¹ The Homiliae Catholicae, or to use the term found in all the MSS, Sermones Catholici, comprise two volumes of homilies, didactic sermons and lives of the saints by Aelfric of Eynsham (955–1025?). They may be considered as the fruit of the tenth-century Benedictine reform, for Aelfric, who styles himself ‘alumnus Aethelwoldi,’ avowedly wrote these volumes as an antidote to the pernicious errors and heterodox teachings which he found so prevalent in the vernacular writings of his time. His material is drawn from works of the Fathers for the most part, and is done into Old English with a virtuosity which has won for him the reputation as ‘master of prose in all its forms’ (Wm. Ker, P., English Literature . Medieval [London 1912] 41). There is no critical text of the homilies; Cambridge Gg. 3.28, by far the most complete of the numerous MSS, was edited by Thorpe, B., The Homilies of the Anglo-Saxon Church, 2 vols. (London 1844–46). The classic work on Aelfric's life and works is by Eduard Dietrich, ‘Abt Aelfric, Zur Literatur-Geschichte der angelsächsischen Kirche,’ Zeitschrift für die historische Theologie 25 (1855) 487–594; 26 (1856) 163–256 (henceforth ZHTh). Much of this material is available in English in the part-translation, part-paraphrase work of Caroline White, Aelfric, A New Study of His Life and Writings (Yale Studies in English 2; Boston, New York and London 1898).Google Scholar

² Earle, J., Anglo-Saxon Literature (London 1884) 215–216.Google Scholar

³ Max Förster, ‘Über die Quellen von Aelfrics Homiliae Catholicae,’ Anglia 16 (1894) 58. Google Scholar

⁴ This is a reprint of a 1539 text of Eucharius Cervicornus. Google Scholar

⁵ Förster, , Anglia 16.59: ‘Er mag ja auch eine derartige sammlung sich zum muster genommen haben; dass er sie aber schlankweg übersetzt habe, scheint mir mehr als unwahrscheinlich. ’ homiliary, and that almost all of his patristic sources can be traced to one or other version of a collection of homilies generally known as the Homiliary of Paul the Deacon.Google Scholar

⁶ Paulus Diaconus Warnefried (720–799?) is perhaps better known for his Historia gentis Langobardorum libri VI (ed. Bethmann and Waitz, MGH (1878) 45–187). Paul, a Monk of Monte Cassino, was for some time at the court of Charlemagne in order to obtain the release of his brother taken prisoner in the Friuli insurrection (776). Wiegand, F., Das Homiliarium Karls des Grossen auf seine ursprüngliche Gestalt hin untersucht (Studien zur Geschichte der Theologie und der Kirche. 1.2; Leipzig 1897), has reconstructed a ‘table of contents’ of the original homiliary.Google Scholar

⁷ This effort was a part of Charlemagne's ecclesiastical reforms as appears from the somewhat bombastic imperial letter prefixed to Paul the Deacon's homiliary: ‘Denique quia ad nocturnale officium compilatas quorundam casso labore, licet recto intuitu, minus tamen idonee repperimus lectiones, … atque earundem lectionum in melius reformare tramitem mentem intendimus. Idque opus Paulo diacono, familiari clientulo nostro, elimandum iniunximus.’ Wiegand, Homiliar 15–16. Google Scholar

⁸ Some of these homiliaries are: Sancti Caesarii Arelatensis Sermones (ed. Morin, G. Maredsous 1937); Bedae Ven. Opera III Opera Homiletica (ed. Hurst, D. CCL 122.) 1–378; Alcuin's homiliary described by Morin, G., ‘L'homiliaire d'Alcuin retrouvé,’ RB 9 (1892) 491–497; Alan of Farfa's compilation, Hosp, E. ‘Il Sermonario di Alano di Farfa,’ Ephemerides Liturgicae 50 (1936) 375–383; 51 (1937) 210–241. The MS described by Rose, V. Verzeichnis der lat. Hss. der königlichen Bibliothek zu Berlin 1 (Berlin 1893) 77, is not the work of Egino of Verona as Rose surmised. Achille Ratti (later Pius XI) was able to identify the compiler as Alan of Farfa; see Ratti, A., ‘L'Omeliario detto di Carlo Magno e l'omeliario di Alano di Farfa,’ Rendiconti del istituto Lombardo di scienze e lettere ser. 2.33 (Milano 1900) 481–489.Google Scholar

