¹ Sisam, K., ‘An Old English Translation of a Letter from Wynfrith to Eadburga (A.D. 716–17) in Cotton MS. Otho C I’, MLR 18 (1923), 253–72, at 256CrossRefGoogle Scholar, repr. Sisam, , Studies in the History of Old English Literature (Oxford, 1953), pp. 199–224, at 204Google Scholar: ‘Folios 146a, 1. 22 to 148b are very much damaged, and contain a sermon on the text “Domine, libera animam meam a labiis iniquis et a lingua dolosa” [Ps. CXIX.2], which I shall call Evil Tongues. It has not been printed, and there seems to be no other copy.’ Cf. Ker, N. R., Catalogue of Manuscripts containing Anglo-Saxon (Oxford, 1957), no. 182, art. 4.Google Scholar The sermon is included in the Dictionary of Old English (DOE) corpus of Old English texts under the title HomM 4 as a fragmentary item, represented by little more than Wanley's printed transcription of the opening and closing lines of the sermon (Librorum Veterum Septentrionalium…Catalogus Historico-Criticus, in Hickes, G., Linguarum Veterum Septentrionalium Thesaurus, 2 vols. (Oxford, 1703–1705) II, 212, col. 2Google Scholar; see below, p. 217, n. 46 and p. 221, n. 56). Cf. Cameron, A., ‘A List of Old English Texts’, A Plan for the Dictionary of Old English, ed. Frank, R. and Cameron, A. (Toronto, 1973), p. 113, no. B.3.5.4Google Scholar; Healey, A. diP. and Venezky, R. L., A Microfiche Concordance to Old English: The Lists of Texts and Index of Editions (Toronto, 1980), p. 101Google Scholar. Michiko Ogura drew attention to the inadequacy of the partial text available in the DOE corpus in ‘Some Notes on the Transcription of Unedited Homily Pieces – Minor Corrections of A Microfiche Concordance to Old English’, Tsuru Univ. Rev. 22 (1985), 89–118, at 92–3.Google Scholar

² Cotton, Otho C. i, vol. 2, 139v5–143v6, ed. Assmann, B., Angelsächsische Homilien und Heiligenleben, Bibliothek der angelsächsischen Prosa 3 (Kassel, 1889; repr. Darmstadt, 1964), 199–207Google Scholar. Cf. Ker, , Catalogue, no. 182, art. 2 (c).Google Scholar For the Latin text, see Mierow, C. C., ‘Sancti Eusebii Hieronymi Vita Malchi Monachi Captivi’, Classical Essays presented to James A. Kleist, ed. Arnold, R. E., (St Louis, MO, 1946), pp. 31–60.Google Scholar Jerome's account of Malchus circulated in bk 1 of the Vitae Patrum, and the Old English version in Cotton Otho C. i is preceded by two other Lives translated from bk 5 of the same source. These, however, were copied by a different scribe. See Sisam, , Studies, p. 203.Google Scholar

³ Cotton, Otho C. i, vol. 2, 143v7–146r21, ed. Sisam, , Studies, pp. 212–24Google Scholar. Cf. Ker, , Catalogue, no. 182, art. 3.Google Scholar

⁴ See Dekkers, E. and Gaar, E., Clams Patrum Latinorum (Steenbrugge, 1961), no. 592Google Scholar; Stegmüller, F., Repertorium Biblicum Medii Aevi, 11 vols. (Madrid, 1950–1980) III, 57–8 (no. 3325) and IX, 120 (no. 3325), cf. III, 60 (no. 3334)Google Scholar; Frede, H. J., Kirchenschriftsteller. Verzeichnis und Sigel, Vetus Latina 1.1 (Freiburg, 1981), 368.Google Scholar

⁵ See Morin, G., ‘Les Monuments de la prédication de saint Jérôme’, Revue d'histoire et de littérature religieuses 1 (1896), 393–434Google Scholar, repr. in Morin, , Études, textes, découvertes: contributions à la littérature età l'histoire des douze premiers siècles. Anecdota Maredsolana 2nd ser. 1 (1913), 220–93Google Scholar, cf. idem, ‘Introduction bibliographique’, Études, textes, découvertes, pp. 18–19Google Scholar; Sancti Hieronymi Presbyteri Tractatus sive Homiliae in Psalmos, in Marci evangelium aliaque varia argumenta, ed. Morin, , Anecdota Maredsolana 3.2 (1897). We cite below from the revised edition ptd S. Hieronymi Presbyteri Opera: Pars II. Opera Homiletica, CCSL 78 (Turnhout, 1958), 246–61.Google Scholar

⁶ See Morin, , S. Hieronymi Opera, pp. xiv–xvGoogle Scholar; cf. James, M. R., On the Abbey of S. Edmund at Bury, Cambridge Antiquarian Society, Octavo Publ. 28 (Cambridge, 1895), 63Google Scholar; idem, A Descriptive Catalogue of the Manuscripts in the Library of Pembroke College, Cambridge (Cambridge, 1905), pp. 83–4Google Scholar; Schenkl, H., ‘Bibliotheca Patrum Latinorum Brittanica. IX’, Sitzungsberichte der kaiserlichen Akademie der Wissenschaften in Wien, phil-hist. Klasse 137 (1897), VIII. 1–82, at 10–11 (art. 2509)Google Scholar; Ker, N. R., Medieval Libraries of Great Britain. A List of Surviving Books, Royal Hist. Soc. Guides and Handbooks 3 (London, 1964), 19Google Scholar; Lambert, B., Bibliotheca Hieronymiana Manuscripta, 4 vols., Instrumenta Patristica 4 (Steenbrugge, 1969–1972) II, 303 (no. 220)Google Scholar; Gneuss, H., ‘A Preliminary List of Manuscripts Written or Owned in England up to 1100’, ASE 9 (1981), 1–60, at 12 (no. 136).Google Scholar

