428 NOTES AND QUERIES December 1993

English poems Judith, Juliana, and Elene [pp.vii + 209. American University Studies, SeriesIV English Language and Literature, vol. 135.New York, San Francisco, Berne, Frankfurt amMain, Paris, London: Peter Lang, 1991], with avery free translation on facing pages, an en-thusiastic introduction, three impressionisticafterwords, and three line-drawings, one of eachof the three valiant ladies. Perhaps haligemeowle at line 56 sufficiently justifies callingJudith a saint. Of Elene we learn that shesucceeds in what she sets out to do, 'and part ofthe reason for her success is her display ofmilitary power'. As has often been said, themartial element is important in the biblical para-phrase of Judith and the two saints' lives.

It would be easy to mock some of the details.This is not a contribution to scholarship; nordoes it aim at that. It is not an ignorant book, andthe author shows wide reading in relativelyrecent criticism. I could well imagine that MarieNelson, 'the only Anglo-Saxonist at the Univer-sity of Florida' holds the attention of her classes.They will include many to whom Anglo-SaxonEngland is not an open book, they will includemore to whom pedantic textual and historical,medieval scholarship is a firmly closed book. Ifthey read some of the better items in the biblio-graphical lists, and understand the underlyingseriousness of the author of this book they maybe brought to see in Old English poetry and itsscholarship, in so far as they are able to sampleit, a world not represented elsewhere in theirstudies.

Some of the statements made by the author,arguing against opinions with which she dis-agrees, make good sense: 'It does not seem to methat there is any more despair on the part ofJudith in the Old English poem than there was inthe Vulgate.' In connection with Juliana, Nelsonreplies to a critic who has in mind the kind ofreader to whom 'virgin martyrs were the pin-upsof the persecuted church': 'but not this reader'.She herself follows a critic who 'presents akinder view of Elene's verbal behavior thaneither Greenfield, one of the four critics [J. P.]Hermann charges with failure to speak outagainst anti-Semitism, or Hermann himself'.Marie Nelson writes for an audience of non-medievalists; she is free from much criticaljargon, and does not give in to politically correct

fashion when she thinks the fashion miscon-ceived.

E. G. STANLEYPembroke College, Oxford

C. J. SUMMERS's E. M. Forster: A Guide toResearch [pp. xviii + 405 (Garland ReferenceLibrary of the Humanities, vol. 1101). NewYork and London: Garland, 1991. $48.00]completes the basic reference library in biblio-graphy of the student of E. M. Forster. Such ascholar and/or critic will already have access tothe precursor of this volume, F. P. W. McDow-ell's E. M. Forster: An Annotated Bibliographyof Writings about Him, 1976, and B. J. Kirk-patrick's A Bibliography ofE. M. Forster, 2nded., 1985. The high bibliographical standards ofthese two works are maintained by Summers.The student of E. M. Forster is trebly fortunateto have such resources.

JOHN GILLARD WATSONOxford

NotesTHE ALDHELM GLOSS

CONSTANTINA : DEMERA (ClGll)COTTON CLEOPATRA A. iii, a fair copy ofseveral distinct glossaries arranged in twocolumns per page, with the Old English inter-pretations above the Latin lemmata, was writtenin the middle of the tenth century, presumably atSt Augustine's, Canterbury.' Its first part is an a-order glossary which breaks off in the middle ofthe letter P. In the main, its constituent batchescan be ascertained with relative ease, thanks tothe pioneering study by H. Liibke over onehundred years ago,J and the painstaking workby N. R. Ker whose description in his Catalogueis a model of clarity and economy. Several of thebatches, marked by a system of marginal sigla inthe manuscript, derive from glossae collectaebased on annotated copies of Aldhelm's works,

1 N. R. Ker, Catalogue of Manuscripts containing Anglo-Saxon (Oxford, 1957), no. 143; origin: T. A. M. Bishop,Transactions of the Cambridge Bibliographical Society, iii(1959r63),93.

