SELIM Journal of the Spanish Society for Mediaeval English Language and Literature Revista de la Sociedad Española de Lengua y Literatura Inglesa Medieval Nº  Oviedo,  Edited by - Dirigida por Trinidad Guzmán & S. G. Fernández-Corugedo Universidad de Oviedo & Sociedad Española de Lengua y Literatura Inglesa Medieval Oviedo – Murcia  Nils-Lennart Johannesson, Selim  (): —ISSN: 1132-631X ICC HAFE DON SWA SUMM ÞU BADD: AN ANATOMY OF THE PREFACE TO THE ORMULUM Abstract This paper will provide an analysis of those parts of the Preface to the Ormulum which are not reworkings of concrete textual sources, but rather constitute Orm’s original writing within the amework of traditions current in the twelh century. The Preface will be shown to combine features of two contemporary text genres. On the one hand it has all the typical features of a Ciceronian praefatio, detailing the author’s relationships to various other persons: to his patron, to the corrector of the text, to his copyist⒮, to future readers/detractors, and, finally, to God. On the other hand, Orm’s presentation of various features of his text (such as author’s intention, material used, method, and order) makes his Preface conform to the conventions of the standard form of introduction to works of scriptural exegesis in the twelh century. The paper also discusses the possible implications of Orm’s statement that he and Walter are brothers in three different ways. Keywords: Ormulum, homilies, Middle English, Cicero, Glossa ordinaria. Resumen Este artículo analiza aquellas partes del Prefacio al Ormulum que no son reelaboraciones de fuentes textuales concretas sino que constituyen la obra autógrafa de Orm dentro del marco de tradiciones usuales del siglo . Se muestra cómo el Prefacio combina rasgos de dos géneros textuales contemporáneos. De un lado, tiene todos los rasgos típicos de una praefatio ciceroniana, detallando las relaciones del autor con otras personas: su patrón, el corrector del texto, su⒮ copista⒮, futuros lectores/detractores y, finalmente, Dios. Del otro, la presentación que Orm hace de varios rasgos de su texto (intención autorial, material empleado, método y orden) configura su Prefacio de acuerdo con las convenciones estándar de las introducciones para obras de exégesis bíblica en el siglo . El artículo analiza asimismo las posibles implicaciones de la afirmación de Orm de que él y Walter eran hermanos desde tres puntos de vista. Palabras clave: Ormulum, homilias, inglés medio, Cicerón, Glossa ordinaria. I A  first sight, the Preface¹ to the Ormulum reads like an artless and somewhat naive address to Orm’s brother Walter, who is said to have instigated the writing of this ¹ Various labels have been given to the prefatory matter on folios – of the extant Ormulum manuscript (Oxford, Bodleian Library, MS. Junius ). Holt () divided it into three parts: Dedication, Texts, and Preface. Matthes (: –) demonstrated that the so-called Preface (the English text on folio ) was marked for insertion aer verse . Thus the prefatory matter falls into two parts, one in English, written in Orm’s standard metre, and one in Latin, made up of the incipits of the gospel texts for all the homilies. In Johannesson (b) I called the English part the ‘Dedication’ of the Ormulum. Since then, however, I have settled for the term Preface, since Orm never explicitly dedicates his work to Walter (nor, for that matter, to anyone else). 108 Nils-Lennart Johannesson Selim  () homily collection:² Orm states that he has completed the task, he expects detractors but assumes that these will only be motivated by envy, he worries about future copyists being too careless to preserve the details of his spelling system, and, shiing gradually towards a wider audience, sets out to explain why he has undertaken the huge task of explaining the gospels in English to the laity. As a matter of fact, however, Orm’s Preface is a highly conventional product, an exponent of a literary tradition which permeates the body of late Classical and Post-Classical Latin writing to which the source texts for Orm’s homilies belonged. At the same time, it is very much up to date: it can be shown to conform to the conventions of the standard type of preface used in academic twelh-century writing. Yet amidst its adherence to contemporary genre conventions, the Preface also offers us some insights into Orm’s personality. Johannesson (b) identified the Latin sources for two central metaphors in Orm’s Preface: the Gospels as a four-wheeled quadriga, and the Gospels as an embodiment of seven ‘goodnesses’ (or sacraments), represented by the seven seals of the book described in Revelation –. This paper will provide an analysis of those parts of Orm’s Preface which are not reworkings of concrete textual sources, ² The Ormulum does not fall neatly into a single genre: it is a homily collection in the sense that it provides exegetical comments on gospel texts, but unlike a standard homily collection, which presents the gospel texts in the order of their appearance in the Missal throughout the liturgical year, the gospel texts in the Ormulum are arranged so as to provide a chronological account of the lives of John the Baptist, Christ, and the Apostles, chiefly Peter and Paul. In this respect the Ormulum looks rather like a gospel harmony (including also portions of Acts). It is perhaps best described as a cross between a gospel harmony and a homily collection. A possible source of inspiration for Orm can be found in In Unum Ex Quatuor (PL ), where Zacharias Chrysopolitanus in the ’s added exegetical comments (drawn om various sources) to a Latin translation of a Greek gospel harmony by Ammonius of Alexandria. It is clear, however, om the order of presentation of the gospel texts, that Orm did not use In Unum as a model. 109 An anatomy of the preface to the Ormulum Selim  () but rather constitute Orm’s original writing within the amework of traditions current in the twelh century. It will also discuss an apparently unique feature of the Preface, namely Orm’s description of Walter and himself in terms of threefold brotherhood. T C  The first of the traditions to be considered here goes all the way back to Classical Roman literature, and is commonly ascribed to Cicero. Janson () has shown that the Ciceronian praefatio was a popular genre among Classical and Post-Classical Latin writers, pagan as well as Christian. I will here seek to demonstrate that the Preface to the Ormulum exhibits all the features of a standard Ciceronian praefatio.