Penitance (Early Medieval Europe - Volume 14, Issue 1 - January 2006 Issue 1) (2006)

Introduction
Penitential questions: sin, satisfaction

and reconciliation in the tenth and
eleventh centuries
R M
As early medieval clergymen realized, to confess ones sins to a priest is

not an easy thing to do. They thus admonished priests to assign a
specic penance without delay, since otherwise it might be necessary to
question the penitent a second time; while for the penitent confessing
sins only once was difcult enough. 1 The Blickling homilist preached
that confessors should humbly teach and instruct sinful men, so that
they know how to confess their sins aright because they are so various,
and some so very impure, that a man will avoid ever telling them except
the priest ask him concerning them. 2 Despite the difculties involved,
acknowledging your faults and being prepared to make up for them is
one of the most intimate ways in which an individual is related to the
religious community that is the church, is confronted with ecclesiastical
norms and with the ways in which he has lived up to those norms, or
failed to do so. How far the rite of confession penetrated medieval
society is therefore an indication of the nature and extent of that societys religious beliefs. David Bachrach has recently addressed this larger
topic of the Christian character of the early Middle Ages by focusing
on the frequency of confession, specically by looking at evidence for
confession by soldiers.3 He concluded that confession must have been
a regular feature in the religious life of lay people and that therefore
1
See the instruction Quotienscumque, ed. R. Kottje, Paenitentialia minora Franciae et Italiae
saeculi VIIIIX, CCSL 156 (Turnhout, 1994), p. 187.
Blickling Homilies, no. 4 in The Blickling Homilies with a Translation and Index of Words
together with the Blickling Glosses, ed. R. Morris, EETS OS 58, 63 and 73 (Oxford, 1874, 1876,
1889; reprinted in one volume 1967), pp. 423; cited by Catherine Cubitt below.
D.S. Bachrach, Confession in the Regnum Francorum (742900), Journal of Ecclesiastical
History 54 (2003), pp. 322.
Early Medieval Europe () 16 Blackwell Publishing Ltd , Garsington

Road, Oxford OX DQ, UK and Main Street, Malden, MA , USA
Rob Meens
views of the early Middle Ages as a period in which Christianity hardly

touched the surface of peoples lives cannot be sustained. Aaron Gurevich,
on the other hand, tried to show how shallow early medieval Christianity
was by analysing Bishop Burchard of Wormss handbook for confession.
Following a model closely related to the one propagated by Annales
historians such as Jacques le Goff or Jean-Claude Schmitt, Gurevich
contended that the descriptions of magical and superstitious beliefs and
forms of behaviour as they are found in Burchards famous Decretum,
and particularly in the nineteenth book, the Corrector sive Medicus, show
that Christians remained attached to pre-Christian attitudes in the most
important elds of human existence: health, love and economic success.4 For Arnold Angenendt the stress on external behaviour in penitential handbooks indicated a return to more archaic forms of religious
beliefs (Rearchaisierung) compared to the more ethical attitudes found
in early Christianity.5 Such contrasting views show that there is still a
lot of work to be done if we are to understand early medieval religion
and particularly the nature of early medieval confession. The themes of
confession, penance and reconciliation, fortunately, have received more
attention in recent years, as is shown by the Ecclesiastical History Society choosing this theme for their annual conference in 2003. 6
Confession and penance have long been the exclusive domain of
ecclesiastical historians.7 Traditionally the investigation of the development
of these rituals and practices was used as an argument for or against the
respectability and the authority of current practices. But the renewed
4
5
A. Gurevich, Medieval Popular Culture: Problems of Belief and Perception (Cambridge, 1988).
A. Angenendt, Geschichte der Religiositt im Mittelalter (Darmstadt, 1997), pp. 212, 626 44.
Angenendts thesis had been developed by his pupil Hubertus Lutterbach; see, e.g., his Die
mittelalterlichen Bubcher Trgermedien von Einfachreligiositt?, Zeitschrift fr Kirchengeschichte 114 (2003), pp. 22744. Cf. however the reaction by R. Kottje, Intentions-oder
Tathaftung? Zum Verstndnis der frhmittelalterlichen Bubcher, Zeitschrift der SavignyStiftung fr Rechtsgeschichte, Kanonistische Abteilung 91 (2005), pp. 73841.
Published as K. Cooper and J. Gregory (eds), Retribution, Repentance, and Reconciliation,
Studies in Church History 40 (Woodbridge, 2004).
The rst one who tried to break away from confessional prejudices in this eld was Henry Charles
Lea, A History of Auricular Confession and Indulgences in the Latin Church, 3 vols. (Philadelphia,
1896); confessional views, however, could still inspire H.J. Schmitz in his search for a Roman
penitential, see H.J. Schmitz, Die Bussbcher und die Bussdisciplin der Kirche (Mainz, 1883;
reprinted Graz, 1958) and his Die Bussbcher und das kanonische Bussverfahren. Nach handshriichen
Quellen dargestellt (Dsseldorf, 1898; reprinted Graz, 1958). The still indispensable works of Bernhard Poschmann and Josef Andreas Jungmann are strongly inuenced by their catholic views, see
e.g. B. Poschmann, Die abendlndische Kirchenbusse im frhen Mittelalter, Breslauer Studien zur
historischen Theologie XVI (Breslau, 1930); B. Poschmann, Penance and the anointing of the sick
(New York 1964); J.A. Jungmann, Die lateinischen Bussriten in ihrer geschichtlichen Entwicklung
(Innsbruck, 1932). French historiography is less confessional, see the work of Paul Fournier, tudes
sur les pnitentiels, Revue dhistoire et de littrature religieuses 6 (1901), pp. 289317, 7 (1902), pp. 59
70 and 121127, 8 (1903), pp. 528553 and 9 (1904), pp. 97103 and Cyrille Vogel, Le pcheur et la
pnitence au Moyen Age. Textes choisis, traduits et prsents par Cyrille Vogel (Paris 1969) and his Les
Libri Paenitentiales, Typologie des sources du moyen ge occidental 27 (Turnhout, 1978).
Early Medieval Europe ()
Blackwell Publishing Ltd
Introduction: Penitential questions
interest in religious history especially following the investigation of

mentalits pioneered by the Annales school has also stimulated research
in the eld of penance and confession. Penitential handbooks have, for
example, been drawn upon as privileged sources for the history of
sexuality, of magic and superstitions, and of attitudes towards food. 8
Accompanying this renewed interest in these works as sources for social
and cultural history, have been investigations into their textual history.
Allen Frantzen carefully investigated the textual traditions and the cultural environment of penitential texts from the early Middle Ages in
England.9 The most fundamental exploration of the textual history of
penitential handbooks was, however, instigated by Raymund Kottje.
His aim was to provide new, up-to-date editions of all the early medieval
penitential handbooks written on the European mainland, resulting so
far in two volumes published in the Latin Series of the Corpus Christianorum.10 Apart from these editions, Kottjes research project has given
rise to a number of studies in which the textual afliations of particular
texts have been thoroughly examined.11 The focus of all this work has been
the eighth and ninth centuries, a period to which I also devoted most
of my attention when dealing with the so-called tripartite penitentials.12
Returning to the manuscripts for the preparation of modern editions,
yielded many unexpected results. Apart from new manuscripts of wellknown texts, some previously unknown material was also unearthed.
8
9
10
11
12
Jean-Louis Flandrin, Un temps pour embrasser. Aux origines de la morale sexuelle occidentale
(VIXI sicle) (Paris, 1983). P. Payer, Sex and the Penitentials: The Development of a Sexual
Code, 550 1150 (Toronto, 1984). H. Lutterbach, Sexualitt im Mittelalter. Eine Kulturstudie
anhand von Bubchern des 6. bis 12. Jahrhundert, Beihefte zum Archiv fr Kulturgeschichte
43 (Cologne, Weimar and Vienna, 1999). V. Flint, The Rise of Magic in Early Medieval Europe
(Oxford, 1991). J.-C. Schmitt, Les superstitions, in J. Le Goff (ed.), Histoire de la France
religieuse, I: Des dieux de la Gaule la papaut dAvignon (des origines au XIVe sicle) (Paris,
1988), pp. 417551. R. Meens, Pollution in the Early Middle Ages: The Case of the Food
Regulations in Penitentials, EME 4 (1995), pp. 319. M. Muzzarelli (ed.), Una componente
della mentalit occidentale: penitenziali nellalto medio evo (Bologna, 1980); eadem, Norme di
comportamento alimentare nei libri penitenziali, Quaderni Medievali 13 (1982), pp. 45 80.
H. Lutterbach, Die Speisegesetzgebung in den mittelalterlichen Bubchern (600 1200).
Religionsgeschichtliche Perspektiven, Archiv fr Kulturgeschichte 80 (1998), pp. 137.
Allen J. Frantzen, The Literature of Penance in Anglo-Saxon England, (New Brunswick, 1983).
R. Kottje (ed.), Paenitentialia minora Franciae et Italiae saeculi VIIIIX, CCSL 156 (Turnhout,
1994) and F. Bezler (ed.), Paenitentialia Hispaniae, CCSL 156A (Turnhout, 1998).
F.B. Asbach, Das Poenitentiale Remense und der sogen. Excarpsus Cummeani: berlieferung,
Quellen und Entwicklung zweier kontinentaler Bubcher aus der 1. Hlfte des 8. Jahrhunderts
(Regensburg, 1975). G. Hgele, Das Paenitentiale Vallicellianum I. Ein oberitalienischer Zweig
der frhmittelalterlichen kontinentalen Bubcher. berlieferung, Verbreitung und Quellen,
Quellen und Forschungen zum Recht im Mittelalter 3 (Sigmaringen, 1984). F. Kerff, Der
Quadripartitus. Ein Handbuch der karolingischen Kirchenreform. berlieferung, Quellen und
Rezeption, Quellen und Forschungen zum Recht im Mittelalter 1 (Sigmaringen, 1982). R.
Haggenmller, Die berlieferung der Beda und Egbert zuge-schriebenen Bubcher (Frankfurt
a.M. and Berne, 1991). L. Krntgen, Studien zu den Quellen der frhmittelalterlichen
Bubcher, Quellen und Forschungen zum Recht im Mittelalter 7 (Sigmaringen, 1993).
R. Meens, Het tripartite boeteboek. Overlevering en betekenis van vroegmiddeleeuwse biechtvoorschriften (met editie en vertaling van vier tripartita) (Hilversum, 1994).
Rob Meens
Two further texts were, for example, added to the corpus of the earliest
generation of Frankish penitential handbooks, the Paenitentiale Oxoniense
I and the Paenitentiale Sletstatense.13 Ludger Krntgen discovered another
unknown text, which not only proved to be the unidentied source
for the third series of the Paenitentiale Romanum, but is also an intriguing and original composition of the rst half of the eighth century: the
Paenitentiale Oxoniense II.14 This text may even have been composed
by the Anglo-Saxon missionary, Willibrord. 15 Because of this kind of
detailed analysis of the manuscript tradition of certain works and of the
sources on which it drew, we are now able to date and to localize
specic texts in a much more convincing way than hitherto. We are also
in a better position to assess the inuence of specic works. It can be
shown, for example, that from amongst the group of eighth-century
tripartite penitentials, the Paenitentiale Capitula Iudiciorum was mainly
known in southern Germany and Italy, while the Excarpsus Cummeani
was utilized primarily in southern Germany, northern France and Spain.16
While Kottjes project made it possible to use penitential handbooks
with much more precision than before, it also raised new questions.
Franz Kerff interrogated the generally accepted assumption that these
texts were used in everyday pastoral care. Since they were often found
in manuscripts in which they were surrounded by texts of a juridical
nature, he argued that penitential canons were probably used in an
episcopal court rather than in a parish church. 17 Kerff s views were
supported by Alexander Murray, who not only questioned the applicability of these texts, but also the regular occurrence of the ritual of
confession as an element of ordinary pastoral activity in the early Middle
Ages.18 Another important issue raised in recent decades is the distinction
between public penance and its secret counterpart. Following decrees
13
14
15
16
17
18
Kottje (ed.), Paenitentialia minora, pp. 160 and 8393.

Krntgen, Studien zu den Quellen, pp. 90 205; Kottje (ed.), Paenitentialia minora, pp. 181205.
R. Meens, Willibrords boeteboek?, Tijdschrift voor Geschiedenis 106 (1993), pp. 16378; idem,
Christentum und Heidentum aus der Sicht Willibrords? berlegungen zum Paenitentiale
Oxoniense II, in M. Polfer (ed.), Lvanglisation des rgions entre Meuse et Moselle et la
fondation de labbaye dEchternach (VeIXe sicle), Publications de CLUDEM 16 (Luxemburg,
2000), pp. 41528.
For the P. Capitula Iudiciorum, see L. Mahadevan, berlieferung und Verbreitung des Bussbuchs
Capitula Iudiciorum, Zeitschrift der Savigny-Stiftung fr Rechtsgeschichte, Kanonistische Abteilung
72 (1986), pp. 1775; for the Excarpsus Cummeani, Asbach, Das Poenitentiale Remense.
F. Kerff, Mittelalterliche Quellen und mittelalterliche Wirklichkeit. Zu den Konsequenzen
einer jngst erschienenen Edition fr unser Bild kirchlicher Reformbemhungen, Rheinische
Vierteljahrsbltter 51 (1987), pp. 27586 and idem, Libri paenitentiales und kirchliche Strafgerichtsbarkeit bis zum Decretum Gratiani. Ein Diskussionsvorschlag, Zeitschrift der SavignyStiftung fr Rechtsgeschichte, Kanonistische Abteilung 75 (1989), pp. 2357; see the reaction by
R. Kottje, Bue oder Strafe?. Zur Iustitia in den Libri Paenitentiales, in La Giustizia
nellalto medioevo (secoli VVIII), Settimane 42 (Spoleto, 1995), pp. 44374.
A. Murray, Confession before 1215, Transactions of the Royal Historical Society, 6th ser. 3
(London, 1993), pp. 5181.
Introduction: Penitential questions
issued by Carolingian councils, it had been taken for granted that a neat
distinction existed between the episcopally controlled ritual of public
penance and parochial pastoral practice of private penance. Recent research,
however, suggests that a vast middle ground must have existed between
these two poles.19 This middle ground in which public and communal
elements of the ritual of penance merged with more secret ones, also
has consequences for the uses of penitential handbooks, which must
have functioned in a more public environment than hitherto suspected.
A Utrecht-based endeavour, funded by the Dutch Organization for
Scientic Research, now aims to take Kottjes project further in several
directions. It plans to tackle the tenth and eleventh centuries, a period
which had not been well served by historians of penance before Sarah
Hamiltons major contribution to the eld appeared in 2001. 20 Hamilton used a plethora of material showing the importance of penance at
this time, but refrained from using the penitential handbooks from this
period to the full, precisely because so little is known about these texts. 21
The Utrecht penitential project intends to remedy this lacuna. Two
central texts, the Libri duo de synodalibus causis written by Regino of
Prm in the early years of the tenth century and Burchards Decretum,
which is almost a century younger, are not tackled head-on because
other projects are already addressing the problems involved with these
works.22 Other important areas of research in this period, however,
comprise the texts composed and known in Italy and England, two
areas which will be of central importance in our project. In the process,
particular attention will be paid to the manuscripts containing penitential
19
20
21
22
M.B. de Jong, What was Public about Public Penance? Paenitentia publica and Justice in the
Carolingian World, in La Giustizia nellalto medioevo II (secoli IXXI), Settimane 44 (Spoleto,
1997), pp. 863904; and eadem, Transformations of Penance, in F. Theuws and J.L. Nelson
(eds), Rituals of Power: From Late Antiquity to the Early Middle Ages (Leiden, Boston and
Cologne, 2000), pp. 185224. Mary C. Manseld, The Humiliation of Sinners: Public Penance
in Thirteenth-Century France (Ithaca, 1995). R. Meens, The Frequency and Nature of Early
Medieval Penance, in P. Biller and A.J. Minnis (eds), Handling Sin: Confession in the Middle
Ages, York Studies in Medieval Theology 2 (Woodbridge, 1998), pp. 3561. S. Hamilton, The
Practice of Penance, 9001050 (Woodbridge, 2001). B. Bedingeld, Public Penance in AngloSaxon England, ASE 31 (2002), pp. 22355.
Hamilton, Practice of Penance.
Hamilton, Practice of Penance, pp. 478.
For Regino see now Wilfried Hartmann, Das Sendhandbuch des Regino von Prm, Ausgewhlte Quellen zur deutschen Geschichte des Mittelalters 42 (Darmstadt, 2004); Klaus
Waldmann works on a dissertation in which he analyses the penitentials used by Regino, see
W. Hartmann, Die Capita incerta im Sendhandbuch Reginos von Prm, in O. Mnsch and
T. Zotz (eds), Scientia veritatis. Festschrift fr Hubert Mordek zum 65. Geburtstag (Ostldern,
2004), pp. 20726, at p. 208, n. 10. For Burchards Decretum: Greta Austin, Jurisprudence
in the Service of Pastoral Care: The Decretum of Burchard of Worms, Speculum 79 (2004),
pp. 92959 and her forthcoming book Law, Theology and Forgery Around the Year 1000: The
Decretum of Burchard of Worms; see also L. Krntgen, Fortschreibung frhmittelalterlicher
Bupraxis. Burchards Liber corrector und seine Quellen, in W. Hartmann (ed.), Bischof
Burchard von Worms 10001025 (Mainz, 2000), pp. 199226, and his contribution below.
Rob Meens
texts, in order to answer questions about the actual context in which

they might have been used. Kerff has, for example, drawn attention to
the legal character of manuscripts containing these texts. 23 While Hamilton has shown the importance of liturgical ritual in the actual staging
of penance, liturgical manuscripts comprising penitential texts have not
been served well by historians.24 Understanding the various connections
between law and liturgy is therefore one of the aims of the Utrecht
project, and from this it follows logically that questions of secrecy and
publicity of penance are of crucial importance.
The papers in this special issue of Early Medieval Europe derive from
a one-day workshop held in Utrecht in 2002 to launch the new research
project.25 The papers deal with the general questions which are central to
it. While Roger Reynolds provides an overview of the manuscripts in which
penitential material is combined with collections of canon law, Adriaan
Gaastra analyses the inclusion of penitential canons in a particular canon
law collection from Italy. Marjolijn Saan and Carine van Rhijn present
their rst results regarding the so-called Pseudo-Theodore penitential,
one of the texts that will be studied in depth. This is a ninth-century
text, but proved to be inuential in late Anglo-Saxon England. A context for this Anglo-Saxon interest in Pseudo-Theodore is then sketched
by Katy Cubitt. Ludger Krntgen probes the question for whom and
for what purposes Burchard composed his Decretum, while I give an
overview of the penitential manuscripts circulating in the tenth and
eleventh centuries, in order to understand why new texts were no longer
composed in such quantities as they had been in the ninth. From the
ensuing papers it will be clear that all speakers were inspired by Sarah
Hamiltons wonderful study of the practice of penance in the tenth and
eleventh centuries. Sarah was present at the workshop in Utrecht, but
the paper she presented was unfortunately already spoken for. 26 For all
of us there the day provided a wonderful opportunity to discuss our
ideas with her, and the papers in this issue of EME show how her work
has sparked a renewed interest in the history of penance in the period
between the Carolingian Renaissance and the Gregorian Reforms. It has
made us consider again our suppositions and assumptions, and the
results of our efforts to rethink penitential questions are presented here.
University of Utrecht
23
24
25
26
See n. 17 above.
Hamilton, Practice of Penance, particularly pp. 10472.
The workshop was sponsored by the Utrecht Centre for Medieval Studies as well as by the Dutch
Organization for Scientic Research, and I would like to express my gratitude for their support.
Published as Rites for Public Penance in Late Anglo-Saxon England in H. Gittos and M.B.
Bedingeld (eds), The Liturgy of the Late Anglo-Saxon Church (Woodbridge, 2005).
Penitentials and the practice of penance

in the tenth and eleventh centuries
R M
This article reconsiders the function of penitentials in the tenth and

eleventh centuries; were they used mainly to support priests in the administration of penance, or rather as legal texts in either the episcopal court
or in the schoolroom? Through an examination of the evidence of the
manuscripts from across Europe, it shows that whilst few new penitentials
were composed, many older ones, especially those which gave their
authorities, continued to be copied in this period, and that most were
preserved in a legal rather than pastoral context. Finally, it suggests
that this shift towards collections of a legal nature indicates not only
tighter episcopal control, but also a concern for the better legal training
of priests.
The tenth and eleventh centuries have until recently not been well
served by historians of penance. Modern historians of this period, such
as Geoffrey Koziol or Gerd Althoff, have, however, emphasized the
penitential aspects of the ritual vocabulary in political discourse. Koziol,
for example notes that the language of political submission was nothing but the language of penance,1 whilst Gerd Althoff concludes that
Ritual acts taken from ecclesiastical penance functioned as building
blocks for the creation of a ritual, which provided the possibility for a
peaceful resolution of secular conicts. 2 Although Althoff specically
mentions the ritual of public penance and particularly that of Louis the
Pious in 833, as a model for later rituals of deditio, Koziol maintains that
from the ninth through the eleventh centuries all penance, whether
public or private, required the gestures and language of supplication,
1
G. Koziol, Begging Pardon and Favor: Ritual and Political Order in Early Medieval France
(Ithaca and London, 1992), p. 187.
G. Althoff, Die Macht der Rituale. Symbolik und Herrschaft im Mittelalter (Darmstadt, 2003),
p. 69: Rituelle Handlungen der Kirchenbue dienten also als Bausteine bei der Kreation
eines Rituals, das es erlaubte, weltliche Konikt gtlich beizulegen.
Early Medieval Europe () 721 Blackwell Publishing Ltd , Garsington

Road, Oxford OX DQ, UK and Main Street, Malden, MA , USA
Rob Meens
and through them exposed the laity to a universe structured around the
act of entreating a benecent lord.3 The question, however, of whether
ecclesiastical penance was really such a regular feature of early medieval life has recently been the subject of debate. 4 The actual forms of
the ecclesiastical penitential ritual, moreover, have until recently only
received scant attention.5 Mayke de Jong has drawn attention not only
to the importance of public penance in a political context, but has also
questioned assumptions regarding the distinction between public and
private penance.6 While de Jong focused on the Merovingian and Carolingian period, Sarah Hamilton has now offered us a challenging and
stimulating study of the practice of penance in the tenth and eleventh
century. In this book she used a rich variety of sources, such as the
legal collections compiled by Regino of Prm and Burchard of Worms,
penitentials, conciliar legislation, sermon literature, episcopal capitula,
monastic legislation and narrative sources, to reconstruct the history of
penance in the tenth and eleventh centuries. She emphasizes the rituals
of penance and the highly political context of such rituals through a
careful analysis of liturgical material, giving attention not only to differences between texts, but also to variant readings in the manuscript
tradition of a single text.7 Her approach shows nicely how much can be
done with these texts which have been neglected since the days of Josef
Andreas Jungmann, who was writing in the early 1930s.
Although Hamilton uses a great variety of sources, it seems somewhat odd that she devotes relatively little of her attention to a discussion of the handbooks composed for confessors, the texts which we
nowadays call penitentials. One of the reasons why she did not really
concentrate on penitentials, is undoubtedly that we still know so little
about the texts composed in the tenth and eleventh centuries, as she
acknowledges when writing about the Italian penitentials which were
3
4
Althoff, Macht der Rituale, pp. 589; Koziol, Begging Pardon, p. 182.
See R. Meens, The Frequency and Nature of Early Medieval Penance, in P. Biller and A.J.
Minnis (eds), Handling Sin: Confession in the Middle Ages, York Studies in Medieval Theology
2 (Woodbridge, 1998), pp. 3561 and D.S. Bachrach, Confession in the Regnum Francorum
(742900), Journal of Ecclesiastical History 54 (2003), pp. 322.
The work of J.A. Jungmann, Die lateinischen Bussriten in ihrer geschichtlichen Entwicklung
(Innsbruck, 1932) can only be used with extreme care, since many texts and manuscripts have
in the meantime been re-dated. Further see C. Vogel, Les rites de la pnitence publique
aux Xe et XIe sicles, in P. Gallais and Y.I. Riou (eds), Mlanges Ren Crozet (Poitiers, 1966),
pp. 13744.
Mayke de Jong, Power and Humility in Carolingian Society: The Public Penance of Louis
the Pious, EME 1 (1992), pp. 2952; eadem, What was Public about Public Penance? Paenitentia publica and Justice in the Carolingian World, in La Giustizia nellalto medioevo II
(secoli IXXI), Settimane di Studio 44 (Spoleto, 1997), pp. 863904; eadem, Transformations
of Penance, in F. Theuws and J.L. Nelson (eds), Rituals of Power: From Late Antiquity to the
Early Middle Ages (Leiden, Boston and Cologne, 2000), pp. 185224.
S. Hamilton, The Practice of Penance, 9001050 (Woodbridge, 2001).
freshly composed in this period: Until we know more about the provenance and purpose of these manuscripts, we cannot study the differences in these ordines and the reasons behind them. Another reason for
her neglect of penitentials seems to be that Hamilton has serious doubts
about the role of these texts in penitential practice. She speaks of a
move away from penitentials in the tenth century in northern Europe,
a move that is exemplied by a change of context. For the ninth century she is willing to admit that such texts were used in a pastoral
context, but in the tenth century she sees an abrupt change toward the
use of the majority of these texts in a juridical or episcopal context. 8
Whilst she concedes that some new texts were composed, particularly
in Italy and Anglo-Saxon England, these seem to reect an interest in
canon law or ecclesiastical reform, rather than being inspired by pastoral concerns. Penitentials were ceasing to be seen as pastoral texts and
were coming to be considered rather as texts to be used in a more
formal context, either that of the cathedral school or the episcopal court
and synod. Thereby the function of penitentials changed; their purpose
was to assert control over the diocesan clergy rather than providing
Christians the opportunity to confess their sins and to cleanse their
souls. Penitential collections thereby became dry, prescriptive texts
which seem remote from the practice of penance in this period, texts
moreover which were not widely available to the more general clergy. 9
Although Hamiltons conclusions are partly based on my own
ndings regarding the manuscript tradition of the tripartite penitentials, I am not so condent about this move away from [the use of ]
penitentials in a pastoral context.10 My point of departure, therefore,
starts with this question: is there convincing evidence for concluding
that penitentials were no longer used by priests hearing confession in
the normal process of pastoral care? Can we say that such texts were
used less and less as an aid for the priest-confessor, and began to function more and more as a means for instructing priests or as a law book
functioning in the episcopal court? If this is true, then we might ask
what it means when we say that we are dealing with dry, prescriptive
texts which seem remote from the practice of penance. Is it really
necessary for our texts to have been used by a priest-confessor actually
hearing confession with a penitential on his lap, so to speak, for these
texts to be useful as a historical source for reconstructing the practice of
penance in the period we are interested in? Does an increase in episcopal
control over processes of penance and a growth in the importance of
8
9
10
Hamilton, The Practice of Penance, pp. 478.

Hamilton, The Practice of Penance, p. 50.
R. Meens, The Frequency and Nature of Early Medieval Penance.
10
Rob Meens
episcopal courts and synods, really diminish the value of penitential

texts as a historical source?
Penitentials in the tenth and eleventh centuries

Before turning to these matters, let us rst look at the evidence for
penitentials in the period under discussion. The copying and composing of penitential handbooks began slowly in the seventh and early
eighth centuries, in the wake of their introduction from the insular
world, but from the end of the eighth century onwards we can observe
the prolic production of these texts. 11 The penitential traditions going
back to Columbanus (d. 615) and Theodore of Canterbury (d. 690)
continued to be inuential, especially as they were combined with insular material in the tripartite penitentials. 12 The Paenitentiale Oxoniense
II, written in the rst half of the eighth century, but whose only surviving complete manuscript witness stems from the tenth century,
proved also to be a formative inuence on the production of new texts
in this period.13 The penitentials attributed to Bede and Egbert were
being composed at the end of the eighth century probably both somewhere in the Rhineland, although Egberts penitential might have an
Anglo-Saxon background. Very early these texts were combined in various stages to result, in the second half of the ninth century, in the socalled mixed Pseudo-Egbert penitential, which used to be called the
double penitential.14 As a result of the critique issued at the Carolingian reform councils new penitentials were composed in the mid-ninth
century by Carolingian bishops, such as Halitgar of Cambrai and
Hrabanus Maurus, which attempted to bring the penitential tradition
into line with well-established conciliar traditions. Raymund Kottje has
11
12
13
14
For a general introduction, see C. Vogel, Les Libri Paenitentiales, Typologie des sources du
moyen ge occidental 27 (Turnhout, 1978); R. Kottje, Busspraxis und Bussritus, in Segni e
riti nella chiesa altomedievale occidentale, Settimane di studio 33 (Spoleto, 1987), pp. 36995;
A. Frantzen, The Literature of Penance in Anglo-Saxon England (New Brunswick, 1983).
R. Meens, Het tripartite boeteboek. Overlevering en betekenis van vroegmiddeleeuwse biechtvoorschriften (met editie en vertaling van vier tripartita) (Hilversum, 1994).
For this text, see L. Krntgen, Studien zu den Quellen der frhmittelalterlichen Bubcher,
Quellen und Forschungen zum Recht im Mittelalter 7 (Sigmaringen, 1993); R. Meens,
Willibrords boeteboek?, Tijdschrift voor Geschiedenis 106 (1993), pp. 16378 and idem,
Christentum und Heidentum aus der Sicht Willibrords? berlegungen zum Paenitentiale
Oxoniense II , in M. Polfer (ed.), Lvanglisation des rgions entre Meuse et Moselle et la
fondation de labbaye dEchternach (VeIXe sicle), Publications de CLUDEM 16 (Luxemburg,
2000), pp. 41828.
For these texts, see A. Frantzen, The Penitentials Attributed to Bede, Speculum 58 (1983),
pp. 57397; R. Haggenmller, Die berlieferung der Beda und Egbert zugeschriebenen
Bubcher (Frankfurt a.M. and Berne, 1991) and R. Haggenmller, Zur Rezeption der Beda und
Egbert zugeschriebenen Bubcher, in H. Mordek (ed.), Aus Archiven und Bibliotheken.
Festschrift fr Raymund Kottje zum 65. Geburtstag (Frankfurt a.M. and Berne, 1992), pp. 149 59.
11
shown that these Carolingian reform penitentials were clearly a major

inuence in the Carolingian period, but that their existence did not
stamp out the older traditions.15
Measured against the ninth century there seems to have been a
decline in the production of new texts in the two following centuries.
In England three penitentials written in Old English were produced,
while the Paenitentiale Cantabrigiense is possibly also an English composition of the tenth century.16 In Italy, after the introduction of Halitgars work and the composition of the Paenitentiale Vallicellianum I in
the second half of the ninth or in the beginning of the tenth century,
ve new texts were composed.17 It has also been argued that the socalled Paenitentiale Pseudo-Theodori, traditionally held to be a text
emanating from the Carolingian reform period, was possibly written in
England in the tenth century.18 Preliminary research, however, suggests
that this is in fact a ninth-century text, possibly even from as early as
the rst half of that century.19 From the West Frankish realm, however,
we have evidence of only a few texts being freshly composed in this
later period: the penitential attributed to Fulbert of Chartres and the
Arundel penitential are generally considered to be compositions from
this region.20 From the East Frankish realm we have, of course, the
Decretum of Burchard of Worms, which comprises an extremely rich
and inuential penitential as its nineteenth book. 21 The composite Paris
penitential which was composed in the eleventh century, probably originated in the middle realm: either in north-east France or the adjacent
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
R. Kottje, Die Bussbcher Halitgars von Cambrai und des Hrabanus Maurus. Ihre berlieferung
und ihre Quellen, Beitrge zur Geschichte und Quellenkunde des Mittelalters 8 (Berlin and
New York, 1980); see also R. Kottje, Einheit und Vielfalt des kirchlichen Lebens in der
Karolingerzeit, Zeitschrift fr Kirchengeschichte 60 (1965), pp. 32342 and R. McKitterick,
Unity and Diversity in the Carolingian Church, in R. Swanson (ed.), Unity and Diversity
in the Church, Studies in Church History 32 (Oxford, 1995), pp. 5982.
For penitentials in England, see Frantzen, The Literature of Penance ; for the Cantabrigiense
(formerly known as the Sangermansense), see K. Delen, A. Gaastra, M. Saan and B. Schaap,
The Paenitentiale Cantabrigiense: A Witness of the Carolingian Contribution to the TenthCentury Reforms in England, Sacris Erudiri 41 (2002), pp. 34173.
On the P. Vallicellianum I see G. Hgele, Das Paenitentiale Vallicellianum I. Ein oberitalienischer Zweig der frhmittelalterlichen kontinentalen Bubcher. berlieferung, Verbreitung
und Quellen, Quellen und Forschungen zum Recht im Mittelalter 3 (Sigmaringen, 1984);
Hamilton, The Practice of Penance, p. 48; the Italian penitentials (P. Vallicellianum II (2x),
P. Casinense, P. Lucense and P. Vaticanum) will be analysed by Adriaan Gaastra in his
doctoral thesis. See also the contribution of Roger Reynolds in this volume.
H. Sauer, Zur berlieferung und Anlage von Erzbischof Wulfstans Handbuch , Deutsches
Archiv 36 (1980), pp. 34184, at p. 346, n. 8; Meens, Tripartite boeteboek, pp. 689.
See Marjolijn Saan and Carine van Rhijn in this volume.
For the penitential attributed to Fulbert of Chartres, see F. Kerff, Das sogenannte Paenitentiale Fulberti. berlieferung, Verfasserfrage, Edition, Zeitschrift der Savigny-Stiftung fr
Rechtsgeschichte, Kanonistische Abteilung 73 (1987), pp. 140; cf., however, Meens, Tripartite
boeteboek, pp. 200 5 where some doubts are expressed concerning Fulberts authorship.
See Ludger Krntgen in this volume.
12
Rob Meens
German region (most probably from somewhere in the archdiocese of

Trier).22
In the eastern and western parts of the former Frankish empire,
therefore, the region which saw such a blossoming of penitential literature in the Carolingian period, only a handful of new penitentials were
composed. This decline is in line with general trends in the elds of the
production of texts and manuscripts in this period. 23 From this region
only the nineteenth book of Burchards Decretum, the Corrector sive
Medicus, can be regarded as an inuential text although in this case
Hamilton, while allowing for its possible uses in an educational or
disciplinary context, argued that Burchards work was intended as a
reference work rather than for practical use, and that it and Reginos
work were meant to be used as aids for the higher clergy, as reference
aids for the administration of penance by the bishop and his cathedral
clergy.24 The penitential themes in the rest of Burchards oeuvre, however, seem somewhat more prominent than Hamilton is willing to
admit, while the use that was being made of this text can only be
established by a careful examination of the existing manuscripts. 25 The
fact, however, that from the late eleventh century onwards the Corrector
sive Medicus is in some manuscripts taken out of Burchards Decretum
to function as a separate text, strongly suggests that the Corrector was
used as a handbook for confessors.26
Penitential manuscripts
Apart from Burchards work, therefore, there seems to have been a
remarkable lack of new texts written in the eastern and western parts of
the former Frankish empire. Partly this image may be the result of
neglect by scholars. There may still be penitentials hidden in composite
manuscripts from this period.27 Partly it may also result from the many
new works composed during the ninth century retaining their usefulness
22
23
24
25
26
27
For the Parisiense compositum, see Meens, Tripartite boeteboek, pp. 177219 and the edition
on pp. 486507.
C. Leonardi, Intellectual Life, in T. Reuter (ed.), The New Cambridge Medieval History III:
c.900 c.1024 (Cambridge, 1999), pp. 186211, at p. 186.
Hamilton, The Practice of Penance, pp. 41 and 44; cf. p. 33: The two major canonical collections of the tenth and eleventh centuries are therefore associated primarily with episcopal
contexts and appear to have been composed for three purposes: for the education and for the
discipline of the secular clergy, and as legal reference text for the episcopal administration.
Krntgen in this volume.
Krntgen in this volume.
Troyes, Bibliothque municipale, 1979 (s. X/XI, eastern France/western Germany) and Leiden,
Universiteitsbibliotheek, Scaliger 70 (s. XI, Bourges), both contain penitentials which have not
yet been analysed in any detail; for the Troyes manuscript see Kottje, Bussbcher, pp. 635,
for the Leiden manuscript see Mahadevan, berlieferung und Verbreitung, p. 47.
13
into the later period. This is, for example, the reason advanced by Claudio
Leonardi to explain the setback in manuscript production in the tenth
century in general. Books were expensive to produce and there was no
reason to make further copies once demand had been met. 28 To verify
this argument we have to look for indications that earlier works
remained in use during the tenth and eleventh centuries. If we look at
the manuscript tradition of earlier penitentials, then we can observe
that these were still copied in the tenth and eleventh centuries.
Most of the early insular texts we know from two tenth-century
Breton manuscripts containing a collection of insular canonical material.29 Another tenth-century manuscript, now kept in Oxford, also
contains an interesting set of old penitential texts which I will come
back to later.30 The penitential tradition going back to Theodore of
Canterbury also continued to be inuential in the period under discussion. The Capitula Dacheriana we know only from the two Breton
manuscripts just mentioned, the Canones Cottoniani from a manuscript
written around the year 1000, now in London, while the more inuential versions Canones Gregorii and the Discipulus Umbrensium were
copied at least ten times in the tenth and eleventh centuries. 31 Of these
manuscripts ve were possibly copied in Italy, while one reects the
interest in penitentials in England in this period. Nevertheless two were
copied in the north of France, another one in an unidentied place
probably in France, and two of the remaining ones near the Bodensee
in southern Germany. For the Excarpsus Cummeani, the most inuential
of the tripartite penitentials composed in the rst half of the eighth
century, we know of only two tenth-century manuscripts from the
German regions although possibly these might have been written as
early as the end of the ninth century while one of the northern French
manuscripts containing the penitential of Theodore also includes this
28
29
30
31
Leonardi, Intellectual Life, p. 186.

