¹ Dietz, K., ‘Die ae. Psalterglossen der hs. Cambridge, Pembroke College 312’, Anglia 86 (1968), 273–9CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

² R. Derolez, ‘A New Psalter Fragment with OE Glosses’, ES 53 (1972), 401–8. The strip is marked with a shelfmark, ‘168 B 4’, but according to Derolez, p. 401, this shelfmark number must be incorrect since that volume is ‘actually in the library; but there can be no doubt that the strip was not removed from its binding’. However, Derolez may be incorrect in his assumption, see the section on provenance below.

³ Pilch, H., ‘The Sondershäuser Psalter: a Newly Discovered Old English Interlinear Gloss’, NOWELE 31/32 (1997), 313–23CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

⁴ Gneuss, H., ‘A Newly-Found Fragment of an Anglo-Saxon Psalter’, ASE 27 (1998), 273–87Google Scholar.

⁵ Opalińska, M., Pludra-Żuk, P. and Chlebus, E., ‘The Eleventh-Century “N” Psalter from England: New Pieces of the Puzzle’, RES 74 (2023), 203–21Google Scholar, https://doi.org/10.1093/res/hgac081. On the study of parchment waste in books from Elbląg, see P. Pludra-Żuk, ‘Reconstructing Book Collections of Medieval Elbląg’, Fragmentology 4 (2021), 55–77.

⁶ Images of the fragments are included as Plates in this article and will also be made available in Open Access via Fragmentarium.

⁷ Alkmaar, Regional Archive, 135 A 9.

⁸ See the discussion of the provenance of the fragments below.

⁹ It is customary to refer to the Old English glossed psalters with the following sigla: A = London, British Library, Cotton Vespasian A.i (Vespasian Psalter); B = Oxford, Bodleian Library, Junius 27 (Junius Psalter); C = Cambridge, University Library, Ff.1.23 (Winchcombe/Cambridge Psalter); D = London, British Library, Royal 2.B.v (Regius/Royal Psalter); E = Cambridge, Trinity College, R.17.1 (Eadwine Psalter); F = London, British Library, Stowe 2 (Stowe Psalter); G = London, British Library, Cotton Vitellius E.xviii (Vitellius Psalter); H = London, British Library, Cotton Tiberius C.vi (Tiberius Psalter); I = London, Lambeth Palace, MS 427 (Lambeth Psalter); J = London, British Library, Arundel 60 (Arundel Psalter); K = Salisbury, Cathedral Library, MS 150 (Salisbury Psalter); L = London, British Library, Additional 37517 (Bosworth Psalter); M = New York, Pierpont Morgan Library, M. 776 (Blickling Psalter). For an overview, see P. Pulsiano, ‘Psalters’, The Liturgical Books of Anglo-Saxon England, ed. R. W. Pfaff (Kalamazoo, 1995), pp. 61–86. In the present article, the standard editions of these glossed psalters are cited.

¹⁰ This article has profited from many scholars and experts gracefully sharing their expertise. In particular, I would like to thank Benita Jansma and Lisette Blokker (Alkmaar Regional Archive) for allowing access to the fragments and Ed van der Vlist for alerting me to the presence of these fragments. Additional thanks are due to Amos van Baalen (for his insights and comments, especially on Latin and Old English), Rolf H. Bremmer Jr and Kees Dekker (for their useful comments on an earlier draft), Sarah Gilbert and Irene O’Daly (for sharing their paleographical expertise), and Henk Porck (for sharing his expertise on paper history). I also thank research assistant Lucas Gahrmann for his help with making the collations represented in the Appendices. Lastly, I am indebted to the anonymous reviewers for their insightful suggestions.

¹¹ Formerly Sondershausen, Schlossmuseum, MS Br. 1. G. Huber-Rebenich and C. Hirschler et al., Bestandskatalog zur Sammlung Handschriften- und Inkunabelfragmente des Schlossmuseums Sondershausen (Sondershausen, 2004), p. 119.

¹² Gneuss, ‘A Newly-Found Fragment’, pp. 273–4. On this script, see Dumville, D. N., English Caroline Script and Monastic History: Studies in Benedictinism, A.D. 950–1030 (Woodbridge, 1993), pp. 111–40Google Scholar.

¹³ Opalińska et al., ‘The Eleventh-Century “N” Psalter’, p. 209.

¹⁴ For an exhaustive description of the scripts of the Latin text and the Old English gloss, see Opalińska et al., ‘The Eleventh-Century “N” Psalter’, p. 209.

¹⁵ Gneuss, ‘A Newly-Found Fragment’, p. 276 n. 9, points out that the N-Psalter had a generous layout and ample space for the text, given the fact that some of the smaller-sized contemporary psalters have between twenty and twenty-seven lines of Latin text per folio. Jane Toswell describes the N-Psalter as ‘a large, not elegant, but very practical and useful copy of the Gallican Psalter with an Old English gloss’; M. J. Toswell, The Anglo-Saxon Psalter (Turnhout, 2014), p. 183.

¹⁶ The sequences of alternating colours do not appear to follow a regular pattern.

¹⁷ In N-E, the right-hand margins of the writing frame have been cut off and, so, the end punctuation cannot be seen. However, as Opalińska et al., ‘The Eleventh-Century “N” Psalter’, pp. 209–10, point out, the rest of the punctuation marks (punctus elevatus for the major medial pause and punctus simplex at the end of some verses) in N-E do match that of the other N-Psalter fragments. On the use of punctuation to indicate psalmody in medieval psalters, see M. B. Parkes, Pause and Effect: an Introduction to the History of Punctuation in the West (Aldershot, 1992), pp. 103–5.

