Skip to main content

Full text of "Notes on the early history of the Vulgate Gospels"

See other formats


nt'r University 


S.N_ ;.h. m 















This essay does not aim at any form of completeness, and 
is published only in the hope that it may be found suggestive. 
Having no opportunity of working new material, I have tried 
to do my best with the riches amassed by Bishop Wordsworth 
and the late M. Samuel Berger. I know the result must be 
full of errors ; but I hope the search for these will lead others 
to further stages on the same road. More comprehensive and 
more certain conclusions will be reached when not only the 
whole New Testament but the Old Testament too have been 
critically edited from a large number of manuscripts. 

After writing the last page of the last chapter this morning, 
I saw in the Times the announcement that Pope Pius X has 
ordered a new edition of the Vulgate to be undertaken, and 
has confided the work to the Benedictine Order. My labour 
has therefore perhaps been more to the purpose than I ex- 
pected. It is by accident that I have dealt with the Vulgate, 
my former studies having, on the contrary, delighted in the 
Old Latin versions and the Greek text. It was in reviewing 
Dr. Kunstle's Antipriscilliana that the idea struck me that 
Priscillian must be the author of the Monarchian Prologues. 
The paper I published on the subject is reproduced in this 
volume as Chapter xiii. It met with a kindly reception from 
specialists in England and Germany ; but it was necessary to 
determine how such heretical documents managed to attach 
themselves to the Vulgate of St. Jerome, or (as a great 


scholar phrased it) * how did Saul come among the prophets ? ' 
The attempt to solve this question has produced all the other 
chapters of the book, and I think they are the more interesting 
the more they wander from the original investigation. I have 
been led into the discussion of various lectionary systems, and 
I hope the results will be acceptable to liturgical scholars. 
I have not tried to study these thoroughly, but only in so far 
as was necessary for the history of the texts to which they 

So far I wrote on May 21, 1907. It has taken longer to 
get the work through the press than it took to write it. If 
many errors have been removed, this is principally due to the 
kind friends who have read the proofs for me. I have to 
thank for this ungrateful task my Father, Archdeacon 
Chapman, the Rt. Rev. Abbot Gasquet, Dom Donatien De 
Bruyne, Dom Lambert Nolle, and especially Mr. C. H. Turner, 
who by his detailed annotations has saved me from innumer- 
able obscurities or repetitions, and from many blunders, due 
to carelessness or ignorance, and has also provided valuable 
information. I have also had a few criticisms on the early 
chapters from Dr. Sanday and the Rev. F. J. Bacchus. 
I have thanked others in the course of the book. Last, not 
least, I have to express my gratitude to the Delegates of the 
University Press for their kindness in printing this volume, 
and to the Secretaries and others for the trouble they have 
taken with the proofs. 

I have given a list of the signs used to denote the MSS., 
to assist those readers who may not know them by heart. 
As the argument is involved and hard to follow, I have made 
the Table of Contents and the Index rather full, so that 
I hope it will not be difficult to look up cross-references. 


It will perhaps be as well to set down shortly the results 
which seem to have been obtained for the restoration of 
St. Jerome's text of the Gospels. The following are the lines 
which seem to me to be pointed out by the evidence. 

In the first place the readings of the venerable codex 
possessed by Eugipius are to be determined by the witness 
of the Northumbrian family AAH*SUX corr Reg (SP*) on the 
one hand, checked by the independent testimony of F on the 
other. Where the reading remains doubtful, the witness of 
OX* may perhaps be of some weight. The restored text 
of Eugipius will not be infallibly right, even when it is certain, 
but it will serve as a standard with which the other inde- 
pendent families can be compared. 

The Irish family will deserve no attention wherever its 
readings are supported by the Old Latin. An apparently 
good Vulgate reading in one or two members of the family 
will have little weight. But the combined testimony of the 
family against all Old Latin witnesses will be presumably 
a Vulgate reading older than 432. 

The Gallican or probably Gallican MSS. deserve more 
study, and need comparing with the probably Gallican text 
of the Irish tribe. 

The Italian J MP, especially M (and no doubt also the 
ancient St. Gall codex which Mr. Turner is publishing), will 
furnish a most valuable corrective to the claims of the AF 

The Spanish MSS. need to be edited. From CT alone it 
is hardly possible to reach with security an early Spanish text. 

The outcome of such a system of restoration would not, 
I imagine, differ substantially from the text given us by 
Wordsworth and White. But in some difficult places the 



verdict might be altered, or (what is just as important) 
confirmed by stronger reasons. But the study of the whole 
of the Bible in the light of careful collations is what is needed 
most of all for the perfect editing of any part of it. 

Erdington Abbey, 
jfqy 5, 1908. 



May 8, 1908. 






A. Codex Amiatinus, c. 700; Florence, Laurentian Library, MS. I. 

B. Bigotianus, 8th~9th cent., Paris lat. 281 and 298. 

C. Cavensis, 9th cent., Abbey of Cava dei Tirreni, near Salerno. 

D. Dublinensis, 'the book of Armagh,' a.d. 812, Trin. Coll. 

E. Egerton Gospels, 8th~9th cent., Brit. Mus. Egerton 609. 

F. Fuldensis, c. 545, preserved at Fulda. 

G. San-Germanensis, 9th cent, (in St. Matt. *g'), Paris lat. 1 1553. 
H. Hubertianus, 9th-ioth cent., Brit. Mus. Add. 24142. 

I. Ingolstadiensis, 7th cent., Munich, Univ. 29. 

J. Foro-Juliensis, 6th~7th cent., at Cividale in Friuli ; parts at Prague 

and Venice. 
K. Karolinus, c. 840-76, Brit. Mus. Add. 10546. 
L. Lichfeldensis, ' Gospels of St. Chad,' 7th-8th cent., Lichfield Cath. 
M. Mediolanensis, 6th cent., Bibl. Ambrosiana, C. 39, Inf. 
O. Oxoniensis, ' Gospels of St. Augustine,' 7th cent., Bodl. 857 (Auct. 

D. 2. 14). 
P. Perusinus, 6th cent, (fragment), Perugia, Chapter Library. 
Q. Kenanensis, * Book of Kells,' 7th-8th cent., Trin. Coll., Dublin. 
R. Rushworthianus, 'Gospels of McRegol,' before 820, Bodl. Auct. 

D. 2. 19. 
S. Stonyhurstensis, 7th cent. (St. John only), Stonyhurst, near Blackburn. 
T. Toletanus, loth cent., Madrid, National Library. 
U. Ultratrajectina fragmenta, 7th-8th cent., attached to the Utrecht 

Psalter, Univ. Libr. MS. eccl. 484. 
V. Vallicellanus, 9th cent., Rome, Vallicella Library, B. 6. 
W. William of Hales's Bible, A.D. 1294, Brit. Mus. Reg. I. B. xii. 
X. Cantabrigiensis, 7th cent., ■ Gospels of St. Augustine,' Corpus Christi 

Coll., Cambridge, 286. 
Y. 'Ynsulae' Lindisfarnensis, 7th-8th cent., Brit. Mus. Cotton Nero 

D. iv. 
Z. Harleianus, 6th~7th cent., Brit. Mus. Harl. 1775. 
8F. Beneventanus, 8th~9th cent., Brit. Mus. Add. 5463. 
A. Dunelmensis, 7th-8th cent., Durham Chapter Library, A. ii. 16. 
3*. Epternacensis, 9th cent., Paris lat. 9389. 
©. Theodulfianus, 9th cent., Paris lat. 9380. 
M\ Martino-Turonensis, 8th cent., Tours Library, 22. 


Burch. 'Gospels of St. Burchard,' 7th-8th cent., Wiirzburg Univ. 

Library, Mp. Th. f. 68. 
Reg. Brit. Mus. Reg. i. B. vii, 7th-8th cent. 

First Class : 

Northumbrian family, AAH*SUXcorrYReg(3 > *).| These three 
South Italian, F. V families are 

Canterbury, OX (Roman ?). ) closely related. 

North Italian, JM(P). 
Italian (?), Z. 

Second Class : 

Irish family, DELQR(3P)*3 >wt 9'. 
Gallican, Ba?G. 
Spanish, CT. 

Recensions : 

Theodulfian, H«>rr0 (fundamentally Spanish). 
Alcuinian, KVM" (mainly Hiberno-Northumbrian). 
Mediaeval, W. 



I. Preliminary. 

1. The Northumbrian text of the Vulgate Gospels is said 

to be from South Italy I 

2. The Codex Amiatinus and the Codex grandior of 

Cassiodorus ......... 2 

3. The Lindisfarne Gospels and Naples .... 8 

4. Other connexions between England and South Italy . 14 

II. The Cassiodorian Origin of the Northumbrian Text. 

1. The text of the Codex Amiatinus is Cassiodorian . . 16 

2. The Prologue on the purple leaf of A is the introduction 

to the nine volumes 20 

3. The Neapolitan lessons were marked in the margin of 

the archetype of A 23 

4. The Echternach Gospels have a Northumbrian element, 

to which the note about Eugipius may well belong . 26 

III. Cassiodorus and Eugipius. 

1. It was not St. Victor of Capua who collated the Codex 

of Eugipius 30 

2. The note in the Echternach Gospels was written by 

Cassiodorus . . .31 

3. On the date of Cassiodorus's Institutio .... 33 

4. Eugipius and his friends 39 

5. The Manuscript of Eugipius and St. Jerome ... 42 

IV. The Neapolitan Lectionary in Northumbria. 

1. The Gospels of St. Burchard contain a undamentally 

English text ... 45 

2. The Naples lectionary and the Northumbrian summaries 51 

3. The Naples liturgy in use at J arrow . . '65 

4. The feasts in St. Bede's Homilies 72 

V. The Codex Fuldensis and Eugipius. 

1. Victor of Capua possessed a Greek Diatessaron . . 78 

2. St. Germanus of Capua and the Diatessaron. . . 80 



3. The Gospel text in the Codex Fuldensis is derived from 

that of Eugipius 81 

4. The Northumbrian summaries were composed by 

Eugipius, and are quoted in F 84 

5. The introductions to the Gospels in the Codex Fuldensis 

and the Codex Amiatinus 92 

VI. Eugipius and the Gallican Liturgy. 

1. The connexion of Eugipius with Lerins .... 96 

2. Eugipius and his Gallican lectionary .... 99 

3. Neapolitan additions to a Gallican lectionary . . 103 

4. St. Burchard's additions to the Neapolitan use . .121 

VII. The Pauline Lectionary of the Codex Fuldensis. 

1. The list of lessons from St. Paul in F . . . .130 

2. Eugipius and the Capuan St. Paul 135 

3. The liturgical notes in F compared with those of 

Eugipius 137 

VIII. The Capuan Mass-Books of Northumbria. 

1. Capuan Saints in English books 144 

2. The 'Old Mass-books' cited in the Anglo-Saxon 

Martyrology were Capuan 146 

3. The Echternach Martyrology 149 

4. Capuan Saints in the Echternach Kalendar . . .151 

5. The origin of the ' Older Mass-books ' . . . .154 

6. The Capuan Mass-books and the Codex of Fulda . .157 

IX. The Irish Text of the Vulgate Gospels. 

1. The Vulgate and St. Patrick 162 

2. The Gospel citations of St. Vincent of Lerins . .164 

3. The Vulgate Gospels and Faustus of Riez . . . 167 

4. The Vulgate Gospels and St. Eucherius of Lyons . .173 

5. The origin of the Irish text was from Lerins . . . 177 

X. The Bodleian 'Gospels of St. Augustine*. 

1. The Gospel books brought by St. Augustine to England 18 1 

2. The home of the Bodleian ' Gospels of St. Augustine ' . 189 

3. The early lectionary annotations in O . . . . 191 

4. The later lectionary annotations in O . . . . 199 

XL The Vulgate Text of St. Gregory the Great. 

1. Analysis of the text used by St. Gregory in his Homilies . 203 

2. St. Gregory's influence on the Vulgate . . . .208 

3. St. Gregory and the ' Canterbury Gospels ' . . .210 

4. The Canterbury text and the Northumbrian text . .213 



XII. The Four Prologues: their Text and Meaning. 

1. The text of the Prologues 217 

2. The meaning of the Prologue to St. Matthew . . 222 

3. „ „ „ St. John . . .226 

4. „ „ „ St. Luke . . .229 

5. „ a n St. Mark . . .233 

6. Some conclusions . . 236 

XIII. Priscillian the Author of the Prologues. 

1. Earlier theories as to the date of the Prologues . .238 

2. Comparisons of matter and style 240 

3. Results of the examination 250 

XIV. Later Manipulations of the Prologues of Priscillian. 

1. The Prologue to Acts * Lucas natione Syrus ' . .254 

2. The Prologue to the Apocalypse * Iohannes, apostolus 

et euangelista ' 256 

3. The Prologues of Peregrinus 258 

4. The Prologue to the Catholic Epistles 'Non idem 

est ordo' 262 

5. The 'canones noui testamenti' 267 

XV. The History of the Prologues. 

1. The sources employed in the Prologues . 

2. Citations of the Prologues by the Venerable Bede 

3. The genealogy of the text of the Prologues . 

4. Lerins and the Prologues .... 

5. A conjectural history of the Prologues . 






§ i. The Northumbrian text of the Vulgate Gospels 
is said to be from South Italy, 

It is well known that the best text of the Vulgate Gospels 
is handed down by the MSS. written in Northumbria, AASY, 
and in a few others closely connected with these. No one 
is likely to contest the verdict of Bishop Wordsworth that 
these famous and beautiful codices have on the whole preserved 
a purer Hieronymian strain than has any other family, while 
perhaps the next best are those nearest to them, such as the 
yet more ancient New Testament of Fulda. The history of 
this Northumbrian family is therefore of the first interest from 
a textual point of view, apart from the historical interest derived 
from its connexion with great names such as those of Cuthbert 
and Ceolfrid and Bede and Willibrord and Boniface and 

It is agreed that it is in origin a text of South Italy. But 
the reasons given for this belief are vague and inconclusive, 
and in part incompatible with one another. I propose to 
examine the evidence more closely in order to arrive at more 
definite results. For this purpose it is necessary shortly to 
summarize what has been already said by others, and to 
estimate the value of their arguments. 

Consequently the whole of this preliminary chapter will 
be devoted to a short review of the evidence which has up till 
now been put forward for the history of the Northumbrian 
text. It will appear that a number of different lines converge 
upon South Italy: 

The first quaternion of the Codex Amiatinus (A), written 
in Northumbria, has a close connexion with the Codex grandior 

CH. V. C. B 


of the Old Latin version, which was written by order of 
Cassiodorus in the extreme South of Italy (§ 2). 

In the Lindisfarne Gospels (Y) are found lists of Gospels for 
the year's festivals according to the use of Naples (§ 3). 

Both Northumbrian and South Italian saints are found as 
additions in the Martyrology of St. Willibrord. Similarly 
the Anglo-Saxon Martyrology, which was composed in the 
North of England, contains a set of Capuan saints, whose 
names were borrowed from Sacramentaries used in England. 
The Codex Fuldensis, written at Capua, probably once belonged 
to an Englishman, St. Boniface. The Echternach Gospels, 
which either belonged to St. Willibrord or were copied 
from a MS. brought by him from England, contain a curious 
note relating to the library of the Neapolitan abbot Eugipius 


Now these data are not easy to reconcile with one another, 
nor is any clear evidence to be deduced from any of them, as 
the rest of this chapter will show. 

§ 2. The Codex Amiatinus and the Codex grandior 
of Cassiodorus. 

There are few more interesting figures in history than the 
long-lived Magnus Aurelius Cassiodorus Senator, the great 
Roman Prime Minister of the Gothic king Theodoric. In the 
first years of the sixth century his high birth gave him a place 
in public affairs while scarcely more than a boy, and he 
continued to play a leading part in politics until after 540. 
Always a man of letters as well as a statesman, he had wished 
to assist Pope Agapetus in founding a school of Christian 
learning at Rome. Though this was not possible in those 
troublous times, yet something was accomplished when 
Cassiodorus himself retired from the world into a monastery 
which he founded at Scyllacium on the southern coast of the 
toe of Italy. 1 There his Abbey of Fishponds ( Vivaria) was 
intended to be a seminary of letters as well as of holiness. His 
large library is so well described in his writings that Franz 

1 Descriptions of Squillace as it is now will be found in By the Ionian Sea, by 
the late George Gissing (1905). 


has been able to make a catalogue of a great part of its 
contents. There the aged Senator 1 passed peacefully the 
latter part of his days, correcting the text of Holy Scripture, 
collecting commentaries upon it, and himself commenting 
upon the Psalms and the Catholic Epistles. To the history 
of his own times contained in the documents published in his 
Variae and to his History of the Goths he added in later life 
a compilation of ecclesiastical history known as the * Tripartite 
history '. His useful labours closed at an age not very far 
short of a hundred years. Though he died in the odour of 
sanctity, his religious community had no future. • St. Benedict, 
whom he must have known, died about the year of Cassio- 
dorus's retirement to Squillace, and his legislation and no 
other governed the monastic life of the following centuries. 
Yet the literary labours of Cassiodorus bore much fruit, and 
his Institutiones, written merely for his own monks, became 
a guide for many ages in Scriptural learning. 

The reasons for connecting the Codex Amiatinus (A) with 
.Cassiodorus are too well known to need repetition in full. 
A history of De Rossi's famous discovery of the origin of that 
codex, and of the literature which arose around it, has been 
well written by Mr. H. J. White in Studia Biblica, vol. ii. 2 It 
is only necessary here to put together what seem to be the 
most probable results of the voluminous discussions of the 

The chief treasure with which Cassiodorus endowed his 
Vivariense monasterium on the Gulf of Squillace was a 
collection of the commentaries of the Fathers in Latin on the 
various books of the Bible. These were bound in nine large 
volumes, each volume containing in the first place those books 
of Scripture to which the subsequent commentaries referred. 
The contents of these volumes are enumerated in Cassiodorus s 
work De Institutione Divinarum Litter arum , capp. i-ix. The 
text of Scripture given in them was that of St. Jerome, edited 
and emended by the aged statesman himself, who was careful 

1 Senator seems to be a honorific family surname, and not a title of office. 
a Oxford, 1890, pp. 273 foil. A complete list of the literature is given by 
C. R. Gregory in his Prolegomena to Teschendorf, pp. 983-4. 

B % 


(he says) even to preserve the Hieronymian line divisions per 
cola et cotnmata, and to correct the spelling according to the 
most approved authorities. 

Besides these volumes he provided a ' Pandect ' (or complete 
Bible), written in a small hand, in fifty-three gatherings of six, 
for convenience of handling : ■ hunc autem pandecten propter 
copiam lectionis minutiore manu in senionibus l quinquaginta 
tribus aestimavimus conscribendum, ut quod lectio copiosa 
tetendit, scripturae densitas adunata contraheret ' (ibid. xii). 
This Pandect followed the order of books which Cassiodorus 
describes as that of St. Jerome. In c. xiii he gives also the 
order of St. Augustine from De Doctrina Christiana, ii. 8. 

A third list of the books of the Bible in another order, secun- 
dum antiquam translationem, was written out, with the others, 
' in codice grandiore \ittera. clariore conscripto, qui habet quater- 
niones nonaginta quinque ; in quo septuaginta interpretum 
translatio veteris testamenti in libris quadraginta quatuor 
continetur ; cui subiuncti sunt novi testamenti libri viginti 
sex, fiuntque simul libri septuaginta, in illo palmarum numero 
fortasse praesagati, quas in mansione Elim invenit populus 
Hebraeorum. Hie textus multorum translatione variatus, 
sicut in prologo Psalmorum positum est, patris Hieronymi 
diligenti cura emendatus compositusque relictus est* (cap. 

It is evident that this Codex grandior contained three lists, and 
that its text corresponded to the third list, that of the antiqua 
translatio. It contained the Old Latin version of the Old 
Testament, with the 'corrections of St. Jerome* wherever 
that Father had edited a translation from the Septuagint, 
as in the case of the Psalms, Job, Chronicles, and the books 
of Solomon. 2 The New Testament was probably what we 
should to-day call an * Italian text '. 

Cassiodorus also informs us that at the beginning of this 
Codex grandior were pictures of the Tabernacle and of the 

1 So the Bamberg MS. for quaternienibus, see Zahn, Gesch. des N. T. Kanons, 
ii. 271. 

a Cassiodorus evidently believed St. Jerome to have revised the whole, as 
St. Jerome indeed implies, c. Ruf. ii. 34, and Ep. lxxi. 5 ; cxii. 19. See White in 
Hastings's Diet, of the Bible, iv, p. 875. 


Temple, as described by a blind man called Eusebius (c. v, 
and Expos. Ps. xiv). 1 These are mentioned by the Venerable 
Bede as having been seen by him ; but his words may per- 
fectly well be taken in the sense that he saw a copy : 

'Quomodo in pictura Cassiodori senatoris, cuius ipse in expositione 
Psalmorum meminit, expressum vidimus.' — De Tabernaculo^ ii. 12. 

1 Has vero porticus Cassiodorus senator in Pandectis, ut ipse Psal- 
morum expositione commemorat, triplici ordine distinxit . . . Haec, ut in 
pictura Cassiodori reperimus distincta, breviter annotare curavimus.' — De 
Templo Sal. 16. 

Now De Rossi discovered that the Codex Amiatinus (A) was 
written by order of Ceolfrid, St. Bede's own abbot, and was 
taken by him to Rome in 715. It contains the very picture 
of the Tabernacle to which Bede refers, 2 though not that of 
the Temple. The first quaternion, of which this picture forms 
a part, is at present disarranged. It contains also (with some 
differences) the three lists to which Cassiodorus refers, elabo- 
rately adorned, each taking one page, the dedication verses 
of St. Ceolfrid on another page ; also a purple leaf, containing 
an introduction on the one side and the contents of the actual 
codex on the other ; and finally, a picture described (perhaps 
by a later hand) as Ezra writing the law. 3 The back of every 
picture is blank, with the exception of that of the list of the 
antiqua translation which is adorned with somewhat mysterious 
circles representing the Pentateuch, painted in colours which 
are said not to be found in the other pictures. (These may be 
a later addition.) Evidently the purple leaf, which has ap- 
parently no conjugate leaf and which alone is written on both 
sides, is the only one which has any necessary connexion with 
the actual text of the rest of the codex. The three lists corre- 
spond pretty accurately with those placed by Cassiodorus in 
his Codex grandior, when the bad text of his work is taken 

1 His words are in the former place ' in Pandecte Latino corporis grandioris ', and 
in the latter * in pandectis maioris capite \ 

a With only a slight discrepancy, due either to the copyist of the picture, or to 
Bede's forgetfulness. 

3 I have not given the actual order, which is a disarrangement by a modern 


into account. 1 The Tabernacle picture is his, while the figure 
of Ezra is in all probability, I suggest, a portrait of the aged 
senator himself, with an aureole perhaps placed there not by 
the original artist at Vivarium, but by the copyist at J arrow. 
The figure sits before the Armarium which contains the nine 
great volumes of commentaries. 2 Indeed the whole quaternion 
seems to have been cut out of the copy of the Codex grandior 
and bound into the magnificent Vulgate intended for the Pope. 
An exception has to be made, of course, for the purple leaf, 
which was perhaps put in the place of the picture of the 
Temple, as Bishop Browne suggested. 3 But it seems that 
Corssen was right in suggesting that the Prologue on this leaf 
is the work of Cassiodorus. 

In fact we know that an important Pandect of the vetusta 
translatio (notice the Cassiodorian wording) was preserved at 
J arrow. The Venerable Bede writes of his Abbot Ceolfrid : 

1 Bibliothecam utriusque monasterii, quam Benedictus abbas magna 
coepit instantia, ipse non minori geminavit industria ; ita ut tres Pandectes 
novae translationis, ad unum vetustae translationis quern de Roma adtu- 
lerat, ipse super adiungeret ; quorum unum senex Romam rediens secum 
inter alia pro munere sumpsit, duos utrique monasterio reliquit.' — Hist. 
Abbatum, cap. 15 {pp. 379-80, Plummer). 

Further details are given in the anonymous Historia 
Abbatum ; this work was written by some fellow monk of 
St. Bede, but somewhat earlier than that holy doctor's work 
(73 L )> which is based upon it : 

* Et bibliothecam, quam de Roma vel ipse vel Benedictus adtulerat, 
notabiliter ampliavit, ita ut inter alia tres Pandectes faceret describi, 
quorum duo per totidem sua monasteria posuit in aecclesiis, ut cunctis 
qui aliquod capitulum de utrolibet Testamento legere voluissent, in 

1 See Mr. H. J. White, The Codex Amiatinus and its Birthplace {Studia 
Biblica, vol. ii), pp. 292-7, where a rather better text of Cassiodorus is given 
from Brit. Mus. MSS. 

2 So Samuel Berger, in Les Prefaces, p. 22. A photograph of the Ezra from 
a water-colour drawing will be found in J. Willis Clark, The Care of Books, 
frontispiece. Garrucci gives an outline. 

3 So that Bede wrote of the Temple picture reperimus in the present, for it 
remained at Jarrow, but of the view of the Tabernacle expressum vidimus, for it 
had gone to Rome. So Bishop Browne. 


promtu esset invenire quod cuperent ; tertium autem Romam profecturus 
donum beato Petro Apostolorum principi offerre decrevit* (cap. 20, 
Plummer, vol. i, p. 395). 

The three Vulgate Pandects were therefore written not 
in Italy but at Jarrow or Wearmouth by order of Ceolfrid. 1 
Bede carefully distinguishes from these the Old Latin copy 
which Ceolfrid had brought from Rome. Seven of the leaves 
which we now find in Codex Amiatinus (which is the third 
Vulgate Pandect) are either copies from the first quaternion 
of the Old Latin Pandect, or actually leaves detached from 
it and bound into the enormous Bible intended for the Prince 
of the Apostles. 

The two Pandects which Ceolfrid placed in the Churches of 
Jarrow and Monkwearmouth are lost to us. But ASY and 
Brit. Mus. Reg. i. B. vii. are presumably copies of them. 

St. Benet Biscop founded the Abbey of St. Paul at Jarrow 
in 681 or 682, and made Ceolfrid its Abbot. Ceolfrid had 
accompanied Benet to Rome on his fourth journey in 678. It 
will have been on this occasion that he brought back the 
antiqua translatio. The three Pandects of the Vulgate were 
written between 681 and 715, when Ceolfrid started on his 
last journey. If the Stonyhurst St. John (S) was really 
buried with St. Cuthbert (and there is nothing to be urged 
against this tradition), it must have been written before 68 7, 
the date of the death of the great Bishop of Lindisfarne. It 
must have come to him as a purchase or a present from 
Jarrow or Monkwearmouth, as the writing is Italian not 
Irish. The Durham Gospels (A) are said by tradition to have 
been written by St. Bede himself. 2 

1 This would have been anyhow a probable conclusion from the fact that much 
the same Italian writing as that of A is found in the fragments of St. Luke in the 
Durham MS. A. ii. 17, and in the fragments of St. Matthew and St. John bound 
into the Utrecht Psalter. S is of the same school, only on a small scale and of 
great delicacy. 

3 A hand of c. 1300 has written in S : 'Euangelium Iohannis, quod inuentum 
fuerat ad capud beati patris nostri Cuthberti in sepulcro iacens Anno Translacionis 
ipsius,' but the tradition is older, for this note was copied from a somewhat earlier 
one at the head of the Gospel, now erased. The opening of the coffin was in 1 104 ; 


It is thus clear that the Northumbrian Gospel text belongs 
equally to the Abbeys of Biscop and to that of St. Cuthbert ; 
it lies before us both in the exquisite Italian hand of AAS 
and in the still more beautiful Irish hand of Y, the * Gospels 
of Lindisfarne ', while S seems a link between the two com- 

But all this has given no result with regard to the origin 
of the Northumbrian text, for the Cassiodorian leaves at the 
beginning of A do not belong to the Vulgate text which 
follows, but are interpolations from the Codex grandior of 
the Old Latin. No evidence has been brought to deter- 
mine whether the archetype of AASY was at Jarrow or at 
Lindisfarne. Still less has it been proved that it was brought 
from Italy by Ceolfrid together with the Codex grandior. 

§ 3. The Lindisfarne Gospels and Naples. 

The ' Holy Island ' of Lindisfarne was the centre of the Irish 
missionary activity in Northumbria from the time of St. 
Aidan's arrival in 635, for it was at once the Abbey of the 
missionary monks and the Bishop's see. In 676 the Irish 
monks and thirty of their English brethren, together with 
the Abbot-Bishop Colman, retired to Iona, and later to 
Ireland, in consequence of the decision of the Synod of 
Whitby that the Roman calculation of Easter was everywhere 
to be observed in England. From that time, under Abbot 
Eata and his Prior St. Cuthbert, the monastery tended to 
become as wholly Italo-Saxon as the neighbouring twin- 
abbeys of Wearmouth and Jarrow, which Benet Biscop, the 
former Abbot of the wholly Italian abbey of St. Peter 
and St. Paul at Canterbury, founded in c. 674 and 68a on the 
Wear and the Tyne. 

The Irish school of writing, however, naturally continued 
to flourish in the island, and its finest production is the famous 
manuscript known as the Lindisfarne Gospels or as the 

the evidence is therefore satisfactory enough, though not quite contemporary. As 
to A, whether it was written by Bede himself or not, it gives at any rate a link 
between A and Y, since it is said to be close to A in the fourth Gospel, but nearer 
to Y in the other three. Wordsworth gives a collation of it for St. John only. 


Evangeliarium of St. Cuthbert, a book which rivals in beauty 
the Book of Kells, the masterpiece of the Mother house, 
Iona, or of some abbey in Ireland. The codex (called Y by 
Wordsworth) was written and illuminated in Holy Island 
during the Episcopo-Abbacy of Eadfrith (698-721) — who 
was himself the scribe, the illuminator being Oethilwald, 
afterwards Bishop of Lindisfarne 725-40— to the honour of 
God, St. Cuthbert, and all the saints. 1 It is therefore precisely 
contemporary with the Codex Amialinus, which, as we saw, 
was written at Jarrow by order of Abbot Ceolfrid, doubtless 
under the direction of the Venerable Bede, and taken by the 
Abbot in 715 on his last journey to Rome as a present to 
the Pope. 

The holy isle of Aidan and Cuthbert was closely united 
to the double abbey of St. Benet Biscop by mutual bonds 
of respect and affection. These three abbeys were in one 
diocese until its division by St. Theodore in 681. The 
island monastery had clearly become quite Benedictine under 
St. Cuthbert, and St. Bede wrote the life of that saint. Bede 
visited Lindisfarne, and the Bishop promised to inscribe his 
name on the roll of his community, album congregationis, as 
a participator in their common prayers. We are therefore 
not surprised to find that the splendid Irish round hand of 
Lindisfarne has preserved for us substantially the same text 
of the Gospels that the not less beautiful Italian hand of 
Jarrow has set down in A. 

The British Museum contains another English MS. of the 
Gospels, belonging to the same date, MS. Reg. i. B. vii. 2 
I shall hereafter refer to this codex as ' Reg ' for short. Its 
text is very close to that of Y. Scrivener says : ' The Rev. 
G. M. Youngman, who has examined this MS. carefully, says 
the text is very interesting though rather mixed; has been 
corrected throughout.' The card lying upon it in the show- 

1 So we are informed at least by Aldred the glossator (tenth cent.) in his well- 
known note. The jewelled binding, which no longer exists, was made by an 
ankret, St. Billfri©. 

* So Dom Morin dates it, and Scrivener {Introduction, 1894, vol. ii, p. 75) and 
the Brit. Mus. catalogue, and the paper which lies on it in the show-case. Berger, 
however, says : ' Tres-belle ecriture saxonne, paraissant du ix me siecle,' p. 386. 


case in which it is exhibited says : ' The text is closely akin 
to that of the celebrated Lindisfarne Gospels, and belongs 
to the best school of Vulgate MSS.' It has the same sum- 
maries as AHVY. 1 I have collated its text of the four 
Prologues, and I find in these also the closest connexion with 
Y, even in mistakes and in spelling. 

In these two MSS., Y and Reg, are four lists, one before 
each Gospel, of liturgical feasts, entitled capitula. 2 Mr. Ed- 
mund Bishop noticed that these feasts are given in the order 
in which their Gospels occur in the sacred text, and that they 
belong to a complete liturgical system of Gospel pericopae 
from Advent to Pentecost. He attempted with considerable 
success to restore the exact pericopae intended. The lists are 
shown to be Neapolitan by the feast of St. Januarius with 
vigil, the dedication of the basilica of St. Stephen (the old 
Cathedral of Naples) ; while the dedication of a font and of 
St. Mary, and the feast of St. Vitus may also fit in with 
Naples. Dom Germain Morin published Mr. Bishop's results 
in the Revue BMdictine (vol. viii, 1891, pp. 477-94, and 
529-37), giving the lists in full (Y after Skeat). 

Dom Morin was fortunate enough to discover soon afterwards 
the same lists in the margin of the * Gospels of St. Burchard ', 
a codex of the eighth century at Wiirzburg. The incipits and 
explicits are marked in it by small crosses in the text, so that 
the pericopae can in almost all cases be exactly recovered. A 
number of additional feasts have, however, been inserted, 
of Roman type, and in a few cases have superseded (or shifted 
perhaps) an original Neapolitan lesson. The whole of these 
marginal notes were published by Dom Morin in the Revue 
BMdictine, vol. x, 1893, pp. 113-26. St. Burchard was 
an Englishman, and the liturgical notes have evidently the 
same origin as those in Y and Reg. 3 

1 V is the Vallicella MS. of Alcuin's revision. It was natural that Alcuin should 
find the Northumbrian summaries in the books he had at York and sent for to France. 

a These lists, together with other preliminary matter, were omitted in the 
edition of Y and Reg by Waring and Stevenson {Surtees Soc. t 1857, &c), but are 
given in Professor Skeat's edition (1871-74-78-87). 

s Berger discovered another MS. containing the lists, Rheims, Public Library, 
No. 41, tenth century (Revue Btnid., 1895, p. 392). 


Further, in restoring the original form of the two books 
of the Venerable Bede's homilies on the Gospels of feast days, 
Dom Morin pointed out that one or two unusual pericopae 
used by Bede are found in the Naples lectionary. The 
evidence suggests (though it is not enough to do more) that 
the Neapolitan pericopae of the Lindisfarne codex may have 
influenced the liturgical use of Jarrow. 

From all these interesting observations it may seem likely 
that the text of Y Reg came from Naples. But be it observed 
that no necessary connexion between the text of these MSS. 
and their liturgical lists has been established. Evidently 
the proper position of these is in the margin of a text, as in 
St. Burchard's Gospels. At the beginning of the Gospels where 
they stand they are perfectly useless. It might be supposed 
that the original marginal notes have been thus gathered into 
lists in order to free the margin from disfigurement. But 
since the lists are not in A, it might equally be held that they 
have been copied in from some other codex, especially as the 
text of Y Reg is rather more mixed than that of A. We 
have therefore not arrived so far at any proof that the AY 
text came from Naples. 

How did the Neapolitan lists themselves come to the North ? 
The received explanation has been up till now that which was 
proposed by Dom Morin in 1891 in the first article in which 
he drew attention to the lists in Y and Reg. He suggested 
that these lists owed their origin to some lectionary brought 
to England by St. Hadrian, Abbot of St. Augustine's at 
Canterbury, who had formerly been Abbot of Nisitaor Nisida, 
the little island close to Naples, just beyond Posilipo, well 
known to tourists. 1 Hadrian had refused the Archbishopric 

1 It is in reality extremely uncertain whether Hadrian the African was Abbot of 
Nisida at all ; but the point is unimportant, as he certainly came from near Naples. 
Smith's edition of Bede has : ' Erat autem in monasterio Hiridano [al. Niridano], 
quod est non longe a Neapoli Campaniae, abbas Hadrianus, vir natione Afer/ &c. 
(Migne, P. L. 95, 171), with the note: ' Hiridano, ita codex Mori, sed codices 
primaevae auctoritatis in hac voce differunt. Alii enim habent Niridano, et 
quidem recte. Locus est iuxta montem Cassinum.' Is it ? But that is not near 
Naples. Moberly's edition (Oxford, 1881, Bk. iv. i) has : ■ Hiridano, unidentified,' 
and quotes Smith ; adding as conjectures : ' Nisidano, on the island of Nisida, by 
Mazzocchi ; Aretiano, by Caraccioli ; Hadriano, by Hussey. See Greg. Epist. 


of Canterbury for himself, and had recommended for the office 
his friend Theodore of Tarsus. Pope Vitalian accepted the 
latter, but made Hadrian accompany him to England. This 
was in 668. Theodore made Hadrian Abbot of the monastery 
of St. Peter and St. Paul (afterwards called St. Augustine's) 
without the walls of Canterbury, and the Abbot accompanied 
the Archbishop in his visitations, even to the extreme North, 
when he consecrated the wooden Cathedral of Lindisfarne 
which St. Aidan had built. 

This hypothesis has been accepted without hesitation, and 
by such authorities as Berger, Wordsworth, Duchesne, &c. It 
might be improved, I think, by the suggestion that it was not 
Hadrian himself who took the book to Northumbria. St. 
Benet Biscop was on his third visit to Rome at the time of 
St. Theodore's appointment, and he accompanied the new 
Archbishop to England. Theodore made him Abbot of 
St. Peter and Paul at Canterbury, but after two years sub- 
stituted St. Hadrian in his place, 1 when the latter arrived from 

xiii. 3.' (But this last place, mentioned by St. Gregory, was in Sicily !) In Mayor 
and Lumby's edition (Cambridge, 1881, p. 292) Smith's note is quoted without 
comment. Finally Plummer's excellent edition has the following critical note 
(vol. i, p. 202): 'Niridano] sic B.C. AS.Oj . 3 _ u . 14 _ 16 . D ,R t ; hiridano 
M.N. Ax; iridano Hj,' and (vol. ii, p. 202) he comments: ' Niridano, this is 
the right reading ; v. critical note. " Locus est iuxta Montem Cassinum," Smith 5 
N and H are very easily confused in MSS. " Nisidano n in Holder's text is a pure 
conjecture, and has no MS. authority ; Elmham has " Hiridano," p. 202.' It must 
be admitted that the conjecture is an extremely plausible one. Dom Morin {Rev. 
Bintd. 1891, p. 482) has said : ' Mazzocchi a identifie* ce lieu avec la petite ile de 
Nisita, entre Naples et Pouzzoles, la Nesis des anciens, mentionnee dans le Liber 
Pontificate parmi les donations faites par Constantin a l'Eglise de Naples (Maz- 
zOcchi,Zte cathedr. eccles. Neap, vicibus, pp. 215-19; Duchesne, Liber Pontificalis, 
i. 200, note 118). II y eut effectivement dans cette ile un monastere qui a laisse 
9a et la quelques traces dans l'histoire du septieme au treizieme siecle.' This 
seems indeed to be the most probable solution. Bede himself may have written 
the name wrong. But the matter remains uncertain. 

1 So says Bede, Historia Abbatum, cap. 4 * duobus annis monasterium rexit ' ; 
while in the Hist. £ccl., iv. 1 fin. he has : ' Qui [Hadrianus] statim ut ad ilium 
[Theodorum] venit, dedit ei monasterium beati Petri apostoli, ubi archiepiscopi 
Cantiae sepeliri . . . solent.' Unless statim is very loose and incorrect, Hadrian 
must have been detained more than one year in Gaul by the famous mayor of the 
palace Ebroin (though we should have supposed from iv. 1 that he was only 
delayed a few months). This seems to be the right way of harmonizing these 
two passages, though it does not appear to have been proposed before. 


Gaul where he had been forcibly detained on suspicion of 
having an embassy from the Emperor. What more natural 
than that Biscop, who loved books so much, should have 
received a present from Hadrian, his supplanter, as a peace- 
offering? Thus would the liturgy of Naples have come to 
J arrow. 

Plausible as this may seem, I believe it to be entirely 

A grave difficulty is caused by the fact that all the evidence 
for Neapolitan influence comes from Northumbria, and none 
of it from Canterbury. It is true that St. Burchard was very 
likely a southerner like St. Boniface, who was probably born 
at Crediton and was certainly a monk at Nutshell near South- 
ampton. But even St. Boniface in the matter of books is 
connected perhaps with Jarrow rather than with Canterbury, 
as will be seen further on, while the text of St. Burchard's 
Gospels is near to A and not to the Canterbury Gospels X. 1 
It is true that X has been corrected throughout so as to agree 
very closely with A, and this was no doubt done at Canter- 
bury. But we cannot infer from this that A was a Canterbury 
text in origin, and not Northumbrian. If we did infer this, 
then at least the connexion of the text of A with Cassiodorus 
would have to be given up ; for the Codex grandior with its 
pictures was brought from Italy by Ceolfrid, and not from 

If on the other hand we prefer to say that the AY text 
is indeed Northumbrian, but the lists of Gospels in Y are 
insertions, copied from a lectionary brought to the North by 
St. Hadrian, we are met by the difficulty that this lectionary 
seems from St. Bede's Homilies to have exercised some 
influence at Jarrow, but cannot be shown to have any con- 
nexion with the South. The liturgical notes in O have no 
resemblance whatever to the Neapolitan notes in Y ; and 
O has a text very close to that of the Canterbury X, and may 
itself have been at Canterbury. 

In just the same way the Capuan ' Mass-books ' and 
kalendars used in England c. 700 were not at Canterbury but 

1 The so-called * Gospels of St. Augustine ' at Corpus Christi Coll., Cambridge. 


in the North, and had presumably no connexion with Abbot 
Hadrian, although his Abbey near Naples was necessarily not 
far from Capua. Thus Dbm Morin's hypothesis proves less 
simple upon further examination than it seemed at first sight, 
and it is quite insufficient to prove that the AY text belonged 
to South Italy, even if it were accepted as an explanation of 
the appearance of a Neapolitan system of Gospel lessons in 
the North of England. 

It should be added that we are not told by Bede that 
Hadrian or Theodore brought books to England, though they 
may very likely have done so. 

We shall eventually see that the Neapolitan lists came to 
England by a more circuitous route. 

§ 4. Other connexions between England and South Italy. 

It was Mgr. Duchesne 1 who pointed out that the Martyr- 
ology of Echternach (brought thither from the North of 
England by St. Willibrord) contains additional saints inter- 
polated in England, some being English (chiefly Northern), 
others being from South Italy. He naturally connected these 
saints of South Italy with the Neapolitan liturgy which Dom 
Morin believed to have been brought to Lindisfarne by Abbot 
Hadrian of Canterbury. I hope to show that this is not so, 
and that the origin of these additions is Capuan and not 
Neapolitan. In all probability these Capuan saints were not 
introduced by Abbot Hadrian, nor did they come from 
Cassiodorus, nor have they any real relationship with the 
AY text of the Gospels or with the Neapolitan lists in Y. 

Lastly we have the note at the end of the Echternach 
Gospels (£P). This MS. by its Irish- Saxon writing and its 
presence at Echternach connects itself with St. Willibrord, 
the Northumbrian Apostle of North Germany and Holland. 
The note states that the text (of a parent MS.) was corrected 
in the year 558 by a codex belonging to the Library of 
Eugipius 2 (no doubt the Abbot of Lucullanum at Naples, who 

1 In Acta SS. Nov. vol. ii ; see chapter VIII, pp. 149-51. 
3 The form Eugipius as given in 2* is preferred by Max Biidinger as the earliest, 
Eugepius, Eugippius, and Eugyppius being later {Eugipius, cine Untersuchung, in 


had probably then been dead some years), a codex which was 
reputed to have belonged to St. Jerome himself. But Bishop 
Wordsworth laments that the text of the codex does not 
correspond to its promise. From what ancestry did it get this 
note ? I think we shall see that in the answer to this is the 
key to the whole history of the Northumbrian text, though 
this note has until now been the most puzzling enigma 
of all. 

We have now to start afresh from these points, and add 
what further evidence can be found, combining the data as 
best we can, in hopes of more definite results. 

Sitzungsberichte der Kais. Akad. der Wiss., Wien, vol. xci, 1878, p. 795). Migne's 
edition has Eugyppius ; but Knoll always writes Eugippius. As Biidinger gives 
his reasons and Knoll does not, I follow Biidinger. 



§ i. The text of the Codex Amiatinus is Cassiodorian. 

We have now to investigate the important question whether 
or no the only Cassiodorian portion of A is the portion inter- 
polated out of the Codex grandior of Cassiodorus. 

Two insufficient arguments may first be noticed, as they are 
at least suggestions of the true solution. 

i. The arrangement of the text per cola et commata after 
the example of St. Jerome himself is not peculiar to A, but 
the divisions seem to have been particularly well preserved in 
it. 1 Now Cassiodorus had been careful with regard to this 
very point, as he tells us in his Preface to the Institutio. 
Hence Mr. White has given this point as in favour of the 
Cassiodorian origin of the text of A. 2 

2. The anonymous author of the Historia Abbatum and the 
Venerable Bede both use the word Pandectes of A and its 
fellows in the passages quoted above (pp. 4, 5, 6). Now Pan- 
dectes is precisely the word used by Cassiodorus for a complete 

But neither the preservation of the cola et comtnata nor the 
use of a word like Pandectes can prove anything, as they are 
not unique but ordinary circumstances. 

3. Let us turn to the order of the books in A and in the 
list of its contents on the purple leaf of its first quaternion, and 
compare this order with the order observed by Cassiodorus 
in his corrected text. 

1 They are followed in Wordsworth's edition. Tischendorf omitted to repro- 
duce them in his rather unsatisfactory edition of A. 

* In Hastings's Diet, of the Bible, art. ■ Vulgate ', vol. iv, p. 878 ; also Words- 
worth, p. xxxiii. 



Cassiodorus, in his Preface to the Institution makes it clear 
that the Vulgate text so carefully emended by him in his 
old age was that contained in his nine great volumes of texts 
and commentaries on the whole of the Bible. The order 
of the books in these volumes is given by him in the first 
nine chapters of his Institutio ; it is also found thus on the 
backs of the volumes seen in the cupboard behind the figure 
of Ezra in the picture already spoken of: 




Let us compare the nine volumes and the Ezra list with 
that of the antiqua translatio (as found in A and Inst, xiv) 
and with the nine volumes described Inst, i-ix : 



Oct. lib. 




Hest. lib. 


Psalm lib. 






Evang. iiii. 


Epist. Ap. xxi 


Act. Apostol. 


Antiqua translatio. 

1. Octateuch. 

2. Kings iv, Paral. ii. 

3. Psalms. 

4. Solomon v. 

5. Prophets. 

6. Hagiographa. 

7. Gospels. 

8. Epistles. 

The nine volumes. 

1. Octateuchus. 

2. Regum (iv + Paral.). 

3. Prophetarum. 

4. Psalterium. 

5. Salomon (v). 

6. Hagiographorum. 

7. Evangelia. 
8.«Epistolae Apostolorum. 
9. Actus et Apocalypsis. 

9. Apocalypse. 

The HEST (or HIST) LIB in Ezra's cupboard evidently 
means the ' Hagiographa ' of the Institutes ; but 3 is in the 
place of 6, and 6 is in the place of 3. This is a double differ- 
ence. The central column is a mean between the two. If 
we shift the Hagiographa to the third place in that column, we 
get the order of the first column ; if we shift the Prophets 
to the third place, we get the order of the third column. (See 
Additional Note, p. 29.) 

1 The Rev. H. J. White {£tud. Bidl., ii, p. 291) gives HEST. Mr. Willis 
Clark {The Care of Books, p. 42) gives HIST. He also omits APOCA and AP 
after EPIST. It seems safe to follow Mr. White, who however gives REG LIB, 
PSAL LIB, SAL . . . PROP . . , EVANGEL IIII. These readings are quite 
unimportant for my present purpose. 


Now turn to the purple leaf of A, which gives on its reverse 
the list of contents of the codex. We find precisely the same 
groups, only that naturally the artificial arrangement, by 
which Acts was bound up in one volume with the Apocalypse, 
is not preserved. I insert asterisks to divide the groups. 

' In hoc codice continentur ueteris et noui testamenti Libri N lxxi. 

Genesis, Exodus, Leuiticus, Numeri, Deuteronomium, Iosue, Iudicum, 
Ruth*, Samuhel, Malachias, Paralypomenon*, Lib. Psalmorum*, Pro- 
uerbia, Ecclesiastes, Cantica Canticorum, Lib.Sapientiae,Ecclesiasticum*, 
Esaias, Hieremias, Hiezechiel, Danihel, Osee, Iohel, Amos, Abdias, 
Ionas, Michas, Naum, Habacuc, Soffonias, Aggeus, Zaccharias, Malachias, 
♦lob, Thobias, Iudith, Hester, Ezras, Machabeorum lib. duo. 

*Euangelium secundum Mattheum, secundum Marcum, secundum 
Lucam, secundum Iohannem*, Actus Apostolorum*, Epistulae Paulli 
Apost., ad Romanos i, ad Corintheos ii, ad Galatas i, ad Ephesios i, ad 
Philippenses i, ad Colosenses i, ad Thessalon. ii, ad Timotheum ii, ad 
Titum i, ad Philimon i, ad Hebreos i, Epist. Iacobi i, Petri i, Iohannis iii, 
Iudae i*, Apocalypsis Iohan. Amen.' 

There follow verses addressed to St. Jerome. The order of 
the groups of books is that of the antiqua translatio. The 
number of books enumerated (if we remember that there are 
two books each of Samuel, Kings, Paralipomena, and Esdras) 
come to forty-three for the Old Testament and twenty-six for 
the New, i. e. LXIX. The scribe has wrongly counted LXXI, 
( = Augustine). But Petri i is a slip for Petri ii, as in the actual 
text both Epistles are found. The prologue which precedes, 
on the other side of the same purple leaf, announces correctly 
that there are to be seventy books (as in the antiqua translatio). 

We have arrived at the following results : 

a. The nine volumes of Cassiodorus took their nine 
groups from the antiqua translatio ; such grouping is unknown 
in other Vulgate codices than A. Cassiodorus must have 
adopted it with a view to uniformity of size for the nine 
volumes. He shifted Acts to vol. ix for the same reason. 

/3. The variation in the order of the groups as given in 
the Institutio must be an oversight, since there is a different 
variation in the picture of Ezra. Therefore Cassiodorus 
intended to reproduce not merely the groups of the antiqua 
translatio, but the order of the groups. 


y. In A we find both the groups and the order of the 
groups preserved correctly. 

4. We must now examine the order of the books them- 

In A, the titles within the groups differ from those in the 
antiqua translatio list. The second group is not of * Regum 
libri iiii, Paralipomenon duo', but gives the Hieronymian 
forms 'Samuhel, Malachias (a slip for Malachim), Paraly- 
pomenon ' ; for we are dealing with a Hieronymian text in an 
artificial grouping. Again, the antiqua translatio gives for 
Solomon the order Proverbs, Wisdom, Ecclesiasticus, Eccle- 
siastes, Canticle ; whereas the Amiatine list and the text of 
the codex itself have again the Hieronymian order Proverbs, 
Ecclesiastes, Canticle, followed by the deutero - canonical 
Wisdom, Ecclesiasticus. These are enumerated in the same 
order by Cassiodorus in his description of his fifth volume 
(c. 5). But he names the minor prophets in the order in which 
he found them in the Commentaries, whereas the Amiatine 
list has the order of St. Jerome's ' Prologus galeatus ' (in the 
Hieronymian list of Cassiodorus and of the codex the order 
of the twelve prophets is not given). The antiqua translatio 
has a totally different order. In the New Testament the 
usual order, that of St. Jerome, is followed, the antiqua 
translatio being again deserted ; and Hebrews is supplied. 

The Amiatine list, then, is a list of the books in St. Jerome's 
version, arranged in the same nine groups as those of the 
antiqua translatio and of the nine volumes of Cassiodorus. 
But the interior order of the groups is that of St. Jerome. We 
know that in Cassiodorus's nine volumes this was the case 
in the volume of Solomon ; and in the volume of Epistles he 
certainly put those of St. Paul first, and not last as in the 
antiqua translatio. But the number of books is counted as 
seventy with that list, and not as forty-nine with St. Jerome. 

It seems to be plain that this grouping in the codex can 
only be due to one cause, viz. that its text is derived from 
that of the nine volumes of Cassiodorus. In these the grouping 
was obviously due to the necessity of fitting the commentaries 
into volumes of more or less equal size. It would not have 

C % 


arisen independently in a codex which contained the Hierony- 
mian Vulgate only without the commentaries. 

5. Be it noted that the nine volumes in the picture of Ezra 
are very large, in fact very much the size of the great Codex 
Amiatinus, which again is the same size as was the Codex 
grandior of the Old Translation. 

It seems that we have a right to conclude that the great 
Bible A is probably a copy of the Biblical text contained in 
the nine volumes of Cassiodorus. 

§ 2. The Prologue on the purple leaf of A is the introduction 
to the nine volumes. 

The beautiful prologue to the study of Holy Scripture on 
the recto of the purple leaf of the first quaternion of A — the 
same leaf which on its verso gives the contents of the codex — 
is connected by its position on this leaf not with the seven 
leaves interpolated from the Codex grandior ', but rather with 
the actual contents of A itself. It has been recognized by 
Corssen and others as probably a composition by Cassio- 

Now it is not only on the same leaf as the table of contents, 
but it explicitly refers to a corpus which gives the number of 
books as seventy. As it is unlikely to be referring to the 
antiqua translation it is fairly certain that it refers to the 
codex itself and its table of contents. This is an indica- 
tion that the table of contents and the contents of A must 
be Cassiodorian ; and our former results are confirmed. 

The table of contents we have seen to be that of the 
nine volumes of texts and commentaries. The Prologue 
seems therefore to be nothing less than Cassiodorus's Preface 
to the nine volumes — an introduction and exhortation to the 
study of Holy Scripture, which is to be entered upon with 
a pure heart, a good will and perseverance, and will then give 
a foretaste of heaven to the student : 

'Si diuino ut dignum est amore flammati ad ueram cupimus sapientiam 
peruenire, et in hac uita fragili aeterni saeculi desideramus imaginem 
contueri, Patrem luminum deprecemur ut nobis cor mundum tribuat, 
actionem bonae uoluntatis inpertiat, perseuerantiam sua uirtute concedat, 


ut Scripturarum diuinarum palatia, ipsius misericordia largiente, possimus 
fiducialiter introire, ne nobis dicatur : " Quare tu enarras iustitias meas, 
et adsumis testamentum meum per os tuum ? " sed inuitati illud potius 
audiamus : " Uenite ad me, omnes qui laboratis et onerati estis, et ego 
uos reficiam." Magnum munus, inaestimabile beneficium, audire hominem 
secreta Dei, et quemadmodum ad ipsum ueniatur institui. Festinemus 
itaque, fratres, ad animarum fontem uiuum, salutaria remedia iussionum. 
Quisquis enim in terns Scripturis talibus occupatur, paene caelestis iam 
regni suauitate perfruitur.' l 

Such a paragraph was not written by le premier venu, but 
by a man of holy thoughts and practised pen. The address 
to fratres is just what we expect from Cassiodorus, just what 
we find in the Institutio and de Artibus; and in fact the nine 
volumes, like those books, were carefully prepared for the use 
of the monks of Vivarium. Diuinae scripturae is a favourite 
phrase of Senator. The Prologue continues : 

1 Nee uos moueat quod pater Augustinus in septuaginta unum libros 
testamentum uetus nouumque diuisit ; doctissimus autem Hieronymus 
idem uetus nouumque testamentum xlviiii sectionibus comprehendit. In 
hoc autem corpore utrumque testamentum septuagenario numero probatur 
impletum, in ilia palmarum quantitate forsitan praesagatus (sic) 2 quas in 
mansione Helim inuenit populus Hebraeorum. Nam licet haec calculo 
disparia uideantur, doctrina tamen patrum ad instructionem caelestis 
ecclesiae concorditer uniuersa perducunt. Amen.' 

The seventy palm-trees of Elim (Exodus xv. 27) are quoted 
by Cassiodorus (as we have already seen) in his fourteenth 
chapter with reference to the seventy books of the antiqua 
translatio 3 . Here it is clear that the reference is to the list 
of contents of A, which gives really seventy books as I said ; 
for that list incontinently follows on the other side of this 
same purple leaf. The mention of the various lists in con- 

x I copy from Mr. White in Studia Biblica, ii, pp. 289-90, adding punctuation 
in order to make the beauty of the passage more evident 

3 We must obviously read praesagatum. 

3 The passage was quoted in chapter i, p. 4. It is repeated at the end of the 
antiqua translatio list of A, fol. 7 r . Notice the identity of wording : 

A {list) : ' in illo palmarum numerum fortasse praesagati quas in mansione 
Helim inuenit populus Hebreorum.' 

Instit. xiv : 'In illo palmarum numero fortasse praesagati quas in mansione 
Helim inuenit populus Hebreorum.' 

A (Prol.) : ' in ilia palmarum quantitate forsitan praesagatus quas in mansione 
Helim inuenit populus Hebraeorum.' 


nexion with the table of contents both connects the prologue 
with Cassiodorus, and the contents of the codex with the 
prologue. We need surely not hesitate to recognize Cassio- 
dorus as the author of the prologue, and the prologue as the 
introduction to the contents of the Codex Amiatinus, i.e. of 
the nine volumes. 

In confirmation of these natural conclusions we may note 
that this second part of the prologue is an explanation of the 
unusual order found in the MS. * Do not be surprised/ 
says Senator, ' that there are seventy books in my collection, 
whereas Augustine enumerates seventy-one, and Jerome counts 
forty-nine, for these are only different methods of counting.' 
He admits that the arrangement is an unusual one for a copy 
of St. Jerome's text, and justifies it by the seventy palm-trees. 
It is evident that this passage was penned earlier than the 
chapters of the Institutio in which the various lists are given. 
Those chapters describe the lists as inserted in the codex 
grandior antiquae translationis. The sequence seems to be as 
follows : — First, Cassiodorus arranges the books of the Bible 
in nine groups for his nine volumes according to the order of 
groups in the antiqua translation though leaving St. Jerome's 
order within each group. Secondly, he writes the above 
preface to declare that this unusual order is not inconsistent 
with the authority of Augustine and Jerome, though he gives 
no explanation. Thirdly, when he has the antiqua trans latio 
copied in a large volume, he thinks it useful to put beside the 
list of its contents the lists of Augustine and of Jerome for 
comparison. Fourthly, in his Institutio he relates what he 
has done, and enumerates the contents of the nine volumes 
and of the three lists, thus demonstrating what he had merely 
asserted in the Preface, viz. that all are quite in harmony with 
each other. 1 

1 The three lists of A and those of Inst, xii, xiii, and xiv are printed con- 
veniently in parallel columns by Mr. White, 1. c, pp. 292-9, with remarks. The 
chief differences are in the ant. transl. list. Some variations are doubtless due to 
errors, intentional and unintentional, of the scribes of A and of its immediate 
parent. Others may be due to alterations made by Cassiodorus himself when he 
wrote the Institutio, or to carelessness on his part, venial in a man of his great 
age. The most curious point is the remark in A at the end of the ant. transl. 


The Preface is therefore probably a Prologue to the nine 
volumes of text and commentary, and the Codex Amiatinus 
a copy of the text of the nine volumes, without the com- 
mentaries. The purple page gives the Prologue to the nine and 
their contents. The rest of the first quaternion was detached 
from a copy of the Codex grandior and bound into the volume, 
to enhance its value as a gift ( to St. Peter, the Prince of the 
Apostles '. It is possible that the idea of doing this was sug- 
gested by the mention in the Prologue of the lists of Augustine 
and Jerome ; the thought of adding these would be followed 
by the perception that the pictures which accompanied them 
would be a worthy addition to the incomparable MS. which 
the aged Ceolfrid was to take to Rome. No doubt the work 
was superintended by the Venerable Bede himself. 

How did the archetype of A come to Jarrow ? The answer 
is not difficult. As the archetype of the Cassiodorian antiqua 
translatio with its pictures was brought by Ceolfrid, and as 
we now see that the archetype of A and of its two fellow 
pandects was presumably Cassiodorian, it would seem that 
both were brought by Ceolfrid to Jarrow at the same time, 
probably, as was said above, in 678, when Ceolfrid accom- 
panied Biscop on the latter's third journey to Rome. 

§ 3. The Neapolitan lessons were marked in the margin of 
the archetype of A. 
It was pointed out in the first chapter that the Neapolitan 
lectionary lists in Y and Reg have been made up out of 

list : ' Sic fiunt ueteris nouique Testamenti, sicut diuidit sanctus Hilarns (Hilarius, 
m. p.) Romanae urbis antistes et Epiphanius Cyprius, quern latino fecimus sermoni 
transferri, Libri lxx, in illo palmarum numerum,' &c. ; whereas Cassiodoras in 
the corresponding passage (c. xiv) has : ' Unde licet mnlti sancti patres, id est, 
sanctus Hilarius Pictauiensis urbis antistes, et Rufinus presbyter Aquileiensis, et 
Epiphanius episcopus Cypri et Synodus Nicaena et Chalcedonensis non contraria 
dixerint sed diversa ; omnes tamen per diuisiones suas libros diuinos sacramentis 
competentibus aptaverunt.' The suggestion that any of the different computations 
can be mystically explained reminds us of the apologetic tone of the end of the 
Prologue. The scribe of A has transformed St. Hilary of Poitiers into Pope Hilarus, 
but the statement that Cassiodorus had a translation of St. Epiphanius made 
is important — though apparently only his list is meant. We should not gather 

I from the Institutio that Epiphanius and Hilary, any more than Rufinus and the 
two councils, gave the preceding list. It is a coincidence that Epiphanius was 
the name of the translator employed by Senator {Inst. 8). I 


marginal notes in an earlier MS., and that Burch (let us 
so call the Gospels of St. Burchard' for convenience) has 
preserved them in their original position, though in an inter- 
polated form. As Y Reg certainly have a common ancestor 
with A (and it can hardly be doubted that the common 
ancestor was the Cassiodorian Vulgate Bible which we have 
just gathered to have existed at J arrow, brought thither by 
Ceolfrid), it is of the first importance to know whether there 
are any traces of these liturgical notes in A ; and it is to me 
very surprising that no one (so far as I am aware) has 
examined this point. The four lists of Y Reg are, of course, 
not to be found in A, nor are the marginal notes of Burch. 
But Y Reg have a few additional liturgical notes, belonging 
beyond doubt to the same system, and these have been care- 
fully noted by Dom Morin after Skeat for Y. I add those 
of Reg from my own notes : 1 

i. In Y Reg is found after the eighty-seventh capitulum 
of the summary of St. Luke an interpolation, ' quod prope 
pascha legendum est.' It is rubricated in Reg. 

3. After the last capitulum (94) of the summary of Luke in Y 
Reg is a note, 'Haec lectio in ebdomada pascae] &c. 2 In Reg 
it is written like the summaries in black with red capitals. 

3. In Y, after the fifteenth capitulum of the summary of 
John, is found ' legenda pro defunctis '. 

4. In Y, after the eighteenth capitulum of John, is found 
1 legenda in quadragesima \ 8 

5. In Y Reg, after the forty-fifth capitulum of John, is found 
a note, * Quae lectio cum in natalel &c. (see p. 6$). In Reg 
the first eighteen words are red. 

It seems that when some scribe copied out the marginal 
notes of his exemplar into four lists, he omitted these few 
notes as clearly meaningless when no longer placed over 
against the passages to which they refer, so inserted them 
after the corresponding capitulum of the summary. 

1 The position of these notes in Y is wrongly described by Dom Morin (1. c.). 
They are all among the capitula of the summary, and not in the margin ; nor is 
a in the margin of the Gospel itself. They are given in capitals by Skeat. 

3 The full text will be found in the notes to the reprint of the lists in ch. iv, p. 60. 

3 I did not notice 3 and 4 in Reg. 


Let us turn to A. 

Like Y, at the fifteenth capitulum of the summary of John 
A has 'legenda pro defunctis* ; at the nineteenth (not eighteenth) 
it has * legenda in quadragesima \ It has also preserved two 
other notes which are not found in Y Reg : at the seventeenth 
capitulum of the John summary is the vague ' legenda circa 
pascha\ and at the eighty-ninth capitulum of the Luke summary 
is the convenient direction, c quae lectio potest quolibet tempore 
dicu These two notes were apparently thought too indefinite 
to be worth copying by the scribes of Y and Reg. The four 
notes in A are rubricated. 

I have taken them from Tischendorf s edition of the codex 
( 1 850), p. xxv. He says they are written ' antiquissima quadam 
manu rubris litteris \ He does not say that they are in the 
margin of the summaries, but that they are ' capitulis . . . im- 
mixtae \ If this means that they are among the capitula, as 
in Y Reg, they must be by the original hand. But Tischendorf 
is not clear. It is most unlikely a priori that these fragment- 
ary survivals of a complete system should be additions by 
a later hand. It is evident that the lists as found in Y Reg 
and even the utilizable marginal notes in their original form 
were not likely to be inserted in A. It was written for the 
Pope, and Ceolfrid would not purposely have presented at 
Rome a table of lessons belonging to some other church. 
The four rubrics which have survived are fortunately sufficient 
to attest that the archetype had the complete system of 

Thus we have arrived at the important result that the 
Neapolitan lectionary belonged to the archetype of the Gospel 
text of A Y Reg. 

Now the text of A is apparently Cassiodorian. There is 
no reason to suppose that the Gospels are not as Cassiodorian 
as the rest, or that they are insertions from another source. 
Consequently the Neapolitan liturgical notes were almost 
certainly in the great Cassiodorian Vulgate Bible which 
Ceolfrid brought to Jarrow. Only we have not so far seen 
whether this text came from Cassiodorus to Jarrow through 
Naples, or from Naples to Jarrow through Cassiodorus. 


§ 4. The Echternach Gospels have a Northumbrian element, 
to which the note about Eugipius may well belong. 

The splendid ' Gospels of Echternach ' (3>) now in the Biblio- 
theque Nationale at Paris (lat. 9389) are written in a semi-uncial 
Saxon hand of the eighth century. The codex belonged to 
the Abbey of Echternach (in Latin Epternacum), which was 
founded by the Northumbrian Apostle Willibrord, who died 
in 739. The Northumbrian character of the Martyrology and 
Kalendar which belonged to him * is very marked. The 
manuscript of the Gospels in question may be early enough 
to have been brought by him from England ; or it may have 
been written at Echternach by one of his Saxon scribes, or 
brought thither in the course of the century. 

The Italian writing and the Cassiodorian text of Jarrow 
and Monkwearmouth were in close relation to the Irish monas- 
tery of Lindisfarne. We have seen that an Italian text in an 
Italian hand, presumably of Jarrow, was buried with St. Cuth- 
bert. Similarly in the Lindisfarne Gospels at the British 
Museum we have a purely Italo-Northumbrian text without 
Irish admixture, but the scribe wrote an Anglo-Irish hand of 
unsurpassed beauty. The Echternach Gospels also show an 
Anglo-Irish hand, but the text is more Irish than Italian. 
The decorations are in the Irish taste, as usual in the eighth 

But yet the text is not wholly Irish, like that of DLQR or 
even E, though the corrector (3? mg ) used an Irish MS. Bishop 
Wordsworth writes : 

'Amicus quidem noster S. Berger (pp. 52, 53) 2 Hibernicum uel potius 
Scoticum esse textum huius codicis asserit, et cum forma Kenanensi (Q) 
maxime consentire. Multae sunt tamen lectiones in eo proditae quae 
aliam formam ostendant. Exempla quippe in praefatione nostra collecta 
(pp. xxxiv-xxxvi), pro documentosunt quomodo et manus prima et corrector 
non solum apud Matthaeum sed etiam per omnia Euangelia uacillent, et 
interdum cum AY interdum cum Z in partes eant. Quod ad codices 
Hiberno-Britannos attinet, cum formula DE3>LQR non raro in notulis 

1 See ch. viii, p. 145. 

2 I. e. Histoire de la Vulgate, (Paris, 1893), to be frequently referred to. 


nostris appareat, orthographiae potius proprietatem quam lectiones tangit ; 
et in lectionum uarietatibus 3*" 1 " saepius quam 3P* cum DELQR con- 
gruit. Considerantibus autem nobis omnia quae de huius codicis indole 
obseruata sint, cum familia B-Z potius quam cum aliis facere uidetur, 
saepius certe quam antea ferme creditum est' (p. 712). 

He then gives examples to show that £P m{7 rather than 3?* 
agrees with the Irish MSS. Still it remains that the first 
hand of the codex used Irish spelling as well as Irish em- 
bellishments, and that he has imported a certain amount 
of Irish contamination into the text itself. That the parentage 
of the codex is really Irish is finally demonstrated by the 
additional matter it contains. The summaries or capitula of 
the Gospels are the Irish summaries, as found in the Book of 
Armagh (D), the Book of Kells (Q), also in the Sanger- 
manensis (g 1 and G), and some Old Latin MSS. The text 
of the Prologues is the pure and ancient Irish text of DQ, 
and the text of St. Jerome's letter Nouum opus is also Irish in 
character. It is therefore surprising that the Gospel text 
itself should be only moderately Irish, though the spelling 
is consistently that of DELQR. 1 

On the other hand we have to remember that it is a North- 
umbrian MS., and as the text of Alcuin at a later date is 
a compromise between the Irish influence from Iona and the 
South Italian influence from Jarrow, so this codex exhibits 
a mixed text — Irish in foundation, in all probability, but 
largely corrected by the AY text of Jarrow and also by some 
text of the B-Z family. For there is no doubt that it does 
sometimes agree with AY, and such agreement in a North- 
umbrian codex cannot be regarded as purely fortuitous. 2 

1 The spelling agrees especially with D. There are occasional agreements, rare 
but remarkable, with the Northumbrian spelling; e.g. Luke vii. 38 ungento 
Aa^HMXYZ^ww^a/AS'HKMPQTVXYZ ^; 4 6«w^»^Aa>*FHMXYZ*^ c ; 
John ii. 8-9 archetridinus, i° AAa>OY, 2 do AA^HOY, 3 AA3TH0Y; Luke 
ix. 34 nubis A^MOY (Irish DER have nubs with GT a b c dlaur, the rest nudes). 

2 I have not gone into this question exhaustively, as it has seemed to me too 
obvious, in spite of the large agreement of 3P with the Irish and with the Z con- 
tingent and others. The following examples of the agreement of 3* with AY 
against all the Irish witnesses are taken at random from the four Gospels : 

Matt, xviii. 26 orabat (for rogabat) A3PFH0JOWXY; xix. 10 muliere (for 
uxore) AH>*FHOQX c Y ; 1 2 castrauerunt A3>FH0MOWXY b c defff x ff t h 5 vg. 


Now at the end of the Gospels of Echternach is found 
a note of great interest on fol. 222 v in the writing of the 
original scribe : 

1 + proemendaui ut potui secundum codicem de bibliotheca eugipi prae- 
spiteri quern ferunt fuisse sci hieronimi indictione . ui . p . con . bassilii 
. UC . anno septimo decimo.' x 

The date intended is 558, long before this eighth-century 
codex was written, long before any MSS. had reached the 
then heathen Saxons of Northumbria. The original of this 
note must have existed in some book brought to Ireland or 
to Northumbria from South Italy, for ' Eugipius ' is obviously 

Mark ii. 26 domum A3 > H*MKT0*Y/, licet A3»0*Y, omit solis A3»*H0KMV- 
WXYZ a dff 2 i (all in one verse) ; ix. 15 stupef actus est expauerunt A3?*FH*Y ; 
x. 19 adulteris A*3PH*OYZ*; 46 hierichum ABCS^KOVXYZ ; xi. 11 uespere 
(for -ra) A3>*HIX (~ae) Y ; xiii. 9 conciliis (for in conciliis) ABCa > *H*JTY. 

Luke xi. 28 quippini AH > *0*MNTOPXY Reg awr; xiii. 21 add et cut AH > HX 2 Y '. 

John ii. 13 properabat (for prope erat) Aa r A3?*SX c Y ; iii. 10 omit in before 
israhel A C 3>FJMSY b efff % Iqfi; 23 ueniebant A3PJKOTVWX*Z vg ab d (e) 
qraur\ iv. 16 omit hue AA3>FHSY aur\ v. 4 3> agrees with AAFH*NTSXY. 

If the question is asked how the mixing took place in 3*, I must give as my own 
opinion that the agreements with AY against the Irish look like survivals rather 
than corrections. I suggest that the action of the corrector (3> m 0) is merely the 
continuation of a process that had been at work before ; that the MS. is very 
much Hibernicized, especially in spelling, with some contamination from Z (or 
some similar text) ; but I think the basis was Northumbrian. The agreements 
with that text where supported by a part of the Irish family are very numerous, but 
especially remarkable are the constant agreements with D (the ' Book of Armagh ') 
and the AY text together, against the rest of the Irish. I suggest that 3P descends 
from an AY text corrected to considerable uniformity with a D text ; and D itself 
has from some good Vulgate source got many readings similar to those of AY. 
These have remained in 3?*, together with a certain number of AY readings (such 
as those given above) which are not in D or any Irish MS. Whether this con- 
jecture, that the basis (of which little is left) of 3P is the AY text, be true or not, 
at any rate the connexion is quite certain. But I cannot think that some of the 
readings just given were introduced as corrections; notice how frequently the 
other MSS. have been corrected as to these very peculiarities. Such variants as 
stupefactus est expauerunt and quippini would never be introduced by a corrector. 
Still this point is of no importance to my argument in the text. The note about 
Eugipius might be a survival from an archetype ; it might equally have been 
introduced from a copy used to correct by. We cannot a priori decide which was 
the case. 

1 I copy from Wordsworth, p. 649 (on p. xii he gives the words less exactly). 
But Scrivener {Introd., ii. 80) reads deximo, and so does Berger, Hist, de la Vulgate, 
p. 52. 


the well-known student of Holy Scripture and abbot of the 
Lucullanum at Naples. On this Berger remarks (p. 53) : 

' Puisque nous savons qu'un manuscrit de Cassiodore, ou la copie de ce 
manuscrit, est venu de Vivarium a Jarrow, que Lindisfarne avait recu un 
livre d'£vangiles venant de Naples meme, nous ne pouvons nous e'tonner 
de rencontrer, dans un manuscrit anglo-saxon venu probablement d'York, 
un texte corrige' sur l'original du ce'lebre e'crivain napolitain.' 

But Berger had his doubts, because he looked upon the text 
of 3 d as Irish ; yet he concludes (ibid.) : 

'II n'en reste pas moins prouve*, par la souscription du manuscrit 
d'Echternach, qu'il se conservait, dans les environs d'York, un manuscrit 
napolitain du vi e siecle. Peut-Stre dtait-ce l'original du manuscrit de 

M. Berger is referring to the known presence at Jarrow 
of a Cassiodorian Codex grandior 7 and to the Neapolitan lists 
in Y. We have arrived at the result that the archetype of A, 
of its two lost companion pandects and of Y Reg was a copy 
of the text of Cassiodorus's nine volumes, and that the Nea- 
politan lists were in the Gospel margins of that archetype. 
Consequently the AY text did actually come from Naples. 
Hence M. Berger's conjecture is strongly reinforced. 

We may ask the question in this form : ' 3? had ancestry of 
of a DLQR type, of a B-Z type, and of an AY type — to 
which of these lines of descent does 3? owe the note about 
the library of Eugipius ? ' We cannot but reply : * In all 
probability to the AY line of ancestry, since that line leads 
us to Naples and Squillace.' 

Additional Note.— Mr. C. H. Turner sends me an important confirmation of 
my argument on p. 17 as to the order of the groups in the nine volumes. He writes 
of the Bamberg MS. of the Institutio (it is the oldest — eighth century) : • The MS- 
keeps the same order of the chapters as the printed texts: I. de octateucho. a. 
de libris Regum. 3. de Prophetis. 4. de Psalterio. 5. de salomone. 6. de 
Hagiographis. Yet the text in chh. iii-v indicates that the order of these chapters 
is not the order of the nine volumes. For in ch. iii it begins : " Ex omni igitur pro- 
phetarum codice quinto " ; in ch. iv : " Sequitur psalterii codex tertius * (though it 
has " bis binura locum tenet in ordine ", meaning the order of description in the 
Institutio) ; in ch. v : " Quartus codex est Salomonis " ; in ch. vi : " Sequitur Agio- 
graphorum codex sextus." In other words the true order of Cassiodorus's nine 
volumes is what you have rightly conjectured to be the proper order, namely 
that of the antiqua translation 



§ i . // was not St. Victor of Capua who collated the 
Codex of Eugipius. 

There is at first sight a remarkable likeness between the 
note in 3* (above, p. 28) and the autograph notes made by 
Victor, bishop of Capua, in the Codex Fuldensis (F). 

At the end of Acts he has written : 

+ victor famulus xpi et eius gratia episc capuae legi non. mai. d. ind. 
nona quinq. pc basilii uc 
At the end of James : 

legi meutn + 
At the end of the Apocalypse and of the whole book : 

+ victor famulus "xpi et eius gratia \ episc capuae legi apud \ basilicam 
consta . . . ianam \ d. xiii. kal. maias ind. nona \ q . . m p c basili u c 
cos I Iterato legi ind. x die prid. iduum April. 

When we come to a closer comparison the resemblance 
is really only in the dating by indictions and post cons. Basilii 
u. c. which was unavoidable at that period. Victor gives his 
name and title and the day. The note in 3* is anonymous 
and does not give the day of the month ; and its ut potui 
with regard to so easy a task remains unexplained. 

Anyhow that note cannot be Victor's, for he died tit non. 
April, ann. xiii p. c. basilii u. c. indictione secunda according 
to his epitaph printed in M. Monaco's Sanctuarium Capuanum, 
in Ughelli's Italia Sacra, and by Cardinal Pitra in Migne, 
Patr. Lat. y 102, col. 1123. The note in 3* was made four years 

One is glad to have so absolute a proof that we have nothing 
but a mere coincidence in the fact that Eugipius's codex was 


the parent (as we shall see) of F as well as of A, and in the 
fact that F was perhaps once at J arrow. 

§ 2. The note in the Echternach Gospels was written 
by Cassiodorus. 

Since it was not Victor who wrote the note, who was it ? 
If it belongs, as it probably does, to the AY element in 3?, it 
belonged originally to the Cassiodorian exemplar which con- 
tained the Neapolitan lectionary notes. Why should not 
Cassiodorus himself have been the author of the note ? He 
was a diligent corrector of the text, the date is right, and the 
very dating by indictions and post consulatum Basilii uiri 
clarissimi (though of course all his contemporaries dated in 
this way) makes us think of him, for the rules for calculating 
the year of the indiction, of A. D., and of the consulship of 
Basil are given in the little tract Computus Paschalis, written 
apparently in 562, four years later than the note in 3*, and 
attributed by its first editor to Cassiodorus. 

Let us examine the note itself : 

1. The words UT POTUI would be more natural in a case 
of conjectural and not mechanical emendation. Was the 
corrector in a hurry, or ill? The answer is easy now that 
we know on the one hand that the Codex Amiatinus repre- 
sents the text given in the nine volumes of Cassiodorus, and 
on the other hand that the note about Eugipius was most 
probably found in the archetype of the Codex Amiatinus. 
We have but to refer to the Preface to the Institutio divinarum 
litterarum. There we read as follows in the passage where the 
author describes the manner in which he prepared the text of 
his nine volumes : 

'Quos ego cunctos nouem codices auctoritatis diuinae, UT senex 
POTUI, sub collatione priscorum codicum, amicis ante me legentibus, 
sedula lectione transiui. Ubi me multum laborasse, Domino adiuuante, 
profiteor, quatenus nee eloquentiae modificatae deessem, nee libros sacros 
temeraria praesumptione lacerarem.' 

Therefore ' as best I could ' implies ' considering my great 
age', 1 an explanation which would suggest itself to every 

1 Nearly the same expression occurs again in the Institution c. 30, where he 


disciple of the old Senator, when the date 558 was noted ; for 
Cassiodorus was then at least sixty-eight years of age or even 
much more. But he was doubtless well able to continue his 
labours, for he did not die until many years later ; and he 
wrote his de Orthogrdphia at the age of ninety-three ! 
Besides we learn that he made the labour of correction 
lighter by getting his friends to read the codices aloud to 
him, amicis ante me legentibus. 

2. Both scribes and correctors frequently sign their name 
in a codex. An example is found in A, where at the beginning 
(6 Kvpios 2<zpfiavbos kitol-qa-zv). We are not surprised to find 
that an antiquarius at Squillace knew Greek. A corrector's 
signature which occurs to me is c Justinus emendavit Romae ' 
in Codex M of St. Cyprian, and we have just considered the 
signatures set by Victor of Capua in the Codex Fuldensis. 

But in 3? we have the surprising case of a corrector who 
not only describes the codex he has used and its origin, but 
gives the date and speaks in the first person, yet gives no 
name. He supposes that his identity will be obvious and his 
ut potui will be understood. I know of no other explanation 
than that we have here Cassiodorus addressing his monks as 

3. Proemendaui I cannot translate. I suppose praeemendaui 
to be intended, with the meaning : ' I have previously corrected 
the codex from which this copy was to be made/ 

If the Preface to the Institutio divinarum litterarum was 
written earlier than 558 we have two alternatives. Either we 
may suppose that Cassiodorus procured the codex from the 
library of his old friend Eugipius after the nine volumes were 
completed, and thereupon corrected the text of the Gospels in 
vol. vii in order that a new pandect might be made ; or else 
we may suppose that the nine volumes were not really com- 
pleted when the Preface was first written, for the present text 

mentions his book De Orthograpkia. He is therefore adding to the earlier book 
when ninety-three years old, or more : ' Quos ego [orthographos antiques], 
quantum potui, studiosa curiositate collegi.' He might here mean simply ' so far 
as I have been able to obtain their works '. 


of the Institutio contains additions written many years later 
than the first draft. 

But it seems to me more probable that the Institutio was not 
written until after 558. The usual date given for its com- 
position is 543-4, after Franz, M. Aurelius Cassiodorus Senator 
(Breslau, 1872). But this date is quite impossible, as I shall 
proceed to show, though it is followed without question by 
Zahn, Riidinger, Wandinger (in K ire hen-Lexicon), Barden- 
hewer, &c. It will appear that 558 is just about the date 
which suits the completion of the seventh of the nine volumes 
containing the four Gospels ; consequently it is probable that 
the note in 3* represents a note made by Cassiodorus in his 
seventh volume, and that the passage just quoted from the 
Preface to the Institutio was written subsequently. 

I need not apologize for thus dragging in a discussion of 
the chronology of Cassiodorus, as the subject is in itself 

§ 3. On the date of Cassiodorus s Institutio. 

The Institutio divinarum litter arum and the de Artibus ac 
Disciplinis liber alium litter arum are one work in two books, 
written not merely after Cassiodorus had retired to Squillace, 
but after his monastery was in full working order, and when 
the library, in particular, was complete. 

The date of that retirement is uncertain. Dom Garet puts 
it in 538-9 (Prolegomena, pars i, § lx), Mabillon mentions it 
under 545 (Annates Bened., i, p. 112), Franz gives 540-1, and 
places the Institutio, and as I have said, in 543-4. 1 

Now in three years we are to place all these labours of 
the retired statesman. First, the Library ; the collection of 
the best commentaries on all the books of the Bible, and 
their transcription by his scribes into nine volumes ; the 

1 Cassiodorus was consul in 514, Magister officiorum c. 525-7, Praefectus prae- 
torio 533-7 (Mommsen, Mon. Germ., Auct. Antiq., 4*°, 1894, vol. xii, p. x). He 
wrote the Chronica in 519, the Historiae Gothicae after the death of Theodoric 
(Aug. 30, 526 — Usener and Hodgkin say 'before') c. 526-33, and the Liber de 
Anima after the death of Witigis in 540. This was before his retirement, which 
was consequently, I think, after 540. 


correction of the text of the whole Bible with the best MSS. 
of St. Jerome's version, and the emendation of its ortho- 
graphy. This must surely have been a labour of many years, 
ubi me multum laborasse proftteor. Then the Vulgate Bible 
in fifty-three gatherings of six, the large Itala Bible, and the 
Greek Bible were written ; then the writings mentioned in 
caps, x seqq. were collected and perhaps copied (though a 
number of them may have been already in the Senator's 
possession before he left Ravenna). Then there are the 
illustrations to the Codex grandior and the great map (cap. 25), 
the Greek books in a special cupboard (cap. 8). Then a large 
number of translations were made for Cassiodorus by a certain 
Epiphanius and others from the Greek : Didymus on Proverbs, 
St. Epiphanius on the Song of Songs, Homilies of Origen on 
Esdras, Clement and Didymus on the Catholic Epistles. On 
several books of Holy Scripture commentaries were written 
expressly for the nine volumes by the Priest Bellator ; there 
was a collection of writers on the liberal arts. For all this 
labour even ten years is surely a very small calculation. 

Then it seems from cap. iv that the whole of Cassiodorus's 
commentary on the Psalms was complete, and written into 
the fourth of the nine volumes. 1 But in the same chapter 

1 The words of Cassiodorus are : ' Sequitur Psalterium codex quartus, qui nobis 
primus est in commentatorum labore, sed bis binum locum tenet in ordine. Hunc 
in quibusdam Psalmis beatus Hilarius, beatus Ambrosius et beatus Hieronymus, 
in omnibus tamen beatus Augustinus studiose nimis latiusque tractauit. Ex quibus 
iam duas decadas, Domino praestante, collegi; a quo (ut fieri solet) mutuans 
lumen de lumine, aliqua de ipso, Domino largiente, conscripsi ; ut illud in me 
dictum Mantuani uatis ueraciter impleretur : " et argutos inter strepit anser olores." ' 

The text is perhaps corrupt ; at least the Latin is bad. Hunc means hunc 
codicem Psalterii, where we should expect hoc. Lower down de ipso clearly 
means de ipso PsaUerio; just before it a quo means ab Augustino beyond 
doubt. As to ex quibus it ought to mean ' out of these four writers ', but the 
following a quo seems to limit it, and it means ' out of these Homilies of 
St. Augustine on the Psalms '. Franz understands duas decadas to mean ' twenty 
Psalms ' ; and explains that, using the former commentators, Cassiodorus had 
already made a commentary on the first twenty Psalms. It cannot be said that 
this is the obvious meaning of ex quibus iam duas decadas collegi. But I think it 
plain that Cassiodorus's commentary was copied into this fourth volume. This 
is implied in the quotation from Virgil, and lower down when he says : ' Quem 
post tales uiros fortasse si aliquis dignatus fuerit relegere, cognoscet,' &c. In the 
same volume it was followed by the libellus Athanasii de libro Psalmorum, 


we learn that this was the first of the nine volumes to be 
taken in hand. It may have been some years, therefore, 
before one volume of the nine was completed. 