³ A comparison with the Ciceronian features of some of Ælic’s prefaces⁴ will also be undertaken, not because I wish to suggest that Orm was influenced by Ælic’s prefaces (or even knew them), but rather for the light such a comparison sheds on the different personality traits of Orm and Ælic. The typical features of a Ciceronian praefatio, as presented by Janson, can be summarised as follows: Ⓐ Addressing the instigator of the work (Janson : –) Ⓑ Indicating compliance with the instigation ( ff.) Ⓒ The author’s modesty and self-deprecation ( ff.) Ⓓ Acknowledging the help of God ( ff.) ³ Mancho () suggested that the preface to the Ormulum was actually a prologue in the Aristotelian tradition. The major difficulty for such a view is obviously the fact that Aristotle’s work did not become widely known in the West before the thirteenth century, and the Ormulum must have been completed by  (cf. Parkes ). ⁴ Of Ælic’s prefaces, only those to Genesis, to the Lives of Saints, and to the two series of Catholic Homilies will be considered here, nor will a complete analysis of these prefaces be undertaken; only such properties of these prefaces as provide some illumination on Orm’s work will be taken into account. 110 Nils-Lennart Johannesson Selim  () Ⓔ Assigning a corrector’s role to the instigator ( f.,  f.) Ⓕ Mentioning the envy and scorn of contemporary detractors ( f.) Ⓖ Admonition to the scribe who is to copy the work, forbidding changes ( f.) Apart om Ⓒ, the expression of the author’s modesty/humility, these features are all concerned with interpersonal relations: between the author and his patron/the instigator of the work, between the author and the corrector of the text (who may or may not be identical with the patron/instigator), between the author and his copyist⒮, between the author and future readers/detractors, and, finally, between the author and God. Addressing the instigator. Orm does not explicitly dedicate the work to ‘brother Walter’, but he certainly addresses Walter explicitly, calling him his brother in three different ways: in the flesh, as a Christian, and as a fellow Canon following the rule of St. Austin ().⁵ () Nu broþerr wallterr. broþerr min. Aerr þe flæshess kinde. & broþerr min i crisstenndom. Þurrh fulluhht. ⁊ þurrh trowwþe. & broþerr min i godess hus. t o þe þride wise. Þurrh þatt witt hafenn takenn ba. An reͪellboc to follͪenn. Unnderr kanunnkess had. ⁊ lif. Swa summ sannt awwstin sette. (D–) ⁵ All the passages om the Ormulum cited in this article are newly edited om MS Junius . I am grateful to Dr Bruce Barker-Benfield, Bodleian Library, for granting me access to the manuscript in  and again in . All line numbers, however, follow the numbering in Holt  (with the prefixes D = Dedication, P = Preface, H = Homilies), since that is the most recent complete edition generally available. 111 An anatomy of the preface to the Ormulum Selim  () In a similar fashion Ælic addresses ealdorman Æðelweard as the instigator of the translation in two of his prefaces ()–(); the Catholic Homilies, by contrast, are said to have been written on Ælic’s own initiative because he was concerned about the mycel gedwyld ‘great heresy’ of existing English books (Clemoes : ). () Incipit prefatio Genesis Anglice.      dlice. Þu bæde me, leof, þæt ic sceolde ðe awendan of Lædene on Englisc þa boc Genesis. (Preface to Genesis; ÆGenPref ) … ic hæbbe nu gegaderod on þyssere bec þæra halgena þrowunga þe me to () onhagode on englisc to awendene, for þan þe ðu leof swiðost and æðelmær swylcera gewrita me bædon, … (Preface to Lives of Saints; ÆLS (Pref ) ) Compliance. Orm then goes on to say that he has done what Walter asked him to do (Df. in () below): he has translated the gospels into English (Df.). Aer this follow two verses indicating Orm’s humility and awareness of not being properly equipped for the task (Df.). Orm then expands on Walter’s motives for initiating the project (D–), and this section is rounded off with four verses acknowledging Christ’s help in bringing the work to completion (D–). () Icc hafe don swa summ þu badd  forþedd te þin wille. � Icc hafe wennd inntill ennglissh. Goddspelless hallͪe láre Ⓒ Aerr þatt little witt tatt me. Ⓒ Min drihhtin hafeþþ lenedd. � Þu þohhtesst tatt itt mihhte wel. Till mikell ame turrnenn. 5iff ennglissh follc forr lufe off crist. Itt wollde erne lernenn. & follͪenn itt ⁊ fillenn itt. Wiþþ þohht wiþþ word wiþþ dede. & forrþi errndesst tu þatt icc. 112 Nils-Lennart Johannesson Selim  () Þiss werrc þe shollde wirrkenn. & icc itt hafe forþedd te Ⓓ Acc all þurrh cristess hellpe. Ⓓ & unnc birrþ baþe þannkenn crist Ⓓ Þatt itt iss brohht till ende. (D–) Ælic explicitly states that he has complied with the requests of Æðelweard and Æðelmær in the Preface to Lives of Saints, as shown in () above; in the Preface to Genesis the compliance has to be inferred om the existence of the translation. Modesty. Orm’s expression of modesty is as short as it could possibly be (Df., marked by Ⓒ in () above) without making a complete break with tradition. He admittedly repeats this phrase four times in the extant homilies (Hf., Hf., Hf., Hf.), but he does not really give the impression of being a very modest person. A study of the source texts he used reveals a man who was very well-read in the exegetical literature, both older writers and more contemporary ones, capable of combining ideas om different passages or even different writers in a short passage (cf. Johannesson , a, b): he doubtless did not expect anyone who read his huge homily collection to take seriously his comments on limited understanding (“þatt little witt tatt me. / Min drihhtin hafeþþ lenedd.”). Ælic, by contrast, uses expressions which are more suggestive of true humility (); like Orm, however, he also hopes for salvation as a result of his exertions: () PRAEFATIO. Ic ælic munuc ⁊ mæssepreost swa ðeah waccre þonne swilcum hadum gebyrige. … Forwel fela ic wat on ðisum earde. gelæredran þonne ic sy. ac god geswutelað his wundra ðurh ðone ðe he wile. swa swa ælmihtig wyrhta. He wyrcð his weorc þurh his gecorenan. na swylce he behofige ures fultumes. ac þæt we geearnion þæt ece lif þurh his weorces 113 An anatomy of the preface to the Ormulum Selim  () emminge. (Preface to Catholic Homilies, First series; ÆCHom I (Pref ) ., .–) Giving thanks to God. Orm first acknowledges divine help in bringing the task to completion at D– (marked by Ⓓ in () above). Some fi verses later () Orm returns to the matter of carrying out the task only with the help of God: they should praise and thank God for both the inception and the completion of the project, because it may help the souls of English people to be saved. () & unnc birrþ baþe lofenn godd. Off þatt itt wass bigunnenn. & þannkenn godd tatt itt iss brohht. Till ende þurrh hiss hellpe. Forr itt ma hellpenn alle þa Þatt bliþelike itt herenn. & lufenn itt. ⁊ follͪenn itt. Wiþþ þohht. wiþþ word. wiþþ dede. (D–) So when Orm gives thanks to God for the completion of his work, it is still the value of his book that is uppermost in his mind. Ælic, by contrast, sounds genuinely relieved at having come to the end of his labours (). Ælic’s thanks to God are easy to overlook since they are not expressed in his prefaces, but are placed at the end of the second volume of the Catholic Homilies. () EXPLICIT LIBER SECUNDUS. CATHOLICORUM SERMONUM ANGLICE. DEO GRATIAS. amen; ORATIO Ic ðancige þam ælmihtigum scyppende mid ealre heortan. þæt he me synfullum þæs geuðe. þæt ic ðas twa bec him to lofe and to wurðmynte angelcynne onwreah ðam ungelæredum. ða gelæredan ne beðurfon þyssera boca. for ðan ðe him mæg heora agen lar genihtsumian. (Explicit to Catholic Homilies, Second series; ÆCHom II (Prayers) ) 114 Nils-Lennart Johannesson Selim  () Correction. Somewhat later Orm turns again to Walter and asks him to inspect every verse to make sure that there are no expressions of heresy in the work (). () � & te bitæche icc off þiss boc. Heh wikenn. alls itt semeþþ. All to þurrhsekenn illc an ferrs.  