THE GLOSSES ON THE REGULA S. BENEDICTI IN LEIDEN, UNIVERSITY LIBRARY, VOSSIUS LAT. Q 69:

A SYSTEMATIC SIFTING, OLD AND NEW

1. IntroductionThe original purpose of this paper was to explore the practiceof drawing up an alphabetical glossary in an eighth- or ninth-century scriptorium. As a case study, one particular glossarywas selected, namely that relating to the Regula S. Benedicti, whichappears under the heading INTERPRETATIO SERMonum DE REGULIS inthe Leiden Glossary (Leiden, University Library, Vossius lat.Q. 69, folios 21, recto I - 22, recto II).1 There were tworeasons for this choice. Firstly, the Leiden Glossary (LG) as awhole is regarded as a major tool at the heart of learning inAnglo-Saxon England. Secondly, the alphabetical sequence of thelemmata in the section of the glossary drawn from the Regula S.Benedicti (RSB) shows irregularities that appeared to offer anopportunity to retrace the process of compiling an alphabeticalglossary from a known text. The question, however, was whichversion of the text did the compiler of the glossary rely on,since there are several different recensions of the RSB whichmay have been used. Michael Lapidge, for example, tentativelysuggested that the lemmata in the LG may have been taken from alost exemplar of a recension of the RSB which formed the basisfor the text of St Gallen, Stiftsbibliothek, 916 (c. 800).2

1 M. Lapidge (‘The School of Theodore and Hadrian’, Anglo-Latin Literatur 600-899(1996, London), 141- 68, at 165 (originally published in ASE, xv, 45-72))dates the Leiden Glossary to s. viii/ix. J. Hessels (A late eighth-century Latin-Anglo-Saxon Glossary (1906, Cambridge), xiii) assigns the manuscript onpalaeographic grounds to ‘the last decade of the eighth century’. Accordingto P. Glogger (Das Leidener Glossar, 3 vols (vol. 1: 1901, vol. 2: 1904, vol. 3:1907, Augsburg), vol. 1, 2), L. Traube (Neues Archiv der Gesellschaft für älteredeutsche Geschichtskunde XXVI, 234) dates it to 800, E. Steinmeyer (DieAlthochdeutschen Glossen (1879-98), vol. IV, 481) to s. ixin, G. Goetz (CorpusGlossariorum (1888, Leipzig), vol, V, xxvii), to s. viii/ix, and H. Sweet(The Oldest English Texts (1885, London), 5) to s. ix.2 M. Lapidge, ‘The School of Theodore and Hadrian’ (1996), 159. Gretschturned Lapidge’s tentative suggestion into fact when she asserted that: ‘Afurther now lost manuscript of the interpolatus tradition was in use at thefamous Canterbury school of Theodore and Hadrian around 700, as istestified by a batch of glosses from the RSB found in the ‘Leidenglossary’...’ (M. Gretsch, ‘Cambridge, Corpus Christi College 57: a witnessto the early stages of the Benedictine reform in England’, in: ASE, xxxii,

In the article in which he made this suggestion, Lapidge waslooking for clues as to the books and manuscripts that mighthave been used for instruction in the school that wasestablished by Theodore and Hadrian at Canterbury. In thislight, he was following what he called a ‘natural hypothesis’when he initially concentrated on one particular recension ofthe Benedictine Rule, namely Oxford, Bodleian Library, Hatton48 (s. viii1),3 as a possible source for the glossary. He chosethis manuscript, because of its early English origin andbecause it contains the earliest surviving version of the text(written around 700 of later Worcester provenance) in arecension which had a particularly wide distribution.Eventually, however, Lapidge concluded that Hatton 48 was notthe recension the glosses were drawn from, but that a lostexemplar from which St Gallen 916 has been copied was a morelikely candidate. He came to this conclusion on the basis of anumber of LG lemmata which occur exclusively in St Gallen 916.At the same time, he emphasised that his conclusion wastentative, since it was based on a fairly cursory examination,using Hanslik’s edition of the RSB,4 which is not entirelyreliable.

The present study has made grateful use of the digitalizedversions of three St Gallen manuscripts:5 St Gallen,Stiftsbibliothek, 914 (s. ix1/3), 915 (s. ixmed, x, xii), and 916(s. ix); and has relied on a selection of the numerous editionsof the RSB,6 in order to locate the occurrence of each of the

111-46, at 126).3 Ker 327; Gneuss 631/653.4 R. Hanslik, Benedicti Regula, CSEL 75, 2nd ed. (1977,Vienna)5 See the St Gall Stiftbibliothek’s website.http://www.cesg.unifr.ch/virt_bib/handschriften.htm. 6 H. Hattemer, Denkmahle des Mittelalters. St. Gallen’s altteutsche Sprachschätze, vol. 1(1844-49, St. Gallen); E. Schmidt, Regula S. Patris Benedicti (1880, Bonn); E.Woelflin, Benedicti Regula Monachorum (1895, Leipzig); P. Piper, Nachträge zurälteren deutschen Literatur von Küschners deutscher National-Litteratur, Deutsche National-Litteratur. Historisch kritische Ausgabe, vol. 162 (1898, Stuttgart); A.Amelli and G. Morin, Regulae Sancti Benedicti. Traditio codicum MSS Casinensium apraesantissimo teste usque repetita codice Sangallensi 914 (1900.Montecassino); C. Butler,Sancti Benedicti Regula Monachorum (1912, Freiburg-im-Breisgau); L. Lindbauer, S.Benedicti Regula Monachorum (1922, Metten); U. Daab, Die AlthochdeutscheBenediktinerregel des cod. Sang. 916, AltdeutscheTextbibliothek 50 (1959, Tübingen);D. Farmer, The Rule of St Benedict, EEMF 15, facsimile edition (1968,

LG’s lemmata in the text and note textual variants. Theessential groundwork for this exercise has already been done byboth Glogger and Hessels in their respective editions of theLG.7 Before examining the glossary itself, however, it isnecessary to give a a brief history of the RSB text, in orderto appreciate the multiplicity of recensions which may havebeen glossed (see Table 1 and Figure 1).

2. Historical background to the RSB text8

When Benedict drew up his rule for the monastery atMontecassino at the beginning of the sixth century, there werealready several different rules in existence in various othermonasteries, and it is now thought that he based his own ruleon one that is known as the Regula magistri (RM), in whichnumerous correspondences with the Benedictine rule can bedetected.9 The RM may have been written in Rome, but it is alsopossible that it originated in southern Gaul, either in Lyon orin a monastery connected with Lérins. Be that as it may,Benedict’s own text is likely to have gone through severalrecensions, either in his own lifetime or shortly after hisdeath in about 547. In essence, two broad families ofrecensions can be distinguished — one with a short prologue(without mention of the scola described in RM), the other with a

Copenhagen); R. Hanslik, Benedicti Regula, CSEL 75, 2nd ed. (1977, Vienna); B.Steidle, Benediktusregel. Lateinisch-Deutsch, 4th ed. (1980, Beuron); A. Masser, Dielateinisch-althochdeutsche Benediktinerregel Stiftsbibliothek St.Gallen Cod. 916 (1997,Göttingen).7 See footnote 1.8 This section summarizes information and suggestions given in R. Hanslik,‘Die Reichenauer Glossen zur Regula Benedicti und die Regulahandschrift ihrerlemmata’, Kyriakon: Festschrift Johannes Quasten (1970), 604-7; P. Meyvaert P.‘Towards a History of the Textual Transmission of the Regula S. Benedicti’,Scriptorium 17 (1963), 83-110; H. Plenkers, Untersuchungen zurÜberlieferungsgeschichte der ältesten lateinischen Mönchsregeln, Quellen un Untersuchungen zurlateinischen Philologie des Mittelalters, ed. L. Traube, vol. 1, part 3 (1906,Munich) , 29-52; and L. Traube, ‘Textgeschichte der Regula S. Benedicti’,Abhandlungen der königlich bayerischen Akademie der Wissenschaften, phil.-hist. Klasse 21(1898), 601-731.9 This idea is still contentious, but here is not the place to explore the arguments in more detail. See J. Platón, Benet de Núrsia. La Regla dles Monjos (Barcelona, 1997), 70-1.

