SELIM Journal of the Spanish Society for Mediaeval English Language and Literature Revista de la Sociedad Española de Lengua y Literatura Inglesa Medieval Nº  Oviedo,  Edited by - Dirigida por Trinidad Guzmán & S. G. Fernández-Corugedo Universidad de Oviedo & Sociedad Española de Lengua y Literatura Inglesa Medieval Oviedo – Murcia  Keith Williamson, Selim  (): –ISSN: 1132–631X A LATIN–OLDER SCOTS GLOSSARY IN EDINBURGH UNIVERSITY LIBRARY MS  Abstract Edinburgh University Library MS  (the Makculloch MS) offers significant data for the study of Older Scots as it contains poetry, notes, collectanea and on ff. v–r a Latin–Older Scots glossa collecteana of  items. This paper examines the issues related to the MS readings for the glossary, compares the linguistic forms of the vernacular glosses with the forms found in the poems, and discusses some problematic semantic equivalences between the Latin and Older Scots terms. An overall assessment of the glossary and the textual relationship of the glossary to the poems are established. Keywords: Older Scots language, Older Scots poetry, glossary, semantic equivalences, manuscript studies. Resumen El manuscrito  de la biblioteca universitaria de Edimburgo (el manuscrito Makculloch) nos oece datos muy significativos para el estudio del escocés antiguo pues contiene poesía, notas, colectáneas, y en sus folios v-r un glosario latín-escocés antiguo de  entradas. Este trabajo examina los problemas relacionados con las lecturas del MS en relación con el glosario, compara las formas lingüísticas de las glosas vernáculas con las formas que aparecen en los poemas, y discute ciertas equivalencias semánticas problemáticas existentes entre los términos latinos y del escocés antiguo. Se oece un estudio completo del glosario y de la relación textual entre el glosario y los poemas. Palabras clave: Lengua escocesa antigua, poesía escocesa antigua, glosario, equivalencias semánticas, estudios de manuscritos. I E dinburgh University Library MS  has been by-named the “Makculloch” manuscript. It comprises mainly material om lectures written down in  by Magnus Makculloch (d. ) when he was a student at the University of Louvain. These “lecture notes” are om his classes in Logic and they are, of course, in Latin. Subsequently, Makculloch was a secretary to William Scheves (ca –), who became archbishop of St Andrews. Makculloch was responsible for two complete copies of Walter Bower’s (–) Scotichronicon, one for the Augustinian abbey of Scone (), the other for Scheves (–) (ODNB, 222 Keith Williamson Selim  () s.n. Bower, Walter).¹ The Makculloch MS has attained literary significance for scholars of Older Scots not for any material in the manuscript by Makculloch himself, but because a later hand copied onto the opening fly-leaves and onto some blank folios a number of poems written in Older Scots. This later hand has been ascribed either to the late th century or early th century (Borland ; Smith ). In a number of places in the manuscript appear the signatures “I Purde” and “Iohannes Purde” and he seems to have been a later owner of the manuscript. Borland () notes that the name “John Purde” occurs in the Chartulary of Brechin under the dates  and –.² A Brechin association for the manuscript is also suggested by what seems to be a pen trial on f. ir, where the writer refers to “ane’ faire Erbere of myñ / in brechyne”. Borland suggests identification of this John Purde with the “Iohannes plenus amoris” of the colophon at the end of the text of Henryson’s Tale of the Cock and the Jasp on f. iiiiv. And Gregory Smith (: lxvii) suggests that Purde “may have been the copyist of the vernacular pieces”. However, I do not believe that the pen trial is in the same hand as that of the poems. If John Purde wrote the pen trial, then he was not the copyist of the poems. I incline to agree with Borland that the hand of the vernacular texts belongs probably to the early th century and this would probably be too early for the John Purde writing in the manuscript during the s and s. On the face of it, the name “Iohannis plenus amoris” could be taken as a form of John Plenamour; Black (: ) notes the surname “Plenamour” twice in Arbroath and environs in the th century. If “Iohannes plenus amoris” was the copyist of the poems, then it ¹ Brechin Castle MS () and BL Harley MS  (–) (Borland : ). ² Registrum Episcopatus Brechinensis, vol. ii, pp. , , . 