[47] In one of the many illuminating annotations that adorn the pages of his classic edition of the Liber Ordinum, Dom Marius Férotin associates with the Ordo penitentie of the Hispanic Rite that passage of the so-called Historia Silense which describes the dramatic scene in the basilica of San Isidro de León when the aged, mortally stricken Fernando I of León and Castile puts off his royal robe and crown and assumes the cilicium and ashes of the penitential state ⁽¹⁾ . This is but one of several episodes in the great king emperor's last days at the end of december 1065, which, as so vividly described in the pages of the unknown chronicler, display a strongly liturgical and ceremonial character⁽²⁾ . When, in addition, we note the citation of texts from the Office celebrated more Toletano, and the close correlation of the final events in Fernando's life with the ecclesiastical calendar of the Nativity octave, it becomes evident that this terminal section of the Historia constitutes a document of distinct interest for the history of the Hispanic Rite just a decade and a half before the liturgical crisis of 1080 and Leonese-Castilian adoption under Alfonso VI of the Roman tradition⁽³⁾ .

[48] Familiar and often reproduced as are these passages from the Historia, they do not seem ever to have been examined as a whole from the liturgical standpoint. This is clearly desirable. It is now agreed that the Historia is a work of the first half of the twelfth century composed most probably under Alfonso VII (1126-1157), in the city of León, very likely at San Isidro itself ⁽⁴⁾ ; the chance of its monk-author's having been an eye-witness of the events of december 1065 is therefore minimum. The question then arises of his source of information, whether an oral tradition or a written account, for Fernando I's last days, and of the degree of reliability of the liturgical data presented. The discovery that the text contains certain ambiguities and marks of calendrical confusion makes it all the more necessary to subject this concluding portion of the Historia to closer analysis.

The account commences with Fernando's abandonment of his successful campaign in the region of Valencia against the Muslims and, with the shadow of death upon him, his return to León, which he reaches on 24 december. This means he missed by two days the commemoration there of the Translation of St Isidore, the feast instituted in 1063 after the envoys of the serenissimns rex had transported the sainted metropolitan 's body from Seville to the banks of the Bernesga and amid solemn pomp placed it in the newly reconstructed imperial basilica of St John the Baptist, better known henceforth as San Isidro de León ⁽⁵⁾ . Between the monarch's arrival in the capital and his death the Historia allows for the passage of four days, which may be identified as follows:
 

a) Saturday 24 december, the vigil of the Nativity: «viii kalendas ianuarii die sabbato» ⁽⁶⁾ . Fernando, arriving in León, repairs to San Isidro and kneels in prayer before the memoria of the saint.

[49] b) Night of Saturday 24 december | Sunday 25 december: «in ipsa celebri natiuitatis Dominice nocte». As the clerici festively chant the Matins of the Nativity, the king joins them in the singing more Toletano of the final sonus : «Aduenit nobis» ; and the succentores respond with: «Erudimini omnes qui iudicatis terram». Of these extracts from the Hispanic breviary, the first, which I myself have not yet located, Gómez Moreno wrongly styles the final psalm of the Matins⁽⁷⁾ ; the «Erudimini omnes», as Pérez de Urbel points out, occurs in the Nativity Matins according to the Antiphonarium mozarabicum of the Cathedral of León, although Lorenzana's edition of the Breviarium Gothicum places this sonus in the Lauds of the Nativity ⁽⁸⁾ .

c) Sunday 25 december, Feast of the Nativity: «illucescente natiuitatis Filii Dei clara uniuerso orbi die». With his limbs failing him, Fernando requests the singing of the Mass, and after receiving the Sacrament, is carried off to bed.

d) Monday 26 december: «in crastinum uero luce adueniente». On this day Fernando participates in four distinct acts of liturgical character:
 

1. Having called together bishops, abbots and religiosi uiri, he is carried in their midst into the basilica, dressed in the royal vestments and wearing the crown, probably looking very much as in his still extant portraits preserved in the Libro de las Estampas of the Cathedral of León or the Tumbo A of Santiago ⁽⁹⁾ . This initial mention by the chronicler of the monarch's appearing in the regalis chlamys and with the gemmata corona or aurcum diadema on his head establishes this as a formal coronamentum or crown-wearing, such as characterizes monarchical practice in eleventh century France, Germany and England, although the customary accompanying acclamations of the laudes regiae do not seem to have been introduced into the Leonese-Castilian state before the time of Alfonso VII ⁽¹⁰⁾ . It will be recalled [50] that Christmastide was one of the regularly appointed seasons for such display of the Herrschaftszeichen .

