¹ Festschrift für Lorenz Morsbach, Studien zur englischen Philologie 50 (Halle 1913) 434.Google Scholar

² (Berlin 1955) 44. Gneuss calls the psalter the Lothian Psalter and designates it N (following the practice of Dom Robert Weber in Le Psautier Romain et les autres anciens psautiers latins [Rome 1953] index siglorum); Wildhagen calls it D¹. Minnie Cate Morrell designates Blickling M (A Manual of Old English Biblical Materials [Knoxville, Tennessee 1965] 45–46), a practice which is followed here.Google Scholar

³ Kenneth, and Sisam, Celia, edd., The Salisbury Psalter, Edited from Salisbury Cathedral MS. 150 (Early English Text Society 242; London 1959) 56. The Sisams misread tyrging in the MS for tyring; the form tyrging appears at Ps. 68.10.Google Scholar

⁴ N. R. Ker writes (Catalogue of Manuscripts Containing Anglo-Saxon [Oxford 1957] no. 249): ‘Scholia written throughout in the margins by the main hand and on specially ruled lines include a few words of OE …’; and ‘The OE gloss to the psalms is in the same fluent square Anglo-Saxon minuscule, s. x med., as the text and as the exposition of Pss. 109-49 in Royal 4 A. xiv, which seems to be a companion volume….’ The Sisams disagree with Ker and Fritz Roeder (Der altenglische Regius-Psalter [Halle 1904] vii): ‘But the maker of the OE gloss was not, as has been supposed, the maker of the Latin verbal commentary, for they sometimes disagree. Thus 67.31 “increpaferas” (one word in D Latin) is correctly glossed Ðu Ϸrea wildeor = “increpa feras,” where the commentary has “increpaferas”; and 71.14 “usuris,” glossed micgum, is rightly explained by “iniquis meritis” (i.e., wrongful gains) in the commentary’ (The Salisbury Psalter 55). However, as William Davey notes in an unpublished edition of D (‘An Edition of the Regius Psalter and Its Latin Commentary,’ Diss.: University of Ottawa 1979), the OE gloss and Latin commentary could very well have been written by the same scribe at different times. The OE was ‘almost certainly written after the marginal Latin commentary as is indicated by the large number of glosses that have been interrupted by identifying marks which associate the text and commentary’ (xxxviii).Google Scholar

⁵ For a list of Latin MSS of the commentaries written in or imported into England during this period, see Gneuss, Helmut, ‘A Preliminary List of Manuscripts Written or Owned in England up to 1100,’ Anglo-Saxon England 9 (1981) 1–60, in particular nos. 154, 237, 709, and 822 (Cassiodorus), and nos. 231, 232, 619, 620, 692, and 708 (Augustine). On MSS of Jerome's Commentarioli, J. D. A. Ogilvy writes: ‘The number of MSS of Jerome surviving from Anglo-Saxon England is surprisingly small. Probably the excellent twelfth-century editions of his work (see Ker, , English Libraries in the Century after the Norman Conquest) superseded the older texts and led to their destruction’ (Books Known to the English, 597-1066 [Cambridge, Massachusetts 1967] 182). The work was used by Bede (Super Acta Apostolorum expositio), though the pseudo-Jerome Breviarium in Psalmos may also have been known to him (Ogilvy 183; see Gneuss nos. 91, 453, and 455).CrossRefGoogle Scholar

⁶ On the basis of script and ornamentation, E. A. Lowe identified the manuscript with the Canterbury style of the 8th century (Codices Latini antiquiores: A Palaeographical Guide to Latin Manuscripts Prior to the Ninth Century XI [Oxford 1966] no. 1661 pp. 24–25). Similarly, The New Palaeographical Society notes that the ‘ornamentation, especially of Ps. lxviii, resembles in style that of the Roman Psalter in Cotton MS. Vespasian A. 1., which belonged to St. Augustine's abbey, Canterbury, and it is possible that the present Psalter was also written at Canterbury, and not further north’ (The New Palaeographical Society: Facsimiles of Ancient Manuscripts, &c. [London 1912] series 1 vol. I part x pls. 231 and 232); but see Kuhn, Sherman M., ‘From Canterbury to Lichfield,’ Speculum 23 (1948) 609: ‘Since the principal evidence linking [the Vespasian Psalter] with Canterbury, namely Elmham's description, has proved invalid, the possibility of a Canterbury provenience for the Blickling Psalter may be dismissed.’ Likewise, Carl Nordenfalk notes ‘close stylistic affinities’ of Blickling with the Canterbury Codex Aureus (‘Book Illumination,’ Part II of Early Medieval Painting from the Fourth to the Eleventh Century, trans. Stuart Gilbert [New York 1957] 125). J. J. G. Alexander also finds similarities between the Blickling and Vespasian psalters, but cautions that ‘it is possible that the manuscript was produced in the central or western part of England, where the Old English glosses were added in the 9th or 10th century’ (Insular Manuscripts 6th to the 9th Century, Vol. I of A Survey of Manuscripts Illuminated in the British Isles , gen. ed. Alexander, J. J. G. [London 1978] no. 31, p. 37). Henry Sweet attempts to localize the manuscript further, claiming that ‘there is every reason to believe it was written in Lincoln’ (The Oldest English Texts [EETS o.s. 83; London 1885, rpt. 1938, 1957] 122). Finally, the description of the manuscript prepared by The Pierpont Morgan Library suggests that the codex, though strongly influenced by Northumbria and Canterbury, was produced in an unknown third place distinct from both. Google Scholar