to þurrhlokenn oe Þatt upponn all þiss boc ne be. Nan word æn cristess lare. Nan word tatt swiþe wel ne be To trowwenn. ⁊ to follͪenn. (D–) This is similar to Ælic’s request, in the prefaces to the two series of Catholic Homilies, for Sigeric’s corrections of any expressions of ‘malign heresy’ that might be there ()–(). Precor modo obnixe almitatem tuam mitissime pater () . ut digneris corrigere per tuam industriam. si aliquos neuos maligne heresis. aut nebulose fallacię in nostra interpretatione repperies. (Preface to Catholic Homilies, First series; Clemoes : ) Hoc quoque opus commendamus tuae auctoritati corrigendum. () quemadmodum et precedens precantes obnixe. ne parcas oblitterare si aliquas malignae haeresis maculas in eo repperies. (Preface to Catholic Homilies, Second series; Godden : ) In the prefaces to Genesis and the Lives of Saints there is, of course, no place for such a plea since Æðelweard, the instigator of those works, was a layman who had commissioned the translations for his own instruction and thus was not in a position to make any corrections. 115 An anatomy of the preface to the Ormulum Selim  () Detractors. Orm next inserts a paragraph () which deals with future detractors of his homiletic work, people who ‘scorn what should be praised’. Orm’s choice of words suggests that he has a concrete group of people in mind (“þatt laþe flocc. / Þatt iss þurrh niþ forrblendedd” D–); Parkes (: ) reads this as a reference to the twelh- century controversy over Canons Regular undertaking the cure of souls (including preaching). This is fully possible: Dickinson (: ) quotes om the Liber de Ordine Canonicorum, “… whosoever should strive to maintain this [sc. that canons should not undertake the cure of souls] … it is clear, does so more om jealousy of the canonical order than om love of truth.”⁶ The wording here is strikingly similar to what Orm says about expected detractors; at the same time, the mention of envious critics is a conventional feature of a Ciceronian praefatio om the earliest times, so Orm may merely be following the tradition in this respect. () ~ Witt shulenn tredenn unnderrfőt.  all þwerrt űt forrwerrpenn. Þe dom off all þatt laþe flocc. Þatt iss þurrh niþ forrblendedd. Þatt tæleþþ þatt to lofenn iss Þurrh niþfull modinesse. � Þe shulenn lǽtenn hæþeli Off unnkerr swinnc lef broþerr. & all þe shulenn takenn itt. Onn unnitt. ⁊ onn idell. Acc nohht þurrh skill. acc all þurrh niþ.  all þurrh þere sinne. & unnc birrþ biddenn godd tatt he Forrgife hemm here sinne. (D–) ⁶ For the original Latin, see Dickinson (: , fn. ). 116 Nils-Lennart Johannesson Selim  () Ælic provides a more succinct comment on detractors motivated by envy: Nequaquam nos inuidorum reprehensio mouet. si hoc munus tuae benigne () auctoritati non displicuerit; (Preface to Catholic Homilies, Second series; Godden : ) More interesting, to my mind, than the possible real-world reference to detractors in the Ormulum Preface is what a comparison between what Ælic and Orm have to say about detractors reveals about the writers’ attitudes. Orm certainly does not emerge as the more modest and humble of the two. Ælic appeals to his superior in the church: if only archbishop Sigeric approves of his homilies, he will not worry about envious detractors. Orm, by contrast, appeals to nobody: he knows that his work deserves praise (“to lofenn iss”), and for that reason he will not worry about envious detractors. Copying. Considering the kind of complex spelling system that Orm had developed, it does not seem unreasonable to take his worries about careless copying seriously as being rooted in experience (). () � & wha se wilenn shall þiss boc. E oþerr siþe writenn Himm bidde icc þatt ht wríte rihht. Swa summ þiss boc himm tæcheþþ. All þwerrt űt aerr þatt itt iss Upp o þiss firrste bisne. Wiþþ all swillc ríme alls her iss sett. Wiþþ all se fele wordess. & tatt he loke wel þatt he. An bocstaff wríte twiess. Ewhær þær itt upp o þiss boc Iss wrĭtenn o þatt wise. Loke he well þatt ht write swa. Forr he ne ma nohht elless. 117 An anatomy of the preface to the Ormulum Selim  () Onn ennglissh wrítenn rihht te word. Þatt wite he wel to soþe. (D–) If Orm had a particular scribe in mind, it must have been the scribe behind ‘Hand C’ (Parkes : ff.): his main task in the production of the Ormulum was to insert the Latin incipits in their proper places at the beginning of each gospel text, but he also copied a few verses of Orm’s English text where Orm’s writing for one reason or another had become difficult to read. () shows how much went wrong when he copied Orm’s version of H–: he did not distinguish between the capital letters of on- and off-verses, he turned the double acute accent in “főt” into a single one, he wrote a single consonant for a double one in seven places, a double consonant for a single one in one place, wrote 〈u〉 for intervocalic 〈f〉, wrote 〈g〉 for 〈c〉 in “strengþe”, and split the 〈ͪ〉 digraph. If he actually got round to copying the Ormulum, the result will not have made Orm happy. Orm: Hand C:() Þiss mahhte tredeþþ unnderr főt All modinessess strenncþe. 5iff þatt iss þatt tu lufesst itt.  follͪesst itt wiþþ herrte. (H–) Þiss mahhte tredeþþ underr fótt All modinesses strengþe. iff þatt iss þatt tu luuest itt ⁊ foʰllest itt wiþ herte. Ælic is also concerned about correct copying (), but not at the level of spelling errors: he is concerned about a correct representation of his exegetical ideas. Nu bydde ic ⁊ halsige on godes naman gif hwá þas bóc awritan wylle.  