I know it is commonly said that the Commentary on the 
Psalms was begun before the Institution but finished after 
that work, on the ground that the Institutio is referred to as 
already complete, in the Preface to the Commentary, cap. xv : 
' De cuius eloquentiae modis multi Patres latius prolixiusque 
dixerunt, quorum nomina in libris introductoriis commemo- 
randa perspeximus.' Similarly, on Psalm xcvi, verse 4, he refers 
to his book on Geometry. But this is insufficient proof, for 
I have already remarked that in his Institutio (caps. 15 and 
30) he twice refers to his de Orthographia^ in which book 
he distinctly states that the Institutio was an earlier work : 

1. Post commenta Psalterii, ubi praestante Domino conversionis meae 
tempore primum studium labor is impendi, 

2. deinde post institutiones quemadmodum diuinae et humanae debeant 
intellegi lectiones, duobus libris (ut opinor) sufficienter impletis, ubi plus 
utilitatis inuenies quam decoris, 

3. post expositionem epistolae quae dicitur ad Romanos . . . , 

therefore one might presume the commentary was complete, although it was in the 
first written of all the nine volumes. But in fact there is no doubt whatever that 
Cassiodorus means : ' Of these Enarrationes in Psalmos of St. Augustine I have 
now managed to collect two decades'; for they were anciently divided into 
1 decades ', as Cassiodorus himself tells us in the Preface to his own commentary : 
1 Quocirca, memor infirmitatis meae, mare ipsius quorumdam Psalmorum fontibus 
profusum, diuina misericordia largiente, in riuulos uadosos compendiosa breuitate 
deduxi : uno codice tam diffusa complectens, quae ille in decadas quindecim 
mirabiliter explicauit.' Of this ancient (but not original) division the Benedictine 
editors found traces in three MSS. only, ' uno Jolyano Ecclesiae Parisiensis, qui in 
fronte praefert : Incipit liber decada domini Augustini a Psalmo i, Beatus uir, 
usque ji, et duobus Colbertinis, quorum alter enarrationi psalmi quadragesimi 
haec subdit : beati Aurelii Augustini episcopi finit decada de libro primo. Alter 
uero compendium totius operis complectens, uersus quosdam in capite uoluminis 
exhibet, qui cum praefationibus ac elogiis infra edendis locum habeant non indignos. 
In his autem isthuc pertinet is uersus : Ter quinis decadis grande peregit opus ' 
(Pre/, to Tom. iv> P. Z., 36, col. 14). If Cassiodorus had only obtained two out 
of fifteen decades, why does he not explain that he has sent everywhere to obtain 
the rest, as in the case of the commentaries of St. Jerome on St. Paul ? He had 
certainly not obtained all the fifteen (he says quorumdam) when he wrote the 
Preface to his Commentary on the Psalms. I expect duos is a clerical error for xi 
or some larger number ; for the text of the whole is very corrupt. The Preface is 
addressed to a Pope, for, pace Dom Garet, ' Pater apostolice ' can mean nothing else. 
Whether Vigilius ( + 555) or Pelagius I ( + 559) is meant is not easy to decide. 

D % 


4. post codicem in quo artes Donati . . . et librum de Etymologia . . . 
collegi . . . , 

5. post librum titulorum, quern de diuina scriptura collectum, Memoria- 
lem uolui nuncupari . . . , 

6. post complexiones in Epistolas Apostolorum et Actibus eorum et 
Apocalypsi . . . , 

7. ad amantissimos orthographos discutiendos anno aetatis meae non- 
agesimo tertio, Domino adiuuante, perueni. 

Dom Garet thought this was a chronological list, but that 
it only gave the dates when these various works were begun. 1 
Yet the revision of Pelagius's commentary on Romans, here 
no. 3,_is referred to in the Institutio as completed (cap. 8). 
The old man probably set down the names as he happened 
to remember them, and his list is not exhaustive. It must 
have been at Vivarium that he arranged into a Tripartite 
History the translations he had caused to be made of Socrates, 
Sozomen, and Theodoret, but he does not mention this 
troublesome work. 2 

It is at any rate clear that our present text of the Institutio 
contains additions made after Cassiodorus was ninety-three. It 
was not intended to be published to the world. It was a testa- 
ment in which the old man describes all he was leaving to 
his monks — the library, the baths, the fishponds, the automatic 
lamps and all. So far it would seem that the earliest redaction 
of the work implies a stay in the monastery of ten to twelve 
years as a minimum ; and this minimum surely implies very 
hard work, and yet leaves twenty-six or twenty-eight years 
before the composition of the de Ortkographia, which was 
written about 578, if we place Cassiodorus's birth as early 
as 4 85. 3 

1 Prolegomena, ii, § xli, in Migne, P. L., 69, 478. 

a The great collection of Variae and the lost History of the Goths are always 
supposed to have been compiled before Cassiodorus's retirement from public life. 

8 Unfortunately the date even of the birth of Cassiodorus is uncertain. Franz 
thought (1. c, p. 3) that the first batch of his official letters referred to matters 
later than the accession of Theodoric (493) and earlier than 498. Franz argues 
that if we suppose he became secretary to the king at twenty-five years old, he was 
born about 470. This would make him no less than eighty-eight in 558, an age, 
however, at which he would still be able to correct MSS. with the help of his 
friends reading aloud to him, as even at eighty-eight he was five years younger 
than when he composed his book on Orthography. But most authorities assume 
that he was born about 477 (so Wandinger in Kirchen-Lex. of Welter und Wetze, 


But the Institutio implies a complete monastery with many- 
monks, besides the hermits on the mountain, and two abbots 
(cap. 32), one for the hermits and one for the cenobites. All 
this was the formation of many years. If the * conversion ' 
of Cassiodorus was c. 540 and the de Orthographia in 578, 
I do not feel inclined to put the first composition of the 
Institutio before 560 at the earliest. 

But it need not be later in order to suit the date of 558 
for the correction of the seventh volume which contained the 
Gospels. For Cassiodorus took the Psalms first, because 
of his special interest in them, and the commentary he was 
writing on them. He also took a special interest in the Prophets 
and in the Epistles of the Apostles : ' in Psalterio tamen et 
Prophetis et Epistolis Apostolorum studium maximum laboris 
impendi, quoniam mihi visi sunt profundiores abyssos commo- 
uere, et quasi arcem totius Scripturae diuinae atque altitudinem 
gloriosissimam continere ' (Praef.). On the Epistles, and also 
on Acts and the Apocalypse, he eventually composed short 
commentaries or complexiones. We may perhaps infer that 
he was likely to take the Prophets, Epistles, and Acts with 
Apocalypse, before the other volumes. If he took the re- 
mainder in order, the volume containing the Gospels would 
be dealt with last of all. In this case the date 558 in the 

and so Bardenhewer, &c.) and became secretary of Theodoric at the age of twenty. 
But there has been a confusion of Cassiodorus with his father. The biographical 
fragment, discovered by Holder and published by Usener since Franz wrote, has 
the following words : * iuuenis adeo, dum patris Cassiodori patricii et praefecti 
praetorii consiliarius fieret et laudes Theodorichi regis Gothorum facundissime 
recitasset, ab eo quaestor est factus, patricius et consul ordinarius/ &c. (Anec- 
doton Holderi, by H. Usener, Bonn, 1877, pp. 3-4.) What does iuuenis adeo 
imply? Cassiodorus was not consul until 514, when he was thirty-seven if born 
in 477, or forty-four if born in 470. This was not young for a man of Cassiodorus's 
parentage and talents. I should compare Boethius, born apparently about 480, 
whose two sons were both consuls in 522, when one can hardly suppose the 
younger to have been more than twenty, if as much. Dr. Hodgkin {Italy and her 
Invaders, 1885, vol. iii, p. 315, and The Letters of Cassiodorus, 1886, p. 9) thought 
480 certain as an approximation ; he upholds^the dates given by Trithemius (479- 
80, to 575, age 95). But Mommsen (1. c.) rightly despises Trithemius, and 
establishes that Cassiodorus was quaestor not earlier than 507 nor later than 511. 
He cannot have been consiliarius praefecti praetorio to his father before 501, since 
his father became prefect only in 500. Mommsen suggests 490, or somewhat 
earlier, for his birth. Let us say 485-90 ; death c. 580-5. 


note at the end of the Gospels would in fact be that of the 
completion of the correcting of the whole Bible. 

All this is necessarily uncertain, and the note about Eugipius 
may after all refer to a new correction of the Gospel text, 
carried out later, after the completion of the nine volumes. 
But then so may the passage ut senex potui in the Preface 
to the Institutio be later. That sentence might quite well be 
a posterior insertion by the author himself, parallel to the 
interpolated references to the de Orthographia in caps. 15 
and 30. Anyhow it could hardly have been written in 543-4 ; 
for it is difficult to imagine that a man of 53-59 who had still 
some forty years of life before him should have found that 
old age made it difficult for him to collate correctly even with 
the aid of friends. 1 

If there were no interpolations in the Institutio, the mention 
of the condemnation of Origen by Pope Vigilius would be 
a most important factor in determining its date. We find 
in cap. 1 the following remark about Origen : ' Hunc licet tot 
Patrum impugnet auctoritas, praesenti tamen tempore et 
a Vigilio Papa uiro beatissimo denuo constat esse damnatum.' 
The decree of Justinian against Origen is placed by Hefele, 
following the Ballerini, in 543, though Baronius gave 538, 
Gamier 539 or 540. 2 A council of Constantinople in 543 
dutifully followed the emperor's lead. According to Liberatus 
(Breviarium, i$), z this decision was accepted and subscribed 
by Pope Vigilius and by the Patriarchs of Alexandria, Antioch, 
and Jerusalem. 4 If this contemporary but biased authority is 
followed, we must at least put the Institutio as late as 544. 
But the formal wording a Vigilio Papa uiro beatissimo may 
suggest that Vigilius was dead (in similar language Pope 
Agapetus is referred to in the first sentence of the Institutio, 
cum beatissimo Agapito Papa urbis Romae, after his death). 

1 The reference to age in cap. 8 also suggests something more than fifty-three, 
though it does not necessitate it, for it may be again a later addition. 
8 Hefele, Hist, of Councils, Eng. tr., vol. iv, p. 220. 

3 Franz refers to Migne, P. L., 61, 1064 ; the column should be 1046. 

4 In the fifth session of the fifth General Council Theodore Ascidas stated that 
Vigilius had condemned Origen (Mansi, ix. 272 ; Franz refers to Hardouin, iii. 122, 
for the same passage). See on this Hefele, Hist, of Councils, Eng. tr., iv. 310. 


This would place the Institutio (or at least the remark about 
Origen, which Cassiodorus might have interpolated later) 
after January 5, 555, the date of Vigilius's death at Syracuse. 
The words praesenti tempore are quite vague, and mean only 
4 in our own day ' as opposed to the age of the Fathers. 

On the whole, then, I conclude that the Institutio was 
composed about 560, or even later, and that the aged author 
added to it from time to time. The note in 3? reproduces 
a note made by Cassiodorus himself at the end of the text of 
the four Gospels in the seventh volume of the nine. This 
note was found in the copy of the Biblical text of those nine 
volumes which was brought by St. Ceolfrid from Rome to his 
double monastery in Northumbria. It was not copied into A, 
nor into the parent of Y Reg (which was probably one of the 
two sister Pandects to A), but has survived by some chance 
in a', itself a mixed text. It is not a bit surprising that these 
anonymous words should have been omitted in such magnifi- 
cent codices as A and Y. It is extremely surprising that even 
in one descendant they should have by chance survived to 
preserve to us a most interesting link in the genealogy of the 
Northumbrian family. 

§ 4. Eugipius dnd his friends. 

The only writing of Eugipius himself is his interesting life 
of his spiritual father St. Severinus, with a prefatory letter 
to the Roman deacon Paschasius. But his great work was 
the collection of 348 excerpts from the works of St. Augustine. 
These works have been carefully edited by Knoll (CSEL., ix, 
1885-6). In the life of St. Severinus there are scarcely any 
citations from the New Testament ; so that it is impossible 
to discover what kind of text the writer used. I have found 
only the following (I give pages and lines of Knoll's edition) : 

Matt. v. 14-15 (p. 18 20 ) j Matt. vi. 3 (pp. 5 2 and 46 s5 ) ; 

Matt. xx. 28, not Mark x. 45, as Knoll has it (p. 46 1 ). 
These are mere references. Knoll gives six references to the 
Epistles, to which I add Hebr. xi. 8 (p. 60 10 ) and xiii. 7 
(p. 60 9 ). Only one quotation really calls for comment. It is 
from Acts xx. 32 (p. 61 20 ) : 


'et nunc commendo uos deo et uerbo gratiae eius, qui potens est 
conseruare uos et dare haereditatem in omnibus sanctificatis.' 
eius, cum e gig Hieron (vii. 542) ; ipsius ceteri omnes. 
conseruare uos, Eugip. solus ; aedificare ceteri. 
in omnibus sanctificatis (all Knoll's MSS. apparently, as he gives 
no note), Eugip. solus ; in sanctificationibus, Eugip. ap. Migne, 
{P. L., 62, 1 196) and D (the Book of Armagh); in sanctificatis 
omnibus, ceteri} 

Probably Eugipius was quoting by heart. 

He was a man much esteemed in his own day, as we learn 
from his many friends, St. Fulgentius, St. Paschasius, Dionysius 
Exiguus, Ferrandus of Carthage, and Cassiodorus. His 
excerpts from St. Augustine became extremely popular, 
as it was difficult to procure the complete works of so volu- 
minous a writer : ' nam omnia illius habere uel inuenire quis 
possit ? ' as Eugipius says in his dedicatory epistle to Proba. 
He himself had to borrow many of them from friends : ' quae 
praestantibus amicis integra legeram.' Still this implies that 
he had a very good library, or he would not thus explain that 
he did not possess all. 2 He declares, however, that the com- 
plete works from which he gives extracts were to be found 
(all of them ?) in Proba's own library, which was clearly a 
notable one : ' cum bibliothecae uestrae copia multiplex integra 
de quibus pauca decerpsi contineat opera, placuit tamen 
habere decerpta.' Eugipius certainly collected books. Diony- 
sius the little sent him a translation of St. Gregory of Nyssa's 
irepl KdTao-Ktvrjs avOpuirov; St. Fulgentius sent him a copy 
of his three books Ad Monimum. He also had at Lucullanum 
a staff of trained antiquarii^ for St. Fulgentius asks him to 
have some books copied : ' obsecro ut libros quos opus habemus 
serui tui describant de codicibus uestris ' (Ep. 5 ad Eug. fin.). 

1 The same reading in sanctificationibus is found in the Theodulphian MS. of 
Le Pay (see Berger, Hist, de la Vulg., p. 175), where it is evidently a clerical 
error, since that MS. is but a contemporary copy of 0, which has the usual 

a Biidinger says: 'Das Material zu der grossen und noch lange gepriesenen 
Arbeit fand er in Proba's Bibliothek in Rom.' This is very likely true to some 
extent, and would give a reason for the dedication. But Eugipius does not say so. 
He does not even say that Proba's library was in Rome ! A Roman lady might 
well have lived in the country or at Naples. 


The date of Eugipius' s birth is not recorded. It is placed 
after 455 by Herold and Biidinger. 1 He aided St. Severinus 
in his apostolic labours in Pannonia and was present at the 
saint's death, Jan. 8, 482, and at his exhumation in 488, and 
he helped to bring the body into Italy. At the invitation 
of a noble lady named Barbaria, and by order of Pope Gelasius, 
the body of St. Severinus was placed in a mausoleum in the 
little island of Lucullanum (now the Castel dell' Uovo) by 
Victor, bishop of Naples. 2 A monastery was started in the 
tiny island (part of which was occupied by a village for some 
centuries) ; the first abbot was Lucillus, the second Marcianus, 
and the third Eugipius himself. He was already abbot when 
he wrote the life of St. Severinus in 511, but not yet when he 
composed the Excerpta some years earlier. The two letters 
of Ferrandus to him give the latest date at which he is 
heard of. The former is just after the death of St. Fulgentius 
(Jan. i, 533) ; the second is probably before the outbreak 
of the war with the Ostrogoths in the autumn of 535. Eugipius 
may have died soon after this. 

From Cassiodorus alone we learn that Eugipius was a 
great student of Holy Scripture. Senator had seen him, 
but evidently this was many years before. 3 We know that 
Cassiodorus sent in every direction for the books he wanted. 4 
If the library left by Eugipius contained an especially valuable 
MS. of the Gospels, we cannot doubt that he would hear of 
it, and procure it as a loan or by purchase. 5 

1 For the following facts see Biidinger, Eugipius, eine Untersuchung, Sitzungs- 
berichte der Kais. Akad. der Wissensch., Vienna, 1878, vol. xci. 

3 This took place necessarily after March 492, when Gelasius became Pope ; his 
death was in 496. 

3 ' Quern nos quoque uidimus ' implies this. It is another reason for placing the 
Institutio at a late date. 

* Of the commentaries of St. Jerome on some Epistles he says {Institutio 8) : 
1 Quas tamen continuo de diuersis partibus, ubi direximus inquirendas, snscepturos 
nos esse Domini miseratione confidimus ; et ideo studiose sustinere debemus quod 
nobis transmittendum esse cognouimus . . . quod si forsitan senectus nostra, prius- 
quam haec compleantur iussione Domini cum remissione peccatorum (sicut nos 
orare deprecor) uotiuo fine transient, ad uos, ut credere dignum est, quandoque res 
sperata perueniet.' He had evidently sent to very great distances. 

8 It is not improbable that the monastery at Naples may have lent the MS. to 
Cassiodorus. ■ There is abundant evidence of the existence of a system of lending 


The words of Cassiodorus are as follows [Inst 23) : 

1 Conuenit etiam ut presbyteri Eugippii opera necessario legere debeatis, 
quern nos quoque uidimus, uirum quidem non usque adeo saecularibus 
litteris eruditum, sed Scripturarum diuinarum lectione plenissimum. Hie ad 
parentem nostram Probam uirginem sacram ex operibus sancti Augustini 
ualde altissimas quaestiones ac sententias ac diuersas res deflorans, in uno 
corpore necessaria nimis dispensatione collegit, et in trecentis triginta 
octo capitulis collocauit. Qui codex, ut arbitror, utiliter legitur, quando 
in uno corpore diligentia studiosi uiri potuit recondi, quod in magna 
bibliotheca uix praeualet inueniri.' 

The last sentence shows that Cassiodorus had been looking 
at Eugipius's Preface. Since Proba was a relation of Cassio- 
dorus, his connexion with Eugipius is the closer. 

We note the title presbyteri Eugippii and compare it with 
the Eugipi praespiteri of 3\ 

§ 5- The Manuscript of Eugipius and St. Jerome. 

The position of the note on the last page of the Echternach 
Gospels shows that the codex from the library of Eugipius 
contained no more than the four Gospels. 

It was said to have been St. Jerome's : ferunt fuisse sci 
hieronimi. Was this true ? 

1. The Vulgate Gospels were published by the saint in 
Rome in the year 382, only a century before Eugipius. The 
Roman grandees to whom St. Jerome was a spiritual father, 
and especially that Anician family whose greatness he cele- 
brates, 1 will certainly have furnished themselves with copies 
of the first edition. Nay, to some of them, especially to the 
great ladies, and doubtless to his friend Proba, the author 
must have given presentation copies. The later Proba, to 
whom Eugipius dedicated his principal work and with whom 

MSS. from one monastery to another for the purpose of transcription and com- 
parison,' says Mr. Plummer {Bede, H. E., Introduction, p. xix), and he gives some 
instances in a note : Alcuin to Abbess Gisla, Mm. Ale, p. 599 ; Bede, H. E.,i\. 18 
(where John the Archcantor brings to England the Acts of the Lateran Council of 
649, evidently by order of the Pope, and lends them to the Abbey of St. Benet 
Biscop to be copied) ; Pertz, Mon. Ger., xiv. 313, on the borrowing of MSS. from 
St. Martin's at Tournai, &c. But Cassiodorus may have bought the MS. from the 
community ; he would be able and willing to offer a large sum. 

1 Speaking of Proba, Ep. exxx, 7, p. 981 (P. L., 22, mi), ad Demetriadem. 


St. Fulgentius corresponded, was of the same Anician gens, 
which furnished most of the consuls of that day. She was 
probably closely related (perhaps daughter or sister) to the 
Probinus who was consul in 489. It is likely that her 
great library was inherited ; and if so, nothing is more natural 
than that she should have possessed a presentation copy of 
St. Jerome's Gospels handed down from some ancestor or 
ancestors who had known Jerome. 

2. This is but guesswork. Anyhow it is not surprising 
that Eugipius should have possessed such a volume, whether 
by gift or legacy from Proba or otherwise And supposing 
he was mistaken as to its origin from St. Jerome himself, it 
will at least have been an old copy at the beginning of the 
sixth century, and of Roman parentage. 

3. Cassiodorus wrote 'fertur ' — he was not certain, perhaps. 
But it seems that the Codex Amiatinus is a very careful copy 
of a good copy of Cassiodorus's codex which he corrected 
by the codex attributed to St. Jerome. The incomparable 
excellence of A as a witness to Hieronymian tradition is a 
very strong confirmation of the truth of that attribution. 

4. Let us notice that the Cassiodorian text in A is fre- 
quently a very good one, in the Old and New Testaments, 
but it never reaches elsewhere (so far as I know) the unique 
position of authority which it holds in the Gospels. In Acts, 
for instance, the five codices primarii are ranked in order of 
merit thus by Wordsworth and White : GCAFD. It is true 
that A has in Acts received some occasional corrections from 
the strange Old Latin of the Codex Laudianus y e, 1 and these 
were probably introduced at Jarrow, where the latter MS. was 
apparently used by the Venerable Bede. But apart from 
these peculiarities, the text of A is no longer unique and 
supreme, as B is in Greek. This is surely a proof that the 
excellence of the Cassiodorio- Northumbrian text in the 
Gospels is due to its correction by a particularly good MS. of 
the Gospels. 

We now know how the Neapolitan lectibnary came to 
Jarrow. It came from the Gospel codex of Eugipius, and 

1 Blass's E, and in Greek E a€t » (Bodl. Laud. Gr. 35). 


it must represent the use of the abbey of Lucullanum at 
Naples earlier than the year 558, when one of Cassiodorus's 
scribes copied these liturgical notes into the margin of the 
Gospel text in volume vii of the great nine. It was rather 
a useless thing to do, but perhaps the scribe thought they 
were St. Jerome's own annotations ! Anyhow the old Cassio- 
dorus did not know what his scribe was about, for he did 
not read the codex himself, but his friends read it aloud 
to him. 

The lectionary therefore comes to England by Ceolfrid, 
through Cassiodorus, from the tiny island of the ' Castle of 
the Egg' at Naples, and not by Hadrian from the tiny 
island of Nisida close by, and it dates before 558, not merely 
before 668. The slight difference of place is unimportant 
enough, but the date is seen to be far earlier than Hadrian. 

And in fact we might well be surprised that Abbot Hadrian 
in the second half of the seventh century should be so far 
behind Roman development in liturgical matters. The 
Neapolitan lectionary is so poor in feasts as to be in some 
points archaic. It is not astonishing to find that it is anterior 
to Gregory the Great. 

Was this system in general use in Naples or in Campania 
at large ? Or was it rather a monastic use ? We must devote 
the next chapter to an examination of the Kalendar laid down 
and of the corresponding pericopae. Eventually we shall learn 
much about the Vulgate text as well as about liturgical 



§ i. The Gospels of St. Bur chard contain a fundamentally 
English text. 

Something has already been said about Y and Reg, the 
MSS. in which the liturgical lists are found, and of A, in 
which traces of them remain. It is necessary to say a few 
words also about the MS. in which the items of the lists 
appear in their proper positions as marginal notes. 

The fine -Gospels in the University Library of Wiirzburg, 
Mp. th. f. 68, which are traditionally said to have belonged 
to St. Burchard, are catalogued as sixth century, but Dom 
Morin shows reason for thinking that they were written later. 
In fact the codex was probably written in England in the 
seventh century. The liturgical notes are inscribed in its 
margin in an exquisitely delicate small uncial, and the com- 
mencement of each pericope is indicated by a tiny cross. 
These notes are attributed by Dom Morin to the very first 
years of the eighth century. They are therefore exactly 
contemporary with AY Reg. 

There is no particular reason for doubting the tradition 
that this MS. belonged to St. Burchard. This saint was 
an Englishman, who joined St. Boniface in his apostolic 
work in Germany about the year 725, and was made by him 
Bishop of Wiirzburg. The traditional origin of the codex is 
strongly supported by its contents. Schepss says of the 
character of its text : ' The text shows indeed for long 
stretches a great likeness with the Amiatinus, but often 
breaks loose from the latter, and exhibits (as it seems to me, 
particularly in the Gospel of St. John) a rich wealth at all events 
of Itala readings ' (Die altesten Evangelien-Handschriften der 
Wiirzburger Universitats-Bibliothek^ Wiirzburg, 1887, p. 14). 


Herr Schepss has also given a collation of large parts of the 
MS., using the Clementine Vulgate as a basis, and adding 
the readings of Old Latin MSS. These are quite useless 
in the case of the Synoptic Gospels, as most of the variations 
of Burch. from the Clem. Vg assimilate it to Wordsworth's 
text and that of AY. I give almost all the cases where the 
readings quoted by Schepss differ from Wordsworth in 
St. Matthew, and I add a good number from the other 
Gospels. I have added the MSS. cited in Wordsworth's 
edition and a few Old Latin MSS. It will therefore be easy 
to see in what direction Burch. varies from the AY text, 
which is pretty constantly followed by Wordsworth. 

om autem HKB^XZ/i 

regat E3?*H C 0JRTWX* corr uat mga bfg x aur vg 
+ in {after intrantes) Dad/ 
secessit DJLRW vgff x & 
prophetam (H) Z* a bfff x aur 
+ sine causa BEO uett {not aur) 
+ dicentes pax huic domui BCDE3 w *FH0JKLM , O ro <'QRTVWX 

YZ vg a b c dfff x g x h q aur 
omitted by homoeotel., as in Wurzburg cod. of St. Chilian, and in 

Cod. Bezae 
om eorum {added by 2nd hand above line) ET 
+ totum {but erased) ERW gat g 2 q 
om quidam AB3>*FH*JL0YZ* {added in mg with CDES^'H 2 © 

KMKTQRTVWXZ 3 vg uett exc. d aur) 
+ ei after dicunt BDES^KMNTRV aur vg 
nouissimus {for primus) ABC3PFH*JLORTXYZ* a b d eff v a g x h 

r r% aur {apparently the true reading, against Wordsw.) {but 

ist hand has erased, and substit. primus DEH^KMNTVWZ 1 

gat cfqScor uat &>c.) 
+ duo in lecto . . . BEH X 0ORTXZ {later hand has deleted) uett 
nouissimae {for -me) BQX b 
+ uero W^j vg 
uenerunt 3?OcRW/ 
om peregre CFH*JXZ* g x {added later) 
consilium fecerunt BLO*QR af 
duxerunt E a 
secessit DE a b aur 
princeps H* (Q) a 

+ hoc est BH« 0JKMKTOVWX*Z vg a dff, aur 
om ad {added later) T a bfjf x g x aur 
habebant E0KLM a bfaur 
om tunc EQZ* b aur 



i. 2 


ii. 6 








v. 22 


X. 12 



xx. 34 


xxi. 4 







xxiv. 41 








xxvii. 1 

l 9 















xxvii. 1 6 

2 7 




2 9 



















xxviii. 5 



4 o 




ii. 33 


iii. 12 




iv. 6 






v. 6 























vii. 1 









ix. 9 






+ unum BEKWO c RVWX c Z^ 2 
princeps ACFH*MXY//* q 

+ habe BCHO*T a bf 

clamidem BES'FQR' 5 

uenientem obuiam sibi B3 >n *IL0 1 RX*Y c Z (E, 0H"»* Q) a b cf 9 h 

+ ut inpleatur . . . sortem ABEa> m 0H c 0KMX)*QWXYZ cor uat 

om AS {added above line) om DEH^HQW a bff x q 

+ ua BDH^'ILO'QR a b aur (uah EH O 0OTO* VZ vg) 
fixi A*CH*TXYZ* g x 
me derel. EJLO^RT (DQJ a bfff x aur 
a longe + uidentes DE uett pi 
custodes J uett pi 

+ dniBEH 1 0OXZ* 

habete BCS^HOT a bfaur 

om eos after docentes W {added above line) 

coepissent 0Z 
+ quia Of aur 
om euangelium {added smaller by 1st hand, with ADH > GH0LNT 

OXY uett pi) 
aestuauit BEOX*Z* (CTL) aur 
in spinis ACH*IMWY a J gat 
adest tempus messis H'0 aur 
autem a longe ihm O b 
occurrit FH*0Z aur 
man CDE3?0LV1 > ORTVWX <5 Z bf 2 vg 
in ciuitate CD3>*FLT b aur 
+ qui habuerat legionem BH^MX) aur 
+ a {before daem.) CDES^^KMTVWZ* bfaur vg 
et non (corr into ins autem 0KVZ bff 2 aur) 
admisit {corr into permisit c ff % aur) 
corpori BCGIKTXZ aur 
illius CS^KLQRTVZ 
ille (corr into ihs with DitP*0NrO a bf) 
ingrediuntur DEH l 0IKNTORVWZ aur 

+ in before Caph. BD3»IJK0XZ a 

super earn a^'FGHJNTOQTVWZ vgbceqrh 
renuntiate BD^KNTOVWXZ vg (corr into nuntiate with AS^CF 

H0IJMQY bfq aur) 
praeparauit BCFGOTZ* a bfaur 
audio talia/7 
ilium OTOVZ aur 
respiciens GR vg b dfl q 8 


+ est after uita aFCDES^JRT gat a b c efff 2 q aur Aug 

+ enim ENT b aur 

quodquod CGO 

gratia et ueritate BG a b c efff 2 8 aur Iren Aug 

dicitur a b d eff a I qr 

conturbabat aur 

abiit D a dff % I aur 

ait philippo solus 

om quid {added later) omZ b d eff 2 * I q r aur 

qui in hunc mundum uenit^, / r 

+ quicquam DH^KRT gat b r aur 

nobis corpus suum a m aur 

dicebat autem de iuda (EH)0K(O)QVWXZ a b c ef{ff % ) I r (aur) 

hie enim incipiebat tradere eum dff 2 * aur 

+ discipulos a b c aur 

cor CIKO°TVW vgbdejfemS {corr 2nd hand) 

+ iudae DX* cor uat r aur [2nd hand adds iudas simon scariothis ; 

om D^j aur ; simon {for simonis) BCEJO*RV gat e] 
18 4 surrexit a c d eftnqr aur {corr later) 

+ autem solus ? {erased later) 
posuit ETX a c ef m q r aur {corr later) 
om si deus . . . in eo EFGH*X*Z ab cd ff % I* aur* Tert Ambr 

{added later) 
gabbatha {for lithostrotus) aur 

gennetha {for gabbatha) b gennethar r gennatha«genetha^* 2 aur 
om et tunicam a b efff r aur 
+ diuiserunt J uett omnes 
confringentes solus (confringetis a b cfff 2 n aur) 

The following tables give the number of times each MS. 
appears in the above tables for the Synoptic Gospels : 

A H* Y; F; D E 3>* ( + 3>»»<0 L Q R; J M; 

Matt. 5 12 7 6 8 18 5 12 9 8 13 94 

Mark ill 2 442 4213 1 

Luke 1 22 23 212 

Total 6 14 8 10 14 22 9 19 11 11 17 11 5 



1. 4 








v. 2 



vi. 3 















Xlll. 1 







xix. 13 







Northumbr. Capuan Irish Italian 

O O c X; C T © H c ; B Z; W. Aur 
10 6 13 7 10 7 5 15 13 9 15 

6 2 6584 39 4 10 

J 3 1 2 3 5 2 j_ . 

21 6 18 14 17 15 9 21 27 15 27 

Canterbury Spanish Mediaev. 

The groundwork of Burch. is assumed to be the North- 
umbrian text, and the above table shows that it follows AH Y 


even where Wordsworth has deserted them. It shows no 
special affinity with the Irish family as a whole, and has little 
likeness to the purest Irish MSS. DLQ. It is nearer to the 
later type R, and of all MSS. it is nearest to E, an Irish 
MS. written on the Continent, 1 and to aur. B Z are also near. 
If we look at Matt. Nos. 10, 12, it will seem that the reading 
of A has been corrected to that of E ; similarly Matt. No. 33 
and Mark No. 3 the reading of E has been corrected to that 
of A. 2 I think the scribe had a codex which like E was con- 
taminated with readings of the BZ family, and that he often 
followed it, sometimes changing his mind after making his 
choice. But the correspondence of the corrections in Mark v. 
19 and 34 with are also noticeable. 

In St. John the coincidences are with the Old Latin. Those 
with Vulgate MSS. are of no importance, as they are roughly 
in proportion to the Old Latin element in the various codices. 
The results may be thus tabulated : 

A A H* S Y; F; DE 3"* L Q R; J M; OX; 

OOIOOI 452OI2 20 2 4 

CT0; GBZ;W. a b c d e f f 2 I m q r 5 aur 

341 3 1 2 2 10 12 8 7 9 5 12 6 4 5 10 2 17 

1 E is the ' Egerton Gospels ' or • Gospels of Marmoutier \ called mm by 
Teschendorf. Though apparently written at Tours (in an Irish hand) the text is 
so fundamentally Irish that I regard it with Wordsworth simply as one of the Irish 
family DELQR. But none of these are purely Irish, and E has more admixture 
than DLQ. This admixture is roughly of the type called by Wordsworth 
the B-Z family, though perhaps ' tribe ' would be a better name. The origin of 
this type seems to me extremely obscure. Z seems to be Italian, while the Irish 
character in B may be a real survival of the early Gallican text from which 
I believe the Irish text to be derived. That E should derive its Irish character 
from Old Gallican texts seems to me quite impossible. Its text is as definitely 
from Ireland as its script. The prologues have been elaborately corrected through- 
out to agree with the OXYZ type, the Irish text scarcely appearing except in the 
Prologue to John, where there is a conflation of the two types. This suggests that 
the variations in the Gospels from the Irish text are due to the use of a codex 
closely related to Z. The archetype may have come from England just as well as 
from Ireland, and the Egerton MS. may be a copy of an Anglo-Irish MS. brought 
by Alcuin. In fact this seems to me the most probable view. But I do not claim 
to have made any special study of this MS. , and I speak with diffidence. It should 
be remembered that Alcuin had a large library at York, which he sent for to Tours. 
Alcuin's own text is mainly a mingling of Northumbrian and Irish readings — that 
is to say, a really Northumbrian mixture, for the Christianity of Northumbria was 
a mixture of the Irish type of Aidan and Cuthbert, with the Roman type of Benet 
Biscop and Wilfrid'. a In Luke No. 4, E has a lacuna. 


The readings are of European type, a b ff 2i especially the 
last being very close. But the coincidences with the codex 
aureus Holmiensis are not merely the most numerous of all, 
but also the most striking. That well-known manuscript was 
bought by ■ Alfred the alderman ' for the use of Christ Church, 
Canterbury, 'from the pagans,' when Alfred was king and 
Ethelbert archbishop (871-89). It had probably been looted 
from some English monastery by the Danes, and may have 
been written in England in the eighth century, not much later 
than Burch. It is a Vulgate text, with many Old Latin 

The Eusebian canons occupy the first nine pages of Burch. 
It has also the Prologues, and its summaries have the follow- 
ing number of titles : Matt. y5, Mark 46, Luke 77, John 36. 
These must be the Old Latin summaries, found in ff % and 
aur, as well as in cg 1 h r y and the Irish D3PQ — the number- 
ing varies slightly in different MSS. There are no summaries 
in E. Those in aur are added by a later hand. 

Now E belonged to St. Martin's famous monastery of Mar- 
moutier near Tours, and it has a certain family likeness to two 
other MSS. of Tours, that of St. Gatien {gat, Bibl. Nat. 1587) 
and the Gospels of St. Martin on which the kings of France 
used to take the oath as canons of that basilica. I have just 
pointed out that there is no reason to doubt that the mixed 
Irish text of E came to Tours with Alcuin's library from 

The principal elements in the text of Burch. seem therefore 
to be of the three types AY, E, and aur. St. Burchard was an 
Englishman, but it is not known from what part of England. 
AY and the liturgical annotations take us to Jarrow, while E 
may suggest York. 


§ 2. The Naples lectionary and the Northumbrian 

The lists of feasts in Y Reg reappear in Burch. as marginal 
notes, referring to accurately indicated pericopae. These notes 
were published in full by Dom G. Morin in the Revue BM- 
dictine in 1893 (vol. x, pp. 113 foil.). He has italicized those 
notes which do not appear in Y Reg. The additions of Burch. 
are Roman, including the ferias of Lent with the Roman statio 
named, and some Roman saints. The manuscript is so well 
preserved that it cannot have been much used. 

The notes belonged originally to the codex of Eugipius, and 
accompanied his text to Squillace and to Jarrow — this follows 
from what we have proved in former chapters. But we may 
go on to discover a very close relationship between the text 
and the notes in its margin. To the AY text belongs a par- 
ticular set of Gospel summaries. They are found in AY Reg, 
in the semi-Northumbrian, semi-Theodulphian H (for Mark, 
Luke, John — for Matthew H keeps with 0), in the North- 
umbrian fragment U (for Matthew), and in a few other early 
MSS., all having derived them from the one Cassiodorian 
archetype at Jarrow. 

If we compare these summaries with the Neapolitan peri- 
copae, we shall find that they march together in a surprisingly 
exact manner, as will be seen in the following table, in which 
the numbers and divisions of the Northumbrian summaries are 
placed side by side with the pericopae as found in the Gospels 
of St. Burchard. The Roman additions interpolated in that 
MS. are italicized in the list. The few notes found in AY 
Reg but omitted in Burch. are added. 

I give the divisions of the summaries from Skeat's edition 
of Y ; but in some cases the figures are omitted in the margin 
of that MS., and occasionally the marginal indication is 
evidently wrong, when the passage is compared with the 
summary itself. 

E % 



In the first column I give the numbers of the AH VY summaries from Wordsworth 
and White ; and against them I have set the passages of the Gospels to which they 
refer. The third column gives Dom Morin's numbering of the Naples pericopae 
of Y Reg ; the fourth column gives his numbering of those in Burch. The fifth 
column gives the incipits of the pericopae as marked in Burch. The sixth column 
gives the notes from the margin of Burch. ; those which are not in Y Reg are itali- 
cized', those of Y Reg which are omitted by Burch. are added in small capitals. 
The corresponding pericopae are, of course, conjectural for these last. Burch. is 
cited as B ; Y Reg are cited as N ( m Naples). The variants of N (or of Y or Reg 
separately) from Burch. are given at foot. 

The lists in Y are given in Skeat's edition of that codex, but not in the earlier 
Surtees Society edition. Dom Morin gave them with the variants of Reg in Revue 
BtfnMctine, 1891, pp. 485-93, and without variants in Anecdota Maredsolana, 
vol. i, pp. 426-35. The list extracted from Burch. was published by him in Revue 
Be'ne'dictine, 1893, pp. 118-26. 

St. Matthew. 

Summary of 







Notes in Gospels of St. Burchard. 



i. 1 





i. 18 

In uigilias de natale domini 


ii. 1 



ii. 1 

In stilla domini ad missa puplica 









In uigilias de Theophania 


iii. 1 



iii. 1 

Post ii dominica feria iiii de aduentum 






In stilla domini nocte 


iv. 1 



iv. 1 

In XLgisima pascae 






In ieiunium de silla domini 






In ieiunium sancte Andreae 




v. 1 



v. 1 

In sanctorum de beatitudinem 












In XLgisima feria ii 



Ebdomada ii post natale apostolorum 














vi. 1 




vi. 7 

Dominica iiii quando orationem 
accipiant n 





Post sec. dominica XLgisima feria vi 

Neapolitan Variants. — i. 18 Pridie natale domini ii. 1 misa Reg pu- 
blica iii. isecunda iii (fornix) iv. 1 XLgissima Reg (regularly) iv. 12 
stella Reg iv. 18 sancti Andrae Reg v. 15 cotidiana v. 17 In] De 

vi. 16 secunda. 

N 12. It is impossible to say whether this title belongs to v. 25, 31, 43, or 
vi. 1, as it is omitted by B. B 15. The + is wanting. The marginal note corre- 
sponds with vi. 16, an obvious lesson for Lent. 



Summary of 





Notes in Gospels of St. Burchard. 



Vi. 22 


vi. 25 

In XLgisima feria vi 


vii. i 



vii. 1 







J 9 




J 3 









In dedicationem 






viii. i 





viii. 5 

Cottidiana de puerum centurionis 




J 9 














ix. i 



ix. 1 








De XLgisima feria vi 




Post penti. feria vi in ieiunium 


















In sancti Viti et in apostolorum 



x. 7 

In ordinatione episcopi et in sanctorum 


x. 16 




In apostolorum et in natale sancti Syxti 



In natale sanctorum Proti et lacynthi 




In unius confessoris et in natale sancti 





Natale sancti Gordiani 



In uigilias sancti Laurenti 


xi. 2 



xi. 2 

Dominica secunda de aduentum 










Cottidiana et in natale martyrum 


xii. 1 



xii. 1 

Cottidiana per messes 






Item alia 










Post vdominicas de XLgisima feria 







In martyra 


xiii. 1 



xiii. 1 

In XLgisima pascae 

Neapolitan Variants. — vii. 1 Cotidiana {et sic saepe Reg), but t added above 
line in Y here and elsewhere viii. 23 Item alia ix. 10 penticosten x. 26 
confessores xi. 2 omit secunda xii. 38 Post quinque Reg xii. 46 

martyras Y martiras Reg xiii. 1 paschae Y pascha Reg 

B 16. This seems a substitution by B for N 23 below. N 23. Perhaps the same 
lesson as 24 was meant. Verses 14-15 refer to fasting. N 34. This seems the 

best point to introduce this N lesson omitted by B. Matt. xii. 34 is now read on 
Ember Wed. of Lent 



Summary of 



AVY Reg 




Notes in Gospels of St. Burchard. 



xiii. 24 


xiii. 24 




Item alia 






In inuentione cruris dSi Si 




xiv. 1 



xiv. 1 

In decolatione sancte Iohannis baptistae 












Cottidiana et in octabas apostolorum 


XV. I 



XV. I 

In Lxxgisima ebd. iiiifer. iiii ad san- 
ctum Syxtum et cottidiana 












In XLgisima feria vi 





xvi. 1 







xvi. 13 

In natale sancti Petri 






In tmius martyris 


xvi. 28 


In dedicationem N 


xvii. 1 

In Lxxgisima ebd. ii feria vii ad san- 
ctum Petrum et cottidiana B 


xvii. 14 




Post ii dominica XLgisima feria iiii 








xviii. 1 

In XLgisima feria iiii 





In Lxxgisima ebd. iiii feria Hi ad 
sancta Podentiana 





xix. 1 



xix. 1 













5 1 



In ieiunium sancti Petri 


XX. I 



XX. I 

In Lxxgisima die dominico ad sanctum 
Laurentium B Dominica tertia 






In Lxxgisima ebd. Hi feria iiii ad 
sancta Cecilia 




In natale sanctorum Iohannis et Pauli 





Post penticosten feria vii ad sanctum 


xxi. 1 


xxi. 1 

In Lxxgisima ebd. iiadsancta Anastasia 




In dedicationem sancte Stephani 


3 7 

1 lxxii 


Neapolitan Variants. — xiii. 44 omit in nostri ihesu xpi xiv. 1 decolla- 
tion sancti xv. 29 De XLgisima feria vi xvii. 14 secunda XLgissima 
xviii. 1 De (for in) xxi. 12 In dedicacione basilicae stephani 

N 46. This notice, omitted by Burch., probably did not combine with his new 
entry. Hence it probably coincided with the summary at xvi. 28, rather than 
with Burch.'s xvii. 1. B 63-6. Which two out of these four cottidianae lectiones 
were added by B can only be guessed. 



Summary of 




Notes in Gospels of St. Burchard. 



xxi. 33 



xxi. 33 

Dominica v quando symbulum accipiunt 


xxii. i 


xxii. 1 

In Lxxgisima ebd. iiiferiaviin Vestine 




3 3 










4 1 


xxiii. i 


xxiii. 1 

In Lxxgisima ebd. Hi feria Hi ad 
sancta Balbina 






In sancti Stephani 



Item alia 


xxiv. 1 



xxiv. 3 

Post secunda dominica de aduentum 
feria vi 




Post iii dominica de aduentum feria iiii 




Post iii dominica de aduentum feria vi 





In natale sancti Eusebii 



In sancti Grigori 




In martyra 


xxv. 14 



J 4 

In nat. sancti Ianuari 






In Lxxgisima ebd. it feria iiadVincula B 
Dominica v quando symbulum 
accipiunt N 


xxvi. 1 



xxvi. 1 

Ebd. vi die dominico ad Lateranis 
legitur passio dM B Die sabbati 





xxviii. 1 



xxviii. 1 

In sab. sancto ad missa 






Feria vipascaeadMartyresBDouimCA 

Neapolitan Variants.— xxi. 33 simbulum Reg xxiv. 3 feria iii xxiv. 23 
dominicas xxiv. 34 tertias dominicas xxv. 31 simbolum Reg xxviii. 1 
Sabbato sancto ad sero 

lxxxv. This number has been omitted in the margin of Y. 




. Mark. 

Summary of 





Notes in Gospels of St. Burchard. 



i. 29 


i. 29 








ii. 13 




ii. 23 





vi. 1 


vi. 1 








Depositio Helisei etsancti Iohannis baptistae 









vii. 1 


3 4 


vii. 24 



3 1 



3 2 

In sabbato sancto mane 


viii. 1 


viii. 1 

Ebdomada Hi post natate apostolorum 



Post oclabas apostolorum feria vi 






ix. 14 



ix. 16 


Post penticosten in ieiunium feria iiii 
* * * * * * 


x. 17 


x. 17 

Post octabas apostolorum feria iiii 


3 3 








xi. 1 

xxx vi 



xi. n 





xiii. 1 


xiii. 18 

iiii ebd. de aduentum 





xiv. 1 

Die dominico de indulgentia passio d2i Si 
ihesu xpi 


xiv. 3 




xvi. 1 

Dominicum pascae ad sancta Maria 


xvi. 2 




Feria vi de albas pascae 
Feria v in ascensa domini 

Neapolitan Variants. — vii. 32 omit in xiv. 1 dominica Y xvi. 8 paschae 

xxii. This nnmber is at v. 31 in Y, not at 32. B 100. Rougher writing. 
B 104-5. It is impossible to say which of these two cottidianas is the Naples one. 
B 106. N has not this entry ; but Dom Morin conjectures that B's entry is Neapolitan, 
since the Naples list has nothing for the fourth week of Advent. 

St. Luke. 


Summary of 


^ 5! 





Notes in Gospels of St. Burchard. 



i. i 





i- 5 

In ieiunium sancti Iohannis baptistae 






Dominica iii de aduentum 



Feria vi ad Apostolos 






In natale sancti Iohannis baptistae 


ii. 1 



ii. 1 

In natale dfii ad missa publica 
Dominica post natale dfii 






1 5 

Natale dfii node 






In octabas dfii 



Dominica i post natale dfii 


4 3 



4 3 

Dominica iiii post epiphania 

Dominica iiii de aduentum dfii fii ihesu xpi 




iii. 1 

IV. 1 



iii. 1 





iv. 14 

v dominica de aduentum 



In XLgisima ebd. iii feria ii ad san- 
ctum Marcum 












In ieiunium apostolorum 


V. I 



v. 1 














Post penticosten feria vi ad Apostolos 








vi. 1 



vi. 1 

Per messes 






Post penticosten in ieiunium die sabbati 






In apostolorum 




In sanctorum 





In laetania tnaior ad sanctum Petrum 





Post hi dominicas XLgisima feria ii 


vii. 1 





vii. 11 










Neapolitan Variants. — i. 5 omit in Y babtistae Reg ii. 1 misa puplica 
Reg ii. 2 1 domini nostri ihesu xpi ii. 42 Post dominica iiii de epiphania 

iii. 1 Dominica prima domini nostri iv. 14 Post v dominicas vi. 1 per 

menses Reg pentecosten Reg 87-8 in one line in Reg 

B 113. Rougher writing. B 1 16-17. Dom Morin suggests that these may 

have been omitted by mistake in the Naples list. B has 116 again at 119. But 
ii. 13-15 cannot be a pericope. B 119. Rougher writing. B 121. The 

iiii is written over an erasure where prima seems to have stood as in N. xxi. 

In Y this number is wanting in the margin, and xxi is written against vi. 20, xxii 
against vi. 31. This does not correspond with the words of the capitula. N 86. 
The place of this notice is uncertain; somewhere between 85 and 87. xxvi. 
This number is not in the margin of Y ; perhaps it was forgotten, because no 
lesson corresponded with it. 



Summary of 



Notes in Gospels of St. Burchard. 




viii. i 



viii. 1 

In martyras 

J 39 


In Lxgisima ad sanctum Paulum 



















Cottidiana et post octabas penticosten feria 

Cottidiana et in sanctorum 


ix. 1 



ix. 1 







Post octabas penticosten feria iiii 







In sanctorum 








43 ^ 





In ordinatione diaconi 


X. I 


x. 1 

In sanctorum 
















In martyras 


xi. 1 



xi. 1 




J 53 


In laetania maior ad sanctum Petrum 





In xLgisima ebd. Hi ad sanctum Lauren- 
tium martyrem 




J 55 









In natale sanctorum Cornili Cipriani 


xii. 1 



xii. 1 

In ieinnium sanctorum Iohannis et Pauli 




In unius confessoris 




J 59 







3 2 




Post i dominica de aduentum feria iiii 



In natale sanctorum sancti Felicis Simplici 
Faustini et Beatrici 




Post i dominica de aduentum feria vi 




In natale episcopi et in ordinatione presbyteri 

Neapolitan Variants. — 
xii. 9 confessores Y xii 

xii. 39 prima 

viii. 1 in martiras viii. 16. B cross ( + ) is wanting 
. 32 prima om. dominica in ieiunium feria iiii 

N 90-3. We have to insert for N between 89 and 94 (the place of these ;s 
certain), 90 Cottidiana, 91 Cottidiana, 92 In sanctorum, 93 Cottidiana. Of these, 
92 will coincide with B 143, 145 or 148 ; one cannot guess which, and then the 
cottidianas must be fitted in accordingly. On the whole it will be best to identify 
N 92 with the double notice B 143, and N 91 with the double notice B 142. Thus 
N 93 = B 146. In each case there is agreement with the divisions of the summary. 
xxxvii. The margin of Y has xxxvii at ix. 27, not at 23 ; but this does not correspond 
with the wording of the summary. N 95. Another doubtful ascription, 

li. In Y this number is found against xi. 45, but this does not correspond with the 
words of the cap. 



Summary of 



AH VY Reg 




1 s 


Notes in Gospels of St. Burchard. 



xii. 49 


xiii. i 



xiii. 10 










xiv. 1 



xiv. 1 





In natale sancti Laurenti 






In ieiuninm sancti Laurenti 


3 5 




In unius martyris et in nat. sancti Timothei 


XV. 1 


XV. I 

Post octabas penticosten feria vi 






In Lxxgisima ebd. iii feria vii ad sanctum 
Petrum et Marcellinum et cottidiana 


xvj. 1 


J 73 

xvi. 1 











xvii. 1 








xvii. 11 

In XLgisima pascae 




xviii. 1 



xviii. 1 







Post iii dominica XLgisima feria iiii 










In Lgisima ad sanctum Petrum B Feria 





xix. 1 



xix. 1 










4 1 


XX. 1 


XX. 1 






In natale sanctorum Marcellini Petri 








xxi. 5 





xxi. 25 

De aduentum et cottidiana 



Neapolitan Variants. — xviii. 10 dominicas post tertia Reg xxi. 25 item 
alia (or higher tip) xxi. 28 b after lxxxvii N has quod prope pascha 

legendum est 

N 102-3. Two cottidianas to be fitted as we please to B 165-6-7, or thereabouts, 
lvi. Wrongly marked in Y at xiii. 6. lxxi. Y gives v. 9, whereas Burch. {teste 

Dom Morin) gives v. 10. N 1 13. This is evidently the place intended. N 1 14. 
This cottidiana may be anywhere between B 178 and B 183. N 115 is probably 
represented by the double notice B 183. 

N 1 1 5. In Y Quod prope, &c. is at the top of fol. 1 35 b before lxxxviii. In Reg the 
words occur in the column after lxxxvii, but are distinguished by being rubricated. 



Summary of 





Notes in Gospels of St. Burchard. 






xxii. i 


xxiii. 34 
xxiv. i 





ii 9 








xxii. 1 


xxiv. 1 


In XLgisima ebd. viferia iiii legitur tassio 


In apostolorum etin nat. sancti Apollinaris 

Die sabbato de albas pascae 

Feria ii pascae ad sanctum Petrum B 


Feria Hi pascae ad sanctum Paulum B 

Feria v de albas pascae N 
la ascensa dni fii ihu xpi 

St. John. 


i. 1 



i. 1 













j iiii 

11. 1 



11. 1 







iii. 1 



iii. 1 










IV. 1 




IV. 1 







In sancti Iohannis euangelistae 

Ebd. i ante natale dfii 

Post epiphania dominica i 

Post epiphania dominica ii 

In nelanda 

In Lxxgisima ebd. v feria ii ad iiii Coro- 

natus et in dedicatione sanctae Mariae 
Dominica ii XL pascae et in pasca an- 

notina et in octabas de penticosten 
Post octabas d3i ab is et post penticosten 

feria ii 
Post epiphania dominica iii 
De muliere samaritanae N 
In Lxxgisima ebd. iiii feria vi in Lu- 

De XLgisima feria iiii 

Neapolitan Variants. — xxii. 1 misa Reg xxii. 24 At tit. Ixxxix is found 
in A quae lectio potest quolibet tempore dici xxiv. 1 sabbati pasce Y pasche 
Reg xxiv. 13 pasce Reg xxiv. 36 pasce Reg John i. 1 apostoli et 

euangelistae (-ista Y) i. 29 prima i. 35 secunda ephifania Y iii. 1 
XLgisima paschae iii. 16 domini nostri ihu xpi iii. 22 Post iii dominicas de 

N 1 20-1. After the last cap. of the summary in Y Reg is found the fol- 
lowing : 'Haec lectio in ebdomada paschae dum legitur finitur m loco ubi ait 
" quoadusque induamini uirtutem ex alto ". Cum autem in ascensione legitur 
alio loco incoanda est quo dicit discipulis "haec sunt uerba quae locutus sum 
uobis cum athuc essem uobiscum " usque in finem euangeli.' (In Reg black with 
red initials to Haec and Cum, as in the case of the capitula after which it stands.) 
N 122. After in Y has an illegible sign (= natale?). B 191. Coarser writing. 

B 197. Though ab \h~\is is not in N, it probably belongs to N, as in N 161 and 
163 below. ix. Here Y gives v. 44, perhaps wrongly, for 46. 



Summary of 



Notes in Gospels of St. Burchard. 




V. I 



v. 1 

In Lxxgisima ebd. iiferia viadApostolos 
etin dedicationemfontis B In sancti 
angeli et in dedicatione fontis N 




Ad missa defunctorum 



Item alia B Cottidiana N 




vi. 1 



vi. 1 

In Lxxgisima ebd. v die dominico in 
Suxurio et nat. sancte Andreae 









1-3,6 a 



Post iiii dominica XLgisima feiia iiii 
Legenda pro defunctis 





Post penticosten feria iiii ad sancta 
Maria et cottidiana 




Post iiii dominica XLgisima feria iii 




Post iiii dominica XLgisima feria ii 




vii. 1 



vii. 1 

In Lxxgisima ebd. vi feria iii ad san- 
ctam Cyriacum B Legenda in qu ad- 





Post iiii dominica XLgisima die sabbati 






In Lxxgisima ebd. vi feria ii ad san- 
ctum Crisogonum B Post v domi- 
nica XLgisima feria hi 




Sabbato sancto penticosten 


viii. 1 


viii. 1 

In Lxxgisima ebd. iiii feria vii ad 
sancta Susanna 






In Lxxgisima v ebd. feria iiii ad san- 
ctum Paulum B Post v dominica 
. XLgisima feria iiii 





In Lxxgisima iii ebd. feria ii ad san- 
ctum Clementem 






Post v dominica XLgisima die sabbati 

1 xxiiii 1 


Neapolitan Variants. — vi. 1 In natale sancti Andreae (Andrae Peg, ardreae Y) 
Vi. 51 feria iiii Y vi. 63 Legenda circa pascha A {teste Tisch.) viii. 31 
dominicas Y 

N 133. Cottidiana anywhere between 132 and 134. B 205. The cross is not 

given. B 206. Dom Morin gives vi. 36, but this seems a strange beginning. Is 
not v. 35 meant ? N 136 b. This note is found at the fifteenth number of the 

summary in AY. Was v. 18 meant ? Or the modern Gospel for Missa quotidiana y 
vi. 48-55 ? N 138 b. Found at the eighteenth number of the summary in Y ; at 
the nineteenth in A. B 215. The addition oiad S. Paul, to the Naples notice 

is probably an error. The composer of the later system ought to have omitted it, 
since he has introduced a new lesson for the same clay 218. B 216. Dom Morin 
has marked no verse. 



Summary of 




xi. 1 
























J 47 




J 52 
r 53 

















xi. 1 


xii. 1 


xiii. 1 

Notes in Gospels of St. Burchard. 

In Lxxgisima v ebd. feria iiii ad san- 
ctum Paulum Post in dominicas 
XLgisima feria VI 

Post penticosten feria Hi ad sancta Ana- 

Dc XLgisima post iii dominicas sab- 
mane post scrutinium 

In Lxxgisima vi ebd. feria iiii ad san- 
ctum Marcellum A XLgisima post 


Post iii dominicas XLgisima feria vi 
In Lxxgisima v ebd. feria vi ad sanctum 
Eusebium Post v dominicas de 
XLgisima feria vi de lazarum 
In agendas 

In Lxxgisima vi ebd. feria vi ad san- 
ctum Stephanum B 
Dominica vi de indulgentia 
In LXgisima i ebd. feria ii ad sanctos 
Nereum et Archilleum B Feria ii de 
ebdomada maiorem 

In natale sanctorum Iohannis et Pauli 

In ieiunium sancti Ianuari et nat. sancti 

In LXgisima iiii ebd. feria vi ad sancta 

Prisca Feria v ieiunium de cena 


Feria i de ebdomada maiore 

Post octauas pascae dominica v 

Sabbato sancto penticosten 

Dominica sancta penticosden 

In natale sanctorum Philippi et Iacobi 

Post albas pascae i dominica et in nat. 

sancti Vitalis 
Nat. sancti Hadriani 
In ebd. post ascensa dfli feria iiii 
In sanctorum 

Neapolitan Variants. — ix. 1 XLgisma Y x. 1 1 sabbato x. 30 iiii dom. 
xi. 25 agendis Y xiii. 33 iiii (rightly) maiorem xiv. 1 Post albas paschae 
dominica ii xiv. 15 Dominica sancta penticosten xv. 1 dominica prima 

B 218. Same as 215. B 229. The cross was originally wanting, but has been 
supplied in a coarse hand. B 232. Dom Morin observes that the words 
Sabbato sancto are written over an erasure, and conjectures that the scribe had 
originally written Dominica sancta, because he found these words here (and not at 
v. 23) in N. 



Summary of 









Notes in Gospels of St. Bur chard. 



xv. 17 

xv. 17 

In natale sancti Pancrati [et] post 

ascensa diii 




Post albas pascae dominica iii 


xvi. 5 

Ebdomada iiii post pascha 



Post albas pascae iiii dominica 


xvi. 16 



Post hi dominicas XLgisima feria 
iiii ab his et 




Post albas pascae v dominica 


Post hi dominica die sabbati ab 





xvii. 1 



xvii. 1 

Feria ii post albas pascae et in ui- 
gilias de ascensa dfli 



Post albas pascae feria iiii 


xviii. 1 



xviii. 1 

In ebd. maiore feria vi ad Hierusalem 
legitur passio dni B Feria vi de 



XX. I 



XX. 1 

Feria ii pascae 



Feria v pascae ad Apostolos 


J 9 



Feria vii pascae ad Lateranis 




Die dominico octabas pascae 


xxi. 1 


2 5 x 

xxi. 1 

Feria iiii pascae ad sanctum Laurentium 





J 5 

In natale sancti Petri et Pauli 




In adsumptione sancte Iohannis euan- 

Neapolitan Variants.— xv. 17 domini xv. 26 paschae xvi. 23 elbas 
dominica iiii Reg Dominica v Y xvii. 1 om. pascae xx. 1 secunda feria 
xx. 24 om. die octabo xxi. 19 assumptione Y sancti aeuangelistae Y 

B 239. et is added above the line. B 241. Coarser writing. N 159-65, 

B 239-44. I have here identified N 162 with B 243; but so N 163-4 nave no 
lesson. The real order I shall explain presently. xxxix. In Y this number is 

wrongly written at xvi. 15, on account of the homoeoteleuton of w. 14 and 15. 
B 245. Dom Morin conjectures that this lesson was accidentally omitted in N. 
xlv. This number has been accidentally omitted in the margin of Y. N 171. 

At the forty-fifth cap. of the summary in Y Reg is found : ' Quae lectio cum in 
natale sancti petri legitur a loco incoatur [indicatur Reg] quo ait " Dicit simoni 
petio iesus simon iohannis diligis me plus his " usque ad locum ubi dicit 
"significans qua [quo Y] morte clarificaturus essetdeum". Cum uero in natali 
(natale Y) sci iohannis euangelistae inchoanda est a loco quo ait " dicit ei " hoc 
est dominus simoni petro " sequere me " usque ubi dicit " et scimus quia uerum est 
testimonium eius ".' (In Reg all is rubricated as far as simon inclusively.) 

It will be seen in the above table that the Naples lessons 
always coincide with the divisions of the summaries in the 
Synoptists except in about eighteen cases, not a very large 
number out of iai lessons. In some cases we cannot be 


certain that the codex of St. Burchard has preserved the 
original Naples incipit\ for this may have been altered 
into the Roman use. 

On the other hand, out of about 68 Roman additions in 
St. Burchard's MS., no less than 34, or half, do not agree 
with the chapters of the summary. The commencements 
of Matthew and Luke in the table should be inspected, for 
the sake of observing the contrast between N and B. 

It seems, therefore, that the capitula of the summaries 
for the first three Gospels are founded on the Neapolitan 
system of lessons. 1 These are carefully composed, and are 
somewhat longer and more literary than other summaries. 

Those for the fourth Gospel are clearly in the same style 
and by the same author. But the correspondence with the 
Naples lectionary is far less exact, for there are 18 diver- 
gences — as many as in the other three Gospels together — 
but on only 50 lessons. The additions of Burchard, about 14 
in number, show 10 divergences. These phenomena might be 
explained by two considerations : first, the author of the capi- 
tula had grown lazy, and has only given 45 numbers, as against 
88 for Matthew, 94 for Luke, and 46 even for Mark ; secondly, 
he has followed the divisions of the older summaries to some 
extent, as may be seen by merely turning over the pages of 
Wordsworth's parallel edition of them. These are sufficient 
reasons for the moment. The real explanation will appear in 
chapter vi, p. iai. 

If we look at his page 18 (supplemented by p. 6j6) we shall 
see no less than eleven types of summary, nine from MSS., 
one from St. Hilary, and one from Rhabanus Maurus. Yet a 
careful inspection shows that all these, except the first column, 
go back to one original of which they are varieties. They have 

1 The reader may suggest the alternative that the lessons were marked out 
according to the divisions of the summary. This is a priori unlikely, for the 
lessons are in many cases traditional and far more ancient than the Northumbrian 
summaries can possibly be. In ch. vii, p. 136, we shall see that it was the original 
method of reference to the lessons which suggested the advisability of composing 
new summaries ; and also that the small number of capitula of the summary of 
John is on account of the originally very small number of pericopae from that 


been rewritten, redivided, and altered in the course of centuries, 
and there are great differences between them ; but there are 
yet more remarkable coincidences, which demonstrate that 
they are recensions of a single archetype. The Irish variety 
is in close relation with the divisions of the Codex Vaticanus, 
so that it evidently came to the Old Latin from the Greek. 
They seem also to bear some relation to the Latin lec- 
tionaries. 1 

But the first column of Wordsworth, the Northumbrian 
summary, is very different in character, as a very short inspec- 
tion will show. It is edited by Wordsworth from AHUVY, 2 
and is found also in Reg and in other MSS. enumerated by 
Berger (Hist. Vulg, p. 355, ii). It may possibly have been 
adopted by Alcuin, as it is in V, though not in K. The place 
and date of origin will appear later on. 

§ 3. The Naples liturgy in use at J arrow. 

In 189a Dom G. Morin published an article on the ' recueil 
primitif des homelies de Bede sur l'Evangile ', 3 in which he 
showed that the Venerable Doctor followed a liturgical system 
which has interesting coincidences with the Neapolitan lists of 
YReg. Dom Morin had not then discovered the liturgical 
notes in the Gospels of St. Burchard ; his work needs there- 
fore some completion. 

He has shown that the collection of fifty homilies of Bede 
(known to Paul Warnefrid, and obviously identical with 
the Omeliarum Evangelii libri II of which Bede himself 
speaks in the last chapter of his History) has been preserved 
in certain MSS. A Cluny MS. gives the homily on St. Benet 
Biscop in the last place, where Paul the deacon found it ; but 
Dom Morin is inclined to prefer the order given by a Boulogne 

1 So Berger, Hist, de la Vulgate, p. 311: 'II y a peut-etre rapport entre 
l'original de cette division ancienne et les Evangiles des dimanches et fetes de 
l'Eglise romaine (le Comes) qui sont, probablement, en grande partie anteneurs au 
pape saint Leon le Grand. II parait en etre de meme des liturgies gallicane et 
mozarabe.' (I doubt whether any edition of the Comes is purely Roman.) 

a H has the common form of summary for Matthew (thus agreeing with 0) 
but in the other Gospels agrees with AY. U exists only for Matthew. 

3 Revue Btnidictine, 1892, pp. 316 foil. 


MS. used by Giles, where that homily occurs in the twelfth 
place, according to the date of St. Benet Biscop's feast, 
January ia, the day before the Octave day of the Epiphany. 
Most people will agree with him that it was natural outside 
England to shift this outlandish saint to the last. I add that 
the Boulogne MS. shifts the homily on the Midnight Mass of 
Christmas to the last place ; in the MS. of Cluny it is sixth. 
Now Bede perhaps followed the common custom (in South 
Italy we find it in the letter of pseudo-Jerome to Constantius, 
though not in the Capuan pericopae of St. Paul in Cod. 
Fuld.) of beginning the ecclesiastical year with Christmas. 
It was thus perfectly natural to look upon the Christmas 
Midnight Mass as the last, as well as the first, of the year. 

The order of both codices seems to me to be disturbed. 1 
The first two lessons are for Advent, and the third for Christ- 
mas Eve. But on the other hand the forty-ninth, or last but 
one, and the forty-eighth are also for Advent. Now this divi- 
sion of Advent between the beginning and the end of the fifty 
homilies is comprehensible if we suppose that the transference 
of the homily on St. Benet Biscop was only one of many 
alterations made to suit a Roman use. We may conjecture 
that Bede had put all the Advent homilies at the end, and 
that some of them were shifted to the beginning by a copyist 
or editor who followed the practice of beginning the year with 
Advent. If this be so, the original collection commenced with 
5 and 6, the homilies on the second and third Masses of 
Christmas. Of course the converse — viz. that all the Advent 
homilies were originally at the beginning — is also possible, 
and such an arrangement might be disturbed in Italy. 

Again, the second book opens with the twenty-sixth homily, 
for Easter Eve ; but the nineteenth homily (on Mark vii. 31) 
was certainly also for Easter Eve, while those before it and 
after it are certainly for Lent. This seems to be a dislocation 
made by a copyist who had never heard of the Gospel for the 
rite of Effetatio on Holy Saturday. Consequently we should 
pay little attention to the occasional coincidences with the 
Roman order of the Gospels, for these may be later adapta- 

1 See the table further on, p. 68. 


tions ; whereas deviations from it will be important, as likely 
to be original. 

The lists (capitulationes) published by Mabillon from two 
MSS. of De Thou (Migne,P. Z., vol. 90, col. 30) give an order 
possibly still more Romanized, for the last two homilies of the 
second book according to the order of the Boulogne and Cluny 
MSS. have here become first and second, so that the four 
Advent homilies open the collection. The titles given in 
these lists are interesting, but are in many cases adaptations, 
and cannot express Bede's own intention. Their agreement 
with B or N is shown by small capitals in the following list. 

It will be seen that I have utilized Dom Morin's excellent 
table (Revue BMd., 1. a). In the last column italics signify 
an addition of B, while small capitals stand for a note of N 
omitted by B, as in the former table. 

F 2 













41 'Z'Ji 

S 8 5 ** • 
J? § e a 

■§•3 8 IJ 

.o N *>« 

2 s II H H 

5 2 

8 «« to 


« ^o 








< tj ^ ^ 

S ^^ : - 

P us J & 


a 9 b 

o J? a * 


S* ; 

.o* * 
a 9 s 1 

O " 


tfl TO . 


II u ii ii 

w c5 


o 'o 

a S 

M o 

. >-■ 

ii ii 

■ TO 

13 # 


II o 6 u 









a o 


t-l l-H 1-1 


3 o S .'9 S * 



fc 4) 

•« TO 

u 9 





•g '2 tJ 8 "5 a 




yj) utunjoj 

N fOrorO 


MM C4 

uotjtpa spi}Q 


-VWf0 U9 P UQ 

ws -^ ujvo i>-oo ©NO m m« *>.Ttio^-. ^oo 

.« .J-* .m .J : J —• 

•y/T ivSojnog 

rO 't- ujvo l>.00 O\0 h n mt W5VO l>.00 ON O 



3 P 

1 * § 
SL* 1 

3 :3 


o 'W H » 




^ « " g 
m- s H ^ s 

II "S^, 



2 I 


1 I 

W < 




£ 8 


:3 o\ 



x i 



US . 














US l-t 


« « 



M M 











d v us.S 

tfl PQ «'S o 


► s 

5 ^ » £ si S3 


1 i s 


o ^ « S5 

w *^ O u 

n oa 8 
'S^'S ^-H 5 8 n ^5 w 

I s 






s a 

* 1 



c « 


a ° ^ w 
►5 H 


o 2 

< M 


A 04 






00 00 


us us 







00 OV 





a* pentuosten 

71, in In ieiunium sancti lo- 
hannis Baptistae 
73, 114 In natale sancti lohannis 


.2 v! A 's' * bio 

i.e. of 



►St -^ 








M .8 





, a 


w M i2 V m mi *> g, 55 «-> 'O 

1 1 I Sis!, « flnji 

3 1 § So § < "3 * "*• *^ fe a 

c «* * Nsa^ r i , §^ -s^a fi 


II Ii 



% a ii 3 

2.11 11 

"& % 






n n 








^1 i 

u .< -a 




. en 








<^^ g 
CO n Jh B 

<*; V « CO 

big S & 


11 11 





>WW O 





























•- 1 CO 
CO .j 

Id '§ 

P. Ph 


S 2 .d 






CO rt 

W v <& 

« «> c<t 

a .-2 co 

opq v rt 
ts a 







S5 55 




2 a c 



t-H 1-1 




h-( H-l H-l 







J>. OV 




7 2, °9 m 

1 CO 1 

•rj- CO «5 ^ 


| 1 



« ^. ON 

usvo ov ' 


*° £ 





«JN«5 " 


3 3 




f— , 


rt -cl a «« 

2 £ 3 a 

5l| | 

fo umnjoj 


S 2 




r» co co Ov 
co rt- co '♦" 

VO OVU5 •*• 
»« M CO 

d « 




N C» TT N 

« CO 

tiotjtp? spi}f) 


On « 




C» CO ^ CO 

co ^^t- >^- 


co tJ- 




O M I N 

CO M « 1 


« n In 

f 1 



• M 


co >*• 




CO OS O •-• 

N CO Tf" »0 

'SH 9u2oinog 


MM « N 

N N C* M 


It will be seen from the table that Bede most certainly 
agrees with the Neapolitan lectionary against the Roman 
system in all the following cases. (On the first three see 
Dom Morin, 1. c, pp. 322-3.) I cite other lectionaries thus : 
Lux. = Lectionary of Luxueil (Mabillon) ; Comic. = Liber 
Comicus of Toledo (ed. Morin, 1893) ; Bob. = Bobbio Missal 
(Mabillon) ; Moz. = Mozarabic use ; q = marginal notes in the 
Old Latin codex, Munich lat. 6224 (see p. 102, note), &c. More 
will be said about these feasts in chapter vi. 

Horn. i. 9. Epiphany. This pericope is not now in use, but 
occurs in Lux. Bob. q. 

i. 19. Holy Saturday. This is the Gospel for the rite of 
Effetatio performed on the Catechumens, as in Comic. 1 

ii. 9. Ascension Day. This pericope is unknown to the 
Roman use, but is ascribed by Bede and by the Neapolitan 
lists to Ascension Day, with Bob. Comic. Ambros. q. 

ii. 16. The homily on John xxi is for the feast of SS. Peter 
and Paul, and not for the vigil, as it explicitly declares : 
'Verum quia cum memoria beati Petri etiam coapostoli eius 
Pauli hodie natalitia celebramus.' Mabillon's lists have given 
the Roman attributions to 15 and 16, and have reversed the 
order accordingly. The order of the Cluny and Boulogne 
MSS. implies that 15 (on Matt, xvi, the Roman Gospel for the 
feast of SS. Peter and Paul, and for both feasts of St. Peter's 
chair) was intended for the vigil, and there is nothing in the 
homily to contradict this implication ; the homily would apply, 
however, far more suitably to the feast of the Cathedra. The 
Naples list gives In natale S. Petri for John xxi, which St. 
Burchard's MS. emphasizes by the addition of et Pauli, and 
for Matt, xvi it also has in natale sancti Petri — probably de 
cathedra is to be understood. At all events ii. 16 is in agree- 
ment with NB, if not ii. 15 also. 

ii. 17. In this homily there is nothing whatever about the 
feast of St. James, and nothing in honour of that Apostle 
particularly. It seems hardly possible that Bede (who has so 
much about the saint celebrated in his homilies on SS. Peter 
and Paul, Matthew and John Baptist) should have meant this 

1 On this ceremony see Dom Fe'rotin, Liber ordinum, col. 27, note 1. 


homily for St. James's day. 1 It is far more reasonable to 
suppose that it was for the feast of SS. John and Paul, as in 
N and B. There was no occasion for mentioning these two 
martyrs in explaining the Gospel. (The feast of St. James is 
not in N, nor even in B.) 

ii. 1 8. The decollation of St. John Baptist : the Gospel is 
that of NB, with Bob. Lux. Com. q ; it is unknown to the 
Roman use. 

These instances might in themselves merely prove that 
Gallican influence had affected the liturgy of Jarrow. But as 
we know already that the archetype of our various copies of 
the Neapolitan list belonged to that abbey, there is hardly 
room for doubt that the influence is not Gallican, but directly 
from the Neapolitan use of Eugipius. 

§ 4. The feasts in St. Bede's Homilies. 

There are probably further likenesses between Bede and 
NB ; but I prefer to give them separately, because they are 
not necessary to my argument. I do not intend, however, 
to give a full liturgical commentary on the system of Bede, 
I merely offer a few suggestions. 

1. Christmas. The list will begin with the second and 
third Mass of Christmas, viz. horn. i. 4 and 5. The title in B 
(No. 117) for Luke ii. 15-20 Natale dotnini node is an obvious 
slip; the scribe had retained in No. 115 (Luke ii. 1-14) the 
title found in N, In natale dni ad miss a public a, and taking 
this for the Aurora Mass, placed the Midnight Mass after it, 
instead of reversing the places. But N had only one Christ- 
mas Mass. B evidently means three, like Bede, but has not 
marked the third at John i. 1. 

2. Epiphany. The Purification is not found in NB, but 
we are not surprised to find it added by Bede. Roman 
identifications give sermons for second and first Sundays after 
Epiphany, and for the Octave. The order is absurd ; Ma- 
billon's lists give the first before the second. We see that the 
order of Boul. and Cluny is not wholly Roman, or not wholly 

1 It would be far more suitable for the ancient feast of SS. James and John 
after Christmas. The Gospel is the right one. 


Romanized. The lesson for the Octave is said to be for the 
third Sunday by Mabil Ion's list, evidently on account of its 
position after the first and second. But the Gospel for the 
Epiphany, as we saw, is not Roman ; and i. 15 (John i. 43-5 1 ) 
is not Roman, except as the second half of the Gospel for the 
Vigil of St. Andrew. The former half is found in ii. 23, and 
is called in Mab. lists In natale S. Andreae, but there is no 
panegyric of that Apostle, on the contrary much more is said 
about St. Peter. The whole pericope in N is attributed to the 
second Sunday after Epiphany. Now in N there is no third 
Sunday, for the post Epiphania dominica iii (No. 98) of B 
appears as post iii dominicas de Epiphania (No. 76). It looks 
as though the change in B was made on purpose, in order 
to supply a pericope for the third Sunday. If we assume 
that John i. 43-51 (the second half of N's long pericope i. 35-51 
for the second Sunday) was used at Jarrow for the third 
Sunday, we get the following symmetrical scheme : 


Vig. St. Andr. 
i Sunday- 
There remains i. 10 on John ii. 1-11, which is marked by 
N In uelanda. The homily does not seem intended for a wed- 
ding occasion ; though it praises virginity, and says much of 
Christ the Bridegroom. The pericope naturally follows after 
those for the first, second, and third Sundays, all from John i. 
The marriage in Cana is so well known as one of the Epiphany 
mysteries that it is natural that Bede should have added it to 
the Naples Gospels for that period. We may presume that at 
Jarrow it was added for the fifth Sunday, or interpolated as 
the fourth in its natural sequence. Or it is equally possible 
that it was the Gospel for the octave day, which is not given 
in N. If all this restoration seems too bold, yet it should be 
remembered that it is based on the fact that the Epiphany 
Gospel of Bede is the Naples one, and on the difficulty of ex- 
plaining i. 15 and ii. 22. The work I ascribe to the editor of 
Boul. and Cluny is simple. If 10 was, in Bede, for the octave, 

Bede. Naples. 


i. 9. Matt. iii. 13-17 Epiphany Epiphany 


i. 13. John i. 29-34 i Sunday i Sunday 

iii Sunday 

ii. 22. „ i. 35-42 ii „ \ 
i- 15. » i. 43-51 "i v, I 

Vig. St. Andr. 

' Post Theophania ' 

i. 11. Luke ii. 42-52 iiii „ iiii „ 

i Sunday 


he left it (changing only the title) and the feast of St. Benet 
Biscop after it, but before the latter he naturally put what he 
believed to be the first Sunday, and after it the third Sunday, 
i. 15 and ii. 22 puzzle him. The latter he takes to be 
suitable for the feast of St. Andrew, the former he leaves 
where he found it, with the vague designation Post Theophania. 
3. Lent. i. 19, for Easter Eve, is obviously out of place. 
For the rest it seems that the Roman use is followed in Lent, 
as by St. Burchard, the Naples directions being rather con- 
fused. We get the following list : 

16 Ember Saturday B Rom (and 2nd Sunday Rom, Mab.) 

17 Cottidiana BN, but 2nd Sunday Alcuin 

18 Saturday before 4th Sunday BRom, but 3rd Sunday Mab. 

19 Holy Saturday BN 

20 Monday after 4th Sunday B Rom, et in Ded. S. Mariae BN 

21 Ember Friday B Rom, in sancti angeli (N) et in ded.fontis (BN) 

2 2 4th Sunday B Rom (for 4th Sunday N has Gospel of Lord's Prayer) 

23 Palm Sunday N 

24 Palm Sunday (at Blessing of Palms) Rom 

25 Holy Thursday, ad mandatum, BN Rom 

It will be seen that 19, 20, 21 are out of place, but that the 
rest are in order, if we accept Alcuin's Gospel for the second 
Sunday (which has the same Gospel as the Saturday in the 
Roman use). We get 

1 . Sat. bef. 2nd Sunday 

2. 2nd Sunday 

3. Sat. bef. 4th Sunday 

4. 4th Sunday 

5. 6th Sunday, ' de Indulgentia ' 

6. 6th Sunday, 'In Palmis* 

7. Holy Thursday 

A very methodical arrangement. There are similarly a pair 
of sermons for Holy Saturday: i. 19 and ii. 1. To all these 
must be prefixed i. 21, for Ember Friday, which will come in 
well before Ember Saturday ; while i. 20 comes immediately 
after No. 4. Thus we get triplets instead of couples : 

1. Ember Friday i. 21 (7. Palm Sunday, ' De Indulgentia' 

2. Ember Saturday i. 16 ) i. 23 

3. 2nd Sunday i. 17 18. Blessing of Palms i. 24 
Sat. bef. 4th Sunday i. 18 * 9. Washing of Feet, Thursday i. 25 
4th Sunday i. 22 / 10. Easter Eve, morning i. 19 
Monday after 4th Sunday i. 20 ) 11. Easter Eve, vigil ii. 1 

(12. (Easter Day) ii. 4 



The symmetry is inexact, and the large gaps are curious ; 
but the arrangement looks intentional rather than accidental. 

4. Easter. The reviser of Mabillon's lists has twice 
been puzzled, and has left two blanks ; furthermore, he has 
got no sermon for Easter Day ! The second of his blanks is 
an accident, but the former is not against a Roman lesson, 
and is actually at the Easter Gospel of Gallican and Bobbio 
uses, which N has for Saturday in Albis. This is surely 
another agreement, not with Bobbio and Gaul, but with N 
against Rom. But more remarkable is the fact that ii. 4, 
which Rom, Mab, and B all agree in ascribing to Friday after 
Easter, is actually the Easter Gospel in N. St. Bede's sermon 
is apparently for Easter Day itself : ' Euangelica lectio, fr. c, 
quam modo audiuimus, et iuxta litteram gaudio plena refulget, 
quia triumphum Redemptoris nostri simul et redemptionis 
nostrae dona piano sermone describit.' This was not an 
obvious remark to make, had the preacher not been determined 
to find Easter joy in Matt, xxviii. 16-20, where the Resurrec- 
tion is not even mentioned. The enumeration which he gives 
of the appearances of the risen Christ are also suitable to the 
first of a series of Easter sermons. As for Easter Day we 
cannot follow Rom, and ought evidently to prefer N to Gaul 
or Ireland, let us try to restore Bede's Easter lectionary with 
the help of N, as corrected in a future chapter (p. 117). 
We get a complete sequence : 

{i. 19 Mark vii. 32-7 In Sabbato sancto mane N 

ii. 1 Matt, xxviii. 1-10 In Sabbato sancto ad sero N 

ii. 4 „ „ 16-20 Dominica s. pascha ad misa pnblica N 

ii. 3 Lnke xxiv. 36-47 Feria v de albas pasce N 

ii. 2 „ „ 1-9 Die Sabbato de albas pasce N 

ii. 6 John xvi. 5-15 Post albas pascae dominica iii N 
"• 7 » » 23-30 „ „ „ iiiiN 

ii. 5 „ „ 16-22 „ „ „ vN 

[ii. 8 Luke xi. 9-13 In laetania maior B] 

ii. 9 Luke xxiv. 44-53 In ascensa domini nostri ihu xpi N 

ii. 10 John xv. 26-xvi. 4 Post ascensa domini N 

ii. 11 John xiv. 15-21 Dominica sancta pen ticosten N ? 

The last point confirms (or rather, it suggested) that N had 
this lesson for Whit Sunday, and not xiv. 23 with B Rom, 
for if we suppose St. Bede meant his homily for the eve (with 


B Rom), he has provided no homily for the feast itself. There 
remains one homily, ii. 12, which gives difficulty. For in 
N this Gospel is set down for the second Sunday of Lent ; but 
it does not seem that Bede usually follows N in Lent, and he 
apparently had another homily for that Sunday, viz. i. 17. 
B has two entries, in pascha annotina et in octabas de penti- 
costen. The latter corresponds with Alcuin and with many 
ancient lectionaries ; and the inscription of Mabillon's list In 
octav. Pentecost, is presumably a remains of the original head- 
ing, since for a wonder it is not the Roman fertcope. 1 

5. Dedications. The two sermons, ii. 19, 20, placed after 
the Decollation of St. John Baptist and before St. Matthew, 
imply feasts between Aug. 29 and Sept. 21. Dom Morin 
remarks that this does not suit J arrow, for the Church of that 
monastery was dedicated on April 23? But all the same it 
seems obvious to suppose that the Churches of the double 
monastery of Monkwearmouth and Jarrow are intended. 
The date of the former is unknown. We may assume that it 
was in September, and that the sermon for the dedication of 
the daughter abbey of Jarrow was placed next after it. 

We thus get the following conjectural restoration of the collec- 
tion of St. Bede's Homilies. Much of it, here and there, must 
remain uncertain. But it seems beyond cavil that most of it is 
based on the Neapolitan use, as Dom Morin acutely guessed : 




i. 10 

Epiphany, octave ? 




i- 13 

„ 1st Sunday after 



„ 3rd Sunday 

ii. 22 

„ 2nd „ 



„ Ember Friday 

i. 15 

» 3 rd 



Christmas Eve 

i. 11 

» 4& „ 



„ 1st Mass 

i. 14 




„ 2nd „ 

i. 21 

Lent, Ember Friday i 



» 3rd „ 

i. 16 

„ „ Saturday > 



St. John Evang. 

i. 17 

„ 2nd Sunday ) 



H. Innocents 

i. 18 

„ 3rd Saturday \ 




i. 22 

„ 4th Sunday > 




i. 20 

„ 4th Monday J 

1 As to Advent it may be remarked that possibly Bede intended three Sundays, as 

2 Dom Morin wrongly gives 24th, after Mabillon ; but the existing inscription 
has viiii kl not viii kl — it is reproduced in Dugdale's Monasticon, and, from 
a photograph, in Plummer's Bede, vol. ii, p. 361. 





Lent, Blessing of Palms ) 






Ephphetha, Sunday > 






Washing of feet, Thurs. ) 





Easter Eve, morning 






,, evening 


















Sat. in Albis 






3rd Sunday after 






4 th » » 






5th ,» » 



Rogation litanies 





Ascension Day 





,, after the 


„ octave ? 
Feast of St. Benet Biscop 
Feast of St. Peter's Chair ? 
Vigil of St. John Baptist 
Nativity of St. John Baptist 
Feast of SS. John and Paul 
„ „ SS. Peter and Paul 
„ ,, Decollation of St. J. B. 
Dedication (of Wearmouth 

Church ?) 
Dedication (of Jarrow Church ?) 
Feast of St. Matthew 


§ i. Victor of Capua possessed a Greek Diatessaron. 

