Last updated 10th July 2024: Online ordering is currently unavailable due to technical issues. We apologise for any delays responding to customers while we resolve this. For further updates please visit our website https://www.cambridge.org/news-and-insights/technical-incident
We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 26 September 2008
In a brief discussion of the Vespasian Psalter in 1898, Albert S. Cook offered a statement that set the tone for subsequent debate about the relationship between the Old English gloss of the Vespasian Psalter (A = London, British Library, Cotton Vespasian A. i) and that of the junius Psalter (B = Oxford, Bodleian Library, junius 27): ‘It seems not improbable that it [i.e. the gloss to the Vespasian Psalter] is the original from which all later Old English glosses on the Psalms have been derived, undergoing in the process such modifications as were due to the language of the particular dialect or epoch.’ With regard to the Junius gloss specifically, Cook printed the text of Psalm XCIX [C] from the Vespasian Psalter, which he collated with the Junius, Cambridge (C = Cambridge, University Library, Ff. 1.23), Regius (D = London, British Library, Royal 2. B.V), and Eadwine (E = Cambridge, Trinity College R. 17.1) psalters; he concluded that ‘B stands nearest to A, but is carelessly written, and changes Anglian peculiarities in the direction of West Saxon (in to on, all to eall, &c.) while retaining, in general, a comparatively early and Anglian cast (weotað, scep, leswe, &c.)’. Although Otto Heinzel, writing in 1926, disagreed with Cook's assertion that the Vespasian gloss was the source from which all other psalters ultimately derived their glosses, he reiterated, after a fashion, the idea that the Junius gloss is related to that of the Vespasian Psalter, although, like Cook, he did not argue for a direct relationship between these two works. In Heinzel's stemma, from the Urtext*0 derive *α, which stands as the model for B, and *β, which in turn stands as the model for both A and C. The stemma, in its full form, taking the Dtype (Regius Psalter) tradition into account, has justly been termed ‘fanciful’ by Kenneth Sisam. The relationship between the glosses in these two psalters formed the subject of an extended study by Uno Lindelöf published in 1901.
1 Cook, A. S., Biblical Quotations in Old English Prose Writers, edited with the Vulgate and Other Latin Originals, Introduction on Old English Biblical Versions, Index of Biblical Passages, and Index of Principal Words (London, 1898), p. xxvi.Google Scholar
2 Ibid. p. xxx.
3 Kritische Entstehungsgeschichte des ags. Interlinear-Psalters, Palaestra 151 (Leipzig, 1926), 64.Google Scholar
4 The Salisbury Psalter, edited from Salisbury Cathedral MS. 150, ed. Sisam, Celia and Sisam, Kenneth, EETS 242 (London, 1959), 55Google Scholar. See p. v of the preface, in which the division of the work between the two editors is specified.
5 Die Handschrift Junius 27 der Bibliotheca Bodleiana, Memoires de la Société Néo-philologique à Helsingfors 3(Helsingfors, 1901).Google Scholar
6 Ibid. pp. 44–6.
7 Der altenglische Junius-Psalter: Die Interlinear-Glosse der Handschrift Junius 27 der Bodleiana za Oxford, ed. Brenner, Eduard, Anglistische Forschungen 23 (Heidelberg, 1908), xiii–xv.Google Scholar
8 Kuhn, S. M., ‘The Vespasian Psalter Gloss: Original or Copy?’, PMLA 74 (1959), 161–77, at 167CrossRefGoogle Scholar. Kuhn based his opinion upon the work of Lindelöf. With regard to the Cambridge Psalter, Kuhn wrote: ‘An eleventh-century copy of A survives in C’ (p. 167).Google Scholar
9 Die Verwandtschaftsverhältnisse der altenglischen Interlinearversionen des Psalters und der Cantica, Palaestra 272 (Göttingen, 1979)Google Scholar; see esp. 36–43 and summary (p. 133).Google Scholar
10 Liturgy and the Ecclesiastical History of Late Anglo-Saxon England: Four Studies, Stud, in AS Hist. 5 (Woodbridge, 1992), 1.Google Scholar