hé () hí geornlice gerihte be ðære bysene. þy læs ðe we ðurh gymelease writeras geleahtrode beon; (Preface to Catholic Homilies, First series; Clemoes : ) 118 Nils-Lennart Johannesson Selim  () Discussion. Orm’s Preface is in all respects a traditional Ciceronian praefatio; yet while observing all the genre conventions, the Preface, in its Ciceronian parts, affords us some glimpses into Orm’s mind. He is, quite clearly, convinced of the intrinsic value of his book, and for that reason he is not worried about future detractors. His only real worry, apparently, is related to the difficulty of finding a scribe who can copy his text with a reasonable degree of correctness. The early folios of the homilies (fol.  onwards) were quite neatly laid out (disregarding the sometimes irregular shape of the parchment leaves), but as the writing proceeded and more and more changes and corrections crept in, the manuscript took on the character of a rough dra, and some  folios into the work (not counting lost folios) he did not always take the trouble to write straight columns (e.g. fol. v). By that time the need for a fair copy must have become obvious to Orm; the thought of handing over this task to someone else was understandably worrying to him, since not even his collaborator, the scribe behind ‘Hand C’, could be expected to render the text correctly. N-  As far as personal matters are concerned, the Preface to the Ormulum is, as we have seen, a very clear-cut example of a Ciceronian praefatio. But there are several passages in the Preface that are not related to personal matters; in order to account for those passages we need a different model of analysis. Such a model was provided by Minnis (), developing further a classification of academic prologues presented by Hunt (). For a full account of the historical development of the different prologue types the reader is referred to these works; here we will focus exclusively on the so-called ‘type C’ prologue, which was 119 An anatomy of the preface to the Ormulum Selim  () the dominant type in the twelh century: “In the systematisation of knowledge which is characteristic of the twelh century, the ‘type C’ prologue appeared at the beginning of commentaries of all disciplines: the arts, medicine, Roman law, canon law and theology… The ‘type C’ prologue, specially adapted to meet the unique requirements of sacred Scripture, became the standard form of introduction to commentaries on the Bible.” (Minnis : , ). Small wonder, then, if Orm, writing in the third quarter of the twelh century (Parkes : ), would adopt this “standard form of introduction” for his commentaries on gospel passages. A ‘type C’ prologue can be summarised by the following headings (Minnis : –): ① Titulus libri – The title of the work ② Nomen auctoris – The name of the author ③ Intentio auctoris – The intention of the author ④ Materia libri – The subject-matter of the book ⑤ Modus tractandi – The method of didactic procedure employed in the work ⑥ Ordo libri – The order of the book ⑦ Utilitas – Utility ⑧ Cui parti philosophiae supponitur – The branch of learning to which the book belonged Title of work and name of author. Orm states the title of the work and the name of the author at the top of folio  recto (), at the beginning of the passage which Holt () labelled ‘Preface’ (cf. footnote  above); on the verso of folio  the title is repeated (). He gives his name in the first instance as ‘Orrm’; in a later part of the Preface he says that he was given the name ‘Orrmin’ in baptism (). () � Þiss boc iss nemmnedd. orrmulum Forr þi þatt orrm itt wrohhte. (Pf.) 120 Nils-Lennart Johannesson Selim  () () � & all þuss þiss ennglisshe boc. Iss orrmulum ehatenn. Inn quaþþrígan amminadab Inn currum salomonis. (P–) () Icc. þatt tiss ennglissh hafe sett. Ennglisshe menn to lare Icc wass þær þær i crisstnedd wass. Orrmin bi name nemmnedd. & icc orrmin full innwarrdli. Wiþþ muþ. ⁊ ec wiþþ herrte. Her bidde þa crisstene menn. Þatt herenn oþerr rédenn. Þiss boc hemm bidde icc her þatt te. Forr me þiss bede biddenn. (D–) Author’s intention. The intention of the author is also clearly set out: Orm has written this work in an attempt to save the souls of those Englishmen who do not know enough Latin to read and understand the gospels (). This aspect of the work is so central that Orm comes back to it, e.g. at D–. () ~ & iff mann wile witenn whi. Icc hafe don þiss dede. Whi icc till ennglissh hafe wennd. Goddspelless hallͪe lare Icc hafe itt don forr þi þatt all. Crisstene follkess berrhless. Iss lang uppo þatt an. þatt te. Goddspelless hallͪe lare Wiþþ fulle mahhte follͪe rihht. Þurrh þohht. þurrh word. þurrh dede. Forr all þatt æe onn erþe iss ned. Crisstene follc to follͪenn. I trowwþe. i dede all tæcheþþ hemm. Goddspelless hallͪe lare. & forrþi. wha se lerneþþ itt. 121 An anatomy of the preface to the Ormulum Selim  ()  follͪeþþ itt wiþþ dede He shall onn ende wurrþi ben. Þurrh godd to wurrþenn borrͪenn. & tærfore hafe icc turrnedd itt. Inntill ennglisshe spæche Forr þatt i wollde bliþeli. Þatt all ennglisshe lede. Wiþþ ære shollde lisstenn itt. Wiþþ herrte shollde itt trowwenn. Wiþþ tunge shollde spellenn itt. Wiþþ dede shollde itt follͪenn. To winnenn unnderr crisstenndom. Att godd soþ sawle berrhless. (D–) Material. The subject matter of the book is stated most clearly and succinctly at P– (); it is also presented at great length in the central parts of the Preface through the metaphors of the quadriga of Amminadab and the chariot of Solomon as well as the seven ‘goodnesses’ (or sacraments) (see Johannesson b). () � Icc hafe sammnedd o þiss boc. Þa goddspelless neh alle Þatt sinndenn o þe messeboc. Inn all þe er att messe. (P–) Orm is more reticent about the commentators he relied on for his explications of the gospel texts. Where Ælic, in the Latin preface to the first series of the Catholic Homilies, explicitly identified Augustine of Hippo, Jerome, Bede, Gregory, Smaragdus and Haymo as his sources, Orm merely referred to ‘the book’ (“þe boc”) throughout the text ( occurrences). He later removed the references to “þe boc” or modified them to an indefinite form (e.g. “soþ boc” ‘a true book’, “latin boc” ‘a Latin book’), as if more precise knowledge of these sources would be irrelevant to his lay readers (or listeners). 122 Nils-Lennart Johannesson Selim  () Method. The modus tractandi is described in some detail in the two paragraphs ( verses) starting at D (): each gospel text is followed by an interpretation of the text as well as other useful information (such as the long digression on Jewish sacrifices and their relevance to twelh-century Christians, H–). In the second of these paragraphs Orm explains that he has made additions to the gospel texts for two reasons: partly to make the gospel story more coherent by telling it in greater detail (“Þe ríme swa to fillenn.”, D; cf. Johannesson ) and thus make readers understand the gospel more easily, partly to make the number of syllables in each verse come out right (“min ferrs to fillenn”, D). () � & a aerr þe goddspell stannt. Þatt tatt te goddspell meneþþ. Þatt mann birrþ spellenn to þe follc. Off þere sawle nede. & t tær tekenn mare inoh. Þu shallt tæronne findenn. Off þatt tatt cristess hallͪe þed Birrþ trowwenn wel. ⁊ follͪenn. � Icc hafe sett her o þiss boc. Amang goddspelless wordess. All þurrh me sellfenn mani word. Þe ríme swa to fillenn. Acc þu shallt findenn þatt min word. Ewhær þær itt iss ekedd Ma hellpenn þa þatt redenn itt. To sen. ⁊ tunnderrstanndenn. All þess te bettre hu þem birrþ. Þe goddspell unnderrstanndenn. & forrþi trowwe icc þatt te birrþ. Wel þolenn mine wordess. Ewhær þær þu shallt findenn hemm Amang goddspelless wordess. Forr wha se mőt to læwedd follc. 