An examination of the putative glucose tolerance factor activity of amino acid and peptide fractions isolated from brewer's yeast : a thesis presented in partial fulfilment of the requirements for the degree of Master of Science in Chemistry at Massey University

The first report of the possible existance of a glucose tolerance factor (GTF) was made by Mertz and Schwarz (1955) who noticed that a dietary additive, termed factor 3, isolated from an enzymatic casein hydrolysate (Schwarz (1952)), maintained normal glucose removal rates in diabetic­ like rats. These rats were the subject of a study on the development of dietary necrotic liver degeneration. The immediate cause of death,,in these rats, could be demonstrated to be severe hypoglycaemia (Mertz and Schwarz (1955)) that initially manifested itself, during the latent period of degeneration, as impairment of excess blood glucose removal. The diet used to induce the development of necrotic liver degeneration was a semi-purified, vitamin E-free, ration of 30% Torula yeast which also represented the sole protein source. The vitamin E prevented the development of necrotic liver degeneration but did not affect the removal of excess blood glucose. In 1957, Schwarz and Mertz reported that the factor 3, in itself, was not responsible for the maintainance of normal glucose removal rates but rather that it contained an active fraction separable by fractionation procedures involving evaporation, in vacuo, of a NaCl-containing, factor 3 concentrate. The NaCl was removed by filtration and the GTF activity was found to be present in the separated salt fraction, from which it could be removed by treatment with 65% ethanol. A further claim was made that this separated substance, now termed the glucose tolerance factor (GTF), not only prevented but cured impairment of glucose removal when administered in the diet and that the initial glucose impairment observed was not a symptom of necrotic liver degeneration but a result of a dietary deficiency. GTF prepara­ tions were reported (Mertz and Schwarz (1959)) to be routinely obtained from brewer's yeast as well as acid hydrolysates of dried, defatted, pork kidney powder. [From Introduction

Causality and Micro-Causality in Curved Spacetime

We consider how causality and micro-causality are realised in QED in curved spacetime. The photon propagator is found to exhibit novel non-analytic behaviour due to vacuum polarization, which invalidates the Kramers-Kronig dispersion relation and calls into question the validity of micro-causality in curved spacetime. This non-analyticity is ultimately related to the generic focusing nature of congruences of geodesics in curved spacetime, as implied by the null energy condition, and the existence of conjugate points. These results arise from a calculation of the complete non-perturbative frequency dependence of the vacuum polarization tensor in QED, using novel world-line path integral methods together with the Penrose plane-wave limit of spacetime in the neighbourhood of a null geodesic. The refractive index of curved spacetime is shown to exhibit superluminal phase velocities, dispersion, absorption (due to \gamma \to e^+e^-) and bi-refringence, but we demonstrate that the wavefront velocity (the high-frequency limit of the phase velocity) is indeed c, thereby guaranteeing that causality itself is respected.Comment: 16 pages, 11 figures, JHEP3, microcausality now shown to be respected even when the Kramers-Kronig relation is violate

`Superluminal' Photon Propagation in QED in Curved Spacetime is Dispersive and Causal

It is now well-known that vacuum polarisation in QED can lead to superluminal low-frequency phase velocities for photons propagating in curved spacetimes. In a series of papers, we have shown that this quantum phenomenon is dispersive and have calculated the full frequency dependence of the refractive index, explaining in detail how causality is preserved and various familiar results from quantum field theory such as the Kramers-Kronig dispersion relation and the optical theorem are realised in curved spacetime. These results have been criticised in a recent paper by Akhoury and Dolgov arXiv:1003.6110 [hep-th], who assert that photon propagation is neither dispersive nor necessarily causal. In this note, we point out a series of errors in their work which have led to this false conclusion.Comment: 11 page

Towards a classifier for digital sensitivity review

The sensitivity review of government records is essential before they can be released to the official government archives, to prevent sensitive information (such as personal information, or that which is prejudicial to international relations) from being released. As records are typically reviewed and released after a period of decades, sensitivity review practices are still based on paper records. The transition to digital records brings new challenges, e.g. increased volume of digital records, making current practices impractical to use. In this paper, we describe our current work towards developing a sensitivity review classifier that can identify and prioritise potentially sensitive digital records for review. Using a test collection built from government records with real sensitivities identified by government assessors, we show that considering the entities present in each record can markedly improve upon a text classification baseline

Cambridge, Corpus Christi College 57: "Regula Saneti Benedicti," "Martyrology" of Usuard, "Diadema monachorum" of Smaragdus, and other texts

