Skip to main content

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

See other formats 


FROMTHE-  LIBRARY  OF 
TRIN1TYCOLLEGETORDNTO 


nt'r  University 

LIBRARY, 

S.N_       ;.h.       m 


NOTES  ON  THE 

EARLY  HISTORY  OF  THE 

VULGATE  GOSPELS 

BY 

DOM  JOHN  CHAPMAN,    O.S.B. 


OXFORD 

AT  THE  CLARENDON   PRESS 

1908 


6* 
44 


HENRY  FROWDE,  M.A. 

PUBLISHER  TO  THE  UNIVERSITY  OF  OXFORD 

LONDON,  EDINBURGH 

NEW  YORK  AND  TORONTO 


PREFACE 

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

After  writing  the  last  page  of  the  last  chapter  this  morning, 
I  saw  in  the  Times  the  announcement  that  Pope  Pius  X  has 
ordered  a  new  edition  of  the  Vulgate  to  be  undertaken,  and 
has  confided  the  work  to  the  Benedictine  Order.  My  labour 
has  therefore  perhaps  been  more  to  the  purpose  than  I  ex- 
pected. It  is  by  accident  that  I  have  dealt  with  the  Vulgate, 
my  former  studies  having,  on  the  contrary,  delighted  in  the 
Old  Latin  versions  and  the  Greek  text.  It  was  in  reviewing 
Dr.  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 


iv  PREFACE 

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

So  far  I  wrote  on  May  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. 


PREFACE  v 

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

In  the  first  place  the  readings  of  the  venerable  codex 
possessed  by  Eugipius  are  to  be  determined  by  the  witness 
of  the  Northumbrian  family  AAH*SUXcorr  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 
text. 

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 


VI 


PREFACE 


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

Erdington  Abbey, 
Birmingham. 
jfqy  5,  1908. 


NIHIL   OBSTAT. 


IMPRIMATUR. 


May  8,  1908. 


*F.  AIDANUS   GASQUET,  O.S.B. 

ABB.  PRAESES  CONG.  ANGL. 
CENSOR  DEPUTATUS. 

* EDUARDUS 

EP.    BIRMINGHAM. 


LIST  OF   MANUSCRIPTS 


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


viii  LIST  OF  MANUSCRIPTS 

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

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

First  Class : 

Northumbrian  family,  AAH*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>wt9'. 
Gallican,  Ba?G. 
Spanish,  CT. 

Recensions : 

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


CONTENTS 

CHAPTER  PAGE 

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 


x  CONTENTS 

CHAPTER  PAGE 

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

that  of  Eugipius 81 

4.  The    Northumbrian    summaries    were    composed    by 

Eugipius,  and  are  quoted  in  F 84 

5.  The  introductions  to  the  Gospels  in  the  Codex  Fuldensis 

and  the  Codex  Amiatinus 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 


CONTENTS  xi 

CHAPTER  PAGE 

XII.  The  Four  Prologues:  their  Text  and  Meaning. 

1.  The  text  of  the  Prologues 217 

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

3.  „  „  „  St.  John        .        .        .226 

4.  „  „  „  St.  Luke       .        .        .229 

5.  „  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    . 

Index   


271 
276 
277 
281 
284 

289 


CHAPTER   I 

PRELIMINARY 

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

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

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

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

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

CH.  V.  C.  B 


2  THE  VULGATE  GOSPELS 

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 

(§3)- 

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

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

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


PRELIMINARY  3 

has  been  able  to  make  a  catalogue  of  a  great  part  of  its 
contents.  There  the  aged  Senator1  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 
subject. 

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

1  Senator  seems  to  be  a  honorific  family  surname,  and  not  a  title  of  office. 
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  % 


4  THE   VULGATE   GOSPELS 

(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. 
xiv). 

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

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

1  So  the  Bamberg  MS.  for  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. 


PRELIMINARY  5 

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

'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 
binder. 


6  THE  VULGATE   GOSPELS 

into  account.1  The  Tabernacle  picture  is  his,  while  the  figure 
of  Ezra  is  in  all  probability,  I  suggest,  a  portrait  of  the  aged 
senator  himself,  with  an  aureole  perhaps  placed  there  not  by 
the  original  artist  at  Vivarium,  but  by  the  copyist  at  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 
(73L)>  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. 


PRELIMINARY  7 

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 ; 


8  THE  VULGATE   GOSPELS 

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

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

§  3.  The  Lindisfarne  Gospels  and  Naples. 

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


PRELIMINARY  9 

Evangeliarium  of  St.  Cuthbert,  a  book  which  rivals  in  beauty 
the  Book  of  Kells,  the  masterpiece  of  the  Mother  house, 
Iona,  or  of  some  abbey  in  Ireland.  The  codex  (called  Y  by 
Wordsworth)  was  written  and  illuminated  in  Holy  Island 
during  the  Episcopo-Abbacy  of  Eadfrith  (698-721) — who 
was  himself  the  scribe,  the  illuminator  being  Oethilwald, 
afterwards  Bishop  of  Lindisfarne  725-40— to  the  honour  of 
God,  St.  Cuthbert,  and  all  the  saints.1  It  is  therefore  precisely 
contemporary  with  the  Codex  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  ixme  siecle,'  p.  386. 


io  THE  VULGATE   GOSPELS 

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). 


PRELIMINARY  n 

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

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

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

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


i  a  THE  VULGATE   GOSPELS 

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

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

xiii.  3.'  (But  this  last  place,  mentioned  by  St.  Gregory,  was  in  Sicily !)  In  Mayor 
and  Lumby's  edition  (Cambridge,  1881,  p.  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 .  03_u .  014_16 .  D  ,Rt ;  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. 


PRELIMINARY  13 

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

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

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

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

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

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


14  THE  VULGATE   GOSPELS 

in  the  North,  and  had  presumably  no  connexion  with  Abbot 
Hadrian,  although  his  Abbey  near  Naples  was  necessarily  not 
far  from  Capua.  Thus  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 


PRELIMINARY  15 

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

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

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. 


CHAPTER   II 

THE   CASSIODORIAN   ORIGIN   OF  THE 
NORTHUMBRIAN  TEXT 

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

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

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

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

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. 


THE   NORTHUMBRIAN  TEXT 


17 


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: 
OCT  LIB  REG 

HEST1  LIB  PSALM  LIB 

SALOMON  PROPH 

EVANG  IIII  EPIST  AP  XXI 

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


Ezra. 

I. 

Oct.  lib. 

2. 

Reg. 

3- 

Hest.  lib. 

4- 

Psalm  lib. 

5. 

Salomon. 

6. 

Proph. 

7- 

Evang.  iiii. 

8. 

Epist.  Ap.  xxi 

9- 

Act.  Apostol. 

Apoca. 

Antiqua  translatio. 

1.  Octateuch. 

2.  Kings  iv,  Paral.  ii. 

3.  Psalms. 

4.  Solomon  v. 

5.  Prophets. 

6.  Hagiographa. 

7.  Gospels. 
Acts. 

8.  Epistles. 


The  nine  volumes. 

1.  Octateuchus. 

2.  Regum  (iv  + Paral.). 

3.  Prophetarum. 

4.  Psalterium. 

5.  Salomon  (v). 

6.  Hagiographorum. 

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


9.  Apocalypse. 

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

1  The  Rev.  H.  J.  White  {£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. 


18  THE   CASSIODORIAN   ORIGIN   OF 

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

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

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


THE  NORTHUMBRIAN   TEXT  19 

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

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

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

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

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

C  % 


20  THE   CASSI0D0RIAN   ORIGIN   OF 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

'Si  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, 


THE   NORTHUMBRIAN   TEXT  21 

ut  Scripturarum  diuinarum  palatia,  ipsius  misericordia  largiente,  possimus 
fiducialiter  introire,  ne  nobis  dicatur :  "  Quare  tu  enarras  iustitias  meas, 
et  adsumis  testamentum  meum  per  os  tuum  ? "  sed  inuitati  illud  potius 
audiamus  :  "  Uenite  ad  me,  omnes  qui  laboratis  et  onerati  estis,  et  ego 
uos  reficiam."  Magnum  munus,  inaestimabile  beneficium,  audire  hominem 
secreta  Dei,  et  quemadmodum  ad  ipsum  ueniatur  institui.  Festinemus 
itaque,  fratres,  ad  animarum  fontem  uiuum,  salutaria  remedia  iussionum. 
Quisquis  enim  in  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.  7r.    Notice  the  identity  of  wording : 

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

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

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


22  THE   CASSIODORIAN   ORIGIN   OF 

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

In  confirmation  of  these  natural  conclusions  we  may  note 
that  this  second  part  of  the  prologue  is  an  explanation  of  the 
unusual  order  found  in  the  MS.  *  Do  not  be  surprised/ 
says  Senator,  '  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   NORTHUMBRIAN   TEXT  23 

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

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

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

list :  '  Sic  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 


24  THE   CASSIODORIAN   ORIGIN  OF 

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. 


THE  NORTHUMBRIAN   TEXT  25 

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 
lessons. 

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

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


26  THE   CASSIODORIAN   ORIGIN   OF 

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

The  splendid  '  Gospels  of  Echternach '  (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 
century. 

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. 


THE   NORTHUMBRIAN   TEXT  27 

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  £Pm{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  (g1  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'HKMPQTVXYZ0^;  46«w^»^Aa>*FHMXYZ*^ c; 
John  ii.  8-9  archetridinus,  i°  AAa>OY,  2do  AA^HOY,  30  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>*FHOQXcY ;  1 2  castrauerunt  A3>FH0MOWXY  b  c  defffxfft  h  5  vg. 


28  THE   CASSIODORIAN   ORIGIN   OF 

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  dff2  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>HX2Y '. 

John  ii.  13  properabat  (for  prope  erat)  AarA3?*SXcY ;  iii.  10  omit  in  before 
israhel  AC3>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>m0)  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  NORTHUMBRIAN   TEXT  29 

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

'  Puisque  nous  savons  qu'un  manuscrit  de  Cassiodore,  ou  la  copie  de  ce 
manuscrit,  est  venu  de  Vivarium  a  Jarrow,  que  Lindisfarne  avait  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  3d  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  vie  siecle.  Peut-Stre  dtait-ce  l'original  du  manuscrit  de 
Lindisfarne.' 

M.  Berger  is  referring  to  the  known  presence  at  Jarrow 
of  a  Cassiodorian  Codex  grandior7  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 


CHAPTER   III 

CASSIODORUS  AND   EUGIPIUS 

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

There  is  at  first  sight  a  remarkable  likeness  between  the 
note  in  3*  (above,  p.  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 
later. 

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


CASSIODORUS   AND   EUGIPIUS  31 

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


32  CASSIODORUS   AND   EUGIPIUS 

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 
of  Leviticus  is  found  OKYPIC  CEPBANAOC  AITTOIHCEN 
(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 
usual. 

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

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

mentions  his  book  De  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 '. 


CASSIODORUS   AND   EUGIPIUS  33 

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 
interesting. 

§  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. 


34  CASSIODORUS   AND   EUGIPIUS 

correction  of  the  text  of  the  whole  Bible  with  the  best  MSS. 
of  St.  Jerome's  version,  and  the  emendation  of  its  ortho- 
graphy. This  must  surely  have  been  a  labour  of  many  years, 
ubi  me  multum  laborasse  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, 


CASSIODORUS  AND   EUGIPIUS  35 

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

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


36  CASSIODORUS   AND   EUGIPIUS 

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

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

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

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

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

It  is  at  any  rate  clear  that  our  present  text  of  the  Institutio 
contains  additions  made  after  Cassiodorus  was  ninety-three.  It 
was  not  intended  to  be  published  to  the  world.  It  was  a  testa- 
ment in  which  the  old  man  describes  all  he  was  leaving  to 
his  monks — the  library,  the  baths,  the  fishponds,  the  automatic 
lamps  and  all.  So  far  it  would  seem  that  the  earliest  redaction 
of  the  work  implies  a  stay  in  the  monastery  of  ten  to  twelve 
years  as  a  minimum ;  and  this  minimum  surely  implies  very 
hard  work,  and  yet  leaves  twenty-six  or  twenty-eight  years 
before  the  composition  of  the  de  Ortkographia,  which  was 
written  about  578,  if  we  place  Cassiodorus's  birth  as  early 
as  485.3 

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, 


CASSIODORUS  AND   EUGIPIUS  y 

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. 


38  CASSIODORUS  AND   EUGIPIUS 

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

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

If  there  were  no  interpolations  in  the  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. 


CASSIODORUS   AND   EUGIPIUS  39 

This  would  place  the  Institutio  (or  at  least  the  remark  about 
Origen,  which  Cassiodorus  might  have  interpolated  later) 
after  January  5,  555,  the  date  of  Vigilius's  death  at  Syracuse. 
The  words  praesenti  tempore  are  quite  vague,  and  mean  only 
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.  1820)  j  Matt.  vi.  3  (pp.  52  and  46s5) ; 

Matt.  xx.  28,  not  Mark  x.  45,  as  Knoll  has  it  (p.  461). 
These  are  mere  references.     Knoll  gives  six  references  to  the 
Epistles,  to  which   I  add   Hebr.  xi.   8   (p.  6010)  and  xiii.  7 
(p.  609).     Only  one  quotation  really  calls  for  comment.     It  is 
from  Acts  xx.  32  (p.  6120)  : 


4o  CASSIODORUS  AND   EUGIPIUS 

'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 
reading. 

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


CASSIODORUS  AND   EUGIPIUS  41 

The  date  of  Eugipius' s  birth  is  not  recorded.  It  is  placed 
after  455  by  Herold  and  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 


43  CASSIODORUS  AND   EUGIPIUS 

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. 


CASSIODORUS  AND   EUGIPIUS  43 

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

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

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

4.  Let  us  notice  that  the  Cassiodorian  text  in  A  is  fre- 
quently a  very  good  one,  in  the  Old  and  New  Testaments, 
but  it  never  reaches  elsewhere  (so  far  as  I  know)  the  unique 
position  of  authority  which  it  holds  in  the  Gospels.  In  Acts, 
for  instance,  the  five  codices  primarii  are  ranked  in  order  of 
merit  thus  by  Wordsworth  and  White :  GCAFD.  It  is  true 
that  A  has  in  Acts  received  some  occasional  corrections  from 
the  strange  Old  Latin  of  the  Codex  Laudianusy  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  Ea€t»  (Bodl.  Laud.  Gr.  35). 


44  CASSIODORUS  AND   EUGIPIUS 

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

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

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

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


CHAPTER   IV 

THE  NEAPOLITAN  LECTIONARY  IN 
NORTHUMBRIA 

§  i.  The  Gospels  of  St.  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). 


46  THE  NEAPOLITAN   LECTIONARY 

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


om  autem  HKB^XZ/i 

regat  E3?*HC0JRTWX*  corr  uat  mga  bfgx  aur  vg 
+  in  {after intrantes)  Dad/ 
secessit  DJLRW  vgffx  & 
prophetam  (H)  Z*  a  bfffx  aur 
+  sine  causa  BEO  uett  {not  aur) 
+  dicentes  pax  huic  domui  BCDE3w*FH0JKLM,Oro<'QRTVWX 

YZ  vg  a  b  c  dfffx  gxh  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  g2  q 
om  quidam  AB3>*FH*JL0YZ*  {added  in  mg  with  CDES^'H2© 

KMKTQRTVWXZ3  vg  uett  exc.  d  aur) 
+  ei  after  dicunt  BDES^KMNTRV  aur  vg 
nouissimus  {for  primus)  ABC3PFH*JLORTXYZ*  a  b  d  effv  a  gx  h 

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

ist  hand  has  erased,  and  substit.  primus  DEH^KMNTVWZ1 

gat  cfqScor  uat  &>c.) 
+  duo  in  lecto  . . .  BEHX0ORTXZ  {later  hand  has  deleted)  uett 
nouissimae  {for  -me)  BQX  b 
+  uero  W^j  vg 
uenerunt  3?OcRW/ 
om  peregre  CFH*JXZ*  gx  {added  later) 
consilium  fecerunt  BLO*QR  af 
duxerunt  E  a 
secessit  DE  a  b  aur 
princeps  H*  (Q)  a 

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


Matt. 

I 

i.  2 

2 

ii.  6 

3 

ii 

4 

14 

5 

23 

6 

v.  22 

7 

X.  12 

38 

8 

xx.  34 

9 

xxi.  4 

IO 

28 

ii 

31 

12 

13 

xxiv.  41 

H 

XXV.  II 

15 

16 

17 

14 

18 

xxvii.  1 

l9 

2 

20 

5 

21 

6 

22 

8 

23 

H 

24 

16 

25 

Matt. 

26 

xxvii.  1 6 

27 

20 

28 

29 

29 

31 

3© 

3a 

3i 

35 

32 

37 

33 

40 

34 

44 

35 

46 

36 

55 

37 

65 

38 

xxviii.  5 

39 

9 

4o 

20 

Mark 

i 

ii.  33 

a 

iii.  12 

3 

14 

4 

iv.  6 

5 

7 

6 

29 

7 

v.  6 

8 

9 

13 

IO 

14 

ii 

15 

12 

18 

13 

19 

H 

15 

29 

16 

31 

17 

34 

18 

40 

Luke 

i 

vii.   1 

2 

10 

3 

13 

4 

22 

5 

27 

ix.  9 

6 

45 

7 

62 

IN   NORTHUMBRIA  47 


+  unum  BEKWOcRVWXcZ^2 
princeps  ACFH*MXY//*  q 

+  habe  BCHO*T  a  bf 

clamidem  BES'FQR'5 

uenientem  obuiam  sibi  B3>n*IL01RX*YcZ  (E,  0H"»*  Q)  a  b  cf9  h 

+  ut  inpleatur  .  .  .  sortem  ABEa>m0Hc0KMX)*QWXYZ  cor  uat 

uettpl. 
om  AS  {added  above  line)  om  DEH^HQW  a  bffx  q 

+  ua  BDH^'ILO'QR  a  b  aur  (uah  EHO0OTO*  VZ  vg) 
fixi  A*CH*TXYZ*  gx 
me  derel.  EJLO^RT  (DQJ  a  bfffx  aur 
a  longe  +  uidentes  DE  uett  pi 
custodes  J  uett  pi 

+  dniBEH10OXZ* 

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<5Z  bf2  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  bff2  aur) 
admisit  {corr  into  permisit  0  c  ff%  aur) 
corpori  BCGIKTXZ  aur 
illius  CS^KLQRTVZ 
ille  (corr  into  ihs  with  DitP*0NrO  a  bf) 
ingrediuntur  DEHl0IKNTORVWZ  aur 


+  in  before  Caph.  BD3»IJK0XZ  a 
languebataFQX^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 
&c. 


48  THE   NEAPOLITAN   LECTIONARY 


+  est  after  uita  aFCDES^JRT  gat  a  b  c  efff2  q  aur  Aug 

+  enim  ENT  b  aur 

quodquod  CGO 

gratia  et  ueritate  BG  a  b  c  efff2  8  aur  Iren  Aug 

dicitur  a  b  d  effa  I qr 

conturbabat  aur 

abiit  D  a  dff%  I  aur 

ait  philippo  solus 

om  quid  {added  later)  omZ  b  d  eff2*  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)QVWXZa  b  c  ef{ff%)  I  r  (aur) 

hie  enim  incipiebat  tradere  eum  dff2*  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  cfff2  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 


John 

I 

1.  4 

2 

9 

3 

12 

4 

14 

5 

v.  2 

6 

7 

vi.  3 

8 

5 

9 

7 

10 

14 

11 

39 

12 

53 

13 

7i 

14 

H 

Xlll.   1 

16 

2 

17 

20 

32 

21 

xix.  13 

22 

23 

23 

24 

25 

24 
36 

Northumbr.    Capuan  Irish  Italian 

O     Oc     X;         C      T     ©     Hc;         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 


IN   NORTHUMBRIA  49 

even  where  Wordsworth  has  deserted  them.  It  shows  no 
special  affinity  with  the  Irish  family  as  a  whole,  and  has  little 
likeness  to  the  purest  Irish  MSS.  DLQ.  It  is  nearer  to  the 
later  type  R,  and  of  all  MSS.  it  is  nearest  to  E,  an  Irish 
MS.  written  on  the  Continent,1  and  to  aur.  B  Z  are  also  near. 
If  we  look  at  Matt.  Nos.  10,  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  0  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  f2    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. 


50  THE  NEAPOLITAN   LECTIONARY 

The  readings  are  of  European  type,  a  b  ff2i  especially  the 
last  being  very  close.  But  the  coincidences  with  the  codex 
aureus  Holmiensis  are  not  merely  the  most  numerous  of  all, 
but  also  the  most  striking.  That  well-known  manuscript  was 
bought  by  ■  Alfred  the  alderman '  for  the  use  of  Christ  Church, 
Canterbury,  'from  the  pagans,'  when  Alfred  was  king  and 
Ethelbert  archbishop  (871-89).  It  had  probably  been  looted 
from  some  English  monastery  by  the  Danes,  and  may  have 
been  written  in  England  in  the  eighth  century,  not  much  later 
than  Burch.  It  is  a  Vulgate  text,  with  many  Old  Latin 
readings. 

The  Eusebian  canons  occupy  the  first  nine  pages  of  Burch. 
It  has  also  the  Prologues,  and  its  summaries  have  the  follow- 
ing number  of  titles :  Matt.  y5,  Mark  46,  Luke  77,  John  36. 
These  must  be  the  Old  Latin  summaries,  found  in  ff%  and 
aur,  as  well  as  in  cg1  h  ry  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 
York. 

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


IN   NORTHUMBRIA  51 

§  2.   The  Naples  lectionary  and  the  Northumbrian 
summaries. 

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

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

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

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


E  % 


5* 


THE   NEAPOLITAN   LECTIONARY 


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 

V* 

vj[ 

AVYReg 

4* 

h^i 

Lessons. 

Notes  in  Gospels  of  St.  Burchard. 

Section. 

i 

i.    1 

ii 

18 

1 

1 

i.  18 

In  uigilias  de  natale  domini 

iii 

ii.    1 

2 

2 

ii.    1 

In  stilla  domini  ad  missa  puplica 

iiii 

13 

3 

3 

13 

Innocentum 

4 

19 

In  uigilias  de  Theophania 

V 

iii.    1 

4 

5 

iii.    1 

Post  ii  dominica  feria  iiii  de  aduentum 

vi 

13 

5 

6 

13 

In  stilla  domini  nocte 

vii 

iv.    1 

6 

7 

iv.    1 

In  XLgisima  pascae 

viii 

12 

7 

8 

12 

In  ieiunium  de  silla  domini 

ix 

18 

8 

9 

18 

In  ieiunium  sancte  Andreae 

X 

23 

xi 

v.    1 

9 

10 

v.    1 

In  sanctorum  de  beatitudinem 

xii 

13 

10 

11 

13 

Cottidiana 

xiii 

17 

11 

12 

17 

In  XLgisima  feria  ii 

13 

20 

Ebdomada  ii  post  natale  apostolorum 

*4 

37 

Cottidiana 

xiiii 

35 

XV 

31 

xvi 

43 

12 

43 

Postsec.dominicaXLgisimaferiaii 

xvii 

vi.    1 

xviii 

7 

13 

vi.    7 

Dominica  iiii  quando  orationem 
accipiant  n 

xix 

16 

14 

15 

Post  sec.  dominica  XLgisima  feria  vi 

Neapolitan  Variants. — i.  18  Pridie  natale  domini  ii.  1  misa  Reg  pu- 
blica  iii.  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. 


IN   NORTHUMBRIA 


53 


Summary  of 

v2 

AVYReg 

b^ 

Lessons. 

Notes  in  Gospels  of  St.  Burchard. 

Section. 

XX 

Vi.  22 

16 

vi.  25 

In  XLgisima  feria  vi 

xxi 

vii.    i 

15 

'7 

vii.    1 

Cottidiana 

xxii 

6 

18 

7 

Cottidiana 

J9 

12 

Cottidiana 

xxiii 

J3 

20 

15 

Cottidiana 

xxiiii 

21 

16 

21 

24 

In  dedicationem 

17 

22 

28 

Cottidiana 

XXV 

viii.    i 

xxvi 

5 

18 

23 

viii.   5 

Cottidiana  de  puerum  centurionis 

xxvii 

14 

xxviii 

J9 

xxix 

23 

*9 

24 

23 

Cottidiana 

XXX 

28 

20 

25 

28 

Cottidiana 

xxxi 

ix.    i 

21 

26 

ix.    1 

Cottidiana 

xxxii 

9 

22 
23 

27 

9 

Cottidiana 

De  XLgisima  feria  vi 

24 

28 

10 

Post  penti.  feria  vi  in  ieiunium 

xxxiii 

18 

25 

29 

18 

Cottidiana 

xxxiiii 

27 

26 

30 

27 

Cottidiana 

XXXV 

35 

27 

31 

35 

In  sancti  Viti  et  in  apostolorum 

28 

32 

x.    7 

In  ordinatione  episcopi  et  in  sanctorum 

xxxvi 

x.  16 

29 

33 

16 

In  apostolorum  et  in  natale  sancti  Syxti 

34 

23 

In  natale  sanctorum  Proti  et  lacynthi 

30 

35 

26 

In  unius  confessoris  et  in  natale  sancti 
Cyriaci 

xxxvii 

34 

36 

34 

Natale  sancti  Gordiani 

37 

37 

In  uigilias  sancti  Laurenti 

xxxviii 

xi.    2 

3i 

38 

xi.    2 

Dominica  secunda  de  aduentum 

39 

16 

Cottidiana 

xxxix 

20 

xl 

25 

40 

25 

Cottidiana  et  in  natale  martyrum 

xli 

xii.    1 

32 

41 

xii.    1 

Cottidiana  per  messes 

xlii 

9 

33 

42 

9 

Item  alia 

43 

H 

Cottidiana 

xliii 

22 

xliiii 

38 

34 

38 

Post  vdominicas  de  XLgisima  feria 

SECUNDA  (?) 

xlv 

46 

35 

44 

46 

In  martyra 

xlvi 

xiii.    1 

36 

45 

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 


54 


THE   NEAPOLITAN    LECTIONARY 


Summary  of 

Vs 

vj 

AVY  Reg 

fe*. 

h^ 

Lessons. 

Notes  in  Gospels  of  St.  Burchard. 

Section. 

xlvii 

xiii.    24 

46 

xiii.    24 

Cottidiana 

47 

3i 

Item  alia 

xlviii 

44 

37 

48 

44 

In  inuentione  cruris  dSi  Si 

xlix 

54 

1 

xiv.    1 

38 

49 

xiv.    1 

In  decolatione  sancte  Iohannis  baptistae 

li 

13 

39 

5° 

13 

Cottidiana 

lii 

22 

40 

5i 

22 

Cottidiana  et  in  octabas  apostolorum 

liii 

XV.      I 

41 

52 

XV.      I 

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

liiii 

21 

42 

53 

21 

Cottidiana 

lv 

29 

43 

54 

29 

In  XLgisima  feria  vi 

55 

32 

Cottidiana 

lvi 

xvi.    1 

lvii 

5 

lviii 

13 

44 

56 

xvi.  13 

In  natale  sancti  Petri 

lix 

21 

45 

57 

24 

In  tmius  martyris 

lx 

xvi.  28 

46 

In  dedicationem  N 

58 

xvii.    1 

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

lxi 

xvii.  14 

47 

59 

14 

Post  ii  dominica  XLgisima  feria  iiii 

lxii 

23 

60 

23 

Cottidiana 

48 

61 

xviii.    1 

In  XLgisima  feria  iiii 

lxiii 

12 

62 

15 

In  Lxxgisima  ebd.  iiii  feria  Hi  ad 
sancta  Podentiana 

63 

21 

Cottidiana 

lxiiii 

xix.    1 

49 

64 

xix.    1 

Cottidiana 

lxv 

13 

65 

13 

Cottidiana 

lxvi 

16 

5° 

66 

16 

Cottidiana 

51 

67 

27 

In  ieiunium  sancti  Petri 

lxvii 

XX.      I 

52 

68 

XX.      I 

In  Lxxgisima  die  dominico  ad  sanctum 
Laurentium  B    Dominica  tertia 

QUANDO  PSALMI  ACCIPIUNT  N 

lxviii 

17 

69 

17 

In  Lxxgisima  ebd.  Hi  feria  iiii  ad 
sancta  Cecilia 

53 

70 

20 

In  natale  sanctorum  Iohannis  et  Pauli 

lxix 

29 

7i 

29 

Post  penticosten  feria  vii  ad  sanctum 
Petrum 

lxx 

xxi.    1 

72 

xxi.    1 

In  Lxxgisima  ebd.  iiadsancta  Anastasia 

54 

73 

12 

In  dedicationem  sancte  Stephani 

lxxi 

37 

1    lxxii 

23 

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. 


IN   NORTHUMBRIA 


55 


Summary  of 

v2 

AVYReg 

Lessons. 

Notes  in  Gospels  of  St.  Burchard. 

Section. 

lxxiii 

xxi.  33 

55 

74 

xxi.  33 

Dominica  v  quando  symbulum  accipiunt 

lxxiiii 

xxii.    i 

75 

xxii.    1 

In  Lxxgisima  ebd.  iiiferiaviin  Vestine 

lxxv 

*5 

lxxvi 

33 

76 

23 

Cottidiana 

lxxvii 

35 

77 

35 

Cotidiana 

lxxviii 

41 

lxxix 

xxiii.    i 

78 

xxiii.    1 

In  Lxxgisima  ebd.  Hi  feria  Hi  ad 
sancta  Balbina 

lxxx 

29 

56 

79 

29 

In  sancti  Stephani 

80 

34? 

Item  alia 

lxxxi 

xxiv.    1 

57 

81 

xxiv.   3 

Post  secunda  dominica  de  aduentum 
feria  vi 

58 

82 

23 

Post  iii  dominica  de  aduentum  feria  iiii 

59 

83 

34 

Post  iii  dominica  de  aduentum  feria  vi 

lxxxii 

42 

84 

42 

In  natale  sancti  Eusebii 

85 

45 

In  sancti  Grigori 

60 

86 

XXV.     I 

In  martyra 

lxxxiii 

xxv.  14 

61 

87 

J4 

In  nat.  sancti  Ianuari 

lxxxiiii 

31 

62 

88 

3i 

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

lxxxv 

xxvi.    1 

63 

89 

xxvi.    1 

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

PRIMA  PASSIONEM  DOMINI  NOSTRI 
IHESU  XPI  N 

lxxxvi 

30 

lxxxvii 

xxviii.    1 

64 

90 

xxviii.   1 

In  sab.  sancto  ad  missa 

lxxxviii 

16 

65 

91 

« 

Feria  vipascaeadMartyresBDouimCA 
SANCTA  PASCHA  AD  MISA  PUBLICA  N 

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


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


sfi 


THE   NEAPOLITAN   LECTIONARY 


St 

.  Mark. 

Summary  of 

Vg' 

AHVY  Reg 

It 

Lessons. 

Notes  in  Gospels  of  St.  Burchard. 

Section. 

V 

i.  29 

92 

i.  29 

Cottidiana 

vi 

40 

93 

40 

Cottidiana 

vii 

ii.  13 

viii 

23 

94 

ii.  23 

* 

Cottidiana 

****** 

XV 

vi.    1 

95 

vi.  1 

Cottidiana 

xvi 

7 

xvii 

H 

96 

14 

Depositio  Helisei  etsancti  Iohannis  baptistae 

xviii 

3° 

97 

34 

Cottidiana 

xix 

46 

XX 

vii.    1 

xxi 

34 

98 

vii.  24 

Cottidiana 

xxii 

31 

66 

99 

32 

In  sabbato  sancto  mane 

xxiii 

viii.    1 

100 

viii.    1 

Ebdomada  Hi  post  natate  apostolorum 

IOI 

10 

Post  oclabas  apostolorum  feria  vi 

xxiiii 

11 

* 

****** 

xxviii 

ix.  14 

67 

102 

ix.  16 

* 

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

xxxii 

x.  17 

103 

x.  17 

Post  octabas  apostolorum  feria  iiii 

xxxiii 

33 

xxxiiii 

46 

68 

104 

46 

Cottidiana 

XXXV 

xi.    1 

xxx  vi 

11 

105 

xi.  n 

* 

Cottidiana 

****** 

xlii 

xiii.  1 

106 

xiii.  18 

iiii  ebd.  de  aduentum 

xliii 

32 

69 

107 

xiv.  1 

Die  dominico  de  indulgentia  passio  d2i  Si 
ihesu  xpi 

xliiii 

xiv.  3 

xlv 

26 

108 

xvi.    1 

Dominicum  pascae  ad  sancta  Maria 

xlvi 

xvi.  2 

70 

109 
no 

8 
14 

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. 


IN   NORTHUMBRIA 
St.  Luke. 


57 


Summary  of 

Vc 

^  5! 

AHVY  Reg 

i* 

J*. 

Lessons. 

Notes  in  Gospels  of  St.  Burchard. 

Section. 

i 

i.    i 

ii 

5 

71 

in 

i-    5 

In  ieiunium  sancti  Iohannis  baptistae 

iii 

26 

72 

112 

26 

Dominica  iii  de  aduentum 

113 

39 

Feria  vi  ad  Apostolos 

iiii 

57 

73 

114 

57 

In  natale  sancti  Iohannis  baptistae 

V 

ii.    1 

74 

"5 

ii.    1 

In  natale  dfii  ad  missa  publica 
Dominica  post  natale  dfii 

116 

13 

vi 

15 

117 

15 

Natale  dfii  node 

vii 

21 

75 

118 

21 

In  octabas  dfii 

119 

33 

Dominica  i  post  natale  dfii 

viii 

43 

76 

120 

43 

Dominica  iiii  post  epiphania 

Dominica  iiii  de  aduentum  dfii  fii  ihesu  xpi 

ix 

X 

xi 

iii.    1 

IV.     1 

77 

121 

iii.    1 

xii 

14 

78 

122 

iv.  14 

v  dominica  de  aduentum 

123 

23 

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

xiii 

3i 

79 

124 

3i 

Cottidiana 

xiv 

38 

80 

125 

38 

In  ieiunium  apostolorum 

XV 

V.      I 

81 

126 

v.    1 

Cottidiana 

xvi 

12 

127 

12 

Cottidiana 

xvii 

17 

128 

17 

Cottidiana 

129 

18 

Post  penticosten  feria  vi  ad  Apostolos 

xviii 

27 

82a 

130 

27 

Cottidiana 

xix 

vi.    1 

S26 

131 

vi.    1 

Per  messes 

XX 

6 

83 

132 

6 

Post  penticosten  in  ieiunium  die  sabbati 

xxi 

12 

84 

133 

12 

In  apostolorum 

85 

134 

17 

In  sanctorum 

xxii 

20 

135 

36 

In  laetania  tnaior  ad  sanctum  Petrum 

xxiii 

37 

86 

37 

Post  hi  dominicas  XLgisima  feria  ii 

xxiiii 

vii.    1 

XXV 

11 

87 

136 

vii.  11 

Cottidiana 

xxvi 

24 

xxvii 

36 

88 

137 

36 

Cottidiana 

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. 


58 


THE  NEAPOLITAN  LECTIONARY 


Summary  of 
AHVYReg 

1? 

Lessons. 

Notes  in  Gospels  of  St.  Burchard. 

si- 

Section. 

xxviii 

viii.    i 

89 

138 

viii.    1 

In  martyras 

J39 

4 

In  Lxgisima  ad  sanctum  Paulum 

xxix 

16 

90? 

