¹ ASE 18 (1989), 33–43, with pls. I–II.Google Scholar

² Lowe, E. A., Codices Latini Antiquiores, 11 vols. (with 2nd ed. of vol. II) and Supp. (Oxford, 1934–1972Google Scholar; hereafter CLA), Supp., no. 1685, with plate of the upper part of the verso showing the start of Leviticus. CLA gives the Düsseldorf reference as ‘Landes-und Stadtbibliothek A. 19’. The fragments are now the responsibility of the Heinrich-Heine-Universitätsbibliothek and I have been asked by the authorities there (to whom I am grateful for the loan of a microfilm) to state the following: ‘Die Handschrift ist Dauerleihgabe der Stadr Düsseldorf an die Universitätsbibliothek Düsseldorf.’ For an account of the Düsseldorf collections, see Karpp, G., ‘Mittelalterliche Handschriften und Inkunabeln in der Universitätsbibliothek Düsseldorf, Codices Manuscripti 7 (1981), 4–13Google Scholar. The leaf containing the start of Leviticus, though reproduced by Lowe as part of A. 19, has a different shelfmark (Fragment K 16: Z 1/1) and was at one time in the Hauptstaatsarchiv (see below, pp. 45, n. 12, 46, n. 14 and 62, n.87).

³ See Appendix (below, pp. 62–4), for details of the surviving contents.

⁴ The catalogue of the first part (Fifteenth-century Books including the Gutenberg Bible), sold at Christie's of New York on 22 October 1987, includes a fuller account of Countess Doheny and her collections.

⁵ The entry under the Doheny Library in Bond, W. H. and Faye, C. U., Supplement to the Census of Medieval and Renaissance Manuscripts in the United States and Canada (New York, 1962), p. 14 (no. 59 [6558])Google Scholar, records that Countess Doheny obtained it from Kraus, but does not give a date. I assume that the Kraus catalogue cited at CLA Supp., p. 68, for no. 1685 (‘Fifty Select Books, H. P. Kraus catalogue 60, p. 12, no. 7, New York, n.d. [ca. 1953]’) in fact advertises the sale of the Doheny/Tokyo fragment, though I have not been able to see it.

⁶ CLA Supp., p. xi.

⁷ Brown, M.P., ‘New Fragment’, pp. 35 and 40.Google Scholar

⁸ The severe trimming makes the evidence of measurements impossible to evaluate for the whole page and difficult even for the written space. CLA gives ‘270 × calculated ca. 225 mm.’ as the average written space of both Düsseldorf and Tokyo leaves, while Brown, M.P. (‘New Fragment’, p. 34) reconstructs the written space for the Tokyo fragment as ‘approximately 274 × 209 mm.’ Given that the line-lengths vary and most of the figures are estimates, the discrepancies seem insignificant.Google Scholar

⁹ ibid. p. 38 and n. 12.

¹⁰ Krämer, S., Handschriftenerbe des deutschen Mittelalters, 2 vols., Mittelalterliche Bibliothekskatalogen Deutschlands und der Schweiz: Ergänzungsband 1 (Munich, 1989) II, 826–8 (arranged by modern location)Google Scholar. Further detail is supplied by Stüwer, W., Die Reichsabtei Werden an der Ruhr, Germania Sacra NF 12, Die Bistümer der Kirchenprovinz Köln: das Erzbistum Köln 3 (Berlin and New York, 1980), 61–86 (arranged in roughly chronological order)Google Scholar. For the route from Werden to Düsseldorf, see Karpp, ‘Universitätsbibliothek Düsseldorf, pp. 7 and 9.

¹¹ See below, p. 53, n. 40.

¹² Kostbarkeiten aus der Universitätsbibliothek Düsseldorf: Mittelalterliche Handschriften und Alte Drucke, ed. Gattermann, G., Schriften der Universitätsbibliothek Düsseldorf 5 (Wiesbaden, 1989), 18 (no. 2)Google Scholar, with plate of the leaf containing the start of Leviticus under the shelfmark ‘Fragment K 16: Z 1/1 (zu Ms. A 19, 1–26)’. The descriptions of the manuscripts are by G. Karpp.

¹³ Mentioned but not quoted by Stüwer, Werden, p. 56.

