\n1 Citations of Bede\u2019s HE, HA and the anonymous VC are from Plummer; of Bede\u2019s homily on Biscop (Hom.) from Bedae Opera Homiletica, ed. D. Hurst (CCSL cxxii (III)) 13, pp. 88\u201394 (opening quotation, p. 93 lines 165\u20137). The accounts of Bede and the Anonymous were carefully compared by G. Isenberg: Die W\u00fcrdigung Wilfrieds von York in der Historia Gentis Anglorum Bedas und der Vita Wilfridi des Eddius (Weidenau, 1978). On the European context, J. Campbell, \u2018The first century of Christianity in England\u2019, Ampleforth Journal LXXVI (1971), pp. 12\u201329, reprinted in Campbell, Essays, pp. 49\u201367, 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\u2019s paper and others much to the point, see Famulus Christi, where this paper first appeared.
\n2 HA 11, pp. 374\u20135; VC 6, p. 390; cf. Hom., pp. 91\u20132 lines 116\u201320.
\n3 HA 11, p. 375; VC 16, p. 393; cf. RB lxiv.2, II, p. 648.
\n4 A. Hamilton Thompson, \u2018Northumbrian Monasticism\u2019, in Bede, ed. Thompson, pp. 60\u2013101, at pp. 83\u20136; C. Butler, Benedictine Monachism (2nd edn, London, 1924), p. 336.
\n5 M. D. Knowles, \u2018The Regula Magistri and the Rule of St Benedict\u2019, in his Great Historical Enterprises (Cambridge, 1963), pp. 139\u201395; \u2018Some recent work on early Benedictine history\u2019, in C. W. Dugmore and C. Duggan (eds), Studies in Church History I (Cambridge, 1964), pp. 35\u201346.
\n6 The now classic breakthrough is K. Hallinger, \u2018Papst Gregor der Grosse und der hl. Benedikt\u2019, Studia Anselmiana XLII, ed. B. Steidle (Rome, 1957), pp. 231\u2013319. The best of more traditional accounts is perhaps A. Zimmermann, \u2018Die Ausbreitung der Regula S. Benedicti in den ersten Jahrhunderten ihrer Geltung\u2019, Kalendarium Benediktinum (3 vols, Brussels, 1933), I, pp. xxxv\u2013lxxxii. For a reassessment of the English evidence in the aftermath of the earthquake, M. Deanesly, St Augustine of Canterbury (London, 1964), pp. 134\u201350, and E. John, \u2018The Social and Economic Problems of the Early English Church\u2019, in J. Thirsk (ed.) Land, Church and People: Essays Presented to H. P. R. Finberg (Reading, 1970), pp. 39\u201363, at pp. 54\u20136.
\n7 Compare P. R. L. Brown, \u2018The Rise and Function of the Holy Man in Late Antiquity\u2019, JRS LXI (1971), pp. 80\u2013101, reprinted in his Society and the Holy, pp. 103\u201352; and P. Rousseau, \u2018The Spiritual Authority of theMonk-Bishop\u2019, JThS NS XXII (1971), pp. 380\u2013419; with the fundamental studies of A. de Vog\u00fc\u00e9, \u2018La Monast\u00e8re, \u00e9glise de Christ\u2019, Studia Anselmiana XLII, ed. Steidle (1957), pp. 25\u201346; La Communaut\u00e9et l\u2019Abb\u00e9dans la R\u00e8gle de Saint Beno\u00eet (Paris, 1960), esp. pp. 120\u201376; \u2018Sub Regula vel Abbate\u2019, Collectanea Cisterciana XXXIII (1971), pp. 209\u201341; and his introduction to Beno\u00eet I, pp. 29\u201379.
\n8 De Vog\u00fc\u00e9, \u2018Sub Regula\u2019, pp. 220\u20137. For vivid illustrations of this phase, see La Vie des P\u00e8res du Jura, ed. F. Martine (Sources Chr\u00e9tiennes 142, Paris, 1968), 4, 11\u201312, 174, 179, pp. 242\u20133, 250\u20133, 426\u20139, 432\u20135; and the views of F. Masai, \u2018La \u2018\u2018Vita Patrum Iurensium\u2019\u2019 et les d\u00e9buts du monachisme \u00e0 Saint Maurice d\u2019Agaune\u2019, in J. Autenrieth and F. Br\u00fcnh\u00f6lzl (eds), Festschrift Bernhardt Bischoff zum 65. Geburtstag (Munich, 1971), pp. 43\u201369; Regula Pauli et Stephani 41, ed. J. Vilanova (Scripta et Documenta 11, Montserrat, 1959), p. 124; Regula Isidori Pr. (PL CIII, cols 555\u20137). See also A. Mundo, \u2018Il Monachesimo nella penisola iberica\u2019, Sett. Spol. IV (1957), pp. 94\u20139.
\n9 Cassian, De Institutis Coenobiorum, ed. M. Petschenig (CSEL XVII, 1888), Pr., iv 40\u20131, pp. 4\u20136, 76\u20137; Conlationes, ed. Petschenig (CSEL XIII, 1883), xviii 1\u20136, pp. 506\u201313; Gregorii Magni Dialogi, ed. U. Morica (Fonti per la Storia d\u2019Italia 57, Rome, 1924), ii 36, p. 132 (trans. O. Zimmermann, Fathers of the Church 39, Washington, DC, 1959, p. 107).
\n10 G. Holzherr, Regula Ferioli (Einsiedeln, 1961), pp. 11, 35\u20139, 100\u20131, 110\u201329. 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\u201333. They help to account for episcopal initiatives: Mundo, \u2018Monachesimo\u2019, pp. 94\u20135, and \u2018Les anciens synodes abbatiaux et les Regulae SS. Patrum\u2019, Studia Anselmiana XLIV, ed. B. Steidle (Rome, 1959), pp. 107\u201325.