¹⁸ Gneuss, ‘A Newly-Found Fragment’, pp. 275–6.

¹⁹ These instances were identified using DigiPal: Digital Resource and Database of Manuscripts, Palaeography and Diplomatic (London, 2011–14); https://www.digipal.eu/digipal/page/109/?graph=31453 and https://www.digipal.eu/digipal/page/123/?graph=8902. I am grateful to one of the anonymous reviewers for raising their suspicion that this form of punctus versus may be more common than Gneuss had assumed.

²⁰ E.g., ‘horn’ for Latin cornu (Ps. XLIII.6) and the Latin spelling adhorabunt rather than adorabunt (Ps. LXXXVIII.9); see the Appendices for further instances. I will return to this similarity in my discussion of the provenance of the manuscript below.

²¹ A full collation of the Latin text in N-A with the Gallicanum and Romanum Psalter readings and the Latin texts of the other Old English glossed psalters is included as Appendix C at the end of this article.

²² Opalińska et al., ‘The Eleventh-Century “N” Psalter’, pp. 211–12. N-H does not have any rubrics.

²³ The rubric of Psalm XLIII in N-A is incomplete, but its reconstructed version on the basis of F – ‘[In finem filiis c](h)ore [ad intellectum ps](a)lmi domino’ – is also close to the Breviarium in Psalmos: ‘In finem, pro filiis core, intellectus’. The text of the Breviarium in Psalmos is edited in Sancti Eusebii Hieronymi Stridonensis presbyteri opera omnia, PL 26, cols. 821–1299.

²⁴ Harzell, K. D., Catalogue of Manuscripts Written or Owned in England up to 1200 Containing Music (Woodbridge, 2006), no. 53 Google Scholar.

²⁵ In the margin of the opening of Psalm XLIII in F, fol. 46r, a later hand has added ‘Eructavit’ with musical notation (neums drawn on three-line staves). Cf. Opalińska et al., ‘The Eleventh-Century “N” Psalter’, p. 215 n. 55, who note that the later musical annotation in the opening of Psalm LXXIX of N-C also has a corresponding annotation in F.

²⁶ It is possible to calculate, roughly, the average number of Latin words on each leaf of the N-Psalter on the basis of the average number of Latin words per line in N-A (=4.18 Latin words; average based on the 165 complete and emended Latin lines in the N-A fragments, including the tituli). Since each leaf would have been ruled for seventeen lines of Latin text on both sides, the number of Latin words per leaf (4.18 × 17 × 2) amounts to c. 142 Latin words per leaf. The manuscript would have needed space for c. 300 Latin words to cover Ps. CXVIII.146–74, i.e., two leaves; Pss. CXXII.4–CXXVI.1 would have required space for c. 275 words (with some extra space for Psalm initials), i.e., two leaves.

²⁷ Rumble, A. R., ‘Using Anglo-Saxon Manuscripts’, Anglo-Saxon Manuscripts: Basic Readings, ed. Richards, M. P. (New York, 1994), pp. 3–24, at 9Google Scholar.

²⁸ Derolez, ‘A New Psalter Fragment’, p. 401, estimated a total of c. 200 folios. Using the calculation outlined in n. 26 above, and assuming that a full Gallicanum Psalter with rubrics has approximately 30,500 Latin words (based on the Gutenberg Gallicanum Psalter, http://www.liberpsalmorum.info/Gutenberg.html), it is possible to adjust that estimate slightly: 30,500 words/142 Latin words per leaf = c. 215 leaves for the Latin text and tituli (note that it would also be necessary to account for further space being taken up by decoration, such as full-page initials for the openings of Psalms I, LI and CI).

²⁹ For a comprehensive study of the broader context of the Psalter in Anglo-Saxon England, also covering Latin psalters, commentaries and the contexts in which Psalms were read and used, see Toswell, Anglo-Saxon Psalter.

³⁰ Pulsiano, ‘Psalters’, pp. 76–7. For a good introduction to the Old English glosses in these psalters, see Roberts, J., ‘Some Anglo-Saxon Psalters and Their Glosses’, The Psalms and Medieval English Literature: from the Conversion to the Reformation, ed. Atkin, T. and Leneghan, F. (Cambridge, 2017), pp. 37–71 Google Scholar. For a more wide-ranging introduction to the early medieval practice of glossing the Psalms, see Blom, A. H., Glossing the Psalms: the Emergence of the Written Vernaculars in Western Europe from the Seventh to the Twelfth Centuries (Berlin, 2017)CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

³¹ The Salisbury Psalter, ed. C. Sisam and K. Sisam, EETS os 242 (London, 1959), 74–5.

³² See Berghaus, F.-G., Die Verwandtschaftsverhältnisse der altenglischen Interlinear-versionen des Psalter und der Cantica (Göttingen, 1979)Google Scholar, and, especially, M. Gretsch, The Intellectual Foundations of the English Benedictine Reform, CSASE 25 (Cambridge, 1999), 26–7, and the references there. See also, Toswell, Anglo-Saxon Psalter, pp. 221–82. The letters A, D and I refer to the sigla of the manuscripts which represent the archetypes of these traditions (see n. 9 above).