11 Ibid. p. 38.
12 Eduard Brenner claimed a Canterbury association for the manuscript, while Karl Wildhagen argued that the Latin text was written at Winchester and the Old English gloss at Canterbury. Kenneth Sisam assigned the psalter to Winchester, as did N. R. Ker and Helmut Gneuss, although both placed a question mark next to the assignation. See Der altenglische Junius-Psalter, ed. Brenner, , p. xGoogle Scholar; Wildhagen, K., Studien zum Psalterium Romanum in England und zu seinen Gtossierungen (in geschichtlicher Enhvicklung) (Halle, 1913), p. 446 [30]Google Scholar; The Salisbury Psalter, ed. Sisam, and Sisam, , p. 48Google Scholar; Ker, N. R., Catalogue of Manuscripts containing Anglo-Saxon (Oxford, 1957; repr. with supplement 1990), p. 409 (no. 335)Google Scholar; Gneuss, H., Lehnbildungen und Lehnbedeutungen im Altenglischen (Berlin, 1955), p. 43.Google Scholar
13 Biblical Quotations in Old English Prose Writers, p. xxvi.Google Scholar
14 The Oldest English Texts, EETS os 83 (Oxford, 1885), 185Google Scholar: ‘In 90.14 the future speravit has been wrongly glossed by the preterite gehyhte, the v having been afterwards erased and b substituted. Conversely, in 80.17 the preterite was written with a b – cibabit, and consequently glossed with the English future foldeð, although the b has been erased and the v substituted. These two cases are decisive. But 47.8, where conteres, incorrectly made into conterens by the addition of n, is glossed forðrestende, seems equally decisive the other way.’
15 ‘From Canterbury to Lichfield’, Speculum 23 (1948), 591–629.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
16 Sisam, K., ‘Canterbury, Lichfield, and the Vespasian Psalter’, RES ns 7 (1956), 1–10 and 113–31, at 127, n. 1.Google Scholar
17 ‘The Vespasian Psalter Gloss’, pp. 164–5Google Scholar. Kuhn cited a number of psalters in which these readings, with the exception of ueneficia, appear, but dismissed the evidence summarily.
18 New York, Pierpont Morgan Library, M. 776, 11r.
19 Der Cambridger Psalter zum ersten Male herausgegeben mil besonderer Berücksichtigung des lateinischen Textes, ed. Wildhagen, K. (Hamburg, 1910)Google Scholar. Readings from the psalter have been checked against the original manuscript, Cambridge, University Library, Ff. 1.23.
20 The Vitellius Psalter, edited from British Museum MS Cotton Vitellius E. xviii, ed. Rosier, J. L., Cornell Stud. in Eng. 42 (Ithaca, NY, 1962)Google Scholar. Readings from the psalter have been checked against the original manuscript.
21 Eadivine's Canterbury Psalter, edited, with Introduction and Notes, from the Manuscript in Trinity College, Cambridge, ed. Harsley, F., EETS os 92 (London, 1889)Google Scholar. Readings from the psalter have been checked against the original manuscript, Cambridge, Trinity College R. 17.1.
22 Der altenglische Regius-Psalter: Bins Interlinearverion in Hs. Royal 2. B. 5 des Brit. Mus., ed. Roeder, F., Studien zur Englischen Philologie 18 (Halle, 1904)Google Scholar. Readings from the psalter have been checked against the original manuscript.
23 See the facsimile edition by James, M. R., The Canterbury Psalter (London, 1935).Google Scholar
24 London, British Library, Add. 37517, 28r.
25 Berlin, Deutsche Staatsbibliothek, Hamilton 553, 23r.
26 The Hamilton Psalter shows a gap after in of interfecta (51r), indicating that an erasure of medial tens likely; the o of obauditu (19v) seems to have been altered from a. These readings are drawn from a microfilm copy of the manuscript.