longer version of the prologue (which does mention scola). Whenthese two recensions are compared, the text with the longerprologue is considered to have been written in a more vulgarform of Latin, while the version with the short prologue hasbeen emended and interpolated. At one time it was thought thatthe interpolated recension (known as the textus interpolatus) wascloser to Benedict’s original and that the cruder version wascorrupt. The interpolated version had the wider distribution,and it is to this family that both Hatton 48 and St Gallen 916belong, i.e. the manuscripts considered by Lapidge. In 1898,however, Traube convincingly demonstrated that the non-interpolated text, which he called the textus purus, was closerto Benedict’s original.10

What exactly happened to the original is shrouded in myth,but the story is highly relevant in the present context. PaulThe Deacon tells us that when the Montecassino monastery wasplundered by the Lombards in 581, the monks fled to Rome,taking with them a manuscript of the Regula. It is not clearwhether this manuscript was Benedict’s autograph version, butin any case it ended up in the library of St John Lateran inRome. In 742, twenty-five years after the Montecassinomonastery had been refounded, Pope Zacharius sent the monks acodex of the Rule. Again, it is not clear whether this codexcontained the autograph version, but the monks seem to havethought so. Unfortunately, when the monastery was laterplundered by the Saracens, in 883, the monks again had to fleewith the codex, this time to Teano, where it was lost in a fireseven years later. Fortunately, however, Charlemagne hadobtained a copy of it in 787 (sigil 1 in Table 1 and Figure1). It is not known what script this copy was written in, but,being a late eighth-century copy of a supposedly early sixth-century manuscript, the text is likely to have contained anumber of scribal errors. We do not know, because this copy toohas been lost. However, it is known to have been delivered tothe monastery at Inda near Aachen, where Charlemagne had itcopied (sigil 2). In 816 and 817 Benedict of Aniane held twocouncils of Benedictine abbots in Aachen, to discuss his

10 Traube, ‘Textgeschichte...’ 1898, passim, esp. 626-7..

proposed reforms to the order. The abbot of Reichenau delegatedtwo monks, Grimald and Tatto, to attend these meetings, and thelibrarian of Reichenau asked them to make a faithful copy ofthe exemplar of the Rule which Charlemagne had had made. Thisthey did punctilliously, and in addition included — mainly inthe margins — emendations to reflect contemporary Latin usage,the traditio moderna (sigil a). This copy of the Aachen textus purushas been lost but it was recorded in the Reichenau librarycatalogues of 821 and 842 (sigil *A in Figure 1 and Table 1).Shortly after 817, however, a separate copy of the textus puruswas made at St Gallen, namely St Gallen, Stiftsbibliothek, 914(sigil A), together with Grimald and Tatto’s marginalemendations (sigil a), and slightly later, yet another copy wasmade, St Gallen, Stiftsbibliothek, 915 (sigil G1). Sometimeearlier, at the end of the eighth century, a version of thetextus interpolatus was compiled with an interlinear Germantranslation, maybe at Reichenau (sigil *S), and a copy of thiswas made at St Gallen around 800, namely St Gallen,Stiftsbibliothek, 916 (sigil S). However, it was the textus purusin St Gallen, Stiftsbibliothek, 914 (sigil A) which Traubeconsidered to be the closest remaining version to Benedict’soriginal text, and which has since been taken as the basis formost modern editions of the RSB, although there are a number ofother manuscripts in the same family (see Figure 1).11 The mostuseful edition is still Amelli and Morin’s edition (1900,Monticasino), which reproduces the lineation and foliation, aswell as the marginal and interlinear glosses and correctionssupposedly inserted by Grimald and Tatto (sigil a). Hanslik’s1977 edition has a much more complete apparatus than Amelli andMorin’s edition, while Steidle’s 1980 edition is useful becauseit not only provides a translation, but also indicatescorrespondences with the RM.

11 For bibliographical details, see footnote 6. Before Traube, Schmidt’s1880 edition followed Munich, Bayerische Staatsbibliothek, Clm 19408 (s.viiiex/ix) [formerly Teg. 1408, sigil T], which belongs to the textus purus() family . Wöfflin (1895) followed Oxford, Hatton 48 (s. viii1). SinceTraube, the editions of Amelli and Morin (1900), Plenkers (1910), Butler(1912), Linderbauer (1922), Hanslik (1960, rpt 1977) and Steidle (1980)have all followed A.

3. A preliminary examination of the Leiden glosses on the RSBThe LG as a whole is written on folios 20 to 36 of the Vossiusmanuscript, each page being divided into two columns. Thesection devoted to the RSB is the second section, occupyingfive and a half columns, on the recto and verso of folio 21 andthe recto of folio 22. A complete column-by-column list of thelemmata is given in Table 2, where Glogger’s numbering of thecolumns as 5 to 10 is followed. Each column in the manuscriptis ruled with horizontal blind lines, which in this section ofthe glossary amount to 35 to a column. The text fills thecolumns, with an overflow of one word at the bottom of col. 8,and a whole line dangling at the bottom of col. 9. It waswritten by the first of the two scribes who wrote the wholeglossary, in an insular hand which Hessels emphatically datedto ‘the latter end, say the last decade of the eighth century’.12

In general, there is one lemma per line, but someinterpretamenta spill over onto the end of the line above orbelow, and some extend over two or three lines, while somelemmata are written two to a line, and some have nointerpretamenta. More important in the present context, however,are (a) a number of obvious irregularities in the alphabeticalsequence, and (b) a number of duplicated lemmata.

The irregularities in the alphabetical sequence are(highlighted in Table 2 in bold print): three B-lemmata in col. 5 (lines 27-9), between two batches

of A-lemmata, two M-lemmata at the bottome of col. 8 (lines 34-5), between

N- and O-lemmata, four U-lemmata in col. 10 (lines 7-10), between S and T, the final lines of the whole section at the bottom of col.

10 (lines 27-35).These irregularities are a prima facie indication that the scribemay have combined two or more separate inventories ofalphabetized glosses.

The duplication of lemmata is less disruptive and could havebeen a mistake. In fact, there are only three instances oflemmata being repeated, which suggests that, if more than one

12 Hessels, A late eighth-century Latin-Anglo-Saxon Glossary, xiii and xix.

inventory of glosses had been involved, the scribe was carefulto avoid duplication. In one case, namely Sarabaita in col. 9,he appears to have been aware of the repetition of this word inthe same column, and to have attempted to correct the“mistake”. The first occurrence of the word, at line 29, hasbeen crossed through, while the repeat of it at the bottom ofthe column (line 35) has been given an interpretamentum extendingover two lines, so that the column overruns the standard 35lines. It may be that the scribe saw that the same lemmaoccurred twice, crossed out the word at line 29, and hadintended to rewrite the bottom of the column so that it fittedthe 35 lines (by padding out the final interpretamentum), but hadthen realised that the correction would have caused too muchdisruption.