\n11 For an early example, the (as such) unpublished Florilegium in Paris BN MS. lat. 12634, see A. de Vog\u00fc\u00e9, \u2018Nouveaux aperc\u00b8us sur une r\u00e8gle monastique du VIe si\u00e8cle\u2019, Revue d\u2019Asc\u00e9tique et de Mystique XLI (1965), pp. 19\u201354, and \u2018La r\u00e8gle d\u2019Eugippe retrouv\u00e9e?\u2019, ibid. XLVII (1971), pp. 233\u201365. 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\u201398). The misleading and inaccurate analysis of C. de Clercq, La l\u00e9gislation religieuse franque de Clovis \u00e0 Charlemagne (2 vols, Louvain, 1936), I, pp. 85\u20138, has had undue influence upon subsequent commentators. A further study is now available in G. Moyse, \u2018Les origines du monachisme dans le dioc\u00e8se de Besanc\u00b8on\u2019, Biblioth\u00e8que de l\u2019\u00e9cole des Chartes 131 (1973), pp. 21\u2013104, 369\u2013485, at pp. 95\u2013100, 397\u2013426.
\n12 Gregory of Tours, Libri Historiarum, ed. B. Krusch andW. Levison (MGH, SRM I), x 29, p. 523: \u2018Non modo Cassiani, verum etiam Basilii vel reliquorum abbatum . . . \u2019; cf. ibid. ix 40, pp. 464\u20135, for the adoption by St Rhadegundis\u2019s convent at Poitiers of the Rule of St Caesarius for nuns.
\n13 Vita Filiberti, ed. W. Levison (MGH, SRM V), 5, p. 587. For the date, Wattenbach\u2013Levison, Deutschlands Geschichtsquellen im Mittelalter, I, p. 138. For the \u2018topos\u2019 of the Bee in this context, cf. Holzherr (ed.), Regula Ferioli, pp. 52\u20133. 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.
\n14 See the very cautious assessment by P. Hunter Blair, The World of Bede (London 1970), pp. 197\u2013201.
\n15 RB xlvi.1, Beno\u00eet, 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\u20139, I, 472\u20133, in In Ezram et Nehemiam, ed. D. Hurst (CCSL CXIXA), iii, lines 466\u201373, as noted by M. L. W. Laistner, \u2018The Library of the Venerable Bede\u2019, in Bede, ed. Thompson, pp. 251\u20132.
\n16 VC 14, p. 393; RB xvii.5\u20136, Beno\u00eet, II, p. 526; and, for the abbot\u2019s freedom of manoeuvre, xviii.22\u20133, II, p. 534; cf. de Vog\u00fc\u00e9\u2019s commentary, V, pp. 529\u201333. Perhaps a similar explanation lies behind a later scene at Biscop\u2019s deathbed, HA 12, p. 376. No other monastic rule known to me contains this provision.
\n17 It may be noted that his clauses on the liturgy were not the most popular of Benedict\u2019s provisions in seventh-century \u2018regulae mixtae\u2019: 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.
\n18 HA 1, p. 364; cf. Greg., Dial., ed. Moricca, ii Pr., p. 71: \u2018Gratia Benedictus et nomine\u2019. I must acknowledge that the pope during Biscop\u2019s last visit to Rome was Benedict II (684\u20135). 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\u2019s first arrival in Rome (653), and whose Lateran Decrees (649) he brought back to his library, HE iv 18, p. 242?
\n19 Farmer, Rule of St Benedict, p. 24, argues that Biscop\u2019s 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, \u2018Saecularium Prioratus and the Rule of St Benedict\u2019, Rev. Bn. LXXV (1965), pp. 212\u201339 at p. 225, and below, n. 102. Moreover, Biscop is not only resisting such pressure; he is even citing the Rule in doing so!
\n20 Vit. Wilf. 14, 47, 63, pp. 209, 242, 259; HE iv 16, p. 237. RB lix.1\u20132, Beno\u00eet, II, p. 632, makes no stipulation that oblates are to have reached the age of seven before they are admitted; Wilfrid\u2019s postponement of admission to seven in c. 18, pp. 213\u201314, coupled with his ruthless attitude subsequently, recalls Caesarius\u2019 Rule, Sancti Caesarii Opera, ed. G. Morin (Maretioli, 1942), vii, II, p. 104; cf. de Vog\u00fc\u00e9, Beno\u00eet, VI, pp. 1355\u201368. Bede, of course, was not recruited until he was seven, but there is no evidence that this was de rigueur at Biscop\u2019s foundations.
\n21 HE iv 19, p. 244; RB xli, Beno\u00eet, II, pp. 580\u20132, 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\u201346, ed. A. de Vog\u00fc\u00e9, La R\u00e8gle du Ma\u00eetre (3 vols, Sources Chr\u00e9tiennes 105\u20137, Paris, 1964), II, pp. 158\u20139; 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\u2019s family was closely linked with Faremoutiers: HE iii 8, iv 19, pp. 142, 243\u20134; L. Gougaud, \u2018Inventaire des r\u00e8gles monastiques irlandaises\u2019, Rev. Bn. XXV (1908), 167\u201384, 321\u201333, at pp. 328\u201330.
\n22 HA 2, pp. 365\u20136; Hunter Blair, World of Bede, p. 157.
\n23 Reg. Caes. ad Virg., ed. Morin, lxvi\u2013lxx, pp. 120\u20132, and thus Aurelian\u2019s Rules (PL LXVIII, 393\u20136, 403\u20136) claim to take their liturgical practices from L\u00e9rins. There are grounds for ascribing the Regula Macarii (PL CIII, 447\u201351), which was investigated by St Filibert, to L\u00e9rins, 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\u2019s monasteries; cf. de Vog\u00fc\u00e9, Beno\u00eet, V, pp. 664\u201397. On the possible L\u00e9rins provenance of other rules in this series, see Mundo, \u2018Les anciens synodes abbatiaux\u2019; Masai, \u2018La Vita Patrum Iurensium\u2019; J. Neufville, \u2018Regula IV Patrum et Regula Patrum II\u2019, Rev. Bn LXXVII (1967), pp. 47\u2013106; and A. de Vog\u00fc\u00e9, \u2018La Vie des P\u00e8res du Jura et la datation de la Regula Orientalis\u2019, Revue d\u2019Asc\u00e9tique et de Mystique XLVII (1971), pp. 121\u20137. See also below, n. 26.
