^{page 197 note 1} Wulfstan: Sammlung der ihm zugeschriebenen Homilien, ed. Arthur, Napier (Berlin, 1883; repr. with a bibliographical supplement by Klaus Ostheeren, Dublin and Zürich, 1967), pp. 143–52.Google Scholar

^{page 197 note 2} Cf. Ker, N. R., Catalogue of Manuscripts containing Anglo-Saxon (Oxford, 1957), where the homily is listed as item 23 of the manuscript.Google Scholar

^{page 197 note 3} Wulfstanstudien (Bern, 1950), pp. 208–10.Google Scholar

^{page 197 note 4} Max Fürster had earlier printed the relevant sections of Napier xxx alongside the Vercelli text in his edition of Vercelli iv in Die Vercelli-Homilien: I–VIII Homilie (Hamburg, 1932; repr. Darmstadt, 1964)Google Scholar, and his edition of Vercelli ix in ‘Der Vercelli-Codex CXVII nebst Abdruck einiger altenglischer Homilien der Handschrift’, Studien zur engliscben Pbilologie 50(1913), 21–179.Google Scholar

^{page 197 note 5} Whitbread, L., ‘“Wulfstan” Homilies xxix, xxx and Some Related Texts’, Anglia 81 (1963), 347–64Google Scholar, rectifies Jost's failure to realize that a version of Napier xlix is in the Vercelli Book.

^{page 197 note 6} McIntosh, A., Wulfstan's Prose, Proc. of the Brit. Acad. 34 (London, 1949).Google Scholar

^{page 198 note 1} The Homilies of Wulfstan, ed. Dorothy, Bethurum (Oxford, 1957).Google Scholar

^{page 199 note 1} Cf. ‘Der Vercelli-Codex’, p. 109, n. 2. Quotations from Vercelli ix and Bodley 340 are from Forster and those from N from Napier, but, as with all my quotations from printed editions, I have occasionally altered the punctuation and capitalization or corrected the text silently by reference to the manuscript. Accent marks have been ignored.

^{page 199 note 2} Quotations from Vercelli xxi are from the manuscript; cf. the facsimile, Il codice vercellese, ed. Förster, M. (Rome, 1913), 114v–115r.Google Scholar

^{page 199 note 3} For other examples, cf. Förster, , ‘Der Vercelli-Codex’, p. 107Google Scholar, lines 6–7, where Vercelli ix and N have a sentence which is omitted from Bodley 340; Die Vercelli-Homilien, ed. Förster, , p. 74Google Scholar, lines 23–4, where Vercelli iv and N have ‘swylce hwa his eage bepriwe’ against the inferior reading of Cambridge, Corpus Christi College 41, item 9: ‘swylce he his ege beprywe’. The poem Exhortation to Christian Living parallels N section b in part only, whereas Vercelli xxi parallels the whole of it, and the adaptation of Vercelli iv in CCCC 201, pp. 222–30, is less close to N sections k and m than Vercelli iv itself is, as is made clear; Förster, , Die Vercelli-Homilien, p. 79, n. 47.Google Scholar

^{page 199 note 4} Quotations from Vercelli x are from the manuscript, 69V–70V.

^{page 200 note 1} Perhaps this sentence is omitted from N because it is garbled.

^{page 200 note 2} Again it is a garbled sentence that is omitted from N.

^{page 200 note 3} utan emfrætewian mid readum golde seems by its position to have been suggested by Vercelli's (ix) ‘of oðrum goldfrætewum’ but to be made up of the words indicated.

^{page 201 note 1} Twelfth-Century Homilies in MS. Bodley 343, ed. Belfour, A. O., Early Eng. Text Soc. o.s. 137 (London, 1909).Google Scholar

^{page 202 note 1} Ker, Google Scholar, Catalogue, no. 332, art. 34, as yet unpublished. This has a new beginning and ending, considerable excision from the main text, and a long interpolation from the common antecedent of Vercelli 11 and Napier's Wulfstan XL, but is still dcmonstrably a version of Vercelli ix. It is less easy to establish the relationship of Vercelli ix to an independent telling of the anchorite and devil story in London, British Library, Cotton Tiberius A. iii (printed by Robinson, Fred. C., ‘The Devil's Account of the Next World’, NM 73 (1972), 362–71Google Scholar), and to a short précis of the story in CCCC 303, item 40, but these are further from N than the versions of Vercelli ix are.

