. uel ne D3>Q ne uel HK 
 OXYZ c I aur neue AB0NTV 17. excederent] exciderent OQ c {forte rede) 
 
 18. om euangelii XZ* 10. contestificans D5PQ contestans rell 20. + et 
 
 ABDH^KKIQV omit BH0OWXYZ / aur 21. adprehendens erat] 
 
 adprehenderat D 22. ammisso KKTOVX -ssum 33. indispartibilis 
 
 ADSPQ indisparabilis rell 24. deus DjPQ dei rell 25. ut DQ om rell 
 
 26. ministerio D3>QY -ium c mysterio rell 27. ac AD3POQ et BH0OT 
 
 VWXYZ e I aur 38. perditionis BD0K proditionis rell 29. scientes 
 
 AD3>Q sciens BH0KNTCK V)WXYZ c I aur 30. uitamus ABD3>Q uitauinras 
 H0KKTOVXYZ<:/<z«r 31. demonstrare AD3>Q om BH0KKTOVWXYZ 
 
 e I aur 
 
 Argumentum Marci. 
 
 Marcus, euangelista dei *, et Petri in baptismate Alius atque 
 in diuino sermone discipulus, sacerdotium in Israhel agens, 
 secundum carnem leuita, conuersus ad fidem Christi, euange- 
 lium in Italia scripsit 2 , ostendens in eo quid 3 et generi suo 4 
 deberet 5 et Christo. Nam initium principii in uoce propheticae 
 exclamationis instituens, ordinem leuiticae electionis 6 ostendit, 
 ut 7 praedicans praedestinatum Iohannem 8 filium Zachariae in 
 uoce angeli adnuntiantis 9 emissum, non solum ' uerbum caro 10 
 factum ' sed et u corpus domini in omnia 12 per uerbum diuinae 
 uocis animatum initium 13 euangelicae praedicationis osten- 
 deret, ut quis 14 haec legens sciret cui initium carnis in domino 15 
 et dei 16 aduenientis habitaculum caro n deberet agnoscere, 
 atque in se per 18 uerbum uocis, quod in consonantibus per- 
 diderat, inueniret Denique 19 perfecti euangelii opus intrans, 
 et 20 a baptismo domini praedicare deum inchoans, non laborauit 
 
%%% THE FOUR PROLOGUES: 
 
 natiuitatem carnis quam in prioribus uicerat 21 dicere, sed 
 totus 22 in primis 23 expulsionem 24 deserti, ieiunium numeri,tem- 
 tationem diaboli, congregationem bestiarum et ministerium 
 protulit angelorum, ut instituens 25 nos ad intellegendum, 
 singula in breui conpingens, nee auctoritatem factae rei adi- 
 meret 26 , et perficiendo operi 27 plenitudinem non negaret. 
 Denique amputasse sibi post fidem pollicem dicitur, ut sacer- 
 dotio reprobus haberetur, sed tantum consentiens fidei prae- 
 destinata potuit electio, ut nee sic in opere uerbi perderet quod 
 prius meruerat in genere, nam 28 Alexandriae episcopus fuit. 
 Cuius per singula opus scire, et. 29 euangelii in se dicta dis- 
 ponere 30 et disciplinam in se legis agnoscere 31 , et diuinam 
 domini in carne 32 intellegere naturam, quae et nos 33 primum 
 requiri, dehinc 34 inquisita uolumus agnosci, habentes mercedem 
 exhortationis, quoniam qui plantat et qui inrigat 35 unum sunt, 
 qui autem incrementum praestat 36 deus est 37 . 
 
 i. om electus ACDE*a>H*OTWXYZ* c I add 0KNTV aur 2. scripsit] 
 
 conscripsit ©OX 3. quod A*OXY aur 4. om suo D3? 5. deberetnr 
 
 CT 6. lectionis A*OXY / 7. ut ADH0NTOVWXY iei&om CEKTZ 
 
 8. ioh. praed. KKTVW c 9. adnuntiantis ADa'KNTTVW c ernin. CE0OXYZ 
 aur 10. camera EKNTVWX* 11. et AD3>0KNTVW / om CEH*OTXYZ* 
 aur 12. in omnia D3P0QT c om rell 13. initium a*H0QX initio ceteri 
 
 14. quis DH>W si quis qui AEH*KKTOVXYZ c I om CT 15. DEO E(H*) 
 
 KWTVW c 16. dei ACD3>T ifeu EH0KM'WXYZ c aur in ifiu 0*V / 
 
 17. caro om AY 18. per DQ om rell 19. om et CD^KKTTVZ* add tt 
 
 AEH0OXY c I aur 20. intrans et] intrasset EHZ* aur ai. uicerat 
 
 D^HCQyYZ aur uiderat ACEKKTOTVWX c didicerat / 22. totius0W 
 
 totum AY totus rell 23. in primis] exprimens 0*OWX 24. expulsionem 
 
 DQ explosionem A*a* expositionem rell 25. instituens] instruens CT 
 
 26. adimeret D3*Q aur redim. / demeret rell 27. perficiendo operi ACD 
 
 3PT e -ndi operi YZ* -ndi operis EH0KKTO(V)WX / aur (pm operi V) 
 28. add et KKTVWZ 29. scire et ACDHTWX aur scire Y c sciret 
 
 EH0KNTOVZ* / 30. disponeret OZ* (pm et Z*) 31. agnosceret CH* 
 
 OY a cognoscere est Q 32. dom. in carne AD5PK in c. dom. C0TWX c 
 
 in carnem deum O* in carne {om dni) EKTV / aur in carnem {pm dni) YZ* 
 in carne ffiu H* 33. et nos A*DH > KNTV in nos A 3 CEH0OTWXYZ c I 
 
 34. dein CT 35. inrigat DQ rigant HO rigat rell 36. praestat] dat 
 
 H0O / 37. om est Ca> 
 
 § 2. The meaning of the Prologue to St. Matthew. 
 
 Some may expect this section to be completed in the 
 words, f The Prologues have no meaning ' ; but this would 
 be an exaggeration : they have, though not much. Once, at 
 
THEIR TEXT AND THEIR MEANING 223 
 
 the age of twenty-two, after reading Hegel for ten hours 
 a day for three days (a feat I have never tried again), I said 
 to myself : * Now or never is the time to attack Browning ' ; 
 and the next day I made a desperate effort, which I have 
 never ventured to repeat, to digest Sordello. I regret to say 
 that utter bewilderment was the only result. And yet for 
 sheer blackness and incomprehensibility neither Browning nor 
 yet Pindar is in it with the Prologues. But in middle age 
 one is more persevering, and I have the audacity now to pro- 
 pose to translate and explain these masterpieces of the art 
 of concealing one's meaning and of not basely betraying it 
 to the scomer—f astidientibus prodidisse, as the author himself 
 phrases it. 
 
 In several points I shall venture to differ from those who 
 have previously attempted the same ungrateful task, whether 
 Sedulius Scotus or Corssen or Wordsworth, but in general 
 I am much indebted to them. 
 
 It is clear that the idea of the Prologues is to find in the 
 beginning of each Gospel the key to its meaning and a 
 description of the evangelist's own character. It is also quite 
 evident that the writer has certain peculiar theological views 
 which he wishes to support ; but unless they are previously 
 known, they are so difficult to discover, that from the fifth 
 century till the nineteenth the Prologues have been looked 
 upon as positively orthodox. Until I discovered that Pris- 
 cillian was the key I found it hopeless to enter into their 
 meaning. In the following examination I assume a Pris- 
 cillianist meaning throughout, and if all is not as clear as 
 day, there is at least no longer a wholly impenetrable fog. 
 
 In St. Matthew the author takes the genealogy, which the 
 evangelist has divided into three sections of fourteen genera- 
 tions each ; the first of these has its beginning in Abraham, 
 the type of faith, the second in David, the type of election, the 
 third in the transmigration to Babylon, which also ends in 
 Christ — the third therefore symbolizes conversion. Thus 
 St. Matthew describes his own faith, his own calling, and his 
 transmigration from the seat of custom to Christ. 
 
 But further, the whole list is called the 'book of the 
 
324 THE FOUR PROLOGUES: 
 
 generation of Christ'; not only the last term, but all the 
 terms imply that Christ was being generated — He was IN 
 all His own ancestors, in patribus, in Whom He worked from 
 the beginning (pperantis a principio). For indeed ' the God 
 Christ is the time, number, order, of all things \ The ( things \ 
 however, as matter (apart from their form, which was Him- 
 self) are regarded as His adversaries, for • He nailed all things 
 to His Cross ', omnia in crucefixit. The next passage is hard. 
 How did Christ by His resurrection 'restore the name of 
 Father in the fathers to the Son, and the name of Son to the 
 Father in the sons'? The answer is given ' He showed 
 Himself to be one with the Father, for He is one Person (unus) 
 with Him ' after His resurrection. The explanation seems to 
 be somewhat as follows : In the genealogy each name is that 
 of a son, but is repeated as the name of a father: . . . genuit 
 Isaac, Isaac autem genuit . . . &c, except in the case of the 
 first name and the last. The first (not in Matthew, who only 
 begins from Abraham, but according to Luke) is God, only 
 a Father, not a Son ; the last is Jesus Christ, only a Son, not 
 a Father. But the genealogy is a sort of tunnel ; what comes 
 out at the end was what was put in at the beginning : Christ 
 was in His fathers, inpatribus Christus, and at His resurrection 
 He, who was the last term of the genealogy, identified Him- 
 self with the first term, the Father. Thus the list began with 
 God, who is then in all the succession of fathers as a father. 
 It ends in Christ, who was in all the succession of sons as 
 a son. But when His resurrection identifies Him with the 
 Father, he 'restores the name of Father to Himself, the Son, 
 in the whole line of fathers, and the name of Son to the Father 
 in the whole line of sons '. This is a most ingenious argument 
 for the Monarchian view, though hardly convincing to us 
 moderns. It could not be said that the Father was in all the 
 fathers, and the Son in all the sons, without identifying Father 
 and Son, for in the list the same persons are successively 
 named son and father; and again, the resurrection is held 
 to demonstrate the identity of the Father who was only father 
 at the beginning of the list with the Son who is only son at the 
 end of the list. Thus St. Matthew's genealogy, with the help 
 
THEIR TEXT AND THEIR MEANING %%$ 
 
 of Priscillian's view that each soul is a part of God, becomes 
 a proof of Monarchianism. 
 
 Next the readers are told to understand in the three parts 
 of the genealogy the vocation of the apostle (as was said), the 
 work of the Gospel (which also consists in the same three 
 things, faith, calling, and transmigration to Christ), and the 
 love of God born in the flesh, and they must keep this in mind 
 in reading the whole Gospel (per uniuersa legentes\ and 
 recognize this (id- — apparently the threefold evolution) in Him 
 in whom they were apprehended, and whom they desire 
 to apprehend. The object of the Prologue is first to hand 
 down the facts, and then to assert the necessity of carefully 
 examining the manner in which God's working is arranged 
 and ordered. 
 
 The following is an attempt at an intelligible English 
 rendering : 
 
 The Argument of Matthew. 
 
 e Matthew, who was of the Jews, even as he is placed first in 
 order, so he was the first to write a Gospel, in Judaea. His 
 vocation to God was from the practice of the business of 
 a publican. He took, in the history of the generation of 
 Christ, his starting-points from two men, the one who received 
 the first circumcision in the flesh, Abraham, the other, David, 
 who was elected as a man according to God's own heart 
 (Acts xiii. 1% ; cp. i Reg. xiii. 14), and through both of these 
 Christ was in His own fathers. And so, having thrice set down 
 fourteen generations, first stretching out his starting-point 
 from the faith of Abraham to the time of David's election, 
 next drawing it out from that election to the time of the 
 transmigration to Babylon, and thirdly marking its end 
 from the transmigration up to Christ, he showed forth the 
 progress of generation of the Lord's advent, in such wise that, 
 by the fullness of the mystical number and of the time, he 
 showed forth what he himself was, and while exhibiting God's 
 work in himself, he denied not the witness to the working of 
 Christ from the beginning even in those whose genealogy was 
 set down by him. 
 
a*6 THE FOUR PROLOGUES: 
 
 Now the God Christ is (and it is necessary to faith to hold 
 this) the time, the order, the number, the arrangement, and 
 the reason of all these things — He who was made of a woman, 
 made under the law, born of a virgin, who suffered in the 
 flesh, nailed all things to His cross, triumphing over them in 
 Himself, rising again in the body, in order that He might 
 restore the name of father in the fathers to the Son, and the 
 name of son to the Father in the sons, He who is without 
 beginning, without end, showing Himself to be of one Nature 
 with the Father since He is one Person with Him. 
 
 In this Gospel it is profitable for those who seek God so to 
 recognize the beginning, the middle, and the completion, as 
 to understand both the calling of the apostle, and the work of 
 the Gospel, and the love of God born in the flesh, when they 
 read through the whole book. For our intention in composing 
 this preface was not only to hand down the truth of the facts, 
 but also to declare to those who seek, that they must be 
 diligent in understanding the orderly manner of God's 
 working.' 
 
 § 3. The meaning of the Prologue to St. John. 
 
 Next in order is the Prologue to John, as we shall see from 
 its contents. The Monarchian point of view is particularly 
 prominent in the first part of it, where deus stands for Christ 
 invariably : { ttrius ex discipulis dei . . . uocauit deus . . . dilectus 
 a deo . . . commendauit deus. The virginity of St. John is 
 the important matter in the writer's view. He was the bride- 
 groom of Cana, called away by the Lord from the marriage 
 feast to follow Him, and his chastity is testified both by his 
 being the beloved disciple and by his receiving the Virgin 
 Mother to guard. All this is probably derived from some 
 Latin translation of the ( Acts of John \ The tens ad crucem 
 is very odd. But Mr. Turner reminds me that in the Acts it 
 was only a phantom that was crucified. This seems a sufficient 
 explanation of the divergence from the Gospel. 
 
 Then the purpose of the Gospel is unfolded ; St. John 
 explained what he was himself, viz. a virgin, and begins the 
 1 work of the incorruptible Word ' (the Gospel) by testifying 
 
THEIR TEXT AND THEIR MEANING 227 
 
 that the Word was made flesh, and the light not overtaken by 
 the darkness — clearly a reference to the evil nature of matter, 
 which could not, however, corrupt the ' incorruptible Word \ 
 This last expression is evidently from a wrongly punctuated 
 reading of 1 Pet. i. 33, * renati non ex semine corruptibili, 
 sed incorruptibili\J\ uerbo Dei uiui/ where the Vulgate avoids 
 the mistake by reading ( per uerbum Dei uiui \ 
 
 This reference to St. John's first chapter is succeeded by 
 a jump to the second chapter and the marriage in Cana, 
 which is said to show that the wine of marriage must fail 
 where Christ is invited, a sentiment probably meant in hereti- 
 cal depreciation of marriage, though it was copied into the 
 Northumbrian capitula (as we have seen) by their monastic 
 compiler with an orthodox intention, no doubt — apparently in 
 the sense which is given by the following words of the Pro- 
 logue, that all things are new which are begun in Christ (cp. 
 % Cor. v. 17 and Apoc. xxi. 5). 
 
 The ratio euangelii^ order and arrangement of the Gospel, 
 shows to seekers every act and saying as bearing upon what 
 has been just said. (Should we read ministeriol) 
 
 Then some history : the Gospel was after the Apocalypse 
 (so Victorinus and Epiphanius). The reason for the Apoca- 
 lypse was that the incorruptible ending should be ascribed by 
 a virgin in it to Him, to whom the incorruptible beginning 
 was ascribed in Genesis. In saying ( ego sum A et 12 ' Christ at 
 the end of the canon identifies Himself with the Creator. 
 (The writer does not forget, evidently, that St. John had also 
 written in principio erat Verbum 9 intentionally recalling the 
 first words of Genesis.) Here again (as with the identification 
 of the Father and the Son at the beginning and end of the 
 genealogy) a Monarchian sense is evidently intended. 
 
 Next comes the legendary account of the death of St. John, 
 doubtless borrowed from some Latin form of the second- 
 century Acts. A corruptione carnis alienus does not refer to 
 any miracle by which his body remained incorrupt after death, 
 but (as above) to his virginity, of which his painless death was 
 the reward. It follows that to add et hoc uirgini debebatur 
 here, as Bishop Wordsworth has done, is as much against 
 
 Q 2 
 
228 THE FOUR PROLOGUES: 
 
 the sense (being an unbearable pleonasm) as it is against 
 the MSS. 
 
 The next passage is preserved only by the Irish tradition 
 of the text. Though St. John wrote last, yet his Gospel is 
 second in order ; for in the divine plan the last in time are the 
 most perfect ; and this [perfection, after all the rest] was 
 the due of the virgin. We thus learn that the writer of the 
 Prologues used an Old Latin codex having the Latin order 
 of the Gospels universal before St. Jerome: Matthew, John, 
 Luke, Mark. 
 
 The final remark is characteristic. No more is said about 
 the mystical order of writing and of precedence of the Gospels, 
 in order that seekers may not be forestalled in the fruit which 
 their labours will bring them, nor God be deprived of His 
 right of teaching it Himself. 
 
 The Argument of John. 
 
 ' This is John the Evangelist, one of the disciples of God, 
 who was chosen by God a virgin, whom God called from his 
 marriage, when he was desirous to wed. A twofold witness is 
 given to him of virginity in the Gospel, first, that he is called 
 beloved by God above the others, and secondly, that God, 
 when going to the cross, commended His Mother to him, that 
 the Virgin might be guarded by a virgin. Thereafter, showing 
 in the Gospel what he himself was, commencing the work of 
 the incorruptible Word, he alone testifies that the Word was 
 made flesh, and that the light was not overtaken by the dark- 
 ness ; setting down the first sign which God did at the wedding, 
 in order that by showing what he himself was [for he was the 
 bridegroom, and he was called away to virginity], he might 
 show to his readers, that where the Lord is invited, the wine 
 of nuptials ought to be wanting, so that the old things being 
 changed, all things which are instituted in Christ may appear 
 new. With regard to this, the method {ratio) of the Gospel 
 shows each thing that was done or said in a mystery to those 
 who seek. He wrote this Gospel in Asia, after he had written 
 the Apocalypse in the island of Patmos, in order that to whom 
 the incorruptible beginning was ascribed in Genesis, to Him 
 
THEIR TEXT AND THEIR MEANING 229 
 
 tnight also be ascribed the incorruptible end by a virgin in 
 the Apocalypse, wherein Christ says : ' I am Alpha and 
 Omega.' And it is this John, who knowing that the day of his 
 retirement had come, having called together his disciples at 
 Ephesus, and having proved Christ to them by many signs, 
 descended into the place which had been dug for his sepulture, 
 and after praying was gathered to his fathers, as free from the 
 pain of death as he was from corruption of the flesh. Though 
 he is said to have written aiter all the other evangelists, yet 
 in the disposition of the ordered canon he is placed after 
 Matthew ; forasmuch as in the Lord what things are latest 
 are not as it were last and vilest in order, but are perfect in 
 their work of fullness ; and this was due to the virgin among 
 evangelists. But this disposition of writings in time and the 
 order of the books in the canon is not explained by us in 
 detail, in order that, having excited the desire of knowing it, 
 to the seeker the fruit of his labour may be reserved, and the 
 office of teaching to God.' 
 
 § 4. The meaning of the Prologue to St Luke. 
 
 The Prologue to Luke begins with some curious history, of 
 which something will be said later (p. 371 foil.). The Gospel 
 was written after those of Matthew and Mark j in fact St. Luke 
 states that other Gospels had been written. Beyond the demand 
 made upon him by the order and arrangement of the Gospels 
 (of which the other Prologues have said a good deal, and have 
 implied much more) Luke had particular reasons for writing. 
 The first was to manifest all the perfection of the God, who 
 was prophesied to come into flesh, for the benefit of Greek 
 believers, that they might not fall into Judaism or heresy. 1 
 The second reason is more elaborate. After mention 
 of the birth of St. John Baptist at the beginning of his 
 Gospel, St. Luke showed for whom he wrote and why 
 he was chosen to write, testifying at the same time that he 
 
 1 Iudaicae fabulae is from Titus i. 14; hereticae fabulae echoes the frequent 
 denunciation of fabulae in the Pastoral Epistles. Stuliae sollicitationes are perhaps 
 liwpat £TjTJjaet9> 2 Tim. ii. 23. All these references to the Pastoral Epistles seem 
 to be motived by the mention of St. Luke in 2 Tim. iv. n, and by the reference 
 above to his being with St. Paul until his confessio. 
 
23° THE FOUR PROLOGUES: 
 
 completed what Matthew and Mark began. This is indeed 
 a dark saying. It seems to be explained by what follows, 
 and what follows has been misunderstood by the neglect 
 of the correct Irish reading by editors, who have read 
 dei for deus ut (DQ) x ; et before repetendae must also be 
 omitted, though against the Irish evidence. To Luke, as 
 a consummation, was granted the power of tracing up the 
 human birth from the beginning, from the perfection of genera- 
 tion fulfilled in Christ. The meaning is clear 'to seekers' 
 after the Prologue to Matthew. Matthew wrote for Jews, and 
 started with Abraham. Luke shows that he was chosen to 
 write for Gentiles by going right back to Adam. The * perfect 
 generation fulfilled in Christ ' means that, though * Christ was 
 in His fathers ', He was only imperfectly born in them ; 
 His birth from a Virgin was the perfect birth of God made 
 flesh. A principio implies c from God ', since Luke's genealogy 
 ends with * Adam who was the son of God \ We go on : ' in 
 order that Luke might show to seekers in Him whom he 
 had apprehended ' (i. e. what he had himself understood, by 
 becoming a Christian from a Gentile, and receiving Christ), 
 ' by admitting the entrance of a genealogy which runs back to 
 God through the son of David, Nathan, how the indivisible 
 God caused the work of man when made perfect to return by 
 the son to Himself, who opened a way in Christ through the 
 father David to all who come.' A contrast with St. Matthew 
 is intended, who traces the genealogy downwards through 
 Solomon, and not upwards through Nathan. Nathan son of 
 David is the type of Christ, so that the genealogy of St. Luke 
 is said to show how the work of man when perfect rises up to 
 the Father through the Son typified by Nathan, just as that 
 of St. Matthew, descending through David, showed the Father 
 making a way downward for those who were to rise; in 
 Matthew we see the condescension of the Father, in Luke the 
 return to Him through the Son. If this is not what the writer 
 meant, then he meant something at least as far-fetched and as 
 carefully ' hidden from seekers '. Just as the Prologue to John 
 
 1 To be translated as if we found ut deus ; this transposition, unusual in prose, 
 suggested the emendation dei. The easy dei t ut is in no MS. 
 
THEIR TEXT AND THEIR MEANING 231 
 
 includes a sort of introduction to the Apocalypse, in the same 
 mystical vein, so that to Luke contains an introduction to 
 Acts. It was proper, the writer continues, that to Luke should 
 be entrusted the composition of that book, so that he who had 
 completed Matthew and Mark by a more perfect work should 
 now show how the number of the apostles was filled up by lot 
 after the Ascension {deo in deumpleno must mean the Ascen- 
 sion) and the death of Judas, and how the addition of Paul gave 
 a further consummation. Finally, we get a protestation like 
 that at the end of the Prologue to John ; the workman is to 
 get the fruit by his own toil ; the author will not betray God's 
 secrets to those who ought to take the trouble to discover 
 them for themselves. 
 
 The Monarchian character of uenturi in carnem deils obvious ; 
 it is more important to remark that it seems to imply that God 
 took the place of the soul in a human body. Deo in deunt 
 pleno apparently means that at the Ascension God returned 
 to God (literally ' God being now full in God '), and the Father 
 and Son became indistinguishable. The same conception is 
 plainer in the expression indispartibilis deus, which cannot 
 but be meant to deny the distinction of Persons. No doubt 
 any of these expressions might bear a Catholic interpretation ; 
 but taken as a whole they shed a lurid light upon one another. 
 I give an attempt at translation. 
 
 The Argument of Luke. 
 
 ' Luke, a Syrian of Antioch by nation, by profession a physi- 
 cian, a disciple of the Apostles, later followed Paul until his 
 confession, serving God without blame. For he never had 
 wife or children, and died at the age of seventy-four in Bithynia, 
 full of the Holy Ghost. When Gospels had already been 
 written, by Matthew in Judaea and by Mark in Italy, at the 
 instigation of the Holy Spirit he wrote this Gospel in the parts 
 of Achaia, and he also signified in the commencement that 
 others had previously been written. Apart from the demand 
 made by the order of the disposition of the Gospels [which 
 made his Gospel necessary] the principal object of his toil was 
 that he should labour that the Greek faithful might, by the 
 
233 THE FOUR PROLOGUES: 
 
 manifestation of all the perfection of God coming in the flesh, 
 be prevented from giving themselves to the study of Jewish 
 fables, and from being held by the desire of the law only, and 
 that they might not be seduced by heretical fables and foolish 
 questions, and so depart from the truth. And further, that in 
 the beginning of his Gospel, having first given the birth of 
 John, he might point out for whom [viz. for Theophilus] he 
 wrote his Gospel, and the purpose of his election to write it, 
 attesting that what was begun by the others was finished in 
 him. To him power was granted after the baptism of the Son 
 of God [Luke iii] to reckon back the human birth from its 
 beginning, starting from the perfection of the generation 
 fulfilled in Christ, in order that he might show forth to seekers 
 (in that he had himself apprehended), by admitting into the 
 list the entrance of a genealogy running back to God through 
 the son Nathan, how the indivisible God, proclaiming His 
 Christ among men, has made the work of the perfect man 
 return to Himself by the son of David — He who by David 
 the father offered in Christ a way to those who came to Him. 
 To this Luke ministerial power was deservedly given of also 
 writing the Acts of the Apostles, that God being full in God, 
 and the son of perdition 1 being dead, after prayer had been 
 made by the Apostles, the number of election (twelve apostles) 
 might be made complete by the lot of the Lord, and that thus 
 Paul might supply the consummation of the Acts of the 
 Apostles, 2 whom the Lord chose after he had long kicked 
 against the pricks. And though it had been useful for us to 
 explain this in detail for readers and seekers after God, yet 
 knowing that the working husbandman ought to eat the fruits 
 of his own labour, we avoid the curiosity of the public, lest we 
 should appear less to be revealing God to the desirous, than to 
 have betrayed Him to scorners.' 
 
 1 ' Son of perdition ' (so BD0K) is of course from John xvii. 12 ; proditionis 
 seems to be merely a mistake from the notion of 'traitor* by a scribe who did not 
 catch the reference. The author of the ordinary Prologue to Acts (Lucas natiom 
 Syrus) read perditionis in the fifth century. 
 
 a Or, reading Paulum, ( that he might give Paul as the consummation (the 
 thirteenth Apostle) to the Acts of the Apostles.' That this is the true reading is 
 attested by the Prologue to Acts. See ch. xiv, p. 255. 
 
THEIR TEXT AND THEIR MEANING 233 
 
 § 5. The meaning of the Prologue to Mark. 
 
 The argument to Mark is the most curious of all, for its 
 heresy is the most patent, its obscurity is the blackest, and 
 the thumb of Mark suggests an apparently insoluble problem. 
 
 That Mark was the son of Peter in baptism is a deduction 
 from 1 Peter v. 13. That he was a priest and a Levite seems to be 
 a detail connected with the story of his thumb. That he wrote 
 in Italy was a commonplace known to all Christians. We are 
 not surprised at being told that the beginning of his Gospel 
 shows what he owed to his birth (viz. his sacerdotiuw) and 
 what to Christ (the finding of the divine voice in himself). 
 His Levitical origin is shown by his beginning with St. John 
 Baptist. This is far-fetched enough, but what follows is 
 worse ; he showed not merely the Word made flesh, but 
 (more clearly) the Body of the Lord, in all things (i. e. wholly) 
 animated by the Word of the Divine Voice (that is to say, the 
 Word taking the entire functions of the human soul in Christ), 
 as the beginning of his Gospel preaching. (If we read initio 
 with Wordsworth, Corssen, &c, we shall get no possible 
 meaning, so far as I can see ; initium 3?Q is the Irish reading, 
 it seems, preserved also by H0X. Initio was an obvious 
 correction to make ; but it is not evident how initio could get 
 corrupted into the astonishing but translateable initium?) 
 How does the writer get this patent heresy out of the first 
 verses of Mark ? I think it evident that he took verse a as 
 a parenthesis, and made verse 3 epexegetical of verse 1, thus: 
 1 Initium euangelii Iesu Christi, filii Dei, (sicut scriptum est . . . 
 ante te,) uox clamantis in deserto, parate uiam Domini . . .' ; 
 ' the beginning of the Gospel of the Son of God is the voice of 
 one crying . . ./ to signify that the Son of God was the Voice 
 (or vowel) of a Word ; for the * Word made flesh ' is a vowel 
 clothed in consonants — the vowel or voice is God, the conso- 
 nants are the human flesh. The Baptist is therefore mentioned 
 as being the beginning of the Gospel, because he is a voice — 
 showing that Christ was a voice (or vowel) ; ' in order that 
 any one who should read might know how to recognize to 
 whom (viz. to God) he owed the beginning of flesh in the 
 
234 THE FOUR PROLOGUES: 
 
 Lord and the habitation of God on earth.' Caro seems to 
 mean ' the reader, being himself flesh ' ; but when I remember 
 that we have twice had verbum caro factum as an accusative, 
 I cannot but think it ' wildly possible ' (as Mr. C. L. Dodgson 
 would have phrased it) that caro is in apposition to habitaculum. 
 At any rate ' habitaculum ' means the Body in which God 
 sojourned, thus giving the same ultra-Apollinarian (or rather 
 Arian) doctrine as before. The final result is ' that the reader 
 may thus find in himself the word of the voice which he had 
 lost in the consonants'. The reader's own soul being a part 
 of God, he himself is a word, but he has probably not per- 
 ceived this, through paying attention to the fleshly part, the 
 consonants, and not to the soul which makes them vocal, and 
 so forms a word. (Or we may understand ' find in Mark . . . 
 which Mark had lost \) Thus I venture to understand the in* 
 extricabilis nodus of which Sedulius the Scot complained. His 
 brilliant conjecture that consonantes were the other Synoptists 
 is quite impossible, for we have seen in the Prologue to Luke 
 that St. Mark wrote before that evangelist. The same con- 
 sideration makes it unbearable to read uiderat with most 
 editors lower down ; it was an obvious correction for the difficult 
 uicerai of the Irish contingent (D3?HQ), who are joined by the 
 independent witness of YZ. 1 
 
 The meaning of uicerat is sufficiently plain ; St. Mark, 
 entering upon the work of the perfect Gospel, and beginning 
 with the Baptism, did not trouble to recount the birth of the 
 flesh which in prioribus — ' in his opening paragraphs ' — he had 
 conquered, viz. by declaring that the beginning of the Gospel 
 was (not the flesh, the consonants, but) the voice, the divine 
 soul. This is a strange expression, no doubt — natiuitatem 
 carnis in prioribus uicerat — but not too strange for our author. 
 It gives just the sense we should expect ; for we had just been 
 told that the mention of the Voice was something beyond 
 a declaration that ( the Word was made flesh \ Mark there- 
 fore begins with the temptation, in breui (not giving the three 
 
 1 Evidently the perpetrator of the conjectural emendation uiderat had, like 
 Sedulius Scotus, taken consonantes to mean the other Gospels ; prioribus naturally 
 assumed the same signification. 
 
THEIR TEXT AND THEIR MEANING 235, 
 
 temptations found in Luke and Matthew), that he may establish 
 the facts, and yet give fullness to the work to be performed x — 
 of preaching. The writer does not condescend to inform us 
 what mystical meaning, if any, he attaches to the details he 
 enumerates. Next comes the story of St. Mark's thumb, and 
 then a conclusion in the usual style, the author recommending 
 personal inquiry. Disciplinam in se legis agnoscere seems to 
 mean that the reader is to accept the discipline of the law, 
 after the example of the Levite Mark. Diuinam domini in 
 came intellegere naturam again suggests that the Divine nature 
 takes the place of Christ's soul, thus implying Monarchianism 
 as well as ultra-Apollinarianism. A rendering is not easy 
 to make. 
 
 The Argument of Mark. 
 
 ' Mark, the evangelist of God, and the son by baptism of 
 Peter and his disciple in the divine word, exercising the priest- 
 hood in Israel, being a Levite after the flesh, after he had been 
 converted to the faith of Christ, wrote his Gospel in Italy, 
 showing in it what he owed to his birth and what to Christ, 
 For he commenced the beginning of his introduction with the 
 voice of the prophet's cry, thus showing the order of his 
 Levitical election, so that, by pronouncing the predestinated 
 John, son of Zacharias, to have been sent out as the voice of 
 an angel, he showed as the beginning of the Gospel preaching 
 not simply the Word made flesh, but also the Body of the Lord 
 having the Word of the Divine Voice for all the functions of 
 a soul ; so that any who reads this might know how to recog- 
 nize to whom he owed the beginning of flesh in the Lord, and 
 the Tabernacle of God coming among men, being himself flesh, 
 and might find in himself through the Word of the Voice 
 what he had lost in the consonants. Thereafter, entering 
 upon the work of the perfect Gospel, and beginning to preach 
 God from the Baptism of the Lord, he did not labour to 
 mention the birth of the flesh which he had already conquered 
 in what preceded, but with his whole strength (totus) he pro- 
 
 1 The parallel with the Prologue to Matthew should be noticed : . . ut . . . 
 ostenderet ...non negaret, and closer stiWfidemfactae ret tradere et . . . non negare. 
 
236 THE FOUR PROLOGUES: 
 
 duced the expulsion into the desert, the fast for a mystic 
 number of days, the temptation by the devil, the fellowship 
 with the wild beasts, and the ministry of the angels, that, by 
 teaching us to understand, and describing each point briefly, 
 he might at once establish the truth of the facts, and affirm 
 the fullness of the work that was to be perfected. Further, he 
 is said to have cut off his thumb after he had received the 
 faith, in order that he might be accounted unfit for the priest- 
 hood. But the predestinated election which corresponded to his 
 faith so prevailed, that even by this he did not lose in the work 
 of the Word what he had formerly received by his birth ; for 
 he was bishop of Alexandria, whose (i. e. a bishop's) work 
 it is to know in detail and dispose the sayings of the 
 Gospel in his heart, and recognize the discipline of the law in 
 himself, and understand the Divine Nature of the Lord in the 
 flesh ; which things we ourselves also desire to be searched for, 
 and after being searched for to be recognized, having as a reward 
 of this exhortation, that " he that planteth and he that watereth 
 are one, but it is God that giveth the increase"/ 
 
 § 6. Some Conclusions. 
 