¹⁴ Stüwer, Werden, p. 64 (no. 15), says that the leaf containing the start of Leviticus derived from Werden records at the Hauptstaatsarchiv. The plate in Kostbarkeiten shows the oval stamp of the ‘Hauptstaats-archiv Düsseldorf at the centre of the lower margin, just to the left of the three characteristic holes of a chain-staple; at the lower edge of the plate, the stain of a leather turn-in is just visible. So if the leaf did come from the Werden archives, it had been used as the pastedown of a bound volume rather than as a limp wrapper. Oddly, Stüwer fails to mention the other 31 leaves in A. 19; one of them (see below, Appendix) was probably originally conjoint with the first Leviticus leaf and shows three matching chain-staple stains at its foot. It presumably derived from the same chained binding.

¹⁵ H *8078; Proctor 739; BMCI, 161 + 145; GoffG-508. Sig. a–z and A–E are in the type of the ‘Printer of the 1493 Casus Breves Decretalium’, F–M in that of the ‘Printer of the 1483 Jordanus de Quedlinburg’.

¹⁶ See pl. VIIa. Unfortunately Werden is not one of the German monastic libraries covered by Kyriss, E., Verziertegotische Einbände im alien deutschen Sprachgebiet, 4 vols. (Stuttgart, 1951–1958)Google Scholar. Two of the stamps appear to match those reproduced by Weale, W. H. J. and Taylor, L., Early Stamped Bookbindings in the British Museum (London, 1922), pp. 68–9 (no. 155) and pi. XIGoogle Scholar, 14–15, from a British Library incunable bearing the Werden ex libris (Aquinas, Secunda secundae [Strassburg, c. 1474/77] = BMC I, 79, shelfmark IC 891); perhaps four other stamps also match and the overall lozenge patterns are similar, but each binding includes further stamps not found on the other. The pastedowns of the Aquinas are from a large, noted liturgical manuscript of fourteenth(?)-century German origin.

¹⁷ See below, Appendix.

¹⁸ Num. XXIV.7–XXVI.7; and XXXIII.43–XXXV.13, see pi. VIIb and c.

¹⁹ Although the binding retains its original sewing and spine and is generally in good condition, it is clear that a certain amount of expert ‘tidying’ has been carried out (including trimming of the leather turn-ins), perhaps at the time when the pastedowns were removed. The split leather at the joints was further reinforced in 1989.

²⁰ See pi. VIIa. A large red letter on the cover is mentioned as the ‘old shelfmark’ in Stüwer's descriptions of several Werden manuscripts: Berlin, Staatsbibliothek der Stiftung Preussischer Kulturbesitz, Lat. qu. 505 = Stüwer, Werden, no. 34, not listed by Krämer; Düsseldorf, Universitätsbibliothek, B. 81, B. 191 (including a printed book of 1484), E. 2 and E. 3 = Stüwer, nos. 25, 71, 22 and 38; Budapest, National Széchényi Library, Clmae 277 (including a printed item of [1506?]) = Stüwer, no. 76; Darmstadt, Hessische Landes- und Hochschulbibliothek, 93 = Stüwer, no. 58.

²¹ Fifteenth-century parchment title-labels on the upper boards are mentioned in the catalogue descriptions of several stamped-leather bindings from Werden, e.g. Berlin, Staatsbibliothek der Stiftung Preussischer Kulturbesitz, Theol. lat. fol. 362 (Rose 308) and Wolfenbüttel, Herzog August-Bibliothek, Gud. lat. 125 (4429). See also below, n. 23.

²² Brown, , ‘New Fragment’, pp. 35–6.Google Scholar

²³ The Düsseldorf leaf containing Lev. II.2–IV.18 (re-used as a pastedown) has a small rectangular mark at approximately the position indicated by Michelle Brown for Tokyo's three copper-stained holes, about one third of the way down near the centre of the leaf. It looks like metal-damage, though it is difficult to envisage what metal fitting could have caused it. The British Library Aquinas (see above, n. 16) has the nail-holes for a horn label-cover at about this position on the outside front cover, but they form a more recognizable pattern.

²⁴ The colophon of the Gritsch incunable is dated 31 December 1495.

