Wormald. Bede and Benedict Biscop. Notes.
Bede and Benedict Biscop.
NOTES
1 Citations of Bede’s HE, HA and the anonymous VC are from Plummer; of Bede’s homily on Biscop (Hom.) from Bedae Opera Homiletica, ed. D. Hurst (CCSL cxxii (III)) 13, pp. 88–94 (opening quotation, p. 93 lines 165–7). The accounts of Bede and the Anonymous were carefully compared by G. Isenberg: Die Würdigung Wilfrieds von York in der Historia Gentis Anglorum Bedas und der Vita Wilfridi des Eddius (Weidenau, 1978). On the European context, J. Campbell, ‘The first century of Christianity in England’, Ampleforth Journal LXXVI (1971), pp. 12–29, reprinted in Campbell, Essays, pp. 49–67, remains absolutely fundamental. Of the several teachers and friends who helped me prepare this paper, I am especially grateful to these two. For Professor Whitelock’s paper and others much to the point, see Famulus Christi, where this paper first appeared.
2 HA 11, pp. 374–5; VC 6, p. 390; cf. Hom., pp. 91–2 lines 116–20.
3 HA 11, p. 375; VC 16, p. 393; cf. RB lxiv.2, II, p. 648.
4 A. Hamilton Thompson, ‘Northumbrian Monasticism’, in Bede, ed. Thompson, pp. 60–101, at pp. 83–6; C. Butler, Benedictine Monachism (2nd edn, London, 1924), p. 336.
5 M. D. Knowles, ‘The Regula Magistri and the Rule of St Benedict’, in his Great Historical Enterprises (Cambridge, 1963), pp. 139–95; ‘Some recent work on early Benedictine history’, in C. W. Dugmore and C. Duggan (eds), Studies in Church History I (Cambridge, 1964), pp. 35–46.
6 The now classic breakthrough is K. Hallinger, ‘Papst Gregor der Grosse und der hl. Benedikt’, Studia Anselmiana XLII, ed. B. Steidle (Rome, 1957), pp. 231–319. The best of more traditional accounts is perhaps A. Zimmermann, ‘Die Ausbreitung der Regula S. Benedicti in den ersten Jahrhunderten ihrer Geltung’, Kalendarium Benediktinum (3 vols, Brussels, 1933), I, pp. xxxv–lxxxii. For a reassessment of the English evidence in the aftermath of the earthquake, M. Deanesly, St Augustine of Canterbury (London, 1964), pp. 134–50, and E. John, ‘The Social and Economic Problems of the Early English Church’, in J. Thirsk (ed.) Land, Church and People: Essays Presented to H. P. R. Finberg (Reading, 1970), pp. 39–63, at pp. 54–6.
7 Compare P. R. L. Brown, ‘The Rise and Function of the Holy Man in Late Antiquity’, JRS LXI (1971), pp. 80–101, reprinted in his Society and the Holy, pp. 103–52; and P. Rousseau, ‘The Spiritual Authority of theMonk-Bishop’, JThS NS XXII (1971), pp. 380–419; with the fundamental studies of A. de Vogüé, ‘La Monastère, église de Christ’, Studia Anselmiana XLII, ed. Steidle (1957), pp. 25–46; La Communautéet l’Abbédans la Règle de Saint Benoît (Paris, 1960), esp. pp. 120–76; ‘Sub Regula vel Abbate’, Collectanea Cisterciana XXXIII (1971), pp. 209–41; and his introduction to Benoît I, pp. 29–79.
8 De Vogüé, ‘Sub Regula’, pp. 220–7. For vivid illustrations of this phase, see La Vie des Pères du Jura, ed. F. Martine (Sources Chrétiennes 142, Paris, 1968), 4, 11–12, 174, 179, pp. 242–3, 250–3, 426–9, 432–5; and the views of F. Masai, ‘La ‘‘Vita Patrum Iurensium’’ et les débuts du monachisme à Saint Maurice d’Agaune’, in J. Autenrieth and F. Brünhölzl (eds), Festschrift Bernhardt Bischoff zum 65. Geburtstag (Munich, 1971), pp. 43–69; Regula Pauli et Stephani 41, ed. J. Vilanova (Scripta et Documenta 11, Montserrat, 1959), p. 124; Regula Isidori Pr. (PL CIII, cols 555–7). See also A. Mundo, ‘Il Monachesimo nella penisola iberica’, Sett. Spol. IV (1957), pp. 94–9.
9 Cassian, De Institutis Coenobiorum, ed. M. Petschenig (CSEL XVII, 1888), Pr., iv 40–1, pp. 4–6, 76–7; Conlationes, ed. Petschenig (CSEL XIII, 1883), xviii 1–6, pp. 506–13; Gregorii Magni Dialogi, ed. U. Morica (Fonti per la Storia d’Italia 57, Rome, 1924), ii 36, p. 132 (trans. O. Zimmermann, Fathers of the Church 39, Washington, DC, 1959, p. 107).
10 G. Holzherr, Regula Ferioli (Einsiedeln, 1961), pp. 11, 35–9, 100–1, 110–29. The codificatory tendencies of the Zeitgeist were rightly stressed by John Chapman in his now discredited arguments from the phenomena which misled him: Saint Benedict and the Sixth Century (London, 1929), pp. 29–33. They help to account for episcopal initiatives: Mundo, ‘Monachesimo’, pp. 94–5, and ‘Les anciens synodes abbatiaux et les Regulae SS. Patrum’, Studia Anselmiana XLIV, ed. B. Steidle (Rome, 1959), pp. 107–25.
11 For an early example, the (as such) unpublished Florilegium in Paris BN MS. lat. 12634, see A. de Vogüé, ‘Nouveaux aperc¸us sur une règle monastique du VIe siècle’, Revue d’Ascétique et de Mystique XLI (1965), pp. 19–54, and ‘La règle d’Eugippe retrouvée?’, ibid. XLVII (1971), pp. 233–65. A well-known but under-studied seventh-century example, much indebted both to St Benedict and also to Saints Caesarius and Columbanus, is Regula Donati (PL LXXXVII, 267–98). The misleading and inaccurate analysis of C. de Clercq, La législation religieuse franque de Clovis à Charlemagne (2 vols, Louvain, 1936), I, pp. 85–8, has had undue influence upon subsequent commentators. A further study is now available in G. Moyse, ‘Les origines du monachisme dans le diocèse de Besanc¸on’, Bibliothèque de l’école des Chartes 131 (1973), pp. 21–104, 369–485, at pp. 95–100, 397–426.