223 A Latin-Older Scots Glossary Selim  () might be conjectured that either he himself was a previous owner of the manuscript or that he copied the poems into the manuscript for its then owner. The later Brechin association and the association of the name Plenamour with Angus in the late th century allow the hypothesis that it was in that area that the poems and the glossary were added to the manuscript. However, recent research by Reynhout () and Moreno Olalla (in preparation) suggest a different interpretation of ‘plenus amoris’ here. According to Reynhout’s and Moreno’s studies the phrase ‘plenus amoris’ following a christian name occurs with unusual equency and with wide attestation across manuscripts. Moreno Olalla (p.c.)³ has “recorded  different male christian names” with the signature. He observes that it is “overwhelmingly recorded in MSS with religious contents, written in a religious scriptorium or with some other clear religious link”. If the occurrence here is to be taken as an, as it were, ‘nom de foi’ it would fit the general religious character of the vernacular pieces in the manuscript (see below). That it occurs in the phrase “scriptoris Iohannes plenus amoris” is perhaps significant. Moreno Olalla (p.c.) proposes that “the tag was added just to complete a leonine hexameter, providing a perfect rhyme with ‘scriptoris’”. At the foot of f. v is another name, rather faded and only partly decipherable. I have read this as “〈Io〉hanis [c]amb〈e〉le”⁴ From what is visible of this inscription, it appears not to be in the hand of any of the other vernacular addenda in the manuscript. ³ I am very grateful to David Moreno Olalla for kindly allowing me to cite some of the results of his research on ‘plenus amoris’ here. ⁴ Litterae in 〈 〉 are conjectured; those in [ ] are interpretations of unclear manuscript figurae. 224 Keith Williamson Selim  () T V T The Poems. The poems interpolated into the Makculloch MS have a predominantly religious and moralizing character. They include four works by Robert Henryson, two by John Lydgate and one formerly attributed to William Dunbar. Their folio references, authorship (where known) and incipits are given below. Each poem has also been assigned a reference number, e.g. P. The order adopted follows the sequence of leaves and folios on which they occur in the manuscript. It should not be inferred that this order is that in which the poems were copied into the manuscript. As the poems have been interpolated into available spaces in the manuscript, there is no way to determine the order in which they were copied. Moreover, it cannot be assumed that they were all copied within a single time- span, nor that they were copied om the same source. P, f. iiv Robert Henryson: () Prologue to the Fables — Thowcht fenȝeit fables of auld poetry; () The Tale of the Cock and the Jasp — A cok sum tyme wt fetherem ech & gay P, f.iiiv Henryson: O farest lady o swetast lady o blisful lady hewynnis quheyne (BL Harley , ff. –; NLS Adv. MS .. ‘Bannatyne MS’, ff. v–v, –, v–v; NLS MS , ff. –; Edinburgh University Library, La.III., f. v ( stanza); Prints: Charteris ; Bassendyne  (NIMEV, )) P, f. v ?: Compaciens perß rewtht and mercy stundis (versions also in NLS Adv. MS .. ‘Bannatyne MS’, f. v; BL Arundel , f. v) P, f. r ?: Man hef in mynd & mend yi myß. Apparently ‘closely related to’ ‘Man haue mynd and ye Amend / Of all thi mys‥’ in NLS 225 A Latin-Older Scots