³³ See, e.g., P. R. Kitson, ‘Topography, Dialect, and the Relation of Old English Psalter-Glosses’, ES 83 (2002), 474–503; ES 84 (2003), 9–31.

³⁴ Dietz, ‘Die ae. Psalterglossen’, p. 275.

³⁵ Derolez, ‘A New Psalter Fragment’, p. 408.

³⁶ Gneuss, ‘A Newly-Found Fragment’, pp. 279–81.

³⁷ Opalińska et al., ‘The Eleventh-Century “N” Psalter’, p. 211.

³⁸ For instance, N-A shares with F and G an apparent error in the glossing of intellectum in Ps. CXVIII.144. This word is glossed with ‘on andgytan’, where the preposition ‘on’ appears to be prompted by a misinterpretation of the prefix in- in intellectum; only F and G feature a similar reading: ‘on andgit’ F; ‘on and[ ]’ G; cf. ‘ondget’ A; ‘ondgit’ BL; ‘andgyt’ CDK; ‘ondgiet’ E; ‘andgyt’ I; ‘andgit’ J.

³⁹ D, fol. 102v. Likely, this Latin interpretation, like so many others in D, ultimately derives from Cassiodorus’ Expositio psalmorum; see Gretsch, Intellectual Foundations, pp. 28–33.

⁴⁰ These double glosses are discussed in the section on language below.

⁴¹ In all the other Old English glossed psalters, the Latin text reads suo (Gallicanum) or suum (Romanum) with the appropriate translation ‘his’ (ACEFG) or ‘heora’ (BDIL); in H and K there is no gloss for suo.

⁴² In Salisbury Psalter, ed. Sisam and Sisam, p. 71, an archetype ‘D_fghj’ is postulated to account for the similarities between D, F, G, H and J; perhaps N needs to be inserted into the stemma here.

⁴³ Gneuss, ‘A Newly-Found Fragment’, pp. 281–2.

⁴⁴ On the inflection -un for the past indicative, see A. Campbell, Old English Grammar (Oxford, 1959), §735e; R. M. Hogg and R. D. Fulk, A Grammar of Old English. Vol. 2: Morphology (Malden, MA, 2011), §6.22.

⁴⁵ On the forms self and sylf, see Campbell, OE Grammar, §§325–6; R. M. Hogg, A Grammar of Old English. Vol. 1: Phonology (Malden, MA, 1992), §5.22.

⁴⁶ See Hogg, Grammar of OE, §5.104

⁴⁷ On West-Saxon <ie, i, y> and non-West-Saxon <e> as the outcome of i-umlaut for the Germanic diphthong */au/, see Hogg, Grammar of OE, §5.82.

⁴⁸ But cf. ‘naman þinne’ for nomen tuum (Ps. CXVIII.132) and ‘hryc minne’ for dorsum meum (Ps. CXXVIII.3).

⁴⁹ This is a reduction shared with F and J; I and K give the correct forms – ‘minre ansyne’ and ‘ansyne minre’, respectively – while other Old English glossed psalters have a form of masculine andwlita, followed by mines.

⁵⁰ ‘æ þin’ is found in all other Old English glossed psalters, except E which also gives ‘þine’.

⁵¹ The N-A fragments may contain one further double gloss, but this one lacks the abbreviation for vel: ‘loca nu efene’ for ecce (Ps. CXXVII.4). Compared to the glosses of the D-type (‘efne’ CFGI; ‘efne nu’ DJ; ‘æfne’ K), N-A appears to add the imperative ‘loca (nu)’ as an alternative translation, although the whole phrase ‘loca nu efene’ [look now indeed] could also have been intended as a rather verbose singular gloss; the full phrase is attested once, in an Ælfrician homily, Ælfric’s Catholic Homilies: the First Series, Text, ed. P. Clemoes, EETS ss 17 (Oxford, 1997), p. 384. In his Grammar, Ælfric does indicate that ‘efne’ and ‘loca nu’ are alternative translations for Latin en and ecce: ‘en efne oððe loca nu, her hit is; en, adest episcopus efne, her is se bisceop; ealswa ecce: ecce, uenit rex efne nu, her cymð se cyning’, Ælfrics Grammatik und Glossar, ed. J. Zupitza, repr. H. Gneuss (Berlin, 1966), p. 231. I owe this reference to Amos van Baalen.

⁵² The -a ending looks plural, but nouns that end in -ung occasionally occur with an -a ending in the singular oblique cases. See Hogg and Fulk, Grammar of OE, §3.76. Cf. ‘gewilnunga’ for desiderium (Ps. CXXVI.5).

⁵³ Cf. ‘onwendnisse’ A; ‘onwendnesse’ B; ‘ondwendnysse’ C; ‘æwendnesse ł styringe’ E.

⁵⁴ An interesting parallel with this double gloss is the incomplete double gloss ‘aswarnien ł’ for erubescant ‘they will be ashamed’ (Ps. VI.11) in N-S. The alternative gloss was cut off, but Gneuss suggested that this ‘was very probably a form of scamian’, given the double gloss ‘ablysigen ł scamiað’ for erubescant at the start of the same Psalm verse (XLIII.11). See Gneuss, ‘A Newly-Found Fragment’, p. 286.

⁵⁵ DOE, s. v. essian.

⁵⁶ I thank Amos van Baalen for this suggestion.

⁵⁷ Cf. DMLBS, s. v. excussor. The form in N-A shows metathesis and elision of ‘t’.