Paris, Bibliothque Nationale, lat. 3182 (s. X1, written by a Breton scribe Maeloc) and 12021
(s. X in., written by the Breton scribe Arbedoc), cf. L. Bieler (ed.), The Irish Penitentials, with
an Appendix by D.A. Binchy, Scriptores Latini Hiberniae 5 (Dublin, 1963), pp. 12, 14 and 204.
Oxford, Bodleian Library, Bodley 311; cf. L. Krntgen, Studien zu den Quellen der frhmittelalterlichen Bubcher, Quellen und Forschungen zum Recht im Mittelalter 7 (Sigmaringen, 1993).
London, British Library, Cotton Vesp. D XV (s. XXI) (Canones Cottoniani ); P. Theod. G:
Oxford, Bodleian Library, Bodley 311 (s. X, north or north-western France); Munich, Bayerische Staatsbibliothek, Clm 6241 (s. X2, Freising); Paris, BN, n.a.l. 281 (s. X/XI, northern Italy
or southern France); Monte Cassino, Archivio dellAbbazia, 372 (s. XI in., S. Nicola della
Cicogna near Monte Cassino); possibly Monte Cassino, Abbazia, 554 (s. X, Italy) and Vienna,
sterreichische Nationalbibliothek, lat. 2231 (s. IX/X, Italy or southern France); P. Theod. U:
Cambridge, Corpus Christi College, 320 (s. X3/4, Canterbury), London, BL, Add. 16413 (s. XI
in., southern Italy); Paris, BN, lat. 1458 (s. XI1, northern France); Stuttgart, Wrttembergische Landesbibliothek, HB VI,107 (s. XI ex. south-western Germany, near Bodensee);
Stuttgart, Wrttembergische Landesbibliothek, HB VI,112 (s. X, near Bodensee); Vesoul,
Bibliothque Municipale, 73 (s. X/XI, possibly France, see MGH Capitula Episcoporum I, ed.
P. Brommer (Hannover, 1984), p. 98.
14
Rob Meens
text.32 Out of a total of eight manuscripts which contain the eighthcentury text known as Capitula Iudicorum, three possibly stem from the
period under discussion, although one of these might be from the end
of the preceding century; all three were probably copied in Italy. 33 Two
of the three manuscripts containing the Paenitentiale in duobus libris,
composed in the second half of the eighth or in the early ninth century,
may have been copied in the tenth century, both possibly in Italy. 34 The
Paenitentiale Vallicellianum I was also widely distributed in Italy in the
tenth and eleventh centuries, where ve of its manuscripts were made
in this period, while two other manuscripts were copied there in an even
later period.35 From the penitential that Halitgar of Cambrai (81731)
added as Book 6 to his reform penitential, the Pseudo-Roman penitential, we know of three manuscripts from the tenth and eleventh centuries, although it remains unclear whether these manuscripts represent
the original Pseudo-Roman penitential or are a derivative of Halitgars
work in which it was included. Interest in this work seems to have been
particularly lively in Switzerland.36 The penitentials attributed to Bede
and Egbert also seem to have remained in use during the tenth and
eleventh centuries, as can be ascertained from the eighteen manuscripts
with these texts which survive from that epoch. While two of these
stem from Italy and two from England, the rest of the manuscripts
testify to an enduring interest in these works in France and Germany. 37
32
33
34
35
36
37
Einsiedeln, Stiftsbibliothek, Cod. 326 (s. IX ex. or IX/X, Germany); Vienna, sterreichische
Nationalbibliothek, lat. 2225 (s. IXX) and Vesoul, Bibliothque Municipale, cod. 73 (s. X
XI, possibly France); on the particular combination of the Excarpsus Cummeani and the P.
Merseburgense A in the Vienna manuscript, see R. Meens, Aliud benitenciale: The NinthCentury Paenitentiale Vindobonense C , Mediaeval Studies 66 (2004), pp. 126, at pp. 45.
London, BL, Add. 16413 (s. XI in., southern Italy); Paris, BN, n.a.l. 281 (s. X/XI northern
Italysouthern France); Vatican City, Biblioteca Apostolica Vaticana, lat. 5751 (s. IX ex. or
IX/X, Verona/Bobbio?)
Monte Cassino, Abbazia, Cod. 554 (ext 554, 508) (s. X2, Italy); Vienna, NB, lat. 2231 (s. IX/
X, Italy or southern France).
Barcelona, Biblioteca Universitaria, MS 228 (s. X2, northern Italy); Florence, Biblioteca MediceaLaurenziana, Ashburnham 1814 (s. XI2, copied from a northern Italian exemplar); Rome,
Biblioteca Vallicelliana, E 15 (s. XI2, Rome); Rome, Bibl. Vall., F 54 (s. XI ex., middle Italy);
Vercelli, Biblioteca Capitolare, CXLIII (159) (s. X2, northern Italy). Later Italian copies:
Milan, Biblioteca Ambrosiana, I 145 inf. (s. XII, Milan?); Vercelli, Biblioteca Capitolare,
CLXXIX (152) (s. XII/XIII, Vercelli).
St Gallen, Stiftsbibliothek, Cod. 676 (written between 1080 and 1100 in St Blasien or Schaffhausen); Stuttgart, Wrttembergische Landesbibliothek, HB VI 107 (s. XI ex., near the
Bodensee); Zrich, Zentralbibliothek, MS Car. C 123 (s. X, Zrich?).
MSS of Pseudo-Egbert: St Gallen, Stiftsbibliothek, cod. 677 (s. X med., St Gallen?); Vatican,
Biblioteca Apostolica Vaticana, Pal. lat. 294 (s. X/XI, probably Lorsch); Paris, BN, lat. 3182
(s. X2, Brittany); Oxford, Bodliean Library, Bodley 718 (s. XXI, England, Exeter?); Cambridge,
CCC, 265 (s. XI1, England). MSS of the Vorstufe of the Bede-Egbert penitential: Milan,
Biblioteca Ambrosiana, G. 58 sup. (s. IX ex. or s. X1, Bobbio); Munich, Bayerische Staatsbibliothek, Clm 12673 (s. X, Salzburg?); Vatican, Biblioteca Apostolica Vaticana, Pal. lat. 294
(s. X/XI, probably Lorsch); P. additivum: Albi, Bibliothque Municipale, 38 (59) (s. X1, southern
France); Verona, Biblioteca Capitolare, LXIII (61) (s. X med.-X2, northern Italy, Verona?);
15
The reform penitentials, composed in the ninth century to remedy

the proliferation of anonymous works containing contradictory sentences,
apparently were also of use in the two succeeding centuries. Twentyfour manuscripts are witness to a lively interest in Halitgars text,
although some of these clearly show that the work was used in contexts
other than that of hearing confession. 38 The two penitentials written by
Hrabanus Maurus (d. 856), which had been of only limited inuence
in the ninth century, fared only a little better in the following two
centuries, from which only three manuscripts containing his penitential
to Heribald, Bishop of Auxerre survive. 39 For the penitential known as
the Quadripartitus probably written somewhere in the years between
825 and 875, which we know from nine manuscripts, ve codices
remain from the period which interests us here: two again come from
Italy, one from England, and the origin of the two remaining manuscripts has not been established yet, although one of these was apparently in Trier in the twelfth century. 40 The last penitential to be
considered in this context is the Pseudo-Gregorian penitential written
around the middle of the ninth century, which is only known from
38
39
40
Paris, BN, lat. 2998 (s. X/XI, southern France, Moissac?); Vesoul, Bibliothque Municipale, 73
(s. X/XI, possibly France); Vatican City, Biblioteca Apostolica Vaticana, Barberini lat. 477 (s. XI
in., southern France); P. mixtum: Mnster, Staatsarchiv, MS VII 5201 (ca. 945, Corvey); Munich,
Bayerische Staatsbibliothek, Clm 3853 (s. X2); Heiligenkreuz, Stiftsbibliothek, Hs. 217 (s. X ex.,
western Germany or north-eastern France?); Chlons-sur-Marne, Bibliothque Municipale, 32
(s. XI2, western Germany, Lotharingia?); Paris, BN, lat. 3878 (s. X ex., north-eastern France, Lige?).
Barcelona, Biblioteca Universitaria, 228 (s. X2, northern Italy); Berlin, Deutsche Staatsbibliothek,
Hamilton 290 (s. X2, northeren Italy); Cambridge, CCC, 265 (s. XI1, England); Chlons-sur-Marne,
Bibliothque Municipale, 32 (s. XI2, western Germany, Lotharingia); Florence, Biblioteca
Medicea Laurenziana, Ashb. 1814 (s. XI2, France); Heiligenkreuz, Stiftsbibliothek, Hs. 217
(s. X ex., western Germany); Koblenz, Landeshauptarchiv, Best. 701, 759,7 (s. XI/XII); Monte
Cassino, Abbazia, Cod. 557 bis 0 (s. XI1, Monte Cassino); Munich, Bayerische Staatsbibliothek, Clm 3853 (s. X2); Munich, Bayerische Staatsbibliothek, Clm 12673 (s. X, Salzburg?);
Mnster, Staatsarchiv, Msc. VII 5201 (s. X1, Corvey); Paris, BN, lat. 614 A (s. X in., southern
France); Paris, BN, lat. 2077 (s. X2, Moissac); Paris, BN, lat. 2843 (XI, Limoges?); Paris, BN,
lat. 2998; Paris, BN, lat. 3878 (s. X ex., north-eastern France, Lige?); Paris, BN, lat. 18220
(s. X2); St Gallen, Stiftsbibliothek, cod. 676 (s. XI ex., St Blasien); St Gallen, Stiftsbibliothek,
cod. 679 (s.IX/X, St Gall?); Stuttgart, Wrttembergische Landesbibliothek, cod. HB VI 107
(s. XI ex., Bodensee); Troyes, Bibliothque Municipale, MS 1979 (s. X/XI, eastern France,
western Germany); Vatican City, Archivio S. Pietro, H 58 (around 1000, Rome); Vercelli,
Biblioteca Capitolare, MS CXLIII (159) (s. X2, northern Italy); Verona, Biblioteca Capitolare,
MS LXIII (61) (s. X med. or X2, northern Italy, Verona?); Vienna, sterreichische Nationalbibliothek, lat. 956 (s. X ex., western Germany); Zrich, Zentralbibliothek, MS Car. C 123
(s. X, Zrich?); Zrich, Zentralbibliothek, MS Rh. 102 (s. X in., Rheinau).
Cologne, Dombibliothek, 120 (s. X in., France); Salzburg, Stiftsbibliothek St Peter, Hs. a IX 32
(s. XI1, probably Cologne); St Gallen, Stiftsbibliothek, 676 (1080 1100, St Blasien or Schaffhausen).
Monte Cassino, Abbazia, Cod. 541 (ext. 541) (s. XI in., southern Italy, possibly Monte Cassino); Oxford, Bodleian Library, Bodley 718 (2632) (s. XXI, England, possibly Exeter); Trier,
Stadtbibliothek, 1084/115 (s. XI); Vatican, Biblioteca Apostolica Vaticana, lat. 1352 (s. XI2,
Italy); Vendme, Bibliothque Municipale, 55 (s. XI).
16
Rob Meens
two manuscripts, one of which was copied in France in the eleventh

century.41
If we look at this manuscript transmission, it is clear that there was
a sustained interest in older penitentials in the tenth and eleventh century. In particular the penitentials attributed to Theodore of Canterbury, Bede and Egbert, and those issuing from the Carolingian reform
seem to have remained in use. Many copies do indeed stem from England and Italy, where, as we have seen, new texts of this kind were being
composed, but a fair number of manuscripts were written in France and
Germany. The selection of texts being copied with a stress on wellknown authors and Carolingian works which emphasized their canonical character seems to reect an interest in authority. Anonymous
works, such as the Excarpsus Cummeani, which had been of great
inuence in the ninth century, seem to have fallen out of favour. Such
an emphasis on authority might also explain the attention paid to texts
like the Capitula Iudiciorum or the Paenitentiale Vallicellianum I with
their clear attribution of individual sentences to specic authorities.
If we look at the uses of earlier penitentials in texts dating from the
tenth and eleventh centuries, a similar picture emerges. Regino of Prm
(d. 915) had advocated the use of specic penitentials: the Roman
penitential (probably Halitgars) and those of Theodore and Bede. 42 For
his collection to be employed in the episcopal court, the Sendgericht,
Regino used the penitentials attributed to Bede and Egbert in the form
of the mixtum, next to the reform penitentials of Halitgar and Hrabanus Maurus.43 Burchard of Worms (d. 1025) advocated the use of the
same penitentials that Regino had counselled, but when composing his
Decretum he also used the Excarpsus Cummeani and the St Hubert
penitential, and possibly also the Remense and the Martenianum, texts
dating from the eighth and ninth centuries. 44 The Italian penitentials
composed in the tenth and eleventh centuries, as Adriaan Gaastras
analysis conrms, mainly used the Capitula Iudiciorum, the Paenitentiale
41
42
43
44
Montpellier, Bibliothque Universitaire, H 137 (s. XI, France); Ghent, Bibliotheek der
Rijksuniversiteit, Hs. 506 (s. IX2, linksrheinisch), see F. Kerff, Das Paenitentiale PseudoGregorii III. Ein Zeugnis karolingischer Reformbestrebungen, Zeitschrift der Savigny-Stiftung
fr Rechtsgeschichte, Kanonistische Abteilung 69 (1983), pp. 4663.
Reginonis libri duo de synodalibus causis et disciplinis ecclesiasticis, ed. H. Wasserschleben
(Leipzig, 1840), Bk I. 96, p. 26. For the identication of the Roman penitential with that
of Halitgar, see L. Krntgen, Fortschreibung mittelalterlicher Bupraxis. Burchards Liber
corrector und seine Quellen, in W. Hartmann (ed.), Bischof Burchard von Worms, 1000 1025
(Mainz, 2000), p. 213.
R. Haggenmller, Zur Rezeption der Beda und Egbert zugeschriebenen Bubcher, pp. 155
6. Cf. Krntgen, Fortschreibung mittelalterlicher Bupraxis, pp. 199226, at p. 208.
Krntgen, Fortschreibung mittelalterlicher Bupraxis, p. 213; cf. H. Hoffmann and R. Pokorny,
Das Dekret des Bisschofs Burchard von Worms. Textstufen Frhe Verbreitung Vorlagen, MGH
Hilfsmittel 12 (Munich, 1991), pp. 26972 and Haggenmller, Zur Rezeption, pp. 1578.
17
Oxoniense II, and two pseudo-Gregorian penitentials: the Carolingian

reform penitential travelling under the name of Gregory and the Theodorian Canones Gregorii.45
The use of the anonymous Oxoniense comes somewhat as a surprise
since it did not carry the name of an accepted authority, a fact which
the compiler of the Collection in Nine Books sought to remedy by ascribing its canons to well-established but vague sources, such as a synodus
Romana or a decretum ponticum. In England three vernacular penitentials were composed which drew heavily on continental texts. Among
the works being excerpted we nd the penitentials attributed to Bede
and Egbert as well as Halitgars reform manual. In the scrift boc Theodores work is also used, while the penitential of Cummean or the
Excarpsus Cummeani seems to have been known both by the compiler
of this work and by the compiler of the vernacular Penitential. 46
We can therefore conclude that both the manuscript evidence and
the reception of canons in later works suggest that older works
remained in use in the tenth and eleventh centuries. It therefore seems
probable that manuscripts which were produced in the ninth century
continued in use throughout the next two hundred years. We can,
however, discern a tendency to favour texts which backed their sentences with clear references to specic authorities. Such an emphasis
on penitentials written, or thought to be written, by a well-established
authority, may be a sign of greater episcopal control over the production and dissemination of such texts. Do the surviving manuscripts
warrant such a conclusion?
The manuscript context

This is neither the time nor the place to discuss all the manuscripts
containing penitential handbooks which survive from the period under
discussion. One of the aims of the Utrecht research project is to look
carefully at the codicological contexts of such texts, for the clues they
may provide as to the purpose with which the penitential was included
in the manuscript. A thorough investigation of the penitential manuscripts of this period is at the moment still lacking and therefore only
some preliminary remarks will be offered here. The sample of manuscripts which I analysed on another occasion, 47 the manuscripts containing a tripartite penitential, suggested that from the ninth century
onwards episcopal control grew tighter. More and more penitentials
45
46
47
See the studies by Fournier and Krntgen (Oxoniense II) and the work currently being done
by Adriaan Gaastra.
Frantzen, The Literature of Penance, pp. 136 7.
See above n. 4.
18
Rob Meens
appear in the context of canonistic material, while manuscripts which

are clearly of a pastoral nature become rare. There is another interesting
feature to be observed regarding the manuscripts from the tenth and
eleventh centuries. Some of these were very carefully composed.
Oxford, Bodleian Library, Bodley 311, for example, contains not only
an intriguing set of extraordinary penitentials, but these are also systematically rubricated and corrected as a single collection. According
to Allen Frantzen the manuscript might have been composed in such a
careful way to be exported to England. 48 The bulk of very early insular
texts have come down to us in two Breton manuscripts from the tenth
century, again containing a careful collection of extraordinary works. 49
It has recently been shown that the manuscripts Milan, Biblioteca
Ambrosiana, Cod. G. 58 sup. and Vatican City, Biblioteca Apostolica
Vaticana, lat. 5751 originally belonged together and formed one codex,
centred on the theme of penance. This codex began with the preface of
the important Carolingian collection of canon law, the Collectio Dacheriana which stressed the importance of penance and further contained
instructions and explanations of its diverse forms. The codex continued
with several penitentials (among which was Halitgars work, the sixthcentury Paenitentiale Ambrosianum, the eighth-century Merseburgense
A and Bede-Egbert), texts concerning the liturgy of penance, commutation tables, conciliar decisions, the early Spanish collection of
canon law, the Epitome Hispana, and the Admonitio Generalis (789) of
Charlemagne.50 Here again we nd an intriguing collection of texts,
although in this case, with the exception of the sixth-century Paenitentiale Ambrosianum, texts are included which were in use at the time it
was composed. Such a collection resembles the so-called commonplace
books that we nd in England in this period. The manuscripts containing the penitential of Columbanus were similarly composed with an
overt purpose in mind, although this sixth-century text only survives in
more recent manuscripts. This penitential has only been preserved in a
Bobbio collection of the complete works of the monasterys founder,
of which two manuscripts in Turin now bear witness, one of them
possibly dating from the beginning of the tenth century. 51
One group of manuscripts, therefore, can be characterized by an
interest in old, perhaps antiquarian texts and as such they are often
the only surviving witnesses to these works. There are, of course, other
48
49
50
51
Frantzen, The Literature of Penance, p. 130.

Paris, BN, lat. 3182 and 12021, see reference above n. 29.
W. Kaiser, Zur Rekonstruktion einer vornehmlich burechtlichen Handschrift aus Bobbio
(Hs. Vat. lat. 5751 154v + Hs. Mailand, Bibl. Ambr. G. 58 sup. ff. 41r64v), Zeitschrift der
Savigny-Stiftung fr Rechtsgeschichte, Kanonistische Abteilung 86 (2000), pp. 53853.
Turin, Biblioteca Nazionale, G. V. 38 (s. IXX or X in., from Bobbio), see Bieler, Irish
Penitentials, p. 15.
19
manuscripts, suggesting a more pastoral context such as Troyes, Bibliothque Municipale, 1979, written in France in the tenth or eleventh
century, which according to Kottje contains eine handbuchartige
Sammlung and was composed for practical purposes, as is also suggested by its size (142 100 mm).52 A tenth-century manuscript possibly
written in Salzburg is only a little bigger (160 115 mm) and contains
the rst stage of the forging of the Bede-Egbert penitential, Halitgars
reform penitential together with baptismal tracts, episcopal capitularies,
and Isidore of Sevilles De ecclesiasticis ofciis. Size and contents here
clearly suggest the manuscript was intended for use in a pastoral context.53 A southern French manuscript written in the tenth or eleventh
century puts Halitgars penitential and a version of the Bede-Egbert
work clearly in a pastoral setting next to texts concerning the liturgy of
the sick and dying and sermons touching upon the theme of penance. 54
Although manuscripts suggesting a pastoral context clearly do survive
from this period, in general there seems indeed to have been some shift
towards the inclusion of penitentials in wider collections of a legal
nature. A case in point is found in three closely related manuscripts
containing parts of the penitential of Halitgar of Cambrai, the penitentials written by Hrabanus Maurus and the so-called mixtum-version
of the penitential of Bede-Egbert, in combination with collections of
canon law and secular laws. These manuscripts, all of them written in
southern Germany in the tenth or early eleventh century, are impressive
voluminous codices which probably belonged to an episcopal library. 55
Their contents have been characterized as containing one of the most
comprehensive compendia of early medieval ecclesiastical and secular
law, and penitential texts formed part of such compendia. 56
Some of the manuscripts of our period containing penitentials seem
to reect contemporary interests in these texts; others are seemingly
inspired by an interest in rare and ancient works, and possibly reect a
52
53
54
55
56
Kottje, Bussbcher, p. 64; see also MGH Capitula Episcoporum III, ed. R. Pokorny (Hannover,
1995), pp. 1678.
Munich, Bayerische Staatsbibliothek, Clm 12673 (s. X, Salzburg?), see Haggenmller, berlieferung, p. 79.
Paris, BN, lat. 2998 (s. X/XI, Moissac?), see Haggenmller, berlieferung, pp. 912.
Heiligenkreuz, Stiftsbibliothek, 217 (s. X ex., S. Germany); Munich, Bayerische Staatsbibliothek, Clm 3853 (s. X, southern Germany, Augsburg?); Paris, BN, lat. 3878 and the fragment
in Weimar, Hauptstaatsarchiv, depositum Hardenberg Fragm. 9 (s. X/XI, S. Germany).
Munich, 3853, probably belonged to the Dombibliothek in Augsburg; while Kottje suggested
that the Heiligenkreuz manuscript was possibly used by Adalbert of Prague or one of his
successors as Handbuch der Dizesanverwaltung, Kottje, Bussbcher, pp. 28 and 38. H.
Mordek, moreover, mentions the catalogue of Lobbes which describes a very similar manuscript: Bibliotheca capitularium regum Francorum manuscripta. berlieferung und Traditionszusammenhang der frnkischen Herrschererlasse, MGH Hilfsmittel 15 (Munich, 1995), p. 290.
Mordek, Bibliotheca, p. 288: das . . . zu den umfangreichsten Kompendien des frhmittelalterlichen kirchlichen und weltlichen Rechts gehrt.
20
Rob Meens
more scholarly approach. But does this mean that at this point we are
dealing with dry, prescriptive texts which seem remote from the practice of penance? I am not so sure. The inclusion of penitentials in
manuscripts of a legal nature might as well be a result of a better legal
schooling of ordinary priests, who had more manuscripts at hand; manuscripts that were of a more specialized nature. Whereas, for example,
the Bobbio Missal crams into one manuscript all the texts a priest
needed to full his pastoral duties, in the ninth century priests sometimes owned a sacramentary, a lectionary, a penitential, a homiliary, a
canon law collection and other useful works. 57 A growing library probably led to a diversication and specialization of the manuscripts themselves. If we admit that a more scholarly approach to these texts in
medieval manuscripts makes them obviously less valuable as a direct
reection of pastoral activities, what if such collections were used to
edify new priests? What if bishops were indeed showing greater control
over the processes of penance and confession in this period? Wouldnt
collections that were kept at the bishops court to be used in the classroom as well as in the courtroom, have an obvious connection to penitential practice? If such texts were indeed less a reection of, and more
a prescription for, penitential practice, would they become worthless for
us as historians? As Philippe Buc has recently shown, narrative texts
describing ritual acts should be used only with the greatest care by
historians, for they do not describe what has happened, but rather play
a role and a crucial one at that in the struggle over the interpretation of such events.58 I do not know of any sources from the early
Middle Ages informing us directly of what happened in the contact
between a contrite (or a non-contrite) penitent and a priest hearing his
confession. If penitentials indeed are to be regarded more as scripts for
than as scripts of this process, does that make them less valuable? As
such wouldnt they resemble liturgical ordines, describing in great detail
the way a penitent was to be dealt with?
Conclusion
In conclusion, we can therefore observe that after the prolic production of new penitentials in the later eighth and ninth centuries, apart
from in Italy and possibly England, the two succeeding centuries saw
57
58
On the Bobbio Missal, see now Yitzhak Hen and Rob Meens (eds), The Bobbio Missal:
Liturgy and Religious Culture in Merovingian Gaul, Cambridge Studies in Palaeography and
Codicology 11 (Cambridge, 2004). For evidence of pastoral libraries, see R. Meens, The Mad
Emperor? Priests and Books in the Carolingian Era, in Yitzhak Hen and Rob Meens (eds),
Early Medieval Priests (forthcoming).
P. Buc, The Dangers of Ritual: Between Early Medieval Texts and Social Scientic Theory
(Princeton, 2001).
21
much less creativity in the compilation of new texts. The number of

manuscripts also seems to have declined in the later period. The evidence, however, suggests that older texts remained in use, which might
also account for this decline in new manuscript copies. If we look at
the nature of the manuscripts written in the tenth and eleventh centuries there seems to be a shift towards collections of a legal character.
While this does suggest tighter episcopal control, it might also reect
better legal training of local priests. These two factors possibly changed
the connection of our texts with penitential practice, although further
research is surely needed to conrm such a conclusion. In the end,
however, even if we can establish that this change occurred, that does
not make penitential handbooks insignicant as historical sources for
reconstructing penitential practice in this period; for change is the game
that historians are hunting for.
Correcting sinners, correcting texts:

a context for the Paenitentiale
pseudo-Theodori
C R
M S
This article presents the preliminary results of an investigation into the

history of the Penitential of Pseudo-Theodore. It outlines the texts manuscript history, the scope of its contents, and its sources, arguing that it was
a comprehensive, systematic collection. It also reconsiders the evidence for
when and where it was composed, suggesting it was probably written in
north-eastern France or the eastern Rhineland in the 820s or 830s.
The Paenitentiale pseudo-Theodori is a substantial handbook of penance which
has been largely ignored by current scholars. Since the days of Walther von
Hrmann, who in 1908 wrote the rst, and last, article about this text,
it has generally been accepted to be a penitential of Frankish provenance,
composed between 830 and 847.1 Since 1908, no further research on the
Paenitentiale as a whole has been undertaken, and generally Von Hrmanns
ideas about the text have been followed without question. Where the
Paenitentiale has been mentioned, the text is mostly dismissed as not very
interesting, for reason of its few known manuscripts, its lack of originality
and/or the supposition that it was not incorporated into later collections
of canon law.2 Such a judgement of the text seems rather harsh, not only
because there are more manuscripts than has been previously thought (see
1
Walther von Hrmann, ber die Enstehungsverhltnisse des sogen. Paenitentiale pseudoTheodori, Mlanges Fitting 11 (Montpellier, 1908), pp. 321.
Von Hrmann, Enstehungsverhltnisse, at p. 3 states that the text appears to have had wenig
Verbreitung und Einu. According to Pierre J. Payer, the work shows at best a few new
variations on old themes: Sex and the Penitentials: The Development of a Sexual Code, 5501150
(Toronto, Buffalo and London, 1984), p. 61. Raymund Kottje thinks that the Paenitentiale pseudoTheodori (like the Quadripartitus) has been of little importance wie man aus der erhaltenen
handschriftlichen berlieberung schlieen kann, ganz abgesehen davon, da Zitate aus ihnen in
spteren kanonistischen Sammlungen bisher nicht festgestellt werden konnten: Die Bubcher
Halitgars von Cambrai und des Hrabanus Maurus. Ihre berlieberung und ihre Quellen,
Beitrge zur Geschichte und Quellenkunde des Mittelalters 8 (Berlin and New York, 1980), p. 4.
Early Medieval Europe () 23 40 Blackwell Publishing Ltd ,

Garsington Road, Oxford OX DQ, UK and Main Street, Malden, MA , USA
24
Carine van Rhijn and Marjolijn Saan
below), but also for the reason that there was at least some interest in the
text during the Middle Ages. In a twelfth-century manuscript containing
Burchards Decretum, for instance, Book 19 of this text (the Medicus sive
Corrector) has been entirely substituted with the Paenitentiale pseudo-Theodori.3
In late Anglo-Saxon England, the text also seems to have interested Wulfstan
of York, who owned a more or less complete version.4 The mere fact that
this kind of Nachleben for the Paenitentiale has been entirely overlooked
by earlier scholarship is symptomatic of the way in which the text has been
generally regarded. At the same time it casts doubt on previous assessments
of the handbook, for how solid is the date of the text as proposed by
Von Hrmann, and is there really nothing more specic that can be said
about its provenance and the context for its composition?
This article will address a few, very basic, questions concerning
pseudo-Theodores handbook, such as its composition, its date, and its
possible historical context and provenance. Such a limited range of
subjects is a matter of choice as much as of necessity. Given the current
state of research on the Paenitentiale, it seems at present more useful to
explore basic questions than address more far-reaching, albeit no less
interesting or important, issues for which one would need to build
upon such foundations. Important matters such as the manuscript contexts in which the text may be found, or the variations between the
various versions of the text, or even the question of reception on both
sides of the English Channel will therefore be left aside here. In what
follows, a number of hypotheses will be offered which should help to
give this text the place among other handbooks of penance it deserves.
Manuscripts and composition

Four manuscripts said to contain the Paenitentiale pseudo-Theodori were
known in Von Hrmanns day, of which one has vanished and two
contain a more or less complete text. 5 The most recent edition was
3
Durham, Cathedral Library, B. IV.17, fols 138r147v. This manuscript of the Paenitentiale was rst
identied by Rudolf Pokorny: Capitula de eruditione presbyterorum. Eine neue Quelle der
Falschen Kapitularien des Benedictus Levita, Deutsches Archiv 58 (2002), pp. 45166, at p. 454.
Cambridge, Corpus Christi College, 190, fols 1294, which is a copy of a manuscript owned
by Wulfstan himself. If, and how far, the Paenitentiale inuenced Wulfstans writing will be
a subject for future research. Various Wulfstan manuscripts, however, contain fragments of
the Paenitentiale : see Patrick Wormald, The Making of English Law: King Alfred to the Twelfth
Century (Oxford, 1999), p. 221 and n. 231, and Table 4.4; H. Sauer, Zur berlieferung und
Anlage von Erzbischof Wulfstans Handbuch, Deutsches Archiv 36 (1980), pp. 34184.
Cambridge, Corpus Christi College, 190, fols 1294; London, British Library, Harley 438
(which is an apographum of Cambridge, CCC, 190); Brussels, Koninklijke Bibliotheek, 8558
8563, fols 80r131v. According to Wasscherschleben, there may also have been a Paris manuscript, which he, however, had not been able to nd: F.W.H. Wasscherschleben, Die Buordnungen der abendlndischen Kirche (Halle, 1851; repr. Graz, 1958), at p. 87. The more or less
complete versions of the text are contained in the Cambridge and the Brussels manuscripts.
A context for the Paenitentiale pseudo-Theodori
25
made by F.W.H. Wasscherschleben in 1851, who took Benjamin

Thorpes 1840 edition of the early eleventh-century Cambridge manuscript (Cambridge, Corpus Christi College, 190) as his basis, adding
the variants from the tenth-century Brussels manuscript. 6 In the past
few years, however, several more manuscripts containing the whole, or
a substantial part of the text, have come to light. Seven manuscripts
containing some version of pseudo-Theodores handbook of penance
are now known7, no fewer than four of which are of English provenance.8 All known manuscripts of the Paenitentiale are more recent than
the ninth century; the two earliest, more or less complete versions one
of which is English (the Brussels manuscript), the other one continental, probably written in northern France 9 (the Berlin manuscript) date
from the tenth century. On the basis of these seven manuscripts, a new
edition of the text is now under way, for which the oldest substantially
complete text (MS Berlin) forms the basis. 10
The Paenitentiale is quite substantial for a work in this genre. It
contains fty-two chapters,11 subdivided into several hundred canons,
mostly taken from older penitential material. The core of the text is a
combination of canons from the Excarpsus Cummeani, the penitential
of the real Theodore (version U), the Paenitentiale pseudo-Bedae, the
Paenitentiale pseudo-Egberti and the Paenitentiale pseudo-Romanum. The
text also contains a few quotations from the church Fathers, the Bible
and early canon law, the latter of which are mostly derived from Halitgar of Cambrais De vitiis et virtutibus. Furthermore, the ninth-century
Liber ofcialis by Amalarius of Metz has supplied the material for one
chapter. In all these cases, it is remarkable how the compilers frequent
tendency is to elaborate on the material he incorporates, rather than
citing it literally.
Pseudo-Theodore seems to have also tried to be as complete as he
could on the many subjects he covers, discussing every possible variety
of a particular sin. His chapter on murder ( De homicidiis),12 for
6
7
9
10
11
12
Benjamin Thorpe, Ancient Laws and Institutes of England (London, 1840), pp. 277306.
The Paenitentiale pseudo-Theodori has also been found in Berlin, Staatsbibliothek, Preussischer Kulturbesitz, Phillipps, 1750, fols 16r47v; Troyes, Bibliothque Municipale, 1979,
fols 269r309v; Bamberg, Staatsbibliothek, Msc. patr. 101, fols 112r125v; Durham, Cathedral
Library, B. IV.17, fols 138r147v; Oxford, St Johns College Library, 158, fols 39r95v.
The English manuscripts are Brussels, Cambridge (from Worcester?), Durham and Oxford
(from Worcester or York).
We thank David Ganz for sharing his ideas on the provenance of this manuscript with us.
Work on the edition was initiated by Marjolijn Saan, and is now continued by Carine van
Rhijn. In due course this will appear as a volume of Corpus Christianorum, Series Latina.
This is the number of chapters according to the Berlin manuscript, which is the basis of the
forthcoming edition (see previous note). Wasserschlebens edition contains fty chapters.
Wasserschleben, Buordnungen, pp. 58690. This is Book 15 in the forthcoming edition of
the penitential.
26
instance, is subdivided into no fewer than thirty-nine precise prescriptions, in which he covers a range of possible perpetrators (men, women,
clerics) and victims (men, women, children, other relatives, pagans and
clerics); a variety of motives (revenge, anger, greed, hate, purpose, accident,
mere stupidity, on assignment, negligence), situations (an unwanted
pregnancy, war, a brawl) and results (successful attempts, partially failed
attempts, completely failed attempts); as well as mitigating circumstances (poverty, slavery, a willingness to pay compensation to the victim or his/her family). In order to be as complete as this, he has in this
chapter used nearly all the sources listed above. What is more, when we
survey the entire Paenitentiale, the compiler can be seen to use more or
less the entire text of his main sources, and only in exceptional cases
does he make use of the same canon of a given text more than once.
Rather than making a selection from the material available to him,
then, the compiler seems to have tried to use everything these texts
offered and rearranged this material in a practical manner.
If we look at the length of the Paenitentiales fty-two chapters,
sexual offences in particular seem to have interested our compiler.
Although it is not unusual in handbooks of penance for a compiler like
pseudo-Theodore, to devote about a fth of his entire work to subjects
such as incest, conjugal sex, clerical sex, fornication, adultery and sodomy,13 these chapters provide a good example of the way our compiler
worked. The main subjects are divided into six large chapters on,
respectively, fornication, sex and marriage, male and female clerics and
sex, adultery, incest, and sodomy. These chapters are, in turn, subdivided into a minimum of eleven, and a maximum of thirty-ve,
sometimes elaborate, canons in which he has ordered his sources and,
wherever he felt the need, added to them. For instance, a typical example of the way pseudo-Theodore mixed his material, is c. 17 in his
Chapter 14 De incestis:14
Si mater cum lio suo paruulo fornicationem imitauerit, ii annos
peniteat, et in tertio iii xlmas ac legitimas ferias, et diem i in
unaqueque [lege unaquaque] ebdomada ieiunet ad uesperam.
If a mother has imitated fornication with her young son, she should
do two years penance, and on the three quadresimal periods and
legitimate feast days, and one day in each week she should fast until
vespers.
13
14
Wasserschleben, Buordnungen I.[16]V.[20], pp. 57486; that is, twelve pages out of fty-one
(counting from incipiunt iudicia poenitentum on p. 571). Cf. Payer, Sex and the Penitentials, p. 82.
All citations from the Paenitentiale pseudo-Theodori given in this article follow the Berlin
manuscript.
27
For this canon, pseudo-Theodore appears to have made use of two

sources, namely the penitential of Theodore, version U I II, c. 20:
Si mater cum lio suo paruulo fornicationem imitatur, iii annos
abstineat se a carne, et diem unum ieiunet in ebd. usq. ad uesp. 15
If a mother has imitated fornication with her young son, she should
abstain from meat for three years, and one day in each week she
should fast until vespers.
and the Poenitentiale pseudo-Bedae I, c. 26:
Si mater cum lio suo paruulo fornicationem imitatur, ii annos et
tres xlmas cum legitimas ferias.16
If a mother has imitated fornication with her young son, (she should
do penance for) two years, and (fast) on the three quadresimal period
and legitimate feast days.
While pseudo-Theodore mentions neither of his sources for this
canon, he does make full use of them, and seems to have been aiming
at being as comprehensive as possible on the subject at hand. Similar
examples, in which the compiler mixed two or more of his sources in
order to cover several variations of a specic prescription, abound in the
Paenitentiale. The text may therefore be read as a well-organized collection of all the relevant material available to him, in which he regularly amended his material and tried to eliminate the variations and
inconsistencies he ran up against.
The author of this handbook, then, had a lot of earlier texts to work
with. Still, however rich his library may have been, he hardly ever mentions the sources for his prescriptions, nor does he cite them literally in
many cases. Only on a handful of occasions in the whole text does one
encounter the name of an authority like the Venerable Bede,17 Gregory I18
15
16
17
18
P.W. Finsterwalder, Die Canones Theodori Cantuariensis und ihre berlieferungsformen,

Untersuchungen zu den Bussbcher des 7., 8. und 9. Jahrhunderts 1 (Weimar, 1929), p. 292.
H.J. Schmitz, Die Bussbcher und die Bussdisziplin der Kirche: nach handschriftlichen Quellen
dargestellt, 2 vols (Mainz, 1883), II, p. 656.
Paenitentiale Pseudo-Theodori XXXV. [50], Wasserschleben, Buordnungen, p. 621. This will
be XV, c. 39b in the new edition: Et ieiunet sicut uenerabilis Beda presbyter ordinauit . . .
Paenitentiale Pseudo-Theodori, Wasserschleben, Buordnungen, p. 600, n. 13. This part of the
text is absent in Wasserschlebens edition. Since Wasserschleben copied Thorpes edition of
the text without consulting Thorpes base manuscript, he was not aware of the presence of
this part of the text in the Cambridge manuscript. In the new edition: XXII, c. 33, De
inlusione et nocturna pollutione beatus Gregorius ita dicit . . .
28
or Innocence I.19 In cases where he mentions an authority they are,

without exception, church Fathers or the proceedings of early church
councils, although he mostly uses such sources without identifying
them.20 Whenever the compiler mentions an authority by name, this is
without fail the result of his remaining faithful to sources which in turn
give the name of the authority cited. What is more, now and then the
compiler seems to have deliberately omitted several attributions mentioned
in the texts he was working from, although he does occasionally refer
to unspecied canones.
The very rst chapter of the penitential is a case in point. In the
Paenitentiale pseudo-Theodori it reads as follows:21
I. CAPITALIA CRIMINA
Nunc igitur capitalia crimina explicabo. Prima superbia, sicut scriptum est: Initium omnis peccati superbia. De cuius radice oritur inanis
gloria, inuidia, ira longo tempore, tristitia saeculi, auaritia, uentris
ingluuies, luxuria, fornicatio, deinde adulterium, homicidium, falsum
testimonium, furtum, sacrilegium, id est, sacrarum rerum furtum,
et hoc maximum est furtum, periurium, rapina, ebrietas assidua,
idolatria, molles, sodomitae, maledici, hereses. Ista sunt ergo capitalia
crimina.
Now I will explain the capital sins. The rst is pride, as it is written:
Pride is the beginning of all sin. From this root sprout vanity, jealousy,
long-lasting anger, worldly gloominess, avarice, gluttony, pomp, fornication and hence adultery, homicide, false testimony, theft, sacrilege, that is theft of sacred objects, which is the worst kind of theft,
perjury, robbery, regular drunkenness, idolatry, effeminacy, sodomy,
slander, heresy. These are the capital sins.
19
20
21
Paenitentiale Pseudo-Theodori XV. [30], 3, Wasserschleben, Buordnungen, p. 601. Wasserschleben apparently thought it unnecessary to transcribe this chapter, since it is an exact copy
of the Excarpsus Cummeani XI, cc. 1832, see Schmitz, Die Bussbcher, II, pp. 6335. The
relevant canon is Excarpsus Cummeani XI, c. 20: Si quis a catholica ecclesia ad haeresim
transierit et postea reversus, non potest ordinari nisi post abstinentiam longam aut pro magna
necessitate. Hunc Innocentius papa nec post penitentiam clericum eri canonum auctoritate
adserit permitti. If somebody exchanges the catholic church for heresy and, later on, returns,
he may not be ordained unless he abstains for a long time or if there is an urgent necessity.
Following the authority of the canons, Pope Innocent does not permit him to be made a
cleric even after he has done penance.
For instance: Paenitentiale pseudo-Theodori IX, c. 1, for instance, draws upon Isidore of
Sevilles Sententiae libri tres, c. 39, 20; Paenitentiale pseudo-Theodori XIII, c. 33 similarly uses
the rst Council of Toledo, c. 17.
Paenitentiale Pseudo-Theodori VII. Wasserschleben, Buordnungen, p. 571, n. 2 provides the
extended version of this canon as it can be found in the Brussels and the Berlin manuscripts.
29
The source for this chapter is the rst chapter of the Paenitentiale
Pseudo-Egberti:22
I. Nunc de capitalibus criminibus
Nunc igitur capitalia crimina secundum canones explicabo. Prima
superbia, inuidia, fornicatio, inanis gloria, ira longo tempore, tristitia
seculi, auaritia, uentris ingluuies, et Augustinus adiecit sacrilegium, id
est sacrarum rerum furtum; et hoc maximum est furtum, uel idolothitis seruientem, id est auspiciis et reliqua, deinde adulterium, falsum
testimonium, furtum, rapinam, ebrietas adsidua, idolatria, molles,
sodomita, maledici, perjuri. Ista ergo capitalia crimina sanctus Paulus
et Augustinus et alii sancti computauerunt. [our emphases]
Now about the capital sins. Now I will explain the capital sins
according to the canons. First come pride, vanity, fornication, vanity,
long-lasting anger, worldly gloominess, avarice, gluttony, and Augustine adds sacrilege, that is: theft of sacred objects, which is the worst
kind of theft, and serving idolatry, like predicting the future and
suchlike; hence adultery, false testimony, theft, robbery, regular
drunkenness, idolatry, effeminacy, sodomy, slander, perjury. These
are the capital sins as Saint Paul and Augustine and other saints
enumerate them.
There have been some alterations in the sins enumerated, but more
interestingly, all remarks that may convey authority have been omitted
in pseudo-Theodores version. The secundum canones is not included,
nor are the names of Augustine and Paul. The prescriptions of church
Fathers, church councils and popes are, hence, not recognizable as such
in the text, so that they, as it were, disappear among the penitential
canons. All in all the number of attributions to respectable earlier texts
or authors is so minimal, that it seems that pseudo-Theodore was not
in the rst place concerned with making his work look authoritative.
Neither does he ever mention the penitentials he used as his sources.
Meanwhile, however, the compiler did make full use of the most
important works on these subjects and, as shown by the examples cited
above, in a creative way. In this sense, pseudo-Theodores handbook
may also be regarded as a carefully compiled, systematic collection of
all penitential material available to him on a wide range of subjects,
occasionally formulated in a new way. Needless to say that accusations
of unoriginality do not do justice to the compiler at all.
22
Paenitentiale Pseudo-Egberti I. Schmitz, Die Bussbcher, II, p. 663.
30
Re-dating the Paenitentiale pseudo-Theodori

Von Hrmanns terminus post quem for the composition of the Paenitentiale is based on the compilers use of Halitgar of Cambrais De vitiis
et virtutibus.23 This work, which has penance as its main theme, was
written by Halitgar (bishop of Cambrai between 816 and 831), following
a request from Archbishop Ebo of Rheims (81635). Ernst Dmmler,
in his edition of the accompanying letter from Halitgar to Ebo, dates
the letter and, by implication the work, to about 830. 24 Although
Dmmler himself was not very certain of this date, 25 Von Hrmann
used it as the earliest possible date of composition for the Paenitentiale
pseudo-Theodori.26 Raymund Kottje, however, does not follow this
line of reasoning. In his opinion, it cannot be established whether
Halitgar wrote his work before or after the Council of Paris in 829, 27 at
which occasion it was decided to collect and burn handbooks of
penance of dubious contents and reputation. 28 If we follow Kottje in
saying that Halitgar may have written his De vitiis et virtutibus at any
time during his episcopate (81631), this has consequences for the
dating of the Paenitentiale pseudo-Theodori. Rather than after 830, the
Paenitentiale might as well have been written in the late 810s or in
the 820s.
For a dating post quem we are, fortunately, not only dependent on
the compilers use of Halitgars work, for pseudo-Theodore has also
drawn upon Amalarius of Metzs Liber ofcialis. This work, which deals
with all aspects of the liturgy, was dedicated to Louis the Pious. After
having written an initial version in three books, Amalarius later came
back to his work and wrote a longer, improved version in four books.
Even later, he composed a third version. In the past, there has been
some debate as to the date of the rst, shorter version of the Liber
23
24
25
26
27
28
Von Hrmann, Enstehungsverhltnisse, p. 14.