²⁵ See CLA VIII, no. 1070; Dold, A., ‘Die zwei Palimpseste der Kgl. Universitätsbibliothek Bonn S 366 und S 367’, Zentralblatt für Bibliotbekswesen 35 (1918), 211–15Google Scholar; Drögereit, R., Werden und der Heliand: Studien zur Kulturgeschichte der Abtei Werden und zur Herkunjt des Heliand (Essen, [1951]), p. 40 and n. 68.Google Scholar

²⁶ Altfrid, , Vita S. Uudgeri 1.5, ed. Pertz, G.H., MGH, SS 2 (Hannover, 1829), 406Google Scholar; see Levison, W., England and the Continent in the Eighth Century (Oxford, 1946), p. 62.Google Scholar

²⁷ Rose, V. and Schillmann, F., Verzeichniss der lateinischen Handschriften der königlichen Bibliothek zu Berlin, 3 vols., Die Handschriften-Verzeichnisse der königlichen Bibliothek zu Berlin 12–14 (Berlin, 1893–1919) II.i, 52–4Google Scholar; Chroust, A., Monumenta Palaeographica: Denkmäler der Schreibkunst des Mittelalters, 2nd ser. (Munich, 1907–1917) III.xxii, pl. 7a (6r)Google Scholar; Degering, H., Die Schrift, Wasmuths Werkkunst-Bücherei 6 (Berlin, [1929]), pl. 39 (69r)Google Scholar; Drögereit, , Werden und der Heliand, pp. 19–20 (no. 1), pl. 1 (6r)Google Scholar; Das erste Jahrtausend: Kultur und Kunst im werdenden Abendlandan Rhein und Ruhr, ed. Elbern, V. H., 3 vols. (Düsseldorf, 1962–1964), Tafelband pi. 267 (76(77)r)Google Scholar; Stüwer, Werden, p. 62 (no. 3). Lowe's own negatives now at the Bodleian include one of 3r.

²⁸ Leaf-measurements 273 × 215 mm. (ex inf. Chroust); 2 cols., twenty-three lines.

²⁹ Bischoff, B. indicates in his review of Drögereit (Anzeiger für deutsches Altertum und deutsche Literatur 66 (1952), 7–12, at 8)Google Scholar that the hooked form of × appears also in the work of Fulda and Wiirzburg scribes. See also below, p. 57, n. 67.

³⁰ Brown, , ‘New Fragment’, p. 37.Google Scholar

³¹ Fol. 6rb18 (ink foliation), the page chosen by Chroust (see above, n. 27) and further reproduced by Drögereit, Werden und der Heliand, pi. 1, and by Elbern, V.H., St. Liudger und die Abtei Werden. Gesammelte kunstbistorische Aufsätze (Essen, 1962), pi. 6, facing p. 48.Google Scholar

³² This is clear in Chroust's fine plate, though in the later, poorer reproductions the half-erased form starts to look almost like a colon (which may indeed have been the effect intended).

³³ See the Gritsch fragment at pi. VIIb, lines 1, 10 and 17.

³⁴ Drögereit, , Werden und der Heliand, pp. 19–20Google Scholar, discusses the datings of the added inscriptions.

³⁵ Lowe at CLA Supp., no. 1685 (‘saec. VIII-IX’); Karpp in Kostbarkeiten, no. 2 (‘urn 800’). Crick, J. (‘An Anglo-Saxon Fragment of Justinus's Epitome’, ASE 16 (1987), 181–96, at 184 and n. 18)Google Scholar seems to attribute the ‘Heptateuch’ to Werden in the later eighth century; the early dating, not quite compatible with Werden's foundation c. 800, arises from her wish to cite its script as an example of Northumbrian influence on the Continent (via Echternach) alongside a genuinely Northumbrian product, London, British Library, Cotton Tiberius A. xiv (CLA Supp., no. 1703), which in turn receives a late dating. The London Bede is also cited by Drögereit, Werden und der Heliand, p. 75 and pi. 16c, for comparison with Werden manuscripts in script and decoration.

³⁶ Brown, , ‘New Fragment’, p. 40.Google Scholar

³⁷ ibid. p. 38.

³⁸ See the Gritsch fragment at pi. VII c, line 5, ‘[duo] milia’.

