^{page 51 note 1} For example, Alcuin, , De Fide Sanctae et Individuae Trinitatis, Lib. iii Prologus, Migne, Patrologia Latina 101.Google Scholar

^{page 51 note 2} Christopher, J. P. (The First Catechetical Instruction, Ancient Christian Writers 2 (Westminster, Maryland, 1946), p. 95) points out that ‘the rhetorical term narratio must have been applied long before Augustine's time to the historical exposition at the beginning of the catechetical instruction’.Google Scholar

^{page 51 note 3} ‘At this point we should begin our narration, starting out from the fact that God made all things very good, and continuing, as we have said, down to the present period of church history, in such a way as to account for and explain the causes and reasons of each of the facts and events that we relate, and thereby refer them to that end of love from which in all our actions and words our eyes should never be turned away’ (trans. Christopher, Catechetical Instruction, pp. 26–7)Google ScholarDe Catechizandis Kudibus, ed. Wolfhard, Adolf (Freiburg, 1892) 7.1.Google Scholar

^{page 52 note 1} ‘The narration is complete when the beginner is first instructed from the text: In the beginning God created heaven and earth, down to the present period of church history. That does not mean, however, that we ought to repeat verbatim the whole of the Pentateuch, and all the books of Judges and Kingdoms and Esdras, and the entire Gospel and the Acts of the Apostles (if we have learned them by heart), or relate in our own words all that is contained in these books, and thus develop and explain them; for which neither time serves nor any need calls. But we ought to present all the matter in a general and comprehensive summary, choosing certain of the more remarkable facts that are heard with greater pleasure and constitute the cardinal points in history: these we ought not to present as a parchment rolled up and at once snatch them out of sight, but we ought by dwelling somewhat upon them to untie, so to speak, and spread them out to view, and offer them to the minds of our hearers to examine and admire. But the remaining details we should weave into our narrative in a rapid survey’ (trans. Christopher, Catechetical Instruction, p. 18) De Cat. Rud. 3.1.

^{page 52 note 2} ‘Neque enim ob aliud ante adventum domini scripta sunt omnia, quae in sanctis scriptoris legimus, nisi ut illius commendaretur adventus, et praesignaretur ecdesia…’ (ibid. 4.1).

^{page 52 note 3} ‘…we should make known to him the hope in the resurrection, and with due regard for the capacity and powers of our hearer and the time at our disposal, combat by discussion the vain scoffings of unbelievers about the resurrection of the body, and speak to him of the last judgement to come, with its goodness towards the good, its severity towards the wicked, its certainty in relation to all. And after the punishments of the wicked have thus been recounted with loathing and horror, we should describe with eager longing the kingdom of the good and faithful, and that city in heaven with its joys’ (trans. Christopher, Catechetical Instruction, pp. 27–8);Google ScholarDe Cat. Rud. 7.4.

^{page 52 note 4} De Cat. Rud. 24–39.

^{page 53 note 1} See Dictionnaire de Théologie Catholique, s.v. catéchése.

^{page 53 note 2} De Fide Catholica, The Theological Tractates of Boethius, ed. Stewart, H. F. and Rand, E. K. (London, 1918; rev. ed. 1973).Google Scholar The attribution to Boethius is the subject of controversy ibid. p. 52 n.

^{page 53 note 3} Blatt, Franz, Die lateiniscben Bearbeitungen der Acta Andreae et Ma tibiae apud anthropopbagos (Giessen, 1930) p. 121, line 13–P. 136, line 11.Google Scholar

^{page 53 note 4} Vita Sanctorum Barlaam Eremitae et Josaphat Indiae Regis, ch. vn, PL 73. Franz Dölger (‘Der griechische Barlaam-Roman; ein Werk des Johannes von Damaskos, H.’, Stadia Patristica et Byzantina 1 (1953), 1–104) has argued that the ascription of the Greek original to John of Damascus is correct.Google Scholar

^{page 53 note 5} Sermo Habitus Constantiae, PL 87.

^{page 53 note 6} See Willwoll, W. E., Die Konstamper Predigt des Heiligen Gallus: ein Werk des Notker Balbulus (Freiburg, 1942).Google Scholar

^{page 53 note 7} Martin von Bracara's Schrift De Correclione Ruslicorum, ed. Caspari, C. P. (Christiana, 1883), 1–14.Google ScholarReferences are to sections. Martin's debt to the De Cat. Rud. is noted by Claude, W. Barlow, Martini Episcopi Bracarensis Opera Omnia (New Haven, 1950), pp. 163–4.Google Scholar

^{page 53 note 8} De Corr.Rust. 15.

