¹ Temple, E., Anglo-Saxon Manuscripts 900–1066 (London, 1976)Google Scholar, nos. 10, 12, 15, 26, 30 (xiii), 44, 45, 47, 53, 55, 56, 59, 61, 65, 67, 68, 69, 70, 71, 73, 75, 76, 91, 92, 93, 94, 95, 96 and 105. Nos. 10, 12 and 15 are there dated ‘mid-tenth century’, and no. 26, ‘c. 980’. For comparison with the post-Conquest period, see Kauffmann, M., Romanesque Manuscripts 1066–1190 (London, 1972)Google Scholar, nos. 2, 5, 25, 33, 35, 65 and 80.

² Temple, , Anglo-Saxon Manuscripts, nos. 10Google Scholar (with initials and canon tables), 12 (a drawing added to a continental book), 15 (two painted portraits added to an Irish pocket gospelbook) and 26 (a gospel lectionary fragment in the College of Arms, London).

³ The unilluminated volumes (i.e. without decoration in gold and various coloured paints) are listed ibid. nos. 59, 69 and 30 (xiii). The latter is not an English book at all, but its initials were executed at Saint-Bertin by an Anglo-Saxon artist. Of the remaining twenty-two gospel-books listed above, n. 1, whose Anglo-Saxon embellishment is normally dated between 990 and 1066, nos. 44 and 45 were also made on the Continent, and no. 55 refers to a painting added to an earlier book. Two gospelbooks have been entirely left out of the reckoning in these calculations: Paris, Bibliotheque Nationale, lat. 272, because its decoration has been systematically excised, and London, British Library, Royal 1. D. HI, which was always intended to be plain.

⁴ Bishop, T.A.M., English Caroline Minuscule (Oxford, 1971)Google Scholar and idem, , ‘The Copenhagen Gospel Book’, Nordisk Tidskrift for Bok- och Biblioteksväsen 54 (1967), 33–41Google Scholar, have been particularly influential in art historical circles. Recent scholars using Bishop's work have tended to accept his latest work without recognizing the variant (and, in some cases more justified) opinions expressed in his earlier ‘Notes on Cambridge Manuscripts’, parts I–VII, in volumes of the Trans. Cambridge Bibliographical Soc. 1953–63, for which see below.

⁵ So called in The Golden Age of Anglo-Saxon Art 966–1066, ed. Backhouse, J., Turner, D. H. and Webster, L. (London, 1984)Google Scholar, where they are nos. 56 and 57.

⁶ From this total I exclude Florence, Biblioteca Laurenziana, Plut. XVII. 20, which has a drawing rather than illumination striclo sensu. See Temple, , Anglo-Saxon Manuscripts, no. 69 and pl. 232.Google Scholar

⁷ The Arenberg Gospels are dated in Temple, (Anglo-Saxon Manuscripts, no. 56) c. 990–1000Google Scholar, as they are ‘last decade of the tenth century’ in The Golden Age, ed. Backhouse, et al., no. 47Google Scholar and ‘late tenth century’ by Rosenthal, J., ‘The Unique Architectural Settings of the Arenburg Evangelists’, Studien zur mittelalterlichen Kunst 800–1250, Festschrift für Florentine Mütterich zum 70, Geburtstag (Munich, 1985), pp. 145–56.Google Scholar However, I support the later dating implied by R. Deshman (see below p. 169–70 and nn. 54–5). Besançon 14 is dated ‘Late 10th century, addition c. 1020–30’ [i.e. the drawing on 58v] in Temple, , Anglo-Saxon Manuscripts, no. 76Google Scholar, but see below p. 170 and Appendix B. The Paris benedictional is ibid. no. 25 (dated ‘last quarter of the tenth century’), and the Bury Gospels, ibid. no. 75, are dated ‘c. 1020–30’, for which see nn. 55 and 57 below.

⁸ The hymnal is ibid. no. 62; Bodley 155 is no. 59; the New Minster Liber vitae and Ælfwine's prayerbook are nos. 78 and 77 respectively.