⁵⁸ Cf. DOE, s. v. a-flyman 1.e, on the gloss ‘aflimendra’ in J: ‘present participle used as substantive, glossing past participle excussus: one who is fleeing, cast out’. Alternatively, the present participle of a-flyman ‘to put to flight; to drive out’ is ‘one who is putting to flight; one who is driving out’, i.e., a form possibly glossing excussor rather than excussus. At any rate, given the diversity of the extant Old English psalter glosses, the word excussorum appears to have stumped many a glossator: ‘witgena’ A; ‘aladiendra’ BL; ‘witgyna ł wregyndra’ C; ‘wrohtborena’ D; ‘onscuniendræ’ E; ‘berenda’ F; ‘aflemendra’ G; ‘worhtberendra ł ofascacendra’ I; ‘aflimendra ł wrorhtberendra’ J; ‘wrohttuhra’ K.

⁵⁹ See, e.g., A. S. C. Ross and A. Squires, ‘The Multiple, Altered and Alternative Glosses of the Lindisfarne and Rushworth Gospels and the Durham Ritual’, N&Q 225 (1980), 489–95; E. Wiesenekker, ‘Word be worde; andgit of andgite: Translation Performance in the Old English Interlinear Glosses of the Vespasian, Regius and Lambeth Psalters’ (unpubl. PhD dissertation, Vrije Univ. Amsterdam, 1991), pp. 187–96; Pons-Sanz, S. M., ‘A Study of Aldred’s Multiple Glosses to the Lindisfarne Gospels’, The Old English Gloss to the Lindisfarne Gospels: Language, Author and Context, ed. Cuesta, J. Fernández and Pons-Sanz, S. M. (Berlin, 2016), pp. 301–28CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Kotake, Tadashi, ‘Binomials or Not? Double Glosses in Farman’s Gloss to the Rushworth Gospels’, Binomials in the History of English: Fixed and Flexible, ed. Kopaczyk, J. and Sauer, H. (Cambridge, 2017), pp. 82–97 CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

⁶⁰ Opalińska et al., ‘The Eleventh-Century “N” Psalter’, pp. 210–11. N-H also has an uninflected form of drihten where a genitive form is expected: ‘mægðe drithen’ for tribus domini (Ps. CXXI.4).

⁶¹ For the provenance of N-E, see Opalińska et al., ‘The Eleventh-Century “N” Psalter’, pp. 217–19.

⁶² Meienreis matriculated in Leiden as ‘Samuel Meigenrei, Elbingensis, 27’ on 29 December 1600, along with two other students from Elbląg: ‘Joannes Bodecher [Hans von Bodeck], Elbingensis, 18’ and ‘Andreas Anrenbeek, Elbingensis, 18’. W. N. du Rieu, Album studiosorum Academiae Lugduno Batavae MDLXXV-MDCCCLXXV (Den Haag, 1875), p. 59.

⁶³ Theses Theologicæ de Veteri et Novo Dei Foedere Quas Favente Deo Opt. Max. sub Præsidio Clariss. Viri, D. Francisci Iunii, publicè defendet Samuel Mejenreis Elbingensis Borussus. Ad 19. diem Ianuarii (Leiden, 1602), https://dlibra.bibliotekaelblaska.pl/dlibra/publication/48601/edition/43456.

⁶⁴ Bantjes, A. A., De Leidse hoogleraren en lectoren 1575-1815. Vol. 1: De Theologische Faculteit (Leiden, 1983), p. 53 Google Scholar.

⁶⁵ Opalińska et al., ‘The Eleventh-Century “N” Psalter’, p. 218 n. 86, note that a number of books from Meienreis’s collection have annotations that indicate that he had purchased them in Leiden.

⁶⁶ They describe the binding as follows: ‘The laced-case binding of the volume … was made of parchment with paper lining over thin millboards. The book block is sewn on four double white leather thongs and has sprinkled red edges. The endbands are worked with green silk on a white leather core with a couple of tie-downs. The parchment endleaf guards are sewn separately’. The linked sewing of the double sewing supports, the panel spine paper lining and the separately sewn endleaf guards are identified as typically French, while the red-sprinkled edges and green endbands are designated as Dutch features. Opalińska et al., ‘The Eleventh-Century “N” Psalter’, pp. 207, 218, 218 n. 89.

⁶⁷ Hoftijzer, P., ‘Het Leidse wonder’, Jaarverslag 2007 van de Koninklijke Brill NV (Leiden, 2008), pp. 73–96, at 86Google Scholar.

⁶⁸ The Thesaurus Graecae linguae was first published in 1572 in five volumes; the later four-volume edition now in Alkmaar is undated.

⁶⁹ The watermarks were identified using the Gravell Watermark Archive, online. The watermarks in the paper used for the pastedowns and flyleaves in the volumes correspond to Gravell, ARMS.1373.1 (Basel crozier – 1602) and Gravell, ARMS.1212.1 (Shield, Basel crosier, crown, tower – 1602). The watermark in the paper between the couched-laminate board and the parchment cover resembles Gravell, SLD.014.1 (Strasbourg lily – 1599).

⁷⁰ On the history of the municipal library of Alkmaar, see P. Dijstelberge and K. Forrer, Kennis is pracht. De Alkmaarse librije (Alkmaar, 2019).

