The Ælfrician Glossaries in Oxford, Bodleian Library, Barlow 35: A New Edition and Commentary

Claudio Cataldi 1
  • 1 University of, Palermo, Italy
Claudio Cataldi

Abstract

The present study provides a full edition and commentary of the three glossaries in Oxford, Bodleian Library, Barlow 35, fol. 57r–v. These glossaries, which were first partly edited and discussed by Liebermann (1894), are comprised of excerpts from Ælfric’s Grammar and Glossary arranged by subject. The selection of material from the two Ælfrician works witnesses to the interests of the glossator. The first glossary in Barlow 35 collects Latin grammatical terms and verbs followed by their Old English equivalents. The second glossary is drawn from the chapter on plant names of Ælfric’s Glossary, with interpolations from other chapters of the same work. This glossary also features twelfth-century interlinear notations, which seem to have a metatextual function. The third glossary combines excerpts from Ælfric’s Glossary with verbs derived from the Grammar. Liebermann transcribed only part of the glosses and gave a brief commentary on the glossaries as well as parallels with Zupitza’s (1880) edition of Ælfric’s Grammar and Glossary; hence the need for a new edition, which is provided in the present study, along with a comprehensive discussion of the glossaries and a reassessment of the correspondences concerning their Ælfrician sources.

1 Introduction

Oxford, Bodleian Library, Barlow 35 preserves three Latin-Old English glossaries on fol. 57r–v, which were first discussed and partly edited by Felix Liebermann (1894). As noted by previous scholarship, the sources of these glossaries are Ælfric’s Grammar and Glossary (Ker 1957: no. 298; Buckalew 1978: 154; Lendinara 1999: 13, 214). Taken in their entirety, the three glossaries in Barlow 35 include 147 entries organized by subject.

The first glossary, on fol. 57 r, includes 40 entries and is set out in three columns. Most interpretamenta are written on the line below their respective lemmata, but in the second column (E) some entries feature both lemma and explanation on the same line (see Figure 1). This first glossary draws grammatical terms and explanations of verbs from Ælfric’s Grammar, reworking them into word-pairs. Verbs are mostly taken from the chapter on the Latin third conjugation (ed. Zupitza 1880: 162–182).

The second glossary is much more extended; it is written on the upper half of fol. 57 v and features 70 entries, with lemmata and interpretamenta written continuously (see Figure 2). This second glossary mostly overlaps with the chapter on plant names in Ælfric’s Glossary (ed. Zupitza 1880: 310–311), with a few interpolations from other chapters. Several entries also feature twelfth-century additions; a later scribe copied interlineally the initial letters of a number of lemmata (see Figure 2, fol. 57v/1–19). The reason for these interlinear additions is unclear, but I believe that they might have had a metatextual function, which I shall discuss below (p. 224).

The third glossary is copied on the bottom half of fol. 57 v; set out in six columns, it includes 35 glosses; interpretamenta are written mostly below their respective lemmata (see Figure 2). This third glossary has two main parts; the first section is drawn from Ælfric’s Glossary, while the second section is comprised of Latin second-conjugation verbs taken from Ælfric’s Grammar (ed. Zupitza 1880: 147–158). As in the first glossary, these excerpts from the Grammar are organized in word-pairs. The material in the third glossary – and, to a lesser extent, in the first glossary – suggests that the compiler selected the verbs on the basis of their Latin conjugation.

To the three glossaries, one must add one other gloss, testu : crocsceard, which is copied on folio 6 r and is taken from Ælfric’s Grammar (cf. ed. Zupitza 1880: 80.11 testu : crocscerd).1 In order to provide a comprehensive study of the three glossaries, I shall first introduce the manuscript (Section 2); sources and analogues of the glossaries will be then discussed in Section 3; finally, a new edition and commentary of the three glossaries is offered in Section 4 (pp. 217–227).

2 The Manuscript: Barlow 35

Oxford, Bodleian Library, Barlow 35 is a composite codex, comprised of four booklets in nine quires, dated to the tenth century. There is some disagreement amongst scholars about the origin of the manuscript. The prevalent view is that Barlow 35 is of continental origin and arrived in England by the end of the tenth century; the English additions to the codex date to the late tenth and early eleventh centuries (cf. Ker 1957: 355–356; Doane 2007: 75; Gneuss and Lapidge 2014: no. 541). However, according to the Bodleian Summary Catalogue, the codex is “made up of four MSS. written in the 10th and 11th centt., probably in England”, and booklets “A, B, C are in Caroline minuscule showing insular traits” (Madan, Craster, and Denholm-Young 1937: no. 6467). Bischoff (1997: XCVII 2.2.) considered fols. 1–5 of possible English origin (“in Engl[and] geschr[ieben]?”) and the rest later (than the tenth century) and written in England (“d[er] Rest jünger, in England geschr[ieben]”).2

Part A (fols. 1–5) includes calendarial rules, a version of the Revelatio Esdrae, and a fragment of part of a multiplication table (Doane 2007: 78; Liuzza 2010: 48); scribbles and drawings were added to the first folio, which was originally blank. Part B (fols. 6–43) preserves a copy of Alcuin’s lnterrogationes Sigewulfi in Genesin. Part C (fols. 44–54) features an enlarged version of the Scholica graecarum glossarum (on which see Lendinara 2011), with a coda of entries drawn from Bede’s De orthographia (Lendinara 1999: 293), followed by a note on ‘vesper’ from Isidore’s De natura rerum (see Alcamesi 2010: 180). A Latin charm with heading in Old English was added on fol. 54 v (Pettit 1999). In Part D (fols. 55–57), there is a version – apparently the only one attested to in Anglo-Saxon England – of pseudo-Cicero’s Synonyma and the three Ælfrician glossaries that are discussed in this study. The lists of pseudo-Ciceronian synonyms are set out in six columns (with the exception of the preface), on fols. 56rv–fol. 57, cols. 1–3 and col. 4, line 11. On the fourth column of fol. 57 r, line 12, the first Ælfrician glossary begins, without either a break from the preceding work or a rubric; it ends on fol. 57 r, line 26. The second Ælfrician glossary is written across the page on fol. 57 v, lines 1–19. The third glossary is set out in six columns on fol. 57 v, lines 20–31. The Synonyma and the glossaries are copied in different ink. The two works share the interest in lists of verbs: in the Synonyma, these are organized in groups of synonyms, while the first and the third Ælfrician glossaries collect Latin words followed by equivalents in the vernacular. The first glossary, in particular, is wholly based on grammatical material and preserves a batch of verbs with Old English equivalents; as such, it must have been considered as a proper continuation to the Synonyma by the compiler of Part D. Stokes (2014: 208) notes three English hands on the manuscript: one for the charm and the Ælfrician glossaries and two for the scribbles (cf. Ker 1957: 355–356).

