¹ Stanley, E. G., ‘The Scholarly Recovery of the Significance of Anglo-Saxon Records in Prose and Verse: a New Bibliography’, ASE 9 (1981), 223–62, at 249.Google Scholar

² Lapidge, M., ‘The School of Theodore and Hadrian’, ASE 15 (1986), 45–72.Google Scholar

³ ibid. pp. 57–9. The manuscripts referred to are listed on pp. 68–72.

⁴ ibid. p. 53.

⁵ The Epinal Glossary (Epinal, Bibliothèque municipale, 72, 94r–107v, abbreviated ‘Ep.’) and first Erfurt glossary (Erfurt, Wissenschaftliche Bibliothek, Amplonianus 2⁰ 42, 1r–14v, abbreviated ‘Erf.I’). are known jointly as Epinal-Erfurt (abbreviated ‘EE.’); the main Corpus glossary (Cambridge, Corpus Christi College 144, 4r–64v, abbreviated ‘Cp.’) is preceded by a short glossary entitled Interpretatio nominum ebraicorum et grecorum (CCCC 144, 1r–3v, abbreviated ‘Cp. Int.’). Facsimiles and transcripts of Epinal in The Epinal Glossary, Latin and Old-English, of the Eighth Century, ed. Sweet, H., EETS o.s. 79b (London, 1883),Google Scholar and Das Epinaler und Erfurter Glossar. I. Teil: Faksimile und Transliteration des Epinaler Glossars, ed. Schlutter, O. B., Bibliothek der angelsächsischen Prosa 8.1 (Hamburg, 1912Google Scholar no more was published); facsimiles of all three manuscripts in The Epinal, Erfurt, Werden, and Corpus Glossaries, ed. Bischoff, B., Budny, M., Harlow, G., Parkes, M. B., and Pheifer, J. D., EEMF 22 (Copenhagen, forthcoming).Google Scholar Editions of Erfurt I (with a collation of Epinal) in Corpus glossariorum latinorum, ed. Goetz, G., 7 vols. (Leipzig, 1888–1923, hereafter abbreviated CGL), v, 337–401Google Scholar of Epinal–Erfurt in The Epinal Glossary, edited with Critical Commentary of the Vocabulary, ed. Brown, A. K. (unpubl. Ph.D. dissertation, Stanford Univ., 1969)Google Scholar of Corpus in An Eighth-Century Latin–Anglo-Saxon Glossary preserved in the Library of Corpus Christi College, Cambridge, ed. Hessels, J. H. (Cambridge, 1890),Google Scholar and The Corpus Glossary, ed. Lindsay, W. M. (Cambridge, 1921Google Scholar main glossary only). Entries in Epinal–Erfurt are given as in Epinal and referred to by Brown' sectional numbers followed by Goetz's page and entry numbers in brackets, as in Epinal, Erfurt, Werden, and Corpus, ed. Bischoff et al.; entries in Corpus are referred to by Hessel's sectional numbers, also used by Lindsay.

⁶ The date of Epinal–Erfurt is determined by the date of Aldhelm's prose De virginitate, a probable source, which was written between 675 and 690 according to Aldhelm: the Prose Works, trans. Lapidge, M. and Herren, M. (Cambridge, 1979), pp. 14–15,Google Scholar and that of the Epinal manuscript itself, copied s. vii/viii or s. vii^ex according to Parkes, M. B., ‘Palaeographical Commentary’, in Epinal, Erfurt, Werden, and Corpus, ed. Bischoff et al.Google Scholar Parkes dates the Corpus manuscript in the second quarter of the ninth century (ibid.). These dates agree with those given by Chadwick, H. M., ‘Studies in Old English’, Trans. of the Cambridge Philol. Soc. 4 (1899), 85–265,Google Scholar esp. 246 and 249, who dates Epinal–Erfurt ‘about 670–680’ on linguistic grounds and judges from the Old English interpretations that Corpus ‘might be attributed to the ninth century with just as much probability as to the latter part of the eighth’.

⁷ Erfurt, Wissenschaftliche Bibliothek, Amplonianus 42, 14v–34v and 34v–37v (‘Erf.II’ and ‘Erf.III’ respectively). The three Werden glossaries (‘Wd.I’, ‘Wd.II’ and ‘Wd.III’) are contained in a manuscript now preserved as membra disiecta: Essen-Werden, Pfarrhof (missing) + Münster, Universitätsbibliothek, Paulinianus 271 (719) (destroyed in 1945) + Munich, Bayerische Staatsbibliothek, Cgm. 187 III (e. 4) + Düsseldorf, Universitätsbibliothek, Fragm. K19: Z9/1 + Köln-Rath, a single leaf belonging to Dr Med. C. Füngling. Facsimiles of both manuscripts and transcriptions of the lost leaves of Werden in Epinal, Erfurt, Werden and Corpus, ed. Bischoff et al. Editions of Erfurt II and III in Goetz, CGL v, 259–337 and II, 563–86, respectively; of Werden I, II, except Munich, and III in Altsaechsische Sprachdenkmaeler, ed. Gallée, J. H. (Leiden, 1894), pp. 336–46, 346–57 and 357–64Google Scholar respectively (collations only of portions overlapping Erfurt II and III); Munich S–T in Goetz, , CGL I, 156–7.Google Scholar Entries in both manuscripts are quoted from Erfurt, and all entries are referred to by sectional numbers followed by Goetz or Gallée's page and entry numbers in brackets, as in Epinal, Erfurt, Werden, and Corpus, ed. Bischoff et al. The Erfurt and Werden manuscripts are ninth-century continental copies, apparently of the same eighth-century English manuscript; ‘Erfurt’ was copied in the Cologne Dombibliothek, ‘Werden’ in the abbey of Werden, according to Professor Bischoff (Epinal, Erfurt, Werden, and Corpus, ed. Bischoff et al.; cf. his remarks in Anzeiger für deutsches Altertum 71 (1952), 7–12).Google Scholar Erfurt III–Werden III was a major source of the first glossary in Cambridge, Peterhouse 2. 4. 6, 1r–144v (‘Peterhouse’), from which many of the words cut away from the outside columns of Düsseldorf Fragm. K19, fols. 5–8 are supplied in CGL II. Lindsay first used the term ‘English group’ in ‘The Abstrusa Glossary and the Liber Glossarum’, Classical Quarterly II (1917), 119–31,Google Scholar at 121, and ‘The Philoxenus Glossary’, Classical Rev. 31 (1917), 158–63, at 162.Google Scholar

