This article tells a story of an Anglo-Saxon bishop and his book.Footnote 1 The bishop is Leofric, whose tenure at Exeter spanned from 1050 to 1072. The book is Cambridge, Corpus Christi College 190 (CCCC 190), a handbook of penitential, pastoral, canonistic and liturgical materials in Latin and Old English that Leofric inherited, augmented and read until the end of his life. The story is one of pastoral pragmatism amid post-Conquest realities, and this article suggests the book aided the bishop in weathering the aftermath of war. A group of its penitential texts figure prominently in the account: a set of rites for public penance, a set of sermons translated from them and a set of penances for those involved in combat. Unpublished in their entirety until now, the Ash Wednesday Dismissal and Maundy Thursday Reconciliation for public penitents are, to my knowledge, unique in Anglo-Saxon England. Also unique are the anonymous Old English sermons translated from them. Their incorporation into the manuscript at Exeter suggests Leofric took a personal interest in performing the rites that were later copied into one of his service books. The penances for soldiers point to practical reasons for his need to do so.
Charting the storyline of bishop and book requires inference and speculation, but remains fixed in the materiality of manuscripts where Leofric’s hand is often evident and where investments of materials and labour indicate the pastoral value these penitential texts had for him. One chief indicator of that value is the planned additions of Old English sermons to the ecclesiastical handbook that contained the rites. Another indicator is the planning for their performance suggested by their recopying from CCCC 190 into Leofric’s pontifical. Yet the rites were not merely recopied. The Dismissal was revised into a new, previously unrecognized, standalone rite unique to that pontifical and vital to the bishop who would use it. From planned additions and planning for performances, the story moves to the symbolic and theological nature of the rites. From there it proceeds to their historical relevance to post-Conquest Exeter, where Leofric faced the challenge of turning to his pastoral advantage rituals that could have been confusing theologically and charged politically. If his liturgical performances served as a means of pastoral care, then to medieval and modern appreciations of him as an attentive liturgist, effective communicator, dedicated teacher and efficacious prelate, we may add sensitive shepherd, one who exercised his episcopal authority on behalf of his flock and in service of his city, whose concord he worked to preserve until his death.Footnote 2
OLD ENGLISH SERMONS AS PLANNED ADDITIONS TO CAMBRIDGE, CORPUS CHRISTI COLLEGE 190
The anonymous sermons added to CCCC 190 at Exeter provide compelling evidence that Leofric had a special interest in the rites from which they were translated. The rites belong to Part I of the manuscript, a collection of penitential, pastoral, canonistic and liturgical texts in Latin useful to a bishop, written in the first half of the eleventh century possibly at Worcester.Footnote 3 Part I is a copy of an early stage of the so-called ‘commonplace books’ of Archbishop Wulfstan that Lyfing, bishop of Worcester, Cornwall and Devon (1038/9–46), may have brought to the Southwest.Footnote 4 Part II was written towards the middle of the eleventh century at an unknown centre and consists of episcopal regulatory materials in Old English similar to those in Part I.Footnote 5 Both parts were augmented at Exeter while Leofric was bishop (1050–72). The additions in Part I were written into existing blank spaces, while those in Part II were added on new gatherings.Footnote 6 The ‘opportunistic’ additions of Part I and the ‘major interspersions’ of Part II lead Joyce Hill to surmise that Leofric inherited Part I in toto, assembled Part II at Exeter and joined them in a harmonious volume wherein Part II was seen as a vernacularized version of Part I.Footnote 7 Even if Leofric was not responsible for unifying the volume, the Exeter additions in general and the Old English sermons in particular constitute deliberate developments that point to him as the instigator.Footnote 8
The Latin sermons in Part I contain brief explanations of the rites they accompany, so the addition of the Old English translations to Part II makes little sense if Leofric did not intend to perform the rites, and the manner of the translations’ incorporation into CCCC 190 suggests this possibility. After a scribe copied out the translations on the first eight and a half pages of a sixteen-page gathering (pp. 351–9), the quire was inserted into the manuscript with the remaining pages left blank (pp. 360–4).Footnote 9 No other sermons were copied into the gathering.Footnote 10 If the blank folios do not bear witness to an unrealized plan to add more sermons, then the translations merited investment of labour and material as a standalone set. The merit rests in Leofric’s intent to deliver them, and the designation of each address as a sermo conveys that expectation. The designation alters slightly the rites’ instructions for the bishop to preach a ‘sermo ad populum’ (p. 351) on Ash Wednesday and for a deacon to read a ‘lectio’ (p. 353) on Maundy Thursday. The Exeter scribe collapses this distinction when he titles each a sermo: ‘Sermo in capite ieiunii ad populum’ and ‘Sermo in cęna domini ad pęnitentes’. Because preaching was the purview of clergy ordained as priests, the word sermo makes both addresses appropriate for a bishop to deliver.
If Leofric was the implied officiant, then the sermons’ unusually long incipits would direct him to the rites of public penance in Part I of CCCC 190. The Ash Wednesday sermon’s incipit runs to twenty-eight words while that for Maundy Thursday totals thirteen, as the scribe renders nearly verbatim the opening lines of the Latin texts from Part I:Footnote 11
SERMO IN CAPITE IEIUNII AD POPULUM
Audite, fratres karissimi, omnes uos in commune ammonemus ex auctoritate dei patris ut confessionem peccatorum et ueram penitentiam agatis et hoc quadragesimale tempus inuiolabiliter obseruetis. Et reliqua.Footnote 12
SERMO IN CĘNA DOMINI AD PĘNITENTES
Vere fratres karissimi hoc debetis scire unde fuit inceptum hoc exemplum. Et reliqua.Footnote 13
Strictly speaking, there is no need for the incipits. Both titles specify the day of delivery: in capite ieiunii (at the beginning of the fast, i.e. Ash Wednesday) and in cęna domini (at the Lord’s Supper, i.e. Maundy Thursday); both indicate their target audiences: ad populum and ad pęnitentes. As aide-mémoire, however, the incipits provide the preacher/officiant direct links to specific points in specific rites, the knowledge of which the opening phrases assume.
Leofric’s handwriting provides solid evidence that he knew well the contents of his book. On the worn flyleaf of Part I stands a partially erased blessing for a church that he wrote.Footnote 14 He interlines a gloss to a canon concerning the prohibition of baptism on Epiphany towards the middle of Part I.Footnote 15 And on the penultimate folio of Part I, he makes more germane to his interests a canon prohibiting the seizure of aliena bona, another’s goods, by replacing aliena with ecclesiastica, the goods belonging to the church.Footnote 16
Most importantly for our purposes, Leofric pens a chant at the foot of the page where the Latin Ash Wednesday sermon begins, thus linking him to the rite and the sermon translated from it. The antiphon, ‘Alleluia. Sancte eligi tu dulcedo pauperum’, belongs to the Office of St Eligius, the apostle to Lotharingia where Leofric grew up and from where he returned to England as chaplain to King Edward (Fig. 5).Footnote 17 Neither the antiphon nor Eligius’s feast-day (1 December) bears an obvious relationship to the Ash Wednesday rite, so perhaps Leofric recalled the melody by way of preparing to sing its central chant, ‘In sudore uultus tui uesceris pane tuo, plangens peccata tua cum pacientia magna’.Footnote 18 Evidence from another liturgical book, the famous missal owned and augmented by Leofric, demonstrates that when he knew a chant, ‘he needed only to remind himself of the melodic beginning and changes of patterns’.Footnote 19 Yet he does not supply neumes for the In sudore incipit on the page where he wrote or for the chant and incipit on the facing page.Footnote 20 Perhaps the Eligius antiphon represents his attempt to work out a melody for an unfamiliar chant. Whatever his motives, the presence of his hand makes a strong case that Leofric was aware of the rites of public penance in Part I and oversaw the translations added to Part II.Footnote 21
Fig. 5: Cambridge, Corpus Christi College 190, p. 247. © The Parker Library, Corpus Christi College, Cambridge.
The context of the rites in the manuscript and the context of the sermons in the rites corroborate this assertion. While Patrick Wormald describes Part I as a collection wherein ‘law, homily and liturgy are jumbled together’, the rites of public penance belong to a series of thirteen texts that comprise a distinct unit.Footnote 22 Like the latter half of Part I (pp. 130–294), the chiefly penitential series becomes ‘progressively liturgical’ (pp. 238–64).Footnote 23 The Dismissal and Reconciliation (pp. 245–59) near its end ‘straddle the liturgical-penitential divide’, and the ordo for the Chrism Mass, which follows the Reconciliation on Maundy Thursday, completes the block.Footnote 24
In the series enumerated below, the texts related to confession (no. 9) are the first to include liturgical chants and prayers, and they mark a shift from descriptive texts to ‘paraliturgical’ ones, which Christopher Jones defines as ‘not only expositions of the liturgy but copies of prayers and ordines kept for purposes of study or eventual adoption’.Footnote 25 Three of the last five items are ordines of episcopal prerogative (nos. 10, 12 and 13). Here in full are the titles of each text in the series with those in boldface being of particular interest to Leofric:
-
1. [De pęnitentia communi pro quacumque tribulatione.]Footnote 26
-
2. De pęnitentiarum diuersitate.
-
3. De diuersitate culparum et pęnitentiarium.
-
4. Item.
-
5. De incestuosis et homicidis.
-
6. De excommunicatis qui induti ad pęnitentiam prouocantur.
-
7. De inprouiso iudicio sęcularium.
-
8. Incipit exemplum de excommunicato pro capitale crimine.
-
9. De confessione et pęnitentiarum actione.
9a. Secuntur psalmi post confessionem.
9b. Oremus.
9c. Alia.
9d. Alia.
-
10. Qualiter quarta feria in capite ieiunii circa pęnitentes.
-
11. Sermo in quadragesima.
-
12. Qualiter pęnitentes in cęna domini in ecclesiam [introducuntur].Footnote 27
-
13. Versus in cęna domini quando crisma de secretario portatur (hoc est, antequam admissam dicatur ‘per quem hęc omnia, domine, semper bona creas santificas’) ‘O redemptor…’ et ea quę secuntur.Footnote 28
Leofric’s surviving homiliaries do not contain any sermons slated by title for Lent,Footnote 29 so the decision not to translate the intervening Sermo in quadragesima (no. 11) validates his particular interest in the Dismissal (no. 10) and Reconciliation (no. 12). Moreover, whereas a rubricated title announces the presence of the Sermo, the Ash Wednesday and Maundy Thursday sermons are integrated into the body of the rites. They are distinguished only by a large offset capital written in the same ink as the rest of the text and would be more easily singled out by a reader familiar with the ordines in their entirety. The presence of Leofric’s hand on the page where the Ash Wednesday sermon begins suggests such a familiarity and points to him as the prime mover behind the additions of the Old English sermons to Part II.
PLANNING FOR PERFORMANCES OF THE CCCC 190 RITES
Evidence internal and external to CCCC 190 suggests that the sermons were not added because of Leofric’s academic interest in the rites but rather because he intended to preside over them. Music in the Reconciliation furnishes the strongest internal evidence to support this claim. According to Richard Pfaff, musical notation in liturgical rites ‘as a general rule … is a sign that they are meant to be used’,Footnote 30 and Fig. 6 shows the neumes for the first of three identical sets of chants that the bishop and clergy would sing to summon the penitents to the church door to begin the Reconciliation proper. The bishop initially beckons them by singing Venite, ‘Come’ (line 1). The deacon with the penitents then intones Flectamus genua, ‘Let us kneel’ (line 2), after which the deacon with the bishop sings Leuate, ‘Arise’ (line 3). Then begins a series of intercessory prayers. The bishop chants Exaudi nos, Christe, ‘Hear us, O Christ’ (line 3), and the choirs on the right and left follow in turn, singing Kyrie eleison and Christe eleison, ‘O Lord, have mercy’ and ‘O Christ, have mercy’ (lines 3 and 4). Then all the clergy chant the Kyrie, Paternoster and the responsorial preces pro peccatis (‘petitions on behalf of sins’) (line 5). All the neumes for the Reconciliation were written by the ‘principal Exeter music-scribe’ who also wrote music for Leofric’s missal, pontifical, collectar and psalter.Footnote 31 Surely the bishop expected to sing these cadences too.
Fig. 6: Cambridge, Corpus Christi College 190, p. 253. © The Parker Library, Corpus Christi College, Cambridge.
The Dismissal lacks musical notation, but evidence of planning for performance may exist in the form of an Old English gloss of the Latin antiphon central to the meaning of the rite. As the penitents move from the altar to the church doors, the bishop chants three times the aforementioned In sudore antiphon that identifies those being expelled from church with Adam being cast out of Eden. ‘In sudore uultus tui uesceris pane tuo’ are the words God spoke to Adam in Genesis, ‘plangens peccata tua cum pacientia magna’ the liturgist’s characterization of his fallen state.Footnote 32 As seen below in Fig. 7, a glossator interlines a hyper-literal translation: ‘On swate andwlitan ðines ðu scealt brucan hlafes ðines, beheofygende synna ðine mid geðylde mycclon’. The gloss appears to be in the hand of the Exeter scribe who copied the Old English sermons into Part II.Footnote 33 Had he also translated the sermons, the gloss might represent an attempt to render in Old English the portion of the chant quoted in the Maundy Thursday sermon. There the bishop explains to the penitents that ‘we singað æfter eow þæt Drihten sang æfter Adame þa ða he adraf hine of neorxnawange. Þa he ðus cwæð: “In sudore uultus tui uesceris pane tuo”, þæt is, “‘On swate þines andwlitan þu scealt þines hlafes brucan’”’.Footnote 34 However, since the sermon for Ash Wednesday does not explain or translate the rite’s central antiphon, it seems more likely that the gloss registers Leofric’s awareness of the need to communicate clearly with the penitents. They could grasp the significance of kneeling in front of him or lying prostrate before the altar, but they might miss the meaning of the Latin chant. Leofric is known to have understood well ‘the value of the vernacular in achieving effective communication’,Footnote 35 and he could have worked the translation into his first address to the penitents or explained the antiphon to them as they lay at his feet before he sang it for the first time.