140 

16? 

Cottidiana 

XXX 

22 

141 

22 

Cottidian 

xxxi 

26 

xxxii 

40 

91? 

142 

40 

Cottidiana  et  post  octabas  penticosten  feria 

vii 
Cottidiana  et  in  sanctorum 

xxxiii 

ix.    1 

92? 

M3 

ix.    1 

xxxiiii 

7 

XXXV 

12 

144 

12 

Post  octabas  penticosten  feria  iiii 

xxxvi 

18 

xxxvii 

23 

145 

23 

In  sanctorum 

xxxviii 

37 

93? 

146 

37 

Cottidiana 

xxxix 

43  ^ 

xl 

5i 

147 

57 

In  ordinatione  diaconi 

xli 

X.      I 

148 

x.    1 

In  sanctorum 

xlii 

21 

149 

23 

Cottidiana 

xliii 

25 

150 

25 

Cottidiana 

xliiii 

38 

94 

151 

38 

In  martyras 

xlv 

xi.    1 

95? 

*52 

xi.    1 

Cottidiana 

xlvi 

5 

J53 

5 

In  laetania  maior  ad  sanctum  Petrum 

xlvli 

14 

154 

14 

In  xLgisima  ebd.  Hi  ad  sanctum  Lauren- 
tium  martyrem 

xlviii 

27 

95? 

J55 

27 

Cottidiana 

xlix 

33 

1 

37 

156 

47 

In  natale  sanctorum  Cornili  Cipriani 

li 

xii.    1 

96 

157 

xii.    1 

In  ieinnium  sanctorum  Iohannis  et  Pauli 

97 

158 

9 

In  unius  confessoris 

lii 

13 

98 

J59 

13 

Cottidiana 

160 

22 

Cottidiana 

liii 

32 

99 

161 

32 

Post  i  dominica  de  aduentum  feria  iiii 

162 

35 

In  natale  sanctorum  sancti Felicis  Simplici 
Faustini  et  Beatrici 

100 

163 

39 

Post  i  dominica  de  aduentum  feria  vi 

IOI 

164 

42 

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. 


IN   NORTHUMBRIA 


59 


Summary  of 

Vc 

vH 

AH  VY  Reg 

fc^ 

fct 

*3 

1  s 

Lessons. 

Notes  in  Gospels  of  St.  Burchard. 

Section. 

liiii 

xii.  49 

lv 

xiii.    i 

102? 

165 

xiii.  10 

Cottidiana 

lvi 

18 

166 

22 

Cottidiana 

lvii 

3i 

lviii 

xiv.    1 

I03? 

167 

xiv.    1 

Cottidiana 

IO4 

168 

7 

In  natale  sancti  Laurenti 

lix 

16 

105 

169 

16 

In  ieiuninm  sancti  Laurenti 

Ix 

35 

106 

170 

35 

In  unius  martyris  et  in  nat.  sancti  Timothei 

lxi 

XV.     1 

171 

XV.     I 

Post  octabas  penticosten  feria  vi 

lxii 

11 

107 

172 

II 

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

lxiii 

xvj.    1 

I08 

J73 

xvi.    1 

Cottidiana 

lxiiii 

13 

lxv 

19 

IO9 

174 

19 

Cottidiana 

lxvi 

xvii.    1 

. 

lxvii 

5 

lxviii 

11 

no 

175 

xvii.  11 

In  XLgisima  pascae 

lxix 

20 

lxx 

xviii.    1 

III 

176 

xviii.  1 

Cottidiana 

lxxi 

9 

112 

177 

10 

Post  iii  dominica  XLgisima  feria  iiii 

lxxii 

15 

lxxiii 

18 

lxxiiii 

3i 

113 

178 

31 

In  Lgisima  ad  sanctum  Petrum  B  Feria 

III  DE  EBDOMADA  MAIORA  N 

lxxv 

35 

lxxvi 

xix.    1 

II4 

179 

xix.    1 

Cottidiana 

lxxvii 

12 

180 

12 

Cottidiana 

lxxviii 

29 

lxxix 

41 

lxxx 

XX.     1 

181 

XX.     1 

Cottidiana 

lxxxi 

9 

182 

9 

In  natale  sanctorum  Marcellini  Petri 

lxxxii 

20 

lxxxiii 

37 

lxxxiiii 

4i 

lxxxv 

xxi.    5 

lxxxvi 

20 

"5 

183 

xxi.  25 

De  aduentum  et  cottidiana 

lxxxvii 

28£ 

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. 


6o 


THE   NEAPOLITAN   LECTIONARY 


Summary  of 
AHVY  Reg 

It 

v4i 

*5 

Lessons. 

Notes  in  Gospels  of  St.  Burchard. 

Section. 

Ixxxviii 

Ixxxix 
xc 
xci 
xcii 

xciii 

xciiii 

xxii.    i 

2 
34 

39 
xxiii.  34 
xxiv.    i 

13 

36 

n6 

117 

us 
ii9 

120 

121 

184 

185 

186 
187 

188 

189 

xxii.    1 

24 

xxiv.    1 
13 

36 
44 

In  XLgisima  ebd.  viferia  iiii  legitur  tassio 
diiih 

FERIA  V  MANE  IN  CENA  DOMINI  AD 
MISSA.  PASSIO  DOMINI  NOSTRI  IHU 
XPI 

In  apostolorum  etin  nat.  sancti  Apollinaris 

Die  sabbato  de  albas  pascae 

Feria  ii  pascae  ad  sanctum  Petrum  B 

FERIA  III  DE  ALBAS  PASCAE  N 

Feria  Hi  pascae  ad  sanctum  Paulum  B 

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

St.  John. 


i 

i.    1 

122 

190 

i.    1 

11 

19 

191 

19 

123 

192 

29 

111 

35 

124 

193 

35 

j     iiii 

11.    1 

"5 

194 

11.    1 

v 

12 

126 

195 

12 

vi 

iii.  1 

127 

196 

iii.  1 

128 

197 

16 

vii 

22 

129a 

198 

22 

Vlll 

IV.     1 

5 

129^ 

199 

IV.     1 

5 

ix 

46 

130 

200 

46 

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- 

cina 
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 
ephifania 


N  1 20-1.  After  the  last  cap.  of  the  summary  in  Y  Reg  is  found  the  fol- 
lowing :  'Haec  lectio  in  ebdomada  paschae  dum  legitur  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. 


IN   NORTHUMBRIA 


61 


Summary  of 
AHVY  Reg 

IS 

Lessons. 

Notes  in  Gospels  of  St.  Burchard. 

Section. 

it 

X 

V.     I 

131-2 

201 

v.    1 

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

xi 

19 

202 

Ad  missa  defunctorum 

133 

203 

Item  alia  B    Cottidiana  N 

xii 

3i 

xiii 

vi.    1 

134 

204 

vi.    1 

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

!35 

205 

16? 

Cottidiana 

xiv 

22 

XV 

35 

1-3,6  a 
[136*] 

206 

36? 

Post  iiii  dominica  XLgisima  feiia  iiii 
Legenda  pro  defunctis 

xvi 

4i 

207 

43 

Post  penticosten  feria  iiii  ad  sancta 
Maria  et  cottidiana 

137 

208 

5i 

Post  iiii  dominica  XLgisima  feria  iii 

138a 

209 

55 

Post  iiii  dominica  XLgisima  feria  ii 

xvii 

63 

xviii 

vii.    1 

138* 

2IO 

vii.    1 

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

RAGESIMA  N 

139 

211 

14 

Post  iiii  dominica  XLgisima  die  sabbati 

xix 

31 

140 

212 

33 

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

141 

213 

40 

Sabbato  sancto  penticosten 

XX 

viii.    1 

314 

viii.    1 

In  Lxxgisima  ebd.  iiii  feria  vii  ad 
sancta  Susanna 

xxi 

12 

142 

"5 

12 

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

xxii 

21 

2l6 

? 

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

xxiii 

3i 

143 

217 

3i 

Post  v  dominica  XLgisima  die  sabbati 

1   xxiiii  1 

5i 

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  quotidianay 
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. 


62 


THE   NEAPOLITAN   LECTIONARY 


Summary  of 
AHVY  Reg 


Section. 


xxviii 


17 


xi.    1 


47 


XXX 

xii 

12 

XXXI 

20 

xxxii 

27 

xxxiii 

xiii. 

I 

xxxiiii 

16 

XXXV 

xiv. 

I 

XXXVI 

15 

xxxvii 

XV. 

I 

144 
145 

146 


J47 
148 


149 

150? 

150 


J52 
r53 
154 


155 
156 

157 


58 


218 

219 

220 


Lessons. 


222 

223 

224 
225 

226 


227 
228 
229 


230 
231 
232 
233 
234 
235 

236 

237 
238 


22 


30 
xi.    1 


25 
47 

55? 
xii.    1 


20 

33 
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- 
stasia 

Dc  XLgisima  post  iii  dominicas  sab- 
mane  post  scrutinium 

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

III      DOMINICAS      DIE      SABBATI      IN 
IEIUNIUM 

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

In  Lxxgisima  vi  ebd.  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 

Laurenti 
In  LXgisima  iiii  ebd.  feria  vi  ad  sancta 

Prisca    Feria  v  ieiunium  de  cena 

DOMINI 

Feria  i  de  ebdomada  maiore 

Post  octauas  pascae  dominica  v 

Sabbato  sancto  penticosten 

Dominica  sancta  penticosden 

In  natale  sanctorum  Philippi  et  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. 


IN  NORTHUMBRIA 


63 


Summary  of 

vjj 

vi! 

AHVYReg 

159 

2* 

li 

239 

Lessons. 

Notes  in  Gospels  of  St.  Bur  chard. 

Section. 

xxxviii 

xv.  17 

xv.  17 

In    natale    sancti    Pancrati   [et]    post 

ascensa  diii 

160 

240 

26 

Post  albas  pascae  dominica  iii 

241 

xvi.    5 

Ebdomada  iiii  post  pascha 

242 

15? 

Post  albas  pascae  iiii  dominica 

xxxix 

xvi.  16 

161 

16 

Post  hi  dominicas  XLgisima  feria 
iiii  ab  his  et 

162 

343 

23 

Post  albas  pascae  v  dominica 

163 

Post   hi   dominica  die  sabbati  ab 

HIS  ET 

164 

POST  ALBAS  PASCAE  DOMINICA  IIII 

xl 

xvii.  1 

165 

244 

xvii.    1 

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

245 

11 

Post  albas  pascae  feria  iiii 

xli 

xviii.   1 

166 

246 

xviii.    1 

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

EBDOMADA  MAIORE  PASSIO  DOMINI 
NOSTRI  IHU  XPI  N 

xlii 

XX.      I 

167 

247 

XX.      1 

Feria  ii  pascae 

248 

11 

Feria  v  pascae  ad  Apostolos 

xliii 

J9 

249 

19 

Feria  vii pascae  ad  Lateranis 

168 

250 

24 

Die  dominico  octabas  pascae 

xliiii 

xxi.    1 

169 

25x 

xxi.    1 

Feria  iiii  pascae  ad  sanctum  Laurentium 

xlv 

15 

170 

252 

J5 

In  natale  sancti  Petri  et  Pauli 

171 

253 

19 

In  adsumptione  sancte  Iohannis  euan- 
gelistae 

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 


64  THE   NEAPOLITAN   LECTIONARY 

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

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

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

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


IN   NORTHUMBRIA  6$ 

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. 


66  THE  NEAPOLITAN   LECTIONARY 

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

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

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

1  See  the  table  further  on,  p.  68. 


IN   NORTHUMBRIA  67 

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

The  lists  (capitulationes)  published  by  Mabillon  from  two 
MSS.  of  De  Thou  (Migne,P.  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 


68 


THE   NEAPOLITAN  LECTIONARY 


1 


5 


M 

a 

o 

■3 
ii 

3 

a 

8 


1 


41  'Z'Ji 

S  8  5     **  • 
J?  §  0  e  a 

■§•3  8 IJ 

.o  N        *>« 

2s  II       H   H 


5    2 


8   ««   to 

ill 

«  ^o 

OS<* 


o 

Cm 

OS 


•5 


ll 


ll 

<  tj  ^  ^ 

S  ^^:- 

P  us  J   & 

in 


a  9  b 

o  J?  a  * 

IK 

S*  ; 

.o*   * 
a  9s     1 


OVO 
O  " 

SO 


tfl    TO      . 

Utuw 

II  u  ii  ii 


w   c5 

"3.2 

o  'o 

a  S 

M  o 

.  >-■ 

Wo 
ii  ii 


■    TO 

13  # 


*3& 


II  o     6  u 


09 

■8 

CO 


3 


§1 


o 
o 


If 

TO     V 


a  o 

fico 


t-l  l-H  1-1 


J?i|P2| 

3  o  S  .'9  S  * 


1 

-a 
2^ 

fc    4) 


•«    TO 

u  9 


§ 


I 


2 

2 


•g  '2  tJ  8  "5  a 


ill 


^1 


I 
cO„ 


yj)  utunjoj 


N    fOrorO 


3 


MM  C4 


uotjtpa  spi}Q 


-uojitq 

-VWf0  U9PUQ 


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

MMMMMMHMC«M 
.«  .J-*  .m    .J  :J  —• 


•y/T  ivSojnog 


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


IN   NORTH  UMBRIA 


69 


3  P 

1  *  § 
SL*    1 

3  :3 


lip 

o     'W    H     » 


1 

s 

B 


^  «  "  g 
m-  s  H  ^  s 

II  "S^, 


s 


>o 


2  I 

0  I 

1  I 

W  < 

II  II 


s 

o 
Q 
< 

£   8 


Tf 

:3  o\ 

US 

x>. 

x  i 

1 

t 

US     . 

us-rj 

> 

V 

•n» 

i 

a 

J 

1 

O 

0 

£S 

s 

ro 

O 

US  l-t 

0 

00 

«  « 

«S 

M 

M     M 

M 

Tf 

O 

KSM 

o\ 

US 

M 

"«-<* 

us 

o 
o 
PQ 


d         v  us.S 

tfl  PQ   «'S   o 


as 


►  s 


5  ^  »  £  si     S3 


555 


1  i  s 


I 


o  ^  «  S5 

w  *^  O  u 

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


I  s 


a 


I 

a 

II 


a 

s    a 

*     1 


51 


II    I 


c  « 


CO 


a  °  ^  w 
►5     H 


M 

o     2 


<  M 

2S 


A   04 


J 

us 

00 
us 

00 

M     ON 

00  00 

^ 

us  us 
us 

VO 

M 

« 

t<i 

us 

us 

00    OV 

7° 


THE  NEAPOLITAN   LECTIONARY 


3 

S3 

a*  pentuosten 

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

^3 

.2       v!  A 's'  *       bio 

turn 
i.e.  of 

missa 

•5 

►St  -^ 

II 

| 

1 

S3 

CU.8 

ll 

•II 

M.8 

J3 
6 
Ph 

0 

1 

u 

■4-» 

,  a 

1 0 

w       M       i2         V  m  mi   *>         g,             55   «->       'O 

1     1    I     Sis!,   «       flnji 

3        1        §        So  §  <  "3        *            "*•  *^  fe  a 

c    «*    *    Nsa^ri,§^  -s^afi 

« 

II        Ii 

■ 

11 

0 

%  a     ii   3 

2.11       11 

"&     % 

5 

Ph 

U5 

I 

§ 

n    n 

CO      M 

Ph 

t3 
a 

Cj 

Ph 

I 

3 

^1  i 

u   .<     -a 

*? 

8 

0    2 

.        en 

6 
6 

Ph 

CO 
CO 

> 

CO* 

"o 

CO 

0 

<^^       g 
CO  n  Jh       B 

<*;     V    «            CO 

big  S      & 

SI 

11      11 

II 

II 

1 

11 

>WW      O 

*5 

"5 

13 

t/3 

s» 

H 

0 

K 

MH 
l-H 

Z 

H 

M 

(4 
H 
W 
Ph 

(2 

t* 

0 

<1 

S5 

•< 
O 

HH 

o 
o 

3 

*8 
1 

*•* 

1 

O 

H 
S5 
H 
Ph 

>* 

S 

o 
O 

•-1      CO 
CO        .j 

Id    '§ 

P.      Ph 

i 

S2.d 

^  0 

1 
U 

l-l 
CO 

< 

H 
-4 
S5 

CO         rt 

W        v                        <& 

0       0                  Ji 
«       «>                   c<t 

a    .-2                 co 

opq  v                 rt 
ts                    a 

a 

1 

co* 

1 

M 

fc 

S5        55 

fc 

2 

55 

2       a                   c 

a 

i—i 

t-H          1-1 

»-i 

l-H 

i-t 

h-(          H-l                                H-l 

HH 

00 

o\ 

ON 

« 

NO 

J>.          OV 

CO 

1 

O 
c« 

7      2,        °9      m 

1              CO                                    1 

•rj-  CO  «5         ^ 

M 

|                 1 

M 

H 

«                   ^.          ON 

usvo  ov       ' 

:a 

*°           £ 

£ 

TJ 

X 

X 
X 

«JN«5          " 

a 
o 

3  3 

rt 

* 

a 

1 
f— , 

rt 

rt       -cl             a        «« 

2   £     3   a 

5l|     | 

fo  umnjoj 

Ov 

S     2 

Ov 

<«■ 

CO 

r»       co            co       Ov 
co        rt-              co        '♦" 

VO    OVU5          •*• 
»«           M             CO 

d     « 

c* 

c« 

« 

N            C»                   TT          N 

«                       CO 

tiotjtp?  spi}f) 

vo 

On       « 

CO          CO 

vo 

M 

OV           M                      NO 
C»           CO                ^         CO 

co  ^^t-       >^- 

« 

co       tJ- 

VO 

u> 

CO 

O             M                        I               N 

CO  M     «               1 

'UOjfiq 

«         n               In 

f                                1 

-vjvfoutpxQ 

:a 

•  M 

« 

co       >*• 

10 

VO 

!>. 

CO           OS                O          •-• 

N     CO   Tf"           »0 

'SH  9u2oinog 

:s 

MM                      «             N 

N     N     C*             M 

IN   NORTHUMBRIA  71 

It  will  be  seen  from  the  table  that  Bede  most  certainly 
agrees  with  the  Neapolitan  lectionary  against  the  Roman 
system  in  all  the  following  cases.  (On  the  first  three  see 
Dom  Morin,  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. 


72  THE  NEAPOLITAN  LECTIONARY 

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

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

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

§  4.  The  feasts  in  St.  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. 


IN   NORTHUMBRIA  73 

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.  43-51) 
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  : 

Foman. 

Octave 
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. 

Mabillon. 

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

74  THE   NEAPOLITAN   LECTIONARY 

he  left  it  (changing  only  the  title)  and  the  feast  of  St.  Benet 
Biscop  after  it,  but  before  the  latter  he  naturally  put  what  he 
believed  to  be  the  first  Sunday,  and  after  it  the  third  Sunday, 
i.  15  and  ii.  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 


I 


IN  NORTHUMBRIA  75 

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

4.  Easter.  The  reviser  of  Mabillon's  lists  has  twice 
been  puzzled,  and  has  left  two  blanks ;  furthermore,  he  has 
got  no  sermon  for  Easter  Day  !  The  second  of  his  blanks  is 
an  accident,  but  the  former  is  not  against  a  Roman  lesson, 
and  is  actually  at  the  Easter  Gospel  of  Gallican  and  Bobbio 
uses,  which  N  has  for  Saturday  in  Albis.  This  is  surely 
another  agreement,  not  with  Bobbio  and  Gaul,  but  with  N 
against  Rom.  But  more  remarkable  is  the  fact  that  ii.  4, 
which  Rom,  Mab,  and  B  all  agree  in  ascribing  to  Friday  after 
Easter,  is  actually  the  Easter  Gospel  in  N.  St.  Bede's  sermon 
is  apparently  for  Easter  Day  itself :  '  Euangelica  lectio,  fr.  c, 
quam  modo  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 


76  THE   NEAPOLITAN   LECTIONARY 

B  Rom),  he  has  provided  no  homily  for  the  feast  itself.  There 
remains  one  homily,  ii.  12,  which  gives  difficulty.  For  in 
N  this  Gospel  is  set  down  for  the  second  Sunday  of  Lent ;  but 
it  does  not  seem  that  Bede  usually  follows  N  in  Lent,  and  he 
apparently  had  another  homily  for  that  Sunday,  viz.  i.  17. 
B  has  two  entries,  in  pascha  annotina  et  in  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. 

1 

Advent 

i.  10 

Epiphany,  octave  ? 

i. 

2 

}> 

i-  13 

„         1st  Sunday  after 

ii. 

23 

„      3rd  Sunday 

ii.  22 

„          2nd         „ 

ii. 

24 

„      Ember  Friday 

i.  15 

»          3rd 

i. 

3 

Christmas  Eve 

i.  11 

»          4&          „ 

ii. 

25 

„         1st  Mass 

i.  14 

Purification 

i. 

4 

„        2nd    „ 

i.  21 

Lent,  Ember  Friday      i 

i. 

5 

»         3rd     „ 

i.  16 

„          „      Saturday  > 

i. 

6 

St.  John  Evang. 

i.  17 

„     2nd  Sunday         ) 

i. 

7 

H.  Innocents 

i.  18 

„      3rd  Saturday  \ 

i. 

8 

Circumcision 

i.  22 

„      4th  Sunday     > 

i. 

9 

Epiphany 

i.  20 

„     4th  Monday    J 

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

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. 


IN   NORTHUMBRIA 


77 


i. 

24 

Lent,  Blessing  of  Palms           ) 

ii. 

1 

i. 

23 

» 

Ephphetha,  Sunday         > 

ii. 

12 

i. 

25 

M 

Washing  of  feet,  Thurs.  ) 

i. 

12 

i. 

19 

Easter  Eve,  morning 

ii. 

15 

ii. 

1 

» 

,,    evening 

ii. 

13 

ii. 

4 

>> 

Day 

ii. 

14 

ii. 

3 

>» 

Thursday 

ii. 

I? 

ii. 

2 

» 

Sat.  in  Albis 

ii. 

16 

ii. 

6 

» 

3rd  Sunday  after 

ii. 

18 

ii. 

7 

>» 

4th      »         » 

ii. 

19 

ii. 

5 

» 

5th      ,»         » 

ii. 

18 

Rogation  litanies 

ii. 

20 

ii. 

9 

Ascension  Day 

ii. 

21 

ii. 

10 

,,        after  the 

Pentecost 

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

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


CHAPTER  V 
THE  CODEX   FULDENSIS  AND  EUGIPIUS 

§  i.   Victor  of  Capua  possessed  a  Greek  Diatessaron. 

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

Victor  of  Capua  showed  considerable  critical  acumen  when 
he  decided  that  the  Diatessaron  which  he  discovered  was  that 
of  Tatian  rather  than  that  of  Ammonius.  But  what  did  he 
discover?  A  Latin  Diatessaron,  according  to  Zahn,1  prob- 
ably put  together  not  earlier  than  500.  It  will  be  remembered 
that  the  Codex  Fuldensis  was  read  through  by  Victor  on 
April  19,  546,  and  again  on  April  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. 


THE    CODEX   FULDENSIS   AND   EUGIPIUS     79 

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

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

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

1  The  following  words  of  Victor  in  his  Preface  are  ambiguous :  '  Verumtamen 
uel  si  iam  heresiarches  huius  editionis  auctor  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. 


80    THE   CODEX   FULDENSIS   AND   EUGIPIUS 

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

§  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   CODEX  FULDENSIS  AND   EUGIPIUS    81 

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

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

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

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

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

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


82    THE   CODEX   FULDENSIS  AND   EUGIPIUS 

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

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

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

nemo  bonus  .  nisi  unus  deus. — Mark. 

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

non  occides. — Luke. 

non  adulterabis. — Matthew. 

non  furtum  facies. — Luke. 

non  falsum  testimonium  dices. — Luke  and  Matthew. 

honora  patrem  tuum  et  matrem. — Luke  and  Mark. 

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

a  iuuentute  mea — Mark  and  Luke. 

quid  adhuc  mihi  deest. — Matthew. 

This  is  an  extremely  elaborate  mosaic,  hardly  adequately 
described  by  Bishop  Wordsworth  in  these  mild  words :  '  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 
harmony. 

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


THE  CODEX  FULDENSIS   AND   EUGIPIUS     83 

tur.  Tres  ergo  AFY  simul  iuncti  duobus  AY  praeferendi 
sunt.'  The  chief  differences  are  in  spelling,  such  as  will  be 
seen  from  the  examples  I  give  in  the  note  below.1  Most  of 
these  are  due  to  carelessness ;  but  sometimes,  we  cannot 
doubt,  AY  will  reflect  the  theories  of  orthography  taught  by 
Cassiodorus.  Of  the  differences  of  reading  in  the  note,  uiderant 
is  a  clerical  error  of  F.  But  omnibus  (=  Greek)  in  Luke  i.  3 
(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 


84    THE  CODEX   FULDENSIS   AND   EUGIPIUS 

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

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

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

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


THE   CODEX   FULDENSIS   AND    EUGIPIUS     85 
Praefatio. 

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. 


86    THE  CODEX   FULDENSIS  AND   EUGIPIUS 

xl.  parabola  de  amico  uel  de  tribus  panibus  petendum  quaerendum 
pulsandum 

xlj.  de  cauendo  a  falsis  prophetis 

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

xliij.  comparatio  in  his  omnibus  de  sapiente  et  insipiente  aedificatoribus 

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

xlv.  ubi  ihesus  in  chanan  galileae  aqua  uinum  fecit 

xlvj.  ubi  ihesus  mundat  leprosum 

xlvij.  ubi  ihesus  puerum  centurionis  paralyticum  curauit 

xlviij.  ubi  socrum  petri  a  febribus  sanauit 

xlviiij.  ubi  ihesus  in  ciuitatem  naim  mortuum  resuscitauit 

1.  ubi  omnes  infirmitates  curat. ut  adimplerentur  scribturae  prophetarum 

lj.  ubi  uolenti  eum  sequi  dixit .  uulpes  foueas  habent 

lij.  ubi  nauigans  increpauit  tempestati  et  cessauit 

liij.  Ubi  curauit  trans  fretum  daemoniacum  qui  in  monumentis  manebant 

liiij.  Ubi  curauit  paralyticum  quern  deposuerunt  per  tectum 

lv.  Ubi  filium  subreguli  absentem  curauit 

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 
uidere 

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 


THE   CODEX   FULDENSIS   AND  EUGIPIUS     87 

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

lxxvij.  Ubi  adcontra  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 
saturauit 

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

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 
uiuus 

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 


88    THE   CODEX  FULDENSIS   AND   EUGIPIUS 

■* 

ciij.  Ubi  ihesus  ascendit  hierosolyma  in  die  festo  scenopegiae 

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

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

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

cvij.  de  diuite  et  lazaro 

cviij.  de  uilico  infidele 

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

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

cxj.  Ubi  ihesus  x  leprosos  mundauit 

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

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

cxiiij.  de  zaccheo  publicano 

cxv.  Ubi  ihesus  iterum  duos  caecos  curauit 

cxvj.  Ubi  ihesus  asinum  sedens  hierosolyma  ingreditur 

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

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

cxviiij.  de  nicodemo  qui  uenit  ad  ihesum  nocte 

cxx.  de  muliere  a  iudaeis  in  adulterio  deprehensa 

exxj.  Ubi  ihesus  maledixit  ficulneam  et  aruit 

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

exxiij.  Ubi  ihesus  interrogatur  a  principibus  sacerdotum  in  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- 
prehendere 

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 


THE   CODEX   FULDENSIS  AND   EUGIPIUS     89 

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

manifeste 

exxxv.  Ubi  ihesus  resuscitat  lazarum  a  mortuis  et  principes  concilium 

faciunt  ut  interficerent  ihesum 

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

dicunt  ad  ihesum  si  uis  dicimus  ut  ignis  discendat  de  caelo 

exxxvij.  Ubi  ihesus  uenit  in  bethaniam  et  multi  iudaeorum  euntes 

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

pharisaeo 

exxxviiij.  Ubi  hierosolymis  graeci  uidere  uolunt  ihesum 

cxl.  Ubi  pharisaei  interrogant  ihesum  quando  uenit  regnum  dei 

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

cxlij.  Ubi  ihesus  lamentat  super  hierusalem 

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

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

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

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

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 


9o    THE  CODEX  FULDENSIS   AND   EUGIPIUS 

clxv.  Ubi  falsi  testes  aduersus  ihesum  quaerebantur 

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

clxvij.  Ubi  traditur  pilato  ihesus  et  paenitetur  iudas 

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

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

clxxiij.  Ubi  iudaei  signant  monumentum 

clxxiiij.  Ubi  prima  die  sabbati  suscitatur  ihesus  a  mortuis 

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

clxxvj.  Ubi  ihesus  apparuit  mulieribus  post  resurrectionem 

clxxvij.  Ubi  ihesus  duobus  euntibus  in  castellum  apparuit 

clxxviij.  Ubi  ihesus  apparuit  discipulis  suis 

clxxviiij.  Ubi  ihesus  iterum  apparuit  thomae 

clxxx.  Ubi  iterum  apparuit  ihesus  discipulis  super  mare  tiberiadis 

clxxxj.  Ubi  ihesus  ter  dicit  petro  diligis  me 

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

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

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


THE   CODEX  FULDENSIS  AND   EUGIPIUS    91 

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.ndumisedpetendumquaerendu7npzdsanduMquepra.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 
yet. 

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


92    THE  CODEX  FULDENSIS   AND   EUGIPIUS 

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 


THE  CODEX  FULDENSIS   AND   EUGIPIUS    93 

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

Y.  F. 

Ammonius  quidem  Alexandrinus  Ammonius  quidem  Alexandrinus 

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

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

liquit.  reliquit  euangelium. 

Victor  immediately  afterwards  proceeds  to  quote  from 
Eusebius's  History,  but  then  he  clearly  uses  Rufinus's  trans- 
lation of  iv.  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- 


94    THE  CODEX  FULDENSIS  AND   EUGIPIUS 

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

4.  Victor  prefixes  to  Acts  and  Apocalypse  the  usual  Pro- 
logues, which  are  made  up  out  of  the  ■  Monarchian  '  Prologues 
to  Luke  and  John.  Consequently  Victor  probably  knew 
the  latter  also.  Now  we  shall  see  in  chapter  xv  that  the 
compiler  of  the  Prologue  to  Acts  has  also  used  as  a  source 
St.  Jerome's  letter  to  Paulinus,  from  which  he  has  borrowed 
a  few  words,  and  the  Prologue  to  the  Apocalypse  similarly 
shows  some  similarity  to  the  Plures  fuisse  in  the  insertion  of  the 
words  apostolus  et  euangelista  and  ut  in  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- 


THE   CODEX  FULDENSIS  AND   EUGIPIUS    95 

ratur  generationum  lxvii  a  Christo  SURSUM  UERSUS  AD  deum 
ordo  contexitur  \  In  the  Prologue  to  Mark  we  find  '  Iohannem 
filium  Zachariae  in  uoce  angeli  adnuntiantis  emissum ',  and 
correspondingly  the  first  cap.  to  the  AHVY  summary  of  Mark 
has:  'Esaiae  testimonio  iohannes  angelus  id  est  nuntius  appella- 
tur  et  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  summaries  Eugipius  seems  to  have  com- 
posed  himself,  basing  them  on  the  liturgical  divisions,  and 
quoting  the  Prologues  in  them. 

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


CHAPTER  VI 

EUGIPIUS  AND  THE  GALLICAN  LITURGY 

§  i.  The  connexion  of  Eugipius  with  Lerins. 

EUGIPIUS  thus  opens  his  dedicatory  letter  to  Proba,  which 
he  prefixed  to  his  Treasury  of  Excerpts  from  St.  Augustine : 
*  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. 


EUGIPIUS  AND  THE  GALLICAN  LITURGY    97 

the  third  abbot  of  Condat  in  the  Jura,  who  died  between  510 
and  517.  The  contemporary  author  of  the  lives  of  the  first 
three  abbots  of  Condat  ends  his  life  of  the  last  of  them  by- 
referring  his  readers  to  another  book  he  has  written :  '  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 
Eugipius. 

ch.  v.g.  n 


98    EUGIPIUS  AND  THE  GALLICAN  LITURGY 

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

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

1  So  in  the  North,  the  Mont  S.  Michel,  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 ! 


EUGIPIUS  AND  THE  GALLICAN  LITURGY     99 

§  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. 


ioo   EUGIPIUS  AND  THE  GALLICAN  LITURGY 

Hieronymian  Martyrology  (i.  e.  Gaul,  seventh  century),  in 
the  Bobbio  and  Gothic  (Autun)  Missals,  and  in  the  Gelasian 
sacramentary.  Duchesne  has  remarked  that  it  may  have  been 
introduced  in  Gaul  no  earlier  than  the  seventh  century.  But 
now  we  find  it  at  Naples  in  the  sixth.  The  Beheading  of  the 
Baptist  is  in  the  Hieronymian  Martyrology  (c.  590-600),  and 
in  the  Luxeuil,  Bobbio,  Gothic  uses,  &c,  though  the  day 
seems  to  have  varied  on  which  it  was  kept  in  the  late  summer. 
Far  earlier  than  this  we  find  it  ordered  to  be  kept  with  a  Vigil 
by  Perpetuus,  bishop  of  Tours,  c.  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  Lerins2 — the  monastery 
whence  he  had  also  probably  taken  the  model  of  religious 
discipline  for  his  house.  To  verify  this  hypothesis  we  must 
search  through  the  Gospels  of  the  Neapolitan  lists.  We  will 
begin  with  the  two  feasts  just  mentioned. 

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

a.  For  the  Decollation  (38)  we  find  Matt,  xiv,  with  the 
Bobbio  Missal,  the  Luxueil  lectionary  (Paris  ?),  the  Liber 
Comicus  of  Toledo,  and  qz\  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. 


EUGIPIUS  AND  THE  GALLICAN  LITURGY  101 

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

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

6.  Ascension  Day  (121),  Luke  xxiv.  44;  Bede  (for  Bob, 
Comic,  (Lux),  Ambros,  q,  see  p.  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 


102   EUGIPIUS  AND  THE  GALLICAN  LITURGY 

Neapolitan  lists  are  based  upon  a  system  borrowed  from 
Gaul. 

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

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

The  date  of  the  introduction  of  this  liturgy  into  the 
monastery  of  Lucullanum  lies  between  the  first  arrival  of  the 
monks  in  the  island,  c.  492-6,  and  the  collation  by  Cassio- 
dorus  of  Eugipius's  codex  in  558.  The  use  may  have  begun 
with  the  beginning  of  the  monastery.  Probably,  however, 
it  will  have  been  commenced  by  Eugipius  himself  when  he 
became  abbot,  and  therefore  c.  510-35.1 

1  The  Old  Latin  codex  q  (Munich,  6224)  contains  some  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  : 


EUGIPIUS  AND  THE  GALLICAN  LITURGY   103 


§  3.  Neapolitan  additions  to  a  Gallican  lectionary. 

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

Let  us  first  take  numbers  150  and  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 


J- 


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. 

Bapt. 
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 
Freisingen. 


104  EUGIPIUS  AND  THE  GALLICAN  LITURGY 

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

Advent 
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. 


