Cambridge, Corpus Christi College 191 Chrodegang of Metz, "Regula canonicorum" (enlarged version)

Main Article Content

Timothy Graham


39. Cambridge, Corpus Christi College 191
Chrodegang of Metz,
"Regula canonicorum" (enlarged version)

[Ker 46, Gneuss 60]
HISTORY: MS 191 contains a bilingual copy of the enlarged version of the "Regula canonicorum" of Chrodegang, bishop of Metz (742-766), preceded by the preface and chapter-list, and with each Latin chapter followed by its OE translation. Apart from one missing leaf that would have contained the end of the OE preface and the beginning of the Latin chapter-list, the text is complete. Only two other fragments of the bilingual text are known, a trimmed bifolium in one case (Canterbury Cathedral Library, Additional 20 [109]) and a single leaf in the other (London, British Library, Additional 34,652 f. 3 [165]).
[Note: An interpolated version of Chrodegang's Rule was compiled, probably in the late 9c, which incorporated portions of the "Institutio clericorum" drawn up at the Council of Aachen of 816, as well as extracts from other texts. This interpolated or enlarged version usually has 86 chapters, but in MS 191 (as in Brussels, Bibliotheque Royale, lat. 8558-63, ff. 1-38 [20], a 10c A-S copy of the Latin text only) there are 84 chapters, chapters 5 and 6 of the longer version being omitted.]
The place of origin of the exemplar from which MS 191 ultimately derived,
and of the translation itself, is indicated by the text of OE chapter 2 (Forster 1933): 'swylce `man' cweðe. leofwine prauost. wulfstan cantor byr`h'telm diacon. cynewerd cyrcwerd. ælfnoð cild'. As Ker pointed out (Cat., 74), these names occur "in close proximity" in the list of brothers in the "Liber Vitae" of New Minster, Winchester. While the ultimate exemplar was evidently of Winchester origin, MS 191 itself was written at Exeter. It is the work of a scribe known to have been active at Exeter during the episcopate of Leofric (1050-1072): "Scribe 2" according to the classification of Exeter scribes proposed by Drage (1978; see below). Leofric switched the seat of his diocese from Crediton (of which he had been bishop since 1046) to Exeter in 1050. He established his cathedral at the existing monastery of St. Peter, which he turned into a community of canons. Leofric had himself been educated in Lotharingia (of which Metz was the principal city), probably in a reformed house of canons observing the "Rule of Chrodegang." MS 191 demonstrates his commitment to introducing the "Rule" at Exeter. Although, unlike nine of the books that Leofric presented to Exeter, MS 191 lacks a donorship inscription naming him, the manuscript is believed to be the 'regula canonicorum' included in the list of lands, church vestments, and books that Leofric procured for his cathedral. Copies of this list from the 11c survive on ff 1r-2v of the "Exeter Book" of OE poetry (Exeter, Dean and Chapter Library, MS 3501 [130]) and ff 1r-2v of Oxford, Bodleian Library, Auct. D. 2. 16 [340].
There is evidence that MS 191 was formerly bound with two other manuscripts: CCCC 201, Part 2 [42], a bilingual Latin and OE copy of the "Capitula" of Theodulf of Orleans (d. 821), in which Bishop Theodulfinstructs the parish priests ofhis diocese in their pastoral duties; and CCCC 196 [40], a now fragmentary copy ofa martyrology, perhaps originally bilingual, but with only a portion of OE text surviving. The unequivocal evidence for the manuscripts having been bound together is oflater date, but it is possible that the three texts were combined from the beginning. The 13c title on f. lr of MS 191, 'De ordine cano<n>icor<um>. martirologiu<m>. lib<er> util<is> exceptis o<mn>ib<us> exp<ositi>onib<us> i<n> anglico', shows that at that time the martyrology formed part of the composite volume, and the phrase 'De ordine canonicorum' may perhaps have encompassed both MS 191 and MS 201, Part 2, for the latter has no title at its beginning and may never have had one, with the result that it and MS 191 could have been seen as forming a single unit. By 1327 the martyrology had become detached, for it is listed as a separate item in the Exeter library catalogue compiled in that year. The same catalogue attests that MS 191 and MS 201, Part 2, were then bound together, for its entry for MS 191 is followed by the observation 'et in eodem uolumine alius liber qui sic incipit Obsecro', the latter being the first word of the Latin version of Theodulfs "Capitula." The Exeter inventory of1506 does not record whether Chrodegang's "Rule" and Theodulfs "Capitula" were still bound together at that date, but, in citing the first word of the second folio of MS 191 as 'Accipiendam', it shows that the original second leafha4 by then already been lost, for 'accipiendam' is the first word of the current f. 2. MSS 191, 201, Part 2, and 196 may have been combined in Leofric's time . MS 201, Part 2 is the work of the same scribe as MS 191, as Drage observed (1978: 151), and matches MS 191 in format; its content complements that ofMS 191 quite well, for both texts concern clerical conduct, although admittedly MS 191 is written for canons living communally, while the text ofMS 201, Part 2 is directed at parish priests.