3 Sources and Analogues of the Glossaries in Barlow 35

The three Latin-Old English glossaries in Barlow 35 can be classified as class glossaries; they are organized by subject and derive part of their material from Ælfric’s Glossary. Ælfric composed his three educational works, the Grammar, the Glossary, and the Colloquy between 992 and 1002 (Hill 2007: 285); Kleist (2019: 127–129) narrows the temporal range to 993–998. The Grammar, the Glossary, and the Colloquy enjoyed a wide circulation, and the three glossaries in Barlow 35 are one of the offshoots of this tradition. Ælfric’s Grammar (henceforth: ÆGr) and the Glossary (henceforth: ÆGl) are transmitted together in six medieval codices; in all manuscripts, the ÆGl immediately follows the ÆGr (Buckalew 1978: 153–155; Gneuss and Lapidge 2014: nos. 13, 115, 331, 336, 414, 686). Considered the first Latin grammar in any European vernacular language,3 ÆGr is organized in sections aimed to explain the Latin alphabet, syllables, diphthongs, parts of speech, genders, declensions, number; discussions of each verbal conjugation are followed by a separate chapter on passive forms; discrete chapters are also devoted to anomalous, defective, inchoative, and frequentative verbs. ÆGl is arranged in eight chapters organized by subject; an introductory chapter is followed by the sections Nomina membrorum (‘Names of members’ – parts of the body, members of the family, of the society, etc.); Nomina auium (‘Names of birds’); Nomina piscium (‘Names of fish’); Nomina ferarum (‘Names of animals’); Nomina herbarum (‘Names of herbs’); Nomina arborum (‘Names of trees’); Nomina domorum (‘Names of houses’). ÆGl shares the chapter-format with other Latin-Old English class glossaries such as the Antwerp-London class glossary, the Second Cleopatra Glossary, and the Brussels Glossary.4 Furthermore, it is worth noting that ÆGl and Antwerp-London presumably rely on the same sources (see Lazzari 2003; Porter 2011 b; Porter 2018). ÆGr and ÆGl were copied and used well after the Anglo-Saxon period (see Hill 2007). A copy of the two works is preserved in Worcester, Cathedral Library, F.174, a thirteenth-century codex copied by the well-known ‘Tremulous Hand of Worcester’ (this version is edited by Butler 1981). The fourth of a group of four glossaries preserved in Oxford, Bodleian Library, Bodley 730, which dates back to the early thirteenth century, is mostly based on the chapter Nomina membrorum of ÆGl, along with other material not derived from Ælfric (see Cataldi 2019). Both this glossary in Bodley 730 and the glossarial material in Barlow 35 re-use material from ÆGl. In terms of these parallels, one might add the copies of ÆGr in the manuscripts London, British Library, Cotton Faustina A.x and Cambridge, University Library, Hh.1.10, which feature glosses and annotations in Latin, Anglo-Norman, and English from the second half of the eleventh century to the twelfth century (see Hunt 1991: I, 99–113; Pagan and Seiler 2019). The glossaries in Barlow 35 may therefore represent early instances of use and re-use of ÆGr and ÆGl, re-uses which are well documented up into the Early Middle English period.

4 Edition and Commentary of the Ælfrician Glossaries in Barlow 35

Below I offer a full edition with commentary of the three glossaries in MS Barlow 35. Comparisons with ÆGr and ÆGl are provided, with page and line numbers referring to Zupitza (1880), who used Oxford, St John’s College, 154 (manuscript ‘O’) as his base text. Because all of the three glossaries derive material from the same source, glosses are numbered consecutively. Latin lemmata are capitalized – in this, I follow a consistent practice found in Barlow 35 – and all English interpretamenta are printed in small letters, including a number of occurrences that are capitalized in the manuscript. I keep the punctus that, in the manuscript, separates lemmata from interpretamenta; abbreviations are expanded and shown by italics, except ł for uel, which is retained. Emendations are in square brackets. Word division has been regularised without notice.

4.1 Glossary I (see Figure 1)

Barlow 35, fol. 57 r, cols. D-FParallels in ÆGr and ÆGl

(ed. Zupitza 1880)
D1Signifer . tacenberend .ÆGr 27.15 signifer tacnberend; ÆGl 317.20 signifer tacnbora
2Simplex . ánfeald .ÆGr 70.1 simplex anfeald; similarly 87.8–9; 91.13; 105.21; 223.13
3Composita . gefeged .ÆGr 87.9 et composita þæt is, gefeged; similarly 91.13–14; 105.21–106.1; 217.12
4Optauimus . gewyscent .ÆGr 125.9–10 optativvs þæt is, gewiscendlic
5Vtinam . eala .ÆGr 125.12, 14–15, 16–17; 131.19–21; 132.1–9; 141.6–19; 142.1–6; 149.1–9; 200.3–4; 208.18; 209.1; 227.13 utinam [...] eala
6Amare uolo . ic wille lufian .ÆGr 126.11 amare uolo ic wylle lufjan; similarly 134.7–8
7Amabis . þu lufast .ÆGr 131.7 amabis þu lufast
E8Eodem modo on þam ylcan gemete .ÆGr 130.10–11 eodem modo [...] on ðam ylcan gemete; similarly 131.5
9Amaueritis . þa ða ge lufedan .ÆGr 133.17–134.1 amaueritis ðonne ge lufjað gyt; cf. ÆGr 133.12–13 amauissetis þa ða ge lufedon
10Consolor . ic gefrefrige .ÆGr 145.3 consolor ic gefrefrige
11Gratulor . ic blissige .ÆGr 145.14–15 gratulor ic blissige
12Coniunctio . geþodnys .ÆGr 257.16–258.1 coniunctio mæg beon gecweden geþeodnys
13Significatio . getácnuncg .ÆGr 119.12–13 significatio, þæt ys, getacnung; similarly 223.16; 242.17; 278.4–5
14Commoda mihi III panes lǽn me þreo hlafas .ÆGr 135.7–8 commoda mihi librum ad legendum læne me ða boc to rædenne
15Sagene . sǽnét .ÆGl 320.14 sagena sænett
16Cunabulum . cidcradel .ÆGr 85.9–10 cunabula cildecradulas
17Cupio ic gewilnige .ÆGr 166.4, 166.10 cupio ic gewilnige
18Acuo . ic hwette .ÆGr 167.1 acuo ic hwette
19Sumo . ic underfo .ÆGr 169.15 sumo ic underfo
20Ambigo . me twynað .ÆGr 176.13 ambigo me twynað
21Detraho . ic tele .ÆGr 176.7 detraho ic tæle bæftan
22Cogo . ic nyde .ÆGr 176.12–13 cogo ic nyde
23Ácuo . íc hẃette .ÆGr 167.1 acuo ic hwette
24Vinco . ic oferswiðe .ÆGr 176.18 uinco ic oferswiðe
25Confundo . ic gemencge .ÆGr 178.8–9 confundo ic gemencge oððe gescynde
26Como . ic geglencge .ÆGr 170.1 como ic geglencge
27Tempno . ic forseo .ÆGr 170.6 tempno ic forseo
F28Studeo . ic gecnyrdlæce .ÆGr 154.5 studeo ic gecnyrdlæce
29Floreo . ic blowe .ÆGr 154.9 floreo ic blowe
30Vigeo . ic strangige . ÆGr 154.14 uigeo ic strangige oððe geðeo
31Zelor . ic andige .ÆGr 146.8 zelor ic andige
32Lippus . sureagede .ÆGr 192.10–11 lippus sureagede
33Consuesco . ic gewunige .ÆGr 165.8 consuesco ic gewunige
34Comprimo . ic ofþricce .ÆGr 170.4 comprimo ic samod ofðrycce
35Claudo . ic beluce .ÆGr 171.4 claudo ic beluce
36Succido . ic ceorfe .ÆGr 172.3 succido ic forceorfe
37Extinguo . ic acwence .ÆGr 174.4–5 extinguo ic acwence
38Construo . ic timbrige .ÆGr 175.11 struo and construo ic timbrige
39Consequor . ic begyte .ÆGr 186.3–4 consequor ic begyte
40Sisto . ic sette .ÆGr 203.8 sisto ic sette

Notes on Glossary I

The first glossary features glossae collectae from ÆGr (plus one entry from ÆGl) organized to build a collection of grammatical terms, which includes definitions of the parts of speech (for example 12 Coniunctio : geþodnys ‘junction’), adjectives (for example 2 Simplex : ánfeald ‘uncompounded’, 3 Composita : gefeged ‘compounded’), nouns (15 Sagene : sǽnét ‘fishing net’; 16 Cunabulum : cidcradel ‘cradle’), and especially verbs, all equipped with Old English equivalents (which are also derived from ÆGr and ÆGl). Several entries have more than one occurrence.