MGH Epistolae V, Karolini Aevi III, ed. E. Dmmler (Berlin, 1899), p. 616.
MGH Epistolae V, Kar. Aevi III, p. 616, n. 1: Haec ad id tempus referenda esse mihi videntur,
in quo Einhardus, Ludowici imperatoris familiaris, in aula eius versabatur, quam a. 830
reliquit.
Von Hrmann, Enstehungsverhltnisse, p. 14.
Kottje, Die Bubcher, p. 5: und ebensowenig lt es sich sagen, ob er sein Bubuch schon
vor diesem Zeitpunkt [= Council of Paris (829)] vollendet oder in Angriff genommen hatte.
Council of Paris (829), MGH Concilia II, Concilia Aevi Karolini I, ed. Albert Werminghof
(Hannover, 1906), c. 32, p. 633: Ut codicelli, quos penitentiales vocant, quia canonicae auctoritati refraguntur, poenitus aboleantur . . . omnibus nobis salubriter in commune visum est,
ut unusquisque episcoporum in sua parroechia eosdem erroneos codicellos diligenter perquirat et inventos igni tradat, ne per eos ulterius sacerdotes imperiti homines decipiant. That
the booklets, which are called penitentials shall be completely abolished . . . we all think
that it would be healthy, if every bishop patiently seeks out these error-ridden booklets and,
when he has found them, commits them to the re, so that in future inexperienced priests
will no longer deceive the people with them.
31
ofcialis. Father J.M. Hanssens, who edited the text in the late 1940s, 29
maintains in an article preceding the appearance of his edition, that the
rst version must have seen the light in the course of 823. 30 Both Allen
Cabaniss and Wolfgang Steck, however, present convincing arguments
for a slightly earlier date of 8201 or perhaps early 822 on the basis of
a re-dating of the letters that precede the work. 31 The second version of
the work, which now included a Book 4, appeared in 829 or even
later.32 It is in particular the rst version that concerns us here, as
pseudo-Theodore used only the last chapter (64) of Book 3 in his work.
This is a relatively short chapter, dealing with the commemoration of
the dead, which was incorporated almost entirely in Chapter 40 of the
Paenitentiale. With pseudo-Theodores use of Amalariuss Liber Ofcialis liber III, then, the earliest possible date for the composition of the
Paenitentiale moves slightly earlier to 8202.
The terminus ante quem Von Hrmann employs boils down to
argumentation e silentio. He considers the year 847 as the last possible
moment for the composition of the Paenitentiale, as it was then that
the Council of Mainz met under Hrabanus Maurus and reached several
important decisions on the subject of penance. A newly written handbook of penance, so Von Hrmann argues, would only have been useful
after 847 if it incorporated these decisions, of which the Paenitentiale
shows no trace.33 Neither does the text make use of Pseudo-Isidore,
something, so he argues, that might be expected had the Paenitentiale
been composed after this very inuential work saw the light. 34 Such
arguments may sound plausible and indeed there is something to be
said for them, but on the other hand, they are far from watertight. 35 It
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
Amalarius of Metz, Amalarii episcopi opera liturgica omnia, ed. J.M. Hanssens, 3 vols, Studi
et testi 138 (Vatican City, 194850), II.
J.M. Hanssens, Le texte du Liber ofcialis dAmalaire , Ephemerides Liturgicae 47 (1933),
pp. 11325, at p. 117.
Allen Cabaniss, Amalarius of Metz (Amsterdam, 1954), p. 52, n. 1. The year 820 as the earliest
possible moment of composition is derived from the dates of four letters that precede the
work, the latest of which was written in 820; Wolfgang Steck, Der Liturgiker Amalarius eine
quellenkritische Untersuchung zu Leben und Werk eines Theologen der Karolingerzeit (St Ottilien, 2000), at p. 44. Cf. Christopher A. Jones, The Book of the Liturgy in Anglo-Saxon
England, Speculum 73 (1998), pp. 659702, at p. 675, n. 69.
Steck, Der Liturgiker, p. 49. A slightly earlier date is proposed by Cabaniss, Amalarius of Metz , p. 71.
Von Hrmann, Entstehungsverhltnisse, p. 20.
Von Hrmann, Entstehungsverhltnisse, p. 20.
The same goes, to my mind, for a more recent theory on the Paenitentiales date in Michael
Glatthaar, Bonifatius und das Sakrileg. Zur politischen Dimension eines Rechtsbegriffs, Freiburger
Beitrge zur mittelalterlichen Geschichte 17 (Frankfurt am Main, 2004), at pp. 61920:
Zeitlich scheint er [= pseudo-Theodore] den im Blutbad von Fontenoy (841) gipfelnden
Bruderkriegen nahezustehen. Denn die Cambridger Version behandelt eingangs fast mehr noch
den Verwandtentotschlag als das gegenstndlich-personale Sakrileg. Although pseudo-Theodore
does include fratricide, he does not seem to devote special attention to the subject the only
time he explicitly mentions it is in Book 15 (De homicidia), c. 21, where fratricide is only one
32
may equally well be imagined that our compiler used neither of these
works even if they existed at the time. After all, pseudo-Theodore was
disinclined to draw upon other, contemporary texts that would have
been useful for his purpose, like Carolingian conciliar proceedings and
episcopal statutes. For the purpose of establishing a rm terminus ante
quem, then, such arguments are not strong enough, and at the end of
the day the only rm date we have is that of the oldest manuscript (MS
Bamberg, a fragment dating from the late ninth century). This still
leaves us with a fairly long period in which the work might have been
compiled. Narrowing this period down further is not possible on the
basis of the material incorporated in the Paenitentiale, but a further
consideration of the nature of this work and a plausible context for its
composition may be helpful here. Another, related, aspect of the text
that needs to be taken into consideration in this context is the location
where it might have been composed.
Groups of penitentials
As has just been explained, the Paenitentiale pseudo-Theodori leans heavily
on a number of older handbooks of penance. When it comes to characterizing the text, however, scholars have interpreted the composition
of the Paenitentiale in two diametrically opposed ways. There are, so
they argue, two kinds of ninth-century penitential: an old/conservative
and a new/reform-minded group. Von Hrmann calls the Paenitentiale
pseudo-Theodori reform-minded, on the basis that the author extended
and corrected various older prescriptions, in accordance with rechtsbildende Tendenzen seiner Zeit.36 Kottje agrees with Von Hrmann that
the Paenitentiale is not a traditional handbook of penance. Old-style
penitentials, he argues, drew on pre-existing handbooks of penance,
whereas the new style dictated a stronger dependence on early canon law
and patristic writings.37 Pierre Payer, in turn, argues that the Paenitentiale
36
37
example of murdering relatives: Si quis forte casu fratrem aut sororem uel auunculum uel
patruum uel amitam uel quemlibet propinquum occiderit nolens, x annos peniteat . . . Apart
from that, it seems that linking the text to specic events (like the Battle of Fontenoy) on
the basis of one possible resonance is overstretching the evidence that can be provided by a
text like pseudo-Theodores, which, after all, deals with hundreds of subjects.
Von Hrmann, Entstehungsverhltnisse, p. 7: Schon eine chtige Durchsicht unseres
Poenitentials verrth dem Kundigen, dass es erheblich viel Selbstndigkeit in der Beurtheilung der Delikte und der Handhabung der Bussdisziplin zeigt und daher verschiedene
Korrekturen und Erweiterungen des bisherigen Materials vornimmt, dass es dabei theils der
zu seiner Zeit in der frnkischen Kirche geltenden Bussdisziplin gerecht zu werden versucht,
ohne sich der durch Halitgar unter dem Einuss der synodalen Reformbestimmungen versuchten Ablehnung der angelschsischen Bussnormen anzuschliessen, theils die zeitgenssische Rechtsbung berholdend selbst reformierend wirken will.
Kottje, Die Bubcher, pp. 34.
33
pseudo-Theodori belongs to the old category that still drew heavily on

earlier handbooks, whereas the penitentials by Halitgar of Cambrai and
Hrabanus Maurus are typical of the new style. 38
Now it cannot be denied that pseudo-Theodore did on occasion
make some changes in, for instance, tariffs of penance 39 and indeed
added some bits and pieces of his own. The overall image we get from
his text, however, is not that the compiler set to work in order to
heavily amend his sources although he hardly ever cites his sources
exactly to the letter, their gist remains unchanged in most cases. Furthermore, as we have seen, material drawn from the writings of early
popes and church Fathers, as well as from early canon law do not
constitute more than a very small part of the work. Following the
division made by Payer, then, the Paenitentiale pseudo-Theodori cannot
be considered as a text aiming at reform, but rather belongs to the long
tradition upon which the compiler drew so heavily. Rather than writing
a handbook based purely upon canon law and patristic works, pseudoTheodore looked to all the older material he could nd and, as we have
seen, eliminated such inconsistencies as existed between these texts. In
this sense, his efforts are reminiscent not so much of old or new-style
penitentials, but rather of, for instance, Benedictus Levitas work, who,
in the late twenties of the ninth century, tried to collect and organize
all the capitulary material he could lay his hands on. 40
Moreover, it appears to be a legitimate question to ask whether this
second, new, group of handbooks of penance really exists at all. In
Kottjes opinion, three texts written in the ninth century may qualify
as new-style penitentials: Halitgars De vitiis et virtutibus, Hrabanus
Mauruss Paenitentiale for Archbishop Otgar of Mainz (82547) and his
Paenitentiale for Bishop Heribald of Auxerre (82857). These latter two
works, Kottje admits, are not penitential handbooks in the strict sense
of the word, but consist of Hrabanuss answers to a series of questions
on penance posed by Heribald and Otgar.41 Halitgars work, in turn, is only
to a very limited extent a penitential handbook that would be useful for
pastoral care. The rst two books discuss respectively vices and virtues,
whereas the third gives a penitential ordo.42 It is only in the last two books
38
39
40
41
42
Pierre Payer, Sex and the Penitentials, pp. 615.

For instance: Paenitentiale pseudo-Theodori XV, c. 5, where a woman who has an abortion is
told to do ten years of penance instead of the three years prescribed in the source for this
canon, the Excarpsus Cummeani VI, c. 23.
A new edition of this work by Wilfried Hartmann and Gerhard Schmitz is now underway
in both a traditional and an electronic form, cf. <http://www.uni-tuebingen.de/mittelalter/
forsch/benedictus/haupt.htm>.
Kottje, Die Bubcher, p. 7.
PL 105, col. 652C693B, Halitgarii episcopi Cameracensis de vitiis et virtutibus et de ordine
poenitentium libri quinque.
34
that we come across something that resembles a handbook of penance,

in the sense that we nd descriptions of actual wrongdoings. These are,
however, not always followed by a description of a suitable compensation, and penance is only prescribed in about half of the cases. Often,
the amount of penance that should be performed is not given. 43 In some
serious cases, like incest, no punishment is prescribed at all. 44 Halitgar
clearly made an effort to build his book upon the wise words of various
church Fathers, popes and early canon law, exactly as the Council of
Chlons (813) wished.45 The same goes for both works by Hrabanus
Maurus.
It is, therefore, difcult to construct a group of penitentials out of
these three works by Halitgar and Hrabanus, none of which can be
easily compared with what Payer calls traditional handbooks of penance. None of these three texts were intended as penitentials in the
same way as the earlier handbooks were. From this perspective, the
division Payer and Kottje make does not seem necessary, and the question whether or not the Paenitentiale would belong to one group or the
other thus loses its relevance. It is sufcient to state that after a certain
moment in the ninth century, no new, substantial, handbooks of penance were composed in the Frankish territories, 46 although texts about
various aspects of penance were still produced, either as separate texts
(like those of Hrabanus and Halitgar), or as parts of larger works (like
Burchard of Wormss Corrector sive Medicus, which is Book 19 of his
Decretum). The problem is, of course, to try and pinpoint this moment,
and again there is not much to go on. The kind of handbook written
by Pseudo-Theodore (a description of the wrongdoing followed by its
43
44
45
46
For instance Halitgar, De vitiis et virtutibus IV, cc. 10, 12 and 14, in which Halitgar only states
that the culprit should undergo penance.
Halitgar IV, c. 21: Nam et haec salubriter praecavenda sanximus, ne quis delium propinquam sanguinis sui, usquequo afnitatis lineamenta generis successione cognoscit, in matrimonio sibi desideret copulari. Quoniam scriptum est: Omnis homo ad proximam sanguinis sui
non accedat, ut revelet turpitudinem ejus. Also this we order to be wholesome to try and
prevent [sin], that no christian should desire to bind himself in marriage to a blood-relative,
as far as he knows the bonds of afnity of his family. For it is written: No man should
approach his blood-relative, by which his depravity is shown.
Council of Chlons (813), c. 38: Modus autem paenitentiae peccata sua contentibus aut per
antiquorum canonum institutionem aut per sanctarum scriptuarum auctoritatem aut per
ecclesiasticam consuetudinem sicut superius dictum est, imponi debet, repudiatis ac penitus
eliminatis libellis, quos paenitentiales vocant, quorum sunt certi errores, incerti auctores . . .
You should impose the way of doing penance by confessing ones sins, either according to
the old canons, or according to the authority of the holy writings or following ecclesiastical
custom, as it has been stated above, and you should repudiate and eliminate the booklets that
are called penitentials, whose errors are certain and whose authors are not.
In Italy, however, the tradition continued till much later. We thank Adriaan Gaastra for pointing
this out. For the equally different situation in Spain see Ludger Krntgen and Francis Bezler (eds),
Paenitentialia Hispaniae, CCSL 156A (Turnhout, 1998) and Francis Bezler, Les pnitentiels
espagnols, Spanische Forschungen der Grres-Gesellschaft II 30 (Aschendorff, 1994).
35
appropriate penance) was, as Rob Meens has pointed out, mostly a

phenomenon of the late eighth and early ninth centuries. 47 Handbooks
composed in the Frankish lands after, say, the 820s are very thin on the
ground. Moreover, their dating is often problematic. The Paenitentiale
pseudo-Gregorii, for instance, also post-dates Halitgars work, but by
how much cannot be established. As in the case of the Paenitentiale
pseudo-Theodori, its only solid date ante quem is provided by its earliest
manuscript, which in this case dates from the second half of the ninth
century.48 It seems, all in all, that in the Frankish lands, the production
of handbooks like pseudo-Theodores was conned to the rst half of
the ninth century. This, in turn, may mean that the Paenitentiale was
one of the last works of its kind to be composed.
Pre-occupations with penance

Constructing a plausible context for the composition for the Paenitentiale
pseudo-Theodori can only be attempted on the basis of circumstantial
evidence. One important foothold we get is that of the proceedings of
the great councils that met in the years 813 and 829. In 813 two of the
ve parallel councils held in that year addressed the issue of penance.
At the Council of Tours, the assembly wondered which penitentials
should be used, while in Chlons the handbooks were rejected for
reason of their lack of authority.49 Given the importance of penance, it
is hard to believe that the latter decision extended to all handbooks.
When combined with the pre-occupation with the authority of such
texts, it seems likely that this canon in the rst place refers to anonymous texts, while handbooks rightly or wrongly ascribed to a church
Father or to some other authority might not have caused such worries.
Both canons thus clearly reect the Carolingian spirit of reform in its
concern with correct texts and correct rites at the expense of handbooks
of dubious content and authority. In this sense, the Council of Paris in
829 went a step further, as it was deeply concerned with the right way
of doing penance, as well as with setting straight a lot of wrongs
amongst others the practice of penance following the dubious authority
of the penitentials. This latter point requires some further explanation
here.
We know that the Council of Paris was one of four, parallel councils
that met in 829; no proceedings survive for the three others held at
47
48
49
Rob Meens, Het tripartite boeteboek. Overlevering en betekenis van vroegmiddeleeuwse biechtvoorschriften (Hilversum, 1994), esp. pp. 608.
Meens, Het tripartite boeteboek, pp. 678.
Council of Tours (813), c. 22, MGH Concilia I, p. 289; Council of Chlon (813), c. 38, ibid., p. 281.
36
Toulouse, Lyon and Mainz.50 No fewer than sixteen archbishops were

invited to the four meetings, with all their suffragan bishops. 51 The aim
of these meetings, as of those in 813, was correctio, but in contrast to
these earlier councils, the tone in 829 was much grimmer. In the Relatio
episcoporum, which was composed after the four councils as a preparation for a concluding meeting with the emperor at Aachen, we read
about multifariis cladibus (the various calamaties) both inside and outside the realm, which were weakening the empire and provoking God
to punish everyone.52 It was up to the ruler, together with his archbishops and the suffragans to set matters right in accordance with Gods
rule so that further disasters could be averted. It is in this atmosphere
that we should read the proceedings of the Council of Paris (829),
including its canon that condemns handbooks of penance to the re.
Even if the conciliar proceedings do not reect any future reality except
an ideal one, we can safely assume that the assembled episcopate was
very serious indeed about its decisions. What is more, the abolition
of unauthoritative penitential handbooks was now clearly part of the
project, as it was part of the Relatio episcoporum to be discussed with
the emperor afterwards. Clearly, then, the wish to abolish such handbooks was now widely felt, although it remains an open question as to
how effective this condemnation was.
What is at issue here is not when the copying of old penitentials
came to an end, for this continued throughout the ninth century and
thereafter; in this sense many seem to have ignored the wish expressed
in 829.53 More interesting in this context is the compilation of new texts
in the same tradition, which, as we have seen, seems to have come to a
halt in the course of the rst half of the ninth century. Was the Council
of Paris, which, as we have seen, ordered the destruction of the old
penitentials, a watershed in this sense? Its decisions clearly exerted
inuence upon important authors such as Halitgar of Cambrai and
Hrabanus Maurus, who, after the council, tried to follow its precepts
in their writings on penance. On the other hand, anti-penitential
sounds had been heard years before during the Council of Chlons
50
51
52
53
MGH Concilia II, Concilia Aevi Karolini I, ed. Albert Werminghof (Hannover, 1906), no. 50
A, p. 596: Anno sexto decimo regnante domno nostro Hludowico conventus episcoporum debet
eri in quattuor locis, id est Magontiaco [ . . . ]. In Parisio [ . . . ]. In Lugduno [ . . . ] In Tolosa
[ . . . ]. The text left out between brackets contains a list of all those expected at the meeting.
A full list of archbishops invited can be found in MGH Conc. II, Conc. Aevi Kar. I, no. 50
A, p. 597.
MGH Capitularia regum Francorum II, eds A. Boretius and V. Krause (Hannover, 1897),
pp. 313. On this council and its penitential spirit see Mayke de Jong, Sacrum palatium
et ecclesia. Lautorit religieuse royale sous les Carolingiens (790840), Annales 58:6 (2003),
pp. 124369, at pp. 12634.
To take only one example of many: the penitential of Theodore, version U is extant in many
manuscripts from the ninth century and thereafter.
37
(813), on which occasion the little books, which are called penitentials
were openly rejected for being erroneous. 54 The parallel councils of 813,
however, do not mirror this sentiment, but at best express doubt, as at
the meeting at Tours. The condemnation of the penitentials in 829,
however, sounds much sharper: they are called uncanonical and even
harmful, although this, so the council states, was in part due to the
ignorance of the sacerdotes who used them.55 Judging by the abovementioned works by Hrabanus Maurus and Halitgar of Cambrai, as
well as from the lack of newly written handbooks, it seems that this
time, the voice of the council was heard louder than before.
Even if not all the bishops took the conciliar proceedings as gospel,
and perhaps felt free to act differently, these councils do show an
increased interest during the rst decades of the ninth century, in the
correct practice of penance based on texts of unquestionable authority.
Perhaps it was a similar kind of interest in these matters which inspired
pseudo-Theodore to write his own work. Also in this respect, then,
roughly the second quarter of the ninth century might well have been
the period in which the compiler produced his work. Within such a
time-frame, the twenties and thirties provide a more probable context
for his work to have beeen composed than later in the century, as the
church authorities pre-occupation with penance was at its peak during
these two decades. Still, the validity of this impression also depends on
the question as to where pseudo-Theodore might have worked. If he
operated in some remote corner of the empire, discussions on penance
conducted in 813 and 829 may have ltered through some time after the
actual conciliar debates. On the other hand, if he was located not far
from the centres where such debates were held, he might have been
inuenced a good deal earlier. Localizing the provenance of the Paenitentiale depends to a large extent on the availability of the material he
used.
A possible provenance for the Paenitentiale pseudo-Theodori

The earliest three continental manuscripts containing some version of
the Paenitentiale pseudo-Theodori were, as we have seen, copied somewhat after its composition. The earliest manuscript, Bamberg, Staatsbibliothek Bamberg, Msc. Patr. 101, contains only a fragment of the
54
55
Council of Chlons (813), c. 38. See n. 41.

Council of Paris (829), c. 32: Quoniam multi sacerdotum partim uncuria, partim ignorantia
modum paenitentiae reatum suum contentibus secus, quam uira canonica decernant,
imponunt, utentes scilicet quibusdam codicellis contra canonicam auctoritatem scriptis, quos
paenitentiales vocant, et ob id non vulnera peccatorum curant, sed potius foventes palpant.
38
text, and dates from the late ninth or maybe early tenth century. 56
Berlin, Deutsche Staatsbibliothek, Preussischer Kulturbesitz, Phillip.
1750 transmits a (more or less) complete text and dates to the tenth
century. This manuscript is probably of northern French provenance. 57
Troyes, Bibliothque Municipale, 1979, was probably copied in the
tenth or rst half of the eleventh century in eastern France or western
Germany.58 Evidently, no rm conclusions can be drawn from the
geographical provenance of these three relatively late manuscripts. An
English provenance for the Paenitentiale, as has been suggested in the
past, seems, however, unlikely. 59 After the discovery of continental
manuscripts that have no connection with Wulfstan, and given the fact
that, until the eleventh century, Amalariuss work existed in England only
in an abbreviated version, the possibility that the Paenitentiale was
composed in England can now, we think, be excluded. 60
However, if the extant manuscripts of the Paenitentiale cannot shed
light on its region of origin, perhaps the sources used by its compiler
can. The texts used for the composition of the Paenitentiale were by no
means evenly spread over the Frankish empire during the ninth century, and the author must have been at a place where all of them were
available. Let us therefore briey consider the geographical distribution
of three of pseudo-Theodores main sources: the Excarpsus Cummeani,
the penitential of Theodore (version U) and Halitgars De vitiis et virtutibus. The rst two are so fundamental to the Paenitentiale, that they
have been nearly entirely incorporated into the text. If we follow the
hypothesis that pseudo-Theodore may have written his handbook in
the twenties or thirties of the ninth century, the localization of the early
manuscripts of Halitgars work, in turn, may be revealing, for pseudoTheodore must, in that case, have used an early copy. Copies of De
vitiis et virtutibus are scarce before around 850; after that time, the
number of its manuscripts increased substantially, and the work can be
seen to have spread quickly.61 The earliest four manuscripts still extant
56
57
58
59
60
61
Friedrich Leitschuh and Hans Fischer, Katalog der Handschriften der Kniglichen Bibliothek
zu Bamberg (Bamberg, 18871912, 1966), pp. 4813, at p. 482, who did not localize the script
of this manuscript.
Valentin Rose, Verzeichniss der lateinischen Handschriften der Kniglichen Bibliothek zu Berlin,
vol. 1, Die Meerman-Handschriften des Sir Thomas Phillipps. Handschriften-Verzeichnisse
der Kniglichen Bibliothek zu Berlin 12.1 (Berlin, 1893), pp. 2236, no. 106, and see n. 9 above.
Kottje, Die Bubcher, p. 63.
Cf. Hans Sauer, Zur berlieferung und Anlage von Erzbishop Wulfstans Handbuch ,
Deutsches Archiv 36 (1980), pp. 34184, at p. 347, n. 8, where he writes that Weil das
Poenitentiale Ps.-Theodori aber anscheinend nur in englischen Hss. und nur im Rahmen von
Wulfstans Handbuch berliefert ist . . . halte ich es nicht fr ausgeschlossen, da es . . . erst
in England . . . kompiliert wurde.
Cf. Jones, The Book of the Liturgy, p. 676 about Amalarius in Anglo-Saxon England.
Cf. Kottje, Die Bubcher, p. 13 ff. for an overview of the extant manuscripts.
39
are, not very surprisingly, from the north of the Carolingian kingdoms:
one from Orlans,62 one from Wissembourg,63 and one from the
Rheims area.64 A fourth manuscript cannot be localized more precisely
than France.65 Also, in the later ninth century the transmission of De
vitiis et virtutibus can be seen to have remained centred on, especially,
northern France, with a few copies nding their way to middle and
south Germany as well as to northern Italy. Of the remaining twentyve extant copies dating from after 850, no fewer than nineteen were
copied in the north of the Carolingian kingdoms. The only south German copy dates from the third quarter of the ninth century. 66
That Halitgars text found so little reception in ninth-century south
Germany is important, for the nineteen extant manuscripts of the
Excarpsus Cummeani dating from before c.850 show a concentration
there. A small core of ve manuscripts was, however, copied in the
north: two in Mainz, one at the monastery of St Amand, one in Autun,
and a fth one somewhere in northern France. 67 Manuscripts from
before the middle of the ninth century containing the penitential of
Theodore (version U), in turn, are also mostly from northern France
and the middle Rhine region (ten out of thirteen 68), although the text
clearly knew a southern German tradition as well (three out of thirteen
manuscripts are of south German provenance 69).
Of course, rough sketches like these are neither precise, nor entirely
watertight, but under the circumstances they give the best indication
possible of where the Paenitentiale may have been composed. If we
superimpose the previous three descriptions of manuscript distribution,
we end up with an area comprising, roughly, northern France with the
adjacent part of Germany to the east (the Mainz region) as the most
likely area in which pseudo-Theodore was active that is, if he indeed
wrote during the twenties or thirties of the ninth century. Although
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
Now at Paris, Bibliothque Nationale, Cod. lat. 2341.

Now at St Gallen, Stiftsbibliothek, Cod. 277.
Vatican City, Biblioteca Apostolica Vaticana, Reg. lat. 207.
Now at Einsiedeln, Stiftsbiliothek, MS 281 (886).
This is now Vatican City, Bibliotheca Apostolica Vaticana, Reg. lat. 407, from the area of St
Gallen.
The manuscripts from Mainz are now Oxford, Bodleian Library, Laud misc. 263 and probably also Slestat, Bibliothque de la Ville, 132; the St Amand manuscript is now at Paris,
BN, 2296; the Autun manuscript is now Berlin, Deutsche Staatsbibliothek, Phil. 1667, and
the manuscript from northern France can be found at Oxford, Bodleian Library, Bodley 572.
These manuscripts are: Berlin, Deutsche Staatsbibliothek, Hamilton 132 (H); Brussels,
Koninklijke Bibliotheek, 10127/44; Cologne, Dombibliothek, 91; Cologne, Dombibliothek,
210; Paris, BN, lat. 1603; Paris, BN, lat. 3846; Paris, BN, lat. 12444; Vatican, Biblioteca
Apostolica Vaticana, Pal. lat. 554; Vienna, sterreichische Nationalbibliothek, lat. 2223;
Wrzburg, Universittsbibliothek, M. p. th. q. 32.
These manuscripts are: St Gallen, Stiftsbibliothek, Cod. 150; Stuttgart, Wrttembergische
Landesbibliothek, HB IV 112; Vienna, NB, lat. 2195.
40
hard evidence remains unavailable on all of these points, a hypothesis

of such a date and place works well.
Conclusions
That the Paenitentiale pseudo-Theodori has never stimulated research in
its own right seems, in the light of the above discussion, rather
unjustied. Although such research is still in its infancy, we can already
state with some condence that this is an original, creative work that
was not as uninuential as has been previously thought. Not only are
there a substantial number of manuscripts containing the text, the
handbook also seems to have interested inuential authors like Wulfstan of York.
Establishing a possible date, context and location for the composition
of this text is problematic and has, to a large extent, to be built upon
shaky ground. The arguments for a date between 8202 and c.850,
however, seem at present to be more convincing than a later date: all
the material the compiler used was available at that time in the northern part of the Frankish kingdoms, including the area around Mainz,
and the context of high-level discussions about the authority of, and
inconsistencies in, older handbooks of penance may, at the same time,
have given pseudo-Theodore reason enough for his collecting, organizing and amending such older material. In the light of debates concerning the authority of handbooks of penance in the twenties and thirties
of the ninth century, there seems to be a lot to say in favour of this
period as the most plausible time of composition for the Paenitentiale,
although this can at present be no more than a hypothesis.
If the arguments explored above do indeed hold, they throw a new
and interesting light on the Paenitentiale that should be taken into
account in future research. It shows how, in a period of increasing
discussion about the validity of penitentials that had been in use for a
long time, an effort was made to produce a useful and consistent handbook that contained everything available to the compiler at that point.
In a time of repeated attempts at correctio and emendatio of both the
Christian Frankish population and the texts on which their religion was
built, pseudo-Theodores effort may be interpreted as doing exactly
that, albeit in his own, unique way.
Bishops, priests and penance in late

Saxon England
C C
This article examines the textual and manuscript evidence for the practice
of penance in late Saxon England. It also examines the signicance for
pastoral care of the linguistic evidence for specialized vernacular terms
for penance: scrift for confessor, ddbote and compounds of hreow for
penance and remorse. The linguistic and textual evidence suggests that
penance was a regular part of lay piety. The manuscript evidence, on the
other hand, supports recent contentions that penitentials were used by
bishops and should be linked to canon law. However, the manuscript
evidence cannot be properly understood unless the scant survival rate of
humble priestly handbooks is taken into account. Moreover, bishops in
this period were deeply involved in furthering pastoral care and their
interests and concerns should not be divorced from a pastoral and local
context. In conclusion, the article will argue that penitential practices were
rmly rooted in the Anglo-Saxon churchs ministry for the laity.
Three principal things God has appointed to men for purication: one
is baptism, the second is communion, the third is penance, with cessation
from evil deeds and practice of good works. Baptism washes us from all
our sins, communion hallows us, true penance heals our misdeeds. 1
These words of the vernacular homilist, lfric, were intended to
send out a strong message to the Anglo-Saxon laity concerning the
necessity of communion, baptism and penance in the life of the faithful. Contemporary historians, however, have been rather more sceptical
than lfric concerning his churchs ability to provide such ministry to
its ock. There is still much that remains obscure about the organization
1
lfrics Catholic Homilies : The Second Series, ed. Malcolm Godden, EETS SS 5 (Oxford,
1979), II, 3, p. 26. Preo healice ing gesette god mannum to clnsunge. An is fulluht. Oer
is huselhalgung. Pridde is ddbot mid geswicennysse yfelra dda. and mid bigencge godra
weorca; Pt fulluht us apweh fram eallum synnum. Se huselgang us gehalga. Seo soe
ddbot gehl ure misdda. Translation (with slight modications) from B. Thorpe, The
Homilies of the Anglo-Saxon Church, 2 vols (London, 18446), II, p. 49.
Early Medieval Europe () 4163 Blackwell Publishing Ltd ,

42
Catherine Cubitt
of pastoral care in tenth- and eleventh-century England. 2 While the

institutional framework for the provision of pastoral care in England
and the role of monasteries, churches, priests and monks have been
intensively studied and debated, less attention has been paid to the
sacraments provided. Recent work, however, has begun to redress this
balance with studies like that by Jon Wilcox probing the role of lfrics
own monastery in local society.3
Penance lies at the heart of the churchs mission to the laity and is
therefore a key element in any discussion of how pastoral provision
actually worked. The foundations for the study of penance in England
were set out in Allen Frantzens elegant and thorough study, published
in 1983, which elucidated the range of evidence for penitential practices
and demonstrated elements of continuity from the pre-Viking Age
period to the tenth and eleventh centuries. 4 His ground-breaking work
concentrated on the textual evidence and in many ways took its pastoral
context for granted. Some of these suppositions have subsequently been
questioned and new work, particularly on the Continent, has opened
up further research questions.
Students of the continental church in the early Middle Ages have
investigated the use of practical tools of penitential discipline texts
and manuscripts of penitentials as an indicator of pastoral practice.
How deeply had penance penetrated local society? Is it safe to assume
that penitentials were used in the parish by the local priest? Sandy
Murray has questioned the extensive use of confession and penance
before the high Middle Ages. Franz Kerff, in a wide-ranging paper,
discussed the variety of uses for penitentials and emphasized their role
in the episcopal control of dioceses and their place in compilations of
canon law designed for bishops in their scrutiny of dioceses. Meens, on
the other hand, in an extensive critique of both Murray and Kerff,
reasserted the importance of penance in the local church based on the
evidence of both manuscripts and texts. 5 The forms which penance
2
For a fairly pessimistic view of priestly competence and episcopal oversight, see, for example,
J. Blair, The Church in Anglo-Saxon Society (Oxford, 2005), pp. 48997. For serious doubts
concerning the administration of penance, see A. Murray, Confession before 1215, Transactions of the Royal Historical Society, 6th ser. 3 (1993), pp. 5181.
J. Wilcox, lfric in Dorset, in F. Tinti (ed.), Pastoral Care in Late Anglo-Saxon England
(Woodbridge, 2005), pp. 5262, and see other essays in this volume. See too, for the earlier period,
S. Foot, By Water in the Spirit: The Administration of Baptism in Early Anglo-Saxon England,
in J. Blair and R. Sharpe (eds), Pastoral Care Before the Parish (Leceister, 1992), pp. 17192.
Allen J. Frantzen, The Literature of Penance in Anglo-Saxon England (New Brunswick, 1983);
Allen J. Frantzen, The Tradition of Penitentials in Anglo-Saxon England, ASE 11 (1983), pp. 2356.
Murray, Confession before 1215, pp. 5181; F. Kerff, Libri paenitentiales und kirchliche
Strafbarkeit bis zum Decretum Gratiani: ein Diskussionsverlag, Zeitschrift der SavignyStiftung fr Rechtsgeschichte, Kanonistische Abteilung 75 (1989), pp. 2357; R. Meens, The
Frequency and Nature of Early Medieval Penance, in Peter Biller and A. Minnis (eds),
Handling Sin: Confession in the Middle Ages (Woodbridge, 1998), pp. 3561.
Penance in late Saxon England
43
could take in the early Middle Ages have also been subject to scrutiny.
The Carolingian dichotomy between public and private penance has been
questioned not only by Mayke de Jong but also by Sarah Hamilton,
both stressing the problems of how normative texts can be interpreted
and emphasizing in actual practice a uidity between public and private.6
The questions posed by Murray, Kerff and Meens are matters of
pressing concern for the student of the Anglo-Saxon church who, while
less well equipped with penitential manuscripts, has the advantage of a
wealth of vernacular religious writings with which to enter the debate.
These texts, often translations from Latin, include penitentials, prayers
and, above all, vernacular homilies. While the intended audience for
these texts is sometimes hard to gauge, they can provide rst-hand
evidence of the preoccupations and interests of their compilers and
authors.7 For example, both Sarah Hamilton and Brad Bedingeld have
demonstrated the presence of public penance in England, working from
homiletic evidence, particularly that of Archbishop Wulfstan, in conjunction with liturgical ordines found in benedictionals. Both nd
evidence of a dynamic Anglo-Saxon tradition which evinces interest in
public penance but also allows for compromise between public and
private. Hamiltons study of Anglo-Saxon law has also demonstrated
the ninth-century practice of public penance in association with certain
crimes, notably oath-breaking.8
The diversity and riches of the Anglo-Saxon evidence provides plentiful material with which to assess the pastoral impact of penance in
tenth- and eleventh-century England, testing out Kerff s hypothesis of
episcopal supervision and challenging Murrays scepticism about actual
practice. The vernacular homilies indicate expectations of confession
and penance while the production of Old English penitentials and
confessional prayers evinces a need for intelligible working texts. To
these sources must be added the manuscript witnesses of penitential and
related texts which, although not as numerous as on the Continent, give
direct if tantalizing evidence of use. All these sources will be utilized in
this paper but the starting point for my discussion will be a particularly
neglected source: the evidence of Old English terminology for penance.
6
M. de Jong, What was Public about Public Penance? Paenitentia publica and Justice in the
Carolingian World, Settimane 43 (1996), pp. 863902; eadem, Power and Humility in Carolingian Society: The Public Penance of Louis the Pious, EME 1 (1992), pp. 2952. Sarah
Hamilton, The Practice of Penance, 9001050 (Woodbridge, 2001).
See, for example, the discussion of M. McC. Gatch, The Unknowable Audience of the
Blickling Homilies, ASE 18 (1989), pp. 99115.
M.B. Bedingeld, Public Penance in Anglo-Saxon England, ASE 31 (2002), pp. 22355;
idem, Dramatic Liturgy of Anglo-Saxon England (Woodbridge, 2002). Sarah Hamilton, Rites
for Public Penance in Late Anglo-Saxon England, in Helen Gittos and M. Bradford Bedingeld (eds), The Liturgy of the Late Anglo-Saxon Church, Henry Bradshaw Society Subsidia
5 (London, 2005), pp. 65103.
44
Catherine Cubitt
The vernacular vocabulary of penance

