^'"rV* ii.\l> THE AUTHORSHIP OF THE WEST SAXON GOSPELS A A 7 2 BY ALLISON DRAKE, A. M., Ph.D., university fellow in anglo-saxon In Columbia College NEW YORK 1894 THE GIFT OF WILLIAM G. KERCKHOFF TO THE UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA AT LOS ANGELES THE LIBRARY OF FRIEDRICH KLUGE I v,",Vi>iv'>:'V THE AUTHORSHIP OF THE WEST SAXON GOSPELS BY ALLISON DRAKE, A. M., Ph.D., university fellow in anglo-saxon In Columbia College LOS AiN^o^^LES LIBRARY NEW YORK 1894 F « « 4 1 « Press of E. Scott Co. J46 West 23d Street. New York. Henrico Thurstoni Peck, Ph.D., L.H.D., ViRO Eruditissimo Atque Acutissimo, Professori Linguae Latinae Litterarumque In CoLLEGio Columbiae Neo-Eboracensi, Pietatis Testimonium. a 2 Prefatory note. 1 wish to take this opportunity to express my sincere thanks for the kindly encouragement and valuable suggestions given me from the first by my instructor in Latin, Professor H. T. Peck, to whom alone until all the data were collected I commu- nicated the nature of this work. I am greatly indebted to my instructor in Anglo-Saxon, Professor A. V. W. Jackson, who, by his zealous and quickening instruction and by his generous and unstinted assistance in revising the work for publication, has contributed much of whatever merits it possesses. My instructor, Professor T. R. Price, of the Department of English, has contributed some felicitous criticisms. These acknowledgments, however, should not make anyone but myself answerable for the shortcomings of this paper. Although my other instructors. Professor A. C, Merriam, of the Department of Greek Archaeology and Epigraphy, Professor E. D. Perry, of the Department of Sanskrit and Classical Philology, and Professor Brander Matthews, of the De- partment of Literature, have only indirectly influenced the produc- tion of this dissertation, I cannot refrain from expressing my high appreciation of their kindness and courtesy and the inspiration of their instruction. A. D. Columbia College, May 28, 1894. CONTENTS. PAGE Chief Works Used or Consulted 9 Introduction 11 The Anglo-Saxon Gospels 11 A. The Manuscripts 11 B. The Printed Editions 14 The Authorship of the West Saxon Gospels 17 The Evidence of Composite Authorship 22 i. Heofon, Heofone 23 ii. Underfon, Onfon 25 iii. pset He Wolde, etc 27 iv. paera, Para, etc 31 V. Witodlice 34 vi. Hana, Cocc 35 vii. Stridor Dentium ^6 viii. Fulgor 36 ix. Centurio 36 X. Vox Clamantis 37 xi. Uppan (On-uppan) 37 xii. Trado: Belaewan, (Ge)syllan 40 Resume . . . , 44 CHIEF WORKS USED OR CONSULTED. The Holy Gospels in Anglo-Saxon, Northumbrian and Old Mercian versions. W. W. Skeat, Cambridge, 1871-1887. (This work is the basis of the present dissertation). Biblia Sacra Juxta Vulgatae Exemplaria et Correctoria Romana. A. C. Pillion. Imprimatur: + Joseph Arch. Lugdun. Parisiis, 1887, The New Testament in the Original Greek. B. F. VVestcott and F. J. A. Hort. New York, 1890. Friedrich Ludwig Stamm's Ulfilas. Moritz Heyne. Achte Auflage, Paderborn und Munster, 1885. The Gospel of Saint Luke in Anglo-Saxon. J. W. Bright. Oxford, 1893. An Anglo-Saxon Dictionary. A Swi'Srian. Joseph Bosworth; T. Northcote Toller. Oxford, 1882-1892. (Cited: B. & T.). An Old English Grammar. E. Sievers. Albert S. Cook. Second Edition. Boston, 1887. (Cited: Cook's Sievers). The Blickling Homilies of the Tenth Century. 3 vols. R Morris. London, 1874-1880. (Cited: Blick. Homl.). ^Ifric's Lives of Saints. 2 vols. W. W. Skeat. London, 1881,1885. (Only the first volume used. Cited: Sk. tEII. I). The Homilies of the Anglo-Saxon Church. 2 vols. Benjamin Thorpe. London, 1844, 1846. (Cited: Th. ^If. I, II). A(e)lfrik de vetere et novo testamento, Pentateuch, losua, Buch der Richter und Hiob. C. W. M. Grein. Cassel and Goettingen, 1872. (Cited: Grein's ^If.). The Oldest English Texts. Henry Sweet. London, 1885. King Alfred's Orosius. Part I. Henry Sweet. London, 1883. (Cited: Sw. Alf. Oros.). King Alfred's West-Saxon Version of Gregory's Pastoral Care. Henry Sweet. London, 1871. (Cited: Sw. Alf. C. P.). Sancti Gregorii Papae I, Cognomento Magni, Opera Omnia. Tomus Tertius. Patrologias Latinge Tomus lxxvii. J-P. Migne. Parisiis, 1862. INTRODUCTION. THE ANGLO-SAXON GOSPELS. After careful investigation and consideration, Professor Skeat is inclined to the belief that West Saxon literature never possessed more than one version of the Gospels, and that that was made in the latter half of the tenth century (cf. Skeat's Pref. to Jn., p. vii; Pref. to Lk., p. xi). Besides this West Saxon version, there are also a Northumbrian gloss of all the Gospels, a modified form of that gloss for Mark, Luke and John, and an Old Mercian version of Matthew (cf. Skeat's Pref. to Jn., pp. xii, xiii ; Pref. to Mt., p. vii). A. The Manuscripts. The following remarks about the MSS. and the printed edi- tions of the Anglo-Saxon Gospels, down to printed edition no. IX, have been copied from Professor Skeat's Prefaces to the Gospels, often verbatim ; but a verbatim transcript has not always been suitable for use in this brief paper, I have pre- ferred to use the term IVesi Saxon Gospels instead of the less definite term Anglo-Saxon Gospels, when only the West Saxon version has had to be designated. Of course, in quoting the exact title of a printed edition, the substitution has not been made. There have come down to us only the following eight MSS. of the Anglo-Saxon Gospels. Each of the first six contains the West Saxon version in whole or in part. L— (Cf. Skeat's Pref. to Mk., p. v). The Corpus MS.— MS. no. CXL (formerly S. 4) in the Library of Corpus Christi Col- lege, Cambridge. Its contents are the four Gospels in West Saxon, and some other documents, [notably] a homily, inserted between Mark and Luke. The homily begins — M(en) ha l(eofestan). Her on gins t>(8et) halie g(e)writ 12 THE AUTHORSHIP OF J, e co(m) fra(m) heofenan into hierusale(m). It ends— a nd se }>e underfeh'Switigan on j>ses witigan nam an he underfehs t>ies witigan mede. At the end of Matthew is this note : Ego ^Ifricus scripsi hunc librurn in Monasterio Ba-s>onio et dedi Brihtwoldo preposito. ^Ifric did hot write the whole of the Gospels; for a different hand wrote from the word gorsi-deam (Mk. 12: 26) to he (Mk. 12: 38), which makes a page of the MS. II.— (Cf. Skeat's Pref. to Mk., pp.vi, vii). The Cambridge MS. — MS. li. 2 II, in the Cambridge University Library, In 1566 it became the property of Matthew Parker, Archbishop of Canter- bury, who gave it in 1574 to the University of Cambridge. Ill — (Cf. Skeat's Pref. to Mk., p. vii). The Bodley MS.— MS. Bodley NE. F. 3.15, now Bodley 441. Several leaves of the original MS. were lost, but all but one of them have since been "restored." The "restored" portions are Mk. i: i to 4: 37; Mk. 16: 14 to the end of Mark; Lk. 24: 51 to the end of the Gospel (but cf. Skeat's note ad loc.)\ and Jn. 20: 9 nearly to the end (cf. Skeat's note ad loc). IV.— (Cf. Skeat's Pref. to Mk., p. viii). The Cotton MS.— MS. Cotton Otho C. i, in the British Museum. Before the great fire of 1731, this MS. was defective only as far as Mt. 27: 6; but after the fire it was long thought to be only a charred mass. Sir Frederic Madden uniquely mounted even the smallest fragments and thus rendered them accessible to the public. The date of the Corpus, Bodley, and Cotton MSS. is supposed to belong to the last decade of the tenth century. The Cambridge MS. is thought to be of later date, probably about 1050. v.— (Cf. Skeat's Pref. to Mk., p. x). The Hatton MS.— This MS., formerly marked Hatton 65, is now marked Hatton 38, and is in the Bodleian Library at Oxford. It once belonged to Rev. John Parker, son to the Archbishop. Mr, Parker " restored " a missing leaf (Luke 16). The MS. was written about the time of Henry II. It is interesting as showing how the language began to lose strength in its inflectional forms. VI.— (Cf. id., ib.). The Royal MS.— This MS. is now in the Royal Library at the British Museum, where its class mark is THE WEST SAXON GOSPELS. I^ Bibl. Reg. i A. xiv. The MS. was probably written in the time of Stephen. The general agreement of the Hatton MS. with it is very close, excepting that the Royal MS. preserves more archaic forms. The Hatton MS. was copied from it. The last seven verses of Mark in the Royal MS. are in the handwriting of the Hatton scribe, which proves that the scribe of the Hatton MS. had access to some other MS. besides the Royal. The Royal MS. was copied from the Bodley (cf. Skeat's Pref. to Lk., p. viii). The pedigree of these six MSS. may be indicated thus (cf. Skeat's Pref. to Jn., p. vii): Original MS. (now lost). Corpus MS. i4o=Bodley MS. 44i=Otho C. i. Cambridge MS. Royal MS. I Hatton MS. Vn.