27. Cambridge, Corpus Christi College 57"Regula Saneti Benedicti," "Martyrology" of Usuard, "Diadema monachorum" of Smaragdus, and other texts [Ker 34, Gneuss 41] HISTORY: MS 57, copied in a southern English Benedictine center in the late 10c or early 11c and owned by Abingdon at least by the 1040s, contains three principal texts: the "Regula Sancti Benedicti," the "Martyrology" ofUsuard of Saint-Germain-des-Pres, and (now lacking its ending) the "Diadema monachorum" of Smaragdus of Saint-Mihiel. Other, shorter texts associated with the 9c Carolingian movement of Benedictine reform complete the manuscript, which itself reflects the English Benedictine reform of the second half of the 10c. The contents made the manuscript suitable for use in the monastic chapter house, and numerous additions in the manuscript establish that it obtained such use within the A-S period.The copy of the "Rule of St. Benedict'' in MS 57, assigned the siglum "g" by modern editors, belongs to the "mixed" recension known as the textusreceptus, which originated in the Carolingian period. All surviving copies of the "Rule" produced in A-S England from the third quarter of the 10c onwards belong to this recension. However, numerous readings in MS "g" suggest that it also has links with the earlier textus interpolatus tradition represented by MS "O" (Oxford, Bodleian Library, Hatton MS 48 [381]), an 8c, perhaps Northumbrian manuscript which was at Worcester in the later Middle Ages and which is the oldest surviving copy of the "Rule." In MS 57, the "Rule" is followed on ff. 32v-40v by a group of short texts beginning with a dictum on the value of following the "Rule." The dictum is here attributed to Fulgentius, but, as Sauer (1984) has shown, it is in fact an extract from the end of the "Llber de conflictu vitiorum et virtutum" by Ambrosius Autpertus (d. 784), Frankish abbot of the monastery of San Vincenzo al Voltumo in Italy. Next comes the text known as the "Memoriale qualiter," believed to have been written in the late 8c and promoted in the 9c by Benedict of Aniane (750-821), the chief instigator of monastic reform under Emperor Louis the Pious (814-840). The "Memoriale qualiter" directs how the monk should act throughout the day, from the moment of rising, and includes a set of prescriptive dicta on general monastic conduct. In MS 57 it is divided into two parts, of which the second is given its own title, "Epitoma Lothuuici super regulam beati Benedicti." Next comes a brief text "De festivitatibus anni," stating which feast days are to be observed during the year. The text has been extracted from the proceedings of the Council of Mainz of 813, of which it is Canon XXXVI. Finally within this group comes the set of monastic decrees known as the "Regula Sancti Benedicti abbatis sive Collectio capitularis." Although the preamble to this text ascribes it to the Council held at Aachen in 817, it is more likely that it was compiled under the direction of Benedict of Aniane at the Council held at Aachen in the winter of 818-819; according to the analysis of Semmler (1960), the text combines, and partly modifies, the decrees of the two Councils of 816 and 817.This group of texts on ff. 32v-40v associates MS 57 with four other A-S copies of the "Rule of St. Benedict" in which the "Rule" is followed by some of these texts (see Sauer 1984): London, British Library, Harley 5431 (St. Augustine's; second half of 10c); Cotton Tiberius A. iii [223] (Canterbury mid 11c); Cotton Titus A. iv [235] (perhaps Winchester; mid 11c); and Cambridge, University Library, Ll. 1. 14, ff. 70-108 (second half of 11c). A fifth A-S manuscript contains two of the texts, but not the "Rule" itself: Rauen, Bibliothèque Municipale, U. 107 (1385), ff. 20-26 [444] (late 10c or early 11c). Of these manuscripts, the closest to MS 57 is Cotton Tiberius A. iii, which includes all the texts except the opening section of the "Memoriale qualiter" (the section that MS 57 treats as a separate unit on ff. 33r-34v), and which presents the texts in the same order as MS 57.The "Martyrology" which occupies ff. 41r-94r of MS 57·was compiled ca. 850-865 by Usuard, monk of Saint-Germain-des-Prés. Day by day throughout the year, it lists those martyrs and confessors who died on the day in question, and in many cases it provides brief information about the manner of their death. The final text in the manuscript, the "Diadema monachorum" by Smaragdus, abbot of Saint-Mihiel (d. 826 x 841), was intended by its author to provide edifying material for monastic reading. It is a compilation from earlier works, notably the "Sententiae" of Isidore of Seville and Taio of Saragossa, the "Expositio super epistolas catholicas" of Bede, and various works of Pope Gregory the Great.The contents of the manuscript indicate that MS 57 was intended for service in the monastic chapter house. It was usual Benedictine practice to read from the "Martyrology" and the "Rule" at the morning gathering in the chapter house; normally the reading from the "Martyrology" would commemorate the saints whose anniversaries occurred on the following day. Reading from the "Martyrology" and the "Rule" is laid down both in Canon LXVI of the "Regula Sancti Benedicti abbatis Anianensis sive Collectio capitularis" (a canon omitted in the copy in MS 57), and in paragraph 21 of the "Regularis concordia," the code that was drawn up at the Council of Winchester of ca. 970/973 to regulate monastic practice throughout England. Smaragdus specifically intended his "Diadema" to provide reading matter for the evening meeting in the chapter house, as he states in his preface (see f. 95r/20-23).The place of origin of MS 57 is uncertain. However, that the manuscript was at the abbey of St. Mary, Abingdon, from an early point in its history is shown by the addition on the originally blank f. 94v of two formulae, one for the Abingdon community to announce the death of one of its members to the Christian faithful, the other for another community to announce the death of a member to the abbot and community of Abingdon. The second formula names Æthelstan, who was abbot from ca. 1044-ca. 1047. If the manuscript was made at Abingdon, as is possible, the overwhelmingly continental character of its contents suggests that it could reflect texts brought to Abingdon from France during the time of St. Æthelwold, who was abbot from ca. 954-963, and who sent the Abingdon monk (later abbot) Osgar to the abbey of Fleury to observe its Benedictine practice.Numerous additions to the "Martyrology" attest to the use of MS 57 in the chapter house at Abingdon during the A-S period and later. Usuard's original text included only a few English saints such as Cuthbert on 20 March (f. 51v/6-9) and King Oswald on 5 August (f. 71v/22-24). Additions in interlines, outer margins, and blank spaces within and at the end of lihes adapt the text for English use by providing references to English saints, for example Chad on 2 March (f. 49v, interline between 11. 6-7); Dunstan on 19 May (f. 60r, interline between 11. 17-18); and Eadburga on 15 June (f. 64r, outer margin). These additions are in several hands. Most belong to the 11c, but several are 12c (e.g., Sexburga on 6 July, in the outer margin of f. 67r). Four additions by one 11c hand concern St. Bertin (ff. 57r/27, 64r/26 and outer margin, 68v/28, and 77r/16 and outer margin). These additions probably reflect the possession of relics of St. Bertin by Abingdon. The date at which the abbey acquired these relics is unrecorded; it was before 1116 when, according to the "Historia monasterii de Abingdon," they were inspected by Abbot Faritius (1100-1117). Many other additions in the outer margins of the "Martyrology" record obits. The obits include those of abbots identifiable as late 10c or 11c abbots of Abingdon, and of many monks described as "of our congregation." The abbots are Æthelwine (f. 48v); Æthelstan (f. 52v); Eadwine (f. 54v, with the first letter trimmed away); and Osgar (f. 61v). Æthelwine, Eadwine, and Osgar held office respectively in the years 1018-1030, 985-990, and 963-984. Otherentries in ink and drypoint apparently prepare the text for reading aloud by providing a full written version of numbers that the original text gives in the form of Roman numerals (e.g., f. 72v, interline between 11. 7-8, and f. 73r, interline between 11. 5-6). Other ink additions indicate the status of particular feast days by directing how many responsories or lections there should be at the night office. Mostly entered in the outer margins, these additions take the form 'III R', 'XII R', 'III Le', and 'XII Le'. The abbreviated form 'Cap.' is added beside two feasts, those of Laurence on 10 August (f. 72v) and the Assumption of the Virgin on 15 August (f. 73r). The abbreviation stands for Cappis indicating that these feasts were to be celebrated with the brethren wearing copes.Other additions in MS 57 suggest that while the manuscript was certainly used for reading aloud in chapter, it also served for private study and for instruction. The "Rule" is extensively glossed, with most of the glosses entered by a single A-S hand. The "Memoriale qualiter" and the "Diadema monachorum" have occasional glosses. All three texts have acquired numerous construe marks intended to make the Latin more easily comprehensible by picking out the principal elements in sentences and by establishing syntactical links. Most of the marks consist of two dots placed one above the other, with a tick-shaped stroke to the right; some marks, used for subordinate elements, comprise only two dots, aligned either vertically or horizontally. The marks occur usually below, but sometimes above the words to which they relate.The few OE elements in the manuscript are further testimony to its probable use for study and instruction. They include eleven glosses in ink within the "Rule" and a number in drypoint within the "Diadema monachorum."There is no evidence to indicate the later medieval ownership of MS 57. It may have remained at Abingdon until the 16c. Its texts continued to receive annotations until the 13c, but these later annotations reveal nothing of the whereabouts of the manuscript at the time they were written. In the 15c a contents-list was entered on the verso of the front endleaf (f. 1). A mostly erased 16c note on the recto of that leaf perhaps relates to the 16c ownership of the manuscript before it entered the collection of Matthew Parker in the 1560s or early 1570s. Unlike other A-S manuscripts owned by Parker, this one apparently received little Parkerian attention, for its text has no annotations by Parker or members of his circle. The Latin note on the verso of the front endleaf, stating that "1bis book is not to be scorned, for it is written in Latin