the full text of the metrical preface to waerferth's translation of gregory

Medieval Academy of America

The Full Text of the Metrical Preface to Wærferth's Translation of GregoryAuthor(s): David YerkesSource: Speculum, Vol. 55, No. 3 (Jul., 1980), pp. 505-513Published by: Medieval Academy of AmericaStable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/2847238 .

Accessed: 05/06/2014 06:45

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at .http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

.JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range ofcontent in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new formsof scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected].

.

Medieval Academy of America is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access toSpeculum.

http://www.jstor.org

This content downloaded from 131.238.16.30 on Thu, 5 Jun 2014 06:45:42 AMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=medacad

http://www.jstor.org/stable/2847238?origin=JSTOR-pdf

http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp


Notes and Documents SPECULUM 55,3 (1980)

The Full Text of the Metrical Preface to Waerferth's

rans ation of Gregory By David Yerkes

The 27-line metrical preface to Waerferth's Old English translation of Greg- ory's Dialogues has only one witness, the recto of the first folio of British Library, Cotton Otho C.i, vol. 2, a manuscript damaged in 1731 by a fire at its repository, Ashburnham House. Of the several modern editions of the poem, only three take their text from the manuscript itself throughout: those by Heinrich Krebs, Hans Hecht, and Elliott V. K. Dobbie.' Ferdinand Holthausen, Albert S. Cook, and Walter J. Sedgefield used the texts of Krebs and/or Hecht to prepare their editions; Wolfgang Keller reprinted part of the preface from Krebs; and Kenneth Sisam printed part, drawing upon all the editions (except Sedgefield's) and carefully examining one reading in the manuscript for himself.2 Both Krebs and Hecht began with a transcript made by T. Oswald Cockayne in 1863.3 Krebs checked the transcript against the manuscript in 1876 and printed the poem four years later.4 For Hecht's edition, Cockayne's transcript was collated with the manuscript by Julius Zupitza in 1890 and perhaps earlier, and finally by Hecht himself in 1898.5 Dobbie based his edition "on photostats, supplemented . . . by a first-hand examination of the manuscript."6 Krebs and Hecht printed the preface as

1 Krebs, "Zur angelsaechsischen Uebersetzung der Dialoge Gregor's," Anglia 3 (1880), 70-73; Hecht, Bischofs Wterferth von Worcester Ubersetzung der Dialoge Gregors des Grossen, Bibliothek der angelsachsischen Prosa 5 (Leipzig, 1900), p. 2 (see also Hecht's Einleitung to the edition [Ham- burg, 1907], pp. 36-37); Dobbie, The Anglo-Saxon Minor Poems, Anglo-Saxon Poetic Records 6 (New York, 1942), pp. cxv-cxvii, clxxiv, 112-13, and 202-3.

2 Holthausen, Archiv 105 (1900), 367-69, and Anglia 41 (1917), 402; Cook, Modern Language Notes 17 (1902), 13-20; Sedgefield, An Anglo-Saxon Prose Book, Publications of the University of Manchester, English Series, 16 (Manchester, 1928), pp. 286-88 and 390; Keller, Zur Litteratur und Sprache von Worcester im X. und XI. Jahrhundert, 2 vols. (Strassburg diss., 1897, and Leipzig, 1898), repr. in Die litterarischen Bestrebungen von Worcester in angelsdchsischer Zeit, Quellen und Forschungen zur Sprach- und Culturgeschichte der germanischen Volker (Strassburg, 1900), p. 6; Sisam, Modern Language Review 18 (1923), 254-56, repr. with Addendum in Studies in the History of Old English Literature (Oxford, 1953), pp. 201-3 and 225-31.

3For the date of Cockayne's transcript, see Hecht, p. ii. 4 Krebs, p. 70; for the date 1876, see below. 5 Hecht, pp. iii-iv. 6 Dobbie, p. vi.

505



506 Werferth's Translation of Gregory

prose, although Walter W. Skeat had pointed out what Krebs called its "hochpoetischen charakter."7 Dobbie, of course, arranged the preface as poetry, following the examples of Holthausen and Cook.