⁹ Even without the Christ Church obit printed by Boutémy, A., ‘Two Obituaries of Christ Church, Canterbury’, EHR 50 (1935), 292–9CrossRefGoogle Scholar, at 297, which supplies only the name Eadwius (without the cognomen or the designation scriptor) the Canterbury location is virtually certain. He added texts to manuscripts at Canterbury (London, BL, Royal 1. D. IX and Cotton Vespasian A. i), wrote a psalter for Christ Church (London, BL, Arundel 155), contributed with other Canterbury scribes and artists to London, BL, Harley 603, and wrote genuine and forged charters for the cathedral; Bishop, , English Caroline Minuscule, nos. 24–5Google Scholar, and Brooks, N. P., The Early History of the Church of Canterbury (Leicester, 1984), p. 257Google Scholar. The only minor anomaly among all these is Vespasian A. i, which was kept at St Augustine's rather than Christ Church.

¹⁰ For the Canterbury material added c. 1018 to Royal 1. D. IX, see Ker, N.R., Catalogue of Manuscripts containing Anglo-Saxon (Oxford, 1957)Google Scholar, no. 247 and Harmer, F.E., Anglo-Saxon Writs (Manchester, 1952), no. 26 and pp. 168–71 and 446–8Google Scholar. Cambridge, Trinity College B. 10. 4, which B wrote single-handed, is often supposed to be a Christ Church book, but the evidence is at best insubstantial. Tenuous support for this origin has been found in the fact of the book's donation, in 1611, to Trinity by Thomas Nevile (Dean of Christ Church), most of whose books were from Canterbury. However he was not the first post-Reformation owner of the book, which was originally intended as part of Matthew Parker's bequest to Corpus Christi College, Cambridge. Parker's name is still faintly visible, written in tell-tale red chalk, on lr, and the unusual incipit in the list of Parker's bequest, Beatissimo Damaso (i.e. Papae has been erased), agrees with Trinity B. 10. 4. Although Parker was archbishop of Canterbury, the majority of his bequest was not from that source; see James, M.R., The Western Manuscripts in the Library of Corpus Christi College, Cambridge: a Descriptive Catalogue, 2 vols. (Cambridge, 1912) I, xxiiGoogle Scholar: ‘The suggestion has been made that he [Matthew Parker] despoiled the library of Canterbury Cathedral. Of this I see no evidence.’ However, as a result of the provenance of Royal and the supposed provenance of Trinity, the work of Scribe B is now often regarded as possibly or certainly originating at Canterbury: see Temple, , Anglo-Saxon Manuscripts, nos. 65, 70 and 71Google Scholar; Brooks, , Early History, pp. 268–70 (nos. 28, 36, 40, 62)Google Scholar; and Gneuss, H., ‘Liturgical Books in Late Anglo-Saxon England and their Old English Terminology’, Literature and Learning in Anglo-Saxon England: Studies presented to Peter Clemoes, ed. Lapidge, M. and Gneuss, H. (Cambridge, 1985), pp. 102Google Scholar (no. A. 10) and 109 (nos. D. 13 and D. 18). It is anyway crucial to distinguish the ownership of a book from its origin. A similar caveat has to be applied to Ker, N.R., Medieval Libraries of Great Britain, 2nd ed. (London, 1964)Google Scholar, wherein the designation ‘s’ is a stylistic attribution from which ownership has been inferred. One consequence of this is that Trinity B. 10. 4 there finds itself in the library of Hyde Abbey, Winchester, perhaps because the work of Scribe B was formerly attributed to that house (Bishop, T. A. M., ‘Notes on Cambridge Manuscripts, part IV’, Trans. Cambridge Bibliographical Soc. 2 (1957), 323–36, at 333).Google Scholar

¹¹ The critical history of the library at Peterborough has been clouded by uncertainty about the degree of destruction caused by the fire of 1116. However Lapidge, M., ‘Surviving Booklists from Anglo-Saxon England’, Literature and Learning, ed. Lapidge, and Gneuss, , pp. 33–89Google Scholar, at 76, notes that some books from Æthelwold's bequest (between c. 966–84) were still in the library at the Dissolution; e.g. p. 82 (no. 60). Other books on the list which he dates to c. 1100 also survived the fire, e.g. p. 79 (no. 16). Bodley 163 contains this list and is itself arguably included on it as no. 8 (ibid. p. 79).

¹² Hohler, C., ‘Les saints insulaires dans le Missel de l'archevèque Robert’, jumièges. Congrés scientifique du XIII Centenaire (Rouen, 1955), pp. 293–303Google Scholar. The date after 1016 is determined by the presence of the name of St Florentinus in the litany for the sick. His relics were brought back to England by Abbot Ælfsige of Peterborough probably in that year. See below, n. 25, on the inclusion of St Martial among the apostles in the litany and for further comments on the Peterborough origin.

