I wish to thank my colleagues at the Middle English Dictionary: Louise Palazzola, for her astute observations while inputting the data of this work; Douglas Moffat, for asking thoughtprovoking questions that produced unexpected revelations; and Marilyn Miller, who designed the format of this edition and the special palaeographical characters that appear throughout. Her computer skills made a rude mass of material eminently presentable. I also wish to thank Thomas Ross, a glossographical veteran, for his gentle but incisive comments upon the work in its final stages. To the readers enlisted by Traditio for review go my thanks for their perceptive and beneficial advice. Abundant thanks are due Nick Lee and Michael Richardson of the Manuscript and Special Collections Department of Bristol University Library, under whose generous care I spent a very pleasant and productive period scrutinizing the manuscript fragment. I wish to acknowledge the generosity of both the Horace H. Rackham School of Graduate Studies and the Office of the Vice-President for Research at The University of Michigan, whose grants supported this work.Google Scholar

^{page 173 note 1} Ker, Neil R., Medieval Manuscripts in British Libraries, 4 vols. (Oxford, 1969–92), 2:214 (hereafter MMBL).Google Scholar

^{page 174 note 2} Peter Haworth, “The First Latin-English Dictionary. A Bristol University Manuscript,” Transactions of the Bristol and Gloucestershire Archaeological Society 45 (1923), 253 (hereafter Haworth).Google Scholar

^{page 174 note 3} Ibid., 254–55.Google Scholar

^{page 174 note 4} See Appendix II for current manuscript data.Google Scholar

^{page 174 note 5} Haworth, 253–54.Google Scholar

^{page 174 note 6} Ibid., 254.Google Scholar

^{page 174 note 7} Way, Albert S., ed. Promptorium Parvulorum sive Clericorum (London, 1865), app. p. lii (from BL Harley 221; hereafter P.Parv.).Google Scholar

^{page 175 note 8} Haworth, 254.Google Scholar

^{page 175 note 9} P.Parv., liv–lv.Google Scholar

^{page 175 note 10} Haworth, 255.Google Scholar

^{page 175 note 11} Ibid., 254.Google Scholar

^{page 176 note 12} DeWitt Starnes, Renaissance Dictionaries (Austin, 1954), 31.Google Scholar

^{page 176 note 13} I am indebted to James Sledd for these disclosures.Google Scholar

^{page 178 note 14} Haworth, 254.Google Scholar

^{page 178 note 15} For the first edition (using variant spelling of Hortus), see Ortus Vocabulorum (1500, rpt. England, 1968: a Scolar Press Facsimile).Google Scholar

^{page 178 note 16} Thorp, Nigel, The Glory of the Page: Manuscripts from the Glasgow University Library (London, 1987), no. 30.Google Scholar

^{page 179 note 17} Μ. β. Parkes, English Cursive Book Hands 1250–1500 (Oxford, 1969), pl. 2 (II).Google Scholar

^{page 179 note 18} Ibid., 17.Google Scholar

^{page 179 note 19} Watson, A. G., Catalogue of Dated and Datable Manuscripts C. 700–1600 in the British Library, 2 vols. (London, 1979), 2: pl. 311.Google Scholar

^{page 179 note 20} Ibid., pl. 364.Google Scholar

^{page 179 note 21} Denholm, N.-Young, Handwriting in England and Wales (Cardiff, 1954), pl. 24.Google Scholar

^{page 179 note 22} Watson, A. G., Catalogue of Dated and Datable Manuscripts C.435–1600 in Oxford Libraries, 2 vols. (Oxford, 1984), 2: pl. 257.Google Scholar

^{page 180 note 23} Haworth, 255.Google Scholar

^{page 181 note 24} Ibid., 257. Google Scholar

The following lexical and general references and their abbreviated titles are cited in the notes. Biblia Sacra: iuxta vulgatam versionem, Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft, 2 vols. (2d ed.; Stuttgart, 1975) (hereafter Biblia Sacra); Lucius Junius Moderatus Columella, De Re Rustica, vol. 2, eds. Forster, E. S. and Heffner, E. H. (Cambridge, Mass., 1954) (hereafter Columella, De Re Rustica); Corpus Glossariorum Latinorum, ed. Goetz, G. 8 vols. (Leipzig, 1888–1923) (hereafter CGL); Catholicon Anglicum (BL Add. MS 15562, ?ca. 1475; hereafter Cath. Angl.); Catholicon Anglicum, ed. Herrtage, S. J. (London, 1881) (from MS 168 in the library of Lord Monson; hereafter Cath. Angl. (Monson)); Diefenbach, L. ed., Glossarium Latino-Germanicum Mediae et Infimae Aetatis (Darmstadt, 1968; based on the 1857 edition) (hereafter Diefenbach); Dictionary of Medieval Latin from British Sources, eds. Latham, R. E., Howlett, D. R. (Oxford, 1975–) (hereafter DMLBS); Epinal, Erfurt, Werden, and Corpus Glossaries, Early English Manuscripts in Facsimile 22, eds. Bischoff, B. et al. (Copenhagen, 1988) (hereafter EEMF); Isidori Hispalensis Episcopi Etymologiarum Sive Originum Libri XX, ed. Lindsay, W. M. 2 vols. (Oxford, 1911) (hereafter Isidore); Greek-English Lexicon, eds. Liddell, H. G., Scott, R. (rev. Jones, H. S. 9th ed., 1940, with Supplement, 1968) (hereafter LSJ); Middle English Dictionary, ed. Kurath, H. et al. (Ann Arbor, 1952-) (hereafter MED); Oxford English Dictionary, ed. Murray, J. A. H. et al., 13 vols (Oxford, 1933) (hereafter OED); Oxford Latin Dictionary, ed. Glare, P. G. W. (Oxford, 1968–83) (hereafter OLD); Sexti Pompei Festi De Verborum significatu quae supersunt cum Pauli Epitome, ed. Lindsay, W. M. (Leipzig, 1913) (hereafter Paul. Fest.); C. Plini Secundi Naturalis Historiae Libri xxxvii, edidit Carolus Mayhoff, editio stereotypa editionis prioris 1875–1906 (Stuttgart, 1967) (hereafter Pliny, HN); Souter, A., ed., Glossary of Later Latin to 600 A.D. (Oxford, 1949) (hereafter Souter); Thesaurus Linguae Latinae (Leipzig, 1900-) (hereafter ThLL); Franz Wutz, ed., Onomastica Sacra: Untersuchungen zum Liber interpretationis Nominum Hebraicorum des hl.Hieronymus (Leipzig, 1914) (hereafter Wutz).Google Scholar

^{page 182 note 1} Cf. The Harley Latin-Old English Glossary, ed. Oliphant, R. T. (Holland, 1966) 67, line 709: “Ceroma: genus unguenti” (BL Harley 3376; hereafter Oliphant).Google Scholar

^{page 182 note 2} Cf. Medulla, Holkham 39 misc. (Hm), fol. 51b: “qui habet frumentum vel insanus”; cf. also CGL V 550.23 (Excerpta ex codice Cassinensi 402): “Ceritus: multum habens frumentum.” Qui habet tormentum is unidiomatic Latin. Pati tormentum or esse in tormentis would have been expected, were tormentum the reading.Google Scholar

^{page 183 note 3} From χέρσυδρος; cf. Lucan 9.710–11.Google Scholar

^{page 183 note 4} Cf. CGL V 177.4 (Excerpta ex libro Glossarum): “Celidris … id est a terra et aqua.”Google Scholar