Fig. 7: Cambridge, Corpus Christi College 190, p. 246. © The Parker Library, Corpus Christi College, Cambridge.
While the gloss and neumes provide internal evidence of the practicability of the CCCC 190 rites of public penance, their transfer to a service book proper furnishes the strongest external evidence of Leofric’s intent to perform them. A pontifical manuscript closely associated with him, now London, British Library, Cotton Vitellius A. vii, contains the same Dismissal and Reconciliation materials as are found in CCCC 190.Footnote 36 In the pontifical, however, the Dismissal has been revised to include a previously unrecognized standalone service unique to Vitellius A. vii (62v). I refer to this new rite as the ‘revised’ Dismissal and the Dismissal copied from CCCC 190 as the ‘hybrid’ rite because it contains short and long versions of the service on which the Vitellius reviser drew (63r–65r). The Reconciliation requires no special terminology because it was copied virtually unchanged from CCCC 190 into the pontifical (65r–68v).Footnote 37 Leofric was among the Exeter scribes who copied material into his pontifical, as will be discussed in more detail below, but an anonymous scribe copied these three rites in a block of penitential ordines that also includes an Ash Wednesday entry into public penance for the clergy (59r–61r).Footnote 38 Tellingly, with regards to planned performances, both the revised Dismissal and Reconciliation contain neumes written by the music-scribe who supplied notation for the Reconciliation in CCCC 190.Footnote 39
The hybrid Dismissal provides two ways of staging the penitents’ expulsion, and its revision gives Leofric a choice between a short service that matches the Reconciliation in formality or a long service that mirrors it in format. In CCCC 190, the hybrid Dismissal begins with the bishop placing ashes on, praying for and preaching to the penitents. He can then choose to expel them in a short service or a long one. The short service requires the bishop and clergy to sing the In sudore antiphon and a psalm as they escort the penitents outside the church. ‘Or, as it seems good to certain people’,Footnote 40 the officiant could decide to expel the penitents by means of a three-stage expulsion, after which the long service adds more psalms and prayers, a sermon ‘to the people’ and the handing over of the penitents to their priests. Among those ‘certain people’ to whom the longer service seemed good was Wulfstan, who may have revised the long Dismissal to answer the Reconciliation point by point.Footnote 41 The symmetry of the processions makes both rites unique and may suggest Wulfstan’s desire for a more consistent symbolism and theology, namely the penitents’ humble acknowledgment of the bishop’s authority to bind and loose their sins. Because these rites of public penance ‘involve the whole community in witnessing the shame of and praying for the penitent[s]’, those guilty of serious sins serve as examples and reminders to all the faithful on the days they too entered penance and sought reconciliation.Footnote 42
The revision of the hybrid Dismissal into a standalone rite offers Leofric the option of a service that he could perform in less time than the longer format but without sacrificing its symbolism and theology.Footnote 43 The reviser started with the short version of the hybrid Dismissal described above. But whereas it concluded with the expulsion of the penitents, the revised Dismissal borrows from the long version and instructs them to prostrate themselves outside the church doors after the expulsion while the clergy recite the seven penitential psalms (or a set of litanies) and prayers over them. The revised ritual does not thus build gradually or grandly toward a climactic expulsion as the long version does. However, its final gesture of humility impresses upon the penitents the gravity of their sins and the momentousness of the occasion as they lie before the bishop for a long time. Because the revised Dismissal begins and ends outside the cathedral and because it distinguishes between the ashing of public penitents and all Christians on this day,Footnote 44 we can infer that the reviser saw the rite as part of a public ceremony involving not just a small group of clergymen but the whole community.
Despite this demonstrable interest in communal services with a formal expulsion and re-entry,Footnote 45 Vitellius A. vii appears to preserve an intermediate stage of their development since none of them could be performed as written. Among the chants in the revised Dismissal only the In sudore antiphon has neumes, and in the Reconciliation only the re-entry chants have music. None of the services contains texts of the petitions and prayers the bishop and clergy are to recite. In place of the scripted texts that an ordo would normally contain, the Dismissals have a ‘particularly unusual’Footnote 46 set of instructions that direct the bishop to recite the preces et orationes quę in sacramentorum libro continentur. Footnote 47 The Reconciliation makes no mention of a service book but instructs the clergy to chant preces pro peccatis (petitions for sins) and the bishop to offer a communis oratio (public prayer) and prayer of absolution on behalf of the penitents.Footnote 48 The rite also prescribes a blessing and a mass but does not provide any benedictions or mass prayers. Were Leofric to preside over these services in his pontifical, he would need a supplemental text or texts to fill in the gaps.
The bishop could have turned to his liber sacramentorum for all but one of the necessary texts. The missal’s office for those doing public penance contains a set of orationes et preces to be said over the penitent.Footnote 49 Those prayers for a single penitent, however, would have required plural forms for use with the Dismissals in the pontifical.Footnote 50 Plural forms have been interlined in the set of preces and four prayers that belong to the missal’s Reconciliation for a single penitent,Footnote 51 so they could be performed with or transferred to the CCCC 190 Reconciliation.Footnote 52 Leofric would have found the blessing he needed in his missal among the four benedictions that follow its Reconciliation,Footnote 53 and he could have used the set of Maundy Thursday mass prayers on the subsequent folio to administer Communion to the penitents.Footnote 54 Although he updated the mass set with incipits for the day’s Epistle and Gospel readings,Footnote 55 it remains unclear whether he was interested in the mass in its own right or its suitability for use with the Reconciliation in Vitellius A. vii, or both. If he planned to use the missal alongside the pontifical, he still needed a prayer of absolution.
Leofric had access to several such prayers in another Reconciliation ordo that supplied not just prayers of absolution but all the preces and orationes he required. And not only does that ordo appear in Vitellius A. vii.Footnote 56 Leofric copied it there himself.Footnote 57 That ordo resembles the CCCC 190 rite much more closely than the Reconciliation in his missal. Certainly he would have recognized the influence of the rite he copied on the rite he inherited since both feature a three-stage re-entry, the repetition of the Venite antiphon and formal absolution.Footnote 58 The Reconciliation Leofric copied resembles a version of the rite that circulated widely on the Continent.Footnote 59 And though some of its leaves are badly damaged, his copy almost certainly contained a set of nine preces and did contain fourteen ‘orationes’, from which Leofric could choose a communis oratio, and four prayers of absolution.Footnote 60 It appears he omitted prayers for single penitents and copied only prayers of absolution for multiple penitents, so his choices show that he was thinking in terms of a rite like the CCCC 190 Reconciliation in Vitellius A. vii.Footnote 61 The lack of neumes in the service he copied suggests it was to supplement rather than supersede the CCCC 190 ritual.
Despite having the texts necessary to perform the Dismissals and Reconciliation, the ordines in Vitellius A. vii were not performance texts per se. To reap a return on his investment, Leofric must have had fully neumed and scripted texts copied elsewhere.Footnote 62 He may have had them copied into a prized pontifical-benedictional, such as the deorwyrðe bletsingboc that no longer survives but which is listed in the inventory of books Leofric gave to Exeter.Footnote 63 As Richard Pfaff notes, neither of the surviving Exeter pontificals ‘is at all deorwyrðe physically’,Footnote 64 but the copying of the devotional Ash Wednesday entry into penance for the clergy from one bletsingboc (Vitellius A. vii) to another (BL Add. 28188) maps out a possible line of transmission.Footnote 65 Alternatively, Leofric may have had the rites copied out on a pontifical roll.Footnote 66 Four such English rolls survive, though none from earlier than the thirteenth century.Footnote 67 Three contain ordines (but none for Ash Wednesday or Maundy Thursday), and the fourth contains benedictions and features ‘a miniature showing the bishop reading from a roll held by an attendant’.Footnote 68 Because the CCCC 190 rites stipulate that the deacon standing with the bishop accompany his superior throughout both services, it is easy to imagine this image come to life in Leofric’s day. Closer chronologically and liturgically but not geographically is the late-eleventh- or early-twelfth-century Maundy Thursday ordo added to a tenth-century English pontifical at Évreux in Normandy.Footnote 69 There the archdeacon is instructed to read from a ‘rotulam in qua continentur quedam indicia de penitentum reconciliacione’,Footnote 70 so the reference to this roll at least grounds speculation about Leofric’s performance texts in contemporary, if Continental, practice.
We can say for certain that among the choices of rites for public penance Leofric had available to him, the CCCC 190 ordines ranked high in importance if we judge by the effort expended on them. Translations of the sermons in the rites were incorporated into CCCC 190 on their own gathering, the Dismissal’s main chant was glossed in Old English and the re-entry of the Reconciliation was provided with neumes. Those rites were recopied into his pontifical. The hybrid Dismissal was revised into a standalone service, and the revised Dismissal and Reconciliation were furnished with neumes. I do not mean to suggest that Leofric preferred these ordines to the exclusion of the others at his disposal. That assertion would ignore the documentary evidence and downplay the attention that he gave, for example, to the Dismissal for the clergy in his pontificals, to the Reconciliation in his missal and to the Romano-German Reconciliation that he copied out in full. He thus has at hand different rites suited to different audiences that he could employ in different years to different effect. Yet the attention lavished on the pair of rituals recopied from CCCC 190 and revised in Vitellius A. vii seems to reflect their pastoral value to Leofric, so we turn to consider the emotive, spiritual and social impact he could have expected from services that featured him as authoritative prelate and sensitive shepherd.
PERFORMING THE RITES OF PUBLIC PENANCE
The CCCC 190 rites revised and recopied in Vitellius A. vii afforded Leofric a singular opportunity to shepherd his lay flock from the severity of ejection from the church at the outset of Lent to the sweetness of restored fellowship at its end. As will be clear from the summaries that follow, the ordines are decidedly dramatic, especially when we imagine barefoot penitents and fully vested clergy performing them on days when many of the faithful were expected to assemble in a cathedral whose nave was about 80 feet wide and 100 feet long.Footnote 71 On Ash Wednesday, for example, in addition to the clergy who may have gathered earlier at the cathedral for a diocesan synod and the priests who may have accompanied those undergoing public penance, the laity would have gathered for the usual imposition of ashes and entrance into penance.Footnote 72 Leofric’s pontifical does not specify how the Dismissal coexists with the more general Ash Wednesday liturgy, but it is worth remarking that in the Romano-German pontifical, the general rite for all the faithful is a continuation of the public one.Footnote 73 On Maundy Thursday, all penitents are reconciled. Once again, Leofric’s pontifical does not comment on the reconciliation of public penitents vis-à-vis that of the faithful, but the Romano-German pontifical seems to imply that the Reconciliation would unfold in a ‘progressive sequence’, with the public penitents absolved first followed by the rest of the congregation.Footnote 74 Like Wulfstan, Leofric understood the importance and impact of stage-managed rituals such as these.Footnote 75 And while their solemn processions, sonorous calls and responses and sermons would reinforce his authority as a mediator of God’s mercy, the rites also insure that his contact with and concern for the penitents is never lost amid the drama of expulsion and return.
Arranged in parallel tabular summaries below to underscore their similarities, the services in Vitellius A. vii give an overriding impression of the presiding bishop as one who brokers peace between God and man and who models harmony between Christian men.Footnote 76 Boldface type identifies features that appear to be unique.Footnote 77 Chief among them are the revision of the Dismissal into a standalone rite, the matching processions in the long Dismissal and Reconciliation, and the sermons in these rites. Since changes in posture convey essential truths about a supplicant’s status before God, underlining calls attention to scripted gestures such as genuflection and prostration. Notes (♪) indicate texts set to music. The volume of the chants, both in numbers and decibels, results in choral sequences that slow the penitents’ egress and ingress, and impress on them the seriousness of their sins in the Dismissal and the pending relief from them in the Reconciliation. Crosses (✝) call attention to the bishop’s leading role, which the sermons explain as being analogous to God, who expelled Adam from the earthly Paradise and later welcomed him to the heavenly one:Footnote 78
Generally speaking, these services participate in the trend Brad Bedingfield identifies in late Anglo-Saxon England wherein liturgical adaptors and preachers emphasize the ‘participatory aspects’ of the liturgies for important feast days such as Ash Wednesday and Maundy Thursday.Footnote 83 Homilists and liturgists seek ‘to nurture the consciousness of the participants that what they are doing involves an assumption of roles, a “re-enactment”’,Footnote 84 and here the penitents play Adam to the bishop’s God. As they are expelled from and welcomed back into the Church, the services offer ‘a dramatic visualisation of the theological ideas underlying [them]’, such as sinfulness, separation, humility, mercy and restoration.Footnote 85
The bishop provides a tangible nexus between the penitents and God, and their need for episcopal intercession underscores his primacy. Before initiating the expulsion on Ash Wednesday, Leofric would prostrate himself with the penitents in front of the altar, for he too is a sinner and must humble himself before God from whom his authority derives. Yet in a demonstration of his pre-eminence, he stands to pray while they remain prone. They may even have lain face down as he preached to them about the Parable of the Pharisee and the Tax Collector (Luke 18: 9–14), the latter of whom the Bible says ‘would not so much as lift up his eyes toward heaven’.Footnote 86 In the long form of the hybrid Dismissal, the penitents rise to genuflect three times in humble supplication, begging the bishop to ask God to pardon their sins. In the revised and long Dismissals, having been cast out they lie at the feet of the bishop and his clergy acknowledging his authority and their need for his intercession. In the long Dismissal, they may have even remained prone while Leofric preached the Old English sermon, waiting for him to raise them and pass them to their priests.
