¹ The apocryphal ‘Sunday Letter’ should not be confused with the apocryphal letter of Christ to Abgar, aversion of which can be found in The Irish Liber Hymnorum, ed. J. H. Bernard and R. Atkinson, Henry Bradshaw Soc. 13–14 (London, 1898), 13 and 93Google Scholar (text), 14 and 30 (English translation of the Preface), and 173–5 (notes). Similarly, the Letter from Christ taking the form of a Schutzbrief (a kind of amulet), and mentioned by Priebsch and Willard, is only distantly related to the ‘Sunday Letter’; see Priebsch, R., ‘Quelle und Abfassungszeit der Sonntags-Epistel in der irischen Cáin Domnaig’, MLR 2 (1907), 138–54, at 138CrossRefGoogle Scholar, and Willard, R., ‘The Address of the Soul to the Body’, PMLA 50 (1935), 971CrossRefGoogle Scholar and n. 33.

² Details of recipient and place are used by Priebsch to provide guidelines to the grouping and various recensions of the ‘Sunday Letter’; see below, n. 7.

³ The emphasis on Sunday, and the substitution of the Christian Sunday for the Jewish Sabbath, led Priebsch to speculate about the possible origin and date of the ‘Sunday Letter’. He suggests north-east Spain or southern Gaul, c. 584; see Priebsch, R., Letter from Heaven, ed. posthumously by Collinson, W. E. and Closs, A. (Oxford, 1936), pp. 25–34.Google Scholar On the contrast between the early apostolic observance of Sunday and the later more formalized observance of the day, see Dumaine, H., ‘Dimanche’, Dictionnaire d'archéologie chrétienne et de liturgie (hereafter DACL), ed. Cabrol, F. and Leclercq, H. iv (Paris, 1920)Google Scholar, cols. 858–994.

⁴ ‘Dies dominica’, Scriptores Hiberniae Minores, ed. R. E. McNally, Corpus Christianorum, Series Latina (hereafter CCSL) 108B (Turnhout, 1973), 175–86.Google Scholar

⁵ I should like to thank Professor J. E. Cross for his help and guidance during the preparation of this paper. I should also like to thank Jonathan Wilcox for his help in identifying some bibliographical information.

⁶ For ease of reference, the articles by R. Priebsch and Hippolyte Delehaye have been abbreviated:

P1 Priebsch, R., ‘The Chief Sources of some Anglo-Saxon Homilies’, Otia Merseiana 1 (1899), 129–47.Google Scholar

P2 Priebsch, R., ‘John Audelay's Poem on the Observance of Sunday’, An English Miscellany Presented to Dr Furnivall in Honour of his Seventy- Fifth Birthday, ed. W.P., Ker and Napier, A. S. (Oxford, 1901), pp. 397–407.Google Scholar

P3 R. Priebsch, ‘Quelle und Abfassungszeit der Sonntags-Epistel in der irischen Cáin Domnaig’ (see above, n. 1).

P4 R. Priebsch, Letter from Heaven (see above n. 3).

Delehaye, D. Hippolyte, S.J., ‘Note sur la legende de la lettre du Christ tombée du ciel’, Académie Royale de Belgiqm: Bulletin de la Classe des Lettres (1899), 171–213.Google Scholar

See also Tveitane, M., ‘Irish Apocrypha in Norse Tradition? On the Sources of some Medieval Homilies’, Arv: Tidskrift för Nordisk Folkminnesforskning 22 (1966), 111–35Google Scholar, and Whitelock, D., ‘Bishop Ecgred, Pehtred and Niall’, Ireland in Early Mediaeval Europe: Studies in Memory of Kathleen Hughes, ed. Whitelock, D., McKitterick, R. and Dumville, D. (Cambridge, 1982), pp. 47–68.Google Scholar

⁷ Priebsch (P1, p. 129). The pseudo-Wulfstan homilies are ed. Napier, A. S., Wulfstan, Sammlung der ihm zugeschriebenen Homilien nebst Untersuchungen über ihre Echtheit 1: Text und Varianten (Berlin, 1883)Google Scholar. The relevant homilies are xlv, ‘Sermo Angelorum Nomina’ (pp. 226–32); lvii, ‘Sermo ad Populum Dominicis Diebus’ (pp. 291–9); xliii, ‘Sunnandæges Spell’ (pp. 205–15), and xliv, untitled (pp. 215–26). All references to these homilies are to this edition. Although Priebsch associated xlv with xliii and then xliv and lvii (P1, p. 130, and P2, p. 397), more recent work by Jost suggests a relationship between xlv and lvii, and between xliii and xliv. I have followed Jost's order; see Jost, K., Wulfstanstudien, Swiss Stud. in Eng. 23 (Bern, 1950), 22136Google Scholar. The homily in CCCC 140 is ed. Priebsch (P1, pp. 135–8); all references to this ‘Sunday Letter’ are to this edition.

