¹ Aldhelm's biography is superbly treated in Michael Lapidge and Michael Herren, Aldhelm: The Prose Works (Ipswich, 1979), 5–10, and in Albert Cook, S., “Sources of the Biography of Aldhelm,” Transactions of the Connecticut Academy of Arts and Sciences 28 (1927): 273–93. William of Malmesbury composed a Vita Aldhelmi, S., which forms book 5 of his Gesta Pontificum Anglorum, ed. Hamilton, N. E. S. A., Willelmi Malmesbiriensis Monachi De Gestis Pontificum Anglorum Libri Quinque, Rolls Series 90 (London, 1870), 330–443; his work improved on that of Faricius of Arezzo, abbot of Malmesbury from 1100 to 1117, an Italian who did not understand English well enough to comprehend his Old English sources. Faricius's vita is printed in Giles, J. A., Sancti Aldhelmi ex Abbate Malmesburiensi Episcopi Schireburnensis Opera Quæ Extant (Oxford, 1844), 354–82.Google Scholar

A number of individuals and institutions have assisted in the preparation of this article: the Dictionary of Old English at the University of Toronto graciously gave me access to their library and computer resources, and Drs. David and Ian McDougall, editors at the Dictionary, offered their expertise in philological analysis. The Centre for Medieval Studies at Toronto and the Associates of the University enabled me to record the scratched glosses in 1991. The University of South Carolina sponsored my research in London in the summer of 1994. The following abbreviations are used throughout: ASE = Anglo-Saxon England, ed. Clemoes, P. et al. (Cambridge, 1972-); Goossens = Louis Goossens, The Old English Glosses of MS. Brussels, Royal Library 1650 (Aldhelm's De Laudibus Virginitatis) (Brussels, 1974); Gwara = Scott James Gwara, “Literary Culture in Late Anglo-Saxon England and the Old English and Latin Glosses to Aldhelm's Prosa de Virginitate,” Ph.D. diss., University of Toronto, 1993, partes i (pp. i–cccxxxvii) et ii (pp. 1–918); Ker = Ker, N. R., Catalogue of Manuscripts Containing Anglo-Saxon (Oxford, 1957); Meritt = Herbert Dean Meritt, Old English Glosses (A Collection) (New York, 1945); Napier = Arthur Napier, S., Old English Glosses, Chiefly Unpublished (Oxford, 1900).Google Scholar

² On the so-called “hermeneutic style,” see Michael Lapidge, “Three Latin Poems from Æthelwold's School at Winchester,” ASE 1 (1972): 85–137, at 86–89; idem, “The Hermeneutic Style in Tenth-Century Anglo-Latin Literature,” ASE 4 (1975): 67–111; idem, “Byrhtferth and the Vita Ecgwini, S.,” Mediaeval Studies 41 (1979): 331–53; Michael Winterbottom, “Aldhelm's Prose Style and its Origins,” ASE 6 (1977): 39–76; Alistair Campbell, “Some Linguistic Features of Early Anglo-Latin Verse and its Use of Classical Models,” Transactions of the Philological Society (1953): 1–20.Google Scholar

³ Edited by Rudolf Ehwald, Aldhelmi Opera, MGH Auctores Antiquissimi 15 (Berlin, 1913–19), 209–323. Aldhelm also composed an hexameter version of the work, the Carmen de virginitate (edited by Ehwald in the same volume, 325–471).Google Scholar

⁴ Michael Lapidge and James Rosier, L., Aldhelm: The Poetic Works (Cambridge, 1985), 2 and 179–80 nn. 3–4, 9–13; Andy Orchard, The Poetic Art of Aldhelm (Cambridge, 1993); idem, “After Aldhelm: The Teaching and Transmission of the Anglo-Latin Hexameter,” Journal of Medieval Latin 2 (1992): 96–133.Google Scholar

⁵ Listed and described in Gwara, pars i, xxxvii–clvi.Google Scholar

⁶ Franz Joseph Mone, Quellen und Forschungen zur Geschichte der teutschen Literatur und Sprache (Aachen, 1830), vol. 1, 329–442. Some few omissions are discussed in Scott Gwara, “Unpublished Old English Ink Glosses in Manuscripts of Aldhelm's Prosa de Virginitate,“ Neuphilologische Mitteilungen 95 (1994): 267–71.Google Scholar

⁷ For additional conjectures, see Philip Rusche, “Dry-Point Glosses to Aldhelm's De laudibus virginitatis in Beinecke 401,” ASE 23 (1994): 195–213, at 196–97.Google Scholar

⁸ Many of the glosses were scratched twice (e.g. 521, 568, 586, 617, 939, 1050), a circumstance which implies that such scratched glosses were illegible soon after they were incised. In some cases, the scratched glosses were repeated in ink, leading to ink merographs. Almost all of the drypoint glosses are vernacular.Google Scholar