in Saxon script," is probably Parkerian; within the note, the diagonal separating­ stroke and the letters 'co(n)' added before 'temnendus' may have been written by Parker himself. The note in Gothicizing script on the last page of the surviving manuscript, which states that a quire is missing from the end and which James (1912) thought to be early 16c, could be either Parkerian or pre­ Parkerian. MS 57 passed to the keeping of Corpus Christi College by Parker's indenture of 1575. CODICOLOGICAL DESCRIPTION: The leaves are mostly rather thick, with cream-colored or yellowish, sometimes scaly surfaces. Three leaves supplied in the 11c (ff. 8, 19, 22), and a supplied 11c patch in the lower area off. 85, are somewhat lighter in color. Few leaves have holes acquired while the skins still belonged to their animals.The leaves are mostly arranged so that hair side faces flesh side and vice versa, with hair side on the outside. In Quire VI, the central bifoliurn (ff. 44--45) has its flesh side on the outside. The three supplied leaves are arranged so that the disposition of their hair and flesh sides fits the pattern of the adjacent original leaves. The supplied patch on f. 85 probably has its hair side turned to the recto, like the leaf into which it fits.The leaves measure ca. 328 x 254 mm. The written area measures ca. 280 x 203 mm. The text is laid out in single columns of 27 lines. The leaves were not pricked in the inner margins. The trimming of the outer, upper, and lower margins has removed all the prickings except those of the three supplied leaves, which retain the prickings in the outer margins. The ruling is in drypoint. On most leaves, for each line of script, there are two horizontal rulings: a baseline and a line at minim height. There are pairs of vertical bounding lines at each side of the column.The original texts were copied by a single scribe writing a clearly legible, somewhat compressed A-S square minuscule, suggesting a date of the late 10c or early 11c. The three supplied leaves are the work of a single scribe writing a somewhat larger, more elongated form of A-S square minuscule which appears deliberately to imitate the original script, while occasionally using Caroline minuscule forms of the letters g and r. The supplied patch on f. 85 is written in a somewhat unsteady square minuscule and may be the work of another scribe. The three supplied leaves were apparently inserted after the "Rule of St. Benedict" had been extensively glossed by an 11c hand. The first supplied leaf (f. 8) has glosses probably entered by the scribe who wrote the supplied leaves; he could have copied the glosses from the leaf he was replacing. The other two supplied leaves (ff. 19 and 22) have no glosses. The character of the script of the supplied leaves suggests that they were produced in the first half of the 11c. The leaves they replaced had perhaps become damaged.Titles, openings, initials, and chapter-numbers are mostly written in metallic red lead pigment. The initial O opening the preface to the "Rule of St. Benedict" is in green pigment, with ink elements. Within the "Martyrology," some of the initial K's beginning the entries for each month include simple forms of decoration, usually curls or foliate terminals. The skillfully-drawn bichrome ink and red pigment initial H that begins chap. 1 of the "Diadema monachorum" (f. 97v) has decoration of Wormald's (1945) Type II (b), with bird- and animal-like heads, narrow-band interlace, and foliate elements. Throughout the manuscript (but not on the supplied leaves or patch), many ink initials within the columns of the text have a filling of yellow pigment; sometimes these initials enclose sketches of human faces (as on ff. 11v-12v). The leaves have suffered various forms of damage. Much of the red lead pigment has corroded and darkened, producing show-through. Some leaves have been scored or cut with a sharp point. On ff. 16-18, 78-79, and 78-81, shapes have been cut out in the outer or inner margin. On f. 81, scoring the outline of the initial A in the lower area of the verso produced a cut. Several leaves have tears, many of which rise diagonally from the lower inner corner (as on ff. 5, 6, and 72). The tears have been repaired variously with thread, patches, and modem gauze. Ff. 155-160 share a brownish liquid stain that descends diagonally from the upper edge; on ff. 159v-160r, some brownish fibrous deposit within the area of the stain has partly covered the script. The last page (f. 163v) has brownish liquid stains, and a brownish deposit (perhaps viscous spillage from the bottom of an inkpot) which partly covers the script of 11. 23-24, shows through on the recto, and has produced a small stain on f. 162v. The upper outer corner of the last page has a rectangular greyish-brown mark which presumably derives from a former binding, and which therefore shows that the manuscript had already lost its last leaves of text by the time of that binding. Trimming the edges of the leaves for binding has removed the top of the decorated initial on f. 97v, as well as portions of decoration and script added in the margins.The present binding is a full binding of native undyed goatskin over millboards, with double endpapers at both ends; the front endpapers have become detached, and are now inserted loosely. The binding is the work ofJohn P. Gray of Green Street, Cambridge, in May 1953, as is stated in a note initialed by J. P. T. Bury, the former librarian of Corpus Christi College. Thenote is entered in the upper right area of the recto of the first front endpaper. The binding replaces an 18c binding of August 1748 which is recorded in the Library and Plate register of the College for the years 1708-1771 (CorpusChristi College, Archives B. 3, f. 88v). COLLATION: ii+163+ii.Two 20c paper endleaves. I8 (8 supplied; ff. 1-8);II8 (ff. 9-16); III8 (3 and 6 supplied; ff. 17-24); IV8 (ff. 25-32); V10 (wants 9, 10;ff. 33-40); VI-VIII8 (ff. 41-64); IX12 (lacks 2, 5; ff. 65-74); X8 (ff. 75-82); XI8(ff. 83-90); XII8 (wants 5, 6; ff. 91-96); XIII8 (ff. 97-104); XIV8 (ff. 105-112); XV8 (ff. 113-120); XVI10 (ff. 121-130); XVII8 (ff. 131-138); XVIII8 (ff. 139-146); XIX8 (ff. 147-154); XX10 (lacks 2; ff. 155-163). Two 20c paperendleaves.[Note: this collation differs from that of James (1912), who believed that Quire IX comprised 8 leaves, and that ff. 73-74 comprised a short quire of 2 leaves (his Quire "10"). But ff. 65 and 74 are conjoint, as the outerbifolium of Quire IX; within the quire, ff. 70 and 73 are single leaves, with their conjoint stubs between ff. 67-68 and 65-66 respectively. Quire XX Oames's Quire "21") has nine leaves, not 8 asJames believed; f. 162 is a single leaf with its conjoint stub between ff. 155-156. Quire numbers entered in pencil in the lower outer comer of leaves, beginning with "2" on f. 9r, are probably the work of James since they correspond with his collation. The number usually occurs on the first leaf of the quire, but the number "10" is on the ninth leaf of Quire IX (f. 73r), and the numbers "20" and "21" are on the second leaves of Quires XIX and XX (ff. 148r and 156r).) CONTENTS:f. 1r Original front endleaf, originally blank, with later additions: faded late 10c or 1lc pen-trials in the upper, middle right, and lower right areas, a mostly erased 16c note in the upper middle area, and the former and present Corpus pressmarks in the upper area.f. lv Late 10c or 11c pen-trials in the upper and lower areas (including mostly erased alphabetical trials at the lower right), compass-drawn drypoint sketches in the lower area, 15c contents-list of the volume in the middlearea, and a 16c, probably Parkerian note on its language and script in the upper area.1. ff 2r/1-32v/11 Untitled "Regula Sancti Benedicti": 'OBSCVLTA O FILI P<RAE>CEPTA MAGISTRI ... regna patebunt ætema; FINIT REGVLA BEATI BENEDICTI' (ed.Chamberlin 1982). [In the uppermargin off. 2r is an added, faded, and trimmed late 10c or 11c note ending 'preheat.<ue>l q<uo>d distortum.<ue>l prauum q ...'. (= Isidore, Etym., PL82.243A).]]2. f. 32v/12-17 Extract from Ambrosius Autpertus, "Liber de conflictu vitiorum et virtutum" (here signaled as a dictum of St. Fulgentius, recommending strict observance of the "Regula Sancti Benedicti"): 'Dicebat uero s<an>c<tu>s fulgentius: iuxta regulam patrum uiue | re ...sec | tatores suos p<er>ducunt ad Cyli palatia' (ed.Sauer 1984).3a. ff.33r/1-34v/16 MEMORIALEQVALIT<ER> IN MONAST<ER>IO CONVERSARI DEBEMVS |'Nocturnis horis cum ad opus diuinum...rnisereatur n<ost>ri omnipotens d<omi>n<u>s am<en>' (ed.Becker et al. 1963: 229-40).3b. ff. 34v/17-37v/12 The second portion of the "Memoriale qualiter": INCIPIT EPITOMA LOTHVVICI IMPERATORIS SVPER | REGULAM BEATI BENEDICTI. | 'A kalendis autem octobris usque in pascha ...Hi affectus in unu<m> |collecti ad memoriam reducantur' (ed.Becker et al.1963: 240-61).4. f. 37v/12-22 Canon 36 of the Council of Mainz, 813: DE FESTIVITATIB<VS> ANNI |'Festos dies in anno celebrare sanximus...quorum in unaquaque parrochia s<an>c<t>a corpora requiescunt' (ed. Werminghoff 1906: 269-70).5. ff. 37v/23-40v/18 The "Regula Sancti Benedicti abbatis Anianensis sive Collectio capitularis": ITEM ADBREVIATIO EIVS QVI SVPRA |'Anno dominicy incarnationis .DCCC.XVII ...uoluerint abstine | re in ipsorum maneat arbitrio' (ed. Becker et al. 1963: 515-35).6. ff.41r/1-94r/27 Untitled "Martyrologium" by Usuard of Saint-Germain­ des-Pres, lacking Usuard's preface addressed to King Charles the Bald: 'KALENDAE MENSIS IANVARII | CIRCVMCISIO D(OMI)NI N(OST)RI IE(S)V CHR(IST)I...Retiarie s<an>c<t>i ermetis exorcistf(ed.Dubois 1965).f.94v Page originally blank, with added texts:7a. f. 94v/1-7 Formula for announcing the death of a member of the community at Abingdon Abbey: '+ Domnus abba .N. totaq<ue> abbandoniensis coenobii caterua ...VALETE. ET P<RO> ILLO ORATE'.b. f. 94v/7 Opening words of an antiphon for the Feast of St. Lucy (13 December): 'In tua paciencia possedisti animam tuam LVCIA sponsa <ch>risti'.c. f. 94v/8 Brief text (mostly erased), ending 'orate p<ro> me wulfric ad DOMINUM'.d. f. 94v/9-11 Formula for announcing the death of a member of another community to AbbotlEthelstan and the Abingdon brethren:'+ Karissimo domno.æpelstano.& cunctis fr(atr)ib<us> abbanduniensis monasterii ... d<eu>m clemente<m> exoretis. VALETE'.8. ff. 95r/1-163v/27 "Diadema monachorum" by Smaragdus of Saint­ Mihiel, ending abruptly within chap. 84: HVNC MODICV<M> LIBELLVM SMARAGDVS DE `DI’ VERSIS VIRTUTIB<VS> COLLEGIT. ...'Hunc modicum op<er>is n<ost>ri libellum ... et mundauit conscientia<m> n<ost>ram ab op<er>ib<us> mortuis.i<d est>. a peccatis'(PL 102: 593-677).[Note: F. 163v, lower margin, contains a 16c note stating that a whole quire is missing. As the scribe would have required a

