Skip to main content

Full text of "The Bosworth psalter: an account of a manuscript formerly belonging to O. Turville-Petre, of Bosworth Hall, now Addit. ms. 37517 at the British Museum"

See other formats














Since the first portion of this tract has been in type the Bosworth 
Psalter has passed into the possession of the British Museum. 
It is now catalogued as Addit. MS. 37517. 

We desire to express our thanks to Dr. Warner and to 
Mr. S. C. Cockerell for suggestions and help. We are also grateful 
to the authorities of Salisbury Cathedral for allowing the ancient 
Psalter MS. 1 50 in their library to be sent up to the British Museum 
for consultation, and in particular to Mr. Maiden for so kindly 
arranging for the transit of the volume. 





1. History and Description of the Volume - 3 

2. Contents of the Volume 

3. The Psalms 6 

4. The Canticles of Lauds - 1 1 

5. The Hymnal 12 

6. The Canticles of the Third Nocturn 13 


1. The Glastonbury Calendar 15 

2. The Calendar or the Bosworth Psalter - 21 

3. The Changes at Canterbury under Lanfranc 27 

4. Christ Church or St. Augustine s? - 34 
Transitional: the three Calendars, Arundel 155, Arun- 

del 60, Vitellius E xvm - 40 

5. Of the Feasts of the Conception and Oblation of 

the B. V. M. 43 

6. Of Feasts of Breton Saints - 53 

7. Relic Cults: Canterbury or Winchester? - 57 

8. The Extension of Feasts proper to Winchester 59 

9. Summing up of the Enquiry 64 
10. A Table of Canterbury Cathedral Calendars from 

the eleventh to the fifteenth Century - 68 


The Date of the Psalter - 126 

APPENDIX: Some Notes on the accepted Date of St. Dun- 

stan s Birth. By Leslie A. St. L. Toke, B. A. 131 

ADDENDA - 145 

A. The Martyrological Element in the Anglo-Saxon 

Calendars - 147 

B. The Grouping of the Anglo-Saxon Calendars 158 

Print of Calendar in Cotton MS. Nero An 165 

C. The Calendar of St. Augustine s Canterbury - 171 
INDEX - - - - - - - - - 181 


1. Initial of psalm 51 

2. Page of the Psalter 

3. First page of the Hymnal 

4. First page of the Calendar 


The recognition of an ancient English Psalter, hitherto unnoticed 


and imdescribed, is of sufficient importance to call for some 
detailed account of so interesting a manuscript. A few months 
ago whilst on a brief visit to Mr. and Mrs. Turville Petre, at 
Bosworth Hall, Husbands-Bosworth, Leicestershire, I was asked 
to examine the library, and in particular the court rolls and 
MSS. in their possession. Amongst these latter there were two 
of considerable importance, one of which is the Psalter to be 
presently described. I had known of the existence of this 
singularly interesting volume from the slight account given of it 
in Nichols s History of Leicestershire^ which was derived from 
a notice of the library furnished by Mr. D. Wells to The 
Gentleman s Magazine for 1789 (Vol. LX, p. 117). I was, 
however, wholly unprepared to see what at once appeared to me 
to be one of the most important MS. English Psalters in existence, 
and which, strange as it may seem, has up to the present time 
escaped notice by students and archaeologists. Recognizing the 
great interest of this precious volume, which the owner allowed 
me to take away, I immediately proposed to Mr. Edmund Bishop, 
my friend and fellow-worker during many years, that we should 
together make a joint study of the MS. In order to avoid delay, 
and for greater security in testing results, we made a preliminary 
division of the work between us. Mr. Bishop undertook the 
examination of the Calendar, and I of the Psalter generally. 
The third part of the following study has been carried out 
together, but the whole in all its parts has been examined by 
each, and each of us is responsible for the whole. 


Athenaeum Club. 

May i, 1907. 

1 ii. p. 464 




THE Bosworth Psalter consists of 137 folios (274 pages) of 
thick parchment, each i$ l /. 2 inches by 10% inches, in 
gatherings of four sheets (8 leaves) bound in stout oak 
boards. The first two folios, slightly smaller in size and of 
somewhat finer vellum, are of a date somewhat later than the 
rest of the volume. They are occupied with a very important 
calendar, which will be dealt with at some length in the next 

Collation. A flyleaf, Calendar, iff., i 8 (lacks ^ 1 7 8 a 
second flyleaf. 

On the first page of the calendar are the three signatures 
< Thomas Cantuarien , Arundel , and Lumley , so well known 
to students of the Royal Collection of MSS. in the British 
Museum as those of Thomas Cranmer, Henry Fitzalan i2th Earl 
of Arundel, and John, Lord Lumley, who died in 1609. Many 
of the manuscripts collected by Archbishop Cranmer under the 
exceptionally advantageous circumstances furnished by the disso 
lution of the monasteries and the religious changes generally, 
were subsequently acquired by the Earl of Arundel. By him 
they were bequeathed to Lord Lumley, who was his son-in-law, 
and soon after the latter s death the whole collection was purchased 
by King James I. for his son Henry, Prince of Wales; and on 
his death they became part of the royal library, which ultimately 
was presented to the nation by George II. and is now in the 
British Museum. 

It seems certain that the Bosworth Psalter at one time formed 
part of this Royal Collection. Not only is the presence of the 
three names upon the first folio of the MS. an indication of this 

but there can be little doubt that the following entry in the 
catalogue of the Lumley library (1607-9) re fe rs to this volume: 
Theologi. P. in folio Psalterium cum hymnis quibusdam 
pulcherrime scriptum et paraphrastice ex parte glossatum . 
As this accurately describes the Bosworth Psalter, it may be 
taken for granted that this volume was purchased by James I. 
on the death of Lord Lumley in 1609. How it subsequently 
became separated from the Royal Collection it is of course 
impossible to conjecture. It may be said to have found its 
way into the library at Bosworth Hall from the family of 
Fortescue of Salden, in Buckinghamshire. The few other MSS. 
in the library certainly came to the present owner in that way 
and we know that in 1762 Elizabeth Fortescue was possessed of 
the principal manor of Husbands-Bosworth, which had previously 
been in possession of her grand-father, father and brother. She, 
dying in 1763, devised her estate to Francis Fortescue Turville, 
from whose descendant the present owner, Mr. Turville-Petre, 
lately inherited the estates. 

Although it is impossible to trace the post-Reformation history 
of the Bosworth Psalter beyond 1609, until 1798, when Nichols 
describes it as being at Husbands-Bosworth, an entry in an early 
catalogue of Christ Church, Canterbury, appears to refer to this 
volume at a very early date. The list of Christ Church books 
drawn up in the thirteenth century by Prior Henry of Estry, and 
printed by Dr. Montague James in his Ancient Libraries of Dover 
and Canterbury has as item 1776, the following: Psalterium cum 
hympnario. In itself this may appear a rather indefinite description, 
but the existence of an early psalter with the full collection of 
Church hymns joined to it, so far as our present knowledge 
extends, is unique, and we may safely conjecture therefore that 
this MS. is the very volume here referred to. 

Each verse of the psalms has a red initial: and the first verses 
of the psalms have initial letters executed in soft colours and about 
four lines in height. The whole writing occupies rather more than 
12 inches by 7 inches with twenty-five lines to the page. Where 
there are divisions to be made in the psalms, etc., for liturgical 
purposes, as will be subsequently explained, these are indicated by 
slightly larger initial letters. The hymnal and the canticles which 


o<>ai dopc/i 


* : 


follow are written in double columns. Although no gold has been 
used, some of the great initials are elaborate compositions of 
several colours exquisitely harmonized. There are four of these 
large ornamental initials, marking respectively the ist, 5 1st, loist, 
and iO9th psalms; the decorative effect is very fine. The style 
of three of these very handsome letters may be seen in the 
specimen here reproduced. The Q covers nearly half the page. 
The chief colours employed are blue, mauve, brown, red lead, 
Venetian red, pale pink and pale yellow. The vigour of the 
drawing and the harmonious tones of the colours show a most 
skilful artist. The ornamental character of the page is enhanced 
by the capitals of the text being written in various colours; thus, 
the end of the word Quid is mauve, the second line blue, the 
third red lead, the fourth blue, the fifth Venetian red, the sixth 
blue, the seventh mauve, the eighth blue, the ninth red lead. 

The B of the ist psalm and the D of the iO9th are more 
subdued in colour than the Q. The D which is the most 
carefully finished of all the initials ends in a strongly-drawn 

The D of the loist psalm is so different in character from 
the other three as to suggest another artist. The letter is all in 
a broad wash of blue, with touches of white, red and green. 

The insertion of some of the letters in other capitals seems 
to point to the use of an earlier MS. by the scribe as a model. 

The drawing of many of the ordinary capitals is unusually 
free, and the curves both exact and graceful. The large size of 
the folio, the regularity of the hand-writing, the sober colours 
chosen for the larger initials, and the staid beauty evident in the 
artistic work of the more elaborate letters, all seem to suggest 
that the MS. must have been prepared for some special purpose, 
or perhaps more probably for the use of some great personage. 


The volume comprises besides the calendar, written at some 
time a little later than the body of the book, and, as before noted, 
on vellum of a different size and finer quality: 

(i) The Latin Psalter, including the extra psalm Pusillus eram y 
which occupies 9 1 folios of the book. 

(2) The Canticles used at Lauds with the psalms in the 
liturgical Office and the Benedictus, Magnificat and Nunc dimittis, 
Te Deum etc. commonly found at the end of such psalters. 
This portion of the MS. takes up 8 folios of the book. On 
folio 100, there is a short litany, with prayers written at some 
date later than the rest l . 

(3) A complete Hymnal, comprising 101 hymns for the various 
canonical hours and seasons, occupies 24 folios, and on the 
reverse of folio 124 is a striking sketch of a Christ in Majesty, 
which was never finished; at some date or other, as it seems to 
us, this fine drawing has been gone over with a pencil. 

(4) The Canticles for the 3rd nocturn of the monastic Office 
arranged in sets of three and written in double columns. These 
occupy 7 more folios. 

(5) The Preface and Canon of the Mass, written probably 
late in the eleventh century, take 3 folios, and these are followed 
by the Mass of the Blessed Trinity with neums of about the 
same date. 

It will be convenient to speak of each of these divisions of 
the Bosworth Psalter in their order. 


The version of the psalms is that known as the Roman, which 
in certain places has been corrected at some later period into the 
Galilean. St. Jerome in the first instance corrected the Latin 
version of the psalter then in common use in the churches, by 
the Septuagint, and this was at once commonly adopted in the 
churches of Rome and Italy and hence called the Roman. _ Later 
on he translated the Septuagint Greek version into Latin, bringing 
it into partial agreement with the Hebrew. To make it clear, 
where the version was not exactly literal he introduced into this 
second recension certain signs, stars, asterisks, and colons etc., to 
mark where the words or phrases were not to be found in the 
Hebrew or Septuagint, but had been introduced to amplify or 
explain the true meaning of the psalms. This second recension, 

1 The following saints only are named in this litany which is obviously no part of the 
original book: Michael, Gabriel, Raphael, John, Peter, Paul, Andrew, John, Stephen, Laurence, 
Ypolitus, Benedict, Martin, Cuthbert, Felicitaa, Perpetua, Scolastica. 


!>"., - ,**?? ,, . -fiuy \^ MV "jn^-. , -> - 
cHm eiirp hwiedmhf beniSiai- vauimfr rf lunniaDo pu 
v^r ;,,f *Fs^r *u. .u- V ^jLjL 

ffcsn euir ^xtit 

1 Uic^oucd cojinu damd- panum luc^uittm xpo 
1 Ttmucos ^lus mduam conpipoTJtf supiprum 


ycipca-ao mm- 

1 * "I ^> V*-r"- 

^cct- quctm lionum Voquum locunOum 

mumim . 


\ta < 

Quoo >scftiOir- ^tiojiiL nestinilha wuy- sirur- jios 

jiijiniOTV qi!^ attMboiT"- iimionclhj sion- 
Qfii ilUc Tnan^auir dii s bwuv>icticnJi : " tfcunctturq-mltlm. 

~ -w*. I I 

^,VT- L| -- ^ "T"" v - 1 ^ Ir l "^ r ^- L - 

cu 1 - mine ln-inV"incv ^inn- un>| - j-lpin Cui 
Qjn STcinr indoniodm- 

,U^,, ., f \,M,rv> l-"~ vrj-r 

W "P BwuOicac rpoiir exvioii- uiu tivrc victim It*, cthiuun 

!!F * * I - I I. I 

quoiiul tefiicrHir t*sc-"pTu[!irp-iio7Tjjm 

j *. i i i 

eiur ouoiiiujii siuuiij 


which is the one now known as the Vulgate, was adopted by the 
churches of Gaul for the divine Office and for this reason it 
became known as the Gallican version . The first corrected 
version of St. Jerome the Roman was still however said in 
Rome itself, as well as elsewhere in Italy. Gradually even in 
Italy the second recension the Gallican, or version of the 
Vulgate superseded the Roman except in St. Peter s itself, 
where its use is retained even to the present day. 1 

On the conversion of England St. Augustine, coming from 
Rome itself, naturally brought into the country with him the 
recension then in use in the Eternal City; namely the Roman. 
Thus the celebrated Cotton MS. Psalter Vespasian A I in the 
British Museum is almost certainly a very early copy, made in 
England, of the actual book of the psalms, which the apostle of 
our race is known to have brought to Canterbury. According 
to the description given by the monk Elmham this volume was 
kept on the high altar at St. Augustine s monastery, Canterbury, 
as a precious memorial of the saint. The version is the Roman 
throughout, and so too is that of another MS. Psalter in the 
British Museum (Royal MS. 2. B. v.), which has been attributed 
to Winchester and is supposed to have been written in the first 
half of the tenth century. 

It would seem probable that the use in the public recitation 
of the Church Office of the Roman version, thus introduced into 
England by the first missionaries, was maintained, except perhaps 
in isolated instances, until the Norman Conquest. 2 Quotations 
from the psalms in the homilies of St. Bede show that he made 
use of this Roman version at Jarrow, and we learn from the life 
of St. Wilfrid, that on coming to Canterbury he abandoned the 
use of the version of the psalms he had learnt from the Scottic 
missionaries and adopted the version he found in use there, 
which was of course the Roman. 

At the time of the Norman Conquest it became necessary to 
take steps to introduce into the public Church-service the use of 

1 There ws a third version made by St. Jerome from the Hebrew; with this we hYc 
no concern here. 

* It is probable that if erer a really critical edition of the Roman Psalter it undertaken, it i 
in England that the means for carrying it out must be sought. 

the Gallican version which by this time had become universal on 
the continent, except in Rome, and which the new masters who 
now controlled England used. It is obvious that the public 
recitation of both the versions was impossible, and it was only 
natural that the foreign conquerors should insist upon that to 
which they were accustomed in their own country. We know, 
in the case of Glastonbury, for example, that the change was not 
popular. In 1082 the first Norman abbot, Thurstin, was 
appointed to that monastery. Difficulties were soon caused by 
his * letting fall many ancient and laudable customs of the 
monastery and changing some into those of his own country. . . 
Among other things, disliking the Gregorian song (used) in the 
church, he would compel the monks to leave off the same and 
to learn and sing the notes of one William of Fescamp. This 
they resented as being grown old in the use of this song and in 
their Office according to the use of the Roman Church. 

Evidences of this change of version at this time appear on 
the face of several of the MSS. which have come down to us: 
the supposed Winchester MS. (Royal MS. 2. B. V.), which was 
written about the middle of the tenth century, is originally a MS. 
of the Roman version, but at some subsequent date it has been 
partially corrected into the Gallican. In the first psalm for 
instance the original word f fecerit has been changed into * faciet , 
and in the Cum invocurem (ps. 4.) the words distinctive of the 
Roman version have been scratched out, although the words of 
the Gallican have not been written in. 

So too Harl. MS. 603 is a curious example of this change of 
the old for the new. The MS. is attributed to some early period 
in the eleventh century. Each psalm is illustrated with fine 
large drawings obviously copied from those of the Utrecht 
Psalter. The version of the psalms in the original the celebrated 
Utrecht Psalter is the Gallican, and this is to be expected as it 
was doubtless written on the continent. In the case of the 
Harley Psalter, on the other hand, which was almost certainly 
made at Canterbury, although the pictures are copied, the version 
of the first part is Roman. Up to psalm 100 this version is 
always maintained, although the illustrations are not always in 
the same style and some pages have been left blank, the artist 
evidently not having been at work for some time and from some 

cause or other. The psalms 98 and 99 are missing; from ps. 100 
to ps. in the pictures are in the original and best style; but 
from ps. 100 the Gallican version is used, in place of the Roman. 
There are indications, however, that the scribe was not quite 
used to the new version. For instance, one blind mistake shows 
this and also that the scribe actually had before him the Utrecht 
Psalter: In ps. 101 (v. 4.) of the latter we read Et ossa mea 
sicut gremlum (for crenrium) aruerunt , the original scribe having 
added by mistake the short tail to the uncial C by which the 
uncial G was made. The scribe in the Harley Psalter has 
copied the mistake with a good Saxon c G . 

Other examples could be given of the way in which the old 
English Roman versions of the psalms were in the course of the 
eleventh century corrected into the Gallican version, to which 
alone the Norman conquerors were used, but sufficient has been 
said to explain what may now be set down about the psalms in 
the Bosworth Psalter. 

The version of the psalms in this Psalter is the Roman 
throughout. Some time in the twelfth or thirteenth century 
probably an attempt has been made to utilize the pages of this 
fine volume for the purpose of writing a glossed commentary. 
In order to do this it became necessary to change the old version 
into the version then in use the Gallican, and in all places 
where the commentary has been written the version has been 
changed. This is the case with psalms i to 39, which occupy 
the first 22 folios and in other places some 10 folios. The 
corrections in the text are made in various ways: the word is 
erased altogether as the word fuit in the large letters on folio i, 
which is not in the Gallican version: the word to be deleted is 
underlined, as in the case of < fecerit (fol. i. b.) and the word 
of the Gallican faciet is written above. So in ps. 17, v. 21, 
the original has innocentiam which is underlined and puritatem 
set above it, and in verse 40 the word < omnes is lined as 
indicating its deletion. The psalms 33 and 71 are good examples 
of the corrections necessary to alter the Roman into the Gallican. 
As these corrections occur only when the glossed commentary is 
written, it may be taken as granted that the changes were made for 
the purpose of the gloss. Of the rest of the psalms some 3 8 have 
an interlinear gloss in Anglo-Saxon; but no portion of the Psalter 



used for the glossed commentary has any Saxon translation. 

The very special indeed unique interest attaching to the 
Bosworth Psalter, is the fact that the psalms are written for the 
purpose of being used in the recitation of the Benedictine Office. 
On turning over the leaves of the volume the inquirer cannot 
fail to notice that certain psalms have large capitals for the first 
few words, and that verses in some special cases have larger 
initial letters with no very obvious reason to the ordinary student. 
But to any one acquainted with the monastic Office the meaning is 
plain. The beginning words of the 2Oth psalm Domine in virtute, 
for example, are in big letters because it is the first psalm of the 
Matins for Sunday. In the same way the 26th psalm shows by 
the large lettering that it is the first psalm of the second nocturn 
for the same day; and so too psalm 32 is noted with the same 
lettering as being the first psalm at Matins of Monday; psalm 45 
as the first of Tuesday; psalm 68 as the first of Wednesday, 
and so on. 

Again in psalm 68, (Salvum me fac} there is, at a verse about 
halfway through the psalm, an initial letter an E of consider 
ably larger size than the rest. This is where the division of the 
psalm is made in the monastic Office of Matins for Wednesday. 
In the same way the division of the 77th psalm in the Matins 
of Thursday is indicated by a capital initial letter. So too psalms 
138, 143, 144 are divided into two portions according to the 
direction in St. Benedict s Rule: Psalmi dividend! sunt, centesi- 
mus trigesimus octavus, et centesimus quadragesimus tertius et 
centesimus quadragesimus quartus. 1 In regard to the last of 
these three the first word of the division in the Bosworth Psalter, 
( Confiteantur , is in large painted capitals, as it is the beginning 
of the vesper psalms for Saturday, which Office formed of course 
the beginning of the Sunday observance. At the division of the 
I43rd psalm in the Psalter are the words: Divisio institutionis 
Benedicti , that is, the division ordered in St. Benedict s Rule, as 
has been pointed out. 

It seems clear from all this that the Bosworth Psalter was 
expressly designed and made for the actual recitation of the 
Office according to the Rule of St. Benedict. That it has been 


1 Cap. XTiii. 

well used appears from the discoloured lower corners of the 
pages as contrasted with the upper ones. Certain marks for 
pauses in recitation and certain accents, to prevent mistakes in 
quantity or to assure the pronunciation of short syllables which 
might otherwise suffer elision, suggest, as does also the size of 
the volume, that this psalter was made for use in public recitation. 
This supposition is strengthened by the fact that in the Venite 
psalm, which forms the Invitatory of Matins, neums added 
possibly somewhat later, give the tone to which it was to be sung. 
Indeed the neums throughout the volume point to the same 


THE Canticles at Lauds in the Bosworth Psalter are the same 
as are ordinarily found in similar manuscripts. They are taken 
from various parts of the Old Testament and are used as one of 
the psalms at Lauds in the Office of the Roman Church. Saint 
Benedict adopted the practice and directed (cap. xiii.) c that the 
Canticle out of the Prophet be said, each on its own day, according 
to the practice of the Roman Church and of course they form 
part of the Benedictine Office at the present day. Thus the 
Psalter gives in order (i) Confitebor tibi Domine the canticle from 
Isaias (cap. xii.) for Lauds of Monday. (2) Ego dixi the canticle 
of Ezechias from Isaias (cap. xxxviii.) for Tuesday. (3) Exsu/tavit 
cor meum y the canticle of Anna, the mother of Samuel, from the 
First Book of Kings (cap. ii.) for Wednesday. (4) Cantemus 
Domino^ canticle of Moses from Exodus (cap. xv.) for Thursday. 
(5) Domine audivi auditum, the canticle of the prophet Habacuc 
(cap. iii.) for Friday. (6) Attende ctxlum et loquar, the canticle of 
Deuteronomy (cap. xxxii.) for Saturday, and (7) the Benedidte for 
Sunday. In regard to the canticle Attende ccelum for Saturday, 
on account of its length St. Benedict directed that it should be 
divided and take the place of two psalms. Accordingly in the 
Bosworth Psalter, at the usual place of division there is the 
following rubric: { Divisio beati Benedict!. The version used 
in the Bosworth Psalter is practically the same as that found in 
Vespasian A I, and other early English manuscripts. It differs 
from the vulgate version and is most like that of the versio antiqua. 


These canticles are followed in order by the Quicumque vutt 
(the Athanasian Creed); the Te Deum; Magnificat; Benedictus and 
Nunc dimittis, all with Anglo-Saxon interlinear glosses, and by 
a Litany of the Saints, written at a later period. 


This section of the Bosworth MS. is unique in connection with 
an Anglo-Saxon psalter. It affords an additional proof that the 
volume was intended for use in the public recitation of the 
Divine Office. There are in this part about one hundred hymns 
for the canonical hours during the course of the year, and for 
feasts of Saints. They are practically the same as those in the 
Anglo-Saxon Hymnarium published by the Surtees Society (Vol. 
xxiii.) from MSS. of a considerably later date. The only hymn 
occurring in Bosworth and not in the Surtees volume is one for 
feasts of confessors, beginning Summe confessor sacer et sacer- 
dos, which is found not only in the Mozarabic Breviary and 
the Mozarabic Psalter recently published by the Henry Bradshaw 
Society, but also in tenth century collections of hymns elsewhere 
on the continent. 

It is to be remarked that the Bosworth hymnal contains 
hymns for no English Saints. 1 

Three of the hymns have musical notation written in fine 
neums. These are Lucis Creator optime (Vespers of Sunday 
throughout the year), Iste confessor and Christe splendor 
glorie (both for feasts of confessors). The tones of the first 
and third have not yet been identified. The second, ( Iste 
confessor , agrees almost exactly with the melody of the same 
hymn in a Worcester MS. of the thirteenth century, 2 and, though 
the variants are here greater, with that given from a Sarum 
source in Plainsong Hymn Melodies . 3 

1 The following hymns for Saints days printed in the Surtees volume are absent from 
Bosworth: St. Dunstan, St t Augustine of Canterbury, the Assumption, St. Gregory (a special 
verse in hymn for Apostles) and St. Edmund the king. 

* Worcester Cathedral Library, MS. 160. 

3 p. 17, No. 59. Published by the Plainsong and Mediaeval Music Society. 







Tp5l Cpl> 

Tip a 

V coimnoda- 
no.*, mono 1 - inrai 

is oinntV oaus 

fcnoct^ cju^iamus y>um- ineioy rananuij 

I1OUM1U15- p ju4ru 

jiur yjiives UcUiuOiirr- pur] urn up a 

jiiani^uf c>e\qinin pupiu^rr nun 

in nin 




ircuUnies p 
]irco oiw mm somrc 
nocns i 


Special interest attaches to this portion of the Bosworth MS., 
since it gives us the earliest known form of the Hymnal used 
in England. 


SAINT Benedict in his Rule (cap. xi.) directs that when the Matins 
are said with three nocturns, after the close of the second nocturn 
lessons, ( three Canticles from the Prophets, such as the abbot 
shall appoint are to be sung. The discretion thus left to the 
abbot was in practice soon abrogated in favour of fixed canticles 
for the third nocturn. These were apparently brought together 
and written at the end of the hymnals. Thus Aelfric in his 
letter to Eynesham (circa 1005) on the use of the Concordia 
Regularis 1 says that three canticles proper to the time or festival 
are to be sung f as they are set forth in the hymnals. In two 
early hymnals in the British Museum (Julius A VI and Vesp. 
D XII) these selected canticles may be found following the 
hymns. It is doubtless because the hymnal is given in the 
Bosworth Psalter, that in accordance with this rule the Canticles 
for the third nocturn also appear there, and they complete the 
volume as a full liturgical book. 

As they are set forth in the MS. they are the following: 

I. De Dominicis per Annum. 

1. Domine miserere nostri. (Is. cap. xxxviii.) 

2. Audite qui longe estis. (Ejusdem.) 

3. Miserere Domine plebi tuae (Ecclus. cap. xxxviii.) 

II. De Adventu Domini. 

1. Confortate manus dissolutas. (Is. cap. xxxv.) 

2. Consolamini, consolamini. (Ejusd. cap. xl.) 

3. Juravit Dominus. (Ejusd. cap. Ixii.) 

III. In Nathitate Domini nostri. 

1. Populus qui sedebat. (Is. cap. ix.) 

2. Lastare Hierusalem. (Ejusd. cap. Ixvi.) 

3. Urbs fortitudinis. (Ejusd. cap. xxvi.) 

1 Printed in the Obedientiary Rolls of Winchester, edited for the Hampshire Recora Sac. by 
Dean Kitchin pp. 173-86. 


IV. Cantica in Septuagesima. 

1. Deducant oculi mei. (Jer. cap. xiv.) 

2. Recordare Domine. (Thren. v.) 

3. Tollam vos de gentibus. (Ezech. cap. xxxvi.) 

V. De Resurrectione Domini. 

1. Quis est iste qui venit. (Is. cap. Ixiii.) 

2. Venite rcvertamur ad Dominum. (Osee, cap. vi.) 

3. Expecta me dicit Dominus. (Soph. cap. iii.) 

VI. De omnibus Apostolis. 

1. Qui sponte obtulistis de Israel. (Judic. cap. v.) 

2. Qui propria voluntate optulistis. (Ejusdem.) 

3. Vos sancti Domini vocabimini. (Is. Ixi.) 

VII. Cantica (de Confessoribus.) 

1. Benedictus vir qui confidit. (Jer. cap. xvii.) 

2. Beatus vir qui inventus est. (Ecclus. cap. xxxi.) 

3. Ecce servus meus suscipiam. (Is. cap. xlii. 

VIII. De Virginibus. 

1. Audite me divini fructus. (Ecclus. cap. xxxix.) 

2. Lauda filia Sion. (Soph. cap. iii.) 

3. Gaude et loetare filia Sion. (Zach. cap. ii.) 

It is necessary to add that these Canticles, as in the case of 
those used at Lauds, are not from the Vulgate version but are 
most like the Antiqua. 

The two remaining items of this important MS. do not 
require any notice here: the copy of the Preface, Canon of the 
Mass and the late Mass of the Holy Trinity with neums. We 
may be excused if we again emphasize the fact that the Bosworth 
Psalter is in more ways than one unique among similar English 
books, and that more than any other known early manuscript, 
it partakes of the character of a complete volume for the public 
recitation of the Divine Office by those who follow the Rule 
of St. Benedict. 


OF the English calendars of the tenth and eleventh centuries 
one, that found in the so-called Leofric Missal, bears 
so close a resemblance to the calendar of the Bosworth 
Psalter, that there can be no doubt both are representatives 
of a common original. As this original is more faithfully 
preserved in the calendar of the Leofric Missal, it is of importance 
for the present enquiry first of all to come to a clear understanding 
of the character of this latter document; and then we may be able to 
proceed, with such safety as acquired knowledge may reasonably 
promise, to a due appreciation of the calendar in the Bosworth 
Psalter. The editor of the Leofric Missal has rightly explained 
in his Introduction (see pp. xxvii, xliii-liv) that the calendar 
which he prints is really a calendar of Glastonbury and was 
written before the close of the tenth century. Hereafter then it 
will be designated as c G whilst the calendar contained in the 
Bosworth Psalter will be called c B . 

A feature common to G and B is peculiar to them among the 
extant calendars of the Anglo-Saxon period; it is the presence 
of the letter < F or < S prefixed to the names of certain saints. 
No time will be spent here in discussing, or guessing, the precise 
words which these letters are intended to represent; but it is of 
importance to recognize what it is they are meant to designate. 
As to this the explanation is simple and not open to doubt; they 
designate the contents of the Sanctorale that is, the collection of 
proper masses of saints of the mass-book for which the calendar 
was written. By * proper mass is meant a mass the prayers of 
which are special, and peculiar to a particular saint. To under 
stand the case of the calendar G it is necessary to go higher up 
and start from the point to which all the mediaeval mass-books 
trace up their origin. 

When Charlemagne (about A. D. 800 or a few years before) 
introduced into, or imposed on, the churches of his dominions 


the Sacramentary (or mass-book) then in use in Rome and now 
commonly called the Gregorianum, a Supplement was compiled 
under his directions or patronage, almost certainly by Alcuin, to 
facilitate the use and extension of this mass-book among his 
subjects. In that Supplement no addition whatever was made to 
the body of proper masses for saints contained in the Roman 
book. But very soon afterwards further proper masses for saints 
began to be added on the fly-leaves of the missals, or as an 
additional supplement. The selection, or collection, of these 
additional masses of saints varied from MS. to MS. or church to 
church, according to individual or local preferences. By the 
middle of the ninth century such additional masses began to be 
intercalated at their proper places according to the date of the 
feast, in the Sanctora/e of the Gre^onanum itself. 

With this preliminary explanation the symbols F and c S 
become clear, and to the calendar entries marked with these 
symbols in G attention is for the present to be understood 
as restricted. 

(i) The entries marked with these symbols comprise in the 
first place the whole series of the masses of saints and masses for 
fixed feasts contained in the Sacramentary called the Gregorianum? 
eighty-nine in number, with the nine exceptions detailed in the 
footnote. It is easy to see a reason for exception in nearly all of 
these nine cases. 2 The Gregorian Sanctorale y or body of saints 
masses, is thus the great basis of the calendar G and of the 
mass-book for which it was written. 

1 By Grcgorianiim is meant th;it document only which is described and accounted for in an 
article in the Journal of Theological Sfuilit-s vol. iv. p. 411 seqq. 

- Eight names are omitted: 28 June St. Leo; I Aug. St. Peter s Chains; 14 Aug. the Vigil 
of the Assumption; 29 Aug. St. Sabina; i Nov. St. Caesarius; 23 Nov. St. Felicitas; 29 NOT. 
St. Saturninus; 25 Dec. St. Anastasia. St. Leo, the Vigil of the Assumption, St. Felicitas, 
St. Saturninus and St. Anastasia are doubtless omitted because on these days there are two masses 
for different feasts in the Gregorianum and G has preferred to give only one. St. Sabina and 
St. Caesarius fall out on account of the newer feasts (both of a high grade) falling on their days 
viz: All Saints and the Beheading of St. John Baptist. For the omission of St. Peter s Chains 
no explanation is necessary here further than this, that as a fact the feast is abient from several 
Anglo-Saxon calendars and the omission seems from an early date traditional. In regard to the 
ninth case, the Vigil of St. Laurence is entered at 9 Aug. but no letter S is prefixed. 


(2) Into this Gregorian Sanctorale have been introduced several 
masses drawn from mass-books in use in France before the time 
of Charlemagne. Such masses fall into two categories : (a) those 
found in the older Roman mass-book called the Gelasianum, and 
introduced with that book from Rome into France at an early 
period; and (7>) those masses which in imitation of Roman models 
were written for feasts actually instituted in France in the course 
of the eighth (or in some cases indeed in the seventh) century. 
For the present purpose it is not necessary to distinguish between 
these two categories. The symbols F and S given in the 
calendar G shew that twenty-one of such masses were included 
in its mass-book. They are the following: 

13 Jan. Octave of Epiphany 20 Sept. Vigil of St. Matthew 

25 Conversion of St. Paul 21 
22 Feb. Chair of St. Peter (at 22 

3 May Invention of Holy 30 

9 June SS. Primus & Felician 

St. Matthew 
St. Maurice and Com 
St. Jerome 

9 Oct. 

12 SS. Basilides etc. 
25 July St. James Apostle 



St. Denis and Com 
St. Luke 

Vigil of SS. Simon 
and Jude 

17 Aug. Octave of St. Laurence 28 SS. Simon and Jude 
25 St. Bartholomew 7 Dec. Octave of St. Andrew 

29 Beheading of St. John 21 St. Thomas Apostle 

9 Sept. St. Gorgonius 

and perhaps, in addition 28 Aug. St. Augustine of Hippo. 

Proper masses for the foregoing occur in MSS. of the eighth 
century or earlier. 

To this class may be added St. Genovefa (3 Jan.), St. Matthias 
(24 Feb.), St. Benedict at 21 March, and All Saints (i Nov.), 
proper masses for which feasts have not occurred in MSS. earlier 
than the first half of the ninth century, although doubtless these 
formulae themselves are of an earlier date. 

(3) A tmr d and very small class comprises feasts which 
became generally current in missals only in the course of the 


tenth and eleventh centuries, represented by three entries: 

19 May St. Potentiana; 21 July St. Praxedes; 23 July Saints 
Vincent and Apollinaris. I do not know where to find the text 
of proper masses for these saints at so early a date as the tenth 
century. With this class must be counted 9 March The Forty 
Martyrs; and 14 May SS. Victor, Quartus and 404 martyrs. 
As to these (probably mere survivals from an earlier age) it is 
impossible to say anything without entering into full details as to 
the antiquities of the Anglo-Saxon church calendar for which this 
is not the place. 

(4) There remain the local, i. e. English, feasts noted with 
the symbol F or S . They are seven in number: 

20 Mar. St. Cuthbert bp. 24 Aug. St. Patrick the elder 

1 1 Apr. St. Guthlac, anchorite 31 In Glaston St. Aidanbp. 
24 St. Mellitus abp. 25 Sept. In Glaston St. Ceol- 
26 May St. Augustine abp. frid abb. 

Of these the feasts of SS. Cuthbert, Guthlac and Augustine are 
noted with F , the others with c S . From the entries dealt 
with under (i) and (2) above it appears that C F represents feasts 
of a higher grade, S of a lower. Moreover as we can from the 

O O 

analogy of contemporary missals be practically certain that each 
one of the feasts belonging to these classes (i) and (2) had proper 
mass-prayers in the Glastonbury missal for which G was written, 
it is reasonably to be conjectured that the English saints belonging 
to at least this fourth class were also represented in that missal 
by proper masses. 

The entries noticed above under (i) (2) (3) (4) comprise the 
whole of those marked in G with the distinguishing letters 
< F and S . 

(5) The following further feasts of British, Irish, or English 
saints occur in the calendar G for which it is to be presumed no 
proper mass was given in its mass-book, the mass said being of 
the common of martyrs, confessors, virgins: 

12 Jan. Benet (Biscop) abb. 2 Mar. Chad bp. 
29 Gildas the Wise 17 Patrick bp. 

i Feb. Bridget virg. 5 June Boniface bp. and m. 


22 June Alban m. 

23 Etheldreda virg. 
19 Sept. Theodore abp. 

10 Oct. Paulinus bp. of Ro 


11 Ethelburga virg. (of 


12 Wilfrid bp. 

(6) The remainder of the very numerous entries to which 
*F or *S is not prefixed in the calendar G may be most 
conveniently designated as martyrological entries. These items 
of our ancient calendars seem to be commonly neglected or 
ignored; yet in fact they are the most important of all for 
ascertaining the real filiation or relationship of documents of this 
class. Thus, when two calendars present in common such a series 
of martyrological entries as G and B do in, for instance, the 
months of April and December, the closeness of their relationship 
is indubitable; as thus: 

8 Apr. Successus and Solutor 

1 6 Felix and Lucian 

19 Gaius and Rufus 

3 Dec. Claudius and Felix 

5 Dec. Delfinus & Trofimus 

14 Spiridion 

1 6 Victor and Victoria 

23 Sixtus and Apollinaris 

Any one of these entries, or a combination of two or three, might 
perhaps be found in other calendars; it is the large number of 
such martyrological entries common to both G and B that is so 
significant and constitutes such strong evidence of their common 
origin. This will appear in a clear light by a comparison with 
some other calendar of the Anglo-Saxon period. We may take 
as an example the two Winchester calendars of the first half, or 
middle, of the eleventh century printed in Hampson s Medii 
/Evi Kalendanum I 422 seqq., 435 seqq. Of the 4 martyrological 
entries of April and December given above from G and B, not 
one occurs in the two Winchester calendars. 

In order further to illustrate the agreement and differences 
among themselves of these four calendars (G, B, Cotton MSS. 
Vitellius E xvin of Winchester Cathedral and Titus D xxvn of 
the New Minster of Winchester) it will suffice in this place to 
give a table from the month of January as a specimen : 




i., co 

O (j 

-4 O 






l ^ 








i i 

4-3 d- 
U <U (j 

O co O 


H co 















u_j -C 




c o 



^ 1 









-P O 






O ~ *4-i 


-4 *-i 4-> 


Ooo O 

rt -cj 

^ 3 

r*~ ^ 
H 00 








>-< r^d 

~C _C 





H- ( 



















i) t> 








<U >-* 
CJ T3 




r2 s 

^2 O 










4 * 









f ^ 
















s 1 

rs <u 
^ o 















co ON 

-** ON 





mt$j&&3* . 

" H aftivamrfWivicl i 
L > .:- i-^fifhAN^wtii** 

fA v,, W 
* u ,, S > vi H RfTuTTrcaod-nifri" 

>,ii. fcf in !- 6J " 

m t r-l 


,, W 
!. I 

1 t 1PVS S "-.-(.. -Atui- 

6 AJVI U ScifAaf.luewni 

H S> v kL 

l ,m,,H 

k : ^in H S5..rru^ 

L crarm rut 


Thus the month of January shows that there are present two 
distinct calendar traditions; and also, by the entries of the 24th 
and 3Oth, how each is beginning to affect the other. If the 
whole year be gone through in the same way it will be seen how 
the Glastonbury and Bosworth Psalter calendars agree together 
as against those of Winchester. 

Over and above the substantial identity of the two first 
named, B presents a particular item of evidence that it and G 
both derive from Glastonbury. Glastonbury itself is mentioned 
in two entries in both G and B, but only one such entry is 
common to the two MSS., viz: at 25 September: c In Glaston 
St. Ceolfrid abbat . G has also at 31 August: In Glaston 
St. Aidan bishop where B has only * St. Aidan bishop ; G has 
at 24 August f St. Patrick the elder only where B reads 
St. Patrick the elder in Glaston . It is certain then from 
all these considerations that the compiler of B had before him 
a Glastonbury calendar but not that which is now found in 
the Leofric Missal; and both G and B appear as independent 
derivatives from a common original. 


Now that the relationship existing between G and B as against 
other calendars of the later Anglo-Saxon period has been pointed 
out and exemplified, and the nature of G has been explained, we 
are in a position to examine the variations of B from G. 

We may first consider the differences in the grading of feasts. 

In a certain number of cases where the significant F or 
* S is found in G, it is not given in B. These cases are: 

3 Jan. Genovefa - class (2) in i above 

14 Felix in Pincis - (i) 

9 Mar. Passion of 40 martyrs (3) 

25 Apr. Letania maior ( F ) (i) 

28 Vitalis m. (i) 

i May Philip and James ( ( F ) (i) 

13 Ded. of the Church of St. Mary 

(the Pantheon) (i) 

14 Victor, Quartus and 404 mm. (3) 
25 May Urban - - (i) 


28 June Vigil of SS. Peter and Paul class (i) in i above 
20 Sept. Vigil of St. Matthew (2) 

27 Oct. Vigil of SS. Simon and Jude (2) 

29 Nov. Vigil of St. Andrew - (i) 

With the exception of 9 March and 14 May these are all feasts 
for which proper masses are found in the mass-books of the 
eighth and ninth centuries. Are we to say that these proper masses 
were omitted in the missal which stands behind the calendar B ? 
Or are these omissions merely an instance of that kind of inexact 
ness which is so often found on a comparison of derivative with 
original, or of derivatives whereof one is some steps further 
removed than the other from the original? Seeing that most of 
these days have a proper mass in the later mediaeval missals 
generally and in those of the tenth century universally, it seems 
safer to conclude that the omission of F or S in these cases is 
due merely to the inexactitude or carelessness of the scribe of B. 
On the other hand a certain number of feasts appear in B 
with the significant letter S or F where it is wanting in G. 
These are: 

10 Feb. Scholastica virg. 19 Sept. Theodore abp. 

1 8 May Mark evang. 24 Conception of St. John 

22 June Alban mart. Bapt. 

23 Etheldreda virg. 31 Oct. Vigil of All Saints (? or 

1 1 July Benedict abb. Quintin) 
3 Aug. Finding of the Body 13 Nov. Brice 

of St. Stephen 

The reasonable presumption is that the insertion of S in 
these cases (or in the case of St. Alban F ) indicates (however 
the case may be as regards a proper mass) some heightening of 
the grade of observance for these feasts in the church for which 
B was written. And it is important to note, for the history and 
popularity of cults in the later Anglo-Saxon Church that the 
significant c F (used to indicate such feasts as the Epiphany, 
the four feasts of the Blessed Virgin, SS. Peter and Paul and the 


the other Apostles) is found in both calendars before the entries 
of the following feasts: 

12 Mar. St. Gregory 26 May St. Augustine 

20 St. Cuthbert 1 1 Nov. St. Martin 

21 St. Benedict 23 St. Clement 
II Apr. St. Guthlac 

No comment is necessary as regards St. Gregory and St. 
Augustine. The high grade assigned to the feast of St. Benedict 
in March, when taken in connection with the fact that the feast 
of the Translation in July was not specially marked in G at all 
and stood in the rank of a mere c martyrological entry, whilst 
in B it is raised only to the grade of <S , is of great significance 
in its bearing on the obscure questions concerning the early cult 
of St. Benedict at Fleury and Monte Cassino and is one of the 
very numerous items of evidence which go to shew that the early 
tradition of England consistently and exclusively connected the 
practical cult of St. Benedict with his death in March and burial 
at Monte Cassino, and not (as in Prankish lands) with the 
feast of July commemorating the translation of his relics to 
Fleury about the middle of the seventh century. The 
high grade assigned to the feasts of St. Cuthbert and St. 
Guthlac is interesting but is due not so much to local cult as to 
considerations concerning their mode of life, and in the tenth 
century may be rather viewed as a survival having its roots in 
the quite early history of English hagiological tradition. 

But special attention must be called to the inclusion of Saint 
Clement in these feasts of the higher grade. In the calendar of 
the psalter MS. 150 of the Salisbury Cathedral Library which 
cannot be much later than the middle of the tenth century, and 
in that of the so-called c Portiforium S. Oswaldi C. C. C. C. 
MS. 391 (a Worcester calendar commonly assigned to the year 
1064) St. Clement s day is marked with a cross like the feasts of 
our ^Lord, the Blessed Virgin and the others of the highest 
consideration and observance. This distinction lasted for some 
time after the Conquest; in the calendars of Arundel MSS. 60 
and_ 155 (to be considered later) the name of St. Clement is 
distinguished by capital letters, and in the first of these two also 

2 3 

by the cross distinguishing the feasts of highest grade. An 
explanation of the prominence given to St. Clement s day is 
afforded by the so-called Anglo-Saxon Poetical Menology of the 
tenth century. This piece professes to give the list of feasts 
the general observance of which was prescribed by royal authority, 
and among the very small number other than those of our Lord, 
the Blessed Virgin, and the Apostles, is the feast of St. Clement 
(Hickes, Thesaurus 1. 207). Notwithstanding the opinion of 
Lingard as to this document, the documentary evidence afforded 
by both calendars and collections of Anglo-Saxon homilies for 
the Church Year substantially bears out, so far as the feast of 
St. Clement is concerned, the statement of the author of the 
Poetical Menology. 1 

We may now examine the changes, by addition or omission 
of names of saints, which the compiler of the calendar B, with 
a Glastonbury calendar like G before him, made in that model 
to adapt it to the requirements of the church for which the new 
calendar was to serve. 

First of all, the names of one hundred and forty-six saints 
have been omitted. Of these seven are the names of Prankish 

30 Jan. Aldegundis 17 Sept. Lambert 

6 Feb. Amandus I Oct. Germanus 

1 1 Radegund 3 Leodegar 

9 Sept. Audomarus 

Two are local or insular: 

17 Mar. St. Patrick 3 n Oct. Saint Ethelburga (of 


1 Lingard s view (Antiquities of the Anglo-Saxon Church, Ed. 1845, *i 3H n 2 ) that the 
Menology is plainly from its contents the calendar of some monastery of Benedictine monks 
is to be explained in some measure by defective knowledge, in some measure by certain well- 
understood and rooted prejudice! of a kind commonly proper to trouble historical judgement. 
He had allowed his interests to become engaged as a partizan in the standing cause of secular 
versus regular", and he suffers accordingly. 

* As first written B seems to have contained the name of St. Patrick. There is an erasure 
at 17 March, the two letters ep of episcopus can still be traced; the erasure may have been 
made by the copyist of the calendar [I leave this note; for correction of it see 9]. 


The remaining one hundred and thirty-seven names omitted 1 
arc all of the class designated above, i (6), as < martyrological 
entries; and their omission results in a distinct modernizing of 
B as compared with G. 

For the investigation of the origin of B its additions to G 
must be reviewed in detail. They fall into five groups. 

(a) Six such additions are < martyrological : 8 Jan. Lucian 
and Julian; 20 Feb. Didimus and Gaius; 20 Apr. Marcellus, 
Peter; 16 May, Eugenia; 18 Nov. Barralus; 14 Dec. Spiridion! 
To these may be added 25 and 27 July, St. Christopher and the 
Seven Sleepers, perhaps borrowed from Winchester. 

(b} Five feasts of the Gregorian Sacramentary omitted in G 
(see i (i)) are restored: 28 June St. Leo, i Aug. St. Peter s 
Chains, 29 Aug. St. Sabina, 29 Nov. St. Saturninus, 25 Dec. 
St. Anastasia. Three feasts of Apostles of a different origin are 
inserted: 18 Jan. St. Peter s Chair, n June St. Barnabas, 3 July 
Translation of St. Thomas. 

(c] Certain modern saints are added of the region of Ponthieu: 
1 6 Jan. St. Fursey, the Irish founder of the monastery of 
Peronne; 2 Apr. S. Valericus; Audomarus at 8 June; 26 June 
Salvius (Valenciennes) ; 1 6 July Bertin ; 20 July Wulfmar ; and one 
Norman saint, 22 July, Wandregisil the founder of Fontenelle. 1 
(tf) St. Ethelburga of Barking, except Etheldreda the only 
English woman saint in G, is omitted in B. B adds ten: 

3 Feb. St. Werburgh of Chester. 
10 St. Merwinna of Romsey. 
13 St. Ermenilda of Ely. 
23 St. Milburga of Wenlock. 

1 Of these, 19 Jan. SS. Mary and Martha, 16 Sept. St. Euphemia, u Dec. St. Damasus 
with 2 Oct. St. Leodegar, have proper masses in mass-books earlier than the ninth century; but 
s the letter S is not prefixed to thee entries in G it is improbable that the mass-book for 
which G was written contained ivich proper masses and the entries of these five names these 
would thui be merely martyrological . 

3 It may be noticed in passing that this is a different series from the set of feasts of sint 
of the same region in the calendar of MS. Digby 63, assigned to the later part of the ninth 
century (Missal of Robert ofjumiegcs, Introduction, pp. xxxi-xxxii). The body of St. Wandregisil 
was the chief item in the famous translation of relics by Arnulf Count of FUnders in 944 to 
the monastery of Mont Blandin near Ghent where St. Dunstan spent his time of exile 956-957. 


1 8 May St. Elgiva of Shaftesbury. 
15 June St. Edburga of Winchester. 

