¹ Background on the state of European and English medicine in the period under discussion may be found in the following: Baader, G., ‘Die Anfänge der medizinischen Ausbildung im Abendland bis 1100’, Settimane di studio del Centro italiano di studi sull' alto medioevo 19 (1972), 669–78Google Scholar; MacKinney, L., Early Medieval Medicine with special reference to France and Chartres (Baltimore, 1937)Google Scholar; Riché, P., Les ´coles et l'enseignement dans l'Occident chrétien de la fin du V^e siècle au milieu du XV^e siècle (Paris, 1979), pp. 276–80Google Scholar; Conteri, J. J., ‘Masters and Medicine in Northern France during the Reign of Charles the Bald’, Charles the Bald: Court and Kingdom, ed. Gibson, M. and Nelson, J. (Oxford, 1981), pp. 333–50Google Scholar; Payne, J. F., English Medicine in the Anglo-Saxon Times (Oxford, 1904)Google Scholar; Rubin, S., Medieval English Medicine (London, 1974), esp. pp. 43–69Google Scholar for a discussion of the Old English medical texts; Grattan, J. H. G. and Singer, C., Anglo-Saxon Magic and Medicine Illustrated Specially from the Semi-Pagan Text ‘Lacnunga’ (Oxford, 1952), esp. pt 1, pp. 1–94Google Scholar, in which Singer reviews Anglo-Saxon medicine and its place in the general European background, concluding with the statement that ‘Anglo-Saxon medicine is the last stage of a process that has left no legitimate successor, a final pathological disintegration of the great system of Greek medical thought’ (p. 94).

² ‘Some Notes on Anglo-Saxon Medicine’, Medical Hist. 9 (1965), 156–69Google Scholar, and Medicine in Medieval England (London, 1967), esp. pp. 9–23.Google Scholar

³ Leechdoms, Wortcunning and Starcraft of Early England, ed. Cockayne, O., 3 vols., Rolls Ser. (London, 1864–1866).Google Scholar

⁴ Authentic works of Bede, or those attributed to him, which contain medical material are to be found in Bedae Opera de Temporibus, ed. Jones, C. W. (Cambridge, Mass., 1943)Google Scholar, and Bedae Pseudepigrapha, Scientific Writings Falsely Attributed to Bede, ed. Jones, (Ithaca, 1939)Google Scholar; and Bedae Venerabilis Expositio Actuum Apostolorum et Retractatio, ed. Laistner, M. L. W. (Cambridge, Mass., 1939)Google Scholar. For quotations from, and references to, the Historia Ecclesiastica I have used Bede's Ecclesiastical History of the English People, ed. Colgrave, B. and Mynors, R. A. B. (Oxford, 1969)Google Scholar. Byrhtferth's Enchiridion is available in the edition of Crawford, S. J. (Byrhtferth's Manual, EETS, o.s. 177 (London, 1929))Google Scholar. The Ramsey Scientific Compendium is discussed by Hart, C., ‘Byrhtferth and his Manual’, MÆ 41 (1972), 95–109Google Scholar, and Baker, P. S., ‘Byrhtferth's Enchiridion and the computus in Oxford, St John's College 17’, ASE 10 (1981), 123–42Google Scholar. Byrhtferth's Diagram has been published by Charles, and Singer, Dorothea, ‘Byrhtferth's Diagram’, Bodleian Lib. Quarterly (1917), 47–51Google Scholar, and Singer, C., ‘A Review of the Medical Literature of the Dark Ages, with a New Text of about 1110’, Proc. of the R. Soc. of Medicine 10 (1917), 107–60Google ScholarPubMed. Gg. 5. 35 is described by Rigg, A. G. and Wieland, G. R., ‘A Canterbury Classbook of the Mid-Eleventh Century (the “Cambridge Songs” Manuscript)’, ASE 4 (1975), 113–30.Google Scholar

⁵ Aldhelmi Opera, ed. Ehwald, R., Monumenta Germaniae Historica, Auct. Antiq. 15 (Berlin, 1919), 71Google Scholar, line 24, and 277, line 5 (trans. Lapidge, M. and Herren, M., Aldhelm: the Prose Works (Ipswich, 1979), pp. 42 and 96)Google Scholar. I have to thank Dr M. Lapidge for this and the two following references to the works of Aldhelm.

