EETS Ancrene Wisse banner


Editor's preface


Outline summary

Edited text

Translated text

Text and translation

MS Reproductions

MS Transcriptions

Apparatus criticus

Textual Commentary



Textual Commentary


P. 2 (1r/1-3). I . . . biginneš: this introductory formula (in A only, and rarely found elsewhere in ME MSS) is also used to introduce all the texts in Bodley 34 except HM; see Stevens 1961, who cites the link as further evidence for the close relationship of A and Bodley 34.

P. 2 (1r/3-4). Ancrene Wisse: this title is found in A only. For the meaning of wisse (probably from the OE verb wissian 'rule', 'guide') and the sometimes-problematic use of later, editorial titles for the work, see the references in Millett 1996a, p. 5.

(1r/1-1v/11). Recti . . . withinnen: The word-play in the Latin parts of this passage on rectum, directio, rectificatio, and regula cannot be fully reproduced in MnE, but the phonetic as well as etymological link between ME riht, rihten, riwle, and riwlin, and their relatively wide semantic range, meant that much of it could be reflected in ME. Its ultimate source, quoted in S, is Isidore of Seville's Etymologiae, Bk. 6, Ch. 16, § 1, Lindsay 1911, vol. 1, Regula autem dicta quod recte ducit . . . Alii dixerunt regulam dictam vel quod regat, vel quod normam recte vivendi praebeat, vel quod distortum pravumque quid corrigat (‘It is called a rule because it leads rightly . . . Others have said that it is called a rule because it rules, or because it offers a standard for living rightly, or because it corrects something which is crooked and wrong’), which is carried over into the twelfth- and thirteenth-century tradition of commentary on the Augustinian Rule. Lietbert of St Ruf echoes it in his twelfth-century Expositio in regulam beati Augustini, Ch. 1, PL 176. 881, and Adam of Dryburgh develops it more fully in his De ordine, habitu et professione canonicorum ordinis Praemonstratensis (before 1178), Sermo 1, PL 198. 446-8, citing S. of S. 1: 3 (446) and Ps. 31: 11 (447), asking Quis rectus, nisi qui regularis est? (‘Who is upright but the one who lives according to a rule?’, 447) and contrasting the recti corde (‘upright in heart’) with those who are curvati (‘bowed down’) through love of carnal things. The Dominican Humbert of Romans in his mid-thirteenth-century commentary makes the underlying imagery here more explicit: Dicitur hoc opus regula dupliciter: regula enim uno modo dicitur a rectitudine, quasi rectula, sicut est illa, quam utuntur scriptores, et lignarii, et cementarii; alio modo dicitur a regendo, ut in grammatica, et in aliis scientiis; iuxta primum modum dicitur hoc opus regula, quia sicut per regulam distorta diriguntur, sic per hoc opus distortae vitae diriguntur; item, sicut per illam gibbi removentur, ut patet in cementario, sic per istam superbiae et superfluitates complanantur ... secundo etiam modo potest dici regula, quia sicut regula in sanctis [sic, for scolis?] docet artem sciendi, sic istud opus artem vivendi . . . (‘This work is called a “rule” in two senses: for in one sense it is so called from its straightness, as if it were a ruler of the kind used by scribes, carpenters, and bricklayers; in another it is so called from “laying down rules”, as in grammar and in other disciplines. According to the first sense this work is called a rule because just as crooked things are straightened by a ruler, so crooked lives are directed by this work; and again, as bumps are removed by it, as can be seen in the case of a bricklayer, so also the excesses of pride are smoothed out . . . and it can be called a rule in the second sense, because as a rule in the schools teaches the art of learning, so this work teaches the art of living . . .’) (Commentaria in regulam D. Augustini, Ch. 7, p. 7).

(1r/1-9). Recti . . . rectificationem: this Latin passage is found in all MSS running, but is translated only in S; the author seems (as Savage and Watson 1991, p. 340, note) to be addressing academically-trained readers—perhaps the spiritual directors who would use the work—rather than his audience of recluses, and its references to different academic disciplines are not picked up in the English passage that follows. It is possible that it was intended not as part of the main text, but as an introductory note.

(1r/1). Recti . . . te: S. of S. 1: 3.

(1r/4-5). Est rectum gramaticum . . . theologicum: three traditional university disciplines are listed here in ascending order of status. Grammar, the introductory discipline of the trivium, and geometry, one of the four areas of more advanced mathematical study which constituted the quadrivium, would normally be studied as part of the arts course, before the student progressed to the study of theology. See also notes on P. (1r/1-1v/11, 1v/7-8).

[Edited text]


P. 5 (1r/11). liuieš: CFNP, against AV luuieš. ‘Live’ is the more probable sense in this context (cf. Adam of Dryburgh, note on P. (1r/1--1v/11)). Luuieš would be an easy palaeographical error for liuieš, especially given the closeness of luuieš P. 4 (1r/10).

