¹ A liber festivalis is a compilation containing sermons and exempla appropriate for the feasts of the ecclesiastical year which follow the calendar. For example see Mirk's Festial, ed. Erbe, T. (EETS E.S. 96; London 1905) 1, ‘Hic incipit liber, qui vocatur festivalis.’ Google Scholar

² Görlach, M., The Textual Tradition of the South English Legendary (Leeds Texts and Monographs New Series 6; Leeds 1974) 1. This is the most exhaustive critical study to date. See also Görlach, , ed., An East Midland Revision of the South English Legendary: A Selection from MS. C.U.L. Add. 3039 (Middle English Texts 4; Heidelberg 1976); Pickering, O. S., ‘The Temporale Narratives of the South English Legendary,’ Anglia 91 (1973) 425–55; and Pickering, , ed., The South English Nativity of Mary and Christ, ed. from B.M. Stowe 949 (Middle English Texts 1; Heidelberg 1975).Google Scholar

³ Horstmann, C., ed., The Early South English Legendary (EETS o.s. 87; London 1887) viii.Google Scholar

⁴ Brown, B. D., ed., The Southern Passion (EETS o.s. 169; London 1927) xi–xii.Google Scholar

⁵ Horstmann 445 lines 504–6.Google Scholar

⁶ Brown, xi–xii.Google Scholar

⁷ Luard, H. R., ed., Flores historiarum (Rolls Series 95; London 1890) III 70; Lumby, J. R., ed., Polychronicon Ranulphi Higden monachi Cestrensis (Rolls Series 41; London 1882) VIII 270–71; and Stubbs, W., ed., Chronicles of the Reigns of Edward I and Edward II (Rolls Series 76; London 1882) I 99.Google Scholar

⁸ Horstmann, 177–78 lines 1–22.Google Scholar

⁹ For a valuable discussion of the names of the chief feasts of the Church's year, their significance and variant spelling in medieval Latin and English texts, see Käsmann, Han, ‘Das Kirchenjahr,’ in Studien zum kirchlichen Wortschatz des Mittelenglischen, 1100–1305 (Tubingen 1961) 340–45.Google Scholar

¹⁰ Horstmann, v–vi.Google Scholar

¹¹ Horstmann x; cf. Boyd, B., ‘A New Approach to the South English Legendary,’ in Philological Quarterly 42 (1968) 494–98.Google Scholar

¹² Wells, M. E., ‘The South English Legendary in its Relation to the Legenda Aurea,’ Publications of the Modern Language Association 51 (1936) 341, mistakenly interpreted lines 1–6 of the prologue as referring only to a sanctorale. Although others have explicated these lines, Görlach's analysis is the most apt; see his Textual Tradition 6–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

¹³ The Laud manuscript follows its brief mention of the circumcision with an allusion to Christ's baptism, an obvious distortion of the chronological order of the Biblical events, and the breviary order. The prologue in MS Cambridge, Corpus Christi College 145, has the correct order. See D'Evelyn, C. and Mill, J., eds., The South English Legendary (EETS o.s. 235; London y1956) 3–5.Google Scholar

¹⁴ Skeat, W. W., ed., Aelfric's Lives of Saints (EETS o.s. 76, 82; London 1881–85); Hampson, R. T., Medii aevi kalendarium (London 1841) II 408–9. Hampson distinguishes among three calendars commonly used in the Middle Ages: the historical calendar, which begins January 1; the legal, which from the twelfth century began on March 25; and the liturgical, which began on the first Sunday in Advent. Only three SEL manuscripts, however, begin with Advent: MS Cambridge, Magdalene College, Pepys 2344; MS Oxford, Bodleian Library, Additional C. 38 (S.C. 30236); and MS London, British Library, Egerton 1993.Google Scholar

¹⁵ Wells, 341.Google Scholar

¹⁶ There appears to be an early Christian anti-Gnostic tradition of referring to the incident of Christ's baptism, and yet another tradition for mentioning the incident at Cana in the Epiphany liturgy. This latter tradition is based on the word manifest in John 2.11. The word manifest was interpreted as another indication of Christ's divinity, and hence its association with the Epiphany liturgy. This tradition is, however, anything but stable especially in certain of the vernacular texts. I have found examples of both the omission of these incidents and their inclusion in the popular contemporary vernacular homiliaries and libri festivales. Traditionally, the story of the adoration of the Magi from John's Gospel was the only pericope used during the Sunday Mass, and with the exception of the antiphons from lauds and vespers (which mention Christ's baptism and the wedding at Cana) no mention was made in the cursus of the other two incidents. See the most complete text of the earliest variant of the Northern Homily Cycle in MS Ashmolean 42 (Bodleian S.C. 6923), folios 30^r–34^r. This vernacular homiliary written at the end of the thirteenth century, and hence virtually contemporary with the SEL, follows the tradition of omitting references to the baptism of Christ and the wedding at Cana. The Ordinale Exon. , ed. Dalton, J. N. (Henry Bradshaw Society 37; London 1909–26) I 89–90, also follows this tradition. See also Breviarium ad usum insignis ecclesiae Sarum , edd. Procter, F. and Wordsworth, C. (Cambridge 1879–86) I cccxlviii, ccccxxxviii; and The Monastic Breviary of Hyde Abbey , ed. Tolhurst, J. B. L. (Henry Bradshaw Society 69; London 1932–33) I fols. 43^v and 58^r. Mirk's Festial: A Collection of Homilies , ed. Erbe, T. (EETS E.S. 96; London 1905) 47–48, and Ælfric, , The Sermones Catholici or Homilies of Ælfric , ed. Thorpe, B. (Homilies of the Anglo-Saxon Church 1; London 1844–46) I 105, do mention the baptism and the Cana incident. It is, however, reasonable to assume more of an affinity between those two collection most contemporary, namely the SEL and NHC, than Ælfric or Mirk. Thus the allusions to the gospel incidents in the Laud manuscript prologue can be read as allusions to the forthcoming Sunday gospel pericopes and not merely as a reflection of an irregular tradition. I am unable to account for the prologue's omission of the gospel pericope for the first Sunday after the octave of the Epiphany, , ‘Dominica prima post octavam Epiphanie: Cum factus esset Ihesus annorum duodecim,’ Luke 2.42. For further discussion see Weiser, Francis X., Handbook of Christian Feasts and Customs (New York 1958) 141–54; and The Oxford Dictionary of the Christian Church , ed. Cross, F. L. (London 1957) 457–58.Google Scholar

¹⁷ It is less likely that the SEL was begun in 1272 than in the years following, as Henry III died rather late in the year, November 16, and fealty was not sworn to Edward I unti November 20, 1272. Further, as there are no references to Edward I as king in the SEL and but one oblique reference to the past reign of Henry III, it is possible that the SEL may have been composed as early as the period between the act of fealty to Edward and his coronation on August 19, 1274. Similarly, it is less likely that the SEL was composed ir 1290, as the expulsion of the Jewish people was announced in August of that year (‘Eodem anno die xxxi Augusti exilium Judaeorum quorum numerus erat’ in Luard, , Flores historiarum 70), than in the years preceding 1290. Hence, we can resonably limit the dates o: composition between 1273 and 1289 inclusive.Google Scholar

¹⁸ If the author of the prologue wanted to give an oblique indication of the year of composition, he would be little likely to introduce an extraneous element like the fourth Sunday.Google Scholar