— (Cf. Skeat's Pref. to Mk., p. xi). The Lindisfarne MS. — This MS. is also known as the Durham Book. It is now one of the Cotton MSS. in the British Museum, its class mark being Nero D. 4. It contains the four Gospels in Latin, written in double columns, with an interlinear Northumbrian gloss. The Latin was written by Eadfrith in the island of Lindisfarne about A. D. 700. The gloss was written probably in the latter half of the tenth century, and exhibits two handwritings and two kinds of ink, one of the latter being red. The red ink and the second handwriting begin near the end of John 5: 10. This portion of the gloss is supposed to have been written by the glossator himself, Aldred, a priest; the previous portion having been made under his superintendence (cf. Skeat's Pref. to Jn., pp. viii, ff.). VIII.— (Cf. Skeat^s Pref. to Mk., pp. xii, xiii). The Rush- worth MS. — This MS. is in the Bodleian Library at Oxford, and is marked Auct. D. ii. 19. The Latin is in single column and of uncertain date. The Anglo-Saxon of Matthew is a version in the Old Mercian dialect by Farman, a priest of Harewood, who is shown by the handwriting to have glossed the Mark as far as 14 THE AUTHORSHIP OF hleonadun in Mk. 2: 15, and to have translated John 18: 1-3. The remaining portion of the gloss was made by Owun, another inmate of Harewood. Dr. Murray observes that "the two portions of the gloss are contemporary, and owe their differences [dialectic ?] to the different nativity of their writers" (cf. Skeat's Pref. to Jn., pp. xii, ff.). Owun seldom uses the thorn letter (> ), but in Jn. 18: 1-3, written by Farman, that letter appears seven- teen times. The date of the gloss is supposed to belong to the latter half of the tenth century. B. The Printed Editions. (Cf. Skeat's Pref. toMk., pp. xiv, fl.). I. — The first edition of the West Saxon Gospels was printed by John Day in 1571, at the suggestion of Archbishop Parker. It was probably based on the Bodley MS., with a few corrections from the Cambridge MS. II. — An edition of the Gothic and the West Saxon Gospels in parallel columns was printed by Junius and Marshall in 1665. The basis of this edition is the preceding edition; but Junius and Marshall made use of the Bodley, Cambridge, Corpus, Hatton and Rushworth MSS. III. — Mr. Thorpe, in 1842, revised the edition made by Junius and Marshall, though he does not say that his work is not an original edition. IV. — Dr. Bosworth printed an edition of " The Gothic and Anglo-Saxon Gospels, in parallel columns, with the versions of Wicliffe and Tyndale," in 8vo; London, 1865. It was based on the Corpus MS., and gives the text of that MS. with great exactness. V. — An edition of the Northumbrian glosses of the Gospels in the Lindisfarne MS. was printed at Giitersloh, in 1857, by Karl Wilhelm Bouterwek. This volume contains an excellent glossary. VI. — In 1858, the same editor, Herr Bouterwek, printed a volume entitled "Screadunga," which contains, among other things, the Rushworth Latin text and gloss of Mark. VII. — The Gospels (both the Latin and the Anglo-Saxon) THE WEST SAXON GOSPELS. 15 of the Lindisfarne and Rushworth MSS. were edited for the Surtees Societ)-, in 1 854-1 865, by Rev. J. Stevenson and Mr. G. Waring. Vlir. — (Cf. Skeat's Pref. to Mk., p. i). Mr. Kemble planned and began an edition of the Gospels in the West Saxon, North- umbrian and Old Mercian versions, synoptically arranged, with collations of all the MSS. Mr. Kemble lived to complete only a little more than the first twenty-four chapters of Matthew. Mr. Hardwick completed the Matthew, and the volume appeared in 1858. IX. — "The Holy Gospels in Anglo-Saxon, Northumbrian, and Old Mercian versions, synoptically arranged, with collations exhibiting all the readings of all the MSS.; together with the early Latin version as contained in the Lindisfarne MS., collated with the Latin version of the Rushworth MS. Edited for the Syndics of the University Press, by the Rev. Walter W. Skeat, Litt. D., LL.D. Edin., M.A. Oxon., Elrington and Bosworth Professor of Anglo-Saxon, and Fellow of Christ's College, Cambridge. Cambridge : At the University Press, 1871-1887." This is a truly great work, and the benefits that will flow from it to Anglo-Saxon scholarship are incalculable. The more one turns the pages of this great volume, the deeper will grow his respect for its merits, and for the editor, whose patience, fidelity, accuracy, and critical ability can be duly proclaimed only by the volume itself. X. — In this country, in 187 1, the West Saxon Gospel of John with a glossary appeared in a work entitled '* Hand-Book of Anglo-Saxon and Early English, by Hiram Corson, M.A." This has been a serviceable pioneer in the advancement of the study of Anglo-Saxon in America, and deserves commendation as such. XI. — Professor James W. Bright, of the Johns Hopkins University, in 1893, edited from the manuscripts a school edition of the West Saxon Gospel of Luke, with an introduc- tion, notes, and a glossary. The little volume has many merits, one being that it is the forerunner of a " critical edition of the Anglo-Saxon Gospels," to which we shall look forward with interest. l6 THE AUTHORSHIP OF Before proceeding to the consideration of authorship, Pro- fessor Skeat's observation regarding the source of the restora- tion of the last seven verses of Mark in the Royal MS. is worthy of attention. Professor Skeat infers that " the scribe of the Hatton MS. had access to some other MS. besides the Royal." An examination of the text of the restored verses shows that the " other MS." to which the scribe had access could not well have been cognate with any MS. of the Anglo-Saxon Gospels which we possess. But perhaps Professor Skeat means a Latin MS. ; for it is possible that the Hatton scribe himself translated the passage from the Latin. Since making this conjecture it has been grati- fying to find that Professor Bright entertains the same opinion regarding the possible translation; indeed, he seems to have defin- itely determined the truth of it; for, in speaking of the lacmics filled by this restoration and others, he states unqualifiedly that the Hatton scribe "supplied them in his own hand and by his own translation from the Latin " (cf. Bright's Luke, p. xvi). THE AUTHORSHIP OF THE WEST SAXON GOSPELS The investigation of this subject, it may be well to state at once, was not premeditated, but was prompted by the dis- covery of certain suggestively distinguishing features of the West Saxon Gospels, which chanced to be noted while the writer was engaged in preparing for publication an edition of the West Saxon Gospel of Mark. The fact that many distinguished schol- ars and critics had for above three hundred years so thoroughly scrutinized all the Anglo-Saxon Gospels, tended at first to de- preciate the significance of certain facts which, nevertheless, ultimately induced this inquiry into the authorship of the West Saxon Gospels. Professor Bright's remark that " There is no clue to the authorship of this version " (cf. Bright's Luke, p. xii), gave zest to the search ; but the warning contained in Professor Skeat's general statement that " Large theories are constantly being built up, like an inverted cone, upon very slender bases'' (cf. Skeat's Pref. to Jn., p. xi), chilled the first ardor of enthusi- asm. For the present it has been found impossible to prosecute the investigation in certain desirable lines on account of the lack of trustworthy and time-saving aids beyond a few good texts. Let me not seem, however, to depreciate unduly the zealous labors of great scholars and their valued contributions to the science of Anglo-Saxon philology. There are most estimable works in this department of learning, but the science is still in its infancy, and its critical apparatus must not be judged by the same standards that we are accustomed to apply in testing the merit of contributions to classical philology ; and yet, while we thus excuse the weakness of a science by pleading its tender age, the lack of strength is none the less felt. Let this be illustrated by a particular example. No work is more l8 THE AUTHORSHIP OF able to bear up under just criticism than Sievers's Grammar of Old English, so ably translated and edited by our fellow countryman, Professor Albert S. Cook, of Yale University. This work is justly held in the highest esteem by all Anglo-Saxon scholars ; and yet, in the present investigation, it has happened to fail at the point where most needed, namely, dialectic forms. In proof of this, one citation will suffice. In Cook's Sievers, paragraph 390, Note 2, it is stated: "Instead of no'm, ndmon LWS. also has tiam, ndmon." Now, the fact is that [-)nam, (-)na»wn is doubly more frequent than {-)no?n, {-)nomon in the very works which in Cook's Sievers (pp. 244, 245) are said to " take precedence of all others . . . among the ancient speci- mens of West Saxon.", Thus {-)nam, {-)namon is found in Sw. Alf. C. P., pp. 161: 7; 259: 8; 415: 17; 425: 3; and in Sw. Alf. Oros., pp. 34: 2; 42: 10 ; 44: 27, 32; 46: 7; 64: 10; 66: 21; 86: 30 (see text); 88:7194:4,7; 106:22; 154:15; 158:4; 200:8; 210: 9; 228: 25; while {-)nom, {■)}ioinon occurs in Sw. Alf. C. P., p. 37: 5; and in Sw. Alf. Oros., pp. 42: 29; 50: 7; 148: 18; 166: 27; 218: 30; 230: 28; 252: 10; 280: 26, 27. It is probable that occurrences of each of these forms