Before we enter upon the consideration of Eugipius's 
lectionary use, we must give our attention to a MS. older than 
the Northumbrian texts, indeed half a century older than 
Anglo-Saxon Christianity. The Codex of Fulda is said to 
have been placed in that abbey by St. Boniface, and it remains 
in the library at Fulda to the present day, though there is an 
abbey there no longer. It was written at Capua under the 
direction of Victor, who was bishop from 541 to 554. The 
Gospels in it are arranged in a Diatessaron, and this arrange- 
ment has produced considerable mixture in the passages from 
the Synoptists ; but yet the text is seen to be a good one, and 
to have a close relationship with the Northumbrian text, which 
we may now call the Cassiodorio-Eugipian text. An examina- 
tion of this famous MS. will show us further points of contact 
with the AY family, and will lead us to very important 

Victor of Capua showed considerable critical acumen when 
he decided that the Diatessaron which he discovered was that 
of Tatian rather than that of Ammonius. But what did he 
discover? A Latin Diatessaron, according to Zahn, 1 prob- 
ably put together not earlier than 500. It will be remembered 
that the Codex Fuldensis was read through by Victor on 
April 19, 546, and again on April 12, 547.2 The writing of it 
will have been begun later than his accession to the episcopate 
of Capua in 541. But if Victor found a Latin Diatessaron 
ready made, the difficulty concerning its origin is only shifted 
a little further back. It is indefinitely unlikely that it should 

1 Forschungen, i, p. 310. 

2 St. Victor's notes were given above, ch. iii, § 1. 


have been composed directly from a Syriac model. It is ex- 
tremely likely that Greek copies would have occasionally been 
made, although we do not happen to possess a record of any. 
Victor begins his Preface thus : 

* Dum fortuito in manus meas incideret unum ex quatuor euangelium 
compositum, et absente titulo, non inuenirem nomen auctoris, diligenter 
inquirens quis gesta uel dicta domini et Saluatoris nostri, euangelica 
lectione discreta, in ordinem quo se consequi uidebantur, non minimo 
studii labore redegerit, reperi Ammonium quemdam Alexandrinum . , . 
sicut Eusebius episcopus Carpiano cuidam scribens, in praefatione 
editionis suae qua canones memorati euangelii edidit, refert. ... Ex 
historia quoque eius comperi quod Tatianus uir eruditissimus, et orator 
illius temporis clarissimus, unum ex quatuor compaginauerit euangelium, 
cui titulum Diapente imposuit.' 

There is nothing here to tell us whether the book found by 
Victor was in Latin or not. But it is quite evident that he 
expected to find that it was composed by a Greek writer. 
He certainly has no idea that it came from a Syriac original, 
or he would not have suggested Ammonius. His words are 
evidently consistent with its having been a Greek work which 
he found. Further on he does not tell us that he translated 
it. 1 But then, in any case, he did not translate it, but adapted 
a very good Vulgate text to the scheme he found. We cannot 
infer that he did not transfer this scheme from Greek to Latin, 
because he does not say so ; just as we cannot infer that he did 
not simply have it copied, because he does not say so. As a 
fact he merely tells us that he added the Ammonian sections. 
But his Preface placed at the beginning of the volume shows 
us that he had the present copy made under his careful super- 
vision, while we may fairly infer that the Preface implies by 
its very existence that Victor looked upon the work as his 
own in its present form. 

1 The following words of Victor in his Preface are ambiguous : ' Verumtamen 
uel si iam heresiarches huius editionis auctor exstitit Tatianus, uerba Domini mei 
cognoscens, libenter amplector interpretationem ; si fuisset eius propria, procul 
abicerem.' By inttrprelatio he might mean ' translation ' ; but it does not 
appear whether he embraces so willingly a translation which he discovered, or 
whether he rather means 'I willingly set myself to the work of translating'. 
Perhaps he means that he knew the Greek he found to be a translation from the 
Syriac. But he may also mean Tatian's ' interpretation ' or arrangement. 


Now it is certain that Victor knew Greek. It is also certain 
that he occupied himself a good deal with Holy Scripture, for 
a great many of his scholia have been preserved in catenae or 
by Smaragdus. What is especially important is the fact that 
he quoted a great many early Greek writers whose works are 
lost to us, Polycarp, Origen, Severus Gabalitanus, Diodorus 
of Tarsus, as Cardinal Pitra has shown by the fragments he 
published. 1 Especially famous are the five fragments of pseudo- 
Poly carp published by Feuardent. 2 

Victor of Capua is therefore just the man who was likely to 
stumble upon a Greek recension of Tartan s ' Gospel of the 
mixed '. To shift the difficulty back some forty years with 
Zahn will not help us to find an individual so likely to have 
known such a writing or to have adapted it as Victor. 

The care with which Victor corrected the whole MS. (which 
is a complete New Testament) is in character with the minute 
accuracy with which the mosaic of the Diatessaron is adjusted. 

If this view is right — and I can see no real ground for Zahn's 
view — it follows that St. Victor of Capua had in his possession 
a very good Vulgate text of the Gospels, and one which was 
closely related to the text which Cassiodorus borrowed from 
the library of Eugipius at Naples. The resemblance between 
Victor's codex and that of Eugipius is unlikely to be for- 

§ 2. St. Germanus of Capua and the Diatessaron. 

How did Victor happen to come across so many early frag- 
ments of Greek Christian literature ? His age was not one 
for much learning. Dionysius the Little was indeed a Greek 
scholar, but then he was not an Italian but a Scythian. 
Cassiodorus had many works translated from the Greek by a 
certain Epiphanius, and provided Greek books * in the eighth 
cupboard ' for such as could read them, as well as a Greek 
Pandect. But such knowledge was rare ; and at the end of 

1 See his words in Migne, P. L., 102, col. 1122 ; the fragments will be found in 
Spicilegium Solesmense, vol. i, and Analecta sacra et classica, vol. 5. 

3 The form of them is obviously Victor's own style. The matter I believe to be 
Papias not Polycarp. 


the same century St. Gregory the Great was able to pass 
several years at Constantinople without learning Greek at all. 

St. Victor of Capua was the successor, and no doubt the 
disciple and friend, of a bishop of Capua who knew the East 
well. St. Germanus of Capua had been the head of the em- 
bassy sent by Pope Hormisdas in 519 to the Emperor Justin 
for the reunion of East and West after the death of the 
heretical Emperor Anastasius. We possess the instructions 
taken with them by the legates, and many letters of the Pope 
to them. 1 We have also many reports sent to Rome by 
St. Germanus 2 and by the deacon St. Dioscorus. 3 St. Ger- 
manus lived on until 541, if we may trust the epitaph of 
Victor printed by Ughelli. 4 His death was revealed to St. 
Benedict, who saw his soul go to heaven in a globe of light. 5 

Now when St. Victor tells us that he found the Diatessaron 
by chance we do not gather that he bought it by chance. 
Rather he found it among some books he had about him at 
Capua. It is natural to suppose that he found it in the same 
collection of Greek Christian writers upon which he drew for 
his scholia on the Pentateuch and for other writings. It is 
probable that he did not form this collection himself, as he did 
not know what it contained. 

It is obvious, therefore, to hazard the guess that he inherited 
from his predecessor St. Germanus a library of Greek Fathers 
which that bishop had collected while in the East. Victor's 
knowledge of Greek will not surprise us, since he could have 
learnt it from Germanus or in his entourage. 

§ 3. The Gospel text in the Codex Fuldensis is derived 
from that of Eugipius. 

The text of this Latin Diatessaron is mixed, where the same 
passage occurs in more than one Gospel. I take, for an instance, 
the passage cited by Mgr. Kaulen (Vulgata, p. 221) from 

1 Mansi, vol. 8, pp. 441 and 460-1, 467-8, 471, 474-7. 
3 Ibid., pp. 449-50, 453, 475, 480, 482, 488. 
3 Ibid., pp. 454, 479, 486, 490. Also in Migne, P. L. t lxiii, 
* Italia Sacra, cited by Pitra, in Migne, P. L., cii, 1123. 
5 St. Gregory, Dial., ii. 35. 


cap. cvi, representing Matt. xix. 16, Mark x. 17, and Luke 
xviii. 18. 

Et cum egressus esset in uiam procurrens quidam genu flexu ante 
eum . rogabat eum— Mark. 

Magister bone . quid boni faciam ut habeam uitam aeternam . qui dixit 
ei . quid me interrogas de bono. — Matthew. 

nemo bonus . nisi unus deus. — Mark. 

Si autem uis ad uitam ingredi . serua mandata . dixit illi . quae . ihesus 
autem dixit. — Matthew. 

non occides. — Luke. 

non adulterabis. — Matthew. 

non furtum facies. — Luke. 

non falsum testimonium dices. — Luke and Matthew. 

honora patrem tuum et matrem. — Luke and Mark. 

et diligis proximum tuum sicut teipsum . Dicit illi adulescens . Omnia 
haec custodiui — Matthew. 

a iuuentute mea — Mark and Luke. 

quid adhuc mihi deest. — Matthew. 

This is an extremely elaborate mosaic, hardly adequately 
described by Bishop Wordsworth in these mild words : ' Huius 
codicis indoles non facile aestimatur cum euangelium unum ex 
quatuor exhibeat ; unde scriba per similitudinem locorum a 
recta uia abduci potuit ' (p. 711). One may well say boldly 
that Victor has carefully weighed every word, supplied every 
expression which was wanting in one Gospel but found in 
another, e. g. (above) ' Et diligis (sic) proximum,' &c. [Mark 
and Luke omit] ; ' quid adhuc mihi deest ' [Mark and Luke 
omit] ; ' a iuventute mea ' [Matthew omits] ; he chooses the 
better wording (' non occides ' for ' ne occidas ' or ' non homi- 
cidium facies ' ; * non furtum facies ' for * non facies furtum ' or 
' ne fureris '). He prefers the longer, harder, and more preg- 
nant phrase to the simpler (' Quid me interrogas de bono ? ' 
rather than ' quid me dicis bonum ? '). The harmonizing is 
exceedingly well done ; indeed it would be difficult to im- 
prove upon it in this involved passage. It is clearly the work 
of the learned and acute critic who wrote the preface to the 

Bishop Wordsworth continues in the same passage : * Sed 
stat plerumque sine dubio cum familia Northumbrica AY. 
Non tamen ita arete cum illis sociatur ut libertate non frua- 


tur. Tres ergo AFY simul iuncti duobus AY praeferendi 
sunt.' The chief differences are in spelling, such as will be 
seen from the examples I give in the note below. 1 Most of 
these are due to carelessness ; but sometimes, we cannot 
doubt, AY will reflect the theories of orthography taught by 
Cassiodorus. Of the differences of reading in the note, uiderant 
is a clerical error of F. But omnibus (= Greek) in Luke i. 3 
(mini adsectUo a principio omnibus) may well have been re- 
jected by Cassiodorus as unintelligible or ungrammatical, even 
though he found it in Eugipius's copy. 

Thus it is clear that AFY form one family in the Gospels ; 
and this means that they are descended from a common an- 
cestor. The Fuldensis is earlier than the collation by Cassio- 
dorus of Eugipius's codex in 558, which was the origin of the 
Northumbrian text of the Gospels. Therefore it is the codex 
of Eugipius and F which had a common parent. But this is 
impossible if the Eugipian MS. was so old as to be supposed a 
copy of St. Jerome's first edition. It remains that F must be 
a derivative of Eugipius's codex. 

This is not in itself a difficult supposition. Capua is the 
nearest large town to Naples on the main road to Rome, 
whether by the Latin or the Appian Way. Somewhat further 
on towards Rome lay St. Benedict's monastery of Montecassino 
on the Latin Way, where that saint tells us guests were never 
wanting. 2 If travellers constantly mounted that steep ascent 
when journeying along the Via Latina they certainly stopped, 
and more easily, at Capua, where that road joined the Appian 

1 I give from Wordsworth's edition the points where F is opposed to A, adding 
the readings of Y (Le. I give AY<F and A<FY, but not AF<Y) in Matt. i. 
1 -1 6: zara F (cum gr.)> zarad AY; rachab F, racab AY; obed F, obeth AY; 
autem om. FY ; abia abia FY, abiam abia A ; manassen F, manasse A, manassem 
Y ; in transmigration F, -nem AY ; salatihel F, salathiel AY ; matthan matthan 
FY, matthan mattham A. Again Luke i. 1-22: conpletae F, completae AY; 
uiderant F (solus), uiderunt AY (cetert) ; omnibus F (plures), omnia AY (pauci) ; 
theofyle F, theofile A, theophile Y; iudae F, iudaeae AY; auia F, abia AY; elisabeth 
F, elisabet AY (et sic pluries) ; quaerella FY, querella A; sterilis F, sterelis AY ; 
zaccharia(s) quater F, zacharia(s) scmel F, semper AY ; depraecatio FY, deprecatio 
A. This comparison suggests that F has to some extent preserved the spelling of the 
codex of Eugipius, whereas A has to some extent preserved the corrected spelling 
introduced by that professor of orthography Cassiodorus. 

a St. Bened., S. Reg., cap. 53. 

G 2 


Way, and where the Campanian Way branched off. Eugipius 
was in communication with all the learned men of his day. 
He cannot have been unacquainted with St. Benedict's friend 
St. Germanus, or with Victor, who was probably deacon or 
priest under the latter. Eugipius himself may have been dead 
when Victor became bishop in 541. 

The composition of the Diatessaron was a work demanding 
great care. Victor must have used a codex in which he marked 
the extracts to be made, and by means of which he compared 
and fused the parallel passages. This can hardly have been 
Eugipius's own precious book, but was probably a copy of it 
made by that abbot s practised scribes, of whom St. Fulgentius 
told us. 

We are obliged, I think, to conclude that Victor had a Greek 
text of the Diatessaron before him. It seems impossible that 
he should have taken so much trouble to re-edit an Old Latin 
Diatessaron according to St. Jerome's translation. With this 
Greek Diatessaron and a copy of Eugipius's codex — the four 
Gospels bound separately to make comparison possible — 
Victor could compose the Diatessaron of the Codex Fuldensis, 
but (it seems to me) not otherwise. 

§ 4. The Northumbrian summaries were composed by Eugipius 
and are qtwted in F. 

It was impossible for St. Victor to insert in his codex such 
summaries as he found in the codex of Eugipius, for four sum- 
maries of four Gospels would not be suitable to a Diatessaron. 
He therefore composed a single summary and prefixed it to 
the Diatessaron, heading it Praefatio. In Migne's very un- 
trustworthy edition * the whole Diatessaron is broken up into 
chapters, each with its own title from this summary ; the 
titles are emendated and altered ; wherever the first word is 
ubi (as it generally is), it is omitted. Ranke in his excellent 
edition of the Codex (Marburg, 1868) has printed them care- 
fully in their proper position. As Wordsworth and White 
have not given them I reprint them here from Ranke, since his 
little book is not always accessible. 

1 Patr. /af., vol. 68, coll. 351 foil. 


i. In principio uerbum deus apud deum per quern facta sunt omnia 

ij. de sacerdotium zacchariae 

iij. ubi angel us gabrihel . ad mariam loquitur 

iiij. Natiuitatem iohannis baptistae 

v. de generatronem uel natiuitate Christi 

vj. ubi angelus apparuit pastoribus 

vij. ubi ihesus 1 ductus est a parentibus ut circumcideretur 
. viij. de magis qui uenerunt ab oriente 

viiij. ubi infugatus ihesus et parentes eius in aegypto 

x. ubi herodes interfecit pueros 

xj. ubi ihesus reuocatur ab aegypto 

xij. ubi ihesus remansit in templo hierosolymis 

xiij. ubi iohannes baptista apparuit in israhel 

xiiij. ubi ihesus baptizatur ab iohanne 

xv. ubi ihesus ductus est ab spiritu in deserto 

xvj. ubi duo discipuli iohannis secuti sunt ihesum 

xvij. de philippo et de nathanahel 

xviij. ubi ihesus in synagoga legit librum esaiae 

xviiij. Ubi ihesus uocauit petrum et andream . iacobum et iohannem 

xx. Ubi ihesus uocauit mattheum publicanum 

xxj. Ubi ihesus audiens quod iohannes traditus esset secessit in finibus 
zabulon et nepthalim 
^ r xxij. Ubi ihesus circumibat omnes regiones . et sedens in monte elegit xii 
discipulos et docuit eos de beatitudinem regni caelorum et quae secuntur 

xxiij. Increpatio diuitum 

xxiiij. Ubi dicit uos estis sal terrae 

xxv. uos estis luxhuius mundi et iterum comparationes de praeceptis legis 

xxvj. iracundiae 

xxvij. de relinquendo munus ad altare 

xxviij. de adulterio concupiscentiae 

xxviiij. de repudio 

xxx. de iuramento 

xxxj. de oculum pro oculo 

xxxij. de diligendo proximum 

xxxiij. de occulta elemosyna 

xxxiiij. de secreta oratione 

xxxv. de occulto ieiunio 

xxxvj. de non thesaurizando super terram 

xxxvij. quia nemo potest duobus dominis seruire 

xxxviij. non debere solliciti esse de esca uel de indumento 

xxxviiij. non debere quemquam iudicare uel condemnare 

1 Ranke writes in full ihesus, though the manuscript itself has simply Ms. See 
Wordsworth on Matt. i. I. 


xl. parabola de amico uel de tribus panibus petendum quaerendum 

xlj. de cauendo a falsis prophetis 

xlij. non hi intrabunt in regno caelorumqui tantum dicunt domine domine 

xliij. comparatio in his omnibus de sapiente et insipiente aedificatoribus 

xliiij. ubi ihesus mittit xii discipulus suos docere et curare omnes in- 

xlv. ubi ihesus in chanan galileae aqua uinum fecit 

xlvj. ubi ihesus mundat leprosum 

xlvij. ubi ihesus puerum centurionis paralyticum curauit 

xlviij. ubi socrum petri a febribus sanauit 

xlviiij. ubi ihesus in ciuitatem naim mortuum resuscitauit 

1. ubi omnes infirmitates curat. ut adimplerentur scribturae prophetarum 

lj. ubi uolenti eum sequi dixit . uulpes foueas habent 

lij. ubi nauigans increpauit tempestati et cessauit 

liij. Ubi curauit trans fretum daemoniacum qui in monumentis manebant 

liiij. Ubi curauit paralyticum quern deposuerunt per tectum 

lv. Ubi filium subreguli absentem curauit 

lvj. Ubi leui publicanus conuiuium ei fecit. Et dicentes scribae et 
pharisaei discipulis quare cum publicanis et peccatoribus manducat uester 

lvij. Ubi scribae signum petunt ab eo et eis multa dicit 

lviij. Ubi quaedam mulier de turba . clamauit ad ihesum beatus uenter 
qui te portauit 

lviiij. Ubi nuntiatur ihesu . quia mater tua et fratres tui uolunt et 

lx. Ubi ihesus mulierem quae fluxu sanguinis patiebatur curauit et 
filiam iahiri principis synagogae mortuam suscitauit 

lxj. Ubi dos caecos curauit et daemonium . surdum et mutum eicit 

lxij. Ubi pharisaei dicunt de ihesu in behelzebub hie eicit daemonia 

lxiij. Ubi marta suscepit ihesu in domo sua 

lxiiij. Ubi iohannes de carcere misit ad ihesum interrogare eum 

lxv. Ubi exprobrat ciuitatibus in quibus factae sunt plurimae uirtutes 

lxvj. Ubi apostoli reuertuntur ad ihesum de praedicationem 

lxvij. Ubi ihesus elegit alios lxxii discipulos et adiungens parabolam 
turrem aedificantis et regis ad proelium parantis 

lxviij. Ubi die sabbato in synagoga curauit manum aridam 

lxviiij. Ubi ihesus in montem orat et iuxta mare turbis et discipulis suis 
plurima in parabolis locutus est 

lxx. Ecce exiit qui seminat seminare 

lxxj. De eo qui seminauit bonum semen in agro suo et de zizania 

lxxij. De grano sinapis 

lxxiij. De fermento quod abscondit mulier et alia multa discipulis 

Ixxiiij. Ubi discipulis disseret parabulam seminantis 

lxxv. Qui seminat semen et uadit dormitu uel surgit et discipulis 
parabulam zizaniorum agri disserit 


Ixxvj. de thesauro abscondito in agro et negotiationem margaritarum. 
sagena missa in mare et de patre familias qui profert de thesauro suo 
noua et uetera 

lxxvij. Ubi adcontra ihesum ciues eius indignati sunt dicentes unde 
huic tanta sapientia 

lxxviij. Ubi de herodis conuiuio et de iohannis interfectione exponit 

lxxviiij. Ubi ihesus in deserto de quinque panibus v milia hominum 

lxxx. Ubi ihesus supra mare pedibus ambulauit . et petrum mergentem 

Ixxxj. Ubi transfretantes uenerunt in terram gennesar . et turbae secutae 
sunt trans mare de manna in deserto 

Ixxxij. de murmuratione iudaeorum . eo quod ait ihesos ego sum panis 

lxxxiij. Ubi quidam pharisaeus rogauit ihesum ad prandium et cogitabat 
quare non fuerit baptizatus 

lxxxiiij. de apostolis quare non lotis manibus manducarunt 

Ixxxv. de muliere syrophonissa quae pro filia sua petebat 

lxxxvj. Ubi ihesus super puteum iacob . mulieri samaritanae locutus est 

Ixxxvij. Ubi ihesus surdum et mutam curauit 

lxxxviij. Ubi hierosolymis infirmum curauit . qui xxxviij annis iacuit 
infirmitate et multa cum iudaeis eius occasione disputauit 

Ixxxviiij. Ubi ihesus de vij panes . et paucos pisces iiij hominum 
saturauit et precepit apostolis cauere a fermento pharisaeorum 

xc. Ubi ihesus interrogat apostolos . quem me dicunt homines esse et 
quae secuntur et dicit petro scandalum mihi es 

xcj. Ubi ihesus dicit et quidam astantibus non gustare mortem et in 
monte transfiguratur 

xcij. Ubi pharasaei dicunt ad ihesum . discede hinc quia herodes uult 
te occidere et curauit lunaticum 

xciij. Ubi ihesus de passione sua . discipulis patefecit et capharnaum 
pro se . et Petro didragma exactoribus reddit 

xciiij. Ubi ihesus interrogatus a discipulis suis . quis maior erit in 
regno caelorum instruit eos his exemplis ut humilient se sicut paruulus 

xcv. Non debere prohiberi eos qui faciunt signa in nomine ihesu 

xcvj. Non debere contemnere unum de pusillis adiungens similitudinem 
de oue perdita et de dragma 

xcvij. De filio qui substantiam patris deuorauit 

xcviij. De remittendo fratribus ex corde 

xcviiij. Similitudo de rege qui posuit rationem cum semis suis 

c. Ubi ihesus interrogator a pharisaeis si liceat uxorem dimittere qua- 
cumque ex causa 

cj. Ubi ihesus imposuit manum infantibus et pharisaei murmurant de 
ihesu quod sic recepit peccatores 

cij. Ubi ihesus sanat in synagoga mulierem aridam et curbatam 



ciij. Ubi ihesus ascendit hierosolyma in die festo scenopegiae 

ciiij. Ubi ihesus instruit eos qui annuntiauerunt ei de galilaeis . quos 
interfecit pilatus adiungens similitudinem arboris fici in uinea 

cv. Non debere prohiberi eos qui faciunt signa in nomine ihesu 

cvj. Non debere contemnere unum de pusillis adiungens similitudinem 
de oue perdita et de dragma 

cvij. de diuite et lazaro 

cviij. de uilico infidele 

cviiij. de patre familias qui exiit primo mane conducere mercennarios in 
uineam suam 

ex. Ubi in domo pharisaei sanat ihesus hydropicum et instruit eos qui 
primos accubitus in conuiuiis elegebant 

cxj. Ubi ihesus x leprosos mundauit 

cxij. Ubi ihesus de passione sua discipulis suis iterum indicauit et mater 
filiorum zebedaei rogat pro filiis suis 

cxiij. Ubi ihesus responsum dat dicenti sibi domine pauci sunt qui 
salui fiant 

cxiiij. de zaccheo publicano 

cxv. Ubi ihesus iterum duos caecos curauit 

cxvj. Ubi ihesus asinum sedens hierosolyma ingreditur 

cxvij. Ubi ihesus eicit de templo ementes et uendentes et dat responsum 

cxviij. Ubi ihesus praetulit ceteris uiduam propter duo aera minuta . 
adiungens parabulam de pharisaeo et publicano contra eos qui se extollunt 

cxviiij. de nicodemo qui uenit ad ihesum nocte 

cxx. de muliere a iudaeis in adulterio deprehensa 

exxj. Ubi ihesus maledixit ficulneam et aruit 

exxij. Ubi ihesus dicit parabolam ad discipulos propter orandi instantiam 
de iudice duro et uidua 

exxiij. Ubi ihesus interrogatur a principibus sacerdotum in quapotestate 
haec facis . adiungens parabulam de duobus filiis in uineam missis 

exxiiij. parabulam de patre familias . qui uineam suam locauit agricolis 

exxv. Simile est regnum caelorum homini regi qui fecit nuptias filio suo 

exxvj. Ubi pharisaei mittunt ad ihesum dolo interrogantes si licet 
tributum reddere caesari 

exxvij. de sudducaeis qui dicunt non esse resurectionem et interrogant 
de vij fratibus qui unam uxorem habuerunt 

exxviij. Ubi scriba interrogat ihesum quod mandatum maximum est 
in lege 

exxviiij. Ubi docente ihesu in templo miserunt pharisaei eum com- 

exxx. Ubi ihesus interrogat pharisaeos . cuius filius est christus 

exxxj. Ubi ihesus docet . ego sum lux mundi 

exxxij. Ubi ihesus faciens lutum de sputo ponens super oculos caeci 
nati curauit eum 


cxxxiij. Ubi ihesus agnitus est eidemcaecoet contendit multacumiudaeis 
cxxxiiij. Ubi interrogatur ihesus a iudaeis si tu es christus die nobis 


exxxv. Ubi ihesus resuscitat lazarum a mortuis et principes concilium 

faciunt ut interficerent ihesum 

exxxvj. Ubi non receptus in ciuitate samaritana . iohannes et iacobus 

dicunt ad ihesum si uis dicimus ut ignis discendat de caelo 

exxxvij. Ubi ihesus uenit in bethaniam et multi iudaeorum euntes 

propter lazarum crediderunt in eum 
exxxviij. Ubi maria fudit alabastrum ungenti in capite ihesu . et increpat 


exxxviiij. Ubi hierosolymis graeci uidere uolunt ihesum 

cxl. Ubi pharisaei interrogant ihesum quando uenit regnum dei 

cxlj. Ubi ihesus loquitur ad turbas et discipulos de scribis et pharisaeis 

cxlij. Ubi ihesus lamentat super hierusalem 

cxliij. Ubi multi ex principibus crediderunt in eum et non confitebantur 

ne de synagoga eicerentur 
cxliiij. Ubi ostendunt discipuli ihesu structuram templi 
cxlv. Ubi sedente ihesu . in montem oliueti interrogant eum discipuli . 

quod signum erit aduentus tui uel eorum quae dixisti . et praedicat eis . de 

euersione hierusalem et signis et prodigiis 
cxlvj. de parabola ficulneae 
cxlvij. Ubi ihesus diem iudicii aduersus tempora noe et loth adsimi- 

lauit et de fidele et prudente dispensatore 
cxlviij. de decern uirginibus 

cxlviiij. de eo qui peregre proficiscens talenta seruis suis distribuit 
cl. Ut lumbi semper praecincti sint et lucernae ardentes 
clj. de eo qui peregre accipere sibi regnum proficiscens x mnas seruis 

suis dedit 

clij. Cum uenerit Alius hominis in sede maiestatis suae 

cliij. Ubi iterum consilium ficiunt principes et uadit iudas ad eos 

cliiij. Ubi ihesus lauat pedes discipulorum 

civ. Ubi ihesus mittet discipulos praeparare sibi pascha et dicit eis quod 

unus ex uobis tradit me 

clvj. Ubi ihesus tradet de sacramento corporis et sanguinis sui 

clvij. Ubi ihesus dicit ad petrum . expetiuit satanas ut uos uentilet . et 

omnes hodie in me scandalizamini 

clviij. Ubi ihesus hortatur discipulos suos ut non pauefiat cor uestrum 
clviiij. Ubi ihesus dicit discipulis suis qui quod habet baiulet 
clx. Ubi ihesus dicit . ego sum uitis et uos palmites 
clxj. Ubi ihesus uenit in gesemani et orat ut transferat calicem istum 
clxij. Ubi iudas uenit cum turbis comprehendere ihesum 
clxiij. Ubi adulescens quidam indutus sindone sequebatur ihesum 
clxiiij. Ubi interrogat princeps sacerdotum ihesum de discipulis et de 
doctrina eius 


clxv. Ubi falsi testes aduersus ihesum quaerebantur 

clxvj. Ubi principes sacerdotum adiurat ihesum . si tu es christus die 

clxvij. Ubi traditur pilato ihesus et paenitetur iudas 

clxviij. Ubi pilatus audit inter iudaeos et dominum et mittit eum ad 

clxviiij. Ubi uxor pilati misit ad eum dicens nihil tibi sit et iusto 111 I 

clxx. Ubi pilatus dimisit barabban . et tradidit christumad crucifigendum 

clxxj. Ubi duo latrones cum christo crucifigi ducuntur . et ubi ihesus de 
cruce de matre sua dixit ad discipulum quum diligebat . ecce mater tua 

clxxij. Ubi ioseph petit corpus ihesu a pilato et sepelit una cum 

clxxiij. Ubi iudaei signant monumentum 

clxxiiij. Ubi prima die sabbati suscitatur ihesus a mortuis 

clxxv. Ubi custodes monumenti annuntiauerunt sacerdotibus . de re- 
surrectione christi 

clxxvj. Ubi ihesus apparuit mulieribus post resurrectionem 

clxxvij. Ubi ihesus duobus euntibus in castellum apparuit 

clxxviij. Ubi ihesus apparuit discipulis suis 

clxxviiij. Ubi ihesus iterum apparuit thomae 

clxxx. Ubi iterum apparuit ihesus discipulis super mare tiberiadis 

clxxxj. Ubi ihesus ter dicit petro diligis me 

clxxxij. Ubi discipuli euntes in galilaeam uiderunt et adorauerunt 
dominum et assumptus est in caelis coram eis 

A comparison with the many summaries printed by Words- 
worth before each of the Gospels and in his Epilogue is a 
laborious work. I have carried the comparison as far as the 
sixtieth chapter of F. The result is that I find no striking 
likeness in F to any of the various summaries, except at the 
beginning, where Victor has used the Northumbrian sum- 
maries. His first heading (' In principio uerbum deus apud 
deum per quern facta sunt omnia ') is taken verbally from the 
first Northumbrian heading to St. John (Wordsworth, p. 492) : 
* In principio uerbum deus apud deum per quem facta sunt 
omnia et iohannes missus refertur ante eum qui recipientes se 
facit filios dei per gratiam suam.' 

Victor has determined that all his headings shall be very 
short. He has quoted the beginning of the AHVY summary, 
but his omission of the main verb refertur has spoilt the con- 

The second heading, ' De sacerdotium zacchariae,' is from 


AHVY to Luke, No. 2 (Wordsworth, p. 274) : * Sacerdotium 
iusti zacchariae refertur et uisio in templo/ &c. Again Victor 
has adopted the first words, and has omitted the verb and all 
that follows. It is important to notice that none of the other 
types of summary have anything at all which corresponds with 
these first two headings of F. 

The third : ' Ubi angelus Gabrihel ad Mariam loquitur/ 
corresponds to AHVY Luke, No. 3 : ' Missus angelus ad 
Mariam nasciturum loquitur Saluatorem,' &c. After this the 
coincidences are but slight. It would seem that Victor found 
it far less trouble to compose short headings for himself than 
to turn up with great difficulty the corresponding number in 
one of the four summaries in Eugipius's codex. Among the 
occasional coincidences I will signalize the following : — 

No. 4. ' De generationem uel natiuitate Christi.' Victor 
may have taken the first words of the first and second 
heading of the AUVY summary to Matthew : ' i. Generatio- 
num quadraginta duarum ... ii. Natiuitas Iesu Christi . . .' 
Uel means ' and \ 

No. 40. ' Parabola de amico uel de tribus panibus petendum 
quaerendum pulsandum.' The AUVY summary to Matthew 
(Wordsworth, p. 22) No. 22 has : ■ Sanctum canibus porcisque 
nonda.ndum i sedpetendumquaerendu7npzdsanduMquepra.efi.cit ' ; 
the Spanish C also has ' VI iii. Petendum querendum et pul- 
sandum ', while the ordinary summaries (BA0JT, &c.) have 
' De margaritis ante porcos non mittendis petendum quaeren- 
dum et pulsandum ' (Wordsworth, ibid.). It appears that by 
chance Victor referred to the summary here and there, though 
he usually invented his own headings. 

This proof that Victor had the AHVY summaries before 
him — though he could not incorporate them, as they were, in 
his codex — is of great importance. 

1. In the first place it shows that the summaries were not 
composed at Jarrow nor even by Cassiodorus *, but were older 

1 Cassiodorus composed summaries for certain books of Holy Scripture, and he 
is careful to tell us which ; his reason being that he found none for those books. 
This reason could not apply to the Gospels, and we might a priori be certain that 
he composed no Gospel summaries. 


2. Their intimate connexion with the Neapolitan lectionary 
system forces us to conclude that they came to Cassiodorus, 
like the lectionary notes, in the codex of Eugipius. 

3. Thus our former conclusion is made practically certain, 
that Victor of Capua employed a copy of Eugipius's codex 
for the formation of his Diatessaron. 

Conjecture may carry us somewhat further. As the North- 
umbrian summaries are found in no other early family, we 
have a right to assume that they are not much older than F. 
The codex of Eugipius was an old one in his day, so that it is 
unlikely the summaries should have originally belonged to it. 
It is more probable that they were inserted by him, and in fact 
composed by him. We have already learned from Cassio- 
dorus that Eugipius was a great Scriptural scholar ; possibly 
this reputation was partly based upon these Gospel summaries, 
which are in some ways by far the best that have come down 
to us. 

This hypothesis is confirmed by the fact that the Neapolitan 
lectionary notes were certainly added to the MS. at Naples, 
and, of course, under the supervision of Abbot Eugipius him- 
self. The summaries are based upon the lectionary division, 
therefore they also were composed at Naples. 

In chapter vii we shall see what reason induced Eugipius 
to compose them and in ch. vi why he keeps less accurately 
to the lectionary divisions in the fourth Gospel. 

§ 5. The introductions to the Gospels in the Codex Fuldensis 
and the Codex Amiatinus. 

There are no introductions, prefaces or prologues to the 
Gospels in the Codex Fuldensis. 

The form of the Gospels, being a Diatessaron, did not 
admit any of the usual prefatory matter, and Victor has 
simply substituted a preface of his own about his discovery, 
together with the Eusebian canons and the Diatessaric sum- 
mary which was given above. 

But he had prefatory matter before him. 

1. To begin with, he knew the letter of Eusebius to 


Carpianus, which is found in Y Reg, but not in A. But it 
is astonishing to note that his citation of it implies the use 
of a different translation, or more probably of the original 
Greek, since he knew Greek : 

Y. F. 

Ammonius quidem Alexandrinus Ammonius quidem Alexandrinus 

magno studio atque industria unum multum, ut arbitror, laboris et studii 

nobis pro quatuor euangeliis dere- impendens, unum ex quatuor nobis 

liquit. reliquit euangelium. 

Victor immediately afterwards proceeds to quote from 
Eusebius's History, but then he clearly uses Rufinus's trans- 
lation of iv. 29, as his expression unum ex quatuor shows, for 
these words are not represented in the Greek, but are added 
by Rufinus. The rest of the passage is freely paraphrased. 

2. Together with the letter of Eusebius to Carpianus (which 
Victor quotes a second time to show that Ammonius made 
St. Matthew his standard Gospel), Victor had a series of 
Ammonian sections before him. If he had the letter of 
Eusebius in Greek, we might expect him to take the numbers 
from a Greek codex. But he expressly tells us he used the 
Vulgate : ' Ipsos quoque numeros in unum pariter congregatos 
in modum quo eos sanctus Hieronymus digessit, curaui de- 
scribes.' He inserts them immediately after his preface, and 
he tells us that he did so because the Diatessaron which was 
his model had them incorrectly written in the margin. He 
therefore took the Eusebian canons out of his Latin Gospels, 
no doubt from those of Eugipius. 

3. His explanation of them seems to show that he had also 
before him St. Jerome's explanation given in his letter to St. 
Damasus Nouum opus (Wordsworth, p. 1). Why does he not 
give the letter in his codex ? Evidently because the explana- 
tion he has given in his own Preface seems to him sufficient. 

We have reason therefore to presume that the codex used 
by Victor contained the letter Nouum opus, the table of canons, 
as well as the AHVY summaries, but not the letter to Carpi- 
anus. This is just what we find in the Codex Amiatinus, 
which has not the letter of Eusebius to Carpianus, though 
this is found in Y and Reg. But A as well as Y Reg con- 


tains the Preface of St. Jerome from the Commentary on 
St. Matthew Plures fuisse, and also the four * Monarchian ' 
Prologues of Priscillian. Were these also in Eugipius's 
manuscript ? 

4. Victor prefixes to Acts and Apocalypse the usual Pro- 
logues, which are made up out of the ■ Monarchian ' Prologues 
to Luke and John. Consequently Victor probably knew 
the latter also. Now we shall see in chapter xv that the 
compiler of the Prologue to Acts has also used as a source 
St. Jerome's letter to Paulinus, from which he has borrowed 
a few words, and the Prologue to the Apocalypse similarly 
shows some similarity to the Plures fuisse in the insertion of the 
words apostolus et euangelista and ut in cctena super pectus 
eius recumberet) neither of which expressions occurs in the 
Prologue to John. It is obvious, therefore, that Victor might 
have known the Monarchian Prologues and the Plures fuisse. 

Further, it is certain that the compiler of the Northumbrian 
summaries — no doubt Eugipius himself — had the Monarchian 
Prologues before him, for he actually quotes them. The 
fourth capitulum of the AHVY summary of John runs thus : 

iiii. In nuptiis aquam conuertit in uinum quo facto cognoscitur quod 
ubi ipse fuerit inuitatus uinum necesse sit deficere nuptiarum. 

This is from the Prologue to John, as Wordsworth has 
pointed out : 

' ut ostendens quod erat ipse legentibus demonstraret quod ubi dominus 
inuitatur deficere nuptiarum uinum debeat, ut ueteribus inmutatis noua 
omnia quae a Christo instituuntur appareant.' 

Again, the Prologue to Matthew lays stress on the thrice 
fourteen generations. The AHVY summary almost alone of 
all summaries mentions forty-two generations : ' Generationum 
quadraginta duarum ab abraham usque ad Christum ordo 
narratur.' The older forms of summary omit the genealogy 
altogether and begin with the Nativity. The Prologue to 
Luke emphasizes the genealogy which runs backwards and 
ends in God, 'introitu recurrentis in deum generationis ad- 
misso.' Accordingly alone of all summaries to Luke that of 
AHVY gives ' X. Herodes carceri dat iohannem et xxx anno- 
rum baptizato domino trinitatis in baptismo mysterium decla- 


ratur generationum lxvii a Christo SURSUM UERSUS AD deum 
ordo contexitur \ In the Prologue to Mark we find ' Iohannem 
filium Zachariae in uoce angeli adnuntiantis emissum ', and 
correspondingly the first cap. to the AHVY summary of Mark 
has: 'Esaiae testimonio iohannes angelus id est nuntius appella- 
tur et praedicatio eius baptismusque refertur.' As Eugipius 
thus used the Prologues, and apparently valued them, we may 
assume that he added them to his codex with the summaries. 

There is consequently reason to believe that Victor knew 
and deliberately omitted the Prologues and the Nouum opus, 
probably also the P lures fuisse, all of which are found in the 
Codex Amiatinus. He did not, however, know the Epistle of 
Eusebius to Carpianus in Latin, though he had it in Greek. 
This letter is not in A, though it is in Y and Reg. 

On the other hand Eugipius had the Prologues before him. 

I conclude that it is highly probable that the whole col- 
lection of Prefaces in A (viz. (1) Nouum opus, (2) Canons, 
(3) Plures fuisse, and before each Gospel (4) Monarchian 
Prologues, (5) Summaries) were in Eugipius's codex, besides 
the liturgical notes in the margins. The first, second, and 
third of these documents were perhaps prefixed by St. Jerome 
himself, and were pretty sure to be in the codex before it came 
to Eugipius. The sum maries Eugipius see ms to hav e com- 
posed himself, basing them on the liturgical divisions, and 
quoting the Prologues in them. 

But the letter to Carpianus was not included. This seems 
to confirm the suspicion that the translation is not St. Jerome's, 
and that he did not himself prefix it to the Vulgate Gospels. 
The absence in so many MSS. is one argument ; its contents 
supply another — Jerome had given all that mattered of them 
in his letter Nouum opus, which is the dedication of his work 
to St. Damasus ; he did not, therefore, intend to add the letter 
of Eusebius which says the same things over again. 



§ i. The connexion of Eugipius with Lerins. 

EUGIPIUS thus opens his dedicatory letter to Proba, which 
he prefixed to his Treasury of Excerpts from St. Augustine : 
* Excerptorum codicem quern de nonnullis operibus sancti 
Augustini, cohortante domino meo Marino abbate uel ceteris 
Sanctis fratribus, quomodocunque conpegeram, continuo trans- 
ferri uobis, sancto quo polletis studio, uoluistis.' At this date 
uel means * and ', as (for instance) in the contemporary Rule of 
St. Benedict. We should naturally suppose Marinus and the 
holy brethren to be the abbot and community of Lucullanum. 
But though Eugipius was not yet abbot himself, we know that 
his predecessors were first Lucillus the priest * ( Vita S. 
Severing c. 41), to whom St. Severinus had committed the 
care of bringing his body to Italy, and then Marcianus, who 
was succeeded by Eugipius before the year 511 (ibid., c. 45 
' Marcianum monachum, qui postea presbyter ante nos mona- 
sterio praefuit'). Biidinger has argued that the words 
domino meo must imply that Eugipius had lived some time 
in another monastery under the rule of this Marinus, though 
the words might be simply honorific. The only Marinus (or 
Marianus) mentioned by Eugipius elsewhere is the primicerius 
cantorum of the Church of Naples (ibid., 60) who was cured of 
violent headache by the merits of St. Severinus. 

But the ingenuity of Mabillon solved the difficulty by the 
suggestion that this Marinus was the Abbot of Lerins who is 
commemorated as a saint on the first of January. The date 
harmonizes, for this St. Marinus was the founder of the mona- 
stery of St. Maurice (Agaunum) in 515 (Ann. Ord. S. Ben., 
vol. i,p. 176). The only other mention of him is at the end of 
the life of St. Eugendus or Augendus (in French St. Oyand), 

1 So Eugipius himself is regularly called * Presbyter ', apparently a honorific 
title for the Abbot, who was probably the only priest in the community. 


the third abbot of Condat in the Jura, who died between 510 
and 517. The contemporary author of the lives of the first 
three abbots of Condat ends his life of the last of them by- 
referring his readers to another book he has written : ' instituta 
quoque quae de formatione monasterii nostri Agaunensis 
coenobii, Sancto Marino presbytero, insulae Lirinensis abbate, 
compellente, digessimus.' l This passage is curiously parallel 
to that of Eugipius. The date is almost the same. It is 
natural to infer that the same Abbot Marinus of Lerins who 
founded the Abbey of Agaunum, and recommended the 
anonymous monk to write an account of the foundation, must 
have been the same as the Abbot Marinus who urged Eugipius 
to make his collection of extracts from St. Augustine. If so, we 
must suppose, with Blidinger, that the acquaintance of Eugipius 
with the abbot was made at Lerins, and that Eugipius had 
passed some time in that famous retreat. St. Severinus had 
given no written rule to his disciples, nor was there any in 
Eugipius's time at Lucullanum, although St. Isidore informs 
us that Eugipius, at his death, bequeathed a written rule to his 
monks. In those days the abbot was the living rule, for it was 
only in the last years of Eugipius that his famous neighbour 
penned at Montecassino the short code which was to be for cen- 
turies the law of all the religious of the western world. Until 
St. Benedict it was customary to learn perfection by travel- 
ling to some famous teacher or to some well-known monastery ; 
and next to St. Martin's monastery in the caves of Marmoutier, 
by far the most famous school of asceticism was the lovely 
island of St. Honoratus. From Lerins had proceeded number- 
less holy bishops throughout the fifth century, some of whom 
like Honoratus himself and Hilary, Germanus and Lupus, 
Eucherius and his two sons, Veranius and Salonius, were 
famous everywhere. But these had been in former days ; the 
glories of Lerins were being now renewed in the great St. 
Caesarius, who was but at the beginning of his long episcopate 
(502-42). Imitations of Lerins had caused the Mediterranean 
to be fringed with island monasteries. Nisida and Lucullanum 

1 Acta SS., Jan., vol. i, p. 54. Notice the use of presbyter for the abbot, as by 

ch. v.g. n 


at Naples are among these. 1 At all events there was no 
place which Eugipius was more likely to visit than Lerins in 
order to learn the traditions of religious life. 

A direct connexion between Lerins and the disciples of St. 
Severinus was pointed out by Dom Mabillon, in the person of 
Blessed Antonius of Lerins, of whom all that is known is 
contained in a vague and fulsome panegyric by Ennodius. 2 
Antonius was born of noble parents in Pannonia, but they died 
when he was eight years old. He came then to St. Severinus, 
and after the death of that saint he became a candidate for 
the clerical state under his uncle Constantius, bishop of 
Laureacum. 3 When the country was ravaged by the Franks, 
Heruli, and Saxons, Antonius was taken by servants (he was 
evidently still a boy) to Italy. At first he gave himself to the 
guidance of a holy priest called Marius ; then he became 
a hermit ; finally, out of humility, he retired to Lerins, 
where he died two years later. The date is not given, but 
the account by Ennodius was probably written before the 
author became bishop of Pavia about 513, like all his letters 
and most of his other opuscula. 4 Antonius must have been 
well known to Eugipius in Pannonia, evidently having lived as 
a boy in the community in which Eugipius was a monk. 5 If 
Lerins was the monastery of his choice, it may well have been 
the chosen school of Eugipius also. Direct proof, however, 
that Eugipius was ever at Lerins or that he borrowed any 
customs from thence is wanting. But Mabillon's conjecture is 
very strongly supported by the fact that his monastery used 
an elaborate Gallican liturgy, as will now be proved. 

1 So in the North, the Mont S. Michel, Iona, Lindisfarne, Innisboffin, &c, rise 
to the memory. 

3 P. Z., 63, 339. 

8 Ennodius has: 'qui [Constantius] eum inter ecclesiasticos exceptores iussit 
ordiri,' which seems to mean ' ordered him to make a beginning among the 
ecclesiastical scribes or notaries ' ; but he did not become an ecclesiastic, for he left 
Marius to avoid receiving Orders. 

* It was written at the request of a certain abbot Leontius, to whom a letter is 
addressed Bk. V, Ep. 6. 

6 Eugipius dedicated his life of St. Severinus to St. Paschasius the Roman 
deacon, who was the leader of the opposition to Pope Symmachus. The life of 
St. Severinus's other disciple, Antonius, is written on the contrary by the Pope's 
chief defender, Ennodius ! 


§ 2. Eugipius and his Gallican lectionary. 

Since the whole system of Gospels for the liturgical year as 
used in the Lucullanum has been preserved to us, it becomes 
necessary to inquire whence this use took its origin. Did 
Eugipius, or did the abbots, his predecessors, simply take the 
liturgy they found in use in the city of Naples ? The contem- 
porary of Eugipius, St. Benedict, half-way between Naples and 
Rome, composed a Breviary office in which he borrowed from 
the Roman office, but which was mainly his own. We do not 
know whether he used the Roman Mass without alteration ; 
but it is probable that the Gospels (which were sung at 
Mattins as well as at Mass) were at least not so immutably 
fixed that the abbot could not vary them. It seems likely, if 
we judge by later times, that monasteries even in the sixth 
century would have their own liturgical uses, borrowed rather 
from some model monastery than from the diocese in which 
they happened to be. 

It is clear that Eugipius's Kalendar adopted local feasts, for 
it is from these that Mr. Bishop was able to discover the home 
of the Lindisfarne lists to be Naples. The feast of St. Januarius 
with its vigil and the Dedication of St. Stephen (the Cathedral 
of Naples) are certainly local ; so is the feast of St. Vitus ; and 
Dom Morin is probably right in supposing the Dedicatio 
sanctae Mariae to be that of the Basilica called Ecclesia Maior^ 
built by the contemporary bishop of Naples, Pomponius, 
whose episcopate was c. 514-36 ; and further, the Dedicatio 
fontis may refer to the great baptistery built by Bishop Soter 
towards the end of the fifth century. 1 

There is no peculiarity in the fact of the celebration of the 
feasts of St. John, St. Peter, St. John Baptist's nativity, 
St. Laurence, SS. John and Paul, though there are peculiarities 
with regard to the manner of celebrating some of these feasts, 
to which we shall recur later. But among the special holy 
days two famous Gallican feasts strike the eye, the Invention 
of Holy Cross and the Decollation of St. John Baptist. The 
former is found in the Berne and Wolfenbiittel MSS. of the 

1 Revue Btnid., 1891, p»49i. 


Hieronymian Martyrology (i. e. Gaul, seventh century), in 
the Bobbio and Gothic (Autun) Missals, and in the Gelasian 
sacramentary. Duchesne has remarked that it may have been 
introduced in Gaul no earlier than the seventh century. But 
now we find it at Naples in the sixth. The Beheading of the 
Baptist is in the Hieronymian Martyrology (c. 590-600), and 
in the Luxeuil, Bobbio, Gothic uses, &c, though the day 
seems to have varied on which it was kept in the late summer. 
Far earlier than this we find it ordered to be kept with a Vigil 
by Perpetuus, bishop of Tours, c. 480. 1 

It is impossible to suppose that these feasts originated in 
Naples. On the other hand in chapter iv we observed some 
remarkable points of contact between the Naples use and the 
oldest Gallican books. We are driven to the hypothesis that 
the system employed by Eugipius is Gallican, and that he 
borrowed it for his abbey from Lerins 2 — the monastery 
whence he had also probably taken the model of religious 
discipline for his house. To verify this hypothesis we must 
search through the Gospels of the Neapolitan lists. We will 
begin with the two feasts just mentioned. 

1. For the Invention of Holy Cross (37) we find the Gospel, 
Matt. xiii. 44, as in the Bobbio Missal, but not (I think) 

a. For the Decollation (38) we find Matt, xiv, with the 
Bobbio Missal, the Luxueil lectionary (Paris ?), the Liber 
Comicus of Toledo, and q z \ whereas Rom has the corre- 
sponding Mark vi. (Henceforward I shall use abbreviations, 
Goth, Bob, Lux, Comic, &c.) 

These two coincidences with ancient Gallican lessons are 
encouraging at the commencement of our quest. 

3. In stilla domini nocte (6), Matt. iii. 13 ; so Bede, Lux, 
Bob, q 4 (in Ambros. for Vigil of Epiph.). Unknown to the 
Roman use. 

4. Palm Sunday (150), John xi. 55-xii. 13 ; Bede, Lux, Bob, 

1 St. Greg. Turon., x. 31, 6. 

a For it is unlikely that it was the system used by St. Severinus in Pannonia. 

3 On the old Latin text q (Munich lot. 6224) see p. 102, note, below. 

4 In q is found • lege in apparitionem dHi ', in the hand of the original scribe. 


Moz, Comic, Ambr. From this Gospel of the anointing 
St. Ildephonsus calls this Sunday the dies unctionis (De Cogn. 
Bapt., 34). The Blessing of Palms may have been unknown to 
Eugipius, though it was introduced in St. Burchard's lectionary, 
but the pericope presumably began at xi. 47 and was continued 
to xii. 20, thus including the entry into Jerusalem. 

5. In Sabbato sancto mane (66), Mark vii. 32 ; Bede, Comic. 
A very peculiar and interesting use. 

6. Ascension Day (121), Luke xxiv. 44; Bede (for Bob, 
Comic, (Lux), Ambros, q, see p. 1 15). This pericope is wholly 
unused in the Roman liturgy. 

7. Pentecost, John xiv. 15-22 ; Lux, Bob, Ambros. In the 
Roman use this Gospel is for the Vigil, and it has been shifted 
in B accordingly. 

These are a striking series of coincidences with Gaul for 
great feasts. We have only to add Easter (Matt, xxviii. 16 — 
only Naples and Bede) and Christmas. 

8. In the latter case we have only one Mass, as in all early 
forms of the Gallican use, and the Gospel is Luke ii. 1, as in 
a fragment of an ancient Paris lectionary (see Revue Bene'd., 
1893, p. 440), Lux, Comic, q. It may be objected that the 
entry (74) for this, In natale dni ad missa publica, implies 
a night Mass also ; just as on the Epiphany we find node as 
well as ad missa publica. But it seems that this does not 
follow ; for at Easter (65) we find Dominica sancta pascha ad 
missa publica, and yet there is no other Mass provided. 

Some further detailed coincidences are interesting. 

9. In dedicationem (16), Matt. vii. 24 = Comic: in sacra- 
tione basilicae. 

10. In dedicationem (46), Matt. xvii. 1 (the Transfigura- 
tion) = Bob [Dedication of] St. Michael ; cf. q In dedecation, 
Mark ix. 2-8, the parallel passage. 

11. In uelanda (125), John ii. 1 (the Marriage in Cana), for 
the bridal veiling = Comic : De nubentibus. 

All these coincidences have been pointed out already by 
Dom Morin, either in his notes to the Naples lists or in those 
to his discussion of Bede's homilies. But now that they are 
united we see that they amount to a complete proof that the 


Neapolitan lists are based upon a system borrowed from 

I say a complete proof— for a minuter comparison of the 
proprium de tempore is quite impossible. The Bobbio order 
for Lent is quite poor and vague, and offers no parallel to the 
elaborate Naples system. That of Luxeuil is lost. The 
Lent of the Liber Comicus is peculiar, all the Gospels being 
taken from St. John and the Epistles from the Catholic 
Epistles. Similarly with Advent and Easter, we can make no 
real comparisons between the fragments of Gallican uses and 
the very full Naples system. This system of Eugipius for Lent 
is probably unique like that of the Liber Comicus. 

But precisely the regular weekday Masses in Advent 
(Wednesday and Friday) and Lent (Monday, Wednesday, 
and Friday ; at the end of Lent Tuesday and Saturday also) 
suggest that the use is not for a parish or a diocese, but for 
a monastery where the liturgical functions were multiplied as 
far as possible. Even were the date of the system not proved, 
it would be impossible to take this fullness of Lent and Advent 
to be a sign of later date, for there are other signs of a very 
early date. There is, for instance, no feast of our Lady, 
neither the Gallican feast in January nor the Purification, 
though both were of early introduction. The former was 
already celebrated in the sixth century, and, since it is unknown 
to Eugipius, we seem to have before us an extremely early 
Gallican use. 

The date of the introduction of this liturgy into the 
monastery of Lucullanum lies between the first arrival of the 
monks in the island, c. 492-6, and the collation by Cassio- 
dorus of Eugipius's codex in 558. The use may have begun 
with the beginning of the monastery. Probably, however, 
it will have been commenced by Eugipius himself when he 
became abbot, and therefore c. 510-35. 1 

1 The Old Latin codex q (Munich, 6224) contains some curious liturgical notes, 
which were published by Mr. H. J. White in his edition of the MS. (0. L. 
Biblical Texts, iiii, p. liii), and again rather more fully by Dom G. Morin in the 
Revue Binidictine, 1893, p. 246 foil. The system is not complete; and it appears 
sometimes to agree with Gaul, sometimes with Milan, sometimes with Rome. The 
agreements with N are as follows : 


§ 3. Neapolitan additions to a Gallican lectionary. 

Can we discover how much was added at Naples to the 
liturgy brought from Lerins? No doubt we cannot dis- 
criminate in every case, but in many instances we shall see 
that it is possible to discover the Italian interpolations. 

Let us first take numbers 150 and 151. The former is the 
Gallican Palm Sunday lesson, John xi. 55-xii. 13. The latter 
is for the following day, John xii. 1-20, and is the Roman 
pericope for that day, feria ii de ebdomada maiorem. It is 
quite impossible that the same passage should have been read 
two days running ; and the coincidence with a Roman lesson 
is very rare. It seems unavoidable to assume that the Monday 
lesson was introduced at Naples. 

Now we noticed that most of the additions made in St. 
Burchard's lectionary did not coincide with the divisions of 
the Northumbrian summaries. It is the same with this Roman 
lesson for the Monday of Holy Week. Let us turn to the 
certain Neapolitan interpolations : (54) In dedicatione basilicae 

A. The two notes by the original scribe (7th cent.) : 

1 . In natiuitate dotnini Luke ii. 1 

2. Lege in apparitionem dfii Matt. iii. 13 
The second is noticeable. 

The remaining notes are in hands of 8th~9th cent. 

1. de aduento Luke iii. 1-7 

2. „ „ „ i. 26-9 

3. Initium led. de natiuitate dfii 

4. In natale dfii 

5. In octaba dfii 

6. in die sco epefanie lectio prima 

7. lectio in uigiliis pasce per altare 

8. in die ascensiones dfii nostri ifiu 

xpi second carnem lectio euan- 
gelii secondum luca 

Matt. i. 18-22 
Luke ii. r 

„ ii. 21 
Matt. ii. (i-)i3 

,, xxviii. i-l 

= Christmas 
= stilla dfii nocte 

= Dom. i adu. 

— Dom. iii adu. 

= Pridie. nat. dffi 

■= Christmas (as above) 

=» In oct. d2i 

= stilla dSi ad missa 

= Sabb s. ad sero 


Luke xxiv.44~ad fin. = In ascens. 
The lessons for Lent, Easter week, and Sundays after Easter do not agree. 
9. lectio s?i iohannis bapteste Matt. xiv. 1-15 « In DecolL S. 

10. lectio sZi iohanni Luke i. (S7~)6'j «= In Nat. S. J. Bapt. 

ii. in timothei et in . . . Matt, xvi (21-?) =» In unius mart. 

(xvi. 24) 
The first seven coincidences are all rather obvious. But 8 and 9 seem to have 
a Gallican origin. The codex q belonged to the Abbey of St. Corbinian at 


stephani does not coincide, nor does (153) in ieiunium s. 
ianuarii. But (61) in natale s. ianuarii does, for its pericope 
Matt. xxv. 14 (the Parable of the Talents) could not have been 
passed over in any lectionary. In the original Gallican system 
it may have been in sanctorum or (as in Lux) de uno confessore ; 
in Bob it is for St. Martin. Again (126) in dedic. S. Mariae 
corresponds to a title of the summary, but (132) in dedicatione 
fontis is added to in sancti angeli^ and is consequently very 
likely to be an addition. Sancti angeli may perhaps mean 
the (dedication) feast of St. Michael found in Bob. 

It has been said above that the Northumbrian summaries 
were based on the lectionary. From these new facts we 
should gather that the summaries were composed before the 
Naples additions were interpolated. With this hypothesis let 
us examine the proprium de tempore of the Neapolitan lists. 
We will begin with Advent and Christmas. In the following 
table an asterisk signifies that the beginning of the lesson does 
not coincide with that of a title of the summary. We shall 
see that the hypothesis verifies itself with a regularity that is 
almost uncanny. 

Dom. i de aduentum d. n. I. C. 
Post i de adu. in ieiunium feria iiii 
„ dom. de adu. feria vi 
Dom. [ii] * de aduentum 
Post ii dom. feria iiii de adu. 
„ „ de adu. feria vi 
Dom. iii de aduentum 

Post iii dom. de adu. feria iiii 

>> a a » vl 

[iiii ebd. de aduentum 3 

Post v dominicas de aduentum 

It is clear that we have a complete system for an Advent 
of three weeks, with two liturgical fast-days for each week. 
But four of the six weekday Gospels are asterisked, as not 
corresponding with the summary. On the other hand we find 
the remains of a fifth week Post v dominicas de aduentum. 

1 Secunda is omitted in Y Reg, but is supplied by Burch. 

a Not in Y Reg ; but was thought by Dom Morin to belong to N, though in 
Burch. only ; but this is most improbable, for it has no Wed. and Fri. 


Luke iii. I 


„ xii. 32 


„ xii. 39 


Matt xi. 2 


„ iii. 1 


„ xxiv. 3 


Luke i. 26 


Matt. xxiv. 23 


„ xxiv. 34 

[106 B*] 

Mark xiii. 18] 


Luke iv. 14 


It seems that originally there was a longer Advent. The 
weekdays are apparently Neapolitan additions. We may 
suppose an original Advent of many Sundays, and only a 
weekday or two ad libitum , of which 99 or 4 may be remains. 

The Gospel for the second Sunday is suspicious, for the 
word Secunda occurs in Burch. only, and it is the only agree- 
ment throughout Advent with the Roman use} Perhaps it was 
originally the Gospel for the fourth, fifth, or sixth Sunday, and 
was used at Naples for the second, the original number having 
been expunged in the marginal note. 

Post v dominicas seems to be the only indication of original 
weekdays definitely recognized ; perhaps corresponding to 
the Ember days in the week preceding Christmas week. In 
this case the original number of Sundays must have been six. 

This is precisely the ancient Gallican system for Advent. 
Among the fasts regulated by Perpetuus, bishop of Tours, 
c. 480, we find : ' a depositione domni Martini usque Natale 
Domini terna in septimana ieiunia ' ; but this sentence is 
absent from one MS. of St. Gregory of Tours (Bk. X. 31, 6) 
according to Ruinart, so that it cannot quite be depended 
upon. But the same rule is given (Monday, Wednesday, and 
Friday, from Martinmas) by a synod of Tours in $6<$, and by one 
of Macon in 581. 2 This is further developed than the Naples 
custom, which has Wednesday and Friday only. The essence 
is a short forty days before Christmas, a Christmas Lent 
corresponding to the * Quadragesima Paschae '. The mention 
of St. Martin is accidental, and is owing to the use having 
originated at Tours. The six Sundays are an imitation 
of the six Sundays of Lent, and provide a length of thirty-six 
days, or forty-two, if we count the Sundays. The lost com- 
mencement of Lux contained six Masses for Advent, corre- 
sponding to the six Sundays given in the fragment of a Paris 
lectionary, 3 but these have no weekday Masses. The Ambro- 

1 This Gospel is also the only one which corresponds with those given in the 
fragment of a seventh-century Paris lectionary, published by Dom G. Morin. The 
Paris note gives this Gospel for the third Sunday ; it is the description given by our 
Lord of St. John Baptist. 

2 Diet. (TArchiol Chrit., art. ■ Avert,' col. 3223-4 (1906), by Abbot F. Cabrol. 
8 So Dom Morin pointed out, Revue Btnid., 1893, p. 441. 


Matt. i. 18 


Luke ii. 1 


Matt, xxiii. 29 


John i. i 


,, xxi. 19 


Matt. ii. 13 


Luke ii. 13] 


„ ii. 21 


John iii. 16 


sian and Mozarabic rites similarly give six Sundays. The 
Liber Comicus has five, the Gregorianum also. Alcuin had 
the Roman number of four. 1 It seems that the Gallicanum 
uetus, like the Bobbio Missal, had but three Sundays. 
Dom Cagin believes this part of the Bobbio Missal to be as 
old as the former half of the fifth century, and therefore earlier 
than the introduction into Gaul of the long Advent. But 
see Cabrol, Mabillon et les e't. lit. p. 17 (Liguge, 1908). 

Pridie natale Domini 
In natale domini ad missa publica 
In sci Stephani 

In sci Iohannis apost. et euan. 1 
In adsumptione sci Iohannis euan. ( 

[Dominica post natale dfii 
In octabas d. n. I. C. 
Post octabas d. n. I. C. ab is 

In the Christmas season three asterisks occur. But one of 
these is attached to a note found in Burch. only; I have 
inserted it because Dom Morin attributes it to N. It is true 
that B has lower down at Lk. ii. 33, 119 Dominica i post natale 
Dfii, but this is a correction in the later coarse hand, which is 
found just in places where the earlier scribe had made a mis- 
take. And the entry at Lk. ii. 13 is manifestly a mistake, for 
no pericope could begin at that verse, whereas ii. 33 is the 
correct Roman Gospel. I take it that B 116 is not only not 
Neapolitan, but that it is simply an error of the scribe of Burch., 
the right entry being supplied by the later hand. 

Two asterisks remain. The former shows that the usual 
Roman Gospel for the feast of St. John (John xxi. 19) is an 
addition by Eugipius. The Gospel at Lerins was the Prologue 
of the Saint's own Gospel, a peculiar and interesting use. 
We thus learn that the long note attached to the last capitulum 
of the summary is from the pen of Eugipius : 

* Quae lectio cum in natale sancti Petri legitur, a loco incoatur quo ait 
" Dicit Simoni Petro Iesus, Simon Iohannis, diligis me plus his" usque ad 
locum ubi dicit " significans qua morte clarificaturus esset Deum ". Cum 

1 See Dom Morin in Rev. B4n4d. y 1892, p. 494. 


uero in natali sci iohannis euangelistae, inchoanda est a loco quo ait 
" dicit ei " (hoc est Dominus Simoni Petro) " sequere me " usque ubi dicit 
" et scimus quia uerum est testimonium eius ".' 

The reason for the note is now clear. There was but one 
title of the summary for both lessons. It was therefore need- 
ful to point out accurately where the lesson for St. John began. 
The title of the summary runs as follows (Wordsworth, p. 506) : 

'xlv. Usque tertio dicit petro amas me quia ter eum negauerat et 
pascendas oues aeque tertio commendans extensione manuum significat 
ei quod crucis morte foret martyrio coronandus.' 

All is concerned with St. Peter, not a word of St. John. 
Thus our conclusion is confirmed that the Gallican Gospel for 
St. Peter's feast (at Rome it would have been called SS. Peter 
and Paul, as it is in Burch.) was the original one, the Roman 
Gospel for St. John's feast being an addition later than the 

The other asterisk is at the note of N Post octabas dni 
nostri ihu xpi (128), which appears in B thus : Post octabas 
dni ab is et post penticosten feria it. The words ab \Ji\is 
imply at first sight that the lesson had not the same incipit as 
the Roman lesson for Whit Monday, John iii. 16, with which 
it is coupled. But there appears to be no indication in the 
MS. of another incipit. The same ab his occurs N 161-2 and 
163-4 (B 242-3), where there are also coupled feasts. Perhaps 
this pericope began iii. 14. Anyhow it cannot correspond 
with a division of the summary, and it is therefore Eugipian 
not Gallican. 

The next table is for Epiphany tide. 


In ieiunium de Stella domini 


Matt. iv. 12 

In stella domini nocte 


„ i». 13 

„ „ ,, ad missa publica 


„ ii. 1 

Post epiphania dominica i 


John i. 29 

„ ,, „ » 


» i. 35 

„ „ » "i 


„ iii. 22 

„ „ „ «ii 


Lnke ii. 42 

Only one asterisk appears. But this Gospel happens to be 
the only one of the four for Sundays which coincides with the 
Roman use. Surely it is a Naples alteration. 


It is difficult to suppose that there were two Masses for the 
Epiphany at Lerins, when there was only one for Christmas 
and one for Easter. We saw that Matt. iii. 13 is the old 
Gallican Mass. Matt. ii. 1, the Roman Mass, is probably 
a Neapolitan interpolation. This Gospel of the three kings 
had perhaps been read at Lerins on the Sunday within the 
octave ; for by this hypothesis we can explain why a new 
pericope, John i. 29, had to be introduced for that day by 
Eugipius, and why Matt. ii. 1 is not asterisked. 

We now come to Lent. . There is no good Gallican parallel 
to employ, for the Bobbio Missal gives nine Masses only, and 
these are in disorder ; Lux is wanting up to Palm Sunday ; 
the Liber Comicus is peculiar in giving all the Lent Gospels 
from St. John. 1 


First Week 
In XLgisima paschae 

j> >» 

De XLgisima feria ii 

„ iiii ) 

Second Week 
Dominica ii XLgisima paschae 
Post sec. dom. XLgis. feria ii 


Third Week 
Dominica iii quando Psalmi accipiunt 
Post iii dom. XLgisima feria ii 


ab his 


De XLg. post iii dom. sabb. mane post 

De XLg. post iii dom. die sabb. in ieiunium 
Post iii dSica die sabb. ab his 


Matt. xiii. i 


Luke xvii. 1 1 


Matt. iv. 1 


» v. 17 


,, xviii. 1 


John iv. 46 2 


Matt. ix. 9 


„ xv. 29 


John iii. i 


Matt. v. 43? 


„ xvii. 14 


» vi. 25 


Matt. xx. 1 


Luke vi. 41 ? 


„ xviii. 9-10 


John xvi. 16? 


„ ix. 1 


John x. 11 


„ x. 22 ? 


„ xvi. 23 

1 The Roman use has all the Gospels from St. John in the fourth or fifth weeks 
except for the Thursdays, the Masses for which are later additions. 
a Here Y gives iv. 44, not 46, for the capitulum, probably wrongly. 


Fourth Wkek 

Dnica iiii quando orationem accipiunt 


Matt. vi. 7 

Post iiii dnica XLgis. feria ii 


John vi. 55 

» » »' *" 


» vi. 51 

„ » i"i 


,, vi. 36 

»» «> >» " 


u X. 30 

„ „ die sabbati 


„ vii. 14 

Fifth Week 

Dnica v quando symbulum accipiunt ) 
>> >> >> » • 


Matt. xxi. 33 


„ xxv. 31 

Post v dnica de XLg. feria ii 


„ xii. 38? 

» i» 


John vii. 32 

„ » ,. ii" 


„ viii. 12 

j> » >» T* 


„ xi. 1 

,, „ die sabbati 


„ viii. 31 

Die sabbati prima passionem d. n. I. C. 


Matt. xxvi. 1 

Holy Week 

Dom. vi de indulgentia ) 
,, „ Passio d. n. I. C. \ 


John xi. 55 ? 


Mark xiv. 1 

Feria ii de ebdom. maiorem 


John xii. 1 

» "i „ ,, 


Luke xvni. 31 

,. "ii »i » 


John xiii. 33 

,, v mane in cena domini ad missa. \ 

Passio d. n. I. C. | 


Luke xxii. 1 ? 

Feria v in ieiunium de cena dSi ' 


John xiii. 1 

„ vi de ebd. maiore, passio d. n. I. C. 


„ xviii. 1 

Sabbato sco mane ) 
„ „ ad sero ) 


Mark vii. 32 1 


Matt, xxviii. 1 

It is difficult to deal with the first three entries. In 
XLgisima paschae seems to mean the first Sunday of Lent, 
and the first week is called de XLgisima. Matt. iv. 1 is 
the obvious lesson (the forty days' fast of Christ), as in the 
Roman, Ambrosian, Bobbio, and Comic lectionaries. Dom 
Morin has suggested that the two other lessons are for 
the preceding Sundays, Quinquagesima and Sexagesima. 
This is confirmed by the fact that Matt. xiii. 1, the Parable 
of the Sower, is read (in honour of St. Paul — for this 
see later, p. 196) on Sexagesima Sunday in Ambros ; 
also in the marginal notes of O, where it is named in set 
pauli) see ch. x, p. 196; the parallel, Luke viii, is used in 

1 In Y verse 31 is marked, not verse 32, but the difference seems to be accidental. 
The Gospel is undoubtedly Gallican. 


Rom, &c. But there exist no Quinquagesima and Sexa- 
gesima in Bob, Lux, Comic. 1 So far as I know it is only in 
Gaul that we hear of Quinqu. and Sex. without Sept. The 
Codex Fuldensis has this peculiarity it is true, but then this 
will be one among the many proofs to be given in the next 
chapter that the list of Pauline pericopae in it is not wholly 
Italian, but is Gallican in origin. The contemporary council 
of Orleans in 541 condemns the practice of peeping Quinqua- 
gesima and Sexagesima, but has evidently never heard of 
Septuagesima : 'Hoc etiam decernimus obseruandumut quadra- 
gesima ab omnibus ecclesiis aequaliter teneatur ; neque quin- 
quagesimam aut sexagesimam ante Pascha quilibet sacerdos 
praesumat indicere ' {Can. a). 2 No bishop (sacerdos) is to 
order this extension of Lent. If I am right in attributing 
Eugipius's use to Lerins (and also that of the Codex Fuldensis^ 
as we shall see later), then we have in it not an episcopal 
ordinance, but a monastic observance. Some of the many 
bishops who had been monks of Lerins or of some other 
monastery might perhaps be inclined to enforce their own 
habits on their flocks, a severity which the synod of 541 

Now as all three Gospels correspond with the summaries 
and have no asterisk, it would seem that they are not Eugipian 
but Gallican. We have therefore arrived at a probable solu- 
tion of our difficulty. They are the Gospels for Quadragesima, 
Quinquagesima, and Sexagesima in a Gallican monastic use. 
Since Quinq. and Sex. were unknown in Italy in the sixth 
century, the scribes of Eugipius or of Cassiodorus wrote 
XLgisima thrice by mistake. 

The first week of Lent is very easy to understand. The 
two Gospels each for Wednesday and for Friday are at first 
sight startling enough. We now see plainly that (48) and 
(23), which do not correspond with the summary, are the 

1 Duchesne says : ' It was about this time [seventh century] also that the stational 
Masses for the three Sundays in Septuagesima, in Sexagesima, and in Quinqua- 
gesima were instituted.* He has forgotten the Codex Fuldensis {Origines, Eng. tr., 
p. 244). 

8 Mansi, ix. 113 : see Duchesne, Origines, p. 245, note; Eng. tr., p. 245, note. 
The pages are always the same in these two editions, a most admirable arrangement. 


Neapolitan Gospels, while the original Lerins pericopae are 
(130) and (43). 

The second week is at first sight untouched. 

In the third week the Wednesday Gospel (161) is evidently 
an interpolation, for it is joined to a Gospel for the fifth Sunday 
after Easter, which begins (as we shall see) at xvi. 16 and 
coincides with the summary ; but it is distinguished by the 
words ab his, which clearly show that it had a different com- 
mencement, and therefore did not coincide. Another ab his 
occurs on the Saturday (163), and we must reject it also, 
(though the Sunday Gospel (164) to which it is attached does 
not coincide with the summary) ; for it is obvious by now that 
every case of ab his is an Eugipian interpolation. 

But on the other hand (145) and (146) must certainly go ; 
for the summary has but two titles in John, ch. x, viz. v. 1 and 
v. 17. We must suppose that three Gospels were interpolated 
at Naples on the same Saturday. 

In the fourth and fifth weeks the Tuesdays are seen to. 
be Eugipian additions. The Saturday of the fourth week 
is certainly also an interpolation, and in consequence the 
Saturday of the fifth week is suspicious (the Passion according 
to St. Matthew). Its incipit is uncertain, as it is omitted 
by B. 

The Mondays for all these five weeks cause some difficulty. 
The lesson for the first Monday agrees with the summary — 
this may be by chance. That for the fourth week is asterisked ; 
those for the second, third, and fifth weeks are doubtful, for 
they are not in B. It seems pretty certain that we must 
accept the indication given by the fourth week, and account all 
the Mondays Neapolitan. Consequently the original Gallican 
system will have provided in Lent for Sundays, Wednesdays, 
and Fridays only. 

In the fourth week (147) for the Friday is an interpolation, 
and there is no other lesson for this day. Why has the 
original lesson. disappeared in this case only? I think it has, 
in fact, survived. After the eighteenth title of the summary 
of St. John in Y and at the nineteenth in A we find legenda in 
quadragesima. As this entry belongs to the capitulum of the 


summary, it is probably an original Gallican note. The 
Gospel indicated in Y is John vii. I, and it clearly fits in here 
perfectly, after John vi. 36. 

On the fifth Sunday quando symbolum accipiunt, there may 
have been really two Gospels, one for the ceremony of giving 
the creed, the other for the Mass. 

In Holy Week several asterisks occur. On Palm Sunday 
this happens, because in the table (above, p. 109) I have put 
the commencement of the Gospel at John xi. $$ as in Comic, 
Ambros. But in Lux it begins at xii. 1. As the Gospel is 
clearly Gallican not Eugipian, it must have begun at Lerins 
at xi. 47, where the summary has the division. 

If we must take away the lessons for Monday and Wednesday, 
we ask ourselves what was read at Lerins, since these are 
Eugipian. As before, we find that the original pericopae 
have been placed among the capitula of the summaries, 
with vague directions only. One of them is at the eighty- 
seventh capitulum of the summary of Luke in Y Reg : ' quod 
prope Pascha legendum est ' ; it is admirably adapted to intro- 
duce Holy Week ; Luke xxi. 28 : ' His autem fieri incipien- 
tibus respicite et leuate capita uestra quoniam appropin- 
quat redemptio uestra,' with the parable of the fig-tree. (At 
this point probably belongs N 115 item alia, sc. cottidiana, 
being a Neapolitan lesson substituted when the older lesson 
for the Monday of Holy Week was turned out and consigned 
to the summary ; see note p. 59.) 

The other lesson wanted is found at the seventeenth capi- 
tulum of the summary of John in A : ' legenda circa pascha,' 
viz. John vi. 63 : ' Spiritus est qui uiuificat,' with the prophecy 
of the betrayal by Judas — a most natural and suitable choice 
for the Wednesday of Holy Week. 

The reading of the four Passions is given for Saturday, 
Sunday, Thursday, and Friday. Burch. has omitted the titles 
of N for Saturday, Thursday, and Friday, substituting the 
Roman use. But the original Sunday title (Mark) has re- 
mained. This pericope ought to have been assigned to Tuesday 
according to the present Roman use. 


6?. Die sabbati prima passionem 

domini nostri ihesu xpi. 
69. Die dominico de indulgentia 

passio dfli Hi ihesu xpi. 
116. Feria v mane in coena domini 

ad missa. Passio domini 

nostri ihu xpi. 
166. Feria vi de ebdomada maiore 

passio domini nostri ihu xpi. 

89. Ebd. vi die dominico ad La- Matt. xxvi. i 

teranis legitur passio dHi 
107. as N. Mark xiv. I 

184. In XLgisima ebd. vi feria Luke xxii. I 
iiii legitur passio dffi 

246. In ebd. maiore feria vi ad John xviii. i 
Hierusalem legitur passio 

Burch. gives the Roman incipits. We cannot infer even in 
the case of Mark that he has preserved the earlier beginnings. 
Now in the summaries the four Passions are clearly indicated : 

Matt., cap. 86 : Series passionis enarratur, &c. 

Mark, cap. 45 : Traditionis ac passionis eius gesta nar- 

rantur, &c. 
Luke, cap. 90 : Passionis eius gesta narrantur, &c. 
John, cap. 41 : Traditionis ac passionis eius per ordinem 

gesta narrantur, &c. 

xxvi. 30— end of xxvii 
xiv. 26 — xvi. 1 

xxii. 39— xxiii. 33 ? 
xviii. 1 — end of xix 

In the first three cases the incipits thus indicated are different, 
and probably give the Gallican use. We cannot tell whether 
even before Burch. the Roman incipits had been introduced 
by Eugipius into the list. 

In the Saturday of the third week, above, the distinction of 
mane and in ieiunium appeared to be Eugipian, not Gallican. 
This fact casts some suspicion on the same distinction where 
it occurs on Maundy Thursday. Possibly the Gallican use 
had the Passion only, and the Roman Gospel (John xiii. 1, 
both for the Mass and for the Mandatum or ' Maundy \ as our 
fathers called it) may be a Neapolitan addition. Perhaps at 
the washing of the feet at Lerins the Gospel was not sung, but 
only the usual antiphons. 1 

Again on Holy Saturday Mark vii. 32 is Gallican as we 
saw, whereas Matt, xxviii is the Roman Gospel. The latter 
may possibly be a Eugipian addition ; but it is probably 

x The contemporary of Eugipius, St. Benedict, enjoins that after the washing of 
the feet of strangers (during the ceremony the usual antiphons and hymn were 
doubtless sung) the brethren shall sing Suscepimus Deus misericordiam Tuam in 
medio templi Tui. He does not mention the singing of a Gospel (S. Regula, 
53) ; but then this was not for Maundy Thursday. 


Gallican, for the same Gospel is found in Lux, q, Bob, 1 Comic, 
Ambros, &c. 


Dom. sea Pascha ad missa publica 


Matt, xxviii. 16 

Secunda feria paschae 


John xx. 1 

Feria iii de albas paschae 


Luke xxiv. 13 

» i"i ii » 


John xxi. 1 

» v >> >> 


Luke xxiv. 36 ? 

» vi » » 

7 o* 

[Mark xvi. 8] 

Die sabbati de albas paschae 


Luke xxiv. 1 

Dominico octabo paschae 


John xx. 24 

Feria ii post albas 


„ xvii. 1 

[Post albas pascae feria iiii 


„ xvii. 11] 

Post albas paschae dom. i 


„ XV. 1 

n » >> ■* 


„ xiv. 1 

j> >> >> m 


„ xvi. 5 

» ii » ii" 


„ xvi. 23? 

» »> >> v 


„ xvi. 16 

In ascensa d. n. I. C. 


Luke xxiv. 44 

Post ascensa Dni 


John xv. 1 7 

Easter week shows but one asterisk. But the cause of this 
one is not far to seek. In Burch. we find : 

108. Mark xvi. 1 Dominicum pascae ad sancta Maria. 

109. „ 8 Feria vi de albas pascae (= N 70). 

110. „ 14 Feria v in ascensa domini. 

That is to say, Burch. has introduced the Roman Gospel for 
Easter Day = xvi. 1-7, and the Roman Gospel for Ascension 
Day = xvi. 14, and has therefore shifted the Naples title to 
the intervening space. It did not matter to this interpolator 
that he thereby introduced an utterly impossible lection 
xvi. 8-14, for his own Gospel for that day was (91) Matt, 
xxviii. 16. But it is obvious for us that 8-14 could not be 
used as a Gospel, and that the chapter was read from v. % 
to the end on Easter Friday, both at Lerins and at Naples. 

The query against (120) will be explained by looking at the 
asterisk against Ascension Day (iai). In Burch. we find : 

Luke xxiv. 36. 188 Feria iii pascae adS. Paulum [Feria v de albas pascae N 1 20]. 
„ 44. 189 In ascensa d. n. I. C. (= N 121). 

1 Bob has Mane, Matt, xxvii. 62, and ad Missam, Matt, xxviii to end. 


The pericope xxiv. 44-53 is the Neapolitan one for the 
Ascension ; it was used by St. Bede (above, p. 71), and is found 
in q ; but it is otherwise unknown. The Gallican Gospel in 
Bob, Comic, Ambros is xxiv. 36-53. 1 Verse 36 corresponds 
with the last division of the summary of Luke. We infer that 
the Lerins Gospel for the Ascension was exactly that of Bob, 
Comic, Ambros, that there was no Gospel for the Thursday 
after Easter, and that Eugipius divided the Gospel of Ascension 
Thursday in order to supply the omission. Hence the unique 
Gospel of N and Bede. 

The Thursdays in Lent were without station, not only at 
Lerins and Naples, but even in the Roman system of Burch. 
It will the less surprise us to find none on the Thursday after 
Easter at Lerins, if we remember that up to the present day 
the Mass of Whit Sunday is repeated on the Thursday following, 
except for the Epistle and Gospel, which are now proper. 

Thus we have an explanation of the long note in the margin 
of Y, Luke xxiv, and after the last capitulum of the summary 
in Reg: 

' Haec lectio in ebdomada pascae dum legitur, finitur in loco ubi ait 
"quoadusque induamini uirtutem ex alto'*. Cum autem in ascensione 
legitur, alio loco incoanda est, quo dicit discipulis " haec sunt uerba quae 
locutus sum uobiscum " usque ad finem euangelii.' 

It is a note by Eugipius, when he divided the older Gospel 
for the Ascension, and gave the first half of it to the Thursday 
after Easter, which till then had been ' aliturgical \ 

The asterisk for Low Sunday (168) is due. to B, which 
divides the usual pericope, John xx. 19, between Saturday and 
Sunday. The summary gives xx. 19, and doubtless this was 
the commencement of the Sunday Gospel both at Lerins and 
at Naples ; it is also that of Rom. Of course the passage is 
unavoidable for Low Sunday in any system. 

On f evict it post albas something will be said in chapter vii, 
p. 140. It evidently represents the Pascha annotinum. The 
next title, post albas pascae feria iiii, looks like a division of 
the former lesson by Eugipius ; though it is found only in 

1 Lux, after its fashion, has a Gospel compounded of John xiii. 33-5, ibid., 
xiv. 1 -1 4, and Luke xxiv. 49-53. 



Burch. But as a fact it certainly does not belong to N at all, 
for it is found in the thoroughly Roman systems of Spires and 
Rheinau (p. laa). The apparent connexion with N 165 is 
therefore misleading. We shall see in the next section how 
close a connexion there is between Burch. and these two 
German systems of pericopae. 

The Sundays after Easter demand special attention, for they 
have clearly got shifted in Burch. : 

Naples. Burch. 

156 Post albas paschae dominica ii 231 Post octauas pascae dominica v 

157 Dominica sancta penticosten 232 Sabbato sancto penticosten 

2 33 Dominica sancta pentecosten 
235 Post albas pascae i dominica 
237 In ebd. post ascensa dHi feria iiii 

239 In natale sancti Pancrati [et] 
post ascensa dfii 

240 Post albas pascae dominica iii 
[241 Ebdomada iiii post pascha 

158 Post albas paschae dominica 


159 Post ascensa dSi 

160 Post albas paschae dominica iii 

161-2 Post iii dominicas XLgisima 

feria iiii ab his l et post elbas 

pascae dominica v 
163-4 P° st "i dominica die sabbati 

ab his 1 et post albas pascae 

dominica iiii 


















242 Post albas pascae iiii dominica xvi. 15 

243 Post albas pascae v dominica xvi. 23 

It is evident that xv. 26-xvi 5 ought to be read after the 
Ascension in preparation for Pentecost. The *£in Burch. (239) 
is above the line, and ought never to have been inserted ; the 
feast of St. Pancras alone should have xv. 17, while post ascensa 
should have been placed against xv. 26", and consequently/^/ 
albas pascae dom. iii should be against xvi. 5. A later scribe 
saw this last point, and wrote in a coarse hand the equivalent 
ebdomada iiii post pascha against that verse. Thus we get the 
pericopae settled; but the numbers of the Sundays vary 
in N and B. 