⁸ Cf. Lindsay, ‘Abstrusa Glossary’, pp. 121–5; ‘The “Abolita” Glossary (Vat. lat. 3321)’, Jnl of Philol. 34 (1918), 267–82Google Scholar‘The Affatim Glossary and Others’, Classical Quarterly II (1917), 185–200,Google Scholar esp. 186. Abstrusa (Glossaria latina, ed. Lindsay, W. M. et al. , 5 vols. (Paris, 1926–1931, hereafter abbreviated GL) ii, 1–90,Google Scholar abbreviated ‘Abstr.’) and Abolita (ibid. 97–183, abbreviated ‘Abol.’) were already combined in Vatican City, Biblioteca Apostolica Vaticana, lat. 3321, of the mid-eighth century (see Lowe, E. A., Codices latini antiquiores, ii vols, and suppl. (Oxford, 1934–1971) i, no. 15),Google Scholar the earliest surviving manuscript, printed in CGL IV, 3–198.Google Scholar Less than a third of the glosses in Epinal–Erfurt and Corpus have vèrnacular interpretations, and only occasional entries in the other Erfurt glossaries and in Werden.

⁹ This dichotomy in the alphabetical arrangement of Epinal–Erfurt was pointed out by Loewe, G., Prodromus corporis glossariorum latinorum (Leipzig, 1876), pp. 114–15Google Scholar see further Lindsay, W. M., The Corpus, Epinal, Erfurt and Leyden Glossaries, publ. of the Philol. Soc. 8 (London, 1921), 44–15Google Scholar and Pheifer, J. D., ‘Relationship of the Epinal, Erfurt, Corpus and Werden Glossaries’, Epinal, Erfurt, Werden and Corpus, ed. Bischoff et al.Google Scholar

¹⁰ Cf. Lindsay, , Corpus, Epinal, Erfurt and Leyden, pp. 1–5 and 16–17Google ScholarA Late Eighth-Century Latin–Anglo-Saxon Glossary preserved in the Library of the Leiden University, ed. J. H. Hessels (Cambridge, 1906), pp. 46–7Google Scholar and Old English Glosses in the Epinal–Erfurt Glossary, ed. J. D. Pheifer, (Oxford, 1974), pp. xlv–xlvi.Google Scholar In early Anglo-Saxon England the Ars Phocae (Grammatici latini, ed. Keil, H., 7 vols. (Leipzig, 1856–1880) v, 410–39)Google Scholar was used by Aldhelm, Tatwine and Boniface: see Law, V., ‘The Latin and Old English Glosses in the ars Tatuini’, ASE 6 (1977), 77–89, at 77 and 87,Google ScholarThe Insular Latin Grammarians (Woodbridge, Suffolk, 1982, pp. 22 and 22,Google Scholar and ‘The Study of Latin Grammar in Eighth-century Southumbria’, ASE 12 (1983), 43–71, at 56 and 66–7.Google Scholar

¹¹ Leiden, ed. Hessels, pp. 47–9; Lindsay, , Corpus, Epinal, Erfurt and Leyden, pp. 7–10 and 17–20.Google Scholar The term ‘Hermeneumata’ refers to the Graeco-Latin class glossaries (lists of plant names, etc.) formerly attributed to the grammarian Dositheus, which are collected in CGL III (Cf. Ld. xlvii. 24: Herm. 78/20 hosme odor; Ld. xlvii. 35: Herm. 179/61 maulistis leno; Ld. xlvii. 40: Herm. 307/24 πύσεύςcoriarius; Ld. xlvii. 45: Herm. 330/35 λορδός pandus cloppus; and Ld. xlvii. 95 and 102 below). Leiden xlvii also includes material from other sources: Pheifer, cf., Old English Glosses, pp. xliv–xlv.Google Scholar

¹² Also EE. P182 (380/54) perna flicci, which follows praxinus aesc and pampinus cros and is followed in turn by pituita gibrec, forming the nucleus of another Hermeneumata batch: cf. Herm. 264/43 μελία fraxinus, 263/38Google Scholar πλαστός pullulus pampilus 14/46Google Scholar σκλίς perna, 246/56Google Scholar τόφλέγμα pituita flegma.

¹³ Not it Lindsay's, A-batches. It is followed by arula fyrpannae uel herth as in the (untitled) ‘deigne’ section of the Brussels Glossary (Brussels, Bibliothèque royale, 1828–1830 (185)Google Scholar, ptd Anglo-Saxon and Old English Vocabularies, ed. Wright, T. and Wülcker, R. P., 2 vols. (London, 1884) i, 284–303), 294/28–9Google ScholarAndeda brondreda, Arula fyrpanne. But Arula fyrpanne also appears in the first Cleopatra glossary (‘CI.I’; London, British Library, Cotton Cleopatra A. iii, 5r–75v, ptd ibid. pp. 338–473), 348/31, as a bible gloss (cf. Lübke, H., ‘Über verwandtschaftliche Beziehungen einiger altenglischer Glossare’, Archiv für das Studium der neueren Sprachen und Literaturen 65 (1890), 383–410, esp. 403)Google Scholar, which Mrs Joan Turville-Petre, in her unpublished study of Cleopatra A. iii, assigns to Jerem. XXXVI. 23, so the attribution of the Epinal–Erfurt entries must remain in doubt.

¹⁴ EE. A 131–68 (340/1–38); Ep. B89–100/Erf.I B50–69 (347/47–348/6); EE. C231–Erf.I C280 (353/14–62); Erf.I D24–8 (356/2–6), E178–82 (359/45–9); Ep. F39/Erf.I F37–EE. F51 (360/33–47); EE. G27–EP. G63/Erf.I G46C (363/10–30); EE. I122–7 (367/25–31), L70–7 (369/18–25), M87–104 (372/15–24), N15–22 (374/5–12), O20–3 (374/33–6), P261–76 (382/16–30), R7–16, 63–4 (386/41–50, 387/38–9), S97–111 (390/10–24), T86–100, 105–17 (396/34– 47, 396/52–397/9). U30–6, 45–62 (399/12–18, 27–43). This list excludes Lindsay's doubtful batches, which ‘are not supported by Leid(en)’.

¹⁵ All the entries corresponding to Leiden occur in the last twenty of the fifty entries under C, from Erf.I C261 (353/43), and before the break in the T-batch; only one, EE. A145 (340/45), comes after the first nineteen of the thirty-eight entries under A. It is significant that none of the additional entries mentioned below disrupts these patterns.

