SPECULUM 58,3 (1983)

to Bede
The Penitentials
Attributed
By Allen J. Frantzen
or handbooksof
Scholars have long recognizedthe value of penitentials,
and socialhistory
oftheMiddleAges.
penance,as sourcesfortheintellectual
Listsof sinslikelyto be confessed,followedbypenancesgradedaccordingto
thepenitentials
theseverity
of theoffenses,
wouldseemto be richlyinformativeof medievalmorality.
But theyare evidencethatmustbe used withcare.
Especiallyforthe earlymedievalperiod,the textsare availableonlyin old
editionswhichdo not offerreliableguides to dating,provenance,authoranalysisis impossible.1
ship,or othercriteriawithoutwhichvalidhistorical
to the VenerableBede
attributed
This essaystudiesvariouspenitentials
of theearly
Englishchurchman
(d. 735). Anytraditionlinkingtheforemost
of studyin itsownright.But
Anglo-Saxonperiodto a specifictextis worthy
forimportant
thepenitentials
attributed
to Bede claimour attention
reasons
thatare not relatedto thequestionof authorship.The historical
contextof
the Englishpenitentials
has not been carefullydefined.We do not know
of earlyEnglishto earlierIrishpenitentials,
enoughabout the relationship
traditions
of handbooksattributed
to Bede and his
or aboutthemanuscript
(d. 690) and Egbertof York
near contemporaries,
Theodore of Canterbury
thedevelopment
of privatepenance
illuminate
(d. 766). These traditions-will
on the continent,
wherenearlyall the manuscripts
of supposedlyEnglish
penitentials
have survived.Indeed,thebestargumentforclosetextualanalis our need forgreatergeographicalas
ysisof all earlymedievalpenitentials
wellas chronological
theirhistorical
significance.2
precisionwhendiscussing
I For a general introductionto penance and penitentials,scholars have until recentlyhad to
relyon informativebut outdated studies,in particularJohn T. McNeill and Helena M. Gamer,
Medieval Handbooksof Penance (New York, 1938; repr. 1965); Thomas P. Oakley, English
PenitentialDisciplineand Anglo-SaxonLaw in TheirJointInfluence(New York, 1923; repr. 1969),
and "The Penitentialsas Sources for Mediaeval History,"Speculum15 (1940), 210-23. There is a
guide to primarysources by Cyrille Vogel, Les "Libripaenitentiales,"
Typologie des Sources du
Moyen Age Occidental 27 (Turnhout, 1978), with bibliography and classificationof texts
corrected and revised by Allen J. Frantzen in a forthcomingfascicle of this series. See also
Raymund Kottje, "Bussbiucher,"Lexikon des Mittelalters,2 (1982), 1118-22, and Allen J.
Frantzen,The Literatureof Penance in Anglo-SaxonEngland (New Brunswick,N.J., 1983); "The
Significanceof the FrankishPenitentials,"TheJournalofEcclesiastical
History30 (1979), 409-21;
and "The Tradition of Penitentialsin Anglo-Saxon England," Anglo-SaxonEngland 11 (1982),
23-56. Material analyzed in the presentessay is sketchedbrieflyin The Literature
ofPenance,pp.
69-77 and 107-10.
Readers should note that solecisms in the various Latin sources cited in this articlehave riot
been emended.
2 A recentstudyoutliningprimaryevidence is RaymundJ. Kottje,Die Bussbiicher
Halitgarsvon
Cambraiund desHrabanusMaurus, Beitrage zur Geschichteund Quellenkunde des Mittelalters8

573
on Sat, 16 May 2015 01:56:01 UTC

574

Penitentials
Attributed
toBede

The question of Bede's authorship of a penitential,according to M. L. W.

Laistner,had already been "oftendisputed" before he published his viewson
the matterin 1938.3 But relativelyfew discussionsof the topic had appeared
in the centurybefore Laistner wrote,and even fewer have been published
since. No edition of a penitentialattributedto Bede has appeared in over
eighty years, although a search for new manuscripts is now under way.4
Because the primaryevidence has not been reexamined, the debate about
Bede's authorship has never been resolved. Not one but several texts are
involved in thisquestion, including the penitentialattributedto Egbert,who
was Bede's pupil. Indeed, Egbert's penitential occurs in so many codices
which also contain some form of a penitentialattributedto Bede that the
historyof one handbook can scarcelybe understood withoutreferenceto the
historyof the other. Since the degree of theirinterdependencehas not been
analyzed, I propose to examine the manuscriptevidence linkingthe various
penitentialsattributedto Bede and the penitentialof Egbert,to compare the
texts,and to offer,as a prelude to a new edition,a provisionalreconstruction
of theirshared history.
Several penitentialsthought to have been writtenby Bede were known
when, in 1901, Dom Bruno Albers edited a texthe confidentlyclaimed to be
Bede's.5 His argumentsfor its authenticitywere accepted.withsome reservationsbyJohn T. McNeill and Helena M. Gamer, who translatedparts of this
text in MedievalHandbooksof Penance.6 In his reply to McNeil and Gamer,
Laistner referredonly to the text published by Albers, flatlydenying that
Bede was its author. Subsequent to Laistner's essay, opinion about Bede's
authorshipremainsdivided. Bernhard Poschmannrejectedthe idea thatBede

(Berlin, 1980), indispensable as a guide to the dating and provenance of manuscriptsdiscussed

in the present essay. New studies of penitentialand related canonical textsare Franz Kerff,Der
Quadripartitus:
Ein Handbuch der karolingischen
Kirchenreform,
Quellen und Forschungen zum
Recht im Mittelalter1 (Sigmaringen, 1982), and Gunther Hagele, Friihmittelalterliches
Kirchenrechtin Oberitalien:
Das PaenitentialeVallicellianum
Primum,Quellen und Forschungenzum Recht
im Mittelalter3 (forthcoming).Reinhold Haggenmuller and I are preparing new editionsof the
penitentialsattributedto Bede and the penitentialof Egbert.
3 M. L. W. Laistner, "Was Bede the Author of a Penitential?"The Intellectual
Heritageof the
Early MiddleAges, ed. Chester G. Starr (Ithaca, 1957), pp. 165-77 (originallypublished in The
HarvardTheologicalReview,1938). The 1957 textis cited here.
4 See Reinhold and Monica Haggenmiller, "Ein Fragmentdes PaenitentialePs.-Bedae in der
Ottobeurer HandschriftMs. 0. 28," Codicesmanuscripti
5 (1979), 77-79. Richard Clement has
recentlybrought to my attentiona copy of an ordoconfessionis
attributedto Bede in Chicago,
NewberryLibraryF2 (fol. 59r-v), late ninthcenturyand writtenin southern France, according
to Seymour De Ricci and W. J. Wilson, Censusof MedievalManuscriptsin the UnitedStatesand
Canada, 3 vols. (NpewYork, 1935-40), 2:542.
5 Bruno Albers, "Wann sind die Beda-Egbert'schen Bussbiucherverfasstworden, und wer ist
ihr Verfasser?"Archivfiur
katholisches
Kirchenrecht
81 (1901), 393-420.
6 McNeill and Gamer, Handbooks,
pp. 221-37; for their discussion of the question of Bede's
authorship,see pp. 217-21.

on Sat, 16 May 2015 01:56:01 UTC

Attributed
toBede
Penitentials

575

wrote a handbook,7as did Raymund Kottje,8while CyrilleVogel considered

the matterunsettled.9
Laistner's denial of Bede's authorship was based on the text of Albers's
edition ratherthan on the relationshipof that handbook to other handbooks
supposedly writtenby Bede. According to Laistner,the idiom of the Albers
text was atypical of Bede and its style was far inferiorto Bede's own (as
Charles Plummer and H. J. Schmitzhad observed).10Laistner also believed
that Albers's text had been writtenon the continent.1"For "decisive" proof
of continentalorigins, he showed that two passages in the Albers text derived from homilies of Caesarius of Arles which, Laistner maintained,were
unknown in eighth-centuryEngland. The penitentialquoting them must,
therefore,have been writtenelsewhere.12However, both passages appear in
the textwhichAlbers attributedto Bede only because theybelong to Egbert's
penitential,the entiretyof which was incorporated into the Albers text.13
They do not appear in handbooks attributedto Bede which do not include
Egbert's text, and as a result they cannot be used to argue for or against
Bede's authorship.
Further discussion of Bede's relationship to a handbook of penance is
pointless until we distinguishthe various texts which have been linked to
Bede and relate them to the penitentialof Egbert. The evidence is complex
and is best presented schematically.In order to illustratethe shared history
of these handbooks, it will be useful to outline their content and then
oftheSick,trans.and rev. Francis Courtney
7Bernhard Poschmann,Penanceand theAnointing
(New York, 1964; originallypublished 1951), pp. 125-26; see p. 126, n. 4.
8 Kottje,Bussbiicher,
pp. 111-31; throughouthis discussion,Kottje refersto the penitentialof
"pseudo-Bede." See pp. 121, n. 132, and p. 294 (index entries).See also his essay in the Lexikon
cols. 1119-20 (cited above, n. 1).
desMittelalters,
9 For Vogel's comments,see Libri, pp. 70-72; on p. 70 Vogel says that it is "not out of the
question that Bede was the author" of a penitential.He cites Paul Fournierand Gabriel Le Bras,
canoniquesen Occident(Paris, 1931-32), 1:88.
Histoiredescollections
Bedae operahistorica(1896; repr. Oxford, 1966), pp.
10See Charles Plummer,ed., Venerabilis
und die Bussdisziplinder Kirche(Mainz, 1883; repr.
clvii-viii; H. J. Schmitz,ed., Die Bussbiicher
Bussverfahren
(Dusseldorf, 1898;
und das kanonische
Graz, 1958), pp. 654-55, and Die Bussbiucher
repr. Graz, 1958), pp. 647-48. Hereafter the 1883 volume is noted as Schmitz 1, the 1898
volume as Schmitz2.
1" Laistner,"Was Bede," pp. 169-70. See Frantzen,"FrankishPenitentials,"pp. 415-16, for a
briefdiscussionof other factorswhich reduce the probabilitythatBede wrotea penitential.
12 Laistner, "Was Bede," prints parallels between the text of Albers and the homilies, pp.
173-74. For the passages in question, see Albers, p. 411 and pp. 405-6 (the homilies of
Caesarius, Sermons 13 and 179, are found in Corpus Christianorum103:67-68 and 104:72425, respectively).
der
13Egbert's penitential is edited by F. W. H. Wasserschleben, ed., Die Bussordnungen
Kirche(Halle, 1851; repr. Graz, 1958), pp. 231-47. His edition is reprintedby
abendldndischen
Arthur West Haddan and William Stubbs, ed., Councilsand EcclesiasticalDocumentsRelatingto
GreatBritainand Ireland, 3 vols. (Oxford, 1869-73; repr. 1964), 3:416-31. Schmitzedited the
text twice: 1:565-87, 2:660-74. The passages in question are Egbert 1 (list of the chief sins, p.
233 in Wasserschleben)and Egbert 8 (auguries, pp. 239-40 in Wasserschleben).