Post albas dom. ii 



John xiv. 1 

„ i 



„ xv. 1 

„ „ iii 



„ xvi. 5 

„ » v 



„ „ 16 

„ „ iiii 



,, „ 23 

1 Ab his in N 162-4 seems to denote that the Lenten lessons began at v. 15 and 
v. 23, whereas the Easter lessons certainly began at v. 16 and v. 23 £. B 237 is 
not now a Roman pericope, and Dom Morin has attributed it to N. But it is 
certainly an insertion by B, for it is in the system of Rheinau and Spires. 

Post albas dom. ii 


»> >» * 


Post ascensa dHi 


Post albas dom. iii 


>, » v 


„ » ii" 



In B the sequence iii, iiii, v is suspicious, and there is no 
second Sunday. We must clearly follow N. Thus we get : 

John xiv. 1 i. e. 3rd after Easter 

„ xv. 1 2nd „ 

„ xv. 26 = R S. after Asc. 

„ xvi. 5 = R 4th after Easter 

„ xvi. j6* (=R 3rd „ ) 

„ xvi. 23 = R 5th „ 

Observe the result. There are three asterisks, and in just 
these three cases the lesson coincides with R. These are 
evidently Eugipian insertions. 

But the post albas dom. v is surprising. There are only five 
Sundays after Easter, so that this fifth post albas is the Sunday 
after Ascension day. But post Ascensa dni is probably meant 
for the same day, for it can hardly be for a ferial Mass. We 
may think (162) to be the Lerins Gospel, superseded by 
Eugipius's (159). But another solution is possible. The peri- 
cope xvi. 16 is in R for the second Sunday post albas. If 
Eugipius inserted it for that Sunday, it would not be astonish- 
ing if a scribe, finding the second Sunday twice over, should 
change ii into v, thus introducing a sixth Sunday after Easter. 
In B ii has twice been altered into v, probably in the former 
place to avoid the double ii, while the sequence iii, iiii, v 
was a subsequent correction. If this conjecture be adopted, 
Eugipius gave Roman Gospels for all the Sundays after Easter, 
except for the second Sunday, the pericope for which should be 
John x. 11 : this was already the lesson for a Saturday of Lent. 

Sabbato sancto penticosten 
Dominica sancta ,, 
Post penti. in ieiunium feria iiii 

„ feria vi in ieiunium 

„ in ieiunium in die sabbati 

The Gospel for Whit Sunday agrees with Lux, Bob, Ambros, 
but in the Roman system is the Gospel for the Vigil ; B gives 
the Vigil against xiv. 15, and the feast (as R) against xiv. 33 ; 
but the scribe has written the words Sabbato sancto over an 

1 The division of the summary in Y is at verse 15, and the note in B is also at 
the same point. But v. 16 is right for the summary, and the lesson has followed 
its mistake. 


John vii. 40 


„ xiv. 15 


Mark ix. 16 


Matt. ix. 10 


Luke vi. 8 


erasure, so that Dom Morin is evidently right in assuming 
that he had at first written Dominica sancta t which he found 
in his copy of N, and changed it. 

The asterisk shows that there was no Gospel for the Vigil of 
Pentecost at Lerins ; we find the same omission in Lux, Bob, 
q y Goth. Nos. 67 and 24 begin only one verse later than the 
corresponding title of the summary. But this is probably 
enough to enable us to reject them as not Gallican, and conse- 
quently 83 with them. Thus there were perhaps no proper 
Masses for the Octave of Pentecost at Lerins, just as there are 
none in Bob, Lux, Comic, Ambros. But the four insertions 
by Eugipius are not Roman. That for the vigil could not 
be, for the Roman pericope was taken by the feast. But we 
remember that Eugipius did not introduce Quatuor Tempora 
for Advent or Lent, and did not Romanize Lent itself. 
Perhaps we may infer that the Gospels for the Roman station 
days were not yet fixed in his time. 

We now come to the Proprium Sanctorum, We have 
already spoken of several feasts. There remain the following : 

In sancti Viti 27 

In ieiunium S. Iohannis Bapt. . . . 71 

„ natale „ „ . . . 73 

In ieiunium SS. Iohannis et Pauli . . 96 

„ natale „ „ . . 53* 

In ieiunium S. Petri 
„ natale „ . 

j> >> » 

In ieiunium S. Laurenti 
,, natale ,, 

In ieiunium S. Andreae 
,, natale ,, 


1 04* 

Matt. ix. 35 
Luke i. 5 
Luke i. 57 
Luke xii. 1 
Matt. xx. 20 
John xii. 20 
Matt. xix. 27 
Matt. xvi. 13 
John xxi. 15 
Luke xiv. 16 
Luke xiv. 7 
Matt. iv. 18 
John vi. 1 

St. Vitus is a Naples addition : ' Saint Vit y fut honore avant 
d'etre transports a Saint-Denis et de la a Prague ' (S. Berger, 
Hist, de la Vulg., p. 40). 

One of the two Gospels for SS. John and Paul is Eugipian, 
as we should expect. St. Laurence is naturally Roman. 

But both Gospels for St. Peter remain ; (44) is no doubt for 
St. Peter's Chair 'natale S. Petri de cathedra', and (170) for 
June 39 ; to make this clear Burch. has added c et Pauli '. The 
Roman use has the Gospel of St. Matthew for both feasts ; but 


Bob has the same arrangement as Naples, only it prefixes two 
verses from St. Mark (i. 16-17) on June 29. 1 

On the other hand the Gospel for the Vigil is Neapolitan. 
But then there is no Vigil of SS. Peter and Paul in Lux, 
Bob, Goth, Comic. 

Still it is strictly possible that the Feast of the Chair was 
introduced at Naples, and that in the Lerins order Matt. xvi. 
13 was the Gospel for the Vigil, June 28, as in Ambros. But 
I do not think this likely, for the parallel with Bob is far more 
important, and the February feast is so prominent in Lux 
that the Sundays are counted from it. 

We come to the Commune Sanctorum^ including those which 
have been discussed above, p. 101. 

In dedicationem 

In ordinatione episcopi 
In natale „ 

In ieiuninm apostolorum 
In apostolorum 

In martyras 

In martyra 

In unius martyris 

>> » 

In unius confessoris 

>> » 

In sanctorum . 

de beatitudinem 

In uelanda 
In agendas 

16* . 

Matt. vii. 24 

46 . . 

„ xvi. 28 ? 

28* . 

» x. 7 

IOI* . 

Luke xi. 42 

80 . 

„ iv. 38 

29 . 

Matt. x. 16 

84 . 

Luke vi. 12 


„ xxii. 24 

35 • 

. Matt. xii. 46 

89 . 

. Luke viii. 1 

94 • 

„ x. 38 

60* . 

. Matt. xxv. 1 

45* • 

„ xvi. 24 

106 . 

. Luke xiv. 25 

3o* . 

Matt. x. 26 

97* • 

Luke xii. 9 

85* • 

„ vi. 17 

92 . 

. ? 

9 • 

. Matt. v. 1 

125 . 

. John ii. 1 

149* . 

„ xi. 25 

In this table it is not one of a pair that disappears, but 
whole categories. The ordination of a bishop and the anni- 
versary of it go out together (28, 101). The whole of in unius, 
whether of martyrs or confessors, must be Eugipian substitu- 
tions for the Gospels in martyras, and the coincidence of 
(106) with a title of the summary is a mere chance. Appa- 
rently only one in sanctorum is an addition and one in 

1 Lux combines both Gospels for the Feast of the Chair. Comic has Matt, xvi 
for that feast ; neither gives either of these Gospels for June 29. 


apostolorum. 1 Though the pericope for (92) cannot be 
identified, it is unlikely not to have coincided with one of the 
many vacant titles of the summary near it. It is not surprising 
that in agendas should be Neapolitan, for agenda (feminine 
singular) is used by Eugipius's neighbour and contemporary 
St. Benedict in his Rule to mean a * service*. Here it means 
a funeral, agenda mortuorum. One of the two in dedicationem 
is Eugipian, perhaps both. 

The legenda pro defunctis noted at the fifteenth number of 
the summary to St. John is presumably the earlier Gallican 
Gospel for the dead, on account of its connexion with the 

Among the lessons marked • Cottidiana ' some have to be 
asterisked : possibly some others coincide only by chance 
with the summary. For (115) see above, p. 112. 

Cottidiana . 



. Matt. v. 13 

»> • 


15 . 

„ vii. 1 

>> • • 

. 17* • 

„ vii. 28 

„ de puerum c 


. 18 . 

»> viii. 5 

Item alia 


19 . 

i, viii. 23 

Cottidiana . 



„ viii. 28 

>> • • 



„ ix. r 

„ . 



» ix. 9 



■ 25 . 

„ ix. 18 


. 26 . 

„ ix. 27 

„ per messes . 


. 32 . 

„ xii. 1 

Item alia 


33 • 

„ xii. 9 

Cottidiana . 

39 • 

„ xiv. 13 

» • 

40 . 

„ xiv. 22 

» • 

41 . 

„ XV. 1 



42 . 

„ XV. 21 



■ 49 • 

„ xix. 1 

>» . . . 


5o • 

,, xix. 16 

„ . 


68 . 

Mark x. 46 

,, • . 


79 • 

Luke iv. 31 

„ . 


. 81 . 

„ v. 1 

>j • 


. 82a* . 

„ v. 27 

Per messes . 


82^ . 

„ vi. 1 

Cottidiana . 

. . 

. 87 . 

„ vii. 11 


88 . 

„ vii. 36 

1 In Apostolorum (117) Lake xxii. 24 corresponds with the summary, but I have 
asterisked it because it is a Eugipian interpolation which has ousted the note 
preserved by A only at this (the eighty-ninth) title of the summary : ' quae lectio 
potest quolibet tempore diet.* 



. 90 . 

. Luke viii. 16? 


91 . 

,, viii. 40? 


93 • 

„ ix.47? 


95 • 

„ xi. 1? 


98 . . 

„ xii. 13? 



,, xiii. 10? 

>> « 

103 . 

„ xiv. 1 ? 



„ XV. II 

»» « 


„ xvi. 1 

>> ■ 

109* . 

„ xvi. 19 

>> • 


„ xviii. 1 


. 114 . 

,, xix. 1 ? 

a « 

133* • 

John v. 24 ? 

>> < 

135* , 

„ vi. 16? 

It seems that no cottidiana was taken from St. John at 
Lerins. Eugipius added only two. His additions do not 
seem to have been very numerous in general. Perhaps not 
more than half a dozen other cottidianae are his. 

In conclusion it must be noted that we have now discovered 
why the lessons and the summary so often disagree in the 
fourth Gospel. It is simply that there were much fewer 
lessons from St. John than from St. Luke and St. Matthew in 
the Lerinese use, while Eugipius added more in St. John than 
elsewhere. He made the summaries (as we said) before he 
inserted the additions ; hence in the fourth Gospel he fre- 
quently followed the divisions of the older summaries, because 
he had no guidance from any Lerins pericope. It is interesting 
to remark that there must consequently have been an older 
summary in the copy of the Gospels he received from Lerins. 
Why he superseded it by a new composition of his own we 
shall learn in chapter vii (p. 136). 

§ 4. St, Burchard's additions to the Neapolitan use. 

When Dom Morin published the liturgical notes found in 
the ' Gospels of St. Burchard ' he contented himself with 
pointing out that the additions made in that MS. to the 
Neapolitan list of lessons were Roman in character, without 
troubling to extract them and arrange them in liturgical 
order. It will, however, be worth our while to do this, as it is 
a simple matter. 

The following tables give the additions of Burch., which 



xxi. 25 



xi. 2 






i. 19] 



iii. 1 


. Matt. 

i. 18 


. Luke 

ii. 15 


ii. 13 


"• 33] 


. Matt. 

ii. 19 


were italicized in the former table (above, pp. 52-63). In these 
tables, on the contrary, the words italicized belong to the 
Neapolitan original. The numerals in the first column refer 
to the fourth column of the former table. The additions by 
a somewhat later hand in coarse writing are put in square 
brackets. R means ' Roman \ 

Advent and Christmas 
183 De aduentum .... 
38 Dominica secunda de aduentum . 
191 [Ebd. i ante natale dSi 
[Feria vi ad Apostolos 
114 Dominica iiii de aduentum d. n. I. C. 

1 In uigilias de natale domini . 

117 Natale dSi nocte .... 

1 16 Dominica post natale dfii . 

119 [Dominica i post natale dSi . 

4 In uigilias de theophania 

38 Dominica de aduentum N 114 Dominica prima de adu. d. n. I. C. N. 

1 Pridie natale domini N 

The whole Advent system is intended to be Roman. It was 
incomplete, and the later hand has filled up and corrected. 
Ember Wednesday is omitted. The entry of N remains at 
its Gospel, Luke i. 26, Dom. iii de adu^ and the third Sunday 
had to be supplied by the later hand. As Christmas occurs 
in the fourth week of Advent (or at latest on the following 
Sunday) ebd. i ante nat dni means the third week, as in the 
lectionaries of Rheinau and Spires. These two Gospel lists 
were reprinted by E. Ranke in his work Das kirchliche Peri- 
copensystem (Berlin, 1847) from Gerbert's Monumenta Veteris 
Liturgiae Alemannicae i torn, i, p. 418. We shall see that they 
often show a close agreement with Burch. 

The single Mass of N for Christmas had the Roman midnight 
lesson. In error the Roman Mass of Aurora has been added 
by B, and called nocte, because that of N was ad missa publica. 
One of N's lessons for Epiphany was Roman, but the Roman 
lesson for the vigil is now given. It was pointed out (p. 106, 
above) that 116 was a mere slip of the scribe, 119 being the 
right lesson. No Sundays after Epiphany are given, none of 
N's being omitted, though only one of them is Roman. 













Septuagesima and Lent 
In LXXgisima die dominico ad S. Laurentium 
In LXgisima ad S. Paulum .... 
In Lgisima ad S. Petrum .... 

In XLgisima pascae (N) .... 
In LXXgisima ebd. ii feria ii ad Vincula 

„ „ „ [feria iii] ad S. Anastasia 

[Wed. wanting] 

„ „ ' „ „ vi ad Apostolos . 

„ ,. ., „ vii ad S. Petrum . 


218 „ 
223 „ 
215 v 

[Sunday has Gospel of S t. repeated in R] 

LXXgisima iii ebd. feria ii ad S. Clementem . . John viii. (21) R 

,, ebd. iii „ iii ad S. Balbina . . Matt, xxiii. 1 R 

j, ,, „ iiii ad S. Cecilia . . . „ xx. 17 R 

„ „ „ vi in Vestine . . . „ xxii. I 

„ „ „ R 

XLgisima ebd. iii ad S. Laurentium martyrem . . Luke xi. 14 R 

„ ,, feria ii ad S. Marcum . . . „ iv. 23 R 

LXXgisima ebd. iiii „ iii ad S. Podentiana . . Matt, xviii. 15 R 

„ „ „ iiii ad S. Syxtum . . . „ xv. 1 R 

„ „ „ vi in Lucina .... John iv. 5 R 

„ „ „ vii ad S. Susanna . . . „ viii. 1 R 

„ ebd. v die dominico in Suxurio . . . „ vi. 1 R 

,, „ feria ii ad iiii Coronatus . . „ ii. 12 R 

[Tues. wanting] 

„ v ebd. „ iiii ad S. Paulum . . . „ ix. 1 R 

,, „ „ vi ad S. Eusebium . . „ xi. 1 R 

„ „ ,, [iiii ad S. Paulam] . . „ viii. 12 R 

Matt. xx. 1 R 

Luke viii. 4 R 

„ xviii. 31 R 

Matt. iv. i R 
„ xxv. 31 R 
,, xxi. 1 

John v. 1 
Matt. xvii. 1 

88. So Spir. Feria ii ad Vincula without ad S. Petrum, 
72. I have supplied feria iii. The Roman lesson is xxi. 10. This is a mere 
slip of B. 

216. The + to denote the verse is wanting in B. 
75. The Roman pericope is really xxi. 33. The titulus Vestinae (from the 
name of its foundress) is called in the present R Missal by the name of the patron, 
S. Vi talis. It was the title assigned to the martyred Bp. Fisher (Via Nazionale). 
Rhein. has ad Apostolos in titulo Vestinae. 

154, 123. The quadragesima is curious; correctly called third week. 

204. in Suxurio ', so Rhein. also, for Sessoriana, i. e. Sta Croce in Jerusalemme. 

215. This is the right pericope for Saturday Sitientes; but the scribe has 
written Wednesday against it. He should have said Feria vii ad S. Laurentium 
according to Spir. and Rhein., but the modern Missal has ad S. Nicolaum in 
carcere. Passion Sunday {ad S. Petrum^ John viii. 46) is also omitted, and the 
following Saturday, where again Rhein. differs from the Roman Missal. The 
latter has ad S. Ioannem ante portam latinam, John xii. 10 ; Rhein. has ' datur 
fermentum in consistorio Lateranense ', Mark xiv. 10-16, and a later hand has 
substituted John xvii. II. It is curious that the omission of these two Saturdays 
in B should coincide with the differences between the German MSS. and the 
R Missal. 


[Passion Sunday wanting] 

212 In LXXgisima ebd. vi feria ii ad S. Crisogonum . . John vii. 32 R 

210 „ „ „ „ iii ad S. Cyriacum . . „ vii. 1 1< 

221 „ „ vi ebd. „ iiii ad S. Marcellum . . „ x. 22 R 

225 „ „ „ „ vi ad S. Stephanum . . „ xi. 47 R 

[Saturday wanting] 

Holy Week 

89 Ebd. vi die dominico ad Lateranis legitur passio dKi . Matt. xxvi. 1 R 

226 In LXgisima i ebd. feria ii ad SS. Nereum et Archilleum John xii. 1 R 
229 „ iiii ebd. feria vi ad S. Prisca . . . „ xiii. 1 

184 in XLgisima ebd. vi feria iiii legitur passio drii . . Luke xxii. 1 R 

[Thursday wanting] 

246 In ebd. maiore feria vi ad Hierusalem legitur passio d3i John xviii. 1 R 

90 In sab. sancto ad missa N Matt, xxviii. 1 R 

226. So Rhein. The R Missal and Spir. have ad S. Praxedem. We must 
of course read In Lxxgisima vii ebd. or in XLgisima viebd., and the same for 229. 

229. Read feria iii. Rhein. and Spir. give this lesson ; the R Missal gives the 
Passion according to St. Mark, which is left unread in Rhein. Spir. Burch. There is 
consequently no pericope for the Thursday. Rhein. Spir. indeed repeat xiii. 1, 
but B has even omitted N's ' feria v in ieiunium de cena dfii '. N 64 serves for 
B 90 also. The + to mark 229 is in a later coarse hand. 

We see that throughout Lent the stations are the same as 
in the Roman Missal, except Saturday in fourth week and 
Tuesday of Holy Week ; the lessons are given wrongly only 
twice. The name Septuagesima is curious ; it seems to mean 
seven weeks, and in fact seven weeks are counted, yet the first 
week is passed over in silence. But the week following the 
first Sunday could hardly be called the second week, unless 
Lent already began, as it now does, on the Wednesday of the 
week before. The older and more usual reckoning is used for 
the preceding Sundays, which appear as LXX, LX, and Lgisima, 
while the first Sunday of Lent retains its title from N 
1 XLgisima pascae '. 

In Holy Week the lesson for the Tuesday (see note) is 
remarkable. The Thursdays throughout Lent have no station, 
as always before Gregory II. But we shall find one for 
Thursday after Easter; and Maundy Thursday had two 
Gospels in the much older N. The omission of a Gospel for 
that great day is curious; probably John xiii. 1 is to be 
repeated as in the German MSS. 








Dominicum pascae ad sancta Maria 
Feria ii pascae ad S. Petrum 
„ iii „ ad S. Paulum 
„ iiii „ ad S. Laurentium 
„ v „ ad Apostolos 
„ vi „ ad Martyres 
,, vii ,, ad Lateranis 
Die dominico octabas pascae 
Post albas pascae feria iiii . 
In pasca annotina 

Mark xvi. I R 

Luke xxiv. 13 R 

„ xxiv. 36 R 

John xxi. 1 R 

„ xx. 11 R 
Matt.xxviii. 16 R 
John xx. 19 

„ xx. 24 

„ xvii. 11 

„ iii. 1 

[241 Ebd. iiii post pascha „ xvi. 5] R 

244 et in vigilias de ascensa dn"i ,, xvii. 1 R 

no Feria v in ascensa dHi Mark xvi. 14 R 

237 In ebd. post ascensa dfii feria iiii John xv. 7 

249. So Rhein. Spir. The latter adds the Roman Gospel, John xx. 1. R has 
xx. 19 for the Sunday, but Rhein. Spir. give John xx. 24. Again an omission in B 
corresponds with a difference between the German MSS. and R. 

245, 196, 237 are not liturgical days in R Missal ; but all three are found with 
these lessons in Rhein. Spir. The Comes published by Pamelius (Ranke, p. Hi) 
gives the same for 196 and 237. 






Sabbato %zxicto penticosten . 
Dominica sancta pentecosden 
et post penticosten feria ii . 
Post penticosten feria iii ad S. Anastasia 
„ „ „ iiii ad S. Maria 

„ ,, ,, vi ad Apostolos 

[Sat. wanting] 
et in octabas de penticosten . 

Post octabas de penticosten feria iiii 
» » >» vi 

u u •! vii 

John xiv. 15 


„ xiv. 23 


„ iii. 16 


„ x. 1 


» vu 43 


Luke v. 18 


John iii. 1 

Luke ix. 12 

„ XV. 1 

vin. 40 

In R the Mass of Pentecost is repeated on Thursday, but a new Epistle and Gospel 
are given; these are not yet given in B Rhein. Spir. The Gospel 196 is not 
that ot R. Again Rhein. and Spir. disagree with R, giving two Gospels for the 
Saturday, Matt. xx. 29 and Luke vi. 36 (R has Luke iv. 38), and for the Sunday, 
John iii. 1 as B. 

144, 171, 142 are not liturgical days in R, but are found in Rhein. Spir. 

Saints' Days 

Aug. 6. 33 S. Sixtus Matt. x. 16 

Sept. n. 34 SS. Protus and Hyacinthus „ x. 23 

Aug. 8. 35 S. Cyriacus „ x. 26 

May 10. 36 S. Gordianus „ x. 34 

Au £- 9« 37 Vigilia S. Laurentii ,, x. 37 



[Matt. v. 17 RhS] 
[ „ xvi. 24 RhS] 


[xxiv. 42 Rh, not in 








24 R RhS] 


. iRRhS] 


1 RhS] 


Saints' Days 

Aug. 14. 84 S. Eusebius Matt. xxiv. 42 > 

Mar. 12. 85 S. Gregorius „ xxiv. 45 } 

Sept. 16. 156 SS. Cornelius et Cyprianus Luke xi. 47 \ 

July 29. 162 SS. Felix, Simpl., Faust., > 

Beatrix „ xii. 35 ) 

Aug. 22. 170 S. Timotheus „ xiv. 25 

June 2. 182 SS. Marcellinus et Petrus „ xxi. 9 ) 

July 23. 185 S. Apollinaris ,, xxii. 24 \ 

Aug. 10. 228 S. Laurentius John xii. 33 

May 1. 234 SS. Philippus et Iacobus „ xiv. 2 J 

Apr. 28. 235 S. Vitalis* „ xv. 1 

Sept. 8. 236 S. Hadrianus ,, xv. 5 

May 12. 339 S. Pancratius „ xv. 17 

Aug. 29. 96 Depositio Helisaei et S. Io- 

hannis baptistae Mark vi. 14 

Notice how the days are grouped into a very few chapters. 
It is remarkable that on no Saint's day does B agree with R 
On the other hand I have marked in the table its agreements 
with Rhein. and Spir. Most of these days have a Gospel from 
the common of martyrs in the modern Roman Missal. If it 
is surprising that B has not even got the Roman Gospel for 
St. Laurence, it is still more remarkable that it has left the 
Gallican Gospels for St. Peter (and Paul he has added to 
the title), No. 252, besides retaining nearly all the feasts of N 
with their Gospels. 

On the one feast that is not Roman (which I have therefore 
put separately), Dom Morin remarks (Rev. Bdn. y 1893, p. 96) : 
' La mention du prophete Elisee conjointement avec saint Jean 
au 29 aout se retrouve dans un certain nombre de martyro- 
loges et de lectionnaires, entre autres dans le bel eVangeliaire 
sur pourpre, ms. latin 9451 de la Bibliotheque Nationale de 
Paris. Saint Jerdme nous apprend que Ton conservait, a 
S^baste, les reliques de ces deux saints personnages (Ep. 108, 
p. 13 ; Migne, 22, 889). II y a done lieu de croire que cette 
seconde fete de saint Jean au mois d'aout est originaire de la 

135 in laetania maior ad S. Petrum Luke vi. 36 

J 53 » »» , } ». xi. 5 R 

51 et in octabas apostolorum Matt. xiv. 22 RRh S 

103 post „ „ feriaiiii Mark x. 17 RhS 


1 01 post octabas apostolorum feria vi Mark viii. 10 Rh S 

13 ebd. ii post natale apostolorum Matt. v. 20 (R) 

[100 „ iii „ „ „ Mark viii. 1] (R) 

Here we see that at least the octave day of the Apostles 
(July 6) has a Roman pericope. No. 13 and No. 100 are the 
Roman Gospels for the fifth and sixth Sundays after Pentecost, 
which would roughly come about July 6. In Rh S they 
have been calculated to come two weeks earlier, as we find 
them called first and second Sundays post natale Apostolorum. 

It is not worth while to collect the commune sanctorum and 
cottidianae of B. I will note only 

202 Ad missa defunctorum John v. 18 

203 Item alia „ v. 24 

The first Roman Mass has v. 35. 

We have no difficulty now in describing the general charac- 
teristics of B's system of lessons. It is not a syncretistic 
combination of N with B. On the contrary, nearly all N is 
superseded ; but the Roman additions are not complete. 
Even in Lent a few days are omitted. Two of the Sundays 
after Easter were not Roman in N, yet no substitution is made. 
No new Sundays after Epiphany have been introduced, and 
only two after Pentecost, viz. ii and iii ' after the octave of the 
Apostles'. Of saints those were copied who were found 
together in certain chapters of the copy — five in Matt, x, two 
in xxiv, &c. No doubt many have been omitted. 

The Roman use will have been inscribed in the parent in 
a different hand from that which wrote N ; all are copied into 
Burch. by a single scribe, though a coarser hand has supplied 
an omission here and there. The use itself is later than 
St. Gregory (whose feast appears) and than the dedication of 
the Pantheon, c. 607. But it acknowledges as yet no feast 
of our Lady ; is this accident ? It has no Thursday office for 
Lent and Pentecost (not even for Maundy Thursday), but it 
gives the Thursday after Easter. We cannot be sure that the 
writer did not know the September Ember days ; but we note 
that the Ember Friday of Advent is in the later hand. 

It is difficult, therefore, to see in this list a copy of one 
obtained by St. Boniface at Rome in the first half of the 
eighth century ; he would have obtained one more up to date. 


It is far more likely that the original was, like that of the 
N portion, a Roman use introduced into England at the end 
of the seventh century, or at least (as Dom Morin says) not 
many years later than 700. 

But the same use seems certainly to be at the base of the 
two lists of Rheinau and Spires. Whether they are really 
derived or not from some system introduced by St. Boniface 
or one of his companions, such as St. Burchard, at least they 
are considerably later than B. They give Thursday Masses 
all through Lent, four feasts of our Lady (Hypapante, Annun- 
ciation, Pausatio and Nativity), &o, but not the feast of All 
Saints on Nov. 1, though Rhein. has Dedicatio ecclesiae 
S. Mariae ad Mar tyres on May 14. The absence of All 
Saints' day suggests an origin earlier than c. 730. The four 
feasts of our Lady were not known at Rome in St. Gregory's 
time, but were introduced in the course of the seventh century. 1 
Therefore I presume that B represents, on the whole, a 
Roman use of c. 650 rather than c. 700. 2 

We saw that Burch. has an AY element in its text ; its AY 
ancestor brought to it the Neapolitan lectionary notes, whose 
English home was at Jarrow. 

We saw that it had another element very close to the Codex 
aureus Holtniensis, which was once at Canterbury. The 
Roman lectionary notes may perhaps be from this source, and 
may have come from Canterbury, which is quite certain to 
have kept up a Roman use from St. Augustine's time onward. 
But we must notice that neither this use nor N is Anglicized ; 
they have no English saints, not even St. Augustine is in B, 
nor are St. Paulinus and St. Benet Biscop in N. Consequently 
they are copied from evangeliaries which, like Burch. itself, 
had not been used as liturgical books, but had preserved an 
Italian use unaltered. 

1 These four feasts first appear in the West at the end of the seventh century. 
There was scarcely any intercourse between East and West from the time of the 
condemnation of the typus of Constans at the Lateran Council of 649 until the sixth 
General Council in 680. I venture to suggest that the feasts may have been brought 
into the West by the Greek monks who had settled at Rome and in Sardinia, and 
presented a petition at the Lateran Council. 

2 The Spires MS. was said to be eighth century ; that of Rheinau tenth century. 


One very important point in B is the proof it affords of the 
antiquity of the Sunday and Lenten pericopae of the Roman 
Missal. Dom G. Morin has noted 1 that in the same Wiirz- 
burg library there is a seventh- or eighth-century MS. in Irish 
writing, containing a list of the stations, followed by the 
corresponding Epistles and Gospels (Mp. th. f. 62). As I am 
writing on the Vulgate text and not on feasts, I have made no 
inquiries about this interesting volume. It is to be hoped 
it will soon be published. 

1 Revue B4nid. y 1893, p. 116, note. 



§ I. The list of lessons from St. Paul in F. 

Mention has already been made of the list of lessons 
prefixed to the Epistles of St. Paul in the Codex Fuldensis. 
At first sight it has little resemblance to the Neapolitan 
lectionary of Eugipius ; but a more minute examination 
reveals a very close correspondence. 

Besides the list there are usually marginal notes and crosses 
in the text to show where the lessons begin. The latter have 
been printed over against the corresponding titles of the list 
by Dom Germain Morin in an appendix to his edition of the 
Liber Comicus (Anecd. Mareds., vol. i, p. 436), and he has 
added the incipits and explicits of the lessons. I subjoin an 
abridgement of his table. 1 

List. Marginal references. 

De Adventu 

1 ad romanos sub titulo xviii De aduentu Domini Rom. viii. 3-17 

2 „ „ ,, „ xxxviii „ „ „ xi. 25-36 

3 ,, Galatas „ „ xiii De aduentu Domini lectio Gal. iii. 15-26 


4 ,, thessall. i „ „ xxi De aduentu Domini 1 Thess. v. 14-23 

5 Pridie natale Domini Pridie natale domini . et Phil. iv. 4-9 

ad philipp. sub titulo xiii in noctu sancta 

\Lect. in noctu sancta „ iii. 1- ] 
mane et pridie natale 
domini (tit. ix) 

6 In natale Domini In natale domini Heb. i. 1- 

ad hebreos principium epistulae 

7 In natale sancti Iohannis In natale sancti Iohannis 2 Tim. iii. 16-iv. 8 

ad timotheum ii sub titulo xvii 

1 I have verified it from E. Ranke's Codex Fuldensis, pp. 165-8, whence Morin 
•drew his materials. Nearly all the numbers in the MS. show traces of correction 
after erasure. Some are still incorrect. Evidently the list was already an old one, 
and had been copied several times, in Victor's day. 


8 In natale innocentum In natale Innocentum Rom. v. 1-5 

ad romanos sub titulo xi 

9 De circumcisions domini De circumcisione in octa- Rom. xv. 8-14 

ad romanos sub titulo li bos domini 

10 De eodem die contra idola Lectio in octabas domini 1 Cor.viii. i-ix. 22 

ad corintheos sub titulo xxxviii contra idola 

11 De eodem die Item de circumcisione 1 Cor. x. 14-33 

ad corintheos i sub titulo xlvii 

12 in ieiunio Epifaniorum In ieiunio epifaniorum Col. i. 9-19 l 

ad colossenses sub titulo ii 

13 in epifania mane In epifania mane 2 Cor. iv. 6-18 

ad corintheos ii sub titulo x 

14 in eodem die epifaniorum Lectio in epifania Tit. ii. 11-iii. 6 

ad titum sub titulo iiii 

15 in eodem die epifaniorum Lectio in Epifania Gal. iii. 27-iv. 7 

ad galatas sub titulo x [xvi] 

16 Cottidiana post epifania Lectio cotidiana Rom. xii. 6-16 

ad romanos sub titulo xlii 

17 Cottidiana Lectio cotidiana Heb. xii. 25-28 a 

ad hebreos sub titulo xii 

There follow nine more times cottidiana, with lectio cotidiana in margin. 

27 In sexagesima Lectio in Sexagesima 1 Tim. iii. 16-iv. 8 

ad timotheum i sub titulo viiii 

28 Cottidiana Lectio post Sexagesima 1 Cor. ix. 24-27 

ad corintheos i sub titulo xlii 

29 In quinquagesima Lectio in Quinquagesima£-i9a 

ad romanos sub titulo xlviii 

30 In Quadragesima Lectio in caput Quadra- 2 Cor. vi. 2 a-10 

ad corintheos sub titulo xlii gesime 
{read ad Cor. ii sub t. xvii) 

31 In ieiunio 1 in Quadragesima Lectio in Quadragesima Rom. vi. 12-23 

ad romanos sub titulo xvi ieiunio prima 

32 Ieiunio ii in Quadragesima Lectio in Quadragesima Rom. xii. 1-5 

ad romanos initium sub titulo xl secundo ieiunio 

33 In Quadragesima dominica 11 Lectio in Quadragesima Rom. xiii. So-xiv.4 

ad romanos sub titulo xliiii secunda deminica 

34 In Quadragesima ieiunio III Lectio in Quadragesima Gal. v. 14-vi. 2 

ad galatas sub titulo Xxviii ieiunio tertio 

35 In Quadragesima ieiunio IIII Lectio in Quadragesima Eph. iv. 17-22 

ad ephesios sub titulo xvi ieiunio iiii 

36 In Quadragesima dominica ill Lectio in Quadragesima Eph. i v. 23-32 

ad ephesios sub titulo xvii dominica iii 

37 In Quadragesima ieiunio V Lectio in Quadragesima Eph. v. 1-5 

ad ephesios sub titulo xx ieiunio v 

38 In Quadragesima ieiunio vi Lectio in Quadragesima Eph. vi. 10-17 

ad ephesios sub titulo xxx ieiunium vi 

1 The cross is between the words inhabitare and corporaliter (added in F from ii. 9). 

K 2 



ad galatas sub titulo iiii 


ad thessall. i sub titulo xiii 


ad thessall. ii sub titulo vi 


ad colossenses sub titulo v 



ad romanos sub titulo 1 


ad corintheos ii sub titulo vii 

45 Dominica ante octo dies 

ad corintheos ii sub titulo v l 

46 In ebdoma maiore 

ad corintheos ii sub titulo xxv 

47 InsecundaferiaantePascha 

ebdoma maiore 
ad galatas sub titulo vii [viii] 

48 In tertia feria ante Pascha 

ad galatas sub titulo viiii 

49 In quarta feria ante Pascha 

ad ephesios sub titulo vii 

50 In quinta feria ante Pascha 

ad corintheos i sub titulo xxiii 

51 In quinta feria ad uesperam 

cenam domini 
ad corintheos i sub titulo lvi 


ad philippenses sub titulo v 


ad philippenses sub titulo xiii 


ad corintheos i sub titulo xliiii 

55 In scm. Pascha 

ad colossenses sub titulo xi 

56 In secunda feria paschae 

ad romanos sub titulo xv 

57 In ter feria paschae 

ad romanos sub titulo xii 

Lectio in quadragesima Gal. i. 11-24 
dominica iiii 

Lectio in quadragesima 1 Thess. iv. 1-9 

ieiunio vii 
Lectio in quadragesima 2 Thess. iii. 4-16 

ieiunio viii 
Lectio in quadragesima Col. ii. 4-10 

dominica v 
Lectio in quadragesima Rom. xiv. 19-23 

ieiunio viiii {or xv. 6) 

Led. in quadragesima 2 Cor. iii. 2-17 
ieiunio x 

? ? 

Lectio de indulgentia 2 Cor. xii 19-31 

Lectio post indulgentia 
feria ii 

Led. post indulgentia 

feria iii 
Lectio post indulgentiam 

feria iiii 
Led. in cena domini 

Lectio in cena domini ad 


Led. in sexta feria ante 
nodu sanda 

Pridie natale domini . et 

in nodu sanda 
\Led. in noctu sanda 

mane et pridie natale 

domini (tit. ix) 
Led. in node sanda ad 

Led. in sanctum Pascha 

Led. in secunda feria 

Led. in tertia feria 


Gal. ii. 19— iii. 6 

Gal. iii. 7-14 
Eph. ii. 13— iii. 12 
1 Cor. v. 6 b-vi. 1 1 
1 Cor. xi. 20-32 

Phil. ii. 5-1 1 

Phil. iv. 4-9 
Phil. iii. 1- ] 

1 Cor. x. 1-4 
Col. iii. i-ii 
Rom. vi. 3-1 1 
Rom. v. 6-1 1 a 

1 The title 2 Cor. v is ch. ii. i-n, which seems unsuitable, 
corresponding marginal note there or elsewhere. 

There is no 



58 In quarta feria Paschae 

ad ephesios sub titulo iiii 

59 In pascha annotina 

ad ephesios sub titulo xiii 

60 In natale scorum Petri et 

ad romanos sub titulo xxxii 

61 In ieiunium sci. laurenti 

ad timotheum ii sub titulo xxiii 

62 In natale eodem 

ad corintheos ii sub titulo xxii 

63 In ieiunio sci. andreae 

ad timotheum ii sub titulo v 

64 In natale sancti andreae 

ad corintheos i sub titulo vii 

65 De martyribus 

ad hebreos sub titulo xii 

66 De martyribus 

ad hebraeos sub titulo xii 

67 Demartyrisgeneralisfemi- 

ad corintheos ii sub titulo xxiii 

68 De martyribus 

ad hebreos sub titulo xii 

69 De martyribus 

ad timotheum ii sub titulo ii 

70 De martyribus 

ad romanos sub titulo xxi 

71 In dedicatione 

ad corintheos i sub titulo xi 

72 In dedicatione 

ad hebreos sub titulo ii [iii] 

73 In dedicatione 

ad ephesios sub titulo vi 

74 De natale episcopi 

ad hebreos 

75 De ordination ibus 

ad timotheum i sub titulo viii 

76 De ordination ibus diaco- 


77 De agendis 

ad thessall. i sub titulo xvii 2 

Led. in quarta feria Eph. ii. 4-10 


Led. in Pascha anno- Eph. iv. 1-13 


Led. in natale sandi Rom. x. 1 1- 

Petri et Pauli 

Led. in ieiunio sandi 2 Tim. iv. 16-18 


Ln natale sandi Laurenti 2 Cor. ix. 6-9 

Led. in ieiunio sandi 2 Tim. ii. 4-10 a l 


[no marginal note] [1 Cor. ii. 1-8] 

Led. de martyrib. Heb. x. 32-9 

Led. de martyribus Heb. xi. 33-40 

Led. in natale martyris 2 Cor. x. 17-xi. 2 

[no third marginal note] 

[no marginal note] [2 Tim. i. 8-12] 

Led. in natale martyrum Rom. viii. 28-39 

Lectio in dedicatione 1 Cor. iii. 8-17 

Led. in dedicatione 
[no marginal note] 
[no marginal note] 
Led. de ordinationib. 
Led. de ordinationib. 
Led. de agendis 

Heb. iii. 1-6 
?Eph. ii. 11-22 
(Heb. v. 1?) 
1 Tim. iii. 8-15 
1 Tim. iv. 9-16 
1 Thess. iv. 13-17 

1 The ending is marked before the words in gloria caelesti, no doubt in order to 
get as final words the conclusion in Chr. Lesu. 

8 With regard to the references to Hebrews, it must be remarked that the 
Epistle is divided into 125 chapters (a unique division), with no corresponding 
list at the commencement. Another system of division is also given, which 
reaches xii at ch. ix. II, and goes no further. The tituli referred to in the list 
of lessons are these latter, and consequently all the lessons from the later chapters 


I find the following agreements with the Liber Comicus of 
Toledo, the Ambrosian, Bobbio, Luxeuil, and Roman uses 

i. De adventu B 65. De (plur.) mart. R (Heb. x. 32) 

2. „ „ AC 66. „ „ R (Heb. xi. 34-9) 

4. „ ,, C 67. De virgine CR 

5. Christmas Eve B 69. (De Sanctis) C 

6. „ Day ABCLR 71. Dedication ACBL 
9. Circumcision C 73. „ L 

11. ,, CL 74. De natale episcopi ? L (Heb. xii. 

14. Epiphany (A)BCL 82-xiii. 21) 

30. 1st Sunday Lent ABCLR 75. De ordinationibus (diac.) L 

51. Maundy Thursday ABR 77. De agendis AR 

62. St. Laurence CR 

There are also a few casual agreements of feasts with the 
common of ACR, and of the common with feasts. The eight 
coincidences with R are unimportant. Those with C and L 
are more important, e.g. 9, 11, 14 ; and the system is clearly 
rather Gallican than Roman, but not purely so. 

In Lent, except in the case of the first Sunday, there are no 
agreements. The Lent of Lux is lost ; in Rom only the 
Sunday Epistles are from the New Testament, in Ambr 
only those of Saturday and Sunday. But we may notice that 
(33) second Sunday = Ambr Saturday before second Sunday, 
and (3J) third Monday=Ambr Saturday before third Sunday, 
while (40) fourth Monday = Ambr fourth Sunday. On the 
whole the Lent of F appears to be a private venture. 1 

The Mass contra idola for the first of January is Spanish 
and probably Gallican, not Roman. Sexagesima without 
Septuagesima we saw above (p. no) to be Gallican. The 

of the Epistle are given under tit. xii. A corresponding capitulatio of thirteen 
sentences, numbered up to x only, precedes the Epistle. The same list is found in 
Corssen's R (Tommasi's Reg. Suec. 9) and has been printed by Tommasi. On the 
connexion between F and R see p. 282. The cottidianae (which I have omitted 
above) from Hebrews are sub tit. xii (xii. 25-8), sub tit. viii (vi. 9-15), and sub 
tit. xii (xii. 29-xiii. 8). 

1 It is astonishing to find a lesson from St. Paul on the feast of St. John (7) 
instead of the usual 1 John i. If we turn to Ambros we find the same passage 
(2 Tim. iii. 16-iv. 8) on the previous day, the feast of St. Stephen. Is the note in 
F an error ? On the other hand, the passage of 2 Tim. is more suitable to the 
Evangelist than to the Protomartyr; while the lesson for St. Stephen would naturally 
be from Acts, as in Lux, Comic, Rom. The question therefore remains open. 


Epistle for Sexagesima to be Roman should have been all 
about St. Paul, for at Rome this was his feast. 1 The Pascha 
annotina is also Gallican, but it seems to have been cele- 
brated in places which derived their liturgy from Rome. 

§ 2. Eugipius and the Capuan St Paul. 

1. We saw that the additions made by Eugipius to his 
Gospel lectionary were Roman additions to a Gallican original. 
Presumably, therefore, the liturgy used in the city of Naples 
was Roman. Similarly at Montecassino St. Benedict ordered 
the canticles for ferial Lauds to be sung sicut psallit Romana 
ecclesia. We should expect the liturgy of Capua to be Roman 
also. But we have found it to be decidedly Gallican. There 
is nothing to connect it with Capua — none of the Capuan 
saints represented (see ch. viii) in the yet earlier apse of San 
Prisco — nor is there St. Januarius to connect it with Naples. 

2. Now we have seen in chapter v that Victor of Capua 

used a copy of Eugipius's Gospel codex for the formation of 

his Diatessaron, and immediately after the Diatessaron in F 

come the Epistles of St. Paul followed by Acts. This very 

unusual order suggests investigations. We have seen that St. 

Victor probably had before him precisely the same set of 

introductions, &c, to the Gospels which we find in A (p. 95). 

Now for the Epistles of St. Paul (except Hebrews) A and F 

have just the same (1) text-divisions throughout, (2) Prologues 

(Marcionite), (3) Summaries (except the first twenty-three 

chapters of Romans in F), (4) Introductions (i.e. Primum 

quaeritur . . . Romani qui ex Iudaeis . . . and canons). On the 

other hand for Acts, Catholic Epistles, and Apocalypse A and 

F have almost always different text-divisions, summaries, and 

introductions ; in particular A, unlike F, has not the three 

ordinary Prologues to Acts, Cath. Epp., Apoc. 2 Now as 

Cassiodorus probably got all the Gospel introductions, &c, 

in A from Eugipius, it is a priori not unlikely that those to 

St. Paul in A and F came to Victor and to Cassiodorus 

respectively from the same source. The text of St. Paul in 

A and F differs very much, it is true. But that of F is funda- 

1 See p. 196. 

a The Prologues to James and I Peter are the same in A and F. 


mentally an Old Latin text. 1 Cassiodorus may well be 
supposed to have procured a better text, represented by A, but 
to have preserved the text-divisions, summaries, and intro- 
ductions of Eugipius. 

3. The Gospel codex of Eugipius had marginal lectionary 
notes. Cassiodorus's scribe copied these ; Victors scribe 
could not do so, for he had cut up the Gospel text into 
a mosaic of scraps. But he did find lectionary notes to St. 
Paul in his copy, and he copied them ; and there are no 
other notes of the kind in any other part of F. We shall see 
presently that the notes in F seem to represent the same 
system as those of Eugipius, in fact to be Eugipian ; for the 
moment we are merely going through the a priori evidence 
that they ought to turn out Eugipian. 

4. Another consideration will, I think, raise this antecedent 
probability to a very high degree. 

The method of reference in the list of F is a peculiar one : 
ad romanos sub titulo xviii, and so on. The lessons are found 
under such and such a title of the summaries. The summaries 
themselves are the common ones (except the first twenty-three 
titles of that to Romans), found in the largest number of 
MSS. 2 They are very much older than the Vulgate, and 
perhaps of very early date. The summary of Romans in 
particular is famous for its omission to give any account of 
the last two chapters. Now the divisions of these summaries 
do not in the least correspond with the divisions of the lessons. 
This suggests an explanation for the fact that Eugipius com- 
posed a new summary for the Gospels. The codex he 
received from Gaul, or brought from Gaul, will have had the 
liturgical Gospels marked in the margin, and these were 
probably collected in a list at the beginning of the book, which 
referred to the titles under which the lessons would be found. 
When Eugipius transferred these liturgical directions to the 
codex of St. Jerome — which had presumably no summaries 

1 So P. Corssen, Epist. ad Galat. (Berlin, 1885), p. 21 : ' Non tantum Vulgata 
corrupta quam antiquior quaedam uersio ad Vulgatam accommodata.' 

a Enumerated by Berger, Hist, de la Vulg., p. 357. The summaries will be 
found in Ranke's edition of F and (substantially) in Tommasi, Opp., vol. i (1747), 
pp. 388, 442, 448, &c, and in Teschendorf s Codex Amiatinus. 


and divisions into titles — he thought it would be more con- 
venient if he made a new division, with a new and more 
literary series of summaries, which should correspond exactly 
to the liturgical lessons. He subsequently added to the lists. 

In F the old summaries of St. Paul do not at all correspond 
to the incipits and explicits of the lessons. They are Old 
Latin summaries belonging to the Old Latin text they 
accompany. Why did Eugipius not compose new ones ? 
Clearly because he had no venerable codex of St. Jerome's 
to which he had to transfer them ; he left them with the text 
with which he found them. 

5. We have conjectured that Eugipius got his lectionary 
from Lerins. Now the text of the Pauline Epistles in F is 
precisely the sort of text we should expect him to get from 
Lerins — an Old Latin text, corrected according to the Vulgate, 
in Corssen's opinion — of just the same character as the Gospel 
texts used not long before by Faustus of Riez, and earlier by 
Eucherius, and by St. Patrick, all monks of Lerins. 1 

These five points have, I think, established a well-grounded 
a priori expectation that the liturgical list of .Epistles in F 
may be Eugipian. 2 

§ 3. The liturgical notes of F compared with those of Eugipius. 

The preceding a priori arguments make a detailed examina- 
tion necessary with regard to the correspondence of F with the 
Naples lectionary (N). 

At first sight I confess I supposed the differences to be very 
great. A detailed examination shows the resemblances to be 
very remarkable. 

In the first place the list in the Codex Fuldensis is a com- 
plete one. It is true that it stops abruptly at the Wednesday 
after Easter and the Pascha annotinum. But this merely means 
that there were no lessons from St. Paul from then till Pentecost. 

1 The reasons for this statement will be given at length in chapter ix. 

2 It may be worth remarking that the list in F has all the names of feasts 
rubricated : ' Omnes hae inscriptiones turn minio turn uncialibus maioribus atque 
rigidioribus quam quibus alibi utitur scriba, exaratae sunt' (Ranke, Cod. Fuld., 
P* 475)* Now we saw that the names of feasts inserted in the summaries of A Reg 
are rubricated. In Y they are in larger letters, and also red, I think. 


This is not surprising. The list has given far more lessons from 
the Apostle in Lent than are found in Rom and Ambr, as 
we saw. In Easter week again it has more. All this time 
Comic has had none, but has used only the Apocalypse and 
the Catholic Epistles. So after Easter Lux has no lessons 
from St. Paul from Easter to Pentecost inclusively ; Comic 
has only a lesson from Ephesians on the Sunday after Ascen- 
sion, and one from Corinthians on the Vigil of Pentecost, 
all the other days having Acts or Apocalypse or both. Bob 
has no Pauline lessons for Easter or Pentecost. Ambr has 
indeed a certain number of lessons from St. Paul after Easter, 
but it stands alone ; for in the Roman use there are no lessons 
from St. Paul from Easter Day till the Saturday after Pentecost 
exclusively, except on the Vigil of the Ascension, a day not 
recognized in Eugipius's Kalendar. 

1. The Capuan list is therefore perfect so far as St. Paul is 
concerned, but the full system clearly contained no provision 
for Sundays after Pentecost ; and herein is the first agreement 
(and a noticeable one) with the Neapolitan use. The 
cottidianae are all inserted after Epiphany. 

2. Advent. We find three Sundays and one lectio cotti- 
diana. The three weeks give a remarkable agreement with 
Eugipius, and a disagreement with the five or six weeks of 
the Gallican original. But the single Epistle for a weekday 
contrasts with the Wednesday and Friday Gospel for each 
week added in N. It may be the original Gallican Epistle for 
Advent ferias ad libitum, while it is quite possible that the 
Neapolitan Masses for Wednesdays and Fridays had lessons 
from Isaiah, and none from the New Testament. The Gospels 
provided are concerned in five cases out of the six with the 
second Advent ; the corresponding lessons may equally, there- 
fore, have been from the Apocalypse, or St. Peter, &c. 

3. Christmas. A vigil and a single Mass, agreeing with 
N in this. St. John and Holy Innocents next, St. Stephen * 
being omitted, not having a lesson from St. Paul but from 
Acts. The wording pridie and natale domini are the same as 
in N, but these are obvious expressions. 

1 Or St. John ? See above, p. 134, note. 


The first of January is called the Circumcision (the Gospel 
in N was of this mystery), but also as in N * octabas domini '. 
Three epistles are given ; but all may have been read at one 
Mass at Naples. 

4. Epiphany. The name stella domini does not occur, 
but Epifania, a name N also employs. We find as in N a 
•vigil and more than one Mass, though Christmas had only one. 
In Epifania mane corresponds to in stilla domini nocte. The 
two other lessons were perhaps both read at the missa publica, 
or one may be Lerinese and the other Eugipian. There cannot 
have been three Masses. No Sundays after Epiphany are 
given. If they existed in the full Kalendar, they must have 
had lessons from some other part of the New Testament. 

5. Sexagesima and Quinquagesima. These are appa- 
rently to be supplied in N * ; and if so, the coincidence in the 
absence of Septuagesima is very noticeable. 

6. Lent. It should be noticed that quadragesima means 
the first Sunday, as in N. Except in Holy Week, only the 
Wednesdays and Fridays have Epistles, just as in the Gallican 
system before the Eugipian additions. 2 

7. Holy Week. The use of indulgentia for Palm Sunday 
is a very striking correspondence. Notice also ebdomada maior 
in both, and the likeness of mane in cena domini N to in cena 
domini mane F, and of sabbato sancto mane and ad sero to in 
noctu sancta mane and ad sero. But the correspondence of 
the offices is really remarkable. Eugipius's revised kalendar 
gives two lessons for Palm Sunday, two for the Thursday, two 
for the Saturday, and only one for each of the other days. F 
gives exactly the same allowance. When we take into account 
the identity of nomenclature, it is clear that the two lists 
belong to one another. 

8. Easter. There is one Mass only for the feast, as in N. 

1 See above, p. 1 10. 

2 We must remember that in Eugipius's list of Gospels he left the disused 
references, so that we frequently find two Gospels for one day, one Lerinese, one 
Eugipian. Consequently it is possible that Eugipius provided a new and complete 
set of Epistles for Lent, none of them from St. Paul — possibly all from the Catholic 
Epistles, as in the Liber Comicus ; or that he used only Old Testament lessons, as 
in the modern Ambr and Rom, so that F's lessons would be survivals. 


The first three ferias have lessons from St. Paul. The rest of 
the week was doubtless supplied from Acts. 

At first sight Pascha annotinum (that is to say the celebra- 
tion of the date of the Easter of the preceding year) seems to 
be wanting in N. But this feast naturally fell as often as not 
in Lent, and was therefore either often or always celebrated 
on the first free day, viz. the Monday after Low Sunday. 1 
This explains the otherwise unaccountable and unique entry 
in N : ■ Feria ii post albas ^ John xvii. i.' It is clearly nothing 
else than the Pascha annotinum. 

9. Proprium Sanctorum. We find SS. Peter and Paul 
without a vigil, as in N. St. Peter's Chair would have a lesson 
from 1 Peter. We find St. Laurence and St. Andrew each 
with a vigil. The other saints in N presumably had lessons 
not taken from St. Paul. 

10. Commune Sanctorum. We find two epistles for 
martyrs, then one for a female martyr, then three more for 
martyrs. Similarly in N we have two in unius martyris i one in 
martyr a (feminine, it seems), and three Gallican survivals in 
martyras. The correspondence is strangely exact. 

But the three Neapolitan Gospels for Apostles, with one 
for their vigils, the two for confessors, and three for ' saints ', 
have no counterpart in F. We are driven to suppose that 
they all had lessons from some other part of the New Testa- 
ment than St. Paul. 2 

N has two in dedicationem, whereas F has three ; one of 
these may stand for the dedicatio sanctae Mariae or basilicae 
Stephani — by adding in these, N has four ; the fourth would 
perhaps have the obvious lesson from Apoc. xx. 

In natale episcopi appears in both lists. The de ordina- 
tionibus (75) of F is shown by the lesson, 1 Tim. iii. 8-15, to 

1 An interesting note will be found in Grotefend, Zeitrechnung des Mittelalters , 
vol. i, s. v. 'Pascha annotinum ', p. 150, who quotes from ordines of Cambrai, 
Chartres, Farfa, and Paris. Those of Chartres and Paris enjoin the Monday after 

2 To-day we should suggest Wisdom and Ecclus. ; but I presume that Eugipius 
would have both a lesson from the Old Testament and one from the Epistles, Acts 
or Apocalypse, on feast days. I have suggested that on ferias (and ferias only) an 
Old Testament lesson may have sufficed. 


be for deacons ; but (76) de ordinationibus diaconorum seems 
to have an Epistle (1 Tim. iv. 9-16) meant for bishops — the 
two references have perhaps been interchanged. If so (j6) 
will correspond to N (28) in ordinatione episcopi. It is certainly 
unaccountable that no in ordinatione diaconorum should be 
found in N, unless we suppose that this title was added in F 
by the Bishop of Capua. It should be remembered that 
in naiale episcopi and in ordinatione episcopi in N appeared to 
be additions made at Naples by Eugipius to the Gallican 
monastic use. 

There is no Epistle for N (125) in uelanda, which presum- 
ably had the lesson from 1 Peter about * amazement ', well 
known to the modern Englishman. 

In agendas, for funerals, reappears with a suitable Epistle. 1 

I think we sum up this examination by observing that the 
only certain discrepancy between the two lists is in the fact 
that N has no Gospel for the ordination of deacons. Possibly 
the contra idola for the first of January was also a separate 
Mass, for which a Gospel would be expected in N, as in 
Comic. It may have been omitted by Eugipius. 

That there are no Pauline lessons after Easter week, and none 
for Apostles or Confessors, nor for St. John Baptist and one 
or two other Saints, is less remarkable on the whole than that 
there are so many Pauline lessons for Lent and Easter week. 

The disagreements so far have always been easy to explain. 
On the other hand the chief agreements are inexplicable as 
mere coincidences, especially the three weeks of Advent, one 
Mass for Christmas, Sexagesima and Quinquagesima without 
Septuagesima, the exact correspondence in Lent and Holy 
Week, no vigil for SS. Peter and Paul, the precise parallel in 
the common of martyrs. Even had we no proof of Victor 
having used a codex from the library of Eugipius, we could not 
have doubted a connexion between a Gallican use at Capua 
and a contemporaneous Gallican use at Naples. 

1 The expression, though not uncommon «= agenda mortuorum, is curious. 
St. Benedict uses it in the singular for a • service ', agenda uespertina = Vespers. 
On the analogy of the word ' undertaker' one might render it • undertaking ' ! So 
in French ' service ' commonly means the Office and Mass of the Dead. 


Thus it seems that the list of F is Eugipian, and that it 
acknowledges Eugipius's Roman additions. Let us therefore 
note that we found in F four Roman epistles which were not 
also Gallican : 65 (R) de martyribus, 66 (R) ditto, 6y (CR) de 
martyris gener(al)is feminini, and J J (AR) de agendis. Now 
we saw that the common of martyrs is divided in F into two 
groups, 65 and 66 de martyribus, then (after 6y, female 
martyrs) 68, 69, 70 de martyribus, exactly answering to N 
Which has twice in unius martyris, thrice in martyras> and 
once in martyr a (with Gospel of Virgins). We saw (p. 1 19) 
that the three in martyras were probably Gallican, the 
two in unius martyris and the female martyr probably 
additions by Eugipius. We may now note that in F the 
pair of martyrs (6$, 66) and the female martyr have Roman 
epistles. 1 Similarly the * Agenda ' is an addition by Eugipius, 
and both Gospel and Epistle are Roman. 

One other Epistle in F has CR against it, that for St. Laurence. 
Now in N the Gospel for St. Laurence does not coincide with 
the summaries, and we therefore had to put it down as 
a Roman addition by Eugipius, though it is not the modern 
Roman Gospel. But at least the Epistle is Roman. 

Thus we conclude that the list of F is certainly Eugipian, and 
that it confirms our former inferences that Eugipius made 
Roman additions to a Gallican use. N carried us back to 
Eugipius, c. 530 ; the Lerins original carried us back to Abbot 
Marinus, c. 510. 

So far liturgical results. For the history of the Vulgate we 
get the conclusion that the Vulgatized Old Latin of the Pauline 
Epistles in F was very likely copied from a Lerinese codex 
borrowed by Victor from Eugipius ; that the text-divisions, 
Prologues (Marcionite), summaries, and introductions to the 
Pauline Epistles in A are from the same source, though 
a far better text of the Epistles has been substituted by 

1 Though it is possible that one of the two pericopae from Hebrews given to 
65 and 66 belongs to 68. The Gospels for the two in unius m. and the one in 
martyra in N are Roman also (i. e. in the Masses, Statuit, Sacerdotes Dei, and 
Loquebar or Dilexisti) ; the three Epistles are for the Mass Salus autem, an alia 
Epistola for this Mass, and for Dilexisti. Thus the first two Gospels are now for 
'one Martyr Pontiff', the two Epistles are for ' Many martyrs'. 


Cassiodorus. 1 Further, we see that the Prologues to the 
Gospels in A are all probably derived from the Hieronymian 
Gospel codex of Eugipius, and that Eugipius probably had 
them copied into that codex out of the Gallican codex 
to which the liturgical lists originally belonged. But the 
Plures fuzsse, letter to Damasus, and canons may quite well 
have belonged to the Hieronymian codex itself, and not have 
come from Gaul. 

1 The text of St. Paul in F has been corrected throughout according to a codex 
resembling Corssen's R (see p. 282), and from it the summary-of Hebrews was 
borrowed by Victor. Evidently the references of the list to that summary must 
have been inserted by Victor's scribe. The Christmas lesson (6) is not referred to 
the summary, but is simply principium epistulae. I note that, besides (65) and 
(66), (74) is Eugipian (- N 101 *) and probably also 72 (= N 16*). The same 
may be true of the cottidianae from Hebrews. 



§ i. Capuan Saints in English books. 

THIS chapter will have nothing whatever to do with the 
text of the Vulgate, except negatively. But it cannot be 
omitted, for it is necessary to show that the presence of South 
Italian saints in certain English Martyrologies,Kalendars, and 
Sacramentaries has no real connexion with the Neapolitan 
liturgy which we found at Jarrow and at Wiirzburg. Still, 
when we have seen that these saints came to England from 
Capua and not from Naples, we may hazard a guess that they 
accompanied the Codex of Fulda to Northumbria, if that book 
did come (as I think it did) to England. 

The National Library at Paris contains a precious volume 
in which St. Willibrord's Kalendar and his Martyrology are 
bound together (10837, olim Suppl. lat. 1680). Both books 
were brought from Northumbria to Echternach by St. Willi- 
brord himself. The Kalendar has never been published in 
full. The Martyrology has been carefully edited by De Rossi 
in Acta SS., November, vol. ii, pp. [i]-[i56] (1894). The 
Kalendar was written in Northumbria, c. 702-6 ; in 728 St. 
Willibrord wrote in it in his own hand the record of his 
episcopal consecration at Rome in 695. It contains many 
English and especially Northumbrian saints. The Martyrology 
was written later, say 712, by a scribe named Laurentius, who 
wrote three diplomas for St. Willibrord in the years 704, 710, 
and 711, and also signed in his old age the Gospels of 
St. Arnoul, belonging to Prince Oettingen-Wallerstein. 1 

This horribly corrupt but deeply interesting book is not 
merely the oldest MS. of the so-called Hieronymian martyro- 

1 Duchesne (Act. SS. } I.e., p. [viii]), Berger, Vuigate, p. 52. 


l°gy> but it gives the oldest of the forms of it extant. 
I have suggested elsewhere that the ancestor of this vener- 
able book may have been brought by St. Augustine from 
Autun to England. 1 The Echternach copy is derived from a 
Northumbrian exemplar. It has five English saints added : 
Augustine, Paulinus, Cuthbert, Oswald, Oidiwald. The first 
named was inevitable. The other four connect it with the 
North, and indeed with Lindisfarne. But it is more to our 
purpose that it has received no less than twelve additional 
South Italian saints. 2 This Gallican martyrology cannot 
have come to England from Italy, where only the Fontenelle 
revision (after the middle of the eighth century) was ever 
in all probability known. We must therefore suppose that 
these saints of South Italy formed a part of the Northumbrian 
additions, and that they were taken from a Neapolitan 
Kalendar existing in Northumbria. They are not notices 
such as the ninth-century historical martyrologies would give, 
but mere names, such as might be found in a Kalendar : In 
Brundi{sio) Leuci, In Vulturno Castrensis, &c. 

It was natural that Mgr. Duchesne in editing the Echternach 
Martyrology should connect these additions, undoubtedly 
made in England, with the Neapolitan lists in the Lindisfarne 
Gospels, and assume that they had a common origin from 
St. Hadrian. I hold on the contrary that neither has any 
connexion with St. Hadrian, and that the additions to the 
Martyrology are not Neapolitan at all, but Capuan. 

In the first place there is the Kalendar to be remembered. 
It has never been published, but I am able to give its saints 
of South Italy from a copy kindly communicated to me 
by my confrere Dom Quentin of Appuldurcombe (see p. 151). 

In the second place there are the curious citations from 
1 Mass-books ' in the Anglo-Saxon Martyrology. My attention 
was drawn to these by the Rev. Herbert Thurston, S. J., in 
this connexion ; had it not been for this suggestion of his 
I should certainly have gone off on a wrong tack altogether, 

1 In an article A propos des martyrologes^ Revue Binidictine, 1 903, torn, xx, 
p. 293. 
1 Duchesne in Acta SS., 1. c, p. [ix]. 

CH. V. G. L 


We will consider this Martyrology first of all, on account 
of the clearness of its evidence. 

§ 2. The t old Mass-books' cited in the Anglo-Saxon 
Martyrology were Capuan. 

The Anglo-Saxon Martyrology, first published by Cockayne 
in The Shrine y and carefully edited from the MSS. for the Early 
English Text Society 1 by Dr. George Herzfeld, is found in 
ninth- and tenth-century codices. According to Dr. Herzfeld 
its Anglo-Saxon text cannot be later than 900, probably 
about 850 is the date, and this on linguistic grounds. The 
matter is probably a composition of c. 750, for the latest death 
entered is that of Abbot Hygebald, about 740, while St. 
Boniface is not inserted, though a synod under Cuthbert 
of Canterbury, held almost immediately after St. Boniface's 
death in 7 55, decreed that his feast should be celebrated in 
England. At all events this Old English Martyrology is 
a most venerable document, and contains some most interest- 
ing evidence in certain short notices which occasionally serve 
instead of the life of a saint. In these rare cases no historical 
notice is given, and evidently nothing is known to the author 
about the saints mentioned, except the fact that a Mass was 
given for them in the old or the new Missals. 2 I cite these 
entries from Herzfeld 's English translation. 

June i. To the first day of the month belong two mass-songs. The 
former is in the old sacrament orium, that is in the old mass-book, to the 
memory of St. Priscus the martyr ; the second is in the new book to 
the memory of St. Nicomedes the martyr. 

June 17. On the seventeenth day of the month is the festival of the 
martyr St. Nicander, whose memory is to be celebrated with mass-songs, 
and his mass is appointed in the older mass-books. 

1 No. 116, 1900. 

2 In/. T. S., vol. iii, p. 429 (April, 1902), Mr. W. C. Bishop has attempted, but 
without definite result, to trace these Masses in Roman and in later English Sacra- 
mentaries. He speaks of the notices in the A.-S. Martyrology as ' instructions as 
to the Mass to be said on the days in question '. This does not seem to me to be 
likely. I prefer to think that the compiler simply used the ' old * and ' new ' Mass- 
books as quarries for the enlargement of the Martyrology he was copying, and that 
he is sufficiently conscientious and intelligent to name his source. I cannot imagine 
that the Martyrology was meant to be used as a Kalendar. 


August 18. On the eighteenth day of the month is the festival of the 
martyr St. Agapetus in Rome, whose service can be found by him who 
looks for it in the later sacramentary, that is in the new mass-book. 

August 19. On the nineteenth day of the month is the festival of the 
martyr St. Magnus, whose service is met with in the older mass-books. 

AUGUST 27. On the twenty-seventh day of the month is the festival of 
the martyr St. Rufus, whose mass is found in the older mass-books. 

August 29. On the same day is the festival of the woman St. Sabina 
at Rome, whose mass is found in the later books. 

September i. On the first day of the month is the festival of the 
martyr St. Priscus, whose mass is to be found in the older mass-books. 

September 5. On the fifth day of the month is the festival of the con- 
fessor of God St. Quintus, whose mass is found in the older mass-books. 

September 7. On the seventh day of the month is the festival of the 
martyr St. Synotus, whose mass is found in the older mass-books. 

October 15. On the fifteenth day of the month is the festival of the 
martyr St. Lupulus, whose mass is found in the older mass-books. 

The new Mass-books need not detain us ; they are clearly 
Roman sacramentaries. The saints added from them are 
Roman : St. Sabina of the Aventine, and St. Agapetus of 
Praeneste, the former being found in the Gregorian Sacra- 
mentary, the latter in the Gelasian also. St. Nicomedes 
on June 1 is the dedication of his Church in Rome, as in the 
Gregorian Sacramentary, and the Martyrologies, Florus, Ado, 
Romanum paruutn, Usuard, &c. 

As to the 'new Mass-books' Dr. Herzfeld says in his 
Introduction, p. xxxiii : ' It may be observed that most of the 
saints whose names we find in the mass-books come from 
Campania, and that Cockayne is certainly right in remark- 
ing that the books were probably imported by Theodorus and 
Hadrianus, the latter having been abbot of a monastery near 
Capua.' Whether Hadrian came from near Capua or not (and 
Bede says ' near Naples ' and not * near Capua '), it is at any 
rate certain that the ' old Mass-books ' came from Capua, as 
Father Thurston pointed out to me. Eight saints are given, 
or rather seven, for Priscus, June 1, is doubtless the same 
person as Priscus, September 1. Of these Nicander belongs 
to Venafrum, some 60 kilometres to the north of Capua ; 
St. Magnus was venerated (according to the Echternach 
Martyrology) at Fabrateria, not far from Aquinum on the 

L % 


Latin Way ; the five remaining saints were all Capuan — Priscus, 
Rufus, Quintus, Synotus, Lupulus. We shall find that 
precisely these five saints are represented in the ancient apse 
of the Church of San Prisco in old Capua, now the village 
of S. Maria di Capua, at a short distance from the modern 
town. These mosaics are figured in Garrucci, Storia delV 
Arte cristiana, vol. iv, p. 64, and with less precision in 
Michael Monachus, Sanctuarium Capuanum (1630), p. 132. 
The latter drawing is reproduced in the Acta Sanctorum^ 
October, vol. vii, pt. 1, p. 7. 1 Sixteen figures are represented 
in the following order : 

765432 1 — 8 9 — 10 11 12 13 14 15 16. 
Of these 8 and 9 are children between St. Peter and 
St. Priscus, patron of the Church : 

1. Peter 8. Quartus 10. Priscus 

2. Laurence 9. Quintus 11. Lupulus 

3. Paul 12. Sinotus 

4. Cyprian 13. Rufus 

5. Susius 14. Marcellus 

6. Timotheus 15. Augustine 

7. Agnes 16. Felicitas 

The connexion between the seven saints of the older Mass- 
books and the mosaics of San Prisco is obviously very close. 
The days given in the older Mass-books are the same as in 
martyrologies and kalendars, except St. Priscus, June 1. Why 
two feasts for this saint, unless June 1 — unique, as it seems — 
is the dedication of his Church ? For the moment this is but 
a guess. 

The name Susius should be noticed. Garrucci reads 
Sustus (i.e. Sixtus or Xystus), but Sosius or Sossius, the 
deacon, of Misenum, was specially venerated at Capua, as we 
shall see, and Michele Monaco, who was a canon of Capua, 
is apparently right in his reading of the mosaic inscription : 
but see the list on p. 153. Note also Augustine and Felicitas. 

x The date of this apse (and of the dome to be mentioned later) can only be 
roughly determined. Both were destroyed in 1766 on the occasion of the re- 
storation. Garrucci gives an inscription showing that the basilica of St. Priscus 
was begun under Zeno (died 491), and finished under Gelasius (492-6), but con- 
secrated only under Symmachus in 506. Presumably the mosaics are to be 
placed c. 490. 


As to the seven saints in detail : 

1. St. Priscus is given by M. Monaco as two persons, one 
a bishop and martyr, the other a bishop and confessor, both 
September 1 ; probably groundlessly. The one was called 
the first bishop of Capua, the other was said to be an exiled 
African bishop. At any rate the body of one at least was 
in old Capua at San Prisco. See also Acta SS,, September, 
vol. i. 

2. St. Rufus, August 37, is called a bishop of Capua and 
martyr (Acta SS., August, vol. vi, p. 9). 

3. St. Quintus, martyr, September 5, is coupled with 
St. Quartus by M. Monaco also ; he is also joined to 
Arcontius and Donatus (Acta SS., September, ii, p. 526). 
He is always connected with Capua. 

4. St. Synotus, September 7, was argued to be second 
bishop of Capua by Michele Monaco (Sanct. Cap., p. 134), on 
very poor grounds (Acta 55., September, iii, p. 5). 

5. St. Lupulus, martyr, October 15, is coupled with St. 
Modestus(^ta 55.,October, vii. pp. 6-7), and is a Capuan saint. 

All the above five saints figure in nearly all martyrologies 
and kalendars, and as Capuan saints. 

6. St. Magnus, August 19, bishop and martyr, translated 
from Fundi on the Appian Way to Verulae, in the hills north 
of the Latin Way. Fabrateria noua and vetus are just between 
those two towns. The translation is said to have taken place 
under John VI 1 1, or in consequence of incursions of the Saracens. 
The saint was later translated to Anagni (Acta SS., August, 
vol. iii, p. 701). 

7. St. Nicander, June 17, with St. Marcian was venerated 
at Atina and Venafrum, but also at Capua ; for his name 
is found in all the four ancient Capuan kalendars printed 
in the Sanctuarium Capuanum, and his life was written by 
Adenulphus, archbishop of Capua before 1056. His arm 
is said to have been preserved at Capua. 

§ 3. The Echternach Martyrology, 

This venerable document is the oldest codex, as we have 
said, of the so-called ' Martyrology of St. Jerome', and has been 


carefully edited by De Rossi with the MSS. of Berne and 
Weissenburg in parallel columns. 1 Where these three agree 
we are in the presence of a French edition of the Martyrology 
belonging to the last years of the sixth century. Each MS. 
has additions of its own. Those in St. Willibrord's copy 
are few — saints from the North of England and from the 
South of Italy, all evidently added in Northumbria. In Mgr. 
Duchesne's introduction to Comm. De Rossi's edition the 
Italian additions are cited as follows (op. cit., p. [ix]) : 

vjidian. In Brundi[sio] Leuci k sept. In Casino Constanti 

iij idfeb. In Vulturno Castrensis iij non sept. In Caudis Vitaliani 

xiijkmart. InCamp[ania]Cumbas viiij k oct. In Miseno Sossi 

nat Iulianae iij k nov. In Comsa Maximi 
xiijk aug. In Casino Severi non nov. In Ecas Marciepiscopi 

xiiij k sept. In Fabriteria Magni xvj k dec. In Capua Augustini et 
ksept. In Apulia FelicisetDonati Felicitatis 

It was natural that Mgr. Duchesne should think of Naples. 
Capua is mentioned but once. Augustine and Felicitas we 
saw in the Capuan mosaics. Cumbas seems to be an error, for 
no veneration is known of St. Juliana in that place, while her 
connexion with Cumae is well established. Cumbae is also 
further off, while Cumae is close to Misenum and not far from 
Naples and Capua. This last city, on the junction of the Via 
Latina and the Via Appia, is a centre to all the rest geographically : 




I Caudium — Beneventum/ 

.Capua \ 

Vulturnum/ / \ 

/ Compsa 

Cumae \ 

/ to Brundisium 


It should be noted that St. Castrensis was venerated at Capua 
as well as at Vulturnum, which latter place was in the diocese 
of Capua and its port at the mouth of the river Vulturnus. 
St. Sosius of Misenum had also a cultus at Capua, and we 

1 In Acta Sanctorum, November, vol. ii, pp. [i]-[is6], 1894. 


saw that he was represented in the apse of San Prisco. But 
there is only a single coincidence with the Capuan saints 
of the * older Mass-books ', and this is St. Magnus, just the 
only one of these who is not represented in the mosaics and 
had no particular connexion with Capua. How can we 
connect the Echternach saints with Capua, since none of the 
five Capuan saints have been added? The answer is very 
simple. They could not be added, for they were already 
in the Martyrology when it was brought to England. In fact 
Priscus, Rufus, Quintus, Synotus, are all found on their proper 
days in all copies of the Martyrology of St. Jerome. St. 
Lupulus is in all but the Echternach MS., where he is omitted 
by an error of the scribe, who has been even more careless 
and incorrect than usual just about that place. 

Further examination shows additional evidence. On Sep- 
tember 1, where St. Constantius and SS. Felix and Donatus 
have been added, St. Priscus has been placed between them, 
instead of occupying the less prominent position he holds in 
Bern, and Wiss. MSS. Again, on August 27, Rufus has been 
transferred to the first place in the laterculus for that day. 

Thus the connexion of the Italian additions to the Echter- 
nach Martyrology with the Capuan saints of the * older Mass- 
books ' seems to be most probable. It will be made practically 
certain by the evidence of the Echternach Kalendar that the 
two sets of saints had a common origin. 

§ 4. Capuan Saints in the Echternach Kalendar. 

I have copied the following saints roughly from Dom 
Quentin's MS. transcript. He tells me that the various hands 
in the original are difficult to distinguish and that he has not 
as yet sufficiently studied them (March, 1907); but he has 
marked nearly all the following notices as being additions 
in a different hand or different hands : 

iii id Feb. Castrensis mar 

xiiij kl mar. nat scae iulianae 

kl iun. ad scm priscum et scae teclae virg 

xv kl iul. sci nicandri mar 

kl sept, sci prisci in capua 

nonas sept, quinti confes 


vij idus sept, sergii pap romae sinoti mar 

viiij kl oct. sossi mart 

idus oct. scl lupuli 

xvj kl decern, agustini et felicitatis 

The close connexion with the Echt. Mart, is presupposed, 
but notice that in both lists St. Juliana alone among 
the Capuan saints has nat. added, though of course nat. is 
common enough in both documents, and the spelling sossi is 
repeated. Four of the Echternach additions reappear, viz. i. 
Castrensis, 2. Juliana, 3. Sosius, and 4. Augustine-Felicitas. Of 
these four the last two are just those names of the Echt. Mart, 
where it is supported by the apse of San Prisco, and the first 
(Castrensis) we saw to be Capuan. The agreement with the 
' older Mass-books * is equally close ; the hitherto unique 
mention of St. Priscus on June 1 reappears, and we have 
Priscus again, Nicander, Quintus, Synotus, Lupulus. Only 
Rufus and Magnus are forgotten. Thus the Kalendar is a link 
between the Anglo-Saxon and Echternach Martyrologies. 

An important point is June 1 Ad Sanctum Priscum, that 
is to say, a festival at the Church of St. Priscus. Our con- 
jecture that this second feast of St. Priscus was the dedication 
of his Church was suggested by the close connexion between 
the saints of the ' older Mass-books ' and the mosaics of the 
apse. The expression in the kalendar confirms it. We thus 
get an explanation of the omission of St. Priscus on that day in 
the Echternach Martyrology, for that codex invariably omits 
dedication feasts. 1 

It should further be noticed that we cannot infer that SS. 
Castrensis and Juliana were absent from the * older Mass- 
books ', for the Anglo-Saxon Martyrology is defective in the 
month of February. As for St. Sosius he was doubtless 
in the Mass-books, but a short life of him is given in the A.-S. 
Martyrology, and consequently nothing is said there about 
the Mass-books, which are only brought in when a saint had 
a Mass in them but nothing else was known of him. Conse- 
quently there is no certain omission in the * older Mass-books ' 

1 As Dom Quentin has pointed out, Le martyrol htiron. et lesfites de St. Benott. 
Revue Btntd.> 1903, p. 359 (Octobre). 


of any Capuan saints found in the Capuan apse or added 
in the Echternach Kalendar, except only SS. Augustine and 
Felicitas. But it is probable that the Anglo-Saxon compiler 
omitted to mention these two because he identified them with 
St. Augustine of Hippo and St. Felicitas of Rome or of 
Carthage. Perhaps he was right. But Michele Monaco makes 
Augustine a bishop of Capua. 

Another mosaic from San Prisco in old Capua is also figured in 
Garrucci (plate 155), and by M. Monaco in the Sanctuarium 
Capuanum. In the lower circle of a dome are eight pairs 
of saints : 

1. St. Priscus. 

2. St. Lupulus. 

3. St. Augustine. 

4. St. Hippolytus. 

5. St. Xystus. 

6. St. Festus. 

7. St. Eutices. 

8. St. Artimas. 

St. Felix. 
St. Rufus. 
St. Marcellus. 
St. Canio. 
St. Cyprian. 
St. Desiderius. 
St. Sosius. 
St. Aesimus. 

I add this Capuan witness to the following table for complete- 
ness. An asterisk shows where in the Echternach Martyrology 
the scribe found the saint already in the archetype, and 
where the Anglo-Saxon had Sosius in his authority for the 
lives of the saints. 









S. Prisco 


Jan. 8 


Feb. 11 




„ 16 




June 1 

Priscus (Dedic.) 


» 17 





July 20 



Aug. 19 




„ 27 






Sept. 1 


Felix and Donatus 




» 3 



» 5 






» 7 






» 33 







Oct. 15 


[ ] 





» 30 



Nov. 5 



Dec. 16 

Augustine and Felicitas 






I think this table will have made my argument clear : 

1. The Mass-books were certainly from Capua, probably 
from San Prisco. 

2. The Echternach Kalendar has used the Mass-books. 

3. The Echternach Martyrology has also used the Mass- 

4. The additional saints in the Echternach Martyrology 
who are not quoted by the Anglo-Saxon Martyrology as being 
in the Mass-books presumably come from the Mass-books, for 
(a) we need not invent a second source, (/?) they are geo- 
graphically connected with Capua, (y) the Kalendar strengthens 
this hypothesis in the case of Castrensis, Juliana, Sosius, 

5. But the Mass-book saints of the Anglo-Saxon Mar- 
tyrology were those who had special Masses provided, as that 
book expressly informs us. Those added in the Echternach 
Martyrology were presumably found in the Kalendar at the 
beginning of the Mass-book, for the place is given with each. 
This would always be so in a Kalendar and never in the 
heading of a special Mass in a Sacramentary. An ancient 
Sacramentary had regularly a Kalendar at the commence- 
ment, though it has frequently been lost, owing to the 
destruction of the first pages. 

6. Castrensis and Juliana were very probably in the lost 
pages of the Anglo-Saxon Martyrology. Sosius is in that Mar- 
tyrology, and was pretty certainly in the Mass-books. But the 
Anglo-Saxon martyrologist happened to possess a life of him. 

§ 5. The origin of the ' older Mass-books \ 

The citations from the Anglo-Saxon Martyrology given 
above, pp. 146-7, lapse from August 27 onwards into a stereo- 
typed formula : ' On such a day is the festival of such a 
saint, whose Mass is to be found in the older Mass-books.' 
August 19 had the same, with the exception of ' service ' (i. e. 
mxssesang) instead of simply mxsse. The earlier notices 
vary. On June 1 we have the explanation ' the old sacra- 
mentorium (sic) f that is the old Mass-book ', and similarly on 
August 18 ' the later sacramentorium y that is the new Mass- 


book '. Again ' two Mass-songs belong to ' June 1 ; the 
memory of St. Nicander ' is to be celebrated with Mass- 
songs, and his Mass is appointed in the older Mass-books '. 
The Mass-song of St. Agapetus ' can be found by the curious 
in the later sacramentary \ 

The older sacramentary was Capuan. It had been supple- 
mented or (more probably) supplanted lately by a new one 
from Rome. We may be sure that the new book was really 
Roman, because it calls the Praeneste martyr Agapetus 
' of Rome ', that is to say, it contains his feast because it was 
kept somewhere in Rome, not because it was kept at Praeneste. 

The Capuan books, besides the feasts of great saints whose 
lives are given in the Martyrology, contained special Masses 
for the eight feasts, i. e. five Capuan saints, plus the dedica- 
tion of St. Priscus, St. Nicander of Venafrum near Capua, 
and St. Magnus of Fabrateria (later known as St. Magnus 
of Anagni). Like other Sacramentaries the Capuan book 
evidently contained a Kalendar at the beginning. Besides 
the saints for whom special Masses are provided, the Kalendar 
would mention the feast days of other saints well known at 
Capua, and venerated in neighbouring cities. Perhaps their 
feasts were celebrated with lessons de communi. (We saw 
that the Gospel system of Eugipius provided a common 
of apostles, of male and female martyrs, one or many, in 
apostolorum, in martyras y in martyr a , in sanctorum.) The 
Kalendar gave the place as well as the saint ; the heading 
of the special Mass did not. The Echternach Martyrology 
has used the Kalendar ; the Anglo-Saxon one has only drawn 
upon the special Masses ; the Echternach Kalendar again has 
given the saints who had special Masses, adding the place 
only in the case of St. Priscus. 

So much for the contents of the old Sacramentary. As for 
its place of origin it was undoubtedly Capua, and perhaps 
the Church of St. Priscus. 

What was the date of the books ? 

The translation of St. Magnus does not help us. The date 
of St. Severus of Casino may be early fourth century, but 
is quite uncertain. St. Mark, bishop of Luceria, but born and 


buried at Aecae, may be of the same date. St. Juliana gives 
a more useful clue, if I was justified in reading Cumas for 
Cumbas. She is said to have been martyred at Nicomedia, 
and translated to Puteoli. She was again translated after 
568 (so it is said) to Cumae, and at length in 1207 to Naples. 
(See Acta Sanctorum, February, vol. ii, pp. 885-8.) If my con- 
jecture is correct and if the date is right the Mass-books 
are later than 568. 

St. Constantius gives a certain terminus a quo. The day, 
Sept. 1, shows that the bishop of Aquino twice mentioned 
by St. Gregory is meant : ' qui nuper praedecessoris mei tem- 
pore beatae memoriae Ioannis Papae defunctus est ' {Dial., iii. 
8). No doubt John III is meant, whose reign began in 561. 
Constantius was bishop already before the death of St. Bene- 
dict, c. 543 (ibid., ii. 16). St. Gregory relates that Constantius 
prophesied of the bishops who should follow him : 

Post Constantlum mulionem, post mulionem 
Fullonem, O te, Aqume, et hoc habes. 

I fancy these are elegiacs. If so, even Commodian would have 
been ashamed of them. The successor of Constantius was in 
fact his deacon Andrew, who had really been ostler in the 
posting stables ; and after him came Jovinus, a fuller. In his 
time Aquinum was so devastated that no bishop succeeded 
him. So St. Gregory {Dial., iii. 8). 

Here we seem to find the explanation of in Casino Con- 
stanti, where we should have expected in Aquino. Aquinum 
was ruined, so the feast of Constantius was celebrated in 
Casinum, the nearest town. 1 If this was on the same occasion 
(c. 589) when the monastery of Montecassino was destroyed, 
we should be surprised if the town at the foot of the mountain 
was spared when the abbey on the summit was plundered. 
One may conjecture that Casinum was restored earlier than 
Aquinum. Both must have continued at least as posting 
stations on the much frequented Latin Way. 

1 Aquinum is just half-way between Fabrateria noua and Casinum. The latter 
was later called San Germano, and still had this name when I passed it in 1882. 
But the modern Italians have ordered it to be called Cassino, preferring the un- 
important classical memories connected with the name to the Christian recollection 
of the legate of Pope Hormisdas and friend of St. Benedict. 


However this may be, the Mass-books are at any rate later 
than 561, and probably not earlier than 600. But they are 
earlier than 700, for the Echternach Kalendar was written 
before 706. 