have been over- looked in making this record, yet the record has been impartially made. But it has been possible to arrive at certain important con- clusions in this inquiry into the authorship of the West Saxon Gospels by the study of good texts alone. These conclusions are (mainly), that the authorship is at least dual, and probably triple; more explicitly, that the Matthew is by one translator, the Mark and Luke by another, and the John by a third (unless possibly by the translator of the Matthew); that the translator of the Matthew and the translator of the John were probably locally akin, possibly translating conjointly; and that the translator of the Mark and Luke was probably distant from the locality where the Matthew and the John were translated, though Dr. Murray has pointed out that inmates of the same monastery mayexhibit great linguistic differences byreason of their"different nativity." Before presenting the evidence on which these conclusions THE WEST SAXON GOSPELS. I9 have been based, attention should be called to the kinds of data to be used or refused in an inquiry like the present. First of all, no great importance should be attached in general to those features of the text that were possibly intro- duced by scribes. We have seen that the number of scribes en- gaged in writing a single MS. is mostly determinable by the handwritings ; and that in the copies made from this, the evi- dence of its composite workmanship vanishes. We do not know, for example, whether one or a dozen scribes wrote the MS. from which our oldest MSS. of the West Saxon Gospels are supposed to have been copied. We have seen, furthermore, that scribes often silently copy "restorations" made by their predecessors, and that they themselves often make "restorations" without taking the trouble to notify their readers. We have seen also that in copy- ing a MS., inmates of the same monastery may exhibit very noticeable linguistic differences by reason of their " different na- tivity." In the case of the Bodley, Royal, and Hatton MSS., which are transcriptions one of another in the order named, we have seen that a scribe may copy a text more or less conform- ably to the language of his time (cf. Skeat's Pref. to Lk., p. viii). Imagine, then, what linguistic variations a single text may ex- hibit by reason of cooperative transcription, restorations, con- formations, etc.* Again, in collecting evidence as to authorship, it must be borne in mind that a translator, if a novice, may be expected to exhibit different grades of workmanship ; consequently his first efforts should not be cited to prove his last efforts spurious. For example, when the translation of the Lord's Prayer in *The hints thus accidentally given by the MSS. of the Anglo-Saxon Gospels are of manifold importance. They teach especially that those who pass judg- ment as to the date of a MS. should render a decision only after the most careful and exhaustive investigation. It would be well, too, if the data on which such decisions are based, were fully tabulated for the benefit of all concerned. This is a most vital matter ; for when the date of a MS. is supposed to be correctly settled, its dialectal forms, etc., are used in determining the dates of other MSS. Grammars and dictionaries are then founded upon these, and thus not infre- quently " a little leaven leaveneth the whole lump." 20 THE AUTHORSHIP OF Matthew is contrasted with that in Luke and is seen to be mechanical, little can be inferred save that, as the translator ad- vances, he frees himself from the improper restraints of the original text.* We need not be surprised, then, that the translation of the latter half of the Matthew differs in many respects from that of the first half, which is particularly noticeable in the case of transitional particles. We may note also that the Latin scriba is translated by wi'itere the first two times (Mt. 2:4; 5; 20); there- after by bocere. The 'Lz.'ixw pharisaeixs translated by sundorhalgan until the fifteenth chapter is reached ; thereafter in Matthew it is directly transferred, except in Mt. 27: 62. The Latin crux'iw the sense of burden is translated by cwylming in Mt. 10 : 38 ; Mk. 8: 34; Lk. 9: 23; 14: 27; but by rod in Mt. 16: 24, which is probably a mere slip. B. & T. does not note the use of rod in this sense. Again, the use of similar expressions in the translation of parallel passages may often be expected from translators of the Gospels even when the translators are remote from each other in time and place of translation. This is possible chiefly by reason of two things, the simplicity of the thought and the translators' probable previous familiarity in their vernacular with the main stories and memorable sayings of the Gospels, even though that vernacular translation were never committed to writing. The latter fact may be well illustrated by the West Saxon translation oibenedi\c\tus qui uenturus est, etc. (Mt. 21: 9): *The West Saxon translation of the Lord's Prayer in Matthew begins and ends uniquely — Feeder u re . .. so'Slice. Faider ure is paralleled in form byFseder minin /Elfric's half poetical ' ' Lives of Saints " (Sk. /Elf. I, p. 402 : 6). As to the ending, it may be said that the use of ^w^« to mark devotional termination occurs throughout the Blickling Homilies and the homilies of /Elfric. (See especially Th. MM. I, p. 76: 8, 25). /Elfric has left us a collection of eleven prayers in Anglo-Saxon (Th. yElf. II, pp. 596, iif.). The first three terminate with Sy hit szva ; the remaining eight with Amen. Surely, Amen thus used was as good Anglo-Saxon as it was good Greek or good Latin. The translator of the West Saxon Matthew had, however, possibly as much right to translate the word by so^lice as yElfric had by Sy hit s^ua. THE WEST SAXON GOSPELS, 21 Sygebletsod se^e com, etc. This faulty translation is doubt- less due to the fact that the tense of venit, the usual form of the verb in this saying, may have been misunderstood by the Anglo- Saxons; forthey seem regularly to have rendered it by com (see Mt. 23: 39 (Rush, avome); Mk. ii: 9; Lk. 13: 35; 19: 3^; J"- 12: 13; Th. ^If. I, pp. 60: 9; 214: 17). But perhaps the best way to show that different translators may often independently make use of the same words and phrases in translating the same passage of the Gospels is to compare passages m the West Saxon version with translations by Alfred, whom no one seems ever to have suspected of being the author of that version. There are numerous examples, but the following best illustrate the point: Alfred (Sw. C. P., p. 43: 19, 20): Fara« (and) cy'SaS minum bro«rum «aet hie cumen to Galileum; Saer hie me geseo«. Cp. MS., Mt. 28: id: fara-s (and) cyJ'a^ minum gebroJ'rum )>(9et) hig faron on galileam j^aer hig geseo)? me. Alfred (Sw. C. P., p. 329: 6, 7): Gewita« fro(m) me, awiergde, on ece fyr, Sset waes gegearwod diofie (and) his englum. Cp. MS., Mt. 25: 41: Gewita'5 awyrgyde fram me on |,(set) ece fyr. t>e ys deofle (and) hys englum gegearwud. Alfred (Sw. C. P., p. 218: 24): On eo[w]rum ge«ylde ge gehealdas eowra saula. Cp. MS., Lk. 21: 19: On eowru(m) gel'ylde ge gehealdatS eowre sawla. The work of Alfred's here drawn from had such a wide cir- culation that it may have affected the diction of our West Saxon version of the Gospels The Blickling Homilies probably exer- cised little or no effect; and yet the similarity in the language of parallel passages is no less. Blick. Homl., p. 169: 8-10: Ge nseddrena cynn, hwylc geteowde eow to fleonne fram -Son toweardan Codes erre ? Cp. MS., Mt. 3: 7: La n?eddrena cyn. hwa geswutelode eow to fleonne fra(m) I'an toweardan yrre: progenies uiperarum quis demonstrauit nobis fugere a futura ira ? Cp. MS., Lk. 3:7: eala nseddrena cynn hwa ?et-ywde eow l,(get) ge fleon fra(m) ),am towerdan yrre: genimina uiperaru(m) quis ostendit nobis fugire a uentura ira ? 22 THE AUTHORSHIP OF From these comparisons it will be manifest that likeness in the translations of an ordinary passage of the Gospels does not necessarily indicate a common translator. On the other hand, a single translator may make different renderings of the same passage ^Ifric well illustrates this: Grein's ^If., Gen. 3: 5: Ac god vat so'Slice, j^at eovre eagan bee's geopenode on sva hvilcum dage, sva ge eta« of j>am treove, and ge beos t>onne englum gelice vitende eeg'Ser ge god ge yfel. Th. ALU. I, p. 18: 2, ff.: ac God wat genoh geare, gif ge of ■Sam treowe geeta-S, j)unne beoS eowere eagan geopenode, and ge magon geseon and tocnawan aeg'Ser ge god ge yfel, and ge beos englum gelice. From all these considerations, it will be apparent that evi- dence as to authorship should be mainly founded, not upon features of the text that may be due to the nativity or caprice of scribes, to restorations and conformations, to the simplicity of the thought, or to the influence of previous translations; but upon characteristics, — characteristics which are deep-seated, and which run through the whole body of the text or the major por- tion of it. Most of the data presented as evidence in this paper will be seen individually to fulfill these requirements ; while, on the other hand, a few of the data must be taken conjointly in order to embrace the whole text and be of much significance. THE EVIDENCE OF COMPOSITE AUTHORSHIP. Although it is unnecessary to go beyond the text of the West Saxon version of the Gospels to prove indisputably its composite authorship, yet it has seemed advisable to cite for comparison works whose authorship is unquestionably single. Accordingly, where it has been found practicable and worth the labor involved, comparison of the Gospels in certain respects has been made with Alfred's Orosius and Cura Pastoralis, with the Blickling Homilies, with ^Ifric's Homilies, and the first half of his Lives of Saints, and with the portion of ^Ifric's works edited by Grein. The testimony of the Northumbrian and Old THE WEST SAXON GOSPELS. 