The Maundy Thursday ordo likewise underscores the bishop’s authority. The penitents would kneel three times as they approached his feet and then stand attentively while he preached from his seat as was customary. As he did on Ash Wednesday, Leofric would prostrate himself in front of the altar with the penitents, and again they would continue to lie face down when he rose to absolve them. The Old English sermon explains that he stands because bishops are the speliendas (‘representatives’) appointed in Christ’s place and are given ‘anweald manna sawla to bindenne and to unbindenne’.Footnote 87 Only he possesses the authority to command them to arise and be ‘eft underfangene on cyrcan swylce into neorxnawange for eowre behreowsunge’.Footnote 88 Only he can restore them to the fellowship of the Church and the promise of everlasting life.
Amid such grand gestures of episcopal authority are intimate ones between shepherd and sheep that communicate the bishop’s pastoral concern and care for his flock. On Ash Wednesday he would hear privately each person’s reasons for committing a serious sin or sins before assigning individual penances and sprinkling ashes on every head with his own hand. He would lead them by the hand out of the church on Ash Wednesday and back inside on Maundy Thursday. On both days, he lies down together with them to intercede on their behalf. To these penitents, their priests and other faithful in attendance, Leofric also preached sermons that teach the Scriptural bases of penance and make clear the goal of reconciling the guilty to their Church and their God. Leofric would have fulfilled the promise of reintegration when he extended to the penitents his hand of fellowship, welcoming his children back with the refrain ‘Venite, uenite, uenite, filii’ and raising over them a hand of blessing that would soon beckon them to the family meal of Communion.
PRAGMATIC PASTORAL CARE AMID POST-CONQUEST REALITIES
As noted at the outset of the article, the liturgical drama and spiritual import of these rites of public penance would have been apparent for those who participated in or witnessed them at any point during Leofric’s tenure as bishop. However, a set of penances for soldiers added to CCCC 190 at Exeter suggests that the significance of the services may have been especially heightened for him in the final years of his life. Exeter was the site of two battles between King William’s forces and Anglo-Saxon ones after the Conquest, so the book’s sets of penances, rites of public penance and sermons translated from them would have provided him with spiritual tools to repair the city’s social fabric during the tumultuous transition from English to Norman rule.
At first glance, Leofric’s interest in the articles of penance would seem to be academic. They were issued by Norman bishops for Norman soldiers after the Battle of Hastings.Footnote 89 No Norman troops set foot in Exeter at the time of the Conquest, and the earliest the articles were copied into CCCC 190 was probably 1070, more than three and a half years after the decisive encounter.Footnote 90 Historical circumstances, though, make plausible a scenario in which penitential articles assigned to Norman soldiers who fought at Hastings might have guided Leofric’s assignment of penances for English ones who fought at Exeter a year or so later. Between December 1067 and early spring of 1068, King William marched on Exeter to quell a revolt the citizens were staging against their new sovereign.Footnote 91 The family of their former sovereign maintained a residence in Exeter, and though King Harold’s father was dead, his mother Gytha was in the city at the time and appears to have been ‘deeply involved’ in the rebellion (and would escape to the Continent before the end of the conflict).Footnote 92 Having learned that the citizens of Exeter had refortified their city’s defences and attempted to collude with other towns to resist his rule, King William demanded oaths of fealty from them. They agreed to pay him the customary royal tribute but refused to submit to him or permit him inside their city.
Unwilling to let his subjects dictate the terms of their obedience, the king headed for Exeter with a large army that included 500 mounted warriors and so unsettled some of the city’s leading men that they sued for peace, promised loyalty and even proffered hostages. These conciliatory efforts were roundly rejected by other residents, and when William arrived he found a copiosus multitudo (‘plentiful multitude’) of ciues furiosi (‘angry citizens’) ready to resist him.Footnote 93 Despite the citizen’s divided strategies, the densa turba (‘thick throng’) manning the ramparts did not fail to put up a fight.Footnote 94 The furens populus (‘enraged crowd’)Footnote 95 repelled frontal and subterranean assaults on Exeter’s walls for eighteen days before a delegation of laymen and clergy approached King William to end the siege – but only after, as the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle reports, ‘a great part of his raiding-army perished’.Footnote 96 Had Leofric participated in the talks, the former royal councillor would have helped broker the favourable truce that spared the citizens the king’s wrath and garnered them his pardon and a royal garrison to prevent the looting of the city.Footnote 97 After William’s departure, the garrison remained to stymie or quell any unrest while the castle the king ordered built was begun.
About eighteen months later, in the fall of 1069, Exeter was attacked again, this time by the men of Devon and a turba from Cornwall, a rebellion spawned by the arrival of a Danish fleet pressing the claim of King Swein, Cnut’s nephew, to the English throne.Footnote 98 William at the time was also contending with revolts in the northeast, northwest and elsewhere in the southwest,Footnote 99 but ‘the citizens of Exeter took the king’s side’ and held the ramparts against the attackers.Footnote 100 It is not clear how long the siege lasted, but the rebels never breached the parapets, and eventually the defensores (‘garrison’) William had stationed in Exeter launched a surprise attack.Footnote 101 The sally dislodged the enemy and drove them from the city into the hands of another of the king’s forces who slaughtered them.
In the aftermath of these two battles, Bishop Leofric had good reason to use the penitential articles, rites and sermons collected in his book. He found himself shepherd of an embattled city and faced the extraordinary task of ministering to enemy soldiers and citizens living in close proximity. There were even Anglo-Saxons on the opposing sides. For the first time in English history, the royal army at the 1068 siege included Anglo-Saxon soldiers among its ranks. Countrymen on both sides had killed and wounded one another. Soldiers and citizens alike required episcopal expiation for atrocities committed in combat. And for practical purposes some of William’s English-speaking soldiers must have manned the garrison, leaving members of the royal army to live in close proximity to the native rebels, their compatriots, who opposed them. The unprecedented situation presented Leofric a prime opportunity to preside over the rites of public penance and to preach the Old English sermons translated from them. As their bishop, he knew that the people’s reconciliation to God and the Church would be essential on the Last Day, and as a leading citizen, he knew that concord between them was essential for prosperity in Exeter day to day. Since the rites feature him brokering peace between God and man, and modelling a harmony between Christian men, the liturgical performances could function as a form of pastoral care. Thus would the bishop help to heal his city with the services and sermons in his books.
Had Leofric presided over the rites, he needed to assign penances to the soldiers, and had he used those in his book, he would set in motion a process by which he could expect to perform the services for years to come. The articles stipulate, for example, that soldiers were to undergo a year of penance for each man killed and forty days for each man wounded.Footnote 102 The cumulative number of days for wounding men could be taken ‘either continuously or at intervals’, like the ‘three Lents’ of penance required of archers ignorant of the number they killed or wounded.Footnote 103 Not only do the recurrent penances mean that Leofric would administer the rites to some of the same individuals over consecutive years, but they also furnish a context for his use of the revised Dismissal in Vitellius A. vii. Its brevity would have been a boon for both the presider and participants who required numerous years to atone for heinous sins.
It is difficult to hypothesize the number of times Leofric might have used the penitential articles in conjunction with the rites because we do not know when the set came into his possession. If the articles were confirmed in 1067,Footnote 104 he could have had them in hand by the time the siege of 1068 was over. However, hostilities would have had to cease very early for him to use the articles for Ash Wednesday on 6 February.Footnote 105 Had he performed the Dismissal and Reconciliation in 1069 (Ash Wednesday fell on 25 February and Maundy Thursday on 9 April), he would have completed an initial cycle of penances before the second siege began that fall. Services in February and April of 1070 would have included combatants from both battles. Even if the penances arrived in Exeter with canons promulgated in April and May of 1070, Leofric could have used the articles in 1071 when Lent began on 9 March. Despite these uncertainties, his alteration of a canon on the page facing the penances attests to his awareness of the set,Footnote 106 and the events of 1068 and 1069 furnish a context for their use with the rites of public penance.
None of the services makes clear what status would belong to those people who could not complete their penances in a single Lent, and the contradiction that would play out concerning serial penitents may deepen the historical relevance of the rites to post-Conquest Exeter. For the serial penitents cast out on Ash Wednesday and not reconciled on Maundy Thursday but nevertheless expected to participate in or at least be present at the Reconciliation, that ritual risks becoming a symbolically very confused, if not seemingly pointless, exercise.Footnote 107 This potential, however, allows us to imagine Leofric confronting politically the same contradiction playing out theologically in rituals of ‘reconciliation’ that defer, for some flexibly targeted classes of sinners, a full integration back into the Christian sacramental life while keeping them publicly accountable for their sins.Footnote 108 We might see the postponement of spiritual resolution as an opportunity for Leofric to maintain a political advantage over some in Exeter whom he could keep visibly and no doubt uncomfortably on the hook as it were year after year. Viewed less cynically, serial penance offered him an opportunity to turn a theologically confusing, politically fraught liturgical performance to his pastoral advantage. Repeated opportunities for the culpable publicly to admit their guilt and entreat the community for forgiveness offered the wronged repeated acknowledgements of their suffering and serial occasions for them to forgive. This ritualized reconciliation would help Leofric heal his broken community over time as the repetition modelled peacemaking between God and men and Christian men.
In addition to being freighted with political and social implications, the services underscore the heaviness of heinous sin and the solace of mercy, and remind Leofric’s sheep of their need for a shepherd who cared for their souls and city. Theirs was a bishop who listened to them recount their atrocities and assigned fitting penances. Theirs was a bishop who would pray for, sing over and lie down beside them, and who would preach words of encouragement to and about them. Theirs was a bishop who would raise them from the sleep of spiritual death to life with their God, their Church and each other. For some, he would have expected to repeat this cycle years on end.
This was not to be. Leofric died on 10 February 1072, almost two weeks before Ash Wednesday, and left his flock to celebrate Easter in two months’ time without him. One of his sheep, the scribe who copied the penitential articles, remembered his shepherd this way: ‘Qui uir uenerabilis accepto pontificatus honore, diocesim suam perlustrans, populo sibi commisso uerbum dei studiose predicabat. Clericos doctrina informabat, ęcclesias non paucas construebat, et cetera quę officii sui erant strenue amminisbrabat.’Footnote 109 The evidence in CCCC 190 and Vitellius A. vii suggests he actively administered the rites of public penance and zealously preached the sermons translated from them, and I have suggested that he would have needed to do so in the wake of the sieges of 1068 and 1069. In 1070 the tumult continued, though it was of a different sort. Following the legatine councils in April and May that year (the same councils that produced the canons copied opposite the penitential articles), Leofric was one of only seven English bishops to survive ‘the purge of the episcopate’ in which prelates were deposed ‘who were unacceptable either because of their professional failings or for reasons of state’.Footnote 110 While his upbringing and training on the Continent may have made him politically unobjectionable, his care for the people of Exeter as represented by the rites, sermons and penitential articles studied here surely contributed to his professional success. So rather than borne aloft on the gossamer of hagiographic cliché, the praise for Leofric’s diligence as a good shepherd can be grounded in a book from his library preserving his own hand and bearing witness to his responsive, pragmatic pastoral care for his flock to the last days of his life.Footnote 111
APPENDICES
Edited below in separate appendices are the three Latin rites of public penance found in Leofric’s pontifical, London, British Library, Cotton Vitellius A. vii (V),Footnote 1 and the two Old English sermons translated from two of the rites and found in Leofric’s handbook, Cambridge, Corpus Christi College 190 (C):Footnote 2
Appendix A – from V, an Ash Wednesday Dismissal revised from the hybrid rite in Appendix B
Appendix B – from V, a hybrid rite that contains short and long forms of the Dismissal
Appendix B.I – from C, the Old English translation of the sermon in the long Dismissal
Appendix C – from V, a Maundy Thursday rite for the Reconciliation of public penitents
Appendix C.I – from C, the Old English translation of the sermon in the Reconciliation.
The revised Dismissal edited in Appendix A survives only in V. The hybrid Dismissal edited in Appendix B and the Reconciliation edited in Appendix C survive in two other manuscripts: CCCC 190 (C) and London, British Library, Cotton Nero A. i (N).Footnote 3 As noted earlier, Part I of C is a copy of an early stage of Archbishop Wulfstan’s so-called ‘commonplace books’.Footnote 4 N is a famous collection of legal and homiletic materials closely associated with Wulfstan and elements of his commonplace books, and it is the ‘closest relative’ to C among the surviving versions of his handbook.Footnote 5 Because Wulfstan himself adds two passages to the Maundy Thursday sermon in N,Footnote 6 we witness another bishop’s familiarity with his book and his special interest in these rites.Footnote 7
Wulfstan’s special interest may have manifested itself in the crafting of two unique rites and two unique sermons interpolated into them. The hybrid Dismissal mirrors the Reconciliation and is unique among the six entries into public penance in other Anglo-Saxon pontificals.Footnote 8 The Reconciliation is unique among twelve such services.Footnote 9 The sermons therein are also sui generis. We cannot be certain if Wulfstan crafted or supervised the crafting of the rites, though the possibility seems likely.Footnote 10 He ‘probably abbreviated or caused to be adapted’ the sermons included in them.Footnote 11 The abbreviations are adaptations of sermons by Abbo, the monk of Saint-Germain-des-Près (d. after 921), full copies of which Wulfstan had in another of his ‘commonplace books’, Copenhagen, Kongelige Bibliotek, G.K.S. 1595.Footnote 12 Wulfstan not only abbreviated this sermon from this or another parallel manuscript, but he also used Abbo for his own Old English sermon for Maundy Thursday.Footnote 13 Because Bishop Leofric was likewise interested in performing these unique rites and preaching these unique sermons, editions of the Old English translations accompany the hybrid Dismissal and Reconciliation as Appendices B.I and C.I. The rites and sermons are published together in their entirety for the first time.