^{page 183 note 5} Cf. χέρσος: ‘dry land’. Haworth's reading and note 2, p. 259, referring exclusively to Medulla Harl. 2257 (H⁴ ): Cerphon, denies the right of the scribe to have chosen the correct reading. Cf. Medulla MSS Canterbury (C), Harl. 2270 (H⁵ ), and Rawlinson C 101 (R): Cerson. Google Scholar

^{page 183 note 6} In p. 259, n. 3, Haworth derives support for the corrected reading of the Bristol fragment from the Hortus Vocabulorum without mentioning any Medulla readings: Certioro: H⁵ , C. and H⁴ . It should also have been noted that B frag.'s reading of Certiero is supported by Medulla MSS Stonyhurst (S), Add. 33534 (A² ), and St. John's (Cambridge) (J).Google Scholar

^{page 183 note 7} Cf. Du Cange: “Alapa, vel potius colaphus, et dicitur a cervix.” As alapa is regarded as a “slap with the open hand,” more specifically (potius) colaphus is a ‘percussio colli.’Google Scholar

^{page 183 note 8} pelwere: cf. MED pilwer n., pillow, cushion.Google Scholar

^{page 184 note 9} B frag. alone inserts the label: grece. Yet, cervix is in no way related to Greek. Was the scribe affected by similar sounding words ending in -υξ such as ?Google Scholar

^{page 184 note 10} In MED haterel n. (1) contains the senses: “back of the head,” “nape of the neck.”Google Scholar

^{page 184 note 11} ui[ridi]s: cf. Corpus MS 144 (fol. 15v) C233: “Ceruleus uiridis vel glaucus,” in EEMF. Also found in CGL IV 34.34 (Glossae Codicis Vaticani 3321): “Ciruleus: uiridis uel glaucus”; and CGL V 275.33 (Glossarium Amplonianum Secundum): “Ceruleus: uiridis uel glaucus.” Cf. also Oliphant, Harl. MS 3376, p. 67, line 698: “Ceruleus .i. glaucus grene hæwen fah deorc. color est inter album et nigrum.subniger.” Cerulus is a spelling found only in glossaries; for assimilation of -eus to -us cf. Diefenbach, s.v. ceruleus. Google Scholar

^{page 184 note 12} Verbatim in Isidore 12.6.10.Google Scholar

^{page 184 note 13} Cf. Oliphant, 67, line 697: “Cerua .i. pigmentum ex stagno et plumbo conficitur.” However, the editor offers no note to the effect that Cerua cannot be the intended entry. Probably read: Ceru[s]a. Cerua is usually glossed as a ‘she hert’.Google Scholar

^{page 184 note 14} In this MS the abbreviated form of proprium is itself abbreviated: .Google Scholar

^{page 185 note 15} Frakle: addendum MED. The MED has the plural entry only. See variants in other Medulla MSS, suggesting another hapax: frakyn (A² ), fra(k)ken (H⁴ , H⁵ ), vrakene (J).Google Scholar

^{page 185 note 16} Unattested in lexica.Google Scholar

^{page 185 note 17} Haworth's emendation: de [finite] is unsupported and unsupportable in that its restoration exceeds the normal range of letters missing from the lost left edge of the first column: 2–5.Google Scholar

^{page 185 note 18} Cf. Oliphant, 71, line 824: “Cetomologian .i. paratus sermo uel proprietas.” Also see note.Google Scholar

^{page 185 note 19} C(a)eso is unattested in the lexica. The entry, caeso, claimed by Blaise, A. in his Dictionnaire Latin-Français des Auteurs Chretiens (Strasbourg, 1954), as supported by Isidore, is inaccurately given. Isidore (9.3.12) refers to the plural only: “Qui enim execto utero exime-bantur, Caesones et Caesares appellabantur.” Paul. Fest., p. 50^L reads: “Caesones appellantur ex utero matris exsecti.” However, Diefenbach suggests glossographical evidence for the singular; s.v. ceso. Google Scholar

^{page 185 note 20} Unattested in the lexica. Additional glossographical support is found in Diefenbach; s.v. Ceso-, -nia. Google Scholar

^{page 186 note 21} Perhaps Haworth's note (p. 260, n. 2) should have been more circumspect. His choice of reading from the Hortus Vocabulorum is a reminder of the radical nature of a textual tradition. To emphasize only ‘a trusse’ seems to serve no purpose in the development of this text.Google Scholar

^{page 186 note 22} The entry and gloss are found only here in the tradition. However, cf. CGL V 595.2 (Glossae Scaligeri): “Cessiosus: qui saepe cedit.” Note possible confusion with Cessosus, line 53.Google Scholar

^{page 186 note 23} The oblique forms are unattested in the lexica.Google Scholar

^{page 186 note 24} Unattested in the lexica.Google Scholar

^{page 186 note 25} The reading is common to the MS tradition.Google Scholar

^{page 186 note 26} Haworth's reading: ‘wher’ (also s.v. Circumluuium), if intended as more than a modern normalizing of per (which is not only improper, but inaccurate), would reflect a rather serious temporal incongruity. The reading is best construed both palaeographically and linguistically as Þer, which is the most commonly accepted orthography for the indirect interrogative in Middle English. “The letter wynn, , had become obsolete by the thirteenth century.” Cf. McCarren, V. P., Mory, R. N., “The Abecedarium from British Museum Cotton MS. Titus D 18,” Modern Philology 87, no. 3 (1990), 269.Google Scholar

^{page 187 note 27} Cetei: ?“Cathaius … Chinese” (Latham). Also cf. Catus, CGL V 521.13: “Catus: sollicitus doctus” (Excerpta ex codice Vaticano 1469); “Catus: doctos sapiens acutus” CGL V 633.1 (Excerpta ex codice Leidensi 67E).Google Scholar

^{page 187 note 28} Cf. CGL V 564.54 (Excerpta ex codice Cassinensi 90): “Cetheus confractus uel abscisus.” Cetheus, -ius are the more commonly accepted spellings among the MSS.Google Scholar

^{page 187 note 29} Cf. Oliphant 71, line 831: “Cecum .i. intestinum.”Google Scholar

^{page 187 note 30} Cf. Latin coetus. Google Scholar

^{page 187 note 31} For corrected orthography, cf. Biblia Sacra, Gen. 22:20–22: “His ita gestis, nuntiatum est Abrahae quod Melcha quoque genuisset filios Nachor fratri suo, Hus primogenitum … et Camuel patrem Syrorum, et Cased….”Google Scholar

^{page 187 note 32} Cf. Isidore 9.2.48: “Chasdei, qui nunc Chaldaei vocantur, a chased, filio Nachor fratris Abrahae cognominati sunt.” A Middle English derivative of this is found in Trevisa's translation of Bartholomaeus Anglicus’ De Proprietatibus Rerum (Add. MS 27944) fol. 176a/a: “Caldea is Þere yseyde as Þat it were Cassidea and hath Þat name of Caseþ Þe sone of Nachor Þat] was Abrahams broker, as Isider seith.” Regarding “ut … demones,” cf. Hier. nom. hebr. 4.22 in Wutz: “Quasi daemonia … aut feroces.”Google Scholar

^{page 188 note 33} Cf. Isidore 7.6.52: “Caleph: quasi cor, aut canis.”Google Scholar

^{page 188 note 34} Cham pertains to the second half of the interpretation: nomen proprium more appropriately. However, Cham or cam construed as a Greek word, glossed by calidus and calor must be taken as Cauma = = heat. However, cf. Hier. nom. hebr. 4.11 in Wutz: “Cham calidus.”Google Scholar

^{page 188 note 35} Cf. χαμαί. Chami is unattested as a Latin word transliterated from Greek.Google Scholar