[Note: Drage (1978: 150-54) identified the scribe as her Scribe 2, in the Exeter
scriptorium during the time of Bishop Leofric. This scribe wrote several of the Exeter additions to the Leofric Missal (Oxford, Bodleian Library, Bodley 579 [364)), pp. 3-93 of Cambridge, Corpus Christi College 421 [59), and CCCC 201, Part 2 (42) and contributed to other manuscripts (listed by Drage 1978, 150-51); he also wrote five of the nine surviving Leofric donorship inscriptions. In MS 191, as elsewhere, the scribe distinguished clearly between Latin and OE by different forms of f, g, and r, but also by different forms of a, d, and s, and by using split ascenders in OE and thickened but unsplit ascenders in Latin.]
There appears to be no separate reference for MS 201, Part 2 among the
books in the list of Leofric's procurements, and it is possible that the 'regula canonicorum' of the list refers jointly to both the enlarged "Rule of Chrodegang" and the "Capitula" of Theodulf. The next item in the list is 'martyrlogium' [sic]. That this item immediately follows the other raises the possibility that they could then have been bound together, although it has to be acknowledged that in the case of three works by Prudentius that were definitely combined in a single volume in Leofric's time, the copy of the list in the "Exeter Book" specifically records this fact, whereas it does not do so for the 'regula canonicorum' and the 'martyrlogium'. At the end of MS 201, Part 2, an 11c addition provides a copy of the preface by Usuard of Saint-Germain-des­ Pres to his Latin martyrology.This addition would be the more explicable if the volume then included the martyrology that survives, fragmentarily, as MS 196. The three texts--enlarged "Rule of Chrodegang," "Capitula" of Theodulf, and martyrology-would all have been suitable for reading aloud at the morning chapter-meeting of the Exeter community, and it is possible that the texts were brought together to create a practical volume for just this purpose.
The continued presence of MS 191 at Exeter in the late Middle Ages is also attested by the occurrence on pp. 87 and 130 of notes in the hand of John Grandisson, bishop of Exeter (1327-1369), an assiduous annotator of Exeter manuscripts. On p. 130/16, within Latin chapter 67, he added the interlinear "correction" 'admitte<n>dus' above 'remouendus', thereby significantly altering the sense of the passage. In the upper and outer margins of p. 87, framing the beginning of Latin chapter 48, which prescribes how the cantor should sing, Grandisson added two texts stating how the lector should read, a subject not covered in the enlarged version of Chrodegang's "Rule." Grandisson's heading attributes the second of these texts to St. Ambrose; most of his heading for the first text has been trimmed away, but the surviving bottoms of the letters suggest that this heading also may have been, 'Ambr'.
MS 191 was one of several A-S manuscripts from Exeter that passed into the hands of Matthew Parker while he was archbishop of Canterbury (1559-1575). It shows signs of use by him and byJohn Joscelyn (1529-1603), the principal student of OE within Parker's circle. Joscelyn may first have seen the manuscript while it was at Exeter and while it was still bound with MS 201, Part 2. Underlinings and glosses by Joscelyn occur on many pages of MS 191, and represent an early stage of his work on OE lexicography, a stage wherein he studied A-S manuscripts (often those containing OE texts of which Latin versions were available) and underlined words of lexicographical interest. Later stages of the work occur in London, Lambeth Palace Library 692, a notebook containing Joscelyn's word-lists compiled from various manuscripts, and London, British Library, Cotton Titus A. xv and A. xvi, a dictionary of OE written in the hands of Joscelyn himself and Matthew Parker's elder son John (1548-1619). Words from MS 191, including many of the underlined words, are listed on f. 3rv of the Lambeth manuscript, and f. 3r bearsJoscelyn's heading 'Ex regula canonicoru<m>'. Significantly, f. 3r also includes words derived from Theodulfs "Capitula" in MS 201, Part 2, which implies that at the time of Joscelyn's initial examination, the "Rule" of Chrodegang and the "Capitula" were still bound together. In the Titus dictionary, words from both texts have their source cited as 'Reg. can.' or just 'can.'
