Sara M. Pons-Sanz

The Old English Gloss to the Lindisfarne Gospels: Language, Author and Context

Aldred’s interlinear gloss to the Lindisfarne Gospels (London, British Library, MS Cotton Nero D.IV) is one of the most substantial representatives of the Old English variety known as late Old Northumbrian. Although it has received a great deal of attention in the past two centuries, there are still numerous issues which remain unresolved. The papers in this collection approach the gloss from a variety of perspectives – language, cultural milieu, palaeography, glossography – in order to shed light on many of these issues, such as the authorship of the gloss, the morphosyntax and vocabulary of the dialect(s) it represents, its sources and relationship to the Rushworth Gospels, and Aldred’s cultural and religious affiliations. Because of its breadth of coverage, the collection will be of interest and great value to scholars in the fields of Anglo-Saxon studies and English historical linguistics.

A reconsideration of Wulfstan's use of Norse-derived terms: the case of Þræl

It is a well-known feature of the language of Archbishop Wulfstan II of York (d. 1023) that, despite exhibiting the characteristics of the late West Saxon dialect, it contains a large proportion of Norse-derived terms. Yet, until recently, not much attention has been paid to this puzzling element in Wulfstan’s idiolect and, in particular, to the actual reasons which might have led the archbishop to select these terms. Instead, simplistic views based on single extralinguistic factors are repeated time and again in the literature. While some scholars would associate these terms with Wulfstan’s possible origin from East Anglia (e.g. Clark), others would prefer to see them as a direct consequence of his dealings with the Scandinavianised population of York. The latter group is best represented by Whitelock and Bethurum. They hold a similar opinion but with a slightly different angle. Whitelock would attribute Wulfstan’s learning of the Norse-derived terms to his contact with York; thus, she claims that ‘‘it is natural enough that an archbishop of York should adopt some of the vocabulary of the Scandinavianised North’’. Bethurum, preferring to assign not his acquisition but his selection of the terms to his Anglo-Scandinavian audience, states that ‘‘they are only to be expected of a man who addressed audiences in York’’. These suggestions have to face major drawbacks, most of them associated with the fact that not much is known about Wulfstan’s life and career. We do know that he was bishop of London from 996 to 1002, when he was appointed archbishop of York

The Etymology of the Word-Field of Old English hōre and the Lexico-Cultural Climate of Eleventh-Century England

This article analyses the evidence behind the Norse derivation of OE hōre (PDE whore) and related terms (cp. ON hora ‘adulteress, harlot’). After establishing that the terms probably referred to promiscuity and moral depravity rather than prostitution per se, the article explores the eleventh-century contexts where the terms are recorded: the Old English glosses to Aldhelm’s Prosa de uirginitate in Brussels, Bibliotheque royale, MS 1650, and Oxford, Bodleian Library, MS Digby 146, and the works of Archbishop Wulfstan II of York. The Norse-derived terms recorded in these texts belong to specific technolects (e.g. legal, monetary, and social terms), and, therefore, it is argued, their presence cannot be taken as strong evidence in favour of the Norse origin of the non-technical terms under consideration. The article concludes that, when this is considered together with the fact that there exist cognates for the terms in other Germanic languages and that the late attestation of the terms might be due to their informal, ‘demotic’, character rather than to their foreign etymology, there is not much evidence in favour of interpreting the terms as Norse derived. It is hoped that this approach will urge scholars to adopt similar caution when dealing with English terms whose late attestation is the main source of evidence for their suggested Norse origin.

