¹ Napier, A. S., ‘An Old English Vision of Leofric, Earl of Mercia’, TPS (1907–1910), 180–8.Google Scholar

² Ibid. p. 181. Tatton-Brown, T. ( ‘The Towns of Kent’, Anglo-Saxon Towns in Southern England, ed. Haslam, J. (Chichester, 1984), pp. 1–36, at 19) notes that the port was granted to Christ Church by Cnut in 1023Google Scholar; he tends, however, to the view that the parishes of St Clement and St Mary ‘are Norman suburbs’.

³ See Brooks, N., The Early History of the Church of Canterbury: Christ Church from 597 to 1066 (Leicester, 1984), p. 37.Google Scholar

⁴ See Gerould, G. H., Saints' Lives (Boston and New York, 1917), p. 126Google Scholar; Silverstein, H. T., ‘The Vision of Leofric and Gregory's Dialogues’, RES 9 (1933), 186–8Google Scholar; Pulsiano, P., ‘Hortatory Purpose in the Old English Visio Leofrici, MÆ 54 (1985), 109–15Google Scholar; Gatch, M. McC., ‘Perceptions of Eternity’, The Cambridge Companion to Old English Literature, ed. Godden, M. and Lapidge, M. (Cambridge, 1991), pp. 190–205, at 202–3.CrossRefGoogle Scholar Professor Patrizia Lendinara of Palermo, who has given this paper a sympathetic reading, plans a new edition with full commentary.

⁵ The only notice I know in the historical or archaeological literature, a reference to the allusions in the Visio to the entry porch and tomb of St Dunstan at Christ Church, Canterbury, is Brooks, The Early History of the Church of Canterbury, pp. 39–40.Google Scholar I had made a similar observation in ‘Old English Literature and the Liturgy: Problems and Potential’, ASE 6 (1977), 237–47, at 244.Google Scholar

⁶ The great resource is Lehmann-Brockhaus, O., Lateinische Schriftquelien zur Kunst in England, Wales und Schottland vom Jahre 901 bis zum Jahre 1307, 5 vols. (Munich, 1955–1960) (cited below as Lehmann-Brockhaus).Google ScholarDodwell's, C. R.Anglo-Saxon Art: a New Perspective (Manchester, 1982)Google Scholar, is an examination of the history of art in Anglo-Saxon England based largely on the materials gathered by Lehmann-Brockhaus.

⁷ ‘Piety and Liturgy in the Old English Vision of Leofric’, Words, Texts and Manuscripts: Studies in Anglo-Saxon Culture presented to Helmut Gneuss on the Occasion of his Sixty-Fifth birthday, ed. Korhammer, M. (Cambridge, 1992), pp. 159–79.Google Scholar

⁸ Catalogue of Manuscripts containing Anglo-Saxon (Oxford, 1957), no. 64Google Scholar, who suggests that it is probably from Worcester. The Visio fills blank space in a quire or booklet at the end of a Latin vita of St Kenelm; it is preceded on 48v by ‘a list of eleven books, all but two of which are stated to be “englisce”’ in a hand roughly contemporary with the Kenelm vita: that is, ‘s.xi med.’ On the booklist, see Lapidge, M., ‘Surviving Booklists from Anglo-Saxon England’, Learning and Literature in Anglo-Saxon England, ed. Lapidge, M. and Gneuss, H. (Cambridge 1985), pp. 33–89, at 62–4.Google Scholar

⁹ ‘se wæs swiðe wis for Gode. 7 eac for worulde. þæt fremode eallre þisre ðeode’ (Anglo-Saxon Chronicle 1057 D: Two of the Saxon Chronicles Parallel, ed. Plummer, C., 2 vols. (Oxford, 1892–1899) I, 188Google Scholar: ‘he was wise in matters sacred and divine, which advanced the cause of all this nation’). His reputation, especially with reference to dealings with monastic lands, was, however, mixed (see Barlow, F., The English Church, 1000–1066: a Constitutional History, 2nd ed. (London, 1979), pp. 56–7).Google Scholar On Leofric's ecclesiastical benefactions, see Dodwell, , Anglo-Saxon Art, pp. 212, 220 and 230, and notes thereto.Google Scholar

¹⁰ The entries in The Dictionary of National Biography, ed. Stephen, L. et al. , 22 vols. (1885–1901; repr. Oxford, 1959–60)Google Scholar, by Hunt, W. for Leofric (XI, 940–2)Google Scholar and Gordon, A. for Godiva/Godgifu (VIII, 36–8) remain useful, especially for a rehearsal of the Godiva legendGoogle Scholar; but most authoritative is Harmer, F. E., Anglo-Saxon Writs (Manchester, 1952), esp. pp. 561 and 565–6.Google Scholar

¹¹ ASC 1052 C, D and E (Two Chronicles, ed. Plummer, I, 173–83).Google Scholar See also Stenton, F. M., Anglo-Saxon England, 3rd ed. (Oxford, 1971), pp. 553–61.Google ScholarOrderic, Vitalis, Ecclesiastical History IV.ii.183 (ed. Chibnall, M., 6 vols. (Oxford 1969–1980) II, 16)Google Scholar, makes Godgifu the wife of Ælfgar, who is (in fact) her son by Leofric, but discusses her lavish gifts to Coventry of gold and silver.

¹² Line 25: ‘to pray earnestly in secret places’.

¹³ Lines 30–1: ‘tried strenuously [to determine] whether he could somehow undo [the doors], but he could not [open them]’.

¹⁴ Line 33: ‘porch at the door of the church’.

¹⁵ Lines 36–37: ‘threw himself in a corner’.

