#Literature:# ... Bedae Opera Historica [_text unchanged, but work cited spells it “Baedae”_] _w_ is added ... #ġ# is _ȝ_ [_“ȝ” misprinted as bold instead of italic_] #Accidence:# ... monedeis 72; [72:] The weak declension ... strong and weak, is e; [e,] The personal pronouns ... (dei like L. dies is _fm._) [L dies] (1) S. Paul in ... One of these, the Ἀναβατικὸν Παύλου, is lost [Παύλου is] represented in a Latin version [Version] The Latin version ... (4) Anonymous, B.M. Add. 15606 [B M] XI. HIC DICENDUM EST DE PROPHETA #Manuscript:# As for piece x. #Editions:# Morris, R., OEH i. 47-53, and Specimens, 21-25. #Literature:# Cohn, O., Die Sprache in der me. Predigtsammlung der Hs. Lambeth 487, Berlin, 1880. #Phonology# &c.: See piece x, pp. 407, 410, 413. #Introduction:# No source has been found for this singular piece, which, in its treatment of Jeremiah in the pit as the type of the unshriven sinner, differs from the usual mystical interpretations of this episode in the life of the prophet. So Adam of Prémontré, ‘Pax tibi, o sanctificate in utero, virgo et sacerdos Dei, o Jeremia sanctissime! quem de lacu lutoso et funes et panni levant veteres, quia sanctos Dei ab aeterno ad vitam ab ipso praedestinatos de sordido vitae praesentis profundo et sacrae Scripturae praecepta et sancta elevant exempla,’ De triplici genere Contemplationis, Migne, P. L., cxcviii., col. 824. So for S. Gregory, the ropes are ‘praecepta Dominica,’ the old rags, ‘antiquorum patrum exempla,’ Moralia, xxv. 7, and the interpretation of Hugh of S. Victor, ii. 256, is similar. The homily consists of two parts, very dissimilar in style and discordant in tone; the joint is plainly discernible at 81/76. The first part is an earnest insistence on the necessity of sacramental confession, a question much debated at the time of this sermon and after, till it was finally disposed of by the fourth Lateran Council in 1215 A.D. The passages in Latin, like 81/64, do not necessarily imply a Latin original, they are rather headings of the divisions of the discourse, which is probably an effort of the writer’s own ingenuity in support of his favourite contention. It contains no hint of the crabs and other ‘wurmes’ of the pit. The second part reads like a translation; it has all the vivacity and simple directness of the contemporary French Sermo ad Populum. Its leading idea was probably suggested by the famous apologue in the legend of Barlaam of the man who, pursued by a furious unicorn, fell into a well tenanted by a dragon, a four-headed snake, and two mice. This story was used by Eudes de Cheriton, p. 217, and Jacques de Vitry, no. cxxxiv. The thirty-third Homily in OEH ii. should be compared with this second part: it is in the same style, if not by the same author.