77 

Luke  iii.  I 

99 

„      xii.  32 

100* 

„     xii.  39 

3i 

Matt  xi.  2 

4 

„     iii.  1 

57* 

„     xxiv.  3 

72 

Luke  i.  26 

58* 

Matt.  xxiv.  23 

59* 

„     xxiv.  34 

[106  B*] 

Mark  xiii.  18] 

78 

Luke  iv.  14 

EUGIPIUS  AND  THE  GALLICAN  LITURGY   105 

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

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

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

This  is  precisely  the  ancient  Gallican  system  for  Advent. 
Among  the  fasts  regulated  by  Perpetuus,  bishop  of  Tours, 
c.  480,  we  find :  '  a  depositione  domni  Martini  usque  Natale 
Domini  terna  in  septimana  ieiunia ' ;  but  this  sentence  is 
absent  from  one  MS.  of  St.  Gregory  of  Tours  (Bk.  X.  31,  6) 
according  to  Ruinart,  so  that  it  cannot  quite  be  depended 
upon.  But  the  same  rule  is  given  (Monday,  Wednesday,  and 
Friday,  from  Martinmas)  by  a  synod  of  Tours  in  $6<$,  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. 


I 

Matt.  i.  18 

74 

Luke  ii.  1 

56 

Matt,  xxiii.  29 

122 

John  i.  i 

171* 

,,    xxi.  19 

3 

Matt.  ii.  13 

[116B]* 

Luke  ii.  13] 

75 

„    ii.  21 

128* 

John  iii.  16 

106   EUGIPIUS  AND  THE  GALLICAN  LITURGY 

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

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

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

[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. 


EUGIPIUS  AND  THE  GALLICAN  LITURGY  107 

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

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

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

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

The  other  asterisk  is  at  the  note  of  N  Post  octabas  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. 


Epiphany 

In  ieiunium  de  Stella  domini 

7 

Matt.  iv.  12 

In  stella  domini  nocte 

5 

„     i».  13 

„     „           ,,       ad  missa  publica 

2 

„     ii.  1 

Post  epiphania  dominica  i 

123* 

John  i.  29 

„           ,,              „         » 

124 

»    i.  35 

„           „              »         "i 

129 

„     iii.  22 

„           „              „         «ii 

76 

Lnke  ii.  42 

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


108   EUGIPIUS  AND  THE  GALLICAN  LITURGY 

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

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


Lent. 

First  Week 
In  XLgisima  paschae 

j>  >» 

De  XLgisima  feria  ii 


„     iiii  ) 


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


1111 
vi 


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


1111 


ab  his 


,1 


De  XLg.  post  iii  dom.  sabb.  mane  post 

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


36 

Matt.  xiii.  i 

110 

Luke  xvii.  1 1 

6 

Matt.  iv.  1 

11 

»     v.  17 

48* 

,,     xviii.  1 

130 

John  iv.  46 2 

23* 

Matt.  ix.  9 

43 

„     xv.  29 

127 

John  iii.  i 

12 

Matt.  v.  43? 

47 

„     xvii.  14 

H 

»     vi.  25 

52 

Matt.  xx.  1 

86 

Luke  vi.  41  ? 

112*? 

„    xviii.  9-10 

161*? 

John  xvi.  16? 

144 

„    ix.  1 

145* 

John  x.  11 

146*? 

„    x.  22  ? 

163*? 

„    xvi.  23 

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


EUGIPIUS  AND  THE  GALLICAN  LITURGY    109 

Fourth  Wkek 


Dnica  iiii  quando  orationem  accipiunt 

13 

Matt.  vi.  7 

Post  iiii  dnica  XLgis.  feria  ii 

138* 

John  vi.  55 

»             »             »'     *" 

137* 

»    vi.  51 

„            »     i"i 

136 

,,    vi.  36 

»»            «>            >»    " 

147* 

u     X.  30 

„             „          die  sabbati 

139* 

„    vii.  14 

Fifth  Week 

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

55 

Matt.  xxi.  33 

62 

„     xxv.  31 

Post  v  dnica  de  XLg.  feria  ii 

34 

„     xii.  38? 

»     i» 

140* 

John  vii.  32 

„            »            ,.     ii" 

142 

„    viii.  12 

j>            »            >»     T* 

148 

„    xi.  1 

,,             „          die  sabbati 

143 

„    viii.  31 

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

63 

Matt.  xxvi.  1 

Holy  Week 

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

150*? 

John  xi.  55  ? 

69* 

Mark  xiv.  1 

Feria  ii  de  ebdom.  maiorem 

151* 

John  xii.  1 

»    "i          „            ,, 

113 

Luke  xvni.  31 

,.    "ii         »i            » 

155* 

John  xiii.  33 

,,     v  mane  in  cena  domini  ad  missa.  \ 

Passio  d.  n.  I.  C.                              | 

116 

Luke  xxii.  1  ? 

Feria  v  in  ieiunium  de  cena  dSi              ' 

154 

John  xiii.  1 

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

166 

„    xviii.  1 

Sabbato  sco  mane     ) 
„        „    ad  sero  ) 

66 

Mark  vii.  32  1 

64 

Matt,  xxviii.  1 

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


no  EUGIPIUS  AND  THE  GALLICAN  LITURGY 

Rom,  &c.  But  there  exist  no  Quinquagesima  and  Sexa- 
gesima  in  Bob,  Lux,  Comic.1  So  far  as  I  know  it  is  only  in 
Gaul  that  we  hear  of  Quinqu.  and  Sex.  without  Sept.  The 
Codex  Fuldensis  has  this  peculiarity  it  is  true,  but  then  this 
will  be  one  among  the  many  proofs  to  be  given  in  the  next 
chapter  that  the  list  of  Pauline  pericopae  in  it  is  not  wholly 
Italian,  but  is  Gallican  in  origin.  The  contemporary  council 
of  Orleans  in  541  condemns  the  practice  of  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 
rebukes. 

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

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

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

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. 


EUGIPIUS  AND  THE  GALLICAN  LITURGY   in 

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

The  second  week  is  at  first  sight  untouched. 

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

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

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

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

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


ii2  EUGIPIUS  AND  THE  GALLICAN  LITURGY 

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

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

In  Holy  Week  several  asterisks  occur.  On  Palm  Sunday 
this  happens,  because  in  the  table  (above,  p.  109)  I  have  put 
the  commencement  of  the  Gospel  at  John  xi.  $$  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. 


EUGIPIUS  AND  THE  GALLICAN  LITURGY   113 


Naples. 
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. 


Burch. 
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 
dfli 


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. 


ii4  EUGIPIUS  AND  THE   GALLICAN  LITURGY 

Gallican,  for  the  same  Gospel  is  found  in  Lux,  q,  Bob,1  Comic, 
Ambros,  &c. 


Eastertide 

Dom.  sea  Pascha  ad  missa  publica 

65 

Matt,  xxviii.  16 

Secunda  feria  paschae 

167 

John  xx.  1 

Feria  iii  de  albas  paschae 

119 

Luke  xxiv.  13 

»    i"i        ii          » 

169 

John  xxi.  1 

»    v          >>         >> 

120 

Luke  xxiv.  36  ? 

»    vi         »         » 

7o* 

[Mark  xvi.  8] 

Die  sabbati  de  albas  paschae 

118 

Luke  xxiv.  1 

Dominico  octabo  paschae 

168* 

John  xx.  24 

Feria  ii  post  albas 

165 

„    xvii.  1 

[Post  albas  pascae  feria  iiii 

B245* 

„    xvii.  11] 

Post  albas  paschae  dom.  i 

158 

„     XV.  1 

n            »          >>      ■* 

156 

„    xiv.  1 

j>            >>          >>      m 

160* 

„    xvi.  5 

»            ii          »      ii" 

164* 

„    xvi.  23? 

»            »>          >>      v 

162 

„    xvi.  16 

In  ascensa  d.  n.  I.  C. 

121*? 

Luke  xxiv.  44 

Post  ascensa  Dni 

159 

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. 


EUGIPIUS  AND  THE  GALLICAN  LITURGY   115 

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. 

13 


n6  EUGIPIUS  AND  THE  GALLICAN  LITURGY 


Burch.  But  as  a  fact  it  certainly  does  not  belong  to  N  at  all, 
for  it  is  found  in  the  thoroughly  Roman  systems  of  Spires  and 
Rheinau  (p.  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 

prima 

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  his1  et  post  albas  pascae 

dominica  iiii 


John 

xiv. 

1 

xiv. 

15 

xiv. 

23 

XV. 

1 

XV. 

7 

XV. 

17 

XV. 

26 

xvi. 

5] 

242  Post  albas  pascae  iiii  dominica     xvi.  15 


243  Post  albas  pascae  v  dominica        xvi.  23 


It  is  evident  that  xv.  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. 


N. 

B. 

Post  albas  dom.  ii 

dom. 

V 

John  xiv.  1 

„     i 

>> 

i 

„    xv.  1 

„            „     iii 

>> 

iii 

„    xvi.  5 

„            »     v 

>» 

iiii 

„      „    16 

„            „     iiii 

11 

V 

,,      „    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 

156 

»>             >»      * 

158 

Post  ascensa  dHi 

159* 

Post  albas  dom.  iii 

160* 

>,            »      v 

162 

„             »     ii" 

164* 

EUGIPIUS  AND  THE  GALLICAN  LITURGY   117 

In  B  the  sequence  iii,  iiii,  v  is  suspicious,  and  there  is  no 
second  Sunday.     We  must  clearly  follow  N.     Thus  we  get  : 

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. 

Pentecost 
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. 


41* 

John  vii.  40 

57 

„    xiv.  15 

67* 

Mark  ix.  16 

24* 

Matt.  ix.  10 

83 

Luke  vi.  8 

n8   EUGIPIUS  AND  THE  GALLICAN  LITURGY 

erasure,  so  that  Dom  Morin  is  evidently  right  in  assuming 
that  he  had  at  first  written  Dominica  sanctat  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, 
qy  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  ,, 


152 
5i* 
44 
170 

105 
1 04* 
8 
134 


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 


EUGIPIUS  AND  THE  GALLICAN  LITURGY  119 


Bob  has  the  same  arrangement  as  Naples,  only  it  prefixes  two 
verses  from  St.  Mark  (i.  16-17)  on  June  29.1 

On  the  other  hand  the  Gospel  for  the  Vigil  is  Neapolitan. 
But  then  there  is  no  Vigil  of  SS.  Peter  and  Paul  in  Lux, 
Bob,  Goth,  Comic. 

Still  it  is  strictly  possible  that  the  Feast  of  the  Chair  was 
introduced  at  Naples,  and  that  in  the  Lerins  order  Matt.  xvi. 
13  was  the  Gospel  for  the  Vigil,  June  28,  as  in  Ambros.  But 
I  do  not  think  this  likely,  for  the  parallel  with  Bob  is  far  more 
important,  and  the  February  feast  is  so  prominent  in  Lux 
that  the  Sundays  are  counted  from  it. 

We  come  to  the  Commune  Sanctorum^  including  those  which 
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 

117*? 

„    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. 


iao  EUGIPIUS  AND  THE  GALLICAN  LITURGY 

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 
summary. 

Among  the  lessons  marked  •  Cottidiana '  some  have  to  be 
asterisked  :  possibly  some  others  coincide  only  by  chance 
with  the  summary.    For  (115)  see  above,  p.  112. 


Cottidiana    . 

. 

10 

.    Matt.  v.  13 

»>           • 

. 

15      . 

„    vii.  1 

>>           •        • 

.      17*     • 

„    vii.  28 

„        de  puerum  c 

enturionis 

.      18      . 

»>    viii.  5 

Item  alia 

. 

19      . 

i,    viii.  23 

Cottidiana    . 

. 

20 

„    viii.  28 

>>           •        • 

. 

21 

„    ix.  r 

„           . 

. 

22 

»    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 

a 

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.* 


EUGIPIUS  AND  THE  GALLICAN  LITURGY   121 


Cottidiana 

.       90       . 

.    Luke  viii.  16? 

»» 

91       . 

,,    viii.  40? 

)> 

93      • 

„    ix.47? 

>> 

95      • 

„    xi.  1? 

>i 

98      .        . 

„    xii.  13? 

» 

102 

,,    xiii.  10? 

>>            « 

103      . 

„    xiv.  1  ? 

>> 

107 

„      XV.  II 

»»            « 

108 

„    xvi.  1 

>>            ■ 

109*    . 

„    xvi.  19 

>>            • 

in 

„    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 


122  EUGIPIUS  AND  THE  GALLICAN  LITURGY 


Luke 

xxi.  25 

R 

Matt. 

xi.  2 

R 

John 

i-39] 

R 

Luke 

i.  19] 

R 

n 

iii.  1 

R 

.    Matt. 

i.  18 

R 

.    Luke 

ii.  15 

j» 

ii.  13 

» 

"•  33] 

R 

.    Matt. 

ii.  19 

R 

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  Alemannicaei  torn,  i,  p.  418.  We  shall  see  that  they 
often  show  a  close  agreement  with  Burch. 

The  single  Mass  of  N  for  Christmas  had  the  Roman  midnight 
lesson.  In  error  the  Roman  Mass  of  Aurora  has  been  added 
by  B,  and  called  nocte,  because  that  of  N  was  ad  missa  publica. 
One  of  N's  lessons  for  Epiphany  was  Roman,  but  the  Roman 
lesson  for  the  vigil  is  now  given.  It  was  pointed  out  (p.  106, 
above)  that  116  was  a  mere  slip  of  the  scribe,  119  being  the 
right  lesson.  No  Sundays  after  Epiphany  are  given,  none  of 
N's  being  omitted,  though  only  one  of  them  is  Roman. 


EUGIPIUS  AND  THE  GALLICAN  LITURGY   133 


68 

139 

178 

7 
88 

72 

201 

58 


216 
78 
69 

75 
172 

154 
123 
62 
52 
199 
214 

204 
195 


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 . 


In 


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 

„          „           „    viiadS.PetrumetMarcellinumLukexv.il  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. 


124   EUGIPIUS  AND  THE  GALLICAN  LITURGY 

[Passion  Sunday  wanting] 

212     In  LXXgisima  ebd.  vi  feria  ii  ad  S.  Crisogonum  .  .  John  vii.  32  R 

210     „  „  „       „     iii  ad  S.  Cyriacum  .  .        „     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. 


EUGIPIUS  AND  THE  GALLICAN  LITURGY   125 


108 
187 
188 

248 

91 
249 

250 

245 

196 


Easter 
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. 


232 

233 
197 
219 
207 
129 

196 

144 

171 
142 


Pentecost 
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 

R 

„  xiv.  23 

R 

„    iii.  16 

R 

„  x.  1 

R 

»    vu  43 

R 

Luke  v.  18 

R 

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 


RhS 

RhS 

RhS 
[Matt.  v.  17  RhS] 
[    „    xvi.  24  RhS] 


RhS 

[xxiv.  42  Rh,  not  in 

S] 

RhS 

RhS 

RhS 

RhS 

RhS 

[xii. 

24  R RhS] 

[xiv 

.  iRRhS] 
RhS 

[XV. 

1  RhS] 
RhS 

126  EUGIPIUS  AND  THE  GALLICAN  LITURGY 

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 
Palestine.' 

135    in  laetania  maior  ad  S.  Petrum  Luke  vi.  36 

J53  »  »»  ,}  ».    xi.  5  R 

51     et  in  octabas  apostolorum  Matt.  xiv.  22  RRh  S 

103    post        „  „  feriaiiii  Mark  x.  17  RhS 


EUGIPIUS  AND  THE  GALLICAN  LITURGY   127 

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. 


ia8   EUGIPIUS  AND  THE  GALLICAN  LITURGY 

It  is  far  more  likely  that  the  original  was,  like  that  of  the 
N  portion,  a  Roman  use  introduced  into  England  at  the  end 
of  the  seventh  century,  or  at  least  (as  Dom  Morin  says)  not 
many  years  later  than  700. 

But  the  same  use  seems  certainly  to  be  at  the  base  of  the 
two  lists  of  Rheinau  and  Spires.  Whether  they  are  really 
derived  or  not  from  some  system  introduced  by  St.  Boniface 
or  one  of  his  companions,  such  as  St.  Burchard,  at  least  they 
are  considerably  later  than  B.  They  give  Thursday  Masses 
all  through  Lent,  four  feasts  of  our  Lady  (Hypapante,  Annun- 
ciation, Pausatio  and  Nativity),  &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. 


EUGIPIUS  AND  THE  GALLICAN  LITURGY   129 

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. 


CHAPTER  VII 

THE    PAULINE   LECTIONARY    OF    THE    CODEX 
FULDENSIS 

§  I.  The  list  of  lessons  from  St.  Paul  in  F. 

Mention  has  already  been  made  of  the  list  of  lessons 
prefixed  to  the  Epistles  of  St.  Paul  in  the  Codex  Fuldensis. 
At  first  sight  it  has  little  resemblance  to  the  Neapolitan 
lectionary  of  Eugipius ;  but  a  more  minute  examination 
reveals  a  very  close  correspondence. 

Besides  the  list  there  are  usually  marginal  notes  and  crosses 
in  the  text  to  show  where  the  lessons  begin.  The  latter  have 
been  printed  over  against  the  corresponding  titles  of  the  list 
by  Dom  Germain  Morin  in  an  appendix  to  his  edition  of  the 
Liber  Comicus  (Anecd.  Mareds.,  vol.  i,  p.  436),  and  he  has 
added  the  incipits  and  explicits  of  the  lessons.  I  subjoin  an 
abridgement  of  his  table.1 

List.  Marginal  references. 

De  Adventu 

1  ad  romanos  sub  titulo  xviii  De  aduentu  Domini  Rom.  viii.  3-17 

2  „       „  ,,       „     xxxviii  „  „  „     xi.  25-36 

3  ,,  Galatas    „       „     xiii  De  aduentu  Domini  lectio    Gal.  iii.  15-26 

cotidiana 

4  ,,  thessall.  i  „       „     xxi  De  aduentu  Domini  1  Thess.  v.  14-23 

5  Pridie  natale  Domini  Pridie  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. 


PAULINE  LECTIONARY  OF  COD.  FULDENSIS  131 

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 
[xxxviiii] 

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. 
Then:— 

27  In  sexagesima  Lectio  in  Sexagesima         1  Tim.  iii.  16-iv.  8 

ad  timotheum  i  sub  titulo  viiii 

28  Cottidiana  Lectio  post  Sexagesima       1  Cor.  ix.  24-27 

ad  corintheos  i  sub  titulo  xlii 

29  In  quinquagesima  Lectio  in  Quinquagesima    Rom.xiv.io£-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 


132     THE  PAULINE   LECTIONARY  OF  THE 


39  IN    QUADRAGESIMA    DOMINICA 

mi 
ad  galatas  sub  titulo  iiii 

40  IN  QUADRAGESIMA  IEIUNIO  VII 

ad  thessall.  i  sub  titulo  xiii 

41  IN  QUADRAGESIMA  IEIUNIO  VIII 

ad  thessall.  ii  sub  titulo  vi 

42  IN  QUADRAGESIMA  DOMINICA  V 

ad  colossenses  sub  titulo  v 

43  IN      QUADRAGESIMA      IEIUNIO 

Villi 

ad  romanos  sub  titulo  1 

44  IN  QUADRAGESIMA  IEIUNIO  X 

ad  corintheos  ii  sub  titulo  vii 

45  Dominica   ante   octo   dies 

PASCHAE 
ad  corintheos  ii  sub  titulo  v l 

46  In  ebdoma  maiore 

ad  corintheos  ii  sub  titulo  xxv 
[xxvi] 

47  InsecundaferiaantePascha 

ebdoma  maiore 
ad  galatas  sub  titulo  vii  [viii] 

48  In  tertia  feria  ante  Pascha 

ad  galatas  sub  titulo  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 

52  IN   SEXTA   FERIA  ANTE  NOCTU 

MAGNA 
ad  philippenses  sub  titulo  v 

53  IN  NOCTU  SCA.  MANE 

ad  philippenses  sub  titulo  xiii 


54  IN  NOCTU  SCA.  NOCTU 

ad  corintheos  i  sub  titulo  xliiii 

55  In  scm.  Pascha 

ad  colossenses  sub  titulo  xi 

56  In  secunda  feria  paschae 

ad  romanos  sub  titulo  xv 

57  In  ter  feria  paschae 

ad  romanos  sub  titulo  xii 


Lectio  in  quadragesima     Gal.  i.  11-24 
dominica  iiii 

Lectio  in  quadragesima     1  Thess.  iv.  1-9 

ieiunio  vii 
Lectio  in  quadragesima     2  Thess.  iii.  4-16 

ieiunio  viii 
Lectio  in  quadragesima     Col.  ii.  4-10 

dominica  v 
Lectio  in  quadragesima    Rom.  xiv.   19-23 

ieiunio  viiii  {or  xv.  6) 

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 

mane 
Lectio  in  cena  domini  ad 

sero 

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 

sero 
Led.  in  sanctum  Pascha 

dominico 
Led.  in    secunda  feria 

Faschae 
Led.     in     tertia   feria 

Paschae 


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 


CODEX   FULDENSIS 


133 


58  In  quarta  feria  Paschae 

ad  ephesios  sub  titulo  iiii 

59  In  pascha  annotina 

ad  ephesios  sub  titulo  xiii 

60  In  natale  scorum  Petri  et 

Pauli 
ad  romanos  sub  titulo  xxxii 

61  In  ieiunium  sci.  laurenti 

ad  timotheum  ii  sub  titulo  xxiii 

62  In  natale  eodem 

ad  corintheos  ii  sub  titulo  xxii 

63  In  ieiunio  sci.  andreae 

ad  timotheum  ii  sub  titulo  v 

64  In  natale  sancti  andreae 

ad  corintheos  i  sub  titulo  vii 

65  De  martyribus 

ad  hebreos  sub  titulo  xii 

66  De  martyribus 

ad  hebraeos  sub  titulo  xii 

67  Demartyrisgeneralisfemi- 

NINI 
ad  corintheos  ii  sub  titulo  xxiii 

68  De  martyribus 

ad  hebreos  sub  titulo  xii 

69  De  martyribus 

ad  timotheum  ii  sub  titulo  ii 

70  De  martyribus 

ad  romanos  sub  titulo  xxi 

71  In  dedicatione 

ad  corintheos  i  sub  titulo  xi 

72  In  dedicatione 

ad  hebreos  sub  titulo  ii  [iii] 

73  In  dedicatione 

ad  ephesios  sub  titulo  vi 

74  De  natale  episcopi 

ad  hebreos 

75  De  ordination ibus 

ad  timotheum  i  sub  titulo  viii 

76  De   ordination  ibus    diaco- 

NORUM 

77  De  agendis 

ad  thessall.  i  sub  titulo  xvii 2 


Led.    in    quarta   feria  Eph.  ii.  4-10 

Pasche 

Led.   in  Pascha   anno-  Eph.  iv.  1-13 

tinum 

Led.    in    natale   sandi  Rom.  x.  1 1- 

Petri  et  Pauli 

Led.  in  ieiunio   sandi  2  Tim.  iv.  16-18 

Laurenti 

Ln  natale  sandi  Laurenti  2  Cor.  ix.  6-9 

Led.   in  ieiunio   sandi  2  Tim.  ii.  4-10  a  l 

Andreae 

[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 


134    THE   PAULINE   LECTIONARY   OF  THE 

I  find  the  following  agreements  with  the  Liber  Comicus  of 
Toledo,  the  Ambrosian,  Bobbio,  Luxeuil,  and  Roman  uses 
(*C,A,B,L,R): 

i.  De  adventu  B  65.  De  (plur.)  mart.  R  (Heb.  x.  32) 

2.      „      „      AC  66.        „        „        R  (Heb.  xi.  34-9) 

4.  „      ,,      C  67.  De  virgine  CR 

5.  Christmas  Eve  B  69.  (De  Sanctis)  C 

6.  „         Day  ABCLR  71.  Dedication  ACBL 
9.  Circumcision  C                                         73.  „  L 

11.  ,,  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. 


CODEX   FULDENSIS  135 

Epistle  for  Sexagesima  to  be  Roman  should  have  been  all 
about  St.  Paul,  for  at  Rome  this  was  his  feast.1  The  Pascha 
annotina  is  also  Gallican,  but  it  seems  to  have  been  cele- 
brated in  places  which  derived  their  liturgy  from  Rome. 

§  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. 


i$6    THE    PAULINE  LECTIONARY   OF  THE 

mentally  an  Old  Latin  text.1  Cassiodorus  may  well  be 
supposed  to  have  procured  a  better  text,  represented  by  A,  but 
to  have  preserved  the  text-divisions,  summaries,  and  intro- 
ductions of  Eugipius. 

3.  The  Gospel  codex  of  Eugipius  had  marginal  lectionary 
notes.  Cassiodorus's  scribe  copied  these ;  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. 


CODEX    FULDENSIS  137 

and  divisions  into  titles — he  thought  it  would  be  more  con- 
venient if  he  made  a  new  division,  with  a  new  and  more 
literary  series  of  summaries,  which  should  correspond  exactly 
to  the  liturgical  lessons.     He  subsequently  added  to  the  lists. 

In  F  the  old  summaries  of  St.  Paul  do  not  at  all  correspond 
to  the  incipits  and  explicits  of  the  lessons.  They  are  Old 
Latin  summaries  belonging  to  the  Old  Latin  text  they 
accompany.  Why  did  Eugipius  not  compose  new  ones  ? 
Clearly  because  he  had  no  venerable  codex  of  St.  Jerome's 
to  which  he  had  to  transfer  them ;  he  left  them  with  the  text 
with  which  he  found  them. 

5.  We  have  conjectured  that  Eugipius  got  his  lectionary 
from  Lerins.  Now  the  text  of  the  Pauline  Epistles  in  F  is 
precisely  the  sort  of  text  we  should  expect  him  to  get  from 
Lerins — an  Old  Latin  text,  corrected  according  to  the  Vulgate, 
in  Corssen's  opinion — of  just  the  same  character  as  the  Gospel 
texts  used  not  long  before  by  Faustus  of  Riez,  and  earlier  by 
Eucherius,  and  by  St.  Patrick,  all  monks  of  Lerins.1 

These  five  points  have,  I  think,  established  a  well-grounded 
a  priori  expectation  that  the  liturgical  list  of  .Epistles  in  F 
may  be  Eugipian.2 

§  3.  The  liturgical  notes  of  F  compared  with  those  of  Eugipius. 

The  preceding  a  priori  arguments  make  a  detailed  examina- 
tion necessary  with  regard  to  the  correspondence  of  F  with  the 
Naples  lectionary  (N). 

At  first  sight  I  confess  I  supposed  the  differences  to  be  very 
great.  A  detailed  examination  shows  the  resemblances  to  be 
very  remarkable. 

In  the  first  place  the  list  in  the  Codex  Fuldensis  is  a  com- 
plete one.  It  is  true  that  it  stops  abruptly  at  the  Wednesday 
after  Easter  and  the  Pascha  annotinum.  But  this  merely  means 
that  there  were  no  lessons  from  St.  Paul  from  then  till  Pentecost. 

1  The  reasons  for  this  statement  will  be  given  at  length  in  chapter  ix. 

2  It  may  be  worth  remarking  that  the  list  in  F  has  all  the  names  of  feasts 
rubricated :  '  Omnes  hae  inscriptiones  turn  minio  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. 


138    THE   PAULINE   LECTIONARY  OF  THE 

This  is  not  surprising.  The  list  has  given  far  more  lessons  from 
the  Apostle  in  Lent  than  are  found  in  Rom  and  Ambr,  as 
we  saw.  In  Easter  week  again  it  has  more.  All  this  time 
Comic  has  had  none,  but  has  used  only  the  Apocalypse  and 
the  Catholic  Epistles.  So  after  Easter  Lux  has  no  lessons 
from  St.  Paul  from  Easter  to  Pentecost  inclusively  ;  Comic 
has  only  a  lesson  from  Ephesians  on  the  Sunday  after  Ascen- 
sion, and  one  from  Corinthians  on  the  Vigil  of  Pentecost, 
all  the  other  days  having  Acts  or  Apocalypse  or  both.  Bob 
has  no  Pauline  lessons  for  Easter  or  Pentecost.  Ambr  has 
indeed  a  certain  number  of  lessons  from  St.  Paul  after  Easter, 
but  it  stands  alone  ;  for  in  the  Roman  use  there  are  no  lessons 
from  St.  Paul  from  Easter  Day  till  the  Saturday  after  Pentecost 
exclusively,  except  on  the  Vigil  of  the  Ascension,  a  day  not 
recognized  in  Eugipius's  Kalendar. 

1.  The  Capuan  list  is  therefore  perfect  so  far  as  St.  Paul  is 
concerned,  but  the  full  system  clearly  contained  no  provision 
for  Sundays  after  Pentecost ;  and  herein  is  the  first  agreement 
(and  a  noticeable  one)  with  the  Neapolitan  use.  The 
cottidianae  are  all  inserted  after  Epiphany. 

2.  Advent.  We  find  three  Sundays  and  one  lectio  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. 


CODEX  FULDENSIS  139 

The  first  of  January  is  called  the  Circumcision  (the  Gospel 
in  N  was  of  this  mystery),  but  also  as  in  N  *  octabas  domini '. 
Three  epistles  are  given  ;  but  all  may  have  been  read  at  one 
Mass  at  Naples. 

4.  Epiphany.  The  name  stella  domini  does  not  occur, 
but  Epifania,  a  name  N  also  employs.  We  find  as  in  N  a 
•vigil  and  more  than  one  Mass,  though  Christmas  had  only  one. 
In  Epifania  mane  corresponds  to  in  stilla  domini  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. 


X4o    THE   PAULINE   LECTIONARY   OF  THE 

The  first  three  ferias  have  lessons  from  St.  Paul.    The  rest  of 
the  week  was  doubtless  supplied  from  Acts. 

At  first  sight  Pascha  annotinum  (that  is  to  say  the  celebra- 
tion of  the  date  of  the  Easter  of  the  preceding  year)  seems  to 
be  wanting  in  N.  But  this  feast  naturally  fell  as  often  as  not 
in  Lent,  and  was  therefore  either  often  or  always  celebrated 
on  the  first  free  day,  viz.  the  Monday  after  Low  Sunday.1 
This  explains  the  otherwise  unaccountable  and  unique  entry 
in  N  :  ■  Feria  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  martyrisi  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 
Quasimodo. 

2  To-day  we  should  suggest  Wisdom  and  Ecclus.  ;  but  I  presume  that  Eugipius 
would  have  both  a  lesson  from  the  Old  Testament  and  one  from  the  Epistles,  Acts 
or  Apocalypse,  on  feast  days.  I  have  suggested  that  on  ferias  (and  ferias  only)  an 
Old  Testament  lesson  may  have  sufficed. 


CODEX   FULDENSIS  141 

be  for  deacons  ;  but  (76)  de  ordinationibus  diaconorum  seems 
to  have  an  Epistle  (1  Tim.  iv.  9-16)  meant  for  bishops — the 
two  references  have  perhaps  been  interchanged.  If  so  (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. 


142    THE   PAULINE  LECTIONARY   OF  THE 

Thus  it  seems  that  the  list  of  F  is  Eugipian,  and  that  it 
acknowledges  Eugipius's  Roman  additions.  Let  us  therefore 
note  that  we  found  in  F  four  Roman  epistles  which  were  not 
also  Gallican :  65  (R)  de  martyribus,  66  (R)  ditto,  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'. 


CODEX  FULDENSIS  143 

Cassiodorus.1  Further,  we  see  that  the  Prologues  to  the 
Gospels  in  A  are  all  probably  derived  from  the  Hieronymian 
Gospel  codex  of  Eugipius,  and  that  Eugipius  probably  had 
them  copied  into  that  codex  out  of  the  Gallican  codex 
to  which  the  liturgical  lists  originally  belonged.  But  the 
Plures  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. 


CHAPTER  VIII 

THE  CAPUAN  MASS-BOOKS  OF  NORTHUMBRIA 

§  i.  Capuan  Saints  in  English  books. 

THIS  chapter  will  have  nothing  whatever  to  do  with  the 
text  of  the  Vulgate,  except  negatively.  But  it  cannot  be 
omitted,  for  it  is  necessary  to  show  that  the  presence  of  South 
Italian  saints  in  certain  English  Martyrologies,Kalendars,  and 
Sacramentaries  has  no  real  connexion  with  the  Neapolitan 
liturgy  which  we  found  at  Jarrow  and  at  Wiirzburg.  Still, 
when  we  have  seen  that  these  saints  came  to  England  from 
Capua  and  not  from  Naples,  we  may  hazard  a  guess  that  they 
accompanied  the  Codex  of  Fulda  to  Northumbria,  if  that  book 
did  come  (as  I  think  it  did)  to  England. 

The  National  Library  at  Paris  contains  a  precious  volume 
in  which  St.  Willibrord's  Kalendar  and  his  Martyrology  are 
bound  together  (10837,  olim  Suppl.  lat.  1680).  Both  books 
were  brought  from  Northumbria  to  Echternach  by  St.  Willi- 
brord  himself.  The  Kalendar  has  never  been  published  in 
full.  The  Martyrology  has  been  carefully  edited  by  De  Rossi 
in  Acta  SS.,  November,  vol.  ii,  pp.  [i]-[i56]  (1894).  The 
Kalendar  was  written  in  Northumbria,  c.  702-6  ;  in  728  St. 
Willibrord  wrote  in  it  in  his  own  hand  the  record  of  his 
episcopal  consecration  at  Rome  in  695.  It  contains  many 
English  and  especially  Northumbrian  saints.  The  Martyrology 
was  written  later,  say  712,  by  a  scribe  named  Laurentius,  who 
wrote  three  diplomas  for  St.  Willibrord  in  the  years  704,  710, 
and  711,  and  also  signed  in  his  old  age  the  Gospels  of 
St.  Arnoul,  belonging  to  Prince  Oettingen-Wallerstein.1 

This  horribly  corrupt  but  deeply  interesting  book  is  not 
merely  the  oldest  MS.  of  the  so-called  Hieronymian  martyro- 

1  Duchesne  (Act.  SS.}  I.e.,  p.  [viii]),  Berger,  Vuigate,  p.  52. 


CAPUAN  MASS-BOOKS  OF  NORTHUMBRIA     145 

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 


146    CAPUAN  MASS-BOOKS  OF  NORTHUMBRIA 

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  Society1  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. 


CAPUAN  MASS-BOOKS  OF  NORTHUMBRIA    147 

August  18.  On  the  eighteenth  day  of  the  month  is  the  festival  of  the 
martyr  St.  Agapetus  in  Rome,  whose  service  can  be  found  by  him  who 
looks  for  it  in  the  later  sacramentary,  that  is  in  the  new  mass-book. 

August  19.  On  the  nineteenth  day  of  the  month  is  the  festival  of  the 
martyr  St.  Magnus,  whose  service  is  met  with  in  the  older  mass-books. 

AUGUST  27.  On  the  twenty-seventh  day  of  the  month  is  the  festival  of 
the  martyr  St.  Rufus,  whose  mass  is  found  in  the  older  mass-books. 

August  29.  On  the  same  day  is  the  festival  of  the  woman  St.  Sabina 
at  Rome,  whose  mass  is  found  in  the  later  books. 

September  i.  On  the  first  day  of  the  month  is  the  festival  of  the 
martyr  St.  Priscus,  whose  mass  is  to  be  found  in  the  older  mass-books. 

September  5.  On  the  fifth  day  of  the  month  is  the  festival  of  the  con- 
fessor of  God  St.  Quintus,  whose  mass  is  found  in  the  older  mass-books. 

September  7.  On  the  seventh  day  of  the  month  is  the  festival  of  the 
martyr  St.  Synotus,  whose  mass  is  found  in  the  older  mass-books. 