⁷ On this work, see Morin, , Études, textes, découvertes, pp. 221–3Google Scholar; Dekkers, and Gaar, , Clevis Patrum, no. 629Google Scholar; Stgmüller, , Repertorium Biblicum III, 59–60 (no. 3333), and IX, 120 (no. 3333)Google Scholar; McNamara, M., ‘Psalter Text and Psalter Study in the Early Irish Church (A.D. 600–1200)’, Proc. R. Irish Acad. 73C (1973), 225, n. 39Google Scholar; Frede, , Kirchenschriftsteller, p. 371Google Scholar. On confusion over the contents of Pembroke 91, see Biggs, F. M., Hill, T. D. and Szarmach, P. E., Sources of Anglo-Saxon Literary Culture: A Trial Version (Binghamton, NY, 1990), p. 99.Google Scholar

⁸ See Morin, , S. Hieronymi Opera, pp. xvi–xviiGoogle Scholar; cf. Zangemeister, K., Bericht überdie Durchforschung der Bibliotheken Englands (Vienna, 1877), p. 28Google Scholar; Warner, G. F. and Gilson, J. P., Catalogue of Western Manuscripts in the Old Royal and King's Collections, 4 vols. (London, 1921) I, 81Google Scholar; Lambert, , Bibliotheca Hieronymiana II, 304Google Scholar; Gneuss, , ‘Preliminary List’, p. 30 (no. 455 – for ‘Pseudo-Hieronymus’ read ‘Hieronymus’)Google Scholar; Biggs, et al. , Sources of Anglo-Saxon Literary Culture, p. 99Google Scholar. For the tentative suggestion that this manuscript was written at Winchester together with its companion volume, Royal 2. B. V (the Regius Psalter), see Ker, , Catalogue, nos. 249–50Google Scholar. Royal 4. A. XIV was later at Worcester, ‘perhaps already in s. xii’ (Ker, , Catalogue, no. 250Google Scholar; cf. Ker, , Medieval Libraries of Great Britain, p. 207).Google Scholar On the question of provenance, see further The Salisbury Psalter, ed. C. and Sisam, K., EETS os 242 (London, 1959), 52–4.Google ScholarDavey, W., ‘The Commentary of the Regius Psalter: its Main Source and Influence on the OE Gloss’, MS 49 (1987), 335–51, at 340Google Scholar, n. 16, notes that Royal, 4. A. XTV probably originally contained a complete text of Jerome's Tractatus in Psalmos.Google Scholar

⁹ See Drögereit, R., ‘Ein angelsächsisches Bruchstück mit des Hieronymus “Tractatus in Psalmos” aus Wrisbergholzen’, Festschrift zum 70. Geburtstage von Oberlandeskirchenrat i. R. D. Philipp Meyer, Jahrbuch für niedersächsische Kirchengeschichte 51 (1953), 3–15Google Scholar. Cf. Morin, , S. Hieronymi Opera, p. xxii, n. 1Google Scholar. The fragment is not included in either Lambert, Bibliotheca Hieronymiana, no. 220, or Gneuss, , ‘Preliminary List’.Google Scholar

¹⁰ See note on lines 13 to 20 of the Old English text, below p. 225.

¹¹ The author of the Breviarium in Psalmos was not alone in his use of abstracts from Jerome's Tractatus in Psalmos. Several passages from Jerome's text are, for instance, incorporated in the sermon ‘Beatus homo cui miserebitur deus’, which was included in one of the homiletic anthologies of Caesarius of Arles (see Sancti Caesarii Arelatensis Sermones, ed. Morin, G., CCSL 103–4 (Turnhout, 1953), xlv–xlix and 959 [910], ‘Collectio A' no. 41)Google Scholar, and which also appears as an intruder in the Maurists' edition of the pseudo-Augustinian, Sermones ad fratres in eremo (no. 45 in PL 40 [2nd ed., Paris, 1887], cols. 1323–4Google Scholar; see Bonnès, J.-P., ‘Un des plus grands prédicateurs du xiie siècle: Geoffroy du Loroux dit Geoffroy Babion’, RB 56 (1945–1946), 174–215, at 177 n. 1Google Scholar; Treloar, A., ‘The Augustinian “Sermones ad fratres in eremo commorantes”’, Prudentia 3 (1971), 39–50, at 39 and 45Google Scholar; Machielsen, J., Clavis Patristica Pseudepigraphorum Medii Aevi, CCSL (Turnhout, 1990), no. 1172). With PL 40, col. 1323, lines 45–7Google Scholar, cf. Jerome, ‘Tractatus de PS. CXIX’, CCSL 78, 251, lines 161–3, Eril Tongues 3–5, 23–4; with col. 1323, lines 47–8Google Scholar, cf. Jerome, , 252, lines 183–4, Evil Tongues 45; with col. 1323, lines 48–51Google Scholar, cf. Jerome, , 251, lines 170–3, Evil Tongues 37–9. This particular adaptation of Jerome's text cannot, however, be regarded as a source for Evil Tongues.Google Scholar