Aldredian Glosses to Proper Names in the Lindisfarne Gospels

This article explores the multiple ways in which Aldred, the glossator of the Lindisfarne Gospels, rendered proper names, both place-names and personal names. It shows that there is no support in the corpus to maintain that Aldred left most of the proper names unglossed; on the contrary, he accomplished a painstaking job. In this respect, the article examines how the glosses provide the reader with information not only about the meaning of a particular name, but also about certain biblical conceptions and interpretations, behind which the view of the Fathers of the Church can be identified. The analysis of the glosses reveals that Aldred was a careful glossator, aware of linguistic features, whose work was nothing similar to the mechanical translation of the Latin text. When Aldred added the Anglo-Saxon word-by-word interlinear glosses to the Latin text of the Lindisfarne Gospels (MS Cotton Nero D. iv) c. 950, he could not have imagined that his work would cause so much interest.2 Many scholars have felt the necessity to analyse the Aldredian production, the oldest extant English version of the gospels. The accidence in the text, its Northumbrian character, the variation in spelling and the peculiarities of the glosses to particular gospels are the aspects which have received most attention,3 whereas certain features in the vocabulary, such as the Scandinavian loan-words used by the glossator, or the treatment of proper names have not been properly studied yet.4 This article will attempt to make up for the lack of research in the latter aspect. Aldred is credited with having been very careful in the accomplishment of his task. Curme considered his work very highly: “Anyone who will study carefully the many double and triple renderings in these glosses will see how conscientiously the glossator had endeavored to be true to both the Latin and the native tongue.”5 We should take into account that, as Boyd suggested, his context was that “of the vigorous reform of the monastic houses and the general revival of church life and learning during the reign of the West-Saxon monarch, Edgar (957–975), which we have come to know as the Benedictine Renaissance”.6 Thus it is not surprising that Aldred, besides helping his contemporaries and future generations to understand the language in which the sara maría pons sanz 174 3 See G. C. Britton, “Aldrediana XII: Æ ~ E”, English Philological Studies 12 (1970): 1–34; A. Brunner, “A Note on the Distribution of the Variant Forms of the Lindisfarne Gospels”, English and Germanic Studies 1 (1947–48): 32–52; C. Elliot and A. S. C. Ross, “Aldrediana XXIV: The Linguistic Peculiarities of the Gloss to St John’s Gospel”, English Philological Studies 13 (1972): 49–72; E. M. Lea, “The Language of the Northumbrian Gloss to the Gospel of St Mark”, Anglia 16 (1894): 63–206; R. Nagucka, “Glossal Translation in the Lindisfarne Gospel according to St Matthew”, Studia Anglica Posnaniensia 31 (1997): 179–201; A. S. C. Ross, “Notes on the Method of Glossing Employed on the Lindisfarne Gospels”, Transactions of the Philological Society (1933): 108–119; A. S. C. Ross, Studies in the Accidence of the Lindisfarne Gospels (Leeds: School of English Language, U of Leeds, 1937). 4 For a study of the spellings of proper names in relation to the Latin texts used by Aldred, see A. S. C. Ross, “On the ‘Text’ of the Anglo-Saxon Gloss to the Lindisfarne Gospels”, Journal of Theological Studies ns 9 (1958): 38–52. 5 G. O. Curme, “A History of the English Relative Constructions”, Journal of English and Germanic Philology 11 (1912): 10–29, 180–184 and 355– 380, at 181. 6 W. J. P. Boyd, Aldred’s Marginalia: Explanatory Comments in the Lindisfarne Gospels (Exeter: U of Exeter, 1975) 5. gospel text was written, was also interested in giving them some insight into the biblical content. Part of his success is due to the way in which he rendered some proper names. Ross explained that In some cases the Latin word is left unglossed. This is particularly common when it is a proper name; indeed proper names are more frequently unglossed than glossed. Frequently also, proper names are merely indicated in the OE text by means of abbreviations.7 Actually, only approximately 18% of the place names in the gospels have been left completely unglossed, whereas some gloss has been provided for the rest: either some form of the name (70.7%), a generic noun instead of the proper name (e. g. dære byrig,8 dære mægda) (24.7%), or both (4.5%). In some cases the proper names are presented in an anglicised form, whereas at other times they are glossed with a form closer to the Latin original. This is the case of Hierosolyma (hierusolimis), which is glossed as hierusolim in Mark 7.1, whereas it is rendered as hierusalem in Mark 10.32. In other cases, only an abbreviation of the name is given, such as isral (e. g. in John 1.49).9 Some glosses are particularly interesting because of the information they provide to the reader, and the evidence which they show about the transmission of some traditions debated by the Fathers of the Church. In some instances10 geleornise/geliornise is used as either the only gloss (e. g. Mark 16.7) or one of the variants (e. g. John 1.43, John 4.43, Mark 14.28) to render Galilea. It is also one of the variants used to gloss transmigrationem in Matt. 1.11: ofercerr vel in ymbcerr vel in geliornisse. The Hebrew name haggalil aldredian glosses to proper names 175 7 Ross 1933, 108. 