1Signifer : tacenberend ‘standard-bearer’ (see BT s.v. tacn-berend) not only corresponds to the passage of ÆGr noted by Liebermann, but also parallels ÆGl 317.20.

4Optauimus stands for optatiuus ‘optative’.

5Vtinam and eala are always employed within brief sentences in ÆGr; the entry Vtinam : eala ‘o that!’ in Glossary I is a good example of how the compiler reworked the material from ÆGr into word-pairs.

6–7, 9 Three glosses related to the verb amare ‘to love’. 9 Amaueritis : þa ða ge lufedan shows that the glossator confused amaueritis ‘you [pl.] would love’ (or ‘you [pl.] will have loved’, if intended as a future perfect) with amauissetis ‘you [pl.] would have loved’.

12Coniunctio : geþodnys ‘junction’ parallels ÆGr 257.16–258.1 rather than the passage indicated by Liebermann (ÆGr 129.15), which refers to coniugatio uerborum ‘conjugation of verbs’ and not coniunctio ‘conjunction’. This is another instance that shows that the compiler reworked the Ælfrician material into word-pairs.

14Commoda mihi III panes : læn me þreo hlafas ‘lend me three loaves’ is presumably drawn from ÆGr 135.7–8 commoda mihi librum ad legendum : læne me ða boc to rædenne ‘lend me the book to read’; however, the entry is somewhat shorter than its source and also differs in the noun used as example (boc ‘book’, instead of hlafas ‘loaves’). Liebermann (1894: 414 n. 5) convincingly proposes a reference to Luke xi.5, which perhaps influenced the adaptation of ÆGr 135.7–8 into this gloss.

15–16 Lemmata 15 and 16 are written on the same line [= 57r/E15], with the interpretamenta on the line below. Cidcradel stands for cildcradel ‘child’s cradle’.

17–40 A group of first-person singular indicative present verbs, which were glossed by the corresponding vernacular verb form introduced by the personal pronoun ic. This batch of verbs was mostly excerpted from the chapter on the Latin third conjugation of ÆGr, but with some interpolations: second-conjugation verbs (glosses 28–30: Studeo : ic gecnyrdlæce ‘I study’, Floreo : ic blowe ‘I flourish’, Vigeo : ic strangige ‘I grow strong’); first-passive conjugation (31 Zelor : ic andige ‘I envy [sb./sth.]’). A further two first-passive conjugation verbs are found earlier in the glossary: 10 Consolor : ic gefrefrige ‘I comfort [sb.]’; 11 Gratulor : ic blissige ‘I rejoice’. However, it is worth noting that the compiler also included a third-passive conjugation verb (gloss 39 Consequor : ic begyte ‘I pursue [sb./sth.]’); and a defective third-conjugation verb (40 Sisto : ic sette ‘I set, place [sth.]’). The latter is derived from a section of ÆGr which is different from the one that served as a source for the other verbs. This suggests that the glossator deliberately selected this verb because its conjugation agrees with the other third-conjugation verbs. Furthermore, in cases where ÆGr has more than one vernacular equivalent, the glossator chose only one interpretamentum, as in 30 Vigeo : ic strangige ‘I grow strong’ and 25 Confundo : ic gemencge ‘I mingle [sth]’.

23Ácuo : íc hẃette ‘I whet [sth.]’ doubles gloss 18. In this second instance, the glossator included accent marks; moreover, the interpretamentum is written vertically in what seems to be a different ink. It is possible that the scribe mistakenly copied acuo twice and added the interpretamentum only when revising the text.

32 Lippus : sureagede ‘blear-eyed’ (see BT s.v. sureagede) is the only adjective of this section; it is drawn from ÆGr’s chapter on fourth-conjugation Latin verbs.

35Comprimo : ic ofþricce ‘I press [sth.]’ is another instance in which the glossator built a word-pair, this time by omitting samod ‘together’.