Dobbie's is the latest and most accessible edition. Published in the Anglo- Saxon Poetic Records, an extremely reliable series, it serves as the received standard.8 Yet, quite untypically, Dobbie, by misinterpreting the top of the manuscript folio, left out the greater part of the poem's first line. An announcement of the recovery of the full line affords an opportunity to offer emendations or amplifications of Dobbie's text and notes in a dozen other places, usually where the fire has done some harm to the manuscript or (lines 12 and 16) a few letters have been erased. My own inspection of the Cotton manuscript prompted most of the remarks made below. Others of them depend on two newly discovered nineteenth-century authorities un- known to Dobbie: some unpublished notes by Krebs, and a transcript made by Henry Johnson in 1882.

Hecht stated that by October 1878 Krebs had completed a transcript of the Oxford manuscript, Hatton 76, of Wacrferth's translation and was plan- ning to publish it separately, until dissuaded by Skeat.9 In fact, substantial parts of this edition constitute Taylorian Institute, Oxford, MS 8? E. 15: corrected page proofs of most of the text of the first half of the translation (Books I and II) based on Hatton 76, and a handwritten "Prolegomena" and "Notes and various readings." On the upper left corner of the first page of the proofs, Krebs has written the date "28 9 78." The page proofs include the text of fols. 1-38 of the Hatton manuscript, with lacunae, due to missing leaves, supplied from the Cotton manuscript. The handwritten "Notes and various readings" include a transcript of the metrical preface from the Cotton manuscript, along with textual notes. The transcript does not differ in any evidential way from the text of the preface subsequently published by Krebs in Anglia in 1880,10 but Krebs did not publish some of the notes that help us better to understand exactly what he saw in the manuscript.

According to his "Prolegomena," Krebs "had to rely upon a transcript of the Cottonian MS, made by Cockayne" (p. 5). Krebs verified the transcript's text of the metrical preface, however, for he also wrote (p. 1):

7Krebs, p. 72. In his papers (see below), Krebs wrote that "the language of this preface is highly poetical, and, as Prof. Skeat pointed out to me, the whole may be cut up into lines nearly, containing a sort of alliterative verse. Its difficult expressions and archaic forms may thus be accounted for."

8 Fred C. Robinson has remarked, "Throughout the entire six volumes of the Krapp-Dobbie edition I have discovered but a single transcriptional error: is for ic in Resignation 51" (Mediaevalia 1 [1975], 76, n. 16). See also the exchange between Jess B. Bessinger, Jr., and John C. Pope on p. 25 of Computers and Old English Concordances, ed. Angus Cameron, Roberta Frank, and John Leyerle (Toronto, 1970).

9 Hecht, p. ii. 10 The two texts differ only editorially, over hyphenation or word-division (e.g., in line 4,ful

ea/e versus ful-eape, and uppgestigan versus upp-gestigan), and the supplying of lost letters (in lines 5-6, wynl[ust] versus wynl[ond]; see below).



Wcerferth's Translation of Gregory 507

We subjoin here, at the head of our notes, the text of this important preface as fully as it could be transcribed from the mutilated state of the MS. (It may be, however, remarked that MS. 0. [Cotton Otho], although greatly injured by the fire, and its vellum, especially in the preface and towards the end of the second book, being much worn off, is still generally legible, as I have tested myself, when inspecting the MS. at the British Museum two years ago. I must take this opportunity of publicly acknowledging my great thanks to the chief-librarian, Mr. Bond of the British Museum, for his ready help and reexamination of several doubtful passages occurring in this preface.)

Krebs again mentioned Bond's help in Anglia (p. 70) but did not give a date for it. Since Bond became "chief-librarian" only in August 1878,1" Krebs presumably wrote the above notice about the time he dated his page proofs; thus "two years ago" means 1876.

Hecht recorded a debt to Henry Johnson both on the title page and in the "Vorwort" of his edition. The title page reads, "Bischofs Waerferth von Worcester Obersetzung der Dialoge Gregors des Grossen uber das Leben und die Wunderthaten italienischer Vater und uber die Unsterblichkeit der Seelen, aus dem Nachlasse von Julius Zupitza nach einer Copie von Henry Johnson herausgegeben von Hans Hecht." In his foreword, Hecht explained that Henry Johnson arrived in England in October 1882 to begin work on an edition of Waerferth's translation. Johnson completed a transcript of the Cotton manuscript, then, upon learning of Zupitza's plans to publish the translation, went to Berlin in March 1883 to join him. There he put aside his own transcript and worked on the materials Zupitza had gathered. Finally, after completing a dissertation on the translation, Johnson returned home to America in 1884, taking his transcript of the Cotton manuscript with him.'2 The transcript now resides among the Chase-Johnson Papers in the Bow- doin College Library, Brunswick, Maine, handsomely bound, with "Cotton Ms. OTHO, C, I. Part II. Copy 1882-3. St. Grecokys [sic] Dialogues." stamped on the spine. On the last page of the transcript (p. 338) Johnson wrote, "Finished Dec. 27 '82 5.8 min P.M."