12 Gregory of Tours, Libri Historiarum, ed. B. Krusch andW. Levison (MGH, SRM I), x 29, p. 523: ‘Non modo Cassiani, verum etiam Basilii vel reliquorum abbatum . . . ’; cf. ibid. ix 40, pp. 464–5, for the adoption by St Rhadegundis’s convent at Poitiers of the Rule of St Caesarius for nuns.
13 Vita Filiberti, ed. W. Levison (MGH, SRM V), 5, p. 587. For the date, Wattenbach–Levison, Deutschlands Geschichtsquellen im Mittelalter, I, p. 138. For the ‘topos’ of the Bee in this context, cf. Holzherr (ed.), Regula Ferioli, pp. 52–3. For an illuminating reflection of the results of such rule-collecting, see Gesta Abbatum Fontanellensium, ed. G. H. Pertz (MGH, SS II), 13, p. 287; Corbie had a copy of the Rule of St Basil in the eighth century, to judge from CLA XI 1598.
14 See the very cautious assessment by P. Hunter Blair, The World of Bede (London 1970), pp. 197–201.
15 RB xlvi.1, Benoît, II, p. 594, in HA 8, p. 371, as noted by H. Farmer (ed.), The Rule of St Benedict (EEMSF XV, 1968), p. 24, n. 5; RB vii.7–9, I, 472–3, in In Ezram et Nehemiam, ed. D. Hurst (CCSL CXIXA), iii, lines 466–73, as noted by M. L. W. Laistner, ‘The Library of the Venerable Bede’, in Bede, ed. Thompson, pp. 251–2.
16 VC 14, p. 393; RB xvii.5–6, Benoît, II, p. 526; and, for the abbot’s freedom of manoeuvre, xviii.22–3, II, p. 534; cf. de Vogüé’s commentary, V, pp. 529–33. Perhaps a similar explanation lies behind a later scene at Biscop’s deathbed, HA 12, p. 376. No other monastic rule known to me contains this provision.
17 It may be noted that his clauses on the liturgy were not the most popular of Benedict’s provisions in seventh-century ‘regulae mixtae’: they are totally ignored by that of Donatus. Thus, their use at Monkwearmouth-Jarrow seems to argue an unusual interest in the application of the Rule.
18 HA 1, p. 364; cf. Greg., Dial., ed. Moricca, ii Pr., p. 71: ‘Gratia Benedictus et nomine’. I must acknowledge that the pope during Biscop’s last visit to Rome was Benedict II (684–5). But why should he wait until his last visit before naming himself after a pope? Why not take the name of his benefactor, Agatho? Or Martin, a papal hero of the period, whose exile immediately preceded Biscop’s first arrival in Rome (653), and whose Lateran Decrees (649) he brought back to his library, HE iv 18, p. 242?
19 Farmer, Rule of St Benedict, p. 24, argues that Biscop’s fear of hereditary succession, which is known to have been common in Ireland, constitutes evidence of the eclectic nature ofMonkwearmouth-Jarrow observance. But the pressure for hereditary succession was a function of Germanic society, not of Celtic influence, and its manifestations were not confined to Celtic lands; see E. John, ‘Saecularium Prioratus and the Rule of St Benedict’, Rev. Bn. LXXV (1965), pp. 212–39 at p. 225, and below, n. 102. Moreover, Biscop is not only resisting such pressure; he is even citing the Rule in doing so!
20 Vit. Wilf. 14, 47, 63, pp. 209, 242, 259; HE iv 16, p. 237. RB lix.1–2, Benoît, II, p. 632, makes no stipulation that oblates are to have reached the age of seven before they are admitted; Wilfrid’s postponement of admission to seven in c. 18, pp. 213–14, coupled with his ruthless attitude subsequently, recalls Caesarius’ Rule, Sancti Caesarii Opera, ed. G. Morin (Maretioli, 1942), vii, II, p. 104; cf. de Vogüé, Benoît, VI, pp. 1355–68. Bede, of course, was not recruited until he was seven, but there is no evidence that this was de rigueur at Biscop’s foundations.
21 HE iv 19, p. 244; RB xli, Benoît, II, pp. 580–2, has no objection to fasting on festivals. Elsewhere, however, see Pachomii Praecepta, ed. A. Boon, Pachomiana Latina (Louvain, 1932), clix, p. 58; echoed by Regula Orientalis xvii (PL CIII, 479); Regula Caesarii ad Virgines, ed. Morin, lxvii, p. 121; Regula Isidori ii (PL CIII, 565); and Regula Magistri xxviii.37–46, ed. A. de Vogüé, La Règle du Maître (3 vols, Sources Chrétiennes 105–7, Paris, 1964), II, pp. 158–9; of especial interest is Regula cuiusdam Patris ad Virgines xi (PL LXXXVIII, 1063), since this rule has been plausibly connected with Luxeuil and Faremoutiers, and St Aethelthryth’s family was closely linked with Faremoutiers: HE iii 8, iv 19, pp. 142, 243–4; L. Gougaud, ‘Inventaire des règles monastiques irlandaises’, Rev. Bn. XXV (1908), 167–84, 321–33, at pp. 328–30.
22 HA 2, pp. 365–6; Hunter Blair, World of Bede, p. 157.
23 Reg. Caes. ad Virg., ed. Morin, lxvi–lxx, pp. 120–2, and thus Aurelian’s Rules (PL LXVIII, 393–6, 403–6) claim to take their liturgical practices from Lérins. There are grounds for ascribing the Regula Macarii (PL CIII, 447–51), which was investigated by St Filibert, to Lérins, but it bears no obvious resemblance to what we know of Monkwearmouth-Jarrow, and its cellular structure (vi, xiii, xxi, xxiv) runs contrary to the evidence for Biscop’s monasteries; cf. de Vogüé, Benoît, V, pp. 664–97. On the possible Lérins provenance of other rules in this series, see Mundo, ‘Les anciens synodes abbatiaux’; Masai, ‘La Vita Patrum Iurensium’; J. Neufville, ‘Regula IV Patrum et Regula Patrum II’, Rev. Bn LXXVII (1967), pp. 47–106; and A. de Vogüé, ‘La Vie des Pères du Jura et la datation de la Regula Orientalis’, Revue d’Ascétique et de Mystique XLVII (1971), pp. 121–7. See also below, n. 26.
24 Vita Aigulfi, Acta Sanctorum, Sept. (3rd), I, 743–7. This Life is probably eighth-century in date, but there seems no reason to challenge the story, which is no more than an unusually violent manifestation of a common reaction. Compare the scenes on Lindisfarne in Two Lives of St Cuthbert, ed. B. Colgrave (Cambridge, 1940), Anon. iii 1, pp. 94–7, Bede’s xvi, xl, pp. 208–13, 286–7.