¹³ In The York Gospels, ed. Barker, N., Roxburghe Club (London, 1986), p. 54.Google Scholar

¹⁴ Bishop, , ‘Copenhagen Gospels’, p. 39.Google Scholar

¹⁵ Their only rival in this regard might be Athelstan. On the manuscripts which he donated see Keynes, S., ‘King Athelstan's Books’, Literature and Learning, ed. Lapidge, and Gneuss, , pp. 143–201Google Scholar. The most convenient guides to the patronage of individuals are the indices of Lehmann-Brockhaus, O., Lateinische Schriftqtullen zur Kunst in England Wales und Schottland vom Jahre 901 bis zum Jahre 1307, 5 vols. (Munich 1955–1960), IVGoogle Scholar, and Dodwell, C.R., Anglo-Saxon Art, a New Perspective (Manchester, 1982)Google Scholar. For details about Cnut and Emma's patronage in particular see below, Appendix II.

¹⁶ London, BL, Stowe 944, 6r, illustrated and discussed in Temple, , Anglo-Saxon Manuscripts, no. 78 and pl. 244Google Scholar, Dodwell, , Anglo-Saxon Art, p. 201, pl. 47Google Scholar, and Golden Age, ed. Backhouse, et al., no. 62 and p. 77Google Scholar. It should be remarked how rare ‘portraits’ of queens are in any context in European art before this date, so the stress on joint donation is all the more emphatic. It may also be significant that it is Emma who stands on the dexter side of the cross, that is to say, she is at the right hand of Christ who is seated on a rainbow at the top of the picture.

¹⁷ On Bury, see Hart, C., The Early Charters of Eastern England (Leicester, 1966), pp. 63–4Google Scholar. The Bury annotations to the Chronicle of Florence of Worcester in Oxford, Bodleian Library, Bodley 269 are ptd Memorials of Bury St Edmunds Abbey, ed. Arnold, T., RS (London, 1890) 1, 341Google Scholar. The new foundation at Bury received its abbot, monks and books from St Benet's, in Norfolk (ibid. Ill, 1–2). It is remarkable that a year after its foundation St Benet's should have had monks and books to spare. There was clearly an efficient administrator as well as plenty of money behind both ventures.

¹⁸ In bk III of The Ecclesiastical History of Orderic Vitalis, ed. Chibnall, M., 6 vols. (Oxford 1969–1980) II, 42Google Scholar; Dodwell, , Anglo-Saxon Art, pp. 22 and 244, n. 89.Google Scholar

¹⁹ ibid. pp. 98 and 277, n. 77, citing Jordan of Limoges, Acta concilii Lemovicensis (PL 142,1369). For the context and other references, see Barlow, F., The English Church 1000–1066, 2nd ed. (London, 1979), p. 18 and n. 6.Google Scholar

²⁰ As was the case with another episode in the same chapter. Vita S. Wuljstani, ed. Darlington, R.R., Camden Third Ser. 40 (London, 1928), 7.Google Scholar

²¹ ibid. p. 54: ‘Wulfstan had, at that time, a teacher named Ervenius who was expert in writing and portraying things in colours. This man having written books, a sacramentary and a psalter, of which the principal letters were fashioned in gold, entrusted them to Wulfstan's care. While examining their beauty with attentive eyes Wulfstan was captivated by the wonder of the precious letters, but also absorbed knowledge of the words into the core of his being. The good doctor [Ervenius], looking to worldly gain and in the hope of a greater prize, gave the sacramentary to Cnut, who was then king, and the psalter to queen Emma. The loss of the objects assailed Wulfstan's boyish heart and drew profound sighs from the depth of his bosom. Unhappiness summoned tiredness, and having fallen asleep, behold, a man with the face of an angel standing beside him drove away his sadness by promising the return of the books. And much later it turned out no less than was promised, as the unfolding story goes on to relate.’

²² ibid. pp. 15–16: ‘Meanwhile King Edward sent Bishop Aldred to Cologne, to the elder emperor, Henry, to settle certain matters, the purport of which does not require understanding here…Either out of reverence for him or because he was the legate of such a great king, many people gave him many things. One of them gave him as a gift the sacramentary and psalter which I spoke of earlier. For both these books Cnut had once sent to Cologne so that he should have a favourable reputation among those people. Aldred when he had sailed back home, thinking the books were appropriate to that man alone, yet ignorant of the prophecy once spoken to Wulfstan, restored them to him on account of the merit of his life.’