The following thirteen textual notes to the metrical preface of Waerferth's translation start with Dobbie's reading and, when he had one, comment; then comes any additional information obtained from my own inspection of the manuscript or from the notices of those others who have transcribed or studied the manuscript.

Lines 1 and 2: [.]e de me redan dance he in me findan mwe[.] "The poem begins at the top of fol. la, with EDEMEREDAN in large capitals; then there

"Dictionary of National Biography, s.n. Sir Edward August Bond, 1815-1898. 12 Hecht, p. iii. For his dissertation, Gab es zwei von einander unabhdngige altenglische Ubersetz-

ungen der Dialoge Gregors? (Berlin, 1884), Johnson used his own transcript as well as Zupitza's materials (p. 9). See further Neuphilologische Mitteilungen 79 (1978), 21-22. Max Forster censured Hecht for not giving Johnson's name even more prominence on his title page (Beiblatt zur Anglia 12 [1901], 97-103 and 169).



508 Wc-rferth's Translation of Gregory

is a long and fairly wide hole extending from side to 'Side of the parchment, then a second line of large capitals,TFJNCE HEINMEFINDANME, followed by the remainder of the poem in ordinary small letters. In Hecht's edition, there are three asterisks between REDAN and -DANCE, evidently indicating the loss of a full line of large capitals after REDAN. But a study of the text at the top of fol. lb shows that nothing has been lost from fol. la at this point, except the initial S of the word Se, 1. 1, and that the apparent width of the hole in the leaf is due to the shrinking of the parchment. . . . The g of mnwg, 1. 2a, at the end of the second line of large capitals, has been burned away."'3

After studying the manuscript for myself, I must agree entirely with Hecht's tacit opinion: another row of capitals once continued the text from R/EDAN to-DANCE. The verso of the folio, despite Dobbie's statement to the contrary, indicates this, as do Middle English glosses to all three rows of capitals, the two rows read by Dobbie and the one in between. Near the top of the folio, where the parchment has separated, a patch of white paper fastened to the recto covers the tear. The patch obscures everything on the recto from just below the first row of capitals to just above the third; hence Dobbie's "long and fairly wide hole." On the verso of the folio, however, some ragged protuberances extend into the "hole" covered by the white paper. On these protuberances and at the edges from which they extend, some letters and parts of letters remain visible of two lines of text. The patch on the recto of the folio covers the edges as well as the protuberances. The two lines of text on the verso bring the number of lines on the page to twenty-seven, the number found on the other pages of this part of the Cotton manuscript.'4 Without these two lines, fol. lv has only twenty-five. At this point in the text the Cambridge manuscript of Waerferth's translation, Corpus Christi College 322, has cwwd sume dwge hit gelamp fwrt ic wws swine geswenced mid kam geruxlum 7 unednessum sumra woruldlicra ymbhogena cr (Hecht 3.1-5), and Hatton 76 differs only slightly. From the Cotton manuscript itself Hecht printed the first word, cwwd, of the two fragmentary lines (3.1), and Johnson read cwwd[ ]swide gesceaced, also from the first line, query- ing the last word (Transcript, p. 2). I make out still more, including a few letters from the second line: cwwd s[ ]me dwge h[ ] gelamp /i ic was swide geswenced mid kaml[ ] 7 une[ ]ness[ ] behog[ ] (cf. Dobbie's reading, quoted in note 13).