⁶ Ed. Ehwald, p. 320; trans. Lapidge and Herren, p. 130.

⁷ See references in Lapidge and Herren, Aldhelm: the Prose Works, as well as Roger, M., L'enseignement des lettres dassiques d' Ausone à Alcuin (Paris, 1905), p. 320.Google Scholar

⁸ S. Bonifatii et Lullii Epistolae, ed. Tangi, M., MGH, Epistolae Selectae 1 (Berlin, 1955), 247Google Scholar: ‘Nee non et, si quos saecularis scientiae libros nobis ignotos adepturi sitis, ut sunt de medicinalibus, quorum copia est aliqua apud nos, sed tamen sigmenta (P. Jaffé, an earlier editor, suggested reading pigmenta) ultramarina, quae in eis scripta conperimus, ignota nobis sunt et difficilia adipiscendum.’ My translation is from Bald's Leechbook: British Museum Royal Manuscript, 2. D. xvii, ed. Wright, C. E., with an app. by R. Quirk, EEMF 5 (Copenhagen, 1955)Google Scholar. 30, where the letter is discussed in the context of eighth-century English medicine.

⁹ Brief biographies of the medical writers mentioned can be found in Sarton, G., Introduction to the History of Science, 6 vols. (Washington, 1927).Google Scholar

¹⁰ Pedanii Dioscuridis Anazarbei de Materia Medica Libri V, ed. Wellmann, M., 3 vols. (Berlin, 1906–1914)Google Scholar. Greek manuscripts of Dioscorides were profusely illustrated, the most notable being the Juliana Anicia Codex of the sixth century (Vienna, Österreichische National-bibliothek, Vindobonensis Med. Gr. 1). Copies of these illustrations are in The Creek Herbal of Dioscorides, Illustrated by a Byzantine A. D. 512, Englished by J. Goodyer A.D. 1655; edited and first printed A.D. 1933 by R. T. Gunther (Oxford, 1934)Google Scholar. The illustrations of the Latin and Old English Herbarium of pseudo-Apuleius are in the same tradition, though by what pathway is obscure (see below, n. 16).

¹¹ Nachträge zu Alexander Trallianus: Fragmente aus Philumenus und Philagrius etc., ed. Puschmann, T., Berliner Studien 5 (Berlin, 1886)Google Scholar, is the most convenient text for reference to the surviving works of Philumenus and Philagrius of Epirus. On the Practica Alexandri and Oribasius, see below, nn. 23 and 13.

¹² See above, n. 11.

¹³ The only printed text of the complete Latin translations of Oribasius is in Oeuvres d'Oribase, ed. Bussemaker, U. C. and Daremberg, C., 6 vols. (Paris, 1856–1876)Google Scholar. Vols. v and vi contain the Greek texts of the Synopsis and Euporistes, together with the ‘old’ and ‘new’ Latin translations. The introduction to vol. vi, which was edited by A. Molinier after the two earlier editors had died, contains an excellent account of the life, works and manuscript tradition of Oribasius. The most recent edition of the Greek Oribasius is Oribasii Collectionum Medicarum Reliquiae, ed. Raeder, J., 3 vols. (Berlin, 1928)Google Scholar. On the dating of the ‘old’ and ‘new’ translations of Oribasius's works, see Mørland, H., Die lateinischen Oribasiusübersetzungen, Symbolae Osloenses, Supplement 5 (Oslo, 1932)Google Scholar, and Oribasius Latinus (Erster Teil), Symbolae Osloenses, Supplement 10 (Oslo, 1940)Google Scholar. Of the Synopsis and Euporistes some half-dozen manuscripts survive from our period; see Beccaria, A., I Codici di Medicina del Periodo Presalernitano (Secoli lX, X e XI), Storiae Letteratura, Raccolta di Studie Testi 53 (Rome, 1956), 475Google Scholar. None of these is of English origin, but see Ogilvy, J. D. A., Books Known to the English, 597–1066 (Oxford, 1969), p. 208Google Scholar, for a twelfth-century Oribasius manuscript containing English glosses.

