the anchorite, he wrought in smith's work the ornaments that are on the outside, and adorned it with gold, and also with gems, overlaid with silver, unalloyed metal (lit. a treasure without deceit). And Aldred, an unworthy and most miserable priest, with the help of God and St Cuthbert, glossed it above in English (i. e. wrote the English gloss above), and made himself at home1 with the three parts. Matthew's part, for the honour of God and St Cuthbert. Mark's part, for the bishop. And Luke's part for the brotherhood, together with eight oras2 of silver for his admission3. And St John's part for himself, together with four oras of silver, (deposited) with God and St Cuthbert; to the end that he may gain admittance into heaven, through God's mercy, and on earth happiness and peace, promotion and dignity, wisdom and prudence, through St Cuthbert's merits.

"Eadfrið, Oeðiluald, Billfrið, and Aldred made and adorned this Gospel-book in honour of God and St Cuthbert."

We must not omit to observe the marginal note which Aldred has here made opposite his own name, to this effect:-"I am named Aldred, the son of Alfred; I who speak am the eminent son of a good woman.' And again, above the word mulieris, he has afterwards added-"i. tilw;" or, as this has no doubt been correctly explained, "id est, tilwin," that is to say, Tilwin. This feminine name is found, says Mr Waring, in the Durham Liber Vitæ. Who this Aldred really was is, after all, not at all certain. It has hitherto been supposed that he is the same with "Aldred the provost," whose name appears in the Durham Ritual; see Rituale Ecclesiæ Dunelmensis, ed. Stevenson (Surtees Soc.), p. 185, and pref. p. x. This was the opinion of Sir F. Madden, but it is hardly borne out by a comparison of the MSS. The date of the entry of the name in the Durham Ritual is supposed to be A.D. 970. Perhaps the most that can be said is that the glosses belong to about the same period, viz. to the latter half of the tenth century 5.

From the expression of Aldred, that he glossed the Gospel of St John "for himself," we conclude that the glosses to this gospel are in his own handwriting, whilst those to the other gospels (in a different hand) were merely made under his superintendence, though he claims credit for the whole work. This is shewn more clearly by the short entry at the beginning of St Mark's Gospel, viz., "Thou living God, be mindful of Eadfrið and Æðilwald and Billfrið and Aldred, sinners ;

belda, to give a dowry to a woman; plainly connected with bold, a house, domicile.

1 Perhaps this rather strange expression is equivalent to "made himself familiar with." That is, the three first gospels were glossed by another, and revised by Aldred.

2 The ora had two values, but was commonly reckoned as equivalent to 16 penings or pence; and 15 oras made a pund or pound. See Money in the Glossary to Thorpe, Ancient Laws, vol. ii.

3 The sense is conjectural; taking in-lád-in-leading

=(perhaps) induction. The word lúd also means 'exculpation,' or 'ordeal'; see Gloss. to Ancient Laws, ed. Thorpe.

4 Prolegomena to St John (Surtees Soc.), p. xlvi; Lingard, Hist. A. S. Church, ii. 364.

5 The names of Eadfrið, Exilwald, and Billfrið are to be connected with the Latin text, the date of which is about A.D. 700. On the date of the glosses, see further at p. xii.

See St Mark's Gospel, p. 1.

these four with God's help, were employed upon this book.” The additions in St Luke's Gospel, made by Aldred in red ink, have already been remarked upon1. In St John, the red ink begins with the words " du genioma" as a gloss to "tollere" in Chap. v. v. 10; see p. 47. Mr Waring remarks that "the second hand in red ink, which we know to have been Aldred's autograph, is distinguished by the v-shaped letter for u and w, and by certain orthographical peculiarities, as bloedsia, and gi for ge in the inseparable particle; forms equally characteristic of the Ritual2." I mention this because the reader will probably be at a loss to understand the last remark. He will turn over page after page, and not discover that gi is written for ge. Open the book at random, say at p. 163. We find geroefa, gelefed, geslea, gefylled, geonduearde, geonduarde, gesaldon, gehére, gecuoæð, and gemoete; ten examples of ge-, but of gi- not one, though there are several examples of its use in the Rushworth gloss below. Yet the remark must mean something, and it must, I think, refer to this. It is a very singular and at present inexplicable fact that the prefix is written as gi just a few times, near the end of the Gospel. In Ch. xx. v. 2, the gloss to cucurrit was originally geurn, but has been corrected to giarn. But what is still more astounding is that, quite suddenly, without any notice, and for no discoverable reason, a number of examples of the use of gi begin to appear at Ch. xx. v. 23, where we find gihabbað (immediately followed by genumeno vel gehaldeno!), gicueden, gesegon, gisii, gelef, geseh, geonduearde, gisege, gilefdes, gisegon, gilefdon, gelefe, gelefa. In Chap. xxi, we have gifengon, giondueardon, gimõetas, getea, geherde, getugun, geségon, ginomun vel gifengon, gifrægna, gelic, gihriordadon, gehala, giunrotsade, gilesua, gigyrde, geuintrad, gibrehtnad vel giuuldrad, gicueð, gesoec, gisah, giræsti, gisah, geuuni, gewuniga, getrymmeð. Nothing can be clearer than that the use of gi as distinguished from ge cannot be relied upon as "characteristic" of the writer. The only conclusion to be drawn seems to be that, just at this very period, a scribe who had been accustomed to write the prefix as ge was beginning to think that he ought to write it as gi; so that gi was, on the whole, a later form, and appears, as being such, so frequently in the later or Rushworth gloss3. It is a peculiarly interesting point, as shewing that changes of spelling took place in the practice of the same scribe at different times of his life, a hypothesis which opens out somewhat startling views, and shews the danger, and even the absurdity, of carrying out criticism, as obtained from internal evidence, in too rigid and narrow a manner. In saying this, I am not at all aiming at the slight slip made in Mr Waring's admirable and valuable remarks,