⁹ Morin, G., ‘Les leçons apocryphes du Breviaire romain,’ RB 8 (1891) 270.Google Scholar

¹⁰ Though of little value in determining the contents of the original homiliary, this particular version is of considerable interest in the history of the development of homiliaries of the PD family. In many cases the divergencies of this late homiliary are supported by rather early MSS (esp. Augiensis 16, 37 and the Durham MSS). Google Scholar

¹¹ Mabillon, J., Annales O.S.B. (Paris 1704) 2.329 (ad ann. 797): ‘extant illae homiliae in duobus magnis voluminibus bibliothecae Augiensis ante annos octingentos scriptis sed absque homiliis posteriorum auctorum, puta Haimonis, Herici, aliorumque quae subinde ab interpolatoribus adiectae sunt, prout in vulgatis libris reperiuntur. ’Google Scholar

¹² Ranke, E., ‘Zur Geschichte des Homiliariums Karls des Grossen,’ Theologische Studien und Kritiken 28.1 (1855) 328–396 says: ‘Noch bleibt mir manche Aufgabe des kritischen Ausscheidens und Feststellens neben der des weiteren Nachforschens in der zugänglichen Bibliotheken zu lösen übrig. Aber die Hauptsache ist doch gewonnen, die Urgestalt des Werkes, das der grösste der alten Könige geistig erzeugt hat, ist wieder hervorgegangen und ich werde nicht der Voreiligkeit angeklagt werden können wenn ich bekenne, dass mich der Gedanke erfüllt, das Gefundene durch eine Ausgabe in würdiger Form zu einem Gemeingut der Gelehrten besonders der theologischen Welt zu machen.’Google Scholar

¹³ Wiegand, , Homiliar 4: ‘Trotzdem stehe ich vorläufig noch davon ab, eine vollständige Ausgabe des Homiliars zu veranstalten, weil für eine solche jahrelange Vorarbeiten nötig sind.’Google Scholar

¹⁴ Morin, G., ‘Les sources non identifiées de l'homiliaire de Paul Diacre,’ RB 15 (1898) 400.Google Scholar

¹⁵ Leclercq, J., ‘Tables pour l'inventaire des homiliaires manuscrits,’ Scriptorium 2.2. (1948) 205–214.Google Scholar

¹⁶ The title in succeeding entries will be reduced to the name of the expositor. A name in parenthesis indicates an editorial insertion for ‘Item unde supra’ or ‘Item eiusdem’ of the MS. Likewise the citations from scripture and patristic sources are put in parenthesis in order to set off editorial from MS material. Google Scholar

¹⁷ Aug. In Jo. Evangel. Tractatus (ed. Willems, R.).Google Scholar

¹⁸ Bedae Ven. Opera III Opera Homiletica (ed. Hurst, D.).Google Scholar

¹⁹ Origenes Werke 12 (ed. Benz, E. & Klostermann, E.; Leipzig 1941) GCS 41.1.Google Scholar

²⁰ Caesarii Opera omnia (ed. Morin, G.; Maredsous 1937).Google Scholar

²¹ Ed. Dombart et Kalb. Google Scholar

²² Trans. Rufinus (ed. Schwartz-Mommsen; Leipzig 1903) 239–251. Google Scholar

²³ S. Ambrosii Med. Opera IV, Expositio sec. Luc. (ed. Adriaen, M.).Google Scholar

¹ Aelfric, , Homilies of the Anglo-Saxon Church 1.1 (ed. Thorpe, B., London 1844) Henceforth = Hom. with volume, number of homily and page or pages.Google Scholar

² All the MSS of Aelfric's works use the title ‘Sermones Catholici’, a term which more accurately describes the bulk of the material in the two volumes. A homily in the strict sense of the word is an exposition of, or commentary on a scriptural text; a sermon is a religious discourse on a dogmatic or moral theme for the purpose of instruction and edification. Actually a hard and fast distinction is not made in the homiliaries. Google Scholar