25 P. Visentin, ‘La posizione di S. Beda . . . riguardo alla tradizione del corpo di S. Benedetto’, Rev. Bn. LXVII (1957), pp. 34–48, argues that since Bede’s martyrology makes no reference to the translation of St Benedict’s bones to Fleury, the translation cannot have happened when Biscop was at Lérins, and may never have happened at all. Equally, it may mean that Biscop was at Lérins before Aigulf arrived.
26 F. Prinz, Frühes Mönchtum im Frankenreich (Munich, 1965), pp. 147–9, 276–8, 286–90. A possible difficulty in this thesis would arise if a south Gallic origin for the Regula Magistri and the Regula IV Patrum could be definitely established; see Holzherr, Regula Ferioli, pp. 52–70; Masai, ‘La Vita Patrum Iurensium’, pp. 59–62. But the south Italian school has powerful defenders in de Vogüé, Maître, I, pp. 211–32, and Neufville, ‘Regula IV Patrum’, pp. 47–65 (cf. also Rev. Bn. LXXV (1965), pp. 307–12). Gallic origins are argued by certain features of vocabulary and perhaps of content; Italian, by liturgical features and by the manuscripts. To an outsider, the controversy merely underlines how very close the orbits of Rome and the Rhône were in the early sixth century. St Benedict almost certainly knew the Rule of Caesarius, and Eugippius may have had experience of Lérins (Prinz, pp. 331–2, n. 34). It is therefore unwise to exclude altogether the possibilities of an early début in southern Gaul for St Benedict’s own rule. At the same time, we are looking not just for knowledge of the Rule, but for a mentality which gives it a primary status. The first evidence for Biscop’s type of interest is the privilege of Bishop Aredius of Grosseaux (683), Diplomata, chartae, epistolae . . . ad res Gallo-Francicas spectantia, ed. J. M. Pardessus (2 vols, Paris, 1843–9), cccci, II, p. 191. Not only does this charter date some time after Biscop’s visit to Lérins; its simultaneous reference to Columbanus points to a northern inspiration here too. However, on these matters see now ‘Additional Note’, p. 27.
27 VC 3, 5, 8 (pp. 389–91); Mayr-Harting, Coming, p. 166. One could add that Wilfrid’s experience of the Gallic episcopate should have planted in him the conviction that the monastic discipline of his diocese was very much the bishop’s business (cf. n. 53 below). He seems to have attempted reform at Lindisfarne, perhaps by introducing the Rule of Benedict; cf. Two Lives, ed. Colgrave, Anon. iii 1, pp. 96–7, Bede’s xl, pp. 286–7.
28 See n. 20. This date is certainly implied by Vit. Wilf. 14, p. 209, where the Rule and the author seem to arrive together. Cf. HE iii 28, iv 2, pp. 195, 205–6. Wilfrid associates the chant and the Rule in his great apologia, Vit. Wilf. 47, p. 242.
29 The first to set out the full case for Luxeuil was A. Malnory, Quid Luxovienses monachi ad regulam monasteriorum atque communem Ecclesiae profectum consulerint (Paris, 1894), pp. 26–42. It was duly acknowledged by Zimmermann, ‘Die Ausbreitung’, pp. xlii–liii, and has now acquired a powerful emphasis in Prinz, Frühes Mönchtum, pp. 263–92. De Vogüé, Benoît, I, pp. 163–9, even makes a case that Columbanus himself knew the Rule.
For St Benedict in the south-west, see L. Traube, Textgeschichte der Regula Sancti Benedicti (Abhandlungen der königliche Akademie der Wissenschaften, philos., philol. u. hist. Kl. 21 (3), Munich 1898), pp. 690–1; and A. Mundo, ‘L’authenticité de la Regula S. Benedicti’, Studia Anselmiana XLII (1957), pp. 105–58, at pp. 146–9. On the evidence for Rome, or lack of it, see G. Ferrari, Early Roman Monasteries (Rome, 1957), pp. 379–91, whose conclusions served to reinforce Dom Hallinger’s blockbuster (n. 6 above).
30 The first known illustration is the charter of St Eligius for Solignac, Vita Eligii episcopi Noviomagensis, ed. B. Krusch (MGH, SRM IV), App. 2, pp. 743–9. In many subsequent charters, the invocation of the joint rule seems to become formulaic; cf. also the praef. to Reg. Donat. (PL LXXXVII, 273), and the passage from the Vita Filiberti quoted above, n. 13.
31 Thus, ‘Leodgar canons’ xv, in the so-called ‘Vetus Gallica’, ed. F. Maassen, Concilia Aevi Merovingici (MGH Leg. Sect. III, I, Hannover, 1893), pp. 220–1; H. Mordek, Kirchenrecht und Reform im Frankenreich. Die Collectio Vetus Gallica. Die älteste systematische Kanonessammlung des fränkischen Gallien (Beiträge zur Geschichte und Quellenkunde des Mittelalters 1, Berlin, 1975), xlvii.12, p. 533.
32 Vit. Wilf. 15, p. 209; cf. HE iv 2, pp. 205–6; two years are unaccounted for, but Wilfrid may have spent some of them ministering in Kent. The possibilities of a Gallic origin for Wilfrid’s Benedictinism have been appreciated, but not discussed, by E. John, ‘Saecularium Prioratus’, pp. 219–20.
33 Jonas, Vita Columbani, ed. B. Krusch (MGH, SRM IV), i 26, p. 100; J. Guerout, ‘Les origines et le premier siècle de l’abbaye’, L’Abbaye royale notre-dame de Jouarre, ed. Y. Chaussy et al. (2 vols, Paris, 1961), I, pp. 41–7.
34 Prinz, Frühes Mönchtum, pp. 174–6.
35 HE iv 1, p. 203; HA 3, pp. 366–7.
36 Jonas, Vit. Col. i 26, ii 11–22, pp. 99–100, 130–43. Though the decisive evidence is late, there is no reason to doubt that Burgundofaro was Burgundofara’s brother (Prinz, p. 126). Burgundofaro’s important charter for Rebais (636), a brother foundation of Jouarre, is Diplomata, ed. Pardessus, cclxxv, II, pp. 39–41, and Emmo’s for Sens (659) is cccxxxv, II, pp. 112–14.
37 HA 4, p. 367. Biscop had made use of Cenwalh’s friendship ‘et ante non semel’; cf. J. M. Wallace-Hadrill, ‘Rome and the Early English Church: Some Problems of Transmission’, Sett. Spol. VII (1960), pp. 519–48, at p. 547, reprinted in hisEMH, pp. 115–37, at p. 132.
