Michael Lapidge

The school of Theodore and Hadrian

In 669 Theodore, a Greek-speaking monk originally from Tarsus in Asia Minor, arrived in England to take up his duties as archbishop of Canterbury. He was joined the following year by his colleague Hadrian, a Latin-speaking African by origin and former abbot of a monastery in Campania (near Naples). One of their first tasks at Canterbury was the establishment of a school; and according to Bede (writing some sixty years later), they soon ‘attracted a crowd of students into whose minds they daily poured the streams of wholesome learning’. Bede goes on to report, as evidence of their teaching, that some of their students who survived to his own day were as fluent in Greek and Latin as in their native language. Elsewhere he names some of these students: Tobias (later bishop of Rochester), Albinus (Hadrians successor as abbot in Canterbury), Oftfor (later bishop of Worcester) and John of Beverley. Bede does not mention Aldhelm in this connection; but we know from a letter addressed by Aldhelm to Hadrian that he too must be numbered among their students. Unfortunately Aldhelm is the only one of these Canterbury alumni to have left any writings, so we are in no position to appraise the high opinion which Bede had formed of their learning.

The hermeneutic style in tenth-century Anglo-Latin literature

Some twenty years ago the late Professor Alistair Campbell observed that there were two broad stylistic traditions of Anglo-Latinity: the one, which he called the classical, was seen to have its principal proponent in Bede; the other, which he called the hermeneutic, was said to have its principal proponent in Aldhelm. The following discussion is an attempt to clarify Campbells broad distinction by reference to a variety of tenth-century Anglo-Latin texts which may be described as ‘hermeneutic’. By ‘hermeneutic’ I understand a style whose most striking feature is the ostentatious parade of unusual, often very arcane and apparently learned vocabulary. In Latin literature of the medieval period, this vocabulary is of three general sorts: (1) archaisms, words which were not in use in classical Latin but were exhumed by medieval authors from the grammarians or from Terence and Plautus; (2) neologisms or coinages; and (3) loan-words. In the early medieval period (before, say, 1100) the most common source of loan-words was Greek. This was a result of the universal prestige which Greek enjoyed, particularly after the Carolingian period, when a very few exceptional men seemed to have a fundamental knowledge of the language. But sound knowledge of Greek was always restricted to a privileged minority (principally because of the lack of an adequate and widely circulated introductory primer); for the majority of medieval authors, acquaintance with continuous Greek came only through reciting the Creed, the Lords Prayer or occasionally the psalter in Greek, and acquaintance with Greek vocabulary came through Greek–Latin glossaries. The most popular of the Greek–Latin glossaries – those based ultimately on the grammar of Dositheus – had originated as bilingual phrase-books in the bilingual world of Late Antiquity. But as first-hand knowledge of Greek disappeared, these glossaries were inevitably carelessly copied, with the result that Greek words derived from glossaries often bear little resemblance to their originals (ιχθυs. becomes iactis in several glossaries, to choose a random example). Accordingly, Greek vocabulary derived from glossaries has a distinctive flavour, either in its bizarre orthography or its unpredictable denotation, and is usually readily identifiable. In the following pages I shall attempt to show how Anglo-Latin authors of the tenth century ornamented their style by the use of archaisms, neologisms and grecisms, derived for the most part from glossaries. One point should be mentioned, however: it is customary among certain scholars of insular Latin to describe a style in which unusual words are found as ‘Hisperic’. But this term is often carelessly employed. It ought to refer strictly to the exceedingly obscure and almost secretive language of the Hisperica Famina themselves, compositions which abound in grecisms and are characterized by a predictable kind of neologism – nouns terminating in -men, -fer, -ger ; verbs in -itare or -icare ; adjectives in -osus . Unfortunately, however, the term ‘Hisperic’ carries with it some connotation of Ireland. The Hisperica Famina themselves were almost certainly composed in Ireland; but all medieval Latin literature which displays neologisms and grecisms was not. Such literature usually has nothing in common with the Hisperica Famina save that it sends a modern reader to his dictionary. I would therefore urge the use of the more neutral term ‘hermeneutic’ and hope to show that the excessively mannered style of many tenth-century Anglo-Latin compositions has nothing to do with Ireland or the Hisperica Famina , but is in the main an indigenous development.

The career of Aldhelm

Abstract A re-examination of the evidence on which the life of Aldhelm can be reconstructed. Attention is focussed initially on Aldhelms links with the royal family of Wessex, and the relationship between the West Saxon and Northumbrian royal houses is used to throw light on the period in Aldhelms early life when he was fostered along with Aldfrith on Iona. The same relationship is reflected thereafter in Aldhelms ties with Aldfrith as king of Northumbria, and Aldhelms fosterage on Iona is reflected in aspects of his later literary activity. His period with Theodore and Hadrian (after 670) is illuminated by his familiarity with texts known to have been studied at Canterbury, and the length of Aldhelms period of study there is extended by reconsideration of the date of his appointment as abbot of Malmesbury. Evidence also suggests that, while abbot, Aldhelm accompanied the West Saxon king Ceadwalla to Rome (688), and made a careful study of Latin inscriptions while there. An Appendix supplies a revised chronology of the composition of Aldhelms Latin writings.