¹² With Evil Tongues 7 gesegen (past part.), cf. Malchus 361 gesegon, 366gesegen; Wynfrith's Letter 12, 44, 146 gesegen, 134, 186 gesege (past subj. 3 sg.), 97, 179 geseage. See Sisam, , Studies, p. 207.Google Scholar Cf. Brunner, K., Altenglische Grammatik nach der angelsächsischen Grammatik von Eduard Sievers, 3rd ed. (Tübingen, 1965) [henceforth Sievers-Brunner], §§ 234 (d), 391.2 n. 8CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Campbell, A., Old English Grammar (Oxford, 1959) [henceforth OEG], § 743 and n. 6Google Scholar; Lane, G. S., ‘The Labiovelars before ōin Germanic’, JEGP 35 (1936), 17–26, at 20, n. 4Google Scholar; Vleeskruyer, R., The Life of St. Chad. An Old English Homily (Amsterdam, 1953), p. 118 (§ 39).Google Scholar

¹³ See Sievers-Brunner, § 119Google Scholar; Campbell, , OEG, §§ 222, 227 and 229Google Scholar; Hogg, R. M., Grammar of Old English. Volume I: Phonology (Oxford, 1992), § 5.93 and 95Google Scholar. The absence of syncope in the third person singular present indicative form ligeð is also typical of Anglian texts. See Sievers-Brunner, § 358.2Google Scholar; Campbell, , OEG, § 733Google Scholar; Vleeskruyer, , Chad, p. 142 (§ 67).Google Scholar Cf. Evil Tongues 13 bideð; 16–17 gehihteð; 24 acweleð; 25 ahefeð; 31, 46, 55 wyrceð; 36, 55 tœleð; 36 wyrgeð; 59 ongiteð; 15, 26 hafað; 27 nafað. On the limited value of such uncontracted forms as decisive evidence of dialect, see, however, Sisam, K., ‘Dialect Origins of the Earlier Old English Verse’, Studies, pp. 123–6.Google Scholar

¹⁴ Cf. 59 sylfa. See Sievers-Brunner, §§ 85, 124 and 339Google Scholar; Campbell, , OEG, §§ 146, 325–6Google Scholar; Hogg, , Grammar, § 5.22Google Scholar; Vleeskruyer, , Chad, pp. 111–12 (§ 31).Google Scholar

¹⁵ Spellings of this kind are characteristic of West Mercian in particular. See Luick, K., Historische Grammatik der englischen Sprache (Leipzig, 1914–1940), §§ 110 and 367Google Scholar; Sievers-Brunner, § 79 and n. 1Google Scholar; Campbell, , OEG, § 130Google Scholar; Hogg, , Grammar, § 5.5Google Scholar; Vleeskruyer, , Chad, pp. 103–5 (§ 25)Google Scholar. The form wommum at Evil Tongues 75 provides another example of o before a nasal. However, as Vleeskruyer points out (p. 104), womm is also frequently found instead of wamm in late West Saxon texts and is the spelling regularly used by ÆElfric.

¹⁶ See Sievers-Brunner, §§ 104 and 106Google Scholar; Campbell, , OEG, § 200.5Google Scholar, Hogg, , Grammar, §§ 2.22 n. 4, 5.77 n. 6 and 5.82Google Scholar; Vleeskruyer, , Chad, pp. 91–2 (§ 14)Google Scholar. Cf. Wynfrith's Letter 63 ungehersumnes (beside ungehyrsum in the same line); Malchus 271 hœftnede (beside 295 hœftnyd, 331 hœftnyde), 381 cegan, 190,388 cegde, 389 cegð (beside 390 cigdon). For further examples, see Sisam, , Studies, p. 207.Google Scholar

¹⁷ Sisam, , Studies, p. 207Google Scholar. Cf. Campbell, , OEG, § 297Google Scholar; Hogg, , Grammar, § 5.160.Google Scholar

¹⁸ Cf. Malchus 157 gehiolden, 216 hundsiofontig, 248–9 diofles, 386 gesion, etc., 182 niorwedon (with io for ēa). See Sisam, , Studies, p. 207Google Scholar for examples from Wynfrith's Letter.

¹⁹ Cf. Malchus 217 hiafde; Wynfrith's Letter 159 hiaf, 209 hiardran (on vowel length, see Campbell, , OEG, § 283).Google Scholar

²⁰ See Campbell, , OEG, §§ 294, 296Google Scholar; Hogg, , Grammar, §§ 5.156, 158Google Scholar; Sisam, K., The Compilation of the Beowulf Manuscript’, Studies, pp. 92–3Google Scholar; Sisam, , The Exeter Book’, Studies, pp. 104–5Google Scholar; Scragg, D. G., ‘The Compilation of the Vercelli Book’, ASE 2 (1973), 189–207, at 196–9 (esp. 197: ‘although theoretically io is a useful guide to a manuscript's origin, in practice it has rarely proved so’).Google Scholar