38 BCS 107; S 1164; trans. Whitelock, EHD I, no. 55. Cf. Levison, Continent, pp. 226–8, but also Chaplais, ‘Origin’, pp. 55–6, whose doubts seem a little excessive.
39 Aldhelmi Opera, ed. R. Ehwald (MGH AA XV), pp. 268–9, 389–90; cf. M. Bateson, ‘The Origin and Early History of the DoubleMonastery’, TRHS NS xiii (1899), pp. 137–98, at p. 175; Willibald, Vita Bonifatii, ed. W. Levison (MGH SRG), i–v, esp. pp. 8–10, 15, 18–19. It may be noted that the scribe of the above charter, Wynberht, became Boniface’s abbot at Nursling. It is very surprising that this important, if obscure, southwestern nexus should have been completely ignored in the discussions about the origins of the famous Hatton MS 48 of the Rule of St Benedict; especially as the textual features of its corrected version are very close to Würzburg MS M.p.th.q.22 which has Fulda connections; cf. B. Bischoff, Libri Sancti Kyliani (Würzburg, 1952), no. 48, p. 110; P. Meyvaert, ‘Towards a History of the Textual Transmission of the Regula S. Benedicti’, Scriptorium XVII (1963), pp. 83–106, at pp. 95–100. P. Engelbert’s important review of Farmer’s facsimile edition, Rev. Bn. LXXIX (1969), pp. 399–413, supplies some grounds for locating the origins as well as the provenance of this manuscript at Worcester. But we have absolutely no known West Saxon material with which to compare it. Besides, Boniface had his links with the Church of Worcester: Briefe Bonifatius 112, pp. 243–5.
40 E.g. Athala, subsequently abbot of Bobbio itself, after several years at Lérins; or even Arnulf of Metz, Vita Arnulfi, ed. B. Krusch (MGH SRM II), 6, 7, pp. 433–5; cf. Jonas, Vit. Col. ii 1, 10, pp. 113, 127.
41 HA 11, p. 375; VC 16, p. 393; cf. HE iv 18, p. 241; HA 16, p. 381; VC 20, 25, pp. 395–6; Hom., p. 93 lines 178–80.
42 Levison, Continent, pp. 23–7, 187–90.
43 Levison showed, pp. 189–90, that 679 and 680 were the only possible dates for Agatho’s charter for Hadrian at Canterbury, BCS 38. There was extensive contact between Rome and Canterbury in these years because of the forthcoming Council at Constantinople. But Biscop and Wilfrid were also involved in this traffic; HA 6, p. 369, HE iv 18, v 19, pp. 241–2, 326–7; Vit. Wilf. 28, 53, pp. 221, 248; Councils III, pp. 131–6, 140–1. It is only after his journey in 679–80 that we hear of Wilfrid’s charter, Vit. Wilf. 43, p. 238. Bishop Earconwald’s charter of privilege for Barking (BCS 87, S 1246; C. Hart, Early Charters of Eastern England (Leicester, 1966), pp. 122–7), might also have been confirmed by Agatho at this time; its authenticity received a powerful boost from Chaplais, ‘Single Sheets’, p. 330; but Agatho cannot have confirmed any charter in 677, as the extant text implies. Wilfrid had his links with Earconwald, Vit. Wilf. 43, p. 236; BCS 81, S 1171.
44 HA 3, pp. 366–7; HE Praef., pp. 6–7; and Bede’s letter to Albinus, HE, p. 3.
45 Levison, Continent, pp. 187–90. My approach here conflicts with Eric John’s interesting paper, ‘Saecularium Prioratus’, pp. 222–3 and n. 1, and I must justify myself. First, the suggestion that BCS 38’s membership of a highly dubious cartulary invalidates its authenticity would undermine one’s confidence in a substantial proportion of surviving Anglo-Saxon diplomatic including, for instance, some widely respected early Chertsey charters; it is difficult to see how the monks of St Augustine’s can have got hold of ‘one good bull’, especially such a good one, if not by receiving it themselves; and I would adduce the above-mentioned coincidence of date as a further argument in the extant charter’s defence. Second, Biscop’s own charter is unlikely to have referred only to secular encroachment (p. 227); though Archbishop Aethelheard refers in an original charter of 803 to a papal mandate on this subject (BCS 312, OSF I 4), I know of no extant papal charter which mentions the incursions of the laity, without also referring to those of bishop and clergy; in that case, the Monkwearmouth-Jarrow privilege would be of the orthodox type. Third, there is direct evidence of papal privileges in early England, in can. viii of the Legatine Capitulary of 786, Alc. Ep. 3, p. 22, and in Aethelheard’s charter just referred to. As against these positive indications, the failure of the highly tendentious sources for the tenth-century reformation to refer to privileges used against the reformers can have little significance (cf. chapter 5, below). But the core of John’s case, as I understand it, is that such hardened adherents of episcopal authority as Wilfrid, Bede (Ep. Ecgb. 10, 14, pp. 413, 418) and, presumably, Hadrian will not have wished to compromise it by encouraging exemptions. To this one can only reply, fourth, that two of the most distinguished exponents of metropolitan power in the early Middle Ages exempted their foundations from the jurisdiction of their successors: St Caesarius of Arles, Opera, ed. Morin, II, pp. 125–7, and St Boniface (Briefe Bonifatius 87, 89, pp. 196, 203–5). Contemporary Gallic bishops, as will be seen below, were very generous with their privileges. Thus Bede need have seen no dichotomy between his own monastery’s exemption and the subjection of others to episcopal discipline where absolutely necessary. It is possible to exaggerate the potential antipathy between episcopal and monastic positions in the early Middle Ages, and to forget that a good number of the most influential bishops were also monks, even monastic legislators (see n. 10). I gratefully acknowledge the memory of discussing my views with Eric.
46 See nn. 41, 43.
47 Vit. Wilf. 45, 47, 51, pp. 239, 242, 245; cf. also 46, 54, 60, pp. 241, 250, 255, etc. Wilfrid’s conception of what constituted alien incursions may have been influenced, like his attitude to the succession in general, by Irish ‘parochial’ structures; cf. John, ‘Social and political problems’, pp. 59–61. But Eddius’ language is confused and ambiguous; I prefer Levison’s ‘tacit’ caution to the categorical assertions of Dr M. Gibbs, ‘The Decrees of Pope Agatho and the Gregorian Plan for York’, Speculum XLVIII (1973), pp. 213–46, at pp. 227–9, 238–9, n. 97.