⁷¹ The paper used for the pastedowns and flyleaves in these volumes correspond to Likhachev, no. 4132 (Pot A-D-B – 1600; https://memoryofpaper.eu/likhachev/likhachev.php?Signatura=4132); the paper used between the couched-laminate board and the parchment cover resembles Wasserzeichen Informationssystem, no. DE4215-PO-162594 (One-headed heraldic eagle, with nimbus, N-F – 1599; https://www.wasserzeichen-online.de/?ref=DE4215-PO-162594).

⁷² The Galen set fragments show the text of Decretum Gratiani, concordia discordantium canonum, distinctio 35, c. 8; distinctio 36, c. 2; distinctio 45, cc. 9, 13, 14, 17; and distinctio 46, c. 1; volume 4 of the N-A set has 5 spine fragments, showing the text of Decretum Gratiani, part 2, causa 5, questio 2, c. iv; questio 3, c. i–iii; and questio 4, c. i. The text is written in two columns, with rubrics in red ink, illuminated initials and annotations in a later hand. The script can be dated to the later twelfth century.

⁷³ A Dutch provenance is also suggested by some of the other membra disiecta in the other volumes of the Galen set, which includes pieces of a Dutch-language Book of Hours (in volumes 1, 2 and 4), alongside fragments of a late medieval Latin Psalter (in volume 4) and a Latin commentary to Peter Lombard’s Libri quattuor sententiarum (in volumes 2 and 4). These fragments all date to the fifteenth century.

⁷⁴ Dijstelberge and Forrer, Kennis is pracht, pp. 42–5.

⁷⁵ Two book catalogues survive and are digitally available through Book Sales Catalogues Online - Book Auctioning in the Dutch Republic, ca. 1500–ca. 1800 (Leiden, 2015), http://primarysources.brillonline.com/browse/book-sales-catalogues-online.

⁷⁶ Alkmaar, Regional Archive, Archief van de gemeente Alkmaar, 1325–1815, no. 601.

⁷⁷ Derolez, ‘A New Psalter Fragment’, p. 401.

⁷⁸ Haarlem, Noord-Hollands Archief, Oude boekerij van de Stichting Bibliotheek Zuid-Kennemerland te Haarlem, inv. no. 13687.

⁷⁹ The watermark is Gravell, ARMS.1212.1 (Shield, Basel crosier, crown, tower – 1602).

⁸⁰ Speculatively, perhaps Derolez’s dismissal of this book as a host volume was prompted by the relatively late date of this book as compared to the eleventh-century fragment and he may have expected a smaller chronological gap between the fragment and its potential host volume.

⁸¹ Haarlem, Noord-Hollands Archief, Oude boekerij van de Stichting Bibliotheek Zuid-Kennemerland te Haarlem, inv. no. 13688.

⁸² The various abbreviations in the catalogue match the wording on the title page of the copy of Eusebius’s De euangelica praeparatione in Haarlem: ‘Eusebii Pamphili Euangelicæ præparationis Lib. X V. / EX BIBLIOTHECA REGIA. / … / LUTETIA / … / M. D. XLIIII.’.

⁸³ Utrecht, Utrechts Archief, familiearchief Van der Meulen, collectie Andries van der Meulen, nr. 16, A2v. A digital version is avalaible through Book Sales Catalogues Online.

⁸⁴ It is possible to trace the history of the Eusebius volumes now in Haarlem beyond 1601. The volume with the Historia ecclesiastica, which also shows signs of restoration involving the removal of membra disiecta, has an ownership notation, consisting of the name of the owner ‘Simon Thimotheus Rolandi’, Psalm XXXI.1 in Hebrew, and the year in which he may have bought it: ‘a. 1638’. Neither of the books is mentioned in the first catalogue of the Haarlem library (published in 1672), but they are mentioned in the catalogue of 1716, which means that they were probably donated to or bought by the Haarlem library somewhere between 1672 and 1716. I owe the information about the Haarlem library catalogues to Hannah Goedbloed, Curator of Rare Books and Manuscripts at Noord-Hollands Archief, Haarlem. A search through the membra disiecta of the Haarlem library unfortunately did not yield new finds of fragments of the N-Psalter.

⁸⁵ I owe this suggestion to Winfried Rudolf.

⁸⁶ See, e.g., M. Zoeteman, ‘De studentenpopulatie van de Leidse universiteit, 1572–1812. “Een volk op zyn Siams gekleet eenige mylen van Den Haag woonende”’ (unpubl. PhD dissertation, Leiden Univ., 2011), pp. 258–9, 438.

⁸⁷ Pulsiano, ‘Psalters’, pp. 61–70.

⁸⁸ See the discussion, with references, in Opalińska et al., ‘The Eleventh-Century “N” Psalter’, p. 215. Exeter as a possible location is based on Neil Ker’s observation that ‘regular alternation of the colours red, blue, and green is usually found in manuscripts from Exeter’. See N. Ker, Catalogue of Manuscripts Containing Anglo-Saxon (Oxford, 1957), p. xxxviii. Notably, Ker does assign D, J and G to Winchester and does not provide a location for H and F; see Ker, Catalogue, nos. 134 (J), 199 (H), 224 (G), 249 (D), 271 (F). Gneuss and Lapidge assign each of these psalters to Winchester in Gn-L, ASMss nos. 304 (J), 378 (H), 407 (G), 451 (D), 499 (F).