Glossary Selim  () Adv. MS .., f. v. (IMEV , )) P, f. r Henryson, The Praise of Age — In tyl ane garth wnder ane reid roseir (versions also in NLS Adv. MS .. ‘Bannatyne MS’, f. v, f. v; Prints: Chepman and Myllar ; NIMEV . P, f. r ?: A Paternoster — Almyty god our fader of hewyne abuf P, f. r ?: A Hail Mary — hail mare goddis moder ful of grace P, f. v ?: Creed — I trow in god ye fader almychty P, f. r John Lydgate — Criste qui lux es et dies [Scots version also in NLS Adv. MS .. ‘Bannatyne MS’, f. r — and for other versions see ‘Zupitza, Archiv [ ür das Studium der neueren Sprachen und Literaturen] LXXXIX.’. (IMEV , , , , , )]; NIMEV  P, f. v Henryson: Reasoning Betwixt Age and Youth — Quhen fair flora ye goddas of al flowris [Cambridge, Magdalene College, Pepys  ‘Maitland Folio MS’, pp. –; NLS Adv. MS .. ‘Bannatyne MS’, pp. –, ff. –]; NIMEV  P, f. v ?: A Ballad of Our Lady — Royß mary most of Vertu Virginall [versions also in NLS MS  ‘Asloan MS’, p.  and BL Harley , p. b]⁵ P, f. r: Lydgate: A Dietary — For hail of body keip a cald yi ⁵ IMEV (Supplement) attributes this poem to William Dunbar, but there is no conclusive evidence for the attribution in the extant (all incomplete) versions. Neither of Dunbar’s most recent and most thorough editors, Kinsley () and Bawcutt (), admit it to the canon. (See Baxter : ). The recent revision of IMEV — NIMEV — excludes reference to this poem because of revision of the temporal coverage of the work. 226 Keith Williamson Selim  () heid; NIMEV / [Other Scots versions in Cambridge, St John’s College  (G.), ff. v–v; NIMEV /. NLS Adv. MS .. ‘Bannatyne MS’, ff. –; NIMEV /)] P, f. v–r ?: Herkyne wordis wonder gud [versions in BL Arundel , ff. v–; BL Add. MS , stanzas –, f. v; stanzas –, f. v]; NIMEV  [= Ringler , TM ] STS edn. prints the text on f. r, beginning ‘Se I for luf man bot ye deyre’ as a separate poem. However, on the evidence of British Library MS Arundel ⁶, ff. v–r, it is a continuation of the poem beginning here on f. v. P, f. r ?: me Rewis one’ mary my modyr [mild]. Ringer  (TM  notes it as ‘… a damaged agment’ of P, ‘Herkyne wordis wonder gud’. The verse to which this partly corresponds in BL Arundel  is not in P. It is not clear (especially given the damage to the Makculloch version) if this should be taken as part of P or if it was supplied om a different source. I have opted to treat it as a separate item for now. My concern in this paper is not directly with the poems but with another interpolated text of an altogether different character. The poems as an assemblage of linguistic objects in their own right will be discussed in a separate paper (Williamson in prep.). They are referred to here in so far as they may cast light on the text which is the subject of this paper. The Glossary. On ff. v–r is a Latin–Older Scots glossa collecteana of  items (including one repetition). This glossary is in the same hand as that of the poems. An annotated text of the glossary is provided in ⁶ For a printing of the the Arundel text, see Bennett (: –). 227 A Latin-Older Scots Glossary Selim  () Appendix A. For ease of reference in the discussions which follow I have assigned a number to each Latin word and its Older Scots equivalent. The transcription of the text of the glossary is given in the “research format” used in the Edinburgh Corpus of Older Scots (ECOS).