13 Dobbie elaborated in the unpublished working notes for his edition: "I have satisfied myself that no large capitals have been lost on fol. la. (1) There are 27 lines on fol. lb, the usual number in this text. (2) The burn occurs between 1. 5 and 1. 6. (3) Of 1. 5 above the burn, I can make out: cwA [ ]me dage h[ ]elamp T ic was swibe geswenced mid jam. (4) Of 1. 6, just below the burn and mostly destroyed, I can see: [ ]m 7un e[ ]ness[ ]. A comparison of 11. 5-7 of fol. lb with Hecht's text, p. 3, will show that there is no room for the loss of a line or lines here"; "there is a Middle English gloss for the heading: jeo Oe me redden [?]. Above 1. 2 of the heading, the first word (or words) of the gloss is lost. But then we have: he [?] in me findan mai." Warm thanks to Mrs. Mary Dobbie for allowing me to see Professor Dobbie's papers.

14 Neil R. Ker included the number of lines per page in his description of the manuscript (Catalogue of Manuscripts Containing Anglo-Saxoni [Oxford, 1957], p. 237).




Examination of the verso of the folio therefore indicates the onetime existence of a second row of capitals at the beginning of the poem. Looking as closely as possible at what remains of this row - looking from the recto through the patch of white paper, and from the verso through the parchment - I can just make out a few marks of the capitals on the rectos of the protuberances that extend into the "hole" between the first and third rows of capitals. Fortunately, however, another clue, far better than the few marks on the protuberances, helps to recover the second row of capitals: a later scribe glossed all three rows of capitals in Middle English, and his glosses to the second row remain visible immiediately above the white patch of paper.15 According to Ker, the thirteenth-century Worcester scribe with the "tremu- lous" hand entered glosses "throughout" the Cotton manuscript,16 and I have little or no hesitation in assigning to this highly distinctive hand the glosses to the rows of capitals at the beginning of the manuscript.

The glossator, whatever his identity, wrote Peo ke me redden above the first row of capitals, EDEMEREDAN, with keo above the first E, ke above the second, me above the M, and redden above DA. The first gloss, keo, confirms that a capital S originally began the row. Above the third row, DANCE HEINMEFINDANMAz, the scribe wrote kan[ ] he in me findan mai, with kan above the D and the other glosses above their respective lemmata. The white patch cuts off any letters that followed kan. The last gloss, mai, indicates that the third row of capitals once ended with the G of M1EG, as Dobbie and others had thought. (Krebs in fact reported both se, the first word of the capitals, and mwg without comment.) And, in addition to all this, the glosses kencd teonk mid rihctii teo remain visible, stretched across the page above the lost or obscured second row of capitals. On the evidence of the glosses, I restore the second row of capitals as ODENCDTEONDMID- RIHTUMGE. Only capital D, not P, appears in the restored row since the latter does not occur either in the first and third rows of fol. Ir or among the capitals (likewise glossed in Middle English, by the same later hand) at the top of fol. 31r, at the beginning of Book II of Waerferth's translation. The spelling rihct, impossible for Old English, occurs often enough in Middle English.17 For the last gloss on the line, teo, I assume that the glossator mistook G for O (the two capitals look very much alike on the second line of fol. 31r) and wrote eo for E (cf. keo over [S]E, at the beginning of the first row of capitals on fol. Ir).

Dobbie arranged the beginning of the metrical preface as

[.]e de me rxdan dance, he in me findan ma[.], gif hine feola lysteb

15 In his transcript Johnson included the glosses se [sic] ke me redden and he in mefindan mai, but none of the glosses to the now obscured second row of capitals. So Dobbie, with keo instead of se, in his unpublished remarks quoted above in note 13.

16 Catalogue, p. 238; see also Ker's Medieval Libraries of Great Britain, 2nd ed. (London, 1964), p. 207, n. 2.

17 The Oxford English Dictionary cites the form rihct as current for the adjective during the twelfth and thirteenth centuries.



