Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-v9fdk Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-03T02:34:50.443Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Æthelwold's translation of the Regula Sancti Benedicti and its Latin exemplar

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  26 September 2008

Mechthild Gretsch
Mechthild Gretsch
Affiliation:
The University of Munich
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

St Benedict wrote his Rule for monastic communities in the first half of the sixth century. It must have reached England in the course of the seventh century and was translated into Old English prose by Æthelwold, bishop of Winchester, in about 970 at the request of King Edgar and Qeen Ælfthryth. Æhelwold was one of the leaders of the tenth-century Benedictine reform in England and his translation of the Rule is among his major contributions to the reform movement. Moreover the Old English Rule holds a key position in the history of the development of Old English language and literature. Manuscripts of the text must have been numerous from the tenth century to the twelfth century and even the thirteenth. Scholars like William of Malmesbury, Lawrence Nowell, John Jocelyn and Francis Junius took an interest in the Old English Rule, but, except for a chapter printed from BM Cotton Faustina A.x by Thomas Wright in 1842, the text was not easily accessible until Arnold Schröer published his edition in 1885, followed in 1888 by his introduction discussing date and authorship, the relationship between the manuscripts and some linguistic points. Comparatively little work seems to have been done on the Old English Rule since then except for Rohr's Bonn Dissertation of 1912 and Professor Gneuss's supplement to the 1964 reprint of Schröer's edition. Rohr, in an investigation of the phonology and the inflexional morphology of the manuscripts of the Old English Rule, was able to show that the language of all of them is basically late West Saxon, while Gneuss gave a survey of what is known about the Old English Rule and the Latin Rule in Anglo-Saxon England; he also pointed out the difficulties involved in an attempt to identify or reconstruct the Latin exemplar which Æthelwold used. In this article I shall consider four topics which seem to me essential for our understanding of the Old English Rule: the question of Æthelwold's exemplar; the relationship between the manuscripts of the Old English Rule; Æthelwold's aims and techniques in his translation; and the vocabulary of the Old English Rule, with special reference to recent research in Old English word geography.

Type
Research Article
Information
Anglo-Saxon England , Volume 3 , December 1974 , pp. 125 - 151
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1974

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

page 125 note 1 See Gneuss, , ‘Benediktinerregel’ (for full reference, see below), pp. 264–7Google Scholar, and Blair, P. Hunter, The World of Bede(London, 1842), pp. 125, 153 and 197–200.Google Scholar

page 125 note 2 For a discussion of Æthelwold's authorship and the date of the translation see Gretsch, M., Die Regula Sancti Benedicti in England und ibre altenglische Übersetzung (Ph.D. thesis, Munich, 1973), pp. 9–11.Google Scholar

page 125 note 3 Biographia Britannica Literaria 1(London, 1842), 441.Google Scholar

page 125 note 4 Rohr, G. W., Die Sprache der altengliseben Prosabearbeitungen der Benediktinerregel (Ph.D. thesis, Bonn, 1912).Google Scholar

page 126 note 1 This article is an attempt to draw some general conclusions from the detailed evidence presented in my Ph.D. thesis; see above, p. 125, n. 2.

page 127 note 1 Edited by Napier, A. S. (Old English Glosses, Anecdota Oxoniensia Med. and Mod. Ser. 11 (Oxford, 1900), 231–2).Google Scholar

page 128 note 1 ‘Textgeschichte des Regula Benedicti, S.’, Abbandlungen der königlich bayerischen Akademie der Wissenschaften, philosophisch-philologische und hisiorische Klasse 22 (Munich, 1898), 602–731Google Scholar; 2nd ed., ed. Plenkers H., ibid. 25 (1910).

page 128 note 2 The essentials of Traube's endings are still accepted by most scholars, although it has since been realized that the textual history of RSB is even more complex than he had thought. Hanslik, in his critical edition, distinguishes four groups of texts in addition to Traube's three recensions, whereas Meyvaert, P. (‘Towards a History of the Textual Transmission of the Regula S. Benedicti’, Scriptorium 17 (1963), 105, n. 86)CrossRefGoogle Scholar advocates considering the interpolatus and the receptus recensions as one group which he calls ‘contaminated’.