48 Conc. Carthag. (536), Mansi, Sacrorum Conciliorum nova et amplissima collectio VIII, 841–2, Concilia Africae, 345–525, ed. C. Munier (CCSL CXLIX, 1974), p. 283: exclusion of a bishop’s cathedra; cf. Greg. Ep. vi 44, vii 12, I, pp. 419–20, 454–5; on these norms, see T. P. McLaughlin, Le très ancien droit monastique de l’Occident (Paris, 1935), esp. pp. 139–51.
49 Vit. Wilf. 51, p. 245: ‘ut si quis aliquam contra me accusationem haberet, ad vestram mecum praesentiam iudicandus conveniret, sicut beati praedecessoris vestri Sergii papae scripta decernebant’; cf. 54, 60, pp. 250, 255.
50 Bede was ordained by Bishop John, ‘iubente Ceolfrido abbate’, HE v 24, p. 357; Hwaetberht blessed by Acca, ‘advocatur’, HA 20, pp. 384–5. Ceolfrid’s failure to seek permission for his pilgrimage is noted by Dr Isenberg in the monograph referred to in n. 1.
51 W. Szaivert, ‘Die Entstehung und Entwicklung des Klosterexemption bis zum Ausgang des elften Jahrhunderts’, Mitteilungen des österreichischen Instituts für Geschichtsforschung 59 (1951), pp. 265–98, at pp. 273–9.
52 As witness the difficulties of Gregory of Tours with the convent of Poitiers, Lib. Hist. ix 39–43, x 15–17, 20. pp. 460–75, 501–9, 513.
53 Notorious French canons are Conc. Orleans (511) 19, Conc. Arles (554), 2, Conc. Aev. Mer., ed. Maassen, pp. 7, 119. The English evidence begins at Conc. Hertf. (672) iii, HE iv 5, p. 216; cf. ‘Penitential of Theodore’ II vi, Councils, pp. 195–6. Thereafter are, in ascending order of episcopal severity, the ‘Dialogue of Egbert’ x, Councils, p. 408; Bede, Ep. Ecgb. 10, p. 413; Conc. Clov. (747) iv, Councils, p. 364; Legatine Council v, Alc. Ep., p. 22; and Conc. Chels. (816) iv, viii, Councils, pp. 580–3.
54 Levison, Continent, p. 192. Gregory’s privilege for Arles, Greg. Ep. ix 216, II, pp. 203–4, is a vivid illustration of the popularity and raison d’être of his privilegia.
55 BCS 133; cf. F. M. Stenton, ‘Medeshamstede and its Colonies’, in Prep. ASE, pp. 185–8.
56 Liber Diurnus ed. Th. Sickel (Vienna, 1889), 32, 77, 86, pp. 23–4, 82–3, 111–13. Gregory’s letter to Marinianus of Ravenna, Greg. Ep. viii 17, pp. 19–21, has been considered to anticipate some provisions of seventh-century charters, McLaughlin, Très ancien droit monastique, pp. 118–19; but Gregory leaves the Bishop’s powers ultimately untrammelled; his main concern is that Marinianus should not abuse his canonical right of control over the abbot’s travels (cf., e.g., Conc. Arles (554) iii, ed. Maassen, p. 119); the tone and language of later documents is very different. Similarly, if the privilege for Agaune was the model for that of Chalons (Maassen, pp. 162–3), as is implied by Fredegar iv 1 (ed. J. M.Wallace-Hadrill, The Fourth Book of the Chronicle of Fredegar and its Continuation (London, 1961), p. 4), it can scarcely have involved appeal to Rome, as in its purported foundation charter (Mansi VIII, 531–6). On the other hand, W. Schwarz, ‘Iurisdicio und condicio’, Zeitschrift der Savigny-Stiftung für Rechtsgeschichte, kan. Abt., LXXVI (1959), pp. 34–98, denies that there was any change in the seventh century. His arguments seem to me to postulate too narrow a translation of ‘dicio’ and ‘dominatio’ and to involve the assumption of a quite excessive number of forgeries, including virtually all the Frankish charters of the seventh century; cf. n. 59 below, and ‘Additional Note’.
57 Codice diplomatico del monastero di S Columbano di Bobbio, ed. C. Cipolla (3 vols, Fonti per la Storia d’Italia 52–4, Rome, 1918), 10, I, pp. 100–3; cf. Lib. Diurn. 77; Jonas, Vit. Col. ii 23, p. 145.
58 Codice S Columbano 13, I, pp. 104–12. This charter cannot be accepted as it stands; but the close similarity of some of its formulae to those of Frankish charters from the Luxeuil connection needs explanation; it also shows that some of its provisions are not entirely anachronistic.
59 E. Ewig, ‘Klosterprivilegien des 7. und frühen 8. Jahrhunderts’, in J. Fleckenstein and K. Schmid (eds), Adel und Kirche: Gerd Tellenbach zum 65. Geburtstag (Freiburg, 1968), pp. 52–65, reprinted in his Spätantikes und frühfränkisches Gallien. Gesammelte Schriften 1952–73 (2 vols, Beihefte der Francia 3, Munich, 1976), II, pp. 411–26; what Ewig calls the ‘lesser freedoms’ of St Denis, St Pierre-le-Vif and Marculf reserve the diocesan’s sacramental and disciplinary rights, but by invitation and as a last resort; the Solignac charter (see n. 30) gives ultimate jurisdiction to the abbot of Luxeuil; Bishop Widegern’s privilege for Pirmin’s Murbach, Regesta Alsatiae aevi Merovingici et Karolini, ed. A. Brückner (2 vols, Strasburg, 1949), 113–14, I, pp. 53–9, and the closely associated Flavigny formulae, Formulae Merowingici et Karolini Aevi, ed. K. Zeumer (MGH, Leg. Sect. V), 42–3, pp. 479–81, illustrate the workings of an abbatial ‘college’; cf. A. Angenendt, Monachi Peregrini: Studien zu Pirmin und den monastischen Vorstellungen des frühen Mittelalters (Munich, 1972), pp. 81–122, 175–97.
60 Formulae Collectionis Sancti Dionysii 3, 9, Formulae, ed. Zeumer, pp. 496–8, 501–3; J. M. Wallace-Hadrill, ‘A Background to St Boniface’, England before Conquest, pp. 35–48, at p. 38, reprinted in his EMH, pp. 138–54, at p. 141.
61 The parallel was noted by Levison, Continent, pp. 24–5, and Wallace-Hadrill, ‘Rome and the Early English Church’, p. 541, reprint pp. 128–9. In view of the arguments here advanced, it is hard to agree with Dr Gibbs, ‘Decrees of Pope Agatho’, pp. 228–9 (cf. pp. 238–9, n. 97), that ascription to St Peter involves protection, but not exemption.