27 ‘The Vespasian Psalter Gloss’, p. 166.Google Scholar
28 Ibid. pp. 165–6.
29 The Vespasian Psalter. British Museum Cotton Vespasian A. i, ed. Wright, David H., EEMF 14 (Copenhagen, 1967), 84.Google Scholar
30 ‘Cynewulf and his Poetry’, PEA 18 (1932), 303–31Google Scholar; repr. in his Studies in the History of Old English Literature (Oxford, 1953), pp. 1–28, at 4, n. 2Google Scholar. Kuhn observed that although the Regius scribe divided the words as Incre / paferas (vs. Increpa / feras), the reading is glossed as two words, ðu Þrea mldeor. The marginal gloss, as Sisam has it, does not exist. Rather, the gloss reads idest superbos homines. Increpaueras appears in the marginal gloss to the latter part of the psalm-verse (ut nan excludantur hii quiprobati sunt argento) as Increpaueras eatenus utproficiant hi quiprobati sunt argento. id est karitate (79r). See also Davey, W., ‘The Commentary of the Regius Psalter: its Main Source and Influence on the Old English Gloss’, MS 49 (1987), 335–51, at 350.Google Scholar
31 Sisam, , ‘Canterbury, Lichfield, and the Vespasian Psalter’, p. 127, n. 1Google Scholar; Kuhn, , ‘The Vespasian Psalter Gloss’, pp. 163–4.Google Scholar
32 RES ns 18 (1967), 179–80, at 180.Google Scholar
33 Speculum 41 (1966), 750–3, at 751CrossRefGoogle Scholar. It should not be overlooked, however, that Sweet (The Oldest English Texts, pp. 186–7Google Scholar) cites a fair number of copying errors, to which no one seems to have referred in the debate.
34 ES 50 (1969), 112–16, at 116.Google Scholar
35 Ibid. p. 116.
36 ‘A Note on the Vespasian Psalter Gloss’, ES 51 (1970), 228–30.Google Scholar
37 ‘On the Originality of the Vespasian Psalter Gloss’, ES 66 (1985), 1–6, at 2.Google Scholar
38 ‘Correction and Erasure in the Vespasian Psalter Gloss’, ES 74 (1989), 477–83.Google Scholar
39 ‘Some Problems of the Vespasian Psalter’, ES 40 (1959), 170–3.Google Scholar
40 The Vespasian Psalter (Ann Arbor, MI, 1965).Google Scholar
41 Kuhn reads unrehtwisse, noting that the n is carelessly formed and may be an r. The manuscript clearly shows an r.
42 There is an ink stain after i, although it is not certain that any other letters originally followed.
43 Two or three letters are erased after the gloss.
44 Kuhn records gebið.
45 There seems to be a very faint stroke extending to the right from the intersection of the bowl and ascender (the typical formation of ð). Kuhn (The Vespasian Psalter) does not record this, but see Celia Sisam's review (RES ns 18 (1967), 179–80)Google Scholar, in which she records the ð and remarks that there is an erasure of approximately three letters before hie. I have not been able to confirm the erasure.
46 Originally dese; final e erased.
47 Kuhn records sar and offers no note on the alteration.
48 Bierbaumer, P., ‘On the Interrelationships of the Old English Psalter Glosses’, Arbeiten aus Anglistik und Americkanistik 2 (1977), 123–48; see esp. 126 and 142, table 2.Google Scholar
49 The Salisbury Psalter, pp. 59–60 and 63–5Google Scholar. But see The Tiberius Psalter, edited from British Museum Cotton Tiberius C vi, ed. Campbell, A. P., Ottawa Mediaeval Texts and Studies 2 (Ottawa, 1974), xxiiGoogle Scholar: ‘Comparison of our Tiberius (H) gloss with that of Regius (D) demonstrates that the latter is the source of the Tiberius gloss.’ No evidence for the claim is presented in the brief introduction.