Not all Joscelyn's entries in MS 191 served lexicographical purposes. Both he and Parker were interested in aspects of the content. In the outer margins of pp. 76, 94, and 164 Joscelyn has entered a characteristic mark to draw attention to a passage concerning preaching to the people, to a quotation from St. Augustine about punishing wrongdoers, and to a passage relating to the marriage of the minor orders of the clergy. In the latter case (p. 164), Joscelyn's underlining of the passage in ink is accompanied by Matthew Parker's underlining in red crayon, and Parker has also added a marginal comment in red crayon. The issue of clerical marriage was of crucial importance to Parker, himself a married priest, and Joscelyn's work for Parker included searching for texts that Parker could use to justify clerical marriage. Thus on p. 125, within Latin chapter 62, Joscelyn has underlined a passage in which Chrodegang allows the possibility that canons may be married, while on p. 127 he has underlined the equivalent passage in the OE version of the chapter and has added his own Latin translation between the lines. He also transcribed both the original Latin and the OE into his notebook of transcriptions, London, British Library, Cotton MS Vitellius D. vii, f. 12r. The OE version of the passage, followed by a 16c English translation that is closely related to Joscelyn's interlinear Latin translation in MS 191, occurs on p. 346 of A Defence of Priestes Mariages, published under Parker's auspices probably in 1567. MS 191 thus played a part, albeit a small one, in Elizabethan religious polemics.
Further notes by Parker occur on the verso of the second 16c front endleaf and on the paper slip now pasted to the modem paper leaf following that endleaf, but formerly pasted to the outer margin of p. 1. In the first of these notes, Parker gave his opinion that the Latin version of the text was the
work of Theodore, archbishop of Canterbury (669-690), and that the OE translation was by Ælfric. Parker was also responsible for rebinding the manuscript and effecting various repairs, described below, and it was Parker
who had the "Capitula" of Theodulf bound into its present manuscript (MS 201), Part 1 of which has a different provenance, having apparently been given to Parker by Edward Cradock, Lady Margaret Professor of Divinity at Oxford (1565-1594). MS 191 passed to Corpus Christi College along with the rest of Parker's collection bequeathed to the college. In the 17c, MS 191 was studied by Abraham Wheelock (1593-1653), Cambridge University Librarian from 1629, and (from 1639/40) the University's first lecturer in Anglo-Saxon. In a letter to· Sir Henry Spelman of 29 April 1641 (London, British Library, Additional MS 34,601, f. 46rv), Wheelock commented that the text of MS 191 contained "many excellent instructions ...w<hi>ch alsoe set out the face of the church in the auncient Monasteries," and stated that he hoped that he could get the text printed at the same time as his Latin and OE edition of Bede's "Historia Ecclesiastica" (which appeared in 1643). This plan did not materialize, although Wheelock did include a few passages of MS 191 in the additional material that he appended to Bede's individual chapters (see pp.331-32, 358, and 432 of his edition). Wheelock continued to study MS 191 after the publication of his edition of Bede. A Corpus library-list covering the period April 1643 to January 1648 reveals that the manuscript (identified as 'Canones Latin: Saxon') was "taken out for Mr Wheelock" on 28 June 1644 and returned on 5 August (CCCC Archives XXXIX. 146).It could have been at this time, if not earlier, that Wheelock had his pupil William Retchford make a full transcript of MS 191 (see Lucas [forthcoming]); in the transcript, now London, British Library, Harely 440, the OE and Latin versions are laid out on facing pages. In MS 191 itself, it was Wheelock who, beginning on p. 33, wrote interlinear transcriptions of several of the original rubricated chapter-titles that had faded and become difficult to read. Also, within the chapter-list at the beginning of the manuscript, he corrected the chapter-title entered on the Parkerian slip that stands between pp.8 and 9.
MS 191 was sent for rebinding between 18 and 23 August 1748 (CCCC Archives B. 3, f. 88v). The manuscript was rebound and conserved at the British Museum in 1926.