 1. The Prologues teach the identity of Father and Son. 
 The Father became Son by being incarnate (He was also in 
 all His ancestors from Adam onwards, and maybe recognized 
 by all men in themselves), and in His Ascension showed 
 Himself once more as Father. 
 
 %. In the Incarnation God assumed a human body, of which 
 the Divine Nature was the soul — the vowel, to which the body 
 supplied as it were the consonants, thus making the * Word*. 
 
 3. The reader is not to expect clear guidance, he must 
 search for himself. It would seem, therefore, that the author 
 is avoiding some accusation of heresy of which he has been 
 the object. 
 
 So much for the doctrine. The text is in most cases easy 
 to restore. The Irish witnesses are almost always in the 
 right ; not only in the case of the paragraph omitted by the 
 rest in the Prologue to John, but in many astonishing readings 
 
THEIR TEXT AND THEIR MEANING 337 
 
 they prove to have preserved a singularly pure and ancient 
 text. The non-Irish MSS. agree to a great extent in testifying 
 to an early redaction of the difficult text, not made in the 
 interests of orthodoxy but of comprehensibility. But neither 
 the one thing nor the other was obtained, for the Irish text is 
 the easier to understand, and is not the more heretical, though 
 it is the more explicit. 
 
 Additional Note. A Greek translation of the Prologue to Luke. I extract 
 from H. von Soden's Die Schriften des AT. T., I. p. 337: ' Endlich enthalt a 202 
 unter einer grossen Sammlung von einleitenden Aufsatzen zu Ac auch einen 
 Abschnitt iiber Lk, der seinem Inhalt nach an diese Stelle gehbrt. Er ist 
 iiberschrieben : tovto ef thiox^tptov tou aytov irarptapxov M«0o5iou (a. 842—6 ?) und 
 lautet: [125] Avairavtrts tov aytov mroaroKw Aoiwa tov tvayyeXiarov tucatit tov 
 2cirrc/i0pcov jitjvos. tffrtv ayios Aovtcas Aitiox«w, 2vpos toj y*vu, tarpos ttjv 
 rtxvijv, fAa$7]TT]S airo(TTO\aiv ycvojiwos kcu vortpov XlavXcu irapaKoXovBrjaas p*XP LS rov 
 uaprvptov avrov SovXevaas rta Kvptu aireptffiraffTUs, ayvvatos, armvos trow oyfioijieovra 
 reaaapaiv fKOtfUjOrj tv @ij0cus ttj fnjTpoiro\tt ttjs Botartas TrKrjprjs nvtvfxaTos aytov. 
 ovtos irpowrapxovTOJV 17S17 tvayyeXtojv, tov ficv Kara MarOaiov tv ttj IovSata avaypa- 
 <pevTos, tou 8c Kara Mapuov ev ttj lraXia ovtos irpoTpairtts viro trvtvpaTOS ayiov €V 
 Tots vept ttjv Axaiav to irav tovto ovveypaxf/OTO tvayyckiov ZtjXqjv Sta tov irpootfuov 
 tovto aVTOy on vpo avrov oXAa €(7Ti ycypafifitva teat oti avaytcatov tjv tois €( tOvoiv 
 maTOis ttjv afcpt&rj ttjs ot/eovofuas tH$ta$cu Sajyrjatv vnep tov jitj rats lOvHattcats jxvOo- 
 Xoyiats irfptairaaOcu avrovs, t t V Tf rats atptTtftais Hat Ktvats tpavracricus airaToiftevovs 
 a<TTO\r}(Tai tijs a\rj9 etas' (»s avayncuoTaTJjv ovv ovaav tvBvs tv apxtf irapet\r}<}>aptcv ttjv 
 tov luavvov yewijfftv, os tcrtv apxv T0V tvayytXtov vpoBpopos tov fcvpiov ytvofitvos 
 hcu Kotvajvos tv T€ toj tcaTapTtCfiw tov tvayytXtov teat ttj tov 0aiTTtcrfMTOS Stayojyrj 
 Hat ttj tov itvtvjuiTOs Hotvotvta. tovttjs ttjs ottcovoutas /xfpivrjTat irpotfnjrrjs tV TOIS 
 ba)o*fca, xat 5rj utTttrtiTa typai/ftv o avTos Aovkcls vpafus glwcxttoXqjv. vffTtpov 5c 
 latavvTjs o airoffToXos tx tojv SaStica typaxptv ttjv airotcahvipw tv ttj vrjaaj tlar/ut; teat 
 pcra TavTa to tvayyt\tov m J The codex a 202 is otherwise known as 309 Acts, and 
 is at Athens, 'E0V. Bij3A. 91 (64), 12th cent. (Scriv. 10th). Mr. C. H. Turner points 
 oat to me that an extract karlu 6 [aytos'] Aovicas "Zvpos . . . vKfjprjs uvciJ/mitos ayiov, 
 is found in Bodl. Misc. Gr. 141, nth cent.; (the variants are: om ayiov, StJpos 
 'AvTioxev's, om ry yivet, tJ t«x*T7» odd 5c after fiaOiTTf)s, irb" «t« i«otfii)$Tj kv rg 
 Botwria). St. Methodius, Patriarch of Constantinople, visited Rome in the time of 
 Paschal I (817-24), and must have obtained the Prologue to Luke on that occasion. 
 It is amusing to see that he could not understand it, for he has shirked all the 
 difficulties in his autograph version ! He has corrected the absurd Bithynia into 
 the usual Greek tradition ' Thebes in Boeotia \ Sept. 20 for St. Luke appears to 
 be unique. The Greek feast, Oct. 18, has been universal in the West since Bede, 
 Ado, Usuard and their followers. But the Hieronymian Martyrology gives 
 Sept. 21, and I presume that St. Methodius found this ancient Western date given 
 in the Latin MS. from which he was translating. 
 
CHAPTER XIII 
 
 PRISCILLIAN 
 THE AUTHOR OF THE PROLOGUES 1 
 
 § i. Earlier theories as to the date of the Prologues, 
 
 The four prologues have attracted of late years more 
 attention than their internal merits would seem to deserve, 
 owing to the disquisitions of von Dobschiitz and Corssen. 2 
 Both these writers have confidently attributed them to the 
 early years of the third century, and this view has been largely 
 followed. Corssen rightly saw them to be Monarchian in 
 doctrine, and was consequently able to parallel them with the 
 teaching of Praxeas as gathered from Tertullian. But it is 
 noticeable that he wholly failed to establish any remarkable 
 coincidence of doctrine or of language. The attempts of 
 both von Dobschiitz and Corssen to show in different ways 
 that the Prologues exhibit an early form of the legends of the 
 Apostles were likewise inconclusive, not to say paradoxical. 
 
 1 This chapter is reprinted with alterations from the Revue Binidictine^ July 
 1906, pp. 335-49, with the Editor's kind permission. 
 
 3 E. von Dobschiitz, Studien zur Textkritik der Vulgata, 1894, pp. 35 foil.; 
 P. Corssen, Monarchianiscke Prologe zu den vier Evangelien t 1896 {Texte und 
 Unters.j xv. 1). Of the latter study there is a good criticism by Jiilicher in 
 Gottinger gelekrte Anzeigen, 1896, pp. 841 foil Corssen has added to our 
 knowledge of the MSS., and his details are sometimes useful. But his main theses 
 exhibit a lack of common sense and of the critical faculty which is simply 
 phenomenal. See also Harnack, Chronol,, ii, pp. 204-6. References are given 
 by Ehrhard and by Bardenhewer. The text is critically edited in Wordsworth and 
 White's Vulgate, and by Corssen with additional MSS. A list of MSS. which contain 
 the Prologues is given by S. Berger, Les prefaces jointes aux livres de la Bible dans 
 les MSS. de la Vulgate (M&noires, Acad, des Inscr. et Belles-lettres, xi. 2, 1904), 
 pp. 55 foil. They may be bought for a few pence in the edition by H. Lietzmann 
 {Das Murat. Fragment und die Monarch, Prologe, 1902, in Kleine Texte fur die 
 Theol. Vorlesungen, published by Marcus und Weber, Bonn) ; an English edition 
 published by Bell & Co., Cambridge, 1905. A commentary was written on the 
 Prologues at the beginning of the ninth century by Sedulius Scotus (Bibl, vet, 
 Patr. t vol. vi; Migne, P. L, t vol. 103). 
 
PRISCILLIAN AUTHOR OF THE PROLOGUES 339 
 
 If these theories were true, it would be probable that the 
 Prologues were written at Rome. But this would ,be some- 
 what surprising, for we know of no Latin writings at Rome 
 in Tertullian's day, unless Pope Victor wrote in Latin, as 
 St. Jerome perhaps implies. It is quite certain that the 
 Prologues as we have them now were written by a Latin in 
 Latin, and it is not easy to comprehend how a clever critic 
 like von Dobschiitz was able to hold that they were trans- 
 lations from the Greek. 1 
 
 The late M. Samuel Berger brought forward more con- 
 vincing arguments, and rightly placed the Prologues in the 
 fourth century. He wrote : 
 
 1 Ne nous hatons pourtant pas trop de remonter dans la se*rie des ages 
 pour chercher la date de nos arguments : il n'est guere possible (car le 
 langage en est tout different) qu'ils aient e*te" faits pour les plus anciennes 
 traductions latines que nous ayons, les textes "africains", qui ne remon- 
 tent pas beaucoup plus haut que le milieu du in 6 siecle. lis semblent au 
 contraire avoir 6t6 faits pour Tune des recensions re'pandues en Italie et 
 en Gaule depuis le commencement du IV 9 siecle, avec les textes dits 
 " Europe*ens rt et " Italiens "■ Si nous les mettons dans la premiere moitie* 
 du IV siecle, nous verrons assurdment en eux un document d'une antiquite" 
 respectable, aussi bien que du caractere le plus original ' (Les Prifaces> 
 P-9). 
 
 I do not myself doubt that the * African ' texts date from 
 the second century, and the earliest ' European ' recension may 
 be earlier than Novatian. Nevertheless Berger's instinct has 
 guided him aright in connecting these prologues with one 
 of these ' editions ' of the old Latin in which the fourth 
 
 1 No doubt the historical matter is indirectly borrowed from the Greek, as we 
 shall see ch. xv, § i. In the Lk. Prologue 'per Matthaeum quidem in Iudaea, 
 per Marcum autem in Italia ', might suggest pttv ... 5^ if quidem is to be preserved. 
 But the affectations, the obscurities, the intertwining of the words and clauses 
 show that the writer was by no means a simple translator. Early translations 
 (the best examples are the New Testament and St. Irenaeus) generally preserve even 
 the order in the most servile manner ; whereas the order of words in the prologues 
 is not Greek at all. Schwartz, in his ingenious but unconvincing and far-fetched 
 essay Ueber den Tod der Sokne Zebedaei, not merely speaks of ' die alten, sicher 
 aus dem Griechischen iibersetzten Prologen *, but even retranslates parts of them 
 back into Greek (p. 27, and p. 28, note), and into Greek which is necessarily quite 
 as odd as the original Latin 1 Corssen, Hilgenfeld (see Bardenhewer, Gesch. der 
 Altk % Litt.y ii. 558) and Berger all uphold Latin as the original tongue. 
 
240 PRISCILLIAN 
 
 century abounded ; only the second half of the century, and 
 Spain rather than Italy or Gaul, will prove to have been the 
 real date and home of these strange productions. 
 
 § a. Comparisons of matter and style. 
 
 If Monarchianism is prominent in the Prologue to Matthew, 
 in those to Luke and Mark the doctrine is still more strongly 
 taught that in the Incarnation God took a human body which 
 He animated as its soul. 1 (We may for convenience call this 
 Apollinarianism, though it goes further than the great teacher 
 of Laodicea, who identified only the higher part of Christ's 
 soul with His divinity.) Corssen has in consequence imagined 
 a distinction between the views advanced in the different 
 prologues, although he is certain that they are by one author 
 (pp. 23-3). Indeed the unity of authorship is set beyond 
 all doubt by the recurrence of the same expressions, the same 
 vocabulary, the same involved style. Surely this even proves 
 that they were written by one author, at one time, with one 
 object in view, and forces us to put down inconsistencies 
 of doctrine to the score of the interpreter and not of the 
 writer. 
 
 But we have seen that in fact there is Apollinarianism 
 as well as Monarchianism in the Prologue to Matthew, and 
 Monarchianism as well as Apollinarianism in those to 
 Luke and Mark, and that the doctrine is perfectly consistent 
 in all of them. Corssen's ingenious reference to Gnosticism 
 to explain the teaching of the Luke and Mark prologues was 
 not very successful. The combination of Monarchianism with 
 ultra- Apollinarianism is really characteristic of a Latin writer, 
 not of the beginning of the third century, but of the end of 
 the fourth — Priscillian. The identity of the doctrine of the 
 
 1 It would be confusing to speak of this as Arianism, since it was not the 
 primary doctrine of Arians, nor tanght by all of them. St. Epiphanius indeed 
 attributes it to Arians in general (Jfaer. lxix. 19) and to Lucian and all the 
 Lucianists (Ancoratus t 33). St. Gregory Nyssen (c. Eunom. Bk. II, p. 157) calls 
 it the foundation of Arian impiety; but Eunomius says in his Confessio Fidei(fio\tir 
 horn, SS. Bus. et Greg, Naz. opp. set., Leipzig, 1854, p. 624): [ottc] 6vaKa&6vTa 
 t6v in ipv^ys Kai ad/fiaros avOpwvov, where the ovh is an interpolation by the Bishop 
 of Nyssa. 
 
AUTHOR OF THE PROLOGUES 241 
 
 prologues with that of Priscillian will appear in the comparison 
 which I append of their teaching, vocabulary, phraseology, 
 and style. 
 
 Not all the details in the following table are of importance ; 
 many are simply included for the sake of completeness, in 
 order to save others the trouble of examining further. The 
 excellent index of Schepss to his edition has made the labour 
 of comparison a light one. I quote Priscillian by the pages 
 of Schepss {CSEL. xviii), adding the line in smaller figures 
 where it seems advisable to be more precise. 
 
 In examining the table, it should be remembered that 
 we are comparing four short prologues with eleven short 
 treatises which fill only 100 pages of the Vienna Corpus. The 
 coincidences are therefore far more remarkable than would be 
 the case if we were dealing with longer documents. I quote 
 the prologues as Mt., Jn., Lk., Mk., and under Mt. I add the 
 parallel passages of the other prologues. 
 
 Prologue to St. Matthew. 
 
 1. (Mt.) Mattheus ex Iudaeis (Wordsw. with DQ3* ; but Corssen 
 reads ex Iudaea with BC©G). 
 
 (Jn.) Iohannes . . . unus exdiscipulis Dei. Cp. Priscillian 35 11 : nullus 
 e nostris ; 40 94 : multi ex his ; and 52 2B , 53", 74 10 . 
 
 2. (Mt.) Duorum in generatione Christi principia praesumens . . . et ex 
 utrisque in patribus Christus . . . decursam aduentus Domini ostendit 
 generationem, ut . . . etiam in his, quorum genus posuit, Christi operantis 
 a principio testimonium non negaret. 
 
 (Lk.) ut requirentibus demonstraret . . . per Nathan filium, introitu re- 
 currentis in Deum generationis admisso, indispartibilis Deus ut praedicans 
 in hominibus Christum suum, perfecti opus hominis redire in se per filium 
 faceret qui per Dauid patrem uenientibus iter praebebat in Christo. 
 
 With these very obscure discussions of the genealogies of Mt. and Lc, 
 compare Priscillian : 
 
 32 : praedestinans a principio saeculi in profetia electos suos, ex quibus 
 Christus secundum carnem, sicut et generatio domini in euangelio per eos 
 disposita et edicta retinetur, per quos profetans se dominus aduentus sui 
 iter praestitit. 
 
 55 : ab omnibus profetatus est Christus, Adam, Sed, Noe, Abraham, 
 Isac, Iacob, et a ceteris qui ab initio saeculi profetauerunt, et intrepidus 
 
 CH . V. c. R 
 
%W PRISCILLIAN 
 
 dico quod inuidet diabolus : uenturum in carne deum omnis homo sciuit, 
 non dicam hii quos in dispositions generationis suae in euangelio deus 
 posuit, et diuinae naturae fidem et numerum canoni praestaturos. The 
 ancestry of Christ proves His Divinity. How ? The Prologue has in- 
 formed us. Numerum canoni is difficult. The 3x14 generations suggest 
 14 Epistles of St. Paul. Perhaps 42 books of O. T. are counted. 
 
 Mt. Et numero satisfaciens et tempori (i. e. ' quaternario denarionumero 
 triformiter posito ', 3 x 14 generations). Whatever mystical idea is in- 
 tended is probably the same as in the above-quoted passage (of the 
 ancestors of Christ) : ' diuinae naturae fidem et numerum canoni prae- 
 staturos.' For Priscillian's interpretation of numbers cp. Prise. 78, for 
 example. 
 
 3. praesumens, and Lc. : Iohannis natiuitate praesumpta (= 'take 
 before') ; so Priscillian 6s 24 , 71 22 . 
 
 4. triformiter: 70 9 , "; 76*; yS 13 : tri/ormis, an unusual word, four 
 times in Priscillian. 
 
 5. a credendi fide. This strange pleonasm is found in 62*: ORE- 
 ID endi FIDEM hominibus insinuet. 
 
 6. The use of repeated participles in the nominative : praesumens . . . 
 porrigens . . . dirigens . . . definiens . . . satisfaciens . . . ostendens . . . (os- 
 tenderet Wordsw.) . . . monstrans, all in one sentence ; in the next : 
 
 f actus . . . f actus . . . natus . . . fiassus . . . triumphans . . . resurgens . . . 
 ostendens. So Jn. : tnanifestans . . . inchoans . . .ponens . . . ostendens . . . 
 znii passim. The later editors of the Prologues did their best to remedy 
 this defect by turning some of the participles into finite verbs. This use 
 is especially characteristic of Priscillian, ' participiorum usui nimis indulget 
 Priscillianus ' (Schepss, p. 208), as even a cursory inspection of his text 
 will show, ex. gr., pp. 4-5 ; agnoscentes . . . renatus . . . intrantes . . . 
 baptizaii . . . induti . . . respuentes . . .passus, all in one sentence ; and 
 so continually. 
 
 7. ostendit . . . ostendens . . . monstrans . . . ostendens; Jn. : tnani- 
 festans . . . ostendens . . . demonstraret . . . monstratj Lc. : manifestata 
 
 . . . demonstraret . . . demonstrare (om. Corssen). Mc. : ostendit . . . 
 ostenderet. In Priscillian similarly ostendere is particularly common, 
 occasionally varied by monstrare (10 times), demonstrare (5), mani- 
 festare (3). 
 
 8. et se quod esset ostendens ; Jn. : ostendens quod erat ipse ; 
 cp. 5, qui cum operibus quis esset ostenderet. 
 
 9. et dei in se opus monstrans ; 98 : dei in nobis opera demon- 
 STRans ; 96 : qui diuinorum praeceptorum in se opus uellet (cp. also 49 : 
 in se et in symbolo suo monstrans ; 63 : opus uerbi factorum operibus 
 ostendens). 
 
 10. ponitur, posito, posuit; Jn. : ponens t positus est, ponitur . . . In 
 Priscillian ponere is especially common, usually with the meaning 'set 
 down in a book ' or ' set in a book ', as in the Prologues. (Priscillian 
 
AUTHOR OF THE PROLOGUES 243 
 
 seems rarely to use positus in place of the missing participle of sum ; cp. 
 Souter, A Study of Ambrosiaster, p. 125.) 
 
 11. Christi operantis a principio (cp. below, operantis Dei) ; cp.103: 
 omnes . . . ad te Christi operantis intrarent (where Chr, oper, may 
 possibly be a genitive absolute). 
 
 12. testimonium non negaret, and Mc. : plenitudinera non ne- 
 garet; cp. Prise. 105 6 : testimonium non negaret; 55": gloriam non 
 negare; 66 7 : gloriam non negaret, and 3I 13 , 98". Notice especially 
 how this favourite expression is as it were dragged in. {testimonium , 
 also in Jn., no less than 40 times in Prise.) 
 
 13. quarum omnium rerum tempus, ordo, numerus, dispositio uel 
 ratio . . . Deus Christus est. For the asyndeton cp. 76 : loco, tempore, 
 numero, die, mense, ratione . . . (Schepss gives 21 examples, out of many 
 more, of asyndeton in Prise). 
 
 For the doctrine, which is the ' Panchristism ' of Priscillian, compare 
 82 : si Christum omnium scimus esse principium ; 71 : intellegamus quod 
 factus pro nobis omnia, dum in oblationes suas dies, menses, formas 
 pecorum, animalium naturas, differentias arborum, fructus terrenorum 
 seminum poscit . . . omnia sua esse demonstrans . . . et per omnium rerum 
 naturae totum se loqu^^f, &c. ; 79 s : innumerabilis Christi natura. See 
 also the Pantheism of 104. 
 
 14. deus christus, so above, uocatio ad Deum, and below, Dei . . . 
 nascentis ; Jn. : ex discipulis Dei, dilectus a Deo, signum . . . quod in 
 nuptiis fecit Deus, Lc. : in carnetn Dei, Deo in Deum pleno, Mc. : Dei 
 aduenientz'Sf praedicare Deum, In all these cases Deus means Christ, 
 In Priscillian Deus frequently stands for Christ, and DEUS CHRISTUS 
 occurs regularly and far beyond orthodox use. Cp. the direct assertion 
 16 20 : Nobis autem Deus Christus Iesus est. Plenty of instances will be 
 seen as we go on. 
 
 15. Qui factus ex muliere, factus sub lege (—Gal iv. 4), cp. 118 (can. 
 xvii) ex muliere factus. Some Latins read ' natus '. 
 
 16. natum ex uirgine; 36: natum ex Maria uirgine; 101 : nato per 
 uirginem Christo. 1 
 
 17. passus in carne; 71 : ipse pro nobis passus in carne ; 72: passus 
 in carne est; 39 : Christus Deus, dei filius, passus in carnem secundum 
 fidem symboli ; 75 : sic se pro hominibus patientem intellegi deum uoluit 
 IN carne (cp.48 10 : passurum deum ; 71 10 : passuri dei). A comparison 
 with nos. 23 and 46 will show that the intention of the phrase is Apollina- 
 rian (cp. I Pet. iv. 1). 
 
 18. omnia in cruce fixit, (a combination of Gal. vi. 14 with Col. ii. 
 14) UT triumphans EA IN SEMETIPSO (Col. ii. is) ; cp. Orosius, Common. 
 
 1 On p. 36 Priscillian is citing the creed (see Kattenbusch, i. 157), the purest 
 Roman form of which has de Sp t S. et M, K, not ex. But the variant ex is too 
 common to be of importance, and I only notice it for the sake of completeness. 
 
 K2 
 
244 PRISCILLIAN 
 
 adv. Prise. (Schepss, p. 153): 'TJnde et mathesim praeualere firmabat 
 [Priscillianus], adserens quia hoc chirographum soluerit Christus, et AD« 
 fixerit cruci per passionem suam* (i.e. 'mittendarum in earner 
 animarum diuinum chirographum \ Prise, afi. Oros. ibid.) ; 72 : mundo 
 in crucem fixo ascendens pro nobis in patibulum Christus ; 77 : uterum 
 uirginalis carnis ingressus . . . et conceptione, partu, uagitibus, cunis, 
 omnes naturae nostrae transcurrens contumelias, MUNDO in crucem fixo 
 saluato in se et per se sibi nomine gauderet ; 16 : chirographum . . . tulit 
 illud de medio, adfigens cruci ; principatus et potestates transduxit 
 fiducialiter, triumphans eos in semetipso (whereas Vulg. reads illos 
 for eos). Also ap. canon xviii, p. 119, which has probably been altered, 
 and 60: ut ueniens in carnem, constitutionem decreti anterioris euerteret 
 [et] in patibulum gloriosae crucis maledicta terrenae dominationis ad- 
 figens, &c. 
 
 19. resurgens in corpore; 49: saluator natus IN CARNE PASSUS RE- 
 SURREXIT ; and 5 24 , 74 1 *. I notice this only because Priscillian's citations 
 from the creed are so important. 
 
 20. et patris nomen in patribus filio, et filii nomen patri restitueret in 
 filiis. The reference is to the Genealogy in St. Matthew, and I have already 
 given an explanation and translation of this mysterious passage, to which 
 Priscillian points when he speaks of the ancestors of Christ diuinae 
 naturae fidem praestaturos (55). I only note here how much Priscillian 
 enjoys these interlaced repetitions of pater and filius ; 49 : in se et in 
 symbolo suo monstrans, nomen patris filium, itemque filii patrem, 
 ne Binionitarum 1 error ualeret, edocuit; 103 : ut in te UNO et inuisibili- 
 tatis plenitudo, quod pater filio, et uisibilitas agnoscentiae, quod 
 filius patri in operatione sancti Spiritus deberet, ageretur . . . ut . . . 
 accessum ad te, quia patrem filii in filio et filium patris in patre 
 ignorauerat, non haberet ; cp. 104 : tu animarum pater, tu frater filiis, tu 
 filius fratribus, &c. For the doctrine, cp. the references to St John (xiv. 
 10) 6 : totus in patre et pater in ipso, and (1 Jo. ii. 23) 7 : dicente apostolo, 
 qui negat filium nee patrem habet, qui autem confitetur filium, et filium et 
 patrem habet. For other repetitions similarly forming a play upon words, 
 see Schepss's Index, p. 204, under lusus uerborum. 
 
 21. sine principio sine fine, ostendens unum se cum patre esse 
 (Jo. x. 30) quia UNUS EST; 71 : Christus autem origo omnium, totus in 
 sese, nee quod est aliunde praesumens, sine principio sine fine, quern 
 si per uniuersa consideres, UNUM inuenies in totis, et facilius de eo 
 sermo deficiet quam natura (here again is ' Panchristism ') ; cp. also 93 : 
 ttnum et indirTerentem sibi deum retinens in ea quae neque {in) exordio 
 neque fini obnoxiantur exultat a , 6 : et iterum ipso dicente : ego et 
 
 1 The Binionitae are the * Ditheists \ those who make the Father and the Son 
 two Persons, in other words, the Catholics. 
 
 3 According to Priscillian the Son has no principium, and He is Himself the 
 
AUTHOR OF THE PROLOGUES 245 
 
 PATER UNUM sumus (Jo. x. 30) ; cp. ibid. : et haec tria UNUM SUNT in 
 Christo Iesu (1 Jo. v. 7, the Comma Iohanneum or * three heavenly 
 witnesses ') ; 49: qui requirentibus apostolis omne id quod nominabatur 
 (Panchristism ! cp. Eph. i. 21) se esse monstrauit, unum se credi uoluit, 
 non diuisum, dicente profeta, ' hie est deus noster, nee reputabitur alius 
 absque eum, qui ostendit uiam disciplinae, et dedit earn Iacob puero suo 
 et Istrahel dilecto suo ; posthaec in terns uisus est, et cum hominibus 
 conuersatus est, Dominus Deus nomen eius (Baruch iii. 36-8). It would 
 be difficult to deny the Trinity more categorically than this. 1 Again, 75 ; 
 unus deus est, si sermo ; unus est Christus, si opus ; unus Iesus, si natura 
 quaeritur ... sic uniuersa disponens, ut, cum unus esset in totis, unum in 
 se uolens hominem, aliud genus perfecti operis scrutator eius habere non 
 posset, nisi ut UNUM eum deum crederet, quern omnipotentem in se quod 
 est et quod dicitur inueniret. 
 
 22. Sic prima uel MEDIA uel PERFECTA cognoscere. Priscillian is 
 very fond of this threefold division ; 36 : si ea quae prima sunt non 
 quaerunt, uel in mediis tertiisque consistunt . . . etiamsi adimplendi 
 perfecti operis non habeant facultatem. (Cp. 93 prima, media^postrema, 
 omnia ; 67 : primum . . . secundo in gradu ... in gloriam perfectae septi- 
 manae. 10 : initium et consummationem et medietatem mensuum, Wisd. 
 vii. 17 ; 78 : initium, medietatem et consummationem mundi.) 
 
 23. Dilectionem Dei in carne nascentis ; 53 : tarn incredibilis 
 miraculi, Deum nasci habere ; 49 : fides unius Dei, ex quo Christus 
 Deus, Dei filius, saluator, natus in carne passus resurrexit ; 101 ; ex 
 Iuda . . . Deus natus in carne est. Of the Apollinarian doctrine 
 implied we have spoken and shall speak later (nos. 46, 56, and 63). 
 
 24. per uniuersa legentes intellegant ; 71 : quem si per uniuersa 
 consideres. 
 
 25. Atque id in eo in quo adprehensi sunt et adprehendere ex- 
 petunt (Phil. iii. 12), recognoscant ; Lc. : in quo adprehendens erat; 
 
 cp. 7 : ADPREHENDERE UOlumuS IN QUO ADPREHENSI SUMUS (Vulg. 
 
 reads conpreh,). 
 
 principium of all things; 82 : Si Christum omnium scimus esse principium; 75 : 
 films est, si principium quaeritur. 
 
 1 Perhaps the locus classicus for the monarchianism of Priscillian is 37 : 
 baptizantes, sicut scriptum est, in nomine patris et filii et Spiritus sancti. Non 
 dicit autem 'in nominibus* tamquam in multis, sed in uno, quia unus deus trina 
 potestate uenerabilis omnia et in omnibus Christus est. Also 103 : Tu enim es deus, 
 qui cum in omnibus originibus uirtutum intra extraque et supereminens et internus 
 et circumfusus in omnia unus deus crederis, inuisibilis in patre> uisibilis in filio, 
 et unitus in opus duoium sanctus Spiritus inueniris. Note that the creed Nbs 
 Patrem et filium i which Kunstle has shown to be Priscillianist {Antipriscilliana, 
 p. 59) has ' tres itaque formae, una potestas ', which is the converse of Priscillian's 
 own ' trina potestate uenerabilis *, hardly its contradictory. Professor Kunstle's 
 book is very brilliant and suggestive, though not quite always convincing. 
 
246 PRISCILLIAN 
 
 26. Nobis enim hoc IN studio argumenti FUIT ; 34 : FUERlTque in 
 STUDIO sustinere. The construction (cp. Horace's hoc erat in uotis) is 
 rightly explained by Corssen, p. 13. Priscillian twice uses the similar 
 cordi est, 40 19 , 41 25 . 
 
 27. Et fidem factae rei tradere; Mc. : auctoritatem factae rei; 
 47 : aut certe historiam factae rei proferens. (So also rei gestae, 40 28 
 and 4I 20 .) 
 
 28. Non tacere ; cp. 4 : tacere noluimus ; 40 : nee hoc tacentes ; 54 : 
 praesentis Dei glorias non tacebant. Cp. no. 12, above. 
 
 Prologue to St. John. 
 
 29. incorruptibilis uerbi opus inchoans ; Corssen has a comma in 
 the prologue after incorruptibilis, but according to no. 11, above, we ought 
 to join only ostendens quod erat ipse. Besides, though John might be 
 called incorruptus, he would surely not be called incorruptibilis. We 
 may therefore compare 68 : non ex semine corruptibili, sed incorrupti- 
 bili uerbo Dei uiui (1 Pet. i. 25), where Priscillian probably intended 
 no stop before uerbo. See above, p. 227. With UERBI OPUS inchoans, 
 compare Mc: nee sic IN opere uerbi perderet, in both cases of the 
 work of the Evangelist. So 12 : Et tunc dominus etiam nobis post futuris 
 ad intellegendum se OPUS UERBI tribuens parabulam dicti per se sermonis 
 exposuit dicens, where Job xl. 3-14 interprets Job xxxix. Again of Moses 
 writing Genesis, 63 : scribti uerbis scilicet edocens, et opus uerbi 
 factorum operibus ostendens. 
 
 30. uerbum caro factum (Jo. i. 14) ; Lc. : Emissum non solum 
 UERBUM caro factum; 5 : ipse est enim qui fuit, est, et futurus est, et 
 uisus a saeculis UERBUM caro factus inhabitauit in nobis, et crucifixus, 
 deuicta morte, uitae heres effectus est. 
 
 31. ueteribus immutatis noua omnia quae a Christo instituuntur 
 appareant ; 72 : sic in nobis perfectio boni gloria sit, si castificatio 
 corporis fructu diuinae excolitur uoluntatis, sicut apostolus ait: ecce 
 transierunt uetera et facta sunt omnia noua (2 Cor. v. 17). Here 
 the nouitas is in both cases connected with chastity ; and again, 79 : ut 
 ambulantibus nobis in nouitate uitae et non in uetustate litterae 
 (Rom. vii. 4, 6), acceptum in uictoria a nobis corpus non appelletur iam 
 terra saeculi sed domus dei, nee fornicationis habitaculum, sed imago 
 corporis Christi (cp. 100 1 ; can. 78, p. 142). 
 
 32. singula quaeque; 46 s : singuli quique, and 48 20 ; 65°: sin- 
 gulis quibusque, and 72 B . 
 
 33. Acta uel dicta ; cp. 49 s6 : facta, dicta uel scripta. 
 
 34. Mysterium, in Prise, eight times. 
 
 35. in principio canonis; 63: ut [Moyses] ... principium daret 
 
 CANONI. 
 
 36. Incorruptibile principium in Genesi, et incorruptibilis finis per 
 
AUTHOR OF THE PROLOGUES 247 
 
 uirginem in Apocalypsi (Apoc. i. 8) ; 47 : quis est iste Abel profeta, ex 
 quo sanguis profetarum sumpsit exordium, cuius principium in Zac- 
 chariam finit ? (cp. 82 10 : psalmo, quia primus est, omniumque principium 
 est.) The incorruptibile principium is Christ, who is sine principio (above, 
 no. 21), but is the principium of all things; 82: si Christum omnium 
 scimus esse principium ; 75 : filius est si principium quaeritur. 
 
