The short preface is very misleading; the estimates there given of the editions of Parker and Marshall cannot be allowed to be correct. Thus, of Parker's edition he says that "it may be regarded as a faithful impression of a late manuscript (apparently Bodley 441), showing the tongue in its decline, and when rapidly verging towards that state of barbarism into which it sank about the beginning of the twelfth century." To this it may be objected that the Bodley MS. is a duplicate of the Cotton MS., which has some pretensions to being considered the earliest in existence; that some of the pages of the Bodley MS. are supplied incorrectly in a later hand; and that Parker's edition is not free from several bad misprints. Next we read that "Marshall's edition exhibits an earlier, though, perhaps, not a purer text, which the singularly unfortunate idea of its editor, of supplying the omissions of the Saxon version, sometimes (and not always grammatically) by his own words, and at others, from the old Northumbrian glosses, has, moreover, greatly contributed to vitiate." It may, however, be held that Marshall's text is not an earlier, but the same text, that it is very much purer owing to the careful way in which Junius made the collations, and that the words supplied where the MSS. are defective are enclosed within square brackets, and create no difficulty. But my chief reason for noticing these points is that Mr Thorpe's text is practically much the same as Marshall's which he condemns. It was clearly printed from a copy of Marshall's edition, in which two sets of alterations had been made. Firstly, the spellings of many unimportant words have been capriciously altered, so that, where Marshall prints his in Ch. xi. v. 1, Thorpe prints hys; but where Marshall prints hys in v. 14, Thorpe prints his. In like manner, hine hyngrode in v. 12 is put for hyne hingrode, and many other changes of i for y and y for i are made, which it is needless to recount1: secondly, several readings are adopted from the Cambridge MS. which Marshall either overlooked or did not regard worthy of attention. Examples are; getigedne for getiggedne, v. 4; heora for hyra, vv. 7 and 8; heowon for heowun, v. 8; streowedon for streowodon, v. 8; þær for the second par in v. 13; ongan for ongann, v. 15; cypton for ciptun, v. 15; ondredon, v. 18; mænigeo, v. 18; wyrt-ruman, v. 20; wyrigdest, v. 21; sig, v. 23; tweonað, v. 23; geweorde, v. 23; gebiddanne, v. 25; heofenlica, v. 25; heofenum, v. 25 (though in v. 26 Marshall's spelling heofonum is accidentally retained); acsige, v. 29. It is only in this sense that the edition can be considered as based upon the Cambridge MS.; for otherwise the reader who actually compares it with the MS. will find several unimportant differences. The result of the examination is that Mr Thorpe's edition is really a revised edition of Marshall's, and should have been so described. It is a valuable and useful edition because it is free from mistakes, and because the

1 The MS. itself has hys in both places, vv. 1 and 14; heofene twice; not having observed that the MS., in the in v. 12, it has hyne hyngrode; in v. 4, getygedne. second instance, has 'heofenum.'

2 Thus, in xi. 30, 31, Thorpe, following Marshall, prints

readings can always be defended; but it is uncritical in the sense that the MS. authorities are not given.

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. In this edition, the text was, for the first time, based upon a better authority, viz. the Corpus MS., and is very valuable as giving the text of that MS. with great exactness. The only variations throughout Chapter xi. are that, in v. 26, the word heofonlica has been accidentally omitted; that man is put for mann in v. 14; that ongann in v. 15 has been replaced by the more usual form ongan ; and that the evident misreading sacerdos in v. 27 has been corrected into sacerdas. The corrections ongen in v. 2 and bogas in v. 8 are supplied between square brackets. The only other differences are those purposely introduced by the editor, viz. the modern system of the use of capitals and of punctuation, a uniform system of accentuation, and a uniform use of the letters p and 8, which are used somewhat confusedly in the MS. The system adopted for the use of these letters is carefully explained at p. xxxii. of the editor's preface, and is based upon the modern English sounds of the words employed, þ being put for the sharp sound of th in thin, and for the flat sound of th in thine. The practice of the scribe of the MS. is nearly the contrary of this; yet we find instances in which the letters have these theoretical values in farap, v. 2; Đa, vv. 7, 13, 18, 22; de, v. 9; cwyþ, v. 23; forgifap, v. 25; and ondradap, v. 32.

This edition has proved of very great service to me; indeed, it is the only one of the four which is of value from a critical point of view, as representing a definite text. I have collated it with the MS. throughout the whole gospel, so that, wherever my text varies from it, the variation has the authority of the MS. itself.