2 'Ober verwandtschaftliche Beziehungen einiger alten-glischer Glossare', Archiv, lxrav (1890), 383-410, at 396£f.

at University of L

eeds on February 27, 2013http://nq.oxfordjournals.org/

Dow

nloaded from

December 1993 NOTES AND QUERIES 429

especially his De Virginitate (both the prose andthe metrical versions). One of the Aldhelmbatches corresponds to the running glossary(this term for: glossae collectae) also extant inthe third part of the manuscript (Ker's art. 3).This component is not introduced by a siglum inthe o-order booklet.

The gloss Constantino : demera (WW 375/34)3 occurs in one of the Aldhelm batches. It islabelled nl, nig, or nigi and contains entries de-rived not only from his prose and verse De Vir-ginitate, as Ker (art. 1. c) notes, but also from theCarmina Ecclesiastica and, above all, from theAenigmata. Nothing is known about the textualhistory of this particular component, but thesequence of entries under each letter, whichcorresponds to the sequence of lemmata as theyoccur in Aldhelm's writings, shows that it was arunning glossary which, at some earlier stage ofthe transmission, was excerpted and arrangedaccording to the first letter of lemmata.

Wiilcker was doubtful whether demera wasOld English (WW 375 n. 5). Stryker, who re-edited the a-order glossary, daringly claimed:'The OE word for "judge", demere, apparentlyglosses the context of the lemma.'4 This vagueassessment was taken up in DOE, s.v. demere,where it is specified that 'demera also occurs asnom.sg., ref. to a woman' and documented in aseparate section: '(2) glossing Constantino andreferring to a person of high estate'.5 The textquoted by Stryker and DOE from the prose DeVirginitate, however, gives no clue why Con-stantina should be interpreted as (gen.pl.) dem-era:

Constantina, integerrimae virtutis virago,Constantini filia, qui per idem tempus triper-titi mundi monarchiam prosperis successibusgubernasse dinoscitur,

The quotation stops at the point where itbecomes relevant:

3 Anglo-Saxon and Old English Vocabularies, ed.T. Wright and R. P. Wulcker [WW|, 2nd edn (London, 1884).

* The Latin- Old English Glossary in MS Cotton CleopatraA 111, ed. W. G. Stryker (Diss. Stanford Univ., 1951 (un-published)), C 544 and n. (p. 120). M. Voss, 'Strykers Editiondes alphabetischen Cleopatraglossars: Corrigenda undAddenda', AAA - Arbeiten ausAnglistik undAmerikanistik,xiii (1988), 123-38, is an indispensable contribution in thisconnection.

5 Dictionary of Old English \DOE\ (Toronto, 1986- ),s.v. demere.

nonne cunctas propemodum Romanorumpraetorum filias . . . ad culturam Christianaereligionis... incitauit,.. .?*

The key word is praetorum. Though the run-ning glossary extant in part 3 of the same manu-script is not the source of the batch in question, itstill provides the explanation: integrated intothis glossary, there occur captions (and chapternumbers) which, as a rule, consist of propernames taken over from the source. These cap-tions have little to do with the official table ofcapitula which precedes the prose De Virgini-tate in the manuscripts, with repetition of thenumbers at the beginning of each chapter. Theyfunction rather as a competing system of orien-tation which readers would have found morepractical than the official capitula: the main bulkof Aldhelm's opus geminatum consists ofexempla of male and female virgins. The namesof these heroes and heroines were adopted inthe copies of the metrical version and in some ofthe prose as a system of quick orientation andwere exposed as rubrics, as can be gatheredfrom the apparatus of Ehwald's admirable edi-tion. In the running glossary of art. 3 these head-ings reappear. They start with .ii. De Eliseo(WW 492/8),7 referring to the second part of ch.XX, run right through the prose and continuethrough the carmen, the last being .Ixxxix. DeAnatholia (WW 531/13). At WW 509/29-31the text of the running glossary (arranged in twocolumns per page) reads (105ra14-16):

gioguSe.

I ndolemg. [sic].xxxvii. D econstantine.

ealdor manna.P retorum.