 37. Dispositione canonis ordinati ; 45 : canonica ordinatio 
 (meaning the inclusion of books in the canon, as here). 
 
 38. Post Matthaeum ponitur, quoniam . • . and Mt. : Matthaeus . . . 
 sicut in ordine primus ponitur ; the importance of the number and order 
 of the books in the canon is suggested 31 : Si qui . . . extra quattuor 
 Euangelia quintum aliquod euangelium uel fingunt uel confitentur ... in 
 quatuor euangeliorum DISPOSITIONE; 87-8: non inmerito ordo psalmorum 
 digestus uidetur, nee incondite, quae spiritus Dei dictauit exposita . . . 
 beatus uir (= first) . . . secundo . . . tertio . . . See also no. 40, below. 
 
 39. plenitudinis opere perfecta sunt (with regard to a part of the 
 canon, viz. John) ; cp. 63 : canoni, cuius in se plenitudinem (of Moses 
 writing Genesis). 
 
 40. Quorum tamen uel scripturarum tempore dispositio uel 
 librorum ordinatio ; 97 s8 : scribturarum dispositio (of internal arrange- 
 ment) ; loo 9 : dispositione sermonis profetici opens (of order of sense in 
 a psalm). Cp. for the ablative after dispositio 76 : simplicem disposi- 
 tionem, loco, tempore, numero, die, mense, ratione, diuisam. 
 
 41. per singula ; 6 10 per singula, and 23 s , 38*. 
 
 42. Sciendi desiderio ; cp. 27 16 : si scire desiderant. 
 
 Prologue to St. Luke. 
 
 43. Ante (adverb) ; so Prise, thrice. 
 
 44. Extra ea quae for praeterquam quod ; so Prise. 22 19 : extra 
 enim EA quae . . . solem et lunam rectores orbis terrarum deos puta- 
 uerunt. 
 
 45. ordo euangelicae dispositionis ; 62: in opus EUANGELICAE 
 dispositions electus [Moyses]. 
 
 46. Omm perfectione uenturi in carnem Dei manifestata ; Pris- 
 cillian seems to have supported his doctrine of ' God coming into flesh * 
 (i. e. the divinity acting as the soul, for he held the soul to be a part of 
 God even in ordinary men), by reading in carnem in two passages of 
 St. John's Epistle ; 7 20 : Qui autem negat Iesum Christum in carnem 
 UENISSE, hie antechristus est (1 Jo. ii. 23), but 21 s1 : qui negat Iesum 
 Christum IN CARNE UENISSE. Again 31 1 : omnis spiritus qui confitetur 
 Christum Iesum in carnem uenisse de Deo est (1 Jo. iv. 2) ; but 31*: 
 qui non confitentur Christum Iesum IN CARNE UENISSE . . . Three other 
 passages have IN carne, viz. 7 18 : Scientes quoniam Christus uenit in 
 Carne ut peccatores saluos faceret (1 Tim. i. 1 5) ; 28 1S : Deus noster . . , 
 
«48 PRISCILLIAN 
 
 UENIENS IN CARNEJ 55 s : UENTURUM IN CARNE DEUM. As 7 18 has 
 carne and 7 20 has carnem, both cannot be right. But carnem is the 
 lectio difficilior, and also agrees best with Priscillian's view. This is con- 
 firmed by the fact that in 28 18 the scribe wrote carne and then corrected 
 it into carnem : deus noster . . . ueniens in carnem. Again it is said 
 of Moses 62 18 : tale uenientis in carne meruit exordium, which is nonsense; 
 but if we read carnem, we get good sense ' deserved such a commence- 
 ment of his (soul's) coming into the flesh*. One must conclude that the 
 scribe of our only MS. of Priscillian was inclined to write in carne, as was 
 indeed more natural, and as he has again done 75 2 : secundum carne. 
 There remain still three passages in which carnem is given ; 72 s : pro 
 nobis uenturus in carnem uel passus in carne est ; 60 4 : ueniens in 
 carnem, and 102 7 : nisi quod Deus in carnem uenire uoluit It is 
 certainly remarkable that all the MSS. of the prologues cited, except 
 AH®, have preserved the characteristic in carnem. Cp. 61 8 : adueniens 
 in carnem deus. 
 
 47. Iudaicis fabulis (Tit. i. 14) . . . hereticis fabulis et stultis sollicita- 
 tionibus ; in Prise, fabulae four times. Cp. also 5 7 hereticorum dogmata 
 stulta; 15 11 : idolorum superstitiones stultae. 
 
 48. Elaboraret . . . ne, and laborare, Mk., cp. elaborare lit 8 15 , I a 23 , 35 4 ; 
 elab. quo 112 7 . 
 
 49. In quo electus (in quod ?), cp. 82 : dum omne in se in quodelectus 
 fuerat exultat (David) ; 62 : in opus euangelicae dispositionis electus. 
 
 50. Ut requirentibus demonstraret ; cp. 49 : requirentibus apostolis . . . 
 monstrauit. 
 
 51. Praedicans in hominibus Christum suum ; cp. 30: si Christum 
 deum profetat aut praedicat; 41 : quae Christum deum dei filium pro- 
 fetant aut firaedicant. 
 
 52. Perfecti opus hominis ; (of Christ) cp. 72 : uelut in duobus per- 
 fectus homo quaeritur ; 77 : uelut perfecti hominis locum. 
 
 53. uenientibus iter praebebat ; 61 : siccum populo iter prae- 
 buit ; 32 s : iter PRAEStitit and 61 1 ; 6 : ascendens in caelos, uenienti- 
 bus ad se ITER construit. 
 
 54. Cui Lucae non inmerito ; 87 17 : non inmerito per profetam . . . 1 
 
 55. Lucae . . . apostolicorum actuum . . . apostolicis actibus ;, Priscillian 
 has euangelium cata Lucanum (as in the headings of the Old Latin MSS. 
 aff* 2), but in speaking of the evangelist uses the ordinary abbreviated 
 name Lucas ; 53 : nisi me Lucae euangelistae testimonium perurgeret. 
 He has not actis but actibus (ibid. : dicentis in actibus apostolorum). (The 
 adjective apostolicus is common in Prise.) 
 
 1 This quite ordinary expression is the only phrase found in the prologues which 
 can be paralleled from the list of Ambrosiaster's peculiar expressions given by 
 Mr. A. Souter {A Study of Ambrosiaster i p. 114). The coincidences in style of 
 the prologues with Priscillian are more remarkable when we perceive how little 
 they have in common with the writings of his contemporaries. 
 
AUTHOR OF THE PROLOGUES 249 
 
 56. ' Deo in Deum pleno ' seems to be an ablative absolute, meaning 
 ' God (the Son) having been (at His ascension) poured back into God 
 the Father so as to fill Him/ i.e. be identified with Him. With plenus 
 in Deum we may perhaps compare 6i 8 : plenus in omnes crepidines 
 Iordanis. For the sense (the account of the Ascension in Acts i is 
 certainly intended) cp. 6 : et ascendens in caelos uenientibus ad se iter 
 construit, totus in ftatre et pater in ipso, &c. 
 
 57. Expediri = * be explained ' ; 33 s fidei expedita abseratione. 
 
 58. Publicamcuriositatem; cp. 4 1 n : iudicium publicum; 92* : publicae 
 opinionis ; 87 11 : curiosae mentis intentio ; 87 16 : curiosius intuenti. 
 
 59. Operantem agricolam oporteat de fructibus suis edere ; for some- 
 what similar metaphors (from 1 Cor. ix. 10), 67 s4 : arans in spe, fidei suae 
 fructus colligens, and 13 19 , cp. 46 28 , 
 
 Prologue to St. Mark. 
 
 60. Ostendens in eo quid (or quod) et generi suo deberet et Christo ; 
 cp. 103 : quod filius patri — deberet, ageretur. 
 
 61. Voce profeticae exclamationis ; 11 : Dauid ... in superior! exclama- 
 tione; 31 6 : Hiesu Naue . . . exclamauit, &c; 57 14 : profeticis uocibus,&c. 
 
 62. 'Initium principii* is taken by Sedulius Scotus to mean 'in the 
 commencement of the introduction *. But it may be a mere pleonasm, as 
 62 18 : initio nascendi (63 s : factorum operibus, et similia). 
 
 63. Emissum non solum uerbum caro factum, sed corpus Domini in 
 omnia per uerbum diuinae uocis animatum. ' The Body of the Lord in 
 all things animated by the Word ' is Priscillian's Apollinarian, or more 
 than Apollinarian, teaching (see no. 46). The words in omnia have been 
 omitted by most MSS. (Corssen cites ZOXAYtKIvTcfVCHPE) in order 
 to modify it ; cp. 65 : acceptoque limo terreni habitaculi nostrum corpus 
 animauit ; 71 : pecus terrae ... in usum formati saeculi praecepto animae 
 uiuentis animatum est (?) ; 79 21 : animati corporis. 
 
 64. Ut qui(s) haec legens sciret cut initium carnis . . . deberet agnoscere ; 
 cp. 96 ; ut, qui diuinorum praeceptorum in se opus uellet . . . cut tributa 
 peccaminum, cut stipendia uitiorum, cut timores formidinum, cut honores 
 praetereuntium dignitatum deditus saeculo homo deberet, agnosceret. 
 From this parallel it is clear that in the prologue cut . . . deberet depends 
 on agnoscere, i. e. * sciret agnoscere cui . . . deberet \ 
 
 65. Initium carnis in Domino et Dei aduenientis habitaculum. The 
 use of habitaculum for the body is familiar to Prisciliian, e. g. of Christ, 
 53-4: ad concipiendum uel parturieridum habitaculum corporis; 82; 
 si . . . hominem Christi agnoscamus habitaculum ; and of men in general, 
 e. g. 62 : etsi hospitio terreni tenetur habitaculi ; 65 : acceptoque limo 
 terreni habitaculi nostrum corpus animauit ; 85 12 : corruptibilis habitaculi ; 
 70 : terrenae carnis habitaculum. 
 
 66. With dei aduenientis compare 61 : adueniens in carnem deus. 
 For the Apollinarian doctrine also cp. 59: uirginis partus et in ad- 
 
25° PRISCILLIAN 
 
 sumptionem corporis omnipotens deus pudorem humani exordii non 
 recusans ; and yet more clearly 74 : denique Deus noster adsumens 
 carnem, formam in se dei et kominis, id est diuinae animae et terrenae 
 carnis adsignans, dum aliud ex his peccati formam, aliud diuinam ostendit 
 esse naturam. How the soul of man is born of God, and afterwards 
 thrust into a body, according to Priscillian, is told by Orosius, Common. 2 
 (Schepss, p. 153). 
 
 67. perfect! euangelii opus intrans, cp. 65 : sermo diuinus facturae (?) 
 OPUS intrans ; 67 : in opus lectae lectionis intrantes. 
 
 68. natiuitatem carnis (opposed to baptismo, above), 83 : si natiuitate 
 carnis adstricti. More often Priscillian speaks of terrena natiuitas 70 1 *, 
 73 B , 75 15 ), whereas baptism is diuina in deum natiuitas 78 s , or noua 
 natiuitas 97 s4 , &c. 1 
 
 69. baptismo . . . expulsionem deserti . . . ieiunium numeri, temtationem 
 diaboli ; cf. for these four points 61 : post locuplitatum baptismatis 
 f ontem, constitutus in eremo y ieiunans diebus et noctibus uicit, et temptatus 
 a zabulo . . . (Priscillian uses both zabulus and diabolus frequently). With 
 ieiunium numeric cp. 60: quadraginta dierum erimum domini in euangelio 
 ieiunantis imitati. 
 
 70. conpingens; cp. 104 14 for this uncommon expression. 
 
 71. perficiendo operi ; 80 16 : perficiendi operis. 
 
 72. consentiens fidei ; cp. 72 : consentiens nouum testamentum ueteri. 
 
 73. meruerat, not of strict merit, but of predestination; so 62 18 : 
 Moyses . . . initio nascendi tale uenientis in carne meruit exordium. 
 
 74. DIUINAM in carne Domini intellegere NATURAM; again Apollinarian 
 doctrine. Priscillian generally uses diuina natura of the divine nature 
 (soul) in all men 3 ; 93 : totum se diuinae unde profectus est naturae 
 e deo Christo . . . reddat ; 70 : nos diuinae consortes uoluit esse naturae 
 (2 Pet. i. 4) ; 100: dispensationem diuinae in se intellegere naturae; 81 : 
 naturam in uobis Dei custodientes, &c, and especially (EpisL ap. Orosium) 
 I S3 11 : haec prima sapientia est, in animarum typis diuinarum uirtutum 
 'ntellegere naturas et corporis dispositionem in qua obligatum caelum 
 uidetur et terra omnesque principatus saeculi uidentur adstricti, sanctorum 
 uero dispositiones superare, a saying as dark as anything in the Prologues. 
 
 § 3. Results of the examination* 
 
 The conclusions to be drawn from these statistics are 
 sufficiently obvious, and I need only point them out in the 
 most cursory manner. 
 
 A. The heresy of Priscillian — Monarchianism, Panchristism, 
 
 1 Expulsionem deserti ; Priscillian uses eremus twice, but not desertum, 
 
 3 Orosius says in his Commonitorium, 2 (Schepss, p. 153), of Priscillian: 
 
 ' docens animam quae a deo nata sit de quodam promptnario procedere, profiteri 
 
 ante deum se pugnaturam et instrui adoratu angelorum.' 
 
AUTHOR OF THE PROLOGUES 251 
 
 Apollinarianism — is accurately given in the Prologues. It is 
 given in Priscillian's own words, his own favourite and 
 reiterated expressions being employed. (See above, 13, 14, 
 17, 18, 21, 23, 46, 56, 63, 65, 68, 74.) This is the principal 
 point. The doctrine of the Prologues was carefully examined 
 in the last chapter. In this chapter it has been shown that it 
 is the doctrine of Priscillian, both in intention and in expression. 
 
 B. The particular interest shown. by the Prologues for the 
 genealogies is not alien to Priscillian, cp. %. 
 
 C. Mystical numbers, the order of books or parts of books 
 in the Bible, cp. a, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40. 
 
 D. Involved, quaint, far-fetched ideas, almost incompre- 
 hensible to us, are found in both (ex. gr. 30). The instances 
 in the prologues are obvious. But the reader of Priscillian 
 will find untranslateable passages on almost every page, and 
 will not seldom come across an inextHcabilis nodus almost as 
 hopeless as the nomen patris in patribus filio or the qtwd in 
 consonantibus perdiderat of the prologues. 
 
 E. The style is extremely similar. The extraordinary 
 length of the sentences is the most remarkable point in the 
 prologues; and exactly the same may be observed every- 
 where in Priscillian. For instance the very first tractate has 
 \%\ lines before the first full stop! Clause is piled upon 
 clause, principally with the help of relatives and participles. 
 There is a difference however. The prologues are terse and 
 knapp, not diffuse, and this is of course intentional. They 
 are far more obscure than the rest of Priscillian, for the 
 writer explains that he has purposely involved his meaning in 
 difficulty, that the searcher may have the reward of labour 
 in finding the meaning of Scripture for himself. His fear 
 of punishment for heresy was justified by the cruelty shown 
 in his judicial murder. 
 
 F. The constructions are the same in both. Relatives con- 
 tinually, participles, especially present participles (cp. 8), and 
 a good many ablative absolutes. Of these it is unnecessary 
 to give examples. Simplicity and plainness seem to be 
 purposely avoided. 
 
 G. A sort of involution of clauses, reserving the chief verb 
 
252 PRISCILLIAN 
 
 till the end as in German, is observable in both. Good instances 
 are Lc. : ' UT in principio euangelii Iohannis natiuitate pre- 
 sumpta, cui euangelium scriberet et in quo electus scriberet, 
 indicaret ' (fourteen words between ut and its verb), or Mc. : 
 ' ut praedicans . . . ostenderet/ in which sentence there are 
 twenty-eight words between ut and its verb ! So the first 
 lines of Priscillian 's first treatise : ' Etsi fides nostra . . . 
 liberi sit ' give us fourteen words between etsi and its verb ; 
 while in line 7 ut is followed by an ablative absolute (three 
 words), then by quamuis . . . Christo (forty-two words !), after 
 which its verb is forgotten, and a new tamen takes up the 
 tamen of line 5, and the main verb noluimus follows after 
 twenty-five more words ; and so always. 
 
 H. The same conjunctions and links are employed. The 
 chief favourite is the relative, also hie est . . . qui ; qui etsi ; 
 denique ; ideo, &c. The use of asyndeton (13). 
 
 I. Not merely the same dogmatic phrases, but the same 
 expressions with regard to other matters recur in both sets of 
 writings (as 9, 12, 18, 22, 24, 26, 27, 28, 29, 32, 40, 4*, 44, 45> 
 53> 54, 64, 6j) t Of these some are remarkable (credendi 
 fides, per uniuersa^ in studio fuit, facta res, extra ea quae, opus 
 intrans)> as being rare or unique ; while others are character- 
 istic of style (e. g. non tacere y non negare,per singula^ euangelica 
 disposition opus uerbi % &c). 
 
 K. In vocabulary there is great similarity : (1) in technical 
 descriptions of doctrine, as we saw, (2) conjunctions, &c. ; 
 (3) words given above, e. g. 3, 4, 7, 34, 47, 48, 5 8 > 6l > 7°> 7*> 
 73 ; (4) words which occur (mostly more than once, or many 
 times) in the Prologues, and are very frequent in Priscillian. 
 I italicize the most important : agnoscere, canon and canonicus, 
 cognoscere, debere, disponere and disposition electus and e!ectio t 
 euangelium, initium, intellegere, inuenire, opus, ostendo, per- 
 fectusy sermo, tempus, testimonium, totus, uerbum, unus, &c, 
 &c. (Some of these might well be common in any writer.) 
 With the tens participle in Jn. compare exiet for exibit twice in 
 Prise. Attention should be drawn to the frequent use of 
 in se, which is most characteristic of both sets of writings. 
 
 L. Priscillian was fond of using apocrypha. He defends 
 
AUTHOR OF THE PROLOGUES 253 
 
 his practice at length in Tract, iii, pp. 44-56- liber de fide et 
 apocryphis. In the Prologues there is a clear dependence on 
 the Acts of John, which were used by Priscillianists. 1 
 
 M. Both writers use the same Old Latin text of Holy 
 Scripture. Against this it cannot be urged that in Mc. we find 
 desertum where Prise, has eremus y for this merely means that 
 the writer is not quoting in the former place, but using the 
 usual Latin word. The instances given above are : 
 
 15. foetus ex muliere> where for natum Tischendorf gives 
 m 6 fu demid tol harl ** al Cyp 288 Ps-Ath (Vigil) ter Leo 
 (serm 24, non item serm 33), to which one may add codices or 
 writers known to Bede. This coincidence is not remarkable. 
 
 18. omnia in cruce fixit (Mt.) and mundo in crucem fixo, 
 (Prise, bis) — Gal. vi. 14, where Vulg. reads mihi mundus 
 cruci fixus est 
 
 18. triumphans ea in semetipso, where Vulg. has illos for 
 ea 9 Col. ii. 15 (Prise, eos, Schepss). 
 
 35. adprehendere in quo adprehensus (sum), Phil. iii. 12, 
 where Vulg. has comprehendam in quo et cotnprehensus sum. 
 
 46. Apparently both read in carnem uenisse^ 1 John iv. 2 
 (=2 John 7), where the right reading is of course in came, 
 iv (rapuC. 
 
 29. incorruptibili uerbo Dei uiui, 1 Pet. i. 23, where the Vul- 
 gate makes it impossible to connect ineorruptibili with uerbo, 
 by the correct rendering per uerbum Dei uiuL 
 
 I conclude from all this that the Prologues were written by 
 Priscillian, and even at no great distance of time from the 
 composition of the Traetatus, for the connexion is very close. 
 Why documents so heretical and so obscure should have been 
 so frequently copied is the really insoluble problem which 
 they present to the modern critic. 
 
 1 Dr. Kiinstle says : ' Allerdings wird den Priscillianisten der Gebrauch apokry- 
 pher Schriften stets zum Vorwurf gemacht, aber es sind darunter nicht ausser- 
 kanonische Schriften im allgemeinen zu verstehen, sondern es sind immer jene 
 phantastischen Apostel- und Evangelienromane gemeint, ans denen die Pris- 
 cillianisten ihre gnostisch-manichaischen Irrtiimer schopften' (Antipriscilliana, 
 p. 182). So says Tnrribius (see p. 273). Kiinstle is wrong in doubting the 
 authenticity of Leo, Ep. xv. Priscillian himself used the Acts of Thomas 
 (C. H. Turner in /. T. S. f July, 1906, p. 605), and presumably those of John. 
 
CHAPTER XIV 
 
 LATER MANIPULATIONS OF THE PROLOGUES 
 OF PRISCILLIAN 
 
 § i. The Prologue to Acts l Lucas natione Syrus \ 
 
 Before entering upon the history of the Prologues in the 
 MSS., it is necessary to say something about certain manipu- 
 lations of them. 
 
 The Prologues to John and Luke contain also introductions 
 to the Apocalypse and the Acts of the Apostles, and these 
 portions were at an early date separated and edited into Pro- 
 logues to those books. They obtained very nearly as large 
 a circulation as the original family. These bastard Prologues 
 are first found in the Codex Fuldensis, c. 543-6, and must 
 have been composed during the preceding century. 
 
 1. The Prologue to Acts Lucas natione Syrus will be found 
 in Wordsworth and White, who have noted that the whole is 
 borrowed from the Prologue to Luke, except " cuius laus in 
 euangelio canitur 7 at the beginning, and at the end * quem ita 
 diuina subsecuta est gratia ut non solum corporum sed etiam 
 animarum eius proficeret medicina ' ; both these sentences are 
 from a passage in St. Jerome's letter to Paulinus (Ep. ^) t 
 which is found in many MSS. as a Prologue to Acts : 
 
 * Actus apostolorum nudam quidem sonare uidentur historiam et 
 nascentis ecclesiae infantiam texere ; sed si nouerimus scriptorem eorum 
 Lucam esse medicum cuius laus est in euangelio, animaduertemus pariter 
 omnia uerba illius animae languentis esse medicinam.' 
 
 It is obvious to conjecture that the compiler of Lucas natione 
 Syrus found this Prologue to hand, and thought it too short, 
 so he combined it with a large portion of the Prologue to 
 Luke, rewritten and simplified. 1 These two Prologues to 
 
 1 Another combination is found in the Spanish witnesses CT (both of these contain 
 Actus Ap. nudam t and T has also Lucas natione Syrus) ; it is a short prologue 
 
PROLOGUES OF PRISCILLIAN 255 
 
 Acts are still found together in many MSS. Four of Words- 
 worth's codices contain both : 
 
 Lucas not. Syrus B F0 KMRTU W c gig 
 Actus Ap. nudam C ©I MRT V 
 
 and from Berger one may add compl\ BN 6, Bern A 9, Vat 
 4221. 
 
 The text of Lucas natione Syrus is our oldest witness to the 
 text of those portions of the Prologue to Luke which it has 
 retained unaltered. Two readings are singular, and I believe 
 correct, although none of Wordsworth's witnesses know them. 
 One of these I shall discuss on p. 271 : the age of St. Luke is 
 given as eighty-four and not seventy-four. The other point 
 needs more explanation. Priscillian says that Luke received 
 the power of writing the Acts of the Apostles, so that after 
 the Resurrection and the death of Judas the number of the 
 Apostles might be completed (by the election of Matthias), 
 ' sicque Paulus consummationem apostolicis actibus daret . . . '; 
 what is the meaning of sicque? It reads as if St. Paul was 
 the twelfth apostle just implied. But the compiler of the Pro- 
 logue to Acts read Paulum : ' and that so he (St. Luke) 
 might present Paul as the consummation of his book.' This 
 gives far better sense, and it is much more in accordance with 
 the style of the Prologue that St. Luke should be the 
 subject until the end of the sentence. But I did not intro- 
 duce this reading into the text given in the last chapter nor 
 into my translation, as being in no MSS. In the Prologue to 
 
 made out of the Prologue to Luke, the Actus Ap. nudam and the summaries of CT 
 {Be conuersatione domini) ; it is given by Wordsworth on p. 3 of his edition of 
 Vulgate Acts ; the first words are Lucas euangelista Apostholorum hactus. It corre- 
 sponds to a shortened form of the Prologue to Luke (' Lucas Antiocensis ') which 
 is given by Wordsworth {Gospels, p. 271) from C with the interpolations of T in 
 footnotes. It is also in leg 1 (A. D. 920) Colm. 38 (eighth century) and Bibl. JVat., 
 1513 (Berger, Les /V^., No. 331). The other {Lucas eu. ap. kaclus)isviC t T t leg 1 J 
 compl* aem., Dresden A 47, Strahov. 19. Berger has by mistake given it twice 
 over, first as No. 246, then as No. 248 {Les Prefaces, p. 60). I wonder whether 
 Peregrinus was the author of these two simplifications of the Prologue to Luke. 
 They are in the same Bibles as his canons and his Ideo tt de Graeco, and every 
 trace of heresy has been eliminated. Another attempt at making Priscillian more 
 comprehensible is found in 0, wherein parts of his prologues are mingled with 
 other matter (Wordsworth, pp. 173, 272). Bishop Theodulf may have got them 
 from Spain. 
 
256 LATER MANIPULATIONS OF THE 
 
 Acts Paulum is given by all MSS. except the late W BX\Agig t 
 
 which have manifestly borrowed their reading from the 
 
 Prologue to Luke. The other readings to be noticed are : 
 
 add nsXione omnes (with ADS'HQKQVX c in Luke), 
 ministerio {but mysterio BFU), (with D3>QY in Luke), 
 perditionis omnes (with DK, and, teste Corssen, B®, in Luke), 
 sciens omnes (with BHQKM'OV against AD3*Q in Luke), 
 oportet omnes (with D1PQ in Luke). 
 
 In four out of five cases the early witness of the Irish MSS. 
 is supported by the Prologue to Acts. In the case of sciens, 
 uolui has preceded, and we may guess that the compiler 
 expected to be taken for St. Jerome. So he may have found 
 scientes. Only one other variant need be noticed. All the 
 MSS. read stimulos in the Prologue to Luke, though in Acts 
 ix. 5,xxii. 7, xxvi. 14 all MSS., whether Old Latin or Vulgate, 
 have stimulum. In the Prologue to Acts only F0T have 
 preserved stimulos ; this is a testimony to the excellence of 
 the Spanish tradition of ©T (we know that* the Spanish tradition 
 is good, in the Prologues to the Gospels) ; F is the oldest 
 MS. The Prologue to Acts is apparently unknown to the 
 Irish tradition, as it is not in the Book of Armagh. It is not 
 in the Kentish O of Acts (Selden MS., now Bodl. 3418). 
 This is negative evidence. It is unlikely that it was unknown 
 at Canterbury, when we remember the bad character of the 
 text of the Gospel Prologues in OX ; but it is still more 
 unlikely that it was known at Lerins before 43 a, when 
 St. Patrick seems to have introduced an admirable text of 
 the Gospel Prologues into Ireland. Its composition will fall 
 anywhere in the fifth century. 
 
 § %. The Prologue to the Apocalypse i Joannes, apostolus et 
 euangelista\ 
 The common Prologue to the Apocalypse is extracted from 
 Priscillian's Prologue to St. John, just as that to Acts is from 
 Priscillian's Prologue to St. Luke. The two compilations are 
 obviously by the same author and of the same date. The 
 Prologue to the Apocalypse is very widely diffused, although 
 it had a formidable rival in Spain in the Prologue Iohannes 
 apostolus post passionem. 
 
PROLOGUES OF PRISCILLIAN 257 
 
 I give the rough text as found in Migne (Walafrid Strabo, 
 Glossa Ordinandi vol.ii, P. L. t vol. 114, col. 709). I append to 
 it the readings of F, the oldest MS. which contains it, and also 
 those of Tommasi,who printed it from Cod. Oratorii B 6 /Words- 
 worth's V(0/mz,vol.i, p. 475); IciteThomasiusasV,MigneasM. 
 
 Ioannes 1 , apostolus et euangelista, a Christo 3 electus atque dilectus, 
 in tanto amore dilectionis uberior habitus est 3 ut in coena super pectus 
 eius recumberet, et 4 ad crucem astanti 5 soli matrem propriam commen- 
 dasset, ut quern nubere uolentem 6 ad amplexum uirginitatis asciuerat, ipsi 
 etiam custodiendam uirginem tradidisset. Hie itaque cum propter uerbum 
 Dei et testimonium Iesu 7 Christi r in Pathmos insulam sortiretur exsilium 1 8 , 
 illic ab eodem Apocalypsis praeostensa describitur, ut sicut in principio 
 canonis, id est libri Geneseos, incorruptibile principium praenotatur, ita 9 
 etiam incorruptibilis finis per uirginem 10 redderetur, dicens ; ego sum Alpha 
 et Omega 11 , initium et finis. Hie 12 est Ioannes, qui sciens superuenisse 
 sibi diem egressionis de corpore, conuocatis in Epheso 13 discipulis, 
 descendit in defossum sepulturae suae locum, orationeque completa 14 , 
 reddidit spiritum, tarn a dolore mortis factus extraneus, quam a cor- 
 ruptione carnis noscitur alienus. Cuius tamen scripturae 15 dispositio, uel 
 libri ordinatio, ideo a nobis per singula non exponitur, ut nescientibus 18 
 inquirendi desiderium collocetur 17 , et quaerentibus laboris fructus, et Deo 
 magisterii doctrina seruetur 18 . 
 
 1. Iohannes F 2. a domino Christo FV 3. uberior habitus est M 
 
 ab eo est habitus FV 4. Et F 5. astans F 6. nolentem F 7. 
 
 ihesu F 8. in Pathmos insulam mitteretur F exilio in Pathmos insulam 
 
 portaretur V 9. Ita F 10. addit in Apocalypsi V 11. a et w FV 
 
 12. hie F 13. EfesoF 14. conpleta F 15. scribturae F 16. 
 
 scientibusF 17. conlocetnr F 18. exp. prologus F 
 
 Evidently ab eo est habitus is right ; astans is a mere slip of 
 F, while nolentem is a deliberate correction by Victor or his 
 scribe; scientibus is original, nescientibus is a correction. 
 
 The text throws scarcely any light on that of the Prologue 
 to St. John. It supports etiam for et before incorruptibile with 
 EIOWX. Incorruptibile principium supports all the MSS. of 
 the John Prologue, except 3P*Q which have corruptibile prin- 
 cipium. Noscitur alienus seems to support inuenitur alienus 
 against the alienus inuenitur of D3?Q. Scientibus clearly 
 supports scienti with A^CEQIKKTOXYZ against the Irish 
 sciendi of D3PQVW c aur. Collocetur supports collocato with 
 CD&O c VWc against collocata A8FE0KKTO*YZ aur. In the 
 last case only the Irish reading is supported. 
 
258 LATER MANIPULATIONS OF THE 
 
 Further, ad crucetn astanti seems nearer to ad crucern tens 
 than to any of the corrections {moriens de cruce ^pendens in 
 cruce KVW, de cruce (only) ©IWc). Also scripturae seems 
 to support scripturarum A£FCEO*XYZ against scriptorum 
 DfflGKKTO^QVWZ 2 . 
 
 St. Jerome's letter to Paulinus has but a few words about 
 the Apocalypse : 
 
 'Apocalypsis Ioannis tot habet sacramenta quot uerba. Parum dixi, 
 pro merito uoluminis, laus omnis inferior est.' 
 
 This passage has less diffusion in MSS. as a Prologue than 
 the corresponding passage about Acts, Actus ap. nudatn. The 
 latter occurs in Spanish MSS., the former does not. It was 
 apparently unknown to the compiler of Ioannes apostolus et 
 euangelista ; at all events he did not think fit to use it. 
 
 He has in fact added nothing to the Prologue to John, 
 except that he has apostolus et euangelista for the simple 
 euangelista y and the obvious ( ut in coena super pectus eius 
 recumberet*. These expressions are probably from St 
 Jerome's Prologue to his Coinm. in Matt, Plures fuisse, which 
 has ' Iohannes apostolus et euangelista, quern Iesus amauit 
 plurimum, qui super pectus domini recumdens purlssims. doctri- 
 narum fluenta potauit, et qui solus de cruce meruit audire 
 Ecce mater tua '. 
 
 The Prologue to the Apocalypse is found in much the same 
 MSS. as the Prologue to Acts, as we shall see presently, p. 365. 
 
 § 3. The Prologues of Peregrinus. 
 
 I have no intention of going deeply into the question of 
 Peregrinus 1 ; but at least something must be said of him 
 where Priscillian is in question. 
 
 1. We have Priscillian's canons on St. Paul's Epistles only 
 in the expurgated edition published by Peregrinus. It is found 
 
 1 On the identification of Peregrinus with Bachiarius see Berger, Hist, de la 
 Vulgate, p. 28, &c; Kiinstle, Das Comma Johanneum, pp. 5a foil. The heresy 
 against which Bachiarius defends himself is clearly Priscillianism ; consequently 
 his country (which was, he complains, the only ground of accusation) was Spain ; 
 he had left it ; presumably he wrote in Gaul. At Lerins ? St. "Vincent of Lerins 
 wrote under the pseudonym of Peregrinus ; perhaps one imitated the other. 
 
PROLOGUES OF PRISCILLIAN 259 
 
 mainly in Spanish MSS., and appears to belong to an ' edition ' 
 of the Epistles. 1 It is even possible, though it is not proved, 
 that Peregrinus is answerable for an edition of the whole 
 Bible. His date is uncertain, but we should presumably look 
 for him in the first half of the fifth century. He seems to 
 have been an admirer of Priscillian, who yet would not follow 
 him into heresy. Of the canones he says in his prooemium : 
 'quia erant ibi plurima ualde necessaria, correctis his quae 
 prauo sensu posita fuerant, alia ut erant utiliter ordinata prout 
 oportebat intellegi iuxta sensum fidei catholicae exemplaui.' 2 
 In fact he has left no Priscillianism in the canons. The Pro- 
 logue to the canons he has evidently completely rewritten, 
 for a comparison with the Tractaius of Priscillian shows that 
 none of the peculiarities of Priscillian's style have been 
 allowed to remain. The sentences are short and clear. The 
 last sentence reminds us of the Gospel Prologues, where the 
 evangelist is said to have ' laboured ' for such and such a pur- 
 pose, and to have l manifested ' this or that : l Hoc enim me 
 elaborasse uolo intellegas,£#0 fideliter continentiam Scripturarum 
 palam facerem nulli existens inimicus, et ut errantium uelocius, 
 sicut postulasti, corrigerentur mentes.' 
 