^{page 53 note 9} Scarapsus Part 1, ed. Gall, Jacker, Die Heimat des hi. Pirmin, des Apostels der Alamannen (Münster, 1927).Google Scholar

^{page 53 note 10} Ibid. Part II.

^{page 53 note 11} Ibid. introduction, pp. 90–3, and notes.

^{page 54 note 1} Alcimi Aviti Opera, ed. Rudolfus Peiper, Monumenta Germaniae Historica, Auct. Ant. 6.2.

^{page 54 note 2} Carmina 31, PL 112.

^{page 54 note 3} Altus Prosator, ed. Clemens, Blume, Analecta Hymnica Medii Aevi 51 (1908), 275–7.Google Scholar

^{page 54 note 4} Occupatio, ed. Swoboda, A. (Lipsiae, 1900).Google Scholar

^{page 54 note 5} Whitley, Stokes, ‘The Voyage of Snegdus and MacRiagla’, Revue Celtique 9 (1888), 21.Google Scholar

^{page 54 note 6} Saltair na Rann, ed. Whitley, Stokes (Oxford, 1883).Google Scholar A new edition with translation is being prepared by the Dublin Institute of Advanced Studies. I owe my access to this translation to the kindness of Mr Fergus Kelly. The Saltair goes as far as Christ's ascension.

^{page 54 note 7} Lebar Brec, ed. and trans. MacCarthy, B., The Codex Palatino–Vaticanus no. 830, R. Irish Acad. Todd Lecture Ser. 3 (Dublin, 1892).Google Scholar

^{page 54 note 8} Bede's Ecclesiastical History of tbe English People, ed. Bertram, Colgrave and Mynors, R. A. B. (Oxford, 1969) IV.24.Google ScholarCrawford, S. J. (‘The Casdmon Poems’, Anglia 49 (1926), 279–84)Google Scholar points out the similarity of the subjects of this passage of Bede's to the De Fide Catbolica attributed to Boethius, and also (p. 284) notes a parallel with the structure of the mystery plays, on which see below, pp. 59–61.

^{page 55 note 1} De Cat. Rud. 8.2.

^{page 55 note 2} Bede gives a translation of these lines of Cædmon's poetry, HE IV.24. A version of the Old English lines appears in The Old English Version of Bede's Ecclesiastical History of the English People, ed. Thomas, Miller, Early Eng. Text Soc. o.s. 95, 96, IIO and III (London, 1890–1898), 1, 344.Google Scholar

^{page 55 note 3} HE iv.24.

^{page 55 note 4} Epistola Baedae ad Ecgbertum Episcopum, ed. Charles, Plummer, Venerabilis Baedae Opera Historica (Oxford, 1896) 1, 409.Google Scholar

^{page 55 note 5} Ed. Krapp, George Philip, The Junius Manuscript, Anglo-Saxon Poetic Records 1 (New York, 1931).Google Scholar

^{page 55 note 6} Ed. ibid.

^{page 56 note 1} See Ker, N. R., Catalogue of Manuscripts containing Anglo-Saxon (Oxford, 1957), no. 394, item 24.Google Scholar The passage which I discuss here is on IO6v–IO7r25 of the Vercelli Book; reproduced Förster, M., II Codice Vercellese (Rome, 1913).Google Scholar For the group of items to which this homily belongs in the Vercelli Book see Scragg, D. G., ‘The Compilation of the Vercelli Book’, ASE 2 (1973), 189–207, esp. 194–5 and 203–4.Google Scholar

^{page 56 note 2} De Initio Creaturae, The Homilies of the Anglo-Saxon Church: the First Part, containing the Sermones Catbolici, or Homilies of Ælfric, ed. Benjamin, Thorpe (London, 1844–1846) 1, 8–28 (referred to subsequently as De Initio).Google Scholar

^{page 56 note 3} Homilies of Ælfric: a Supplementary Collection, ed. Pope, John C., EETS 259–60 (London, 1967–1968), 1. 473.Google Scholar

^{page 56 note 4} The Homilies of Wulfstan, ed. Dorothy, Bethurum (Oxford, 1957),Google Scholar no. vi. Professor Bethurum's note (p. 293), ‘This kind of sermon is at least as old as Augustine (De Genesi ad Litteram)’, is misleading. As she says, it is an ‘outline of Christian history’, whereas the De Genesi is not, although, as a commentary on Genesis, this work overlaps with the first part of the catechetical narratio.