We could have no temptation to connect them with Eugipius 
or Cassiodorus. Nor can we connect them with Monte- 
cassino, in spite of the twofold mention of Casinum ; for 
the monastery was in ruins till the eighth century. 

How did they get to England ? 

§ 6. The Capuan Mass-books and the Codex of Fulda. 

On the fifteenth- or sixteenth-century binding of the Codex 
Fuldensis is inscribed Sanctus boni \ /actus presenti \ libro 
functus I est dm uixit. There is no reason to doubt that the 
MS. has actually been at Fulda ever since the monas- 
tery was founded by St. Boniface. 1 An Anglo-Saxon hand 
of the eighth century has added a gloss to the Epistle of 
St. James ; and this is traditionally said to be the saint's own 
handwriting. Though it is impossible to prove this, it is in 
itself quite likely, according to Ernest Ranke. 2 

Did St. Boniface bring it from Italy ? England was in his 
time as literary as Italy, with its splendid schools of Italian 
writing at Canterbury and Jarrow, and its Irish school 
developing a native hand at Lindisfarne and elsewhere. 
Abbeys were numerous and books plentiful. St. Willibrord 
had brought his Kalendar, his Martyrology, his Gospels from 
Northumbria at an earlier date. St. Boniface's companion 
Burchard brought an Evangeliarium. Presumably it was 
from England that St. Boniface brought the codex which 
had belonged to Victor of Capua. 

From what part of England? From Wessex? From 
Nutshell ? 

A. There is another book which seems to have been taken 
to Germany by St. Boniface, the well-known Codex Laudianus 
of Acts, which is proved by inscriptions which exist in it 

1 The foundation cross was planted by St. Sturmius in 744 on behalf of his 

" Introduction to his edition, p. xvi. 


to have been in Germany at an early date (at Wiirzburg, 
Mr. Turner thinks). But in St. Bede's time it was at Jarrow, 
for it was proved by Mill and afterwards by Woide x that it 
served that saint for the corrections made in his Retractations 
on Acts. We are not surprised to find that the Codex 
Amiatinus was corrected by it in the same way, no doubt 
under Bede's direction. 2 Again, we have seen that St. Burchard 
took to Germany an Amiatine text of the Gospels, containing 
the Neapolitan notes in its margin. This also came from 
Jarrow, mediately or immediately. 

It is natural to suppose that the Codex Fuldensis came 
from England, and like the Codex Laudianus and St. Bur- 
chard's Gospels (or at least their archetype) from Jarrow 
or Wearmouth. 

1 References are given by Scrivener, Introd., i. 170 (1894), and by Gregory 
Proleg, p. 412 (1894). 

2 Bp. Wordsworth says (Acts, p. ix) of the Codex Laudianus : * Fuit ut uidetur 
inter libros quos Theodoras Tarsensis Archiepiscopus Cantuar. secum Angliam 
apportauit A. d. 668.' [did he bring any ?] ' Ibi usque ad Northumbrian! peruenit ' 
[begged, borrowed or stolen ?] ' ubi uenerabilis Beda eum uidit et in commentariis 
suis (' Expositione ' sc. et ' Retractatione ' in Actus) saepe citauit ; et forsan scriba 
codicis Amiatini textum suum ad eius auctoritatem interdum correxit. Postea 
Bonifacius uel quidam ex discipulis eius in Germaniam exportauit ubi aliquantulum 
moratus est codex ut testantur notae etc. in ultimis paginis manu Teutonica scriptae.' 
At an earlier period the codex was in Sardinia. It will be remembered that there 
were Greek monks in Sardinia in the seventh century who played a part in the 
Monothelite controversy. There is no summary in the codex, but divisions of the 
text are marked in the margin by a hand which may be tenth century, but is 
difficult to date. It is probably German, for the divisions bear no relation to any 
of the summaries printed by Wordsworth except to the Donatist summaries from 
MS. Munich lat. 6230, Bamberg A. 1. 7, and Metz 7. The first eighteen divisions 
are as follows : 

1 i. 1 

7 ii- 38 

13 v. 12 

2 12 

8 iii. 1 

14 34 

3 15 

9 » 

15 vi. 1 

4 ii. 1 

10 iv. 1 

16 vii. 1 

5 14 

11 19 

17 54 

6 22 

12 32 

18 viii. 5 

These divisions seem to run almost exactly (if not quite) with the Donatist 
divisions. At viii. 5 A has reached its twentieth title, and so have the great 
number of MSS. with F, while the Spanish CT and V have only got to the fifteenth. 
It is a great pity that Bp. Wordsworth should not have added to all the summaries 
he has published the text- divisions corresponding to them as found in the MSS. 


B. On the other hand the Capuan Mass-books come from 
Northumbria. This is easily shown. 

1. The Echternach Kalendar has Northumbrian saints as 
well as Capuan. It does not admit Mellitus, Justus, and 
Laurentius, so that it has no possible connexion with Canter- 
bury. This is what we should expect in the case of St. 
Willibrord the Northumbrian. 

2. The Echternach Martyrology is exactly in a similar case, 
as was said above, p. 145. 

3. The Anglo-Saxon Martyrology is possibly, or rather 
probably, Mercian in its present ninth-century form ; at least 
its dialect is considered to be Mercian. But its composition 
in the eighth century takes us further north. Augustine 
is the only southern saint contained in it except St. Ethel- 
burga of Barking. Her name has no doubt been taken from 
Bede's History, to which the compiler is greatly indebted and 
to which he repeatedly refers. He has also used material 
from St. Gregory, St. Aldhelm, and Adamnan. Of East 
Anglian saints we find St. Fursey of Burgh Castle in Norfolk, 
St. Etheldreda of Ely, St. Guthlac of Croyland and his sister 
St. Pega, St. Hygebald of Bardney. These last have suggested 
to Dr. Herzfeld that the present edition of the Martyrology 
hails from Lincolnshire. The proof is insufficient. For Hyge- 
bald the writer appeals to Bede. Guthlac and Etheldreda 
were too famous to be omitted in any list ; while the latter 
was wife of Egfrid of Northumbria. 

If we turn to the northern saints we find Columchille from 
Iona ; Aidan, Cuthbert, Ethelwald, Eadbercht, all from Lindis- 
farne ; Benet Biscop, Eastorwine and Ceolfrith of Wearmouth 
and Jarrow ; Yorkshire gives John of Beverley, Hilda, Cedd ; 
Northumbria gives Wilfrid of Hexham and King Oswald, 
whose relics are said to be at Bamborough, Lindsey, and 
Bardney. 1 It is impossible to say precisely where the compiler 
lived. But he is clearly in close relation with both Wearmouth 
and Lindisfarne. 

The simplest hypothesis is that the Mass-books from Capua 

1 Dr. Herzfeld in his Introduction thinks the reference to relics of St. Aidan at 
Glastonbury to be a later insertion, p. xxx. 


had their home in Benet Biscop's double monastery. 1 The 
Capuan Masses were probably not actually used ; but the rest 
of the book would give an ordinary Italian use of the early 
seventh century, and would be employed at Wearmouth and 
Jarrow, and copied for other monasteries. 

Such a Sacramentary must have been originally the property 
of a Church at Capua. The Codex Fuldensis also probably 
was bequeathed by St. Victor to his successors. Both books 
must have come into the market as plunder. There is no 
reason to suppose two different occasions upon which these 
books were looted from Capua, nor to invent two different 
roads by which they came to England. Neither has any 
connexion with the South of England, and therefore neither 
was brought by St. Hadrian. And as a fact St. Bede never 
mentions any books having been brought to England by that 
learned man. Had the Codex Fuldensis or the Gospels of 
Eugipius been brought to the North by Hadrian, had the 
Codex Laudianus been the property of Theodore (as Scrivener 
and others and Wordsworth have thought) and lent or given 
to Jarrow, surely Bede would have said something about the 
introduction by them into England of such precious volumes. 
But according to Bede it was the Englishmen, Benet Biscop 
and Ceolfrid, who imported the most valuable books they 
could find. 

I am rather inclined to the view that the Laudianus and 
the Fuldensis were not brought to Germany by St. Boniface 
himself, but that they had been already taken there by 
St. Willibrord, who will have presented them to St. Boniface ; 
for St. Willibrord was the more likely of the two to receive 
handsome presents from Jarrow for his mission. The North- 
umbrian text of the Gospels of Burchard, Boniface's dis- 
ciple, shows indeed a connexion with the North. But then 
no one knows what part of England gave birth to St. 
Burchard. He may have been a northerner. 

Our general conclusions are therefore that the Capuan 
saints in the Anglo-Saxon Martyrology, the Echternach 

1 Another possibility is evidently that St. Wilfrid brought them from Italy, and 
that they were used at Hexham or Ripon. 


Martyrology, and the Echternach Kalendar were introduced 
into them from certain Sacramentaries in use in the North of 
England. The archetype of these Mass-books seems to have 
belonged to the Church of San Prisco at Capua, c. 600-50. It 
may have been among the books bought in Italy by St. Benet 
Biscop. As the Codex Fuldensis, like the Codex Laudianus 
of Acts and the Gospels of St. Burchard, probably came to 
Germany from the North of England, it is probable that it 
was plunder obtained from Capua at the same time as the 
Sacramentary, and that they were sold together to an English 



§ i. The Vulgate and St. Patrick. 

It seems to be an accepted opinion among experts that 
the Vulgate must have been introduced into Ireland later 
than St. Patrick's time, since that saint used an Old Latin 
version. Whitley Stokes urges in proof of the authenticity of 
the Confessio and of the letter to the subjects of Coroticus 
the quotations in both documents from an ante-Hieronymian 
Bible. 1 Monsignor Kaulen showed that St. Patrick used the 
Old Latin by referring to his citation of Isaiah xxxiii. 4 ; 2 
and indeed it seems unquestionable that he did employ the 
Old Latin in the Old Testament. 

But we are now concerned with his use of the Gospels. 
The following table is compiled from Whitley Stokes's edition. 
The MSS. cited are from Wordsworth and White's Vulgate. 
I will remind the reader that the principal Irish MSS. are 
DLRQ with E3>* and 3 >m ^, while the Alcuinian KEV have 
also apparently much Irish blood in their veins. I have 
added the readings of a bfff 2 g x q wherever Wordsworth has 
not cited the Old Latin witnesses. ' Vulg.' means the reading 
of Wordsworth and White's text, whereas vg means the 
Clementine Vulgate. 

From the Confession of St. Patrick: 
*• P- 359* Matt. xii. 36 = Vulg. (otiossum D). 
2 ' V' 363. Matt. x. 20 = Vulg. 

3. p. 366. Matt. xxiv. 14 = Vulg. 

4. p. 368. Matt. viii. 11 (and Lukexiii. 29) : ' Venient ab oriente et occidente et 

ab austro et ab aquilone et recumbent cum Abraam et Issac et Iacob * 
(for multi ab or. et occ. uenient, solus), aquil. et austro is intro- 
duced {in reversed order) from Luke, recumbent as Matt. (Luke 
has accumbent, except CENT recumb.) Issac D. 

1 Tripartite Life of St. Patrick, 1887 (Rolls Series), pp. xciii and ci. 
* Geschichte der Vulgata, 1868, p. 195. 


5. p. 368. Matt. iv. 19 m Vulg. 

6. p. 368. Luke vi. 17 = Vulg. (copiossa D). 

7. p. 368. Matt, xxviii. 19: ' Euntes ergo nunc docete omnes gentes, babtizantes 

eas in Nomine Patris et Filii et Spiritus Sancti.' 
+ nunc DELQR a b. babt. D3>LRT. eas (for eos) DR. 

8. p. 369. Mark xvi. 5 = Vulg. 

9. p. 369. Matt. xxiv. 14: ' Praedicabitur hoc euangeliuni regni in uniuerso 

mundo in testimonium omnibus gentibus, et tunc ueniet finis.' 
mundo E (for orbe). (in is omitted in Migne's ed. of the Conf, 
finis/^ (for consummatio, from xxiv. 6 and 1 Cor. xv. 24). 

I add from Acts : 

10. p. 368. Acts xiii. 47 : ' Posui te lumen in gentibus, ut sis in salutem usque ad 

extremum terrae.' lumen in gentibus D0 ; and 

11. p. 360. ' ut sis . . . ad ultimum terrae,' ultimum d gig, 

ia. p. 369. Acts ii. 17-18 = Vulg. (exc. Gliifor iuuenes, solus). 
J 3« P* 37°- Acts xx. aa ■= Vulg. 

From the Epistle to the subjects of Coroticus : 

14. p. 376. John viii. 3a : ' Qui facit peccatum seruus est [peccati].' (MS. Cotton 

of Si. Pair, omits peccati, with b d andTfi 1 ".) 

15. p. 376. Matt. xvi. 19 : ' Quos ligarent super terram ligatos esse et in celis.' 

+ et ESP^OTOQRW vg b g x f (in Matt, xviii all have alligaveritis 
and et in caelo, except et in caelis Ea^^Q/ and in caelo aff x q). 
J 6« p. 377. Matt. xvi. 36 (Mark viii. 27): 'Quid prodest homini ut totum 
mundum lucretur et ut animae suae detrimentum patiatur ? ' 
ut (for si) solus, totum mundum (for universum m.) R af (Mark 
has mundum totum). 
x 7« P- 377- Matt - xii. 30 = Vulg. 

18. p. 379. Matt. viii. 11 : ' Venient ab oriente et occid.' &c. (for multi ab or. et 

occ. venient) solus, as 4, above. 

19. p. 380. Mark xvi. 16 =■ Vulg. (condempnabitur S'GH©). 

As the Confession is edited from the Book of Armagh (D) 
by Stokes, the agreement in spelling with the Gospels in the 
same MS. is not surprising. The only quotations to be con- 
sidered are 7, 9, 10, 14, 15, 16. The witness may be thus 
tabulated : 

15. Matt. xvi. 19 





16. „ xvi. 26 


« / 

9. „ xxiv. 14 




7. „ xxviii. 19 







14. [John viii. 32 


10. Acts xiii. 47 



". [ n ,, 


M 2 


The important point to notice is that five out of six readings 
in Matthew are supported by the Old Latin ; but equally five 
out of six by the Irish Vulgate MSS. On this meagre 
evidence it is obviously a tenable hypothesis that St. Patrick 
used an Irish Vulgate, rather than an Old Latin copy 
unaffected by the Vulgate. 

§ a. The Gospel citations of St. Vincent of Levins. 

It is apparently highly probable that St. Patrick was 
for a time at least in the famous monastery of Lerins, then 
recently founded by St. Honoratus. Professor Bury supposes 
him to have been there from 411 or 41a until 414 or 415, 
to have returned to Britain for a year, and then to have 
stayed at Auxerre until consecrated bishop in 432 by St. 
Germanus. The arguments for the long stay at Auxerre are 
ingenious, but not wholly convincing. Presumably Patrick 
became a monk at Lerins, in which case he was hardly likely 
to live sixteen years as a deacon at Auxerre. 1 St. Germanus 
became bishop of that see in 418, and it is far more likely 
that it was this famous monk of Lerins who attracted Patrick 
to his diocese. It was in 429 that St. Germanus and another 
Lerinese, St. Lupus, bishop of Troyes, made their well-known 
visit to Britain. One might rather have guessed that it was 
not until after this that Patrick came to Germanus. He was 
still only a boy when he returned to Britain to his parents. 
Why should he have left them to return to Gaul ? The 
vision of Victoricus might have made him desire the clerical 
state, but this he would receive more naturally in his own 
country. The desire to emigrate was usually connected in 
those days with the call of Abraham, ' Egredere de terra tua 
et de cognatione tua et de domo patris tui,' and meant the 
wish to embrace the religious life. One would imagine that if 
the saint was at Lerins he would be likely to persevere there 
for a longer time than two years. When he speaks in his 
Confession of his willingness to return to Britain he says: 
* Et libentissime paratus irem, quasi ad patriam et parentes : 

1 Whitley Stokes, p. 561 , cites from Lebor na hUidre, p. 4, col. 1 : * Patrick 
went southwards to learn, and he read the canon with Germanus.' 


non id solum, sed etiam usque ad Gallias uisitare fratres et ut 
uiderem faciem sanctorum Domini mei.' One would naturally 
understand fratres to mean ' religious brethren ', for it will not 
mean simply * friends ', and would hardly suggest ' clerical 
brethren '. And who were the ' saints of God ' ? Hardly the 
holy bishops he had known, such as Germanus and Lupus, for 
he will have been aware that they were dead. Surely it will 
mean the holy monks who lived to God in their tiny island 
cut off from the world. 1 

However this may be — and the life of St. Patrick is 
altogether vague and misty — at least his text of the Gospels 
would in all probability be brought by him either from the 
Lerinese St. Germanus or from Lerins. It is for this reason 
that, on noticing the similarities of his citations to the Irish 

1 Archbishop Healy, in his recent Life and Writings of St. Patrick, is inclined 
to accept the various traditions, that St. Patrick was at Marmoutier under St. 
Martin, at Lerins, at Aries, and with St. Germanus at Auxerre (chapter v). At 
first sight it looks somewhat as if legend had tried to bring St. Patrick into 
relation with the most famous persons and places of his time. But on the other 
hand, it was but natural for a fervent religious of those days to seek instruction both 
from St. Martin and from St. Honoratus, and the local tradition about St. Patrick 
at Tours is very strong (Healy, p. 75 ; cp. Berger, Vulgate, p. 47). 

Professor Bury's argument {Life of St. Patrick, 1905, pp. 347-8 and 336-8) is 
drawn from the statement of Muirchu Maccu-Machtheni that St. Patrick was 
consecrated bishop after the death of Palladius ad Amatorege sancto episcopo (Whitley 
Stokes, p. 273), whom Professor Bury identifies with St. Amator, predecessor 
of St. Germanus. As St. Amator cannot have consecrated St. Patrick, for he died 
in 418, he must have ordained him deacon ; therefore Patrick must have remained 
at Auxerre from c. 416-18 till 432. This is merely hypothesis. Amatorege is just 
as likely to be a corruption of Autissiodorensis, mistaken for a proper name. 
I take it that St. Patrick stopped at Lerins before returning to Britain. When he 
had seen his relations after his long absence and captivity, he returned there as 
a monk. Thence St. Germanus (who had been a monk there with him) summoned 
him to Auxerre, perhaps with a view to his going to Britain or to Ireland. This 
explanation is at least simple, and more in accordance with the practice of those 
days and with the saint's own words. Lerins was fruitful of bishops just then, 
and St. Celestine complained that it was a seminarium episcoporum (unless he 
means Tours). One would think that Germanus and Lupus would have been 
certain to choose a monk of Lerins for consecration, if the choice in any way lay 
with them. I am glad to see that Professor Bury agrees that the insola Arala- 
nensis of Tirechan (Whitley Stokes, p. 302, whose suggestion Arelatensis is hardly 
acceptable !) was Lerins ; Tirechan says he was there thirty years, tnihi testante 
Ultano episcopo, an exaggeration perhaps, but it suggests a stay of many years, 
necessarily after the return from Britain ; for when in Britain he was still a boy, 
addressed as ' sancte puer ' in his vision. 


Vulgate, I turned to the contemporary writings of Lerinese 
monks to investigate the nature of the Gospel text used 
by them. As St. Vincent of Lerins wrote his Commonitorium 
two years after St. Patrick went to Ireland, it was natural 
to take him first. Unfortunately he scarcely ever quotes the 
Gospels. Mr. White, following Kaulen, 1 rightly states that 
Vincent used the Vulgate, but the very scanty evidence shows 
that he used a very impure Hieronymian text of the Gospels. 
But then he writes half a century after the publication of 
St. Jerome's edition, and it is certain that the great types 
of text of any much copied work arise within the first century 
(or even half century) of its existence. This is, for instance, 
conspicuously true of the Greek text of the New Testament, 
of St. Cyprian's writings, and (Abbot Butler once told me) of 
Palladius. There are only two Gospel citations in the Com- 
monitorium worth mentioning ; and the evidence is less clear 
in that the editions are not trustworthy. These two texts are 
cited from Migne (vol. 50) : 

c. xxv. Matt. vii. 15 : ' Attendite uobis a pseudoprophetis, 
qui ueniunt ad uos in uestitu ouium, ab intus autem sunt lupi 
rapaces ; ex fructibus eorum cognoscetis eos.' 

+ nobis DS^LQR b g± pseudo proph. {for falsis proph.) solus 

uestitu {for uestimentis) a bfg x 

ab intus {for intrinsecus) a q (intus bgj) 

ex {for a) BD. 

c. xxvi. Matt. iv. 5 : ' Tunc assumpsit ilium diabolus, et 
statuit ilium super pinnaculum templi, et dixit ei : si filius 
Dei es, mitte te deorsum ; scriptum est enim quod angelis 
suis mandauit de te ut custodiant te in omnibus uiis tuis ; 
in manibus tollent te, ne forte offendas ad lapidem pedem 

ilium solus super {for supra Vulg. vett.) DSPWZ* vg. 

quod {for quia) b 

+ ut custodiant te E3?R a {om. Vulg. vett. rell.) 

+ in omnibus uiis tuis 3*R {om Vulg. vett.) 

om. et {before in manibus) solus, 

1 H. J. White, art. ' Vulgate ' in Hastings, Diet, of the Bible, vol. iv, p. 887 a ; 
Kaulen, Vulg., p. 198. 


The first text might be simply from the Old Latin ; 
uestitu and ab intus are only Old Latin, ex is only Irish, 
whereas nobis has the whole Irish contingent for it and two 
Old Latin. 

The second citation is more important. Pinnaculutn is the 
reading of St. Jerome in all MSS. (except 3? w ") while pinnam 
is that of all the Old Latin, so that Vincent is apparently 
using the Vulgate ; super is Irish and not Old Latin, and the 
addition of ut custodiant te in omnibus uiis tuis is charac- 
teristically Irish, without any Old Latin witness, except a for 
part of it. 

It is clear that on the whole St. Vincent of Lerins affords 
a close parallel to St. Patrick, and encourages an investigation 
of the more copious and certain evidence supplied by the 
Lerinese writers Faustus and Eucherius, whose works have 
fortunately been recently re-edited for the Vienna Corpus. 

§ 3. The Vulgate Gospels and Faustus of Riez. 

In the year which intervened between the consecration 
of St. Patrick in 433 and the composition of St. Vincent's 
Commonitorium in 434 Faustus became abbot of Lerins. 
Though it seems he was already in the monastery before the 
death of St. Honoratus in 426, he must have been a very young 
abbot, as he wrote De Gratia c. 473, and some of his letters in 
exile are of c. 480. He became bishop of Reii before 462, 
perhaps in 452. He had thus been a younger contemporary 
at Lerins with Vincent and with Patrick, who was his country- 
man, for Faustus was a Briton by birth. In the following 
tables I use Engelbrecht's text of his treatises De Gratia and 
De Spiritu Sancto, his Sermons and his Epistles. I give the 
pages and lines of that edition (CSEL. y vol. 31). The MSS. 
are cited from Wordsworth. I have added the testimony 
of a b f ff g x q wherever Wordsworth omits it, a b ff x from 
Bianchini,/ from Wordsworth, ff 2 g x q from Old Latin Biblical 
Texts, parts i and iii. I have not troubled to give the arbi- 
trary c or d or the African e k. The sermons are mainly by 
Caesarius, but embody fragments of Faustus. 


St. Matthew. 

Work Page and Chapter 

cited. line. and verse. 

i Ep. 7 202 6 i. 23 concipiet E (as in Isaiah) [in utero con- 

cipiet a b ff x g{] 

2 Ep. 5 1 87* iii. 12 in horreum suum BTX*Z*^i g x 

3 Serm. 11 263" v. 5 lugent + nunc DE^LRY^ 

but Serm. 16,/. 286 18 nunc is omitted 

4 Gra. i. 4 19 15 v. 16 bona opera uestra D (Gra. i. 4) 

Serm. 17 289 but opera uestra bona EitPLOQTW vg 

a b fg\ <1 (Serm. 17) 
omnibus hominibus solus \ est in caelis 

Serm. 3 235 1 v. 23-4 i° offers (or offeris cod. D) Faustus: offers 

H°VW vgfffix, offeris Da>R^ 
2 offeres (offeris cod. D) Faustus : offeres 
DEH0KNTO^Q C T VW Yvg cdh, offeris 
Q*R. reconciliari (but -are cod. D of 
Faustus « Wordsw. et 3*FH C 

5 Serm. 17 291 4 vi. 4 absconso B*DJLMQR a bfg x q 

2 26' vi. 1 2 (demitte cod. D = BFHKNTO* V Y 2 26 and 

3o8,a»</demittimus in 308 = B C OTLO* 
VXZ 2 ) the rest of the codd. of Faustus 
have dimitte, and all in Serm. 24, 3 19" 

peccata (for delictaaj in v. 15) E 

om* et after dimittet DLR a bfg x q 

but has et 234 11 

dimittet + nobis DES^LQR W *^ bf 
ff\ g\ 1' debita (for peccata) solus 

+ ab (before hominibus) E3? m o 

ergo DEQR a bfg x (for autem) 

praestabuntur D b g x 

stipulam (solus, but also e in Lie. vi. 41). 
But in commenting Faustus has fistucam . 
The spelling fist, is found in Matt, in 
DH>HL*QR (fyst. E), in Luke in D3>GX 
(v. 41) and in D3? (v. 42 bis) 

12 Serm. 25 327" vii. 12 + ita BDEJQ a bg x q ( + bona ita 3P mg 


1 3 illis DE3?KM , ORVWX*Z vg a bfff x g x q 

(eis ceteri) 
+ similiter solus 

14 Ep. 5 • 192 3 * vii. 22-3 in nomine tuo/*r AY ^(fojDTX*^^!?) 

15 Sp.S.ii.4 141* viii. 20 nidos ACH0KMNTVWX c Y g x vg Hier 

[EFJRQT abchq (ff x ) add ubi requie- 
scant (-cent)] 

16 + suum E3>QT a b g x (but not Ep. 7, 

/. 20 4 a ) 

17 Gra. i. 9 27" ix. 1 2-1 3 sanis BHX* ab g x q qui male habent solus 

6 Serm. 24 

320 9 

vi. 14 


Serm. 3 
8 Serm. 3 

234 11 
234 18 

vi. 14 
vi. 15 

9 Serm. 17 
10 Serm. 17 

Serm. 6 

291 s5 

vi. 17-18 
vi. 33 

M5 2 * 

vii. 3 



18 Gra. i. 9 

19 Serm. 13 

20 Ep. 6 

21 Gra. ii. 5 

22 Serm. 18 

23 Gra. i. 12 

24 Gra. ii. 5 
Gra. ii. 5 

» a 

25 Serm. 12 
Serm. 20 

26 Ep. 6 

27 Gra. i. 9 

28 Serm. 12 
Gra. 3 

29 Serm. 12 

30 Gra. 18 


32 Serm. 5 

33 Serm. 12 


35 Serm. 25 



39 Serm. 16 288 23 

Page and 
27 3s 


1 99" 
69 10 


43 20 

68 2 

69 30 

70 23 
304 1 
I99 19 

29 s 
267 s 

17 5 

57 9 

243 13 
271 17 

325 iandS 

and verse. 
ix. 12-13 

x. 19 

xi. 12 

xii- 43-5 

xm. 12 

xiii. 15 

xiii. 43 

xvi. 24 

xvi. 27 I 

a » 

xvii. 21 
xxii. 30 

xxiii. 37 



Sp. S. i. 8 

138 8 

xxv. 35. 43 

» 4°»45 
» 4i 

xxvi. 41 

xxviii. 19 

+ ad paenitentiam H0Q g x 
om dabitur . . . loquamini QZ* g x . prae- 

meditari solus 
diriphmt B3>OTGTVXZ abcdg^hkl 
perambulate {but ambulat, 294 12 ) 
inueniet CT b ff 2 inuenietis) but 294 1 ' 2 

quaerit (solus) et non invenit 
illi ~Dff x . superabundauit solus 
etiam {/or et) E 
clauserunt {for clus.) plures 
ne forte solus 
eorum {for sui) BCDEa^HejKOTQ 

RTVWvgabtf 1>2 lq 
seipsum sibi LQ q (seipsum ER) for se- 

metipsum (se sibi a bff^ gj 
opera E0JLQRTW vg a bfff^g^ q 
sua {for eius) R 

+ daemonii a c (an explanation only ?) 
erunt for sunt DEJQR g x {Bianch. , but 

sunt Wordsw. 0. L. Texts, i.p. 35) 
sicxxt for quemadmodum DE a 
alas + suas DE5PH0LQT abg 1 q 
percipite Cyprian 

regnum quod uobis paratum est DR Cypr 
ab origine (272 1 , not 243 1S ) DER c d ff x 5 
{bis) fui ( for eram) Cypr 
suscepistis {for collegistis) solus 
ex minimis istis^ ado 
paratus {for praepar.) BCDE0JO*WZ* 


ne {for ut non) LR {see on Mark xiv. 38 

ite baptizate solus {but Serm. 31, 346" 

euntes baptizate) 

St. Mark. 

40 Gr. i. 16 52 s ix. 24 credo + domine BFH C 0IOTOQTVW 

XZvga b cf{q) 8 aur 

41 Sp. S. i. 7 in 28 xiii. 1 1 uos estis {for e. u.) D^MTITW aff % vg 

42 Gr. i. 3 17 2 xiv. 38 ne af (ut ne S^L) for ut non {cp. on 

Matt. xxvi. 41 above) 

St. Luke. 

E P« 3 I 7 8IS *• l 9 dominum {for deum) cod. S of Faustus, 

with DG bf 2 
Serm. 2 228* i. 35 obumbrauit <:<*/. D of Faustus D*GO* b 

Work Page and 
cited. line. 

and verse. 

43 Ep. 7 

44 Serm. 2 

45 Sp.S.ii.7 

202 8 
33I u 

148 1 

i- 35 
i. 68 

46 Serm. 25 

47 Sp.S.ii.7 

48 Sp. S.i.8 

1 48 s 

"5 1 

ii. 14 
ii. 26 
Hi. 22 

49 Serm. 4 


vi. 37 

50 Gra. i. 8 

51 Gra. i. 9 

52 Sp. S.i.8 
53S P .S.i. 7 


38 a « 


II2 1 

ix. 33 

ix. 24 

xi. 20 

xii. 11 


55 Ep. 5 

I88 1 

xii. 12 
xvi. 28 

56 Gra. i. 16 


xviii. 1 2 


+ ex te BDGH0MKTO C PT C W vg a c e r 

+ sum D 

plcbis {for plebi) ff Da^JKLNT QRVWX vg 

b cfff % q r aur 
in excelsis DH^GLOP afl qrSaur 
a {for ab) Da^IJKLMNTQRVWY aff 2 q vg 
conplacui {for conplacuit mini) f q 8 {cp. 

DKVZ°(W) conplacui mihi) 
dimittetur uobis {for dimittemini) JKOVX*Z 

c e r aur 
+ sibi c 

et qui {for nam qui) R a ; (inueniet solus) 
+ e S° c ffi d (?) (daemones solus) 
om aut quid respondeatis CMT 
ilia {for ipsa) cff^ 
hunc locum {for 1. h.) BCGKT vg a c d eff % 

I m r 
quaecumque {for quae) aeff^iql 

St. John. 

tertia {for tertio) FKQRYXZ 3 vg vett rell 

fiebant a I 

om tunc a eff* I q 

+ vero ER jf^ I aur 

nunc {for adhuc) D* q {but adhuc/. 252') 

+ sancto CDERTW aff 2 mr aur 

intrare {for introire) Bar 

de caelo descendit D C EHZ* vett (ex c.) 

ne quid tibi detenus E a b {d) e f Jf % I q r 
Iren Cypr 

{but 68 19 ne deterius tibi aliquid as Vulg.) 

iam sanus {bis) solus 

+ quam ego dabofq 5 

ex discipulis a bfq 

cum illo non £F dfff 2 q aur 

autem b d; {om simon solus) 

credimus CDEFGJKORTVWY*Z° ceff 2 lrh 
aur Tert Cypr 

+ ego sum solus {not in 170 s1 ) 

principium quod DES^GeM/^ I q * gat 

si mihi non creditis S {with many Gk.) 

currite {for ambulate) solus {so in Reg. S. Bene- 
dict^ Prologue) 

cor eorum vg a b c efff % I q r Aug {but eorum 
cor. 67 18 as Vulg.) 

obdurauit {bis) solus ; ( + Jesus {bis) solus) 

credite {for creditis) DE vett {exc.f) Aug 

57 Serm. 7 

350 5 

ii. 1 



351 8 

ii. 10 



62 Sp.S. ii. 4 

I44 15 

iii. 5 

63 m ii - 7 

I49 u 


64 Sp.S.ii.4 

140 6 

iii. 13 

65 Serm. 18 

295 19 

v. 14 

Gra. ii. 5 

68 w 

66 Gra. i. 16 

50 10 

vi. 51 

67 Gra. i. 16 


vi. 66 





6 9 

Sp. S. ii. 4 


viii. 25 

71 Ep. 3 

170' 1 

72 Serm. 26 

33o 5 

x. 38 

Serm. 15 

28 4 8 

xii. 35 

73Sp.S.i. 7 

112 35 

xii. 40 

Gra. ii. 5 

67 18 


105 9 

xiv. 1 



and verse. 



xiv. 9) 
>> » 

Serm. 30 

34 3 


120 9 

xiv. 17 

77 Serm. 10 

26l a 

xvi. 20 


79 Serm. 10 

261 1 

xvi. 33 j 

Serm. 13 

274 s 

80 Sp.S. i. 9 


XX. 22 ) 

81 Serm. 31 

345 10 


Work Page and Chapter 

uidet {for uidit bis) B?DEJKTRW vg I Tert 

+ hie {before mundus) vett pi 
tristes eritis {for contristabimini) Gab efq r 
conuertetur G$T*R a b r 
+ hoc (before mundo) b cfff 2 

dixit {for dicit) CH0T cor uat tng f q Aug 
om eis q 

Engelbrecht, in his index scriptorum, gives a list of 70 
citations of St. Matthew, 8 of St. Mark, 41 of St. Luke, 
and 47 of St. John. Out of these I have 32 of St. Matthew, 
3 of St. Mark, 15 of St. Luke, and 17 of St. John. The 
rest all have the readings of Wordsworth exactly. Omitting 
numbers 4, 15, 32, $5-6, we have 34 variant readings in 
St. Matthew, of which 15 are not from the sermons. The 
MSS. appear as follows, the second number being pure 
Faustus, i.e. not counting the sermons: 

D E 3> 3>"W L Q R;BZ;KT¥TV;JM;C 
16.4 17.6 6.3 3.3 9.3 12.5 13.3; 7.3 4.x; 3.1 3-i 3-i J * 1 J 4 1 

T; O X; A F H Y, 0. a b f ff x g 1 q 
5-5 5 3.1 4-3; Li o 6.3 1.1 6.3. 13.6 14.5 6.1 8.3 15.6 10.4. 

Only Nos. 21, 22, 37 are supported by no Irish witness. 
Nos. 3, 4> 24, 28, 29, 39 are not witnessed by the Old Latin 
so far as I have quoted it. So that the general testimony 
of Faustus is an exact parallel to the scanty evidence from 
St. Patrick and St. Vincent. 

If we inquire into more detail, we must remember that the 
correspondence with AY is far closer than the numbers 
suggest, for in pretty well all the passages I have not had 
cause to cite, the exact agreement of Faustus with Wordsworth 
means an agreement with AY. The agreement with the 
Alcuinian KlfV, the North Italian JM, the Spanish CT, and 
the Canterbury OX is insignificant, except (naturally) where 
they agree with AY and Wordsworth. 

Among the Irish Codices DE are the nearest to Faustus, 
and QR follow them closely. The Old Latin text on which 


that of Faustus was founded was clearly ' European ' {a bff 2 g x q), 
though mixed with ' Italian ' elements (/). This again agrees 
with the scanty evidence from Vincent {a, b,g x each thrice,/^ 
each once) ; (Patrick a bf each twice, g x once). 

The text used by Faustus was thus in Matthew mixed 
Vulgate and European Latin ; viz. either a Vulgate text 
spoilt by recollections of a European text, or (far more 
probably) a European text corrected considerably, but incom- 
pletely, from St. Jerome's revision. I take the Irish text to 
be explained in the same way ; it is a ' European text ' 
corrected considerably by the revision of St. Jerome, and all 
existing MSS. of it have been still further revised, some 
more, some less. The remarkable point is that nearly all the 
4 European readings ' found in the Lerinese writers we have 
examined are still attested in some at least of our Irish MSS. 

The evidence from Mark and Luke is scantier, but not in 
disaccord. Out of seventeen places the Old Latin is alone 
in as many as five. Three of the remaining readings, Nos. 
49, 53, 55, are supported by no Irish MSS. ; but 53 is unim- 
portant, and the other two places have the semi-Irish witness 
of KV or BGK. In the remaining nine places D appears 
seven times, R four times : 

D 3> a™* LQR; BU7GZ; KKTV; JM; 

7.4 2.1 2.2 3.2 3.3 4.4; 3.3 1.1 4.2 2.1; 5.4 5.5 5-3J 3-3 3-3 J 

2.2 4.4; 4.1 3.2; o 1.1 1.1 1.1 ; 2.2. 

The Alcuinian KKTV are more Irish than they appeared in 
Matthew. This is mere chance. 

9.8 4.2 8.7 2.2 4.3 5.4 8.7 6.4 5.3 3.3 

Now that g x 1 has disappeared a takes the lead. 

When we turn to St. John everything changes. Every single 
text has an Old Latin witness. Nine out of twenty-five have 
no other witness. D and R still take a prominent place, but evi- 
dently on account of the large Old Latin element they contain. 
One cannot venture on this evidence to say that Faustus used 

1 This MS. everywhere but in Matthew is Vulgate and called G. 


simply an Old Latin text of St. John. But one must at least 
affirm that it was more full of Old Latin elements than was 
his text of the Synoptists. The Old Latin elements are 
slightly more Italian and less European than before : 

D E 2P a*"? 



B W G Z; K KT V; 

J M 

6.5 8.6 1.1 



I.I I.I 4.2 I.I ; 2.1 2.1 I.I ; 

2.2 1.1 

C T ; O 




H S Y 

3.3 3.2 2.2; 1 

1 ; 


2.2 2.1 

a be 




fft i I m q r 

5 aur 

12.6 11.5 5.3 




12.7 3.3 9.5 4.3 13.8 10.6 

8.6 6.5 

§ 4. The Vulgate Gospels and St. Eucherius of Lyons. 

The founder of the monastery of Lerins, St. Honoratus, was 
joined in 410 by Eucherius, who became in 429 bishop of 
Lyons, and died about 450-5. Eucherius and Patrick must 
have been companions in monastic life. 

Eucherius is commonly said to have used the Vulgate, but 
not exclusively (cp. Instr. y xli, p. 97 26 ). It is difficult to estimate 
the nature of his text, from the fact that he cites very freely. 
One would guess that he had an excellent memory, and was 
wont to quote even long passages by heart. In the following 
list none of the passages where he agrees with Wordsworth 
are given, and of apparently free quotation only specimens are 
included, especially those cases where the reading looks as 
though it may have been really found in a MS. I give 
pages and lines of Wotke's edition (CSEL., xxx, part i) of 
which the second volume has not appeared. Pp. 3-62 refer to 
the Formulae Spiritalis Intellegentiae, pp. 65-139 to the 
Instructions, Book I. In Book II there are no citations, and 
there are none of importance in the Passio Agaunensium 

martyrum and De laude eremi. 


St. Matthew. 
Page and Chapter 
line. and verse. 
1 i 4 ls iii. 9 potensest(/^potest)BEH c 0JKM , WX*(V*)a3//i^z/ < g' 

107 18 iii. 11 see Luke iii. 16. 

1 5 20 iii. 1 2 \Codex S of Eucherius omits suum and reads in horreo 

suo ; compare in horreum suum Faustus BTX*Z* ff x g{\ 
45 ia v. 15 nemo accendit solus {free) 


Page and 

and verse. 


4 6» 

v. 16 

vii. 5 


up 18 

vii. 24-5 




34 1 

39 a 

108 2 

via. 22 

xi. 21 
xi. 30 

6 61* and 21 xiii. 8 

xiii. 38 





I29 11 




35 1 



24 18 





io9 a 



22 W 



I20 l » 



45 6 

xxv. 7 


5°' 7 

xxv. 33 


io9 12 

xx vi. 29 


109 18 

xxvi. 64 


xxviii. 19 


121 10 ) 

i. 15 

14 5 

iii. 4 


io7 w 

iii. 16 

lumen uestrum {for lux uestra) d k q 

turn {for tunc) w/«j 

fistucam (so spelt) Faustus DH*HL*QR (fyst. E) 

similis est a b g x 

super i° DH^LQRZ* (a* Euch. has supra with Vulg.) 

aduenerunt {for uenerunt) a b g x q 

om flauerunt uenti solus 

sine mortui sepeliant a (rewitte mortuos sine mortui 

sepeliant) q (sine mortuos sepelire) for dimitte m. 

cinere et cilicio {for cin. et cil.) solus 
lene {for suaue) solus 
dabunt {for dabant) bis EQ g x k q 
[centensimum, spelt so EZ*b ; sexagens. bis CE3PZ* b q ; 

tricens. C3>FZ* *] 
+ hie {before mundus) DEjF^QR a bfg x q {Eucherius 

has est hie mundus with D3 m ? Q a bfg x q ; om est 

R ; hie m. est E) 
+ eius {after pullum) BEH a 
om dei {after angeli) EZ* bfq 
foris {for aforis) FH*T 
sicut {for quemadmodum) Faustus DE a 
alis suis FR / {for alas Vulg. ; but Faustus DE3>H© 

LQT a b g x q alas suas) 
ne {for ut non) R 
ubi {for ubicumque) solus 
assimilabitur solus 

lampadasOr-des)BFH*OX*Z*/V; exillis (/^exeis) 

solus ; sapientes {for prudentes) solus {cf.liturg.antiph . 

* haec est virgo sapiens et una de numero prudentum ') 
fatuae autem q 

+ suis {after lampadibus) DEH^R bf 
adsumpserunt {for sumps.) solus 
om prudentes . . . oleum solus {butff x has in uasis after 

secum, continuing prudentes . . . oleum secum) 
+ suis {after lampadibus 2 ) D3» TO ^Q b q {but om 

before lampad.) 
parauerunt {for ornauerunt) solus 
statuit {for statuet) OR 
quo {for cum) LQ 

ad dexteram {for a dextris) S^LR a bfq 
ite baptizate as Faustus 

St. Luke. 
siceram {for sicera) CDa > GH0IJKKTO a QRTVWZ vg 

b cff % 1° rl aur 
collis et mons {for mons et collis) solus {b om mons et) 
om in before Spiritu B {not Matt. iii. 11) 


Page and Chapter 
line. and verse. 

21 6i l » iv. 1-2 in deserto {for in desertum) C^GHGINTOTXZ a b 

dffi <l r * aur 
46 s v. 4 mitte {for laxate, al. laxa, d mittite) solus 

om uestra solus 

22 33 1 * v. 31 sani {for qui sani sunt) P aft 
male habentes {for qui male habent) solus 

42 s v. 38 mitti debet solus {free) 

23 30 4 x. 19 super {for supra) CEGPQR a c d efi q 

24 1 2 1 IB x. 30 suscipiens D3PHOPQY a dff 2 l*q r 8 aur gig Wordsw. 

25 {the rest is freely cited but note cum uidisset ef) 

26 47* xi. 25 ueniens {for cum uenerit) c df 5 

27 + uacantem//r 

28 + et ornatam ERW a 2 bfff 2 i qrl cor uat 
41 l7 xii. 33 ueterascant {for -cunt) solus 

29 45 8 xii. 35 accincti c 

30 122 11 xv. 11-13 iunior c e {for adulescentior) 

31 om ex illis patri e (illi c) ; the rest is free 

32 47 13 xv. 22 manu (/?;- manum, and so one cod.ofEuch.) EFCEG0M 
MTW a b cfilqraur 

33 33 M xvi. 20 pauper {for mendicus) vett pi 

34 1 1 3 11 xvi. 23 uidit {for uidebat) anE^G©IOTOVWZ vgbfiql 

35 de longe {for al.)E«r 

St. John. 

36 23 18 i. 32 sicut {for quasi) (E)QR (a b e r) but E a b e r have 
the order sicut col. desc, while Euch. QR have Vulg. 

quia {for qui) jo/«j 
deus dat {for dat deus) solus 
me misit (y&r misit me) SFCGM' abdeff^lmq 
+ patris / 

om festum 1 ° loco, solus 
eum (>r ilium) S^R 
perhibuit {for perhibet) solus 
om ipso {after me) a b d e I Tert 
diabolo patre {for patre diab.) E 
liniuit {for unxit) d (linuit) [cp. superliniuit b (/) / r ] 
+ ante me dgatfoss Lucif Hier K 
fuerunt {for sunt) jo/kj 
cor eorum {for eor. cor) Mtf (£#/ not p. 85 s3 ) 
0/» a patre D q 

perhibet {for perhibebit) OQRZ c 8 
exiit BCD3>MT 

remittentur ADNTRSX eff % q r {but codd. AV of Euch. 
have -tuntur) 
46 retenta erunt E aur 

A large number of the above cases are very uncertain. 


iii. 18 

» 4 » 

iii. 34 



iv. 34 

115 8 

vii. 8 


115 26 

vii. 30 

138 10 

viii. 18 



116 10 

viii. 44 

I3 30 

ix. 11 


5« 6 

x. 8 

86 a 

xii. 40 


138 14 

xv. 26 



i37 M 

xix. 35 


I34 28 

xx. 23 


It is always possible that Eucherius may have had an Old 
Latin copy of the Gospels almost by heart, while he sometimes 
referred to a Vulgate copy before him. But it seems more 
likely that, like Faustus, he used an Old Latin copy largely 
corrected to the Vulgate ; for the general testimony of the 
table is closely parallel to what we learned about Faustus. 

Out of forty-six readings, thirty-seven are Old Latin, 
thirty are Irish. In twenty-three cases (exactly half) the Old 
Latin and Irish coincide : 

Old Latin f| ; Irish fj J 

Old Latin only £§ ; Irish only ^. 

In twenty cases other MSS. appear (but only one MS. in 
four of these cases, viz. Nos. 4, 8, 22, 28), and in a few cases 
the reading is a widespread one (viz. 1, 13, 19, 21, 32). In 
fifteen out of the twenty cases the other MSS. are with both 
Irish and Old Latin (viz. 1, 4, 8, u, 13, 19, 21, 23, 24, 28, 32, 
34, 37, 43, 45). In only two cases (9, 20) are readings sup- 
ported merely by non-Irish and non-Old Latin MSS. ; the 
former case is unimportant (forts for aforis)\ the second is 
supported by one MS. only (B, semi-Irish) and is probably 
a slip. The various MSS. appear as follows, offering an exact 
parallel to Faustus in the case of the Vulgate : 

D E 3> a*"* LQR; B8FGZ; K W V ; JM; 

* B 
10 13 11 3 11 14; 4367; 382; 22; 

C T; OX; A F H Y 
65; 64; 1 35 1 

a b c d e f ff. t g x i I q r 8 aur 

Mark, Luke, John 7778796 — 55866 5 

Matt. 6 8 7 4 9 

Total 13 15 16 17 

On the Vulgate MSS. no remarks need be made, as there 
is nothing to be said which was not said with regard to 
Faustus. As to the Old Latin, the evidence for Matthew is 
too scanty to make the unimportance of g x noticeable. But/ 
(that is the c Italian ' element) is fairly prominent, much more 
so than it was in the text of Faustus. But this is not 
enough to offer any real contrast to the evidence from Faustus, 


whose Matthew text seemed to be more European, and his 
John text less Irish, and indeed hardly Vulgate at all. We 
should expect some considerable difference between the codices 
used by the two Lerinese monks, whether we regard them as 
two Gallic texts or even as two books copied at Lerins. But 
the general witness is certainly practically the same, and the 
important point is that it harmonizes perfectly with the scantier 
witness from St. Vincent of Lerins and from St. Patrick. 

The passages where Faustus and Eucherius meet are few ; see 
Matt. iii. 1 2 ; vii. 5 ; and John xii. 40, where there are actually 
coincidences though unimportant ones. But Matt, xxviii. 19 
is really remarkable, for Eucherius, like Faustus, quotes * ite 
baptizate omnes gentes ' for ' euntes docete omnes gentes 
baptizantes eos \ Did their codices really present them with 
this possibly unexampled corruption of a well-known text ? 

§ 5. The origin of the Irish text was from Lerins. 

To sum up. 1. The Irish text of the Vulgate Gospels is 
a text containing three elements : first, a strain of pure 
Hieronymian readings which place it in the front rank 'of 
witnesses, and which show that it branched off from the other 
families at a very early date ; secondly, a considerable admixture 
of Old Latin elements, neither purely ' Italian ' nor purely 
* European ' ; thirdly, certain well-known Irish characteristics, 1 
many of which may have arisen in Ireland. 

2. Similarly, the writers of Lerins in the first half of the 
fifth century use a Vulgate text which largely agrees with the 
true text restored by Wordsworth, as their early date would 
lead us to expect. But there is also a large element of Old 
Latin readings or reminiscences in their quotations, larger than 
in the Irish text. Still the greater number of these variants 
are actually found in the Irish text as well, and they exhibit 
other variants which are attested by some or all of our Irish 
MSS.,but by no known Old Latin copies. On the other hand 

1 Viz. ' redundantia locutionum " and * verborum inversio ', see Wordsworth and 
White, pp. 713-14, who give tinder five heads what I have summed for convenience 
under three. 

CH. V. G. N 


these writers show no affinities whatever in their text with 
any other Vulgate families than the Irish. 

3. St. Patrick, probably a monk of Lerins, shows in his 
writings just the same phenomena which we have observed 
in Vincent, Faustus, and Eucherius. His relationship to the 
Irish text is naturally explained by the supposition that he 
introduced that text into Ireland in 43a. 

The evidence is in itself by no means conclusive ; but the 
solution to which it points is one so obvious and expected 
that the uncertainty of the evidence is of less moment. The 
independent and ancient character of the Irish text is strongly 
in favour of this hypothesis, which isolates it already at the 
beginning of the fifth century. We shall find a still stronger 
confirmation when in chapter xv, p. 279 we consider the Irish 
text of the Prologues to the Gospels, a text which alone of all 
others has preserved the original readings, whereas all the 
remaining families, Northumbrian, Canterbury, Spanish, &c, 
exhibit varieties of a single later recension of the Prologues. 

Further, we have seen that a thoroughly corrupt Vulgate 
text can hardly be presumed at Lerins so early as 410-30 ; the 
mixed text of Eucherius and Faustus is surely an Old Latin 
text corrected to the Vulgate, not a Vulgate text corrupted 
by the Old Latin. And this is in itself a natural presumption. 
St. Jerome made no new translation of the Gospels, but a 
revision only. The Old Latin copies in use would be simply 
corrected according to his revision. The Lerins text (or shall 
we say the text of South Gaul ? — I think not) was systemati- 
cally but not thoroughly corrected. It seems that in Faustus's 
copy the corrector grew lazy when he arrived at the fourth 

St. Patrick's copy may have been rather better corrected 
(unless we prefer to think that Faustus and Eucherius had the 
Old Latin in their memories); but anyhow the Irish MSS. 
which we possess to-day have received fresh revision according 
to the Vulgate (and even according to the Greek) in varying 
measure. In consequence of this they exhibit fewer Old Latin 
readings than we found in Eucherius and Faustus ; and 
whereas some of the readings of those Fathers are found in all 


our Irish witnesses, there are others which have survived in 
only one or two of them. Let us remember that the oldest 
of our Irish MSS. are nearly three hundred years younger 
than St. Patrick's mission ; L and Q are seventh to eighth 
century, D 1 E 3* eighth to ninth, R was completed before 820. 
If we judge by the evidence of Eucherius and Faustus, L is 
the most altered from the original type. This is the less to be 
wondered at if Bradshaw was right in his view that it came 
originally from Llandaff to Lichfield. 3? has become a better 
witness through its marginal corrections. Of DEQR on the 
whole D seems to have preserved the Old Latin element with 
the greatest fidelity ; and this is the more interesting because 
this famous ■ Book of Armagh' contains a Corpus Patricianum 
of the highest importance, and adds at the end of the Con- 
fession of St. Patrick the interesting words : * Hue usque 
uolumen quod Patricius manu conscripsit sua. Septima decima 
Martii die translatus est Patricius ad caelos/ 

A further indication that the Irish Gospel text is funda- 
mentally an Old Latin text vulgatized may be found in the 
Irish summaries, as found in D3PQ durm. These are essentially 
Old Latin summaries in the earliest form, and are thus found 
* n c ffi g\ (Matt.) g 2 (Mark, Luke, John) h r aur> &c. The usual 
form (BJ and CTH0, &c.) is a later and improved edition, 
though it is as early as St. Hilary ; unless we regard the Irish 
and c ff 2 g h form as an adaptation of the usual form to the 
Greek divisions as found in the Codex Vaticanus. At any 
rate the Irish form is found in comparatively few Vulgate MSS., 
and these have mostly got it from the Irish family. 

On the other hand B, 9\ and G (in Matt. = g^) are probably 
Gallican MSS. 2 I do not think it by any means certain 
that they have Irish contamination. It is quite possible that 
they are descendants of MSS. somewhat of the kind used by 
Eucherius and Faustus in the fifth century. 

Note. — The view that St. Patrick probably introduced into Ireland the 

1 Some part of D was written in 807 ; see Whitley Stokes, Tripart. Life, p. xci. 

2 On 8F see Berger, Hist, de la Vulg.., pp. 91-2, who is obviously right in 
thinking this Benevento codex to be Gallican in its sympathies, whatever its 
ultimate origin. 

N 2 


Vulgate Gospels as used at Lerins may suggest further connexions. I hazard 
one suggestion. The Irish tradition with regard to the authorship of the Te 
Deum by Niceta may have come from Lerins. Dom Cagin has established 
the fact that in many of the most ancient Irish liturgical MSS. this attribution 
is not given. But it is found in later MSS. in very different places, and 
their agreement carries us back to a very early date. The tradition is 
probably true, on other grounds ; and it is evident that Lerins was a place 
where the truth might well be known in St. Patrick's time. Niceta's 
friend Paulinus had constant relations with Southern Gaul. This con- 
jecture is not, so far as I know, susceptible of proof, but it may suggest 
some line of inquiry. 


§ i. The Gospel books brought by St. Augustine to England. 

The Venerable Bede tells us that when St. Gregory the 
Great sent to St. Augustine a number of helpers, of whom the 
principal were Mellitus, Justus, Paulinus, and Rufinianus, he 
sent by them all that was necessary for the worship of the 
Church, and very many books : 

1 Et per eos generaliter uniuersa quae ad cultum erant ac ministerium 
ecclesiae necessaria, uasa uidelicet sacra et uestimenta altarium, ornamenta 
quoque ecclesiarum, et sacerdotalia uel clericalia indumenta, sanctorum 
etiam apostolorum ac martyrum reliquias nee non et codices plurimos ' 
(H. E., i. 29). 

This passage is quoted by John the deacon in his life of 
St. Gregory, ii. 37, and (what is more to the purpose) by 
Thomas of Elmham in his history of the monastery of 
St. Augustine of Canterbury, titulus ii (Rolls Series, p. 94). 
Writing about the year 141 4, this monk of St. Augustine's, 
Canterbury, gives a list of the remains of the presents sent by 
St. Gregory, or of what were in his day considered to be such. 
In the sixth paragraph he gives the names of the books then 
preserved : 

1. Biblia Gregoriana. The Gospels in the British Museum, 
Reg i. E vi, are considered by some to be a fragment of the 
second volume of this Pandect. This book did belong to 
St. Augustine's. 1 

2. Psalterium Augustinu Elmham gives a complete list 
of its contents. These first two books were in the library. 

3. Textus euangeliorum, in the uestiarium } ' in cuius principio 
x. canones annotantur ; et uocatur textus sanctae Mildredae, 

1 A more common, but less probable, identification is with the Bible Reg i. E 
vii-viii, of the ninth or tenth century. 


eo quod quidam rusticus in Thaneto, super eundem textum 
falsum iurans, oculos amittere perhibetur/ 

4. Psalterium, kept on the High Altar; the contents are 
enumerated by Elmham. They correspond with those of the 
' Psalter of St. Augustine \ Cotton. Vesp. A 1. 

5. Textus euangeliorum \ in quo x canones praeponuntur, 
cum prologo, qui sic incipit " Prologus Canonum " \ 

6. On the High Altar a book of the Passions of the Apostles. 

7. Also on the High Altar a Passionarium Sanctorum. 

8. Expositio super epistolas et euangelia, also on the High 
Altar. The books thus placed were in splendid bindings of 
engraved silver or adorned with jewels. 

Thomas ends : * et haec sunt primitiae librorum totius 
ecclesiae Anglicanae.' On this Plummer (on Bede i. 29) 
remarks that the primitiae were the books brought by 
Augustine himself, and not those sent later by Mellitus and 
his companions. But Elmham is speaking of surviving books, 
and probably did not intend to assert positively that these 
individual books were all brought by Mellitus and not by 
St. Augustine. 1 

It is not certain whether any of these books can be now 
identified. The Gospels Reg i. E vi are attributed to the 
eighth century. The so-called Psalter of St. Augustine (Brit. 
Mus. Cotton. Vesp. A 1) is of the ninth. It is often assumed 

1 Egbert, Archbishop of York (732-66), mentions two books as sent with 
St. Augustine by St. Gregory, the Antiphonary and the Missal of that Pope : ' Nos 
autem in ecclesia Anglorum idem primi mensis ieiunium (ut noster didascalus beatus 
Gregorius in suo antiphonario et missali libro per paedagogum nostrum beatum 
Augustinum transmisit ordinatum et rescriptum) indifferenter de prima hebdomada 
quadragesimae seruamus . . . secundum ieiunium quarti mensis . . . hoc autem 
ieiunium idem beatus Gregorius per praefatum legatum, in antiphonario suo et 
missali, in plena hebdomada post Pentecosten, Anglorum ecclesiae celebrandum 
destinauit. Quod non solum nostra testantur antiphonaria, sed et ipsa quae cum 
missalibus suis conspeximus apud apostolorum Petri et Pauli lunula* {De in- 
stitutione catholica dialogus, Resp. xvi. 1 and 2, P. L. 89, col. 441 ; Mansi, Concilia, 
vol. xii. 487). Mr. Martin Rule understands the last words of this passage to refer 
to the monastery of St. Peter and St. Paul at Canterbury {Missal of St. Augustine's, 
Cant., 1896, p. ix). This is, of course, quite impossible. The limina apostolorum 
implied then what they signify now — Rome. Egbert means to say that his own 
Missals at York were in accordance with those sent by St. Gregory with 
St. Augustine, and he proves it by saying that those he had seen at ome gave the 
same witness. 


that Wanley was right in identifying the two textus euan- 
geliorum with the since famous ' Gospels of St. Augustine ' at 
Corpus Christi, Cambridge (cclxxxvi), and in the Bodleian 
(Bodl. 857 or Auct. D 2, 4). The former certainly belonged to 
St. Augustine's, Canterbury, a thousand years ago, and they 
are not later than the seventh century. 

But it is more in fashion to say that they were written in 
England. In the first place we have the opinion of Samuel 
Berger. Of the Cambridge volume he says : * Neanmoins le 
manuscrit ne vient tres-probablement pas de Rome. Son 
texte est un texte un peu meld, exempt des grandes inter- 
polations irlandaises, et qui parait admettre certaines lecons 
espagnoles remarquables, mais qui, dans le detail, semble tenir 
par bien des points aux textes irlandais et anglo-saxons.' 
And in a note : ' Je renvoie pour les preuves a l'ddition de 
M. Wordsworth, et je me borne a citer Matth. i. 17* : Omnes 
itaque getter ationes . . . sunt xlii et Luc xi. 2*: Fiat voluntas 
tua sicut in caelo et in terra' Of the Oxford codex he says : 
' Le manuscrit n'est pourtant copid, quant a son texte, ni sur 
le manuscrit de Corpus ni sur son modele, mais il contient 
plusieurs lecons qui paraissent irlandaises, et il est certaine- 
ment parent du manuscrit de Corpus, auquel le rattache plus 
d'une particularity. Ainsi Matth. xxii. 19, Tun et l'autre ont, 
pour nomisma, la singuliere lecon nouissima. Le texte de ces 
deux manuscrits parait etre a la base du deVeloppement du 
texte anglo-saxon. Apres ce qui vient d'etre dit, nous com- 
prendrons que si nos manuscrits portent le nom de St. 
Augustin, c'est qu'ils proviennent de l'abbaye qui est con- 
sacrde au souvenir du grand missionnaire ' {Hist, de la Vulg. t 
pp. 35-6). The last sentence is incorrect. The two MSS. in 
recent years received the name of St. Augustine because they 
were believed to be identical with those which, in his 
monastery, bore his name in the first years of the fifteenth 

Mr. H. J. White has adopted Berger's view. Of the Bodley 
MS. he writes : * From the point of view of age the MS. 
might well have been brought to Canterbury by some of the 
later followers of Augustine, but the text shows it to be of 


native origin ; it is fairly near to Amiatinus, but has a large 
number of characteristics partly Irish, partly early Anglo- 
Saxon ; as Berger says (p. $6) it may be placed at the base of 
the Anglo-Saxon type of text, and must owe its name not to 
being the personal property of Augustine, but to belonging 
to the abbey at Canterbury, which was consecrated to his 
memory ' (in Hastings, Diet, of the Bible, 1902, art. 'Vulgate \ 
p. 887 a), Mr. White was capable of giving a far more 
valuable judgement than was M. Berger, but we see that he 
has contented himself with paraphrasing the French writer, 
and has adopted his mistake. I may note that the monastery 
called ' St. Augustine's ' was ' consecrated to the memory of ■ 
St. Peter and St. Paul. 

Mr. White continues of the Corpus MS. : ' It was, according 
to tradition, sent by Pope Gregory to Augustine ; but the text 
does not bear out this supposition ; it closely resembles that of 
the preceding MS., and is really Anglo-Saxon, though it has 
been corrected throughout in accordance with a MS. of the 
Amiatinus type'. In fact X c is a good AY text, but this 
does not help us to discover the origin of X* ; it only shows 
that it was early recognized by the Canterbury monks that 
the Eugipio-Cassiodorian text of J arrow was better than 
their own. 

Bishop Wordsworth wrote more carefully and prudently 
in the epilogue to his Vulgate (1898) : ' Codices OX, qui 
Cantuarienses sunt, ex Roma facile ab Augustino aut quodam 
alio sub finem s. vii. [sic'] aduecti credebantur, uel postea a 
Gregorio Magno transmissi ; uide Baedam . . . Lectiones 
autem in iisdem proditae huic opinioni non fauent, ut iudicat 
S. Berger, Hist, de la Vulgate, pp. 35-6. Mixtae enim sunt, 
et una cum lectionibus antiquis Hieronymianis Hiberna 
quaedam additamenta et ueterum Latinorum traditiones 
ostendunt. Iudicium de horum codicum origine maxime 
difficile est. Non enim penitus a missione Romana separandos 
credimus: sed opinionem probabilem de eis proferre non 
possumus ' (p. 706). It is plain enough that the bishop does 
not think M. Berger's arguments convincing, and that he is 
only prevented from disagreeing with them because of the 


difficulty of establishing the view to which he inclines, with all 
the certainty he could wish. 

I am constitutionally less cautious, and I will say boldly that 
I think the late M. Berger's arguments are valueless. 

The examples he gives do not prove his point, and perhaps 
he meant them merely as curiosities. Of the Corpus MS., X, 
he says: 'Je me borne a citer Matth. i. 17*: Omnes itaque 
generationes . . . sunt xlii> et Luc. xi. 2* : Fiat uoluntas tua 
sicut in caelo et in terra' 

1. Matt. i. 17 has this addition in DH0X*, but in X* sunt 
{teste Wordsworthio) is omitted ; the addition is also in the Old 
Latin b c and the Aethiopic. It is not likely that Theodulf 
(H0) got it from the Irish, as only one Irish MS. has it. Surely 
it is simply an O. L. reading in X, and it has many such. 

2. Luke xi. 2. This interpolation from St. Matthew is 
in nearly all Greek MSS., as every one knows, and in all O. L. 
copies except ff 2 {a has only fiat uoluntas tua, b has the African 
form). It is found in the Vulgate MSS. B^DS** OPQRTX* 
Reg cor A. It is therefore in all the Irish MSS., and this is not 
surprising, as they have an Old Latin basis. But there is no 
more reason for supposing X to have borrowed from the Irish 
than to suppose it of P. 

Of the Oxford MS., O, Berger has : ' Je citerai seulement 
deux passages de ce MS. Matt. xx. 15* : quod uolo facer e de 
rem meant. — ib. 28 : Vos autem quaeritis de modico crescere et 
de maximo minuu Cum autem introeritis] &c. 

3. Matt. xx. 15. Wordsworth quotes X as reading 

quod uolo facet e de re mea, so also^ 2 

dare (sic) mea quod uolo facer e QR 

quod uolo facet e . . . meis a 

facer e de meum quod uolo f 

facet e quod uolo in propriis meis q. 
Here we clearly have an Old Latin reading, not an Irish one, 
for the two Irish MSS. do not agree with X, whereas the 
Italian- African ff 2 does* 

4. Matt. xx. 28. This famous and lengthy interpolation is 
found (with many varieties) in no Irish MSS., but in the 
Theodulphian H w 00 as well as in O, and in nearly all the 


Old Latin copies : a be d e ff lt 2 (g x partly, g 2 partly) n r. 
The same form as in H m 00O is found in the gorgeous 
Gospels of St. Emmeran at Munich (14,000, Cimelie $$)} 
Has this MS. been influenced by O or by ? 

But it is worth while to gauge more closely what Berger 
thought to be Irish or Anglo-Saxon readings. From the Biblia 
Gregoriana above mentioned (Reg i. E vi) he cites five passages. 

5. Matt. v. 5 lugunt. It is in AYZ f q. Not Irish certainly. 
But are we to call AY ' Anglo-Saxon ' ? As this volume is 
later than St. Augustine without doubt, it might have been 
influenced by the spelling of AY, but / q are more probable 

6. Matt. x. 29 Sine patris uoluntate. This is the reading 
of Cyprian (Ep. 59, 5) and Tertullian (sine dei uolunt., freely) 
& es ' 35 J sine cuius uol. Scorp. 9, Fug. 3, Cast. 1 ; Ronsch. 
N. T. Tert. p. 97) ; k however has been corrected to the 
Vulgate (sine patre uestro) and d likewise. We find also 

sine patris uestri uol. D Iren 
sine uol. patris uestri ®afff 2 g x 
sine uol. patris uestri qui est in caelis b 
sine uol. dei patris uestri qui in caelis est Q. 

Here the Bibl. Greg, does not agree with the Irish, but with 

an older reading. 

7. Matt. xiii. 55. Nonne hie est fabri filius ? This is the 
reading of nearly all MSS. Does M. Berger mean that 
Bibl. Greg, omits the words, with X*Z* ? I think this likely, 
as a coincidence with Z* is probable. Or did he forget to 
add Joseph ? This addition is found in the Irish contingent 
D3PQR with a b ff 2 g x h gat — another O. L. reading. 

8. Matt. xxvi. 9 : praetio multo, with DL^. The Vulgate 
has multo only, with dk g 1 \ BE J Y c / have multo praetio ; ab q 
have simply praetio. No one will think J borrows from the 
Irish text. 2 

1 This MS. is one of the Bibles of Charles the Bald, and was written 870, after 
his death passing to Saint Denys and to St. Emmeran at Ratisbon, where it was 
sumptuously bound before c. 900. Possibly copied at Corbie, it anyhow belongs 
to the school of Alcuin. 

' For J is sixth or seventh century, and Irish influence at Milan or thereabouts is 


9. Matt. vi. 16: demoliuntur (for the exterminant of nearly 
all MSS.). Wordsworth reads demoliuntur on the ground 
that Jerome declares it in his commentary to be the right 
reading ; probably on the same ground it has been inserted 
in E3?KO*(Q)R(Z* P). 1 There is no more reason for thinking 
that Q borrowed from the Irish than that Z did. Still this 
passage, which I have given last, is the only one of the nine in 
which the likeness to the Irish MSS. is at all striking. 

Now as to the * Anglo-Saxon ' element : ' Le texte de ces 
deux manuscrits parait etre a la base du deVeloppement du 
texte anglo-saxon.' No doubt. But Berger writes almost 
as if he supposed these two MSS. could have borrowed from 
Anglo-Saxon MSS. earlier than St. Augustine ! 2 If they did 
not become contaminated with Irish readings they must have 
remained pure ; for there was no indigenous element in the 
seventh century by which they could have been tainted. 
They are certainly too early to have been influenced by the 
Cassiodorian Bible brought by Benet Biscop to Wearmouth. 
Probably they were written before Theodore and Hadrian 
came to England ; and we do not know that these holy men 
brought libraries with them. O and X may be the archetypes 
but cannot be the children of an * Anglo-Saxon text '. Con- 
sequently there is no meaning in M. Berger's final conclusion : 
■ Les textes qui se rdclament du nom de St. Augustin sont de 
beaux textes et des textes tres-anciens, mais ce sont deja des 

most improbable at so early a date. It is true that the summaries (capituld) of Mark 
in J are the same as in the Irish, but then the corresponding summaries of J for the 
other Gospels are based on these Irish-Old Latin summaries. On this question 
see p. 215. 

1 I cannot but think that Jerome left exterminant, in spite of his strongly 
expressed opinion. 

a Some light is thrown on Berger's idea of an l Anglo-Saxon ' text by his words 
about A: ' Quant au texte lui-meme {of A), celui qui douterait de son caractere 
anglais n'a qu'a etadier les variantes que M. Wordsworth a r^unies dans son 
Edition des Evangiles, il y verra que le Codex Amiatinus se plait en la compagnie 
des manuscrits anglo-saxons et particulierement des fragments d'Utrecht et du 
Book of Lindisfarne. Nous avons deja constat^, et nous verrons par de nouveaux 
exemples, que les copistes saxons ne savaient pas copier un texte Stranger sans lui 
donner, pour ainsi dire, la couleur locale des textes de leur pays/ It seems never 
to have struck M. Berger that the ' local colour' could not possibly be indigenous, 
and that precisely it was derived from such foreign MSS. as the parent of A ! 


textes saxons, ce ne sont plus de purs textes romains.' On the 
contrary, they are either foreign texts, or else they are foreign 
texts with Irish readings introduced. The second of these 
alternatives is certainly not proved. 

Lastly, the explanation that these two books are called 
* Gospels of St. Augustine ' because they belonged to his 
monastery is not really false (as we saw), but it is misleading ; 
for it disguises the fact that these two books were supposed to 
be two of those which in 141 4 were traditionally believed in 
that monastery to have come down from St. Augustine. The 
Codex Fuldensis and the Codex Laudianus of Acts are 
possibly two of the volumes brought to Northumbria by 
St. Benet Biscop, and they still survive. There is no reason 
why some of the books brought by St. Augustine should not 
survive also, and they need not be so ancient as E act8 and F 
(sixth century). It is true that Mr. Coxe is said to have 
declared that O was not written before 650 ; * but even so 
great a palaeographer is not infallible; and we have just 
heard Mr. White state emphatically that both codices might 
well, so far as age is concerned, have been brought by Mellitus 
and his companions. Mr. E. W. B. Nicholson declares that 
O might be of the late sixth century. 

I am not concerned to prove that the tradition is true. It 
seems unlikely, however, that none of the eight volumes revered 
at St. Augustine's should have been genuine. The four whose 
bindings destined them to grace the High Altar on Feast days 
might more easily gain a fictitious importance and a legendary 
history. 2 The two noble volumes of Gospels are old enough 
to be what they were believed to be ; and I do not think the 
internal evidence of their readings can be shown to make this 

1 Quoted in Plummer's Bede's Eccl. Hist., vol. ii, p. 56, from Dr. Bright. 

3 Westwood had a theory with regard to the Psalter of St. Augustine (at the 
end of his description of it, in Palaeographia Sacra Pictoria — a book in which 
neither the plates nor the pages are numbered — this plate is near the end) that the 
leaves written in rustic Roman capitals are really of Roman origin, while the text 
of the Psalter (in Roman uncial, with Saxon illuminated capitals) has been 
supplied because the original Psalter was worn out. But his view seems not to 
have been accepted. 


§ 2. The home of the Bodleian ' Gospels of St. Augustine '. 

But it is said to be a mistake to suppose that O (the Bodleian 
codex) belonged to Canterbury. In its show-case it is now 
labelled : ' Uncial 7th cent, written by a Gallican scribe, and 
perhaps given to Lichfield about 669 by St. Wilfrid.' This is 
a conjecture based solely on an inscription in a rather early 
Irish hand upside down at the bottom of fol. i49 v : 

1 Elegit e dns sacerdote sibi ad sacrificandum ei h(ostiam) | laudis ic est 
sacerdos magnos qui in diebus suis placuit | do confessor sa et sacerdos 
magni beati see ceadda.' 

Now elegit . . . laudis is a versicle and response, and hie est 
( = ecee) . . . deo part of an antiphon, both from the common of 
Confessor Pontiffs, which any monk would know by heart ; 
the remainder confessor . . . ceadda is pure nonsense ; it is evident 
that a scribe was trying his pen or showing another his style 
of writing. Either St. Chad was his special patron or he was 
writing on St. Chad's day. But we cannot infer that the 
codex was given to Lichfield about 669 by St. Wilfrid, or that 
it had any connexion whatever with Lichfield. 

On the other hand Macray {Annals of Bodl Libr., ed. 2, 
p. 30) suggested that O belonged to the Abbey of Bury St. 
Edmunds, and Dr. M. R. James approves of this (Ancient 
Libraries of Cant, and Dover, p. lxviii), on account of some 
writing on a loose leaf now bound in at the end of the volume. 
It is half the height of the other pages, and the writing is of 
the eleventh or twelfth century in English. It runs somewhat 
as follows: 

pas bocas haue^ Salomon pf st . )>is )>ecodspel traht 
& j>e martyrluia . & J> al[leluia] & j>oeglisce saltere 
& )>e crane (?) tie tropere 

& Wulfmera'/d (?) . )>e at te leuaui . & pistelari . & J>e . . . 
5 & <ft imnere & $ captelari . . . & j> spel boc . 
Sigar pfst . \ lece boc . & Blake had boc 
oeilmer the grete sater do 

& $e litle troper . for beande . & donatum 

.xv. bocas 


Ealfric . Aeilwine_. Godric . 
io & Bealdewuine abb . & freoden . & hu[. . .] & 'Suregisel. 

2. leluia has been erased. 3, 4, 5. Italics show where a word has been written 
over an erasure. 4, 5. Erasures after J>e and captelari. 8. do written above 

This fragment greatly resembles another list of Mass vest- 
ments and books in the possession of monks at Bury in the 
time of Abbot Leofstan (1044-65), part of which is given by 
James {On tlte Abbey of St. Edmund at Bury, 1895, p. 6). The 
portion about books runs thus : 

* Blakere haeft* i. winter raeding boc Brihtric haefS i maesse reaf calix 
& disc & i maesse boc . & winter raeding boc . & sumer boc . Smerdus 
haefS an maesse reaf & an maesse boc . and Leofstan an handboc . Aeberic 
an maesseboc & capitularia . Durstan an psalter . Oskytel haefS an 
maessereaf & an maesseboc & an Ad te leuaui.' 

If Baldwin is really the Abbot of Bury (1065-1097/8), 
Ealfric and Ailwyne will be the two bishops of Elmham 
(1039 and 1032) who were great benefactors of the Abbey. 1 
Who Godric, Freoden, Hugh, and Thuregisilus may have been 
I do not know. 

On the other side of the fragment is a prayer, preceded by 
J and #, for use before the door from the cloister to the 
church on returning from the lustration of the monastery with 
holy water — at least we use the prayer so to-day. 2 

The leaf was probably found in the binding of the MS., 
when its present modern binding was made. If the earlier 
binding was post-Reformation we can only infer that the frag- 
ment came from Bury, not that the codex itself was ever in 
that monastery. 

We are therefore reduced to the internal evidence of 
the codex itself. Now a seventh-century MS. is more 
likely to have been at Canterbury than at Bury. The close 
connexion between O and X is strongly in favour of Canter- 
bury. For X, the C.C.C.C. MS., contains two Charters of 
St. Augustine's Abbey, one of 844, the other of 949^ inscribed 

1 Dugdale, Monasticon (1821), iii. 99 and iv. 1. 

* Rituale Monasticum sec. usum Congr. Beuron., Tournai, 1895, p. 152. 

* The former of these is printed in Westwood's Palaeographia Sacra Pictoria. 


on pages which had been left blank. Nothing has ever shaken 
the extreme probability of the identification of this MS. with 
one of the two evangeliaria mentioned by Thomas of Elmham. 
The similarity of the text of O certainly goes far to establish 
the view that it was the other. It is improbable that either 
MS. was written in England ; it is consequently highly prob- 
able that they were imported together. 

Mr. E. W. B. Nicholson thinks there is great resemblance 
between O and Z (Harl. 1775), though Z is more delicately 
written and may be somewhat earlier. He attributes both to 
a Gallican scribe on account of the split horizontal strokes of F. 
But a Gallican hand might be written in England or at Rome. 

§ 3. The early lectionary annotations in O. 

There are three sets of liturgical annotations in O, all of 
which I copied some years ago from the MS. Having mislaid 
this transcript, however, I have copied them once more, with 
the advantage of using a transcript made by the librarian, 
Mr. E. W. B. Nicholson, which he kindly lent me, of the 
earlier sets of notes. Without this assistance I should prob- 
ably have overlooked one or other of them. 

1. The earliest annotator has made but six notes in small 
and very neat uncials in the margin. The ink is the same 
faded brown ink which the scribe of the whole codex has 
used, and the writing seems to betray the same hand, beyond 
all doubt, in spite of the difference of size. I have asterisked 
them in the following lists, and have given the notes in small 

2. The second annotator writes in a scrawling and inclined 
uncial, especially inclined when he writes in the inner margin ; 
it is therefore clear that the book was bound when he wrote, 
and somewhat tightly and newly bound. His ink is very pale 
yellow. A good many of the letters of his notes have been 
cut off when the pages have been sheared. These I have 
supplied in italics. His date is apparently the seventh 

3. The third annotator has corrected St. Matthew nearly to 
the end, and has made coarse crosses to divide the Gospel into 


sections. At first sight some of the writing looks like eighth 
century, and the forms of the letters vary considerably. But 
Mr. F. Madan has convinced me that the uncial forms are 
imitative, and that the writer's own handwriting is seen in his 
note on the interpolation Matt. xx. 28, where he exclaims : 
6 Mirum unde istud additum,' &C. 1 His ink is very dark 
brownish black, and his date probably tenth century. I have 
copied his notes, since a tenth-century English use, though 
only extant for St. Matthew, is of some interest in itself. 

I shall cite these three annotators as O*, O a and O 5 re- 
spectively. In the following table of O* and O a the incipit of 
the lesson is not always certain within a line or two, as the 
marginal Ammonian sections (inserted by the original scribe) 
have prevented the marginal liturgical notes from being exactly 
against the commencement of the pericope. Most of the 
notes are headed by a cross, but no cross is given in the text. 
Wherever a pericope agrees with the modern Roman use 
(modern but very ancient) I have added R. The Gallican 
liturgy of Eugipius is designated by N ; the additions by 
Eugipius himself to the Gallican original are signified by E. 
B means St. Burchard's Roman additions to the Naples lec- 
tionary. G means that the pericope is the subject of a homily 
by St. Gregory the Great. 

{The beginning of the MS. is lost, as far as iv. 14, and v Hi. 29-ix. 18.) 

* . 



s *• 



£ 5 

Q "3 








iv. 18 

in natale scT andree 



7 T 


x. 1 

in ordi«atio«e episcopi 




x. 16 

in scorum 


S y 


x. 32 

in scorum 




xi. 2 
xii. 1 

de aduentu 

in x. lect de pe (?) 






xiii. lb 

in sci pauli 




'5 T 


xiv. 23 

octabas sci petri 



i7 T 


xvi. 13 

in nat sci petri 





xvi. 24 

in sc<?r 






xx. 17 

de passione 






xxi. 10 

in dedicztione ecc&siae 




xxiii. 34 

in sci stef&ni 



1 The note is given by Wordsworth in loco. 








xxiv. 45 

in confessonuw 





XXV. 1 

de martyras 






xxv. 14 

in martyras 






xxviii. 1 

in nocte sea 





xiv. 1 






xvi. 1 

in doWca sea 






xvi. 15 

in ascensa 






i- 5 

In nigilias sci iohannis ba- 





i. 26 

de aduentu 





i. 39 






i- 57 

in natale sci ion* 





ii. 1 

ii. 1 


in nat dm ) 






ii. 31 

in octabas dm 





iii. 1 

de arfuentn 




87 T 


vii. 19 

ad n n (aduentum?) 

i*5 T 


xxiv. 1 

in seennda firia 



xxiv. 13 

in ttrtia iiria 





i. 1 

in natale dni 





de adnentu 






i. 29? 

in uz^ilias sci andree 




vii. 14 




x. 22 




xiv. 15 






xiv. 23 







xviii. 1 





Matt. x. 1. St. Greg. Horn, iv, on x. 5-10. 

„ x. 16. In apostolorum N. 

„ xiii. 3 b. In XLgisima pascae N (read LX ?) xiii. 1. On Luke viii. 4 G. 

„ xvi. 24. In unius martyris E (on Luke ix. 23 G). \ 

„ xx. 17. In Lxxgisima ebd. iii feria iiii B (on Luke xviii. 31 G). 

„ xxi. 10. In ded. S. Stephani E. 

„ xxiii. 34. Item alia B (after xxiii. 29 In S. Stephani N). 

„ xxiv. 45. In sancti Grigori, B. 

„ xxv. 14. In nat. S. Ianuarii, E. For Confessors R. 
Mark xvi. 15. Begins at 14 BGR. 
Luke xxiv. 1. (For the Saturday N ; Bede has a homily for this pericope.) 

1. The six notes by O* show two divergences from the 
Roman use. John x. 22 in didicatione is paralleled by the 
Gallican, Lux, and Bob, and by Ambros. Are we to conclude 


that the scribe was Gallican, as Mr. Nicholson suggested ? x 
The attribution was at all events very obvious : ■ Facta sunt 
autem encaenia in Ierosolymis/ 

Luke ii. i in natale dhi is common to all uses. John xviii 
passio is equally inevitable. But it should be noted that 
the Gallican, Ambrosian, and Mozarabic liturgies are inclined 
to read scraps and centos rather than the whole Passion from 
each evangelist. 

The three Pentecost notes are more definite. The Vigil of 
Pentecost is unknown to Lux, Bob, q, Goth ; we saw that 
Eugipius introduced it into his Gallican lectionary ; it seems 
therefore to be not early Gallican. The lessons for feast and 
vigil are the Roman lessons, whereas for Whit Sunday Lux, 
Bob, Ambros, M, r t Naples, have the Roman pericope of the 

John vii. 14 in medio penticoste is very interesting. This 
pericope, ' iam autem die festo mediante/ is in the middle of 
Lent in the Gallican use, 2 viz. : 

Saturday after fourth Sunday Naples (Eugipius). 
Fourth Sunday Mozar, Comic. 

Tuesday after fourth Sunday Modern Roman. 

But the Greek use, at least as early as the fifth century, 
placed this pericope on the twenty-fifth day after Easter. 
Traces of this use are found in the West. An early Ambrosian 
list gives the Wednesday after the third Sunday after Easter 3 ; 
the feast is given also in M (seventh to eighth century, Milan 
or thereabouts) and / (eighth century, Aquileia). But it is 

1 Above, p. 191. 

* See more on this question by Mr. C. L. Feltoe and Mr. F. E. Brightman in 
J. T. S. y vol. ii, p. 130 (Oct. 1900), especially on the Saturday of the mediana 
hebdomada as an Ordination day. 

8 That published by Pamelius, Liturg. Lot., i, pp. 368-9. In the note just 
mentioned on In mediante die festo in J. T. S., p. 134, Mr. C. L. Feltoementions 
three Ambrosian Sacramentaries described by Ebner (Quel/en und Forschungen, 
pp. 76, 93, no) of the ninth to the twelfth centuries containing a Mass after 
Easter for this feast, with the Gospel John vii. 14. Of these Sacramentaries, one 
places the feast between the second and third Sundays after the Octave of Easter ; 
in another it occurs in a gap after the second Sunday after Easter, but is followed 
by the Thursday after Easter ; in the third it is between the third and fourth Sundays 
after Pentecost. (See the references given by Mr. Feltoe.) The occurrence of the 
feast in the notes to M, O, and / was not known to Mr. Feltoe. 


above all interesting to note with Dom Morin that the eighty- 
fifth sermon of St. Peter Chrysologus, bishop of Ravenna, was 
preached on the media Pentecostes} Thus, though we have 
no proof that it was known at Rome, at least it is not Gallican 
or Spanish, but was early in the use of Milan and Aquileia, and 
was kept at Ravenna in the fifth century. We must conclude 
that the six notes by the original scribe of O are rather Italian 
than Gallican. As O has an element of likeness to J, these 
notes may have been derived from a North Italian archetype, 
but it is more natural to suppose that the scribe himself fol- 
lowed a more or less Roman use. 

2. The system of O a is incomplete, but perfectly Roman. 
There is only one coincidence with N alone, Luke xxiv. 13, 
and on all the great feasts N and 0° are at variance. 

For Advent six lessons are given, if Luke vii. 9 is for Ad- 
vent ; but this lesson is a mere duplicate of Matt. xi. 3. The 
remaining five are the actual Roman Gospels for Advent, 
omitting the first Sunday, viz. second Sunday, Matt. xi. 2 ; 
third Sunday, John i. 19 ; Ember Wednesday, Luke i. 26 ; 
Ember Friday, Luke i. 39 ; Ember Saturday and fourth 
Sunday, Luke iii. 1. The coincidence is interesting, as show- 
ing the antiquity of our present scanty Advent Masses. 2 
St. Luke is not annotated from iii. 1 to xxiv. 1 (except for the 
incorrect note at vii. 9), so that the absence of Luke xxi. 25 for 
the first Sunday is probably accidental. There are Homilies 
of St. Gregory for Luke xxi. 35, Matt. xi. 2, John i. 19, and 
Luke iii. 1, i.e. for the four Sundays. 3 

Two of the Christmas Masses are marked by O a , viz. the 
first and third. But when he wrote in nat dni under 0*'s in 
natale dni a little after, ii. 1, he probably made a blunder, in- 
tending to mark the incipit of the second Mass Gospel a few 
lines further on, at ii. 15. The Roman Gospel for St. Stephen 

1 Dom G. Morin in Revue Binid., 1889, p. 201 (V antique solenniti du 
mediante diefesto). 

a We saw that St. Burchard's Advent was incomplete. 