³⁹ Reviewed by Barker-Benfield, B.C. in TLS, 27 January 1978, p. 100.Google Scholar

⁴⁰ Uppsala, Universitetsbiblioteket, DG 1 + Speyer, Dombibliotek s.n. (stray leaf, discovered 1970). The question of whether St Liudger might have obtained the ‘Codex Argenteus’ in its native Italy, in France or even in England has attracted speculation; but firm evidence for Werden provenance starts only with its discovery there by scholars of the later sixteenth century (see Friesen, O. v. and Grape, A. in the introduction to the facsimile, Codex Argenteus Upsaliensis (Uppsala, [1928]), pp. 83–8Google Scholar; Drögereit, , Werden und der Heliand, pp. 18–19Google Scholar; Stüwer, , Werden, pp. 61–2 (no. 1)).Google Scholar

⁴¹ Fragments scattered between Düsseldorf and New York: CLA VIII, no. 1185 (‘Landes- und Stadtbibl. B. 212 + Staatsarchiv S.N.’) + XI, p. 22 (Columbia University Library, Plimpton 54); Stüwer, , Werden, p. 63 (no. 7)Google Scholar; further discussed and reproduced by Karpp in Kostbarkeiten, no. 1 (giving the shelfmark in the Universitätsbibliothek as ‘Fragment K 1: B 212’). They had been re-used as wrappers on fifteenth-century Werden records.

⁴² CLA Supp., no. 1786 (‘Düsseldorf, Staatsarchiv Fragm. S.N.’): archival wrapper. Not listed by Stüwer or Kramer.

⁴³ CLA VIII, no. 1187 (‘Düsseldorf, Landes- und Stadtbibl. B. 215 + C. 118 + Staatsarchiv Fragm. 20’). Omitted by Krämer, but listed by Stüwer, Werden, p. 62 (no. 2, ‘Werdener Herkunft sehr wahrscheinlich’). Seven of the ten leaves were rescued from bindings of books belonging to the monastery of Beyenburg near Werden.

⁴⁴ CLA Supp., no. 1687 (‘Düsseldorf, Staatsarchiv HS. Z. 4 nr. 2’). Krämer, Handschriftenerbe II, 827, gives the reference as Hauptstaatsarchiv, ‘Fgm. K 19: Z 11–2 (Depos. in UB u. UB Fragm. K 14: 11)’. Not listed by Stüwer.

⁴⁵ CLA VIII, no. 1189 + Supp., p. 6 (‘Düsseldorf, Staatsarchiv HS. Z. 4 nr. 3, 1 + Fragm. 28 + Gerleve (near Koesfeld), Stiftsbibliothek S.N.’); Stüwer, , Werden, p. 63Google Scholar (no. 8, ‘Ein Fragment Werdener Provenienz wahrscheinlich’). In his Lyell Lectures, Julian Brown noted its similarity to one of the hands of CLA VIII, no. 1134 (Kassel, Landesbibliothek, Theol. fol. 21, later at Fulda) and compared both manuscripts to the Leningrad Bede (Public Library, Q. v. 1. 18 = CLA XI, no. 1621).

⁴⁶ Düsseldorf, Universitätsbibliothek, B. 210. CLA VIII, no. 1184: second half of the eighth century, ‘provenance not known’. Listed by Krämer, Handschriftenerbe II, 827, but not by Stüwer. For two further leaves, see Bischoff, B. and Brown, V., ‘Addenda to Codices Latini Antiquiores’, MS 47 (1985), 317–66, at 358: from a Werden binding.Google Scholar

⁴⁷ CLA VIII, no. 1045 (‘Berlin, Deutsche Staatsbibl. Fragm. 34 … saec. VIII’, with corrections in ninth-century Caroline minuscule); Stüwer, Werden, p. 63 (no. 12). The two small fragments are from the fifteenth-century binding of Berlin, Staatsbibliothek der Stiftung Preussischer Kulturbesitz, Theol. lat. fol. 346 (Rose 298, CLA VIII, no. 1066); see below, p. 59 and n. 74.

⁴⁸ CLA VIII, no. 1068: fragment re-used in the fifteenth-century binding of a Werden manuscript, Berlin, Staatsbibliothek der Stiftung Preussischer Kulturbesitz, Theol. lat. fol. 355 (Rose 307). Drögereit, , Werden und der Heliand, p. 25 (no. 6), pi. 5Google Scholar, suggests that this and other Berlin binding fragments of saints' lives (from Theol. lat. fol. 362 (308) and 367 (353)) came from the same ‘Passionar’ as a leaf re-used in the Bonn palimpsests (see above, p. 49, n. 25). Stüwer, Werden, p. 63 (no. 6) lists four unspecified Berlin fragments with a reference to CLA VIII, no. 1068. But the Insular script of the palimpsested leaf in Drögereit's pi. 5 (Bonn, Universitätsbibliothek, S. 367, 110v) looks later and more continental than that of the CLA plate. The various fragments of saints' lives ought to derive either from more than one Werden passional in Insular script or from one volume that was augmented later (see also below, p. 57 and n. 68).