²¹ Campbell, , OEG, § 298Google Scholar, notes that ‘there is no reason to think that the first element of was raised in Kt. in the OE period’. But Vleeskruyer, , Chad, pp. 59–60, n. 6Google Scholar, compares instances of ia for ea in Malchus, Wynfrith's Letter and Evil Tongues with forms like bidð, ðiada (for bēoõ, ðēoda) in the Vespasian Psalter (cf. Campbell, , OEG, § 238Google Scholar on hiað, §281 on ðiada). This merely begs the question of dialect, however, whether one accepts Campbell's view that the Vespasian Psalter was glossed by a Mercian scribe at Canterbury (‘A Contribution on the Gloss’, The Vespasian Psalter, British Museum Cotton Vespasian A.I, ed. Wright, D. H., EEMF 14 (Copenhagen, 1967), 82Google Scholar; cf. The Vespasian Psalter, ed. Kuhn, S. M. (Ann Arbor, MI, 1965), pp. v–vi)Google Scholar, or Ball's, C. J. E. argument that the gloss was copied from a Mercian original by a Kentish scribe (‘The Language of the Vespasian Psalter Gloss: Two Caveats’, RES 21 (1970), 462–5Google Scholar; cf. Hogg, , Grammar, § 1.8)Google Scholar. Campbell, , OEG, § 280Google Scholar, cites numerous examples of delabialization of to in Kentish texts. Bryan, W. F., Studies in the Dialects of the Kentish Charters of the Old English Period (Chicago, 1915), p. 24 and n. 15Google Scholar, notes of such forms that ‘not all…are peculiarly significant of Kentish’, but also ‘appear occasionally in the Anglian dialects’. On the difficulties which attend inflexible notions of Old English dialect division, see esp. Sisam, , ‘Dialect Origins’, Studies, pp. 119–21Google Scholar; Crowley, J. P., ‘The Study of Old English Dialects’, ES 67 (1986), 97–112Google Scholar; Hogg, R. M., ‘On the Impossibility of Old English Dialectology’, Luick Revisited: Papers read at the Luick-Symposium at Schloβ Liechtenstein, 15.-18. 9. 1985, ed. Kastovsky, D. and Bauer, G. (Tübingen, 1988), pp. 183–203.Google Scholar

²² On the limitations of Wortgeographie in Old English, see esp. Vleeskruyer, , Chad, pp. 23–5Google Scholar. As Sisam observes, however (Studies, p. 209Google Scholar), ‘in texts so short the cumulative weight [of non-West Saxon vocabulary] … is considerable’.

²³ See Sisam, , Studies, pp. 209–10Google Scholar; cf. Jordan, R., Eigentümlichkeiten des anglischen Wortschatzes. Eine wortgeographische Untersuchung mit etymologischen Anmerkungen, Anglistische Forschungen 17 (Heidelberg, 1906), 93–4Google Scholar; Vleeskruyer, , Chad, pp. 26–8Google Scholar; Wenisch, , Spezifisch anglisches Wortgut in den nordhumhrischen Interlinearglossierungen des Lukasevangeliums, Anglistische Forschungen 132 (Heidelberg, 1979), 117, n. 133Google Scholar. Gneuss, H., however, in Hymnar und Hymnen im englischen Mittelalter, Buchreihe der Anglia 12 (Tübingen, 1968), 175CrossRefGoogle Scholar, points out that Jordan's views on the restricted use of (ge)cigan in late West Saxon need qualification.

²⁴ See Sisam, , Studies, p. 210Google Scholar; cf. Jordan, , Eigentümlichkeiten, pp. 17–18Google Scholar; Hallander, L.-G., Old English Verbs in -sian. A Semantic and Derivational Study, Acta Universitatis Stockholmiensis, Stockholm Studies in English 15 (Stockholm, 1966), 157–63Google Scholar, esp. § 3.6.4.1 on production of the form yfelsian by folk etymology; Wenisch, , Worgut, p. 132.Google Scholar

²⁵ Cf. Wenisch, , Wortgut, pp. 150–6 and 235–9.Google Scholar

²⁶ On inwit, see Rauh, H., Der Wortschatz der altenglischen Uebersetzungen des Matthaeus-Evangeliums untersucht auf seine dialektische und zeitliche Gebundenheit (unpubl. PhD dissertation, Friedrich-Wilhelms Univ. Berlin, 1936), p. 14Google Scholar; Menner, R. J., ‘The Anglian Vocabulary of the Bückling Homilies’, Philologica: The Malone Anniversary Studies, ed. Kirby, T. A. and Woolf, H. B. (Baltimore, 1949), p. 58Google Scholar; Vleeskruyer, , Chad, p. 31Google Scholar; Schabram, Hans, Superbia. Studien zum altenglischen Wortschatz I: Die dialektale undeutliche Verbreitung des Wortguts (Munich, 1965), p. 82Google Scholar; Wenisch, , Wortgut, pp. 110 and n. 86,198 and n. 711.Google Scholar

²⁷ See Wenisch, , Wortgut, pp. 184–9.Google Scholar

²⁸ Cf. Jost, K., Wulfstanstudien, Schweizer Anglistische Arbeiten 23 (Bern, 1950), 162Google Scholar; Vleeskruyer, , Chad, p. 32 and n. 1Google Scholar; Wenisch, , Wortgut, pp. 189–205.Google Scholar

²⁹ On the use of in as a mark of Anglian transmission, see Jordan, , Eigentümlichkeiten, pp. 42–4Google Scholar; Sisam, , Studies, p. 89Google Scholar; Menner, , ‘Anglian Vocabulary’, p. 58 and n. 10Google Scholar; Vleeskruyer, , Chad, p. 30Google Scholar; Wenisch, , Wortgut, pp. 174–5Google Scholar. Seven certain examples of in are found in Evil Tongues (at lines 5, 12, 24, 45, 46, 82 and 94, cf. postulated forms at lines 12 and 14) as opposed to some thirty examples of on. Wynfrith's letter has in slighdy less often than on with the meaning ‘in’. Malchus has in almost twice as often as on.