October  15.  On  the  fifteenth  day  of  the  month  is  the  festival  of  the 
martyr  St.  Lupulus,  whose  mass  is  found  in  the  older  mass-books. 

The  new  Mass-books  need  not  detain  us  ;  they  are  clearly 
Roman  sacramentaries.  The  saints  added  from  them  are 
Roman  :  St.  Sabina  of  the  Aventine,  and  St.  Agapetus  of 
Praeneste,  the  former  being  found  in  the  Gregorian  Sacra- 
mentary, the  latter  in  the  Gelasian  also.  St.  Nicomedes 
on  June  1  is  the  dedication  of  his  Church  in  Rome,  as  in  the 
Gregorian  Sacramentary,  and  the  Martyrologies,  Florus,  Ado, 
Romanum  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  % 


148     CAPUAN  MASS-BOOKS  OF  NORTHUMBRIA 

Latin  Way ;  the  five  remaining  saints  were  all  Capuan — Priscus, 
Rufus,  Quintus,  Synotus,  Lupulus.  We  shall  find  that 
precisely  these  five  saints  are  represented  in  the  ancient  apse 
of  the  Church  of  San  Prisco  in  old  Capua,  now  the  village 
of  S.  Maria  di  Capua,  at  a  short  distance  from  the  modern 
town.  These  mosaics  are  figured  in  Garrucci,  Storia  delV 
Arte  cristiana,  vol.  iv,  p.  64,  and  with  less  precision  in 
Michael  Monachus,  Sanctuarium  Capuanum  (1630),  p.  132. 
The  latter  drawing  is  reproduced  in  the  Acta  Sanctorum^ 
October,  vol.  vii,  pt.  1,  p.  7.1  Sixteen  figures  are  represented 
in  the  following  order  : 

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. 


CAPUAN  MASS-BOOKS  OF  NORTHUMBRIA     149 

As  to  the  seven  saints  in  detail : 

1.  St.  Priscus  is  given  by  M.  Monaco  as  two  persons,  one 
a  bishop  and  martyr,  the  other  a  bishop  and  confessor,  both 
September  1  ;  probably  groundlessly.  The  one  was  called 
the  first  bishop  of  Capua,  the  other  was  said  to  be  an  exiled 
African  bishop.  At  any  rate  the  body  of  one  at  least  was 
in  old  Capua  at  San  Prisco.  See  also  Acta  SS,,  September, 
vol.  i. 

2.  St.  Rufus,  August  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 


150    CAPUAN  MASS-BOOKS  OF  NORTHUMBRIA 

carefully  edited  by  De  Rossi  with  the  MSS.  of  Berne  and 
Weissenburg  in  parallel  columns.1  Where  these  three  agree 
we  are  in  the  presence  of  a  French  edition  of  the  Martyrology 
belonging  to  the  last  years  of  the  sixth  century.  Each  MS. 
has  additions  of  its  own.  Those  in  St.  Willibrord's  copy 
are  few — saints  from  the  North  of  England  and  from  the 
South  of  Italy,  all  evidently  added  in  Northumbria.  In  Mgr. 
Duchesne's  introduction  to  Comm.  De  Rossi's  edition  the 
Italian  additions  are  cited  as  follows  (op.  cit.,  p.  [ix]) : 

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 : 

Fabrateria 

I 
Casinum 

/Aecae 

I Caudium — Beneventum/ 

.Capua  \ 

Vulturnum/      /  \ 

/  Compsa 

Cumae  \ 

/  to  Brundisium 

Misenum 

It  should  be  noted  that  St.  Castrensis  was  venerated  at  Capua 
as  well  as  at  Vulturnum,  which  latter  place  was  in  the  diocese 
of  Capua  and  its  port  at  the  mouth  of  the  river  Vulturnus. 
St.  Sosius  of  Misenum  had  also  a  cultus  at  Capua,  and  we 

1  In  Acta  Sanctorum,  November,  vol.  ii,  pp.  [i]-[is6],  1894. 


CAPUAN  MASS-BOOKS  OF  NORTHUMBRIA     151 

saw  that  he  was  represented  in  the  apse  of  San  Prisco.  But 
there  is  only  a  single  coincidence  with  the  Capuan  saints 
of  the  *  older  Mass-books ',  and  this  is  St.  Magnus,  just  the 
only  one  of  these  who  is  not  represented  in  the  mosaics  and 
had  no  particular  connexion  with  Capua.  How  can  we 
connect  the  Echternach  saints  with  Capua,  since  none  of  the 
five  Capuan  saints  have  been  added?  The  answer  is  very 
simple.  They  could  not  be  added,  for  they  were  already 
in  the  Martyrology  when  it  was  brought  to  England.  In  fact 
Priscus,  Rufus,  Quintus,  Synotus,  are  all  found  on  their  proper 
days  in  all  copies  of  the  Martyrology  of  St.  Jerome.  St. 
Lupulus  is  in  all  but  the  Echternach  MS.,  where  he  is  omitted 
by  an  error  of  the  scribe,  who  has  been  even  more  careless 
and  incorrect  than  usual  just  about  that  place. 

Further  examination  shows  additional  evidence.  On  Sep- 
tember 1,  where  St.  Constantius  and  SS.  Felix  and  Donatus 
have  been  added,  St.  Priscus  has  been  placed  between  them, 
instead  of  occupying  the  less  prominent  position  he  holds  in 
Bern,  and  Wiss.  MSS.  Again,  on  August  27,  Rufus  has  been 
transferred  to  the  first  place  in  the  laterculus  for  that  day. 

Thus  the  connexion  of  the  Italian  additions  to  the  Echter- 
nach Martyrology  with  the  Capuan  saints  of  the  *  older  Mass- 
books  '  seems  to  be  most  probable.  It  will  be  made  practically 
certain  by  the  evidence  of  the  Echternach  Kalendar  that  the 
two  sets  of  saints  had  a  common  origin. 

§  4.  Capuan  Saints  in  the  Echternach  Kalendar. 

I  have  copied  the  following  saints  roughly  from  Dom 
Quentin's  MS.  transcript.  He  tells  me  that  the  various  hands 
in  the  original  are  difficult  to  distinguish  and  that  he  has  not 
as  yet  sufficiently  studied  them  (March,  1907);  but  he  has 
marked  nearly  all  the  following  notices  as  being  additions 
in  a  different  hand  or  different  hands : 

iii  id  Feb.  Castrensis  mar 

xiiij  kl  mar.  nat  scae  iulianae 

kl  iun.  ad  scm  priscum  et  scae  teclae  virg 

xv  kl  iul.  sci  nicandri  mar 

kl  sept,  sci  prisci  in  capua 

nonas  sept,  quinti  confes 


i5a    CAPUAN  MASS-BOOKS  OF  NORTHUMBRIA 

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). 


CAPUAN  MASS-BOOKS  OF  NORTHUMBRIA     153 


of  any  Capuan  saints  found  in  the  Capuan  apse  or  added 
in  the  Echternach  Kalendar,  except  only  SS.  Augustine  and 
Felicitas.  But  it  is  probable  that  the  Anglo-Saxon  compiler 
omitted  to  mention  these  two  because  he  identified  them  with 
St.  Augustine  of  Hippo  and  St.  Felicitas  of  Rome  or  of 
Carthage.  Perhaps  he  was  right.  But  Michele  Monaco  makes 
Augustine  a  bishop  of  Capua. 

Another  mosaic  from  San  Prisco  in  old  Capua  is  also  figured  in 
Garrucci  (plate  155),  and  by  M.  Monaco  in  the  Sanctuarium 
Capuanum.  In  the  lower  circle  of  a  dome  are  eight  pairs 
of  saints : 


1.  St.  Priscus. 

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. 


Echt. 

Echt. 

Mass- 

Apse 

Dome 

Mart. 

Kal. 

books. 

S.  Prisco 

S.Prisco 

Jan.     8 

Leucius 



Feb.  11 

Castrensis 



— 

Ej 

„    16 

Juliana 

— 

— 

June    1 

Priscus  (Dedic.) 

— 

»    17 

Nicander 

* 

— 

— 

July  20 

Severus 

— 

Aug.  19 

Magnus 

— 

— 

„    27 

Rufus 

* 

— 

— 

— 

Sept.   1 

Priscus 

Felix  and  Donatus 

Constantius 

* 

— 

»      3 

Vitalian 

— 

»      5 

Quintus 

* 

— 

— 

— 

»     7 

Synotus 

» 

— 

— 

— 

»    33 

Sosius 

— 

— 

* 

— 

— 

Oct.  15 

Lupulus 

[     ] 

— 

— 

— 

— 

»    30 

Maximus 

— 

Nov.    5 

Marcus 

— 

Dec.  16 

Augustine  and  Felicitas 

— 

— 

— 

— 

154    CAPUAN  MASS-BOOKS  OF  NORTHUMBRIA 

I  think  this  table  will  have  made  my  argument  clear  : 

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- 
books. 

4.  The  additional  saints  in  the  Echternach  Martyrology 
who  are  not  quoted  by  the  Anglo-Saxon  Martyrology  as  being 
in  the  Mass-books  presumably  come  from  the  Mass-books,  for 
(a)  we  need  not  invent  a  second  source,  (/?)  they  are  geo- 
graphically connected  with  Capua,  (y)  the  Kalendar  strengthens 
this  hypothesis  in  the  case  of  Castrensis,  Juliana,  Sosius, 
Augustine-Felicitas. 

5.  But  the  Mass-book  saints  of  the  Anglo-Saxon  Mar- 
tyrology were  those  who  had  special  Masses  provided,  as  that 
book  expressly  informs  us.  Those  added  in  the  Echternach 
Martyrology  were  presumably  found  in  the  Kalendar  at  the 
beginning  of  the  Mass-book,  for  the  place  is  given  with  each. 
This  would  always  be  so  in  a  Kalendar  and  never  in  the 
heading  of  a  special  Mass  in  a  Sacramentary.  An  ancient 
Sacramentary  had  regularly  a  Kalendar  at  the  commence- 
ment, though  it  has  frequently  been  lost,  owing  to  the 
destruction  of  the  first  pages. 

6.  Castrensis  and  Juliana  were  very  probably  in  the  lost 
pages  of  the  Anglo-Saxon  Martyrology.  Sosius  is  in  that  Mar- 
tyrology, and  was  pretty  certainly  in  the  Mass-books.  But  the 
Anglo-Saxon  martyrologist  happened  to  possess  a  life  of  him. 

§  5.    The  origin  of  the  '  older  Mass-books  \ 

The  citations  from  the  Anglo-Saxon  Martyrology  given 
above,  pp.  146-7,  lapse  from  August  27  onwards  into  a  stereo- 
typed formula :  '  On  such  a  day  is  the  festival  of  such  a 
saint,  whose  Mass  is  to  be  found  in  the  older  Mass-books.' 
August  19  had  the  same,  with  the  exception  of  '  service '  (i.  e. 
mxssesang)  instead  of  simply  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  sacramentoriumy  that  is  the  new  Mass- 


CAPUAN  MASS-BOOKS  OF  NORTHUMBRIA     155 

book '.  Again  '  two  Mass-songs  belong  to '  June  1  ;  the 
memory  of  St.  Nicander  '  is  to  be  celebrated  with  Mass- 
songs,  and  his  Mass  is  appointed  in  the  older  Mass-books '. 
The  Mass-song  of  St.  Agapetus  '  can  be  found  by  the  curious 
in  the  later  sacramentary  \ 

The  older  sacramentary  was  Capuan.  It  had  been  supple- 
mented or  (more  probably)  supplanted  lately  by  a  new  one 
from  Rome.  We  may  be  sure  that  the  new  book  was  really 
Roman,  because  it  calls  the  Praeneste  martyr  Agapetus 
' of  Rome  ',  that  is  to  say,  it  contains  his  feast  because  it  was 
kept  somewhere  in  Rome,  not  because  it  was  kept  at  Praeneste. 

The  Capuan  books,  besides  the  feasts  of  great  saints  whose 
lives  are  given  in  the  Martyrology,  contained  special  Masses 
for  the  eight  feasts,  i.  e.  five  Capuan  saints,  plus  the  dedica- 
tion of  St.  Priscus,  St.  Nicander  of  Venafrum  near  Capua, 
and  St.  Magnus  of  Fabrateria  (later  known  as  St.  Magnus 
of  Anagni).  Like  other  Sacramentaries  the  Capuan  book 
evidently  contained  a  Kalendar  at  the  beginning.  Besides 
the  saints  for  whom  special  Masses  are  provided,  the  Kalendar 
would  mention  the  feast  days  of  other  saints  well  known  at 
Capua,  and  venerated  in  neighbouring  cities.  Perhaps  their 
feasts  were  celebrated  with  lessons  de  communi.  (We  saw 
that  the  Gospel  system  of  Eugipius  provided  a  common 
of  apostles,  of  male  and  female  martyrs,  one  or  many,  in 
apostolorum,  in  martyrasy  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 


156     CAPUAN  MASS-BOOKS  OF  NORTHUMBRIA 

buried  at  Aecae,  may  be  of  the  same  date.  St.  Juliana  gives 
a  more  useful  clue,  if  I  was  justified  in  reading  Cumas  for 
Cumbas.  She  is  said  to  have  been  martyred  at  Nicomedia, 
and  translated  to  Puteoli.  She  was  again  translated  after 
568  (so  it  is  said)  to  Cumae,  and  at  length  in  1207  to  Naples. 
(See  Acta  Sanctorum,  February,  vol.  ii,  pp.  885-8.)  If  my  con- 
jecture is  correct  and  if  the  date  is  right  the  Mass-books 
are  later  than  568. 

St.  Constantius  gives  a  certain  terminus  a  quo.  The  day, 
Sept.  1,  shows  that  the  bishop  of  Aquino  twice  mentioned 
by  St.  Gregory  is  meant :  '  qui  nuper  praedecessoris  mei  tem- 
pore beatae  memoriae  Ioannis  Papae  defunctus  est '  {Dial.,  iii. 
8).  No  doubt  John  III  is  meant,  whose  reign  began  in  561. 
Constantius  was  bishop  already  before  the  death  of  St.  Bene- 
dict, c.  543  (ibid.,  ii.  16).  St.  Gregory  relates  that  Constantius 
prophesied  of  the  bishops  who  should  follow  him  : 

Post  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. 


CAPUAN  MASS-BOOKS  OF  NORTHUMBRIA     157 

However  this  may  be,  the  Mass-books  are  at  any  rate  later 
than  561,  and  probably  not  earlier  than  600.  But  they  are 
earlier  than  700,  for  the  Echternach  Kalendar  was  written 
before  706. 

We  could  have  no  temptation  to  connect  them  with  Eugipius 
or  Cassiodorus.  Nor  can  we  connect  them  with  Monte- 
cassino,  in  spite  of  the  twofold  mention  of  Casinum  ;  for 
the  monastery  was  in  ruins  till  the  eighth  century. 

How  did  they  get  to  England  ? 

§  6.    The  Capuan  Mass-books  and  the  Codex  of  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 
leader. 

"  Introduction  to  his  edition,  p.  xvi. 


158    CAPUAN  MASS-BOOKS  OF  NORTHUMBRIA 

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. 


CAPUAN  MASS-BOOKS  OF  NORTHUMBRIA     159 

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. 


160     CAPUAN  MASS-BOOKS  OF  NORTHUMBRIA 

had  their  home  in  Benet  Biscop's  double  monastery.1  The 
Capuan  Masses  were  probably  not  actually  used ;  but  the  rest 
of  the  book  would  give  an  ordinary  Italian  use  of  the  early 
seventh  century,  and  would  be  employed  at  Wearmouth  and 
Jarrow,  and  copied  for  other  monasteries. 

Such  a  Sacramentary  must  have  been  originally  the  property 
of  a  Church  at  Capua.  The  Codex  Fuldensis  also  probably 
was  bequeathed  by  St.  Victor  to  his  successors.  Both  books 
must  have  come  into  the  market  as  plunder.  There  is  no 
reason  to  suppose  two  different  occasions  upon  which  these 
books  were  looted  from  Capua,  nor  to  invent  two  different 
roads  by  which  they  came  to  England.  Neither  has  any 
connexion  with  the  South  of  England,  and  therefore  neither 
was  brought  by  St.  Hadrian.  And  as  a  fact  St.  Bede  never 
mentions  any  books  having  been  brought  to  England  by  that 
learned  man.  Had  the  Codex  Fuldensis  or  the  Gospels  of 
Eugipius  been  brought  to  the  North  by  Hadrian,  had  the 
Codex  Laudianus  been  the  property  of  Theodore  (as  Scrivener 
and  others  and  Wordsworth  have  thought)  and  lent  or  given 
to  Jarrow,  surely  Bede  would  have  said  something  about  the 
introduction  by  them  into  England  of  such  precious  volumes. 
But  according  to  Bede  it  was  the  Englishmen,  Benet  Biscop 
and  Ceolfrid,  who  imported  the  most  valuable  books  they 
could  find. 

I  am  rather  inclined  to  the  view  that  the  Laudianus  and 
the  Fuldensis  were  not  brought  to  Germany  by  St.  Boniface 
himself,  but  that  they  had  been  already  taken  there  by 
St.  Willibrord,  who  will  have  presented  them  to  St.  Boniface  ; 
for  St.  Willibrord  was  the  more  likely  of  the  two  to  receive 
handsome  presents  from  Jarrow  for  his  mission.  The  North- 
umbrian text  of  the  Gospels  of  Burchard,  Boniface's  dis- 
ciple, shows  indeed  a  connexion  with  the  North.  But  then 
no  one  knows  what  part  of  England  gave  birth  to  St. 
Burchard.     He  may  have  been  a  northerner. 

Our  general  conclusions  are  therefore  that  the  Capuan 
saints   in   the    Anglo-Saxon    Martyrology,    the   Echternach 

1  Another  possibility  is  evidently  that  St.  Wilfrid  brought  them  from  Italy,  and 
that  they  were  used  at  Hexham  or  Ripon. 


CAPUAN  MASS-BOOKS  OF  NORTHUMBRIA    161 

Martyrology,  and  the  Echternach  Kalendar  were  introduced 
into  them  from  certain  Sacramentaries  in  use  in  the  North  of 
England.  The  archetype  of  these  Mass-books  seems  to  have 
belonged  to  the  Church  of  San  Prisco  at  Capua,  c.  600-50.  It 
may  have  been  among  the  books  bought  in  Italy  by  St.  Benet 
Biscop.  As  the  Codex  Fuldensis,  like  the  Codex  Laudianus 
of  Acts  and  the  Gospels  of  St.  Burchard,  probably  came  to 
Germany  from  the  North  of  England,  it  is  probable  that  it 
was  plunder  obtained  from  Capua  at  the  same  time  as  the 
Sacramentary,  and  that  they  were  sold  together  to  an  English 
buyer. 


CHAPTER   IX 

THE  IRISH  TEXT  OF  THE  VULGATE  GOSPELS 

§  i.    The  Vulgate  and  St.  Patrick. 

It  seems  to  be  an  accepted  opinion  among  experts  that 
the  Vulgate  must  have  been  introduced  into  Ireland  later 
than  St.  Patrick's  time,  since  that  saint  used  an  Old  Latin 
version.  Whitley  Stokes  urges  in  proof  of  the  authenticity  of 
the  Confessio  and  of  the  letter  to  the  subjects  of  Coroticus 
the  quotations  in  both  documents  from  an  ante-Hieronymian 
Bible.1  Monsignor  Kaulen  showed  that  St.  Patrick  used  the 
Old  Latin  by  referring  to  his  citation  of  Isaiah  xxxiii.  4  ; 2 
and  indeed  it  seems  unquestionable  that  he  did  employ  the 
Old  Latin  in  the  Old  Testament. 

But  we  are  now  concerned  with  his  use  of  the  Gospels. 
The  following  table  is  compiled  from  Whitley  Stokes's  edition. 
The  MSS.  cited  are  from  Wordsworth  and  White's  Vulgate. 
I  will  remind  the  reader  that  the  principal  Irish  MSS.  are 
DLRQ  with  E3>*  and  3>m^,  while  the  Alcuinian  KEV  have 
also  apparently  much  Irish  blood  in  their  veins.  I  have 
added  the  readings  of  a  bfff2  gx  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. 


IRISH  TEXT  OF  THE  VULGATE  GOSPELS     163 

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, 
soT>.) 
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). 
J3«  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 andTfi1".) 

15.  p.  376.    Matt.  xvi.  19  :  '  Quos  ligarent  super  terram  ligatos  esse  et  in  celis.' 

+  et  ESP^OTOQRW  vg  b  gxf  (in  Matt,  xviii  all  have  alligaveritis 
and  et  in  caelo,  except  et  in  caelis  Ea^^Q/  and  in  caelo  affx  q). 
J6«  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). 
x7«  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 

ITOW 

Ea>*w 

QR 

*/* 

16.       „     xvi.  26 

R 

«   / 

9.       „     xxiv.  14 

DE 

»> 

ft 

7.      „    xxviii.  19 

DE 

LQR 

ab 

>> 

D 

R 

14.  [John  viii.  32 

<*] 

10.  Acts  xiii.  47 

© 

D 

".  [  n      ,, 

<t&~\ 

M  2 


164     IRISH  TEXT  OF  THE  VULGATE  GOSPELS 

The  important  point  to  notice  is  that  five  out  of  six  readings 
in  Matthew  are  supported  by  the  Old  Latin  ;  but  equally  five 
out  of  six  by  the  Irish  Vulgate  MSS.  On  this  meagre 
evidence  it  is  obviously  a  tenable  hypothesis  that  St.  Patrick 
used  an  Irish  Vulgate,  rather  than  an  Old  Latin  copy 
unaffected  by  the  Vulgate. 

§  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.' 


IRISH  TEXT  OF  THE  VULGATE  GOSPELS     165 

non  id  solum,  sed  etiam  usque  ad  Gallias  uisitare  fratres  et  ut 
uiderem  faciem  sanctorum  Domini  mei.'  One  would  naturally 
understand  fratres  to  mean  '  religious  brethren  ',  for  it  will  not 
mean  simply  *  friends ',  and  would  hardly  suggest  '  clerical 
brethren '.  And  who  were  the  '  saints  of  God  '  ?  Hardly  the 
holy  bishops  he  had  known,  such  as  Germanus  and  Lupus,  for 
he  will  have  been  aware  that  they  were  dead.  Surely  it  will 
mean  the  holy  monks  who  lived  to  God  in  their  tiny  island 
cut  off  from  the  world.1 

However  this  may  be — and  the  life  of  St.  Patrick  is 
altogether  vague  and  misty — at  least  his  text  of  the  Gospels 
would  in  all  probability  be  brought  by  him  either  from  the 
Lerinese  St.  Germanus  or  from  Lerins.  It  is  for  this  reason 
that,  on  noticing  the  similarities  of  his  citations  to  the  Irish 

1  Archbishop  Healy,  in  his  recent  Life  and  Writings  of  St.  Patrick,  is  inclined 
to  accept  the  various  traditions,  that  St.  Patrick  was  at  Marmoutier  under  St. 
Martin,  at  Lerins,  at  Aries,  and  with  St.  Germanus  at  Auxerre  (chapter  v).  At 
first  sight  it  looks  somewhat  as  if  legend  had  tried  to  bring  St.  Patrick  into 
relation  with  the  most  famous  persons  and  places  of  his  time.  But  on  the  other 
hand,  it  was  but  natural  for  a  fervent  religious  of  those  days  to  seek  instruction  both 
from  St.  Martin  and  from  St.  Honoratus,  and  the  local  tradition  about  St.  Patrick 
at  Tours  is  very  strong  (Healy,  p.  75  ;  cp.  Berger,  Vulgate,  p.  47). 

Professor  Bury's  argument  {Life  of  St.  Patrick,  1905,  pp.  347-8  and  336-8)  is 
drawn  from  the  statement  of  Muirchu  Maccu-Machtheni  that  St.  Patrick  was 
consecrated  bishop  after  the  death  of  Palladius  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. 


1 66     IRISH  TEXT  OF  THE  VULGATE  GOSPELS 

Vulgate,  I  turned  to  the  contemporary  writings  of  Lerinese 
monks  to  investigate  the  nature  of  the  Gospel  text  used 
by  them.  As  St.  Vincent  of  Lerins  wrote  his  Commonitorium 
two  years  after  St.  Patrick  went  to  Ireland,  it  was  natural 
to  take  him  first.  Unfortunately  he  scarcely  ever  quotes  the 
Gospels.  Mr.  White,  following  Kaulen,1  rightly  states  that 
Vincent  used  the  Vulgate,  but  the  very  scanty  evidence  shows 
that  he  used  a  very  impure  Hieronymian  text  of  the  Gospels. 
But  then  he  writes  half  a  century  after  the  publication  of 
St.  Jerome's  edition,  and  it  is  certain  that  the  great  types 
of  text  of  any  much  copied  work  arise  within  the  first  century 
(or  even  half  century)  of  its  existence.  This  is,  for  instance, 
conspicuously  true  of  the  Greek  text  of  the  New  Testament, 
of  St.  Cyprian's  writings,  and  (Abbot  Butler  once  told  me)  of 
Palladius.  There  are  only  two  Gospel  citations  in  the  Com- 
monitorium worth  mentioning  ;  and  the  evidence  is  less  clear 
in  that  the  editions  are  not  trustworthy.  These  two  texts  are 
cited  from  Migne  (vol.  50) : 

c.  xxv.  Matt.  vii.  15 :  '  Attendite  uobis  a  pseudoprophetis, 
qui  ueniunt  ad  uos  in  uestitu  ouium,  ab  intus  autem  sunt  lupi 
rapaces  ;  ex  fructibus  eorum  cognoscetis  eos.' 

+  nobis  DS^LQR  b  g±  pseudo  proph.  {for  falsis  proph.)  solus 

uestitu  {for  uestimentis)  a  bfgx 

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 
tuum.' 

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. 


IRISH  TEXT  OF  THE  VULGATE  GOSPELS     167 

The  first  text  might  be  simply  from  the  Old  Latin ; 
uestitu  and  ab  intus  are  only  Old  Latin,  ex  is  only  Irish, 
whereas  nobis  has  the  whole  Irish  contingent  for  it  and  two 
Old  Latin. 

The  second  citation  is  more  important.  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  gx  q  wherever  Wordsworth  omits  it,  a  b  ffx  from 
Bianchini,/  from  Wordsworth,  ff2  gx  q  from  Old  Latin  Biblical 
Texts,  parts  i  and  iii.  I  have  not  troubled  to  give  the  arbi- 
trary c  or  d  or  the  African  e  k.  The  sermons  are  mainly  by 
Caesarius,  but  embody  fragments  of  Faustus. 


168     IRISH  TEXT  OF  THE  VULGATE  GOSPELS 

St.  Matthew. 

Work  Page  and  Chapter 

cited.  line.  and  verse. 

i  Ep.  7  2026  i.  23  concipiet  E  (as  in  Isaiah)  [in  utero  con- 

cipiet  a  b  ffx  g{] 

2  Ep.  5  1 87*  iii.  12  in  horreum  suum  BTX*Z*^i  gx 

3  Serm.  11     263"  v.    5  lugent  +  nunc  DE^LRY^ 

but  Serm.  16,/.  28618  nunc  is  omitted 

4  Gra.  i.  4        1915  v.  16  bona  opera  uestra  D  (Gra.  i.  4) 

Serm.  17     289  but  opera  uestra  bona  EitPLOQTW  vg 

a  bfg\  <1  (Serm.  17) 
omnibus  hominibus  solus  \    est  in  caelis 
BFH0Y 

Serm.  3       2351  v.  23-4         i°  offers  (or  offeris  cod.  D)  Faustus:  offers 

H°VW  vgfffix,  offeris  Da>R^ 
20  offeres  (offeris  cod.  D)  Faustus :  offeres 
DEH0KNTO^QCT  VW  Yvg  cdh,  offeris 
Q*R.  reconciliari  (but  -are  cod.  D  of 
Faustus  «  Wordsw.  et  codd.pl.)  3*FHC 
0ORW 

5  Serm.  17     2914  vi.    4  absconso  B*DJLMQR  a  bfgx  q 

2  26'  vi.  1 2  (demitte  cod.  D  =  BFHKNTO* V Y  2  26  and 

3o8,a»</demittimus  in  308  =  BCOTLO* 
VXZ2)  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  bfgx  q 

but  has  et  23411 

dimittet  +  nobis  DES^LQR W  *^  0  bf 
ff\  g\  1'    debita  (for  peccata)  solus 

+  ab  (before  hominibus)  E3?mo 

ergo  DEQR  a  bfgx  (for  autem) 

praestabuntur  D  b  gx 

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  bgxq  (  +  bona  ita  3Pmg 

LRW) 

1 3  illis  DE3?KM,ORVWX*Z  vg  a  bfffx  gx  q 

(eis  ceteri) 
+  similiter  solus 

14  Ep.  5    •      1923*  vii.  22-3        in  nomine  tuo/*r  AY  ^(fojDTX*^^!?) 

15  Sp.S.ii.4    141*  viii.  20  nidos  ACH0KMNTVWXcY  gx  vg  Hier 

[EFJRQT  abchq  (ffx)  add  ubi  requie- 
scant  (-cent)] 

16  +  suum  E3>QT  a  b  gx  (but  not  Ep.  7, 

/.  204a) 

17  Gra.  i.  9      27"  ix.  1 2-1 3       sanis  BHX*  ab  gxq  qui  male  habent  solus 


6  Serm.  24 

3209 

vi.  14 

7 

Serm.  3 
8  Serm.  3 

23411 
23418 

vi.  14 
vi.  15 

9  Serm.  17 
10  Serm.  17 
11 

Serm.  6 

290* 
291s5 

vi.  17-18 
vi.  33 

M52* 

vii.    3 

IRISH  TEXT  OF  THE  VULGATE  GOSPELS     169 


Work 
cited. 

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 

31 

32  Serm.  5 

33  Serm.  12 

34 

35  Serm.  25 

36 

37 
38 


39  Serm.  16     28823 


Page  and 
line. 
273s 

274* 

1 99" 
6910 

294" 

4320 

682 

6930 

7023 
270" 
3041 
I9919 

29s 
267s 

175 
270" 

579 

24313 
27117 

325iandS 


Chapter 
and  verse. 
ix.  12-13 

x.  19 

xi.  12 

xii-  43-5 


xm.  12 

» 
xiii.  15 

a 
xiii.  43 

» 
xvi.  24 

xvi.  27  I 

a       » 

xvii.  21 
xxii.  30 

xxiii.  37 

xxv. 


'•34) 


Sp.  S.  i.  8 
Sp.S.ii.4 


114" 
1388 


xxv.  35.  43 

»    4°»45 
»    4i 


xxvi.  41 

xxviii.  19 


+  ad  paenitentiam  H0Q  gx 
om  dabitur  .  .  .  loquamini  QZ*  gx.  prae- 

meditari  solus 
diriphmt  B3>OTGTVXZ  abcdg^hkl 
perambulate  {but  ambulat,  29412) 
inueniet  CT  b  ff2   inuenietis)  but    2941'2 

quaerit  (solus)  et  non  invenit 
illi  ~Dffx.     superabundauit  solus 
etiam  {/or  et)  E 
clauserunt  {for  clus.)  plures 
ne  forte  solus 
eorum  {for  sui)  BCDEa^HejKOTQ 

RTVWvgabtf1>2lq 
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  gx  {Bianch. ,  but 

sunt  Wordsw.  0.  L.  Texts,  i.p.  35) 
sicxxt  for  quemadmodum  DE  a 
alas  +  suas  DE5PH0LQT  abg1q 
percipite  Cyprian 

regnum  quod  uobis  paratum  est  DR  Cypr 
ab  origine  (2721,  not  2431S)  DER  c  d ffx  5 
{bis)  fui  ( for  eram)  Cypr 
suscepistis  {for  collegistis)  solus 
ex  minimis  istis^  ado 
paratus  {for  praepar.)  BCDE0JO*WZ* 

«5T/ 

ne  {for  ut  non)  LR  {see  on  Mark  xiv.  38 

below) 
ite  baptizate  solus  {but  Serm.  31,  346" 

euntes  baptizate) 


St.  Mark. 

40  Gr.  i.  16       52s  ix.  24  credo    +  domine   BFHC0IOTOQTVW 

XZvga  b  cf{q)  8  aur 

41  Sp. S.  i.  7     in28  xiii.  1 1  uos  estis  {for  e.  u.)  D^MTITW  aff%  vg 

42  Gr.  i.  3         172  xiv.  38  ne  af  (ut  ne  S^L)  for  ut  non  {cp.  on 

Matt.  xxvi.  41  above) 


St.  Luke. 

EP«  3  I78IS  *•  l9  dominum  {for  deum)  cod.  S  of  Faustus, 

with  DG  bf2 
Serm.  2       228*  i.  35  obumbrauit  <:<*/.  D  of  Faustus  D*GO*  b 


Work     Page  and 
cited.          line. 

Chapter 
and  verse. 

43  Ep.  7 

44  Serm.  2 

45  Sp.S.ii.7 

2028 
33Iu 

1481 

i-  35 
i.38 
i.  68 

46  Serm.  25 

47  Sp.S.ii.7 

48  Sp. S.i.8 

334* 
1 48s 

"51 

ii.  14 
ii.  26 
Hi.  22 

49  Serm.  4 

338" 

vi.  37 

50  Gra.  i.  8 

51  Gra.  i.  9 

52  Sp.  S.i.8 
53SP.S.i.7 

25" 

38a« 

113" 

II21 

ix.  33 

ix.  24 

xi.  20 

xii.  11 

54 

55  Ep.  5 

I881 

xii.  12 
xvi.  28 

56  Gra.  i.  16 

51* 

xviii.  1 2 

170     IRISH  TEXT  OF  THE  VULGATE  GOSPELS 


+  ex  te  BDGH0MKTOCPTCW  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  aff2  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) 
+  eS°  cffi  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)  FKQRYXZ3  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  aff2mr  aur 

intrare  {for  introire)  Bar 

de  caelo  descendit  DCEHZ*  vett  (ex  c.) 

ne  quid  tibi  detenus  E  a  b  {d)  e  f  Jf%  I  q  r 
Iren  Cypr 

{but  6819  ne  deterius  tibi  aliquid  as  Vulg.) 

iam  sanus  {bis)  solus 

+  quam  ego  dabofq  5 

ex  discipulis  a  bfq 

cum  illo  non  £F  dfff2  q  aur 

autem  b  d;  {om  simon  solus) 

credimus  CDEFGJKORTVWY*Z°  ceff2lrh 
aur  Tert  Cypr 

+  ego  sum  solus  {not  in  170s1) 

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.  6718  as  Vulg.) 

obdurauit  {bis)  solus ;  (  +  Jesus  {bis)  solus) 

credite  {for  creditis)  DE  vett  {exc.f)  Aug 


57  Serm.  7 

3505 

ii.    1 

58 

59 

3518 

ii.  10 

60 

61 

62  Sp.S.  ii.  4 

I4415 

iii.    5 

63     m    ii  -  7 

I49u 

» 

64  Sp.S.ii.4 

1406 

iii.  13 

65  Serm.  18 

29519 

v.  14 

Gra.  ii.  5 

68w 

66  Gra.  i.  16 

5010 

vi.  51 

67  Gra.  i.  16 

53" 

vi.  66 

68 

69 

68 

70 

69 

Sp.  S.  ii.  4 

106" 

viii.  25 

71  Ep.  3 

170'1 

72  Serm.  26 

33o5 

x.  38 

Serm.  15 

2848 

xii.  35 

73Sp.S.i.7 

11235 

xii.  40 

Gra.  ii.  5 

6718 

74Sp.S.i.2 

1059 

xiv.    1 

cited. 

line. 

and  verse. 