8 Horn, i, vi, vii, xx. The later titles call them homilies for the second, third, 
fifth Sundays, and Ember Saturday ; i and vii were preached in St. Peter, vi in 
SS. Marcellinus and Peter, xx in the Lateran. The statio for the third Sunday 
is, in fact, in St. Peter's, but the others do not correspond. 

O 2 


is given, and the inevitable Gospel for the octave of Christmas 
(called in Gaul ' Circumcision \ but not at Rome). The Gospels 
for Christmas Eve, Epiphany, and Holy Innocents were no 
doubt duly marked in the lost pages at Matt. i. 18, ii. i, and 
ii. 13. But the feast of St. John (or of James and John) is 

Lent is non-existent. But the Passion is set down in 
Mark and John, and the Roman pericopae are duly set 
down for Easter Eve and Easter. It is impossible to say 
whether the system was contented with lessons for the two 
great feasts after Easter, Monday and Tuesday ; for the rest of 
the week may have been supplied from Matt, xxviii and John 
xx-xxi which are not annotated. But the use differs from the 
Roman ; for the Roman lesson for Easter Monday, Luke 
xxiv. 15, appears on Tuesday 1 — an almost solitary agreement 
with the Naples use ; and the Monday lesson, xxiv. 1, is not 
in the Roman Missal. Ascension Day, however, has the 
Roman (not the Gallican) pericope, Mark xvi. 15 (14). The 
notes of O* for Pentecost and its vigil, being Roman, were 
probably accepted by O a . 

St. Andrew and St. John Baptist with their vigils have the 
Roman lessons, not the Gallican as Eugipius had, and the 
same is true of St. Peter and his octave. Probably the vigil 
of St. Peter, like the feast of St. John, should be marked with 
R in John xxi, where the annotator has not worked. 

The pericope for St. Paul seems at first sight unique. But it 
is not meant for the feast of January 35, which was not Roman 
but Gallican in origin, but for Sexagesima Sunday, the Collect 
for which is of St. Paul, while the Epistle recounts his labours. 2 
The Gospel is now (and was in St. Gregory's time,cp. Horn, xv) 
Luke viii. 14, the Parable of the Sower, most suitable to the 
great Apostle who sowed the Word of God among the 

1 St. Gregory's twenty-third homily is on this Gospel, bat the inscription in 
crastino paschax is later. 

1 Mgr. Duchesne (Origines du Culte Chr&t., p. 281, note) explains the absence 
of an early Roman feast of St. Paul alone by saying : 'We must bear in mind, 
however, that the Roman mass for Sexagesima is really a mass in honour of 
St. Paul.* But I think this is the first time an order has been published in which' 
it is actually called in sancti Fault. 


Gentiles. 0° simply substitutes the parallel passage of St. 
Matthew, xiii. 3. Thus we get a parallel for the addition by 
Eugipius of Matt, xiii as in XLgisima pascae (we should read 
Sexagesima) to his Gallican liturgy, and so O b and Ambros. 

The dedication feast is not in the Roman office to-day, 
Matt. xxi. 10 ; it is another parallel to Eugipius's additional 
feasts (in dedicatione S. Stephani). In ordinatione episcopi is 
paralleled by a homily of St. Gregory (iv, de Apostolis), but he 
begins only at verse 5, after the enumeration of the Apostles 
is completed. It may have been preached at an ordination, 
for the Pope first thunders against simony among the clergy, 
and then turns to the people, 'Vos, fratres carissimi, quos 
saecularis habitus tenet, cum quae sint nostra cognoscitis, 
mentis oculos ad uestra reuocate.' 

Three pericopae are given as in sanctorum^ Matt. x. 16, 32, 
xvi. 24. All these are very obvious and usual. The Roman 
pericopae for Martyrs are x. 26, 34, and xvi. 24, while the 
passage of St. Luke x. 1 corresponding to Matt. x. 16 is for 
Evangelists and Confessors. For Confessors Matt. xxiv. 45 (?) 
is found in the Roman Missal as Matt. xxiv. 42, which may be 
meant here. 

Of two pericopae, de martyr as xxv. 1 and 14, the former is 
evidently for Virgins, as in the Roman use ; the latter is now 
used for Confessors. 

I subjoin a table of the agreements with the pericopae used 
by St. Gregory. 1 

O*. Si. Greg. 

No. of 

Second Sunday of Advent 


xi. a 




i. 19 


Fourth ,, ,, 


iii. 1 


Christmas Day 


ii. 1 


Sexagesima (in S. Pauli) 


xiii. 3# « Luke viii. 4 


Quinquagesima (de passione) ? 


xx. 17 m „ xviii. 31 


Easter Day 


xvi. 1 


Easter Tuesday (Monday ?) 

. Luke 

xxiv. 13 


1 It looks as though certain pericopae had been purposely shifted from Luke to 
Matthew in the archetype, in order to avoid using a volume containing Luke, or 
because part of that Gospel was damaged or lost. But Matt, xiii is paralleled 
in Ambros N and O b , as above. 





No. of 

Ascension Day 
Pentecost (0*) 
St. Andrew 


xvi. 15 

xiv. 23 

iv. 18 

{v. 14) 




Consecration of a bishop 
Martyrs (St. Agnes) 
Martyrs (St. Silvester Conf.) 
Martyrs (in scorum) 


x. 1 

XXV. 1 
xxv. 14 

xvi. 24 

m Lnke 

ix. 23 




xxx ii 

The remaining homilies of St. Gregory offer no divergences 
from 0°, and no agreements ; the only discrepancies in the table 
are those for Quinquagesima (?) and Sexagesima. Where we 
can be certain of St. Gregory's use, it agrees like 0° with R. 

To sum up : we found St. Burchard's codex supplementing 
the Neapolitan lectionary with a Roman use ; we now find a 
Roman use inscribed in O in the seventh century. It agrees 
with the rare interpolations made by Eugipius in his Gallican 
lectionary, and with the Homilies of St. Gregory the Great. 
It is therefore a Roman use of the sixth century. The octave 
of St. Peter suggests Rome itself, and so does the name of 
' St. Paul's day ' given to Sexagesima Sunday, for the solemn 
station of that day was held in San Paolo fuori le mura. 

Only the inevitable St. Stephen and St. John Baptist appear 
among the saints, together with the ancient feast of St. An r 
drew, with its vigil. No Roman martyrs appear, (not even 
St. Laurence), nor St. John, the vigil of St. Peter and his 
chair — all these and some martyrs (for whom a commune 
sanctorum is provided) and confessors (e.g. St. Silvester) were 
kept as certainly as Lent was kept, but the entries are incom- 
plete. But let us note that all the principal days are given 
(the page containing the Epiphany is lost). We might infer 
that St. Andrew, with vigil, was one of the greater feasts ; but 
it is perhaps going rather far to suggest the conclusion that 
the list originated in the mother abbey of the English Church, 
St. Andrew's on the Caelian ! 

But at least we have arrived at two probable conclusions : 

1. O* the original scribe of the codex, wrote not in Gaul 
but in Italy or England ; or at least took his six liturgical notes 
from an Italian exemplar. 


2. O*, not long afterwards, inserted a purely Roman litur- 
gical use in the margin. 

These points cannot in any way prove that the MS. O 
has any connexion with the mission of St. Augustine ; but 
they are perfectly in harmony with such a supposition. O* 
may perfectly well have lived in a Roman abbey. 0° may 
quite easily have been a seventh- century monk of SS. Peter 
and Paul at Canterbury. Consequently we may sum up the 
probabilities or possibilities as follows : 

and X are descended from a common progenitor, judging 
by the coincidences in their text. In the Prologues also they 
show close relationship. X belonged to St. Augustine's Abbey 
at Canterbury. O may quite well have belonged to the same 
library ; at any rate it is closely related to the Canterbury MS. 

There is no reason for thinking that either has any Irish 
contamination in its text. Though related to the AY text, 
their date is too early to have been contaminated by it in 

An Italian or Roman origin is postulated for the archetype 
of X by the classical ornamentation of its picture of St. Luke. 
The liturgical notes by the original scribe of O are Italian, if 
not Roman. The seventh-century notes of O a give a purely 
Roman system of lessons. 

The writing of Z resembles that of O. The Prologues in 
O, X, and Z are extremely close in type. The Gospel text of 
Z is dissimilar, but may have influenced O. 

§ 4. The later lectionary annotations in O. 

The tenth-century annotations by O 6 are all between Matt, 
viii. 23 and Matt. xxv. I, except for a solitary note on fol. 158, 
which runs thus: 'hoc euangeliuw legitur in cena dni ad 
colationem . sicut consuetudines docent ; ' A large + before 
John xvii. 1 and another at the end of the chapter define the 
portion to be read. This note shows that O b was a monk. 

1 do not vouch for the following table as absolutely com- 
plete ; it is difficult also to be sure of the incipits. ' R ' points 
out identity with the Roman lessons. In most cases I have 
left the lessons for verification by professed liturgiologists. 




viii. 23 

Dom iiii p' theoptl (iiii above line) 




ix. 23 




ix. 27 

in sa . . . xii 1 



ix. 32 




x. 16 

de martyr . 



x. 22 




x. 25 3 

unius mf x 



xi. 1 

dom de aduentu dni 3 

(xi. 2) R 



xi. 25? 

de sapientia 



xiii. 3 b 

dom . in . LX . 




xiii. 24 


*3 T 


xiii. 31 




xiii. 44 

de uirginib. 8 


I5 T 


xiv. 22 

in <?rtabas apfa petri et pauli 


i6 T 



XV. 21 

m in . ii . et m XL 
train* mar 

i8 T 


xvii. 1 

*aBb . i . XL* 




xvii. 14 

in xii V 

I9 T 


xvii. 24 




xviii. 1 

de sco mihaele 




xviii. 15 

i . xlFR. iii ~ ebd. iii« 


ao T 


xviii. 23 

dom . xxii . p' pent] 

(xxxi R) 



xix. 13 

ad paruulos 



xix. 27 

inftsto sci ^etri 

22 T 


XX. 1 

in dom . ixx 




xx. 17 

FR iiii in . XL 



XX. 20 

de iac[obo] 


23 T 


xx. 29 

in satofc . xii . t p' pent. 


dom . i . in aduentu dni 

a 4 


xxi. 10 

in . i . FR . i . . . in . X . . . 

24 T 


xxi. 18 




xxi. 23? 




xxi. 33 

FR . vi . in XL . in . ii . 




xxii. x 

dom xx . p' pen 


26 T 


xxii. 15 

dom . xxv p' p! 




xxii. 34 

BB . xviii . dom -p' ptn 

(xvii R) 



xxiv. 1 

de martib; 



xxiv. 26 





de uirginib; 


The Lenten system is correctly Roman. The fourth 
Sunday after Epiphany is also right, and so are some minor 
points. But Dom, prima in aduentu Domini^ about the end of 

1 A + after 32 and after 33 (by homoeotel.). 

* A + at xi. 1 ; dom and dni are added by this annotator to the uncial de aduentu 
of the earlier liturgist, who meant xi. 2. 

• A + after 52. * A + after 13. 

6 A + after 20 a (uestram). 6 A + after 10, another after 14. 


xx or beginning of xxi, is strange ; and so is xix. 37 in festo 
S. Petri. 

The Sundays after Pentecost are not quite in harmony with 
the Roman usage. The English use preserved the officium 
(introit, &c.) of the Roman Missal, but introduced new Collects, 
Epistle, and Gospel for the third Sunday, and shifted all the 
others one place. The introduction of Trinity Sunday in the 
eleventh or twelfth century shifted all the Sundays one place 
further. Thus in the Sarum Missal and in the Benedictine 
Westminster Missal the numbers run with R for the Gospels, 
Matt, xviii. 23, xxi. 1, and xxi. 34, but they are counted from 
Trinity Sunday and from the Octave of Pentecost respectively, 
not from Pentecost. O 6 represents an intermediate stage, i.e. 
Matt xviii. 23 = R twenty-first Sunday = O 6 twenty-second 
= Westminster twenty-third after Pentecost, and so forth. 
In the eleventh-century Leofric Missal (Exeter) and in the 
twelfth-century Missal of St. Augustine's at Canterbury 
the Gospels are not given, but by the ' Octave of Pentecost ' 
the Saturday after Pentecost is meant. In the latter book, 
therefore, the numbers should tally with O b , but that there is a 
disturbance in the order from the seventeenth Sunday onwards. 
In the Leofric Missal the Masses are shifted by the interpola- 
tion of a new Mass for the first Sunday. From the eighteenth 
Sunday onwards we find the same disturbance as in the Can- 
terbury book, only one Sunday later, and the Roman Collects 
for the twenty-first Sunday appear on the twenty-fifth, thus 
suggesting that there was a chance coincidence in the Gospel, 
Matt. xxii. 15, with O 5 . 1 

Possibly ad paruulos (xix. 13) is a direction for private 
reading, and also de sapientia (xi. 25). There is a Mass ■ ad 
impetrandam sapientiam ' in the Missal of St. Augustine's 
and in the Leofric Missal. 

Matt. xvii. 1 for the first Saturday of Lent is Roman, but 

1 The Roman collects for the twenty-third Sunday appear at Canterbury on the 
seventeenth (Leofr. eighteenth) ; there are new collects for the eighteenth ; then 
R sixteenth appears on C nineteenth, R seventeenth on C twentieth, &c, but R 
twenty-fourth on C twenty-fifth, R twenty-second being omitted. In O's time 
there was no disturbance until after the twenty-second Sunday. 


the other Ordination Saturdays are not, viz. Matt. ix. 27 in 
sa . . . xii /, xvii. 14 in xii /. If these could mean in sancto 
duodecim lectionum the explanation would be simple, for semi- 
doubles and doubles have twelve lessons in the monastic office, 
for the Roman nine. But they seem to be meant for the 
Ember Saturdays of Advent and September. The fourth is 
xx. 29, in sabb. xii. l.p* pent., and this lesson is found for that 
day in the Westminster Missal. These Saturdays were called 
* of twelve lessons ', because (as Amalarius explains, De EccL 
Off., ii. 1) the six lessons at the Mass were once read in Greek 
also. Note that ix. 27 like xx. 29 is the account of the healing 
of two blind men. 



§ i. Analysis of the text used by St. Gregory in his Homilies. 

To the forty homilies of St. Gregory the Great are prefixed 
the Gospels on which he comments. The Benedictine edition 
of these appears on the whole fairly to be relied on. The 
editors have given some various readings in the notes, and 
the comments in the homilies themselves are able to establish 
certain readings with security. 

The following table gives pretty well all the readings which 
differ from Wordsworth's text. Where the Old Latin evidence 
is omitted by Wordsworth, I have supplied ctbf ff 1 g 1 g- ) and 
sometimes d k and others. 

Book I. 

Horn. i. Luke xxi. 25-32 

1 27 in nubibus EFH0Z c efff % il qr Ambr 

Horn. ii. Luke xviii. 31-44 

2 31 duodecim + discipulos a (-lis) bfff 2 i 7 cor uaf* (ex Matt. xx. 17) 

+ suos Greg solus (?) 
Hierosolymam {for -ma) (fere omnes) 

3 34 erat autem {for et erat) KOVWX*Z aur 

4 38 exclamauit {for clamauit) a d efff% r 

5 42 et dixit illi Iesus Greg et respondens d. i. I a b cff % i I 

Horn. iii. Matt. xii. 46-50 

6 49 discipulos + suos BDE^FH^JKLKTR (suo) TVWX*Z vg abcdf 

ff\>i g\ h kq 

7 50 om et before frater DEKLQWX°Z vg a dfg x k q 

Horn. iv. Matt. x. 5-10 

8 10 est enim {for enim est) CE3PHJKTY a b dfg x q 

Horn. v. Matt. iv. 18-22 
Horn. vi. Matt. xi. 2-10 

9 2 exO-de)D^/i 

10 10 est enim {for enim est) BDE3 > 0KLKTQRTVWX*Z vgfff x q 


Horn. vii. John i. 19-38 

1 1 36 nescitis (for non scitis) CDEGHRT vg cor uat mg, c f I qS aur Aug 

12 37 om ego DERX* q Cypr 

13 soluere {for ut soluam) a b ef q r Cypr 

Horn. viii. Luke ii. 1-14 

14 2 a praeside {for praeside) BCDH > H0IKLM'OQRTVWYZ vgbc ff 2 l° 

d aur 

15 4 + in before ciuitatem abed e ff 2 I qr 

16 7 ei {for eis) ffD^KLW 

1 7 8 super (for supra) BDH>*LPW vg a 

18 13 caelestis + exercitus DL (cp. cor uat) 

19 14 hominibus {for in horn.) ffD^HeKLKTPQRTWY vg a b c e f ff 2 

I qr aur 

Horn. ix. Matt. xxv. 14-30 

20 17 similiter + et DHLQW vgaf(ffj) g l q 

31 20 tradidisti mihi {for mihi trad.) 3PRTW vg {so antiph.for Conf) 

32 om. et before ecce CDEH0KLQR* M5 TVWX*Z vga bff 2 g x q {so antiph. ) 
23 31 super (3 d0 , for supra) ABCDE3>F0JLOQRTVWY vg a bff a g x 

34 33 super {2*>,for supra) CDE^H^JLNTQRVW vg bfff % g x 
25 34 om et {after es) BCDEJKLNTRTVWXZ vg a bff 2 g x 

37 dare {for mittere)/ {but three MSS. of Greg, have committere with 
DF©LOQRVWX*Z a bfq) 

36 ego ueniens {for uen. ego) KKfjf 2 

Horn. x. Matt. ii. 1-13 

37 1 Iudae (for Iudaeae) CDKLKTQRVWXZ / 

28 5 Iudae (for Iudaeae) CDFHKLNTRVWZ/^ k* 

39 6 regat E3*H C 0JRTWX* corr uat mg Huron vgab dfg x q 

Horn. xi. Matt xiii. 44-53 

30 47 + piscium ABDEa > 0OTO c QRTVWXYZ vgabc efff x , 3 gihqr 2 

31 51 utique {for etiam) a bfg x q 

Horn. xii. Matt. xxv. 1-1 3 
Horn. xiii. Luke xii. 35-40 

32 35 + in manibus uestris EW vg cor uat* c Cypr 

33 39 quoniam {for quia) A8 r H0MQWXY vg cor uat mg 
40 + ideo Greg solus (?) 

34 ueniet {for uenit) AB£FGH 1 0JKQT"WVWX*Y vg 8 

Horn. xiv. John x. 11- 16 

35 11 ponit {for dat) KOQX*Z a efl aur cor uat ('graecus, antiquV) Tert 

(Cypr) Lucif Cal Ambr 

36 + suis W DEa^^KOQTVWXZ vg b eff % r aur cor uat 

37 13+ autem T vg Cypr uett exc a aur 

38 14 + ones c ef aur cor uat* (not mg.) 

39 15 +meisCDEG*H0IKMM , OQSTVWXZ^«««^fl^5 

Horn. xv. Luke viii. 4-15 

9 interrogant (? misprint) Greg solus 

40 13 quod (for qui) ef 


41 hi sunt qui EH0X a WZ vgabceff t lqr Orig 

42 13 quod {for qui) e 

43 + hi sunt//^ q (r) aur 

44 15 + cecidit c (/) 

Horn. xvi. Matt. iv. i-ii 

45 6 mandauit {for mandabit) ABDEH>FLQRWXYZ* a b d f ff x g t k 

8 assumpsit paene omnes {exc AFMY) 

46 9 omnia tibi {for tibi omnia) EQRTWZ 8 vgab dfff x g x k 

Horn. xvii. Luke x. 1-9 

47 6 ilium {for illam) PT 3 cor uat* {et in mg ' alii Mam ') vg a df q 
Horn, xviii. John viii. 46-69. 

48 46 arguet {for -it) CG0JKTWX vg uett rell {exc 8) 

49 47 ex deo est {for est ex d.) QR vgaff^qr 

50 49 inhonorastis {for -atis) A(E)3>FH0IK(M)RTV WX°Z vg e 1 5 Aug 

51 50 quaerat et iudicet {for -it et -at) CITOIKOTWX* vgac efff t l c q 

our Aug (cp.WfflQZ*) 

52 52 mortem non gustabit {for non gust, mor.) NT (<?) / ^w^ 

Horn. xix. Matt. xx. 1-16 

53 4 dixit illis {for illis dixit) a»OR vg aff % 

54 + meam C3?H0JLM , OQRTW afff % g x 

55 7 +meamBE3 ,CT '0LOQRTWXaJ// 2 £- 1 

56 16 enim sunt {for sunt enim) CEH0KOQTW vgfff t g x 

57 uero {for autem) ES^HO^QR tjf^ 

Horn. xx. Lukeiii. 1-11 

58 a domini (/«r dei) DH > GH©IJKLKTRVWXY vg cdf 3 qr aur Ambr 

59 8 potens est {for potest) H0KMX vgacd effft Iqr Iren {ter) Ambr 

60 9 arboris {for arborum) KXZ 

61 + bonum ffCDH > H 1 0IJKLM , RTVWZ vgbcd effff Iqr I 

62 excidetur ff , CDH > H0IJKKTOPQRTVWY vga bcdefff* IqrS aur Iren 

63 mittetur 8FCDa»H0IJKNTPQRTVWZ a vgabc efff 2 Iqdaur Iren 

Book II. 
Horn. xxi. Mark xvi. 1-7 

64 4 uiderunt 3»»fH , 0IKM , OQRVWX*Z vg l e q 5 

65 6 dixit {for dicit) di°it X dixit L d k 

66 7 praecedet {for -dit) H0 W 

Horn. xxii. John xx. 1-9 

67 1 uidit {for uidet) DE3>H0IJKV Wvg cor uat bqrS aur gat Aug 
2 dixit {for dicit) Greg solus 

(diligebat ? with dff % gat) 

68 4 prior {some MSS., and so text of homily t for primus) CTW a b c dfff t 

q r aur 

69 9 scripturas {for -am) T (/) aur 

70 oporteret AAE3 >fl WH0IJRSWX c Y/<w uat 


Horn, xxiii. Luke xxiv. 13-35 

71 16 illorum CG0IJKORTVWX 1 Z vgff* I aur 

72 ao tradiderunt eum {for eum trad.) BCD3?0JKOQRTVWX*Z 8 aur 

73 ai+ est {before hodie) Ba^EHOKNTOQTVWXZ vg cor uat abfl aur 

74 34 inuenerunt {, but two MSS. uiderunt as Vulg) A^a'FGHGIK 

MM'O (in super lin.) VWXY vg 

75 35 illos E af 

76 26 om ita F a c d eff* r 8 

77 38 +se{afterfmxh)A*HOR ta *Ybcftf a aur 

78 31 ab oculis {for ex oc.) Greg, solus (?) 

79 34 q uia (J° r q uod )/ 

Horn. xxiv. John xxi. 1-14 

80 1 + discipulis suis ab c dfq r 

81 4 om iam after autem c e r 
6 +et Greg solus 

83 prae {for a) B0KOVWX*Z vgabefqr aur 

83 7 + ergo Ede q 

84 13 discumbentium ABarCDE3 > FH 1 0IKKTOSTVWXYZ vg c aur Aug 

85 14 discipulis + suis BSIORTW vgbcdfrAug 

Horn. xxv. John xx. 11-18 

86 14 uidit ( for uidet) ff DEH >1 FG*H0IKMM , RTVW vg c q 8 aur Aug 

87 17 om et £$/0r* deum meum CE0 vg a effff Aug 

Horn. xxvi. John xx. 19-31 

88 19 die ilia {for die illo) abfrl Aug 

89 + congregati BEH0IKM c KrO VWXZ 2 vgcfr* Aug 

90 in medio + eorum M gat 

91 30 cum hoc (for hoc cum) ff'AEH'KVWX'Z vg c eff 2 Aug 
93 33 dixit {for dicit) CH0T cor uat mgfq Aug 

93 34 de {for ex) ESP^MR acr aur 

39 me + Thoma cor uat mg {sed cancellatum est in codice . . .) vg{cp. antiph. 
for feast of St. Thomas) 

Horn, xxvii. John xv. 13-16 

94 x 3 ponat quis {for quis ponat) G0M vg Aug {so antiph.} 

95 15 dicam {for dico) SWY* {ut uidetur) q Iren codd {Massuet) 

faciat {for facit) BCE (faciet) ^^©JKKTQRTVWXZ vgacefqr 
8 Iren Aug 

Horn, xxviii. John iv. 46-53 

96 47 ueniret {for aduen-) Greg solus 

97 53 q ui a {for quod) [all but AA3THMQSXY quod, and ab d quoniam] 

dixerat {for dixit) solus 
Horn. xxix. Mark xvi. 14-30 

98 14 eorum D3*MQY vg 

99 crediderunt {for -rant) DS'LNTQR vg 

100 18 aegros {for aegrotos) BDIJKOQRVWX*Z vg 

101 19 quidem + Iesus BH^KLKTOTVWXZ vgcoqlaur 
103 sedet {for sedit) BKLW 

Horn. xxx. John xiv. 23-31 


Horn. xxxi. Lake xiii. 6-13 

103 8 dicit (for dixit) vgfq 

104 cophinum stercoris (for stercora) W vett {exc e d 5) 

105 12 uideret (for uidisset) CDa^IJMQRTZ* vg cor uat bff 2 i I 

Horn, xxxii. Luke ix. 23-7 

106 24 et (for nam) R a 

saluam earn faciet (for saluam faciet illam) Greg solus [earn DR 
dfg % r 9} 

107 25 prodest homini (for proficit homo) cf (b d e I prodeest) si totum 

mundum lucretur Greg solus (totum a c d e) om ipsum bff* I r 

Horn, xxxiii. Luke vii. 36-50 

108 36 Pharisaeus (for ex Pharisaeis) Gabff 2 lqr aur 

37 [quod + Iesus {some MSS. of Greg.) E r cor uat* Ambr\ 

109 accubuisset (for recub-) ffOTOVXZ 8 cor uat* 

1 10 39 qualis + est EFOTVWZ vgaqr aur ( after mulier H0X b cfcor uat*) 
in 41 quingentos + etDKOP(?)QVWXZz/^a/^/£r<wtf* 

112 42 diligit (for diliget) ffEH0IJKM , OPTVW vg d f ff* I q aur (dilegit 


113 44 lacrimis + suis D b cfq 

114 47 remittuntur (for -tentur) ffDEJKKTOVWZ vgarl aur 

115 48 peccata + tua E gatfff % I 

Horn, xxxiv. Luke xv. 1-10 

1 16 7 agente {for habente) ffES?© {post ras) IKKTRVWX*Z vg c dff 2 ° r aur 

117 8 decem + et Eadelr 

[euertit cum codd. paene omnibus] 

118 inueniat + earn c r 

Horn. xxxv. Luke xxi. 9-19 

119 13 contingent BDG 

haec uobis Greg solus [nobis haec D {I r) s~] 

120 17 omnibus + hominibus Q cfff % i q r gat cor uaf* 

Horn, xxxvi. Luke xiv. 16-24 
Horn, xxxvii. Luke xiv. 25-35 

121 26 esse discipulus (for disc, esse) AETCOIKTQRWXY vg aur 

122 28 habeat (for habet) B^JKKTOVZ vg a 

123 29 uiderint {for uident)/ 

Horn, xxxviii. Matt. xxii. 1-13 

124 4 occisa + sunt Q a bfff % 

125 6 contumeliis (for -elia) BH 1 © vgfcor uat mg 

13 ligatis manibus eius et pedibus (for ligatis ped. eius et man.) corr uat 
[man. et ped. eius B vg; man. et ped. DELR] 

126 14 enim {for autem) RW vgfff % q 

Horn, xxxix. Luke xix. 42-7 
Horn. xl. Luke xvi. 19-31 

127 21 + et nemo illi dabat KTW / m {from xv. 16) 

128 23 uidit (for uidebat) ffE^GGIOTOVWZ vg bfiqZ aur 

1 29 28 in hunc locum (for in locum hunc) BCGKT vg a c d eff % Imr 


§ 2. St. Gregory's influence on the Vulgate. 

From very early times St. Gregory's homilies have been 
read in the liturgy of the Church, and in the Roman Breviary 
a part of most of them still appears. They have consequently 
exercised an effect on the history of the Vulgate, such as no 
other external influences have been able to exert. The above 
table supplies some interesting instances of this. 

i. To begin with the latest, the sign vg occurs often er than 
the name of any MS., except W and / (vg 63, f 6j, W 64). In 
Wordsworth and White's edition this stands for the agreement 
of the Sixtine and Clementine Vulgates, and the editions of 
Stephanus (1546) andHentenius (1547). It represents, there- 
fore, the current text, which is based upon that of the later 
middle ages. I think no one will hesitate to decide that the 
agreement with St. Gregory is not fortuitous but intentional. 
The authority of the great Pope (and also the frequent 
repetition in the Office of his sermons, so that both scribes 
and correctors had them by rote) caused the text he used to 
be reverenced and accepted as a standard. 

2. If proof is needed, let us note the extraordinarily fre- 
quent occurrence of the sign cor uat — twice in the homilies 
on Matthew, ten times in Luke, eight times in John. This 
refers to the correctorium in MS. Vat. lat. 3466 (called N by 
Vercellone) of the thirteenth century. It is quite clear that 
the corrector habitually noted (sometimes in the margin) 
where the reading of St. Gregory disagreed. If we assume 
that the current Clementine Vulgate roughly represents the 
Paris correctoria of the same century, we shall be in a position 
to infer that the correctors of the Paris University exhibited 
a similar respect for what they might well consider to be the 
Roman official text of c. 600 a.d. 

3. Similarly in W — the codex of William of Hales, of 
Salisbury, written in 1254 — we find, as I have said, no less 
than sixty-four agreements with St. Gregory against Words- 
worth, and this cannot be the result of chance. 

4. It is by no means astonishing that we are able to trace 
the same phenomenon in earlier ages. A corrector of the 


ninth century, Theodulph, bishop of Orleans, did the same 
that his successors did in the thirteenth — he corrected his 
Vulgate text to the norm of St. Gregory the Great. He had 
a Spanish text to work upon. Now our Spanish MSS. C 
and T give twenty-five and forty-one agreements with St. 
Gregory, so that in the latter codex some accidental influence 
of St. Gregorys homilies is already to be assumed. But 
St. Theodulph's MS. gives no less than forty-eight 
agreements. The Theodulphian MS. H has a Northumbrian 
(AY) text of the Gospels on the whole, but it gives twenty- 
nine agreements, and the Theodulphian corrector has added 
ten more, making thirty-nine, as against nine in A and sixteen 
in Y. 

5. The Alcuinian codices KFV give fifty-three, thirty-four, 
forty ; their basis is Northumbrian and Irish. The Irish 
(that is, the Old Latin) element in them necessitated a con- 
siderable agreement with St. Gregory, but it is wholly by 
chance ; except, obviously, in K, the Bible of Grandval, called 
also Codex Karolinus, where we find a most evident assimilation 
to St. Gregory's readings. 

These extremely interesting facts are paralleled by another 
of equal interest. It will be seen that in the case of the 
homilies on St. John there are no less than fifteen agreements 
of St. GregofV with St. Augustine ; yet the evidence of the 
Old Latin MSS. shows that St. Gregory's text has otherwise 
the same character in St. John as elsewhere. It may be urged 
that it is in the fourth Gospel alone that we can adequately 
restore the text used by the bishop of Hippo ; and this is no 
doubt true. But yet St. Augustine's Old Latin text is con- 
spicuously more African than the Italian text of St. Gregory. 1 
It is, on the other hand, certain that St. Gregory's theology 

1 St. Gregory agrees with e very often, but then e is not a purely African, but 
a late Italianized African text. The agreement with Cyprian in Horn, xiv is a 
case where all the Old Latin agree. In Horn, vii, of the three agreements with 
Cyprian not only nescitis is in Augustine, but soluere also ; for the Benedictine 
text of Tract, iv in Ioann, 9 gives ut soluam once and soluere once. Similarly it 
gives cuius ego non sum dignus once, and non sum dignus ego once ; but this may 
be St. Augustine's own alteration. After all the text of both doctors is uncertain ; 
but the coincidences of St. Gregory with St. Cyprian are merely accidental. 

CH. V.C. P 


was modelled upon Augustine, and that his exegesis is pro- 
foundly influenced J>y him. It is evident that the Pope has 
used St. Augustine's tractates on St. John in composing his 
own homilies, and that he has modified his text to suit that of 
the earlier doctor. 

§ 3. St. Gregory and the ' Canterbury Gospels \ 

We must now analyse the results of the table of readings. 
There are extremely few readings which are not supported by 
one or two at least of the Old Latin copies. On the other 
hand four of the homilies offer practically no variant from the 
text of Wordsworth and White (viz. v, xxx, xxxvi, xxxix), 
four show but one variant each (i, iv, xii, xvii), and two have 
two variants (iii, xxxv). St. Gregory's well-known statement 
that the Roman Church accepted both the Old Latin and 
St. Jerome's version is exemplified by his practice, for he 
mingles the two elements. 

The following table gives the totals for the four Gospels of 
the appearances of the various MSS. : 

A A H S 





J M P 

Matthew . . . 
Mark .... 
Luke .... 
John .... 

3 ?: 

5 I3 a 

2 3 8» 4 

3 1 



5 a 9 l 

3 4 

13 I3 a 

8 12 1 


i7 l 


1 1 

"* 7 


10 3 29 10 4 

I7 1 


2 9 2 38* 

23 11 1 7 

(Luke and John) 

7 3 ai« 4 

11 1 

21 25 3 

15 1q1 7 

D E a> L Q R 

B W G 

KM" V 


C T 

W vg 

Matthew . . 
Mark . . . 
Luke . . . 
John . . . 

13 15 11 3 13 14 18 1 

3 2 1 4 4 3 

15 11 13 1 7 12 13 

7 15 5 s 5 9 



8 16 9 

5 5 5 

11 8 9 

4 3 3 
25 17 18 
13 6 10 



9 13 

8 13 2 
8 14 

19 17 

5 4 

24 26 

16 16 


38 41 31 9 24 35 43 1 

24 21 14 

53 34 40 


25 4i a 

64 63 

(Luke & John) 

22 26 18 6 7 17 22 

13 21 14 

38 23 28 


16 27* 

40 42 


a b c d e f ft g, h i k I q r (5) aur 

Matthew . . . 
Mark .... 
Luke .... 
John .... 

16 13 2 6 1 23 14 18 2 5 10 

211 1 o 1 2 21 
23 15 21 13 17 25 16 6 20 1 20 23 7 18 
13 11 16 6 16 19 15 6 a 17 14 11 12 


5a 41 40 26 34 67 45 18 

2 6 6 26* 49 37 20 31 

(Luke and John) 

36 a8 37 19 33 44 31 

6 26 s 37 37 18 30 

A small figure (thus 7 4 ) means corrections by a later hand, e. g. H 1 or H°. 

The Old Latin MSS. are only fully given in Luke and 
John, but the Codex Brixianus /, the typical * Italian type ', 
always takes the lead ; a c e q r are not far behind ; ff 2 would 
be almost by the side of/ in all probability, were it not for its 

In considering the Vulgate families we will put aside W, tig, 
H 1 ©, K, as being influenced by St. Gregory's text. The same 
is perhaps the case with E in St. John, as its extraordinary 
agreement here only is otherwise inexplicable. The sudden 
rise of 3* in Luke is less remarkable. 

The Eugipian families AASYF do not appear often, because 
they are so near to Wordsworth's text. The North Italian J 
is more prominent. 

We expect the Irish family DE^LQR to show a large 
proportion of agreements with St. Gregory, on account of its 
Old Latin element ; but in spite of this the family is not more 
prominent than the Spanish T and the Canterbury OX. It 
will be remembered that in the case of Faustus and Eucherius 
the numbers attached to the symbols of the Irish MSS. were 
far larger than the rest, and equalled the most prominent of 
the Old Latin codices. Further we were able to infer a decided 
connexion between those writers and the Irish text, not only 
by the coincidence of both parties with the Old Latin, but by 
their agreement in a large number of readings which are not 
found in any existing Old Latin MS. In the present case the 
fairly large agreement of St. Gregory with the Irish text is 
simply due to the fundamentally Italian character of that text. 

But O, X, and Z showed little agreement in the case of 
Faustus and Eucherius. In the present case these three MSS. 

P 2 


are as prominent as the Irish, in spite of the fact that they 
contain a smaller Old Latin element. When we have put 
aside W0KT as being all more or less influenced by St. 
Gregory's Homilies, OX and Z take their place by the side of 
the Irish MSS. in the first place. That is to say, such Old 
Latin elements as OXZ contain are very much those which are 
found in St. Gregory. 

In other words, there is no reason to suppose that the Old 
Latin element in O and X is borrowed from Irish MSS., but 
they have it in common with St. Gregory, though far less of it 
that the Pope has. 

On the other hand it is now O, now X, alone, which agrees 
with St. Gregory ; they had a common ancestor ; it seems 
to be the most plausible hypothesis to conjecture that the 
common grandfather of both had a far larger Old Latin 
element than either, and therefore had a far nearer resemblance 
to St. Gregory's text. The actual numbers (omitting E) are 

as follows : 

Luke and John 



X z 

9 8 
25 24 

D 3> 

13 11 2 
22 18 

L Q 

13 H 




In Matthew the two Canterbury MSS. agree but little 
with St. Gregory, but in Luke and John they surpass the Irish, 
and indeed all (not counting W, K, 0, E) except T and V. 
This phenomenon is best explained by supposing that the 
archetype (or the immediate parents) of both MSS. have been 
corrected according to St. Jerome in the first Gospel, but 
much less in the others. There is no reason for thinking that 
(on the contrary) the later Gospels have received Irish 

If the two Canterbury MSS. have a text in Luke and John 
which retains considerable traces of the mixed Vulgate and 
Old Latin used by St. Gregory, then the same is true of Z. 
There is so much textual resemblance here and there between 
X and Z that I cannot help suspecting some link between 
them. It has already been pointed out that O and Z are 
similar in the style of writing, 1 and that the text of the Pro- 

1 See p. 191. 


logues in OXZ is extremely uniform. We have put aside the 
idea that there is Irish blood in O and X as not proven ; it 
would be just as easy to assert Irish relationship for Z. This 
codex is apparently of the sixth century, and therefore could 
not have been written in England by the heathen Saxons. Pre- 
sumably it was written in Italy. It was stolen from the Paris 
Library by Jean Aymon. I venture to conjecture that Z is 
really one of the books brought to England by St. Augustine 
or his companions, though its history is quite unknown. As to 
O and X there seems no strong reason to doubt that either they 
are Italian books brought by St. Mellitus or else that they 
are very early copies of such books, written while the Italian 
hand was still in use at .Canterbury. The original of the well- 
known picture of St. Luke in X is not merely Italian, but 
probably goes back to an early date. 

On the other hand it must be admitted that the evidence 
from St. Gregory is negative. Yet I venture to draw the 
following conclusions : O and X are evidently first cousins. 
The immediate parent of each has been corrected (though in 
different ways) to agree better with the Vulgate : 

Mixed Archetype 

(O 1 ) (X 1 ) 

O X 

But in spite of this there remains a certain Old Latin 
element, agreeing with St. Gregory. That the archetype 
agreed still more is merely a probability — but it is quite a 
probability. I see no reason why that archetype, with its fine 
figure of St. Luke, should not have been at the Abbey of 
St. Andrew on the Caelian Hill when St. Gregory was Abbot. 

§ 4. The Canterbury text and the Northumbrian text. 

We heard M. Berger declare that the two Canterbury 
MSS. are not only at the base of the Saxon text of the 
Vulgate, but that they are themselves to be considered Saxon 
texts. He probably meant that there is no little resemblance 
between the Canterbury Gospels and the AY text of North- 


umbria. The fact at least is incontestable ; the agreement 
of both O and X* with AY is frequent and striking. 

Now X has actually been corrected into agreement with 
AY after it was written. But it is inconceivable that OX 
should have been written in England so late that their parents 
had already been corrected in England according to the AY 
text, for the Cassiodorian archetype of that text was only 
brought to Monkwearmouth by St. Benet Biscop in the year 
678. Allowing a few years for the fame of the Northumbrian 
text to spread to Canterbury, we should have to place the 
writing of these two MSS. not earlier than 700, a date at 
which one would expect some English (i.e. Irish) influence 
would be traceable in the writing of. the Canterbury school, 
either in the letters or at least in the ornamentation, for the 
monastery of St. Peter and St. Paul had then flourished 
a hundred years. 

But influence from the AY text is natural enough at 
Rome. Both Eugipius and Cassiodorus had an immense 
reputation. When a half-Old Latin MS. was to be cor- 
rected at St. Andrew's on the Caelian, we should not be 
surprised if a Eugipian or a Cassiodorian codex was em- 
ployed for comparison. It is a simple hypothesis to suppose 
that the respective parents of O and X received their AFY 
element in this way. X especially has also been contaminated 
by the JZ family — an Italian family — very likely by Z itself. 

These conjectures receive strong support from the text of 
the Prologues, where Z and O and X are so close together, 
and so close to Y. We shall see * that it is the Y Reg text 
of the Prologues, and not that of A, which must represent the 
Cassiodorian text, a text which Cassiodorus presumably 
obtained from Eugipius. Now the likeness of the Gospel text 
of OX to that of AY need not be dissociated from the likeness 
of the Prologue text of OX to that of Y. Since the text of 
OX is fundamentally Old Latin, corrected into a good Vulgate 
text by a codex of the AY type, the Old Latin ancestor 
would not have had the Prologues, and we know that they are 
wanting in the Italian J and Z, as in M. It remains therefore 

1 Chap, xv, pp. 279-80. 


that the parent of OX received the Prologues from the AY 
codex according to which it was corrected to the Vulgate. 

To sum up these conjectures, whose only merit is that they 
appear to fit the facts : 

1. O, X, and Z are closely connected, since O and X must 
be derived from a single ancestor, X and Z have readings in 
common, and O and Z belong to the same school of calli- 

2. As X was already at St. Augustine's at Canterbury as 
early as 844, and as none of the three MSS. was probably 
written in England, it is likely that all three came at one time 
from one place, and all to Canterbury. 

3. This would naturally be with Augustine or Mellitus, who 
are known to have brought books. The date tallies, since 
the consensus of opinion seems to place O and X about the 
year 600, and Z perhaps somewhat earlier. 

4. The general agreement of St. Gregory's text of the 
Gospels with OX confirms this, and the classical figure of 
St. Luke in X is in favour of a Roman origin. 

5. The likeness of OX to AY — often so striking — cannot 
be explained by contamination in England, so that it is most 
probable that the ancestor of OX was an Old Latin codex, 
corrected to the Vulgate by means of a codex of the AY text, 
obtained either from the workshop of Eugipius or that of 
Cassiodorus, and from this MS. the Prologues of XZ, so like 
those of Y, were borrowed. 

6. The common parent of OX probably greatly resembled 
the text used by St. Gregory. The immediate parent of each 
has received independent correction (that of X partly by Z or 
by a relation of Z). 

These, I have said, are conjectures, and are very far from 
being proved. I put them forward as a contribution towards 
the solution of a problem which interests me greatly. 

Additional note on the summaries of] and OX, The summaries for 
Matthew are lost in O and X. J has two sets of summaries. The one 
set is called capitula in Matthew and breues in the other Gospels ; the 
other set is called breues in Matthew and capitula in the other Gospels. 

1. The latter are in J only, so far as I know. They are based upon the 


Old Latin and Irish summaries found in cff^ h r g l g ii and in D3>Q and 
the Gospels of MacDurnan (of course in Mark, Luke, and John of G) ; 
but these Old Latin summaries have been rewritten and greatly improved 
in J. I have remarked in an earlier chapter that these summaries are 
almost unknown in Vulgate MSS., except the Irish, and that this helps 
us in our view that the Irish MSS. are fundamentally Old Latin, and 
only superficially Vulgate. 

2. The other set of summaries in J is very often found, and is diffused 
in many countries. It is known in two forms in Matthew, Mark, and 
Luke, of which the second is mainly Spanish. The MSS. giving a revised 
form are in brackets in the following table. St. Hilary gives a summary 
very close indeed to the revised form : 

Matthew J {cap) B (C) T 

Mark ]{breu) OX (C T 0) 

Luke ]{breu) OX B (C T) 

John ]{breu) O X 3> C T © 

To these may be added more Spanish MSS., such as leg 1 * 2 , aem, osc, 
comply also Paul, of course puy ; and of the Old Latin, ff x for Matthew 
only. Long lists of MSS. will be found in Berger, Hist, de la Vulg., 
pp. 355-6, iii. I and 2 (many of the latter list have a different summary 
for John, Pharisaeorum leuitae). Thus we find these summaries in Gaul 
(3> ?, B, Hilary), in Spain, in Theodulph, and in Italy (J OX). They are 
closely related to the Irish-Old Latin ones; all seem to be from one 
original. On their connexion with the Greek see Berger, op. cit., 
pp. 311-12. 



§ i. The text of the Prologues, 

In discussing the history, the authorship, the meaning of 
the ! Monarchian ' Prologues, it will be so often necessary 
to refer to their text and the MS. readings that for con- 
venience I print them here at length, with a selection of 
variants from the Critical Notes of Wordsworth and of 
Corssen. 1 I have restored roughly the Irish text found in 
D3PQ and also in A, but not in E. We shall see that this 
text has almost always preserved the true reading, more often 
even than Bishop Wordsworth thought. Where the Irish 
reading is obviously a mistake or a correction I have italicized 
it, giving in the note the true reading in capitals. The MS. 
evidence will be fully discussed in Chapter XV. 

Argumentum Matthei. 

Mattheus ex Iudaeis 1 sicut in ordine primus ponitur, ita 2 
euangelium in Iudaea primus scripsit, cuius uocatio ad domtnum 3 
ex publicanis actibus fuit, duorum in generatione Christi 
principia praesumens, unius cuius prima circumcisio in carne 4 , 
alterius cuius secundum cor electio fuit ; et ex utrisque in 
patribus Christus 6 . Sicque 6 quaterno denario 7 numero tri- 
formiter posito, principium a credendi fide in electionis tempus 
porrigens, et ex electione 8 in transmigrationis diem dirigens, 
atque a transmigratione usque ad 9 Christum definiens, de- 
cursam 10 aduentus domini ostendit generationem, ut et numero 

1 The corrections made by Wordsworth in his list of errata, pp. 739 foil., are 
taken into account. I have not used Corssen's additional MSS., because I do not 
know enough about their general text, relationships, and history. 


satisfaciens et tempori n et se 12 quod esset ostenderet 13 , et dei 
in se opus monstrans, etiam in his 14 , quorum genus posuit, 
Christi operands a principio testimonium non negaret. Quarum 
omnium rerum tempus, ordo, numerus, dispositio 15 uel ratio, 
quod fidei necessarium est, deus Christus est ; qui factus 16 
est n ex muliere, factus sub lege, natus ex uirgine, passus 
in carne, omnia in cruce fixit, 18 triumphans ea in semetipso, 
resurgens in corpore, ut patris 18 nomen in patribus filio, et filii 
nomen patri restitueret 19 in filiis 20 , sine principio, sine fine, 
ostendens unum se cum patre esse, quia unus est. In quo 
euangelio utile 21 (est) 22 desiderantibus deum sic prima uel 
media uel perfecta cognoscere, ut et uocationem apostoli et 
opus euangelii et dilectionem dei in carne nascentis, per 
uniuersa legentes, intellegant, atque id in eo in quo 23 adpre- 
hensi sunt et adprehendere expetunt recogrtoscant. Nobis 
enim hoc in studio 24 argumenti fuit, et fidem factae rei tradere, 
et operands dei intellegendam 26 diligenter esse 26 dispositionem 
quaerentibus non tacere. 

i. ex iudaeis D3*Q ex iudaea BCH0 in iudaea AYZ om EKKTV 2. + ita 
BC3>H0Q om cet 3. dominum D3?Q deum ceteri 4. in came ABCD3» 

H0Q carnis EOTVYZ c 5. + est ADV 6. sicque ACDH'KVQ sitque 

BEH0KTYZ 7. quatemo denario CD3>Q quatemario denario BEH0KKTVZ 

quaterdenario AY 8. ex electione ABCDa > (H)©KQ (electione C) electio 

ENTVYZ 9. usque ad DE'tfKJTV c usque in ABCH0QYZ* 10. 

decursam ABD5PHQV c decursum CE0*KKTYZ 11. numero satisfaciens et 

tempori ABCD^HQ n. satisfaceret et KKTV c numerositatis et temporis E0*YZ 
ia. et se AC3>0KKTQVZ* se D esse BEHY et se esse c 13. ostenderet 

ABCD3>HQ ostendens E0KKTVYZ c 14. om in his EYZ 15. dis- 

positio] disputatio BCH 16. factus] natus BCD 17. om est D 18. 

triumphans . . . ut patris DSP] ut triumphans . . . et patris rell 19. restitueret 

ABCD3»HQ restituens E0KKTVYZ c 20. in filiis] et filii EZ et in filiis 0Y 

21. utile] ut ille DEQ 22. est ABCa > 0HQK om DENTVYZ 23. id 

in eo in quo ADH»Q in eo in quo V in eo quo BCEH0KKTZ c (quod CH) quo Y 

24. hoc in studio BD3 > H0KQ in hoc st. A hoc st. CEKTVYZ c studium BCH 

25. intellegendam] intellegentiam EYZ c 26. om esse BCKNTV. 

Argumentum Iohannis. 

Hie est 1 Iohannes euangelista, unus ex discipulis dei, qui 
uirgo electus a deo est, quern de nuptiis uolentem nubere 
uocauit 2 deus. Cui uirginitatis 3 in hoc duplex testimonium 
in euangelio datur, quod et prae ceteris dilectus a deo 4 dicitur, 



et huic matrem suam iens 5 ad crucem 6 commendauit deus 7 , ut 
uirginem uirgo seruaret. Denique manifestans in euangelio 
quod erat ipse, incorruptibilis uerbi opus inchoans, solus 
uerbum caro 8 factum esse, nee lucem 9 a tenebris compre- 
hensam 9 fuisse, testatur, primum signum ponens quod in 
nuptiis fecit deus 10 , ut " ostendens quod erat ipse 12 , legentibus 
demonstraret, quod ubi dominus inuitatur 13 , deficere nuptiarum 
uinum debeat, ut 14 ueteribus immutatis, noua omnia quae a 
Christo instituuntur appareant ; 16 cfe quo singula quaeque in 
ministerio 16 acta uel dicta euangelii ratio quaerentibus mon- 
strat 15 . Hoc autem euangelium scripsit in Asia, posteaquam w 
in Pathmos insula apocalypsin scripserat, ut cui 18 in principio 
canonis incorruptibile 19 principium in Genesi et incorruptibilis 
finis per uirginem in apocalypsi redderetur, dicente Christo 
* Ego sum A et 12 \ Et hie est Iohannes, qui sciens superuenisse 
diem recessus sui, conuocatis discipulis suis in Epheso, per 
multa signorum experimenta conprobans 20 Christum, de- 
scendens in defossum sepulturae suae locum, facta oratione, 
positus est ad patres suos, tarn extraneus a dolore mortis 
quam a corruptione carnis inuenitur alienus. 21 f Qui etsi post 
omnes euangelium scripsisse dicitur, tamen dispositione canonis 
ordinati post Mattheum ponitur ; quoniam in domino, quae 
nouissima sunt, non uelut extrema et abiecta numero sed 
plenitudinis opere perfecta sunt ; et hoc uirgini debebatur." 1 21 
Quorum tamen uel scriptorum 22 tempore dispositio uel librorum 
ordinatio ideo per singula a nobis non exponitur, ut, sciendi 23 
desiderio conlocato 24 , et quaerentibus fructus laboris, et deo 
magisterii doctrina, seruetur. 

1. hie est CDE3»KQTVW c om AEF0*NTOYZ* aur 2. uocauit] reuocauit 

©KTQY 3. uirginitas ffKTOXYZ 4. deo] domino ffEKO 5. iens] 

moriens E pendens KVW 6. de cruce E0IKT c aur in crtice KVW 7. 

deus] dominus EIOX c om deus NT aur 8. carnem 0IX c 9. lucem 

D3*QW lumen rell, and comprehensam DSP aur comprehensum rell 10. 

deus] dominus ff IKO c om A*X 1 1. ut ADSPOQX aur et CE0OTZ c om 

ffVWY 1 2. erat ipse ffCDE£P0KKTOQWY ipse erat AVXZ* c 13. 

inuitatur AD2P0KQVW aur inuitatus ffCEIKTOXYZ c 14. ut ADSPKTQ 

ut et ffEIOX et 0WY ac CKVZ c 15. de quo . . . monstrat ADE3>KTQ 

om a r C0IKOVWXYZ c aur 16. mysterio] ministerio iPM'Q 17. 

postquam AD0Y 18. cui a r CDEH > 0KM'OV\VZ c aur cum AQXY 19. 

corruptible 3?*Q 20. conprobans D3?Q promens rell 21. Wordsworth 



inserts here et hoc uirgini debebattir without MS. authority. Qui etsi . . . debe- 
batur DjPOTQ : Tamen post omnes euangelium scripsit et hoc uirgini debebatur 
A8FC0TOVXYZ c aur (E combines both readings, W has an elaborate alteration) 
22. scriptorum D3 > I0KSTQVW scripturarum A^CEOXYZ 23. sciendi 

DH>QVW c aur scienti A&'CEGIOTOXYZ 24 conlocato CD3>VW c con- 

locata AffE0OTO*YZ collata X conlocatio IQ 

Argumentum Lucae. 

Lucas Syrus, natione l Antiochensis, arte medicus, discipulus 
apostolorum, postea 2 Paulum secutus usque ad confessionem 3 
eius, seruiens deo 4 sine crimine. Nam neque uxorem umquam 
habens 6 neque filios 6 , .LXXIIII. 7 annorum obiit in Bithynia, 
plenus Spiritu Sancto. Qui cum iam descripta 8 essent 
euangelia, per Mattheum quidem 9 in Iudaea, per Marcum 
autem in Italia, Sancto instigante Spiritu in Achaiae partibus 
hoc scripsit euangelium, significans etiam ipse in principio 
ante alia esse descripta. Cui extra ea quae ordo euangelicae 
dispositionis exposcit, ea maxime 10 necessitas fuit laboris 11 , 
ut primum Graecis fidelibus, omni perfectione 12 uenturi in 
carnem 13 dei manifestata 14 , ne iudaicis fabulis intenti 15 in 
solo legis desiderio tenerentur, uel ne 16 hereticis fabulis et 
stultis sollicitationibus seducti excederent 17 a ueritate, elabo- 
raret ; dehinc ut in principio euangelii 18 , Iohannis natiuitate 
praesumpta, cui euangelium scriberet, et in quo electus 
scriberet, indicaret, contestificans 19 in se completa esse quae 
essent ab aliis inchoata. Cui ideo, post baptismum filii dei, a 
perfectione generationis in Christo impletae et 20 repetendae 
a principio natiuitatis humanae potestas permissa est, ut 
requirentibus demonstraret in quo adprehendens erat 21 , per 
Nathan filium introitu recurrentis in deum generationis ad- 
misso 22 , indispartibilis 23 deus 24 ut 25 praedicans in hominibus 
Christum suum, perfecti opus hominis redire in se per filium 
faceret, qui per Dauid patrem uenientibus iter praebebat in 
Christo. Cui Lucae non inmerito etiam scribendorum apo- 
stolicorum Actuum potestas in ministerio 26 datur, ut deo in 
deum pleno, ac 27 filio perditionis 28 extincto, oratione ab 
apostolis facta, sorte domini electionis numerus compleretur, 
sicque Paulus 1 consummationem apostolicis Actibus daret, 

1 The right reading is certainly Paulum, as in the Prologue to Acts. See 
later, p. 255. 


quern diu contra stimulos recalcitrantem dominus elegisset. 
Quod legentibus ac requirentibus deum etsi per singula 
expediri a nobis utile fuerat, scientes 29 tamen quod operantem 
agricolam oporteat de fructibus suis edere, uitamus 30 publicam 
curiositatem, ne non tarn demonstrare 31 uolentibus deum 
uideremur quam fastidientibus prodidisse. 

1. natione ADS'HQKQVX c (nat. Syr/) om BOYZ / aur 2. +uero 

H0W c 3. confessionem] passionem KNTVWZ c 4. deo DQ domino 

rell 5. habuit H0 c 6. add procreauit H0 7. -lxxiiii. ADHW 

QVYZ lxx & quattuor ® septuaginta et quattuor BW c I aur lxx et tres H* 
hoctuginta et quattuor CT {and so Prol. to Ads) 8. descripta] scripta BKNTO 
VWXYZ el aur 9. om quidem DJ 10. maxima OXZ* II. rait 

laboris ABD3>0V (Corssen gives only ADS') lab. fuit HKKTOWXYZ c I aur 
12. perfectione A*D3? prophetatione rell 13. carne AH0V 14. manifestata 
AD^Q manifestata humanitas KNTVZ (m. humanitate c) manifesta humanitas BH 
0OXY / aur 15. intend AD3PQ attend rell 16. uel ne DH'Q ne uel HK 
OXYZ c I aur neue AB0KTV 17. excederent] exciderent OQ c {forte rede) 

18. om euangelii XZ* io. contestificans D^Q contestans rell 20. +et 

ABD3 > ©KKTQV omit BH0OWXYZ / aur 21. adprehendens erat] 

adprehenderat D 22. ammisso KNTOVX -ssum 23. indispartibilis 

AD3PQ indisparabilis rell 24. deus DS'Q dei rell 25. ut DQ om rell 

26. ministerio DS'QY -ium e mysterio rell 27. ac ADH'OQ et BH0KNT 

VWXYZ c I aur 28. perditionis BD0K proditionis rell 29. scientes 

AD^Q sciens BH0KKTO(V)VVXYZ c I aur 30. uitamus ABDH'Q uitauimus 
H0KKTOVXYZ c I aur 31. demonstrare AD^Q om BH0OTOVWXYZ 

e I aur 

Argumentum Marci. 
Marcus, euangelista dei *, et Petri in baptismate filius atque 
in diuino sermone discipulus, sacerdotium in Israhel agens, 
secundum carnem leuita, conuersus ad fidem Christi, euange- 
lium in Italia scripsit 2 , ostendens in eo quid 3 et generi suo 4 
deberet 6 et Christo. Nam initium principii in uoce propheticae 
exclamationis instituens, ordinem leuiticae electionis 6 ostendit, 
ut 7 praedicans praedestinatum Iohannem 8 filium Zachariae in 
uoce angeli adnuntiantis 9 emissum, non solum * uerbum caro 10 
factum ' sed et ll corpus domini in omnia 12 per uerbum diuinae 
uocis animatum initium 13 euangelicae praedicationis osten- 
deret, ut quis 14 haec legens sciret cui initium carnis in domino 15 
et dei 16 aduenientis habitaculum caro 17 deberet agnoscere, 
atque in se per 18 uerbum uocis, quod in consonantibus per- 
diderat, inueniret. Denique 19 perfecti euangelii opus intrans, 
et 20 a baptismo domini praedicare deum inchoans, non laborauit 


natiuitatem carnis quam in prioribus uicerat 21 dicere, sed 
totus 22 in primis 23 expulsionem 24 deserti, ieiunium numeri,tem- 
tationem diaboli, congregationem bestiarum et ministerium 
protulit angelorum, ut instituens 25 nos ad intellegendum, 
singula in breui conpingens, nee auctoritatem factae rei adi- 
meret 26 , et perficiendo operi 27 plenitudinem non negaret. 
Denique amputasse sibi post fidem pollicem dicitur, ut sacer- 
dotio reprobus haberetur, sed tantum consentiens fidei prae- 
destinata potuit electio, ut nee sic in opere uerbi perderet quod 
prius meruerat in genere, nam 28 Alexandriae episcopus fuit. 
Cuius per singula opus scire, et 29 euangelii in se dicta dis- 
ponere 30 et disciplinam in se legis agnoscere 31 , et diuinam 
domini in carne 32 intellegere naturam, quae et nos 33 primum 
requiri, dehinc 34 inquisita uolumus agnosci, habentes mercedem 
exhortationis, quoniam qui plan tat et qui inrigat 35 unum sunt, 
qui autem incrementum praestat 36 deus est 37 . 

i. om electus ACDE*3»H*0TWXYZ* c I add ©KNTV aur 2. scripsit] 

conscripsit ©OX 3. quod A*OXY aur 4. om suo D3» 5. deberetur 

CT 6. lectionis A*OXY / 7. ut ADH0NTOVWXY / et "Som CEKTZ 

8. ioh. praed. KNTVW c 9. adnuntiantis AD^KNTTVW c enun. CE0OXYZ 
aur 10. camem EKMVWX* 11. et AD^KEVW lorn CEH*OTXYZ* 
aur 12. in omnia D3P0QT c om rell 13. initium 3*H0QX initio ceteri 

14. quis D^W si quis qui AEH*KM'OVXYZ c I om CT 15. DEO E(H*) 

KM"VW c 16. dei ACDa>T ffiu EHQKM'WXYZ c aur in ifeu 0*V / 

17. caro om AY 18. per DQ om rell 19. om et CD^OTTVZ* addet 

AEH0OXY c I aur 20. intrans et] intrasset EHZ* aur 21. uicerat 

D3 > H(Q)YZ aur uiderat ACEKKTOTVWX c didicerat / 22. totius ©W 

totum AY totus rell 23. in primis] exprimens 0*OWX 34. expulsionem 

DQ explosionem A*3P expositionem rell 25. instituens] instruens CT 

26. adimeret D3PQ aur redim. / demeret rell 27. perficiendo operi ACD 

3>T c -ndi operi YZ* -ndi operis EH0KKTO(V)WX / aur (om operi V) 
28. add et KKTVWZ 29. scire et ACD3>TWX aur scire Y c sciret 

EH0OTOVZ* / 30. disponeret OZ* (om et Z*) 31. agnosceret CH* 

OY a cognoscere est Q 32. dom. in came ADffK in c. dom. C0TWX c 

in carnem deum O* in carne (om dni) ENTV / aur in carnem (om dni) YZ* 
in carne ffiu H* 33. et nos A*DH > KKTV in nos A 2 CEH0OTWXYZ c I 

34. dein CT 35. inrigat DQ rigant HO rigat rell 36. praestat] dat 

H0O / 37. om est C3P 

§ 2. The meaning of the Prologue to Si. Matthew. 
Some may expect this section to be completed in the 
words, ' The Prologues have no meaning ' ; but this would 
be an exaggeration : they have, though not much. Once, at 


the age of twenty-two, after reading Hegel for ten hours 
a day for three days (a feat I have never tried again), I said 
to myself : * Now or never is the time to attack Browning ' ; 
and the next day I made a desperate effort, which I have 
never ventured to repeat, to digest Sordello. I regret to say 
that utter bewilderment was the only result. And yet for 
sheer blackness and incomprehensibility neither Browning nor 
yet Pindar is in it with the Prologues. But in middle age 
one is more persevering, and I have the audacity now to pro- 
pose to translate and explain these masterpieces of the art 
of concealing one's meaning and of not basely betraying it 
to the scorner— ;/ "astidientibus prodidisse, as the author himself 
phrases it. 

In several points I shall venture to differ from those who 
have previously attempted the same ungrateful task, whether 
Sedulius Scotus or Corssen or Wordsworth, but in general 
I am much indebted to them. 

It is clear that the idea of the Prologues is to find in the 
beginning of each Gospel the key to its meaning and a 
description of the evangelist's own character. It is also quite 
evident that the writer has certain peculiar theological views 
which he wishes to support ; but unless they are previously 
known, they are so difficult to discover, that from the fifth 
century till the nineteenth the Prologues have been looked 
upon as positively orthodox. Until I discovered that Pris- 
cillian was the key I found it hopeless to enter into their 
meaning. In the following examination I assume a Pris- 
cillianist meaning throughout, and if all is not as clear as 
day, there is at least no longer a wholly impenetrable fog. 

In St. Matthew the author takes the genealogy, which the 
evangelist has divided into three sections of fourteen genera- 
tions each ; the first of these has its beginning in Abraham, 
the type of faith, the second in David, the type of election, the 
third in the transmigration to Babylon, which also ends in 
Christ — the third therefore symbolizes conversion. Thus 
St. Matthew describes his own faith, his own calling, and his 
transmigration from the seat of custom to Christ. 

But further, the whole list is called the 'book of the 


generation of Christ ? ; not only the last term, but all the 
terms imply that Christ was being generated — He was IN 
all His own ancestors, in patribus, in Whom He worked from 
the beginning (pperantis a principle). For indeed * the God 
Christ is the time, number, order, of all things '. The ■ things \ 
however, as matter (apart from their form, which was Him- 
self) are regarded as His adversaries, for ' He nailed all things 
to His Cross \ omnia in crucefixit. The next passage is hard. 
How did Christ by His resurrection 'restore the name of 
Father in the fathers to the Son, and the name of Son to the 
Father in the sons ' ? The answer is given ' He showed 
Himself to be one with the Father, for He is one Person (unus) 
with Him ' after His resurrection. The explanation seems to 
be somewhat as follows : In the genealogy each name is that 
of a son, but is repeated as the name of a father : . . . genuit 
Isaac, Isaac autem genuit . . . &c, except in the case of the 
first name and the last. The first (not in Matthew, who only 
begins from Abraham, but according to Luke) is God, only 
a Father, not a Son ; the last is Jesus Christ, only a Son, not 
a Father. But the genealogy is a sort of tunnel ; what comes 
out at the end was what was put in at the beginning : Christ 
was in His fathers, inpatribus Chris tus y and at His resurrection 
He, who was the last term of the genealogy, identified Him- 
self with the first term, the Father. Thus the list began with 
God, who is then in all the succession of fathers as a father. 
It ends in Christ, who was in all the succession of sons as 
a son. But when His resurrection identifies Him with the 
Father, he ' restores the name of Father to Himself, the Son, 
in the whole line of fathers, and the name of Son to the Father 
in the whole line of sons \ This is a most ingenious argument 
for the Monarchian view, though hardly convincing to us 
moderns. It could not be said that the Father was in all the 
fathers, and the Son in all the sons, without identifying Father 
and Son, for in the list the same persons are successively 
named son and father; and again, the resurrection is held 
to demonstrate the identity of the Father who was only father 
at the beginning of the list with the Son who is only son at the 
end of the list. Thus St. Matthew's genealogy, with the help 


of Priscillian's view that each soul is a part of God, becomes 
a proof of Monarchianism. 

Next the readers are told to understand in the three parts 
of the genealogy the vocation of the apostle (as was said), the 
work of the Gospel (which also consists in the same three 
things, faith, calling, and transmigration to Christ), and the 
love of God born in the flesh, and they must keep this in mind 
in reading the whole Gospel (per uniuersa legentes), and 
recognize this (/<sf— apparently the threefold evolution) in Him 
in whom they were apprehended, and whom they desire 
to apprehend. The object of the Prologue is first to hand 
down the facts, and then to assert the necessity of carefully 
examining the manner in which God's working is arranged 
and ordered. 

The following is an attempt at an intelligible English 
rendering : 

The Argument of Matthew. 

1 Matthew, who was of the Jews, even as he is placed first in 
order, so he was the first to write a Gospel, in Judaea. His 
vocation to God was from the practice of the business of 
a publican. He took, in the history of the generation of 
Christ, his starting-points from two men, the one who received 
the first circumcision in the flesh, Abraham, the other, David, 
who was elected as a man according to God's own heart 
(Acts xiii. 22 ; cp. 1 Reg. xiii. 14), and through both of these 
Christ was in His own fathers. And so, having thrice set down 
fourteen generations, first stretching out his starting-point 
from the faith of Abraham to the time of David's election, 
next drawing it out from that election to the time of the 
transmigration to Babylon, and thirdly marking its end 
from the transmigration up to Christ, he showed forth the 
progress of generation of the Lord's advent, in such wise that, 
by the fullness of the mystical number and of the time, he 
showed forth what he himself was, and while exhibiting God's 
work in himself, he denied not the witness to the working of 
Christ from the beginning even in those whose genealogy was 
set down by him. 


Now the God Christ is (and it is necessary to faith to hold 
this) the time, the order, the number, the arrangement, and 
the reason of all these things — He who was made of a woman, 
made under the law, born of a virgin, who suffered in the 
flesh, nailed all things to His cross, triumphing over them in 
Himself, rising again in the body, in order that He might 
restore the name of father in the fathers to the Son, and the 
name of son to the Father in the sons, He who is without 
beginning, without end, showing Himself to be of one Nature 
with the Father since He is one Person with Him. 

In this Gospel it is profitable for those who seek God so to 
recognize the beginning, the middle, and the completion, as 
to understand both the calling of the apostle, and the work of 
the Gospel, and the love of God born in the flesh, when they 
read through the whole book. For our intention in composing 
this preface was not only to hand down the truth of the facts, 
but also to declare to those who seek, that they must be 
diligent in understanding the orderly manner of God's 

§ 3. The meaning of the Prologue to St. John, 

Next in order is the Prologue to John, as we shall see from 
its contents. The Monarchian point of view is particularly 
prominent in the first part of it, where deus stands for Christ 
invariably : unus ex discipulis dei . . . uocauit deus . . . dilectus 
a deo . . . commendauit deus. The virginity of St. John is 
the important matter in the writer's view. He was the bride- 
groom of Cana, called away by the Lord from the marriage 
feast to follow Him, and his chastity is testified both by his 
being the beloved disciple and by his receiving the Virgin 
Mother to guard. All this is probably derived from some 
Latin translation of the * Acts of John \ The iens ad crucem 
is very odd. But Mr. Turner reminds me that in the Acts it 
was only a phantom that was crucified. This seems a sufficient 
explanation of the divergence from the Gospel. 

Then the purpose of the Gospel is unfolded; St. John 
explained what he was himself, viz. a virgin, and begins the 
1 work of the incorruptible Word ' (the Gospel) by testifying 


that the Word was made flesh, and the light not overtaken by 
the darkness — clearly a reference to the evil nature of matter, 
which could not, however, corrupt the * incorruptible Word \ 
This last expression is evidently from a wrongly punctuated 
reading of 1 Pet. i. 2% ' renati non ex semine corruptibili, 
sed incorruptibili[i\ uerbo Dei uiui/ where the Vulgate avoids 
the mistake by reading ' per uerbum Dei uiui \ 

This reference to St. John's first chapter is succeeded by 
a jump to the second chapter and the marriage in Cana, 
which is said to show that the wine of marriage must fail 
where Christ is invited, a sentiment probably meant in hereti- 
cal depreciation of marriage, though it was copied into the 
Northumbrian capitula (as we have seen) by their monastic 
compiler with an orthodox intention, no doubt — apparently in 
the sense which is given by the following words of the Pro- 
logue, that all things are new which are begun in Christ (cp. 
2 Cor. v. 17 and Apoc. xxi. 5). 

The ratio euangelii, order and arrangement of the Gospel, 
shows to seekers every act and saying as bearing upon what 
has been just said. (Should we read ministerio}) 

Then some history : the Gospel was after the Apocalypse 
(so Victorinus and Epiphanius). The reason for the Apoca- 
lypse was that the incorruptible ending should be ascribed by 
a virgin in it to Him, to whom the incorruptible beginning 
was ascribed in Genesis. In saying ' ego sum A et£l y Christ at 
the end of the canon identifies Himself with the Creator. 
(The writer does not forget, evidently, that St. John had also 
written in principio erat Verbum, intentionally recalling the 
first words of Genesis.) Here again (as with the identification 
of the Father and the Son at the beginning and end of the 
genealogy) a Monarchian sense is evidently intended. 

Next comes the legendary account of the death of St. John, 
doubtless borrowed from some Latin form of the second- 
century Acts. A corruptione carnis alienus does not refer to 
any miracle by which his body remained incorrupt after death, 
but (as above) to his virginity, of which his painless death was 
the reward. It follows that to add et hoc uirgini debebatur 
here, as Bishop Wordsworth has done, is as much against 


the sense (being an unbearable pleonasm) as it is against 
the MSS. 

The next passage is preserved only by the Irish tradition 
of the text. Though St. John wrote last, yet his Gospel is 
second in order ; for in the divine plan the last in time are the 
most perfect ; and this [perfection, after all the rest] was 
the due of the virgin. We thus learn that the writer of the 
Prologues used an Old Latin codex having the Latin order 
of the Gospels universal before St. Jerome : Matthew, John, 
Luke, Mark. 

The final remark is characteristic. No more is said about 
the mystical order of writing and of precedence of the Gospels, 
in order that seekers may not be forestalled in the fruit which 
their labours will bring them, nor God be deprived of His 
right of teaching it Himself. 

The Argument of John. 

* This is John the Evangelist, one of the disciples of God, 
who was chosen by God a virgin, whom God called from his 
marriage, when he was desirous to wed. A twofold witness is 
given to him of virginity in the Gospel, first, that he is called 
beloved by God above the others, and secondly, that God, 
when going to the cross, commended His Mother to him, that 
the Virgin might be guarded by a virgin. Thereafter, showing 
in the Gospel what he himself was, commencing the work of 
the incorruptible Word, he alone testifies that the Word was 
made flesh, and that the light was not overtaken by the dark- 
ness ; setting down the first sign which God did at the wedding, 
in order that by showing what he himself was [for he was the 
bridegroom, and he was called away to virginity], he might 
show to his readers, that where the Lord is invited, the wine 
of nuptials ought to be wanting, so that the old things being 
changed, all things which are instituted in Christ may appear 
new. With regard to this, the method {ratio) of the Gospel 
shows each thing that was done or said in a mystery to those 
who seek. He wrote this Gospel in Asia, after he had written 
the Apocalypse in the island of Patmos, in order that to whom 
the incorruptible beginning was ascribed in Genesis, to Him 


might also be ascribed the incorruptible end by a virgin in 
the Apocalypse, wherein Christ says: 'I am Alpha and 
Omega.' And it is this John, who knowing that the day of his 
retirement had come, having called together his disciples at 
Ephesus, and having proved Christ to them by many signs, 
descended into the place which had been dug for his sepulture, 
and after praying was gathered to his fathers, as free from the 
pain of death as he was from corruption of the flesh. Though 
he is said to have written after all the other evangelists, yet 
in the disposition of the ordered canon he is placed after 
Matthew ; forasmuch as in the Lord what things are latest 
are not as it were last and vilest in order, but are perfect in 
their work of fullness ; and this was due to the virgin among 
evangelists. But this disposition of writings in time and the 
order of the books in the canon is not explained by us in 
detail, in order that, having excited the desire of knowing it, 
to the seeker the fruit of his labour may be reserved, and the 
office of teaching to God.* 

§ 4. The meaning of the Prologue to St. Luke. 
The Prologue to Luke begins with some curious history, of 
which something will be said later (p. 271 foil.). The Gospel 
was written after those of Matthew and Mark ; in fact St. Luke 
states that other Gospels had been written. Beyond the demand 
made upon him by the order and arrangement of the Gospels 
(of which the other Prologues have said a good deal, and have 
implied much more) Luke had particular reasons for writing. 
The first was to manifest all the perfection of the God, who 
was prophesied to come into flesh, for the benefit of Greek 
believers, that they might not fall into Judaism or heresy. 1 
The second reason is more elaborate. After mention 
of the birth of St. John Baptist at the beginning of his 
Gospel, St. Luke showed for whom he wrote and why 
he was chosen to write, testifying at the same time that he 

1 Iudaicae fabulae is from Titus i. 14; heretical fabulae echoes the frequent 
denunciation of fabulae in the Pastoral Epistles. Stultae sollicitationes are perhaps 
nwpai {ip-fioeis, 2 Tim. ii. 23. All these references to the Pastoral Epistles seem 
to be motived by the mention of St. Luke in 2 Tim. iv. 11, and by the reference 
above to his being with St. Paul until his conftssio. 


completed what Matthew and Mark began. This is indeed 
a dark saying. It seems to be explained by what follows, 
and what follows has been misunderstood by the neglect 
of the correct Irish reading by editors, who have read 
dei for deus ut (DQ) 1 ; et before repetendae must also be 
omitted, though against the Irish evidence. To Luke, as 
a consummation, was granted the power of tracing up the 
human birth from the beginning, from the perfection of genera- 
tion fulfilled in Christ. The meaning is clear * to seekers * 
after the Prologue to Matthew. Matthew wrote for Jews, and 
started with Abraham. Luke shows that he was chosen to 
write for Gentiles by going right back to Adam. The ' perfect 
generation fulfilled in Christ ' means that, though ' Christ was 
in His fathers ', He was only imperfectly born in them ; 
His birth from a Virgin was the perfect birth of God made 
flesh. A principio implies ' from God ', since Luke's genealogy 
ends with ' Adam who was the son of God \ We go on : ' in 
order that Luke might show to seekers in Him whom he 
had apprehended ' (i. e. what he had himself understood, by 
becoming a Christian from a Gentile, and receiving Christ), 
1 by admitting the entrance of a genealogy which runs back to 
God through the son of David, Nathan, how the indivisible 
God caused the work of man when made perfect to return by 
the son to Himself, who opened a way in Christ through the 
father David to all who come.' A contrast with St. Matthew 
is intended, who traces the genealogy downwards through 
Solomon, and not upwards through Nathan. Nathan son of 
David is the type of Christ, so that the genealogy of St. Luke 
is said to show how the work of man when perfect rises up to 
the Father through the Son typified by Nathan, just as that 
of St. Matthew, descending through David, showed the Father 
making a way downward for those who were to rise; in 
Matthew we see the condescension of the Father, in Luke the 
return to Him through the Son. If this is not what the writer 
meant, then he meant something at least as far-fetched and as 
carefully ' hidden from seekers \ Just as the Prologue to John 

1 To be translated as if we found ut deus ; this transposition, unusual in prose, 
suggested the emendation dei. The easy dei> ut is in no MS. 


includes a sort of introduction to the Apocalypse, in the same 
mystical vein, so that to Luke contains an introduction to 
Acts. It was proper, the writer continues, that to Luke should 
be entrusted the composition of that book, so that he who had 
completed Matthew and Mark by a more perfect work should 
now show how the number of the apostles was filled up by lot 
after the Ascension (deo in deutn pleno must mean the Ascen- 
sion) and the death of Judas, and how the addition of Paul gave 
a further consummation. Finally, we get a protestation like 
that at the end of the Prologue to John ; the workman is to 
get the fruit by his own toil ; the author will not betray God's 
secrets to those who ought to take the trouble to discover 
them for themselves. 

The Monarchian character of uenturi in carnem deiis obvious ; 
it is more important to remark that it seems to imply that God 
took the place of the soul in a human body. Deo in deutn 
pleno apparently means that at the Ascension God returned 
to God (literally ■ God being now full in God '), and the Father 
and Son became indistinguishable. The same conception is 
plainer in the expression indispartibilis deus, which cannot 
but be meant to deny the distinction of Persons. No doubt 
any of these expressions might bear a Catholic interpretation ; 
but taken as a whole they shed a lurid light upon one another. 
I give an attempt at translation. 

The Argument of Luke. 

1 Luke, a Syrian of Antioch by nation, by profession a physi- 
cian, a disciple of the Apostles, later followed Paul until his 
confession, serving God without blame. For he never had 
wife or children, and died at the age of seventy- four in Bithynia, 
full of the Holy Ghost. When Gospels had already been 
written, by Matthew in Judaea and by Mark in Italy, at the 
instigation of the Holy Spirit he wrote this Gospel in the parts 
of Achaia, and he also signified in the commencement that 
others had previously been written. Apart from the demand 
made by the order of the disposition of the Gospels [which 
made his Gospel necessary] the principal object of his toil was 
that he should labour that the Greek faithful might, by the 


manifestation of all the perfection of God coming in the flesh, 
be prevented from giving themselves to the study of Jewish 
fables, and from being held by the desire of the law only, and 
that they might not be seduced by heretical fables and foolish 
questions, and so depart from the truth. And further, that in 
the beginning of his Gospel, having first given the birth of 
John, he might point out for whom [viz. for Theophilus] he 
wrote his Gospel, and the purpose of his election to write it, 
attesting that what was begun by the others was finished in 
him. To him power was granted after the baptism of the Son 
of God [Luke iii] to reckon back the human birth from its 
beginning, starting from the perfection of the generation 
fulfilled in Christ, in order that he might show forth to seekers 
(in that he had himself apprehended), by admitting into the 
list the entrance of a genealogy running back to God through 
the son Nathan, how the indivisible God, proclaiming His 
Christ among men, has made the work of the perfect man 
return to Himself by the son of David — He who by David 
the father offered in Christ a way to those who came to Him. 
To this Luke ministerial power was deservedly given of also 
writing the Acts of the Apostles, that God being full in God, 
and the son of perdition 1 being dead, after prayer had been 
made by the Apostles, the number of election (twelve apostles) 
might be made complete by the lot of the Lord, and that thus 
Paul might supply the consummation of the Acts of the 
Apostles, 2 whom the Lord chose after he had long kicked 
against the pricks. And though it had been useful for us to 
explain this in detail for readers and seekers after God, yet 
knowing that the working husbandman ought to eat the fruits 
of his own labour, we avoid the curiosity of the public, lest we 
should appear less to be revealing God to the desirous, than to 
have betrayed Him to scorners.' 

1 ' Son of perdition ' (so BD0K) is of course from John xvii. 12 ; proditionis 
seems to be merely a mistake from the notion of ' traitor ' by a scribe who did not 
catch the reference. The author of the ordinary Prologue to Acts {Lucas natione 
Syrus) read perditionis in the fifth century. 

a Or, reading Paulum, * that he might give Paul as the consummation (the 
thirteenth Apostle) to the Acts of the Apostles.' That this is the true reading is 
attested by the Prologue to Acts. See ch. xiv, p. 255. 


§ 5. T/te meaning of the Prologue to Mark, 

The argument to Mark is the most curious of all, for its 
heresy is the most patent, its obscurity is the blackest, and 
the thumb of Mark suggests an apparently insoluble problem. 

That Mark was the son of Peter in baptism is a deduction 
from 1 Peter v. 13. That he was a priest and a Levite seems to be 
a detail connected with the story of his thumb. That he wrote 
in Italy was a commonplace known to all Christians. We are 
not surprised at being told that the beginning of his Gospel 
shows what he owed to his birth (viz. his sacerdotium) and 
what to Christ (the finding of the divine voice in himself). 
His Levitical origin is shown by his beginning with St. John 
Baptist. This is far-fetched enough, but what follows is 
worse; he showed not merely the Word made flesh, but 
(more clearly) the Body of the Lord, in all things (i. e. wholly) 
animated by the Word of the Divine Voice (that is to say, the 
Word taking the entire functions of the human soul in Christ), 
as the beginning of his Gospel preaching. (If we read initio 
with Wordsworth, Corssen, &c, we shall get no possible 
meaning, so far as I can see ; initium 3PQ is the Irish reading, 
it seems, preserved also by H0X. Initio was an obvious 
correction to make ; but it is not evident how initio could get 
corrupted into the astonishing but translateable initium.) 
How does the writer get this patent heresy out of the first 
verses of Mark ? I think it evident that he took verse 2 as 
a parenthesis, and made verse 3 epexegetical of verse 1, thus: 
* Initium euangelii Iesu Christi, filii Dei, (sicut scriptum est . . . 
ante te 3 ) uox clamantis in deserto, parate uiam Domini .-..*; 
' the beginning of the Gospel of the Son of God is the voice of 
one crying . . .,' to signify that the Son of God was the Voice 
(or vowel) of a Word ; for the * Word made flesh ' is a vowel 
clothed in consonants — the vowel or voice is God, the conso- 
nants are the human flesh. The Baptist is therefore mentioned 
as being the beginning of the Gospel, because he is a voice — 
showing that Christ was a voice (or vowel) ; ' in order that 
any one who should read might know how to recognize to 
whom (viz. to God) he owed the beginning of flesh in the 


Lord and the habitation of God on earth.' Caro seems to 
mean \ the reader, being himself flesh ' ; but when I remember 
that we have twice had verbum caro factum as an accusative, 
I cannot but think it ' wildly possible ' (as Mr. C. L. Dodgson 
would have phrased it) that caro is in apposition to habitaculum. 
At any rate 'habitaculum' means the Body in which God 
sojourned, thus giving the same ultra-Apollinarian (or rather 
Arian) doctrine as before. The final result is ' that the reader 
may thus find in himself the word of the voice which he had 
lost in the consonants '. The reader's own soul being a part 
of God, he himself is a word, but he has probably not per- 
ceived this, through paying attention to the fleshly part, the 
consonants, and not to the soul which makes them vocal, and 
so forms a word. (Or we may understand ' find in Mark . . . 
which Mark had lost \) Thus I venture to understand the in- 
extricabilis nodus of which Sedulius the Scot complained. His 
brilliant conjecture that consonantes were the other Synoptists 
is quite impossible, for we have seen in the Prologue to Luke 
that St. Mark wrote before that evangelist. The same con- 
sideration makes it unbearable to read uiderat with most 
editors lower down ; it was an obvious correction for the difficult 
uicerat of the Irish contingent (D3PHQ), who are joined by the 
independent witness of YZ. 1 

The meaning of uicerat is sufficiently plain ; St. Mark, 
entering upon the work of the perfect Gospel, and beginning 
with the Baptism, did not trouble to recount the birth of the 
flesh which in prioribus — • in his opening paragraphs ' — he had 
conquered, viz. by declaring that the beginning of the Gospel 
was (not the flesh, the consonants, but) the voice, the divine 
soul. This is a strange expression, no doubt — natiuitatem 
carnis in prioribus uicerat — but not too strange for our author. 
It gives just the sense we should expect ; for we had just been 
told that the mention of the Voice was something beyond 
a declaration that ' the Word was made flesh \ Mark there- 
fore begins with the temptation, in breui (not giving the three 

1 Evidently the perpetrator of the conjectural emendation uiderat had, like 
Sedulius Scotus, taken consonantes to mean the other Gospels ; prioribus naturally 
assumed the same signification. 


temptations found in Luke and Matthew), that he may establish 
the facts, and yet give fullness to the work to be performed 1 — 
of preaching. The writer does not condescend to inform us 
what mystical meaning, if any, he attaches to the details he 
enumerates. Next comes the story of St. Mark's thumb, and 
then a conclusion in the usual style, the author recommending 
personal inquiry. Disciplinam in se legis agnoscere seems to 
mean that the reader is to accept the discipline of the law, 
after the example of the Levite Mark. Diuinam domini in 
came intellegere naturam again suggests that the Divine nature 
takes the place of Christ's soul, thus implying Monarchianism 
as well as ultra-Apollinarianism. A rendering is not easy 
to make. 

The Argument of Mark. 