¹⁶ Lines 37–40: ‘saw clearly that [Leofric] stood in the midst of the pavement clothed in mass [vestments] with hands raised and had on a green mass-vestment, brightly shining – and he [the servant] wondered greatly at this sight’. The text is corrupt here, and Napier's suggestions are not convincing. I have addressed these matters in another article on the Vision of Leofric (see above, n. 7), and they do not affect the observations made here about the entrance to the church.

¹⁷ See Southern, R. W., Saint Anselm and his Biographer: a Study of Monastic Life and Thought 1059–c. 1130 (Cambridge, 1963), pp. 231–4 and 241–2.Google Scholar

¹⁸ I rely principally upon Taylor, H. M., ‘The Anglo-Saxon Cathedral Church at Canterbury’, Arch J 126 (1969), 101–30Google Scholar; Woodman, F., The Architectural History of Canterbury Cathedral (London, 1981), pp. 13–22Google Scholar; and Brooks, , The Early History of the Church of Canterbury, pp. 36–59.Google ScholarTaylor summarizes Eadmer at pp. 105–6 and gives the texts of Eadmer and other Latin sources at pp. 125–9Google Scholar (I cite these sources in the text of this article parenthetically by the section numbers assigned by Taylor); and Brooks disposes of alternative proposals made by Gem, R. D. H. ( ‘The Anglo-Saxon Cathedral Church at Canterbury: a Contribution’, Arch J 127 (1970), 196–201)Google Scholar, E. C. Gilbert ( ‘The Date of the Late Saxon Cathedral at Canterbury’, ibid. pp. 202–10) and Parsons, D. ( ‘The Pre-Conquest Cathedral at Canterbury’, AC 84 (1969), 175–84).Google Scholar Taylor's differences with them are also discussed in his ‘Tenth Century Church Building in England and on the Continent’, Tenth Century Studies: Essays in Commemoration of the Millennium of the Council of Winchester and Regularis Concordia, ed. Parsons, D. (London, 1975), pp. 140–68, at 154–60.Google Scholar For the purposes of this paper, which attempts to sidestep any lingering disagreement between Taylor and Brooks and other experts, the diagram of Brooks, The Early History of the Church at Canterbury, p. 38Google Scholar, underlies my interpretation of the descriptions in Leofric.

¹⁹ Ibid. pp. 39–40.

²⁰ Lines 33–4: ‘but [he] then began his prayers, as was his custom, for there was a porch at the church door’.

²¹ See Microfiche, AConcordance to Old English, ed. Healey, A. DiP. and Venezky, R. L. (Toronto, 1980)Google Scholar, and Dictionary of Old English, ed. Amos, A. C. et al. , fasc. C (Toronto, 1988).Google Scholar

²² Biddle, M., ‘Excavations at Winchester 1964. Third Interim Report’, Ant J 45 (1965), 230–64, at 254–5CrossRefGoogle Scholar; idem, Object and Economy in Medieval Winchester, Winchester Stud. 7.2 (Oxford, 1990), 102–24 and pls. II and IV–VI (founding pit and mould fragments for hanging bells of the episcopate of Æthelwold)Google Scholar; ibid. pp. 725–6 (small bells of later date); The Golden Age of Anglo-Saxon Art, ed. Backhouse, J. et al. (London, 1984), p. 138 (hereafter, Golden Age by catalogue no.)Google Scholar; H. M. and Taylor, J., Anglo-Saxon Architecture, 3 vols. (Cambridge, 1965–1978), pp. 869–70 and 1062–3.Google Scholar

²³ Cambridge, Corpus Christi College 44, fols. 1–2 (ed. Trahern, J. B. Jr,., ‘Amalarius be becnum: a Fragment of the Liber officialis in Old English’, Anglia 91 (1973), 475–8).Google Scholar

²⁴ Regularis Concordia 1.17 (ed. Symons, T. (London, 1953), p. 13)Google Scholar; see also V.49 and XII.66. For further texts, see references in Lehmann-Brockhaus, s.vv. ‘signum’ and ‘tintinnabulum’. A number of hand-bells survives in Ireland, some of which were venerated as relics. They came (with croziers and other venerated objects) to be used in connection with oaths, but I find no clear reference to their liturgical use, if any, although it is widely assumed they were used to assemble worshippers by itinerant missionaries: see Bourke, C., ‘Early Irish Hand-Bells’, Jnl of the R. Soc. of Antiquaries of Ireland 110 (1980), 52–66Google Scholar; Warren, F. E., The Liturgy and Ritual of the Celtic Church, 2nd ed. by Stevenson, J. (1881; repr. Woodbridge, 1987), pp. 92–4Google Scholar; Treasures of Ireland: Irish Art 3000 B.C.-1500 A.D., ed. Ryan, M. (Dublin, 1983), nos. 57, 79a–b and 90a–b.Google Scholar

²⁵ Kluge, F., ‘Zur Geschichte der Zeichensprache: angelsächsische Indicia monasterialia’, Internationale Zeitschrift für allgemeine Sprachwissenschaft 2 (1885), 116–40, §§ 2 and 6.Google Scholar At § 7, the sign for a church involves pulling with the hands ‘swylce þu bellan ringe’. A new edition has recently appeared: Monasteriales Indicia: the Anglo-Saxon Monastic Sign Language, ed. Banham, D. (Pinner, 1991).Google Scholar

²⁶ Robertson, A. J, Anglo-Saxon Charters, 2nd ed. (Cambridge, 1956), pp. 248–9 and 496.Google Scholar Robertson's dating (1020–30) is revised to ‘the middle of the eleventh century’ by Keynes, S., ‘The Additions in Old English’, The York Gospels, ed. Alexander, J. et al. , Roxburghe Club (London, 1986), pp. 81–99, at 96.Google Scholar

²⁷ Æthelwold's gift mentions only small, silver bells (Robertson, , Anglo-Saxon Charters, no. 39, at p. 72)Google Scholar; Leofric's are both hanging (‘uphangene’6) and handbells (‘handbella’) (ibid. p. 228).