⁷ This format is also used in quotations and citations om the poems. Arrangement of the glossary The glossary is arranged to give first a Latin word then a Scots equivalent. The Latin words are arranged to give first nouns, being glosses –, and then verbs (of which there are ), being glosses –. The nouns are arranged in three columns on f. v:  in the first column,  in the second and  in the third. The nouns are grouped broadly according to their grammatical gender. The gender of the Latin noun in each case is indicated by prefixing HIC, HEC or HOC as appropriate. First come  neuter nouns, followed by  masculine and feminine intermixed. In three cases — 66 FORFEX, 67 FORPEX and 75 GANNETA — the gloss-maker has not specified the gender. In 66 and 67 he has written simply H. To the le of 75 GANNETA is a partly erased H. In the Scots equivalents,  out of the  nouns are preceded by the indefinite article, A. The verbs are listed separately on f. r. The Latin verbs are given in the first person singular indicative form. In the Scots equivalents, they are presented as infinitives, marked usually by AS TO. AS here would ⁷ ECOS is being compiled as the data-base for the Linguistic Atlas of Older Scots (LAOS), published in  as an open-access interactive web-site by the department of Linguistics and English Language, University of Edinburgh (www. lel.ed.ac.uk/ihd/laos1/laos⒈html). In the “research format”: visible manuscript letters are in upper case; expansions of manuscript abbreviations are in lower case, except for ‘z’, which represents manuscript ‘ȝ’; ‘~’ at the end of a word indicates a horizontal stroke over all or part of the manuscript word; ‘ ” ’ at the end of a word indicates an upward and back-curving stroke om the final letter. 228 Keith Williamson Selim  () seem to mean “like” or perhaps “as [if it were]”.⁸ The glossary maker was presumably concerned to group the nouns and verbs separately. There would have been ample room in the third column on f. v to accommodate the verbs listed on f. r. In two cases, there are etymological connexions between nouns and verbs: 85 HEC OCCA harrow; area of cultivated land, furrow : CLOID clod of earth 101 OCCO to harrow; to break up (stone) : +AS TO CLOID to ee (land) om clods by harrowing (OED); to pelt with clods (DOST) 43 HEC LIRAPA ? : A BUTTON~ ?button 92 LERAPO ? : AS TO BUTTON~ to ?button From this arrangement, the glossary maker collected his materials om some other source⒮ and has sought to order them according to conventions of Latin grammar. Aims of the Present Study. In the remainder of this paper I will: examine issues related to the manuscript readings of the () glossary; compare the linguistic forms of the vernacular glosses with () corresponding forms found in the poems; discuss some problematic semantic equivalences between the () Latin and Older Scots terms in the glossary; assess the overall content of the glossary.() ⁸ Arguably, A could be read as an abbreviation for ‘a[nglice]’ and AS for ‘a[lias]’. But A appears only in the noun glosses and AS in the verb glosses. While ‘a’ for anglice is to be be found in other glossaries, I have not come across ‘as’ for alias in this context to connect Latin and vernacular equivalents. If these are interpreted as the vernacular (Scots) words a and as, they make good sense in their context. 229 A Latin-Older Scots Glossary Selim  () R  M G Editorial Practice. The glossary has been edited once previously by George Stevenson for the Scottish Text Society (; henceforth ‘STS edn.’) along with the other vernacular poems om the Makculloch MS.⁹ STS edn. provides a plain text, conservatively edited, noticing abbreviations explicitly with literal expansions in italics. There are one or two footnotes concerning alternative readings, but otherwise there is no commentary on the text. I have re-edited the Makculloch texts for the Edinburgh Corpus of Older Scots (ECOS), re-transcribing om the manuscript using the ECOS ‘research format’ conventions (see footnote ). My text differs om that of the STS edn. in some matters of editorial practice. Where Stevenson interprets a horizontal stroke over a word as a final ‘e’, I have preferred to indicate this with a ‘~’. However, in line with the transcription conventions for ECOS, I have interpreted final ‘r’ with an upward and leward-curving flourish over the letter as ‘Re’ (usually rendered in more conventional typescript as ‘re’). In ANE” the final ” indicates a upward, backward turning flourish off the