on Sat, 16 May 2015 01:56:01 UTC

576

Penitentials
Attributed
toBede

demonstratethe various ways in which the texts have been combined. The
firstof the two tables which follow lists the contentsof the earliest manuscript of Egbert's penitential and of the earliest manuscript containing a
penitentialattributedto Bede. The second table, compiled froma catalogue
of nearly fiftymanuscriptscontaining these and similar texts, divides the
penitentialtextswhichhave been assigned to Bede into fiveclasses.
The manuscripts in Table 1 do not necessarily represent the earliest
versionsof these texts.They do, however,show how the materialappeared
in the early ninthcentury,the firstpoint the manuscriptevidence will allow
as a beginningfor the process throughwhich the textswere combined. The
earliestmanuscriptof a penitentialattributedto Bede, fromthe firstthirdof
the ninth century(No. 15 in the list below), contains twelve chapters (this
codex also containsa copy of Egbert'spenitentialand other handbooks). The
earliest copy of Egbert's penitentialis a manuscriptof singular importance,
Vatican City, Biblioteca Apostolica Vaticana, Pal. Lat. 554, dated by Bernhard Bischoffs. viii/ix,possiblywrittenin England and brought to Lorsch,
or writtenat Lorsch.14The manuscriptwas originallya single quire (approximately5 x 8 inches) containingonly Egbert's penitential,in which form it
would have fitthe term"handbook" betterthan most survivingmanuscripts
of such documents. Most of the incipithas been cut away, but the whole
probablyonce read as many manuscriptsstilldo: "Excarpsum de canonibus
catholicorum patrum vel penitentiale ad remedium animarum domini eg15 Then follows a lengthy prologue
berti archiepiscopi eburacae civitatis."
(preserved in some manuscriptsseparately,withoutthe penitential,possibly
as a pastoral letter)16 and fifteenchapters,the last of which concerns methods of shorteningperiods of penance, a continentaladdition to the original
text.'7
14 Bernhard Bischoff,
LorschimSpiegelseinerHandschriften,
MiunchenerBeitrage zur Mediavistik und Renaissance-Forschung(Munich, 1974), pp. 112-13. See also E. A. Lowe, CodicesLatini
antiquiores,11 vols. and Supplement (Oxford, 1934-71), 1:28 (no. 95). Egbert's penitential
occupies fols. 5r-12v (fols. 1-4 were writtenat Lorsch s. ix"14; additional material on fols.
12v-13v is in ordinary minuscule, s. ix). This manuscriptwas used by Schmitz, 1:573-87, for
variantsto his edition. It was not known to Wasserschlebenor to Haddan and Stubbs.
15 Printedby Schmitz,1:573, fromVat. Pal. Lat. 554 and MS No. 11 in Table 2.
16 This does not seem to have been an early tradition. The oldest manuscript known is
Oxford, Bodleian Library,Bodley 572, s. ix'13,from northernFrance (the firstthree parts of
this manuscriptare tenth century;the fourthpart contains Egbert's prologue, fols. 88r-90r).
See Franz Bernd Asbach, Das PoenitentialeRemenseund der sogen. ExcarpsusCummeani(Regensburg, 1975), pp. 28-29. Other manuscriptsare Paris, Bibliotheque nationale, Lat. 10575, s.
x, fols. 3v-6r; and BN Lat. 943, s. xex/xi(from Sherborne?), fols. 147v-149r. On the lattertwo
manuscripts,see N. R. Ker, Catalogueof Manuscripts
ContainingAnglo-Saxon(Oxford, 1957), pp.
437-38 and 441-42.
17 Several manuscriptscontain two chapters concerning commutations(see Wasserschleben,
Bussordnungen,
p. 246). As Schmitz noted, the Council of Clovesho (747) complained that this
easing of penitentialstandards was a new custom (see 1:567, and for the text, Haddan and
Stubbs,Councils,pp. 371-72). Egbert's penitentialwould not, presumably,conflictwithcontemporaryauthoritiesabout so sensitivean issue.

on Sat, 16 May 2015 01:56:01 UTC

Attributed
toBede
Penitentials
TABLE

577

Egbert

Bede

Vat.Pal. Lat. 554,,fols.5r-12v

Vienna2223, fol.1 7r-v

(Thereis no listof thecapitulain thismanuis mostly

script;theincipit
cutaway,butone Incipit exscrapsum domini Bedani prescan read"dominiEgberti"at theverytop.)
byteri
Prologue: Institutioilla sancta
1. De diversiscanonum sententiis
2. De sancta constitutione
1. De capitalia
2. De minoribuspeccatis (4 canons)
3. De fornicatione(42 canons)
3. De parricidiisvel fratricidiis
4. De occisione (12 canons)
(1 canon)
5. De juramento (8 canons)
4. De cupiditateceterisqueflagitiis
6. De ebrietate(6 canons)
7. De carne inmunda (canons 1-6 con(17 canons)
5. De clericorumpenitentia(22 canons)
cern food; 7-11 concern Sunday)
8. De eucharistia (canons 1-4 concern
6. Dejuramento (7 canons)
7. De machina mulierum(10 canons)
the Host; 5-8 concern theft)
9. De qualitate hominum'8
8. De auguriis vel divinationibus
(4 canons)
10. De duodecim triduanas(8 canons)
9. De mirrutispeccatis vel penitentiae 11. De dando consilio
(13 canons)
12. De elimosynisdando
10. De furtu(5 canons)
11. De ebrietate(10 canons)
12. De eucharistia(7 canons)
13. De diversiscausis ( 11 canons)
14. Sicut apostolus dixit
15. Edidit Sanctus Bonifacius Archiepiscopus

The penitentialattributedto Bede in the Vienna codex representsone of

fivedifferentversionsof such a text.It is the longesttextof those thatdo not
incorporatewhole sectionsof Egbert'spenitential.The startingpoint for the
followingtable is not the earliest but rather the shortestpenitentialattributed to Bede, a version which contains just over half the material of the
Vienna text.The listof rrianuscripts
progressesfromthisshortversionto the
longest and most complex. Classificationis determined by the number and
lengthof individual chaptersof the penitentialattributedto Bede and by the
relationship in each manuscript between the text attributedto Bede and
Egbert'spenitential.

18 At one time the text ended with the ninth chapter, as Wasserschleben notes (Bussordnungen,p. 229). The remaining chapters concern commutations.Entitled"Inquisitio sancti
Hieronimi presbyteride penitentia,"these three chaptersare found in manuscriptsearlier than
any containinga handbook attributedto Bede; oftentheyare not part of a penitentialat all. See
pp. 73-76 and p. 210. The earliest of these manuscriptsappears to
Asbach, Das Poenitentiale,
be Copenhagen, Kongelige Bibliothek, Ny Kgl. S.58.8?, s.viiii"(see Asbach, Das Poenitentiale,
pp. 23-24), more than a full centurybefore the earliest manuscriptscontaining a handbook
attributedto Bede.

on Sat, 16 May 2015 01:56:01 UTC

578

toBede
Attributed
Penitentials
TABLE 2

Manuscripts Containing Penitentials Attributed to Bede

The list correlates the five classes of texts with previous editions; it contains the
followingdata:
Manuscriptnumber (1-20) and siglum(whichwillbe used in reeditingthe text).
Date and provenance (withbibliographicalinformation).
Content: Wasserschleben's edition (based on the Vienna manuscript; Buspp. 220-30) has been followed for the chapter and canon numbers
sordnungen,
of the text attributedto Bede; 5.1-3 designates chapter 5, canons 1-3, of this
edition. Where Egbert's penitential appears in the manuscripts,as edited by
Wasserschleben, pp. 331-46, the text is indicated (EP = Egbert's Prologue).
There are two versions of Bede chapter 3. Wasserschleben's edition has 42
canons, but in most manuscripts3.9, 16, and 26 are missing. In manuscripts
missing these canons, chapter 3 is designated 3-; in those containing these
canons, thischapter is designated 3.
Editions using thismanuscript.
CLASS 1
1. Munich, Bayerische Staatsbibliothek,Clm 6311 (M6). S. ix1, but probably later
ninth centurywhere the Bedan text begins; from northeast France. See Bernhard
1: Die
in derKarolingerzeit,
und Bibliotheken
Schreibschulen
Bischoff,Die siudostdeutschen
Diozesen,3rd ed. (Wiesbaden, 1974), pp. 143-45.
bayrischen
Contents:Attributedto Bede: 1, 3-, 4, 5.1-3, 7.1-6 (fols. 107r-108v). Attributedto
Egbert: EP, 1- 15 (fols. 108v- I llv).
Editions:Known to Schmitz(2:645) and Wasserschleben(p. 220), but not used in their
editions.
2. "Andage." A lost manuscriptbelieved to have once been at St. Hubert's monastery
and
in the Ardennes, at Andage; "ante annos 800 exarato," according to E. MartZene
dogmaticorum,
historicorum,
U. Durand, eds., Veterumscriptorumet monumentorum
moralium(Paris, 1724; repr. New York, 1968), 7:37-40.
Contents:Not attributed.Bede 1, 3-, 4, 5.1-3, 7.1-6; Egbert EP, 1-15.
Editions:The edition of Martene and Durand supplied variantsfor Wasserschleben
(pp. 220-30) and Schmitz(2:654-59).
CLASS 2
The textin thisclass has been given many differenttitles.Wasserschlebencalled it
pp. 247-48); it was known to
the "Liber de remediis peccatorum" (Bussordnungen,
Oakley as "Pseudo-Bede 1" (PenitentialDiscipline,pp. 125-29); Albers edited a
version of the text and considered it to be genuine, and McNeill and Gamer
translated part of his edition (see n. 6 above). There are also several older editions.'9The key featuresof the class are thatEgbert'sprologue is interpolatedafter
Bede 1, and the remainder of Egbert's penitentialis joined to the Bedan text of
Class 1.
19 Henry Spelman, ed., Concilia, decreta,leges,constitutiones,
in re ecclesiarumorbisBritannici
(1639), 1:281-88; see p. 288 for Spelman's belief that the text was not writtenby Bede. J. D.
collectio(Florence, 1759-98), 12:489-98. J.-P.
nova et amplissima
Mansi, ed., Sacrorumconciliorum
Migne, ed., PL 89:443-54 (the text is attributedto Egbert), and PL 94:567-76 (attributedto
Bede).