²⁸ London, BL, Cotton Tiberius C. vi, 17r (Ohlgren, T. H., Insular Anglo-Saxon Illuminated Manuscripts: an Iconographk Catalogue c. A.D. 625 to 1100 (New York, 1986), 203.28 [cited by catalogue no.]Google Scholar; Temple, E., Anglo-Saxon Manuscripts, 900–1066 (London, 1976), no. 98, ill. 305 [cited by catalogue no. and illustration]Google Scholar; Wormald, F., Collected Writings I, ed. Alexander, J. J. G. et al. (London, 1984), p. 134).Google Scholar On the literary tradition to which the tintinnabulum is added in three manuscripts (including Tiberius C. vi, 17r), see Hammerstein, T., ‘Instrumenta Hieronymi’, Archiv für Musikwssenschaft 16 (1959), 117–34.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

²⁹ BL, Add. 49598, 118v (The Benedictional of St Æthelwold) (Ohlgren, Iconographic Catalogue, 111.26; Temple, , Anglo-Saxon Manuscripts, no. 23, ill. 91).Google Scholar For architectural evidence, see Taylor, and Taylor, , Anglo-Saxon Architecture, p. 869.Google Scholar

³⁰ Lasko, P., Ars Sacra: 800–1200 (Harmondsworth, 1972), p. 15.Google Scholar The doors with these rings were at the entrances to the church proper and to chapels and the sacristy on the ground and upper floors of the church, although the largest set was remounted as the main entryway to a much later porch; they were, in other words, more characteristically on inner doors, not at the entrances to porches. On these and the several other door rings that can be dated before 1050, see also Mende, U., Die Bronzetüren des Mittelalters, 800–1200 (Munich, 1983)Google Scholar; idem, Die Türzieher des Mittelalters, Denkmäler deutscher Kunst: Bronzegeräte des Mittelalters 2 (Berlin, 1981)Google Scholar; Goldschmidt, A., Die frühmittelalterlichen Bronzetüren, I. Die deutschen Bronzetüren des frühen Mittelalters (Marburg, 1926).Google Scholar

³¹ Mende, , Bronzetüren, pp. 48–52 and 141–5, and pls. 45–9.Google Scholar The slightly later south portals have four pull-rings, the central pair of which have small animal heads at the bottoms of the rings that might have served as holds for knocking.

³² Geddes, J., ‘The Sanctuary Ring of Durham Cathedral’, Archaeologia 107 (1982), 124–9, at 126.CrossRefGoogle ScholarGeddes, (p. 124)Google Scholar suggests a date in the 1170s (when the Galilee was constructed) for the Durham ring, but Mende, , Türziehen, p. 215, still finds 1133 ‘gut denkbar’, and Geddes's stylistic argument strikes me as unconvincing.Google Scholar See further Stone, L., Sculpture in Britain: the Middle Ages (Harmondsworth, 1955), pp. 49–50 and pl. 28a.Google Scholar

³³ ‘He struck vigourously and repeatedly the bronze rings which hung on the exterior of the doors’: Reginaldi monacbi Dunitmensis Libellus de ammirandis Beati Cuthberti virtutibus, ed. Raine, J., Surtees Soc. 1(1835), 106 (ch. 50).Google Scholar Reginald's plural ‘circulos aereos’ should resolve Geddes's scruple as to whether there was originally but one ring; and his ‘concutit’ calls in question the implication of Tavenor-Perry, J. that sanctuary rings were never used for knocking (‘Sanctuary Rings’, The Reliquary and Illustrated Archaeologist ns 12 (1906), 96–105).Google Scholar On English sanctuary, see Cox, J. C., Sanctuaries and Sanctuary-Seekers of Medieval England (London, 1911), pp. 6–8 (sanctuary in Anglo-Saxon law) and 95–125 (the Durham sanctuary).Google Scholar

³⁴ The porch, removed in the 1780s, can be seen in the engraving published by Browne, Willis, A Survey of the Cathedrals of York, Durham, Carlisle, Chester, Man, Lichfield, Hereford, Worcester, Gloucester and Bristol (London, 1727), before p. 221 or (there being problems of pagination between gatherings Ff and Gf.Google Scholar Reginald of Durham (ed. Raine, , p. 106)Google Scholar describes the approach of the fugitives mentioned above: ‘Sic ad superiora provecti, per medium fenestrae districtissimae perducuntur, atque quasi gradatim per devexum praerupti montis, in quo turris ilia fundata est, ad inferiora deferuntur.’

³⁵ Bede, Vita S. Cuthberti (prose), ch. 37; ed. Colgrave, B., Two Lives of Saint Cuthbert (Cambridge, 1940), p. 278 and note at pp. 355–6.Google Scholar

³⁶ Hall, D., ‘The Sanctuary of St Cuthbert,’ St Cuthbert, His Cult and His Community to AD 1200, ed. Bonner, G., Rollason, D. and Stancliffe, C. (Woodbridge, Suffolk, 1989), pp. 425–36.Google Scholar According to Hall, there is reference to the porch of churches (‘binnan cyricderum’) in at least one legal text, Be griðe, ch. 13.

³⁷ Taylor, and Taylor, , Anglo-Saxon Architecture, pp. 817–23.Google Scholar

³⁸ Taylor, , ‘The Anglo-Saxon Cathedral Church at Canterbury’, p. 126Google Scholar (2: ‘ut baptisteria & examinationes judiciorum pro diversis causis constitutorum, quae ad correctionem sceleratorum in Ecclesia Dei fieri solent, in ibi celebrarentur, & Archiepiscoporum corpora in ea sepelirentur’); see also p. 112.Google Scholar

³⁹ Lines 47–50: ‘Then suddenly he heard a violent noise, as though the monks’ seats suddenly fell all at once; and the longer it lasted the louder, more varied and violent it was. And after a long time, the noise ceased.’