³ Hom. 1.24.338–350, 26.364–384, 30.436–454; 2.17.288–294, 34.438–444, 41.528–536, 43. 548–562.Google Scholar

⁴ Hom. 1.2.28–44 (6 homilies), 5.76–90 (5 homilies), 27.384–400 (5 homilies); 2.3.36–52 (4 homilies), 5.72–88 (4 homilies).Google Scholar

⁵ The problem of reconciling Aelfric's explicit statement that he had composed forty sermones for each volume with the obvious fact that there are forty-five selections in the second volume has prompted some discussion and much confusion. Kenneth Sisam, ‘MSS Bodley 340 and 342, Aelfric's Catholic Homilies,’ Review of English Studies 7 (1931) 21, has, I think, solved the problem by contending that Aelfric means that he has composed sermones for forty occasions, not necessarily only forty sermones. CrossRefGoogle Scholar

⁶ It is not within the scope of this paper to discuss in detail the debt of Aelfric to either Smaragdus or Haymo. Smaragdus (d. 843) was Abbot of Aniane and compiled a series of brief excerpts from the Fathers on the Epistles and Gospels of the Church year (PL 102.13–552). Haymo (d. 853), Bishop of Halberstadt, composed homilies on the Gospels which are little more than judicious excerpts from the Fathers welded into a continuous discourse (PL 118.11–816). It can be shown that Haymo's influence is much greater than Förster believed. I hope to publish this material separately in the near future. Google Scholar

⁷ Dietrich, ZHTh 25 (1855) 487–495. discussed some of Aelfric's sources, but the major study was done by Max Förster as a doctoral dissertation for the University of Berlin and published in two parts: Über die Quellen von Aelfrics Homiliae Catholicae, I Legenden (Berlin 1892) and ‘Über die Quellen von Aelfrics exegetischen Homiliae Catholicae,’ Anglia 16 (1894) 1–61. One further source was discovered by Davis, C. R., see infra, footnotes 31 and 37.Google Scholar

⁸ Thorpe, B. published the first complete edition of the Catholic Homilies, a transcription of MS Cambridge Gg. 3.28. Previous to Thorpe's edition the English ‘Bluestocking’ Elisabeth Elstob attempted to publish the Catholic Homilies. In 1709 she published the ‘homily on Gregory,’ but with the 36 pages of her 1715 edition the project petered out.Google Scholar

⁹ Wiegand, , Homiliar (see note 6, sec. I above)Google Scholar

¹⁰ This manner of reference was used by Förster also. See Förster, , Anglia 16 (1894) 60.Google Scholar

¹¹ (F 63) ‘Für den übrigen Teil weiss ich leider nicht die Quellen nachzuweisen. Ein Teil der erklärungen findet sich zwar inhaltlich gleich oder ähnlich in Bedas Lucas-kommentar … doch bliebe dann immer ein beträchtlicher Teil der Homilie, der einer dritten Vorlage oder Aelfric selbst zuzuschreiben wäre.’ Google Scholar

¹² One passage is rather close in thought and expression: ‘Eala hu rihtlice he andetton pone halgan geleafan mid pisum wordum, On frympe… .’ ‘Quam recte et pura fidei sanctae confessio, In principio… .’ Google Scholar

¹³ The sermon is by neither Augustine nor Maximus. Morin, Caesarii 822, shows that it is to be credited to Caesarius of Arles. Google Scholar

¹⁴ (F 102) ‘Wie weit für die in der genannten lateinischen homilie nicht vorkommenden erklärungen (z. 85–92; 103–111; 123–150; 180–193; 216–235) direkte Vorlagen anzusetzen sind muss zweifelhaft bleiben.’ Google Scholar

¹⁵ Förster (F 110) gave as the sources, Smaragdus (PL 102.50) together with a few passages from Rufinus. Bede's homily (1.10 CCL 122.68–72), given in PD 36, offers much the same material as Smaragdus. Google Scholar

¹⁶ This sermon should be credited to Peter Chrysologus. Morin, G., S. Aug. Sermones post Maurinos reperti (Miscel. Agost. 1; Rome 1930) 769.Google Scholar