¹⁴ Theodori Prisciani Euporiston Libri III cum Physicorum Fragmento et Additamentis Pseudo-Theodoris, accedunt Vindiciani Afri quas feruntur Reliquiae, ed. Rose, V. (Leipzig, 1874)Google Scholar. Two works of Vindicianus which do not figure in the present study are in more recent editions: Schipper, J., Ein neuer Text der Gynaecia des Vindicianus aus einer Münchener Handschrift des zwölften Jahrhunderts (diss., Leipzig, 1921)Google Scholar, and the epistle to Valentinian in Marcellus: De Medicamentis Liber, ed. Niedermann, M., rev. R. Liechtenhan, 2 vols., Corpus Medicorum Latinorum 5 (Berlin, 1968)Google Scholar. See also Meyer, T., Theodorus Priscianus und die römische Medizin (Wiesbaden, 1967)Google Scholar, and Mørland, H., ‘Theodorus Priscianus im lateinischen Oribasius’, Symbolae Osloenses 29 (1952), 79–91.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

¹⁵ See Theodori Prisciani Euporiston Libri III, ed. Rose.

¹⁶ The standard edition is Antonii Musae de Herba Vettonica Liber, Pseudo-Apuleius Herbarius, Anonymi de Taxone Liber, Sexti Placiti Liber Medicinae ex Animalibus, etc., ed. Howald, E. and Sigerist, H. E., Corpus Medicorum Latinorum 4 (Leipzig, 1927)Google Scholar. The number of surviving manuscripts is large, some twenty in Latin and three in Old English (Beccaria, , Codici, pp. 441 and 485)Google Scholar. See also Ogilvy, , Books, pp. 75–6.Google Scholar

¹⁷ This little work is not in the edition of Howald and Sigerist cited above, n. 16; it may be found in The Old English Medicina de Quadrupedibus, ed. de Vriend, H. J. (Tilburg, Holland, 1972)Google Scholar, together with much of interest on the English manuscript tradition of the whole Herbarium complex.

¹⁸ Kaestner, H., ‘Pseudo-Dioscoridis De Herbis Femininis’, Hermes 31 (1896), 578–636, and 32 (1897), 160.Google Scholar

¹⁹ There are three modern editions of Marcellus, each having material peculiar to itself: Marcellus: De Medicamentis Liber, ed. Helmreich, G. (Leipzig, 1889)Google Scholar; Marcellus: De Medicamentis Liber, ed. Niedermann, M., Corpus Medicorum Latinorum 5 (Leipzig and Berlin, 1916)Google Scholar; and the revision of Niedermann's edition by R. Liechtenhan (with German translation by J. Kollesch and D. Nickel), cited above, n. 14. Only two reasonably complete copies survive from our period (Beccaria, , Codici, p. 471)Google Scholar. See also Ogilvy, , Books, p. 198.Google Scholar

²⁰ No manuscripts of the Acutae Passiones and Tardae Passiones survive. The best account of the works of Soranus and Caelius Aurelianus is in the introduction to Caelius Aurelianus, On Acute Diseases and On Chronic Diseases, ed. Drabkin, I. E. (Chicago, 1950)Google Scholar, where the Aurelius and Esculapius are also discussed.

²¹ Anecdota Graeca et Graeco-Latina, ed. Rose, V., 2 vols. (Berlin, 1864–1970) 11, 163–240.Google Scholar

²² Cassii Felicis De Medicina ex Graecis Logicae Sectae Auctoribus Liber Translatus, ed. Rose, V. (Leipzig, 1879)Google Scholar. A note in a thirteenth-century manuscript states that it was translated ‘sub ardebre et asclepio consulibus’ (= ‘Artabure et Calepio’), which corresponds to the year 447; see ed. Rose, p. viii. There is a good bibliography in Orth, H., ‘Der Afrikaner Cassius Felix: ein methodischer Arzt?’, Sudhoff's Archiv 44 (1960), 193–217Google Scholar. The work of Cassius Felix survives from our period mostly in extracts and one, incomplete, manuscript (Beccaria, , Codici, p. 444)Google Scholar. See also Ogilvy, , Books, p. 108.Google Scholar

²³ von Tralles, Alexander, Original-Text und Übersetzung, ed. Puschmann, T., 2 vols. (Vienna, 1879)Google Scholar. The short treatises on the eye are in Nachträge, ed. Puschmann, . Although there are some six manuscripts of the Latin translation of Alexander from our period (Beccaria, Codici, p. 439)Google Scholar, the Practica is available also in sixteenth-century editions; e.g., Alexandri Practica cum optimis declarationibus Jacobi de partibus et Simonis Januensis (Venice, 1522)Google Scholar. I have to thank the Librarian of St John's College, Cambridge, for kindly making available to me the only copy of this edition in Cambridge.