The second pair of duplicate lemmata occurs in col. 10,namely Tirannidem at line 12, and Tirannides at line 17. The wordsare not identical, and the differences may be significant. Thethird pair of duplicates is certainly significant. The twolemmata in question both occur in col. 1: at line 17 Angarizanti,and at line 31 Angariati. The form of this biblical word in thevarious manuscripts is:13

angariati found in A, B, T, G1 and 1,3 textus purusangarianti found in Ben. textus purusangarizati found in O, V and 2 textus

interpolatusangarizanti found in S, W textus

interpolatus.These distinctions in particular suggest that a textus interpolatus,such as St Gallen 916 (i.e. S), may not have been the onlysource for the Leiden glosses. In other words, not only doesthe irregular alphabetical sequence suggest that the compilerof the glossary may have combined two or more alphabetizedlists of glosses, but the duplication of lemmata from twodifferent recensions of the text indicates that the glosses mayhave been drawn from two or more different recensions of thetext. It is important not to confuse these two ideas: the ideaof two or more alphabetized lists of glosses being combined andthe idea of two or more different recensions being used areseparate issues, although they may be related, since the13 For a key to the sigla, see Figure 1.

sourcing of different recensions may have led to thecompilation of separate lists of glosses.

In the following three sections, these ideas will be testedas follows. To test the idea of two or more differentrecensions being used as sources for the glossary, the LGlemmata have been compared with a representative of the textuspurus copied from the Aachen exemplar, namely A (= St Gallen914), and a representative of the textus interpolatus, S (= StGallen 916), both of which were, like the LG, produced at StGallen. For the text of St Gallen 914, Amelli and Morin’s EditioMonticasini was chosen, so as to take account of the emendationsadded by Grimald and Tatto (sigil a). For St Gallen 916, AchimMasser’s 1997 edition was used, which also indicates where thismanuscript was later emended to bring it more into line withthe textus purus of St Gallen 915 (G1).

To test the idea of lists of lemmata being collected andalphabetized separately, before being combined, a careful notehas been made of where the words occur in the text, in order toretrace the process of extraction from the text and perhapsdetermine how the irregularities in alphabetical order cameabout.

Finally, the results of these two examinations will becompared, in order to determine whether the irregularalphabetical oreder may have had anything to do with thesourcing of different manuscripts.

4. Comparison between the LG lemmata and different recensionsIn the comparison between the LG and the different recensionsof the RSB, three separate lists have been drawn up ofcorrespondences between LG lemmata and the forms of the wordsin one or other of the RSB texts (A, S or a). The listsdistinguish three types of correspondence: indisputable correspondences between LG lemmata and words in

A or S, contrasted with an indisputable lack ofcorrespondence;

more disputable instances of correspondence or lack ofcorrespondence — this can involve a case ending or anunassimilated -n- or -d- in words like conlationes or

adcommodare;correspondences between the Leiden lemmata, the textus interpolatus(S) and marginal or interlinear glosses in the textus purus (a)but not in the textus purus itself (A).

In the first list, bold print indicates an indisputablecorrespondence in the A or S text with the LG, while anindisputable lack of correspondence is given in plain text.(The marginal gloss in St Gallen 914 (sigil a) is includedwhere applicable.)14

It will be seen that there are eight cases where the glossarycorresponds with the textus interpolatus in St Gallen 916 (S) andeleven cases where it corresponds with the textus purus asrespresented in St Gallen 914 (A). Each example could bediscussed at length, but without detracting from the generalconclusion that lemmata in the LG were drawn from both texts.

The same conclusion, moreover, is confirmed in the case ofthe more disputable correspondences, which can be summarized asfollows (again with bold text indicating correspondence andplain text for lack of correspondence):

col.line.

Leiden Glossary

St Gallen 916 (S)

St Gallen 914 (A)

St Gallen 914 (a)

5 19 Antiphona antepona antiphona5 24 Ad missas ad missa ad missas5 29 Biberes biberis biberes6 8 Continuanda continuenda continuanda6 9 Conlationes conlationes collationes6 13 Cênobita cênobitarum coenouitarum coenbitarum6 31 Digesti degesti digesti7 30 Hymnum ymnum hymnum7 34 Inprobus inprobus 2.

90:inprobos,23.15:improbus

8 10Lectisternia lectisterni lectisternia

8 19 Modulatis modolatis modulatis8 20 Missas misas missas8 29 Nonnos nunnos nonnos

8 31 Non prodicusnon prodicus non prodigus

14 In St Gall 916, eptaticum (col. 7, line 14) is copied in a more recenthand from St Gall 915, and typo (col. 10, line 18) is corrected to tyfo,where St Gall 915 has typo above tyfo. In St Gall 916, reference to coenobiumis omitted.

col.

line

Leiden Glossary

St Gallen 916(S)

St Gallen 914 (A)

St Gallen 914 (a)

5 17Angarizanti angarizanti angariati

5 31 Angariati angarizanti angariati6 18 Coculam coculam cucullam7 7 Examine examine ex acie7 14 Eptaticum eptaticum7 16 Extollit extollit distollit7 31 Himina himinam eminam9 3 Obstinatus abstinatus obstinatus

9 9 Passim(insert.as correction)

passim (in title)

9 18 Reculicet colocet recollocet culicet9 31 sin alias allii uero sin alias10 8 Ubi et ubi ubi et ubi ubiubi10 11 Temere itenere temere10 14 Teterrimum deterrimum teterrimum10 15 Temperius temporibus temperius10 18 Typo typo tyfo

10 19Tueri protegere uiri tueri

10 22 Uicibus uicibus uicissim

10 27 Coenobiumin coenobiis

9 12 Prodicus prodicus prodigus9 13 Penso penso pensu9 22 Responsoria responsuria responsoria

9 26Scrupolositas

scrupolositate

scripolositate

9 27 Scapulare scapulare scapularem9 30 Stirpator stirpatur stirpator

10 21Uerbi gratia

uerbis gratia uerbi gratia

The glossator could have taken some of these lemmata — such asmodulatis, responsoria, nonnus, missas and continuanda — from St Gallen916 and emended them when he compared them with the textus purus(here St Gallen 914). But if that were the case, why did he notin every instance choose the form closer to what was the traditiomoderna? Why, for example, would the glossator have selectedprodicus rather than prodigus? In only one case is there whatmight be seen as a straightforward correction to the textuspurus: scrupolositate in place of scripolositate, which even Grimaldand Tatto failed to correct. The only conclusion can be thatlemmata were extracted from both versions of the text,apparently independently of each other.

In the third category of correspondences, namelycorrespondences between LG lemmata, the textus interpolatus (S) andmarginal or interlinear glosses in the textus purus (a), but notthe textus purus itself (A), there are ten instances:

col.line.

Leiden Glossary

St Gallen 916(S)

St Gallen 914 (A)

St Gallen 914 (a)

7 10 Excessu(m) excessus excessos excessus7 15 Exigerit exigerit exegerit exigerit7 21 Fortuitu fortuitu fortuito fortuitu

8 8 Kyrieleison kyrieleisonq(ui)rie eleison kyrieleison

8 28Non detegere

n(on) detegere n(on) detere

n(on) detegere

9 23 Rubor rubor rubur rubor9 28 Suspendatur suspendatur supendatur suspendatur10 13 Temperie(m) temperiem temperie temperiem10 17 Tirannades tyrannides tyrannidem tyrannides10 20 Uiolentia uiolentia uiolenti uiolentia

Here S corresponds with the emendations that were added to thetextus purus by Grimald and Tatto (a) and can be seen ascorrections to the textus purus, except in one instance, namelyuiolentia/uiolenti, where uiolenti is the older instrumental genitive. In a further six cases, the LG lemmata concur with the

emendations added by Grimald and Tatto (a) but not found ineither S or A:

col.line

Leiden Glossary

St Gallen 916 (S)

St Gallen 914 (A)

St Gallen 914 (a)

5 23 Acediosus achediosus achediosus (acediosus)

6 32Deuteronomii deuteromomii*

deutheronomium deutheronomii

7 3 Eulogias euglogias eologias eulogias

7 32 Aabita habitare habitarehabita(re] erased)

8 9 Laetanialaetaniae (niae]nie) litaniê letania

8 12 Literis litteris literas literis* The first –m- is corrected to –n-.