page 128 note 3 On the question of whether this manuscript was Benedict's autograph or not, see Hanslik, , Benedicti Regula, pp. xix–xxGoogle Scholar and Meyvaert, , ‘Textual Transmission’, p. 87, n. 28Google Scholar; cf. also Meyvaert, , ‘Problems Concerning the Autograph Manuscript of Saint Benedict's Rule’, RB 69 (1959), 3–21Google Scholar. According to both authors it is rather improbable that the Monte Cassino manuscript vas written by Benedict himself.

page 128 note 4 Cf. Meyvaert, , ‘Textual Transmission’, pp. 97–8.Google Scholar

page 129 note 1 Meyvaert (ibid. pp. 102–3) thinks that manuscripts of this textual tradition might have reached England as early as the ninth century.

page 129 note 2 For a list of these passages, see Gretsch, , Regula, pp. 129–56, 162–3 and 167–9.Google Scholar

page 130 note 1 Cf. Hanslik, , Benedicti Regula, p. xxxiii.Google Scholar

page 130 note 2 Cf. Gretsch, , Regula, pp. 114–56.Google Scholar

page 130 note 3 Cf. Hanslik's, stemma, Benedicti Regula, opposite p. lxxiv.Google Scholar

page 130 note 4 Cf. Hanslik's stemma and his introduction, ibid. pp. lxv–lxix. For a more detailed critical discussion of Hanslik's grouping of the English receptus manuscripts, see Meyvaert, , ‘Textual Transmission’, pp. 100–3 and noGoogle Scholar, and Gretsch, Regula, pp. 104–11.

page 131 note 1 Cf. Regularis Concordia, ed. Symons, Dom Th. (London, 1953), pp. xl and 17Google Scholar, and Tolhurst, J. B. L., ‘Introduction to the English Monastic Breviaries’, The Monastic Breviary of Hyde Abbey, Winchester VI, Henry Bradshaw Soc. 80 (1942), 53.Google Scholar

page 131 note 2 E.g. RSB 4.76 ille x w j 0:ipse O k b g q i i* j 1s; RSB 7.65 caelos O g s 0:caelos k x b q w i j s 1S; and RSB 59.3 suspectam k0 x b1 q w j u 1s:suffectam k 1b 0g i u 0S (0 = an original reading; 1 = a variant which was added later, but not after c. 1100).

page 131 note 3 See above, p. 129, n. 2; the variants in cbs., 27–30 and 58 were taken from a critical edition of these chapters in Gretsch, Regula, pp. 68–87.

page 132 note 1 The two fragmentsi* and u have not been included in table 1, as the number of their comparable variant readings is considerably smaller than that of the other manuscripts, so that no reliable percentages can be calculated. Fragment i* is too short for anything to be said about its relationship with the other manuscripts, whereas u seems to be linked with j and g. S (the Smaragdus commentary) has been included because of its definite connection with the English receplus manuscripts (cf. above, p. 130). Although the textus interpolatus cannot have been the exemplar of the translation, O has been included because of its interesting relationship with some of the English receptus manuscripts. This will be discussed later on.

page 133 note 1 Manuscripts h and c share only one unique variant, whereas b and i share nine.

page 133 note 2 Manuscripts x and w share twenty unique variants.

page 133 note 3 See Knowles, D., The Monastic Order in England. A History of its Development from the Times of St Dunstan to the Fourth Lateran Council 940–1216, 2nd ed. (Cambridge, 1963), p. 70CrossRefGoogle Scholar. See also Wormald, F., Archaeologia 91 (1945), 132.Google Scholar

page 133 note 4 Knowles, , Monastic Order, pp. 50 and 53.Google Scholar

page 133 note 5 Liber Eliensis, ed. Blake, E. O., Camden 3rd ser. 92 (London, 1962), 111Google Scholar, and see Gneuss, , ‘Benediktinerregel’, p. 270, n. 18.Google Scholar

page 133 note 6 English Caroline Minuscule (Oxford, 1971), pp. xxi–xxii.Google Scholar

page 133 note 7 Hymnar und Hymnen im englischen Mittelalter, Buchreihe der Anglia 12 (Tübingen, 1968), 70–1.Google Scholar

page 134 note 1 English Caroline Minuscule, pp. xxi–xxii.Google Scholar

page 134 note 2 ‘Textual Transmission’, p. 100.