62 W. Levison, ‘Die Iren und die fränkische Kirche’, in his Aus rheinischer und fränkischer Frühzeit (Düsseldorf, 1948), pp. 255–8; Schwarz, ‘Iurisdicio und Condicio’, pp. 80–1. There is a very interesting sidelight on this point in that Ecgfrith’s forged charter for Cuthbert, BCS 66, S 66, shares formulae with three early charters for Bobbio (Codice S. Columbano 3, 7, 9, pp. 84–9, 91–100); cf. Chaplais, ‘Augustine’, p. 537 (and cf. chapter 4, pp. 149).
63 Diplomata, ed. Pardessus, cclxxv, cccxxv II, pp. 39–41, 112–14; Guerout, Jouarre, pp. 41–2; Ewig, ‘Klosterprivilegien’, p. 59 (p. 418). Professor Wallace-Hadrill pointed out to me that there are parallels for the royal confirmations of the Monkwearmouth-Jarrow privilege, and of Wilfrid’s Mercian monasteries, in the case of St Denis; cf. also Marculf i 2, Formulae, ed. Zeumer, pp. 41–3.
64 HE iv 18, p. 242.
65 VC 7, p. 390. There are rather striking parallels between Biscop’s monasteries as now exposed (see Professor Cramp’s paper in Famulus Christi), and those described by Vita Filiberti 8, pp. 589–90. See Campbell, ‘First century’, pp. 18–22, reprinted in his Essays, pp. 55–9, for other intercourse between English and Gallic Churches at this period.
66 Cf. Mayr-Harting, Coming, p. 70. Thus the Gregory miniature in the Leningrad Bede: P. Meyvaert, Bede and Gregory the Great (Jarrow Lecture, 1964), pp. 3–4. It cannot be coincidence that Biscop had the book of Job read to him on his deathbed, HA 12, p. 376; in the preface to his Moralia in Job (PL LXXV, 515–16) Gregory relates his own physical sufferings to Job’s: ‘Et fortasse hoc divinae providentiae consilium fuit ut percussum Job percussus exponerem et flagellati mentem melius per flagella sentirem’.
67 K. Hallinger, ‘Römische Voraussetzungen der Bonifatianischen Wirksamkeit im Frankenreich’, Sankt-Bonifatius Gedenkgabe (Fulda, 1954), pp. 320–61, esp., e.g., pp. 341–6 on the Rule of St Benedict (see ‘Additional Note’, pp. 27–8.).
68 HA 11, p. 375; cf. VC 20, p. 395.
69 Education and Culture, pp. 335–6, 351–2 (French original, pp. 382–3, 399–400); cf. Campbell, ‘First century’, p. 26, Essays p. 63. For the Rule in these circles, Prinz, Frühes Mönchtum, pp. 272–4; Gertrude’s acquisitions also included relics from Rome and teachers of the ‘divini legis carmina de transmarinis regionibus’, presumably Ireland, Vita S. Gertrudis, ed. B. Krusch (MGH, SRM II), p. 457.
70 CLA V, pp. v–vii, VI, pp. xxii–xxv; E. Lesne, Histoire de la propriétéecclésiastique en France.
IV, Les livres, scriptoria et bibliothèques (Lille, 1938), pp. 38–9; Education and Culture, pp. 427–9 (pp. 479–81); Prinz, Frühes Mönchtum, pp. 521–3. The great days of the Corbie scriptorium are usually considered to have begun with the visit to Rome of Abbot Grimo (739). But it is almost certain that some of the jewels in the collection had arrived before: e.g. CLA V, 562(?), 619–20, 624–9, 632, 633, 635(?), 638(?), 645–6, 656–9(?), 671(?), 675(?), 692; VI 708; XI 1598, 1616–17, 1625; there are many more manuscripts for which the first positive Corbie evidence is late eighth or ninth century, but which could have arrived earlier (see now ‘Additional Note’, pp. 28–9). Equally, moreover, Bede’s library will presumably have been supplemented continuously, 690–730.
71 P. Courcelle, Late Latin Writers and their Greek Sources, trans. H. Wedeck (Cambridge, Mass., 1969), pp. 376–84 (French original, 2nd edn, Bibliothèque des Ecoles françaises d’Athènes et de Rome 159, Paris, 1948, pp. 356–62); H. Vanderhoven and F. Masai, Regula Magistri. Les Publications de Scriptorium. Edition diplomatique des manuscrits latins 12205 et 12634 (Publications de Scriptorium III, Brussels, 1953), pp. 60–7.
72 CLA V, nos. 633, 645–6; Vanderhoven and Masai, pp. 35–8.
73 Laistner, ‘Library’, pp. 263–6. Another early French collection which is significant for the purposes of comparison is that of Fleury, the house which reformed Lérins and later claimed to possess the bones of St Benedict. For the ‘noble rags’ of its early library, see CLA VI, pp. xviii–xxi, and the MSS, I 104; II 255; V 563–6, 609, 690; VI 745, 797–819. See also CLA VI, pp. xv–xviii (Luxeuil, Laon), and p. xxii (Chelles?); generally, Education and Culture, pp. 429–30 (pp. 481–2). Even St Filibert may be reintroduced: CLA V 589, is a Lyons manuscript of Eucherius which was apparently at Filibert’s Noirmoutier in the seventh century (Prinz, Frühes Mönchtum, p. 460, n. 33). These collections could boast much of the patristic core of Biscop’s library, including two-thirds of its Augustine: nearly all of its historical department (Eusebius, Orosius, Josephus and Gregory of Tours), as well as Sallust and Livy; and even its Pliny the elder (CLAV 575, a sixth-century Italian manuscript, later at St Amand). It is not so easy to find parallels for its apparent wealth of grammatical, chronological, hagiographical and poetical sections. However, we are dependent for our evidence, in one case, upon the prodigious output of a Bede, in the other, on the survival of a few cathedral and private archives until modern times; this is scarcely an evenly balanced match.
74 Wallace-Hadrill, ‘Rome and the Early English Church’, p. 536, reprint pp. 129–31; Campbell, ‘First century’, pp. 25–6, Essays pp. 62–4.
75 This is a primary thesis of the two important surveys already referred to: Education and Culture, pp. 361–2, 495–9 (pp. 410, 548–52); Prinz, Frühes Mönchtum, pp. 15, 291,
493, 525–6, 531, 544–8.