⁸⁹ On Winchester as a centre of production of Old English glossed psalters, see Gretsch, Intellectual Foundations, esp. pp. 267–9. See also the discussion of Gretsch’s arguments in Toswell, Anglo-Saxon Psalter, pp. 239–41. The preponderance of mid-eleventh-century Old English glossed psalters from Winchester raises the broader question of why there was a sudden interest in this material in Winchester around the time of the Norman Conquest, long after Winchester’s intellectual predominance under Abbot Æthelwold and the Benedictine Reform. Relatedly, the general assumption that there may have been hundreds of glossed psalters of this kind may need revision: how does this assumption square with the fact that most psalters that have survived came from one and the same place as well as with the fact that all discovered fragments of Old English glossed psalters in book bindings can, thus far, be traced back to one and the same N-Psalter? Perhaps there were fewer Old English glossed psalters and we may be dealing with a more localized phenomenon. I thank one of the anonymous reviewers for pointing out these broader implications; exploring these further would go beyond the scope of this article and may be done elsewhere.

⁹⁰ Cited in Treharne, E., Perceptions of Medieval Manuscripts: The Phenomenal Book (Oxford, 2021), p. 179 CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

⁹¹ See also the more full-fledged discussion in Opalińska et al., ‘The Eleventh-Century “N” Psalter’, pp. 216–17.

⁹² See Gneuss, H., ‘More Old English from Manuscripts’, Intertexts: Studies in Anglo-Saxon Culture Presented to Paul E. Szarmach, ed. Blanton, V. and Scheck, H. (Tempe, 2008), pp. 411–22, at 417Google Scholar.

⁹³ Hamburg, Staats- und Universitätsbibliothek, Cod. theol. 1115a, fol. 120r.

⁹⁴ de Meyer, Jacques, Commentarii, sive, Annales rerum Flandricarum libri septendecim (Antwerp, 1561), p. 210 Google Scholar.

⁹⁵ Opalińska et al., ‘The Eleventh-Century “N” Psalter’, p. 217. Interestingly, the German philologist Leopold August Warnkönig (1794–1866) spent two years looking for ‘un Manuscrit Anglosaxon savoir le Psautier de Gunhildis soeur de Harald’ between 1833 and 1835, but was unable to find it; he speculated that the French may have removed the book, when they took control of Bruges in 1794. See O. Bock, ‘The British Record Commission, its Secretary C. P. Cooper, and Two of his German Correspondents During the 1830s’, Scholarly Correspondence on Medieval Germanic Language and Literature, ed. T. Porck, A. van Baalen and J. Mann, special issue of Amsterdamer Beiträge zur älteren Germanistik 78:2–3 (2018), 204–27, at 220.

⁹⁶ N. Geirnaert, ‘Een initiatief van het Calvinistisch stadsbestuur te Brugge: de openbare bibliotheek, 1578–1584’, Brugge in de Geuzentijd: Bijdragen tot de geschiedenis van de hervorming te Brugge en in het Brugse Vrije tijdens de 16de eeuw, ed. D. van der Bauwhede and M. Goetinck (Brugge, 1982), pp. 45–54, at 47. The text of the resolution is cited in J. Vandamme, Het bibliotheekwezen in Brugge. Vóór 1829 (Brugge, 1971), pp. 23–4: ‘Ten selven daghe sijn jonckeer Philips Baesdorp, burchmeester van den courpse, Mr Jan van Ghelder, raet, ende Mr Oliver Nieulant, bij ‘t college ghedeputeert omme te makene inventaris van alle de boucken toebehoort hebbende de voorseide cloosters ende capitels, omme daeruute ghenomen te werdene de beste ende daer mede ghestoffeert eene publique librairie ten behouve van der stede ende de superflue vercocht te werdene’ [on the same day, Philips Baesdorp, mayor of the municipality, Jan van Gelder, counselor and Oliver Nieulant, were chartered by the city council to make an inventory of all the books that belonged to the aforesaid monasteries and chapters, to take therefrom the best and with these stock a public library for the sake of the town and to sell the superfluous ones]. Little else is known about this short-lived public library, which was dissolved in 1584, when the Spanish gained control of Bruges.

⁹⁷ A digital reconstruction of the N-Psalter, bringing together all known fragments, is planned in collaboration with Monika Opalińska.

⁹⁸ Rubric reconstructed on the basis of F.

⁹⁹ Added by later hand in right-hand margin: ‘Eructavit cor meum verbum bonum’ with Anglo-Norman neums. Cf. F, fol. 46r, where a later hand has added ‘Eructavit’ with musical notation.

¹⁰⁰ Duplication of the final n may be a scribal error and is unique for N-A.

¹⁰¹ Probably a scribal error for magenum, cf. ‘mægenum’ BDH; ‘mægnum’ CFJ; ‘mægenum ł mihtum’ G.

¹⁰² Various glossed psalters give a dative plural gloss, following the Latin form, but N-A and G give a genitive plural form, since Old English gelicnes tends to go with the genitive.

¹⁰³ Only occurrence in the Old English corpus of this word with the prefix ge-, cf. wendung ‘turning, change’.

¹⁰⁴ This gloss, found only in N-A, is missing the expected inflection -um for dative plural.

¹⁰⁵ The word aswarnung is only found in N-A, D, F, H and I, in the context of this Psalm verse and nowhere else in the extant Old English corpus. Cf. DOE, s. v. aswarnung, which only mentions three occurrences, possibly because the form ‘aswærnunga’ is given between square brackets in the edition of F by Andrew Charles Kimmens, An Edtion of British Museum MS. Stowe 2: the Stowe Psalter (Toronto, 1979) (and between <> in the DOEC), but the word is clearly visible in the digitized manuscript, although there are possible signs of erasure or damage to nung.