²³ ibid. p. xxii; Darlington estimates his birth ‘in or about 1008’.

²⁴ On Aldred's mission to Cologne see, most recently, Nelson, J., ‘The Rites of the Conqueror’, Proc. of the Battle Conference on Anglo-Norman Studies 4 (1982), 117–32, at 126–7Google Scholar (rptd Nelson, , Politics and Ritual in Early Medieval Europe (London, 1986), pp. 375–401, at 391–3).Google Scholar

²⁵ Hohler, (‘Les saints insulaires’, pp. 299–300) discusses the imperfections of the calendar and (on pp. 296 and 300–1) the Peterborough origin of the exemplar. To supplement the evidence adduced by Hohler, there is a significant addition of St George to the prayer Communicantes in the canon of the mass (other additions - Benedict, Martin and Gregory – can be explained simply by the context of the English monastic reform); seeGoogle ScholarThe Missal of Robert of Jumièges, ed. Wilson, H. A., HBS 11 (London 1986), 45Google Scholar. In the mid-twelfth century, Candidus, Hugh (The Chronicle of Hugh Candidus, ed. Mellows, W.T. (Oxford, 1949), p. 55)Google Scholar recorded the head of St George as the principal relic in the high altar of Peterborough after ‘De ligno et Sepulchro Domini’ which begins the list. They also claimed an arm and a tooth of George (ibid. p. 54). George and Florentinus (whose relics were translated to Peterborough c. 1016) also appear in the litany for the sick, where they intrude between familiar pairs of saints, i.e. Laurence, and Vincent, , Florentinus, , Fabian, and Sebastian, , George, , John, and Paul, : The Missal of Robert of Jumièges, ed. Wilson, , p. 288Google Scholar. The earliest possible date for the ‘missal’ is usually given as 1016 on account of Florentinus. However, the inclusion of St Martial of Limoges among the apostles in the litany probably makes a date before the mid-1020s unlikely; see Wormald, F., ‘The English Saints in the Litany in Arundel MS 60’, AB 64 (1946), 72–86, at 84–6Google Scholar, and Barlow, , The English Church, p. 18, n. 6.Google Scholar

²⁶ The masses for English saints are collated and the problem discussed in Hohler, , ‘Les saintes insulaires’, pp. 298–9 and 301–2 (Appendix).Google Scholar

²⁷ ibid. pp. 299–300 and n. 27.

²⁸ Hugh Candidas, ed. Mellows, , p. 48.Google Scholar

²⁹ Campbell, (Encomium Emmae reginae, ed. Campbell, A., Camden Third Ser. 72 (1949), xlivGoogle Scholar and nn. 6 and 7) outlines a tradition that Emma returned to England in the interval.

³⁰ Hugh Candidus, ed. Mellows, , p. 50Google Scholar, is not specific about the nature of the crime of the monks of Ramsey. This is elucidated by Barlow, , English Church, p. 103, n. 1.Google Scholar

³¹ Hugh Candidus, ed. Mellows, , pp. 48–52 and 64–5Google Scholar, is the fullest source, though not always reliable in his chronology. He calls Ælfsige ‘a man of no less wisdom and virtue than abbot Cenwulf [whom he had described as ‘surpassing all in wisdom and in knowledge’]…ruled the church for fifty years and honourably enriched it with diverse ornaments and possessions of all sorts, and especially with the relics of saints.’ So firmly was Ælfsige associated with relics that Hugh took the opportunity to insert a tract on the resting place of the saints in the middle of his account of this abbot.

³² Bishop, , English Caroline Minuscule, pp. xxi–xxiii.Google Scholar

³³ The precise dating of script by stylistic means presupposes that scribes never continued writing into middle or old age, or if they did, that their late work is readily distinguishable from juvenilia. We are hardly in a position to make these assumptions.