⁸ Napier, A. S., ‘Contributions to Old English Literature 1; an Old English Homily on the Observance of Sunday’, An English Miscellany, ed. Ker and Napier, pp. 356–62Google Scholar. All references to this homily are to this edition.

⁹ John Audelay's poem is ed. and discussed by Priebsch (P2, pp. 399–407). All references to the poem are to this edition. The ‘Sunday List’ in the poem is very short (see P2, 406/1–8), and therefore it has not been discussed in relation to other lists. The Epistil Ísu is discussed by Priebsch (P3, 138–54); it is ed. and Trans. into English O'keeffe, J. G., ‘Cáin Domnaig’, Eriu 2 (1905), 189–214.Google Scholar All references to the Epistil ate to this edition. Kenney, J. F., The Sources for the Early History of Ireland: Ecclesiastical (Columbia, Ohio, 1929Google Scholar; repr. New York, 1966), p. 477, suggests the early eighth century as the period in which the legend of the ‘Sunday Letter’ was introduced into Ireland. The Irish iconography of the ‘Sunday List’ is discussed Hamlin, A., ‘Dignatio diei dominici: an Element in the Iconography of Irish Crosses?’, Ireland in Early Mediaeval Europe, ed. Whitelock el al., pp. 69–75.Google Scholar

¹⁰ See Whitelock, ‘Bishop Ecgred, Pehtred and Niall’, pp. 47–68.

¹¹ The Irish metrical poem is ed. and Trans. into English O'keeffe, J. G., ‘Poem on the Observance of Sunday’, Ériu 3 (1907), 143–7Google Scholar. This version evidently depends on the earlier prose account; see McNamara, M., The Apocrypha in the Irish Church (Dublin, 1975), p. 63Google Scholar. The poem comprises almost entirely a ‘Sunday List’, and contains a high number of ‘unique’ items. It has therefore been excluded from this survey. The Old Norse poem is discussed by Priebsch (P4, pp. 15–17), whilst Tveitane, ‘Irish Apocrypha in Norse Tradition’, pp. 111–35, considers the poem in relation to a homily, ‘In Natiuitate Domini’, found in the Old Norse Homily Book (Gamal Norsk Homiliebok, ed. G. Indrebø (Oslo, 1931), pp. 31–5Google Scholar) and two Middle High German versions of the ‘Sunday Letter’.

¹² I have followed both Priebsch's and Delehaye's suggestions concerning the recensions of the various Latin manuscripts, and have followed Delehaye's order of the manuscripts as far as possible. Clearly, this information can be only tentative, since our knowledge of the contents of such Latin manuscripts is incomplete.

¹³ Bittner, M., Der vom Himmel gefallene Brief Christi in seinen morgenländischen Versionen und Rezensionen, Denkschriften der Kaiserlichen Akademie der Wissenschaften zu Wien, phil.–hist. Klasse 51 (Vienna, 1906), 1–240Google Scholar. The earliest extant evidence for the ‘Sunday Letter’ comes from the west; see Priebsch (P4, p. 1) and Delehaye (D, p. 174). However, the ‘Letter’ may have originated in the east; see Renoir, E., ‘Christ (Lettre du) Tombée du Ciel’, DACL 111 (Paris, 1913), col. 1541Google Scholar: ‘C’est peut-être en grec, nous l'avons vu, que notre document a été composé, sous la forme la plus ancienne. Mais, par hazard singulier, toutes les lettres du Christ complètes qui nous ont été conservées en grec sont posterierures à certaines de nos lettres latines.’ This opposes the view of Priebsch; see above, n. 3. One such Greek ‘Sunday Letter’ can be found in Paris, BN grec 925 (s. xv), pp. 548–61. This is ed. and Trans. into Spanish A. de Santos Oteros, Los Evangelios Apocrifos, 2nd ed. (Madrid, 1963), pp. 673–82Google Scholar. It contains a ‘Sunday List’.

¹⁴ For the introductions containing details of place, see Priebsch (P1, 130/1–131/17), and pseudo-Wulfstan xlv, 226/1–25.