page 134 note 3 Benedicti Regula, p. lxvii.Google Scholar

page 134 note 4 Taken from the list in Gretsch, , Regula, pp. 129–56.Google Scholar

page 135 note 1 This result confirms to a large extent Professor Gneuss's tentative findings (‘Benediktinerregel’, pp. 276–82), which were based on a few specimen variants and on only six of the receptus manuscripts.

page 135 note 2 Fragments i* and u have again been omitted from the list, as they are too short to provide any reliable evidence of their relationship with the translator's exemplar. According to the comparatively few variant readings which a offers, the text in this manuscript seems to be rather closely connected with that exemplar; see Gretsch, , Regula, p. 570Google Scholar. But we might find a somewhat different result if u were to contain the complete text of RSB.

page 136 note 1 See above, 133–4.

page 136 note 2 Orléans, , Bibl. municipale, 273 (322).Google Scholar

page 136 note 3 See Parkes, M. B., ‘The Manuscript of the Leiden Riddle’, ASE 1 (1972), 217 and n. 3.Google Scholar

page 136 note 4 See Hymnar and Hymnen, pp. 73–4Google Scholar; Analecta Hymnica Medii Aevi, ed. Dreves, G. M., Blume, C. and Bannister, H. M. (Leipzig, 1886–1922) XL, 9 and 150.Google Scholar

page 136 note 5 Chronicon Monasterii de Abingdon, ed. Stevenson, J., Rolls Series (1858), 11, 278Google Scholar; cf. Symons, Dom Th., ‘Some Notes on English Monastic Origins’, Downside Rev. 80 (1962), 61–5CrossRefGoogle Scholar, and Meyvaert, , ‘Textual Transmission’, p. 503, n. 82.Google Scholar

page 137 note 1 The stemma has been taken from Schröer, Benediktinerregel, p. xxxiv; it has been supplemented in accordance with Caro's suggestions concerning the position of i* and s in the transmission.

page 138 note 1 Cf. Wülker, K. (1885)Google Scholar, Caro, G. (1898)Google Scholar, Rohr, G. W. (1912)Google Scholar, Malone, K. (1948)Google Scholar, Wrenn, C. L. (1967)Google Scholar; for full references, see Gretsch, Regula, p. 181, n. 4.

page 138 note 2 Cf. Brook, S. A. (1898)Google Scholar, Keller, W. (1900)Google Scholar, Robinson, J. A. (1923)Google Scholar, Chambers, R. W. (1932)Google Scholar, Ardern, P. S. (1951)Google Scholar, Knowles, D. (1963)Google Scholar and Gneuss, H. (1964)Google Scholar; for full references, see Gretsch, , Regula, pp. 182–3, nn. 5–11. Brook and Keller thought that the translation was originally made for the Nunnaminster at Winchester.Google Scholar

page 138 note 3 See Gneuss, , ‘Benediktinerregel’, pp. 273–4.Google Scholar

page 138 note 4 This was confirmed by Caro (EStn 24, 162) for some of the corresponding passages in s.

page 138 note 5 Neither does s show traces of a ‘feminine’ version in the corresponding passages; see Gretsch, , Regula, pp. 184–94.Google Scholar

page 138 note 6 Winteney-Version, p. xiv.

page 139 note 1 E.g. be from bea: 13.10, 26.17, 30.4, 31.7 and 31.10; se from sea: 30.12; and bys from byre: 27.2, 46.16 and 49.6.

page 139 note 2 For the somewhat complicated details see Gretsch, , Regula, pp. 196–8.Google Scholar

page 139 note 3 Printed under the title ‘Eadgars Establishment of Monasteries’, Leechdoms, Wortcunning and Starcraft of Early England, ed. Cockayne, T. O., RS (1864–1866), III, 432–45Google Scholar. King Edgar's rôle in the reform movement is emphasized. Most scholars are agreed that Æthelwold is the author; see the references Gretsch, , Regula, pp. 41–2Google Scholar. Recently Whitelock, D. (‘King Edgar's Establishment of Monasteries’, Philological Essays. Studies in Old and Middle English Language and Literature in Honour of Herbert Dean Meritt, ed. Rosier, J. L. (The Hague, 1970), pp. 125–36)Google Scholar has shown that there is so much agreement in phraseology and vocabulary between the Postscript and the Old English Rule that this may almost be taken as proof of Æthelwold's authorship.

