THIS word occurs only in Christ 1676 (according to Grein-Wülker; Guthlac 11 according to Gollancz, with whom I agree). The passage is as follows:

It has been usual to regard edergong as a compound of eodor fence, and gong act of going, and to interpret it as meaning 'refuge.' But this meaning does not appear to result naturally from the etymology; and besides, as Professor Toller points out (B.-T. Supplement, s.v.), the parallelism suggests that edergong fore yrmpum is approximately synonymous with hreow in the preceding line. Professor Toller proposes to connect the word with the Gothic idreiga repentance, idreigon to repent. He presumably regards it as standing for *edergung, from a verb *edergian = idreigōn. On formal grounds this seems unobjectionable; the denominative verb would be stressed on the initial syllable, and the syncopation of the long vowel under these conditions has several well-known parallels. But there is no trace in O.E. of either the verb or the noun from which it is derived; and the sense of repentance' is not quite what the context appears to require. I therefore think that Professor Toller's ingenious and tempting suggestion must be

abandoned.

I propose to read eargung. It is true that this verbal noun has not been found, but two instances of the construction of eargian with for are cited in the Supplement to Bosworth-Toller. If the scribe read the first three letters as edr-, he would naturally suppose the word to be a compound, and re-spell it accordingly. The sense appears to be satis

factory: Thou art now a traveller to that holy home where never sorrow comes, [nor] failing of heart for afflictions; but there is joy of angels, and blessedness, and rest of souls.'

peace

In line 1704 both the construction and the sense would be improved by reading sum for rim. In O.E. handwriting rum would easily be mistaken for pim.

In line 1705 I propose to substitute pare was haten for peawum hydig. The change may at first sight appear violent, but I think its necessity can be proved. The paraphrast had the name Thare (= Terah) before him in the Vulgate, and he can have had no reason for leaving the patriarch anonymous, especially as the name was needed to explain his subsequent use of Pares eafora as a periphrasis for Abraham. Besides, the description pancolmod wer, applied to a man about whom nothing whatever is known except his name and his place in the genealogy, decidedly looks as if it were introduced for the sake of alliteration with the name. It is, of course, necessary to account for the corruption; but this is quite easy to do. If the scribe was copying a MS. in which the last four letters of haten were illegible, and if (as is most likely) the name pare was unknown to him, he would naturally suppose that parewas h.... was a blunder that needed correction. The word most obviously suggested by this apparently unmeaning sequence of letters would be peawas. I assume that the scribe hit upon hydig as the likeliest five-letter word beginning with h to make sense in this connexion, and that as the genitive singular struck him as not quite satisfactory he altered it to the dative plural.

Although the MS. reading lengde is not impossible, the shade of meaning that must be assigned to it in this passage does not seem to be quite paralleled in any of the known examples of lengan or of the compound gelengan. It may therefore be worth while to suggest that the

original reading may have been legnde (=līgnde). Compare the O.S. lōgnian, which occurs in a similar context (lōgniad iuwa lēra,' Hel. 1341). The confusion of gn and ng occurs elsewhere in O.E.; eg. fræng for frægn.

IV. Leechdoms II, p. 52, 1. 8.

The prescription for the cure of the lower toothache,' as printed by Cockayne, reads as follows: 'Slit mid pe foporne oð þæt hi bleden.' Cockayne interprets the supposed word foporn as tenaculum, apparently intended to mean 'forceps'-not a very likely instrument, one would think, to be used for scarifying the gums. This explanation, founded on an impossible etymology (fō-porn = thorn-catcher!), is accepted by Bosworth-Toller (Fóporn, a fothorn, surgeon's instrument, tenaculum'). Sweet's queried suggestion, lancet,' is more plausible, but I suspect that foporn is a ghost-word. The unidiomatic use of the definite article, and the unusual form of the instrumental case, render the text suspicious, and the true reading is probably mid pefeporne, with a bramble-spine.' Possibly *pefoporn may have been a legitimate spelling of the word (cf. heagoðorn in the Corpus Glossary); if so, there is nothing to correct but the word-division. The word ordinarily denotes either a bramblebush or some medical preparation from the plant; but there is no reason why it may not have been used, like the simple porn, for a prickle. That a thorn was sometimes employed as a surgical instrument is shown by Leechdoms 11, 106: Gif hie [sc. poccas] utslean ælcne man sceall aweg adelfan mid porne.'