⁴⁹ ‘Well taught, having with him plenty of books’, I.12 (MGH, SS 2,408), quoted by Levison, , England and the Continent, p. 141 and n. 4Google Scholar. On the date, see Schröer, A., ‘Chronologische Untersuchungen zum Leben Liudgers’, Liudger und sein Erbe: dem siebzigsten Nachfolger des beiligen Liudger Clemens August Kardinal von Galen Bischof von Münster zum Gedächtnis, 2 vols., Westfalia Sacra 1–2 (Münster, 1948–1950) I, 85–138, at 105 and 138Google Scholar. Drögereit, , Werden und der Heliand, p. 75Google Scholar, proposed that the manuscripts brought by Liudger from York are represented by the Berlin Epistles and its associated group; but Bischoff asserts in his review (p. 8) that these manuscripts cannot be earlier than around 800. See also Crick, , ‘Anglo-Saxon Fragment of Justinus’, pp. 193–4.Google Scholar

⁵⁰ Collectio Quesnelliana, CLA VIII, no. 1188 (‘Düsseldorf, Landes- und Stadtbibl. E. 32 … saec. VIII ex.’); Drögereit, , Werden und der Heliand, pp. 25–6 (no. 7), pi. 6Google Scholar; Stüwer, , Werden, p. 63 (no. 9, ‘Werdener Herkunft wahrscheinlich’)Google Scholar; not listed by Krämer. Lowe observes that ‘the lower left limb of x turns to the right, a feature of many Northumbrian manuscripts’ (not the hooked x of the Berlin Epistles), but also compares CLA IX, no. 1414 (Würzburg, Universitätsbibliothek, M. p. th. f. 47), a Würzburg manuscript with possible Kentish connections. Crick, (‘Anglo-Saxon Fragment of Justinus’, pp. 186–7)Google Scholar cites the canon law collection as a ‘continental counterpart’ of the Justinus fragments (see CLA IX, no. 1370), for which she tentatively accepts Lowe's attribution to Northumbria in the mid-eighth century; but since she uses the Werden connection to support that attribution, there is a danger of circularity.

⁵¹ CLA Supp., no. 1686 (‘saec. VIII ex.’) and no. 1688 respectively (‘Düsseldorf, Staatsarchiv HS. Z. 4 nr. 1’ and ‘nr. 8’), both re-used as wrappers for sixteenth-century records concerning Werden dependencies. Both listed by Krämer, , Handschrijtenerbe II, 827–8Google Scholar (Hauptstaatsarchiv, ‘Fgm. K19: Z 8–1’ and ‘Fgm. K 16: Z 4–2’). Stüwer, , Werden, p. 64Google Scholar (no. 16) lists a single leaf of anonymous homilies at Düsseldorf, perhaps a reference to the Bede. See also below, p. 61.

⁵² CLA VIII, no. 1070 ( = Bonn, Universitätsbibliothek, S. 366, fols. 34, 41, palimpsested at Werden, c. 1500). A second fragment of the same text, CLA VIII, no. 1186 (‘Düsseldorf, Landes- und Stadtbibl. B. 213’), is not listed by Krämer, but Stüwer, (Werden, p. 64Google Scholar (no. 14)) includes it as ‘wahrscheinlich von Werdener Hss losgelöst’ and Lowe slyly mentions Werden in his description without committing himself: ‘Written either in England or in an Anglo-Saxon centre in Germany, like Werden. Provenance unknown.’ It seems not unlikely that these two fragments are parts of the same book, though Lowe does not explicitly make the connection.

⁵³ CLA VIII, p. vi. Here Lowe again treats the two Gregory fragments (nos. 1070 and 1186) as separate entries.

⁵⁴ ‘Very learned in the holy scriptures’, II.6 (MGH, SS 2, 413); see also Schröer, A., ‘Das geistliche Bild Liudgers’, Das erste jahrtausend, ed. I, Elbern, 194–215, esp. 210–11.Google Scholar

⁵⁵ Line 985, quoted by Stüwer, , Werden, p. 85 (nos. 3–4).Google Scholar

⁵⁶ See above, p. 51 and n. 34.