P. 5 (1r/11-12). Ant 3e . . . riwle: echoing the prologue of Aelred's De Institutione inclusarum, CCCM 1. 637: Iam pluribus annis exigis a me, soror, ut secundum modum vivendi quem arripuisti pro Christo, certam tibi formulam tradam, ad quam et mores tuos dirigere et necessaria religioni possis exercitia ordinare . . . (‘My sister, you have been asking me now for many years to give you a fixed rule suitable for the way of life you have adopted for Christ, according to which you can both direct your conduct and organize the observances necessary for the religious life . . .’). The AW author's choice of phrase, moni dei (lit. ‘many a day’) may suggest a shorter lapse of time.

P. 6-7 (1r/13-15). Monie . . . grace: on the discussion of the nature of a ‘rule’ in the Preface, and its implications for AW as a whole, see Millett 2003.

[Edited text]


P. 8-9 (1r/15-16). wišute cnost . . . wrei3ende: the difficult and metaphorical language of this sentence, which gave some trouble to the scribes, is discussed in Baldwin 1976, pp. 272-7. Cnost (on which see Zettersten 1964, pp. 8-9) is a nonce-word (the adjective derived from it, cnosti, also a nonce-word, appears in the C2 insertion at P. 10 (1r/18) (see footnote to text); it is replaced in V's version by hulli). Dolc is probably derived, as Zettersten 1965, p. 119, and MED (s.v.dolh) assume, from OE dolg ‘wound’ (Baldwin's identification with LME dalk ‘valley’ (OE *daluc) is phonologically implausible). Woh can mean either ‘crooked’ or ‘bad’. Salu 1955, p. 1, translates ‘the wounds and tumours of an unhealthy conscience’, and MED glosses knost as ‘A lump; ?a swelling, ?a tumor’. L, however, has [que cor rectificat et complanat] sine conuexo aut concavo oblique seu accusantis consciencie (‘[which straightens out and smooths the heart] without the bulge or hollow of a crooked or accusing conscience’), and C2 at P. 22 (1v/24), correcting C's misreading of woh as žong, adds scraggi ant unefne (‘rough and uneven’). The imagery seems to be drawn from building rather than medicine. Baldwin compares Augustine, Enarratio in Ps. 31: 11, CCSL 38. 242-3, where it is argued that the heart which is prauum et distortum (‘depraved and warped’) cannot be aligned to the rectitudo of God, any more than a warped piece of wood will lie flat on level paving; for the use of similar metaphors in commentaries on the Augustinian Rule, see note on P. (1r/1--1v/11).

P. 10 (1r/18). afterheorte: it was probably C's garbled reading of of woh . . . segge P. 8-9 (1r/16 )(see App. crit.) which led C2 to add an explanatory passage in the margin, marked for entry after heorte. It is not incorporated in the version in A, but reappears with minor variants in V, where it is incorporated into the text after permaneamus P. (1v/3) (the intervening material, Et hec . . . permaneamus, is omitted in C's text).

(1r/19-20). Et hec . . . ficta: see I Tim. 1: 5.

(1r/21-1v/3). Pretende . . . permaneamus: this passage is not translated in any version except S, and is not in CF. It seems to be an annotation of the argument rather than part of it, and probably originated as a marginal note.

(1r/21-3). Pretende . . . uoluntatis: Ps. 35: 11, interwoven with an echo of 1 Tim. 1: 5 (see note on P. (1r/19-20)), and a running gloss probably based on Peter Lombard, Commentarius in Psalmos, PL 191: 366.

(1r/25). antonomasice: A common medieval variant of the etymologically more correct antonomastice ‘antonomastically’. Antonomasia is the technical term for the use of an epithet instead of a proper name; in the Latin of this period the adverb derived from it is often used, as here, in the specialised sense par excellence (S translates devant tous). The upright in heart may be called ‘the good’ antonomastically because they have earned a special right to the name, as St Paul may be referred to simply as ‘the Apostle’ (see P. (1r/19), and passim) or Aristotle as ‘the Philosopher’; see DMLBS, s.v. antonomastice.

(1r/26). Benefac . . . corde: Ps. 124: 4.

(1r/26-27). istis . . . conscientie: see 2 Cor. 1: 12.

(1r/28). Gloriamini . . . corde: Ps. 31: 11.

(1v/2). Nichil . . . magisterii: probably a reference to Augustine on John 14: 14, In Iohannis Evangelium tractatus, Tract. 73, § 3, CCSL 36. 511, warning that God will not answer our prayers for anything quod petimus praeter regulam ipsius magisterii (‘which we seek beyond the rule of his supreme authority’).

(1v/2-3). Omnes . . . permaneamus: see Phil. 3: 16.

[Edited text]


(1v/6-8). Et hec . . . continetur: this passage, though closely related to the theme of the introductory Latin passage, was probably originally a marginal annotation. It is not in CF, and is placed differently, after wišinnen P. 15 (1v/11), by SV; it is untranslated, and interrupts the line of argument in the English text.

(1v/6-7). Et hec . . . ualet: see I Tim. 4: 8. Exercitio (1v/6) is corrected to exercitatio (as in the Vulgate text) by a later hand in A; but the author is paraphrasing rather than quoting directly, and the pattern of MS variants suggests that exercitio9 was the original reading.