8 This is the most common generic noun to render city names, even in those cases where the Latin text has stated that we are dealing with a civitas, which is normally glossed as ceastre (e. g. Luke 4.31, referring to Capharnaum). 9 For an exhaustive list of the contracted forms used by Aldred, see A. S. C. Ross, “Prolegomena to an Edition of the Old English Gloss to the Lindisfarne Gospels”, Journal of English and Germanic Philology 42 (1943): 309–321, at 316–317. Skeat expands the contractions in his edition. 10 Matt. 2.22; Matt. 4.15; Matt. 4.18; Mark 14.28; Mark 16.7; John 1.43; John 4.43. meant literally ‘the circle’, hence ‘the district’, ‘the region’. Boyd explained that Onomastica Sacra provides three different interpretations of this place name, although Jerome settled for two:11 “Galilea volubilis sive transmigratio facta”.12 Even though Jerome rejected the connotation ‘revelation’, the Latin Fathers kept it, maybe because it was backed by the authority of St Augustine’s De Consensu Evangelistarum 3.86: “Galilæa namque interpretatur vel Transmigratio, vel Revelatio.”13 St Augustine expressed the mystical significance of Galilee as ‘revelation’ and summed up: “Ipsa erit etiam beatior transmigratio ex isto saeculo in illam aeternitatem”. The meaning ‘transmigratio’ is also found in St Gregory’s XL Homiliarum in Evangelia Libri duo, Hom. XXI, 5,14 where he associated the idea of ‘transmigratio’ with the Lord’s passing over, and several times in Bede, who followed Gregory’s exegesis word for word.15 Thus, it would not have been difficult for Aldred to come across the interpretation of Galilee as ‘transmigratio’. In John 19.38, the gloss to Arimathia is arimadia byrig vel ramattha, whereas in Luke 23.51 Arimathia ciuitate Iudeae is glossed as arimathia byrig vel ceastre iudeæ. Boyd pointed out that Latin Ramatha transliterated Hebrew haramatah, which is sara maría pons sanz 176 11 W. J. P. Boyd, “Aldrediana VII: Hebraica”, English Philological Studies 10 (1967): 1–32, at 8–10. 12 Liber Interpretationis Hebraicorum Nominum, in S. Hieronymi Presbiteri Opera, vol. 1: Opera Exegetica, part 1, ed. P. de Lagarde, Corpus Christianorum, Series Latina 72 (Turnhout: Brepols, 1959), 58/2. 13 Sancti Aurelii Augustini, Hipponensis episcopi opera omnia, vol. 3.1, PL 34 (Paris, 1887) 1216. 14 Sancti Gregorii Papae I Cognomento Magni opera omnia, vol. 2, PL 76 (Paris, 1849) 1172. 15 Bede wrote the following comment on Mark 16.7: “Galilea namque transmigratio facta interpretatur. Iam quippe redemptor noster a passione ad resurrectionem a morte ad uitam a poena ad gloriam a corruptione ad incorruptionem transmigrauerat. Et prius post resurrectionem in Galilea a discipulis uidetur quia resurrectionis eius gloriam post laeti uidebimus, si modo a vitiis ad uirtutum celsitudinem transmigramus. Qui ergo in sepulchro nuntiatur in transmigratione ostenditur quia is qui in mortificatione carnis agnoscitur in transmigratione mentis uidetur.” Bedae Venerabilis Opera, vol. 2: Opera Exegetica, part 3, ed. D. Hurst, Corpus Christianorum, Series Latina 120 (Turnhout: Brepols, 1960) 641–642. the name of the town (haramah) + a locative particle.16 The first Father to identify Arimathia with Ramah, the home of Samuel, was Eusebius,17 followed by Jerome,18 although they both identified it also with Aruma. In spite of the fact that the identification of Arimathia with either is doubtful, as far as Boyd is concerned, the tradition persisted, and it is found in Bede’s In Samuelem Prophetam, Allegorica Expositio I, 1:19 Ramathaim sicut in locorum libris invenimus est civitas in regione Thamnitica iuxta Diospolim unde fuit Joseph qui in evangeliis de Arimathia scribitur. It also appears in his comment on Mark 15.4320 and Luke 23.51,21 where Bede only added “Ramathaim civitas Helchanae et Samuhelis”. Elliot and Ross have suggested that Bede was likely to have translated John’s gospel, and that some of the peculiarities found in the Aldredian glosses to this gospel were, most probably, due to the fact that Aldred might have followed Bede.22 This might also explain how the tradition of the identification of both cities reached Aldred.23 Another interesting gloss is that to Capharnaum maritimam in Matt. 4.13, where the city, normally rendered either as capharnaum (Luke 4.31), pæt is burg (Luke 10.15) or to dær byrig (Mark 9.33), dær byrig (Luke 4.23; cf. also Luke 7.1), is left unglossed, and maritimam is explained as pæt is sæburug. A marginal remark indicates: “in dær byrig capThis article explores the multiple ways in which Aldred, the glossator of the Lindisfarne Gospels, rendered proper names, both place-names and personal names. It shows that there is no support in the corpus to maintain that Aldred left most of the proper names unglossed; on the contrary, he accomplished a painstaking job. In this respect, the article examines how the glosses provide the reader with information not only about the meaning of a particular name, but also about certain biblical conceptions and interpretations, behind which the view of the Fathers of the Church can be identified. The analysis of the glosses reveals that Aldred was a careful glossator, aware of linguistic features, whose work was nothing similar to the mechanical translation of the Latin text.