Here the LG’s Acediosus (later corrected to Acidiosus) shows aninitial compliance with the form in S, where achediosus wascorrected to acediosus. (In A, the -h- is marked in the text asnot belonging to the modern tradition.) On the other hand, theuse of -i- for -y-, as in Tirannades, and the omission of -h-after -t-, as in Deuteronomii, are consistent practice throughoutthis section of the glossary, although not in either recensionof the RSB text.

Finally, there are six lemmata that differ very slightly fromboth textus interpolatus and textus purus, showing signs either ofscribal error or of a deliberate choice of spelling (such as -i- for -y- and the omission of -h- after -t-):

col.line.

Leiden Glossary

St Gallen 916 (S)

St Gallen 914 (A)

St Gallen 914 (a)

5 27 Biblioteca bibliotheca biblyotheca

6 2Acco(m)modentur

adcommodentur

adcommodentur

6 3 Adolatur adolantur adulantur7 25 Girouagum gyrouagum gyrouagum

8 2 Inbicillesinbicilib(us) inbecillibus

9 34 Sagatitas sagacitate sagacitate

To sum up so far, the evidence from the correspondencesbetween the LG and the chosen representatives of the textusinterpolatus and textus purus of the RSB points to both recensionsbeing used. The question is whether particular parts of theglossary belong to particular recensions? From theirregularities in the alphabetical order of the lemmata, it

would appear that two or more separate lists were compiledbefore being combined. Did these separate listings haveanything to do with the fact that two or more recensions weresourced? In other words, is it possible to separate outindividual inventories and determine how they were puttogether?

5. Identification of separate inventories of lemmata on the basis of alphabeticalorderTo determine whether several inventories may have been combinedto form the final glossary, the irregularities in thealphabetical order of the lemmata have been related to thesequence of occurrence of each lemma in the text of the RSB.In particular, attention has been focussed on the firstoccurrence of each lemma, on the assumption that a glossatoror a student is likely to have noted down a word when he firstcame across it as he went through the text. In Table 3, thecolumn-by column list of lemmata given in Table 2 is repeated,but with the irregularities in alphabetical order given in boldprint, and the occurrence of the lemmata in the RSB text listedto the right of the lemmata. For the occurrences, the chapterand line numbers in the Editio Monticasini have been used. Thegroups of lemmata that do not follow the A-format ofalphabetization, listed above in Section 3, have beenreproduced in bold print.

If someone studying the text did indeed note down each lemmaat its first occurrence, he or someone else would havealphabetized these lemmata later, so that, within each initial-letter group — say, all the words beginning with A — thelemmata would be in the order in which they had been firstencountered in the text. However, the division of the A-lemmata into two groups, with the B-lemmata between them,already suggests that two separate inventories were made andalphabetized independently. This assumption appears to beconfirmed when the first occurrences of the A-lemmata areconsidered. With only three exceptions (the shaded lemmata inthe table), the first occurrences of lemmata in the first A-group begin in the Prologue (P) and run through to Chapter 65,

i.e. almost to the end of the text. In the second A-group,there are no exceptions to this rule: the first lemma (Aptet)occurs in Chapter 2 of the text and the sequence of occurrencesruns consistently through the text to Chapter 65.

When the complete list of lemmata from the RSB is analysed inthe same way, there are very few exceptions to the idea thatinitially two or more inventories were compiled andsubsequently combined, and that in each initial inventory thelemmata were listed in the sequence of their first occurrencein the text. In Table 3, a solid line has been drawn betweenthe initial-letter groups and also at points within theinitial-letter groups where the list appears to have reachedthe last chapters of the RSB text and then starts at thebeginning again, as, for example, in col. 6, line 24, whereDiscretio has been taken from Chapter 64, line 63, of the RSB, andis followed by Desidia, which has been taken from the Prologue.Where a lemma has not been listed in the order of firstoccurrence in the RSB, it is marked with shading, as, forexample, Angarizanti in col. 5, line 17, which occurs in RSBChapter 7 but is listed in the LG between Anachorita, whichoccurs in Chapter 1, and Abba, which occurs in Chapter 2. Theoutcome of this analysis has led to three further observations.

1. Two of the alphabetized groups appear to be listed inreverse order of occurrence, namely the P-batch in col. 9,lines 5-9, and the second U-batch in col. 10, at lines 20-26. The P-batch runs from Presbiter (Chapter 62 in the RSBtext), through Pentecosten (Chapter 15) and Plane (Chapter 13)to Procaciter (Chapter 3). The lemma Passim at line 9, whichoccurs in the title of Chapter 70, does not fit this conceptof reverse order and and may have been added as anafterthought (see below).

LGcol. 9

LGline

LGlemmata

RSBChapter

RSB line

5 Presbiter 62 1

6 Pentecosten 15 1

7 Plane 13 32

8 Procaciter 3 12

9 Passim 70 1 (in

title)The reverse order of the U-batch, at lines 20-26, is lesscertain, because the LG places Uerbi gratia (RSB Chapter 24)between Uiolentia (Chapter 48) and Uicibus (Chapter 32). also,the two lemmata following Uicibus do not fit the reverse-orderconcept and may, like Passim have been added as anafterthought.LG col.

10LGline

LGlemmata

RSBChapter

RSB line RSBChapter

RSBline

20 Uiolentia

4879

21 Uerbi gratia 24 16

22 Uicibus 32 11 38 2023 Uti 27 524 Uerbera 2 91 28 625 Utatur 3 32 28 2626 Uetustam 55 12

2. There appear to be three S-batches. The middle one —Suspendatur to Sarabaite (col. 9, lines 28-36) — contains theSarabaita that has been crossed through, and seemsparticularly deranged. The lemma reading Si quo minus does notoccur anywhere in the text and could be an extension of thepreceding gloss on sin alias. Also, Subrogetur occurs inmanuscript A twice, in Chapters 21 and 65, but is found onlyonce in manuscript S and the other texti interpolati, namely inChapter 65. In Chapter 21, the interpolatus text reads succedat.Now, if the Si quo minus line is excluded, and the occurrenceof Subrogetur in Chapter 65 is taken as the first and onlyoccurrence, then it is possible that the remaining sixglosses may first have been written down the sheet in twocolumns:

Suspendatur 25 2 Sarabaita 1 17 Stirpatur 31 35 sin alias 2 60Subrogetur 65 74 Sagatitas 27 19

and that the lemmata were then read across the columns and

rewritten as a single column:Suspendatur 25 2 Sarabaita 1 17Stirpatur 31 35sin alias 2 60

Subrogetur 65 74Sagatitas 27 19

3. A closer look at the dividing lines in Table 3 revealsthat lemmata that are out of place on the basis of firstoccurrence in the text (i.e. those shaded in the table) arelocated either at or very close to the dividing lines. Thisphenomenon can be seen more clearly in Table 4, where anattempt has been made to reconstruct how the glosses mayhave been written out in two separate inventories (columns Xand Y). Here again, the lemmata that do not occur in theglossary in their order of first occurrence in the RSB havebeen marked with shading. If the special case of the S-batchdescribed in point 2 above is excluded, there are twenty-eight shaded lemma. Of these, twenty-two — i.e. more thanthree-quarters — are at a dividing line or at most one lemmaremoved from a dividing line, i.e. at the end or start of aninitial-letter sequence.15

These observations support the hypothesis that the finalglossary was the result of amalgamating two or more separateinventories that were compiled either by the same person on twoor more occasions, or by two or more different people. In eachof these inventories the lemmata were listed in the order oftheir first occurrence in the text and subsequentlyalphabetized independently, with a number of lemmata beinginserted at the top or bottom of the alphabetized groups as,what might be called, ‘afterthoughts’. The alphabetized listswere then copied down side by side in parallel columns (X and Yin Table 4), with two columns per sheet. Finally, the columnson each sheet were copied in succession, first col. X on sheet1, then col. Y, then col. X on sheet 2, followed by col. Y, andso on. In the course of this process, moreover, whoevercombined the inventories was careful to avoid duplications.