CODICOLOGICAL DESCRIPTION: The leaves are brownish in color and often grainy or scaly, and have been prepared from skins of only moderate quality. There are original holes on pp. 41-42, 99-100, 109-110, and 117-18; in the first two cases, the scribe was obliged to enter the text to either side of the holes. The leaves are arranged HFHF.
Leaves ca.288 x 177 mm; written area ca. 223 x 102 mm. The text is laid out in single columns of 27 lines. The leaves were pricked in the outer margins only (it is unclear why Bishop [1971: 24] stated that Quire III "was folded for pricking").The pricks in the outer margins of Quires I-IV are still visible, but the pricks in the other quires must have been located further out in the margins and have been lost through subsequent trimming. The ruling is in drypoint, from the hair side. The top two and the bottom two horizontal lines on each leaf are ruled fully across the leaf, or at least as far as the pricks. There are pairs of vertical bounding lines at each side of the column.
The text was written by one scribe using a rounded English Caroline minuscule for the Latin and A-S minuscule for OE. M. R. James (1912: 463) believed the manuscript to be the work of "two very good round upright hands," and Ker (Cat., 74) concluded that it was "possibly by two scribes," but a close study of those variations in script that the manuscript exhibits does not suggest that there is a change in hand at any point.
Within the individual chapters of MS 191, many sentences begin with thickened ink initials built up with several strokes of the pen. Numbers within the chapter-list, and numbers and titles of the individual chapters are written in red lead pigment that has corroded and darkened. The titles that precede the Latin chapters are in capitals, those preceding the OE chapters in minuscule matching that of the text. The large, undecorated initials beginning the individual chapters are in red, green, or blue. With few exceptions, every second initial is in red, while the intervening initials alternate between green and blue. For Latin chapter 10 (p. 30), initial 'H' was entered in error for initial P.
There are several interlinear corrections to both the Latin and the OE texts, some of these corrections being by the original scribe. In the outer margins of pp. 77 and 114 are medieval nota bene marks; there are pen trials in the outer margins of pp. 31, 87, and 119, and a sketch of an animal head in profile in the outer margin of p. 69.
The manuscript has suffered various forms of damage, most notably at the beginning, where large areas of the leaves have rotted away, while what remains has been stained by mold and dirt. The lower margins and the upper inner areas of pp. 65-68 have also been lost, as have parts of some other leaves. On many leaves, the red lead pigment used for some initials and for the rubricated chapter numbers and titles has darkened, corroded, and leeched, making some of the titles difficult to read; the blue pigment of some initials has partly flaked away, but the green pigment has generally suffered little from damage. During the period of Matthew Parker's ownership, the first leaves were repaired using strips cut from an early 16c account roll similar in character to (but different in script from) the roll of which a large fragment survives as two front endleaves. Some of these repair strips have now been removed and pasted to two unnumbered modern paper leaves inserted between pp. 6 and 7.
[Note: Written on these strips are Parkerian entries including red crayon pagination and transcriptions of damaged parts of some chapter-titles of the Latin chapter-list and one title from the OE list. Between pp. 4 and 5 is a strip that formerly repaired the upper margin of p. 5 but that has now been lifted, and which carries a transcription of the last word of the title of Latin chapter 30. Another lifted strip (this one of paper) occurs between pp. 8 and 9. It carries an inaccurate Parkerian transcription, corrected by Abraham Wheelock, of the title of OE chapter 7. The original second leaf of the first quire has been lost. It would have carried the end of the OE preface and the titles of the first 30 chapters in the Latin chapter-list. In its place stands a 16c vellum leaf with a note by Matthew Parker commenting on the absence of those chapter-titles. Pasted to the modem paper endleaf that precedes p. 1 are two 16c strips that were formerly pasted to p. 1. The upper, horizontal strip carries the former Corpus press-mark ('S. 12') of the manuscript on its recto, and, on its verso, a 16c transcription of the 13c title that is entered in the upper margin of p. 1. The lower strip must formerly have been pasted to the outer margin of p. 1. It carries a note by Matthew Parker commenting that the reference at the beginning of Chrodegang's preface to 318 canons of the holy fathers refers to the canons of the Council of Nicaea, which was attended by 318 bishops.]
The manuscript has undergone extensive modem repairs. These were carried out when it was rebound at the British Museum in 1926. The work included lifting the Parkerian repair strips and pasting those formerly pasted to pp. 6 and 7 to two new paper supports inserted between pp. 6-7; the second of these supports has been shaped to make it possible to see how the letters entered on one of the Parkerian repairs restored damaged portions of the original chapter-list. New repairs of inlaid paper or parchment were made to many leaves, most notably those at the beginning of the manuscript and pp. 65-68; pp. 1-2 and 5-J4 were covered with fine gauze to strengthen and protect them while leaving the text visible. A paper leaf was added before p. 1 to carry the 16c strips formerly pasted to that page. Twelve paper endleaves were added at both the front and the back of the manuscript. The binding itself is a full binding of blue Levant morocco leather over millboards, with rosette stamps on the inside surfaces of the covers.
COLLATION: xv+1+i+1+ii+82+xii, leaves paginated. Twelve 20c paper endleaves. Two 16c vellum endleaves, being a reused fragment of a 16c account. One 20c paper endleaf. I8 (wants 2, for which there is a 16c replacement; inserted between 3 and 4 are two 20c leaves to which are pasted 16c repair strips removed from leaves 3 and 4) (pp. 1-16); II- VI8 (pp. 17-96); VII12 (lacks 4, 5, 7, 10) (pp. 97-112); VIII-X8 (pp. 113-60); XI8 (wants 6, 7, 8) (pp. 161-70). Twelve 20c paper endleaves.
[Note: The collations of the manuscript by James and Ker suggest that Quire VII is a standard quire of four bifolia. However, the quire includes four single leaves whose stubs are visible between pp. 102-03 (two stubs), 104-05, and 107-08.]
16c endleaves (fragment of a 16c account roll). On the recto of the first endleaf, in an 18c hand, are the title of the volume and its former Corpus press-mark. On the verso of the second endleaf is Matthew Parker's note erroneously stating that the text of the manuscript was first composed in Latin by Archbishop Theodore, then translated into OE by Ælfric. Inserted 20c leaf carrying 16c paper strips formerly pasted to p. 1.
Chrodegang of Metz, "Regula canonicorum":