\n24 Vita Aigulfi, Acta Sanctorum, Sept. (3rd), I, 743\u20137. 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\u20137, Bede\u2019s xvi, xl, pp. 208\u201313, 286\u20137.
\n25 P. Visentin, \u2018La posizione di S. Beda . . . riguardo alla tradizione del corpo di S. Benedetto\u2019, Rev. Bn. LXVII (1957), pp. 34\u201348, argues that since Bede\u2019s martyrology makes no reference to the translation of St Benedict\u2019s bones to Fleury, the translation cannot have happened when Biscop was at L\u00e9rins, and may never have happened at all. Equally, it may mean that Biscop was at L\u00e9rins before Aigulf arrived.
\n26 F. Prinz, Fr\u00fches M\u00f6nchtum im Frankenreich (Munich, 1965), pp. 147\u20139, 276\u20138, 286\u201390. 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\u201370; Masai, \u2018La Vita Patrum Iurensium\u2019, pp. 59\u201362. But the south Italian school has powerful defenders in de Vog\u00fc\u00e9, Ma\u00eetre, I, pp. 211\u201332, and Neufville, \u2018Regula IV Patrum\u2019, pp. 47\u201365 (cf. also Rev. Bn. LXXV (1965), pp. 307\u201312). 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 Rh\u00f4ne were in the early sixth century. St Benedict almost certainly knew the Rule of Caesarius, and Eugippius may have had experience of L\u00e9rins (Prinz, pp. 331\u20132, n. 34). It is therefore unwise to exclude altogether the possibilities of an early d\u00e9but in southern Gaul for St Benedict\u2019s 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\u2019s 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\u20139), cccci, II, p. 191. Not only does this charter date some time after Biscop\u2019s visit to L\u00e9rins; its simultaneous reference to Columbanus points to a northern inspiration here too. However, on these matters see now \u2018Additional Note\u2019, p. 27.
\n27 VC 3, 5, 8 (pp. 389\u201391); Mayr-Harting, Coming, p. 166. One could add that Wilfrid\u2019s experience of the Gallic episcopate should have planted in him the conviction that the monastic discipline of his diocese was very much the bishop\u2019s 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\u20137, Bede\u2019s xl, pp. 286\u20137.
\n28 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\u20136. Wilfrid associates the chant and the Rule in his great apologia, Vit. Wilf. 47, p. 242.
\n29 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\u201342. It was duly acknowledged by Zimmermann, \u2018Die Ausbreitung\u2019, pp. xlii\u2013liii, and has now acquired a powerful emphasis in Prinz, Fr\u00fches M\u00f6nchtum, pp. 263\u201392. De Vog\u00fc\u00e9, Beno\u00eet, I, pp. 163\u20139, even makes a case that Columbanus himself knew the Rule.
\nFor St Benedict in the south-west, see L. Traube, Textgeschichte der Regula Sancti Benedicti (Abhandlungen der k\u00f6nigliche Akademie der Wissenschaften, philos., philol. u. hist. Kl. 21 (3), Munich 1898), pp. 690\u20131; and A. Mundo, \u2018L\u2019authenticit\u00e9 de la Regula S. Benedicti\u2019, Studia Anselmiana XLII (1957), pp. 105\u201358, at pp. 146\u20139. On the evidence for Rome, or lack of it, see G. Ferrari, Early Roman Monasteries (Rome, 1957), pp. 379\u201391, whose conclusions served to reinforce Dom Hallinger\u2019s blockbuster (n. 6 above).
\n30 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\u20139. 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.
\n31 Thus, \u2018Leodgar canons\u2019 xv, in the so-called \u2018Vetus Gallica\u2019, ed. F. Maassen, Concilia Aevi Merovingici (MGH Leg. Sect. III, I, Hannover, 1893), pp. 220\u20131; H. Mordek, Kirchenrecht und Reform im Frankenreich. Die Collectio Vetus Gallica. Die \u00e4lteste systematische Kanonessammlung des fr\u00e4nkischen Gallien (Beitr\u00e4ge zur Geschichte und Quellenkunde des Mittelalters 1, Berlin, 1975), xlvii.12, p. 533.
\n32 Vit. Wilf. 15, p. 209; cf. HE iv 2, pp. 205\u20136; two years are unaccounted for, but Wilfrid may have spent some of them ministering in Kent. The possibilities of a Gallic origin for Wilfrid\u2019s Benedictinism have been appreciated, but not discussed, by E. John, \u2018Saecularium Prioratus\u2019, pp. 219\u201320.
\n33 Jonas, Vita Columbani, ed. B. Krusch (MGH, SRM IV), i 26, p. 100; J. Guerout, \u2018Les origines et le premier si\u00e8cle de l\u2019abbaye\u2019, L\u2019Abbaye royale notre-dame de Jouarre, ed. Y. Chaussy et al. (2 vols, Paris, 1961), I, pp. 41\u20137.
\n34 Prinz, Fr\u00fches M\u00f6nchtum, pp. 174\u20136.
\n35 HE iv 1, p. 203; HA 3, pp. 366\u20137.
\n36 Jonas, Vit. Col. i 26, ii 11\u201322, pp. 99\u2013100, 130\u201343. Though the decisive evidence is late, there is no reason to doubt that Burgundofaro was Burgundofara\u2019s brother (Prinz, p. 126). Burgundofaro\u2019s important charter for Rebais (636), a brother foundation of Jouarre, is Diplomata, ed. Pardessus, cclxxv, II, pp. 39\u201341, and Emmo\u2019s for Sens (659) is cccxxxv, II, pp. 112\u201314.