This hypothesis, moreover, allows more to be said about theapparent alphabetical derangements, as well as the‘afterthoughts’, i.e. glosses that do not follow the textsequence exactly: The placing of Passim at the end of the reverse-order

grouping of Presbiter to Procaciter (see Table 4) might be15 The six exceptions are: angarizanti, ad missas, discussio, digessimum, expedit, expedire.

related to the fact that Passim is not taken from the body ofthe text but from the title to chapter 70.

The Deliberatio gloss at the bottom of col. 6 (see Table 3),the two M-lemmata at the bottom of col. 8, and the final sixlemmata at the very end of the glossary in col. 10 could allhave been added as afterthoughts to fill the columns.

The S-lemmata at the bottom of col. 9 in the final version ofthe glossary, could likewise have been added to fill thecolumn. (As a consequence, the extra Sarabaite gloss at thevery bottom of col. 9 need not have been a duplication butcould have been a replacement for the crossed-out gloss afew lines above (line 29) and intended to fill the column.)The divisions between the alphabetized columns in the second

part of Table 4, particularly after the initial letter P, areless clear cut than in the first part, so that the suggestedreconstruction from this point onward is far more speculative.However, the evidence from the first half of the table issufficiently strong to conclude the final glossary was theresult of combining two or more independently alphabetizedinventories. The remaining question is: does a division intoseparate inventories on the basis of the first occurrence oflemmata from the RSB correlate with the idea of the lemmatabeing drawn from different sources, i.e. from either a textusinterpolatus or a textus purus?

6. Correlation between recensions and inventoriesWhere it is possible to identify which specific recension alemma was taken from (see Section 4 above), an indication hasbeen added in a separate column in Table 4, namely S (for StGallen 916), A (for St Gallen 914), and a (for marginalemendations to A). It must be concluded that there is nocorrelation between the different recensions and thereconstructed (hypothetical) division into Table 4’s twoinventories. Nevertheless, the evidence given in Section 4confirms that two different recensions of the text werescrutinized for the glossary: one a textus interpolatus, the other atextus purus with marginal notes. Also, Tables 3 and 4 confirmthat the texts were sifted sequentially from beginning to end

and that the alphabetization of the lemmata largely preservesthe sequences. How this process may have been carried isvisualized in Figure 2.

Since lemmata from both the textus purus and the textus interpolatusoccur side by side, the two recensions must have been studiedtogether. Since, however, the result of the alphabetizationprocess suggests that two or more separate lists of lemmatawere collected and alphabetized independently, before beingcombined, there must have been two strands of activity. On theone hand, lemmata from both recensions were collected in theorder in which the words occurred in the texts and combined ininventory X. On the other hand, a similar exercise was carriedout to produce a collection of lemmata in inventory Y. In eachof these activities, textus purus (1) and textus purus (2) need not havebeen different texts but could possibly have been the same textreviewed by different people, or perhaps by the same person atdifferent times; and likewise with the textus interpolatus (1) andtextus interpolatus (2). After each of the X and Y inventories hadbeen alphabetized, the alphabetized inventories were compared,to eliminate most duplications, and copied in parallel columnsacross a series of loose sheets. One or two individual lemmatawere then inserted as ‘afterthoughts’ at the beginning or endof various alphabetical groupings. The final glossary wascreated by copying the columns on each sheet in succession,with cols. 8, 9 and 10 in the resulting LG being filled outwith further ‘afterthoughts’,16 to bring the total number oflines in each column to 35.

7. DatesFinally, this reconstruction of the process of collecting andalphabetizing lemmata needs to be related to the dating of theLG as a whole. Hessels assigned the manuscript on palaeographicgrounds to ‘the last decade of the eighth century’, whileothers have agreed or have put the date slightly later, at the

16 In col. 8, Moderate and Magnopere; in col. 8, the batch from Suspendatur toSarabaite (with its interpretamentum extending over two lines and the earlierSarabaita being crossed through); in col. 10, the final batch from Parcitate toPrecipuis. Reasons for the siting of the groups Uilicationis to Uerbigratione andCoenobium, Monasterium are unclear.

beginning of the ninth century.17 If the LG dates to around800, then St Gallen 916 (dated to about 800), or more probablythe presumed Reichenau exemplar (*S) from which St Gallen 916was copied, could have been a source for lemmata from the textusinterpolatus (see Figure 2). However, it is evident that thelemmata from the RSB include words found only in Grimald andTatto’s marginal or interlinear glosses in St Gallen 914, andnot in St Gallen 916 or 914 as such. In this light, it wouldseem that the source of the LG’s lemmata from the textus purus wasan annotated version of St Gallen 914 or a Reichenau copy ofthe Aachen exemplar (2), dating not before 817. There is norecord of an earlier copy of the Aachen exemplar, but it may bespeculated that the glosses ultimately derive from acomparative study of the RSB texts that will have been promptedby Charlemagne’s commissioning of the transcription of thetextus purus in 787, followed by its removal to Aachen. Whetherthe version used for the LG, and hence the LG itself, isearlier than 817 remains an open question.

Matters are complicated by the existence of a ‘collection ofglossae collectae of English origin’ in Paris, BibliothèqueNationale, lat. 2685 (Belgium or Holland, s. ix2), fol 47r-56r,including unalphabetized glosses on the RSB, of which Lapidgesays that there is considerable overlap with the LG.18 The factthat the chapters drawn from the RSB are not in the a-orderindicates, according to Lapidge, that the alphabetization inthe LG ‘was the individual contribution of the St Gallenscribe’. He concludes his review of the relation between theParis manuscript and the LG with the observation that: ‘Inshort, the ‘Leiden Glossary’ and that in BN lat. 2685 areindependent copies of a collection of glossae collectae of Englishorigin, and in order to estimate the original form of thishypothetical collection, it would be necessary fully to collatethe (printed) ‘Leiden Glossary’ with the (unprinted) glossaryof BN lat. 2685.’ It is difficult to accommodate the assumptionof a ‘collection of glossae collectae of English origin’ with LGlemmata from the textus purus as well as Grimald and Tatto’sglosses, unless these particular lemmata were also a17 See footnote 1.18 Lapidge, Anglo-Saxon Literature..., 152.

‘contribution of the St Gallen scribe’. As Lapidge implies, afull collation of the LG with BN lat. 2685 may provide ananswer.

8. ConclusionsThe main conclusion from this study is that the lemmata fromthe Regula Sancti Benedicti in the Leiden Glossary were drawn fromboth the textus interpolatus and the textus purus versions of the Regula,as well as from the glosses added to the textus purus by Grimaldand Tatto in 817. It is not clear, however, when or how thelemmata from the textus purus came to be combined with those fromthe textus interpolatus. If an examination of the unalphabetizedglossae collectae contained in Paris, Bibliothèque Nationale, lat.2685, shows that they are limited to the textus interpolatus, thenit is possible that the St Gallen (or Reichenau) scribe who mayhave been responsible for the alphabetization of the glosses atthe beginning of the Leiden Glossary may also have beenresponsible for combining entries from the two differentrecensions of the Regula.

A second conclusion relates to the process ofalphabetization. The irregularities in the alphabetical orderof the lemmata from the Regula in the Leiden Glossary can beexplained as the result of two or more lists of glossae collectaebeing alphabetized independently, and subsequently amalgamated.No correlation, however, can be found between this process ofalphabetization and the probability that the lemmata were takenfrom two or more different recensions of the Regula.