^{page 188 note 36} Cf. Biblia Sacra, 1 Kings 11:7: “Tunc aedificavit Salomon fanum Chamos, idolo Moab, in monte qui est contra Ierusalem….” Also, Judges 11:24: “Nonne ea quae possidet Chamos Deus tuus, tibi iure debentur?”Google Scholar

^{page 188 note 37} Cf. Isidore 9.2.12; 59. For further support of spelling and sense, cf. Corpus MS 144 [Interpretatio Nominum], fol. iv C12(4/65) in EEMF: “Cananeus possidens.” Also cf. Hier. nom. hebr. 61.3 in Wutz: “Cananaeus: possidens sive possessio.”Google Scholar

^{page 188 note 38} The association seems clear between the Simon known as Cananaeus (Matt. 10:4 and Mark 3:18) and Simon as Zelotes (Luke 6:15 and Acts 1:13), all of which passages pertain to the ‘naming of the twelve’.Google Scholar

^{page 188 note 39} The phrase “et .i. zelus” was likely overlooked in the copying of the interpretation. The scribe realizing it afterward found no room below the line and hence added it above, immediately after “galilie,” without using the inclusor.Google Scholar

^{page 188 note 40} Cf. CGL IV 434.3 (Glossae Vergilianae): “Chaos: prima omnium rerum confusio uel confusa caligo.”Google Scholar

^{page 188 note 41} Based upon current MED materials the only other literary example of the word is found in Robert of Brunne's Handlyng Synne, ed. Furnivall, F.J., EETS (1901), line 12460: “Oþer forƷyueþ he alle with gladehede, Or alle abydeþ to hys wraþhede.” Also cf. Medulla (Add. MS 37789): “Charram: wrathyd.” Further confirmation can be found in Stonyhurst: wrapped; Add. MS 24640: wrethid; Lincoln 111: wrethyd; and Harl. 2257: wreuthed. Haworth's note 1, p. 262, begins with a citation from Harl. 2257 intended as support for the entry: Charream and its gloss. Regrettably, three of the four words involved are misread. His reading is: ‘Charream: wreched’, supported by his note: “Charran anglice wrecched. Harl. 2257.” This is entirely misleading. It should read: ‘Charream: wrethed’ with Harl. 2257 read as: “Charram anglice wreuthed.” For conventional orthography, cf. Hier. nom. hebr. 4.21 in Wutz: “Charran foramina sive ira….”Google Scholar

^{page 189 note 42} Chasdei. in note 2, p. 262 of Haworth's article, in addition to the only two MSS he mentions (Medulla, Harl. 2257, and the Hortus Vocabulorum), has support from the following MSS of the Medulla: J, H⁵ (Cahsdei in A² and S). Unfortunately, he alludes to none of this evidence.Google Scholar

^{page 189 note 43} Cf. ME wrapen. Google Scholar

^{page 189 note 44} Caslen and, more commonly, Chaslen are the spellings offered in most MSS. However, cf. Biblia Sacra, Num. 34:17–21: “Haec sunt nomina virorum, qui terram vobis divident … de tribu Benjamin, Elidad filius Chaselon.” Also cf. Hier. nom. hebr. 17.15 in Wutz: “Chaslon … quasi protectio.”Google Scholar

^{page 189 note 45} Unattested as a Latin word transliterated from the Greek; cf. ,τό substantive of κοίλος. In Lloyd Daly's edition of Brito Metricus (Philadelphia, 1968), one reads (p. 24, lines 479–81): “Est chelon grece curvum, sunt brachia chele; A chelon dicta quoniam sunt brachia curva; Sicque chelus cithara de chelon dicitur orta.” The Middle English [thyng] (cf. H, H³ , L, L² , A, B, Sh) is required to support the Greek and Latin substantives.Google Scholar

^{page 190 note 46} The abbreviated word before plenitudo seems to be interpretatur, not item as was thought by Haworth. Cf. Isidore 7.5.22: “Cherubin qui ex Hebraeo in linguam nostram interpretantur scientiae multitudo qui pro eo, quod vicinius positi divina scientia ceteris amplius pleni sunt, Cherubin, id est plenitudo scientiae, appellantur.” The argument for item fails grammatically as well as palaeographically; significat would require an object. Cf. also Corpus MS 144 (fol. 16r) C366 in EEMF: “Cherubin: scientie multitudo.”Google Scholar

^{page 190 note 47} Cf. Hier. nom. hebr. 32.3 in Wutz: “Chetim insaniens vel formidans sive signata.” In the Medullan tradition Cherim is the common reading.Google Scholar

^{page 190 note 48} Ibid., 26.16: “Chidon: scutum vel clipeus.” Cf. also χιτών ‘coat of mail’.Google Scholar

^{page 190 note 49} Only in the Medullan tradition as a noun. Cf. DMLBS s.v. Cylindroides, esp. its defining quote, which emphasizes its being a noun although its gloss is adjectival: “cylindrical”.Google Scholar

^{page 190 note 50} Cf. κύλινδρος.Google Scholar

^{page 190 note 51} Cf. Du Cange, s.v. Chelyndrus (pro Chelydrus).Google Scholar

^{page 190 note 52} Chile transliterates χείλη, the less common contracted form of the neuter plural: χείλεα. The gloss should read: labia to parallel Chile. Cf. Souter, “Chile, lips”; and esp. CGL III, 491.15 (Glossae Bernenses): “Cheile: labia.”Google Scholar

^{page 190 note 53} Read also in the Hortus Vocabulorum and paralleled by the Medulla (St. John's) reading: “men off smale lyppys.” However, cf. Paul. Fest. 38^L: “Chilo dicitur cognomento a magnitudine labrorum,” supported by Medulla MS Holkham 39 misc.: “maioribus labris.”Google Scholar

^{page 190 note 54} Isidore offers an extraordinary linguistic association at 14.6.30: “Chios insula Syra lingua appellatur eo quod ibi mastix gignitur; Syri enim masticem ‘chio’ vocant.” There is no doubt of lingua in the Medullan tradition.Google Scholar

^{page 191 note 55} The entry and gloss are supported verbatim by most MSS. Yet, to what ‘place’? The neuter form is puzzling.Google Scholar

^{page 191 note 56} Note 1 (second part) of Haworth, p. 263 reads: “Choa .i. ecclesia Harl. 2257.” Other MSS might have been mentioned for additional support: S, A² . and J. Especially valuable would have been the H⁵ and C readings which show B frag. to be well within the Medullan tradition: “Choa ecclesia vel congregacio interpretatur.” The damaged right edge reveals traces of ±6 letters. Possibly ‘church’ was intended. ‘Interpretatur’ is unlikely since it usually appears as int in the fragment.Google Scholar

^{page 191 note 57} This reading is supported by C, H⁵ . and R.Google Scholar

^{page 191 note 58} Cf. Medulla Holkham MS 39 misc.: “honus vel pondus….” Also cf. Hier. nom. hebr. 57.9 in Wutz: “gravitudo vel gravitas.”Google Scholar

^{page 191 note 59} Cf. χοδολλογομόρ (Gen. 14:1) and Hier. nom. hebr. 4.25 in Wutz: “Chodollahomor quasi generatio manipuli sive quasi decorum manipuli.” After genus manipuli Haworth continues with [uel quasi habens de] (based, as his note 2, p. 263 indicates, on Harl. 2270). His reading overlooks the evident lettering after manipuli. B frag. seems to reveal hn̄s suggesting habens, followed by [de. Then one reads clearly:]corem manipulam, not]corum manipulum. The partial gloss from Harl. 2270 quoted by Haworth: ‘vel quasi habens decorum manipuli’ is not quite right. The reading in Harl. 2270 has manipulum not manipuli. In any case, this filler provided by Haworth seems to extend well beyond the allotted end of the line, not to mention the implausibility of the reading in the first place. Even sustained by abbreviations it would extend beyond what seems the plausible limit of ± 3 letters after the break (see Chobal above with its gloss ending in condempnacio). It should not go unmentioned however that the Canterbury reading is identical to Harl. 2270. Hence, three readings allow for [vel quasi habens de]; but it seems the scribe of B frag. did not have the space nor the inclination to follow suit.Google Scholar