Land Use in Australia: Rouse Hill House and Farm and the Struggle between Tradition and Modernity

This paper examines the patterns of land use in Australia, tracing the transition from pre-European settlement through to the twenty first century. A critical examination of the concepts of modernism and tradition reveals the shifting prevalence of these movements throughout history, and the resulting struggle between them. By focusing on the area which formerly comprised Rouse Hill Farm in Sydney’s northwest, this paper reveals the factors which drove European progress and which now challenge this notion

Cambridge, Corpus Christi College 422: "The Red Book of Darley"

60. Cambridge, Corpus Christi College 422"The Red Book of Darley"[Ker 70, Gneuss 110-111) History: Two originally separate manuscripts. Part 1 (pp. 1-26, some leaves missing) contains verse and prose "Dialogues of Solomon and Saturn." Part 2 (pp. 27-586) is a liturgical handbook, perhaps for practical pastoral "fieldwork" (Hohler 1972: 41, 44), containing a broad range of texts, including a disorderly and duplicative Sacramentary with votive masses, and a miscellany of other services and liturgies. Among the many masses is one for St. Olaf, king of Norway (1015-1030), apparently the earliest surviving text of a mass in his honor.The origin of Part 1 is not known. Ker proposed mid-10c, others late 10c (Menner 1941: 1; Dobbie 1942: Ii). Kemble (1845-1848: 132) conjectured that Part 1 was the work of a female scribe. The language of the two verse "Dialogues" is predominantly West-Saxon with occasional Anglian forms (Menner 1941: 18-21). Lines 1-93 of the first verse "Dialogue" ("Solomon and Saturn I") occur as an 11c addition in margins of Cambridge, Corpus Christi College 41 [25] (pp. 196-198), probably from southern England, which was at Exeter during the time of Bishop Leofric (1050-1072).Part 2, apparently made ca. 1061, either at Winchester, New Minster for use at Sherborne or at Sherbome based on Winchester models. The Easter tables on pp. 44-45 span 1061-1098; Dumville (1992: 50, n. 75 and p. 74) proposed that since 1061 is not the beginning of a 19-year cycle but towards the end of one, Part 2 "was written between Easter 1060 and Easter 1061." Suggesting a New Minster, Winchester origin are feast days and saints listed in the Calendar, pp. 29-40, as well as saints in some of the liturgical texts (St. Alphege, p. 32, 19 April; St. Swithun, p. 35, 2 and 15July; St. Æthelwold, p. 36, 1 August, and p. 37, 10 September; St. Judoc, p. 29, 9January; St. Grimbald, p. 35, 8July). The former three were all bishops of Winchester, and New Minster possessed the relics of Sts. Judoc and Grimbald from the time of its foundation in the early 10c. The liturgical services include a "Missa cotidiana de Sancto Suuithuno" (pp. 137-41) and a "Missa pro amico uiuenti" which invokes Sts. Dunstan, Alphege, and Swithun (pp. 166-69). The litany on pp. 378-82 lists St. Birinus (bishop of the West Saxons, 634-ca. 650), St. Swithun, St.Judoc, and St. Grimbald (p. 380); the litany on pp. 402-05 lists Sts. Birinus, Swithun, Æthelwold, and Judoc (p. 403). On the other hand, there are connections with St. Mary's, Sherbome or within the diocese (St. Mary's was a Benedictine community that was the seat of a bishopric until 1078, when the see was transferred to Salisbury). At 8 January (p. 29) is indicated the major feast of St. Wulfsin, bishop of Sherbome (i.e., Wulfsige III, bishop of Sherbome ca. 993-1002). At 25 May are added the words 's<an>c<t>i aldhelmi ep<iscop>i' (p. 33/28), Aldhelm having been bishop of Sherbome 705/706-709/710.The small format of the manuscript and the broad range of liturgical texts, which include the office for visiting the sick and forms for trial by ordeal, suggest that Part 2 was produced as a practical handbook for use "in the field." Hohler (1972: 41, 44) proposed that the general character of Part 2, coupled with the absence from its Sacramentary of masses for the principal feasts of theyear (notably Easter), suggests that Part 2 was designed for use by someone who "reckoned he would be travelling a good deal but would be back at his base on principal feasts" and that it "is the book a good, pastorally minded, monk priest is going to take with him round the villages."Parts 1 and 2 joined by 12c, as shown by same 12c handwriting on p. 14/1-16 and p. 49/19-25 (Ker, Cat., 121). By 16c (inscription, p. 586) the united manuscript belonged to the parish of Darley Dale in Derbyshire, whose church is dedicated to St. Helen. Since the 12c hand was adding prayers for a Mass for St. Helen, it is possible that the manuscript could have been at Darley Dale by 12c, possibly via an appointed priest who had Winchester or Sherbome connections.[Note: The manuscript ends with an added 12c quire containing various lections, including for the Feast of the Invention of the Cross; the lections are followed by chants for Lauds of this Feast, including chants naming St. Helen. The accomplished musical notation on pp. 578-86 suggests the quire was prepared in a metropolitan center. The quire was perhaps prepared as a refurbishment of Part 1 in preparation for sending the liturgical manuscript to Darley Dale. The second of the two hands responsible for the quire also wrote the first of the three prayers for a Mass for St. Helen (p. 49/ 14-18). This prayer may therefore have been added in preparation for sending Part 2 to Darley Dale, whereas the two prayers that follow, which are in an inexpert hand, could have been added after the manuscript reached Darley Dale.]Ker (Cat., 121) thought it likely "that part A was used as flyleaves by the binder of part B." First leaf of Part 1 may have been a pastedown (see Codicological Description). But the 13 leaves of Part 1 (two quires) are more than would be required for flyleaves, and though there are leaves missing, there seems to have been an intention to preserve the OE dialogues; however, the erasure of the original text on p. 14 to make way for a 12c formula of excommunication suggests that by then OE texts were not valued or understood.On p. 586, 16c inscriptions attest the manuscript's presence at Darley Dale and transfer of ownership to Matthew Parker. First inscription in an unidentified secretary hand, 'the rede boke of darleye in the peake in darbyshire', perhaps written by Richard Wendesley (see below). Second inscription, in secretary, perhaps by Matthew Parker's son John (1548-1619), 'This booke was sum time had in such reverence in darbie shire that it was comonlie beleved that whosoeuer should sweare vntruelie vppo<n> this booke should run madd'. 