2. Before the altar of St John the Baptist and the bodies of SS Isidore and Vincent, Fernando surrenders his kingdom, and commits his soul, to God. The moving prayer which accompanies this renunciation, and which is quoted at length in the Historia, is of unmistakably liturgical origin, being a somewhat abbreviated adaptation of the Davidic canticle «Benedictus Dominus Deus Israhel patris nostri» in I Chronicles 29. In the Hispanic Office this canticle has no known connection with 26 december (St. Stephen's Day), and is used (so far as I have been able to determine) only at Lauds on the Saturday after the second Sunday in Lent and again in the course of the third feria after Ascension Day ⁽¹¹⁾ . Familiar as he was with the Hispanic breviary ⁽¹²⁾ , Fernando may have called to mind this highly appropriate prayer from having heard it sung; or knew it from its inclusion in both the famous codices copied in his time for the imperial library and to which Dom Férotin devoted a justly celebrated study: the Liber Diurnus of 1055, now at the University of Compostela, and the Liber Canticorum of the Biblioteca de Palacio in Madrid⁽¹³⁾ . Since in the Roman Rite the canticle is assigned to the Lauds of the second feria throughout the year, and since in 1065 St. Stephen's feast fell on Monday, we may conceivably have here a conflation of the two liturgical traditions, although it is essential to note that the Historia has the Benedictus Dominus Deus recited by the king alone and not by the clergy. Certainly it cannot altogether be ruled out that this highly appropriate prayer may have been suggested by a churchman accustomed to the Roman use, in which case a likely candidate would be Bishop Bernard Ramón of Palencia, a Catalan, perhaps a Cluniac, and a close counsellor of Fernando and his son Alfonso VI⁽¹⁴⁾ .

3. Fernando divests himself of the chlamys, removes the crown, [51] and weeping prostrates himself on the church floor, imploring forgiveness of his sins. This ceremony constitutes the formal abdication of the imperial office, a decoronatio.

4. The bishops administer the rite of penance, placing the cilitium upon the monarch and asperging him with ashes. If, as can be supposed, this ceremony followed the procedure prescribed for mortally sick penitents in the Ordo penitentie of the Liber Ordinum (Ordo xxx), Fernando would first have been given the tonsure; then, draped in the cilicium with the ashes placed upon him in the form of a cross, after recitation of the set orationes, benedictiones and Psalm 50, he would be given communion⁽¹⁵⁾ .

 
e) Monday 26 december, and Tuesday 27 december «in tali permanenti penitentia duobus diebus». Fernando survives for two days in this state of penitence.

f) Tuesday 27 december, Feast of St. John the Evangelist: «sequenti autem die que est feria tertia, hora diei sexta, in qua sancti lohannis Euangeliste festum celebratur». Fernando dies at noon.
 
Let us note that this liturgical, ceremonial obitus of the Leonese ruler shows a striking similarity to the last days of St. Isidore of Seville in april 636, as these are described in the short Relatio de transitu beatissimi Isidori episcopi of the cleric Redemptus ⁽¹⁶⁾ . In this presumably contemporary account ⁽¹⁷⁾ , manuscripts of which were unquestionably available to Fernando I, and almost certainly familiar to him in view of his interest in the saint, the metropolitan's death is carefully detailed. Four days before he dies, the ailing Isidore, accompanied by two bishops and a throng of clergy, monks and faithful, has himself transported from his cellula to the cathedral church of St. Vincent, where he makes a public confession and becomes a simple [52] penitent. Then, in the choir, before the altar, the bishops impose upon him the cilicium and ashes (which implies a previous laying aside ofccanonical vestments). In a long prayer, drawn from several scriptural passages, he implores God's pardon for his sins and is given the Sacrament by the prelates. Finally, after forgiveness from clergy and people, distributing his last charities, and beseeching divine favor for his flock, he returns to his cell, where death comes to him on the fourth day of this confessio et paenitentia.