6 July St. Sexburga of Ely. 

7 ,, St. Ethelburga of Faremoutier. 

8 St. Withburga of Dereham in Norfolk. 

translated to Ely in 974. 
13 St. Mildred of Kent. 

Of these holy women only Ermenilda and Sexburga of Ely, 
Elgiva of Shaftesbury, and Edburga of Winchester appear in the 
Winchester calendars. Moreover at 30 Jan. Baltildis queen 
of France, abbess of Chelles, and a native of England is in B 
substituted for Aldegundis who stands at this date in G. From 
the list itself just given it clearly appears that the inclusion of these 
women saints in B is not determined by mere local considerations. 
(?) The following English saints complete the additions made 
by the compiler of B to the calendar G which he had for 
his model: 

9 Jan. Adrian, abbat of St. Augustine s, Canterbury. 

2 Feb. Laurence, archbishop of Canterbury. 
19 May Dunstan, archbishop of Canterbury. 
25 Aldhelm, bishop of Sherborne. 
17 June Botulf, abbat in South Lincolnshire. 

2 July Swithun, bishop of Winchester. 

8 Grimbald, abbat at Winchester. 

15 Deusdedit, archbishop of Canterbury. 

1 6 Translation of St. Swithun 

17 Kenelm, of Mercia. 

5 Aug. Oswald, king and martyr of Northumbria. 
30 Sept. Honorius, archbishop of Canterbury. 
1 7 Oct. Nothelm, archbishop of Canterbury. 

2 Nov. Rumwald, of Buckingham. 
10 Justus, archbishop of Canterbury. 

In this list Wessex, East England, Mercia, Northumbria, and 
the East Midlands are each represented by one saint; Winchester 
by two; Canterbury by seven. 

On an analysis of the additions made by B to the model 
calendar G it appears with unmistakable evidence that B is 


a calendar, and represents a mass-book, of Canterbury. 1 The 
date of B will appear from the following considerations: it 
contains the feast of St. Dunstan but not that of St. Elphege. 
The cultus of St. Dunstan began almost immediately after his 
death in 988 and soon became general; St. Elphege was martyred 
in 1012 and his relics were translated from London to Canterbury 
in 1023. The calendar accordingly falls between 988 and 1023; 
and, it is to be observed, may for anything that appears quite as 
probably have been written near the first of these years as near 
the second. In any case the calendar B is the only one at present 
known belonging to Canterbury which certainly dates from 
a period anterior to the Norman Conquest. 


The British Museum possesses at least four calendars of Christ 
Church Canterbury of various dates ranging from about the 
middle of the thirteenth century to the fifteenth. 3 The differences 
of these calendars among themselves are slight and concern 
mostly the grading offcasts; and they all witness to a single and 
now fixed tradition. But when compared with B they are found 
to present a singular and extensive series of changes; and that, 
even less in regard to purely local names (though the change 
here too is radical) than in regard to those feasts called above in 
section i, mass-book and martyrological , which make the 
groundwork and are the substantial part of the calendar. This 
means that extensive changes have also been made in the mass- 
book and the breviary, of which books the calendar is in the later 
middle ages the indiculus, or, so to speak, the formal programme. 
In order to give an idea at once of the character and the 

1 What has been said hitherto on the relation of calendar and mass-book is to be understood 
only of G and B and with limitation as above. 

2 These are: Cotton MS. Tiberius B in ff. 2-7, which contains the feast of the Translation 
of St. Thomas (1220), but not the feast of St. Edmund abp., and probably therefore is of about the 
middle of the thirteenth century; Egerton MS. 2867 ff. 423-424 of about the same date; Additional 
MS. 6160 ff. 2 b -8 a of about a century later; Sloane MS. 3887 ff. I3 a -2o b of the early part of 
the fifteenth century. The first and third arc the most important and authentic of these documenti 
for the history of the later calendar of Canterbury Cathedral. 

extent of these changes it will be enough to take the month of 
January again as an example. The following entries found in B 
are omitted in the Canterbury cathedral calendars of the thirteenth 
and following centuries: 

2 Jan. Isidore. 17 Jan. Antony monk 

3 ,, Genouefa. 18 ,, St. Peter s Chair (at 
5 ,, Simeon monk. Rome). 

8 ,, Lucian and Julian. 24 Babillas and the Three 

9 Fortunatus. Children. 
10 ,, Paul hermit. 29 Gildas. 

12 Benet abb. 30 Baltildis. 

The entries in the four later calendars not found in B are: 

2 Jan. Octave of St. Stephen. 15 Jan. Maurus. 

3 Octave of St. John. 23 Emerentiana. 

4 Oct. of Holy Innocents. 25 Prejectus. 

13 Hilary. 

The same kind of revision, by omission and addition, is found 
throughout the year. When these changes are considered as 
a whole, only one conclusion is possible, viz: that the post- 
Conquest calendar of Canterbury cathedral has not been built 
up on, and is not a mere modification of, the pre-Conquest 
calendar B, but another calendar stands in its place, or has been 
substituted for it. 

How did this come about? The answer lies ready at hand in 
the calendar of the Arundel MS. 155, a psalter of the eleventh 
century. This MS. at the Dissolution belonged to Christ Church, 
Canterbury (the cathedral). Numerous different hands ranging 
from the fourteenth century up to the twelfth (or even perhaps the 
eleventh) have entered in the calendar as originally written by 
the first hand many additional feasts, thus gradually restoring 
one after another several of those ancient ones, and some of the 
local ones, that are found in the calendar B. Of these additions 
the earliest (with one exception to be mentioned later) seems to 
be that at 4 May which is carefully entered in red. This entry 
is as follows: "Dedicatio ecclesie Christi Cantuarie"; and refers 
to the dedication of the cathedral in the year 1130 which is 


recorded by our annalists generally. On examination, the Arundel 
MS. 155 presents in regard to the calendar B the omissions and 
additions (except the feasts in italics) that have been pointed out 
in detail just above for the month of January as presented on a 
comparison of B with the later mediaeval calendar of Canterbury 
cathedral; and the case holds good through the year. In other 
words it becomes on full comparison evident that the calendar 
of Arundel MS. 155 as originally written offers the groundwork 
on which the later calendars of that cathedral have been built. 

Moreover this further fact appears: that the Canterbury 
cathedral calendar in the MS. Tiberius B in. of c. 1240-1250 is 
the calendar of Arundel MS. 155 plus additions made in that 
calendar by various hands as explained above. The calendar 
of Tiberius B in. omits indeed a certain number offcasts found 
in the calendar of Arundel MS. 155 as originally written, and 
gives a few entries not added by later hands in that MS. But 
these additions or omissions are not such, or so numerous, as 
to invalidate, or affect, the statement made above, as will appear 
from the following figures and details. 

(a] Tiberius B in. contains fifty-nine more entries of feasts 
than the original Arundel 155; of these fifty-nine, forty- 
nine are found as additions to this latter calendar in 
various hands. 

() Of the ten not so added three are archbishops of Canter 
bury: 15 July Deusdedit; 30 Sept. Honorius and 16 Nov. 
Aelfric. 1 Thiee are, 2. 3, 4 Jan. the octaves of SS. Stephen, 
John and Innocents. The other four are: 5 Jan. St. Edward 

1 This seems to be the earliest certain witness to the liturgical cult of archbishop Aelfric. 
In Arundel MS. 155 at 2 June is the entry Odonis arcpi in faded yellow like the entry at 
25 May of the octave of St. Dunstan, the characters being like those of the entry of the dedica 
tion of 1130. This is possibly an entry of Odo s feast not an obit, and so to be added under (.?). 
The entry of Lanfranc s name in this and the later calendars at 28 May (sometimes as Transitug 
Lanfranci ) is doubtless only to be taken as a specially honoured obit and not as a < proof of cult 
the iii Ic. at this day refers to Germnnus bp. The entries in Tib. B in. of Basil (i Jan.), Lonei- 
nus (15 March), Mary of Egypt (2 April) and Nicodemus, Gamaliel and Abibon (3 Aug.) are 
not items of the practical calendar but rather due to scribal caprice. The same is to be said of 
e. g. Theophili at 28 Feb. in Egerton MS. 2867. That this is so appears from a comparison of 
the other calendars still extant. 

the Confessor, 17 June Botulf abbat, 25 July etcucufatis 
(a commemoration), and 25 Dec. Anastasia. 
(c) The feasts omitted are twenty-five in number, and can 
be for the most part probably explained as e.g. cults 
fallen out of fashion etc., not to dwell on the need of 
disburdening the existing calendar to accommodate it for 
the large number of additions that were made as detailed 
above. 1 

The calendar of Arundel MS. 155 being thus identified as 
giving the original form from which the later Canterbury cathe 
dral calendar was developed, the enquiry next suggests itself, what 
is the character, source, origin of the form in Arundel 155 ? We 
need not go far afield to find the answer. Simplified by several 
omissions, and a few additions, Arundel 155 is the post-Conquest 
calendar of Winchester represented in a calendar of a MS. psalter 
now Arundel MS. 60; which last named calendar itself is sub 
stantially the same as that in use before the Conquest as preserved 
to us in a MS. of about the middle of the eleventh century now 
Cotton MS. Vitellius E xvm. already mentioned above as printed 
by Hampson. 2 

What is involved in the foregoing statement is this: that 

1 The list of omissions is as follows: Genovefa, Paul the hermit, Antony monk, Mary and 
Martha, ErmeniKla, Donatus bp. (i March), Edward king and m., Leo pope (ll April), Guthlac 
anchorite, Eufcmia (the duplicate feast of 12 April), Erkenwald bp., Athanasius bp., Potentiana v., 
Petronella v., Nicomedei m. (i June), Boniface bp., Medard bp., Translation of St. Swithun, 
Kenelm m., Samson bp., Translation of SS. Rinnus and Cuthbert, Lucia and Geminianui, Con 
ception of St. John Baptist, Cresarius, Birinus bp., Translation of Benedict abbat (4 Dec.). St. 
Potentiana seems to have been entered originally in Tib. B iii. at 19 May, St. Dunstan s diy, and 
to have been erased. 

* The omissions of Ar. 155 a compared with Ar. 60 are fifty-one in number, whereof twenty- 
two are local (i.e. English) saints. The additions are sixteen; but it is important to observe that seven 
of these though not occurring in the Winchester calendar of the later years of the eleventh century 
(Arundel 60) are found in the Winchester calendar Vitellius E xvm. of about the middle of the 
eleventh century; these seven feasts may thus not improbably have stood also in the calendar of inter 
mediate date from which (as will be explained below) Arundel 155 derives. The remaining nine are 
real additions to the Winchester original; viz : 3 Jan. Genovefa; 25 Jan. Prejectusj 3 Feb. Blasiusbp.; 
10 Feb. Austroberta; 28 May Germanui bp. (of Paris); 26 June (Salviut); 1 3 July Mildred; 
i Nov. Csarius; 23 Nov. Felicitas. 


during the archiepiscopate of Lanfranc, that great and strenuous 
prelate abolished the existing and traditional calendar of his 
church of Canterbury and substituted for it by his authority 
that of the church of the capital of his master s newly acquired 
kingdom, Winchester. The story of the discussion between 
archbishop Lanfranc and Anselm then recently elected abbat of 
Bee on the question whether St. Elphege was really a martyr and 
so entitled to liturgical cult has been repeated over and over again 
by our modern historians and biographers of Anselm. 1 That 
conversation took place in the spring, and apparently the early 
spring, of 1079. Here it will be in place to give the words by 
which Eadmer the Englishman introduces the story: What was 
done or said between the revered pontiff Lanfranc and the abbat 
Anselm in those days can be well understood by people who 
knew the life and dispositions of both of them. But those who 
were not personally acquainted with them may gather what they 
were from this (and herein I express my own opinion as well 
as that of many others) that no one in those days excelled 
Lanfranc in authority and manifold experience of affairs, and no 
one surpassed Anselm in holiness and godly wisdom. Lanfranc 
moreover was quasi rudis Anglus had not got beyond the mere 
rudiments of Englishry nor had he yet been able to accommo 
date his mind to certain well-settled traditions which he found 
in England. Wherefore, whilst he changed many of them 
relying on grounds that were reasonable, some he changed 
by virtue solely of his great authority. And so whilst he was 
busy over these changes etc. . . . then follows the story as to 
St. Elphege so often repeated for us. 2 It was in this way, that 

1 It may be needless to say (though it is here said pro majori cautda] that no question 
of canonization was involved; this (after the method of the times) had been settled long since 
and the strictly liturgical cult of St. Elphege was already established, as the calendars &c. shew, 
throughout the country. The queition which troubled the mind of Lanfranc was whether 
Elphege should be allowed to maintain hi position or whether he should be turned out of the 
calendar, and his cult, so far as his own cathedral church of Canterbury was concerned, put an 
end to. 

8 Erat praeterea Lanfrancus quasi rudis Anglus; necdum sederant animo ejus quasdam 
institutiones quas reppererat in Anglia. Quapropter cum plures de illis magna fretus ratione 
turn quasdam mutavit sola auctoritatis sua deliberatione. Itaque dum illarum mutation! 

3 1 

is by sole virtue of his authority, that, against the wish of the 
English-minded of his community (if we may judge of them by 
Eadmer) he summarily suppressed the now traditional English 
feast of the Conception of the Blessed Virgin and cast it out of 
the calendar and church books altogether. Again we have but 
to cast a glance at the list of feasts in his monastic statutes for 
Canterbury cathedral 1 to see that in regard to the feast of his 
own patriarch St. Benedict, and his own compatriot too in a sense, 
Lanfranc simply trampled under foot the old English tradition 
of honouring with high observance the feast of 21 March; this 
practice was derived, it is certain, if not from St. Augustine him 
self direct, at least from the { disciples of his disciples as Bede calls 
them. But Lanfranc does not even include it among his third 


grade feasts; and puts instead of it in the place of honour, 
among the most ( magnificent feasts of the year, the Gallican 
feast of St. Benedict, the translation in July. 

The calendar of the Arundel MS. 155 as originally drawn 
up is a record of the primitive and rude phase of Lanfranc s 
liturgical reformation in the ancient Church of which he was 
now archbishop. The names of only two of his predecessors 
occur in it, St. Augustine and St. Elphege; and this agrees with 
his statutes (Wilkins I. 343). Dunstan, the saint of ancient 
English days who, if any, commanded from the very time of his 
death profound religious veneration among his countrymen, 
whose liturgical cult was universal in the first half of the eleventh 
century, is conspicuous by his absence. As originally drawn up 
the calendar of Arundel MS. 155 too shewed at 19 May only 
the feast of St. Potentiana. To this entry has been added with 
capital letters et sancti Dunstani episcopi; that this is an addition 
to the primitive entry seems to me evident, but from the hand 
writing it must have been made at a very early date and is 

intenderet &c. .... (De Vita Anselmi I 42 cd. Gerberon; I 30 ed. Rule). If the Canterbury 
calendar was in fact radically changed in the later part of the eleventh century, and (as Eadmer 
clearly implies) in 1079 Lanfranc was engaged in considering changes in that calendar, thil 
would have a very practical bearing on the question of the actual date of Arundel MS. 155. 

1 Printed by Wilkins under the year 1072; but this assignment of date is quite arbitrary. 

practically contemporary; and it would thus be the first s:gn in 
the MS. of returning Englishry. 1 

The next sign is probably the entry of the octave of St. 
Dunstan at 26 May, seemingly in the same hand as the entry of 
the dedication of 1130. For the twelfth, thirteenth, and early 
fourteenth centuries additions were made (as said above) by suc 
cessive hands and they are of a very miscellaneous character; some 
witness to cults like St. Faith, St. Mary Magdalen, St. Katherine, 
St. Leonard, etc. which became widely spread among the devout 
people in the twelfth century; some few are of English saints, 
as St. Paulinus of Rochester and St. Wilfrid restored to the 
loth and I2th of October. But the calendar of the church of 
Canterbury in the later middle ages never recovered that strongly 
marked type which makes the calendar of the Bosworth Psalter 
like the contemporary document, the tract on The Resting 
Places of the Saints, a compendium as it were of the saintly 
memories of a now united England. 2 The names of most of 
the ancient archbishops never reappeared. In the course seem 
ingly of the twelfth century, to SS. Augustine, Dunstan, and 
Elphege were added at 19 Sept. Theodore, at 21 Oct. the 
Ordination of St. Dunstan, at 16 Nov. the Ordination of Saint 
Elphege ; the feast of the Ordination of St. Gregory is also 

1 In contrast to Lanfranc in his Statutes standi St. Anselm, in whose private prayers is one(N7j) 
to St. Dunstan, the only one addressed to an English saint (Migne P.L. 158. 1007-1009; Stubbs, 
Memorials of St. Dunstan pp. 450-453). It seems not improbable that this prayer is to be brought into 
connection with the restoration of St. Dunstan to the Canterbury cathedral calendar. The occur 
rence of the word cathedra (for Adelard s solium , Osbern s thronus ) is a narrow basis on 
which to assume (as bishop Stubbs has done) Anselm s acquaintance with the Life of St. Dunstan 
by Eadmer rather than any other (Memorials p. 45 3 n. i). On a comparison of the historical recital 
in the prayer with the relative accounts in Adelard (pp. 64-65), Osbern (pp. 120-121) and Eadmer 
(pp. 217-218) it seems clearly derived from one or other of the two first ; some words point 
rather to the one, some rather to the other. The passage Quod a Deo gratiae .... quocunque 
vadit (col. 1009 C. p. 453) seems however distinctly to settle the case in favour of Adelard (cf. 
pp. 67-68); besides, it would be not unnatural that the writer of the prayer should follow Adelard 
whose Life of St. Dunstan is no more than the twelve lesions which had been traditionally 
read at matins in Canterbury cnthcdral on St. Dunstan s feast. It is a pity, be it said in 
passing, that bishop Stubbs should have been led to assign the mass of St. Dunstan printed by 
him pp. 442-443 (as to the real age of which we know nothing) to A. D. cir. 1070 . 

1 Cf. the remarks of F . Liebcrmann, Die Heiligen England* (Hannover, Halm, 1889) P- * 


revived, but now at 3 Sept. instead of at the end of March. 1 
The calendar of Tiberius B in. adds at 21 April St. Anselm, 
at 2 June St. Odo (t959) an d at 16 Nov. a commemoration of 
St.^Elfric abp. and confessor (f 1005); and the feast of St. Adrian 
abbat of St. Augustine s is revived at 9 Jan. The foregoing 
(except TElfnc) maintained their liturgical ground in the services 
of the cathedral to the end. In one calendar (Tiberius B in.) 
the name of the archbishop Deusdedit (f 664) is revived at 15 
July, in another (SloaneMS. 3887) archbishop Bregwin (f 765) 
is entered at 26 August, in a third (Egerton MS. 2867) Ethelgar 
(t 9 8 9) at 12 February; but these three never obtained a recognized 
place in the official calendar, directive of divine service, of the 
church of Canterbury in the later middle ages. 

It may, however, be said: As the Bosworth calendar is of 
Canterbury and differs so radically from the late mediaeval 
calendars of Canterbury cathedral, may it not, after all, be 
a calendar of St. Augustine s? 

The ancient missal of that abbey, C. C. C. C. MS. 2 70 of the close 
of the eleventh century or the beginning of the twelfth, contains 
like B masses for early archbishops of Canterbury; for all those 
in B indeed, except for St. Nothelm. The question then is one 
that calls for examination, and for an answer here. 

One calendar at least that is certainly of St. Augustine s still 
exists; it is contained in the MS. E 19 (ff. 32 a 37 b ) of the 
Canterbury cathedral Library and was written some time between 

1 The ordination of St. Gregory is at 30 March in G., the calendar of the Missal of 
Robert of Jumieges, and the two calendars assigned to Worcester C. C. C. C. MS. 391, and MS. 
Bodl. Junius 99; at 29 March in B, and the calendars of Salisbury cathedral MS. 150, the Red 
Book of Derby C. C. C. C. MS. 422, Digby MS. 63 (which, by the way, seems certainly not a 
Winchester calendar), and the post-Conquest calendar of Winchester Arundel 60. The feast is 
not in the pre-Conquest Winchester calendars Vitellius E xvm and Titus D xxvn, the very 
curious calendar in Cotton MS. Nero A n seemingly of the early eleventh century, nor 
in the calendars of MS. Bodl. Douce 296, Cotton MS. Vitellius A xvm, and Arundel MS. 155. 
G. B. de Rosi in the Prolegomena to the Hieronymian Martyrology pp. xxxii-xxxiii has 
ingeniously argued that the ordination in question is that of Gregory IV in 828. But this will 
not hold; for it occurs 29 Mar. in a hand of the first half of the eighth century in St. Willibrord s 
calendar Paris B. N. MS. Lat. 10837 and doubtless is there intended for St. Gregory the Great. 


1252 and I273. 1 On examination, however, it is found that the 
groundwork of this calendar also is the calendar of Winchester; 
and (the entries of the names of the early archbishops excepted) 
it as little resembles B as does the calendar in Tib. B m. already 
examined. In other words, granting that B is a calendar of 
Canterbury, the same sort of substitution took place after the 
Conquest both at the cathedral and St. Augustine s. The presence 
in the ancient missal just cited of six of the seven early archbishops 
entered in B is easily and naturally explained, not merely by the 
actual existence of their relics at St. Augustine s, but by the 
solemn translation of these six at St. Augustine s in the year 
1 09 1. 2 And the absence of Nothelm s feast as found in B fixes 
the connection of the masses in the missal with that translation 
and dissociates it from B. 

But there are two particularities of cultus, one concerning 
St. Augustine s and the other the cathedral, which, after all that 
has been said hitherto, seem definitely to shew beyond dispute 
that B is not a calendar of the former but of the latter; or, 
emphatically, a calendar of the Church of Canterbury. A charac 
teristic, and peculiar, feast of St. Augustine s is that of Saint 
Lethardus, Queen Bertha s Prankish chaplain, whose liturgical 
cult, so far as is yet known to me, was confined to that sole 
monastery. This feast is found not only as a feast of some 
distinction (ranking with the Conversion of St. Paul, St. Cuthbert 
etc.) in the calendar of 1252-1273 but in the missal C.C. C. C. 
MS. 270. it also has a proper mass (ed. Rule, 1896, p. 37). 
Neither feast nor mass, it may be safely assumed, was of Norman 
introduction; and the cult was traditional in the house. The 
name of St. Lethardus does not occur in B. 

On the other hand B has on 26 June, as an addition to the 
old < sacramentary feast (see i (i)) of SS. John and Paul, the 

1 This appears from the fact that the obit of abbat Robert (f 1252) is entered in the 
original, that of abbat Roger II (-f- Dec. 1273) in a later hand. These are the two last obits 
of abbats in the calendar. 

- This thirteenth century calendar contains besides the names of these six at their proper 
days, the namei of archbishops Tathwin (f 734) at 31 July (as a feast of three lessons) and 
Janabert (f 790) at 12 Aug. as a feast of some distinction; as to Jambert s burial at St. Augustine s 
see in Twysden, Decem Scr. 1295, 1642. These are doubtless late introductions (of the twelfth or 
thirteenth century) like Odo and ^Elfric at the cathedral. 


following: c et sancti Salvi martyris. This is a Canterbury 
addition and not found in G. This feast maintains its place in 
all the successive calendars of Canterbury cathedral from Arundel 
155 in the eleventh century to the end, fixed at this date and 
with regular liturgical cult (twelve lessons in Tib. B. in; eight 
lessons in Egerton 2867, Add. MS. 6160, Sloane 3887). The 
saint in question is St. Salvius of Valenciennes, 1 said to have 
been martyred towards the close of the eighth century. In the 
eleventh century or even earlier he was commonly and erroneously 
believed to be a bishop of Angouleme; but no such bishop has 
occupied that see. The Lambeth MS. 159, a very curious 
collection of pieces relating to local liturgy and hagiology brought 
together by a monk of Christ Church Canterbury not long before 
the Dissolution, contains at fol. 1 1 i b a so-called Passio of c Saint 
Salvius of Angouleme , described in the margin with this title: 
How the bones of St. Salvius, bishop, were brought to Canter 
bury , and detailing how a gift of relics of St. Salvius bishop 
of Angouleme was made to Canterbury cathedral by William 
the Conqueror in 1085 and the thirteenth year of archbishop 
Lanfranc. For anything this narrative says we might have been 
led to conclude, or imagine, that this was the first introduction 
of the cult of St. Salvius into Canterbury. The calendar B shews 
that this is not the case. Fortunately too B does not stand alone. 
Harl. MS. 2892 is a Benedictional of Christ Church Canterbury 
of the first half, or middle, of the eleventh century. This book 
contains f. i59 b 160 an episcopal benediction for the feast of 
St. Salvius which as it is carefully rhymed and generally an 
interesting example of English liturgical work of the time is 
printed here. 


Celestium benedictionum dator, et virtutum largitor, sua 
vos benedictione exornet, et virtutibus coronet. Amen. 
Et qui sanctum Salvium prassulem martirii sui cursum 

1 Known later in France as S. Sauge; to be distinguiihed from St. Salvius known ai 
S. Sauve, or S. Salve, patron of Montreuil, and bishop of Amiens apparently early in the seventh 
century, often himself confounded with various other personi called Salvut or Salviui. 


feliciter fecit consummare, vos faciat in bonis omnibus 
infatigabili devotione perseverare. Amen. 
Sit ipse pro nobis intercessor studiosus, qui hodie trium- 
phali agone peracto coelos intravit victoriosus. Amen. 
Quod Ipse prestare dignetur, etc. 

As this episcopal benediction comes between that for the feast of 
St. John Baptist (24 June) and that for the Vigil of SS. Peter and 
Paul (28 June) we may be assured that it is for the feast of St. 
Salvius of Valenciennes (26 June) and no other. Finally the Lam 
beth MS. 159 already cited contains f. uo b in a an account of 
St. Salvius of Valenciennes marked and divided into eight lessons 
to be read at matins; there can be little doubt (in view of the gen 
eral character of that MS. as described above) that these were the 
eight lessons for the feast marked in the fifteenth century calendar of 
Canterbury cathedral Sloane MS. 38 Sy. 1 

When the facts detailed and the indications given in pur 
suing the various lines of enquiry opened out in the preceding 
pages are taken into account, they appear to point to one, and one 
only possible, conclusion; namely that the calendar B is the 
calendar that was in use in the later part of the tenth century 
and the earlier part of the eleventh in the cathedral church of 
Canterbury; and the difference between B and the calendar of 
that church in the thirteenth and following centuries proves, 
when the case is investigated, not to be a valid objection to 
this conclusion. 

To put the case in its due light it would be necessary to 
pursue the inquiry here initiated and point out how, as a result 
of the Norman Conquest, the imposition of the calendar of the 
capital city of Winchester on the venerable metropolitical and 

1 A copy (doubtless not diplomatically accurate ) of the so-called Passio and of the eight 
lessons contained in the MS. Lamb. 159 occurs in British Museum Addit. MS. 36, 6ooff.ii 12. 
St. Salvius is also found at 26 June in the alendar of Salisbury MS. 150 and in that of Cotton 
MS. Nero A n. Both are clearly west-country calendars. The Salisbury calendar certainly has 
some curious affinities with B, although at first sight it appears to be of a quite different complexion. 
This arises in great measure from the fact that it goes back on a different martyrological 
tradition from that of G, and consequently of B. The presence of St. Salvius in the Salisbury 
calendar may perhaps indicate that the cult of this saint at Canterbury cathedral goes back at least 
to the first half of the tenth century. 


mother church of Canterbury, strange as it may seem at first 
hearing, has about it nothing exceptional, and how other English 
churches, of ancient and of more modern foundation, had to 
submit to a like experience. Thus when the York and Exeter 
calendars of the close of the twelfth century, or the calendars of 
the printed uses of Hereford and Salisbury, are analyzed and 
resolved into their various elements, after account is taken of 
local peculiarities, changes of vogue in devotions and cults, and 
of a certain independence and choice in adaptation, what is found 
at the base of them all is neither more nor less than the calendar 
of the church of Winchester of the eleventh century. 1 This is 
not the time or place to enter on even a rudimentary treatment 
of the subject; for the due understanding of which there is need 
of a printed Table in a plain, simple and practical form without 
textual niceties, shewing in parallel columns the contents of all 
the extant Anglo-Saxon calendars with a certain number of calendars 
of later date. 

There is nothing exceptional or indeed really strange in a 
radical revolution of the kind indicated in regard to the calendar 
in England. Winchester, it must be repeated, in the eleventh 
century was the capital of the kingdom, a united England; and 
the analogies in all ages and regions (in spite of the familiar 
exception of Sarum ) go to show how, as if by constant rule or 
predominant attraction, the usages and liturgy-books of the 
church at the seat of the civil authority and kingly power succeed 
in the long run in modifying, and often in supplanting, the customs 
or usages of churches whose pre-eminence is only ecclesiastical. 
So far as concerns the present case it seems clear that Winchester 
was already exercizing this influence in a marked way at the time 

1 That is, as represented by the calendars in Vitellius E xvm. and Arundel 60 : the 
Winchester missal at Havre assigned by M. Delisle to about A. D. 1120 is interesting as shewing 
the further variations and substantial identity of this calendar for another generation; and the 
eleventh century calendar in Titus D xxvn, is of course useful in illustration. The calendar 
of the missal of Robert of Jumieges, like all English calendar* of the eleventh century, shews 
(ag is natural) marks of Winchester influence; but when it is examined as a whole, and analyzed, 
it seems to me that its affinities really are with what I may call the west-country group; and, of 
course, it it unsafe to draw any conclusion from the isolated appearance of St. Tibba at 29 


of the Conquest. 1 But the question that properly suggests itself 
here is this: at what date did the change of calendar take place 
at Canterbury? The answer, at least at present, can be only by 
way of conjecture more or less probable; since it depends on the 
results of enquiries on more lines than one which, at least in a 
definite and accurate manner, can as yet hardly be said to have 
been begun among us. It has been pointed out above (p. 30 n. 2) 
that the Canterbury calendar of the Arundel MS. 155 shews in 
its list of feasts indications of having been derived from an 
earlier recension of Winchester than that of Arundel MS. 60 of 
the late years of the eleventh century, and from one in some 
respects more nearly resembling that of Vitellius E xvm of about 
fifty years earlier, and therefore intermediate between these two. 
It is at the same time to be observed that the psalms in Arundel 
MS. 155 are the Roman version, but corrected by another hand 
into the Gallican, whilst in the Arundel MS. 60 the version, 
with slight lapses into the Roman, is the Gallican. And this 
seems to accord with the indications furnished by the calendars 
of these two MSS. as to the respective dates of the two books. 
Such variations between them, in both calendar and psalm-text, 
find (it would seem from what has been said above) their natural 
explanation in the history of the changes in divine service and 
the liturgy consequent on the Norman Conquest. The conjecture 
that has thus been made as to the probable date of the change 
at Canterbury arises merely on an examination of the contents 
of the psalters themselves; but it finds, in fact, countenance 
in the well-known narrative of Eadmer as to the cult of St. Elphege 
from which it would clearly appear that Lanfranc actually had the 
reform of the calendar of his church under consideration early in 
the year 1079. 

1 Many years ago the late Dean Henderson pointed out (York Pontifical, Surtees Soc. 1875 
vol. 6 1 p. xxiii) how bishop Leofric of Exeter in his additions to his missal, used a Winchester 
book and copied without change forms that were applicable to Winchester alone. The Pontifical 
now C. C. C. C. MS. 146 seems to be another instance of the spread of Winchester influence at the 
close of the eleventh century, this time at Worcester (see Henderson, ubi supra, pp. xvii and xxx)j 
and there arc items in the Worcester calendar C. C.C. C. MS. 391 which seem to point in the 
same direction. 


SINCE the foregoing section was in type the Bosworth 
Psalter has been purchased by the Trustees of the British 
Museum. Strictly speaking the object in view of which 
the tract on the Calendar was written is attained, and there the 
matter might be allowed to rest. But it is sometimes well to lis 
ten to adverse counsel; and, to say the truth, in penning the tract, 
which is better called by the technical title of Consultatio , I was 
conscious also in a remote way, of real dissatisfaction with the 
manner in which documents of the nature of Calendar B are 
commonly dealt with. 

To exemplify this it is not necessary to go further than the 
calendar G. As we peruse its bald list of mixed names, we desire 
if possible to know the exact nature of the document; what its 
elements are; how the precise items making up each element come 
together, and how it happens that these particular elements, and 
not others also, make up the calendar. We want to know the 
genesis, the past history of the Glastonbury calendar, its place 
among its contemporaries and its relation to similar documents, 
that come after it in point of time. We may read the dozen broad 
pages which the editor of G has devoted to its examination, with 
the many lists of names in small type and the considerable appar 
atus of dates, and, at the end of it all have to admit to being in 
the same state of enlightment as when we began, and with a feel 
ing that this is not wholly our own fault. 

In these circumstances I must own to having cherished some 
sort of vague hope that the treatment of the calendar B in this 
tract might at least suggest another way. This hope now deter 
mined me not to lose interest at the stage of page proof and to 
go forward. But there was a drawback to this course. If the 
print were to be useful now it appeared necessary to say more on 
some matters than is found in the preceding Consultation. Strictly 
speaking I think that what is there said ought to be enough if 
the restricted scope of the tract with its one single and precise 
object, viz. the discussion, elucidation and placing of B., is borne 


in mind. To keep the treatment of the case within reasonable 
limits it was necessary to presume a knowledge of the history, or 
origin, or fate of this or that particular cult, or (what is called now- 
a-days) cultual tendency; to touch on it in a line or two and to 
dismiss the subject as known. But I readily allow and submit 
to the fate that should attend presumption; and what follows 
here must be discursive, informal, and I am afraid also lengthy. 

Any one who has taken the trouble to read the foregoing 
section will have seen how the discussion turns on the real character 
of the calendar in MS. Arundel 155. The argument endeavours 
to explain how a calendar substantially that of the church of 
Winchester superseded the ancient calendar of Christ Church 
Canterbury preserved in the Bosworth Psalter. In the course of 
this statement the calendar in Vitellius E xvm is taken as represen 
ting the calendar of the church of Winchester 1 about the middle 
of the eleventh century; Arundel 155, the new calendar of Christ 
Church after its reformation by Lanfranc; and Arundel 60 as a 
post-Conquest calendar of the church of Winchester. 

To introduce what has to be said let us imagine a discourse 
somewhat of the following tenor: c If we examine the calendars of 
Arundel 155, Arundel 60 and Cotton MS. Vitellius E xvm it is 
* clear that the predominant local element is the number of saints 
of the church of Winchester. In Arundel 155, for instance, 
there are but two local Canterbury feasts whilst there are no less 
than five of the Church of Winchester. 2 In Arundel 60 the 
specifically Winchester feasts are fourteen in number if we 
include at 18 October St. Justus; 3 whilst in Vitellius E xvm the 
c Winchester commemorations have risen to sixteen, not to 
mention the second feast of St. Eadburga on 1 8 July, since 
it may be open to doubt whether the Eadburga in question is 
really the Winchester nun. These three MSS. are all indubit- 

1 In speaking of the calendar of ny church in pre-Conquest days we must of course bear 
in mind that we may not assume a formalized diocesan observance such as was introduced in the 
later middle ages by the fixation of uses in the izth and ijth centuries. This later idea must 
not be assumed as applicable to the state of things before the Conquest. 

J ^ July Swithun, 15 July Translation of Swithun, 4 Sept. Translation of Birinus and 
Cuthbert, 3 Dec. Birinus, 13 Dec. Judoc, which last feast by the eleventh century had become 
denizen at Winchester. 

3 A great relic of this aint was giyen to Winchester by Athelstan. 


* ably of the eleventh century. Now we know from observation 

* that in the case of local cults and so also in calendars the 
Maw is that of accretion: and in these three MSS. we see how in 
1 the course of less than a century perhaps in the space of no 
1 more than two generations the modest allowance of five 
f strictly local Winchester feasts of Arundel 155 has tripled 
itself. We also observe how in that calendar no saint occurs 
4 of a later date than St. Elphege of Canterbury whose general 
cult was formally inaugurated by the translation of his relics 
in 1023. We may therefore conjecturally assign it to a date 
nearly coincident with that event, say 1030. The calendar of 
Arundel MS. 60 may be placed approximately a generation 
later, say at latest 1060, and the Vitellius calendar a generation 
later still, about the close of the eleventh century say about 
the year 1090. It is unnecessary to dwell at length on other 
features of VitclliusE xvm, besides this local one, which afford 
evidence of its late origin in such cults as that of St. Joseph 
for instance, and of the Conception of the B. V. M., which are 
absent from both Arundel 155 and Arundel 60, etc etc. 

By all this it is not my intention to imply that any such argu 
ments have been or would be adopted by any individual person. 
This being understood, to make our further progress clear from 
the beginning it is proper to enumerate, out of the many parti 
cular features of these calendars that offer an opportunity for 
discussion, the four which I propose to examine. They are: 

(5) The two feasts of the Conception of the B. V. M. (8. Dec.) 
and of her Oblation in the Temple at the age of three years (2 1 
Nov.) found in Vitellius E xvin, but not found in MSS. Arun 
del 60 and 155. 

(6) The Breton feasts, which are more strongly marked in 
the Vitellius calendar than in the other two. 

f: < (7) The entries in Arundel 155 that have relation to relic cults 
that are specifically characteristic of the cathedral of Christ 
Church, Canterbury. 

(8) The feasts of local Winchester saints as found in 
Arundel 155. 


At p. 32 above the action of Lanfranc in suppressing the 
feast of the Conception of the Blessed Virgin in his cathedral 
church of Canterbury has been mentioned. Until within the 
last half century the famous letter of St. Bernard to the canons of 
Lyons, commonly assigned to about the year r 140, was the only 
authentic document that could be adduced as to the orip-ins in the 


Western Church of what is now the greatly honoured feast of the 
Immaculate Conception. All the rest was legend around which 
imagination could play, or not, at will. In 1860 the late Senior 
of the Bollandists, P. Victor de Buck, called attention in the 
(Brussels) Precis historiques to the information on the subject in 
the letters of Osbert de Clare, monk and by and by abbat of 
Westminster, which had been printed some fourteen years earlier. 
It was not until 1886 that further progress in the enquiry was 
made. More has been done since; so that it is now possible to 
base our statements as to the origins of this feast on definite and 
positive information. 1 

1 The list given in thit note is not intended as a conspectus of what is called the literature 
of the subject which is vast. Only those items are noticed which, in one way or another, have 
advanced our knowledge. 

(1) P. Victor dc Buck, as stated in the text, opened the inquiry as to the origins of the 
feast of the Immaculate Conception in two articles in the Precis historians (nouv. serie, tome ii, 
1860, pp. 64-97, S45-5S 2 ) entitled Osbert de Clare et 1 abbe Anselme instituteurs de la fete de 
I lmmaculatee Conception de la Sainte Vierge dan 1 Eglise Latine . With the documents before 
him this writer could only attribute the origin! of the feast to about the years 1127-1130; he 
knew nothing of the witness of Anglo-Saxon antiquity. The abbe Anselme was St. Anselm s 
nephew for so many years abbat of St. Edmundsbury. 

(2) In ignorance of P. V. de Buck s articles I put together such items as had occurred to 
me relative to the feast in England before the Conquest and up to about the year 1130 in a paper 
that appeared anonymously in the Downside Revieiu vol. v, 1886, pp. 107-1 19. This wa$ reprinted 
separately with two or three pages of Prefatory Note, London, Burns and Gates, 1904., under the 
title : On the origins of the Feast of the Conception of the Blessed Virgin Mary. 

(3) Abbe Vacandard utilising this paper in his Vie de Saint Bernard ii. pp. 78-96 (and in an 
earlier article in La Science catholijue, Sept. 1893, not seen by me) placed the whole question in a 
proper theological and apologetic setting. His new assignment of St. Bernard s letter to about 


The following is the story in outline, proceeding from the 
later stage to the earlier. It is with the period anterior to Saint 
Bernard s letter of c. 1 140 that alone we are concerned; and the 
scene of the story is in England only. It begins for us with 
the commotions, disputes and contentions among persons of the 
highest consideration, settled, as it turned out once and for all, 
by the London synod of 1129, in a decision for which Wilkins 
Concilia and our historians generally, except a simple chronicler 
like old Stowe, may be consulted in vain. 

the years 1128-1130 is purely arbitrary. So far as indications of date exist they tend if anything 
to show the date rather as later than earlier. 

(4) In ignorance of all that precedes abbe J. L. Adam in the Revue catholique de Normandie 
(15 Sept. 1895, pp. 115-126; 15 Jan. 1896, pp. 357-392) published two articles entitled La 
Fete dc I lmmaculde Conception dite " Fete aux Normands " d apres les quatre breviaires manuscrits 
de Coutamces conserves a la Bibliotheque de Valognes where he resided as chaplain to the Dames 
Augustines. With the limited informations at his disposal and through the method adopted the 
writer felt able to prove that the feast was celebrated in Normandy in the eleventh century and 
he concluded that such initiation and primal institution of the feast of the Conception was un 
titre de gloire des plus precieux pour notre province de Normandie qui peut, a bon droit, s enor- 
gueiller etc. (Jan. 1896 p. 382). 

(5) This called abbe Vacandard into the field once more who, in an article in the Revue des 
Questions /itsforifiies (Jan. 1897), after a review of the earlier liturgical books of the diocese 
of Rouen showed that there is no trace of the feast in Normandy earlier than the twelfth 
century. He also states: ! appellation de "Fete aux Normands" (for this Conception feast) ne 
scmble pas remonter au dela du xiii 1 fiecle (none of these writers seem to notice Wace s poem 
published in 1842 by Mancel and Trebutien). 

(6) The approach of the Jubilee of the Dogmatic Definition by H. H. Pope Pius IX in 1854 
set several pens to work. The Month, the English literary organ of the Society of Jesus, in May 
1904 printed, pp. 449-465, an article entitled The Irish origins of our Lady s Conception Feast* 
by the Rev. H. Thurston. On this some remarks will be found further on. 

(7) In the number of 20 September 1904 of the Paris Etudes religieuses, the French literary 
organ of the Society of Jesus, P. Augustin Noyon published an article Les Origines de la Fete de 
rimmaculee Conception (x c , xi e , xii e siecles) . The point of importance is this: that outside 
Normandy French liturgical MSS. do not mention the feast until the thirteenth century (pp. 27- 
29 of the separate print). I have reason to think that at this time some considerable pains were 
taken to enquire into the state of the liturgical evidence and with negative results for the earlier 

(8) The same year, in conjunction with Fr. Thomas Slater S. J., Fr. Thurston printed 
(Freiburg, Herder) the most valuable of these Jubilee memorials under the title Eadmeri monachi 
Cantuariensis Tractatus de Conceptione Sanctae Mariae nunc frimum integer ad codicum fidem editus 


On 1 6th January 1127 died Richard de Belmeis bishop of 
London, a prelate who had had a dream of the pallium and of an 
archbishopric of London, but had been met by St. Anselm with 
an emphatic c Never whilst I live . Whatever may have been 
Richard s views, on the 8th December following his death West 
minster Abbey initiated a novelty in the diocese and celebrated with 
a certain eclat a feast of the Conception of the Blessed Virgin. 
There was an outcry at once. { It is simply ridiculous , said some; 
and such a thing was never heard of. These busy, or scan- 

aJjectis quibusdam monumenth coactaneis. To say the truth in this little volume I saw the 
accomplishment of a <v#u I had for some years entertained but had been unable to fulfil, viz: the 
confrontation of the tract long since printed in the Appendix to St. Anselm s works (MigneP. L, 
159. 301 seqq.) with the MS. C. C. C. C. 371 p. 395 seqq., containing the Opuscula of Eadmer by 
whom alone I had come to believe this tract could have been penned. My interest however would 
have been confined to illustrating the passage translated in the text just below. But the print of 
F F. Thurston and Slater is an edition cmnibus numcris absoluta, and is enriched with those theo 
logical indications and elucidations so precious to a layman. 

(9) It remains to add one item more. Mere good fortune or happy chance has at length given me 
an opportunity of examining, but for a few minutes only, the MS. Bodl. Auct. D. 4. 18 (plim NE C. 
4.11.) which some fourteen years ago I had noted from Bernard s catalogue as containing 
the long lost tract on the feast of the Conception against St. Bernard by Nicholas of St. Albans. 
It seems almost certain Leland (Je Scr.ed. Hall p.i86) had never actually seen this tract, but only 
one of the later pieces addressed to Peter of Celle who is evidently Leland s abbas Remigianus ; 
he must have made a mistake as to the abbat s name which he gives as Hugo . The title in the 
Bodleian MS. is in a hand seemingly of the fourteenth century. The absence of a title in the MS. 
ai originally written in the twelfth has alone perhaps saved this copy from destruction. I give 
here but one extract, the writer s account of the origin of the feast, and then readily hand 
over the whole for investigation to those who are interested in the subject. The text halts in 
grammar but runs as follows: Legimusenim quod quidam solitarius singulis annis, multo jam 
elapso tempore, signanter una vel die vel nocte notata, festivas angelorum voces in sublimi 
audisset, rogasse dominum nttentius quare illo potius quam alio aliquo tempore angelorum 
concentum audtret; in responsisque accepisse quia illo die beata virgo et mater Dei Maria nata 
fuerit, et ideo angelos celeberrimi gaudii concentu diem ilium recolere. Lcgimvs nihilominus quod 
cum abbas Elsinus &c. (f. ioi a ). I do not remember to have read elsewhere this story of the 
tolitary which the author gives (seemingly from some written source) as an alternative to the 
Helsin story. As among the directing and ruling classes in London in 1127-1128 so too here all 
knowledge of the old English pre-Conquest feast had died out; Eadmer must however have been 
only one of many then living who kept fresh and treasured their childhood s memories of the 
former state of things. This seems a pertinent instance how soon in matters of devotion 
knowledge of recent facts passes out of mind and how easily legend takes its place. 


dalized, persons knew what to do and made straight for the back 
stairs leading up direct to the privacy of the greatest personage 
in the land. They went to Roger bishop of Salisbury, the king s 
most trusted counsellor and minister, and Bernard, bishop of St. 
David s, who had been chaplain of the late queen, the good 
Matilda. But there was a serious difficulty in the way. Henry, 
the king himself, had already some time before begged his friend 
and protege Hugh, abbat of his own foundation of Reading, to 
establish there the obnoxious feast; and at the prayer of so great 
and clerkly a founder this had been done. As time went on the 
outlook did not improve. In January 1128 Gilbert, surnamed 
from his learning the Universal , a great doctor and divine, was 
consecrated bishop of London. The innovating party now felt 
secure on the side of their diocesan also; for Osbert had found 
some means of sounding his ideas and had discovered he was c a 
most catholic-minded man and sufficiently well-instructed in 
regard to the particular point at issue. But still there must have 
been cause for anxiety, and Osbert and his friends were particularly 
anxious to learn the practice and custom of Rome and to know 
whether any support of precedent could be obtained from thence 
in favour of c the venerable Conception of the Mother of God. 
This was a vain hope; Osbert was doubtless little versed in the 
Roman manner of mind. 

Still with the king and Gilbert on their side they were not 
discouraged, and determined to bring the matter to an issue in the 
council that met in London at Michaelmas 1129. The result 
is preserved to us only in a half legendary form in the Tewkes- 
bury Annals (Ann. Mon. i. 45^) thus rendered by Stowe under this 
year: by authoritie of the pope, the Feast of the Conception of 
our Ladie was confirmed. The general history of the feast is 
sufficient to assure us that the first five words are without foun 
dation unless in a complimentary sense; but it also assures us 
that the rest of the sentence is substantially true. Opposition in 
England is no more heard of, but only defence of the feast; and, 
as the later calendars shew, it soon became in this country 
practically universal. 

Westminster and Reading had had companions and forerunners 
in the work of instituting (or, as we shall now immediately sec, 

4 6 

restoring) the feast of the Conception of the Blessed Virgin of 
8 December. In fact the disputes and troubles in London in 
1127 1129 had a long, if then commonly forgotten, story 
behind them. Strange as such a notion may appear to us to-day, 
to the innovators the observance of this feast was a revindication 
of ancient English piety, an assertion against new Norman lord 
liness and learning of a despised and down-trodden Englishry. 
This is what Eadmar, a hearty and thoroughgoing if political and 
prudent partizan drawing on his own recollections has to say as to 
the feast of the Conception: 

( In former days it was celebrated more commonly than now, 
and by those chiefly in whom there dwelt a pure simplicity of 
1 soul and a humble devotion. But when learning of a wider 

* range and an all-dominating tendency to enquire into the reasons 
4 of things had imbued and lifted up the minds of some, this 

* new learning, contemptuous of the simpleness of the poor in 

* spirit, did away with this solemnity; and, banished it utterly 
*(redegitin nichiT] as wanting in reasonableness. And the view 
f entertained by these persons had such irresistible force because 
they were pre-eminent in both Church and State, and were the 
wealthy ones of the land. But when I considered within myself 
the simple-mindedness of the men of earlier days and the 
eminent genius of the moderns . . . some strong and condem 
natory, if Scriptural, reflections, occurred to Eadmer that need 
not be repeated here; any more than the reasons which he reports 
as adduced by those c who say that there ought not to be any 
memory [by way of feast] of the Conception of the Virgin 
4 Mother in the Church . He then continues: And thus 
those acute and able persons, in virtue of their position of 
authority on which they prided themselves, 1 did not scruple to 
abolish what the simple and perfect love of our Lady, that had 
animated those of old time, had established; namely, the feast 
of her Conception. Having thus seen the mode of proceeding 
of the eminent persons who succeeded in doing away with the 
feast of the Mother of God, let us cast a glance at the love of 

* the simple folk who lament over the loss of so great a gladness. 