²⁴ Isidore, of Seville, , Etymologiarum sive originum libri XX, ed. Lindsay, W. M., 2 vols. (Oxford, 1910)Google Scholar, in which bk iv (‘De Medicina’), bk xi (‘De Homine et Portentis’) and bk xvii (‘De Rebus Rusticis’) are chiefly of interest to the history of medicine. An excellent commentary to bks iv and xi is given by Sharpe, W. D., ‘Isidore of Seville: the Medical Writings. An English Translation with an Introduction and Commentary’, Trans. of the Amer. Philosophical Soc. n.s. 54 (1964), 1–75CrossRefGoogle Scholar. C. Plinii Secundi Naturalis Historiae Libri XXXVII, ed. Mayhoff, K. and Jan, L. (Leipzig, 1875–1906)Google Scholar, is the standard edition of Pliny, but for the student of medical history the edition of bks xx–xxxii (all that deal with medicine) by Jones, W. H. S. (Pliny, Natural History, Loeb Classical Lib. (Cambridge, Mass., 1951–1963)Google Scholar vi–viii) is in general more useful, not least for the careful attempt to identify all plants mentioned by Pliny. The medieval abridgement of Pliny's medical writings has been edited by Önnerfors, A. (Plinii secundi Iunioris qui feruntur de medicina libri tres, Corpus Medicorum Latinorum 3 (Berlin, 1964)).Google Scholar

²⁵ Sigerist, H. E., Studien und Texte zur frübmittelalterlicben Rezeptliteratur, Studien zur Geschichte der Medizin 13 (Leipzig, 1923).Google Scholar

²⁶ Collectio Salernitana, ed. De Renzi, S., 5 vols. (Naples, 1856)Google Scholar, the Practica Petrocelli Salernitani being at iv, 185–291.

²⁷ It appears from De Renzi's account that his manuscript gave the work in three books. The Sloane copy has its chapters numbered in a single series through De Renzi's bks 1 and 11. What corresponds to his bk 1 ends on 78r in Sloane, 78v is blank and the text resumes on 79r with what corresponds to his bk 11. His bk 111 has been shown to be a separate work, the Prognostica Democriti, or the Liber Medicinalis of pseudo-Democritus, made up largely of extracts from the Synopsis of Oribasius; see Heeg, I., ‘Pseudodemokritische Studien’, Abbandlungen der Königlichen Preussischen Akademie der Wissenschaften, Philosophiscb-historische Klasse 4 (1913)Google Scholar. The Sloane manuscript does not contain any bk 111 and there is no indication that this Liber Medicinalis was known in England.

²⁸ There are at least two editions of the Passionarius Galeni, attributed to Gariopontus, from the sixteenth century: the older is entitled Passionarius Galeni … in quinque libros … una cum febribus tractatu, etc. (Lyon, 1526)Google Scholar; the later is entitled Garioponti ad totius corporis aegritudines remediorum … libri V … de febribus … libri II, etc. (Basel, 1531)Google Scholar. Thorndike, L. and Kibre, P., A Catalogue of Incipits of Scientific Writings in Latin (Cambridge, Mass., 1963)Google Scholar, col. 200, gives under the incipit ‘Cephalea est dolor capitis qui multum tempus tenet’ the note ‘Galen, , Liber tertium. Beccaria, p. 407Google Scholar, lists eleven MSS before 1100, of which several antedate Gariopontus (fl. 1050).’ De Renzi (cited above, n. 26) in his discussion of Gariopontus (1, 137–49) quotes from a Basel manuscript (not further identified): ‘Passionarium, seu practica morborum Galieni, Theodori Prisciani, Alexandri et Pauli, quern Gariopontus quidam Salernitanus, eiusque Socii, una cum Albicio emendavit, ab erroribus vindicavit et in hunc ordinem redegit’, which implies editing, not composing.

²⁹ The borrowings in the Passionarius are in general free enough to enable one to determine whether borrowings in later works are from the Passionarius or one of its sources.