76 J. M. Wallace-Hadrill, The Long-Haired Kings (London, 1962), pp. 217–20, 222–4; Prinz, Frühes Mönchtum, pp. 490–3.
77 Prinz, Frühes Mönchtum, pp. 497–9.
78 The twenty-three do include the Khan of the Avars, but would be twenty-four were one to include Ebroin, mayor of the Neustrian palace. We have references to the friendship of Eanflæd, Vit. Wilf. 2, p. 195, Earconberht 3, p. 196, Alchfrith 7, pp. 200–1,Wulfhere 15, p. 210, Ecgfrith and Æthelthryth 19, p. 214, Dagobert II 28, p. 221, Perctarit 28, p. 222, Æthelwald 41, p. 234, Caedwalla 42, p. 235, and Æthelred 43, p. 238; for the secular aristocracy, 2, 21, 24, 59, pp. 194–5, 216, 218, 254.
79 D. P. Kirby, ‘Bede’s Native Sources for the Historia Ecclesiastica’, BJRL XLVIII (1966), pp. 341–71, at p. 350. For the possible significance of this point, Prinz, Frühes Mönchtum, pp. 493–5, 502–3; J. M. Wallace-Hadrill, Early Germanic Kingship in England and on the Continent (Oxford, 1971), pp. 50–3; cf. F. Graus, Volk, Herrscher und Heilige im Reich der Merowinger (Prague, 1965), pp. 397–8, 416–19, 430–7.
80 Oswiu, HA 1, p. 364; Alchfrith, HA 2, p. 365; Ecgbert, HA 3, p. 367; Cenwalh, HA 4, p. 367; Ecgfrith, HA 4, 6, 7, 8, pp. 367, 369, 370, 372; VC 11, 12, pp. 391, 392; Aldfrith, HA 9, 15, pp. 373, 380; Osred, HA 15, p. 380.
81 H. Quentin, Les Martyrologes historiques du moyen aˆge (Paris 1908), pp. 47–56; H.A. Wilson (ed.), The Calendar of St Willibrord (Henry Bradshaw Society 55, 1918), p. viii and n., p. 36. (See also ‘Additional Note’, p. 29.)
82 Cf. Mayr-Harting, Coming, pp. 156–7. What follows is not necessarily incompatible with Dr Mayr-Harting’s conclusions. It is undoubtedly important that Monkwearmouth-Jarrow should have enjoyed so large a share of royal patronage, and this might well explain Bede’s commitment to the unification of Northumbria (chapters 4 and 6 below). But the attitude of kings to Holy Men is one thing; that of Holy Men to the world at large is quite another. Biscop and Ceolfrith are not presented as the patrons of kings, like Cuthbert, Wilfrid, Guthlac and Columba (cf. Wallace-Hadrill, Early Germanic Kingship, pp. 55–64). There are very significant differences between a saint who is the friend and counsellor of a dozen kings and one whose biographer refers, in passing, to his frequent attendance at the king’s council. There are revealing differences, too, between the way Wilfrid and Biscop used the Old Testament: Wilfrid, in order to reinforce his followers’ sense that they were a comitatus, Vit. Wilf. 13, pp. 207–8, cf. 62, p. 258; Biscop and Ceolfrid, to emphasize that their two communities were one spiritual brotherhood, HA 13, p. 377; VC 25, p. 397. It is thus unsurprising that Wilfrid should have inspired Aldhelm’s remarkable letter to this followers (trans. Whitelock, EHD, no. 165; and, for its similarity to Beowulf lines 2884–91, the same author’s ‘Anglo-Saxon Poetry and the Historian’, TRHS, 4th ser. XXXI (1949), pp. 89–90; Biscop, the homily which is discussed below. Whatever their respective links with the Northumbrian aristocracy, Wilfrid’s monks were more obviously influenced by aristocratic priorities.
83 For example, Pontius’ Life of Cyprian, or Possidius’ of Augustine; the latter known to Bede.
84 Prinz, Frühes Mönchtum, pp. 56–8, 457–64. But, as Prinz notes, pp. 464–7, fashions around Lérins had changed when the Vita of Caesarius was composed. As Dr Mayr-Harting reminds me, Bede’s prayers also seem to bear the stamp of Lérins; cf. M. T. A. Carroll, The Venerable Bede: His Spiritual Teachings (Catholic University of America, Studies in Medieval History, NS IX, Washington, DC, 1946), pp. 209–11.
85 PL L, 1249–72; trans. R. Deferrari, Early Christian Biographies (Fathers of the Church 15, Washington, DC, 1952), pp. 355–94.
86 J. Campbell, Bede, The Great Histories (New York, 1968), pp. xxv–xxx, reprint pp. 42–5; cf. Mayr-Harting, Coming, pp. 74–5. Pope Gregory’s views on the limitations of the miraculous as proof of sanctity, for which see C. W. Jones, Saints’ Lives and Chronicles in Early England (Ithaca, NY, 1947), pp. 76–7, were quoted by Bede, HE i 31, pp. 66–7, and may have influenced the atmosphere in his monastery. But where Gregory had preached caution, the Cassianic and Lérins traditions actually practised it; cf. O. Chadwick, John Cassian (2nd edn, Cambridge, 1968), pp. 51, 100.
87 Prinz, Frühes Mönchtum, pp. 277–8; based on R. Buchner, Die Provence in der Merowingischer Zeit (Arbeiten z. deutschen Rechts- und Verfassungs-geschichte IX, Stuttgart, 1933); cf. also CLA VI, p. xxix; Education and Culture, pp. 188–9 (pp. 232–3); C. Nordenfalk, ‘Before the Book of Durrow’, Acta Archaeologica XVIII (1947), pp. 141–74, at pp. 159–66.
88 Thus, Amandus, Eligius, Desiderius, Bonitus and (yet again!) Filibert; cf. Prinz, Frühes Mönchtum, pp. 300–16. There are several indications that St Martin remained the primary patron of Amand, including the number of Sulpician quotations in his Vita.
89 Matthew 19:16–30. See n. 1 for the Homily.
90 J. Leclercq, ‘Mönchtum und Peregrinatio im Frühmittelalter’, Römische Quartalschrift 55 (1960), pp. 212–25; cf. Aux Sources de la spiritualitéoccidentale (Paris, 1964), pp. 35–65.
Angenendt, Monachi Peregrini, pp. 124–75, is an especially imaginative survey of this theme. Relevant English texts are Vit. Wilf. 4, p. 196, and Vita Bonifatii 1, p. 7.
91 K. Hughes, ‘The Changing Theory and Practice of Irish Pilgrimage’, JEH XI (1960), pp. 143–51; but cf. Angenendt, Monachi Peregrini, pp. 149–51, and n. 49; for a slightly different view, K. Hauck, ‘Von einer spätantiken Randkultur zum karolingischen Europa’, Frühmittelalterliche Studien 1 (1967), pp. 3–93, at pp. 57–68.