2$ Mercian Gospels is sometimes to the point; and the fragments of the Gothic Gospels have been thought worthy of citation in one or two instances. It should be remarked that Morris's glossary to the Blickling Homilies though probably accurate is incomplete. For example, the occurrence of heofenutn on p. 125: 29, and of heofenas on p. 139: 2, we do not find recorded in the glossary. Statements in this paper as to the non- occurrence of words in the Blickling Homilies are based upon personal reading, and not upon that glossary. The glossary, however, has been used as a check. We shall now present the data of evidence as to the com- posite authorship of the West Saxon version of the Gospels, not in the order of discovery, but in the order which for various reasons seems best suited to the case. Peculiarities regarding the word heofon, however, were among the first to attract atten- tion, and will be the first presented. i. HEGFON, HEOFONE. This word has proved doubly useful in the present inquiry. It has been found peculiar in one respect in Matthew, and in another respect in John, thus dividing the Gospels into three distinct groups: Matthew — Mark and Luke — John. The pecu- liarity in Matthew is the occurrence of both the weak and the strong forms. There are 18 instances of the weak forms of heofon scattered throughout this Gospel, while neither in Mark and Luke nor in John is a single occurrence of a weak form to be found.* If we turn to the Orosius and the Cura Pastoralis, we find no weak form of heofon. The word itself, however, is in these works infrequently met with. In the Blickling Homilies the strong forms are of very frequent occurrence, while no instance of a weak form is to be noted. ^Ifric uses both the strong and the weak forms side by side, and everywhere so frequently that citations need not be made. *It should be observed that seo heofon occurs in Lk. 4: 25; but " In L W S. seo is used for se" (Cook's Sievers, par. 337, Note 2). In the Blickling Homilies, seo heofon and se heofon occur on the same page (p. 93: 4, 22). 24 THE AUTHORSHIP OF John is separated from the other Gospels by the fact that in this Gospel heofon is at variance with the Latin original as to number, 15 out of 19 times. In the other Gospels great care was apparently taken to have the number of heofon in agreement with the number of caelum; and only 11 out of 133 occurrences show disagreement. In the following list of the occurrences of heofon or caelum, w denotes weak; up or pa means singular for plural or vice versa; and [ ] or ( ) means that the word caelum or heofon is wanting : Singular Matthew Mark AND Luke John 5: 18, 34 4: 32 2: 15 3: 31 6: loW, 261W 6: 41 3: 21, 22 6: 31. 33 8: 20-W 7: 34 4: 25 12: 28 11: 23, 25 8: II 8:5 13: 32W 11: 30> 31 9: 16, 54, 58 14: 19 13: 25! 27 10: 15, 18, 21 16: I, 2, (3). 3 13: 3I) 32 11: [2], [2] 21: 25 14: 62 11: 13, 16 22: 30 13: 19 23: 22W 15: 7. 21 24: 2g'«r, 2Q sp. , w 16: 17 24: 30W, 30W, 35W 17: 24, 24, 29 26: 64 18: 13, 22 28: 2-W, l8\W 20: 4, 5 21: II, 268P 21: 33 22:43 24:51 6: [35] 12:56 Plural Matthew Mark and Luke 3: 2, 16, 17 i: 10, II, [15] 6: 23P8 4: 17 10: [14], 2ips 10: 20 5: 3, IOl»f, 12 11: 25, (26) 12: 33 5: 16, 19W, igwr 12: 25 15: i8ps S: 20W, 45 13: 25 ly: 38ps 6: I, 9, lops 16: 19PS 7: II, 21, 21, 21 4: [30] 8: II 10: 7. 32, 33 11: II, 12 12: 50W 13: II, 24, 31, 33, 44 13: 45, 47, 52VV 16: 17, 19, 19, 19 18: I, 3, 4, (10), (10) 18: 14, i8ps, iSps, 19, 23 19: 12, 14, 21, (23), 24 20: i; 21: 25P8 22: 2; 23: 9, 13 24: 31, (36) 25: I John 1: 32PS, sips 3: I3PS, 13P8 3: 13PS, 27p» 6: 32P8, 32P8 6: 38ps, 4ipw 6: 42PS, sops 6: 51 p», sSps 17: ips THE WEST SAXON GOSPELS. 25 These irregularities might be lamely explained by supposing interruptions and long delays in the work of translating; but as new data are introduced, this supposition will be seen to be wholly worthless. Moreover, in this particular case, it may be said that the weak form of heofori should be least expected to be found in Matthew, which we have seen to be the work of a novice in Gospel translation; for, from what we are able to ascertain at present, we judge that the weak form of heofon\^\^\.t^ and there- fore to be looked for in an author's later rather than in his earlier compositions if to be looked for only in one of these divisions. As to the discrepancies in number between heofon in the translation and calmn in the original, it is difficult to imag- ine how a translator could be so exact 122 out of 133 opportu- nities and then negligent 15 out of 19 times. Moreover, it will be observed that in John the plural is used for the singular 15 out of 19 times (the Latin being always singular in John), This might be explained by supposing that the translator had become accustomed to writing the plural in Luke; but in Luke heofon is put in the plural only 5 times, while it is in the singular 33 times. ii. UNDERFON, ONFON. The occurrences of these synonymous words divide the Gospels again into the three groups — Matthew — Mark and Luke — John. Matthew has both words, but onfon occurs the more fre- quently ; Mark and Luke have only onfonj and John again has both words, but under/on occurs 22 times while onfoji is found only three times. Here, again, we find our known authors uniform respecting the employment of underfon and onfon. \\\ the Blickling Homi- lies underfon is not to be found, while the occurrence of onfon is very frequent (Morris records 65 occurrences). ^Ifric uses underfon almost to the exclusion of onfon. A moderately careful record, based upon personal reading, shows that onfoti occurs 30 times in ^Ifric's Homilies, 7 times in vol. I of his Lives of Saints, and 5 times in the volume by Grein. Alfred uses under- fon and onfon interchangeably, and with about equal frequency. 26 THE AUTHORSHIP OF The following citations from the Cura Pastoralis will show that Alfred regarded the words as synonymous : underfon onfon 75: 20 suscipio ] p. 267: \-i, percipio p. 81: 19 accipio ; p. 293: 25 recipio 105: 24 " 288: 5 " 85: 21 recipio 345: ■21 percipio 193: 6 accipto 293: 3 suscipio 91: 20 suscipio 371: 21 accipio 197: 25 concipio 301: 25 decipio 97: 2 concipio 377: 12 percipio 253: 4 recipio 335: 14 accipio 121: 10 suscipio 381: 5 recipio 255: 12 367: 10, II, 17 concipio 139: 9 391' ■ 15, 15 ". . 263: 21 accipio 369: 7 accipio 145: 18 accipio 399: 30 suscipio 267: 3 409: 18, 22 capio 203: 12 suscipio 429: 12 percipio In the West Saxon Gospels the record is strangely as follows : Matthew underfon 10: 14 recipio 10: 40, 40 " 10: 40, 40 " 10: 41, 41 " 19: II capio 25: 16, 17, 18 accipio 25: 20, 22, 24 " 27: 27 suscipio Mark and Luke underfon (not found) John underfon i: II, 12 recipio 3; II, 27 accipio 3: 321 33 " 4: 45 excipio 5: 41, 43 accipio 5: 43, 44 ;; 7: 39 12: 48 13: 20, 20 " 13: 20, 20 " 14: 17 •' 16: 24 " . 17:8 18:3 20" 22 " Matthew onfon i: 2o, 24 accipio 2: 21 " 6: 2, 5, 16 recipio 7: 8 accipio 8:17 10: 8, 41, 41 " 13: 20, 33 " 18: 5, 5 suscipio 19: 29 accipio 20: 9, 10, 10 " 21:34 25: 34 possideo 26: 26 accipio 27- 6, 9 28: 15 Mark and Luke onfo onfon John onfon 4: 16 accipio 2: 26, 28 accipio i: 16 accipio 4: 20 suscipio 6: 34 5- 34 " 4: 36 ad-^iimo 6: 34 recipio 19: 30 " 6: 41 accipio 8:13 susciijio 9: 37, 37 recipio 8: 40 excipio 9- 37, 37 suscipio 9: 5 recipio 10: 15 recipio 9: II excipio 10: 30 accipio 9: 48 suscipio 11: 24 " 9: 48, 48 recipio 12: 2, 40 " 9: 48, 53 ti 14: 23 10: 8 suscipio 15: 23 10: 10 recipio 10: 38 excijno 11: 10 accipio 13: 19, 21 (i 15: 2, 27 recipio 16: 4, 9 ^^ 16:25, 2S( sc.) " 18: 17 accipio 18: 30 recipio 19: 6 excipio 19: 12, IS accipio 19: 23 exiffo 20:47 accipio 22: 17, 17, 19 " 23: 41 recipio 24:30 accipio THE WEST SAXON GOSPELS. 