³⁰ The medical contents of the Ramsey Scientific Compendium and of the St Augustine's Classbook are listed in detail in tables 1 and 2 (below, pp. 153–4) and were determined by my own study of the manuscripts or of photocopies of them. Royal 12. D. xvii I know only from the published facsimile cited above, n. 8. In the cases of Sloane 2839 and Sloane 475 I have studied the manuscripts themselves and microfilms of them. The list of contents of St Gallen 751 is adapted from Beccaria Codici, pp. 372–81 (Art. 133).

³¹ Bede's Ecclesiastical History, ed. Colgrave, and Mynors, , p. 394 (iv. 19).Google Scholar

³² Ibid. pp. 460–1. The calendar of lucky and unlucky days for blood-letting is in London, British Library, Arundel 60, at 1r.

³³ Bede's Ecclesiastical History, ed. Colgrave, and Mynors, , pp. 458–9.Google Scholar

³⁴ Bedae Opera de Temporibus, ed.Jones, , pp. 235–7.Google Scholar

³⁵ Ed. Helmreich, pp. 5–9; ed. Niedermann, pp. 10–13 (the revised edition, pp. 18–25). See also Jones, , Bedae Opera, pp. 365–6Google Scholar. The manuscript referred to by Jones in his note, St Gallen 751, as representative of the kind probably known to Bede is the one whose contents are listed above, pp. 144–5.

³⁶ Bedae Opera de Temporibus, ed. Jones, , pp. 246–8 and 370Google Scholar (n. beginning 21 sanguis siquidem). Bede's text agrees well enough with the version of the Epistula given in Theodori Prisciani Euporiston Libri III, ed. Rose, , pp. 484–92Google Scholar, if we assume that he condensed material of two paragraphs into one. A peculiarity of Bede's version is the use of the term ‘transgressores’ to describe the third ‘aetas’ of human life, in which he is followed by Byrhtferth (see below, n. 56).

³⁷ Bedae Venerabilis Expositio Actuum Apostolorum et Retractatio, ed. Laistner, , p. 145Google Scholar, and Cassii Felicis De Medicina, ed. Rose, , p. 122Google Scholar. In his explanation of dysentery Cassius Felix himself was quoting from Hippocrates.

³⁸ See above, n. 35.

³⁹ Bede's Ecclesiastical History, ed. Colgrave, and Mynors, , pp. 384–5Google Scholar. The napkins mentioned would almost certainly have been made of linen.

⁴⁰ Leechdoms, ed. Cockayne, , 11, 2–299.Google Scholar

⁴¹ Ker, N. R., Catalogue of Manuscripts containing Anglo-Saxon (Oxford, 1957), pp. 332–3Google Scholar. Ker suggests that the script is identical with that of the annals for 925–55 in the Parker Chronicle, and was consequently written in the same scriptorium, presumably at Winchester.

⁴² ‘Some Notes’, pp. 156–69.

⁴³ Leechdoms, ed. Cockayne, 11, 114Google Scholar. I have not followed Cockayne's artificially archaic translation. The Leecbbook needs to be translated into truly modern English; the original does not have the ‘quaint’ flavour found in Cockayne's translation.

⁴⁴ Ibid. 11, 120, 290 and 292.

⁴⁵ Bald's Leecbbook, ed. Wright, , p. 13Google Scholar. The colophon is on 109r.

⁴⁶ Talbot, ‘Some Notes’, p. 168. Talbot concludes: ‘… The Petrocellus text was not uncommon in Anglo-Saxon circles. It might not be going too far at this stage to suggest that the Petrocellus text may have been an Anglo-Saxon compilation, but there is no denying that the Leech Book of Bald was based partly on it and is the earliest witness, apart from the Echternach manuscript, to its existence.’ The similarity in structure of the Leechbook and the ‘Petrocellus’ suggests strongly to me that the two works are in a common tradition of composition.

⁴⁷ See Kristeller, P. O., Latin Manuscript Books before 1600, 3rd ed. (New York, 1960), p. 123Google Scholar. I have to thank Dr Lapidge for this reference.

⁴⁸ Beccaria, , Codici, pp. 208–13 (Art. 55)Google Scholar. The manuscript is described in full, with generous extracts, in Sudhoff, K., ‘Codex medicus Hertensis (Nr. 192)’, Archiv für Geschichte der Medizin 10 (1917), 265–313.Google Scholar

⁴⁹ Leechdoms, ed. Cockayne, 1, 1–573Google Scholar; The Old English Medicina de Quadrupedibus, ed. de Vriend, Introduction.