³⁰ Sisam, , Studies, p. 210Google Scholar. Cf. Vleeskruyer, , Chad, p. 60, n. 6Google Scholar: ‘Malchus has many points of correspondence with St. Chad, and in general shows all the characteristics of the ninth-century Mercian translations.’

³¹ See Sisam, , Studies, pp. 211–12Google Scholar; Amos, A. C., Healey, A. diP.et al., Dictionary of Old English: B (Toronto, 1991), s.v. belangianGoogle Scholar. Cf. Kurath, H., Kuhn, S. M.et al., Middle English Dictionary (Ann Arbor, MI, 1952–), s.v. bil ngen, esp. 4 (b).Google Scholar

³² The gloss is written over the opening words of Ephrem Syrus, De compunctione cordis, in London, Lambeth Palace, 204,119v: ‘dolor me compellit dicere…’ – ‘min sar me benet to segen…’See Logeman, H., ‘Anglo-Saxonica Minora’, Anglia 11 (1889), 97–120, at 110Google Scholar; Ker, , Catalogue, no. 277, art. bGoogle Scholar. The example from Evil Tongues 69 has now been added to the unpublished first revision of DOE: B, s.v. beny¯dan, under the sense ‘to constrain, restrain (something)’.

³³ In the Eadwine gloss the verb regularly renders tribulare, e.g., at Ps. CV.44, Eadwine's Canterbury Psalter, ed. Harsley, F., EETS os 92 (London, 1889), 187Google Scholar: midti geeœrfoþgodo weron = cum tribularentur, cf. PS. XXX.10, LXVIII.18, LXXX.15, CI.3, CV.11, CV.42, CVI.13, CVI.19, CVII.14, CXVIII.157, CXIX.1, CXLII.12. At PS. XII.5, XXII.5, XLI.11, LV.2, in the corrected section of the gloss, the verb appears with forms of swencan as alternative glosses. At PS. CIV.16 and CIV.33 forms of geearfoþian are used to gloss forms of conterere ‘to grind to pieces, destroy’. Cf. Wildhagen, K., Der Psalter des Eadwine von Canterbury, Studien zur englischen Philologie 13 (Halle a.S., 1905), 22 (§ 8, no. 42)Google Scholar. Wildhagen claimed that the Eadwine gloss was based on an Anglian (probably North Mercian) original of the eighth century (see ibid. pp. 206–8 [§§ 123–4], and Wildhagen, , ‘Zum Eadwine- und Regius-Psalter’, Englische Studien 39 (1908), 189–209)Google Scholar. While most scholars now agree with the verdict of Kenneth Sisam (Salisbury Psalter, ed. C. and Sisam, K., p. 58 (§ 115)Google Scholar that ‘the confusion of vocabulary, phonology, and inflexions in the uncorrected E[adwine gloss] defies historical analysis such as Wildhagen attempted’ (cf. O'Neill, P. P., ‘The English Version’, in The Eadwine Psalter. Text, Image, and Monastic Culture in Twelfth-Century Canterbury, ed. Gibson, M., Heslop, T. A. and Pfaff, R. W., Publ, of the Mod. Humanities Research Assoc. 14 (London and University Park, PA, 1992), 125)Google Scholar, Hans Schabram concurs at least with Wildhagen's conclusion, ‘daß E letztlich auf eine englische Quelle zurückgeht’ (Superbia, p. 28).Google ScholarKuhn, S. M. (‘The Vespasian Psalter Gloss: Original or Copy?’, PMLA 74 (1959), 161–77, at 168)CrossRefGoogle Scholar likewise agrees that the Eadwine gloss ‘is very likely an early ME copy of a WS-Kt. redaction of a Merc, original’. Cf. Wenisch, , Wortgut, p. 66.Google Scholar

³⁴ Napier, A. S., ‘Contributions to Old English Lexicography’, TPS (1903–1906), 265–358, at 283Google Scholar; repr. as a monograph (Hereford, 1906), p. 19. Cf. The Vercelli Homilies, ed. Scragg, D., EETS os 300 (Oxford, 1992), 245, lines 126 and 128Google Scholar, where efenheafda is a free rendering of conservus in Gregory's, Dialogi IV. lxii.2, ed. de Vogüé, A., 3 vols., Sources Chrétiennes 251, 260 and 265 (Paris, 1978–1980) III, 204; cf. Matt. XVIII.28–9.Google Scholar

³⁵ Toller, T. N., An Anglo-Saxon Dictionary: Supplement (Oxford, 1908–1921) s.v.Google Scholarefenheafda, compares the compound efenheafodling, used once in the prose life of St Guthlac, , Das angelsächsische Prosa-Leben des hl. Guthlac, ed. Gonser, P., Anglistische Forschungen 27 (Heidelberg, 1909), 108Google Scholar, line 35: ‘he gesomnode micele scole and wered his geþoftena and hys efenhœfdlingas’; cf. Felix's Life of Saini Guthlac, ed. Colgrave, B. (Cambridge, 1956), p. 80: ‘adgregatis satellitum turmis [i.e. sociorum N]’.Google Scholar