4.2 Glossary II (see Figure 2)

Barlow 35, fol. 57v/1–19Parallels in ÆGr and ÆGl (ed. Zupitza 1880)Letters written above the lemma
41Herba græs oððe wyrt .ÆGl 310.8 herba gærs oððe wyrt
42Allium . leac .ÆGl 310.8 allium leac
43Dilla . docca .ÆGl 310.8 dilla doccail
44Lubestica . lufestie .ÆGl 310.8–9 libestica lufestice
45Febrefug[ia] . feferfugiæ .ÆGl 310.9 febrefugia feferfugjeebr
46Simfoniaca . hennebelleÆGl 310.9 simphoniaca hennebelleimf
47Auadonia . feltwyrt .ÆGl 310.10 avadonia feltwyrt
48Aprotanum . suþerne wudu .ÆGl 310.10 aprotanum suðerne wudu
49Sinittia . grundswelige .ÆGl 310.10–11 sinitia grundesweligeinit
50 Feniculum . finol .ÆGl 310.11 feniculum finolerased: en?
51Anetum . dile .ÆGl 310.11 anetum dile
52Electrum . elehtre .ÆGl 310.11–12 electrum elehtrelec
53Malua . hocleaf .ÆGl 310.12 malua hocleafalu
54Malua crispa . simeringwyrt .ÆGl 310.12 malua crispa simæringcwyrt
55Polipedium . hremmes fot .ÆGl 310.12–13 polipedium hremmes foterased: oli?
56Consolda . dæges eage .ÆGl 310.13 consolda dæges eageons
57Solsequium . solsece .ÆGl 310.13–14 solsequium solseceols
58Slarigia . slaræge .ÆGl 310.14 slaregia slaregelar
59Adriaca . galluc .ÆGl 310.14 adriaca gallucdri
60Ruta . rude .ÆGl 310.14 ruta rudeut
61Betonica . seo læsse bisceopwyrt .ÆGl 310.14–15 betonica seo læsse bisceopwyrtet
62Petrocilinum . petersylige .ÆGl 310.15 petrocilinum petersyligepartly erased – illegible
63Costa . cost .ÆGl 311.1 costa cost
64Epicurium . halswyrt .ÆGl 311.1 epicurium halswyrtpic
65Millefolium . geruwe .ÆGl 311.1 millefolium geareweill
66Tanicetum . helde .ÆGl 311.1–2 tanicetum heldeani
67Saxifriga . sundcorn .ÆGl 311.2 saxifriga sundcornaxi
68Citsona . fanu .ÆGl 311.2 citsana fanaits
69Calamus . ł canna . ł arundo . hreod .ÆGl 311.2–3 calamus ł canna ł arundo hreodalam
70Papauer . papig .ÆGl 311.3 papauer papigap
71Absinthium . wærmod .ÆGl 311.3 absinthium wermod
72Vrtica . netele .ÆGl 311.4 urtica netlerti
73Archangelica . blindnetele .ÆGl 311.4 archangelica blindnetle
74Plantago . wegbræde .ÆGl 311.4 plantago wegbrædelant
75Quinquefolium . fifleafe .ÆGl 311.5 quinquefolium fifleafeuinq (partly erased)
76Vinca . perfince .ÆGl 311.5 uinca perfinceinc
77Marubium . hárhune .ÆGl 311.5 marubium harhunearub
78Camicula . argentilla .ÆGl 311.6 camicula argentille
79Fraga . strewberian wisan .ÆGl 311.6 fraga streowberjan wisanpartly erased: rag?
80Ciminum . cymen .ÆGl 311.6–7 ciminum cymen
81Modera . cicena mete .ÆGl 311.7 modera cicena meteod (partly erased)
82Apium . merce .ÆGl 311.7 apium mercepi
83Lappa . clate . oððe clifwyrt .ÆGl 311.7–8 lappa clate oððe clifwyrtlap
84Helena . horselene .ÆGl 311.8 helena horseleneel
85Sandix . wad .ÆGl 311.8 sandix wadand
86Caula . caul .ÆGl 311.8–9 caula ł magudaris cawul
87Cresco . cærse .ÆGl 311.9 cresco cærse
88Mente . minta .ÆGl 311.9 menta minteent
89Cerpillum . fille .ÆGl 311.9 serpillum filleerp
90Artemesia . mugcwyrt .ÆGl 311.10 artemesia mugcwyrt
91Saluia . saluie .ÆGl 311.10 saluia salujealu
92Fel terre . ł . centaria . eorðgealla .ÆGl 311.10–11 fel terrae ł centauria eorðgeallael
93Ambrosia . hindheoleoð .ÆGl 311.11 ambrosia hindheolað
94Pionia .ÆGl 311.11 pioniapartly erased: io?
95Mandragora .ÆGl 311.11 mandragoraand
96Pollegia . hulwyrt .ÆGl 311.11–12 pollegia hylwyrt oððe dweorge dwesleoll
97Organum . organeÆGl 311.12 organum organerg
98Cardux . þistel .ÆGl 311.13 cardus þistelpartly erased: ard?
99Hermodactula . crawanleac .ÆGl 311.13 hermodactula ł tidolosa crawan leacerm
100Pastinata . wealmoru .ÆGl 311.13–14 pastinaca wealmorupartly erased: ast?
101Lilium . lilige .ÆGl 311.14 lilium liljelil
102Rosa . rose .ÆGl 311.14 rosa roseor
103Viola . clæfre .ÆGl 311.14 uiola clæfreiol
104Agrimonia . garclife .ÆGl 311.14–15 agrimonia garclife
105Rafanum . rædic .ÆGl 311.15 rafanum rædicaf
106Filex . fearn .ÆGl 311.15 filex fearnile
107Carex . segc .ÆGl 311.15 carex sege
108Iuncus . ł . scirpus . rixsÆGl 311.16 iuncus ł scirpus riscunc
109Sabina . sauene .ÆGl 312.9 sabina saueneab
110Epiaster . merce .ÆGr 27.8 apiaster merce; ÆGl 311.7 apium mercepia
111Malagma . cliþa .ÆGr 33.13; ÆGl 302.18 malagma cliðaalag

Notes on Glossary II

Glossary II is a collection of plant names; it includes only nouns and is the most extended of the three glossaries in Barlow 35. Its layout differs from Glossaries I and III, the entries being written continuously rather than in columns. As noted by Liebermann (1894: 414) and Ker (1957: 356), the second glossary almost entirely derives from the chapter Nomina herbarum of ÆGl. Therefore, analogues to the second Barlow 35 glossary occur in similar chapters on plant names in Latin-Old English class glossaries such as the Antwerp-London class glossary, the Brussels Glossary and the Second Cleopatra Glossary, as well as the two twelfth-century alphabetical herbal glossaries known as Durham Glossary and Laud Herbal Glossary.5 The second Barlow 35 glossary is a faithful rendition of its Ælfrician source, almost without any omission or variation in order,6 and also includes the two entries that are not glossed in ÆGl (94 Pionia ‘peony’ and 95 Mandragora ‘mandrake’). Glossary II would therefore be of little interest, were it not for a particular palaeographic and metatextual feature. Above most of the lemmata, a later hand, of the twelfth century, rewrote some of the letters of the Latin words. These letters are mostly the second, third, and fourth letters of the lemma, with omission of initials; however, in some cases, these ‘tags’ extend beyond the fourth or reproduce the first, second, and third letters. It is likely that, in most cases, this later scribe felt no need to mark the initials of the lemmata because they are capitalized. The reason behind these ‘tags’ is not immediately clear; to my knowledge, this feature is not paralleled by any other glossary of the period. According to Liebermann (1894: 414), this intervention is aimed as a concession to later readership to facilitate reading; Ker (1957: 356) states that “[t]he script [insular letter-forms, high e ligatures] offended a twelfth-century reader who put in some letters of most of the Latin lemmata on f. 57 v in their normal caroline forms”, an explanation with which Doane (2007: 80) seems to agree. According to Faulkner (2008: 74), “graphs common to Caroline and insular minuscules (like b and l) are among those transcribed, which suggests that the transliterator’s main interest was in the morphology of the script. It is possible he was learning to imitate a pre-Conquest hand”. The hypothesis is tempting, although this would not explain why this feature involves only specific lemmata and their initial letters. In my opinion, the later scribe of Barlow 35 may have selected some words in order to alphabetize them at a later stage; the rewriting of letters above the lemmata represents a ‘tag’ for a reshuffling and later ordering of the words in ABC‑, or even ABCD-order. Latin-Old English alphabetical glossaries “underwent progressive refinement”, and this kind of arrangement is found in a work such as the Harley Glossary, which was copied at around the same time as the glossaries in Barlow 35 and is in ABC-order, with “traces of attempts to arrive at an ABCD-order” (Lendinara 1999: 16). The hypothesis that these marks were a means to prepare alphabetization is also paralleled by the glossarial activity of the period: the Durham Glossary and the Laud Herbal Glossary are in A‑ and AB-alphabetical order; they also embed material from earlier Latin-Old English glossaries (see Pheifer 1974: xxxviii–xxxix; Rusche 2003; Rusche 2008). To these parallels, one might also add that the chapter on plant names in the Brussels Glossary shows sporadic traces of alphabetization (Rusche 2003: 182).