Reassessing the semantic history of OE brēad / ME brēd

Our etymological understanding of PDE bread has been influenced, to a considerable extent, by Otto Jespersen’s comment that ‘An Englishman cannot thrive or be ill or die without Scandinavian words; they are to the language what bread and eggs are to the daily fare’. This paper analyses the evidence behind the possibility that PDE bread might represent a Norse-derived semantic loan, i.e. that OE brēad acquired the meaning ‘bread’, which was more frequently expressed by OE hlāf, because of the influence of its Viking Age Norse cognate (cp. OIc brauð ‘bread’). On the basis of an in-depth study of the attestations of OE brēad and hlāf and their early Middle English reflexes, as well as the use of their cognates in various Germanic languages, the paper challenges the traditional view that OE brēad originally meant ‘piece, morsel of bread’ and concludes that Norse influence is not needed in order to account for the semantic history of PDE bread

An Etymological Note on OE of lı¯fe forrædan

Anglo-Saxon scholars find themselves in a difficult position when trying to establish the etymology of some terms. On many occasions, the scantiness and lateness of textual records and the general acceptance of the deep influence that the Anglo-Scandinavian linguistic contact had on the later development of English lead them to attribute a Norse origin to those terms for which other etymological explanations may not be as easily available. The Old English expression of lı̄fe forrœ–dan has suffered a similar fate. It is only recorded in Archbishop Wulfstan’s (d. 1023) Sermo Lupi ad Anglos: “And ful micel hlafordswice eac bið on worlde þæt man his hlaford of life forrœ–de oððon of lande lifiendne drife” (WHom 20.2 79–81 = WHom 20.3 74–76) [and it also is a very great betrayal of one’s lord in the world, that a man should plot against his lord’s life or, living, drive him from the land].1 The aforementioned factors, as well as the general presence of Norsederived terms in the Wulfstanian canon,2 seem to have led Whitelock to suggest that this expression should be associated with ON ráða af lífi ‘to put to death.’3 Without fully dismissing this etymology, Hofmann notes that the normal expression in Old Norse is taka af lífi, whereas that containing the verb ráða is recorded only once in the Saga of St. Olaf included in the Flateyiarbók and in three manuscripts of the longer version of this saga.4 Further support in favor of the native origin of the collocation can be found in the Wulfstanian canon itself because the archbishop employed the verb forrœ–dan in similar collocations throughout his works: for example, “to deaþe (ne) forræde” (WHom 7 55, LawVIAtr 10 = LawIICn 2.1) [should (not) condemn (someone) to death];5 and “forræde æt feo oððe æt feore” (LawVIIIAtr 33 = LawIICn 40) [tries to deprive (someone) of his goods or his life].6 Thus, the collocation in Sermo Lupi should be identified as a mere variation of the first expression, whose native origin has never been doubted. This variation may have been triggered by an attempt to produce a structurally parallel clause to “of lande lifiendne drife” [living, drive him from the land],7 which is already present in the first version of Sermo Lupi (WHom 20.1 69).8 Of might have been used in LawVIIIAtr 33 = LawIICn 40 as well, if the prepositional complements had not started in /f/. Nonetheless, with the current wording, the use of of would have produced an expression very close to a tongue-twister.