¹⁵ Baluzius, S., Capitula Regum Francorum 11 (Paris, 1780)Google Scholar, cols. 1396–9. The text can also be found in Fabricius, J. A., Codex Apocryphus Novi Testamenti 1 (Hamburg, 1703), 309–13Google Scholar, and Irmischer, J. C., Staats-und Kirchen Verordnungen über die christliche Sonntags-Feier (Erlangen, 1839), p. 90Google Scholar. Delehaye suggested that Irmischer's text would be the same as that of the Todi manuscript (D, p. 178, n. 1); it is, however, identical to that printed by Baluzius.

¹⁶ Scriptores Hiberniae Minores, ed. McNally, p. 176, n. 9.

¹⁷ This version is also discussed Stegmüller, F., Repertorium Biblicum Medii Ævi, 11 vols. (Madrid, 1940–1980) 1, 122Google Scholar (no. 148.3). Stegmüller supplies the beginning: ‘Audite omnes populi et magis vos, qui nescitis illud.’

¹⁸ Migne, J. P., Troisième et derniere encyclopédie theologique xxiv (Paris, 1858), cols. 367–9Google Scholar. The text may also be found in Amaduzzi, G. C., Anecdota litteraria ex MSS. codicibus eruta (Rome, 1773). pp. 69–74.Google Scholar

¹⁹ Catalogue général des manuscrits des bibliothèques publiques vii (Paris, 1885;), 130–1Google Scholar. The beginning of this version of the ‘Sunday Letter’ is identical to that of Paris, BN lat. 12315 (my no. 8); see Delehaye (D, pp. 184–5).

²⁰ Röhricht, R., ‘Ein Brief Christi’, Zeitschrift für Kirchengeschichte 11 (1890), 436–442, at 436Google Scholar. In the absence of any other evidence, this identificaton can only be tentative.

²¹ Rivière, E. M., ‘La Lettre du Christ tombée du ciel’, Revue des questions historiques n.s. 35 (1906), 600–5.Google Scholar

²² ‘Die Handschriften der S. Petri-Kirche’, ed. T. Brandis, Bibliothek der Hansestadt 4 (Hamburg, 1967), 68.Google Scholar

²³ Staphorst, N., Hamburgische Kirchen-Geschichte (Hamburg, 1723) 1.3, 345–7Google Scholar; see also Röhricht, ‘Ein Brief Christi’, pp. 440–2.

²⁴ The relationship between pseudo-Wulfstan xliii and xliv is discussed by Priebsch (P1, p. 140). Scragg further examines these relationships, and demonstrates the influence of other vernacular material on the composition of xliv; see Scragg, D. G., ‘The Corpus of Vernacular Homilies and Prose Saints’ Lives before Ælfric’, ASE 8 (1979), 223–77, at 248–50.Google Scholar

²⁵ See Jost, , Wulfstanstudien, pp. 228–30Google Scholar, and Whitelock, ‘Bishop Ecgred, Pehtred and Niall’, pp. 52–60.

²⁶ Ker, N. R., Catalogue of Manuscripts Containing Anglo-Saxon (Oxford, 1957)Google Scholar, art. 35, item 4.

²⁷ See Tabulae Codicum in Mann Scriptorum Praeter Graecos et Orientales in Bibliotheca Palatina Vindobonensis (Graz, 1864) 1–11, 85–6Google Scholar, and Renoir, , DACL 111Google Scholar, col. 1540.

²⁸ In a description of creation in Vienna, Nationalbibl. lat. 1355 (my no. 1), there occurs the phrase quattuor eivangelistas [sic], which Ptiebsch takes to be a scribal error (P1, 131/25). The same phrase is also in BL Add. 19725, 87v, lines 10–11. This reinforces the connections between the two manuscripts. I have been unable to find a parallel for the association of the evangelists with creation, although the best survey of the theme is that by McNally, R. E., ‘The Evangelists in the Hiberno-Latin Tradition’, Festschrift Bernhard Bischoff zu seinem 65. Geburtstag, ed. Autenrieth, J. and Brunhölzl, F. (Stuttgart, 1971), pp. 111–22.Google Scholar

²⁹ Morin, G., ‘À Propos du travail du P. Delehaye sur la lettre du Christ tombée du ciel’, RB 16 (1899), 217Google Scholar. The catalogue description is from The Catalogue of the Additions to the Manuscripts in the British Museum, 1876–1881 (London, 1882), p. 121.Google Scholar

³⁰ Grégoire, R., Les Homéliaires du moyen âge, Rerum Ecclesiasticarum Documenta, Series Maior, Fontes 6 (Rome, 1966), 226–7Google Scholar. The Toledo homiliary (stated to be from a seventh-century archetype by Grégoire) is described in detail and discussed on pp. 161–85.