75Sp.S.i.6 

109" 

xiv.    9) 
>>       » 

Serm.  30 

343 

76Sp.S-i.10 

1209 

xiv.  17 

77  Serm.  10 

26la 

xvi.  20 

78 

79  Serm.  10 

2611 

xvi.  33  j 

Serm.  13 

274s 

80  Sp.S.  i.  9 

116 

XX.  22  ) 

81  Serm.  31 

34510 

IRISH  TEXT  OF  THE  VULGATE  GOSPELS     171 

Work     Page  and        Chapter 

uidet  {for  uidit  bis)  B?DEJKTRW  vg  I  Tert 

Irenl 
+  hie  {before  mundus)  vett pi 
tristes  eritis  {for  contristabimini)  Gab  efq  r 
conuertetur  G$T*R  a  b  r 
+  hoc  (before  mundo)  b  cfff2 

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   41 

T;      O       X;     A     F    H      Y,      0.        a         b        f     ffx       g1         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 


172     IRISH  TEXT  OF  THE  VULGATE  GOSPELS 

that  of  Faustus  was  founded  was  clearly  '  European '  {a  bff2gx  q), 
though  mixed  with  '  Italian  '  elements  (/).  This  again  agrees 
with  the  scanty  evidence  from  Vincent  {a,  b,gx  each  thrice,/^ 
each  once) ;  (Patrick  a  bf  each  twice,  gx  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 

CT;OX;AFHY;         0. 
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. 

abcdefff^qrZ 
9.8    4.2     8.7     2.2     4.3     5.4      8.7      6.4     5.3     3.3 

Now  that  gx  1  has  disappeared  a  takes  the  lead. 

When  we  turn  to  St.  John  everything  changes.  Every  single 
text  has  an  Old  Latin  witness.  Nine  out  of  twenty-five  have 
no  other  witness.  D  and  R  still  take  a  prominent  place,  but  evi- 
dently on  account  of  the  large  Old  Latin  element  they  contain. 
One  cannot  venture  on  this  evidence  to  say  that  Faustus  used 

1  This  MS.  everywhere  but  in  Matthew  is  Vulgate  and  called  G. 


IRISH  TEXT  OF  THE  VULGATE  GOSPELS     173 

simply  an  Old  Latin  text  of  St.  John.  But  one  must  at  least 
affirm  that  it  was  more  full  of  Old  Latin  elements  than  was 
his  text  of  the  Synoptists.  The  Old  Latin  elements  are 
slightly  more  Italian  and  less  European  than  before  : 


D     E    2P    a*"? 

Q 

R; 

B     W    G      Z;      K      KT    V; 

J       M 

6.5  8.6   0       1.1 

2 

6.3; 

I.I     I.I  4.2    I.I  ;      2.1      2.1    I.I  ; 

2.2    1.1 

C      T       0  ;    O 

X; 

A 

F 

H     S    Y 

3.3    3.2    2.2;    1 

1  ; 

0 

1.1 

2.2    0    2.1 

a           be 

d 

e 

/ 

fft         i       I       m        q          r 

5        aur 

12.6     11.5     5.3 

5-4 

9.4 

10.7 

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       i4ls  iii.    9       potensest(/^potest)BEHc0JKM,WX*(V*)a3//i^z/<g' 

10718  iii.  11        see  Luke  iii.  16. 

1 520  iii.  1 2         \Codex  S  of  Eucherius  omits  suum  and  reads  in  horreo 

suo ;  compare  in  horreum  suum  Faustus  BTX*Z*  ffx  g{\ 
45ia  v.  15        nemo  accendit  solus  {free) 


174    IRISH  TEXT  OF  THE  VULGATE  GOSPELS 


Page  and 
line. 

Chapter 
and  verse. 

2 

45* 
46» 

v.  16 

vii.    5 

3 

up18 

vii.  24-5 

4 

5 

13 


341 


39a 

1082 


via.  22 


xi.  21 
xi.  30 


6    61* and21    xiii.    8 


xiii.  38 


278 

XXI. 

7 

8 

I2911 

xxii. 

30 

9 

351 

xxiii. 

27 

0 

2418 

xxiii. 

37 

1 

2 

io9a 

xxiv. 

20 

22W 

xxiv. 

28 

I20l» 

XXV. 

i-3 

456 

xxv.    7 

16 

5°'7 

xxv.  33 

17 

io912 

xx vi.  29 

18 

10918 

xxvi.  64 

6f 

xxviii.  19 

19 

40") 
12110) 

i.  15 

145 

iii.    4 

20 

io7w 

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  gx 

super  i°  DH^LQRZ*  (a*  Euch.  has  supra  with  Vulg.) 

aduenerunt  {for  uenerunt)  a  b  gxq 

om  flauerunt  uenti  solus 

sine  mortui  sepeliant  a  (rewitte  mortuos  sine  mortui 

sepeliant)  q  (sine  mortuos  sepelire)  for  dimitte  m. 

sepelire 
cinere  et  cilicio  {for  cin.  et  cil.)  solus 
lene  {for  suaue)  solus 
dabunt  {for  dabant)  bis  EQ  gx  k  q 
[centensimum,  spelt  so  EZ*b  ;  sexagens.  bis  CE3PZ*  b  q  ; 

tricens.  C3>FZ*  *] 
+  hie  {before  mundus)  DEjF^QR  a  bfgx  q  {Eucherius 

has  est  hie  mundus  with  D3m?  Q  a  bfgx  q ;  om  est 

R ;  hie  m.  est  E) 
+  eius  {after  pullum)  BEHa0 
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  gxq  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  {butffx  has  in  uasis  after 

secum,  continuing  prudentes  .  .  .  oleum  secum) 
+  suis  {after  lampadibus  20)  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>GH0IJKKTOaQRTVWZ  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) 


IRISH  TEXT  OF  THE  VULGATE  GOSPELS     175 

Page  and      Chapter 
line.        and  verse. 

21  6il»  iv.  1-2      in  deserto  {for  in  desertum)  C^GHGINTOTXZ  a  b 

dffi  <lr*  aur 
46s  v.    4        mitte  {for  laxate,  al.  laxa,  d  mittite)  solus 

om  uestra  solus 

22  331*  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  304  x.  19        super  {for  supra)  CEGPQR  a  c  d  efi  q 

24  1 2 1 IB  x.  30        suscipiens  D3PHOPQY  a  dff2  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  a2  bfff2  i  qrl  cor  uat 
41 l7             xii.  33        ueterascant  {for  -cunt)  solus 

29  458  xii.  35        accincti  c 

30  12211  xv.  11-13   iunior  c  e  {for  adulescentior) 

31  om  ex  illis  patri  e  (illi  c) ;  the  rest  is  free 

32  4713  xv.  22  manu  (/?;- manum,  and  so  one  cod.ofEuch.)  EFCEG0M 
MTW  a  b  cfilqraur 

33  33M  xvi.  20        pauper  {for  mendicus)  vett pi 

34  1 1 311  xvi.  23         uidit  {for  uidebat)  anE^G©IOTOVWZ  vgbfiql 

35  de  longe  {for  al.)E«r 

St.  John. 

36  2318  i.  32  sicut  {for  quasi)  (E)QR  (a  b  e  r)  but  E  a  b  e  r  have 
the  order  sicut  col.  desc,  while  Euch.  QR  have  Vulg. 
order) 

quia  {for  qui)  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  HierK 
fuerunt  {for  sunt)  jo/kj 
cor  eorum  {for  eor.  cor)  Mtf  (£#/  not  p.  85s3) 
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. 


88" 

iii.  18 

»4» 

iii.  34 

37 

4X« 

iv.  34 

1158 

vii.    8 

38 

11526 

vii.  30 

13810 

viii.  18 

39 

40 

11610 

viii.  44 

I330 

ix.  11 

4i 

5«6 

x.    8 

86a 

xii.  40 

43 

13814 

xv.  26 

43 

44 

i37M 

xix.  35 

45 

I3428 

xx.  23 

1 76     IRISH  TEXT  OF  THE  VULGATE  GOSPELS 

It  is  always  possible  that  Eucherius  may  have  had  an  Old 
Latin  copy  of  the  Gospels  almost  by  heart,  while  he  sometimes 
referred  to  a  Vulgate  copy  before  him.  But  it  seems  more 
likely  that,  like  Faustus,  he  used  an  Old  Latin  copy  largely 
corrected  to  the  Vulgate ;  for  the  general  testimony  of  the 
table  is  closely  parallel  to  what  we  learned  about  Faustus. 

Out  of  forty-six  readings,  thirty-seven  are  Old  Latin, 
thirty  are  Irish.  In  twenty-three  cases  (exactly  half)  the  Old 
Latin  and  Irish  coincide : 

Old  Latin  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  gx    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  gx  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, 


IRISH  TEXT  OF  THE  VULGATE  GOSPELS     177 

whose  Matthew  text  seemed  to  be  more  European,  and  his 
John  text  less  Irish,  and  indeed  hardly  Vulgate  at  all.  We 
should  expect  some  considerable  difference  between  the  codices 
used  by  the  two  Lerinese  monks,  whether  we  regard  them  as 
two  Gallic  texts  or  even  as  two  books  copied  at  Lerins.  But 
the  general  witness  is  certainly  practically  the  same,  and  the 
important  point  is  that  it  harmonizes  perfectly  with  the  scantier 
witness  from  St.  Vincent  of  Lerins  and  from  St.  Patrick. 

The  passages  where  Faustus  and  Eucherius  meet  are  few ;  see 
Matt.  iii.  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 


178    IRISH  TEXT  OF  THE  VULGATE  GOSPELS 

these  writers  show  no  affinities  whatever  in  their  text  with 
any  other  Vulgate  families  than  the  Irish. 

3.  St.  Patrick,  probably  a  monk  of  Lerins,  shows  in  his 
writings  just  the  same  phenomena  which  we  have  observed 
in  Vincent,  Faustus,  and  Eucherius.  His  relationship  to  the 
Irish  text  is  naturally  explained  by  the  supposition  that  he 
introduced  that  text  into  Ireland  in  43a. 

The  evidence  is  in  itself  by  no  means  conclusive ;  but  the 
solution  to  which  it  points  is  one  so  obvious  and  expected 
that  the  uncertainty  of  the  evidence  is  of  less  moment.  The 
independent  and  ancient  character  of  the  Irish  text  is  strongly 
in  favour  of  this  hypothesis,  which  isolates  it  already  at  the 
beginning  of  the  fifth  century.  We  shall  find  a  still  stronger 
confirmation  when  in  chapter  xv,  p.  279  we  consider  the  Irish 
text  of  the  Prologues  to  the  Gospels,  a  text  which  alone  of  all 
others  has  preserved  the  original  readings,  whereas  all  the 
remaining  families,  Northumbrian,  Canterbury,  Spanish,  &c, 
exhibit  varieties  of  a  single  later  recension  of  the  Prologues. 

Further,  we  have  seen  that  a  thoroughly  corrupt  Vulgate 
text  can  hardly  be  presumed  at  Lerins  so  early  as  410-30  ;  the 
mixed  text  of  Eucherius  and  Faustus  is  surely  an  Old  Latin 
text  corrected  to  the  Vulgate,  not  a  Vulgate  text  corrupted 
by  the  Old  Latin.  And  this  is  in  itself  a  natural  presumption. 
St.  Jerome  made  no  new  translation  of  the  Gospels,  but  a 
revision  only.  The  Old  Latin  copies  in  use  would  be  simply 
corrected  according  to  his  revision.  The  Lerins  text  (or  shall 
we  say  the  text  of  South  Gaul  ? — I  think  not)  was  systemati- 
cally but  not  thoroughly  corrected.  It  seems  that  in  Faustus's 
copy  the  corrector  grew  lazy  when  he  arrived  at  the  fourth 
Gospel. 

St.  Patrick's  copy  may  have  been  rather  better  corrected 
(unless  we  prefer  to  think  that  Faustus  and  Eucherius  had  the 
Old  Latin  in  their  memories);  but  anyhow  the  Irish  MSS. 
which  we  possess  to-day  have  received  fresh  revision  according 
to  the  Vulgate  (and  even  according  to  the  Greek)  in  varying 
measure.  In  consequence  of  this  they  exhibit  fewer  Old  Latin 
readings  than  we  found  in  Eucherius  and  Faustus ;  and 
whereas  some  of  the  readings  of  those  Fathers  are  found  in  all 


IRISH  TEXT  OF  THE  VULGATE  GOSPELS     179 

our  Irish  witnesses,  there  are  others  which  have  survived  in 
only  one  or  two  of  them.  Let  us  remember  that  the  oldest 
of  our  Irish  MSS.  are  nearly  three  hundred  years  younger 
than  St.  Patrick's  mission  ;  L  and  Q  are  seventh  to  eighth 
century,  D1  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  cffi  g\  (Matt.)  g2  (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  ff2g  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 


t8o     IRISH  TEXT  OF  THE  VULGATE  GOSPELS 

Vulgate  Gospels  as  used  at  Lerins  may  suggest  further  connexions.  I  hazard 
one  suggestion.  The  Irish  tradition  with  regard  to  the  authorship  of  the  Te 
Deum  by  Niceta  may  have  come  from  Lerins.  Dom  Cagin  has  established 
the  fact  that  in  many  of  the  most  ancient  Irish  liturgical  MSS.  this  attribution 
is  not  given.  But  it  is  found  in  later  MSS.  in  very  different  places,  and 
their  agreement  carries  us  back  to  a  very  early  date.  The  tradition  is 
probably  true,  on  other  grounds  ;  and  it  is  evident  that  Lerins  was  a  place 
where  the  truth  might  well  be  known  in  St.  Patrick's  time.  Niceta's 
friend  Paulinus  had  constant  relations  with  Southern  Gaul.  This  con- 
jecture is  not,  so  far  as  I  know,  susceptible  of  proof,  but  it  may  suggest 
some  line  of  inquiry. 


CHAPTER   X 
THE  BODLEIAN  < GOSPELS  OF  ST.  AUGUSTINE' 

§  i.  The  Gospel  books  brought  by  St.  Augustine  to  England. 

The  Venerable  Bede  tells  us  that  when  St.  Gregory  the 
Great  sent  to  St.  Augustine  a  number  of  helpers,  of  whom  the 
principal  were  Mellitus,  Justus,  Paulinus,  and  Rufinianus,  he 
sent  by  them  all  that  was  necessary  for  the  worship  of  the 
Church,  and  very  many  books  : 

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. 


1 8a    BODLEIAN  < GOSPELS  OF  ST.  AUGUSTINE' 

eo  quod  quidam  rusticus  in  Thaneto,  super  eundem  textum 
falsum  iurans,  oculos  amittere  perhibetur/ 

4.  Psalterium,  kept  on  the  High  Altar;  the  contents  are 
enumerated  by  Elmham.  They  correspond  with  those  of  the 
'  Psalter  of  St.  Augustine  \  Cotton.  Vesp.  A  1. 

5.  Textus  euangeliorum  \  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. 


BODLEIAN  'GOSPELS  OF  ST.  AUGUSTINE'     183 

that  Wanley  was  right  in  identifying  the  two  textus  euan- 
geliorum  with  the  since  famous  '  Gospels  of  St.  Augustine '  at 
Corpus  Christi,  Cambridge  (cclxxxvi),  and  in  the  Bodleian 
(Bodl.  857  or  Auct.  D  2, 4).  The  former  certainly  belonged  to 
St.  Augustine's,  Canterbury,  a  thousand  years  ago,  and  they 
are  not  later  than  the  seventh  century. 

But  it  is  more  in  fashion  to  say  that  they  were  written  in 
England.  In  the  first  place  we  have  the  opinion  of  Samuel 
Berger.  Of  the  Cambridge  volume  he  says :  *  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 
century. 

Mr.  H.  J.  White  has  adopted  Berger's  view.  Of  the  Bodley 
MS.  he  writes  :  *  From  the  point  of  view  of  age  the  MS. 
might  well  have  been  brought  to  Canterbury  by  some  of  the 
later  followers  of  Augustine,  but  the  text  shows  it  to  be  of 


1 84    BODLEIAN  'GOSPELS  OF  ST.  AUGUSTINE' 

native  origin ;  it  is  fairly  near  to  Amiatinus,  but  has  a  large 
number  of  characteristics  partly  Irish,  partly  early  Anglo- 
Saxon  ;  as  Berger  says  (p.  $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  Xc  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 


BODLEIAN  'GOSPELS  OF  ST.  AUGUSTINE'     185 

difficulty  of  establishing  the  view  to  which  he  inclines,  with  all 
the  certainty  he  could  wish. 

I  am  constitutionally  less  cautious,  and  I  will  say  boldly  that 
I  think  the  late  M.  Berger's  arguments  are  valueless. 

The  examples  he  gives  do  not  prove  his  point,  and  perhaps 
he  meant  them  merely  as  curiosities.  Of  the  Corpus  MS.,  X, 
he  says:  'Je  me  borne  a  citer  Matth.  i.  17*:  Omnes  itaque 
generationes  .  .  .  sunt  xlii>  et  Luc.  xi.  2*  :  Fiat  uoluntas  tua 
sicut  in  caelo  et  in  terra' 

1.  Matt.  i.  17  has  this  addition  in  DH0X*,  but  in  X*  sunt 
{teste  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  ff2  {a  has  only  fiat  uoluntas  tua,  b  has  the  African 
form).  It  is  found  in  the  Vulgate  MSS.  B^DS**  OPQRTX* 
RegcorA.  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  ff2  does* 

4.  Matt.  xx.  28.  This  famous  and  lengthy  interpolation  is 
found  (with  many  varieties)  in  no  Irish  MSS.,  but  in  the 
Theodulphian  Hw00  as  well  as  in  O,  and  in  nearly  all  the 


186    BODLEIAN  ' GOSPELS  OF  ST.  AUGUSTINE' 

Old  Latin  copies :  a  be  d  e  fflt  2  (gx  partly,  g2  partly)  n  r. 
The  same  form  as  in  Hm00O  is  found  in  the  gorgeous 
Gospels  of  St.  Emmeran  at  Munich  (14,000,  Cimelie  $$)} 
Has  this  MS.  been  influenced  by  O  or  by  0  ? 

But  it  is  worth  while  to  gauge  more  closely  what  Berger 
thought  to  be  Irish  or  Anglo-Saxon  readings.  From  the  Biblia 
Gregoriana  above  mentioned  (Reg  i.  E  vi)  he  cites  five  passages. 

5.  Matt.  v.  5  lugunt.  It  is  in  AYZ  f  q.  Not  Irish  certainly. 
But  are  we  to  call  AY  '  Anglo-Saxon '  ?  As  this  volume  is 
later  than  St.  Augustine  without  doubt,  it  might  have  been 
influenced  by  the  spelling  of  AY,  but  /  q  are  more  probable 
relations. 

6.  Matt.  x.  29  Sine  patris  uoluntate.  This  is  the  reading 
of  Cyprian  (Ep.  59,  5)  and  Tertullian  (sine  dei  uolunt.,  freely) 
&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  ®afff2gx 
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  ff2gxh  gat — another  O.  L.  reading. 

8.  Matt.  xxvi.  9  :  praetio  multo,  with  DL^.  The  Vulgate 
has  multo  only,  with  dk  g1\  BE  J  Yc/ 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 


BODLEIAN  < GOSPELS  OF  ST.  AUGUSTINE'     187 

9.  Matt.  vi.  16:  demoliuntur  (for  the  exterminant  of  nearly 
all  MSS.).  Wordsworth  reads  demoliuntur  on  the  ground 
that  Jerome  declares  it  in  his  commentary  to  be  the  right 
reading ;  probably  on  the  same  ground  it  has  been  inserted 
in  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 ! 


188    BODLEIAN  'GOSPELS  OF  ST.  AUGUSTINE' 

textes  saxons,  ce  ne  sont  plus  de  purs  textes  romains.'  On  the 
contrary,  they  are  either  foreign  texts,  or  else  they  are  foreign 
texts  with  Irish  readings  introduced.  The  second  of  these 
alternatives  is  certainly  not  proved. 

Lastly,  the  explanation  that  these  two  books  are  called 
*  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  Eact8  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 
impossible. 

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. 


BODLEIAN  'GOSPELS  OF  ST.  AUGUSTINE '     189 

§  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.  i49v: 

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 


190    BODLEIAN  'GOSPELS  OF  ST.  AUGUSTINE' 

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 
donatum. 

This  fragment  greatly  resembles  another  list  of  Mass  vest- 
ments and  books  in  the  possession  of  monks  at  Bury  in  the 
time  of  Abbot  Leofstan  (1044-65),  part  of  which  is  given  by 
James  {On  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. 


BODLEIAN  'GOSPELS  OF  ST.  AUGUSTINE'     191 

on  pages  which  had  been  left  blank.  Nothing  has  ever  shaken 
the  extreme  probability  of  the  identification  of  this  MS.  with 
one  of  the  two  evangeliaria  mentioned  by  Thomas  of  Elmham. 
The  similarity  of  the  text  of  O  certainly  goes  far  to  establish 
the  view  that  it  was  the  other.  It  is  improbable  that  either 
MS.  was  written  in  England  ;  it  is  consequently  highly  prob- 
able that  they  were  imported  together. 

Mr.  E.  W.  B.  Nicholson  thinks  there  is  great  resemblance 
between  O  and  Z  (Harl.  1775),  though  Z  is  more  delicately 
written  and  may  be  somewhat  earlier.  He  attributes  both  to 
a  Gallican  scribe  on  account  of  the  split  horizontal  strokes  of  F. 
But  a  Gallican  hand  might  be  written  in  England  or  at  Rome. 

§  3.  The  early  lectionary  annotations  in  O. 

There  are  three  sets  of  liturgical  annotations  in  O,  all  of 
which  I  copied  some  years  ago  from  the  MS.  Having  mislaid 
this  transcript,  however,  I  have  copied  them  once  more,  with 
the  advantage  of  using  a  transcript  made  by  the  librarian, 
Mr.  E.  W.  B.  Nicholson,  which  he  kindly  lent  me,  of  the 
earlier  sets  of  notes.  Without  this  assistance  I  should  prob- 
ably have  overlooked  one  or  other  of  them. 

1.  The  earliest  annotator  has  made  but  six  notes  in  small 
and  very  neat  uncials  in  the  margin.  The  ink  is  the  same 
faded  brown  ink  which  the  scribe  of  the  whole  codex  has 
used,  and  the  writing  seems  to  betray  the  same  hand,  beyond 
all  doubt,  in  spite  of  the  difference  of  size.  I  have  asterisked 
them  in  the  following  lists,  and  have  given  the  notes  in  small 
capitals. 

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 
century. 

3.  The  third  annotator  has  corrected  St.  Matthew  nearly  to 
the  end,  and  has  made  coarse  crosses  to  divide  the  Gospel  into 


i9»    BODLEIAN  'GOSPELS  OF  ST.  AUGUSTINE1 

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*,  Oa  and  O5  re- 
spectively. In  the  following  table  of  O*  and  Oa  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.) 


*    . 

i? 

&S 

s  *• 

a*$s 

►SJ 

£  5 

Q    "3 

ol. 

Incipit 

1 

5' 

i-3 

I 

Matt. 

iv.  18 

in  natale  scT  andree 

G 

R 

7T 

tt 

x.    1 

in  ordi«atio«e  episcopi 

(G)? 

8 

»» 

x.  16 

in  scorum 

(N) 

Sy 

>» 

x.  32 

in  scorum 

R 

9 
10 

n 

xi.    2 
xii.    1 

de  aduentu 

in  x.  lect  de  pe  (?) 

N 

G 

R 

12 

n 

xiii.    lb 

in  sci  pauli 

(N) 

(G) 

(R) 

'5T 

» 

xiv.  23 

octabas  sci  petri 

B 

R 

i7T 

51 

xvi.  13 

in  nat  sci  petri 

N 

R 

18 

II 

xvi.  24 

in  sc<?r 

(E) 

(G) 

R 

23 

II 

xx.  17 

de  passione 

(B) 

(G) 

(R) 

24 

>» 

xxi.  10 

in  dedicztione  ecc&siae 

(E) 

28* 

M 

xxiii.  34 

in  sci  stef&ni 

(B) 

R 

1  The  note  is  given  by  Wordsworth  in  loco. 


BODLEIAN  'GOSPELS  OF  ST.  AUGUSTINE'     193 


/*/. 

Incipit 

i 

!1 

30* 

Matt. 

xxiv.  45 

in  confessonuw 

(B) 

R 

» 

i> 

XXV.     1 

de  martyras 

£ 

G 

R 

31 

>> 

xxv.  14 

in  martyras 

(E) 

G 

(R) 

38 

>» 

xxviii.    1 

in  nocte  sea 

N 

R 

64 

Mark 

xiv.    1 

pas 

N 

R 

69 

»> 

xvi.    1 

in  doWca  sea 

B 

G 

R 

70 

>» 

xvi.  15 

in  ascensa 

B 

G 

R 

73 

Luke 

i-      5 

In  nigilias  sci  iohannis  ba- 
ptiste 

N 

R 

74 

>» 

i.  26 

de  aduentu 

N 

R 

» 

» 

i.  39 

aduentu 

B 

R 

75 

» 

i-  57 

in  natale  sci  ion* 

;N 

R 

*7<S 

»» 

ii.    1 

ii.    1 

IN  NATALE  DNI  ) 

in  nat  dm            ) 

N 

G 

R 

7<5* 

>> 

ii.  31 

in  octabas  dm 

N 

R 

78 

» 

iii.    1 

de  arfuentn 

N 

G 

R 

87T 

»> 

vii.  19 

ad    n    n  (aduentum?) 

i*5T 

» 

xxiv.    1 

in  seennda  firia 

(N) 

»» 

xxiv.  13 

in  ttrtia  iiria 

N 

G? 

130 

John 

i.    1 

in  natale  dni 

R 

130* 

ti 

i.19 

de  adnentu 

B 

G 

R 

131 

» 

i.  29? 

in  uz^ilias  sci  andree 

R 

*I44 

II 

vii.  14 

IN  M^DIO  PENTICOSTE 

♦152 

» 

x.  22 

IN  D.IDICATIONE 

*i6o* 

» 

xiv.  15 

IN  SAB 5ATO  PETECOSTE 

B 

R 

*i6i 

» 

xiv.  23 

IN  PENTICOSTE 

B 

G 

R 

*i6i* 

II 

xviii.    1 

PASSIO 

N 

R 

Notes. 

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 


194    BODLEIAN  « GOSPELS  OF  ST.  AUGUSTINE' 

that  the  scribe  was  Gallican,  as  Mr.  Nicholson  suggested  ?  x 
The  attribution  was  at  all  events  very  obvious :  ■  Facta  sunt 
autem  encaenia  in  Ierosolymis/ 

Luke  ii.  i  in  natale  dhi  is  common  to  all  uses.  John  xviii 
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,  rt  Naples,  have  the  Roman  pericope  of  the 
vigil. 

John  vii.  14  in  medio  penticoste  is  very  interesting.  This 
pericope, '  iam  autem  die  festo  mediante/  is  in  the  middle  of 
Lent  in  the  Gallican  use,2  viz. : 

Saturday  after  fourth  Sunday     Naples  (Eugipius). 
Fourth  Sunday  Mozar,  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. 


BODLEIAN  <  GOSPELS  OF  ST.  AUGUSTINE '     195 

above  all  interesting  to  note  with  Dom  Morin  that  the  eighty- 
fifth  sermon  of  St.  Peter  Chrysologus,  bishop  of  Ravenna,  was 
preached  on  the  media  Pentecostes}  Thus,  though  we  have 
no  proof  that  it  was  known  at  Rome,  at  least  it  is  not  Gallican 
or  Spanish,  but  was  early  in  the  use  of  Milan  and  Aquileia,  and 
was  kept  at  Ravenna  in  the  fifth  century.  We  must  conclude 
that  the  six  notes  by  the  original  scribe  of  O  are  rather  Italian 
than  Gallican.  As  O  has  an  element  of  likeness  to  J,  these 
notes  may  have  been  derived  from  a  North  Italian  archetype, 
but  it  is  more  natural  to  suppose  that  the  scribe  himself  fol- 
lowed a  more  or  less  Roman  use. 

2.  The  system  of  Oa  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  Oa,  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 


i96    BODLEIAN  « GOSPELS  OF  ST.  AUGUSTINE' 

is  given,  and  the  inevitable  Gospel  for  the  octave  of  Christmas 
(called  in  Gaul '  Circumcision  \  but  not  at  Rome).  The  Gospels 
for  Christmas  Eve,  Epiphany,  and  Holy  Innocents  were  no 
doubt  duly  marked  in  the  lost  pages  at  Matt.  i.  18,  ii.  i,  and 
ii.  13.  But  the  feast  of  St.  John  (or  of  James  and  John)  is 
absent. 

Lent  is  non-existent.  But  the  Passion  is  set  down  in 
Mark  and  John,  and  the  Roman  pericopae  are  duly  set 
down  for  Easter  Eve  and  Easter.  It  is  impossible  to  say 
whether  the  system  was  contented  with  lessons  for  the  two 
great  feasts  after  Easter,  Monday  and  Tuesday ;  for  the  rest  of 
the  week  may  have  been  supplied  from  Matt,  xxviii  and  John 
xx-xxi  which  are  not  annotated.  But  the  use  differs  from  the 
Roman ;  for  the  Roman  lesson  for  Easter  Monday,  Luke 
xxiv.  15,  appears  on  Tuesday1 — 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  Oa. 

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. 


BODLEIAN  'GOSPELS  OF  ST.  AUGUSTINE'     197 

Gentiles.  0°  simply  substitutes  the  parallel  passage  of  St. 
Matthew,  xiii.  3.  Thus  we  get  a  parallel  for  the  addition  by 
Eugipius  of  Matt,  xiii  as  in  XLgisima  pascae  (we  should  read 
Sexagesima)  to  his  Gallican  liturgy,  and  so  Ob  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 
Horn. 

Second  Sunday  of  Advent 

Matt. 

xi.    a 

vi 

Third 

John 

i.  19 

vii 

Fourth       ,,            ,, 

Luke 

iii.    1 

XX 

Christmas  Day 

n 

ii.    1 

viii 

Sexagesima  (in  S.  Pauli) 

Matt. 

xiii.    3#  «  Luke    viii.    4 

XV 

Quinquagesima  (de  passione)  ? 

M 

xx.  17    m     „    xviii.  31 

ii 

Easter  Day 

Mark 

xvi.    1 

xxi 

Easter  Tuesday  (Monday  ?) 

.   Luke 

xxiv.  13 

xxxiii 

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  Ob,  as  above. 


198    BODLEIAN  'GOSPELS  OF  ST.  AUGUSTINE' 


o°. 

St. 

Greg. 

No.  of 
Horn. 

Ascension  Day 
Pentecost  (0*) 
St.  Andrew 

Mark 
John 
Matt. 

xvi.  15 

xiv.  23 

iv.  18 

{v.  14) 

xxix 

XXX 

V 

Consecration  of  a  bishop 
Martyrs  (St.  Agnes) 
Martyrs  (St.  Silvester  Conf.) 
Martyrs  (in  scorum) 

ii 
ii 

x.    1 

XXV.     1 
xxv.  14 

xvi.  24 

m  Lnke 

("•5) 
ix.  23 

iv 

xii 

ix 

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.  Anr 
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. 


BODLEIAN  < GOSPELS  OF  ST.  AUGUSTINE'    199 

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 : 

0  and  X  are  descended  from  a  common  progenitor,  judging 
by  the  coincidences  in  their  text.  In  the  Prologues  also  they 
show  close  relationship.  X  belonged  to  St.  Augustine's  Abbey 
at  Canterbury.  O  may  quite  well  have  belonged  to  the  same 
library ;  at  any  rate  it  is  closely  related  to  the  Canterbury  MS. 

There  is  no  reason  for  thinking  that  either  has  any  Irish 
contamination  in  its  text.  Though  related  to  the  AY  text, 
their  date  is  too  early  to  have  been  contaminated  by  it  in 
England. 

An  Italian  or  Roman  origin  is  postulated  for  the  archetype 
of  X  by  the  classical  ornamentation  of  its  picture  of  St.  Luke. 
The  liturgical  notes  by  the  original  scribe  of  O  are  Italian,  if 
not  Roman.  The  seventh-century  notes  of  Oa  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  O6  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  Ob  was  a  monk. 

1  do  not  vouch  for  the  following  table  as  absolutely  com- 
plete ;  it  is  difficult  also  to  be  sure  of  the  incipits.  '  R '  points 
out  identity  with  the  Roman  lessons.  In  most  cases  I  have 
left  the  lessons  for  verification  by  professed  liturgiologists. 


aoo    BODLEIAN  'GOSPELS  OF  ST.  AUGUSTINE' 


6' 

Matt. 

viii.  23 

Dom  iiii  p'  theoptl  (iiii  above  line) 

R 

7 

N 

ix.  23 

FRvi 

» 

» 

ix.  27 

in  sa  . . .  xii  1 

»> 

IV 

ix.  32 

FR 

8 

M 

x.  16 

de  martyr  . 

» 

I) 

x.  22 

FR 

11 

l> 

x.  25  3 

unius  mf  x 

9 

N 

xi.    1 

dom  de  aduentu  dni 3 

(xi.  2)  R 

IO 

» 

xi.  25? 

de  sapientia 

la 

M 

xiii.    3  b 

dom  .  in  .  LX  . 

(R) 

13 

11 

xiii.  24 

FRxxiii 

*3T 

»» 

xiii.  31 

FR 

14 

11 

xiii.  44 

de  uirginib. 8 

R 

I5T 

11 

xiv.  22 

in  <?rtabas  apfa  petri  et  pauli 

R 

i6T 

18 

>l 

XV.  21 

m  in  .  ii .  et  m  XL 
train*  mar 

i8T 

>i 

xvii.    1 

*aBb  .  i .  XL* 

R 

*9 

>> 

xvii.  14 

in  xii  V 

I9T 

>i 

xvii.  24 

FR 

tt 

II 

xviii.    1 

de  sco  mihaele 

R 

20 

II 

xviii.  15 

i .  xlFR.  iii  ~  ebd.  iii« 

R 

aoT 

}> 

xviii.  23 

dom  .  xxii .  p'  pent] 

(xxxi  R) 

21* 

i> 

xix.  13 

ad  paruulos 

22 

}> 

xix.  27 

inftsto  sci  ^etri 

22T 

» 

XX.     1 

in  dom  .  ixx 

R 

23 

5> 

xx.  17 

FR  iiii  in  .  XL 

23 

II 

XX.  20 

de  iac[obo] 

R 

23T 

7) 

xx.  29 

in  satofc  .  xii .  t  p'  pent. 

24 

dom  .  i .  in  aduentu  dni 

a4 

II 

xxi.  10 

in  .  i .  FR  .  i .  . .  in  .  X  . .  . 

24T 

>» 

xxi.  18 

FR 

ff 

II 

xxi.  23? 

FR 

25 

II 

xxi.  33 

FR  .  vi .  in  XL  .  in  .  ii . 

R 

26 

II 

xxii.    x 

dom  xx  .  p'  pen 

(xixR) 

26T 

II 

xxii.  15 

dom  .  xxv  p'  p! 