123 An anatomy of the preface to the Ormulum Selim  () Larspell off goddspell tellenn He mőt wel ekenn mani word. Amang goddspelless wordess. & icc ne mihhte nohht min ferrs. A wiþþ goddspelless wordess. Wel fillenn all. ⁊ all forrþi. Shollde icc well oe nede. Amang goddspelless wordess don. Min word. min ferrs to fillenn. (D–) Order. Information about the ‘order of the book’ is provided by the numbered list of Latin incipits of the gospel texts. This list is introduced by a curious passage where Orm promises to list all the ‘gospels’ that he can find in this book (), as if he was editing someone else’s book. Possibly the “icc” at the end of D is an uncorrected slip for “mann”, referring to any reader of the book. () � Þa goddspelless alle þatt icc. Her o þiss boc ma findenn Hemm alle wile icc nemmnenn her. Bi þere firrste wordess. & tăle wile icc settenn to. To don uw tunnderrstanndenn. Hu fele sinndenn o þiss boc. Goddspelless unnderr alle. (D–) Utility. The utility of the book is stated in no uncertain terms: if people will ‘hear it’ and ‘follow it’, their souls will be saved; in any case, Orm is sure of his own reward, regardless whether his readers accept it or reject it (). The same idea is repeated e.g. in the prayer concluding the Preface proper, before Orm’s request for his readers’ prayers (). 124 Nils-Lennart Johannesson Selim  () () & iff þe wilenn herenn itt.  follͪenn itt wiþþ dede Icc hafe hemm hollpenn unnderr crist. To winnenn þere berrhless. & i shall hafenn forr min swinnc. God læn att godd onn ende 5iff þatt i forr þe lufe off godd.  forr þe mede off heffne Hemm hafe itt inntill ennglissh wennd. Forr þere sawle nede. & iff þe all forrwerrpenn itt Itt turrneþþ hemm till sinne. & i shall hafenn addledd me. Þe laferrd cristess are. Þurrh þatt icc hafe hemm wrohht tiss boc. To þere sawle nede. Þohh þatt te all forrwerrpenn itt. Þurrh þere modinesse. (D–) () � & godd allmahhti gife uss mahht.  lusst. ⁊ witt. ⁊ wille. To follͪenn þiss ennglisshe boc. Þat all iss hali lare. Swa þatt we motenn wurrþi ben. To brukenn heffness blisse. Amæn. Amæn. Amæn;‧ (D–) Branch of philosophy. Orm says nothing about which branch of philosophy his work belongs to; in this he is in line with many contemporary theologians, who regarded this matter as irrelevant to works on scriptural exegesis (Minnis : ). Discussion. So far, we have simply assumed that ‘the work’ that Orm had in mind in his Preface was the Ormulum, and that ‘the author’ was Orm 125 An anatomy of the preface to the Ormulum Selim  () himself. However, this was not the standard approach to the question of authorship in contemporary scriptural exegesis. We may compare Orm’s implied view with that expressed in the Prologus to the  commentary on the Song of Solomon by Honorius Augustodunensis (the source for Orm’s quadriga metaphor (Johannesson b: ), and thus known to Orm): here ‘the work’ is not Honorius’ Expositio, but the Song of Solomon, and ‘the author’ is not Honorius, but the Holy Ghost (). Auctor libri hujus est Spiritus sanctus, loquens per vas sapientiae, Salomonem () hujus libri scriptorem qui fuit rex sapientissimus et propheta praecipuus. (Honorius Augustodunensis, Expositio in Cantica Canticorum; PL vol.  col. C–D) What Orm has done, then, in his Preface is to set himself up as Author, rather than stay in the background as a mere commentator. In the prayer which he asks the reader to say for him () he says that he both “wrt” and “wrohhte” ‘this English text’: he was both *writere⁷ (‘writer’, ‘scribe’) and wrihhte (‘wright’, ‘maker’, ‘author’). () � Þatt broþerr þatt tiss ennglissh writt. Allræresst wrt. ⁊ wrohhte Þatt broþerr forr hiss swinnc to læn Soþ blisse móte findenn. Amæn. (D–) The fact that he apparently regarded his own exegetical writing rather than the gospel texts as ‘the work’ to which the Preface belongs certainly ties in very nicely with his high opinion of the utility of that writing: in the course of the Preface the emphasis shis om the importance of the Gospels for people’s salvation (D–; cf. () above) to the importance of ‘this English book’ (D; cf. () above). ⁷ The word is asterisked simply because it is not attested in the Ormulum; it is, of course, well-attested in both Old and Middle English. 126 Nils-Lennart Johannesson Selim  () T  There is one feature of Orm’s Preface which goes beyond the typical properties of a Ciceronian praefatio and a ‘Type C’ prologue. This is Orm’s insistence on threefold brotherhood: Walter is described as Orm’s brother in the flesh, as a Christian, and as a fellow Canon following the rule of St. Austin (D–) (cf. () above).⁸ It seems very difficult to find a textual analogue for this — Dickins and Wilson (: ) suggest influence om St. Paul’s Epistle to Philemon, verse , where Paul entreats Philemon to receive Onesimus as “a brother beloved … both in the flesh, and in the Lord” (KJB) (“carissimum atrem … et in carne et in Domino”, Vu). More relevant, perhaps, is the case of St. Andrew and St. Peter, since Orm himself describes them as brothers in the flesh, and brothers in the faith (). But this is still only twofold brotherhood: why does Orm insist on threefold brotherhood? () All swa se sannt anndrew stod inn. To brinngenn sannte peterr. To ben hiss broþerr unnderr crist. I crisstenndom þurrh trowwþe. Swa þatt te mihhtenn breþre ben. Þurrh rihhte læfe o criste Swa summ þe wærenn breþre ba. Þurrh fader. ⁊ þurrh moderr. (H–) I would like to suggest that Orm — whether influenced by Philemon : or not — was actually making a covert reference to another pair of threefold brothers, two brothers whom he may have regarded as the predecessors of Walter and himself, namely Anselm (†) and Ralph (†) of Laon. Like Walter and Orm, Anselm and Ralph were brothers in the flesh, brothers in the faith and also Canons Regular. They were furthermore successive Heads of the ⁸ I am grateful to Andrew Breeze for drawing my attention to this issue by asking a question about it aer my  SELIM conference paper. 