(1v/7-8). et est . . . continetur: not a traditional medieval categorization. The classification of the artes mechanicae as applied geometry was introduced to Western Europe by the Spanish archdeacon Dominic Gundissalinus (c. 1150) under the influence of Arabic scholarship, and later adopted by Albertus Magnus and Thomas Aquinas; see Sternagel 1966.

13-15 (1v/8-11). Ant . . . wišinnen: Baldwin 1974, p. 22, fn. 45, cites parallels to the general point in Cassian's Collationes; e.g. Collatio 1, Ch. 7, CSEL 13. 13-14 (see also notes on P. 93-94 (4r/14-16) and 8. (104r/15-26)). Allen 1918 suggests a connection between the lady/servant image here and Peter the Venerable, Ep. 1. 28, ed. Constable 1967, vol. 1, where charity, as the highest of rules, is compared with a materfamilias ‘lady of the house’, but the correspondence is not exact; in Peter's image the servants (famuli) are those who follow lesser rules (represented by the orders which she issues through various messengers) rather than the rules themselves.

P. 15 (1v/11). ošer: the reading of A (mistranscribed in Tolkien 1962 as ožer), and of NSV; CF have ordre (left uncorrected by C2). Both readings make good sense, but ordre is less well attested (the L reading, per regulam exteriorem, may be an independent paraphrase).

[Edited text]


P. 19 (1v/18-19). quantum . . . religio: untraced, but probably based ultimately on Cassian's definition of purity of heart in the Collationes as the objective (scopus) of the religious life (nostri propositi), without which its aim (finis), eternal life, cannot be achieved; see Collatio 1, Ch. 5, PL 49. 486-7.

P. 19-20 (1v/20-22). purte . . . ibet: underlying this definition, as Baldwin 1974, p. 27, fn. 56, noted, is Jerome's often-cited gloss on Matt. 5: 8: the pure in heart are those quos non arguit conscientia ulla peccati (‘who do not stand accused by any consciousness of sin’) (Commentarii in Matheum, Bk. 1, CCSL 77. 25).

P. 20 (1v/21). inwit (consciencia): the Latin gloss is only found in A; but it may have been added because of an error in C, whose scribe reads inwiš for inwit to make a possible but clearly unintended sense. C2 deletes both inwiš and the immediately following phrase wišvten weote of sunne, adding a fuller explanatory gloss of inwit in the margin (see fn. 2 to text, and Dobson 1972, p. 3). The gloss is also found in F, as an addition to the correct text; but this means that it repeats material, and the A gloss (which was probably originally marginal; see Dobson 1972, pp. cxix-cxx) is a more economical way of preventing misreading.

P. 22 (1v/24). woh: see note on P. 8-9 (1r/15-16).

P. 22-52 (1v/26--2v/23). Žeos riwle . . . iborhen: for the main line of argument, cf. the opening two chapters of Bernard of Clairvaux, De praecepto et dispensatione, which may be echoed verbally at P. 25 (2r/3-4) (see Baldwin 1974, p. 23). Bernard, addressing the question of how far monastic rules should be seen as binding, argues that those of their precepts (such as charity and humility) which are ordained by God are binding on everybody; otherwise a monastic regulation, quantum dumtaxat ad corporales observantias pertinet (‘at least insofar as it concerns corporal observances’, Ch. 2, § 3, Opera (ed. Leclercq, 1957-77) 3. 25), is binding only on those who have vowed it, and may even so be dispensed by those with the authority to do so. In any case, greater flexibility of observance was tolerated in those leading a religious life outside formal monastic structures; see the twelfth-century Libellus de diversis ordinibus, ed. Constable and Smith 1972, pp. 14-16, which accepts that hermits should be allowed to vary their practice according to their individual capacity. See further Millett 2003.

P. 24 (1v/28). eauer ant aa: Tolkien's reconstruction of the A reading, altered by a different hand to eauer ant an. The other MSS running, apart from S, have eauer an ‘always the same’, and C2, who puts a punctus elevatus after C's an, allows the reading to stand; but it may have been influenced by the following eauer an.

P. 25 (2r/3-4). quantum . . . corporales: see note on P. 22-52 (1v/26--2v/23).

P. 26 (2r/4). locunges efter: Dahood 1978 suggests that efter should be read not as a preposition but ‘as part of a nonce-compound locunges-efter, translating obseruantias’ (p. 2); however, F (which usually understands the ME well) translates as obseruances apres.

P. 27 (2r/7). calde: F has veuz draps ‘old clothes’; but the other scribes and translators find calde acceptable, and F may simply have misread calde as ealde.

P. 28 (2r/7). swucche ožre heardschipes: all MSS running other than A have ant before swucche; but the syntax still seems a little odd. Could the original have read (beginning a new sentence) Swucche ant ožre . . .?

P. 30-31 (2r/12-13). Sum is . . . bonen: cf. Aelred, De Institutione Inclusarum, Ch. 9, CCCM 1. 645-6, advising that the anchoress qui litteras non intelligit, operi manuum diligentius insistat, and that she should recite briefer and simpler prayers. Aelred suggests repeated Our Fathers, interspersed by memorized psalms if possible; the AW author sets out a possible routine at 1. 12r/3-11, and an addition in N, ed. Day 1952, 10/25--11/5, offers an alternative routine based on the ‘lay brothers' hours’ of the writer's order. See further Millett 2000.