92 HA 3, p. 366; HE iii 13, 19, 27, iv 3, 23, v 9, 19, pp. 152, 163, 193, 211, 253, 296–8, 324–5; iii.27, in particular, shows that Ecgberht’s pilgrimage was Irish-influenced, for no Englishman needed to leave the island of Britain in order to separate himself from his kindred, gens or patria in the seventh century, whereas it was essential that a serious Irish pilgrim should leave Ireland. In HE v 19, p. 325, Bede renders Vit. Wilf. 6, p. 200, ‘transmarinus’ by ‘peregrinus’. Witberht’s ‘locus peregrinationis’, v.9, p. 298, had nothing to do with his preaching. I am grateful to Dr T. M. Charles-Edwards for help on this subject (and see now ‘Additional Note’, p. 29).
93 Hom., pp. 92–3 lines 120–61; cf. Hilarii sermo de vita S. Honorati viii (37), (PL L, 1270).
94 Hence, it is understandable that Bede should have avoided any use of the Abraham text, with its connotations of physical displacement.
95 VC 8, pp. 390–1. For parallels, see n. 24.
96 E. A. Lowe, English Uncial (Oxford, 1961); R. L. S. Bruce-Mitford, ‘The Art of the Codex Amiatinus’ (Jarrow Lecture, 1967, Journal of the British Archaeological Association XXXII (1969), pp. 1–25). Cf. R. W. Southern, ‘Bede’, Medieval Humanism and Other Studies (London, 1970), pp. 1–8, at p. 2.
97 R. L. S. Bruce-Mitford, ‘The Decoration’, in Sir T. Kendrick et al. (eds), Evangelia quattuor Codex Lindisfarnensis (2 vols, Otten-Lausanne 1960), II, esp. pp. 110–12, 222–43, 250–1; with his ‘The Reception by the Anglo-Saxons of Mediterranean Art’, Sett. Spol. XIV (1967), pp. 798–825, at pp. 800–5; and ‘The Art’, pp. 13–14, 17–18, 24.
98 C. Peers and C. A. Ralegh Radford, ‘The Saxon Monastery at Whitby’, Archaeologia LXXXIX (1943), pp. 27–88, which, in this respect, I see no reason to challenge; cf. R. Cramp, in Bonner (ed.), Famulus Christi, pp. 5–18, at p. 8.
99 Bruce-Mitford, ‘The Reception’, pp. 817–18; ‘The Art’, pp. 19–24; R. Cramp, ‘Decorated window-glass and Millefiori from Monkwearmouth’, Antiquaries’ Jnl L (1970), pp. 327–35, at pp. 330–3; ‘Excavations at the Saxon monastic sites of Wearmouth and Jarrow, Co. Durham: an interim report’, Medieval Archaeology XIII (1969), pp. 21–66, at p. 58. However, in this artistic sphere, it should be noted that the evidence from Wilfrid’s Hexham is even more uncompromisingly ultramontane than that for Biscop’s monasteries. The Hexham slabs are almost wholly lacking in recognizable insular themes: powerful evidence of Wilfrid’s cosmopolitanism, and that not every aspect of aristocratic culture in Northumbria appealed to him. See R. Cramp ‘Early Northumbrian Sculpture at Hexham’, in D. P. Kirby (ed.), Saint Wilfrid at Hexham (Newcastle-upon-Tyne, 1974), pp. 115–40.
100 Thus the Leningrad Bede is not very obviously ‘mediterranean’; and why did Abbot
Cuthberht need a ‘citharista’ (EHD I, no. 185)?
101 F. Prinz, Frühes Mönchtum, pp. 278–9; K. Schmid, ‘Religiöses und Sippengebundenes Gemeinschaftsbewusstsein im Frühmittelalterlichen Gedenkbucheinträgen’, DA XI (1965), pp. 18–81, at pp. 50–4, 63–4. Once again, one is relieved to follow Levison, Continent, pp. 27–9.
102 HA 11, 13, pp. 375–6, 376–7; VC 16, pp. 393–4. It is assumed by Plummer, II, p. 364, that Ceolfrid was actually Biscop’s kinsman. This involves translating ‘non tam . . . quam’ as ‘not only. . . but also’, which is not always accurate for Bede: cf. HE i 12, p. 26. Eosterwine, on the other hand, was certainly a relative of Biscop’s, HA 8, p. 371; VC 12, p. 392, but great care is taken to describe his spiritual qualifications. By my reading of the texts, Biscop’s objections are to the succession of kinsmen for kindred’s sake. He is worried, not only about ‘frater meus . . . carnalis’, but also ‘ne secundum genus umquam, ne deforis aliunde, vobis patrem quaeratis’ (loc. cit.). Moreover, the same concern is shared by Ceolfrid, twenty-six years later, when Biscop’s brother should have been dead, or nearly so, HA 16, p. 381, VC 25, p. 396; there is no suggestion that Hwætberht belonged to Founder’s Kin. As for Wilfrid’s provisions on the succession, they seem to contradict one another, Vit. Wilf. 62–3, pp. 257–9. HE iv 16, p. 237, is, however, a clear indication of Wilfrid’s practice in this respect: 300 hides, ‘utendam pro Domino’, were entrusted to Wilfrid’s sister’s son, Bernwine – a ‘clericus’, but one whose qualifications were such that it was necessary to appoint a priest, Hiddila, in order to carry out the ministry of word and water.
103 Torhthelm: cf. HA 5, p. 368, VC 7, p. 390.
104 VC 40, pp. 403–4.
105 VC 12, p. 392, cf. HA 7, p. 370. Bede implies that Eosterwine’s appointment was the result of Biscop’s journeys overseas. But HA 8, 14, pp. 371, 379, date his appointment to 682; this is exactly midway between Biscop’s fifth and sixth visits to Rome. Hence, confirmation for VC 10–12, pp. 391–2, whereby Eosterwine was made abbot temporarily during the journey of 678–9, but permanent abbot only in 682, because of Biscop’s absences on the king’s business.
106 For the ‘academic’ merit of the Amiatinus, cf. B. Fischer, ‘Codex Amiantinus und Cassiodor’, Biblische Zeitschrift NS VI (1962), pp. 77–9, and Dr Meyvaert’s paper in Famulus Christi, pp. 40–69, at p. 50.
107 Thus, the famous judgement of W. P. Ker, quoted by R. W. Chambers, ‘Bede’, PBA XXII (1936), pp. 129–56, at p. 132.