6

The earliest example of the word spider hitherto known is in the Ayenbite, where the form is spipre. In the Oxford English Dictionary an O.E. *spipre fem. is conjectured. The word, however, actually occurs in O.E. as spipra masc., though its existence has been disguised by a scribal or editorial mistake. In Leechdoms II, 142, Cockayne prints Wip pon gif hunta gebite mannan, þæt is swipra,' and translates 'In case a hunting spider bite a man, that is, the stronger spider.' The sentence as thus read and interpreted is ungrammatical, and there can be no doubt that spipra should be read instead of swipra. Whether the error is in the MS. or due to misreading on Cockayne's part I have not had opportunity to ascertain. From the facsimile page given by Cockayne the forms of p and w in the MS. seem to be fairly easy to distinguish.

The impossible 'O.E. spīder' given in most English dictionaries is, as was duly pointed out in the Oxford English Dictionary, due to a mistake of Cockayne's. He prints (Leechdoms III, 42, in a charm) Her com ingangan in spider wiht,' but the MS. has clearly inspidenwiht. There is some appearance of an erasure in the n, but the letter cannot possibly have been r, and Cockayne's translation, 'a spider wight,' does not suit the context. The words are clearly corrupt, but no satisfactory emendation has occurred to me.

OXFORD.

HENRY BRADLEY.

A PASSAGE IN SALOMON AND SATURN.'

The prose Salomon and Saturn is printed in Thorpe's Analecta Anglo-Saxonica, p. 110 seq. In answer to the question, what are the eight pounds by weight called, of which Adam was made? Solomon is made to say: 'fifte wæs gyfe pund, panon him was geseald se fat and gedang. Kemble (Elfric Society no. 13), in a text so incorrect that it can hardly be taken from the MS., reads 'se fæt and gepang,' and translates: 'the fifth was a pound of grace, whence were given him his fat and growth.' Bosworth-Toller, relying on and quoting only this passage, has: Gepang, growth.' I do not know how the mistake arose, or how fat came to be regarded as a product of grace, presumably a byproduct (as in Mr Chadband); but the MS. (Cotton Vitel. A. xv, the Beowulf MS.) has quite clearly and unmistakably: 'fifte was gyfe pund, panon hym was geseald sefa 7 gedang' (the fifth was a pound of grace, whence was given to him mind and thought). I lay stress on the perfect legibility of the text, because sefa is regarded as a word belonging entirely to the poetic vocabulary.

CAMBRIDGE.

ALFRED J. WYATT.

TWO PASSAGES IN BALE'S 'JOHN, KING OF ENGLAND.'

Act 1, 11. 450-8.

It cannot escape remark that in the lengthy note entitled 'Religions,' given by Mr John S. Farmer in his edition of Bale's King John (The Dramatic Writings of John Bale: Early English Drama Society), which

6

treats of the list of 'Monks, canons, and friars, most excellent divines,' detailed by Clergy in answer to King John's questioning, we have several gaps and queries. For example in the Word-List under Crucifers (p. 334) Mr Farmer writes Crucifers? cross-bearers.' There are however two Orders named Crucifers, Friars and Canons. The friars are the Trinitarians founded by S. John de Matha (1154-1213) and commonly known in England as the Crutched (crossed) Friars from the blue and red cross worn on their white scapular and on the black cloaks. The Canons of the Holy Cross (Croisiers or Crociferi) are mentioned as early as 1187. They are especially to be found in Brabant. The Colombines (unexplained by Mr Farmer) are the Apostolic Clerks, Gesuati of S. Jerome,' founded by S. Giovanni Colombino of Siena. This Congregation which had a noted church in Venice (I Gesuati alle Zattere) was suppressed by Clement IX (1667-70). Lorettes, pilgrims who had visited and bound themselves by vows at the Santa Casa of Loretto. Honofrines, Hermits of S. Jerome, Hieronymites, from S. Honuphrius the hermit, a great patron of the Order. In Rome this Order is now settled at S. Onofrio. They have nothing to do with the Franciscans as Mr Farmer wrongly asserts in a later note. Paulines, not Trinitarians as Mr Farmer says, but Hermits of S. Paul, a well-known company of anchorites. Fuligines, mystic Franciscans who set great store on the writings of the famous ecstatica Blessed Angela of Foligno.

Act 1, 1. 741.

By sweet Saint Benet's cup. Mr Farmer's note (p. 337) on this familiar oath is entirely erroneous. S. Benedict did not join a monastic order at Dijon, nor was he ever cellarer. The allusion here is to the attempt made to poison the Saint by an abandoned community who were shamed and angered by his holy life and example. On the cup being presented to him in the refectory Benedict, as was his custom, blessed it with the sign of the cross; the vessel broke and its contents were spilled. This scene is constantly represented in art, and S. Benedict is often depicted holding a broken cup, as in pictures by Antonio Solario, in a famous predella of Andrea del Sarto.

MONTAGUE SUMMERS.

TWICKENHAM.