¹⁶ See Lowe, , Codices, supp., no. 1675Google ScholarKer, N. R., ‘A Supplement to Catalogue of Manuscripts containing Anglo-Saxon’, ASE 5 (1976), 121–31, at 126 (no. 413)Google Scholar and Lapidge, ’The School’, p. 68. In a private communication of 6 Novermber 1986, Professor Bischoff informs me that Grimm 132, fol. 1 contains and expanded version of Leiden ch. x corresponding to that in the Milan bible glosses (Milan, Biblioteca Ambrosiana, M.79 sup., 83v–84v), and that Grimm 132, 2, one-column strip, recto contains Leviticus glosses corresponding to those in the socalled ‘Vocabularius Sancti Galli’ (St, Gallen, Stiftsbibliothek, 913, pp. 139–45)Google Scholar, including the well-known reference to Hadrian in the gloss on Lev. XI. 16 (see below, p. 25). An edition of the Grimm Fragments is being prepared for publication in Anglia by Professor Klaus Dietz, of Berlin.

¹⁷ One of the class-glossary-type entries mixed with the entries from lsidore of Seville's Etymologiae which conclude the alphabetical sections of Cleopatra I, as noted by Mrs Turville-Petre in her study of Cleopatra A. iii (see above, n. 13).

¹⁸ Lapidge, ‘The School’, p. 56. Grimm 1rc–1vab and Leiden ch. xxxix have all the same entries in almost identical order, and Grimm IVbI6 Claui perditi. i. naeglas ob bordum afalnae supplies the interpretation missing in Ld. xxxix. 38.

¹⁹ Corpus, Epinal, Erfurt and Leyden, p. 20Google Scholar cf. Lapidge, ‘The School’, p. 58 and n. 66.

²⁰ Two other entries in the Epinal–Erfurt Hermeneumata batches correspond to entries in Leiden ch. xlii which have not been traced: EE. R63 (387/38) ruscus cniobolaen: Ld. xlii. 14 cneholen and EE. T105 (396/52) tapeta ryae: Ld. xlii. 2 tapetibus rihum. EE. R63, which also corresponds to Ld. xlvii. 103 crebolegn, is presumably a περί δένδρων gloss like Herm. 264/54 βάτος rubus ruscus; EE. T105, which begins the part of the T-batch that does not correspond to Leiden ch. xlvii (cf. above, n. 15), and Ld. xlii. 2 may have a common origin in Charisius, Ars grammatica (Grammatici latini, ed. Keil, , I, 1–296),Google Scholar 61/29–62/I hoc tapete dicimus… pluraliter haec tapetia, tapetium, tapetibus…sed et hoc tapetum…pluraliter baec tapeta. Cf. also Erf.I E 182 (358/49) Exendocium receptatio peregrinorum and Ld. xxxix. 59 Xenodociorum susceptio peregrinorum.

²¹ Leiden, ed. Hessels, pp. 338; Lindsay, , Corpus, Epinal, Erfurt and Leyden, pp; 10–12 and 21–3.Google Scholar The only entry with Old English interpretation also found in Leiden, namely EE. I 25 (365/37) inpetigo tetr, is a doublet of EE.P142 (380/14) petrigo tetr, outside the Rufinus batches, which corresponds exactly to Ld. xxxv. 74, as the Latin part of the next entry, puncto foramine in quo pedes uinctorum tenentur in ligno cubitali spatio interiecto idest cosp, does to Ld. xxxv. 27… inter uinctos, but the attribution must be doubtful since (in) petigo does not occur in the text of Rufinus. Hessels (Leiden, p. 176) equates Ld. xxxv. 3 Prorigo urido cutis idest gyccae with EE. P222 (381/36) prorigo gycinis, but ‘itch’ and ‘itchiness’ are different words.

²² Leiden, ed. Hessels, pp. 10–21; Lindsay, , Corpus, Epinal, Erfurt and Leyden, pp. 14–15 and 32–5Google ScholarPheifer, cf., Old English Glosses, pp. xlix–liGoogle Scholar and Lapidge, ‘The School’, pp. 59–62. Nineteen of the twenty-seven Leiden-family manuscripts listed by Lapidge (ibid. pp. 68–72) contain bible glosses. There is a judicious survey of this material in Brown, , Epinal Glossary, pp. 40–4 and 46–7,Google Scholar which accurately forecasts the results of subsequent research.

²³ Steinmeyer, E. and Sievers, E., Die althochdeutschben Glossen, 5 vols. (Berlin, 1879–1922) IV, 460/2–35 and 42–78Google Scholar cf. above, n. 16.

²⁴ Cf. St Gallen, Stiftsbibliothek, 295 (Steinmeyer, and Sievers, , Die althochdeutscben Glossen I, 341–1)Google Scholar: 342/32–6 (Noctuam) id est quę nocte uolat…alii lusciniam uoluerunt esse id est nahtagala, Nocturnus nahtram. St Gallen 295 is one of the manuscripts containing the standard collection of Old High German Leviticus glosses (ibid.), the majority of which differ from the glosses in St Gallen 913 although they include some corresponding entries, e.g. St Gallen 295, 342/48–9 Larum genus auis et uocabitur saxonice meum, 54–6Google ScholarBubonem qui rustice dicitur buf buuuo uel uuo and 65–6Google ScholarOnocrotalum anis quę sonitum facit in aqua uel felefer.

²⁵ Baesecke, G., Der Vocabularius Sti Galli in der angelsächsiscben Mission (Halle, 1933), pp. 80–1Google Scholar suggested that a Hermeneumata glossary was taken to England by Theodore, was translated by Benedict Biscop who was his travelling companion and interpreter (cf. Bede, Historia abbatum (Venerabilis Baedae opera historica, ed. Plummer, , 2 vols. (Oxford, 1896) i, 364–87),Google Scholar ch. iii: pariter interpres…et ductor), and was then used to gloss Leviticus. Theodore is indeed a likely source of the Hermeneumata material in Leiden ch. xlvii and Epinal–Erfurt, since Graeco-Latin class glossaries are not part of the common stock used by the compilers of the Latin glossaries. It should be remembered, however, that a tradition of Leviticus glossing already existed in the seventh century: cf. the Instructiones of Eucherius, a fifthcentury bishop of Lyon (S.Eucherii Lugdunensis instructionum libri duo, ed. Wotke, C., Corpus Scriptorum Ecclesiasticorum Latinorum 31 (Vienna, 1891) 157/10–12):Google Scholar ‘Nycticorax noctua: multi bubonem esse contendunt; sunt etiam qui adserunt esse orientalem auem quae nocturnus coruus appellatur.’ Note also that Eucherius's Instructiones were laid under contribution in ch. xxxiii pf the Leiden Glossary.