50 Lehnbildungen, p. 158Google Scholar: ‘Daß B und C direkt auf A zurückgehen, möchte ich mit Lindelof und Wildhagen glauben.’
51 ‘On the Interrelationships of the Old English Psalter Glosses’, p. 127.Google Scholar
52 See Die Verwandtschaftsverhältnisse, pp. 36–43 for discussion and table 18 for stemma; also pp. 127 and 133 for conclusions.Google Scholar
53 Der altenglische Arundel-Psailer: Eine Interlinearversion in der Handschrift Arundel 60 des Britischen Museums, ed. Oess, G., Altenglische Forschungen 20 (Heidelberg, 1910).Google Scholar
54 The Tiberius Psalter, ed. Campbell, .Google Scholar
55 Der Lambeth-Psalter: Eine altenglische Interlinearversion des Psalters in der Hs. 427 der erzbischöflichen Lambeth Palace Library, ed. Lindelöf, U., Acta Societatis Scientiarum Fennicæ 35.1 (Helsingfors, 1909).Google Scholar
56 DeraltenglischeJunius-Psalter, p. xiiiGoogle Scholar; Die Handschrift Juniiis 27, p. 44.Google Scholar
57 RES ns 15 (1964), 59–61, at 59.Google Scholar
58 Both A and B begin at Ps. II.4.
59 A comparison of the same portions of the psalm with D shows only a few substantive departures, such as at II. 9 reges: ðu reces A, Þu recest B, Þu recyst C, but Þu grsccest D; II.9 figuli: lames AB, lamysC, but tigelwyrhtan D, II. 10 qui:ða ðe A, Þa ðe B, Þa Þe C, but ge Þe D; II.11 exultate: wynsumiað ABC, geblissiað D; D also adds two double glosses not found in ABC, at 11.12 irascaturand at 11.13 breui. While the departures in D are enough to ascribe the gloss to a separate tradition, they also attest to a common vocabulary among the glosses (although this is not at all to suggest, following Cook (Biblical Quotations in Old English Prose Writers), that there existed an Urtext from which all psalter glosses descended).
60 riht retraced in pencil.
61 In A, cce is written by a different, probably contemporaneous, scribe.
62 In A, the gloss originally read sancti; an o was added below the line, and an s interlinearly.
63 In A, -emptu of lemma added by corrector.
64 The elliptical compound in A is to be read as ymbseled and ymbsalde.
65 A originally read nequando; all was added interlinearly by a corrector. For the gloss, A originally read ne bonne; a and w were added interlinearly by the glossator.
66 Studies in the History of Old English Literature, p. 108Google Scholar: ‘Now, in copying the vernacular, exact reproduction of the pattern was unnecessary. When a Mercian text like the Vespasian Psalter gloss had to be transcribed for use at Winchester in MS. Junius 27 (written about the year 925), adaptation was desirable, and adaptation was easy for a scribe writing his own language.’
67 ‘Abbot Germanus, Winchcombe, Ramsey and the Cambridge Psalter’, Words, Texts and Manuscripts: Studies in Anglo-Saxon Culture presented to Helmut Cneuss on the Occasion of his Sixty-Fifth Birthday, ed. Korhammer, M. (Woodbridge, 1992), pp. 99–129, at 127.Google Scholar
68 Die Verwandtschaftsverhältnisse, p. 40Google Scholar. The argument that the scribe of B copied directly from A but translated lexemes into his own dialect is briefly shown by Berghaus to be a questionable assertion (pp. 38–9).Google Scholar
69 Lehnbildungsn, p. 158.Google Scholar
70 Studies in the History of Old English Literature, p. 108.Google Scholar
71 See Pulsiano, P., ‘The Old English Gloss of the Lambeth Psalter and its Relations’, NM 92 (1991), 195–210.Google Scholar
72 See The Salisbury Psalter, p. 53.Google Scholar