(xxiiR) 

27 

>> 

xxii.  34 

BB  .  xviii .  dom  -p'  ptn 

(xvii  R) 

39 

II 

xxiv.    1 

de  martib; 

29' 

II 

xxiv.  26 

FRvi 

30* 

II 

XXV.      I 

de  uirginib; 

R 

The  Lenten  system  is  correctly  Roman.  The  fourth 
Sunday  after  Epiphany  is  also  right,  and  so  are  some  minor 
points.    But  Dom,  prima  in  aduentu  Domini^  about  the  end  of 


1  A  +  after  32  and  after  33  (by  homoeotel.). 

*  A  +  at  xi.  1 ;  dom  and  dni  are  added  by  this  annotator  to  the  uncial  de  aduentu 
of  the  earlier  liturgist,  who  meant  xi.  2. 

•  A  +  after  52.  *  A  +  after  13. 

6  A  +  after  20  a  (uestram).  6  A  +  after  10,  another  after  14. 


BODLEIAN  'GOSPELS  OF  ST.  AUGUSTINE'     . 

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.  O6  represents  an  intermediate  stage,  i.e. 
Matt  xviii.  23  =  R  twenty-first  Sunday  =  O6  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  Ob,  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  O5.1 

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. 


2oo     BODLEIAN  ■ GOSPELS  OF  ST.  AUGUSTINE5 

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. 


CHAPTER  XI 

THE  VULGATE  TEXT  OF  ST.  GREGORY 
THE  GREAT 

§  i.  Analysis  of  the  text  used  by  St.  Gregory  in  his  Homilies. 

To  the  forty  homilies  of  St.  Gregory  the  Great  are  prefixed 
the  Gospels  on  which  he  comments.  The  Benedictine  edition 
of  these  appears  on  the  whole  fairly  to  be  relied  on.  The 
editors  have  given  some  various  readings  in  the  notes,  and 
the  comments  in  the  homilies  themselves  are  able  to  establish 
certain  readings  with  security. 

The  following  table  gives  pretty  well  all  the  readings  which 
differ  from  Wordsworth's  text.  Where  the  Old  Latin  evidence 
is  omitted  by  Wordsworth,  I  have  supplied  ctbf  ff1g1g-)  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)  bfff2  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\hkq 

7  50  om  et  before  frater  DEKLQWX°Z  vg  a  dfgx  k  q 

Horn.  iv.    Matt.  x.  5-10 

8  10  est  enim  {for  enim  est)  CE3PHJKTY  a  b  dfgx  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  vgfffx  q 


204  THE  VULGATE  TEXT  OF  ST.  GREGORY 

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  ff2l° 

d  aur 

15  4  +  in  before  ciuitatem  abed  e  ff2  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  ff2 

I  qr  aur 

Horn.  ix.    Matt.  xxv.  14-30 

20  17  similiter  +  et  DHLQW  vgaf(ffj)  gl  q 

31  20  tradidisti  mihi  {for  mihi  trad.)  3PRTW  vg  {so  antiph.for  Conf) 

32  om.  et  before  ecce  CDEH0KLQR*M5TVWX*Z  vga  bff2gx  q  {so  antiph. ) 
23     31  super  (3d0, for  supra)  ABCDE3>F0JLOQRTVWY  vg  a  bffa  gx 

34    33  super  {2*>,for  supra)  CDE^H^JLNTQRVW  vg  bfff%  gx 
25     34  om  et  {after  es)  BCDEJKLNTRTVWXZ  vg  a  bff2  gx 

37  dare  {for  mittere)/  {but  three  MSS.  of  Greg,  have  committere  with 
DF©LOQRVWX*Z  a  bfq) 

36  ego  ueniens  {for  uen.  ego)  KKfjf2 

Horn.  x.    Matt.  ii.  1-13 

37  1  Iudae  (for  Iudaeae)  CDKLKTQRVWXZ0/ 

28      5  Iudae  (for  Iudaeae)  CDFHKLNTRVWZ/^  k* 

39      6  regat  E3*HC0JRTWX*  corr  uat  mg  Huron  vgab  dfgx  q 

Horn.  xi.    Matt  xiii.  44-53 

30  47   +  piscium  ABDEa>0OTOcQRTVWXYZ  vgabc  efffx  ,3gihqr2 

31  51  utique  {for  etiam)  a  bfgx  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)  A8rH0MQWXY  vg  cor  uat  mg 
40  +  ideo  Greg  solus  (?) 

34  ueniet  {for  uenit)  AB£FGH10JKQT"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 


THE  VULGATE  TEXT  OF  ST.  GREGORY  205 

41  hi  sunt  qui  EH0XaWZ  vgabcefftlqr  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  ffx  gt  k 

Hieron 
8  assumpsit  paene  omnes  {exc  AFMY) 

46  9  omnia  tibi  {for  tibi  omnia)  EQRTWZ8  vgab  dfffx  gx  k 

Horn.  xvii.    Luke  x.  1-9 

47  6  ilium  {for  illam)  PT3  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  effft  lc  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%  gx 

55  7   +meamBE3,CT'0LOQRTWXaJ//2£-1 

56  16  enim  sunt  {for  sunt  enim)  CEH0KOQTW  vgffft  gx 

57  uero  {for  autem)  ES^HO^QR  tjf^ 

Horn.  xx.    Lukeiii.  1-11 

58  a  domini  (/«r  dei)  DH>GH©IJKLKTRVWXY  vg  cdf3qr  aur  Ambr 

59  8  potens  est  {for  potest)  H0KMX  vgacd  effft  Iqr  Iren  {ter)  Ambr 

60  9  arboris  {for  arborum)  KXZ 

61  +  bonum  ffCDH>H10IJKLM,RTVWZ  vgbcd  effff  Iqr  I 

62  excidetur  ff,CDH>H0IJKKTOPQRTVWY  vga  bcdefff*  IqrS  aur  Iren 

63  mittetur  8FCDa»H0IJKNTPQRTVWZa  vgabc efff2  Iqdaur  Iren 

Book  II. 
Horn.  xxi.    Mark  xvi.  1-7 

64  4  uiderunt  3»»fH,0IKM,OQRVWX*Z  vg  le  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  dffft 

q  r  aur 

69  9  scripturas  {for  -am)  T  (/)  aur 

70  oporteret  AAE3>flWH0IJRSWXcY/<w  uat 


206  THE  VULGATE  TEXT  OF  ST.  GREGORY 

Horn,  xxiii.     Luke  xxiv.  13-35 

71  16  illorum  CG0IJKORTVWX1Z  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  {MSS.pl,  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*HORta*Ybcftfaaur 

78  31  ab  oculis  {for  ex  oc.)  Greg,  solus  (?) 

79  34  quia  (J°r  quod)/ 

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>FH10IKKTOSTVWXYZ  vg  c  aur  Aug 

85  14  discipulis  +  suis  BSIORTW  vgbcdfrAug 

Horn.  xxv.    John  xx.  11-18 

86  14  uidit  (  for  uidet)  ff  DEH>1FG*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  BEH0IKMcKrO  VWXZ2  vgcfr*  Aug 

90  in  medio  +  eorum  M  gat 

91  30  cum  hoc  (for  hoc  cum)  ff'AEH'KVWX'Z  vg  c  eff2  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  x3  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  quia  {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 


THE  VULGATE  TEXT  OF  ST.  GREGORY  207 

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  bff2  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)  Gabff2lqr  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 

D5PQ) 

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  dff2°  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)  BH1©  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 


2o8  THE  VULGATE  TEXT  OF  ST.  GREGORY 

§  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 


THE  VULGATE  TEXT  OF  ST.  GREGORY  209 

ninth  century,  Theodulph,  bishop  of  Orleans,  did  the  same 
that  his  successors  did  in  the  thirteenth — he  corrected  his 
Vulgate  text  to  the  norm  of  St.  Gregory  the  Great.  He  had 
a  Spanish  text  to  work  upon.  Now  our  Spanish  MSS.  C 
and  T  give  twenty-five  and  forty-one  agreements  with  St. 
Gregory,  so  that  in  the  latter  codex  some  accidental  influence 
of  St.  Gregorys  homilies  is  already  to  be  assumed.  But 
St.  Theodulph's  MS.  0  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 


2io  THE  VULGATE  TEXT  OF  ST.  GREGORY 

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 

Y 

F 

0     X 

Z 

J     M   P 

Matthew  .     .    . 
Mark   .... 
Luke    .... 
John     .... 

3    ?: 

5         I3a 

2    3      8»    4 

5 
1 
8 
31 

4 

2 
4 

5a     9l 

3      4 

13     I3a 

8     121 

0 
3 

i7l 
f 

35* 

7 
1     1 

"*7 

Total 

10   3    2910   4 

I71 

10 
6 

292     38* 

23  111   7 

(Luke  and  John) 

7   3    ai«    4 

111 

21       253 

15  1q1  7 

D   E    a>    L    Q   R 

B  W  G 

KM"  V 

© 

C    T 

W  vg 

Matthew  .     . 
Mark    .     .     . 
Luke    .    .     . 
John     .     .     . 

13  15  113  13  14  181 

3          21    4    4    3 

15  11  131    7  12  13 

7  15    5s          5    9 

8 

3 

8  16    9 

5    5    5 

11     8     9 

4    3    3 
25  17  18 
13    6  10 

11 
3 

19 
15 

9  13 

1 
8  132 
8  14 

19  17 

5    4 

24  26 

16  16 

Total 

38  41  319  24  35  431 

24  21  14 

53  34  40 

48 

25  4ia 

64  63 

(Luke  &  John) 

22  26  186    7  17  22 

13  21  14 

38  23  28 

34 

16  27* 

40  42 

THE  VULGATE  TEXT  OF  ST.  GREGORY  211 


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      o1   2            21 
23   15   21    13    17   25    16              6        201  20   23     7    18 
13   11    16     6   16    19   15                         6a  17   14   11     12 

Total 

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        26s 37   37   18    30 

A  small  figure  (thus  74)  means  corrections  by  a  later  hand,  e.  g.  H1  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  ;  ff2  would 
be  almost  by  the  side  of/  in  all  probability,  were  it  not  for  its 
lacunae. 

In  considering  the  Vulgate  families  we  will  put  aside  W,  tig, 
H1©,  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 


2ia  THE  VULGATE  TEXT  OF  ST.  GREGORY 

are  as  prominent  as  the  Irish,  in  spite  of  the  fact  that  they 
contain  a  smaller  Old  Latin  element.  When  we  have  put 
aside  W0KT  as  being  all  more  or  less  influenced  by  St. 
Gregory's  Homilies,  OX  and  Z  take  their  place  by  the  side  of 
the  Irish  MSS.  in  the  first  place.  That  is  to  say,  such  Old 
Latin  elements  as  OXZ  contain  are  very  much  those  which  are 
found  in  St.  Gregory. 

In  other  words,  there  is  no  reason  to  suppose  that  the  Old 
Latin  element  in  O  and  X  is  borrowed  from  Irish  MSS.,  but 
they  have  it  in  common  with  St.  Gregory,  though  far  less  of  it 
that  the  Pope  has. 

On  the  other  hand  it  is  now  O,  now  X,  alone,  which  agrees 
with  St.  Gregory ;  they  had  a  common  ancestor  ;  it  seems 
to  be  the  most  plausible  hypothesis  to  conjecture  that  the 
common  grandfather  of  both  had  a  far  larger  Old  Latin 
element  than  either,  and  therefore  had  a  far  nearer  resemblance 
to  St.  Gregory's  text.     The  actual  numbers  (omitting  E)  are 


as  follows : 

Matthew 
Luke  and  John 

0 

5 

21 

X    z 

9      8 
25     24 

D      3> 

13     112 
22     18 

L     Q 

13    H 

*7 

R 

18 
22 

In  Matthew  the  two  Canterbury  MSS.  agree  but  little 
with  St.  Gregory,  but  in  Luke  and  John  they  surpass  the  Irish, 
and  indeed  all  (not  counting  W,  K,  0,  E)  except  T  and  V. 
This  phenomenon  is  best  explained  by  supposing  that  the 
archetype  (or  the  immediate  parents)  of  both  MSS.  have  been 
corrected  according  to  St.  Jerome  in  the  first  Gospel,  but 
much  less  in  the  others.  There  is  no  reason  for  thinking  that 
(on  the  contrary)  the  later  Gospels  have  received  Irish 
interpolations. 

If  the  two  Canterbury  MSS.  have  a  text  in  Luke  and  John 
which  retains  considerable  traces  of  the  mixed  Vulgate  and 
Old  Latin  used  by  St.  Gregory,  then  the  same  is  true  of  Z. 
There  is  so  much  textual  resemblance  here  and  there  between 
X  and  Z  that  I  cannot  help  suspecting  some  link  between 
them.  It  has  already  been  pointed  out  that  O  and  Z  are 
similar  in  the  style  of  writing,1  and  that  the  text  of  the  Pro- 

1  See  p.  191. 


THE  VULGATE  TEXT  OF  ST.  GREGORY  213 

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 


(O1)  (X1) 

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- 


214  THE  VULGATE  TEXT  OF  ST.  GREGORY 

umbria.  The  fact  at  least  is  incontestable ;  the  agreement 
of  both  O  and  X*  with  AY  is  frequent  and  striking. 

Now  X  has  actually  been  corrected  into  agreement  with 
AY  after  it  was  written.  But  it  is  inconceivable  that  OX 
should  have  been  written  in  England  so  late  that  their  parents 
had  already  been  corrected  in  England  according  to  the  AY 
text,  for  the  Cassiodorian  archetype  of  that  text  was  only 
brought  to  Monkwearmouth  by  St.  Benet  Biscop  in  the  year 
678.  Allowing  a  few  years  for  the  fame  of  the  Northumbrian 
text  to  spread  to  Canterbury,  we  should  have  to  place  the 
writing  of  these  two  MSS.  not  earlier  than  700,  a  date  at 
which  one  would  expect  some  English  (i.e.  Irish)  influence 
would  be  traceable  in  the  writing  of. the  Canterbury  school, 
either  in  the  letters  or  at  least  in  the  ornamentation,  for  the 
monastery  of  St.  Peter  and  St.  Paul  had  then  flourished 
a  hundred  years. 

But  influence  from  the  AY  text  is  natural  enough  at 
Rome.  Both  Eugipius  and  Cassiodorus  had  an  immense 
reputation.  When  a  half-Old  Latin  MS.  was  to  be  cor- 
rected at  St.  Andrew's  on  the  Caelian,  we  should  not  be 
surprised  if  a  Eugipian  or  a  Cassiodorian  codex  was  em- 
ployed for  comparison.  It  is  a  simple  hypothesis  to  suppose 
that  the  respective  parents  of  O  and  X  received  their  AFY 
element  in  this  way.  X  especially  has  also  been  contaminated 
by  the  JZ  family — an  Italian  family — very  likely  by  Z  itself. 

These  conjectures  receive  strong  support  from  the  text  of 
the  Prologues,  where  Z  and  O  and  X  are  so  close  together, 
and  so  close  to  Y.  We  shall  see  *  that  it  is  the  Y  Reg  text 
of  the  Prologues,  and  not  that  of  A,  which  must  represent  the 
Cassiodorian  text,  a  text  which  Cassiodorus  presumably 
obtained  from  Eugipius.  Now  the  likeness  of  the  Gospel  text 
of  OX  to  that  of  AY  need  not  be  dissociated  from  the  likeness 
of  the  Prologue  text  of  OX  to  that  of  Y.  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. 


THE  VULGATE  TEXT  OF  ST.  GREGORY  215 

that  the  parent  of  OX  received  the  Prologues  from  the  AY 
codex  according  to  which  it  was  corrected  to  the  Vulgate. 

To  sum  up  these  conjectures,  whose  only  merit  is  that  they 
appear  to  fit  the  facts : 

1.  O,  X,  and  Z  are  closely  connected,  since  O  and  X  must 
be  derived  from  a  single  ancestor,  X  and  Z  have  readings  in 
common,  and  O  and  Z  belong  to  the  same  school  of  calli- 
graphy. 

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 


2i 6  THE  VULGATE  TEXT  OF  ST.  GREGORY 

Old  Latin  and  Irish  summaries  found  in  cff^  h  r glgii  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  0 

Mark  ]{breu)  OX  (C  T  0) 

Luke  ]{breu)  OX  B     (C  T)  0 

John  ]{breu)  O    X  3>           C  T  © 

To  these  may  be  added  more  Spanish  MSS.,  such  as  leg1* 2,  aem,  osc, 
comply  also  Paul,  of  course  puy ;  and  of  the  Old  Latin,  ffx  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. 


CHAPTER   XII 

THE  FOUR  PROLOGUES :  THEIR  TEXT  AND 
THEIR  MEANING 

§  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  domtnum3 
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.  Sicque6  quaterno  denario7  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- 
cursam10  aduentus  domini  ostendit  generationem,  ut  et  numero 

1  The  corrections  made  by  Wordsworth  in  his  list  of  errata,  pp.  739  foil.,  are 
taken  into  account.  I  have  not  used  Corssen's  additional  MSS.,  because  I  do  not 
know  enough  about  their  general  text,  relationships,  and  history. 


218  THE  FOUR  PROLOGUES: 

satisfaciens  et  tempori n  et  se 12  quod  esset  ostenderet 13,  et  dei 
in  se  opus  monstrans,  etiam  in  his14,  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  patris18  nomen  in  patribus  filio,  et  filii 
nomen  patri  restitueret 19  in  filiis20,  sine  principio,  sine  fine, 
ostendens  unum  se  cum  patre  esse,  quia  unus  est.  In  quo 
euangelio  utile21  (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  26diligenter  esse26  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  uirginitatis3  in  hoc  duplex  testimonium 
in  euangelio  datur,  quod  et  prae  ceteris  dilectus  a  deo  4  dicitur, 


/ 


THEIR  TEXT  AND  THEIR   MEANING       219 

et  huic  matrem  suam  iens  5  ad  crucem  6  commendauit  deus  7,  ut 
uirginem  uirgo  seruaret.  Denique  manifestans  in  euangelio 
quod  erat  ipse,  incorruptibilis  uerbi  opus  inchoans,  solus 
uerbum  caro 8  factum  esse,  nee  lucem 9  a  tenebris  compre- 
hensam9  fuisse,  testatur,  primum  signum  ponens  quod  in 
nuptiis  fecit  deus 10,  ut "  ostendens  quod  erat  ipse 12,  legentibus 
demonstraret,  quod  ubi  dominus  inuitatur13,  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  conprobans20  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  scriptorum22  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  arC0IKOVWXYZ  c  aur  16.  mysterio]  ministerio  iPM'Q  17. 

postquam  AD0Y  18.  cui  arCDEH>0KM'OV\VZ  c  aur  cum  AQXY  19. 

corruptible  3?*Q  20.  conprobans  D3?Q  promens  rell  21.  Wordsworth 


\ 


aao  THE  FOUR  PROLOGUES: 


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 
habens6  neque  filios6,  .LXXIIII.7  annorum  obiit  in  Bithynia, 
plenus  Spiritu  Sancto.  Qui  cum  iam  descripta8  essent 
euangelia,  per  Mattheum  quidem9  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  maxime10  necessitas  fuit  laboris11, 
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  ne16  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  et20  repetendae 
a  principio  natiuitatis  humanae  potestas  permissa  est,  ut 
requirentibus  demonstraret  in  quo  adprehendens  erat21,  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. 


THEIR  TEXT  AND  THEIR   MEANING      221 

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  0  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  initium13  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 


%%%  THE  FOUR  PROLOGUES: 

natiuitatem  carnis  quam  in  prioribus  uicerat 21  dicere,  sed 
totus 22  in  primis 23  expulsionem 24  deserti,  ieiunium  numeri,tem- 
tationem  diaboli,  congregationem  bestiarum  et  ministerium 
protulit  angelorum,  ut  instituens25  nos  ad  intellegendum, 
singula  in  breui  conpingens,  nee  auctoritatem  factae  rei  adi- 
meret26,  et  perficiendo  operi27  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- 
ponere30  et  disciplinam  in  se  legis  agnoscere31,  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  0  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  0  /  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  A2CEH0OTWXYZ  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 


THEIR  TEXT  AND   THEIR  MEANING      223 

the  age  of  twenty-two,  after  reading  Hegel  for  ten  hours 
a  day  for  three  days  (a  feat  I  have  never  tried  again),  I  said 
to  myself :  *  Now  or  never  is  the  time  to  attack  Browning ' ; 
and  the  next  day  I  made  a  desperate  effort,  which  I  have 
never  ventured  to  repeat,  to  digest  Sordello.  I  regret  to  say 
that  utter  bewilderment  was  the  only  result.  And  yet  for 
sheer  blackness  and  incomprehensibility  neither  Browning  nor 
yet  Pindar  is  in  it  with  the  Prologues.  But  in  middle  age 
one  is  more  persevering,  and  I  have  the  audacity  now  to  pro- 
pose to  translate  and  explain  these  masterpieces  of  the  art 
of  concealing  one's  meaning  and  of  not  basely  betraying  it 
to  the  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 


224  THE  FOUR   PROLOGUES: 

generation  of  Christ  ? ;  not  only  the  last  term,  but  all  the 
terms  imply  that  Christ  was  being  generated — He  was  IN 
all  His  own  ancestors,  in  patribus,  in  Whom  He  worked  from 
the  beginning  (pperantis  a  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  tusy  and  at  His  resurrection 
He,  who  was  the  last  term  of  the  genealogy,  identified  Him- 
self with  the  first  term,  the  Father.  Thus  the  list  began  with 
God,  who  is  then  in  all  the  succession  of  fathers  as  a  father. 
It  ends  in  Christ,  who  was  in  all  the  succession  of  sons  as 
a  son.  But  when  His  resurrection  identifies  Him  with  the 
Father,  he  '  restores  the  name  of  Father  to  Himself,  the  Son, 
in  the  whole  line  of  fathers,  and  the  name  of  Son  to  the  Father 
in  the  whole  line  of  sons  \  This  is  a  most  ingenious  argument 
for  the  Monarchian  view,  though  hardly  convincing  to  us 
moderns.  It  could  not  be  said  that  the  Father  was  in  all  the 
fathers,  and  the  Son  in  all  the  sons,  without  identifying  Father 
and  Son,  for  in  the  list  the  same  persons  are  successively 
named  son  and  father;  and  again,  the  resurrection  is  held 
to  demonstrate  the  identity  of  the  Father  who  was  only  father 
at  the  beginning  of  the  list  with  the  Son  who  is  only  son  at  the 
end  of  the  list.     Thus  St.  Matthew's  genealogy,  with  the  help 


THEIR  TEXT  AND   THEIR   MEANING      225 

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. 


226  THE  FOUR   PROLOGUES: 

Now  the  God  Christ  is  (and  it  is  necessary  to  faith  to  hold 
this)  the  time,  the  order,  the  number,  the  arrangement,  and 
the  reason  of  all  these  things — He  who  was  made  of  a  woman, 
made  under  the  law,  born  of  a  virgin,  who  suffered  in  the 
flesh,  nailed  all  things  to  His  cross,  triumphing  over  them  in 
Himself,  rising  again  in  the  body,  in  order  that  He  might 
restore  the  name  of  father  in  the  fathers  to  the  Son,  and  the 
name  of  son  to  the  Father  in  the  sons,  He  who  is  without 
beginning,  without  end,  showing  Himself  to  be  of  one  Nature 
with  the  Father  since  He  is  one  Person  with  Him. 

In  this  Gospel  it  is  profitable  for  those  who  seek  God  so  to 
recognize  the  beginning,  the  middle,  and  the  completion,  as 
to  understand  both  the  calling  of  the  apostle,  and  the  work  of 
the  Gospel,  and  the  love  of  God  born  in  the  flesh,  when  they 
read  through  the  whole  book.  For  our  intention  in  composing 
this  preface  was  not  only  to  hand  down  the  truth  of  the  facts, 
but  also  to  declare  to  those  who  seek,  that  they  must  be 
diligent  in  understanding  the  orderly  manner  of  God's 
working.' 

§  3.  The  meaning  of  the  Prologue  to  St.  John, 

Next  in  order  is  the  Prologue  to  John,  as  we  shall  see  from 
its  contents.  The  Monarchian  point  of  view  is  particularly 
prominent  in  the  first  part  of  it,  where  deus  stands  for  Christ 
invariably :  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 


THEIR  TEXT  AND  THEIR  MEANING      227 

that  the  Word  was  made  flesh,  and  the  light  not  overtaken  by 
the  darkness — clearly  a  reference  to  the  evil  nature  of  matter, 
which  could  not,  however,  corrupt  the  *  incorruptible  Word  \ 
This  last  expression  is  evidently  from  a  wrongly  punctuated 
reading  of  1  Pet.  i.  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£ly  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 


228  THE   FOUR  PROLOGUES: 

the  sense  (being  an  unbearable  pleonasm)  as  it  is  against 
the  MSS. 

The  next  passage  is  preserved  only  by  the  Irish  tradition 
of  the  text.  Though  St.  John  wrote  last,  yet  his  Gospel  is 
second  in  order ;  for  in  the  divine  plan  the  last  in  time  are  the 
most  perfect ;  and  this  [perfection,  after  all  the  rest]  was 
the  due  of  the  virgin.  We  thus  learn  that  the  writer  of  the 
Prologues  used  an  Old  Latin  codex  having  the  Latin  order 
of  the  Gospels  universal  before  St.  Jerome :  Matthew,  John, 
Luke,  Mark. 

The  final  remark  is  characteristic.  No  more  is  said  about 
the  mystical  order  of  writing  and  of  precedence  of  the  Gospels, 
in  order  that  seekers  may  not  be  forestalled  in  the  fruit  which 
their  labours  will  bring  them,  nor  God  be  deprived  of  His 
right  of  teaching  it  Himself. 

The  Argument  of  John. 

*  This  is  John  the  Evangelist,  one  of  the  disciples  of  God, 
who  was  chosen  by  God  a  virgin,  whom  God  called  from  his 
marriage,  when  he  was  desirous  to  wed.  A  twofold  witness  is 
given  to  him  of  virginity  in  the  Gospel,  first,  that  he  is  called 
beloved  by  God  above  the  others,  and  secondly,  that  God, 
when  going  to  the  cross,  commended  His  Mother  to  him,  that 
the  Virgin  might  be  guarded  by  a  virgin.  Thereafter,  showing 
in  the  Gospel  what  he  himself  was,  commencing  the  work  of 
the  incorruptible  Word,  he  alone  testifies  that  the  Word  was 
made  flesh,  and  that  the  light  was  not  overtaken  by  the  dark- 
ness ;  setting  down  the  first  sign  which  God  did  at  the  wedding, 
in  order  that  by  showing  what  he  himself  was  [for  he  was  the 
bridegroom,  and  he  was  called  away  to  virginity],  he  might 
show  to  his  readers,  that  where  the  Lord  is  invited,  the  wine 
of  nuptials  ought  to  be  wanting,  so  that  the  old  things  being 
changed,  all  things  which  are  instituted  in  Christ  may  appear 
new.  With  regard  to  this,  the  method  {ratio)  of  the  Gospel 
shows  each  thing  that  was  done  or  said  in  a  mystery  to  those 
who  seek.  He  wrote  this  Gospel  in  Asia,  after  he  had  written 
the  Apocalypse  in  the  island  of  Patmos,  in  order  that  to  whom 
the  incorruptible  beginning  was  ascribed  in  Genesis,  to  Him 


THEIR  TEXT  AND  THEIR  MEANING      229 

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. 


230  THE  FOUR  PROLOGUES: 

completed  what  Matthew  and  Mark  began.  This  is  indeed 
a  dark  saying.  It  seems  to  be  explained  by  what  follows, 
and  what  follows  has  been  misunderstood  by  the  neglect 
of  the  correct  Irish  reading  by  editors,  who  have  read 
dei  for  deus  ut  (DQ)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. 


THEIR   TEXT  AND  THEIR  MEANING      231 

includes  a  sort  of  introduction  to  the  Apocalypse,  in  the  same 
mystical  vein,  so  that  to  Luke  contains  an  introduction  to 
Acts.  It  was  proper,  the  writer  continues,  that  to  Luke  should 
be  entrusted  the  composition  of  that  book,  so  that  he  who  had 
completed  Matthew  and  Mark  by  a  more  perfect  work  should 
now  show  how  the  number  of  the  apostles  was  filled  up  by  lot 
after  the  Ascension  (deo  in  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 


232  THE  FOUR  PROLOGUES: 

manifestation  of  all  the  perfection  of  God  coming  in  the  flesh, 
be  prevented  from  giving  themselves  to  the  study  of  Jewish 
fables,  and  from  being  held  by  the  desire  of  the  law  only,  and 
that  they  might  not  be  seduced  by  heretical  fables  and  foolish 
questions,  and  so  depart  from  the  truth.  And  further,  that  in 
the  beginning  of  his  Gospel,  having  first  given  the  birth  of 
John,  he  might  point  out  for  whom  [viz.  for  Theophilus]  he 
wrote  his  Gospel,  and  the  purpose  of  his  election  to  write  it, 
attesting  that  what  was  begun  by  the  others  was  finished  in 
him.  To  him  power  was  granted  after  the  baptism  of  the  Son 
of  God  [Luke  iii]  to  reckon  back  the  human  birth  from  its 
beginning,  starting  from  the  perfection  of  the  generation 
fulfilled  in  Christ,  in  order  that  he  might  show  forth  to  seekers 
(in  that  he  had  himself  apprehended),  by  admitting  into  the 
list  the  entrance  of  a  genealogy  running  back  to  God  through 
the  son  Nathan,  how  the  indivisible  God,  proclaiming  His 
Christ  among  men,  has  made  the  work  of  the  perfect  man 
return  to  Himself  by  the  son  of  David — He  who  by  David 
the  father  offered  in  Christ  a  way  to  those  who  came  to  Him. 
To  this  Luke  ministerial  power  was  deservedly  given  of  also 
writing  the  Acts  of  the  Apostles,  that  God  being  full  in  God, 
and  the  son  of  perdition 1  being  dead,  after  prayer  had  been 
made  by  the  Apostles,  the  number  of  election  (twelve  apostles) 
might  be  made  complete  by  the  lot  of  the  Lord,  and  that  thus 
Paul  might  supply  the  consummation  of  the  Acts  of  the 
Apostles,2  whom  the  Lord  chose  after  he  had  long  kicked 
against  the  pricks.  And  though  it  had  been  useful  for  us  to 
explain  this  in  detail  for  readers  and  seekers  after  God,  yet 
knowing  that  the  working  husbandman  ought  to  eat  the  fruits 
of  his  own  labour,  we  avoid  the  curiosity  of  the  public,  lest  we 
should  appear  less  to  be  revealing  God  to  the  desirous,  than  to 
have  betrayed  Him  to  scorners.' 

1  '  Son  of  perdition  '  (so  BD0K)  is  of  course  from  John  xvii.  12 ;  proditionis 
seems  to  be  merely  a  mistake  from  the  notion  of '  traitor '  by  a  scribe  who  did  not 
catch  the  reference.  The  author  of  the  ordinary  Prologue  to  Acts  {Lucas  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. 


THEIR  TEXT   AND   THEIR   MEANING       233 

§  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  te3)  uox  clamantis  in  deserto,  parate  uiam  Domini  .-..*; 
'  the  beginning  of  the  Gospel  of  the  Son  of  God  is  the  voice  of 
one  crying  .  .  .,'  to  signify  that  the  Son  of  God  was  the  Voice 
(or  vowel)  of  a  Word  ;  for  the  *  Word  made  flesh '  is  a  vowel 
clothed  in  consonants — the  vowel  or  voice  is  God,  the  conso- 
nants are  the  human  flesh.  The  Baptist  is  therefore  mentioned 
as  being  the  beginning  of  the  Gospel,  because  he  is  a  voice — 
showing  that  Christ  was  a  voice  (or  vowel) ;  '  in  order  that 
any  one  who  should  read  might  know  how  to  recognize  to 
whom  (viz.  to  God)  he  owed  the  beginning  of  flesh  in  the 


234  THE   FOUR   PROLOGUES: 

Lord  and  the  habitation  of  God  on  earth.'  Caro  seems  to 
mean  \  the  reader,  being  himself  flesh ' ;  but  when  I  remember 
that  we  have  twice  had  verbum  caro  factum  as  an  accusative, 
I  cannot  but  think  it '  wildly  possible '  (as  Mr.  C.  L.  Dodgson 
would  have  phrased  it)  that  caro  is  in  apposition  to  habitaculum. 
At  any  rate  'habitaculum'  means  the  Body  in  which  God 
sojourned,  thus  giving  the  same  ultra-Apollinarian  (or  rather 
Arian)  doctrine  as  before.  The  final  result  is '  that  the  reader 
may  thus  find  in  himself  the  word  of  the  voice  which  he  had 
lost  in  the  consonants '.  The  reader's  own  soul  being  a  part 
of  God,  he  himself  is  a  word,  but  he  has  probably  not  per- 
ceived this,  through  paying  attention  to  the  fleshly  part,  the 
consonants,  and  not  to  the  soul  which  makes  them  vocal,  and 
so  forms  a  word.  (Or  we  may  understand  '  find  in  Mark  .  .  . 
which  Mark  had  lost  \)  Thus  I  venture  to  understand  the  in- 
extricabilis  nodus  of  which  Sedulius  the  Scot  complained.  His 
brilliant  conjecture  that  consonantes  were  the  other  Synoptists 
is  quite  impossible,  for  we  have  seen  in  the  Prologue  to  Luke 
that  St.  Mark  wrote  before  that  evangelist.  The  same  con- 
sideration makes  it  unbearable  to  read  uiderat  with  most 
editors  lower  down ;  it  was  an  obvious  correction  for  the  difficult 
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. 


THEIR  TEXT   AND   THEIR   MEANING      235; 

temptations  found  in  Luke  and  Matthew),  that  he  may  establish 
the  facts,  and  yet  give  fullness  to  the  work  to  be  performed 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. 


236  THE  FOUR  PROLOGUES: 

duced  the  expulsion  into  the  desert,  the  fast  for  a  mystic 
number  of  days,  the  temptation  by  the  devil,  the  fellowship 
with  the  wild  beasts,  and  the  ministry  of  the  angels,  that,  by 
teaching  us  to  understand,  and  describing  each  point  briefly, 
he  might  at  once  establish  the  truth  of  the  facts,  and  affirm 
the  fullness  of  the  work  that  was  to  be  perfected.  Further,  he 
is  said  to  have  cut  off  his  thumb  after  he  had  received  the 
faith,  in  order  that  he  might  be  accounted  unfit  for  the  priest- 
hood. But  the  predestinated  election  which  corresponded  to  his 
faith  so  prevailed,  that  even  by  this  he  did  not  lose  in  the  work 
of  the  Word  what  he  had  formerly  received  by  his  birth  ;  for 
he  was  bishop  of  Alexandria,  whose  (i.  e.  a  bishop's)  work 
it  is  to  know  in  detail  and  dispose  the  sayings  of  the 
Gospel  in  his  heart,  and  recognize  the  discipline  of  the  law  in 
himself,  and  understand  the  Divine  Nature  of  the  Lord  in  the 
flesh  ;  which  things  we  ourselves  also  desire  to  be  searched  for, 
and  after  being  searched  for  to  be  recognized,  having  as  a  reward 
of  this  exhortation,  that "  he  that  planteth  and  he  that  watereth 
are  one,  but  it  is  God  that  giveth  the  increase  '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 


THEIR   TEXT  AND   THEIR   MEANING      237 

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^xP19  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  p.tv  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. 