³⁶ With mannhœlu, cf., e.g., Bosworth, J. and Toller, T. N., An Anglo-Saxon Dictionary (Oxford, 1882–1898), s.v.Google Scholarmanndreám. ‘The compound appears to render the phrase salus hominis in Ps. CVII.13 (see note on lines 13 to 20 of the text, below p. 225). With mynstergesamnung, cf., e.g., Toller, , Anglo-Saxon Dictionary: Supplement, s.v. preóstgesamnung, and the collocation mynstres gesomnung in Bischof Wœrferths von Worcester Übersetzung der Dialoge Gregors des Grossen, ed. Hecht, H., Bibliothek der angelsächsischen Prosa 5 (Leipzig, 1900–1907), 103, lines 24–5Google Scholar: ‘þœs mynstres gesomnunge fæder wæs forðfered’, cf. Dialogi II.iii.2, ed. de Vogüé, II, 140Google Scholar: ‘monasteriumfuit… cuius congregationis pater defunctus est’.

³⁷ Vleeskruyer, , Chad, pp. 59–60, n. 6.Google Scholar

³⁸ Cf. Vercelli Homilies, ed. Scragg, no. 4, lines 106–9: ‘Đa ðe her rumheortlice hyra ælmessan for hyra scyldum on Godes naman dælað, þam sylð; God hyra synna forgifnesse, 7 hie bioð; on micelre wynsumnesse wiste feded.’ Schabram, , Superbia, pp. 85–6Google Scholar, argues that this text is a West Saxon reworking of an Anglian original; cf. Wenisch, , Wortgut, pp. 73–4.Google Scholar

³⁹ Cf. Hallander, L.-G., ‘Two Old English Confessional Prayers’, Studier i modern språkvetenskap, n.s. 3 (1968), 87–110, at –105, lines 3–6 (§ 5.2 (13))Google Scholar: ‘forgif me… eallæ þa biternesse þe … ic æfre mid muþe to unnytte agelde þonne ic me to þe gebiddan scolde. & þinne naman ivurðian 7 wuldrian’. Hallander identifies this text as a West Saxon copy of an Anglian original.

⁴⁰ This collocation is, of course, also common in West Saxon texts. Cf., e.g., King Alfred's Old English Version of Boethius De Consolations Philosophiae, ed. Sedgefield, W. J. (Oxford, 1899), p. 20, line 5; p. 62, line 16; p. 122, line 26Google Scholar; Ælfric's Lives of Saints, ed. Skeat, W. W., EETS os 76, 82, 94 and 114 (Oxford, 1881–1900; repr. in 2 vols., 1966) I, 142, line 396Google Scholar; Homilies of Ælfric: A Supplementary Collection, ed. Pope, J. C., 2 vols., EETS os 259 and 260 (London, 1967–1968) II, 745, lines 187–8Google Scholar; Ancient Laws and Institutes of England, ed. Thorpe, B., 2 vols. (London, 1840 [octavo edition]) II, 396, lines 19–20 (= Healey and Venezky, Microfiche Concordance: List of Texts, p. 111, HomU 55; Ker, Catalogue, no. 50, art. 2).Google Scholar

⁴¹ See Ker, , Catalogue, pp. 236 and 238 (no. 182) on fols. 62–148Google Scholar. It has often been noted that the ‘ii englissce dialogas’ mentioned in the mid-eleventh-century booklist in Cambridge, Corpus Christi College 367 are very likely the copies of Wærferth's Old English translation of Gregory's Dialogues preserved in Otho C. i, vol. 2, and Oxford, Bodleian Library, Hatton 76. See Anglo-Saxon Charters, ed. Robertson, A. J. (Cambridge, 1939), pp. 250, line 6 and 498Google Scholar; Ker, , Catalogue, no. 64, and p. xlviiiGoogle Scholar; Sisam, , Studies, p. 209, n. 1Google Scholar; Wilson, R. M., The Lost Literature of Medieval England, 2nd ed. (London, 1970), pp. 81–2Google Scholar; Lapidge, M., ‘Surviving Booklists from Anglo-Saxon England’, Learning and Literature in Anglo-Saxon England. Studies presented to Peter Clemoes on the Occasion of his Sixty-Fifth Birthday, ed. Lapidge, M. and Gneuss, H. (Cambridge, 1985), p. 63Google Scholar; Franzen, C., The Tremulous Hand of Worcester. A Study of Old English in the Thirteenth Century (Oxford, 1991), pp. 75 and 77.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

⁴² See Ker, , Catalogue, p. 238 (no. 182)Google Scholar; Franzen, , Tremulous Hand, pp. 64–5.Google Scholar For the glosses on 146r-148v, see below pp. 227–9.

⁴³ Sisam, , Studies, p. 211.Google Scholar

⁴⁴ Especially at the ends of lines many letters partially or wholly obscured by paper mounts can be read by illuminating the page from behind.

⁴⁵ Cf. 22 spræcum, 61 spræ<cum>.