^{page 191 note 60} In note 2, p. 263, Haworth puts forward Harl. 2257 exclusively: Choeleth. Yet all major MSS of the Medulla read: Choeleth and have a gloss virtually identical to B frag. This similarity of MSS suggests the harmony of the tradition rather than the suggested isolation of B frag. and the Hortus. Google Scholar

^{page 191 note 61} All MSS concur (Pepys [P] alone omits it). Also cf. Biblia Sacra, Prologus Hieronymi in libris Salomonis, line 11: “Coeleth, quem graece Ecclesiasten, latine Contionatorem possumus dicere.”Google Scholar

^{page 192 note 62} Haworth's note 4, p. 263: “Chomor hendes chepid” is misread; it should be: “Chomor hended chepid.” Also, he neglected to quote C, H⁵ . and R. which would have helped to support the position of B frag. in the Medullan tradition and suggest that the Hortus reading is one derived from that tradition. C reads: “Chamor interpretatur lacessens vel prouocans tacessiones vel prouocaciones.” H⁵ and R have: “Chomor interpretatur lacescens vel prouocans lacessiones vel prouocaciones.” Hence read: la[cessiones] to complete the interpretation. Regarding the second segment of note 4: “Chonemas smyting of god. Harl. 2257,” Haworth again neglects to acknowledge the other readings supporting this one, at least two of which, J and A² , he was, no doubt, well aware of. Stonyhurst also provides this interpretation. Harl. 2257 does not stand alone, although Haworth, at times, prefers to think so.Google Scholar

^{page 192 note 63} A² offers the gloss: “he Þat leduþ a daunce.” Further support for this reading is found in H, H³ , A³ , B. and L² . Haworth's addition “[the quer]” discounts the traditional rendering: ‘daunce’. Aside from the MSS with Latin interpretation, i.e., S, A, H⁴ , H⁵ , C. and R. as well as the P reading: “a Barker” and that of J: “a ledare off a daunce,” all others agree, with only slight orthographical variations, with A² . Hence the choice of emendation becomes clearer.Google Scholar

^{page 192 note 64} All MSS except P support this reading. Haworth, without comment, fills the lacuna: calu[icum]. Although this word is read in H⁴ and the Hortus, it does not, in fact, appear elsewhere. It exemplifies a word with a missing minim. Caluicium, the reading of all other MSS except P, which omits it, is well attested and means ‘baldness’. The spelling of the entry word is unattested in Latin either in the present spelling or the proper transliteration of the Greek: κουρά (-ρή) meaning ‘cutting of hair’. Cf. Hier. nom. hebr. 4.7,17.7 in Wutz: “Core calvitium.”Google Scholar

^{page 192 note 65} For confirmation of the completion of the line cf. S: ‘a daunce or a song’, supported by all but three MSS: P, J. and A³ , which provide only: ‘dauns’. Corolle, the first gloss, is a unique spelling under carole in MED. The carolle spelling under la needs correction.Google Scholar

^{page 192 note 66} Here Haworth inserts [uel temtacio] (without the second closed bracket, creating some editorial uncertainty) after temtans. Although C and H⁵ add vel temptacio (teptacio in R), they are alone of the 19 MSS which do so. Here there is no room nor reason for adding the phrase.Google Scholar

^{page 192 note 67} Choreus is unknown to the lexica. The glosses suggest the Greek χόλη (also χόλος) meaning: ‘anger’, transliterated as chole, which would allow for the adjectival formation: choleus, with the possible sense: ‘angry’. The liquid alteration r/1 is not uncommon.Google Scholar

^{page 192 note 68} Haworth suggests ‘wro[the’; yet, the descender of the t is clearly visible. Hence, read ‘wrot[he’. The tradition supports the filling of the lacuna in this way. S represents virtually all the MSS with: ‘wroþe’. But, H⁵ and R read: ‘iracundus’.Google Scholar

^{page 193 note 69} Unattested in the lexica.Google Scholar

^{page 193 note 70} But for Choricius (J) and Chocius (S), Chorcius is read exclusively (C, H⁵ and R omit both entry and gloss). The consistency of the orthography when, in fact, choricus is expected, is difficult to explain. The inversion of the syllable -ci for -ic is not unusual for this scribe. Syllabic inversion occurs in B frag. (see notes 89, 187, and 208), and MS reading: ‘cicilia’ for ‘cilicia’ (line 197). LSJ cites χορικός: “of a choral dance.” However, the noun is called for here. The OLD cites choricum [from χορικόν] as “the choral part of a play” (Aristotle, Poetics 1452^b22). The choricus of DMLBS glossed as ‘song writer’ seems irrelevant to this matter.Google Scholar

^{page 193 note 71} Haworth's note 6, p. 263, is incomplete. Perhaps he intended it to read: “so Harl. 2257, 2270.” I would also add “C, R. and L² : in sacris collecta.” Cf. Isidore 6.19.5.Google Scholar

^{page 193 note 72} C(h)orus is from Greek κόρος, from Hebrew Kor: a dry measure of approximately 10 Attic medimni or 30 modii (bushels) = 120 gallons. Cf. Corpus MS 144 (fol. 16r) C364 in EEMF: “Chorus: xxx modios habet.” Also an identical reading is found in CGL V (Glossarium Amplonianum Primum) 351.51. Hence, this gloss: x modiorum and the readings in all but one of the other Medulla MSS is inaccurate. Lincoln 88 reads: “genus mensure 30 modiorum.” Cf. also lexical support in DMLBS, LSJ, and Souter.Google Scholar

^{page 193 note 73} Cf. Otherwise, Diefenbach s.v. unattested. Cf. also Isidore 4.9.13.Google Scholar

^{page 193 note 74} Medicus is read in C, H⁵ , R, H⁴ . and P.Google Scholar

^{page 194 note 75} This entry and interpretations proved a considerable revelation in light of general scribal reputation concerning knowledge of Greek. I have chosen to accept the orthography of this word as given by the scribe: Chricis since, it may be argued, he intends this entry to represent a trifold spelling in Greek: κρύψις = secretum; κρίσις = Iudicium; and χρυσός = a[urum. Based upon C, H⁴ , H⁵ , J. and R, I have emended the text to read: .i. secretum vel etc. placing, as no doubt intended, the three glosses on a par each with a word similar to the entry word. Claus Riessner in his Die “Magnae Derivationes“ des Uguccione da Pisa (Rome, 1965), 73, remarks: “Die tatsächlichen griechischen Formen der lautlich in ‘crisis’ vereinigten Wörter κρύψις, κρίσις, und χσυσός [sic] (oder χρυσίς) waren ihm unbekannt, wie eindeutig aus den etymologischen Ableitungen zu ersehen ist, die er unter diesem Lemma bringt.” The phrase “waren ihm unbekannt” may or may not be accurate. The importance of this entry and interpretations is the suggestion that there was a scribal understanding of them and perhaps a deeper understanding of Greek than expected. The St. John's reading should not be taken lightly: “Chrisis … uersus: Aurum iudicium secretum dat tibi chrisis.”Google Scholar