on Sat, 16 May 2015 01:56:01 UTC

toBede
Attributed
Penitentials

579

3. Paris, BibliothZequeNationale, Lat. 2341 (A16). S. ix2/4;from Orleans or vicinity.

pp. 50-51; the manuscriptis imperfectat fol. 234.
See Kottje,Bussbiicher,
Contents:Attributedto Bede. Bede 1, EP, 3-, 4, 5.1-3, 7.1-6, followedimmediatelyby
Egbert 1-9 +?
4. St. Gall, Stiftsbibliothek682 (Sg12). S. ix2/4; Germany. See Raymund Kottje,
"KirchenrechtlicheInteressen im Bodenseeraum vom 9. bis 12. Jahrhundert,"Kired. Raymund Kottje and J. Autenrieth,Vortrdge
Texteim Bodenseegebiet,
chenrechtliche
undForschungen18 (1975), 34.
Contents:Attributedto Bede. Bede 1, EP, 3-, 4, 5.1-3, 7.1-6 (pp. 334-57), followed
immediatelyby Egbert 1-15 (pp. 359-93).
Editions: Contents listed by Wasserschleben, pp. 247-48; the manuscript is also
referredto by Haddan and Stubbs,Councils,p. 326, but mistakenlyas a versionof the
Bedan textoutlined in Class 5 below.
5. Karlsruhe, Badische Landesbibliothek,Aug. CCLV (Ka2). S. ix'; Reichenau. See
p. 121, n. 135.
Kottje,Bussbuicher,
Contents:Attributedto Bede. Bede 1, EP, 3-, 4, 5.1-3, 7.1-6 (fols. 95v-99v), followed
immediatelyby Egbert 1-15 (fols. lOOr-106v).
6. London, BritishLibrary,Royal 5 E.xiii (L14). S. x; Brittany,in England s. x. See
in theOld Royal and
G. F. Warren and J. P. Gilson, Catalogueof WesternManuscripts
Kings Collection,4 vols. (London, 1916), 1:116; and Bernhard Bischoff, "WenSacris
depunkte in der Geschichte der lateinischen Exegese im Fruihmittelalter,"
Erudiri6 (1954), 222, n. 4.
Contents:Not attributedto Bede. Bede 1, EP, 3-, 4, 5.1-3, 7.1-6 (fols. 69r-73r),
followedimmediatelyby Egbert 1-15 (fols. 73r-79r).
7. Vatican City,Biblioteca Apostolica Vaticana, Barb. Lat. 477 (VI). S. xi"n;southern
p. 122, n. 136.
France. See Kottje,Bussbuicher,
Contents:Attributedto Bede. Bede 1, EP, 3-, 4, 5.1-3, 7.1-6 (fols. 60r-65r), followed
immediatelyby Egbert 1-15 (fols. 65r-72v).
Editions:Edited by Albers (see n. 5), as Vatican City,Biblioteca Apostolica Vaticana,
BarberinusXI, 120.
8. Vesoul, BibliothZequede la Ville 73 (Vs 1). S. x/xi, formerlyat Favernay and
pp. 35-36 and
possibly from the vicinityof Luxeuil. See Asbach, Das Poenitentiale,
p. 45.
Contents:Attributedto Bede. Bede 1, EP, 3-, 4, 5.1-3, 7.1-6 (fols. 29v-34v), followed
by Egbert 1-15 (fols. 34v-42v).
9. Paris, BibliothZequeNationale, Lat. 2998 (P20). S. x/xi; Moissac. See Kottje,
Bussbiicher,p. 52 (Kottje's description of the manuscript is not entirelycorrect,
however).20

(fols. 66r-69v); followed by a list of

Contents:EP (fols. 64r-66r); ordo confessionis
chapter headings, "Incipit penitentialeBede presbiter,"Bede 1, 3-, 4,
twenty-three
5.1-3, 7.1-6 (fols. 71r-74v), and Egbert 1-15. Clearly this is a deviant member of
Class 2, but it contains the key featuresof the class: the Bedan materialof Class 1,
and the separation of Egbert's prologue from his penitential(although not interpolated after Bede 1). This version could be placed in Class 1, although there Egbert's
20
Kottje says that Egbert's penitentialis on fols. 64r-70r, and a Bedan texton fols. 70v-85r
p. 52). In fact,Egbert's prologue is on fols. 64r-66r, and is followedby an ordo
(see Bussbiicher,
Twenty-threechapter headings followon fol. 70v, and then follows"Incipit penitenconfessionis.
tiale Bede presbiter."

on Sat, 16 May 2015 01:56:01 UTC

580

toBede
Attributed
Penitentials

prologue is joined to his penitential. The division into twenty-threechapters is

apparentlyunique.
10. Verona, Biblioteca Capitolare, LXIII (Vel). S. xmed-2; Verona? See Kottje,
Bussbiicher,
pp. 76-77.
Contents:Attributedto Bede. Bede 1, EP, 3-, 4, 5.1-8, 6, 7.1-1I (fols. 92v-96v). This
manuscriptis also a deviant member of Class 2: it is the only member of the class to
contain Egbert's prologue but not his penitential,and it contains additional material
(5.4-8, 6, 7.7-11) not found in other members of the class. What follows 7.11 is
materialabout Sunday observance, which is the subject of 7.7-11. At the bottomof
fol. 96v one can read "De capitalia," a heading which in many manuscriptsprecedes
the firstchapter of Egbert's penitential. The manuscript may be defective at this
point since Egbert'spenitentialdoes not follow.2'
CLASS 3
11. Munich, Bayerische Staatsbibliothek,Clm 12673 (M12). S. x; Ranshofen. See
pp. 40-4 1.
Kottje,Bussbiicher,
Contents:Attributedto Bede. Bede 1, 3, 4, 5.1-8, 6, 7.1-11 (fols. 2r-6r), followedby
Egbert EP, 1-15 (fols. 6r-16r).
Editions: This manuscript supplied variants for Wasserschleben (pp. 220-30) and
Schmitz(2:654-64), and was edited by Schmitz(1:556-62).
12. Vienna, OsterreichischeNationalbibliothek,2171 (W6). S. iX314; southwestGerp. 121, n. 133.
many.See Kottje,Bussbiicher,
Contents:Not attributedto Bede. Bede 1, 3-, 4, 5.1-8, 6, 7.1-11 (fols. 46ra-47ra),
is interpolated
followed by Egbert EP, 1-15 (fols. 47rb-5lrb). An ordo confessionis
betweenEgbert 5 (fol. 48va) and 6 (fol. 49va).
13. Vatican City, Biblioteca Apostolica Vaticana, Pal. Lat. 485 (V5). S. ixmed-3/4;
Lorsch. See Bischoff,Lorsch,pp. 44-46, 112-13.
Contents:Not attributedto Bede. Bede 1, 3-, 4, 5.1-8, 6, 7.1-11 (fols. 96v-98v). The
manuscriptalso contains Egbert EP, 1-15 (fols. 73r-80v). There is another penitential,composed partlyof materialfromEgbert'stextand containingsome chaptersof
the Bedan handbook but corresponding to none of the classes outlined here (fols.
98v-10 lr).22
14. Vatican City,BibliotecaApostolica Vaticana, Pal. Lat. 294 (V4). S. x/xi;uncertain
provenance. See McNeill and Gamer,Handbooks,p. 449.
Contents:Not attributedto Bede. Bede 1, 3-, 4, 5.1-8, 6, 7.1-11 (fols. 87v-90r),
precededimmediatelyby Egbert EP, 1-15 (fols. 83r-87v).
Editions: Edited by Schmitz (1:556-64 and, for variants, 2:654-65); also used for
variantsby Albers. The manuscriptcontains a second version of Egbert's penitential
(fols. 90r-92v).