Glosses 109–111 deserve some further comment. They are essentially additions to the chapter of Nomina herbarum. Liebermann (1894: 414–415) argued that they derive from a different part of ÆGr and ÆGl (“Hierauf folgen drei Glossen, die bei Ælfric an anderer Stelle stehen”). Gloss 109, Sabina : sauene, is from ÆGl, as Liebermann notes (more specifically, it is an entry from the chapter Nomina arborum); but glosses 110–111 may actually derive from ÆGl rather than from ÆGr, as suggested by Liebermann. Gloss 110, Epiaster : merce, is by all means a variant of gloss 82 Apium : merce, while gloss 111 parallels an entry of ÆGl’s chapter Nomina membrorum. Most importantly, it seems that the compiler of the second glossary in Barlow 35 added these entries because they were thought to fit with the other plant names. Sabina refers to the ‘savin juniper’, a shrub (see BT s.v. safine). Apiaster is an ‘umbelliferous plant’, perhaps the melissa officinalis or lemon balm (DMLBS s.v. apiaster). A malagma (Greek μάλαγμα) is an ‘emollient, poultice’ (DMLBS s.v. malagma ), which suggests that the compiler’s interest in herbs also extended to their practical use. Notably, these additions fit with the selection of material found in other herbal glossaries. The gloss Sabina : sauine is found in the Laud Herbal Glossary, no. 1299 (Stracke 1974: 59); the same glossary also includes the entry 171 Apiaster : wude merche (Stracke 1974: 25). Apiaster : vude-merce is also in the Durham Glossary, no. 33 (von Lindheim 1941: 9). The chapter on plant names in the Brussels Glossary features the entries 305 Apium : merce and 394 Malagma : sealf (Rusche 1996: 562, 564), while the AntwerpLondon class glossary includes 1018 Apiaster : wude merce (Porter 2011 a: 74).

4.3 Glossary III (see Figure 2)

Barlow 35, fol. 57 v, cols. A-FParallels in ÆGr and ÆGl (ed. Zupitza 1880)
A112Stragula . wæstlincg .ÆGl 314.18 stragula wæstlingc
113Sagum hwitel .ÆGl 314.18 sagum hwitel
114Pluuinar . pyle .ÆGl 314.18 puluinar pyle
115Turribulum . storcylle .ÆGl 314.6 thuribulum storcylle
116Pons . brygc .ÆGl 313.3–4 pons brygc
117Vadum . ford .ÆGl 313.4 uadum ford
B118Pratum . mæd .ÆGl 313.4 pratum mæd
119Aqua .wæter .ÆGl 313.4 aqua wæter
120Gutta . ł stilla . dropa .ÆGl 313.4–5 gutta ł stilla dropa
121Stagnum . mere .ÆGl 313.5 stagnum mere
122Amnis . eâ .ÆGl 313.5 amnis ea
123Flumen . flod .ÆGl 313.5–6 flumen ł flumenus flod
C124Ripa . stæð .ÆGl 313.6 ripa stæp
125Litus . sǽstrand .ÆGl 313.6 litus sæstrand
126Alueus . stream .ÆGl 313.6 alueus stream
127Torrens . burna .ÆGl 313.6–7 torrens burna
128Riuus . riðe .ÆGl 313.7 riuus rið
129Fons . wyll .ÆGl 313.7 fons wyll
130Arena . sandceosol .ÆGl 313.7 arena sandceosol
D131Gurges . wyl .ÆGl 313.7–8 gurges wæl
132Viuarium . fiscpol .ÆGl 313.8 uiuarium fiscpol
133Latex . burna . oððe broc .ÆGl 313.8–9 latex burna oððe broc
134Stimulus . gád .ÆGl 304.3 stimulus gad
135Aculeus . sticels .ÆGl 304.3 aculeus sticels
E136Equor . sǽ .ÆGl 297.9 mare ł aequor
137Maneo . ic wunige .ÆGr 155.17–156.1 maneo ic wunige
138Cigeo . ic laþige .ÆGr 156.15 cico ic gelaðige
139Lugeo . ic heofige .ÆGr 156.5–6 lugeo ic heofige
140Studeo . ic gecnyrdlæce .ÆGr 154.5 studeo ic gecnyrdlæce
141Horreo . iĉ andþracige .ÆGr 212.3–4 horreo ic anðracyge
142Suadeo . iĉ tihte .ÆGr 155.5–6 suadeo ic tyhte
F143Vigeo . ic strangie .ÆGr 154.15 uigeo ic strangige oððe geðeo
144Subaudis . is word .ÆGr 151.2 svbavdis ys word
145Subaudio . ic underhluste .ÆGr 151.2–3 subaudio ic underhlyste
146Subaudis . þú underhlyst .ÆGr 151.3 subaudis ðu underhlyst
147Subaudit . he underhlyst .ÆGr 151.3–4 subaudit he underhlyst

Notes on Glossary III

As noted above, Glossary III is comprised of two main parts:

112–136 Glosses from ÆGl; four from Nomina domorum (112–115);7 a large excerpt from Nomina arborum (116–133), which mostly includes names of elements of landscape; two entries from Nomina membrorum (134–135); and a gloss, derived from the opening chapter of ÆGl (136 Equor : ‘sea’),8 which is thematically close to the glosses taken from Nomina arborum. All batches generally retain the order of their source and do not show any sign of re-arrangement.

137–147 A batch of verbs from ÆGr, mostly drawn from the chapter on the Latin second conjugation. This batch does not feature interpolations, except for gloss 141 Horreo : iĉ andþracige ‘I dread [sth.]’, which is a second-conjugation verb derived from the chapter on inchoative verbs, and that was not copied in its inchoative form (ÆGr 212.4 horresco ic onginne to anðracigenne ‘I begin to dread [sth.]’). This, again, suggests that the glossator deliberately selected verbs on the basis of their conjugation.9 As in Glossary I, these entries are first-person singular indicative present forms. On the other hand, glosses 144–147 all refer to the three singular persons of the indicative present of subaudio, which, although technically a fourth-conjugation verb, is nevertheless taken from the same chapter as the other verbs (subaudio is mentioned as part of an example related to the second-conjugation verb docere in ÆGr 150.21–151.4). These final entries are especially notable for the interpretamenta ic underhlyste, ðu underhlyst, he underhlyst, which are loan translations of the Latin lemmata (subaudio = sub + audio : under + hlyste) and, along with the derivate form underhlystunge (151.1), are not elsewhere attested other than in ÆGr.

5 Conclusions

The evidence suggests that whoever compiled the three Ælfrician glossaries copied in Barlow 35 had selected material from ÆGr and ÆGl and reorganized it in thematic series.10 This is particularly evident in the case of the material derived from ÆGr, which was employed to build word-pairs and series of verbs mostly based on Latin conjugations. In this context, it is perhaps not surprising that the first glossary continues the series of Synonyma pseudo-Ciceronis, betraying a similar interest in verbs. Accordingly, the third glossary – which is informed by the same principles as the first one – also features the same layout in columns found in the Synonyma and in the first glossary.11 Furthermore, a gloss such as 14 Commoda mihi III panes : læn me þreo hlafas shows that the compiler did not simply copy the glosses but sometimes reworked them (or worked on a copy where such changes were already found). This aspect is also demonstrated by the adaptation of material from ÆGr into word-pairs (for example 5 Vtinam : eala; 12 Coniunctio : geþodnys); by the simplification of entries which originally included more than one lemma or interpretamentum (for example 25 Confundo : ic gemencge; 86 Caula : caul); and by mistakes (9 Amaueritis : þa ða ge lufedan). The second glossary differs from I and III in layout and in that it is a faithful copy of its source. However, it also shows traces of re-organization – namely, the addition of three glosses to the chapter, an addition which fits with compilations of plant lists of the period. The most interesting aspect of Glossary II is perhaps the intervention of a later, twelfth-century reader who ‘tagged’ specific Latin lemmata by rewriting their initial letters in the space between the lines. I have suggested that these mark-ups tagged words to prepare an alphabetization in ABC-, or even ABCDorder, a hypothesis that is based on parallels with the organizational criterium of alphabetical glossaries of the period such as the Harley Glossary and the Laud and Durham herbal glossaries. However, Glossary II also shows a thematic unity with Glossary III, which includes an excerpt from the chapter on the name of trees of ÆGl. This excerpt is focused on elements of landscape. Overall, the use of material from ÆGr and ÆGl in the three Ælfrician glossaries in Barlow 35 bears witness to the interests of the glossator, who produced three brief class glossaries with a selection of Latin grammatical terms and verbs, as well as sections devoted to discrete lexica, such as plant names and elements of landscape. The twelfthcentury additions show that this selection was of interest to at least one later reader of the manuscript.12

Works Cited

  • Alcamesi, Filippa. 2010. “Ælfric’s Interrogationes Sigewulfi in Genesin: An Educational Dialogue”. In: Rolf H. Bremmer Jr and Kees Dekker (eds.). Practice in Learning: The Transfer of Encyclopaedic Knowledge in the Early Middle Ages. Leuven: Peeters. 175–202.