³⁴ The manuscripts chosen for the comparison are the probably Glastonbury section of the Leofric Missal (Oxford, Bodleian Library, Bodley 579, fols. 38–58) and the Benedictional of St Æthelwold (London, BL, Add. 49598) probably made at Winchester. Both works may date to the early 970s. On the former see Deshman, R., ‘The Leofric Missal and Tenth-Century English Art’, ASE 6 (1977), 145–74.Google Scholar

³⁵ The history of these two different systems demands far more detailed treatment than is possible here. A separate paper devoted to the subject is in preparation. Although the examples given are from liturgica, the distinctions being drawn apply equally to library books, although very few of these seem to have been produced in Æthelwoldan houses.

³⁶ Illustrations of these two manuscripts are conveniently seen on facing pages in Temple, , Anglo-Saxon Manuscripts, pls. 161–2 and 166Google Scholar. On the script of BL, Add. 24199, see Bishop, , English Caroline Minuscule, p. xxiiGoogle Scholar, and on the different textual traditions behind these two versions of the text Wieland, G. R., ‘The Anglo-Saxon Manuscripts of Prudentius's Psychomachia’, ASE 16 (1987), 213–32, at 218’20 and 227.Google Scholar

³⁷ The history of mixed alphabet styles at Canterbury predates the adoption of the ‘Dunstanesque’ capitals. Cambridge, Trinity College 0.3. 7 and B. 11.2 (e.g. 1 r and 4r), both attributed to St Augustine's, Canterbury, are indicative of the earlier system.

³⁸ Illustrated in Bishop, English Caroline Minuscule, no. 13.

³⁹ Illustrated in Mackeprang, F., Madsen, V. and Petersen, C. S., Greek and Latin Illuminated Manuscripts X-XII1Centuries in Danish Collections (Copenhagen, 1921)Google Scholar, pls. VIII and X, and in Temple, , Anglo-Saxon Manuscripts, pl. 152.Google Scholar

⁴⁰ Illustrated in Mackeprang, et al., Greek and Latin Illuminated Manuscripts, pls. V and VI, and Temple, , Anglo-Saxon Manuscripts, pl. 151.Google Scholar

⁴¹ Illustrated ibid. pl. 219.

⁴² For further analysis of the Copenhagen Gospels, see Appendix III (below, pp. 191–5).

⁴³ Cited above, n. 13.

⁴⁴ McGurk, (in The York Gospels, ed. Barker, , p. 40)Google Scholar distinguishes the capitals in the prefaces from those in the main text, but also notes similarities which justify his view that they are ‘contemporaries working in the same scriptorium’. I am treating these as one style, though there may be two hands at work.

⁴⁵ Although it is not apparent from the literature on the manuscript, summarised by Temple, , Anglo-Saxon Manuscripts, no. 49Google Scholar, there are three artists working on this manuscript, not two. The artist also responsible for the York Gospels is to be found from 4v up to and including the upper illustration on 7v.

⁴⁶ Bishop, T. A. M., ‘Notes on Cambridge Manuscripts. Part II’, Trans. Cambridge Bibliographical Soc.2 (1955), 185–91, at 186.Google Scholar

⁴⁷ Ker, , Catalogue of Manuscripts containing Anglo-Saxon, no. 402Google Scholar, and cf. Bishop, , ‘Copenhagen Gospels’, p. 37, n. 1.Google Scholar

⁴⁸ ibid. p. 36.

⁴⁹ See further Appendix III (below, p. 194–5). The opposite effect also occurs, so that in BL, Royal 1. D. IX, on 6v, which is the first verso of Matthew, the scribe began to condense his script half way down the page, apparently fearing that he would run out of space before writing all the text preceding that which he himself had already written on 7r.

⁵⁰ There is another possible alternative. Fol. 60 of the Trinity Gospels, mentioned above, is thinner membrane than the other display pages in the book. Was this perhaps a reason For leaving the writing on the verso until the decoration of the recto was complete? One can imagine that the moisture in the medium binding the pigments and the gold on the recto might cause any pre-existing minuscule on the verso to bleed across the surface. Where the membrane was thicker clearly such a danger should be minimized.

⁵¹ It is widely and quite reasonably supposed that the Godeman, originally a monk of the Old Minster at Winchester, who was appointed abbot of Thorney by Æthelwold and who lived until at least 1013, was the same man as the scribe Godeman of Æthelwold's Benedictional. See Knowles, D., Brooke, C.N.L. and London, V., Heads of Religious Houses in England and Wales 940–1216 (Cambridge, 1972), p. 74Google Scholar, and Keynes, S., The Diplomas of Aethelred ‘the Unready’, 978–1016 (Cambridge, 1980), table 5.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

⁵² See above, n. 7.