21 Where Egbert'sprologue appears in the Verona manuscript,fol. 93r, the incipitis writtenin
large capitals,suggestingthatat one timethe materialwhichfollowed(EP) was the beginningof
a new handbook.
22 The arrangementof the materialis as follows:after7.11 stands "ITEM Institutioilla sancta
. . . ," and the textwhich followsis a versionof the second chapter of the Bedan textprintedby
p. 221. A collectionof canons follows,includingEgbert 5, 7, 12,
Wasserschleben,Bussordnungen,
and 13 (among others; fols. 98v-lOlr); a similarcollectionappears in No. 14, fols. 90r-92v.

on Sat, 16 May 2015 01:56:01 UTC

Penitentials
Attributed
toBede

581

CLASS 4
This is theversionaccepted,withsomereservation,
as genuinebymosteditors;see
Oakley,Penitential
Discipline,
pp. 117-20; Haddan and Stubbs,Councils,
p. 326 (who
notethatthisis the"onlyworkof thekindappearingunderthenameof Bede of
whichtheauthenticity
can be maintainedwithanyprobability");
and Wasserschleben,Bussordnungen,
p. 220.
15. Vienna, OsterreichischeNationalbibliothek,2223 (W9). S. ix'13;from the Main

region. See Bernhard Bischoffand Josef Hofmann,Libri SanctiKyliani:Die

Wuirzburger
Schreibschule
unddieDombibliothek
imVIII. undIX.Jahrhundert
(Wuirzburg,
1952),p. 52.
Contents:
to Bede. Bede 1, 2, 3, 4, 5.1-8, 6, 7.1-11, 8-12 (fols.17r-21r);
Attributed
EgbertEP, 1-15 (fols.77r-87v).
Editions:Edited by Wasserschleben
(pp. 220-30), reprintedfromhis editionby
Haddanand Stubbs,pp. 326-34,and (from7.11 onwards)bySchmitz(1:556-64).
16. Zurich,Zentralbibliothek,
CarsonsC.176 (Z2). S. ixmed-3l4; easternFrance(Alsace?).See Kottje,Bussbiicher,
pp. 82-83.
Contents:
to Bede. Bede 1, 3, 4, 5.1-8, 6, 7.1-11, 8, 9 (fols.94r-100v;
Attributed
10-12appearbefore1-9 on fol.93r).
17. Montpellier,
de l'Ecolede Medecine,387 (Mp2). S. ix accordingto
BibliothZeque
Schmitz(1:553); s. ix/xaccordingto McNeilland Gamer,Handbooks,
p. 446.
Contents:
Attributed
to Bede. Bede 1, 3, 4, 5.1-8, 6, 7.1-11, 8, 9 (fols.28v-36r);
containsEgbert15 only(fol.39v).
CLASS 5
The textin thisclasswas knownto Wasserschleben
as "Pseudo-Bede"(see Bussordnungen,
p. 248); Schmitzcalled it the "Doppel-Poenitentiale"
(2:673); it was
knownto Oakleyas "Pseudo-Bede2" (Penitential
Discipline,
pp. 129-31), and to
Haddan and Stubbsas the"Liberde remediispeccatorum"
(Councils,
p. 326),a title
whichVogel applied to textsin Class 2 as wellas Class 5 of the presentscheme
(Libri,p. 71, number3). For a completelistof manuscripts
of thisversion,see
Kottje,Bussbuicher,
p. 113.
18. Munich,BayerischeStaatsbibliothek,
Clm 3853 (M3). S. x2; provenanceuncertain.See Kottje,Bussbiicher,
pp. 38-39.
Attributed
to Bede. The textis dividedinto51 canons,fols.15r-41r.
Contents:
Editions:Editedby Schmitz(2:679-700) and by Wasserschleben
(pp. 248-82), from
an earliereditionby F. Kunstmann,
Die lateinische
Poenitentialbiicher
derAngelsachsen
mitgeschichtlichen
Einleitung
(Mainz,1844),pp. 142-75.
19. Cologne,Dombibliothek
118 (K3). S. ixex;Rheimsor itsvicinity.
For datingand
provenance,
see Kottje,Bussbuicher,
p. 29.
Contents:
Notattributed
to Bede. Dividedinto47 chapters,
pp. 135-55,95-99.
Editions:
ProvidedvariantsfortheeditionscitedforNo. 18.
Clm 3851 (M1). S. ixex,after882; eastern
20. Munich,BayerischeStaatsbibliothek,
France.See Kottje,Bussbuicher,
pp. 36-38.
Notattributed
Contents:
to Bede; dividedinto47 chapters,
fols.37v-52v.
Editions:
SuppliedvariantsfortheeditionscitedforNo. 18 above.
The chart on pp. 582-83 illustratesthe informationgiven in Table 2.
(Class 5 does not correspond closelyenough to the othersto fiteasilyinto the

on Sat, 16 May 2015 01:56:01 UTC

Q
N
K
4
141

c4cr

t->

I~~~~~~~~I

>
:-

1ci

|-

"
rC.OS C
Z:1~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~c
Y
11
C.
C_
O~~~

"0

oc

r-

~~~ ooCo
~~~~~Co
CIl

t,

XC

__

Cr)

4-

to<

;0

,-

X,

00.
00
C

4-J

ct

c~~~

~~~~~~~~~~~~'

CO

c t'

mo

4-J0

4-,)

0QCo

>

C>

tZ-

0t

-0

<CC

(C

Co

0>

0)

>

;: 4 . _

Co
inC

co

X~~X
.

>

>;

(.

"

C,)~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~'

Co

co

Co

(C

co

in
_I
(C

Co

S
S

>

Cooo

C's

s-

(0)
;

00M

~~ ~ ~ ~

~~~~~~~~s.~~~~ s.~~~~~C'