⁹ The Rule of Benet, S., EETS o.s. 90 (London, 1880), xxxix–xl. Arthur Napier briefly discussed the phenomenon of scratched glossing in his volume (Napier, xxxiii). See now Lucia Kornexl, Die Regularis Concordia und ihre altenglische Interlinearversion (Munich, 1993), ccxx–xxi, where Logeman's “crude forms” are also discussed.Google Scholar

¹⁰ These were printed in Napier's survey, nos. 8 and 8B.Google Scholar

¹¹ Ker, no. 252; George Warner, F. and Gilson, Julius P., Catalogue of Western Manuscripts in the Old Royal and King's Collections (London, 1921), 115.Google Scholar

¹² On syntactic glossing, see Fred Robinson, C., “Syntactical Glosses in Latin Manuscripts of Anglo-Saxon Provenance,” Speculum 48 (1973): 443–75; Michael Korhammer, “Mittelalterliche Konstruktionshilfen und altenglische Wortstellung,” Scriptorium 34 (1980): 18–58; Draak, M., “Construe Marks in Hiberno-Latin Manuscripts,” Mededelingen der koninklijke Nederlandse Akademie van Wetenschappen, Afd. Letterkunde 20 (1957): 261–82; Patrick P. O’Neill, “Syntactical Glosses in the Lambeth Psalter and the Reading of the Old English Interlinear Translation as Sentences,” Scriptorium 46 (1992): 250–56.Google Scholar

¹³ “Notes on Cambridge Manuscripts, Part VII: The Early Minuscule of Christ Church, Canterbury,” Transactions of the Cambridge Bibliographical Society 3 (1959–63): 413–23. Bishop described this hand as illustrating “the progress of [a] scribe from naïvty [sic] to firm assurance” (419).Google Scholar

¹⁴ These last folios have been used as flyleaves, and supply-leaves take their place in the manuscript.Google Scholar

¹⁵ In Bishop's opinion, the insertion was written after the scribe wrote Bodley 577, a copy of the Carmen de virginitate, but before he wrote Oriel 3 (Bishop, “Notes on Cambridge Manuscripts,” 420). Another scribe, not identified in other extant manuscripts, wrote the text on folios 10, 12–81.Google Scholar

¹⁶ Ibid., 423.Google Scholar

¹⁷ The affinities between Royal 5 E.xi and Bodley 577 are further explored by Ehwald: “Insignis est non solum punctis grammaticalibus, sed etiam folli inserti picturis duabus, quarum altera ei, quae in Lambethano prosae codice…. exstat similis est, altera cum codice Regio 7 D.xxiv et Regio 5 E.xi est conferenda” (Aldhelmi Opera, 345 [n. 3 above]). Ehwald's comments on Bodley 577 do not supply any information on the transmission of the book. A collation of the Carmen is beyond the scope of the present work.Google Scholar

¹⁸ Ker, no. 149. The fragment is a trinion, collated I⁶ + II¹ (a singleton).Google Scholar

¹⁹ Bishop, “Notes on Cambridge Manuscripts,” 423.Google Scholar

²⁰ Napier, nos. 8 and 8B, and p. xxxiii n. 2; Meritt, no. 2. Fred Robinson published 8 glosses from Royal 5 E.xi in “Old English Lexicographical Notes,” Philologica Pragensia 8 (1965): 303–307, at 304–305 n. 16.Google Scholar

²¹ Some Latin glosses are scratched as well: 23v10 BELLICOSAS] contra, 30v5 QVA DE RE] ideo, 106v12 VT] sic, 107r10 CCCXVIII] <?>octo, 108v14 SED] sic. In some cases the text has been corrected by scratched additions (e.g. 93v13 ‘PER’DIVERSA, 108r PROPRIA <INANITER> GRATATVR), or preserves series of scratched graphs perhaps meant to be construed as syntax markers (e.g. 120r5 FVERIT] aaa, 120r8 EPISTOLARVM] aaa). The letters leofwi, probably representing the name Leofwine, are scratched in the bottom margin of fol. 35r.octo,+108v14+SED]+sic.+In+some+cases+the+text+has+been+corrected+by+scratched+additions+(e.g.+93v13+‘PER’DIVERSA,+108r+PROPRIA++GRATATVR),+or+preserves+series+of+scratched+graphs+perhaps+meant+to+be+construed+as+syntax+markers+(e.g.+120r5+FVERIT]+aaa,+120r8+EPISTOLARVM]+aaa).+The+letters+leofwi,+probably+representing+the+name+Leofwine,+are+scratched+in+the+bottom+margin+of+fol.+35r.>Google Scholar

²² Cf. Karl Wildhagen, Der Psalter des Eadwine von Canterbury (Halle, 1905) and Gneuss, H., Lehnbildungen und Lehnbedeutungen im Altenglischen (Berlin, 1955).Google Scholar

²³ Meritt expanded merographs without reference to other parallel glosses: 27 (geþœrlice for gehwær), 454 (dœle for gedæle), 555 (aspirienne for aspiriende), etc.Google Scholar