<Sua ( ? suac), qua se pollcre gloriabantur, auctoritatis ratione ; cf. above p. 31 n. 2, 
*quasdam mutavit sola auctoritatis suae deliteratione . 


Eadmer proceeds to do this by endeavouring for their protection 
to meet in the rest of the tract reasoning or argument by 
reasoning or argument. 1 

The article 2 in the footnote p. 43 above gives a list of the 
pre-Conquest documents known in 1886 as evidencing the 
observance of the feast of the Conception in the older simpler 
England, the memories of which, the impressions of his childhood, 
Eadmer in his old age looked back upon with such affection. 
These documents were the Winchester calendars in the Cotton 
MSS. Vitellius E xvni and Titus D xxvii; the Benedictional of 
Canterbury cathedral Had. MS. 2892; and another Benedictio 
nal, Additional MS. 28i88. 2 To the churches of Winchester, 
with Canterbury and Exeter borrowing from Winchester, it is 
now possible to add Worcester in, seemingly, the early days of 
St. Wulstan s episcopate. The calendar of the C. C. C. C. MS. 
39 1, a venerable Worcester book which has received the name of 
4 Portiforum S. Oswald! has this entry at 8 December: c Conceptio 

1 Eadmer, De Conceftione Sanctae Marine eel. Thurston pp 1-4. ; Migne P. L. 159. 301-303. 

2 This episcopal Benedictional lias been commonly called a Benedictional of Romsey Abbey 
the Hampshire nunnery} but also of Ramsey in Huntingdonshire. The reason seems to be thif. 
In the second and very brief litany of the rite of dedication of a church one virgin saint only is 
invoked, Ethelfleda of Romsey. The official cataloguist has on this fact concluded summarily that 
the book was a Romsey book. But the case is more complex; and of the two litanies the first seems 
to be the more distinctly indicative. On the invocations of SS. German and Patrick stres* 
doubtless must not be laid; but the cult of St. Sativola is to my knowledge a local cult of Exeter 
which does not extend beyond that diocese. Neither in litanies nor calendars have I been able to 
find trace of her cult elsewhere although the name has found its way into one or two late marty- 
rologies; e.g. the margin of the martyrology of Christ Church Dublin. Another invocation 
deserves attention in this longer litany, especially in an English MS. of so early a date, that of 
St. Olave. Exeter adopted this cult in a manner quite singular. The MS. of the eleventh century 
that lias of recent years been called the Collectar of bishop Leofric , Harl. 2961, contains 
ff. I23"-126 1> an office of St. Olave different from any of those printed in Storm s Monumenta 
hiitoriae Nor-vegiae (Kristiania, 1880, pp. 228-271). With one exception, the fragment of a gradual 
written about 1300, Storm knew of no liturgical material earlier than the printed breviaries. 
In regard to unaltered copies of Winchester formulae found in Harl. MS. 28188 see ante p. 38 
note 2. In view of all the facts of the case the Romsey (or Ramsey) attribution of Harl. MS. 28188 
has to be reconsidered and should, I think, certainly be given up. 


sancte Dei genitricis Mariae V The absence of the feast from what 
I may call the western group of Anglo-Saxon calendars, with 
their generally archaic and conservative character, is hardly 
less significant. 

I take advantage of the present occasion to indicate the reasons 
which induce me now to believe, counter to what I thought in 

* O 

1886, that the feast of the Conception was in fact introduced into 
England from Southern Italy, or at least under South Italian influ 

This feast of 8 December has to be considered in connection 
with another found in the two Winchester calendars Vitellius E 
xvin and Titus D xxvn at 21 November thus: Oblatio sancte 
Marie in templo Domini cum esset trium annorum. This entry 
might at first sight appear as if one of that class of c historical 
memoranda so well known in our ancient calendars, like * Adam 
creatus est , c Egressus Noe de area etc. But such an impression 
would be incorrect. In the Canterbury Benedictional Harl. MS. 
2892 fol. i86 a is an episcopal benediction for this feast there 
entitled: De Presentatione sancte Mariae . 2 Twenty years ago the 
marble calendar of Naples assigned to the close of the ninth 
century was the only early western document outside England 
known to give the feast; 3 and it seemed loose method to knit up the 
commemorations in our eleventh century English books with it. 
A glance at the documents set forth pp. 84-85 of T. Toscani s 
Ad Typlca Gr^ecorum Animadversiones (Romas, Typ. de Prop. Fide, 

1 This entry is wanting in the calendar of the Bodleian MS. Junius 99 of about the 
tame date commonly stated to be a Worcester calendar. 

2 It will be as well to print it here. 


Benedictionum eelestium vos Dominus imbre locupletet, et sanctuaria cordium 
vestrorum sue habitation-Is visitatione perlustret, qui beatam Mariam angelico ora- 
culo concipiendam predixit. 

Et quae ilium qui panis est angelorum in sui uteri habitaculo meruit baiulare, YOS 
diu hie adiuvet et vivere, et post celica regna feliciter penetrare. Amen. 

Et sicut sibi congaudetis honoris gratia celebrantes hunc diem quo templum Dei, 
sacrarium Spiritus Sancti, in aula Dei est presentatum, ita vos facial purificatis 
nevii contagiorum unico Filio suo prcsentari, et in albo beati ordinis ascribi. Amen. 

Quod Ipse prestare dignetur. 
s It does not contain the feast of 21 November. 


1864) will shew the need of proceeding cautiously in such a case. 
Dmitrievsky s volume of Typica (annual Directories of church 
offices; in English, Pies) bearing the date 1895, with its print 
of Constaninopolitan documents of as early a date as the ninth 
and tenth centuries gives us firm standing ground; and now we 
may conclude with practical certainty that in the Greek monas 
teries newly founded or revived in Lower Italy, both the feast 
of the Conception (but on 9 December) and that of the Offering 
in the Temple (on 2 1 November) were already received as 
established and accepted as traditional. 1 It is, I believe, through 
contact of Englishmen with such Greek monks that these two 
feasts came to us some time in the early decades of the eleventh 
century, and were established in the two great and dominant 
churches, the reo-al and the primatial, of Anglo-Saxon England. 

* O O O 

If the reader feel disposed to meet such an idea at once with 
incredulity, I would plead at least for suspension of judgement. 
There has yet to be worked out and in complete detail, down 
to matters so trivial as feasts, cults, relics, commerce of books 
the question of the relations of England with the Continent 
from (say) 920 to 1040. We must endeavour too, to realize 
the trains that followed archbishop after archbishop on pilgrimage 
in quest of the pallium, and pilgrimages less business-like such 
as those recorded in the well known extract from the St. Gall 
Confraternity Book, or the less vulgarized entry in that of 
PfafFers (Mon. Germ. hist. y Lib. Confrat. p. 363); and realize also 
what these may have meant for the importation of foreign and 
outlandish ways in so aspiring and modern an England as that 
of the tenth century, the minds and souls of men and their 
attractions being what they then were. It might even be that 
the journey of Canute to Rome, for instance, was the very occasion 
for the borrowing of these feasts of the Oblation and Conception 
and that they were adopted from the monastery of St. Sabas in 
Rome itself. 2 I may be allowed to repeat here what was written 

1 A. Dmitrievsky, Opisanic liturgkiceskikh rukc,ph<:i etc. i (Kiev, 1895) PP- 2 5> 2 9> 2O 3> 205. 

* Perhaps it may be as well to explain in regard to these words that the practice of Rome 
is in no wise here in question. It is all a purely Greek affair. Rome eventually, and late, adopted 
the venerable feast of the Conception of 8 December to keep in line with the rest of the world, 
and avoid the evil note of singularity 7 . The history and condition of the Roman monasteries at 
the end of the tenth century and early in the eleventh are little known. The recent excavations 


long since in reference to the present question. To assign { the 

* precise time and place where any given feast had its rise, and 
( where rites and ceremonies or liturgical institutions originate, is 
1 always a difficult matter; for they mostly come in without 

* observation and their existence is commonly not recorded until 
4 they have obtained an established footing and have begun to 
4 spread. All that can usually be done is to follow the way to 

* which facts seem to point, and in the end a probability, more or 
Mess strong, is the utmost that can be arrived at. 1 Taking this 
course in the present case and bearing in mind all the relative 
circumstances as yet ascertained, I think that the probabilities all 
point in one direction, namely an importation into England 
about the year 1030, of two feasts observed in Lower Italy 
among the monks of the Greek revival. 2 

and recent publications of early Roman charters may throw some light on St. Sabas; I can only refer 
to the narrative in the Life of St. Adalbert by John Canapariu? Mon. Germ. SS. iv 587-588 which 
leems sufficiently to indicate that St. Sabas was a safe home of Greek ecclesiasticism. It would 
not be proper to pass over one point. Although the entries of the zi November and 8 December 
in the calendar of the MS. Titus D XXVH seem to be written by the same hand, or the same kind 
of hand, they do not occupy the space of ordinary entries but begin in the left hand among the 
numerals and appear to be no part of the original script. In Vitellius E xvm these entries are 
part of the original script. As the Titus calendar seems to date from about the years 1020-1030 
and the Vitellius some years later it is probable that we have here an indication of the date when 
these feasts were adopted at Winchester. 

Of courie any question as to the younger Anselm and his abbacy at St. Sabas at Rome 
(early in the twelfth century) has nothing to do with the question of the original introduction 
of the feasts into England (see the Notula printed by Fr. Thurston Eadmcrl mm. Tract, pp. 102- 
104, which was copied by me from Harl. MS. 1005 so far back as the year 1870 or 1871). 

1 Downside Review vol. v, p. 110; separate print pp. 15-16. 

* I must not leave this question without some observations on another view of the subject 
put forth by the Rev. H. Thurston, of the Society of Jesus, in the article on The Irish Origins of 
ou Lady s Conception Feast mentioned above p. 44 note (6). The case, which would admit of 
large development, presents itself to me as if in a more just light somewhat thin. The chief 
English document adduced to prove the Irish origination of the feast of 8 December is con 
tained in the so-called Athelstan s Psalter, Cotton MS. Galba A xvm, and is of a martyrological 
character with a feast for every day of the year. The observance of such a feast liturgically 
does not follow. Of the presence of Irish influence in this metrical martyrology of Galba A xvm 
there can be no question. It is not necessary to dwell on the presence of Saints Aed and Comgan, 
Maelruen and Mactail; the entry at 20 April of the feast of the SainU of Europe is enough to 


In closing the consideration of the first item to be examined, 
I return to the imaginary discourse from which we started; 
and, counter to what is there supposed, conclude from what has 
been detailed above as follows: 

Given three calendars of Winchester of the second half of 
the eleventh century, one of which shews the feasts of the 

orientate us perfectly; this is a purely Irish festival and is included in that ancient storehouse of 
heortological oddities, the Martyrology of Ocngus the Culdee . The calendar of Galba A xvm 
seems to me to date from about the clays of Athelstan s childhood not of his regality. The 
entry of the Conception on 2 May ( Concipitur virgo Maria cognominc senis i. e. 6 non. Maii,) 
is derived from the same Irish martyrological tradition as the feast of the Saints of Europe . 
Oengus, who gives other commemoiations of the blessed Virgin not known elsewhere in Europe 
has one at 2 May and signalizes it as the great feast of Mary but says nothing of the 
Conception; and he has no feast of the Blessed Virgin in December. 

I venture to think that the truer interpretation of this Irish May feast of Mary , which dates 
at least from the eighth century, is rather of this kind: that we are here in presence of an early 
anticipation of the Ma> r month of Mary of later centuries produced (if I rightly enter into 
the spirit of Irish religion as displayed in the genuine records of the seventh and eighth centuries) 
on the soil then most fitted for it. Not indeed that I would suggest any actual and historical 
connection between this Irish May feast of Mary and the Month of Mary of later piety and 
other hinds. But given the like sort of tempers, and kind of religiousness, we may not be surprised 
at similar results. It is in vain that Marian feasts are accumulated in the official Calendar of the 
Universal Church on the fall of the year, September and October, or that to the late Pontiff 
Leo XIII it seemed well to consecrate every day of the latter month to public Marian devotion. 
Popular instinct runs its own way and by its ov, n will in such matters as this, in the seventeenth and 
eighteenth centuries as in the seventh and eighth, and fixes on the times which it is naturally 
prompted to observe. Though a traditional respect seems still to guide authority in keeping the 
great Pentecostal time which follows Easter free from accumulation of Marian feasts, popular 
instinct makes Mary s month to be now the month of May just as the Irish in the seventh or 
eighth century inaugurated that month of spring time with a great feast of Mary" unknown to 
the rest of the Western world. 

On a full review it seems to me that I should not be following the way to which facts seem 
to point were I to attribute the origination of the feast of the Conception of 8 December in the 
Winchester, Canterbury, and other English books of the eleventh century to Irish influence 
as exemplified on 2 May in the metrical martyrology of Athelstan s days; and that the facts lead 
us rather to attribute the origination in England of the feast of 8 December and that of 21 
November, neither of them found in the Irish documents, to Greek influences in Southern Italy. 

I am therefore unable, at least at present, to follow Fr. Thurston in his views on the subject 
under discussion; including the suggested Irish borrowing from Coptic sources, etc. 

The slight shifting of the feast from 9 to 8 December seems easily explicable by the date of 
feast of the Nativity, 8th September. 


Conception of the Blessed Virgin at 8 December and of the 
Oblation at 2 1 November, whilst the other two calendars do not, 
the presumption, in face of the ascertained facts, is that the former 
would date from before, the two latter from some time after, the 
Norman Conquest. 1 


The following is a table of Breton (and Cornish) saints as found 
in the three calendars: 

Arundel 155 Arundel 60 Vitellius E xvm 

19 Jan. Branwalator conf. 

2 June Petrock Petrock 

28 July Samson Samson 

15 Nov. Machlonus Machlonus 

Judoc may be a cult borrowed by Winchester not from Brittany 
but from Ponthieu, and its introduction into the Winchester 
calendars may belong to another part of their history. This is 
also the case with Samson whose name occurs in the so-called 
Metrical Martyrology of Bede, and the Metrical Martyrology, 
or calendar, of Galba A xvm. 

There remain the Bretons Branwalator and Machlonus (i. e. 
Machutus, St. Malo), and Petrock of Cornwall. To what period 
are we to assign such infusion of Breton and Cornish elements 
into the calendar of the church of Winchester? Is it pre-Con 
quest? Is it post-Conquest? Branwalator excites a more particular 

1 The reintroduction of the feast of the Conception at Winchester took place some time 
before the writing of the missal now at Havre, assigned byM. Delisle to about the year 1120, 
Both the feast of the Conception and that of the Oblation were revived at Canterbury seem 
ingly in the second half of the twelfth century. They are not given in the original script of 
the MS. Bodl. Add. C. 260 (as to which see list of MSS. below); but both are found in the 
calendar of the Eadwinc psalter at Trinity College, Cambridge, written before the martyrdom 
of St. Thomas in 1170. I say seemingly because it is not always possible to view the calendar 
of a psalter of that date as reliable evidence of practice; these entries may perhaps only 
mark the rising tide of individual piety that precedes formal and liturgical recognition. Of 
course the Oblatio of 21 Nov. in the Anglo-Saxon books is an early anticipation of the feast of 
the Presentation on that day which became common in the later Middle Ages (for which see 
F. G. Holwcck, Festi Marian;, Freiburg, Herder, 1892, pp. 267-269). 


curiosity. But this name at once suggests king Athelstan, the 
foundation of Middleton in Dorsetshire, and the relics he gave 
to that house: an arm and many bones of Saint Samson the 
c archbishop, the arm of St. Branwalader bishop , besides a relic 
of the Holy Cross and many other relics in five reliquaries. 
A11 these relics, bought with a great expenditure of treasure 
f from the holy Roman church, from Britain over sea, and from 
* many other places, the aforesaid king Athelstan gave to his 
monastery of Middleton etc. 1 But how did Athelstan get 
these things from Britain over the seas? Just here a local issue, 
the Barnstaple Holy Trinity Parish Magazine for July 1 907, comes 
opportunely to hand. It gives information which I do not know 
how to find elsewhere, as follows: 8 

About 350 years after their arrival [i. e. of the expulsed 
Britons in Brittany in the sixth century] it is noteworthy 
that a similar cause compelled many of these British exiles 
to take refuge in their ancestral home. In Merlet s 
edition of the Chronicle of Nantes (Paris 1896) we find 
the following entry: "At this time (that is when the 
Northmen were ravaging Brittany) Mathuedoi, Count 
of Poher, took flight to the English king Athelstan 
(Adelstan) with a great multitude of Britons, together 
with his son Alain afterwards called Twisted-beard 
(Barba-torta) to whom the same English king Athelstan 

1 Monasticoii n, pp. 349-350. It is a pity that an Exuviae Sacrae Anglicanae say up to 
I2OO has never been undertaken; but then a first requirement is a scholarship of the kind and 
measure that distingushed the work of the late Comte Paul Riant. Even a more modest under 
taking ^ Reliquiae Athehtanianae would be of unsuspected use for illustrating the history of 
England in the first half of the tenth century. We might then hope to be told how, for instance, 
the precious Cotton MS. Tiberius A u, the Gospel book given by Athelstan to Christ Church 
Canterbury, was a product of the school of Lobbes when that place was inhabited by some of the 
most interesting persons in Europe; or why Athelstan while calling himself anglorum basyleos 
should also designate himself curagulus totius bryttannie a point not cleared up in such 
voluminous discussions as those in the late Professor Freeman s Norman Conquest. 

1 The extract here given occurs in a series of articles (in the smaller print and delightful to 
find) entitled British Place Names in their Historical Bearing. By Edmund McClure, M. A. I 
am unable to cite the publication in which these articles appear under any other title than that 
given in the text; but at the last moment ee that an article on these inscriptions is to be found in 
the forthcoming October number of the English Historical Review. 


had been sponsor at the font, and whom on account of 
the association and friendship of this new birth, he held 
in great trust." This occurred in the year 931, six years 
before j3ithelstan gained his great victory at Brunanburh 
over the Danes and their allies. There is, in my opinion, 
an unexpected light thrown on this record by certain 
ancient inscribed stones preserved in the church of Saint 
Mary at Wareham (Dorset), where the exiles may have 
found a refuge. I have made careful copies of these 
fragmentary inscriptions, which are all seemingly of the 
tenth century, and put them together here for reference. 

Built into the wall of the north aisle are two incised 
slabs, the first reading CATGUG[-]C FILIUS 
GIDEO, and the second GONGDRIE. A pillar, 
of which the top is broken off, now in a side chapel, has 
the remains of two names, E KIEL F U P R I T I ; 
and, on a fragment of a column, IUDN[OI] TCI VI. 
There is also in the porch a fragment of a slab with the 
following inscription of a much earlier form: VISCV 
FILIVS VI .It is difficult to believe that a colony of 
native British Christians could have been living peaceably 
at Wareham at this period, a place which had in Alfred 
the Great s time (877) been a great stronghold of the 
Northmen. Coupling the date of the form of the letters 
in the inscriptions with the entry in the Nantes Chronicle, 
these records seem to point to Wareham as one of the 
refuges of the exiles from Brittany mentioned by the 

Mr. McClure gives in a note parallelisms drawn from the cartu 
lary of Redon and other sources to the names recorded in the 
Wareham inscriptions; and adds: It is a somewhat singular 

* coincidence that the Salisbury Cathedral Library has a Psalter 

* of the tenth century [the Salisbury MS. 150 often cited in this 

* tract] containing a Litany with numerous invocations of Breton 

* saints, and this may well have been brought by the exiles. I 

* gladly here go a little further forward on the line of enquiry thus 
suggested by Mr. McClure; 1 for this Breton immigration is proper 

1 For Athelstan s later interest in the efforts of these Bretons to recover their native land 
seethe further passage in the Nantes Chronicle, Bouquet vni. p. 270; and cf. Flodoard ibid. p. 190. 


to explain the Breton entries in the Winchester calendars now under 
discussion. These Breton saints do not occur in the Metrical 
Martyrology of Galba A xvm. But later Winchester documents 
witness to a veritable devotional furore in Bretonism. The 
Cotton MS. Galba Axiv, a Winchester prayer book of the tenth and 
eleventh centuries, of which a brief account is given in the Downside 
Review, vol. xxvi p. 58 seqq., affords us a glimpse of the devotion 
to Breton saints current at that time among ladies of the higher 
and educated classes from among which St. Mary s nunnery at 
Winchester must at that time have been recruited. In one of the 
litanies in this book, ff. 93 b -94 a , comes a group of invocations thus: 
* branwaladre, canidir (?), santfrit (?), siloc, triohoc (Plioc), tula, 
twioric, geroce, cherane - The MS. is much burnt and the names 
may be to some extent misread; but here it is enough to have 
called attention to their presence. In another litany of the same 
volume, f. 7y b , St. Machutus is invoked among the sainted bishops 
of Winchester. This was not accidental but premeditated; we 
can get a glimpse of the way in which Machutus came to be 
considered by Winchester people as one of their own prelates 
from the burnt Cotton MS. Otho A vm in which the life of 
St. Machutus bore (as appears from the old Catalogue) the title 
4 Vita S. Machuti episcopi Ventani . The very personal character 
of the cult rendered to him in Winchester is evidenced by a pretty 
little versified prayer of a nun contained in the Galba MS. already 
cited, and printed in the Downside Review (ubi supra). I have no 
doubt that with proper research more material of the same kind 
may easily be found. 

But what has been already said is sufficient for the present 
purpose; namely, to shew that the presence of the distinctly 
Breton element in the Winchester calendars of the eleventh 
century is probably due to Athelstan and that the Breton cults at 
Winchester date from his reign. 1 Any words on the case of 
St. Petrock and Athelstan s reduction of Cornwall are doubtless 
unnecessary here. 

1 Judoc is not found in the metrical martyrology of Galba A xvm, but the entry in the 
tenth century Salisbury MS. 150 at 9 January <sci Edoci conf. is doubtless intended for him as 
well as the Judoci conf. at 13 December; in the Sherborne calendar of the eleventh century 
(of which below) both entries are found and the feast of 9 January is marked with the f 


Reverting, then, to the discourse from which we started, we 
find on this second count also, the Breton and Cornish saints, 
the presumption is that the calendar in which such cults are 
more marked would date from before, the calendars in which 
they are less marked or absent, more probably from some time 
after, the Norman Conquest. 


We have considered two items of internal evidence in their 
bearing on the probable date of the three calendars. The item 
now to be considered bears on the question of place, and to which 
church, whether Winchester or Canterbury, each may respectively 

From the excerpt from Eadmer s tract on the relics of St. 
Audoen given by Gervase in his account of the fire at Canterbury 
cathedral in 1174 we learn that before the Conquest in the old 
cathedral of Anglo-Saxon times: 

(1) the head of St. Fursey was kept at the altar in the crypt, 
or Confession, under the high altar; 

(2) the head of St. Austroberta at the altar of the Blessed 


(3) the head of St. Swithun, given by St. Elphege, at the altar 
of the daily (? community) mass in front of the high altar; 

(4) the body of St. Wilfrid, given by St. Odo, at the high 


(5) Professor Willis (Architectural History of Canterbury Cathe 
dral pp. 4-5) has briefly noticed, from Eadmer s MS., how the 
relics of St. Audoen were said to have been deposited in Canterbury 
cathedral in the days of king Edgar and archbishop Odo. 

It is to be understood that in the tract on the relics of 
St. Audoen Eadmer does not profess to give a complete list of 
relics preserved in the cathedral before the Conquest, but only 
mentions such relics as occur to him as illustrative of his descrip- 

designating in this MS. feasts of higher grade. 

It is interesting to observe how the series of Breton invocations in the litany of the Galba 
MS. A xiv is (except Branwalator) different from the series in the Breton litany of the tenth 
century printed by Mabillon under the unfortunate title Veteres Litaniae Anglicanae , and 
miitakenly dated by him two or three centurie* earlier. 


tion of the pre-Norman church; moreover all that is in question 
here is the existence of a cult; its origin is not our concern, and 
still less the origin of the relics. 

In the Benedictional of the cathedral Harl. MS. 2892 already 
cited we find benedictions for the feasts of St. Blase (f. I39 b ), St. 
Austroberta (f. 140*), St. Salvius (f. 159*), St. Audoen (lyo"). 1 
We have already seen above (pp. 35-36) that the special cult of 
St. Salvius dates in Canterbury cathedral from two generations at 
least before the Conquest. As to St. Blase, Gervase (Twysden, 
Decem Scr. col. 1293) mentions an altar of St. Blase as existing in 
the cathedral built by Lanfranc; and from the later inventories 
we learn that the < body of St. Blase was kept in a shrine behind 
the high altar; his head and arm in a silver gilt head and arm 
in the treasury (Dart, Hist, of the Cathedral Ch. of Canterbury, 
Appendix p. xlii). As there is a benediction for the feast in the cited above it may be safely concluded that a relic 
cult of St. Blase existed in the cathedral before the Conquest 
quite independently of the wave of later devotion which spread 
throughout the churches of Western Europe and became generally 
fashionable in the twelfth century. 

Of the saints mentioned above, SS. Swithun, Wilfrid and 
Audoen are commonly found in the calendars of the eleventh 
century; and the occurrence of these names is not of significance 
for the present purpose. 

There remain four names: Fursey, Blase, Austroberta, Salvius. 
In the following table an asterisk (*) indicates presence, a dash ( ) 
absence. The following is the state of the case in our three 
calendars, to which for illustration is added the witness of the 
Canterbury Benedictional of the eleventh century, a Canterbury 
cathedral calendar certainly earlier than the martydom of St. 
Thomas and probably of some time between the years 1 150-1 170 

1 It is I think to be regretted that this MS. should not have been selected for publication by 
the Henry Bradshaw Society instead of the so-called Benedictional of Robert of Jumieges. It 
has the advantage, or disadvantage, of being practically unknown and unused, whilst the latter 
book has been known through French scholars for the pa-t two hundred years. Rut our Harlcian 
MS. preserves some of the rites of the most venerable church in England before Lanfranc s 
reformation and gives us some idea, in Its numcroui original formularies, of the tone of mind and 
piety of the old community of Canterbury cathedral. 


(MS. Bodl. Add. C. 260), and of the calendar of St. Augustine s 
already used. 

Canterbury documents Winchester documents 

anterior to the Conquest 

j^ ~AT_ 

Bosw. Ps. Harl. 2892 Vit.Exvm Arund. 60 
Jan. 1 6 Fursey 
Feb. 3 Blase 

" 10 Austroberta 
June 2 6 Salvius 

Arund. 155 Canterbury Cath. St. Augustine s 
(c. 1 150-1 170) (c. 1250-1270) 
Bodl. Add C 2 60. l 
Jan. 1 6 Fursey 
Feb. 3 Blase 

" 10 Austroberta 
June 26 Salvius 

From this table it seems possible to draw only one conclusion; 
namely that the calendar of Arundel MS. 155 dissociates itself 
from the Winchester, associates itself with the Canterbury 
cathedral, traditions and cults. 


In the Discourse imagined above, the argument decisive for the 
assignment to Winchester of the calendar in Arundel MS. 155 
is simple: this calendar shews five local feasts of Winchester and 
but two (Augustine and Elphege) of Canterbury; ergo. Such 
an argument would be plausible; will it bear examination? 

As the simplest way for coming to a conclusion on this 
question, let us divide the case into two parts and consider each 
on its own merits. We have then to enquire: 

1 Or the Eadwine Psalter of the same age. In MS. Bodl. the name of Fursey is entered in 
capital letters. This may be mere scribal caprice; or it may mark a temporary reyival of interest 
in the cult, through some little erent, or private gust, of which we are ignorant. 


I. Whether in the Anglo-Saxon church of the eleventh 
century specifically Winchester feasts were or were not freely 
adopted elsewhere; 1 

II. Whether there is reason to anticipate that a calendar for 
Canterbury cathedral drawn up under the direction of Lanfranc 
would contain few local Canterbury feasts rather than many. 

I. To satisfy ourselves under the first head it will be sufficient 
for the present purpose to give a list of the specifically Winchester 
feasts in Vitellius E xvm and see how many of these occur in 
three or four select calendars of Anglo-Saxon times. 

The list of such feasts in Vitellius E xvm is as follows: 

(i) Jan. 9 Translation of St. Judoc cf; (2) March 12 
St. Elphege bp; (3) June 15 St. Eadburga v; (4) July 2 
Deposition of St. Swithun bp; (5) July 7 St. Hedda bp; 
(6) July 8 St. Grimbald cf; (7) July 15 Translation of 
St. Swithun; (8) Aug. i St. Ethelwold bp; (9) Sept. 4 
Translation of SS. Birinus and Cuthbert; (10) Sept. 10 
Translation of St. Ethelwold; (n) Oct. 18 St. Justus m. 
(12) Oct. 30 Ordination of St. Swithun; (13) Nov. 4 
St. Birnstan bp; (14) Dec. 3 Deposition of St. Birinus; 
(15) Dec. 10 Octave of St. Birinus; (16) Dec. 13 
St. Judoc cf. 2 

In selecting calendars for comparison three points have been 
borne in mind; certainty as to their local origin, their geographical 
distribution, and their character as products of Anglo-Saxon tradition 
and not of the Norman, or earlier Lotharingian , reform. Those 
chosen are: (a) the calendar in the C.C. C.C. MS. 422 commonly 

1 The question whether other churches adopted the calendar of the church of Winchester 
in Anglo-Saxon times is quite a different matter: the answer to this question must (unless the 
St. Edmundsbury calendar in MS. Vat. Reg. 12 form an exception) be in the negative. 

- Nos 2 and 15 are not found in the (Newminster) calendar of Titus D xxvu. I exclude 
July 1 8 Eadburga (see p. 41 above); in Titus D xxvu this feast is entered as Translatio Scat 
Eadburgae virgj ; it may be of the Winchester nun, but I do not know; Oct. 23 St. Ethelfleda i> 
alio excluded as being of Romsey and not specifically of Winchester, 


called the c Red Book of Derby . This calendar can with practical 
certainty be assigned to Sherborne; l (b) the calendar of C. C. C. C. 
MS. 391 commonly called the Portiforium S. Oswald! , a breviary 
of the church of Worcester under St. Wulstan; (c) the calendar 

1 As this Sherborne calendar and the calendar of the Bosworth Psalter are the only ones 
extant which can be shewn to derive ultimately from the ancient Glastonbury calendar represented 
now only by G, some particulars are here given respecting it. The greater feasts in the calendar 
of C.C. C.C. MS. 422 are designated, not by a cross as in most others of the Anglo-Saxon period 
but by the letter f in red towards the right hand margin of the page. The colour has flaked 
off but the letters are still in every case discernible. Among the feasts so distinguished are these: 
Jan. 8 Sancti Wulfsini SCIREBURNENSIS episcopi [this is the only Anglo-Saxon calendar 
in which the name of Wulfsin is found; he occurs at this day in the Exeter martyrology of the 
eleventh century, which has further at 27 April this entry (taken from Henry Wharton s extracts 
at Lambeth): Translatio S.Wlfsini episcopi et confessoris cuius merita testatur numerositas mira- 
culorum divini bcneficii ; see also the late Fr. R. Stanton s Menology p. 1 1] ; Mar. 18 St. Edward k. 
and martyr, the entry is in capitals; Sept. 16 St. Edith, also in capitals. At Aug. 12 occurs (but not 
distinguished by the letter f ) Translatio sancti Ea.lwoldi anchoritae (i. e. the hermit of Cerne), a. 
commemoration again not found in any other Anglo-Saxon calendar. There is no mention by the 
original hand of St. Aldhelm; but, though hi name is found in the Salisbury MS. 150, and in B, 
his cult was insignificant in Anglo-Saxon days. It seem* then practically certain that we have 
here a calendar of Sherborne. 

This calendar is wholly rooted in precedents of Anglo-Saxon times and quite free from admix 
ture of foreign elements that might have come in under the so-called Lorrainer bishop Herman 
(1058-1078). The calendar in Cotton MS. Vitellius A xviii is a specimen of this new type, 
whether originating with Herman, or more probably his neighbour Giso of Wells (1061-1088). 

The calendar in the Red Book of Derby deserves an accurate and detailed examination 
for which this is not the place. It may however be said that it retains items of G that have 
disappeared in B; moreover in every case where it agrees with B as against G, it also is in agree 
ment with the Winchester calendar Vitellius E xviii; and in no case is the direct influence of 
B on Sh. demonstrable. Moreover Sherborne has some items which can be found only in other 
and the more ancient members of the western group of calendar!, the Salisbury MS. 150 and 
Cotton MS. Nero A n. 

Besides Judoc on Jan, 9 (see p. 5 6 n.i) and those mentioned above, the following items 
marked with f deserve notice: Cuthbert, Gregory, and Benedict in March; April 19 and 23 
Elphege and George; May 19 and 26 Dunstan and Augustine; and Nov. 23 Clement. SS. Swithun, 
Grimbald and Benedict, all in July, have not this distinguishing mark of grade although in all 
three cases capitals are used as if the scribe had here a Winchester calendar before him. Olave is 
entered as secondary at June 28 (for St. Olave at Exeter see p. 48 n. 2 above). At Oct. 21 is this 
entry: Hie ordinatus fuit Dunstanus archiepiscopus (the so-called Portiforium S. Oswald! has 
also at Oct. 21 Ordinatio Sci Dunstani archiepi , but this is an entry by a later hand). 

What gives particular interest to the Sherborne calendar is this: that Wulfiy or Wulfsin 


in MS. Bodl. Douce 296, of some monastery in the fen country. 

(a) The Sherborne calendar contains N os i, 3, 4, 6, 7, 8, 9, 
jo, 11, 14 and 1 6 of the list given above. 

(b) The Worcester calendar contains N" i, 3, 4, 7, 8, 9, 11, 
14 and 1 6. 

(c) The calendar of the monastery of the fen country contains 

N os 3, 4> 5> 6 > 7> 8 > I0 > TI T 4, and 16. 

In these circumstances the presence of five local Winchester 
feasts (N os 4, 7, 9, 14, 16) in the calendar of MS. Arundel 155 
is not of itself an argument that it is a calendar of the church of 
Winchester; especially as the calendar B of Canterbury cathedral 
of the early years seemingly ot the eleventh century shews already 
four local Winchester feasts (N os 3, 4, 6, 7). 

It is the free adoption by other churches of local Winchester 
feasts in the eleventh century which is the cause in the past of the 
assignment to Winchester of calendars which, when fully con 
sidered and examined in their various constituent elements, appear 
not only to be not calendars of Winchester but also to follow a 
different tradition and to rest on a different basis. So far as we 
may judge from the very few calendars of the Anglo-Saxon period 
that survive out of the great number that once existed, the spread 
of Winchester feasts seems to have begun in the later decades of 
the tenth century and to have been a consequence of that great 
awakening to a sense of national unity that marked king Edgar s 
days. G has no Winchester saint. The Salisbury MS. 150 has 
N os . i, 3, 4 (as a Translation ), 6 and 14 in the list; Nero A n, 
N os . 6, 9 (but at Sept. 2), 14 and 16. These two calendars thus 
rank themselves with B and shew the stage reached about the 
year 1000; the three calendars reviewed above shew the state of 
things some two generations later. The feast of the Ordination 
of St. Swithun (N. 12) is found (besides Vitellius E xvin) only 
in the calendar of the missal of Robert of Jumieges, and that of 

(who seems to have been bishop 992-1001) was abbat of Westminister in the obscure beginnings 
of that house; and those beginnings seem to have been connected with St. Dunstan who is reported 
to have been responsible for Wulfsy s appointment to the new foundation. We are dealing here 
with obscure memories and can reach them only through a haze of legend; but the Sherborne 
calendar of the Red Book of Derby seems proper to shew that the story as told is not so very 
far off from fact. 


Bodleian MS. Junius 99 commonly assigned to Worcester under 

St. Wulstan. 

II. There remains the question whether there is reason to 

anticipate in a calendar drawn up for the cathedral church of 

Canterbury under Lanfranc the presence of many or of few 

Canterbury saints. 

Fortunately we are in a position to know what we are to 

think in this matter; and on authority no less than that of 
Lanfranc himself in the Constitutions which he drew up expressly 

for observance by his own community of the Canterbury cathe 
dral monastery. 1 These Constitutions are also of interest as the 
first recorded, perhaps the first actual, attempt in England at 
drawing up a regular scheme of strictly graded feasts to each of 
which a value was assigned after the modern manner. Lanfranc s 
scheme of grading was as follows: principal feasts, five only in 
number (Christmas etc.); secondly about a score of feasts truly 
magnificent but still not of such consideration as the supreme five ; 
feasts of the third grade, sixteen in number and including the 
majority of the feasts of apostles. Then come feasts of twelve 
lessons , feasts of three lessons , and mere commemorations ; 
these inferior celebrations arc not specified by name; but they 
embraced in fact (as we can gather from the lists of feasts of the first 
three grades) the bulk of the feasts designated above as sacra- 
mentary feasts, with a few martyrological and foreign and 
some that were locally principal in other English churches 2 . 

In the enumeration of feasts thus prescribed by Lanfranc for 
celebration in his cathedral church of Canterbury we find the 
names of two only out of the many Canterbury saints whose 
cult had become traditional in the primatial church of the English 
people. These two are St. Augustine and St. Elphege. Of St. 
Dunstan, still after the martyrdom of St. Elphege the most 

1 By a mischance these were printed by the first editor under the title Decreta Lanfranci pro 
Ordine S. Benedict! (see Reyner s Apostolatus Benedictinorum, part iii, p. 211); and our antiquaries 
etc. thus started on a wrong track have generally persevered therein until now (see e.g. the 
Dictionary of National Biography under Lanfranc ), although in the Concilia Wilkins pointed to 
the real state of the case which is indeed made clear in Lanfranc i own preface. 

1 Lanfranc s list of feasts will be found in 10 before the Table. 


venerated perhaps of them all, 1 we find not a word. 

Viewed in the light of the facts the argument concluding to a 
Winchester origin from the presence in Arundel MS. 155 of five 
local Winchester and but two local Canterbury feasts is invalid. 


Other points of minor detail invite discussion; suchas the feasts 
of St. Audoen 2 and St. Bartholemew; the names of the saints 
entered in various MSS. by later hands but never admitted into 
the official calendar of Canterbury cathedral; or topics of more 
general concern, as, for instance, the difficulty and uncertainty 
attending the dating of MSS. of this period on paleographical 
grounds only to the neglect of internal evidence, which often, 
does not yield up its secrets without some perhaps disproportion 
ate expenditure of pains and use of what a master of modern 
historical criticism, the late Comte Riant, was wont to call a cote 
knowledge. But, I am anxious if possible to keep the main 
lines of enquiry clear. And, behind the multiplicity of tech 
nical, it might seem trivial, detail there lies a large and living 
question, the change in the tone and character of English piety 
induced by the Norman Conquest. 3 

1 The Benedictional Harl. MS. 2892 has for the feast of St. Elphcge (May 19) two bene 
dictions, for his translation (June 8) three; for St. Dunstan (May 19) four, beside* (a unique 
distinction) one for the Vigil. 

* But see note on 24 and 25 Aug. of Table. In Eadmer s inedited tract on the relics of St. 
Audoen, C. C. C. C. MS. 371 p. 440 seqq. is a passage that may be given here, as it has a bearing 
on some things already said in the course of the present discussion. He narrates how cum 
post decessum superius nominati patris Lanfranci quadam die in claustro ex more sederem 
occupatus libro quern scribendo inter manus habebam, venit ad me nominatissimus ille cantor 
Osbernus nomine, et sedens ita cepit dicere: "Tempore suo felicis memoriae pater Lanfrancus, 
sicut fraternitas tua bene novit, sua sanctione precepit ut scrinea et capsas istius ecclesiae 
perscrutaremur et quid reliquiarum in eis habetur investigaremus. Quod quidem ex parte 
fecimus"; but one shrine, seized by a holy fear, Osbern could not make up his mind to open. 
Come and let us examine it now . So said, so done. The formalities attending the verification, 
of interest to the ritualist, are described; the secretarii sacristy folk take also due part; 
what was found therein; among the rest two cartulae , on one of which was written reliquiae 
sancti Gregorii papae , on the other reliquiae sancti Audoeni confessoris . Osbern s fear, it 
will be observed, passes with the passing way of the terrible old man of happy memory . 

3 There is for instance a sharply cut distinction in regard to the feast of the Conception of 
the Blessed Virgin between the devotion of Anglo-Saxon times and the devotion as revived in the 


One matter of detail must however be dealt with. At p 24 
n. 2, mention is made of an erased entry in the calendar B at 17 
March, and it is there said the letters c ep were still distinguish 
able. Here is an instance how a good photographic reproduction 
is not infrequently more useful for working purposes than the 
original manuscript itself. Since that note was in print, with the 
application of a chemical reagent, and with some pains it was 
possible to two pairs of eyes to recover this: ( N. sci Eadwardi 
regis . But without the original MS., without chemical reagent, and 
without other pains than is implied in seeing what is easily to be seen 
in a good photograph, the erased entry appeared as ( F. Natale sci 
Eadwardi regis et (martyris) . This is the only entry in the 
calendar which prefixes the word Natale to the name of the saint, 
and combines the use (elsewhere wholly exceptional) of the Anglo- 
Saxon w r and the letter * d v/ith a stroke sharply curved to the 
left. l In the circumstances it seems hardly open to doubt this is an 
entry made later, although it is in the same sort of neat hand as the 
original script. The designation of the feast (at Canterbury) with 
the significant * F and its total erasure would thus have a bearing 
on the probable date of the calendar itself. It must be remembered 
that we know nothing precisely as to the time or the places in 
which the cult of St. Edward the king and martyr began: but we 
do know that such cult in the beginning may, perhaps must, have 
had a political cast and probably was a party note. We may in 
the circumstances fairly hazard the conjecture that the high grad 
ing of this feast and its total erasure in Canterbury point to a time 
when in regard to the murder of the son of Edgar, and other 
public matters also, party passions were high and divisions in the 

Anglo-Norman church of the twelfth century. In the earlier period it was pure piety without 
doctrinal after-thought; in the later the doctrinal element is present if not predominant so that 
the feast hai now become in fact if not in name the feast of the Immaculate Conception, even 
for Osbert de Clare and Eadmer (see the remarks of Fr. Slater, S.J., Eadmcri Tractatus de Concept- 
tone, pp. x-xix; and P. Aug. Noyon, S. J., ubi supra, p. 14 seqj.) P. Noyon (p. 24) also calls attention 
to the principe feeond de theologie mariale laid down by Nicholas of St. Albans, that chaque 
foii qu une presomption est en faveur de Marie il la fut tenir pour fondee tant qu elle n est pa* 
demontree fauue . 

1 For initances of the use of thete three formi see in the MS. the entry of St. Werburga at 
Feb. 3 and St. Ermenilda at 13 Feb. For the entry of the feait at March 17 (instead of 1 8) 
see footnote to the Tble at that date. 

body politic cut deep. It has been said above (p. 27) that the 
calendar was written between 988 and 1023; by the later date no 
difficulties would arise as to the celebration of the feast of St. 
Edward; and all this tends to make it probable the calendar B 
was written nearer the earlier date than the later. 

With further questions of detail thus put aside, we can sum 
marize and conclude on all that has been hitherto said. 

I. It was first shewn that the calendar of the Bosworth 
Psalter (B) lias for basis a Glastonbury calendar, not identical 
with but akin to that found in the Leofric Missal (G) of the 
second half of the tenth century; that both go back to a common 
original (p. 21); that B is a calendar of Canterbury (pp. 26-27); 
and not of St. Augustine s but of the cathedral (p. 34 seqq.). 

II. Next, it has been pointed out (p. 27) that B is not the 
basis of the later mediaeval (post-Conquest) calendar of that cathe 
dral; but as such basis a calendar of different origin and tradi 
tion has been substituted for it; which calendar has been identified 
with the traditional calendar of the church of Winchester in its 
post-Conquest form represented by the calendar in Arundel MS. 
60 (p. 30) and it was mentioned (p. 35) that such sort of Win 
chester calendar was also the basis of the late mediaeval calendar of 
St. Augustine s. 

III. It was then stated (p. 30) that a calendar contained in 
the Arundel MS. 155 is an example or copy (for of course a 
church like Canterbury possessed more than one copy of its 
current calendar) of such Winchester calendar as adopted in, 
and adapted to the use of, Canterbury cathedral presumably (as 
all indications go to shew) in Lanfranc s time (p. 31-32). It was 
further pointed out (pp. 29-30) how this very interesting MS. 
is, by additions made at later times and by various hands, a record 
of the steps by which the calendar as originally drawn up developed 
into the Canterbury cathedral calendar as found with proper 
designations of the gradings of feasts in MSS. from the thirteenth 
century to the fifteenth. 

IV. It has also been shown (p. 57 seqq.) how the calendar in 
Arundel MS. 155, in a particular which in enquiries of this kind 
is of primary value, namely local relic cults, bears on the face 
of it evidence which unmistakably associates it with the special 
relic cults of Canterbury cathedral, and marks it off in this point 


from the known calendars of all other churches. We therefore, 
quite apart from the considerations adduced in part I., are led by 
the mere facts relating a single item of detail, to the identification 
of the place to which this calendar would properly and exclu 
sively belong. 

V. But, after all, the substitution of a Winchester calendar at 
Canterbury, if a violent measure in itself, was only the radical appli 
cation of a process that in a tentative way and in a few exceptional 
cases had been going on during the whole course of the eleventh 
century, when church after church had already begun freely to 
adopt local Winchester feasts which, viewed in themselves, to 
those churches were not of concern or interest (p. 59 seqq.); and 
the presence of five specifically Winchester feasts in the calendar 
of Arundel MS. 155 is no objection to the identification of the 
latter as a Canterbury calendar. 

VI. Still less does the absence from Arundel 155 of the 
local Canterbury saints so numerous in B militate against the 
attribution of the former to Canterbury after the Norman 
Conquest. Indeed the state of things shewn in Arundel 155, 
viz: the reduction of Canterbury saints to two (St. Augustine 
and St. Elphege), exactly corresponds with Lanfranc s prescriptions 
for his cathedral church laid down in the Constitutions drawn up 
and promulgated by himself (pp. 31-32). 

VII. Two special items are dealt with as serving to show, by 
way of specimen, the sort of indications that may be looked for 
as differentiating calendars of the Anglo-Saxon and the early 
Norman periods respectively. One of these (certain feasts of the 
Blessed Virgin) concerns both Canterbury and Winchester(p. 43 
seqq.), the other (Breton cults) Winchester alone (p. 53 seqq.); 
and they evidence how the presence or absence of such feasts 
would induce us prima fade to assign the calendar Vitellius E 
xvin to a date before, those of Arundel MSS. 60 and 155 to 
a date after, the Conquest. 

It would be easy to extend and multiply the more general 
lines of enquiry opened up in both parts of this Consultatio or 
to reinforce this or that particular statement. But what has 
been said is, I trust, sufficient to show how 

(i) B is a calendar of Canterbury cathedral that was in use 

6 7 

before the Conquest, and that it goes back for its original on 

(2) the calendar of Arundel MS. 155 is a calendar of 
Canterbury cathedral after the Conquest, and goes back for its 
original on Winchester. 


It remains to give a conspectus in the brief space of a Table of the 
contents of the calendars of Canterbury cathedral from the eleventh 
century to the fifteenth; together with a Winchester calendar 
serving as a specimen of that on which the Canterbury calendar 
at its revision after the Conquest was based. This will enable the 
reader the better to follow and in some measure control what 
has been said in the preceding pages. That it is possible to give 
such a Table at all is due to the kindness of Mr. Sydney C. Cockerell 
who has communicated to me copies of N OH 4, 5, 6, 9 and n of the 
list given below; of all which 1 had no knowledge when the first 
part of this tract on the calendar of the Bosworth Psalter was 
written. Mr. Cockerell has increased my personal obligation by 
also submitting the proofs of that part to an effective revision for 
which I am most grateful. 

The following is a list of the MSS. from which the calendars 
comprised in the Table are drawn. 

(r) The Bosworth Psalter, now B. M. Addit. MS. 37,517; a 
Canterbury cathedral calendar the date of which lies between 
988 and 1023 (see p. 27, 65-66). 

(2) Arundel MS. 60; a Winchester calendar, after the Con 

All the calendars that follow are of Canterbury cathedral. 

(3) Arundel MS. 155; a calendar of the later years of the 
eleventh century; perhaps about the year 1080 (see p. 30 seqq., 
39, and note on 19 May in the Table). 

(4) The well-known Eadwine Psalter at Trinity College, Cam 
bridge; written before 1170. 

(5) Paris B. N. Nouv. acq. Lat. 1670; a Psalter assigned to 
about the year 1200. 

(6) Paris B. N. Lat. 770. The calendar does not contain the 
feast of the Translation of St. Thomas; and is assigned to about 


the year 1220. This interesting document is a genuine copy of 
a calendar of Canterbury cathedral, but with many foreign and 
especially Cluniac insertions. 