²⁶ Pauli Orosii historiarum aduersus paganos libri VII, ed. Zangemeister, C., CSEL 5 (Vienna, 1882).Google Scholar

²⁷ See Ker, N. R., Catalogue of Manuscripts containing Anglo-Saxon (Oxford, 1957), p. 479Google Scholar (App. no. 20) Lapidge ‘The School’, p. 70; Lindsay, , Corpus, Epinal, Erfurt and Leyden, pp. 12–13 and 23–31Google Scholar Leiden, ed. Hessels, pp. 38–9. Lindsay accidentally omitted EE. P63–5 (378/45–7) protenderent significarent, pantium templum pan, prouetae gifraemid (cf. Orosius, , Hist. v. vi. 2Google Scholarportendere; VII. xii. 5Google ScholarPantheum; VII. xxviii. 27Google Scholarprouecta) from his P-batch and failed to recognize Orosius sequences in EE. F79–80 (361/13–14) frons hleor, funestissima tha deatlicostan, 83–9 (361/17–23) fauonio zepbiro, flagratione petitione, fornicem bogan, fudit prostrauit, flamminibus sacerdotibus, fanogorio deuano, feriatis uel securis restaendum (cf. Hist. V. vii. 1 frontis; V. xxii. 2Google Scholar I. ii. 57; I. xiv. 4 flagitatione; V. ix. 2Google Scholar IV. xvi. 12; V. xviii. 27 flaminibus; VI. v. 2Google ScholarPhanagorio; VI. xvii. 4Google Scholarferiatisque), I49–54 (366/8–13) interdiu tempus inter diem et noctem, infestus flach, intercaeptum araepsid, infandum maanful, inlecebris tyctinnum, ingratus latb (cf. Hist. IV. xv. I; IV. xvii. 4; I. xx. 5 interceptus; IV. ix. 8 infando; II. x. II; V. x. 9 ingratis), P280–2 (382/34–6) proflicta forslaegęn, prouentus spoed, pendulus ridusaendi (cf Hist. III. xvii. 8 profligata; III. xxi. 7; VI. ii. 17 pendulo). The glosses with counterparts in Leiden ch. xxxvi –that is, EE. S106 (390/19) scabris pisces similes lopostris and U32–3 (399/14–15) uitilago blectha and uitricius steupfaedaer: Ld. xxxvi. 8 Scabros pisces sunt, 10 Uitiginem bleci, 14 Uitricum steuffeder (cf. Hist. I. iii. 4 scabros; I. viii. 5 uitiliginem; and I. xii. 9 uitricum) – are in Hermeneumata batches.

²⁸ Hist. III. iv. 5: ‘When the pestilence grew stronger day by day, the pontiffs, using their influence, urged that stage-plays be produced at the gods’ behest; so an everlasting plague of the soul was called in to drive out a temporary disease of the body.’

²⁹ Hist. V. ix. 2: ‘Gracchus, trying to escape by the steps above the Arch of Calpurnius after his cloak was pulled off, was knocked down by a blow from a broken bench and, as he rose, was killed by another blow from a club that struck his brain.’

³⁰ Hist. V. xi. 13: ‘When huge heaps of these [locusts] had been driven a great distance by the waves and cast up by the breakers along wide stretches of the coast, the decayed and rotten mass gave off an exceedingly foul and inconceivably noxious stech…’

³¹ Cf Wd. II T26 (CGL I, 157)Google Scholartegrum putridum uel nigrum.

³² Cp. G157 Gregariorum unaedilsa is probably a scribal improvement, but the compiler of Corpus had independent access to Orosius glosses: cf. Cp. U168 Uitiginem bleci (=Ld. xxxvi. 10) beside U 180–1 Uitiligo blectha, Uitricius steopfaeder, which correspond in position to EE. U32–3, and Pheifer, Old English Glosses, pp. xlvii–xlviii.Google Scholar

³³ Cf. EE. A232 (341/43) amentis sceptloum.

³⁴ For further examples see Pheifer, , Old English Glosses, pp. lxxxviii–lxxxix.Google Scholar

³⁵ See Ker, , Catalogue, pp. 7–8Google Scholar (no. 8: Brussels 1650) and 381–3 (no. 320: Digby 146). For editions of these Aldhelm glosses see Old English Glosses of MS. Brussels, Royal Library, Royal Library, 1950, ed. Goossens, L., Verhandelingen van de Koninklijke Academie voor Wetenschappen, Letteren en Schone Kunsten van België, Klasse der Letteren, Jaargang XXXVI, Nr. 74 (Brussels, 1974)Google ScholarOld English Glosses, Chiefly Unpublished, ed. Napier, A. S., Anecdota Oxoniensia, Mediaeval and Modern Series II (Oxford, 1900), 1–138.Google Scholar If the Orosius manuscript from which these entries were extracted contained both interlinear and marginal glosses like Brussels 1650, that would explain the ‘two adjacent runs’ of entries in the Orosius batches noted by Brown, A. K. in his review of Pheifer, Old English Glosses, Speculum 52 (1977), 1031–8, at 1034.Google Scholar

³⁶ For the educational functions of interlinear glossing see Brussels, ed. Goossens, pp. 28–9.

³⁷ For early lrish techniques of language learning and their influence on the Anglo-Saxons see Parkes, M. B., ‘The Contribution of Insular Scribes of the Seventh and Eighth Centuries to the “Grammar of Legibility”’, Grafia e interpunzione del latino nel medioevo, Lessico Intellettuale Europeo 38 (1987), 15–29.Google Scholar The earliest Irish glosses are the interlinear glosses in Würzburg, Universitätsbibliothek, M. P. th. f. 12 (Lowe, Codices IX, no. 1403) copied by the scribe of the Latin text (see Thesaurus palaeohibernicus, ed. Stokes, W. and Strachan, J., 2 vols. (Cambridge, 1901–1903) 1, xxiv),Google Scholar which consist of single-word interpretations like their Anglo-Saxon counterparts: later Irish glosses, such as the main Würzburg interlinear gloss (ibid. pp.499–712), are less literal, paraphrasing and explaining the text instead of just translating it.

³⁸ For this sense of aigid see Dictionary of the Irish Language based mainly on Old and Middle Irish Materials, ed. Quin, E. G. et al. (Dublin, 1913–1976)Google Scholar, A Fasc. I, col. 110, lines 70–1 (I am indebted to Dr Liam Breatnach for this information). Cp. D74 Defferuntur meldadun uel uroegdun replaces the Irish interpretation with a synonym of meldadun; both Old English words mistranslate the Latin and Irish ones in the Orosius context.