27 Comment can add but little force to the testimony of the words heofon, on/on and under/on. Especially does the almost exclusive use of under/on in John separate that Gospel not only from Mark and Luke, but also from Matthew. The entire ab- sence of under/on in Mark and Luke gives moral certainty that they are not by the translator of John. It is perhaps more re- markable than noteworthy that the beginning and end (which Professor Skeat has quoted) of the homily inserted between Mark and Luke in the Corpus MS. reveal the alien character of the homily by the use of the weak form of heofon and by the use of underfon twice: M(en) j>a l(eofestan). Her on gin's )'(ae t) halie g(e)writ j) e co(m) fra(m) heofe- nan into hierusale(m) ...and se be underfeh'S witigan on t>8es witigan naman he underfehis bses witigan mede (cf. Skeat's Pref. to Mk., p. v). * * The Rush worth Gospels do not contain underfon ; but the Lindisfarne Jn. 4: 45 has underfengon added after ge no mun in glossing excepertmt. iii. f)^T HE WOLDE, ETC. In direct confirmation of the testimony of heofon^ underfon and onfon^ is the use of willan (occasional in Matthew, wanting in Mark and Luke, but frequent in John) after the final conjunc- tion i> se t in translating Latin infinitives of purpose, and sub- junctives after final ut, when the leading verb is in an historical tense. There is probably not a sample of this use of willan in the works of Alfred and ^Ifric which are quoted in this paper ; though final clauses depending on a past tense are especially frequent in the Orosius. *Magan*/notan and sculan, however, are at times introduced into such clauses, while sculan and willan are freely used to translate the Latin future. In the quotations given below, the passages from Jn. 4: 7, 8 are introduced, though they are not exact specimens of the point in illustration; but they are unparalleled in the other Gos- pels and show the translator's perplexity in trying to bring out most clearly the full meaning of the Latin final infinitive. Mt. 22: 11: Da code se cyning in t>(set) he wolde geseon; in- trauit autem rex ut uideret. 28 THE AUTHORSHIP OF Mt. 28: i: com seo magdalenisce maria (and) sec o^er maria ^(aet) hig ivoldon geseon j>a byrgene: ueiiit maria magdalense et altera maria uidere sepulchrum. Mk. 16: i: [hi] bohton wyrt-gemang h(3et) hi comon (and) hine smyredon: emerunt aromata ut unientes ungerent eum. Jn. 4: 7: j^a com j^aer an wif of samaria xvolde wseter feccan: uenit muiier de samaria haurire aquam. Jn. 4: 8: His leorning-cnihtas ferdon \>z. to hsere ceastre woldon hi(m) mete bicgan: discipuli enim eius abierant in ciuitate(m) ut cibos emerent. Jn. 11: 19: Manega . . . comon . . . )'(get) hXg woldon hi frefrian: multi . . . uenerant . . . ut consolarentur eas. Jn. 11: 55: manega foron . . . \>{^t) hig woldon hig sylfe gehalgian: ascenderunt multi . . . ut sanctificarent se ipsos. Jn. 12: 9: hig comon . . . J>(set) hig 7w/^e foron \>{^\.) hig woldon hi gebiddan: qui ascen- derant ut adorarent. Blick. Homl., p. 2)y- 12, 13: Nis ^(ast) to wundrigenne Kah )>tt he wsere costod, se to ^on com ^(set) he acweald beon zvolde. Mt. 22: 15: Da ongunnon I'a pharisei raedan l'(^t) \\\g woldon >one hselend on hys spraece befon: Tunc abeuntes pharisaei con- silium inierunt ut caperent eum in sermone. Mt. 26: 4: (and) hig hasfdon mycel ge-mot J'(set) hig woldon )>one hselend mid (MS. mit) facne besyrwan (and) ofslean : et consilium fecerunt ut i(esu)m dolo tenerent et occiderent. Mk. 14: i: )ja sohton \>a. heah-sacerdas (and) J>a boceras hu hi hine mid facne namon (and) of-slogon: Et quaerebant summi sacerdotes et scribae quomodo eum dolo tenerent et occiderent. Lk. 22: 2: (and) l^ara sacerda ealdras (and) ha boceras smeadon hu hig hine forspildon: Et quaerebant principes sacer- dotu(m) et scribae quomodo eum interficerent. Mt. 26: 16: he smeade geornlice ^(set) he hyne «/^/^^belaewan: quaerebat oportunitatem ut eum traderet. Mt. 27: 7: Hig worhton l^a gemot (and) smeadon hu hig sceoldon I'aes hselendes wur'5 ateon: consilio autem inito. THE WEST SAXON GOSPELS. 2^ Mk. 3: 6: fa pharisei . . . Jjeahtedonongen hine. hu hi hine fordon mihton: pharisaei . . . consilium faciebant aduersus eum quomodo eum perderent. Lk. 19: 47: [hi] smeadon hu hig hine iordow mihton* : quae- rebant ilium perdere. Mk. 14: 11: he smeade he hu hine digellice sealde: querebat quomodo ilium oportune traderet. Lk. 22: 6: he sohte hu he ea^elicust hine . . . gesealde: quaerebat oportunitatem ut traderet ilium. Jn. 10:39: Hig smeadon witodlice embe \>{-s^t) \\\g woldon hine gefon: Quaerebant ergo eum perdere. Jn. 11:8: nu t>a iudeas sohton '5e t)(£et)hig ivoldon )>e hsenan: nunc quaerebant te lapidare iudaei. Jn. 11: 53: hig Ijohton >(£et) hi woldon hyne ofslean: cogi- tauerunt ut interficerent eum. Jn. 12: 10: [hi] Sohton h(aet) hig 7voldo7i lazaru(m) ofslean: cogitauerunt . . . ut et lazarum interficerent. Blick. Homl, p. 77: 7, 8: Pa ealdormen I'ara sacerda J'ohtan ^(aet) hie woldan Lazarum ofslean. Jn. 7: 32: Da ealdras (and) "Sa pharisei sendon hyra j>enas J5(8et) hig woldon hine gefon: Et miserunt principes et pharisaei ministros ut appraehenderunt eum. Mk. 12: 13: pa sendon hi to hi(m) sume . . . b(aet) hi be- fengon hine on his worde: Et mittunt ad eum quosdam . . . ut eum caperent in uerbo. Lk. 20: 20: Da sendun hig mid searwu(m) j^a ^e riht-wise leton t)(3et) hig hine gescyldgudun (and) }>(set) hig hine geseal- don: Et obseruantes miserunt insidiatores qui se iustos simu- larent ut caperent eum in sermone et traderent eum. Jn. 8: 59; hig namon stanas to l'a(m) J>(£et) hig woldon hyne torfian: tulerunt ergo lapides ut iacerent in eum. Jn. 10: 31: Da iudeas namon stanas )>(set) hig woldon hyne torfian: sustulerunt lapides iudaei ut lapidarent eum. *Note the common phraseolog^y of Mark and Luke. 30 THE AUTHORSHIP OP Jn. II : 51, 52: he witgode h(set) se hselend sceolde sweltan . . . t>(3et) he wolde gesomnian togaedere godes beam: prophe- tauit quia i(esu)s moriturus erat , . . ut filios d(e)i . . . congre- garet in unum. The following quotations are remotely akin to the preced- ing and are given for the sake of completeness: Mt. 25: 10: Witodlice ha hig ferdun (and) woldon bycgean: dum autem irent emere. (See Jn. 4: 7, 8, cited above; also Jn. 14: 2). Mt. 27: 15: Hig hsefdon heo(m) to ge-wunan to heora sym- bel-daege )'(set) se dema sceolde forgyfan ha(m) folce senne for- wyrhtne mann: Per diem autem sollemnem consueuerat praeses dimittere populo unum uinctum. Mk. 15: 6: On symmel-dsege wses his gewuna b(set) he hi(m) for-geafe aenne gebundenne: Per diem autem festum dimittere solebat illis unum ex uinctis. Jn. 4: 4: hi(m) g(e)byrode t>(aet) he sceolde faran: Oportebat autem eum transire. Jn. 5: 27: he . . . sealde hi(m) anweald t>(3et) he inoste deman: potestatem dedit ei et iudicium facere. Jn. 7:1: I'a iudeas hine sohton (and) woldon hyne ofslean: quaerebant eu(m) iudaei interficere. Jn. 9:39: Ic com on >ysne middan-eard to demenne {'(set) i>a sceolon geseon. J^e ne g(e)seo^: in iudicium ego in hunc mundum ueni ut qui non uident uideant. Jn. 11: 57; J>a bisceopas (and) ha pharisei hsefdon beboden gif hwa wiste hwar he ware )>(aet) he hyt cydde ^(aet) hig mihton hine niman: dederant autem pontifices et pharisaei mandatum ut si quis cognouerit ubi sit indicet ut appraehendant eum. Jn. 12:5: Hwi ne sealde heo j>as sealfe: . . . J»(set) man niihte syllan i^earfon: quare hoc ungentum non uenit . . . et datum est egenis ? (See Mt. 26: 8, 9; Mk. 14: 4, 5). Jn. 19: 38: iosep . . . bsed pilatus h(aet) He moste niman j>8es haslendes lichaman: rogauit pilatum ioseph . . . ut tolleret corpus i(es)u. THE WEST SAXON GOSPELS. 3I Jn. 20: 9: hit gebyrede j>(aet) he sceoldc fram deaSe arisan: oporteret eum a mortuis resurgere.* To appreciate fully this remarkable usage of wtllan, the reader should not only consider carefully the preceding quotations, but also read through Mark or Luke and then John. The method of expressing past purpose in John is so strongly contrasted with the method in Mark and Luke, that it seems impossible for anyone to read these Gospels consecutively or otherwise and fail to observe the contrast. IV. f) /E R A, JdARA, etc. Variation in the use of the forms )>8era, }>ara, \>d^r, har, hwser, hwar may be due to scribal caprice and indicate merely that some ancestral MS. was executed by several scribes; but the variation is uniform in the Corpus, Bodley, and Cotton MSS., tallying exactly with what we have already found separat- ing the Gospels into the groups — Matthew — Mark and Luke — John — and is, therefore, probably to be considered a dialectic variation, pointing to composite authorship. *If any one desires to examine all the cases where *magan, *motan, sculan, or willan is introduced into the West Saxon text without authority from the Latin original, let him consult the following references, in addition to what has been above quoted: Mt. 8: 25; II: 3; 12: 26; 13: 28; 16: 25; 18: 21; 20: 10; 24: 42, 43, 43, 44; 26: 5, 54, 60; 27; 49. Mk. 4: 13; 6: 23; 10: 15. Lk. 7: 19, 20; S: 27; 9: 53; 10: 24; 12: 39; 14: 19, 31, 32; 19: 4; 21: 14, 21; 23: 14; 24: 28. Jn. 4: 35; 6: 6, 15, 21,64; 7: 35, 35, 39; 8: 5; 10:32; 11: S, 11; 12:19, 33; 13: T, 6, II. 27; 14: 2, 22; 15: 4, 20; 17: 20; 19: 15; 21: 3, 3, 19, 21, 25. Mk. 10: 15; Lk. 21: 14, 21; 24: 28; etc., perhaps do not properly belong to this list. ^2 THE AUTHORSHIP OF Matthew Mark Gen. pi, of se Gen. pi. of )> ae r a J> a r a 2: 4 i: 44 3: 7. 