\n37 HA 4, p. 367. Biscop had made use of Cenwalh\u2019s friendship \u2018et ante non semel\u2019; cf. J. M. Wallace-Hadrill, \u2018Rome and the Early English Church: Some Problems of Transmission\u2019, Sett. Spol. VII (1960), pp. 519\u201348, at p. 547, reprinted in hisEMH, pp. 115\u201337, at p. 132.
\n38 BCS 107; S 1164; trans. Whitelock, EHD I, no. 55. Cf. Levison, Continent, pp. 226\u20138, but also Chaplais, \u2018Origin\u2019, pp. 55\u20136, whose doubts seem a little excessive.
\n39 Aldhelmi Opera, ed. R. Ehwald (MGH AA XV), pp. 268\u20139, 389\u201390; cf. M. Bateson, \u2018The Origin and Early History of the DoubleMonastery\u2019, TRHS NS xiii (1899), pp. 137\u201398, at p. 175; Willibald, Vita Bonifatii, ed. W. Levison (MGH SRG), i\u2013v, esp. pp. 8\u201310, 15, 18\u201319. It may be noted that the scribe of the above charter, Wynberht, became Boniface\u2019s 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 W\u00fcrzburg MS M.p.th.q.22 which has Fulda connections; cf. B. Bischoff, Libri Sancti Kyliani (W\u00fcrzburg, 1952), no. 48, p. 110; P. Meyvaert, \u2018Towards a History of the Textual Transmission of the Regula S. Benedicti\u2019, Scriptorium XVII (1963), pp. 83\u2013106, at pp. 95\u2013100. P. Engelbert\u2019s important review of Farmer\u2019s facsimile edition, Rev. Bn. LXXIX (1969), pp. 399\u2013413, 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\u20135.
\n40 E.g. Athala, subsequently abbot of Bobbio itself, after several years at L\u00e9rins; or even Arnulf of Metz, Vita Arnulfi, ed. B. Krusch (MGH SRM II), 6, 7, pp. 433\u20135; cf. Jonas, Vit. Col. ii 1, 10, pp. 113, 127.
\n41 HA 11, p. 375; VC 16, p. 393; cf. HE iv 18, p. 241; HA 16, p. 381; VC 20, 25, pp. 395\u20136; Hom., p. 93 lines 178\u201380.
\n42 Levison, Continent, pp. 23\u20137, 187\u201390.
\n43 Levison showed, pp. 189\u201390, that 679 and 680 were the only possible dates for Agatho\u2019s 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\u20132, 326\u20137; Vit. Wilf. 28, 53, pp. 221, 248; Councils III, pp. 131\u20136, 140\u20131. It is only after his journey in 679\u201380 that we hear of Wilfrid\u2019s charter, Vit. Wilf. 43, p. 238. Bishop Earconwald\u2019s charter of privilege for Barking (BCS 87, S 1246; C. Hart, Early Charters of Eastern England (Leicester, 1966), pp. 122\u20137), might also have been confirmed by Agatho at this time; its authenticity received a powerful boost from Chaplais, \u2018Single Sheets\u2019, 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.
\n44 HA 3, pp. 366\u20137; HE Praef., pp. 6\u20137; and Bede\u2019s letter to Albinus, HE, p. 3.
\n45 Levison, Continent, pp. 187\u201390. My approach here conflicts with Eric John\u2019s interesting paper, \u2018Saecularium Prioratus\u2019, pp. 222\u20133 and n. 1, and I must justify myself. First, the suggestion that BCS 38\u2019s membership of a highly dubious cartulary invalidates its authenticity would undermine one\u2019s 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\u2019s can have got hold of \u2018one good bull\u2019, 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\u2019s defence. Second, Biscop\u2019s 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\u2019s 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\u2019s 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\u20137, and St Boniface (Briefe Bonifatius 87, 89, pp. 196, 203\u20135). 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\u2019s 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.
\n46 See nn. 41, 43.
\n47 Vit. Wilf. 45, 47, 51, pp. 239, 242, 245; cf. also 46, 54, 60, pp. 241, 250, 255, etc. Wilfrid\u2019s conception of what constituted alien incursions may have been influenced, like his attitude to the succession in general, by Irish \u2018parochial\u2019 structures; cf. John, \u2018Social and political problems\u2019, pp. 59\u201361. But Eddius\u2019 language is confused and ambiguous; I prefer Levison\u2019s \u2018tacit\u2019 caution to the categorical assertions of Dr M. Gibbs, \u2018The Decrees of Pope Agatho and the Gregorian Plan for York\u2019, Speculum XLVIII (1973), pp. 213\u201346, at pp. 227\u20139, 238\u20139, n. 97.
\n48 Conc. Carthag. (536), Mansi, Sacrorum Conciliorum nova et amplissima collectio VIII, 841\u20132, Concilia Africae, 345\u2013525, ed. C. Munier (CCSL CXLIX, 1974), p. 283: exclusion of a bishop\u2019s cathedra; cf. Greg. Ep. vi 44, vii 12, I, pp. 419\u201320, 454\u20135; on these norms, see T. P. McLaughlin, Le tr\u00e8s ancien droit monastique de l\u2019Occident (Paris, 1935), esp. pp. 139\u201351.
\n49 Vit. Wilf. 51, p. 245: \u2018ut si quis aliquam contra me accusationem haberet, ad vestram mecum praesentiam iudicandus conveniret, sicut beati praedecessoris vestri Sergii papae scripta decernebant\u2019; cf. 54, 60, pp. 250, 255.
\n50 Bede was ordained by Bishop John, \u2018iubente Ceolfrido abbate\u2019, HE v 24, p. 357; Hwaetberht blessed by Acca, \u2018advocatur\u2019, HA 20, pp. 384\u20135. Ceolfrid\u2019s failure to seek permission for his pilgrimage is noted by Dr Isenberg in the monograph referred to in n. 1.
\n51 W. Szaivert, \u2018Die Entstehung und Entwicklung des Klosterexemption bis zum Ausgang des elften Jahrhunderts\u2019, Mitteilungen des \u00f6sterreichischen Instituts f\u00fcr Geschichtsforschung 59 (1951), pp. 265\u201398, at pp. 273\u20139.