(7) Cotton MS. Tiberius B in; a calendar seemingly of about 

(8) Egerton MS. 2867 of about the same date; in the calendar 
at 19 October is entered the Dedication of St. Martin s Dover, a 
cell of Christ Church, Canterbury. 

(9) Canterbury Horae in the Nilrnberg Public Library; with 
Hours of St. Thomas of Canterbury after those of the B. V., and 
Hours of the Holy Trinity after those of the Holy Spirit; of the 
beginning of the century; the calendar is in a different hand. 

(10) B. M. Addit. MS. 6160. In this calendar the feast of 
St. Thomas of Hereford (canonized in 1320) is added in another 
hand; as well as an octave for the Ordination of St. Dunstan; 
seemingly of a date not long before 1320. 

(n) MS. Bodl. D 2. 2. The feast of St. Thomas and the 
attempted octave, mentioned under (10), are written in this calen 
dar by the original hand which is of the first half of the fourteenth 

(12) Lambeth MS. 558; a calendar of the fourteenth century. 

(13) B. M. Sloane MS. 3887; a calendar of the early part 
of the fifteenth century; the months of March, April, May and 
July are wanting. 1 

N os i, 2 and 3 have each a special column in the Table; the 

1 Besides the twelve above enumerated two other calendars of Canterbury cathedral have 
come to notice, the Bodl. MS. Add. C. 260 of the twelfth century, and a calendar in the Eton 
MS. 78 of the thirteenth. These are omitted from the Table that follows which therefore is 
incomplete and, as a piece of work, so far wanting in thoroughness. Of the calendar in the Eton 
MS. only the months of March, April, November and December remain; the litany contained in 
the volume is certainly a litany that could come only from Canterbury cathedral; the calendar- 
leaves give the names of Mellitus and Justus who had cult at St. Augustine s and not at the 
cathedral, and of St. Birinus who had cult at neither; but it appears that the entries in these leaves 
are in more than one hand. 

The interesting Bodleian MS. consists of a calendar only, which is complete, and at once 
hews itself as curiously irregular in its graphic features. Whilst some fifteen feasts of high grade, 
imong them the Epiphany, are entered in small letters in black, others, often for no obvioui 
reason, are written in black capitals, others in red capitals, others in small letters red. A few are 
in varied colours and large capitals, but here the reasons seem more clearly to appear. Beeide* all 


remaining ten calendars, referred to by their numbers, are included 
together in the fourth column; and the gradings of feasts are 
given in the fifth. Fixed commemorations (e. g. the Resurrection 
at 25 March, the First Pentecost at 15 May, etc.) and entries 
relating to the astronomical year are omitted as having no bearing 
on the present enquiry and merely encumbering the text. But 
the Table is so drawn up that the specifically church calendar of 
any manuscript included in it may be easily reconstructed the<-e- 
from. To save space the descriptions are abridged ( { m. for 
mar. , c cf. for conf. etc. etc.), and the regular designation Sci , 
* Scae , is omitted; but any characteristic or abnormal form is pre 
served as well as the orthography of the proper names; and for 
clearness a separate line is given to each different feast or name 
occurring in the thirteen calendars. When in the fourth column 
no name is given the numbers are to be understood as meaning 
that the calendars enumerated give the feast found in the third 
column, never the first or second. 1 

Only the entries in the original hand of the various calendars 
find notice in the Table; but all the names of saints are given, 
including those which are due only to scribal caprice (cf. p. 29 n. i) 
and never formed part of the official calendar of Canterbury 
cathedral. In footnotes at the end of each month are given: 
(a) a list of the Benedictions in Harl. MS. 2892, as illustrating 
the Canterbury cathedral calendar between the date of B and the 
Conquest; () the variations from the calendar of Arundel MS. 

this there is free admixture of later entries in various hands. A mere photographic reproduction 
however excellent cannot render the real features of the MS. But, besides that I wish in this tract 
to keep on the firmer ground of more commonplace discussion, I must leave it to others, by dis 
tinguishing original from non-original entries and assigning to these latter their respective measure 
of contemporaneousness or lateness, to reconstitute from the Bodleian MS. a calendar of 
Canterbury cathedral of the first half or middle of the twelfth century; a task in which a compa 
rison with the later entries in Arundel MS. 155 would be found useful. 

For the purposes of the present tract the calendar of the Eadwine psalter, though of slightly 
later date, fully suffices, and it is not subject to drawbacks- attaching to the Bodleian MS.; but I 
have endeavoured to notice below the items of this latter that seem interesting. 

1 Where the letter S or F is given in the calendar of the Bosworth Psalter before an entry 
with the names of two feasts, these have been bracketed in the print although I do not think there 
is at any time real cause for doubt of the feasts to which the distinguishing letter relates. 

60 of the Winchester missal of c. I I2O 1 as illustrating the history 
of the Winchester calendar in the half century after the Conquest; 
(t) the complete series of additions made by various hands to the 
calendar of Arundel MS. 155 (seep. 28 seqq.); and (d) the en 
tries made by later hands in N os 7 and 10; and the foreign and 
Cluniac entries in N 6. 

The gradings in the fifth column are by no means the least 
instructive part of the calendar. A complete set is found in one 
manuscript only, N 7, the Cotton MS. Tiberius B in. But it has 
suffered from the fire; even where the margin is burnt the 
gradings can, I think, be still discerned with practical certainty 
except in two or three cases. The other MSS. available for gra 
dings are N os 8, 10, n, 12 and 13. No one of them is quite 
complete; each is curiously and capriciously defective in a few 
particulars especially in the case of mere commemorations: but 
these deficiencies are commonly different in each different manu 
script, so that in practice there is no difficulty in following the 
variations from the thirteenth to the fifteenth century. The 
gradings of the original hand only of each manuscript are given in 
this column, and no notice is taken of later additions or corrections 
which would only produce confusion. Such corrections and addi- 
tionsare very numerous in N 3, and are also not uncommon in N 09 7 
and 10. But the corrections of grading in N os 3 and 7 appear in the 
first hand in the later MSS., with a few exceptions given in the 
footnote. As these exceptions in N 3 shew a heightening of 
the grade it is to be supposed that they are of a late date, and of 
the fifteenth century. 3 

1 See a notice of this MS. by M. Leopold Dclisle in Revue des Socictcs Savantes, 7* ser. 
tome vi p. 33 seqq. M. Ch. Fierville has printed in Recucil des Publications de la Socicte Ilavraht 
d Etudes diverse* (annees 1880-81) pp. 407-4.56 the prefaces in this missal with the title of the 
masses which have not a special preface. In M. Delisle s list St. Sexburga, 6 July, has by accident 
been omitted. 

1 Where the grading is given in the Notes to columns in and iv with the name of the feast 
it :s to be understood that the whole entry (feast and grading) is in one hand. One kind of alteration 
of grading by a later hand, found only in No. 10, must be noticed here. The twelve lessons on four 
teen feasts are reduced to eight, with a direction to sing of a secondary feast, or (much more 
commonly) of a current octave; and the same direction is given also for one feast in cappis , one in 
albis* and one of 3 R . This seems to shew that in the fifteenth century there was a change 
of practice in Canterbury cathedral and a levelling up to the ways of modern times. We here 


The abbreviations used to designate the gradings in column v, 
besides the ordinary twelve, eight, or three lessons and the com 
memoration, are : f in a. == in albis ; in a. a. = ; in albis altis ; { in 
a. s. = in albis simplicibus ; in c. = c in cappis ; in c. a. = in 
cappis altis ; c in c. s. = in cappis simplicibus ; cc. or ct. == 
cantic. ; cc. et 1. = cantic. et lect. In our MSS. 3 R is simply 
equivalent to the ordinary 3 lc. ; it is the form almost invariably 
used in N u 7 for feasts of three lessons, whilst its contemporary N 8 
favours the usual form 3 lc. ; the later MSS. usually have like 

N y sR - 

The following is Lan franc s grading of feasts above twelve 

lessons as prescribed in his Statutes, which give the observance 
appropriate to each class in great detail, down to the putting out 
on feasts of the first and second classes only of best towels to over 
lay the ordinary ones (super tersoria quotidiana sint exlensa) and to 
be used exclusively at washing before the two meals of the day 
(nisi tantummodo ad rcfectioncm primam et sero ad cccnam}. 

I. Quinque sunt praecipuae festivitates; id est, Natale Do 
mini (25 Dec.), Resurrectionis ejus, Pentecostes, Assumptio 
S. Genetricis Dei Mariae (15 Aug.), Festivitas loci. . . . 

II. Sunt aliae festivitates quae magnifice celebrantur, quamvis 
non aequaliter superioribus; sunt autem hae: Epiphania (6 Jan.), 
Purificatio S. Mariae (2 Feb.), festivitas S. Gregorii (12 Mar.), 
Annunciatio Christi (25 Mar.), Octava dies paschalis solemnitatis, 
festivitas S. Alfegi martyris (19 Apr.), Ascensio Christi, festivitas 
S. Augustini Anglorum archiepiscopi (26 May), Octava Pente 
costes dies, Nativitas S. Johannis Baptistac (24 June), Passio 
Apostolorum Petri et Pauli (29 June), Translatio S. Benedict! 
(n July), Nativitas S. Mariae (8 Sept.), festivitas S. Michaelis 

aisist at the promotion there of the hard rule of the Pie, reiulting so often from the multiplica 
tion of octaves on the one hand and on the other the disuse of the good old Roman simple plan 
of observing an octave by saying a prayer on the sole eighth day after the feast and that was all. 
The more modern plan had however been occupying the minds of Franco-German experts as 
early a the ninth century. Whether in these seventeen cases four lessons were said or any, and 
what singing was done whether by the antiphoni of Benedictus and Magnificat only, or other- 
wile for the secondary feasts or octaves, must be questions reserved for thote versed in the rubric! 
and current practice of the fifteenth century. In the tame way I muit leave it to others too to 
throw light on the nice questions involved in the distinctive use of certain vestures high or 
simple that are raised by these Canterbury calendars. 


(29 Sept.), festivitas Omnium Sanctorum (i Nov.), festivitas 
S. Andreae (30 Nov.), Dedicatio ecclesiae. . . . 

III. Sunt aliae tertlae classis festivitates, quae non tantopere 
celebrantur; hae autem sunt: festivitas S. Vincentii (22 Jan.), 
Conversio S. Pauli (25 Jan.), Philippi et Jacobi (i May), Inventio 
S. Crucis (3 May), Jacobi apostoli (25 July), S. Petri in Calendis 
Augusti (i Aug.), Laurentii martyris (10 Aug.), Octava dies 
Assumptions S. Mariae (22 Aug.), Bartholomaei apostoli, 1 Au- 

1 At the last moment, suppressing the few words intended to be said in note on 24 and 25 
August of the Table (see p. 64 note 2), I add in this place some particulars as to the feasts of 
St. Audoen and St. Bartholomew which may save time and trouble, or give a fair start, to some more 
curious enquirer. I confine my attention to the calendars and leave the arrangements of the 
mats-books to others. 

St. Audoen died on 24 Aug. The abbey of St. Ouen at Rouen kept even teemingly up to 
the date of its suppression, the feast of its patron on the 24th; but elsewhere in the diocese of 
Rouen the feast was kept on the 26th the 24th being assigned to St. Bartholomew and the 35th 
to St. Louii. 

The old and genuine date of St. Bartholomew was 25 Aug.; but he was entered by Usuard 
and Florus in the ninth century in their martyrologies at the 24th, which is now generally 
observed as his day; the Vatican Basilica (according to the Breviary of 1674) still, however 
keeps the feast of St. Bartholomew on the 25th. 

The calendar of the Athelstan Psalter Galba A xvm teems to be the earliest record of the 
4th in England. The introduction of the feast of St. Audoen further complicated matters. The 
itte of the case in the hundred years before the Conquest is this: 

(a) G and B, Nero A n and the calendar in the missal of Robert of Jumieges have not 
dmitted St. Audoen and have St Bartholomew at the 25th. 

(b) Winchester as represented by Titus D xxvn has St. Audoen at the *4th and St. Bar 
tholomew at the 25th. This seems also to have been the original reading of Vitellius E xvin- 
though it has suffered from both erasures and fire, what remains shews that this calendar originally 
had an entry at each of these two days. With the Titus MS. originally agreed Salisbury MS. 150 
the Sherborne calendar in the Red Book of Derby (if I rightly scan and divine the original entries 
of these two days), the so-called Worcester calendar in Bodl. MS. Junius 99, and the Douce MS. 296. 

(c) Both the Salisbury MS. 150 and the Sherborne calendar as corrected, the calendar in the 
Worcester Breviary C. C. C. C. MS. 391, and the calendar in Vitellius A xvni hare SS. Bartholo 
mew and Audoen on the 24th. 

The Arundel MS. 60 agrees with the group (b) in assigning Audoen to the 24th and Bar 
tholomew to the 25th. In Arundel MS. 155 there are erasures at these two days and a later hand 
has entered Bartholomew at the 24th and Audoen at the 25th, which is the arrangement found in 
the subsequent Canterbury cathedral calendars as shewn in the Table. 

What was the original arrangement in Arundel 155? The Benedictional Harl. MS. 2892 


gustini doctoris (28 Aug.), Decollatio S. Johannis Baptistae (29 
Aug.), Exaltatio S. Crucis (14 Sept.), Matthaei apostoli (21 Sept.), 
Simonis et Judae (28 Oct.), B. Martini (n Nov.), Thomae 
apostoli (2 1 Dec.), et si quae aliae festivitates ita celebrari insti- 
tuantur (a provision for the future, therefore). . . . 

Besides the foregoing Lanfranc mentions incidentally the 
great feasts of SS. Stephen, John Evangelist, the Innocents, and 
the Circumcision; but these are conceived of as part of the high 
octave of Christmas. 

docs not give the dates of the feasti but the following is the order of the benedictions at this point! 
Assumption, St. Audoen, St. Bartholomew, St. Augustine. From an anecdote given in his Life 
of St. Dunstan (written seemingly about 1089) it appears that at some time within Osbern t 
penonal recollection St. Bartholomew and St. Audoen were at Canterbury cathedral both feasted 
on the same day (whether the 24th or 25th is not stated), and on this day was also kept what we 
should now call the feast of relics of that church (Memorials of Sf. Dunstan pp. 136, 137). Eadmer 
telling the same story some twenty years later changes Osbern s when we had begun and we 
sang into the impersonal cantaretur but mentions only the concurrent feasts of St. Audoen and 
of relics assigning these expressly to the 24th, thus implying a change had been made since Os 
bern s early days and that St. Bartholomew was now feasted on another day, and this could be only 
the 25th. If on Lanfranc s settlement of the Canterbury calendar these two feasts were so fixed, 
this would explain the erasures in Arundel MS. 155 and at the same time confirm the agreement 
of Arundel 155 as originally written with Arundel 60. The entry of Audoen on the 24th with 
Bartholomew, as well as on the 25th, in the calendar of the Eadwine Psalter of before 1170 may 
be a chance survival of record of the arrangement that had been given up nearly a century earlier. 







2 Isidori ep. 

3 Genouefe v. 

5 Simeonis mon. 



D.N.JC. * 

Oct. Stephani 

Oct. Johannis ev. 
Oct. Innocentum 
Simeonis mon. 



Genouefae v. 


8 Lucianietjuliani 

9 F.Adriani abb. 


10 Pauli primi herem. 

12 Dep. Benedict! abb, 

13 S.Octavas Epiph. 

14 Felicis in Pincis 


1 6 c ( Marcelli pp. 


( Fursei prb. 


Transl. Judoci cf. 
Pauli primi herem. 

Oct. Epiphan. 
Hilarii ( mar. 
Felicis in Pincis 
Mauri abb. 
Marcelli pp. 

1 7 Antonii mon. Antoni mon. 

1 8 - Petri Cathedra 


( Prisce v. 


Prisce v. 

ie et Marthe 


Paul primi herem. 

Oct. Epiphan. 
Hilarii ep. 
Felicis in Pincis 
Mauri abb. 
Marcelli pp. 

Antonii mon. 

Priscae v. 

Marii et Marthae 




I 4-13 

Basilii 7 


Oct. Steph. 6-13 


II. 7, 12; in c. 8, 1 1, 14. 

iii R 7, 8, 10-12; xii Ic 13. 

in R 7, 8, 10, ii, 13. 

iii Ic 8, 10-13 (7 illegible.). 

Oct. Joh. ev. 6-13 

4 Oct. Inn. 6-13 

5 Simeonis mon. 5. 

Edwardi reg. 6-8, 10-13. com 10, n, 13 
Oct. Thome arep. 9, II. 

6 4-13. 

8 Luciani soc.que 9. 

9 Adriani abb. 4-8, 10-13. 

II. 7, 8, 10, 13; III. 12. 
xii Ic 7, 8, 10, 13. 



13 4, 6-13. 

4, 5> 7-I3- 1 

14 4, 5, 6-13. 

15 4-i3- 

1 6 4, 6-13. 

Fursei pr. 4, 6-8, 10-13, 

Sulpicii ep. 9. 

xii Ic 7, 8, 10-12; in a. 13. 
com 7, 10-13. 

?xii Ic 7, 8; 3 R 10, n, 13. 
xii Ic 7, 8, 10, u, 13. 
cc. & 1 7; com 12: cc. 10, 13. 

VII ]c n * P T O- T ? ^ T 1 
All 1L ^ /, O, 1U-1 j ^1 j 

quasi in a.). 

iii R 7, 8, 10-12; com 13. 
xiilc 10, 12, 13; quasi in a. II. 


Wulstani ep. 9-13. 

1 In N 6 Hilary i$ by mistake entered at I4th with Felix. 

* N 7, after the entry Fursei , has viii Ic a* well ai xii Ic; N 10 hai xii Ic with viii Ic* 
acded by another hand. 





2O S.Sebastiani et 
Fabiani m. 
2 I S.Agnetis v. 
22 S.Uincentii m. 


Fabiani et Sebasti 
an i. 

Agnetis v. 
Uincentii m. 

24 Babilli ep. et Babilli ep. et 3 p. 

3 puerorum 

25 S.ConversioPauliap. Conversio Pauli ap. 


Policarpi ep. 

Joh. Crisostomi ep. 

Tr. Aethelflaede v. 

Fabiani et Sebast. 

Agnetis v. 
Emerentianae et 


Praejecti m. 

28 S.Octavas Agnetis Oct. Agnetis v. Agnetis secundo 

29 Gilde sapientis 

30 Baltildis regin. 

Balthilde regin. 

COLUMN I. The Pre-Conquest Benedictional of Canterbury cathe 
dral Harl. MS. 2892 has (ft. I29 b -I32 b ) benedictions 
for SS. Sebastian and Fabian, Agnes, Vincent, Con 
version of St. Paul, and Octave of St. Agnes (but 
no benediction for St. Fursey). 

COLUMN II. The Winchester Missal at Havre assigned to c. 1 120 
is imperfect for i to 6 Jan; it omits the feasts 
printed in italics; and adds at 2fth Project! m. 




i Brigidae v. 

Brigide v. 

Brigide v. 



20 4-13. 

21 4-13. 

22 4-13. 

23 Em. (only) 4, 6-13. 

25 4-13- 

4, 6-8, 10-13. 

26 Policarpi ep. 6. 

27 Jo. Crisostomi 6. 

Julian! ep. 4, 9-13. 

28 4-13. _ 

Juliani ep. 5, 6, 8. 
30 Baltildis regin. 9. 


xii Ic 7, 8, 10-13. 

xii Ic 7, 8, 10-13. 
in a. 7, 8, 10-13. 

iii R 7, 8, 10, 12, 13. 

in a. 7, 8, 10, II, 13. 
com 7, 12. 

iii R 10-13. 

iii R 7, 8, 10-13. 

COLUMN III. Additions iu later hands: 9th Adriani abb.; i6th 

Fursei conf.; I9th Wlstani ep. 

COLUMNS IV. Later entries in N 7 I7th Antonii abb. quasi in alb. 
and V. Foreign entries in N 6: 2nd Odilonis abb.; I7th 

Speusippi, Eleusippi & Melasippi; 28th Johannis 

abb; 29th Oct. Vincentii. 




1 -1. 


iii R 7,8, i o, 1 1 ( c si ante Ixx ), 1 3. 






(JLaurentii arep. 

3 Waerburge v. 

5 S.Agathae v. 

10 ^ (Scolasticae v. 




1 1 



Agathe v. 
Uedasti et Amandi 

Scolastice v. 


Eulaliae v. 

Eormenhildae v. Eormenhilde v. 

(Ualentini Ualentini m. 


1 6 Julianae v. 

Juliane v. 



Blasii ep. et ra. 

Agathac v. 

Ued. et Amandi ep. 

Scolasticae v. 

Austroberte v. 

Eormenhilde v. 

Julianae v. 
Cath. Petri ap. 

20 DidimietGagi 

22 S.Cathedra Petri ap. Cath. Petri Ap. 

in Antiochia 

23 Mildburgae v. 

24 F. MATHIAE AP. Mathiani ap. * 



COL. I. Benedictions in Harl MS. 2892 (ff. i32 b , i39 b 142*) 
for Purification, SS. Blase, Agatha, Vedast and Amandus, 
Austroberta, Scholastica, Peter s Chair, and Matthias. 

COL. II. Missal of c. 1120 adds Vigil of Purification. 

COL. III. Later additions: I4th Scae. Vallantini mar. ; iyth Sci. 
Silvini ep.; 25th Sci. Ethelberti regis. 




2 $-13- 


II. 7, 8, 10, u, 13. 



1 1 

4- I 3 


4-8, 10-13. 

Sci Ethelgari arep. 13. 

in c. 7, 8, 10-13. (13 also: 

xii lc). 

xii lc 8, 10, 12, 13. 
iii R 7, 8, 10-13. 
cc. & 1 7, 10-12; cc. 13. 

xii lc 7, 8, 1 2 ; viii lc I o, 1 1 , 1 3. 




Valentin! 4-13. 

4, 5; .7-13- 
Cecilie 13. 


Milburge 4, 6. 




iii R 7, 8, 10, n, 13. 
iii R 7, 8, 10, 13. 

xii lc 7, 8, 10, 13; quasi in a. 
n, 13; Credo Prefac. 12. 

in a. 7, a; in c. 10, 1 1, 13; 

Credo Prefac. 12. 
c Ethelberti reg. 12. in c. 12. 

{ Sci Ethelberti r. & cf. 13. xii lc 13. 
Theophili 8. 
Oswaldi r. & m. 13. 

COL. IV. Foreign entry In N 6: ist Ignatii. 




[Wanting in N_ 13] 





Donati ep. 

Donati ep. 3 

2 Dep. Ceadde ep. 

Ceaddan ep. 


Albini ep. 

4 DCCC mar. 


7 Perpetuae et Feli- 

Perp. et F elicit. 


9 Passio XL mar. 


12 F.DEP. B. GREGO- 



14 Leonis pp. 

Perp. et Felicit. 


Longini qui latus 
Christi perforavit 

1 6 Eugenie v. 

1 7 Pa f rid ep. 

1 8 EADUUARDI R. et M. 




Cuthberti ep. 

25 F.AdnuntiatioS. ADNUNT. S. MAR. >& ANNUNT. S. MAR. 

Mariae v. 

26 [Obitus Ailmae- 

ri mon.] * 

1 On tbc ijth. In later hand (see p. 65 above) and erased, it at I7th (xvi kal.) the entry F. 
Natale Sci Eadwardi Regis et (mar) . The proper feait day of St. Edward m. is the 1 8th which djr 
in B is occupied with the entry (as in G) Primus dies leculi. Sol in (ariete) . At the date number 
xri ii a reference mark and in the inner margin (as appears from the photograph) are traces of 
ome now erased characters. 

* On the z6tb. In a later hand. 

J On the \st. Partly erased and altered by a later hand to David . 






Albini ep. 9. 




6 Juliani 9. 

7 4~ 12 - com 7; 3 R 10-12. 

10 Agapite 5. 
12 4-12. 

II 7; in c. 8, 10, 1 1 ; in c. a. 12. 

15 Longini m. 7, 8. 

1 6 Eugenie v. 5. 


1 8 5, 9, 12. 

1 9 Eaduuardi r. & m. 4. 

20 4-12. 

21 4-12. 
25 4-12. 


Ill 12. 

xii Ic. 7, 10-12. 

II 7, 12; in c. 8, 10, n. 

III 7, 8, 10 [in xla. II 10 
alia manu\\ II n. 



29 Ordinatio Grego- Ordin. Greg. pp. 


30 Domnini 

COL. I. Benedictions in HarL MS. 2892 (ff. I42 b 146*) for SS. 

Gregory, Edward m. , Cuthbert, Benedict, Annunciation. 
COL. II. Missal of c. 1120 omits feasts italicized. 
COL. III. Later additions: ist Donati altered to David ep. & con. 

xii Ic. ; 2nd Sci Cedde ep. xii lc.; I4th Officium in con- 

ventu pro patribus et matribus. 


[ Wanting in N. 13] 



Quintini m. 

2 Uualerici cf. 

3 Theodosiae v. 

4 Ambrosii Ambrosii ep. 
8 Successi et Solu- 


ii Leonispp. 

F.GUTHLACI ANA- Guthlaci cf. 


13 Eufemiae v. 

i4S.Tiburtii Ualeria- Tiburtii et Ualeri- Tyburtii et Ualeri. 

ni et Maximi ani ani 

1 6 Felicis. Luciani 

Ambrosii ep. 

Leonis pp. 

Euphemiae v. 

19 Gagi et Rufi 

Aelfeachi arep. Aelfheahi arep. 




2 9 


Stephani 9. 

COLL. IV Later entries in N 7: ist S. David ep. et confess, xii 
and V. lc.; 2nd S. Sedde ep. et confess, xii lc.; loth Obitus 
domini Johannis Bokynham ep. Lincoln.; i4th Anniver- 
sarius patrum et matrum nostrarum; i8th Sci Edwardi 
regis etmr. II. In N 10: i8th Passio S. Edwardi. In 
N 12: 4th Ob. Willi. Sellyng. 





Marie Egyptiace 5. 

Marie Egyptiace 7-9. 
4 4, 6-1 2. l xii lc 7, 8; in c. 10-12. 

ii 6, 9. 

13 5> 9- 

14 4-12. 111 R 7, 8, 10, 12. 


1 8 Vigilia 12. * in hac vigilia dicitur Gla. in 

exc. 12. 


4-12 III, 7, 8, 10, 12; principal i. 

1 On the Afth. In N 5 Ambrose it seemingly in mistike entered at 3rd. 





20 Marcelli. Petri 


Leonis ep. 
.Georgii m. 

Georgii m. 

24 S 

.Melliti arep. An- 




[Marcieuuangl.] 1 Marci ev. 
[Letania maior] 1 Letania Maiora 

German! 1 
Uitalis m. 

Uitalis m. 

Georgii m. 

Marci ev. 
Laetania maior 

Vitalis m. 
Erkenwoldi cp. 

COL. I. Benedictions in Earl MS. 2892 (ff. 147* 148*) for 

SS. Elphege and Mark evang. 
COL. II. Missal of c. 1120 omits feasts italicized; adds 

COL. III. Later additions: 2ist Anselmi archiep. in albis; 23rd a 

late grading { in capp. found in no other MS. 

1 On the 2$th and zjth. These two entries at the 25th are in a different hand, or in the 
tame hand at another time; after the entry of Germanui at the 27th there is an erasure. 


[Planting in TV! 13] 



i Natal, ap. Philippi AP. PHIL. ET JA- AP. PHIL. ET JA- 
et Jacobi l GOBI GOBI 

1 On the lit. To this entry was doubtles* prefixed S. now to me illegible. 






21 Anselmiarep.5,7,8,11,12. in a. 7, 8, ii, i2. 3 


23 4 ~ I2< "I R 7> 8; xii Ic 10, 12; quasi 

in a. IT. 

Wulfridi arch. 9. 

2 5 j:" 12 xii Ic 7, 8, 12; in c. 10 n. 

6, 7 ii. 

26 Cleti 9. 


28 4-7,9-12. iiiR?, 10, n;xiilc 12. 

29 Lrermani 9. 


Quintini 9. 

COLL. IV */<?r w/rrw in 7V 7: 9 th Obitus Edwardi quarti A.D. 

and V. 1483; 2 7 th Sithe virginis (at this day also an entry as 
to consecration of David bp. of St. Asaph and Milo bp 
of Llandaff). / N 10: i8th canitur de S. Elphego 
m Ic. (i.e. a vigil); 2ist Anselmi archiep. Cant. De 
rehquns ecclesie in alb. Foreign entry in N 6: 2^rd 
Felicis Fortunati et Achillei. 

2 On thezi t t.-ln NO 4 St. An.elm ha, a mere obit: Ob. pie memoric Anselmua arch. ; in 
NO* 5 and 6 the entry i, : Anselmi arch. ; in N<>s 7 an d 8 the feait is certainly liturgical, with 
the grading in albis ; for NO 10 see note on coll. iv and v. 






; n c. 10, ii. 





3 (Inuentio s. crucis 
F.-j Euentii Theodoli 
( et Alexandri 


6 S. Johannis ante 
port, latinam 


8 Uictoris m. 


10 S. Gordiani et Epi- 

12 S. Nerei Achillei et 

Dedic. eccl. S. 

Uictoris Quarti et 

404 mar. 
Eugeniae v. 
(Marci ev. 
{ EtscaeAelfgife 

Athanasn ep. 
Inu. s. crucis 
Alex. Euent. et 

Athanasii ep. 
Inu. s. crucis 
Alex. Eu. et 

Johannis ap. a. p. 1. Joh. ap. a. p. 1. 

Gordiani et Epim. 
Ner. Ach. et Pancr. 

Gordiani atq. Epim. 
Ner. Ach. et Pancr. 



( Sce Aelfgyfe regine 



(Potentiane v. 

Potentianae v. 5 


1 On the 22</.In later hand <Sci ^Ethelbcrhti mr . 

, On the I9 ^._l n Ar. 155 after St. Potentiana comes: < Et Sci DUNSTANI EPI . The 
insertion of Dunstan in the second place after Potentiana in a calendar of the Cathedral must at once 
arrest attention; and on examination this entry shew, quite exceptional graphic feature* as com- 
pared with the ordinary work of the scribe, the use of capitals whilst capitals are not used for 
Augustine or Elphege, and the use of a cddille as sign of abbreviation over epi f instead of a straight 
stroke. The exceptional history of this feast at Canterbury cathedral (see pp. 32-33, 63-64, above) 
,eems to explain these exceptional features; I consider, then, that the entry of Dun.tan formed 
no part of the calendar of Arundel MS. 155 a, it first left the hands of the scribe; and I am there- 
fore disposed to assign this calendar to the last years of Lanfranc. On the a.sumption that the 





3 4-12. in a. 7, 8, 10. 

4, 6-8, 10-12. viii Ic 7, n; com 10 [ viiilc , 

alia manu\ 

4 Quiriaci 5. 

Dedic. Eccl. Christ! 4. 

6 4-12. iii R 7; xii Ic 10; quasi in a. n. 

7 Johis. de Beverlaco 9. 

9 Transl. Nicolai arch. 9. 

10 4-12. iii R 7, 8, 10-12. 

12 5-12. xii Ic 7, 10-12. 


1 6 Eugeniae 5. 

de sco Dunstano n. iii R n. 

19 Dunstani arep. 4-12. Ill 7, 8, 10-12. 

6, 8. 
22 Helene 9. 

entry of Dunstan belonged to the scribe s firit concept, the date of the calendar would be tome- 
what later. Of the precise circumstances, steps, date, of the decline or eclipse of St. Dunstan s 
cult in Canterbury cathedral we know nothing. Nor it it likely that after its revival these would 
be recorded. Osbern and Eadmer have indeed much to say as to Lanfranc s supernatural relations 
with his holy predecesior; but these later narratives cannot do away with the formal testimony of 
Lanfranc s own Constitutions than which nothing can be more positive and authentic. It ii to 
be remembered that in those dtys the jus liturgieum resided in the individual bishop; and Anselm 
by his mere fiat could restore to honour the liturgical cult of Dunstan which Lanfranc, as hia 
Constitutions shew, had ignored if not suppressed. 





25 Urbani pp. 
Aldhelmi ep. 


28 German! ep. 
Felicis pp. 
Petronellae v. 

3 1 

Urbani pp. 

AcusTiNi AREP. 

Petronelle v. 

Urbani pp. 

Augustini arep. 
Germani ep. 
Petronellae v. 

COL. I. Benedictions in Harl. MS. 2892 (ff. I49 >J 154^) for SS. 

Philip and James, St. James apostle brother of the Lord , 

St. Philip apostle, Finding of Holy Cross, Vigil of St. 

Dunstan, St. Dunstan, and St. Augustine. 
COL. II. Missal of c. 1120 omits italicized feasts; and adds 3rd 

Juvenalis, (2Oth) Ethelbert k. and mart. 
COL. III. Later additions: 4th Dedicatio aecclesiae xpi. Cantuariae; 

9th Translacio sci Andr. ap.; I2th Obiit bone memorie 




1 S. Nicomedis m. Nicomedis m. Nicomedis m. 

2 S. Marcellini et Petri Marcellini et P etri Marcellini et Petri 

3 Herasmi m. 

4 Petroci cf. 

5 Bonifatii ep. Bonefacii m. 

6 Amanti ep. et Luci 
8 Medardi ep. 


Bonifacii ep. 
Medardi ep. 





25 4-8, 10-12. com 7, 10, 12. 

Oct. S. Dunstani 6-8, i i-i 2. in a. 7, 8, 10, u. 

26 4-12. Ill (?) 7; II 8, 10-12. 

28 4-12. iii R 7, 8, 10-12. 

30 Felicis pp. 6. 

3 1 5> 6 > 9- 

Theobaldus q (i.e. probably cocus ; the margin is 
cut); 1 9th etSci Dunstani ep. (see note 2 page 8 8); 22nd 
Obiit pie memorie Ricardus Ambianensis episcopus; 
25th Octave Sci Dunstani. 

COLL. IV Later entries in N" 10: 1 8th de sancto Dunstano 3 Ic. (i.e. 

and V. a vigil). Foreign entries in N 6: ist Andeoli; 5th Juvi- 
nianilectoris; i ith Maioli abb.; I4th VictorisetCorone; 
2oth Austregisili ep. 





1 6, 9. 

Oct Augustini 6-8, 10-13. xii Ic 7, 8, 10, 12, 13. 

2 4> 6-13. com 7, 8, 13. 
Odonis arep. 4-8, 10-13. U 7; in c. 8, 10-13. 


Ordinat. Thome 13. 


5 9 (B. soc. que.) 


8 6 and 9 (M. & Gildardi). 

Transl. Elphegi 4-8, 10-13. H 7, 8, 10-13." 
*Sci W. Ebor. ar. 13. 



9 S.Primi et Feliciani Primi et Feliciani Primi et Feliciani 

10 Ded. eccl. S. Marias 

1 1 Barnabae ap. Barnabe ap. Barnabae ap. 

12 S.BasilidisCiriniNa- Bas. Cir. Nab. et Bas. Cyr. Nab. et 

boris et Nazari Naz. Naz. 

14 Basilii ep. 

158. Eadburge v. Eadburge v. 

Uiti et Modesti 

1 6 Cirici et Julitte 

17 Botulfi abb. 

1 8 5. Marci et Marcel- Marci et Marcelli- Marci et Marcelli- 

liani ani ani 

19 5. Geruasi et Protasii Geruasi et Protasii Geru. et Prothasii 


21 Leothfredi cf. 

22 F.Albani m. Albani m. Albani m. 

23 5. Aetheldrythe v. Aetheldrithe v. Aetheldrythae v. 

V(igilia) VIGIL i A Vigilia 

26 - f Johannis et Pauli Johannis et Pauli Johannis et Pauli 

^{Salui m. Saluiep. 

28 Leonis pp. Leonis pp. Leonis pp. 






9 4-9, 11-13. com 7, 11-13. 

Transl. Edmundi arep. 10- xii Ic 10; ct 1 1; iii R 12. 



Vigilia 13. 

11 4-13. xii Ic 7, 8; inc. 10, II, 13 (13 

also: xii Ic). 

12 4-13. com 7, 12; iii Ic 8, 10, II. 

14 Basilii ep. et cf. 6, 9. 
Viti et Modesti 12. 


4-1 1, 13. com. 7,?u, 13. 

Oct. Elphegi 7, 8. 10-13. xii Ic. 7, 11-13; iii R 10. 

1 6 Ciriciet Julitte4, 6-9, 11-13. (?) i" k- 75 *" k 8; ctt I! 5 

com. 12, 13. 
Transl. Ricardi 10, 12, 13. xii Ic. 10, 12, 13. 

17 Botulfi abb. 5-8, 13. 

1 8 4-13. iii Ic. 7, 8, 10-13. 

19 4-13. iiilc. 7, 8, 10-13. 

20 Transl. Edwardi r. et m. 9, III 12. 

12, 13. 

Siburgis v. 13. 

22 4-13. xii Ic 7, 8, 10-12. 

23 4-13- iii lc 7) I0 > " 
7, 8, 10, 12, 13. 

24 4-13. II 7, 8, 10-13. 

26 4,6-13. cc. et 1 7; iii R 12. 

4-8, 10-13. x " k 7> I2 J ^ na - 8> io, II, 13. 

28 4-13- Jii R 7> 8 > JO-H- 

7, 8, 10-13. 










Pauli ap. 

I. Benedictions in Hart. MS. 2892 (ff. 156* i6i b ) for 
Transl. of St. Elphege, SS. Barnabas, Etheldreda, Vigil 
and Nativity of St. John Bapt., Salvius bp. & m., Vigil 
and feast of SS. Peter and Paul, alia benedictio de S. 
Petro ap., Commemoration of St. Paul. 

COL. II. Missal of c. 1120 omits italicized feasts; adds I5th 
Vitus m. 

COL. III. Later additions: ist Oct. Sci Augustini xii lc.; 2nd Odo- 
nis arep. (see p. 29 n. i; the Bodl. MS. Add. C. 260 
has at 2 June in small letters, black: Odonis archiepi. 
Marcellini et Petri. ); 8th Translatio Sci Aelfegi arep.; 


[Wanting in N n 13] 



2 (Trocessi et Mar- Process! et Mar- Suuythuni ep. 
S. \ tiniani tiniani 

(Swithuni Swithuni ep. ^ Processi et Marti- 


3 Transl.Thomaeap. 

4 Transl. Martini 

Ordinal, et Tr. Mart. Ord. et Tr. Mart. 




29 4-13- 

3 4-i3- 


II 7, 8, 10, n, 13 ; Gla. Credo 
Pref. 12. 

in a. 7, 8, 10, n, 13. 

9th Translacio S. Edmundi; I5th Oct. Sci Aelfegi; 
1 6th Cirici et Julite matris eius, Translacio S. Ricardi 
ep. xii lc.; 2Oth Translacio Sci Eduuardi prin.; 25th 
Sci. Amphibali sociorumque eius; 3Oth Sci Marcialis 
ep. et conf. 

COLL. IV Later entries in N 7 : 5th Obit of Leonellus Power, 1445; 

and V. 1 6th Tanslacio Sci Ricardi ep. xii lc. ; 2oth Translacio Sci 
Edwardi regis et mart. Foreign entries in N 6 : i st Reve- 
riani et Pauli; I2th *et Celsi added to Basilides etc.; 
2oth Florentie v.; 22nd Consortie v. (in a later hand 
cent. xni). 





1 Oct. Joh. Bapt. 4, 6-12. 

2 5-8, 10-12. 

4, 6-8, 10-12. 

xii lc 7, 8, 10, 1 1. 
viii lc 7; xii lc 8, 1 

in a. n. 
com 10, 12. 

8, 10, 12; quasi 

4 Tr. Martini 5, 9. 

8. xii lc 8. 

Ord. Martini 4, 6, 7, 10-12. xii lc 7, 10, 1 1 ; iii R 12. 

5 Hyrenei soc. que eius 7, 8, iii R 7, 8, 10, 12; com n. 

10, n, 12. 
Oct. Apost. ii. 





6 (Oct. Apostolor. 


(Sexburge v. 

7 Marine 
Aethelburge v. 

8 Grimboldi mon. 

icS.vii fratrum 
llS.Transl. Benedict! 


13 ~ (Mildrythe v. 


*5 c (Deusdedit arep. 
"(Trans. Swithuni 

1 6 Berhtini abb. 

17 Kynelmi m. 

Oct. Apost. 
Sexburge v. 

Haedde ep. 
Grimbaldi cf. *i< 

vii fratrum 
Tr. Bened. abb. 

Tr. Swithuni 

Kenelmi m. 
Eadburge v. 

* [Oct. Apost] 
Sexburge v. 

vii fratrum 

Mildrythe v. 

Tr. Swythuni ep. 
Kenelmi m. 

20 Margarete 

21 S.Praxedis v. 

22 Uuandregisili abb. 

Wulfmari cf. 
Margarete v. 
Praxedis v. 

Wulmari cf. 
Margaretae v. 
Praxedis v. 

23 S.Uincentii et Apol- Apollonaris m. 

Apollonaris ep et m. 

1 At the 22nJ Ar. 60 has in a ilightly later hand: Marit Magd. Wandregisle cf. 

* At the (>th an eraiure In Ar. 155; the first letter was seemingly O; doubtless of Oct. Apoit* 





6 Oct. Apost. 4, 6-10, 12. xii Ic 7, 10, n; Gla. Credo 

Pref. iii R 12. 

5, 6, 8. iii Ic 8. 

De S. Thoma 1 1. iii R de hysteria 1 1. 


Transl. Thome 7-12. 
8 Grimbaldi 4-8, 10-12. 
Transl. Witburge 9. 

10 4-12. 

11 4-12. 

13 4-8, 10-12. 

Ill 7, 8, 10-12. 
iii R 7; com 10. 

iii Ic 7, 12. 

II 7, 8; in c. 10, 1 1; III 12. 

xii Ic 7, 10, 12; quasi in a. 1 1 
in a. 7, 1 1, 12; xii Ic 8, 10. 

14 Oct. Thome 7, 8 10-12. 

15 Deusdedit arep. 7. 



Divisio apostolorum 12. 
17 9. 

Oct. Benedicti 6-8, 10-12. xii Ic. 7, 8, 10-12. 

Arnulphi ep. et m. 9. 

20 4, 6-8, n, 12. 

21 4-12. 
Wandregisili abb. 8. 

22 Marie Magd. 4-12. in a. 7, 8, 10, 12. 
Wandregisili cf. 4, 6, 7, com 7, 12. 

II, 12. 

23 4,6-12. xii Ic. 7; iii R 10-12. 

com. 7, 12. 

xiilc. 7, 8, 10, 12; quasi in a. u. 

iii Ic. 7, 10, n. 

1 From the i8th to the end of the month N 8 by miitake enter* the fetsts one day too 
early (e.g. Oct. S. Bened. at i/th). 








{Cristophori m. 
Scptem dormien 

298. Felicis Simplicii 
Faustini et Bea- 

30 S. Abdonis et Sennis 

31 German! cf. 

Cristine v. 

Christophori m. 
vii dormientium 

Samsonis ep. 
Pantaleonis m. 
Pel. S. Faust. B. 

Abdon et Sennen 

Christophori m. 
vii dormientium 

Pantaleonis m. 

Samsonis ep. 

Fel. S. Faust, et B. 

Abdon et Sennes 
Germani ep. 

COL. I. 

Benedictions in Hart. MS. 2892 (ff. 162* 165^ for 
St. Swithun, Oct. of SS. Peter and Paul, Translation of 
St. Benedict, SS. Mildred and James ap. 

COL. II. Missal of c. 1120 is defective from lyth to 22nd July; 
omits feasts italicized; adds ist Vigil of St. Swithun, 
3 1 st Germanus cf. 

COL. III. Later additions: ist Octave Sci Johannis; 3rd Translatio 
Sci Thome ap.; 5th Sci Yrenci sociorumque eius, Octave 
Apostolorum xii lc.; 7th Translacio Sci Thome mar.; 
8th Sci Grimbaldi conf; I3th Silee apostoli; i-j-th Oct. 
Sci Thome; i8th Oct. Sci Benedict! (a later hand adds 
the grading in alb. found in no other MS.); 22nd 
Mariae Magdalenae, Wandregisili abb; 24th Scae Chri 
stine v. et mar.; 3 ist Sci Neoti abb. 




i Passio Machabe- 

Ad uinc. S. Petri Ad uinc. S. Petri 



24 Cristine v. et m. 4-12. 
Vigilia 8, 10-12. 

25 4-12. 

et Cucufatis 4, 6-9, I2. 1 
27 5-12. 

28 4-12. 


29 4, 6-12. 


Ic iii. 7, 10, n. 

in a. 7, 8; in c. 10-12. 

com. 7, 12. 

iii Ic. 8, 12; com. 10. 

iii Ic. 7, 8, 10-12. 
iii Ic. 7, 8, 10-12. 

30 4-12. iii Ic. 7, 8, 10-12. 

31 4-12. iii Ic. 7, 8, 10-12. 
Neoti abb. 4, 5, 7, 8, 10-12. com. 7. 

COLL. IV Later entries in N J 7 : 1 6th Translatio S. Osmundi ep. 

and V. et conf., com. ; 2 ist an entry as to the battle of Shrews 
bury; 23rd Obitus dompni J. Sarysbury; 26th Anne 
matris Marie. In N 10: at 5th < iii R is altered to 
( com. hie canitur de a , at 6th 12 Ic. of Oct. Apost. is 
altered to canitur de S. Thoma (=a Vigil. Thus, on 
the institution of a vigil for the Translation of St. Thomas, 
Oct. Apost. was transferred to the 5th and Irenaeus re 
duced to a commemoration); 22nd Wandregisili abb.; 
25th Cristofori et Cucufatis com. Foreign entries in 
N u 6: 2 ist Victoris soc. que; 28th Nazarii et Celsi. 

1 At the 2$th in II by a later hand: Anne in cappis aids . 





in a. 7, 8, 10-13. 





Petri ad 1 [uinc] Machabeorum Machabeorum 

Athelwoldi ep. 

2 S. Stephani ep. Stephani pp. Stephani pp. 

38. Inuentio corporis Inu. Steph. protom. Inu.corporisSteph, 

Stephani protom. protom. 

5 S.Osuualdi r. et m. Oswald! r. et m. Osuualdi r. et m. 

6 S. Syxti ep. Felicissi- Fel. Sixti et Agap. Syxti Fel. et Agap. 

mi et Agapiti 

7 Donati ep. 

8 S. Cyriaci m. Ciriaci m. 


Donati ep. et m. 
Cyriaci m. 




1 1 S. Tiburtii m. 

13 S. Yppoliti m. 

14 c (Eusebii prb. 



178. Octauas Laurentii 
1 8 S. Agapiti m. 


2O Ualentini 

22 S.Timothei discipuli 


Tiburtii m. 
Ypoliti m. 
Eusebii cf. 



Oct. Laurentii 

Agapiti m. 
Magni m. 


Tyburtii m. 
Yppoliti m. 
Eusebii prb. 

Oct. Laur. leuitae 
Agapiti m. 
Magni m. 

Tim. et Simphoriani Timoth. et Symph. 


24 S. { Sci Patricii seni- 

Audoeni cf. 

1 On tht ist. A piece of vellum hns been pasted over the remainder of this entry. 



7, 8, 11-13. 

2 4, 6-13. 

3 4-i3- 

Nichod[emi] Gam[alielis] 
et Ab[ibon] 7. 

5 4-9> "-13- 

6 4, 6-13. 

7 4-13- 

8 4-13. 

9 7i 8, ii, 12, I3. 1 
Romani m. 9. 

10 4-13. 

11 4-12. 

13 4-I3- 

14 4, 6-9, ii-i2. 

7> I2 > I3- 1 
J 5 4-13- 

17 4, 6-13. 

18 4-13. 

J 9 4-i3- 


22 4-8, 10-13. 

Oct. Mariae 4, 6-13. 

23 Vigilia 7, 8, n-13. 1 
Timothei 9. 


com 7, 1 1-13. 

iiilc 7, 8, 10, ii, 13. 
xii Ic 7, 8, 10, 12, 13; quasi in 
a. ii. 

xii Ic 7, 8, 1 1-13. 
iii Ic 7, 8, 10-13. 

iii Ic 7, 8, 10-13. 
iii Ic 7, 8, 10-13. 

in a. 7, 8, 10-12; in a. s. 13. 

iii Ic 7, 8, 10-12. 
iii Ic 7, 8, 10-13. 
com 7, 8, n, 13. 
* iii Ic iii R , 7. 
Ill 7, 8, 10-13. 

com 7, 10, n, 13; iii Ic 8, 1 2. 
com 8, 10-13; iii ^ c 8. 
com 7. 10-13; iii k 8- 

com 7, 12. 

in. a 7, 10; in a. a. 1 1, 13. 

Audoeni 4. 

1 For the vigils of the gth I4th and zjrd in N 10 sec the note on Column IV. 








28 S. Hermetis m. 

Rufi m. 
Hermetis m. 3 
Agustini magni 

Sabinae v. 
Fel. et Adaucti 

1 [Bartholomei ap.] 

2 [Audoeni arep.] 
Rufi m. 

Augustini magni 

Hermetis m. 

29 (DECOLLATIO JOH. DECOLAT. JOH. BAP. Decoll. Job. Bapt. 
F.| BAPT. 

(Sabine Sabine v. 

30 S. Felicis et Adaucti Fel. et Adaucti 

31 S. Aidani ep. 

Pauli ep. 