⁵⁷ Chroust, Monumenta, 2nd ser. III.xxii, pls. 8a–b (64r, 61v: 215 × 145 mm., 27 long lines); Drögereit, Werden und der Heliand, pp. 28–9 (no. 11), pls. 9–10. Chroust's pi. 8b (= Drögeteit's pl. 9) shows some original ‘-q.’ for ‘-que’ abbreviations by the scribe in the prefatory matter to Luke.

⁵⁸ Stüwer, , Werden, pp. 64–5 (no. 18).Google Scholar

⁵⁹ ibid. pp. 84–5 (no. 2).

⁶⁰ Ibid, p. 84 (no. 1), last reported on its way to a private collection in England in 1852. Oxford, Bodleian Library, MS Douce 176 (CLA II, no. 238) is a gospel lectionary of c. 800 attributed to Chelles, where Charlemagne's sister Gisla was abbess, and its ivory cover shows scenes from the life of Christ. It is not certain when the ivory was married to the book and (unless there has been some deception) the later provenances do not tie up; but could Liudger's present have been a twin?

⁶¹ See Schröer, ‘Chronologische Untersuchungen’, p. 132, n. 29; Stüwer, , Werden, pp. 298’9Google Scholar. Through his pioneering mission to the Halberstadt area, Hildigrim is mistakenly described as bishop of Halberstadt in some later traditions.

⁶² Chroust, Monumenta, 2nd ser. III.xxii, pls. 6a–b (2r, lv: 312 × 215 mm., 25 long lines); Drögereit, , Werden und der Heliand, p. 20 (no. 2), pls. 2 and 16aGoogle Scholar; Stüwer, , Werden, pp. 62–3 (no. 5, ‘geschrieben für Hildigrim’).Google Scholar

⁶³ Fol. 96v: ‘I, Hildigrim, an unworthy deacon, took care of the writing for the use of many and brought the task to its end through the help of our Lord, Jesus Christ. Let our intention for the work be good, but it will be God who brings it to perfection.’

⁶⁴ Fol. lv: ‘I, Felwald’ and ‘I wrote these leaves, fit for the uses of poor men …’

⁶⁵ Chroust, , Monumenta, 2nd. ser. III.xxii, plGoogle Scholar. 7b (77v: 245 × 210 mm., 25 long lines), printed alongside the plate from the Berlin Epistles; Drögereit, , Werden und der Heliand, pp. 20–3Google Scholar (no. 3, two hands), pls. 3 and 16b; Stuwer, , Werden, p. 63 (no. 11)Google Scholar. The date is misprinted as's. XV’ by Krämer, Handschriftenerbe II, 828.

⁶⁶ Fol. 81: Ps. XVII.10-XVIII.33. Drögereit, Werden und der Heliand, pp. 23–4 (no. 5), pi. 4. Chroust, (Monumenta, 2nd ser. III.xxii, text for pi. 7b)Google Scholar seems to take fol. 81 as part of the Epistles volume and it is ignored by Stuwer and Krämer.

⁶⁷ Bischoff, review of Drögereit, p. 8, takes its absence from the Gregory (as well as its appearance beyond Werden, see above, p. 50, n. 29) as evidence that Drögereit is wrong to pronounce it a Werden symptom. However, the Gregory is the only manuscript of the immediate group in which the hooked x is not reported; if Felwald was its scribe rather than Hildigrim, its absence seems less significant.

⁶⁸ The palimpsested fragment illustrated by Drögereit, Werden und der Heliand, pi. 5 = Bonn S. 367, HOv; see above, p. 54, n. 48.

⁶⁹ Drögereit, , Werden und der Heliand, p. 27 (no. 9)Google Scholar, pi. 7, cf. Stüwer, , Werden, p. 77 (no. 74)Google Scholar. The folio numbers are itemized by Dold, , ‘Palimpseste’, p. 211Google Scholar. These are presumably the fragments ‘in Anglo-Saxon minuscule of a German type’ which Lowe dismisses as seemingly ninth-century in his discussion of the palimpsested fragments of Gregory's Dialogi (CLA VIII, no. 1070). Dold suggests some textual connection with Hrabanus Maurus's commentary on St Matthew (completed by 821/2). To judge by his plate, Drögereit (p. 28 (no. 10), pi. 8) is probably right to identify fol. 193 of the palimpsest as deriving from another (homiletic?) book, in a more regular Insular script which still fails to match the style of the main Werden group.