510 Wa?rferth's Translation of Gregory

noting that "the meter indicates a loss here" (p. 202). But the status of dance also troubled editors. Krebs, in his papers, added the note, "dance, thus the MS reads instead of the common form: pence" (p. 5); Holthausen, in both of his editions, supplied a first half-line, rinca wghwelc (or wghwylc), and emended dance to dwknce. Cook and, later, Sedgefield followed Hecht in assuming a loss between rwdan and dance. Cook printed se de me raedan . . . dence and commented, "The sense is only to be conjectured.-Dence may, after all be dance, since the form can hardly be construed with ra&dan; it is too far away (after a break), and we should rather expect the indicative, so that dance may be the dative of the noun" (col. 16); Sedgefield filled out the first line as Se de me redan (wile rihtge) dance, coming remarkably close to the true reading, Se de me rwdan dencd teond mid rihtum gedance, which I render as, "He who thinks to read me troubles himself with a good inten- tion." Although the standard Old English dictionaries do not have any examples of teonian or tinan, "to vex," used reflexively,18 the Oxford English Dictionary cites several from Middle English, the earliest from the Cursor Mundi (s.v. teen, v.1, 2. c.).

Line 5: and The manuscript unmistakably reads ond, not and. Krebs, Johnson, and

Hecht all gave the correct reading, ond. Elsewhere in the preface the manuscript spells out the conjunction only once, as ond in line 11, and abbreviates it seven times with the nota 7, expanded to and by Dobbie (lines 9, 13, 14, 17, 20, 22, and 23).

Line 6: bl[.]s "The letters b, 1, and s are plainly visible, but the i is now lost."

Hecht printed blis without comment, and Johnson transcribed the same. Krebs, however, did not even make out the b clearly. He read 1, not b, for the first letter, commenting in his papers that "the three last letters . . . are worn off in the MS" and in Anglia that "die 3 letzten buchstaben sind von uns erganzt." All four letters seem legible enough to me.

Line 12: Wulfstan "With tan on an erasure?" In 1923 Kenneth Sisam took a close look at this name as part of a

description of the entire manuscript and concluded:

In Wulfstan, the last three letters -tan stand on an erasure, and are, I should think, not earlier than the time of the second Wulfstan, who was bishop of Worcester from 1062 till his death in 1095. It is pretty clear that the name of Wulfsige stood here originally, and any doubt is removed by the trace of the erasing tool below the line, where the tail of 3 [yogh] would fall. (p. 202)

Dobbie dismissed Sisam's argument, questioning even the existence of the

I8Joseph Bosworth and T. Northcote Toller, An Anglo-Saxon Dictionary (Oxford, 1882-98), with Supplement by Toller (Oxford, 1908-2 1) and Addenda by Alistair Campbell (Oxford, 1972); John R. Clark Hall, A Concise Anglo-Saxon Dictionary, 4th ed. with Supplement by Herbert D. Meritt (Cambridge, 1960).




erasure and remarking, "That anyone should have deliberately altered an older manuscript in this way is hard to believe" (p. cxvii). The challenge elicited a decisive response from Sisam:

There is no doubt that in the manuscript the letters tan of Wulfstan stand on an erasure; they are in a blacker ink than the text, and in a different, apparently later hand. To guard against the possibility of personal illusion, I have obtained confirmation of these points from Mr. Neil Ker, whose experience of Anglo-Saxon manuscripts is now unequalled. Ultra-violet rays do not reveal the original letters, because the erasure has been made by scratching deeply when the ink was dry.

What did the scribe write or intend to write? The inquiry is limited because in the lists of bishops only two names, Wulfsige and Wulfstan, begin with Wulfs, and there are no other Anglo-Saxon men's names beginning with those letters.

If we try Wulfsige first, his name fits the space of two or three erased letters, and accounts for the deep mark of erasure where the tail of 3 would fall (none of the last three letters of Wulfstan would go below the line). (pp. 225-26)

Unnoticed by either Dobbie or Sisam, in 1931 Simeon Potter had published his own conclusions about the reading of the name in the manuscript:

The MS. has Wulfstan, but the last three letters are in different ink and by another hand. Clearly there has been an erasure made by some monkish imposter and, we may safely assume, a change of name. The only other Old English name consisting of Wulfs + three letters is Wulfsige, and there are faint indications that the curving tail of an Old English g has been scratched out.19

Potter wondered if this Wulfsige was "that old lover of life the notorious third Abbot of St. Albans who used to go hunting in silken vestments and drank deeply of life's carnal pleasures before his death by poison, ca. A.D. 930." Sisam, no doubt correctly, identified him with the bishop of Sherborne in Alfred's time.

Line 13: /xes /[.] alne "The restoration of k[e] causes no difficulty." Hecht and Johnson both gave Dobbie's reading for the manuscript, and

Hecht likewise restored ke. Krebs, however, read /xes alne, without comment, missing the second thorn, still visible at the end of the manuscript line.