⁷ ‘From Canterbury to Lichfield’ 609, quoting Sweet, Oldest English Texts 122; Wildhagen, , Studien 434; and Rösemeier, Eduard, Über Sprache und Mundart einiger kleinerer altenglischer Denkmäler (Bonn 1913) 22–30. The early Mercian glosses were first edited by E. Brock in a supplement to Richard Morris' edition of the Blickling Homilies (EETS o.s. 58 [1874], 63 [1876], and 73 [1880]; one-vol. rpt. in 1967); Brock's supplement appears at the end of volume 63 pp. 251-63. Henry Sweet re-edited the older glosses in The Oldest English Texts 122-23. Wildhagen corrected a number of readings by Brock and Sweet (Studien 433n). Rowland L. Collins also supplied corrections to the readings of Brock and Sweet (‘A Reexamination of the Old English Glosses in the Blickling Psalter,’ Anglia 81 [1963] 124-28). More recently, I examined the glosses in ‘A New Look at the Anglo-Saxon Glosses in the Blickling Psalter,’ Manuscripta 27 (1983) 32-37. See also the early, curiously neglected comments on the glosses made by Otto B. Schlutter (‘Zu Sweet's Oldest English Texts II,’ Anglia 19 [1896-97] 461-98) and F. Holthausen (‘Zu Sweet's Oldest English Texts,’ Anglia 21 [1899] 231-44).Google Scholar

⁸ As Ker notes (no. 249), although D was perhaps written at Winchester, the MS was at Christ Church, Canterbury, in the 11th century and later. Kenneth and Celia Sisam (The Salisbury Psalter) significantly qualify the theory of a Winchester provenance for D: ‘Worcester's claims to be the original home of both books [Royal 2 B. v and Royal 4 A. xiv, its companion volume] are weakened because Royal 4 A. xiv is as likely to be sent from Worcester as Royal 2 B. v to be sent from Winchester. Winchester's claims to be the original home of both are weakened because the Winchester indication in Royal 2 B. v is on leaves added later. Canterbury's claims to be the latest medieval home of Royal 2 B. v are strengthened by the close relationship between its gloss and certain corrections in E, the Eadwine Psalter, … which was certainly produced at Christ Church towards the middle of the twelfth century’ (53-54). And while there is no substantial evidence linking M with Canterbury in the 11th century, there is equally no firm evidence precluding the possibility and linking the psalter with Winchester.Google Scholar

⁹ I am grateful to the Director and staff of The Pierpont Morgan Library for allowing me access to the Blickling Psalter during 1981 and 1982. I wish to thank also the British Library for providing me with photographs and a microfilm copy of the Regius Psalter. Google Scholar

¹⁰ These glosses are written in a 9th-c. hand (New Pal. Soc., pls. 231, 232; Morgan Library description).Google Scholar

¹¹ Loc. cit. note 2. According to tradition, St. Jerome translated three types of Latin texts of the Psalms: the Roman, the Gallican, and the Hebrew. The Roman version represents a revision of the Old Latin (on the OL versions, see Weber viii-xxi; see also de Bruyne, Dom Donatien, ‘Le Problème du Psautier Romain,’ La Revue Bénédictine 42 [1930] 101–26, who demonstrates that there is no ancient authority for attributing the Roman version to Jerome); the Gallican version (so called from the 9th c. because it was adopted by the Church of Gaul) was made by Jerome using the Hebrew original and the Greek (Septuagint); the Hebrew version has never been used in liturgy. For further information, see The Salisbury Psalter 47-48 and Morrell, , A Manual of Old English Biblical Materials 211-13.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