⁵³ Ker, N. R., ‘A Supplement to Catalogue of Manuscript Containing Anglo-Saxon’, ASE 5 (1976), 121–31, at 127Google Scholar, citing a letter from T. A.M. Bishop. I am grateful to Patrick McGurk who told me that it was also the late Julian Brown's opinion that the Arenberg Gospels and the Anderson Pontifical were written by the same scribe. The style of Monumental capitals in the two manuscripts is also very like; perhaps they are the work of the scribe.

⁵⁴ See Appendix II under Canterbury, Christ Church. The problem of this curious litany was discussed by Wilson, H.A., The Benedictional of Archbishop Robert, HBS 24 (London, 1903), xii–xiv and 77Google Scholar. There the name of Bartholomew is an addition (between columns of script and written in letters of gold!) after the standard short litany of apostles, Peter, Paul and Andrew. From this, Wilson inferred a ‘Canterbury’ phase c. 1020 in the history of Robert's benedictional. But in the Anderson Pontifical Bartholomew's name is an original feature, suggesting a date in the 1020s for the whole book.

⁵⁵ It has been suggested that Arenberg may have been an English royal gift to Heribert, archbishop of Cologne 999–1021; see Deshman, R., ‘Christus rex et magi reges: Kingship and Christology in Ottoman and Anglo-Saxon Art’, Frühmittelalterliche Studien 10 (1976), 367–405, at 392.Google Scholar

⁵⁶ Temple, , Anglo-Saxon Manuscripts, no. 76Google Scholar. One other gospelbook should be mentioned here: Paris, BN, lat. 272, for which see Avril, F. and Stirnemann, P.D., Bibliothèque Nationale, Département des manuscrits: manuscrits enluminés d'origine insulaires. VII-XX siècles (Paris, 1987)Google Scholar, no. 22; and also The York Gospels, ed. Barker, , pp. 43Google Scholar, 46–8 and 52–5. Apart from one tiny fragment, the illumination of this book has been entirely excised.

⁵⁷ Bishop, , English Caroline MinusculeGoogle Scholar, no. 12 for the script. The Benedictional of Archbishop Robert and Paris, BN, lat. 987 are Temple, , Anglo-Saxon Manuscripts, nos. 24 and 25 respectivelyGoogle Scholar. Of these two, BN, lat. 987 is far closer in its decoration to the Besançon Gospels. The only substantial art-historical analysis is in Homburger, O., Die Anfänge der Malschule von Winchester im X. Jahrbundert (Leipzig, 1912), pp. 59–65Google Scholar. He saw the decoration as transitional between the Benedictional of St Æthelwold and the Missal of Robert of Jumièges (which he dated 1010–20; but see above, n. 25). The fullest analysis of the text of BN, lat. 987 is by Woolley, R. M., The Canterbury Benedictional, HBS 51 (London, 1917), xix–xvGoogle Scholar. He claimed that the second part of the book showed the liturgical interests of Christ Church, Canterbury, and supposed that it was added there. In fact the supplement omits several Canterbury feasts (the Vigil of Dunstan, Ouen, Mildred) but includes Winchester ones (Justus of Beauvais, the Translation of Swithun, Æthelwold and the Translation of Æthelwold). It is clear that the book remained at Winchester, probably until after the Conquest. The script of t supplement, far from being like the work of Scribe B as has sometimes been claimed (e.g. The Golden Age, ed. Backhouse, et al., no. 39)Google Scholar, is comparable with Winchester script of the third quarter of the eleventh century such as is found in London, BL, Cotton Tiberius C. vi (cf. Bishop, , English Caroline Minuscule, no. 27)Google Scholar. That is to say the letters are relatively tall and upright and the minims have substantial, flat feet.

⁵⁸ See Appendix III (below, pp. 188–91).

⁵⁹ Wormald, F., English Drawings of the Tenth and Eleventh Centuries (London, 1952), pp. 59, 69 and 73.Google Scholar

⁶⁰ The Winchester orientation of this benedictional is assured by the prominence in the litanies of Judoc (in both) and Grimbald (in one), as well as the provision of benedictions for them; see Wilson, , The Benedictional of Archbishop Robert, pp. 74, 77, 39 and 45Google Scholar. These features indicate use at the New Minster.