\n52 As witness the difficulties of Gregory of Tours with the convent of Poitiers, Lib. Hist. ix 39\u201343, x 15\u201317, 20. pp. 460\u201375, 501\u20139, 513.
\n53 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. \u2018Penitential of Theodore\u2019 II vi, Councils, pp. 195\u20136. Thereafter are, in ascending order of episcopal severity, the \u2018Dialogue of Egbert\u2019 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\u20133.
\n54 Levison, Continent, p. 192. Gregory\u2019s privilege for Arles, Greg. Ep. ix 216, II, pp. 203\u20134, is a vivid illustration of the popularity and raison d\u2019\u00eatre of his privilegia.
\n55 BCS 133; cf. F. M. Stenton, \u2018Medeshamstede and its Colonies\u2019, in Prep. ASE, pp. 185\u20138.
\n56 Liber Diurnus ed. Th. Sickel (Vienna, 1889), 32, 77, 86, pp. 23\u20134, 82\u20133, 111\u201313. Gregory\u2019s letter to Marinianus of Ravenna, Greg. Ep. viii 17, pp. 19\u201321, has been considered to anticipate some provisions of seventh-century charters, McLaughlin, Tr\u00e8s ancien droit monastique, pp. 118\u201319; but Gregory leaves the Bishop\u2019s powers ultimately untrammelled; his main concern is that Marinianus should not abuse his canonical right of control over the abbot\u2019s 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\u20133), 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\u20136). On the other hand, W. Schwarz, \u2018Iurisdicio und condicio\u2019, Zeitschrift der Savigny-Stiftung f\u00fcr Rechtsgeschichte, kan. Abt., LXXVI (1959), pp. 34\u201398, denies that there was any change in the seventh century. His arguments seem to me to postulate too narrow a translation of \u2018dicio\u2019 and \u2018dominatio\u2019 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 \u2018Additional Note\u2019.
\n57 Codice diplomatico del monastero di S Columbano di Bobbio, ed. C. Cipolla (3 vols, Fonti per la Storia d\u2019Italia 52\u20134, Rome, 1918), 10, I, pp. 100\u20133; cf. Lib. Diurn. 77; Jonas, Vit. Col. ii 23, p. 145.
\n58 Codice S Columbano 13, I, pp. 104\u201312. 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.
\n59 E. Ewig, \u2018Klosterprivilegien des 7. und fr\u00fchen 8. Jahrhunderts\u2019, in J. Fleckenstein and K. Schmid (eds), Adel und Kirche: Gerd Tellenbach zum 65. Geburtstag (Freiburg, 1968), pp. 52\u201365, reprinted in his Sp\u00e4tantikes und fr\u00fchfr\u00e4nkisches Gallien. Gesammelte Schriften 1952\u201373 (2 vols, Beihefte der Francia 3, Munich, 1976), II, pp. 411\u201326; what Ewig calls the \u2018lesser freedoms\u2019 of St Denis, St Pierre-le-Vif and Marculf reserve the diocesan\u2019s 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\u2019s privilege for Pirmin\u2019s Murbach, Regesta Alsatiae aevi Merovingici et Karolini, ed. A. Br\u00fcckner (2 vols, Strasburg, 1949), 113\u201314, I, pp. 53\u20139, and the closely associated Flavigny formulae, Formulae Merowingici et Karolini Aevi, ed. K. Zeumer (MGH, Leg. Sect. V), 42\u20133, pp. 479\u201381, illustrate the workings of an abbatial \u2018college\u2019; cf. A. Angenendt, Monachi Peregrini: Studien zu Pirmin und den monastischen Vorstellungen des fr\u00fchen Mittelalters (Munich, 1972), pp. 81\u2013122, 175\u201397.
\n60 Formulae Collectionis Sancti Dionysii 3, 9, Formulae, ed. Zeumer, pp. 496\u20138, 501\u20133; J. M. Wallace-Hadrill, \u2018A Background to St Boniface\u2019, England before Conquest, pp. 35\u201348, at p. 38, reprinted in his EMH, pp. 138\u201354, at p. 141.
\n61 The parallel was noted by Levison, Continent, pp. 24\u20135, and Wallace-Hadrill, \u2018Rome and the Early English Church\u2019, p. 541, reprint pp. 128\u20139. In view of the arguments here advanced, it is hard to agree with Dr Gibbs, \u2018Decrees of Pope Agatho\u2019, pp. 228\u20139 (cf. pp. 238\u20139, n. 97), that ascription to St Peter involves protection, but not exemption.
\n62 W. Levison, \u2018Die Iren und die fr\u00e4nkische Kirche\u2019, in his Aus rheinischer und fr\u00e4nkischer Fr\u00fchzeit (D\u00fcsseldorf, 1948), pp. 255\u20138; Schwarz, \u2018Iurisdicio und Condicio\u2019, pp. 80\u20131. There is a very interesting sidelight on this point in that Ecgfrith\u2019s forged charter for Cuthbert, BCS 66, S 66, shares formulae with three early charters for Bobbio (Codice S. Columbano 3, 7, 9, pp. 84\u20139, 91\u2013100); cf. Chaplais, \u2018Augustine\u2019, p. 537 (and cf. chapter 4, pp. 149).
\n63 Diplomata, ed. Pardessus, cclxxv, cccxxv II, pp. 39\u201341, 112\u201314; Guerout, Jouarre, pp. 41\u20132; Ewig, \u2018Klosterprivilegien\u2019, 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\u2019s Mercian monasteries, in the case of St Denis; cf. also Marculf i 2, Formulae, ed. Zeumer, pp. 41\u20133.
\n64 HE iv 18, p. 242.
\n65 VC 7, p. 390. There are rather striking parallels between Biscop\u2019s monasteries as now exposed (see Professor Cramp\u2019s paper in Famulus Christi), and those described by Vita Filiberti 8, pp. 589\u201390. See Campbell, \u2018First century\u2019, pp. 18\u201322, reprinted in his Essays, pp. 55\u20139, for other intercourse between English and Gallic Churches at this period.