To be sure, at various points the two cases differ, partly because the liturgical context of an archbishop dying in his cathedral in april would not coincide with that of a king dying during the Nativity octave; and in certain respects the resemblances of the two accounts result from the use of the same formula of public penance. Yet the parallel remains quite close and impressive, especially given the uniqueness of Fernando's ceremonial death-scene and his fervent devotion to the great Baetic archbishop, whose body just two year before, in the climactic religious event of the reign, the king-emperor had had translated to León. In my opinion, therefore, it is very probable that when in the Isidorian basilica Fernando renounced his supreme authority and undertook to spend his last remaining hours in the cilicium and ashes of a penitent, he was deliberately emulating the noble example of his venerated patron, the metropolitan of Seville.
 
As the so-called Silense presents the sequence of events at the end of Fernando's life, their correlation with the ecclesiastical calendar of the Nativity week seems, at first glance, straightforward and has been universally accepted; but on closer consideration a serious chronological difficulty presents itself. If the king's penance began on Monday, and the period of duobus diebus comprises Monday and Tuesday, 26 and 27 december, then sequenti die ought to designate Wednesday 28 december. But such an identification is expressly contradicted by the text's assertion that Fernando's death occurred on the third feria, the Feast of St. John, i. e., Tuesday, 27 december. The suspicion that there is something wrong with this equation becomes a certainty when we note that at the abbey of Cluny the Fernandine obit was solemnly observed not on 27, but on 29, december.

On this point we possess two convincing testimonies, both hitherto unappreciated. The first is the notice regarding the commemoration at Cluny of Fernando's death as recorded in the magnificent custumal of [53] Bernard of Cluny, commonly cited as the Ordo Cluniacensis but probably more accurately styled Consuetudines coenobii Cluniacensis ⁽¹⁸⁾ . Compiled at the abbey itself by a learned monk thoroughly acquainted with the congregation's daily regime under Abbot Hugh the Great in the second half of the eleventh century, this work can be dated between 1078 and 1083, i. e., ca. 1080⁽¹⁹⁾ . Among Bernard's several interesting references to the intercessional prayers offered at Cluny for the king-emperors of León (reges Hispaniarum ), one informs us that in Fernando's name a daily alms portion of food was served the poor; another that on his anniversary all the monks enjoyed a full refection of fish and honeyed, spiced wine ⁽²⁰⁾ . But most pertinent is a passage in Part II, cap. 32, which describes how at night during the entire Nativity octave the Cluniacs omitted recitation of the Office (i. e., of the Dead) with one single exception:
 

Sciendum tamen quia in octauis Dominicae natiuitatis usque post octauum diem, nullum sit in nocte Officium, excepto uno solo, in crastino festivitatis Innocentium quod D. Hugo abbas fieri instituit pro Fredelano Hispaniarum rege, qui multa bona loco Cluniacensi contulit, pro quo etiam sicuti pro abbatibus nostris sit; praecepit ut singuli sacerdotes qui ad hoc idonei uidentur, missas ipsa die pro eo cantent ⁽²¹⁾ .

 Since above the Pyrenees Holy Innocents fell on 28 december, and the following day was yet to be assigned in the Roman calendar, as it now is, to the martyred Archbishop of Canterbury, the feria of the 29th would naturally be designated the crastinum or morrow of the immediately preceding feast⁽²²⁾ . In 1065 Holy Innocents would have been a Wednesday; hence for Cluny Fernando I must have died on the fifth feria of Christmas week, i. e., Thursday 29 december, and not -- as the Historia alleges -- on the third feria, Tuesday 27 december. Certainly, in ca. 1080 Bernard found the former date being solemnized in an extraordinary fashion reserved otherwise only for deceased abbots of Cluny herself. Now, on so essential a liturgical particular as the date of the Fernandine obit, the abbey can hardly have [54] been mistaken: Abbot Hugh's friendship with the Spanish monarch who had granted 1000 gold metcales a year for clothing his congregation, and who ranked among the very greatest of the socii and magni benefactores (for the celebration of whose anniversaries Bernard provides such abundant detail), and the regular communication with the Leonese court provided by the collection of the annual census ⁽²³⁾ , insure that the Burgundian abbey would have been at exceptional pains to possess accurate information as to the exact day of the emperor's demise.