³¹ Röhricht, ‘Ein Brief Christi’, pp. 436–7; see also Delehaye (D, pp. 190–1).

³² Valentinelli, J., Bibliotheca Manuscripta ad S. Marci Venetiarum, 4 vols. (Venice, 1868–1871) 11, 165.Google Scholar

³³ See, e.g., Chronica Magistri Rogeri de Houedene, ed. W. Stubbs, 4 vols., Rolls Ser. (London, 1868–1871) iv, 167–70Google Scholar, and Matthaei Parisiensis Monachi Sancti Albani: Chronica Majora, ed. H. R. Luard, 7 vols., Rolls Ser. (London, 1872–1883) 11, 462–4.Google Scholar

³⁴ Jones, W. R., ‘The Heavenly Letter in Medieval England’, Medievalia et Humanistica n.s. 6 (1975). 163–78Google Scholar, esp. n. 29.

³⁵ Delehaye discusses this manuscript and its relationship to the chroniclers' ‘Sunday Letters’ (D, pp. 188–9), and Röhricht, ‘Ein Brief Christi’, p. 436, also cites the manuscript.

³⁶ PL 101, col. 1227.

³⁷ Dumaine, ‘Dimanche’, cols. 985–90; Tveitane, ‘Irish Apocrypha in Norse Tradition’, p. 127.

³⁸ McKitterick, R., The Frankish Church and the Carolingian Reforms, 789–895 (London, 1977), p. 101Google Scholar and n. 2.

³⁹ See, e.g., Ancient Laws and Institutes of England, ed. B. Thorpe (London, 1840) 1, 369Google Scholar (The Laws of Cnut; ‘De Die Dominico’). For a discussion of the laws and the ‘official’ length of Sunday, see Tupper, F., ‘Anglo-Saxon Dæg-Mæl’, PMLA 10 (1895), 111–241, at 132–5.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

⁴⁰ Cited from Munich, Clm. 9550; see Delehaye (D, 180/6–7).

⁴¹ PL 54, col. 626 (identified Dumaine, ‘Dimanche’, col. 985).

⁴² For creation on a Sunday, see Genesis 1. 1–the first day must necessarily have been a Sunday. A later example of this identification can be found in Lebor Gabála Erenn: The Book of the Taking of Ireland, ed. R. A. S. Macalister, Irish Texts Soc. 34 (Dublin, 1938), 17Google Scholar. For the resurrection, see Matthew xxviii. 1 etc., and for Pentecost, see Acts 11.1.

⁴³ This item could refer either to the disciples (Matthew xxviii.19; cf. Matthew xxviii.1: ‘Vespere autem sabbati’), or to Mark vi.9 (cf. Mark vi.2: ‘Et facto sabbato’).

⁴⁴ PL 83, col. 761.

⁴⁵ Pseudo-Alcuin (PL 101, col. 1227); Hrabanus Maurus (PL 107, col. 356).

⁴⁶ Pseudo-Augustine (PL 39, col. 2274) (identified Dumaine, ‘Dimanche’, col. 986), and Maurus, Hrabanus, Homilia xliGoogle Scholar (PL 110, col. 76). For Eusebius, see Morin, G., ‘Sermo de dominicae observatione: une ancienne adaptation latine d'un sermon attribué à Eusèbe d'alexandrie’, RB 24 (1907), 530–4.Google Scholar The ‘Sunday List’ is in an interpolation in the homily which Morin was unable to identify. This excerpt is an abbreviation of Isidore's, De Ecclesiasticis Officiis, 1. xxiv–xxvGoogle Scholar (PL 83, cols. 760–1).

⁴⁷ See, e.g., Lawson, C., ‘Notes on the De Ecclesiasticis Officiis’, Isidoriana, ed. Díaz, M. C. Díazy (León, 1961), p. 303.Google Scholar

⁴⁸ See The Apocrypha and Pseudepigrapha of the Old Testament, ed. R. H. Charles, 2 vols. (Oxford, 1913) 1, 13Google Scholar. This idea is reiterated in The Book of the Taking of Ireland, ed. Macalister, p. 17.