CHAPTER   XIII 

PRISCILLIAN 
THE  AUTHOR  OF  THE  PROLOGUES1 

§  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). 


PRISCILLIAN  AUTHOR  OF  THE  PROLOGUES  239 

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  ill6  siecle.  lis  semblent  au 
contraire  avoir  6t6  faits  pour  Tune  des  recensions  re'pandues  en  Italie  et 
en  Gaule  depuis  le  commencement  du  ive  siecle,  avec  les  textes  dits 
*  Europeans  "  et  "  Italiens  ".  Si  nous  les  mettons  dans  la  premiere  moitie' 
du  IV6  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. 


24o  PRISCILLIAN 

century  abounded  ;  only  the  second  half  of  the  century,  and 
Spain  rather  than  Italy  or  Gaul,  will  prove  to  have  been  the 
real  date  and  home  of  these  strange  productions. 

§  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 
writer. 

But  we  have  seen  that  in  fact  there  is  Apollinarianism 
as  well  as  Monarchianism  in  the  Prologue  to  Matthew,  and 
Monarchianism  as  well  as  Apollinarianism  in  those  to 
Luke  and  Mark,  and  that  the  doctrine  is  perfectly  consistent 
in  all  of  them.  Corssen's  ingenious  reference  to  Gnosticism 
to  explain  the  teaching  of  the  Luke  and  Mark  prologues  was 
not  very  successful.  The  combination  of  Monarchianism  with 
ultra- Apollinarianism  is  really  characteristic  of  a  Latin  writer, 
not  of  the  beginning  of  the  third  century,  but  of  the  end  of 
the  fourth — Priscillian.     The  identity  of  the  doctrine  of  the 

1  It  would  be  confusing  to  speak  of  this  as  Arianism,  since  it  was  not  the 
primary  doctrine  of  Arians,  nor  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. 


AUTHOR   OF  THE   PROLOGUES  241 

prologues  with  that  of  Priscillian  will  appear  in  the  comparison 
which  I  append  of  their  teaching,  vocabulary,  phraseology, 
and  style. 

Not  all  the  details  in  the  following  table  are  of  importance  ; 
many  are  simply  included  for  the  sake  of  completeness,  in 
order  to  save  others  the  trouble  of  examining  further.  The 
excellent  index  of  Schepss  to  his  edition  has  made  the  labour 
of  comparison  a  light  one.  I  quote  Priscillian  by  the  pages 
of  Schepss  (CSEL.  xviii),  adding  the  line  in  smaller  figures 
where  it  seems  advisable  to  be  more  precise. 

In  examining  the  table,  it  should  be  remembered  that 
we  are  comparing  four  short  prologues  with  eleven  short 
treatises  which  fill  only  100  pages  of  the  Vienna  Corpus.  The 
coincidences  are  therefore  far  more  remarkable  than  would  be 
the  case  if  we  were  dealing  with  longer  documents.  I  quote 
the  prologues  as  Mt.,  Jn.,  Lk.,  Mk.,  and  under  Mt.  I  add  the 
parallel  passages  of  the  other  prologues. 


Prologue  to  St.  Matthew. 

1.  (Mt.)  Mattheus  ex  Iudaeis  (Wordsw.  with  DQ3* ;  but  Corssen 
reads  ex  Iudaea  with  BCeQ. 

(Jn.)  Iohannes . . .  unus  ex  discipulis  Dei.  Cp.  Priscillian  3511 :  nullus 
e  nostris ;    40** :  multi  ex  his ;  and  52s5,  53s,  7410. 

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 


242  PRISCILLIAN 

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 
example. 

3.  praesumens,  and  Lc. :  Iohannis  natiuitate  praesumpta  (=  'take 
before') ;  so  Priscillian  6s24, 71s2. 

4.  triformiter  :  709,  19 ;  76* ;  7812 :  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. 

9.  et  DEI  IN  SE  OPUS  MONSTRANS  ;    98  '.   DEI  IN  NOBIS  OPERA  DEMON- 

STRANS;  96 :  qui  diuinorum  praeceptorum  IN  SE  OPUS  uellet  (cp.  also  49  : 
in  SE  et  in  symbolo  suo  monstrans  ;   63  :  OPUS  uerbi  factorum  operibus 

OSTENDENS). 

10.  ponitur,  posito,  posuit;  Jn. :  ponens,  positus  est,  ponitur . . .  In 
Priscillian  ponere  is  especially  common,  usually  with  the  meaning  *  set 
down  in  a  book'  or  'set  in  a  book',  as  in  the  Prologues.    (Priscillian 


AUTHOR  OF  THE  PROLOGUES  243 

seems  rarely  to  use  positus  in  place  of  the  missing  participle  of  sum ;  cp. 
Souter,  A  Study  of  Ambrosiaster,  p.  125.) 

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.  1056:  testimonium  non  negaret;  5511:  gloriam  non 
negare;  667:  gloriam  non  negaret,  and  3113,  98s4.  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 
1620:  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.  4810 :  passurum  deum ;  7115 :  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. 

R2 


244  PRISCILLIAN 

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  524,  7414.  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  exultat8,  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 


AUTHOR   OF  THE   PROLOGUES  245 

pater  unum  sumus  (Jo.  x.  30) ;  cp.  ibid. :  et  haec  tria  unum  sunt  in 
Christo  Iesu  (1  Jo.  v.  7,  the  Comma  Iohanneum  or  *  three  heavenly 
witnesses  ') ;  49 :  qui  requirentibus  apostolis  omne  id  quod  nominabatur 
(Panchristism  !  cp.  Eph.  i.  21)  se  esse  monstrauit,  unum  se  credi  uoluit, 
non  diuisum,  dicente  profeta,  '  hie  est  deus  noster,  nee  reputabitur  alius 
absque  eum,  qui  ostendit  uiam  disciplinae,  et  dedit  earn  Iacob  puero  suo 
et  Istrahel  dilecto  suo ;  posthaec  in  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 
consideres. 

25.  Atque  id  in  eo  in  quo  adprehensi  sunt  et  adprehendere  ex- 
petunt  (Phil.  iii.  12),  recognoscant ;  Lc. :  in  quo  adprehendens  erat ; 
cp.  7 :  adprehendere  uolumus  in  quo  adprehensi  sumus  (Vulg. 
reads  conpreh.). 

principium  of  all  things;    82  :  Si  Christum  omnium  scimus  esse  principium;   75  : 
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. 


246  PRISCILLIAN 

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,  4018,  4123. 

27.  Et  fidem  factae  rei  tradere;  Mc. :  auctoritatem  factae  rei; 
47 :  aut  certe  historiam  factae  rei  proferens.  (So  also  rei  gestae,  40s8 
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  ;  46s :  singuli  quique,  and  4820 ;  65* :  SIN- 
GULIS quibusque,  and  725. 

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 

CANONI. 

36.  Incorruptibile  principium  in  Genesi,  et  incorruptibilis  finis  per 


AUTHOR  OF  THE   PROLOGUES  247 

uirginem  in  Apocalypsi  (Apoc.  i.  8) ;  47 :  quis  est  iste  Abel  profeta,  ex 
quo  sanguis  profetarum  sumpsit  exordium,  cuius  principium  in  Zac- 
chariam  finit  ?  (cp.  8210  :  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  ;  97s6:  SCRIBTURARUM  DISPOSITIO  (of  internal  arrange- 
ment) ;  ioo9 :  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;  610  per  singula,  and  23s,  38*. 

42.  Sciendi  desiderio ;    cp.  2716 :  si  scire  desiderant. 

Prologue  to  St.  Luke. 

43.  Ante  (adverb) ;  so  Prise,  tkrice. 

44.  Extra  ea  quae  for  praeterquam  quod ;  so  Prise.  2219 :  extra 
enim  ea  quae  .  .  .  solem  et  lunam  rectores  orbis  terrarum  deos  puta- 
uerunt. 

45.  ORDO  EUANGELICAE  DISPOSITIONIS ;    62 1   in  opus  EUANGELICAE 

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 ;  720 :  Qui  autem  negat  Iesum  Christum  in  carnem 
UENISSE,.  hie  antechristus  est  (1  Jo.  ii.  23),  but  2121:  qui  negat  Iesum 
Christum  in  carne  uenisse.  Again  311 :  omnis  spiritus  qui  confitetur 
Christum  Iesum  in  carnem  uenisse  de  Deo  est  (1  Jo.  iv.  2) ;  but  314: 
qui  non  confitentur  Christum  Iesum  in  carne  uenisse  . . .  Three  other 
passages  have  in  carne,  viz.  718 :  Scientes  quoniam  Christus  uenit  in 
carne  ut  peccatores  saluos  faceret  (1  Tim.  i.  1 5) ;    2818 :  Deus  noster  . . . 


348  PRISCILLIAN 

ueniens  in  carne;  55* :  uenturum  in  carne  Deum.  As  718  has 
carne  and  720  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  2813  the  scribe  wrote  carne  and  then  corrected 
it  into  carnem :  deus  noster  .  . .  ueniens  in  carnem.  Again  it  is  said 
of  Moses  6218:  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  752 :  secundum  carne. 
There  remain  still  three  passages  in  which  carnem  is  given ;  722 :  pro 
nobis  uenturus  IN  carnem  uel  passus  in  carne  est ;  604 :  ueniens  in 
carnem,  and  1027 :  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.  618 :  adueniens 
in  carnem  deus. 

47.  Iudaicis  fabulis  (Tit.  i.  14) . . .  hereticis  fabulis  et  stultis  sollicita- 
tionibus  ;  in  Prise,  fabulae  four  times.  Cp.  also  57  hereticorum  dogmata 
stulta;  1511:  idolorum  superstitiones  stultae. 

48.  Elaboraret . . .  ne,  and  labor  are,  Mk.,  cp.elaborare  ut  815,  1923,  35* ; 
elab.  quo  1127. 

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  . .  . 
monstrauit. 

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. 

53.  UENIENTIBUS  ITER  PRAEBEBAT  ;    6l  :  siccum  populo  ITER  PRAE- 

buit  ;  32" :  iter  PRAEStitit  and  611 ;  6 :  ascendens  in  caelos,  uenienti- 
BUS  ad  se  iter  construit. 

54.  Cui  Lucae  non  inmerito  ;  8717:  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. 


AUTHOR   OF  THE   PROLOGUES  249 

56.  '  Deo  in  Deum  pleno '  seems  to  be  an  ablative  absolute,  meaning 
'  God  (the  Son)  having  been  (at  His  ascension)  poured  back  into  God 
the  Father  so  as  to  fill  Him,'  i.e.  be  identified  with  Him.  With  plenus 
in  Deum  we  may  perhaps  compare  615  :  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 ' ;  33s  fidei  expedita  abseratione. 

58.  Publicam curiositatem ;  cp. 41 ia:  iudicium publicum;  92*:  publicae 
opinionis ;    8711 :  curiosae  mentis  intentio ;    87" :  curiosius  intuenti. 

59.  Operantem  agricolam  oporteat  de  fructibus  suis  edere ;  for  some- 
what similar  metaphors  (from  1  Cor.  ix.  10),  67s4:  arans  in  spe,  fidei  suae 
fructus  colligens,  and  1319,  cp.  4628. 

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*; 318:  Hiesu  Naue  . .  .  exclamauit,  &c;  5714:  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 
6218 :  initio  nascendi  (63s :  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  (?) ;   7921 :  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',  85ia:  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- 


250  PRISCILLIAN 

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  7014, 
736,  7516),  whereas  baptism  is  diuina  in  deum  natiuitas  78s,  or  noua 
natiuitas  97s4,  &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.  10414  for  this  uncommon  expression. 

71.  perficiendo  operi ;    8018:  perficiendi  operis. 

72.  consentiens  fidei ;  cp.  72 :  consentiens  nouum  testamentum  ueteri. 

73.  meruerat,  not  of  strict  merit,  but  of  predestination;  so  6218: 
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) 
15311:  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.' 


AUTHOR   OF  THE   PROLOGUES  251. 

Apollinarianism — is  accurately  given  in  the  Prologues.  It  is 
given  in  Priscillian's  own  words,  his  own  favourite  and 
reiterated  expressions  being  employed.  (See  above,  13,  14, 
17,  18,  21,  23,  46,  56,  63,  65,  68,  74.)  This  is  the  principal 
point.  The  doctrine  of  the  Prologues  was  carefully  examined 
in  the  last  chapter.  In  this  chapter  it  has  been  shown  that  it 
is  the  doctrine  of  Priscillian,  both  in  intention  and  in  expression. 

B.  The  particular  interest  shown  by  the  Prologues  for  the 
genealogies  is  not  alien  to  Priscillian,  cp.  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 


252  PRISCILLIAN 

till  the  end  as  in  German,  is  observable  in  both.  Good  instances 
are  Lc. :  '  UT  in  principio  euangelii  Iohannis  natiuitate  pre- 
sumpta,  cui  euangelium  scriberet  et  in  quo  electus  scriberet, 
INDICARET  '  (fourteen  words  between  ut  and  its  verb),  or  Mc. : 
*  ut  praedicans  .  . .  ostenderet/  in  which  sentence  there  are 
twenty-eight  words  between  ut  and  its  verb !  So  the  first 
lines  of  Priscillian's  first  treatise:  'Etsi  fides  nostra  .  .  . 
liberi  sit '  give  us  fourteen  words  between  etsi  and  its  verb ; 
while  in  line  7  ut  is  followed  by  an  ablative  absolute  (three 
words),  then  by  quamuis  .  .  .  Christo  (forty-two  words  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&,  58>  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 


AUTHOR  OF  THE  PROLOGUES  253 

his  practice  at  length  in  Tract  iii,  pp.  44-56 :  liber  de  fide  et 
apocryphis.  In  the  Prologues  there  is  a  clear  dependence  on 
the  Acts  of  John,  which  were  used  by  Priscillianists.1 

M.  Both  writers  use  the  same  Old  Latin  text  of  Holy 
Scripture.  Against  this  it  cannot  be  urged  that  in  Mc.  we  find 
desertum  where  Prise,  has  eremus^  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 
m6  fu  demid  tol  harl  **  al  Cyp288  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. 


CHAPTER   XIV 

LATER  MANIPULATIONS  OF  THE   PROLOGUES 
OF  PRISCILLIAN 

§  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 


PROLOGUES  OF  PRISCILLIAN  255 

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  compl2,  BN  6,  Bern  A  9,  Vat 
4221. 

The  text  of  Lucas  natione  Syrus  is  our  oldest  witness  to  the 
text  of  those  portions  of  the  Prologue  to  Luke  which  it  has 
retained  unaltered.  Two  readings  are  singular,  and  I  believe 
correct,  although  none  of  Wordsworth's  witnesses  know  them. 
One  of  these  I  shall  discuss  on  p.  271 :  the  age  of  St.  Luke  is 
given  as  eighty-four  and  not  seventy-four.  The  other  point 
needs  more  explanation.  Priscillian  says  that  Luke  received 
the  power  of  writing  the  Acts  of  the  Apostles,  so  that  after 
the  Resurrection  and  the  death  of  Judas  the  number  of  the 
Apostles  might  be  completed  (by  the  election  of  Matthias), 
*  sicque  Paulus  consummationem  apostolicis  actibus  daret  .  .  .  '; 
what  is  the  meaning  of  sicque  ?  It  reads  as  if  St.  Paul  was 
the  twelfth  apostle  just  implied.  But  the  compiler  of  the  Pro- 
logue to  Acts  read  Paulum :  '  and  that  so  he  (St.  Luke) 
might  present  Paul  as  the  consummation  of  his  book.'  This 
gives  far  better  sense,  and  it  is  much  more  in  accordance  with 
the  style  of  the  Prologue  that  St.  Luke  should  be  the 
subject  until  the  end  of  the  sentence.  But  I  did  not  intro- 
duce this  reading  into  the  text  given  in  the  last  chapter  nor 
into  my  translation,  as  being  in  no  MSS.     In  the  Prologue  to 

made  out  of  the  Prologue  to  Luke,  the  Actus  Ap.  nudam  and  the  summaries  of  CT 
(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  leg1  (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,  leg1, 
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. 


256         LATER   MANIPULATIONS  OF  THE 

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. 


PROLOGUES   OF  PRISCILLIAN  257 

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. 

Ioannes1,  apostolus  et  euangelista,  a  Christo8  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  Iesu7  Christi  rin  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  Epheso13  discipulis, 
descendit  in  defossum  sepulturae  suae  locum,  orationeque  completa14, 
reddidit  spiritum,  tarn  a  dolore  mortis  factus  extraneus,  quam  a  cor- 
ruptione  carnis  noscitur  alienus.  Cuius  tamen  scripturae15  dispositio,  uel 
libri  ordinatio,  ideo  a  nobis  per  singula  non  exponitur,  ut  nescientibus 16 
inquirendi  desiderium  collocetur17,  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 
CDSPOcVW  c  against  collocata  Aa?E0KM,O*YZ  aur.  In  the 
last  case  only  the  Irish  reading  is  supported. 


258         LATER  MANIPULATIONS  OF  THE 

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 
D^IOKMWQVWZ2. 

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. 


PROLOGUES  OF  PRISCILLIAN  259 

mainly  in  Spanish  MSS.,  and  appears  to  belong  to  an  *  edition ' 
of  the  Epistles.1  It  is  even  possible,  though  it  is  not  proved, 
that  Peregrinus  is  answerable  for  an  edition  of  the  whole 
Bible.  His  date  is  uncertain,  but  we  should  presumably  look 
for  him  in  the  first  half  of  the  fifth  century.  He  seems  to 
have  been  an  admirer  of  Priscillian,  who  yet  would  not  follow 
him  into  heresy.  Of  the  canones  he  says  in  his  prooemium : 
'quia  erant  ibi  plurima  ualde  necessaria,  correctis  his  quae 
prauo  sensu  posita  fuerant,  alia  ut  erant  utiliter  ordinata  prout 
oportebat  intellegi  iuxta  sensum  fidei  catholicae  exemplaui.'2 
In  fact  he  has  left  no  Priscillianism  in  the  canons.  The  Pro- 
logue to  the  canons  he  has  evidently  completely  rewritten, 
for  a  comparison  with  the  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  0  (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 


260         LATER   MANIPULATIONS   OF  THE 

'  celui  qui  possede  a  fond  Tart  de  tuer  les  gens ' ;  and  Prof. 
Rhys  translates  it  tvn&x1!*  (•)•  *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). 


PROLOGUES  OF  PRISCILLIAN  261 

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. 


262         LATER   MANIPULATIONS   OF   THE 

§  4.  The  Prologue  to  the  Catholic  Epistles  '  Non  idem  est  ordo  \ 

We  have  said  that  the  Prologues  of  Priscillian  to  Luke  and 
John  were  seen  as  early  as  the  fifth  century  to  contain  the 
matter  for  Prologues  to  Acts  and  Apocalypse  ;  and  such  Pro- 
logues were  accordingly  manufactured  out  of  them.  Now 
Priscillian  treated  the  Epistles  of  St.  Paul  still  more  elaborately 
in  his  series  of  canons,  in  which  he  pointed  out  the  main 
points  of  the  Apostle's  doctrine,  finding  in  his  letters  the  proofs 
of  his  own  heresies,  just  as  he  has  managed  to  do  in  the 
Gospels  in  his  Prologues,  but  in  an  obscure  and  mysterious 
manner.  As  it  cannot  be  doubted  that  the  Prologues  to  Luke 
and  John  were  really  intended  as  introductions  to  Acts  and 
the  Apocalypse  also,  it  follows  that  Priscillian  is  known  to  have 
composed  in  favour  of  his  own  heresy  introductions  to  all  the 
books  of  the  New  Testament,  except  to  the  Catholic  Epistles. 

Did  he  compose  one  to  the  Catholic  Epistles  ?  We  should 
suppose  so  a  priori.  Further,  in  the  Prologue  to  John  there 
is  no  mention  of  the  Epistles  of  that  Apostle ;  and  yet  it  was 
from  the  first  Epistle  of  St.  John  that  Priscillian  took  the 
main  texts  for  his  Apollinarianism  and  his  Monarchianism,  viz. 
'  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,  qui8  in 


PROLOGUES   OF   PRISCILLIAN  263 

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 
ordini5,  Deo  nos  iuuante,  reddidimus.  Est  enim  prima  earum  una 
Iacobi,  Petri  duae,  Ioannis6  tres,  et  Iudae  una.  Quae  si,  ut  ab  eis 
digestae  sunt,  ita  quoque  ab  interpretibus  fideliter  in  Latinum  uerterentur 
eloquium7,  nee  ambiguitatem  legentibus  facerent,  nee  sermonum  sese8 
uarietas  impugnaret9;  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  impensius20  Scripturae21 
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 
inuidiam24  pertimesco,  nee  sanctae  scripturae25  ueritatem  poscentibus 
denegabo. 

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.  65),  knowing  that  it  would  be  declared 
apocryphal.  He  must  have  found  it  in  his  Bible,  and  it  must 
have  been  one  of  the  frequent  Spanish  glosses  which  somehow 
got  into  the  text ;  and  it  is  well  known  that  it  is  founded  on  a 
mystical  interpretation  which  St.  Cyprian  seems  to  assume  as 
a  commonplace,  and  which  St.  Augustine  propagated.  The 
quasi-liturgical  ending  ■  in  Christo  Iesu  '  belongs  to  the  earthly 


264         LATER    MANIPULATIONS    OF  THE 

witnesses,  and  has  got  very  naturally  shifted  to  the  end  of  the 
heavenly  witnesses  (which  in  Priscillian  do  not  precede  but 
follow)  by  the  interpolation  being  made  before  this  formal  con- 
clusion. It  was  Priscillian  who  discovered  a  heretical  meaning 
in  the  resultant  reading,  interpreting  the  words  to  mean  that 
Father,  Son,  and  Holy  Ghost  are  all  one  in  Christ  Jesus.  In 
the  version  found  in  existing  Spanish  Bibles  the  possibility  of 
this  error  has  been  eliminated,  probably  by  Peregrinus. 

In  this  Prologue,  Pseudo- Jerome  must  either  have  used 
a  Spanish  Bible,  or  have  utilized  a  previous  Prologue  by 
Priscillian.  The  former  alternative  seems  to  be  absolutely 
excluded  by  the  fact  that  this  Prologue,  which  is  found  in 
almost  all  MSS.  of  the  Epistles  entire,  and  as  early  as  the 
Codex  Fuldensis  (542-6),  is  found  without  its  first  line  in 
Spanish  MSS.1  (But  see  p.  287.)  In  these  it  begins  'qui  integre 
sapiunt ',  and  the  opening  sentence  is  meaningless.  It  can 
hardly  be  upheld  that  the  Prologue  had  its  origin  in  Spain. 

On  the  other  hand  only  a  Spaniard  was  likely  to  condemn 
all  MSS.  which  omitted  the  Comma ;  and  Priscillian  is 
particularly  likely  to  have  defended  it.2  I  think  it  may  be 
safely  inferred  that  Pseudo-Jerome  had  before  him  a  Prologue 
to  the  Catholic  Epistles  in  which  Priscillian  defended  this  text, 
but  Pseudo-Jerome  has  made  his  expressions  orthodox. 

Confirmation  is  not  wanting.     Priscillian  will  certainly  have 

1  Viz.  in  CT,  ©H  Fuy,  compll> 3,  leg1  (?),  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. 


PROLOGUES  OF  PRISCILLIAN  26s 

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  compl2     BK  zur  bern  M 

Cath.  Epp.  FCT0  puy  complx  8  BK  zur  bern 
Apoc.  F      0  puy  compl1        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 
Apoc. 

This  table  shows  every  combination  of  two  out  of  three. 
F  and  M  represent  two  great  families  in  Acts ;  we  have  also 
the    Spanish,  Theodulphian,    and  Alcuinian    families,   &c.3 

1  It  is  to  be  noted  that  Priscillian  in  his  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 


266         LATER   MANIPULATIONS   OF  THE 

There  is  no  reason  to  suppose  that  any  of  these  three  Pro- 
logues was  known  in  Ireland,  where  the  original  form  of  the 
Prologues  to  the  Gospels  was  preserved.  One  may  say,  there- 
fore, that  the  corrected  form  of  the  Prologue  to  John,  and  the 
Prologues  to  Acts,  Apocalypse,  and  Catholic  Epistles  have 
approximately  the  same  large  diffusion,  if  we  take  into 
account  the  comparatively  large  number  of  MSS.  which 
contain  the  Gospels  only.  The  Prologue  to  Acts  and  the 
Apocalypse  have  a  single  author.  That  to  the  Epistles  is  by 
a  downright  forger,  probably  a  different  person.  He  not  only 
speaks  in  the  name  of  St.  Jerome,  but  he  addresses  Eustochium ; 
his  first  sentence  is  modelled  on  St.  Jerome's  Prologue  to  the 
Minor  Prophets  :  '  Non  idem  ordo  est  duodecim  prophetarum 
apud  Hebraeos  qui  est  apud  nos.'  His  last  paragraph  is 
a  clever  imitation  of  St.  Jerome's  repeated  complaints  of  the 
enemies  who  attack  his  old  age,  on  account  of  his  new  trans- 
lations. One  hesitates  to  ascribe  this  to  the  author  of  the 
Prologues  to  Acts  and  the  Apocalypse,  though  the  former  has 
used  St.  Jerome's  letter  to  Paulinus  (or  rather  an  extract  from 
it)  and  uses  the  first  person  singular  (in  imitation  of  Jerome  ?) 
instead  of  Priscillian's  plural.  But  the  Pseudo-Jerome  may 
be  the  author  of  the  correction  of  the  Prologue  to  John. 

At  all  events  I  do  not  hesitate  to  ascribe  the  corrected 
version  of  the  Gospel  Prologues  and  the  three  other  Prologues 
to  much  the  same  date,  probably  rather  in  the  early  part  of 
the  fifth  century,  and  to  suppose  that  they  were  attached  to 
the  Vulgate  about  the  same  time  and  in  the  same  circumstances, 
since  they  have  so  similar  and  so  wide  a  diffusion. 

To  return  to  the  Prologue  to  the  Catholic  Epistles  ;  Prof. 
Kunstle  has  suggested  that  Peregrinus  was  its  author.  Two 
considerations  will  dispose  of  this  notion  once  for  all.  In  the 
first  place  Peregrinus  was  not  a  forger ;  nay,  he  carefully 
explains  that  the  canons  are  by  a  famous  heretic,  and  says 

(cp.  St.  Jerome's  Plures  fuisse).  The  mention  of  detraction  might  lead  us  to 
connect  this  piece  with  the  Non  idem  ordo,  but  it  was  an  obvious  trick  to  put 
a  sample  of  St  Jerome's  habitual  plaints  into  any  imitation.  The  external  evidence 
shows  there  can  be  no  common  authorship ;  for  the  Canit  Psalmista  is  in  none  of 
Berger's  MSS.  which  contain  Non  idem  ordo,  except  M  (Acts)  and  B  N  6.  It  is 
therefore  impossible  that  they  should  have  a  common  origin. 


PROLOGUES   OF  PRISCILLIAN  267 

explicitly  c  nemo  putet  ab  Hieronymo  factos '.  Secondly,  his 
work  is  in  Spanish  codices  and  their  derivatives,  while  the 
Prologue  is  widely  diffused  and  appears  in  the  Spanish  codices 
in  a  corrupt  form,  and  it  may  have  been  introduced  into  Spain 
in  a  single  copy,  of  which  the  first  line  was  lost. 

§  5.  The  *  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,Jact  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). 


368         LATER  MANIPULATIONS   OF  THE 

written  last,  he  must  be  omitted.     Matthew  has  to  go  among 
the  Apostles — he  can  take  the  vacant  place  left  by  John,  thus : 

Catholic  Epistles.  Gospels.  Result. 

Peter  Peter 

James  James 

(John)  Matthew  Matthew 

Jude  (John)  Jude 

Luke  Luke 

Mark  Mark 

As  Paul  and  Barnabas  have  to  be  inserted,  and  will  naturally 
go  together  (so  frequently  are  they  coupled  in  Acts),  they  will 
be  interpolated  after  the  Apostles,  as  being  Apostles,  but  the 
latest  of  them.     And  lo,  the  list  is  made  ! 

The  compiler  will  no  doubt  have  been  pleased  to  observe 
that  the  Apostles  are  now  in  the  same  order  as  in  the  lists 
of  the  Apostles  in  the  Gospels,  at  least  if  James  is  not  too 
carefully  identified.1 

What  is  meant  by  Barnabas?  Dom  De  Bruyne  thinks 
Hebrews.  But  in  the  catalogue  of  Codex  Claromontanus 
*  Barnabas '  seems  to  mean  the  Epistle  which  goes  under  that 
name.2  I  do  not  know  which  would  be  the  less  extraordinary, 
for  Barnabas  to  be  included  so  boldly  in  the  canon,  or  for  the 
writer  of  Hebrews  to  be  so  simply  assumed  to  be  Barnabas. 

We  next  find  a  question  and  its  answer.  Why  is  James, 
then,  first  in  order  of  the  Epistles,  though  Peter  wrote  first  ? 
Two  answers  are  given  :  the  former  attributes  the  primacy  to 
James,  which  is  astonishing  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 


PROLOGUES   OF  PRISCILLIAN  269 

a  mistake,  and  that  Peter  should  stand  before  James.  Here 
the  Vulgate  order  is  assumed,  so  that  this  portion  of  the 
fragment  is  not  homogeneous  with  the  former  portion.  It  is 
most  natural  to  assume  that  the  former  of  the  two  answers 
originally  applied  to  St.  Peter  ;  that  in  its  original  form  the 
question  was  asked  about  the  Old  Latin  order :  '  Why  does 
Peter  stand  first  among  the  Epistles  ?  '  The  twofold  answer 
will  have  been  given  ;  first :  *  praerogatiuam  apostolici  ordinis, 
ut  quidam  interpretantur  significat';  then  a  preferable  answer, 
in  accordance  with  the  principles  on  which  the  list  was 
made,  was  supplied  somewhat  as  follows:  'sed  praestantius 
est  id  quod  adfirmant  alii,  Petrum  poni  primum  cum  primus 
scripsit/ 

The  last  sentence,  dicunt  quidam^  &c,  is  from  St.  Jerome,  as 
Dom  De  Bruyne  has  pointed  out, ■  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. 


270 


PROLOGUES  OF  PRISCILLIAN 


to  his  prerogative  among  the  Apostles  ?  It  was  an  obvious 
remark  to  make;  yet  we  might  guess  that  it  was  borrowed 
from  Priscillian's  lost  Prologue  to  the  Catholic  Epistles,  like 
the  words  of  Pseudo-Jerome  which  it  resembles  : 


Ps.-Jerome. 

ut,  quia  Petrus  primus  est  in 
numero  apostolorum,  primae 
sint  etiam  eius  epistolae  in 
ordine  ceterarum. 


Fragment. 

Quare  primus  [Petrus]  in  ordine  epi- 
stolarum  ponitur?  Hac  de  causa  fuit. 
Praerogatiuam  apostolici  ordinis  .  .  . 
significat. 


CHAPTER   XV 

THE  HISTORY  OF  THE  PROLOGUES 

§  i.  The  sources  employed  in  the  Prologues. 

The  ingenious  and  elaborate  mystical  arguments  displayed 
in  the  Gospel  Prologues  are  beyond  doubt  due  to  the  curious 
brain  of  Priscillian  himself.  But  we  find  in  them  historical 
data  which  are  not  invented  but  borrowed.  This  historical 
matter  may  be  broadly  treated  in  three  divisions. 

A.  Much  of  it  is  simply  from  Holy  Scripture,  rightly  or 
wrongly  interpreted. 

1.  We  hear  of  St.  Matthew's  call  from  Judaism  to  the 
Gospel,  and  his  conversion  (transmigratio !)  from  the  pro- 
fession of  a  publican  to  faith. 

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. 


11%      THE   HISTORY   OF  THE  PROLOGUES 

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 
Prologues. 

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 


THE   HISTORY   OF  THE   PROLOGUES       273 

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 


274      THE  HISTORY   OF  THE  PROLOGUES 

that  they  had  a  common  source  for  this  one  sentence,  or 
rather  that  Priscillian  had  come  across  a  stray  fragment  of  the 
source  used  by  Jerome. 

1  Obiit  in  Bithynia '  is  unique,  it  would  seem ;  for  the  con- 
tinual repetition  of  the  statement  in  later  Western  writers1 
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\ost  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 


THE  HISTORY   OF  THE  PROLOGUES      275 

It  seems  to  be  a  Roman  tradition,  unknown  in  the  East. 
Lastly,  the  Alexandrian  episcopate  of  Mark  was  as  well 
known  in  Priscillian's  day  as  the  Roman  episcopate  of  Peter, 
so  here  we  need  not  ask  for  the  source. 

The  foregoing  investigation  has  shown  us  that  nearly  all 
Priscillian's  information  is  worthless,  fragmentary,  third  hand. 
His  ignorance  is  more  remarkable  than  his  knowledge.  We 
can  hardly  help  inferring  that  he  knew  no  Greek.1  But  he  is 
an  important  witness  for  lost  portions  of  the  Acts  of  John. 

The  Scriptural  inferences  under  A  may  be  partly  his  own, 
partly  from  the  B  or  C  sources.  The  tens  ad  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 
nothing. 

The  differences  are  far  more  striking.  The  fragment  is  concerned  to  harmonize 
the  Gospels,  to  defend  their  authenticity,  to  show  that  the  author  of  the  fourth 
Gospel  was  an  eyewitness,  to  establish  the  number  of  St.  Paul's  Epistles,  and  so 
on.  It  insists,  indeed,  on  the  correct  order  of  these,  but  this  is  not  a  very  close 
parallel  to  the  remarks  of  Priscillian  about  order.  The  Prologues  on  the  other 
hand  are  ' arguments',  introductions,  with  no  apologetic  purpose  whatever.  They 
were  written  at  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 


276      THE  HISTORY  OF  THE   PROLOGUES 

§  2.    Citations  of  the  Prologues  by  the  Venerable  Bede. 

In  two  sermons  St.  Bede  has  freely  borrowed  from  Pris- 
cillian's  Prologues.  These  quotations  are  so  early  that  I  think 
it  well  to  give  them  in  full.  The  venerable  doctor  is  accus- 
tomed to  draw  largely  upon  earlier  writers.  The  sermon 
on  St.  John  is  made  up  from  various  places  in  St.  Jerome 
where  that  Father  mentions  St.  John  (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. 
45-9.) 

Bede  has  corrected  the  absurd  tens  adcrucem  into  moriturus 
in  cruce.  There  is  no  variant  reading  to  be  noticed;  for 
appositus  is  probably  a  chance  coincidence  with  Q. 

the  fragment.  The  circumstances  of  the  composition  of  the  Gospel  are  not  given 
by  the  Prologue.  That  Luke  was  a  physician  and  companion  of  St.  Paul,  that 
John  was  one  of  the  '  disciples '  (his  own  name  for  himself  is  '  disciple ')  form  the 
only  common  ground,  and  such  statements  were  simply  unavoidable. 


THE  HISTORY  OF  THE  PROLOGUES      277 

The  other  sermon  is  on  St.  Matthew.  The  borrowings 
from  the  Prologue  are  evident,  though  inconsiderable : 

Libet  autem  meminisse,  fratres  carissimi,  ad  quantam  Dominus  arcem 
iustitiae  Matthaeum,  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 
orthodox. 