Furthermore, additional evidence, if this is needed, confirming 29 december as the day in question, can be had from an independent, equally unimpeachable source of peninsular origin: the imperial diploma of 1073 by which Alfonso VI gave Cluny the ancient dynastic monastery of San Isidro de Dueñas, located south of Palencia and the very first of the abbey's permanent acquisitions in the Leonese-Castilian state. As published among the charters of Cluny in Bruel's collection, this document bears the date «iiii kalendas junii, millesimo cxi» or 29 may 1073, under which it now circulates⁽²⁴⁾ . This text, however, reproduced not from the lost original, but from the early twelfth-century portion of the Cluniac Cartulary B (Bibliothéque de la Ville de Cluny, ms. 3), has had its date mishandled (cf. the loss of era before the misspelled millesimo) and has been split by the copyist at the imprecatio into two separate acts (Nos, cvii and cvm)⁽²⁵⁾ An incomplete but superior transcript of the copy of the Alfonsine privilegio which was contained in the lost Becerro of San Isidro de Dueñas survives in Madrid in the Colección Velazquez of the Academia de la Historia ⁽²⁶⁾ . This establishes that at several points in the text as in the list of subscriptions the Burgundian version commits errors of omission and orthography. Most significantly, however, the Spanish transcript dates the diploma not by reference to the kalendas junii, but on «iii kals januarias era. M.CXI», or 29 december 1073. This [55] complete and almost certainly original chronological formula allows us to perceive for the first time that the cession of Dueñas, so decisive a turning point in Hispanic-Cluniac history, was timed to coincide with the anniversary of Fernando I's death. This in turn gives new emphasis to the clauses by which Alfonso, acting imperially as rex Hispaniarum et Legionensis , devotes his grant «pro remedio anime mee et pro anima patris mei et matris mee et omnium parentum meorum», and defines it as including all possessions of the house «sicut fuit donatum et confirmatum ... in tempore patris mei uel parentum meorum». To be noted also, as something more than conventional piety, is Alfonso's justification of Dueñas' transfer to Cluny in words drawn from the very Davidic canticle «Benedictus Dominus Deus Israhel patris nostri», which must have been indelibly associated in memory with the Fernandine renunciation in San Isidro de León eight years before: «Tua sunt enim omnia, Domine, et que de manu tua accepimus, in tuo sancto timore detulimus tibi» ⁽²⁷⁾ . Thus the evidence of the Dueñas charter of 1073, earlier by some half-dozen years than the Bernardine notice of ca. 1080, confirms 29 december as the true date of the obit and shows that at the Leonese court no less than in Burgundy the anniversary was observed two days later than reported by the so-called Historia Silense.

This correction of the date of Fernando's demise bears also upon the Historia's, final assertions that the monarch died «era millesima C^a III^a » and that he was buried in San Isidro «anno regni sui xxvn, mensibus vi, diebus xii» ⁽²⁸⁾ . The latter calculation, frequently offered as the length of the reign and which Pérez de Urbel regards as «el cómputo exacto desde que (Fernando) había sido coronado en León el 22 de junio de 1037»⁽²⁹⁾ can hardly be accepted without scrutiny. For if the 27 years of the reign run from 22 june 1037 to 22 june 1065, and the six months carry us to 22 december of that year, the twelve days beyond the 22nd would terminate in era 1104 on 2 January 1066. Since the text actually declares that burial, not death, occurred at the end of the 12 days, this would mean that if Fernando died on 27 december, as the Historia says, he was not interred until a week later; or, if he died on 29 december, as we have argued, five days later. The [56] latter is perhaps more credible. But if it was the writer's intention to mean that the king was buried on the day he died, as has been generally inferred, a scribe may have wrongly written XII diebus for an original VII diebus; for 7 days after 22 december would bring us to the date accepted by Cluny and Alfonso VI. At any rate, the present reading of the text cannot be regarded as a precise measure of the reign's duration.