 3. Another fragment of Peregrinus is in the Codex Goihicus 
 of Leon {leg 2 ) ; after the subscription by a scribe of 960 follows 
 a prayer, and the words et Peregrini f. o harissimi memento? 
 This seems to imply that Peregrinus was, like Bachiarius, 
 a monk, for he appears to be addressing his monastic brethren. 
 A similar note is found at the end of the Stowe St. John : 
 Rogo quicumque hunc librum legeris ut memineris mei pec- 
 catoris scriptoris i[d est] sonid peregrinus. Amen. Sanus 
 sit qui scripsit et cui Scriptum est. Amen.' On which 
 M. Berger wrote ' Sonid est sans doute le nom du copiste ', 
 and adds that Whitley Stokes and McCarthy thought it stood 
 for sanus ; M. d'Arbois de Jubainville declared it to mean 
 
 1 See Berger, Vulgate, pp. 181-4. 
 
 3 So CT, but (called M by Schepss) reads ' . . . posita fuerant, cum reliquis 
 a catholico intellectu non discrepautibus ut erant composita exemplaui * (Schepss 
 in CSEL. xviii, p. 109). 
 
 3 Berger, pp. 19 and ?8. , 
 
 S % 
 
26© LATER MANIPULATIONS OF THE 
 
 ' celui qui poss&de k fond Tart de tuer les gens ' ; and Prof. 
 Rhys translates it wfx&xns (!). Is not this exactly what would 
 be given as the Celtic rendering of Vincentius ? Was the parent 
 of the Stowe St. John written at Lerins by St. Vincent the 
 Stranger, and brought to Ireland by his confrere Patrick? I 
 make the suggestion for what it may be worth. Gennadius 
 says Vincent of Lerins was natione Callus ; no more is known 
 of him. But his British companions, Patrick and Faustus, 
 might have translated his name into Celtic, and he might have 
 used it at the end of a book intended for Ireland, as a disguise 
 through humility. Such a conjecture must needs remain 
 devoid of proof. Anyhow there is no particular reason for 
 connecting the Stowe St. John with Spain or with the Priscil- 
 lianist Peregrinus. 
 
 3. The Spanish Peregrinus has left another trace of his work 
 in his addition to the Prologue of St. Jerome to his translation 
 of the books of Solomon from the Septuagint, which begins 
 Tres libros Salomonis, This preface with the addition is 
 found in Spanish Bibles and those influenced by them. 1 The 
 addition runs thus : 
 
 ( Ideo et de Graeco et de Hebraeo praefatiuncula utraque in hoc libro 
 praemissa est : quia nonnulla de Graeco ob illumiaationem sensus et 
 legends aedificationem uel inserta Hebraicae translationi uel extrinsecus 
 iuncta sunt. Et idcirco qui legis, semper Peregrini memento.' 
 
 We learn from this note that Peregrinus had before him not 
 only St. Jerome's translation of the books of Solomon from 
 the Hebrew, but also his earlier (lost) translation of the LXX. 
 Peregrinus combined the two, by inserting in the text or 
 margin [extrinsecus) of the former many of the interpolations 
 found in the latter. To this conflate text he prefixed the 
 prefaces to both versions, viz. the authentic lungat epistola, 
 and the doubtful Tres libros Salomonis* In the MSS. the 
 note of Peregrinus is joined on to the end of the latter. 
 Berger says in consequence : * Mais que faut-il penser de la 
 singultere lumtere que cette constatation [the identification of 
 Peregrinus] jette sur l'authenticte de notre preface ? Pas un 
 
 1 A list of MSS. will be found of course in Berger, Us Prefaces (No. 131)- 
 
PROLOGUES OF PRISCILLIAN 261 
 
 manuscrit ne la contient sans la note de Peregrinus. . . . Nous 
 en savons assez pour la condamner ddfinitivement.' * A most 
 incomprehensible conclusion ! Because it is clear that Pere- 
 grinus (in the first half of the fifth century, to all appearance) 
 judged the preface to be genuine, we therefore must condemn 
 it without appeal ! We might as well conclude to the spu- 
 riousness of the preface Iungat episiola to which the note 
 just as much refers. Besides it is untrue that no MS. 
 contains the Tres libros without the addition of the Ideo et de 
 Graeco. Berger himself remarks of the MS. Vienna 1200 la 
 note de Peregrinus est d'une autre main (no. 131, p. 46); while 
 Dom Martianay's notes on the Prologue tell us that tres 
 libros appears without addition in the Corbie MS. (Sanger- 
 manensis 14), which is now Bibl. NaX.fonds latin 11 940. The 
 style of the Prologue is not quite worthy of St. Jerome, in the 
 opinion of Vallarsi (especially feci intellegt) ; and indeed it 
 contains nothing very remarkable. But feci intellegi may be 
 a corrupt reading; and at all events it is quite clear that 
 Peregrinus found it to hand, prefixed to the translation from 
 the Septuagint, just as the Iungat episiola was to the transla- 
 tion from the Hebrew. Surely this is, pace Berger, a strong 
 testimony to its authenticity. 
 
 The point to which attention should be drawn is the bold- 
 ness of Peregrinus as an editor. He has no reverence either 
 for the Septuagint with its halo of legend, or for the Hebrew 
 extolled by St. Jerome, nor yet for the work of that great 
 father; and he produces a new text by amalgamating the 
 two translations. Let us also notice his openness ; he care- 
 fully explains what he has done, and requests the prayers 
 which he thinks he has merited. 
 
 4. I have already suggested (p. 254) that Peregrinus may be 
 the author of the short Prologues to Luke and Acts found 
 in Spanish MSS., Lucas Antiocensis and Lucas eu. Apost. 
 hactus ; they are made out of the Prologues of Priscillian, all 
 heresy being eliminated by one who knew how to look for it. 
 
 1 Les Prefaces, 1. c, p. 17. Berger actually throws doubt on the Hieronymian 
 authorship of the Plures-fuisse, than which nothing is more certainly authentic. 
 
%S% LATER MANIPULATIONS OF THE 
 
 § 4. The Prologue to the Catholic Epistles * Non idem est ordo \ 
 
 We have said that the Prologues of Priscillian to Luke and 
 John were seen as early as the fifth century to contain the 
 matter for Prologues to Acts and Apocalypse ; and such Pro- 
 logues were accordingly manufactured out of them. Now 
 Priscillian treated the Epistles of St. Paul still more elaborately 
 in his series of canons, in which he pointed out the main 
 points of the Apostle's doctrine, finding in his letters the proofs 
 of his own heresies, just as he has managed to do in the 
 Gospels in his Prologues, but in an obscure and mysterious 
 manner. As it cannot be doubted that the Prologues to Luke 
 and John were really intended as introductions to Acts and 
 the Apocalypse also, it follows that Priscillian is known to have 
 composed in favour of his own heresy introductions to all the 
 books of the New Testament, except to the Catholic Epistles. 
 
 Did he compose one to the Catholic Epistles ? We should 
 suppose so a priori. Further, in the Prologue to John there 
 is no mention of the Epistles of that Apostle ; and yet it was 
 from the first Epistle of St. John that Priscillian took the 
 main texts for his Apollinarianism and his Monarchianism, viz. 
 6 Iesum Christum in carnem uenisse ' (see above, p. 347) and 
 the famous interpolation of the three heavenly witnesses, with 
 the conclusion ' et haec tria unum sunt in Christo Iesu \ The 
 omission would be explained if Priscillian treated the Catholic 
 Epistles by themselves. Also, one who laid so much stress on 
 the order of the books in the canon and the purpose of their 
 writing was unlikely to overlook the mystical meanings of 
 these seven letters, of their dispositio in the canon, of their 
 arrangement in order and time. 
 
 If such a Prologue was ever composed, it will presumably 
 have come down to us in very many MSS., like its fellows. 
 Let us look at the common Prologue (Pseudo-Jerome) to 
 the seven canonical Epistles. I give the text from Vallarsi 
 (P. £., 29, col. 831), with the readings of the Codex Fuldensis 
 below : 
 
 Non idem x ordo est apud Graecos, qui integre sapiunt et fidem rectam 
 sectantur, epistolarum * septem quae canonicae nuncupantur, qui 3 in 
 
PROLOGUES OF PRISCILLIAN 263 
 
 Latinis codicibus inuenitur; ut, quia 4 Petrus primus est in numero 
 apostolorum, primae sint etiam eius epistolae in ordine ceterarum. Sed, 
 sicut euangelistas dudum ad ueritatis lineam correximus, ita has proprio 
 ordini 6 , Deo nos iuuante, reddidimus. Est enim prima earum una 
 Iacobi, Petri duae, Ioannis 6 tres, et Iudae una. Quae si, ut ab eis 
 digestae sunt, ita quoque ab interpretibus fideliter in Latinum uerterentur 
 eloquium 7 , nee ambiguitatem legentibus facerent, nee sermonum sese 8 
 uarietas impugnaret 9 ; illo praecipue loco ubi de unitate Trinitatis in 
 prima Ioannis 10 epistola positum legimus. In qua etiam 11 ab infidelibus 
 translatoribus multum erratum esse a fidei ueritate comperimus 12 : trium 
 tantum uocabula, hoc est, aquae, sanguinis et spiritus, in 13 sua editione 
 ponentes M ; et Patris, Verbique ac Spiritus testimonium omittentes ; in 15 
 quo maxime et fides catholica roboratur, et Patris et Filii ac 16 Spiritus 
 sancti una diuinitatis substantia conprobatur. In caeteris uero epistolis 17 , 
 quantum a 18 nostra aliorum distet editio, lectoris prudentiae derelinquo, 
 Sed tu, uirgo Christi Eustochium 19 , dum a me impensius 20 Scripturae 2l 
 ueritatem inquiris, meam quodam modo senectutem inuidorum dentibus 
 corrodendam 22 exponis, qui me falsarium corruptoremque sanctarum 
 pronuntiant scripturarum 2S . Sed ego in tali opere nee aemulorum meorum 
 inuidiam 24 pertimesco, nee sanctae scripturae 25 ueritatem poscentibus 
 denegabo. 
 
 I. ita i. Epistularum 3. ut {for qui) 4. quod {for ut quia) 
 
 5. ordine 6. Iohannis 7. eloquium uerteretur 8. se 9. in- 
 
 pugnaret 1 o. Iohannis II, est {for etiam) 1 2 . conperimus 
 
 13. addiipsa. 14. potentes 15. In 16. et 17. epistulis iS. 
 
 om a 19. Eusthocium 20. inpensius 21. scribturae 22. conro- 
 
 dendam 23. scribturarum 24. inuidentiam 25. scribturae 
 
 Here we find the Comma Iohanneum asserted and defended, 
 and those editions which omitted it reprobated. Now Dr. 
 Klinstle has made it certain that the diffusion of this celebrated 
 interpolation came from the Spanish Bibles, and that the 
 Spanish Bibles obtained it (probably through Peregrinus) from 
 the Bible of Priscillian. I do not at all agree with him that 
 Priscillian actually interpolated the passage himself. He could 
 hardly in that case have been so foolish as to quote it in his 
 apology (Tract, i, p. 6 5 ), knowing that it would be declared 
 apocryphal. He must have found it in his Bible, and it must 
 have been one of the frequent Spanish glosses which somehow 
 got into the text ; and it is well known that it is founded on a 
 mystical interpretation which St. Cyprian seems to assume as 
 a commonplace, and which St. Augustine propagated. The 
 quasi-liturgical ending * in Christo Iesu ' belongs to the earthly 
 
264 LATER MANIPULATIONS OF THE 
 
 witnesses, and has got very naturally shifted to the end of the 
 heavenly witnesses (which in Priscillian do not precede but 
 follow) by the interpolation being made before this formal con- 
 clusion. It was Priscillian who discovered a heretical meaning 
 in the resultant reading, interpreting the words to mean that 
 Father, Son, and Holy Ghost are all one in Christ Jesus. In 
 the version found in existing Spanish Bibles the possibility of 
 this error has been eliminated, probably by Peregrinus. 
 
 In this Prologue, Pseudo-Jerome must either have used 
 a Spanish Bible, or have utilized a previous Prologue by 
 Priscillian. The former alternative seems to be absolutely 
 excluded by the fact that this Prologue, which is found in 
 almost all MSS. of the Epistles entire, and as early as the 
 Codex Fuldensis (542-6), is found without its first line in 
 Spanish MSS. 1 (But see p. 287.) In these it begins 'qui integre 
 sapiunt ', and the opening sentence is meaningless. It can 
 hardly be upheld that the Prologue had its origin in Spain. 
 
 On the other hand only a Spaniard was likely to condemn 
 all MSS. which omitted the Comma \ and Priscillian is 
 particularly likely to have defended it. 2 I think it may be 
 safely inferred that Pseudo-Jerome had before him a Prologue 
 to the Catholic Epistles in which Priscillian defended this text, 
 but Pseudo-Jerome has made his expressions orthodox. 
 
 Confirmation is not wanting. Priscillian will certainly have 
 
 1 Viz. in CT, 0H Puy % compl l ' 2 > leg- (?), aem t osc. (Berger, Les Prifaces, No. 291). 
 
 2 There exists an indication that Priscillian found himself bound to defend the 
 Comma. In the Priscillianist creed Nos patrem et filium (Caspari, Kirchenhist. 
 Anecdota t 308, and see Kiinstle, Antipriscilliana, p. 59) we have a clear reference : 
 'Pater Deus, Filius Deus, et Spiritus sanctus Dens; haec unum sunt in Christo 
 Iesu.' Now a few lines further on we read : ( Si quis uero hanc fidem non habet, 
 catholicus dici non potest ; qui catholicam non tenet fidem, alienus EST, profanus 
 est, aduersus ueritatem rebellis est.' This is a citation of St. Cyprian, De Cath, 
 Eccl. Unit. 6 * Nee perueniet ad Christi praemia qui relinquit ecclesiam Christi ; 
 alienus est, profanus est, hostis est.' Why a citation from this particular 
 chapter ? Obviously because this is the chapter which contains the famous words : 
 1 Et iterum de Patre et Filio et Spiritu sancto scriptum est : et hi tres unum sunt,' 
 to which so many moderns have unsuccessfully appealed to prove the antiquity of 
 the reading in 1 John. It seems plain that the passage of St. Cyprian was lying 
 open before the Priscillianist author of the Creed (Priscillian himself?) because he 
 was accustomed to appeal to it in the same way. In Priscillian's day St. Cyprian 
 bad a unique position as the one great Western Doctor. 
 
PROLOGUES OF PRISCILLIAN 365 
 
 had before him and have commented on the Old Latin order 
 of the Epistles, in which Peter came before James. 1 Now the 
 Prologue begins straight off by declaring that this order, in 
 which Peter is put first because he is the Prince of the Apostles, 
 is not that of the Greeks ; he, Jerome, has restored the true 
 (Greek) order, just as he had previously corrected the evange- 
 lists (in order, evidently, as well as in text). We cannot fail 
 to be reminded how the Prologue to John, in which Priscillian 
 expounded the mystical meaning of the Old Latin order, was 
 adapted to the Vulgate by an excision made by a corrector. 
 Have we not here the same phenomenon? Priscillian had 
 explained why Peter was first. Pseudo-Jerome repeats this 
 explanation and rejects it. 
 
 The external evidence is in harmony with the internal. The 
 following are some of the older MSS. which contain the 
 Prologues to Acts, Apocalypse, and Catholic Epistles, or two 
 of them 2 : 
 
 Acts F T0 puy compl 2 BK zur bern M 
 
 Cath. Epp. FCTO puy compl 1 9 BK zur bern 
 Apoc. F ® puy compl 1 K zur bern M 
 
 Acts Ham 82 paul BN 1, 3, 6, 
 
 Cath. Epp. BN 1, 2, 3, 6, 104, 309, 15176, Rouen 25 
 
 Apoc. Ham 82 paul BN 1, 2, 6, 104, 309, 15176, Rouen 25 
 
 Acts Bern A 9 Vat 4221 Stuttg. Hofb. 52 Sorb 1270 &c. 
 
 Cath. Epp. Bern A 9 Vat 4221 Stuttg. Hofb. 52 Sorb 1270 
 Apoc 
 
 This table shows every combination of two out of three. 
 F and M represent two great families in Acts ; we have also 
 the Spanish, Theodulphian, and Alcuinian families, &c. 3 
 
 1 It is to be noted that Priscillian in his Tractatus quotes from all the seven 
 Catholic Epistles except John iii, which he could hardly have managed to use. 
 He knows a definitely settled canon, presumably the same as that of Damasus's 
 Roman Council of 382. 
 
 2 From Berger, Les Pre/aces, Nos. 244, 290, 291, 310. The letters CF0T have 
 their usual signification ; MB (of Acts) are Munich 6230 and Bamberg A. 1. 5. 
 
 3 The Pseudo- Jerome Prologue to Acts Canit Psalmista is found in- a good 
 many MSS. (see Berger, Les Pre/aces, No. 250). It is printed by Bp. Wordsworth 
 on p. 4 ; and he has remarked that it is founded on the genuine preface of St. 
 Jerome to Ezra. It does not use the Prologues of Priscillian, for the words 
 1 a Luca Antiocheno, arte medico ' are from Rufinus's translation of Eusebius, iii. 4 
 
%66 LATER MANIPULATIONS OF THE 
 
 There is no reason to suppose that any of these three Pro- 
 logues was known in Ireland, where the original form of the 
 Prologues to the Gospels was preserved. One may say, there- 
 fore, that the corrected form of the Prologue to John, and the 
 Prologues to Acts, Apocalypse, and Catholic Epistles have 
 approximately the same large diffusion, if we take into 
 account the comparatively large number of MSS. which 
 contain the Gospels only. The Prologue to Acts and the 
 Apocalypse have a single author. That to the Epistles is by 
 a downright forger, probably a different person. He not only 
 speaks in the name of St Jerome, but he addresses Eustochium ; 
 his first sentence is modelled on St. Jerome's Prologue to the 
 Minor Prophets : ' Non idem ordo est duodecim prophetarum 
 apud Hebraeos qui est apud nos. 5 His last paragraph is 
 a clever imitation of St. Jerome's repeated complaints of the 
 enemies who attack his old age, on account of his new trans- 
 lations. One hesitates to ascribe this to the author of the 
 Prologues to Acts and the Apocalypse, though the former has 
 used St. Jerome's letter to Paulinus (or rather an extract from 
 it) and uses the first person singular (in imitation of Jerome ?) 
 instead of Priscillian's plural. But the Pseudo-Jerome may 
 be the author of the correction of the Prologue to John. 
 
 At all events I do not hesitate to ascribe the corrected 
 version of the Gospel Prologues and the three other Prologues 
 to much the same date, probably rather in the early part of 
 the fifth century, and to suppose that they were attached to 
 the Vulgate about the same time and in the same circumstances, 
 since they have so similar and so wide a diffusion. 
 
 To return to the Prologue to the Catholic Epistles ; Prof. 
 Kunstle has suggested that Peregrinus was its author. Two 
 considerations will dispose of this notion once for all. In the 
 first place Peregrinus was not a forger ; nay, he carefully 
 explains that the canons are by a famous heretic, and says 
 
 (cp. St. Jerome's Plures fuisse). The mention of detraction might lead us to 
 connect this piece with the Non idem ordo, but it was an obvious trick to put 
 a sample of St. Jerome's habitual plaints into any imitation. The external evidence 
 shows there can be no common authorship ; for the Canit Psalmista is in none of 
 Berger's MSS. which contain Non idem ordo, except M (Acts) and B N 6. It is 
 therefore impossible that they should have a common origin. 
 
PROLOGUES OF PRISCILLIAN 267 
 
 explicitly c nemo putet ab Hieronymo factos \ Secondly, his 
 work is in Spanish codices and their derivatives, while the 
 Prologue is widely diffused and appears in the Spanish codices 
 in a corrupt form, and it may have been introduced into Spain 
 in a single copy, of which the first line was lost. 
 
 § 5. The i canones noui testamenti \ 
 
 A curious fragment, discovered by Dom Morin in the Codex 
 Ambros. E 51 inf 9 was carefully edited by Dom Donatien De 
 Bruyne in the Revue Be'nddictine for January, 1906. I wish 
 to say something of it, because he has dated part of it very 
 early (fourth century or even third), partly on the ground that 
 the Monarchian Prologues were of the third century. He 
 has tried to improve the sense by suggesting the omission of 
 the words hac de and significat, an unnecessarily violent pro- 
 ceeding. We have only to suppose that a line has been 
 omitted over the last letter of praerogatiua and all is 
 grammatical. Cum scripsit is quite normal Vulgar Latin with 
 causal sense ; such a construction is common, for instance, in 
 Priscillian. The punctuation is mine. 
 
 ' Canones noui testamenti. Primus Petrus scripsit, secundus Iacobus, 
 tertius Matheus, quartus Iudas, quintus Paulas, sextus Barnabas, septimus 
 Lucas, octauus Marcus, nonus Iohannes. Quare primus Iacobus in ordine 
 epistularum ponitur, cum primus Petrus in ordine canonis scripsit ? Hac 
 de causa fuit. Praerogatiua;;/ apostolici ordinis, ut quidam interpretantur, 
 significat; uel praestantius est, ut adfirmant alii, ut Petrus ponatur 
 primus, cum primus scripsit. Dicunt quidam [de] epistula Iacobi quod ab 
 alio sit edita sub eius nomine, quorum opinio falsa est.' 
 
 In the first place the list of writers represents no tradition 
 as to the dates of their writing. It is simply formed by the 
 assumption that the Old Latin order was an historical order. 
 The compiler found two groups, Matthew, John, Luke, Mark, 
 and Peter, James, John, Jude. 1 As John was known to have 
 
 1 This is the common order of the Gospels in the Old Latin MSS., and the order 
 of the Catholic Epistles given by Damasus (382), Cod. Claromont. catal., Ivo 
 Carnot., and Cassiodorus (though Arevalo reads Pe, Jttd,Jac, Jo). But Philastrius, 
 Augustine, Ildephonsus have Pe,Jo,Jud,Jae, and the Carthaginian councils of 397 
 and 419, with the Apostolical Canons, give Pe, Jo, Jac, Jud (this is for our 
 purpose the same order as that of Damasus). 
 
a68 LATER MANIPULATIONS OF THE 
 
 written last, he must be omitted. Matthew has to go among 
 the Apostles— he can take the vacant place left by John, thus : 
 Catholic Epistles. Gospels. Result. * 
 
 Peter Peter 
 
 James James 
 
 (John) Matthew Matthew 
 
 Jude (John) Jude 
 
 Luke Luke 
 
 Mark Mark 
 
 As Paul and Barnabas have to be inserted, and will naturally 
 go together (so frequently are they coupled in Acts), they will 
 be interpolated after the Apostles, as being Apostles, but the 
 latest of them. And lo, the list is made ! 
 
 The compiler will no doubt have been pleased to observe 
 that the Apostles are now in the same order as in the lists 
 of the Apostles in the Gospels, at least if James is not too 
 carefully identified. 1 
 
 What is meant by Barnabas? Dom De Bruyne thinks 
 Hebrews. But in the catalogue of Codex Claromontanus 
 ' Barnabas ' seems to mean the Epistle which goes under that 
 name. 2 I do not know which would be the less extraordinary, 
 for Barnabas to be included so boldly in the canon, or for the 
 writer of Hebrews to be so simply assumed to be Barnabas. 
 
 We next find a question and its answer. Why is James, 
 then, first in order of the Epistles, though Peter wrote first ? 
 Two answers are given : the former attributes the primacy to 
 James, which is astonishing 8 ; the second suggests that it is 
 
 1 This mixing up of the son of Zebedee with James the Less is common enough. 
 For instance it is implied in the ( Western ' reading in Gal. ii. 9 : * Peter, James, and 
 John ' (so the bilingual MSS. DEFG, with the Codex Fuldensis and the Gothic 
 version, and the Old Latin generally, as represented by Orig. transL Tert. Jerome, 
 Ambrst) for ' James, Cephas, and John \ 
 
 3 The stichometry is given as DCCCL. Hebrews has about 11,324 syllables, 
 which gives 13^ syllables to the arlxos. Barnabas has about 14,720, which gives 
 1 7| syllables. The Epistles of St. Paul are allowed a crixos of about 13^ syllables, 
 whereas the Catholic Epistles work out at about 17$ to 19-5. No inference can be 
 made, I think. Zahn thinks the Epistle of Barnabas is meant, Gesch. des N. T. 
 Canons, ii. 170-1. 
 
 8 Hesychius of Jerusalem puts James above Peter, but in a Patriarch of 
 Jerusalem this is comprehensible. The words of St. Columbanus (Ep. v. 10, Ad 
 
PROLOGUES OF PRISCILLIAN 369 
 
 a mistake, and that Peter should stand before James. Here 
 the Vulgate order is assumed, so that this portion of the 
 fragment is. not homogeneous with the former portion. It is 
 most natural to assume that the former of the two answers 
 originally applied to St. Peter ; that in its original form the 
 question was asked about the Old Latin order : ' Why does 
 Peter stand first among the Epistles ? ' The twofold answer 
 will have been given ; first : ' praerogatiuam apostolici ordinis, 
 ut quidam interpretantur significat '; then a preferable answer, 
 in accordance with the principles on which the list was 
 made, was supplied somewhat as follows: 'sed praestantius 
 est id quod adfirmant alii, Petrum poni primum cum primus 
 scripsit' 
 
 The last sentence, dicunt quidam, &c, is from St. Jerome, as 
 Dom De Bruyne has pointed out, l ab alio quodam sub nomine 
 eius edita asseritur ' {De viris illustr. 2). 
 
 Thus the whole piece in its present form was put together 
 later than St. Jerome by some one who had the Vulgate before 
 him, whereas the short list and the original question with its 
 alternative answers depend upon the Old Latin. The data are 
 valueless. The original author may have lived at any time 
 before the Vulgate became universal. Old Latin copies were 
 written up to a late date. The author of the list may be early, 
 however, on account of the inclusion of Barnabas. I suggest 
 the beginning of the fifth century or the end of the fourth ; but 
 the final redactor who used the Vulgate may be much later. 
 
 Who were the alii who declared that Peter was first owing 
 
 Bonif. Pap.) are curiously like those of the fragment : * Roma orbis terrarum 
 caput est ecclesiarum, salua loci dominicae resurrectionis singulari praerogatiua? 
 St. Avitus of Vienne wrote to Elias, Patriarch of Jerusalem : * Exercet apostolatus 
 uester concessos a. Diuinitate primatus, et quod principem locum in uniuersali 
 ecclesia teneat, non priuilegiis solum studet monstrare, sed meritis.' These 
 writers are well known to give a supremacy of authority to Rome ; and it is certain 
 that they allow to Jerusalem no more than a sentimental rank. But such quotations 
 may enable us to understand how a mediaeval compiler might understand words, 
 meant for St. Peter, to apply to St. James, though he was evidently dissatisfied 
 with the application. On veneration to Jerusalem we may compare the tractatus 
 Hilarii in vii epistolas canonicas (Spic. Cass. iii. I, p. 207) : ' Cur in principio 
 ponitur Iacobus? -Non apostolorum differentiam, non scribendi ordinem, sed 
 dignationem ecclesiae/ and the preface to the • Isidorian ' coll. of canons (c. 430-50), 
 Turner, EccL Occid. Mon. Juris vet. i. 158 col. b. 
 
370 
 
 PROLOGUES OF PRISCILLIAN 
 
 to his prerogative among the Apostles ? It was an obvious 
 remark to make ; yet we might guess that it was borrowed 
 from Priscillian's lost Prologue to the Catholic Epistles, like 
 the words of Pseudo-Jerome which it resembles : 
 
 Ps.-Jerome. 
 
 ut, quia Petrus primus est in 
 numero apostolorum, primae 
 sint etiam eius epistolae in 
 ordine ceterarum. 
 
 Fragment. 
 
 Quare primus [Petrus] in ordine epi- 
 stolarum ponitur? Hac de causa fuit. 
 Praerogatiuam apostolici ordinis . . . 
 significat. 
 
CHAPTER XV 
 
 THE HISTORY OF THE PROLOGUES 
 
 § i. The sources employed in the Prologues. 
 
 The ingenious and elaborate mystical arguments displayed 
 in the Gospel Prologues are beyond doubt due to the curious 
 brain of Priscillian himself. But we find in them historical 
 data which are not invented but borrowed. This historical 
 matter may be broadly treated in three divisions. 
 
 A. Much of it is simply from Holy Scripture, rightly or 
 wrongly interpreted. 
 
 1. We hear of St. Matthew's call from Judaism to the 
 Gospel, and his conversion (transmigratio !) from the pro- 
 fession of a publican to faith. 
 
 3. John was * a disciple \ Christ commended His Mother 
 to him, ' as He went to His Cross/ an extraordinary error 
 which only a few MSS. have thought fit to correct. Evidently 
 based upon the Leucian Acts of John (see p. 216), 
 
 3. Luke was a physician, a disciple of the Apostles, 
 followed St. Paul * usque ad confessionem eius ' (2 Tim. iv. 
 6, 11). The statements which follow seem to be founded 
 on St. Luke's own words about Zachary and Anna : b seruiens 
 Deo sine crimine. Nam neque uxorem umquam habens 
 neque filios, lxxiiii annorum obiit in Bithynia plenus Spiritu 
 sancto.' Though all the MSS. cited by Wordsworth and 
 Corssen read lxxiii, except one Autun MS., which has lxxxiiii, 
 I think we ought to accept this singular reading on the 
 authority of the Prologue to Acts, where the MSS. all read 
 lxxxiiii ; for this is fifth-century evidence, earlier than any of 
 our MSS. Now compare Lc. i. 6-7 : ( sine querella, et non 
 erat illis filius . . . ' ; ii. 37 : * usque ad annos (so Vulg. but 
 a bff 2 q antforum) lxxxiiii x . . . seruiens nocte ac die . . .' ; i. 67 : 
 
 1 N* has \$bo\tf\KQVTa, 
 
272 THE HISTORY OF THE PROLOGUES 
 
 Mmpletus est Spiritu sancto, et prophetabat (-tauit).' The 
 phrase plenus Spiritu sancto is peculiar to Luke in the N.T. 
 (iv. i ; Acts vi. 3, 5 ; vii. 55 ; xi. 24). Finally we have the 
 remark: 'significans etiam ipse in principio ante alia esse 
 descripta' (Lc. i. 1). 
 
 4. Mark was 'Petri in baptismate films', a statement based 
 simply on 1 Pet. v. 13, and quite independent of the traditions 
 of his being the interpreter and scribe of Peter ' Sacerdotium 
 in Israel agens secundum carnem Leuita ' is a combination of 
 Mark's cousinship to Barnabas (Col. iv. 10) with the fact that 
 Barnabas was a Levite (Acts iv. 36). Hence the explanation 
 given of the epithet Ko\oj3oSaKTvAos. 
 
 B. The order of the Old Latin Bible is taken to be of high 
 importance, and to be usually an historical order. The mys- 
 tical importance of this order is emphasized in the Prologue to 
 John (' dispositione canonis ordinati \ and l quorum tamen uel 
 scripturarum tempore dispositio uel librorum ordinatio ', &c). 
 The historical nature of the Old Latin order (Mt, Jo 9 Lc, Mc) 
 appears twice. 
 
 1. ' Matthaeus • . . sicut in ordine primus ponitur, ita 
 euangelium primus scripsit/ 
 
 2. 'Ets'i post omnes [Iohannes] euangelium scripsisse dicitur, 
 tamen dispositione canonis ordinati post Matthaeum ponitur, 
 quoniam,' &c. It is obvious that this dislocation of the 
 presumed historical order is regarded as a very great honour 
 to St. John. 
 
 C. Historical notices from tradition are scanty in the 
 Prologues. 
 
 1. ' Matthaeus ex Iudaeis {aL Iudaea) ... in Iudaea primus 
 scripsit/ Again under Luke : * per Matthaeum quidem in 
 Iudaea.' The ex Iudaeis merely looks forward to the mys- 
 tical explanation of the genealogies as referring to St. Matthew 
 himself. In Iudaea is a faint reflection of the tradition con- 
 stantly repeated from Papias that Matthew wrote for the 
 Hebrews in Hebrew. This was a commonplace (Papias, 
 Irenaeus, Origen, Eusebius, Epiphanius, Jerome, Augustine, 
 &c), but yet it is unknown to our very ignorant compiler ! 
 
 2. Of John he knows more. The account of his death 
 
THE HISTORY OF THE PROLOGUES 373 
 
 is derived from the Leucian Acts, which the Priscillianists 
 employed, Ep, Turribii, 5 (after Ep. xv of St. Leo) : ' Actus 
 . . . illos qui appellantur S. Ioannis, quos sacrilego Leucius 
 ore conscripsit.' 1 (Did Leucius write with his mouth ?) See 
 P* 2 53' The writer is also aware that the Gospel was. 
 written after the Apocalypse (Victorinus, Epiphanius, &c). 
 That it was written in Asia was common knowledge (Irenaeus, 
 Epiphanius, Jerome, vir. ill. and Comm, in Matt, % &c.)» for 
 every one knew of his tomb at Ephesus (St. Aug. in loan. 
 Tract. 124. 2). The 'quern de nuptiis uolentem nubere 
 uocauit Deus ' is again evidently from the Leucian Acts. 2 
 But Priscillian does not know either form of the story 
 of the composition of the Gospel (Iren., Jer. vir. ill, Victor., 
 Euseb. on the one hand, with Clem. AL, Origen, &c, and 
 Augustine; the other form is in the Murat. fragm. and 
 Jerome Comm. in Matt), 
 
 3. ' Lucas Syrus natione Antiochensis, arte medicus, dis- 
 cipulus apostolorum, postea Paulum secutus usque ad con- 
 fessionem eius/ is naturally to be compared with Eusebius 
 H, E, iii. 4 in Rufinus's paraphrase (A. D. 402-3) : ' Ipse autem 
 Lucas, genere quidem AntiochenuSj arte medicus, comes uero 
 Pauli et ceterorum apostolorum socius et necessarius fuit' 
 But Priscillian could not have used Rufinus. The parallel 
 with St. Jerome's (certainly authentic) Prologue to the Gospels 
 Pluresfuisse, prefixed to the Commentary on St. Matthew, is 
 more striking : ' tertius Lucas medicus, natione Syrus Antio- 
 chensis % cuius laus in euangelio, qui et ipse discipulus apostoli 
 Pauli, in Achaiae Boeotiaeque partibus uolumen condidit' 
 The verbal coincidences can hardly be quite accidental. But 
 the two writers are otherwise independent, for they give 
 totally different information on all other points. 3 It is possible 
 
 1 St. Isidore (De ortu et obitupairum % 82-3) uses the prologues in his accounts 
 of Luke and Mark, but in his account of John (7a) he draws independently on 
 Jerome and on the Leucian Acts. This suggests a Latin translation or abridge- 
 ment of the Acts as known in Spain in the seventh century. The legends of 
 St John were very popular in the middle ages. A late and beautiful form wiU be 
 found in the Sarum Breviary for Dec. 27. 
 