^{page 194 note 76} Read in C, H⁴ , H⁵ , R. and J.Google Scholar

^{page 194 note 77} For varied orthography cf. Mittellateinisches Wörterbuch (Munich, 1959-), Chrysoprasus, s.v. Testimony upon its meaning is provided by Isidore 16.7.7: “Chrysoprasus Indicus est, colore …, porri sucum referens, aureis intervenientibus guttis, unde et nomen accepit,” derived from Pliny HN 37.113: “praefertur his Chrysoprasos porri sucum et ipsa referens, sed haec paulum declinantem a topazo in aurum.”Google Scholar

^{page 194 note 78} Cf. S and P: ‘derk’.Google Scholar

^{page 195 note 79} All MSS support this reading, except J and Hm, which omit it. Both entry and interpretation are probably supportable by Judges 3:8: “Iratusque Dominus contra Israhel tradidit eos in manus Chusanrasahaim regis Mesopotamiae servieruntque ei octo annis.”Google Scholar

^{page 195 note 80} Read in C, H⁵ , R. and Hm.Google Scholar

^{page 195 note 81} The noun is known lexically to be of the second not the fourth declension. It is a variant spelling of cyathus from Greek κύαθος: a ladle used for wine.Google Scholar

^{page 195 note 82} Haworth's note 2, p. 264: “pondus decem dragmarum. Harl. 2257 and Ortus” deals with Ciatus glossed by ‘a litil cup’. It would have been additionally helpful had he mentioned that the filler: “et genus ponderis” also comes from A² , C, J, H⁵ . and S. Distracted, it seems, by preconceptions, Haworth imposes an example of a complementary reading from his two ‘preemptive’ sources upon a gloss which seems quite self-contained and sensible: ‘a litil cuppe’. It is also well to note that the filler, although not impossible, is likely too extensive for the column.Google Scholar

^{page 195 note 83} Found only in C, H⁵ , J. and Hm, all of which read Cibarius. Google Scholar

^{page 195 note 84} Occurring only in three MSS of the Medulla (C, H⁵ . and R), it is unattested in the lexica.Google Scholar

^{page 195 note 85} Illiquata (MS inllicata): addendum lexicis: the passive participial form of illiquāre (the compound form of liquāre ‘to cause to melt, to liquefy’) unattested in the lexica. However, the attested deponent verb: illiquor ‘to flow into’ (from liquor: ‘to melt, dissolve’) not of the ā conjugation, has no attested past participial form. For the narrative of Ciane, cf. Ovid, Metamorphoses, 5.409ff.Google Scholar

^{page 195 note 86} For details cf. Ovid, Fasti, 4.469; Pliny HN 3.89.Google Scholar

^{page 196 note 87} Cf. cyaneus. Google Scholar

^{page 196 note 88} Addendum lexicis. Google Scholar

^{page 196 note 89} An example of transposition of letters, a common scribal shortcoming. Cf. e.g., notes 187 and 208, and line 197, MS cicilia for cilicia. Another linguistic variation might be cibebo; cf. κυβέλη = κυβήβη.Google Scholar

^{page 196 note 90} Addendum lexicis. Google Scholar

^{page 196 note 91} All MSS support this reading. vnderwoxen: participle from vnderwaxen. This quotation is one of only three in Middle English, whose sense is that of a wound not yet healed [ascertained in consultation with Helen Kao, a colleague at the MED].Google Scholar

^{page 196 note 92} Cf. Isidore 12.8.6. Also cf. CGL V (Placidus Libri Glossarum) 54.20: “Cicendela scarabeorum genus est eo quod gradiens uel uolans lucet.”Google Scholar

^{page 196 note 93} The orthographic variant of cyclades, the chain of islands in the Aegean sea, is cicula (cf. Diefenbach, s.v. cicula and Ciclades, which might have provided the confusion within this gloss).Google Scholar

^{page 197 note 94} On the MS this appears as three minims with a horizontal mark over the second and third minim, expanded by Haworth to insule. This interpretation is unsupportable palaeographically. The unimaginative format of glossographical style warrants something like inde which connects this entry, a noun, with what follows: its adjective: ciclopius. Google Scholar

^{page 197 note 95} Cf. Isidore 20.15.3.Google Scholar

^{page 197 note 96} For general treatment cf. Novum Glossarium Mediae Latinitatis, ed. F. Blatt (Hafniae, Denmark, 1963), s.v. milito.Google Scholar

^{page 197 note 97} “Eius succus nocet oculis” is unattested in any of the other MSS of the Medulla. As well, its sentiment counters that of the literature on the subject: Pliny (HN 25.153) states: “Sucus [cicutae] … praecipuus … est ad oculorumque dolores sedandos circumlitus.” In bk. 25 ch. 50 he continues: “oculorum claritati multum confert.” This is supported in the Macer Floridus de Viribus Herbarum, trans. Louis, M. Baudet (Paris, 1845), chap. 65 (Cicuta), p. 242: “Aestivas mire juvat epiphoras oculorum, Si frons contritis foliis sit operta virentis, Vel si sint ejus circumlita lumina succo.” A Middle English Translation of Macer Floridus de Viribus Herbarum, ed. Frisk, G. (Uppsala, 1949), 133, reads: “Oynt [Þe sore eƷen with Þe jus of] hemlok al about, and so shalt Þou [do away Þe feruent hete] of hem. Or stampe hemlok leuys gre[ne and ley hem on Þe front or] face, Þei wole doo Þe same.”Google Scholar

John Lelamour's Translation of Macer's Herbal, ed. Alianore Whytlaw-Gray (from BL Sloane MS 5: M.A. thesis. unpublished), 29.2–30.1, emphasizes the advice: “Anoynte the eye liddys with that juis and that heleþ the blether of ham.” Evidently the scribe of B frag. misread his sources resulting in misinformation of the worst kind: that which appears only once, is wrong, and goes unsuspected.Google Scholar

^{page 198 note 98} Addendum lexicis. Google Scholar

^{page 198 note 99} Cf. Columella, , De Re Rustica, 5.10.19: “Praeterea malorum genera exquirenda maxime … Amerina, Syrica, melimela, Cydonia.” Pliny (HN 15.37) remarks: “His proxima amplitudine mala quae vocamus cotonea et Graeci cydonea e Creta insula advecta.”Google Scholar

^{page 198 note 100} The MS probably reads: -um. Haworth misreads it as preterita, which is grammatically awkward, idem being part of the object of habent. Cf. Medulla (Harl. 2257) 124b/a: Pendo dis pepensi pensum et habet idem preteritum et idem supinum.Google Scholar

^{page 198 note 101} Misread by Haworth as monere. Cf. note 132.Google Scholar

^{page 198 note 102} Haworth's cignitas cannot be read. Although creased, cignitus is clearly read. The -tus ending prevails in all MSS recording the entry (it is omitted in J, H² . and H⁵ ).Google Scholar

^{page 198 note 103} Cf. χίλιοι.Google Scholar

^{page 199 note 104} Addendum lexicis; cf. κοιλία.Google Scholar

^{page 199 note 105} Cilia produces the same problem met under Ciclops. Haworth's reading: Cilia .i. uenter masc. cannot be supported; masc. is not attested as the resolution of three minims with horizontal over second and third minims. uenter as masc. seems of little concern to this scribe. Grammatical labels are not an element of his style. Rather, in̄, which should be read, suggests inde, the adverb connecting noun and derivative.Google Scholar

^{page 199 note 106} The lexica provide cilicium with the sense: ‘a garment made of hair’. In the MSS of the Medulla it is glossed in most cases simply as : ‘hair’, except for the Downside Medulla, which reads: Cilicium est vestimentum et pilis caprarum contextum ex quo antiquitus fiebant tentoria. [My thanks to Dr. Ruth Kennedy for making the microfilm of this MS accessible for the inclusion of its important readings in this edition.] Cf. MED s.v. her n. 3: a garment of fur or hair.Google Scholar