* Mark, the evangelist of God, and the son by baptism of 
Peter and his disciple in the divine word, exercising the priest- 
hood in Israel, being a Levite after the flesh, after he had been 
converted to the faith of Christ, wrote his Gospel in Italy, 
showing in it what he owed to his birth and what to Christ. 
For he commenced the beginning of his introduction with the 
voice of the prophet's cry, thus showing the order of his 
Levitical election, so that, by pronouncing the predestinated 
John, son of Zacharias, to have been sent out as the voice of 
an angel, he showed as the beginning of the Gospel preaching 
not simply the Word made flesh, but also the Body of the Lord 
having the Word of the Divine Voice for all the functions of 
a soul ; so that any who reads this might know how to recog- 
nize to whom he owed the beginning of flesh in the Lord, and 
the Tabernacle of God coming among men, being himself flesh, 
and might find in himself through the Word of the Voice 
what he had lost in the consonants. Thereafter, entering 
upon the work of the perfect Gospel, and beginning to preach 
God from the Baptism of the Lord, he did not labour to 
mention the birth of the flesh which he had already conquered 
in what preceded, but with his whole strength (totus) he pro- 

1 The parallel with the Prologue to Matthew should be noticed : . . ut . . . 
ostenderet . . . non negaret, and closer stiWJidemfactae ret tradere et . . . non negare. 


duced the expulsion into the desert, the fast for a mystic 
number of days, the temptation by the devil, the fellowship 
with the wild beasts, and the ministry of the angels, that, by 
teaching us to understand, and describing each point briefly, 
he might at once establish the truth of the facts, and affirm 
the fullness of the work that was to be perfected. Further, he 
is said to have cut off his thumb after he had received the 
faith, in order that he might be accounted unfit for the priest- 
hood. But the predestinated election which corresponded to his 
faith so prevailed, that even by this he did not lose in the work 
of the Word what he had formerly received by his birth ; for 
he was bishop of Alexandria, whose (i. e. a bishop's) work 
it is to know in detail and dispose the sayings of the 
Gospel in his heart, and recognize the discipline of the law in 
himself, and understand the Divine Nature of the Lord in the 
flesh ; which things we ourselves also desire to be searched for, 
and after being searched for to be recognized, having as a reward 
of this exhortation, that " he that planteth and he that watereth 
are one, but it is God that giveth the increase 'V 

§ 6. Some Conclusions. 

i. The Prologues teach the identity of Father and Son. 
The Father became Son by being incarnate (He was also in 
all His ancestors from Adam onwards, and may be recognized 
by all men in themselves), and in His Ascension showed 
Himself once more as Father. 

2. In the Incarnation God assumed a human body, of which 
the Divine Nature was the soul — the vowel, to which the body 
supplied as it were the consonants, thus making the ' Word '. 

3. The reader is not to expect clear guidance, he must 
search for himself. It would seem, therefore, that the author 
is avoiding some accusation of heresy of which he has been 
the object. 

So much for the doctrine. The text is in most cases easy 
to restore. The Irish witnesses are almost always in the 
right ; not only in the case of the paragraph omitted by the 
rest in the Prologue to John, but in many astonishing readings 


they prove to have preserved a singularly pure and ancient 
text. The non- Irish MSS. agree to a great extent in testifying 
to an early redaction of the difficult text, not made in the 
interests of orthodoxy but of comprehensibility. But neither 
the one thing nor the other was obtained, for the Irish text is 
the easier to understand, and is not the more heretical, though 
it is the more explicit. 

Additional Note. A Greek translation of the Prologue to Luke. I extract 
from H. von Soden's Die Schriften des N. T., 1. p. 337 : ' Endlich enthalt a 202 
unter einer grossen Sammlung von einleitenden AufsStzen zu Ac auch einen 
Abschnitt iiber Lk, der seinem Inhalt nach an diese Stelle gehort. Er ist 
iiberschrieben : tovto t£ thiox*ip<w tov 0710V irarptapxov M.t9o5iov (a. 842-6 ?) mid 
lautet: [125] Avairavons tov ayiov aitooroXov Aovica, tov tvayytXiffrov tiicaSi tov 
2twTtpfipiov prjvos. tariv o ayios Aovicas Avrioxtvs, 2i/pos tw ytvti, tarpos ttjv 
rtxvqv, fiaBijrris avoffToXarv ytvoptvos tcai vartpov UavXcu irapaKoXovBijaas f^xP 19 T0V 
fxaprvpiov avrov SovXtvffas ra> Kvpiw atrtpiffiraaTUS, ayvvcuos, artKvos trojv oySorjKovTa 
Ttaaapoxv tKoifiijOrj tv Qt)@cus rrj ftrjTpoiroXu ttjs Boiorrias irXrjprjs irvfvftaros ayiov. 
ovtos npowapxovrojv 17817 tvayytXiwv, tov Kara ULarOaiov tv rrj lovdcua avaypa- 
<ptvros, rov St Kara Mapnov tv Tt) IraXia ovros irporpairtts vno irvtv/xaros ayiov tv 
tois ntpt rrjv Axaiav to -nav tovto awtypaipaTO tvayytXtov StjXojv Sia tov irpooifuov 
tovto aVTO, on vpo avrov aXXa tan ytypa/ifitva kcu oti ava.yna.iov rjv tois t£ tQvoiv 
viotois tt\v cutpifir) ttjs oiKOvoftias ticOtaOai Sirjyrjaiv xmtp tov /irj tcus lOvSaixais pvdo- 
Xoytais rrtpioiraoOat avrovs, pryrt Tats aiptTinats Kai Ktvats <pavraoiais anaTwptvovs 
aaTOxrjaat ttjs aXqduas' cos avayKaioraTrjv ovv ovaav tvOvs tv apxv iraptiXr}<paptv ttjv 
tov luavvov ytwtjatv, os tanv apxn tov tvayytXiov vpoSpopos tov icvpiov ytvofxtvos 
Kai koivojvos tv Tt Too KarapriafM} tov tvayytXiov koi ttj tov Panno/wTos Siayaiyrj 

KOI TTJ TOV ItVtVfMTOS KOlVoJVia. TaVTIJS TT)S oixovo/uas fltfiVrjTOl irpo<ptjTT}s tv TOIS 

ScuStita. nai Srj fttTtirtiTa typwf/tv o avros Aovieas vpaftis aitoOToXaiv. vartpov St 
loMvvtjs o aitoOToXos tK toiv owofKci typaiptv ttjv airomXinptv tv rrj vrjaaj Ilar/uu Kai 
ptra Tama to tvayytXiov.' The codex a 202 is otherwise known as 309 Acts, and 
is at Athens, 'E6v. Bi0X. 91 (64), 1 2th cent. (Scriv. 10th). Mr. C. H. Turner points 
oat to me that an extract tOTiv 6 [0710s] Aov/cas "Sipos . . . irXf)prjs irvtvpLaros ayiov, 
is found in Bodl. Misc. Gr. 141, nth cent.; (the variants are: om dylov, Xvpos 
'Avriox^s, om rq? yivtt, Ty t«x»T?> odd S\ after itaBmiis, rrS' tTti tKoipa\Qi\ tv TJ7 
Boiarriq). St. Methodius, Patriarch of Constantinople, visited Rome in the time of 
Paschal I (817-24), and must have obtained the Prologue to Luke on that occasion. 
It is amusing to see that he could not understand it, for he has shirked all the 
difficulties in his autograph version ! He has corrected the absurd Bithynia into 
the usual Greek tradition ■ Thebes in Boeotia '. Sept. 20 for St. Luke appears to 
be unique. The Greek feast, Oct. 18, has been universal in the West since Bede, 
Ado, Usuard and their followers. But the Hieronymian Martyrology gives 
Sept. 21, and I presume that St. Methodius found this ancient Western date given 
in the Latin MS. from which he was translating. 



§ i. Earlier theories as to the date of the Prologues. 

The four prologues have attracted of late years more 
attention than their internal merits would seem to deserve, 
owing to the disquisitions of von Dobschutz and Corssen. 2 
Both these writers have confidently attributed them to the 
early years of the third century, and this view has been largely 
followed. Corssen rightly saw them to be Monarchian in 
doctrine, and was consequently able to parallel them with the 
teaching of Praxeas as gathered from Tertullian. But it is 
noticeable that he wholly failed to establish any remarkable 
coincidence of doctrine or of language. The attempts of 
both von Dobschutz and Corssen to show in different ways 
that the Prologues exhibit an early form of the legends of the 
Apostles were likewise inconclusive, not to say paradoxical. 

1 This chapter is reprinted with alterations from the Revue Binidietine, July 
1906, pp. 335-49, with the Editor's kind permission. 

1 E. von Dobschiitz, Studien zur Textkritik der Vulgata, 1894, pp. 35 foil. ; 
P. Corssen, Monarchianische Prologe zn den vier Evangelien, 1896 {Texte und 
Unters.y xv. 1). Of the latter study there is a good criticism by Julicher in 
Gottinger gelehrte Anzeigen, 1896, pp. 841 foil. Corssen has added to our 
knowledge of the MSS., and his details are sometimes useful. But his main theses 
exhibit a lack of common sense and of the critical faculty which is simply 
phenomenal. See also Harnack, Chronol. y ii, pp. 204-6. References are given 
by Ehrhard and by Bardenhewer. The text is critically edited in Wordsworth and 
"White's Vulgate, and by Corssen with additional MSS. A list of MSS. which contain 
the Prologues is given by S. Berger, Les prefaces jointes aux livres de la Bible dans 
les MSS. de la Vulgate (M^moires, Acad, des Inscr. et Belles-lettres, xi. 2, 1904), 
pp. 55 foil. They may be bought for a few pence in the edition by H. Lietzmann 
{Das Murat. Fragment und die Monarch. Prologe, 1902, in Kleine Texte fur die 
Theol. Vorlesungen, published by Marcus und Weber, Bonn) ; an English edition 
published by Bell & Co., Cambridge, 1905. A commentary was written on the 
Prologues at the beginning of the ninth century by Sedulius Scotus {Bib I. vet. 
Patr., vol. vi; Migne, P. L. } vol. 103). 


If these theories were true, it would be probable that the 
Prologues were written at Rome. But this would be some- 
what surprising, for we know of no Latin writings at Rome 
in Tertullian's day, unless Pope Victor wrote in Latin, as 
St. Jerome perhaps implies. It is quite certain that the 
Prologues as we have them now were written by a Latin in 
Latin, and it is not easy to comprehend how a clever critic 
like von Dobschutz was able to hold that they were trans- 
lations from the Greek. 1 

The late M. Samuel Berger brought forward more con- 
vincing arguments, and rightly placed the Prologues in the 
fourth century. He wrote : 

' Ne nous hatons pourtant pas trop de remonter dans la se*rie des ages 
pour chercher la date de nos arguments : il n'est guere possible (car le 
langage en est tout different) qu'ils aient 6t6 faits pour les plus anciennes 
traductions latines que nous ayons, les textes " africains ", qui ne remon- 
tent pas beaucoup plus haut que le milieu du ill 6 siecle. lis semblent au 
contraire avoir 6t6 faits pour Tune des recensions re'pandues en Italie et 
en Gaule depuis le commencement du iv e siecle, avec les textes dits 
* Europeans " et " Italiens ". Si nous les mettons dans la premiere moitie' 
du IV 6 siecle, nous verrons assurdment en eux un document d'une antiquity 
respectable, aussi bien que du caractere le plus original ' (Les Prefaces, 
p. 9). 

I do not myself doubt that the ■ African ' texts date from 
the second century, and the earliest * European ' recension may 
be earlier than Novatian. Nevertheless Berger's instinct has 
guided him aright in connecting these prologues with one 
of these ' editions ' of the old Latin in which the fourth 

1 No doubt the historical matter is indirectly borrowed from the Greek, as we 
shall see ch. xv, § i. In the Lk. Prologue * per Matthaeum quidem in Iudaea, 
per Marcum autem in Italia ', might suggest \i\v . . . U if quidem is to be preserved. 
But the affectations, the obscurities, the intertwining of the words and clauses 
show that the writer was by no means a simple translator. Early translations 
(the best examples are the New Testament and St. Irenaeus) generally preserve even 
the order in the most servile manner ; whereas the order of words in the prologues 
is not Greek at all. Schwartz, in his ingenious but unconvincing and far-fetched 
essay Ueber den Tod der Sohne Zebedaei, not merely speaks of ' die alten, sicher 
aus dem Griechischen iibersetzten Prologen ', but even retranslates parts of them 
back into Greek (p. 27, and p. 28, note), and into Greek which is necessarily quite 
as odd as the original Latin ! Corssen, Hilgenfeld (see Bardenhewer, Gesch. der 
Altk. Lift., ii. 558) and Berger all uphold Latin as the original tongue. 


century abounded ; only the second half of the century, and 
Spain rather than Italy or Gaul, will prove to have been the 
real date and home of these strange productions. 

§ 2, Comparisons of matter and style. 

If Monarchianism is prominent in the Prologue to Matthew, 
in those to Luke and Mark the doctrine is still more strongly 
taught that in the Incarnation God took a human body which 
He animated as its soul. 1 (We may for convenience call this 
Apollinarianism, though it goes further than the great teacher 
of Laodicea, who identified only the higher part of Christ's 
soul with His divinity.) Corssen has in consequence imagined 
a distinction between the views advanced in the different 
prologues, although he is certain that they are by one author 
(pp. 33-3). Indeed the unity of authorship is set beyond 
all doubt by the recurrence of the same expressions, the same 
vocabulary, the same involved style. Surely this even proves 
that they were written by one author, at one time, with one 
object in view, and forces us to put down inconsistencies 
of doctrine to the score of the interpreter and not of the 

But we have seen that in fact there is Apollinarianism 
as well as Monarchianism in the Prologue to Matthew, and 
Monarchianism as well as Apollinarianism in those to 
Luke and Mark, and that the doctrine is perfectly consistent 
in all of them. Corssen's ingenious reference to Gnosticism 
to explain the teaching of the Luke and Mark prologues was 
not very successful. The combination of Monarchianism with 
ultra- Apollinarianism is really characteristic of a Latin writer, 
not of the beginning of the third century, but of the end of 
the fourth — Priscillian. The identity of the doctrine of the 

1 It would be confusing to speak of this as Arianism, since it was not the 
primary doctrine of Arians, nor taught by all of them. St. Epiphanius indeed 
attributes it to Arians in general {Haer. lxix. 19) and to Lucian and all the 
Lucianists (Ancoratus, 33). St. Gregory Nyssen (c. Eunom. Bk. II, p. 157) calls 
it the foundation of Arian impiety ; but Eunomius says in his Confessio Fidei (Gold- 
horn, SS. Bas. et Greg. Nat. opp. sel., Leipzig, 1854, p. 624) : [ovk] dva\a06vra 
rbv kit iftvxys Kal ou>(mtos avepwiwv, where the ovk is an interpolation by the Bishop 
of Nyssa. 


prologues with that of Priscillian will appear in the comparison 
which I append of their teaching, vocabulary, phraseology, 
and style. 

Not all the details in the following table are of importance ; 
many are simply included for the sake of completeness, in 
order to save others the trouble of examining further. The 
excellent index of Schepss to his edition has made the labour 
of comparison a light one. I quote Priscillian by the pages 
of Schepss (CSEL. xviii), adding the line in smaller figures 
where it seems advisable to be more precise. 

In examining the table, it should be remembered that 
we are comparing four short prologues with eleven short 
treatises which fill only 100 pages of the Vienna Corpus. The 
coincidences are therefore far more remarkable than would be 
the case if we were dealing with longer documents. I quote 
the prologues as Mt., Jn., Lk., Mk., and under Mt. I add the 
parallel passages of the other prologues. 

Prologue to St. Matthew. 

1. (Mt.) Mattheus ex Iudaeis (Wordsw. with DQ3* ; but Corssen 
reads ex Iudaea with BCeQ. 

(Jn.) Iohannes . . . unus ex discipulis Dei. Cp. Priscillian 35 11 : nullus 
e nostris ; 40** : multi ex his ; and 52 s5 , 53 s , 74 10 . 

2. (Mt.) Duorum in generatione Christi principia praesumens . . . et ex 
utrisque in patribus Christus . . . decursam aduentus Domini ostendit 
generationem, ut . . . etiam in his, quorum genus posuit, Christi operantis 
a principio testimonium non negaret. 

(Lk.) ut requirentibus demonstraret . . . per Nathan filium, introitu re- 
currentis in Deum generationis admisso, indispartibilis Deus ut praedicans 
in hominibus Christum suum, perfecti opus hominis redire in se per filium 
faceret qui per Dauid patrem uenientibus iter praebebat in Christo. 

With these very obscure discussions of the genealogies of Mt. and Lc, 
compare Priscillian : 

32 : praedestinans a principio saeculi in profetia electos suos, ex quibus 
Christus secundum carnem, sicut et generatio domini in euangelio per eos 
disposita et edicta retinetur, per quos profetans se dominus aduentus sui 
iter praestitit. 

55 : ab omnibus profetatus est Christus, Adam, Sed, Noe, Abraham, 
Isac, Iacob, et a ceteris qui ab initio saeculi profetauerunt, et intrepidus 

CH.V.G. R 


dico quod inuidet diabolus : uenturum in carne deum omnis homo sciuit, 
non dicam hii quos in dispositione generationis suae in euangelio deus 
posuit, et diuinae naturae fidem et numerum canoni praestaturos. The 
ancestry of Christ proves His Divinity. How? The Prologue has in- 
formed us. Numerum canoni is difficult. The 3x14 generations suggest 
14 Epistles of St. Paul. Perhaps 42 books of O. T. are counted. 

Mt. Et numero satisfaciens et tempori (i. e. * quaternario denario numero 
triformiter posito ', 3x14 generations). Whatever mystical idea is in- 
tended is probably the same as in the above-quoted passage (of the 
ancestors of Christ) : l diuinae naturae fidem et numerum canoni prae- 
staturos.' For Priscillian's interpretation of numbers cp. Prise. 78, for 

3. praesumens, and Lc. : Iohannis natiuitate praesumpta (= 'take 
before') ; so Priscillian 6s 24 , 71 s2 . 

4. triformiter : 70 9 , 19 ; 76* ; 78 12 : tri/ormis, an unusual word, four 
times in Priscillian. 

5. A credendi fide. This strange pleonasm is found in 62* : CRE- 
DENDI FIDEM hominibus insinuet. 

6. The use of repeated participles in the nominative : praesumens . . . 
porrigens . . . dirigens . . . definiens . . . satisfaciens . . . ostendens . . . (os- 
tenderet Wordsw.) . . . monstrans, all in one sentence ; in the next : 

/actus . . . /actus . . . naius . . . passus . . . triumphans . . . resurgens . . . 
ostendens. So Jn. : mani/estans . . . inchoans . . .ponens . . . ostendens . . . 
and passim. The later editors of the Prologues did their best to remedy 
this defect by turning some of the participles into finite verbs. This use 
is especially characteristic of Priscillian, ' participiorum usui nimis indulget 
Priscillianus ' (Schepss, p. 208), as even a cursory inspection of his text 
will show, ex. gr., pp. 4-5 ; agnoscentes . . . renatus . . . intrantes . . . 
baptizati . . . induti . . . respuentes . . . passus, all in one sentence ; and 
so continually. • 

7. ostendit . . . ostendens . . . monstrans . . . ostendens; Jn. : mani- 
/estans . . . ostendens . . . demonstraret . . . monstratj Lc. : mani/estata 

. . . demonstraret . . . demonstrare (om. Corssen). Mc. : ostendit . . . 
ostenderet. In Priscillian similarly ostendere is particularly common, 
occasionally varied by monstrare (10 times), demonstrare (5), mani- 
/estare (3). 

8. et se quod esset ostendens ; Jn. : ostendens quod erat ipse ; 
cp. 5, qui cum operibus QUIS ESSET OSTENDERET. 


STRANS; 96 : qui diuinorum praeceptorum IN SE OPUS uellet (cp. also 49 : 
in SE et in symbolo suo monstrans ; 63 : OPUS uerbi factorum operibus 


10. ponitur, posito, posuit; Jn. : ponens, positus est, ponitur . . . In 
Priscillian ponere is especially common, usually with the meaning * set 
down in a book' or 'set in a book', as in the Prologues. (Priscillian 


seems rarely to use positus in place of the missing participle of sum ; cp. 
Souter, A Study of Ambrosiaster, p. 125.) 

1 1 . Christi operantis a principio (cp. below, operantis Dei) ; cp. 103 : 
omnes . . . ad te Christi operantis intrarent (where Chr. oper. may 
possibly be a genitive absolute). 

12. testimonium non negaret, and Mc. : plenitudinem non ne- 
garet; cp. Prise. 105 6 : testimonium non negaret; 55 11 : gloriam non 
negare; 66 7 : gloriam non negaret, and 31 13 , 98 s4 . Notice especially 
how this favourite expression is as it were dragged in. {testimonium, 
also in Jn., no less than 40 times in Prise.) 

13. quarum omnium rerum tempus, ordo, numerus, dispositio uel 
ratio . . . Deusr Christus est. For the asyndeton cp. 76 : loco, tempore, 
numero, die, mense, ratione . . . (Schepss gives 21 examples, out of many 
more, of asyndeton in Prise). 

For the doctrine, which is the ' Panchristism ' of Priscillian, compare 
82 : si Christum omnium scimusesse principium ; 71 : intellegamus quod 
factus pro nobis omnia, dum in oblationes suas dies, menses, formas 
pecorum, animalium naturas, differentias arborum, fructus terrenorum 
seminum poscit . . . omnia sua esse demonstrans . . . et per omnium rerum 
naturam totum se loquens, &c ; 79° : innumerabilis Christi natura. See 
also the Pantheism of 104. 

14. DEUS christus, so above, uocatio ad Deum, and below, Dei . . . 
nascentis ; Jn. : ex discipulis Dei, dilectus a Deo, signum . . . quod in 
nuptiis fecit Deus, Lc. : in carnem Dei, Deo in Deum pleno, Mc. : Dei 
aduenientis, praedicare Deum. In all these cases Deus means Christ. 
In Priscillian Deus frequently stands for Christ, and DEUS CHRISTUS 
occurs regularly and far beyond orthodox use. Cp. the direct assertion 
16 20 : Nobis autem Deus Christus Iesus est. Plenty of instances will be 
seen as we go on. 

15. Qui factus e*muliere, factus sub lege (=Gal. iv. 4), cp. 118 (can. 
xvii) ex muliere factus. Some Latins read ' natus '. 

16. natum ex uirgine ; 36 : natum ex Maria uirgine ; 101 : nato per 
uirginem Christo. 1 

17. passus in carne; 71 : ipse pro nobis passus in carne ; 72: passus 
in carne est; 39 : Christus Deus, dei Alius, passus in carnem secundum 
fidem symboli ; 75 : sic se pro hominibus PATIENTEM intellegi deum uoluit 
IN carne (cp. 48 10 : passurum deum ; 71 15 : passuri dei). A comparison 
with nos. 23 and 46 will show that the intention of the phrase is Apollina- 
rian (cp. 1 Pet. iv. 1). 

18. omnia in cruce fixit, (a combination of Gal. vi. 14 with Col. ii. 
14) UT TRIUMPHANS ea in semetipso (Col. ii. 1 5) ; cp. Orosius, Common. 

1 On p. 36 Priscillian is citing the creed (see Kattenbusch, i. 157), the purest 
Roman form of which has de Sp. S. et M. V., not ex. But the variant ex is too 
common to be of importance, and I only notice it for the sake of completeness. 



adv. Prise. (Schepss, p. 153): 'Unde et mathesim praeualere firmabat 
[Priscillianus], adserens quia hoc chirographum soluerit Christus, et ad- 
fixerit cruci per passionem suam' (i.e. ' mittendarum in car-new 
animarum diuinum chirographum \ Prise, ap. Oros. ibid.) ; 72 : mundo 
in crucem fixo ascendens pro nobis in patibulum Christus ; 77 : uterum 
uirginalis carnis ingressus . . . et conceptione, partu, uagitibus, cunis, 
omnes naturae nostrae transcurrens contumelias, mundo in crucem fixo 
saluato in se et per se sibi homine gauderet ; 16 : chirographum . . . tulit 
illud de medio, adfigens cruci ; principatus et potestates transduxit 
fiducialiter, triumphans eos in semetipso (whereas Vulg. reads illos 
for eos). Also ap. canon xviii, p. 119, which has probably been altered, 
and 60: ut ueniens in carnem, constitutionem decreti anterioris euerteret 
[et] in patibulum gloriosae CRUCis maledicta terrenae dominationis ad- 
figens, &c. 

19. resurgens in corpore; 49: saluator natus IN carne passus RE- 
SURREXIT ; and 5 24 , 74 14 . I notice this only because Priscillian's citations 
from the creed are so important. 

20. et patris nomen in patribus filio, et filii nomen patri restitueret in 
filiis. The reference is to the Genealogy in St. Matthew, and I have already 
given an explanation and translation of this mysterious passage, to which 
Priscillian points when he speaks of the ancestors of Christ diuinae 
naturae Jidem praestaturos (55). I only note here how much Priscillian 
enjoys these interlaced repetitions of pater and filius ; 49 : in se et in 
symbolo suo monstrans, nomen patris filium, itemque filii patrem, 
ne Binionitarum * error ualeret, edocuit ; 103 : ut in te UNO et inuisibili- 
tatis plenitudo, quod pater filio, et uisibilitas agnoscentiae, quod 
FILIUS PATRI in operatione sancti Spiritus deberet, ageretur . . . ut . . . 
accessum ad te, quia patrem filii in filio et filium patris in patre 
ignorauerat, non haberet ; cp. 104 : tu animarum pater, tu frater filiis, tu 
filius fratribus, &c. For the doctrine, cp. the references to St. John (xiv. 
10) 6 : totus in patre et pater in ipso, and (1 Jo. ii. 23) 7 : dicente apostolo, 
qui negat filium nee patrem habet, qui autem confitetur filium, et filium et 
patrem habet. For other repetitions similarly forming a play upon words, 
see Schepss's Index, p. 204, under lusus uerborum. 

21. sine principio sine fine, ostendens unum se CUM patre esse 
(Jo. x. 30) quia UNUS est ; 71 : Christus autem origo omnium, totus in 
sese, nee quod est aliunde praesumens, sine principio sine fine, quern 
si per uniuersa consideres, unum inuenies in totis, et facilius de eo 
sermo deficiet quam natura (here again is * Panchristism ') ; cp. also 93 : 
unum et indifferentem sibi deum retinens in ea quae neque (in) exordio 
neque fini obnoxiantur exultat 8 , 6: et iterum ipso dicente: ego et 

1 The Binimitae are the ' Ditheists *, those who make the Father and the Son 
two Persons, in other words, the Catholics. 
3 According to Priscillian the Son has no principium, and He is Himself the 


pater unum sumus (Jo. x. 30) ; cp. ibid. : et haec tria unum sunt in 
Christo Iesu (1 Jo. v. 7, the Comma Iohanneum or * three heavenly 
witnesses ') ; 49 : qui requirentibus apostolis omne id quod nominabatur 
(Panchristism ! cp. Eph. i. 21) se esse monstrauit, unum se credi uoluit, 
non diuisum, dicente profeta, ' hie est deus noster, nee reputabitur alius 
absque eum, qui ostendit uiam disciplinae, et dedit earn Iacob puero suo 
et Istrahel dilecto suo ; posthaec in terris uisus est, et cum hominibus 
conuersatus est, Dominus Deus nomen eius (Baruch iii. 36-8). It would 
be difficult to deny the Trinity more categorically than this. 1 Again, 75 : 
unus deus est, si sermo ; unus est Christus, si opus ; unus Iesus, si natura 
quaeritur ... sic uniuersa disponens, ut, cum unus esset in totis, unum in 
se uolens hominem, aliud genus perfecti operis scrutator eius habere non 
posset, nisi ut unum eum deum crederet, quern omnipotentem in se quod 
est et quod dicitur inueniret. 

22. Sic prima uel media uel perfecta cognoscere. Priscillian is 
very fond of this threefold division ; 36 : si ea quae prima sunt non 
quaerunt, uel in MEDiis tertiisque consistunt . . . etiamsi adimplendi 
PERFECTI operis non habeant facultatem. (Cp. 93 prima, media, postrema, 
omnia ; 67 : primum . . . secundo in gradu ... in gloriam perfectae septi- 
manae. 10 : initium et consummationem et medietatem mensuum, Wisd. 
vii. 17 ; 78: initium, medietatem et consummationem mundi.) 

23. Dilectionem Dei in carne nascentis ; 53 : tam incredibilis 
miraculi, Deum nasci habere ; 49 : fides unius Dei, ex quo Christus 
Deus, Dei filius, saluator, natus in carne passus resurrexit ; 101 : ex 
Iuda . . . Deus natus in carne est. Of the Apollinarian doctrine 
implied we have spoken and shall speak later (nos. 46, 56, and 63). 

24. per uniuersa legentes intellegant ; 71 : quem si per uniuersa 

25. Atque id in eo in quo adprehensi sunt et adprehendere ex- 
petunt (Phil. iii. 12), recognoscant ; Lc. : in quo adprehendens erat ; 
cp. 7 : adprehendere uolumus in quo adprehensi sumus (Vulg. 
reads conpreh.). 

principium of all things; 82 : Si Christum omnium scimus esse principium; 75 : 
filius est, si principium quaeritur. 

1 Perhaps the locus classicus for the monarchianism of Priscillian is 37 : 
baptizantes, sicut scriptum est, in nomine patris et filii et Spiritus sancti. Non 
dicit autem ' in nominibus * tamquam in multis, sed in uno, quia unus deus trina 
pot estate uenerabilis omnia et in omnibus Christus est. Also 103 : Tu enim es deus, 
qui cum in omnibus originibus uirtutum intra extraque et supereminens et internus 
et circumfusus in omnia unus deus crederis, inuisibilis in patre, uisibilis in filio, 
et unitus in opus duoium sanctus Spiritus inueniris. Note that the creed Nos 
Patrem et Jilium, which Kunstle has shown to be Priscillianist (Antipriscilliana, 
p. 59) has ' tres itaque formae, una potestas *, which is the converse of Priscillian's 
own ' trina potestate uenerabilis ', hardly its contradictory. Professor Kunstle's 
book is very brilliant and suggestive, though not quite always convincing. 


26. Nobis enim hoc IN STUDIO argumenti FUIT ; 34 : FUERiTque IN 
STUDIO sustinere. The construction (cp. Horace's hoc erat in uotis) is 
rightly explained by Corssen, p. 13. Priscillian twice uses the similar 
cordi est, 40 18 , 41 23 . 

27. Et fidem factae rei tradere; Mc. : auctoritatem factae rei; 
47 : aut certe historiam factae rei proferens. (So also rei gestae, 40 s8 
and 41*°.) 

28. Non tacere ; cp. 4 : tacere noluimus ; 40 : nee hoc tacentes ; 54 : 
praesentis Dei glorias non tacebant. Cp. no. 12, above. 

Prologue to St. John. 

29. incorruptibilis uerbi OPUS inchoans ; Corssen has a comma in 
the prologue after incorruptibilis , but according to no. II, above, we ought 
to join only ostendens quod erat ipse. Besides, though John might be 
called incorruptus, he would surely not be called incorruptibilis. We 
may therefore compare 68 : non ex semine corruptibili, sed INCORRUPTI- 
BILI uerbo Dei uiui (1 Pet. i. 25), where Priscillian probably intended 
no stop before uerbo. See above, p. 227. With UERBI OPUS inchoans, 
compare Mc. : nee sic in opere uerbi perderet, in both cases of the 
work of the Evangelist. So 12 : Et tunc dominus etiam nobis post futuris 
ad intellegendum se OPUS uerbi tribuens parabulam dicti per se sermonis 
exposuit dicens, where Job xl. 3-14 interprets Job xxxix. Again of Moses 
writing Genesis, 63 : scribti uerbis scilicet edocens, et opus uerbi 
factorum operibus ostendens. 

30. uerbum caro factum (Jo. i. 14) ; Lc. : Emissum non solum 
UERBUM caro factum ; 5 : ipse est enim qui fuit, est, et futurus est, et 
uisus a saeculis uerbum caro factus inhabitauit in nobis, et crucifixus, 
deuicta morte, uitae heres effectus est. 

31. UETERIBUS immutatis NOUA omnia quae a Christo instituuntur 
appareant ; 72 : sic in nobis perfectio boni gloria sit, si castificatio 
corporis fructu diuinae excolitur uoluntatis, sicut apostolus ait: ecce 
TRANSIERUNT uetera et facta sunt omnia NOUA (2 Cor. v. 1 7). Here 
the nouitas is in both cases connected with chastity ; and again, 79 : ut 
ambulantibus nobis in nouitate uitae et non in uetustate litterae 
(Rom. vii. 4, 6), acceptum in uictoria a nobis corpus non appelletur iam 
terra saeculi sed domus dei, nee fornicationis habitaculum, sed imago 
corporis Christi (cp. 100* J can. 78, p. 142). 

32. singula quaeque ; 46 s : singuli quique, and 48 20 ; 65* : SIN- 
GULIS quibusque, and 72 5 . 

33. Acta uel dicta ; cp. 49*° : facta, dicta uel scripta. 

34. Mysterium, in Prise, eight times. 

35. in principio CANONIS ; 63 : ut [Moyses] . . . principium daret 


36. Incorruptibile principium in Genesi, et incorruptibilis finis per 


uirginem in Apocalypsi (Apoc. i. 8) ; 47 : quis est iste Abel profeta, ex 
quo sanguis profetarum sumpsit exordium, cuius principium in Zac- 
chariam finit ? (cp. 82 10 : psalmo, quia primus est, omniumque principium 
est.) The incorruptibile principium is Christ, who is sine principio (above, 
no. 21), but is the principium of all things; 82: si Christum omnium 
scimus esse principium ; 75 : filius est si principium quaeritur. 

37. Dispositione canonis ordinati ; 45 : canonica ordinatio 
(meaning the inclusion of books in the canon, as here). 

38. Post Matthaeum ponitur, quoniam . . . and Mt. : Matthaeus . . . 
sicut in ordine primus ponitur ; the importance of the number and order 
of the books in the canon is suggested 31 : Si qui . . . extra quattuor 
Euangelia quintum aliquod euangelium uel fingunt uel confitentur ... in 
quatuor euangeliorum dispositione ; 87-8 : non inmerito ordo psalmorum 
digestus uidetur, nee incondite, quae spiritus Dei dictauit exposita . . . 
beatus uir (= first) . . . secundo . . . tertio . . . See also no. 40, below. 

39. PLENITUDINIS opere perfecta sunt (with regard to a part of the 
canon, viz. John) ; cp. 63 : canoni, cuius in se PLENITUDINEM (of Moses 
writing Genesis). 

40. Quorum tamen uel scripturarum tempore dispositio uel 
librorum ordinatio ; 97 s6 : SCRIBTURARUM DISPOSITIO (of internal arrange- 
ment) ; ioo 9 : dispositione sermonis profetici operis (of order of sense in 
a psalm). Cp. for the ablative after dispositio 76 : simplicem DISPOSI- 
tionem, loco, tempore, numero, die, mense, ratione, diuisam. 

41. per singula; 6 10 per singula, and 23 s , 38*. 

42. Sciendi desiderio ; cp. 27 16 : si scire desiderant. 

Prologue to St. Luke. 

43. Ante (adverb) ; so Prise, tkrice. 

44. Extra ea quae for praeterquam quod ; so Prise. 22 19 : extra 
enim ea quae . . . solem et lunam rectores orbis terrarum deos puta- 


dispositions electus [Moyses]. 

46. Omni perfectione uenturi in carnem Dei manifestata; Pris- 
cillian seems to have supported his doctrine of * God coming into flesh ' 
(i. e. the divinity acting as the soul, for he held the soul to be a part of 
God even in ordinary men), by reading in carnem in two passages of 
St. John's Epistle ; 7 20 : Qui autem negat Iesum Christum in carnem 
UENISSE,. hie antechristus est (1 Jo. ii. 23), but 21 21 : qui negat Iesum 
Christum in carne uenisse. Again 31 1 : omnis spiritus qui confitetur 
Christum Iesum in carnem uenisse de Deo est (1 Jo. iv. 2) ; but 31 4 : 
qui non confitentur Christum Iesum in carne uenisse . . . Three other 
passages have in carne, viz. 7 18 : Scientes quoniam Christus uenit in 
carne ut peccatores saluos faceret (1 Tim. i. 1 5) ; 28 18 : Deus noster . . . 


ueniens in carne; 55* : uenturum in carne Deum. As 7 18 has 
carne and 7 20 has carnem, both cannot be right. But carnem is the 
lectio difficilior, and also agrees best with Priscillian's view. This is con- 
firmed by the fact that in 28 13 the scribe wrote carne and then corrected 
it into carnem : deus noster . . . ueniens in carnem. Again it is said 
of Moses 62 18 : tale uenientis in carne meruit exordium, which is nonsense; 
but if we read carnem, we get good sense ' deserved such a commence- 
ment of his (soul's) coming into the flesh'. One must conclude that the 
scribe of our only MS. of Priscillian was inclined to write in came, as was 
indeed more natural, and as he has again done 75 2 : secundum carne. 
There remain still three passages in which carnem is given ; 72 2 : pro 
nobis uenturus IN carnem uel passus in carne est ; 60 4 : ueniens in 
carnem, and 102 7 : nisi quod Deus in carnem uenire uoluit. It is 
certainly remarkable that all the MSS. of the prologues cited, except 
AH©, have preserved the characteristic in carnem. Cp. 61 8 : adueniens 
in carnem deus. 

47. Iudaicis fabulis (Tit. i. 14) . . . hereticis fabulis et stultis sollicita- 
tionibus ; in Prise, fabulae four times. Cp. also 5 7 hereticorum dogmata 
stulta; 15 11 : idolorum superstitiones stultae. 

48. Elaboraret . . . ne, and labor are, Mk., cp.elaborare ut 8 15 , 19 23 , 35* ; 
elab. quo 112 7 . 

49. In quo electus (in quod ?), cp. 82 : dum omne in se in quod electus 
fuerat exultat (David) ; 62 : in opus euangelicae dispositions electus. 

50. Ut requirentibus demonstraret ; cp. 49 : requirentibus apostolis . . . 

51. Praedicans in hominibus Christum suum ; cp. 30: si Christum 
deum profetat aut praedicat\ 41 : quae Christum deum dei filium pro- 
fetant aut praedicant. 

52. Perfecti opus hominis ; (of Christ) cp. 72 : uelut in duobus per- 
fectus homo quaeritur; 77 : uelut perfecti hominis locum. 


buit ; 32" : iter PRAEStitit and 61 1 ; 6 : ascendens in caelos, uenienti- 
BUS ad se iter construit. 

54. Cui Lucae non inmerito ; 87 17 : non inmerito per profetam . „. * 

55. Lucae . . . apostolicorum actuum . . . apostolicis actibus ; Priscillian 
has euangelium cata Lucanum (as in the headings of the Old Latin MSS. 
aff* i), but in speaking of the evangelist uses the ordinary abbreviated 
name Lucas ; 53 : nisi me Lucae euangelistae testimonium perurgeret. 
He has not actis but actibus (ibid. : dicentis in actibus apostolorum). (The 
adjective apostolicus is common in Prise.) 

1 This quite ordinary expression is the only phrase found in the prologues which 
can be paralleled from the list of Ambrosiaster's peculiar expressions given by 
Mr. A. Souter {A Study of Ambrosiaster, p. 1 14). The coincidences in style of 
the prologues with Priscillian are more remarkable when we perceive how little 
they have in common with the writings of his contemporaries. 


56. ' Deo in Deum pleno ' seems to be an ablative absolute, meaning 
' God (the Son) having been (at His ascension) poured back into God 
the Father so as to fill Him,' i.e. be identified with Him. With plenus 
in Deum we may perhaps compare 61 5 : plenus in omnes crepidines 
Iordanis. For the sense (the account of the Ascension in Acts i is 
certainly intended) cp. 6 : et ascendens in caelos uenientibus ad se iter 
construit, totus in patre et pater in ipso, &c 

57. Expediri = * be explained ' ; 33 s fidei expedita abseratione. 

58. Publicam curiositatem ; cp. 41 ia : iudicium publicum; 92*: publicae 
opinionis ; 87 11 : curiosae mentis intentio ; 87" : curiosius intuenti. 

59. Operantem agricolam oporteat de fructibus suis edere ; for some- 
what similar metaphors (from 1 Cor. ix. 10), 67 s4 : arans in spe, fidei suae 
fructus colligens, and 13 19 , cp. 46 28 . 

Prologue to St. Mark. 

60. Ostendens in eo quid (or quod) et generi suo deberet et Christo ; 
cp. 103 : ouod films patri — deberet, ageretur. 

61. Voce profeticae exclamationis ; 1 1 : Dauid ... in superiori exclama- 
tion*; 31 8 : Hiesu Naue . . . exclamauit, &c; 57 14 : profeticis uocibus, &c. 

62. 'Initium principii' is taken by Sedulius Scotus to mean 'in the 
commencement of the introduction \ But it may be a mere pleonasm, as 
62 18 : initio nascendi (63 s : factorum operibus, et similia). 

63. Emissum non solum uerbum caro factum, sed corpus Domini in 
omnia per uerbum diuinae uocis animatum. ' The Body of the Lord in 
all things animated by the Word ' is Priscillian's Apollinarian, or more 
than Apollinarian, teaching (see no. 46). The words in omnia have been 
omitted by most MSS. (Corssen cites ZOXAYtKIvTcfVCH^) in order 
to modify it ; cp. 65 : acceptoque limo terreni habitaculi nostrum corpus 
animauit ; 71 : pecus terrae ... in usum formati saeculi praecepto animae 
uiuentis animatum est (?) ; 79 21 : animati corporis. 

64. Ut qui(s) haec legens sciret cut initium carnis . . . deberet agnoscere ; 
cp. 96 : ut, qui diuinorum praeceptorum in se opus uellet . . . cut tributa 
peccaminum, cut stipendia uitiorum, cut timores formidinum, cut honores 
praetereuntium dignitatum deditus saeculo homo deberet, agnosceret. 
From this parallel it is clear that in the prologue cut . . . deberet depends 
on agnoscere, i. e. ' sciret agnoscere cui . . . deberet '. 

65. Initium carnis in Domino et Dei aduenientis habitaculum. The 
use of habitaculum for the body is familiar to Priscillian, e. g. of Christ, 
53-4: ad concipiendum uel parturiendum habitaculum corporis; 82: 
si . . . hominem Christi agnoscamus habitaculum ; and of men in general, 
e. g. 62 : etsi hospitio terreni tenetur habitaculi ; 65 : acceptoque limo 
terreni habitaculi nostrum corpus animauit', 85 ia : corruptibilis habitaculi ; 
70 : terrenae carnis habitaculum. 

66. With dei aduenientis compare 61 : adueniens in carnem deus. 
For the Apollinarian doctrine also cp. 59: uirginis partus et in ad- 


sumptionem corporis omnipotens dcus pudorem humani exordii non 
recusans ; and yet more clearly 74 : denique Deus noster adsumens 
carnem, formam in se dei et hominis, id est diuinae animae et terrenae 
carnis adsignans, dum aliud ex his peccati formam, aliud diuinam ostendit 
esse naturam. How the soul of man is born of God, and afterwards 
thrust into a body, according to Priscillian, is told by Orosius, Common. 2 
(Schepss,p. 153). 

67. perfecti euangelii opus intrans, cp. 65 : sermo diuinus facturae (?) 
opus intrans ; 67 : in opus lectae lectionis intrantes. 

68. natiuitatem carnis (opposed to baptismo, above), 83 : si natiuitate 
carnis adstricti. More often Priscillian speaks of terrena natiuitas 70 14 , 
73 6 , 75 16 ), whereas baptism is diuina in deum natiuitas 78 s , or noua 
natiuitas 97 s4 , &c. x 

69. baptismo . . . expulsionem deserti . . . ieiunium numeri, temtationem 
diaboli ; cf. for these four points 61 : post locuplitatum baptismatis 
fontem, constitutus in eremo, ieiunans diebus et noctibus uicit, et temptatus 
a zabulo . . . (Priscillian uses both zabulus and diabolus frequently). With 
ieiunium numeric cp. 60: quadraginta dierum erimum domini in euangelio 
ieiunantis imitati. 

70. conpingens ; cp. 104 14 for this uncommon expression. 

71. perficiendo operi ; 80 18 : perficiendi operis. 

72. consentiens fidei ; cp. 72 : consentiens nouum testamentum ueteri. 

73. meruerat, not of strict merit, but of predestination; so 62 18 : 
Moyses . . . initio nascendi tale uenientis in came meruit exordium. 

74. diuinam in carne Domini intellegere naturam ; again Apollinarian 
doctrine. Priscillian generally uses diuina natura of the divine nature 
(soul) in all men 2 ; 93 : totum se diuinae unde profectus est naturae 
e deo Christo . . . reddat ; 70 : nos diuinae consortes uoluit esse naturae 
(2 Pet. i. 4) ; 100: dispensationem diuinae in se intellegere naturae; 81 : 
naturam in uobis Dei custodientes, &c, and especially (Epist. ap. Orosium) 
153 11 : haec prima sapientia est, in animarum typis diuinarum uirtutum 
ntellegere naturas et corporis dispositionem in qua obligatum caelum 
uidetur et terra omnesque principatus saeculi uidentur adstricti, sanctorum 
uero dispositiones superare, a saying as dark as anything in the Prologues. 

§ 3. Results of the examination. 

The conclusions to be drawn from these statistics are 
sufficiently obvious, and I need only point them out in the 
most cursory manner. 

A. The heresy of Priscillian — Monarchianism, Panchristism, 

1 Expulsionem deserti ; Priscillian uses eremus twice, but not desertum. 

2 Orosius says in his Commonitorium, 2 (Schepss, p. 153), of Priscillian: 
* docens animam quae a deo nata sit de quodam promptuario procedere, profiteri 
ante deum se pugnaturam et instrui adoratu angelorum.' 


Apollinarianism — is accurately given in the Prologues. It is 
given in Priscillian's own words, his own favourite and 
reiterated expressions being employed. (See above, 13, 14, 
17, 18, 21, 23, 46, 56, 63, 65, 68, 74.) This is the principal 
point. The doctrine of the Prologues was carefully examined 
in the last chapter. In this chapter it has been shown that it 
is the doctrine of Priscillian, both in intention and in expression. 

B. The particular interest shown by the Prologues for the 
genealogies is not alien to Priscillian, cp. 2. 

C. Mystical numbers, the order of books or parts of books 
in the Bible, cp. 2, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40. 

D. Involved, quaint, far-fetched ideas, almost incompre- 
hensible to us, are found in both (ex. gr. 20). The instances 
in the prologues are obvious. But the reader of Priscillian 
will find untranslateable passages on almost every page, and 
will not seldom come across an inextricabilis nodus almost as 
hopeless as the nomen patris in patribus filio or the quod in 
consonantibus perdiderat of the prologues. 

E. The style is extremely similar. The extraordinary 
length of the sentences is the most remarkable point in the 
prologues; and exactly the same may be observed every- 
where in Priscillian. For instance the very first tractate has 
1 <x\ lines before the first full stop ! Clause is piled upon 
clause, principally with the help of relatives and participles. 
There is a difference however. The prologues are terse and 
knapp> not diffuse, and this is of course intentional. They 
are far more obscure than the rest of Priscillian, for the 
writer explains that he has purposely involved his meaning in 
difficulty, that the searcher may have the reward of labour 
in finding the meaning of Scripture for himself. His fear 
of punishment for heresy was justified by the cruelty shown 
in his judicial murder. 

F. The constructions are the same in both. Relatives con- 
tinually, participles, especially present participles (cp. 8), and 
a good many ablative absolutes. Of these it is unnecessary 
to give examples. Simplicity and plainness seem to be 
purposely avoided. 

G. A sort of involution of clauses, reserving the chief verb 


till the end as in German, is observable in both. Good instances 
are Lc. : ' UT in principio euangelii Iohannis natiuitate pre- 
sumpta, cui euangelium scriberet et in quo electus scriberet, 
INDICARET ' (fourteen words between ut and its verb), or Mc. : 
* ut praedicans . . . ostenderet/ in which sentence there are 
twenty-eight words between ut and its verb ! So the first 
lines of Priscillian's first treatise: 'Etsi fides nostra . . . 
liberi sit ' give us fourteen words between etsi and its verb ; 
while in line 7 ut is followed by an ablative absolute (three 
words), then by quamuis . . . Christo (forty-two words I), after 
which its verb is forgotten, and a new tatnen takes up the 
tamen of line 5, and the main verb noluimus follows after 
twenty-five more words ; and so always. 

H. The same conjunctions and links are employed. The 
chief favourite is the relative, also hie est . .. qui ; qui etsi ; 
denique ; ideo, &c. The use of asyndeton (13). 

I. Not merely the same dogmatic phrases, but the same 
expressions with regard to other matters recur in both sets of 
writings (as 9, 12, 18, 22, 24, 26, 27, 28, 29, 32, 40, 41, 44, 45> 
53j 54, ^4> 6y). Of these some are remarkable (credendi 
fides , per uniuersa, in studio fuit, facta res, extra ea quae, opus 
intrans), as being rare or unique ; while others are character- 
istic of style (e. g. non tacere, non negare,per singula, euangelica 
dispositio, opus uerbi, &c). 

K. In vocabulary there is great similarity : (1) in technical 
descriptions of doctrine, as we saw, (2) conjunctions, &c. ; 
(3) words given above, e. g. 3, 4, 7, 34, 47, 4&, 5 8 > 6l > 7°> 7^, 
73 ; (4) words which occur (mostly more than once, or many 
times) in the Prologues, and are very frequent in Priscillian. 
I italicize the most important : agnoscere, canon and canonicus, 
cognoscere, debere, disponere and dispositio, electus and electio, 
euangelium, initium, intellegere, inuenire, opus, ostendo, per- 
fectus, sermo, tempus, testimonium, totus, uerbum, unus, &c, 
&c. (Some of these might well be common in any writer.) 
With the iens participle in Jn. compare exiet for exibit twice in 
Prise. Attention should be drawn to the frequent use of 
in se, which is most characteristic of both sets of writings. 

L. Priscillian was fond of using apocrypha. He defends 


his practice at length in Tract iii, pp. 44-56 : liber de fide et 
apocryphis. In the Prologues there is a clear dependence on 
the Acts of John, which were used by Priscillianists. 1 

M. Both writers use the same Old Latin text of Holy 
Scripture. Against this it cannot be urged that in Mc. we find 
desertum where Prise, has eremus^ for this merely means that 
the writer is not quoting in the former place, but using the 
usual Latin word. The instances given above are : 

15. foetus ex muliere, where for natum Tischendorf gives 
m 6 fu demid tol harl ** al Cyp 288 Ps-Ath (Vigil)* 6 * Leo 
(serm 24, non item serm 33), to which one may add codices or 
writers known to Bede. This coincidence is not remarkable. 

18. omnia in cruce fixit (Mt.) and mundo in crucem fixo, 
(Prise, bis) = Gal. vi. 14, where Vulg. reads mihi mundus 
cruci fixus est. 

18. triumphans ea in semetipso, where Vulg. has illos for 
ea> Col. ii. 15 (Prise, eos, Schepss). 

25. adprehendere in quo adprehensus (sum), Phil. iii. 12, 
where Vulg. has comprehendam in quo et comprehensus sum. 

46. Apparently both read in carnem uenisse, 1 John iv. 2 
(=2 John 7), where the right reading is of course in came, 
Iv vapid. 

29. incorruptibili uerbo Dei uiui, 1 Pet. i. 23, where the Vul- 
gate makes it impossible to connect incorruptibili with uerbo, 
by the correct rendering per uerbum Dei uiui. 

I conclude from all this that the Prologues were written by 
Priscillian, and even at no great distance of time from the 
composition of the Tractatus, for the connexion is very close. 
Why documents so heretical and so obscure should have been 
so frequently copied is the really insoluble problem which 
they present to the modern critic. 

1 Dr. Kunstle says : ■ Allerdings wird den Priscillianisten der Gebrauch apokry- 
pher Schriften stets zum Vorwurf gemacht, aber es sind darunter nicht ausser- 
kanonische Schriften im allgemeinen zu verstehen, sondern es sind immer jene 
phantastischen Apostel- und Evangelienromane gememt, aus denen die Pris- 
cillianisten ihre gnostisch-manichaischen Irrtiimer sch6pften , (Antipriscilliana, 
p. 18a). So says Turribius (see p. 273). Kunstle is wrong in doubting the 
authenticity of Leo, Ep. xv. Priscillian himself used the Acts of Thomas 
(C. H. Turner in/. T. S., July, 1906, p. 605), and presumably those of John. 



§ i. The Prologue to Acts ' Lucas natione Syrus \ 

Before entering upon the history of the Prologues in the 
MSS., it is necessary to say something about certain manipu- 
lations of them. 

The Prologues to John and Luke contain also introductions 
to the Apocalypse and the Acts of the Apostles, and these 
portions were at an early date separated and edited into Pro- 
logues to those books. They obtained very nearly as large 
a circulation as the original family. These bastard Prologues 
are first found in the Codex Fuldensis, c. 542-6, and must 
have been composed during the preceding century. 

1. The Prologue to Acts Lucas natione Syrus will be found 
in Wordsworth and White, who have noted that the whole is 
borrowed from the Prologue to Luke, except * cuius laus in 
euangelio canitur ' at the beginning, and at the end ' quern ita 
diuina subsecuta est gratia ut non solum corporum sed etiam 
animarum eius proficeret medicina ' ; both these sentences are 
from a passage in St. Jerome's letter to Paulinus (Ep. 53), 
which is found in many MSS. as a Prologue to Acts : 

* Actus apostolorum nudam quidem sonare uidentur historiam et 
nascentis ecclesiae infantiam texere ; sed si nouerimus scriptorem eorum 
Lucam esse medicum cuius laus est in euangelio, animaduertemus pariter 
omnia uerba illius animae languentis esse medicinam.' 

It is obvious to conjecture that the compiler of Lucas natione 
Syrus found this Prologue to hand, and thought it too short, 
so he combined it with a large portion of the Prologue to 
Luke, rewritten and simplified. 1 These two Prologues to 

1 Another combination is found in the Spanish witnesses CT (both of these contain 
Actus Ap, nudam, and T has also Lucas natione Syrus) ; it is a short prologue 


Acts are still found together in many MSS. Four of Words- 
worth's codices contain both : 

Lucas nat. Syrus B F0 KMRTU ^ c gig 
Actus Ap. nudum C 01 MRT V 

and from Berger one may add compl 2 , BN 6, Bern A 9, Vat 

The text of Lucas natione Syrus is our oldest witness to the 
text of those portions of the Prologue to Luke which it has 
retained unaltered. Two readings are singular, and I believe 
correct, although none of Wordsworth's witnesses know them. 
One of these I shall discuss on p. 271 : the age of St. Luke is 
given as eighty-four and not seventy-four. The other point 
needs more explanation. Priscillian says that Luke received 
the power of writing the Acts of the Apostles, so that after 
the Resurrection and the death of Judas the number of the 
Apostles might be completed (by the election of Matthias), 
* sicque Paulus consummationem apostolicis actibus daret . . . '; 
what is the meaning of sicque ? It reads as if St. Paul was 
the twelfth apostle just implied. But the compiler of the Pro- 
logue to Acts read Paulum : ' and that so he (St. Luke) 
might present Paul as the consummation of his book.' This 
gives far better sense, and it is much more in accordance with 
the style of the Prologue that St. Luke should be the 
subject until the end of the sentence. But I did not intro- 
duce this reading into the text given in the last chapter nor 
into my translation, as being in no MSS. In the Prologue to 

made out of the Prologue to Luke, the Actus Ap. nudam and the summaries of CT 
(De conuersatione domini) ; it is given by Wordsworth on p. 3 of his edition of 
Vulgate Acts ; the first words are Lucas euangelista Apostholorum hactus. It corre- 
sponds to a shortened form of the Prologue to Luke (' Lucas Antiocensis ') which 
is given by Wordsworth (Gospels, p. 271) from C with the interpolations of T in 
footnotes. It is also in leg 1 (a. d. 920) Colm. 38 (eighth century) and Bibl. Nat., 
1 5 1 3 (Berger, Les Prey., No. 231). The other (Lucas eu. ap. hactus) is in C , T, leg 1 , 
compl* aem., Dresden A 47, Strahov. 19. Berger has by mistake given it twice 
over, first as No. 246, then as No. 248 (Les Prefaces, p. 60). I wonder whether 
Peregrinus was the author of these two simplifications of the Prologue to Luke. 
They are in the same Bibles as his canons and his Ideo et de Graeco, and every 
trace of heresy has been eliminated. Another attempt at making Priscillian more 
comprehensible is found in 0, wherein parts of his prologues are mingled with 
other matter (Wordsworth, pp. 173, 272). Bishop Theodulf may have got them 
from Spain. 


Acts Paulum is given by all MSS. except the late W and gig, 
which have manifestly borrowed their reading from the 
Prologue to Luke. The other readings to be noticed are : 

add natione omnes (with AD3?H0KQVX c in Luke), 
ministerio {but mysterio BFU), (with D^QY in Luke), 
perditionis omnes (with DK, and, teste Corssen, B0, in Luke), 
sciens omnes (with BH0KNTOV against AD3>Q in Luke), 
oportet omnes (with D3PQ in Luke). 

In four out of five cases the early witness of the Irish MSS. 
is supported by the Prologue to Acts. In the case of sciens, 
uolui has preceded, and we may guess that the compiler 
expected to be taken for St. Jerome. So he may have found 
scientes. Only one other variant need be noticed. All the 
MSS. read stimulos in the Prologue to Luke, though in Acts 
ix. 5,xxii. 7, xxvi. 14 all MSS., whether Old Latin or Vulgate, 
have stimulum. In the Prologue to Acts only F0T have 
preserved stimulos ; this is a testimony to the excellence of 
the Spanish tradition of 0T (we know that the Spanish tradition 
is good in the Prologues to the Gospels) ; F is the oldest 
MS. The Prologue to Acts is apparently unknown to the 
Irish tradition, as it is not in the Book of Armagh. It is not 
in the Kentish O of Acts (Selden MS., now Bodl. 3418). 
This is negative evidence. It is unlikely that it was unknown 
at Canterbury, when we remember the bad character of the 
text of the Gospel Prologues in OX ; but it is still more 
unlikely that it was known at Lerins before 432, when 
St. Patrick seems to have introduced an admirable text of 
the Gospel Prologues into Ireland. Its composition will fall 
anywhere in the fifth century. 

§ 2. The Prologue to the Apocalypse c Joannes, apostolus et 
euangelista \ 
The common Prologue to the Apocalypse is extracted from 
Priscillian's Prologue to St. John, just as that to Acts is from 
Priscillian's Prologue to St. Luke. The two compilations are 
obviously by the same author and of the same date. The 
Prologue to the Apocalypse is very widely diffused, although 
it had a formidable rival in Spain in the Prologue Johannes 
apostolus post passionem. 


I give the rough text as found in Migne (Walafrid Strabo, 
Glossa Ordinaria^ vol.ii, P. Z., vol. 114, col. 709). I append to 
it the readings of F, the oldest MS. which contains it, and also 
those of Tommasijwho printed it from Cod. OratoriiB 6,Words- 
worth'sV(6^m*,vol.i,p.475); IciteThomasiusasV,MigneasM. 

Ioannes 1 , apostolus et euangelista, a Christo 8 electus atque dilectus, 
in tanto amore dilectionis uberior habitus est 3 ut in coena super pectus 
eius recumberet, et 4 ad crucem astanti 6 soli matrem propriam commen- 
dasset, ut quern nubere uolentem 8 ad amplexum uirginitatis asciuerat, ipsi 
etiam custodiendam uirginem tradidisset. Hie itaque cum propter uerbum 
Dei et testimonium Iesu 7 Christi r in Pathmos insulam sortiretur exsilium"* 8 , 
illic ab eodem Apocalypsis praeostensa describitur, ut sicut in principio 
canonis, id est libri Geneseos, incorruptibile principium praenotatur, ita 9 
etiam incorruptibilis finis per uirginem 10 redderetur, dicens : ego sum Alpha 
et Omega n , initium et finis. Hie M est Ioannes, qui sciens superuenisse 
sibi diem egressionis de corpore, conuocatis in Epheso 13 discipulis, 
descendit in defossum sepulturae suae locum, orationeque completa 14 , 
reddidit spiritum, tarn a dolore mortis factus extraneus, quam a cor- 
ruptione carnis noscitur alienus. Cuius tamen scripturae 15 dispositio, uel 
libri ordinatio, ideo a nobis per singula non exponitur, ut nescientibus 16 
inquirendi desiderium collocetur 17 , et quaerentibus laboris fructus, et Deo 
magisterii doctrina seruetur 18 . 

1. Iohannes F 2. a domino Christo FV 3. uberior habitus est M 

ab eo est habitus FV 4. Et F 5. astans F 6. nolentem F 7. 

ihesu F 8. in Pathmos insulam mitteretnr F exilio in Pathmos insulam 

portareturV 9. Ita F 10. addit in Apocalypsi V 11. aetwFV 

12. hie F 13. EfesoF 14. conpleta F 15. scribturae F 16. 

scientibus F 17. conlocetur F 18. exp. prologus F 

Evidently ab eo est habitus is right ; astans is a mere slip of 
F, while nolentem is a deliberate correction by Victor or his 
scribe; scientibus is original, nescientibus is a correction. 

The text throws scarcely any light on that of the Prologue 
to St. John. It supports etiam for et before incorruptibile with 
EIOWX. Incorruptibile principium supports all the MSS. of 
the John Prologue, except 3?*Q which have corruptibile prin- 
cipium. Noscitur alienus seems to support inuenitur alienus 
against the alienus inuenitur of D^Q. Scientibus clearly 
supports scienti with A8FCE0IKKTOXYZ against the Irish 
sciendi of D3PQVW c aur. Collocetur supports collocato with 
CDSPO c VW c against collocata Aa ? E0KM , O*YZ aur. In the 
last case only the Irish reading is supported. 


Further, ad crucem astanti seems nearer to ad crucem tens 
than to any of the corrections (moriens de cruce E, pendens in 
cruce KVW, de cruce (only) 0IMV). Also scripturae seems 
to support scriplurarum A£FCEO*XYZ against scriptorum 

St. Jerome's letter to Paulinus has but a few words about 
the Apocalypse : 

'Apocalypsis Ioannis tot habet sacramenta quot uerba. Parum dixi, 
pro merito uoluminis, laus omnis inferior est.' 

This passage has less diffusion in MS S. as a Prologue than 
the corresponding passage about Acts, Actus ap. nudam. The 
latter occurs in Spanish MSS., the former does not. It was 
apparently unknown to the compiler of Ioannes apostolus et 
euangelista ; at all events he did not think fit to use it. 

He has in fact added nothing to the Prologue to John, 
except that he has apostolus et euangelista for the simple 
euaxgelistay and the obvious * ut in coena super pectus eius 
recumberet'. These expressions are probably from St. 
Jerome's Prologue to his Cotntn. in Matt P lures fuisse, which 
has ' Iohannes apostolus et euangelista, quern Iesus amauit 
plurimum, qui super pectus domini recumbens purissima doctri- 
narum fluenta potauit, et qui solus de cruce meruit audire 
Ecce mater tua \ 

The Prologue to the Apocalypse is found in much the same 
MSS. as the Prologue to Acts, as we shall see presently, p. 26$. 

§ 3. The Prologues of Peregrinus, 

I have no intention of going deeply into the question of 
Peregrinus 1 ; but at least something must be said of him 
where Priscillian is in question. 

1. We have Priscillian's canons on St. Paul's Epistles only 
in the expurgated edition published by Peregrinus. It is found 

1 On the identification of Peregrinus with Bachiarius see Berger, Hist, de la 
Vulgate, p. 28, &c; Kunstle, Das Comma Johanneum, pp. 52 foil. The heresy 
against which Bachiarius defends himself is clearly Priscillianism ; consequently 
his country (which was, he complains, the only ground of accusation) was Spain ; 
he had left it ; presumably he wrote in Gaul. At Lerins ? St. Vincent of Lerins 
wrote under the pseudonym of Peregrinus ; perhaps one imitated the other. 


mainly in Spanish MSS., and appears to belong to an * edition ' 
of the Epistles. 1 It is even possible, though it is not proved, 
that Peregrinus is answerable for an edition of the whole 
Bible. His date is uncertain, but we should presumably look 
for him in the first half of the fifth century. He seems to 
have been an admirer of Priscillian, who yet would not follow 
him into heresy. Of the canones he says in his prooemium : 
'quia erant ibi plurima ualde necessaria, correctis his quae 
prauo sensu posita fuerant, alia ut erant utiliter ordinata prout 
oportebat intellegi iuxta sensum fidei catholicae exemplaui.' 2 
In fact he has left no Priscillianism in the canons. The Pro- 
logue to the canons he has evidently completely rewritten, 
for a comparison with the Tractatus of Priscillian shows that 
none of the peculiarities of Priscillian's style have been 
allowed to remain. The sentences are short and clear. The 
last sentence reminds us of the Gospel Prologues, where the 
evangelist is said to have c laboured ' for such and such a pur- 
pose, and to have * manifested ' this or that : * Hoc enim me 
elaborasse uolo intellegas,£#0 fideliter continentiam Scripturarum 
palam facer em nulli existens inimicus, et ut errantium uelocius, 
sicut postulasti, corrigerentur mentes.' 

2. Another fragment of Peregrinus is in the Codex Gothicus 
of Leon (leg*) ; after the subscription by a scribe of 960 follows 
a prayer, and the words et Peregrini /. o karissimi memento? 
This seems to imply that Peregrinus was, like Bachiarius, 
a monk, for he appears to be addressing his monastic brethren. 
A similar note is found at the end of the Stowe St. John : 
* Rogo quicumque hunc librum legeris ut memineris mei pec- 
catoris scriptoris i[d est] sonid peregrinus. Amen. Sanus 
sit qui scripsit et cui Scriptum est. Amen.' On which 
M. Berger wrote * Sonid est sans doute le nom du copiste ', 
and adds that Whitley Stokes and McCarthy thought it stood 
for sanus ; M. d'Arbois de Jubainville declared it to mean 

1 See Berger, Vulgate, pp. 181-4. 

8 So CT, but (called M by Schepss) reads ' . . . posita fuerant, cum reliquis 
a catholico intellectu non discrepantibus ut erant composita exemplaui ' (Schepss 
in CSEL. xviii, p. 109). 

8 Berger, pp. 19 and 38. 

S 3 


' celui qui possede a fond Tart de tuer les gens ' ; and Prof. 
Rhys translates it tvn&x 1 !* (•)• * s n °t tn ^ s exactly what would 
be given as the Celtic rendering of Vincentius ? Was the parent 
of the Stowe St. John written at Lerins by St. Vincent the 
Stranger, and brought to Ireland by his confrere Patrick ? I 
make the suggestion for what it may be worth. Gennadius 
says Vincent of Lerins was natione G alius ; no more is known 
of him. But his British companions, Patrick and Faustus, 
might have translated his name into Celtic, and he might have 
used it at the end of a book intended for Ireland, as a disguise 
through humility. Such a conjecture must needs remain 
devoid of proof. Anyhow there is no particular reason for 
connecting the Stowe St. John with Spain or with the Priscil- 
lianist Peregrinus. 

3. The Spanish Peregrinus has left another trace of his work 
in his addition to the Prologue of St. Jerome to his translation 
of the books of Solomon from the Septuagint, which begins 
Tres libros Salomonis. This preface with the addition is 
found in Spanish Bibles and those influenced by them. 1 The 
addition runs thus : 

1 Ideo et de Graeco et de Hebraeo praefatiuncula utraque in hoc libro 
praemissa est: quia nonnulla de Graeco ob illuminationem sensus et 
legentis aedificationem uel inserta Hebraicae translation! uel extrinsecus 
iuncta sunt. Et idcirco qui legis, semper Peregrini memento.' 

We learn from this note that Peregrinus had before him not 
only St. Jerome's translation of the books of Solomon from 
the Hebrew, but also his earlier (lost) translation of the LXX. 
Peregrinus combined the two, by inserting in the text or 
margin (extrinsecus) of the former many of the interpolations 
found in the latter. To this conflate text he prefixed the 
prefaces to both versions, viz. the authentic Iungat epistola, 
and the doubtful Tres libros Salomonis. In the MSS. the 
note of Peregrinus is joined on to the end of the latter. 
Berger says in consequence : * Mais que faut-il penser de la 
singuliere lumiere que cette constatation [the identification of 
Peregrinus] jette sur l'authenticite* de notre preface ? Pas un 

1 A list of MSS. will be found of course in Berger, Les Prifaces (No. 131). 


manuscrit ne la contient sans la note de Peregrinus. . . . Nous 
en savons assez pour la condamner d£finitivement. , ' A most 
incomprehensible conclusion ! Because it is clear that Pere- 
grinus (in the first half of the fifth century, to all appearance) 
judged the preface to be genuine, we therefore must condemn 
it without appeal ! We might as well conclude to the spu- 
riousness of the preface Iungat epislola to which the note 
just as much refers. Besides it is untrue that no MS. 
contains the Tres libros without the addition of the Ideo et de 
Graeco. Berger himself remarks of the MS. Vienna 1 200 la 
note de Peregrinus est d*une autre main (no. 131, p. 46); while 
Dom Martianay's notes on the Prologue tell us that tres 
libros appears without addition in the Corbie MS. (Sanger- 
manensis 14), which is now Bibl. Nat.fonds latin 11 940. The 
style of the Prologue is not quite worthy of St. Jerome, in the 
opinion of Vallarsi (especially feci intellegi) ; and indeed it 
contains nothing very remarkable. But feci intellegi may be 
a corrupt reading; and at all events it is quite clear that 
Peregrinus found it to hand, prefixed to the translation from 
the Septuagint, just as the Iungat epistola was to the transla- 
tion from the Hebrew. Surely this is, pace Berger, a strong 
testimony to its authenticity. 

The point to which attention should be drawn is the bold- 
ness of Peregrinus as an editor. He has no reverence either 
for the Septuagint with its halo of legend, or for the Hebrew 
extolled by St. Jerome, nor yet for the work of that great 
father ; and he produces a new text by amalgamating the 
two translations. Let us also notice his openness ; he care- 
fully explains what he has done, and requests the prayers 
which he thinks he has merited. 

4. I have already suggested (p. 254) that Peregrinus may be 
the author of the short Prologues to Luke and Acts found 
in Spanish MSS., Lucas Antiocensis and Lucas eu. Apost. 
hactus ; they are made out of the Prologues of Priscillian, all 
heresy being eliminated by one who knew how to look for it. 

1 Les Prefaces, 1. c, p. 17. Berger actually throws doubt on the Hieronymian 
authorship of the Pluresfuisse, than which nothing is more certainly authentic. 


§ 4. The Prologue to the Catholic Epistles ' Non idem est ordo \ 

We have said that the Prologues of Priscillian to Luke and 
John were seen as early as the fifth century to contain the 
matter for Prologues to Acts and Apocalypse ; and such Pro- 
logues were accordingly manufactured out of them. Now 
Priscillian treated the Epistles of St. Paul still more elaborately 
in his series of canons, in which he pointed out the main 
points of the Apostle's doctrine, finding in his letters the proofs 
of his own heresies, just as he has managed to do in the 
Gospels in his Prologues, but in an obscure and mysterious 
manner. As it cannot be doubted that the Prologues to Luke 
and John were really intended as introductions to Acts and 
the Apocalypse also, it follows that Priscillian is known to have 
composed in favour of his own heresy introductions to all the 
books of the New Testament, except to the Catholic Epistles. 

Did he compose one to the Catholic Epistles ? We should 
suppose so a priori. Further, in the Prologue to John there 
is no mention of the Epistles of that Apostle ; and yet it was 
from the first Epistle of St. John that Priscillian took the 
main texts for his Apollinarianism and his Monarchianism, viz. 
' Iesum Christum in carnem uenisse ' (see above, p. 347) and 
the famous interpolation of the three heavenly witnesses, with 
the conclusion ' et haec tria unum sunt in Christo Iesu \ The 
omission would be explained if Priscillian treated the Catholic 
Epistles by themselves. Also, one who laid so much stress on 
the order of the books in the canon and the purpose of their 
writing was unlikely to overlook the mystical meanings of 
these seven letters, of their dispositio in the canon, of their 
arrangement in order and time. 

If such a Prologue was ever composed, it will presumably 
have come down to us in very many MSS., like its fellows. 
Let us look at the common Prologue (Pseudo-Jerome) to 
the seven canonical Epistles. I give the text from Vallarsi 
(P. L. y 29, col. 831), with the readings of the Codex Fuldensis 
below : 

Non idem * ordo est apud Graecos, qui integre sapiunt et fidem rectam 
sectantur, epistolarum * septem quae canonicae nuncupantur, qui 8 in 


Latinis codicibus inuenitur ; ut, quia* Petrus primus est in numero 
apostolorum, primae sint etiam eius epistolae in ordine ceterarum. Sed, 
sicut euangelistas dudum ad ueritatis lineam correximus, ita has' proprio 
ordini 5 , Deo nos iuuante, reddidimus. Est enim prima earum una 
Iacobi, Petri duae, Ioannis 6 tres, et Iudae una. Quae si, ut ab eis 
digestae sunt, ita quoque ab interpretibus fideliter in Latinum uerterentur 
eloquium 7 , nee ambiguitatem legentibus facerent, nee sermonum sese 8 
uarietas impugnaret 9 ; illo praecipue loco ubi de unitate Trinitatis in 
prima Ioannis 10 epistola positum legimus. In qua etiam n ab infidelibus 
translatoribus multum erratum esse a fidei ueritate comperimus 12 : trium 
tantum uocabula, hoc est, aquae, sanguinis et spiritus, in 13 sua editione 
ponentes u ; et Patris, Verbique ac Spiritus testimonium omittentes ; in 15 
quo maxime et fides catholica roboratur, et Patris et Filii ac 16 Spiritus 
sancti una diuinitatis substantia conprobatur. In caeteris uero epistolis ", 
quantum a 18 nostra aliorum distet editio, lectoris prudentiae derelinquo. 
Sed tu, uirgo Christi Eustochium 19 , dum a me impensius 20 Scripturae 21 
ueritatem inquiris, meam quodam modo senectutem inuidorum dentibus 
corrodendam 22 exponis, qui me falsarium corruptoremque sanctarum 
pronuntiant scripturarum 23 . Sed ego in tali opere nee aemulorum meorum 
inuidiam 24 pertimesco, nee sanctae scripturae 25 ueritatem poscentibus 

1. ita a. Epistularum 3. ut {for qui) 4. quod {for ut quia) 

5. ordine 6. Iohannis 7. eloquium uerteretur 8. se 9. in- 

pugnaret 10. Iohannis II. est {for etiam) 12. conperimus 

13. add ipsa 14. potentes 15. In 16. et 17. epistulis 18. 

om a 19. Eusthocium 20. inpensius 21. scribturae 22. conro- 

dendam 23. scribturarum 24. inuidentiam 25. scribturae 

Here we find the Comma Iohanneum asserted and defended, 
and those editions which omitted it reprobated. Now Dr. 
Kiinstle has made it certain that the diffusion of this celebrated 
interpolation came from the Spanish Bibles, and that the 
Spanish Bibles obtained it (probably through Peregrinus) from 
the Bible of Priscillian. I do not at all agree with him that 
Priscillian actually interpolated the passage himself. He could 
hardly in that case have been so foolish as to quote it in his 
apology (Tract, i, p. 6 5 ), knowing that it would be declared 
apocryphal. He must have found it in his Bible, and it must 
have been one of the frequent Spanish glosses which somehow 
got into the text ; and it is well known that it is founded on a 
mystical interpretation which St. Cyprian seems to assume as 
a commonplace, and which St. Augustine propagated. The 
quasi-liturgical ending ■ in Christo Iesu ' belongs to the earthly 


witnesses, and has got very naturally shifted to the end of the 
heavenly witnesses (which in Priscillian do not precede but 
follow) by the interpolation being made before this formal con- 
clusion. It was Priscillian who discovered a heretical meaning 
in the resultant reading, interpreting the words to mean that 
Father, Son, and Holy Ghost are all one in Christ Jesus. In 
the version found in existing Spanish Bibles the possibility of 
this error has been eliminated, probably by Peregrinus. 

In this Prologue, Pseudo- Jerome must either have used 
a Spanish Bible, or have utilized a previous Prologue by 
Priscillian. The former alternative seems to be absolutely 
excluded by the fact that this Prologue, which is found in 
almost all MSS. of the Epistles entire, and as early as the 
Codex Fuldensis (542-6), is found without its first line in 
Spanish MSS. 1 (But see p. 287.) In these it begins 'qui integre 
sapiunt ', and the opening sentence is meaningless. It can 
hardly be upheld that the Prologue had its origin in Spain. 

On the other hand only a Spaniard was likely to condemn 
all MSS. which omitted the Comma ; and Priscillian is 
particularly likely to have defended it. 2 I think it may be 
safely inferred that Pseudo-Jerome had before him a Prologue 
to the Catholic Epistles in which Priscillian defended this text, 
but Pseudo-Jerome has made his expressions orthodox. 

Confirmation is not wanting. Priscillian will certainly have 

1 Viz. in CT, ©H Fuy, compl l > 3 , leg 1 (?), aem, osc. (Berger, Les Prifaces, No. 291). 

3 There exists an indication that Priscillian found himself bound to defend the 
Comma. In the Priscillianist creed Nos patrem et filium (Caspari, Kirchenhist. 
Anecdota, 308, and see Kiinstle, Antipriscilliana, p. 59) we have a clear reference : 
' Pater Deus, Filius Deus, et Spiritus sanctus Deus ; haec .unum sunt in Christo 
Iesu.' Now a few lines further on we read : * Si quis uero hanc fidem non habet, 
catholicus did non potest ; qui catholicam non tenet fidem, alienus est, profanus 
est, aduersus ueritatem rebellis est.' This is a citation of St. Cyprian, De Cath. 
Eccl. Unit. 6 ' Nee perueniet ad Christi praemia qui relinquit ecclesiam Christi ; 
ALIENUS est, profanus EST, hostis est.' Why a citation from this particular 
chapter ? Obviously because this is the chapter which contains the famous words : 
' Et iterum de Patre et Filio et Spiritu sancto scriptum est : et hi tres unum sunt,' 
to which so many moderns have unsuccessfully appealed to prove the antiquity of 
the reading in 1 John. It seems plain that the passage of St. Cyprian was lying 
open before the Priscillianist author of the Creed (Priscillian himself?) because he 
was accustomed to appeal to it in the same way. In Priscillian's day St. Cyprian 
had a unique position as the one great Western Doctor. 


had before him and have commented on the Old Latin order 
of the Epistles, in which Peter came before James. 1 Now the 
Prologue begins straight off by declaring that this order, in 
which Peter is put first because he is the Prince of the Apostles, 
is not that of the Greeks ; he, Jerome, has restored the true 
(Greek) order, just as he had previously corrected the evange- 
lists (in order, evidently, as well as in text). We cannot fail 
to be reminded how the Prologue to John, in which Priscillian 
expounded the mystical meaning of the Old Latin order, was 
adapted to the Vulgate by an excision made by a corrector. 
Have we not here the same phenomenon? Priscillian had 
explained why Peter was first. Pseudo-Jerome repeats this 
explanation and rejects it. 

The external evidence is in harmony with the internal. The 
following are some of the older MSS. which contain the 
Prologues to Acts, Apocalypse, and Catholic Epistles, or two 
of them 2 : 

Acts F T0 puy compl 2 BK zur bern M 

Cath. Epp. FCT0 puy compl x 8 BK zur bern 
Apoc. F puy compl 1 K zur bern M 

Acts Ham 82 paul BN 1, 3, 6, 

Cath. Epp. BN 1, 2, 3, 6, 104, 309, 15176, Rouen 25 

Apoc. Ham 82 paul BN 1, 2, 6, 104, 309, 151 76, Rouen 25 

Acts Bern A 9 Vat 4221 Stuttg. Hofb. 52 Sorb 1270 &c. 

Cath. Epp. Bern A 9 Vat 4221 Stuttg. Hofb. 52 Sorb 1270 

This table shows every combination of two out of three. 
F and M represent two great families in Acts ; we have also 
the Spanish, Theodulphian, and Alcuinian families, &c. 3 

1 It is to be noted that Priscillian in his Tractaius quotes from all the seven 
Catholic Epistles except John iii, which he could hardly have managed to use. 
He knows a definitely settled canon, presumably the same as that of Damasus's 
Roman Council of 382. 

2 From Berger, Les Prefaces, Nos. 244, 290, 291, 310. The letters CF0T have 
their usual signification ; MB (of Acts) are Munich 6230 and Bamberg A. 1. 5. 

3 The Pseudo- Jerome Prologue to Acts Canit Psalmista is found in a good 
many MSS. (see Berger, Les Prefaces, No. 250). It is printed by Bp. Wordsworth 
on p. 4 ; and he has remarked that it is founded on the genuine preface of St. 
Jerome to Ezra. It does not use the Prologues of Priscillian, for the words 
' a Luca Antiocheno, arte medico ' are from Rufinus's translation of Eusebius, iii. 4 


There is no reason to suppose that any of these three Pro- 
logues was known in Ireland, where the original form of the 
Prologues to the Gospels was preserved. One may say, there- 
fore, that the corrected form of the Prologue to John, and the 
Prologues to Acts, Apocalypse, and Catholic Epistles have 
approximately the same large diffusion, if we take into 
account the comparatively large number of MSS. which 
contain the Gospels only. The Prologue to Acts and the 
Apocalypse have a single author. That to the Epistles is by 
a downright forger, probably a different person. He not only 
speaks in the name of St. Jerome, but he addresses Eustochium ; 
his first sentence is modelled on St. Jerome's Prologue to the 
Minor Prophets : ' Non idem ordo est duodecim prophetarum 
apud Hebraeos qui est apud nos.' His last paragraph is 
a clever imitation of St. Jerome's repeated complaints of the 
enemies who attack his old age, on account of his new trans- 
lations. One hesitates to ascribe this to the author of the 
Prologues to Acts and the Apocalypse, though the former has 
used St. Jerome's letter to Paulinus (or rather an extract from 
it) and uses the first person singular (in imitation of Jerome ?) 
instead of Priscillian's plural. But the Pseudo-Jerome may 
be the author of the correction of the Prologue to John. 

At all events I do not hesitate to ascribe the corrected 
version of the Gospel Prologues and the three other Prologues 
to much the same date, probably rather in the early part of 
the fifth century, and to suppose that they were attached to 
the Vulgate about the same time and in the same circumstances, 
since they have so similar and so wide a diffusion. 

To return to the Prologue to the Catholic Epistles ; Prof. 
Kunstle has suggested that Peregrinus was its author. Two 
considerations will dispose of this notion once for all. In the 
first place Peregrinus was not a forger ; nay, he carefully 
explains that the canons are by a famous heretic, and says 

(cp. St. Jerome's Plures fuisse). The mention of detraction might lead us to 
connect this piece with the Non idem ordo, but it was an obvious trick to put 
a sample of St Jerome's habitual plaints into any imitation. The external evidence 
shows there can be no common authorship ; for the Canit Psalmista is in none of 
Berger's MSS. which contain Non idem ordo, except M (Acts) and B N 6. It is 
therefore impossible that they should have a common origin. 


explicitly c nemo putet ab Hieronymo factos '. Secondly, his 
work is in Spanish codices and their derivatives, while the 
Prologue is widely diffused and appears in the Spanish codices 
in a corrupt form, and it may have been introduced into Spain 
in a single copy, of which the first line was lost. 

§ 5. The * canones noui testamenti \ 

A curious fragment, discovered by Dom Morin in the Codex 
Ambros. E 51 inf % was carefully edited by Dom Donatien De 
Bruyne in the Revue Benedictine for January, 1906. I wish 
to say something of it, because he has dated part of it very 
early (fourth century or even third), partly on the ground that 
the Monarchian Prologues were of the third century. He 
has tried to improve the sense by suggesting the omission of 
the words hac de and significat, an unnecessarily violent pro- 
ceeding. We have only to suppose that a line has been 
omitted over the last letter of praerogatiua and all is 
grammatical. Cum scripsit is quite normal Vulgar Latin with 
causal sense ; such a construction is common, for instance, in 
Priscillian. The punctuation is mine. 

1 Canones noui testamenti. Primus Petrus scripsit, secundus Iacobus, 
tertius Matheus, quartus Iudas, quintus Paulus, sextus Barnabas, septimus 
Lucas, octauus Marcus, nonus Iohannes. Quare primus Iacobus in ordine 
epistularum ponitur, cum primus Petrus in ordine canonis scripsit ? Hac 
de causa fuit. Praerogatiua^ apostolici ordinis, ut quidam interpretantur, 
significat; uel praestantius est, ut adfirmant alii, ut Petrus ponatur 
primus, cum primus scripsit. Dicunt quidam \de\ epistula Iacobi quod ab 
alio sit edita sub eius nomine, quorum opinio falsa est. 1 

In the first place the list of writers represents no tradition 
as to the dates of their writing. It is simply formed by the 
assumption that the Old Latin order was an historical order. 
The compiler found two groups, Matthew, John, Luke, Mark, 
and Peter, James, John, Jude. 1 As John was known to have 

1 This is the common order of the Gospels in the Old Latin MSS., and the order 
of the Catholic Epistles given by Damasus (382), Cod. Claromont. catal., Ivo 
Carnot., and Cassiodorus (though Arevalo reads Pe, Jud,Jac t Jo). But Philastrius, 
Augustine, Ildephonsus have PefJo^JudtJac, and the Carthaginian councils of 397 
and 419, with the Apostolical Canons, give Pe, Jo, Jac, Jud (this is for our 
purpose the same order as that of Damasus). 


written last, he must be omitted. Matthew has to go among 
the Apostles — he can take the vacant place left by John, thus : 

Catholic Epistles. Gospels. Result. 

Peter Peter 

James James 

(John) Matthew Matthew 

Jude (John) Jude 

Luke Luke 

Mark Mark 

As Paul and Barnabas have to be inserted, and will naturally 
go together (so frequently are they coupled in Acts), they will 
be interpolated after the Apostles, as being Apostles, but the 
latest of them. And lo, the list is made ! 

The compiler will no doubt have been pleased to observe 
that the Apostles are now in the same order as in the lists 
of the Apostles in the Gospels, at least if James is not too 
carefully identified. 1 

What is meant by Barnabas? Dom De Bruyne thinks 
Hebrews. But in the catalogue of Codex Claromontanus 
* Barnabas ' seems to mean the Epistle which goes under that 
name. 2 I do not know which would be the less extraordinary, 
for Barnabas to be included so boldly in the canon, or for the 
writer of Hebrews to be so simply assumed to be Barnabas. 