⁶¹ Temple, , Anglo-Saxon Manuscripts, no. 75.Google Scholar

⁶² See above, n. 56. The scribe of BN, lat. 272 is very like the hand which wrote 14v–19r of Besançon 14.

⁶³ Bishop, , ‘Copenhagen Gospels’, pp. 39–40 (nos. 5 and 7).Google Scholar

⁶⁴ See above, n. 57. As regards the decoration, the attenuation of the frames, with slender and close-set bars, and the foliage suggest a date well into the eleventh century: Temple, , Anglo-Saxon Manuscripts, pls. 92–3.Google Scholar

⁶⁵ For a review of the recent literature, see the opening pages and notes of Keynes, S., ‘Regenbald the Chancellor (sic)’, Anglo-Norman Studies 10 (1989), 185–222, at 185–7.Google Scholar

⁶⁶ Reproduced in Temple, , Anglo-Saxon Manuscripts, pls. 232Google Scholar (Florence) and 234 (Pembroke). On the opening page of Florence, only the words IN ILLO TEMPORE are in Eadwig's mixed monumental capitals, whereas the alternating lines of rustic capitals and uncials are in the tradition of display script in Bodley 163 (for which see above, n. 11) and BL, Royal 1. D. IX.

⁶⁷ Liber Eliensis, ed. Blake, E. O., Camden Third ser. 92 (1962), 146–7Google Scholar, and see Keynes, S., The Diplomas of King Æthelred ‘the Unready’ 978–1016 (Cambridge, 1980), pp. 151–2.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

⁶⁸ English Historical Documents c. 500–1042, ed. Whitelock, D., 2nd ed. (London, 1979), p. 890 (no. 226b).Google Scholar

⁶⁹ In The York Gospels, ed. Barker, , p. 52Google Scholar, Patrick McGurk's collation of the gospels shows that Besançon and Copenhagen contain a far higher percentage of A readings than contemporary Canterbury books or the slightly later Peterborough series (BL, Royal 1. D. IX, BL, Loan 11 (the Kederminster Gospels) and Trinity College B. 10.4). He hopes to show in a forthcoming study that there is a Winchester focus for this underlying tradition of A readings. I am very grateful to Dr McGurk for discussing this with me. For the scribes and artist, see below Appendix III.

⁷⁰ ibid. pp. 45, n. 4, and 51. The essential study of the capitulary texts in these manuscripts is Frere, W.H., Studies in the Early Roman Liturgy, 2: the Roman Lectionary, Alcuin Club Collections 30 (London, 1934)Google Scholar, esp. 157–64.

⁷¹ See the brief analysis of the Bury Calendar by Hohler, , ‘Les saints insulaires’, p. 300, n. 27.Google Scholar

⁷² In each case except BL, Arundel 155, Eadwig left certain parts unfinished, particularly display capitals. In the Hanover Gospels the missing capitals were provided by a German illuminator of the mid-eleventh century. For Florence, see above, n. 68. In the Grimbald Gospels, the capital lettering of the display pages is by a hand other than Eadwig's.

⁷³ The presentation picture is illustrated in Temple, , Anglo-Saxon Manuscripts, pl. 213Google Scholar, and in colour in Golden Age, ed. Backhouse, et al., pl. XVIII, and see the comments there under no. 57.Google Scholar

⁷⁴ The colophon (‘Pro scriptore precem ne tempnas fundere pater, Librum istum monachus scripsit EADVVIUS, cognomento BASAN. Sit illi longa salus. Vale servus di. N. et memor esto mei’) is reproduced in Bishop, , English Caroline Minuscule, no. 25.Google Scholar

⁷⁵ See above, n. 73, for references. The drawing on 9v, of Pachomius receiving the Easter tables, also carries script and is reproduced in Wormald, , English Drawings, pl. 24a.Google Scholar

⁷⁶ Temple, , Anglo-Saxon Manuscripts, pl. 227.Google Scholar

⁷⁷ ibid. no. 74 and pl. 241, and see the comments in Golden Age, ed. Backhouse, et al., no. 63.Google Scholar

⁷⁸ Listed by Bishop, , ‘Copenhagen Gospels’, pp. 39–40.Google Scholar

⁷⁹ Only BL, Royal 1. D. IX and Loan 11 (the Kederminster Gospels) (Temple, , Anglo-Saxon Manuscripts, nos. 70 and 71) can be attributed to a single artist with any confidence.Google Scholar

⁸⁰ ASC 1041 E (= 1042). Ælfsige died on 13 January 1042 (see Knowles, et al. , Heads, p. 60) and Harthacnut on 8 June.Google Scholar

⁸¹ ASC 1052 E.