1bird inscription, in italic, probably by John Parker, notes that the book was given to Matthew Parker by 'Richard Wendesley esquier', presumably the same as the 'Richardus Wendesley armigerus Senescallus meus', who is named an executor of Matthew Parker's will. The Wendesleys were a prominent family in the parish of Darley Dale, lords of the manor of Wendesley or Wensley (memorial in St. Helen's church); Richard is mentioned in the heralds' Derbyshire Visitation Pedigrees of 1569 as "livinge" in that year (London, British Library, Harley 2134, f. 49r; see also Smith 1951: 11). He may well be the same Richard Wendesley as served as Parker's seneschal, although, as lord of the manor, it is unclear why he should have entered Parker's service. In the lower margins of pp. 130-31 are several signatures of "Margaret Rollysley" (various spellings) who became widowed in 1562 and mentions her widowhood on p. 130. The Rollesleys or Rowsleys were a prominent Darley Dale family, apparently related to the Wendesleys by marriage (cf. Harley 2134, f. 49r and Harley 1093, f. 41va). Margaret's husband's great-uncle had been rector of Darley 1514-1531 (Smith 1951: 42). The manuscript may have been owned by the Rollesleys in 1562 and Richard Wendesley may have obtained it from them for presentation to Matthew Parker. Parker's interest in aspects of the liturgical portion of the manuscript-in particular, the texts for trial by ordeal-is demonstrated by Parkerian notes and transcriptions on pp. 310, 318-319, and 330; these parallel the attention paid to the equivalent texts in other Parkerian manuscripts, e.g., CCCC 44 [26] and 146 [32]. MS 422 passed to Corpus Christi College by Parker's indenture of 1575. CODICOLOGICAL DESCRIPTION: Within Part 1, the leaves of Quire I are mostly rather thick and supple, with suede-like surfaces. The leaves of Quire II are somewhat thinner. Pp. 11-12 have a hole acquired while the skin was still on the animal. The discoloration and staining of the leaves of Part 1, and the character of their preparation, make it difficult to tell hair side from flesh side; according to Ker (Cat., 120), the hair side is on the outside of all sheets, so that hair side faces flesh side across openings. The leaves measure ca. 192 x 127 mm. The written area measures ca. 164 x 95 mm. in Quire I, and ca. 158 x 95 mm. in Quire II. The text is laid out in single columns, with the number of lines to the page varying: 22 lines on pp. 1-2, 23 lines on pp. 3-6 and 15-26, and 24 lines on pp. 7-13. The leaves were not pricked in the inner margins. The trimming of the leaves has removed all the prickings from the outer margins and many of those of the upper and lower margins. The ruling is drypoint, and is more easily visible in Quire II, where it was made from the recto, with pairsof bounding lines at each side of the column. The drypoint ruling of the outer bounding lines on p. 23 has been supplemented in places in ink.The text of Part 1 was written by one scribe in small, neat A-S minuscule, with runes occurring on pp. 3-5. The openings of the two verse "Dialogues" are in capitals. Verse "Dialogue II" has a somewhat different layout from verse "Dialogue I" and the prose "Dialogue," with each speech of verse "Dialogue II" beginning on a new line with a large initial S (variously for "Solomon" or "Saturnus"), with horizontally aligned spiral-shaped line-fillers frequently occupying the resulting space in the preceding lines, and with the opening word<s> of many speeches written in capitals. The text is undecorated, except for the occasional use of quatrefoil and other forms for the o's of Solomon's name in verse "Dialogue II" (as on p. 20,lines 4,8,15,and 22). No pigment is used in Part 1.The original leaves of Part 2 vary in thickness from rather thin to rather thick,with cream-colored or yellowish, often scaly surfaces. The 12c supplied leaves (pp. 571-86) have yellowish, suede-like surfaces. A few leaves have holes acquired while the skins still belonged to their animals (for example,pp. 61-62, 173-74, 307-08,and 455-56). The leaves are arranged so that hair side faces hair side and flesh side faces flesh side, with hair side on the outside of the quires. The leaves measure ca. 194 x 129 mm. The written area measures ca. 160 x 108 mm. The text is laid out in single columns (double columns for the litanies on pp. 378-80 and 402-04),with varying numbers of lines to the page: 19 lines on pp. 67-70,289-90,295-96,479-80, and 489-90; 20 lines on pp. 54-66,71-288,291-94,297-308,319-478,481-88,495-96,501-02,523-52, and 555-70; 21 lines on pp. 493-94,497-500,503-04, and 507-22; and 22 lines on pp. 491-92 and 505-06. The tables on pp. 27-45 have multiple columns of between 31 and 37 lines. The added 12c quire has 20 lines to the page on pp. 571-79,29 lines on pp. 580-81 and 583-85, and 28 lines on p. 582. The leaves were not pricked in the inner margin. Trimming the book for binding has removed most of the prickings in the outer margins, but some leaves, for example pp. 203-18, retain some or all of their prickings. Trimming has also removed many of the prickings in the upper and lower margins. The sheets were individually ruled in drypoint, on the hair side. There are pairs of bounding lines (often skewed at a diagonal) at each side of the column.The original portion of Part 2 was written probably by two or three scribes using a similar style of script, in English Caroline minuscule for Latin and A-S minuscule for OE. Musical elements were mostly written in smaller script, leaving room above for neumes; but neumes (some of them added later) have been entered only on pp. 51-52,286-88,470-86,489-99,507-11,552-53,and 555-70. Titles and headings are written in red pigment in capitals, sometimes mixed with minuscule forms. There are numerous initials in red or green pigment. The initials frequently have modest decoration, usually simple beading; two initials on p. 58 have outlined human faces within them. Ink initials within the lection from the Sermon on the Mount (Matthew 5:1-12) on p. 142 have an infilling of green pigment; elsewhere in the manuscript, some ink initials have an infilling of red pigment. The Calendar and other tables on pp. 27-45 use red and green pigment, the table on p. 41 being laid out under decorative arcades. The Order of the Mass begins on p. 51 with a decorative page of text dominated by a large polychrome pigment and ink initial which includes decorated panels, interlace, animal heads, and foliate ornament. There are two polychrome pigment and ink illustrations in outline drawingstyle, with painted portions. The Preface of the Mass (p. 52) has an illustration of Christ in Majesty flanked by angels, the opening words of the Preface being written in red and green pigment to either side of Christ within his mandorla, and to either side of the angels. The initial T of the Canon (p. 53) is depicted as a rough-hewn cross bearing the crucified Christ, with the Virgin at the left, a tree growing between the Cross and the Virgin, a bird (perhaps the dove of the Holy Spirit) at the upper left, and the hand of God at the upper right; the opening words of the canon are written in red and green pigment to the right of the initial.The added 12c quire at the end of Part 2 was written by two scribes in Proto-Gothic minuscule. The second scribe entered the incipits of musical chants in smaller script at the end of lections; several of the chants are neumed. Within the original portion of Part 2, there are late 11c and 12c additions of prayers, hymns, and other texts on pp. 49-50, 310-18, and 553-54; neumes have been added to the hymns on pp. 315-16, and also occur at the end of the marginal portion of the text added on p. 554. Late 11c and 12c corrections, pen trials, and casual entries (including sketches) occur in several margins, for example on pp. 60-61, 123-24, 144, 209, 272, 338-39, 360, and 520; a chant added in the margin of p. 205 has neumes on a four-line stave. A somewhat naive sketch of a long-necked creature on p. 586 is probably late medieval or 16c. Within the Calendar, the word 'papae' or its abbreviation 'pp' has been lined through in the four references to popes on pp. 38 and 40 (7 and 14 October; 11 and 31 December), although there has been no such deletion of