The Old English sources show that in the late ninth century there was
already a developed vernacular vocabulary for the practice of penance.
The Old English word, scrift, is found in texts from the reign of Alfred
with the meaning confessor.9 This usage is found in literary texts such
as the Old English translation of Gregory the Greats Pastoral Care and
in Alfreds lawcode.10 Alfreds law is concerned with the penalties for
oath-breaking and allows a criminal who has a surety to atone for his crime
according to both secular and ecclesiastical law, following the requirements of secular law and as his confessor prescribes for him. Scrift for
confessor can be found in numerous Old English sermons, including
those of lfric and Wulfstan, and those in the Vercelli Book and the
Blickling Homilies,11 as this passage from a Vercelli homily illustrates:
Broor mine, ponne ge rihtre andetnesse to eowrum scriftum becumen, ponne sceal he eow geornlice ahsian mid hwylcum gemete oe
mid hwylcum intingum syo syn purhtogen wre pe he geandette pt
he r gefremede, 7 fter pam gemete pre dde, he sceal him pa
hreowsunge gedeman.12
The word scrift also occurs in the compound scriftscire, an administrative
region of pastoral care, a usage largely found in the works of Archbishop
9
10
11
12
My discussion of the Old English terminology for confession and penance has been made
possible through The Complete Corpus of Old English in Electronic Form, ed. Antoinette di
Paolo Healey, Dictionary of Old English Project, Centre for Medieval Studies, University of
Toronto, <http://ets.umdl.umich.edu/o/oec>. An Anglo-Saxon Dictionary Based on the Manuscript Collections of Joseph Bosworth, ed. T. Northcote Toller with an addenda by A. Campbell,
2 vols (Oxford 18981955), I, pp. 8412, gives the following meanings for scrift, what is
prescribed as a punishment, penance, a judge, a confessor.
Alfreds Lawcode, in Die Gesetze der Angelsachsen, ed. F. Liebermann, 3 vols (Halle, 190316),
I, p. 48, 1.8: Gif pr onne oper mennisc borg sie, bete pone borgbryce swa him ryht wisie,
7 one wedbryce swa him his scrift scrife; King Alfreds West Saxon Version of Gregorys Pastoral
Care, ed. H. Sweet, 2 vols EETS OS 45 and 50 (London, 18712), at p. 105, lines 14, 19.
The Vercelli Homilies and Related Texts, ed. D.G. Scragg, EETS OS 300 (Oxford, 1992), no. 16,
pp. 26677, at pp. 2701, lines 9398: Ac for pan we ps sceolon, men pa leofestan, urum
dryhtne a singalice mid eallre heortan pancian ps pe he us purh his mildheortnesse forgeaf
7 forgifan wille, pt we hine sone God ongeaton 7 wiston, pt we ure lif mid soe 7 mid
rihte ligan moton 7 magon 7 cunnan, gif we willa swa don swa ure scrift[as] us tcap 7
lrap. The Blickling Homilies with a Translation and Index of Words together with the Blickling
Glosses, ed. R. Morris, EETS OS 58, 63, 73 (Oxford, 1874, 1876, 1880, reprinted in one
volume, 1967), no. 4, pp. 3853, at pp. 423. Eala, cwp Sanctus Paulus, pt bip deoes
goldhord, pt mon his synna dyrne his scrifte.
Vercelli Homilies, ed. Scragg, no. 3, pp. 745: My brethren, when you come for proper
confession to your confessors, then must he earnestly ask you, with what manner or with
what reasons that sin was accomplished which he confesses, that he [sic] performed earlier.
And according to the manner of the deed, he must then assign to him that penance.
Translation from The Vercelli Book Homilies: Translations from the Anglo-Saxon, ed. L.E.
Nicholson (Lanham, MD, and London, 1991), pp. 312.
45
Wulfstan of York or texts inuenced by him. 13 For example, in his

episcopal statutes, the Canons of Edgar, Wulfstan writes: And we lra
pt preosta gehwilc on synoe gecye gif he on his scriftscire nigne
man wite Gode oferhyre, oe on heafodleahtrum yfele befealenne, pe
he to bote gebigan ne mge oe ne durre for worldafole.14
Another cluster of words is used for confession and confessing the
noun, andetnes for confession and the verb, andettan for this act of
confession.15 Andettere, however, confessor, has a restricted usage in the
Old English to mean a confessor in the sense of a saint who is not a
martyr. In this sense it is found in the Old English translations of
Bedes Ecclesiastical History, Gregory the Greats Dialogues, and the Old
English Martyrology and in other sources.16 I have found no instance of
13
14
15
16
The Homilies of Wulfstan, ed. D. Bethurum (Oxford, 1957), no. 1b, line 28. Die Institutes
of Polity, Civil and Ecclesiastical Ein Werk Erzbischof Wulfstans von York, ed. Karl Jost,
Schweizer anglistische Arbeiten 47 (1959), p. 84, c. 66; p. 85, c. 102. Wulfstans Canons of Edgar,
ed. R. Fowler, EETS 266 (London, 1972), c. 6, 9, 15, pp. 24. Episcopus, c. 10, 12 printed
in Councils and Synods with Other Documents Relating to the English Church, ed. D. Whitelock, M. Brett and C.N.L. Brooke, 2 vols (Oxford, 1981), I, pp. 41722. Rihtscriftscir V
Atr, 12.1, I Cnut, 13.1, all in Gesetze, ed. Liebermann, I, pp. 240, 294. It is also found in the
Law of Northumbrian Priests, 47: for Wulfstans inuence on this text, see P. Wormald,
Archbishop Wulfstan and the Holiness of Society, in his Legal Culture in the Early Medieval
West (London, 1999), pp. 22551, at pp. 24951. Outside works associated with Wulfstan,
scriftscire is only found in an anonymous sermon for the dedication of a church, printed by
R. Brotanek, Texte und Untersuchungen zur altenglischen Literatur und Kirchengeschichte
(Halle, 1913), no. 2, pp. 1527. This has been attributed to lfric (see Blair, The Church,
p. 430, n. 14, presumably following Brotanek), but it is now not normally attributed to him.
On lfrics corpus, see P. Clemoes, The Chronology of lfrics Works, in P. Clemoes
(ed.), The Anglo-Saxons (London, 1959), pp. 21247, at pp. 21319; and J. Pope, Homilies of
lfric, I, pp. 13645, esp. p. 141, n. 1. Brotanek 2 is extant in two manuscripts, London,
Lambeth Palace Library, MS 489 (probably compiled for Bishop Leofric of Exeter (104672))
and Paris, Bibliothque Nationale, lat 943, fols 164r70r (additions to the Dunstan
Pontical). On this sermon and the Lambeth manuscript, see E. Treharne, The Bishops
Book: Leofrics Homiliary and Eleventh-Century Exeter (forthcoming); for the Paris manuscript, see N.R. Ker, Catalogue of Manuscripts Containing Anglo-Saxon (Oxford, 1957), no. 364,
art. C and B. Ebersperger, Die angelschsischen Handschriften in den Pariser Bibliotheken,
Anglistische Forschungen 261 (Heidelberg, 1999), pp. 3244. This compound is also found in
the lawcode, II Athelstan, 26, Gesetz, ed. Liebermann, I, p. 164, but as Blair points out only
with scrift as an interlineation in the Textus Roffensis, see Blair, The Church, p. 430, n. 14.
Wulfstans Canons, ed. Fowler, 6, p. 2: And we decree that every priest should make known
in the synod if he knows any man in his parish disobedient to God, or who has fallen into
evil cardinal sins, that he can not compel to atonement or dare not because of worldly power.
See cc. 9 and 15, pp. 45, where scriftscire is used for area of a priests responsibility.
See the Complete Corpus of Old English; for andetnes, see Vercelli Homilies, ed. Scragg, no. 3,
lines 16, 17, 25, 29, 33, 36 and 43. Anglo-Saxon Dictionary, ed. Bosworth, Toller and Campbell,
I, p. 39, gives for andetnes a confession, an acknowledgment, profession, giving of thanks or
praise, honour, glory; and I, p. 39, for andettere a confessor.
See the Complete Corpus of Old English, The Old English Version of Bedes Ecclesiastical History
of the English People, ed. T. Miller, 4 vols, EETS 95, 96, 110, 110 (London, 18908; repr. 1959
63), p. 34, line 22; p. 36, line 29; p. 38, line 24; p. 40, line 11. Bischof Waerferths von Worcester
Uebersetzung der Dialoge Gregors des Grossen, ed. H. Hecht (Leipzig and Hamburg, 19007;
repr. Darmstadt, 1965), p. 238, line 19; Das altenglische Martyrologium, ed. G. Kotzor, Bayerische Akad. Der Wissenschaften, Phil.-hist. NF 88 (1981), 5 September. On the Old English
Martyrology, see now Christine Rauer, The Sources of the Old English Martyrology, ASE
32 (2003), pp. 89109.
46
Catherine Cubitt
its use for a priestly confessor, who is consistently called a scrift and the
verb scrifan is used for the act of assigning penance, as some of the
above examples illustrate.17 The Old English terminology for penitent
sinner or one who confesses in the context of penitential discipline
was ddbeta; this is found in texts from the tenth century, as for example
in this Old English homily possibly produced for Archbishop Wulfstan,
. . . se eadiga Ambrosius cw pt nan bisceop ne mg unbyndan pa
ddbetan buton heora behreowsung beo wyre to unbindenne.18
This noun for a penitent making confession appears to derive from
the word ddbot, meaning penance.19 The word seems to have been
commonly used in a precise sense for the penance assigned by a priest.
This meaning can be clearly seen in lfrics pastoral letter for Archbishop
Wulfsige of Sherborne: Ac hi misdo swie deope, pt pt halige husl
sceole fynegian, and nella understandan, hu mycele ddbote seo
penitentialis tc be pam, gyf pt husel bi fynig oe hwen . . .20 It
is used with this meaning in ninth-century texts from Alfreds circle,
such as the Old English translation of Gregorys Pastoral Care.21 The
second element in this compound, bote, has a range of meanings
including remedy but it was employed in lawcodes from the codes of
Ine and Alfred for compensation for a crime. Ddbote therefore
presumably signies the compensation for a wrong action.22
17
18
19
20
21
22
Anglo-Saxon Dictionary, ed. Bosworth, Toller and Campbell, I, p. 841 gives numerous meanings of scrifan including IV to shrive, to impose penance after confession, to hear confession
and then impose penance.
Homilies of Wulfstan, ed. Bethurum, pp. 36673, lines 958: the blessed Ambrose says that
no bishop can absolve a penitent unless his remorse is worthy of absolution. The Old English
is a translation of Abbo of St Germains sermon in Cambridge, Corpus Christi College, MS
190; on this see Bethurum, pp. 3456 who suggests that this translation by made by a member
of Wulfstans familia for him as a basis for his own (sermon no. 15) and see Bedingeld,
Public Penance, pp. 2346.
Anglo-Saxon Dictionary, ed. Bosworth, Toller and Campbell, I, p. 192, for ddbot gives an
amends-deed, repentance, penitence; and II, p. 143, penitence, penance.
lfric, rst Old English letter for Bishop Wulfsige, in Die Hirtenbriefe lfrics in altenglischer
und lateinischer Fassung, ed. B. Fehr, reprinted with an introduction by P. Clemoes (Darmstadt, 1966), p. 29, c. 134. Translation from Councils and Synods, ed. Whitelock, Brett and
Brooke, p. 222: . . . they do very deeply amiss, that the holy eucharist should become
mouldy, and they will not understand how great a penance the penitential prescribes if the
eucharist is mouldy or discoloured . . .
Gregorys Dialogues, in Bischof Waerferths von Worcester Uebersetzung, ed. Hecht, p. 88, line
12: Pa gelamp hit, pt sum rice man bd his rendracan, pt he swie hrae to him come,
forpon pe hit ws swie neah his ende, pt he mid his gebedum for his synnum pingode, 7
pt he pa dde be his agnum yum mihte him geanddettan, 7 pt he wre alysed mid
ddbote fram his scyldum, r pon pe he eode of lichaman. And see p. 327, line 12.
See, for example, Ine, 76, Gesetze, ed. Liebermann, I, p. 122: Gif hwa ores godsunu slea
oe his godfder, sie sio mgbot & sio manbot gelic; weaxe sio bot be am were, swa ilce
swa sio manbot de pe pam hlaforde sceal. And see also, II Edmund, 3, 7.3; I Cnut 2.5.
Gesetze, ed. Liebermann, I, pp. 188, 190, 232. Compounds with bot are discussed by Carol
Hough, in Two Kentish Laws Concerning Women: A New Reading of thelberht 73 and
74, Anglia 119 (2001), pp. 55478, at pp. 5713.
47
Some corroboration that ddbote (and related compounds) was used

specically to refer to canonical penance itself rather than for remorse
or penitence, can be found in the fact that it is frequently paired with
hreow and related words, meaning remorse, thus designating both
canonical penance and the attendant emotion of remorse. 23 This pairing
can be seen, for example, in this sermon found in the early eleventhcentury manuscript, Cambridge, Corpus Christi College, 419: Ac ic
halsige on godes naman and eornostlice hate, pt ge gecyrran to gode
mid gebedum and mid wccan and mid fstenum and mid synna
andettnesse eowrum scriftan and mid hreowsunge ddbota and mid
teounge ealra ura hta weoruldgestreona. 24 The pairing is found in
the works of lfric and Wulfstan, sometimes placing the two words in
proximity but in separate sentences as if to allude to the doublet. It is
attested as early as the ninth century, in the Old English Martyrology,
and in the Old English translations of Bedes and Orosiuss Histories
and Alfreds version of the Pastoral Care.25 The careful use of the compound ddbote for penance with its use of a common legal term for
compensation is also suggestive of a certain parallelism of ideas between
secular and ecclesiastical law.26
This rapid survey of Old English vocabulary for penance suggests
that by the end of the ninth century, a developed terminology for
penitential practice had already evolved. It is notable that this language
is used consistently across a number of sources from different periods
and provenances, from Alfreds court circle and possibly ninth-century
Mercia (if the composition of the Old English Martyrology may be
attributed to that region) through into the tenth and eleventh centuries
23
24
25
26
Anglo-Saxon Dictionary, ed. Bosworth, Toller and Campbell, I, p. 558 gives for hreow, sorrow, regret, penitence, penance, repentance.
Ker, Catalogue, no. 68, art. 3. Printed in Wulfstan, Sammlung der ihm zugeschriebenen Homilien
nebst Untersuchungen ber ihre Echtheit, ed. Arthur Napier (repr. Zurich, 1967), no. 45, pp. 226
32, at p. 227. Moreover, I beseech in Gods name and earnestly command that you turn to
good with prayers and vigils and with fasting and with confession of your sins and with sorrow
of penance and with tithes of all your possessions of worldly riches. Cambridge, Corpus
Christi College, MS 419 is a companion volume to Corpus 421; together these contain twentythree homilies copied by one scribe in the rst half of the eleventh century with further
homilies added later in the eleventh century. Pope suggests that the collection was initially
made at Canterbury before it was transmitted to Exeter, see lfrics Catholic Homilies: The
Second Series. Text. ed. M. Godden, EETS SS 5 (Oxford, 1979), pp. lxxiii and Homilies of
lfric: A Supplementary Collection, ed. J. Pope, 2 vols, EETS 159 (Oxford, 1967), I, pp. 803.
Bischof Waerferths von Worcester Uebersetzung, ed. Hecht, p. 327, line 12; p. 88, line 8. Old
English Version, ed. Miller, p. 436, line 27. Das altenglische Martyrologium, ed. G. Kotzor,
April 25. The Old English Orosius, ed. J. Bately, EETS SS 6 (Oxford, 1980), p. 38, line 20;
p. 135, lines 12.
Carol Hough, Penitential Literature and Secular Law in Anglo-Saxon England, Anglo-Saxon
Studies in Archaeology and History 11 (2000), pp. 13341 argues against a close relationship
between penitential practice and secular law before the eleventh century. See Hamilton, Rites
for Public Penance, at pp. 837 on public penance in Anglo-Saxon law.
48
Catherine Cubitt
in the works not only of the major writers, lfric and Wulfstan, but
also in anonymous homilies.27
Vernacular texts relating to penance

One of the earliest of the four signicant corpora of vernacular preaching, the Blickling Homilies, gives apparently unambiguous evidence of
penitential pastoral practice.28 This collection of nineteen sermons survives in a manuscript, Princeton University Library, Scheide Collection
71, dating from the late tenth or early eleventh century, of unknown
provenance.29 It is an original compilation put together for use over the
church year, drawing on existing vernacular sermons. The homily for
the third Sunday of Lent, states:
Pa mssepreostas pe Godes cyricena lareowas beop, pa sceolan heora
scrift-bec mid rihte tcan & lran, swa swa hie ure fderas r demdon. Ne wandige na se mssepreost no for rices mannes ege, ne for
feo, ne for nanes mannes lufon, pt he him symle rihte deme, gif he
wille sylf Godes domas gedegan; ne sceal he eac beon to georn deadra
manna feos, ne to lyt pancian heora lmessan, forpon po hie wonap
pt he heora senna alysan mge. & pa lareowas sceolan synnfullum
mannum eadmodlice tcan & lran, pt hie heora synna cunnon
onrihtlice geandettan; forpon pe hie beop topon mislice & sume
swipe unsyferlice, pt se man wandap pt he hi fre asecgge, buton
se msse-preost hie t him geacsige. 30
The emphasis in this passage is upon the proper duty of priests in
teaching confessional and penitential practice. Like a number of other
texts it emphasizes sincere and full confession, but the references to the
priestly use of scrift bec and to impartial allocation of penance surely
indicate the use of a penitential or some sort of handbook. The homily
as a whole translates and reworks a homily by Caesarius of Arles on
27
28
29
30
See, for example, Vercelli Homilies, ed. Scragg, no. 16, lines 43, 44; Blickling Homilies, ed. Morris,
no. 2, p. 25, lines 1718; no. 3, p. 35, line 36; no. 6, p. 76, line 5; and no. 8, p. 101, line 7.
See too Frantzen, Literature, pp. 15074, on vernacular preaching, and see M. Godden, An
Old English Penitential Motif, ASE 2 (1973), pp. 22139.
Ker, Catalogue, no. 382.
Blickling Homilies, ed. Morris, no. 4, pp. 423: The mass priests, who are teachers of Gods
Church, shall rightly teach their penitentials, and give instruction according as our fathers
have previously determined. Let no priest neither for fear of a rich man, nor for reward, nor
for any mans favour, be afraid of always deciding rightly if he desire to escape Gods
judgements. And he must not be too desirous of dead mans wealth, nor be too thankful for
their alms because they think that he can absolve their sins. And teachers must humbly teach
and instruct sinful men, so that they know how to confess their sins aright because they
are so very various, and some so very impure, that a man will avoid ever telling them except
the priest ask him concerning them.
49
tithing, supplementing it with excerpts from the Visio Pauli. In this

passage, however, no source has been detected. 31 While it is possible that
a patristic or Carolingian source may yet be uncovered, the important
point is that this homily is a deliberate compilation from at least two
sources, and perhaps an original composition in places, suggesting that
these words of admonition to the clergy were intentionally and not
mechanically incorporated.
lfrics homilies do not provide such unambiguous evidence of confession and the use of penitentials. His Catholic Homilies were written
in the early 990s to be preached in a two-year cycle over the liturgical
year by priests, and generally have a lay, if elite, audience in mind.
While lfric was a monk, his experience at Cerne Abbas and later at
Eynsham, where he was abbot, did not divorce him from pastoral work
and the Catholic Homilies were dedicated and despatched to Archbishop Sigeric of Canterbury.32
lfrics aim in the Catholic Homilies was to provide correct teaching. Pastoral discipline takes a second place to doctrinal and spiritual
instruction and his actual writing on penance is diffuse. He is not
concerned with public penance but solely with private. 33 He emphasized
above all the need for true contrition and for full confession (since the
shame of admitting ones sins would only be worse on the Day of
Judgement).34 This emphasis on interiority is also matched in his attitude to the confessor whom he sees as a spiritual mentor instructing the
penitent.35 Grundy has shown how lfric was inuenced by Augustines theory of grace; his writings on penance emphasize Gods unceasing mercy and the role of the Holy Spirit in forgiveness. 36 Penance was
one of the three means of obtaining forgiveness for sins, as the passage
quoted at the opening of this article shows.
In some ways, lfrics attitude to penance is quite functional: it is
the means for the absolution of sin, so that when, for example, he
chastises laymen for incontinent sexual behaviour, he tells them that
this must be atoned for by penance: Pis is lwedra manna regol fter
boclicere gesetnysse. Se e pis tobrece. bete swa him his scrift tce.37
At end of his sermon for the Sunday preceding Shrove Tuesday, he
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
Gatch, The Unknowable Audience of the Blickling Homilies, pp. 99115.

For the date and purposes of the Catholic Homilies, see Godden, lfrics Catholic Homilies:
Introduction, pp. xxixxxvi; on lfric and pastoral care, see Wilcox, lfric in Dorset.
Bedingeld, Public Penance, pp. 2245, 252.
Homilies of lfric, ed. Pope, 19, II, pp. 560609.
Homilies of lfric, ed. Pope, 19, 28, II, pp. 560609, 7759.
L. Grundy, Books and Grace: lfrics Theology (London, 1991), pp. 11547 and 194211. For
lfric on the Holy Spirit and forgiveness, see, for example, lfrics Catholic Homilies, I, p. 16.
lfrics Catholic Homilies II, 6, p. 56. This is the rule for laymen, according to the written
institute; let him who breaks it make atonement according as his confessor shall teach him.
Translation from Thorpe, The Homilies, II, p. 95.
50
Catherine Cubitt
concludes the sermon with these words: Nu genealc clne tid. 7

halig: on re we sceolon ure gimeleaste gebetan; Cume for i gehwa
cristenra manna. to his scrifte: 7 his digelan gyltas geandette; 7 be his
lareowes tcunge gebete: 7 tihte lc oerne to gode mid godre gebisnunge.38 These nal words have no parallels in lfrics sources for this
sermon and must represent his own pastoral admonition appended to
a spiritualizing sermon concerned with the nature of sin, temptation
and repentance. The call to confession and penance is deliberately
placed at the beginning of Lent, presumably to prepare the laity to take
communion at Easter.39
lfrics concern for pastoral practice was demonstrated in his pastoral letters for Bishops Wulfsige of Sherborne and Archbishop Wulfstan
of York which contain a number of references to confession and penance. Following continental models, lfric also listed a penitential as
one of the books necessary for a priest to own: He sceal habban eac
pa wpna to pam gastlicum weorce, rpanpe he beo gehadod, pt
synd pa halgan bec: saltere and pistolboc, godspellboc and msseboc,
sangbec and handboc, gerim and passionalem, penitentialem and
rdingboc.40 It is also remarkable that one manuscript of his Catholic
Homilies I and II, prepared under his direction, includes an extra
sermon on repentance, the De Penitentia.41 The augmented collection in
this manuscript, Cambridge, University Library, Gg. 3. 28, was apparently put together for pastoral use, perhaps for a priest, since it contains
lfrics translations of the Creed and Pater Noster and other prayers,
his letter for Wulfsige, and the De temporibus anni.42 It may be that
lfric felt that his collection of homilies required further supplementation, particularly with regard to Lenten discipline and penance.
The De Penitentia is repeated in the homily for Ash Wednesday in
his Lives of the Saints, a sermon which lfric intended to be preached
38
39
40
41
42
lfrics Catholic Homilies, I, 10, p. 265. Now is a pure and holy time drawing nigh, in which
we should atone for our remissness: let, therefore, every Christian man come to his confessor,
and confess his secret sins, and amend by the teaching of his instructor. Translation from
Thorpe, The Homilies, I, p. 165.
For this practice, see B. Poschmann, Penance and the Anointing of the Sick (New York, 1964), p. 139.
frics First Old English Letter for Bishop Wulfsige, c. 52, He shall have also the weapons
for that spiritual work, before he is ordained, namely, the holy books: a psalter and a book
with the epistles, an evangeliary and a missal, songbooks and a manual, a computus and a
passional, a penitential and a reading book. Translation and text from Councils and Synods,
ed. Whitelock, Brett and Brooke, pp. 2067. And a similar list can be found in lfrics rst
Latin Letter to Wulfstan, c. 137 and in the second Old English Letter to Wulfstan, c. 157. See
also c. 134 and lfrics second Latin Letter to Wulfstan, c. 46, and his second Old English
letter, c. 89. All printed in Hirtenbriefe, ed. Fehr. On lfrics pastoral letters, see J. Hill,
Monastic Reform and the Secular Church: lfrics Pastoral Letters in Context, in C. Hicks
(ed.), England in the Eleventh Century (Stamford, 1992), pp. 10317.
On this homily, see Godden, An Old English Penitential Motif, pp. 2279.
On this manuscript see K. Sisam, Studies in the History of Old English Literature (Oxford,
1953), pp. 16571 and P. Clemoes (ed.), lfrics Catholic Homilies: The First Series, pp. 245.
51
on the preceding Sunday.43 The fuller treatment he gives here may

perhaps again hint that he felt that penance and confession required
more extensive preaching than he had provided in his Catholic Homilies. Here he describes the ceremony of placing ashes upon the heads of
the faithful by the priest and uses the service as an occasion to exhort
the laity to attend church on Ash Wednesday and to adhere faithfully
to the abstentions required by Lent. 44 He closes the sermon with the
words: We sdon nu pis spel. Foran pe her bi ls manna on wodnes
daeg. onne nu to dg beo. and eow gebyra pt ge beon gescrifene.
On issere wucan. Oe huru on re ore.45 lfric illustrates the
dangers of failing to make the proper observances by two stories about
the dismal ends of laymen who scorned church attendance on Ash
Wednesday and who made no attempt at fasting or sexual abstinence
in Lent. Both these stories concern individuals in the entourage of
bishops and were presumably handed down to lfric through sacerdotal tittle tattle providing a further indication that his world was not
uninformed by the realities of lay behaviour. 46 They conrm the practical application of lfrics remonstrances, seen also in the collection of
CUL Gg 3. 28.
Repentance and atonement play a major part in Wulfstans emergency measures for the salvation of the English in the face of Scandinavian conquest, not only in the penitential practices of thelreds
lawcodes but also in his impassioned call for conversion in the Sermo
Lupi, as Allan Frantzen and more recently Alice Cowen have stressed. 47
Wulfstans impetus probably stands behind two codes datable to 1008
and 1009, both concerned with national penance. The Enham code of
1008 opens with a demand for repentance and confession. 48 The lawcode
issued in 1009 commanded three days of supplication and penitential
exercises to implore divine relief from the Viking onslaught. The whole
nation was to fast for three days, walk barefoot to church for confession
43
44
45
46
47
48
On this, see Godden, An Old English Penitential Motif , pp. 2289; Clemoes, The Chronology, p. 221, n. 2.
See Bedingeld, Dramatic Liturgy, pp. 802, 878; and Public Penance, pp. 2235.
B. Thorpe (ed.), lfrics Lives of the Saints, 2 vols, EETS 76, 82 (Oxford, 1881 and 1885), I,
no. 12, pp. 2823: We have told this story now, because there will be fewer men here on
Wednesday, than are now to-day; and it behoveth you that you are shriven in this week or
at least in the next.
See n. 45. The stories concern Bishop lfstan and Bishop lfheah, information about the
latter was provided by thelwold. (The former should perhaps be identied with lfstan of
Ramsbury (?97381) and the latter with perhaps lfheah of Licheld (973x51002x4)).
Frantzen, Literature, pp. 1623; Alice Cowen, Byrstas and bysmeras: The Wounds of Sin in
the Sermo Lupi ad Anglos, in Wulfstan, Archbishop of York: The Proceedings of the Second
Alcuin Conference, ed. Matthew Townend (Turnhout, 2004), pp. 397411, at pp. 397404.
Liebermann (ed.), Gesetze, I, pp. 2467. See C.P. Wormald, The Making of English Law: King
Alfred to the Twelfth Century I (Oxford, 1999), pp. 3325 and K. Lawson, Cnut: The Danes in
England in the Early Eleventh Century (London, 1993), pp. 5861.
52
Catherine Cubitt
and to give alms and tithes of their possessions.49 Wulfstans active pastoral interest in penance is evinced in a number of letters authorizing
penitential pilgrimages by members of the laity. 50
Wulfstans teaching on penance is akin to lfrics in its emphasis on
the teaching role of the confessor whose responsibility is much wider
than confession, penance and absolution. Confessors teach the laity
how to live.51 Wulfstans homilies give little concrete description of a
confessors work. He did however specify confession and penance as
one of the duties of a priest in his Canons of Edgar: And we lra pt
lc preost scrife and ddbote tce pam pe him andette, and eac to bote
lste . . .52 Hamilton and Bedingeld have drawn attention to Wulfstans interest in public penance.53 In his homily for Ash Wednesday,
he describes the process of expulsion and the reconciliation of penitents
on Maundy Thursday belonging to public penance, commenting: And
pt is pearic gewuna, ac we his ne gyma swa wel swa we scoldan on
isse peode, hit wre mycel pearf pt hit man georne on gewunan
hfde.54 The importance of confession and penance for Wulfstan is
underlined in two ways. First, Wulfstans common use of the term
scriftscir for the jurisdiction of a confessor or priest, and second, his
exhortation that the laity in church pray for their mothers and fathers,
their confessors and all Christian people. 55
Wulfstans explicit instructions concerning public penance and his
silence on the administration of private penance may help in the interpretation of homiletic evidence for penance and the use of penitentials.
It is the unfamiliar which demands description, not the familiar.
Repentance, confession and atonement are central to the Christian life
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
Liebermann (ed.), Gesetze, I, p. 260. See also S. Keynes, The Diplomas of King thelred the
Unready 9781016 (Cambridge, 1980), pp. 21620. On Wulfstans authorship of this, see C.P.
Wormald, thelred the Lawmaker, in D. Hill (ed.), Ethelred the Unready: Papers from the
Millenary Conference, British Archaeological Reports, British Series 59 (Oxford, 1978), pp. 47
80; Wormald, Making of English Law, pp. 33045.
R.A. Aronstam, Penitential Pilgrimage to Rome in the Early Middle Ages, Archivum Historiae
Ponticiae 13 (1975), pp. 6583. See also Whitelock, Brett and Brooke (eds), Councils and
Synods, I, pp. 2317.
D. Bethurum (ed.), The Homilies of Wulfstan (Oxford, 1957), no. 13, pp. 22532, at p. 229, line
68: 7 libban pam life pe scrift us wisige . . . And see, for example, Wulfstan, ed. Napier,
no. 35.
Wulfstans Canons, ed. Fowler, 68, pp. 1415. And we decree that every priest shrive and
impose penance on him who confesses to him, and also help him to make atonement . . .
Translation from Councils and Synods, ed. Whitelock, Brett, and Brooke, I, p. 335.
See above n. 8.
Homilies of Wulfstan, ed. Bethurum, no. 14, pp. 2335, at p. 235: And that is a needful
practice, but we do not observe it as well as we should in this land, and it is very necessary
that one zealously have it in practice. Translation from Bedingeld, Public Penance, p. 223.
Wulfstan, ed. Napier, no. 46, pp. 2334: Wa s mannes sawle, pe a unnyttan sprca sprec
and pa ungemetlican hleahtras drif innan cyrcan, and eac pam men, pe wyrige his fder
oe his moder oe his hlaford oe his biscop oe his scrift.
53
in the teaching of both lfric and Wulfstan. Penance was a central

plank of the Archbishops policy for the regeneration of the English in
the face of pagan invasion. Neither lfric nor Wulfstan could be
described as bashful men, afraid to speak out against priestly negligence
or wrongdoing.56 If penance was a haphazard feature of lay life, it is
impossible to think that this would not have aroused the excoriating
admonitions of these two. In fact, their emphasis on the teaching role
of the confessor suggests otherwise.
lfric, as we have seen, considered a penitential an essential item of
priestly equipment. If, as I have argued, penance was widely practiced
in late Saxon England, where is the physical evidence? Three Old
English penitential handbooks might bear witness to priestly practice.
These have been helpfully analysed by Allan Frantzen. 57 The earliest of
these, Scriftboc (sometimes called the Old English Confessional ) may
date to as early as the reign of Alfred. 58 It draws on a number of Latin
penitentials but none later than the ninth century. It is a close translation but a relatively disorganized work in four parts, including instruction for a confessor on how to interrogate penitents and to assign
penance. The Old English Penitential is a translation of Books 3, 4 and
5 of Halitgars penitential with a penitential tariff derived from a
number of sources, including Scriftboc.59 The Handbook for the Use of a
Confessor forms, in Frantzens analysis, a third stage in the development
of the penitential in England. Frantzen comments that this book also
left out penances for bishops and concentrated in its tariff on murder,
fornication and superstitions. He suggests that it could have been a
compact guide for a confessor.60 Its editor, Roger Fowler, associated it
56
57
58
59
60
On Wulfstans sense of pastoral responsibility, see J. Wilcox, The Wolf on the Shepherds:
Wulfstan, Bishops and the Context of the Sermo Lupi ad Anglos, in P.E. Szarmach with
D. Oosterhouse (ed.), Old English Prose: Basic Readings (New York, 2000), pp. 395418.
Frantzen, Literature of Penance, pp. 13341; Frantzen, The Tradition, pp. 409.
Das altenglische Bussbuch (sog. Confessionale Pseudo-Egberti). Ein Beitrag zu den kirchlichen
Gesetzen der Angelsachsen, ed. R. Spindler (Leipzig, 1934). This is sometimes known as the
Confessionale Pseudo-Egberti. This is found in different versions (not all complete) in ve
manuscripts: Oxford, Bodleian Library, Junius 121; Oxford, Bodleian Library, Laud misc. 482;
Cambridge, Corpus Christi College, 190; London, British Library, Cotton Tiberius A III; and
Brussels, Bibliothque Royale, 855863. See below pp. 578 for discussion of these.
Das altenglische Version des Halitgarschen Bussbuches (sog. Poenitentiale Pseudo-Ecgberhti), ed.
J. Raith (Hamburg, 1933). This is sometimes known as the Poenitentiale Pseudo-Ecgberhti.
This text is transmitted in different versions (not all complete) in seven manuscripts: Brussels,
Bibliothque Royale, 855863; Cambridge, Corpus Christi College, 190; Oxford, Bodleian
Library, Junius 121; Oxford, Bodleian Library, Laud misc. 482; Cambridge, Corpus Christi
College, 265; Cambridge, Corpus Christi College, 201; London, British Library, Cotton
Tiberius A III.
R. Fowler, A Late Old English Handbook for the Use of a Confessor, Anglia 83 (1965), pp. 129;
transmitted in six manuscripts: Brussels, Bibliothque Royale 855863; Cambridge, Corpus
Christi College, 265; Cambridge, Corpus Christi College, 201; London, British Library, Cotton Tiberius A III; Oxford, Bodleian Library, Laud misc. 482; Oxford, Bodleian Library,
Junius 121; with fragments in Cotton Otho B X, Cambridge, University Library, Add 3206.
54
Catherine Cubitt
with Wulfstans atelier partly for stylistic reasons and partly because of
its manuscript associations (discussed below). The evidence of the lawcodes and manuscripts suggests that Wulfstan knew it. 61 My own examination of this text has found more numerous and more extensive
indications of Wulfstans style and vocabulary in the text than Fowler
did, strengthening his association of the Handbook to Wulfstan and his
atelier. It may have been worked over by the Archbishop himself. 62
These three vernacular penitential handbooks are merely the tip of
an iceberg of Old English penitential material. Old English confessional
prayers, forms for absolution and directions for the use of confessors are
transmitted in a number of tenth- and eleventh-century manuscripts;
these have been catalogued by Ker and by Frank and Cameron. 63 They
represent a signicant resource for the study of both devotional and
pastoral practices in England but have occasioned surprisingly little
interest. The corpus includes probably the earliest manuscript witness
to penance: leaves with an Old English confessional prayer dated by its
script to c.910 c.930 which were appended to a Latin manuscript of
penitential and liturgical texts, London, British Library, Cotton Vespasian D XX, a later book dated to the mid-tenth century. 64 The prayer
is an encyclopaedic confession which includes admissions of sin for one
in orders, including negligence in the ofce and in psalm-singing. 65
This is an example of a vernacular confession for a member of the
clergy. The model of linking confessional and penitential texts in Latin
to Old English ones can also be seen in a later manuscript. London,
61
62
63
64
65
Fowler, A Late Old English Handbook, p. 10, n. 18.

See, for example, the use of dryhten and phrases like swa he sceal deoppor for Gode and for
worlde unriht gebetan (Fowler, Late Old English Handbook, III, p. 19). This case will be
set out in my Penance and Penitentials in Late Saxon England (in preparation).
Ker, Catalogue, pp. 5212; A. Cameron, A List of Old English Texts, in R. Frank and
A. Cameron (eds), A Plan for the Dictionary of Old English (Toronto, 1973), pp. 25306,
with additions. H. Logemann, Anglo-Saxon Minora, Anglia 11 (1889), pp. 97120, printed Old
English prayers from Cotton Vespasian D XX; Cotton Tiberius C I; London, Lambeth Palace
Library, 427; London, British Library, Royal 2 B V; and Anglo-Saxon Minora, Anglia 12
(1889), pp. 497518, published prayers from Royal 2 B V and Tiberius A III. M. Frster, Zur
Liturgik der angelschsischen Kirche, Anglia 66 (1942), pp. 155, printed prayers from Laud
misc. 482 and Cotton Tiberius A III; Cambridge, Corpus Christi College, 190; and Vespasian
D XX. Gloria Mercatanti, Testi penitenziali minori in tardo antico inglese. Edizione e problemi
(Alessandria, 1993). A study of the vernacular confessional texts is forthcoming from Angelika
Schrcker, University of Munich.
London, British Library, Cotton Vespasian D XX, fols 8792v. Ker, Catalogue, no. 212. Ker
gives a date of s. x med and regards the hands in this manuscript as contemporary. David
Dumville, Liturgy and the Ecclesiastical History of Late Anglo-Saxon England (Woodbridge,
1992), pp. 130, 133; David N. Dumville, English Square Minuscule Script: The Mid-Century
Phases, ASE 23 (1994), pp. 13364, at p. 135: for the later addition of the vernacular prayers,
contra Ker. And see Philip G. Rusche, St Augustines Abbey and the Tradition of Penance,
Anglia 120 (2002), pp. 15983, p. 164, n. 13. The Old English material has been printed by
Logeman, Anglo-Saxon Minora, pp. 97100. See too Mercatanti, Testi penitenziali minori;
Raymund Kottje, Busspraxis und Bussritus, Settimane 33 (1987), pp. 36995, at p. 377, n. 36.
Logeman, Anglo-Saxon Minora, p. 99, lines 57 to 65.
55
British Library, Cotton Galba A XIV is a complex book, a collection of

prayers and texts for devotional use dating from the early eleventh
century. It contains a number of hands and Dumville has hazarded that
it may have been copied piecemeal for at least a quarter of a century.
Its full history is obscure, chiey because it was badly damaged in the
Cotton re of 1731. It has been associated with Winchester, particularly
with Nunnaminster.66 Its chief hand, who was certainly at work in the
manuscript after 1016, copied a Latin confessional text in the form of a
dialogue for two priests, the confessor and penitent. This is followed by
an Old English prayer for forgiveness copied in the same hand. This
scribe was working in a monastery (or nunnery Nunnaminster?) since
in the prayer copied for the soul of King thelred, (s)he refers to the
kings almsgiving to the community. 67 This conjunction between Latin
liturgy and Old English confession perhaps points to the importance of
comprehension in confessional prayers and penance. 68
Vernacular devotional materials for penance and confession can also
be linked to preaching. Hans Sauers analysis of the confessional prayers
in Cambridge, Corpus Christi College, 320 and Oxford, Bodleian
Library, Laud misc. 482 has emphasized their use in homilies. 69 This
can be paralleled in a number of manuscripts, such as London, British
Library, Cotton Tiberius A III, where vernacular confessions are found
with a variety of texts including sermons on penance. 70 Although a
number of the manuscripts containing vernacular prayers date from the
eleventh century, it is likely that some of these texts date back to the
second half of the tenth century. Their production therefore parallels
the composition of the Old English penitentials. Sauer has commented
on the long circulation of these prayers, a conclusion underlined by the
early date of those added to Cotton Vespasian D XX.
66
67
68
69
70
A Pre-Conquest English Prayer-Book (BL Cotton Galba A. XIV and Nero A. ii (ff. 313)), ed.
B.J. Muir, HBS 103 (Woodbridge, 1988). For palaeographical analysis see Ker, Catalogue,
no. 158 and D.N. Dumville, On the Dating of Some Late Anglo-Saxon Liturgical Manuscripts,
Transactions of the Cambridge Bibliographical Society 10 (1991), pp. 4057, at pp. 467.
Pre-Conquest Prayer-Book, ed. Muir, no. 60.
On the importance of intelligibility, see H. Gittos, Is there any Evidence for the Liturgy of
Parish Churches in Late Anglo-Saxon England? The Red Book of Darley and the Status of
Old English, in Tinti (ed.), Pastoral Care, pp. 6382, at pp. 7880.
H. Sauer, Altenglische Beichtermahnungen aus den Handschriften CCCC 320 und Laud misc.
482: Edition und Kommentar, in K.R. Grinda and C.-D. Wetzel (eds), Anglo-Saxonica. Festschrift
fr Hans Schabram (Munich, 1993), pp. 2151, with editions of Conf. 10.2 and Conf. 1.2.
Hans Sauer, Zwei sptaltenglische Beichtermahnungen aus Hs. Cotton Tiberius A. III.,
Anglia 98 (1980), pp. 133, with edition and commentary. For Cotton Tiberius A III, see H.
Gneuss, The Origin and Provenance of Anglo-Saxon Manuscripts: The Case of Cotton
Tiberius A III, in P. Robinson and R. Zim (eds), Of the Making of Books: Medieval Manuscripts, their Scribes and Readers. Essays presented to M.B. Parkes (Aldershot, 1997), pp. 1348.
See too D. Scragg, Dating and Style in Old English Composite Homilies, H.M. Chadwick
Memorial Lectures 9 (Cambridge, 1998), pp. 234 who identies homiletic material in the
manuscript as put together for or by an archbishop.
56
Catherine Cubitt
The manuscript evidence

Consideration of these vernacular prayers leads naturally into an examination of the manuscript evidence for penance in tenth- and eleventhcentury England, which gives a different avenue of approach to the
question of pastoral provision from the textual evidence. The survival
of contemporary copies of penitentials and liturgical materials for penance can be a weighty indicator of actual practice, as Rob Meens has
shown for the continent, identifying a number of manuscripts of pastoral and perhaps priestly use.71 Manuscript witnesses can also point
away from parochial use to episcopal or monastic. But caution is necessary here too: most Anglo-Saxon manuscripts have survived because
they were preserved in the libraries of monasteries and cathedrals. 72
Even within this select corpus, workaday liturgical manuscripts rarely
survive because they were frequently discarded once worn and made
obsolete by new fashions,73 a point plainly illustrated by the paucity of
extant sacramentaries and missals and also by the disproportionate preservation of ponticals and benedictionals from later Saxon England. 74
I have assembled together a list of some twenty manuscripts from
tenth- and eleventh-century England containing either penitentials,
penitential and confessional prayers, liturgical ordines for penance, or a
combination of any of these. My scrutiny of these which is very much
continuing has uncovered a number of patterns monastic and devotional use, episcopal books and books linked to particular centres.
Where manuscripts appear to be working liturgical books, it is difcult
to determine whether they are witnesses to episcopal or priestly usage.
Recent liturgical scholarship has developed some valuable criteria for
distinguishing the two. First, the physical characteristics of the book
are important: pointers to priestly use include modest character, small
71
72
73
74
Meens, Frequency and Nature, pp. 4244.