It  is  true  that  there  are  parallels  for  this  diffusion  of  the 
compositions  of  heretics  in  Vulgate  codices.  Bishop  Words- 
worth has  shown  that  the  summaries  of  Acts  in  MSS.  at 
Munich,  Bamberg,  and  Metz  are  the  work  of  a  Donatist  of  the 
fourth  century.  Dom  Donatien  De  Bruyne  has  recently  pub- 
lished the  astonishing  discovery  that  the  short  arguments 
to  St.  Paul's  Epistles  found  in  most  MSS.  are  of  Marcionite 
origin,  yet  they  are  as  much  diffused  as  the  Prologues  of 
Priscillian.  Priscillian's  own  canons  on  St.  Paul  are  found  in 
many  MSS.,  especially  in  Spanish  ones ;  but  then  these  had 
been  bowdlerized  by  Peregrinus.  It  may  be  added  that  the 
usual  introduction  to  St.  Paul  Primum  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. 


278      THE   HISTORY  OF  THE  PROLOGUES 

Prologues  it  was  their  obscurity  that  prevented  their  heresies 
from  being  detected. 

The  MSS.  used  by  Wordsworth  and  White  are  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) ;  0 
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,  ty  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   HISTORY   OF  THE   PROLOGUES       279 

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. 


28o      THE   HISTORY   OF   THE  PROLOGUES 

ings,  e.  g.  Matt,  in  iudaea  AYZ  quaterdenario  AY.1  Another 
proof  that  A  has  not  simply  borrowed  the  Prologues  from  an 
Irish  MS.  is  found  in  the  Prologue  to  John,  where  A  has  not 
the  original  form  implying  the  Old  Latin  order,  but  has 
retained  the  corrected  and  abridged  reading  ;  from  this  point 
onward  in  the  Prologue  A  deserts  the  Irish  text,  showing  that 
the  corrector  had  gone  no  further  with  his  work  on  seeing  the 
Irish  text  here  in  error,  as  it  must  have  seemed  to  him.  The 
original  reading  is  found  in  the  Alcuinian  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. 


THE  HISTORY  OF  THE   PROLOGUES      281 

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 : 


Lerins 
St.  Patrick,  432 


First  Revision 


D3>Q 


Alcnin 


Second  Revision 
I 


Eugipius  510 
I 


?  Augustine  600 


Spanish 


YReg 


A 


CT0H 


§  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 


282       THE  HISTORY  OF  THE   PROLOGUES 

and  the  (partial)  summary  of  Hebrews  and  its  text-divisions. 
The  liturgical  list  refers  to  the  summaries  and  corresponding 
text-divisions.  There  is  no  reason  to  doubt  that  all  this 
additional  matter  belonged  to  the  Old  Latin  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 
possession. 

We  had  before  arrived  at  the  conclusion  that  Cassiodorus 
got  all  his  introductions2  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. 


THE   HISTORY  OF  THE  PROLOGUES       283 

OXZ,  but  then  we  have  already  seen  reason  to  think  that  the 
archetype  of  OX  was  corrected  according  to  an  AY  codex, 
and  that  Z  is  closely  connected  with  OX  in  origin,  though  not 
in  text.  On  the  other  hand  the  Prologues  are  unknown 
to  the  other  Italian  codices — to  J,  to  M,  and  to  the  yet  earlier 
St.  Gall  codex  which  Mr.  C.  H.  Turner  is  publishing  for  the 
first  time. 

It  is  in  F  that  we  first  meet  with  the  manipulated  Pris- 
cillian  Prologues  to  Acts,  Cath.  Epp.,  and  Apoc.  If  Eugipius 
introduced  the  Gospel  Prologues  into  Italy,  it  will  follow  that 
he  also  introduced  these  derivative  Prologues,  as  they  are  not 
likely  to  have  arrived  before  the  originals.  We  cannot  infer  that 
Cassiodorus  did  not  know  them  from  the  fact  that  he  did  not 
adopt  them  (for  they  are  not  in  A),  since  he  may  have  been 
clever  enough  to  reject  two  of  them  as  rags  from  the  Gospel 
Prologues,  and  that  to  the  Catholic  Epistles  as  a  forgery.1  If 
they  were  composed  at  Lerins  in  the  course  of  the  fifth  century, 
their  wide  circulation  is  explained  ;  and  we  see  why  they 
were  not  known  in  Italy  or  in  Ireland,  though  they  appear  in 
Spain. 

I  assume,  therefore,  as  highly  probable,  though  not  sus- 
ceptible of  proof,  that  Eugipius  had  the  following  Introductions, 
&c,  to  the  New  Testament  : 

1.  In  the  Gospels  which  belonged  to  St.  Jerome  he  may 
have  found  already  the  Nouum  opus,  the  Eusebian  canons,  and 
the  Plures  fuisse,  but  not  the  letter  to  Carpianus. 

2.  In  the  Gospels  which  came  from  Lerins  he  found  some 
Old  Latin  summaries  (no  doubt  those  found  with  the  Irish  text), 
a  list  of  feasts  with  reference  to  the  titles  of  the  summaries 
(but  not  coinciding  with  their  divisions),  and  corresponding 
marginal  notes.     Also  the  four  Prologues  of  Priscillian. 

3.  In  a  copy  of  St.  Paul  which  came  from  Lerins  (and 
which,  like  F,  contained  the  Epistle  to  the  Laodiceans), 
Eugipius  found  the  Prologue  (of  Pelagius  ?)  Primum  quaeritur, 

1  But  though  Cassiodorus  probably  got  his  introductions  to  St.  Paul  from 
Eugipius,  there  is  no  reason  to  think  he  got  the  Catholic  Epistles,  Apocalypse, 
or  Acts  from  him,  or  the  introductions  to  them  either.  We  saw  that  the  Codex 
of  St.  Paul  contained  nothing  but  St.  Paul. 


284      THE   HISTORY  OF  THE   PROLOGUES 

the  Old  Latin  canons  (called  capitulatio  in  A  and  in  their 
explicit  in  F,  but  concordia  epistularum  in  the  incipit  in  F),  the 
short  Marcionite  arguments,  and  the  Old  Latin  breues  or 
summaries.1  Hebrews  had  no  summary  or  argument,  but 
was  divided,  as  in  F,  into  125  sections.  It  appears  that 
Hebrews  was  an  excrescence  in  the  Old  Latin  Bible.  In  the 
Codex  Claromontanus  it  is  added  after  the  stichometrical  list. 
It  is  not  included  in  the  Marcionite  arguments,  or  in  these 
ancient  summaries,  which  also  do  not  recognize  the  last  two 
chapters  of  Romans,  while  Laodiceans  is  said  in  the  Muratorian 
fragment  to  be  by  a  Marcionite.  Marcion  acknowledged  neither 
Hebrews  nor  those  two  chapters.  The  connexion  of  the 
summaries,  the  arguments,  and  the  Old  Latin  collection  of  St. 
Paul  is  seen  to  be  most  intimate,  and  to  have  a  most  important 
bearing  upon  the  history  of  the  canon.  But  of  this  another 
time ;  for  it  would  take  us  right  away  from  the  Vulgate  into 
the  far  more  engrossing  subject  of  the  *  Western  text '  and 
its  relation  to  Marcion.  But  at  least  let  us  testify  to  the  vast 
importance  of  Dom  De  Bruyne's  recognition  of  the  Marcionite 
character  of  the  short  arguments  of  St.  Paul's  epistles. 

4.  Returning  to  Eugipius  we  see  that  he  composed  new 
summaries  for  the  "Gospels  based  upon  the  text-divisions 
of  the  Lerins  pericopae  (but  in  St.  John  sometimes  following 
the  older  summary,  where  pericopae  were  scarce),  thus  sim- 
plifying reference.  He  copied  these  into  his  codex  of  St. 
Jerome,  together  with  Priscillian's  Prologues.  Thus  was 
formed  the  collection  of  A.  (In  Y  Reg  the  letter  to  Car- 
pianus  has  been  added.) 

§  5.  A  conjectural  history  of  the  Prologues. 

As  the  original  impulse  to  the  investigations  set  down 
in  this  little  book  came  from  the  desire  to  know  how  the 
Prologues  of  the  heretic  Priscillian  came  to  be  so  universally 
received  as  the  proper  introductions  to  the  Vulgate  Gospels, 
it  is  satisfactory  that  we  can  end  up  with  a  history  of  the 

1  The  summaries  (extending  to  xiv.  10,  and  therefore  perhaps  complete)  which 
occupy  the  first  twenty-three  places  for  Romans  in  F  were  evidently  introduced 
by  Victor.    Dom  De  Bruyne  has  discovered  them  in  another  ancient  MS. 


THE   HISTORY   OF  THE   PROLOGUES       285 

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. 


286      THE  HISTORY  OF  THE   PROLOGUES 

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 


THE   HISTORY  OF   THE   PROLOGUES       287 

marked  text,  and  the  first  line  of  the  Prologues  to  the 
Catholic  Epistles  is  wanting  in  all  of  them.1  It  is  impossible 
to  prove  that  this  single  copy  came  mediately  or  immediately 
from  Lerins  ;  but  there  is  nothing  to  make  such  a  hypothesis 
improbable. 

4.  Eugipius  possessed  the  Prologues  to  the  Gospels,  for  he 
borrowed  from  them  in  composing  his  summaries.  From 
him  they  came  to  Cassiodorus  and  to  Jarrow.  The  text  of  A 
has  been  Hibernicized ;  Y  Reg  give  the  Eugipian  text. 

5.  Now  Victor  of  Capua  got  his  Gospels  and  his  Pauline 
Epistles  from  Eugipius.  Probably  he  got  his  three  Prologues 
to  Acts,  Apocalypse  and  Catholic  Epistles  also  from  Eugipius, 
and  Eugipius  got  them  from  Lerins.  They  were  probably 
propagated  from  Lerins,  and  also  by  Eugipius.  Their  great 
vogue  is  later,  in  the  Alcuinian  Bibles  and  their  derivatives. 
The  Prologue  to  Acts  belongs  to  one  of  the  great  clans  of 
MSS.  of  Acts  and  not  to  the  other— not  to  the  AGIMOD 
clan,  but  to  the  rather  inferior  BKVFSUR  clan.  Of  the 
former  clan  it  appears  only  in  Mact8y  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. 


288      THE    HISTORY  OF  THE   PROLOGUES 

Northumbrian  A,  to  the  Canterbury  OaGt8.  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 : 


D3>Q 

I    \ 


Lerins 


St.  Patrick         First  Revision 


Eugipius 
Second  Revision 


Cassiodorus 


Jarrow  Rome 


Spain 


Alcuin 


or 


YReg 


ok 


W 


c 

0 

INDEX 


A,  see  Amiatinus,  Codex. 

Acts,  The  Prologue  to,  Lucas  nat. 
Syrus,  254  ff. ;  MSS.  of  it  used 
by  Wordsworth,  43,  287. 

Advent,  in  the  Neapolitan  lists, 
104;  in  St.  Burchard's  list,  122; 
in  Cod.  Fuld.,  138 ;  in  Bodl.  Gosp. 
of  St.  Aug.,  195. 

Agapitus,  Martyr,  in  Capuan  docu- 
ments, 147-55. 

Agapitus,  Pope,  2,  38. 

Agaunum,  96. 

Agenda,  funeral  Mass,  in  theNeapol. 
lists,  120;  in  St.  Burchard's  list, 
127  ;  in  Cod.  Fuld.,  141-2. 

Aidan,  St.,  8. 

Alcuin  of  York,  his  library,  49-50 ; 
Alcuinian  text  of  Prologues,  280  ; 
Alcuinian  MSS.  (KNTV.)  in- 
fluenced by  text  of  St.  Gregory, 
209 ;  Alcuinian  MSS.  of  Acts, 
287. 

Amator,  St.,  Bp.  of  Auxerre,  165. 

Amiatinus,  Codex  (A),  its  con- 
nexion with  the  codex  grandior 
of  Cassiodorus,  2  ff.  ;  has  a 
Cassiodorian  text,  16-29  >  excel- 
lence of  its  text  indicates  that  its 
archetype  in  the  possession  of 
Eugipius  really  came  from  St. 
Jerome,  43 ;  its  parent  contained 
the  Neapolitan  liturgical  lists, 
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, 

135. 

Ammonius,  Diatessaron  of,  78-9,93. 

Anastasius,  Emperor,  81. 

Andrew,  St.,  Abbey  of,  on  the 
Caelian,  198,  213. 

Andrew,  St.,  Feast  of,  in  Bodl. 
Gosp.  of  St.  Augustine,  196,  198. 

Anecdoton  Holderi,  on  life  of 
Cassiodorus,  37. 

Anglo-Saxon  Martyrology  :  see 
Martyrology. 

Antonius  of  Lerins,  BL,  98. 

Apocalypse,  Prologue  to,  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), 
96. 

Augustine,  St.,  of  Hippo,  on  order 
of  the  books  of  the  Bible,  4  ;  his 
text  of  St.  John  influenced  that  of 
St.  Gregory,  209  ;  anticipates  the 
Comma  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. 


U 


290 


INDEX 


Avitus,  St.,  on  prerogative  of  Jeru- 
salem, 269. 

Bachiarius  or  Peregrinus,  258-9. 

Baldwin,  Abbot  of  Bury,  190. 

Bamberg  MS.  of  Cassiodorus,  4, 
29. 

Barbaria,  has  the  body  of  St.  Seve- 
rinus  translated  to  Lucullanum, 
41. 

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, 

135. 

Benet  Biscop,  St.,  founder  of 
Jarrow,  7;  Abbot  of  St.  Peter 
and  St.  Paul  at  Canterbury,  12 ; 
his  feast  at  Jarrow,  66,  68,  77. 

Benevento,  Codex  of,  its  origin,  179. 

Berger,  Samuel ;  on  the  note  in  the 
Echternach  Gospels  about  Eugi- 
pius,  29 ;  on  the  connexion  of  the 
Irish  summaries  and  those  of  the 
Codex  Vaticanus  with  the  Roman 
Comes,  65  ;  on  the  Cambridge 
Gospels  of  St.  Augustine,  183 ; 
on  those  of  the  Bodleian  also,  his 
views  refuted,  185 ;  on  a  supposed 
Anglo-Saxon  type  of  text,  187; 
on  the  Gospel  Prologues,  239; 
on  the  authenticity  of  the  Pro- 
logue of  St.  Jerome,  Tres  libros 
Salomonis,  260. 

$F :  see  Benevento. 

Biblia  Gregoriana  (Brit.  Mus.,  Reg. 
I.  E  vi),  181 ;  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), 
179. 

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, 
128. 

Burial  Service  :  see  Agenda. 

Bury,  Professor,  on  St.  Patrick,  165. 

Bury  St.  Edmunds,  the  Bodleian 
Gospels  of  St.  Augustine  not 
necessarily  written  there,  189-90. 

Butler,  Abbot  E.  C,  of  Downside, 
166. 

Cabrol,  Abbot  F.,  of  Farnborough, 
on  Advent,  105. 

Cambridge  Gospels  of  St.  Augustine 
(X),  183 ff.;  Charters  in,  190; 
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. 


INDEX 


291 


Canterbury,  Abbey  of  St.  Peter  and 
St.  Paul,  Benet  Biscop,  Abbot 
of,  8  ;  succeeded  by  St.  Hadrian, 

12  ;  Canterbury  text  compared 
with  that  of  St.  Gregory,  210  ff. ; 
compared  with  Northumbrian, 
213  ff. ;  see  Bodleian  and  Cam- 
bridge. 

Capua,  Mass-books  and  Kalendars, 

13  ;  the  Capuan  Mass-books  of 
Northumbria,  144-61  ;  Capuan 
Saints  in  Martyrology  of  Echter- 
nach,  14, 149-51  ;  in  Echternach 
Kalendar,  145, 151-4  ;  in  Anglo- 
Saxon  Martyrology,  145,  146-9; 
mosaics  of  apse  of  St.  Prisco,  135, 
1 48  ff. ;  and  of  dome  of  St.  Prisco, 
153.  See  also  Victor  of  Capua, 
and  Fuldensis. 

Cassiodorus,  Life  of,  2-3  ;  his  age  in 
558,  32 ;  chronology  of  his  life, 
33-9  ;  contents  of  his  library,  34  ; 
composed  summaries  of  certain 
books  of  Scripture,  91  ;  on  the 
Psalms,  3  ;  date  of,  33-9  ;  on  the 
Catholic  Epistles,  3 ;  de  Ortho- 
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, 

98. 
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, 

278. 
Cottidianae  lectiones,  in  Neapolitan 

lists,  1 20-1. 
Coxe,  on  date  of  Bodl.  Gosp.  of 

St.  Aug.,  188. 
Cross,  Feasts  of  Holy,  99-100. 
Cuthbert,  St.,  8 ;   the   Stonyhurst 

St.  John  buried  with  him,  7. 
Cuthbert,   Evangeliarium  of   St. : 

see  Lindisfarne  Gospels. 
Cyprian,  St.,  a  note  in  Codex  M  of, 

32  ;  agreement  of  text  with  Aug. 

and  Greg.,  209 ;  anticipates  the 

Comma  Iohanneum,  263. 

D  :  see  Armagh,  Book  of. 

De  Bruyne,   Dom    Donatien,    on 


2$2 


INDEX 


canones  noui  testamenti,  267  ff. ; 
on  Marcionite  Prologues,  277-8, 
284. 

Decollatio  S.  Joannis  Baptistae, 
feast  of,  in  Bede's  homilies,  72  ; 
in  Neapolitan  lists,  99-100. 

Dedication  feast,  in  Bede's  homilies, 
76;  in  Neapolitan  lists,  101, 120  ; 
in  Cod.  Fuld.,  140;  in  Bodl. 
Gosp.  of  St.  Aug.,  197 ;  dedic. 
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, 
186. 

Engelbrecht,  Prof.,  edition  of 
Faustus,  167  ff. 

Ennodius,  his  panegyric  of  St. 
Antonius  of  Lerins,  98. 

3* :  see  Echternach. 

Epiphanius,  St.,  227,  272. 

Epiphany,  in  Bede's  homilies,  71-2  ; 
in  Neapolitan  lists,  100,  107 ;  in 
St.  Burchard's  list,  122  ;  in  the 
Cod.  Fuld.,  139. 

Epternacensis :  see  Echternach. 

Eucherius,  St.,  Bp.  of  Lyons,  97 ; 
his  use  of  Vulg.  Gospels,  173-7. 

Eugendus,  St.,  or  Augendus,  or 
Oyand,  97. 

Eugipius  of  Lucullanum,  ortho- 
graphy of  name,  15  ;  note  in  Ech- 
ternach Gospels  referring  to  him, 
28  ;  his  citations  of  the  N.  T.,  39- 
40  ;  his  friends,  39-42  ;  known  to 
Cassiodorus,  42;  his  Gallican 
liturgy,  96-129  ;  introduces  it  c. 
5 10  at  Lucullanum,  102  ;  his  stay 
at  Lerins,  96  ff. ;  author  of  note  as 
to  feasts  of  St.  John  and  of  the 
Ascension  in  YReg,  106,  115; 
author  of  the  Pauline  lectionary 
of  Cod.  Fuld.,  135  ff.  ;  composed 
new  Gospel  summaries,  64,  121, 
284 ;  why  he  did  so,  136 ;  the 
Gospel  Prologues  came  to  him 
from  Lerins,  282  ff. ;  list  of  intro- 
ductions possessed  by  him,  283. 

European  type  of  Old  Latin,  50. 

Eusebius,  his  letter  to  Carpianus, 
known  to  Victor  of  Capua  only 
in  Greek,  79,  93,  283. 

Ezra,  picture  of  him  writing  the 
law,  Cod.  Amiat.,  5  ;  order  of  the 
volumes  in  the  picture,  17. 

F  :  see  Fuldensis  Codex. 

Faustus,  Abbot  of  Lerins  and  Bp, 


INDEX 


293 


of  Riez,  date  of,  167 ;  his  use  of 

Vulg.  Gosp.,  167-73. 
Felix  and  Donatus,  SS.,  i5off. 
Feltoe,  C.  L.,  on  Media  Pentecostes, 

194. 
Ferotin,  Dom,  71. 
Ferrandus,    deacon    of   Carthage, 

40-1. 
Forojuliensis  Codex  (J),  Summaries 

of,   215-16;    likeness    of   Bodl. 

Gosp.  of  St.  Aug.,  195. 
Franz,  on  library  of  Cassiodorus, 

2  ;  on  chronology  of  Cassiodorus, 

33,  36-7. 
Fulda,  foundation  of  the  Abbey, 

157. 

Fuldensis  Codex,  its  Diatessaron, 
78-81 ;  examples  of  readings 
compared  with  Amiatinus,  83 ; 
text  derived  from  Eugipius,  83 ; 
summary  of  the  Diatessaron  given 
in  full,  85  ff. ;  other  summaries, 
136  ;  summaries,  text-divisions, 
prefaces,  and  text  of  St.  Paul, 
142-3 ;  prefatory  matter  com- 
pared with  that  of  Amiatinus, 
135  ;  Pauline  summaries,  &c. ; 
came  through  Eugipius  from 
Lerins,  91,  281,  283;  summaries 
and  tituli  for  Hebrews,  135  ; 
liturgical  list  of  Pauline  peri- 
copae,  130-43  ;  text  of  St.  Paul 
fundamentally  Old  Latin,  136  ; 
writing  of  St.  Boniface  in  it,  157  ; 
possibly  brought  by  Benet  Biscop 
to  England,  188. 

Fulgentius,  St.,  40. 

Funeral :  see  Agenda. 

Gall,  St.,  MSS.  of  Acts  in  Library  at, 

287. 
Gatien,  St.,  MS.  of,  50. 
Gelasius,  St.,  Pope,  41. 
Gerbert,  Monumenta  veteris  Litur- 

giae  Alemannicae,  122. 
Germanus,  St.,  of  Capua,  and  the 

Diatessaron  of  the  Cod.  Fuld., 

80-1. 
Germanus,  St.,  of  Auxerre,  and  St. 

Patrick,  164. 
Glossa  ordinaria,  257. 
Good  Friday :  see  Holy  Week. 
Grandval,  Bible  of  (K),  209. 
Gregory,  Dr.  C.  R.,  3. 
Gregory  the  Great,  St.,  pericopae 


commented  on  in  his  homilies 
and  the  notes  of  the  Bodl.  Gosp. 
of  St.  Aug.,  197  ;  his  text  of  the 
Gospels,  203-16  ;  analysis  of  it, 
203  fF. ;  his  influence  seen  in  Vul- 
gate MSS.,  208. 

Hadrian,  St.,  Abbot  of  Canterbury, 
wrongly  said  to  have  brought 
Neapolitan  lists  to  England,  11, 
44;    to    have   brought    Capuan 

'  Mass-books,  13,  147  ;  and  South 
Italian  saints'  names  in  Echter- 
nach  Martyrology,  14,  145, 150. 

Hales,  William  of,  his  codex  (W), 
influenced  by  text  of  St.  Gregory, 
208;  its  text  of  the  Prologues, 
280. 

Harleian  Gospels  (Z),  resemblance 
to  Bodl.  Gosp.  of  St.  Aug.,  191, 
199,  215,  283  ;  agreement  with 
St.  Gregory's  text,  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., 
126. 

Herold,  on  birth  of  Eugipius,  41. 

Herzfeld,  Dr.,  edition  of  Anglo- 
Saxon  Martyrology,  146-7,  159. 

Hiridanum  Monasterium,  11. 

Hodgkin,  Dr.,  on  chronology  of 
Cassiodorus,  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. 


"3 


294 


INDEX 


Incorruptibile  Verbum,  a  wrongly 
punctuated  version  of  I  Peter  i. 
23,  227,  246,  253. 

Indulgentia,  Dominica  de,  109, 113, 

139. 

In  martyra:  see  Commune  San- 
ctorum. 

In  sancti  angeli  :  see  Michael, 
Dedic.  of. 

In  Sanctorum :  see  Commune  San- 
ctorum. 

Introductions :  see  Prologues. 

In  uelanda  :  see  Matrimony. 

Invention :  see  Cross,  Holy. 

Iona,  8. 

Irish  text  of  the  Gospels,  162-80  ; 
used  by  St.  Patrick,  164 ;  brought 
by  him  from  Lerins,  177-80; 
Irish  text  of  the  Prologues  always 
the  best,  217,  279. 

Isidore,  St.,  273. 

J. :  see  Forojuliensis  Codex. 

James,  St.,  feast,  71. 

James,  Dr.  M.  R.,  on  origin  of 
Bodl.  Gosp.  of  St.  Aug.  from  Bury 
St.  Edmunds,  189-90. 

Januarius,  St.,  feast,  99,  104. 

Jarrow,  6,  7,  9,  13,  23  ;  founded  by 
Benet  Biscop,  8  ;  Naples,  liturgy 
at,  65  ff.,  72 ;  dedication  of  Ch.,  76. 

Jerome,  St.,  his  order  of  the  books 
of  the  Bible,  4,  19 ;  verses  ad- 
dressed to  him,  18 ;  his  text 
arranged  per  cola  et  commata,  16, 
text  of  his  letter  Nouum  opus 
in  Echternach  Gosp.,  27 ;  the 
codex  of  Eugipius  attributed  to 
him,  28,  42-4  ;  his  Comm.  on  the 
Epistles,  sent  for  by  Cassiodorus, 
41 ;  Prologues  formed  out  of  his 
letter  to  Paulinus,  254,  258 ;  his 
two  Prologues  to  the  books  of 
Solomon,  260  ;  letter  of  Pseudo- 
Jerome  to  Constantius,  prefixed 
to  the  Comes,  66 ;  Pseudo- 
Jerome's  Prologue  to  Catholic 
Epp.,  262 ;  and  to  Acts,  265  ; 
the  letter  Nouum  opus  and  Pro- 
logue Plures  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, 
99-100. 

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, 
253>  273;  Prologue  to  John 
adapted  to  the  Vulgate  by  an 
alteration  of  its  text,  219,  228, 
279 ;  and  see  Prologues. 

John  and  Paul,  SS.,  feast,  in  Bede's 
homilies,  72 ;  in  Neapolitan  lists, 
118. 

Juliana,  St.,  of  Cumae,  isoff. 

Jungat  Epistola,  Prologue  of  St. 
Jerome  to  books  of  Solomon, 
260. 

K  :  see  Grandval,  Bible  of. 

Kalendar  of  Echternach,  144 :  see 
Echternach. 

Kattenbusch,  Dr.,  243. 

Kaulen,  Mgr.,  his  work  Die  Vulgata 
cited,  81-2;  on  Vincent  of 
Lerins's  use  of  the  Vulgate,  166. 

Kells,  Book  of  (Q),  9 ;  Irish  sum- 
maries in,  27. 

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. 


INDEX 


295 


Leofric,  Missal  of  (Sundays  after 

Pent.),  201. 
Leofstan,  Abbot  of  Bury,  190. 
Lerins,  Eugipius  at,  96-8 ;  Marinus, 

Abbot  of,  96-7  ;    Bl.   Antonius 

of,  98  ;     St.  Patrick  at,  164  ff. ; 

Faustus  of  Riez,  Abbot  of,  167  ; 

St.  Eucherius  at,  173  ;  Irish  text 

of  the  Gosp.  derived  from,  177 ; 

the  Gosp.  Prologues  attached  to 

the  Vulgate  at,  281  ff. ;  Old  Latin 

text  used  at,  178,  286. 
Liber    Comicus    of    Toledo:    see 

Comicus. 
Lichfield,  Gospels  of  St.  Chad  (L), 

origin  of,  179  ;  Bodl.  Gosp.  of  St. 

Aug.  not  from  Lichfield,  189. 
Lindisfarne,    Gospels    of   (Y),    or 

Evangeliarium  of  St.  Cuthbert, 

4,  7  ;  lists  of,  not  brought  from 

Naples   by  St.   Hadrian,  8-14; 

Neapolitan  lists  of,  given  in  full, 

52  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, 

261. 
Lucas  natione  Syrus,  Prologue  to 

Acts,  254  ;  MSS.  of,  287. 
Lucillus,  first  Abbot  of  Lucullanum, 

41,  96. 
Lucullanum,  now  Castel  dell'  Uovo, 

at  Naples,  Monastery  of  Eugipius, 

15,  29,  41,  44,  96-7;    date  of 

foundation,  102. 
Luke,  Prologue  to :  see  Prologues. 
Luke,  St.,  account  of,  in  Prologue, 

229,  231,  271,  273. 
Lupulus,  St.,  in  Capuan  documents 

and  mosaics,  147  ff. 
Luxeuil,  Lectionary  of,  71  ff.,  &c. 

Mabillon,  Dom  Jean,  Capitulations 
of  Bede's  homilies,  67 ff.;  on 
Marinus  of  Lerins,  96 ;  on  An- 
tonius of  Lerins,  98. 

Macon,  Synod  of,  on  Advent,  105. 

Macray,  on  origin  of  Bodl.  Gosp. 
of  St.  Aug.,  189. 

Magnus,  St.,  in  Capuan  documents, 
147-55. 


Mandatum,  113. 

Marcianus,  Abbot  of  Lucullanum, 

41,  96. 
Marcionite  Arguments  to  St.  Paul, 

277-8,  284. 
Marcus,  St.,  of  Aecae,  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, 

105. 
Martyrology,  of  St.  Jerome,  99-100 ; 

of  Echternach :  see  Echternach  ; 

Anglo-Saxon    or    Old    English 

Martyrology,   145,  146 ff.;   date 

and  origin,  159. 
Martyrs,  Common  of:  see  Commune 

Sanctorum. 
Mass-books,  older,  in  Anglo-Saxon 

Martyrology,  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, 

181. 
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- 
logues. 


2g6 


INDEX 


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), 
186. 

Muratorian  fragment  and  the  Pro- 
logues, 275. 

Naples,  St.  Hadrian  came  from 
near,  1 1  ;  Lindisfarne  Gosp.  and 
Naples,  10 :  see  Lucullanum  and 
Nisida. 

Neapolitan  lists  of  Gospel  pericopae 
in  Y  Reg,  2,  10-13  ;  given  in  full 
in  table,  122  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. 
Augustine. 

Old  English  Martyrology :  see 
Martyrology. 

Old  Latin,  in  St.  John  of  Burch, 
49  ;  in  text  of  St.  Gregory,  211  ; 
order  of  the  Gosp.  in  Prologue  to 
John,  228 ;  the  Gosp.  Prologues 
not  in  O.  L.  Latin  MSS.,  except 
in  version  adapted  to  Vulg.,  279. 

Ordination,  Mass  of,  in  Neapolitan 
lists,  119;  in  Cod.  Fuld.,  140-1. 

Orleans,  Council  of,  on  Quinqua- 
gesima,  no. 

Orosius,  Commonitorium,  250. 

Palm  Sunday :  see  Holy  Week  ;  in 
Bede's  homilies,  74 ;  in  Neapo- 
litan lists,  100, 103, 112  ;  in  F,  139. 

Pamelius,  edition  of  the  Comes, 
125. 

Pancras,  St.,  feast,  116. 

Pandects  of  Bible  in  library  of 
Cassiodorus,  4-8. 

Paris,  ancient  lectionary  of,  105  ; 
Bibl.  Nat.,  MS.  lat.  9451,  126.' 

Paruulos,  ad,  pericope  in  Bodl. 
Gosp.  of  St.  Aug.,  201. 

Pascha,  quod  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, 
I35>  x96;  Prologue  to,  Primum 
quaeritur,  277 ;  introductions, 
summaries,  &c. :  see  Fuldensis, 
Amiatinus,  and  Prologues. 


INDEX 


297 


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, 
194. 

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, 
105. 

Peter,  St.,  and  St.  Paul,  feasts  of, 
in  Bede's  homilies,  71  ;  in  Nea- 
politan lists,  107,  1 18-19  ;  m  St. 
Burchard's  list,  126-7  ;  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  fuissef  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, 
2l7-37  ;  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, 
274. 

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' 
days. 

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, 
in. 

Quentin,  Dom  Henri,  145, 151, 152. 

Quinquagesima,  109,  139. 

Quintus,  St.,  in  Capuan  documents 
and  mosaics,  147  ff. 


298 


INDEX 


Ranke,  E.,  edition  of  Cod.  Fuld., 
84,  130 ;  Das  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., 
32. 

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., 

25. 
Toledo :  see  Comicus. 
Tours,  Synod  of,  on  Advent,  105  ; 

St.  Patrick  at,  165. 
Tres    libros     Sal.,    Prol.    by    St. 

Jerome,  260. 
Trithemius,  on  chronology  of  Cassio- 

dorus,  37. 
Turner,  C.  H.,  on  order  of  Cassio- 


INDEX 


299 


dorus's  nine  vols.,  29  ;  on  use  by 
Priscillian  of  Acts  of  Thomas, 
253,  &c. 
Turribius,  or  Turibius,  letter  to 
St.  Leo  on  Priscillianist  use  of 
spurious  Acts  of  Apostles,  253, 
273. 

Utrecht  Psalter,  fragments  of  Matt, 
and  John  in,  7. 

V  (Vallicella  MS.) :  see  Alcuin. 

Vallarsi,  261. 

Victor,  Bp. ,  of  Capua,  St. ,  his  epitaph, 

30  ;  his  date,  78  ;  his  Diatessaron, 

78  ;  not  the  author  of  the  Note 

about   Eugipius    in   Echternach 

Gosp.,  30;    his  entries  in  Cod. 

Fuld.,    30;     borrowed    MS.    of 

Eugipius,  83-4,  92. 
Victorinus,  227. 
Vigilius,    Pope,   condemnation    of 

Origen,  38. 
Vincent  of  Lerins,  St.,  quotations 

of,  164-5  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., 
188. 

Whitby,  Synod  of,  8. 

White,  H.  J.,  3,  4,  6,  16-17,  21-2, 
&c. ;  on  Vincent  of  Lerins,  166  ; 
on  Cambridge  Gosp.  of  St.  Aug., 
184;  on  Bodl.  do.,  183. 

Whitley  Stokes :  see  Stokes. 

Whitsunday :  see  Pentecost. 

Wilfrid,  St.,  189. 

William  of  Hales  :  see  Hales. 

Willibrord,  St.,  14,  26,  144 :  see 
Echternach. 

Wordsworth,  Bp.  of  Salisbury,  and 
Rev.  H.  J.  White,  1,  &c.  ;  on 
Echternach  Gosp.,  15,  26-7 ;  on 
MSS.  of  Acts,  43,  287  ;  on  Dia- 
tessaron of  Cod.  Fuld.,  82  ;  on 
Cod.  Laud,  of  Acts,  158 ;  on 
Gosp.  of  St.  Aug.,  184;  con- 
jectural emendation  of  Prologue 
to  John,  219-20,  227-8,  278-9. 

Wotke,  ed.  of  St.  Eucherius,  173. 

W7iirzburg  library :  see  Burchard, 
Gospels  of  St.,  unpublished  list 
of  Roman  Stations,  129. 

X :  see  Cambridge  Gospels  of  St. 

Augustine. 
Xystus,  St.,  148,  153. 

Y:  see  Lindisfarne,  Gospels  of. 
Youngman,  G.  M.,  9. 

Z :  see  Harleian  Gospels. 
Zahn,  Theodor,  4  ;  on  Diatessaron, 
78. 


OXFORD 
PRINTED   AT  THE   CLARENDON    PRESS 
BY   HORACE   HART,  M.A. 
PRINTER   TO  THE    UNIVERSITY 


M 


BS 

Chapman 

Notes 

history 

Gospels 

2555 
.C48 

on  the 
of  the 

early 
Vulgate 

f 

A22*+9 

DATE 

ISSUED 

TO