final letter. Some Re-readings of the Manuscript Text of the Glossary. These points of editorial practice aside, I have also differed om the STS edn. in some readings both of Latin and Scots words. My differences in reading om those in the STS edn. have been motivated primarily by what (I think) I saw in the manuscript. If the alternative reading also brings out what seems to be a more plausible word in the language in question, then I have taken that ⁹ The edition also contains vernacular poems om the ‘Gray MS’ (Edinburgh, National Library of Scotland MS ..) and om the ‘Chepman and Myllar Prints’, also held by the NLS, Sa.(–) and now viewable in digitized form on- line at www.nls.uk/firstscottishbooks/items.html. 230 Keith Williamson Selim  () as offering supporting evidence for the alternative reading. My different readings derive om various palaeographical issues and I have grouped my re-readings below according to these issues. 〈c〉 and 〈t〉3.2.1 The scribe’s 〈c〉 and 〈t〉 are usually quite distinct, but there are instances where an etymological ‘t’ is rendered by a c-like figura and vice versa. I have read 14 HOC PRACELLUM for STS edn. pratellum 28 VENACAR for STS edn. venatar 74 CHESELL for STS edn. thesell 〈r〉 and 〈i〉3.2.2 The z- or -shaped ‘r’ is sometimes written in a very open way tending to look like a rather cursive minim. Hence, ‘i’ and the z-like ‘r’ are occasionally liable to confusion. I have preferred to read gloss  as 19 HOC BRACIARIUm for STS edn. bracrarium BRACIARIUm is the better reading of the manuscript, I believe, and it also gives a form that matches a recorded Latin word. Similarly, in gloss  I have preferred 25 BIGRILD for STS edn. bigald and, indeed, STS edn. also gives bigrild as an alternative reading in a footnote. Given the sense of “by-girdle”, the form BIGRILD could be seen as a metathesized form of the girdle element. Cf Mod. Eng. / Sc. girdle, griddle “A circular iron plate upon which cakes are baked; a cooking grill”, where girdle is om metathesis of griddle. In fact, the form BIGRILD suggests a double metathesis, with ‘dl’ also inverted. Both [C(V)r] and [VCl] are sequences which have had a 231 A Latin-Older Scots Glossary Selim  () tendency to metathesis in the histories of English and Scots. 93 ?FRICO for STS edn. fuco The STS edn. reading looks convincing, albeit the form FUCO does not correspond to the sense of the Scots equivalent, AS TO FRY. PP  has ‘ffryn in apan: ffrigo, –is, –xi ‥ ixo, –as, –aui’. It is possible that the U is to be read as ri, giving frico. In the writing of the putative U, the (hairline) cross-stroke of the F joins to the top of what looks like the first of two linked minims. Now, the ‘r’ of this hand is written with a z-like figura and and if the on- and off-strokes of this type or ‘r’ are short, it can take on a minim- like appearance. Although, in the hand of the glossary, the ‘r’ is normally quite clear and not confusable with ‘i’, there are one or two cases where confusion is possible. Witness the two preceding cases. Other instances in the glossary where ‘r’ tends to a minim- like shape are in 17 HERILICIUm, 27 PRECONIUM, 46 CARDIUS, 77 BRANCIA, 80 VERUCA. Expansions of abbreviations and suspensions.. There are cases where I have interpreted a manuscript abbreviation or suspension mark differently that given in the STS edn. 10 HOC IMPAME” for STS edn. impamen I decided finally not to expand the abbreviation on IMPAME” (an upward and back-turning curl om the final ‘e’) out of uncertainty to what it may stand for. Stevenson, not unreasonably, interprets it as ‘n’, but I have been unable so far to find a Latin word that corresponds to either impamen or impam, or anything similar. 22 HOC PEDuM for STS edn. pedium The new reading takes the final three minims to be ‘m’ and the 232 Keith Williamson Selim  () form then corresponds to the Latin pedum with the sense of “crook, crozier” and matches well enough the Scots gloss, A SCHIPCRUK “sheep-crook”. 