COL. I. Benedictions in Hart. MS. 2892 (ff. i65 b iy2 b ) for 
St. Peter s Chains, Ben. eodem die natale sanctorum 
Machabeorum et sancti Aethelwoldi episcopi (it hence 
appears that the feast of St. Ethelwold had been adopted 
before the Conquest at Canterbury cathedral, or at least 
some commemoration of this Winchester saint was made 
at Mass and doubtless at office), Invention of St. Stephen, 
Vigil of St. Laurence, Laurence, Vigil of Assumption, 
Assumption, Audoen, Bartholomew, Augustine, Be 
heading of St. John Baptist. 

COL. II. Missal of c. 1120 omits italicized feasts. 

1 On thf 2,$th. The entry of Bartholomew in B is partially erased. 

* On tht z<\.th and lt,th. These two names in Ar. 155 are on erasure*, the initial Sci of the 
original scribe remaining in both entries. The case has been dealt with in some detail p. 73 n. I 
supra. In calendar 4 Audoeni is found, as shewn in Column IV, at both the Z4th and 25th. 

3 On the -i-jth. This is a displacement in Ar. 60; the 28th is the feast day of St. Hermes and 
80 appears in the missal of c. 1120 as well as in the two earlier Winchester calendars (Vitellius 
and Titu). 





4-13. II 7; in c. 8, 10-13. 

2 5 

4-8, 10-13. II 7; in c. 8, 10-12; in c. a. 13. 

26 Sci Bregwini arep. 13. 

27 4-13. iii R 7, 10, 12, 13. 

28 4-13. II 7; in c. 8, 10, 12, 13; in 

C. S. II. 

4, 6-8, 10-13. com 7, n. 

29 4-13. in a. 7, 8, 10-12; in a. s. 13. 

6-8, 12. com 7. 

3 4- T 3- iii lc 7) 8, 10-13. 

COL. III. Later additions: 2nd Translatio Sci Albani mr.; 2oth 
Bernard! abbatis Clareuallensis; 22d Oct. S. Mariae 
in alb. 

COLL. IV Later entries in N 10: ist Machabeorum com.; 9th vig. 

and V. canitur ad mandatum; I4th vig. canitur de Sea Maria 
cum miserere; 23rd vigilia canitur ad mandatum (these 
are the Vigils of St. Laurence, Assumption, and St. 
Bartholomew). Foreign entries in N6: istEusebii; 6th 
Transfiguratio Domini; 8th Largi et Smaragdi; nth 
Taurini; i3th Oct. Transfiguration is, Radegundis re- 
ginae; 2Oth Philiberti abb.; 25th Genesii et Genesii 
Aredii; 27th Cesarii ep. 





i Prisci m. Prisci m. Prisci m. 



4 Marcellini ep. 

Transl. Birini et Tr. Cuthberhti ct 
Cuthberhti ep. Byrini ep. 

5 Berhtini cf. Berhtini abb. Bertini abb. 


(Adrian! m. 

9 S.Gorgonii m. Gorgoni m. Gorgonii m. 

10 Transl. Athelwoldi 


1 1 S.Proti et Jacinthi Proti et Jacincti Proti et Jacincti m. 

14 /Exaltatio Sanctae Exalt. S. Crucis Exalt. S. Crucis 
~ Crucis 

I Cornelii et Cipri- Cornell Cipriani Corneli et Cypriani 
\ ani 

15 S. Nicomedis m. Nicomedis m. Nicomedis m. 

l6S.Lucie x et Gemini- Eufemie Euphemie 


Lucie et Geminiani Luce et Geminiani 

!7 Landbcrhti m. Landberhtiep.etm. 

i9S.Theodori arep. 


1 On the iftth. The i of Lucic is interlined in B. 




i 4, 5> 7> 8 > io-i3 
Egidii 4-13. 


j. com 7,1 0,12; cant, et lectio* 1 1. 

xii Ic 7,8,10,12; quasi in a. n; 
xii Ic. q. i. a. 13. 

2 Antonini 9. 

3 Ordinatio Gregorii 4-13. II 7,8,i2;inc. 10,1 ijinc.a. 13. 


Tr. Cuthberti 9. 

5 4-13- 
8 4-13. 

xii Ic 7, 8, 10-13. 
II 7, 8, 10, 12. 

Adriani m. 4, 6-8, 10-13. com 7> 



com 7, 10,13; co.iii R 12. 

Oct. Gregorii 6-8, 10-13. xii Ic 7, 8, 10-13. 
1 1 4-13- com 7. 10, 13. 

13 Transl. Augustini 4-8, 10 xii Ic 7, 8, 11-13. 


14 4-13. in a. 7, 8, 10, 13; viii Ic 12; 

xii Ic 13. 
viii Ic 7; com (?) 12; cc 13. 

4, 6-8, 10-13. 

15 4, 5> 7> 8 > 10-13. 

Oct. Mariae 6-8, 10-13. 

16 4-8, 10-13. 

com 7, 11-13. 

xii Ic 7, 10, n, 13. 

iii R 7, 8, 10-13. 


17 4-13. iii R 7, 8, 10-13. 

19 Theodori arep. 4-8, 10-13. x " k 7> 8 > IO > II > I 3; "i 

20 7, 8, n, 12. l 

1 On the 2vth. For this vigil in N 10 ice the note on Col. IV. 






2 1 F. MATHEI ap. et ev. MATHEI AP. ET EV. *fr MATHEI AP. ET ev. 

22 S. Mauricii cum sociis 
suis vi milibus. 
DC. Ixvi 


24 S. Conceptio Johan- 

nis Bapt. 

25 S. Sci Ceolfrithiabb. 

in Glaestonia 


27 S. Cosme et Damiani 


30 /Hieronimi prb. 

Mauricii c. soc. Mauricii c. s. suis 

Tech v. 

Cone. Joh. Bapt. Cone. Joh. Bapt. 

Firmini m. 

1 Scor. Cipriani et set. 

Justine v. 
Cosme et Damiani Cosmae et Damiani 


ANG. |< 

Hieronimi prb. 

Hieronimi prb. 

j Honorii arep. 
V Anglorum 

COL. I. Benedictions in Harl. MS. 2892 (ft. iy3 b I79 a ) for 
Vigil and feast of Nativ. of B. V., Exaltation of Holy 
Cross, Vigil and feast of St. Matthew, St. Michael 
archangel, and St. Jerome. 

COL. II. Missal of c. 1120 omits saints italicized; and adds yth 
Vigil of Nativity of B. V. and 8th St. Adrian. 

COL. III. Later additions: ist Egidii conf.; 3rd Ordinatio Sci 
Gregorii pape; 8th Adriani mr.; 9th Sci Audomari ep. 



I Remedii 
1 06 





21 4- J 3- in a. 7, 8,; in c. 10, u, 13; 

Gla. Cr. Pref. 12. 

22 4-*3- xii Ic 7 (?), 8, 10, 12, 13; quasi 

in a. ii. 

23 Tecle v. 9. 

24 5. 

Firmini ep. 9. 

26 Cipriane et Justine 9. 

2 7 4-I3- xii Ic 7, 8, 10-13. 

2 9 4-13- 117,8,10-13 (later hand III 1 3). 

3 4-!3- xii Ic 7, 8, 10, 12; in c.s. n; 

in c. xii Ic 13. 
Honorii arep. 7. 

Teruannensis; loth Oct. S. Gregorii; i3th Translatio 

Sci Augustini; i5th Oct. S. Mariae; i9th Theodori 

archiep.; 25th Sci Firmini Ambianensis ep. et martiris. 

COLL. IV Later entries in N 10: 7th canitur de S. Maria (=a 

and V. vigil) ; 2oth canitur ad mandatum(= for vigil). Foreign 

entries in N" 6: 4thMarcellim.; 7thEvurtiiep.; 9thDoro- 

thei; i6th Valerii, Nichomedis; 24th Andochii Tyrsi 

etFelicis; 28thExuperi ep. etc.; 3oth Victoris et Ursi. 









German! Remigii 

Remigii Ved.Germ. 

2 Eleutherii Quirilli 

Leodegari m. Leodegarii ep ct m. 

3 Uictoris 



7 S. Marci pp. Marci pp. Marci pp. 

8 Iwigii cf. 

9 S.Dionisii Rustici et Dionis. Rust, et El. Dionisii ep. Rust. 

Eleutherii prb. et Eleutherii 

10 Paulini hrofensis Paulini ep. 

1 2 Uuilfrithi ep. Uuilfriai ep. 


i4S.Calesti pp. Kalesti pp. Calisti pp. 


17 Nothelmi arep. 

Aethcldrithe v. 

1 8 S. Lucae ev. Luce ev. Lucae ev. 

Justi m. 





Germ. Rem. Ved. 6. 

Germ. Remig. 4, 5, 7-9. iii R 7. 

Remig. Germ. 10-13. ill R 10, n, 13. 


4, 6-13. iii R 7,8,10; cant u; com 12. 

Thome Heref. ep. 11-13. x ^ k I2 > : 3- 


4 Francisci cf. 9, 

6 Fidis v. et m. 4-13. iii R 7, 8; viii Ic n; com 12. 
Transl. Hugonis ep. 10-13. xii Ic 10, 12; quasi in a. 1 1. 

7 4, 6-8, 10, 12, 13. cc 7; cc et Ic 10, 12. 
Marci et Marcelli 9. 

Osithe v. 4-8, 10-13. x ii k 7> ^ ; viii Ic 10, 1 1. 

9 4-13- xiilc7, 8, 10, 12,13; quasiina. 

1 1. 

10 Paulini ep. 4-8, 10-13. xii Ic 7, 8, 10-13. 

11 Nicasii soc.que 4, 6-13. iii R 7, 8, 10-13. 

12 Wilfridi ep. 4-13. II 7; inc. 8,10,1 1,13; inc. a. 12. 

13 Transl. Edwardi reg. 10-13. ^ IO - T 3- 

14 4-13- iii R 7> 8 > J -I3 

15 Wulfranni 9. 

1 6 Michaelis archang. 4. 

1 8 4-13. xii Ic 7, 8, 10; in c. s. n; in 

c. 12; in c. xii Ic 13. 

19 Dedic. Eccl. S. Martini de 
Dovorc 8. 






2 Rumwaldi cf. 

Cesarii m. 

Eustachii cum soc. Eustachii soc. quc 


Rumwaldi cf. 

Byrnstani ep. 

4 Perpetuae v. 


8 S.iiii Coronatorum Quattuor Coron. 

9S.Theodori m. Theodori m. 

10 S. Justi arep. Anglo- 



(Menne m. MENNE M. 

13 S- Bricii ep. Bricii ep. 

1 5 Secundi 

Mahloni cf. 

1 6 Augustini 

Quinque Corona 
Theodori m. 

Mennae m. 
Bricii ep. 



I 4-13- 


II 7, 8; III 10-13. 

2 4-8, 10-13. 

Commem. fidelium 10. 
Commem. animarum 9, 13. 


Vulganii cf. 4-8, 10-13. 

iii R 7, 8, 10-13. 

xii Ic 7, 8, 10, 12; quasi, in a. 
1 1 ; xii Ic quasi in a. 13. 

6 Leonardi 4-8, 10-13. 
8 (Quatuor) 4-13. 

9 4-13- 




4, 6-8, 10-13. 
4-8, 10-13. 

Macuti ep. 9. 

xii Ic 7, 10, 12; quasi in a. n; 

xii Ic. quasi in a. 13. 
iii R 7, 8, 10-13. 

iii R 7, 8, 10-13. 

117; inc. 8,11,13; xii Ic I o, 12. 

com 7, 1 1, 12. 

xii Ic 7,8,10,12,13; viii Ic II. 

Ordinatio Elphegi 4-8, in a. 7, 10-13. 

Aeluriciarep.etcf. 6 1 ,7,8,i2. com 7. 

1 Ontheibtb. In N 6 the entry is ^Elfrici anchor. It is probable that the writer of the calendar 
here made some confusion between the archbishop and /Elfric the hermit of Haselbur/ Bryan in 
Dorsetshire who in the second half of the twelfth century seems to have enjoyed a more than 
local repute. He died about half a century before the calendar was written. But there can be 
no doubt that the archbishop, not the anchorite, ii intended to be designated at this day whatever 
be the mistake of the scribe. 




1 8 Romani m. et Ba- 
rali pueri 



21 Gelasii pp. 


Aniani ep. 

Oct. Martini 

Eadmundi reg. et m. Eadmundi reg. 

et m. 

22 S. Ceciliae v. Cecilie v. 


24 S. Crisogoni m. Crisogoni m. 

Ceciliae v. 
Felicitatis v. 
Chrisogoni m. 

26 SciS 1 

29 Saturnini m. Saturnini m. 




Saturnini m. 

COL. I. Benedictions in Hart. MS. 2892 (ff. 183* i88 a ) for All 
Saints, St. Martin, de Presentatione sancte Marie , 
SS. Cecily, Clement, Vigil and feast of St. Andrew. 

COL. II. The Missal of c. 1120 omits italicized feasts; and adds 
ist Caesarius, 23rd Felicitas m. 

COL. III. Later additions: 3rd Sci Wlganii conf. ; 6th Leonard! 
conf.; 1 6th Ordinatio Sci Aelfegi archiep.; iyth Ed- 
mundi archiep. in cappis; i8th Octave Sci Martini: 

I 0n the zbth There is apparently no erasure here in B. In G the entry at this day is: Sci 
Saturnini Petri et Amatoris*. 





17 Aniani ep. 6. 

Eadmundi arep. 10-13. in c. 10-13. 


Oct. Martini 6-8, 10-13. 

19 Ronani ep. 4-8, 10-13. 

20 4-7, 1 9-13. 






Oblatio S. Marie 4, 6-8, 1 1 

4-8, IO-I3. 

4-9, 11-13. 
4, 6-8, 13. 


Katerine v. et m. 4-13. 

26 Lini 9, 13. 

7, 8, 10-13. 

xii Ic 7, 8, 10-13. 

xii Ic 7,8,10,12; quasi in a. n, 

xii Ic 7, 10-13. 

in c. 1 1, 12; { in c. iii R 13; 

(7, 10 illegible) 
xii Ic 7, 8, 10-13. 
xii Ic 7,8,12; quasi in a. 1 1,13. 
com 7. 

iii R 7, 10-13. 
xiilc 7, 8, 10, I2;quasiina, n; 

xii Ic al. 13. 

iii R 7, ii, 13. 

II 7, 8, 11-13; III 10. 

1 9th Ronani ep. et conf.; 2ist Oblacio See Marie; 

Katerinae virg. (and in a yet later hand in capp. ) 

COLL. IV Later entry in N 7: 25th a later grading in capp. is 

and V. given for St. Catherine, found elsewhere only in a late 

addition to N 3. Foreign entries in N 6: Lantini ab., 

Cesarii Benigni Valentini et Hylarii ep.; 7th Austre- 

monii ep. et cf.; 8th Oct. Omnium SS.; i6th Eucherii 

ep.; 1 7th Gregorii cf.; I9th Odilonis ab.; 26th Petri 

ep. et m.; 27th Vitalis et Agricolae. 

1 On the 2Q(A. In N 8 there it a displacement of the entrici of the zoth to the 25th; Edmund 
k. tnd m. ii omitted and the featts of the 2it to the 2jth arc entered at the 2Oth to the 24th. 


[1-19 Dec. wanting in N 10] 






Candidae v. 

Claudii Felicis 

5 Delfini Trofimi 

Crisanti et Darie v. 

Dep. Birini ep. 
Benedicti abb. 


7 S. Oct. Andreae ap. Oct. Andree 



138. Luciae v. 

Oct. Birini 

Damasi pp. 
Lucie v. 
Judoci cf. 

14 Spiridionis ep. 


1 6 Uictoris et Uicto- 


Maximi prb. 

20 Vigilia 


23 Syxti et Apollona- 




Byrini ep. 
Transl. Bened. abb. 

Oct. Andreae ap. 

Damasi pp. 
Luciae v. 








Crisanti et Dariae 6. 

Regressio S. Thomae n. in a. a. n. 
2 Regressio S. Thomae de e- in c. a. 12; in c. 13, 
xilio 12, 13. 

4 6. 


6 Nicolai ep. 4-9, 11-13. m a - 7> 8, 12; in a.s. II, 13, 

7 4, 6-9, 11-13. . xiilc 7> 8 >. I2 - 

8 Conceptio S. Marie 4, 7, 9, in c. 1 1 ; * in c. a. iii R 13. 


Eulaliae 9. 

ii 4, 5, 7-9, 11-13. com 7, 12; iii R ii 13. 

13 4-9, 11-13. xiilc 7, 8, n, 12. 

4, 7, 8, n, 12. com 7, ii, 12. 

Eadburge 4, 7, 8, 11-13. com 7, 11-13. 


Barbare v. 5-9, 11-13. 

20 7, 8, 10-13. 

21 4-13. 


24 7, 8, 10-13. 

com 7, 13; iii R 12. 
II 7; in c. 10, n, 13. 




25(F.) JNATiviTAsDNi. NATIV. D. N. J. C.liB NATIV. DNI. 
(Anastasiae 1 





29 <S 3 
31 S. Siluestri pp. Siluestri pp. 

COL. I. Benedictions in Harl MS. 2892 (ff. i89 a 190^ I26 a 
1 29 a ) for St. Birinus. (see what is said as to St. Ethelwold 
at i Aug. above), Conception of B. V. ,Lucy, Thomas ap., 
Stephen, John ap. et ev., Innocents, Silvester. A later 
hand has added in the margin at f. I29 a : Benedictio 
de sanctoThoma [that is, the archbp.] sumatur de sancto 
Aelfego que est post Annuntiationem Dominicam. 

COL. II. Missal of c. 1120 is imperfect for 24th to 28th; omits 
italicized feasts; adds 8th Conceptio sanctae Mariae , 
3ist Silvester. Before the mass of c Dep. S. Byrini is 

1 On the 25^.- Poisibly in another hand. 

1 On the 2jth, The feast of St. John has been erased in B; the letter A with which the 
entry began alone remains with (as at 25th) a trace of the feast designation F . 
3 On the joe/;. In Ar. 155 thi S is followed by an eraiure. 





25 4, 6-13. Ill 7, 8, 10-13. 
Anastasic 6-8. com 8. 

26 4,6-13. II 7,i2;inc. 8,io;inc.a. 1 1,13. 

27 4, 6-13. II 7, 8, 10-13. 

28 4,6-13. II 7, 12;inc.8,io;inc.s. 11,13. 

29 Thome arep. ct m. 5-13. Ill 8, 10-13. 

31 Silvestri pp. 4, 6-12. xii Ic 7, 8, 10-13. 

the direction of a mass ii Kal. no. Sept. Translatio 
sancti Byrini episcopi ; an evident blunder. The 
masses of the 2oth to the 28th are now missing. 

COL. III. Later additions: 2nd Regressio Sci Thome martiris in 
alb.; 6th Nicholai ep. et cf.; 8th Concepcio See Marie 
in cappis; I3th Edburgis v. ; i4th Sci Folquini ep. 
Tervannensis; i6th See Barbare virg. et mr.; 29th 
Passio Gloriosi Martyris; 3ist Sci Silvestri ep. et con- 

COLL. IV Later entries in N 6: 2nd Regressio Sci Thome. In capp. 

and V. alt. The same grading is given by a later hand in Bodl. 
MS. Add. C. 260. Foreign entries in N J 6: 9th Siri 
ep.; loth Eulalie et Valerie; I3th Austroberte (for 
Autberti ); 3ist Saviniani et Potentiani. 

In regard to the foregoing Table (which gives only a practical 
print not an edition) it is to be remembered that the value of 
calendars as evidence of practice varies greatly, and sometimes 
depends on the idiosyncrasies of the particular scribe. This may 
appear clearly enough on a scrutiny of the Table. The scribe of 
N 5 for instance, writing it would seem about the year 1200 has 
preferences for saints dear to (then) modern devotion but passes 
over many a name of ancient martyr venerable no doubt but now 
forgotten, whose only claim to retention in the calendar is an 

to J . / 

unbroken tradition. 

Thus this scribe omits feasts on 2, 16,26 June, 6,23,29 July, 
the actual liturgical commemoration of which in the church of 
Canterbury in his day is not open to doubt. The omission then 
in this calendar of St. Nicasius at 1 1 October or of the Oblation 
of St. Mary on 21 November would not of itself be argument or 
evidence that these feasts were not then kept in that church. Or 
again, N 9 shews as many as thirty foreign entries intruded into the 
genuine calendar; although several of these are found in the 
calendar of the Bosworth Psalter (B) they have nothing to do with 
that ancient tradition; more than half are found in the Sarum 
calendar and perhaps are borrowed from thence; but, as the feast 
of St. Francis may indicate, the choice of such insertions is due 
rather to the private fancy of the copyist and any name may 
actually be drawn by him from any quarter. 

N 4, the calendar of the Eadwine Psalter, shews the same 
kind of omissions and insertions. The absence of the feasts of 
the Purification (2 Feb.) SS. Nereus, Achilleus etc. (12 May), 
Swithun (2 July) and the Machabees (i Aug.), is due, there seems 
no room for doubt, to mere careless omission. On the other 
hand the feasts enumerated p. 30 n. i above are, with one or two 
exceptions absent from this calendar as well as from the Bodleian 
MS. Add C. 260. This shews that at Canterbury as at Winchester 
the calendar of the cathedral was revised and expurgated in the 
first half of the twelfth century, by way of omission of elements 
venerable no doubt but now no longer the vogue; such as that group 
of ancient hermits that was still so conspicuous a feature in B. 
But Canterbury, as compared with Winchester, shews a certain 
ruthlessness in reform quite in keeping with the original manner 
of Lanfranc. The spirit of mildness and conservatism evidenced 


at Winchester is doubtless to be traced to the influence of prior 
Godfrey (a sort of compatriot it might be said of the monk Gosce- 
lin at Canterbury) to whom is really and rightfully due so much of 
that meed of laud and liturgical renown given so gratuitously and 
in such abundant measure by our late ecclesiastical antiquaries 
and legendaries to St. Osmund but by Osmund s contemporaries 
(as the texts of William of Malmesbury shew) to Godfrey of 

Whatever the particular minor defects that attach to some of 
the calendars used in the foregoing Table either by occasional 
omission of names 1 or especially vigils or octaves, when it is taken 
as a whole there is practically no risk of confusing extraneous 
elements with the genuine constituents of the calendar of Canter 
bury cathedral; the persistence of tradition and the mention of 
gradings will commonly decide. 2 

It is impossible here even to indicate the many items of interest 
or starting-points of enquiry, which such a Table as the foregoing 
offers; but he who seeks will, I think, find. I may, however dwell 
for a moment on one or two of the less obvious. There is the enig 
matical St. Ronan of 19 November peculiar to Canterbury cath 
edral; who or what is he? and how does he come to be here? The 
twelve lessons read at Canterbury for the feast are not seemingly 
extant; and away from books and libraries, I do not know how 
our English hagiologists have (if at all) settled the matter. But we 
may now take note in the old calendar of Canterbury cathedral B 
of the feast of the Antiochene martyr Romanus with the boy Baralus 
(an entry itself interesting when compared with the corresponding 
entry in G). Romanus day however in B and G is 18 Nov., not 
as Ronan s in the Canterbury calendars the I9th. The earliest 
appearance of St. Ronan to my knowledge is in the calendar 
Bodl. MS. Add. C 260, which would carry back his cult at 
Canterbury cathedral to the perhaps middle of the twelfth century, 
or it might be even somewhat earlier. Whilst found in all later 
calendars at the i9th, Ronan s feast is in this Bodley MS. assigned 

1 For inttance the scribe of N 10 omits St. Clement (23 Nov.); of N<> 13 Tiburtius (n Aug.) 
* This suffer* possible exception in the case of three entries in N" 4: St. Milburga (23 Feb.) 

found also in N 6, St. Edward k. and m. (19 Mar.), and the date of St. Julian of Le Mans (27 



by the original hand to the i8th; but it is also entered by a later 
hand at the igth which had been hitherto blank. What had 
happened to cause this shifting? Was it the adoption at Canter 
bury of the Octave of St. Martin? However this may be, I am 
disposed to view St. Ronan the bishop as a revival (by a process 
fimv.l iar to those who deal with early martyrologies and calendars) 
in a slightly different guise of that Antiochene martyr Romanus 
who appears in G, and in B following G. 1 

The peculiar mode of designating the grading of feasts at 
Canterbury is another item which should be touched on here. 
A certain number of additions made by later hands in the calendar 
of Arundel MS. 155 were never incorporated in the official 
calendar of Christ Church Canterbury. They are given in the 
notes on the third column of the Table. Among them are the 
following: 17 Feb. Sci Silvini epi; 22 May Obiit pie memorie 
Ricardus Ambianensis episc.; 13 July Silee apli; 9 Sept. Sci 
Audomari epi Teruannensis; 25 Sept. Sci Firmini Ambianensis epi 
et martiris; 13 Dec. Sci Folquini epi Teruannensis. 

St. Firmin the patron of the cathedral of Amiens and the obit 
of Richard of Gerberoy bishop of Amiens (1205-1210) first attract 

1 The same sort of transformation lies, I take it, behind the feast of the Ordination of 
St. Augustine apostle of England kept at St. Augustine s on 16 Nov. from at least about the 
middle of the thirteenth century and with the high grade of II. The direct cause of the institution 
of fie least may probably have been the kast of the Ordination of St. Eiphege kept on this day at the 
cathedral from at least about the middle of the twelfth century (Bod!. MS. Add. C 260) and 
seemingly at first at St. Augustine s also (the St. Augustine s calendar in Ashmole MS. 1525, 
of about 1200-1220, had originally at 16 Nov. the feast of the Ordination of St. Elphege 
vhich lias been erased). The inducement to the substitution of Augustine for Elphege I conceive 
to be the unattached Augustine found in B and G at i6th Nov. who is no other than one of 
that group of Capuan or Campanian saints and martyrs with whom people were well acquainted 
in England in the seventh century. This Augustine s name with that of Felicitas occurs in St. 
Willibrord s calendar Paris R. N. MS. Lat. 10837 as wrll as in his martyrology; and in the ca 
lendar of Bodl. Digby MS. 63, which may date from the close of the ninth century, is an erased 
entry that began ag and ended ni and can hardly have been any other than Agustini . But 
we may not give to the monks of St. Augustine s the credit of having been the first to effect the 
transformation; already in the Irish martyrology of Oengus the Culdee, a work now assigned to 
about the year 800, we find at 16 November this Augustine the saint of Capua turned into 
Augustine the first archbishop of the English, thus: The train of Augustine the bishop who used 
to love best a three days fast; great sore grief overwhelmed them, forty beautiful pious ones . 


attention; then, the Terouanne group, St. Silvinus, St. Folquin, 
and St. Omer at 9 September. These entries are in the same kind 
of neat hand; they seem to me to be memories of the exile of the 
community of Christ Church Canterbury in the reign of king John, 
1207-1212. Of this exile there are interesting particulars in the 
c Chronica Andrensis , in Mon. Germ, hist., SS. xxiv 740-741, cf. 
737; the author tells us that the Canterbury monks were dispersed 
in various monasteries etc. not merely of the diocese of Terouanne 
just opposite the English coast, but also, he says, of France . 
I do not know whether any historical notice exists connecting any 
of these exiles with Amiens; but such relations with Amiens have 
left a permanent record not merely in the entries just cited from 
Arundel 155, but in every subsequent calendar of Canterbury cath 
edral, and of St. Augustine s also. These two stand alone, so fur 
as I know, among the English churches in using the Roman 
numerals I, II, III, (and at St. Augustine s IIII) to distinguish 
the gradings of the greater feasts. The Jesuit C. Guyet, who 
knew the French mediaeval calendars really well, states on the 
authority of a vetustissimum calendarium cf the church of 
Amiens, that Amiens anciently followed the same mode of grading 
such feasts: I, II, III, IIII, (Heortologia^ Urbini, 1728, p. 165); 
and from his account Amiens would seem to have been the only 
church in France which did so. A comparison of the gradings 
of Lanfranc with those given in the Table will shew these latter 
not to derive from Lanfranc. In the circumstances it seems more 
probable that Canterbury borrowed this mode of designating high 
grade feasts from Amiens than that Amiens borrowed from Canter 
bury, or that it was invented by each independently. It may be 
added that St. Silas the apostle and St. Silvinus are both found in 
the mediaeval calendars of Amiens (Corblet, Hagiographie du diocese 
d 1 Amiens ^ iv 612). 

One more remark must be made: it concerns the popular cult, 
popular at least among some members of the Christ Church com 
munity of several of the earlier archbishops of Canterbury, with 
one or two other domestic worthies, which arose or was propagated 
in the fourteenth century. It might have been thought that with 
the accumulated glory implied in such a roll of saints as Augustine, 
Theodore, Odo, Dunstan, Elphege, Anselm, Thomas, with their 


multiplied Ordinations, Translations, and Octaves, the most ardent 
or zealous spirit might have been content. But this was not so. We 
accordingly find in the Bodl. MS. Add. 260 entered in later hand 
the following: 12 Feb. Sci Ethelgari arepi ; 24 March Sci 
Wulfredi arepi ; 12 May Sci Athelardi arepi ; 20 June Siburgis 
virg. ; 30 June Sci Athelredi arepi ; 26 Aug. Sci Bregwini 
arepi ; 29 Aug. Sci Fcologildi arepi ; 26 Oct. Sci Cuthberti 
arepi . The near neighbourhood of St. Augustine s may to some 
extent have been an inducement to multiply in the way of holy 
rivalry the saintly glories of Christ Church. One specimen at 
least of such private devotion and zeal in this cause survives in 
Sloane MS. 1939, a little vellum book of the fifteenth century; a 
short chronicle to 1422 at the end of the volume, and a list of 
kings to the coronation of Henry VI in 1429, approximately fix 
its date. At f. 105 is the following: 


Sol Anglorum splendens [Thomas, erased } miles invictissime, 
funde preces surnmo Patri,cumtuo collegio, pro devotis tuis servis 
nobis lapsis crimine, quopossimus promereri per vos culpe veniam, 
huius viteque [so MS.] labore terminate gloriam. 
ve! Gloriosi rnartires confessoresque splendidi Christi intercedite 
pro nostni omniumque salute. R. Ut digni effic[iamur] p[ro- 
missionibus] Christi. 

Omtio. Omnipotens sempiterne Deus cuius inefFabili providentia 
gloriosi martires [Thomas erased] Alphegus, Blasius, Salvius, 
confessoresque tui lucidi Dunstanus, Odo, Wilfridus, Anselmus, 
Audoenus, Cuthbertus, Athelardus, Bregwynus, Plegmundus, 
Alfricus, Athelgarus, Ciricus, Wulfredus, Aethelredus, Wulfel- 
mus, Celnothus, Fleogildus, Athelmus, Wulganius, celeberrima- 
que virgo Syburgis necnon et ceteri quorum reliquie in Cantua- 
riensi continentur ecclesia, preclare vite mentis sanctorum tuorum 
collegio sunt ascripti, presta quesumus ut quorum memoriam in 
terris recolimus triumphalem eorum precibus continuis mereamur 


in terra vlvencium speciem tue celsitudinis contemplari. Per 
Dominum. 1 

Besides the cathedral calendars Mr. S. C. Cockerell has com 
municated to me two calendars of St. Augustine s, of the early 
part of the thirteenth and fourteenth centuries respectively, in 
the later of these the feast of St. Nothelm is revived at 17 Oct. 
with the Grade of I. I remember also two at the British Museum 
with a good deal of characteristic St. Augustine s matter though 
not seemingly practical calendars of that monastery. When these 
and others that may be extant are all brought together and com 
pared it may be possible to determine whether or how far, the 
calendar of St. Augustine s, whilst retaining its own marked 
character, may have been influenced by that of the cathedral. 
If we may judge by the calender printed by Dr. Wickham Legg in 
his edition of the Westminster Missal (p. 1385 seqq.) from the 
Royal MS. 2 A xxn assigned by Sir E. M. Thompson to the later 
years of the reign of king Henry II, the Canterbury cathedral 
calendar of that date was adopted practically in its entirety by 
Westminster. The few omissions and additions that were made 
do not affect the identity of the two documents; and, what 
seems particularly worthy of notice, this Westminster calendar 
has precisely the three entries mentioned p. 121 11.2 supra as special 
to the contemporary Canterbury calendar in the Eadwine Psalter 
N"4. But questions like this and others already touched on (p. 38 
supra) that attach to the calendars of English churches and 
monasteries in the twelfth and thirteenth centuries must be dealt 
with, if at all, by other hands; they are now beyond my range. 

1 In Leland s Collectanea (ed. 1770 iv, 119) under the title Nomina sanctorum requiesecn- 
titim in Cantuar. ecclesia is the list given in this prayer, and in the same order except that at the 
beginning St. Thomas is omitted, and at the end are added S. Lanfrancus, Ediva regina . The 
two leaves (265-266) in Cotton MS. Claudius 13 ix, from which Dart (Ap.,N ix, p. xxvi) gives a 
similar list, may be of the fourteenth century (?); this also contains venerable Lanfranc" and 
the noble queen Edyva ; Dart s print must be read across the page for the order of the MS. 


BEFORE coming to the consideration of the date of the 
Bosworth Psalter, or of the person for whom it might have 
been written, it will be useful to state briefly the results 
obtained from the foregoing examination. 

(1) In the first place this Psalter is marked off from all other 
known English psalters by the way in which it includes every portion 
of the Divine Offiee, except of course the lessons of Matins read 
by the reader alone, and the prayers said aloud by the officiant 
alone. The manuscript was thus evidently designed for practical 
use; that is, that the person who possessed it should be able to 
follow the whole of the Divine Office as publicly said. 

(2) This Office was the Monastic or Benedictine and not the 
Roman or Secular Office. It has already been pointed out that 
the state of the MS. makes it certain that it was regularly used. 

(3) The calendar contained in the volume is a calendar of 
the Cathedral church of Canterbury and the natural conclusion 
would be that the volume was also written for use in that church. 

(4) It is perfectly evident from the unique character and indeed 
splendour of the Psalter, whether we regard its size, the hand 
writing or the ornamentation, that it must have been written for 
some great personage. No person connected with Christ Church, 
Canterbury, would seem to be more likely to have been the 
possessor of this manuscript, so notable in its art and execution, 
than St. Dunstan, the first ecclesiastic of the kingdom. In this 
connection also it must be remembered that the calendar contain 
ed in the volume is based on a calendar of the monastery of Glas- 
tonbury, which is what might be expected in the case of one who 
had been abbot of that house. This consideration brings us at 
once to the question of the probable date of the MS. 


Books of this kind do not ordinarily contain any internal evidence 
of date. This special MS., however, has an indication which it is 
not proper to neglect: the hymnal does not include the hymn for 


"St Dunstan to be found in later collections, and the compilation, 
therefore, probably dates before the spread of his cultus, which 
as all the documents go to show must have begun very soon, in 
deed almost immediately, after his death in A. D. 988. But in reality 
any judgment as to the date of this MS. must largely depend on 
palasographical considerations and, as those who have most experi 
ence in this matter know so well, nothing is more difficult than the 
formation of an exact opinion on mere palaeographical grounds in 
the present state of the science. Taking the book, however, as it 
stands and turning to other English MSS. of the tenth and 
eleventh centuries, so far as these have fallen under our notice 
and consideration, the Bosworth Psalter would appear to have 
been executed in the second half of the tenth century, 1 and 
probably at a date nearer to the middle of the century than to 
the end. 

We have seen that in all probability the book was made for 
one who publicly said the Benedictine Office at Canterbury; and 
further that the date when it was so used was possibly in the 
first part of the second half of the tenth century. Since bishop 
Stubbs by the publication of his Memorials of St. Dunstan caused 
a revolution in public opinion in regard to that great man much 
has been said and written about English monasticism in that 
century, and the ideas expressed by that historian have been 
accepted, developed and embellished by subsequent writers. But 
there is an initial weakness in bishop Stubbs treatment ot the 
subject, upon which it may be well to speak plainly. Whilst the 
bishop s abilities power and knowledge of course deserve every 
recognition, it can hardly be denied that in regard to the more 
purely religious side of history, as it did not attract his sympathies 
so he did not really take the pains necessary to understand it. 
We may go further and say that this is the case in regard to the 
ecclesiastical system of the Middle Ages. As an example it is 
only necessary to point to his misunderstanding of the position of 
the Papacy in the Middle Ages, as shown by the late Professor 

We are here concerned only with his Memorials of S(. Dunstan. 

1 The MS. Psalter Reg. z. B. v, which the Bosworth Psalter perhaps most resembles in the 
general character of the writing has been assigned to about the year A.D. 950. 


Any one completely informed as to the history of monachism 
and acquainted with the original sources of our knowledge of 
the history of the tenth century at home and abroad, who, after 
making himself master of the original documents for the life of 
St. Dunstan contained in bishop Stubbs volume, will turn to the 
Preface of the Memorials, cannot but come to the conclusion 
that the bishop s story is utterly unintelligible. Further, when 
the Preface is tested and analysed the earnest enquirer will be 
forced to conclude that the writer has misunderstood the history 
of St. Dunstan up to the time of his exile, as he has misun 
derstood the wider subject named above. 

The root of the whole difficulty which bishop Stubbs creates 
for himself is in the treatment of the birth date of St. Dunstan. 
This once set right it is possible by closely following the original 
documents to give an intelligible and consistent account of the 
earlier part of the saint s career. It is of course not possible to 
examine the question at this point, but as it is a matter of some 
importance, and as its treatment does not depend so much on 
knowledge of the history of monasticism as upon sound critical 
methods, a special discussion on this point is appended. 

The question of St. Dunstan s monachism has been unneces 
sarily complicated by vague talk about the resumption of the 
name and dress of a monk pure Benedictinism or a Bene 
dictine discipline perfect accord with which it is suggested con 
stitutes a Benedictine monk. The real point is extremely simple: 
the monk is constituted by his profession or vow, and by that 
alone. Degrees of strictness are no doubt fit subjects for moral 
reflexions, but in the tenth century, as indeed before and sub 
sequently, men became monks by taking the vows of religion 
and not by assuming the name and dress ; indeed the personal 
friend of St. Dunstan, who became his biographer, says expressly 
that the saint as a young man embraced the salutary rule (insti- 
tutio] l of St. Benedict . 

Without entering upon any larger question it may be taken 
as certain that the Office said by St. Dunstan at Glastonbury and 
later in his life was the Benedictine Office. This will hardly be 

2 This is the very word used in the Bosworth Psalter to note the division in ps. 143 ordered 
by St. Benedict s Rule divisio institutionii Btntdicti. 


questioned. The point however remains as to the Divine Office 
said at Canterbury in the tenth century was it Benedictine such 
as said by monks or was it Roman, such as used by secular clergy 
or canons? This is not the place to discuss the monasticism of 
Christ Church Canterbury, but it may be useful to point out that 
the privilege of Archbishop Wulfred in A. D. 813 speaks of the 
regula monasterialis discipline being in force there and not of canon 
ical rule. That Odo, the uncle of Oswald, became a Benedictine 
monk before accepting the archbishopric of Canterbury is certain, 
and the obvious reason for so doing- was his wish to conform 


himself to the public Benedictine observances in regard to church 
services and the Divine Office in particular, since in regard to the 
regular routine of the monastic life, he would as archbishop hive 
been exempt. 

So far therefore as the question of the Divine Office is 
concerned, there is no greater reason for assigning the Bosworth 
Psalter to the time of Archbishop Aelfric (995-1006) than to 
that of St. Dunstan. The palaeographical and other considerations 
which point to an earlier date than the close of the tenth century 
may be allowed their full weight and the MS. assigned to the 
age of St. Dunstan. 

On the question of the handwriting we have given our opinion 
and it is for experts to determine. On -the ornamentation, how 
ever, some few words may be allowed. It seems to be quite 
unique among English manuscripts. It stands in marked contrast 
with the productions of the Winchester School of this period. 
These have illuminations which are compositions of the richest 
kind, with a free use of gold. They are both elaborate and even 
gorgeous, whilst the ornamentations of the Bosworth Psalter are 
of a wholly different character. These latter are in perfect taste, 
and they manifest at once a perfection of design a simplicity of 
execution and a wonderful harmony and scheme of colour. The 
whole manifests a staid and serious yet withal grand mind behind 
the composition. To those who know the history of the latter 
half of the tenth century the Winchester books can hardly fail 
to remind them of the personality of St. Ethelwold, and in the 
same way the Bosworth Psalter seems in its special characteristics 


to suggest the even greater personality of St. Dunstan the greatest 
man of his age. 

In our opinion therefore this Bosworth Psalter should be 
assigned to a date corresponding to the earlier years of St. Dun- 
stan s archiepiscopate at Canterbury. It was probably written for 
him, and quite possibly under his direction the artist ornamented 
it according to his taste. 







The origin of the following paper on the birth-date of St. Dunstan 
is this: Some time ago Mr. L. Toke proposed to write the life of 
that Saint, but on examining the original materials and reading 
Bishop Stubbs s Preface to the Memorials of St. Dunstan he found 
himself quite unable to reconcile the particulars given in the 
former with the statements of the latter as to the year of Saint 
Dunstan s birth. As a result he felt himself unable to proceed 
and laid aside his project for the time. By accident Mr. Edmund 
Bishop heard of this and handed over to Mr. Toke the materials 
he had collected in an endeavour to settle the question of Saint 
Dunstan s birth year, as he had experienced the same difficulty 
and convinced himself that Bishop Stubbs was entirely mistaken 
in assigning it to the year A. D. 925. The collections thus placed 
at Mr. Toke s disposal were used by him in a further study of 
the subject and the paper here printed is the result of his work. 


THE accepted year for St. Dunstan s birth is 924-5. It 
appears in our encyclopaedias and books of reference, in 
our popular political and ecclesiastical histories, in the 
writings of even the more scientific English historians who have 
dealt with St. Dunstan. A date so widely accepted might be 
supposed to rest on firm foundations. It is, however, a matter 
for some surprise that the difficulties, amounting to absurdities, 
arising out of this date do not seem to have impressed the more 
cautious and thoughtful writers of modern times. 

For, if we adopt 925 as the year of St. Dunstan s birth and 
bring it into connection with such other dates in his lite as are 
certain, we shall be obliged to infer that at the age of twenty-seven 
he had been offered the two important bishoprics of Winchester 
and Crediton; that he was made Abbot of Glastonbury some 
time between the ages of seventeen and twenty-two; that he was 
professed a monk and ordained a priest before he was sixteen. 
We must remember that the chief actors in these occurrences were 
prominent members of the reforming party of the day; and, 
without the most positive evidence, it cannot be imagined that 
one of the most devout and respected bishops of his time and 
the real originator of the English monastic movement of the 
tenth century would ordain as priest, and seemingly in the capital 
city of the kingdom, a boy of sixteen, a person that is of about 
half the canonical age. Yet (on the assumption that the date 
925 is correct) not one, but a regular sequence of abnormalities 
is supposed to have taken place in the life of the first ecclesiastic 
of the realm. More singular still, not the slightest hint of all 
this is given by friend or by foe in his own day, nor is there the 
least mention in any of his early biographers that in the events 
recorded there was any contravention of church law, or anything in 
the slightest degree irregular in his ecclesiastical career. This should 
raise doubts whether there be not some mistake in the chronology 
which now passes as fact, and therefore there is sufficient prima 


facie reason for examining the grounds on which the birth of 
St. Dunstan is assigned to the year 925. 

The earliest of St. Dunstan s biographers to fix any definite 
date for his birth was Osbern, a monk of Christ Church, Canter 
bury, who wrote about the year 1090. His exact words are: 
Regnante . . . ^thelstano, anno quidem ejus primo [924-5] 
. . . natus est . . . Dunstanus V This statement has been copied 
by later mediaeval historians* and by writers in modern times. 
It was first questioned by Mabillon, at the beginning of the 
eighteenth century. He observed that on this assumption 
St. Dunstan would have become a monk at the age of fifteen 
and yet is represented as then thinking of marriage. On this 
ground alone Mabillon rejected the date 925, and concluded 
that St. Dunstan was born long before that year. 3 Early in the 
nineteenth century Dr. Lingard rejected the whole story of 
St. Dunstan s early days, on the ground that it was quite irrecon 
cilable with other known dates in the saint s life. 4 

The question remained in this state until 1874, when Bishop 
Stubbs edited for the Rolls Series the Memorials of St. Dunstan. 
In his introduction to this volume some of the difficulties attending 
the question of the birth-date are noted and two pages are devoted 
to indicating the sources of our information on this point. No 
criticism of these sources is attempted, but he definitely adopts 
and fixes as the date of St. Dunstan s birth the year 925, the 
whole question being dismissed with the sentence that the 
matter is not in itself of great importance . 5 Dr. Stubbs conclu 
sions have been accepted en bloc by later writers, and with varying 
degrees of positiveness it is now settled that St. Dunstan was 
born in the year 924-5. 

But in view of the consequences, which, it has been pointed 
out above, must necessarily follow from the adoption of this date, 
a re-examination of the question is obviously called for. 

1 Memorials of St. Dunstan, ed. W. Stubbs (Rolls Series), 1874, p. 71. 

2 Cf. William of Malmesbury, in the .Memorials, p. 253. Also the author of the Historia 
Ramesiensis ed. Gnle, Scriptores x-u, 1691, p. 389: and ed. Macray (Rolls Series), 1886, p. 17. 

3 Annales Ordinh S. Benedict! iii, p. 424 (Lucca edition, iii, p. 393). 

4 History and antiquities of the Anglo-Saxon Church, 1845, vol. ii, p. 269. 

5 Memorials, p. Ixxiv. 


The materials that bear on the question of the birth-date 
consist first of the two almost contemporary biographies by the 
priest B. and by Adelard; next of statements in two of the six 
texts of the Anglo-Saxon chronicle and in an Anglo-Saxon 
calendar adduced by Dr. Stubbs; thirdly of the Lives by Osbern 
and by Eadmer, both monks of Christ Church, Canterbury, who 
both wrote towards the close of the eleventh century. 

The foregoing give us the only direct evidence we possess as 
to the birth-date and any statement we can make must depend 
on the nature and value of their testimony. The later lives and 
the references in Florence of Worcester s Chronicon and in about 
a dozen other writers add nothing material to our knowledge. 

Of the early Lives the first, written by the priest B., who was 
a personal friend of St. Dunstan and who wrote between 996 
and 1004, that is between eight and sixteen years after the saint s 
death, makes only indirect reference to his birth. The text runs, 
Hujus [i.e. Athelstani] igitur imperii temporibus, oritur puer 
strenuus in Westsaxonum finibus. . . Quern pii parentes sacri 
baptismatis undis renatum Dunstanum vocaverunt. 1 Taken by 
itself this is obviously ambiguous. The word oritur may refer 
either to his birth or to his attraction of public attention. 2 

The next life, by Adelard, a monk of Mont Blandin near 
Ghent, was written about twenty-three years after St. Dunstan s 
death and does not refer to the time of his birth at all. But it is 
definitely stated that he was introduced by his uncle, Archbishop 
Athelm, to king ./Ethelstan, quern sacra unctione livit. 3 This 
last statement, however, raises the difficult questions as to the 
chronology of Athelm into which it is not now necessary to enter, 
because they do not concern the present discussion. 

These two lives were written while the contemporaries of 
St. Dunstan were still living; the next was composed under other 
circumstances and in a quite different atmosphere. It was written 
after the Conquest and seemingly late in the eleventh century, 4 

1 Memorials, p. 6. 

* Strict linguistic usage would perhaps be opposed to the former alternative. Oritur gene 
rally implies either origin or appearance rather than mere physical birth . And surely puer 
strenuus can hardly mean a sturdy baby-boy*. 

J Memorials, pp. 55-56. Memorials, p. 151, note z. 


by Osbern, a monk of Christ Church, Canterbury, and biographer 
of the saints whose relics were preserved in the church of his 
monastic home. In his life of Dunstan he makes three distinct 
statements bearing on the date of the saint s birth, and it is worthy 
of notice that they are quite irreconcilable with one another. 
The first says, Regnante magnifico Anglorum rege Athelstano, 
anno quidem imperil ejus primo, adventus vero Anglorum in 
Britanniam quadringentesimo nonagesimo septimo, . . . natus est 
puer Dei Dunstanus. 1 The second and third statements occur 
together in the same passage, which runs as follows, Anno igitur 
Verbi Incarnati duodecim minus a millesimo, adventus Anglorum 
in Britanniam quingentesimo sexagesimo tertio . . . Dunstanus 
. . . diem aeternam aeternaliter possidet, anno patriarchatus sui 
tricesimo tertio, nativitatis etiam circiter septuagesimo. 2 

Now from other sources we know that the first year of king 
^Ethelstan was 924-5. But if St. Dunstan died in 988, in about 
the yoth year of his life , he must have been born about 918. 
Again if 988 is the 563^ year since the Angles came to Britain, 
that event would have occurred in 425. But the 49yth year after 
425 is 922. Moreover, St. Dunstan became archbishop of Can 
terbury probably in the year 959. So the C 33rd year of his patri 
archate brings us at least to 992 instead of to 988. In any case, 
which of the three years 918, 922 and 924-5 did Osbern mean? 
They cannot all be correct, yet they are all stated with equal 
decisiveness and precision, and two of them depend on a probably 
inaccurate calculation of the date of the coming of the Angles 
into Britain. 