Notes to the table and figures

Abbreviations RSB : Regula S. Benedicti, Traditio codicum MSS Casinensium (see footnote 6)

LG : Leiden Glossary

Ch. l.: Chapter and line in the Montecassino edition of theRSB

P.: lemma from the Prologue in the RSBm.: lemma from marginal or interlinear gloss in

recension A of RSBt.: chapter title in the RSBRec.: Recension from which a lemma has been taken (if

distinguishable)S: St Gallen 916A: St Gallen 914a: gloss in A

Bold print Irregular alphabetical placement in the LGShading Lemma not placed in the LG in the order of first occurrencein the RSBSingle dividing lines Divisions between alphabetical batches or, if within alphabetical batches, divisions between lemmata from the end of the RSB text and lemmata from the start of the text.Double dividing lines In Table 4: divisions between batches of lemmata in the proposed X and Y lists

TABLES

1. Historical background to the Regula S. Benedicti texts(for the sigla, see Figure 1)

Benedict’s dates: 480 - c. 547

Regula magistri: provenance: ? Rome, Lyon, Lérins;probable basis for the Regula S. Benedicti

Several recensions of Regula S. Benedicti before Benedict’s death ?

: ? Autograph Two broad families of subsequent manuscripts:

: contains short prologue - interpolated(no mention of scola)

1 : contains longer prologue - “cruder” recension

(scola mentioned, as in Regula magistri)

Early history of and in Italy 581 andtaken from Montecassino to

Rome, St John Lateran 717 Montecassino refounded 742 taken back to Montecassino 883 taken from Montecassino to Teano 890 lost in fire

Early history of manuscripts in Germany (a) The family 787 Charlemagne commissions copy of

taken to Inda, near Aachen ( 816/817 Benedict of Aniane’s councils.

Grimald & Tatto copy Aachen exemplar (*A,add emendations (a)

821 & 842 Copy of Aachen exemplar ( recorded in Reichenau library

c. 820 St Gallen 914 (A), ? copy of *A c. 850 St Gallen 915 (G1), ? copy of *A or A

(b) The family 790x800 ? Reichenau MS (*S), copy of,

with addition of OHG c. 800 St Gallen 916 (S), ? copy of *S

2. Lemmata from the Regula Sancti Benedicti section in the Leiden Glossary(folio 21r; columns 5 and 6)

* The ‘x’ almost rubbed away.

Column 5 Column 6

line LG lemmataline LG lemmata

AdsignatoAccomodenturAdolaturCausetur

5 5 ContuentesContemptoCrapulaContinuandaConlationes

10 10 CondaturCongruusContentusCenobitaCatholicus

15 Adtonitis 15 CandelaAnachorita Contuma[x]*Angarizanti CanonicasAbba CoculamAntiphona Comissum

20 Analogium 20 Deificum lumenAlleluia DesidiosusApostatare DegradaueritAcidiosus DiocesimAd missas Discretio

25 Absurdum 25 DesidiaAnxius DesidensBiblioteca DigessimusBracile DirumBiberes Dissimulat

30 Aptet 30 DiscussioAngariati DigestiAditum DeuteronomiiAdhibenda DecaniAlimentis Demum

35 Deliberatio

2. Lemmata from the Regula Sancti Benedicti section in the Leiden Glossary(folio 21v; columns 7 and 8)

Column 7 Column 8

line LG lemmataline LG lemmata

Exhibita InconpententibusExcesserit InbicillesEulogias InlecebrisExpedit Inrogatis

5 Excessus 5 In scamnis in subellisExcedere InprobitasExamine KalendeEfficaciter KyrieleisonEdacem Laetania

10 Excussum 10 LectisterniaExplicantur LenaExpedire LiterisExpenso LicetEptaticum Libet

15 Exigerit 15 LoquacitateExtollit LeguminumExperimento MonachusEmulatione MeritoFeria Modulatis

20 Fomenta 20 MissasFortuitu MorbidaFacile Matta MappulaFungi MorosaFeruentissimo Maturitas

25 Girouagum 25 MunusculaGradu suo MateriaGestantes NoxaGrauitas Non detegereHeremita Nonnos

30 Hymnum 30 NormaHimina Non prodicusAabita (= Habita) NimiusInstrumenta Non expeditInprobus Moderate

35 Indigeries 35 Magnopere

2. Lemmata from the Regula Sancti Benedicti section in the Leiden Glossary(folio 22r; columns 9 and 10)

* Line 29 is crossed through. ** Interpretamenta run over from previous line

Column 9 Column 10

line LG lemmataline LG lemmata

Officina SubiectioneObiurgetur SpernendoObstinatus SuaderiOrtodoxis Sane

5 Presbiter 5 SinceraPentecosten SuggessionemPlane UilicationisProcaciter Ubi et ubiPassim Uerbotenus

10 Psalmus 10 UerbigrationePriuatis TemereProdicus TirannidemPenso prelatus TemperiemPedules Teterrimum

15 Prouide 15 TemperiusQuantitas TaxauimusQuippiam remota TirannadesReculicet TypoRegula dicta Tueri protegere

20 Rationciniis 20 UiolentiaRecreare Uerbi gratiaResponsoria UicibusRubor UtiSinaxis Uerbera

25 Senpectas 25 UtaturScrupolositas UetustamScapulare Coenobium

Suspendatur(interpretamentum cont.)**

Sarabaita *(interpretamentum cont.)**

30 Stirpator 30 Monasterium

sin alias(interpretamentum cont.)**

Si quo minus ParcitateSubrogetur ProdideritSagatitas Pusillanimes

35 Sarabaite 35 Precipuis(interpretamentum cont.)**

3. LG lemmata from the RSB text, with indications of their occurrence in the text(folio 21r; columns 5 and 6)

LG LG lemmata RSB RSB RSB LG LG lemmata RSB RSB RSB

line Column 5Ch.: l.

Ch.: l.

Ch. l. line Column 6

Ch.: l.

Ch.: l.

Ch.: l.

Adsignato42: 24

Accomodentur53: 62

Adolatur65: 32

Causetur2 : 119

55

Contuentes40: 6 65: 66

Contempto23: 6

Crapula39: 21 39: 24

39: 26

Continuanda41: 13

Conlationes42: 9 73: 19

42: 19

1010

Condatur52: 3

Congruus53: 5

Contentus7 : 179

61: 5

61: 9

Cenobita1 : 3

1 : 38

Catholicus9 : 28

15 AdtonitisP :28

15Candela

22: 9

Anachorita1 :5 Contuma[x]*

23: 1 71: 29

Angarizanti7 :157 Canonicas

37: 9

67: 9

Abba2 :8 etc. Coculam

55: 10 55: 11

55: 53

Antiphona9 :8 etc. Comissum

31: 58 42: 24

63: 6

20 Analogium9 :15

20Deificum lumen

P : 28

Alleluia9 :32 etc. Desidiosus

48: 72

Apostatare40:24 Degradauerit

63: 24

Acidiosus48:58 Diocesim

64: 17

Ad missas35:35 Discretio

64: 63

25 Absurdum65:16

25Desidia

P : 6

Anxius64:54 Desidens

P : 6

Biblioteca48:50 Digessimus

17: 2

Bracile 55: Dirum 2 :

54 75

Biberes35:30 Dissimulat

2 : 82

30 Aptet2 :108

30Discussio

2 : 18

Angariati7 :157 Digesti

8 : 7

Aditum29:12 Deuteronomii

13: 22

Adhibenda36:2 Decani

21: t. 62: 21

65: 42

Alimentis37:8 Demum

2 : 31 73: 32

35Deliberatio

58: 41 58:50

3. LG lemmata from the RSB text, with indications of their occurrence in the text(folio 21v; columns 7 and 8)

LG LG lemmata RSB RSB RSB LG LG lemmata RSB RSB RSBline Column 7

Ch.: l. Ch.: l.