Line 13: aof Hecht incorrectly marked a space for two letters between the a and o of

aof. The manuscript remains perfectly legible here; the a and o stand adja- cent or nearly so, without any erasure.

Line 15: gesc[...]ta "The letters following gesc, at the end of a line, have been burned away; the next line of the MS. begins with ta."

Hecht and Johnson read the same, printing or transcribing gesc[ ]ta.

19 On the Relation of the Old English Bede to Werferth's Gregory and to Alfred's Translations, VWstnik kralovske ceske spolecnosti nauk: Tfida filosoficko-historicko-jazykozpytna (Memoires de la societe royale des sciences de Boheme: Classe des lettres), 1930 (Prague, 1931), p. 40, n. 3.



512 Wcrferth's Translation of Gregory

Krebs, on the other hand, gave gesceafta, without comment in Anglia but with the remark in his papers that from kearfa (line 13) through gesceafta "the MS. . . .is much worn away and not more [sic] altogether equally legible." I cannot make out any more than Dobbie.

Line 16: ke se "An erasure of about two letters after" ke. Krebs did not bother to record any disturbance of the text, but Hecht

printed /e:: se and Johnson transcribed /e.. se, adding the note "(eras.)" above the two dots. The very end of perhaps the tongue of an e extends from the right side of the erased space.

Line 17: handum Hecht recorded handu[ ], Johnson handun[ ]. Krebs, like Dobbie, read

handum, though today only the first two minims of the m remain at the end of the manuscript line.

Line 19: heo[..] Hecht and Johnson read heo[ ], and I agree. Krebs, however, gave heora

without comment.

Line 21: forgyu[.] Krebs reportedforgyue, commenting only on the use of u forf, not about

any difficulty in making out the final e. Johnson transcribedforgyu[ ], and Hecht, in error, printed forgu[ ]. I see no sign of the final e.

Line 22: gewe[...] Hecht and Johnson read only gew[ ], but Krebs gave geweald, without

comment. I can make out the second e, as well as part of the following letter, perhaps an a.

Line 24: sinc[..] "The letters sinc come at the burned edge of the parchment, with one letter (a or e?) partly preserved after them."

Krebs reported only sirnc, not indicating any lost letters or damage to the manuscript after the c; Hecht, however, printed sinc[ ], and Johnson transcribed since[ ]. After prolonged scrutiny, I read sinces with some confidence.

The above notes support the following revised text of the metrical preface, which, except for the first line, retains Dobbie's punctuation, line divisions, and (lines 14 [MS wiht], 21 [MS ge], and 27 [MS hiorccyninga]) emendations.

Se 6e me raedan UencO teon6 mid rihtum ge6ance. He in me findan mxeg, gif hine feola lyste6 gastlices lifes godre biesene, Paet he ful eape mxeg upp gestigan

5 to 6am heofonlican hame, par by6 a hyht ond wyn, blis on burgum, Pam Pe bearn godes sielfes hiora eagum geseon motan. Dart mxeg se mon begytan, se Pe his modge6anc



Wa?rferth's Translation of Gregory 513

aeltowe byp, ond Ponne Purh his ingehygd 10 to Pissa haligra helpe geliefe6,

ond hiora bisene fulga6, swa Peos boc saga6. Me awritan het Wulfsige bisceop, Peow ond pearfa Paes P[e] alne Prym aof, ond eac walden is wihta gehwelcre,

15 an ece god eallra gesceafta. Bidep Pe se bisceop, se Pe 6as boc begeat Pe Pu on Pinum handum nu hafast ond sceawast, Paet Pu him to Peossum halgum helpe bidde, Pe heora gemynd her on gemearcude siendon,

20 ond Paet him god allmihtig forgyue Pa gyltas Pe he geo worhte, ond eac res6e mid him, se 6e ah ealles rices geweald, ond eac swa his beahgifan, Pe him 6as bysene forgeaf, aet is se seles6a sinces brytta,

25 Allfryd mid Englum, ealra cyninga para Pe he si6 o66e xer fore secgan hyrde, o66e he ior6cyninga xer aenigne gefrugne.

COLUMBIA UNIVERSITY