\n66 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\u20134. 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\u201316) Gregory relates his own physical sufferings to Job\u2019s: \u2018Et fortasse hoc divinae providentiae consilium fuit ut percussum Job percussus exponerem et flagellati mentem melius per flagella sentirem\u2019.
\n67 K. Hallinger, \u2018R\u00f6mische Voraussetzungen der Bonifatianischen Wirksamkeit im Frankenreich\u2019, Sankt-Bonifatius Gedenkgabe (Fulda, 1954), pp. 320\u201361, esp., e.g., pp. 341\u20136 on the Rule of St Benedict (see \u2018Additional Note\u2019, pp. 27\u20138.).
\n68 HA 11, p. 375; cf. VC 20, p. 395.
\n69 Education and Culture, pp. 335\u20136, 351\u20132 (French original, pp. 382\u20133, 399\u2013400); cf. Campbell, \u2018First century\u2019, p. 26, Essays p. 63. For the Rule in these circles, Prinz, Fr\u00fches M\u00f6nchtum, pp. 272\u20134; Gertrude\u2019s acquisitions also included relics from Rome and teachers of the \u2018divini legis carmina de transmarinis regionibus\u2019, presumably Ireland, Vita S. Gertrudis, ed. B. Krusch (MGH, SRM II), p. 457.
\n70 CLA V, pp. v\u2013vii, VI, pp. xxii\u2013xxv; E. Lesne, Histoire de la propri\u00e9t\u00e9eccl\u00e9siastique en France.
\nIV, Les livres, scriptoria et biblioth\u00e8ques (Lille, 1938), pp. 38\u20139; Education and Culture, pp. 427\u20139 (pp. 479\u201381); Prinz, Fr\u00fches M\u00f6nchtum, pp. 521\u20133. 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\u201320, 624\u20139, 632, 633, 635(?), 638(?), 645\u20136, 656\u20139(?), 671(?), 675(?), 692; VI 708; XI 1598, 1616\u201317, 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 \u2018Additional Note\u2019, pp. 28\u20139). Equally, moreover, Bede\u2019s library will presumably have been supplemented continuously, 690\u2013730.
\n71 P. Courcelle, Late Latin Writers and their Greek Sources, trans. H. Wedeck (Cambridge, Mass., 1969), pp. 376\u201384 (French original, 2nd edn, Biblioth\u00e8que des Ecoles fran\u00e7aises d\u2019Ath\u00e8nes et de Rome 159, Paris, 1948, pp. 356\u201362); 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\u20137.
\n72 CLA V, nos. 633, 645\u20136; Vanderhoven and Masai, pp. 35\u20138.
\n73 Laistner, \u2018Library\u2019, pp. 263\u20136. Another early French collection which is significant for the purposes of comparison is that of Fleury, the house which reformed L\u00e9rins and later claimed to possess the bones of St Benedict. For the \u2018noble rags\u2019 of its early library, see CLA VI, pp. xviii\u2013xxi, and the MSS, I 104; II 255; V 563\u20136, 609, 690; VI 745, 797\u2013819. See also CLA VI, pp. xv\u2013xviii (Luxeuil, Laon), and p. xxii (Chelles?); generally, Education and Culture, pp. 429\u201330 (pp. 481\u20132). Even St Filibert may be reintroduced: CLA V 589, is a Lyons manuscript of Eucherius which was apparently at Filibert\u2019s Noirmoutier in the seventh century (Prinz, Fr\u00fches M\u00f6nchtum, p. 460, n. 33). These collections could boast much of the patristic core of Biscop\u2019s 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.
\n74 Wallace-Hadrill, \u2018Rome and the Early English Church\u2019, p. 536, reprint pp. 129\u201331; Campbell, \u2018First century\u2019, pp. 25\u20136, Essays pp. 62\u20134.
\n75 This is a primary thesis of the two important surveys already referred to: Education and Culture, pp. 361\u20132, 495\u20139 (pp. 410, 548\u201352); Prinz, Fr\u00fches M\u00f6nchtum, pp. 15, 291,
\n493, 525\u20136, 531, 544\u20138.
\n76 J. M. Wallace-Hadrill, The Long-Haired Kings (London, 1962), pp. 217\u201320, 222\u20134; Prinz, Fr\u00fches M\u00f6nchtum, pp. 490\u20133.
\n77 Prinz, Fr\u00fches M\u00f6nchtum, pp. 497\u20139.
\n78 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 Eanfl\u00e6d, Vit. Wilf. 2, p. 195, Earconberht 3, p. 196, Alchfrith 7, pp. 200\u20131,Wulfhere 15, p. 210, Ecgfrith and \u00c6thelthryth 19, p. 214, Dagobert II 28, p. 221, Perctarit 28, p. 222, \u00c6thelwald 41, p. 234, Caedwalla 42, p. 235, and \u00c6thelred 43, p. 238; for the secular aristocracy, 2, 21, 24, 59, pp. 194\u20135, 216, 218, 254.
\n79 D. P. Kirby, \u2018Bede\u2019s Native Sources for the Historia Ecclesiastica\u2019, BJRL XLVIII (1966), pp. 341\u201371, at p. 350. For the possible significance of this point, Prinz, Fr\u00fches M\u00f6nchtum, pp. 493\u20135, 502\u20133; J. M. Wallace-Hadrill, Early Germanic Kingship in England and on the Continent (Oxford, 1971), pp. 50\u20133; cf. F. Graus, Volk, Herrscher und Heilige im Reich der Merowinger (Prague, 1965), pp. 397\u20138, 416\u201319, 430\u20137.
\n80 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.
\n81 H. Quentin, Les Martyrologes historiques du moyen a\u02c6ge (Paris 1908), pp. 47\u201356; H.A. Wilson (ed.), The Calendar of St Willibrord (Henry Bradshaw Society 55, 1918), p. viii and n., p. 36. (See also \u2018Additional Note\u2019, p. 29.)