  • [Bischoff, Bernhard]. 1997. Handschriftenarchiv Bernhard Bischoff (Bibliotheca der Monumenta Germaniae Historica, HS. Cl, C2). Ed. Arno Mentzel-Reuters, mit einem Verzeichnis der beschriebenen Handschriften von Zdenka Stoklaskova und Marcus Stumpf. Microfiche edition. Monumenta Germaniae Historica Hilfsmittel 16. Munich: MGH. Available online at <http://www.mgh-bibliothek.de/archiv/hs/hs_c_0001_001.htm>.

  • BT = Bosworth, Joseph and T. Northcote Toller (eds.). 1882–1898. An Anglo-Saxon Dictionary. Based on the Manuscript Collections of the Late Joseph Bosworth. London: Oxford University Press. Supplement by T. Northcote Toller. 1921. Oxford: Clarendon. Available online at <http://bosworth.ff.cuni.cz/>.

  • Buckalew, Roland E. 1978. “Leland’s Transcript of Ælfric’s ‘Glossary’”. Anglo-Saxon England 7: 149–164. Repr. in Christine Franzen (ed.). 2012. Ashgate Critical Essays on Early English Lexicographers. Volume I: Old English. Farnham: Ashgate. 579–594.

  • Butler, Marilyn S. 1981. “An Edition of the Early Middle English Copy of Ælfric’s ‘Grammar’ and ‘Glossary’ in Worcester Cathedral MS F.174”. Unpubl. PhD dissertation, Pennsylvania State University.

  • Cataldi, Claudio. 2019. “Nomina membrorum in Oxford, Bodleian Library, MS Bodley 730”. Journal of English and Germanic Philology 118: 468–485.

  • DMLBS = Latham, Ronald E., David R. Howlett, and Richard K. Ashdowne (eds). 1975–2013. The Dictionary of Medieval Latin from British Sources. London: British Academy. Available online from ΛΟΓΕΙΟΝ at <https://logeion.uchicago.edu/>.

  • Doane, A. N. 2007. Grammars: Handlist of Manuscripts. Anglo-Saxon Manuscripts in Microfiche Facsimile 15. Tempe, AZ: Arizona Center for Medieval and Renaissance Studies.

  • Faulkner, Mark. 2008. “The Uses of Anglo-Saxon Manuscripts c. 1066–1200”. Unpubl. PhD dissertation, University of Oxford.

  • Gneuss, Helmut. 1990. “The Study of Language in Anglo-Saxon England”. Bulletin of the John Rylands Library 72: 3–32.

  • Gneuss, Helmut and Michael Lapidge. 2014. Anglo-Saxon Manuscripts: A Bibliographical Handlist of Manuscripts and Manuscript Fragments Written or Owned in England up to 1100. Toronto/Buffalo, NY/London: University of Toronto Press.

  • Hill, Joyce. 2007. “Ælfric’s Grammatical Triad”. In: Patrizia Lendinara, Loredana Lazzari and Maria Amalia D’Aronco (eds.). Form and Content of Instruction in Anglo-Saxon England in the Light of Contemporary Manuscript Evidence. Turnhout: Brepols. 285–308.

  • Hunt, Tony (ed.). 1991. Teaching and Learning Latin in Thirteenth-Century England. 3 vols. Cambridge: Brewer.

  • Ker, Neil R. 1957. Catalogue of Manuscripts Containing Anglo-Saxon. Oxford: Clarendon.

  • Kleist, Aaron J. 2019. The Chronology and Canon of Ælfric of Eynsham. Cambridge: Brewer.

  • Lazzari, Loredana. 2003. “Il Glossario latino-inglese antico nel manoscritto di Anversa e Londra ed il Glossario di Ælfric: Dipendenza diretta o derivazione comune?”. Linguistica e filologia 16: 159–190.

  • Lendinara, Patrizia. 1999. Anglo-Saxon Glosses and Glossaries. Ashgate: Aldershot.

  • Lendinara, Patrizia. 2009. “Glossari anglosassoni per argomenti: Gebrauchstexte oder nicht?”. In: Letizia Vezzosi (ed.). La letteratura tecnico-scientifica nel medioevo germanico: Fachliteratur e Gebrauchstexte. Alessandria: Edizioni dell’Orso. 119–144.

  • Lendinara, Patrizia. 2011. “The Scholica Graecarum glossarum and Martianus Capella”. In: Sinéad O’Sullivan and Mariken Teeuwen (eds.). Carolingian Scholarship and Martianus Capella: Ninth-Century Commentary Traditions on ‘De nuptiis’ in Context. Turnhout: Brepols. 301–361.

  • Liebermann, Felix. 1894. “Aus Aelfrics Grammatik und Glossar”. Archiv für das Studium der neueren Sprachen und Literaturen 92: 413–415.

  • Lindheim, Bogislav von (ed.). 1941. Das Durhamer Pflanzenglossar Lateinisch und Altenglisch. Bochum-Langendreer: Pöppinghaus.

  • Liuzza, Roy. 2010. Anglo-Saxon Prognostics: An Edition and Translation of Texts from London, British Library, MS Cotton Tiberius A.iii. Cambridge: Brewer.

  • Madan, Falconer, H. H. E. Craster and N. Denholm-Young. 1937. A Summary Catalogue of Western Manuscripts in the Bodleian Library at Oxford which have not hitherto been Catalogued in the Quarto Series: With References to the Oriental and other Manuscripts. Vol. 2.2. Oxford: Clarendon.

  • Menzer, Melinda. 2004. “Ælfric’s English ‘Grammar’”. Journal of English and Germanic Philology 103: 106–124.

  • Pagan, Heather and Annina Seiler. 2019. “Multilingual Annotations in Ælfric’s Glossary in London, British Library, Cotton Faustina A.x: A Commented Edition”. Early Middle English 2: 13–64.

  • Pettit, Edward. 1999. “Anglo-Saxon Charms in Oxford, Bodleian Library MS Barlow 35”. Nottingham Medieval Studies 43: 33–46.

  • Pheifer, J. D. (ed.). 1974. Old English Glosses in the Épinal-Erfurt Glossary. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

  • Porter, David W. (ed.). 2011 a. The Antwerp-London Glossaries: The Latin and Latin-Old English Vocabularies from Antwerp, Museum Plantin-Moretus 16.2 – London, British Library Add. 32246. Volume 1: Texts and Indexes. Toronto: Pontifical Institute of Mediaeval Studies.