¹² The following commentaries are referred to: Magni Aurelii Cassiodori Senatoris opera II 1–2, Expositio Psalmorum , ed. Adriaen, M. (CCL 97-98; Turnhout 1958); Sancti Aurelii Augustini opera X 1-3, Enarrationes in Psalmos , edd. Dekkers, E. and Fraipont, J. (CCL 38-40; Turnhout 1956); Sancti Hieronymi Presbyteri opera I, Commentarioli in Psalmos, ed. Antin, P. (CCL 72; Turnhout 1959); Sancti Hieronymi Presbyteri opera II, Opera homiletica: Tractatus S. Hieronymi Presbyteri in librum Psalmorum, ed. Morin, G. (CCL 88; Turnhout 1958). Works are cited by volume and page numbers.Google Scholar

¹³ See Halporn, James W., ‘The Manuscripts of Cassiodorus’ Expositio Psalmorum,’ Traditio 37 (1981) 388–96, and Bailey, Richard N., The Durham Cassiodorus (Jarrow Lecture 1978).CrossRefGoogle Scholar

¹⁴ High frequency words such as on, for, from, ne na, pæst, pinne, mid, oÐ, gif, forÐoon, hwylc, hwa, ofer, se, pa, ponne, purh, and æfter are omitted from the word count, as are forms of beon, wesan, and habban. No distinction is made between Ϸ and Ðo. Google Scholar

¹⁶ In the following list, no. 18 is treated as one gloss, but as two glossed words in the overall word count (disregarding the preposition); burna is categorized with those words exhibiting differences in spelling. In no. 24/25, the gloss is presented as a unit, but also treated as two words in the overall count. In no. 14, wætera is included in the first category of words agreeing exactly with those in D; it is included here to supply a context for utrynas. Google Scholar

¹⁶ A 10-10.5% differential is calculated to account for Gallican readings for which there are no corresponding glosses in D. Although the Sisams are careful to acknowledge in the introduction to their edition of the Salisbury Psalter that there may have been intermediate copies of D from which K derived its glosses (p. 17), they nevertheless assume that ‘D represents [K's] source fairly well’ (p. 19).Google Scholar

¹⁷ The following editions are employed: (A) Kuhn, Sherman M., ed., The Vespasian Psalter (Ann Arbor 1965); (B) Brenner, Eduard, ed., Der altenglische Junius-Psalter: Die Interlinear-Glosse der Handschrift Junius 27 der Bodleiana zu Oxford (Anglistische Forschungen 23; Heidelberg 1908); (C) Wildhagen, Karl, ed., Der Cambridger Psalter (Hs Ff 1 23 University Libr. Cambridge) zum ersten Male herausgegeben mit besonderer Berücksichtigung des lateinischen Textes, I: Text mit Erklärungen (Bibliothek der angelsächsischen Prosa 7; Hamburg 1910); (D) Roeder, Fritz, ed., Der altenglische Regius-Psalter: Eine Interlinearversion in Hs. Royal 2. B. 5 des Brit. Mus. (Studien zur englischen Philologie 18; Halle 1904); (E) Harsley, Fred, ed., Eadwine's Canterbury Psalter II, Text and Notes (EETS o.s. 92; Oxford 1889); (F) Kimmens, Andrew, ed., The Stowe Psalter (Toronto Old English Series; Toronto 1979); (G) Rosier, James L., ed., The Vitellius Psalter, Edited from British Museum MS Cotton Vitellius E. xviii (Cornell Studies in English 42; Ithaca 1962); (H) Campbell, A. P., ed., The Tiberius Psalter Edited from British Museum MS. Cotton Tiberius C. VI (Ottawa Medieval Texts and Studies 2; Ottawa 1974); (I) Lindelöf, Uno, ed., Der Lambeth-Psalter: Eine altenglische Interlinearversion des Psalters in der Hs. 427 der erzbischöflichen Lambeth Palace Library, 2 vols. (Acta Societatis Scientiarum Fennicae 35 no. 1 and 43 no. 3; Helsinki 1909-1914); (J) Oess, Guido, ed., Der altenglische Arundel-Psalter: Eine Interlinearversion in der Hs. Arundel 60 des Britischen Museums (Anglistische Forschungen 30; Heidelberg 1910); (K) Kenneth, and Sisam, Celia, edd., The Salisbury Psalter, Edited from Salisbury Cathedral MS. 150 (EETS 242; Oxford 1959); (L) Lindelöf, Uno, ed., ‘Die altenglischen Glossen im Bosworth-Psalter,’ Mémoires de la Société néo-philologique à Helsingfors 5 (1909) 137-231; (P) Thorpe, Benjamin, ed., Libri Psalmorum versio antiqua cum paraphrasi Anglo-Saxonica, partim soluta oratione, partim metrice composita nunc primum e Cod. MS. in Bibl. Regis Parisiensi adservato (Oxford 1835); Krapp, George P., ed., The Paris Psalter and the Meters of Boethius (Anglo-Saxon Poetic Records 5; New York 1932).Google Scholar