⁴⁹ Manna is not said actually to fall on the Sabbath in the biblical account (Exodus xvi. 1–30). However, the children of Israel are instructed not to collect manna on this day (Exodus xvi. 23–30), and this may be the origin of the item.

⁵⁰ Identified Dumaine, ‘Dimanche’, col. 986. The acts of the synod are surveyed and Trans. into French Chabot, J. B., ‘Syndicron Orientale’, Notices et extraits des manuscrits de la Bibliothèque Nationale et autres bibiliothèques publiées par l' Académie des Inscriptions et Belles-Lettres 37 (Paris, 1902), 447Google Scholar. Amongst the more unusual items is the erection of the temporary tabernacle by Moses (Numbers 11.2), which is not specifically ascribed to a Sunday.

⁵¹ Concilium Foroiuliense 706–7, Concilia Ævi Karolini, ed. A. Werminghoff, MGH, Leges 3, Concilia 2 (Hanover and Leipzig, 1906), 194–5. See also the Concilium Parisiense 829 in the same volume, p. 643. The relevant sections of these councils can also be found in Irmischer, Staats-und Kirchen Verordnungen, pp. 53 and 58. For the Anglo-Saxon laws, see ‘Excerptiones Egberti XXXVI’ and ‘Ecclesiastical Institutes XXIV’, in Thorpe, Ancient Laws and Institutes, pp. 329 and 478. The latter text is in Old English, but is obviously dependent on the Latin form of the short ‘Sunday Lists’.

⁵² For a discussion of this item, see below, pp. 147–8.

⁵³ Identified Dumaine, ‘Dimanche’, col. 986. He suggests that the fictitious council (the original council was lost) was composed in England, s. vi–vii. Bede includes an account of the council in his letter Ad Wicredam (PL 94, cols. 682–4). Baluzius prints another version in Nova Collectio Conciliorum (Paris, 1707), 1, 15–16Google Scholar. Both texts can be found in Mansi, J. D., Sacrorum Conciliorum Nova et Amplissima Collectio 1 (Florence, 1759)Google Scholar, cols. 709–16. Wilmart edits another fragment found in Rome, Vatican City, Biblioteca Apostolica Vaticana, Reg. lat. 49 in ‘Un Nouveau texte du faux concile de Césarée sur le comput pascal’, Analecta Reginensia, ed. A. Wilmart, Studi e Testi 59 (Vatican City, 1933), 19–28.Google Scholar

⁵⁴ The item reads: ‘Quinta illi benedictio est, ut in psalmo 117 dicit: Circumdederunt me sicut apes, & exarserunt sicut ignis in spinis etc. De resurrectione enim domini dicit: Haec est dies, quam fecit dominus, exultemus et laetemur in ea, usque ad cornu altaris …’ (Mansi, , Sacrorum Conciliorum 1Google Scholar, col. 712). This obviously refers to the resurrection on a Sunday – the sixth bendiction also concerns the resurrection.

⁵⁵ Ælfric has no reference to a ‘Sunday List’ when he discusses Sunday (as noted by Tupper, ‘Anglo-Saxon Dæg-Mæl’, p. 133). See ‘Dominica in Media Quadragesime’, Ælfric's Catholic Homilies. The Second Series: Text, ed. M. R. Godden, EETS s.s.5 (London, 1979), 119Google Scholar, lines 300–4. Ælfric appears scrupulously to avoid any reference to the ‘Sunday List’ tradition, being apparently more conservative than the short Latin Lists.

⁵⁶ Pseudo-Augustine, , Sermo clxviiGoogle Scholar (PL 39, col. 2070) (identified Dumaine, ‘Dimanche’, col. 986), and The Bobbio Missal, ed. E. A. Lowe, Henry Bradshaw Soc. 58 (London, 1919), 150–1Google Scholar (identified Dumaine, ‘Dimanche’, col. 987).

⁵⁷ See table 4.

⁵⁸ Dumaine, ‘Dimanche’, cols. 884, 899 and 988, discusses the background to this item.

⁵⁹ Perhaps the earliest reference to the nativity on a Sunday is in the seventh-century Greek apocryphon, pseudo-John's Liber de Dormitione Mariae, Trans. into English by James, M. R., The Apocryphal New Testament (Oxford, 1924), pp. 206–7Google Scholar. This interesting list also contains the conception, the entry into Jerusalem, the resurrection, the Last Judgement and the Assumption. It appears to be a variant of the ‘Sunday Lists’ tradition, and reinforces the suggestion that the List, like the Letter, may have originated in the east; see above, n. 13.