^{page 202 note 2} Quotations from Hatton 115 are from the manuscript. I am grateful to the Bodleian Library for providing me with a microfilm.

^{page 202 note 3} The opening sentence in N is adapted by reference to an earlier passage in Vercelli ix: ‘gif hwylc man bið on helle ane niht, þonne bið him leofre, gif he þanon mot …’ (Förster, ‘Der Vercelli-Codex’, p. 110, lines 3–4). See also the conclusion of the Hatton paragraph.

^{page 202 note 4} For the vocabulary of this conclusion, cf. two earlier sentences in Vercelli ix: ‘forðam is mycel þearf æghwylcum men to onwariganne … þæt he æis symle hæbbe on gemyndum þære egesfullan stowe’ (ibid. p. 109, line 9–p. no, line 2) and ‘Wa la ðam mannum, þe sculon mid dioflum habban geardungstowa’ (ibid. p. 102, lines 7–8).

^{page 203 note 1} Cf. Die Vercelli-Homilien, ed. Förster, , p. 80.Google Scholar

^{page 203 note 2} Cf. ibid. p. 79, n. 47.

^{page 203 note 3} The discrepancy is so marked that Napier emended oðres to oðrum in his printed text. It should be noted that the words ‘ne seo modor þære dehter ne seo dohtor þære meder’ may not have been in N originally but may have been added later, as they do not appear either in Vercelli iv (note, however, ‘ne dohtor þære meder’ in CCCC 41, Die Vercelli-Homilien, ed. Förster, , p. 80)Google Scholar or in an extract from N in Cambridge, University Library, Ii. 4. 6; see below, p. 210.

^{page 204 note 1} Vercelli iv has the verb again at line 269 of Förster's edition, and again the object is dative. It is unlikely that the grammatical oddity ever formed part of Vercelli rv, and the words ‘ænig man otðres gehelpan’ are not from that source.

^{page 204 note 2} Förster, , ‘Der Vercelli-Codex’, p. III, 5–6.Google Scholar

^{page 204 note 3} See below, p. 206, n. 3, and p. 209, n. 2.

^{page 204 note 4} Pp. 207–8.

^{page 204 note 5} P. 209.

^{page 204 note 6} Förster, , ‘Der Vercelli-Codex’, p. 101.Google Scholar

^{page 204 note 7} Cf. Helmut, Gneuss, ‘The Origin of Standard Old English’, ASE 1 (1972), 63–83, esp. 78.Google Scholar

^{page 204 note 8} See below, p. 208; ‘gylt’ may be considered general late Old English, but it is a word which Wulfstan never uses; cf. Jost, , Wulfstanstudien, p. 156.Google Scholar

^{page 204 note 9} ‘An Old English Penitential Motif’, ASE 2 (1973), 221–39Google Scholar, esp. 231 n. 2; Homilies of ælfric: A Supplementary Collection, ed. Pope, John. C., EETS 259–60, 770–81.Google Scholar

^{page 205 note 1} ‘The Compilation of the Vercelli Book’, pp. 189–207, esp. 190.

^{page 205 note 2} It is noticeable that all the homilies used by the compiler of N occur in the Vercelli Book in groups of homilies that have rather more late West Saxon influence than many of the Vercelli homilies have (cf. ibid. pp. 199–204). Since such linguistic features antedate the Vercelli Book copying, we cannot exclude the possibility, remote as it is, that the Vercelli scribe found them in a single source, but placed material from other sources between them in his collection.

^{page 206 note 1} Wulfstanstudien, p. 208.

