Overview

From the PREFACE. THIS investigation of the English group of glossaries aims at the standard required in the twentieth century for scientific accuracy. A favourable specimen of what may be called nineteenth century demonstration is Gruber's paper in vol. XX (1907) of the Romanische Forschungen, pp. 393-494: Die Hauptquellen des Corpus-, Epinaler und Erfurter Glossares. Gruber provides much that interests the reader, and his evidence, e.g. for the use of an Amiatinus text for the Bible glosses, will convince anyone who does not take the trouble of verifying each statement. But his method of proving, let us say, a Bible source for a Corpus gloss seems at this date somewhat precarious. The mere occurrence of the word in Dutripon's Concordance of the Vulgate appears to have been deemed sufficient; although the danger of this method stands revealed when the same word turns up later in his list of (let us say) Orosius glosses. Clearly, such demonstration is based not on rock but on sand. Hessels' careful apographs of the Corpus and Leyden Glossaries have made it possible to make this investigation with a hope of success, and one wonders why the problem has not been solved before. There were apparently two obstacles. The presence of batches (corresponding to the sections of Leid.) in the Epinal and Erfurt Glossaries was not detected. And ko one seems to have thought that an English compiler would be likely to borrow some material from already existing Continental glossaries (Abstrusa, Abolita, etc.), while he took the remainder from marginalia in English MSS. of authors (Orosius, the Bible, etc.). Once these two simple facts are seen, the rest is easy. Almost too easy, for now and then one is tempted to forget the virtue 'aliqua nescire.' W. M. LINDSAY.

Full Product Details

9781503110038

Table of Contents

Reviews

Author Information

Tab Content 6

Customer Reviews

Recent Reviews

Countries Available