⁶⁰ The Pembroke collection is briefly discussed Barré, H., Les Homéliaires carolingiens de l' école d'auxerre (Vatican City, 1962), p. 24Google Scholar, and McKitterick, R., The Frankish Church and the Carolingian Reforms, pp. 107–9Google Scholar. Professor J. E. Cross demonstrates the importance of this collection in a forthcoming article, ‘An Unpublished Story of Michael the Archangel and its Connections’.

⁶¹ See table 3. The additional items are items dealing with the Last Judgement and the general resurrection. One, ‘In hac quoque die omnis creatura reformabitur in melius. Et sol et luna septuplum lumen accipient’ (79r), is also found in the Epistil Ísu; see Whitelock, ‘Bishop Ecgred, Pehtred and Niall’, p. 64.

⁶² Whitelock, ‘Bishop Ecgred, Pehtred and Niall’, pp. 61–4.

⁶³ See below, pp. 146–8.

⁶⁴ This homily has been previously ed. K. G. Schaefer, ‘An Edition of Five Old English Homilies for Palm Sunday, Holy Saturday and Easter Sunday’ (unpubl. Ph. D. dissertation, Columbia Univ., 1972), pp. 174–90. I have also edited the homily for my forthcoming thesis, ‘Liturgical Traditions for Palm Sunday and their Dissemination in Old English Prose’, and the edition and commentary will appear as ‘Theme and Echo in An Anonymous Old English Homily for Easter’, Traditio (1986). Here, I refer to my own edition; abbreviations have been silently expanded and the punctuation is editorial. The List is on pp. 384–5 of the manuscript, CCCC 162.

⁶⁵ For a detailed discussion of lists of evils of the sixth day, see Lees, ‘Theme and Echo’.

⁶⁶ The Epistil Ísu, and Scriptores Hiberniae Minores, ed. McNally, no. 11; see table 4.

⁶⁷ Professor Cross has informed me that this list of the appearances of Christ after the crucifixion (first enumerated by Augustine in De Consensu Evangelistarum (PL 34, col. 1214)) notes as one item that Christ appeared to Peter (Luke xxiv. 34) on the day of the resurrection (Easter Sunday), but not at the Sea of Tiberias. Another item notes that Christ appeared to the disciples including Peter at the Sea of Tiberias, but without reference to the day (John xxi. 1–2).

⁶⁸ Old English Homilies. First Series, ed. R. Morris, EETS o.s. 29, 34 (London, 1868), 139–45.Google Scholar All references to this homily are to this edition.

⁶⁹ Scriptores Hiberniae Minores, ed. McNally, p. 177.

⁷⁰ Ibid. pp. 177–8.

⁷¹ Ibid. p. 178.

⁷² Ibid. pp. 178–9. For the ‘Catécheses celtiques’, see Wilmart, , Analecta Reginensia, pp. 29–112.Google Scholar

⁷³ The tone and character of McNally, no. 111, lines 42–57, are similar to the list of threats found in the ‘Sunday Letter’ see Whitelock, ‘Bishop Ecgred, Pehtred and Niall’, pp. 51–61, for a general discussion of such threats.

⁷⁴ This item is also found in the ‘Fictitious Council of Caesarea’; see table 2.

⁷⁵ For Professor Cross's discussion this entry and its background, see, ‘The Use of Patristic Homilies in the Old English Martyrology’, above, pp. 107–28, at 111–13. For the entry itself, see Das altenglische Martyrologium, ed. G. Kotzor, Bayerische Akademie der Wissenschaften, Abhandlungen, phil.–hist. Klasse n.s. 88 (Munich, 1981) 11, 11–12.Google Scholar

⁷⁶ See above, p. 145.

⁷⁷ See above, p. 145.

⁷⁸ Kenney, , Sources, p. 217Google Scholar, suggests that the council may have been fabricated in Ireland, designed to ‘promote the modification of the 84 year cycle to bring it into agreement with the Victorine’. McNally, however, suggests seventh-century Africa; see his ‘Isidorean Pseudepigrapha in the Early Middle Ages’, Isidoriana, ed. Díaz y Díaz, p. 309 and n. 23.

⁷⁹ See table 4. Scriptores Hiberniae Minores, ed. McNally, p. 183, notes to lines 19–20, comments: ‘The Circumcision is the octave day of the Nativity of the Lord; if the latter is on a Sunday, so too is the former.’

⁸⁰ See above, nn. 24 and 25.