\n82 Cf. Mayr-Harting, Coming, pp. 156\u20137. What follows is not necessarily incompatible with Dr Mayr-Harting\u2019s conclusions. It is undoubtedly important that Monkwearmouth-Jarrow should have enjoyed so large a share of royal patronage, and this might well explain Bede\u2019s 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\u201364). 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\u2019s council. There are revealing differences, too, between the way Wilfrid and Biscop used the Old Testament: Wilfrid, in order to reinforce his followers\u2019 sense that they were a comitatus, Vit. Wilf. 13, pp. 207\u20138, 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\u2019s remarkable letter to this followers (trans. Whitelock, EHD, no. 165; and, for its similarity to Beowulf lines 2884\u201391, the same author\u2019s \u2018Anglo-Saxon Poetry and the Historian\u2019, TRHS, 4th ser. XXXI (1949), pp. 89\u201390; Biscop, the homily which is discussed below. Whatever their respective links with the Northumbrian aristocracy, Wilfrid\u2019s monks were more obviously influenced by aristocratic priorities.
\n83 For example, Pontius\u2019 Life of Cyprian, or Possidius\u2019 of Augustine; the latter known to Bede.
\n84 Prinz, Fr\u00fches M\u00f6nchtum, pp. 56\u20138, 457\u201364. But, as Prinz notes, pp. 464\u20137, fashions around L\u00e9rins had changed when the Vita of Caesarius was composed. As Dr Mayr-Harting reminds me, Bede\u2019s prayers also seem to bear the stamp of L\u00e9rins; 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\u201311.
\n85 PL L, 1249\u201372; trans. R. Deferrari, Early Christian Biographies (Fathers of the Church 15, Washington, DC, 1952), pp. 355\u201394.
\n86 J. Campbell, Bede, The Great Histories (New York, 1968), pp. xxv\u2013xxx, reprint pp. 42\u20135; cf. Mayr-Harting, Coming, pp. 74\u20135. Pope Gregory\u2019s views on the limitations of the miraculous as proof of sanctity, for which see C. W. Jones, Saints\u2019 Lives and Chronicles in Early England (Ithaca, NY, 1947), pp. 76\u20137, were quoted by Bede, HE i 31, pp. 66\u20137, and may have influenced the atmosphere in his monastery. But where Gregory had preached caution, the Cassianic and L\u00e9rins traditions actually practised it; cf. O. Chadwick, John Cassian (2nd edn, Cambridge, 1968), pp. 51, 100.
\n87 Prinz, Fr\u00fches M\u00f6nchtum, pp. 277\u20138; 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\u20139 (pp. 232\u20133); C. Nordenfalk, \u2018Before the Book of Durrow\u2019, Acta Archaeologica XVIII (1947), pp. 141\u201374, at pp. 159\u201366.
\n88 Thus, Amandus, Eligius, Desiderius, Bonitus and (yet again!) Filibert; cf. Prinz, Fr\u00fches M\u00f6nchtum, pp. 300\u201316. There are several indications that St Martin remained the primary patron of Amand, including the number of Sulpician quotations in his Vita.
\n89 Matthew 19:16\u201330. See n. 1 for the Homily.
\n90 J. Leclercq, \u2018M\u00f6nchtum und Peregrinatio im Fr\u00fchmittelalter\u2019, R\u00f6mische Quartalschrift 55 (1960), pp. 212\u201325; cf. Aux Sources de la spiritualit\u00e9occidentale (Paris, 1964), pp. 35\u201365.
\nAngenendt, Monachi Peregrini, pp. 124\u201375, is an especially imaginative survey of this theme. Relevant English texts are Vit. Wilf. 4, p. 196, and Vita Bonifatii 1, p. 7.
\n91 K. Hughes, \u2018The Changing Theory and Practice of Irish Pilgrimage\u2019, JEH XI (1960), pp. 143\u201351; but cf. Angenendt, Monachi Peregrini, pp. 149\u201351, and n. 49; for a slightly different view, K. Hauck, \u2018Von einer sp\u00e4tantiken Randkultur zum karolingischen Europa\u2019, Fr\u00fchmittelalterliche Studien 1 (1967), pp. 3\u201393, at pp. 57\u201368.
\n92 HA 3, p. 366; HE iii 13, 19, 27, iv 3, 23, v 9, 19, pp. 152, 163, 193, 211, 253, 296\u20138, 324\u20135; iii.27, in particular, shows that Ecgberht\u2019s 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, \u2018transmarinus\u2019 by \u2018peregrinus\u2019. Witberht\u2019s \u2018locus peregrinationis\u2019, 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 \u2018Additional Note\u2019, p. 29).
\n93 Hom., pp. 92\u20133 lines 120\u201361; cf. Hilarii sermo de vita S. Honorati viii (37), (PL L, 1270).
\n94 Hence, it is understandable that Bede should have avoided any use of the Abraham text, with its connotations of physical displacement.
\n95 VC 8, pp. 390\u20131. For parallels, see n. 24.
\n96 E. A. Lowe, English Uncial (Oxford, 1961); R. L. S. Bruce-Mitford, \u2018The Art of the Codex Amiatinus\u2019 (Jarrow Lecture, 1967, Journal of the British Archaeological Association XXXII (1969), pp. 1\u201325). Cf. R. W. Southern, \u2018Bede\u2019, Medieval Humanism and Other Studies (London, 1970), pp. 1\u20138, at p. 2.
\n97 R. L. S. Bruce-Mitford, \u2018The Decoration\u2019, in Sir T. Kendrick et al. (eds), Evangelia quattuor Codex Lindisfarnensis (2 vols, Otten-Lausanne 1960), II, esp. pp. 110\u201312, 222\u201343, 250\u20131; with his \u2018The Reception by the Anglo-Saxons of Mediterranean Art\u2019, Sett. Spol. XIV (1967), pp. 798\u2013825, at pp. 800\u20135; and \u2018The Art\u2019, pp. 13\u201314, 17\u201318, 24.