^{page 199 note 107} ouerher: hapax legomenon; neither attested in MED under the compound nor the simplex, her. Google Scholar

^{page 199 note 108} The MS is creased here, but the reading seems clear enough: “bord”. The initial arched stroke P of the b comes entirely on the outside of the lower curl . The problem arises from a tail mark which appears like that of an h. Cf. MED, s.v. metebord, esp. the P.Parv. quote: “Table, mete boord that ys borne a-wey whan mete ys doon: Cillaba.” Haworth's reading: ‘hord’ is unsupportable contextually. The word is not used in the above sense; cf. MED s.v. hord. Google Scholar

^{page 200 note 109} Cf. Du Cange: “Cillones: Homines angusti capitis,” perhaps based upon the notion contained in the Greek: ὀξυκέφαλος (see CGL III 152.16: “oxicefalos cilo”). Cf. also Corpus MS 144 (fol. 16v) C406 in EEMF vol. 22: “Cilo: homo longum caput habens.” Also cf. for identical reading, CGL V 277.10. In addition, cf. CGL V 14.14 and 55.5: “Cilones quorum capita oblonga.”Google Scholar

^{page 200 note 110} For crop, cf. Cath. Angl. (Monson), 83, n. 6; also P.Parv., 104, n. 4. For cima (cyma) cf. Du Cange and DMLBS. Google Scholar

^{page 200 note 111} Cf. Isidore 19.2.1: “Cumba locus imus navis, quod aquis incumbat.” Also cf. Du Cange, s.v. 1. cumba … Ugutio: “Cumba et Cimba, ima pars navis et vicinior aquis, sic dicta, quod aquis incumbit, unde et ipsa navis, et praecipue parva dicitur.” 2. Cymba of DMLBS cannot have been intended since it exclusively conveys the general sense of a container, not a specific part of one. Also, s.v. Cumba. Google Scholar

^{page 200 note 112} Cf. OLD: cumbula; L&S, DMLBS: cymbula. Cf. MED tumbrel: a small boat.Google Scholar

^{page 200 note 113} Cf. identical reading in Hm: “Quedam herba que valde fetet” supported by: “herba fetida” of C, H⁵ . and R.Google Scholar

^{page 200 note 114} Haworth, in his note 1, p. 267 marked this confusion, but only by calling attention to a single gloss of the Medulla: “Cimicosus ‘plenus cimicibus’ Harl. 2270.” He follows this with an elaborate listing of all three glosses involved (plus a fourth preceding one: Cimia) from the Hortus Vocabulorum. There is no mention of the Rawlinson C101 readings which, of themselves, argue for B frag.'s being within the scope of the Medullan tradition: “Cimex vermis natus in carne putrida … Cimicosus plenus cimiabus [sic]; Ciminile vas aquaticum a basyn.” Nor should it go unnoticed that Haworth avoids the other glosses given by H⁵ . which, in this case and frequently elsewhere agrees with C and further strengthens the case for B frag. belonging to the Medulla group, not to the Hortus Vocabulorum. To reconstruct: the scribe overlooked herba under the entry Cimicia (line 207). The next entry: Cimes has a gloss extending below the line. With the gloss completed, perhaps his glance went to the line below that one, which left one entry space open. After the Ciminile gloss he might have filled in the missing entry with only part of the gloss, due to confined space, adding the remains of it and the gloss above on the following line. Otherwise nascitur (in some MSS natus) … putrida might have been a marginalium explaining vermis which comes at the extended end of a line. Our scribe, perhaps without a grasp of the meaning, just copied it. Or, finally, he concluded that ‘cimicibus nascitur in carne putrida’ is a legitimate entry on its own and that the lower case c was just an oversight of an earlier transcriber. Note that bakyn (under Ciminile) is a spelling unattested in Middle English. Cf. MED, s.v. bacin. Regarding ‘cum cilo’, cf. Cillo, Diefenbach s.v.: Chilo, χείλων .i. labeo. Also cf. LSJ s.v. χείλος: “lip … II metaph. of things, edge, brink, rim of a bowl….”Google Scholar

^{page 201 note 115} Cf. CGL IV (Glossae Affatim) 497.39: “Comis: facilis suauis dulcis.” Also cf. comis (beginning and end of entry in ThLL). I know of no Greek word which approximates this entry. Cf. note 89: Ceruix cis grece. The root χῡμ– providing such words as χῡμός, juice, flavor; χυμίζω, season, soften; and χυμώδης, juicy, seems an unlikely basis for this entry word.Google Scholar

^{page 201 note 116} For -ia ending cf. Diefenbach, s.v. Cinara. Google Scholar

^{page 201 note 117} A seemingly inexplicable palaeographical error. The MS reads Cincimiter; the final minim is i (note flourish) followed by . All other MSS read Cincinnus. 227 gert] y-gurdyd Sh. genus calciamenti C, H⁵ , R, Hm, D. om. H, A² , L. 228 an hors gerth] animalium a gyrdyng Hm. 229 a mannis gerdil] a gyrdell C, H² . om. P, Hm, Sh. 230 sunt hominum … equm] an hors gerþ (gurþe S) A² , C, H⁵ , L² . 231 caninus houndene] bundoun L² . houndyche C. hundish H⁵ . om. P, H² , B, A³ . 233 genus paruarum muscarum] musca parua C, H⁵ , R. musse (-ce D, L, L² ) minutissime B, L, L² . Musse mitissime P. gnattes S. flessh flee Sh. 234 a ferblowere an yren hetere] a aske vathe, scilicet qui sedet in cineribus et calefactor ferri H⁵ (sim. C, R), an aske fist or iren heter S, A. a ffyer maker iryn hetare an aske ffyse J. om. H² . 235 fluuius est libie quia … hirci (MS hirti)] a flod A² , L² , H³ , A³ . flowd D. fluuius quidam C, H⁵ , R. a blode S (sim. H, A, J) a ffelde P. om. B, H² . 236 maioris hirci (MS hirti)] maiores hirci C, H⁵ R, om. reliqui mss. 239 MS Ciniculus.Google Scholar

^{page 202 note 118} As with the entries Chaldei and Ciclops, so Cineus-a-um is glossed ‘maner of folk’, a phrase evidently of general application. Here it might be seen to apply to Cumeus-a-um: ‘Cumaean’, ‘of Cumae’, referring to the Campanian colony known through its Sibyl described in Aeneid VI. Palaeographically i often is written for u and n for m providing here the difference between Cumaeus and Cinaeus. Google Scholar

^{page 202 note 119} On the general sense of the gloss cf. Isidore 20.16.4: “Cingulum hominum generis neutri est; nam animalium genere feminino dicimus has cingulas.”Google Scholar

^{page 202 note 120} Houndene is a hapax legomenon; s.v. hounden, adj. in MED. Google Scholar

^{page 202 note 121} Cf. Isidore 12.8.14.Google Scholar

^{page 202 note 122} However imprecise grammatically, the scribe suggests that the goats gave their name to the river, whereas Isidore places the emphasis upon the river as being eponymous. Cf. Orig. 12.1.14: “Maiores hirci Cinyphii dicuntur a fluvio Cinyphe in Libya, ubi grandes nascuntur.”Google Scholar

^{page 203 note 123} For orthography cf. Diefenbach, s.v. ^∗Cyno-. Google Scholar

^{page 203 note 124} Cf. Isidore 12.7.23: “texit nidos ex fructibus.”Google Scholar