1 See St Luke's Gospel, pref. p. vii.

2 Prolegomena to St John, p. xlvi.

The Gothic form of this remarkable prefix was ga-. Next comes the A. S. and Northumbrian ge-. After this, ge- is again thinned down to gi-. Next g passes into y, giving yi-, written as y-, or even as i-. The last step is

its general disappearance.

4 So also Mr Waring, who says of the Rushworth gloss, that it "strikingly illustrates the difficulty of fixing any certain date for MSS. on the mere ground of grammatical precision"; Prolegomena to St John, p. cii, note 2.

5 Mr Waring expressly notes, in a footnote at p. cvi,

but rather wish to draw attention to a fact which will not be without its warning to all who are engaged in minute criticism. Large theories are constantly being built up, like an inverted cone, upon very slender bases. As I have just alluded to Mr Waring's remarks, let me add that the reader will do well to consult his Preface and Prolegomena to the Gospel of St John in the Surtees Society's edition; and I have taken the present opportunity of drawing up, for the reader's use, a brief epitome of these, that the nature of their contents may be the more readily perceived. The epitome will be found near the end of this Preface, at p. xvii.

With regard to the RUSHWORTH MS., it is interesting to find the names of the writers of the glosses duly recorded at the end. The note printed on p. 188 may be thus rendered.

"Let him that makes use of me [i. e. of the MS.] pray for Owun who glossed this book for Færman the priest at Harewood1.

Have (i. e. see) now a written book: use it with good will
Ever, with true faith: peace is dearest to every man."

This translation somewhat differs from that given by Mr Waring, who renders it thus: "Let him who profits by my labour pray for Owun who glossed this book, (and for) Færmen the priest at Harewood (who) has now written this book; use it ever with good will (and) with true faith; the best peace be with all." Mr Waring takes the whole piece to be in verse, whereas the alliteration at the beginning does not constitute verse. The verse begins at the full stop after harawuda. It is clear that min bruche=may make use of me; where me refers to the book itself, not to "my labour." On the word Farmen Mr Waring remarks:Farman, or in Owun's orthography Farmenn;" &c. (Prolegomena, p. cvii. note 2). But Owun's orthography is neither Farman nor Farmenn, but Farman, which is changed, in this instance, to Færmen in order to form a dative case, in accordance with the usual practice of taking the form men to represent the dative of man or mann. I next note that the original word for "written" is, in the MS., awritne2, not awritene, as Mr Waring has printed it. The MS. also has gileafa, not gileofa; and leofost, not leovost. And the word is cannot be translated by "be." To which may be added, that Dr Murray suggests that hafe is in the imperative mood.

The note at the end of St Matthew's Gospel, also printed at p. 188, is Farman's own, and may be thus rendered. "Farman the priest thus glossed this book; may the Lord forgive him all his sins, if it can be so with God;" i. e. if God will be pleased to grant forgiveness to so great a sinner. The latter part of the sentence is in accordance with the common formula of the time. Inspection of the

that "all the characteristics of the second scribe are more marked from John xix. 4 onwards."

1 On the river Wharfe, just due N. of Leeds.

2 See the facsimile prefixed to the Surtees edition.

MS. shews at once that the gloss is in two handwritings. The first hand wrote the whole of St Matthew, and continued down to the word hleonadun in Mark ii. 15; as already noted in the Preface to St Mark, p. xii. But a curious phenomenon occurs in St John's Gospel. Here this first hand reappears just once, but for three verses only; viz. in John xviii. 1-3, as noted by me in the margin. And it is interesting to note how the style changes at the same moment. The second glosser follows the glosses of the Lindisfarne MS. (which must have been consulted for the purpose) rather closely; but from the moment that Farman begins again, we see traces of originality. Thus egressus est is no longer færende uas, but is boldly translated by code at once; torrentem is glossed neither by burna nor uinterburna, but by pah hlynne (the linn). For cedron is genemned, we have the more idiomatic pe mon cedron nemnep. For salde, as a gloss to tradebat, we have the more free rendering hine to deape sellan walde. Frequenter is glossed neither by oft nor by symble, but by gelome. But with verse 4 the rather close copying of the Lindisfarne glosses recommences.