 3 Compare St. Jerome, adv. levin, i. 26 ' Ioannes Apostolus, maritus et uirgo '. 
 
 3 A single coincidence of sense, though not of words, is remarkable : ' et qui 
 
 CH.V.C. T 
 
274 THE HISTORY OF THE PROLOGUES 
 
 that they had a common source for this one sentence, or 
 rather that Priscillian had come across a stray fragment of the 
 source used .by Jerome. 
 
 ' Obiit in Bithynia ' is unique^ it would seem ; for the con- 
 tinual repetition of the statement in later Western writers * 
 and in the Martyrologles depends upon the Monarchian Pro- 
 logue. A comparison with Jerome (just quoted) suggests that 
 Bithynia is merely a mistake for Boeotia. The Greek tradition 
 makes Luke die in Achaia, in Boeotia — at Patras or at 
 Thebes. His body was translated from Thebes to Con- 
 stantinople. 2 The first to use this tradition in the West 
 is (I think) Gaudentius of Brescia. 
 
 'Qui cum iam descripta essent euangelia per Matthaeum 
 quidem in Iudaea, per Marcum autem in Italia, sancto insti- 
 gante Spiritu in Achaiae partibus hoc scripsit euangelium/ 
 Of in Achaiae partibus we have spoken. The whole sentence 
 gives the tradition quite correctly. It may come from the 
 fragmentary source used in its entirety by Jerome. 
 
 4. ' Petri . . f in diuino sermone discipulus/ a very faint 
 reflection of the Papian tradition (repeated by Irenaeus, 
 Clement, Origen, Tertullian, Victorinus, Eusebius, Epiphanius, 
 Jerome, &c.) that Mark wrote down the recollections of Peter. 
 The ignorance of Priscillian is again most astonishing. But 
 the story about Mark's thumb is really interesting, and when 
 the Roman author of the Philosopkumena (vii. 30) calls Mark 
 6 Ko\opohaKfv\os 9 we naturally presume that he is referring 
 to the same legend. Did the nickname arise out of the fact 
 related, or the legend out of the name? Probably the latter. 3 
 
 solus de cntce meruit audire Ecce mater tua ' (Jerome), compare ' et huic matrem 
 suam iens ad crucem commendauit Deus' (Priscillian). 
 
 1 Such as St. Isidore, De ortu et obitu patrum , cap. 82. 
 
 9 And thence, says tradition, to the famous abbey of Sta Giustina at Padua. 
 Behind St. Luke's altar in the transept is shown a huge iron-bound chest, in which 
 the evangelist's body is said to have been shipped from Constantinople. 
 
 * For the Codex Toletanus (T) has another preface commencing 'Marcus qui 
 et colobodactilus est nominatus ideo quod a cetera corporis proceritatem digitos 
 minores habuisset ; hie discipulus et interpres fuit Petri . . .' The rest of the 
 prologue follows the usual Greek tradition from Papias and Clem. Al. It has no 
 connexion with the Monarchian Prologue. It would seem that the nickname came 
 first; and that in these prologues we have two attempts to account for it. Whether 
 
THE HISTORY OF THE PROLOGUES 275 
 
 It seems to be a Roman tradition, unknown in the East. 
 Lastly, the Alexandrian episcopate of Mark was as well 
 known in Priscillian's day as the Roman episcopate of Peter, 
 so here we need not ask for the source. 
 
 The foregoing investigation has shown us that nearly all 
 Priscillian's information is worthless, fragmentary, third hand. 
 His ignorance is more remarkable than his knowledge. We 
 can hardly help inferring that he knew no Greek. 1 But he is 
 an important witness for lost portions of the Acts of John. 
 
 The Scriptural inferences under A may be partly his own, 
 partly from the B or C sources. The tens ad crucetn is 
 astonishing. A man who could write the ' patris nomen 
 in patribus filio * and the ' quod in consonantibus perdiderat ' 
 is capable of anything. 2 
 
 the Philosophumena imply that Marcion used the word is very uncertain. 
 Mr. Vernon Bartlet thinks that the word referred to the curt nature of St. Mark's 
 Gospel (y. T. S., vi, pp. 123-4, October, 1904). Another form of the story in 
 the Monarchian Prologue is found in Arabic {Ztschr. d. deutsch. MorgenL Ges., viii. 
 586 ; xiii. 475 ; I take this reference from Zahn, Einltitung^ ii. 212). Some have 
 thought the curtailed thumb to represent the Gospel mutilated of its last chapter. 
 I myself prefer to think that Mark, like Mr. Gladstone, really had an accident to 
 one of his hands, and that his nickname has survived. 
 
 1 Yet St. Sulpicius Severus thought him a learned and distinguished person ! 
 
 2 Coincidences between the Prologues and the Muratorian Canon were pointed 
 out by Corssen (pp. 66-*j) : the pleonasms schismae heresis (like initium prineipii, 
 &c), credentium fides (but this is not a pleonasm, and is no parallel to the credendi 
 
 fides of the Prologue and of Priscillian , 62 . 6), and profectio . . . proficiscentis ; the 
 word ideo occurs twice in each ! At first sight there is a real resemblance in 
 ' Romanis autem ordinem scripturarum sed et principium earum esse Christum 
 intimans ' with ' quarum omnium rerum tempus, ordo, numerus, dispositio uel 
 ratio, Deus Christus est \ But the latter passage is the expression of the Pan- 
 christism of Priscillian, while the former only means that St. Paul taught that the 
 Old Testament led up to Christ. I conclude that the resemblances amount to 
 nothing. 
 
 The differences are far more striking. The fragment is concerned to harmonize 
 the Gospels, to defend their authenticity, to show that the author of the fourth 
 Gospel was an eyewitness, to establish the number of St. Paul's Epistles, and so 
 on. It insists, indeed, on the correct order of these, but this is not a very close 
 parallel to the remarks of Priscillian about order. The Prologues on the other 
 hand are ' arguments', introductions, with no apologetic purpose whatever. They 
 were written at ^ period when the canon was fixed. They do not attempt any 
 harmonizing, but give hints toward the study of the deep meanings of the Gospels. 
 The history in the fragment is all given with an apologetic purpose. That in the 
 Prologues is given for its intrinsic interest. 
 
 The matter never coincides. The birth and death of Luke are not mentioned in 
 
 T % 
 
276 THE HISTORY OF THE PROLOGUES 
 
 § 2. Citations of the Prologues by the Venerable Bede. 
 
 In two sermons St. Bede has freely borrowed from Pris- 
 cillian's Prologues. These quotations are so early that I think 
 it well to give them in full. The venerable doctor is accus- 
 tomed to draw largely upon earlier writers. The sermon 
 on St. John is made up from various places in St. Jerome 
 where that Father mentions St. John (De viris ill. ; the Pro- 
 logue Pluresfuisse y &c), and from the end of St. Augustine's 
 tractates on St. John. He has combined Priscillian with 
 Jerome as best he could. Where that Father is used in the 
 following excerpts I have put Jer. in brackets. The citations 
 of Priscillian I have italicized : 
 
 'Sed hunc prae omnibus diligit, qui, uirgo electus ab ipso, uirgo in 
 aeuum permansit (Jer.). Tradunt namque historiae quodeum de nuptiis 
 uolentem nubere uocauerit; et propterea quern a carnali uoluptate re- 
 traxerit, potiore sui amoris dulcedine donauit. Denique huic moriturus 
 in cruce matrem suant commendauit, ut uirginem uirgo seruaret . . . 
 
 Et a Domitiano Caesare in feruentis olei dolium missus, in ecclesiastica 
 narratur historia, ex quo tamen diuina se protegente gratia tarn intactus 
 exierit (Jer.), quam fuerat a corruptione concupiscentiae carnalis ex- 
 traneus ... in Pathmos insulam relegatur . . denique ibidem Apoca- 
 lypsim . . . manu sua conscribit . . . 
 
 Sicut enim in Patrum litteris inuenimus, cum longo confectus senio 
 (Jer.) scire? imminere diem recessus sui, conuocatis discipulis suis, post 
 monita exhortationum et missarum celebrationem, ultimum eis ualefecit ; 
 deinde descendens in defossum sepulturae suae locum, facta oratione 
 appositus est adpatres suos, tarn liber a dolore mortis quam a corruptione 
 carnis inuenitur alienus . . . imo omnia diuinae ueritatis et uerae 
 dignitatis, quantum alteri mortalium nulli licuit, arcana reserauit. Et 
 hoc uirgini priuilegium recte seruabatur, ut ad scrutanda Verdi in- 
 corruptibilis sacramenta incorrupto ipse non solum corde sed et corpore 
 proderet.' (Horn, in natali S. loannis, Bk. i, viii ; P. L. 94, coll. 
 45-90 
 
 Bede has corrected the absurd tens adcrucem into moriturus 
 in cruce. There is no variant reading to be noticed; for 
 appositus is probably a chance coincidence with Q. 
 
 the fragment. The circumstances of the composition of the Gospel are not given 
 by the Prologue. That Luke was a physician and companion of St Paul, that 
 John was one of the ' disciples * (his own name for himself is ' disciple ') form the 
 only common ground, and such statements were simply unavoidable. 
 
THE HISTORY OF THE PROLOGUES 277 
 
 The other sermon is on St. Matthew. The borrowings 
 from the Prologue are evident, though inconsiderable : 
 
 Libet autem meminisse, fratres carissimi, ad quantam Dominus arcem 
 iustitiae Matthaeum, quern de publicanis actibus elegit ut spem remissionis 
 peccatoribus ampliaret, aduexerit. Qualis namque sit /actus, ipse 
 apostolorum numerus cui insertus est docet ; docet et ipsa gens Aethio- 
 pum . . . docet ipsum euangelium, in quo scribendo noui testamenti con- 
 secrauit exordium, cui speciali priuilegio donatum est ut dominicae 
 incarnationis mysteria, quae cuncti a saeculo prophetae futura praecine- 
 bant, ipse primus omnium iam facta descripserit, et credentibus legenda 
 transmiserit. (Horn* in nataliSi Matthei, Bk. ii, xxii ; P. L, 94, col. 255.) 
 
 It is very disappointing that we cannot tell from these 
 quotations whether Bede employed the text of Y Reg 
 (Eugipio-Cassiodorian) or the Irish text which was introduced, 
 possibly under his own direction, into A. But the citations 
 are too loose to give us any information. 
 
 § 3. The genealogy of the text of the Prologues. 
 
 How is it that the Prologues of Priscillian have managed 
 to attach themselves to almost all our older MSS. of the 
 Vulgate? They were written for the Old Latin; their 
 author was a famous heretic ; they are in fact full of heresies ; 
 yet they have been propagated in the Vulgate Bibles of the 
 orthodox. 
 
 It is true that there are parallels for this diffusion of the 
 compositions of heretics in Vulgate codices. Bishop Words- 
 worth has shown that the summaries of Acts in MSS. at 
 Munich, Bamberg, and Metz are the work of a Donatist of the 
 fourth century. Dom Donatien De Bruyne has recently pub- 
 lished the astonishing discovery that the short arguments 
 to St. Paul's Epistles found in most MSS. are of Marcionite 
 origin, yet they are as much diffused as the Prologues of 
 Priscillian. Priscillian's own canons on St. Paul are found in 
 many MSS., especially in Spanish ones ; but then these had 
 been bowdlerized by Peregrinus. It may be added that the 
 usual introduction to St. Paul Primum quaeriiur is attributed 
 in the Book of Armagh (D) to Pelagius. 1 In the case of our 
 
 1 As to Pelagius's Prologues we await Mr. Souter's edition. See, however, Dom 
 De Bruyne in Revue BeWd., April, 1907, p. 257. , 
 
378 THE HISTORY OF THE PROLOGUES 
 
 Prologues it was their obscurity that prevented their heresies 
 from being detected. 
 
 The MSS. used by Wordsworth and White are ABffCDE 
 &HQ1KWOQTVWXYZ aur and the Old Latin witnesses c 
 (Colbertinus) and / (Rhedigeranus — it has sometimes been 
 quoted as rhe or r). Of these DEQ are of the Celtic family 
 (3> also in part), Bff 1 are probably Gallican, CT Spanish, OX 
 Canterbury, AHY Italo-Northumbrian (and 3P partly) ; 
 the codex of Theodulf (and H, apart from its Gospel text, 
 is closely connected with his revision) ; KKTV give the text 
 of Alcuin ; Z is of problematical origin, probably Italian. 1 
 
 Consequently the Prologues occur in the best examples 
 of every one of the chief families of MSS., with the exception 
 of the North Italian family JM. This exception might be 
 a mere accident ; but the independent character of M's read- 
 ings makes it very likely that this family is but distantly 
 connected with the other families, and that the Prologues 
 were unknown at Milan when M was written there (or there- 
 abouts) in the sixth century. 2 
 
 Corssen has collated other MSS. of the seventh to ninth 
 centuries ; he has called them <:,/, /, g, q, s t t y u. A further 
 list is given by Berger (Les Prefaces, pp. 55, &c.) with the 
 obvious addition ( et le plus grand nombre des MSS/ 
 
 The codices are broadly divided into two strains of tradition 
 by their readings in the Prologue to St. John. The original 
 form of that Prologue is preserved by D(E)3 > KIirQ ) that is 
 to say by all the Irish contingent, followed by the Alcuinian 
 W and K : 
 
 ' . . . tarn extraneus a dolore mortis quam a corruptione carnis inuenitur 
 alienus. Qui etsi post omnes euangelium scripsisse dicitur, tamen dis- 
 positione canonis ordinati post Matthaeum ponitur, quoniam in Domino 
 quae nouissima sunt, non uelut extrema et abiecta numero, sed pleni- 
 tudinis opere perfecta sunt, et hoc uirgini debebatur.' 3 
 
 x Conjectures were hazarded about Z in chapters x and xi. 
 
 2 Mgr. Ceriani thinks M (Ambros. C 39) even older than F. It contains liturgical 
 notes in the margin which Dom G. Morin attributes to the seventh or eighth 
 century, and to the North of Italy, but not the city of Milan itself (Revue BSnid^ 
 1903, vol. 20, pp. 376, 386). 
 
 3 It has been already noted that Bp. "Wordsworth has inserted (without MS. 
 
THE HISTORY OF THE PROLOGUES 279 
 
 The rest of the MSS. have after alienus nothing but 
 1 tamen post omnes euangelium scripsit, et hoc uirgini debe- 
 batur'. This senseless abbreviation was made (as von 
 Dobschutz was the first to point out) in order to omit the 
 statement that the Gospel of St. John comes next after 
 St. Matthew. In other words, it is an adaptation to the 
 Vulgate of a Prologue originally composed for an edition 
 of the Old Latin Gospels, whose order was Matthew, John, 
 Luke, Mark. 
 
 It is most important to notice that the only two Old Latin 
 MSS. which how contain the Prologues have borrowed them 
 from Vulgate copies, for they exhibit the corrected form of the 
 Prologue to John. This is not surprising, for c is an eleventh- 
 century codex, with a text crowded with interpolations from 
 all quarters, and /, of the seventh century, is full of Vulgate 
 readings. 1 
 
 There is therefore no reason whatever for supposing that the 
 Prologues of Priscillian came as an inheritance to the Vulgate 
 from the Old Latin. It is true that the Vulgate has inherited 
 most of its summaries, some of its prefaces and its stichometry 
 from the Old Latin ; it is also true that Priscillian's Prologues 
 were written for an Old Latin copy. But they were probably 
 only in the copies employed in Priscillian's own circle, as 
 they do not appear in any of our Old Latin MSS. of the 
 Gospels, with the two (apparent) exceptions just mentioned. 
 
 The Irish text of the Prologues is almost invariably right. 
 It is given by three MSS., D3?Q, each of which has a good 
 many individual errors. It has influenced the Alcuinian 
 codices KKTV to a certain extent. The Codex Amiatinus 
 (A) has a text of the Prologues which has been carefully 
 corrected by an Irish text, so that A is usually found with 
 D2PQ. But the parent of A had a text similar to that of Y, 
 as is shown by the occasional agreement of AY in rare read- 
 authority) • et hoc uirgini debebatur ' after ' alienus * instead of leaving it after 
 * perfecta sunt '. But a corruption* carnis alienus means virginity, which could 
 not be a reward for virginity ! So that this conjectural emendation spoils the sense. 
 1 Some of c's readings are no doubt of the highest interest, but it is a hybrid 
 phenomenon on the whole. On / and its table of lessons (apparently of Aquileia 
 in the eighth century) see D. Morin in Revue BMd,, 1902, vol. 19, pp. 1-12. 
 
28o THE HISTORY OF THE PROLOGUES 
 
 ings, e. g. Matt, in iudaea AYZ quaterdenario AY. 1 Another 
 proof that A has not simply borrowed the Prologues from an 
 Irish MS. is found in the Prologue to John, where A has not 
 the original form implying the Old Latin order, but has 
 retained the corrected and abridged reading ; from this point 
 onward in the Prologue A deserts the Irish text, showing that 
 the corrector had gone no further with his work on seeing the 
 Irish text here in error, as it must have seemed to him. The 
 original reading is found in the Alcuinian KM* as well as 
 in D3?Q. But V gives the revised reading, and c follows 
 it closely. In fact c has clearly borrowed the Prologues from 
 an Alcuinian MS. The other Old Latin witness, /, goes 
 roughly with OX and Y. H is a codex Theodulphian in 
 origin, but with AY text and summaries (three out of four) 
 for the Gospels. In the Prologues, however, it goes with 0, 
 not with Y Reg. 
 
 The Egerton Gospels, E, which present an Irish text of 
 the Gospels, are in the Prologues the leaders of the anti-Irish 
 ranks. Only in the emended passage of the John Prologue 
 does Irish blood show itself, for the original reading has been 
 inserted from the Irish parent and clumsily combined with 
 the abridgement. 2 E, Z, OX, Y all give a text of the Prologues 
 which has been elaborately altered and amended. The 
 Alcuinian codices side now with this group, now with the Irish. 
 The Spanish MSS. are also mixed, but in a different way. 
 They do not appear to me to exhibit an eclectic text, but 
 
 1 Other instances are — in Matthew : in Christum AY with BC0HZ ; in John: 
 omit hie est AY with OZaT©NT, cum (for cut) AY with QX, scripturarum AY 
 with EZOXffC ; in Mark : quod A* Y with OX ; lectionis A*Y with OX. (Notice 
 that in both these last cases A has been corrected.) Also in Mark, AY alone have 
 totum, and A is against the Irish witnesses in omitting in omnia and in preferring 
 uiderat to uicerat. But in practically all important readings A has been assimilated 
 to the Irish. A very careful examination has convinced me that it is quite 
 impossible to support the converse hypothesis that the basis of A is a text very 
 similar to the Irish, derived from Eugipius. The likeness to the Irish text is in great 
 matters ; the likeness to Y and OX, E, Z is in small matters. The former is due 
 to deliberate correction, the latter is survival ; alone the adaptation to the Vulgate in 
 the Prologue to John was purposely left. This question is important in the history 
 of the Prologues, but I have no doubt that the solution here given is right. 
 
 a The late MS. W has also a combination in this passage, with conjectural 
 amendments. See Wordsworth's critical apparatus. 
 
THE HISTORY OF THE PROLOGUES a8i 
 
 their Irish readings seem to be survivals and not merely 
 borrowed. It is a possible hypothesis that the Spanish text 
 was originally similar to the Irish, and was later contaminated 
 by partial corrections according to the EZ version. But 
 I greatly prefer the view that the Spanish MSS. CT witness 
 to an earlier stage of emendation, the second stage of which 
 appears in the families E, Z, OX, Y. This last (the Lindis- 
 farne Gospels) seems to represent the text used by Eugipius 
 in the first half of the sixth century. The sixth-century Codex 
 Fuldensis has a text of the Prologue to Acts which shows 
 already some of the lesser EZ corruptions, and a text of the 
 Prologue to the Apocalypse which exhibits many of them — 
 as we saw in chapter xiv. Z itself is probably sixth century. 
 So that the revision of the text goes back to the fifth century. 
 The Irish text, on the other hand, was probably brought 
 to Ireland from Lerins by St. Patrick in 433. Its extra- 
 ordinary excellence is thus explained, and our conclusions as 
 to the history of the Irish text are fortified. We get the 
 following provisional scheme : 
 
 Lerins 
 St. Patrick, 432 
 
 First Revision 
 
 Second Revision 
 
 D5PQ I I 
 
 Eugipius 510 ? Augustine ooo 
 
 Spanish 
 
 A YReg 
 
 Alcuin 
 
 CT0H 
 
 KKT Vc 
 
 § 4. Lerins and the Prologues. 
 
 The proofs detailed in chapter vii that the liturgical list of 
 F is Eugipian have also proved that the text of St. Paul in F 
 is Eugipian. It follows that this is true of the Prologues, 
 summaries, canons, and text-divisions also, with the exception 
 of the first twenty-three headings of the summary of Romans 
 
382 THE HISTORY OF THE PROLOGUES 
 
 and the (partial) summary of Hebrews and its text-divisions. 
 The liturgical list refers to the summaries and corresponding 
 text-divisions. There is no reason to doubt that all this 
 additional matter belonged to the Old Latin vulgarized codex 
 from Lerins. There is reason to believe that the whole of 
 it passed to Cassiodorus. 
 
 If this be so, it is clear that both Victor of Capua and 
 Cassiodorus saw that they had not obtained from Eugipius a 
 good Vulgate text of St. Paul like that of the Gospels. Cassio- 
 dorus did not use it at all. Victor of Capua or his scribe has 
 corrected the whole of St. Paul subsequently (there are no 
 other contemporary corrections in F to speak of) by a better 
 Vulgate MS. Corssen has shown x that this MS. was obviously 
 the parent of his codex R (Regin 9 at the Vatican — its sum- 
 maries were printed by Tommasi). From it Victor had already 
 borrowed the summary of Hebrews and the unusual order : 
 Thessalonians before Colossians. Codex R has St. Paul only, 
 and the same was probably true of its parent in Victor's 
 possession. 
 
 We had before arrived at the conclusion that Cassiodorus 
 got all his introductions 2 to the Gospels from Eugipius, 
 whose knowledge of Holy Scripture he praises so highly. 
 We have found it probable that he also got his introductions 
 to St. Paul from Eugipius, and we see that Eugipius probably 
 got these from Lerins. It appears that Eugipius composed 
 the Gospel summaries himself, since they are found in no 
 other family; but we have now a right to infer that he 
 received the other introductions, viz. the four Prologues, from 
 Lerins. It was from Lerins that they migrated to Ireland in 
 43a, in their uncorrected form. We find them in a partially 
 corrected form in Spain ; they might easily reach Spain 
 from Lerins. To Eugipius they come much later, in the first 
 years of the sixth century. Possibly the completely corrected 
 form of Y (Cassiodorus) is due to him. It is also found in 
 
 1 EpisU ad Galatas, 1885, p. 17. 
 
 3 Viz. the summaries, and the four prologues, besides the Nouum opus, the 
 Plures fuisse, and the Eusebian canons, as found in A (text of the Prologues, 
 however as in Y). See above, pp. 92-5, 135-6, 143* 
 
THE HISTORY OF THE PROLOGUES 283 
 
 OXZ, but then we have already seen reason to think that the 
 archetype of OX was corrected according to an AY codex, 
 and that Z is closely connected with OX in origin, though not 
 in text. On the other hand the Prologues are unknown 
 to the other Italian codices — to J, to M, and to the yet earlier 
 St. Gall codex which Mr. C. H. Turner is publishing for the 
 first time. 
 
 It is in F that we first meet with the manipulated Pris- 
 cillian Prologues to Acts, Cath. Epp., and Apoc. If Eugipius 
 introduced the Gospel Prologues into Italy, it will follow that 
 he also introduced these derivative Prologues, as they are not 
 likely to have arrived before the originals. We cannot infer that 
 Cassiodorus did not know them from the fact that he did not 
 adopt them (for they are not in A), since he may have been 
 clever enough to reject two of them as rags from the Gospel 
 Prologues, and that to the Catholic Epistles as a forgery. 1 If 
 they were composed at Lerins in the course of the fifth century, 
 their wide circulation is explained ; and we see why they 
 were not known in Italy or in Ireland, though they appear in 
 Spain. 
 
 I assume, therefore, as highly probable, though not sus- 
 ceptible of proof, that Eugipius had the following Introductions, 
 &c, to the New Testament : 
 
 1. In the Gospels which belonged to St. Jerome he may 
 have found already the Nouum opus, the Eusebian canons, and 
 the Plures fuisse, but not the letter to Carpianus. 
 
 2. In the Gospels which came from Lerins he found some 
 Old Latin summaries (no doubt those found with the Irish text), 
 a list of feasts with reference to the titles of the summaries 
 (but not coinciding with their divisions), and corresponding 
 marginal notes. Also the four Prologues of Priscillian. 
 
 3. In a copy of St. Paul which came from Lerins (and 
 which, like F, contained the Epistle to the Laodiceans), 
 Eugipius found the Prologue (of Pelagius ?) Primum quaeritur> 
 
 1 But though Cassiodorus probably got his introductions to St. Paul from 
 Eugipius, there is no reason to think he got the Catholic Epistles, Apocalypse, 
 or Acts from him, or the introductions to them either. We saw that the Codex 
 of St. Paul contained nothing but St. Paul. 
 
284 THE HISTORY OF THE PROLOGUES 
 
 the Old Latin canons (called capitulatio in A and in their 
 explicit in F, but concordia epistularum in the incipit in F), the 
 short Marcionite arguments, and the Old Latin breues or 
 summaries. 1 Hebrews had no summary or argument, but 
 was divided, as in F, into 125 sections. It appears that 
 Hebrews was an excrescence in the Old Latin Bible. In the 
 Codex Claromontanus it is added after the stichometrical list. 
 It is not included in the Marcionite arguments, or in these 
 ancient summaries, which also do not recognize the last two 
 chapters of Romans, while Laodiceans is said in the Muratorian 
 fragment to be by a Marcionite. Marcion acknowledged neither 
 Hebrews nor those two chapters. The connexion of the 
 summaries, the arguments, and the Old Latin collection of St. 
 Paul is seen to be most intimate, and to have a most important 
 bearing upon the history of the canon. But of this another 
 time ; for it would take us right away from the Vulgate into 
 the far more engrossing subject of the * Western text ' and 
 its relation to Marcion. But at least let us testify to the vast 
 importance of Dom De Bruyne's recognition of the Marcionite 
 character of the short arguments of St. Paul's epistles. 
 
 4. Returning to Eugipius we see that he composed new 
 summaries for the Gospels based upon the text-divisions 
 of the Lerins pericopae (but in St. John sometimes following 
 the older summary, where pericopae were scarce), thus sim- 
 plifying reference. He copied these into his codex of St. 
 Jerome, together with Priscillian's Prologues. Thus was 
 formed the collection of A. (In Y Reg the letter to Car- 
 pianus has been added.) 
 
 § 5. A conjectural history of the Prologues. 
 As the original impulse to the investigations set down 
 in this little book came from the desire to know how the 
 Prologues of the heretic Priscillian came to be so universally 
 received as the proper introductions to the Vulgate Gospels, 
 it is satisfactory that we can end up with a history of the 
 
 1 The summaries (extending to xiv. 10, and therefore perhaps complete) which 
 occupy the first twenty-three places for Romans in F were evidently introduced 
 by Victor. Dom De Bruyne has discovered them in another ancient MS. 
 
THE HISTORY OF THE PROLOGUES 385 
 
 Prologues, which is partly conjectural indeed, but simple and 
 easy to accept. 
 
 It may be too simple a history to be true, for it is always 
 the unexpected that happens. We have seen an instance 
 of this in the fact that it was not Hadrian of Naples who 
 brought the Neapolitan lectionary to England. We have 
 traced that lectionary from the island of St. Honoratus to 
 that of Lucullanum, from Naples to Capua, from Capua to 
 Jarrow, from Jarrow to Fulda ; and again from Naples 
 to Squillace, from Squillace to Jarrow, from Jarrow to Wurz- 
 burg. All this was surely the unexpected and the improbable. 
 
 Nevertheless we cannot make unexpectedness a basis for 
 conjectures, and I propose a humdrum hypothesis which has 
 a good deal of probability at its back, and is extremely simple, 
 whereas the truth is often complex. 
 
 The career of the Prologues started at Lerins. Thence 
 St. Patrick took them uncorrected to Ireland. From Lerins 
 they migrated, partly corrected, to Spain, and later on, they 
 came in the same state from Lerins to Eugipius at Naples. 
 Eugipius further corrected them, producing the EOXYZ text. 
 At Lerins also were composed the Prologues to Acts, Apoca- 
 lypse, and Catholic Epistles. These came by Eugipius to 
 Victor of Capua (but not to Cassiodorus ?). The fame of the 
 text of Eugipius, or of that of Cassiodorus, enabled the Pro- 
 logues to be known at Rome and to appear in OX and in Z. 
 In North Italy, however, J and M know them not. 
 
 Now there are a good many positive reasons to be urged in 
 favour of this conjectural history : 
 
 1. The Prologues were not simply taken over from the Old 
 Latin to the Vulgate, as was the case with the Marcionite 
 Prologues to St. Paul, the old canons and summaries of the 
 same Apostle, and many other such pieces. They go together 
 with the Prefaces added by St. Jerome himself (Nouutn opus % 
 Canons, and Plures fuisse) ; they are not found in the Old 
 Latin copies, except in two cases, when they appear (in c and 
 I) in the form which has been corrected to suit the Vulgate. 
 They were written by Priscillian for his own Bible, and for 
 copies to be made from it. 
 
286 THE HISTORY OF THE PROLOGUES 
 
 a. Priscillianism was in favour in Spain and Gaul ; and 
 therefore from Spain or Gaul the Prologues were propagated. 
 In Gaul it would be easier for their authorship to be unknown, 
 for their heresies to be unsuspected. In Gaul itself we must 
 look for some centre whence propagation was easy, whence 
 they could go without hindrance to Spain, to Ireland, to 
 Italy. Now at the beginning of the fourth century there 
 were no centres of influence to compare with the two great 
 monasteries which had become seminaries of bishops for the 
 whole country, Tours and Lerins. Tours seems to be too 
 far north. Lerins, on the other hand, seems actually to have 
 sent the Prologues to Ireland in 433. Lerins, therefore, 
 asserts itself as a probable root whence the genealogical tree 
 of the text of the Prologues may have sprung. 
 
 3. Now we saw that the monks of Lerins probably used 
 an Old Latin text which had been largely corrected to agree 
 with the Vulgate, and which was the basis of the existing 
 Irish text. To this text were appended the Prologues in 
 their uncorrected form, that of John witnessing to the Old 
 Latin order of the Gospels. There is good reason to suppose 
 that the Gospels taken by St. Patrick to Ireland had St. 
 Jeromes Greek order, Matthew, Mark, Luke, John. The 
 Prologues may have been already attached to this text of the 
 Gospels before it was corrected by the Vulgate. But when 
 we find the same text used still nearly fifty years later by 
 Faustus, we can well imagine that those who corrected the 
 text and the order of the Gospels would not forget eventually 
 to correct the Prologue to John in a corresponding manner. 
 This correction, together with a certain number of textual 
 emendations, we find in the Spanish text of the Prologues. 
 We may assume that this Spanish text of the Prologues was 
 composed at Lerins, c. 435-40. About the same time Pris- 
 cillian's Prologue to the Catholic Epistles was altered in the 
 same manner to suit St. Jerome's order, and the Prologues to 
 Acts and the Apocalypse were produced by extracting them 
 from those to Luke and John. These seven Prologues appa- 
 rently got into Spain in a single copy, from which all Spanish 
 MSS. have derived them ; for the Spanish MSS. have a 
 
THE HISTORY OF THE PROLOGUES 387 
 
 marked text, and the first line of the Prologues to the 
 Catholic Epistles is wanting in all of them. 1 It is impossible 
 to prove that this single copy came mediately or immediately 
 from Lerins ; but there is nothing to make such a hypothesis 
 improbable. 
 
 4. Eugipius possessed the Prologues to the Gospels, for he 
 borrowed from them in composing his summaries. From 
 him they came to Cassiodorus and to Jarrow. The text of A 
 has been Hibernicized ; Y Reg give the Eugipian text. 
 
 5. Now Victor of Capua got his Gospels and his Pauline 
 Epistles from Eugipius. Probably he got his three Prologues 
 to Acts, Apocalypse and Catholic Epistles also from Eugipius, 
 and Eugipius got them from Lerins. They were probably 
 propagated from Lerins, and also by Eugipius. Their great 
 vogue is later, in the Alcuinian Bibles and their derivatives. 
 The Prologue to Acts belongs to one of the great clans of 
 MSS. of Acts and not to the other— not to the AGIMOD 
 clan, but to the rather inferior BKVFSUR clan. Of the 
 former clan it appears only in M act8 , the writer of which 
 (ninth century) has managed to collect together no less than 
 four Prologues to Acts, and a set of Donatist summaries, and 
 in I, a Cassiodorio-Northumbrian text, but mixed, and the 
 Prologue is evidently due to the mixing. 
 
 In the latter family only S has omitted the Prologue. 
 KBV(R) are Alcuinian, SU are of St. Gall, ( Hiberno-Gallic.' 
 Why have they all a text so similar in groundwork to F, the 
 chief member of the family ? Both the Alcuinian and the 
 St. Gall MSS. are half-Irish, yet partly from Gaul. The Irish 
 element is not apparent in Acts, since D is of the other family, 
 and further D has not the three Prologues. It remains as 
 probable that the three Prologues are derived by all these 
 MSS. from Gaul. 
 