\n98 C. Peers and C. A. Ralegh Radford, \u2018The Saxon Monastery at Whitby\u2019, Archaeologia LXXXIX (1943), pp. 27\u201388, which, in this respect, I see no reason to challenge; cf. R. Cramp, in Bonner (ed.), Famulus Christi, pp. 5\u201318, at p. 8.
\n99 Bruce-Mitford, \u2018The Reception\u2019, pp. 817\u201318; \u2018The Art\u2019, pp. 19\u201324; R. Cramp, \u2018Decorated window-glass and Millefiori from Monkwearmouth\u2019, Antiquaries\u2019 Jnl L (1970), pp. 327\u201335, at pp. 330\u20133; \u2018Excavations at the Saxon monastic sites of Wearmouth and Jarrow, Co. Durham: an interim report\u2019, Medieval Archaeology XIII (1969), pp. 21\u201366, at p. 58. However, in this artistic sphere, it should be noted that the evidence from Wilfrid\u2019s Hexham is even more uncompromisingly ultramontane than that for Biscop\u2019s monasteries. The Hexham slabs are almost wholly lacking in recognizable insular themes: powerful evidence of Wilfrid\u2019s cosmopolitanism, and that not every aspect of aristocratic culture in Northumbria appealed to him. See R. Cramp \u2018Early Northumbrian Sculpture at Hexham\u2019, in D. P. Kirby (ed.), Saint Wilfrid at Hexham (Newcastle-upon-Tyne, 1974), pp. 115\u201340.
\n100 Thus the Leningrad Bede is not very obviously \u2018mediterranean\u2019; and why did Abbot
\nCuthberht need a \u2018citharista\u2019 (EHD I, no. 185)?
\n101 F. Prinz, Fr\u00fches M\u00f6nchtum, pp. 278\u20139; K. Schmid, \u2018Religi\u00f6ses und Sippengebundenes Gemeinschaftsbewusstsein im Fr\u00fchmittelalterlichen Gedenkbucheintr\u00e4gen\u2019, DA XI (1965), pp. 18\u201381, at pp. 50\u20134, 63\u20134. Once again, one is relieved to follow Levison, Continent, pp. 27\u20139.
\n102 HA 11, 13, pp. 375\u20136, 376\u20137; VC 16, pp. 393\u20134. It is assumed by Plummer, II, p. 364, that Ceolfrid was actually Biscop\u2019s kinsman. This involves translating \u2018non tam . . . quam\u2019 as \u2018not only. . . but also\u2019, which is not always accurate for Bede: cf. HE i 12, p. 26. Eosterwine, on the other hand, was certainly a relative of Biscop\u2019s, 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\u2019s objections are to the succession of kinsmen for kindred\u2019s sake. He is worried, not only about \u2018frater meus . . . carnalis\u2019, but also \u2018ne secundum genus umquam, ne deforis aliunde, vobis patrem quaeratis\u2019 (loc. cit.). Moreover, the same concern is shared by Ceolfrid, twenty-six years later, when Biscop\u2019s brother should have been dead, or nearly so, HA 16, p. 381, VC 25, p. 396; there is no suggestion that Hw\u00e6tberht belonged to Founder\u2019s Kin. As for Wilfrid\u2019s provisions on the succession, they seem to contradict one another, Vit. Wilf. 62\u20133, pp. 257\u20139. HE iv 16, p. 237, is, however, a clear indication of Wilfrid\u2019s practice in this respect: 300 hides, \u2018utendam pro Domino\u2019, were entrusted to Wilfrid\u2019s sister\u2019s son, Bernwine \u2013 a \u2018clericus\u2019, 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.
\n103 Torhthelm: cf. HA 5, p. 368, VC 7, p. 390.
\n104 VC 40, pp. 403\u20134.
\n105 VC 12, p. 392, cf. HA 7, p. 370. Bede implies that Eosterwine\u2019s appointment was the result of Biscop\u2019s journeys overseas. But HA 8, 14, pp. 371, 379, date his appointment to 682; this is exactly midway between Biscop\u2019s fifth and sixth visits to Rome. Hence, confirmation for VC 10\u201312, pp. 391\u20132, whereby Eosterwine was made abbot temporarily during the journey of 678\u20139, but permanent abbot only in 682, because of Biscop\u2019s absences on the king\u2019s business.
\n106 For the \u2018academic\u2019 merit of the Amiatinus, cf. B. Fischer, \u2018Codex Amiantinus und Cassiodor\u2019, Biblische Zeitschrift NS VI (1962), pp. 77\u20139, and Dr Meyvaert\u2019s paper in Famulus Christi, pp. 40\u201369, at p. 50.
\n107 Thus, the famous judgement of W. P. Ker, quoted by R. W. Chambers, \u2018Bede\u2019, PBA XXII (1936), pp. 129\u201356, at p. 132.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"Bede and Benedict Biscop. NOTES 1 Citations of Bede\u2019s HE, HA and the anonymous VC are from Plummer; of Bede\u2019s homily on Biscop (Hom.) from Bedae Opera Homiletica, ed. D. Hurst (CCSL cxxii (III)) 13, pp. 88\u201394 (opening quotation, p. 93 lines 165\u20137). The accounts of Bede and the Anonymous…\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[5],"tags":[12,11],"class_list":["post-79","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-articles","tag-bibliographia","tag-vita"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"http:\/\/venerabilisbeda.plgo.org\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/79"}],"collection":[{"href":"http:\/\/venerabilisbeda.plgo.org\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"http:\/\/venerabilisbeda.plgo.org\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/venerabilisbeda.plgo.org\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/venerabilisbeda.plgo.org\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcomments&post=79"}],"version-history":[{"count":2,"href":"http:\/\/venerabilisbeda.plgo.org\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/79\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":81,"href":"http:\/\/venerabilisbeda.plgo.org\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/79\/revisions\/81"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"http:\/\/venerabilisbeda.plgo.org\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fmedia&parent=79"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/venerabilisbeda.plgo.org\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcategories&post=79"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/venerabilisbeda.plgo.org\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Ftags&post=79"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}