^{page 206 note 2} Die ‘Institutes of Polity, Civil and Ecclesiastical’, ed. Karl, Jost (Bern, 1959), pp. 138–64.Google Scholar

^{page 206 note 3} The principal additions to Polity in section a are (i) after ‘ænne heofonlicne Fæder’ (143.10) the explanatory ‘þæt is God sylfa, and þæt we swuteliað swa oft swa we oftost Pater noster singatð’, and (ii) the sentence ‘And riht is þæt manna gehwylc oðrum beode þæt riht þæt he wylle þæt man him beode’ inserted without any obvious prompting at 144.1–2. Both are Wulfstan's; (i) occurs slightly differently in Bethurum vine, lines 91–6 (cf. Viiib, lines 57–66), and (ii) is repeated very often by him (a list of references is given by Bethurum, note to xc, lines 320–4), and the use of it in N suggests a compiler very familiar with his habits of thought.

^{page 206 note 4} Polity, ed. Jost, , p. 160.Google Scholar

^{page 206 note 5} Even the textual tradition may be isolated: at one point a reading found in Oxford, Bodleian Library, Junius 121 and London, British Library, Cotton Nero A. i, ‘And soð is, þæt ic secge: englas beweardiað’ (Polity, ed. Jost, , pp. 162–3)Google Scholar, is followed by N (144.18) rather than that of CCCC 201 ‘And englas beweriað.’ Whitbread's assumption that I Polity is being followed (‘“Wulfstan” Homilies’, p. 354) is therefore wrong, and the close relationship of N and CCCC 201, which is important to his argument that N and Napier xxix are by the same compiler (see below, p. 209) is disproved.

^{page 206 note 6} N 149.31–150.3: ‘God wyle swaþeah gemiltsian æghwylcum synfullum menn, þe his synnaher andet his scrifte and dædbetan wyle and æfre geswican þæs unrihtes, þe he ær worhte and dyde.’ Polity, ed. Jost, , p. 174Google Scholar, text of Cambridge, University Library, Add. 3206: ‘God ælmihtig is swa þeah mildheort, þæt he wile gemiltsian þam, þe fram synnum gecyrð, gif he mid inweardre heortan hreowsunge and to dædbote gecyrð and geornlice bet, þæt he to unrihte gedyde. Sinfulles marines læcedom is, þæt he andyte and bete georne and æfre geswice elces unrihtes.’

^{page 206 note 7} P. 171.

^{page 206 note 8} Bethurum XIII, lines 103–5 and 67–8 respectively. The Pastoral letter itself might not be the source since ‘it is made up of parts of other homilies’ (Homilies of Wulfstan, p. 339).Google Scholar There are indeed two marked differences between N and the Letter: N 150.11 ‘lochwæt we magon’ parallels þone dæd pe we magon’ (or in another version ‘swa mycel swa we mæst magan’), and there is no parallel in the Letter for N 150.14–15 ‘and secan hi gelome and acsion georne hw‘t us sy to donne’.

^{page 207 note 1} At first N is close to II Polity here, but in the last sentences the compiler has attempted a rewriting which has brought him into difficulties. Wulfstan's ‘Nu eow is soð asæd: understandaþeow sylfe be þam, þe ge willan’, which has to be put into the first person to fit into N, becomes ‘Nu us ys eallum soð asæd and areht, we agon mycele þearfe þæt we hit eac understandon, swa ure agen þearf ys’, the repetition of the word pearf being particularly unfortunate in that the next sentence, copied faithfully from Wulfstan, has the phrase ‘to ure (Wulfstan eowre) agenre þearfe’.

^{page 207 note 2} Napier 121.6–122.9.

^{page 207 note 3} Homilies of Wulfstan, p. 36.

Polity, ed. Jost, , p. 245.Google Scholar Much of this text also appears in Napier XLVI, and it is not possible to say if the compiler of N took his short section from the version associated with Polity or from Napier XLVI, though the former is more likely in view of his apparent knowledge of Polity. There is one point at which N and XLVI agree against Junius 121, but this is simply a case of homœoteleuton in the latter manuscript. N 151.16–18, ‘fortðam we us nyton witod lif æt æfen ne we nyton, þonne we to ure reste gað, hwæþer we moton eft dæges gebidan’, is found also in XLVI (except for ‘þonne we to reste gað’ which may be N's addition), while Junius 121 has ‘forðon þe we us nyton, hwæðer we moton daeges gebidon’.

^{page 207 note 5} Lines 193–201 and 214–17.