In four of the insular Latin manuscripts of theprose De Virginitate the word praetorum isexplained by an Old English interlinear gloss, inthree of them also accompanied by a Latin inter-pretamentum. In the two most densely glossedmanuscripts of the so-called Abingdon group,Brussels, Bibliotheque Royale MS 1650, and itspresumable copy (as regards the glosses),

6 Aldhelmi Opera, ed. R. Ehwald, MGH, AA xv (Berlin,1919), 302/lOff. In this case the English translation is un-necessary: Aldhelm, The Prose Works, trans. M. Lapidge andM. Herren (Cambridge, 1979).

7 The heading./'. De Elia is missing at 95va2, supplied byWW 492/3; cf. Ehwald, 249/16 with n. «.

at University of L

eeds on February 27, 2013http://nq.oxfordjournals.org/

Dow

nloaded from

430 NOTES AND QUERIES December 1993

Bodleian Library MS Digby 146,8 the relevantentry reads praetorum : iudicum ealdorman(probably a merograph for -manna)? the twoprincipal witnesses of the so-called Salisburygroup, British Library, MSS Royal 6 A. vi and 5E. xi,'° read praetorum A. iudicum I demena(OEG 7. 311) and pretorum A. demena (OEG8. 249), gen. pi. of dema. The gloss dema topraetor further occurs at OEG 17. 58 (alsofrom Aldhelm's prose De Virginitate, but from adifferent passage); cf. further pretorium [MSprecorum]: domhus, domcern in Cleopatra, art.3 (WW 509/25), and domern in the Abingdongroup of Aldhelm glosses (Goossens 4376;OEG 1.4498).

The running glossary in pt. 3 of the Cleopatravolume, though it is not the source for the Con-stantino : demera entry in the mg/-batchof pt. 1,still holds the clue for this entry. It may beinferred that the glossae collectae which themg/-batch eventually derives from containedsimilar quick access rubrics as art. 3. The glossdemera, gen. pi. of demere, aptly renderingpraetorum, was erroneously coupled up withthe immediately preceding (De) Constantinowhich, as a chapter rubric, was, of course,unglossed. Shifting of lemmata or inter-pretamenta or, in other words, attachment of aninterpretamentum to the wrong lemma is a com-mon enough feature in glossaries of any type.Compared with striking examples like the ill-matched bigamus A. uir unius mulieris11 or,more seriously, the Aldhelm gloss Diane :ricenne (WW 511/35 & 387/38), where Dianalured nineteenth-century scholars in search ofAnglo-Saxon paganism into a pitfall,12 the cor-rection of Constantino: demera to [praetorum]:demera is a matter of little consequence, but itssolution has, incidentally, shed some light on the

* Ker, Catalogue, nos. 8 and 320.' The Old English Glosses of MS. Brussels, Royal Library,

1650 (Aldhelm's De Laudibus Virginitatis), ed. L. Goossens(Brussels, 1974), 4394; Old English Glosses, ed. A.S.Napier| OEG) (Oxford, 1900), 1.4515.

10 Ker, Catalogue, nos. 254 and 252. For grouping andrelationship see Napier, OEG, xxiii-xxvi; H. Schabram,Superbia. Studien turn altenglischen Wortschatz, 1 (Munich,1965), 62ff. (with further references); Goossens, 22ff.

" According to Stryker, ed. cit., B 174 and n. (cf. WW361/35 and n. 10).

1 ' Until E. Sievers, "Die angebliche gottin Ricen", PBB, xvi(1892), 366-8, solved the problem by demonstrating thatricenne properly belonged to the neighbouring turificare(Ehwald, 309/21).

make-up of the running glossary used for the«(g/-component.