The texts of the Latin rites in Appendices A, B and C are based on V, with variants from C and N. Text missing from V due to damage has been supplied from C and appears in round brackets (). In cases where the condition of the manuscript obscures the presence or absence of the e-caudata (ę), I have supplied a reading consistent with the scribe’s practice or preferences elsewhere in V. In the few instances where it was not possible to work by analogy, I have used the reading in C. The apparatus records differences between the texts with the exception of minor variations in spelling (for example, adm-/amm-, ae/e, app-/adp-, ę/e, i/y, imm-/inm-, imp-/inp-, -mpn-/-mn- and oe/e/ę). Texts to be spoken or chanted appear in italics, and asterisks (*) set off chants accompanied by neumes in V.
The texts of the Old English sermons in Appendices B.I and C.I are based on C.
In all the editions, punctuation and capitalization have been modernized, and abbreviations expanded throughout.
APPENDIX A
The text of the revised Dismissal is based on Vitellius A. vii, 62v (V). Because the liturgical redactor draws from the short and long forms of the hybrid Dismissal edited in Appendix B, variants are found in different portions of the texts in CCCC 190 (C) and Nero A. i (N). Variants for the Title to line 15 (domus Dei) are from C, p. 245, from line 20 to p. 246, line 18, and N, 168r1–168v4. Variants for lines 16 (prosternant) to 18 (contine[n]tur) are from C, p. 247, lines 4–8, and N, 168v21–169r1.
(QUALITER QUARTA FERIA IN CAPITE IEIUNII CIRCA PĘNITENTES)Footnote 14
(Quibus pro diuersis criminibus pęnitentia est) sube(unda) die p(rę)fat(a), (id) est q(uart)a (feria) in capite iei(unii), ad sedem episcopalem di(scalc)iati laneisque induti conueniant, et domno pontifici causam actus sui prodant ac sic sibi subueniri per pęnitentię satisfactionem petant.
[5] Pontifex autem, secundum statut[a]Footnote 15 canonum prout sibi uisum fuerit, pro qualitate delictorum pęnitentie eis constituat modum atque, iuxta more(m)Footnote 16 ipsius diei, propriis manibus cineres imponat capitibus eorum.
Quibus peractis, prosternat se episcopus cum ipsis pęnitentibus coram altari in pauimento ęcclesię circumstanti clero si(mu)l cum eo vii pęnitentiales psalmos, uel [10] plus minusue, decantando, atque post finem psalmorum erigens se dicat preces et orationes que in sacramentorum (libro) continentur.
Tunc fiat sermo ad pę(nitentes) ex euangelio: Duo homines. Footnote 17
Deinde episcopusFootnote 18 incipiat antiphonam: *In sudore uultus tui uesceris pane tuo plangens peccata tua cu(m pacienti)a (m)a(gna).* Psalmus: Beati quorum. Et sic psallentibus [15] euntes,Footnote 19 dataFootnote 20 manu educat eos extra limen domus Dei. Ipsi ueroFootnote 21 prosternant se ante fores ęcclesię, et iter(u)m episcopus cum clero cantet vii psalmos uel cant(ore)s canant Christe, audi nos; Sancta Maria, ora pro nobis, pre(ces)que fiantFootnote 22 sicut in sacramentorioFootnote 23 contine[n]tur.Footnote 24
NOTES TO TEXT
Previous edition: none.
ii. 6–7 (iuxta morem ipsius diei). Bedingfield points out that ‘[t]he phrase … in reference to the application of ashes to heads, seems to imply that the two rituals [the Dismissal and the imposition of ashes] are distinct, and that the canonical ritual [which the bishop performs secundum statuta canonum (line 5)] is being superimposed upon the more usual, and more general, Ash Wednesday liturgy, which encompasses all the faithful, not just those accused of especially serious, or public, sins’ (‘Public penance in Anglo-Saxon England’ (see above, n. 41), p. 236).
l. 9 (vii pęnitentiales psalmos). The seven penitential psalms and their incipits are: Ps. 6 (Domine ne in furore), Ps. 31 (Beati quorum), Ps. 37 (Domine ne in furore), Ps. 50 (Miserere mei Deus), Ps. 101 (Domine exaudi), Ps. 129 (De profundis) and Ps. 142 (Domine exaudi).
l. 12 (Duo homines). The incipit of Luke 18: 10, part of the Parable of the Pharisee and Tax Collector in verses 9–14. This is the Gospel reading for the mass that follows the penitent’s entry into the church in the Romano-German Pontifical (Les Ordines Romani (see above, n. 59), ed. Andrieu, Ordo L, XVIII, no. 35, p. 122). What kind of sermon Leofric preached can only be guessed. He might have drawn on the exposition of the parable in Bede’s Commentarius in Lucam (ed. D. Hurst, CCSL 120 (Turnhout, 1960), lines 1132–92, pp. 324–5), a copy of which he possessed (Hill, ‘Leofric of Exeter (see above, n. 2), p. 95, listed as Expositio Bedæ super euuangelium Lucæ).
ll. 13–14 (In sudore … magna). Cf. Gen. 3: 19.
l. 14 (Beati quorum). Ps. 31.
ll. 15–18 (Ipsi … contine[n]tur). These lines are modelled on events in the hybrid Dismissal (App. B, lines 30–3) that occur after the bishop has sung the In sudore antiphon for a third time and has led the penitents outside the church.
APPENDIX B
The text of the hybrid Dismissal is based on Vitellius A. vii (V), 63r–65r. Variants are from CCCC 190 (C), pp. 245–9, and Cotton Nero A. i (N), 168r–170v.
(QUALITER QUARTA FERIA IN CAPITE IEIUNII CIRCA PĘNITENTES)Footnote 25
Quibus pro (diuersis criminibus pęnitentia) est subeunda, die prę(fata), id e(st) (qu)arta fe(ri)a in capite ieiunii, ad sed(em) episcopalem d(iscalciati) laneisque induti conueniant, et dom(no) (pontifici) causam actus sui prodant ac si(c) sibi subueniri per pęnitentię satisf(action)nem petant.
[5] Pontifex autem, secundum statut[a]Footnote 26 canonum prout sibi uisum fuerit, pro (q)ual(i)tate delictorum pęnitentię eis constituat modum atque, iuxta morem ipsius diei, propriis manibus cyneres imponat capitibus eorum.
Quibus peractis, prosternat se episcopus cum ipsis pęnitentibus coram altari in pauimento ęcclesię circumstanti clero simul cum eo vii pęnitentiales psalmos (uel [10] plus minusue) decantando, atque post finem psalmorum erigens se dicat preces et orationes quę in sa(c)ramentorum libro continentur.
(T)unc fiat sermo ad pęnitentes ex euangelio: Duo homines ascenderunt. Footnote 27
Deinde pontifex incipiat antiphonam: In sudore uultus tui uesceris pane tuo plangens peccata tua cum patien(tia) m(a)gna. Psalmus: Beati quorum. Et sic uniuersis psallentibus, [15] |Footnote 28 (procedat cum eisdem pęnitentibus usque ad hostium ęcclesię, dataque manu educat eos ext)ra limen domu(s) (D)ei.
(Uel) sic(u)t quibusdam pl(a)cet, c(um) peruenerint ad c(hori ianuam) p(o)s(t) (finem) an(ti)phonę, dicat diaconus c(um pęnitentibus: Flectamus genua. Et diaconus cum ępiscopo positus: Leua)te.
[20] Et ępiscopus, Exaudi nos Christe.
Tunc dex(ter) (chorus), Kyrrie eleyson. Footnote 29
S(ini)sterque chorus, Christe eleyson. Footnote 30
Tunc omnes simul, Kyrrie eleyson. Footnote 31
Itemque episcopus antiphonam: In sudore uultus tui. Footnote 32 Et cum peruenerint ad [25] hostium i(n)tra ęcclesiam post finem antiphonę, dicat diaconus: Flectamus genua. Et reliqua ut supra.
Itemque ępiscopus antiphonam: In sudore. Dataque manu trahitFootnote 33 pęnitentes extra limen domus Dei et finita antiphona, dicit diaconus extra ęcclesiam cum pęnitentibus constitutus, Flectamus. Et reliqua.
[30] Hisque peractis, prosternant se ante fores ęcclesię, et iterum pontifex cum clero superiori ordine viiFootnote 34 pęnitentiales psalmos ue(l) cantores: Christe, audi nos, Sancta Maria ora pro nobis Footnote 35 (uel plus minusue) decantent,Footnote 36 precesque et orationes sicut in sacramentario contine[n]tur.Footnote 37 (Hic le)gatur lectio.Footnote 38
Tunc fiatFootnote 39 sermo ad populum:
[35] | Footnote 40 (Au)dite, fratres karissimi, (omnes uos in communeFootnote 41 admonemus) ex auctoritate Dei Patris Footnote 42 u(t) co(nfes)sione(m) peccatorum (et ue)ram pęnitentia(m) agatis, et ut hoc quadragesimale (tem)pus inuiolabiliter obseruetis, sacerdotibusque et predica(toribus) salutis uestrę Footnote 43 ut humiliter obtemperetis, quia angelus, id est nuntius Dei, uocatus est sacerdos. Et nobis qui nuntii sumus Dei, qua(m)uis indigni, dictu(m) est a Domino, ‘Qui uos audit, me audit, [40] et qui uos spernit, me spernit’, et reliqua. Igitur, fratres, quiescite agere peruers(ę); discite benefacere. Declinate a malo, et fa(cite) bonum. Sobrii estote et uigilate, quia aduersarius uester, diabolus, tamquam leo rugiens circuit quęrens quem deuoret. Cui resistite fortes in fide, et reliqua. Apprehendite loricam igitur Footnote 44 iustitię et galeam salutis et gladium Spiritus, quod est uerbum Dei. Conuertimini igitur, Footnote 45 fratres karissimi, ad Dominum Deum in toto corde uestro, et de Domini Footnote 46 [45] misericordia numquam desperate. Ipse enim dicit, ‘Nolo mortem peccatoris sed ut magis Footnote 47 conuertatur et uiuat. Et in quacumque hora peccator conuersus fuerit et ingemuerit, saluus erit’. Hinc etiam et in euan(gelio ait), ‘Gaudium erit in cęlo super uno peccatore pęnitentiam agente’, et reliqua.
Scitote etiam, fratres, quod nihil adiuuat pęnitere si post pęnitentiam reuertitur homo ad pristinum uomitum. Ergo cum humilitate et puritate cordis pęnitemini et de|Footnote 48(precamini pium[50] Deum ut respiciat uos atque dignanter recipiat uestram humilitatem. Pr[o]uid)ete Footnote 49 etiam ut (pęnitendo at)que Footnote 50 ieiu(n)ando non cadatis in aliquid (cri)minale peccatum, quia ille homo qui ieiunat (et) peccat simili(s) est diabolo semper ieiunanti et pe(ccanti). Sed et Footnote 51 hoc debetis obseruare in uestram pęnitent(iam), Footnote 52 ut (illud) faciatis ieiunium quod Deo sit placabile. Ebrietatem (autem) semper cauete, quia ebrietas nullum uitium excusat sed omnia peccata generat et est [55] magnum et criminale peccatum. Vos, inquam, fratres, non obseruatis aliquando Footnote 53 recte ieiunium per quod debetis uincere di(a)bolum, sed sępe infringitis et non cogitatis quod sancti canones p(re)cipiunt ut qui infringit unum diem in Quadragesimo, Footnote 54 xl Footnote 55 dies pro uno die soluat auctori Deo. Dies enim isti Footnote 56 (d)ecimę sunt anni dierum. Gulam itaque semper contempnite. Propter ingluuiem enim et gulositatem fuit eiectus Adam de Paradyso. Et nos si uolu(mus) [60] nostra(m) recipere hereditatem, id est Paradysum, necesse est ut per aliam uiam, hoc est per ieiunium et abstinentiam, reuertamur a(d eam). Adam enim legem Domini sui preuaricatus est comedens de ligno prohibito, et propter ea eiecit eum Dominus de Paradyso in exilio Footnote 57 huius (uitę) ub(i) multos labores sustinuit, et post uitę huius lab(ores) gehennaliter luit donec Christus, qui mundum redemit, eum inde liberauit et ad Paradysi gaudia reduxit. Quo exemplo edocti nos [65] expellimus preuaricatores legis uel Footnote 58 | Footnote 59 (criminali culpa culpabiles extra limen domus) Domini, ęcclesiasticusque int(roitus eis prohibetur quoad)usque publica pęnitentia peracta pontificali concessione in si(n)um matris ęcclesię iterum recipiuntur, sicut Adam, post diutinam pęnitentiam et longi temporis luctum, receptus est in Paradysum ad consortium sanctorum. Ad quorum etiam consortium nos Christus perducat, qui cum ęterno Footnote 60 Patre et Spiritu Sancto uiuit et [70] regnat.
Hoc sermoneFootnote 61 completo, accipiens pontife(x) (per) manus singulos pęnitentes propriis sacerdotibus consignet — quod si sacerdos defuerit, archidiacono seu decano — qui iniunctam sibi pęnitentiam sollerti curaFootnote 62 provideant, atque in quintaFootnote 63 feria, quę est Dominica Cęna, ad metropolitanam sedem iterum domno pontifici [75] reconsignent.
NOTES TO TEXT
Previous edition: B. Fehr edited the version of this rite in CCCC 190 (C) but not the sermon therein in Die Hirtenbriefe Ælfrics, Bibliothek der angelsächsischen Prosa, 9 (Hamburg, 1914), pp. 246–7 (Anhang III, §§41–3). J. E. Cross and A. Brown edited the Latin version of the sermon and the translation of it from C in ‘Wulfstan and Abbo of Saint-Germain-des-Près’, Mediaevalia 15 (1989), 71–91, at 86–91.