⁷⁰ CLA IX, no. 1234 (‘Münster in Westph., Staatsarchiv Msc. I. 243 (foil. 3–10)… Saec. VIII ex.’). Drögereit, , Werden und der Heliand, pp. 26–7Google Scholar (no. 8, noting that the Werden entries are still in Insular style); listed by Krämer, Handschriftenerbe II, 828, but not by Stüwer, . In his Lyell Lectures, Julian Brown observed that the script recalled CLA II, no. 146 + Supp., p. 19 (Fulda) and VIII, no. 1181 (unlocalized).Google Scholar

⁷¹ See Coens, M., Recueil d'Études Bollandiennes, Subsidia Hagiographica 37 (Brussels, 1963), 139–49.Google Scholar

⁷² See Jones, L. W., ‘Cologne MS. 106: a Book of Hildebald’, Speculum 4 (1929), 27–61, pls. I-VICrossRefGoogle Scholar; and Jones, , The Script of Cologne from Hildebald to Hermann, The Mediaeval Academy of America, Publication 10 (Cambridge, MA, 1932), 40–3 (no. 7)Google Scholar, pls. XXXI-XLV, esp. XL-XLII; Drögereit, , Werden und der Heliand, pp. 31–5, pls. 11–12Google Scholar. After detailed analysis, Jones concluded that the manuscript had been ‘parcelled out for simultaneous copying among seven scribes’, of which two (hands ‘N’ and ‘Q’) were Insular, and supplemented by some thirteen or so further contemporary hands.

⁷³ The idea of a temporary gathering of scribes, perhaps at Werden, is proposed by Bischoff, B., ‘Panorama der Handschriftenüberlieferung aus der Zeit Karls des Grossen’ (first published 1965), in his Mittelalterliche Studien, 3 vols. (Stuttgart, 1966–81) III, 5–38, at 7, n. 8Google Scholar. Earlier, Bischoff had been more dubious about Drögereit's suggestion that Cologne 106 had Werden connections (review, p. 9).

⁷⁴ CLA VIII, no. 1066; Drögereit, , Werden und der Heliand, p. 39Google Scholar; Stüwer, , Werden, p. 64 (no. 13).Google Scholar

⁷⁵ Main manuscript = CLA VIII, no. 1067a; restoration leaves = no. 1067b. Drögereit, , Werden und der Heliand, p. 30Google Scholar; Stüwer, , Werden, p. 62Google Scholar (no. 4: ‘teils ags. Schrift’ – but there is no mention of any Insular script in Lowe's descriptions).

⁷⁶ CLA VIII, no. 1183 (‘saec. VIII-IX … pre-Caroline minuscule of the so-called Corbie ab-type … Written in the Corbie region’), cf. p. ix (‘post ca. A.D. 798’); Drögereit, , Werden und der Heliand, p. 23Google Scholar (no. 4) (but see Bischoff's review, p. 8, noting that the binding is Essen's, not Werden's); Stüwer, , Werden, p. 63 (no. 10)Google Scholar; not in Krämer's list.

⁷⁷ Bischoff, , review of Drögereit, p. 8Google Scholar; Stüwer, , Werden, p. 67 (no. 30)Google Scholar; listed by Krämer, , Handschrijtenerbe II, 826.Google Scholar

⁷⁸ Bischoff, , review of Drögereit's Werden und der Heliand, p. 9, cf. pp. 11–12Google Scholar, diagnoses this mixture of influences in the scattered fragments of the ‘Werden Glossaries’ (Munich, Bayerische Staatsbibliothek, Cgm 187 III, etc.: Drögereit, pp. 35–7; Stüwer, , Werden, p. 65 (no. 20))Google Scholar. The detection of similar influences in the scripts of the Heliand manuscripts provided the thrust of Drögereit's argument for their Werden provenance; but Bischoffhas shown that it points more convincingly towards Corvey, (‘Die Schriftheimat der Miinchener Heliand-Handschrift’ (first published 1979), in his Mittelalterliche Studienlll, 112–19, pls. I-II; see also pp. 103–4)Google Scholar. See also now discussion in The Epinal, Erfurt, Werden, and Corpus Glossaries, ed. Bischoff, B., Budny, M., Harlow, G., Parkes, M.B. and Pheifer, J.D., EEMF 22 (Copenhagen, 1988), 20–2 and 64.Google Scholar