¹⁷ There seems to be little doubt that Aelfric translated the passage which describes Herod's inane hatred of the new-born king from Ps. Aug. (PL 39.2149–50). Note the rather close translation: “… ne com he forÐy Þaet he wolde his eorÐlice rice, οppe aeniges oþres cyninges mid riccetere him to geteon; ac to Ði he com Þaet he wolde his heofonlice rice geleafullum mannum forgyfan. Ne com he to Ði Þaet he waere on maerlicum cynesetle ahafen, ac Þaet he waere mid hospe on rode genaeglod.’ (93–98) ‘Non ad hoc venerat, ut regnum terrestre praeriperet; sed ut coeleste conferret… . Non, inquam, ad hoc venerat, ut constituetur supra sceptra magnificus; sed ut crucifigeretur illusus.’ (2159) This homily is not given in any of the PD homiliaries I have been able to examine; it is, however, in the homiliary of Alan of Farfa (29) for the feast of the Holy Innocents. See Leclercq, , Scriptorium 2.2. (1948) 199.Google Scholar

¹⁸ Förster, , Legenden 11 suggested the Hymn ‘Salvete, flores martyrum’ as the possible source for ‘martyra blostman’: ‘Bestimmt scheint mir auf eine Hymne zurückzuführen die eingeschobene stelle (z. 105–131) … in I no. 5 z.82 womit ein Hymnus … sogar wörtliche Übereinstimmungen aufweist …’Google Scholar

¹⁹ (F 59) ‘Die z. 37–54 gegebene erklärung finde ich dem inhalte nach in Augustins 4 Epiphanias predigt, … wieder, auch mit denselben citaten …’ Google Scholar

²⁰ PL 118.85–88. See note 6 supra. Google Scholar

²¹ PL has this sermon among the ‘sermones dubii;’ but Morin (Miscel. Agost. 1.758) says: ‘Non videntur Augustini esse nisi num. 2–4.’ The sermon as given in PD begins with 2: ‘Exultent ergo virgines.’ Google Scholar

²² Aelfric may also have used PD 10, a Ps. Aug. sermon ‘Vos inquam O Judaei,’ which contains a whole barrage of Messianic texts similar to the first part of Aelfric's homily. Aelfric, however, shows considerable independence in the choice of texts. Google Scholar

²³ Förster (F 78) insisted that Aelfric used Bede's commentary on Mark for a few lines. Aelfric could have found the same material in Haymo (PL 118.353–358). Google Scholar

²⁴ (F 98) Förster rightly surmised that Augustine was the source of the final part of the homily: ‘Die häufige einführung von fragen würde auf Augustin deuten, falls wir nicht annehmen, dass Aelfric ihm diese technik abgelernt und hier — aber nur hier — angewandt habe.’ The source is Augustine (PL 38.409–414). Note the catch phrases. ‘He gewanode his feoh and geihte his rihtwisnysse.’ ‘Minuitur pecunia, augetur justitia.’ ‘Ealle we sind Godes Þearfan; …’ ‘Mendici enim Dei sumus.’ ‘Gif rice wif, and earm accennaÐ togaedere, gangon hi aweig; nast Ðu hwaeÐer biÐ Þaes rican wifan cild hwaeÐer Þaes earman.’ ‘Pariant simul dives et pauper, pariant simul mulier dives et mulier pauper: … discedant paululum, redeant et agnoscant.’ I have not been able to find this source in any of the homiliaries. Google Scholar

²⁵ (F 76) ‘Für eine grosse Anzahl stellen finde ich keinen Anhalt hier bei Beda, die aber so naheliegend sind, dass wir wohl keine besondere Vorlage anzunehmen haben.’ One can fill a number of these lacunae from a homily by Ps. Augustine (PL 39.2111–13). This sermon is not found in any of the PD variants but it is used on the feast of St. John the Baptist in Alan of Farfa (37∗) (Leclercq, Scriptorium 2.2. (1948) 202.) The following passages will show Aelfric's use of his material. ‘OÐra gecorenra manna, Ðe Þurh martyrdom, oÐÐe purh oÐre halige geearnunga, Godes rice geferdon, heora endenextan daeg, seÐe hi aefter gefyllednysse ealra earfoÐnysse sigefaeste to Ðam ecan life acende, we wurÐiaÐ him to gebyrdtide.’ (37–39) ‘In aliis sanctis et electis Dei novimus ilium die coli, quo illos post consummationem laborum, et devictum triumphatumque mundum in perpetuas aeternitates praesens haec vita parturiit.’ (2111) ‘Twa forhaefednysse cynn syndon, an lichamlic, oder gastlic.’ (153) ‘Duo autem sunt abstinentiae et crucis genera, unum corporale, aliud spirituale.’ (2112) Google Scholar