The digital facsimile of C can be accessed on the Parker Library On the Web. M. Elliot’s transcription of the rite and sermon from this manuscript is available online (‘Wigorniensis O (Corpus 190)’, pp. 60–2). The digital facsimile of Cotton Nero A. i (N) can be accessed on the British Library’s Digitised Manuscripts website, but that of Vitellius A. vii (V) is not currently available.
l. 12 (Duo homines ascenderunt). The incipit of Luke 18: 10, part of the Parable of the Pharisee and Tax Collector in verses 9–14. See above, App. A, n. on line 12.
ll. 13–14 (In sudore … magna). Cf. Gen. 3: 19. In C (p. 246), a hyper-literal Old English gloss has been interlined above this antiphon: ‘On swate andwlitan ðines ðu scealt brucan hlafes ðines, beheofygende synna ðine mid geðylde mycclon’ (‘In the sweat of your face you will eat your bread, lamenting your sins with much suffering’). For a discussion of the gloss as an indicator that the ritual was intended to be performed, see above pp. 217–19.
l. 14 (Beati quorum). Ps. 31.
ll. 35–70 (Audite … regnat). Cross and Brown (‘Wulfstan and Abbo’, p. 75) identify this sermon as very likely Wulfstan’s abridgement and adaptation of a sermon by Abbo, ‘Sermo in porta ecclesie ad penitentes nondum adeptos reconcilacionem’ (Abbo von Saint-Germain-des-Près, 22 Predigten: kritische Ausgabe und Kommentar, ed. U. Önnerfors (Frankfurt, 1985), pp. 110–12 (no. 10)). I have verified their citations from the source and Scripture, and repeat their attributions with the addition of more precise references, primarily to Önnerfors’s text.
ll. 35–49 (Audite … uomitum). Cross and Brown identify this section as ‘a new introduction citing appropriate Scriptural texts on Christian behaviour and God’s mercy’ (‘Wulfstan and Abbo’, p. 75).
ii. 39–40 (Qui … me spernit). Luke 10: 16.
ii. 40–1 (quiescite … benefacere). Is. 1: 16–17. (Declinate … bonum). Cf. Ps. 36: 27 and 1 Pt. 3: 11.
ll. 41–2 (Sobrii … fide). 1 Pt. 5: 8–9.
l. 43 (Apprehendite … iustitię and et galeam … Dei). Cf. Eph. 6: 14 and 17, respectively.
l. 44 (Conuertimini … uestro). Cf. Joel 2: 12.
ll. 45–6 (Nolo … uiuat and in quaecumque … fuerit). Cf. Ez. 33: 11 and 12, respectively. Nolo … ingemuerit matches nearly exactly a passage from Abbo, ed. Önnerfors, Sermon 7 (Sermo in cena domini), p. 102, lines 4–6.
ll. 46–7 (Hinc … agente). For ‘Gaudium … agente’, cf. Luke 15: 7, but the wording of the entire sentence echoes Abbo, ed. Önnerfors, Sermon 7, p. 102, lines 7–9, where verse 7 is cited in full.
ll. 48–9 (reuertitur … uomitum). Cf. Prov. 26: 11 and, with less correspondence, 2 Peter 2: 22.
ll. 49–53 (Ergo … ieiunium). Abbo, ed. Önnerfors, Sermon 10, p. 110, line 17– p. 111, line 5.
ll. 54–5 (quia … peccatum). Abbo, ed. Önnerfors, Sermon 10, p. 111, lines 12–14.
ll. 55–8 (Uos … infringitis and et non … Deo). Cf. Abbo, ed. Önnerfors, Sermon 10, p. 111, lines 18–20, and p. 111, line 21–p. 112, line 3, respectively.
ll. 59–61 (Propter … eam). Cf. Abbo, ed. Önnerfors, Sermon 10, p. 112, lines 4–8.
ll. 61–70 (Adam … regnat). Abbo discusses the penance of Adam in the Maundy Thursday sermon of the Reconciliation (cf. App. C, lines 49–54 and 81–5). The treatment here, which has no parallel in Abbo’s sermon, markedly increases the parallelism of the sermons in V, just as the addition of the tripartite expulsion to the Dismissal increases its parallelism with the Reconciliation.
APPENDIX B.1
The text of the Old English Dismissal sermon is based on CCCC 190 (C), pp. 351–3. The alteration of i to y appears to be an Exeter characteristic (Clayton, ‘Promissio regis’ (see above, n. 21), p. 105).
SERMO IN CAPITE IEIUNII AD POPULUM
Audite, fratres karissimi, omnes uos in commune ammonemus ex auctoritate Dei Patris ut confessionem peccatorum et ueram penitentiam agatis, et hoc quadragesimale tempus inuiolabiliter obseruetis. Et reliqua.
Gehyrað,Footnote 64 broðru þa leofestan, we mynegiað eow ealle gemænelice Godes [5] ælmihtiges worde, þæt ge don eowra synnaFootnote 65 andetnysse and soðe behreowsunge, and þæt ge healdon þisses lengtenfæstenes tyd ungewemmedlice, and eac þæt ge gehyrsume beon Godes sacerdum and eowre hæle lareowum, forðan se sacerd is gecyged Godes engel, þæt is Godes boda. And we þe sind Godes boda, þeah we unwurðe beon; to us is fram Drihtene silfum þus gecweden, ‘Qui uos audit, [10] me audit, et qui uos spernit, me spernit’, þæt is on Englisc, ‘“Se þe eow gehyrð,Footnote 66 me he gehyrð,Footnote 67 and se þe eow forsyhð,Footnote 68 me he forsyhð”’. Eornostlice, gebroðru, geswicað to donne yfel and leorniað to donne wel. Bugað fram yfele and doð god. Beoð syfre and wacyað, forðon eowre wyþerwinna se deofol, swa swa grimetiende leo, færð ymbutan secende hwane he forswelge. WyðstandaðFootnote 69 him strange on [15] geleafan. NymaðFootnote 70 eornostlice rihtwisnisse byrnan and soþre hælo helm and þæs Halgan Gastes sweord, þæt is Godes word. Gecyrrað, broðru þa leofestan, to Drihtene Gode of ealre eowre heortan, and ne ortruwyge ge næfre be Godes mildheort|nisse.Footnote 71 Soðlice God cwæð þurh his witegan, ‘“Nelle ic ðæs sinfullan deað ac swiðor þæt he gecyrre and libbe, and on swa hwilcere tide swa se sinfulla [20] gecyrred wirð and his sinna begeomerað, he bið gehealden”’. Be ðan eac he cwæð on þam godspelle, ‘“Bliss bið on heofenum be anum sinfullan men behreowsunge dondum”’.
Witað eac, gebroðru, þæt ðam men naht ne fremað to behreowsienne gif heFootnote 72 æfter þære behreowsunge eft cirð to his ærran leahtrum. Eornostlice doþ dædbote [25] mid eadmodnysseFootnote 73 and mid heortan clænnysse, and biddað þone arfæstan Drihten þæt he beseo to eow and unnondlice underfo eowre eadmodnysse.Footnote 74 Warniað eac þæt ge amang eowre dædbote and eowrum fæstene ne befeallon on ænige heafodsinne, forðon se man ðe fæst and singað is ðam deofle gelic þe æfre fæst and æfre singað. And eac þæt ge sculon understandan amang eowre dædbote, [30] þæt ge don swilc fæsten swilc Gode licwyrðe beo, and warniað eow æfre wið druncennisse, forðan þe druncennis ne sparað nanne leahter, ac ealle sinna heo gestrinð and heo is swiðe micel heafodsin.
Mine gebroðru, ge ne healdað oðerhwile rihtlice þis halige fæsten ðurh þæt ge sceoldonFootnote 75 oferswiðan þone deofol, ac ge hit swiðe gelome brecað and ge ne [35] undergitað hwæt þa halgan canones bebeodað: þæt se ðe tobricð ænne dæg on þam lengtenfæstene sceal feowertig daga for ðam anum dæge |Footnote 76 agildan þæs fæstenes Ealdre Gode. Forbugað æfre þa oferfille; soðlice for ðære oferfille and for ðære gifernisse wæs Adam ascofen of neorxnawange, and gif we willað ure yrfe and urne eðel, þæt is neorxnawang, underfon, þonne is us þearf þæt we [40] ðyder faron þurh oðerne weg, þæt is ðurh fæsten and forhæfednisse. Witodlice Adam forgægde his Drihtenes æ þa ða he æt of ðam forbodenan treowe, and forðon Drihten hine sceaf ut of neorxnawange on wræcsið þisses lifes, þær he ðolode mænigfealde geswinc and siþþan æfter ðisses lifes geswincum on hellesusle lange heofode oðþæt Crist, þe ðisne middaneard alisde, hine [45] þanon generede and hine eft ongean lædde to neorxnawanges blisse. Æfter ðære bisne we sind gelærede þæt we ut drifað þæge þe forgægdon Godes æ and þurh heafodgilt beoþ scildige wiðutan þamFootnote 77 þerxwolde Godes huses, and heom biþ forwirnd cyrclic ingang oþ þæt hig, geendodre openlicre dædbote, eft beon onfangene mid bisceoplicre lefe on bosm þære modor circan, swa swa Adam [50] wæs onfangen æfter langre behreowsunge and langre tyde heofunge into neorxnawange to halgra geferræddene. To ðæra geferræddene us eac gebringe Crist, se ðe leofað and rixað mid his efenecan Fæder and þam Halgan Gaste on ealra worulda woruld, Amen.
A SERMON AT THE BEGINNING OF THE FAST TO THE PEOPLE
Audite, fratres karissimi, omnes uos in commune ammonemus ex auctoritate Dei Patris ut confessionem peccatorum et ueram penitentiam agatis, et hoc quadragesimale tempus inuiolabiliter obseruetis. Et reliqua.
Listen, dearest fellow-Christians, we remind you all jointly of the words of [5] almighty God so that you may carry out confession of your sins and true repentance, and may keep the time of this Lent inviolably, and may also be obedient to God’s priests and the teachers of your salvation, because the priest is called God’s angel, that is, God’s messenger. And we are God’s messengers, though we be unworthy; it is thus said to us by the Lord himself, ‘Qui uos audit, me [10] audit, et qui uos spernit, me spernit’, which is in English, ‘“He who listens to you, he listens to me, and he who rejects you, he rejects me”’. Therefore, brothers, cease doing evil and learn to do well. Turn from evil and do good. Be sober and keep watch, because your enemy the devil, like a roaring lion, goes about [15] seeking whom he may devour. Oppose him strongly in faith. Therefore take up the mail coat of righteousness and the helmet of true salvation and the sword of the Holy Spirit, which is God’s word. Turn, most beloved fellow-Christians, to the Lord God with your whole heart, and may you never despair of God’s mercy. Truly God said through his prophet, ‘“I do not desire the death of the sinner but rather that he turn and live, and whenever the sinner will have [20] turned and laments his sins, he will be healed”’. About that he also said in the gospel, ‘“There will be joy in heaven over the one sinner who has done penitence”’.
Know also, fellow-Christians, that to repent benefits one nothing if after [25] repentance he returns to his former sins. Therefore do penitence with humility and with purity of heart, and ask the merciful Lord to look upon you and willingly receive your humility. Take heed in the midst of your penitence and your fast not to fall into any deadly sin, because the man who fasts and sins is like the devil who always fasts and always sins. And you also ought to [30] understand during your penitence that you should perform as much a fast as will be pleasing to God, and always guard yourselves against drunkenness, because drunkenness will refrain from no sin, but it begets all sins and it is a very great deadly sin.
My fellow-Christians, sometimes you do not properly keep this holy fast through which you ought to overcome the devil, but you very often break it and [35] you do not understand what the holy canons command: that he who violates one day in Lent ought to repay to the Lord God forty days for the one day of the fast. Always refrain from gluttony; truly on account of gluttony and on account of greediness was Adam driven out of Paradise, and if we desire to obtain our [40] inheritance and our homeland, which is Paradise, then we need to go there by another way, which is through fasting and self-restraint. Truly Adam transgressed the law of his Lord when he ate from the forbidden tree, and thus the Lord drove him out of Paradise into the exile of this life where he suffered many hardships and then after the hardships of this life, lamented in hell-[45] torment for a long time, until Christ, who redeemed the world, liberated him from that place and led him back again to the bliss of Paradise. According to that example we have been taught to expel outside the threshold of God’s house those who transgress God’s law and are guilty on account of a deadly sin, and to prohibit them entry into church until they, having completed public penitence, have been received again with episcopal permission into the bosom of Mother [50] Church, just as Adam was received after a long repentance and a long period of lamentation into Paradise in the fellowship of the saints. To that fellowship may Christ bring us too, he who lives and reigns with his co-eternal Father and the Holy Spirit world without end, Amen.