Only one church book list has survived, N. Barker (ed.), The York Gospels, Roxburghe Club
(London, 1986), pp. 967; and see M. Lapidge, Surviving Booklists from Anglo-Saxon England, in M. Lapidge and H. Gneuss (eds), Learning and Literature in Anglo-Saxon England:
Studies presented to Peter Clemoes (Cambridge, 1985), pp. 3389, at pp. 567. Compare with
the continental evidence, discussed by C. Hammer, Country Churches, Clerical Inventories
and the Carolingian Renaissance, Church History 49 (1980), pp. 517.
As Rebecca Rushworth notes, lfric included epistolaries in his list of books necessary for a
priest yet none survive from England pre-1100, and only four fragments of mass lectionaries
are extant: The Prodigal Fragment: Cambridge, Gonville and Caius College 734/782a, ASE
30 (2001), pp. 13744, at p. 143.
A rough estimate obtained from H. Gneuss, Liturgical Books in Anglo-Saxon England and
their Old English Terminology, in Lapidge and Gneuss (eds), Learning and Literature in
Anglo-Saxon England, pp. 91141, gives sixteen ponticals and fourteen benedictionals as
against one missal and nine sacramentaries. And see R. Pfaff, The Anglo-Saxon Bishop and his
Book, Toller Memorial Lecture 1998 (Manchester, 1999). Pfaff calculates that there were
roughly one hundred and twenty bishops between c.9601100 and only nineteen ponticals
and benedictionals survive.
57
format, with parchment and script not of the rst quality. Secondly, a
priests book may contain and combine a number of services and liturgical prayers to create one book providing all that the priest might need:
masses, readings and pastoral services like baptism. Such books might
also include penitential and canonical rulings to assist the priest in his
pastoral work. A good example of such a volume is the Bobbio Missal
which combines masses with a penitential and with preaching materials.75
The two prime candidates for working pastoral books of penance are
London, British Library, Vespasian D XX, a tenth-century manuscript
of unknown provenance (the vernacular prayer of which has already
been considered), and Oxford, Bodleian Library, Laud misc. 482.
Vespasian D XX, a mid-tenth-century English manuscript of unknown
provenance, contains a Latin ordo for confession, derived at least in part
from Halitgars penitential, together with the additional Old English
confessional prayer.76 Its compact size, long, narrow format, and combination of liturgical and penitential texts t the criteria established by
Rasmussen and Hen.77 The Latin text is rubricated in red, and has
interlinear annotations which give the feminine Latin forms in certain
prayers. These are found in the sections which concern the regular life,
so the book appears to have been used within a female community. 78
The confessional prayer in this is prefaced by an instruction that the
priest is to read the prayer if the penitent is literate, a further indicator
of pastoral usage.79 Frantzen categorized it as a devotional book because
it contains prayers for both the confessor and confessed. 80 However, a
pastoral volume might include both. Further, as Hamilton has noted,
a formula for the reconciliation of excommunicants occurs on folio
56rv, a rite only performed by a bishop. She therefore suggests that
this may have been a bishops book. 81
The eleventh-century Laud misc. 482 certainly looks like the real
thing it is a long, narrow book, combining penitential, vernacular and
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
See the pioneering article of N. Rasmussen, Clbration piscopale et clbration presbytrale: un essai de typologie, Settimane 33 (Spoleto, 1987), pp. 581603, at pp. 8848, elaborated
and rened by Y. Hen, Knowledge of Canon Law among Rural Priests: The Evidence of
Two Carolingian Manuscripts from around 800, Journal of Theological Studies, ns 50:1 (1999),
pp. 11734, esp. pp. 1289. And see S. Meeder, The Early Irish Stowe Missals Destination
and Function, EME 13 (2005), pp. 17994. I have not been able to see Y. Hen, A Liturgical
Handbook for the Use of a Rural Priest (Brussels, BR 100127100144), in M. Mostert (ed.),
Organising the Written Word, Manuscripts and Texts, Utrecht Studies in Medieval Literacy 2
(Turnhout, in press).
See above n. 64.
180 mm 130 mm, written space 152 mm 95 mm.
These interlineations with female forms can be found on folios 26?46r.
Noted by Frantzen, Literature, p. 170. The possibility of an illiterate penitent does not
necessarily rule out the use of this volume in a monastery.
Frantzen, Literature, p. 132.
Hamilton, Remedies for Great Transgressions: Penance and Excommunication in late
Anglo-Saxon England, in Tinti (ed.), Pastoral Care, pp. 912.
58
Catherine Cubitt
liturgical texts. It provides a useful handbook for the work of a priest

in ministering to the sick and dying. It contains not only parts of the
Handbook for a Confessor, parts of Theodores penitential in Old English translation, vernacular confessional texts, and ofces in Latin for
the sick and dying.82 Ker noted that parts of the sequence of penitential
and other texts are linked to Brussels, Bibliothque Royale, 885863, a
manuscript connected with Wulfstan by its copy of his commonplace
book.83 Sauer has analysed and edited the Old English confessional
prayers, some of which it shares with Cambridge, Corpus Christi, MS
320, suggesting a use of common sources. Sauer argues that some of the
Old English tests utilized in Laud misc. 482 derive from the second half
of the tenth century.84 The manuscript has a Worcester provenance and
was glossed in the thirteenth century by the Worcester tremulous hand.
While the combination of Old English penitential texts with liturgical
ofces clearly point to priestly use, as Thompson has argued, the presence of the tremulous hand assigns it to Worcester Cathedral Library.
Its pastoral use therefore must be linked to the cathedral clergy.
Episcopal associations are signicant in the catalogue of penitential
manuscripts. For example, Oxford, Bodleian Library, 718 was written
at Christ Church Canterbury. 85 It contains a copy of Ecgberhts
Penitential with the Statutes of Ghaerbold of Lige sandwiched in the
middle, with two orders for confession and a collection of canonical
material which served in the compilation of the Worcester Canon Law
Collection.86 Richard Gameson has described it as a comparatively
handsome [book] . . . generously laid-out and spaciously written, and
he gives the outer limits for its production as the late 950s to the 990s. 87
The manuscript shares a scribe with Paris, Bibliothque National, lat.
943, the Sherborne or Dunstan Pontical and another manuscript. 88
The Dunstan Pontical is generally associated directly with Archbishop
82
83
84
85
86
87
88
Ker, Catalogue, no. 343: c.213 91 mm, written space 178 65 mm, 24 long lines. This has
been discussed by Victoria Thompson, Death and Dying in Later Anglo-Saxon England
(Woodbridge, 2004), pp. 6788, and The Pastoral Contract in Late Anglo-Saxon England:
Priest and Parishioner in Oxford, Bodleian Library MS Laud Miscellaneous 482, in Tinti
(ed.), Pastoral Care, pp. 10620.
Ker, Catalogue, no. 343, p. 419.
Sauer, Altenglische Beichtermahnungen, pp. 2151.
Richard Gameson, The Origin of the Exeter Book of Old English Poetry, ASE 25 (1996),
pp. 13585, at pp. 1623, 1689, 1728; the arguments for a Christ Church, Canterbury origin
rehearsed by Gameson are convincing and outweigh those of P.W. Connor, Anglo-Saxon
Exeter: A Tenth-Century Cultural History (Woodbridge, 1993), pp. 1920, 379. See also John
Blair, Estate Memoranda of c.1070 from the See of Dorchester-on-Thames, English Historical
Review 116 (2001), pp. 11423. Hamilton, Penance, pp. 901.
See Kerff, Der Quadripartitus, pp. 204, 723.
Gameson, Origin of the Exeter Book, p. 163 describing a group of manuscripts of which
Bodley 781 is one; for date see p. 166.
Exeter, Cathedral Library, 3507; see Gameson, Origin of the Exeter Book, p. 163.
59
Dunstan himself, and one might speculate, since Bodley 718 is the
work of the same scribe, that the manuscript should also be linked to
the archbishop.89 This was a book which travelled: after 1067 it seems
to have belonged to the Bishop of Dorchester, and nally it moved to
Exeter where a scribe who is known to have worked for Bishop Leofric,
inserted a copy of a papal letter concerning the see of Exeter. 90 It looks
therefore very much like a collection of penitential and canonical texts
for episcopal use.
Two further books can be linked to Exeter Cathedral. Cambridge,
Corpus Christi College, 190, is a manuscript of two parts. The rst part
was mainly copied in the rst half of the eleventh century at Worcester;
it contains inter alia Latin penitential texts, the Pseudo-Theodore and
Ecgberhts Penitential, two letters of lfric to Archbishop Wulfstan,
and a version of the Worcester Canon Law Collection put together by
Wulfstan. Additions were made to it in the mid-eleventh century at
Exeter. The second part was also copied at Worcester in the mideleventh century with additions at Exeter in the second half of that
century. It is an Old English miscellany, including Scriftboc and the Old
English Penitential with other penitential texts.91 These two parts were
probably combined in the eleventh century and are usually identied
with the entry canon on leden ond scriftboc on englisc in the list of
books given by Bishop Leofric to Exeter. Finally, Oxford, Bodleian
Library, 311, is an important collection of penitentials from the tenth
century possibly copied on the Continent although containing the hand
of an English scribe. Its later medieval provenance was Exeter. 92
Nine manuscripts can be linked to Archbishop Wulfstan, largely
through their contents (often because of the tell-tale Worcester Canon
89
90
91
92
On the Dunstan Pontical see Ebersperger, Die angelschsischen Handschriften, pp. 3244;
Dumville, Liturgical Books, pp. 824; Jane Rosenthal, The Pontical of St Dunstan, in N.
Ramsay, M. Sparks and T. Tatton-Brown (eds), St Dunstan: His Life, Times and Cult (Woodbridge, 1992), pp. 14363. My speculation seems to be hinted at in n. 49 of P. Wormald,
Archbishop Wulfstan and the Holiness of Society, in his Legal Culture in the Early Medieval
West: Law as Text, Image and Experience (London, 1999), pp. 22551.
Connor, Anglo-Saxon Exeter, p. 37; Blair, Estate Memoranda, pp. 1167 and n. 4.
Ker, Catalogue, no. 45. Gameson, Origin of the Exeter Book, pp. 13585, at pp. 1402, 1489.
Ker, Catalogue, no. 307; Dumville, Liturgy, p. 133; Richard Gameson, Book Production and
Decoration at Worcester in the Tenth and Eleventh Centuries, in N. Brooks and C. Cubitt
(eds), St Oswald of Worcester: Life and Inuence (London, 1996), pp. 194243, p. 200, n. 17,
and no. 38 dates the manuscript s. xex, linking one of its scribes with Worcester, Cathedral
Library, Q 8. T.A.M. Bishop, English Caroline Minuscule (Oxford, 1971), p. xxv: the scribe of
Worcester Q 8 appears in Bodley 311 where he records his name as John; his hand appears in
a number of other manuscripts listed by Bishop; for Worcester Q 8 see p. 18. Connor, AngloSaxon Exeter, pp. 8, 15, 17, 20: Connor regards this manuscript as written in Francia, possibly
in northern France. Rob Meens, Het tripartite boeteboek. Overlevering en betekenis van vroegmiddeleeuwse biechtvoorschriften (met editie en vertaling van view tripartite) (Hilversum, 1994),
pp. 2367; L. Krntgen, Studien zu den Quellen der frhmittelalterlichen Bussbcher (Sigmaringen, 1993), pp. 918.
60
Catherine Cubitt
Law Collection or his Commonplace collection), while four others are

linked to Worcester.93 For example, Cambridge, Corpus Christi College, 190, part one is linked to Wulfstan by its contents, including the
Commonplace Book. 94 As Bedingeld has noted, this contains a version of a sermon by Abbo of St Germain for Maundy Thursday which
includes a description of public penance. This seems to have been
used by Wulfstan for his own Old English sermon on this topic. Part
one also includes other texts relating to public penance. 95 The Old
English section of this manuscript contains an anonymous Old English
sermon translating an Ash Wednesday sermon. 96 Cambridge, Corpus
Christi, 265, is another Worcester manuscript dating from the mideleventh century which can be linked to Wulfstan. It contains the Old
English Handbook for a Confessor, the Pseudo-Theodore Penitential,
Ecgberhts Penitential, excerpts from Halitgars Penitential with Old
English glosses, the Worcester Canon Law Collection and Theodulf s
Capitula.97 These miscellanies of canonical, penitential, liturgical and
other texts emphasize the connections between canon law, penance and
episcopal oversight of disciplinary and judicial matters in the diocese.
They agree with the arguments of Franz Kerff for the place of penitentials within episcopal jurisdiction, linked to the bishops diocesan
synod, his inspection of his clergy and his role in public penance.
The manuscript evidence emphasizes the extent of Wulfstans own
interest in penance. The Old English Penitential and Scriftboc and the
Handbook for a Confessor, for example, are transmitted almost entirely
within collections associated with the archbishop. 98 They testify to his
central role in the transmission of penitential texts, both in Old English
and in Latin. His preference for penitential materials attributed to the
Anglo-Saxon tradition also seems to be marked, particularly for those
associated with his predecessor, Archbishop Ecgberht of York. He presumably saw himself carrying on and extending Ecgberhts pastoral work.
The other manuscripts containing penitential texts can be linked to
monastic devotion such as Galba A XIV (already discussed) perhaps
from Nunnaminster, Winchester.99 Old English confessional prayers
were added later in the eleventh century to the Royal Psalter, a high93
94
95
96
97
98
99
Wulfstans Canon Law Collection, ed. J.E. Cross and A. Hamer (Cambridge, 1999); Hans
Sauer, Zur berlieferung und Anlage von Erzbischof Wulfstans Handbuch , Deutsches
Archiv 36 (1980), pp. 34184; Wormald, Archbishop Wulfstan and the Holiness of Society;
Wormald, Making of English Law, pp. 21621.
Ker, Catalogue, no. 45; Wormald, Making of English Law, pp. 2204.
Bedingeld, Public Penance, pp. 235, printed by Fehr, Die Hirtenbriefe, pp. 241, 2437.
C.A. Jones, A Liturgical Miscellany in Cambridge, Corpus, Christi College, 190, pp. 2357.
Bedingeld, Public Penance, pp. 2345 and Dramatic Liturgy, pp. 836.
Ker, Catalogue, no. 53; Wormald, Making of English Law, pp. 21119.
See above, n. 59.
See above n. 66.
61
grade manuscript associated with Bishop thelwold; these were probably copied at New Minster, Winchester and also at Christ Church,
Canterbury.100 Cambridge, Corpus Christi College, 320 a manuscript of
the third quarter of the tenth century with tenth- and/or eleventhcentury additions in Old English can be linked to St Augustines Canterbury. It contains an augmented copy of Theodores penitential, the
Gregorian Responsa, the Paenitentiale Cantabrigiense and other texts.101
Old English confessional texts were added c.1000 to this manuscript but
not necessarily at St Augustines.102 Philip Rusche has shown how glossary and other evidence in two St Augustines manuscripts indicate the
presence there in the early tenth century of Theodores penitential and
Book 6 of Halitgars penitential.103
This brief review of some of the manuscripts containing penitential
texts has failed to provide unambiguous evidence of parochial practice.
The two most likely manuscripts, Cotton Vespasian D XX and Laud
misc. 482, can both be linked to religious communities and to bishops.
This result, although frustrating, is of a piece with the overall pattern
of manuscript survival from Anglo-Saxon England. The best manuscript witness to parochial pastoral care in England is Cambridge, Corpus Christi College, 422, the so-called Red Book of Darley, which looks
like a working missal and priests handbook and dates from c.1060.104
(It contains no penitential texts.) This too has episcopal associations
since it has been ascribed to the scriptoria of either Winchester or
Sherborne and in the twelfth century a Latin form of excommunication
was added to it. Keynes has suggested that it was commissioned from
Old or New Minster, Winchester for Bishop lfwold of Sherborne,
while Pfaff has pointed to monastic elements in the book. 105 Moreover,
100
101
102
103
104
105
London, British Library, Royal 2 B V; Ker, Catalogue, no. 249. On this manuscript, see
M. Gretsch, The Intellectual Foundations of English Benedictine Reform (Cambridge, 1999).
Angelika Schrcker has pointed out the importance of monastic confession in the Regularis
Concordia (ed. T. Symons (London, 1953), p. 18).
For the discussion and dating of this manuscript, see K.M. Delen, A.H. Gaastra, M.D. Saan
and B. Schaap, The Paenitentiale Cantabrigiense: A Witness of the Carolingian Contribution
to the Tenth-Century Reforms in England, Sacris Erudiri 41 (2002), pp. 34173, where an
edition of the text is provided. This penitential is also known as the Paenitentiale Sangermanense.
Ker, Catalogue, no. 58; Sauer, Altenglische Beichtermahnungen.
Rusche, St Augustines Abbey and the Tradition of Penance in Early Tenth-Century England, Anglia 120 (2002), pp. 15983.
See now, Gittos, Is there any Evidence. It is worth noting that the combination of texts
within this book and its modest size full the characteristics of priestly books laid down by
Rasmussen and Hen.
Ker, Catalogue, no. 70. R. Pfaff, Massbooks, in R. Pfaff (ed.), The Liturgical Books of AngloSaxon England, Old English Newsletter Subsidia 23 (Kalamazoo, 1995), pp. 734, at pp. 21
4. Dumville, Liturgy, pp. 745. See too, S. Keynes, Monk of Glastonbury, Abbot of Westminster (c.9903) and Bishop of Sherborne (c.9931002), in K. Barker, D.A. Hinton, and
A. Hunt (eds), St Wulfsige and Sherborne, Bournemouth University School of Conservation
Sciences Occasional Paper 8 (Oxford, 2005), pp. 5394, at pp. 756. The excommunication
is printed by Liebermann, Gesetze, I, p. 403.
62
Catherine Cubitt
the early tenth-century additional leaves of Vespasian D XX perhaps

originated as a separate booklet, hinting that this may have been a
common form for working pastoral books. 106 Such handy collections
may have been particularly vulnerable to the ravages of time.
Episcopal and parochial uses need not be considered as in opposition. Pastoral issues were very much at the forefront of episcopal concerns in the late tenth and early eleventh centuries. lfrics two series
of Catholic Homilies were written for Archbishop Sigeric of Canterbury, and other episcopal scriptoria such as Rochester and Worcester,
played a major role in the dissemination of lfrics homilies. 107 The
concern of bishops for the regulation of priests and parochial work can
be seen in the production of episcopal statutes and related texts. lfric
composed pastoral letters for Bishop Wulfsige of Sherborne and
Archbishop Wulfstan of York which include rulings for the diocesan
clergy.108 Wulfstan himself produced his own set, the Canons of Edgar,
and the circulation and translation of the Capitula of Theodulf of
Orlans should be added to this list.109 New collections of canon law
were developed: Wulfstans compilation of the Worcester Canon Law
Collection may also have been assisted by lfric and a prototype of this
collection can be found in Bodley 718, a manuscript which I have
tentatively associated with Archbishop Dunstan.
The late tenth and early eleventh centuries saw a real revival of
pastoral care, characterized by the production of Old English texts.
Bishops were the initiators of this renaissance. It is highly likely that the
assemblages of penitential and canonical texts found in episcopal manuscripts outlined above did have an impact on the local clergy. lfrics
catalogue of manuscripts which every priest should possess may have
been a wish list but he was writing for those most concerned to make
his rulings effective. One thinks here of Laud misc. 482, a cathedral
106
107
108
109
P.R. Robinson, Self-Contained Units in Composite Manuscripts of the Anglo-Saxon Period,

ASE 7 (1978), pp. 2318. On liturgical libelli, see Rasmussen, Clbration piscopale et
clbration presbytrale, pp. 5869; and on penitential booklets see Frantzen, Literature,
pp. 58 and 72.
Godden (ed.), lfrics Catholic Homilies, II, pp. lxvii and Clemoes (ed.), lfrics Catholic
Homilies, pp. 1628. See also the comments on the Canterbury dissemination by Wilcox,
lfric in Dorset, p. 61. Elaine Treharne has drawn attention to the role of monastic cathedrals in the production of vernacular manuscripts c.10501200, see her Producing a Library
in Late Anglo-Saxon Exeter, 10501072, Review of English Studies 54 (2003), pp. 15572, esp.
p. 168 and see her The Bishops Book: Leofrics Homiliary and Eleventh-Century Exeter
(forthcoming). I am most grateful to Prof. Treharne for allowing me to see this ahead of
publication. These issues will be pursued further in my Penance and Penitentials.
Hirtenbriefe, ed. Fehr. See J. Hill, Monastic Reform and the Secular Church: lfrics Pastoral Letters in Context, in C. Hicks (ed.), England in the Eleventh Century (Stamford, 1992),
pp. 10317.
H. Sauer, Theodul Capitula in England. Die altenglischen bersetzungen, zusammen mit dem
lateinischen Text, Mnchener universitts-Schriften, Texte und Untersuchungen zur Englischen Philologie 8 (Munich, 1978).
63
book, which combines Old English penitential texts with Latin liturgy
a thoroughly practical book drawing in part upon texts collected by
Wulfstan. This seems to represent a sort of trickle-down from archiepiscopal compilations to pastoral work, whether among the clergy or
out amongst the laity. The pastoral concerns of the later tenth and
eleventh centuries, however, were no sudden growth: the close relationship between penance and secular law seen in Alfreds code and the
earlier tenth-century evidence for vernacular penitential texts shows
how deep-rooted penance was in Anglo-Saxon religious culture. The
wealth of evidence in later Saxon England attests to an active pastoral
church which perceived penance to be central to its work.
Centre for Medieval Studies, University of York
Penitentials in south and central Italian

canon law manuscripts of the tenth
and eleventh centuries
R E . R
This article outlines the evidence for penance in pre-Gratian canon law
manuscripts from southern and central Italy. It includes a handlist of
those canon law collections compiled in this area between the tenth and
the twelfth centuries which include penitential materials, divided into
those manuscripts which were dependent on the south Italian Collection
in Five Books, and those which were were not.
In her recent excellent study, The Practice of Penance, 9001050, Sarah
Hamilton emphasizes the importance of canon law collections as transmitters of penitential canons and penitential discipline. 1 For her time
period she rightly dwells on the penitential discipline represented in the
Libri duo de synodalibus causis of Regino of Prm and Book 19, the
Corrector sive Medicus, of the Decretum of Burchard of Worms. She
rarely touches, however, on penitential discipline represented in the
contemporary canonical collections compiled in southern and central
Italy. This lacuna is noticeable in light of her extensive analysis of
Italian forms of the Ponticale Romano-Germanicum and other liturgical
books that contain penitential material. While this present paper cannot go into the ne analysis of penance of Sarah Hamiltons book, it
can at least present a catalogue of the canon law collections from southern and central Italy before Gratian that do have penitential material
and make a few comments about them.
In the appendix attached to this article there is a list of manuscripts
from the tenth to the twelfth century from southern and central Italy
containing penitential materials. It should be noted that the materials
*
1
Portions of the research for this article were conducted for the programme Monumenta
Liturgica Beneventana supported by the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council
of Canada.
Sarah Hamilton, The Practice of Penance, 9001050 (Rochester, NY, 2001).

66
Roger E. Reynolds
are divided according to those manuscripts that are not dependent on

the south Italian Collection in Five Books, and those which are. This
article will follow the same distinction. In the rst of these two sections
the manuscripts are listed in approximately chronological order. Most
of the manuscripts are written in the south Italian Beneventan script or,
if they are in other hands such as Romanesca, they often display symptoms
of Beneventan script such as question marks, abbreviations and the like.
There are, though, some manuscripts that are not in Beneventan script
and bear no traces of Beneventan symptoms but that are related to
south Italian texts and hence can be treated here. We turn then to the
manuscripts and some of their peculiarities and characteristics.
One of the oldest, or perhaps the oldest, of the manuscripts with
penitential material from our region, is now in the Archivio della Badia
of Monte Cassino, MS 439. In a colloquium held several years ago in
Dublin, it was noted that the manuscript contains an excerpt from the
Collectio canonum hibernensis.2 It was not pointed out, however, that the
texts in this excerpt on monks are ordered in a similar way to the same
texts in the south Italian Collection in Nine Books and Collection in Five
Books. Although now at Monte Cassino, the manuscript was almost
certainly written in the vicinity of Siponto. The manuscript contains an
extraordinary orilegium of canonistic works, and a text entitled De
remediis peccatorum attributed to Egbert of York.3
As old as this Siponto manuscript is another at Monte Cassino, MS
554, also written in the tenth century in southern Italy. This manuscript
is well known for its text of the ninth-century Collectio Dacheriana,
which contains penitential material. But beyond this, it includes the socalled Penitential in Two Books also found in the perhaps north Italian
manuscript Vienna, sterreichische Nationalbibliothek, 2231 of the late
ninth or early tenth century with its many texts from the so-called
Paenitentiale Romanum. Raymund Kottje has pointed out that the reconciliation ordo in these two manuscripts is like that of the Ponticale
Romano-Germanicum and outside of that pontical is known only in
these two manuscripts.4
One of the manuscripts used by Sarah Hamilton in her study is
Vatican, Archivio San Pietro, H 58. This fascinating work, begging for
2
See my Transmission of the Collectio canonum hibernensis in Italy from the Tenth to the
Twelfth Century, Peritia 14 (2000), p. 25.
pp. 23740; cf. H. Wasserschleben, Die Bussordnungen der abendlndischen Kirche (Halle, 1851;
repr. Graz, 1958) pp. 2313 and 249 ff., and H.J. Schmitz, Die Bussbcher und die Bussdisciplin
der Kirche, 2 vols (Mainz, 1883 and Dsseldorf, 1898; repr. Graz, 1958) II, pp. 6613. The
manuscript was unknown to R. Haggenmller, Die berlieferung der Beda und Egbert zugeschriebenen Bubcher (Frankfurt a.M. and Berne, 1991).
Raymund Kottje, Die Bussbcher Halitgars von Cambrai und des Hrabanus Maurus: ihre
berlieferung und ihre Quellen, Beitrge zur Geschichte und Quellenkunde des Mittelalters 8
(Berlin and New York, 1980), p. 18.
Penitentials in Italian canon law manuscripts
67
a thorough study, is actually a Liber ofcialis with a vast array of texts,

both canonistic and liturgical.5 The manuscript itself, was, according to
Bernhard Bischoff, written in Rome c.1000,6 but it is especially interesting for its south Italian symptoms. It has distinctive south Italian
interrogation marks; it contains texts like those found in the later Collection in Five Books;7 and it was long ago noted by hagiographers that
the martyrology of the Liber ofcialis is related to those of Benevento.8
But of special interest is the penitential material. Raymund Kottje observed
that the manuscript has both the letters of Ebo and Halitgar as well as
Books 35 of Halitgars penitential itself. Moreover, he noted the unusal
Ordo ad dandam poenitentiam, which Sarah Hamilton has studied. But
perhaps the most unusual text is a little penitential that Ludger Krntgen
describes as possibly the oldest penitential of the Roman church. 9
Like the Collection of San Pietro H 58 the Collection of London, British
Library, Addit. 16413 contains a mlange of liturgical and canonistic texts
antedating the eleventh century. The codex itself, however, was written
in the early eleventh century in the Beneventan script of south Italy, and
thus should be included among eleventh-century compilations. Like the
Collection of San Pietro H 58 there is both penitential and canonistic
material in the manuscript. Among the former are sections from ve penitentials, including the Paenitentiale Egberti, Iudicium Theodori (Discipulus
Umbrensium), Paenitentiale Cummeani (Praefatio), and the Capitula
Iudiciorum, studied by Letha Bhringer.10 Moreover, there is a sermon
on penance and the widely disseminated instruction Quotienscumque.
5
8
9
10
On this manuscript see my, Excerpta from the Collectio Hibernensis in Three Vatican Manuscripts, Bulletin of Medieval Canon Law, ns 5 (1975), pp. 110 and The Ordinals of Christ from
their Origins to the Twelfth Century (Berlin and New York, 1978), p. 113 ff. Also Pierre Salmon,
Un Libellus ofcialis du XIe sicle, Revue Bndictine 87 (1977), pp. 25788 and idem, Un
temoin de la vie chretienne dans une glise de Rome au Xie sicle, Rivista de storia della chiesa
in Italia 33 (1979), pp. 6573. See also P. Supino Martini as in n. 39 below.
For Bischoffs date see my Unity and Diversity in Carolingian Canon Law Collections: The
Case of the Collectio Hibernensis and its Derivatives, in U.-R. Blumenthal (ed.), Carolingian
Essays: Andrew W. Mellon Lectures in Early Christian Studies (Washington, DC, 1983), p. 135,
n. 220, reprinted in R.E. Reynolds, Law and Liturgy in the Latin Church, 5th12th Centuries
(London, 1994), Nr. IV.
Roger Reynolds, A South Italian Liturgico-Canonical Mass Commentary, Mediaeval Studies
50 (1988), pp. 66070.
See Henri Quentin, Les martyrologies historiques du moyen ge (Paris, 1908), p. 41.
Kottje, Die Bussbcher Halitgars, p. 56; L. Krntgen, Ein italienisches Bussbuch und seine
Frnkischen Quellen; Das anonyme Paenitentiale der Handschrift Vatikan, Arch. S. Pietro H
58, in Aus Archiven und Bibliotheken: Studien zum Recht und zur Kirchengeschichte des Mittelalters:
Festschrift fr Raymund Kottje zum 65. Geburtstag, ed. H. Mordek (Freiburger Beitrge zur
mittelalterliche Geschichte 3) (Bern, Frankfurt am Main, Las Vegas, 1991), pp. 189205.
L. Mahadevan, berlieferung und Verbreitung des Bussbuch Capitula Iudiciorum ,
Zeitschrift der Savigny-Stiftung fr Rechtsgeschichte, Kanonistische Abteilung 72 (1986), pp. 17
75. On this manuscript and its contents see my South and Central Italian Canonical
Collections of the Tenth and Eleventh Centuries (non-Gregorian), in W. Hartmann and
K. Pennington (eds), The History of Canon Law in the Age of Reform, 10001140 (Washington,
D.C., in press since 1993).
68
Roger E. Reynolds
Because of the wealth of its material, the codex, Rome, Biblioteca

Vallicelliana, Tome XVIII (sometimes incorrectly designated as Tome
A 18) is one of the most celebrated of early medieval canonistic manuscripts. Details of its rich contents have been described (by Fournier, 11 and
in the modern catalogue of the Tomi in the Biblioteca Vallicelliana 12),
and also discrete sections (such as the early portions of the manuscript
by Raymund Kottje13 and the central sections by Jean Pozzi). 14 Even in
the late nineteenth century it was recognized that the codex, although
written largely in a Carolingian or Romanesca hand, also contained
sections in Beneventan script, a fact E.A. Lowe overlooked in his 1914
study but later noted in his new handlist of Beneventan-script
codices.15 Numerous entries in Beneventan hands noted since Lowes
description now demonstrate that at least three scribes who copied the
codex could change from one script to the other without difculty. 16
Moreover, the Beneventan script is now dated to the eleventh century.
Unlike the Collection of San Pietro H 58 and the Collection of London,
BL Addit. 16413, which had only blocks of canonistic materials from
known compilations, the Collection of Vallicelliana Tome XVIII contains
a number of rather complete collections together with excerpts from
others lling the chinks. Among the best-known in the manuscript are
the Concordia Cresconii, Collection in 72 Chapters, Collectio canonum
hibernensis in the B or longer version, the small collection known by its
incipit as Incipit de episcoporum transmigratione, and a large farraginous
collection of 448 texts (although thirty of these are missing at the end
of the now mutilated manuscript). 17 But sandwiched in among these
is one penitential, the Penitentiale Halitgarii, sections from Books 3
through 5.18
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
P. Fournier, Un groupe de recueils canoniques italiens du Xe et XIe sicles, Mmoires de

lInstitut national de France, Acadmie des inscriptions et belles letters 40 (1916), pp. 21441.
Catalogo dei manoscritti della Biblioteca Vallicelliana 1, eds Anna Maria Giorgetti Vichi and
Sergio Mottironi, Indici e cataloghi, ns 7 (Rome, 1961), pp. 24352.
Kottje, Die Bussbcher Halitgars, pp. 56 ff., who opts for a tenth-century date and places the
codex in central Italy in the vicinity of Rome.
G. Pozzi, Le manuscrit tomus XVIIIus de la Vallicelliana et le libelle De episcoporum
transmigratione et quod non temere iudicentur regule quadraginta quattuor , Apollinaris 31
(1958), pp. 31350.
The Beneventan Script: A History of the South Italian Minuscule (Oxford, 1914) and A New
List of Beneventan Manuscripts, Collectanea vaticana in honorem Anselmi M. Card. Albareda
a Bibliotheca Apostolica edita, Studi e Testi 220 (Vatican City, 1962), p. 233.
For the Beneventan hands and an eleventh-century date, see E.A. Loew, The Beneventan
Script: A History of the South Italian Minuscule, 2nd enlarged edition prepared by Virginia
Brown, 2 vols, Sussidi eruditi 334 (Rome, 1980), II, p. 131; and my Odilo and the Treuga
Dei in Southern Italy: A Beneventan Manuscript Fragment, Mediaeval Studies 46 (1984),
p. 454, n. 25 and literature therein.
On the various collections in this manuscript see my Canonistica Beneventana, in P. Landau
and J. Mller (eds), Proceedings of the Ninth International Congress of Medieval Canon Law,
Munich, 1318 July 1992, Monumenta Iuris Canonici, ser. C, Subsidia (Vatican, 1997), pp. 2140.
Kottje, Die Bussbcher Halitgars, pp. 659.
69
The eleventh-century collections described thus far were fairly disorganized. With the Collection in Nine Books we meet a compilation at
least arranged into specic books, although the contents of each can be
somewhat disordered.19 There is only one manuscript: Vatican City,
Biblioteca Apostolica Vaticana, Vat. lat. 1349. 20 This codex, one of substantial proportions, was written in Beneventan script in the eleventh
century, although there have been claims (by non-specialists in the
script) that it was written as early as the ninth. The script itself is not
of the Bari or Dalmatian type of Beneventan script, nor does it have
characteristics of the type written in the Abruzzi. Therefore, the codex
was presumably copied in the area where classical Beneventan script
was written, that is, the area south of Rome reaching down to the
southern boundaries of the Campania. The manuscript, prominent in
the Latin fondo of the Vatican Library, has often been described, and
the preface to the collection and the capitulationes of each book were
published by Ma and later entered into the Patrologia latina.21 Also,
some of the penitential material was edited by Schmitz. 22
Of special interest in the Collection in Nine Books are Books 8 and 9.
Book 8 bears a title reminiscent of the Collectio Dacheriana, De utilitate
penitentie, and the canons deal with general precepts regarding penance
and reconciliation. Book 9 is largely a conglomeration of texts drawn
from older penitentials, primarily the Paenitentiale Pseudo-Gregorii
III, Capitula Iudiciorum, Paenitentiale Casinense, and Paenitentiale
Vallicellianum II. That material from these penitentials is used in the
Collection in Nine Books is not surprising since evidence suggests they
were all known in southern Italy. First, Franz Kerff has speculated that
a copy of the Paenitentiale Pseudo-Gregorii III may have been in the
Collection of Vallicelliana Tome XVIII before it was mutilated. 23 This
is indicated by a capitulatio (Item excerpta de canonibus) in the list
of 452 capitulationes, and also by the fact that the penitential appears
in the manuscript, Rome, Biblioteca Casanatense, 2010, the eleventhcentury codex from Farfa or Rome containing other material found
elsewhere only in the Collection of Vallicelliana Tome XVIII. Second, we
have already found the Capitula Iudiciorum in the Beneventan-script
Collection of London, BL Addit. 16413. Third, the Paenitentiale Casinense
is contained in the eleventh-century Beneventan-script codex of the
19
20
21
22
23
On this text see Adriaan Gaastra, Penance and the Law: The Penitential Canons of the
Collection in Nine Books, elsewhere in this volume.
See my South and Central Italian Canonical Collections of the Tenth and Eleventh Centuries (non-Gregorian).
A. Angelo Ma, Spicilegium Romanum (Rome, 1841) 6, pp. 396472 (PL 138, cols. 397 442).
Schmitz, Die Bussbcher, II, pp. 20913.
Franz Kerff, Das Paenitentiale Pseudo-Gregorii III. Ein Zeugnis karolingischer Reformbestrebungen,
Zeitschrift der Savigny-Stiftung fr Rechtsgeschichte, Kanonistische Abteilung 69 (1983), p. 55.
70
Roger E. Reynolds
Casinese dependency, San Nicola di Cicogna (Monte Cassino, Archivio

della Badia, 372), containing the Collectio vetus gallica.24 And nally,
there is the Paenitentiale Vallicellianum II, appearing in the codex,
Rome, Biblioteca Vallicelliana, C 6. This manuscript was written in the
late eleventh century in Romanesca script at the abbey of SantEutizio
presso Norcia. The scribes at this central Italian monastery copied many
south Italian texts (including the south Italian Collection in Five Books),
and hence it is quite possible that the Paenitentiale Vallicellianum II was
known in southern Italy.
The manuscript, Monte Cassino 372, written in the beginning of the
eleventh century in Beneventan script for the Casinese dependency San
Nicolo di Cigcogna, is now known primarily for its text identied by
Hubert Mordek as Collectio vetus gallica. Long before this identication,
however, the manuscript was noted for its penitential, the so-called
Poenitentiale Casinense,25 whose contents we have found reected in
several other eleventh-century canonical collections.
Of all of the penitential books of the tenth through the twelfth
century (and even beyond), none surpassed in popularity Book 19, the
Corrector sive Medicus of Burchards Decretum.26 Although it is generally
thought of as a northern penitential, it appears to have been popular in
southern and central Italy as early as the 1030s, as we know from central
Italian manuscript catalogues of this decade. 27 In the appendix to this
article the large number of manuscripts from central and southern Italy
with the Decretum Burchardi can be seen.
As noted above, the Collectio Dacheriana was known in southern Italy
as early as the tenth century, as evidenced in Monte Cassino MS 554.
The popularity of this collection continued into the eleventh century,
where it was combined with texts of the Quadripartitus in the manuscript Monte Cassino 541 and the related manuscript model, Vatican,
BAV, Vat. lat. 1347, which was actually written in the ninth century at
Rheims and corrected in Beneventan script of the eleventh century. 28
The Quadripartitus, which is one of the great penitential/canon law
collections of the ninth century is also contained in a central Italian
codex of the later eleventh century, Vatican, BAV, Vat. lat. 1352. Franz
Kerff has stressed the multiple penitential canons from the Dacheriana
24
25
26
27
28
On which see Hubert Mordek, Kirchenrecht und Reform im Frankenreich: Die Collectio Vetus
Gallica, die lteste systematische Kanonensammlung des frnkischen Gallien: Studien und Edition,
Beitrge zur Geschichte und Quellenkunde des Mittelalters 1 (Berlin and New York, 1975).
Schmitz, Die Bussbcher, I, pp. 397432.
For this text see Ludger Krntgen in this volume.
On this see my The Collectio canonum Casinensis duodecim saeculi (Codex terscriptus) A
Derivative of the South-Italian Collection in Five Books: An Implicit Edition with Introductory
Study, Monumenta Liturgica Beneventana 3, Studies and Texts 137 (Toronto, 2000), pp. 12.
See my Canonistica Beneventana, pp. 2140.
71
and Halitgars penitentials, but there are also occasional citations from
such penitentials as Ps-Egbert and the Excarpsus Cummeani.29 This
Vatican manuscript is interesting also in that it contains excerpts from
Book 19 of the Decretum Burchardi.
A further manuscript from the south of Italy with penitential material that is not related to the Collection in Five Books is found in a codex
now kept in the Biblioteca Statale of Lucca, MS 1781. Written in Beneventan script, it was clearly compiled for, and written in, ValvaSulmona. It is lled with ordines of use to a parish priest, and inserted
into these is a short penitential of tariff penances. This rituale and its penitential canons have recently been edited for the rst time by Neil Roy. 30
A nal manuscript with penitential canons has recently been discovered at Monte Cassino, Archivio della Badia, MS 153. It is a palimpsest manuscript with the upper texts, written in Beneventan script,
comprising Amalarius of Metzs Liber ofcialis and Epistolae I-VI. The
abbeys medieval monks, known for their thoroughness in erasing texts,
left little of the lower one legible, but it clearly contains prayers, canonical
material such as the Statuta ecclesiae antiqua, and penitential canons.
Except for the duration of penances, little of these last can be read.
The Collection in Five Books

Like the Collection in Nine Books, and for much the same reasons, the
Collection in Five Books has often been studied, described, and partially
edited. The fullest study continues to be that by Fournier. 31 In 1970
Mario Fornasari published an edition of the rst three books of the
collection, which, although useful, is so badly awed that the projected
edition of the last two books, so important for the study of penitential
material, was never published, and a new edition of the complete collection is necessary.32 A decade ago Book 4 of the Collection in Five
Books was addressed and partially edited in a dissertation written in
Rome, but this has never been published.
29
30
31
32
Franz Kerff, Der Quadripartitus: Ein Handbuch der karolingischen Kirchenreform: berlieferung, Quellen und Rezeption, Quellen und Forschungen zum mittelalterlichen Recht 1
(Sigmaringen, 1982), pp. 957.
Neil Roy, The Ritual of Valva-Sulmona (Lucca. Biblioteca Statale 1781): A Twelfth-Century
Collection of Ordines in Beneventan Script. A Diplomatic Edition with Introductory Study
and Notes (diss. Toronto, 2001).
Paul Fournier, De linuence de la collection irlandaise sur la formation des collections
canoniques, Nouvelle Revue historique de droit francais et tranger 23 (1899), pp. 2778; and
Un groupe de recueils canoniques italiens du Xe et XIe sicles, pp. 21441.
M. Fornasari, Collectio Canonum in V libris (Lib. iiii), CCCM 6 (Turnhout, 1970); and
see the critiques by Grard Fransen, Principes ddition des collections canoniques, Revue
dhistoire ecclsiastique 66 (1971), pp. 12536; and Hubert Mordek, Anzeigen, Zeitschrift fr
Rechtsgeschichte, Kanonistische Abteilung 60 (1974), p. 477.
72
Roger E. Reynolds
The Collection in Five Books is contained, either in whole or in part,

in three codices: Monte Cassino, Archivio della Badia 125; Vatican,
BAV, Vat. lat. 1339; and Rome, Biblioteca Vallicelliana, B 11. It must
be stressed that none of the three extant manuscripts is a copy of either
of the others. Also, all of the manuscripts are of large format and would
have been used for reference, not for actual penitential practice.
Although it has long been known that the collection is in two forms, a
long and a short (and there is disagreement as to which codex contains
which form), there is a plethora of variants which make suspect any
claim that one of the codices is a direct copy of the others or even of
the original manuscript of the collection. Moreover, even though the
form in the Vallicelliana manuscript is shorter than the other two, this
codex contains many texts that the others lack. The disparate origins of
these three extant manuscripts make it still more unlikely that any one
is a direct copy of either of the others, although certainly they could
have travelled.
Again, like the Collection in Nine Books, the Collection in Five Books
begins with a series of prefaces, one of which states that the compilation
is made for the love of a certain Lupus. The preface emphasizes the
penitential and medicinal nature of the work, perhaps a reference to
the markedly penitential Books 4 and 5. The succeeding prefaces to the
collection are simply extracts from the Paenitentiale Pseudo-Gregorii III
and the Pseudo-Isidorian Decretals. The fourth preface states that the
collections regulations are for the improvement of the lives of clerics,
deals with the division in ve books, and summarily presents material
to be found in Book 1. Thereafter the capitulationes of Book 1 are given.
As mentioned above, of special interest in the study of penitentials
are Books 4 and 5. Book 4 begins with a short preface, which lists the
subdivisions of topics, and the capitulationes. Then follow canons on
the utility of penance, deathbed penance, homicide, lies and false testimony, reciprocal duties of parents and children, violence and rapine,
oaths and perjury, love and hate, drunkenness, debts, pledges and
usury, abstinence from meat and wine, impure foods, eucharistic
abuses, fasting and ember days, alms, hospitality, prayer, and the eight
capital sins. After a similar preface giving subdivisions and capitulationes Book 5 contains canons on marriage, seduction, widows and
remarriage, concubinage, adultery and fornication, indissolubility of
marriage, rights and duties of spouses, sodomy, bestiality and other sins
of the esh, unions between freemen and slaves, and incest.
In the Monte Cassino and Vallicelliana codices, there is an epilogue
or colophon stating that a wandering frater has caused the collection
to be compiled for the healing of wounds and the restoration of the
lapsed, thereby stressing its penitential nature.
73
Derivatives of the Collection in Five Books

For Paul Fournier the surest sign of the signicance of the Collection in
Five Books in the history of canon law was its inuence on later collections; and he was able to list over a dozen, each in a single codex.
His conclusions have been conrmed over the years as more derivatives
and excerpta have been discovered and reported. 33 The variety of this
material is wide indeed and it may be classied according to several
broad categories (which were detailed in the Dublin colloquium on the
Collectio canonum hibernensis), although individual derivatives may
fall within several categories. First, there are what may be styled as an
abbreviated type of derivative. There are two forms of this type; one in
which the basic sequence of canons in the Collection in Five Books is
followed, the other where the canons are spread over more than ve
books and are at times arranged according to the divisional rubrics of
the Collection in Five Books itself. Second, there are derivative collections of a farraginous type in which the canons of the Collection in Five
Books are thrown together helter-skelter or combined with canons from
other collections in little or no discernible order. Third, there are those
collections in which material from the Collection in Five Books is combined with material from Burchards Decretum, especially the penitential Corrector. A fourth type consists of canons from the Collection in
Five Books combined or attached to canons or collections of the Gregorian reform, especially the Collection in 74 Titles. Finally, there are
derivative collections where canons from the Collection in Five Books are
associated with liturgical material, either formulaic or expositional or both.
Abbreviated derivatives
There are six collections of abbreviations of the Collection in Five Books
that contain material from the penitential Books 4 and 5. The rst of
these is the Collection of Naples, Biblioteca Nazionale Vittorio Emanuele
III, XII A 28, written probably in the mid-eleventh century in a central
Italian hand. It is divided into ve books, and each book has a list of
capitulationes followed by a reduced number of texts from the Collection
in Five Books, generally arranged according to that sequence. It is particularly interesting to see how many canons are maintained from
Books 4 and 5: the Collection of Naples Book 4 contains 127 canons out
of 444 from the Collection in Five Books; and Book 5 contains 96 canons
out of the originals 231.
33
Roger Reynolds, The South-Italian Canon Law Collection in Five Books and its Derivatives:
New Evidence on its Origins, Diffusion, and Use, Mediaeval Studies 52 (1990), pp. 27895.
74
Roger E. Reynolds
The Collection of Madrid now found in codex Madrid, Biblioteca