³⁹ Identified by Schlutter, O. B., ‘Some Celtic Traces in the Glosses’, Amer. Jnl of philol. 21 (1900), 188–92, at 188.CrossRefGoogle Scholar Schlutter takes orgeas continental Gaulish, but the insular origin of three of the four glossaries in which it is recorded makes Irish seem more likely. Schlutter also identifies Ep. B51/Erf.I B18 (347/15) beta and EE. L82 (369/30) ludaris with Olr beithi ‘birch’ and Welsh lbudon ‘young animal’, and connects EE. O45 (376/5) ogastrum ‘eggmixture’ and P91 (381/7) pretęrsorim ‘stray animal’ with Olr og ‘egg’ and scor ‘paddock’ (pp. 191–2); all four words are lemmata belonging to Lindsay's Hermeneumata batches.

⁴⁰ Cf. the partially Latinized gen. pl. beorum in Æthelwulf, De abbatibus, 577 ‘castra beorum’, half-translating tir nam béo ‘land of the living’ (Æthelwulf: De abbatibus, ed. Campbell, A. (Oxford, 1967), p. 46, n. 3 )Google Scholar. This type of diction, so called from its use in Hisperica famina, is to be distinguished from the ‘hermeneutic’ vocabulary of Aldhelm and other Anglo-Latin writers (cf. Campbell, A., ‘Some Linguistic Features of Early Anglo-Latin Verse and its Use of Classical Models’, TPS 1953, pp. 1–20, esp. 11Google ScholarWinterbottom, M., ‘Aldhelm's Prose Style and its Origins’, ASE 6 (1977), 39–76 esp. 46–62)Google Scholar, much of which is taken from these glossaries. But Aldhelm does use some ‘hisperic’ words, as Winterbottom admits (ibid. p. 48 and nn. 3, 4, 5); to his lists should now be added fuma ‘earth’ (cf. Erf.II F233 (296/50)/Cp.F417 Fuma terra) from line 314 of Carmen rhythmicum I (Aldbelmi opera, ed. R. Ehwald, MGH, Auct. Antiq. 15 (Berlin, 1919), 524–8)Google Scholar, which Dr Lapidge has convincingly restored to the Aldhelm, canon (Aldbelm: the Peotic Works, trans. Lapidge, M. and Rosier, J. L. (Cambridge, 1985), pp. 171–2.Google Scholar

⁴¹ Pheifer, ‘Relationship’.

⁴² CGL IV, 471–581Google Scholar, abbreviated ‘Aff.’; see Lindsay, , Corpus, Epinal, Erfurt and Leyden, pp. 48–50.Google Scholar

⁴³ Cf. Liber Glossarum (‘Lib. Gloss.’; see below, p; 32 and n. 60) Ob633 Obtatis desideratis (‘Virgili’ = Aen. I.570), 121 obicit opponit (‘Virgili’ = VI.421; see also below, 545/26) and N. F. G. Dall's ‘English’ Virgil glosses (pp. 33–3 and n. 67), many of which appear in the Liber Glossarum, e.g. Aff. 527/15 Id metuens boc timens (=Cp. I18): Lib. Gloss. IN62–3 istud timens, boc ipsud timens (‘Virgili’ = Aen. I.23).

⁴⁴ jerome, , Liber de nominibus bebraicis (Migne, Patrologia Latina 23, Cols. 773–858), 841–2Google ScholarOsanna salvifica (=Cp. Int.232). Eucherius, Instructiones 145/19 Osanna saluifica uel saluum fac (=Abba OSI; see below, p. 33 and n. 78). EE. O127 begins the Os- batch of entries corresponding to Erfurt II; cf. EE. O127–8, 30, 33 (377/28–9, 31, 34): Erf.II O164, 162, 171, 168–70 (317/13, II, 20, 17–19).

⁴⁵ Also Glossae, Scaligeri (CGL v, 589–614),Google Scholar 606/18 Orge occide. These glosses, formerly attributed to Isidore of Seville, were actually compiled by J. J. Scaliger from various sources, including the glossaries in Leiden 67F: cf.Loewe, , Prodromus, pp. 44–5 and 47.Google Scholar For its position in Epinal-Erfurt see below, p. 37.

⁴⁶ Also Cambridge, Peterhouse 2. 4. 6 (see above, n. 7), 588/36 Opitulatio adiutorium.

⁴⁷ Cf. Abstr. Op26 Opitulatur auxiliatur aut sustentat.

⁴⁸ Also Placidus Codicis Parisiani (Paris, Bibliothèque Nationale, nouv. acq. lat. 1298: CGL v, 104–58),Google Scholar 128/I Ostia exitus sunt fluminum in mare; cf. Charisius, Ars 98/14–15 Ostia exitus fluminum in mare neutro genere semper pluraliter dicuntur, Servius, (Servii grammatici qui feruntur in Vergilii carmina commentarii, ed. Thilo, G. and Hagen, H., 3 vols. (Leipzig, 1887–1902)Google Scholar on Aen. III.688 ‘“Ostia” vero aut litora sunt, aut exitus fluminis in mare, aut introitus portus’ (=Lib. Gloss. OS83 Ostia aditus sed nunc exitus fluminis dicit (‘Virgil’)). For the Placidus Glosses (‘Plac.’) see below, p. 32 and n. 62. The common souce of Placidus and charisius was probably a Virgil scholion: cf. Aff. 545/42 and below, n. 50.

⁴⁹ Cf. Abstr. OR8 Orion Stella est, Abol. OR23 Orion nomen siderum.

⁵⁰ Also Lib. Gloss. OP142–3 Opima spolia quae dux de duce trahit (‘Deglossis’), Opima spolia quat dux detrahit occiso duce; cf. Servius on Aen. vi.855: ‘[Marcellus] opima retulit spolia, quae dux detraxerat duci, sicut Cossus Larti Tolumnio.’

⁵¹ Cf. Servius on Aen. v.21: ‘“nee nos obniti contra” κατ⋯ το⋯ αὺτο⋯ sufficiebat enim aut “obniti” aut “contra niti”.‘

⁵² Cf. Aff. 546/1 Opolentus abundans ( = Abstr. OP1, Cp. O181 Opulentus).

⁵³ Cf. Abol. OB19 Obnixus contra positus, OR2 Orbatus affectibus destitutus and Cp. O249 Orbatus a fetibus destitutus.

⁵⁴ Cf. Erf.11/Op.: Aff. 545/1 Opolentus abundans (= Abba VI55).