⁴⁰ Lines 50–61: ‘There was within the church a burning lamp. Suddenly, however, a light shone in there at the east end, as though a new moon were rising, so that it lighted under the right arm of the cross that was over the altar. And it was the longer the lighter as long as it was lighting, so that the light of the lamp was not at all visible, and it [i.e. the mysterious light] lit the whole vast church. So it was that he [the fearful servant] dared not look at it long, and it waned in the same way as it had waxed before, so that he saw again the light of the lamp and the other ceased. And the frightened lad saw and heard it all with him [Leofric] as though it were to be a witness, and the others slept and knew nothing of it.’

⁴¹ It is discussed, in addition to the works already cited, in Taylor, H. M., ‘Corridor Crypts on the Continent and in England’, North Staffordshire Jnl of Field Stud. 9 (1969), 101–30.Google Scholar

⁴² ASC 1023 D (Two Chronicles, ed. Plummer, I, 156): a great company of ecclesiastics and members of the royalty ‘gelogodon sancte Ælfeages halgan lichaman on norð healfe Christes weofodes’. Despite the Chronicle's seeming explicitness in placing the body of Ælfheah on the level of the presbytery next to the altar, it is likely that a memorial monument was there and the burial actually was in the crypt.Google Scholar

⁴³ The altar used for the morrow mass; which leads to the assumption that the daily principal mass was celebrated at the altar of Christ (cf. Regularis Concordia, ed. Symons, , pp. xliii–xliv, where ‘morrow’ and ‘principal’ mass translate ‘matutinalis’ and ‘principalis’).Google Scholar

⁴⁴ 11(c): ‘a tomb above [his grave] lofty and sublimely built in the manner of a pyramid’.

⁴⁵ Horn, W. and Born, E., The Plan of St Gall: a Study of the Architecture & Economy & of of Life in a Paradigmatic Carolingian Monastery, 3 vols. (Berkeley, CA, 1979) I, 136–41.Google Scholar See also Ganz, P. L. and Seeger, T., Das Chorgestühl in der Schweiz (Frankenfeld, 1946), p.6.Google Scholar

⁴⁶ Horn, and Born, , Plan of St Gall I, 1 and 37.Google Scholar See also III, 20, 27 and 28 and the glossary (sedile, sedilium, bancum, in addition to formula).

⁴⁷ Tracy, C., English Gothic Choir Stalls 1200–1400 (Woodbridge, 1987), pp. xix–xx and 1.Google Scholar

⁴⁸ Hence caution is needed with reference to the usage of the Plan of St Gall, which, according to Horn and Born, reserves this term for refectory benches and privy seats.

⁴⁹ Regularis Concordia I. 17 and 20 (ed. Symons, , pp. 13 and 16).Google Scholar See also Spurrell, M., ‘The Architectural Interest of the Regalaris Concordia’, ASE 21 (1992), 161–76, at 169.Google Scholar

⁵⁰ ‘Because of some infirmity’ or ‘illness’: Indicia monasterialia, §§ 38–40.

⁵¹ Ibid. § 51: ‘clæm þu þine handa togædere and gege hi þam gemete þe þu dest þonne þu hine fyalden wylt’.

⁵² BL, Stowe 944, 6r (Ohlgren, Iconographic Catalogue, 183.1; Temple, Anglo-Saxon Manuscripts, no.78, ill. 244Google Scholar; Golden Age, no. 62).

⁵³ Tractatus de combustione et reparation Cantuarensis ecclesiae, in The Historial Works of Gervase of Canterbury, ed. Stubbs, W., 2 vols. (London 1879–1880) I, 4Google Scholar; Lehmann-Brockhaus, no. 800 ( ‘ligna semiusta in chorum deorsum super monachorum sedilia corruerant’, etc.).

⁵⁴ After this passage had been written, I was fortuitously reminded of CCCC 44, p. 1 (Ker, no. 33, art. a; see also Trahern, , ‘Amalarius’, p. 475 n. 3).Google Scholar Only a few letters of words are decipherable from the passage at the top of this page, which was evidently erased by Archbishop Parker. Trahern believes the passage had ‘something to do with the seating of a bishop’: ‘the text appears to refer to a biscop, a biscopstol, a hlyda (sedile), and a feldstol (faldistolium, ‘folding stool’).’ The manuscript reading ‘hlydan’ is taken as definite by Ker and Trahern; the visible reading that is taken for faldstool is ‘felde.s.[.]le’. The subject of a bishop's seating would, of course, be appropriate to a pontifical, although there is no such apparent justification for the passage on the significance of bells, already cited, which follows. Furthermore, ‘hleda’ or ‘hlyda’ ‘seat’ is weakly attested in the dictionaries. ‘Sound’ is a much more usual connotation for the word, either as the infinitive of the verb or an inflected form of a weak noun; although ‘feldestol’ or the equivalent does not occur in Visio Leofrici, it is difficult not to make some association of the two texts.

⁵⁵ Dodwell, , Anglo-Saxon Art, pp. 112–18.Google Scholar

⁵⁶ BL, Stowe 944, 6r (see above, n. 52).

