[The following pages contain what may, with the utmost confidence, be affirmed to be the work known during the early middle ages as the Penitential of Theodore. It claims for itself the character of an original treatise: it expressly (in one MS.) describes itself as written, “consiliante Theodoro Archiepiscopo Angelorum;" and again, as the "Libellus quem Pater Theodorus diversis interrogantibus ad remedium temperavit," &c.; it contains, with very insignificant exceptions and those easily accounted for, every penitential sentence ascribed in the most ancient and independent collections to Theodore: and it contains them in a systematic form and arrangement, which confirm its claim to originality.

But although drawn up under the eye, and published with the authority of Theodore, it is not in the modern view a direct work of the great Archbishop. According to the preface, it is a collection of answers given by him to persons questioning him on the subject of penance: to which in Book II. are added answers on the whole range of ecclesiastical laws and discipline: most of them received by a priest named Eoda, "of blessed memory," from Theodore himself, and edited by a person who gives himself the title of " Discipulus Umbrensium," meaning thereby either a native of Northumbria who had been a disciple of Theodore, or more probably an Englishman of southern birth who had studied under the northern scholars. Theodore's answers had been illustrated by Eoda (according to the probable meaning of a very corrupt sentence in the preface), by a comparison with a similar libellus of Scottish origin.

Of the questioner, Eoda, nothing whatever

is known, nor can any probable theory be conjectured which would identify him with any of the persons known by similar names such as Heddi, Headda, Etha, Eata, Eadhæd, or Aidanus. Nor is there any clue to the identification of the " Disciplus Umbrensium." It is evident, however, that the former was dead when the work was drawn up; but there is nothing to make it improbable that it was drawn up with the sanction of Theodore himself, or under his eye: rather it may be said that the verses found at the end of the treatise, in which Theodore commends himself to the prayers of Bishop Hæddi, make it certain that this was the case.

The authority for the statement that Theodore himself drew up a Penitential is as old as the latter half of the eighth century, when the "Liber Pontificalis" (ed. Vignol. Rom. 1724, tom. I. p. 270, cited by Wasserschleben), and after it Paul Warnefrid, assert that he "peccantium judicia, quantos scilicet annos pro unoquoque peccato quis pœnitere debeat, mirabili et discreta consideratione descripsit." The same assertion is made in Irish and French Penitentials from this date downwards; by Rabanus Maurus, who was a pupil of Alcuin, by Regino of Prüm and others. Against this evidence may be set: 1. The silence of Bede, who could scarcely have failed to notice such a work, had it been current under Theodore's name in his time. 2. The fact that the English historians until a comparatively late period make no addition to Bede on this subject. Ralph de Diceto, A.D. 1200 (c. 440), copied the statement of Paul Warnefrid, whose words are given in extenso by Elmham (15th century) as his authority for the assertion. 3. The fact that the work

Libelli-penitentiæ] om. d.

4

2 Incipit nom. a. Anglorum] Angelorum, d.

before us might easily be mistaken by later and less learned scholars than Bede, for a direct work of Theodore.

I. But this negative argument must be carefully restricted as to its bearing on the main question. At the utmost it could be only applied to show that Bede either did not know the book or did not consider Theodore

as the immediate author. It may not have been extensively published during Bede's life; or he may have regarded it primarily as the work of the "Discipulus Umbrensium." The verses addressed by Theodore to Hæddi, however, seem to imply that it was communicated by him to his Bishops, and this would seem conclusive against the supposition of Bede's ignorance on the other hand, it should be stated that Bede nowhere quotes Theodore by name in his own genuine work on the subject of penance, nor can he be shown to have used the present book, although there is a good deal of matter common to both.

2. That Theodore's work was forgotten in England in the 12th century proves nothing. The sweeping destruction of native learning and learned men by the Danes, and the utter ignorance of the Church in the time of Alfred, amply account for the fact that later historians had to learn from foreign writers much concerning early history; especially on such a point as this, which through the exertions of the Scottish monks in the cause of asceticism, and the multiplication of penitential MSS. on the Continent, was better known there than at home.