⁵⁰ Beccaria, , Codici, pp. 287 and 347Google Scholar. In two manuscripts of the ninth century, Lucca, Biblioteca Governativa 296, and Uppsala, Kungliga Universitetsbiblioteket C. 664, the Curae Herbarum, instead of the De Herbis Femininis, follows the pseudo-Apuleius Herbarium or Herbarium complex. I suspect that a manuscript of this type was the source of the Old English translation.

⁵¹ Singer, ‘A Review’, p. 124; Hart, ‘Byrhtferth’, pp. 101ff.

⁵² Baker, , ‘Byrhtferth's Enchiridion’, pp. 125–41.Google Scholar

⁵³ See above, n. 36.

⁵⁴ It is only fair to Byrhtferth to remember that he was not writing a medical treatise and apparently knew nothing about medicine, so that he borrowed from the most convenient source, namely Bede, what he needed in order to develop his analogies.

⁵⁵ Singer, ‘Review’, pp. 125–49. This edition contains a number of errors in transcription which Singer, because of military service abroad, was not able to correct before the paper went to press. Moreover most of the conclusions in the paper will not stand up to the results of later research. For example, the panaceas (p. 157) are not Salernitan but come from the Epistle of pseudo-Hippocrates to Maecenas, found, among other places, in the Marcellus manuscripts (see above, n. 19), in London, British Library, Arundel 166, at 3r–5v, and in St Gallen 751 (see above, p. 144).

⁵⁶ ‘A Canterbury Classbook’, pp. 114 and 128–9.

⁵⁷ Ed. Lapidge, M., ‘The Hermeneutic Style in Tenth-Century Anglo-Latin Literature’, ASE 4 (1975). 67–111, at 103–5.Google Scholar

⁵⁸ My best thanks go to Dalhousie University for leaves of absence and grants in aid of research which made it possible to carry out the studies leading to this work. Professor P. A. M. Clemoes and Dr M. Lapidge have given encouragement and help generously and I thank them accordingly. The staff of the University Library, Cambridge, deserve mention for their cheerful assistance which made work so much easier. To the Librarian of Trinity College, Cambridge, a special note of thanks for pleasant days spent in the Wren Library under the calm, stone gaze of Newton's bust. I have already expressed my thanks to the Librarian of St John's College, Cambridge, for help which only he could give.

^{page 153 note 1} Ed. Rose, , Theodori Prisciani Euporiston Libri III, pp. 484–92Google Scholar. A frequent item in the medical compendia of the Middle Ages, though usually in complete form rather than in extract as here.

^{page 153 note 2} See Bedae Pseudepigrapha, ed. Jones, ; Migne, Patrologia Latina 90, cols. 959–62.Google Scholar

^{page 153 note 3} In this table and in table 2 references to the ‘Petrocellus’ relate to the unpublished manuscript, London, BL, Sloane 2839. The last leaves of the manuscript are numbered in the wrong order, which accounts for the lack of sequence in the references given. Although references are to ‘Petrocellus’, the material of items 5 and 6 is often found elsewhere; I have given this reference as being very close to J in its wording.

^{page 153 note 4} This odd little work has been thoroughly discussed by Nutton, V., ‘Prognostica Galieni’, Medical Hist. 14 (1970), 96–100CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed. I have separated Nutton's material from J into two parts, item 7, the Prognostica Galieni proper, and item 8, other prognostics not identified. Two corrections to Nutton's transcription (p. 98) are in order: in the quotation from Arundel 166 ‘oculus senex terminuatur’ should read ‘oculus senexter minuatur’; in the quotation from Gg. 5.35 ‘urina nigra pessima est’ should read ‘urina nigra mane pessima est’.

^{page 153 note 5} Sudhoff, ‘Codex medicus Hertensis’, gives the following from Hertensis 192 (36V): ‘Contra fluxum sanguinis de naribus. Tolle de ipso sanguine et scribe in pargameno ita. faciens crucem. Stomen Kalaos. stomen methophow et alliga fronti eius.’ The charm cannot, therefore, be used as evidence for lingering traces of Greek ritual language in Anglo-Saxon England.

^{page 153 note 6} See above, p. 140 and n. 19.