pp. 1/1-2/6 Untitled Latin preface: 'SI TRECENTOR<UM> [altered from 'TRJCENTOR<UM>'] DECEM [altered from 'DECIM'] ET | OCTO RELIQVOR<UM>q<ue> S<AN>C<T>OR<UM> PATRV<M> | canonu<m>
auctoritas inuiolata.semp<er> durar& ... p<er> uity meritu<m> ad hoc i<n> hui<us> te<m>poris curriculo du<m> lie& currere festinent' (ed. Napier 1916: 1). [At the top of p. 1 is the 13c title of the manuscript.]
p.2/7-27 Untitled OE preface, ending abruptly as a result of the loss of the original second leaf: 'Gif þæra þreo hundred 7 eahta tyne fædra þe | wæron gesa<m>node on þa<m> sinoðe þe we nicena ne<m>nað…7 wyle us | to myrhðe geladan gif we willað ure yflu gebetan. Ges' (ed. Napier 1916: 1-2).
pp. 3-4 Inserted 16c leaf, blank apart from the pagination and Matthew Parker's note on p. 3 commenting on the missing opening of the Latin chapter-list.
pp. 5/1-7/16 Latin chapter-list, beginning abruptly, lacking the titles of chapters I-XXIX and all but the last word of the title for chapter XXX: 'accipienda[m] | XXXI.De communicatione culparum ... LXXXV. De eo qu[o]d non debent canonici se precauere ante | transformationes dęmonum' (ed. Napier 1916: 2-4).
[Note: The chapter-list erroneously divides the title for chapter LXXXIII into two parts ('De eo quad non facile uincitur unus' and 'De ordine canonico'), numbering these parts as two separate chapters. Before p. 5 is a strip, now lifted but formerly pasted to the upper margin of the page, carrying a Parkerian transcription of the first word on the page, 'accipiendam'. Between pp. 6 and 7 are two modern paper leaves to which are pasted the Parkerian repair strips formerly pasted to pp. 6 and 7. The rectos of the strips formerly pasted to p. 7 carry Parkerian transcriptions of portions of the titles of Latin chapters LXXVI-LXXVIII and OE chapter VI.]
p. 7/17 Rubricated title for Latin chapter I, entered here in error: DE HUMILITATE.
pp. 7/18-11/23 OE chapter-list: 'Be eadmodnysse ...LXXXIIII.Be þa<m> þ<æt> preostas hi warnien wyð þa scinlacan hiwinga | deofla prettes' (ed. Napier 1916: 4-7).