P. 30 (2r/12). mot te: I have followed Tolkien 1962, p. 7, in emending; A moten pl. is inconsistent with the singular hire P. 31 (2r/13), and would be an easy error for mot te.

[Edited text]

P. 31 (2r/14). ešelich: the A reading (‘wretched, worthless, weak’) is reflected in C feble, and possibly also L turpes. Since atelich ‘ugly’ is a more obvious parallel to louelich, it seems likely that ešelich, as the difficilior lectio, is also the original one; the courteous author of AW may have preferred the milder word.

P. 32 (2r/15). is neod: Dobson comments on the same phrase at 2.30r/8: ‘literally “is need”, but used as an equivalent of the verb neodeš used transitively to mean “requires”; similarly in 2. 30r/12, with following infinitive as object. The usage probably arose from the equivalence of hit is neod “there is need” and the impersonal expression hit neodeš “it is necessary”; conversely hit neodeš could also mean “it (something specified) has need (to, of)”. Cf. OED, s.v. need v2, senses I.1 and III.6, [and MED s.v. ned(e n. (1) 2 (e)].’

P. 35-37 (2r/20-24). Nan . . . nede ane: McNabb 1926, pp. 82, 197, noted a relatively close verbal parallel between these vows (in themselves traditional) and the 1220 constitutions of the Dominican nunnery of St Sixtus, founded in 1219 at Rome: Quelibet, cum recipitur in sororem, promittat obedientiam, loci stabilitatem et ordinis, vivere sine proprio ac etiam continenter, domum illam in qua professionem fecerit nullatenus egressura, nisi ad conventum alium ejusdem ordinis ex causa necessaria transferetur (‘Every woman, when she is received as a sister, should promise obedience, stability of abode and of way of life, to live without personal property and also chastely, and never to leave the house in which she has made profession unless she is transferred to another convent of the same order out of necessity’). Dobson 1976, p. 99, fn. 4, found it hard to see how a West Midlands author, even if he was writing in the 1220s, ‘could have become aware in so short a time of the constitutions of a newly founded and as yet undistinguished Roman nunnery’; a possible link, however, is Alexander Stavensby, Dominic's master at the cathedral school in Toulouse and later (1224-37) bishop of Coventry and Lichfield, who was in Italy, teaching at Bologna, at the time that St Sixtus was founded (see Vicaire 1977, pp. 62-64).


P. 35 (2r/21). bute žreo žinges: no dispensation was possible from the vows made at profession (see Hourlier 1974, pp. 243-4); the prologue to the revised Premonstratensian statutes of 1236-8 (ed. Lefčvre 1946, pp. 2-3) says that the vows of poverty, obedience, and chastity must be observed ad culpam (see note on P. 50-52 (2v/18-23)), as they are illa tria que de substantia Ordinis esse dinoscuntur (‘those three things which are recognized as belonging to the essence of the Order’). The anchoresses are not expected to renounce personal property, since they do not belong to a religious community and must provide for their own support; their way of life, however, necessarily entails a vow of stability of abode.

P. 37-38 (2r/25). his herre: Dobson suggests that the NV reading hire herre is an adaptation to allow for nuns (who would be subject to a prioress or abbess).

P. 38 (2r/25). after herre: the (probably authorial) first-person addition by C2 may be echoed in L's Hoc ideo consulo (‘Therefore I advise this’).

P. 38 (2r/26). bihat hit . . . forte don hit: There is no unanimity among the English MSS on the reading here, but the different readings are compatible with an original version as in A, tidied up in different ways by later scribes to eliminate the repeated hit (probably because the first hit was read as a duplication of the second rather than as an anticipation of the phrase as . . . hit).

P. 43-46 (2v/6-12). ah chearite . . . halden: Allen 1918, pp. 518, 527, noted parallels to this passage in Peter the Venerable, Ep. 1. 28, ed. Constable 1967, vol. 1, and Lanfranc, Decreta pro ordine S. Benedicti, Praefatio, PL 150. 445.

P. 44 (2v/8). alle že ten heastes: A has že alde ten heastes (‘the old Ten Commandments’), and the pattern of MS readings indicates that this was the reading of their common ancestor. Dobson 1972, p. 6, argued that it was also the correct reading (‘the “old” commandments of the Mosaic law, as opposed to the new commandment of John 13: 34’); but the general reluctance of even the most intelligent scribes and translators, including C2, to accept the original reading suggests that it is corrupt (perhaps because of scribal eyeskip to an adjacent phrase, že alde lahe P. 45 (2v/9-10)). I have accepted C2's emendation.

P. 47 (2v/13). riwliš: A's sg. riwleš is probably the result of misunderstanding žeos pl. as sg.; cf. the readings of N and S.