NOTES TO TEXT
Previous edition: J. E. Cross and A. Brown edited the Old English sermon and the Latin version of it from CCCC 190 (C) in ‘Wulfstan and Abbo of Saint-Germain-des-Près’, Mediaevalia 15 (1989), 71–91, at 86–91.
ll. 1–3. ‘Listen, dearest brothers, we admonish you all together by the authority of God the Father to undertake the confession of sins and true penitence, and to observe inviolably this Lenten season. And the rest’. Cf. App. B, lines 35–7.
ll. 9–10 (Qui … spernit). It is worth remarking that the translator does not translate so slavishly as to render the et reliqua in the Latin version (cf. App. B, line 40), an omission that may speak to his awareness that he was preparing the text for delivery. He likewise omits the phrase in lines 15 (after geleafan) and 22 (after dondum) (cf. App. B, lines 42 and 47, respectively).
ll. 18–20 (Nelle … gehealden). Cf. Ez. 33: 11 and 12, and App. B, note on lines 45–6.
ll. 21–2 (Bliss … dondum). Cf. Luke 15: 7, and App. B, note on lines 46–7.
l. 37 (Gode. Forbugað). The translator does not translate the intervening sentence in the Latin sermon (cf. App. B, line 58 (Dies … dierum)).
l. 52 (efenecan). Efenecan (‘coeternal’) corresponds more closely to the reading in MS N (coeterno) than that in MSS C and V (ęterno) (cf. App. B, line 69), but I have found no other evidence to suggest that the translator might have worked from a copy of the sermon other than that in C. Clemoes raises this possibility when he comments that ‘CCCC 190’s literal translation shows that its Latin source did not belong either to the CCCC 190/Vitellius branch of the text or the Nero one. It has peculiarities of its own. Whether they are due to separative readings in its Latin source or to inaccuracies of translation it is impossible to say’ (‘Old English Benedictine Office’ (see above, n. 8), p. 272, n. 1). Clemoes does not identify those peculiarities. By contrast, in their discussions of one or both of the Latin sermons, Bethurum (Homilies of Wulfstan, p. 346), Cross and Brown (‘Wulfstan and Abbo’, p. 72) and Hill (‘Two Anglo-Saxon Bishops’, p. 159) treat the OE sermons in Part II of CCCC 190 as translations of the Latin sermons found in the rites in Part I.
APPENDIX C
The text of the Reconciliation of public penitents is based on Vitellius A. vii (V), 65r–68v. Variants are from CCCC 190 (C), pp. 252–9, and Cotton Nero A. i (N), 170v–172r (ordo) and 159v–162v (sermo). In N, the ordo contains the incipit of the Maundy Thursday sermon (Vere fratres karissimi hoc debetis scire, et reliqua, 171v), but the sermon is copied out in full on a preceding quire. For the contents of N and an analysis of its structure, see Wormald, Making of English Law (see above, n. 4), pp. 198–203.
QUALITER PĘNITEN(TES IN CĘ)NA DOMINI IN ĘCCLESIAM INTROD([U]CUNTUR)Footnote 78
Secundum morem orientalium ęcclesiarum conueniunt omnes qui pro diuersis criminibus pęnitentia sunt dampnati et ab ingressu ęcclesię priuati ad metropolit(an)am sedem, et hora diei tertiaFootnote 79 collecti omnes ante ianuam basilicę discalciati lanei(s)que (in)duti expectent. Tunc episcopus cum ceteris ordinibus [5] indutus egrediturFootnote 80 et duo diaconi similiter in(d)uti, unusFootnote 81 cum pęnitentibus, alterFootnote 82 cum episcopo positus.
Et dicat diaconus cum episcopo positus: *Dicite quare uenistis*
|Footnote 83 (Et diaconus cum pęnitentibus: *Indulgentię causa.*
Et sedens circumstantibus clericis incipit) ipse domnus pontifex sonora uoce [10] initium sequentis ant(i)phone: *Venite.*
Et dicit diaconus cum pęnitentibus positus: *Flectamus genua.*
Et diaconus cum episcopo positus dicit: *Leuate.*
Et episcopus: *Exaudi nos, Christe.*
Tunc dexter chor(us): *Kyrrieleyson.*Footnote 84
[15] Sinisterque chorus: *Christe eleyson.*Footnote 85
Tunc omnes simul: *Kyrrie eleyson,* Paternoster, preces pro peccatis.
Iterum autem æpiscopus residens repetatFootnote 86 bis canendo:Footnote 87 *Ve(ni)te, uenite.*
Et item diaconus cum pęnitentibus: *Flectamus genua.*
Et alius diaconusFootnote 88 cum episcopo: *Leuate.*
[20] Et episcopus: *Exaudi nos, Christe.*
Tunc dexter chorus: *Kyrrie eleyson.*
Sinisterque chorus: *Christe eleyson.*
Tunc omnes simul: *Kyrrieleyson,* Paternoster, preces pro peccatis.
Et tertio residens ępiscopus superiori ordine prosequatur ter canendo: *Venite, [25] uenite, uenite filii.*
Et diaconus cum pęnitentibus: *Flectamus genua.*
Et diaconus alius cum episcopo: *Leuate.*
Et episcopus: *Exaudi nos, Christe.*
Tunc dexter chorus: *Kyrrie eleyson.*
[30] Sinisterque chorus: *Christe eleyson.*
Tunc omnes simul: *Kyrrie eleyson,* Paternoster, preces pro peccatis.
Tunc residente episcopo legat (d)iaconus positus cum episcopo lectionem han(c):
V(er)e, fratres (k)arissimi, hoc debetis scire Footnote 89 unde fuit inceptum hoc exemplum, ut episcopi peccatores homines eicerent de ęcclesia in capite ieiunii et iterum post completam dignam [35] pęnitentiam in Cęna Domini reciperent ipsos peccatores in ęcclesia. Nam quando Dominus noster Footnote 90 qui | Footnote 91 (est Deus omnipotens fecit primum hominem Footnote 92 Adam, totum) illum fecit sanctum et iustum (et immortalem. Sanctitas autem) et iustitia et immortalitas fecerunt Adam habe(re) imaginem et similitudinem Dei. Et propterea dixit Footnote 93 Deus antequam crearet Adam, ‘Faciamus hominem ad similitudinem nostram’. Hoc est, faciamus hominem sanctum et iustum [40] et immortalem. Et istam suam imaginem nos commendat Dominus habere quando dixit in euangelio, ‘Estote sancti quia et ego sanctus sum’.
Ergo quia Deus tam bonum et tam sanctum fecit Adam, propterea legimus quia misit eum in Paradysum ut operaretur et custodiret illum. In ipso autem Paradyso dedit ei Dominus omnem gloriam. Ibi uidebat angelos et loquebatur cum illis, et numquam
[45] moreretur si non peccasset. Ibi audiebat Dominum secum loquentem et talem obędientiam sibi commendantem ut numquam comederet de ligno scientię boni et mali. In ipsa uero hora qua peccauit Adam, eiecit eum Dominus, qui est episcopus episcoporum, foras de Paradyso et dixit illi, ‘In sudore uultus tui Footnote 94 uesceris pane tuo’.
Et postquam fuit eiectus Adam Footnote 95 de Paradyso, quid fecit? Certe longam pęnitentiam fecit per [50] sexcentos annos et eo amplius. Ad ul(t)imum uero post suam mortem missus est in carcerem infernalem ubi longo tempore pla[n]xit Footnote 96 et doluit quia propter suum peccatum perdiderat Paradysum. Et tamdiu fuit ibi dolens et pęnitens donec Dominus | Footnote 97 (noster Ihesus Christus, qui est pontifex pontificum, absoluit eum pro suam passionem et liberauit eum) de p(ęnis) (teneb)rarum et reddidit ei Paradysum.
[55] Igitur, fratres, nos episcopi sumus uicarii Domini nostri Ihesu Christi in hoc mundo, et sumus missi et ordinati in loco eius. Et propterea post apostolos dedit nobis Dominus potestatem ligandi animas et soluendi, et precepit nobis edificare et plantare bonos (ho)mines in domo Domini et euellere atque Footnote 98 dissipare peccatores de domo Domini, hoc est de [ęcclesia]. Footnote 99 Sic enim dicit Dominus per Hieremiam Footnote 100 prophetam ad unumquemque episcopum, ‘Ecce, [60] constitui te super gentes et super regna ut euellas et edifices et dissipes Footnote 101 et plantes in domo Domini’.
Adtendite, fratres, de bono animo hoc quod nos uobis uolumus dicere. Propterea misit Dominus Adam in Paradysum ut in ipso Paradyso nascerentur omnes electi et operarentu(r) uoluntatem Dei usque ad plenam senectutem et de illo t(ra)nsirent ad celes(tem) patriam. Et certe [65] s(ic) facerent si Adam non peccasset.
Fratres, ipsum exemplum Domini (nostri Ihesu) Christi tenemus nos episcopi in ęcclesia. Peccatores uero tenent exemplum Adę.Footnote 102 Verbi gratia, sicut filius Dei misit Adam sanctum et iustum in Paradysum, similit(er) nos et omnes sacerdotes mittimus in ęcclesiam homines sanctificatos et iust(i)ficatos in baptismo. Cur mittimus eos homines in ęcclesiam qui iam facti [70] sunt sancti per baptismum? Propter ipsam causam pro qua misit Dominus Footnote 103 | Footnote 104 (Adam in Paradysum, hoc est, ut operaretur et cu)stodiret illu(m Paradysum. Similiter et nos sa)ce(r)dotes propterea mittimus homines baptizatos in ęcclesiam ut omni tempore operentur in ea uoluntatem Dei et custodiant illam ęcclesiam, hoc est Christianitatem. Deus omnipotens donauit Adam legem quam debuit obseruare Footnote 105 per obędientiam. Qualem legem? Ut non manducaret de arbore [75] scientię boni et mali. Similiter et Deus donat per nos Footnote 106 uobis legem quam debetis seruare in ęcclesia. Quam legem uobis donat per nos Dominus, id est per nostram admonitionem?Footnote 107 Non occides, Footnote 108 non męcharis,Footnote 109 non adulterabis, non furtum facies, non falsum testimonium dices, non periurabis, diliges Dominum Deum tuum ex toto corde tuo, et diliges proximum tuum sicut te ipsum.
[80] Fratres, ista omnia precepta uobis donat Dominus per nos ut custodiatis illa et operemini Footnote 110 per obędientiam. Sed quid fecit Dominus de Adam pro eo quod non custodiuit obędientiam? Certe eiecit Footnote 111 eum foras de Paradyso plorantem et lugentem et nimis contristantem. Similiter et nos episcopi propterea quia uos non custoditis obędientiam precep(t)orum Dei, pro(p)ter(e)a eicimus Footnote 112 uos foras de ęcclesia et cantamus post u(os) ho(c) quod Dominus cantauit [85] post Adam quando expulit eum de Paradyso, ‘In sudore uultus tui,’Footnote 113 et reliqua.
Sed quid fecit Adam postquam fuit eiectus de Paradyso? Certe et multam Footnote 114 dignam pęnitentiam fecit Adam ut dignus | Footnote 115 (esset, quo Deus reciperet eum in Paradysum. Et uos similiter fecistis pęnitentiam Footnote 116 in is)ta Quadragesima, quo uos sitis Footnote 117 intrare in ęcclesiam et communicare corpori et sanguini Domini, et propterea uos gaudente(r re)cipit sancta mater ęcclesia [90] inter suos filios qui sunt filii Dei adoptiui, hoc est electi. Hoc tamen debetis scire quia, sicut beatus Ambrosius dixit, nullus episcopus potest absoluere pęnitentes nisi ipsa pęnitentia eorum fuerit digna de absolutione. Et propterea uobis dicimus hoc, ut si non habetis Footnote 118 adhuc illam pęnitentiam factam quę Deo placet, Footnote 119 ex uestra uoluntate perficite illam. Et si non potestis ieiunare, uel elemosinas potestis facere, que libere[n]t Footnote 120 uestras animas de inferno. Et Footnote 121 debetis [95] hoc adtendere, ut uos umquam non faciatis Footnote 122 de pęnitentia Footnote 123 quant(um) uobis fuerit commendatum. Sed de uestra uoluntate debetis plus facere, sicut faciebant sancti qui portabant cilicia et abstinebant a carne et a uino et ieiunabant usque ad uesperam Footnote 124 propter desiderium uitę ęternę. Footnote 125
Fratres, iam modo est Adam receptus in cęlesti Paradyso propter multam Footnote 126 et Footnote 127 laborio(sa)m [100] pęnitentiam quam fecit. Et propter ipsam pęnitentiam meruit accipere societatem cum Dei fidelibus redemptis de sanguine Christi. Et uos, Deo gratias, hodie propter pęnitentiam estis recepti in ęcclesiam quasi in Paradysum. Et quia uos conuenistis in ista die | Footnote 128 (ad recipiendam societatem sanctę ęcclesię et ad absolutionem) de uestris peccatis et (ideo uenistis cum toto desiderio) ut Footnote 129 uos possitis recipere tam magnum gaudium de paschali sollempnitate et quo possitis communicare de [105] corpore et sanguine Domini, propterea non debet remanere in uobis ullum criminale uitium, sed humili prece debetis Deum deprecari ut donet uos facere talem pęnitentiam et talem emendationem quę Deo placeat et uobis proficiat ad uitam eternam, ipso adiuuante qui uiuit et regnat in sęcula sęculorum, Amen. Footnote 130
Post finemFootnote 131 lectionis surgens episcopus faciat uerbum exortatorium ad ipsos [110] pęnitentes de eadem lectione. Sequatur communis oratio pro pęnitentibus.
Hac expleta, coniungens se episcopus liminibus ęcclesię uoce excelsiori repetit pretitulatam antiphonam omnibus eam sonoratim modulantibus. Antiphona:Footnote 132 Venite, uenite, uenite, filii, audite me. Timorem Domini docebo Footnote 133 uos. Footnote 134 Psalmus. Benedicam Dominum. In Domino laudabitur. Magnificate Dominum. Footnote 135 [115] Pręfati uero duo uel plures diaconi pre foribus basilicę stantes ex quorum manibus domnus pontifex ipsos pęnitentes suscipiens in ęcclesiam intro(ducit) uicissimFootnote 136 uersificent.
(Ut) aute(m) introducti fu(er)int et in loco designato ordinatim positi, tunc et ipse pontifex ingrediens prosternat se simul cum ipsis canens viiFootnote 137 pęnitentialesFootnote 138 [120] psalmos (uel plus minusue) agentibus predictisFootnote 139 duobus diaconibus lętanias: |Footnote 140 (Christe audi nos, Sancta Maria ora.