Osbern, therefore, cannot be relied on as an authority for the 
birth-date of St. Dunstan, and on his statements depend those 
of his imitators. 

The next biographer, Eadmer, 3 although professedly writing 
to correct Osbern s inaccuracies and although a monk of the same 
house, significantly enough makes no reference whatever to the 
birth-date or to any of his fellow-monk s attempts at chronology. 
It is clear enough that, even at that date, he could not understand 
it or give it any coherence. 

William of Malmesbury, 4 John Capgrave, 5 and the rest 

1 Memorials, p. 71. 2 Ibid. p. 120. 3 Ibid. pp. 165-6. * Ibid. p. 253. 5 Ibid. p. 315. 

simply copy Osbern s first statement as to the year of birth, 
though William of Malmesbury does make some attempt to 
make the death-date harmonize therewith. Florence of Worces 
ter 1 merely transcribes the ambiguous sentence of the priest B. 

From the preceding it has become clear that Bishop Stubbs 
assertion that all our authorities agree in referring the word 
[oritur] to Dunstan s birth , 2 is a mere hasty assumption and has 
no foundation in fact. For only two authors, B. and Florence 
of Worcester, use the word at all; of these, Florence of Worcester 
copies his whole sentence from B., and B. very probably does 
not mean to refer to the birth-date at all. 3 

It is, therefore necessary to do what Bishop Stubbs has neg 
lected to do, viz. see what value is to be attached to the statements 
of the { two MSS. of the Chronicle , which he says Osbern fol 
lows, 4 and of the < ancient Anglo-Saxon Paschal Table which he 
produces in support of his own calculations. 8 

As these authorities appear in print all three seem to state 
quite definitely that St. Dunstan was born in the year 925. 

The passages in the two texts of the edition of the Anglo-Saxon 
Chronicle by Mr. Benjamin Thorpe, in the Rolls Series* are as 
follows : 

Text A. [C.C.C.C. 173.] j Text F. [Cott: Domit: A. viii.] 

An. DCCCC.XXV. Her Eadweard cing An. DCCCC.XXV. Her Eadvvard cing 

for];.ferde -] JE]?elstan his sunu feng forpferde ] .flvSestanus his sunu 

to rice. ] See Dunstan wearS feng to rice. ] Wulfelm wearb ge- 

akaenned [*j Wulfelm feng to pan 
arcebiscoprice on Cantuarebyri.j 

hadod to art), to Cantw. ] S. 
Dunstan wearf geboren. 

The chronicle-entry in the Paschal calendar is thus given by 
Bishop Stubbs: 

This computation [i.e. that St. Dunstan was born in 925] 
Ms borne out by an entry in an ancient Anglo-Saxon Paschal 

1 Flor. Wig. Chronicon, ed. B. Thorpe; 1848; vol. i. p. 130. 

* Memorials^ p. Ixxiij. Cf. note 2 on p. 135 above. 

4 Memorials, p. Ixxiij. 5 Ibid. p. Ixxiv. 

6 Rolls Series, 2 vols; 1 86 1; pp. 196-199. The plan, adopted in this edition, of printing the 
six texts in parallel columns is the only one that makes them readily intelligible. Thorpe does not 
five the text either of A or of F. quite correctly. 


Table, preserved in the Cotton MS., Caligula A. 15, under the 
year 925, "on thison geare waes see Dunstan geboren." 

Here, then, are apparently three concurrent testimonies sup 
porting Osbern s first statement, and throwing some light on the 
obscurity of the priest B. It is now necessary to examine each 
of these testimonies as they stand in the MSS. 

The original MS. of Text A. is about contemporary with 
St. Dunstan. Most of the editors of the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle, 
especially those of more recent times, have marked nearly all the 
passages relating to St. Dunstan before A. D. 959 as later inser 
tions into that text. With regard to the authenticity of the 
entry under A. D. 925, relating to St. Dunstan s birth, the various 
modern editors deal with the case thus: 

The editor in the Monumenta Historica Rritannica (1848) 
encloses the Dunstan and Wulfelm entries in square brackets, 
but notes that though the Dunstan entry forms part of the 
authentic text of F. it is inserted in A. ; 

Thorpe (1861), as seen above, admits the entry as to Saint 
Dunstan into the authentic text of A., but encloses the imme 
diately subsequent entry as to Wulfelm in square brackets as 
a * later insertion ; 

Earle (1865) prints both these entries within square brackets 
as inserted by a later hand ; 

Mr. Plummer (1892) prints both the Dunstan and the Wulfelm 
entries as later insertions, and holds that most of the interpolations 
into A. during this period are due to the scribe of F. (as to whose 
date see below). He, however, distinguishes between those two 
entries, and considers that the Wulfelm entry is in a hand of 
the twelfth century and the Dunstan entry in a good and 
fairly early hand . 

A further careful examination of Text A. seems to disclose, 
as Mr. Plummer indicates, three different hands in the entries 
under A. D. 925. The references to Eadweard and to ^Ethelstan 
are in the original hand: that to St. Dunstan is in a later hand, 
probably of the eleventh century: whilst that to Wulfelm is in 
a third hand, probably of the twelfth century. 

1 Memorials, p. Ixxiv. The text of Calig. A. xv has been printed in full by F. Liebermann 
n hi Ungedruckte Anglo-Normannhche Gescbicbtsqucllenj Strassburg, 1879; p. 3. 


In regard to Text F. This MS. has perhaps received from 
the various editors less critical attention than is its due. Yet, 
for our present purpose, there is much of considerable interest 
in the entry under A. D. 925. For we note that since passages 
which are interpolations into A. 1 are to be found in the text of 
F.,and both MSS. belonged to Christ Church, Canterbury, Text F. 
must be of later origin than the interpolated Text A. Sir T. Duffus 
Hardy at first considered it to be c in a hand apparently of the 
twelfth century . 2 In a later work he more cautiously assigned it 
to the eleventh or twelfth centuries , 3 whilst Sir. E. M. Thomp 
son and Dr. Warner are inclined to place it at the end of the 
eleventh century. 4 The text of the passage referring to St. 
Dunstan s birth has not been printed quite accurately either in 
the Monumenta or by Thorpe. In the original MS. it is arranged 
as follows: 5 


Now, first, it is to be observed that the Anglo-Saxon Wulfelm 
and Dunstan entries, as well as the Latin Dunstan entry are writ 
ten in the margins; the two former on the extreme right-hand 
margin, the third at the foot of the page; and that all are obvious 
additions. On the other hand, the passages relating to kings Eadward 
and jEthelstan were entered in the body of the page, and are part 
of the original script. Secondly, on careful examination of the 
MS., three different hands can be distinguished: the Anglo-Saxon 
and the Latin Eadward and ^Ethelstan entries are in the original hand ; 
the Anglo-Saxon Wulfelm and Dunstan entries and the Latin 

1 H - S- sub 956, 959, 961. Mon _ Hist . Briti p , XXVJ ._ 

3 Descriptive Catalogue (Rolls Series); vol. i, p. 660. 

1 See Mr. Plummer s Introduction to vol. ii of his edition, p. xxx\i. 

* The Anglo-Sax jn marginalia, when revived by a chemical re-agent, read quite clearly at- 
given here. Of course it is to be understood that thh diagram and those given below are only 
intended to show the arrangement of the entries in the MSS., and are in no sense f ff ,imll thereof. 

Wulfelm entry are interpolations by a second hand; the Latin 
Dunstan entry at the foot of the page is added by yet a third hand. 
There is an erasure under the words hie ob , at the beginning 
of the last line of the page, in which the scribe who wrote the 
Anglo-Saxon marginalia has written the Latin version of the part 
relating to Wulfelm. The script erased was in red ink, and appears 
to have been a date, of which the figures xx are still decipher 
able. If we turn the leaf the next page (f. 56 B.) begins with two 
year-indications on the same line, written thus: dcccc[xx]vj. 1 
dccccxxvij. , and at this entry of two years are to be found the 
items referring to Gudhfridh and to Wulfelm that appear in only 
one other MS., and then under the year 927 alone. 3 

In view, then, of the date of even the original script and of 
the presence of these interpolations, Text F. cannot be relied on 
as independent evidence of the birth of St. Dunstan, for the 
information it gives might have been derived from the scribe s 
fellow-monk of Christ Church, Osbern himself. 

There remains only the ancient Anglo-Saxon Paschal Table, 
preserved in the Cotton MS., Caligula A. 15 , ff. I32 b -i33 a . 
This was also a MS. of Christ Church, Canterbury. The Paschal 
Table stretches across both pages, (f. i32 b andf. I33 a )and chronicle- 
notes have been entered in a blank column on the right-hand page 
a (f. i33 a ). It begins with the year of St. Dunstan s death^ A. D. 988, 
and in the blank column on the right-hand page the first chronicle 
entry is Her fordhferde See Dunstan arceb. M 

Up to A. D. 1076 the ordinary chronicle-notes are all in one 
hand, and as far as A. D. 1058 are all written d un seuljet. The scribe 
deals almost exclusively with the succession of Archbishops of 
Canterbury and their journeys to Rome, and with the accessions 
of the kings of England. The entry, recording at A. D. 925 the 
birth of St. Dunstan is not part of the regular chronicle-entries 3 
and is in a hand which does not elsewhere appear. It runs in 

1 The xx in the MS. was omitted and is written in above the rest of the text. 
1 i. e. in Text E. [MS. Bodl. Laud. 636] . In text D. [Cott. Tiber. B. iv.] there is a long 
list of events ascribed to the year 926 only. Cf. Thorpe; of. cit.; vol. i. p. 199. 

3 Liebermann; (pp. cit. p. 3, note a.) has already pointed out that Diese Eintragung steht uber 
dem Schema. 

4 The second word is fordhferde as here given. By an oversight, not discovered until the 
plate had been made, the f was omitted in the diagram. 


a curving line along the top margins of ff. 132** and 133* and 
straight down the edge of the right-hand margin of f. 133% 
regardless of the symmetry of the book, but following in irregu 
lar fashion the arrangement of the calendar columns. Part of the 
entry has been cut off by the binder; what remains is arranged as 
follows : 
On folio I32 b , 


On folio 133 * , 


The handwriting of this notice of birth is tf0/ contemporary 
with the original hand, i. e. between 1053 and 1076. But the 
whole entry is obviously a mere jotting, suggested perhaps by the 


regular chronicle-notes, but certainly not part of the original 
scheme. It may have been more immediately suggested by the 
death -notice which is the first chronicle-note on the page. It is 
possible that it was made between A. D. 1060 and A. D. 1070, but 
it is just as possible it may be much later. At any rate it is 
unlike any other chronicle-note before 1053, is quite obviously 
an interpolation by some one other than the original scribe, and 
is made without regard to the character of the original work. 

The accepted date , then, for St. Dunstan s birth is accepted 
by modern writers chiefly on the authority of Bishop Stubbs. He 
found the first year of King JEthelstan first fixed upon in Os- 
bern s Vita Sancti Dunsfani, and reconciled its preciseness with the 
vagueness of the priest B. by assuming that both B. and Florence 
of Worcester meant was born when they wrote oritur ; an un 
warranted assumption. He sought for further support for his 
conclusions in two MSS. of the Chronicle and in an ancient 
Anglo-Saxon Paschal Table. 

But, when these last are examined, it is found that all three 
MSS. proceed from Osbern s monastic home at Christ Church, 
Canterbury, and that in all three the notices of St. Dunstan s 
birth are interpolations and no part of the original works in which 
they appear. Moreover, they date, one at least a century, 1 the 
others probably a century and a half after the event supposed to 
be recorded; and these interpolations were made not earlier than 
the time when Osbern was producing his Vita Sancti Dunstani, 
the first life in which any precise date of birth is indicated. Osbern 
himself gives three divergent indications of the date of his hero s 
birth, only one of which agrees with that given unanimously in 
the three MSS. Finally Eadmer, another monk of Christ Church, 
known as a professed and careful historian, undertakes the writing 
of a life of St. Dunstan with the express purpose of correcting 
the errors of earlier biographers. Yet, though having Osbern 
particularly in view, he deliberately passes over the whole ques- 

1 i. e. in Text A. It must be remembered how great i* the difficulty of assigning even an 
approximate date to a piece of writing like this interpolation apart from any external indications. 
It is quite possible that the interpolation into A. may not date from the first half but, lilce the other 
two, may have been made in the second half of the eleventh century. 


tion of the date of St. Dunstan s birth, which was, as we have seen, 
recorded in at least three MSS., besides Osbern s treatise,in the 
library of his own house. 

It would seem, then, that the objections to the date 925 as 
the year of St. Dunstan s birth, expressed by Mabillon and by 
Lingard for other reasons, find full justification in the very evi 
dence which has been recently adduced in its support. It will 
appear, therefore, that there are no solid grounds for our accept 
ance of the year 925 as that of the saint s birth, whilst, as I have 
already pointed out, it obviously involves us in a tangle of 
improbabilities. And, high as the authority of Bishop Stubbs 
justly stands as historian and critic, it is necessary to revise 
a judgement which has apparently misled later writers and to 
revert to the view of Mabillon that, longe ante hunc annum 
[925] c Dunstanus in lucem editus erat . When, exactly, he was 
born we have no positive evidence; 1 but, as he was ordained 
priest before A. D. 940, and by the Canon Law of the period that 
could not take place till he was at least thirty years old, the 
presumption is that his birth-date must be placed at least as early 
as A. D. 910. 

One point at least is certain. Unless the view of Bishop 
Stubbs on this matter be revised, the life of St. Dunstan must 
remain simply unintelligible to us. If this single difficulty, which 
is apparently due to the historians and not to the facts, be removed, 
the story of his life can be seen to be both rational and consistent 
with itself and with common-sense. 

1 I do not propose to enter into the question, whether the sources of Osbern s statement 
were the entries in Caligula A. 15, or in Text A. or Text F., or whether any of these may have 
been due to Osbern himself, or indeed into the relation! of these sourcei to one another. For 
I am of opinion that these questions can only be dealt with by way of conjecture that cannot be 
tested or verified. Such discussions must, in the present state of the evidence, end in a confession 
of ignorance, and can only divert our attention from the one question that is of importance, 
namely, what is the extent and character of the evidence that St. Dunstan was born in A. D. 925? 




The tract on the calendar of the Bosworth Psalter has grown to be three or 
four times as long as the simple Consultatio originally designed; and branches 
out into discussions that were not contemplated. It is therefore necessarily form 
less; observations or details really connex are scattered here or there. It is hoped 
that the Index may in some measure remedy this defect. But there is a deficiency 
an index cannot make good. Now that the formal conclusion has been drawn in 
regard to the immediate subject of enquiry What is Br , and that the Table 
of Canterbury calendars is fixed, on looking over the completed tract I feel there 
might be just cause for exception, on perhaps more than one ground, did I not also 
make here an essay in dealing with that martyrological element of our Anglo- 
Saxon calendars which has been more than once pointed to as the key of their 
history. I would gladly be content to refer to something sufficient already in print; 
but this is a matter which seems to have escaped the researches of those who have 
dealt with the antiquities of the Anglo-Saxon Church: and as I have made some 
progress in the enquiry for the purpose of the tract printed above, it seems a pity 
now to leave it to some one else in the future to go through all the same initial 
drudgery again in investigating this peculiarly dreary (sometimes, indeed, dazing) 
class of document. The subject will be dealt with here in as brief and statistical 
a manner as I can command. Such addition is a mere after-thought and has had 
to be penned, if I may so speak, in a rush; this is not satisfactory; but the need 
ot going over the same ground again and again, as each document was again and 
again examined in its different aspects, has, I am led to hope, reduced the risk of 
at least serious error to a minimum. 

Moreover, since the greater part of the tract on the calendar of the Bosworth 
Psalter was in type, Dr. M. R. James has kindly sent full details as to the fragment 
of calendar in the Eton MS. 78 (see p. 69 n. i); and both Dr. James and 
Mr. S. C. Cockerell additional calendars of St. Augustine s. I do not know how 
to thank them better than by utilizing these communications at once. 

The subject-matter of these Addenda will thus be: A. The Martyrological 
Element in the Anglo-Saxon calendars; B. The Grouping of those of the tenth 
and eleventh centuries; C. The Calendar of St. Augustine s. 

The various martyrologies and calendars referred to are cited under the signs 
given in the following list. The dates are no more than an approximation. 


B = the calendar in the Bosworth Psalter. MS.) early viii cent. ; Wiss of the year 

Be = Henschen-Papebroch s large type in 772; Bern late cent. viii. 

their edition of the Martyrology of N = calendar in Cotton MS. Nero A n 

Bede , AA. SS. Boll. Mar. ii (the print [? about 1020-30; or earlier?] 

used is that in the Praefatlones etc. vol. O E M = Old English Martyrology, ed. 

i, Venet. I 749). Herzberg, E. E. Text Soc. N I 1 6 [to- 

D = calendar in Bodl. MS. Digby 63 wards latter part of cent. ix]. 

[end of cent. ix]. Oeng Martyrology of Oengus the Guide e, 

Do= calendar in Bodl. MS. Douce 296 ed. Whitley Stokes, Henry Bradshaw 

[late cent. xi]. Soc. vol. xxix [of about A.D. 800.] 

G= the Glastonbury calendar in The Leo- R= calendar in the Missal of Robert ofJu- 

fric Missal (Oxf. 1883) pp. 23-34. miegcs, ed. H. A. Wilson, Henry Brad- 

Ga= the metrical calendar in Cotton MS. shaw Soc. vol. xi [between 1008-1023]. 

Galba A xvm ( Athelstan s Psalter ) S= calendar in Salisbury cathedral MS. 

ed. in R. T. Hampson, Medll Aevi Ka- 150 [second half of cent. x]. 

lendarium I pp. 397-420 [compiled Sh = calendar of Sherborne in C.C.C. C. 

seemingly early cent. x]. MS. 422, the Red Book of Derby 

Gell=the MartyrologiumGellonense [about 1050?]. 

in d Achcry s Spicikgium; 1st ed. xin p. V=calendar in Cotton MS. Vitellius A 

388 seqq.; 2nd ed. n p. 25 seqq. xvm [c. 1060-1080?]. 

[cent, viii.] WT=calendar of Newminster at Win- 

J = calendar in Bodl. MS. Junius 29; a chester in Cotton MS. Titus D xxvn, 

greatly abridged calendar used only for in Hampson op. clt. i pp. 435-446 

characteristic entries [ temp. Athel- [about 1030]. 

stani Wanley]. WV=calendar of Winchester cathedral 

J u calendar in Bodl. MS. Junius 99 [la- in Cotton MS. Vitellius E xvm; in 

ter part of cent. xi]. Hampson op. clt. i^pp. 422-433 [about 

MH=the Martyrologium Hicronymi- middle of cent. xi]. 

anum edd. de Rossi and Duchcsne, in Will = St. Willibrord s calendar in Paris 

A A. SS. Boll. Nov. II; the three texts B. N. MS. Lat. 10837 [written in the 

cited separately as Ept (St. Willibrord s first years of cent, viii]/ 

1 Such large type includes the 114 historical notice and also the enlarged series of mere 
names as found in the second family of MSS. (see Dom Quentin, Les Martyrokges bistorijues, Paris 
Lecoffn-, i cjc 8, pp. 4^-5) with tlic addition of the seven items detailed ibid. p. 692. The exact 
discnmin;:ui.n between the genuine constituents of the martyrology of Hede and later additions it 
not, as Dom Quentin says (p. 53), necessary for his purpose,- nor, in view of the particular way 
in which lie is used below, is it necessary here. 

- My friend M. de Mely sent me for the purpose of the first part of this tract on the Bos- 
worth Calendar a photograph of the MS. which has proved how this kind of reproduction is t 
times more useful for working purposes than even the original. Of this calendar of St. Willi- 
brord, the most venerable of our English hagiological records, I hope before long to give a print 
accompanied by some observations on the old Irish copy (seventh century) of M H. 


Wo =calendar of Worcester in C. C. C.C. Bede s Poetical Martyrology ; the 

MS. 391 [about 1060-1070?]. only edition by Dom Quentin in Lei 

Y=the brief York calendar which has Martyrologes kistoriques, pp. 123-126 

hitherto gone under the name of [about A. D. 750]. 


For the purposes of this enquiry martyrological saints are to be understood 
as distinguished on the one hand from sacramentary saints (almost all, martyrs) 
for whom a proper mass (see p. 15) is found in mass-books before the ninth cen 
tury 2 and on the other from the saints (for the most part confessors) who lived in 

1 It is indeed pleasant to be able to close the list thus; and yet it is impossible to suppress 
the wish that the identification of this document had been made already long since by one of our 
fellow-countrymen, so interesting is it as a production, probably when he was a school-boy there, 
of that school of York so highly vaunted by Alcuin. 

The early documents (to my knowledge) wanting in this list are the Menologium Anglo- 
Poeticum of no importance here, and the St. Edmundsbury calendar in Vatic. MS. Reg. 12 which 
doubtless h best dealt with icparately (in connection probably with Do) in illustration of the ca 
lendars of East Anglia and the Fen country. One or two early continental documents must also 
not be lost sight of. Just as brief Canterbury or Lindisfarne annals carried by our miisioners 
abroad were the starting point of the Carolingian annalistic, so was it too in a measure with 
English church calendars. The Luxeuil calendar in Paris B. N. MS. Lat. 14086 (formerly Fondg 
S. Germain lat. 1311; see F. Piper, Karh d. Grossen Kalendarium und Ostertafel, Berlin, 1858, p. 
60 seqq.) long ago printed by Martene and Durand (Thes. anted. Ill 1591-1594) has nothing to do 
with Englishry. But it is otherwise with the Calendarium Floriacense printed by these two 
Maurists, Ampl. Coll. VI 650-652; an ultimate English origin of its subtratum is to be recognized 
I think even among its rare martyrological entries. But this document has not been used below 
in order not to mix up English hagiological sources that are certain with doubtful ones. It may 
be as well to add a word as to our three earlier western calendars, Will, Y, and that of Luxeuil 
just mentioned. These are not to be regarded as the starting-point for the history of the medi 
aeval or modern church calendars; nor is Y to be taken as a calendar of the church of York* 
in the eighth century. They are rather to be viewed in the light of the modern birthday 
book. The real and effectual origins of the church calendar of mediaeval times lie in the 
Sanctorale of the mass-books. 

- A dissertation is in hand, and well advanced, on the Sanctorale of the early mass books 
from the seventh century to the eleventh, dealing botli with the calendar and the individual prayers 
of each mass, which it is hoped may prove of service as the beginning of an instrument for effect 
ing a classification into groups and families of the later mediaeval missals. Roughly speaking the 
jcalendar of Sacramentary saints for our present purpose may be taken as the series of the saints 
of MS. S of the Appendix (p. 317 seqq.) of Mr. H. A. Wilson s edition of the Gelasianum. 


the sixth, seventh and eighth centuries. But it is to be remembered that the lines 
between these three classes of saints can be only roughly drawn; it is for instance 
probable, almost certain, that some, perhaps most, of the last class (the later con 
fessors) found their way into our old English calendars merely through the mar- 

Four calendars will come under particular consideration and in the following 
order: (rf)the Glastonbury calendar in the Leofric Missal (G), and those in () the 
Salisbury cathedral MS. 150 (S), (c) the Bodley MS. Digby 63 (D), and (J) the 
Cotton MS. Nero A n (N), of which last a print will be given below; a few 
words will be added as to (e} the metrical calendar in Athelstan s Psalter Cotton 
MS. Galba A xvni. 


This shows 211 martyrological items (=names). It naturally occurred to 
test them first by that vast congeries of martyrs names the Hieronymian Marty- 
rology (M H) and afterwards examine with the same object the various excerpts 
or Breviates of that great compilation, and the calendars generally up to the eleventh 
century, known to me to be in print. As the result one Breviatc distinguished itself 
markedly as compared with the rest (or indeed with the great original compilation 
M H itselt ) by the number of items common to it and G, viz. the so-called 
Martyro/ogitim GcUoncnse (Cell) a compilation of the eighth century. Of the 211 
martyrological items of G, 184 are covered by M H, and 191 by Cell; which 
would leave a residue of 20 items not found in Cell to be accounted for 1 . An 
account of this residue is given in the footnote." On examination of this list 

1 Those who arc acquainted with the ancient martyrologies will at once recognize that figure* 
like this can be only approximately correct; the common corruption or slight variation of names, 
the frequent shiftings by a day, earlier or later, by the copyist necessitate in uch calculations as 
the present here and there adjustments. All that can be done is to keep exact record of the way 
in which the figures given have been arrived at. But for a reason that will be obvious I have 
endeavoured to give the advantage to MH as against Gell. 

- Residue of G. 

i) iv id. Jan. Pauli pr. hercm.-.not in MH; in Be, Ga, O E M, Y (and the later calendars 
generally except J, \). 2) ix k. Feb. ct trium t uerorum (companions of Babillus) : in MH; 

in B, EL-, Ga, Ju, Deng, R, S, Sh, WV. 3} xi k. Mar. Policroni ef. et m.-.a. Policro- 

nus at xiii k. in I p- Vnly): in N at xi k Tollicarpi . 4) iii id. Mar. Cyriaci diac.: 

not in M H; in Wo. 5) v id. Apr. Trausims Marine ^.gyptiacae-.noi in MH; in D, 

Ju, R, S, Sh, Wo. 6) ii k. Maii et S .phiae: not in M H; in no other English calendar. 

7) iii k. Jim. Felicis pp.: not in M H; in B, Do, Ju, R, S, V, Wo, N ? (see Lib. Pontif. ed 
Duclicfne I, 154 n. 4). 8} iii non. Jun. fJerasmi:in M H Ept Erasmi ; Wiss, Bern 

Nerasmi ; in Will ( Erasmi mar. ), B. 9) non. Jul. Marinae -v. : in Ept (only) ; in B, 

Do, Ju, N, OEM, R. 10) id. Jul. et Florentii-.m M H; in Ga. 1 1) xv k, 

Aug. Margaretae a modern cult, which early gained popularity in England: at 13 k. in B, Do. 


of twenty items it will appear that only five (or perhaps six) are found in M H, 
whilst two occur in Ept (St. Willibrord s manuscript) only, but that several are 
found in one or other of our own earliest hagiographical records (Be, Ga, OEM, 
Oeng, Will, Y; or not infrequently N which although of late date is among the 
most archaic of the pre-Conquest calendars). We thus seem to get a glimpse of 
a possible insular tradition independent of the continental texts of M H, in 
addition to those Campanian elements special to Ept so conveniently brought into 
prominence by Mgr. Duchesne in the Prolegomena to MH p. ix. 


On perusing this calendar we are at once struck by the dissimilarity of its set 
of martyrological items from that of G; of the 179 in S. 45 only are found in G. 
And yet the two documents seemingly have their origin in the same region- 
South Somerset and North Dorset or South Wilts and were drawn up in places 
not many miles distant from each other. They make quite a different start at 2 
and 3 January: G with Isidori, 1 Macharii, Genovefae ; S with Sindani, 1 An- 
theri, Genovefae . Of the martyrologies or calendars that have like S Sindani, 
Antheri , the so-called Libellus annalis domni Bedae presbyteri (edited by 
Martene and Durand T/ies. anecd. Ill 637 seqq. from a St. Maximin s MS.), seem 
ingly a Treves compilation of the early years of the ninth century, covers, so far as 
I can find, a larger number of the items in S than any other, viz. 74, thus leaving a 
residue of 105 unaccounted for. But when S is confronted with the Breviate Gell 
this latter is found to cover 122 items whilst the full MH covers but I 16. This 
raises a presumption that, different as S and G are in appearance so far as their mar 
tyrological element is concerned, both may really derive from the same source, 
viz. the Breviate Gell. 

Ju, R, S, V, Wo. 12) vi id. Aug. Affrae-.^l viii id. in M H and in Ept and Bern at TJi 

id. also; in OEM. 13) x k. Oct. 6666 companions of Maurice: so M H Ept and Bern, 

andN; 6585 /r/w; 5585 Gell; 6600 OEM; 666 B and S. 14) Hi non. Oct. Cristinac i:: 

not in M H; in D ( ini ), Ju, N, R, S, Sh. 15) iii non. Oct. et Sauinac-.not in M H; 

in no other English calendar. 16) xii k. Nov. Hilarionis auachir.; not in M H; in B, 

D, Do, Ga, Ju, N, OEM, S, WT, WV. 17) ii non. Nov. Pcrpctuc <r. : [? as to M H 

the name undistinguished in a list]; Ocng (< conjux Petri ); in B, D, N, S, Sh, V. 
i 8) non. Nov, Felicts: not in M H; Felix prb. et Euseb. mon. Be; Euseb. mon. Ga; Fdicis 
et Eusebii N, S. 20) non. Dec. Delfim-.not in M H; in B. 

1 These are both corruptions. The genuine reading, Antiochiae Syriae Doni , i$ preserved 
in one MS. only (Vat. Reg. 435, dc Rossi s MS. N. 35; see Prolegom. p. xxxvi). In Ept this 
becomes Msiridoni , in ffiss and Bern siridoni . That common pitfall to continental scribes in 
the eighth century, the insular <r , is the causa causans of both the Sindanus and Isidore of 
the martyrologiei and calendars. At a much later date the same operating cause, this time at the 
hands of an insular scribe, produces in S at I Nov. cerani mar. (i.e. the sacramentary saint 
4 cesarius ). 

I 49 

A detailed scrutiny of the 57 martyrological items of S not found in Gell 
results in greatly diminishing, if not wholly removing, any difficulty in this respect. 
For it is found as follows: 

(1) Nine items are N os i, 2, 5, 7, 1 1, I 3, 14, 16, 17 of the Residue of G 
examined above (see p. 148 n. 2). 

(2) Eight are either Inventions etc. not likely to be derived from any ordi 
nary martyrology (22 Apr. Inv. of St. Denis, cf. de Rossi-Duchesne Prolfgom. p. xv; 
7 May, Inv. of the Holy Nails; 8 July Inv. of the body of St. Quintin (cf. Dom 
Quentin,p. I 34); 24 Oct. sanctorum conciliorum et aliorum mille ; and 144,000 
as the number of the Holy Innocents 28 Dec.); or more or less obvious corruptions 
(7 June Julianus for Lucianus ; 9 June a Beatrix added after Faustinus in 
imitation of the sacramentary feast of 28 July; 10 Sept. Gordiane for the 
Gorgonius of the sacramentary feast of 9 Sept.) 

(3) The calendar of the Bodl. MS. Digby 63 (D), to be dealt with imme 
diately, must here come into account as a source of martyrological entries in S. 
//;/ such items occur in D and S alone among our English documents, and of 
these eight none are found in Gell and but one in M H. Of the connection, 
direct or indirect, of S with D there can therefore be no doubt. In addition,_/?s:r items 
common to D and S, but occurring also in some one or other of our old English 
calendars probably came like the preceding eight into S from D. These are 
N os 1,9, ii, 12 and 1 4 of the Residue of D , p. 151 n. 2 below. 

This would leave 27 items to be examined as the Residue of S, particulars 
of which are given in the footnote. Many items in the list are found in MH, 
and in this point the Residue of S stands in contrast to the Residue of G; but 
if this latter left doubt as to the existence of the independent insular tradition 
spoken of above, the following examination of the Residue of S will, I think, tend 
to dispel it. l 

1 Residue of S. 

i) iv non. Jan. Sindani (see above p. 149 n. i). 2) iii id. Jan. Salui: in M H; in 

Be. 3) ix k. Feb. Sauine: in Be ( Sabinae ; in M H a Sabin(i)us at 8 and 7 k. Feb., 

and Sauini at 7 k. in Gell). 4) vi k. Feb. ./u.W Mr. ; in M H ( Julianae ); in Ga 

( Julianus ). 5) xiii k. Mar. Siluani: in M H at ij and 12 k.; in Oeng and Ga at 12 k. 

6) v non. Mar. Floriani: m M H; in Oeng. 7) xv k. Apr. Timot/ici-.m M H; in Oeng. 

8) xii k. Maii Marcelli: not in M H; in B. 9) vi non. Maii Arhanasii: not in M H; 

in Be, OEM; in Ju, WT, WV. 10) kal. Jun, Teclae i;.: in M H; in Will (in a 

hand later but seemingly of first half of cent, viii), Oeng, Ga (so the MS.; Hampson has Tutela ). 
n) 6k. Jul. Salui: not in M H; in B (see pp. 36-37 above). 12) 5k. Jul. Simphorose 

cum -viifliis: not in M H; (Oeng has seven brothers in Rome ); in N. 13) ix k. Aug. 

Ixxxi-i mar: in M H (Ixxxiii; Eft reads Victoria et alior. Ixxxiii ; Ga at this day has Victor 

miles ). 14, 15) i i non. Sept. Paterni et Fcliciani: not in M H; in OEM with Aristome* 

(gee the editor s remark p. xi). 16) xi k. Nov. Flauiani: in N (in M H the name occurs 

at ix and viii k.). 17, 18) x k. Nov. Crhanti et Doric. 19, 20) iii k. Nov. see 

Maxlme et Nicomcdis . 21, 22) non. Nov. Fe/icis etEusebii: both at viii id. in M H Eft 

and Whs, and in Bern Felix only; in Be Felix prb. Euseb. mon. , in Ga Euseb. mon. , in 



It is unnecessary at this point to consider the place or time in which this 
calendar had its origin. It is enough to say that the actual manuscript seems 
of a date earlier by at least two generations than that of the calendar in Salisbury 
MS. 150. The martyrological element alone of D concerns us at present. 
This consists of 88 items; 57 of them are found in the Breviate Cell but only 50 
in the great original compilation M H. 

Of the 3 I items not in Gell 

(1) Six are N os i, 2, 5, 14, 16, 17 of the Residue of G (see p. 148 note 2. 

(2) The following are the eight items mentioned above as occurring in D and 
S alone among our English documents, and (with one exception as regards M H) 
neither in M H nor Gell: 

v id. Mar. Gurdiani m. (perhaps a corruption of Gorgonius in MH 

and Gell at vi id.); 
ii id. Mar. Hilarii; 

10 k. Apr. Albini; 

11 id. Jul. Dionisi et Hilarii; 

xvi k. Aug. Mariae v. ( Marine S) ; 
xvii k. Nov. cclxx M (this is the item in MH); 
and xv k. Nov. Justiniane. 

This leaves I 7 items to be accounted for as the Residue of D. On examina 
tion the list given below will be found only to confirm what has been said above 

N as S. 23) xvii k. Dec. Donati: in M H. 24) xi k. Dec. Fclidtatis m. : in 

M H at 1 6, 15, 9 k. (Felicitas is with Clement, a sacramentary saint at ix k. Nov.; in M H, and 
in Oeng, Clement, but without Felicitas, is given at xi k. as well as at the true date ix k.). 
25) xiv k. Jan. Secundi: in M H Ept and ffiss (not in Bern}. 26) xiii k. Jan. Ignatii cf, 

etm: in Ept (only) rom. depos. Zephirini epi et ignati mar. ; in Oeng, Sh. 27) x k. 

Jan. Urliani: -in M H. 

1 This full entry is iusti et iustiniane ; in S the second name is somewhat indistinctly given, 
but with D before us there can be no doubt what is meant, though it is possible the compiler of 
S may have had also before him at this point the entry Justi mart. Januarii as in Gell. 

? Reiidue of D. 

I, 2) vi k. Feb. Sattirnini et al-^ram xxx: not in M H; in N (but xxii ), S ( Saturnini 
only.) 3) ivk.Feb. Sjitinc v. : not in M H ; Sabine at v k. in N. 4) iv id. 

Feb. et aliorum xxx (added to Alexandri, Ammonis ): this can come seemingly only from a text 
of MH that is like Ept. 5) xvii k. Apr. Ciriad: in M H (in IVhs and Bern iacae ); in 

Be, Ga. 6, 7) xvi k. Apr. i Pjnci\iti and kal. Apr. Venat S : I cannot find either ( Pancrati 

is probably a misreading for Patrici which D by mistake gives at xvii k. Apr.) 8) xii 

k. Maii Petri diaconi: in M H at 15 k (so too in Oeng, G, Wo); in Ju, R. 9) xvii k. 

Jun. Eugeniae: not in M H ; in B, Ju, N, S, Sh, Wo. 10) xiv k, Aug. Cristine v.; in 

the Saint Gall MS. 915 of Gell (see M H edd. de R. and Duch. p. 93) ; in Oeng, Ju, R. 

in regard to the Residues of the two calendars already reviewed, and as to 
evidence of an early and independent insular hagiological tradition. 


As this calendar will be printed below detail may be spared here. But it is 
well to observe at once that, though of the eleventh century, it is full of archaisms 
and frequently associates itself (as the foregoing lists of Residues shew) with 
the group above described as forming our earliest extant hagiological records. 
This is easily explained. It comes not merely from the most remote but from 
the most Celtic, backward, part of the country the furthermost Wessex; and 
gives probably the type of calendar existing in Devonshire before Leofric, with 
his foreign education, took the Church of these parts in hand. And I see no 
sufficient reason for assigning it to that yet more Celtic land west of the Tamar 
. Cornwall. Even the Glastonbury calendar (G) shews an advance in modernity 
and polish over S; but the calendar in the Nero MS. is of the old world indeed. 
Moreover, from the mere statistical point of view it differentiates itself also from 
G, S, D; its martyrological items are 138 in number, but of these only 68, 
that is less than half, are found in Cell, and in M H hardly more, 72; thus 
leaving (on our usual basis of Cell) 70 items to be accounted for. The print 
given below will afford means for further investigation to any one to whom such 
matters may appeal; but there are at all events two items to which attention ought 
to be called here. They occur in N only among our English documents and in 
the Epternach (St. Willibrord s) MS. of MH and its accompanying calendar (Will). 
These items are: ii id. Feb. Castrenensis m. (at iii id Feb. in Eft in vulturno 
castrensis ; in Will castrensi mar ), and iii k. Nov. Maximiani (in Ept in comsa 
maximi ). Both belong to those Campanian items to which Duchesne (Prokgom. 
p. ix) has called attention as special to Ept. But the Epternach Martyrology, 
with its accompanying calendar, is the most ancient and venerable monument of 
our English hagiological tradition, in many particulars (and those not merely Cam 
panian) independent of the Gallic. And thus this insignificant looking calendar 
of the last days of the Anglo-Saxon Church brings us across the centuries into 
direct touch with those documents and literary stores brought to this island in the 
seventh century by Benet Biscop and by Hadrian, a notable survival whereof is 
that Neapolitan calendar or Gospel Capitular of the seventh century which now 

n) xi k. Aug. Marie Magdalene: not in M H; in Be, Ga, OEM, Oeng ; and in all the later 
English calendars except R, C, N (and Wo ?) 12) vii k. Oct. Firmini: not in M H ; 

in Ju, N, R, S. 13) vi k. Oct. Cipriani: not in M H ; in Be and N Cypr. et Justinae ; 

in OEM Justina and Cypr. ; in Ga Justina only. 14) iii id. Oct. Anastasii ep.: in 

M H and Gell as Athanasius (of Alexandria) but Ept reads Anathasi ; in N Anastati , in 
S Anastasii. 15) xvi k. Nov. Florenci ep.: (a Florentius in M H and Gell at vi k.) 

16) xvi k. Jan. Ignatii ep. et m.: not in M H; in Be, Ga, N, V, (and in the Calendarium 
Floriacense , see above p. 147 n. i) 17) x k. Jan. Victorice (corr. / ): not in M H; 

in Be ( Victoriae ). 


many years since I identified, fixed in its place among our earliest ecclesiastical 
memorials, and handed to Dom Morin for publication. 


It would not be proper to close this survey without mention of Ga, though 
so different in character from the calendars hitherto reviewed. Its set of martyro- 
logical items, (including the variants in the Julius MS.) 237 in number, differs 
from those of G and S as much as the sets of these two differ from each other. 
And the origin of this metrical composition distinguishes it from G, S, D, N, no 
less than does its form; the intervention of an Irish hand in its compilation is 
unmistakable (see above p. 5 i n. 2). l Still even in Ga, Gell cover 168 items; but 
MH as many as 191. 

Thus much for facts and figures. What do they mean? What are we to 
think of it all? And in particular, as to the suggested importation of the document 
Gell into England: does this get countenance, find confirmation, from else 
where; say, from another set of facts? 

To understand the combination in the English calendars of the tenth century 
of a sacramentary element with a very large, indeed decidedly predominant, 
martyrological element, we must, I think, once more go up higher and, in this 
case, start from the last point at which we can take our stand on the firm ground 
of contemporary manuscripts; that is, as far up as the later years of the seventh 
century. We there find ourselves in presence of two quite distinct methods of 
practice, two different systems. If we take up a Roman book the Gelasianum 
we find a complete cycle of proper masses for saints (p. 15 above) extending over 
the year; a regular and duly developed Sanctorale. The Gallican books shew 
quite another system. The fullest and most important, the Mlssak Gothicum, 
has indeed some five and twenty such masses; but the value and meaning of 
this Sanctorale appears only on analysis. When deduction is made of masses of 
older feasts of apostles etc. (like those of the three days after Christmas) and feasts 
of recent institution (Assumption, Peter s Chair, Leodegar of Autun, etc.), 
the residue is made up of nine masses of feasts of peculiarly Roman attachment 
(among them the modern, and specifically Gregorian, John before the Latin Gate); 
and but five that can be in any sense termed local Gallican . This number of 
five includes the commonly revered Martin, Saturninus of Toulouse (not improb 
ably suggested here by the sacramentary feast of the Roman Saturninus of the 
same day 28 Nov.); then there is Eulalia, a Spanish importation; and finally 
Symphonan, and Ferreol et Ferrucio, that is the great local feast of each of the 

1 There would seem to be even some indication that the martyrology of Oengus m.r, r have been 
used. The verse for v k. Apr. reads Maria quinis comptaque kalendis ; Oengus s verse 
for this day, as translated by Dr. Whitley Stokes runs May she call us &c. &c. may Mary magnify 
us, the great Magdalena . The z8th of March of course is no common feast-day for St. Mary 
Magdalen. Its origin (so far as Oengus is concerned) probably lies in this item found only in Eft; 
It. cessar. mariae . 

J 53 

two great churches of the northern part of the Burgundian kingdom, Autun and 
Besan9on; one feast apiece. This state of the case seems to suggest that the idea 
itself of a regular Sanctorale in a mass book was not native but borrowed from the 
model of Rome. And the notion that thus suggests itself seems to find confirma 
tion in what survives of other manuscripts of liturgy, of the same or an earlier 
date, that are of pure Gallic origin, the Richenoviense, the Missa/e GaUicanum 
and the Mlssalc Francorum. Each of these has a single proper mass of a saint; the 
first and second, of St. Germanus of Auxerre, the third of St. Hilary of Poitiers. 

But if proper masses for saints arc sparingly represented in Galilean books, it 
is in these that the system of common masses for saints is developed. The 
Missa/e Gothicum has a set of such common formulae consisting of three for one 
martvr, three for many martyrs, one for a confessor, one for many confessors; 
whilst the Missak Eobicnsc (commonly designated Sacramefitarlum GaUicanum) z 
manuscript seemingly of a slightly earlier date and in this particular a valid witness 
of Galilean practice shews still further precision in its set of common masses 
for saints: one formula each for apostles, many martyrs, one martyr, a confessor, 
a virgin. 

Our next witness is that vast Gallican compilation which has been variously 
named, but which I should prefer to call simply Gelas. saec. z iii , to distinguish 
it from both the pure Roman Gelasianum not now forthcoming, and the form, 
shewing large interpolations made in Gaul in the course of the seventh century, 
in which the Gelasianum appears in print. 1 So far as proper masses for saints are 
concerned the compiler dealt with them in this way: he adopted in its entirety 
the series of such masses found in the Gelasianum as already enlarged by inter 
polations in Gaul before the end of the seventh century; then intercalated at the 
proper dates special masses for the saints in the Gregorianum not already feasted in 
the Gelasianum\ and finally added masses for about a score of new saints feasts on his 
own account. His new great Sanctorale thus came to comprise some 130 proper 
masses; and it has influenced all the missals of the later mediaeval period. But 
in spite of this richness he did not throw over the common masses; on the 
contrary he developed the system of commons still further, and provided 
a common mass for vigil of a saint s feast, for one martyr, for one confessor, for 
virgins, for many saints, for many martyrs. 

Charlemagne, by the imposition or propagation in his states of the Gregorianum 
towards the end of the eighth century, in this matter as in nearly every work he 
undertook or measure he adopted, designed to regularize the situation, with the 
effect sooner or later of bringing some settled order into matters hitherto, let us say, 
free. The Gregorianum possessed no such thing as a Common of Saints . This 
Alcuin provided in his Supplement Nos. xlix-lv in an orderly, methodical, manner 
- a mass each for one , and for more than one apostle, martyr, confessor; but 
a single mass for the category of virgins, variously entitled in the manuscripts in 
natale virginis or virginum ; and this set of Alcuin s is the kernel ot the 

1 As a matter of opinion I am disposed to place the origin of the Gelas. saec. i iii at about A. D. 
750-760 and so to bring it into connection with the Romanizing movement of the time of Pippin. 
There are considerable difficulties in the way of placing it much earlier or much later. 


* Commune Sanctorum or body of Common masses of saints, of the present 
Roman Missal. 

But these sets ever growing sets of a Common of Saints in Gaul what 

do they mean; that is, mean for practice? Clearly they must have been designed 
for use not for mere redundancy. They imply the existence of a calendar of 
some sort different and distinct not merely from that supplied by the few proper 
masses of the Missa/e Gotkicum, but also from the calendar afforded by the grand 
series in Gelas. saec. vi il. 

What saints were they for whom the Commune Sanctorum elaborated in 
Gaul was devised? The answer, I think, is not far to seek. Of the half a dozen 
manuscripts (mostly imperfect) that preserve to us the short-lived, if decisively 
important, Gelas. saec. t iii, three contain an item proper to inform us in this 
matter, viz. the Gellone Sacramentary (Delislc s No. vii), the Rheinau MS. 30 
(Delisle^s No. ix), and the now lost Rheims MS. of the priest Godelgaudus 
(Delisle s No. xii). Each of these manuscripts contained a brief martyrology; 
and that in the first-named is the Breviate of M H so often cited above as Cell . 
These three martyrologies represent three different types of the same calendar 
beyond the Sanctorale which called forth a regular and developed Commune 
Sanctorum as found in the Gallic books of the seventh and eighth centuries. The 
Martyrologium Gellonense although a Breviate of M H is an ample one; the 

* martyrologium ami circuit of the Rheinau MS. (printed in Del isle, Appcndlce 
No. i) is little more than a mere calendar after the modern manner; the Rheims 
martyrology of Godelgaudus seems to follow a middle line between the other 
two. 1 

We may now from the facts adduced conclude; and this conclusion is, I think, 
safe. The Common of Saints was designed to enable a priest to say on every 
or any day not privileged that is not provided with a mass otherwise, and not 
in Lent doubtless or other such times a mass in honour of a saint at choice. In 
a word, there existed commonly in practice in Gaul (but not in Rome) the same 
sort of practice that de facto exists under the Roman rite at the present day, with 
its repetition of the same common masses of saints, day after day and over and 
over again. The difference in the two cases lies in this that in the former case 
choice by the priest of the saint in whose honour he should say such common 
mass was free, now it is fixed by the Ordo. 

The direction really, if not at once evidently, given by the liturgical reforms 
of Charlemagne to^the evolution of the Church Calendar, is of course variously 
felt and evidenced in different churches according to the more conservative or more 
innovating mind of the local clergy. For instance, the calendar of a sacramen- 
tary of Senlis assigned by Delisle (No. xxxii; printed Appendue No. ii) to about 

1 As stated in the text the Rheims MS. is now lost ; but a comparison of the document 
printed by Canon Ulysse Chevalier (Ribliothejue Liturg^uc vol vii, Paris, 1 icard, 1900, pp. 1-22) 
from a copy of the seventeenth century with the extracts given by Menard (who knew the original 
MS.) in the Notes to his Gregorian Sacramentary leaves no doubt that it is the martyrology of 
Godelgaudus of the last years of the eighth century ; there are, however, clear indications that the 
late copyist was tired of this dull series of unknown names and left out some or many? 


the year 880, although by its form it seems to emphasize its martyrological 
character, shews the martyrological element, as compared with the sacramentary 
and local, as quite subordinate, and the document is already a mere calendar after 
the modern type. 1 On the other hand the calendar of the sacramentary of St. 
Vaast that goes under the name of Ratoldus of Corbie (Delisle No. LVI, printed 
Appendice No. v) seemingly of about the third quarter of the tenth century shews 
about the same stage of development as our G and S which are its contem 
poraries. Some few of the Gregorian Sacramentaries of the ninth century (one 
of the church of Paris, Ottoboni MS. 313, Delisle No. xxxv; one of the church 
of Sens, see Delisle No. xliii and the Prolcgom. to M H, pp. xiv-xv, No. 5) had a 
martyrology attached in the older style shewn by the manuscripts of Gelas. seec. 
vi n. Did those who used these missals follow the old practice and liberty in 
regard to masses of saints not provided for by the Sanctorale? The dead record 
cannot tell its tale. But that that practice lingered long centuries later seems cer 
tain; and the evidence for this is the mass-book of the early years of the twelfth 
century that goes under the name of The Drummond Missal (ed. G. H. Forbes, 
Burntisland, 1882). I may be pardoned for lingering a moment over this book; 
there is a pathetic interest in observing the end of things that have outlived their 
time. Briefly the Drummond Missal shews a few masses for the greatest feasts, 
the great mysteries, with a very elaborate set of common masses of saints and 
at the end a brief martyrology . The back-bone of this martyrology is the calen 
dar of the Gregorian Sanctorale with sacramentary additions common at the date 
when the book was written; there is also a particularly large number of early Roman 
Pontiffs, with almost at each da} one or more Irish saints. This book of the 
twelfth century comes to us from the more remote and solitary regions of Scotland 
or of Ireland. What does it mean if not this: that in those far away parts of the 
country there must have maintained itself, fresh and living still, the manner and 
system in regard to masses of saints that had prevailed in many a district of Gaul, 
perhaps through the larger part of the country, five hundred years earlier. 