²⁶ Förster, , Legenden 22.Google Scholar

²⁷ (F 80) ‘Die mit den worten nu cwyÐ se trahtnere beginnenden auseinandersetzungen (z. 174–192), dass ein schlechtes weib schlimmer sei als alle wilden tiere, finden sich nicht in den bisher genannten Vorlagen. Vielleicht ist mit dem trahtnere Augustin gemeint, der auch für z. 200–212 (ermahnungen) ausdrücklich als quelle genannt wird. Leider aber kann ich auch diese stelle nicht nachweisen. ‘ Google Scholar

²⁸ (F 84) ‘Dietrich nimmt hier eine homilie Bedas als Quelle an, doch finde ich keine solche nur unter den zweifelhaften Stücken als no. 15 (V. 299 ff.), die nichts weiter als Wort für Wort den betreffenden Abschnitt des Lucas-kommentars enthält, ohne besonderen Eingang oder Schluss, also sicher unecht ist.’ It is not quite clear why Aelfric should not have used this source. Google Scholar

²⁹ Förster, , Legenden 24.Google Scholar

³⁰ This sermon has been attributed variously to Ambrosius Autpertus and to Elysachar. See Hurst, CCL 122.383 note 32. Google Scholar

³¹ Charles Rexford Davis, ‘Two New Sources for Aelfric's Catholic Homilies,’ Journal of Eng. and Germ. Phil. 41 (1942) 510–513.Google Scholar

³² This is not in the strict sense of the word a homily; it does, however, incorporate much homiletic material. PD 49 and 58 are from the octave and octave day of Epiphany respectively; PD 40∗ is from the Vigil of John the Baptist, PD 33∗ from the feast of Pentecost. Google Scholar

³³ In Dun. B. 2.2 the Gospel pericope is the same, but the expositor is given as John Chrysostom. Google Scholar

³⁴ We may add here another source which Aelfric used but which Förster confessed he could not find, though we cannot find this source given in any of the homiliaries we have examined. Förster (F 100) said: ‘Ob gerade die hier citierten stellen Aelfric Vorgelegen haben, ist sehr fraglich, da wir daselbst das lateinische citat z. 108 ff. Augustinus dixit … vergeblich suchen.’ Aelfric's source is Ps. Aug. Sermo 72 (PL 39.1884–86). Aelfric: ‘Augustinus dixit, quod Christus etiam in die judicii solus ascendit in caelum, quamuis sua membra secum eleuet quia caput cum corpore suo unus est Christus.’ Note what Augustine really says: ‘Quamvis et in fine cum venerit, et nos sua membra collegerit, ac levaverit in coelum, etiam tunc solus ascendet: quia caput cum corpore suo unus est Christus.’ (1884) From the same sermon Aelfric translates later on in his homily: ‘Drihten com to his leorning-cnihtum Þaer Ðaer hi on rewette gedrefede waeron, on Ðaere feorÐan waeccan. An waecce haerfÐ Þreo tida; feower waeccan gefyllaÐ twelf tida; …’ ‘Venit ergo Christus ad navim suam quarta vigilia noctis, et visitavit eam… . Vigilia una tres horas habet, ac per hoc nox quatuor vigilias habet, ternis horis per singulas vigilias distributis. ’ Google Scholar

³⁵ Aelfric's version of the multiplication of the loaves does not tally in every detail with the exposition of Bede; the variant details are, however, in Haymo (PL 118.634–640). Google Scholar

³⁶ For the question of the authorship of this homily see: Klostermann, E. & Benz, E., ‘Zur Üeberlieferung der Matthaeus-Erklärung des Origenes ’, TU (Leipzig 1931–32) Bd. 47.2.1–136 (from which publication this quotation is excerpted) and 47.4.1–11. Cf. also Morin, G. ‘Les homélies latines sur Matthieu, S. attribuées à Origène,’ RB 54 (1942) 3–11.Google Scholar