Nacional, 373 (olim A.151), is a twelfth-century manuscript with a
number of sections; the derivative of the Collection in Five Books is
found on the rst eight quires. Like the Collection of Naples, it is in a
small, handbook-sized codex, i.e., a pastoral manual; and like many
canonical compilations written in Beneventan script, this codex has a
mixture of Carolingian and Beneventan-script hands. It is divided into
four books, each with its own list of capitulationes. There may have
been a fth book, but as the text breaks off in Book 4 it is impossible
to state this with certainty. After a list of 171 capitulationes, canons from
Book 4 of the Collection in Five Books follow as far as one concerning
the imposition of hands on a penitent, where the text ends.
The Collection of Rieti is found now in a small codex, Rieti, Archivio
Capitolare, 5, written in Beneventan script in the eleventh century. It
is mutilated at the beginning and end. The canons are extracts from
Books 3 through 5 of the Collection in Five Books, and they generally
follow the same arrangement.
The Collectio Riccardiana found in the codex Florence, Biblioteca
Riccardiana 300, a small handbook was written in central Italy in the
later eleventh century. It is of the second type of abbreviated derivative
in which the canons from the Collection in Five Books are spread over a
wide number of books, some of which are simply the divisional rubrics
of the original. According to the early description of the codex by
J. Lamius, the canonical collection is said to be of seventeen books
or parts.34 In the codex itself the books are not so numbered, but the
canons collected under the divisional rubrics can be styled as books or
parts. The arrangement of the canons in this collection does not follow
the order of canons in the Collection in Five Books as closely as, for
example, the Collection of Naples; and canons from later books of the
Collection in Five Books, particularly the penitential canons, are inserted
into sequences of canons from earlier books. Nonetheless, the collection
is not a farraginous one in the line of the Collection of Vallicelliana
Tome XXI, to be considered below. Canons from all of the books of the
Collection in Five Books are included in the Collectio Riccardiana, but
there are particularly heavy borrowings from Book 5.
Collectio Angelica (Rome, Biblioteca Angelica, 1447)
Although the Collectio Angelica is considered here as a derivative of the
Collection in Five Books, it has been noted that it may be related to one
of the sources of the Collection in Five Books or a derivative of a now
34
J. Lamius, Catalogus codicum manuscriptorum qui in Bibliotheca Riccardiana Florentina adservantur (Livorno, 1756), p. 129 ff.
75
lost longer redaction of this manuscript. 35 The collection itself, written

over a palimpsest manuscript of the eleventh century, was copied in the
late eleventh or early twelfth century in central Italy. It originally contained at least thirteen books; since the codex has been mutilated at
both the beginning and end, it is not certain if there were more. The
title for each book generally reproduces several of the divisional rubrics
in the Collection in Five Books. Canons from Books 6 through 10 in the
Collectio Angelica are from Book 4 of the Collection in Five Books; and
canons from Book 12 in the Collectio Angelica are from Books 4 and 5
of the Collection in Five Books.
In the manuscript collection of membra disiecta in the Rijksarchief in
Maastricht, there are two bifolia containing an excerptum from the
Collection in Five Books or a related collection and numbered as R.A.
Limburg 18.A. Collectie Handschriften Cat. nr. 196. 36 The size of the
bifolia is rather small, like many of the collections deriving from the
Collection in Five Books, and the script is an Italian Romanesca of
the second half of the eleventh century. In the second bifolium there
are penitential canons drawn from Book 4 of the Collection in Five Books
on baptism of infants, infanticide, contraception and abortion, and oaths.
Farraginous collections
The rst farraginous derivative of the Collection in Five Books, the
Collection of Vallicelliana Tome XXI, is found within a miscellaneous
manuscript, Rome, Biblioteca Vallicelliana, Tome XXI. 37 The text of the
derivative was printed in part in the modern catalogue of the Tomi of the
Vallicelliana, but regrettably the cataloguers failed to recognize the source
of the texts and thus reproduced largely those that were rubricated or
capitalized, passing over in silence many that are found in the Collection
in Five Books as separate canons. Supino Martini dated the section of
the codex with the derivative material to the late eleventh or early twelfth
century and lists it among manuscripts non localazzati. 38 But many
palaeographical features of the quires on which the collection appears,
35
36
37
38
Reynolds, The South-Italian Canon Law Collection in Five Books and its Derivatives,
pp. 27895.
On this manuscript fragment and its contents see my The South Italian Collection in Five
Books and Its Derivatives: Maastricht Excerpta, Miscellanea Beneventana: Juridica, Mediaeval
Studies 58 (1996), pp. 27384.
On this manuscript and its collection see my The South-Italian Collection in Five Books and
its Derivatives: the Collection of Vallicelliana Tome XXI , in S. Chodorow (ed.), Proceedings of
the Eighth International Congress of Medieval Canon Law: San Diego, University of California
at La Jolla, 2127 August 1988, Monumenta Iuris Canonici, ser. C, Subsidia 9 (Vatican, 1991),
pp. 7792.
See Paola Supino Martini, Roma e larea graca romanesca (secoli XXII), Biblioteca di Scrittura e civilt l (Alessandria, 1987), p. 72 ff., where she treats it under San Pietro.
76
Roger E. Reynolds
as well as peculiarities of the litanies that precede it, all point to SantEutizio
presso Norcia or a closely related house. It is clear that the excerptor drew
most heavily from Book 4 of the Collection in Five Books, and hence,
like many of the other derivatives, it is heavily penitential in character.
Collection of Veroli
This collection from Veroli, now in the codex Rome, Biblioteca Vallicelliana, B 32, was written in Beneventan script between c.1059 and
1070. Preceding the collection, the codex contains a martyrology, the
Institutio canonicorum of 816/817, and several papal texts. The collection
itself is a farraginous one, drawing texts from the Collectio canonum
hibernensis and the Collection in Five Books, including Book 5.
Derivatives of the Collection in Five Books combined with Burchards
Decretum
One of the most interesting features of the derivative texts is how
compatible the Collection in Five Books was with the Corrector of Burchard of Worms. The two works seem to have had a mutual afnity,
not only because they were both penitential in character, but also
because they were complementary; that is, the Collection in Five Books
had early Greek patristic material not available in other Latin sources
as well as a wide range of conciliar, synodal and other authoritative
texts, while the Corrector gave an explicit list of sins together with a
clear statement of penalties. The fact that there are only three known
complete or nearly complete manuscripts of the Collection in Five Books
compared with twenty-ve derivative texts, shows that it was considered
more useful in combination than alone.
Collectio Toletana
This compilation is a good example of how the Collection in Five Books took
on a utility when combined with the Corrector that makes the derivative
collections the vade-mecums the Collection in Five Books never was in
its own right. The codex (Toledo, Archivo y Biblioteca Capitulares, 2232)
is small, and the repairs to the top outside corner of many folios show
how the parchment has been worn away by frequent thumbing. The volume
was, indeed, made for pastoral use. The collection of canons was rst
brought to the attention of modern scholars by Antonio Garca y Garca
in 1965, and again in more detail in 1967. 39 He pointed out that the
39
Antonio Garca y Garca, Los manuscritos jurdicos medievales de la cathedral de Toledo,

Traditio 21 (1965), p. 512; and Canonistica Hispanica (II), Traditio 23 (1967), pp. 5045.
77
manuscript, which had been catalogued among the theological material

in the Cathedral of Toledo, was in fact a rare penitential collection using
Burchards Corrector and other well-known texts, which he did not
identify but can now be shown to be from the Collection in Five Books.40
Of the 376 canons of the Collectio Toletana, 232 are from the Collection in Five Books. By far the greatest number, 108, come from Book 4,
and Book 5 contributes 45. Burchards Decretum, on the other hand,
supplies 142 canons, of which 135 are from the Corrector. The overall
character of the Collectio Toletana is clearly penitential. The complete
absence of canons from Book 1 of the Collection in Five Books shows the
compiler to have been little interested in matters of ecclesiastical administration. He is chiey concerned with the nature of penance, sexual
offences of various types, oaths and perjury, murder and manslaughter,
fasting, theft, baptism, tithes, and pagan superstitions. Many canons refer
specically to the conduct of clerics and a few are directed to monks.
Collection of Vallicelliana F 2
This collection is in a codex copied by a central Italian hand in the
second half of the eleventh century over a lower Beneventan-script
palimpsest of the eleventh century. It deals in a somewhat disorganized
way with abortion, infanticide, baptism and conrmation, perjury,
traditores, sacrilege, and so forth, down through sodomy and public
penance. The sources used by the compiler include the Collection in
Five Books, Collectio canonum hibernensis, and Burchards Corrector. Like
the Collectio Toletana, it is heavily penitential, again demonstrating the
complementarity of the penitential sections of the Collection in Five
Books and Burchards Corrector.
The manuscript in which this collection is found (Rome, Biblioteca
Vallicelliana, F 8) contains a mlange of texts in different hands. Folios
179226 are in Beneventan-script hands of the second half of the eleventh century and contain the canonical collection. There is, rst, a list
of 273 capitulationes, and these are followed by 263 canonical texts. The
rst of these are drawn from Burchards Corrector. There are also texts
deriving from the Collectio canonum hibernensis and the Collection in
Five Books, especially Book 5.
40
On this collection see the Licenciate in Medieval Studies report of John Douglas Adamson,
The Collectio Toletana: An Eleventh-Century Italian Collection of Canon Law (Toronto, 1987),
and our forthcoming joint implicit edition of the collection.
78
Roger E. Reynolds
It has long been known that this manuscript (Rome, Biblioteca Vallicelliana, F 92) contains the Paenitentiale Vallicelliana II and was written
at SantEutizio presso Norcia in the late eleventh century. 41 The beginning of the canonical collection itself, apart from the Paenitentiale Vallicelliana II, is mutilated, but the texts, which start on folio 161r, begin
with canons from the Corrector of Burchard. With folio 177v there
comes a rather disordered group of canons drawn from the Collection
in Five Books, especially Books 3 and 5. Besides its noticeable penitential
characteristics, the Collection of Vallicelliana F 92 is heavily monastic.
Collection of Santa Croce
This collection is in the manuscript, Florence, Biblioteca Medicea Laurenziana, 4.4, written in central Italy in the eleventh century, whose
provenance is the Florentine convent of Santa Croce. The collection,
from folios 142, begins with a series of canons drawn from the Collection in Five Books, especially the penitential canons of Book 5. There
are also several canons from Burchards Decretum, but these are from
Books 1 and 2, not the Corrector.
Collection of Vat. Lat. 4977
The manuscript, Vatican, BAV, lat. 4977, was written late in the eleventh century or early in the twelfth by a variety of hands and bound
somewhat haphazardly. It contains a mlange of canonistic texts. The
rst and third sections contain extracts from papal and synodical decisions reported in the Collectio Dionysio-Hadriana. But between these
two, a farraginous short collection has been entered containing canons
from the Collection in Five Books and Burchards Decretum. The canons
from the Collection in Five Books are from Books 1 and 2, and hence
deal largely with administrative, not penitential themes. Except for one
canon deriving from the Corrector, those drawn from Burchards Decretum are much the same.
Collection of Monte Cassino 216
A nal collection with a mixture of canons from the Collection in Five
Books and Burchards Decretum is found in one of the youngest
canonistic manuscripts written in Beneventan script, Monte Cassino,
41
See Fournier, Un groupe de recueils canoniques italiens du Xe et XIe sicles, p. 313.
79
Archivio della Badia, 216. The codex was produced in the late twelfth
century, and for the complexity of its codicological structure and palaeographical features it is one of the most unusual canonistic codices in
the script.42 The rst part of the collection consists largely of excerpts
drawn from the Collection in Five Books, Books 4 and 5, but penitential
material from the Corrector of Burchard is also introduced.
Extracts from the Collection in Five Books as appendices to the
Collection in Seventy-Four Titles
It is perhaps surprising that Beneventan-script codices, which were the
primary vehicle for the Collection in Five Books and its derivatives,
should also be a vehicle for one of the earliest and most popular collections of the Gregorian reform period, the Collection in Seventy-Four
Titles. In a number of codices of the Collection in Seventy-Four Titles,
material from the Collection in Five Books has been added. Indeed, in
two codices material is added as a full-blown appendix and considered
as such in the capitulationes of the Collection in Seventy-Four Titles.43
These two manuscripts are Monte Cassino, Archivio della Badia, 522,
a codex written in the twelfth century most probably at Monte Cassino;
and Florence, Biblioteca Medicea Laurenziana, 16.15, a manuscript also
written in the twelfth century, not in Beneventan but in a Carolingian
script. In both manuscripts material from the Collection in Five Books,
Book 4, on perjury and false testimony is used. There are also canons
from Burchards Decretum but not from the penitential Corrector.
In two other manuscripts of the Collection in Seventy-Four Titles,
there are texts from Books 4 and 5 of the Collection in Five Books,
although they do not function as appendices in the sense of our earlier
two manuscripts. The rst of these other codices is Rome, Biblioteca
Vallicelliana, F 54, written in a variety of Carolingian and Beneventan
hands of the late eleventh and early twelfth centuries. Hubert Mordek
has reported that this manuscript contains a text of the Poenitentiale
Vallicellianum I, which also appears in the codex Rome, Biblioteca
Vallicelliana, E 15, written in the eleventh century in Rome or southern
Italy with its Beneventan script additions. 44 But there are other extracts
in Vallicelliana F 54 described by John Gilchrist as a penitential. 45 These
canons are indeed taken from the penitential Books 4 and 5 of the
42
43
44
45
See my The Collectio canonum Casinensis duodecim saeculi (Codex terscriptus).

See my The South Italian Collection in Five Books and its Derivatives: The South Italian
Appendix to the Collection in Seventy-Four Titles, Miscellanea Beneventana, Mediaeval Studies
63 (2001), pp. 35163.
Mordek, Kirchenrecht, p. 131, n. 154.
John Gilchrist, Diversorum patrum sententie sive Collectio in LXXIV titulos digesta, Monumenta Iuris Canonici Series B: Corpus Collectionum 1 (Vatican City, 1973), p. xlviii.
80
Roger E. Reynolds
Collection in Five Books. The second of these codices with the Collection
in Seventy-Four Titles is Rome, Biblioteca Casanatense, 2010 of the late
eleventh century from Farfa or Rome. From folio 172r there is a string
of canons from the Collection in Five Books, again drawn largely from
the penitential Books 4 and 5.
Derivatives of the Collection in Five Books and liturgical texts
That the Collection in Five Books was not only a compilation of canon
law but a vast orilegium of patristic texts has often been noted by
scholars, but its place as a liturgical orilegium has been insufciently
appreciated. There are a number of codices containing liturgical texts
with material drawn from the Collection in Five Books. Only one, however, contains material from the penitential texts. This is a Missal-Ritual
now found in Rome, Biblioteca Vallicelliana, E 62, written in the early
twelfth century, perhaps in a dependency of Farfa in Narni. Following
texts that are typical of missals, rituals, and even ponticals, there is a
new quire written in a hand much like that of the liturgical portion of
the codex, inscribing what has been called a penitential. This, published
by Wasserschleben,46 is a brief text of fty-two canons drawn largely
from the liturgical Book 3 and the penitential Book 4 of the Collection
in Five Books, and deals with homicide, clerical formation, perjury,
abstinence, menstruous women, fornication, theft, oaths, Lent and fasting, the Mass, and accusations.
To conclude: in our overview of the manuscripts and collections of south
and central Italy, we have seen that the major and many minor collections
from north of the Alps were represented. Among the major penitential
collections were the Dacheriana, Quadripartitus, Halitgar, and Burchard.
Among the lesser-known were Egbert and Pseudo-Egbert, the Paenitentiale
in Two Books, the Iudicia Theodori, Pseudo-Cummean, and the Capitula
Iudiciorum. Also, worked into such compilations as the Collection in Nine
Books and Collection in Five Books were texts like Pseudo-Gregorii III.
Thus, in central and southern Italy, there was an abundance of penitential canons from the north. The peculiarities of this penitential material
from south and central Italy, the ways in which it was used, and which
canons were omitted, added or transformed, still requires detailed investigation. Such an investigation will further illuminate the penitential discipline
studied so well by Sarah Hamilton in the penitential ordines.
Pontical Institute of Mediaeval Studies, Toronto
46
Wasserschleben, Die Bussordnungen, pp. 55066.
81
Appendix
Penitentials in south and central
Italian pre-Gratian canon law manuscripts
Penitentials or penitential material independent of the Collection in
Five Books
Monte Cassino, Archivio della Badia, 439 (s. X, vic. Siponto) De remediis
peccatorum Egberti
Monte Cassino, Archivio della Badia, 554 (s. X, southern Italy) Collectio
Dacheriana, Paenitentiale in II libris
Vatican, Biblioteca Apostolica Vaticana, San Pietro H 58 (c.1000, Rome)
Paenitentiale Halitgarii and anonymous ancient Roman Paenitentiale
Krntgenianum
London, British Library, Addit. 16413 (s. XIin, southern Italy), extracts from
the Paenitentiale Egberti, Iudicium Theodori (Discipulus Umbrensium),
Paenitentiale Cummeani (Praefatio), and the Capitula iudiciorum
Rome, Biblioteca Vallicelliana, Tom. XVIII (s. XI, southern Italy) Paenitentiale Halitgarii
Monte Cassino, Archivio della Badia, 372 (s. XIin, southern Italy) Paenitentiale Casinense
Vatican, Biblioteca Apostolica Vaticana, lat. 1349 (s. XI, southern Italy) Collection in Nine Books containing a penitential section in L. 9 with canons from
the Paenitentiale Pseudo-Gregorii III, Capitula iudiciorum, Paenitentiale
Casinense, and Paenitentiale Vallicellianum II
Monte Cassino, Archivio della Badia, 541 (s. XIin, southern Italy) Collectio
Dacheriana, Quadripartitus
Vatican, Biblioteca Apostolica Vaticana, lat. 1347 (s. IXmed-3/4 [Rheims],
s.XIin [southern Italy]) Collectio Dacheriana, Quadripartitus
Vatican, Biblioteca Apostolica Vaticana, lat. 1352 (s. XI2, central Italy)
Quadripartitus and excerpts from Decretum Burchardi, L. 19
Rome, Biblioteca Vallicelliana, C 6 (s. XI ex, SantEutizio) Paenitentiale
Vallicellianum II
Monte Cassino, Archivio della Badia, 153 (s. XI, southern Italy) Unidentied penitential canons
Rome, Biblioteca Vallicelliana, B 58 (s. XI, central Italy) Paenitentiale with
excerpts from Decretum Burchardi, L. 19
Rome, Biblioteca Vallicelliana, E 15 (s. XI, central/southern Italy) Paenitentiale Vallicellianum I
Lucca, Biblioteca Statale, 1781 (s. XII, Valva-Sulmona) Rituale with penitential canons
82
Roger E. Reynolds
Central and south Italian manuscripts with the Decretum Burchardi

Bologna, Biblioteca Universitaria, 2239 (Cat. 1107) (s. XI, Italy)
Bologna, Collegio di Spagna, 37 (saec. XII1/2; Italy)
Firenza, Biblioteca Medicea Laurenziana, Calci 9 (olim 60) (s. XI 1/4;
Tuscany, provenance Pisa)
Florence, Biblioteca Medicea Laurenziana, 16.21 (s. XIXII; central Italy,
Fontibene)
Florence, Biblioteca Medicea Laurenziana, 7.1 (s. XI; Santa Croce)
[abridgement]
Florence, Biblioteca Nazionale Centrale, Conv. soppr. C.I.2777 (Badia
Fior.) (s. XIII, Italian: provenance San Giustina Padua) [excerpt]
Florence, Biblioteca Nazionale Centrale, Conv. soppr. F.IV.255 (Vallombrosia)
Florence, Biblioteca Riccardiana, 240 (s. XIXII)
Lucca, Biblioteca Capitolare, Feliniana, 124 (s. XI2, central Italy)
Lucca, Biblioteca Capitolare, Feliniana, 597 (s. XI4/4; central Italy)
Manchester, John Rylands Library of the University of Manchester, 96
(s. XII1/4; central Italy, Tuscany?)
Mantua, Biblioteca Comunale, D.IV.15 (461) (s. XIin; San Benedetto Polirone)
Modena, Biblioteca Capitolare, O.II.15 (post a. 1052, central Italy)
Monte Cassino, Archivio della Badia, 44 and 45 (s.XI, southern Italy)
Munich, Universittsbibliothek, 2 292 (s. XI2, middle Italy: Porto, Rome)
Naples, Biblioteca Nazionale Vittorio Emanuele III, Vind. lat. 23 (olim
Wien 2044) (s. XII1/4, central Italy, provenance San Giustina, Padua)
[fragment]
Paris, Bibliothque de lArsenal, 678 (s. XI; central Italy [Umbrian/
Roman]; provenance St-Aubin, Angers)
Paris, Bibliothque Nationale, lat. 3862 (Colbert 898) (s. XII2/4, central Italy)
Parma, Biblioteca Nazionale Palatina, Parm. 3777 (s. XI; Italy)
Pistoia, Archivio Capitolare del Duomo, C.125 (olim C.XII) (s. XII 1/4;
Pistoia)
Pistoia, Archivio Capitolare del Duomo, C.140 (olim C.XIII) (s. XII1/4;
Pistoia)
Prato, Biblioteca Roncioniana, Q.VIII.4 (3) (s. XII1/4; Pistoia)
Rome, Biblioteca Vallicelliana, A 20 (s. XII1/4; Umbrian/Roman)
Rome, Biblioteca Nazionale Centrale Vittorio Emmanuele II, Sessor.
CXLVII (2034) (s. XII, central Italy) [excerpts]
Rome, Biblioteca Nazionale Centrale Vittorio Emmanuele II, Varia 398
(3949) (s. XI, central Italy) [excerpt]
Vatican, Biblioteca Apostolica Vaticana, Vat. lat. 1356 (s. XIXII; middle
Italy) [fragment]
Vatican, Biblioteca Apostolica Vaticana, Vat. lat. 3809 (s. XI2; central Italy)
Vatican, Biblioteca Apostolica Vaticana, Vat. lat. 4227 (s. XI) [Book 19]
Vatican, Biblioteca Apostolica Vaticana, Vat. lat. 4880 (s. XIXII; middle Italy)
83
Vatican, Biblioteca Apostolica Vaticana, Vat. lat. 4980, fols 175 (s. XII in;
Italy) [fragment]
Vatican, Biblioteca Apostolica Vaticana, Vat. lat. 4980, fol. 76 (c.1100) [fragment]
Vatican, Biblioteca Apostolica Vaticana, lat. 4981 (s. XIII, southern Italy)
Vatican, Biblioteca Apostolica Vaticana, Vat. lat. 7790 (s. XIIin; middle Italy)
Vatican, Biblioteca Apostolica Vaticana, Vat. lat. 14731 (olim Caiazzo)
(s. XIex; Caiazzo)
Vatican, Biblioteca Apostolica Vaticana, Arch. San Pietro B. 41 (XII1/2; Italy)
[fragment]
Vatican, Biblioteca Apostolica Vaticana, Barb. lat. 1450 (s. XI; central Italy,
provenance San Salvatore di Montamiata)
Penitentials or penitential material of the south Italian Collection in

Five Books and its derivatives
The Collection in Five Books
Monte Cassino, Archivio della Badia, 125 (s. XImed, Monte Cassino), Vatican, Biblioteca Apostolica Vaticana, lat. 1339 (s. XI3/4, Farfa?), and
Rome, Biblioteca Vallicelliana, B 11 (s. XI4/4, SantEutizio) Collection in
Five Books, Preface and Books 45 with penitential material
Abbreviated derivatives
Naples, Biblioteca Nazionale Vittorio Emanuele III, XII A 28 (s. XI med,
central Italy) Collection of Naples including material from Books 4 and
5 of the Coll 5L
Madrid, Biblioteca Nacional, 373 (olim A.151) (s. XII, southern Italy) Collection of Madrid including material from Book 4 of the Coll 5L
Rieti, Archivio Capitolare, 5 (s. XI, southern Italy) Collection of Rieti including material from Books 4 and 5 of the Coll 5L
Florence, Biblioteca Riccardiana, 300 (s. XIex, central Italy) Collectio Riccardiana, including material from Books 4 and 5 of the Coll 5L
Rome, Biblioteca Angelica, 1447 (s. XI/XII, central Italy) Collectio Angelica
including material from Books 4 and 5 of the Coll 5L
Maastricht, Rijksarchief, Limburg R.A. Limburg 18.A. Collectie Handscriften
Cat. nr. 196 (s. XI2/2, central Italy) material from Book 4 of the Coll 5L
Farraginous collections
Rome, Biblioteca Vallicelliana, Tome XXI (s. XI/XII, SantEutizio) Collection
of Vallicelliana Tome XXI including material from Book 4 of the Coll 5L
Rome, Biblioteca Vallicelliana, B 32, (c.1059 1070, southern Italy) Collection of Veroli including material from Book 5 of the Coll 5L
84
Roger E. Reynolds
Derivatives of the Collection in Five Books combined with

Burchards Decretum
Toledo, Archivo y Biblioteca Capitulares, 2232 (s. XI/XII, central Italy),
Collectio Toletana including material from Books 4 and 5 of the Coll 5L
and Burchards Corrector
Rome, Biblioteca Vallicelliana, F 2 (s. XI2/2, southern and central Italy) Collection
of Vallicelliana F 2 including material from Books 4 and 5 of the Coll 5L
and Burchards Corrector
Rome, Biblioteca Vallicelliana, F 8 (s. XI2/2, southern Italy) Collection of
Vallicelliana F 8 including material especially from Book 5 of the Coll
5L and Burchards Corrector
Rome, Biblioteca Vallicelliana, F 92 (s. XIex; SantEutizio) Paenitentiale Vallicellianum II and material from Book 5 of the Coll 5L and Burchards
Corrector
Florence, Biblioteca Medicea Laurenziana, 4.4 (s. XI, central Italy) Collection
of Santa Croce containing material especially from Book 5 of the Coll 5L
Vatican, Biblioteca Apostolica Vaticana, lat. 4977 (s. XI/XII, central Italy)
Collection of Vat. Lat. 4977, including material from the Coll 5L (but not
from Books 4 and 5) and one canon from Burchards Corrector
Monte Cassino, Archivio della Badia, 216 (s. XIIex) Collectio Casinensis including material from Books 4 and 5 of the Coll 5L and Burchards Corrector
Extracts from the Collection in Five Books as appendices to the

Collection in Seventy-Four Titles
Monte Cassino, Archivio della Badia, 522 (s. XII, Monte Cassino) The Coll
74T + material from Book 4 of the Coll 5L as an appendix
Florence, Biblioteca Medicea Laurenziana, 16.15 (s. XII, central Italy) The
Coll. 74T + material from Book 4 of the Coll 5L as an appendix
Rome, Biblioteca Vallicelliana, F 54 (s. XI/XII, southern and central Italy)
Coll 74T + material from Books 4 and 5 of the Coll 5L and the Paenitentiale Vallicellianum I
Rome, Biblioteca Casanatense, 2010 (s. XI, Farfa/Rome?) Coll 74T + material from Books 4 and 5 of the Coll in 5L
Derivatives of the Collection in Five Books and liturgical texts

Rome, Biblioteca Vallicelliana, E 62 (s. XIIin, a dependency of Farfa in
Narni?) Missal-Ritual of Vallicelliana E 62 including material from Book
4 of the Coll 5L
Penance and the law: the penitential

canons of the Collection in Nine Books
A . H . G
This article examines the south Italian tenth-century Collection in Nine

Books, one of the rst Italian compilations of canon law to incorporate
a penitential handbook. It places this work in the context of other tenthcentury collections, investigating its sources, and the way in which its
compiler chose to include penitential canons. It therefore contributes to
the current debate about the purpose and function of penitentials as a
genre in this period, arguing that they were probably intended to support
the efforts of bishops to educate priests in the administration of penance.
Introduction
Early medieval texts containing a list of sins with an accompanying
penance, the libri paenitentiales or penitentials, are normally considered handbooks for confessors, to be used in the context of hearing
confession. Recently this traditional view has been questioned in discussions focusing on how and by whom these texts were actually used.
Franz Kerff was the rst scholar to query the traditional notion that
penitentials were exclusively used in pastoral care. 1 From the fact that
penitentials often appear in legal manuscripts or were part of canon law
collections, he arrived at the conclusion that these texts chiey served
as penal codes in the episcopal law court and in diocesan synods. The
satisfactions prescribed in such texts, therefore, were not penances for
the remission of peoples sins, but rather disciplinary punishments
inicted upon criminal offenders. His conclusions provoked other
scholars to re-evaluate the role of penitentials in daily pastoral practice. 2
1
F. Kerff, Libri Paenitentiales und kirchliche Strafgerichtsbarkeit bis zum Decretum Gratiani.
Ein Diskussionsvorschlag, Zeitschrift der Savigny-Stiftung fr Rechtsgeschichte, Kanonistische
Abteilung 75 (1989), pp. 2357.
Cf. R. Meens, Frequency and Nature of Early Medieval Penance, in P. Biller and A.J. Minnis
(eds), Handling Sin: Confession in the Middle Ages, York Studies in Medieval Theology 2 (York,
1998), pp. 3561. F. Kerff, Libri Paenitentiales und kirchliche Strafgerichtsbarkeit, pp. 2357.

86
A.H. Gaastra
Raymund Kottje objected to such notions of penance and argued that

the penitentials were intended for pastoral care. 3 Only with the compilation of Halitgar of Cambrais penitential and Regino of Prms Libri
duo de synodalibus causis in the ninth and tenth centuries, were penitentials incorporated into the corpus of canon law. Rob Meens discarded
Kerff s views on the basis of the manuscript evidence, but admitted that
the number of pastoral manuscripts containing penitentials markedly
declined in the tenth century. Sarah Hamilton also claimed that from
the tenth century onwards penitential books, apart from the Anglo-Saxon
and Italian ones, largely ceased to play a role in pastoral care but increasingly
functioned as reference works in a legal and educational context. 4 The
fact that penitentials found their way into early medieval canon law
reveals the growing importance of these texts in episcopal jurisdiction.
In the light of this recent debate it is worth focusing on the Italian evidence. Italy saw a remarkable production of new penitentials in the eleventh
and early twelfth centuries, precisely the period in which the number
of newly compiled penitentials decreased in northern Europe and their
function changed from pastoral texts to law codes. Moreover, Italian
penitentials found their way into both liturgical and canon law manuscripts.
While Paul Fournier studied the Italian evidence in some detail in the early
years of the twentieth century, thanks to recent work done by scholars
like Ludger Krntgen, Gnter Hgele, and Roger Reynolds, our knowledge
of the Italian penitentials has greatly increased.5 This article deals with
3
R. Kottje, Bue oder Strafe? Zur Iustitia in den Libri Paenitentiales, in La giustizia
nellalto medioevo (secoli VVIII) I, Settimane di studio 42 (Spoleto, 1996), pp. 44368. Kottje
particularly rejects Kerffs equation of punishment and penance. See also L. Krntgen, Studien zu den Quellen der frhmittelalterlichen Bubcher, Quellen und Forschungen zum Recht
im Mittelalter 7 (Sigmaringen, 1992), pp. 1648; Meens, Frequency and Nature of Early
Medieval Penance, pp. 3561; R. Meens, Het tripartite boeteboek. Overlevering en betekenis van
vroegmiddeleeuwse biechtvoorstellingen, Middeleeuwse studies en bronnen 41 (Hilversum,
1994), pp. 220 66.
S. Hamilton, The Practice of Penance, 9001050, Royal Historical Society, Studies in History,
n s (Woodbridge, 2001), pp. 3853.
Schmitz studied and edited the Italian P. Vallicellianum I, the P. Casinense, and the P.
Vallicellianum II in order to demonstrate the existence of a Roman group of penitentials, see
H.J. Schmitz, Die Bussbcher und die Bussdisciplin der Kirche. Nach handschriftlichen Quellen
dargestellt I (Mainz, 1883; repr. Graz, 1958) (hereafter cited as Schmitz I), pp. 167239. Paul
Fournier convincingly refuted Schmitzs thesis and demonstrated that the Italian penitentials
were in fact compiled from insular and Frankish exemplars. See P. Fournier, tudes sur les
pniteniels, Revue dhistoire et de littrature religieuse 6 (1901), pp. 289317; 7 (1902), pp. 59
70 and 1217; and 8 (1903), pp. 52853. See also G. Hgele, Das Paenitentiale Vallicellianum
I. Ein Oberitalienischer Zweig der frhmittelalterlichen kontinentalen Bubcher, Quellen und
Forschungen zum Recht im Mittelalter 3 (Sigmaringen, 1984), pp. 935; Krntgen, Studien
zu den Quellen; and idem, Ein Italienisches Bubuch und seine Frnkischen Quellen. Das
anonyme Paenitentiale der Handschrift Vatikan, Arch. S. Pietro, H 58, in H. Mordek ed.,
Aus Archiven und Bibliotheken. Festschrift fr Raymund Kottje zum 65. Geburtstag, Freiburger
Beitrge zur mittelalterliche Geschichte. Studien und Texte 3 (Freiburg, 1992), pp. 189
205. The south Italian Collection in Five Books, a collection that contains a lot of penitential
The Collection in Nine Books
87
penitential material in its canonistic context. What did their incorporation

into canon law material mean for the penitentials? To answer this question,
I will conne myself to one example, namely to the Collection in Nine Books,
one of the rst Italian collections to incorporate a penitential handbook. First, the compilation itself is examined, setting out its sources,
summarizing its contents, and investigating the way in which the compiler treated its sources. Then the purpose, or the intended function of
the compilation is discussed. By rst examining the penitential canons
of this collection I hope to shed light on how they were used by Italian
canonists. Since the manuscript context also creates problems as to
which genre the penitentials belonged, I will consider this issue rst.
Penitentials; a genre?
The term penitentials is often used to denominate lists of sins and their
appropriate penances, sometimes accompanied by liturgical directions
for priests-confessors. The canons of penitentials, which are also called
tariffs, usually adopt the following shape: if someone has committed
<a particular sin or crime> then he has to do penance for <seven
years>. The penances that were deemed necessary for the remission of
sins usually consisted of a period of fasting, but sometimes comprised
pilgrimage, almsgiving, genuections, and the singing of psalms. 6 At
rst glance, a denition of what a penitential is seems straightforward,
but situated halfway between liturgical and canonical texts, the penitentials constitute a genre marked by its exibility. Hence penitentials were
copied in both liturgical manuscripts, as part of elaborate liturgical
ordines, and canon law manuscripts, as part of canon law collections.
The exibility of the genre lies at the root of recent discussions about
the function of penitentials. A single text, such as the early tenthcentury, north Italian Paenitentiale Vallicellianum I, can be found in
material, is studied by R.E. Reynolds, The South-Italian Canon Law Collection in Five Books
and its Derivatives: New Evidence on its Origins, Diffusion, and Use, Mediaeval Studies 52 (1990),
pp. 27981. Books 13 of this collection are edited in Collectio canonum in V libris (libri I
III), ed. M. Fornasari, CCCM 6 (Turnhout, 1970). On this edition see G. Fransen, Principes
ddition des collections canoniques, Revue dhistoire ecclsiastique 66 (1971), pp. 12536.
A difference between penitentials and canon law collections is that penitentials only deal with
a limited number of topics. Whereas canon law collections usually treat a wider variety of
topics (and are far more concerned with matters like episcopal jurisdiction, proper ordination
of clerics, papal primacy and ecclesiastical property), penitentials focus upon crimes and vices
such as homicide, fornication, perjury, avarice, slander, etc. Even this distinction does not
hold true for all texts, as for instance the Iudicia Theodori (the collected judgements of
Theodore of Canterbury (d. 690) which are transmitted in ve different recensions), are not
only concerned with penitential topics, but also with a wide range of matters regarding the
administration of the church.
88
A.H. Gaastra
both liturgical and canonical manuscripts. 7 However, the manuscript

context sometimes affected the form and outlook of the penitential.
From the late ninth century onwards, penitentials began to appear as
questionnaires; that is, as lists of questions integrated into liturgical
ordines of penance.8 Different versions of such lists, sometimes with the
penances entirely omitted, circulated across Europe. An Italian example
is the interrogatory penitential of the tenth-century manuscript, Vatican, Biblioteca Apostolica Vaticana, Vat. lat. 5768, a liturgical rituale
written in Bobbio.9 Although it is uncertain whether this questionnaire
is of Italian origin, it is nevertheless found in numerous Italian manuscripts.10 Perhaps the best-known example of an interrogatory penitential is the Corrector sive Medicus, Book 19 of Burchard of Wormss early
eleventh-century Decretum. As the canons of such interrogatories could
be addressed to confessants directly, penitentials in the second category,
those found in canonistic manuscripts, are rst and foremost directed
towards the priest and bishop, as will be seen below. The incorporation
of penitential canons into canon law is all the more signicant given
the critique that penitentials met during the Carolingian reforms.
Halitgar of Cambrai (<830) was one of the rst to combine a penitential
with papal and conciliar decrees. The principal canonical collections
incorporating a penitential are Regino of Prms Libri duo de synodalibus causis et disciplinis ecclesiasticis (c.906), Burchard of Wormss Decretum (<1023), and Anselm of Luccas collection (10816). South Italian
collections that incorporated penitential tariffs are the Collection in
Nine Books (tenth or early eleventh century) and the inuential Collection
7
10
It was for instance added to a canon law collection in Milan, Biblioteca Ambrosiana, I 145
inf. See G. Picasso, Collezioni canoniche milanesi del secolo XII, Pubblicazioni dellUniversita
Cattolica del S. Cuore. Saggi e richerche, serie terza. Scienze storiche 2 (Milan, 1961), pp. 81
157. The penitential was also copied in Rome, Biblioteca Vallicelliana, E. 15, a liturgical
manuscript. On both manuscripts see Hgele, Das Paenitentiale Vallicellianum I, pp. 279.
An example of another interrogatory can be found in ordines connected to Halitgar of Cambrais
penitential in Vatican, Biblioteca Apostolica Vaticana, Reg. lat. 191 (Reims; s. IX3/4) and Novarra,
Bibioteca Capitolare, 18 (LXXI) (northern Italy; s. IX2); it was also inserted into the ordines
of the penitentials attributed to Bede and Egbert and ordo 136 of the Romano-Germanic Pontical
(Le Pontical Romano-Germanique du dixime sicle 2, ed. C. Vogel and R. Elze, Studi e Testi
227 (Rome, 1963), pp. 23542). Rob Meens and I hope to study this interrogatory in the future.
Edited by M. Tosi, Arianesimo Tricapitolino norditaliano e Penitenza privata Iroscozzese:
due piste importanti per riprendere la questione critica delle opere di Colombano II, Archivum Bobiense 1213 (19912), pp. 5288, see pp. 27688.
Some manuscript witnesses of this interrogatory are mentioned by K.M. Delen, A.H. Gaastra,
M.D. Saan and B. Schaap, The Paenitentiale Cantabrigiense: A Witness of the Carolingian
Contribution to the Tenth-Century Reforms in England, Sacris Erudiri 41 (2002), pp. 341
73. The text can also be found in the ordo of the P. Casinense (Schmitz I, p. 400), and in the
ordines of London, British Library, Cotton Vesp. D XX (England; s. XI); Rome, Biblioteca
Nazionale Centrale, 2081 (Sess. 95) (Nonantola; s. XI; G. Gullotta, Gli antichi cataloghi e i
codici della abbazia di Nonantola, Studi e testi 182 (Vatican, 1955), pp. 3046); Barcelona,
Biblioteca Universitaria, cod. 228 (northern Italy; s. X; F.M. Rosell, Inventario General de
Manoscritos de la Biblioteca Universitaria de Barcelona I, 1 a 500 (Madrid, 1958), pp. 28694).
89
in Five Books (after 1014). Penitentials are more likely to be intended

for use in pastoral care, whereas those in canon law manuscripts were
perhaps intended as reference works for the episcopal library. In her
important book on baptismal expositions, Susan Keefe recently argued
that manuscripts of a mixed canonical/liturgical content were used for
the education of priests rather than in pastoral care. 11 This implicitly
means that a difference of genre (canonistic or liturgical) does not
immediately imply a difference in purpose or use of a manuscript, as
both liturgical and canonical manuscripts may have served educational
purposes. Although the problem of genre is a difcult one, I would not
go so far as to abandon the notion of a penitential genre entirely, as
most of the texts, even the extremes mentioned in this paragraph, share
some important features as to their form and contents.