With the explanations given it is, I think, not difficult to see how a document 
like the Martyohgnuv. Gclhncnse can have been really the basis of that martyro 
logical element of our English calendars of the tenth and eleventh centuries 
which when examined so readily give evidence of its influence and use. More 
over that this compilation soon obtained a wide circulation appears from the copy 
in print which lias two local entries of a dedication of a church, one of Rebais 
in the diocese of Meaux in the north, the other at Gellone in the far south, 
of France. Another copy still extant was made about the end of the eighth 
century at St. Gall (cod. S. Gall. 914) from the title of which it appears that the 
compiler of the work, whoever he was, drew his materials from the books of the 
cities of Lyons, Vienne, Autun, and Grenoble . It was therefore early known 
as a compilation of note. 1 see then no reason for not acquiescing in the conclu 
sion to which the evidence of our English calendars seems clearly to point, namely, 

1 The calendar printed by Delisle Append. N iv from an Amiens Sacramentary assigned by 
him to the second half of the ninth century (his N XLII) cannot be taken as if a practical church 
calendar t all. 


that it was known and used in England also. It may be asked at what date did 
a copy of the Martyrologium Gclloncnse come to our shores. The date of the MS. of 
D seems to indicate that this must at all events have been not later than the closing 
years of the ninth century. In cases of this kind where we can know nothing, fancy 
is free; but I should personally be inclined to suppose that this book came to Eng 
land towards the end of the eighth century or begi ming of the ninth, rather than 
at a later time. Our political historians are apt to slur over the period of the 
Mercian hegemony and greatness and pass rapidly on to the rising fortunes of 
Wessex. This ma}- be quite a right course for them; but from other points of 
view this Mercian period deserves more notice and indeed exact attention than it 
commonly receives. It is undoubted!}- not so attractive as the first half of the 
eighth century when England was giving to the continent; the Mercian period 
was rather a time of receiving the good things (such as the}- were) of others, 
but it is all the more instructive, perhaps, on that account. Among the things 
then received I should be disposed to count a copy of the then recent work, the 
newly made Breviate of M H, compiled from the books of the cities of Lyons 
etc. that goes under the name of Martyrologium Gclloncnse. 

The immediate inducement to write this Addendum on the martyrological 
element in the Anglo-Saxon calendars has been already mentioned; but the Ad 
dendum is also incidentally an attempt to carry out an idea of that master and 
model of those who would wish to learn I mean the late G. B. de Rossi : the 
idea that is suggested in the first chapter of his Prolegomena to the Hieronymian 
Martyrology, section III, entitled Kalendaria vel kalendariis similia derivata ex 
Hieronymianis . England, as offering a small number of documents but of all 
ages from the seventh century to the eleventh, is probably the best field in which 
to begin such an investigation. With similar enquiries made in regard to the 
early calendars of particular regions in France or Upper Italy we might be able 
to see more clearly into these matters and into the spread of cults generally; 
and so learn too whether the conclusions here arrived at in regard to England are 
confirmed or have to be modified. 1 

1 It would have been easy to crowd the preceding page* with testimonies in regard to par 
ticular taints from continental calendar! of the ninth and tenth centuries. But there was a 
dissuasive from so doing besides the risk (I am afraid not wholly escaped already) of making it 
hard to see the wood for the trees. The dissuasive reason is thii that those calendars, although 
they may shew some of the more curious martyrological items mentioned in the lists of Residue 
given above, have not behind them in these particulars a genuine and native (continental) tradition, 
but really derive from that early insular tradition insisted on above which was carried hence by 
missioners and teachers to the continent in the eighth century. As a view I incline to go 
further, and say that this insular tradition, yet to be investigated, has to be taken into serious 
account for the future and further criticism of M H itself. For the purposes of that investigation 
Dr Whitley Stokes s edition of Oengus for the Henry Bradshaw Society is inestimably useful 
and valuable. As to the quality of such tradition, or the particular quality of inventiveness which 
it may evidence, nothing is said here t 

J 57 



The calendar in the Digby MS. 63 (D), as the oldest manuscript, may be taken 
as the best starting point for the enquiry. Fortunately it gives information, defi 
nite and unmistakable, as to its origin. It was stated above (p. 23), and has been 
exemplified in the Table by Arundel MS. 60, that the greater feasts are in some 
old English calendars distinguished by a cross. This is so with D. That there 
may be no uncertainty as to the character of such feasts a list is given in the foot 
note of the entries thus marked, with the exception of those that have to be 
particularly considered, namely: 19 Apr. Sci Cuthberti conf. ; 24 April <Sci Wil- 
fridi conf. ; 7 May Sci Johannis on beuerlic ; and 5 Aug. Sci Oswaldi regis . 
One other entry, but not marked with a cross must also be mentioned: 4 Sept. 
Sci Cuthberti 1 . 

So far as internal evidence goes, this calendar declares itself to be of northern, 
probably Yorkshire, origin, and may even possibly have been a calendar of the 
church of York. The feast of St. Cuthbcrt at 1 9 April need cause no difficulty 
in this respect; it is found in the calendar of the church of York of about A. D. 
750 (Y) that has so long gone under the name of < Bede s Poetical Martyrology 
now restored by Dom Quentin to its true position. The entry of 4 Sept. is the 

1 The feasts in D marked with a cross, besides the few mentioned in the text, are: Circum 
cision, Epiphany, Purification, Matthias, Gregory, Benedict (in March), Annunciation, Philip and 
James, Invention of Holy Cross, Augustine abp., Nativity of St. John Baptist, SS. Peter and Paul, 
Paul, James ap., Laurence, Assumption, Bartholomew (at 75 Aug.), Beheading of St. John 
Baptist, Nativity of B. V., Matthew ap., Michael archangel, Simon and Jude, All Saints, Martin, 
Clement (see pp. 23-24 above), Andrew, Thomas ap., Christmas, Stephen, John cv., Innocents. 
That the crosses come from the hand that wrote the calendar appears from this: the scribe first 
entered the feast of St. James ap. at a wrong date, 26 July, and then correcting himself erased thil 
entry and made one t the proper day, the 25th. But the cross written at the original and now 
erased entry can still be discerned. 

It is of some interest to note that the feast of All Saints (i Nov.) has a cross. The origins 
of this feast seem to be matter of difficulty to the liturgist and historian of religion (see for instance 
two recent books, P. Saintyves, Les Saints successeurs da, Dieux, pp. 81-90; Dom Quentin, Les Mar- 
tyrologn hiitoriqutf, pp. 637-641). But from a letter of Alcuin of the year &oo it appears that he 
was in the habit of keeping the solemnitas sanctissima of All Saints of i Nov. (with a previous 
three days fast) and knew his friend Arno of Salzburg as interested in its propagation; whilst a 
Bavarian council over which Arno presided had not long before prescribed for the feast of All 
Saints of i Nov. abstinence from servile work as on the Monday, Tuesday and Wednesday after 
Easter and Pentecost, St. Laurence s day and the local feast of the dedication of the church (M. 
G. Condi. ii, 197). Our present feast of All Saints had therefore before the close of the eighth 
century already a history. Whence came it? By way of conjecture I should be disposed to think 
it was imported into the continent from these islands, that it issued from the ame mint as the 
feast of the Saints of Europe , and that the entry in Oengus at i Nov. is a local record of iti 


true northern feast of a translation of St. Cuthbert which this calendar brings 
back to, at all events, the ninth century. Introduced into the south, perhaps by 
this very calendar, it did not long maintain its separate existence but by the 
eleventh century was combined with and merged in a translation of St. Birinus. 
The affinities of D after it came south are with the west country alone; we have 
already seen (p 151) its close relationship with S. Whether the MS. Digby 63 was 
written at Winchester it is for the palaeographer to judge; that the calendar was 
at Winchester already some time in the tenth century appears from the entries in 
a later hand of the two feasts of St. Swithun at 2 and I 5 July; and the deposition 
of St. Elphege of Winchester is also added at 12 March. But the connection 
of the MS. otherwise with Winchester, still less its origination there, can receive 
no countenance from the internal evidence of the calendar itself; and the Win 
chester calendar, in the earliest form in which we know it, shews no trace 
whatever of having been influenced by D. 

One item marked with a cross deserves particular notice, the primitive feast 
of St. Wilfrid on 24 April. This is also the day given in the Old English 
Martyrology , a compilation said to be of the second half of the ninth century 
and thus about contemporary with our manuscript. In the south this feast had to 
contend with that of St. Mellitus of Canterbury, which was kept on the same 
day and is alone recognized in G, B, Sh. The Salisbury MS. and N, both old- 
fashioned and uninfluential, combined the two traditions. But in the event 
St. Wilfrid on 24 April fell out of consideration in the calendars, except that of 
York; which, however, as early as the twelfth century kept the day as a feast 
of a Translation ; and 12 October was universally received as the day of Saint 
Wilfrid s depositio . But the metrical calendar of the church of York c. 750 
(Y) is explicit: Quoque die (that is, 24 April) Praesul penetravit Wilfridus 
alma . . . culmina coeli . When this record was written there may even have 
been still living among the clergy of that church men who remembered the 
receipt of the news there. The 2^th of April in 709 fell on a Wednesday; and 
if St. Wilfrid died in the later part of the day, it is easy to understand how and 
why the abbat (as recorded by Wilfrid s friend and biographer Eddius in the 
* Life c. 61) regularly said mass for him on Thursdays. The date of St. Wilfrid s 
death, 24 April, seems quite well authenticated; its assignment to 3 Oct. rests 
on nothing more than fragile conjecture. 

There seems no sufficient evidence to warrant a definite statement as to the 
influence of D on any other calendar than S l . It was incidentally mentioned 

1 D (alone among the English calendars) has at 16 Oct. S. Mummolini*. In the later years 
of the seventh century Mummolinus was bishop of Noyon and Tournay, and thus exercised sway 
in the country behind the Terouanne region, in company with several saints of which latter his 
name doubtless came into D. The following list of the group of saints of the Terouanne region 
in D will shew how here too S is influenced by D, whilst this cannot be said of the Winchester 

6 Feb. Dcp. Amandi et Vedaiti In WV, WT, S, and commonly. 

7 June Transl. Audomari In WV, and S, Ju, R, N (at 6 June). 
1 6 July Transl. Bertini In S only. 

above (p. 38 n. i) that when the calendar in the Missal of Robert of Jumieges 
(R) is examined as a whole its affinities are found to be with the west-country 
group. To this group which distinguishes itself on the one hand from the 
group G, B, Sh, (cf. p. 6 1 n. i), and from the Winchester calendar on the other 
attention must now be directed. With its disconcerting variety of peculiarly 
local feasts St. Cuthman of Steyning in Sussex, St. John of Beverley, St. Oswald 
of Worcester (and Ramsey and York) and St. Tibba of the fen-country R, the 
oldest member of the group, is not quite an easy document to disentangle until 
it is analyzed and confronted with the other Anglo-Saxon calendars extant. The 
simplest and shortest way of evidencing its relationships will be to give a list of its 
entries that are really peculiar with a mention of all the documents in which each 
item appears. The list is as follows: 

8 Feb. Cuthman cf. R, Ju, Wo, N. 
i i Radegund v. R, Ju, Wo, G. 

27 ,, Invention of the Head of St. John Baptist Oeng, OEM, R, 

Ju ( corporis ), Wo, N. 
17 Mar. Witburga and Patrick R, Ju, Wo. 

19 ,, Joseph, Spouse of the B. V. 1 Oeng, R, Ju, Wo, the Winchester 

calendar WV, and Sh. 
i Apr. Barontus monk- R, Ju. 

20 Apr. Peter Deacon D, R, Ju. 

24 Wilfrid OEM, D, R, Ju, N, S. 
7 May John of Bcvcrley OEM, D, R, Ju, Wo, N, Do. 

9 Translation of St. Andrew R, Ju, N (later hand in V). 

21 June Apollonaris and Leuthfred R, Ju. 

19 July Cristina v. OEM, D, R, Ju (? if erased in Wo). 

20 Nat. Vulmari In WV, WT, S, and commonly. 

5 Sept. Dcp. Bertini abb. In WV, WT, S, and commonly. 

9 Audomari In S, Do. 

20 Amandi cf. In S, Sh. 

26 Oct. Nat. Amandi ep. In S, Ju, R, V . 

9 Nov. Winnoci cf. In S, Ju, N, V. 

It is of no consequence for the present purpose whether the three entries of Amandu* may 
relate to the same person or not. 

1 I cannot trace this back earlier than Oengus and his contemporary, the martyrology in tht 
Rheinau MS. 30 (Delisle, Mem, App. No. I). This seems to point to Ireland as the original 
source of both. 

2 This is I fancy no other than the monk Barontus who in Southern Italy, with his contem 
porary Fursey in our northern regions, inaugurated that literature of Visions which still pure in 
Bede not long after his day was used in Mercia for political purposes and was to be thus employed so 
effectively later in the days of the declining Carolingian house. Though overlooked seemingly by 
Potthast, the Vision of Barontus was, if I rightly remember, given at least in part by Waitz in the 
Scriptores rerum Langobardicarum; that it was known in England in the later Anglo-Saxon times 
appears from what still remains of the burnt Cotton MS. Otho A xin. 

I 6O 

1 8 Aug. scae elenae reg* R, Do, (later hand in V), N (19 Aug.). 
23 Timothy and Apollinaris R, Ju (later hand in V). 
26 Oct. Amandus bp. D, R, Ju, S, V. 
30 Ordination of St. Swithun R, Ju, WV. 
4 Dec. Benedict abb. R, Ju, Wo, N, WT, WV, Do. 

I do not feel able to make any suggestion as to the place where, or the par 
ticular church (if any) for which, R may have been written. As pointed out 
p. 59 seqq. the number of Winchester feasts it contains is not satisfactory still 
less, cogent evidence of its connection with Winchester. The utmost that can 
be said is that it is doubtless the earliest extant example of that wholesale adoption 
of such feasts which soon became general. It is c-ough here to have indicated 
its affinities, which seem evidently to shew that it (that is, a calendar of this type) 
was at any rate a source , directly or indirectly, of the two calendars Ju and Wo 
that have been commonly assigned to Worcester just before the Conquest. 

It is true that these two last named calendars arc substantially the same docu 
ment. But a distinction has to be made between them. That the calendar in 
C. C.C. C. MS. 391 is a calendar of the church of Worcester in the earlier years 
of St. Wulstan s episcopate there seems no reason to doubt. But it is otherwise 
with the calendar of the Bodleian MS. Junius 99. The following lists of the 
strictly local feasts in these two documents will, I think, at once make clear the 
church to which Ju is to be assigned. 


28 Feb. Oswald abp. Oswald abp. 

15 Apr. Transl. of Oswald abp. Transl. of Oswald abp. 

I June Wistan mart. 

13 Sept. Egwin bp. Transl. of Egwin bp. 

8 Oct. (an erasure) Translation of Os- (added in orig. hand to Transl. of SS. 

wald abp. Aidan and Ceolfrid) Oswald . 

10 Oct. Transl. of SS. Egwin and Othulf. 

24 Nov. Odulph abp. 

31 Dec. Deposition of St. Egwin. 

The Junius MS. 99 thus at once shows itself to be a calendar of Evesham; for 
the proof, it is only necessary to refer generally to the documents in Mr. W. D. 
Macray s edition of the Evesham Chronicle (Rolls Series) and to recall that (as the 
tract on the Resting Places of English Saints has it) St. Egwin the bishop resteth 
at Evesham" and so is a specifically Evesham (not Worcester) cult. There is 
here neither time nor space (and doubtless, indeed, there is not call) to enter 
on a comparison of these two calendars. Two items, however in tii_ Evesham 
calendar, but not in the Worcester, are too suggestive to be passed over in silence. 
They are these: 1 6 May Sci Brendani abb. , 17 May Sci Torpetis mart. . 
Neither occurs in any other of our early English documents. But, singularly 

1 F. Liebermann, Die Heiligtn England* p. 19. 


enough, the very brief Martyrology of the Drummond Missal (see above p. 156) 
has (with two Irish names) at 16 May sancti abbatis et confessoris Braendini , 
and (with two Irish names) at 17 May sancti Torpetis martirys (ed. G. H. 
Forbes, Calendar p. 15). But is it possible that such a document as the mar- 
tyrology preserved to us in the Drummond Missal could have found its way 
to Evesham? That it might easily have come to the neighbourhood of Worcester 
seems not unlikely. The Liber Vitac of the church of Durham preserves one list 
of a whole community, viz. of the cathedral priory of Worcester, at some time 
seemingly during the episcopate of bishop Sampson (1096-1 I 12). We at once 
recognize Hemming, the compiler of the Worcester cartulary, and the chronicler 
Florence; among the rest 1 there are at all events two Irish names, Columban and 
Patrick. Is it through one of these that the chronicle of the Irishman Marianus, 
which our English Florence has made the basis of his own, came to Worcester? 
If Irish members and an Irish chronicle are found at Worcester, may there not 
have been Irish members and an Irish martyrology at neighbouring Evesham? 

There remain to be considered V and N. 2 V at once distinguishes itself from all 
other extant Anglo-Saxon calendars by a considerable series of foreign names. It was 
suggested above (p. 61 n. i) that it may be a calendar of the church of Wells under 
bishop Giso the Lorrainer . As the case is of interest it will be well before consider 
ing V to give an example of a somewhat similar mode of proceeding on the part 
of another Lorrainer , but a Lorrainer by education only not birth, Giso s 
neighbour the English-minded Leofric of Exeter. 

The following is Leofric s case. Harl. MS. 863 is a psalter of the eleventh 
century to which is prefixed an Exeter calendar of the later part of the twelfth. 
A feature of this psalter is a litany (ft". io8 h 1 1 i h ) which from the number of its 
invocations may be fairly called stupendous. A certain number clearly designate 
the diocese of Exeter as place of origin. * The particular interest of the litany 
centres, however, in the three last invocations of confessors: See Leo , See 
Bardo , See Simon . At a little distance from the name Leo, in rather smaller 
characters but seemingly in the same ink, is the numeral ix . Bardo is the 
archbishop of Mainz in 1031-1051 whose cult even in his own region has been 
quite restricted, local, subordinate. His name in an English litany of the eleventh 

1 The Surtees Society s print of the Liber Vitae (p. 14) is at this point unfortunately defective 
b/ the omission of twenty-two names (among which Patrick s) and a seeming intrusion of others 
that do not belong to the Worcester community list (see Downside Re-vieiv iv, 1885, p. 9). 

3 It is curious that though belonging to another part of the country both these calendars 
teem to have found their way about the end of the eleventh century to the neighbourhood of 
Worcester. Among numerous entries by a later hand in V are these: I Jan. Wistan; 2 Jan. 
Deposition of Egwin bp. and cf. (on erasure); and 19 Aug. Credan abb. and cf. This can only 
mean Evesham. The caie of N is not so clear; a later hand adds at 30 June sci Germani et sci 
Neoti prbri and at 31 Dec. et sci Eguini epi . 

3 Confessors: Neote, Maucanne (the Cornish Mawgan ); virgins: Sativola, and perhap* 
Tova, with Welvela and Pinnoia. The last martyr invoked is Olave (see above p. 48 n. 2). 


century is a matter as well for enquiry as surprise. Moreover the immediately 
preceding invocation Leo cannot be of St. Leo I who occurs at the very begin 
ning (the fourth name) of the invocations of confessors. Is the Leo at the end, as 
the numeral would indicate, really pope Leo IX, whose cultus, if like Bardo s 
never very famous, began nevertheless very soon after his death? An entry in the 
calendar of the Leofric Missal (our calendar G), taken in conjunction with the 
invocation in the litany, iseems to leave no room for doubt on this point. At the 
foot of the fol. 40 b (see the Editor s Introduction p. 1), which contains the 
month of April of the calendar, is this entry in a later hand et F. sci leonis papae 
et conf. ix (Leofric Missal p. 2 6). Pope Leo IX died on 1 9 April and this is the day 
of his feast; the Gelas. saec. inn feast of St. Leo I is 1 1 April. If this latter pope 
had been meant, the entry could easily have been made at 1 1 April after St. 
Guthlac. The line of 19 April has not merely the original entry Gagi et Rufi 
but also a later entry of St. Elphege and (seemingly) a still further entry of the 
ordination of Leofric himself running in the succeeding line of the aoth. There 
was thus no room for the entry of St. Leo pope and confessor ix at 19 April and 
it is obvious why such entry should be at the foot of the page. In the circum 
stances there seems no reasonable ground for doubt a? to the identity of the person 
meant, in both calendar and litany. It has been concluded (see e.g. Diet, of Nat. 
Biogr.} from the tenor of Leofric s letter to Leo IX proposing the transfer of the 
episcopal see from Crediton to Exeter that they must have been already personally 
known to each other. This finds confirmation in the two entries just discussed; 
and in the invocations of SS. Leo IX, Bardo, and Simon 1 of the Exeter litany we 
may also see record by a grateful mind of incidents of Leofric s early career pro 
bably in kindnesses shewn to him when he was a student abroad. However this 
may be, we need, I think, have no scruple in assigning to bishop Leofric the 
origin of the psalter Harl. MS. 863; and indeed on yet better grounds than the 
Collectar Harl. MS. 2963 that now goes by his name. 2 

If cults so remote from English interests or tradition could thus be introduced 
into his church of Exeter by an Englishman like Leofric on the score of mere 
personal veneration for contemporaries whom he had in some way known, we may 
not be surprised if a Lorrainer born and bred gave effective expression to his native 
preferences in a calendar so abnormal as V. When these personal elements, as 
we may call them/ are removed V becomes a commonplace specimen of the English 

1 Probably the hermit of the Black Gate at Treves. 

2 Any surprise at the specific designation ix in the calendar and litany it lessened when we 
recall how the use of the successional number of the pope in papal bullae was first introduced it 
would seem in the very brief pontificate of Leo s immediate predecessor Damasus II (1048) and 
definitively adopted in that of Leofric s friend Leo IX. And although it may be that Leofric was 
not king i chancellor , he was in quite a good way of knowing something of contemporary papal 
bullae, and the stress now laid on the reigning pope s number. 

3 The items in question (an uninterestingly miscellaneous leries) are: 9 Feb. Ansbert of 
Rouen; 28 Feb. Romanus abb. of Mont-Jura north of Lyons; 13 May Servatus of Tongres; 
23 May Desiderius of Vienne; n Aug. Gaugericus of Cambray; 20 Aug. Philibert of Jumiegesj 


calendar of the time. Of what church was it the calendar? There seem to be two 
possible indications. At 21 March is the entry in another hand: Obitus heri- 
manni cpiscopi ; this can hardly be other than Herman, bishop successively 
of Ramsbury, Sherborne, and Sarum, who died in 1075. On the other hand the 
calendar shews in the original hand one saint of quite local cult, 27 Nov. Sci 
Congari conf. The liturgical cult of St. Cougar seems entirely confined to 
Somerset. In the circumstances, the probable, perhaps only admissible, conclusion 
is that in V we have the calendar of the church of Wells under the Lorrainer Giso. 
There remains the calendar N. As a print now follows any account of it 
is unnecessary, and it is sufficient to refer here to what is said above p. 152 and 
to incidental notices from p. I 48 onwards. Any remarks that may seem called for on 
particular items will be made in footnotes. In regard to its martyrological entries 
it must be enough here to note that, insufficient as M H or Cell ma} have proved 
for the elucidation of that element in N, it certainly does not seem to be drawn 
from the later historical martyrologies, Ado, Usuard etc. that came so greatly into 
vogue from the ninth century, nor from a martyrology such as that (cent, xi) still 
preserved at Exeter. 

3 Sept. Kcmaclus of Stavelot and Mansuetus of Toul; 3 Oct. the (English) Two Ewalds; 8 Oct. 
Beneiiicta v. of the region of Laon; 12 Oct. Gangolfus of Varennes in Burgundy; 15 Oct. Lu 
pus bp. (of Angers); 21 Oct. the Eleven Thousand Virgin* of Cologne; 23 Oct. Severmus of 
Cologne; 3 Nov. Hubert of the Ardennes; 12 Nov. (the English) Lebuin of Deventer; 14 Dec. 
Nicasius of Rheims; 23 Dec. Servulus (a poor man of Rome mentioned by St. Gregory). 

1 Two MSS. of the A. S. Chron. have x kal. Mar. (see Mr. W. G. Searle s Anglo-Saxon 
Bhh ^ps etc. p. 85). 

- In the later middle ages St. Congar it found in the calendar of Bath only, not of Wells, 
whose speciality was then St. Decuman. The cane allows of a probable explanation thus: after 
the Conquest Bath became the principal church of the see and took (if it had not already) the 
cult of St. Congar. On the restoration of Wells as the residence of the bishop to its early primacy 
thi church may have preferred a local cult proper to itself leaving Congar to Bath. 


(ff. 3 a -8) 

xiii kal. Feb. sebastiani et Fabiani 
agne . u . 
uincentii . m 
emerentiane . u et m 
babilli epi et m 
Convertio pauli 
., policarpi . m 
,, saturnini . cum xxu . 

Sabine . u . 

[et agnetis . u] 2 
Gylde.c 3 
Balthildis . regine 

1 Unique (this word as used in these notes = an entry not occurring in any other of our 
English calendars before the Conquest so far as known to me). Mr. W. G. Searle s Onomasticon 
mentions nineteen persons of this name. Probably ^thelmod, bishop of Sherbornc c. 772-781 
(op. cif. p. 43 ; the same writer s Bishops etc. pp. 76, 226) is the saint commemorated. The 
longer litany in the burnt Cotton MS. Galba A xiv (see p. 56 above) has (fol. 93 col. I lines 8-10) 
after Guthlac these three invocations: aethelmod, eatferth, hemma (then: pachomi, frontoni , 
columbane, etc.). The ythelmod of the litany can be no other than the ^thelmod at v id. Jan. 
in N (for Eatferth and Hemma see viii k. Jun. and vii k. Nov. below). 

2 Seem in the same hand; but ? added later (in fainter ink). 

3 See iv kal. Oct. below. 


Circumcisio Dni 


iv non. 

Isidori . epi 


iii . 

Genofefe . u . 


viii id. 

Epiphania Dni 



sci aethelmodi . c 1 



benedicti . abb 



OCB . Epiphania 


xix kal. Feb. 

Felicis . epi 



Calesti pape 

et mauri abb 



Marcelli pape 


antoni . monachi 



Prisce . u . 



Marie et marthe 


iv non. 


vi id. 

brigide . u 
Purificatione S marie 
waerburge . u . 
[an erasure] 
Agathe . u . 
cuthmanni . c 1 
Alaxandri . 
Scolastice . u . 
Eulalie . u . 


u id. Castrenensis . m 1 

id. [ luliani m ] 3 

xvi kal. Mar. ualentini . m 



louite . u . 4 
luliane . u . 

et uitalis . m 
Donati . m 
pollicarpi . epi et m 

1 See above p. 1 60. J See above p. 152. s Added by a later hand. 

4 Unique: the martyr of Brescia (with Faustinus) at xiiii kal. in M H; at xv kal. in thi 
Reichenau Martyrology Zurich MS. 28 (Rich] which has an insular strain (see M. H. p. 21). 



x kal. Mar. Calesti pape 5 
et Gagii . epi 
ix uictoris . m 
viii Cathedra petri 
vii Milburge . u . 

; ., 

vi kal. Mar. Mathie apli 7 

v Inuentio capitis pauli 

iv Cipriani 

et alaxandri . 
iii ,, Inuentio caput loh bap 

The name of the cemetery in M H Win and Bern (not in Epi] in cimiterio Calesti depos. 
Gagi ep. taken at the name of a person. 

6 In red. In red; originally the! . 8 In Oengus (p. 63, cf. the Felire p. 78). 

Kal. Donatl . epi . m 

et deawig . epi 1 

vi non. Adrian! . m 

V Albini . epi 

et felicis 

iv Uictoris . cum . DCCC 

iii Eusebii . 

et saturnini . 

viii id. Candide . u . 

vii xl milituw 


vi non. martiani 

et gorgoni . m 
iv id. Gregorii pape" 

xvii kal. Apr. Eugenie . u . 
xvi ,, patrici . epi 
mar xv Eadweardi . m 
xiv theodoli epi 
xiii Cuthberhti . epi 
xii Benedicti abb 
viii Adnuntiatio see Mar. 
vii , eulalie . u . 

I 1 In Sh.; entered by a later hand in the calendar of the Leofric Miisal. 
In red; and in larger characters. 











ualentini . c 


kal. Maii Tiburti et ualerij 

theodocie . u 


Georgi . m 

ambrosi . epi et c 


,, melliti . epi 

machari . psb 

et wilfridi epi 1 

un uirginuw . 


letania maiore 

theodori . c 


anastasi . epi 

cuthlaci . c 


uitalis . m 

et leonis 

et cristofori . m 

et hilari 


Erconwaldi . epi 

Eufemie . u . 

1 See p. 159 above. 



Kal. philippi et lacobi . 

vi non. Inue 1 
v Inuentio see crucis 
ii loh apli ante portaw 


non. loh epi 

viii id. uictoris . m 
vii ,, transl and[re]ae* 
vi Gordiani et epimathi . m vii 
v Mamerti . epi 

iv Nerei et achilei et vi 

pancrati . m iv 

xiv kal. Jun. potentiane . u . 
et dunstani 




cethelbrihti . m 

et nicomedis 
helene . u . 
petrocii . c 4 
,, urbani . m . 

et haemma . abb . 5 
agustini . epi 

et bede . presb 
,, Germani . epi 
Felicis . m et pape . 
Felicitatis . m . 
petronelle filia petri . 

ii ccccim .mar 3 iii 
xvii kal. Jun. eugenie . u . ii 

1 The entry of the next day seems to have been begun by mistake at vi non. 

1 See p. 1 60 above. This is a record of the receipt at Milan of the relics used for the dedi 
cation of the Basilica at the Porta Romana, a decisive act for the future of the cult of relics in the 
West (I do not understand Mgr. Duchesne, Christian Worship p. 402 n. i). 

3 Machuti is intended seemingly for Maximi Maximini (see M H and Cell). 

4 Unique. St. Petrock s day is now 4 June; in England a date spreading probably from Win 
chester; so too in the Breton calendars. In view of the general character, and probable local origin, 
of N, this calendar (which knows nothing of the feast of 4 June) may preserve here the original 
(Cornish) day. 

6 This haemma abbot of the calendar is doubtless the same person as the hemma of the 
litany in Cotton MS. Galba A xiv (see note on v id. Jan. above); not in Searle Onomasticott 
(pp. 290-291). 


nicomedis . m 




non. marcelli et petri 
et erasmi . m 


et audomari 
et furser 

Bonefatii . m et pape. 
apollonaris m 

1 The sacramentary feast of Marcellinu* and Peter. Erasmus is at iv non. in Oeng and 
OEM; at iii non. in G and B. 

2 Unique. I do not find a commemoration of St. Fursey at this day elsewhere. It is diffi 
cult to see how any event (e.g. the translation after four years) mentioned in the last two 
chapters of the early Life (M. G. SS. rer. Mcroving. in 439-440) can have found (unique) record 
in such a calendar as N; the date of death (16 Jan.) seems well authenticated, but this feast of 
1 6 Jan. is found only in Oeng, OEM, B, and Do. Possibly the present entry is after all only a 
corruption of Pauli, Fortunati at this day in M H and Gell. 


vi id. Medardi et gildardi 
V primi et feliciani 

et colluwcylle . c 3 
iii Barnabe . apli 
ii basilidis . cirini na- 

boris nazari . m 
xviii kal. Jul. aniani . epi 
xvii Uiti . modesti . et cres- 

cente . in 
xvi ,, Ciriaci et iuliani . cum 

xl . milia 
xv botulfi . epi 

xiv kal. Jul. Marci et marcelliani . mar 
Geruasi et protasi . m 

Leodfrithi . epi et c 4 
aetheldrythe . u . 
Nativitas . ioh 
ioh et pauli 

et salui 5 

simforose . cum . un . filiis 
uigilia . 

et leonis . pape 
petri et pauli 6 








3 In Oeng, OEM, Ga, WV. 

4 Is thi only St. Leothfridus, Leufroy, abbot? (but ec also Leuferth etc. in Searle Oncwa- 
sticon p. 337, Bishops, p. 238). 

5 See above pp. 36-37. 6 A cross at thii feast. 





et agapiti . 


oc ioh 1 

vi non. 

process! et martiniani 



trawl sci martini 


oc aplor 


et sexburge . u . 



marine . u . 


et sci ercenwaldi 2 


viii id. 

Grimbaldi . c 


et quintini 



anatholie . u . 



un frafrum et felici- 

tatis . m 


Benedicti abb 
Mildrythe . u . 
et margarete . [uj 
Cirici . pueri et iulite 

matra tius 

xvi kal. Aug. Kenelmi . m 
lacobi . apli 
un . do[r]mientiuw 
Saturnini . epi et m 
Felicis et simplici . 
Abdon et senen . m 
[Sci germani epi . 
et Sci neoti prbri ,] 3 

1 The octave of St. John Bapt. in this calendar seemi noteworthy; in WV only (Wo in later 
hand). The Oct. of SS. Peter and Paul juit below dates at least from the seventh century. 
1 Unique (B at this day has Ethelburga ). 
3 In another hand seemingly not earlier than late cent. xi. For Neot see at xiii kal. Nov. 



iv non. 



Machabeor . un 

stephani epi et m iv 

Inuentio corpus stephani ii 

Oswald! regis et m id. 


Sixti . epi et m 
Sci Laurenti . m 

Eupli . m 

ypoliti . m 


xviii kal. Sept. Assumtione see marie 1 xii kal. Sept. iulii et iuliani . 
xiv magni . m simforiani 2 

et helene . u s viii bartholomei . apli 1 

xiii ualentini iv Decolatio ioh bap 1 

et maximiani 

1 A cross follows this entry. * The entries of xiv-xii kal. in a different hand. 

3 In R is sex elens reg. . This is now the day of St. Helena empress; in codd Wiss and 
Bern of M H (not in Eft] is Apparition of the Holy Cross at Jerusalem at this day; there it 
(as appears from Dom Quentin s book) no Helena in the historical martyrologies up to the 
time of Ado inclusive, or in the documents reviewed by him generally. 


Kal. prisce . u . et m xiv kal. Oct. Meliti . epi _ 

iv non. iustini . epi xiii theodori . epi 

[i ivoriii] et birini 1 xii Uigflw 

iii bonefacii . epi et m xi Mathei apl et eugl 

et marcelli . x maurici . cuw . yi . 

non. berhtini abb DCLXUI . mar * 

vi id. Natiuitas see marie ix tecle . u . et m . 

v Gorgoni . m viii Coneeptio . ioh 

iii pmi et iaeineti . m vii sci firmini . m 

xviii kal. Oct. Exultatio see crucis . et sceollfridi ab 3 

xvii nicomedis . m vi Cipriani et iustine . u . 

et i u ii an i . v Cosme et damiani . mar 

xvi Eufemie . u . et m iv Gylde . con ." 

et lucie . u . iii Dedicatio ecle michaelis 

xv landberhti e[pi] ii German! . epi et c 

1 See p. 159 above as to the feast of Birinus in September which in all other calendars is at 
4 Sept. This entry et birini is in the line of z Sept. but is so written that it may be a conti 
nuation of the entry of 3 Sept. Wo is the only other calendar that has Birinus alone; Tranil. 
Birini et Cuthberti in Ju, R, Sh, WV, WT; et Cuthberti translatio in later hand in Wo. 

2 So MS.; intended for 6666 (see p. 148 n. z N 13). 

3 St. Ceolfrid is at this day in OEM, G, B, Sh, and V. 

< The feast of St. Gildas is (universally) 29 Jan., at which day also it is found in thii 
calendar. The present feast is unique. A manuscript missal of Vannes of the fifteenth century 
has a fea*t of St. Gildas at v id. Maii (see abbe F. Duine s Brewatres < 

abbaye* Bretonnes, Rennes, Eug. Prost, 1905, p. 141). But in view of the ease with which, I think, 
we too commonly accord credit for antiquity to Breton or Welsh or Irish, in a word Celtic, 
traditions as compared with what is merely English, it may be well to observe that the oldest 
extant Breton calendar one of Landevenec of the eleventh (so M. Deliste) or at the earliest of the 
late tenth century (Duine pp. 148-15 i) seems to give clear evidence (apart from St. Cuthbert 
at 20 March, and St. Augustine at 26 May) that it goes back on an English original. The feast of 
St. Gildas of 28 September is therefore not to be summarily dismissed as only a blunder (cf. note on 
x kal. Jun. above). \f\r\ 


Kal. remegi et uedasti . 

vi non. leodgari epi xv 

v ,, Mnrci ct marcelliani xiii 

iii ,, cristinc . u . xii 

non. marci . pape et marcelli xi 

viii id. richari . c l 

et faustini x 

et iwi . c " ix 

vii Dionisi . rustic! et e- viii 

leuthcri . m vii 

vi paulini . epi et c vi 

v aethelburge . u :! v 

et firmini . epi iv 

iii ,, anastati . epi iii 

ii Calesti . epi et m ii 

et furtunati . epi 
xvii kal. Nov. luciani . 

et maximiani . 

xvi kal. Nov. setheldrythe . u . 

luce eugl 

Neoti . psbi 4 

hilarionis . c 

flauiani . 

et filippi 

thodorici . mar 

felicis et audacti . mar 

crispini et crispiniani . m 

sci eadfridi . conf 5 


simonis et iude 6 

sci iacincti . mar 

Maximiani . 

quintini . mar . 


1 A Ponthieu saint; in D and S only (see p. 159 n. I as to Terouanne saints). 

3 In the two Winchester calendars, WT and WV, only. 3 In OEM, G, S, Sh. 

4 Also in Sh; the late mediaeval feast of St. Neot is 31 July; see what is said as to St. Petrock 
and St. Gildas in notes to x kal. Jim. and iv kal. Oct. above. 

5 Perhaps bishop Eadfrith of Lindisfarne (698-721). An eatfcrth is invoked in the longer 
litany of Galba A xiv (see note to v id. Jun. above); other persons of this name in Searle Ono- 
masticon p. 179. 6 A cross follows the names. 


id. bricii epi 

xvii kal. Dec. Machuti . epi et c 

xiv romani et barali . pu- 

eri . m >! 

,, Colu;#bani . c 
Cecilie . u . 
Clementis . pape et m 
Grisogori . m 
Hni pape 
saturnini . m 


Omniu;;/ scor 

iv non. 

eustachi . m 



et germani . ep 


p^rpetue . u . 
felicis et eusebi 

viii id. 

winnoci . epi 


. mi . coronator 


theodori . m 


iusti . epi . * 


martini epi 

et menne . m 



ii Passio andree apli 

1 Rumwald is at iv non. in B; in S at iii non. as N. 

2 In B; in S Deposs dni iustini archiepi (i. e. Justus of Canterbury). 

* So too B; G had isici (the other companion in martyrdom of Romanus). 



Kal. candide . u . xix kal. Jan. uictoris et uictorie m 

iii non. birini epi xviii Maximiani epi 

ii trl benedicti abb xvi Ignati epi et m 

viii id. Nicolai epi et c xiii ,, luliani et bassi- 

vii Oc andree lisce . u 

iv Eulalie . u . xii ,, Thomas 

iii Damasci . pape viii ,, ,, Natiuitas . Dni :! 

ii Donati epi et c vii Stephani . m 3 

id. lucie . u vi lohis eugl 3 

et iudoci v Innocentiu/w 

ii siluestn pape 4 

1 This seemi the earliest authentication in an English calendar of the feast of St. Nicholas, 
1 c is erased. 3 A cross f o n ows tn i s entry. 

4 In another hand seemingly not earlier than late cent, xi : et sci eguini epi . 


A comparison of the two leaves of calendar in the Eton MS. 78 (a copy of which, 
discriminating its various handwritings, has been kindly sent to me by Dr. M. R. 
James) with the foregoing Table of Canterbury cathedral calendars and with three 
calendars of St. Augustine s now in my hands solves at once the difficulties this frag 
ment presents. It is part (February and March, November and December) of a 
calendar of St. Augustine s of (seemingly the first half of) the thirteenth century. 
At a later period this St. Augustine s calendar passed to the cathedral; and at some 
time early in the fifteenth century was more or less adapted to the use of this latter 
church. This adaptation was effected by the insertion of the two recently decreed 
synodal feasts, St. David and St. Chad, I and 2 March; by the substitution at 16 
Nov. of the Ordination of St. Elphege for the Ordination of St. Augustine (see p. 122 
n. i); and by the addition of gradings to (most of) such feasts of St. Augustine s 
as were also kept at the cathedral. Apart from palajographical considerations the 
date of this entry of gradings may be inferred from that of 6 Nov., St. Leonard, 
which is given as quasi in albis xii lc . From the Table printed above it appears 
that this is a designation peculiar to No. 13, a manuscript of the early part of the 
fifteenth century. The gradings of the Eton MS. will be given in full below 
among the Corrigenda. 1 

It is neither to be expected nor desired that the subject of the St. Augustine s 
calendar should be discussed here; but notice must be taken of some items that 
concern matters already touched on in this extended tract. 

1 Three items which I do not understand are mentioned here for record: 9 Mar. Scorum xl 
milium (M); 2 Dec. Sci Birini epi. ; 7 Dec. Ignacii epi ; to each of these is added the grading <iii 
Ic j but these three items do not appear in the Canterbury Cathedral calendars. The 40 mil. 
occurs in MS. AC and Ignatius in MS. AA (for these signs see the next footnote). 

(1) One or other of the three St. Augustine s calendars mentioned above as 
in hand 1 shews items of the calendar in the Bosworth Psalter (B) that have fallen 
out of the later calendars of Canterbury cathedral. These are: 

17 Jan. Antonii mon. in AA, AC. 

12 Feb. Eulalie v. in AC; not in AA. 

23 Milburge in AC; not in AA, AB. 

9 Mar. Passio scor. xl millium (so), in AC; not in AA, AB. 

6 July Sexburge v. in AA, AC; not in AB. 

Of these five items the first, second and fourth occur also in the Glastonbury 
calendar of the tenth century (G). 

But four other items, unfamiliar in the later mediaeval calendars generally, 
also suggest enquiry; viz. 

6 Mar. sci victoris in AA, AC. 

7 Apr. sci timothei in AC only. 
9 see Marie egyptiace in AC only. 

1 1 Oct. see ethelburge v. iii lc in AA, AC, AB. 

Whence come these four? They are not in B. But they all occur in the ca 
lendar G; and I know of no third document in which they occur together. 2 

(2) It was said above p. 35 n. i that, in addition to the names of the six 
archbishops whose relics were translated in 1091, there are found in the St. Augus 
tine s calendar of c. 1252-1273 (AC) two others, Tathwin and Jambert. Both 
names are absent from the Ashmole MS. (AA) which may date about half a 
century earlier. The two brief lists just given shew five other items found in 
AC but not in AA. This is the case also with three more: 

17 Oct. Etheldrcdi et Etheldruthi in AC, AB. 

12 Nov. sci Liwini epi et m. in AC ( com ), AB ( iii lc ). 
21 ,, Oblacio See Marie v. n in AC only. 

All this seems to indicate that at some time in the first half of the thirteenth 

1 These are: Ashmole MS. 1525, early cent, xiii, here called AA; that in the Canterbury 
cathedral MS. E 19 (c. 1252-1273), here called AC; and a calendar of early cent, xiv in a Psalter 
of St. Augustine s now in the collection of Mr. C. W. Dyson Perrins, here called AB (the months 
of January and February are wanting). The first and third were communicated to me by Mr 
S. C. Cockerell. The two calendars at the British Museum mentioned above (p. 125) as containing 
St. Augustine s material are in Cotton MSS. Julius D vn and Vespasian A n (see Fr. R. Stanton s 
Menology p. 677). 

2 As regards the pre-Conquest calendars: Victor (6 Mar.) is found in G alone; Timothy (7 
Apr.) is in G, Sh, Wo; for St. Mary of Egypt see above p. 148 n. 2 N 5; Ethelburga (n Oct.) 
is in OEM, G, S, Sh and N. Doubtless this last named feast is found in several late mediaeval 
calendars; but a consideration of the place of origin of those referred to in Father Richard Stan- 
ton s Menology p. 486, will, I think, shew that St. Ethelburga is not on that account to be eliminated 
from the list in the text. 


century the calendar of St. Augustine s was submitted to some kind of recon 
sideration or revision. 

(3) A notable feature of the post-Conquest calendars of both Canterbury 
cathedral and St. Augustine s in the form of their final settlement is the almost 
entire absence offcasts of Norman saints. The calendar, for instance, of Exeter 
of the later years of the twelfth century (Hampsou Mcd. aevl Kalcndar. I 449- 
460) shews about a dozen. Besides St. Austroberta and St. Audoen whose cult 
in the particular case was due- to relics and dated from before the Conquest, the 
calendar of Canterbury cathedral shews the introduction of but one Norman saint, 
St. Nicasius of Rouen (11 Oct.). The St. Augustine s calendar has at 21 June 
St. Leutfridus and at 24 Aug. St. Audoen; but both of these were well-established 
and wide-spread feasts in England before 1066. There remains 27 Feb. St. Hono- 
rina as the solitary record in the St. Augustine s calendar of Norman influence 
like St. Nicasius at the cathedral. 1 

(4) One further point concerning the calendar of St. Augustine s may be 
usefully noticed here. The famous translation of the relics of St. Thomas in I 220 
by archbishop Stephen Langton, one of the most renowned pageants of the 
thirteenth century, almost immediately found recognition in other and even some 
what distant Churches. But the ancient and dignified community only a few- 
furlongs away were by no means so ready or so complaisant. The calendar of the 
Ashmole MS. may very well date from a time before the solemnity; but this 
Translation was still not recognised at St. Augustine s when the calendar in the 
Canterbury MS. E 19 was written (between 1252 and 1273); when entered 
later by another hand it does not receive a grading; and in the fourteenth century 
(as shewn by AB) has the quite inferior one of twelve lessons. It has not 
infrequently happened that great ecclesiastical corporations placed quite near 
each other are by no means disposed to adopt soon or easily new feasts of their 
immediate neighbours, a point it is sometimes well to remember when assigning 
approximate dates to calendars on internal evidence. 

(5) In the calendar of the Canterbury MS. E 19, besides the obits of abbats 
and a few friends or domestic worthies, are some fifteen of very great personages. 
Seven of these are of Anglo-Saxon times: Harold and Stigand; of an earlier day, 
Canute, queen Emma and archbishop Eadsige. 

Two remain. The first, at xiii kal. Feb., is the obit, as Eadbaldus rex Anglo- 
rum , 2 ofEadbald, Ethelbert s successor as king of Kent (616-640), whose death- 
date inscribed in some Paschal Table was sixty or seventy years later carried over 
to the continent by some English missioner to survive for us as a historical record 

1 Though the relics of St. Honorina were actually preserved at Conflaus (Oise) her tomb at 
Graville in the pays de Caux and diocese of Rouen was the centre of her cult and object of pilgri 
mage (Cochet, Le tombeau de Sainte H^norlnc a Graville pres le HS-vre, Rouen, E. Cagniard, 1867). 
Dom Morinhasin the Semalne religieuse of Bayeux restored St. Honorina to her primitive origin 
in the diocese of Bayeux (Potthast, Bill. hist. Ed. 2. p. 1377); but this restitution h no bearing 
on what is said here, either in text or note. 

3 Repeated at xi kal. as Eadbaldus rex only, 


only in the meagre earliest annals of distant Salzburg. But this death-date 
of Eadbald survived, too, some six or seven hundred years after as an obit in his 
father s own foundation of St. Augustine s. 