^{page 203 note 125} Unattested in the lexica as transliterated from the Greek; cf. κυνός, genitive of κύων.Google Scholar

^{page 203 note 126} Cf. Isidore 6.1.8 which is based upon Jerome's Prologus … in libro Regum, line 19: “Hieremias cum Cinoth, id est Lamentationibus suis.”Google Scholar

^{page 203 note 127} Perhaps an example of transitional orthography. Antiquity affords Cinthus, from Greek κύνθος [a Delian mountain, birthplace of Apollo], which develops into the modern form: -cintio (s.v. Lewis and Short).Google Scholar

^{page 203 note 128} Not uncommonly, the scribe begins to write the ending -us with a u and then reverts to the abbreviation 9 failing to rub out the u. The MS does not read Cinthinus (Haworth) but Cinthiuus, which should be corrected to Cinthius, read by all MSS except A³ and H² : -eus. Google Scholar

^{page 203 note 129} Cf. .Google Scholar

^{page 203 note 130} Cf. Paul. Fest. 55^L, s.v. Cinxiae Iunonis. Google Scholar

^{page 203 note 131} Haworth reads: tii-; but to what end? Probably tu, the ablative supine was intended: citu following citum. Google Scholar

^{page 203 note 132} Mouere, not monere (Haworth), is the reading. The interpretation of the minims is based upon the appropriate sense of the entry verb which precludes ‘warning’ or ‘advising’. Cf. note 101.Google Scholar

^{page 204 note 133} Cf. Ovid, , Metamorphoses, 10.121ff.Google Scholar

^{page 204 note 134} Addendum lexicis. Google Scholar

^{page 204 note 135} Cf. Medulla Rawl. C101.Google Scholar

^{page 204 note 136} Cf. Oliphant, 79, line 1054: “Cippus: lapis sepulchri uel sepulchrum.” The Bristol DM 1 spelling: grauid ston is unattested in Middle English; cf. MED: grave-ston.Google Scholar

^{page 204 note 137} Isidore (14.6.14) preserves the sense of the passage with a respectable style: “Cypros insula a civitate Cypro, quae in ea est nomen accepit.”Google Scholar

^{page 204 note 138} in̄ = inde; cf., for details, note 105.Google Scholar

^{page 204 note 139} Cf. Isidore 19.17.10.Google Scholar

^{page 204 note 140} The plural is necessary to complement the entry whose singular is circes. Cf. Paul. Fest. 37^L: “Circites circuli ex aere facti.” This entry appears only here in the Medullan tradition.Google Scholar

^{page 205 note 141} Cf. CGL IV (Glossae Codicis Sangallensis 912) 219.26: “Circopeticus animal est semile simmie caudati.” Also see CGL V (Excerpta ex codice Vaticano 1468) 494.46: “Circopeticus animal similis simio.” It is derived from κέρκος and πίθηκος, transliterated as cercopithecus. This entry appears in only one other MS of the Medulla: Holkham 39 misc.: “Circopaticus: animal est simile simie caudatum.”Google Scholar

^{page 205 note 142} 1 know of no palaeographical evidence supporting as simile (the problem being how to accommodate the second i). With much support of for simile I suspect that the here suggested to the scribe simillime (not simile), the ending assumed by the scribe by attraction to the normal third declension adjectival endings: -is, -e, when, in fact, in the superlative the endings: -us, -a, -um apply: correctly, then, simillimum. In abbreviations of forms of similis, -e, where the i occurs, it is always accounted for (see Dizionario di Abbreviature Latine ed Italiane, ed. A. Cappelli [Milan, 1929, rev. 1967]). Overlooking it here, Haworth infers that the scribe erred. Yet support is lacking for that assumption.Google Scholar

^{page 205 note 143} Cf. Du Cange and Diefenbach under Circulatorius. Also see P.Parv., 507: “Turnowre. Tornator, Cath. circulatorius, Cath. scutellator.”Google Scholar

^{page 206 note 144} Addendum lexicis. DMLBS quotes the Trin-C LE Dict. MS: “Circumpres anglice a prayer of a worde” but provides the entry word Circumprex glossed by ‘(?)prayer’. Both elements are mistaken. Cf. MED s.v. preier(e n.(1): “One who offers prayers.” The MED supporting circumpres by analogy with interpres provides the correct insight; the -s indicates agency.Google Scholar

^{page 206 note 145} Unattested, yet acceptable orthography.Google Scholar

^{page 206 note 146} Cf. Isidore 10.64: “Circumforanus, qui advocationum causa circum fora et conventus vagatur.” However, aside from Du Cange who concurs with Isidore, and CGL V (Excerpta ex Glossario Abavvs Maiore) 626.63: “Circumforanus qui aduocationum causa circumforat et conuentus uagatur,” generally lexica and glossaries point up the unseemly characteristics of this type of occupation. Cf., e.g., Cath. Angl. (BL Add. MS 15562): “A Merkett better: hic Circumforanus.” Also cf. Cath. Angl. (Monson): “Merketbeter: Circumforanus,” and esp. note 1, p. 236 which expresses the various roles played by this type in the literature of the period.Google Scholar

^{page 206 note 147} Cf. n. 26.Google Scholar

^{page 206 note 148} Cf. Isidore 14.8.42: “Circumluvium: locus quem aqua circumluit.”Google Scholar

^{page 206 note 149} Under Circumscribo Haworth offers the emendation bo[undyn? However, what seems to appear on the MS is bo ±3, which would fix the extension of this line identically with the preceding one. There is, however, little justification for an English word amidst a series of Latin infinitives. Also, Haworth's five letters within the bracket seem to exceed the ink markings on the line. C, H⁵ and R read “bonis propriis priuo.” Either propriis was consciously dropped or the scribe thought that he had written it when looking at the pr of priuo. Google Scholar

^{page 206 note 150} Between circumscribo (the last word on fol. 2v/b) and crisolencis (the first word of fol. 3r/a) (i.e. lines 295 and 296 of the present text) there is a loss of approximately nine doublecolumned folio leaves.Google Scholar

^{page 207 note 151} Attested variant of chrysolithus; s.v. DMLBS. Google Scholar

^{page 207 note 152} Haworth's reading: cetio fails palaeographically; but, more to the point, there is no such word. A serious editorial oversightGoogle Scholar

^{page 207 note 153} Haworth's note 2, p. 270: “Read ‘move’?” seems unnecessary; more is the ablative singular of mos and not unexpected here since this scribe indulges in a spontaneous macaronic style.Google Scholar

^{page 207 note 154} Unattested in the lexica; only two other instances in glossaries (s.v. Diefenbach).Google Scholar

^{page 207 note 155} Cf. Cath. Angl. (BL Add. MS 15562): “A credyll … crocea e”; also cf. P.Parv. (Harl. 221): “Credel or Cradel … Crocea.”Google Scholar

^{page 207 note 156} There are two verbs attested with the meaning ‘to cry as a crowe’: croco, -are and crocio, -ire. However, the combination, crocio, -are, given in this fragment is not a plausible alternative. The consensus within the tradition is toward croco. Google Scholar

^{page 208 note 157} Cf. Ovid, , Metamorphoses, 4.283.Google Scholar

^{page 208 note 158} In the midst of a Latin phrase the scribe seems to have slipped into English. The macron cannot be taken as an -is abbreviation which is an entirely different symbol: .Google Scholar

^{page 208 note 159} Cf. Isidore 17.9.5.Google Scholar

^{page 208 note 160} Cf. ME: heighli, adj. This entry and gloss seem to belong more appropriately under heighli adj.(c): “much, great, full, complete,” than under heighli adv., where they are found in the MED. It should also be noticed that it expands the adjectival sense later by 75 years: ca. 1350 to a1425.Google Scholar