Ch.: l.

line Column 8

Ch.: l.

Ch.: l.

Ch.:l.

Exhibita 2 : 25 Inconpententibus48: 68

Excesserit 46: 7 Inbicilles35: 6

Eulogias 54: 4 Inlecebris1 : 34

Expedit6 : 23m 36: 20 Inrogatis

7 : 127

5 Excessus 67: 125

In scamnis 9 : 13

Excedere 68: 6 in subellis11: 7

Examine 1 : 11 Inprobitas52: 9

EfficaciterP : 4 Kalende

8 : 2

8 : 5

Edacem 4 : 31 Kyrieleison9 : 36m

17: 13

17: 35

10 Excussum 4 : 5110

Laetania13: 32

Explicantur 5 : 23 Lectisternia22: 2

53: 67

Expedire 64: 5165: 38,50

68: 17 Lena

55: 43

Expenso 18: 28 Literis61: 49

Eptaticum 42: 11 Licet37: 1

40: 17

49: 1

15 Exigerit 48: 2315

Libet7 : 127

32: 3

Extollit 48: 61 Loquacitate49: 24

Experimento 59: 27 Leguminum39: 10

Emulatione 65: 25 Monachus1 : 1 etc.

Feria 13: 11 etc. Merito7 : 76

20 Fomenta 28: 1320

Modulatis11: 4

Fortuitu 38: 2 Missas17: 13 38: 6

60: 12

Facile 65: 17 Morbida28: 31

Fungi 62: 4Matta Mappula**

55: 43 55:55

Feruentissimo 72: 6 Morosa58: 50

25 Girouagum 1 : 2925

Maturitas66: 4

Gradu suo ? Munuscula54: 5

Gestantes ? Materia65: 18

Grauitas 7 : 42: 37 43: Noxa 25:

219 5 2

Heremita1 : 6 Non detegere

46: 17

30 Hymnum 11: 2930

Nonnos63: 40

Himina 40: 8 Norma73: 15

Aabita* 58: 41 Non prodicus31: 6

Instrumenta 4 : 1t4 : 76

73: 25 Nimius

64: 55

Inprobus 2 : 90 23: 15 Non expedit66: 26

Indigeries 39: 2235

Moderate22: 26

Magnopere27: 17

* Habita ** Two separate lemmata: ‘Matta’ occurs at 55:43; ‘Mappula’ at 55:55.

3. LG lemmata from the RSB text, with indications of their occurrence in the text(folio 22r; columns 9 and 10) (For the significance of the arrows, see Section 5, point 1.)

LG LG lemmata RSB RSB RSB LG LG lemmata RSB RSB RSB

line Column 9Ch.: l.

Ch.: l.

Ch.: l. line Column 10

Ch.: l.

Ch.: l.

Ch.: l.

Officina4 :84 Subiectione

3 :11

6 :22

Obiurgetur23:10 Spernendo

31:15

Obstinatus64:55 Suaderi

49;5

(61:32)

Ortodoxis9 :28 Sane

18:19 44:17 48:53

5 Presbiter62:1

5Sincera

72:18

Pentecosten15:1 Suggessionem

68:14

Plane13:32 Uilicationis

64:30

Procaciter3 :12 Ubi et ubi

63:60

(46: 7)

Passim70:t. Uerbotenus ?

10 Psalmus9 :6

10Uerbigratione ?

?=uerbi

gratia

Priuatis13:1 Temere

3 :20

Prodicus31:34 Tirannidem

27:4

65: 8

Pensoprelatus*

49:16 Temperiem

55:2

Pedules55:14 55:31 55:53 Teterrimum

1 :17

15 Prouide3 :17

15Temperius

11:1 48:19

Quantitas10:3 39:28 Taxauimus

18:74

Quippiamremota*

46:6 67:24 Tirannades

27:24

Reculicet43:25m Typo

31:50

Regula dicta1 :t. etc.

Tueriprotegere

69:4

20 Rationciniis2 :135

20Uiolentia

48:79

Recreare4 :12 Uerbi gratia

24:16

Responsoria9 :16 etc. Uicibus

32:11 38:20

Rubor73:28 Uti

27:5

Sinaxis17:23 Uerbera

2 :91

28: 6

25 Senpectas27:7

25Utatur

3 :32 28:26

Scrupolositas40:4 Uetustam

55:12

Scapulare55:12 Coenobium

5 :31

Suspendatur25:2

(interpr.cont.)***

Sarabaita **1 :17

(interpr.cont.)***

30 Stirpator31:35

30Monasterium

P :135 etc.

sin alias2 :60 60:13

(interpr.cont.)***

Si quo minus ? Parcitate39:30

Subrogetur21:20 65:74 Prodiderit

46:10

Sagatitas27:19 Pusillanimes

48:30

Sarabaite4 :84

35Precipuis

?64:72

35(interpr.cont.)***

* In LG, ‘prelatus’ and ‘remota’ are written on the same lines as ‘Penso’ and ‘Quippiam’,respectively, but they are separate lemmata, since they occur separately in the RSB text:‘prelatus’ at 65:60; ‘remota’ at 39:20. As such, they are out of place according to thecriterion of first occurrence in the text, but are placed alphabeticically correctly —‘prelatus’ in the P-batch, and ‘remota’ immediately after the two Q-lemmata. They appear tohave become attached to ‘Penso’ and ‘Quippiam’.** ‘Sarabaita’ is crossed through; for the lemmata from ‘Suspendator’ and below, see Section 4,point 2.*** The interpretamenta run over from the previous line.

4. Proposed two alphabetized lists of lemmata from the RSB before amalgamation in the LG

X list Y list

LG lemmata RSB RSB RSB Rec. LG lemmata RSB RSB RSB Rec

.Ch.: l.

Ch.: l.

Ch.: l. Ch.: l. Ch.:

l.Ch.: l.

Adtonitis P :28 Aptet 2 :108

Anachorita 1 :5 Angariati 7 :157 A

Angarizanti 7 :157 S Aditum 29: 12

Abba 2 :8 etc. Adhibenda 36: 2

Antiphona 9 :8 etc. A Alimentis 37: 8

Analogium 9 :15 Adsignato 42: 24

Alleluia 9 :32 etc. Accomodentur 53: 62

Apostatare 40:24 Adolatur 65: 32 S

Acidiosus 48:58 Causetur 2 :119

Ad missas 35:35 A Contuentes 40: 6 65: 66

Absurdum 65:16 Contempto 23: 6

Anxius 64:54 Crapula 39: 21 39: 24 39:

26

Biblioteca 48:50 Continuanda 41: 13 A

Bracile 55:54 Conlationes 42: 9 73: 19 42:

19 S

Biberes 35:30 A Condatur 52: 3

Congruus 53: 5

Contentus 7 :179 61: 5

61: 9

C Cenobita 1 : 3

1 : 38 ?S Desidia P :

6

Catholicus 9 : 28 Desidens P :

6

Candela 22: 9 Digessimus 17: 2

Contuma[x]* 23: 1 71: 29 Dirum 2 : 75

Canonicas 37: 9

67: 9 Dissimulat 2 : 82

Coculam 55: 10 55: 11 55:

53 S Discussio 2 : 18

Comissum 31: 58 42: 24 63:

6 Digesti 8 : 7 A

Deificumlumen

P : 28 Deuteronomii 13: 22 S a

Desidiosus 48: 72 Decani 21: t.