page 139 note 4 Cf. Regularis Concordia, p. 2, and see also ‘Eadgars Establishment of Monasteries’, ed. Cockayne, , p. 440.Google Scholar

page 140 note 1 For Schröer's view of the textual relationships between the manuscripts, see Benediktinerregel pp. xxviii–xli, and cf. the detailed discussion Gretsch, , Regula, pp. 200–34.Google Scholar

page 140 note 2 Catalogue of Manuscripts Containing Anglo-Saxon (Oxford, 1957), nos. 45 and 353.Google Scholar

page 140 note 3 Only scribal variation between þ and ð has not been recorded.

page 141 note 1 The numerous cases where F shows traces of an exemplar written for nuns have not been included in the number of 165 unique variant readings in F recorded in table 2.

page 141 note 2 Cf., e.g., the percentage of common readings in group x w as opposed to groups j F and s F.

page 142 note 1 EStn 24, 163–4.

page 142 note 2 E.g. (Schröer 6, 1–2) þæt we hine geefenlæcende mid geþylde earfeþa and eahtnesse þolien x j F [passage omitted from w]:þæt we hine geefenlæcan mid geþylde and earfoþa and ehtnesse þolien s:(RSB Prol. 50) passionibus Christi per patientiam participemur; and (Schröer 55, 19–20) þæt nænig sy gedreued, ne geunrotsige [geunrotsige x w j F, geunrotsod s] on Godes huse:(RSB 31.19) ut nemo perturbetur neque contristetur in domo dei.

page 142 note 3 E.g. (Schröer 27, 12) on þysum callum x w j F:on callum þisum s.

page 142 note 4 E.g. (Schröer 72, 19–20) swa þæt he þa getimbrige and no ne gedrefe þa, ðe hine gehyrað x w j F:swa þæt he þa getimbrige, ðe hine geherað s:(RSB 47.3) ut aedificentur audientes.

page 142 note 5 E.g. (Schröer 16, 20) arweorðian x w i* j G [passage omitted from F]:lufian s:(RSB 4.8) honorare; and (Schröer 20, 4) gefo1giað x w j [passage omitted from F]:gefy11að s:(RSB 5.8) sequuntur.

page 143 note 1 Schröer does not assign a place in his stemma to u because this manuscript offers a completely revised text of the Old English Rule. The manuscript with which u has the highest percentage of readings in common is again x, but there also seems to be a closer connection between s and u, as both manuscripts rather frequently share a variant reading which cannot be found in any other manuscript. The i* and G fragments are too short for anything denite to be said about their relationships with the other manuscripts. Each of these fragments has a striking number of unique variants. These might indicate that ch.4 of the Old English Rule had an even more complicated and widely ramified textual transmission than that of the complete translation. This chapter, with its laconic instructions for the pious conduct of life, was included in manuscripts with miscellaneous Contents of a religious nature. In both the manuscripts in question it is found among lives of saints, homilies and prayers of various kinds.

page 143 note 2 For a more detailed discussion of Æthelwo1d's translation technique see Gretsch, , Regula, pp. 235–306.Google Scholar

page 144 note 1 Thus we find a rather lengthy addition in the following passage dealing with the rank and dignity of the monks: (RSB 2.16) Non ab co [i.e. ab abbate] persona in monasterio discernatur; (Schröer 12, 7–10) Ne sie fram abbode hada toscead on mynstre gehealden, þæt is ne sy nan fram him geweorðad for gebyrdum oðþe for ylde oþþe for ænigum oþrum þingum, butan for Godes ege anum and for soþes wisdomes gesceade. The importance of the opus dei is stressed: (RSB 43.3) Ergo nihil operi dei praeponatur; (Schröer 68, 4–6) Ne sy nan ðing geset toforam þam Godes weorce, ne nan ðing swa besorb, þæt be his tidsang fore forlæte.

page 144 note 2 Thus Benedict demands that the monk who comes late to the divine service should stand in a separate place: (RSB 43.6) usque dum completo opere dei publica satisfactione paeniteat. The Old English translation describes this atonement in more detail; cf. (Schröer 68, 13–16) and geendedum tidsancge openlice hreousigende bete, ðæt is, astrecce bine æt þæs tidsanges ends and mid þære gesewenlican dædboie his gymeleasie eaðmodlice gebete.