^{page 209 note 161} An explanation for B frag.'s entry and gloss: “Cruciabilis et le .i. parua crux” becomes clear when one considers the reading in the group of MSS most in accord with the readings of B frag., namely, Canterbury, Harl. 2270, Rawl. C101, and, in some cases, Holkham. C, H ⁵ and R read: “Cruciabilis le aptum cruciari” followed immediately by: “Crucicula parua crux.” Holkham inserts ‘est vel dignum’ between aptum and cruciari. It is interesting that only one other MS of the Medulla, St. John's (Cambridge), includes Cruciabilis, but places it three entries below Crucicula. It should also be mentioned that the Hortus Vocabulorum inserts Cruciabilis three entries above Crucicula, perhaps suggesting that these latter copied from other MSS. Yet the position and content of these two entries and glosses in C, H ⁵ and R support the likely emendation of B frag.Google Scholar

^{page 209 note 162} The entry: Crudesco proved awkward for Haworth. The second person is read as cis, not is; his reading of the remainder of the gloss: uus ui is construed as the disordered arrangement of the principal parts of the verb, when, in fact, it is merely the abbreviation: inco^m = incoatiuum. Google Scholar

^{page 209 note 163} Haworth's reading: notate is ungrammatical. The verb form must account for the subject: crudus. Notat satisfies that need. Cf. Holkham 39 misc. for the reading identical to B frag. These two MSS contain the only example of the ‘verse’ in the Medullan tradition.Google Scholar

^{page 209 note 164} However, cf. Du Cange citing a French-Latin glossary (ex. Cod. reg. 7684): “Qui a grans cuisses.” Also Cath. Angl. (BL Add. MS 15562): “Grette leggyd: Cruratus a um.” All the MSS indicate either grete or magna. The precise part of the anatomy seems unessential. There are crura (A, C, L, R, S), leggis (A³ , H, H² , H³ ) knees (P) and pies or leggus (A² ) and, here, Þeyes. What is important is the use of the adjective magna or gret(e. It is consistent but for B frag. which reads parua and is obviously mistaken. Perhaps the reason is the appearance of an entry and gloss in the immediate vicinity: “Crusculus: qui parua habet crura,” found in A, C, P, R, S, Sh. Possibly the process of misglossing appeared: Cruratus linked with the gloss of crusculus which is omitted in B frag.Google Scholar

^{page 210 note 165} Unattested in the lexica.Google Scholar

^{page 210 note 166} Cf. Paul. Fest. 46^L for plural usage: “Crustariae tabernae a vasis potoriis crustatis dictae.” DMLBS provides the singular entry: “crustaria: cook-shop,” and cites: “A tawern, caupona, taberna …, + erustaria [v.l. crustaria], Cath. Angl.” Yet, curiously there is no mention of Cath. Angl. (BL Add. MS 15562), fol. 125a: “Caupona, Taberna … Crustaria.” Cf. also CGL V (Glossae Scaligeri) 596.32: “Crustaria taberna a uasis crustatis.”Google Scholar

^{page 210 note 167} Cf. Columella, , De Re Rustica, 5.10.18: “Curandum est autem, ut quam generosissimis pyris pomaria conseramus. Ea sunt Crustumina, regia, [etc.].” The -ni given as genitive seems to suggest the orthography intended by the scribe. Note, however, that this substantival use would be unattested. For further variants cf. Diefenbach, s.v. Crustumium, and Pliny HN 15.53: “Eadem causa in piris taxatur superbiae cognomine. parva haec, sed ocissima. cunctis autem Crustumia gratissima.”Google Scholar

^{page 210 note 168} The word occurs nowhere else in the language.Google Scholar

^{page 210 note 169} Cf. Diefenbach, s.v. Also cf. ThLL for emendation: “?musculus.” However, the glossarial tradition supports the textual reading. See CGL IV (Glossae Abavvs) 326.25: “Copio masculus”; also, CGL V (Glossae Scaligeri) 596.35: “Cubio masculus.”Google Scholar

^{page 210 note 170} Cf. for super oua …: A, Hm, A² , C, H⁵ , R, L, Sh, H⁴ . Persona, the reading of B frag., might be thought the best of a bad job. The scribe saw su but wrote pers. An example of the not uncommon ‘focal juxtaposition’. Consider Stonyhurst fol. 3b/b: “Alluces: a sloui cepla [read: place].” Also cf. the Pepys gloss upon “abalieno: to Enalyne” = alyne + en = alyenen (s.v. MED). Haworth's emendation: [su]peroua and note 1, p. 272 are misleading and unnecessary. In emending he disregards the presence of the s in persona. Also the p of persona should be lower-cased. Finally, his observation: ‘“sedere superoua’ Harl. 2257” is inaccurate. The MS reads two words here: super oua. Google Scholar

^{page 211 note 171} kouele, ll. 359, 372: k spelling is unattested; s.v. coule n.(1) in MED. Google Scholar

^{page 211 note 172} Cf. CGL V (Excerpta ex codice cassinensi 90) 566.27: “Cucumeraria: LXX pomorum custodia.” Cucumeraria is unattested in the lexica.Google Scholar

^{page 211 note 173} Cucurbita … uentosa. Cf. Juvenal, Sat. 14.58; also, cf. Courtney, E., A Commentary on the Satires of Juvenal (London, 1980), 568 note, regarding the therapeutic value of this “cupping glass shaped like a gourd.”Google Scholar

^{page 212 note 174} Unattested in the lexica.Google Scholar

^{page 212 note 175} Attested only in Diefenbach as singular. The form with identical gloss is found in DMLBS, but, it seems, as a neuter plural (s.v. culliolum). Cf. Paul. Fest. 44^L: “Culliola: cortices nucum viridium….”Google Scholar

^{page 212 note 176} Unattested in the lexica; found only in Cath. Angl. (BL Add. MS 15562): “A Cowle … Cullula.”Google Scholar

^{page 212 note 177} The problem of ‘whether t or c’ arises. Here it is not trivial since the correct reading: coppyn is unattested in Middle English. The MED has the entries: cop (n.) and copped (ppl.), but not the finite verb.Google Scholar

^{page 212 note 178} Mostly glossographical, the two principal meanings are found under the entry in Du Cange: “Culmen agere vel accumulare … exaltare, Culminare.”Google Scholar

^{page 212 note 179} quele: cf. MED, s.v. quil n.(a).Google Scholar

^{page 213 note 180} Haworth's note 1, p. 273 is somewhat misleading. Du Cange does not refer to “Sculponeae” but only indirectly mentions the singular form. The source that he might have used is Isidore 19.34.13: “<s>culponeae rustica calciamenta sunt.” Also his seemingly intentional limitation to Harl. 2257 for the reading: culponius hampers an understanding of the tradition; the -ius ending prevails in H, H³ , B, P, Sh. and L² .culponeae rustica calciamenta sunt.” Also his seemingly intentional limitation to Harl. 2257 for the reading: culponius hampers an understanding of the tradition; the -ius ending prevails in H, H3 , B, P, Sh. and L2 .' href=https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=Haworth's+note+1,+p.+273+is+somewhat+misleading.+Du+Cange+does+not+refer+to+“Sculponeae”+but+only+indirectly+mentions+the+singular+form.+The+source+that+he+might+have+used+is+Isidore+19.34.13:+“culponeae+rustica+calciamenta+sunt.”+Also+his+seemingly+intentional+limitation+to+Harl.+2257+for+the+reading:+culponius+hampers+an+understanding+of+the+tradition;+the+-ius+ending+prevails+in+H,+H3+,+B,+P,+Sh.+and+L2+.>Google Scholar