We next find a question and its answer. Why is James, 
then, first in order of the Epistles, though Peter wrote first ? 
Two answers are given : the former attributes the primacy to 
James, which is astonishing 3 ; the second suggests that it is 

1 This mixing up of the son of Zebedee with James the Less is common enough. 
For instance it is implied in the ' Western ' reading in Gal. ii. 9 : ' Peter, James, and 
John ' (so the bilingual MSS. DEFG, with the Codex Fuldensis and the Gothic 
version, and the Old Latin generally, as represented by Orig. transL Tert Jerome, 
Ambrst) for ' James, Cephas, and John '. 

a The stichometry is given as dcccl. Hebrews has about 11,324 syllables, 
which gives 13^ syllables to the arixos. Barnabas has about 14,720, which gives 
1 7$ syllables. The Epistles of St. Paul are allowed a arixos of about 13 \ syllables, 
whereas the Catholic Epistles work out at about \*i\ to 19$. No inference can be 
made, I think. Zahn thinks the Epistle of Barnabas is meant, Gesch. des JV. T. 
Canons, ii. 170-1. 

3 Hesychius of Jerusalem puts James above Peter, but in a Patriarch of 
Jerusalem this is comprehensible. The words of St. Columbanus (Ep. v. 10, Ad 


a mistake, and that Peter should stand before James. Here 
the Vulgate order is assumed, so that this portion of the 
fragment is not homogeneous with the former portion. It is 
most natural to assume that the former of the two answers 
originally applied to St. Peter ; that in its original form the 
question was asked about the Old Latin order : ' Why does 
Peter stand first among the Epistles ? ' The twofold answer 
will have been given ; first : * praerogatiuam apostolici ordinis, 
ut quidam interpretantur significat'; then a preferable answer, 
in accordance with the principles on which the list was 
made, was supplied somewhat as follows: 'sed praestantius 
est id quod adfirmant alii, Petrum poni primum cum primus 

The last sentence, dicunt quidam^ &c, is from St. Jerome, as 
Dom De Bruyne has pointed out, ■ ab alio quodam sub nomine 
eius edita asseritur ' (De viris illustr. a). 

Thus the whole piece in its present form was put together 
later than St. Jerome by some one who had the Vulgate before 
him, whereas the short list and the original question with its 
alternative answers depend upon the Old Latin. The data are 
valueless. The original author may have lived at any time 
before the Vulgate became universal. Old Latin copies were 
written up to a late date. The author of the list may be early, 
however, on account of the inclusion of Barnabas. I suggest 
the beginning of the fifth century or the end of the fourth ; but 
the final redactor who used the Vulgate may be much later. 

Who were the alii who declared that Peter was first owing 

Bonif. Pap.) are curiously like those of the fragment: 'Roma orbis terrarum 
caput est ecclesiarum, salua loci dominicae resurrectionis singulari praerogatiua? 
St. Avitus of Vienne wrote to Elias, Patriarch of Jerusalem : ' Exercet apostolatus 
uester concessos a Diuinitate primatus, et quod principem locum in uniuersali 
ecclesia teneat, non priuilegiis solum studet monstrare, sed meritis.' These 
writers are well known to give a supremacy of authority to Rome ; and it is certain 
that they allow to Jerusalem no more than a sentimental rank. But such quotations 
may enable us to understand how a mediaeval compiler might understand words, 
meant for St. Peter, to apply to St. James, though he was evidently dissatisfied 
with the application. On veneration to Jerusalem we may compare the tractaius 
Hilarii in vii epistolas canonicas {Spic. Cass. iii. I, p. 207) : ■ Cur in principio 
ponitur Iacobus? Non apostolorum differentiam, non scribendi ordinem, sed 
dignationem ecclesiae,' and the preface to the ■ Isidorian ' coll. of canons (c. 430-50), 
Turner, Eccl. Occid. Mon. Juris vet. i. 158 col. b. 



to his prerogative among the Apostles ? It was an obvious 
remark to make; yet we might guess that it was borrowed 
from Priscillian's lost Prologue to the Catholic Epistles, like 
the words of Pseudo-Jerome which it resembles : 


ut, quia Petrus primus est in 
numero apostolorum, primae 
sint etiam eius epistolae in 
ordine ceterarum. 


Quare primus [Petrus] in ordine epi- 
stolarum ponitur? Hac de causa fuit. 
Praerogatiuam apostolici ordinis . . . 



§ i. The sources employed in the Prologues. 

The ingenious and elaborate mystical arguments displayed 
in the Gospel Prologues are beyond doubt due to the curious 
brain of Priscillian himself. But we find in them historical 
data which are not invented but borrowed. This historical 
matter may be broadly treated in three divisions. 

A. Much of it is simply from Holy Scripture, rightly or 
wrongly interpreted. 

1. We hear of St. Matthew's call from Judaism to the 
Gospel, and his conversion (transmigratio !) from the pro- 
fession of a publican to faith. 

2. John was 'a disciple \ Christ commended His Mother 
to him, ' as He went to His Cross/ an extraordinary error 
which only a few MSS. have thought fit to correct. Evidently 
based upon the Leucian Acts of John (see p. 226). 

3. Luke was a physician, a disciple of the Apostles, 
followed St. Paul ' usque ad confessionem eius ' (2 Tim. iv. 
6, 11). The statements which follow seem to be founded 
on St. Luke's own words about Zachary and Anna : ' seruiens 
Deo sine crimine. Nam neque uxorem umquam habens 
neque filios, lxxiiii annorum obiit in Bithynia plenus Spiritu 
sancto.' Though all the MSS. cited by Wordsworth and 
Corssen read lxxiii, except one Autun MS., which has lxxxiiii, 
I think we ought to accept this singular reading on the 
authority of the Prologue to Acts, where the MSS. all read 
lxxxiiii ; for this is fifth-century evidence, earlier than any of 
our MSS. Now compare Lc. i. 6-7 : ' sine querella, et non 
erat illis filius . . . ' ; ii. 37 : * usque ad annos (so Vulg. but 
a bff % q annorum) lxxxiiii * . . . seruiens nocte ac die . . .' ; i. 67 : 

1 N* has ifttopJjicovTa. 


Mmpletus est Spiritu sancto, et prophetabat (-taint).' The 
phrase plenus Spiritu sancto is peculiar to Luke in the N.T. 
(iv. i ; Acts vi. 3, 5 ; vii. 55; xi. 24). Finally we have the 
remark : ' significans etiam ipse in principio ante alia esse 
descripta ' (Lc. i. 1). 

4. Mark was ■ Petri in baptismate filius', a statement based 
simply on 1 Pet. v. 13, and quite independent of the traditions 
of his being the interpreter and scribe of Peter ' Sacerdotium 
in Israel agens secundum carnem Leuita ' is a combination of 
Mark's cousinship to Barnabas (Col. iv. 10) with the fact that 
Barnabas was a Levite (Acts iv. 36). Hence the explanation 
given of the epithet KokopobaKruXos. 

B. The order of the Old Latin Bible is taken to be of high 
importance, and to be usually an historical order. The mys- 
tical importance of this order is emphasized in the Prologue to 
John (' dispositione canonis ordinati ', and ' quorum tamen uel 
scripturarum tempore dispositio uel librorum ordinatio ', &c). 
The historical nature of the Old Latin order (Mt, Jo, Lc, Mc) 
appears twice. 

1. ' Matthaeus . . . sicut in ordine primus ponitur, ita 
euangelium primus scripsit.' 

2. ' Etsi post omnes [Iohannes] euangelium scripsisse dicitur, 
tamen dispositione canonis ordinati post Matthaeum ponitur, 
quoniam,' &c. It is obvious that this dislocation of the 
presumed historical order is regarded as a very great honour 
to St. John. 

C. Historical notices from tradition are scanty in the 

1. 'Matthaeus ex Iudaeis {at. Iudaea) ... in Iudaea primus 
scripsit/ Again under Luke : ' per Matthaeum quidem in 
Iudaea.' The ex Iudaeis merely looks forward to the mys- 
tical explanation of the genealogies as referring to St. Matthew 
himself. In Iudaea is a faint reflection of the tradition con- 
stantly repeated from Papias that Matthew wrote for the 
Hebrews in Hebrew. This was a commonplace (Papias, 
Irenaeus, Origen, Eusebius, Epiphanius, Jerome, Augustine, 
&c), but yet it is unknown to our very ignorant compiler ! 

3. Of John he knows more. The account of his death 


is derived from the Leucian Acts, which the Priscillianists 
employed, Ep. Turribii, 5 (after Ep. xv of St. Leo) : ■ Actus 
. . . illos qui appellantur S. Ioannis, quos sacrilego Leucius 
ore conscripsit/ 1 (Did Leucius write with his mouth ?) See 
p. 253. The writer is also aware that the Gospel was 
written after the Apocalypse (Victorinus, Epiphanius, &c). 
That it was written in Asia was common knowledge (Irenaeus, 
Epiphanius, Jerome, vir. ill. and Comm. in Matt., &c), for 
every one knew of his tomb at Ephesus (St. Aug. in loan. 
Tract. 124. 2). The * quern de nuptiis uolentem nubere 
uocauit Deus' is again evidently from the Leucian Acts. 2 
But Priscillian does not know either form of the story 
of the composition of the Gospel (Iren., Jer. vir. ill., Victor., 
Euseb. on the one hand, with Clem. AL, Origen, &c, and 
Augustine ; the other form is in the Murat. fragm. and 
Jerome Comm. in Matt). 

3. ' Lucas Syrus natione Antiochensis, arte medicus, dis- 
cipulus apostolorum, postea Paulum secutus usque ad con- 
fessionem eius,' is naturally to be compared with Eusebius 
H. E. iii. 4 in Rufinus's paraphrase (A. D. 402-3) : * Ipse autem 
Lucas, genere quidem Antiochenus, arte medicus, comes uero 
Pauli et ceterorum apostolorum socius et necessarius fuit.' 
But Priscillian could not have used Rufinus. The parallel 
with St. Jerome's (certainly authentic) Prologue to the Gospels 
Pluresfuisse, prefixed to the Commentary on St. Matthew, is 
more striking : ' tertius Lucas medicus, natione Syrus Antio- 
chensis, cuius laus in euangelio, qui et ipse discipulus apostoli 
Pauli, in Achaiae Boeotiaeque partibus uolumen condidit.' 
The verbal coincidences can hardly be quite accidental. But 
the two writers are otherwise independent, for they give 
totally different information on all other points. 3 It is possible 

1 St. Isidore {De ortu et obitu patrum, 82-3) uses the prologues in his accounts 
of Luke and Mark, but in his account of John (72) he draws independently on 
Jerome and on the Leucian Acts. This suggests a Latin translation or abridge- 
ment of the Acts as known in Spain in the seventh century. The legends of 
St. John were very popular in the middle ages. A late and beautiful form will be 
found in the Sarum Breviary for Dec. 27. 

3 Compare St. Jerome, adv. Iovin. i. 26 ' Ioannes Apostolus, maritus et uirgo '. 

s A single coincidence of sense, though not of words, is remarkable : * et qui 

CH.V.G. T 


that they had a common source for this one sentence, or 
rather that Priscillian had come across a stray fragment of the 
source used by Jerome. 

1 Obiit in Bithynia ' is unique, it would seem ; for the con- 
tinual repetition of the statement in later Western writers 1 
and in the Martyrologies depends upon the Monarchian Pro- 
logue. A comparison with Jerome (just quoted) suggests that 
Bithynia is merely a mistake for Boeotia. The Greek tradition 
makes Luke die in Achaia, in Boeotia — at Patras or at 
Thebes. His body was translated from Thebes to Con- 
stantinople. 2 The first to use this tradition in the West 
is (I think) Gaudentius of Brescia. 

'Qui cum iam descripta essent euangelia per Matthaeum 
quidem in Iudaea, per Marcum autem in Italia, sancto insti- 
gante Spiritu in Achaiae partibus hoc scripsit euangelium.' 
Of in Achaiae partibus we have spoken. The whole sentence 
gives the tradition quite correctly. It may come from the 
fragmentary source used in its entirety by Jerome. 

4. 'Petri ... in diuino sermone discipulus,' a very faint 
reflection of the Papian tradition (repeated by Irenaeus, 
Clement, Origen, Tertullian, Victorinus, Eusebius, Epiphanius, 
Jerome, &c.) that Mark wrote down the recollections of Peter. 
The ignorance of Priscillian is again most astonishing. But 
the story about Mark's thumb is really interesting, and when 
the Roman author of the Philosophumena (vii. 30) calls Mark 
6 Koko(3obaKTv\os t we naturally presume that he is referring 
to the same legend. Did the nickname arise out of the fact 
related, or the legend out of the name ? Probably the latter. 3 

solus de cruce meruit audire Ecce mater tua ' (Jerome), compare ' et huic matrem 
suam iens ad crucem commendauit Deus ' (Priscillian). 

1 Such as St. Isidore, De ortu et obitu patrum, cap. 82. 

3 And thence, says tradition, to the famous abbey of Sta Giustina at Padua. 
Behind St. Luke's altar in the transept is shown a huge iron-bound chest, in which 
the evangelist's body is said to have been shipped from Constantinople. 

8 For the Codex Toletanus (T) has another preface commencing ' Marcus qui 
et colobodactilus est nominatus ideo quod a cetera corporis proceritatem digitos 
minores habuisset ; hie discipulus et interpres fuit Petri . . .' The rest of the 
prologue follows the usual Greek tradition from Papias and Clem. Al. It has no 
connexion with the Monarchian Prologue. It would seem that the nickname came 
first ; and that in these prologues we have two attempts to account for it. Whether 


It seems to be a Roman tradition, unknown in the East. 
Lastly, the Alexandrian episcopate of Mark was as well 
known in Priscillian's day as the Roman episcopate of Peter, 
so here we need not ask for the source. 

The foregoing investigation has shown us that nearly all 
Priscillian's information is worthless, fragmentary, third hand. 
His ignorance is more remarkable than his knowledge. We 
can hardly help inferring that he knew no Greek. 1 But he is 
an important witness for lost portions of the Acts of John. 

The Scriptural inferences under A may be partly his own, 
partly from the B or C sources. The tens ad crucem is 
astonishing. A man who could write the 'patris nomen 
in patribus filio ' and the * quod in consonantibus perdiderat ' 
is capable of anything. 2 

the Philosophutnena imply that Marcion used the word is very uncertain. 
Mr. Vernon Bartlet thinks that the word referred to the curt nature of St. Mark's 
Gospel (/. T. S., vi, pp. 123-4, October, 1904). Another form of the story in 
the Monarchian Prologue is found in Arabic {Ztschr. d. deutsch. Morgenl. Ges., viii. 
586 ; xiii. 475 ; I take this reference from Zahn, Einleitungy ii. 212). Some have 
thought the curtailed thumb to represent the Gospel mutilated of its last chapter. 
I myself prefer to think that Mark, like Mr. Gladstone, really had an accident to 
one of his hands, and that his nickname has survived. 

1 Yet St. Sulpicius Severus thought him a learned and distinguished person ! 

3 Coincidences between the Prologues and the Muratorian Canon were pointed 
out by Corssen (pp. 66-7) : the pleonasms schismae heresis (like initium principii> 
&c), credentium fides (but this is not a pleonasm, and is no parallel to the credendi 
fides of the Prologue and of Priscillian, 62. 6), and profectio . . . proficiscentis ; the 
word ideo occurs twice in each ! At first sight there is a real resemblance in 
1 Romanis autem ordinem scripturarum sed et principium earum esse Christum 
intimans ' with ' quarum omnium rerum tempus, ordo, numerus, dispositio uel 
ratio, Deus Christus est \ But the latter passage is the expression of the Pan- 
christism of Priscillian, while the former only means that St. Paul taught that the 
Old Testament led up to Christ. I conclude that the resemblances amount to 

The differences are far more striking. The fragment is concerned to harmonize 
the Gospels, to defend their authenticity, to show that the author of the fourth 
Gospel was an eyewitness, to establish the number of St. Paul's Epistles, and so 
on. It insists, indeed, on the correct order of these, but this is not a very close 
parallel to the remarks of Priscillian about order. The Prologues on the other 
hand are ' arguments', introductions, with no apologetic purpose whatever. They 
were written at a period when the canon was fixed. They do not attempt any 
harmonizing, but give hints toward the study of the deep meanings of the Gospels. 
The history in the fragment is all given with an apologetic purpose. That in the 
Prologues is given for its intrinsic interest. 

The matter never coincides. The birth and death of Luke are not mentioned in 

T a 


§ 2. Citations of the Prologues by the Venerable Bede. 

In two sermons St. Bede has freely borrowed from Pris- 
cillian's Prologues. These quotations are so early that I think 
it well to give them in full. The venerable doctor is accus- 
tomed to draw largely upon earlier writers. The sermon 
on St. John is made up from various places in St. Jerome 
where that Father mentions St. John (Be viris ill. ; the Pro- 
logue Plures fuisse, &c), and from the end of St. Augustine's 
tractates on St. John. He has combined Priscillian with 
Jerome as best he could. Where that Father is used in the 
following excerpts I have put Jer. in brackets. The citations 
of Priscillian I have italicized : 

'Sed hunc prae omnibus diligit, qui, uirgo electus ab ipso, uirgo in 
aeuum permansit (Jer.). Tradunt namque historiae quodeum de nuptiis 
uolentem nubere uocauerit; et propterea quem a carnali uoluptate re- 
traxerit, potiore sui amoris dulcedine donauit. Denique huic moriturus 
in cruce matrent suam commendauit, ut uirginem uirgo seruaret . . . 

Et a Domitiano Caesare in feruentis olei dolium missus, in ecclesiastica 
narratur historia, ex quo tamen diuina se protegente gratia tarn intactus 
exierit (Jer.), quam fuerat a corruptione concupiscentiae carnalis ex- 
traneus ... in Pathmos insulam relegatur . . . denique ibidem Apoca- 
lypsim . . . manu sua conscribit . . . 

Sicut enim in Patrum litteris inuenimus, cum longo confectus senio 
(Jer.) sciret imminere diem recessus sui, conuocatis discipulis suis, post 
monita exhortationum et missarum celebrationem, ultimum eis ualefecit ; 
deinde descendens in defossum sepulturae suae locum, facta oratione 
appo situs est adpatres suos, tarn liber a dolor e mortis quam a corruptione 
carnis inuenitur alienus . . . imo omnia diuinae ueritatis et uerae 
diuinitatis, quantum alteri mortalium nulli licuit, arcana reserauit. Et 
hoc uirgini priuilegium rede seruabatur, ut ad scrutanda Verbi in' 
corruptibilis sacramenta incorrupto ipse non solum corde sed et corpore 
proderet.' (Horn, in natali S. loannis, Bk. i, viii ; P. L. 94, coll. 

Bede has corrected the absurd tens adcrucem into moriturus 
in cruce. There is no variant reading to be noticed; for 
appositus is probably a chance coincidence with Q. 

the fragment. The circumstances of the composition of the Gospel are not given 
by the Prologue. That Luke was a physician and companion of St. Paul, that 
John was one of the ' disciples ' (his own name for himself is ' disciple ') form the 
only common ground, and such statements were simply unavoidable. 


The other sermon is on St. Matthew. The borrowings 
from the Prologue are evident, though inconsiderable : 

Libet autem meminisse, fratres carissimi, ad quantam Dominus arcem 
iustitiae Matthaeum, quem de publicanis actibus elegit ut spem remissionis 
peccatoribus ampliaret, aduexerit. Qua/is namque sit /actus, ipse 
apostolorum numerus cui insertus est docet ; docet et ipsa gens Aethio- 
pum . . . docet ipsum euangelium, in quo scribendo noui testamenti con- 
secrauit exordium, cui speciali priuilegio donatum est ut dominicae 
incamationis mysteria, quae cuncti a saeculo prophetae futura praecine- 
bant, ipse primus omnium iam facta descripserit, et credentibus legenda 
transmiserit. (Horn, in nataliS. Matthei, Bk. ii, xxii ; P. L. 94, col. 255.) 

It is very disappointing that we cannot tell from these 
quotations whether Bede employed the text of Y Reg 
(Eugipio-Cassiodorian) or the Irish text which was introduced, 
possibly under his own direction, into A. But the citations 
are too loose to give us any information. 

§ 3. The genealogy of the text of the Prologues. 

How is it that the Prologues of Priscillian have managed 
to attach themselves to almost all our older MSS. of the 
Vulgate ? They were written for the Old Latin ; their 
author was a famous heretic ; they are in fact full of heresies ; 
yet they have been propagated in the Vulgate Bibles of the 

It is true that there are parallels for this diffusion of the 
compositions of heretics in Vulgate codices. Bishop Words- 
worth has shown that the summaries of Acts in MSS. at 
Munich, Bamberg, and Metz are the work of a Donatist of the 
fourth century. Dom Donatien De Bruyne has recently pub- 
lished the astonishing discovery that the short arguments 
to St. Paul's Epistles found in most MSS. are of Marcionite 
origin, yet they are as much diffused as the Prologues of 
Priscillian. Priscillian's own canons on St. Paul are found in 
many MSS., especially in Spanish ones ; but then these had 
been bowdlerized by Peregrinus. It may be added that the 
usual introduction to St. Paul Primum quaeritur is attributed 
in the Book of Armagh (D) to Pelagius. 1 In the case of our 

1 As to Pelagius's Prologues we await Mr. Souter's edition. See, however, Dom 
De Bruyne in Revue Bintd., April, 1907, p. 257. 


Prologues it was their obscurity that prevented their heresies 
from being detected. 

The MSS. used by Wordsworth and White are AB8FCDE 
3>H0IK]vrOQTVWXYZ aur and the Old Latin witnesses c 
(Colbertinus) and / (Rhedigeranus — it has sometimes been 
quoted as rhe or r). Of these DEQ are of the Celtic family 
(3? also in part), B£F are probably Gallican, CT Spanish, OX 
Canterbury, AHY Italo-Northumbrian (and 3? partly) ; 
the codex of Theodulf (and H, apart from its Gospel text, 
is closely connected with his revision) ; KKTV give the text 
of Alcuin ; Z is of problematical origin, probably Italian. 1 

Consequently the Prologues occur in the best examples 
of every one of the chief families of MSS., with the exception 
of the North Italian family JM. This exception might be 
a mere accident ; but the independent character of M's read- 
ings makes it very likely that this family is but distantly 
connected with the other families, and that the Prologues 
were unknown at Milan when M was written there (or there- 
abouts) in the sixth century. 2 

Corssen has collated other MSS. of the seventh to ninth 
centuries ; he has called them c,f, I, g, q, s, t y u. A further 
list is given by Berger (Les Prefaces, pp. 55, &c.) with the 
obvious addition ' et le plus grand nombre des MSS.' 

The codices are broadly divided into two strains of tradition 
by their readings in the Prologue to St. John. The original 
form of that Prologue is preserved by D(E)a?OTQ, that is 
to say by all the Irish contingent, followed by the Alcuinian 
W and K : 

' . . . tam extraneus a dolore mortis quam a corruptione carnis inuenitur 
alienus. Qui etsi post omnes euangelium scripsisse dicitur, tamen dis- 
positione canonis ordinati post Matthaeum ponitur, quoniam in Domino 
quae nouissima sunt, non uelut extrema et abiecta numero, sed pleni- 
tudinis opere perfecta sunt, et hoc uirgini debebatur.' 8 

1 Conjectures were hazarded about Z in chapters x and xi. 

3 Mgr. Ceriani thinks M (Ambros. C 39) even older than F. It contains liturgical 
notes in the margin which Dom G. Morin attributes to the seventh or eighth 
century, and to the North of Italy, but not the city of Milan itself {Revue Binid., 
1903, vol. 20, pp. 376, 386). 

3 It has been already noted that Bp. Wordsworth has inserted (without MS. 


The rest of the MSS. have after alienus nothing but 
' tamen post omnes euangelium scripsit, et hoc uirgini debe- 
batur*. This senseless abbreviation was made (as von 
Dobschutz was the first to point out) in order to omit the 
statement that the Gospel of St. John comes next after 
St. Matthew. In other words, it is an adaptation to the 
Vulgate of a Prologue originally composed for an edition 
of the Old Latin Gospels, whose order was Matthew, John, 
Luke, Mark. 

It is most important to notice that the only two Old Latin 
MSS. which now contain the Prologues have borrowed them 
from Vulgate copies, for they exhibit the corrected form of the 
Prologue to John. This is not surprising, for c is an eleventh- 
century codex, with a text crowded with interpolations from 
all quarters, and /, of the seventh century, is full of Vulgate 
readings. 1 

There is therefore no reason whatever for supposing that the 
Prologues of Priscillian came as an inheritance to the Vulgate 
from the Old Latin. It is true that the Vulgate has inherited 
most of its summaries, some of its prefaces and its stichometry 
from the Old Latin ; it is also true that Priscillian 's Prologues 
were written for an Old Latin copy. But they were probably 
only in the copies employed in Priscillian's own circle, as 
they do not appear in any of our Old Latin MSS. of the 
Gospels, with the two (apparent) exceptions just mentioned. 

The Irish text of the Prologues is almost invariably right. 
It is given by three MSS., D3PQ, each of which has a good 
many individual errors. It has influenced the Alcuinian 
codices KM'V to a certain extent. The Codex Amiatinus 
(A) has a text of the Prologues which has been carefully 
corrected by an Irish text, so that A is usually found with 
D3>Q. But the parent of A had a text similar to that of Y, 
as is shown by the occasional agreement of AY in rare read- 
authority) ' et hoc uirgini debebatur ' after * alienus ' instead of leaving it after 
1 perfecta sunt \ But a corruptione carnis alienus means virginity, which could 
not be a reward for virginity ! So that this conjectural emendation spoils the sense. 
1 Some of c's readings are no doubt of the highest interest, but it is a hybrid 
phenomenon on the whole. On / and its table of lessons (apparently of Aquileia 
in the eighth century) see D. Morin in Revue Btnid^ 1902, vol. 19, pp. 1-12. 


ings, e. g. Matt, in iudaea AYZ quaterdenario AY. 1 Another 
proof that A has not simply borrowed the Prologues from an 
Irish MS. is found in the Prologue to John, where A has not 
the original form implying the Old Latin order, but has 
retained the corrected and abridged reading ; from this point 
onward in the Prologue A deserts the Irish text, showing that 
the corrector had gone no further with his work on seeing the 
Irish text here in error, as it must have seemed to him. The 
original reading is found in the Alcuinian KF as well as 
in D^Q. But V gives the revised reading, and c follows 
it closely. In fact c has clearly borrowed the Prologues from 
an Alcuinian MS. The other Old Latin witness, /, goes 
roughly with OX and Y. H is a codex Theodulphian in 
origin, but with AY text and summaries (three out of four) 
for the Gospels. In the Prologues, however, it goes with 0, 
not with Y Reg. 

The Egerton Gospels, E, which present an Irish text of 
the Gospels, are in the Prologues the leaders of the anti-Irish 
ranks. Only in the emended passage of the John Prologue 
does Irish blood show itself, for the original reading has been 
inserted from the Irish parent and clumsily combined with 
the abridgement. 2 E, Z, OX, Y all give a text of the Prologues 
which has been elaborately altered and amended. The 
Alcuinian codices side now with this group, now with the Irish. 
The Spanish MSS. are also mixed, but in a different way. 
They do not appear to me to exhibit an eclectic text, but 

1 Other instances are — in Matthew : in Christum AY with BC0HZ ; in John : 
omit, hie est AY with OZ8F0KT, cum (for cui) AY with QX, scripturarum AY 
with EZOXffC ; in Mark : quod A* Y with OX ; lectionis A* Y with OX. (Notice 
that in both these last cases A has been corrected.) Also in Mark, AY alone have 
totum, and A is against the Irish witnesses in omitting in omnia and in preferring 
tiiderat to uicerat. But in practically all important readings A has been assimilated 
to the Irish. A very careful examination has convinced me that it is quite 
impossible to support the converse hypothesis that the basis of A is a text very 
similar to the Irish, derived from Eugipius. The likeness to the Irish text is in great 
matters j the likeness to Y and OX, E, Z is in small matters. The former is due 
to deliberate correction, the latter is survival; alone the adaptation to the Vulgate in 
the Prologue to John was purposely left. This question is important in the history 
of the Prologues, but I have no doubt that the solution here given is right. 

2 The late MS. W has also a combination in this passage, with conjectural 
amendments. See Wordsworth's critical apparatus. 


their Irish readings seem to be survivals and not merely 
borrowed. It is a possible hypothesis that the Spanish text 
was originally similar to the Irish, and was later contaminated 
by partial corrections according to the EZ version. But 
I greatly prefer the view that the Spanish MSS. CT witness 
to an earlier stage of emendation, the second stage of which 
appears in the families E, Z, OX, Y. This last (the Lindis- 
farne Gospels) seems to represent the text used by Eugipius 
in the first half of the sixth century. The sixth-century Codex 
Fuldensis has a text of the Prologue to Acts which shows 
already some of the lesser EZ corruptions, and a text of the 
Prologue to the Apocalypse which exhibits many of them — 
as we saw in chapter xiv. Z itself is probably sixth century. 
So that the revision of the text goes back to the fifth century. 
The Irish text, on the other hand, was probably brought 
to Ireland from Lerins by St. Patrick in 432. Its extra- 
ordinary excellence is thus explained, and our conclusions as 
to the history of the Irish text are fortified. We get the 
following provisional scheme : 

St. Patrick, 432 

First Revision 



Second Revision 

Eugipius 510 

? Augustine 600 





§ 4. Lerins and the Prologues. 

The proofs detailed in chapter vii that the liturgical list of 
F is Eugipian have also proved that the text of St. Paul in F 
is Eugipian. It follows that this is true of the Prologues, 
summaries, canons, and text-divisions also, with the exception 
of the first twenty-three headings of the summary of Romans 


and the (partial) summary of Hebrews and its text-divisions. 
The liturgical list refers to the summaries and corresponding 
text-divisions. There is no reason to doubt that all this 
additional matter belonged to the Old Latin vulgatized codex 
from Lerins. There is reason to believe that the whole of 
it passed to Cassiodorus. 

If this be so, it is clear that both Victor of Capua and 
Cassiodorus saw that they had not obtained from Eugipius a 
good Vulgate text of St. Paul like that of the Gospels. Cassio- 
dorus did not use it at all. Victor of Capua or his scribe has 
corrected the whole of St. Paul subsequently (there are no 
other contemporary corrections in F to speak of) by a better 
Vulgate MS. Corssen has shown * that this MS. was obviously 
the parent of his codex R (Regin 9 at the Vatican — its sum- 
maries were printed by Tommasi). From it Victor had already 
borrowed the summary of Hebrews and the unusual order : 
Thessalonians before Colossians. Codex R has St. Paul only, 
and the same was probably true of its parent in Victor's 

We had before arrived at the conclusion that Cassiodorus 
got all his introductions 2 to the Gospels from Eugipius, 
whose knowledge of Holy Scripture he praises so highly. 
We have found it probable that he also got his introductions 
to St. Paul from Eugipius, and we see that Eugipius probably 
got these from Lerins. It appears that Eugipius composed 
the Gospel summaries himself, since they are found in no 
other family; but we have now a right to infer that he 
received the other introductions, viz. the four Prologues, from 
Lerins. It was from Lerins that they migrated to Ireland in 
432, in their uncorrected form. We find them in a partially 
corrected form in Spain ; they might easily reach Spain 
from Lerins. To Eugipius they come much later, in the first 
years of the sixth century. Possibly the completely corrected 
form of Y (Cassiodorus) is due to him. It is also found in 

1 Epist. ad Galatas, 1885, p. 17. 

3 Viz. the summaries, and the four prologues, besides the Nouum opus, the 
Plures fuisse, and the Eusebian canons, as found in A (text of the Prologues, 
however as in Y). See above, pp. 92-5, 135-6, 143. 


OXZ, but then we have already seen reason to think that the 
archetype of OX was corrected according to an AY codex, 
and that Z is closely connected with OX in origin, though not 
in text. On the other hand the Prologues are unknown 
to the other Italian codices — to J, to M, and to the yet earlier 
St. Gall codex which Mr. C. H. Turner is publishing for the 
first time. 

It is in F that we first meet with the manipulated Pris- 
cillian Prologues to Acts, Cath. Epp., and Apoc. If Eugipius 
introduced the Gospel Prologues into Italy, it will follow that 
he also introduced these derivative Prologues, as they are not 
likely to have arrived before the originals. We cannot infer that 
Cassiodorus did not know them from the fact that he did not 
adopt them (for they are not in A), since he may have been 
clever enough to reject two of them as rags from the Gospel 
Prologues, and that to the Catholic Epistles as a forgery. 1 If 
they were composed at Lerins in the course of the fifth century, 
their wide circulation is explained ; and we see why they 
were not known in Italy or in Ireland, though they appear in 

I assume, therefore, as highly probable, though not sus- 
ceptible of proof, that Eugipius had the following Introductions, 
&c, to the New Testament : 

1. In the Gospels which belonged to St. Jerome he may 
have found already the Nouum opus, the Eusebian canons, and 
the Plures fuisse, but not the letter to Carpianus. 

2. In the Gospels which came from Lerins he found some 
Old Latin summaries (no doubt those found with the Irish text), 
a list of feasts with reference to the titles of the summaries 
(but not coinciding with their divisions), and corresponding 
marginal notes. Also the four Prologues of Priscillian. 

3. In a copy of St. Paul which came from Lerins (and 
which, like F, contained the Epistle to the Laodiceans), 
Eugipius found the Prologue (of Pelagius ?) Primum quaeritur, 

1 But though Cassiodorus probably got his introductions to St. Paul from 
Eugipius, there is no reason to think he got the Catholic Epistles, Apocalypse, 
or Acts from him, or the introductions to them either. We saw that the Codex 
of St. Paul contained nothing but St. Paul. 


the Old Latin canons (called capitulatio in A and in their 
explicit in F, but concordia epistularum in the incipit in F), the 
short Marcionite arguments, and the Old Latin breues or 
summaries. 1 Hebrews had no summary or argument, but 
was divided, as in F, into 125 sections. It appears that 
Hebrews was an excrescence in the Old Latin Bible. In the 
Codex Claromontanus it is added after the stichometrical list. 
It is not included in the Marcionite arguments, or in these 
ancient summaries, which also do not recognize the last two 
chapters of Romans, while Laodiceans is said in the Muratorian 
fragment to be by a Marcionite. Marcion acknowledged neither 
Hebrews nor those two chapters. The connexion of the 
summaries, the arguments, and the Old Latin collection of St. 
Paul is seen to be most intimate, and to have a most important 
bearing upon the history of the canon. But of this another 
time ; for it would take us right away from the Vulgate into 
the far more engrossing subject of the * Western text ' and 
its relation to Marcion. But at least let us testify to the vast 
importance of Dom De Bruyne's recognition of the Marcionite 
character of the short arguments of St. Paul's epistles. 

4. Returning to Eugipius we see that he composed new 
summaries for the "Gospels based upon the text-divisions 
of the Lerins pericopae (but in St. John sometimes following 
the older summary, where pericopae were scarce), thus sim- 
plifying reference. He copied these into his codex of St. 
Jerome, together with Priscillian's Prologues. Thus was 
formed the collection of A. (In Y Reg the letter to Car- 
pianus has been added.) 

§ 5. A conjectural history of the Prologues. 

As the original impulse to the investigations set down 
in this little book came from the desire to know how the 
Prologues of the heretic Priscillian came to be so universally 
received as the proper introductions to the Vulgate Gospels, 
it is satisfactory that we can end up with a history of the 

1 The summaries (extending to xiv. 10, and therefore perhaps complete) which 
occupy the first twenty-three places for Romans in F were evidently introduced 
by Victor. Dom De Bruyne has discovered them in another ancient MS. 


Prologues, which is partly conjectural indeed, but simple and 
easy to accept. 

It may be too simple a history to be true, for it is always 
the unexpected that happens. We have seen an instance 
of this in the fact that it was not Hadrian of Naples who 
brought the Neapolitan lectionary to England. We have 
traced that lectionary from the island of St. Honoratus to 
that of Lucullanum, from Naples to Capua, from Capua to 
J arrow, from Jarrow to Fulda ; and again from Naples 
to Squillace, from Squillace to Jarrow, from Jarrow to Wiirz- 
burg. All this was surely the unexpected and the improbable. 

Nevertheless we cannot make unexpectedness a basis for 
conjectures, and I propose a humdrum hypothesis which has 
a good deal of probability at its back, and is extremely simple, 
whereas the truth is often complex. 

The career of the Prologues started at Lerins. Thence 
St. Patrick took them uncorrected to Ireland. From Lerins 
they migrated, partly corrected, to Spain, and later on, they 
came in the same state from Lerins to Eugipius at Naples. 
Eugipius further corrected them, producing the EOXYZ text. 
At Lerins also were composed the Prologues to Acts, Apoca- 
lypse, and Catholic Epistles. These came by Eugipius to 
Victor of Capua (but not to Cassiodorus ?). The fame of the 
text of Eugipius, or of that of Cassiodorus, enabled the Pro- 
logues to be known at Rome and to appear in OX and in Z. 
In North Italy, however, J and M know them not. 

Now there are a good many positive reasons to be urged in 
favour of this conjectural history : 

1. The Prologues were not simply taken over from the Old 
Latin to the Vulgate, as was the case with the Marcionite 
Prologues to St. Paul, the old canons and summaries of the 
same Apostle, and many other such pieces. They go together 
with the Prefaces added by St. Jerome himself (Nouum opus, 
Canons, and P lures fuisse) ; they are not found in the Old 
Latin copies, except in two cases, when they appear (in c and 
/) in the form which has been corrected to suit the Vulgate. 
They were written by Priscillian for his own Bible, and for 
copies to be made from it. 


3. PriscilHanism was in favour in Spain and Gaul ; and 
therefore from Spain or Gaul the Prologues were propagated. 
In Gaul it would be easier for their authorship to be unknown, 
for their heresies to be unsuspected. In Gaul itself we must 
look for some centre whence propagation was easy, whence 
they could go without hindrance to Spain, to Ireland, to 
Italy. Now at the beginning of the fourth century there 
were no centres of influence to compare with the two great 
monasteries which had become seminaries of bishops for the 
whole country, Tours and Lerins. Tours seems to be too 
far north. Lerins, on the other hand, seems actually to have 
sent the Prologues to Ireland in 432. Lerins, therefore, 
asserts itself as a probable root whence the genealogical tree 
of the text of the Prologues may have sprung. 

3. Now we saw that the monks of Lerins probably used 
an Old Latin text which had been largely corrected to agree 
with the Vulgate, and which was the basis of the existing 
Irish text. To this text were appended the Prologues in 
their uncorrected form, that of John witnessing to the Old 
Latin order of the Gospels. There is good reason to suppose 
that the Gospels taken by St. Patrick to Ireland had St. 
Jerome's Greek order, Matthew, Mark, Luke, John. The 
Prologues may have been already attached to this text of the 
Gospels before it was corrected by the Vulgate. But when 
we find the same text used still nearly fifty years later by 
Faustus, we can well imagine that those who corrected the 
text and the order of the Gospels would not forget eventually 
to correct the Prologue to John in a corresponding manner. 
This correction, together with a certain number of textual 
emendations, we find in the Spanish text of the Prologues. 
We may assume that this Spanish text of the Prologues was 
composed at Lerins, c. 435-40. About the same time Pris- 
cillian's Prologue to the Catholic Epistles was altered in the 
same manner to suit St. Jerome's order, and the Prologues to 
Acts and the Apocalypse were produced by extracting them 
from those to Luke and John. These seven Prologues appa- 
rently got into Spain in a single copy, from which all Spanish 
MSS. have derived them ; for the Spanish MSS. have a 


marked text, and the first line of the Prologues to the 
Catholic Epistles is wanting in all of them. 1 It is impossible 
to prove that this single copy came mediately or immediately 
from Lerins ; but there is nothing to make such a hypothesis 

4. Eugipius possessed the Prologues to the Gospels, for he 
borrowed from them in composing his summaries. From 
him they came to Cassiodorus and to Jarrow. The text of A 
has been Hibernicized ; Y Reg give the Eugipian text. 

5. Now Victor of Capua got his Gospels and his Pauline 
Epistles from Eugipius. Probably he got his three Prologues 
to Acts, Apocalypse and Catholic Epistles also from Eugipius, 
and Eugipius got them from Lerins. They were probably 
propagated from Lerins, and also by Eugipius. Their great 
vogue is later, in the Alcuinian Bibles and their derivatives. 
The Prologue to Acts belongs to one of the great clans of 
MSS. of Acts and not to the other— not to the AGIMOD 
clan, but to the rather inferior BKVFSUR clan. Of the 
former clan it appears only in M act8 y the writer of which 
(ninth century) has managed to collect together no less than 
four Prologues to Acts, and a set of Donatist summaries, and 
in I, a Cassiodorio-Northumbrian text, but mixed, and the 
Prologue is evidently due to the mixing. 

In the latter family only S has omitted the Prologue. 
KBV(R) are Alcuinian, SU are of St. Gall, ' Hiberno-Gallic.' 
Why have they all a text so similar in groundwork to F, the 
chief member of the family? Both the Alcuinian and the 
St. Gall MSS. are half-Irish, yet partly from Gaul. The Irish 
element is not apparent in Acts, since D is of the other family, 
and further D has not the three Prologues. It remains as 
probable that the three Prologues are derived by all these 
MSS. from Gaul. 

Another family of MSS. of Acts, distinct from the two 
great clans just mentioned, is the Spanish family. It knows 
the three Prologues, as was said above. 

The Prologue to Acts is unknown to the Irish D, to the 

1 But Dom De Bruyne tells me he suspects an error in Berger, Les Prefaces, 
No. 291, for leg l at least has the first line of the Prologue to Cath. Epp. 


Northumbrian A, to the Canterbury O aGt8 . That it is not in 
that most curious and interesting mixed codex G is perhaps 
surprising, precisely because that codex is so eclectic. But 
the text of G in Acts is so excellent (the best of all in the 
judgement of Wordsworth) that the absence of the Prologue 
is interesting. 

Of the history of the Prologues to the Apocalypse and 
to the Catholic Epistles I will say nothing, as the text of these 
books has not yet been critically edited. 

An amended genealogical tree of the Gospel Prologues will 
stand conjecturally as follows : 


I \ 


St. Patrick First Revision 

Second Revision 


Jarrow Rome 









A, see Amiatinus, Codex. 

Acts, The Prologue to, Lucas nat. 
Syrus, 254 ff. ; MSS. of it used 
by Wordsworth, 43, 287. 

Advent, in the Neapolitan lists, 
104; in St. Burchard's list, 122; 
in Cod. Fuld., 138 ; in Bodl. Gosp. 
of St. Aug., 195. 

Agapitus, Martyr, in Capuan docu- 
ments, 147-55. 

Agapitus, Pope, 2, 38. 

Agaunum, 96. 

Agenda, funeral Mass, in theNeapol. 
lists, 120; in St. Burchard's list, 
127 ; in Cod. Fuld., 141-2. 

Aidan, St., 8. 

Alcuin of York, his library, 49-50 ; 
Alcuinian text of Prologues, 280 ; 
Alcuinian MSS. (KNTV.) in- 
fluenced by text of St. Gregory, 
209 ; Alcuinian MSS. of Acts, 

Amator, St., Bp. of Auxerre, 165. 

Amiatinus, Codex (A), its con- 
nexion with the codex grandior 
of Cassiodorus, 2 ff. ; has a 
Cassiodorian text, 16-29 > excel- 
lence of its text indicates that its 
archetype in the possession of 
Eugipius really came from St. 
Jerome, 43 ; its parent contained 
the Neapolitan liturgical lists, 
23-5 ; liturgical notes still found 
in it, 25; note legenda in quadrag., 
25, in; note legenda circa 
Pascha, 25, 112; note legenda 
pro defunctis, 25, 120; list of 
books on purple leaf, 18; Pro- 
logue on purple leaf, 20-1 ; read- 
ings compared with those of 
Fuldensis, 8^ ; Summaries, text- 
divisions, prefaces to the Epistles 
of St. Paul, and text of the Epp., 
135, 142-3; Prologues to the 
Gospels, text assimilated to Irish, 
280; Prologues and prefaces to 

Gospels compared with those 
known to Victor of Capua, 92-5, 


Ammonius, Diatessaron of, 78-9,93. 

Anastasius, Emperor, 81. 

Andrew, St., Abbey of, on the 
Caelian, 198, 213. 

Andrew, St., Feast of, in Bodl. 
Gosp. of St. Augustine, 196, 198. 

Anecdoton Holderi, on life of 
Cassiodorus, 37. 

Anglo-Saxon Martyrology : see 

Antonius of Lerins, BL, 98. 

Apocalypse, Prologue to, 2561!.; 
short prologue from Jerome's 
letter to Paulinus, 258. 

Apollinarianism, Ultra-, or Arian- 
ism, in Prologue to Mark, 234; 
in Priscillian, compared with that 
in the Prologues, 240, 250-1. 

Aries, St. Patrick at, 165. 

Armagh, Book of (D), 28 ; Corpus 
Patricianum in, 163, 179. 

Ascension, Feast of, in St. Bede's 
homilies, 71 ; in Neapolitan 
lists, ioi, H4ff. ; in Bodl. Gosp. 
of St. Aug., 196. 

Augendus, S t. (Eugendus or Oyand), 

Augustine, St., of Hippo, on order 
of the books of the Bible, 4 ; his 
text of St. John influenced that of 
St. Gregory, 209 ; anticipates the 
Comma lohanneum, 263. 

Augustine and Felicitas, SS., in 
mosaics at Capua, 148 : in Ech- 
ternach Martyrology, 150. 
Augustine of Canterbury, St., re- 
ceived books from Rome, 181. 

Augustine, Gospels of St., see Bod- 
leian and Cambridge. 

Augustine, Missal of St., Sundays 

after Pentecost in, 201. 
Aureus, Codex, of Stockholm 
(Holmiensis), 50, 128. 




Avitus, St., on prerogative of Jeru- 
salem, 269. 

Bachiarius or Peregrinus, 258-9. 

Baldwin, Abbot of Bury, 190. 

Bamberg MS. of Cassiodorus, 4, 

Barbaria, has the body of St. Seve- 
rinus translated to Lucullanum, 

Barnabas, Ep. of, or Hebrews ? 268. 

Bartlet, Dr. Vernon, 275. 

Bede, St., on the codex grandior of 
Cassiodorus, 5 ; on the journey 
of Ceolfrid to Rome, 6; a con- 
frater of Lindisfarne, 9; the 
Homilies of, 1 1 ; their original 
order, 65 ff. ; table of their order 
and of the pericopae commented 
on, 68-70, 76-7 ; feasts to which 
the pericopae belong, 72-7 ; com- 
parison of these with the Neapo- 
litan lists, 1 1, 65-77 ; his citations 
of the Gospel Prologues, 276 ff. 

Beheading : see Decollatio. 

Bellator, Priest, author of Com- 
mentaries, 34. 

Benedict, St., 3, 83, 99 ; washing 
of the feet, 113; use of the word 
agenda, 120 : follows Roman use, 


Benet Biscop, St., founder of 
Jarrow, 7; Abbot of St. Peter 
and St. Paul at Canterbury, 12 ; 
his feast at Jarrow, 66, 68, 77. 

Benevento, Codex of, its origin, 179. 

Berger, Samuel ; on the note in the 
Echternach Gospels about Eugi- 
pius, 29 ; on the connexion of the 
Irish summaries and those of the 
Codex Vaticanus with the Roman 
Comes, 65 ; on the Cambridge 
Gospels of St. Augustine, 183 ; 
on those of the Bodleian also, his 
views refuted, 185 ; on a supposed 
Anglo-Saxon type of text, 187; 
on the Gospel Prologues, 239; 
on the authenticity of the Pro- 
logue of St. Jerome, Tres libros 
Salomonis, 260. 

$F : see Benevento. 

Biblia Gregoriana (Brit. Mus., Reg. 
I. E vi), 181 ; Berge^s view on its 
text refuted, 186-7. 

Binionitae, 244. 

Bishop, Edmund, on the Neapolitan 
list of Y Reg., 10. 

Bobbio Missal, 71, 102, &c. 

Bodleian Gospels of St. Augustine 
(O), 181-202 ; Saxon inscription in 
binding, 189; liturgical notes in 
margin, 191 ff. ; agreement with 
text of St. Gregory, 212 ff. ; sum- 
maries of Gospels, 215. 

Boethius, 37. 

Boniface, St., 127 ; monk of Nut- 
shell, near Southampton, 13 ; 
owner of the Codex Fuldensis, 78, 
157 ; name not in Anglo-Saxon 
Martyrology, 146. 

Boulogne MS. of St. Bede's homilies, 
66 ff. 

Bradshaw, Henry, on origin of the 
Lichfield Gospels of St. Chad (L), 

Browne, Bishop, of Bristol, 6. 

Budinger, Max, on orthography of 
name Eugipius, 15 ; on the life 
of Eugipius, 41 ; on Eugipius 
and Lerins, 96-7. 

Burchard, St., 10, 13, 158. 

Burchard, St., Gospels of (Burch), 
liturgical notes in the margin 
published by Dom Morin, 10; 
a fundamentally English text, 
45-50; examples of readings, 
46-8 ; liturgical notes given in 
full, 52 ff. ; additions to the Nea- 
politan lists are Roman in char- 
acter, 121 ff. ; date of additions, 

Burial Service : see Agenda. 

Bury, Professor, on St. Patrick, 165. 

Bury St. Edmunds, the Bodleian 
Gospels of St. Augustine not 
necessarily written there, 189-90. 

Butler, Abbot E. C, of Downside, 

Cabrol, Abbot F., of Farnborough, 
on Advent, 105. 

Cambridge Gospels of St. Augustine 
(X), 183 ff.; Charters in, 190; 
agreement with text of St. 
Gregory, 212 ff. ; Gospel sum- 
maries, 215. 

Candlemas : see Hypapante. 

Canon, Order of, insisted on by 
Priscillian, 242, 246, 247. 

Canones noui testamenti, 267. 



Canterbury, Abbey of St. Peter and 
St. Paul, Benet Biscop, Abbot 
of, 8 ; succeeded by St. Hadrian, 

12 ; Canterbury text compared 
with that of St. Gregory, 210 ff. ; 
compared with Northumbrian, 
213 ff. ; see Bodleian and Cam- 

Capua, Mass-books and Kalendars, 

13 ; the Capuan Mass-books of 
Northumbria, 144-61 ; Capuan 
Saints in Martyrology of Echter- 
nach, 14, 149-51 ; in Echternach 
Kalendar, 145, 151-4 ; in Anglo- 
Saxon Martyrology, 145, 146-9; 
mosaics of apse of St. Prisco, 135, 
1 48 ff. ; and of dome of St. Prisco, 
153. See also Victor of Capua, 
and Fuldensis. 

Cassiodorus, Life of, 2-3 ; his age in 
558, 32 ; chronology of his life, 
33-9 ; contents of his library, 34 ; 
composed summaries of certain 
books of Scripture, 91 ; on the 
Psalms, 3 ; date of, 33-9 ; on the 
Catholic Epistles, 3 ; de Ortho- 
gr aphid, 3 1-2 ; Computus pascha- 
tis, attributed to him, 31 ; In- 
stitute divin. litt., date of, 33-9 ; 
his nine volumes of Scripture 
and commentary connected with 
Codex Amiatinus, 16-20 ; order 
of books in the nine volumes, 17 ; 
preface to the nine volumes, 20-1 ; 
derived his Prologues and other 
introductions to the Gospels and 
to St. Paul from Eugipius, 92 ff., 
135-7, 142, 282-3 ; the author of 
the note about Eugipius in the 
Echternach Gospels, 31-3. 

Castel dell' Uovo : see Lucullanum. 

Catholic Epistles, Prologue to, 
262 ff. 

Ceolfrid, St., and the Codex. Amia- 
tinus, 5 ; journey to Rome, 9, 23. 

Ceriani, Mgr., 278. 

Charles the Bald, Bibles of, 186. 

Christmas, in St. Bede's homilies, 
72 ; in Neapolitan lists, 101, 
106-7 ; in St. Burchard's list, 
122 ; in Cod. Fuld., 138 ; in Bodl. 
Gosp. of St. Augustine, 194-5. 

Chrysologus, St. Peter, Sermon on 
Media Pentecostes, 195. 

Clark, J. Willis, 6. 

Claromontanus, Codex D of St. Paul, 

Stichometry of Barnabas, 268. 
Clementine Vulgate, influenced by 

St. Gregory, 208. 
Cluny MS. of St. Bede's homilies, 

65 ff. 
Cockayne,on Anglo-Saxon Martyro- 
logy, 146. 
Colman, St., 8. 
Columbanus, St., on primacy of 

Jerusalem, 269. 
Comicus, Liber, of Toledo, 71 ff. ; 

Lent in, 102 ; &c. 
Comma Iohanneum, used by Pris- 

cillian and in Prologue to Catholic 

Epistles, 245, 263. 
CommuneSanctorum, inNeapolitan 

lists, 119 ; in St. Burchard's list, 

127 ; in Cod. Fuld., 140 ; in Bodl. 

Gosp. of St. Aug., 197. 
Condat in the Jura, Abbey of, 97. 
Confession of St. Patrick, 162 ff., 

165 ff. 
Constans, Typus of, 128. 
Constantius, bishop of Laureacum, 

Constantius, St.,bishopof Aquinum, 

i5off, 156. 
Constantius, Pseudo-Jerome's letter 

to, 66. 
Correctoria Vaticana, influenced by 

St. Gregory's text, 208. 
Corssen, Peter, on Prologue of 

purple page of Cod. Amiat., 6 ; on 

the Old Latin character of the 

text of St. Paul in Cod. Fuld., 

136 ; on the Gospel Prologues, 

239 ; his MSS. of the Prologues, 

Cottidianae lectiones, in Neapolitan 

lists, 1 20-1. 
Coxe, on date of Bodl. Gosp. of 

St. Aug., 188. 
Cross, Feasts of Holy, 99-100. 
Cuthbert, St., 8 ; the Stonyhurst 

St. John buried with him, 7. 
Cuthbert, Evangeliarium of St. : 

see Lindisfarne Gospels. 
Cyprian, St., a note in Codex M of, 

32 ; agreement of text with Aug. 

and Greg., 209 ; anticipates the 

Comma Iohanneum, 263. 

D : see Armagh, Book of. 

De Bruyne, Dom Donatien, on 



canones noui testamenti, 267 ff. ; 
on Marcionite Prologues, 277-8, 

Decollatio S. Joannis Baptistae, 
feast of, in Bede's homilies, 72 ; 
in Neapolitan lists, 99-100. 

Dedication feast, in Bede's homilies, 
76; in Neapolitan lists, 101, 120 ; 
in Cod. Fuld., 140; in Bodl. 
Gosp. of St. Aug., 197 ; dedic. 
f otitis, 10, 99 ; dedic. S. Mariae 
(the ecclesia maior of Naples), 
99 ; dedic, S. Stefani (Cathedral 
of Naples), 99 ; dedic. S. Mariae 
ad Martyres (Pantheon), in St. 
Burchard's list, 128. 

Defunctis, Legenda pro, note in A 
and Y, 24-5, 120. 

De Rossi, 3, 5, 144, 150. 

Diatessaron, 78 ff. 

Dionysius Exiguus, 40, 80. 

Dioscorus, deacon of Pope Hormis- 
das, 81. 

Dobschiitz, E. von, on the Pro- 
logues, 238. 

Donatist Summaries of Acts, 158, 
277, 287. 

Duchesne, Mgr. L., 12, 14 ; con- 
nects Echternach Martyrology 
with Abbot Hadrian, 150; on 
Sexagesima as the Roman feast 
of St. Paul, 196. 

Durham Gospels (A), said to have 
been written by St. Bede, 7. 

E : see Egerton Gospels. E, Acts : 

see Laudianus Codex. 
Easter, in Bede's homilies, 75 ; in 

Neapolitan lists, 101, 1 1 4 ff. ; in 

St. Burchard's list, 125 ; in Cod. 

Fuld., 139; in Bodl. Gosp. of 

St. Aug., 196. 
Eata, St., 8. 
Echternach, 144 ; Gospel of (jP), 

2 ; note about Eugipius, 14-15 ; 

28 ; the note was written by 

Cassiodorus, 31-3 ; examples of 

readings, 27 ; Northumbrian 

element in text, 26-9. 
Echternach, Kalendar of, 144, 15 1-4, 

„ 157, 159. 

Echternach, Martyrology of, 14, 

144 ; connected with Capua, 150 ; 

Saints added in it, 14, 149-51. 

Effetatio, 66. 

Egbert, Abp. of York, on books sent 
by St. Gregory to St. Aug., 182. 

Egerton Gospels, or Gospels of 
Marmoutier (E), character of 
text, 49 ; text of the Gospel Pro- 
logues, 280. 

Elisaeus : see Helisaeus. 

Ember days of Advent, in Bodl. 
Gosp. of St. Aug., 195, 202. 

Emmeran, Gospels of St., at M unich, 

Engelbrecht, Prof., edition of 
Faustus, 167 ff. 

Ennodius, his panegyric of St. 
Antonius of Lerins, 98. 

3* : see Echternach. 

Epiphanius, St., 227, 272. 

Epiphany, in Bede's homilies, 71-2 ; 
in Neapolitan lists, 100, 107 ; in 
St. Burchard's list, 122 ; in the 
Cod. Fuld., 139. 

Epternacensis : see Echternach. 

Eucherius, St., Bp. of Lyons, 97 ; 
his use of Vulg. Gospels, 173-7. 

Eugendus, St., or Augendus, or 
Oyand, 97. 

Eugipius of Lucullanum, ortho- 
graphy of name, 15 ; note in Ech- 
ternach Gospels referring to him, 
28 ; his citations of the N. T., 39- 
40 ; his friends, 39-42 ; known to 
Cassiodorus, 42; his Gallican 
liturgy, 96-129 ; introduces it c. 
5 10 at Lucullanum, 102 ; his stay 
at Lerins, 96 ff. ; author of note as 
to feasts of St. John and of the 
Ascension in YReg, 106, 115; 
author of the Pauline lectionary 
of Cod. Fuld., 135 ff. ; composed 
new Gospel summaries, 64, 121, 
284 ; why he did so, 136 ; the 
Gospel Prologues came to him 
from Lerins, 282 ff. ; list of intro- 
ductions possessed by him, 283. 

European type of Old Latin, 50. 

Eusebius, his letter to Carpianus, 
known to Victor of Capua only 
in Greek, 79, 93, 283. 

Ezra, picture of him writing the 
law, Cod. Amiat., 5 ; order of the 
volumes in the picture, 17. 

F : see Fuldensis Codex. 

Faustus, Abbot of Lerins and Bp, 



of Riez, date of, 167 ; his use of 

Vulg. Gosp., 167-73. 
Felix and Donatus, SS., i5off. 
Feltoe, C. L., on Media Pentecostes, 

Ferotin, Dom, 71. 
Ferrandus, deacon of Carthage, 

Forojuliensis Codex (J), Summaries 

of, 215-16; likeness of Bodl. 

Gosp. of St. Aug., 195. 
Franz, on library of Cassiodorus, 

2 ; on chronology of Cassiodorus, 

33, 36-7. 
Fulda, foundation of the Abbey, 


Fuldensis Codex, its Diatessaron, 
78-81 ; examples of readings 
compared with Amiatinus, 83 ; 
text derived from Eugipius, 83 ; 
summary of the Diatessaron given 
in full, 85 ff. ; other summaries, 
136 ; summaries, text-divisions, 
prefaces, and text of St. Paul, 
142-3 ; prefatory matter com- 
pared with that of Amiatinus, 
135 ; Pauline summaries, &c. ; 
came through Eugipius from 
Lerins, 91, 281, 283; summaries 
and tituli for Hebrews, 135 ; 
liturgical list of Pauline peri- 
copae, 130-43 ; text of St. Paul 
fundamentally Old Latin, 136 ; 
writing of St. Boniface in it, 157 ; 
possibly brought by Benet Biscop 
to England, 188. 

Fulgentius, St., 40. 

Funeral : see Agenda. 

Gall, St., MSS. of Acts in Library at, 

Gatien, St., MS. of, 50. 
Gelasius, St., Pope, 41. 
Gerbert, Monumenta veteris Litur- 

giae Alemannicae, 122. 
Germanus, St., of Capua, and the 

Diatessaron of the Cod. Fuld., 

Germanus, St., of Auxerre, and St. 

Patrick, 164. 
Glossa ordinaria, 257. 
Good Friday : see Holy Week. 
Grandval, Bible of (K), 209. 
Gregory, Dr. C. R., 3. 
Gregory the Great, St., pericopae 

commented on in his homilies 
and the notes of the Bodl. Gosp. 
of St. Aug., 197 ; his text of the 
Gospels, 203-16 ; analysis of it, 
203 fF. ; his influence seen in Vul- 
gate MSS., 208. 

Hadrian, St., Abbot of Canterbury, 
wrongly said to have brought 
Neapolitan lists to England, 11, 
44; to have brought Capuan 

' Mass-books, 13, 147 ; and South 
Italian saints' names in Echter- 
nach Martyrology, 14, 145, 150. 

Hales, William of, his codex (W), 
influenced by text of St. Gregory, 
208; its text of the Prologues, 

Harleian Gospels (Z), resemblance 
to Bodl. Gosp. of St. Aug., 191, 
199, 215, 283 ; agreement with 
St. Gregory's text, 21 1- 12 ; text 
of the Prologues, 214, 280-1. 

Healy, Abp., life and writings of 
St. Patrick, 165. 

Heavenly Witnesses, The three, or 
Comma lohanneum, in Prologue 
to Catholic Epp., and used by 
Priscillian, 245, 263-4. 

Hebrews, Summaries and tituli of, 
in Cod. Fuld., 133 ; and in Cod. 
Amiat., 284 ; attributed to Barna- 
bas (?) in canones noui Test., 268. 

Helisaeus and John, Feast of SS., 

Herold, on birth of Eugipius, 41. 

Herzfeld, Dr., edition of Anglo- 
Saxon Martyrology, 146-7, 159. 

Hiridanum Monasterium, 11. 

Hodgkin, Dr., on chronology of 
Cassiodorus, 37. 

Holder's anecdotal, on life of 
Cassiodorus, 37. 

Holmiensis, Codex : see Aureus. 

Holy Week, in Bede's homilies, 71, 
74-5 ; in Neapolitan lists, 103, 
112 ft. ; in St. Burchard's list, 
124 ; in. Cod. Fuld., 139 ; in Bodl. 
Gosp. of St. Aug., 196. 

Hormisdas, Pope, 81. 

Hygebald, Abbot, 146. 

Hypapante, Feast of (Purification), 
102, 128. 

Idola, Missa contra, 134, 141. 




Incorruptibile Verbum, a wrongly 
punctuated version of I Peter i. 
23, 227, 246, 253. 

Indulgentia, Dominica de, 109, 113, 


In martyra: see Commune San- 

In sancti angeli : see Michael, 
Dedic. of. 

In Sanctorum : see Commune San- 

Introductions : see Prologues. 

In uelanda : see Matrimony. 

Invention : see Cross, Holy. 

Iona, 8. 

Irish text of the Gospels, 162-80 ; 
used by St. Patrick, 164 ; brought 
by him from Lerins, 177-80; 
Irish text of the Prologues always 
the best, 217, 279. 

Isidore, St., 273. 

J. : see Forojuliensis Codex. 

James, St., feast, 71. 

James, Dr. M. R., on origin of 
Bodl. Gosp. of St. Aug. from Bury 
St. Edmunds, 189-90. 

Januarius, St., feast, 99, 104. 

Jarrow, 6, 7, 9, 13, 23 ; founded by 
Benet Biscop, 8 ; Naples, liturgy 
at, 65 ff., 72 ; dedication of Ch., 76. 

Jerome, St., his order of the books 
of the Bible, 4, 19 ; verses ad- 
dressed to him, 18 ; his text 
arranged per cola et commata, 16, 
text of his letter Nouum opus 
in Echternach Gosp., 27 ; the 
codex of Eugipius attributed to 
him, 28, 42-4 ; his Comm. on the 
Epistles, sent for by Cassiodorus, 
41 ; Prologues formed out of his 
letter to Paulinus, 254, 258 ; his 
two Prologues to the books of 
Solomon, 260 ; letter of Pseudo- 
Jerome to Constantius, prefixed 
to the Comes, 66 ; Pseudo- 
Jerome's Prologue to Catholic 
Epp., 262 ; and to Acts, 265 ; 
the letter Nouum opus and Pro- 
logue Plures fuisse known to 
Victor of Capua, 93-4 ; these 
came to Cassiodorus from codex 
of Eugipius, 95, 283. 

Joannes Apostolus et Evangelista, 
Prologue to Apocalypse, 256-8. 

John Baptist, St., feasts, in Bede's 
homilies, 72 ; in Neapolitan lists, 

John, St., evangelist, feast, note 
about it in YReg, 24, 106; in 
Cod. Fuld., 134; Gospel, few 
lessons from it at Lerins, 121 ; 
account of him in Gospel Pro- 
logues, 272-3, 275 ; virginity of, 
the Bridegroom of Cana, 226 ; 
Acts of John by Leucius, 226-7, 
2 53> 2 73; Prologue to John 
adapted to the Vulgate by an 
alteration of its text, 219, 228, 
279 ; and see Prologues. 

John and Paul, SS., feast, in Bede's 
homilies, 72 ; in Neapolitan lists, 

Juliana, St., of Cumae, isoff. 

Jungat Epistola, Prologue of St. 
Jerome to books of Solomon, 

K : see Grandval, Bible of. 

Kalendar of Echternach, 144 : see 

Kattenbusch, Dr., 243. 

Kaulen, Mgr., his work Die Vulgata 
cited, 81-2; on Vincent of 
Lerins's use of the Vulgate, 166. 

Kells, Book of (Q), 9 ; Irish sum- 
maries in, 27. 

Knoll, on Eugipius, 15 ; edition of 
Eugipius, 39. 

Kiinstle, on Priscillianist creed Nos 
Patrem et Filium, 245 ; on use 
of apocryphal Acts by Priscillian, 
253 ; on Comma lohanneum, 
263 ; on identity of Peregrinus 
with Bachiarius, 258. 

L : see Lichfield Gospels. 
Laudianus Codex, of Acts (E, Acts), 

used by Bede at Jarrow, 43 ; 

157-8 ; taken to Germany by St. 

Boniface or Willibrord, 160; 

perhaps brought to Northumbria 

by St. Benet Biscop, 160, 188. 
Laurentius, scribe of the Martyro- 

logy of Echternach, 144. 
Lent, in Bede's homilies, 74; in 

Neapolitan lists, 102, 108 ft. ; in 

St. Burchard's list, 123 ; in Cod. 

Fuld., 139; in Bodl. Gosp. of 

St. Aug., 200. 



Leofric, Missal of (Sundays after 

Pent.), 201. 
Leofstan, Abbot of Bury, 190. 
Lerins, Eugipius at, 96-8 ; Marinus, 

Abbot of, 96-7 ; Bl. Antonius 

of, 98 ; St. Patrick at, 164 ff. ; 

Faustus of Riez, Abbot of, 167 ; 

St. Eucherius at, 173 ; Irish text 

of the Gosp. derived from, 177 ; 

the Gosp. Prologues attached to 

the Vulgate at, 281 ff. ; Old Latin 

text used at, 178, 286. 
Liber Comicus of Toledo: see 

Lichfield, Gospels of St. Chad (L), 

origin of, 179 ; Bodl. Gosp. of St. 

Aug. not from Lichfield, 189. 
Lindisfarne, Gospels of (Y), or 

Evangeliarium of St. Cuthbert, 

4, 7 ; lists of, not brought from 

Naples by St. Hadrian, 8-14; 

Neapolitan lists of, given in full, 

52 ff. ; note Quod prope Pascha 

legendum est, 24, 112 ; note leg. 

pro defunctis, 24-5, 120; note 

leg. in Quadrag., 24-5, ill ; text 

of Prologues probably that of 

Eugipius, 280, &c. 
Lucas Antiocensis and Lucas Apo- 

stolorum Hactus, Prologues, 255, 

Lucas natione Syrus, Prologue to 

Acts, 254 ; MSS. of, 287. 
Lucillus, first Abbot of Lucullanum, 

41, 96. 
Lucullanum, now Castel dell' Uovo, 

at Naples, Monastery of Eugipius, 

15, 29, 41, 44, 96-7; date of 

foundation, 102. 
Luke, Prologue to : see Prologues. 
Luke, St., account of, in Prologue, 

229, 231, 271, 273. 
Lupulus, St., in Capuan documents 

and mosaics, 147 ff. 
Luxeuil, Lectionary of, 71 ff., &c. 

Mabillon, Dom Jean, Capitulations 
of Bede's homilies, 67 ff.; on 
Marinus of Lerins, 96 ; on An- 
tonius of Lerins, 98. 

Macon, Synod of, on Advent, 105. 

Macray, on origin of Bodl. Gosp. 
of St. Aug., 189. 

Magnus, St., in Capuan documents, 

Mandatum, 113. 

Marcianus, Abbot of Lucullanum, 

41, 96. 
Marcionite Arguments to St. Paul, 

277-8, 284. 
Marcus, St., of Aecae, i5off. 
Marcus qui et Colobodactilus, Pro- 
logue in Codex Toletanus, 274. 
Marinus (or Marianus), pritnicerius 

cantorum of Naples, 96. 
Marinus, Abbot of Lerins, 96-8. 
Marius, a priest, 98. 
Mark, St., account of, in Prologue, 

233,235,272,274-5; his surname 

colobodactilus and the loss of his 

thumb, ib. ; Prologue to Mark : 

see Prologues. 
Marmoutier, 50; Gospels of, see 

Egerton Gospels. 
Martianay, Dom, 261. 
Martin, St., and St. Patrick, 165 ; 

his feast the beginning of Advent, 

Martyrology, of St. Jerome, 99-100 ; 

of Echternach : see Echternach ; 

Anglo-Saxon or Old English 

Martyrology, 145, 146 ff.; date 

and origin, 159. 
Martyrs, Common of: see Commune 

Mass-books, older, in Anglo-Saxon 

Martyrology, 144-59 ; theirorigin, 

154 ff. 
Matrimony, pericopae of Mass for 

(in uelanda), 73, 101, 141. 
Matthew, St., account of, in 

Prologue, 223, 225, 272 ; Pro- 
logue to : see Prologues. 
Maundy Thursday : see Thursday, 

and Holy Week. 
Maurice, St. (Agaunum), 97. 
Maximus, St., of Compsa, in Capuan 

documents, i5off. 
Media Pentecostes, 194. 
Mellitus, St., brought books to St. 

Augustine of Cant, from Rome, 

Michael, St., feasts (in sancti an- 

geli), 104, 200. 
Mommsen, on chronology of Cassio- 

dorus, 33, 37. 
Monaco, Michele, Sanctuarium 

Capuanum, 148, 153. 
Monarchian Prologues: see Pro- 



Monarchianism, in Priscillian and 
thePrologues, 240 ff.; in Prologue 
to John, 226 ; Luke, 231 ; Mat- 
thew, 224. 

Mondays in Lent, ill : see Lent. 

Monkwearmouth : see Wearmouth 
and Jarrow. 

Montecassino, 83 : see Cassinum. 

Morin, Dom Germain, on Neapo- 
litan lists, 10 ; he published them, 

51 ; on homilies of Bede, 65 ff. ; 
on liturgical notes in M, 278 ; in 
q, 102-3 ; also 104, 126, 279, &c. 

Mozarabic lessons, 71, &c. 

Munich, MS. lat. 6224 (q), 71, &c. ; 
liturgical notes in, 102-3 ; MS. 
lat. 1 4000 (Gosp. of St. Emmeran), 

Muratorian fragment and the Pro- 
logues, 275. 

Naples, St. Hadrian came from 
near, 1 1 ; Lindisfarne Gosp. and 
Naples, 10 : see Lucullanum and 

Neapolitan lists of Gospel pericopae 
in Y Reg, 2, 10-13 ; given in full 
in table, 122 ff.; were in the arche- 
typeof Cod. Amiat., 23-5; used in 
Northumbria, 45-77 ; agree with 
text-divisions of Northumbrian 
summaries, 64 ; in use by Bede at 
Jarrow, 65-72 ; Neapolitan ad- 
ditions to Gallican original, 103 ; 
comparison with the Pauline peri- 
copae of Cod. Fuld., 137 ff. 

Nicander, St., of Venafrum, in 
Capuan documents, 146-55. 

Nicholson, E. W. B., on resemblance 
between Bodl. Gosp. of St. Aug. 
and Harleian (Z), 191 ; on date 
of the former, 188 ; transcript of 
liturgical notes in it, 191. 

Nisida or Nisita, St. Hadrian, 
Abbot of, 11-12. 

Non idem ordo, Prologue to Catholic 
Epp., 262. 

Northumbrian text of the Gospels, 
said to be from S. Italy, 1 ; 
derived from Cassiodorus, 16-29 : 
see Cassiodorus and Eugipius ; 
Northumbrian summaries, 51 ; 
their text-divisions given in table, 

52 ff. ;. these agree with Neapo- 
litan pericopae, 64; are quoted 

in the summary of theDiatessaron 
of Cod. Fuld., 84 ff. ; composed 
by Eugipius, 92, 121, 284; they 
quote the Gospel Prologues, 94. 
Nouum opus, letter of St. Jerome 
to Damasus, in Cod. Amiat., and 
known to Victor of Capua, 93-5. 

O : see Bodleian Gospels of St. 

Old English Martyrology : see 

Old Latin, in St. John of Burch, 
49 ; in text of St. Gregory, 211 ; 
order of the Gosp. in Prologue to 
John, 228 ; the Gosp. Prologues 
not in O. L. Latin MSS., except 
in version adapted to Vulg., 279. 

Ordination, Mass of, in Neapolitan 
lists, 119; in Cod. Fuld., 140-1. 

Orleans, Council of, on Quinqua- 
gesima, no. 

Orosius, Commonitorium, 250. 

Palm Sunday : see Holy Week ; in 
Bede's homilies, 74 ; in Neapo- 
litan lists, 100, 103, 112 ; in F, 139. 

Pamelius, edition of the Comes, 

Pancras, St., feast, 116. 

Pandects of Bible in library of 
Cassiodorus, 4-8. 

Paris, ancient lectionary of, 105 ; 
Bibl. Nat., MS. lat. 9451, 126.' 

Paruulos, ad, pericope in Bodl. 
Gosp. of St. Aug., 201. 

Pascha, quod profie Pascha legen- 
dum est, note in Y Reg, 24, 112 ; 
legenda circa Pascha, note in A, 
25, 112 ; Pascha annotinum, 140. 

Paschasius, St., 40, 98. 

Passion, reading of, in Holy Week, 
113 ff, 124, 196. 

Patrick, St., his N. T. quotations, 
162-4; his connexion with Lerins, 
1 64-5 ; probably used the Vulgate, 
164; brought the Prologues to 
Ireland, 281, 285. 

Paul, St., not much read from be- 
ginning of Lent till Pentecost, 
138; feast at Sexagesima, 109, 
I 35> x 96; Prologue to, Primum 
quaeritur, 277 ; introductions, 
summaries, &c. : see Fuldensis, 
Amiatinus, and Prologues. 



Paul Warnefrid, the deacon, on two 
books of Bede's homilies, 65. 

Pauline lectionary of Cod. Fuld., 
130-43 : see Fuldensis. 

Pentecost, feast, in Bede's homilies, 
75; in Neapolitan lists, 62, 75,101, 
117 ff. ; in St. Burchard's list, 
125 ; in Bodl. Gosp. of St. Aug., 
194 ; Sundays after Pent, in 
same, 201 ; ?nedia Pentecostes, 

Peregrinus, author of Prologues, 
258 ff. ; of Lucas Antioc. and 
Lucas Apostolorum H actus, 255, 
261 ; uses Comma Iohanneum, 
263 ; identified with Bachiarius, 
258; in S to we St. John, 259; a 
pseudonym of Vincent of Lerins 
258, 260. 

Perpetuus, Bp. of Tours, on Vigil 
of St. J. Bapt., 100 ; on Advent, 

Peter, St., and St. Paul, feasts of, 
in Bede's homilies, 71 ; in Nea- 
politan lists, 107, 1 18-19 ; m St. 
Burchard's list, 126-7 ; in Cod. 
Fuld., 1 40-1 ; in Bodl. Gosp. of 
St. Aug., 196. 

Peter Chrysologus, St., on media 
Pentecostes, 195. 

Pitra, Cardinal, 80. 

Plummer's ed. of Bede, cited, 42, 
182, &c. 

Plures fuisse f Prologue of St. 
Jerome, in Amiat. and Fuld., 
94, 283, 285. 

Pomponius, Bp. of Naples, 99. 

Primtim quaeritur, Prol. to St. 
Paul, 277. 

Priscillian, author of the Gospel 
Prologues, 238-53 ; his doctrine 
found in them, 223, &c. ; his 
canons on St. Paul, 258-9, 277 ; 
Prol. to Cath. Epp., 262 ff., 270 ; 
use of 1 John, 247, 262 ; and of 
Comma Iohanneum, 245, 263; 
and of Acts of John, 226-7, 253, 
273 ; Priscillian's historical know- 
ledge, 275. 

Priscus, St., of Capua, 146-55. 

Proba, patroness of Eugipius, 40, 
42, 43. 

Prologues, the four Gosp. Prologues 
written by Priscillian, 238-53 ; 
Monarch ian doctrine, 224, 226, 

231, and 243-9; Apollinarian 
doctrine, 231, 233-4, and 240 ff. ; 
text, explanation, and translation, 
2 l7-37 ; later manipulations, 
254-70; sources employed, 271 ; 
comparison with Muratorian 
fragment, 275 ; cited by Bede, 
276-8; Irish text the most correct, 
217, 279; Alcuinian text, 280; 
Old Latin MSS. have a text of 
the Prologues adapted to the 
Vulgate, 278 ; on their history, 
271-88 ; quoted in Northumbrian 
summaries, 94 ; came to Eugi- 
pius, and to St. Patrick from 
Lerins, 282 ff.; their peregrina- 
tions, 284; provisional genealogy, 
281 ; final genealogy, 288. 

Prologue to Mt, text, 217 ; mean- 
ing, 222 ; transl., 225 ; Prol. to 
Mk., text, 221 ; meaning, 233 ; 
transl., 235 ; Prol. to Lk., text, 
220 ; meaning, 229 ; transl., 231 ; 
Prol. to Jn., text, 218 ; meaning, 
226 ; transl., 228 ; alteration to 
adapt it to Vulg., 278 ; Prol. to 
M k. Marcus qui et Colobodactilus, 

Prologue to Acts, Lucas nat. Syrus, 
254; Actus Ap. nudam, 255; 
Lucas Antiocensis, and Lucas 
Apostolorum Hactus, 255, 261 ; 
Prol. to Apoc, 256; Prol. of 
Jerome to Solomon, 260; Pro- 
logues, introductions, &c, in 
Codd. Amiat. and Fuld., 92-5 : 
see Amiatinus and Fuldensis. 

Proprium Sanctorum : see Saints' 

Psalter of St. Augustine, 181. 

Pseudo-Jerome, Prol. to Cath. Epp., 
262; Canit Psa/mista, 265 ; letter 
to Constantius, 66. 

Purification : see Hypapante. 

Q : see Kells, Book of. 

q : see Munich MS. lat. 6224. 

Quadragesima, meaning first Sun- 
day of Lent, 108, no; note 
legenda in quadr., in AY, 24-5, 

Quentin, Dom Henri, 145, 151, 152. 

Quinquagesima, 109, 139. 

Quintus, St., in Capuan documents 
and mosaics, 147 ff. 



Ranke, E., edition of Cod. Fuld., 
84, 130 ; Das kirchliche Peri- 
kopensystem, 122. 

Reg, Brit. Mus. MS. Reg. i. B. vii, 
date of, 9 ; for its liturgical notes 
see Neapolitan lists and Lindis- 
farne Gospels. 

Rheims, public library, MS. con- 
taining Neapolitan lists, 10. 

Rheinau, lectionary of, 122 ff. 

Roman liturgical use, compared 
with that of Cod. Fuld., 134 ; with 
that of Bodl. Gosp. of St. Aug. 
and with St. Gregory, 192-8, 
199-201, &c. 

Rule, Martin, 182. 

Sabbatum, xii lectionum, 202. 

Sabina, St., 147. 

Saints' days, in Bede's homilies, 71, 
yy ; in Neapolitan lists, 100-1, 
1 18-19; in St. Burchard's list, 
125 ; in Cod. Fuld., 140 ; in Bodl. 
Gospels of St. Aug., 196, 200. 

Sardinia, Greek monks in, 128. 

Sarum Missal, Sundays after Pent. 

in, 20 I.- 
Saturday of twelve lessons, 202 ; 
HolySaturday, in Bede's homilies, 
71, 75 ; in Neapolitan lists, 101, 
113; in St. Burchard's list, 124. 

Schepss, on Gosp. of St. Burch., 
45 ; his collations of, 46-8 ; 
edition of Priscillian, 241. 

Schwartz, on the Greek origin of 
the Prologues, 239. 

Scrivener, F. H. A., 9. 

Scyllacium, 2, 3. 

Sedulius Scotus, 223, 234. 

Septuagesima, 123. 

Servandus, note by, in Cod. Amiat., 

Severinus, St., 96 ; life by Eugipius, 
39 ; translation of relics, 41. 

Severus, St., of Cassinum, 1 50 ff. 

Sexagesima, in Neapol. lists, 109; 
in Cod. Fuld., 134, 139, 141 : see 
Paul, St. 

Sixtine Vulg., influenced by text of 
St. Gregory, 208. 

Skeat, Prof., 51, 52. 

Sosius, St., or Sossius, 148, 150 ff. 

South Italy, connexion of North- 
umbrian text with, 1-15. 

Spanish MSS., summaries of, 2 16; 

Prologues to Acts in, 254-5 ; Pro- 
logue to Cath. Epp. in, 264, 287; 

Spanish text of Acts, 2 87; of Gosp. 

Prologues, 280. 
Spires, lectionary of, 122 ff. 
Squillace, 2, 3. 
Stations, Roman, in St. Burchard's 

list, 123. 
Stephen, St., feast, 134, 195 ; Dedic. 

of, 99, 103-4, 197. 
Stichometry of Barnabas in Cod. 

Claromontanus, 268. 
Stilla Domini : see Epiphany. 
Stokes, Whitley, ed. of St. Patrick, 

163 ; cited, 164-5, 259. 
Stonyhurst St. John, found in tomb 

of St. Cuthbert, 7. 
Stowe St. John, note by Peregrinus 

in, 259. 
Sturmius, St., 157. 
Summaries, types of, 64-5 : see 

Northumbrian summ. and Dona- 

tist summ. ; summaries of Cod. 

Forojul. (J) and Gosp. of St. 

Aug. (OX) compared, 215-16. 
Susius : see Sosius. 
Sustus, for Sosius or Xystus ?, 148. 
Symboli traditio, 112. 
Synotus, St., in Capuan documents, 

147 ff. 

Tabernacle, picture of, in Cod. 

Amiat., 6. 
Tatian, 78-9. 
Theodore, St., of Canterbury, 9, 

12 ; said to have brought Cod. 

Laud, of Acts to England, 158. 
Theodoric, 2, 33, 36, 37. 
Theodulph, Codex of (e), influenced 

by St. Gregory's text, 209. 
Thomas of Elmham, cited, 181. 
Thursday, Maundy, 113: see 

Maundy ; no Station for Thurs. 

in Lent, 115, 124. 
Thurston, Fr. Herbert, 145. 
Tischendorf, ed. of Cod. Amiat., 

Toledo : see Comicus. 
Tours, Synod of, on Advent, 105 ; 

St. Patrick at, 165. 
Tres libros Sal., Prol. by St. 

Jerome, 260. 
Trithemius, on chronology of Cassio- 

dorus, 37. 
Turner, C. H., on order of Cassio- 



dorus's nine vols., 29 ; on use by 
Priscillian of Acts of Thomas, 
253, &c. 
Turribius, or Turibius, letter to 
St. Leo on Priscillianist use of 
spurious Acts of Apostles, 253, 

Utrecht Psalter, fragments of Matt, 
and John in, 7. 

V (Vallicella MS.) : see Alcuin. 

Vallarsi, 261. 

Victor, Bp. , of Capua, St. , his epitaph, 

30 ; his date, 78 ; his Diatessaron, 

78 ; not the author of the Note 

about Eugipius in Echternach 

Gosp., 30; his entries in Cod. 

Fuld., 30; borrowed MS. of 

Eugipius, 83-4, 92. 
Victorinus, 227. 
Vigilius, Pope, condemnation of 

Origen, 38. 
Vincent of Lerins, St., quotations 

of, 164-5 5 ms surname Pere- 

grinus, 258-60. 
Vitalian, Pope, 12. 
Vitalian, St., of Caudae, l5off. 
Vitus, St., feast, 118. 
Vivaria, or -um ( Vivariense mona- 

sterium), 2, 3, 36. 

W : see Hales, William of. 
Walafrid Strabo, Glossa Ord., 257. 
Wandinger, on chronology of 

Cassiodorus, 36. 
Washing of the feet : j^Mandatum. 
Wearmouth (or Monkwearmouth), 

7 ; founded by Benet Biscop, 8 ; 

dedication of Ch., 76 : see J arrow. 

Westminster Missal, Sundays after 
Pent, 201. 

Westwood, on Psalter of St. Aug., 

Whitby, Synod of, 8. 

White, H. J., 3, 4, 6, 16-17, 21-2, 
&c. ; on Vincent of Lerins, 166 ; 
on Cambridge Gosp. of St. Aug., 
184; on Bodl. do., 183. 

Whitley Stokes : see Stokes. 

Whitsunday : see Pentecost. 

Wilfrid, St., 189. 

William of Hales : see Hales. 

Willibrord, St., 14, 26, 144 : see 

Wordsworth, Bp. of Salisbury, and 
Rev. H. J. White, 1, &c. ; on 
Echternach Gosp., 15, 26-7 ; on 
MSS. of Acts, 43, 287 ; on Dia- 
tessaron of Cod. Fuld., 82 ; on 
Cod. Laud, of Acts, 158 ; on 
Gosp. of St. Aug., 184; con- 
jectural emendation of Prologue 
to John, 219-20, 227-8, 278-9. 

Wotke, ed. of St. Eucherius, 173. 

W 7 iirzburg library : see Burchard, 
Gospels of St., unpublished list 
of Roman Stations, 129. 

X : see Cambridge Gospels of St. 

Xystus, St., 148, 153. 

Y: see Lindisfarne, Gospels of. 
Youngman, G. M., 9. 

Z : see Harleian Gospels. 
Zahn, Theodor, 4 ; on Diatessaron, 









on the 
of the