⁵⁷ Braun, J., Das christliche Altargträt in seinem Sein und in seiner Entwicklung (Munich, 1932), p. 467.Google Scholar The Plan of St Gall shows the many altars in the aisles and the nave of the church as ‘surmounted by a cross, shown in horizontal projection’ (Horn, and Born, I, 133).Google Scholar While it is true that the architectural structures that back the altars of the aisles and separate the areas in which they are sited are depicted on the same plane as the easternmost edge of the altar itself, it seems to me unlikely that these crosses were portable crosses placed on the altars; they might better have risen from the floor behind the altars. A late twelfth-century Winchester wall-painting shows an altar still with only a chalice and reliquary (Crook, J., ‘King Edgar's Reliquary of St Swithun’, ASE 21 (1992), 177–202, at 189–91 and pls. xvi–xviii).Google Scholar

⁵⁸ Golden Age, no.75 (pp. 90–2).Google Scholar The cross in the illuminated crucifixion of New York, Pierpont Morgan Library M.869, 9v (Arenberg Gospels), however, is also strikingly similar to the cross presented by Cnut and Emma (Ohlgren, Iconographic Catalogue 161.1; Temple, , Anglo-Saxon Manuscripts, no. 54, ill. 171).Google Scholar

⁵⁹ A possible cross of this type, more elaborate than those depicted in the drawings cited in the next note, is at the Victoria and Albert Museum: Stone, , Sculpture in Britain, pp. 41–2 and pl. 25Google Scholar; Dodwell, Anglo-Saxon Art, pl. G.

⁶⁰ CCCC 23, 4r (Ohlgren, Iconographic Catalogue, 153.7; Stettiner, R., Die illustrierten Prudentius-Handschriften, Tafelband (Berlin, 1905), pls. 49–50[6]Google Scholar; Budny, M., Insular, Anglo-Saxon, and Early Anglo-Norman Manuscript Art at Corpus Christi College, Cambridge: an Illustrated Catalogue (Kalamazoo, MI, forthcoming), no. 24, pl. IX)Google Scholar; BL, Add. 24199, 4r (Ohlgren, Iconographic Catalogue, 156.5; Stettiner, pls. 49–50[10]). An inventory of the sacristy at Bury lists ‘.xiiii. rodan’ (Robertson, , Charters, p. 194)Google Scholar, and the list associated with Leofric of Exeter mentions bishop's crosses and ‘mycele gebonede roda’, as well as small silver crosses (ibid. p. 226).

⁶¹ Indicia monasterialia, §§ 35–6.

⁶² Braun, , Altargerät, pp. 467–70.Google ScholarAs Braun notes (p. 469)Google Scholar, Carolingian synodal legislation does not mention crosses as among the items to be found on the altar at mass (chalice, paten, gospelbook, pyx for the communion of the sick, and reliquary).

⁶³ Horn, and Born, , Plan of St Gall I, 135.Google Scholar See also Raw, B. C., Anglo-Saxon Crucifixion Iconography and the Art of the Monastic Revival, CSASE 1 (Cambridge, 1990), 40–66Google Scholar; Braun, J., Der christliche Altar in seinergeschichtlichen Entwicklung, 2 vols. (Munich, 1924) I, 401–4Google Scholar, calls these ‘Laienaltar’.

⁶⁴ Dodwell, , Anglo-Saxon Art, pp. 210–13, esp. 212.Google Scholar Elsewhere, it is said that Cnut gave his crown to Christ Church, Canterbury: see Heslop, T. A., ‘The Production of de luxe Manuscripts and the Patronage of King Cnut and Queen Emma’, ASE 19 (1990), 151–95, at 184.Google Scholar

⁶⁵ Heslop, , ‘De luxe Manuscripts’, pp. 157 and 187, citing Lehmann-Brockhaus, nos. 4758 and 4701.Google Scholar

⁶⁶ Taylor, and Taylor, , Anglo-Saxon Architecture, p. 1056.Google Scholar

⁶⁷ E.g. V Æthelred II.i; I Cnut 12: Laws of the Kings of England from Edmund to Henry I, ed. Robertson, A. J. (Cambridge, 1925), pp. 82 and 164.Google Scholar See also Barlow, , English Church, pp. 145 and 162.Google Scholar

⁶⁸ Indicia monasterialia, §§ 25–8, 34 and 37. In the Blickling Homilies, ‘leohtfæt’ is used of lamps burned in churches and carried before the rich by their servants: ed. Morris, R., EETS 58, 63 and 73 (London, 1874–1880), 99 (‘Sau wle þearf’) and 127 (Ascension).Google Scholar For a hanging lamp over an altar, see the somewhat later wall-painting in the library at Winchester (Crook, , ‘King Edgar's Reliquary’, pp. 182–3 and 191).Google Scholar

⁶⁹ Indicia monasterialia, § 88. The candlesticks and lamps found at Winchester were mostly for domestic use: Biddle, Object and Economy in Medieval Winchester, pp. 980–1000.Google Scholar

⁷⁰ See also ‘se preost msessode be cruce’ (line 74), discussed below, where it is clear that the cross at Sandwich is neither on nor directly behind the altar nor visible from positions before the altar.

⁷¹ Brooks, , The Early History of the Church of Canterbury, p. 40Google Scholar; Taylor, , ‘Cathedral at Canterbury’, p. 112 (sources 2, 3).Google Scholar

⁷² As I have pointed out elsewhere (above, n. 7), Leofric is associated by the writer of the text with powerful nobles of great piety who both do their duty in the world and attempt to keep as much of the observance of the religious as possible.

⁷³ Lines 69–80: ‘There was a triple-threaded wall-hanging, very thickly woven, that hung behind the altar. And there was a very large rood on the ground in the northeast corner; and as much of the tree was visible as would be a large man's handbreadth beneath the hanging; the other part was between the hanging and the wall. And the priest was celebrating near the cross. Then he saw above the rood a hand, as though it were blessing; then he first thought that someone was blessing him, for the church was full of people, but it was not at all so. When he looked at it more attentively, he saw the entire cross as clearly as though there were nothing in front of it, and the blessing hand was stirring and moving upwards.’