P. 50-52 (2v/18-23). ant žah . . . iborhen: a similar rationale underlies the revisions added in the 1230s to the prologues of the Premonstratensian statutes (c. 1236-8; see Lefčvre 1946, p. 2, and cf. note on P. 35 (2r/21)) and the Dominican constitutions (1236; see Thomas 1965, pp. 311-12), which specified that the customs of the order should be binding only ad penam, not ad culpam (i.e. transgression, unless wilful, was punishable but not sinful); Humbert of Romans in the mid-thirteenth century explains that otherwise ‘many would lose their peace of conscience, and be in a state of continual wretchedness (amaritudo), on account of small sins of this kind’ (Expositio . . . super constitutiones Fratrum Praedicatorum, ed. Berthier 1956, 2. 48).

[Edited text]


P. 56-60 (2v/28--3r/7). 3ef . . . epistel: it was a commonplace of the ‘Medieval Reformation’ that the life and teaching of Christ and the apostles provided the ultimate model for the religious life (see Constable 1996, pp. 153-9), and similar appeals by reformers to Scripture over traditional monastic legislation can be found in both twelfth- and thirteenth-century sources; see Millett 2002.

P. 56-57 (3r/1-2). že siheš . . . flehe: cf. Matt. 23: 24, a text also invoked (as noted by Allen 1918, p. 522), in the twelfth-century debate between the Cistercians and the Cluniacs on the colour of their habits; see note on P. 71-73 (3r/28-3v/3). L adds the scriptural reference, and has camelum rather than flehe; but while it is likely that the author had this verse in mind (cf. note on P. 93 (4r/12-14)), all other MSS running have ‘fly’ (except P, which has nonsense based on it, Že gnatte folowež že flesche), which suggests a deliberate domestication of the image.

P. 57-58 (3r/3). for . . . brošer: the Scriptural description of James as the brother of Christ raised theological problems if taken literally; it was either interpreted more loosely (see ODCC s. ‘brethren of the Lord’) or, as here, explained figuratively. Both interpretations can be found in Jerome's discussion of Gal. 1: 19, Commentarii in Epistolam ad Galatas, PL 26. 330.

P. 59-60 (3r/6). openluker . . . žen: The pattern of MS readings suggests that the mixed construction in A, openlukest . . . žen, was in their common original; but also that the scribes and translators were generally unhappy with it, and attempted to resolve it either by changing the superlative to a comparative, or by substituting ‘that’ for ‘than’ to begin a new sentence. C2, correcting C by inserting the omitted word religiun after openlukest, lets the latter solution stand, but this could be the result of his policy of minimal textual alteration (see Dobson 1972, p. cxii); the former solution makes better sense in context. It is possible that openlukest was a short-sighted scribal alteration encouraged by the distance between openluker and its corresponding žen.

P. 60-61 (3r/7-8). he seiš . . . ordre: Biller 1985 notes that in this period ‘several possible senses [of religio] were held in parallel, and with awareness of their distinctness’ (p. 358); in the discussion that follows, the AW author exploits the tension between the specialized medieval use of religio as a term for the religious (and in particular the monastic) life and the much broader definition implied by Jas. 1: 27 (see also notes on P. 56-60 (2v/28--3r/7), 62-71 (3r/13-27); and Millett 2002).

P. 61 (3r/8-10). Religio . . . seculo: Jas. 1:27.

P. 61 (3r/9). in necessitate sua: the A reading is supported by L in necessitate, but the author was probably quoting from memory; the other MSS reflect the Vulgate text, in tribulatione eorum.

P. 62-71 (3r/13-27). žus . . . unwemmet: the interpretation here is a departure from the traditional exegesis of Jas. 1: 27; see Millett 2002. The standard medieval interpretation goes back to Bede, who saw it as defining the two basic obligations of the active life (as led by all Christians, including monks), misericordia (compassion towards one's neighbour) and innocentia (the avoidance of sin); see De Tabernaculo, Bk. 1, Ch. 6, CCSL 119A. 21. In the twelfth century, the first part of the verse was sometimes applied by regular canons to the duty of pastors to protect their flock against oppression, and the second by monks to literal withdrawal from the world, but there seem to be no earlier parallels with the AW author's identification of the two parts of the verse with two different ways of life, active and contemplative, followed by different categories of people (on the development of this distinction, see Constable 1995, Part 1), or with his identification of James's ‘widows and orphans’ with souls in need of instruction, a reading probably borrowed from Jerome's interpretation of two other Scriptural texts which mention widows and orphans, Ps. 145: 9 (Tractatus de psalmo 145, CCSL 78. 328) and Isa. 10: 2 (Commentarii in Isaiam, Bk. 4, PL 24. 133). The author's application of the passage on the one hand to those active in the world, ‘especially prelates and true preachers’ (see note on P. 65 (3r/17)), and on the other to anchoresses ‘more than other religious’ emphasizes the value of their way of life at the expense of religio as more narrowly defined by Canon 13 of the Fourth Lateran Council of 1215 (Conc. oec. decreta, p. 242), membership of a religious order. It is not clear what the translator of F has in mind in mentioning female as well as male religious in the world; P, still more puzzlingly, mentions two manere of wymmen žat ben trewe prelates and prechoures.