⁴⁶ Cf. Wanley, , Catalogus, in Hickes, Thesaurus II, 212, col. 2: VI. fol. 282.Google Scholar ‘Homilia in illud Psalmista:. DN¯E LIBERA ANIMAM MEAM A LABIIS INIQVIS. ET A LINGUA DOLOSA Incip. Geherað nu men þa leofostan. hu se Godes lareow wæs sprecende. and he cw. Drihten. gefreolsa me fram unnyttu speccum. and fram inwitfullum tungan.’

⁴⁷ The manuscript reading appears to be a corruption of gebyreð.

⁴⁸ The reading ‘<b>ear<n>’ is no more than a guess. The letter which precedes ‘ear’ is illegible, and no trace of ‘<n>’ is visible.

⁴⁹ With the conjectural form swilc for swilce adv., cf., e.g., Gneuss, H., Hymnar und Hymnen, p. 305 (36.6)Google Scholar: ‘7 we hleoðriað eac swilc niwne lofsang’ — ‘et nos concinimus quoque novum ymnum’; Early Scholastic Colloquies, ed. Stevenson, W. H. (Oxford, 1929), no. VII (‘Liber Abbonis anglice interpretatus’) p. 109, line 5(67)Google Scholar: ‘biðgelæd scip mid rape, bið gelæd eac swylc boga mid strence’ – ‘ducitur limbus anquina, ducitur nec non arsippio anquina’. On the use of eac swilce in Mercian texts, see Vleeskruyer, , Chad, p. 27.Google Scholar

⁵⁰ Cf. lines 2–3 and 22.

⁵¹ Cf. Jerome's phrase peccatorum… conscientia (below, p. 226). The sense of gemynd is normally ‘remembrance, recollection’ (cf., e.g., The Old English Version of Bede's Ecclesiastical History of the English People, ed. Miller, T., EETS os 95, 96, 110 and 111 (London, 1890–1898), p. 242, line 25Google Scholar: ‘inbryrded mid gemynd his synna’; Bede's Ecclesiastical History of the English People, ed. Colgrave, B. and Mynors, R. A. B. (Oxford, 1969), p. 312, lines 30–1 (III.27)Google Scholar: ‘conpunctus memoria peccatorum’). However, the sense of the partially conjectural phrase yfel gemynd here is probably close to ‘bad (i.e. guilty) conscience’ (cf., e.g., Glare, P. G. W.et al., Oxford Latin Dictionary (Oxford, 1968–1982), s.v. malus ¹, 3.d. ‘-a conscientia, consciousness of wrongdoing, a bad conscience’; cf. modern German schlechtes Gewissen, modern Danish dårlig samvittighed, etc.).Google Scholar

⁵² With this formula cf., e.g., the prayer printed from Cambridge, Corpus Christi College 303 in Ker, , Catalogue, no. 57, art. 21Google Scholar: ‘… þæt he us gemiltsie, 7 sylle forgifennesse ealre ure synna. þe we siððe oððe ær geworhtan. oþþe geþohtan ongean his leofan willan’. Cf. the variant text in Cambridge, Corpus Christi College 421, ed. Förster, M., ‘Zur Liturgik der angelsächsischen Kirche’, Anglia 66 (1942), 1–51, at 49: ‘… geþohtan oþþe geworhtan’.Google Scholar

⁵³ The phrase geflitf habban is used to render disputationem habere at Wynfrith's Letter 44.

⁵⁴ A feminine noun is needed to go with feminine accusative singular ane. The feminine noun writingfeþer is used to render calamus in six interlinear psalter glosses of PS. XLIV.2 lingua mea calamus scribae velociter scribentis: Der altenglische Regius-Psalter [D], ed. Roeder, F. (Halle a.S., 1904), p. 82Google Scholar; Eadwine's Canterbury Psalter [E], ed. Harsley, p. 77Google Scholar; The Stowe Psalter [F], ed. Kimmens, A. C., Toronto Old English Series 3 (Toronto, 1979), 85Google Scholar; The Vitellius Psalter [G], ed. Rosier, J. L., Cornell Studies in English 42 (Ithaca NY, 1962), 108Google Scholar; The Tiberius Psalter [H], ed. Campbell, A. P., Ottawa Mediaeval Texts and Studies 2 (Ottawa, 1974), 113Google Scholar; The Salisbury Psalter [K], ed. C. and Sisam, K., p. 138.Google Scholar Cf. Der altenglische Arundel-Psalter [J], ed. Oess, G., Anglistische Forschungen 30 (Heidelberg, 1910), 87Google Scholar: reodwrite fœder, perhaps for hreod, *writefeþer, Liber Psalmorum: The West-Saxon Psalms, Being the Prose Portion, or the ‘First Fifty’, of the so-called Paris Psalter, ed. Wright, J. W. and Ramsay, R. L. (Boston, 1907), p. 105Google Scholar: ‘min tunge ys gelicost þæs writeres feþere’. See also Gneuss, H., Lehnbildungen und Lehnbedeutungen im Altenglischen (Berlin, 1955), pp. 98–9.Google Scholar

⁵⁵ Or perhaps read ‘<broðrum>’, ‘to our brothers’; but cf. the Latin parallel loquor fratri meo, below, p. 227.

⁵⁶ Cf. Wanley, , CatalogusGoogle Scholar, in Hickes, , Thesaurus II, 212, col. 2Google Scholar: Expl. Uton healden nu forðan þa sibbe þe Drihten us sealde. þonne gehealdað us se Drihten Hælend Crist se þe leofað 7 rixað a to worulde.’