⁷⁴ See above, n. 2.

⁷⁵ Eddius, Stephanus [Stephen of Ripon], The Life of Bishop Wilfrid, ed. Colgrave, B. (Cambridge, 1927), p. 28 (ch. xiii).Google Scholar For a summary of earliest history, see T. Tatton-Brown, ‘The Towns of Kent’ (cited above, n. 2), and ‘Canterbury and the Early Medieval Towns of Kent’, Archaeology in Kent to AD 1500. In Memory of Stuart Eborall Rigold, Council for Brit. Archaeol. Research Report 48 (1982), 79–83.Google Scholar

⁷⁶ Encomium Emmae Reginae II.5 (ed. Campbell, A., R. Hist. Soc, Camden 3rd ser. 72 (1949), 20–1)Google Scholar: ‘the most famous of all the ports of the English’.

⁷⁷ Tatton-Brown, , ‘Towns of Kent’, p. 19Google Scholar, citing Sawyer, P. H.Anglo-Saxon Charters: an Annotated List and Bibliography, R. Hist. Soc. Guides and Handbooks 8 (London, 1968), no. 959.Google Scholar

⁷⁸ Tatton-Brown, , ‘Towns of Kent’ p. 19.Google Scholar

⁷⁹ Boys, W., Collections for an History of Sandwich in Kent, with Notices of the other Cinq Ports and Members, and of Richborough (Canterbury [1792]), p. 285.Google Scholar For a description of the church, see also pp. 285–7 and pls. after pp. 284 and 286.Google Scholar

⁸⁰ See Budny, M. and Tweddle, D., ‘The Maaseik Embroideries,’ ASE 13 (1984), 65–96Google Scholar; Budny, and Tweddle, , ‘The Early Medieval Textiles at Maaseik, Belgium’, Ant J 65 (1985), 353–88.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

⁸¹ The Relics of St Cuthbert, ed. Battiscombe, C. F. (Oxford, 1956); the stole and maniples are discussed at pp. 375–432Google Scholar by E. Plenderleith (technique), C. Hohler (iconography) and R. Freyan (art history).

⁸² References to scholarship on Anglo-Saxon needlework are given by Budny, M., ‘The Anglo-Saxon Embroideries at Maaseik: their Historical and Art-Historical Context’, Academie voor Wetenschappen, Leteten en Schone Kunsten van België, Klasse der Schone Kunsten 45 (1984), 56–133, at 59–70Google Scholar; Christie, A. G. I., English Medieval Embroidery (Oxford, 1938), pp.31–7.Google Scholar See also Budny, M., ‘The Byrhtnoth Tapestry or Embroidery’, The battle of Maldon AD 991, ed. Scragg, D. (Oxford, 1991), pp. 263–78, at 266–72Google Scholar; Kendrick, A. F., English Needlework, 2nd ed. rev. Wardle, P. (London, 1967), pp. 1–6Google Scholar; and on English work in its continental connections, Schuette, M. and Muller-Christensen, S., The Art of Embroidery, trans. King, D. (London, 1964), pp. xv–xvi.Google Scholar

⁸³ Dodwell, , Anglo-Saxon Art, esp. pp. 129–87.Google Scholar

⁸⁴ On the Ælfric text, an unpublished addition to the sermon for the Sunday after Easter in the First Series of Catholic Homilies, see Gatch, M. McC., Preaching and Theology in Anglo-Saxon England: Ælfric and Wulfstan (Toronto, 1977), pp. 86–8Google Scholar, and the review of the book by Pope, J. C., Speculum 54 (1979), 129–36, at 134–5.Google Scholar Dr Budny has directed my attention to an article that suggests first-hand knowledge of sericulture by Aldhelm: von Erhardt-Siebold, E., ‘Aldhelm in Possession of the Secrets of Sericulture’, Anglia 60 (1936), 384–9.Google Scholar

⁸⁵ See Microfiche Concordance, s.vv. ‘þrilig’ ‘þrielig’ ‘þrylen’, etc. Gale Owen-Crocker has helpfully suggested to me that the term might refer to hangings in a triple-arcade, citing a tenth-century grave carving (Golden Age, no. 136) and Cambridge, Trinity College B.16.3, lv (Ohlgren, Iconographic Catalogue, 91.2; Temple, , Anglo-Saxon Manuscripts, no. 14, ill. 48)Google Scholar, but further study convinces me that the term can only refer to weaving, not architecture.

⁸⁶ DuCange, C., Glossarium Mediae et Infimae Latinitatis, 10 vols. (Niort, 1883–1887), s.vv. ‘trilex’Google Scholar, ‘trilices’; Short, C. and Lewis, C. T., A Latin Dictionary (Oxford, 1879), s.v. ‘trilex’.Google Scholar

⁸⁷ Muthesius, A., ‘Silks and Saints: The Rider and Peacock Silks from the Relics of St Cuthbert’, St Cuthbert, His Cult and His Community, ed. Bonner, et al. , pp. 343–66, esp. 353.Google Scholar See further Granger-Taylor, H., ‘The Earth and Ocean Silk from the Tomb of St Cuthbert at Durham: Further Details’, Ancient and Medieval Textiles: Studies in Honour of Donald King, ed. Monnas, L. and Taylor, H. Granger (London, 1989), pp. 151–66Google Scholar; on the Byzantine control of the silk industry, see Muthesius, ‘From Seed to Samite: Aspects of Byzantine Silk Production’, ibid. pp. 135–49; and on elegant fabrics other than silks, L. von Wilckens, ‘The Stole at Quedlinburg’, ibid. pp. 167–74.