Still more curious is the reappearance, throughout these three verses, of the thorn-letter (p), at the beginning and end of words. There are here no less than 17 examples of its use, whereas it will be sought in vain throughout the rest of the Gospel. The second scribe (Owun) scarcely ever uses it1, though he uses as a contraction for pæt.

We thus find that there were two writers of the glosses in this MS. The former, Farman2, a priest at Harewood, wrote the portion from St Matthew i. 1 to St Mark ii. 15, and also St John xviii. 1-3. He is distinguished by his free use of the thorn-letter (p), by his original and bold style of translation; by a firmer and more angular handwriting, and by the more southern character of his dialect. The latter, Owun, was, apparently, a professional scribe, and Farman's inferior, who was merely deputed by the latter to take the Lindisfarne MS. as his guide, and to follow it rather closely. The occurrence of these three verses by Farman near the end of St John is of considerable interest as shewing the difficulty of judging of the age of the glosses. It proves (what might otherwise remain doubtful) that the two scribes were contemporaries. On this interesting point I cannot better serve the reader than by here preserving for him the excellent remarks which appeared in a review (by Dr Murray) of my edition of St Mark's Gospel in the Athenæum, April 3, 1875, pp. 452 and 4533. The whole article is worth consulting, but the most important passage in it is the following.

"Curiously enough, the Rushworth Matthew is a translation of an entirely different character from the gloss to the rest of the MS., with the exception of the first three verses of the eighteenth chapter of St John, in which the St Mat

1 It occurs twice in St Luke; i. 59, xxiv. 1; as noted in Pref. to St Luke, p. vii.

2 In his own spelling.

3 See also his letter in the Academy, Nov. 21, 1874, p. 561.

thew version again appears.

The two differ in dialect, for the Rushworth, where it follows the Lindisfarne version, is, like it, in the old Northumbrian or North Anglian, with a tendency to be slightly more northern, perhaps as being somewhat later, than its original; but the translation of St Matthew is in a dialect which differs but little from the West Saxon of the period, and may probably be Mercian or, at least, West Saxon written by a Midland man. Moreover, the Rushworth where it follows the Lindisfarne is, like it, a mere verbal gloss, following all the inversions of the Latin text, and so not really readable apart from it; but the Rushworth Matthew is virtually an independent version, for while not always absolutely conformed to Teutonic construction, it departs sufficiently from the Latin to be distinctly intelligible of itself. As a specimen, we may take Matthew xxv. 34, which in the Lindisfarne is glossed :

'Sonne he cuetes de cynig dæm da de to suiðrum his biðon hia, cymmeð gie gebloedsad fadores mines, byes vel agneges gegearwað iuh ríc from frymbo middangeardes.'

And in the Rushworth version is rendered

'ponne cwæp se cyning pæm þe on pa swipran halfe his beon, cymep gebletsade mines fæder, gesittað rice pte eow geiarwad was from setnisse middangeardes.'

As a contrast, we may compare a passage from the two glosses, where the Rushworth follows the Lindisfarne; for example, Luke ii. 10 is in the latter,— '& cuoeð dæm se engel, nallax ge ondrede; heono fordon ic bodigo iuh gefea mið miclum allum folce.'

In the Rushworth

bis

& cwæð dæm de engel, nallag ge ondreda; heonu forson ic bodigo iow gifeo micelne sæt bið allum folche.'

"Now, what is the conclusion to be derived from these differences? Were the two portions of the Rushworth gloss,-being, as they are, in distinct dialects, the one also apparently an original work, and the other a later copy of the Lindisfarne gloss,—were they produced at different periods and when the MS. was in different parts of England? This seems, at first sight, plausible, the more so as the handwriting of the gloss to St Matthew differs from that of the greater part of the rest of the Gospels, and at the end of that Gospel we are told by the glosser himself, Farman presbyter1 pas boc pus gleosede,' while at the end of St John we are asked to pray for Owun who glossed this book.' But a closer examination abundantly proves that the two portions of the gloss are contemporary, and owe their differences to the different nativity of their writers. Not only did Farman gloss St Matthew, but he also commenced St Mark, where his handwriting suddenly ceases with the word sat (hleonadun), in the middle of the fifteenth verse of

1 The italics denote contractions. The man in Farman is denoted by a rune; the word presbyter by 'pbr.'

c