¹⁰⁶ This double gloss resembles the one given in I: ‘aswarnung ł scamu’; the other Old English glossed psalters do not have a double gloss here. The -a ending in N-A seems to be an error on the part of the scribe, the strong fem. nom. sg. -u is expected.

¹⁰⁷ N-A does not extend the genitive form here. Cf. ‘ongeansprecendes’ DEFH.

¹⁰⁸ -un is an older form of pl. pret. ind. -on; N-A shares this form with D.

¹⁰⁹ This gloss seems to stem from confusing the preposition in with the negative prefix in-.

¹¹⁰ Only the bottom half of this line of Old English glosses is visible.

¹¹¹ The word wanhafa ‘poor person’ is found only in N-A, F and J, in the context of this Psalm verse and nowhere else in the extant Old English corpus.

¹¹² This is the Romanum reading; none of the Old English glossed psalters have the Gallicanum reading clamabo. The present tense glosses in F (‘ic cleopige’) and CK (‘ic clypige’) may show influence of the Gallicanum reading.

¹¹³ This gloss closely resembles the one in F, ‘wu[erasure of r]dorfulliað’, and is unlike any of the other Old English glossed psalters in the context of this Psalm verse; see Appendix B.

¹¹⁴ This is an incorrect gloss for suo; the glossator seems to have misinterpreted the word as tuo.

¹¹⁵ This interpretative Latin gloss is also found in D; see the discussion above.

¹¹⁶ Corrected from postas.

¹¹⁷ The N-A gloss ‘7’ for ut is similar to A and G, but these glossed psalters give et (the Gallicanum reading) rather than ut (the Romanum reading). K also gives et but glosses it with ‘þæt’, while I also gives et but does not gloss it. All the other glossed psalters give Latin ut, following the Romanum reading, and, as expected, gloss it with a variant of þæt: ‘þætte’ BL; ‘þæt’ CDF; ‘þet’ E.

¹¹⁸ This unique N-A gloss corresponds to the Gallican reading et custodiam; the Latin texts (and Old English glosses) of all other Old English glossed psalters follow the Romanum reading with ut, glossed with a form of þæt: ‘ðæt’ A; ‘þæt’ BCDFGIJKL; ‘þet’ E.

¹¹⁹ This Tironian note without a Latin equivalent is not found in any of the other Old English glossed psalters.

¹²⁰ fþ legible on offset of ink on facing pastedown.

¹²¹ Corrected from adholescentulus by erasure of the h; notably, only J has the adholescentulus reading.

¹²² Spelling error for rihtwisnessa; cf. other instances of this word in the verse.

¹²³ The expected form here is nominative feminine singular þin, as found in all Old English glossed psalters. Only E also gives the incorrect form ‘þine’.

¹²⁴ me only visible on offset of ink on facing pastedown.

¹²⁵ The inclusion of the preposition ‘on’ is unexpected and may be caused by a scribal misinterpretation of the prefix in- in intellectum; only F and G have the same reading. The weak form ‘andgytan’ is rare; according to the DOE, s. v. andgyte only four occurrences of this weak form are known (this gloss in N-A is the fifth occurrence). The neuter strong form andgyt, found in all other Old English glossed psalters, is more common.

¹²⁶ Some of the ink has faded away here, but the onset of the third minim of the m and the top part of the e are still visible.

¹²⁷ The use of the past tense here does not appear to be prompted by the Latin requiram, which is either present or future, but DFGJ all give past tense ‘sohte’, while ABCEIKL give a present tense: ‘soecu’ A; ‘sece’ BCEIKL.

¹²⁸ Only the top half of this Latin line is visible.

¹²⁹ The curious and ungrammatical gloss ‘ic þeodig wæs’ for Latin incola fuit is only found in N-A, but note that both F and K also have the ungrammatical ‘ic’: ‘ælðeodig ic wæs’ F; ‘ealþeodi ic wæs’ K. The word þeodig is otherwise unattested in Old English and the glossator may have been confused by the fact that Latin incola can mean both ‘native inhabitant’ and ‘foreign resident’ (see Lewis and Short, s. v. incola) and decided to leave out the first element of el-þeodig. Alternatively, the ‘ic’ in N-A is a curious scribal error for el-. The readings in F and K, which feature both the incorrect first-person pronoun and a variant of the word el-þeodig, may have been caused by the same scribal error somewhere in the transmission of this particular gloss, followed by the correction of unattested þeodig to ælþeodig. Intriguingly, Derolez has pointed out the N-glossator’s difficulty with translating the word incolatus in Ps. CXIX.5; see Derolez, ‘A New Psalter Fragment’, pp. 407–8.

¹³⁰ Only the top half of this Latin line is visible.

¹³¹ The incorrect subjunctive form here (also found in CFG) may be influenced by the Latin subjunctive custodiat which follows omni malo in this Psalm verse.

¹³² Only the top half of this Latin line is visible.

¹³³ The cross-stroke on the ð is difficult to see; the spelling -nið- is unusual, but may be based on the D-gloss ‘genihðsumnes’.