The only manuscript witness of the Collection in Nine Books is Vatican,
Biblioteca Apostolica Vaticana, Vat. lat. 1349 written in the Beneventan
script.12 Recent scholarship has dated the manuscript to c.1050.13 Paul
Fournier considered the collection itself to be older and dated it to
c.92030, because its most recent sources date from the early tenth
century.14 The nine books of the collection tackle a variety of subjects,
11
12
13
14
S.A. Keefe, Water and the Word: Baptism and the Education of the Clergy in the Carolingian
Empire 1 (Notre Dame, 1999), pp. 2138.
The codex consists of 225 folios, measuring c.363 263 (295310 195210). The gatherings consist
of parchment quaternios, the last gathering is a quinio (two separate folios are inserted into
gathering folios 5764; one folio is cut out off gathering folios 14551). The text, written in
Beneventan script by two or possibly three hands, is divided into two columns. The initials
of the books and canons are decorated with zoomorphical designs. Capitals are touched up with
red, yellow and green ink. A more thorough description is found in S. Kuttner (and R. Elze), A
Catalogue of Canon and Roman Law Manuscripts in the Vatican Library I, Codices 5412299, Studi
e testi 322 (Rome, 1986), p. 109 and L. Kry, Canonical Collection of the Early Middle Ages
(ca.400 1140) A Bibliographical Guide to the Manuscripts and Literature, History of Medieval Canon
Law 1 (Washington, 1999), pp. 1967. On fol. 2v is copied c. 4 of the introductory epistola canonica
of the Collectio Dionysiana Adaucta, and a canon attributed to Clemens. See Fournier, Un group
de recueils canoniques italiens des Xe et XIe sicles, in Th. Klzer (ed.), Mlanges de droit
canonique II. tudes sur les diverses collections canoniques (Aalen, 1983), pp. 213331, at p. 243.
Loew and Kuttner dated the manuscript to the rst half of the eleventh century: E.A. Loew,
The Beneventan Script: A History of the South Italian Minuscule, 2nd enlarged edn prepared
by V. Brown, 2 vols, Sussidi eruditi 3334 (Rome, 1980), pp. 21315, 226, 362; and Kuttner,
A Catalogue of Canon and Roman Law Manuscripts in the Vatican Library I, p. 109. R.E.
Reynolds, The Transmission of the Hibernensis in Italy: Tenth to Twelfth Century, Peritia
14 (2000), pp. 2050, see p. 27. Roger Reynolds argued that the manuscript was copied in a
place, south of Rome, where the classical Beneventan script was written.
Fournier, Un group de recueils canoniques italiens des Xe et XIe sicles, pp. 26973. See
also P. Fournier and G. Le Bras, Histoire des collections canoniques en Occident depuis les
Fausses dcrtales jusquau Dcret de Gratien I. De la rforme Carolingienne a la rforme Grgorienne (Paris, 1931), pp. 3417. The most recent texts in the collection are excerpts of Auxilius
Francuss Infensor et defensor and his Libellus super causa Formosi papae (early tenth century).
90
A.H. Gaastra
including the ordination and duties of separate clerical orders, the juridical authority of the bishop, the monastic life, the Mass, and the administration of baptism and penance. It is tempting to conclude that the
collection was intended for an episcopal church or library, since the rst
two books dwell at length on the privileges and duties of bishops. 15 Also
treated are offences such as homicide, fornication, theft, and perjury.
The canons of the collection were culled from a wide variety of sources:
conciliar decisions, papal decretals, Roman law, capitularies, the Latin
and Greek Fathers, the Scriptures, and even parts of saints lives. 16
The Iudicium Paenitentiae
The Collection in Nine Books devotes two books to the subject of penance. While the ninth book is a Iudicium Paenitentiae primarily made
up of canons of penitentials, the eighth book (De utilitate paenitentiae)
adopts a more theological approach and is chiey compiled from patristic texts.17 This book heavily relies on the seventh- or eighth-century
Collectio Hibernensis XLVII and incorporates large sections of the works
of St Augustine, Isidore of Seville, and Gregory I. 18 The ninth book is
a penitential, which systematically treats every possible way of sinning,
including homicide, fornication, incest, perjury, food taboos, heresy,
slander, and the sins arising from the eight principal vices. Since
Hermann Josef Schmitz published only a partial edition of the ninth
book as part of his edition of the ninth-century Frankish Capitula
Iudiciorum, one can easily overlook the originality of this iudicium
15
16
17
18
There is no edition of the text, but the contents of the rst two books can be inferred from
the list of rubrics edited by A. Ma, Spicilegium Romanum 6 (Rome, 183954), pp. 396472,
reprinted as ed. J.P. Migne, Patrologia Latina 138, col. 397 ff.
The compiler of the Collection in Nine Books made use of a manuscript very similar to the
tenth- or early eleventh-century Rome, Biblioteca Vallicelliana, T. XVIII which contains
among others the B version of the Collectio Hibernensis, the Collection in 72 Titles, the
Concordia Canonum, and a short collection called De transmigratione episcoporum. For the
roman law excerpts see C.G. Mor, Per la storia di diritto romano nell alto Medio Evo: Lex
iustiniana e beneventana, Scritti di storia giuridica (Pisa, 1977), pp. 27987. See also Fournier,
Un group de recueils canoniques italiens des Xe et XIe sicles, pp. 24757; K. Zechiel-Eckes,
Die Concordia Canonum des Cresconius. Studien und Edition, 2 vols, Freiburger Beitrge zur
Mittelalterliche Geschichte 5 (Freiburg, 1992), pp. 2489; S. Lindemans, Auxilius et le
manuscrit Vallicellan Tome XVIII, Revue dhistoire ecclsiastique 57 (1962), pp. 470 84. Other
sources are the Epitome Hispana and the Collectio Dionysiana Adaucta, an Italian recension of
the Dionysiana that is also contained in Monte Cassino, Archivio dellAbbazia, 372 (Monte
Cassino or San Nicola della Cicogna; s. XIin).
The title was probably derived from the Collectio Dacheriana, see R. Kottje, Die Bussbcher
Halitgas von Cambrai und des Hrabanus Maurus. Ihre berlieferung und ihre Quellen, Beitrge
zur Geschichte und Quellenkunde des Mittelalters 8 (Berlin and New York, 1980), p. 56.
It begins with Isidores denitions of penance. Paenitentia quasi punitentia, eo quod ipse
homo in se penitendo punit . . ., see Isidori Hispalensis episcopi Etymologiarium sive Originum
libri XX, ed. W.M. Lindsay (Oxford, 1911; repr. 1985), VI.19,71.
91
paenitentiae.19 The penitential part is introduced by the preface of the

Paenitentiale Pseudo-Gregorii (ninth century), the sermon Provida mente
of Pseudo-John Chrysostom, the prefaces of the penitentials of Cummean (seventh century) and Columbanus (d. 615), the preface of the
eighth-century Paenitentiale Oxoniense II (Insinuamus ergo), the preface
of the eighth-century Paenitentiale Pseudo-Egberti, the rest of the preface of the Paenitentiale Oxoniense II (Quotienscumque), interpolated
by a canon of the second capitulary of Theodulf of Orlans (d. 821). 20
Ludger Krntgen discovered that this sequence of introductory texts
is to be found in a group of mainly north Italian manuscripts. 21 The
various prologues offer the priest both a theoretical explanation of
penance and also a wealth of practical information. To mention just
a few of the instructions in the prefaces: a priest is recommended to
participate in the penitents fasting and to pray not only for his own
sins, but also for those of all Christians; he should encourage the penitent
to fast, even after the penitent has completed his penance; he is reminded
that it is not permitted to reveal what has been said during confession
nor what kind of penance was enjoined upon the penitent (preface of
Paenitentiale Oxoniense II).22 When the priest delivers his judgement he
should take into account the nature of the sin and the penitents sex
19
20
21
22
H.J. Schmitz, Die Bussbcher und das kanonische Bussverfahren. Nach handschriftlichen Quellen
dargestellt II (Mainz, 1898; repr. Graz, 1958) (hereafter cited as Schmitz II), pp. 21751.
The preface P. Ps.-Gregorii (ed. F. Kerff, Das Paenitentiale Ps.-Gregorii III. Eine kritische
Edition, in H. Mordek (ed.), Aus Archiven und Bibliotheken, pp. 16188, see pp. 1636); the
prefaces of the P. Cummeani and P. Columbani (ed. L. Bieler, The Irish Penitentials, with an
appendix by D.A. Binchy, Scriptores Latini Hiberniae 5 (Dublin, 1975), p. 98 and pp. 108
110); P. Oxoniense II (attributed here to John Chrysostom; Paenitentialia Minora Franciae
et Italiae saeculi VIIIIX, ed. R. Kottje, CCSL 156, pp. 1818); the preface of P. Ps.-Egberti
(ed. Schmitz II, pp. 6613); Theodulf of Orlans, Second capitulary X.34 (MGH, Capitula
Episcoporum I, ed. P. Brommer (Hannover, 1984), pp. 834).
Krntgen, Studien zu den Quellen, pp. 12230. The sequence comes particularly close to that
of Vatican, BAV, Vat. lat. 5751 and Paris, Bibliothque Nationale, nouv. acq. lat. 281. These
manuscripts also contain the sermon attributed to John Chrysostom, the excerpt of the
capitulary of (Ps.-)Theodulf of Orlans. To Krntgens group can be added Monte Cassino,
Archivio dellAbbazia (pp. 2860) which contains the Quotienscumque, the Quomodo debent
under the rubric Beati Iohannis os aurei, and Cummeans preface. A connection between its
P. Casinense (ed. Schmitz I, pp. 397432) and the ninth book of the Collection in Nine Books
will be established below.
The combination Quotienscumque Theodulf of Orlans, capitulare X.34 Videns autem ille
appears in the penitential ordo of the tenth-century codex Vercelli, Biblioteca Capitolare,
CLXXVIII (4). Noteworthy is the Collection in Nine Books (fol. 195v) recommending that a
priest should take someone who comes to confession by the hand: si uideris eum alacriter et
assiduae in paenitentia stare, statim suscipe eum ad manum. This recalls a custom found in
Vercelli, Biblioteca Capitolare, CLXXVIII and in the P. in II libris (see Monte Cassino,
Archivio dellAbbazia, 554: Postea si uideris eum ex toto corde conuersum, suscipe eum per
manum dextram, inpromittat emendationem uitiorum et duc eum ante altare, conteatur
peccata sua.) The ritual passed into other ordines, for instance in that of the P. Casinense.
On confession before the altar see J.A. Jungmann, Die lateinischen Bussriten in ihrer geschichtlichen Entwicklung, Forschungen zur Geschichte des innerkirchlichen Lebens 3/4 (Innsbruck,
1932), pp. 1823 and Hamilton, The Practice of Penance, pp. 16670.
92
A.H. Gaastra
and social status (prologue of Pseudo-Egbert). The priest is warned that

many penitentials lack the appropriate authority and contain canons
that prescribe often conicting penances (Pseudo-Gregorian penitential).
The ninth book owes its structure to the so-called Capitula Iudiciorum,
which also provided the majority of the canons for the ninth book.
Regulations concerning the seal of confession, deathbed penance and
fasting, immediately follow upon the tariffs. Then come a large number
of commutation tables, texts that enabled priests to substitute a period
of fasting for another penance, and tracts concerning the eight principal
vices and the seven deadly sins. The ninth book ends with canons concerning clerical duties, such as the observance of the liturgy of the hours.
A wide variety of sources were used for the compilation of the ninth
book. Most of these texts were taken from penitentials, particularly the
Capitula Iudiciorum, but the compiler also included canons from the
Collectio Hibernensis, excerpts from papal decretals, and conciliar decrees.
The compiler used a version of the Capitula Iudiciorum that was
also copied into other Italian manuscripts. 23 He incorporated canons
from the Frankish Paenitentiale Oxoniense II, the Pseudo-Gregorian
penitential, and Iudicia Theodori (d. 690).24 A comparison of the canons
of the Paenitentiale Oxoniense II in both the Collection in Nine Books
and in the anonymous penitential in the manuscript Biblioteca Apostolica Vaticana, Archivio di S. Pietro, H. 58 (Rome, s. X/XI; henceforth
Paenitentiale Vaticanum) reveals that both collections drew independently on the same, possibly south Italian, recension of this text. 25 Several
23
24
25
The Capitula Iudiciorum has come down to us in two slightly different versions. The only
complete copy of the rst recension is Vatican, BAV, Vat. lat. 5751, while the oldest copy of
the second is St Gallen, Stiftsbibliothek, 150. See L. Mahadevan, berlieferung und Verbreitung des Bubuchs Capitula Iudiciorum, Zeitschrift der Savigny-Stiftung fr Rechtsgeschichte, Kanonistische Abteilung 72 (1986), pp. 1775, see pp. 5469. The version of Vat. lat.
1349 generally agrees with the second recension, in particular with Vercelli, Biblioteca
Capitolare, CCIII (northern France; s. IX/X) and London, British Library, Add. 16413 (southern
Italy; s. XI). The north Italian manuscript Paris, BN, nouv. acqu. lat. 281 contains most of
the introductory texts, including Theodulfs capitulary, as well as the Capitula Iudiciorum
(fragments).
On the sources of the ninth book see Mahadevan, berlieferung und Verbreitung des
Bubuchs Capitula Iudiciorum, pp. 2045, Krntgen, Studien zu den Quellen der frhmittelalterlichen Bubcher, pp. 11330, and F. Kerff, Das Paenitentiale Pseudo-Gregorii III. Ein
Zeugnis karolingischer Reformbestrebungen, Zeitschrift der Savigny-Stiftung fr Rechtsgeschichte, Kanonistische Abteilung 69 (1983), pp. 4663.
See the following comparisons: P. Vaticanum III.19: Si quis uir habens uxorem et duxerit
aliam, non est illius uxor, sed meretrix; illa tales cum christianos non communicent neque
edant, aut bibant, nec in sermone, aut in opere aliquis eum communicent, et non possunt
poeniteri donec separentur; postea unusquisque ieiunet ebdomadas XL, digna est mulier dupplum
ieiunare. Collection in Nine Books IX.32: Si quis uir habens uxorem et duxerit aliam, dimissa
ea que prius legitima accepit, non est illius uxor, sed meretrix. Illa tale cum christianis non
communicet, neque edat, neque bibat, neque in sermone aut in opere ei aliquid commune sit.
Sed neque parentibus eorum, qui haec fecerit, et consentiunt. Isti tales non possunt paeniteri,
donec separentur, postquam separati fuerint, ieiunet unusquisque, ut iudices sacerdotes; digna est
93
canons of the Collection in Nine Books were taken from the Frankish
Paenitentiale in II libris (eighth or ninth century) or from its derivative,
the Paenitentiale Vaticanum.26 Other canons cannot be securely attributed
to a particular penitential, although some show a close afnity with
the early eleventh-century Paenitentiale Casinense, as will be demonstrated below.27 The compiler revealed himself as a true connoisseur
of handbooks of penance and clearly felt no inhibition inserting
texts which were by some conceived as being non-canonical and
contradictory.
Apocryphal canons
Apart from the canons taken from Frankish penitentials, the ninth
book includes a number of canons that cannot be found in any other
source. Although some of these canons were noticed by Paul Fournier
and Peter Landau, they have never been thoroughly studied. 28 Many of
these are conations of existing material drawn from other penitentials.
As they are often constructed in a similar way, they were probably put
together by the compiler of the ninth book. In order to procure a
higher authoritative status for these canons the compiler labelled them
Synodus Romana, Apostolicum, Iudicium Synodale and Iudicium Canonicum.
26
27
28
mulier duplum ieiunare. The underlined parts are not found in P. Oxoniense II, c. 35 (ed.
Kottje, CCSL 156, pp. 1967). Since the Collection in Nine Books contains canons of the P.
Oxoniense II that cannot be found in the P. Vaticanum and vice versa, both texts probably
borrowed from the P. Oxoniense II independently.
This penitential is recorded in Monte Cassino, Arch. dellAbbazia, cod. 554 (southern Italy;
s. X2-XI); Vienna, sterreichische Nationalbibliothek, cod. lat. 2231 (northern Italy; s. IX/X);
and Montpellier, Bibliothque Universitaire, 387 (northern France; s. IXmed.). Canon IX.21,2
(Si quis cum sorore disponsata sua fornicauerit . . .) reproduces P. in II libris I.4,27. Canon
IX.31 (Omnis itaque christianos abstinere debet a propria uxore tempus paenitentiae . . .)
resembles P. in II libris I.4,16. Canon IX.53,2 (Si quis de ministerio sanctae ecclesiae qualecumque opus quislibet fraudauerit uel neglexerit . . .) reproduces P. in II Libris I.10,2. Canon
IX.97,2 (Quecumque in ecclesia demandauerint episcopum, aut presbiterum, uel diaconum,
qui non obseruauerunt . . .) reproduces P. in II libris II.1,35. Canon IX.134,2 is based on P.
in II Libris I.10,10. See the incipit-explicit edition prepared by Krntgen, Studien zu den
Quellen, pp. 2727. Canon IX.128 on the seal of confession (Caueat ante omnia sacerdos
. . .) is to be found in the commutation tables of the P. in II libris of the Montpellier
manuscript. See Krntgen, Studien zu den Quellen, pp. 21112.
Separate canons seem to be derived from the P. Theodori U (for instance II.2,12 = IX.47) or
the Excarpsus Cummeani (III.29 = IX.22,2). Some rulings of the collection are recorded in the
P. Vaticanum. Collection in Nine Books IX.127 resembles P. Vaticanum VIII.21, while IX.101
matches P. Vaticanum VIII.21 (see Krntgen, Ein Italienisches Bubuch, p. 205).
Fournier, Un group de recueils canoniques italiens des Xe et XIe sicles, pp. 2679 and
P. Landau, Geflschtes Recht in den Rechtssammlungen bis Gratian, in P. Landau, Kanones
und Dekretalen. Beitrge zur Geschichte der Quellen des kanonischen Rechts, Bibliotheca
Eruditorum, Internationale Bibliothek der Wissenschaften 2 (Goldbach, 1997), pp. 349, see
pp. 279.
94
A.H. Gaastra
Signicantly, the rubrics of the Collection in Nine Books recall those of

the Capitula Iudiciorum and the Collectio Hibernensis, which refer to
Iudicium Canonicum, or Synodus Romana, Regula Canonica Romana, and
Apostolus. These titles may have furnished the models for those of the
new canons. It seems probable that the existing penitential canons did
not sufce for all the subjects that the compiler wanted to address, so
that new canons had to be created to supplement those of his sources.
An example shows how the compiler employed existing canons in order
to create entirely new ones. Canon 53 reads:
If someone has committed fornication with his mother, that he
should do penance for fteen years, and never change his meal
except on Sundays. So he [should live] in pilgrimage outside his
country and he should not stay in one village or town for two nights,
except in case of necessity. Having completed his penance he should
receive the tonsure, enter a monastery, and do penance until his
death. And he should never receive Communion, unless the peril of
the day of his death is approaching. Some say, if he has performed
his penance well, than he may receive Communion after fteen
years.
The general drift of canon 53, which prohibits fornication with ones
mother, was directly or indirectly derived from the U or G version of
the collected judgements of Theodore of Canterbury. The compiler,
however, expanded the penance given by Theodore with penances he
found in other texts, such as the Pseudo-Gregorian penitential, the
Capitula Iudiciorum, and the Paenitentiale Casinense.
Collection in Nine
Books IX.53
SYNODUS ROMANA. LIII.
Si quis cum matre sua
fornicauerit, .xv. annos
peniteat, et numquam
mutet cibum nisi die
dominicum.
29
30
Sources
P. Casinense 2429
Si cum30 matre quis fornicatur, XV

annos peniteat et nunquam mutat
nisi dominicis diebus. (P. Theodori
U, I.2,16; G 90)
Si quis cum commatre

sua de fonte
fornicauerit, uitam
suam
Edited by Schmitz I, p. 404. Since his edition is sometimes inaccurate, the canon is transcribed from Monte Cassino, Arch. dellAbbazia, 372, p. 36.
Ed. P.W. Finsterwalder, Die Canones Theodori Cantuariensis und ihre berlieferungsformen,
Untersuchungen zu den Bubchern des 7., 8. und 9. Jahrhunderts 1 (Weimar, 1929),
pp. 262, 291.
95

Collection in Nine
Books IX.53
Sources
P. Casinense 24
Sic in peregrinatione extra

patria sua, et numquam
faciat in una (!) uillam aut
ciuitatem duas mansiones,
nisi per necessitas; expleta
paenitentiam tondat
caput suum et intret in
monasterio et paeniteat
usque ad mortem.
Si quis31 tirannus rex ( . . . ) in xxx

annorum peregrinatione ( . . . ) per
duas noctes in una mansione non
maneat nisi tantum
sollempnitatibus precipuis aut si
inrmitas eum preoccupauerit.
(Canones Hibernici, c. 3)
peregrinando niat
et in natale domini
siue in plus de tertia
mansione non maneat
in ciuitate uel ullo
loco, et non se mutet
nisi in natale domini
siue in pascha,
Et numquam communicet,
nisi urgentem die mortis
periculo.
Si quis32 lius cum matre tam

funestum atque nefarium uicium
perpetrauit ( . . . ) inermis XV annos
. . . VII annos extra metas ipsius
terrae exul at, et non communicet
nisi urgente mortis periculo.
(P. Ps.-Gregorii 11)
et a communione
priuetur.
Nonnulli dicunt: si bene

egerit paenitentiam, post .xv.
annos communicetur.
Si33 quis fornicaverit, ut sodomite

fecerunt . . . Si autem bene egerint
penitentiam, reconcilientur ad
communionem. (Capitula Iudic.
VII.1)
Another canon, which is concerned with fornication between priests

and their god-daughters, is composed in the same way. 34 The canon
reads as follows:
If a priest has committed fornication with his god-daughter, let him
know that he has committed adultery. Therefore, the woman, if she
is layperson, should renounce everything, sell all her possessions
and give it [the prot?] to the poor, and, after being converted to
a monastery, should serve God until her death. The priest, who has
exhibited this novel and bad example in this world, should be
deposed and should undertake a pilgrimage for fteen years, and
thereafter he should enter a monastery where he should serve God
for the rest of his days.
31
32
33
34
Ed. Bieler, The Irish Penitentials.

Ed. Kerff, Das Paenitentiale Ps.-Gregorii III. Eine kritische Edition, pp. 1745.
Ed. Meens, Tripartite boeteboek, p. 440 and Schmitz II, p. 222.
On Italian legislation concerning illicit marital relations between godparents and their spiritual
kin see J.H. Lynch, Godparents and Kinship in Early Medieval Europe (Princeton, 1986),
pp. 2234 and 23442.
96
A.H. Gaastra
The canon probably goes back to a canon of the Monte Cassino penitential, but also borrows penances and passages from the Burgundian
penitential and the penitential of Columbanus. The penance is based
on a canon originally from the Paenitentiale Columbani, which is also
found in almost all the tripartite penitentials. Deposition and the
fteen-year pilgrimage assigned to the priest seem to be borrowed from
the Capitula Iudiciorum. This newly composed canon does not only
appear in the Collection in Nine Books but also in the Collection in Five
Books and eventually entered Gratians Decretum.35
Collection in Nine Books IX.40
DE FILIA SPIRITUALE
IUDICIUM SYNODALE. XL.
Si autem sacerdos cum lia sua
spirituali fornicauerit, sciat se
graue adulterium commississe.
Idcirco
Paenitentiale
Casinense 2536
Si quis sacerdos
cum lia sua
spirituali
fornicauerit,
Other sources
Si quis37 clericus uel cuiuslibet

gradus, qui uxorem habuit et post
honorem iterum eam cognouit,
sciat se adulterium commisisse.
Idcirco si diaconus . . .
(P. Burgundense, c. 12)
faemina si laica est omnia

derelinquat et tota res sua
uendat et donet pauperibus et
conuersa in monasteria, seruiat
deo usque ad mortem. Sacerdos
autem, qui nouum et malum
exelplum (!) monstrauit in terra,
uendat omnia sua

et det pauperibus
et seruiat in
monasterio,
Si laicus38 per cupiditatem

perjurat, totas res suas vendat et
det pauperibus et conversus in
monasterium usque ad mortem
serviat Deo.
(Cap. Iud. XV.1; P. Columbani 20)
ab omni ofcio deponatur et

apprehendat peregrinatione .xv.
annos, et postea uadat in
monasterio et cunctis diebus
uitae suae seruiat deo.
et deponatur.
Similiter et illa
femina faciat.
Si quis fornicaverit, ut sodomite

fecerunt, episcopus . . . ab omni
ofcio deponatur, peregrinando
niat dies vitae suae. (Cap. Iud.
VII.1)
The question may be asked whether the compiler of the Collection in

Nine Books composed these canons himself, or whether he copied them
from an older source. There is reason to believe that he compiled them
himself. The newly composed canons were compiled from rulings of
penitentials like the Capitula Iudiciorum and the Pseudo-Gregorian
35
36
37
38
Causa 30, questio 1, canon 9 is assigned to Pope Celestine (Corpus Iuris Canonici 1, Decretum
magistri Gratiani, ed. E. Friedberg (Leipzig, 1879), p. 1099); the canon can also be found in
the Collection in Five Books II.79 (ed. Fornasari, CCCM 6, p. 227) and Bonizo of Sutri Liber
de vita Christiana X.46 (Bonizo of Sutri, Liber de Vita Christiana, ed. E. Perels, Texte zur
Geschichte des rmischen und kanonischen Rechts im Mittelalter 1 (Berlin, 1930), p. 321).
Cf. Schmitz I, p. 406. Transcribed from Monte Cassino, Arch. dellAbbazia, 372, p. 37.
Ed. Kottje, CCSL 156, pp. 214.
Ed. Meens, Tripartite boeteboek, p. 456 and Schmitz II, p. 234.
97
penitentials, which are also recorded in the ninth book. In addition, the
way the new canons as well as those taken from other penitentials were
rubricated shows some consistency throughout the ninth book. For
instance, some newly composed canons as well as canons of penitentials
such as the Capitula Iudiciorum, the Paenitentiale Oxoniense II, and the
Paenitentiale in II libris were titled Iudicium synodale or Synodale. The
rubric Iudicium canonicum was, apart from the group of canons that
were derived from the Capitula Iudiciorum, used for new canons and in
some occasions even for existing conciliar and even papal decrees! The
rubric Synodus romana is found ve times, two times for new penitential
rulings and three for existing canons. Since some canons are curiously
copied twice, it is doubtful whether the manuscript Vat. lat. 1349, however, represents the original version of the Collection in Nine Books.39
Many of the apocryphal canons of the Collection in Nine Books were
repeated by several later texts, especially the Collection in Five Books.
Since both collections share many of their canons, it is necessary to examine the dependency of the two in greater detail. The main difference
between the texts is that whereas the penitential canons of the Collection in Nine Books are grouped together into the ninth book, those of
the Collection in Five Books are found scattered throughout the whole.
In contrast to the Collection in Five Books, the Collection in Nine Books
preserves the original order of the Capitula Iudiciorum.40 The former,
however, not only reproduces most (but not all) of the rulings of the
Collection in Nine Books, but also adds new canons which are constructed
in the same way.41 Although both collections are related, it is impossible
to determine exactly how. Perhaps both compilers drew on a common
source, possibly an earlier draft of the Collection in Nine Books.42
39
40
41
42
For instance canon IX.40 (Iudicium synodale) cited above is repeated almost verbatim as
canon IX.42,4 (Synodus paenitentiae). Perhaps the scribe(s) was copying the canons from two
collections. It is also possible that the scribe was working from a draft that contained the new
canons in an unnished state with sometimes two versions of one ruling. The fact that the
ninth book as recorded in Vat. lat. 1349 probably does not represent the original version,
makes it difcult to determine whether the new canons were composed by the compiler(s) of
the Collection in Nine Books. Since the newly composed canons of the ninth book display a
certain uniformity, especially with regard to their rubrics, it seems likely that they were in
any case composed by one author or collaborating group of canonists.
For example, canons of the Capitula Iudiciorum on fornication and adultery are found both
in the second and in the fth books of the Collection in Five Books.
According to both Zechiel-Eckes, Die Concordia Canonum des Cresconius, vol. 1, pp. 26877
and Reynolds, The South-Italian Canon Law Collection in Five Books and its Derivatives,
pp. 27981, the collection as it is copied in Vatican, BAV, Vat. lat. 1349 cannot be the source
of the Collection in Five Books. See also however P.J. Payer, Sex and the Penitentials: The
Development of a Sexual Code, 5501150 (Toronto, 1984), pp. 834 and Fournier, Un group
de recueils canoniques italiens des Xe et XIe sicles, pp. 28991.
The similarities between the collections (their sources and methods of working) suggest that
both texts might have been produced in the same atelier. They were in any case the product
of the same canonistic milieu.
98
A.H. Gaastra
The purpose and function of the ninth book

For whom was this Iudicium paenitentiae intended? It is unlikely that
the ninth book was ever utilized as a confessors handbook. Its awkward
size, together with the vast number of tariffs, make it unsuitable for
practical purposes, that is, for direct use during confession. Whereas the
ninth book is preceded by the prologues of penitentials which can often
be found connected with penitential ordines, the compiler appears to
have deliberately omitted any liturgical text when he copied the prefaces. Given the strong emphasis on the bishop and his privileges and
duties in the rst and second books of the collection, it perhaps
belonged to an episcopal library where it was kept as a reference work. 43
This Iudicium penitentiae should, however, not be understood as an
episcopal penal code in Kerff s denition. The internal evidence suggests the collection was intended for the education of the clergy. 44 The
canons do not specically address the bishop, but use the more general
term sacerdos, priest. The sacerdos is mentioned not only in the penitential canons, but is also addressed in those canons concerning the administration of penance. Thus sacerdotes who violate the secret of penance
and make known what had been confessed to them are threatened with
deposition and lifelong exile.45
Interestingly, the ninth book also instructs priests in how to apply
the canons. The reader is at various stages reminded that penances
should be constituted according to the wisdom of the priest. 46 In general there seems to be a gap between the sometimes terrifying measures
recommended by the canons and the more lenient approach advocated
by the prologues of penitentials, by the commutation tables, and by
some of the canons themselves, which raises questions as to whether the
confessors were expected to impose the penances the canons set forth.
Commutation tables appeal to the discretion of the priest stating that
43
44
45
46
On which see Hamilton, The Practice of Penance, pp. 3841.

It is, however, uncertain whether it was actually used in such a context, because the manuscript contains hardly any glosses or other indications of frequent use.
Fol. 216r: APOSTOLICUM CXXVIII. Caueat ante omnia sacerdos, ne de his qui ei contentur
peccata sua alicui recitet, quod ei confessus est, non propinquis, non extraneis, nec quod absit
pro aliquo scandalo. Nam si hoc fecerit, daeponatur, et omnibus diebus uitae suae peregrinando paeniteat. Si quis sacerdos palam fecerit, et secretum paenitentie usurpauerit ut populum intellexerit, et declaratam fuerit quod celare debuerat, ab omni honore suo in cunctum
populum deponatur, et diebus uitae suae peregrinando neat. The part Si quis sacerdos palam
probably derives from the P. Casinense (Schmitz I, p. 428). On the rst part see Krntgen,
Studien, p. 211.
Canon IX.43: Sed tamen in prouidentia sacerdotis sollerter pensandum est, secundum qualitate uel quantitatem modis fornicationis, ita iudicetur. See also canon IX.22 and 54. Other
phrases that are used throughout the text are in iudicio pendeat sacerdotis (IX.8); in prouidentia
sacerdotum (IX.43); ieiunet unusquisque, ut iudices sacerdotes (!) (IX.32); arbitrio sacerdoti paeniteat (IX.64). Most of these passages are original to this collection.
99
he should take into account the status of the sinner, his intentions, and
the circumstances under which the sin took place. 47 A commutation
table attributed to Gregory, which is found exclusively in eleventhcentury south Italian manuscripts, contrasts the harsh penances of
ancient times with those of these days. According to this (Pseudo?)
Gregorian text, the nostri patres proposed a new way of counting penance, because the fervour to do penance (feruor paenitendi) had been
diminished since the times when the canons were composed. If canons
recommend one year of penance on bread and water, it is sufcient to
fast one day per week on bread and water during one year, two days on
bread and water per week stands for two years on bread and water, and
so on.48 Some canons introduce alternative penances for the remission
of sins with the phrase several have ordained (nonnulli praexerunt)
which makes clear that other texts recommend higher or reduced
periods in penance for the same sin. Other canons state that the penance should be constituted with the aid of a commutation table (liber
de discretione paenitentiae). Such phrases were almost certainly added by
the compiler, for they do not appear in the sources of the ninth book.
A priest should rely on his power of reason and discernment while
taking into account the nature and gravity of the sin, the circumstances
under which the sin was committed, and the status of the penitent. 49 It
might be interesting to note that the preface of our collection states that
if the canons are discordant, one should choose the most authoritative. 50
47
48
49
50
Canon IX.34 (fol. 218r): Tamen et ipse cum prouidentia sacerdotis, ut eis ministerium
commissum est ad ignoscendum bonum a malo, quantum a quale, tantum a tale. On the
role of discretionary justice in early medieval law see G. Koziol, Begging Pardon and Favor:
Ritual and Political Order in Early Medieval France (Ithaca, 1992), pp. 21421.
Canon IX.133 (fol. 217rv): Noting that there is no such feruor penitendi in these times, as
there was in the ancient time when the canons were composed, the patres nostri are said to
have mixed the years in penance so that penance could be performed by anybody, in a harsh
as well as a less harsh manner. The canons should be read in the following way: if there was
one year of penance on bread and water [prescribed] among the penitential years, the penitent
may fast one day per week on bread and water during that year. The rest of the week should
be spent in moderate fasting. (Ponunt canones peccantibus de quibusdam peccatis, .iiii.
annos paenitentia, .i. ex his in pane et aqua. De quibusdam .v., .ii. ex his in pane et aqua . . .
quia his temporibus non est talis feruore paenitendi, qualis in antiquis erat, quando canones
efciebantur . . . miscuerunt [the patres nostri] hos annos in paenitendo, ut in simul dura et
minus dura paenitentia ageretur a quoquam. ( . . . ) Hoc enim modo eam uariauerunt, ut si
unus erat annum in pane et aqua, et inter ipsos paenitentiales annos, .i. die in ebdomada
duceret paenitens in pane et aqua. Caeteros uero dies in mediocri paenitentia ut praedictum
est . . .) The text is also recorded in the Collection in Five Books and in Monte Cassino, Arch.
dellAbbazia, 372.
See P.J. Payer, Humanism of the Penitentials and the Continuity of the Penitential Tradition,
Mediaeval Studies 46 (1984), pp. 34054 and Meens, Het tripartite boeteboek, p. 261.
Quae scriptarum testimoniis et sanctorum dicatis roborata, ubi si quispiam discordare
uidetur. Illud eis elegendum est, quod maioris auctoritatis esse decernitur. This sentence was
taken from the preface of the Collectio Hibernensis of Rome, Biblioteca Vallicelliana, T. XVIII.
If the penances of the penitential canons were conicting, the compiler of the Collection in
Five Books even employed the rubric In conictu canonum (comperimus).
100
A.H. Gaastra
The discretion (discretio) or forethought of the priest (prouidentia sacerdotis) is mentioned in older penitentials as well, but in this collection
it is not only stressed in order to give the penitent the most suitable
penance, but also to provide a solution to the problem posed by the
often conicting canons. Allusions such as to ancient and new penances
indicate that the penances of the canons were by no means xed (secundum antiquam difnitionem . . . secundum humaniorem difnitionem).
The composer of the ninth-century Paenitentiale Pseudo-Gregorii, one
of the main sources of the ninth book, can be credited with the
invention of the method of contrasting old with new, more humane
penances.51 The compiler of our collection applied this method to other
canons as well.52
Examples such as these suggest that the ninth book was indeed
composed as a canonical reference book on penance. But whilst the
manuscript may have been produced for an episcopal library, it may not
have been intended for the bishops private use or the episcopal court.
Perhaps the book was meant to teach priests how to apply the canons
in order to enjoin a suitable penance on a penitent. The penitential
canons, together with the canons that were specically concerned with
receiving penitents, suggest that priests were the intended audience,
men who were ultimately expected to put their knowledge about the
canons into practice.
Penitentials, canon law, liturgy

In this case, the purpose of the ninth book as a reference work seems
clear. A closer examination of the south Italian penitentials and canon
law collections, however, reveals that canon law, penitential, and liturgical texts were closely interrelated. The compilers of two major Italian
canon law collections relied heavily on penitentials and their liturgical
instructions, while the compilers of penitentials, in turn, made use of
the canon law collections and liturgical ordines.53 As for the apocryphal
51
52
53
See Kerff, Das Paenitentiale Pseudo-Gregorii III. Ein Zeugnis karolingischer Reformbestrebungen, pp. 4663.
See canon IX.27 (fol. 200v): EX DECRETO PONTIFICUM. XXVII. Vir cuius mortua fuerit uxor,
secundum antiquam difnitionem licet ei post annum accipere aliam, secundum humaniorem
difnitionem post .vii. menses, et ipsa si prima fuit, et unum annum paeniteat. Et si tertiam
duxerit, .vii. annos paeniteat et separetur, quia non sunt coniugia, sed adulteria, aut stupra,
aut contubernia, uel fornicationem potius quam legitima coniugia esse non dubitatur.
Similiter et mulier si tertium uirum duxerit. The canon, concerned with second marriages
of widowers, substitutes the presumed old provision (possibly based on P. Oxoniense II, c. 38;
ed. Kottje, CCSL 156, p. 197) with a new one of the Iudicia Theodori G, c. 176 (Finsterwalder,
Die Canones Theodori Cantuariensis, p. 269). The result is that a widower is now allowed to
remarry after seven months instead of one year.
See also Roger Reynoldss contribution to this volume.
101
canons, many eventually found their way into the Italian penitentials
through the Collection in Five Books, whose wide dissemination is being
intensively studied by Roger Reynolds. As storehouses of penitential
canons, the south Italian collections were consulted by the compilers of
eleventh-century penitentials. The Paenitentiale Vallicellianum II (MS
C. 6), which was copied into a liturgical manuscript, is for instance
largely made up of canons taken from the Collection in Five Books. The
penitentials of the liturgical manuscripts Rome, Biblioteca Vallicelliana,
E. 62 and Lucca, Bibioteca Statale, 1781, both of which include detailed
penitential ordines, were largely made up of canons of the Collection in
Five books. One of the most important manuscript witnesses of this
collection, moreover, ends with a penitential ordo.54 The Paenitentiale
Vaticanum and the Paenitentiale Casinense, which were probably used
by the compiler of the Collection in Nine Books, attest that penitentials
often exceed categories such as liturgical or legal. The canons of both
texts are preceded in their manuscripts by liturgical texts among
others, ordines for giving penance and followed by long excerpts from
canon law collections.55
Conclusion
Many of the conclusions of this article do not contradict Hamiltons
and Kerffs views concerning the increasing legal and canonical function
of the penitentials, but nonetheless some modications seem in order.
The case of the Collection in Nine Books shows that compilers not only
copied the canones, but also dealt with them in an active way, modifying the canons and at the same time corroborating their authority.
Major alterations to the texts were intended to adapt them to new cases.
Such a remodelling of the ancient insular and Frankish models implies
a lively interest in penitential canons in Italy in the tenth, eleventh, and
even twelfth centuries. Canons certainly did not petrify into dry and
prescriptive texts in the Italian canonistic collections: the compiler
compared and harmonized the often conicting penances recommended by the canons and tried to attribute spurious texts to church
54
55
Rome, BAV, Vat. lat. 1339. See Reynolds, The South-Italian Canon Law Collection in Five
Books and its Derivatives, pp. 27981. The fth book of the collection in Vat. lat. 1339 is
incomplete. The part that contains the ordo was perhaps added to the manuscript at a
later date.
The P. Vaticanum is preceded by an ordo for a mass for newly wedded couples and a
penitential ordo, and followed by excerpts of the Collection in Four Books (R. Pokorny, Die
drei Versionen der Triburer Synodalakten von 895. Eine Neubewertung, Deutsches Archiv fr
Erforschung des Mittelalters (1992), pp. 429511). The P. Casinense is preceded by an ordo for
anointing the sick and deathbed penance, and followed by excerpts of Gregory Is Libellus
Responsionum and the Collectio Dionysiana Adaucta.
102
A.H. Gaastra
Fathers and papal or conciliar authority. The diversity of canons forced

the canonists to comment on them and to emphasize even more than
the compilers of penitentials did the prouidentia sacerdotis in order to
impose the most appropriate penance on the penitent. The penances as
they are found in the canons were not meant to be mechanically
applied, which is indicated by the insertion of commutation tables and
the emphasis on the priests discretion. The incorporation of penitential
canons into canon law manuscripts does not necessarily entail a merely
legal attitude towards these texts, as suggested by Franz Kerff. The
penitential prefaces included in the ninth book as well as the contents
of its canons, suggest that the text was aimed rather at confession than
at the episcopal court. After all, the compiler also inserted a number of
more practical prescriptions for priest-confessors, informing them about
how penitents should be treated. I also doubt whether bishops kept
these regulations for themselves and whether they were the only
intended audience for this collection. The information on penance may
have had educational purposes, although this is difcult to establish
with certainty, since glosses are almost entirely lacking in this manuscript. Finally, it has already been pointed out that canon law collections, penitentials and liturgical ordines were closely interconnected.
Canons of the ninth book, although through the Collection in Five
Books, would eventually nd their way into lesser collections; sometimes
penitentials were copied into small, mainly liturgical booklets. This
lively interaction between legal, liturgical and penitential texts is one of
the most interesting features of the south Italian interest in penance.
Canon law and the practice of penance:

Burchard of Wormss penitential
L K
This article investigates the characteristics and function of Book 19 of
Burchards Decretum. It demonstrates how the penitential questionnaire,
usually considered the most original part of this text, was the result of
Burchards systematic expansion upon his main source, Regino of Prm.
It argues that Book 19 was not a conventional penitential, to be used to
support the administration of penance by priests, but rather that it was
meant to be both an exemplary penitential and a summary of the preceding
eighteen books. Burchard thus sought to ensure there was no contradiction
between his collection of canon law and his penitential.
Since the pioneering studies of penitential handbooks by F.W.H. Wasserschleben and Hermann Josef Schmitz in the nineteenth century, it
has often been noted that Bishop Burchard of Worms (100025) 1 composed the nineteenth book of his inuential collection of canon law
(the Decretum) as a penitential.2 Schmitzs editions and studies were
unfortunately marred by an anachronistic leading question, but since
the publication of the ensuing necessary corrections by Paul Fournier
in 1910, researchers have refrained both from trying to reach a deeper
understanding of Book 19 of the collection and from establishing its
place in the transmission of penitential texts.3 Whilst the particularly
1
For Burchard see now W. Hartmann (ed.), Bischof Burchard von Worms 10001025 (Mainz,
2000); for the manuscripts and studies of the Decretum see L. Kry, Canonical Collections of
the Early Middle Ages (ca. 4001140): A Bibliographical Guide to the Manuscripts and Literature
(Washington, 1999), pp. 13355.
F.W.H. Wasserschleben, Die Buordnungen in der abendlndischen Kirche (1851; repr. Graz,
1958); H.J. Schmitz, Die Bubcher und das kanonische Buverfahren, vol. 2 (1898; repr. Graz,
1958). See also J.T. McNeill and H.M. Gamer, Medieval Handbooks of Penance (1938; repr.
New York, 1965), pp. 32145; C. Vogel, Les Libri paenitentiales, Typologie des sources du
moyen ge occidental 27 (Turnhout, 1978), p. 88 ff., rev. A.J. Frantzen (Turnhout, 1985),
p. 40; G. Picasso, G. Piana and G. Motta (eds), A pane e acqua. Peccati e penitenze nel Medioevo.
Il Penitenziale di Burcardo di Worms (Novara, 1986).
P. Fournier, tudes critiques sur le Dcret de Burchard de Worms, in T. Klzer (ed.),
Mlanges de droit canonique (Aalen, 1983), pp. 247391.