Qua peracta erigens se solum ępiscopus absoluatFootnote 141 eos) pontificali auctoritate sicque benedictione percepta missaque peracta, unusquisque redeat ad propria.
Mult[um]Footnote 142 enim utile ac necessarium est ut peccatorum reatus episcopali [125] supplicatione et absolutione soluatur. Mediator enim Dei et hominum Ihesus Christus prepositis sanctę Dei ęcclesię potestatem tradidit, ligandi uidelicet atque soluendi.Footnote 143
NOTES TO TEXT
Previous editions: B. Fehr edited the version of the rite in CCCC 190 (C) but not the sermon therein in Die Hirtenbriefe Ælfrics, Bibliothek der angelsächsischen Prosa, 9 (Hamburg, 1914), pp. 248–9 (Anhang III, §§45–7). D. Bethurum edited the Latin sermon and the translation of it in C in The Homilies of Wulfstan (Oxford, 1957), pp. 366–73.
The digital facsimile of C can be accessed on the Parker Library On the Web. M. Elliot’s transcription of the rite and sermon from this manuscript is available online (‘Wigorniensis O (Corpus 190)’, pp. 64–7). The digital facsimile of Cotton Nero A. i (N) is available on the British Library’s Digitised Manuscripts website, but that of Vitellius A. vii (V) is not currently available.
l. 10 (Venite). The incipit of the antiphon based on Ps. 33: 12 that will be repeated and amplified (ll. 17 and 24–5) until it is sung in full (l. 113) when the bishop welcomes the penitents back into the church.
ll. 33–108 (Vere … Amen). Bethurum (Homilies of Wulfstan, p. 346) identifies this sermon as ‘quite likely’ Wulfstan’s abridgement of a sermon by Abbo, ‘Sermo de cena Domini et de multis sacramentis eiusdem diei’ (Abbo von Saint-Germain-des-Près, ed. U. Önnerfors, pp. 123–32 (no. 13)).
ll. 32–41 (Vere … sum). Cf. Abbo, ed. Önnerfors, Sermon 13, p. 124, lines 7–21.
l. 39 (Faciamus … nostram). Cf. Gen. 1: 26.
l. 41 (Estote … sum). Cf. I Peter 1: 16.
ll. 42–92 (Ergo … absolutione). Cf. Abbo, ed. Önnerfors, Sermon 13, p. 124, line 22–p. 128, line 12.
l. 43 (in Paradysum … illum). Cf. Gen. 2: 15.
l. 48 (In sudore … tuo). Cf. Gen. 3: 19.
l. 59 (Ecce … Domini). Cf. Jer. 1: 10.
ll. 76–7 (Non occides … dices). Cf. Ex. 20: 13–16, where the commands ‘non adulterabis’ and ‘non periurabis’ do not appear.
ll. 78–9 (diliges … te ipsum). Cf. Luke 10: 27.
l. 85 (In sudore … tui). Cf. Gen. 3: 19.
ll. 92–8 (Et propterea … uitę ęternę). Cf. Abbo, ed. Önnerfors, Sermon 13, p. 128, line 17–p. 129, line 2.
ll. 94–6 (Et debetis … commendatum). The scribe seems initially to have copied this sentence as it appears in C, p. 257, lines 17–19: ‘Et debetis hoc adtendere ut uos umquam non faciatis plus de pęnitentia nisi quantum uobis fuerit commendatum’ (‘And you ought to consider this, that you should never do more concerning penance except as much as has been commanded of you’). The sentence that follows, however, has the potential to cause confusion, advising as it does ‘sed de uestra uoluntate debetis plus facere, sicut faciebant sancti…’ (C, p. 257, lines 19–20: ‘but of your own will you should do more, just as the saints did…’). The distinction between completing penance assigned by one’s priest and undertaking penitential practices of one’s own accord remains latent, and the two sentences might appear to contradict each other. In V, the erasures of plus and nisi resolve the potential for confusion when the preacher counsels ‘that you should never do concerning penance just so much as has been commanded of you. But of your own will you should do more…’ (lines 95–6). The alteration restores the sense of the passage in the ultimate source: ‘Non debetis hoc adtendere, ut uos umquam non faciatis plus de penitencia nisi quantum uobis fuerit conmendatum. Sed de uestra uoluntate debetis plus facere, sicut faciebant sancti…’ (Abbo, ed. Önnerfors, Sermon 13, p. 128, lines 22–5: ‘You should not set your mind not ever to do more concerning penance except as much as has been commanded of you. But of your own will you should do more, as the saints did…’). Perhaps Wulfstan omitted the initial non from the sentence because he was familiar with the canons that prohibited penitents from doing more penance than a confessor required.
ll. 99–105 (Fratres … uobis). Cf. Abbo, ed. Önnerfors, Sermon 13, p. 129, lines 4–16.
ll. 106–8 (debetis … Amen). Cf. Abbo, ed. Önnerfors, Sermon 13, p. 132, lines 9–13.
l. 113 (Venite … uos). Cf. Ps. 33: 12. Neumes accompany the antiphon in C (p. 258) but not in V.
l. 114 (Benedicam Dominum. In Domino laudabitur. Magnificate Dominum.). These are the incipits of verses 2–4 of Ps. 33.
ll. 122–3 (Qua peracta … ad propria). In the Romano-German Pontifical, after saying a prayer of absolution over the penitents, the bishop sprinkles them with water, censes them, and commands them ‘Exsurge qui dormis, exsurge a mortuis et illuminabit te Christus’ (‘Rise up, you who are asleep, rise from the dead and Christ will give you light’) (Les Ordines Romani (see above, n. 59), ed. Andrieu, Ordo L, XXV, no. 58, p. 207). Leofric, who copies the Romano-German Reconciliation into V (see above, pp. 223–4), adds this instruction to his missal following the final prayer in a set of prayers for the reconciliation of penitents on Maundy Thursday (Leofric Missal (see above, n. 14), ed. Orchard, II, no. 769, pp. 163–4, at p. 164 (n. 3)). The addition may indicate that he considered the prayer sufficient for absolution and the set suitable for use with this rite (see above, pp. 222–6, esp. n. 65).
ll. 126–7 (ligandi … soluendi). See Mt. 16: 19.
APPENDIX C.1
The text of the Old English Reconciliation sermon is based on CCCC 190 (C), pp. 353–9. The alteration of i to y appears to be an Exeter characteristic (Clayton, ‘Promissio regis’ (see above, n. 21), p. 105).
SERMO IN CĘNA DOMINI AD PĘNITENTESFootnote 144
|Footnote 145 Vere, fratres karissimi, hoc debetis scire unde fuit inceptum hoc exemplum. Et reliqua.
Mine gebroðru ða leofestan, ge sculon to soðon ðis witan hwanon wære ongunnen ærest þeos bisne, þæt biscopas ut adrifon of cyrcan sinfulle men on þam Wodnesdæge þe we hatað caput ieiunii, þæt is ‘Lengtenes heafod’, and æfter gefilledre [5] wurðre dædbote on Þunresdæg ær Eastron, þæt is on ðisum dæge, eft underfengon into circan þa ylcan sinfullan. Soðlice þa ða ure Drihten, þe is ælmihtig God, gesceop þone forman man Adam, he gesceop hine ealne haligne and rihtwisne and undeadlicne. Seo halignis and rihtwisnis and seo undeadlicnis didon Adam habban Godes silfes anlicnysse and gelicnesse. And forðan cwæð God [10] ærðam he gesceope Adam, ‘“Uton wircan man to ure anlicnisse and gelicnisse”’; þæt is, uton wircan man haligne and rihtwisne and undeadlicne. And þas his anlicnisse us bebead Drihten to habbenne þa ða he cwæð on his godspelle, ‘Estote sancti, quia et ego sanctus sum’, þæt is, ‘“Beoð halige, forðon ic eom halig”’.
[15] Eornostlice for ðan þe God gesceop Adam swa godne and swa haligne, we rædað þæt he asende hine into neorxnawange to þam þæt he him ðæron tilian sceolde and his gyman.Footnote 146 Soþlice on ðam ilcan neorxnawange him forgeaf Drihten ealne wuldor. Ðær he geseah englas and wið hig spræce, and næfre he ne swulte gif he ne syngode.Footnote 147 Ðær he gehyrdeFootnote 148 Drihten sylfneFootnote 149 wið hine [20] spre|cendeFootnote 150 and him bebodende swilce gehyrsumnisseFootnote 151 þæt he næfre ne æte of ðam treowe ingehydesFootnote 152 godes and yfeles.Footnote 153 Ac þa on ðære ylcan tide þe Adam þis bræc and wið God singode, þa adraf hine Drihten, þe is Bisceop ealra bisceopa, of neorxnawange and him to cwæð, ‘“On swate ðines andwlitan þu scealt ðines hlafes brucan”’.
[25] Ac hwæt dide Adam siððan he wæs adræfed of neorxnawange? Gewislice he dide swyðeFootnote 154 lange dædbote geond syxFootnote 155 hundred geara fæc and þonne gytFootnote 156 mare. Æt nyhstanFootnote 157 æfter his forðsiþe he wæs asend on hellicne cweartern, þær he lange tydFootnote 158 heofode and besargode þæt he for his gilte forleas neorxnawang. And swa lange he wæs ðær besargiende and behreowsiende, oð þæt ure Drihten [30] Hælend Crist, se ðe is ealra bisceopa Bisceop, hine unband þurh his halgan ðrowunge and hine alysdeFootnote 159 of witum hellicra ðeostra and him eft ageaf neorxnawang.
Eornostlice, gebroþru mine þa leofestan, we bisceopas beoð ures Drihtenes Hælendes Cristes speliendas on þisum middanearde, and we beoð asende and [35] gehadode on his stede; and forðan us geaf Drihten æfter þam apostolum anweald manna sawla to bindenne and to unbindenne and bebead us þæt we þa godan men getimbrion and aræron on Godes huse, and þæt we þa synfullanFootnote 160 awyrtwalion and ut flymonFootnote 161 of circean, þæt is, of Godes huse. Soðlice þus cwæð Drihten þurh Hieremiam his witegan to ælcum bisceope, |Footnote 162 ‘“Efne, ic gesette þe [40] ofer þeoda and ofer ricu, þæt ðu awirtwalie and getimbrie and ut flime and arære on Godes huse”’.
Understandað, leofan men, mid godum wyllanFootnote 163 þæt þæt we eow willað secgan. Forðon sende God ælmihtig Adam into neorxnawange, þæt on ðam ylcan neorxnawange wurdon acennede ealle þa gecorenan and þæt hi ðonne wircan [45] sceoldon Godes wyllanFootnote 164 oð to þære fullan ylde and þanon faran to þam heofenlican eðle. And gewislice swa hig didon gyfFootnote 165 Adam ne agylte.
Mine gebroðru, þa ylcan bisneFootnote 166 ures Drihtenes Hælendes Cristes we biscopas habbað on circan, and þa synfullanFootnote 167 habbað Adames bisne.Footnote 168 Witodlice, swa swa Godes Sunu lædde Adam haligne and rihtwisne into neorxnawange, [50] swa eac we and oðre Godes sacerdas lædað men into cyrcan þe beoð gehalgode and gerihtwisode on ðam halgan fulluhte. Forhwan læde we þæge men on cyrcan þe ære wæron gewordene halige þurh fulluht buton forðam ylcan intingan þe Drihten lædde AdamFootnote 169 on neorxnawang, þæt is, þæt he him ðæron tylode, and þæt he gymdeFootnote 170 þæs neorxnawanges? Swa eac we sacerdas forðon [55] lædað gefullode men into circan þæt hig on ælcne tyman wircon on þære circan Godes wyllanFootnote 171 and þæt hygFootnote 172 gymonFootnote 173 þære cyrcan, þæt is heora cristendomes. God ælmihtig gesette Adame æ; þæge he sceolde healdan þurh gehyrsumnysse.Footnote 174 Hwilce æ, buton þæt he ne æte of ðam treowe ingehydesFootnote 175 godes |Footnote 176 and yfeles?Footnote 177 Swa eac God gesett eow ðurh us æ; þæge ge sculon [60] healdan on cyrcan. Hwilce æ gesett eow Drihten to healdenne þurh us, þæt is, þurh ure mynegunge? Witodlice, þas æ he gesett eow to healdenne on ðare he ðus cwæð, ‘“Ne ofsleh þu. Ne unrithhæme ðu. Ne stel ðu. Ne sege þu lease gewytnisse. Ne swera þu man. Lufa þinne Drihten God of ealre þinre heortan, and lufa ðinne nehstan swa swa ðe sylfne”’.Footnote 178
[65] Leofan men, þas bebodu ealle eow gesette Drihten þurh us, þæt ge hig healdon and wyrcon þurh gehyrsumnysse.Footnote 179 Ac hwæt dide Drihten be Adame forðon þe he ne heold þa gehyrsumnysse?Footnote 180 Gewislice, he adraf hine ut of neorxnawange wependeFootnote 181 and heofigende and swyðeFootnote 182 unrotsiende. Swa eac we biscopas adræfað eow ut of Godes circan forðon ðe ge ne healdaþ þa [70] gehyrsumnysseFootnote 183 Godes beboda, and we singað æfter eow þæt Drihten sang æfter Adame þa ða he adraf hine of neorxnawange. Þa he ðus cwæð,Footnote 184 ‘In sudore uultus tui uesceris pane tuo’, þæt is, ‘“On swate þines andwlitan þu scealt þines hlafes brucan”’.