In view of the convincing testimony from two authoritative quarters, Cluniac and Leonese, that Fernando I died on 29, not 27, december, how are we to account for the Historia's universally accepted error? The answer is not far to seek, and will doubtless have already occurred to the reader: we confront here a confusion caused by the conflation of the Hispanic and Roman ecclesiastical calendars in the years following adoption of the latter Rite in the Leonese Empire in 1080. For while in the Roman sanctorale St. John's Day is the 27th, in the Hispanic tradition the feast which the manuscript calendars list under some form of Adsumtio S. Iohannis apstli et euangeliste falls on the 29th ⁽³⁰⁾ . The Historia's, unknown composer, we may therefore confidently assume, possessed the information that the monarch died on the apostolic festum, but despite his explicit awareness that in 1065 the older liturgy was still in use at San Isidro, so that the Matins of the Nativity were sung more Toletano, he must have overlooked the fact that the ecclesiastical year would also then be ordered according to the same tradition. In consequence, he was driven to compress within a period of four days, from the 24th to the 27th, a series of events that we can now realize must have extended over six, to the 29th; and his difficulty in effecting this can be seen in the obviously forced and ambiguous language of this part of his narrative. For if, as the Historia makes plain, Fernando became a penitent on Monday 26 december, and remained in that condition for two days (duobus diebus), then the fellowing day (sequeti die) ought either to be the fourth feria, Wednesday, the 28th (assuming the count begins on Monday), or else the fifth feria, Thursday, the 29th (with Tuesday and Wednesday as the duobus diebus). Between these alternatives we need not hesitate, since both the Bernardine Consuetudines and the Alfonsine diploma of 1073 for San Isidro de Dueñas agree, as we have seen, on 29 December.

[57] In this light, and in the context of the Hispanic liturgical calendar, the true sequence of Fernando I's last days in San Isidoro de León can be reconstructed as follows ⁽³¹⁾ :

 a) Saturday 24 december, the vigil of the Nativity. Fernando appears in the basilica.

b) Night of Saturday 24 december-Sunday 25 december. He participates in the celebration of the Nativity Matins.

c) Sunday 25 december, Feast of the Nativity. He attends the Mass.

d) Monday 26 december, St. Stephen's Day. He renounces the imperial office and enters into the penitential state.

e) Tuesday 27 december, Feast of St. Eugenia. The first full day as a penitent.

f) Wednesday 28 december, Feast of St. James the Brother of the Lord. The second of the duobus diebus as a penitent.

g) Thursday 29 december, Feast of the Assumption of St. John the Evangelist. Fernando dies at noon.
 

Now the discovery of an error of two days in the length of Fernando's life in not in itself of earth-shaking moment, although we humbly submit it to the attention of any bodies planning to celebrate in 1965 the nine-hundredth anniversary of this great Spanish ruler's passing. What is, however, genuinely significant is the fact that the Historia 's error, and the specifically liturgical genesis of this error, make it possible to discern for the first time the nature of the original source lying back of the conclusion of the king-emperor's biography and to relate this to the history of liturgical change in eleventh-and twelfth-century Spain. We shall therefore conclude this inquiry by drawing certain deductions that now appear justified.

1) As the extracts from the Nativity Matins of the Hispanic Breviary, and also (if somewhat less certainly) the canticle «Benedictus Dominus Deus Israhel patris nostri», attest, the original description of Fernando I's last days must be contemporary and can be ascribed to an ecclesiastic -- surely one of the episcopi et abbates et religiosi uiri in attendance upon the dying monarch -- who was thoroughly [58] familiar with the prayers and ordines of the Hispanic Rite and an eyewitness of the ceremonial scenes in San Isidro. This could not have been, as often asserted, the author of the Historia itself in its present form.