127 An anatomy of the preface to the Ormulum Selim  () Cathedral school at Laon in Picardie in northern France, and are perhaps best remembered for their role in the early phases of the development of the Glossa ordinaria: Anselm was “responsible for having compiled the Glossa ordinaria on the Pauline Epistles, the Psalms and probably the Gospel of St. John. … According to most manuscript witnesses, Anselm’s brother Ralph compiled the gloss on St. Matthew …” (Andrée : , ). In the remainder of this paper, I will try to establish what links we can recognise between Anselm’s and Ralph’s work on the Glossa at Laon and Orm’s work on the Ormulum, presumably at Bourne in southern Lincolnshire (cf. Parkes : ff.). Textual links. Matthes () was the first to recognise the Glossa ordinaria as a source text for the Ormulum, although he took an exaggerated view of its importance (see also Morrison , ). But Orm not only used the Glossa text as raw material for the expositions in his homilies, he also used some of the source texts used by the glossators. When Anselm glossed the Gospel according to St. John (Andrée : f.), he used as his main source the Commentarius In Evangelium Iohannis by the ninth-century teacher at Laon, the Irishman Johannes Scotus Eriugena (Jeauneau ). Eriugena’s commentary on John survives in a single ninth-century manuscript with Eriugena’s own corrections and additions (Laon, Bibliothèque municipale, MS ; cf. Jeauneau and Dutton ). While Anselm was working with Eriugena’s manuscript it is conceivable that he had one or more copies of the manuscript made. One such copy, or a descendant of it, must have become available to Orm; as we will see, it is clear that Orm used Eriugena at first hand, and not simply mediated through the abbreviated version to be found in the 128 Nils-Lennart Johannesson Selim  () Glossa ordinaria. Here a single illustration will have to suffice; more evidence can be found in Johannesson (a). For his comment on John : in Homily xxv () Orm selected a few non-consecutive topics om Eriugena’s comments and combined his renderings of these to make one coherent paragraph. A certain amount of expansion can be observed in Orm’s text, as when “regnum patris” is rendered as “þatt kinedom. þatt godd. / Hehfaderr rixleþþ inne” (Hf ). The Glossa can only provide a few of the elements in Orm’s paragraph, whereas Eriugena provides them all. The phrase “Þatt mann. þatt niss nohht borenn t / Gastlike … / Inn hallͪedd waterr fullhtnedd” (H–) is a reworking by Orm om Eriugena’s words in ③, turning second person address into third person comment, and with “off gastli moderr” added as Orm’s own contribution.⁹ Similarly, the last four verses in the paragraph, where Orm translates Christ’s words into the description of a modern conversion process, expressed in terms of baptism (“fulluhht”), instruction in Christian doctrine and attainment of the true faith, read like Orm’s attempt to clari the situation to a contemporary reader. ① () Respondit Iesus et dixit ei: Amen, amen dico tibi, nisi quis natus fuerit denuo, non potest uidere regnum Dei. … ② Ac si ei aperte diceret: Non sufficit tibi solummodo in me credidisse, ③ nisi sac- ramenta baptismatis accipias uirtutemque spi ritualis gen- erationis intelligas. … Quod ergo ait Non potest uidere regnum Dei, non incongrue � & tatt te laferrd sede þuss. Till nicodem wiþþ worde. To fulle soþ i seġġe þe. Þatt niss nan mann onn erþe. Þatt muͪe godess riche sen. Butt he be borenn twiess Þatt wass alls iff he sede þuss. Till himm wiþþ oþre wordess. Þatt mann. þatt niss nohht borenn t. Gastlike off gastli moderr. & all þurrh godd off hali gast. Inn hallͪedd waterr fullhtnedd ① ② ③ ⁹ Orm’s “gastli moderr” is presumably a rendering of “mater spiritualis”, referring to the Church. 129 An anatomy of the preface to the Ormulum Selim  () intelligitur: ④ Non potest me cognoscere, ⑦ qui sum regnum patris; non enim solummodo ⑤ rex omnium sum, sed et illud regnum et omnia. Recte igitur ⑥ uisio ueritatis regnum dei et dici- tur et intelligitur. (E; J , , ) .i. ④ non potest cognoscere me ⑦ qui sum regnum pa-⑦ qui sum regnum pa-qui sum regnum pa- tris. ⑥ qui sum visio verita-⑥ qui sum visio verita-qui sum visio verita- tis (G ) Ne ma he nohht rihht cnawenn me. Swa summ icc amm to cnawenn. Þatt amm allmahhti godd. ⁊ ec. Soþ sihhþe off soþfasstnesse. Þatt amm þatt kinedom. þatt godd. Hehfaderr rixleþþ inne. Þatt tu t nunnderrstanndesst nohht Forr þatt tu narrt nohht fullhtnedd. Ne læredd nohht off crisstenndom. Noff all þe rihhte læfe. (H–) ④ ⑤ ⑥ ⑦ The only surviving copy of Eriugena’s commentary on John has several lacunae in the text; one of these covers passages in John that Orm deals with in four homilies (xxi–xxiv), as shown in Table  below. Table . Correspondences between extant parts of Eriugena, Commentarius in Evangelium Johannis, and Orm’s homilies xviii and xxi–xxx. Eriugena Orm John :– (lost) Homily xxix (:–) John :– Homily xviii (:–) John :–: (lost) Homily xxi (:–) (partly lost) Homily xxii (:–) Homily xxiii (:–) Homily xxiv (:–) John :–: Homily xxv (:–) Homily xxvi (:–) Homily xxvii (:–) Homily xxviii (:–) (lost) Homily xxx (:–) John :–: (lost) John :– 130 Nils-Lennart Johannesson Selim  () The lacunae (apart om the first one, John :–) were already there when Anselm used the manuscript to produce the Glossa on John (Jeauneau : ); for those parts of John, Anselm had to find source material elsewhere. The copy I believe Orm had access to would have been made during Anselm’s work on the Glossa and would have had the same lacunae. And indeed: when Anselm gathers material to fill the gaps in Eriugena, Orm typically sets off in a totally different direction to fill the same gaps. Again, one example, albeit a fairly extensive one, taken om Orm’s exposition of part of John :, will have to suffice to illustrate this. The Latin gospel text and Orm’s translation are shown in (): et dicit ei amen amen dico () vobis Icc seġġe uw to fulle soþ  wel uw birrþ itt trowwenn. videbitis caelum apertum Þatt heffness shulenn oppnedd ben. Biforenn ure sihhþe. Swa þatt e shulenn sen full wel. et angelos Dei ascendentes et descendentes supra Filium hominis (John : Vu)  oe godess enngless. Uppwarrd & dunnwarrd baþe upp o. Þe manness sune stiͪenn. (H–) For the clause videbitis caelum apertum the Glossa only provides a comparison with Jacob’s dream (Genesis :) of the ladder (). ¶ () Uidebitis cęlum. Nathanael israelita. dicitur visurus apertum cęlum ⁊ angelos ascendentes ⁊ descendentes vt olim patriarcha iacob vidit scalam ⁊ angelos ascendentes ⁊ descendentes qui per benedictionem vocatus est israel. (G ) Apparently, Orm found this comparison insufficient for his exposition; in its place he provided three different interpretations of videbitis caelum apertum, all based on different sources. He first gives a historical interpretation: it is a straightforward rendering of a comment by Bede () about the Gates of Heaven being opened by 131 An anatomy of the preface to the Ormulum Selim  () the Incarnation (or Resurrection, as Orm chooses to interpret Bede’s ‘God as man penetrated Heaven’), with very little added material. The passage is characterised by Orm’s usual kind of reformulations, e.g. “nobis in eum credentibus” ‘to us who believe in Him’ becomes “5æn alle þa þatt lufenn crist /  hise laͪess haldenn.” ‘To all those who love Christ and keep His laws’ (Hf.). ① () Videmus etenim coelum apertum, quia ② post- quam coelum Deus homo penetravit, etiam ④ nobis in eum credentibus ③ su- pernae patriae patefactum cognoscimus ingressum. (Beda, In S. Joannis Evan- gelium Expositio, PL vol. , col. A–B) Þiss ht tatt wass natanaæl. Bihatenn ⁊ filippe Wass filledd aerr þatt tatt crist. Wass risenn upp off dæþe. Forr þurrh þe laferrd cristess dæþ Wass heffness ate all oppnedd. 