7i 10 2: 26 5: 20, 28 6: 43,44 7: 8, 21, 24, 26 7: 27, 28 10: 2 12: 23, 43 13: i9i 49 !> ae r a 14: 20, 21 16:3,9,10, 14,21 11: 18 20: 18 21:845 22: 28 23: 30. 31 24: 8, 29 25: 19, 29 26: 3, 3, 14. 47 26: 51, 51, 56 26: 57, 58, 59, 60 26: 62, 63, 65 27: I, 3, 6, 12 27: 20, 41, 62 28: II > a r a 21: 12, 12, 15 21: 23, 31, 34 JOHN Jj a r a 1: ii 4, 71 3: 2 4: 26 5: 9 6: 47 10: 36 11: 4, 10 13: I 14:24 19: 47; 20: I, 19, 39 22: 2, 4, 50, 66 23: 10, 13 > ae r a 22: 54 Gen. pi. of se J>a r a )> ae r e 2: 15 6:45 3: 15, 20 )> ae r a 4:13, 6: 71 11: 19, 14 26, 45 7: 13, 48, 48 has re 12: 9, 10, 46 10: 32 13: 28 }> ae r a 15:2 12: 2, 42 20: 23 13: 23 18: 9, 12,22,37 19: 12, 20, 42 ^ as r e 19: 34, 38 J> £e r a 20: 19, 19, 23,25 t" ae re 20: 25 '• l>aera 21: 2, 6, II, 12 Matthew Mark and Luke Adverb Adverb Adverb John Adverb > se r h a r > a r )> a r )> ae r 2: 9, 13, 15 i: 35, 38 2:6 2: 12 1 : 24, 28 3:16 2: 4, 6 4: 16, 17, 31 3:8 2: I 4: 20 3: I, 31 5: 12, 29 5: 10 3: 22, 23 S: 23, 24, 37 4-- 5. 15 6: 12 6: 3, 12, 23, 24 4: 6, 7, 27, 40, 46 6; 19, 19, 20, 21, 21 5: II, 14, . 40 7: 12, 12, 49 7: 34, 36, 42, 42 J> ae r a 33 6: 5, 10, 46, 53, 55 8: 32, 33, 35, 56 8:9 4: 40 t> ae r 5: S. 6. 13 6; 10, 22, 62 8:9 7: 25, 25, 27 8:9 9: 4, 14, : 17 9: 13 8: 12, 26, 30, 32 9: 44, 46, 48 10: 6, 6 10: 40 10: II, 20 11: 2, 5, I 3, 13 11: 26 }> a r a 12: 10, 45, 46 13: 14 12: 34, 34 11: 15, 31 > a r 13: 2, 5, 42, 50, 58 14: 3, 47, 69 13: I, II, : 22, 1 28 14: 23, 23 t> a r a 14: 2 11: 54. 56 15: 29, 38 14: >5 \> ar 15: 13 11: 30, 32, 38, 39 12: 2, 9, 26, 26, 29 18: 20, 20 19: 2 17: 23 19: 3 12: I 13:30 18: I, 16 20: 10 15: 35. 39, 46 21: 21 17: 24 19: 18, 19, 20 21: 33 16:7 t> ae r 22: II, 55 18: 20, 22 20: 12, 19 22: II, II, 13 b a r a 19: 34, 41, 41, 42 21: 9, 18 24: 23, 51 13: 21 22: 12 20: II 21: 8, 12 25: 24, 24, 26, 26: 7, 57, 71, ; 26, 30 16: 6 > a r '3 27: 35. 47, 48 23: 33. 47 27: 51, 54, 55, 61 24: 12, 14 28: 2, 2, 7, 10, 11, 16, 17 13: 25 )> a r 18:37 6: 20 22: 49 21: 9, 9, 17 Matthew Mark and Luke Adverb Adverb Adverb h w ae r h w a r h w a r 2; 2, 4 6:56 8: 25 8: 20 14: 9, 14, 14 9: 6, 58 24: 28 15: 47 17: 37. 37 26: 13, 17 16: 20 22: 9, II h w a r h w se r h w 36 r 15:33 9: 18 17: 17 the west saxon gospels. 33 John Adverb Adverb hwar hwasr i: 38, 39 6: 5 7: II 8: 10 8: 19 9: 12 ": 34. 57 20: 2, 13, 14, 15 Under the supposition that the authorship of these Gos- pels is composite, the seemingly inexplicable irregularity in the use of the forms t)3er a, J'ar a, etc., becomes a perfect harmony and a convincing testimony, disturbed only by the six occurrences of )>ara as a gen. pi. and the twe occurrences of the adverbial form J^ar in Mt. 21, which ought perhaps to be regarded as indicating merely the presence of a " different and conforming hand" in an ancestral MS. The five distributed occurrences of t^aere as a gen. pi. in John are full of significance. They especially point out the probable accuracy of the Corpus scribe in comparison with the scribes of the Bodley, Cotton, and Cambridge MSS. The read- ings of these MSS. are : Corpus MS. Jn. 6: 45-536 re; Bodley, Cambridge, }> sera; Cotton, ■« se r a. io:32)>aere; Bodley, Cotton, ^ae re; Cambridge, h ae r a. 19: 34 l^aere; Bodley, Cambridge, t>sera; Cotton, . 19: 38 > ae r e ; Bodley, }> ae r e ; Cambridge, i> ae r a ; Cot- ton, . 20: 25«aere; Bodley, ; Cambridge, «aere ; Cotton, Jjaer a. The appearance of the rare adverbial form j>a ra in Mk. 14: 15 and Lk. 22: 12 is noteworthy. The form is possibly more emphatic than bar. Professor Bright in his edition of Luke has substituted J>ar for ),ara in Lk. 22: 12. The passage is par- allel with the passage in Mark containing }> a r a as an adverb. All the MSS. have ),ara in both passages, excepting that the Hatton MS. has j^are in Mk. 14: 15. Elsewhere in Mark and Luke the form used is l^ a r. In view of all these facts, ought not the employment of t* a r a instead of >ar in these two parallel 34 THE AUTHORSHIP OF passages to be regarded as intentional ? To whatever cause these two occurrences may be due, they link the two texts at these two points inseparably together.* V. WITODLICE. The Northumbrian and Old Mercian Gospels, the West Saxon Matthew and John, and ^Elfric's translations from the Old Testament, consulted in any portion, will show that w i t o d 1 i c e and s o "SI i c e had little if any difference in meaning in the minds of the translators. In the West Saxon Mark and Luke, however, a distinction seems evidently to have been made. All the occurrences of wi tod lice and so^lice in the West Saxon Gospels have been carefully collected, and the Latin original has in each case been noted for use in this investigation; but the records are too bulky to be printed in full. The point most deserving of attention is the use of w i t o d 1 i c e interchange- ably with so 'Slice as a translation of autem. This is frequent in Matthew and John, but occurs only once in Mark and once in Luke. Matthew Mark Luke John Witodlice Witoddce Witodlice Witodlice =autem =^autem ^autem =autem i: 21 13: 31 5: 15 3: 21 3: 4 4: 39 8: 10, 12, 33 8: 35. 45, 5° 9: i6 ii: I 14: 24 i6: 7 15:38 17: 20, 25 16: 3. 13 18: 2, 14, 18, 36, 40 19: 23 19: 9, 19, 38, 41 21: 8, 13, 15, 32, 38 20: I, 4, II. 24, 31 22: 14, 25 21: 4, 18, 19, 25 23: 12 24: 13. 37 25: 6, 10, 18, 31 26: 5, 26, 29, 32, 59 27: i» 39i 45. 54i 55,62 28: 4, 17 It should be remarked that the usage in Matthew respect- ing witodlice and s o 5 1 i c e as equivalents of autem is ex- *Here we would call attention to the possible advantage of permitting a well-supported text to remain unchanged. There is no telling what use a bright- eyed pupil may some day make of an unusual reading. Hence it is best to let an odd reading remain in the text where it will be likely to be observed. THE WEST SAXON GOSPELS. 35 tremely variable. In the first half of that Gospel the use of soslice is excessive, particularly from the fifth to the thir- teenth chapter inclusive. The irregularity, as we have before intimated, probably indicates only the natural change in the translator as he becomes familiar with his task. vi. H A N A, c o c c. If the history of these words on English soil could be ascer- tained, it would probably be found to reveal a long contest be- tween them whereby hana was ultimately driven from the realm. The scanty traces of the history that we do possess indicate that hana did not surrender all the territory at once, and probably the two contestants occupied some localities for a time in common. The Gothic Gospels, the Northumbrian Gospels and the Old Mercian Matthew have hana only. In Sweet's glossary to his " Oldest English Texts" (p. 465), -hana in composition is cited 8 times; while cocc is not cited at all. ^Ifric uses hana in relating Peter's denial (Th. ^If. II, pp. 246: 4; 248: ■^■^. Alfred has cocc in two passages of serious discourse (Sw. Alf. C. P., pp. 459: 29, 31, 32; 461: I, 12). When we turn to the West Saxon Gospels, we find the two words grouping the Gospels just as, at this stage of our inquiry, might be expected: Matthew Mark and Luke John 26: 34 cocc 14: 30, 68 hana 22: 34 hana 13: 38 cocc 26: 74, 75 " 14: 72, 72 " 22: 60, 61 " 18: 27 " This remarkable variation in the translation of the Latin gallus presumably indicates that the time or place of the transla- tion of the Matthew and the John was not the same as that of the Mark and Luke.* Professor Skeat has noted that the Hatton MS. has coc for hana in Lk. 22: 60. The fact, however, is that the Hatton MS. does not use hana at all, thus indicating that hana had become obsolete, or had never existed, in the scribe's vocabulary. *The occurrence of hancred m Mt. 14: 25 doubtless indicates a survival in composition of an obsolete or obsolescent word, just as does our use of poll-tax, poll-evil, spider-wort, etc. 36 THE AUTHORSHIP OF Vii. STRIDOR DENTIUM. This phrase occurs six times in the Latin of Matthew and once in Luke. As usual, the translation in Luke differs from that in Matthew: Matthew Luke 8:12 to)>a gristbitung. 13:28 toha gryst-lung. 13:42, 50 " 22: 13 " " 24: 51 25: 30 viii, F U L G O R. The translation of this word is worthy of attention, — as the word used in Luke {lig-rcBsc) is not the usual West Saxon term for lightning. In Matthew ligyt is used, and it is employed exclus- ively by ^Ifric in the works cited in this paper (Th. yElf. I, pp. 222:31,32; 504:30; II, pp. 184: 5; 196:24; 202:22,27; Sk. J&\i. I, p. 114: 22; Grein's ^If,, Ex. 9: 23; 19: 16; Deut, 32: 41; Job, p. 265: i). Matthew Luke 24: 27 hgyt 10: 18 lig-rcesc 28: 3 " 11:36 " 17: 24 " ix. C EN T U RI O, The rendering of this word separates Matthew from Mark and Luke. Matthew. Mark and Luke. 8: 5, 8, 13 hundredes ealdor 15: 39, 44 hundred-tnan 7: 2, 6 hundred-man 27 : S4 (Ceniort) " " 23:47 Hundredes ealdor occurs in Th. ^If. I, pp. 126: 5, 8, 21, 23; 128: 19, 20, 30; 132: 31; 134: i; II, pp. 258: 7, 33; 418: 33; Sk. ^If. I, p. 226: 26; 484: 34; 486: I. In three particular in- stances, however, (Grein's ^If., Ex. 18: 21, 25; Deut. i: 15), hundredmaii is used instead of hundredes ealdor, doubtless on account of the influence of other words in the context (see pas- sages cited). This slight irregularity in ^Ifric's usage does not explain the case in the Gospels. The passages in Matthew THE WEST SAXON GOSPELS. 