³⁷ The source for this homily was first discovered by Max Förster. In a footnote to a book review of Cook's, A. S. Biblical Quotations in Old English Prose Writers in Englische Studien 28 (1900) 423, Förster pointed it out. Davis, C. R., JEGP 41 (1942) 512 (see footnote 31 above) apparently was not aware of the footnote, when he published the source as his own discovery.Google Scholar

³⁸ Dun. A. 3.29 does not support the divergence in this case as it does not offer homilies for the Common of the Saints. Google Scholar

³⁹ These numbers do not represent an exhaustive source-study; the aim of the paper is to prove that Aelfric's patristic material could, by and large, be found in one or other version of the PD homiliary. Of the 86 patristic sources studied, 64 were discovered by Förster, 1 by Davis (but see note 37 above), and 21 new sources were discovered by comparing Aelfric's homilies with the entries in PD. Google Scholar

⁴⁰ i.e. Wiegand's reconstruction as published above.Google Scholar

⁴¹ We have discussed in the footnotes four sources for Aelfric's homilies which are not found in PD. See footnotes 17, 24, 25, 34 above. Two of these sources were found in Alan of Farfa's homiliary; two sources could not be found in any homiliary that I examined. Google Scholar

⁴² Generally speaking, if the two volumes are taken as a unit, Aelfric's borrowings follow the sequence of the Church year beginning with PD 6 of the Pars Hiemalis through PD 122∗ of the Pars Aestiva. Google Scholar

⁴³ Notably on the following feasts: Nativity (Hom. 1. 2), St. Stephen (Hom. 1.3), Annunciation (Hom. 1.13), John the Baptist (Hom. 1.25), St. Paul (Hom. 1.27), Epiphany (Hom. 2.3). Google Scholar

⁴⁴ Förster, , Anglia 16.58. (See footnote 5, part 1 above.)Google Scholar

⁴⁵ Aelfric, , Homilies 1 (ed. Thorpe) 1: ‘… transtulimus hunc codicem ex libris Latinorum, … ob aedificationem simplicium, qui hanc norunt tantummodo locutionem, sive legendo sive audiendo; ideoque nec obscura posuimus verba, sed simplicem Anglicam, quo facilius possit ad cor pervenire legentium vel audientium, ad utilitatem animarum suarum, quia alia lingua nesciunt erudiri, quam in qua nati sunt.’Google Scholar

⁴⁶ The 2nd, 11th and 21st Sunday after Pentecost. For the discussion of these Sundays, see paragraphs 19, 24 and 29 above. Google Scholar

⁴⁷ Thus in a second Easter homily on Lk. 24.13–35 (Hom. 2.16.282–286) he remarks: ‘On Ðisum andwerdan daege gelamp Ðis, peah Ðe Þis godspel aet oÐre maessan geraed sy.’ Or in an additional selection for the the third Sunday after Pentecost (Hom. 2.27.378–380): ‘We sind gecnaewe Þaet we hit forgymeleasodon on Ðam daege Þe mann Þaet godspel raedde, ac hit maeg eow nu fremian swa micclum swa hit Ða mihte.’ Google Scholar

⁴⁸ Wiegand, , Homiliar 88: ‘Es ist wohl nicht zufällig wenn Aug. 37, den wir als ein speziell für den Klostergebrauch zusammengeschnittenes Homiliarium kennen lernten, nur Predigten von solchen Verfassern aus dem Homiliar Karls herübernahm, welche mehr lehrhaft als volkstümlich waren. So verzichtete er vollig auf irgendwelche Beiträge von Maximus von Turin …’ Examination of Aug. 37 reveals, however that it has homilies for only the ordinary Sundays of the year and for the Common of the Saints; it does not cover the greater feasts of the year or the liturgical seasons (Advent and Lent). Even a cursory glance at the PD homiliary shows that Maximus’ homilies are never used on Sundays, and for the Common of the Saints Maximus occurs only three times, and then as supplementary material.Google Scholar