5æn alle þa þatt lufenn crist  hise laͪess haldenn. (H–) ① ② ③ ④ The second interpretation is allegorical: on the basis of a passage om Bruno Astensis, Orm uses metaphor and simile to show how ‘heavens’ can be taken to signi the Apostles (). The usual kind of modification can be observed, e.g. “eorum fide et doctrina” ‘with their faith and teaching’ is turned into ‘through their preaching and their example’ (Hf.). ① (32) Totus mundus coelo concluditur, tota Ecclesia catholica inter apostolicae fidei et doctrinae terminos continetur. Quicunque ex- tra hos terminos est, pro- fanus et infidelis est. … quae quidem omnia apos- tolis quoque convenire videntur. In eis enim et solem, et lunam, et stellas � & mann ma unnderrstanndenn þiss t onn an oþer wise. Þatt heffness sholldenn oppnedd ben Biforenn follkess sihhþe. Forr heffness her bitacnenn uss. Þe laferrd cristess posstless. Þatt æfenn uss þurrh þere spell.  ec þurrh þere bisne. Soþ lihht her i þiss middellærd To sen ⁊ tunnderrstanndenn. All hu mann birrþ þatt wee gan ① ② 132 Nils-Lennart Johannesson Selim  () invenire non est difficile. Ipsi sunt, quibus Domi- nus ait: ② «Vos estis lux mundi (Matth. V, );» sic eorum fide et doctrina tota Ecclesia illuminata est, ③ sicut solis hujus, et lunae splendore tota terra illumi- natur, in quibus et virtu- tum omnium pulchritudo, quasi stellae quaedam cor- uscant. (Bruno Astensis, Sententiae. PL vol. , col. A–B) Þatt ledeþþ upp till heffne All swa summ heffne uss ifeþþ lihht Þurrh sunne. ⁊ mone. ⁊ sterrness. (H–) ③ The third interpretation is again allegorical, and again seeks to demonstrate that ‘heavens’ signifies the Apostles (). This time Orm builds a complex metaphor om bits and pieces om five different sources,¹⁰ likening the faithless heart to an arid and ozen plot of ground, a uitless orchard, which should be watered with the salty and bitter tears of contrition. I have not been able to find the full metaphor anywhere in the PL database, only the ‘building-blocks’, so I assume that Orm should be given credit for the metaphor. Ⓐ () In omnibus gentibus per apostolorum mini- sterium Ⓑ poenitentia et remissio peccatorum prae- dicata est (Haymo Halber- statensis, Homilia LXXIV. PL vol. , col. A) …tam salutaris doctrinae fluenta effudit, per quae � & ec þe posstless æfenn uss. Þurrh lare. ⁊ ec þurrh bisne. Soþ rewwsinng off all ure woh. Off sakess. ⁊ off sinness. To ① wattrenn ⁊ to ② dæwenn swa. Þurrh beske. ⁊ sallte tæress. Þatt herrte þatt wiþþinnenn uss. Iss hefili forrclungenn. Þurrh fakenn trowwþe towarrd godd  towarrd mann onn eorþe. Ⓐ Ⓑ ③ ④ ⑤ ⑥ ¹⁰ It should be noted that comments like that quoted om Haymo in () can be found in other texts as well, but since Orm used Haymo’s homilies elsewhere, it seemed reasonable to use Haymo’s version as an illustration here. 133 An anatomy of the preface to the Ormulum Selim  () ⑤ arida ⑥ infidelium ④ corda ① irrigavit, … con- tinuos producit fontes la- crymarum, in quibus ⑤ arida terra ④ cordis dul- citer ① irrigatur, et ⑩ ad proferendos dignae opera- tionis uctus fecundatur. (Godeidus Admontensis, Homilia XLIII. PL vol. , col. B) Item ② ros praedicatorum doctrinam, ut est illud in libro Job: Quis est pluviae pater? vel quis genuit stil- las roris? (Job XXXVIII) ac si diceret: nisi ego, qui ⑤ siccam terram ④ hu- mani cordis guttis scien- tiae gratuito ② aspergo rore. (Rabanus Maurus, De Universo Libri Vigin- ti Duo. Liber XI. Caput XIX. De rore. PL vol. , col. D) ③ lacrymae … sunt salsae et amarae ad restringen- dam carnis luxuriam; sunt calidae contra ⑧ igus in- fidelitatis, et ad accenden- dum ⑦ ardorem charitatis (Beda, In Matthaei Evan- gelium Expositio. Liber I. Caput V. PL vol. , col. C–D) & forr þatt itt bidæledd iss. Off all soþ lufess hæte All iss itt uss biorenn swa. Þurrh hete. ⁊ niþ. ⁊ irre Þatt all itt liþ uss wasstmelæs. Off alle gode dedess. (H–) ⑦ ⑧ ⑨ ⑩ 134 Nils-Lennart Johannesson Selim  () ⑨ Malitiam quoque, iram et odium, … (Petrus Damianus, [De Institutis Suae Congregationis.] Caput XXVI. ‘Quomodo lacrymarum gratia possit acquiri.’ PL vol. , col. C–D) Of course, the fact that Orm uses different source material om the Glossa when there is a lacuna in Eriugena’s Expositio does not in itself prove that he had access to a copy of it (he may just have found Anselm’s selections useless for his purposes, as in the interpretation of “videbitis caelum apertum” discussed above). Nevertheless, taken together with those passages where Orm uses material om Eriugena which never made its way into the Glossa, these ee-ranging parts of the Ormulum can at least be seen as supporting evidence for the hypothesis that Orm did have access to an Eriugena manuscript and could tell where the lacunae were in Eriugena’s exposition. A possible route of transmission. It remains for us to consider if it is reasonable to postulate a link between Laon in Picardie and Bourne in Lincolnshire in the twelh century.¹¹ Anselm of Laon died in , and the school soon went into decline aer his death (Southern : ). Shortly aer, Gervase (abbot –) introduced a stricter discipline at the Augustinian abbey of Arrouaise, south of Arras in Picardie (now Pas-de-Calais) (Dickinson : f., ). A scribe who had worked closely with Anselm may have chosen the early s to leave Laon for Arrouaise, taking some manuscripts with him as he le, including the copy of Eriugena. The distance om Laon to ¹¹ I will assume that Parkes’ () identification of Orm’s house is correct. 