page 144 note 3 Cf. the following passage, where Æthelwold explains the metaphorical language of a biblical quotation: (RSB 2.15) Qui in fratris tui oculo festucam videbas, et in tao trabem non vidisti (Matthew VII.3); (Schröer 12, 3–6) ‘þu gesawe gehwæde mot on þines broðor cage and ne gesawe þone mæstam cyp on þinum agenum eagan.’ þæt is on andgite: þu asceonudest þa læstan gyltas on þine gingran and þa mæstan noldest on þe sylfne.

page 144 note 4 Cf. the following passages; in the first the pleonastic addition has an antithetical structure, whereas in the second it is stylistically awkward: (RSB 4.49) in omni loco deum se respicere procerto scire; (Schröer 18, 1–2) he sceal geþencan, þæt be nabwer Gods dygle ne bið, ac he hine æghwær gesihþ; and (RSB 48.21) Neque frater ad fratrem iungatur horis incompetentibus; (Schröer 74, 22–3) Ne nan broðor wið oþerne ne þeode, ne mid his geþeodrædenne ne lette on unþæslicum timan.

page 144 note 5 Ed. Migne, , Patrologia Latina 102, cols. 689–932.Google Scholar

page 145 note 1 Cf. Hafner, W., ‘Paulus Diaconus und der ihm zugeschriebene Kommentar zur Regula S. Benedicti’, Commenialiones in Regulam S. Benedicti, ed. Steidle, B., Studia Anselmiana 42 (Rome, 1957), 347–58Google Scholar, and Hafner, , Der Basiliuskommenlar zur Regula S. Benedicti. Ein Beitrag zur Autorenfrage karolingischer Regelkommentare, Beiträge zur Geschichte des alien Mönchtums und des Benediktinerordens 23 (Münster, 1959). For comparison with Æthelwold's translation the edition by Mittermüller, R. has been used: Vita el Regula SS. P. Benedicti una cum Expositione Regulas a Hildemaro Tradita (Regensburg, 1880).Google Scholar

page 146 note 1 Further examples in which Æthelwold may have used Smaragdus's Expositio are: Schröer 12, 5–6 = Smaragdus, Col. 734 (Hildemar, pp. 99–100); Schröer 12, 15 – 13, 2 = Smaragdus, col. 733 (Hildernar, pp. 101–2); Schröer 28, 16 = Smaragdus, col. 821, (Hildemar, pp. 246–7); Schröer 32, 14–16 = Smaragdus, cols. 829–30 (Hildemar, pp. 278–9); Schröer 66, 19 – 67, 2 = Smaragdus, cols. 878–9 (Hildemar, p. 455); Schröer 105, 20 – 207, 2 = Sniaragdus, col. 907 (Hildemar, p. 554).

page 146 note 2 Cf. (RSB 2.7) utilitatis:(Schröer 11, 2) note and nytwyrðnesse; (RSB 27.8) erraverat:(Schröer 51, 18–19) losode and dwelede; and (RSB 45.1) maiori vindictae:(Schröer 71, 7–8) stiðran and teartran steore.

page 146 note 3 Cf. Gneuss, H., Lehnbildungen and Lehnbedeutungen im Altenglischen (Berlin, 1953), pp. 30–1.Google Scholar

page 146 note 4 The use of tautological pairs of words for stylistic and rhetorical purposes has also been noticed in several other Old English writers, e.g. Wulfstan (see Bethurum, D., The Homilies of Walfslan (Oxford, 1957), pp. 90–1)Google Scholar and Bishop Werferth and the translator of the Old English Bede. (see van Fijn, Draat, ‘The Authorship of the Old English Bede. A Study in Rhythm’, Anglia 39 (1916), 329–46)Google Scholar. In the case of the Bede translator, however, it has also been claimed that the frequent doublets go back to the practice of interlinear glossing (see Kuhn, S. M., ‘Synonyms in the Old English Bede’, JEGP 46(1947), 168–70Google Scholar; but see Whitelock, D., ‘The Old English Bede’, Proc. of the Brit. Acad. 48 (1962), 58–9).Google Scholar

page 146 note 5 Cf., e.g. (RSB 16.2) Qui septenarius sacratus numerus:(Schröer 40, 5) ðæt seofonfealde getæl; and (RSB 23.2) hic secundum domini nostri praeceptum ammoneatur semel et secundo a senioribus suis:(Schröer 48, 6–7) þes þyllica æfter Godes gebode sy dyhlice mid wordum tuwa oðþe þriwa gemyngod.