⁵⁵ E.g. Om-/Op.: Aff. 545/1 Ommita obuoluta: Abstr. OM1 omnita; Aff. 545/2 Omni opere omniuirtute: Abstr. OM2; Aff. 545/3 Omnimodis omnino : Abstr. OM3; Aff. 545/4 Omnitens omnipotens : Abstr. OM4; Aff. 545/5 Omittit ignoscit aut praetermittit uel redarguit: Abstr. OM7 aut redarguit; Aff. 545/6 Omina auguria : Abstr. OM8; Aff. 545/7 Oppilat obdurat obcludit : Abstr. OP18 vel occludit; Aff. 545/8 Oppidum urbem uel municipium : Abstr. OP19 … aut civitas modica; Aff. 545/9 Oppida municipia uel castella : Abstr. OP20; Aff. 545/10 Oppido obiter uel omnino : Abstr. OP21 aut omnino; Aff. 545/11 Opinio extimatio : Abstr. OP22 aestimatio; Aff. 545/12 Opinor extimo : Abstr. OP23 astimo aut nisifallor; Aff. 545/13 Opinatores existimatores uel artc militarum : Abstr. OP25 aestimatores…militares; 545/14 Opiliones pastores: Abstr. OP24 pastores ovium. Cf. the Erfurt II entries corresponding to Abstrusa listed by Lindsay, Corpus, Epinal, Erfurt and Leyden, pp. 53–67.

⁵⁶ Noni Marcelli de compendiosa doctrina, ed. Lindsay, W. M. (Leipzig, 1903)Google Scholar. On the early medieval circulation, see Texts and Transmission: a Survey of the Latin Classics, ed. L. D. Reynolds (Oxford, 1983), pp. 248–52.Google Scholar

⁵⁷ Lindsay, ‘Affatim Glossary’, p. 186; Corpus, Epinal, Erfurt and Leyden, p. 85.Google Scholar

⁵⁸ ‘Written in France, probably in the North-east, to judge by script and initials’ (Lowe, , Codices X, no. 1575)Google Scholar it also contains Ab Absens (fols. 54–62), Abavus (fols. 62–104) and Arma (fols. 119–28).

⁵⁹ ‘Affatim Glossary’, p. 189.

⁶⁰ GL I (titled ‘Glossarium Ansileubi’), also excerpted in CGL v, 161–255Google Scholar cited from GL. For its components and the sigla that distinguish them see Goetz, , CGL I, 108–17.Google Scholar

⁶¹ CGL v, 435–90,Google Scholar (selections), GL v, 159–388Google Scholar cited from GL.

⁶² CGL v, 1–158,Google ScholarGL IV, 12–70Google Scholar cited from CGL.

⁶³ Abavus, (‘Abav.’): CGL III, 301–403,Google ScholarGL II, 29–121Google Scholar cited from Maior, GL. Abavus (‘Abav. Mai.’) is extracted in CGL IV, 389–99,Google Scholar and v, 625–32.

⁶⁴ Cf. Aff. 543/32 Obest contrarium est (= Abstr. OB4).

⁶⁵ Cf. Abba (below, p. 33, n. 68) OP 18 Opulentus dives.

⁶⁶ ‘De Lindsayi eiusque discipulorum studiis glossographicis’, CGL I, 309–91, at 324.Google Scholar

⁶⁷ ‘A Seventh-Century English Edition of Virgil’, Glassical Quarterly 12 (1918), 171–8, at 174Google Scholar cf. Lindsay, ‘Affatim Glossary’, p. 186, and Corpus, Epinal, Erfurt and Leyden, pp. 50, 75–6.Google Scholar

⁶⁸ GL v, 15–143,Google Scholar referred to here as ‘Abba’; Lindsay thought it was a Bobbio compilation (‘Affatim Glossary’, p. 185). St Gallen 912 (Lowe, Codices VII, no. 967a) is printed in CGL IV, 201–98.Google Scholar

⁶⁹ ‘Cass. 90’: Lowe, E. A., The Beneventan Script, 2 vols. (Oxford, 1914); 2nd ed. rev. Brown, V., Sussidi, Eruditi 33, Rome, 1980) I, 343 and II, 64Google Scholar excerpted in CGL v, 559–83.Google Scholar

⁷⁰ Classical Philol. 13 (1918), 1–22, at 10Google Scholar see quotation below, p. 41.

⁷¹ ‘The Festus Glosses in a Monte Cassino MS. (No. 90)’, Classical Rev. 31 (1917), 130–2, at 131.Google Scholar

⁷² Lowe, , Beneventan Script i, 350 and 362; ii, 85 and 147.Google Scholar

⁷³ Cf.Lindsay, , Corpus, Epinal, Erfurt and Leyden, pp. 83–4.Google Scholar

⁷⁴ Loewe, Cf., Prodromus, pp. 105–6Google ScholarGoetz, in CGL I, 132–3 and 136Google Scholar Lindsay, ‘Abstrusa Glossary’, pp. 127–8; and Corpus, Epinal, Erfurt and Leyden, p. 51.Google Scholar

⁷⁵ Cf. the innumerabilem librorum omnis generis copiam that Benedict Biscop brought back from his fifth visit to Rome, 678–80 (Bede, Historia abbatum, ch. vi).

⁷⁶ Corpus, Epinal, Erfurt and Leyden, p. 44.Google Scholar

⁷⁷ Also EE. N48 (574/39) nebrium corium cerui, which belongs to Lindsay's Abstrusa-Abolita batch in the a-order part of the N-section; see below, p. 37 and n. 84.

⁷⁸ See further Pheifer, ‘Relationship’.

⁷⁹ Most recent authorities agree that CCCC 144 is a Canterbury book; cf. Lapidge, ‘Theodore and Hadrian’, p. 58 and n. 67. M. Budny, ‘The Decoration of the Corpus Glossary’, Epinal, Erfurt, Werden and Corpus, ed. Bischoff et al., stresses the provincialism of its decoration, however, and she concludes that, in the absence of close parallels, ‘it is difficult…to ascribe it to any given centre in Southern England, where it must have been made in about the second quarter of the ninth century’. A Canterbury origin is therefore not precluded, but it cannot be assumed on artistic grounds alone. CCCC 144 is not the original manuscript of this glossary in any case; the repetition of Cp. A307–49 (6vab1-cd14; cf. Corpus, ed. Hessels, pp. 13, n. 3 and 14, n. 1) shows that it was copied from an exemplar in the same alphabetical order, as its mannered display script and lavish ornament would suggest.

⁸⁰ Corpus, Epinal, Erfurt and Leyden, pp. 51–2.Google Scholar

⁸¹ ‘Affatim Glossary’, p. 186; Corpus, Epinal, Erfurt and Leyden, pp. 50–1.Google Scholar

⁸² ibid. p. 60. The Erfurt 1 I-section has no ab-order entries.