37 are widely separated, and so likewise are those in Luke. The repe- tition in Mt. 27: 54 of hundredes ealdor from the eighth chapter would lead us to expect the same phrase in Mark and Luke if the translator were the same. X. vox C L A M A N T I S. This phrase seems to have troubled translators. The best MSS. of ^Ifric have Clypiende stemn (Sk. ^If. I, p. 332: 27). A scribe might easily corrupt the true rendering dypiendes stemn into clypiende stefnn. The corpus scribe ^Ifric, however, favored the present inquiry and confirmed his good reputation for accur- acy when he wrote: Matthew Mark and Luke John 3 : 3 Clypiendes stefn i : 3 clypiende stefn 3 : 4 Clypiende stefen 1:23 dypiendes stefn xi. UPPAN (on-uppan). The use of uppan in Mt. 24: 2, 3, for which Mark and Luke in the parallel passages (Mk. 13: 2, 3 ; Lk. 19: 44; 21: 6) have ofer or on, confirmed my conviction that the subject of the author- ship of these Gospels was worthy of an investigation. Search revealed the significant fact that Matthew has uppan {on-uppan^ 15 times and John 6 times, where Mark and Luke, if represented, regularly have ofer or on (once on-ufan). In these cases the original force of upp- is lost; and the compound expresses simply super-position Hence i^a astigon hig uppan hsene hrof (Lk. 5: 19) and he,..stah up on an treow (Lk. 19: 4) cannot be cited as parallels to the citations from Matthew and John. The word {a)stigan is very frequently accompanied with a distinguishing adverb to define the direction: n e s t i h "5 he nySer (Lk. 17: 31). Furthermore, {a)stigan up{p) is very fre- quent, and often followed by to (see Th. ^If. I, pp. 22: 20; 182: 29; II, pp. 16: 31; 196: 32; 384: 32; 596: 14, etc., etc.). Yet the upi^p') and the to are always written separately, as should be the «/(/) and the an {on) when the up{p) has its original force, as in the cases just cited from Luke. While the reader is examining the following quotations, he would do well to consult the Northumbrian and Old Mercian .59M2 38 THE AUTHORSHIP OF Gospels, which are in remarkable harmony with the West Saxon of Mark and Luke : Mt. 5: 14: seo ceaster . . . \>e byS uppan miint aset: ciuitas . . . supra monte posita, Mt. 9: 18: sete bine hand uppan hig: impone manu(m) super cam. Mt. 10: 27: b(aet) ge on eare gehyra'S bodiab z/Z/a// hrofu(m): quod in aure auditis praedicate sup(er) tecta Lk. 12:3: baet ge on earum spr8ecu(n) . . . bi'5 on hrofum bodud: quod in aurem locuti estis . . . praedicabitur in tectis. Mt. 21:5: bin cyning . . . rit tippan tamre assene: rex tuus . . . sedens super asina(m). Mk. 11:2: ofer baene nan man gyt ne saet: super quem nemo athuc hominum sedit. Lk. 19: 30: on ba(m) nan man gyt ne saet : cui nemo um- quam hominum sedit. Jn. 12: 14: se haelend . . . rad on-uppan \^2i{m): i(esu)s , . . sedit super eum. Jn. 12: 15: bin cing cymb uppan assan folan sittende : rex tuus uenit sedens super pullum asine. Mt. 21:7: [hi] ledon hyra reaf uppan hig. (and) setton hyne an-uppan : inposuerunt super eis uestimenta sua et eum desuper sedere fecerunt. Mk. 11:7: hi hyra reaf on a-ledon (and) he on saet: inponunt illi uestimenta sua et sedit super eum. Lk. 19: 35: hig . . . hyra reaf wurpon ofer baene folan. (and) baene haelend on-ufan setton : iactantes uestimenta sua supra pullum inposuerunt i(esu)m. Mt, 21: 44: sebe fylb uppan bysne stan : qui ceciderit super lapidem istum. Lk. 20: 18: be fylb ofer baene stan: qui ceciderit supra ilium lapide(m). Mt. 21 : 44: Se he onuppa7i fylS: super quem . . . ceciderit. Lk. 20: 18: ^/^r baene be he fyl"5: supra quem autem cecid- erit. Mt. 23: 4: Hig . . . lecgeats j>a uppan manna exla: inponunt in umeros hominum. THE WEST SAXON GOSPELS. 39 Mt. 24: 2: ne bi'5 her Isfed stan uppan stane: non relinquetur hic lapis super lapidem. Mk. 13: 2: ne bi15 her iDsfed stan ofer stan: non relinquetur lapis super lapidem. Lk. 19: 44: hig ne 1 sera's on }>e stan ^/ifr stane: nonrelinquent in te lapidem super lapide(m). Lk. 21 : 6: ne bi'S stan Itefed ofer stan: non relinquetur lapis super lapidem. Mt. 24: 3: he sset uppan oliuetes dune : Sedente . . . eo sup(er) montem oliueti. Mk. 13: 3: hi sseton on oliuetes dune: sederet in monte(m) oliuarum. Mt. 24: 17: set-e ys uppan hys huse: qui in tecto. Mk. 13: 15: se «e is ofer I'ecene: qui super tec[t]um. Lk. 17: 31: se ^e bi^ on hecene: qui fuerint in tecto. Mt. 26: 7: seo . . . ageat uppan hys heafud : effudit super caput ipsius. Mk. 14: 3: an wif . . . ofer his heafod aget: mulier . . .ef- fudit super caput eius. Mt. 26: 30: \>2i ferdon hig uppan oliuetes dune: exierunt in montem oliueti. Mk. 14: 26: hi ferdon on ele-bergena munt : exierunt in montem oliuarum. Lk. 22: 39: he ut-eode on J^aene munt oliuarum b(3et) ys ele- bergena: egressus ibat ... in montem oliuarum. Jn. 6: 15: ha fleah he ana uppon J^one munt: Fugit iterum in monte ipse solus. Mt. 28: 2: drihtenes engel . . . awylte I'one stan (and) saet }>aer on-uppan: angelus . . . d(omi)ni . . . reuoluit lapidem et sedebat super eum. Jn. 11: 38: I'ar Wces an stan on-uppan g(e)led: lapis super- positus erat ei. Jn. 6: 19: \>di gesawon hig j^one haelend uppan bsere sae gan: uident i(esu)m ambulante(m) super mare. Jn. 20: 7: J'(set) swat-lin >e waes uppan his heafde: sudarium quod fuerat supra capud eius. It should be remarked that Matthew and John have also 40 THE AUTHORSHIP OF ofer and on j but the introduction of uppan {on-uppan) as synony- mous with on and ofer marks a fundamental difference in the vocabularies of Matthew and John as contrasted with Mark and Luke. The difference is doubtless due to locality rather than to time; for Alfred (sparingly) and ^Ifric (profusely) use uppan {on-uppati) in the sense of on or ofer (see especially Sw. Alf. C. P., pp. 397: 34; 399: 2, 4, 6, 10, consulting the Latin original ; and see ^Ifric passim, but particularly Grein's -^If., Gen. 50: 1 ; Ex. 4: 9). The " restoration " of the last seven verses of Mark in the Royal MS. betrays its spurious character by the introduction of uppen (Mk. 16: 18) in place of ofer in the Corpus MS.* xii. TRADO: BEL^EWAN, (ge)sYLLAN. If the proof of the composite authorship of the West Saxon Gospels depended solely upon the evidence of the varying trans- lation of trado, the proof would still be amply sustained. Throughout Matthew and John, whenever trado describes a manifestly treacherous action, belcewafi is used in the translation. This is not the case in Mark and Luke, which regularly have {gc)syllan instead of belcewan. The only occurrence of beliBwan in these two Gospels is in Mk. 14: 10, where the Latin hdiS prodo. It is remarkable that the Lindisfarne and Rushworth texts have belcewan in the same passage and there only. The fragments of the Gothic Gospels in representing the Greek Tcapadidco/xi agree almost without exception with the usage in the West Saxon Matthew and John, and show us what we should expect from a single translator of the Gospels. Of course, the fact that John agrees with Matthew does not necessarily mean that these two Gospels are by the same translator; but that Mark and Luke should differ so systematically from Matthew and John can scarcely admit of more than one interpretation. Let the reader examine and judge for himself. Mt. 4: 12: I'a se hgeland gehyrde }>(aet) iohannes belcewed waes: Cum . . . audisset quod iohannes traditus esset. *Another interesting feature of this restoration is the appearance of ge-funted for gefullod. THE WEST SAXON GOSPELS. 41 Mk. i: 14: Sy^^'^a.n iohsinnes gesea/d vfses: Postquam autem traditus est iohannes. Gothic Mk. i: 14: IJ' afar ^'atei atgibans varl' Iohannes. Mt. 10: 4: ludas scarioth \>e hyne belawde : tudas scariotes qui et tradidit eum. Mt. 26: 25: iudas t>e hyne be-lcawde : iudas qui tradidit eum. Mt. 27: 3: iudas \>e hyne belcewde : iudas qui eum tradidit. Gothic Mt. 27: 3: Iudas so. galevjands ina. Jn. 6:71: be iuda scarioJ'e \>es hine belcewde : iudam simonis scariothis hie enim erat traditurus eum. Gothic Jn. 6:71: hana ludan Seimonis, Iskariotu, sa auk habaida ina galevjan. Jn. 12:4: iudas scario'S J'c hine belcewde : iudas scariotis qui erat eum traditur(u)s. Gothic Jn. 12:4: Judas Seimonis sa Iskariotes, izei skaftida sik du galevjan ina. Jn. 18:2: Iudas >e hyne belcewde : iudas qui tradebat eum. Gothic Jn. 18: 2: Iudas s?l galexijands ina. Jn. 18:5: iudas l^e hine belcewde: iudas qui tradebat eum. Gothic Jn. 18: 5: Iudas sa levjands ina. Mt. 10: 19: Pon(ne) belcewa\> sylla-^ eow: Cum autem tradent uos. Mk. 13: 11: )'on(ne) hi syileude eow laeJ'aS: cumduxerint uos tradentes. Mt. 24: 10: manega . . . belawa'S betwyx him: multi . . . inuicem tradent. Mt. 26: 15: ic hyne belcBwe eow: ego nobis eum trada(m). Mk. 14: 10: )'(aet) he hine belcewde : ut proderet eum. Gothic Mk. 14: 10: ei galevidedi ina. Lk. 22: 4: hu he hine \i\{ycL) gesealde : quem-ammodum illu(m) traderet eis. Mt. 26: 16: t>(aet) he liyne wolde belcewan ; ut eum traderet. 