V. An edition of the Northumbrian glosses in the Lindisfarne MS. was printed in 1857 with the title :-" Die Vier Evangelien in Alt-Northumbrischer Sprache,...herausgegeben von Karl Wilhelm Bouterwek; Gütersloh, 1857." This is a very useful book, but I believe it to be founded upon a mistake, viz. upon a confusion between a gloss and a translation. A gloss, as may be seen by a glance at the right-hand pages of this volume, construes a text word for word, without much regard to the grammatical arrangement of the words of the vernacular tongue thus substituted. Its sole aim is to supply a clue to the meaning of the words of the original separately, that the original itself may be more easily understood. But a translation goes a great deal further; it is conformed to the grammatical laws of the vernacular tongue, and is intended to replace the original so completely, that the reader may be rendered quite independent of it. Here, however, the editor has endeavoured to treat the gloss as a translation, by transposing the words so as to bring them into the Anglo-Saxon order, and supplying, within square brackets, the words which are wanting to complete the sense. The result

C

is not quite satisfactory, because the occasional mistranslations produce passages in which the Latin text is indispensable, and consequently ought not to have been dispensed with. Besides which, to a reader who wishes to compare the gloss with the text, the transposition of the words is a source of great inconvenience. It would have been far better to allow the words of the gloss to stand in the same order as in the MS. In other respects, the edition is worthy of high praise, and is, in general, exact and careful. Whenever the editor varies from the MS. (which his scheme sometimes compels him to do), he gives the MS. reading in a note, that it may not be lost. In general, the MS. is very closely followed, but the contractions are sometimes (not always) expanded, and capital letters are given to proper names. The following variations from the MS. occur in Chapter xi., and are, in fact, errors. The readings of the edition are marked B.

2.

1. bethaniæ is glossed Bethania; no gloss in MS. B. more; MS. mor. B. gie in; MS. omits. B. nænig; MS. ne ænig. 3. B. hua; MS. hua. 4. B. uta (twice); MS. uta (once). 6. B. hia (both in text and note); MS. da de. 9. B. usig; MS. wusig (i. e. wsig, with small u above). 10. B. heahnissum; MS. heanissum. 11. B. omits allum. 12. B. gehyncerde; MS. gewyncerde (where it is the MS. which is wrong). 14. B. inserts an I and p. 15. B. bycendo; MS. bycgendo. 17. B. awritten; MS. auritten. B. gebeddes; MS. gebedd1. 18. B. aldermonnum ; MS. aldermonum. 23. B. (note) gelefes; MS. gelefe. 26. B. iuih pte ł gif; MS. iuh p gif. 27. B. ældisto; MS. ældesto. 28. B. doest; MS. does. 29. B. ondeuarde; MS. onduearde; (a mere printer's error). B. frægna; MS. fregna. B. onduerdes; MS. ondueardas. B. doa; MS. doam. 30. B. ondueardes; MS. ondueardas. 31. B. omits cuoe him . B. gesmeadun; MS. ge-smeadon. 32. B. omits wæs. 33. B. nutu; MS. neutu.

It deserves to be particularly remarked, that these and similar errors generally occur in the case of small and unimportant words, and some are due to the difficulty of carrying out the system of forcing a gloss into the guise of a translation. Mistakes in the more important words are very rare. It must be added, that the volume contains an excellent glossary, with copious references; also a preface and introduction, occupying 164 pages. An appendix contains the marginal notes, &c. written in the MS.; the preface of St Jerome, both text and gloss; the life of St Matthew, text and gloss; the arguments of the sections of St Matthew, text and gloss; the life of St John, text and gloss. All these are from the same MS., but do not exhaust its contents, as it also has lives of St Mark and St Luke, with arguments, and an argument of the sections of St John. See the account of the next edition.

1 This well illustrates the difference between a gloss and a translation; the Latin orationis is rightly glossed by

gebedd (a prayer), but B. gives the translation gebeddes (of prayer).

VI. The same editor, Herr Bouterwek, printed a volume entitled "Screadunga," i.e. Fragments, at Elberfeld, in 1858. This contains the lives of St Mark and St Luke and the arguments to St Mark's, St Luke's, and St John's gospels, omitted in his former volume. But besides this, the volume contains both the Latin text and gloss, of St Mark's gospel only, from the Rushworth MS. The following is an analysis of Chapter xi.

Latin text. 1. B. appropinquarent Ierosolymae et Bethaniae; MS. adpropinquarent hierusolimae & bithaniae. 2. B. illuc; MS. illud. B. soluite; MS. solute (wrongly). 6. B. eis; MS. illis. 7. B. imponunt; MS. inpossuerunt. 9. B. praeibant; MS. praecedebant. B. Hosanna; MS. ossanna. (So also in v. 10). 11. B. Ierosolymam; MS. hirusolyma. B. exiit; MS. exiuit. 12. B. a; MS. de. 15. B. Ierosolymam; MS. hierusolymam. B. in templum; MS. templum. B. eiicere; MS. eicere. B. numulariorum; MS. nummulariorum. 16. B. quisque; MS. quisquam. 17. B. speluncam; MS. speloncam. 18. B. doctrina; MS. doctrinam. 20. B. transirent ; MS. transierent. 21. B. recordatus; MS. recordatus est. 23. B. quia (twice); MS. quia (once). B. haesitauerit; MS. essitauerit. B. fiet; MS. omits. 24. B. euenient; MS. ueniet. 26. B. dimiseritis; MS. demiseritis. B. dimittet; MS. dimittat. 27. B. Ierosolymam; MS. hierusolimam. B. in templo accedunt; MS. in templum accesserunt. 28. B. ista; MS. haec. 29. B. respondete; MS. respondite. 30. B. Baptismus Ioannis; MS. baptismum iohannis. B. respondete; MS. respondite. 32. B. Ioannem; MS. iohannem. 33. B. dicunt; MS. dixerunt. B. et respondens; MS. respondens.