2) The description, as it reached the author of the Historia, was unquestionably in written form. The already noted signs of editorial revision and chronological compression, manifested in the addition of the gloss «quem tunc temporis more Toletano canebant» to identify for a later generation the then unfamiliar passages from the Hispanic matutinal sonus of the Nativity, and in the insertion after «sequenti autem die» of a second gloss «que est feria tertia» so as to make the two penitential days terminate on the Roman feast of St. John, establish beyond dispute a written original. One does not insert phrases of this type into an account based on memory or oral tradition. Furthermore, that the chronicler's editorial method when taking over an earlier document into this Fernandine portion of his work is of precisely this order, can be seen from what is known of his account of the bringing of St. Isidore's body to León in 1063. In this case the original source still survives independently in the form of a Translatio, and collation of this with the shorter redaction in the Historia has made it clear that various minor changes of phraseology or addition of brief glosses have been introduced ⁽³²⁾ . This piece posed no such chronological problem as the Johannine correlation (and indeed nowhere else in the Historia does a similar confusion of calendars seem to have arisen); but its editorial modifications offer an instructive parallel to the two glosses we have encountered in the story of Fernando's death.

3) Unlike the Translatio, which seems to have been inspired by liturgical needs⁽³³⁾ , the account of Fernando's death cannot be found existing apart from the Historia; and nothing in its opening words («Ingressus est enim ciuitatem», etc.) or general vocabulary and style indicate an origin different from that of the Fernandine biography as a whole (the Isidorian translation acts excepted). This implies that the account was an integral part of a general history of the reign composed by an unknown Leonese ecclesiastic, which was incorporated into the present so-called Historia Silense; but contrary to Cirot's [59] argument that on liturgical grounds the composition of such a Life of Fernando must be dated subsequent to the introduction of the Roman Rite, «en 1077, ou 1'annee suivante», just the opposite conclusion has now emerged: the liturgical evidence requires that this portion of the Historia already existed in written form before the change of rite ⁽³⁴⁾ .

4) Given the high probability that the Historia was compiled at San Isidro de León itself or, alternatively, at Santa María la Regla or other center in León, it is likely that its erroneous dating of Fernando's death was due to the actual liturgical practice of the monastery or church to which the chronicler was attached. Between 1066 and 1080 the anniversary would have been celebrated both in Burgundy and in Spain on the same day, 29 december. When in 1080, or by degrees thereafter, the Roman sanctorale established itself in the Leonese-Castilian state, there may well have occurred a number of cases where anniversaries, designated in the necrologies by reference to the ecclesiastical calendar, were wrongly shifted to a new date, particularly when, as with St. John's Day, the dates according to the old and new observances stood quite close together. It would be useful to know just where the Fernandine obit appears in the extant necrology of San Isidoro de León , and to check on this point any surviving necrologies of Hispano-Cluniac priories. For we may suppose that when, after 1080, a divergence developed, the communities of Cluniac affiliation would have continued, like the mother abbey, to celebrate the 29th, while Leonese centers -- or at least the one with which the Historia is to be linked -- abandoned this date for the 27th. Certainly, we have here one more reason of several that might be presented for rejecting the hypothesis that the Historia emanates from a Cluniac ambiente⁽³⁶⁾ . If it did, its author would surely have been well aware of the correct chronology and authentic liturgical context of the last days of Fernando I.
 

University of Virginia. (Charlottesville, Va., U.S.A.).

1. M. FÉROTIN, Le Liber Ordinum en usage dans léglise wisigothique et mozárabe d'Espagne du cinquiéme au onzíeme siécle, in Monumenta Ecclesiae Liturgica, t. 5 (Paris, 1904), col. 88, n. I.

2. The passages of the Historia to be discussed here can be found in Historia Silense, ed. FRANCISCO SANTOS COCO (Madrid, 1921), pp. 89-91; Historia Silense, ed. Dom J. PÉREZ DE URBEL and ATILANO GONZÁLEZ RUIZ-ZORRILLA (Madrid, 1959), pp. 207-209. I shall cite the Santos Coco text but with due attention to the readings of the recent Pérez de Urbel and Ruiz-Zorrilla edition.

3. PIERRE DAVID, Études historiques sur la Galice et le Portugal du VIe au XIIme siècle (Lisbon-Paris, 1947), pp. 391-430; RICHARD B. DONOVAN, The Liturgical Drama in Medieval Spain (Toronto, 1958), pp. 20-29.