Degradauerit 63: 24 Demum 2 : 31

Diocesim 64: 17 Deliberatio 58: 41

Discretio 64: Exhibita 2 : 25

63Excesserit 46: 7Eulogias 54: 4 a

Expedit 6 : 23m. 36:20 S a

Excessus 67: 12Excedere 68: 6

Examine 1 : 11 S Fungi 62: 4

Efficaciter P : 4

Feruentissimo 72: 6

Edacem 4 : 31 Girouagum 1 : 29

Excussum 4 : 51 Gradu suo ?

Explicantur 5 : 23 Gestantes ?

Expedire 64: 51

65:38,50 68:17 Grauitas 7 :

219 42: 37 43: 5

Expenso 18: 28 Heremita 1 :

6

Eptaticum 42: 11 A Hymnum 11: 29 A

Exigerit 48: 23 S a Himina 40: 8 S

Extollit 48: 61 S Aabita 58: 41 A

Experimento 59: 27 Instrumenta 4 : t. 4 :

7673: 25

Emulatione 65: 25 Inprobus 2 : 90 23: 15

Feria 13: 11 etc. Indigeries 39: 22

Fomenta 28: 13

Inconpententibus 48: 68

Fortuitu 38: 2 S a Inbicilles 35: 6

Facile 65: 17

4. Proposed two alphabetized lists of lemmata from the RSB before amalgamation in the LG (cont.)

X lists Y list

LG lemmata RSB RSB RSB Rec, LG lemmata RSB RSB RSB Rec,

Ch.: l. Ch.: l.

Ch.: l.

Ch.: l.

Ch.: l.

Ch.: l.

Inlecebris 1 : 34 Libet 7 :127

32: 3

Inrogatis 7 :127 Loquacitate 49: 24In scamnis 9 : 13 Leguminum 39: 10

in subellis 11: 7 Monachus 1 : 1 etc.

Inprobitas 52: 9 Merito 7 : 76

Kalende 8 : 2

8 : 5 Modulatis 11:

4 A

Kyrieleison 9 : 36m.

17: 13

17: 35

S a Missas 17: 13 38: 6 60:

12Laetania 13: 32 a Morbida 28: 31

Lectisternia 22: 2 53: 67 A Matta

Mappula 55: 43 55:55

Lena 55: 43 Morosa 58: 50

Literis 61: 49 a Maturitas 66: 4

Licet 37: 1 40: 17

49: 1

Munuscula 54: 5 Non prodicus 31: 6 S

Materia 65: 18 Nimius 64: 55

Noxa 25: 2 Non expedit * 66: 26

Non detegere 46: 17 S a Officina 4 :84

Nonnos 63: 40 A Obiurgetur 23: 10Norma 73: 15 Obstinatus 64: 55

Ortodoxis 9 : 28 Psalmus 9 :6

Presbiter 62: 1 Priuatis 13:1

Pentecosten 15: 1 Prodicus 31: 34 SPlane 13: 32 Penso 49: 16 SProcaciter 3 : 12 prelatus 65: 60

Passim 70:t. A Pedules 55: 14 55:31

Prouide 3 : 17 Regula dicta 1 :t.

Quantitas 10: 3 39:28 Rationciniis 2 :135

Quippiam 46: 6 67:24 Recreare 4 :12

remota 39:20 Responsoria 9 :16 A

Reculicet 43: 25m a Rubor 73: 28 S a

Sinaxis 17: 23 Sarabaita 1 :17

Senpectas 27: 7 Subiectione 3 :11

6 :22

Scrupolositas 40: 4 S Spernendo 31: 15

Scapulare 55: 12 S Suaderi 49;5

(61:32)

Sane 18: 19 44:17 48:53 Temere 3 : A

20

Sincera 72: 18 Tirannidem 27:4

65: 8

Suggessionem** 68: 14 Temperiem 55:

2 S a

Teterrimum 1 : 17 A Uiolentia 48: 79 S aTemperius 11: 1 48:19 A Uerbi gratia 24: 16 ATaxauimus 18: 74 Uicibus 32: 11 38:20 S

Tirannades 27: 24 S a Uti 27:5

Typo 31: 50 S Uerbera 2 :91

28: 6

Tueriprotegere 69: 4 A Utatur 3 :

32 28:26

Uetustam 55: 12

Inserted after ‘Scapulare’: Inserted after ‘Uetustam’:Suspendatur

25:2

S aCoenobium 5 : 31 A

Sarabaita 1 :17

Monasterium

P :135 etc.

Stirpator31:35

AParcitate 39: 30

sin alias2 :60 60:13

AProdiderit 46: 10

Subrogetur21:20 65:74

A Pusillanimes 48: 30

Sagatitas27:19 Precipuis ?64:72

* Inserted after ‘Non expedit’: ‘Moderate, Magnopere’** Inserted after ‘Sugessionem’: ‘Uilicationis, Ubi et ubi (Rec. S), Uerbotenus,Uerbigratione’.

FIGURES

1. Stemma and sigla of manuscripts of the Regula S. Benedicti

Approximate dates: 2 :787 *S : 790x800 *A:817

Sigla19

(a) The textus purus () family:A St Gallen, Stiftsbibliothek, 914 (s. ix1, post 817) [a marginal and interlinear glosses in A]B Vienna, Österreichische Nationalbibliothek, 2232 (s. ixin)C Munich, Bayerische Staatsbibliothek, Clm 28118 (s. ix)D Augsburg, Bischöfliches Ordinariatsbibliothek, 1 (s. ix1)T Munich, Bayerische Staatsbibliothek, Clm19408 (s. viiiex)G1 St Gallen, Stiftsbibliothek, 915 (s. ixm) G2 Karlsruhe, Badische Landesbibliothek, Aug. CXXVIII (s. ix) 175 Montecassino, Bibliotheca Casinensis, 175 (s. xin)446 Montecassino, Bibliotheca Casinensis, 446 (s. xin) 334 Montecassino, Bibliotheca Casinensis, 334 (s. xii)X Montecassino, Bibliotheca Casinensis, 499 (s. xiii/xiv)

(b) The textus interpolatus () family:O Oxford, Bodleian Library, Hatton 48 (s. viii1) S St Gallen, Stiftsbibliothek, 916 (c. 800)V Verona, Biblioteca Capitularis LII (s. viiiex)M Trier, Stadtbibliothek, 1245 (s. ix)W Würzburg, Universitätsbibliothek, Mp. th. q. 22 (s. viii/ix1)

19 See: Hanslik, Benedicti Regula (1977), LXVII - LXIX); J. Platón, La Regla dles Monjos..., (1997) 65-76.

W

2

*AB, C, D, T,G1, G2... O, V, M,W

175,446,334, X

Long prologue, ‘pure’ text

Short prologue,interpolated text

‘Autograph’ text of RSB

Text of RM

1

Aachenexemplar

S

*S

A

2. Steps in a process? (X = lefthand column in Table 4, Y = righthand column)

textus textus textus textusinterpolatus purus interpolatus purus (1) (1) (2)

(2) Both texts read together; Both texts read together; lemmata collected from both, lemmata collected from both,in the order of occurrence in the text in the order of occurrence in the text

glossae collectae glossae collectae alphabetized alphabetized

(list X) (list Y) Lists X and Y placed side by side; any

duplications eliminated

Some ‘afterthoughts’ added at top or bottom of each alphabetized group

Lists X and Y amalgamated: first alphabetized batch from X (Adiontis to Biberes)

is followed by first alphabetized batch from Y (Aptet to Contentus),

then second alphabetized batch from X (Cenobita to Discretio)

is followed by cecond alphabetized batch from Y (Desidia to Excedere),etc., etc..

Final (alphabetized) ‘afterthoughts’ are inserted to fill the columns

e.g. Moderate and Magnopere at bottom of col. 8,Suspendatur to Sarabaite in col. 9, and Parcitate to

Precipuis in col. 10.