^{page 56 note 5} Vercelli XIX, 107i, lines 3–5. I have supplied the punctuation.

^{page 56 note 6} De Corr. Rust. 5; Scarapsus 4.

^{page 56 note 7} Vercelli XIX, 106v, lines 22–3.

^{page 56 note 8} De Corr. Rust. 3; Scarapsus 2.

^{page 57 note 1} See Homilies of Æljric, ed. Pope II, 671–3.

^{page 57 note 2} De Initio, p. 22; cf. De Corr. Rust. 6–7.

^{page 57 note 3} De Initio, p. 28; cf. De Corr. Rust. 13–14.

^{page 57 note 4} De Initio, pp. 26–8; cf. Scarapsus 9.

^{page 57 note 5} De Initio, p. 24; cf. Scarapsus 5–6.

^{page 57 note 6} For instance, it includes more details about the fall of the angels, and discussion of the Tower of Babel.

^{page 57 note 7} Karl, Jost, Wulfstanstudien, Schweizer anglistische Arbeiten 23 (Bern, 1950), 55–61.Google Scholar

^{page 57 note 8} The Old English Version of the Heptateuch, Ælfric's Treatise on the Old and New Testament and his Preface to Genesis, ed. Crawford, S. J., EETS o.s. 160 (London, 1922), ‘Ælfric: On the Old and New Testament’, lines 1–126. This account goes as far as the redemption.Google Scholar

^{page 57 note 9} Angelsächsische Homilien und Heiligenleben, ed. Bruno, Assman, Bibliothek der angelsächsischen Prosa 3 (Kassel, 1889), 1:Google Scholar Ælfric's Sendschreiben an Wulfget zu Ylmandun, lines 1–79. Cf. also the two small pieces, De Creatore et Creatura and De Sex Etatibus buius Seculi, mentioned by Clemoes, P. A. M., ‘The Chronology of Ælfric's Works’, The Anglo-Saxons: Studies in some Aspects of their History and Culture presented to Bruce Dickins, ed. Clemoes, P. (London, 1959), pp. 241–2.Google Scholar

^{page 57 note 10} Exameron Anglice, ed. Crawford, S. J., Bibl. der ags. Piosa 10 (Hamburg, 1921), lines 505–42.Google Scholar

^{page 58 note 1} Like those phrases cited in connection with Vercelli xix they are contained in a passage of the De Corr. Rust. (3–5) which was copied almost verbatim in the Scarapsus (3–4), so that it is not possible to say which of the two was being used.

^{page 58 note 2} Letter to Sigeweard, lines 70–3.

^{page 58 note 3} De Corr. Rust, 3; Scarapsus 2.

^{page 58 note 4} Letter to Sigeweard, lines 81–3.

^{page 58 note 5} De Corr. Rust. 3; Scarapsus 2.

^{page 58 note 6} For instance, ‘ac feoll sona adun mid eallum ðam englum ðe aet his raede waaron’, Hexameron, lines 317–18; cf. De Initio, p. 10, lines 27–8; Letter to Sigeweard, lines 94–6; and Ælfric's Lives of Saints, ed. Walter, W. Skeat, EETS o.s. 76, 82, 94 and 114 (London, 1881–1900), 1, 296, lines 182–3.Google Scholar

^{page 58 note 7} De Corr. Rust. 3; Scarapsus 2.

^{page 58 note 8} Compare, for instance, Hexameron, lines 324–8 with De Initio, p. 12, lines 25–8; Hexameron, lines 449–52 with De Initio, p. 16, lines 26–31; and Letter to Wulfgeat, line 30 with De Initio, p. 10, line 15. The Hexameron is written in rhythmical prose, and in it Ælfric coined some half-lines which were to do service in the other two rhythmical accounts; compare, for instance, Hexameron, lines 103–5, Letter to Sigeweard, lines 55–60, and Letter to Wulfgeat, lines 27–33.

^{page 58 note 9} ‘Be ðam we sædon hwilum asr swutelicor on gewrite’, as Ælfric himself wrote concerning angels, Hexameron, line 106.

^{page 58 note 10} De Initio, p. 18, lines 34–5 and p. 24, lines 13–16.

^{page 59 note 1} See Preface to Genesis, ed. Crawford, , p. 76, lines 8–10 and p. 77, lines 41–5.Google Scholar

^{page 59 note 2} De Cat. Rud. 8.2; cædmon.