4. Pérez de Urbel, p. 87, places the Historia in the second decade of the twelfth century, under Urraca; but cf. the more cogent argumentation for a date in the reign of Alfonso VII in CLAUDIO SÁNCHEZ ALBORNOZ, Sobre el autor de la llamada Historia Silense, in «Cuadernos de Historia de España» 23-24 (1955) 307-316; idem, De nuevo sobre la Crónica de Alfonso III y sobre la llamada Historia Silense, ibid. 37-38 (1963) 292-317, especially pp. 313-314. On San Isidro de León as the place of composition, see MANUEL GÓMEZ MORENO, Introducción a la Historia Silense (Madrid, 1921), pp. xxi-xxii; Antonio VIÑAVO GONZÁLEZ, Cuestiones histórico-críticas en torno a la traslación del cuerpo de San Isidoro, in Isidoriana, ed. M. DÍAZ Y DÍAZ (León, 1961), pp. 285-297, especially pp. 292-293.

5. VIÑAYO GONZÁLEZ, op. cit.; JULIO PÉREZ LLAMAZARES, Historia de la Real Colegiata de San Isidoro de León (León, 1927), pp. 26-35.

6. Reading 'VIII' with Pérez de Urbel and Ruiz-Zorrilla, p. 207, as against Santos Coco, whose 'VIIII' is clearly impossible since in 1065 it was the eighth day before the Kalends of January which fell on Saturday.

7. Introd., p. cxxxv. On the Hispanic Office, consult M. FÉROTIN, Le Liber Mozarabicus Sacramentorum et les manuscrits mozárabes, in Mon. Eccl. Liturg., t. 6 (Paris, 1912), pp. LIV-LXXI ; F. CABRQL, Mozarabe (la liturgie), in DACL, t. 12 (1953), cols. 443-446.

8. PÉREZ DE URBEL, p. 207, n. 264. Brev. Goth, in PL 86, 122 C.

9. See the reproductions in A. BALLESTEROS Y BERETTA, Historia de España, vol. II (2 1944), pp. 298-301.

10. Cf. ERNST KANTOROWICZ, Laudes Regiae: A Study in Liturgical Acclamations and Mediaeval Ruler Worship (Berkeley-Los Angeles), 1958, pp. 92-101; PERCY E. SCHRAMM, A History of the English Coronation (Oxford, 1937), pp. 31-32, 56; idem, Herrschaftszeichen und Staatssymbolik, in Schriften der Mon. Germ. Hist., t. 13, vol. III (1956), pp. 727-730, 817 ( = Las insignias de la realeza en la Edad Media española, trans. L. VÁZQUEZ DE PARCA (Madrid, 1960), pp. 25-35); CL. SÁNCHEZ ALBORNOZ, Un ceremonial inédito de coronación de los reyes de Castilla, in «Logos» 3 (Buenos Aires, 1943) 75-97.

11. Brev. Goth., in PL 86, 373 D; W. S. PORTER, Cantica Mosarabici officii, in «Ephemerides liturgicae» 49 (1935) p. 140, col. 2 (n.° 64). CABROL, Cantiques, in DACL., t. 2 (1925), cols. 1991-92, wrongly assigns this canticle to the Saturday following the first Sunday in Lent.

12. SANTOS COCO, p. 87. 21-24.

13. Deux manuscrits wisigothiques de la bibliothèque de Ferdinand Ier, roi de Castille et de Léon , in «Bibl. de l'École des Chartes» 62 (1901) 374-387.

14. PEDRO FERNÁNDEZ DEL PULGAR, Teatro clerical, apostólico y secular de las Iglesias Catedrales de España (Madrid, 1679), vol. II, pp. 85-119.

15. Ed. FÉROTIN, cols. 87-92. On the doctrine and administration of penance according to the Hispanic Rite, see SEVERINO GONZÁLEZ RIVAS, La penitencia en la primitiva Iglesia española (Salamanca, 1950); J. M. CARDA, Doctrina y práctica penitencial en la liturgia visigótica, in «Rev. esp. de Teología» 6 (1946) 223-247.