The second, at viii kal. Sept., Eadgiua regina , is that of the noble queen 
Edyva whose name at all events was kept fresh in memory at Christ Church down 
to the Suppression (p. 125 n. i). This can be no other than that Eadgifu 
evax , as she loved to call herself, widow of king Edward the Elder, Alfred s son, 
mother, and grandmother, of two kings, Edmund and Edred, Edwy and Edgar. 
In view of the recorded incidents in the life of this great lady, who played such 
a part in the English history of the tenth century, and lived to see Edgar s accession, 
we cannot be far wrong in tracing back the inscription of her name in the obit- 
books of Canterbury cathedral and St. Augustine s directly to St. Dunstan himself. 



p. 6 1. 1 5. It would be perhaps now not proper to pass over without notice a name 
occurring in this Canon of the Mass added by a later hand. The list of 
Saints in the Nobis quoque peccatoribus after Anastasia has Euphemia . 
This is rare. The same insertion is, however, found in the Canon of a 
Roman Ordo of about the year 1032 written for the church of Seez 
in Normandy seen by Menard (Preface to his Gregorian Sacramentary, 
Paris, 1642 pp. 9-10, and Notes p. 21 ; in Mignc P. L. 78, 20-21, 281 
n. 78). This MS. also contained the Annals now commonly known from 
the name of its possessor as Annales Tiliani , and another set of Annals 
to A. D. 1032, both first printed by Duchesne (Scr. rer. Franc. II 11, 
III 356). It seems to be now lost. But the presence of this singular 
feature of the Seez MS. in the copy of the Canon added to the Bosworth 
Psalter at Canterbury towards the close (as it would seem) of the eleventh 
century deserves attention and might be a starting point for further enquiry. 

p. 25 1 4. A footnote should be added as follows: A difference between B and G that 
does not afreet the figures deserves notice. G has Sci Thomae apost. as 
well as Erasmus at 3 June; the Translatio thomae apli at 3 July in B is 
not in G. B here follows the tradition of M H, also found in other 
English documents; but G, by exception, has adopted a tradition found in 
Rich and evidently interpolated into the M H text of Bern (see ed. of de 
Rossi and Dachesne p. 74). 

p. 25 1. 9 read Baralus. 

p. 25 1. 19. The origin of the cult of St. Fursey at Canterbury cathedral is here 
referred to the continent not to Ireland as it was due to relics (p. 57 seqq.). 

p. 27 n. I For knowledge of the calendar in the Egerton MS. I have to thank 
Mr. J. P. Gilson who put it into my hands. When writing this first part 
of the tract I had forgotten the calendar in the Lambeth MS. 443 (No. i 2 
of the Table) which I had copied out some three and twenty years before. 

p. 30 1. 4 read and with a few. 

p. 31 1. 10 read took place during Anselm s visit to Lanfranc at Canterbury in the 
spring, and 

p 33 n. I last linear age read date 

p. 45 (9) in footnote, 1. 12 read quod cum quidam 

p. 47 1. 8 read Eadmer 

p. 49 1. 22 read the feast of 8 December 

p. 50 1. 4 read Constantinopolitan 

p. 5 I n. 2 1. 3 read our 

P- S3 1- l S/ or Metrical read Poetical 

p. 53 n. i last line: Fasti 

p. 54 11. 3-4. The tract on the Resting Places of English Saints gives an early and 
authentic notice of these relics thus: sancte Brangwalatoris heafod, bis- 
copes, and sancte Samsoncs carm, biscopes, and his cricc (F. Liebermann, 
Die Hci/igcn England* p. 19). 
p. 54 n. I 1. 3 read distinguished. 

p. 55 1. 2 from bottom of text cancel quotation mark at the beginning. 
p. 6 1 n. i 11. 14-15 There is no mention by the original hand of St. Aldhelm . 
This is too categorical; I notice some differences of script in the entry of 
St. Aldhelm (25 May) as well as in about a half a dozen names in Decem 
ber, and on this account make my reserves. But others on inspecting the 
MS. might have no such scruples and would consider these entries part of 
the calendar as originally written. 
p. 64 1. ii read palaeographical. 
p. 64 11. 1 6, 17 cancel the two commas. 

p. 65 1 12 the only entry in the calendar . This is incorrect; the word Natal 

also occurs in B at i May (sec the Table). Note i at p. 82 is of course 

to be read in connection with what is said at p. 65 as to this entry of St. 

Edward k. and m. That it is by a later hand seems not open to doubt. 

p. 72 11. 7-8 read almost invariably used in No. 7 (except in June, July and 

August) for feasts 

p. 73 n. i 1. 14. As Dom Qucntin (Les Martyrologes historiques p. 129) would 
seem to imply that the feast of St. Bartholomew may have been assigned 
in England to both the 24th and 2jth Aug. in the first half of the eighth 
century, it may be as well to state the facts of the case. From the details 
given p. 73 n. I above it appears that with two exceptions the 24th is 
not found in our English calendars as the feast of St. Bartholomew until 
the second half of the eleventh century. These two exceptions are: the 
metrical calendar in Galba A xvm and J. In sending me a copy of J, Abbot 
Gasquet pointed out that its metrical entries are also found in the Galba 
calendar; moreover, both have the obits of Alfred and Ealhswith; both 
date from the early part of the tenth century; and both do not influence 
later English tradition. 

As regards English documents of a date earlier than c. 900 Will, Y, 
Oeng, OEM, D covering the seventh to the tenth century have St. 
Bartholomew at the 2 5th. As regards the Hieronymian Martyrology: his 
name is at the 25th in Ept\ it is not mentioned in Wiss; but is in Bern 
at the 24th. 

The origin of the 24th is to be sought in France. St. Bartholomew 
was one of the saints whc ;e feast the Franco-Gallic compiler of the Qelas. 
saec. viii was the first to furnish with a proper mass (see p. 154 above), 
and he assigned it to the 24th Aug.; the same date is found also in the 
Martvrologium Gellonense, and in the calendar written for Charlemagne 
between 781 and 783 (see F. Piper, Karls d. Gr. Kalendarium, pp. 14, 
27). This seems to show that 24th Aug. had in France been commonly 
substituted for the 25th as early as the first half of the eighth century. 
It would be interesting to know which, if any, of the Gallic calendars of 


the eighth and ninth centuries still shew St. Bartholomew at the 25th. 

The Calendarium Floriacense certainly does so; but this is doubtless due 

to the fact that it goes back on an English original (see p. 14 n. I above). 
It would appear then that if St. Bartholomew is found in MSS. of Bede s 

Martyrology at the z+th Aug., this is due either to a change of day made 

to suit continental usage, or to the fact that the name was not inserted by 

Bede in his work but was added later in France. 
p. 76 col. 3 at loth: read Pauli 
p. 82 footnote \ for 2~th read 1 7th 
p. 83 seqq. and 113 seqq. The following are the gradings in the Eton MS. 78 

(see p. 171 above) added in the fifteenth century after the calendar came 

to the cathedral: 

7 Mar. (Perp. et Felicit.) iii lc 

9 ( scorum XL milium ) iii lc 

I 2 (Greg, pp.) in c 

1 8 (Edw. k. and m.) Ill 

20 (Cuthb.) ? xii lc 

21 (Bened.) II 
25 ,, (Annunc.) II 

4 Apr. (Ambros.) in c 

19 (Elphege) III 
23 (George) in c 
25 (Mark) in c 
28 (Vitalis) iii lc 

6 Nov. (Leonard) quasi in a. xii lc 

II (Martin) in c. 
13 (Brice) xii lc 

1 6 (OrJin. Elph.) in a. 
1 8 (Oct. Mart.) xii lc 

20 Nov. (Edm. k.) x[ii lc] 

30 (Andr.) II 

2 Dec. ( Sci Birini epi ) iii lc 

6 (Nichol.) in a. 

7 (Oct. Andr.) xii lc 

8 (Cone. Mar.) in c. 
1 1 (Damas.) iii lc 

1 3 (Lucy) xii lc 

1 6 (Barb.) iii lc 

i? (< Ignacii epi ) iii lc 

2 1 ,, (Thomas ap.) in c. 

25 (Christmas) III 

26 (Steph.) in c. 

27 (John ev.) II 

28 ,, (Innoc.) in c. 

29 (Thomas abp.) Ill 

3 1 (Silvester) xii lc 



p. 87 at 23rd: cancel quasi in a. 13 . 
p. 95 1. 10 for Tanslacio r<WTranslacio 

p. zz3 n. i for Bryan read Plucknett 
1 1 8 read nSfor 8 1 1 at foot of page 
I 21-122. Perhaps I ought to have mentioned the alternatives. 

other Ronans, Oengus has at I 8 Nov. royal Ronan (different from bishop 
Ronan the royal of 9 Feb.; see the genealogies pp. 73, 243). _ In the 
Drummond calendar at i 8 Nov. along with Romanus of Antioch is natale 
confessoris Ronain (p. 37). There is cult of a St. Ronan in Brittany 
particularly in the diocese of Saint-Pol-de-Leon (see Duine, op. clt. pp. 
155-156, 167; cf. Haddan ana Stubbs, Councils II 87). St. Rumon of the 
Lizard and Tavistock is also someiimes called Ronan. Having explained 
in the text what seems to me the more likely origin of the Canterbury 
feast, I must leave it to others to evidence the introduction of the cult of 


an Irish, Breton, or Cornish Ronan at Canterbury as has been done above 
for Brendan at Evesham. 
p. I 2 5 1. 4 read calendar. 

Reiidue of G (p. 148 n. z): 
N 2 add D 

5 after D add (at iv non. Apr.), 
8 read thus: At iv non. in M H Eft heraimi ; Win and Birn <Nerasmi ; in Will 

( erasmi mar. ), Oeng, OEM. In B at iii non. as in G. 
9 add in Wo see Marie virg. 
ij add Sh 6006, Will 6660 
Residue of S (p. 150 n. i) - 
N 1 \ add Ju, N. 
26 add Will Y. 
* Reiidue of D (p. 151 n. 2): 
N 1 for xxu read xxv. 
N 4 add (in M H at v id.) 

7 add But see Quentin, Martyrol. hitt. p, 696 (Venantius). 

10 read thus: in OEM, Ju, R (? erased in Wo; in Oeng at xv kal.) 
p. 150 11. 8-9: The two items of 7 May and 24 Oct. are interesting; but no notice ha been taken 

of them because they raise new and distinct question*. 
p. 152 1. 24 add; It is possible that the ice maxime of N 19 in the Residue of S (p. 150 n. i) 

may be another late reflection of the entry in Eft. 
p. 154 1. 1 8 for Gallican read Gallic 

p. 156 1. 3 from bottom after Grenoble read: The Breviates of Cell itielf, the so-called Labbea- 
num (MS. Phillipps 1667 at Berlin) and the recently edited Treverense , Noi 26 and 
37 of de Rosii s Prolegomena, both MSS. of the later years of the eighth century, also 
bear witness to the vogue of Cell. 
p. 162 n. 2 1. 5 read 31 July. 

p. 158 1. id for calendar of the church of York reaa metrical York calendar 
P. 159 1. 25 for metrical calendar of the church of York read metrical York calendar 



The footnotes are referred to by brackets ( ). 

Amiens, feasts and obit of bishop Richard 
of Gerberoy 122-123; designation of 
gradings at 123. See Calendars. 

Ansel m (St.), and Canterbury cathedral 
calendar 31, 33 (i); and cult of St. 
Dunstan 3 3(1), 89 footnote. See Feasts. 

Anselm the younger (abbot of St. Ed- 
mundsbury), and feast of Conception 
of B. V. 43 (i), 50 (2). 

Benedict!, divisio institutions 10, 128 
(i); divisio bead I I ; institutio 128. 

Benedictine Office : Bosworth Psalter 
written for recitation of i o ; at Canter 
bury cathedral in the tenth century 

Benedictional: of Canterbury cathedral 
(Harl. MS. 2892)36-37, 48, 49 (2), 

57-58,59> 6 4(0>7, 73 (i), list of its 
contents for Proper of Saints in notes 
on col. i of the Table 78 seqq.; of 
Exeter (Addit. MS. 28148) 48 (2). 
Bosworth Psalter: account of, by Mr D. 
Wells i; history of the MS. 3-4; its 
ornamentation 4-5, 6, 10, 129-130; 
contents 6-7; later additions to 5, 6, 
14; peculiarity in the added Canon of 
the Mass 175; the added litany 6 (i), 
i 2; the psalms 5-10 (see also Psalter ); 
canticles of lauds 11-12; hymnal 6, 
12-13; canticles for the third nocturn 
13-14; its unique character 14; the 
psalms partly corrected from Roman 
to Gallican version 9; interlined 
Anglo-Saxon translation 9 ; partly glos 
sed in the twelfth or thirteenth cen 

tury 9-10; written for recitation of the 
Benedictine Office 10-11, 14, 126; 
accents 1 1 ; neums 1 1, 12; calendar I 5 
seqq.; date of calendar 27, 65-66, cf. 
p. 176; print of calendar 76 seqq. (cf. 
70); the copy in the Bosworth Psalter 
the earliest of the Anglo-Saxon hym 
nals 12, 13; the hymn Summe con 
fessor not in other A. S. hymnals 12; 
no hymns of English Saints 1 2; sum 
mary of results obtained by examina 
tion of the MS. i 26; the sort of person 
for whom it is likely such a book might 
be written 126; the date of the MS. 
I 26-1 30; the palasographical question 
127; the question of the monastic 
Office i 28- 1 29; opinion expressed as 
to probable date and origin 130. 
Breton feasts in England 53-57; Breton 
cults at Winchester 56; earliest Breton 
calendar 169 (4). 

Calendars, origins of the mediaeval church 

147 (i); calendars and mass-books 
Amiens, calendar in Sacramentary of 

156 (i). 

Canterbury Cathedral. 
B. M. Addit. MS. 6160 [No 10 of 
the Table p. 76 seqq.l. 27 (2), 
36, 69, 121 (i). 

B. M. Addit. MS. 37517 the Bos 
worth Psalter [No i of the Table] 
( B ). 21-27, 34 34 0) 59. 6 5~ 
66, 68, 73 (i), 120, 121, 121 (i), 



B. M. Arundel MS. i 5 5 [No 3 of the 
Table]. 23, 28-30, 32-34, 34 (i) 
36, 39. 4 J -4 2 , 53, 59> 68 > 7 1 , 

73 (0, 88 ( 2 )> I22 - 
B. M. Cotton MS. Tiberius B in [No 

7 of the Table]. 27 (2), 29-30, 

34, 36, 69, 71. 
B. M. Egerton MS. 2867 [No 8 of 

the Table]. 27 (2), 29 (i), 34, 

3 6 > 6 9> ! 75- 
B. M. Sloanc MS. 3887 [No 13 of 

the Table]. 27 (2), 34, 36, 37, 

Bodleian MS. Add. C. 260. 53 (i), 

59,69 (i), 120, 121, 121 (ij, 124. 

Bodleian MS. D. 2. [No I I of the 
Table]. 69. 

Cambridge Trinity College, the Ead- 
wine Psalter [No 4 of the Table]. 

53 (0, 59 (0 68 > 7 ( -i foul - 

note), 74, 120, 121 (2). 
Eton MS. 78. 69(1), 145, 171, 177- 
Lambeth MS. 558 [No 12 of the 

Table]. 69, 175. 
Niirnbcrg, Canterbury Horae at [No 

9 of the Table]. 69. 
Paris B. N. MS. Lat. 770 [No 6 of 

the Table]. 68. 
Paris B. N. Nouv. acq. Lat. 1670 [No 

5 of the Table]. 68, 120. 
Canterbury St. Augustine s. 
B. M. Cotton MS. Julius D xi. 172 


B. M. Cotton MS. Vespasian A u. 

172 (i). 
Bodleian MS. Ashmole 1525. 122 

(i), 171 (0, 172. 
Canterbury Cathedral Library MS. E 

19. 34, 35, 59, 171 (i), 172. 
Eton MS. 78. See above under Can 
terbury Cathedral. 
Psalter in the collection of Mr. C. W. 

Dyson Perrins. 172. 
Charlemagne s calendar. 176. 

I 80 

Eve sham. 

Bodleian MS. Junius 99 ( Ju ). 34 
(0,49(0,73 (0,H 8 ( 2 ), i5(0 
1 S 1 ( 2 )> 59 (0, 160-162, 178. 

Bodleian MS. Douce 296 ( Do ) 
34(I),62,73(I),I47(I), 148(2) 
159 (i), 160, 161, 167 June (2). 
in Martene and Durand Ampl. Coll. vi 

650-652. 147(0, I5 1 ( 2 )> 176- 

in the Leofrlc Missal (Oxf. 1883) pp. 
23-34 ( G ). 15-21, 34 (0, 62, 
73, 121, 122 (i), 148-149, 151 
(2), 160, 163, 172. 


Paris \}. N. MS. Lat. 14086, printed 
in Martene and Durand Thes. anccd. 
1591-1594. 147 (0- 

Metrical calendar in Athelstan s Psalter 
Cotton MS. Galba A xviii, printed 
with variants from two later MSS. 
in R. T. Hampson Med. aevi Ka- 
lendarium I, 397-420 ( Ga ). 51 
(2), 53,56, 5 6 (0,73(0, H (2), 
150 (0, J5 1 ( 2 ), 153, 176- 

A bre-clatc calendar temp. Athelstani 
Bodleian MS. Junius 29, in part 
extracted from the foregoing Metri 
cal Calendar ( J ). 146, 148 (2), 

Poetical Menohgy (Anglo-Saxon). 24, 

H7 (0- 
Saint Edmundsbury 

MS. Vatic. Reg. 12. 60 (i), 147. 
Saint J r aast, calendar in a Sacramentary 

of. 156. 
Senlis, calendar in a Sacramentary of. 


C.C.C.C. MS. 422 the Red Book 
of Derby ( Sh ). 34 (0, 5^ (0, 
60, 61, 73 (0, H 8 ( 2 ), 150 (Ot 
i5!( 2 ), S9 (0 l6o 1 7 o . (3) 
(4), 176 (St. Aldhelm), 178. 


B. M. Cotton MS. Vitellius A xviii 
( V ). 31 (i), 61 (in footnote), 
73 (i), 1+8(2), 159(1), 1 60, 161, 
162 (i), 162-164, 169 Sept. n. 3. 

1 West-Country (see also Eves/iam, Wor 

B. M. Cotton MS. Nero A ii ( N ). 
34 (i), 37 (i), 6 1 (in footnote), 
73 (0,148 (2), 150 (i), 151 (2), 
152, 159 (i), 1 60, 161, 162 (2), 
164, 178; print of, 165 i 71. 
Calendar in Missal of Robert of Juml- 
eges, H. B. Soc. xi, 1896, pa. 9-20 
(<R ). 34(0, 38(0,62, 73(1), 
148 (2), 151 (2), 159 (i), 160- 
161, 169 Aug. n. 3, 178. 
Calendar in Salisbury Cathedral Li 
brary MS. i5o( S ). 23, 34(0, 
37(0,55,56(0,61 (in footnote), 
73 (i), 148(2), 149-150, 151 (2), 
159 (0, I 60, 161, I 70 Nov. n. 2, 
172(2), 178. 

Westminster. 125. 

Willibrortfs calendar. 
Paris B. N. MS. Lat. 10837 ( Will ). 
34 (i), 122, 146 (2), 150 (i), 

151 (2), 176, 178. 


B. M. Arundcl MS. 60 [No 2 of the 
Table p. 76 seqq.]. 23, 30, 34 
(0, 38 (0, 39. 4 -4 2 , 53, 68, 

73 (0- 
B. M. Cotton MS. Vitellius E xviii, 

printed in Hampson, op. fit. I, 422- 
433 ( WV ). 19,30, 34, (0,38 
(0, 39, 4 J -4 2 , 4 8 , 49, 5 ( 2 ), 53, 
59, 61, (in footnote), 62, 73 (0, 

148 (2), 150 (0, 159 (0, l6 o, 

1 6 1, 1 68 June n. i, Jul. n. i. 
Havre MS. Missal of c. 1120. 38 

(0, 53 (0, 7, 7i (0, and notes 

on col. ii of the Table p. 78 seqq. 

Winchester Nezvminster 

B. M. Cotton MS. Titus D xxvii, 

printed in Hampson, op. cit. I, 435- 

446 (<WT ). 19, 30, 34 (0, 38 

(0, 4 8 , 49, 5 ( 2 ), 59, 73 (0> 
148 (2), 150 (0, i59 (0, 161. 

C.C.C.C. MS. 391 (<Wo ). 23, 
34 (0, 38 (2), 4 8 , 61-62,73 (0, 
148 (2), 151 (2), 1 60- 1 6 1, i 69 Sept. 
n. i, 172 (2), 178. 

Bodleian MS. Digby 63 ( D ). 25 
(2), 34(0, 122 (0, H 8 (2), 15) 
15 1- 152, 158-159, 1 60, 1 6 1, 176, 
178. " 

The Metrical York Calendar hitherto 
known as the Poetical Martyrology 
of Bede ; printed in d Achery s Spiel- 
legium 1st eel. X pp. 126-129, 2nd 
ed. II pp. 23-24; Bcdae Opera ed. 
Giles I pp. 50-53 (cf. p. clxix) ; criti 
cal edition by Dom Quentin, see 
p. 147 above (<Y ). 53, 147(1), 

148(2), 150(0,15! ( 2 ), 158, i59 
176, 178. 

Canon of Mass in Bosworth Psalter, pecu 
liarity in 175. 

Canterbury, archbishops of: cult of early 
archbishops at St. Augustine s 34-35, 
125; unofficial cults at the cathedral 
in the fourteenth and fifteenth cen 
turies 123- 124. See also Feasts. 

Canterbury cathedral: relic cults at 57- 
59, 64 (2), 124; revision of calendar 
in the twelfth century i 20 cf. i 73. See 
also Anselm (St.), Benedictional, Cal 
endars, Feasts, Gradings, Lanfranc. 

Canterbury St. Augustine s: calendars 
and cults of 34-35, 125, 1 7i-i74;feast 
of Ordination of St. Augustine 122 
( 5 feast of Ordination of St. Elphege 
122 (0- See also Calendars, Feasts. 

Canticles in Bosworth Psalter: of lauds 
I i-i 2; for third nocturn 13- 14; ver 
sion used 14. 

Dunstan St.: at Ghent 25 (2); date of 
Ordination 61 in footnote; and Wulf- 


sin bishop of Sherbornc 61-62; and 
Bosworth Psalter I 26-130; his mona- 
chism 127-129; enquiry into the 
accepted date of his birth 133-143; 
and obit of Eadgifu, widow of Ed 
ward the Elder at Canterbury 1 74. 
See Anselm (St.), Lanfranc. 

Eadbald king of Kent, his obit at St. 
Augustine s 173-174. 

Eadgifu evax , widow of Edward the 
Elder, her obit at St. Augustine s 1 74. 
See also under Feasts (Ediva regina). 

Eadmer of Canterbury 31, 44-45, 47- 
48, 64 (2); his life of St. Dunstan, 
136, 142-143. 

English calendars: growth of national 
sense reflected in the calendars of the 
tenth and eleventh centuries 33. 

Evesham. See Calendars. 

Exeter: use of Winchester liturgical 
formulae at 38 (2); Benedictional of 
48 (2); Collectar of (48 (2) 163; cult 
of St. Olave at, 48 (2), 162 (3); Li 
tany of, 162-163; Martyrology of 
164; Psalter of, see Leofric. 

Feasts and Cults 

Adrian abb. 26, 34. 

yElfric abp. 29, 29 (i), 1 13 (i), 124. 

yElfric hermit 113 (i) \_rcad: Pluck- 
nett_/0r Bryan] 

./Ethelmod bp. 165 Jan. n. I. 

Affra 148 (2). 

Aidan bp. I 8, 21. 
,, transl. 161. 

Alban 19, 22. 

Albinus (23 Mar.) 151. 

Aldegundis 20, 24, 26. 

Aldhelm bp. 26, 61 (i),i76. 

Alexander and Ammon, Thirty Comp. 
of 151 (2) cf. 178. 

All Saints (i Nov.) 16 (2), 17; ori 
gins of the feast 158 (i). 

All Saints, vigil 22. 

Amandus 24, 161; three feasts 159(1). 

Anastasia 1 6 (2), 25, 30. 


Anastasius (13 Oct.) 151 (2). 
Andrew ap. octave 17. 

transl. 1 60, 167 May n. 2. 

vigil 22. 
Anselm abp. 34, 87 (2). 
Antony monk 28, 30 (2), 172. 
Appollinaris and Leuthfred 160. 
Assumption of B. V., vigil 16, (2). 
Athanasius bp. 30 (i), 150 (i). 
Athelard abp. i 24. 
Athelm abp. 124. 
Athelred abp. I 24. 
Audoen bp. 58, 64, 73-74, 173. 
Audomarus bp. (8 June) 25; (6, 7 

June) 159 (i); (9 Sept.), 122, 

Augustine abp. I 8, 23, 32, 6 I (i), 63, 

72, 124, 158 (i). 
Augustine abp. ordination 122 (i)^ 


Augustine (of Capua) 122(1). 
Augustine (of Hippo) 17. 
Austroberta 30 (2), 58-59, 173. 
B. V. M. Conception of 32, 43-53, 

64 (3), 117, 118, 119. 
B. V. M. Oblation in the Temple 

49-53. 120, I? 2 - 
Babillus and Three Children 20, 28, 

148 (2). 

Baltildis 20, 26, 28. 
Baralus 25, 170 Nov. n. 2. 
Bardo abp. of Mainz, cult at Exeter 

Barnabas ap. 25. 
Barontus monk 160, 1 60 (i). 
Bartholomew ap. 17, 64, 73-74, 102 

(i), 158 (i), 176-177. 
Basil (i Jan.) 29 (i). 
Basilides etc. i 7. 
Beatrix (9 June) 150. 
Benedict abb. (21 Mar.) 17, 22, 23, 

32,61 (i), 158(1). 
Benedict abb. (11 July) 22, 23, 32, 

61 (i) 72. 

Benedict abb. (4 Dec.) 161. 
Benet Biscop 18, 20, 28. 
Bertin abb. depos. 159 (i). 

Bertin abb. transl. (16 July) 159 (i). 
Birinusbp. 30(1), 41 (2), 60,62, 69(1), 

171 (i). 
Birinus bp. octave 60. 

transl. 30 (r), 41 (2), 60, 

62, 69 (i), 169 Sept. n. i. 
Birnstan bp. 60. 
Blase 30 (2), 58-59, 124. 
Boniface abp. and m. 18, 30 (i). 
Botulf abb. 26, 30. 
Branwalator 20, 5 3-54, 5 7 in footnote, 


Bregwin abp. 34, 103, 124. 
Brendan 161-162. 
Brice 22. 
Bridget 18. 
Caesarius 16 (2), 30 (i), 30 (2) 

I 49.(0- 

Calesti pape (20 Feb.) 1 65 Feb. n. 5. 
Castrenensis m Castrensis m . 152, 


Celnoth abp. 124. 
Ceolfrid abb. 18, 21, 169 Sept. n. 3. 

,, transl. 161. 
Chad bp. 1 8. 
Christopher 25. 
Ciprianus (26 Sept.) 151 (2). 
Ciriacus (16 Mar.) 151 (2). 
Clement m. 23-24,61 (i), 121 (i), 

150(1), 158 (i). 
Collumcyll 1 68 June n. 3. 
Conception B. V. M. See B. V. M. 
* Conciliorum et aliorum mille 150 

cf. 178. 
Congar 164. 
Credan abb. 162 (2). 
Crisantusand Daria (23 Oct.) 250(1). 
Cristina(i9 July) 151 (2) cf. 178, 160. 

(5 Oct.) 148 (2). 
Cross, Invention of Holy 17. 
Cucufas 30. 

Cuthbert abp. ill, 124. 
Cuthbert bp. 18, 23, 61 (i), 158. 

transl. 30 (i), 41 (2), 

60, 62, 158, 159., 169 n. i. 
Cuthman 160. 

Damasus 25 (i). 

David ( deawig ) 166 Mar. n. i. 

Dedication of Church of St. Mary 

(Pantheon, 13 May) 21. 
Delfinus 148 (2). 
Denis and Companions 17. 
Denis, Invention of St. 150. 
Deusdedit abp. 26, 29, 34, 97. 
Didimus and Gaius 25. 
Dionisius and Hilarius (14 July) 151. 
Donatus bp. (i Mar.) 30 (i). 
Donatus (15 Nov.) 150 (i). 
Dunstan 26, 27, 32-33, 33 (i), 61 

(0,63-64,64(1), 88 (2). 
Dunstan octave 29 (i), 32, 33, 88(z). 

ordination 33, 6 1 (i). 

vigil 64 (i). 

Eadfridus c. 170 Oct. n. 5. 
Eatferth 165 Jan. n. i, 170 Oct. n. 5. 
Edburga (of Winchester) 26, 60, 62. 

transl. (18 July) 41, 60 (2). 

Edith 61 (i). 

Edocus cf. (=Judoc) 56 (i). 
Edward k. and cf. 29. 
Edward k. and m. 30 (i), 61(1), 65- 

66, 82 (i), 121 (2), 176. 
Edwold anchorite, transl. (12 Aug.) 

61 (i). 
Egwin bp. 161, 162 (2), 162(3) cf. 

i 78, i 7 i Dec. n. 4. 
Egwin bp. transl. (13 Sept.) 161. 

andOthulf transl. (10 Oct.) 

Elena regina ( i 8 Aug.) 1615(19 Aug.) 

169 Aug. n. 3. 
Elgiva (of Shaftesbury) 26. 
Elphege abp. 27, 31, 32, 61 (i),6s, 

64 (i), 72. 
Elphege abp. ordination 33, 122(1). 

transl. 64 (i). 
Elphege bp. 60, 159. 
Emerentiana 28. 
Epiphany octave of 17. 
Erasmus m. 148 (2) cf. 178, 167 

June n. i . 
Ercenwald (7 July) 168 Jul. n. 2. 


Erkenwald bp. 30 (i). 
Ermenilda 25, 26, 30 (i). 
Ethelbert k. and c. 80, 8 I. 
Ethelbert k. and m. 88 (i) 
Ethelburga of Barking (n Oct.) 19, 
24, 2 5, i 70 Oct. n. 3,172,172(2). 
Ethelburga of Faremoutier (7 July) 26. 
Etheldreda 19, 22, 25. 
Etlieldredus and Etheldruthus 172. 
Ethelfleda 48 (2), 60 (2). 
Ethelgar abp. 34, 81, 124. 
Ethelwold bp. 60, 62; feast at Can 
terbury 1 02. 

Ethelwold bp. transl. 60, 62. 
Eugenia (16 May) 25, 151 (2). 
Eulalia (of Barcelona, 12 Feb.) 172. 
Eulalia (of Merida, 10 Dec.) 153. 
Euphemia (12 Apr.) 30 (i). 
(16 Sept.) 25(1). 
Euphemia (in Nobis quoque pecca- 

toribus ) 175. 
Eusebius; see Felix. 
Faith 33. 

Felician, see Paternus. 
Felicitas (23 Nov.) 16 (2), 30 (2); 

(21 Nov.) 150 (i). 
Felix (5 Nov.) 148 (2). 
Felix and Eusebius (5 Nov.) 150 (i). 
Felix in Pincis 21. 
Felix pope (30 May) 148 (2). 
Feologild abp. i 24. 
Ferreol and Ferrucio 154. 
Firminus bp. (of Amiens) 122. 
Firminus (25 Sept.) 151 (2). 
Flavianus 150 (i). 
Florentius (15 July) 148 (2). 
Florentius (16 Oct.) 151 (2). 
Florianus 150 (i). 
Folquinus bp. 122. 
Fortunatus (9 Jan.) 20, 28. 
Francis 120. 
Fursey 25 cf. 1 75, 5 8-59, 59(0,78,79; 

(7 June i 67 n. 2.) 

Genovefa 17, 20, 21, 28, 30(1), 30 (2). 
George 61 (i). 
Germanus of Auxerre: I 54; (31 July) 

162 (2) cf. 178; (i Oct.) 24. 


Germanus of Paris (28 May) 30 (2). 
Gildas (29 Jan.) 18, 28. 

(28 Sept.) 169 Sept. n. 4. 
* Gordiana 150. 
Gorgonius (9 Sept.) 17, 150. 
Gorgonius (10 Mar.) 151. 
Gregory 23, 61 (i), 72, 158 (i). 
Gregory, ordination of, 33, 34 (i). 
Grimbald 26, 60, 61 (i), 62. 
Gurdianus 151. 
Guthlac 18, 23, 30 (i). 
Hedda bp. 60, 62. 
Hsemma abb. 165 Jan. n. i , 1 67 May 

n. 5. 

Hilarion anchorite 148 (2). 
Hilarius (14 Mar.) 151. 
Hilarius (14 July) see Dionisius. 
Hilary of Poitiers 28, 154. 
Honorina 173. 
Honorius abp. 26, 29, 107. 
Ignatius bp. & m. (17 Dec.) 151 (2), 
17 1 (i) [/or 7 Dec. r^^ 17 ]; (20 
Dec.) 150 (i)cf. 178. 
Innocents, number of 150. 

octave 28, 29. 
Irenaeus 99. 
Isicus 170 Nov. n. 3. 
Isidore (2 Jan.) 20, 28, 149 (i). 
Iwi c. 170 Oct. n. 2. 
Jambert abp. 35 (2), 172. 
James ap. (25 July) 17, 158 (i). 
Jerome 17. 
John Bapt., Beheading of 16 (2), 17. 

Conception ot 22, 30 (i). 

,, Invention of Head of 1 60. 

octave 1 68 Jul. n. I. 
John ev. octave 20, 28, 29. 

before the Latin Gate 153. 
John of Beverley bp. 158, 160. 
Joseph, Spouse of B. V., 160. 
Jovita 165 Feb. n. 4. 
Judoc (9 Jan. & 13 Dec.) 20,41 (2), 
53, 56 (i), 60, 61 (i), 62. Cf. 
Edocus . 
Julian see Lucian. 

Julian (of Le Mans) bp. 121 (2), cf. 79. 
Juliana v. (or Julianus, 27 Jan.) 1 50(1). 

Julianus (7 June) 150. 
Justiniana 151. 
Justus abp. 26, 69 (i),( Justini ) 170 

Nov. n. 2. 

Justus m. 41 (3), 60, 62. 
Justus & Justiniana (18 Oct.) 151 (i). 
Katherine 33. 
Kenelm 26, 30 (i). 
Lambert 24. 
Laurence abp. 26. 
Laurence m. octave 17. 

vigil 1 6 (2). 
Leo I (i i Apr.) 30 (i), 163. 

(28 June) 30 (i). 
Leo IX ( 1 9 Apr.) cult at Exeter 162- 


Leodegar 24, 25 (i). 
Leodfrithus bp. i 68 June n. 4. 
Leonard 33. 
Lethardus bp. 35. 
Liwinus bp. m. 172. 
Longinus 29 (i). 
Lucia and Geminianus 30 (i). 
Lucian and Julian (8 Jan.) 25, 28. 
Luke ev. 1 7. 
Maccabees 120. 
Machutus (14 May, ?= Maximus) 

167 May n. 3. 
Machutus (Maclovius, Machlonus , 

St. Malo) 53, 56. 
Marcellus (20 Apr.) 150 (i); Mar- 

cellus Peter 25. 
Margaret 148 (2) cf. 178. 
Marina (7 July) 148 (2) cf. 178. 
Marina (17 July) 148 (2). 
Mark ev. (18 May) 22. 
Martin (u Nov.) 23, 158 (i). 
Martyrs, Eighty-Six (24 Aug.) 150(1). 

Forty (9 Mar.) 18, 21, <mi- 

lium 171 (i), millium 172. 
Martyrs, Hundred and Seventy (16 

Oct.) 151. 

Mary & Martha 20, 25 (i), 30 (i). 
Mary of Egypt 29 (i), 85, 148 (2) 

cf. 178, 172. 
Mary Magdalen 33, 158 (i). 


Matthew ap. 17. 

vigil 17, 22. 
Matthias ap. 17, 158 (i). 
Maucannus 162 (3). 
Maurice 17; Companions of 148 (2) 

cf. 178, 169 Sept. n. 2. 
Maurus abb. 20, 28. 
Maxima and Nicomedes (30 Oct.) 

150 (i) cf. 178. 

Maximianus (29 Oct.) 152 cf. 178 
Medardus 30 (i). 
Mellitus abp. 18, 69 (i), 159. 
Merwinna 25. 
Milburga 25, 121 (2), 172. 
Mildred 26, 30 (2). 
Mummolinus bp. 159 (i). 
Nails, Invention of the Holy l5Ocf. 


Neot (3 i July) 162 (2) cf. 178,1 62(3). 
Neot (20 Oct.) 170 Oct n. 4. 
Nereus Achilleus etc. I 20. 
Nicasius (of Rheims) 120. 
Nicasius (of Rouen) 173. 
Nicholas bp. c. 171 Dec. n. I. 
Nicodemus Gamaliel and Abibon 20 


Nicomedes (i June) 30 (i). 
Nicomedes. See Maxima. 
Nothelm abp. 26, 34-35, 125. 
Oblation of B. V. M. See B. V. M. 
Octave of Apostles Peter & Paul 99. 
Odo abp. 29 (i) 34. 
Odulph abp. 161. 
Olavem. 48 (2), 61 (i), 162 (3). 
Omer (St.). See Audomarus. 
Oswald abp. 161. 

transl.( 16 Apr., 8 Oct.) 


Oswald k. and m. 158. 
Othulf. See Egwin. 
Pancratus 15 i (2). 
Paternus and Felician (3 Sept.) 1 50(1) 
Patrick bp. 18, 24, 148 (2), 65, 151 

(2), 160. 

Patrick the elder 18, 21, 24,^)48 (2). 
Paul, Conversion of St. 1 7. 


Paul hermit 28, 30 (i), 148 (2). 

Paulinus of Rochester bp. 19, 33. 

Perpetua (4 Nov.) 148 (2). 

Peter. See Marcellus. 

Peter and Paul, vigil 22. 

Peter s Chair at Antioch (22 Feb.) I 7. 

Peter s Chair at Rome (l 8 Jan.) 2 5, 28. 

Peter s Chains 16 (2), 25. 

Peter deacon 151 (2) cf. 178,160. 

Petrock (2 June.) 53, 56. 

Petrock (23 May) 167 May n. 4. 

Petronella 30 (i). 

Philip and James ap. 21. 

Pinnosa l 63 (2). 

Plegmund abp. 124. 

Policronus bp. & m. (19 Feb.) 148 (2). 

Pollicarpus (19 Feb.) 148 (2). 

Potentiana 18, 30 (i), 32, 88 (2). 

Praxedes 18. 

Prejectus 28, 30 (2). 

Primus and Felician 17. 

Quintin 22. 

Invention of St. 150. 
Radegund 24, \6tf.t 
Relics, feast of at Canterbury cathe 
dral 74. 

Richarius 170 Oct. n. I. 
Romanus m. (of Antioch) 121-122. 
Ronan at Canterbury cathedral 121- 

i2t, i77- J 7 8 - 

Rumwald 26, 170 Nov. n. I. 
Sabina (29 Aug.) 16 (2), 25. 
Saints of Europe, feast of the 5 I (2) 

cf. 158(1). 
Salvius (26 June) 25, 30 (2), 36-37, 

37 (0 [in^ ast line/"" fi rst read se- 

cond],s8,59, 124, iso(i)cf. 178. 
Salvus (ii Jan.) 150 (i). 
Samson bp. 30 (l), 53, 176. 
Sativola 48 (2), 162 (3). 
Saturninus and Thirty Companions 

(27 Jan.) 151 (2) cf. 178. 
Saturninus of Rome 16 (2), 25. 
Saturninus of -Toulouse 153. 
Sauina (24 Jan.) 150 (i). 
Sauina (29 Jan.) 151 (2). 


Sauina (5 Oct.) 148 (2). 

Scholastica 22. 

Secundus (19 Dec.) 150 (l). 

Seven Sleepers 25. 

Sexburga 26, 71 (i), 172. 

Siburgis 93, 124. 

Silas ap. 122. 

Silvanus 150 (l). 

Simeon monk 28. 

Simon and Jude ap. vigil 17, 22. 

Simon hermit at Treves 162, 163. 

Sindanus 149 (i), 150 (l). 

Siric abp. i 24. 

Sophia 148 (2). 

Spiridion 25. 

Stephen, Invention of St. 22. 

Stephen, octave of St. 20, 28, 29. 

Swithun bp. 26, 41 (2), 60, 6l (l), 

62, 120, I 59. 

Swithun bp. ordination 60,62-63,161. 
translation 26, 30 (i), 41 
(2), 60, 62, 159. 
Symphorian 15 3- 

Symphorosa & Seven sons 150 (l). 
Tathwin abp. 35 (2), 172. 
Tecla (i June) 150 (i). 
Theodore abp. 19, 22, 33. 
Theophilus 29 (i). 
Thomas ap. 17. 

transl. (3 June, 3 July) 

J 75- 
Thomas of Canterbury, Regressio* 

of 117, 119. 

Thomas of Canterbury, transl. 173. 

Tibba 38 (i). 

Tiburtius (i i Aug.) 121 (i). 

Timothy (18 Mar.) 150 (i). 

Timothy (7 Apr.) 172, 172 (2). 

Timothy & Apollinaris(23 Aug.) 1 6 1. 

Torpes m. 161-162. 

Tova 162 (3). 

Urban (25 May) 21 

Urban (23 Dec.) 150 (i). 

Valericus 25. 

Venatus 151 (2), 178. 

Victor (6 Mar.) 172, 172 (2). 

Victor Quartus & 404 mm. 18, 21. 

Victoria (23 Dec.) 151 (2). 

Vincent & Appollinaris 18. 

Vitalis m. (28 Apr.) 21. 

Vulganius i 13, 124. 

Wandregisil 25. 

Wei vela 162 (3). 

Werburga 25. 

Wilfrid bp. 19, 33, 158, 159; cor 
ruption of tradition as to his feasts 
1 60. 

Winnoc 159 (i). 
Wistan m. 161, 162 (2). 
Withburga 26. 
Wulfelm abp. 124. 
Wulfmar 25, 159 (i). 
Wulfred abp. 124. 
Wulfsin bp. (8 Jan.) 61 (i). 

transl. (27 Apr.) 61 (i). 

Feasts: Breton feasts in England 53-57; 
local Evesham feasts 161, 162 (i); of 
the region of Ponthieu and Terouanne 
in England 25,159(1), 170 Oct. n. i ; 
list of local Winchester feasts 60, 60(2); 
extension of Winchester feasts to other 
churches 60-62; of foreign saints in 
calendar of Vitellius A xviii 163 (3). 

Fleury. See Calendars. 

Grading of feasts: indicated by <F and 
S , 15-17, I 8, 21-22, 70 (i); by <F 
56 (i), 61 (i); by across, 23, 158; by 
Roman numerals 122-123; Lanfranc s 
scheme of grading for Canterbury ca 
thedral 63, 72-74, 123; Canterbury 
cathedral gradings in later middle ages 
72; late changes in grading at Canter 
bury cathedral 71 (i), 77, 79 seqq., 


Gregorianum, Sanctorale of 16-17, 2 5- 

Grouping of Anglo-Saxon calendars 158 

Hymnal of Bosworth Psalter 12-13,126- 

Irish members of Worcester cathedral 
community 162, 162 (i) ; traces of 
Irish influence at Evesham 161-162. 

Gelasianum, Sanctorale of 16-17, 2 5- 

Ge/as. sa-c. viii , Sanctorale of i 54, 1 76; 
origin of the Sacramentary 154 (i). 

Ghent, St. Dunstan at 25 (2); relics of 
St. Wandregisil at 25 (2). 

Giso bishop of Wells, 162, 163-164. 

Glastonbury: cults of SS. Aidan, Ceol- 
frid and Patrick the elder at I 8, 21; 
English feasts in Glastonbury calendars 
18-19; Winchester feasts and 6 2 ; Glas 
tonbury calendar as source of calendar 
in Bosworth Psalter 15, 19-21, 126; 
as source of Sherborne calendar 6 1 ( I ). 
See Calendars, Grading. 
Godfrey of Cambray, prior of Winches 
ter, liturgical reforms of i 2 i. 

Lanfranc, abp. of Canterbury : & calendar 
of Canterbury cathedral 27-34, 39> 
63-64, 120; and feasts of St. Benedict 
3 2 ; and feast of Conception of B. V.M. 
32, 47; ignores feast of St. Dunstan 
32, 63, 88 (2); and Canterbury relics 
64 (2); and relics of St. Salvius 36; his 
Statutes for Canterbury cathedral 32, 
6 3-64, 67, 72-74, 89 (footnote); his 
cult 29(1), 125 (i). 
Leofric bishop of Exeter: the Leofric Mis 
sal 15, 38 (2); psalter written under 
his direction 162-163. See Exeter. 
Lessons: of St. Dunstan 33 (i);ofSt. Sal 
vius 37. 
Lobbes, Gospel book of, given by Athel- 

stan to Canterbury cathedral 61 (i). 
Lorrainer bishops and English calen 
dars 6 1 (i), 162-164. 
Luxeuil. See Calendars. 

Martyrological element in English calen 
dars 19-21, 25, 145-164. 

Marty rologies : 

Bede s 146, 148(1), 150(1), 151(2). 


Bede s Poetical Martyrology. See 
Calendars, York. 

Drummond Missal, brief Mart, in: its 
use for practice 156; 162, 177. 

Dublin Christ Church: 48 (2). 

Exeter: 61 (i), 164. 

Gcllonense : 1 46, 1 48- 1 5 ^passim, 155, 
176; its diffusion & its introduction 
into England 156-157; two Brev- 
iates of 178. 

Hicronymianum : i 46, 1 48-1 5 7 pas 

Libellus annalis domni Bedse presbi- 
teri: 149. 

Oengus the Culdce: 51 (i), 122 (i), 
146, 148(1), 150(1) ISK 2 )* J 53 

(i), 158 (0, l6 (0- 
Old English Martyrology: 146, 148 

(i), 150 (i), 151 (2). 
Rheims MS. of Godelgaudus: 155, 

155 ( ) 
Reichenau (Rich} in Zurich MS. Hist. 

28: 165 Feb. n. 4, 175. 
Rheinau MS. 30: 155, i6o.(i) 

Naples calendar (Gospel capitular) of the 

seventh century 152-153. 
Newminster. See Calendars Winchester. 
Nicholas of St. Albans: his tract on the 

feast of the Conception of the Blessed 

Virgin 4 5, No 9 in footnote & cf. 175; 

on the prerogatives of the Blessed 

Virgin 64(3). 
Norman Conquest, changes in liturgy, 

piety, etc. consequent on: 7-8, 38-39, 
52-53, 57, 6 4 (3), 120-121. See 


Obits in the St. Augustine s calendar 
Canterbury MS. E 19: 1 73^74- 

Odo, abp., his monastic profession 129. 
See Feasts. 

Oengus the Culdee, edition of his Marty 
rology by Dr. Whitley Stokes 157(1). 
See Martyrologies. 

Osbern, the cantor, of Canterbury cathe 
dral : & relics of St. Audoen 64(2) ; and 
feasts of SS. Bartholomew, Audoen, and 
Relics 74 (in footnote) ; his Life of St. 
Dunstan 136, 140, 142, 143 (i). 

Psalter: Galilean (Vulgate) & Roman 
6- 7,39; the obeli & asterisks of the Gal- 
lican Psalter 6; persistence of use of Ro 
man Psalter in England 7; changes in 
the eleventh century 7-9; examples of 
correction to Galilean version in Eng 
lish MSS. 8-9; the Psalter of the Bos- 
worth MS. 9-10; HarleianMS. 863 a 
Psalter of bishop Leofric of Exeter 

Red Book of Derby. See Calendars, 


St. Audoen 57, 64 (2). 
St. Austroberta 57. 
St. Blase 58. 
St. Branwalator 54, 176. 
Ediva regina 125 (i). 
St. Egwin 161. 
St. Fursey 57, 59 (i), 176. 
St. Gregory the Great 64 (2). 
St. Justus m. 41 (3). 
St. Salvius 36, 58. 
St. Samson 54, 176. 
St. Swithun 57. 
St. Wandregisil 25 (2). 
St. Wilfrid 57. 

Relics and relic cults at Canterbury cathe 
dral 57-59, 66-67, 124, 125 (i). 
Relics, feast of, at Canterbury cathedral. 

See Feasts. 

Robert of Jumieges, missal of. See Ca 
lendars, West-Country. 

Saints. See Feasts and Cults, Relics. 

Saints, common masses of: origins of the 
Commune Sanctorum, and its use in 
Gaul, 153-155; in the Drummond 

Missal 156. 

Saints, proper masses of: I 5 seqq., 147(2); 
Sanctorale of mass-books of Gallic ori 
gin 153-154; Sanctorale of the eighth 
century Gallic recension of the Gelasi- 
anum 154. 

Sherborne. See Calendars, Feasts (Aethel- 
mod, Wulfsin). 

Stubbs, bishop: his treatment of the early 
life of St. Dunstan i 27-1 29; treatment 
of the question of the date of birth of 
St. Dunstan 133-143. 

Wells. See Calendars. 

West-country See Calendars. 

Westminster adopts Canterbury cathe 
dral calendar in the second half of the 
twelfth century 125; its foundation 

Wilfrid, St., date of his death 159. 

Willibrord, St. : See Calendars. 

Winchester: adoption by other churhes 
of special Winchester cults before the 
Conquest 59-64, 161; extension to 
other churches of Winchester liturgi 
cal formulae 38 (2); adoption of Win 
chester calendar by other churches af 
ter the Conquest 38-39; character of 
calendar revision at Winchester after 
the Conquest 120-121; Breton cults 
at 53, 56. See Calendars. 

Worcester: cathedral community (1096- 
1112) and Irish influences there 162. 
See Calendars. 

Wulfred, abp., his charter for Christ 
Church Canterbury 1 29. 

Wulfsin, abbat of Westminster and bish 
op of Sherborne 6 1 (i). 

York. See Calendars. 


In List of Contents ./or page 181 read See in Index corrections under Feasts : 

jjo Aelfric hermit, Ignatius, Salvius; and 

p. 175 1. 27 for 443 read 558 under Babillus etc. add 178 
p. 180 col. 2 1. 20 before 1591 insert III