  • Porter, David W. 2011 b. “The Antwerp-London Glossaries and the First English School Text”. In: Patrizia Lendinara, Loredana Lazzari and Claudia Di Sciacca (eds.). Rethinking and Recontextualizing Glosses: New Perspectives in the Study of Late Anglo-Saxon Glossography. Porto: Fédération internationale des instituts d’études médiévales. 153–177.

  • Porter, David W. 2018. “The Antwerp-London a-Order Glossary and the Manuscripts of Ælfric”. In: Claudia Di Sciacca, Concetta Giliberto, Carmela Rizzo and Loredana Teresi (eds.). Studies on Late Antique and Medieval Germanic Glossography and Lexicography in Honour of Patrizia Lendinara. 2 vols. Pisa: ETS. II, 587–603.

  • Rusche, Philip G. 1996. “The Cleopatra Glossaries: An Edition with Commentary on the Glosses and their Sources”. Unpubl. PhD dissertation, Yale University.

  • Rusche, Philip G. 2003. “Dioscorides’ De materia medica and Late Old English Herbal Glossaries”. In: Carole P. Biggam (ed.). From Earth to Art: The Many Aspects of the Plant-World in Anglo-Saxon England. Proceedings of the First ASPNS Symposium, University of Glasgow, 5–7 April 2000. Amsterdam: Rodopi. 181–194.

  • Rusche, Philip G. 2008. “The Sources for Plant Names in Anglo-Saxon England and the Laud Herbal Glossary”. In: Peter Dendle and Alain Touwaide (eds.). Health and Healing from the Medieval Garden. Woodbridge: Boydell. 128–144.

  • Sauer, Hans and Elisabeth Kubaschewski. 2018. Planting the Seeds of Knowledge: An Inventory of Old English Plant Names. Munich: Utz.

  • Stokes, Peter A. 2014. English Vernacular Minuscule from Æthelred to Cnut c. 990–c. 1035. Cambridge: Brewer.

  • Stracke, Richard J. (ed.). 1974. The Laud Herbal Glossary. Amsterdam: Rodopi.

  • Zupitza, Julius (ed.). 1880. Aelfrics Grammatik und Glossar: Text und Varianten. Berlin: Weidmannsche Buchhandlung. Repr. 2001 with a new introduction by Helmut Gneuss. Hildesheim: Weidmann.

Figure 1
Figure 1

Oxford, Bodleian Library, Barlow 35, fol. 57 r; Glossary I begins in col. D with the first lemma “Signifer”. © Reproduced by permission of The Bodleian Library, University of Oxford

Citation: Anglia 138, 2; 10.1515/ang-2020-0020

Figure 2
Figure 2

Oxford, Bodleian Library, Barlow 35, fol. 57 v © Reproduced by permission of The Bodleian Library, University of Oxford

Citation: Anglia 138, 2; 10.1515/ang-2020-0020

Footnotes

1

Cf. Ker (1957: 356) and Doane (2007: 80).

3

On the sources and aims of ÆGr, see Gneuss (1990); Menzer (2004).

4

For an overview of Latin-Old English class glossaries, see Lendinara (2009). Edition of the Antwerp-London class glossary in Porter (2011a); editions of the Second Cleopatra Glossary and of the Brussels Glossary in Rusche (1996).

5

On Old English plant names and related chapters in Latin-Old English glossaries, see Pheifer (1974: xxxviii–xxxix); Rusche (2003); Rusche (2008); Sauer and Kubaschewski (2018).

6

As in Glossary I, there is a tendency towards simplification: see glosses 86, 96, 99, in which the glossator dropped either the second lemma or the second interpretamentum occurring in ÆGl.

7

On stragula, see also Lendinara (1999: 57–58).

8

Although Liebermann (1894: 415) states that the latter is drawn from ÆGr 155.17, there is no related occurrence in the text.

9

Note that gloss 143 Vigeo : ic strangie repeats gloss 30.

10

A comparison with the variants recorded in Zupitza’s apparatus does not reveal significant analogies with any of the manuscripts used in his edition, except for a few correspondences shared by Cambridge, Corpus Christi College, 449 (Zupitza’s ‘C’) and glosses 68, 72, 78, 86, 89; and by London, British Library, Cotton Julius A.ii (Zupitza’s ‘J’) and glosses 1, 15, 78, 86.

11

I am currently working on an edition of the version of the Synonyma pseudo-Ciceronis in Barlow 35.

12

I am most thankful to Patrizia Lendinara (Università degli Studi di Palermo) for commenting on earlier drafts of this paper and suggesting improvements. I would like to show my gratitude to the Bodleian Library for providing me with reproductions of manuscript Barlow 35 and for the permission to use them in this study.

If the inline PDF is not rendering correctly, you can download the PDF file here.

  • Alcamesi, Filippa. 2010. “Ælfric’s Interrogationes Sigewulfi in Genesin: An Educational Dialogue”. In: Rolf H. Bremmer Jr and Kees Dekker (eds.). Practice in Learning: The Transfer of Encyclopaedic Knowledge in the Early Middle Ages. Leuven: Peeters. 175–202.

  • [Bischoff, Bernhard]. 1997. Handschriftenarchiv Bernhard Bischoff (Bibliotheca der Monumenta Germaniae Historica, HS. Cl, C2). Ed. Arno Mentzel-Reuters, mit einem Verzeichnis der beschriebenen Handschriften von Zdenka Stoklaskova und Marcus Stumpf. Microfiche edition. Monumenta Germaniae Historica Hilfsmittel 16. Munich: MGH. Available online at <http://www.mgh-bibliothek.de/archiv/hs/hs_c_0001_001.htm>.

  • BT = Bosworth, Joseph and T. Northcote Toller (eds.). 1882–1898. An Anglo-Saxon Dictionary. Based on the Manuscript Collections of the Late Joseph Bosworth. London: Oxford University Press. Supplement by T. Northcote Toller. 1921. Oxford: Clarendon. Available online at <http://bosworth.ff.cuni.cz/>.

  • Buckalew, Roland E. 1978. “Leland’s Transcript of Ælfric’s ‘Glossary’”. Anglo-Saxon England 7: 149–164. Repr. in Christine Franzen (ed.). 2012. Ashgate Critical Essays on Early English Lexicographers. Volume I: Old English. Farnham: Ashgate. 579–594.

  • Butler, Marilyn S. 1981. “An Edition of the Early Middle English Copy of Ælfric’s ‘Grammar’ and ‘Glossary’ in Worcester Cathedral MS F.174”. Unpubl. PhD dissertation, Pennsylvania State University.

  • Cataldi, Claudio. 2019. “Nomina membrorum in Oxford, Bodleian Library, MS Bodley 730”. Journal of English and Germanic Philology 118: 468–485.

  • DMLBS = Latham, Ronald E., David R. Howlett, and Richard K. Ashdowne (eds). 1975–2013. The Dictionary of Medieval Latin from British Sources. London: British Academy. Available online from ΛΟΓΕΙΟΝ at <https://logeion.uchicago.edu/>.

  • Doane, A. N. 2007. Grammars: Handlist of Manuscripts. Anglo-Saxon Manuscripts in Microfiche Facsimile 15. Tempe, AZ: Arizona Center for Medieval and Renaissance Studies.