There is one semantic detail which deserves acloser look. Both the running glossary in Cleo-patra and the interlinear glosses in manuscriptsof the Abingdon group render praetor byealdorman, but praetorium by donuernJdomhus (the contextual meaning of praetor-ium, in this instance, is 'palace').'3 As lexicalequivalents, both translations are historicallyadequate, since the functions of the praetor -and hence, of his office, the praetorium - wereboth judicial and administrative;14 on theAnglo-Saxon side, one of the duties of theealdorman was to preside at lawsuits.15 Never-theless, the lexical dichotomy of the inter-pretamenta in the texts mentioned above callsfor an explanation, even more so when we takeinto account that to look for terminologicaladequacy with the detachment of an historian isnot sufficient; in texts of this genre it is para-mount to look for filiations and lexicographicalorigins. The dissociation rather suggests two dif-ferent strands in the tradition, and this assump-tion gains credit when we turn to thefipinal-Erfurt-Corpus complex of glossariesand open, for example, the Corpus Glossary}6

Here we find the items praetor : praefectus (P678), praetorium : domus judiciaria (P 622)and, conspicuously, praetor : in cujus domojudicium judicatur (P 620). Whereas the entrypraetor : praefectus clearly echoes Isidore'spretores idem qui etprefecti, "the interpretationin cujus domo judicium judicatur looks like asemantic back-formation derived from theinterpretation of praetorium. This observationis corroborated by considering the likeliestultimate source. Praetorium (TtpaiTwpiov), but

13 Ehwald, 302/3; cf. Lapidge and Herren (trans.), 114:palace'.

M See, for example, Oxford Latin Dictionary (Oxford,1968-82), s.w. praetor, praetorium.

15 Cf., for example, F. Liebermann, Die Gesetze der Angel-sachsen (Halle, 1898-1916), II. 2 (1912), art. Ealdorman,20.

'* The Corpus Glossary, ed. W. M. Lindsay (Cambridge,1921). Facs.: The Epinal, Erfurt, Werden, and Corpus Glos-saries, EEMF, xxii (Copenhagen, 1988), fo. 50". For the rela-tionship between fipinal-Erfurt and Corpus see J. D. Pheifer,ibid., 50ff.

" Isidorus Hispalensis, Etymologiae, IX, ed. M. Reydellet(Paris, 1984), 3,26f.: Prefect! dicti quod pretoria potestatepre-sint. Pretores idem qui et prefecti, quasi prepositores. 4,16:Pretores autem quasi preceptores ciuitatis et principes.

at University of L

eeds on February 27, 2013http://nq.oxfordjournals.org/

Dow

nloaded from

December 1993 NOTES AND QUERIES 431

not praetor, occurs seven times in the NewTestament (Matth. 27:27 = Marc. 15:16 - Joan.18:28, Joan. 18:33, 19:9, Act. 23:35; Philip.1:13);18 all five instances in the Gospels refer tothe governor's residence, in the dramatic scenewhere Jesus is arraigned before Pilate. There is along established tradition of understandingpraetorium here as 'judgement hall'. This nar-row, situational definition extends from theWest-Saxon Gospels and Old English homileticprose (dom-em)19 to the Authorized Version,or, in German, from the earliest Bible glosses(c800, thinc-hus)20 to Luther's richthaus. TheCorpus entry praetorium : domus Judiciaria ismost probably indebted to the item pretorium :domus iudicaturia [read: -oria], which occurs inthe Leiden Glossary in glossae collectae fromMatthew.21

There might have been other factors contri-buting to the knowledge of the function of thepraetor in ancient Rome - Orosius would havebeen an obvious source of information22 - butthis seems the likeliest explanation. If this is,in fact, the correct assessment of the lexico-graphical background, the Old English transla-tion ealdorman is indebted to the Isidorianpraefectus equation, whereas dema/demere,

" See W. Bauer, Grieehiseh-deutsches Worterbuch zu denSchriften des Neuen Testaments und der friihchristlichenLiteratur, 6. Aufl., hg. K. & B. Aland (Berlin, New York,1988), s.v. Tjpanwpiov: 'Amtswohnung des Statthalters'; mostprobably: Herod's palace in the western part of Jerusalem;Acts of the Apostles 23:35: Herod's palace at Caesarea(where Paulus is being detained).