⁸⁸ Owen, G. R., ‘Wynflæd's Wardrobe’, ASE 8 (1979), 195–222, at 209–11, with helpful diagrams of weaves at p. 210.Google Scholar The term occurs in a will, dated s. xi: Anglo-Saxon Wills, ed. Whitelock, D. (Cambridge, 1930), p. 14 (no. 3).Google Scholar

⁸⁹ E.g. Dodwell, Anglo-Saxon Art, pl. 36 (ivory carving, ciborium with curtains), pls. 33 and 35 (curtains as room dividers: BL, Cotton Tiberius B. iv, 32r and 27v: Ohlgren, Iconographic Catalogue, 191.105 and 92, Temple, Anglo-Saxon Manuscripts, no. 86); BL, Add. 34890, 10v (swagged curtain on rod: Ohlgren, Iconographic Catalogue, 173.1, Temple, , Anglo-Saxon Manuscripts, no. 68, ill. 215)Google Scholar, and Oxford, Bodleian Library, Lat. lit. R. 5, 3v and 13v (tied curtains framing evangelist portraits: Ohlgren, Iconographic Catalogue, 196.3 and 7, Temple, Anglo-Saxon Manuscripts, 91, ill. 277 and 278).Google ScholarGervers, V., ‘An Early Christian Curtain in the Royal Ontario Museum,’ Studies in Textile History in Memory of Harold B. Burnham, ed. Gervers, V. (Toronto, 1977), pp. 56–81, at 72–3, believes that by the tenth century the curtains in manuscript painting had become an iconographic convention not entirely understood by the painters.Google Scholar

⁹⁰ The Æthelwold list mentions ‘vi wahryft’ (Robertson, , Charters, p. 72) (no. 30)Google Scholar; the Leofric list has ‘ii wahreft’ (ibid. p. 226). Wulfwaru's will mentions a bedroom set with ‘anes beddreafes mid wahrytfte’, separate from her chasuble and ‘hricgrægl’ and also from a ‘heallwahriftes’: Anglo-Saxon Wills, ed. Whitelock, , pp. 62–3 (no. 21).Google Scholar I have some doubts that dorsal is quite the right translation for ‘hricghræl’ and ‘richrægl’ in the will of Wulfwaru; but I have as well difficulties with the dictionary's suggestion of a cloak (raiment for the back). A ‘betste wahrift’ was left to St Albans in The Will of Æthelgifu: a Tenth Century Anglo-Saxon Manuscript, ed. Whitelock, D. with Ker, N. and Lord, Rennell, Roxburghe Club (Oxford, 1968), p. 7 at lines 7–8.Google Scholar

⁹¹ The relief crosses at Bitton and Headbourne Worthy are respectively twelve and over fifteen feet in height, but both are high above the floor (Taylor, and Taylor, , Anglo-Saxon Architecture, pp. 75 and 290).Google Scholar On life-sized crucifixes and crucifixion groups of precious metals, see Raw, , Crucifixion Iconography, p. 41Google Scholar; Dodwell, , Anglo-Saxon Art, pp. 210–13.Google Scholar

⁹² Braun, , Christliche Altargerät, p. 467.Google Scholar

⁹³ Dream of the Rood, lines 4–23: The Vercelli Book, ed. Krapp, G. P., ASPR 2 (New York, 1932), 61.Google Scholar

⁹⁴ E.g. New York, Pierpont Morgan Library M. 709, 1v (Ohlgren, Iconographic Catalogue 198.1; Temple, , Anglo-Saxon Manuscripts, no. 93, ill. 289)Google Scholar; BL, Arundel 60, 12v (Ohlgren, Iconographic Catalogue, 208.15; Temple, , Anglo-Saxon Manuscripts, no. 12, ill. 312).Google Scholar

⁹⁵ Taylor, H. M., ‘The Placement of the Altar in Early Anglo-Saxon Churches’, Ant J 53 (1973), 52–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar See also Pocknee, C. E., The Christian Altar in History and Today (London, 1963), p. 94.Google Scholar

⁹⁶ Hohler, C. in Relics of St Cuthbert, ed. Battiscombe, , at pp. 396–402.Google Scholar Perhaps the hand was common in the iconography of vestments; it is mentioned in connection with Dunstan's vestments in the vita by ‘B’ (see Lehmann-Brockhaus, no. 6444).

⁹⁷ Ibid. p. 400; for illustrations, see Grueber, H. A. and Keary, C. F., A Catalogue of Coins in the British Museum, Anglo-Saxon Ser. II (London, 1893), pls. VIII. 10 and 11 (Edward the Elder)Google Scholar; X V.8 and XVI. 1, 3, 4, 6, 9 and 10 (Æthelred II); see also Golden Age, nos. 180 (Edward), 196–8Google Scholar (Æthelred II) and 243 (a denar from Prague imitating no. 197, after c. 985).

⁹⁸ Cf. Ohlgren's index, Iconographic Catalogue, s.v. ‘hand of God’.

⁹⁹ Ohlgren, Iconographic Catalogue 191, notes twenty-three occurrences. See, for example, EEMF 18 (facsimile of BL, Cotton Claudius, B.iv), 21v, 40v, 84r (Ohlgren's 191.66, 135, 261–2), ed. Clemoes, P. and Dodwell, C. R., EEMF 18 (Copenhagen, 1974).Google Scholar

¹⁰⁰ All the coins cited in n. 71 have the hand with open palm; see also the portrait of St Luke in York Chapter Library, Add. 1, 85v (Ohlgren, Iconographic Catalogue, 166.7; Temple, , Anglo-Saxon Manuscripts, no. 61, ill. 184Google Scholar; Golden Age, no. 54; The York Gospels, ed. Alexander, et al. ).Google Scholar