^{page 153 note 7} Although none of this collection of recipes can be traced to certain sources, two on 177r deserve mention: ‘Enema sciaticis … addens furfuras triticeas galoxinas. ii … tepidum inicias’ and ‘Enema ad eos … furfuribus triticeis galoxinas. ii … tepidum inicias’. They seem to be variants of each other and similar to a recipe found elsewhere in our period in manuscripts containing the Liber Teraupetica (or Teropetici), such as Arundel 166 and Paris, Bibliothèque Nationale, latin 11219, both of the ninth century. The very rare word galoxinas (meaning ‘double handful’) found in them occurs also in only two other ninth-century manuscripts, Paris, Bibliothèque Nationale, latin 11218 and Paris, Bibliothèque Nationale, latin 10251. On the history of the word galoxina, see Thomas, A., ‘Galoxina “Jointée”’, Bullétin du Cange 4 (1928), 93–103Google Scholar. The occurrence of the word in J presents interesting problems on the sources of J's recipes.

^{page 154 note 8} Lapidge's suggestion (‘The Hermeneutic Style’, pp. 84–5 and 103–5) that these little poems may be products of the tenth-century Canterbury school cannot be maintained. The same poems are found in the late-eighth- or early-ninth-century manuscript, Leningrad, Public Library, F. v. vi. 3, 39r, and have been edited from it by Walter, G. (‘Zu Pseudo-Sorans Quaestiones (Ein griechisch-lateinisches Glossar in Versform. – Codex Leninopolitanus Lat. F. v. vi. 3, fol. 39r°)’, Archiv für Geschichte der Medizin 28 (1935), 267–78)Google Scholar. The poem beginning ‘Flegmon, apoplexis’ has also been copied on to the last page of Orléans, Bibliothèque Municipale, 184 (161), probably at Fleury in the late tenth century. The poems may, of course, be of eighth-century English origin, being the sort of thing in which English students of vocabulary seemed to delight. The glosses appended to the first poem are almost certainly taken from the Quaestiones medicinales attributed to Soranus, and known only from two manuscripts, London, British Library, Cotton Galba E. iv, of the thirteenth century, and Chartres, Bibliothèque Municipale, 62, of the late tenth. For editions of these see Anecdota Graeca, ed. Rose, 11, 243–74Google Scholar, and Stadler, H., ‘Neue Bruchstücke der Quaestiones medicinales des Pseudo-Soranus’, Archiv für lateinische Lexicographic 14 (1906), 361–8.Google Scholar

^{page 154 note 9} Sorani Ephesii Vetustissimi Archiatri et Peripatetici, in Artis Medendi Isagogen, ed. Thorin, A. (Basel, 1528)Google Scholar. No manuscript of this collection is known; it contains material from the Quaestiones medicinales (see preceding note), with the usual assembly of short tracts on diet, blood-letting, humours etc. found in medieval medical manuscripts. Much of its contents occur also in Arundel 166 (82V and following leaves; the extent is difficult to determine because of lack of headings), in a work called there De Arte Prolixa, but it cannot be regarded as a source for the printed work. Only three items (nos 3, 12 and 13) cannot be traced to analogues other than this printed work.

^{page 155 note 10} See above, Appendix, n. 2.

^{page 155 note 11} See above, Appendix, n. 4.

^{page 155 note 12} See above, Appendix, n. 3. The similarity of wording in the items of E and ‘Petrocellus’ convince me that E is borrowed directly from ‘Petrocellus’.

^{page 155 note 13} This dialogue, widespread in the medieval literature, has been edited by Normann, H., ‘Disputatio Platonis et Aristotelis. Ein apokrypher Dialog aus dem frühen Mittelalter’, Sudhoff's Archiv 23 (1930), 68–86.Google Scholar

^{page 155 note 14} Edited, together with items 12 and 13, which are not recipes, as ‘Das Cambridger Antidotarium’, by Sigerist, (Studien und Texte, pp. 160–7)Google Scholar. Analogues have been found for about one-third of the recipes in item 11.

^{page 155 note 15} See above, Appendix, n. 1. E gives the full text in a form quite close to the edited one.

^{page 155 note 16} One gets the impression from these last six items that the scribe of E was copying ‘Petrocellus’ more or less directly. The last item (21) is a mere beginning of an article, the rest of which is lost with the missing quire (cf. Rigg and Wieland, ‘A Canterbury Classbook’, p. 118). Although we cannot know how much is lost, it appears that the scribe was just beginning a section on fevers.