3. But it cannot be considered a mistake that this work should be regarded as Theodore's. Archbishop Egbert of York, whose pontificate extended from A.D. 734 to A.D. 766, and whose memory must have covered at least twenty or thirty years earlier than the former date, twice in his genuine Penitential quotes Theodore by name (c. V. § 11 and preface); in the latter case reckoning Theodore with Paphnutius, Jerome, Augustin, and Gregory, as the chief authorities on the subject; in the former quoting verbatim lib. I. c. viii. § 6 of the present work. The Codex Canonum Hibernicorum, one MS. of which at least is of the 8th century (A.D. 763 × 790), also quotes the present work under the name of Theodore. And this being so, the technical question as to the direct authorship is simply answered; the "Discipulus Umbrensium" becomes the accredited reporter of Theodore's Determinations.

In the general obscurity arising from uncertainty of authorship, and literary communism, which complicates all questions of Penitential literature, it is not to be wondered at that various extracts from and reconstructions

of the original treatise should have passed in the middle ages, sometimes as the genuine work of Theodore, and sometimes as the composition of other writers. There is no evidence that the original was largely copied or directly known to any wide extent; its influence seems to have spread by means of extracts and by its partial incorporation with other similar codes. Hence has arisen the multiplication of works to which Theodore's name is prefixed, perhaps without any intention to deceive, and merely as claiming to represent his general views and authority. Several MSS. exist, as noted below, which have had their claims to be the original work asserted in their titles: and the same uncertainty has long prevailed as to the completeness and genuineness of the works published under this name.

1. The first attempt to discover and publish the Penitential of Theodore was made by Spelman who in the first volume of the Con. cilia (published A.D. 1639), gives a list of 78 chapters of a work which he found in the library of Corpus Christi College, Cambridge, with the title "Poenitentiale Theodori Archiepiscopi." He describes it as too long to be inserted whole, and adds that there was a difficulty about getting permission to transcribe it (S. I. 154). This is the MS. C. C. C. 190, which was printed, although not wholly, by the Record Commission in A.D. 1840, in the Ancient Laws and Institutes of the AngloSaxons, under the editorship of Mr. Benjamin Thorpe.

2. In A.D. 1669, D'Achery in the ninth volume of the Spicilegium published from MSS. 120 "Capitula Selecta" ascribed to Theodore; these are reprinted by Wasserschleben, arranged as forming 171 canons.

3. In A.D. 1671, D'Achery's Capitula were reprinted by Labbe and Cossart in the Concilia, VI. 1875

4. In A.D. 1677, Jacques Petit published at Paris, under the title of "Theodori Pœnitentiale," a work in 14 chapters, which he found so described in two MSS. of the Library of De Thou. To these he added the Capitula of D'Achery and a quantity of other illustrative material, including a collection of 60 Capitula ascribed to Theodore and communicated to him from MSS. by Nicolas Favier, an advocate in the Parliament of Paris. The work in 14 chapters forms the second book of the Penitential as given in the present text.

5. In A.D. 1723, the new edition of D'Achery's Spicilegium, edited with the notes of Baluze and Martene by L. F. J. De la Barre (I. 486), contained the Capitula Theodori, increased by the care of Martene to 168. Of these the last twenty belong to Adamnan not

to Theodore. The rest are a re-arrangement of D'Achery's 120, in 148 canons.

6. In A.D. 1840, Mr. Benjamin Thorpe edited for the Record Commission the MS. which Spelman had believed to contain the true Penitential.

7. In A.D. 1844, Mr. Thorpe's Penitential was re-edited by Dr. Friedrich Kunstmann, at Mainz, in his work entitled "Die Lateinischen Pönitentialbücher der Angelsachsen," with a careful historical introduction. Kunstmann also printed for the first time from a MS. at Ratisbon, a collection of 193 canons under the title of Canones Gregoriani, which are merely taken without any sort of arrangement from Theodore's genuine work. And some of these appear again in company with matter from wholly different sources in a Merseburg Penitential of much later date, and are described by Wasserschleben under the title of Canones Merseburgenses.