⁷⁹ Chroust, Monumenta, 2nd ser. III.xxii, pls. 9a–b; Drögereit, , Werden und der Heliand, pp. 38–9Google Scholar; Stüwer, , Werden, pp. 65–6 (no. 23)Google Scholar. For Harduin's other manuscripts, see Bischoff, , ‘Panorama’, p. 9, n. 18, cf. p. 11, n. 25Google Scholar. A fragment of an Insular passional was re-used in its fifteenth-century binding: see above, n. 48. Harduin of Saint-Wandrille, with whom Presbyter Harduinus is usually identified, died in 811.

⁸⁰ If the origin and later date proposed by Michelle Brown are correct, the question arises of how the manuscript reached Werden from England: an opportunity to explore the continuing relationship of Werden to its Anglo-Saxon roots.

⁸¹ See above, pp. 54–5 and n. 51.

⁸² Following Bischoff's 1965 ‘Panorama’ (see above, p. 58, n. 73). See also Bischoff, B., Palaographie des romischen Altertums und des abendl'dndiscben Mittelalters, Grundlagen der Germanistik 24, 2nd ed. (Berlin, 1986), 126–8Google Scholar, and Crick, , ‘Anglo-Saxon Fragment of Justinus’, pp. 184–5.Google Scholar

⁸³ Julian Brown's examples included: Mainz, CLA 1, no. 97; Fulda II, no. 146 + Supp., p. 19, recalling IX, no. 1234 and VIII, no. 1181; Hersfeld VIII, nos. 1144 and 1225.

⁸⁴ Respectively Oxford, Bodleian Library, Hatton 93 (CLA II, no. 241) and Cambridge, University Library, LI. 1. 10 (not in CLA).

⁸⁵ Brown, , ‘New Fragment’, pp. 38–40.Google Scholar

⁸⁶ Postscript. It was not until after completing this article that I read Rosamond McKitterick's important paper, ‘Anglo-Saxon Missionaries in Germany: Reflections on the Manuscript Evidence’, Trans, of the Cambridge Bibliographical Soc. 9 (1989), 291–329Google Scholar, which sets the process of reassessment of the relationship between English and continental Insular script well on its way. Dr McKitterick questions the underlying assumptions of Lowe's frequent references to ‘Insular centres’ and specifically cites (p. 297) the CLA entry for Düsseldorf A. 19 as an example of his subjectivity of judgement; her conclusion on the manuscript is nevertheless the same, that a Werden origin is likely but not completely certain. The Werden manuscripts, as I have outlined them, seem to fall into categories similar to those defined by Dr McKitterick at the earlier foundations of Würzburg and Fulda, including not only books in continental Insular script but also books which could have been written either in England or on the Continent, alongside others in contemporary continental scripts. As Cologne 106 may confirm at Werden, different scribal practices might have co-existed at such communities without immediate pressure towards assimilation and uniformity. Like Julian Brown, Dr McKitterick recognizes the possibility of continuing feed-back between England and the Continent in the development of Insular script in the early ninth century. The relative lateness of Werden's foundation may make the evidence of its Insular manuscripts particularly valuable.

⁸⁷ The microfilm (dated 28 September 1977) does not present the leaves in the order of the biblical text and the few folio numbers visible do not seem to follow consecutively. Nevertheless, the order of the microfilm sometimes seems relevant to the archaeological connections of the leaves as recovered from their intermediate bindings. In the chart, I have allocated to each Düsseldorf leaf my own folio-number in square brackets in the order of its appearance on the microfilm. The leaf at the start of Leviticus, of which the verso is illustrated by both Lowe and Karpp for its fine title-heading, is not present on the microfilm, perhaps because it arrived separately from the Hauptstaatsarchiv (see above, pp. 43, n. 2,45, n. 12 and 46, n. 14). The information about the contents of its recto is taken from Stüwer, Werden, p. 64 (no. 15).

⁸⁸ Near the end of ‘Desiderii mei…’ = Préfaces de la bible latine [ed. De Bruyne, D.] (Namur, 1920), p. 8, line 25.Google Scholar