⁸² For the fullest discussions of the careers of Mannig and Spearhavoc, see Dodwell, , Anglo-Saxon Art, pp. 55 and 58.Google Scholar

⁸³ In Archbishop Wulfstan of York's (1003–23) compilation in London, BL, Cotton Nero A. i. Cited by Keynes, , ‘Regenbald’, p. 192Google Scholar, and ptd Die Gesetze der Angelsachsen, ed. Liebermann, F., 3 vols. (Halle, 1903–1916) I, 472.Google Scholar

⁸⁴ From the Vita S. Wulfstani, cited above p. 159.

⁸⁵ Early Scholastic Colloquies, ed. Stevenson, W. H. (Oxford 1929), pp. 49–50Google Scholar. ‘Vivitne homo ille, qui omnia ista scripsit? Bonus scriptor fuit et bonas manus habuit is, qui universa haec scripsit. Etiam, adhuc vivit, sed senex est modo et nihil potest scribere modo propter caliginem oculorum suorum et propter senectutem suam…Multos iuvenes, ut nostri fratres dicunt, pueros et adholescentulos, quando fortis in cèrpore suo fuit, instruendo docuit ad scribendum, et aliqui ex ipsis boni scriptores adhuc vivunt, aliqui mortui sum, et monasterii istius scriptores sunt modo, et saepe multos scribunt libros et vendunt eos et multum sibi lucrum inde adipiscuntur’, etc.

⁸⁶ ibid. p. 40.

⁸⁷ Discussed by Brooks, , Early History, p. 266.Google Scholar

⁸⁸ Of course not all schoolboys who could write well were monks. On the royal scribe Ælfwine, see Keynes, , Æthelred, p. 135 and nnGoogle Scholar. and for a Worcester scribe, Sawyer, P. H., ‘Charters of the Reform Movement: the Worcester Archive’, Tenth-Century Studies: Essays in Commemoration of the Millennium of the Council of Winchester and Regularis Concordia, ed. Parsons, D. A. (London and Chichester, 1975), pp. 92–3Google Scholar, cited by Brownrigg, L., ‘Manuscripts containing English Decoration 871–1066, Catalogued and Illustrated: a Review’, ASE 7 (1978), 239–66, at 239, n. 3.Google Scholar

⁸⁹ Temple, , Anglo-Saxon Manuscripts, nos. 93–5 and 105.Google Scholar

⁹⁰ Willelmi Malmesbiriensis monachi de gestis regum, ed. Stubbs, W., 2 vols., RS (London, 1887) I, 219Google Scholar, and cf. Annales monasterii de Wintonia, in Annales monastici, ed. Luard, H.R., 5 vols., RS (London, 1865) II, 16Google Scholar: ‘Rex omnia monasteria, suis et patris sui destructa excursibus, consilio Emmae reginae reparavit’.

⁹¹ Vita S. Wulfstani, quoted above pp. 159–60.

⁹² The Letters and Poems of Fulbert of Chartres, ed. Behrends, F. (Oxford, 1976), pp. 66–9.Google Scholar

⁹³ Encomium Emmae, ed. Campbell, , p. 36.Google Scholar

⁹⁴ Ross, M. C., ‘An Eleventh-Century English Bookcover’, Art Bull. 22 (1940), 83–5CrossRefGoogle Scholar, and Hinkle, W. M., ‘The Gift of an Anglo-Saxon Gospel Book to the Abbey of St Remi, Reims’, JBAA 3rd ser. 33 (1970), 21–35, at 32–5.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

⁹⁵ Casley, D., A Catalogue of the Manuscripts in the King's Library (London, 1734), p. 10.Google Scholar

⁹⁶ I would like to thank Julia Smith, John Higgitt and Rosamond McKitterick for encouraging me to develop for publication what was originally a short lecture. John Higgitt, Christopher Hohler and Patrick McGurk kindly read and commented on the typescript, and for their help I am very grateful. A visit to Copenhagen in October 1988 was funded by a grant from the Society of Antiquaries of London.