(C
0
~~~~~~~
~~~C'sCo ~~~
) (C
~~~~~~~~
- ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~0I
,'

CZ

on Sat, 16 May 2015 01:56:01 UTC

s.)

Cos
0)

- 1

o~

Q
s

oc
C)
cov N

co

C0

0-

-lllW
-

-- $-

* $-

--

CIZ~~~~~
CS

$-

I7z

CS

>>c

$_

00

$--

CS

CQ-

C
e

OCQCS

CS

I7z

;o

>

$- | lc

$>

CS

CS

$>
C
oc

;>

CS
-_

CS
C

CC
oc
C

Cz

Qz

;>

$-

$-

(>

O~

CC
o

$-t^

dz

CC

$^
-

$-

oc
CS

dzo
Co

oc

-_

CO

I>
C

00
c
0
o
CC~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~-

>

CS

Iz

(t

-e

.O

>~~~

~~n

t_~~
>_

>

> -d t_

0C

t_

CS

00

:.

e.
0_0
__t

$-

U dz NN_
U

~ ~ ~

_~

CSC

;>s

>;

.>

Cz C

Qz

CS

I7b

I7s

(^

___

CCeCDC

on Sat, 16 May 2015 01:56:01 UTC

584

toBede
Attributed
Penitentials

summary.)Where the lettersB or E precede a folio or page number, Bede

or Egbertis named in the manuscriptas the author of the textwhichfollows.
The abbreviation EP designates Egbert's Prologue where it is interpolated
after Bede 1. The page numbers given for MS No. 2 are taken from the
editionof Martene and Durand cited above.
In order to understand the development of the materials outlined in
Table 2, it is necessary to summarize what is known about the origin and
provenance of Egbert's penitential. Most of this handbook's sources are
insular (chieflythe handbooks of Theodore and Cummean), but even in its
earliest manuscriptthe text shows signs of continentalinfluence.23In addition to the passages which Laistnertraced to Caesarius, continentalinfluence
appears in the chaptersabout superstition(7, 8) and in a listof books needed
by the priest.24There is reason to believe that superstitionand magic preoccupied early English bishops less extensivelythan they did cr,ntinentalauthorities.25But Theodore's penitential makes several references to such
practices,although not so manyas Egbert's,and other evidence (as we would
expect) shows that the English church condemned superstitiouspractices.26
It should be noted that Egbert's penitentialprohibitsdivination(the "sortes
sanctorum") in language which closely parallels that of Caesarius; several
early continentalpenitentialsalso condemn the practice,27as does an early
Irish collectionof canons,28but neither resembles Egbert's language. These
referencesto superstitiondo not, in themselves,constitutesufficientground
forarguing thatEgbert'spenitentialmustbe of continentalorigin.
The presence of the book list in this text is more persuasive evidence of
23
Both Wasserschlebenand Schmitzindicated parallels between Egbert'stextand penitentials
which may be its sources. These guides are stillgenerallyreliable. However, neithereditor knew
of the genuine penitentialof Cummean, and their referencesto Cummean must be correlated
ScriptoresLatini Hiberniae 5
withthe textpublished by Ludwig Bieler, ed., TheIrishPenitentials,
(Dublin, 1963), pp. 108-35. The best edition of Theodore's penitential(and best discussion of
und ihre
its manuscripttradition)is P. W. Finsterwalder,ed., Die CanonesTheodoriCantuariensis
(Weimar, 1929).
Uberlieferungsformen
24 Laistner, "Was Bede," pp. 175-77. The list of books is from Egbert's Prologue (Wasp. 232); forEgbert 7 and 8 see Wasserschleben,pp. 238-40.
serschleben,Bussordnungen,
in theMiddle Ages (Ithaca, 1972), pp. 63-73, for a
Burton Russell, Witchcraft
25 See Jeffrey
summaryof continentalevidence. All penitentialshe cites in the notes (pp. 306-7) are, withthe
exception of those attributedto Bede and Egbert, continental. For English sources, which
suggest that women were condemned for practicingmagic only after continentalprohibitions
had been absorbed in the tenth century,see Jane Crawford, "Evidences for Witchcraftin
Anglo-Saxon England," Medium iEvum 32 (1963), 99-116. Both she and Russell find the
strongerin England afterratherthan before Alfred(d. 899).
penalties forwitchcraft
26 Theodore's penitentialcontains a chapter about the worship of idols (Book 1, chapter 15);
two canons are aimed at women in particular,and one of them specificallyprohibitsdivinations
and auguries. See Finsterwalder,Canones,pp. 310-11 (15.2, 4).
p. 239) and canons
27 Wasserschlebennoted the parallel between Egbert 8.1 (Bussordnungen,
(p. 394 in his edition); he also noted the parallel between
Merseburgense
26-27 of the Poenitentiale
this anonymous handbook and four other anonymous continentalpenitentials(p. 438). These
fivesources agree witheach other against Egbert'stext.
2nd ed. (Leipzig, 1885), p.
28 Herrmann Wasserschleben,ed., Die irische
Kanonensammlung,
230 ("De auguriis").

on Sat, 16 May 2015 01:56:01 UTC

Attributed
toBede
Penitentials

585

non-Englishinfluence. Schmitz noted that a list including a penitentialappeared firstin an Aachen capitulary of 802, a list differentfrom that
contained in Egbert's penitential.All other examples of such listsare continental, however,and not English.29Unfortunatelywe know much less about
Egbert's genuine writingsthan about Bede's, and less about English canonical literaturethan about similarmaterial fromthe continent.30Should parts
of Egbert's penitential prove to be continental,there remains the strong
possibilitythatthe textcontainsa core of genuine penitentialtariffsto which
continental additions were made. Egbert might well have writtensuch a
penitential.Unlike Bede, he was a bishop and an archbishop,and hence in a
position to issue handbooks of penance. The incipitwhich accompanies the
textnot only names Egbert but correctlygives his rank and see, information
more specificthan that which accompanies any text attributedto Bede now
known (some examples are given below in Table 3), and favorablycomparable to informationabout Theodore given in the incipitto his two-partpenitential.31Moreover, the manuscripttraditionof Egbert's text was relatively
stable; defectivethough the book may be as a confessor'shandbook - it is
repetitious and badly organized, possibly as a consequence of interpolations32- it nonetheless survived in a consistentform which with a single
major exception was preserved even when thispenitentialwas conflatedwith
a penitentialattributedto Bede.
Differencesbetween Egbert's penitentialand the penitentialattributedto
Bede outlined in Table 1 appear at many points, most obviously where
material in one is not found in the other. Egbert's chapters concerningthe
major and minor sins (1 and 2, themselvesrepetitiousand confused), the
machinationsof women, and auguries (7 and 8) have no directcounterparts
in the Bedan text, while the Bedan chapters concerning manslaughter(4)
and the observance of Sunday (7.7-11) are not found in Egbert. More
importantdifferencesemerge where the handbooks treatthe same subjects.
Their chapters on inebriation(Egbert 11, Bede 6) are based on Theodore's
penitential(Book 1, chapter 1) but each quotes two canons not found in the
other; in addition,Egbert'stextcontainsthreecanons of unknownoriginnot
29 Schmitz, 1:568. Penitentialsare mentioned in the "Capitula de examinandis ecclesiasticis"
(802), MGH Cap 1: 109-10; the "Interrogationesexaminationis"(803), MGH Cap 1:234; "Quae
a presbyterisdiscenda sint,"MGH Cap 1:235; the Capitulaof Haito of Basel (d. 826), MGH Cap
1:365. For background to these documents,see Rosamond McKitterick,TheFrankishChurchand
789-895, Royal HistoricalSocietyStudies in History(London, 1977).
theCarolingianReforms,
30 For a Dialogue accepted as Egbert's, see Haddan and Stubbs, Councils,pp. 403-13. Other
textsattributedto Egbert (including a pontificaland Old English handbooks) are not genuine.
See the discussion in Haddan and Stubbs, pp. 413-16, and Schmitz, 1:570-72. Schmitzfirmly
rejected Egbert's authorshipof the penitential(1:572), as did Poschmann,Penance,pp. 125-26,
col. 1120, considers Egbert'sauthorshipveryunlikely.
and Kottje,in theLexikondesMittelalters,
ad
31 "In Christinomine incipitprefatiolibelliquem pater Theodorus diversisinterrogantibus
remediumtemperavitpenitentiae";see Finsterwalder,Canones,p. 287.
32 Schmitzanalyzed the deficienciesof Egbert'stext,1:566-67, pointingout, forexample, that
magic is included in three separate chapters (4.12; 7.6-7; 8). It is also puzzling that theftand
falsewitnessare classifiedas both major and minorsins (in chapters 1 and 2 respectively).

on Sat, 16 May 2015 01:56:01 UTC

586

Attributed
toBede
Penitentials

contained in the Bedan chapter.33Their chapters concerningperjurydiffer

more widely (Egbert 6, Bede 5). Again both draw extensivelyfrom Theodore's penitential,but the Bedan text includes four canons taken from the
penitentialof Cummean (or possiblypseudo-Cummean) which are not used
by Egbert.34
The corresponding chapters treating the Eucharist are also dissimilar
(Egbert 11, Bede 8), but the contrastis complicated by the peculiar make-up
of the Bedan text. Only the firstthree canons of this chapter concern the
Eucharist, the remaining five being devoted to sins of theft.35The canons
dealing with theftare especially importantbecause three of them occur in
Egbert's chapter on this subject (10). Since these canons are not found in
Theodore or in earlier Irish penitentials,they constituteone of the few
points of contact between the two texts. This interdependence will be discussed below; first,on the basis of the dissimilaritiesin content,we must
consider the possibilitythat these are independent handbooks which derive
fromthe same sources. If the Bedan textderived fromEgbert's,or Egbert's
fromthe Bedan, theywould certainlyexhibita higher degree of correspondence. The major source for both texts is the penitential of Theodore;
because theyare closer to this text than to each other it seems reasonable to
conclude thattheywere drawn fromit independently.36
The logic of chronologyand geography may reduce the probabilitythat
both are English. While two penitentialslargelybased on Theodore's could
have been writtenindependentlyin northernEngland in the firsthalf of the
eighth century,it seems reasonable to suppose that one handbook would
have exercised sufficientinfluence to make another an unnecessary or at
least a very uneconomical undertaking. If one of these penitentialsis English,therefore,the other is not likelyto have been writtenin England. It is
improbable that the authors of these handbooks were acquainted, much less
thattheywere studentand teacher who corresponded in the year before the
latter'sdeath.37
33 See Wasserschleben,Bussordnungen,
pp. 242-43 for Egbert 11, and pp. 226-27 for Bede 6.
According to Wasserschleben,both penitentialsare based on Theodore, Book 1, 1.1-9, but
Bede uses two canons (1.4, 8) not found in Egbert, while Egbert uses two canons (1.1, 7) not
found in Bede. The Bedan textcontainssix canons, Egbert'sten.
34 See Wasserschleben,
Bussordnungen,
p. 238 for Egbert 6, and pp. 225-26 for Bede 5. Both
draw fromTheodore, Book 1, 6.1-5, all of whichappears in Egbert,while Bede uses only 6.2, 4
(ed.
and material from Cummean's penitential.Both also quote the Synodof theGroveof Victory
pp. 68-69).