thepapal references on pp. 29, 31, 32, 33, and 34 (26January; 12 and 29 March; 26 April; 30 May; 28 June). An added rubricated entry for 29 January (p. 40), likely to be for St. Thomas Becket, has been erased. The erasure and the crossings-out must date from the 1530s or later: in 1534 Henry VIII ordered the deletion of all references to the pope in books belonging to churches, and in 1538 he ordered Becket's name to be erased from all Calendars. The leaves of both parts of MS 422 have suffered various forms of damage. The recto of the first leaf of Part 1 is considerably darkened and stained, leaving the text mostly illegible. James (1912: 316), followed by Menner (1941: 2), concluded that the leaf had served as the pastedown of a former binding of the manuscript. The evidence on the leaf is, however, difficult to interpret. The recto does not have smears of paste such as one might expect to find on a former pastedown, nor does it have offsets of wood-grain such as pastedowns frequently acquire when they are lifted from the wooden boards to which they have been pasted. On the other hand, the recto acquired other signs which indicate that it suffered from exposure. The upper portion of the page carries some entries of script scratched into the page in drypoint. There are deposits of red pigment in the right-hand area, between 36 and 66 mm. from the top of the leaf, up to a distance of 18 mm. from the fore-edge; and deposits of green pigment, or green copper-alloy stains, between 97 and 110 mm. from the top of the leaf, up to a distance of 15 mm. from the fore-edge. Examination of the page under a microscope reveals scattered small deposits of a brownish viscous substance; the nature of the substance and the cause of the deposits are unclear. The cause of the darkening and staining of the page is uncertain, but they perhaps resulted from exposure rather than from the use of the leaf as a pastedown.The first seven leaves of Part 1 have holes (mostly rust-stained) or reddish brown marks resulting from the mounts of a former binding. Portions of most pages of Part 1 have yellowish brown stains where the pages have been treated with a reagent in an attempt to make the text more legible. This happened before 1912, as the description of the manuscript by James mentions the stains.In Part 2, the drypoint ruling, made with a sharp instrument, has cut through parts of several leaves, for example pp. 51-52, 67-68, and 137-38. Sometimes the resulting cuts, and some other tears to the leaves, have been repaired with modern cellophane tape, as on pp. 33-34 and 145-78. Other leaves (pp. 119-20, 349-50, 429-30, and 571-72) have had tears repaired with stitching during the medieval period. Two leaves (pp. 27-30) have lost their original upper outer corners, which have been repaired with vellum patches sewn to the leaves; the repairs are old, and perhaps date from the 1lc or 12c, a date not contradicted by now mostly blurred elements of script on the patch of p. 30. Several leaves, for example pp. 165, 167, 267, and 270, have modern vellum patches pasted to them. Pigments have corroded, rubbed, and faded, with the result that many rubricated initials, headings, and texts are now almost invisible under normal light. Exposure to liquid has caused the formation of ink lakes on some pages, for example pp. 86-87, 104-05, and 301-04. Many leaves have become grubby and stained through exposure. P. 570, which as a result of misbinding is now the last leaf of the original portion of Part 2, is darkened, and its red pigment has blackened; this may indicate that it was exposed as the last leaf of the book before the addition of the 12c quire, in which case the misbinding is datable before that addition. The last leaf of the misplaced quire (pp. 491-506; the quire originally followed p. 570) is stained from exposure and has a rust-tinged hole. It and the preceding leaf share rust stains and wormholes. These features were presumably acquired when the leaves were at the back of the book, adjacent to a binding with wooden boards and metal mounts. The first leaf of Quire XIX (pp. 301-02) is darkened and stained from exposure, and the ink has run in places to form ink lakes. The leaf also has scattered rust stains,at least some of which were made from the verso; their cause is unclear. There are small areas of rust stains on some other leaves,for example pp. 474--75 and 491.Several leaves in Part 2 have lost portions of marginal script through the trimming of the margins for binding: for example, pp. 61,205,and 375. Rust­ burn marks across the fore-edge of the last leaves of Part 1 and the first leaves of Part 2 (pp. 21-50) derive from the upper clasp of a former binding which dates from after the two parts were combined. Such a clasping mechanism would be late medieval or later. The area discolored by the marks includes the contour of the fore-edges, which have therefore not been trimmed since the leaves acquired the marks.The present binding is a half-binding of tanned pigskin with blue paper sides over millboards, with single endpapers at both ends. Although unsigned and undated, the binding is attributable to the Cambridge Binding Guild in 1937 or 1938, as shown by Budny (1997: 650). The binding replaces an 18c binding of August 1748 which is recorded in the Library and Plate records of Corpus Christi College for the years 1708-1771: Corpus Christi College, Archives B. 3, f. 88v. Bindings that survive at Corpus from the intensive rebinding campaign of 1748-1750 are of a uniform character, comprising quarter-bindings in sheepskin with vellum sides. The note "in red leather" on p. 1 of MS 422,which appears to be in the hand of Robert Masters,Fellow of Corpus 1738-1758,presumably refers to the color of the cover of the pre-1748 binding. The note implies that the medieval binding that gave rise to the name "The Red Book of Darley" survived into the 18c. COLLATION: i + 13 (pp. 1-26) + 281 (pp. 27-586) + i. One 20c paper endleaf at front and back.Part 1: I8 (wants 7) (pp. 1-14); II8 (wants 3,6) (pp. 15-26).Part 2: III12 (pp. 27-50); IV10 (lacks 3,7) (pp. 51-66); V10 (lacks 10) (pp. 67-84 [the stub conjoint with pp. 67-68 now precedes p. 67, rather than following p. 84]); VI-VII8 (pp. 85-116); VIII12 (lacks 4,8) (pp. 117-36); IX8 (pp. 137-52); X12 (lacks 1, 5,9) (pp. 153-70); XI10 (lacks 4, 8) (pp. 171-86); XII-XV8 (pp. 187-250); XVI10 (lacks 3, 7) (pp. 251-64 [the pagination omits the leaf following p. 252]); XVII12 (lacks 1,3) (pp. 265-84); XVIII10 (lacks 4, 8) (pp. 285-300); XIX10 (lacks 10) (pp.301-18); XX10 (lacks 2, 8) (pp.319-34); XXI10 (lacks 4, 8) (pp. 335-50 [the stub conjoint with pp. 345-46 now precedes p. 345, rather than preceding p.341]);XXII-XXIII8 (pp.351-82); XXIV10 (lacks 3, 7) (pp. 383-98 [the stub conjoint with pp. 393-94 now precedes p. 393, rather than preceding p.387)); XXV10 (lacks 3, 7) (pp.399-414); XXVI10 (lacks 3, 7) (pp. 415-30); XXVII10 (lacks 4, 8) (pp. 431-46); XXVIII-XXIX8 (pp. 447-78); XXX6 (pp. 479-90); XXXI10 (lacks 3, 7) (pp. 491-506); XXXII-XXXIV8 (pp.507-54); XXXV10 (lacks 3, 7) (pp.555-70); XXXVI8 (pp. 571-86).[Note: This collation differs from that ofJames in some respects. James was apparently unaware of the textual gaps between pp. 18-19 and 22-23, which attest to the loss of leaves 3 and 6 from Quire II. James stated a different number of leaves and/or a different structure for Quires X, XI, XVII, and XXVI. The present tight binding of the manuscript