Byrhtferth of Ramsey and the early sections of the Historia Regum attributed to Symeon of Durham

It has long been recognized that the early sections of the so-called Historia Regum , a work attributed to Symeon of Durham (ob. c. 1130) and preserved uniquely in Cambridge, Corpus Christi College 139 (written c . 1164 at Sawley, Lancashire) at 5 3v–130v, originally constituted a separate work, probably composed in the pre-Conquest period and subsequently incorporated into the Historia Regum . Thomas Arnold, who edited the Historia Regum for the Rolls Series in 1885, was persuaded ‘that the more attentively any experienced person may study the curious document between pages 14 and 94 [of the edition], the more firmly will he be convinced that it is a composition of the tenth…century’. His conclusions were based on the Latin style of the work, which he regarded as ‘pretentious and bombastical on the one hand, obscure and ineffectual on the other’ and which affiliated the work, in his opinion, with other Anglo-Latin works of the tenth century. Because he believed that certain passages in the work betrayed an origin in the congregation of St Cuthbert (then at Chester-le-Street), Arnold referred to the compiler of the early sections of the Historia Regum as the ‘Cuthbertine’. His conclusions appear to have been accepted by later historians; for example, W. H. Stevenson (who referred to the early sections of the work as SD 1) wrote as follows: ‘we may readily grant that SD 1 was an older compilation, but the evidence that it was drawn up in the tenth century is, in the absence of a MS of that period, necessarily hypothetical’. No such manuscript has yet come to light, but in recent times Arnolds postulation of a tenth-century origin for the early sections has been accurately and comprehensively reinvestigated by Peter Hunter Blair. By a series of detailed stylistic arguments Hunter Blair has been able to show that the first five sections of the Historia Regum (occupying pp. 3–91 of Arnolds edition) may reasonably be regarded as the work of oneauthor. These five sections are as follows: (1) Kentish legends, particularly pertaining to the Kentish martyrs AEthelberht and AEthelred (pp. 3–13); (2) lists of Northumbrian kings (pp. 13–15); (3)material derived from Bede, particularly the Historia Abbatum (pp. 15–30); (4) a chronicle from 732 to 802 (pp. 30–68); (5) a chronicle from 849 to 887, based mainly on Asser (pp. 69–91). Hunter Blair also recognized that two passages had been interpolated at a later date into the material of these first five sections: one concerning the relics of Acca of Hexham (pp. 32–8), the other concerning those of Alchmund, also a bishop of Hexham (pp. 47–50); he reasonably suggested that these interpolations were added at Hexham in the early twelfth century. As to the date of compilation of the five early sections Hunter Blair was able to affirm, albeit cautiously, Arnolds suggestion of a tenth-century date, but he concluded that ‘in the end judgement will perhaps rest upon opinions about [their] latinity’.

Heroic values and Christian ethics

I n an image of compelling sadness, the Wanderer evokes the life of a lordless man. Cold and alone, he can do nothing but remember the joys of the past-companions in the hall, the giving of treasure and the favour of his lord. Not even sleep brings forgetfulness: Forϸon wat se ϸe sceal his winedryhtnes leofes larcwidum longe forϸolian, ðonne sorg ond slaep somod aetgaedre earmne anhogan oft gebindað. Pinceð him on mode ϸaet he his mondryhten clyppe ond cysse, ond on cneo lecge honda ond heafod, swa he hwilum aer in geardagum giefstolas breac ( The Wanderer 37-44) Indeed, this he knows, who must long be deprived of the counsels of his beloved lord, when sorrow and sleep together often bind the wretched solitary one. It seems to him in his mind that he embraces and kisses his lord and lays hands and head on his knee, as he had previously, from time to time in days gone by, gained benefit from the throne. Sleeping, the lordless man dreams of what he longs for most, the life of a retainer, here represented by synecdoche in the act of homage and the giving of treasure. To lack a lord is to lack place and role, friend and kin, help in need, and vengeance after death. The Wanderers misery, having no remedy in this world, is balanced by the astringent comfort of the next. But even the Wanderers final spiritual rejection of the world is figured in a lovingly detailed enumeration of its heroic joys: horse, kinsman, giftgiving, feasting, hall-joys, treasure, warriors and lord ( The Wanderer 92-5).

The “Anonymous Passio S. Dionysii” (BHL 2178)

La «Passio S. Dionysii anonyme» (BHL 2178) fut apparemment composee par un moine de Saint-Denis, pres de Paris, durant l’abbatiat de Waldo (806-814). Elle se fonde essentiellement sur la Passio anterieure du saint (BHL 2171), redigee au VIIIe s., et fut a son tour utilisee par Hilduin de Saint-Denis dans son recit, influent, sur le martyre de S. Denis (BHL 2175). Bien qu’elle n’ait pas ete largement diffusee, la «Passio S. Dionysii anonyme» occupe une place importante dans le dossier hagiographique de S. Denis, car elle constitue le plus ancien texte associant le martyr parisien a Denis d’Athenes qui, selon les Actes des apotres (17, 34), fut converti par S. Paul. Il s’agit egalement du plus ancien recit decrivant la miraculeuse cephalophorie de Denis, selon laquelle, apres sa decapitation, le saint porta sa tete depuis le lieu de son execution jusqu’a sa sepulture. L’article inclut une nouvelle edition de cette «Passio anonyme», fondee sur neuf des plus anciens manuscrits, et est accompagnee d’un comment...

Biblical Commentaries from the Canterbury School of Theodore and Hadrian: The manuscripts

Preface List of abbreviations 1. Introduction 2. Archbishop Theodore 3. Abbot Hadrian 4. Theodore and Hadrian in England 5. The sources of the Canterbury biblical commentaries 6. The nature of the Canterbury biblical commentaries 7. The manuscripts Part I: Texts and Translations: 8. First commentary on the Pentateuch (PentI) 9. Supplementary commentary on Genesis, Exodus and the gospels (Gn-Ex-EvIa) 10. Second commentary on the gospels (EvII) Part II. Commentary to the texts: Appendices Figures Bibliography Indexes.