Bieler,IrishPenitentials,
35 See Wasserschleben,
p. 243 forEgbert 12, and p. 228 for Bede 8.
Bussordnungen,
36 It would be premature to conclude that both depend only on the two-book version of
Theodore's penitential,which is later than other Theodoran texts (for their traditions,see
Finsterwalder,Canones,pp. 11-138). Even where one penitentialtakes over several canons from
a single chapter of Theodore, they are completely rearranged (e.g., Bede 4 draws from
pp.
Theodore, Book 1, 4.2-7, in this order: 4.5, 4, 2, 7, 6; see Wasserschleben,Bussordnungen,
224-25). This evidence contradicts my earlier suggestion that the text of the penitentials
attributedto Bede had been derived fromthe handbook of Egbert. See "Frankish Penitentials,"
p. 416.
37 Bede's letterto Egbert, dated 5 Nov. 734, is translatedin David C. Douglas and Dorothy

on Sat, 16 May 2015 01:56:01 UTC

Penitentials
Attributed
toBede

587

However, certain verbal correspondences between these texts prevent us

fromconcludingthattheyare whollyindependent. ContactbetweenEgbert's
penitentialand the text of MS No. 15 is evident at three points: Egbert's
Prologue and Bede 2; the canons concerningtheft(Egbert 10, Bede 8.4-8);
and concluding paragraphs which precede the later chapters concerning
commutations (Egbert 14, Bede 9). The relevant passages appear in the
appendix. In themselvesthey do not prove either that the Bedan material
derives from Egbert, or vice versa, although in the firstof the three examples (Egbert's Prologue, Bede 2) it seems clear thatthe Bedan textis a hasty
and inaccurate rewritingof Egbert's text (e.g., Egbert's "debiles, infirmi,
sani" appears as "quam infirmiamdebiles," possiblybecause "sani" was misread and "infirmisani" transcribedas "infirmiam").
In the light of the evidence from Table 2, however, the value of these
parallel passages as evidence of the contact between these penitentialsis
severelylimited,for these Bedan passages appear only in the textof Class 4.
Moreover, the second chapter, Bede 2, appears only in No. 15 and, in
slightlydifferentform,in No. 13 (Class 3), although there it is not part of
the same handbook.38 In fact, the version in Class 4, which is that most
widelyaccepted as a "genuine" work of Bede, is also the most poorlyattested
of any discussed here (see Class 4 above for some of those who regard this
textas genuine).
No manuscriptin any class is clearly earlier than No. 15 (from the first
third of the ninth century),although it is difficultto draw lines precisely
here, since No. 1 may be early ninth century and No. 3 is dated to the
second quarter of the ninthcentury.It is thereforenecessaryto consider the
possibilitythat the version of this manuscript,Class 4, is - as many seem to
have assumed on the basis of its early date - the formof Bedan penitential
fromwhich all others evolved once that textcame into contactwithEgbert's
penitential. This appears to be Kottje's assumption in his outline of the
manuscriptevidence, and if we rely solely on the chronologyof the manuscripts,it is also the most probable.39
The process of conflatingthe text of Class 4 with Egbert's penitentialto
produce the Bedan texts found in other classes would have required some
complex and by no means coherent alterations.Chapters 8 and 9 of Class 4
would have been omitted in later versions (for example, those in Class 2)
because their subjects (the Eucharist, theft,and a concluding peroration)
were already treated in Egbert's penitential.In the versionfound in Class 1,
Whitelock, eds., English HzstoricalDocuments,1: c. 500-1042, 2nd ed. (London, 1979), pp.
799-810. Penitentialsare not mentionedin the letter.
38 The chapter under discussion here (Bede 2) does not appear withthe "main" Bedan textof
MS No. 13, which is on fols. 96v-98v, immediatelyfollowing
this text (fols. 98v-99r; see n. 22
above). The version in No. 13 contains fewererrors than that in No. 15; No. 13 reads "quam
infirmiaut," forexample, whichis closer to Egbert than the textof No. 15 at thispoint (see the
Appendix).
39 Kottje's briefanalysisof the various Bedan traditionsfollowsthe chronologyof the manuscripts;see Bussbucher,
pp. 121-22, and notes there.

on Sat, 16 May 2015 01:56:01 UTC

588

toBede
Penitentials
Attributed

all of the sixthand some sectionsfromthe fifthand seventhchapterswould

have been eliminated from the text of Class 4, while in the text of Class 3
these chapterswould have been preserved (only Class 3 and Class 4 contain
5.4-8, 6, and 7.7-11). While it would be anachronistic to suppose that
medieval scribes sought to eliminaterepetitionwith the same rigor as modern editors, there nonetheless remains a great deal of overlap between the
text of the firsttwo classes and Egbert's penitential.For example, there are
two chapters on perjury(Bede 5, Egbert 6) and redundant canons concerning sexual offenses(Bede 3, Egbert 4 and 5). However, some materialfrom
Class 4 was eliminated,even though it does not appear in Egbert's handbook. The Bedan canons concerning Sunday observance (7.7-1 1) found in
the textof Class 4 would have to have been eliminatedat some stage by those
copyingthe textsof Class 1 or Class 2, even though Egbert'spenitentialdoes
not duplicate them.
It is possible that the Bedan textof No. 15, and other textsin Class 4, are
built on a substratumof earlier materialwhich does not show the influence
of Egbert's penitential.The three passages in the Bedan text of Class 4 are
missingfrom a penitentialedited by Schmitz(No. 14, from Class 3).40 This
penitentialand another, from Class 1, are outlined below. This table shows
thatClass 1 and Class 3 are both missingclustersof chaptersin Class 4.4
TABLE

Comparison of Chapter Headings

Class 1, No. 1

Class 3, No. 14

Class 4, No. 15

Munich,Clm631 1,fols.
107r-108v

Vat.,Pal. Lat. 294,fols.

87v-90r

Vienna,2223,fols. 1 7r-21r

Incipitjudicium bedani de
remediispeccatorum
capitula vi
1. De remediispeccatorum

In nomine triplosymplo

Incipitexscrapsum
domini bedani presbyteri

De remediispeccatorum

1. De diversiscanonum
sententiis
2. De sancta constitutione
3. De fornicatione(1-42)

2. De fornicationibus
(1-8,10-15,17-25,
27-39)
3. De remedio neglegentiae (40-42)
4. De homicidiis(1-12)
5. De periurio (1-3)
6. De carnis inmunditia
(1-6)
(end of text)

1. De fornicatione
(1-8,10-15,17-25,
27-42)
2.
3.
4.
5.

De occisione (1-12)
De juramento (1-8)
De ebrietate(1-6)
De carne inmunda
(1-1 1)
(end of text)

4.
5.
6.
7.

De occisione (1-12)
Dejuramento (1-8)
De ebrietate(1-6)
De carne inmunda
(1-1 1)
8-12. (see Table 1 above)

40 Discussed by Schmitz,2:654-55.

41My analysisof the manuscripttraditionsis indebted to the generous and helpfulcriticismof

PierreJ. Payer,forwhose assistance I am mostgrateful.

on Sat, 16 May 2015 01:56:01 UTC

Penitentials
Attributed
toBede

589

Both Class 1 and Class 3 are missingchapters 2 and 8-12 of Class 4. In

addition, Class 1 is missing 5.4-8, all of 6, and 7.7-11, while all of this
material appears in Class 3. Contraryto currentassumptions,Class 1 could
represent the earliest version of this text, and Class 4 a later, expanded
form,withClass 3 as an intermediatestage. This may possiblybe the pattern
according to which the penitentialsof Bede evolved into theirvarious forms.
There appear to be two distinctlines of development,one includingEgbert's
penitential,the other independent of it. It is apparent from the chart on
pages 582-83 that manuscriptsin Class 1 contain only Bede 1, 3-, 4, 5.1-3,
and 7.1-6, material which is common to all five classes. Class 3 is based on
Class 1: it adds fivecanons to the chapter on perjury(5) and a new chapter
on inebriation(6), and joins fivecanons on Sunday observance to the chapter
on food (7). None of the materialin Class 1 or Class 3 requires us to suppose
contactwithEgbert'spenitential.
Classes 2, 4, and 5, however, do show the influence of Egbert's text.
Manuscripts in Class 2 interpolate Egbert's Prologue after chapter 1, and
many of them immediatelyfollow the Bedan material in Class 1 - the
Prologue added - with Egbert's penitentialin its entirety,frequently(but
not always) attributingthistextto Bede (this is the typeof Bedan textedited
by Albers). Class 4 also shows some influence of Egbert's text (see the
Appendix for these verbal parallels), but much less extensivelythan Class 2.
However, Class 4 also includes the material which texts in Class 3 add to
Class 1, and thus mustderive fromClass 3, withsome minordebt to Egbert's
text. Class 5 is a revision of the Bedan material of Class 1 and Egbert's
penitentialso extensive that it is difficultto recognize the separate texts in
this newlyamalgamated form. Class 5 includes an ordoconfessionis,
a procedure for receivingthe sinner in confession,and completelyreorganizes the
chaptersof Egbert and the text of Class 2. Since it has the latestmanuscript
traditionof any of these classes, it is less importantthan the other classes in
helping us trace the development of the various penitentialsattributedto
Bede.42

Additional evidence from the structureof individual chapters,some of it

apparent in Table 3 above, suggests that the Bedan text in Class 4 is a late,
interpolated version, despite the early date of the Vienna codex (No. 15)
oftenthoughtto hold a genuine Bedan handbook. Referringto Table 3, we
see that in Class 1 the second and third chapters correspond to a single
chapter in the other two manuscripts:chapter 3, concerningBaptism,forms
part of "De fornicatione"in Classes 3 and 4, and is not a separate chapter.
The heading for chapter 3 may have been insertedby the scribe of MS No.
1, but it could also have been in his exemplar, and if it were, the heading
could be evidence of an earlier stage of the text which contained more
42
On the development of the ordo,see Frantzen, "Frankish Penitentials,"pp. 418-19, and
referencesthere,and Kottje,Bussbucher,
pp. 188-90. The ordoin thistextresembles that found
in the penitentialof Halitgar of Cambrai (d. 831), printedby Schmitz,2:264-300.

on Sat, 16 May 2015 01:56:01 UTC

590

toBede
Attributed
Penitentials

chapter divisions than survive in Classes 3 or 4.43 The chapter on perjury

seems to have had a similarhistory;it includes only three canons in Class 1
but eight in Classes 3 and 4. In MS No. 3, Class 2, the additional fivecanons
forma separate chapter,"De falsitatevel maledictione"; theirsources differ
fromthe sources of the firstthree canons.44Other manuscriptsof Classes 3
and 4 contain these canons, but not as separate chapters.
The seventh chapter of Class 4 is also compounded of two different
subjects, Sunday observance and unclean food; in MS No. 10 these are
marked as two separate chapters. Chapter 8 is also a compound, combining
tariffson theft with those concerning the Eucharist. As Wasserschleben
recognized,theydo not forma coherent chapter.45Thus Class 4 appears to
be a composite penitential. Its second chapter is a revision of Egbert's
prologue; its third,fifth,seventh,and eighth chapters may each at one time