The sigla used here were first instituted by A. S. Cook in his Introduction to Biblical Quotations in Old English Prose Writers (London 1898) xxviii–xxx and xxxivff., where he discusses A-K, and P. Lindelöf designates Bosworth L (‘Die altenglischen Glossen im Bosworth-Psalter’). On the designation for Blickling, see note 2 above. Psalters A-E, L, M, and P are Roman versions; F-K are Gallican. In this part of the study I am concerned with the distinctions among the glosses, not among the different versions of the lemmata. Though the distinctions among the lemmata are not important here, I have noted Gallican readings (as in no. 7).

¹⁸ Beowulf lines 953 and 2880; Juliana lines 51 and 361; Guthlac line 492; Meters 8.42. See Venezky, Richard L. and di Paolo Healey's, Antoinette A Microfiche Concordance to Old English (Dictionary of Old English Project, Centre for Medieval Studies, University of Toronto; Newark, Delaware, and Toronto 1980).Google Scholar

¹⁹ On the emendation see Pulsiano, , ‘A New Look’ 34.Google Scholar

²⁰ Bosworth, Joseph and Northcote Toller, T., edd., An Anglo-Saxon Dictionary (Oxford 1898; rpt. 1980); Supplement by Toller, T. N. (Oxford 1921), with Enlarged Addenda and Corrigenda by Alistair Campbell (Oxford 1972).Google Scholar

²¹ Swefan as referring to sleep in death occurs commonly in Beowulf. Google Scholar

²² Skeat, Walter W., The Holy Gospels in Anglo-Saxon, Northumbrian, and Old Mercian Versions, Synoptically Arranged, with Collations Exhibiting all the Readings of all the MSS. Together with the Early Latin Version as Contained in the Lindisfarne MS., Collated with the Latin Version in the Rushworth MS. (Cambridge 1871-1887). I quote from MS Cambridge, Corpus Christi College No. CXL.Google Scholar

²³ The Salisbury Psalter 53.Google Scholar

²⁴ Ibid. 53n.Google Scholar

²⁵ Ibid. 75.Google Scholar

²⁶ See Wildhagen, Karl, ‘Zum Eadwine- und Regius-Psalter,’ Englische Studien 39 (1908) 189–209.Google Scholar

²⁷ The Salisbury Psalter 57.Google Scholar

²⁸ In a recent article, ‘A Little-Known Variant of the Old English Metrical Psalms,’ Speculum 59 (1984) 263–81, Peter S. Baker writes: ‘Both Wildhagen and the Sisams cautiously mention that the glossator [of E] may possibly have not used PsGLD [Regius], but a manuscript nearly identical with it…. But since PsGLD was at Christ Church, Canterbury, and I know of no evidence to prove it could not have been the corrector's exemplar, I have (perhaps unwisely) ignored these cautions’ (265 n. 7). A new study of these two psalters would prove invaluable.Google Scholar

²⁹ The Sisams write further: ‘But the fact that minutiae have been transmitted, often demonstrably through a chain of copyists, is a warning that any of them may not be original in D itself: it may have been copied in D, so that a collateral MS., using the same source, could also have it and transmit it. Still, nothing in the derived glosses, including M and the relevant parts of L, enables us to get behind D itself with certainty or probability. So between D° and D^fghj we must place either D … or a collateral so like it that the differences hardly matter’ (The Salisbury Psalter 71-72). Here I appeal to Peter Baker's logic on the relation between D and E: there is little or no evidence to show that the exemplar was not D, and a good deal of evidence to show otherwise.Google Scholar

³⁰ ‘For any error in D which is present in later glosses of D-type may possibly have originated in an ancestor of D; and any error in D which is absent from later interlinear glosses of D-type may have been corrected by reference to the accompanying Latin; and any error which is common to later glosses of D-type, but is not in D, may have originated in a copy of D from which they derive’ (The Salisbury Psalter 42).Google Scholar

³¹ (Garland Reference Library of the Humanities 189; New York and London 1979).Google Scholar

³² I plan to undertake such a project in the future.Google Scholar