P. 65 (3r/17). prelaz ant treowe preachurs: it is probable that the reference here is (at least primarily) to secular clerics; although both monks (if they were ordained) and regular canons might preach publicly and serve as praelati in the world (see Hourlier 1974, pp. 272-3, 471-84) the traditional collocation praelati et praedicatores usually refers to the bishops, priests, and other secular clerics responsible for the pastoral care and instruction of the faithful. Canon 10 of the Fourth Lateran Council (1215) emphasized the importance of preaching in pastoral care, requiring bishops to recruit suitable men to assist them in preaching and hearing confessions (Conc. oec. decreta, pp. 239-40), a function which from the early 1220s was increasingly taken over by the friars. The preachers are probably described as treowe to contrast them with the falsi praedicatores frequently attacked in the literature of the time. This phrase could be used of heretics, of orthodox preachers who were vain or mercenary, of women, or even of the preaching orders themselves (see McDonnell 1954, pp. 460-3); it it is most likely that the AW author, like his contemporary James of Vitry (see Historia Occidentalis, ed. Hinnebusch 1972, ch. 10) is thinking of the second category.

P. 71 (3r/28). že: the agreement of AFV on the presence of a relative pronoun suggests that it is original.

P. 71-73 (3r/28--3v/3). nowšer . . . leaste: some of the newer and more austere orders, both of monks and of regular canons, wore white habits (i.e. of undyed wool) rather than the traditional black; the Cistercians were known as ‘white monks’, the Premonstratensians as ‘white canons’. For an account of the (sometimes acrimonious) twelfth-century debates between the different orders on the subject of clothing, see Constable 1996, pp. 188-93, who cites Norbert of Xanten's recorded comment, Quod si de colore vel grossitate et subtilitate vestium fiat aliqua inter aliquos spirituales contentio, dicant . . . dicant, inquam, de hac regula, dicant de Evangelii et apostolorum institutione, ubi albedo, nigredo, subtilitas vel grossitudo, praeceptum dando, describatur, et erit eis credendum (‘If there is a controversy among some spiritual men concerning the colour or the thickness or the softness of clothes, let [them] . . . indicate from this rule [of St Augustine], let them indicate, I say, from the institution of the Gospel and the apostles, where the whiteness, blackness, softness, or thickness is described in giving a precept, and then they should be believed’) (Vita Norberti, Ch. 9, PL 170. 1293, trs. Constable, p. 189).

P. 71 (3r/28-3v/1). ne nempneš he: F has here ne vermail ‘nor red’, which may reflect a misunderstanding of a different ME verb in the translator's original, read ‘advises’.

P. 72-73 (3v/1-3). Ah . . . leaste: see note on P. 56-57 (3r/1-2).

P. 73-74 (3v/3-5). Pawel . . . Sincletice: Paul of Thebes (d. c. 345), Anthony (c. 251-356), Arsenius the Great (c. 360--c. 440), Macarius (probably Macarius ‘Senior’, the Egyptian (c. 300-90), rather than Macarius ‘Junior’, the Alexandrian, d. 393), Sarah (fourth century), and Syncletica (d. c. 400) all lived as solitaries in the Egyptian desert; their lives provided a frequently-cited model for both monastic reform and the revival of the eremitic life in the eleventh and twelfth centuries (see Constable 1996, pp. 160-1).

P. 74-75 (3v/6). swucche . . . wummen: no MS here has a mark of punctuation after swucche except N (which has a point), but the syntax demands a break, at least in those MSS which retain ‘both’ (A's wepmen ba ant wummen is a stock rhythmical phrase; cf., e.g., SM 2/6).

P. 76-77 (3v/7-9). Ant hwešer . . . wat: C2's repunctuation of C (erasing the point after hearen, replacing the capital of Neren by a lower-case n, and inserting a question-mark after ordre) makes it clear that Ant hwešer . . . begins a new sentence, but is hard to make sense of either its syntax or its logic as it appears in most of the MSS. Only V has a mark of punctuation (a point) after wat; the others seem from their punctuation to take Godd wat as governing the following clause, ha . . . baše. But this means that the hwešer construction is not followed through; and what exactly does noželes refer back to? A syntactical break after wat would make much better sense of the text, and the link between hwešer . . . blake and Godd wat could easily have been missed by an early scribe because of the long intervening parenthesis.

P. 76 (3v/9). curtel: the intended sense here is probably the more general one, ‘an outer garment’, but the word could also be used for the tunica worn by canons and friars. N adds ožer i že kuuele ‘or in the cowl’ (similarly PS; see App. crit.), a reading which may reflect a later attempt to add balance by a reference to the monks.

P. 78 (3v/11). Nigra . . . formosa: S. of S. 1: 4. A similar point is made by Peter of Blois, Ep. 97, PL 207. 304, who argues that God does not discriminate between black and white habits, attending to ‘the mind, not the clothing, the merits, not the colour [mentem non vestem, merita non colorem] . . . even the Bride, who is whiter than lilies of the valley, says herself, “I am black but comely”’.