have been two separate chapters whose headings were dropped when this
textwas formed; and the ninthmay also be a revisionof materialtaken from
Egbert's penitential.A furtherirregularityin Class 4 suggeststhat it may be
a late and interpolated version: this is the only version to include three
canons in chapter 3 (3.9, 16, 26) missingin Class 1 and found in only one
manuscriptof Class 3 known to me, No. 11. While these observationsmust
as yet be considered speculative, the development they outline appears
plausible in one regard especially: the omission of chapter headings is common in manuscriptsof penitentials,which seldom include indicationsof the
number of chapterscontained in the document.46
The text of Class 4 was not, by any standard, the most influentialof the
handbooks assigned to Bede. The most numerous manuscriptsbelong to
Class 2 and Class 5, whichis a revisionof the Bedan canons in Class 2 and of
Egbert'spenitential.47The earliestcollectionsin Class 5 are a Rheims manupp.
43 Bede 3.40-42 derives in part from Finnian's penitential(ed. Bieler, Irish Penitentials,
74-95), but the source for the last and longest canon is unknown. There is a possibilitythat
these three canons were taken togetherfrom a source in which they already formed a single
chapter. In Bieler's edition,see p. 92, canons 47-49, for parallels to Bede 3.40-42.
44 Bede 5.1-3 generallyresembleTheodore, Book 1, 6.2, 4, and canon 5 of the Synodof Victory
pp. 225-26). Wasserschlebenindicates Theodore, Book 1,
(see Wasserschleben,Bussordnungen,
6.3 as the source for Bede 5.4, but the resemblanceis veryweak. It seems more likelythat Bede
5.4-8 derive from Irish sources. Bede 5.4-7 resemble Cummean's penitential(3.12; 4.12; 9.8,
19); Bede 5.8 seems to derive fromcanons of Finnian's penitential;see Bieler,IrishPenitentials,
pp. 118-24 (Cummean) and pp. 74-76 (Finnian).
45 ManuscriptNo. 10 divides Bede 7 as follows:"De carne inmunda" and "De operibus" (both
fol. 96v). No manuscriptknown to me contains a separate heading for 8.4-8, which concern
theft,but at thispoint Wasserschlebenrightlynoted, "Hier beginntoffenbarein neues Kapitel"
p. 228). See also Schmitz,1:562, n. 3.
(Bussordnungen,
46 Most chapter headings are omitted in manuscript No. 8. The heading for Bede 5 ("De
juramento") is missingin No. 6. This same chapter lacks a heading in No. 14, as does Bede 7 in
this manuscript("De carne inmunda"). Examples are numerous and do not seem to form a
pattern;it would seem thatchapter headings could easily have been omittedby accident.
47 That the texts which I have put in Class 5 derive from those in Class 2 was noted by
Schmitz,2:653.

on Sat, 16 May 2015 01:56:01 UTC

Attributed
toBede
Penitentials

591

scriptfromthe end of the ninthcentury(No. 19 above) and, almostcontemporary withit, a Lotharingian manuscript(No. 20). Several codices containing the textof Class 5 also contain penitentialswrittenby Hrabanus Maurus
and Halitgar of Cambrai, and the Worms councils of 868.48 Wasserschleben
pointed out that the text of Class 5 was intimatelybound up with Halitgar's
six-part penitential. In several manuscripts Halitgar's sixth book, his socalled "Roman" penitential,is replaced by the text of Class 5, and the incipit
to the sixthbook is altered to say that the penitentialwhich followsis thatof
Bede.49
While firmconclusions about the textual historyof the penitentialsattributed to Bede are not yet possible, the preceding analysis does bring new
considerations to bear on the controversysurrounding Bede's authorship.
Only the shortest texts, Classes 1 and 3, do not show the influence of
Egbert's penitential.The handbook of Egbert is not unambiguouslyEnglish
and in factcontains more evidence of continentalinfluencethan the Bedan
texts of either Class 1 or Class 3. The texts in these two classes depend
almost exclusivelyon Theodore's penitential and earlier Irish penitentials
and could have been writtenin the eighth century,and in England. When
we note thatthe textof MS No. 1 is in factattributedto Bede, we mighteven
wish to believe that evidence for Bede's authorship is indeed strongerthan
previous investigations,based on MS No. 15, have claimed. Another manuscript,fromthe thirdclass, MS No. 11, also attributesthe textto Bede, while
only two of these manuscripts(Nos. 2 and 14) do not name Egbert. But of
the seven manuscripts of Class 2, the class incorporating all of Egbert's
penitential,six name Bede as the author of the composite text (the exception is No. 6) and none name Egbert. All three manuscriptsin Class 4
name Bede. This evidence is inconclusivebut sufficientto arouse suspicion
that Bede was credited with a penitentialat a time - the ninth century
and in a place - the continent - safely remote from his own. As the
tradition of Bede's penitential grew stronger, the tradition of Egbert's
weakened, although copies of his penitentialnot adjacent to a Bedan handbook continued to circulate(indeed, as Nos. 13 and 15 show, in manuscripts
containingpenitentialsattributedto Bede).
The manuscriptevidence of a joint historyfor penitentialsattributedto
Bede and Egbert is reasonably early (Class 4, the firstthird of the ninth
century;Class 2, the second quarter of the ninthcentury:see Nos. 15 and 3
above). Their historiesas individual penitentialsmust,of course, begin even
earlier. The manuscriptsin the listabove show that penitentialsattributedto
Bede flourishedin many quarters of France and Germanyin the ninthand
tenthcenturies,but it seems probable thattheirearly influencewas strongest
in Irish and Anglo-Saxon centers.Lorsch was particularlyimportantto their
dissemination: the earliest manuscript of Egbert's penitential was written
48
49

Kottje analyzes thisgroup of texts;Bussbiicher,

pp. I 11-31.
Wasserschleben,Bussordnungen,
p. 47.

on Sat, 16 May 2015 01:56:01 UTC

592

Penitentials
Attributed
toBede

there,as was a textbelonging to Class 3 (No. 13); another,the Vienna codex

discussed above (No. 15), is from the same general area. Two of these
manuscripts(Nos. 13 and 15) contain several penitentials and should be
subjected to close codicological and paleographical analysis.50The three
Lorsch manuscriptscontain another pseudo-Bede text known as the "Ammonitio Bedae," a list of methods for shortening the periods of penance
assigned.51 This textis no more likelythan the various penitentialsdiscussed
in thisessay to have been writtenby Bede, but it does contributeevidence to
the vigorouspseudo-Bede traditionin continentalmanuscripts.52
The question of Bede's authorshipof a penitentialencompasses more than
either the historyof penance or Bede's reputation on the continent.The
penitentialsattributedto Bede were affectedby habitsof editingand synthesis already extensively documented by other forms of Carolingian and
Frankishliterature.During the Frankishreformsof the firsthalfof the ninth
century, reform councils (in language much quoted and much misunderstood) attacked penitentials'of"uncertain authorship and certain error."
Such remarks suggest too readily that the Franks rejected the traditionof
privatepenance and the handbooks in particular.53Other synods,however,
recommended that bishops indicate which penitentialspriests were to use.
Such endorsementsmay have spurred the development of new editions of
the penitentials.54Halitgar'shandbook, for example, was intended to replace
faultypenitentialswith an authorized version conformingto canon law.55
Perhaps a short handbook - such as that of Class 1 - attributedto Bede
was conflatedwith another, Egbert's,in a similarattemptto consolidate the

50
ManuscriptNo. 15 contains the penitentialof Theodore (fols. 1-17), a Bedan text of Class
4 (fols. 17-22), the so-called "TripartiteSt. Gall Penitential"(fols. 22-41), and Egbert'spenitential (fols. 77-87). No. 13 contains Egbert's handbook (fols. 73-80), a Bedan textof Class 2 (fols.
96-98), an unknowncollectionof penitentialcanons (fols. 98-101), the penitentialof Cummean
(fols. 101-7), and the penitentialof Theodore (fols. 107-13).
51 In Vatican, Pal. Lat. 554, the "Admonitio" is among ninth-century
additions to Egbert's
penitential,fol. 13. In Vatican, Pal. Lat. 485, it followsa Bedan textof Class 3 (fol. lOir), and in
Pal. Lat. 294 it followsexcerpts from Egbert's penitential(fol. 92v). For the text,see Schmitz,
2:674, and Albers,"Wann sind," p. 414.
52 The pseudo-Bede traditionis well known: see C. W. Jones,Bedae pseudoepigrapha
(Ithaca,
1939), and M. L. W. Laistner,A Hand-ListofBede Manuscripts
(Ithaca, 1943), pp. 16-18.
53 There is a good analysisof the Frankishreformsin McKitterick,
The FrankishChurch,but I
argue in "Frankish Penitentials"that it underestimatesthe role of the penitentialsin these
reforms. The quotation is translated from the Council of Chalon (813), c. 38 (MGH Conc
2/1:281). The complaint was repeated by Rodulph of Bourges (840-66); see PL 119:703. The
penitentialswere also denounced 4t the Synod of Paris in 829, c. 32; see MGH Conc 2/2:633.
54 See proceedings of the Council of Tours, c. 22 (MGH Conc 2/1:289), and the Council of
Rheims, c. 12 (although here penitentialsare not explicitlyrecommended; see MGH Conc
2/1:255). Both were reformcouncils of 813; for additional information,see McKitterick,The
FrankishChurch,pp. 12-15.
55 Halitgar was instructedto standardize the penitentialsby Ebbo, archbishop of Rheims; see
Kottje,Bussbiicher,
pp. 173-74.

on Sat, 16 May 2015 01:56:01 UTC

Attributed
toBede
Penitentials

593

authoritieswhom priests were to consult when they heard confessionsand

assigned penances.
Throughout the ninthcentury,the early- and usually short- Irish and
English handbooks were revised into collections better described as anthologies of penitential decisions than as guides for the priest's use. The
Bigotian Penitential,probably of Breton origin, is an example of such a
synthetictext, far too extensive for use in confession. Although it is a
systematiccollection,it makes no attemptto reconcile the discordant decisions gathered in the text.56Nearly as long, and much less well-organized,
are the penitentialswhich Fournier called "tripartite"because they borrow
fromthe penitentialsof Columbanus, Cummean, and Theodore (and other
sources as well).57 Repetitiveand chaotic, these texts contrastsharply with
the early handbooks. Although the texts found in Class 2 or Class 5 above
are more orderlythan the tripartitehandbooks, theytoo are repetitiveand
would have been difficultto use in confession. It would seem that as the
Franks attempted to combine and synthesizeearly penitentials,they transformed the handbook into a repositoryof penitential decisions, a source
book rather than a service manual. The transitionfrom the version of the
Bedan text in Class 1 to that in Class 2 was deliberatelyaccomplished, and
the revision of texts in Class 2 to those in Class 5 seems an even more
obvious attemptto reshape sources and reduce their number - an activity