[Note: Between pp. 8 and 9 is a strip formerly pasted to the upper area of p. 8. The strip carries a Parkerian transcription, corrected by Abraham Wheelock, of the title of OE chapter VII.]
pp.11/24-169/17 Enlarged version of Chrodegang's "Regula canonicorum"
in Latin and OE, untitled, with each Latin chapter followed by its OE translation: .I. DE HUMILITATE. | Clamat nobis diuina scriptura dicens ...(Latin ends p. 167/13) qui orbat<us> miser | uel quern ipse suscip<er>it. uel quern ep<iscopu>s expulis j s& agnouit.' (OE begins p. 12/19) 'I.Be eaðmodnysse. |Vs clipað þ<æt> halige gewrit.7 þus cwyð to us ...(OE ends p. 169/17) þa ageat openlice se earma | beam leasa ceorl hwæne he under fencg. oððe hwæne se biscop ut hæfde adræfed' (ed. Napier 1916: 7-99; Langefeld 2003).

Bishop, T. A. M. "Notes on Cambridge Manuscripts, Part III: MSS. Connected with Exeter." Transactions of the Cambridge Bibliographical Society 2.2 (1955): 192-99.
Bishop, T. A. M. English Caroline Minuscule. Oxford Palaeographical Handbooks. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1971. [no. 28]
Drage, Elaine M. ''Bishop Leofric and Exeter Cathedral Chapter (1050-1072): AReassessment of the Manuscript Evidence." Unpublished D. Phil. thesis, Oxford University, 1978. [pp. 52, 150-54, 322-24]
Förster, Max. "Lokalisierung und Dat:ierung der altenglischen Version der
Chrodegang-Regel." Sitzungsberichte der Bayerischen Akademie der Wimnschciften, phil.-hist. Klasse (1933), Sitzungen, 7-8.
Graham, Timothy. ''.JohnJoscelyn, Pioneer of Old English Lexicography." In The Recovery of Old English: Anglo-Saxon Studies in the Sixteenth and Seventeenth Centuries, ed. Timothy Graham, 83-140. Kalamazoo: Medieval Institute Publications, 2000. [pp. 108-10]
James, Montague Rhodes. A Descriptive Catalogue of the Manuscripts in the Library ofCorpus Christi College, Cambridge. 2 vols. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1912. [vol. 1, no. 191]
Langefeld, Brigitte, ed. The Old English Version of the Enlarged Rule of Chrodegang, edited together with the Latin Text and an English Translation. Miinchner Universitätsschriften. Texte und Untersuchungen zur englischen Philologie, 26. Frankfurt am Main: Peter Lang, 2003.
Lucas, Peter J. "William Retchford, Pupil of Abraham Wheelock in Anglo­ Saxon: 'He understands the Saxon as well as myself."' Transactions of the Cambridge Bibliographical Society 12.4 (2003). [forthcoming]
Napier, Arthur S. The Old English Version of the Enlarged Rule of Chrodegang together with the Latin Original; An Old English Version of the Capitula of Theodulf together with the Latin Original; An Interlinear Old English Rendering of the Epitome of Benedict of Aniane. Early English Text Society, o.s. 150. London: Kegan Paul, Trench, Trübner, 1916. [pp. 1-99]
Robinson, P. R. Catalogue of Dated and' Datable Manuscripts c. 137-1600 in Cambridge Libraries. 2 vols. Cambridge: Brewer, 1988. [vol. 1, no. 139, and vol. 2, pl. 24]
Selbome, Roundell, Earl of. Ancient Facts and Fictions Concerning Churches and Tithes. 2nd ed. London: Macmillan, 1892. [pp. 264-70]

T. G.

Article Details

Manuscript Descriptions