 Another family of MSS. of Acts, distinct from the two 
 great clans just mentioned, is the Spanish family. It knows 
 the three Prologues, as was said above. 
 
 The Prologue to Acts is unknown to the Irish D, to the 
 
 1 But Dom De Bruyne tells me he suspects an error in Berger, Zes Prefaces, 
 No. 291, for leg l at least has the first line of the Prologue to Cath. Epp. 
 
288 THE HISTORY OF THE PROLOGUES 
 
 Northumbrian A, to the Canterbury O acU . That it is not in 
 that most curious and interesting mixed codex G is perhaps 
 surprising, precisely because that codex is so eclectic. But 
 the text of G in Acts is so excellent (the best of all in the 
 judgement of Wordsworth) that the absence of the Prologue 
 is interesting. 
 
 Of the history of the Prologues to the Apocalypse and 
 to the Catholic Epistles I will say nothing, as the text of these 
 books has not yet been critically edited. 
 
 An amended genealogical tree of the Gospel Prologues will 
 stand conjecturally as follows: 
 
 ca'Q, 
 
 Lerins 
 
 I 
 
 St. Patrick First Revision 
 
 Engipius 
 Second Revision 
 
 Cassiodorus 
 
 Spain 
 
 \r 
 
 Jarrow Rome 
 
 I i 
 
 Alcuin E- 
 
 J 
 
 I I 
 
 YReg 
 
 ok 
 
 
 
 
 
 c 
 
 1 
 
INDEX 
 
 A, see Amiatinus, Codex. 
 
 Acts, The Prologue to, Lucas nat. 
 Syrus, 254 ff. ; MSS. of it used 
 by Wordsworth, 43, 287. 
 
 Advent, in the Neapolitan lists, 
 104; in St. Burchard's list, 122; 
 in Cod. Fuld., 138 ; in Bodl. Gosp. 
 of St. Aug., 195. 
 
 Agapitus, Martyr, in Capuan docu- 
 ments, 147-55. 
 
 Agapitus, Pope, 2, 38. 
 
 Agaunum, 96. 
 
 Agenda, funeral Mass, in theNeapol. 
 lists, 120; in St. Burchard's list, 
 127 ; in Cod. Fuld., 141-2. 
 
 Aidan, St., 8. 
 
 Alcuin of York, his library, 49-50 ; 
 Alcuinian text of Prologues, 280 ; 
 AJcuinian MSS. (KKTV.) in- 
 fluenced by text of St. Gregory, 
 209 ; Alcuinian MSS. of Acts, 
 287. 
 
 Amator, St., Bp. of Auxerre, 165. 
 
 Amiatinus, Codex (A), its con- 
 nexion with the codex grandior 
 of Cassiodorus, 2 ff. ; has a 
 Cassiodorian text, 16-29 ; excel- 
 lence of its text indicates that its 
 archetype in the possession of 
 Eugipius really came from St. 
 Jerome, 43 ; its parent contained 
 the Neapolitan liturgical lists, 
 2 3 - 5 J liturgical notes still found 
 init,25; note legenda in quadrag., 
 25, in ; note legenda circa 
 Pascha, 25, 112; note legenda 
 pro defunctiSf 25, 120; list of 
 books on purple leaf, 1 8 ; Pro- 
 logue on purple leaf, 20-1 ; read- 
 ings compared with those of 
 Fuldensis, 8$ ; Summaries, text- 
 divisions, prefaces to the Epistles 
 of St. Paul, and text of the Epp., 
 135, 142-3; Prologues to the 
 Gospels, text assimilated to Irish, 
 280; Prologues and prefaces to 
 
 Gospels compared with those 
 known to Victor of Capua, 92-5, 
 
 135. 
 Ammonius,Diatessaron of, 78-9, 93. 
 Anastasius, Emperor, 81. 
 Andrew, St., Abbey of, on the 
 
 Caelian, 198, 213. 
 Andrew, St., Feast of, in Bodl. 
 
 Gosp. of St. Augustine, 196, 198. 
 Anecdoton Holderi, on life of 
 
 Cassiodorus, 37. 
 Anglo-Saxon Martyrology : see 
 
 Martyrology. 
 Antonius of Lerins, Bl., 98. 
 Apocalypse, Prologue to, 256 ff.; 
 
 short prologue from Jerome's 
 
 letter to Paulinus, 258. 
 Apollinarianism, Ultra-, or Arian- 
 
 ism, in Prologue to Mark, 234 ; 
 
 in Priscillian, compared with that 
 
 in the Prologues, 240, 250-1. 
 Aries, St. Patrick at, 165. 
 Armagh, Book of (D), 28 ; Corpus 
 
 Patricianum in, 163, 179. 
 Ascension, Feast of, in St. Bede's 
 
 homilies, 71 ; in Neapolitan 
 
 lists, 101, H4ff. ; in Bodl. Gosp. 
 
 of St. Aug., 196. 
 Augendus, S t. (Eugendus or Oyand), 
 
 96. 
 
 Augustine, St., of Hippo, on order 
 of the books of the Bible, 4 ; his 
 text of St. John influenced that of 
 St. Gregory, 209 ; anticipates the 
 Comma Iohanneum, 263. 
 
 Augustine and Felicitas, SS., in 
 mosaics at Capua, 148 : in Ech- 
 ternach Martyrology, 150. 
 
 Augustine of Canterbury, St., re- 
 ceived books from Rome, 181. 
 
 Augustine, Gospels of St., see Bod- 
 leian and Cambridge. 
 
 Augustine, Missal of St., Sundays 
 after Pentecost in, 201. 
 
 Aureus, Codex, of Stockholm 
 (Holmiensis), 50, 128. 
 
 U 
 
290 
 
 INDEX 
 
 Avitus, St., on prerogative of Jeru- 
 salem, 269. 
 
 Bachiarius or Peregrinus, 258-9. 
 Baldwin, Abbot of Bury, 190. 
 Bamberg MS. of Cassiodorus, 4, 
 
 29. 
 Barbaria, has the body of St. Seve- 
 
 rinus translated to Lucullanum, 
 
 Barnabas, Ep. of, or Hebrews ? 268. 
 
 Bartlet, Dr. Vernon, 275. 
 
 Bede, St., on the codex grandior of 
 Cassiodorus, 5 ; on the journey 
 of Ceolfrid to Rome, 6 ; a con- 
 frater of Lindisfarne, 9 ; the 
 Homilies of, 11 ; their original 
 order, 65 ff. ; table of their order 
 and of the pericopae commented 
 on, 68-70, 76-7 ; feasts to which 
 the pericopae belong, 72-7 ; com- 
 parison of these with the Neapo- 
 litan lists, 1 1, 65-77 J his citations 
 of the Gospel Prologues, 276 ff. 
 
 Beheading : see Decollatio. 
 
 Bellator, Priest, author of Com- 
 mentaries, 34. 
 
 Benedict, St., 3, %% 99 ; washing 
 of the feet, 113 ; use of the word 
 agenda^ 120 : follows Roman use, 
 
 135. 
 
 Benet Biscop, St., founder of 
 Jarrow, 7; Abbot of St. Peter 
 and St. Paul at Canterbury, 12 ; 
 his feast at Jarrow, 66, 68, 77. 
 
 Benevento, Codex of, its origin, 179. 
 
 Berger, Samuel ; on the note in the 
 Echternach Gospels about Eugi- 
 pius, 29 ; on the connexion of the 
 Irish summaries and those of the 
 Codex Vaticanus with the Roman 
 Comes, 65 ; on the Cambridge 
 Gospels of St. Augustine, 183 ; 
 on those of the Bodleian also, his 
 views refuted, 185 ; on a supposed 
 Anglo-Saxon type of text, 187; 
 on the Gospel Prologues, 239 ; 
 on the authenticity of the Pro- 
 logue of St. Jerome, Tres libros 
 Salomonis, 260. 
 
 $F : see Benevento. 
 
 Biblia Gregoriana (Brit. Mus., Reg. 
 I. E vi), 181 ; Berger*s view on its 
 text refuted, 186-7. 
 
 Binionitae, 244. 
 
 Bishop, Edmund, on theNeapoIitan 
 list of Y Reg., 10. 
 
 Bobbio Missal, 71, 102, &c. 
 
 Bodleian Gospels of St. Augustine 
 (O), 181-202 ; Saxon inscription in 
 binding, 189; liturgical notes in 
 margin, 191 ff. ; agreement with 
 text of St. Gregory, 212 ff. ; sum- 
 maries of Gospels, 215. 
 
 Boethius, 37. 
 
 Boniface, St., 127 ; monk of Nut- 
 shell, near Southampton, 13 ; 
 owner of the Codex Fuldensis, 78, 
 157 ; name not in Anglo-Saxon 
 Martyrology, 146. 
 
 Boulogne MS. of St. Bede's homilies, 
 66 ff. 
 
 Bradshaw, Henry, on origin of the 
 Lichfield Gospels of St. Chad (L), 
 179. 
 
 Browne, Bishop, of Bristol, 6, 
 
 Biidinger, Max, on orthography of 
 name Eugipius, 15 ; on the life 
 of Eugipius, 41 ; on Eugipius 
 and Lerins, 96-7. 
 
 Burchard, St., 10, 13, 15S. 
 
 Burchard, St., Gospels of (Burch), 
 liturgical notes in the margin 
 published by Dom Morin, 10 ; 
 a fundamentally English text, 
 45-50 ; examples of readings, 
 46-8 ; liturgical notes given in 
 full, 52 ff. ; additions to the Nea- 
 politan lists are Roman in char- 
 acter, 121 ff. ; date of additions, 
 128. 
 
 Burial Service : see Agenda. 
 
 Bury, Professor, on St. Patrick, 165. 
 
 Bury St. Edmunds, the Bodleian 
 Gospels of St. Augustine not 
 necessarily written there, 189-90. 
 
 Butler, Abbot E. C, of Downside, 
 166. 
 
 Cabrol, Abbot F., of Farnborough, 
 on Advent, 105. 
 
 Cambridge Gospels of St. Augustine 
 (X), 183 ff.; Charters in, 190; 
 agreeme nt with text of St. 
 Gregory, 212 ff. ; Gospel sum- 
 maries, 215. 
 
 Candlemas : see Hypapante. 
 
 Canon, Order of, insisted on by 
 Priscillian, 242, 246, 247. 
 
 Canones noui testamenti, 267. 
 
INDEX 
 
 391 
 
 Canterbury, Abbey of St. Peter and 
 St. Paul, Benet Biscop, Abbot 
 of, 8 ; succeeded by St. Hadrian, 
 12 ; Canterbury text compared 
 with that of St. Gregory, 210 ff. ; 
 compared with Northumbrian, 
 213 ff.; see Bodleian and Cam- 
 bridge. 
 
 Capua, Mass-books and Kalendars, 
 13 ; the Capuan Mass-books of 
 Northumbria, 144-61 ; Capuan 
 Saints in Martyrology of Echter- 
 nach, 14, 149-51 ; in Echternach 
 Kalendar, 145, 151-4 ; in Anglo- 
 Saxon Martyrology, 145, 146-9; 
 mosaics of apse of St. Prisco, 135, 
 1 48 ff. ; and of dome of St. Prisco, 
 153. See also Victor of Capua, 
 and Fuldensis. 
 
 Cassiodorus, Life of, 2-3 ; his age in 
 558, 32 ; chronology of his life, 
 33-9; contents of his library, 34 ; 
 composed summaries of certain 
 books of Scripture, 91 ; on the 
 Psalms, 3 ; date of, 33-9 ; on the 
 Catholic Epistles, 3 ; de Ortho- 
 grapfo'a,$l~2; Computus pascha- 
 Hs, attributed to him, 31 ; In- 
 stitutio divin. litt.^ date of, 33-9 ; 
 his nine volumes of Scripture 
 and commentary connected with 
 Codex Amiatinus, 16-20; order 
 of books in the nine volumes, 17 ; 
 preface to the nine volumes, 20-1 ; 
 derived his Prologues and other 
 introductions to the Gospels and 
 to St. Paul from Eugipius, 92 ff., 
 135-7, 142, 282-3 ; the author of 
 the note about Eugipius in the 
 Echternach Gospels, 31-3. 
 
 Castel dell' Uovo : see Lucullanum. 
 
 Catholic Epistles, Prologue to, 
 262 ff. 
 
 Ceolfrid, St., and the Codex Amia- 
 tinus, 5 ; journey to Rome, 9, 23. 
 
 Ceriani, Mgr., 278. 
 
 Charles the Bald, Bibles of, 186. 
 
 Christmas, in St. Bede's homilies, 
 72 ; in Neapolitan lists, 101, 
 106-7 » m St. Burchard's list, 
 122 ; in Cod. Fuld., 138 ; in Bodl. 
 Gosp. of St. Augustine, 194-5. 
 
 Chrysologus, St. Peter, Sermon on 
 Media Pentecosies> 195. 
 
 Clark, J. Willis, 6. 
 
 Claromontanus, Codex D of St. Paul, 
 
 Stichometry of Barnabas, 268. 
 Clementine Vulgate, influenced by 
 
 St. Gregory, 208. 
 Cluny MS. of St. Bede's homilies, 
 
 65 ff. 
 Cockayne,on Anglo-Saxon Martyro- 
 logy, 146. 
 Colman, St., 8. 
 Columbanus, St., on primacy of 
 
 Jerusalem, 269. 
 Comicus, Liber, of Toledo, 71 ff. ; 
 
 Lent in, 102 ; &c. 
 Comma Iohanneum, used by Pris- 
 
 cillian and in Prologue to Catholic 
 
 Epistles, 245, 263. 
 CommuneSanctorum, inNeapolitan 
 
 lists, 119 ; in St. Burchard's list, 
 
 127 ; in Cod. Fuld., 140 ; in BodL 
 
 Gosp. of St. Aug., 197. 
 Condat in the Jura, Abbey of, 97. 
 Confession of St. Patrick, 162 ff., 
 
 165 ff. 
 Constans, Typus of, 128. 
 Constantius, bishop of Laureacum, 
 
 98. 
 Constantius, St., bishop of Aquinum, 
 
 i5off., 156. 
 Constantius, Pseudo-Jerome's letter 
 
 to, 66. 
 Correctoria Vaticana, influenced by 
 
 St. Gregory's text, 208. 
 Corssen, Peter, on Prologue of 
 
 purple page of Cod. Amiat., 6 ; on 
 
 the Old Latin character of the 
 
 text of St. Paul in Cod. Fuld., 
 
 136 ; on the Gospel Prologues, 
 
 239; his MSS. of the Prologues, 
 
 278. 
 Cottidianae lectiones, in Neapolitan 
 
 lists, 1 20-1. 
 Coxe, on date of Bodl. Gosp. of 
 
 St. Aug., 188. 
 Cross, Feasts of Holy, 99-100. 
 Cuthbert, St., 8 ; the Stonyhurst 
 
 St. John buried with him, 7. 
 Cuthbert, Evangeliarium of St. : 
 
 see Lindisfarne Gospels. 
 Cyprian, St., a note in Codex M of, 
 
 32 ; agreement of text with Aug. 
 
 and Greg., 209 ; anticipates the 
 
 Comma Johanneum, 263. 
 
 D : see Armagh, Book of. 
 
 De Bruyne, Dom Donatien, on 
 
2<j% 
 
 INDEX 
 
 canones noni testamenti, 267 ff. ; 
 on Marcionite Prologues, 277-8, 
 284. 
 
 Decollatio S. Joannis Baptistae, 
 feast of, in Bede's homilies, 72 ; 
 in Neapolitan lists, 99-100. 
 
 Dedication feast, in Bede's homilies, 
 76; in Neapolitan lists, 101, 120 ; 
 in Cod. Fuld., 140; in Bodl. 
 Gosp. of St. Aug., 197; dedic. 
 /otitis, 10, 99 ; dedic. S. Mariae 
 (the ecclesia maior of Naples), 
 99 ; dedic. S. Stefani (Cathedral 
 of Naples), 99 ; dedic. S. Mariae 
 ad Martyres (Pantheon), in St. 
 Burchard's list, 128. 
 
 Defunctis, Legenda pro, note in A 
 and Y, 24-5, 120. 
 
 De Rossi, 3, 5, 144, 150. 
 
 Diatessaron, 78 ff. 
 
 Dionysius Exiguus, 40, 80. 
 
 Dioscorus, deacon of Pope Hormis- 
 das, 81. 
 
 Dobschiitz, E. von, on the Pro- 
 logues, 238. 
 
 Donatist Summaries of Acts, 158, 
 277, 287. 
 
 Duchesne, Mgr. L., 12, 14 ; con- 
 nects Echternach Martyrology 
 with Abbot Hadrian, 150; on 
 Sexagesima as the Roman feast 
 of St. Paul, 196. 
 
 Durham Gospels (A), said to have 
 been written by St. Bede, 7. 
 
 E : see Egerton Gospels. E, Acts : 
 
 see Laudianus Codex. 
 Easter, in Bede's homilies, 75 ; in 
 
 Neapolitan lists, 101, 114*1*. ; in 
 
 St. Burchard's list, 125 ; in Cod. 
 
 Fuld., 139 ; in Bodl. Gosp. of 
 
 St. Aug., 196. 
 Eata, St., 8. 
 Echternach, 144 ; Gospel of (3?), 
 
 2 ; note about Eugipius, 14-15 ; 
 
 28 ; the note was written by 
 
 Cassiodorus, 31-3 ; examples of 
 
 readings, 27 ; Northumbrian 
 
 element in text, 26-9. 
 Echternach,KaIendar of, 144, 151-4, 
 
 157, 159. 
 Echternach, Martyrology of, 14, 
 144 ; connected with Capua, 150 ; 
 Saints added in it, 14, 149-51. 
 
 Effetatio, 66. 
 
 Egbert, Abp. of York, on books sent 
 by St. Gregory to St. Aug., 182. 
 
 Egerton Gospels, or Gospels of 
 Marmoutier (E), character of 
 text, 49 ; text of the Gospel Pro- 
 logues, 280. 
 
 Elisaeus : see Helisaeus. 
 
 Ember days of Advent, in Bodl. 
 Gosp. of St. Aug., 195, 202. 
 
 Emmeran, Gospelsof St., at Munich. 
 186. 
 
 Engelbrecht, Prof., edition of 
 Faustus, 167 ff. 
 
 Ennodius, his panegyric of St. 
 Antonius of Lerins, 98. 
 
 3* : see Echternach. 
 
 Epiphanius, St., 227, 272. 
 
 Epiphany, in Bede's homilies, 71-2 ; 
 in Neapolitan lists, 100, 107 ; in 
 St. Burchard's list, 122 ; in the 
 Cod. Fuld., 139. 
 
 Epternacensis : : see Echternach. 
 
 Eucherius, St., Bp. of Lyons, 97 ; 
 his use of Vulg. Gospels, 173-7. 
 
 Eugendus, St., or Augendus, or 
 Oyand, 97. 
 
 Eugipius of Lucullanum, ortho- 
 graphy of name, 15 ; note in Ech- 
 ternach Gospels referring to him, 
 28 ; his citations of the N. T., 39- 
 40 ; his friends, 39-42 ; known to 
 Cassiodorus, 42; his Gallican 
 liturgy, 96-129 ; introduces it c. 
 5 10 at Lucullanum, 102 ; his stay 
 at Lerins, 96 ff. ; author of note as 
 to feasts of St. John and of the 
 Ascension in YReg, 106, 115; 
 author of the Pauline lectionary 
 of Cod. Fuld., 135 ff. ; composed 
 new Gospel summaries, 64, 121, 
 284 ; why he did so, 136 ; the 
 Gospel Prologues came to him 
 from Lerins, 282 ff. ; list of intro- 
 ductions possessed by him, 283. 
 
 European type of Old Latin, 50. 
 
 Eusebius, his letter to Carpianus, 
 known to Victor of Capua only 
 in Greek, 79, 93, 283. 
 
 Ezra, picture of him writing the 
 law, Cod. Amiat, 5 ; order of the 
 volumes in the picture, 17. 
 
 F : see Fuldensis Codex. 
 
 Faustus, Abbot of Lerins and Bp* 
 
INDEX 
 
 293 
 
 of Riez, date of, 167 ; his use of 
 
 Vulg. Gosp., 167-73. 
 Felix and Donatus, SS., isoff. 
 Feltoe, C. L., on Media Pentecostes, 
 
 194. 
 FeVotin, Dom, 71. 
 Ferrandus, deacon of Carthage, 
 
 40-1. 
 Forojuliensis Codex (J), Summaries 
 
 of, 215-16; likeness of Bodl. 
 
 Gosp. of St. Aug., 195. 
 Franz, on library of Cassiodorus, 
 
 2 ; on chronology of Cassiodorus, 
 
 33> 36-7. 
 Fulda, foundation of the Abbey, 
 
 157- 
 
 Fuldensis Codex, its Diatessaron, 
 78-81 ; examples of readings 
 compared with Amiatinus, 83 ; 
 text derived from Eugipius, 83 ; 
 summary of the Diatessaron given 
 in full, 85 ff. ; other summaries, 
 136 ; summaries, text-divisions, 
 prefaces, and text of St. Paul, 
 142-3 ; prefatory matter com- 
 pared with that of Amiatinus, 
 135 ; Pauline summaries, &c. ; 
 came through Eugipius from 
 Lerins, 91, 281,283; summaries 
 and tituli for Hebrews, 135 ; 
 liturgical list of Pauline peri- 
 copae, 130-43 ; text of St. Paul 
 fundamentally Old Latin, 136; 
 writing of St. Boniface in it, 157 ; 
 possibly brought by Benet Biscop 
 to England, 188. 
 
 Fulgentius, St., 40. 
 
 Funeral : see Agenda. 
 
 Gall, St., MSS, of Acts in Library at, 
 
 287. 
 Gatien, St., MS. of, 50. 
 Gelasius, St., Pope, 41. 
 Gerbert, Monumenta veteris Litur- 
 
 giae Alemannicae, 122. 
 Germanus, St., of Capua, and the 
 
 Diatessaron of the Cod. Fuld., 
 
 80-1. 
 Germanus, St., of Auxerre, and St. 
 
 Patrick, 164. 
 Glossa ordinaria, 257. 
 Good Friday : see Holy Week. 
 Grandval, Bible of (K), 209. 
 Gregory, Dr. C. R., 3. 
 Gregory the Great, St., pericopae 
 
 commented on in his homilies 
 . and the notes of the Bodl. Gosp. 
 of St. Aug., 197 ; his text of the 
 Gospels, 203-16 ; analysis of it, 
 203 ff. ; his influence seen in Vul- 
 gate MSS., 208. 
 
 Hadrian, St., Abbot of Canterbury, 
 wrongly said to have brought 
 Neapolitan lists to England, 11, 
 44 ; to have brought Capuan 
 Mass-books, 13, 147 ; and South 
 Italian saints' names in Echter- 
 nach Martyrology, 14, 145, 150. 
 
 Hales, William of, his codex (W), 
 influenced by text of St. Gregory, 
 208 ; its text of the Prologues, 
 280. 
 
 Harleian Gospels (Z), resemblance 
 to Bodl. Gosp. of St. Aug., 191, 
 199, 215, 283; agreement with 
 St. Gregory's text, 211-12 ; text 
 of the Prologues, 214, 280-1. 
 
 Healy, Abp., life and writings of 
 St. Patrick, 165. 
 
 Heavenly Witnesses, The three, or 
 Comma lohanneum, in Prologue 
 to Catholic Epp., and used by 
 Priscillian, 245, 263-4. 
 
 Hebrews, Summaries and tituli of, 
 in Cod. Fuld., 133 ; and in Cod. 
 Amiat., 284 ; attributed to Barna- 
 bas (?) in canones noui Test., 268. 
 
 Helisaeus and John, Feast of SS., 
 126. 
 
 Herold, on birth of Eugipius, 41. 
 
 Herzfeld, Dr., edition of Anglo- 
 Saxon Martyrology, 146-7, 159. 
 
 Hiridanum Monasterium, 11. 
 
 Hodgkin, Dr., on chronology of 
 Cassiodorus, yj. 
 
 Holder's anecdoton, on life of 
 Cassiodorus, 37. 
 
 Holmiensis, Codex : see Aureus. 
 
 Holy Week, in Bede's homilies, 71, 
 74-5 ; in Neapolitan lists, 103, 
 112 ff. ; in St. Burchard's list, 
 124 ; in. Cod. Fuld., 139 ; in Bodl. 
 Gosp. of St. Aug., 196. 
 
 Hormisdas, Pope, 81. 
 
 Hygebald, Abbot, 146. 
 
 Hypapante, Feast of (Purification), 
 102, 128. 
 
 Idola, Missa contra, 134, 141. 
 
 U3 
 
294 
 
 INDEX 
 
 Incorruptible Verbum, a wrongly 
 punctuated version of I Peter i. 
 23, 227, 246, 253. 
 
 Indulgentia, Dominica de, 109, 113, 
 
 139- 
 
 In martyra: see Commune San- 
 ctorum. 
 
 In sancti angeli : see Michael, 
 Dedic. of. 
 
 In Sanctorum : see Commune San- 
 ctorum. 
 
 Introductions : see Prologues. 
 
 In uelanda : see Matrimony. 
 
 Invention : see Cross, Holy. 
 
 Iona, 8. 
 
 Irish text of the Gospels, 162-80 ; 
 used by St. Patrick, 164 ; brought 
 by him from Lerins, 177-80; 
 Irish text of the Prologues always 
 the best, 217, 279. 
 
 Isidore, St., 273. 
 
 J. : see Forojuliensis Codex. 
 
 James, St., feast, 71. 
 
 James, Dr. M. R., on origin of 
 Bodl. Gosp. of St. Aug. from Bury 
 St. Edmunds, 189-90. 
 
 Januarius, St., feast, 99, 104. 
 
 Jarrow, 6, 7, 9, 13, 23 ; founded by 
 Benet Biscop, 8 ; Naples, liturgy 
 at, 65 ff., 72; dedication of Ch., 76. 
 
 Jerome, St., his order of the books 
 of the Bible, 4, 19 ; verses ad- 
 dressed to him, 18; his text 
 arranged per cola et commata^ 16, 
 text of his letter Nouum opus 
 in Echternach Gosp., 27 ; the 
 codex of Eugipius attributed to 
 him, 28, 42-4 ; his Comm. on the 
 Epistles, sent for by Cassiodorus, 
 41 ; Prologues formed out of his 
 letter to Paulinus, 254, 258; his 
 two Prologues to the books of 
 Solomon, 260 ; letter of Pseudo- 
 Jerome to Constantius, prefixed 
 to the Comes, 66; Pseudo- 
 Jerome's Prologue to Catholic 
 Epp., 262 ; and to Acts, 265 ; 
 the letter Nouum opus and Pro- 
 logue Plures Juisse known to 
 Victor of Capua, 93-4; these 
 came to Cassiodorus from codex 
 of Eugipius, 95, 283. 
 
 Joannes Apostolus et Evangelista, 
 Prologue to Apocalypse, 256-8. 
 
 John Baptist, St., feasts, in Bede's 
 homilies, 72 ; in Neapolitan lists, 
 99-100. 
 
 John, St., evangelist, feast, note 
 about it in Y Reg, 24, 106 ; in 
 Cod. Fuld., 134 ; Gospel, few 
 lessons from it at Lerins, 121 ; 
 account of him in Gospel Pro- 
 logues, 272-3, 275 ; virginity of, 
 the Bridegroom of Cana, 226 ; 
 Acts of John by Leucius, 226-7, 
 353, 273 ; Prologue to John 
 adapted to the Vulgate by an 
 alteration of its text, 219, 228, 
 279 ; and see Prologues. 
 
 John and Paul, SS., feast, in Bede's 
 homilies, 72 ; in Neapolitan lists, 
 118. 
 
 Juliana, St., of Cumae, i5off. 
 
 Jungat Epistola, Prologue of St. 
 Jerome to books of Solomon, 
 260. 
 
 K : see Grandval, Bible of. 
 
 Kalendar of Echternach, 144 : see 
 Echternach. 
 
 Kattenbusch, Dr., 243. 
 
 Kaulen, Mgr., his work Die Vulgata 
 cited, 81-2 ; on Vincent of 
 Lerins's use of the Vulgate, 166. 
 
 Kells, Book of (Q), 9 ; Irish sum- 
 maries in, 27. 
 
 Kn6ll, on Eugipius, 15 ; edition of 
 Eugipius, 39. 
 
 Kiinstle, on Priscillianist creed Nos 
 Patrem et Filium, 245 ; on use 
 of apocryphal Acts by Priscillian, 
 253 ; on Comma lohanneum^ 
 263 ; on identity of Peregrinus 
 with Bachiarius, 258. 
 
 L : see Lichfield Gospels. 
 Laudianus Codex, of Acts (E, Acts), 
 
 used by Bede at Jarrow, 43 ; 
 
 157-8 ; taken to Germany by St. 
 
 Boniface or Willibrord, 160; 
 
 perhaps brought to Northumbria 
 
 by St. Benet Biscop, 160, 188. 
 Laurentius, scribe of the Martyro- 
 
 logy of Echternach, 144. 
 Lent, in Bede's homilies, 74 ; in 
 
 Neapolitan lists, 102, 108 ft. ; in 
 
 St. Burchard's list, 123 ; in Cod. 
 
 Fuld., 139; in Bodl. Gosp. of 
 
 St. Aug., 200. 
 
INDEX 
 
 295 
 
 Leofric, Missal of (Sundays after 
 
 Pent.), 201. 
 Leofstan, Abbot of Bury, 190. 
 Lerins, Eugipius at, 96-8 ; Marinus, 
 
 Abbot of, 96-7 ; Bl. Antonius 
 
 of, 98 ; St. Patrick at, 164 ff. ; 
 
 Faustus of Riez, Abbot of, 167 ; 
 
 St. Eucherius at, 173 ; Irish text 
 
 of the Gosp. derived from, 177 ; 
 
 the Gosp. Prologues attached to 
 
 the Vulgate at, 281 ff.; Old Latin 
 
 text used at, 178, 286. 
 Liber Comicus of Toledo : see 
 
 Comicus. 
 Lichfield, Gospels of St. Chad (L), 
 
 origin of, 179 ; Bodl. Gosp. of St. 
 
 Aug. not from Lichfield, 189. 
 Lindisfarne, Gospels of (Y), or 
 
 Evangeliarium of St. Cuthbert, 
 
 4, 7 ; lists of, not brought from 
 
 Naples by St. Hadrian, 8-14 ; 
 
 Neapolitan lists of, given in full, 
 
 52 flf. ; note Quod pro fie Pascha 
 
 legendum est, 24, 112 ; note leg. 
 
 firo defunctis, 24-5, 120; note 
 
 leg. in Quadrag.j 24-5, in ; text 
 
 of Prologues probably that of 
 
 Eugipius, 280, &c. 
 Lucas Antiocensis and Lucas Apo- 
 
 stolorum Hactus, Prologues, 255, 
 
 261. 
 Lucas natione Syrus, Prologue to 
 
 Acts, 254 ; MSS. of, 287. 
 Lucillus, first Abbot of Lucullanum, 
 
 41, 96. 
 Lucullanum, now Castel dell' Uovo, 
 
 at Naples, Monastery of Eugipius, 
 
 15, 29, 41, 44, 96-7; date of 
 
 foundation, 102. 
 Luke, Prologue to : see Prologues. 
 Luke, St., account of, in Prologue, 
 
 229,231,271, 273. 
 Lupulus, St., in Capuan documents 
 
 and mosaics, 147 ff. 
 Luxeuil, Lectionary of, 71 ff., &c. 
 
 Mabillon, Dom Jean, Capitulations 
 of Bede's homilies, 67 ff.; on 
 Marinus of Lerins, 96 ; on An- 
 tonius of Lerins, 98. 
 
 Macon, Synod of, on Advent, 105. 
 
 Macray, on origin of Bodl. Gosp. 
 of St. Aug., 189. 
 
 Magnus, St., in Capuan documents, 
 147-55- 
 
 Mandatum, 113. 
 
 Marcianus, Abbot of Lucullanum, 
 
 41, 96. 
 Marcionite Arguments to St. Paul, 
 
 277-8, 284. 
 Marcus, St., of Aecae, 1 50 ft. 
 Marcus qui et Colobodactilus, Pro- 
 logue in Codex Toletanus, 274. 
 Marinus (or Maxianxis), firt'mzcerius 
 
 cantorum of Naples, 96. 
 Marinus, Abbot of Lerins, 96-8. 
 Marius, a priest, 98. 
 Mark, St., account of, in Prologue, 
 
 233,235,272,274-5; his surname 
 
 colobodactilus and the loss of his 
 
 thumb, ib. ; Prologue to Mark : 
 
 see Prologues. 
 Marmoutier, 50; Gospels of, see 
 
 Egerton Gospels. 
 Martianay, Dom, 261. 
 Martin, St., and St. Patrick, 165 ; 
 
 his feast the beginning of Advent, 
 
 105. 
 Martyrology, of St. Jerome, 99-100 ; 
 
 of Echternach : see Echternach ; 
 
 Anglo-Saxon or Old English 
 
 Martyrology, 145, 146 ff.; date 
 
 and origin, 159. 
 Martyrs, Common of: see Commune 
 
 Sanctorum. 
 Mass-books, older, in Anglo-Saxon 
 
 Martyrology,i44-59 ; theirorigin, 
 
 I54ft 
 
 Matrimony, pericopae of Mass for 
 (in uelanda\ 73, 101, 141. 
 
 Matthew, St., account of, in 
 Prologue, 223, 225, 272 ; Pro- 
 logue to : see Prologues. 
 
 Maundy Thursday : see Thursday, 
 and Holy Week. 
 
 Maurice, St. (Agaunum), 97. 
 
 Maximus, St., of Compsa, in Capuan 
 documents, i5off. 
 
 Media Pentecostes, 194. 
 
 Mellitus, St., brought books to St. 
 Augustine of Cant, from Rome, 
 181. 
 
 Michael, St., feasts {in sancti an- 
 geli), 104, 200. 
 
 Mommsen,on chronology of Cassio- 
 dorus, 33, 37. 
 
 Monaco, Michele, Sanctuarium 
 Cafiuanum, 148, 153. 
 
 Monarchian Prologues : see Pro- 
 logues. 
 