Eisensteinhas called the "contraction"of manuscriptlibrariesinto anthology
manuscripts.58

The fate of manuscriptsof penitentialson the continent,once deciphered,

will enlightenhistoriansof the English as well as of the Frankishchurch. In
the tenth century, during and possibly before the so-called Benedictine
reform,handbooks of penance reappeared in England. The three major
authoritiesof the earlier Anglo-Saxon period - Theodore, Bede, and Egbert- were also seen as major influencesin the later period. But we do not
England
yet know how closely the manuscriptevidence from tenth-century
corresponds to that from continentalcenters of either the ninth or tenth
centuries.Thus far only two manuscriptscontainingany of the penitentials
claimed for Bede have been assigned an English provenance. One is a
Breton manuscript containing a text from Class 2 (No. 6); the other is
Cambridge, Corpus Christi College 320, which contains an unusual text
resemblingthose of Class 2 followed by additional penitentialtariffs(not,
however, similar to Egbert's penitential).59 Before we can understand the
56

pp. 198-239.
The penitentialis edited by Bieler,IrishPenitentials,

57 Paul Fournier, "Etudes sur les penitentiels:Le livre VI du penitentield'Halitgar," Revue

8 (1903),528-33.
religieuses
d'histoire
etde litterature
58 Elizabeth L. Eisenstein, The PrintingPress as an Agent of Change, 2 vols. (Cambridge,
Eng., 1979; repr. in 1 vol., New York, 1980), pp. 10-16.
59 This manuscriptcontains the two-partpenitentialof Theodore and the so-called Poenitenpp. 348-52), which is preceded by an
(ed. Wasserschleben,Bussordnungen,
tiale Sangermanense

on Sat, 16 May 2015 01:56:01 UTC

594

toBede
Attributed
Penitentials

English history,we must

significanceof these manuscriptsfor tenth-century
understand more clearlythe textual traditionsof the English penitentials
or penitentialssupposedly of English origin- on the continent.
It is to social historiansthat the penitentialscan be of most use. We must
ask why the handbooks were continuallyrevised and how it happened that
each region - Ireland, England, and the various continental centers
impressed its own stamp on the form.The literaryhistoryof the penitential
shows that the text was vital to religious life throughoutthe early Middle
Ages. But social historians seem somewhat unwilling to acknowledge this
influenceor to assess its implications.It is dismaying,so many years after
Oakley's judicious reminder,60to find generalizationsabout the penitentials
which take no notice of distinctivefeatures of Irish, English, or Frankish
handbooks, and which treat penitentialsfrom the eighth centuryand those
from the tenth as if they were one. Many studies regard the penitentials
merelyas summariesof patristicopinion withoutrelevance to local cultures,
or merely as codes of law, unattached to devotional or disciplinarytraditions.61Fortunatelythese attitudesare changing; PierreJ. Payer has begun
an extensivestudyof medieval sexualityas it appears in the penitentials,and
Kottje and othersare also engaged in studies which will not only recoverthe
texts and their traditions,but apply themjudiciously to the study of medieval mores.62Certainlythe relevance of studies of the penitentialsto medi-

The Bedan textis on fols. 80-86. Haddan and Stubbs accept thismanuscriptas
ordoconfessionis.
"not being later probably than the eighth century" (Councils,p. 176), but the early date is
in theLibraryof CorpusChristi
Catalogueof theManuscripts
rejected by M. R. James,A Descriptive
2 vols. (Cambridge, Eng., 1912), 2:133.
College,Cambridge,
60 Thomas P. Oakley, "Some Neglected Aspects of the History of Penance," The Catholic
HistoricalReview24 (1939), 308.
61 See, for example, Charles M. Radding, "Evolution of Medieval Mentalities:A CognitiveStructuralApproach," The AmericanHistoricalReview 83 (1978), 577-97; he maintainsthat the
penitentials"merely repeated canons or decrees of the ancient church" in "nearly all" their
(Chicago,
Social Tolerance,and Homosexuality
articles(p. 589). See also John Boswell, Christianity,
1980), where the penitentials'harsh stricturesagainst homosexualityare too lightlydismissed
(see pp. 180-83). In The Discoveryof theIndividual,1050-1200 (New York, 1972), Colin M.
Morrisclaims that the penitentialsdo not employ the circumstancesof the individual'slife as a
guide to the severityof his penance, although even the earliest handbooks make thisimportant
concession to individuality(see pp. 70-74). While it is true thatthese and similarstudies do not
focus primarilyon the penitentials,it is important to correct the false impressions of the
handbooks theyencourage.
62 See PierreJ. Payer,"Early Medieval RegulationsConcerning Marital Sexual Relations,"The
Journalof MedievalHistory6 (1980), 353-76, and "The Humanism of the Penitentialsand the
Continuityof the PenitentialTradition," forthcomingin MediaevalStudies.Payer has translated
Treatiseagainst
The Book of Gomorrah.An Eleventh-Century
Peter Damien's Liber Gomorrhianus:
ClericalHomosexualPractices(Waterloo, Ontario, 1982). Very useful to furtherstudyof thistopic
will be J. N. Adams, ThleLatin Sexual Vocabulary(Baltimore, 1983), whichfocuses on materialup
to the fourthcentury.Among other essays which will be helpful in reassessingthe value of the
penitentialsas evidence is Raymund Kottje, "Ehe und Eheverstandnisin den vorgratianischen
Bussbuchern," Love and Marriage in the TwelfthCentury,ed. Willy Van Hoecke and Andries

on Sat, 16 May 2015 01:56:01 UTC

Penitentials
Attributed
toBede

595

eval law, social history,and literaturedepends fundamentallyupon a clear

understanding of the primary sources. Not the least of our reasons for
looking more closelyat the penitentialsattributedto Bede is our responsibilityto the historyof the textsthemselves.When the originsand development
of the penitentials are more fully understood, we may safely construct
theoriesabout medieval psychologyand sociologybased upon them.63
LOYOLA UNIVERSITY OF CHICAGO

Welkenhuysen (Leuven, 1981), pp. 18-40, and "Uberlieferung und Rezeption der irischen
Bussbucher auf dem Kontinent,"Die Iren und Europa imfriiherenMittelalter,
1, ed. Heinz Lowe
(Stuttgart,1982), pp. 511-24. Irish penitentialtraditionspertainingto martyrdomare newly
examined by Clare Stancliffe,"Red, White and Blue Martyrdom,"Ireland in Early Medieval
Europe,ed. Dorothy Whitelock,Rosamond McKitterick,and David Dumville (Cambridge, Eng.,
1982), pp. 21-46.
63 Research for this studyhas been funded in part by the Alexander von Humboldt Foundation and Loyola Universityof Chicago, whose generous assistance is gratefullyacknowledged.
Some of the evidence used in the present study was made available to me by Reinhold
Haggenmuller and by Prof. Raymund Kottje in a seminar at the Universityof Augsburg in
1979, aftermyresearch had been underwayforsome time. I wish to thankProfessorKottje,his
studentsand assistants,and especiallyFranz Kerff,fortheirgracious cooperation.

on Sat, 16 May 2015 01:56:01 UTC

Penitentials
Attributed
toBede

596

APPENDIX

Parallels betweenthe Bedan Text

of Class 4 (Ms No. 15) and Egbert's Penitential
Three passages are printed here: Egbert's Prologue and chapter 2 of the Bedan
text; Egbert 10 and Bede 8; and concludingperorationsfromeach text.
Passage 1: Egbert'sPrologue, Bede 2
Egbert

Bede

Vat.,Pal. Lat. 554, fol. 5r; Schmitz1:57374 (cf. Wasserschleben,

pp. 231-32)

Vienna 2223, fol. 17v; Wasserschleben,

p.
221

Institutioilla sancta que fiebat in diebus

patrum nostrorumrectas vias numquam
deseruit, qui instituerunt penitentibus
atque lugentibus suas passiones ac vitia
medicamenta salutis eterne, quia diversitas culparum diversitatemfacitpeniten-

Institutio illa sancta que in diebus patrumnostrorumrectasvias nunquam deseruit, que institueritpenitentibusatque
lugentibus passiones suas ac vitia, medicamenta aeterne salutis, quia diversitas
culparum diversum facit penitentibus

tibus medicamentorum.

. .

. Non omni-

medicamentum.

Non

omnibus

una

bus ergo in una eademque libra pensan- eadem libra pensandum est, licet in uno
dum est, licet in uno constringantur constringanturvitio; sed discretio unojudicio sed discretio sit unoquoque quoque eorum, hoc est liber, servus,
eorum, hoc est inter divitem et dives et pauper, juvenis, adulescens,
pauperem, liber, servus, infans, puer, senex, pueri, in gradu vel sine gradu,
juvenis, aduliscens, etate senex, ebitis, conjugio, servus vel peregrinus, ut salvi
gnarus, laicus, clericus, monachus, epis- sint et non pusillanimes potentes pocopus, presbyter,diaconus, subdiaconus, tenter tormenta patiuntur, quam infirlector, in gradu vel sine, in coniugio vel miam debiles, institutionemcollationum
sine, peregrinus, virgo, femina canonica constituerunt sancti apostoli, deinde
vel sanctimonialis,debiles, infirmi,sani. canones sanctorum patrum, deinde alii
... Hanc institutionemconlationumcon- atque alii, ex quorum omnium ita destitueruntsancti apostoli, deinde sancti scripsimusdictiset sentenciis.
patres et sanctus Punifiusdeinde canones
sanctorum patrum, deinde alii atque alii
ut Hyeronimus et Agustinus et Gregorius et Theodorus, ex quorum omnium ista descripsimusdictiset sententiis
veraciter, ut salvi sint homines et non
pusillanimes, quia potentes potenter
tormenta patiuntur. Item in Jesu filii
Sirach....
Passage 2: Egbert 10, Bede 8
Egbert

Bede

Vat.,Pal. Lat. 554,fol. 1Or;Schmitz1:583

(cf. Wasserschleben,
p. 241)

Vienna 2223, fol. 19v; Wasserschleben,

p.
228

10. De furtu

8. De eucharistia

3. Item si quis furtumcapitale comiserit, id est quadrupedia vel domos effringerit,si laici, unum annum peniteant
et pretium reddant vel duos annos
peniteant.

4. Si quis autem furtum capitalium

rerum commiserit,id est quadrupedum
vel domum effregerit,si laici sunt, I
annum peniteantet precium reddant vel
duos annos peniteant, si precium non
reddant.

on Sat, 16 May 2015 01:56:01 UTC

Penitentials
Attributed
toBede

597

4. Si qui clerici talem furtumfecerint,

6. Si clerici talem furtumfecerint,V
V annos peniteantvel quomodo sacerdos annos peniteant vel quomodo episcopus
vel episcopus judicaverit.
judicaverit.
Passage 3: Perorations
Egbert

Bede

Vat.,Pal. Lat. 554, fol. 12r; Schmitz1:586

(cf. Wasserschleben,
pp. 245-46)

Vienna 2223, fol. 20v; Wasserschleben,

p.
229

14. Sicut apostolus dixit

. . . Ipse tamen cogitet de medicamento
animarum, quomodo suam et aliorum
animas salutare valeat in erudiendo, in
docendo sanum sermonem, quia qui
bene ministrat,bonum gradum sibi adquirit aput eum, qui est super omnia
Deus benedictus in secula seculorum
amen.

9. De qualitate hominum
. . . Discretio sacerdoti in omnibus decet
judiciis et penitentiarummodis previdere
vel cogitare de medicamenta animarum
quomodo sua et aliorum animas salvare
valeant per sanum sermonem, instruendo, in docendo, in suadendo, increpando,
quia qui bene ministrat bonum sibi
gradum adquirit aput eum qui est super
omnia Deus benedictus in secula seculorum amen.

on Sat, 16 May 2015 01:56:01 UTC