" See the instances quoted by DOE, s.v. dom-cem, esp.(a). The definition given there ('specifically (2 lx) the courts ofPilate and Caiphas where Christ was tried') is incorrect con-cerning Caiphas and unsatisfactory with regard to the equivo-cal expression 'court'.

20 Easiest access by way of I. Rosengren , Sprache undVerwandlschafi einiger althochdeutschen und altsachsischenEvangelienglossen, Scripta Minora, 1962-3:4 (Lund, 1964),59 s.v. dinghus.

21 A late Eighth-Century Latin-Anglo-Saxon Glossary,preserved in the Library of the Leiden University, ed. J. H.Hessels (Cambridge, 1906), xxiv.18. For the glossographicaltraditions see W. M. Lindsay, The Corpus, Spinal, Erfurt andLeyden Glossaries, Publications of the Philological Society,viii (London, (1921)), 14f. etpassim.

22 The early glossaries, e.g. Corpus, furthermore containpraetores: honores secundi a consulibus (Lindsay, P 810), anentry which goes back to the Abstrusa-Abolita tradition andis no longer traceable to its ultimate source. The Old EnglishOrosius, ed. J. Bately, EETS, s.s. 6 (1980), 77/1, reports thestrange formation (ace.) pretorium: jpa sendon hie eftCecilium heora pretorium mid firde (both manuscripts),corresponding to Caeciliuspraetor... cum exercilu missus.

which looks like a straightforward rendering ofpraetor, has a more complicated prehistory andis probably a back-formation of praetorium'judgement hall' and thus the result of a biblicaldetour via Jerusalem.

ROLAND TORKARGottingen

NOT ST DUNSTAN'S BOOK?STUBBS's reading1 of St Dunstan's name on thebinding of Bodleian MS Hatton 42 has beenaccepted for more than a century; it is of crucialimportance for the history of this major canon-law collection in its progress from ninth-centuryBrittany through Anglo-Saxon England to itsmedieval home at Worcester.2 The inscription iswritten sideways in uneven capitals up the for-merflatspineof whittawed leather, which is no wpreserved on the lower inside pastedown.3

One problem, the absence of a T' in the name,was already recognized by E. W. B. Nicholson(Bodley's Librarian, 1882-1912) when he tran-scribed the inscription as part of a long note onthe new front pastedown after the manuscript'srepair:

LIBER Sc DUNSANI"

' Memorials of Saint Dunstan Archbishop of Canterbury,ed. William Stubbs, RS 63 (1874), pp. lxxvi-lxxvii and cxii-cxiii.

2 See David N. Dumville, 'Wulfric Cild', N&Q, ccxxxviii(1993), 5-9.1 should like to thank Dr Dumville and Dr MartinKauffmann for helpful discussions during the preparation ofthis article.

3 Flat spines were a natural feature of early medieval Eng-lish bindings before the development of raised cords duringthe thirteenth century. The boards and cording-pattern of thisvolume were pronounced by Graham Pollard to be Anglo-Saxon ('Some Anglo-Saxon bookbindings', The Book Collec-tor, xxiv (1975), 130-59, at 143-4, diagram 3, witharguments about the binding's origins relying heavily, thoughnot exclusively, on the 'Dunstan' reading); but it would be rashto make the same claim for the leather and sewing-structure,for the repairs of Nicholson's time were so radical that themanuscript now has raised cords and a rounded back whichmake the boards project unnaturally at the fore-edge. Thesurviving leather has the same feel as that of English 'monas-tic' bindings of the late eleventh to early thirteenth century,and could be a recovering of that period: spine inscribed at thesame time??

' A small cross-shape at the top of Nicholson's 'A' may behis attempt to represent the missing T , but there is no hint ofthis in the inscription itself (the 'A', though still legible, is par-ticularly rubbed). Nicholson's superscript 'c' is a possiblereading of the abbreviation-mark, which is however more

at University of L

eeds on February 27, 2013http://nq.oxfordjournals.org/

Dow

nloaded from