^{page 208 note 1} Sometimes the source has suggested the phrase, e.g. ‘on þysse worulde’ becomes ‘on þisum life’, and ‘her’ becomes ‘her on life’ or ‘her on worlde’.

^{page 208 note 2} Jost doubted the existence of Wulfstan imitators (Wulfstansludien, pp. 110–15), but the term is apt for the compiler of N.

^{page 208 note 3} The alteration is perhaps adopted because of the occurrence of ‘weorþian and werian’ a few lines later in the same paragraph.

^{page 208 note 4} Cf. Homilies of Wulfstan, ed. Bethurum, , p. 91Google Scholar and Jost, , Wulfstanstudien, p. 171.Google Scholar

^{page 208 note 5} Cf. ofermodigan added at 148.29; see above, p. 200.

^{page 208 note 6} See above, p. 206, n. 3.

^{page 209 note 1} In Die Vercelli-Homilien, ed. Förster, ,‘wepan’ occurs at line 71 in the context in which it is taken into N; ‘wepen 7 forhtien’ occurs at line 2.Google Scholar

^{page 209 note 2} Note also the shifting of words and phrases in Vercelli x (see above, pp. 200–1) and the passage quoted above, p. 207, from Vercelli ix. There are other examples of the compiler having possibly been influenced by a passage that he has not quoted directly. Two have been pointed out already (see above, p. 202, nn. 3 and 4). A third is a sentence in section b which is not to be found, like the rest of that section, in Vercelli XXI: ‘Uton georne lufian þa ðing, þe God lufað, and ða lætan and ascunian, pe Gode laðe synd.’ It is possible that this has dropped out of the Vercelli Book version of Vercelli XXI, but it more likely, in view of the compiler's normal method, that it is an addition in N, either one suggested by an earlier passage in Vercelli XXI: ‘þæt fyrmeste mægen þære sawle ys þæt we lufien urne ecan God … 7 þæt we hatien ealle þa þing þe he ne lufatð’ (succeeding sentences in XXI twice use the verb onscunigan, once in direct contrast to lufian; the phrase ‘Gode laðe synd’ may be the compiler's since he added ‘and Gode laðost’ to the source a few lines earlier, and the adding of ‘georne’ and ‘lætan and ascunian’ is in accordance with his normal style), or one drawn from elsewhere, for instance from Ælfric's homily for Ash Wednesday: ‘… lufige ða ðingc þe. God lufað, and þa ðingc onscunie þe God onscunað’ and (Æfric's Lives of Saints, ed Skeat, Walter. W., EETS o.s. 76, 82, 94 and 114 (London, 1881–1900), 1, 270, lines 126–7); see below, p. 210.Google Scholar

^{page 209 note 3} In his selections from Vercelli IX, having drawn sections c-g from the middle of the homily, he turns to an earlier part for section h.

^{page 209 note 4} Cf. the comments of A. McIntosh, Wulfstan's Prose, who was writing before all of the sources of N had been established.

^{page 209 note 5} ‘“Wulfstan” Homilies’, pp. 557–64.

^{page 210 note 1} See above, p. 199, n. 3, and p. 206, n. 5.

^{page 210 note 2} The only other instance of ‘on þsum life’ in XXIX is at 142.7–8, where it is copied from Ælfric.

^{page 210 note 3} See above, p. 206, n. 8.

^{page 210 note 4} See above, p. 209, n. 2.

^{page 210 note 5} Cf. Godden, M. R., ‘Old English Composite Homilies from Winchester’, ASE 4 (1975), 57–65.Google Scholar A slightly earlier terminus ad quem is provided by London, British Library, Cotton Otho B. x, a manuscript which was burned in the Cotton tire but about which we know a little from the leaves that survive and from the comments of early readers. Ker, Catalogue, no. 177, states that item 16 ended as N does, and reports that this, or item 17, contained a version of the anchorite and devil story, while the leaves that remain of item 18 (or perhaps they too belong to item 16) contain a passage (Napier LVIII, 306.8–14) which parallels a part of N sections n and o and may be related to it.

^{page 211 note 1} I am grateful to Peter Clemoes and Malcolm Godden for their comments on early drafts of this article.