16. PL 81, 30-32. Cf. ÁNGEL C. VEGA, Cuestiones críticas de las biografías isidorianas , in Isidoriana (1961), pp. 75-98, especially 95-96; B. DE GAIFFIER, Le culte de Saint Isidore de Seville. Esquisse d'un travail, ibid., p. 271. Observe also the account in Hist. Sil. (SANTOS COCO, p. 53; PÉREZ DE URBEL, p. 168) of Ramiro II's death (951), after penitential confessio and renunciation of office before bishops and abbots; cf. PÉREZ DE URBEL, Sampiro, su crónica y la monarquía leonesa en el siglo X, (Madrid, 1952), p. 403.

17. See J. MADOZ, S. Isidoro de Sevilla (León, 1960), pp. 3-21, as cited by J. N. HILLGARTH, The Position of Isidorian Studies: A Critical Review of the Literature since 1935 , in «Isidoriana>, pp. 49-50.

18. Edited by MARQUARD HERRGOTT, Vetus disciplina monástica, (Paris, 1726),pp.134-364.

19. See my Liturgical Intercession at Cluny for the King-Emperors of Leon, in «Studia monástica» 3 (1961) 53-76, especially pp. 60-65.

20. HERRGOTT, Ordo, I, 13; I, 51 (pp. 158, 246).

21. Ordo, pp. 355-356.

22. In the peculiarly Spanish tradition, this feast as the Allisio infantum was celebrated on 8 January: CABROL in DACL, t. 12, col. 418.

23. BISHKO, Liturgical Intercession , pp. 61-62.

24. A. BERNARD and A. BRUEL, eds., Recueil des chartes de l'abbaye de Cluny (Paris, 1876-1903), t. 4, n.° 3.452 (pp. 560-562).

25. Ibid., p. 560, n. I; on the Hugonic section of Cartulary B, cf. t. I, pp. xxii-xxiii

26. Col. VELAZQUEZ, t. IV, leg. 4, n.° 1.388. I expect to include a more satisfactory text of this diploma in my forthcoming edition of the unpublished charters of San Isidro de Dueñas. The Madrid text, for example, gives as comes Munio Goncalues the garbled comes Grunnio Gunsalbus of Chartes de Cluny, t. 4, p. 562, and supplies the missing name of the scribe Ariulfus.

27. Chartes de Cluny, t. 4, p. 561: I Chronicles 29: 14.

28. SANTOS COCO, p. 91; PÉREZ DE URBEL, p. 209.

29. P. 209, n. 266.

30. DAVID, Études, pp. 201, 205.

31. For the Hispanic calendar in the Nativity octave, see the detailed analysis of the manuscripts in JOSÉ VIVES and ANGEL FÁBREGA, Calendarios hispánicos anteriores al siglo XII, in «Hispania sacra» 2 (1949) 119-146, 339-380; 3 (1950) 145-161. This definitive study replaces both Férotin, Liber Ordinum , pp. xxx-xxxv; cols. 449-497 and M. ÁLAMO, Les calendriers mozárabes d'apres Dom Férotin: Additions et corrections , in «Rev. d'Hist. ecclés. 39 (1943) 100-131.

32. GOMEZ MORENO, Intród., pp. xv-xvii; PÉREZ DE URBEL, pp. 45-49; VIÑAYO GONZÁLEZ, Cuestiones histórico-críticas, pp. 289-393.

33. VIÑAYO GONZÁLEZ, p. 204. The MSS preserve the text in the form of nine lessons for the Matins of 22 december, the anniversary of the Translation.

34. GEORGES CIROT, La Chronique Léonaise et la Chronique díte de Silos, in «Bull. hispanique» 16 (1914) 15-34, especially pp. 28-30.

35. JULIO PÉREZ LLAMAZARES, Catálogo de los códices y documentos de la Real Colegiata de San Isidro de León (León, 1923), pp. 34-25: Codex n.° 4, 73 fols. in 'letra minúscula francesa'; the Necrologium is contained in fols. 1-6. Cf. VIÑAYO GONZÁLEZ, p. 286, n. 7.

36. CIROT, pp. 24-28. PÉREZ DE URBEL, p. 71.