Cambridge, Corpus Christi College 191: Chrodegang of Metz, "Regula canonicorum" (enlarged version)

39. Cambridge, Corpus Christi College 191Chrodegang of Metz,"Regula canonicorum" (enlarged version) [Ker 46, Gneuss 60]HISTORY: MS 191 contains a bilingual copy of the enlarged version of the "Regula canonicorum" of Chrodegang, bishop of Metz (742-766), preceded by the preface and chapter-list, and with each Latin chapter followed by its OE translation. Apart from one missing leaf that would have contained the end of the OE preface and the beginning of the Latin chapter-list, the text is complete. Only two other fragments of the bilingual text are known, a trimmed bifolium in one case (Canterbury Cathedral Library, Additional 20 [109]) and a single leaf in the other (London, British Library, Additional 34,652 f. 3 [165]).[Note: An interpolated version of Chrodegang's Rule was compiled, probably in the late 9c, which incorporated portions of the "Institutio clericorum" drawn up at the Council of Aachen of 816, as well as extracts from other texts. This interpolated or enlarged version usually has 86 chapters, but in MS 191 (as in Brussels, Bibliotheque Royale, lat. 8558-63, ff. 1-38 [20], a 10c A-S copy of the Latin text only) there are 84 chapters, chapters 5 and 6 of the longer version being omitted.]The place of origin of the exemplar from which MS 191 ultimately derived,and of the translation itself, is indicated by the text of OE chapter 2 (Forster 1933): 'swylce `man' cweðe. leofwine prauost. wulfstan cantor byr`h'telm diacon. cynewerd cyrcwerd. ælfnoð cild'. As Ker pointed out (Cat., 74), these names occur "in close proximity" in the list of brothers in the "Liber Vitae" of New Minster, Winchester. While the ultimate exemplar was evidently of Winchester origin, MS 191 itself was written at Exeter. It is the work of a scribe known to have been active at Exeter during the episcopate of Leofric (1050-1072): "Scribe 2" according to the classification of Exeter scribes proposed by Drage (1978; see below). Leofric switched the seat of his diocese from Crediton (of which he had been bishop since 1046) to Exeter in 1050. He established his cathedral at the existing monastery of St. Peter, which he turned into a community of canons. Leofric had himself been educated in Lotharingia (of which Metz was the principal city), probably in a reformed house of canons observing the "Rule of Chrodegang." MS 191 demonstrates his commitment to introducing the "Rule" at Exeter. Although, unlike nine of the books that Leofric presented to Exeter, MS 191 lacks a donorship inscription naming him, the manuscript is believed to be the 'regula canonicorum' included in the list of lands, church vestments, and books that Leofric procured for his cathedral. Copies of this list from the 11c survive on ff 1r-2v of the "Exeter Book" of OE poetry (Exeter, Dean and Chapter Library, MS 3501 [130]) and ff 1r-2v of Oxford, Bodleian Library, Auct. D. 2. 16 [340].There is evidence that MS 191 was formerly bound with two other manuscripts: CCCC 201, Part 2 [42], a bilingual Latin and OE copy of the "Capitula" of Theodulf of Orleans (d. 821), in which Bishop Theodulfinstructs the parish priests ofhis diocese in their pastoral duties; and CCCC 196 [40], a now fragmentary copy ofa martyrology, perhaps originally bilingual, but with only a portion of OE text surviving. The unequivocal evidence for the manuscripts having been bound together is oflater date, but it is possible that the three texts were combined from the beginning. The 13c title on f. lr of MS 191, 'De ordine cano<n>icor<um>. martirologiu<m>. lib<er> util<is> exceptis o<mn>ib<us> exp<ositi>onib<us> i<n> anglico', shows that at that time the martyrology formed part of the composite volume, and the phrase 'De ordine canonicorum' may perhaps have encompassed both MS 191 and MS 201, Part 2, for the latter has no title at its beginning and may never have had one, with the result that it and MS 191 could have been seen as forming a single unit. By 1327 the martyrology had become detached, for it is listed as a separate item in the Exeter library catalogue compiled in that year. The same catalogue attests that MS 191 and MS 201, Part 2, were then bound together, for its entry for MS 191 is followed by the observation 'et in eodem uolumine alius liber qui sic incipit Obsecro', the latter being the first word of the Latin version of Theodulfs "Capitula." The Exeter inventory of1506 does not record whether Chrodegang's "Rule" and Theodulfs "Capitula" were still bound together at that date, but, in citing the first word of the second folio of MS 191 as 'Accipiendam', it shows that the original second leafha4 by then already been lost, for 'accipiendam' is the first word of the current f. 2. MSS 191, 201, Part 2, and 196 may have been combined in Leofric's time . MS 201, Part 2 is the work of the same scribe as MS 191, as Drage observed (1978: 151), and matches MS 191 in format; its content complements that ofMS 191 quite well, for both texts concern clerical conduct, although admittedly MS 191 is written for canons living communally, while the text ofMS 201, Part 2 is directed at parish priests.[Note: Drage (1978: 150-54) identified the scribe as her Scribe 2, in the Exeterscriptorium during the time of Bishop Leofric. This scribe wrote several of the Exeter additions to the Leofric Missal (Oxford, Bodleian Library, Bodley 579 [364)), pp. 3-93 of Cambridge, Corpus Christi College 421 [59), and CCCC 201, Part 2 (42) and contributed to other manuscripts (listed by Drage 1978, 150-51); he also wrote five of the nine surviving Leofric donorship inscriptions. In MS 191, as elsewhere, the scribe distinguished clearly between Latin and OE by different forms of f, g, and r, but also by different forms of a, d, and s, and by using split ascenders in OE and thickened but unsplit ascenders in Latin.]There appears to be no separate reference for MS 201, Part 2 among thebooks in the list of Leofric's procurements, and it is possible that the 'regula canonicorum' of the list refers jointly to both the enlarged "Rule of Chrodegang" and the "Capitula" of Theodulf. The next item in the list is 'martyrlogium' [sic]. That this item immediately follows the other raises the possibility that they could then have been bound together, although it has to be acknowledged that in the case of three works by Prudentius that were definitely combined in a single volume in Leofric's time, the copy of the list in the "Exeter Book" specifically records this fact, whereas it does not do so for the 'regula canonicorum' and the 'martyrlogium'. At the end of MS 201, Part 2, an 11c addition provides a copy of the preface by Usuard of Saint-Germain-des­ Pres to his Latin martyrology.This addition would be the more explicable if the volume then included the martyrology that survives, fragmentarily, as MS 196. The three texts--enlarged "Rule of Chrodegang," "Capitula" of Theodulf, and martyrology-would all have been suitable for reading aloud at the morning chapter-meeting of the Exeter community, and it is possible that the texts were brought together to create a practical volume for just this purpose.The continued presence of MS 191 at Exeter in the late Middle Ages is also attested by the occurrence on pp. 87 and 130 of notes in the hand of John Grandisson, bishop of Exeter (1327-1369), an assiduous annotator of Exeter manuscripts. On p. 130/16, within Latin chapter 67, he added the interlinear "correction" 'admitte<n>dus' above 'remouendus', thereby significantly altering the sense of the passage. In the upper and outer margins of p. 87, framing the beginning of Latin chapter 48, which prescribes how the cantor should sing, Grandisson added two texts stating how the lector should read, a subject not covered in the enlarged version of Chrodegang's "Rule." Grandisson's heading attributes the second of these texts to St. Ambrose; most of his heading for the first text has been trimmed away, but the surviving bottoms of the letters suggest that this heading also may have been, 'Ambr'.MS 191 was one of several A-S manuscripts from Exeter that passed into the hands of Matthew Parker while he was archbishop of Canterbury (1559-1575). It shows signs of use by him and byJohn Joscelyn (1529-1603), the principal student of OE within Parker's circle. Joscelyn may first have seen the manuscript while it was at Exeter and while it was still bound with MS 201, Part 2. Underlinings and glosses by Joscelyn occur on many pages of MS 191, and represent an early stage of his work on OE lexicography, a stage wherein he studied A-S manuscripts (often those containing OE texts of which Latin versions were available) and underlined words of lexicographical interest. Later stages of the work occur in London, Lambeth Palace Library 692, a notebook containing Joscelyn's word-lists compiled from various manuscripts, and London, British Library, Cotton Titus A. xv and A. xvi, a dictionary of OE written in the hands of Joscelyn himself and Matthew Parker's elder son John (1548-1619). Words from MS 191, including many of the underlined words, are listed on f. 3rv of the Lambeth manuscript, and f. 3r bearsJoscelyn's heading 'Ex regula canonicoru<m>'. Significantly, f. 3r also includes words derived from Theodulfs "Capitula" in MS 201, Part 2, which implies that at the time of Joscelyn's initial examination, the "Rule" of Chrodegang and the "Capitula" were still bound together. In the Titus dictionary, words from both texts have their source cited as 'Reg. can.' or just 'can.'Not all Joscelyn's entries in MS 191 served lexicographical purposes. Both he and Parker were interested in aspects of the content. In the outer margins of pp. 76, 94, and 164 Joscelyn has entered a characteristic mark to draw attention to a passage concerning preaching to the people, to a quotation from St. Augustine about punishing wrongdoers, and to a passage relating to the marriage of the minor orders of the clergy. In the latter case (p. 164), Joscelyn's underlining of the passage in ink is accompanied by Matthew Parker's underlining in red crayon, and Parker has also added a marginal comment in red crayon. The issue of clerical marriage was of crucial importance to Parker, himself a married priest, and Joscelyn's work for Parker included searching for texts that Parker could use to justify clerical marriage. Thus on p. 125, within Latin chapter 62, Joscelyn has underlined a passage in which Chrodegang allows the possibility that canons may be married, while on p. 127 he has underlined the equivalent passage in the OE version of the chapter and has added his own Latin translation between the lines. He also transcribed both the original Latin and the OE into his notebook of transcriptions, London, British Library, Cotton MS Vitellius D. vii, f. 12r. The