P. 78 (3v/12). unseowlich: OED (s.v. unsewly) records the word only here and in Mirk's Festial (c. 1450), which has the form vnsewly. OED says the second element is obscure, but it is plainly cognate with ON sjį-ligr ‘sightly, handsome’, a formation on the stem of the verb sjį ‘see’. C has here unseulich (altered by erasure, probably by C3, to unselich); N has vnseaulich. All these forms except N's suggest a recognized connection with some form of the stem of the OE verb seon ‘see’; probably the OE etymon was *seowlic from Gmc. *sehw-liko, a formation on the pp. stem sehw- of *seχwan, with OE breaking of ē to ēo before w from medial hw (C3's form would show assimilation to the ME infin. se; N's appears a scribal aberration). The ON word by contrast is formed or reformed on the infin. stem. [EJD]

P. 80 (3v/15). of Sein Iames ordre: here, as above, the syntax is elliptical; C2's addition, although it is the by-product of an improvised repair of a gap in C's text (see App. crit. s. P. 3v/14), and is not incorporated in the A version, helps to clarify the point.

P. 81-82 (3v/18-19). nawt . . . cuuel: there is some variation in the MS readings. CN drop cape and rochet, giving the reading ‘. . . or in the black or in the white or in the grey cowl’ (left uncorrected in C by C2); S substitutes chape close (the cappa clausa or ‘closed cloak’ mentioned at 2. 14v/7-8) for blake cape; V drops the ‘white’ before rochet, and S adds ne en blanc surpeliz (‘or in the white surplice’) after it. Although the general point being made is clear, the exact significance of the garments and their colours is uncertain. Bernard of Clairvaux (Ep. 1, § 11, Opera, ed. Leclercq (1957-77), vol. 7, p. 9) criticized the Cluniacs for the relative luxury of their longae manicae et amplum caputium (‘long sleeves and wide hood’) (cf. 2. 14v/6-11), and the Victorine canons also wore wide hoods (see Baldwin 1976, pp. 288-9). The blake cape (L cappa nigra) was worn by regular canons (apart from the Premonstratensians, who wore white) and Dominican friars. The white rochet (like a surplice, but made of heavier linen) was worn by regular canons and (but only briefly, and not in England) by the early Dominicans. It is not clear what že grei cuuel refers to. Fletcher 1993 raises three main possibilities: i) the habits of undyed wool used by the Cistercians (who are sometimes described as ‘grey’ rather than ‘white’ monks in contemporary works), ii) the grey habits worn by the lay brothers of various orders, or iii) the grey habits of the early Franciscans (his preferred solution). A problem, however, is that cuuel, which he translates as ‘hood’ (= Latin caputium), is rather the ME equivalent of Latin cucullus/-a, the term for the long, sleeveless, hooded overgarment worn by monks (see OED s.v. cowl sb.1, MED s.v. coule; L has grisea cuculla), and James of Vitry (quoted p. 74) says that Franciscans do not wear cuculli. Allen 1918, p. 423, suggested the monks of Savigny, who wore grey habits; and a mid-thirteenth century model sermon by Humbert of Romans addresses ‘grey monks’, defined as ‘those of Tiron and some others’, who are intermediate not only in their customs but in the colour of their habits between black and white monks (De modo prompte cudendi sermones, Bk. 2, Sermo 22, 465-6). The CN omissions seem to have been intended to direct the point against monks in particular, rather than religious orders in general; cf. note on P. 76 (3v/9).

P. 82-84 (3v/19-23). žer-as . . . wišinnen: an allusion (as Dobson 1976, pp. 19-20, noted) to the opening of the prologue to the Premonstratensian statutes, ed. Lefčvre and Grauwen 1978, p. 1: Quoniam ex precepto regule iubemur habere cor unum et animam unam in Domino, iustum est qui sub una regula et unius professionis voto vivimus, uniformes in observanciis canonice religionis inveniamur, quatenus unitatem, quae interius servanda est in cordibus, foveat et representet uniformitas exterius servata in moribus (‘Because by the precept of the Rule [i.e. the opening of the second section of the Augustinian Rule, the Regula tertia] we are commanded to have one heart and one soul in God [see Acts 4: 32], it is right that we, who live under one rule and one vow of profession, should be found uniform in the observances of religious life according to rule, so that the unity which is outwardly preserved in our customs may foster and represent the unity which should be inwardly preserved in our hearts’). The prologue was produced as part of the second codification of the statutes, between 1159 and 1174, and continued in use into the early thirteenth century, when much of it (including this passage) was taken over by the Dominicans in their earliest constitutions (see Thomas 1965, p. 311).

P. 86 (3v/26). loke: the Latin and French translations interpret this form, which is supported by all the English MSS running, as a jussive subjunctive pl. (‘they should see to it’), but it must be imperative sg. in AB (see d'Ardenne 1961, § 105, p. 234).

P. 88 (4r/2). Michee: explained here as a prophet in CFNPS, but not in ALV; Dobson thinks it likely that an original že prophete was omitted in revision to avoid repetition in P. 89 (4r/5).

P. 88 (4r/2-4). Indicabo . . . tuo: Mic. 6: 8, also treated as a parallel text to Jas. 1: 27 (see P. 61 (3r/8-10)) in Bernard of Clairvaux, Sententiae, ser. 3, Sent. 109, Opera, ed. Leclercq 1957-77, vol. 6. 2, pp. 181-2.