Ac hwæt dide Adam siððan he wæs adræfed of neorxnawange? Gewislice, he [75] dide myceleFootnote 185 dædbote to þon þæt he wære wyrðeFootnote 186 þæt hine God eft onfengeFootnote 187 into neorxnawange — and ge ealswa þæs þe we truwiað didon dædbote on þyssumFootnote 188 lengtenfæstene þæt ge beon wyrðeFootnote 189 in to gangenne on cyrcan and gemænsumian |Footnote 190 Drihtenes lichaman and blode. And eow forði blyþeliceFootnote 191 eft underfehð eowre modor, þæt is, seo halige cyrce, betwyhFootnote 192 hire [80] bearnum þe sindon Godes bearn gewiscendlice, þæt is, betwyhFootnote 193 Godes gecorenum. Ðæt ge sculon, swaþeah, witan þæt swa swa se eadiga Ambrosius cwæð þæt nan bisceop ne mæg unbyndanFootnote 194 þa dædbetan buton heora behreowsung beo wyrðeFootnote 195 to unbindenne. And forðon we secgað eow ðis, þæt gyfFootnote 196 ge nabbað git swylceFootnote 197 behreowsunge gedon þe Gode lycie, þæt ge hig [85] eowres agenes wyllesFootnote 198 fuldon. And gyfFootnote 199 ge ne magon fæstan,Footnote 200 ge magon huru don ælmissan, seo alyseFootnote 201 eowre sawla of helle. Ðæt ge sculon eac understandan þæt ge næfre na mare ne don on eowre dædbote buton swa mycelFootnote 202 swa eow wæs beboden. Ac æfter þære dædbote, ge moton be eowrum agenum wyllanFootnote 203 mare don, swa swa didon þa halgan þe weredon hæran and [90] forhæfdon hig from flæsce and wine and fæston oð æfen for gewilnunge þæs ecean lifes.
Mine gebroðru,Footnote 204 efne nu is Adam eft underfangen on þam heofenlican neorxnawange for ðære myclanFootnote 205 and þære geswyncfullanFootnote 206 behreowsunge þe he dide, and for ðære ylcan behreowsunge he geearnode to onfonne geferræddene [95] mid Godes halgum and þam geleaffulum þe mid Cristes blode syndFootnote 207 alysede.Footnote 208 And ge, Gode þanc, nu todæg beoð eft underfangene on cyrcan swylceFootnote 209 into neorxnawange for eowre behreowsunge. And nu |Footnote 210 forðon þe ge on þyssumFootnote 211 dæge hider samod comon to onfonne eft þære halgan cyrcan geferræddene and eowra synna forgyfennysse,Footnote 212 and forði comon mid ealre [100] gewylnunge þæt ge magon onfon swa mycele blysseFootnote 213 on þissere Easterlican freolstyde and þæt ge magon gemænsumian of Drihtenes lichaman and blode, forþi ðonne ne sceal on eow belyfanFootnote 214 ænig heafod syn,Footnote 215 ac ge sculon biddan myd eadmodre bene God ælmyhtigne þæt he geunne eow þæt ge don moton swylceFootnote 216 behreowsunge and swylce dædbote þe GodeFootnote 217 licye and eow fremie [105] to þam ecan life. Ðæs eow geunne se mildheorta Drihten, þe leofað and rixað on ealra worulda woruld, Amen.
A SERMON AT THE LORD’S SUPPER TO THE PENITENTS
Vere, fratres karissimi, hoc debetis scire unde fuit inceptum hoc exemplum. Et reliqua.
My most beloved fellow-Christians, you in truth ought to know whence this example was first begun, by which bishops expel sinful people from the church on the Wednesday that we call caput ieiunii, which is ‘the beginning of Lent’, and after worthy [5] penance has been completed on the Thursday before Easter, which is today, receive again the same sinful men into the church. Truly, when our Lord, who is almighty God, created the first man Adam, he created him altogether holy and righteous and immortal. Holiness and righteousness and immortality Adam had in [10] the image and likeness of God himself. And thus God said before he created Adam, ‘“Let us make man in our image and likeness”’; that is, let us make man holy and righteous and immortal. And the Lord commanded us to bear his image when he said in his gospel, ‘Estote sancti, quia et ego sanctus sum’, that is, “‘Be holy, because I am holy’”.
[15] Consequently, because God created Adam so good and so holy, we read that he sent him into Paradise to work therein and take care of it. Indeed, in that same Paradise the Lord gave him every honour. There he saw angels and spoke with them, and he never would have died if he had not sinned. There he heard the Lord [20] himself speaking with him and commanding from him such obedience as never to eat from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. But at that same time when Adam violated this [command] and sinned against God, then the Lord, who is Bishop of all bishops, expelled him from Paradise and said to him, ‘“By the sweat of your face you must eat your bread”’.
[25] But what did Adam do after he was expelled from Paradise? Truly, he undertook an exceedingly long penance for a period of six hundred years and then more. At last, after his death he was sent into a hellish prison, where for a long time he mourned and lamented that he lost Paradise on account of his sin. And he was there for such a long time lamenting and repenting until our Lord [30] Jesus Christ, who is Bishop of all bishops, set him free by means of his holy Passion and released him from the torments of hellish darkness and gave Paradise back to him.
Accordingly, my most beloved fellow-Christians, we bishops are the representatives of our Lord Jesus Christ on this earth, and we are sent and are [35] consecrated in his stead; and thus the Lord after the apostles gave us power to bind and to loose people’s souls and commanded us to build up and raise up good people in God’s house and root out and banish the sinful from the church, that is, from God’s house. Indeed the Lord spoke thus through his prophet [40] Jeremiah to every bishop, ‘“Behold, I have set you over nations and kingdoms to eradicate and build up and drive out and establish in God’s house”’.
Understand, beloved people, with good will what we desire to tell you. Because God sent Adam into Paradise, all the chosen were to be born into the same [45] Paradise and should have worked God’s will until old age and then gone to the heavenly homeland. And certainly they would have done so if Adam had not sinned.
My fellow-Christians, we bishops in the church have the same example of our Lord Jesus Christ, and the sinful have the example of Adam. For just as the Son of [50] God led Adam holy and righteous into Paradise, so too we and other of God’s priests lead men into the church who are sanctified and made righteous through holy baptism. Why do we lead those men into church who hitherto were made holy beforehand on account of baptism unless for the same reason that the Lord led Adam into Paradise, that is, to work therein and take care of Paradise? [55] Likewise, we priests thus lead baptized men into the Church to work God’s will at every opportunity and to take care of the Church, which is their Christian faith. Almighty God established the law for Adam; he ought to have kept them in obedience. What law, except that he not eat from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil? Likewise, God established through us a law for you; you ought to [60] keep them in the Church. What law did the Lord establish for you to keep through us, that is, through our exhortation? Indeed, of that law he established for you to keep, he thus declared in it: ‘“Do not kill. Do not commit adultery. Do not steal. Do not utter false testimony. Do not swear a false oath. Love your Lord God with all your heart, and love your neighbour as yourself”’.
[65] Beloved people, the Lord established all these commandments for you through us, so that you might keep and carry them out in obedience. But what did the Lord do about Adam because he did not keep obedience? Truly, he drove him out of Paradise weeping and lamenting and grieving exceedingly. So too we bishops drive you out of God’s church because you have not maintained [70] obedience of God’s commands, and we chant after you what the Lord chanted after Adam when he drove him out of Paradise. At that time he spoke in this way: ‘In sudore uultus tui uesceris pane tuo’, that is, ‘“In the sweat of your face you will eat your bread”’.
But what did Adam do after he had been driven out of Paradise? Truly, he did [75] heavy penance until he was worthy for God to receive him again into Paradise – and likewise you, whom we trust did penance during this Lent to be worthy to enter into the church and partake of the Lord’s body and blood. And thus your Mother, that is, Holy Church, will gladly receive you again among her [80] children who are truly the children of God, that is, among God’s chosen. You ought to know, however, as the blessed Ambrose said, no bishop is able to loose penitents unless their repentance be worthy to be loosed. And thus we say to you that if you have not yet done such penance that is pleasing to God, you should [85] perform it of your own will. And if you are not able to fast, you at least are able to give alms, which will free your souls from hell. You must also understand that you are not ever to do more during your penance except as much as was commanded of you. But after that penance, you may do more according to your [90] own desire, as did the saints who put on hair shirts and refrained from meat and wine and fasted until evening on account of a desire for the everlasting life.
My fellow-Christians, even now Adam has been received again into the heavenly Paradise on account of that heavy and toilsome penance that he performed, and [95] for the same penance he merited to receive fellowship with God’s saints and the faithful who have been set free by the blood of Christ. And you, thanks be to God, at this time today will be received again into the Church as if into Paradise on account of your penance. And now because you have come here together on this day to receive again the fellowship of the Holy Church and the forgiveness of your [100] sins, and thus have come with every desire to be able to receive such great joy at this Easter festival and to be able to partake of the Lord’s body and blood, therefore then no deadly sin ought to remain in you, but you ought to ask God almighty with a humble prayer to allow you to be able to carry out such repentance and such [105] penitence as will be pleasing to God and will help you towards everlasting life. May the merciful Lord grant you that, he who lives and reigns forever, Amen.
NOTES TO TEXT
Previous edition: D. Bethurum edited the Old English sermon and the Latin version of it in CCCC 190 (C) in The Homilies of Wulfstan (Oxford, 1957), pp. 366–73.
The digital facsimile of C can be accessed on the Parker Library On the Web.
l. 1 (Vere … reliqua). ‘Truly, dearest brothers, you ought to know whence this example had its beginning, and the rest’. Cf. App. C, line 33.
l. 3–4 (on þam Wodnesdæge … ‘Lengtenes heafod’). Rather than simply referring to Ash Wednesday as caput ieiunii (see App. C, line 34), the translator explains the term for the audience. Similarly, he eschews Cęna Domini (App. C, line 35) for Þunresdæg ær Eastron (‘Thursday before Easter’) in line 5.
ll. 10–11 (Uton … gelicnisse). By including the phrase anlicnisse and gelicnesse (‘image and likeness’), the translator’s quotation more closely resembles Gen. 1: 26, in which God makes man in his imaginem et similtudinem, than the Latin sermon, which mentions only similtudinem (cf. App. C, line 39).
ll. 13–14 (Estote … halig) Cf. 1 Peter 1: 16, and App. C, line 41.
l. 22 (þis bræc … singode). The Latin sermon says only that Adam peccauit (‘sinned’) (App. C, line 47).
ll. 23–4 (On swate … brucan). Cf. Gen. 3: 19, and App. C, line 48.
ll. 39–41 (Efne … huse). Cf. Jer. 1: 10, and App. C, lines 59–61.
ll. 61–3 (Witodlice … man). The introductory clause Witodlice … cwæð has no parallel in the Latin sermon (cf. App. C, line 76). For the commandments, cf. Ex. 20: 13–16. Ne unrihthæme ðu (line 62) translates only the first of a pair of commands in the Latin sermon forbidding adultery and fornication (App. C, line 77: ‘non męcharis, non adulterabis’), omitting non adulterabis as the command not found in Ex. 20: 14. The translator does render the extra-biblical non periurabis (App. C, line 78: ‘do not swear falsely’) as Ne swera þu man (line 63).
ll. 63–4 (Lufa … sylfne). Cf. Luke 10: 27, and App. C, lines 78–9.
ll. 71–3 (In sudore … brucan). Cf. Gen. 3: 9, and App. C, line 85.
l. 76 (we truwiað). This interjection, which has no parallel in the Latin sermon, adds a pastoral touch (cf. App. C, lines 87–8).
l. 77 (beon wyrðe). There is no parallel phrase in the Latin sermon (cf. App. C, lines 88–9), though Adam is said to have completed a dignam pęnitentiam (‘worthy penance’) to be made dignus (‘worthy’) (lines 86–7). Ellipsis might explain the absence of dignam to characterize the penance and state of the penitents who have returned on Maundy Thursday, and if so, the translator attentively makes those in his audience wyrðe (‘worthy’) as Adam was (cf. line 75). MS N, however, preserves a reading wherein the penitents, like Adam, have done a dignam pęnitentiam to be made digni (App. C., lemmas for line 88), but I have found no other evidence to suggest that the translator might have used a copy of the sermon other than that in C. See the note on App. B.I, line 52.
ll. 81–9 (Ðæt ge … þa halgan). The translator apparently detects the potential for confusion created by a pair of sentences in C (p. 257, lines 17–20). There the preacher instructs the penitents: ‘Et debetis hoc adtendere ut uos umquam non faciatis plus de pęnitentia nisi quantum uobis fuerit commendatum. Sed de uestra uoluntate debetis plus facere, sicut faciebant sancti…’ (‘And you ought to consider this: that you should never do more concerning penance except as much as has been commanded of you. But of your own will you should do more, just as the saints did…’). As noted above (App. C, note on lines 94–6), the sentences might appear to contradict each other. To clarify the preacher’s instructions to penitents, the translator translates debetis, which connotes obligation in both sentences, with two different verbs: sculon (from sceal, ‘must, ought’) in the first sentence (line 86) and moton (from motan, ‘may, be allowed to’) in the second (line 88). He also adds the phrase æfter þære dædbote (line 88) to his translation of the second sentence to make clear that voluntary penance is to occur ‘after that penance’ and is thus distinctive from assigned penance. It is also possible that the translator has altered the sentences because he is aware of the possibility that some people may have been assigned serial penances and thus cannot complete their penance in a single Lent. If so, his alteration would be in response to the historical conditions of post-Conquest Exeter where some combatants who fought in the conflicts there would require multiple years to satisfy their penances (see above, pp. 237–8). Also as noted above, the potential for confusion has been averted in V where the erasure of plus and nisi in the sentences quoted above clarifies that one should always do more penance than that assigned by one’s priest. In light of these changes, it seems that the Old English translator worked from the version of the sermon in C or a copy like it.
l. 105 (Ðæs … Drihten). This portion of the closing formula has no parallel in the Latin sermon (cf. App. C, line 107).