¹³⁴ Probably a scribal error for lufiendum; cf. ‘lufiendum’ AD, ‘lufigendum’ FI. Notably, G has a similar error ‘lifigendum’.

¹³⁵ Only the top half of this Latin line is visible.

¹³⁶ Only the bottom half of this Old English gloss is visible.

¹³⁷ The intended form was probably his; the gloss ‘is’ is attached to the preceding gloss as ‘gecorenumis’.

¹³⁸ The expected form is loca, cf. the gloss for ecce in Ps. CXXVII.4 below.

¹³⁹ Uninflected form of drihten.

¹⁴⁰ The intended form was in all likelihood innoðes.

¹⁴¹ This double gloss is unique for N-A, but cf. ‘aflimendra ł wrorhtberendra’ J.

¹⁴² The gloss ‘þe’ is placed here, but probably belongs to the gloss ‘forðam’ for quia in the line above. Cf. ‘forþon þe’ G; ‘forðan ðe’ F; ‘forðon þe’ IJ; ‘forþam’ K; quia does not occur in ABCDEL.

¹⁴³ Something (perhaps one letter) has been crossed out after this word.

¹⁴⁴ Tail of the ę visible on front endleaf guard of vol. 2 of the N-A set.

¹⁴⁵ Only the bottom half of this line of Old English glossing is visible.

¹⁴⁶ A scribal error for mysan. Cf. ‘mysan ðinre’ D; ‘mysan þinre’ GI.

¹⁴⁷ The Latin word appears to be translated twice here, but it is not separated by the usual abbreviation for Latin vel to indicate that this is a double gloss, see the discussion of double glosses and n. 51 above.

¹⁴⁸ N-A gives the Gallicanum reading here, as do F, I and K. The other Old English glossed psalters (ABCDEGJL) follow the Romanum reading: omnis homo. I and K both nevertheless give Old English glosses for absent omnis: ‘ealle man’ K; ‘ælc man’ I. N-A is similar to F (‘mann’), in that they both give neither the Latin word omnis nor its Old English gloss.

¹⁴⁹ The Old English gloss is plural, whereas the Latin word is singular. N-A shares this plural ending with FGJK – the plural ending could possibly be explained by familiarity with the Romanum reading omnis homo [every man], which is found in G and J (and reflected in the gloss of K), but not in F or N-A (see also the previous footnote).

¹⁵⁰ Probably a misspelling for getimbredon. Cf. ‘getimbredon’ FI.

¹⁵¹ This form stems from misinterpreting Latin deo as die, possibly influenced by the occurrence of that word in the same line.

¹⁵² Between square brackets in the edition by Kimmens, but clear in the digitized manuscript; et may show signs of erasure.

¹⁵³ The gloss in F appears to interpret inimici as the nominative plural, rather than the genitive singular.

¹⁵⁴ These differences are due to differences in the Latin base text: sum ego FGIJK; ego sum ABCDEL. FK give ‘ic eom’, which does not follow the Latin word order.

¹⁵⁵ Clearly legible as ‘geoh’ in the digitized manuscript, but given between brackets in the edition by Kimmens; possibly, eo shows signs of damage or erasure.

¹⁵⁶ In F, ‘æþele’ is clearly legible in the digitized manuscript, but given between brackets in the edition by Kimmens.

¹⁵⁷ G and I show the expected Late West Saxon form, while the other glossed psalters show an Anglian (or early West-Saxon) form with rounding of a before a nasal. On rounding of a, see Hogg, Grammar of OE, §5.3–6.

¹⁵⁸ The form in F is influenced by the Latin form cornu, while the gloss in G stems from misinterpreting Latin cornu as a form of cor ‘heart’.

¹⁵⁹ The present tense glosses in C, F and K are possibly influenced by the Gallican future reading clamabo, but all Old English glossed psalters render perfect clamaui in the Latin text.

¹⁶⁰ Here the scribe probably mistook qui for quia.

¹⁶¹ In K this whole line is only partially glossed.

¹⁶² This curious gloss is caused by the glossator interpreting the Romanum reading in plebibus as inplebibus (< impleo). See P. Pulsiano, Old English Glossed Psalters: Psalms 1–50 (Toronto, 2001), p. 630.

¹⁶³ Between square brackets in the edition by Kimmens, but clearly visible in the digitized manuscript; possible signs of erasure of nung.

¹⁶⁴ The N-A gloss follows the Gallicanum reading et non dominetur, which is given in AGIK.

¹⁶⁵ The N-A gloss follows the Gallicanum reading et custodiam, but all other Old English glossed psalters give a translation that fits the Romanum reading ut custodiam, which is given in all Old English glossed psalters.

¹⁶⁶ The gloss ‘is’ is probably an error for his; it is attached to the gloss ‘gecorenum’ for dilectis as ‘gecorenumis’.

¹⁶⁷ The edition by Kimmens gives ‘[berenda]’ but in the digitized MS the word is legible, albeit possibly erased.

¹⁶⁸ ABCDEL give the Romanum reading, which omits the word quia.

¹⁶⁹ The edition by Kimmens gives ‘[s]mysan’ but the s is legible in the digitized manuscript, albeit possibly erased.

¹⁷⁰ Differences are also due to the Latin text: ABCDEGJL give the Romanum reading omnis homo; FIK have the Gallicanum reading homo.

¹⁷¹ The Romanum and Gallicanum readings are based on Le Psautier Romain et les autres anciens psautiers latins, ed. R. Weber (Rome, 1953).