¹⁰¹ E.g. Oxford, Bodleian Library, Bodley 155, 146v (Ohlgren, Iconographic Catalogue 164.2; Temple, , Anglo-Saxon Manuscripts, no. 50, ill. 178)Google Scholar; York Add. 1, 22v and 60r (Ohlgren, , Iconographic Catalogue, 166.3 and 5Google Scholar; Temple, Anglo-Saxon Manuscripts, no. 61, ill. 181 and 183Google Scholar; The York Gospels, ed. Alexander, et al. ).Google Scholar

¹⁰² Pp. 230, 259 and 410 (see Budny, Manuscript Art at Corpus Christi College, Cambridge (forthcoming), no. 32, pls. 406, 415 and 438; Ohlgren, , Iconographic Catalogue 186.22 (p. 410)Google Scholar; Temple, , Anglo-Saxon Manuscripts, no. 81, ill. 261).Google Scholar

¹⁰³ Benedictional of Archbishop Robert: Rouen, Bibliothèque Municipale, 369 (Y.7), 54v (Ohlgren, Iconographic Catalogue, 112.4; Temple, , Anglo-Saxon Manuscripts, no. 24, ill. 87).Google Scholar

¹⁰⁴ Rouen, Bibl. Mun., 369, 29v (Ohlgren, Iconographic Catalogue, 112.2; Temple, Anglo-Saxon Manuscripts, no. 24, frontispiece).

¹⁰⁵ Hannover, Kestner-Museum WM XXIa. 36, 9v (Ohlgren, Iconographic Catalogue, 172.1; Temple, , Anglo-Saxon Manuscripts, no. 67, ill. 224).Google Scholar

¹⁰⁶ BL, Cotton Tiberius C. vi, 7r (Ohlgren, , Iconographic Catalogue, 203. 8Google Scholar; Temple, , Anglo-Saxon Manuscripts, no. 98, ill. 304)Google Scholar; and Oxford, Bodley 579, 49r (Ohlgren, Iconographic Catalogue, 95.2; Temple, , Anglo-Saxon Manuscripts, no. 15, ill. 54)Google Scholar; see. Deshman, R., ‘The Leofric Missal and Tenth-Century English Art’, ASE 6 (1977), 145–73 at 150, 168–9 and pls. IV and VIIc.Google Scholar

¹⁰⁷ But the ‘dextera Dei’ disappears from post-Conquest English art (Clapham, A., ‘Some Disputed Examples of Pre-Conquest Sculpture,’ Antiquity 25 (1951), 191–5).CrossRefGoogle Scholar

¹⁰⁸ It would probably be worth some reflection as to whether the open-handed and blessing gestures are iconographical sub-types with distinguishable meaning.

¹⁰⁹ Ohlgren, Iconographic Catalogue, 208.15; Temple, , Anglo-Saxon Manuscripts, no. 103, ill. 312Google Scholar; Golden Age, no. 67.

¹¹⁰ Ohlgren, Iconographic Catalogue, 182.2; Temple, , Anglo-Saxon Manuscripts, no. 77, ill. 246.Google Scholar

¹¹¹ Ohlgren, Iconographic Catalogue 185.3; Temple, Anglo-Saxon Manuscripts, no. 80; Wormald, F., English Drawings of the Tenth and Eleventh Centuries (London, 1952), pl. 21.Google Scholar

¹¹² Ohlgren, Iconographic Catalogue, 187.1; Temple, , Anglo-Saxon Manuscripts, no. 82, ill. 254Google Scholar; Budny, Manuscript Art at Corpus Christi College, no. 33, frontispiece.

¹¹³ Ohlgren, , Iconographic Catalogue, 209.3 and photo 43Google Scholar; Temple, Anglo-Saxon Manuscripts, no. 104; Budny, Manuscript Art at Corpus Christi College, no. 44, pl. XII.

¹¹⁴ Ohlgren, , Iconographic Catalogue, 198.1, photo 1Google Scholar; Temple, , Anglo-Saxon Manuscripts, no. 93; ill. 289Google Scholar; Dodwell, Anglo-Saxon Art, pl. 10.

¹¹⁵ Ohlgren, Iconographic Catalogue, 161.1; Temple, , Anglo-Saxon Manuscripts, no. 6, ill. 171.Google Scholar

¹¹⁶ Ohlgren, lconographic Catalogue, 140.1; Temple, , Anglo-Saxon Manuscripts, no. 35, ill. 134.Google Scholar

¹¹⁷ Golden Age, nos. 127, 128 (both probably from book covers); Casson, S., ‘Byzantine and Anglo-Saxon Sculpture, I’, Burlington Magazine 61 (1932), 265–74, at 274 (pectoral?).Google Scholar Casson also documents a small stone crucifix with dextera Dei: ‘Byzantine and Anglo-Saxon Sculpture, II’, Burlington Magazine 62 (1933), 26–36, at 31.Google Scholar

¹¹⁸ Taylor, J. and Taylor, H. M., ‘Architectural Sculpture in pre-Norman England’, JBAA 3rd ser. 29(1966), 3–51, at 4–17.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

¹¹⁹ Stone, , Sculpture in Britain, pp. 40–1 and pl. 21.Google Scholar

¹²⁰ Napier notes at line 84 that the scribe had originally written ‘lina’, which had been corrected to ‘lira’. ‘Line’ in the sense of a drawn line would seem to be an unusual meaning, so it seems clear that the author had intended this rather rare word for fleshly body parts (cf. Latin ‘pulpa’ or ‘viscum’), which appears in Ælfric's Glossary and some medical texts (cf. Old English Concordance).

¹²¹ As I began work on this project, I was greatly aided and encouraged by my colleague Jane Rosenthal of Barnard College, Columbia University, to whom I am extremely grateful equally for her recognition of the richness of the Visio Leofrici and for her bibliographical resourcefulness.