page 147 note 1 See ‘Eadgars Establishment of Monasteries’, ed. Cockayne, , p. 442.Google Scholar

page 147 note 2 Cf., e.g., (RSB 2.39–40) et ita timens semper futuram discussionem pastoris de creditis ovibus cum de alienis cavet ratiociniis, redditur de suis sollicitus; et cum de monitionibus suis emendationem aliis subministrat, ipse efficitur a vitiis emendatus. This passage is omitted from the Old English Rule; see Schröer 14, 20. The other omissions are found in the following places: RSB2.31–2 = Schröer 14, 4–10;RSB2.33–4 = Schröer 14, 11–12; and RSB 46.6 = Schröer 72, 6–7; see Gretsch, , Regula, p. 272 and n. 64.Google Scholar

page 147 note 3 Cf. RSB 2.16 = Schröer 12, 7–10 RSB 2.28 = Schröer 12, 13–14; and RSB 2.18 = Schröer 12, 15–13, 2.

page 147 note 4 Cf, e.g., RSB 2.3–5 = Schröer 9, 5–9; and RSB 46.1–4 = Schröer 71, 13 – 72, 3.

page 147 note 5 (RSB 43.2) fomitem, cf. Schröer 67, 20 – 68, and (RSB 59.5)usu fructuario, cf. Schröer 103, 19–205, 1.

page 147 note 6 Bischof Wærferibs von Worcesier Übersetzung der Dialoge Gregors des Grossen, ed. Hecht, H., Bibliothek der angelsachsischen Prosa 5(Leipzig–Hamburg, 1900–1907), 11, 99–121.Google Scholar

page 148 note 1 Cf., e.g., (RSB 8.4) incipiente luce:(Schröer 33, 1) upasprungenum dægriman.

page 148 note 2 For a detailed investigation of syntactic Latinisms in Old English, which includes thelwold's translation, see Scheler, M., Alienglisthe Lehnsynlax. Die syntaktischen Latinismen im Altenglischen (Ph.D. thesis, Berlin, 1961).Google Scholar

page 148 note 3 Schröer prints the text of u synoptically with that of w: Benediktinerregel pp. 78–90 and 94–122, even page numbers.

page 148 note 4 Cf., e.g., Æthelwold's translation 109, 20–111, 2 and u 108, 21–110,2.

page 148 note 5 E.g. (Schröer 83, 5–6) and swa syn on soðre sibbe geferlæhte:and swa beon on soðre sibbe geferlæhte u.

page 148 note 6 E.g. (Schröer 99, 2–3) sy he gelæd eft to nigecumenra monna huse: læde hine man eft to nicumenra manna huse u.

page 148 note 7 E.g. (Schröer 81, 10) mid stilnesse anfealdlice he ingange: he inga mid stilnysse u.

page 148 note 8 E.g. (Schröer 97, 54) gesinlice: geome u; and (Schröer 119, 25) syuerte: syfre u.

page 149 note 1 See Funke, O., ‘Altenglische Wortgeographie. (Eine bibliographische Überschau)’, Anglistische Studien. Festschrift zum 70. Geburtstag von Professor Friedrith Wild, Wiener Beiträge zur Englischen Philologie 66 (Vienna, 1958), 39–51Google Scholar, and Gneuss, H., ‘The Origin of Standard Old English and Æthelwold's School at Winchester’, ASE 1 (1972), 75, n. 4.Google Scholar

page 149 note 2 For a fully documented discussion of the vocabulary of the Old English Rule. see Gretsch, , Regula, pp. 307–77 and 403–6.Google Scholar

page 149 note 3 Cf. Funke, O., Die gelebrten lateinischen Lehn- und Fremdwörter in der altenglischen Literatur (Halle, 1914), pp. 164–5 and passimGoogle Scholar; see also Gretsch, , Regula, pp. 364–70.Google Scholar

page 149 note 4 ‘Origin of Standard Old English’, pp. 63–83.

page 151 note 1 BM Royal 2.B.v; cf. Gneuss, , ‘Origin of Standard Old English’, p. 79Google Scholar, and Gretsch, , Regula, p. 374.Google Scholar