Northumbrian gloss. 8. B. legdon; MS. legdun. 17. B. wutudlice; MS. wutodlice. 25. B. hwoegn; MS. hwoegu. 33. B. ne ic ic; MS. ne ec ic.

From this and further examination of the edition it readily appears that the Latin text and Northumbrian gloss are very differently represented in this edition; the former is faulty, but the latter excellent. In fact, the Latin must really have been derived originally from some other source; it is quite impossible that inpossuerunt could have been copied imponunt in v. 7, and praecedebant read as praeibant. It will be found, in fact, that Bouterwek's text is much more free from blunders than the careless text in the MS., and represents the text of the Lindisfarne MS. much more closely than that of the Rushworth MS. In short, this edition of the Latin text is not to be trusted for fidelity.

On the other hand, the Northumbrian gloss is represented with great exactitude; the editor preserves the curls and marks of contraction of the MS., so as to produce almost a facsimile of it. Whatever errors occur are but slight, and I have found it well worth while to collate my own text with Bouterwek's throughout the entire gospel. My own text is, in fact, the same as his, but with the few errors corrected, and the contractions expanded.

VII. Among the publications of the Surtees Society, Nos. 28, 39, 43, and

48, A.D. 1854-1865, is an edition of the Lindisfarne and Rushworth Gospels, exhibiting both the Latin texts and English glosses. The first volume was edited by the Rev. J. Stevenson, the last three by Mr G. Waring. This elaborate edition, the work of some years, was intended to shew the exact contents of both MSS., with the exception of the short lives of the Evangelists, the prefaces of St Jerome, and the arguments of the sections of the Gospels. It will be sufficient to speak here of the second volume only, containing St Mark's Gospel. The only intentional variations of the edition from the MSS. are in the use of capitals for proper names and the first words in each verse, the use of v for u, of j for i before vowels, of a for ae, and in the frequent expansions of contractions. Unfortunately, however, either on account of some faults in the original transcript, or of some oversights in comparing the proofsheets with the MSS. themselves, the result is hardly satisfactory. A list of the errors in chapter xi. will shew their nature.

Latin text (Lindisfarne MS.). 1. adpropinquaret1; Hierosolyma; 2. illum omitted. 4. inveniunt. 5. eis. 11. Hierosolyma. 12. exiret ea. 14. æternam. 24. omnia omitted. 33. et omitted.

1. more.

Northumbrian gloss (Lindisfarne MS.). 1. more. 2. de (gloss to quod); ongeægn gie inserted before ineodon; one fola (for fola); nænig; dene omitted. 3. huæ ; hia unbinde. 6. cuoedon. 7. done fola. 8. hiora; woeg; gebugon. 9. usig; heahnissum. 11. ymbsceawde; efrntid was; bethania omitted; 12. bethania omitted; 13. Sæm ilca (twice); leafa. 14. Rune for monn omitted (corrected inserted after geherdon. geherdon. 16. fæt. 17. awritten; gebeddes. 19. wæs. 20. † omitted. 21. wæs eftmyndig; peter omitted. 24. gie omitted. 28. to inserted; doest. 29. frægna; iuh; doa. 30. fulwiht; monnum. 31. † soð him . 33. omitted; neuto we.

gehyncerde.

in Addenda);
18. Sæm omitted.

23. sende; gelefed.

Latin text (Rushworth MS.). The Latin text is exhibited by a collation at the foot of the page, but the collation is vitiated by being compared with a faulty text above. Several of the peculiarities of the Rushworth text are passed over; this I denote by the word "missed." The following are misreadings. 1. adpropinquaret. 2. adhuc nemo missed; illum omitted. 4. inueniunt. 5. eis. 6. illis for first eis missed; præceperant given as a reading, where MS. has praeciperat; dimisierunt missed. 7. impossuerunt given as a reading, where MS. has inpossuerunt. 11. hirusolyma missed. 14. æternum; ex te fructum missed. 24. omnia omitted. 26. dimittit given, where MS. has dimittat. 28. haec for ista missed. 31. omission of nobis missed. 33. et omitted.

2. onfindas.

Northumbrian gloss (Rushworth MS.). The following are wrong. 4. Sæm; inserted. 8. gibedgun (printer's erratum). 9. ge (for se). 10. user;

1 I give only the forms in the Surtees Society's edition; for the correct forms, see p. 87 in this volume.