  • Faulkner, Mark. 2008. “The Uses of Anglo-Saxon Manuscripts c. 1066–1200”. Unpubl. PhD dissertation, University of Oxford.

  • Gneuss, Helmut. 1990. “The Study of Language in Anglo-Saxon England”. Bulletin of the John Rylands Library 72: 3–32.

  • Gneuss, Helmut and Michael Lapidge. 2014. Anglo-Saxon Manuscripts: A Bibliographical Handlist of Manuscripts and Manuscript Fragments Written or Owned in England up to 1100. Toronto/Buffalo, NY/London: University of Toronto Press.

  • Hill, Joyce. 2007. “Ælfric’s Grammatical Triad”. In: Patrizia Lendinara, Loredana Lazzari and Maria Amalia D’Aronco (eds.). Form and Content of Instruction in Anglo-Saxon England in the Light of Contemporary Manuscript Evidence. Turnhout: Brepols. 285–308.

  • Hunt, Tony (ed.). 1991. Teaching and Learning Latin in Thirteenth-Century England. 3 vols. Cambridge: Brewer.

  • Ker, Neil R. 1957. Catalogue of Manuscripts Containing Anglo-Saxon. Oxford: Clarendon.

  • Kleist, Aaron J. 2019. The Chronology and Canon of Ælfric of Eynsham. Cambridge: Brewer.

  • Lazzari, Loredana. 2003. “Il Glossario latino-inglese antico nel manoscritto di Anversa e Londra ed il Glossario di Ælfric: Dipendenza diretta o derivazione comune?”. Linguistica e filologia 16: 159–190.

  • Lendinara, Patrizia. 1999. Anglo-Saxon Glosses and Glossaries. Ashgate: Aldershot.

  • Lendinara, Patrizia. 2009. “Glossari anglosassoni per argomenti: Gebrauchstexte oder nicht?”. In: Letizia Vezzosi (ed.). La letteratura tecnico-scientifica nel medioevo germanico: Fachliteratur e Gebrauchstexte. Alessandria: Edizioni dell’Orso. 119–144.

  • Lendinara, Patrizia. 2011. “The Scholica Graecarum glossarum and Martianus Capella”. In: Sinéad O’Sullivan and Mariken Teeuwen (eds.). Carolingian Scholarship and Martianus Capella: Ninth-Century Commentary Traditions on ‘De nuptiis’ in Context. Turnhout: Brepols. 301–361.

  • Liebermann, Felix. 1894. “Aus Aelfrics Grammatik und Glossar”. Archiv für das Studium der neueren Sprachen und Literaturen 92: 413–415.

  • Lindheim, Bogislav von (ed.). 1941. Das Durhamer Pflanzenglossar Lateinisch und Altenglisch. Bochum-Langendreer: Pöppinghaus.

  • Liuzza, Roy. 2010. Anglo-Saxon Prognostics: An Edition and Translation of Texts from London, British Library, MS Cotton Tiberius A.iii. Cambridge: Brewer.

  • Madan, Falconer, H. H. E. Craster and N. Denholm-Young. 1937. A Summary Catalogue of Western Manuscripts in the Bodleian Library at Oxford which have not hitherto been Catalogued in the Quarto Series: With References to the Oriental and other Manuscripts. Vol. 2.2. Oxford: Clarendon.

  • Menzer, Melinda. 2004. “Ælfric’s English ‘Grammar’”. Journal of English and Germanic Philology 103: 106–124.

  • Pagan, Heather and Annina Seiler. 2019. “Multilingual Annotations in Ælfric’s Glossary in London, British Library, Cotton Faustina A.x: A Commented Edition”. Early Middle English 2: 13–64.

  • Pettit, Edward. 1999. “Anglo-Saxon Charms in Oxford, Bodleian Library MS Barlow 35”. Nottingham Medieval Studies 43: 33–46.

  • Pheifer, J. D. (ed.). 1974. Old English Glosses in the Épinal-Erfurt Glossary. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

  • Porter, David W. (ed.). 2011 a. The Antwerp-London Glossaries: The Latin and Latin-Old English Vocabularies from Antwerp, Museum Plantin-Moretus 16.2 – London, British Library Add. 32246. Volume 1: Texts and Indexes. Toronto: Pontifical Institute of Mediaeval Studies.

  • Porter, David W. 2011 b. “The Antwerp-London Glossaries and the First English School Text”. In: Patrizia Lendinara, Loredana Lazzari and Claudia Di Sciacca (eds.). Rethinking and Recontextualizing Glosses: New Perspectives in the Study of Late Anglo-Saxon Glossography. Porto: Fédération internationale des instituts d’études médiévales. 153–177.

  • Porter, David W. 2018. “The Antwerp-London a-Order Glossary and the Manuscripts of Ælfric”. In: Claudia Di Sciacca, Concetta Giliberto, Carmela Rizzo and Loredana Teresi (eds.). Studies on Late Antique and Medieval Germanic Glossography and Lexicography in Honour of Patrizia Lendinara. 2 vols. Pisa: ETS. II, 587–603.

  • Rusche, Philip G. 1996. “The Cleopatra Glossaries: An Edition with Commentary on the Glosses and their Sources”. Unpubl. PhD dissertation, Yale University.

  • Rusche, Philip G. 2003. “Dioscorides’ De materia medica and Late Old English Herbal Glossaries”. In: Carole P. Biggam (ed.). From Earth to Art: The Many Aspects of the Plant-World in Anglo-Saxon England. Proceedings of the First ASPNS Symposium, University of Glasgow, 5–7 April 2000. Amsterdam: Rodopi. 181–194.

  • Rusche, Philip G. 2008. “The Sources for Plant Names in Anglo-Saxon England and the Laud Herbal Glossary”. In: Peter Dendle and Alain Touwaide (eds.). Health and Healing from the Medieval Garden. Woodbridge: Boydell. 128–144.

  • Sauer, Hans and Elisabeth Kubaschewski. 2018. Planting the Seeds of Knowledge: An Inventory of Old English Plant Names. Munich: Utz.

  • Stokes, Peter A. 2014. English Vernacular Minuscule from Æthelred to Cnut c. 990–c. 1035. Cambridge: Brewer.

  • Stracke, Richard J. (ed.). 1974. The Laud Herbal Glossary. Amsterdam: Rodopi.

  • Zupitza, Julius (ed.). 1880. Aelfrics Grammatik und Glossar: Text und Varianten. Berlin: Weidmannsche Buchhandlung. Repr. 2001 with a new introduction by Helmut Gneuss. Hildesheim: Weidmann.

FREE ACCESS

Journal + Issues

A renowned journal of English philology, Anglia was founded in 1878 by Moritz Trautmann and Richard P. Wülker. It is thus the oldest journal of English Studies in existence. Anglia publishes essays on the English language and linguistic history, on English literature of the Middle Ages and the modern period, on American literature, on new literatures in English, as well as on general and comparative literary studies.

Search

  • View in gallery

    Oxford, Bodleian Library, Barlow 35, fol. 57 r; Glossary I begins in col. D with the first lemma “Signifer”. © Reproduced by permission of The Bodleian Library, University of Oxford

  • View in gallery

    Oxford, Bodleian Library, Barlow 35, fol. 57 v © Reproduced by permission of The Bodleian Library, University of Oxford