104
Ludger Krntgen
rich parts of Book 19 which deal with questions of superstition or

sexuality have been brought into more general discussions, a critical
assessment of the signicance and context of the penitential canons of
Burchards nineteenth book remains a desideratum. 4 Recent research in
the eld of penitential studies has concentrated mostly on the Carolingian era and utilized the tenth- and eleventh-century sources merely
as witnesses to establish the limits of the inuence of Carolingian discussions and decisions.5 A monograph devoted specically to the development of ecclesiastical penitential practice for the period between the
Carolingians and the ecclesiastical reforms from the late eleventh and
twelfth centuries, has only very recently been published. In this book,
Sarah Hamilton for the rst time discusses in a fundamental way the
signicance of Burchards Decretum as a historical source with regard to
the contemporary practice of penance. 6
Hamilton only allows the Decretum a minor role in the pastoral
practice of hearing confession and assigning penances; according to
her, the Decretum, divided into twenty books, would have been used,
like the other canonical collections of this period, as a reference work
for the bishop or the clerical community attached to the cathedral in
Worms, but not as a priestly aid for the daily practice of penance. 7 This
view of Burchards Decretum, she holds, is also applicable to those texts
which were specically shaped to be used in pastoral care: the penitentials. 8
North of the Alps such handbooks seem to have been no longer freshly
4
6
7
8
For studies concentrating on Burchards dealings with superstition and sexuality see e.g.
C. Vogel, Pratiques superstitieuses au dbut du XIe sicle daprs le Corrector sive Medicus
de Burchard, vque de Worms (9651025), in Etudes de civilisation mdivale. IXeXIIe sicle.
Mlanges E. R. Labande (Poitiers, 1974), pp. 75161. D. Harmening, Superstitio. berlieferungsund theoriegeschichtliche Untersuchungen zur kirchlich-theologischen Aberglaubensliteratur des
Mittelalters (Berlin, 1979), A.J. Gurjewitsch, Das Weltbild des mittelalterlichen Menschen
(Dresden, 1978), pp. 37997; idem, Mittelalterliche Volkskultur (Munich, 1987), pp. 12566;
H. Dienst, Zur Rolle von Frauen in magischen Vorstellungen und Praktiken nach ausgewhlten mittelalterlichen Quellen, in W. Affeldt (ed.), Frauen in Sptantike und Frhmittelalter (Sigmaringen, 1990), pp. 17394; J.A. Brundage, Law, Sex, and Christian Society in
Medieval Europe (Chicago, 1987). Some points I deal with in this paper are also discussed in
my article, Fortschreibung frhmittelalterlicher Bupraxis. Burchards Liber corrector und
seine Quellen, in Hartmann (ed.), Bischof Burchard von Worms, pp. 199226, which discusses
the penitentials used by Burchard in more detail.
See B. Poschmann, Die abendlndische Kirchenbue im frhen Mittelalter (Bresslau, 1930);
Vogel, Libri paenitentiales, pp. 3943. For the desiderata regarding the historiography of
penance in the early Middle Ages, a eld dominated by the works of Poschmann and Vogel,
see R. Meens, The Frequency and Nature of Early Medieval Penance, in P. Biller and A.J.
Minnis (ed.), Handling Sin: Confession in the Middle Ages (Woodbridge, 1998), pp. 3561.
S. Hamilton, The Practice of Penance, 9001050 (Woodbridge, 2001).
Hamilton, Practice, p. 44.
For the transmission and signicance of early medieval penitentials, see Vogel, Libri paenitentiales ; R. Kottje, Bubcher, in Lexikon des Mittelalters 2 (1982), cols 111822; L. Krntgen,
Bubcher, in Lexikon fr Theologie und Kirche 2 (1994), cols 8224; R. Meens, Het tripartite
boeteboek. Overlevering en betekenis von vroegmiddeleeuwse biechtvoorschriften (Hilversum, 1994),
pp. 1172.
105
composed in the tenth and eleventh centuries, 9 yet the existing older
compilations from the seventh, eighth and ninth centuries continued to
be copied and used. Rob Meens was able to show that the manuscript
tradition of penitential texts in the tenth and eleventh centuries differed
from the ninth-century one: while in the earlier period we know of
relatively many manuscripts which contain one or more penitentials in
combination with texts stemming from liturgical or pastoral practice,
in the later period the manuscripts seem mostly to reect an interest in
canon law or ecclesiastical administration.10 Should we therefore conclude
that penitentials in the tenth century were no longer used by priests hearing
confession but were instead consulted by bishops and their subordinate
clerics as a kind of general introduction to the eld of canon law? 11
Before we can subscribe to such a conclusion it will be necessary to
discuss the matter more fully in order to reach a more specic understanding as to the nature of the manuscript tradition of already existing
texts, as well as to possible regional differences that can be observed.
Moreover, to assess the real signicance of such a hypothesis, it would
be necessary to evaluate the differences in the chances of survival of library
manuscripts and those used in pastoral practice, as well as the survival
rates of manuscripts from the ninth and tenth centuries in general.
For such a differentiated analysis the Utrecht research project on the
penitentials of the tenth and eleventh centuries will provide ample
material. Here the question of the relevance of penitential texts in
Burchards age will be dealt with from a different point of view:
through a closer consideration of the characteristics and function of the
penitential which Burchard included in his nineteenth book. Without
any critical analysis it has always been accepted that the nineteenth
book should be regarded as a penitential. Sarah Hamilton, however,
did not view the text in relation to other penitentials, but as part of
the canon law collection compiled by Burchard. 12 Such a view seems
justied by the fact that in Worms (i.e. under the Burchards personal supervision), the nineteenth book was solely copied as part of
his collection.13 Yet, in view of the undeniable distinctiveness of the
9
10
11
12
13
In Italy and Spain, on the other hand, we see new texts being composed specically in the
tenth century, see G. Hgele, Das Paenitentiale Vallicellianum I. Ein oberitalienischer Zweig
der frhmittelalterlichen kontinentalen Bubcher (Sigmaringen, 1984); F. Bezler, Les Paenitentiels Espagnols. Contribution ltude de la civilisation de lEspagne chrtienne du haut Moyen
ge (Mnster, 1994); Hamilton, Practice, pp. 4850.
Meens, The Frequency and Nature, pp. 456; Hamilton, Practice, pp. 456.
Hamilton, Practice, pp. 4450.
Hamilton, Practice, pp. 3144. Greta Austin has dealt most recently on the purpose behind
the compilation of the Decretum but without focusing on the nineteenth book: Jurisprudence
in the Service of Pastoral Care: The Decretum of Burchard of Worms, Speculum 79 (2004),
pp. 92959.
See below nn. 4950.
106
Ludger Krntgen
nineteenth book when viewed in the context of the collection as a

whole, one may ask whether such an approach is legitimate. The fact
that Burchard devoted a complete book to the subject of penance should
not be accepted as self-evident but as requiring explanation, an issue
which in turn raises further questions. In fact, not only the nineteenth
book but most of the other books deal with problems that have close
links with confession and penance. This is illustrated by the short tables
of contents at the beginnings of Books 6 to 12, 13, 14, 16 and 17, which
deal with topics such as manslaughter, perjury and adultery. The clauses
mostly end with words such as and about their penance (et de poenitentia eorum) or something similar:14 in these books Burchard therefore
not only dealt with specic forms of sinful behaviour, but also with the
appropriate forms of penance. Accordingly, the books in question contain many penitential canons and not only those which correspond to
decisions from late Roman or Frankish councils, but also those which
can only be found in penitential manuals from both the Carolingian
age and the earlier periods. Burchards collection can be characterized
as a mixture of conciliar canons and penitential rules, a feature which
it has in common with one of its most important sources and models:
the handbook for episcopal visitations (Sendhandbuch) composed by
Regino of Prm, c.906.15
Such a mixture of conciliar legislation and penitential rules corresponds exactly with the goals which Burchard set himself in the general
preface to the Decretum: to compile a book from the sentences of the
Fathers, from ecclesiastical canons and from various penitentials
(quatenus libellum ex variis utilitatibus . . . tam ex sententiis sanctorum
Patrum quam ex canonibus seu ex diversis poenitentialibus . . . in
unum colligerem).16 Burchard chose these words with great care, as is
clearly shown by a comparison with his source here, the preface of the
penitential of Halitgar of Cambrai (<830), which together with the socalled Collectio Anselmo dedicata (s. IX4/4) formed the most important
14
15
16
For example, Burchard, Decretum VI Argumentum: Liber hic de Homicidiis sponte et non
sponte commissis, de parricidiis, de fratricidiis, de illis qui uxores legitimas et seniores suos
interciunt, et de caede ecclesiasticorum tractat, quaeque singulis hisce homicidii generibus
sit poenitantia iniungenda, ostendit. X Argumentum: Libro hoc de Incantatoribus, de
auguribus, divinis, sortilegis et variis illlusionibus diaboli, de maledicis, contentiosis, conspiratoribus, deque singulorum poenitentia tractatur, PL 140, cols 763 D, 831 C.
F.W.H. Wasscherschleben (ed.), Reginonis abbatis Prumiensis libri duo de synodalibus causis et
disciplinis ecclesiasticis (1840; repr. 1964); see Kry, Canonical Collections of the Early Middle
Ages, pp. 12833. For Burchards use of Regino, see below nn. 256.
Burchard, Decretum Praefatio, ed. G. Fransen and T. Klzer, Burchard von Worms, Decretorum Libri XX, ergnzter Neudruck der Editio Princeps Kln 1548 (Aalen, 1992), pp. 459, at
p. 45. The Praefatio will be cited forthwith from this edition. For the value of the preface,
see B.C. Brasington, Prologues to Canonical Collections as a Source for Jurisprudential
Change to the Eve of the Investiture Contest, Frhmittelalterliche Studien 28 (1994), pp. 226
42, at pp. 235 and 236, and Austin, Jurisprudence, pp. 9379.
107
sources for Burchards preface.17 Halitgar, bishop of Cambrai, had composed a penitential at the request of his metropolitan Archbishop Ebo
of Reims.18 In Ebos letter of request as well as in Halitgars response
both were included in the preface of Halitgars penitential collection
it was explicitly stated that he should compile a penitential from the
sentences of the Fathers and from conciliar legislation. The reason for
this was that, as Ebo had observed, in the church province of Reims
many penitential rules circulated that were confusing as they lacked
uniformity, showed great discrepancies with each other, and were not
sanctioned by ecclesiastical authority. 19 Ebo was clearly aiming his critique at the traditional penitentials from the Carolingian age and earlier
periods which were circulating in the region over which Ebo had jurisdiction. Interestingly, Burchard extended this negative judgement to
the conciliar canons: and for this reason especially, because in our
diocese the laws of the canons and the judgements of the penitents are
confused, diverse and disordered, just as if they were completely
neglected, and there are both great discrepancies amongst them, and
they are supported by the authority of almost no one (ob id maxime,
quia canonum iura et iudicia poenitentium in nostra dioecesi sic sunt
confusa atque diversa et inculta ac si ex toto neglecta et inter se valde
discrepantia et pene nullius auctoritate suffulta). 20 It was not just the
penitentials which were viewed as problematic, but rather canon law
in general. The common stock of ecclesiastical legislation to which
Burchard also added the sentences found in penitential handbooks
had become so complex and complicated, and had been so little taken
care of in his own diocese, as Burchard himself added, that priests were
overburdened with information when it came to assigning a particular
penance. Following on from Halitgar, Burchard diagnosed the causes of
this problem: the canons found in the collections often did not contain
a detailed assignment of a specic penance for particular sins but
instead left that decision to the clergyman responsible. While Halitgar
assumed, however, that in general this would be a bishop, particularly
in the case of serious offences, it is obvious that Burchard regarded this
17
18
19
20
For Halitgars work see R. Kottje, Die Bubcher Halitgars von Cambrai und des Hrabanus Maurus
(Berlin and New York, 1980); for the Collectio Anselmo dedicata, Kry, Canonical Collections,
pp. 1248; for Burchards use of these sources, see G. Fransen, Les sources de la Prface du
Dcret de Burchard de Worms, Bulletin of Medieval Canon Law, ns 3 (1973), pp. 17.
For the historical context in which Halitgar composed his penitential, see Kottje, Bubcher,
pp. 35.
Halitgar von Cambrai, Paenitentiale, Letter of Ebo of Reims: Et hoc est quod in hac re me
valde sollicitat, quod ita confusa sunt iudicia paenitentum in presbiterorum nostrorum
opusculis, atque ita diversa et inter se discrepantia et nullius auctoritate suffulta, ut vix
propter dissonantiam possint discerni, ed. Ernst Dmmler, MGH Epistolae 5 (Hannover,
1899), pp. 61617, no. 2, p. 617.
Burchard, Decretum Praefatio, ed. Fransen and Klzer, p. 45.
108
Ludger Krntgen
task as belonging, in the rst place, to priests. In view of the state of

education of priests in his diocese, he thought priests would be overtaxed by such a task.21
Are we to conclude that Burchards main aim when composing his
Decretum was to provide priests with an aid for the practice of penance?
Should we regard the Decretum rst and foremost as a penitential?
Possibly, since Burchard included sentences from existing penitentials
not only in Book 19, but in several other books of the Decretum. What
then is the justication for regarding Book 19 as the penitential of
Burchard? This justication lies in one of its particular features: the
book contains not only penitential sentences, but also an ordo regulating
the ceremonies of penitential liturgy. By including this ordo Burchard
followed a convention which since the eighth century had governed the
manuscript tradition of penitential texts. Ordines regulating the liturgical
procedure for secret penance were not taken from existing liturgical handbooks, but they were compiled, edited and transmitted together with
penitential texts, although with the use of singular prayers or benedictions which are also to be found in sacramentaries of the period. 22
Through its ordo the nineteenth book acquired an immediate afnity
with pastoral care, that is, with the practice of penance. Burchard is not
responsible for combining penitential canons with this ordo, but found
this combination in the main source from which he took his penitential
rules: the visitation handbook of Regino of Prm. 23 In Reginos work
Burchard found a second formal feature which suggests a close association
with penitential practice. The Sendhandbuch contains a questionnaire, with
the help of which a priest could question a penitent about his sins. 24
21
22
23
24
Burchard, Decretum Praefatio: Vnde t plerumque, ut confugientibus ad remedium poenitentiae tam pro librorum confusione quam etiam presbyterorum ignorantia nullatenus ualeat
subueniri. Cur hoc? Inde aestimo euenire maxime, quia mensuram temporis et modum delicti
in agenda poenitentia non satis attente et aperte et perfectae preagunt canones pro unoquoque crimine, sed magis in arbitrio sacerdotis intellegentis relinquendum statuunt.
Quapropter quia hoc nisi a sapientibus et legis diuinae eruditis eri nequit, rogauit me
dilectio tua, ut hunc libellum breuiter collectum nunc demum pueris traderem addiscendum
. . ., ed. Fransen and Klzer, p. 45 ff. Compare Hamilton, Practice, p. 31.
Cf. R. Kottje, Bupraxis und Buritus, in Segni e riti nella chiesa altomedievale occidentale,
Settimane di studio del centro italiano di studi sullalto medioevo 33 (1985), pp. 36995;
L. Krntgen, Studien zu den Quellen der frhmittelalterlichen Bubcher (Sigmaringen, 1993),
pp. 2347, 255. In view of this close connection between penitentials and penitential ordines,
which had already been established in the eighth century, there is no need to regard the
integration of penitential sentences into a penitential ordo, as can be observed in some
manuscripts from the tenth to twelfth centuries, as fundamentally different from existing
forms of transmissions for penitential texts, cf. Hamilton, Practice, p. 48.
For the sources of Burchards penitential canons, see Krntgen, Burchards Liber Corrector;
a fundamental tabulation of the sources of the Decretum can be found in H. Hoffmann and
R. Pokorny, Das Dekret des Bischofs Burchard von Worms. Textstufen Frhe Verbreitung
Vorlagen (Munich, 1991), pp. 165276; for the sources used in Book 19 see also Picasso, Piana
and Motta, A pane e acqua, pp. 17383.
Hamilton, Practice, pp. 401; Fournier, tudes, p. 320.
109
Penitential canons were normally a form of casuistry describing singular

cases according to the following model: if somebody has done such and
such, he should do the following penance. The questionnaire was
apparently meant as an adjustment to this tradition: no longer simply
reacting to the confession made by the penitent, the priest was instead
enabled to take the initiative in questioning him or her directly.
The textual transmission clearly shows that the creation of such a
questionnaire is to be considered as a secondary development in the
history of penance and penitential texts. Regino adopted this form from
the model for many of his penitential sentences: the so-called Paenitentiale mixtum Pseudo-Bedae-Egberti, a text composed in the 70s or early
80s of the ninth century in north-eastern France, probably somewhere
in Lotharingia.25 The questionnaire which Regino took from this text
did not originally belong to the Paenitentiale mixtum, as is shown by
the fact that it only occurs in the secondary line of transmission for this
penitential. The oldest textual witness of this line of transmission dates
from the end of the ninth century; an earlier reference to the questionnaire has not been found.26 In the context of the Paenitentiale mixtum
Ps.-Bedae-Egberti the questionnaire gives the impression of being an
only partially integrated addition; in the rst place because the enquiries
of the ordo deal with only a fraction of the sentences which are discussed in the chapters of the penitential, and no clear principle for such
a selection can be identied; in the second place, we can observe that
some penitential sentences were added to the questionnaire, which are
comparable to the sentences found in the penitential proper. The questionnaire, therefore, can be regarded as a rather small but complete
penitential of its own. It appears not as a supplement to existing penitential handbooks, but as an alternative. It is therefore only logical to
assume that Regino chose to put this questionnaire at the heart of his
treatment of secret penance.27 In Reginos work, however, the questionnaire
25
26
27
R. Haggenmller, Die berlieferung der Beda und Egbert zugeschriebenen Bubcher (Frankfurt a.M., 1991), pp. 24673; idem, Zur Rezeption der Beda und Egbert zugeschriebenen
Bubcher, in H. Mordek (ed.), Aus Archiven und Bibliotheken. Festschrift fr Raymund
Kottje zum 65. Geburtstag (Frankfurt a.M., 1992), pp. 14969, at pp. 1556; Krntgen, Studien,
pp. 23443. Edition: Schmitz, Die Bubcher und das kanonische Buverfahren, pp. 675700,
the questionnaire is on pp. 6813.
The penitential ordo in the Romano-German Pontical adopted the questionnaire independently from Regino: PRG CXXXVI.13, ed. C. Vogel and R. Elze, Le Pontical Romano
Germanique du Dixime Sicle 2 (Vatican City, 1963), pp. 237, 240; see Kottje, Halitgar,
p. 124 ff. Another questionnaire, which is independent from the Paenitentiale mixtum, is
found in many later manuscripts, see K.M. Delen, A.H. Gaastra, M.D. Saan and B. Schaap,
The Paenitentiale Cantabrigiense: A Witness of the Carolingian Contribution to the TenthCentury Reforms in England, Sacris erudiri 41 (2002), pp. 34173, at pp. 3478 and the
edition on pp. 3579.
Regino, De synodalibus causis I.3024, pp. 140148; cf. Kottje, Bubcher Halitgars, pp. 124
ff., 128 ff.
110
Ludger Krntgen
and penitential sentences are not yet fully integrated. The sentences,
moreover, do not appear in the form of a complete penitential handbook, but are to be found spread all over the text. It was only Burchard
who then tried to employ the questionnaire as a detailed model for the
process of interrogating a penitent and assigning a specic penance.
This is clearly exemplied by the sheer number of the questions which
are to be found in the nineteenth book of the Decretum: in Reginos
work we can count approximately forty questions, a number which in
Burchards work grew to more than one hundred and ninety. 28
Burchard, therefore, considerably expanded the scheme he had found
within Regino. Where did he nd this additional material? To this question there are two answers. Firstly, it is mainly in Burchards questionnaire
that we nd the rich material for which no sources could be identied,
including the well-known detailed descriptions of magical rites and
sexual practices.29 It is possible, therefore, that these questions have their
origins in actual experiences and problems, which need not, however,
have been limited to the neighbourhood of Worms. The lex Burchard
issued for his familia in Worms shows that the bishop and his associates
were in much closer contact with the daily life of the laity, and particularly
the lower strata of the laity, than the authors of older penitentials had been,
hemmed in as they were by their monastic routine and principles.30
Yet, this material which was possibly developed in Burchards immediate surroundings forms only a part of the broad range of subject
matter which the bishop of Worms added to the questionnaire he had
found in Reginos work. The most important source for these penitential
enquiries was identied by Paul Fournier. He did not have to look very
far aeld: it was Burchards own Decretum, or rather, the material he
had gathered together in its earlier thematically organized books. 31 This
can, for example, be shown from the questions dealing with homicide and forms of violence. The forms of homicide with which the
questionnaire begins in Burchards Decretum, appear in a much more
detailed and extensive form than in Reginos work or in the Paenitentiale mixtum, the sources upon which the questionnaire was built.
Regino formulated the question: Did you perpetrate homicide, either
by accident, or on purpose, or without willing to do so, or as revenge
28
29
30
31
Schmitz, Die Bubcher und das kanonische Buverfahren contains one hundred and ninetyfour questions. The whole section is normally counted as one chapter of Book 19 and in this
way equated with the other chapters, which often are less than ten per cent of this length;
because of this the central signicance of the questionnaire has not been noticed.
See above n. 4.
Cf. K. Schulz, Das Wormser Hofrecht Bischof Burchards, in Hartmann (ed.), Bischof
Burchard von Worms, pp. 25178.
Cf. Fournier, tudes, pp. 3237; G. Motta, Fonti del penitenziale di Burcardo, in A pane
e aqua, pp. 17383, at pp. 1734.
111
for your parents, or on the orders of your lord, or during a military

expedition?32 For almost every case Regino mentions in this sentence,
Burchard devoted a specic and detailed question. In doing so, the
bishop of Worms used a lot of the material which he had compiled in
his sixth book devoted to the subject of homicide. The following table
will provide evidence for such a rereading regarding the twenty-seven
questions dealing with violent crimes. 33
Burchard, Decretum, Book XIX.5:
Penitential questionnaire
Burchard, Decretum
Regino, Libri duo
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
VI.1
VI.2
VI.3
VI.4
VI.4
VI.32
Cf.
VI.15/16
VI.23
VI.17
VI.31
VI.42
VI.34
Cf. VI.21/23
VI.22
VI.21
VI.40/37
VI.20
XIX.101
XI.60
Cf. VI.27
II.6/Questionnaire
II.7/8
II.8
II.9
II.9
II.23/Questionnaire
Cf.
II.15/22/Questionnaire
Questionnaire
II.25/Questionnaire
II.49
II.96
II.27
Cf. Questionnaire
II.18
II.17
cf. II.30
Questionnaire
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25.1
25.2
26
27
32
33
Appendix I.28
Regino I.304, p. 142: Fecisti homicidium, aut casu, aut volens aut nolens, aut pro vindicta
parentum, aut iubente domino tuo, aut in publico bello?
Cf. Fournier, tudes, pp. 3234. Most references can be found in Wasserschlebens earlier
work: Buordnungen, pp. 63165, where, however, the published text is taken from a later
separate transmission of Book 19 (see below, n. 45) in Cod. Rome, Biblioteca Vallicelliana,
Cod. F. 8. A detailed presentation of the evidence for all one hundred and ninety-four
questions, would show a similar view. Hoffmann and Pokorny, Das Dekret, p. 233, refer to
Regino I.304 as the source for the whole of Chapter 5 from Book 19; this identication should
be rened accordingly.
112
Ludger Krntgen
A great part of the material that Burchard expanded upon and specied
in the questionnaire which he had found in Regino, stems also from
Reginos Sendhandbuch. But whereas Regino adopted the questionnaire
from his source (the Paenitentiale mixtum Pseudo-Bedae-Egberti) almost
without alteration and presented the greater part of the sentences as
being relevant to the assignment of penances in the various chapters of
his collection irrespective of the questionnaire itself, Burchard utilized
the material from the various books a second time in order to transform
his inquiry. In contrast to Regino, Burchard did not, therefore, eschew
using the same sentence twice, but did his best to include such parallels. 34
This conforms with his intentions, as set out in the general preface: to
create a work that not only provides easy access to its subject matter,
but is also free from internal contradictions. 35 By utilizing his own work,
Burchard more or less succeeded in avoiding contradictions between
the penitential questionnaire and the sentences found in the various
other books of his collection. This begs the question, however, as to
why he chose to compose a penitential in the form of a questionnaire,
when this did not and was not meant to introduce new material to
the collection as a whole.
We should not dismiss the simple answer that Burchard formulated
these questions because he found this format in his source, Regino. But
Burchard transformed Reginos own text by presenting all the material
relevant for penitential purposes in the form of questions. In this way
he adapted the traditional canons for the practice of penance so that they
could be used in the liturgical dialogue between priest and penitent.
Such an adaptation to a confessional context constituted more than
a supercial reformulation of the specic canons: Burchard not only
replaced the traditional third person with the second person, but in his
questionnaire he often also elucidated the text of singular canons. Capitulum
VI.32, for example, dealing with the question of homicide in the context of a blood feud, refers to the penance, as it had been assigned in
capitulum VI.1 for a qualied case of killing; the equivalent question in
the questionnaire resolves this allusion to an earlier canon by indicating
a second time the amount of penance the killer had to full. 36 The
34
35
36
Regino refers several times to correspondences within his work, but without copying the
relevant sentences, see Wasserschleben, Reginonis libri duo, pp. xivxx.
See above nn. 212.
Burchard, Decretum VI.32 (PL 140, 772 C): Qui pro vindicta fratris, aut aliorum parentum
occiderit hominem, ita poeniteat, ut homicidia sponte commissa, cum ipsa Veritas dicat:
Mihi vindictam, et ego retribuam. Cf. XIX.5 [7] (952 B): Fecisti homicidium pro vindicta
parentum? XL dies, quod carinam vocant, poeniteas, cum septem sequentibus annis, quia
Dominus dicit: Mihi vindicta[m], et ego retribuam. (I follow the numbering of the
sentences as established by Wasserschleben, Schmitz and Fournier, who made further divisions within the rst questions as well as several others. In fact, this note concerns the second
question.)
113
detailed description of the way in which the seven years of penance

should be fullled, as offered in relation to the rst question, is apparently taken for granted.37 This detailed regulation of penance was rst
issued in 895 at the eastern Frankish council of Tribur, the canons of
which Burchard used in the nal stages of editing his Decretum.38 Yet,
Burchard adopted the rules of Tribur only indirectly, from Regino, as
there are no traces of the so-called Vulgate-version of the canons of
Tribur to be found in either the questionnaire or in Book 6. 39
In the context of the questionnaire in Book 19 Burchard, therefore,
not only repeated the sentences which he had compiled in a systematic
way in the other books of the Decretum, but at times he also made them
more specic or claried their contents. 40 For this reason the compiler
intervened more in the texts of his sources for the questionnaire of
Book 19 compared to the way in which he treated them in the other
books of the Decretum. He reduced, for example, the elaborate text of
his source to the essential part that was necessary for assigning the
proper penance; or he changed the formulation of his source aiming at
a very specic case in such a way as to make it more generally applicable.41 Burchard thus edited his sources even more effectively in the
questionnaire of Book 19 than in the rest of the Decretum, apparently
out of a concern for the practical applicability of his work. These formal
changes, abridgements, clarications and generalizations were meant to
facilitate the use of the subject matter for the specic circumstances of
determining an appropriate form of penance for a specic kind of sin.
Should we conclude from this that Burchard compiled the nineteenth
book of the Decretum with the specic aim of its being used as a
practical tool by local priests in his diocese, as a traditional penitential
handbook? The sheer abundance of the questions makes it rather
improbable that they could all be put to a penitent by his confessor. 42
Yet, this is what the introductory remarks of the questionnaire, which
37
38
39
40
41
42
Burchard, Decretum XIX.5, PL 140, cols 951 C952 B.

Concilium Triburiense a. 895 c. 52a58a, ed. V. Krause, MGH Capitularia regum Francorum
2 (Hannover, 18907; repr. 1980), pp. 2416; for this point see Wilfried Hartmann, Die
Synoden der Karolingerzeit im Frankenreich und in Italien (Paderborn, 1989), pp. 3701, 438.
For the historical context of the council and the transmission of its canons, see idem, Kaiser
Arnolf und die Kirche, in F. Fuchs and P. Schmid (eds), Kaiser Arnolf. Das ostfrnkische Reich
am Ende des 9. Jahrhunderts (Munich, 2002), pp. 22152, at pp. 24551, and R. Pokorny, Die
drei Versionen der Triburer Synodalakten von 895. Eine Neubewertung, Deutsches Archiv 48
(1992), pp. 429511.
Regino II.69, pp. 21618; cf. Hoffmann and Pokorny, Das Dekret, pp. 6981.
See, for example, Burchard, Decretum VI.31/XIX.5 [12] (PL 140, 772 BC/952 D953 A);
VI.22/XIX.5 [21] (770 A/954 B).
See, for example, Burchard, Decretum VI.23/XIX.5 [9] (770 B771 A/952 C) and Decretum
VI.37/VI.40/XIX.5 [23] (773 C. 774 A775B/954 CD).
Moreover, the structure of the questionnaire, which is closely related to the structure of its
source, is inconsistent, see Hamilton, Practice, pp. 401, particularly n. 77.
114
Ludger Krntgen
Burchard adopted from Regino, suggest: Perhaps, most beloved, the

priest should tell the penitent, you are unable to remember everything
you have done. Therefore, I will interrogate you. Be careful not to hide
anything by diabolical deception.43 After this admonition, the priest
should, according to the following rubric, interrogate the penitent
thereby following the sequence of the questionnaire that is, according
to the plentiful questions composed by Burchard.
In the case of Reginos visitation handbook, such an interrogation
seems perfectly possible, since no more than forty questions were incorporated into the ordo. This total contrasts sharply with Burchards one
hundred and ninety questions; questions which are generally much more
elaborate than those in Reginos ordo. Therefore, it is hardly conceivable
that a priest would have read the complete catalogue to the penitent believer.
Should we therefore assume that Burchards penitential is a literary
ction, which was never intended to be used in the practice of penance?
The practical signicance of the work might be found in a different
context. Burchard stresses in his preface that at least one of his aims for
the whole collection was to educate the young clerics connected to the
cathedral school in Worms. For such educational purposes the consequent amplication of the questionnaire would have provided the perfect
assistance. Pupils in Worms and elsewhere could learn which kind of
crimes they could encounter in the process of hearing confession and
the kind of penances they should dispense for these. 44 The question
format, moreover, together with the fact that it was embedded in the
ordo, provided a direct connection to the process of hearing confession.
Pupils in this way not only learnt about the material side of penance,
that is the possible kinds of sin and appropriate forms of penance; but
also its ritual side, that is the liturgy of penance and the specic order
in which confession should be heard and a penance determined.
The manuscript tradition supports the view that the nineteenth book
of the Decretum was rst and foremost a didactic work, which was not
meant to function in the same way as the older penitentials, that is in
direct support of pastoral care. Book 19 is found in manuscripts as a
separate, independent work, but this transmission begins only at the
end of the eleventh century.45 We know of no independent transmission
43
44
45
Burchard, Decretum XIX.5 (PL 140, col. 951 B/C): Videns autem eum sacerdos verecundantem, rursum prosequatur: Fortassis, charissime, non omnia quae gessisti ad memoriam modo
veniunt. Ego te interrogabo; tu cave ne, diabolo suadente, aliquid celare praesumas. Et tunc
eum ita per ordinem interroget.
Hamilton, Practice, p. 43.
For the separate transmission of Book 19, see Schmitz, Die Bubcher und das kanonische
Buverfahren, pp. 393402; M.W. Bloomeld et al., Incipits of Latin Works on the Virtues and Vices,
11001500 A.D. (Cambridge, MA, 1979), p. 203, #2287; P.J. Payer, The Origins and Development of the Later Canones Penitentiales, Medieval Studies 61 (1999), pp. 81105, at pp. 812.
115
of Book 19 from the rst decades after the compilation of the Decretum
(<1023), nor from the productive scriptorium in Worms, to which we
owe several copies of the Decretum in different editorial redactions.46
The audience for which the work was written, as it can be inferred from
Burchards own words, implies, however, a more direct link with penitential practice. In the Argumentum at the beginning of Book 19, Burchard wrote that every priest should be instructed, even the simple
ones.47 He thereby revealed that the didactic purpose of the book was
aimed at a more general audience than just that of the cathedral school,
and that the work was meant to reach the local priest who had to hear
confession and determine specic penances. In the preface to the whole
work, Burchard, following on from Halitgars work, identies the lack
of knowledge amongst priests as the central problem in penitential
practice.48 The question is, therefore: was he trying to remedy this lack
of knowledge only by educating the young clerics, or was the nineteenth
book meant to provide specic assistance for penitential practice?
In order to arrive at least at a hypothetical answer to this question,
it is necessary to return to the relationship between Burchards
nineteenth book and the sixth book of the penitential of Halitgar. The
reference to the sacerdos simplex, the simple priest, in the Argumentum
of Book 19 is inspired by Halitgar, who added to the ve books of his
penitential a complete penitential with its own ordo, which should be
of use to the more simple priests, who are unable to understand more
complex matters.49 Halitgars example was probably the decisive factor
behind Burchards decision to add the nineteenth book as the Corrector to his canon law collection. Book 19, and particularly its ordo with
the questionnaire and redemptions, was intended to perform the same
function that Halitgar had expected of his sixth book: to act as an aid
for those priests who became overburdened with knowledge when asked
to use his formidable collection of canons. This presupposes that
Burchard held the traditional penitentials to be useful texts. That he
did so, is not only clear from the fact that he used early medieval
penitentials as sources for the sentences in his collection, but he also,
46
47
48
49
Hoffmann and Pokorny, Das Dekret.

Burchard, Decretum XIX Argumentum, PL 140, col. 949 A: Liber hic corrector vocatur et
medicus, quia correctiones corporum et animarum medicinas plene continet, et docet
unumquemque sacerdotem, etiam simplicem, quomodo unicuique succurrere valeat, ordinato
vel sine ordine, pauperi, diviti, puero, juveni, seni, decrepito, sano, inrmo, in omni aetate
et in utroque sexu.
Above, n. 21.
Halitgar von Cambrai, Paenitentiale Praefatio, p. 266: Sextus quoque ponitur libellus de
paenitentia, qui non est ex labore nostre excerpsionis sed adsumptus de scrinio romane
ecclesiae, in quo multa ac diversa continentur, que in canonibus non habentur. Tamen
simplicioribus qui majora non valent capere poterit prodesse.
116
Ludger Krntgen
following on from a requirement in the Paenitentiale Pseudo-Egberti,

reckoned penitentials among the indispensable tools that every priest
should have at his disposal.50 The penitentials Burchard names, however, were not mentioned in his source, but in fact he adopted this triad
Paenitentiale Theodori, Paenitentiale Romanum and Paenitentiale
Bedae from Reginos visitation handbook. 51 Yet, Burchard modied his
source on one crucial point. Whereas Regino had prescribed that every
priest should be questioned as to which of these three penitentials he
used, Burchard demanded that he use a penitential composed according
to the canons and sentences of these three texts. 52 In his time, however,
as far as we can judge from the extant texts, such a penitential did not
exist. The only work which conforms to these demands is Burchards
own; penitentials and canons are precisely the authorities (apart from
the Fathers) that Burchard had identied as the sources of his own
collection.53 Burchard, therefore, did not recommend one of the existing penitentials. He even explicitly cautions his readers against using
Bedes penitential, a text he had himself used as a source, warning it
contained not only a lot of useful things, but also a lot of material
which contradicted the canons and other penitentials. 54
No penitential, therefore, existed at the time which could live up to
Burchards expectations. Such a conclusion does not, however, allow us
to presume that Burchard compiled his nineteenth book as a replacement for existing penitential handbooks. We can however, it seems to
me, formulate a less far-reaching conclusion: Burchard compiled his
nineteenth book as a kind of exemplary penitential, by using a compositional scheme which included an ordo, questionnaire and redemptions.55 This model met the criteria regarding form and contents as
Burchard had formulated them from his knowledge of both canonical
traditions and the legacy of early medieval penitentials. From such a
perspective it no longer seems particularly important whether Burchard
50
51
52
53
54
55
Burchard, Decretum XIX.8: Ad haec autem suum Poenitentialem, qui et secundum canonum
auctoritatem, et justa sententias trium Poenitentialium, Theodori episcopi, et Romanorum
ponticum, et Bedae ordinetur. (PL 140, col. 979 D). Cf. Paenitentiale Ps.-Egberti Praefatio:
post autem suum penitentialem, qui hoc ordine secundum auctoritatem canonum ordinatur,
ut discretiones omnium causarum investiges primitus, sine quibus rectum iudicium non potest
stare, ed. Schmitz, Die Bubcher und das kanonische Buverfahren, pp. 66074, at p. 662.
A fact which Fournier tudes, p. 322, n. 4, did not take into account.
Regino, De synodalibus causis I. Interr. 96: Si habent poenitentialem Romanum vel a Theodoro episcopo aut a venerabili Beda editum, ut secundum quod ibi scriptum est, aut interroget contentem, aut confesso modum poenitentiae imponat, p. 26.
Above n. 16.
Burchard, Decretum XIX.8: Sed in Poenitentiali Bedae plura inveniuntur utilia: plura autem
inveniuntur ab aliis inserta, quae nec canonibus, nec aliis Poenitentialibus conveniunt (PL
140 col. 979 D). This sentence follows immediately upon the one cited above in n. 50.
For the particular importance that Burchard attached to the redemptions, see Hamilton,
Practice, pp. 412.
117
did indeed foresee that Book 19 of the Decretum could reach a wider
priestly audience than the clerical community attached to Worms
cathedral. His efforts at presenting a penitential in the way he did
already shows that the bishop of Worms was familiar with the practical
signicance of the penitential genre. It seems to me that it was precisely
for this reason that he undertook the formidable task of bringing
together canons and penitential sentences in some formal unity and so
reconciling, to a degree at least, the genre of early medieval penitentials
with the traditions of canon law. Just like the Carolingian bishop,
Halitgar of Cambrai, two hundred years earlier, the Ottonian bishop of
Worms thought it inadequate just to collect the material relating to the
penitential practice from the authoritative canon law collections of his
day. For Burchard the early medieval penitentials were not only authoritative texts he could use next to the ancient authorities he found in the
canon law collections, he clearly saw them as useful tools for the process
of administrating penance, more so than these same collections of canon
law.56 From such a perspective he took the logical step and composed
an all-embracing penitential which did not allow any contradiction
with his canon law collection, compiled as it was from the same sources.
Tbingen University
56
Cf. Hamilton, Practice, pp. 456.

Penitance (Early Medieval Europe - Volume 14, Issue 1 - January 2006 Issue 1) (2006)

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Penitance (Early Medieval Europe - Volume 14, Issue 1 - January 2006 Issue 1) (2006)

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Introduction

Penitential questions: sin, satisfaction

As early medieval clergymen realized, to confess ones sins to a priest is

Early Medieval Europe () 16 Blackwell Publishing Ltd , Garsington

views of the early Middle Ages as a period in which Christianity hardly

Early Medieval Europe ()

Blackwell Publishing Ltd

Introduction: Penitential questions

interest in religious history especially following the investigation of

Blackwell Publishing Ltd

Early Medieval Europe ()

Kottje (ed.), Paenitentialia minora, pp. 160 and 8393.

Early Medieval Europe ()

Blackwell Publishing Ltd

Introduction: Penitential questions

Blackwell Publishing Ltd

Early Medieval Europe ()

texts, in order to answer questions about the actual context in which

Early Medieval Europe ()

Blackwell Publishing Ltd

Penitentials and the practice of penance

This article reconsiders the function of penitentials in the tenth and

Early Medieval Europe () 721 Blackwell Publishing Ltd , Garsington

Early Medieval Europe ()

Blackwell Publishing Ltd

Penitentials and the practice of penance

Hamilton, The Practice of Penance, pp. 478.

Blackwell Publishing Ltd

Early Medieval Europe ()

episcopal courts and synods, really diminish the value of penitential

Penitentials in the tenth and eleventh centuries

Early Medieval Europe ()

Blackwell Publishing Ltd

Penitentials and the practice of penance

shown that these Carolingian reform penitentials were clearly a major

Blackwell Publishing Ltd

Early Medieval Europe ()

German region (most probably from somewhere in the archdiocese of

Early Medieval Europe ()

Blackwell Publishing Ltd

Penitentials and the practice of penance

Leonardi, Intellectual Life, p. 186.

Blackwell Publishing Ltd

Early Medieval Europe ()

Early Medieval Europe ()

Blackwell Publishing Ltd

Penitentials and the practice of penance

The reform penitentials, composed in the ninth century to remedy

Blackwell Publishing Ltd

Early Medieval Europe ()

two manuscripts, one of which was copied in France in the eleventh

Early Medieval Europe ()

Blackwell Publishing Ltd

Penitentials and the practice of penance

Oxoniense II, and two pseudo-Gregorian penitentials: the Carolingian

The manuscript context

Blackwell Publishing Ltd

Early Medieval Europe ()

appear in the context of canonistic material, while manuscripts which

Frantzen, The Literature of Penance, p. 130.

Early Medieval Europe ()

Blackwell Publishing Ltd

Penitentials and the practice of penance

Blackwell Publishing Ltd