2g6 
 
 INDEX 
 
 Monarchianism, in Priscillian and 
 theProIogues, 24off.; in Prologue 
 to John, 226 ; Luke, 231 ; Mat- 
 thew, 224. 
 
 Mondays in Lent, 1 1 1 : see Lent. 
 
 Monkwearmouth : see Wearmouth 
 and Jarrow. 
 
 Montecassino, 83 : see Cassinum. 
 
 Morin, Dom Germain, on Neapo- 
 litan lists, 10; he published them, 
 
 51 ; on homilies of Bede, 65 ff. ; 
 on liturgical notes in M, 278 ; in 
 q, 102-3 » also 104, 126, 279, &c. 
 
 Mozarabic lessons, 71, &c. 
 
 Munich, MS. lat. 6224 (q), 71, &c. ; 
 liturgical notes in, 102-3 ; MS. 
 lat. i4ooo(Gosp.of St.Emmeran), 
 186. 
 
 Muratorian fragment and the Pro- 
 logues, 275. 
 
 Naples, St. Hadrian came from 
 near, 11 ; Lindisfarne Gosp. and 
 Naples, 10: see Lucullanum and 
 Nisida. 
 
 Neapolitan lists of Gospel pericopae 
 in Y Reg, 2, 10-13 ; given in full 
 in table, 122 fT.; were in the arche- 
 typeof Cod. Amiat., 23-5; used in 
 Northumbria, 45-77 ; agree with 
 text-divisions of Northumbrian 
 summaries, 64 ; in use by Bede at 
 Jarrow, 65-72 ; Neapolitan ad- 
 ditions to Gallican original, 103 ; 
 comparison with the Pauline peri- 
 copae of Cod. Fuld., 137 fT. 
 
 Nicander, St., of Venafrum, in 
 Capuan documents, 146-55. 
 
 Nicholson, E. W. B., on resemblance 
 between Bodl. Gosp. of St. Aug. 
 and Harleian (Z), 191 ; on date 
 of the former, 188 ; transcript of 
 liturgical notes in it, 191. 
 
 Nisida or Nisita, St. Hadrian, 
 Abbot of, 11-12. 
 
 Non idem ordo> Prologue to Catholic 
 Epp., 262. 
 
 Northumbrian text of the Gospels, 
 said to be from S. Italy, 1 ; 
 derived from Cassiodorus, 16-29 : 
 •see Cassiodorus and Eugipius ; 
 Northumbrian summaries, 51 ; 
 their text-divisions given in table, 
 
 52 ff. ; these agree with Neapo- 
 litan pericopae, 64 ; are quoted 
 
 in the summary of the Diatessaron 
 of Cod. Fuld., 84 fT.; composed 
 by Eugipius, 92, 121, 284; they 
 quote the Gospel Prologues, 94. 
 Nouum opus, letter of St. Jerome 
 to Damasus, in Cod. Amiat., and 
 known to Victor of Capua, 93-5. 
 
 O : see Bodleian Gospels of St. 
 Augustine. 
 
 Old English Martyrology : see 
 Martyrology. 
 
 Old Latin, in St. John of Burch, 
 49 ; in text of St. Gregory, 211 ; 
 order of the Gosp. in Prologue to 
 John, 228 ; the Gosp. Prologues 
 not in O. L. Latin MSS., except 
 in version adapted to Vulg., 279. 
 
 Ordination, Mass of, in Neapolitan 
 lists, 119; in Cod. Fuld., 140-1. 
 
 Orleans, Council of, on Quinqua- 
 gesima, no. 
 
 Orosius, Commonitorium, 250. 
 
 Palm Sunday : see Holy Week ; in 
 Bede's homilies, 74 ; in Neapo- 
 litan lists, 100, 103,112 ;in F, 139. 
 
 Pamelius, edition of the ComeSj 
 125. 
 
 Pancras, St., feast, 116. 
 
 Pandects of Bible in library of 
 Cassiodorus, 4-8. 
 
 Paris, ancient lectionary of, 105 ; 
 Bibl. Nat., MS. lat. 9451, 126. 
 
 Paruulos, ad, pericope in Bodl. 
 Gosp. of St. Aug., 201. 
 
 Pascha, quod prope Pascha legen- 
 dum est, note in Y Reg, 24, 112 ; 
 legenda circa Pascha^ note in A, 
 25, 112 ; Pascha annotinum, 140. 
 
 Paschasius, St., 40, 98. 
 
 Passion, reading of, in Holy Week, 
 113 ff., 124, 196. 
 
 Patrick, St., his N. T. quotations, 
 162-4; his connexion with Lerins, 
 164-5; probably used the Vulgate, 
 164; brought the Prologues to 
 Ireland, 281, 285. 
 
 Paul, St., not much read from be- 
 ginning of Lent till Pentecost, 
 138 ; feast at Sexagesima, 109, 
 135, 196; Prologue to, Primum 
 quaeritur, 277 ; introductions, 
 summaries, &c. : see Fuldensis, 
 Amiatinus, and Prologues. 
 
INDEX 
 
 397 
 
 Paul Warnefrid, the deacon, on two 
 books of Bede's homilies, 65. 
 
 Pauline lectionary of Cod. Fuld., 
 130-43 : see Fuldensis. 
 
 Pentecost, feast, in Bede's homilies, 
 75; in Neapolitan lists,62, 75,101, 
 1 1 7 ff. ; in St. Burchard's list, 
 125 ; in Bodl. Gosp. of St. Aug., 
 194 ; Sundays after Pent, in 
 same, 201 ; media Pentecostes % 
 194. 
 
 Peregrinus, author of Prologues, 
 258 ff. ; of Lucas Antioc. and 
 Lucas Afostolorum Hactus, 255, 
 261 ; uses Comma Iohanneum^ 
 263 ; identified with Bachiarius, 
 258 ; in Stowe St. John, 259 ; a 
 pseudonym of Vincent of Lerins 
 258, 260. 
 
 Perpetuus, Bp. of Tours, on Vigil 
 of St. J. Bapt., 100 ; on Advent, 
 105. 
 
 Peter, St., and St. Paul, feasts of, 
 in Bede's homilies, 71 ; in Nea- 
 politan lists, 107, 1 18-19 ; m St. 
 Burchard's list, 126-7 ; ia Cod. 
 Fuld., 140-1 ; in Bodl. Gosp. of 
 St. Aug., 196. 
 
 Peter Chrysologus, St., on media 
 Pentecostes, 195. 
 
 Pitra, Cardinal, 80. 
 
 Plummer's ed. of Bede, cited, 42, 
 182, &c. 
 
 Plures fuisse, Prologue of St. 
 Jerome, in Amiat. and Fuld., 
 94, 283, 285. 
 
 Pomponius, Bp. of Naples, 99. 
 
 Primum quaeritur, Prol. to St. 
 Paul, 277. 
 
 Priscillian, author of the Gospel 
 Prologues, 238-53 ; his doctrine 
 found in them, 223, &c. ; his 
 canons on St. Paul, 258-9, 277 ; 
 Prol. to Cath. Epp., 262 ff., 270 ; 
 use of 1 John, 247, 262 ; and of 
 Comma Johanneum, 245, 263 ; 
 and of Acts of John, 226-7, 253, 
 273 ; Priscillian's historicalknow- 
 ledge, 275. 
 
 Priscus, St., of Capua, 146-55. 
 
 Proba, patroness of Eugipius, 40, 
 
 42,43. 
 Prologues, the four Gosp. Prologues 
 written by Priscillian, 238-53 ; 
 Monarchian doctrine, 224, 226, 
 
 231, and 243-9; Apollinarian 
 doctrine, 231, 233-4, and 240 ff. ; 
 text, explanation, and translation, 
 2I 7S7 J later manipulations, 
 254-70; sources employed, 271 ; 
 comparison with M uratorian 
 fragment, 275 ; cited by Bede, 
 276-8; Irish text the most correct, 
 217, 279; Alcuinian text, 280; 
 Old Latin MSS. have a text of 
 the Prologues adapted to the 
 Vulgate, 278 ; on their history, 
 271-88 ; quoted in Northumbrian 
 summaries, 94 ; came to Eugi- 
 pius, and to St. Patrick from 
 Lerins, 282 ff. ; their peregrina- 
 tions, 284; provisional genealogy, 
 281 ; final genealogy, 288. 
 
 Prologue to Mt, text, 217; mean- 
 ing, 222 ; transl., 225 ; Prol. to 
 Mk., text, 221 ; meaning, 233 ; 
 transl., 235 ; Prol. to Lk., text, 
 220 ; meaning, 229 ; transl., 231 ; 
 Prol. to Jn., text, 218 ; meaning, 
 226 ; transl., 228 ; alteration to 
 adapt it to Vulg., 278 ; Prol. to 
 M k. Marcus qui et Colobodactilus^ 
 274. 
 
 Prologue to Acts, Lucas nat. Syrtts, 
 254; Actus Ap. nudam, 255; 
 Lucas Antiocensis, and Lucas 
 Afiostolorum Hactus, 255, 261 ; 
 Prol. to Apoc, 256 ; Prol. of 
 Jerome to Solomon, 260; Pro- 
 logues, introductions, &c, in 
 Codd. Amiat. and Fuld., 92-5 : 
 see Amiatinus and Fuldensis. 
 
 Proprium Sanctorum : see Saints' 
 days. 
 
 Psalter of St. Augustine, 181. 
 
 Pseudo- Jerome, Prol. to Cath. Epp., 
 262; Canit Psalmis£a } 26$ ; letter 
 to Constantius, 66. 
 
 Purification : see Hypapante. 
 
 Q : see Kells, Book of. 
 
 q: see Munich MS. lat. 6224. 
 
 Quadragesima, meaning first Sun- 
 day of Lent, 108, no; note 
 legenda in quadr., in AY, 24-5, 
 III. 
 
 Quentin,Dom Henri, 145, 151, 152. 
 
 Quinquagesima, 109, 139. 
 
 Quintus, St., in Capuan documents 
 and mosaics, 147 ff. 
 
298 
 
 INDEX 
 
 Ranke, E., edition of Cod. Fuld., 
 84» 130 ; Das kirchlicke Peri- 
 kopensystetn^ 122. 
 
 Reg, Brit. Mus. MS. Reg. i. B. vii, 
 date of, 9 ; for its liturgical notes 
 see Neapolitan lists and Lindis- 
 farne Gospels. 
 
 Rheims, public library, MS. con- 
 taining Neapolitan lists, 10. 
 
 Rheinau, lectionary of, 122 ff. 
 
 Roman liturgical use, compared 
 with that of Cod. Fuld.,, 134 ; with 
 that of Bodl. Gosp. of St. Aug. 
 and with St. Gregory, 192-8, 
 199-201, &c. 
 
 Rule, Martin, 182. 
 
 Sabbatum, xii lectionum, 202. 
 
 Sabina, St., 147. 
 
 Saints 7 days, in Bede's homilies, 71, 
 yy ; in Neapolitan lists, 100-1, 
 1 18-19; in St. Burchard's list, 
 125 ; in Cod. Fuld., 140 ; in Bodl. 
 Gospels of St. Aug., 196, 200. 
 
 Sardinia, Greek monks in, 128. 
 
 Sarum Missal, Sundays after Pent, 
 in, 201. 
 
 Saturday of twelve lessons, 202 ; 
 HolySaturday, in Bede's homilies, 
 71, 75 ; in Neapolitan lists, 101, 
 113 ; in St. Burchard's list, 124. 
 
 Schepss, on Gosp. of St. Burch., 
 45 ; his collations of, 46-8 ; 
 edition of Priscillian, 241. 
 
 Schwartz, on the Greek origin of 
 the Prologues, 239. 
 
 Scrivener, F. H. A., 9. 
 
 Scyllacium, 2, 3. 
 
 Sedulius Scotus, 223, 234. 
 
 Septuagesima, 123. 
 
 Servandus, note by, in Cod. Amiat., 
 
 32. 
 Severinus, St., 96 ; lifebyEugipius, 
 
 39 ; translation of relics, 41. 
 Severus, St., of Cassinum, 150 ff. 
 Sexagesima, in Neapol. lists, 109 ; 
 
 in Cod. Fuld., 134, 139, 141: see 
 
 Paul, St. 
 Sixtine Vulg., influenced by text of 
 
 St. Gregory, 208. 
 Skeat, Prof., 51, 52. 
 Sosius, St., or Sossius, 148, 150 if. 
 South Italy, connexion of North- 
 . umbrian text with, 1-15. 
 Spanish MSS., summaries of, 2 16; 
 
 Prologues to Acts in, 254-5; Pro- 
 logue to Cath. Epp. in, 264, 287; 
 
 Spanish text of Acts,287; of Gosp. 
 
 Prologues, 280. 
 Spires, lectionary of, 122 ff. 
 Squillace, 2, 3. 
 Stations, Roman 3 in St. Burchard's 
 
 list, 123. 
 Stephen, St., feast, 134, 195 ; Dedic. 
 
 of, 99i 103-4, 197. 
 Stichometry of Barnabas in Cod. 
 
 Claromontanus, 268. 
 Stilla Domini : see Epiphany. 
 Stokes, Whitley, ed. of St. Patrick, 
 
 163 ; cited, 164-5, 259. 
 Stonyhurst St. John, found in tomb 
 
 of St. Cuthbert, 7. 
 Stowe St. John, note by Peregrinus 
 
 in, 259. 
 Sturmius, St., 157. 
 Summaries, types of, 64-5 : see 
 
 Northumbrian summ. and Dona.- 
 
 tist summ. ; summaries of Cod. 
 
 Forojul. (J) and Gosp. of St. 
 
 Aug. (OX) compared, 215-16. 
 Susius : see Sosius. 
 Sustus, for Sosius or Xystus ?, 148. 
 Sytnboli traditio^ 112. 
 Synotus, St., in Capuan documents, 
 
 147 ff. 
 
 Tabernacle, picture of, in Cod. 
 
 Amiat., 6. 
 Tatian, 78-9. 
 Theodore, St., of Canterbury, 9, 
 
 12 ; said to have brought Cod. 
 
 Laud, of Acts to England, 158. 
 Theodoric, 2, 33, 36, 37. 
 Theodulph, Codex of (e), influenced 
 
 by St. Gregory's text, 209. 
 Thomas of Elmham, cited, 181. 
 Thursday, Maundy, 113 : see 
 
 Maundy ; no Station for Thurs. 
 
 in Lent, 115, 124. 
 Thurston, Fr. Herbert, 145. 
 Tischendorf, ed. of Cod. Amiat., 
 
 25- 
 Toledo : see Comicus. 
 Tours, Synod of, on Advent, 105 ; 
 
 St. Patrick at, 165. 
 Tres libros Sal., Prol. by St. 
 
 Jerome, 260. 
 Trithemius, on chronology of Cassio- 
 
 dorus, 37. 
 Turner, C. H., on order of Cassio- 
 
INDEX 
 
 299 
 
 dorus's nine vols., 29 ; on use by 
 Priscillian of Acts of Thomas, 
 253, &c. 
 Turribius, or Turibius, letter to 
 St. Leo on Priscillianist use of 
 spurious Acts of Apostles, 253, 
 273. 
 
 Utrecht Psalter, fragments of Matt, 
 and John in, 7. 
 
 V (Vallicella MS.) : see Alcuin. 
 
 Vallarsi, 261. 
 
 Victor, Bp. , of Capua,St., his epitaph, 
 
 30 ; his date, 78 ; his Diatessaron, 
 
 78 ; not the author of the Note 
 
 about Eugipius in Echternach 
 
 Gosp., 30; his entries in Cod. 
 
 Fuld., 30; borrowed MS. of 
 
 Eugipius, 83-4, 92. 
 Victorinus, 227. 
 Vigilius, Pope, condemnation of 
 
 Origen, 38. 
 Vincent of Lerins, St., quotations 
 
 of, 164-5 ; his surname Pere- 
 
 grinus, 258-60. 
 Vitalian, Pope, 12. 
 Vitalian, St., of Caudae, l5off. 
 Vitus, St., feast, 118. 
 Vivaria, or -um ( Vivariense mona- 
 
 sterium), 2, 3, 36. 
 
 W : see Hales, William of. 
 Walafrid Strabo, Glossa Ord., 257. 
 Wandinger, on chronology of 
 
 Cassiodorus, 36. 
 Washing of the feet : j^Mandatum. 
 Wearmouth (or Monkwearmouth), 
 
 7 ; founded by Benet Biscop, 8 ; 
 
 dedication of Ch., 76 : see Jarrow. 
 
 Westminster Missal, Sundays after 
 Pent., 201. 
 
 Westwood, on Psalter of St. Aug., 
 188. 
 
 Whitby, Synod of, 8. 
 
 White, H. J., 3, 4, 6, 16-17, 21-2, 
 &c. ; on Vincent of Lerins, 166 ; 
 on Cambridge Gosp. of St. Aug., 
 184; on Bodl. do., 183. 
 
 Whitley Stokes : see Stokes. 
 
 Whitsunday : see Pentecost. 
 
 Wilfrid, St., 189. 
 
 William of Hales : see Hales. 
 
 Willibrord, St., 14, 26, 144 : see 
 Echternach. 
 
 Wordsworth, Bp. of Salisbury, and 
 Rev. H. J. White, 1, &c. ; on 
 Echternach Gosp., 15, 26-7; on 
 MSS. of Acts, 43, 287 ; on Dia- 
 tessaron of Cod. Fuld., 82 ; on 
 Cod. Laud, of Acts, 158 ; on 
 Gosp. of St. Aug., 184; con- 
 jectural emendation of Prologue 
 to John, 219-20, 227-8, 278-9. 
 
 Wotke, ed. of St. Eucherius, 173. 
 
 Wiirzburg library : see Burchard, 
 Gospels of St., unpublished list 
 of Roman Stations, 129. 
 
 X : see Cambridge Gospels of St. 
 
 Augustine. 
 Xystus, St., 148, 153. 
 
 Y: see Lindisfarne, Gospels of. 
 Youngman, G. M., 9. 
 
 Z: see Harleian Gospels. 
 
 Zahn, Theodor, 4 ; on Diatessaron, 
 
 78. 
 
OXFORD 
 PRINTED AT THE CLARENDON PRESS 
 BY HORACE HART, M.A. 
 PRINTER TO THE UNIVERSITY 
 
CLARENDON PRESS BOOKS 
 
 THEOLOGY 
 
 The Holy Scriptures, Apocrypha, etc 
 
 The Bible in English 
 Reprint of the Authorized Version of 1611. 4to. 1833. £3 3s.net. 
 The Authorized Version. 
 
 Complete lists of Oxford Bibles, Oxford Bibles for Teachers, Oxford Prayer 
 Books, Church Sets, etc, in all styles and bindings can be obtained from 
 any. bookseller, or from Mr. Henry Frowde, Oxford Warehouse, Amen 
 Corner, London, E.C. 
 
 The Revised Version. 
 
 [The Revised Version is the joint property of the Universities of Oxford 
 
 and Cambridge.] 
 Edition for the Church Desk. 
 
 Folio. In buckram, with the Apocrypha, £2 2s. net. Bound in 
 Grained Cowhide, £2 10s.; with the Apocrypha, £3; in Turkey 
 Morocco, £4 4s.; with the Apocrypha, £4 16s. 
 Library editions, in large type (pica). Bound in cloth and greatly reduced 
 in price. 
 
 Royal 8vo, with large margins : with the Apocrypha, 6 vols. , from £1 9s. ; 
 
 the Apocrypha only, 10s. 6d. ; the other five volumes, 18s. 6d. 
 Demy 8vo, with the Apocrypha, 6 vols., £1 Is. ; the Apocrypha only, 
 7s. 6d. ; the other five volumes, 14s. 
 Single volume editions : 
 
 Royal 8vo, on Oxford India Paper, and in large type (pica), in Persian, 
 
 £2 12s. 6d.; with the Apocrypha, in Turkey Morocco, £3 19s. 
 Royal 8vo, small pica type. In cloth, 10s. 6d. ; in leather bindings, from 
 
 19s. 6d. 
 8vo, small pica type. In cloth, 7s. 6d. ; in leather bindings, from 10s. 6d. 
 8vo, minion type. In cloth, 4s.; with the Apocrypha, 6s.; the Apocrypha 
 
 only, 3s. 
 16mo, ruby type. In cloth, 2s. 6d. ; with the Apocrypha, 4s. ; the 
 
 Apocrypha only, 2s. ; with the Oxford Helps, in leather, from 7s. 
 16mo, nonpareil type. In leather, from 3s. 
 
 16mo, pearl type. In cloth boards, from 8d. ; with Oxford Helps, 
 from 2s. 6d. 
 
 The Revised Version with marginal references. 
 
 8vo, in bourgeois type, from 6s. ; on Oxford India paper, bound in 
 
 leather, from 15s. 
 8vo, in minion type, from 5s. ; with the Apocrypha, from 7s. 6d. ; with Oxford 
 
 Helps, from lis. ; on Oxford India paper, bound in leather, from 14s. 
 16mo, in nonpareil type, in leather, from 6s. ; on Oxford India paper, 
 
 bound in leather, from 10s. 6d. 
 
 The Parallel Bible, containing the Authorized and Revised Versions in 
 parallel columns. Small quarto, in minion type. On ordinary paper, from 
 10s. 6d. ; on Oxford India paper, bound in leather, from 16s. 
 
 The TWO- Version Bible, being the Authorized Version with the 
 differences of the Revised Version printed in the margins, so that both texts 
 can be read from the same page. With references and maps. Bourgeois 
 type. Cloth, 7s. 6d.; leather, from 10s. 6d.; on Oxford India paper— cloth, 
 10s. 6d. ; leather, from 15s. ; interleaved with writing-paper, and bound in 
 leather, from £1 Is. With the Oxford Helps, leather, from 18s. 6d. Printed 
 on writing-paper with wide margins for notes, from 10s. 6d. net. 
 
 A. 2,000 1 
 
CLARENDON PRESS BOOKS 
 
 Elementary Helps to the Study of the Bible 
 
 Oxford Bible for Teachers, containing the texts of the Old and 
 
 New Testaments, with or without marginal references, and in either the 
 Authorized or Revised Versions, together with the Oxford Helps to the Bible 
 (see below), and 124 full-page plates. 
 
 In many styles and bindings. A complete list can be obtained from 
 Mr. Henry Frowde, Amen Corner, London, E.C. 
 
 The Oxford Helps to the Study of the Bible, containing 
 
 Introductions to the several Books, the History and Antiquities of the Jews, 
 the Natural History of Palestine, with copious tables, concordance and 
 indices, and a series of maps. With 124 full-page plates. 
 
 8vo, in long primer type — cloth, 5s. ; leather, from 6s. 6d. 
 
 8vo, in nonpareil type — cloth, 2s. 6d. ; leather, 3s. 6d. 
 
 16mo, in pearl type — stiff covers, Is. net; cloth, Is. 6d. ; leather, from 2s. 
 
 Bible Illustrations, being 124 full-page plates, forming an appendix to 
 the above. Crown 8vo, cloth, 2s. 6d. 
 
 Helps to the Study of the Book of Common Prayer. By 
 
 W. R. W. Stephens. Crown 8vo. Cloth, 2s. 6d. net ; also in leather bindings. 
 Printed on Oxford India paper and bound with the Prayer Book, from lis. 6d. 
 
 Dr. Stokoe's Manuals. Crown 8vo 
 Old Testament History for Schools. By t. h. Stokoe. Part i. 
 
 (Third edition.) From the Creation to the Settlement in Palestine. Part II. 
 From the Settlement to the Disruption. Part III. From the Disruption to 
 the Return from Captivity. Extra feap 8vo. 2s. 6d. each, with maps. 
 
 Manual of the Four Gospels. With Maps, 3s. 6d. Or, separately, 
 Parti, The Gospel Narrative, 2s. ; Part II, The Gospel Teaching, 2s. 
 
 Manual of the Acts. 3s. 
 
 The Life and Letters of St. Paul. 3s. 6d. Or, separately, 
 
 Part I, The Life of St. Paul, 2s. Part II, The Letters of St. Paul, 2s. 
 
 First Days and Early Letters of the Church. 3s. Or, Part I, 
 
 First Days of the Church, Is. 6d. Part II, Early Letters of the Church, 2s. 
 
 Graduated Lessons on the Old Testament. By u. z. Rule, 
 
 edited by Ll. J. M. Bebb. Selected Readings from the O. T. with para- 
 phrases and connecting paragraphs ; with notes for teachers and pupils. For 
 use in lower forms, and in elementary and Sunday Schools. The text is that 
 of the R.V., but the book may be used with the A.V. In three volumes. 
 Extra fcap 8vo. Is. 6d. each in paper covers, or Is. 9d. each in cloth. Vol. I. 
 Creation to Death of Moses, vol. II. Conquest of Canaan, Psalms, etc. 
 Vol. III. Israel and Judah, the Captivity, the Prophets. 
 
 Notes On the Gospel of St. Luke, for Junior Classes. By Miss 
 E. J. Moore Smith. Extra fcap 8vo, stiff covers. Is. 6d. 
 
 A Greek Testament Primer, being an easy grammar and reading- 
 book for the use of students beginning Greek. By E. Miller. Second 
 edition. Extra fcap 8vo, paper, 2s.; cloth, 3s. 6d. 
 
 2 
 
OLD TESTAMENT AND APOCRYPHA 
 
 History of the Bible 
 List of Editions of the Bible in English, by h. Cotton. 
 
 Second edition. 8vo. 8s. 6d. 
 
 RhemeS and Doway ; showing what has been done by Roman Catholics 
 for the diffusion of the Bible in English. By H. Cotton. 8vo. 9s. 
 
 The Part of Rheims in the Making of the English 
 
 .Bible, by J. G. Carleton, containing historical and critical introduction, 
 tables and analyses thereof. 8vo. 9s. 6d. net. 
 
 Wycliffe's Bible, portion edited by W. W. Skeat. 
 
 Studia Biblica et Ecclesiastica. Essays chiefly in Biblical and 
 Patristic criticism, and kindred subjects. 8vo. Cloth. 
 Vol. I, 10s. 6d. Vol. II, 12s. 6d. Vol. Ill, 16s. Vol. IV, 12s. 6d. 
 Vol. V, complete, 16s. , or, in separate stiff cover parts. Part I, Life of St. 
 Nino, by M. and J. O. Waudrop. 3s. 6d. Part II, Texts from Mount 
 Athos, by K. Lake. 3s. 6d. Part III, Place of the Peshitto Version in 
 the Apparatus Criticus of the Greek New Testament. 2s. 6d. Part IV, 
 Baptism and Christian Archaeology, by C. F. Rogers. 4s. 6d. 
 
 The Gospel Of Barnabas. Edited and translated from the Italian 
 
 MS. in the Imperial Library, Vienna, by Lonsdale and Laura Ragg. 8vo, 
 with a facsimile. 16s. net. 
 
 The Journal of Theological Studies. Edited by J. f. Bethune- 
 
 Baker and F. E. Brightman. Published Quarterly, price 3s. 6d. net. 
 Annual subscription 12s. net, post free. Many of the back numbers are still 
 obtainable. 
 
 The Old Testament and Apocrypha 
 
 The Psalter, by Richard Roixe of Hampole. Edited by H. R. 
 Bramley. With an introduction and glossary. 8vo. £1 Is. 
 
 The Parallel Psalter : being the Prayer-Book version of the Psalms 
 and a new version arranged on opposite pages, with an introduction and 
 glossaries by S. R. Driver. Second edition. Extra fcap 8vo. 3s. 6d. net. 
 
 An Annotated Psalter. Arranged by J. M. Thompson. Fcap 8vo. 5s. 
 
 The Book of Job in the Revised Version. Edited, with 
 
 introductions and brief annotations, by S. R. Driver. Crown 8vo. 
 2s. 6d. net. 
 
 Lectures On EcclesiasteS. By G. G. Bradley. Second edition. 
 Crown 8vo. 5s. 6d. 
 
 Astronomy in the Old Testament. By g. Schiaparelu. 
 
 Authorized translation. Crown 8vo. 3s. 6d. net. 
 
 EcclesiasticUS, translated from the original Hebrew by A. E. Cowley and 
 A. Neubauer. Crown 8vo. 2s. 6d. 
 
 3 
 
CLARENDON PRESS BOOKS 
 
 The Place of Ecclesiasticus in Semitic Literature. An 
 
 essay by D. S. Margoliouth. Small 4to. 2s. 6d. 
 
 The Five Books of Maccabees, with notes and illustrations by 
 
 H. Cotton. 8vo. 10s. 63. 
 
 The Book of Enoch, translated from DLUmann's Ethiopic text (emended 
 and revised), and edited by R. H. Charles. 8vo. [Out of print.] 
 
 The Book of the Secrets of Enoch, translated from the Slavonic 
 by W. R. Morfill, and edited, with introduction, notes, etc, by R. H. 
 Charles. 8vo. 7s. 6d. 
 
 DeuterOgraphs. Duplicate passages in the Old Testament. Arranged 
 by R. B. Girdlestone. 8vo. 7s. 6d. 
 
 History and Song of Deborah (Judges iv and v). By g. a, 
 
 Cooke. 8vo. Paper covers. Is. 6d. (Published by Mr. Frowde.) 
 
 Libri Psalmorum Versio antiqua Latina, cum Paraphrasi Angio- 
 
 Saxonica. Edidit B. Thorpe. 8vo. 10s. 6d. 
 
 Libri Psalmorum Versio antiqua Gallica e Cod. MS. in bu>i. 
 
 Bodleiana adservato, una cum Versione Metrica aliisque Monumentis perve- 
 tustis. Nunc primum descripsit et edidit F. Michel. 8vo. 10s. 6d. 
 
 Hebrew and Chaldee 
 Notes on the Hebrew Text of the Book of Genesis. 
 
 By G. J. Sfurrell. Second edition. Crown 8vo. 12s. 6d. 
 Notes On Samuel. By S. R. Driver. [Out of print.] 
 
 Notes on the Hebrew Text of the Book of Kings. By 
 
 C. F. Burney. 8vo. 14s. net. 
 
 A Hebrew and English Lexicon of the Old Testament, 
 
 with an Appendix containing the Biblical Aramaic, based on the Thesaurus 
 and Lexicon of Gesenius, by F. Brown, S. R. Driver, and C. A. Briggs. 
 Small 4to. 34s. net. The several Parts can be supplied to complete sets. 
 
 Gesenius's Hebrew Grammar, as edited and enlarged by E. 
 Kautzsch. Translated from the 25th German Edition by G. W. Collins. 
 Translation revised and adjusted to the 26th Edition by A. E. Cowley. 8vo. 
 [Out of print.] 
 
 A Treatise on the Use of the Tenses in Hebrew. By 
 
 S. R. Driver. Third edition. Crown 8vo. 7s. 6d. 
 
 A Commentary on the Book of Proverbs, attributed to 
 
 Abraham Ihn Ezra. Edited from a MS in the Bodleian Library by S. R. 
 Driver. Crown 8vo. Paper covers, 3s. 6d. 
 
 4 
 
OLD TESTAMENT : GREEK 
 
 The Book of Tobit. A Chaldee Text, from a unique MS in the 
 Bodleian Library; with other Rabbinical texts, English translations, and the 
 Itala. Edited by A. Neubauer. Crown 8vo. 6s. 
 
 EcclesiasticUS (xxxix. 15 — xlix. 11). The Hebrew, with early 
 versions and English translation, etc, edited by A. E. Cowley and A. Neubauer. 
 With 2 facsimiles. 4to. 10s. 6d. net. 
 
 Facsimiles of the Fragments hitherto recovered of the 
 
 Book of Ecclesiasticus in Hebrew. 60 leaves in Collotype. £1 Is. net. 
 (Published jointly by the Oxford and Cambridge University Presses.) 
 
 The Psalms in Hebrew without points, stiff covers. 2s. 
 Accentuation of Psalms, Proverbs, and Job. By w. Wickes. 
 
 8vo. 5s. 
 
 Hebrew Prose Accentuation. By the same. 8vo. ios. 6d. 
 Lightfoot's Horae Hebraicae et Talmudicae. a new 
 
 Edition by R. Gaxdell. 4 vols. 8vo. £1 Is. 
 
 Greek 
 
 VetUS Testamentum ex Versione Septuaginta Interpretum secundum 
 exemplar Vaticanum Romae editum. Accedit potior varietas Codicis Alex- 
 andria. Tomi III. 18mo. 6s. each volume. 
 
 A Concordance to the Septuagint and other Greek Versions of 
 the O. T. (including the Apocryphal Books) ; by the late Edwin Hatch and 
 H.A. Redpath. With Supplement. By H. A. Red-path. Fasc. I, containing 
 a Concordance to the proper names occurring in the Septuagint; Fasc. II, 
 containing a Concordance to Ecclesiasticus, other Addenda, and the Hebrew 
 Index to the whole work. Imperial 4to. Cloth in 3 vols. £8 8s. net (or 
 Concordance, 2 vols., £6 17s. 6d. net. Supplement, £2 net). Parts II- VI, 
 21s. net each ; Supplements I and II, 16s. net each. 
 
 Origenis Hexaplorum quae Supersunt sive, Veterum Inter- 
 pretum Graecorum in totum Vetus Testamentum Fragmenta. Edidit F. Field. 
 % vols. 4to. £5 5s. 
 
 Essays in Biblical Greek. By Edwin Hatch. 8vo. 10s. 6d. net. 
 
 The Book of Wisdom : the Greek Text, the Latin Vulgate, and the 
 Authorized English Version ; with an introduction, critical apparatus, and 
 a commentary. By W. J. Deane. 4to. 12s. 6d. 
 
 Coptic 
 Tattam's Major and Minor Prophets. 
 
 5 
 
CLARENDON PRESS BOOKS 
 
 The New Testament 
 
 Greek and English 
 
 The Parallel New Testament, Greek and English ; being 
 
 the Authorized Version, 1611; the Revised Version, 1881; and the Greek 
 Text followed in the Revised Version. 8vo. 12s. 6d. 
 
 The New Testament in Greek and English. Edited by 
 
 E. Cardwell. 2 vols. 1837. Crown 8vo. 6s. 
 
 Greek 
 
 The Greek Testament, with the Readings adopted by the Revisers of 
 
 the Authorized Version. (1) Pica type. Second edition. Demy8vo. 10s. 6d. 
 (2) Long Primer type. New edition. With marginal references. Fcap 8vo. 
 4s. 6d. (3) The same, on writing-paper, with wide margin, 15s. (4) The 
 same, on India paper. 6s. 
 