⁸³ Cf. Cp. I₃₃, Abstr. IG₃Ignarus inscius.

⁸⁴ Corpus, Epinal, Erfurt and Leyden, pp. 38–43.Google Scholar Cf. Pheifer ‘Relationship’.

⁸⁵ Also Glossae Scaligeri 590/4 Antlia rota exbauritoria.

⁸⁶ Also Glossae Scaligeri 590/21 Abrigeum splendor auri.

⁸⁷ Cf. Aff. 474/19–21 Aestus uaporis calor ( = Erf.II A₂₅₂ (262/69), ‘AA’ A6₁₂uapores calor), Aestus calor uapor ansietas (anxi-), Aestus motus maris.

⁸⁸ Cf. Aff. 477/42 Aplestia saturitas.

⁸⁹ Also Glossae Scaligeri 591/9 Alibre alimentum.

⁹⁰ Leiden, Bibliotheek der Rijksuniversiteit, Bibl. Publ. lat. 67E, 1r–65v, excerpted in CGL v, 632–7.Google Scholar This glossary is closely related to Vat. lat. 3321 (see above, p. 19, n. 8) with some entries from other sources (see Goetz, , CGL IV, x–xi and v, xxxv)Google Scholar, including 636/23 Perstromata ornamenta stafedioā, the only recorded parallel to EE. P428 (385/12) Perstromata ornamenta stefad brū, in the ab-order part of the P-section. Cf. Cass. 90 561/6–7 Anthlia uas auritorium uel laguena, Anthlia rota cisterne inde exanthlare idest exaurire, and Vat. 1468 (below, p. 39, n. 96) 491/33 Antilia uasa auritoria uel laguena.

⁹¹ Cf. Erf.II A516 Apodixen ostensio (= Abstr. AP6, ‘AA’ A1087, Lib. Gloss. AP118).

⁹² Ab Absens: CGL IV, 404–27Google Scholar for its composition see Lindsay, ‘Affatim Glossary’, pp. 196–8, and Goetz, , CGL I, 133–4.Google Scholar Also Glossae Scaligeri 591/9 Alibre alimentum.

⁹³ GL II, 1–22.Google Scholar

⁹⁴ Also Glossae Scaligeri 590/42 Agaron minister officialis, 591/31 Agaso minister officialis, and Vat. lat. 1469 520/5 Agaso minister officialis. Vatican City, Biblioteca Apostolica Vaticana, lat. 1469, excerpted in CGL v, 520–8,Google Scholar is another manuscript of the Italian group connected with St Gallen 912; cf. Lindsay, ‘Monte Cassino MS.’, p. 130.

⁹⁵ Cf. Abba AG₃₁Agnatus proximus quasi filius, Erf.II A₂₉₀ Agnatus filius and EE. A₁₁₀ (below).

⁹⁶ Vatican City, Biblioteca Apostolica Vaticana, lat. 1468 (see Lowe, , Beneventan Script I, 152 and 362, and II, 145),Google Scholar excerpted in CGL v, 490–519,Google Scholar is a southern Italian member of the group related to ‘AA’ and St Gallen 912 (Lindsay, ‘Monte Cassino MS.’ p. 131).

⁹⁷ Also Glossae Scaligeri 590/55 Arreptitius ariolus furiosus, 591/10 allex pollex in pede.

⁹⁸ Cf. Aff. 484/51 Auctio incrementum uel uinditio, Abstr. AV₁₂crementum vel venditio.

⁹⁹ Paris, Bibliothèque Nationale, lat. 7651, ptd CGL II, 3–212,Google Scholar and GL II, 138–291Google Scholar here cited from GL, and abbreviated ‘Phil.’ See further Lindsay, ‘Philoxenus Glossary’ and Goetz, , CGL I, 23–34.Google Scholar

¹⁰⁰ CGL I, 133–4.Google Scholar EE. A268/Ab Absens 405/24 does not appear in the surviving copy of Philoxenus, but cf. Phil. AL18 Alerius ευ͊τροøος (…): Erf.III A111 (565/50) Alerius bonus alumnus, 119 (566/4) alero nutrimentum and Lindsay, in GL IV, 122.Google Scholar

¹⁰¹ Lindsay, , Corpus, Epinal, Erfurt and Leyden, pp. 79–80Google Scholar (Erfurt II), ‘Affatim Glossary’, pp. 187–8 (Affatim), 196–9 (Ab Absens, Abavus); ‘The St. Gall Glossary’, Amer. Jnl of philol. 38 (1917), 349–369, at 356Google Scholar (Abba, ‘AA’).

¹⁰² κÓττоσ, κÚβos ‘die’, κυβ∊íα ‘dice-playing’. κоισ⋯S, κβ∊vτ⋯s ‘dice-player’; κoτíζ∊ι,κνβ∊ú∊ι ‘plays dice’. Erf.II A₃₆₃ (264/39) -Aleatur cotizat grece combines Phil. AL₁₆ and ₁₉. Cf. also EE. C₄₁ (below).

¹⁰³ πτ⋯ρον πλοíον ‘ship's oar(s)’

¹⁰⁴ Vãvos ‘dwarf’. Cf. Erf.lII H₁₀(582/5) Humiliamanus duerg, Erf.II P₅₆₂ (326/9) Pulimio grece homouanus and the Cyrillus Glossary (below, pp. 42–3 and n. 114) 347/57 vãvos humilio.

¹⁰⁵ έν ται͊ς άνωμαλíαι ‘rough places in roads’, βóůυοι ‘ditches’. Thurehfyri ‘cross-furrows’ recorded only here and in the Cleopatra Aldhelm glosses, e.g. Cl.III (Vocabularies, ed. Wright and Wülcker, I, 478–535)Google Scholar 493/16–17 Salebrosos ∂a unsmepan, Anfractas $$werhfuru (De virginitate, ed. Ehwald, p. 253/26:Google ScholarSalebrosos complanans anfractus), may have been coined to interpret άνωμαλíαι and βóůυνοι and have prompted Aldhelm to use Salebrae, which normally corresponds to άνωμαλíαι ‘rough places, difficulties’, for ‘ditches’ in Carmen de virginitate, line 2400 (‘Et procul in vacuas iussit [scil. chelydrum] reptare salebras’) where salebras is glossed furihi in Steinmeyer, and Sievers, , Die althochdeutschen Glossen II, 22/35Google Scholartortas…salebras in line 2838 (‘Planaque rimantur rortas per rura salebras’) also seems to echo thuerfyri.