OE version of the passage, followed by a 16c English translation that is closely related to Joscelyn's interlinear Latin translation in MS 191, occurs on p. 346 of A Defence of Priestes Mariages, published under Parker's auspices probably in 1567. MS 191 thus played a part, albeit a small one, in Elizabethan religious polemics.Further notes by Parker occur on the verso of the second 16c front endleaf and on the paper slip now pasted to the modem paper leaf following that endleaf, but formerly pasted to the outer margin of p. 1. In the first of these notes, Parker gave his opinion that the Latin version of the text was thework of Theodore, archbishop of Canterbury (669-690), and that the OE translation was by Ælfric. Parker was also responsible for rebinding the manuscript and effecting various repairs, described below, and it was Parkerwho had the "Capitula" of Theodulf bound into its present manuscript (MS 201), Part 1 of which has a different provenance, having apparently been given to Parker by Edward Cradock, Lady Margaret Professor of Divinity at Oxford (1565-1594). MS 191 passed to Corpus Christi College along with the rest of Parker's collection bequeathed to the college. In the 17c, MS 191 was studied by Abraham Wheelock (1593-1653), Cambridge University Librarian from 1629, and (from 1639/40) the University's first lecturer in Anglo-Saxon. In a letter to· Sir Henry Spelman of 29 April 1641 (London, British Library, Additional MS 34,601, f. 46rv), Wheelock commented that the text of MS 191 contained "many excellent instructions ...w<hi>ch alsoe set out the face of the church in the auncient Monasteries," and stated that he hoped that he could get the text printed at the same time as his Latin and OE edition of Bede's "Historia Ecclesiastica" (which appeared in 1643). This plan did not materialize, although Wheelock did include a few passages of MS 191 in the additional material that he appended to Bede's individual chapters (see pp.331-32, 358, and 432 of his edition). Wheelock continued to study MS 191 after the publication of his edition of Bede. A Corpus library-list covering the period April 1643 to January 1648 reveals that the manuscript (identified as 'Canones Latin: Saxon') was "taken out for Mr Wheelock" on 28 June 1644 and returned on 5 August (CCCC Archives XXXIX. 146).It could have been at this time, if not earlier, that Wheelock had his pupil William Retchford make a full transcript of MS 191 (see Lucas [forthcoming]); in the transcript, now London, British Library, Harely 440, the OE and Latin versions are laid out on facing pages. In MS 191 itself, it was Wheelock who, beginning on p. 33, wrote interlinear transcriptions of several of the original rubricated chapter-titles that had faded and become difficult to read. Also, within the chapter-list at the beginning of the manuscript, he corrected the chapter-title entered on the Parkerian slip that stands between pp.8 and 9.MS 191 was sent for rebinding between 18 and 23 August 1748 (CCCC Archives B. 3, f. 88v). The manuscript was rebound and conserved at the British Museum in 1926. CODICOLOGICAL DESCRIPTION: The leaves are brownish in color and often grainy or scaly, and have been prepared from skins of only moderate quality. There are original holes on pp. 41-42, 99-100, 109-110, and 117-18; in the first two cases, the scribe was obliged to enter the text to either side of the holes. The leaves are arranged HFHF.Leaves ca.288 x 177 mm; written area ca. 223 x 102 mm. The text is laid out in single columns of 27 lines. The leaves were pricked in the outer margins only (it is unclear why Bishop [1971: 24] stated that Quire III "was folded for pricking").The pricks in the outer margins of Quires I-IV are still visible, but the pricks in the other quires must have been located further out in the margins and have been lost through subsequent trimming. The ruling is in drypoint, from the hair side. The top two and the bottom two horizontal lines on each leaf are ruled fully across the leaf, or at least as far as the pricks. There are pairs of vertical bounding lines at each side of the column.The text was written by one scribe using a rounded English Caroline minuscule for the Latin and A-S minuscule for OE. M. R. James (1912: 463) believed the manuscript to be the work of "two very good round upright hands," and Ker (Cat., 74) concluded that it was "possibly by two scribes," but a close study of those variations in script that the manuscript exhibits does not suggest that there is a change in hand at any point.Within the individual chapters of MS 191, many sentences begin with thickened ink initials built up with several strokes of the pen. Numbers within the chapter-list, and numbers and titles of the individual chapters are written in red lead pigment that has corroded and darkened. The titles that precede the Latin chapters are in capitals, those preceding the OE chapters in minuscule matching that of the text. The large, undecorated initials beginning the individual chapters are in red, green, or blue. With few exceptions, every second initial is in red, while the intervening initials alternate between green and blue. For Latin chapter 10 (p. 30), initial 'H' was entered in error for initial P.There are several interlinear corrections to both the Latin and the OE texts, some of these corrections being by the original scribe. In the outer margins of pp. 77 and 114 are medieval nota bene marks; there are pen trials in the outer margins of pp. 31, 87, and 119, and a sketch of an animal head in profile in the outer margin of p. 69.The manuscript has suffered various forms of damage, most notably at the beginning, where large areas of the leaves have rotted away, while what remains has been stained by mold and dirt. The lower margins and the upper inner areas of pp. 65-68 have also been lost, as have parts of some other leaves. On many leaves, the red lead pigment used for some initials and for the rubricated chapter numbers and titles has darkened, corroded, and leeched, making some of the titles difficult to read; the blue pigment of some initials has partly flaked away, but the green pigment has generally suffered little from damage. During the period of Matthew Parker's ownership, the first leaves were repaired using strips cut from an early 16c account roll similar in character to (but different in script from) the roll of which a large fragment survives as two front endleaves. Some of these repair strips have now been removed and pasted to two unnumbered modern paper leaves inserted between pp. 6 and 7.[Note: Written on these strips are Parkerian entries including red crayon pagination and transcriptions of damaged parts of some chapter-titles of the Latin chapter-list and one title from the OE list. Between pp. 4 and 5 is a strip that formerly repaired the upper margin of p. 5 but that has now been lifted, and which carries a transcription of the last word of the title of Latin chapter 30. Another lifted strip (this one of paper) occurs between pp. 8 and 9. It carries an inaccurate Parkerian transcription, corrected by Abraham Wheelock, of the title of OE chapter 7. The original second leaf of the first quire has been lost. It would have carried the end of the OE preface and the titles of the first 30 chapters in the Latin chapter-list. In its place stands a 16c vellum leaf with a note by Matthew Parker commenting on the absence of those chapter-titles. Pasted to the modem paper endleaf that precedes p. 1 are two 16c strips that were formerly pasted to p. 1. The upper, horizontal strip carries the former Corpus press-mark ('S. 12') of the manuscript on its recto, and, on its verso, a 16c transcription of the 13c title that is entered in the upper margin of p. 1. The lower strip must formerly have been pasted to the outer margin of p. 1. It carries a note by Matthew Parker commenting that the reference at the beginning of Chrodegang's preface to 318 canons of the holy fathers refers to the canons of the Council of Nicaea, which was attended by 318 bishops.]The manuscript has undergone extensive modem repairs. These were carried out when it was rebound at the British Museum in 1926. The work included lifting the Parkerian repair strips and pasting those formerly pasted to pp. 6 and 7 to two new paper supports inserted between pp. 6-7; the second of these supports has been shaped to make it possible to see how the letters entered on one of the Parkerian repairs restored damaged portions of the original chapter-list. New repairs of inlaid paper or parchment were made to many leaves, most notably those at the beginning of the manuscript and pp. 65-68; pp. 1-2 and 5-J4 were covered with fine gauze to strengthen and protect them while leaving the text visible. A paper leaf was added before p. 1 to carry the 16c strips formerly pasted to that page. Twelve paper endleaves were added at both the front and the back of the manuscript. The binding itself is a full binding of blue Levant morocco leather over millboards, with rosette stamps on the inside surfaces of the covers.COLLATION: xv+1+i+1+ii+82+xii, leaves paginated. Twelve 20c paper endleaves. Two 16c vellum endleaves, being a reused fragment of a 16c account. One 20c paper endleaf. I8 (wants 2, for which there is a 16c replacement; inserted between 3 and 4 are two 20c leaves to which are pasted 16c repair strips removed from leaves 3 and 4) (pp. 1-16); II- VI8 (pp. 17-96); VII12 (lacks 4, 5, 7, 10) (pp. 97-112); VIII-X8 (pp. 113-60); XI8 (wants 6, 7, 8) (pp. 161-70). Twelve 20c paper endleaves.[Note: The collations of the manuscript by James and Ker suggest that Quire VII is a standard quire of four bifolia. However, the quire includes four single leaves whose stubs are visible between pp. 102-03 (two stubs), 104-05, and 107-08.]CONTENTS:16c endleaves (fragment of a 16c account roll). On the recto of the first endleaf, in an 18c hand, are the title of the volume and its former Corpus press-mark. On the verso of the second endleaf is Matthew Parker's note erroneously stating that the text of the manuscript was first composed in Latin by Archbishop Theodore, then translated into OE by Ælfric. Inserted 20c leaf carrying 16c paper strips formerly pasted to p. 1.Chrodegang of Metz, "Regula canonicorum":pp. 1/1-2/6 Untitled Latin preface: 'SI TRECENTOR<UM> [altered from 'TRJCENTOR<UM>'] DECEM [altered from 'DECIM'] ET | OCTO RELIQVOR<UM>q<ue> S<AN>C<T>OR<UM> PATRV<M> | canonu<m>auctoritas inuiolata.semp<er> durar& ... p<er> uity meritu<m> ad hoc i<n> hui<us> te<m>poris curriculo du<m> lie& currere festinent' (ed. Napier 1916: 1). [At the top of p. 1 is the 13c title of the manuscript.]p.2/7-27 Untitled OE preface, ending abruptly as a result of the loss of the original second leaf: 'Gif þæra þreo hundred 7 eahta tyne fædra þe | wæron gesa<m>node on þa<