135 An anatomy of the preface to the Ormulum Selim  () Arrouaise was about  kilometres, so he need not have taken more than a week or two to get there. In  a party le Arrouaise to go off to England to found the daughter house at Bourne in Lincolnshire (Parkes : ). Whether or not the scribe om Laon was a member of this party, we have to assume that the manuscripts he had brought om Laon went to Bourne to form part of the abbey library there. This hypothetical scribe provides a possible link between the cathedral school at Laon and Bourne Abbey: when Orm started his work on the Ormulum, presumably betwen  and , the copy of Eriugena would have been there, as well as stories about the threefold brothers at Laon, Anselm and Ralph. C The purpose of this paper has been to investigate those parts of the Preface to the Ormulum that are not derived om exegetical Latin texts. For two of the three issues discussed here the evidence is there in the text, we only have to relate it to the relevant descriptive categories. As regards those passages that deal with relationships between Orm and various other persons (the instigator of the work, the copyist, possible detractors, God), they agree perfectly with the norms for a Ciceronian praefatio, as described by Janson (). With respect to the passages that deal with non-personal characteristics of the text, the Preface is a typical ‘Type C’ prologue, as described by Minnis (). However, as regards the reason for Orm’s insisting on threefold brotherhood, my suggestion that this is a veiled reference to Anselm and Ralph of Laon, another pair of threefold brothers, is less easy to find support for. There is textual evidence that Orm used Eriugena’s commentary on John in a way that presupposes that he had access to a manuscript copy of it. Since the only surviving manuscript has 136 Nils-Lennart Johannesson Selim  () never le Laon (Jeauneau : ) and was used by Anselm as the main source for the Glossa on John, this suggests some kind of link between Orm and the work carried out at Laon a generation or two earlier. The possible transmission procedure sketched above is of course mere speculation, and it does not seem likely that evidence for or against this story will ever become available, as Parkes (: , fn. ) hoped: the recently published documents om Arrouaise Abbey (Tock ) contain no material relating to Bourne. What remains is the textual evidence in the Ormulum itself. The analysis of the Preface to the Ormulum made here suggests that Orm was not a very modest person, and that he had a very high opinion of the value of his work. He may have wished to include a veiled reference to Anselm and Ralph because he saw Walter and himself as their spiritual heirs; perhaps he even saw the Ormulum as a vernacular counterpart of the Glossa ordinaria. Nils-Lennart Johannesson Stockholm University R Primary sources Ælic, English Preface to Lives of Saints. DOE [ÆLS (Pref ).] Ælic, Preface to Genesis. DOE [ÆGenPref.] Beda, In S. Joannis Evangelium Expositio, PL vol. . Biblia Latina Cum Glossa Ordinaria. Tomus IV. Facsimile Reprint of the Editio Princeps Adolph Rusch of Strassburg /. Turnhout, Brepols. 137 An anatomy of the preface to the Ormulum Selim  () Bruno Astensis, Sententiae. PL vol. . Clemoes, P. ed. : Ælfric’s Catholic Homilies. The First Series. Text. EETS S.S. . Oxford, Oxford University Press. Healey, A. diPaolo ed. : Dictionary of Old English Corpus in Electronic Form. (CD-ROM). Toronto, University of Toronto. (DOE) Glossa Ordinaria. Evangelium Secundum Joannem. See Biblia Latina. (G) Godden, M. ed. : Ælfric’s Catholic Homilies. The Second Series. Text. EETS S.S. . London, Oxford University Press. Godeidus Admontensis, Homiliae In Festa Totius Anni. PL vol. . Haymo Halberstatensis, Homiliae De Tempore. PL vol. . Honorius Augustodunensis, Expositio in Cantica Canticorum. PL vol. . Jeauneau, É. ed. : Commentaire sur l’évangile de Jean. Par Jean Scot. Paris, Cerf. (J) Johannes Scotus Eriugena, Commentarivs In Evangelivm Iohannis. See Jeaneau . (E) King James Bible. ARTFL Multilingual Bibles. //: http:// www.lib.uchicago.edu/es/ARTFL/public/bibles/ (KJB) Patrologia Latina. The Full Text Database. //: http://pld. chadwyck.co.uk (PL) Petrus Damianus, [De Institutis Suae Congregationis.] PL vol. . Rabanus Maurus, De Universo. PL vol. . 138 Nils-Lennart Johannesson Selim  () Vulgate. ARTFL Multilingual Bibles. //: http://www.lib. uchicago.edu/es/ARTFL/public/bibles/ (Vu) Zacharias Chysopolitanus, In Unum Ex Quatuor. PL vol. . Secondary sources Andrée, A. ed. : Gilbertus Universalis. Glossa Ordinaria In Lamentationes Ieremie Prophete. Prothemata et Liber I. A Critical Edition with an Introduction and a Translation. Studia Latina Stockholmiensia . Stockholm, Almqvist & Wiksell Inter national. Dickins, B. & R. M. Wilson eds. : Early Middle English Texts. Cambridge, Bowes & Bowes. Dickinson, J. C. : The Origins of the Austin Canons and their Introduction into England. London, S.P.C.K. Holt, R. ed. : The Ormulum, with the Notes and Glossary of Dr. R. M. White.  vols. Oxford, Clarendon. Hunt, R. W. : The Introduction to the “Artes” in the Twelh Century, in Studia Mediaevalia in honorem admodum reverendi patris Raymundi Josephi Martin, –. Bruges, De Tempel. Janson, T. : Latin Prose Prefaces. Studies in Literary Conventions. Acta Universitatis Stockholmiensis: Studia Latina Stockholmiensia XIII. Stockholm, Almquist & Wiksell. Jeauneau, É. & P. E. Dutton. : The Autograph of Eriugena. Turnhout, Brepols. Johannesson, N.-L. : The etymology of rime in the Ormulum, in C. Dollerup ed., Worlds of Words. A tribute to Arne Zettersten, –. Nordic Journal of English Studies , Special issue. 139 An anatomy of the preface to the Ormulum Selim  () Johannesson, N.-L. : Bread, Crumbs, and Related Matters in the Ormulum, in McConchie R. W., O. Timofeeva, H. Tissari, & T. Säily eds., Selected Proceedings of the  Symposium on New Approaches in English Historical Lexis (HEL-LEX), –. Somerville, MA, Cascadilla Proceedings Project. Johannesson, N.-L. a: Orm’s relationship to his Latin sources, in G. Mazzon ed., Studies in Middle English Forms and Meanings, –. Studies in English Medieval Language and Literature . Frankfurt am Main, Peter Lang. Johannesson, N.-L. b: The four-wheeled quadriga and the seven sacraments: On the sources for the ‘Dedication’ of the Ormulum, in Moskowich-Spiegel, I. & B. Crespo eds., Bells Chiming from the Past: Cultural and Linguistic Studies on Early English, –. Amsterdam, Rodopi. Mancho, G. : Is Orrmulum’s Introduction an Instance of an Aristotelian Prologue? Neophilologus : –. Matthes, H. C. : Die Einheitlichkeit des Orrmulum: Studien zur Textkritik, zu den Quellen und zur sprachlichen Form von Orrmins Evangelienbuch. Heidelberg, C. Winter. Minnis, A. J. : Medieval Theory of Authorship: Scholastic literary attitudes in the later Middle Ages. London, Scolar Press. Morrison, S. : Sources for the Ormulum: A Re-examination. Neuphilologische Mitteilungen : –. Morrison, S. . Vernacular Literary Activity in Twelh-Century England: Redressing the Balance, in M. Aurell ed., Culture politique des Plantagenêt (–), –. Poitiers, Centre d’Études Supérieures de Civilisation Médiévale. 140 Nils-Lennart Johannesson Selim  () Parkes, M. B. : On the Presumed Date and Possible Origin of the Manuscript of the ‘Ormulum’: Oxford, Bodleian Library, MS. Junius , in E. G. Stanley & D. Gray eds., Five Hundred Years of Words and Sounds: A Festschrift for Eric Dobson, – . Cambridge, Brewer. Southern, R. W. : Scholastic Humanism and the Unification of Europe. Volume I. Foundations. Oxford, Blackwell. Tock, B.-M. ed. : Monvmenta Arroasiensia. Turnhout, Brepols. ! Received  Feb ; revision received  Mar ; accepted  Mar 