⁵⁷ For this construction, see Toller, , Anglo-Saxon Dictionary: Supplement, s.v. geseón, VII: ‘… in the passive, to seem, videri’.Google Scholar

⁵⁸ The antecedent of he in line 19 appears to be him (i.e. the unwise man) in the same line, rather than anigne man in line 18, even though the sense of the Latin parallel, Jerome, ‘Tractatus de Ps. CVII’, CCSL 78, 208, lines 216–17Google Scholar: subito subtractus est spiritus eius in quem ille sperauit, is clearly: ‘suddenly the spirit of the one in whom he has placed his trust is carried off’. The translator may have worked from a text like Morin's ‘Q’, in which the phrase in quem ille sperauit is omitted. See the Latin parallel for Evil Tongues 13–20, below, p. 225.Google Scholar

⁵⁹ Cf. Jerome's, Latin, hora tertia oramus … gallicinio, mane primo (below, p. 226).Google Scholar The translator appears to have attempted to reconcile the older cursus of daily prayer described by Jerome (see Taft, R., The Liturgy of the Hours in East and West (Collegeville, MN, 1986), p. 131Google Scholar; Martimort, A. G., The Church at Prayer. An Introduction to the Liturgy, new ed., trans. O'Connell, M. J., 4 vols. (London, 1985–1987) IV, 173Google Scholar) with the post-Benedictine monastic office with which he was familiar. The hours of terce, sext, none and vespers (lucernarium) posed no problems, and could be rendered by their usual equivalents, undern, mid dœg, nontid, œfen (cf. Tupper, F., ‘Anglo-Saxon Dzg-Mæl’, PMLA 10 (1895), 111–241, at 160–82CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Gneuss, H., review of The Benedictine Office. An Old English Text, ed. Ure, J. M. (Edinburgh, 1957), Anglia 77 (1959), 227–8).Google Scholar But the calque honansang for gallicinium ‘cock-crow’ is paralleled only in Das altenglische Martyrologium, ed. Kotzor, G., 2 vols. (Munich, 1981) II, 3, line 6Google Scholarhanasang, where the word does not refer specifically to the office of ‘nocturns’ (usually uhtsang in Old English; see Tupper, , ‘Anglo-Saxon Daeg-mæl’, pp. 142–9Google Scholar; Gneuss, , review of Benedictine Office, pp. 227–8Google Scholar). Similar OE hancred is, however, regularly used to render gallicinium (see Tupper, , ‘Anglo-Saxon Dæg-maæl’, pp. 149–52Google Scholar). The translator probably meant the phrase œt niht, rendering medio noctis/media nocte, to stand for ‘compline’ rather than Jerome's ‘midnight’ or ‘middle of the night’ (cf. Tupper, , ‘Anglo-Saxon Dæg-mæl’, p. 184Google Scholar, and Gneuss, , review of Benedictine Office, p. 228Google Scholar on the regular use of nihtsang for completorium ‘compline’; see Taft, , Liturgy, p. 131Google Scholar, and Martimort, , Church at Prayer IV, 173Google Scholar on mesonyktikon and the addition of compline to the monastic office). Similarly, the translator may well have meant the phrase on œrnemorgen to stand for the office of ‘prime’ (usually primsang in Old English; see Tupper, , ‘Anglo-Saxon Dæg-mæl’, pp. 136–7 and 157Google Scholar; Gneuss, , review of Benedictine Office, p. 228Google Scholar; Gretsch, M., Die Regula Sancti Benedicti in England und ihre altenglische Über-seftzung, Texte und Untersuchungen zur englischen Philologie 2 (Munich, 1973), 368Google Scholar; but cf. Tupper, , ‘Anglo-Saxon Dæg-mæl, pp. 136–7, 145 and 152Google Scholar on the use of œrnemorgen to refer to dœgredsang and primsang together; see Gneuss, , review of Benedictine Office, p. 228Google Scholar, dœgredsang = laudes). However, it is unlikely that Jerome's mane primo refers specifically to ‘prime’ (see Taft, , Liturgy, pp. 206–7Google Scholar, and Martimort, , Church at Prayer IV, 173Google Scholar on the addition of the office of ‘prime’ to the monastic cursus of prayer). We are grateful to Helmut Gneuss for help with the interpretation of this passage.

⁶⁰ The Anglo-Saxon homilist appears to have misunderstood Jerome here, or to have worked from a corrupt copy of his text. The sense of the corresponding Latin passage (si enim dixis-set… in nostra erat potestate, below, p. 226) is, ‘for if he had said, if you have anything against your brother, then it was in our power what we should have (against him)’. The translator appears to anticipate the negative phrase non est hoc in mea potestate in the passage which follows: ‘But now what does he say? “If you have remembered that your brother has anything against you.” I answer him “Lord, it is not in my power if my brother has anything against me: I have nothing against him”.’

⁶¹ For examples of feminine accusative singular hio, see Campbell, , OEG § 703.Google Scholar Cf. examples of accusative plural hio at Wynfrith's Letter 47 (and n.) and 112.

⁶² In this article, we have collaborated on the introduction, text and notes. David McDougall identified the Latin source. For their helpful criticism and advice we are especially grateful to Michael Lapidge, Roberta Frank, Franz Wenisch, Helmut Gneuss, Lucia Kornexl and Ursula Lenker. We are, of course, solely responsible for all remaining errors and shortcomings.