¹⁰⁶ kαμ⋯ρα ‘arched or vaulted roof’, χελων⋯ ‘tortoise, overlapping shields’. Cf. Cl.I 432/2 Latrariis borddacan and Wd.II T₅₇ (Gallée 354/26) testudo coniunctio scutorum.

¹⁰⁷ κúβos ‘cube, die’, σúμβολον ‘token’, σúντομον ‘cut short, short-cut’ (cf. Phil. TE₁₃₀Tesera … σúντομα).

¹⁰⁸ ‘Bird-Names’, p. 10. Further evidence of‘Greek lore’ in the English glossaries will be given in a subsequent article.

¹⁰⁹ CGL I, 324.Google Scholar

¹¹⁰ Historia ecclesiastica IV. 1–2, v. 8, 20 and 23,Google Scholar and Historia annatum, ch. iii.

¹¹¹ Rose, H. J., ‘Wallace Martin Lindsay, 1858–1937’, Proc. of the Brit. Acad. 23 (1937), 487–500, at 490.Google Scholar These collections eventually became part of Stokes and Strachan, Thesaurus Palaeohibernicus.

¹¹² Corpus, Epinal, Erfurt and Leyden, p. 80.Google Scholar Lindsay's knowledge of the Werden fragments, which he never refers to by name, was apparently limited to the entries from Düsseldorf K19 which Goetz reprinted (from Deycks, F., ‘Fragmenta Veteris Glossarii e Codice Werthinensi Saeculi XI’, Index lectionum in academia Monasteriensi (1854–1855), 7–18Google Scholar) in CGL II.

¹¹³ Also Wd.III A₁₂₅bc alacer tefleri, alia tefil (Düsseldorf K₁₉ ivcd₂₂, omitted by Deycks).

¹¹⁴ The Cyrillus Glossary: London, BL, Harley 5792 (see Lowe, , Codices II, no. 203), 1v–240v,Google Scholar printed in CGL II, 215–483Google Scholar, here abbreviated ‘Cyr.’. See further Lindsay, W. M., ‘The Cyrillus Glossary and Others’, Classical Rev. 31 (1917), 188–93,CrossRefGoogle Scholar and Goetz, , CGL I, 34–41.Google Scholar

¹¹⁵ íσkλos ‘upper part of a sandal’, ώτíον σk∊úous ‘handle of a vessel’. Deycks,‘Fragmenta’, p. 9, n. 2, takes anostola, Wd. anstola as ansula, the Latin equivalent of ϊσκλοσ.

¹¹⁶ ἂξων ‘axle’. EE. A₅₁ immediately precedes Lindsay's second Abstrusa batch under A.

₁₁₇ ἂναισϑητοσ, ἂϕρων ‘senseless’, βραδúσ ‘slow, dull’.

¹¹⁸ Φίλημa ‘kiss’.

¹¹⁹ Also Vat. 1468 492/35 Bardus … stultus, Lib. Gloss. BA₁₅₉bardus stultus ineptus, Cass. 90 562/37 barolus stultus inceptus, ‘AA’ B³³bardus heves stultus (…), Abav. Mai. 590/42 bardus bebes stultus ineptus (…).

¹²⁰ Also Glossae Scaligeri 590/60 Auctoratio uenditio nam sub auctoratione sunt gladiatores qui se uendunt.

¹²¹ Cf. Abav. AL₁₆Alga herba marina, Ep. A₄₁₃ (344/53 app.) alga berba maris ( = Abstr. AL₅₃), Erf.II A₃₁₈ (263/63), Aff. 471/28 alga herba maris uel spuma maris and Ld. xlvii.23 Alga uaar. Ep. A413 belongs to the ab-order part of the A-section.

¹²² Cf. Peterhouse (597/59) Vmbo bucula, Erf.I U141 (401/1) Umbone buccula and Ld. xlvii. 17 Buculus nordbaeg.

¹²³ Cf. Wd.I U18 (Füngling 1ab3) uorunculas moherth and Ld. xlvii. 76 Furunculas maerth.

¹²⁴ Cf. Herm. 17/30 øυ͊κος alga: Cyr. 260/31 βρύον haec alga lana marina, 473/45 øυ͊κος alga fucus (βρύον, øυ͊κος ‘seaweed’), Herm. 368/45 buccula όμøαλóς: Cyr. 383/49 όμøαλòς άσπίδος umuo (όμøαλòς ‘boss’, άσπίδος ‘of a shield’), Herm. 17/41 κορώνη cornicula: Cyr. 353/56 κορώνη cornix cornicula (κορώνη ‘crow’), Herm. 189/34 eluros felix, 320/49 αιλιουρος forunculus: Phil. FA27 Faelis α$$λουρος, Cyr. 220/32 α$$λουρος felix hec catta (α$$λουρος ‘cat, weasel’), Herm. 13/17 νεøροί renes: Phil. RE161–2 renes νεøρóς, renis νεøροí, Cyr. 376/2 νεøρóς rien rienis (νεøρóς, νεøροí ‘kidney(s)’) and Lindsay, ‘Bird-Names’, p. 9, Corpus, Epinal, Erfurt and Leyden, pp. 80–1.Google Scholar

¹²⁵ For full details see Pheifer, ‘Relationship’.

¹²⁶ Prodromus, pp. 126–31.Google Scholar

¹²⁷ ibid. p. 133. The compiler of Cyrillus seems to have made a similar mistake in 481/1 Ψιλóν tenue babylonicum.

¹²⁸ Cf. Lapidge, ‘The School’, pp. 58–9.

¹²⁹ See above, n. 10.

¹³⁰ See Wessner, in CGL I, 327–8,Google Scholar and Pheifer, , Old English Glosses, pp. lv–lvii.Google Scholar

¹³¹ See Lapidge, and Herren, , Aldhelm: the Prose Works, pp. 6–7.Google Scholar

¹³² The other was Dicuil of Bosham: cf.Bede, , Historia ecclesiastica IV. 13Google Scholar and discussion by Plummer, , Opera historica II, 225–6.Google Scholar

¹³³ See Lapidge, and Herren, , Aldhelm: the Prose Works, pp. 14–15.Google Scholar

¹³⁴ I am most grateful to Professor Bischoff and Dr Lapidge for material used in this article, and also to Dr Lapidge for his patience and advice. It should be noted that the collations given here do not include such texts as the Trier Abactus Glossary, collated with Epinal–Erfurt by Brown, the Accipe Glossary, collated with ‘AA’ in GL v, 159–334,Google Scholar and the Abnuo Glossary, excerpted in CGL v, 548–59,Google Scholar since their relationship to the English group cannot be determined from published sources. Much remains to be done in this area.