8. In A.D. 1851, Migne re-printed Petit's Penitential with a large part of the illustrative matter, in vol. 99 of the Patrologia.

9. In the same year 1851, at Halle, Dr. F. W. H. Wasserschleben, Professor of Law in the University of Halle, in his learned work, entitled "Die Bussordnungen der Abendländischen Kirche;" published from a comparison of several continental MSS. which are enumerated below, the work of the " Discipulus Umbrensium" which is to be found in the

text.

In these nine editions are to be distinguished four distinct books bearing the name of Theodore; the Capitula Selecta of D'Achery and Martene, and those of Kunstmann called Canones Gregorii; the Capitula of Favier, printed in Petit; the Penitential of the Record Commission; and the work of the "Discipulus Umbrensium," published partly by Petit and wholly by Wasserschleben.

Two of these are eliminated at first sight: the Capitula of D'Achery and Martene and those of Kunstmann are a disorderly congeries of articles, all of which, with one or two exceptions to be noted below, are to be found in the work of the Discipulus. The Capitula of Favier, on the other hand, are a collection of Canons of much later date than Theodore, ranging down to the 10th century, and containing very little that in form is akin to the other works bearing Theodore's name. The Capitula of D'Achery are extracts from the genuine Penitential; those of Favier are an entirely different work. For the Record edition of the Penitential Mr. Thorpe used the following MSS.:

1. The MS. C. C. C. C. 190, which he adopted as the text.

2. The MS. Cotton. Vesp. D. 15, which is an ancient selection of 14 chapters from the genuine work, with the addition of one from Vinniaus, and is entitled "Incipit judicium de Pœnitentia Theodori Episcopi."

3. The MS. C. C. C. C. 320 containing the work of the "Discipulus Umbrensium," and described by Mr. Thorpe in the list of MSS. prefixed to the volume, as Cotton. Tib. A. 3, obviously by mistake.

The two latter MSS. seem to have been used only to furnish various readings, the first being received unhesitatingly as the genuine text. But an examination of the treatise itself shows that it is but a portion of a Frankish Penitential of the 9th century, containing much that is Theodore's, and much more that is of later date. Nor is the MS. of this work fully reproduced, six chapters at the beginning and twenty-two at the end are omitted, as are other portions which would have shown definitely that the date of the work was later than the time of Bede. It contains in fact portions of a date as late as A.D. 829 (see above in the preface to vol. I. p. xiii.). It is difficult to understand how any one who had read this MS. could mistake it for the Penitential of Theodore. In favour of such a conclusion there could be only the quite modern title endorsed upon it, and Spelman's impression derived only from a hasty glance at the MS. and from its list of contents.

The rejection of these spurious or imperfect works leaves the ground open for the Treatise of the Discipulus Umbrensium," which is here printed from the Corpus MS. with the additional light thrown upon the subject by the edition of Wasserschleben. The Editors think it due to themselves to state that, before the edition of Wasserschleben was known to them, they had arrived at the conclusions adopted by that eminent scholar, from a study of the English MSS. But the whole subject is so largely indebted to Wasserschleben's learning and acuteness that their obligations to him cannot be overrated. He had not, however, seen the C. C. C. C. MS., and knew it only from a not very exact transcript in the Cod. Sangerman. nr. 940. The following is the list of the MSS. used by or known to him:

"a. Cod. Vindobon. nr. 2195 (Salisb. 324), fol. sæc. IX. X. fol. 2-40.

"b. Cod. Vindob. Jur. Can. nr. 116. 8vo. sæc. VIII. IX. fol. 1-16.

"c. Cod. Sangerman. nr. 940 (ol. 912), Apographum Codicis Biblioth. Corp. Christi in Acad. Cantabrig Anglic. 1670.

"d. Cod. Herbipol. Theol. nr. 32. 4to. sæc. VIII. IX." containing only the first book, although the Index embraces both.