 Novum Testamentum Graece. Accedunt parallela S. Scripturae 
 
 loca, etc. Ed. C.Lloyd. 18mo. 3s. On writing-paper, with wide margin, 7s. 6d. 
 Critical Appendices to the above,byW.SAKDAY. Extra fcap 8vo. 3s. 6d. 
 
 Novum Testamentum Graece (ed. Lloyd), with Sanday's Appen- 
 dices. Cloth, 6s. ; paste grain, 7s. 6d. ; morocco, 10s. 6d. 
 
 NovumTestamentum Graece juxta Exemplar Millianum. 
 
 Fcap 8vo. 2s. 6d, On writing-paper, with wide margin, 7s. 6d. 
 
 Evangelia Sacra Graece. Fcap svo, limp. is. 6d. 
 
 Novum Testamentum Graece. Antiquissimorum Codicum Textus 
 in ordine parallelo dispositi. Edidit E. H. Hansell. Tomi III. 8vo. £1 4s. 
 
 Athos Fragments of Codex H of the Pauline Epistles. 
 
 Photographed and deciphered by Kirsopp Lake. Full-size collotype 
 facsimiles, large 4to, in an envelope. 21s. net. 
 
 Athos Fragments of the Shepherd of Hermas. Photo- 
 graphed and transcribed by Kibsopp Lake. Full-sized collotype facsimiles, 
 large 4to, in an Envelope. 17s. 6d. net. 
 
 The Greek Versions of the Testaments of the Twelve 
 
 Patriarchs. Edited from nine MSS,, with variants from other versions. 
 By R. H. Charles. 8vo. (Immediately.) 
 
 Outlines of the Textual Criticism of the New Testament. 
 
 By C E. Hammond. Sixth edition. Crown 8vo. 4s. 6d. 
 Horae Synopticae, being contributions to the study of the Synoptic 
 problem. By Sir J. C Hawkins, Bart. 8vo. 7s. 6d. net. 
 
 GreswelTs Harmonia Evangelica. Fifth edition, svo. 9s. 6d. 
 
 DiateSSaron. Edited by J. White. 3s. 6d. 
 
 Sacred Sites of the Gospels, with sixty-three full-page illustrations, 
 maps, and plans. By W. Sanday. 8vo. 13s. 6d. net. 
 
 The Criticism of the Fourth Gospel. By w. Sanday. 8vo. 
 
 7s. 6d. net. 
 
 The Life of Christ in Recent Research. By w. Sanday. 
 
 8vo, with two illustrations. 7s. 6d. net. 
 
 6 
 
NEW TESTAMENT 
 
 The Logia 
 Two Lectures on the ' Sayings of Jesus/ delivered at Oxford 
 
 in 1897, by W. Lock and W. Sanday. 8vo. Is. 6d. net. 
 
 The Oxyrhynchus Logia and the Apocryphal Gospels. 
 
 By C. Taylor. 8vo, paper covers, 2s. 6d. net. 
 
 The Oxyrhynchus Sayings of Jesus, found in 1903; with the 
 
 Sayings called 'Logia,' found in 1897. By C. Taylor. 8vo, paper covers. 
 2s. net. 
 
 Published by Mr. Frowde for the Egypt Exploration Fund. 
 
 AOllA IH]EOY, from an early Greek papyrus, discovered and edited with 
 translation and commentary by B. P. Orenfell and A. S. Hunt. Svo, stiff 
 board's, with two collotypes, 2s. net ; with two tone blocks, 6d. net. 
 
 New Sayings of Jesus and Fragment of a Lost Gospel. Edited by 
 B. P. Grenfell and A. S. Hunt. With one Plate. Is. net. 
 
 Fragment of an Uncanonical Gospel from Oxyrhynchus. 
 
 By the same editors. With one Plate. Is. net. 
 
 Coptic and Syriac 
 The Coptic Version of the New Testament, in the Northern 
 
 Dialect, otherwise called Memphitic and Bohairie. With introduction, 
 critical apparatus, and English translation. 8vo. Vols. I and II. The Gospels. 
 £2 2s. net ; Vols. Ill and IV. The Epistles. £2 2s. net. 
 
 Tetraeuangelium Sanctum iuxta simplicem Syrorum versionem ad 
 fidem codicum, Massorae, editionum denuo recognitum. Lectionum supel- 
 lectilem quam conquisiverat P. E. Pusey auxit, digessit, edidit G. H. 
 Gwilliam. Accedunt capitulorum notatio, concordiarum tabulae, translatio 
 Latina, annotationes. Crown 4to. £2 2s. net. 
 
 Collatio Cod. Lewisiani Evangeliorum Syriacorum cum 
 
 Cod. Curetoniano, auctore A. Bonus. Demy 4to. 8s. 6dL net. 
 
 Latin 
 Nouum Testamentum Domini Nostri Iesu Christi 
 
 Latine, secundum Editionera Sancti Hieronymi. Ad Codicum Manuscript- 
 orum fidem recensuit I. Wordsworth, Episcopus Sarisburiensis ; in operis 
 societatem adsumto H. I. White. 4to. Part I, buckram, £2 12s. 6d. Also 
 separately: Fasc. 1, 12s. 6d. ; II, 7s. 6d. ; III, 12s. 6d. ; IV, 10s. 6d. ; V, 10s. 6d. ; 
 VI, 12s. 6d. ; VII, In the Press. Binding case for the first five Fasciculi, 3s. 
 
 Old-Latin Biblical Texts : small 4to, stiff covers. 
 
 No. I. St. Matthew, from the St. Germain MS (g x ). Edited by J. 
 
 Wordsworth. 6s. net. 
 No. II. Portions of St. Mark and St. Matthew, from the Bobbio MS (k), 
 
 etc. Edited by J. Wordsworth, W. Sanday, and H. J. White. £l Is. net. 
 No. III. The Four Gospels, from the Munich MS (q), now numbered 
 
 Lat. 6224. Edited by H. J. White. 12s. 6d. net. 
 No. IV. Portions of the Acts, of the Epistle of St. James, and of the First 
 
 Epistle of St. Peter, from the Bobbio Palimpsest (s), now numbered Cod. 
 
 16 in the Imperial Library at Vienna. Edited by H. J. White. 5s. net. 
 No. V. The Four Gospels from the Codex Corbeiensis (ffj or ff £ ]) 
 
 together with Fragments of the Catholic Epistles, of the Acts and of the 
 
 Apocalypse from the Fleury Palimpsest (h). Edited by E. S. Buchanan. 
 
 With three facsimiles. 12s. 6d. net. 
 
CLARENDON PRESS BOOKS 
 
 The Fathers of the Church and 
 Ecclesiastical History 
 
 Editions with Latin Commentaries 
 
 Catenae Graecorum Patmm in Novum Testamentum edidit J. A. 
 Cramer. Tomi VIII. 8vo. £2 8s. net. 
 
 ClementlS Alexandrini Opera, ex rec. Guil. DnrooRFn. Tomi IV. 8vo. 
 £3 net. 
 
 Cyrilll Archiepiscopi Alexandrini in XII Prophetas edidit P. E. Pusey. 
 Tomi II. 8vo. £% 2s. 
 
 In D. Joannis Evangelium. Accedunt Fragmenta Varia. Edidit post 
 
 Aubertum P. E. Pusey. Tomi III. 8vo. £2 5s. 
 Commentarii in Lucae Evangelium quae supersunt Syriace edidit 
 R. Payne Smith. 4to. £1 2s. Translation, 2 vols. 8vo. 14s. 
 
 Ephraemi Syri, Rabulae, Balaei aliorumque Opera Selecta. 
 
 Eusebii Opera recensuitT. Gaisford. 
 
 Evangelicae Praeparationis Libri XV. Tomi IV. 8vo. 42s. net. 
 Evangelicae Demonstrationis Libri X. Tomi II. 8vo. 15s. 
 Contra Hieroclem et Marcellum Libri. 8vo. 7s. 
 Annotationes Variorum. Tomi II. 8vo. 17s. 
 
 Canon MuratorianUS. Edited, with notes and facsimile, by S. P. 
 Tregelles. 4to. 10s. 6d. 
 
 Evangeliorum Versio Gothica, cum Interpr. et Annott. E. Benzeui 
 edidit E. Lye. 4to. 12s. 6d. 
 
 EvagTll Historia Ecclesiastica, ex rec. H. Valesii. 8vo. 4s. 
 
 Fl. Josephl de bello Judaico Libri Septem recensuit E. Cardwell. 
 Tomi II. 8vo. 17s. 
 
 OrigeniS Philosophumena; sive omnium Haeresium Refutatio e Codice 
 Parisino nunc primum edidit Emmanuel Miller. 8vo. 10s. 
 
 Patmm ApOStolicorum, Clementis Romani, Ignatii, Polycarpi, quae 
 supersunt edidit G. Jacobson. Tomi II. Fourth edition. 8vo. £1 Is. 
 
 Reliquiae Sacrae secundi tertiique saeculi recensuit M. J. Routh. 
 Tomi V. Second edition, 1846. 8vo. £1 5s. 
 
 Scriptorum Ecclesiasticorum Opuscula recensuit m. j. Routh. 
 
 Tomi II. Third edition, 1858. 8vo. 10s. 
 
 SocratlS Scholastici Historia Ecclesiastica Gr. et Lat. edidit R. Hussey. 
 Tomi III. 1853. 8vo. 15s. net. 
 
 SoZOmeni Historia Ecclesiastica edidit R. Hussey. Tomi III. 8vo. 15s.net. 
 
 Theodoreti Ecclesiasticae HistoriaeLibriVrec.T.GAisFORD. 8vo. 7s. 6d. net. 
 Graecarum Affectionum Curatio rec. T. Gaisford. 8vo. 7s, 6d. 
 
 8 
 
ECCLESIASTICAL HISTORY 
 
 Editions with English Commentaries 
 or Introductions 
 
 St. AthanasillS. Orations against the Arians. With an account of his 
 Life by W. Bright. Crown 8vo. 9s. 
 
 . Historical Writings, according to the Benedictine Text. 
 With an introduction by W. Bright. Crown 8vo. 
 10s. 6d. 
 
 St. AugUStine. Select Anti-Pelagian Treatises, and the Acts of the 
 Second Council of Orange. With introduction by W. Bright. Crown 8vo. 9s. 
 
 St. Basil : on the Holy Spirit. Revised text, with notes and introduction, 
 by C. F. H. Johnston. Crown 8vo. 7s. 6d. 
 
 Barnabas, Editio Princeps of the Epistle of, by Archbishop Ussher, as 
 printed at Oxford, a .d. 1642. With a dissertation by J. H. Backhouse. 
 Small 4to. 3s. 6d. 
 
 Canons of the First Four General Councils of Nicaea,- Con- 
 stantinople, Ephesus, and Chalcedon. With notes by W. Bright. Second 
 edition. Crown 8vo. 7s. 6d. 
 
 Eusebius' Ecclesiastical History, according to Burton's text, with 
 
 introduction by W. Bright. Second edition. Crown 8vo. 8s. 6d. 
 
 Eusebii Pamphili Evangelicae Praeparationis Libri XV. 
 
 Revised text edited, with introduction, notes, English translation, and indices, 
 by E. H. Gifford. 4 vols. [Vols. I, II, text, with critical notes. Vol. Ill, 
 in two parts, translation. Vol. IV, notes and indices.] 8vo. £5 5s. net. 
 (Vol. Ill, divided into two parts, containing the translation, £1 5s. net.) 
 
 The Bodleian Manuscript of Jerome's Version of the 
 
 Chronicles of Eusebius, reproduced in collotype, with an intro- 
 duction by J. K. Fotheringhasi. 4to, buckram. £2 10s. net. 
 
 The Third Book of St. IrenaeUS, Bishop of Lyons, against 
 Heresies. With notes and glossary by H. Deane. Crown 8vo. 8s. 6d. net. 
 
 John of EpheSUS. Translation, by R.Payne Smith. 8vo. 10s. 
 
 Philo : about the Contemplative Life ; or, the Fourth Book of 
 
 the Treatise concerning Virtues. Edited, with a defence of its genuineness, 
 by F. C. Conybeare. With a facsimile. 8vo. 14s. 
 
 Socrates' Ecclesiastical History, according to Hussey's Text, with 
 
 introduction by W. Bright. Second edition. Crown 8vo. 7s. 6d. 
 
 Tertulliani Apologeticus adversus Gentes pro Christianis. Edited by 
 T. H. Bindley. Crown 8vo. 7s. 6d. net. 
 
 De Praescriptione Haereticorum : ad Martyras : ad Scapulam. 
 Edited by T. H. Bindley. Crown 8vo. 6s. 
 9 
 
CLARENDON PRESS BOOKS 
 
 Works of the English Divines. 8vo 
 
 Sixteenth, seventeenth, eighteenth and early 
 
 nineteenth centuries 
 
 Editions of Hooker and Butler 
 
 Hooker's Works, with Walton's Life, arranged by John Keble. Seventh 
 edition, revised by R. W. Church and F. Paget. 3 vols. 12s. each. [Vol. II 
 contains the Fifth Book.] 
 
 Introduction to Hooker's Ecclesiastical Polity, Book V. 
 
 By F. Paget. Second edition. 5s. net. 
 
 1 he J. ext, as arranged by J. Keble. 2 vols. lis. 
 
 The Works of Bishop Butler. By W. E. Gladstone. 2 vols. 
 14s. each. Crown 8vo, Vol. I, Analogy, 5s. 6d. ; Vol. II, Sermons, 5s. 
 
 Studies subsidiary to the Works of Bishop Butler. 
 
 Uniform with the above. 10s. 6d. Crown 8vo, 4s. 6d. 
 
 Pearson'sExpositionoftheCreed. Revised by E. Burton. Sixth edition. 10s. 6d. 
 
 Minor Theological Works. Edited by E. Churton. 2 vols. 10s. 
 Enchiridion Theologicum Anti-Romanum. 
 
 I. Jeremy Taylor's Dissuasive from Popery, and Real Presence. 8s. 
 II. Barrow's Supremacy of the Pope, and Unity of the Church. 7s. 6d. 
 III. Tracts by Wake, Patrick, Stillingfleet* Clagett, and others, lis. 
 Allix's Works. 4 vols. 5s. each. Bentley's Sebmons. 4s. 
 
 Biscoe's History of the Acts. 9s. 6d. 
 Bragge's Works. 5 vols. £1 12s. 6d. 
 
 Bull's Works, with Nelson's Life. Ed. by E. Burton. 8 vols. £2 9s. 
 Burnet's Exposition of the XXXIX Articles. 7s. 
 Butler's Works, 1849. 2 vols. Sermons. 5s. 6d. Analogy. 5s. 6d. 
 Clergyman's Instructor. Sixth edition. 6s. 6d. 
 Comber's Works. 7 vols. £1 lis. 6d. 
 Fell's Paraphrase on St. Paul's Epistles. 7s. 
 Fleetwood's Works. 3 vols. £1 Is. 6d. 
 Hall's Works. Edited by P. Wynter. 10 vols. £3 3s. 
 Hammond's Paraphrase on the New Testament. 4 vols. 90s. 
 
 Paraphrase on the Psalms. 4 vols. 20s. 
 Horbery's Works. 2 vols. 8s. Hooper's Works. 2 vols. 8s. 
 
 Jackson's (Dr. Thomas) Works. 12 vols. £3 6s. 
 Jewel's Works. Edited by R. W. Jelf. 8 vols. £1 10s. 
 Leslie's Works. 7 vols. 40s. 
 
 Lewis' (John) Life of Wiclif. 5s. 6d. Life of Pecock. 3s. 6d. 
 Lewis' (Thomas) Origines Hebraicae. 3 vols. 16s. 6d. 
 Patrick's Theological Works. 9 vols. £1 Is. 
 Sanderson's Works. Edited by W. Jacobson. 6 vols. £1 10s. 
 Scott's Works. 6 vols. £1 7s. Smalridge's Sermons. 2 vols. 8s. 
 
 Stilling fleet's Origines Sacrae. 2 vols. 9s. 
 
 Grounds of Protestant Religion. 2 vols. 10s. 
 Stanhope's Paraphrase. 2 vols. 10s. Taverner's Postils. 5s. 6d, 
 
 Wall's History of Infant Baptism. By H. Cotton. 2 vols. £1 Is. 
 Waterland's Works, with Life by Van Mildert. 6 vols. £2 lis. 
 
 Doctrine of the Eucharist. 3rd ed. Cr. 8vo. 6s. 6d. 
 Wheatley's Illustration of the Book of Common Prayer. 5s. 
 
 10 
 
ECCLESIASTICAL HISTORY 
 
 Early Ecclesiastical History 
 
 The New Testament in the Apostolic Fathers. By a Com- 
 mittee of the Oxford Society of Historical Theology. 8vo. 6s. net. 
 
 The Church's Task under the Empire. With preface, notes, 
 
 and excursus, by C. Bigg. 8vo. 5s. net. 
 Bingham's Antiquities of the Christian Church, and other Works. 
 
 10 vols. 8vo. £3 3s. 
 The Church in the Apostolic Age. By W. W. Shirley. Second 
 
 edition. Fcap 8vo. 3s. 6d. 
 Harmonia Symbolica : Creeds of the Western Church. By C. 
 
 Heurtley. 8vo. 6s. 6d. 
 
 A Critical Dissertation on the Athanasian Creed. By 
 
 G. D. W. Ommanney. 8vo. 16s. 
 
 Ecclesiae Occidentalis Monumenta luris Antiquissima : 
 
 Canonum et Conciliorum Graecorum Interpretationes Latinae. Edidit 
 C. H. Turner. 4to, stiff covers. Tom I, Fasc. I, pars I, 10s. 6d. net ; pars 
 II, 21s. net. Tom II, pars I, 18s. net. 
 
 The Key of Truth : being a Manual of the Paulician Church of 
 Armenia. By F. C. Conyreare. 8vo. 15s. net. 
 
 Baptism and Christian Archaeology, being an offprint of studia 
 
 Biblica, Vol. V. By C F. Rogers. 8vo. Cloth, 5s. net. 
 
 Ecclesiastical History of Britain, etc 
 
 Sources 
 
 Adamnani Vita S. Columbae. Edited, with introduction, notes, 
 and glossary, by J. T. Fowler. Crown 8vo, leather back. 8s. 6d. net. 
 "With translation, 9s. 6d. net. 
 
 Baedae Opera Historica. Edited by C. Plummer. Two volumes. 
 Crown 8vo. 21s. net. 
 
 Councils and Ecclesiastical Documents relating to Great 
 
 Britain and Ireland. Edited after Spelman and Wilkins, by A. W. Haddan 
 andW. Stubbs. Medium 8vo. Vols. I -III, 63s. net. Also separately. Vol.11 
 (Parts I and II), Vol. III. Per volume, 14s. net. 
 
 Nova Legenda Angliae, as collected by John of Tynemouth and 
 others, and first printed 1516. Re-edited 1902 by C. Horstman. 2 vols. 
 8vo. £1 16s. net. 
 
 Wyclif. A Catalogue of the "Works. By W. W. Shirley. 8vo. 3s. 6d. 
 
 Select English Works. By T. Arnold. 3 vols. 8vo. £1 Is. net. 
 Trialogus. First edited by G. Lechler. 8vo. 7s. 
 
 Cranmers Works. Collected by H. Jenkyns. 4 vols. 8vo. £1 10s. 
 
 Records of the Reformation. The Divorce, 1527-1533. Mostly 
 
 now for the first time printed. Collected and arranged by N. Pocock. 2 vols. 
 £1 16s. 
 
 11 
 
CLARENDON PRESS BOOKS 
 
 Primers put forth in the reign of Henry VIII. 8vo. 5s. 
 The Reformation of Ecclesiastical Laws, as attempted in the 
 
 reigns of Henry VIII, Edward VI, and Elizabeth. Edited by E. Cardwell. 
 8vo. 6s. 6d. 
 
 Conferences on the Book of Common Prayer from 1551 to 
 
 1690. Edited by E. Cardwell. Third edition. 8vo. 7s. 6d. net. 
 
 Documentary Annals of the Reformed Church of 
 
 England ; Injunctions, Declarations, Orders, Articles of Inquiry, etc, from 
 1546 to 1716. Collected by E. Cardwell. 2 vols. 8vo. 25s. net. 
 
 Formularies of Faith set forth by the King's authority during 
 Henry VIII's reign. 8vo. 7s. 
 
 Homilies appointed to be read in Churches. By J. Griffiths. 8vo. 7s. 6d. 
 
 Hamilton's Catechism, 1552. Edited, with introduction and 
 glossary, by T. G. Law. With a Preface by W. E. Gladstone. 8vo. 12s. 6d. 
 
 Noelli CatechismUS sive prima institutiodisciplinaquePietatisChristianae 
 Latine explicata. Editio nova cura G. Jacobson. 8vo. 5s. 6d. 
 
 Sylloge Confessionum sub tempus Reformandae Ecclesiae edit. Subjic. 
 Catechismus Heidelbergensis et Canones Synodi Dordrecht. 8vo. 8s. 
 
 Histories written in the seventeenth (or early 
 
 eighteenth) and edited in the nineteenth century 
 
 Stillingfleet's Origines Britannicae, with Lloyd's Historical 
 
 Account of Church Government. Edited by T. P. Pantin. 2 vols. 8vo. 10s. 
 
 Inett's Origines Anglicanae (in continuation of Stillingfleet). Edited 
 by J. Griffiths. 1855. 3 vols. 8vo. 15s. 
 
 Fuller's Church History of Britain. Edited by J. s. Brewer. 
 
 1845. 6 vols. 8vo. £2 12s. 6d. net. 
 
 Le Neve's Fasti Ecclesiae Anglicanae. Corrected and con- 
 tinued from 1715 to 1853 by T. D. Hardy. 3 vols. 8vo. £\ 10s. net. 
 
 Strype's Memorials of Cranmer. 2 vols. 8vo. lis. net. Life of 
 
 Aylmer. 8vo. 5s. 6d. net. Life of Whitgift. 3 vols. 8vo. 16s. 6d. net. 
 General Index. 2 vols. 8vo. lis. net. 
 
 Burnet's History of the Reformation. Revised by N. Pocock. 
 
 7 vols. 8vo. £1 10s. 
 
 Prideaux's Connection of Sacred and Profane History. 2 vols. 8vo. 
 10s. Shuckford's Continuation, 10s. 
 
 Gibson's Synodus Anglicana. Edited by E. Cardwell. 3854, 
 8vo. 6s. 
 
 12 
 
LTTURGIOLOGY 
 
 Recent Works in English Ecclesiastical History 
 History of the Church of England from the abolition of the 
 
 Roman Jurisdiction. ByW. R.Dixon. 3rd edition. 6 vols. 8vo. 16s. per vol. 
 
 Chapters of Early English Church History. By w. Bright. 
 
 Third edition. With a map. 8vo. 12s. 
 
 Registrum Sacrum Anglicanum : an attempt to exhibit the course 
 
 of Episcopal Succession in England. ByW. Stubbs. 2nd ed. 4to. 10s. 6d. 
 
 The Elizabethan Clergy and the Settlement of Religion, 1 558-1564. 
 By Henry Gee. With illustrative documents and lists. 8vo. 10s. 6d. net. 
 
 Liturgiology 
 
 Liturgies, Eastern and Western. Vol. I. Eastern Liturgies. 
 
 Edited, with introductions and appendices, by F. E. Brightman, on the basis 
 of a work by C. E. Hammond. 8vo. £1 Is. 
 
 Rituale Armenorum : being the Administration of the Sacraments 
 and the Breviary Rites of the Armenian Church, together with the Greek 
 Rites of Baptism and Epiphany. Edited from the oldest MSS by F. C. 
 Conybeare ; with the East Syrian Epiphany Rites, translated by A. J. 
 Maclean. 8vo. 21s. net. 
 
 Caidwell's Two Books of Common Prayer, set forth by 
 
 authority in the Reign of Edward VI. Third edition. 8vo. 7s. 
 
 Gelasian Sacramentary, Liber Sacramentorum Romanae Ecclesiae. 
 Edited by H. A. Wilson. Medium 8vo. 18s. 
 
 Leofric Missal, with some account of the Red Book of Derby, the Missalof 
 Robert of Jumieges, etc. Edited by F. E. Warren. 4to, half-morocco, £1 15s. 
 
 Ancient Liturgy of the Church of England, according to the 
 
 Uses of Sarum, York, Hereford, and Bangor, and the Roman Liturgy 
 arranged in parallel columns, with preface and notes. By W. Maskell. 
 Third edition. 8vo. 15s. 
 
 Monumenta Ritualia Ecclesiae Anglicanae : the occasional 
 
 Offices of the Church of England according to the old Use of Salisbury, the 
 Prymer in English, and other prayers and forms, with dissertations and 
 notes. By the same. Second edition. Three volumes. 8vo. £2 10s. 
 
 The Liturgy and Ritual of the Celtic Church. By f. e. 
 
 Warren. 8vo. 16s. net. 
 
 13 
 
CLARENDON PRESS BOOKS 
 
 ORIENTAL LANGUAGES 
 
 Sacred Books of the East 
 
 Translated by various Scholars, and edited by the late 
 Right Hon. F. Max Muller,. Forty-nine volumes 
 
 An Index Volume (Vol. L) is in preparation. 
 
 Sacred Books of India. Brahmanism 
 Twenty-one volumes 
 
 Vedic Hymns, Part I, translated by F. Max Muller. Part II, translated 
 by H. Oldenberg. Two volumes (XXXII, XLVI). 18s. 6d. and 14s. 
 
 Hymns Of the Atharva-Veda, translated by M. Bloomfield. 
 One volume (XLII). 21s. 
 
 The tfatapatha-BrahmaTZa, translated by Julius Eggeling. 
 
 Five volumes (XII, XXVI, XLI, XLIII), 12s. 6d. each ; (XLIV), 18s. 6d. 
 
 The Gnhya- Sutras, translated by H. Oldenberg. 
 
 Two volumes (XXIX, XXX), each 12s. 6d. 
 
 The Upanishads, translated by F. Max Muller. 
 
 Two volumes (I, XV Second edition), each 10s. 6d. 
 
 The Bhagavadglta, translated by Kashinath Trimbak Telang. 
 
 One volume (VIII), with the Sanatsu^atiya and Anuglta. 10s. (id. 
 
 The Vedanta- Sutras, with Sankara's Commentary, by G. Thibaut. 
 Two volumes (XXXIV, XXXVIII), each 12s. 6d. 
 The third volume (XLVIII) with Ramanuya's Sribhashya. 25s. 
 Vol. XXXIV— Part I of the Vedanta-Siitras— is temporarily out of print. 
 
 The Sacred Laws of the Aryas, translated by G. Buhler. 
 
 Two volumes (II (Second edition) and XIV), each 10s. 6d. 
 
 The Institutes of Vish^U, translated by Julius Jolly. 
 One volume (VII). 10s. 6d. 
 
 ManU, translated by Georg Buhler. 
 
 One volume (XXV). 21s. 
 
 The Minor Law-books, translated by Julius Jolly. 
 
 One volume (XXXIII, Narada, Bnhaspati). 10s. 6d. 
 
 Jainism and Buddhism. Twelve volumes 
 
 The 6raina-SutraS, translated from Prakrit by H. Jacobx. 
 Two volumes (XXII, XLV). 10s. Gd. and 12s. 6d. 
 
 The Saddharma-pUttf/arika, translated from Sanskrit by H. Kern. 
 
 One volume (XXI). 12s. 6d. 
 Mahayana Texts, by E. B. Cowell, F. Max Muller, and I. Takakusu. 
 One volume (XLIX). From the Sanskrit 12s. 6d. 
 14 
 
ORIENTAL LANGUAGES 
 
 The Dhammapada and Sutta-Nipata, translated by F. Max 
 
 Muller and V. Fausboix. 
 
 One volume (X, Second edition). From the Pali. 10s. 6d. 
 
 Buddhist SuttaS, translated from the Pali by T. W. Rhys Davids, 
 One volume (XI). 10s. 6d. 
 
 Vinaya Texts, translated by T. W. Rhys Davids and H. Oldenberg. 
 Three volumes (XIII, XVII, XX). From the Pali. Each 10s. 6d. 
 Volumes XIII and XVII will in future only be sold in complete 
 sets of the Sacred Books of the East. 
 
 The Questions of King Milinda, byT. W. Rhys Davids. 
 
 Two volumes (XXXV, XXXVI). From the Pali. 10s. 6d. and 12s. 6d. 
 
 The Fo-sho-hing-tsan-king, translated by Samuel Beal. 
 
 One volume (XIX). From the Chinese translation from the Sanskrit. 10s. 6d. 
 
 Sacred Books of the Persians. Zoroastrianism 
 Eight volumes 
 
 The Zend-Avesta Parts I, II, translated by J. Darmesteter. Part III, 
 translated by L. H. Mills. 
 Three volumes (IV (Second edition), XXIII, XXXI). 14s., 10s. 6d., 12s. 6d. 
 
 Pahlavi Texts, translated by E. W. West. 
 
 Five volumes (V, XVIII, XXIV, XXXVII, XLVII). 12s. 6d., 12s. 6d„ 
 10s. 6d„ 15s., 8s. 6d. 
 
 Sacred Books of the Mohammedans 
 Two volumes 
 
 The Quran, translated by E. H. Palmer. 
 
 Two volumes (VI, IX). 21s. 
 
 Sacred Books of China. Six volumes 
 
 Texts of Confucianism, translated by James Legge. 
 
 Four volumes (III, XVI, XXVII, XXVIII). 12s. 6d., 10s. 6d„ 12s. 6d., 12s. 6d. 
 
 Texts of Taoism, translated by James Legge. 
 
 Two volumes (XXXIX, XL). Together 21s. 
 
 Also published by Mr. Frowde 
 
 The Gatakamala, or Garland of Birth-Stories. By Arya Sura. Trans- 
 lated from the Sanskrit by J. S. Speyer. 8vo. 10s. 6d. 
 
 The Dialogues of the Buddha. Translated from the Pali by 
 T. W. Rhys Davids. 8vo. 10s. 6d. 
 
 15 
 
CLARENDON PRESS BOOKS 
 
 
 The Sacred Books 
 
 as originally numbered 
 
 
 First Series. 
 
 Second Series, 
 
 I. 
 
 The Upanishads, i. 
 
 XXV. Maim. 
 
 II. 
 
 Laws of the Aryas, i. 
 
 XXVI. datapath a-Brahma«a, ii. 
 
 III. 
 
 Confucianism, i. 
 
 XXVII. Confucianism, iii. 
 
 IV. 
 
 Zend-Avesta, i. 
 
 XXVIII. Confucianism, iv. 
 
 V. 
 
 Pahlavi Texts, i. 
 
 XXIX. GWhya-Sutras, i. 
 
 VI. 
 
 The Qur'an, i. 
 
 XXX. GWhya-Sutras, ii. 
 
 VII. 
 
 Institutes of Vishwu, 
 
 XXXI. Zend-Avesta, iii. 
 
 VIII. 
 
 Bhagavadgita, etc. 
 
 XXXII. Vedic Hymns, i. 
 
 IX. 
 
 The Qur'an, ii. 
 
 XXXIII. Minor Law-books, i. 
 
 X. 
 
 The Dharamapada. 
 
 XXXIV. Vedanta-Sutras, i. 
 
 XI. 
 
 Buddhist Suttas. 
 
 XXXV. Questions of King Milinda, i. 
 
 XII. 
 
 datapath a-Brahmana, i. 
 
 XXXVI. Questions of King Milinda, ii. 
 
 XIII. 
 
 Vinaya Texts, i. 
 
 XXXVII. Pahlavi Texts, iv. 
 
 XIV. 
 
 Laws of the Aryas, ii. 
 
 XXXVIII. Vedanta-Sutras, ii. 
 
 XV. 
 
 The Upanishads, ii. 
 
 XXXIX. Taoism, i. 
 
 XVI. 
 
 Confucianism, ii. 
 
 XL. Taoism, ii. 
 
 XVII. 
 
 Vinaya Texts, ii. 
 
 XLI. datapath a-Br&hmana, iii. 
 
 XVIII. 
 
 Pahlavi Texts, ii. 
 
 XLII. Atharva-veda. 
 
 XIX. 
 
 Fo-sho-hing-tsan-king. 
 
 XLIII. #atapatha-Brahma»a, iv. 
 
 XX. 
 
 Vinaya Texts, fi*i. 
 
 XLIV. tfatapatha-Brahmana, v. 
 
 XXI. 
 
 Saddharma-puttdarika . 
 
 XLV. Gaina-Sutras, ii. 
 
 XXII. 
 
 (?aina-Sutras, i. 
 
 XLVI. Vedic Hymns, ii. 
 
 XXIII. 
 
 Zend-Avesta, ii. 
 
 XLVII. Pahlavi Texts, v. 
 
 XXIV. 
 
 Pahlavi Texts, iii. 
 
 XLVIII. Vedanta-Sutras, iii. 
 XLIX. Mahayana Texts. 
 
 Dictionaries, Grammars, and Editions 
 Sanskrit 
 
 A Sanskrit-English Dictionary, Etymoiogicaiiy and Phiioiogicaiiy 
 
 arranged. By Sir M. Monier- Williams. New edition, 1900, greatly enlarged 
 and improved. 4to, cloth, £3 13s. 6d. ; half-morocco, £4> 4s. 
 
 A Practical Grammar of the Sanskrit Language. By 
 
 Sir M. Monier-Williams. Fourth edition. 8vo, 15s. 
 
 Nalopakhyanam. Story of Nala, an episode of the Mahabharata : 
 Sanskrit Text, with a Vocabulary, etc. By Sir M. Monier-Williams. Second 
 edition. 8vo, 15s. 
 
 Sakuntalfl. A Sanskrit drama, edited by Sir M. Monier-Williams. 
 Second edition. 8vo, £\ Is. 
 
 Katyayana's Sarvanukramara of the Rigveda. 
 The Dharma-Samgraha. 
 
 The Mantrapatha, the Prayer Book of the Apastambins. 
 
 The Rig-Veda, Sa^hita, with Sayana's commentary, edited by F. Max 
 Muller. Second edition, 4 vols. 4to, £8 8s. net. Index, £% 2s. net. 
 
 16