^{page 59 note 3} So, in his sermon on the Annumiatio S. Mariae, in order to explain what made the redemption necessary, Ælfric provided a résumé of the narratio (Catholic Homilies, ed. Thorpe, 1, 192), a résumé which is not in his source (Bede, Homeliarum Evangelii Libri II 1.3 and 4, ed. Hurst, D., Corpus Christianorum Series Latina 122, 14–20, and 21–31;Google Scholar see Förster, M., ‘Über die Quellen von Ælfrics exegetical Horn. Catholicae’, Anglia 16 (1894), 20Google ScholarCyril, Smetana, ‘Ælfric and the Early Medieval Homiliary’, Traditio 15 (1959), 188.Google Scholar

^{page 59 note 4} The Chester Plays, ed. Hermann, Deimling, EETS e.s. 62 and 115 (London, 1893 and 1916);Google ScholarThe Towneley Plays, ed. George, England, EETS e.s. 71 (London, 1897);Google ScholarLudus Coventriae, ed. Block, K. S., EETS e.s. 120 (London, 1922);Google ScholarYork Plays, ed. Lucy, Toulmin Smith (Oxford, 1885). The lost Beverley plays also had a cyclical structure;Google Scholar see Rosemary, Woolf, The English Mystery Plays (London, 1972), p. 67.Google Scholar I confine my remarks here to the English cycles, but, of course, they are relevant to the development of the cycle form in general. Examples of cycles similar in structure to the English cycles are known from the continent, both from extant plays, and from descriptions of lost plays. A play from Künzelsau, , Das Künzelsauer Fronleicbnamspiel, ed. Liebenow, Peter K. (Berlin, 1969),Google Scholar runs from the creation to the last judgement. A lost play from Regens-burg is described in the Annales Ratisponenses (see Karl, Young, The Drama of the Medieval Church (Oxford, 1953) 11, 542)Google Scholar as beginning with the creation and fall of Lucifer, but it is not certain how far this play extended. The play, described as having taken place in Cividale in 1304 (Ibid. 11, 540), goes from the creation of the first parents to the last judgement. A play from Riga (Ibid. 11, 542) may also have had the structure of the Christian cycle.

^{page 59 note 5} Hardin, Craig, ‘The Origin of the Old Testament Plays’, MP 10 (1912–1913), 473–87.Google Scholar

^{page 60 note 1} See Woolf, Plays, p. 356, n. 13.

^{page 60 note 2} Ibid. pp. 56–7.

^{page 60 note 3} Ibid. pp. 57, 58 and 62.

^{page 60 note 4} Versus ad Picluras Domus Domini Mogontine, ed. Johannes, Egli, Der Liber Benediclionum Ekkebaris IV. nebst den kleinern Dichtungen aus dem Codex Sangallensis 393 (St Gall, 1909), pp. 316–68.Google Scholar

^{page 60 note 5} Egli, Der Liber Benedictionum, p. xx.

^{page 60 note 6} Woolf, Plays, pp. 70–1 argues convincingly against this.

^{page 60 note 7} Ibid. p. 75.

^{page 60 note 8} Kolvé, V. A., The Play called Corpus Christi (London, 1966), pp. 86–100,Google Scholar argues that the principle of selection in the Old Testament sequences of the English cycles was the allocation of one play to each of the figures representing the seven ages of the world. In fact, this idea does not work out in detail for all the cycles. The material which goes into an enumeration of the ages of the world overlaps with that involved in the catechetical narratio. Augustine's own version of the narratio contains an enumeration of the ages of the world, De Cat. Rod. 29.

^{page 61 note 1} It is said that the play was performed, ‘in media Riga, ut fidei Christianae rudimenta gentilitas fide etiam disceret oculata. Cuius ludi et comoediae materia tam neophytis, quam paganis, qui aderant, per interpretem diligentissime exponebatur … et per doctrinam Veteris et Novi Testamenti erat instruenda, qualiter ad verum pacificum et ad vitam perveniat sempiternam’ (Young, The Drama II, 542). Note the references to fidei Christianas rudimenta and to neophytes and pagans. In some of the German passion plays, which have connections in structure with the cycle form, there is a narrator figure; in a Frankfurt play this is Augustinus, see Liebenow, Künzelsautr Fronleicbnamspiel, p. 258.

I am very grateful to Professor Clemoes for all the help which he gave me in the presentation of this material.