²⁴ My nos. 1, 2, 4, 5, 6, 8, 10, 15, 18, 24, 27, 28, 30–36, 38, 46, 49, 51–54, 59, 60, 65, 66, 69, 72, 74, 77, 82, 84, 90, 97, 98, 110, 126, 135, 137, 138, 143, 158, 168, 173, 177, 210, 218, 224, 234, 250, 266, 268, 272, 275, 292, 293, 310, 312, 316, 317, 319, 321, 334, 335, 336, 339, 344, 348, 350, 356, 357, 363, 368, 372, 373, 375, 394, 395, 402, 403; cf. Gwara, pars ii, 1–901. For a concordance of my gloss numbers with those in prior editions, see the appendix.Google Scholar

²⁵ In the following tabulation, I have adopted Louis Goossens's nomenclature for the scribes of the Brussels manuscript. I note scribal contributions by superscript letters; thus, Goossens's scribe A appears as B^a in my list, his scribe CD as B^cd . I have shown elsewhere (Scott Gwara, “The Continuance of Aldhelm Studies in Post-Conquest England and Glosses to the Prosa de Virginitate in Hereford, Cath. Lib. MS P.I.17,” Scriptorium 48 [1994]: 18–38) that the glosses in the Hereford manuscript were copied from an apograph of the Digby Pdv. Scratched glosses in the Yale fragment were first edited in Napier's volume (xxxiii n. 2) and later in Herbert Dean Meritt, “Old English Glosses, Mostly Dry-Point,” JEGP 60 (1961): 441–46, at 441. In each of the following citations, M = Meritt, R = Robinson, “Lexicographical Notes,” N² = Napier, xxxiii n. 2.Google Scholar

²⁶ The manuscript has been misidentified lately as Add. 50483K.Google Scholar

²⁷ ‘scert’ in ras. B^a. Google Scholar

²⁸ ł euer R3. Google Scholar

²⁹ ‘e’ altered from ‘a’ B^c. Google Scholar

³⁰ Cf. Gwara, pars i, clxxxi–ccii; idem, “Continuance.”Google Scholar

³¹ Ehwald (n. 3 above), 298, line 15.Google Scholar

³² Goossens, 42–43; the numbers refer to entries in my edition.Google Scholar

³³ On the relationship between the vernacular Digby and Brussels glosses, see René Derolez, “De Oudengelse Aldhelmglossen in HS. 1650 van de koninklijke Bibliotheek te Brussel,” Handelingen IX der Zuidnederlandse Maatschappij voor Taal- en Letterkunde en Geschiednis (1955): 37–50; Ker, 382–83; Goossens, 26.Google Scholar

³⁴ Most authoritatively, Ker, N. R. (Ker, no. 8) and Helmut Gneuss (“A Preliminary List of Manuscripts Written or Owned in England up to 1100,” ASE 9 [1981]: 1–60).CrossRefGoogle Scholar

³⁵ wuldelfullum MS.Google Scholar

³⁶ The MS appears to read 7 wa. Google Scholar

³⁷ The gloss is very faint, but the letters sw are certain.Google Scholar

³⁸ Marking verbs in this way is characteristic of these scratched glosses; cf. nos. 152, 159, 277, 281, 308, 338, 371, 388, 393, 398, 404, among others provided by Meritt.Google Scholar

³⁹ Either gi or gr. Google Scholar

⁴⁰ One scratched, one ink.Google Scholar

⁴¹ Written next to an ink gloss.Google Scholar

⁴² Written next to an ink gloss, þæ, possibly in error for wæ (for toweard).Google Scholar

⁴³ One scratched, one ink.Google Scholar

⁴⁴ An ink gloss hri written over the scratched gloss.Google Scholar

⁴⁵ The second wi added next to the first.Google Scholar

⁴⁶ The scratched gloss (þu) is obscured by the ink one.Google Scholar

⁴⁷ gite written in ink just next to on; gi can be made out beneath gite. Google Scholar

⁴⁸ o scratched, of added in ink.Google Scholar

⁴⁹ Glossing ABSTINENTIA, however.Google Scholar

⁵⁰ Both glosses are scratched.Google Scholar

⁵¹ Two hands, both scratched.Google Scholar

⁵² Written next to an ink gloss.Google Scholar

⁵³ Obscured by an ink gloss.Google Scholar

⁵⁴ Obscured by an ink gloss.Google Scholar

⁵⁵ Obscured by an ink gloss.Google Scholar

⁵⁶ The Ehwald reference reflects an interpolation in the Royal manuscript which was not present in Ehwald's base text.Google Scholar

⁵⁷ One gloss scratched, the other in ink.Google Scholar

⁵⁸ Written below an ink gloss, “loue.”Google Scholar

⁵⁹ gefefene MS.Google Scholar

⁶⁰ For PROCO.Google Scholar

⁶¹ The gloss resembles a large Caroline a, possibly for ad. Google Scholar

⁶² Written before an ink gloss.Google Scholar

⁶³ Written above an ink gloss, se<þncum.Google Scholar