42 THE AUTHORSHIP OF Mk. 14: 11: hu he hine digellice sealde : quomodo ilium opor- tune traderet. Gothic Mk. 14: 11: hvaiva gatilaba m2i galevidedt. Lk. 22: 6: hu he ea^elicust hine . . . gesealde : ut traderet ilium, Mt. 26: 21: an eower belcz^ifS me: unus uestrum me traditu- rus est. Mt. 26: 23: Sehe be-dypS on disce mid me hys hand se me be-lceiv^ : qui intingit mecum manum in parapside hie me tradet. Mk. 14: 18: eower an \>q. mid me yt gesyl^^ me: unus ex uobis me tradet qui manducat mecum. Lk. 22: 21: her is I'ses Imwan hand mid me on mysan : ecce manus tradentis me mecum est in mensa. Mt. 26: 24: j)Urh j.one J)e by)? mannes sunu be-lmwed : per quem filius hominis traditur. Mk. 14: 21: t>urh })One I'C mannes sunu ^^j-i?a/^bi«: per quem filius hominis traditur. Lk. 22: 22: \>^ \\^\>Mr\\ geseald\^\^\ per quem tradetur. Mt. 26: 46. nu genealaecS se he me bc-lmiV^: appropinquauit qui me tradit. Mk. 14: 42: nu is gehende se Se me syl%: ecce qui me tradit prope est. Gothic Mk. 14: 42: Sai, sa levjands mik atnehvida. Mt. 26: 48: Se j.e hyne be-lcewde sealde heo(m) tacn: Qui autem tradidit eum dedit illis signum. Mt. 27: i: ^(ajt) hig hyne deahe be-lcewdon: ut eum morti traderent. Gothic Mt. 27: i: ei afdauJ'idedeina ina: Qo'6rE (^avaT(36ai avrov. Lk. 22: 48: mannes sunu" \>\x mid cosse sylst : osculo filium hominis tradis ? Jn. 6: 64: hwa hine belcswon wolde : quis traditurus esset eum. Gothic Jn. 6: 64: hvas ist saei galei v e ij) ina. Jn. 13: 2: \>[2&i) he hine belcewde: ut traderet eum. Jn. 13: 11: he wiste witodlice hwa hyne sceolde belawan \ sciebat enim quis-nam esset qui traderet eum. THE WEST SAXON GOSPELS. 43 Jn, 21:20: Drihten. hwset ys se ■^6 belasw«: d(omi)ne quis est qui tradit te ?* With belxwan we close the argument. The consistent and persistent testimony of this word carries conviction with its weight, and satisfies the true spirit of inquiry. If, however, the curious reader would investigate this subject still further, he may be interested in the translations of ameti {affie?i)dico, festuca, hymno dtcto, latro, 7iubes,phafitasma, purpura, spelunca latronum, sub modio, terrae inotus, etc., etc.; though doubtless many of these variations ought to be regarded as allowable to a single translator. The use of to hwi six times in Matthew and not once in the other three Gospels may be of interest, particularly as the phrase is unusual in Anglo-Saxon, It may be queried whether in the course of this search any facts have been discovered, which tend to militate against the separation of the Gospels, on the basis of a supposed plurality of authorship, into the groups — Matthew — Mark and Luke — John. * Trado occurs elsewhere as follows: Mt. 5: 25; 10: 17, 21; 11: 27; 17: 22; 18: 34; 20: 18, 19; 24: 9, 38; 25: 14, 20, 22; 26: 2, 45, 59; 27: 2, 4, 18, 26. Mk. 3: 19; 7: 4, 13; 9: 31; 10: 33, 33; 13: 9, 12; 14: 41, 55; 15: I, 10, 15. Lk. 1:2; 4: 6, 17; 9: 44; 10: 22; 12: 58; iS: 32; 20: 20, 34; 21: 12, 12, 16; 23: 25; 24: 7, 20. Jn. i8: 30, 35, 36; 19; II, 16, 30. The Gothic translates itapaSiScoi.ii in the following unquoted passages : Mt. 5: 25; 26: 2; 27; 2, 4, 18. Mk. 7: 13; 9: 31; 10: 33; 14: 41; 15: I, 10, 15. Lk. i; 2; 4: 6; 9: 44; 10: 22; 18: 32; 20: 20. Jn, 18: 30, 35, 36; 19: II. In these passages (except as noted below), the context does not show that trado (TtapaSidoDjiii) is to be taken in the sense of io betray. The usage of the West Saxon Matthew and John in rendering these passages differs from that of the Gothic in the same passages (or in the parallel passages in Mark and Luke) only in Mt. 26: 45 (Gothic Mk. 14: 41); Mt. 27: 4; Jn. 18: 36; 19: 11; where the Gothic is doubtless wrong in Mk. 14: 41, as is indicated by the Gothic in Mk, g: 31; 10: 33; Lk, 9: 44. The Gothic is evidently wrong in Jn. 18: 36, In Mt, 27: 4; Jn. 19: II, the West Saxon version has probably deviated from the rule otherwise observed. 44 THE AUTHORSHIP OF The reply is that nothing of moment has presented itself, but see Mt. 7: 15; 10: 17; 16: 6, 12; Mk. 8: 15; 12: 38; Lk. 12: i, 15; 20: 46; Rush. Mt. 16: 12; also Mt. 17; 3; Mk, 9: 14; Lk. 9: 30; 22: 4. It may be added that the orthography of the Corpus text of Mark is peculiar in never having hig for hi, hyne for hme, hym for hitn, or -un for -on as a termination of a verb; etc., etc. The Corpus scribe has doubtless been consistent and accurate. The contrast between Mark on the one hand and Matthew, Luke, and John on the other is explainable by supposing the introduction of a " different hand " in Mark in some ancestral MS. R e s u m e. — By way of recapitulation, we have seen that in the West Saxon version of the Gospels A. Matthew is separated from the three other Gospels (a) By the use (limited) of the weak form of heofon. (b) By the use (limited) of underfon synonymously with onfon. (c) By the use (occasional) of willan after )> ae t introducing past purpose. (d) By the use (regular) of hsera, hser, hwaer, instead of > a r a, > a r, h w a r. B. Matthew is separated from Mark and Luke (e) By the use of Jmndredes ealdor instead of hundredman. C. Matthew is separated from Luke (f) By the use of ligyt instead of ligrcesc. (g) By the use of gristbitung instead of grysilung. U. John is separated from the other gospels (h) By the use (regular) of the plural of heofon where the singular should be expected, (i) By the use of underfon almost to the exclusion of o?ifon. (j) By the use (excessive) of willan after Jjaet, introducing past purpose, (k) By the use of I'ara and )>8era, )>ar and J>£er, hwar and hwser, interchangeably. E. Matthew and John are separated from Mark and Luke (1) By the frequent use of witodlice in translating autem. (m) By the use of cocc instead of hana. THE WEST SAXON GOSPELS. 45 (n) By the use (frequent) of uppan [on-uppan) with loss of the original force of i^pp-. (o) By the correct translation of vox damantis. (p) By the use of belcBwan instead of {ge)syllan in translat- ing trado where the notion of treachery is indicated by the context. Finally, in the evidence presented we have seen weighty reasons for believing that the authorship of the West Saxon Gos- pels is at least dual, and probably triple; more explicitly, that the Matthew is by one translator, the Mark and Luke by another, the John by a third (unless possibly by the translator of the Matthew); that the translator of the Matthew and the translator of the John were probably locally akin, possibly translating con- jointly; and that the translator of the Mark and Luke was prob- ably distant from the locality where the Matthew and the John were translated. Furthermore, in view of the agreement of the Northumbrian version with the West Saxon Mark and Luke in the exclusion of under/on (except Lind. Jn. 4: 45, as noted), in the use of hana instead of cocc, in the exclusion of tippdn {pn-uppan) in the sense of on or ofer^ and in the solitary employ- ment of belcBwan (Mk. 14: 10 prodo), it seems not unlikely that the Northumbrian version (and the Old Mercian Matthew ?) and the West Saxon Mark and Luke are in somewise akin, probably as respects localities of translation. The importance of the fact that these versions agree in the use of {ge)syllan to translate trado and of belcBwan to translate prodo, is emphasized by the consideration that " In those days, when grammars and diction- aries were hardly known or used, Latin was studied much more as a living language than it is now " (cf. Sw. Alf. C. P., p. xli). VITA. Natus sum Allison Drake, Decorae in republica lovana a. d. VIII Kalendas lanuarias anno huius saeculi lx. Litterarum rudimentis in schola universali imbutus, in Colle- gium iuxta Flumen Proeliare in republica Michiganensi anno Lxxvii receptus sum; unde post annos duos Cincinnatos me contuli. Ibi inter ofificia multifaria operam studiis pertinacem dedi et Collegium Sti. Xaveri frequentans, ad gradum Bacca- laurei in Artibus anno lxxxvi, ad gradum Magistri in Artibus anno lxxxvii, ad gradum Baccalaurei in Scientiis anno xc, ex ordine provectus sum. Omnes quidem professores illius collegi me sibi obstrinxisse grato animo profiteor; prae ceteris autem Praeses Reverendus, Edvardus A. Higgins, S. J., vir doctissimus sanctissimusque, mihi semper colendus est. Annis lxxxvii — xc viri humanissimi, Stoddard, Baird, Johnson, studia mea Anglo-Saxonica, Latina, Graeca in Univer- sitate Urbis Novi Eboraci direxerunt, quae anno xc gradu Doctoris in Philosophia me adornavit. Post annos duos in Collegium Columbiae Neo-Eboracense receptus Sociusque universitatis in lingua Anglo-Saxonica anno xciii factus sum. Hie me ad gradum Magistri in Artibus anno eodem provectum docuerunt viri doctissimi, clarissimi carissimi : Jackson, Price, Matthews, Peck, Merriam, Perry, quibus gratiam debitam referre nunquam potero. CORRIGENDA. Page 2 1, 1. I, there should be a mark of acute accent on " y " in "Sy." Page 23, there should be a macron on the "