P. 90 (4r/7). hwuch halinesse: although all MSS but A which have this phrase preface it with ant, there is a case for the A reading. The author is concerned with the definition of only two terms, religiun and ordre (see P. 92 (4r/10-11); the phrase hwuch halinesse is no more than an added gloss, emphasising the link of both with inner virtue rather than outer observances, and its omission in C is left uncorrected by C2.

P. 92 (4r/11). trichunge: on the MS variants here, see Dobson (1972), p. 12, note 8.

P. 93 (4r/12-14). Ve . . . dealbatis: an abridged and slightly paraphrased version of Matt. 23: 25-27 (see also note on P. 56-57 (3r/1-2)). The quotation is translated only in P; it is not in CFN, and placed later (after heorte P. 94 (4r/17)) by V. It is likely that the passage was originally a marginal addition, making explicit the Scriptural undertones of the argument at this point; its incorporation in the text leads to a longish gap between the ideal defined by Micah and the her-uore referring back to it at P. 93 (4r/15). S prefaces it by a Latin couplet: Larga corona satis, uestis nigra, bota rotunda Non faciunt monachum, sed mens a crimine munda (see Walther, no. 1011 (with a slightly different opening, Ampla cuculla satis, cibus artus . . .), and, on bote, which seem to have been heavy-duty slippers or overshoes, see Tugwell 2001, p. 150.

P. 93-94 (4r/14-16). Al . . . her-towart: cf. Cassian, Coll. 1, Ch. 7, CSEL 13. 14 (see also note on P.13-15 (1v/8-11)): Igitur ieiunia, uigiliae, meditatio scripturarum, nuditas ac priuatio omnium facultatum non perfectio, sed perfectionis instrumenta sunt, quia non in ipsis consistit disciplinae illius finis, sed per illa peruenitur ad finem (‘Therefore fasts, vigils, meditation on the Scriptures, nakedness, and the privation of all faculties do not constitute perfection but the tools of perfection, because the end of that discipline does not consist in them, but through them one reaches the end’). The image is developed more fully in 7. 104r/15-26.

P. 94 (4r/16). tole: given that the word has been in the language since Anglo-Saxon times, and that its meaning here is made clearer by the verb timbrin, the scribes found it surprisingly difficult to make sense of (see App. crit.); C2 thought it necessary to add a gloss for clarification. Perhaps the unhistorical final -e (erased in C, possibly but not necessarily by C2; see Dobson 1972, p. 13) was the problem?

[Edited text]


P. 97-116 (4r/19--4v/15). Nu . . . learen: probably influenced by the mid-twelfth-century prologue of the Premonstratensian statutes (ed. Lefčvre and Grauwen 1978, p. 1; see note on P. 3v/19-23), which similarly introduces and explains a division into distinctiones and capitula: librum istum, quem librum consuetudinum vocamus, diligenter conscripsimus, in quo quatuor distincciones, tam pro rerum varietate, quam pro legencium utilitate, locis suis adnotamus. Prima distinccio continet qualiter se habeat conventus in die. . .Unicuique harum quatuor distinccionum propria capitula assignavimus, et assignata subscripsimus, ut cum aliquid a lectore queritur, sine difficulte reperiatur (‘we have diligently compiled this book, which we call the book of customs, in which we set out four parts separately, partly because of the diversity of contents, partly for the convenience of the reader. The first part deals with how the community should conduct itself during the day . . . [the contents of each distinctio are briefly listed, as in AW]. To each of these four parts we have assigned its own chapters, and have listed them below, so that if the reader is looking for anything, it can be found without difficulty’). The passage is retained in the prologue to the early Dominican constitutions (where the distinctiones, however, are reduced to two). Destinctiun is not recorded elsewhere in ME, in any sense, before the late fourteenth century (see MED s.v. distinccioun), and chapitre not in this sense before the 1340s (see MED s.v. chapitle, chapitre).

P. 103 (4r/28). hwet: ‘something’. Dobson comments: ‘Here there is a straight conflict between A's hwet and the wit given by the other MSS. Both are meaningful; but whereas it is easy, in this context, to see that hwet might be corrupted into wit, it is very difficult to conceive of the simpler wit being corrupted or revised to hwet.’ Hasenfratz 2000, p. 485, however, notes the possibility of an accidental echo of the preceding hwer.

P. 104 (4v/1). of anes cunnes fuheles: This reading clearly caused some confusion in the MS tradition, and Ackerman and Dahood 1984, pp. 5-6, argue that the C reading, of fif cunnes foweles (‘birds of five kinds’), is preferable, since it more accurately describes the content of Part 3. But David compares himself only to three birds (Ps. 101: 6-8), and one of the two remaining birds mentioned in Part 3 is the ostrich, which the anchoresses are warned not to imitate because of its earthbound nature. Comparison of the MS variants suggests i) that the original version had anes, not fif (which is unique to C, though S goes on to specify four birds, pelican, eagle, night-owl, and sparrow), and ii) that the phrase was capable of being misread as referring to a single species of bird (L has de natura cuiusdam avis, ‘of the nature of a certain bird’), rather than the intended ‘birds of a particular kind’, i.e. the ‘birds of heaven’, which have little flesh and many feathers (see 3. 36r/11--36v/14); the C reading may have been an attempt to rationalize this misunderstanding.

[Edited text]