55 ProAPSIS: A PLAIT I agree with STS edn. that the abbreviation mark looks like that for ‘ro’, although the expected form of the Latin word would be perapsis or paropsis. Supplying of apparently omitted letters.. In gloss , 29 MUSTar for STS edn. mustar[d]. I have simply chosen to leave the form unaltered. It could be an erroneous omission of ‘d’ or it may be an intended spelling, to reflect loss of the stop in the word-final cluster /rd/. Cf DOST s.v. Mustard n. ‘In beir melk muster; – Household Bks. Jas. VI  Mar.’ s.v. Mustard- n. ‘Mustyr seid … makith ones eis to vattyr; ?  Black Bk. Taymouth ’. Interpretation of minims.. 30 HOC PISTRinUm for STS edn. pistium The issue here is partly interpretation of a string of minims, complicated by an abbreviation mark. STS edn. reads three minims aer 〈t〉 as 〈iu〉, with the abbreviation standing for a final ‘m’. However, I read two minims and interpret them as 〈u〉. Also, a single abbreviation in a Latin word may stand for more than one littera, which need not be contiguous ones. Again, PISTRinUm gives a possible Latin word which corresponds to the vernacular equivalent. Arguably, it could be read alternatively as PISTRUm, 233 A Latin-Older Scots Glossary Selim  () though this means “pestle” and not “bakehouse”. 42 ?HUOUIn for STS edn. huome I propose tentatively the reading ?HUOUIn here. There are three final minims with a horizontal stroke over them and, while it is possible to read them as 〈m〉, 〈in〉 as well as being a plausible alternative reading also gives an etymologically better form. Nonetheless, the form is odd in that HUO- implies a breaking or an off-glide om the expected stressed vowel /yː/, so ?/ˈhyøɪn/. Another possible (and simpler) reading, is ?HUOIN~, which could be interpreted phonically as a disyllabic with loss of intervocalic [v] — phonically ?/ˈhyøˌɪn/. (Cf. DOST, s.v. Ovin, Uven, Une and Hoyne for Older Scots forms and SND, s.v. Une for Modern Scots forms.) 46 STS edn. HEC CARDNIS In the manuscript, the form certainly looks like CARDNIS, but the expected form would in fact be carduus. It should be read perhaps as CARDUIS, albeit either this or the STS edn. reading would indicate an erroneous form in the manuscript. 50 HEC FAUELLA for STS edn. fanella 〈u〉 is a perfectly possible reading in the manuscript and again allows a recognizable Latin form when read against the Scots equivalent. (Indeed, DOST s.v. Spark n. notes “erron. for favella”.) 83 HEC LANIGO for STS edn. lamgo It was not possible to decide conclusively how to read the minims in this form. The Scots equivalent, A WOW-CAYM~ (“wool comb”) suggests that the better reading would be LANI- rather than LAM- on the evidence of WOW “wool” in the vernacular form (cf. Latin lāna “wool”). 234 Keith Williamson Selim  () P  A number of the Latin words I have not been able to identi, or their forms in the glossary seem to be partly erroneous. Also, some of the equivalences in meaning are problematic. Unidentified words. 10 HOC IMPAME” This seems to be abbreviated, but it is not clear what the abbreviation would stand for. As noted above, I finally reained om expanding the apparent abbreviation mark in IMPAME~. None of my attempts at deciphering this form have yielded a plausible Latin word. The Scots equivalent would seem to mean “travail, trouble, effort”. STS edn. has impamen, but I can find no Latin word with this form. 11 HOC EPUTITIUm In the text of the glossary I have agreed with STS edn. in the expansion of the abbreviation as m, but I have been unable to find a Latin word corresponding with this, nor any where the mininims and abbreviation are read in different ways. The vernacular equivalent, A TURMEnT, is open to interpretation: () “torture”; () “storm, tempest”; () “an engine of war worked by torsion, for hurling stones, darts, or other missiles” (OED s.v. torment n. ). The third sense is not recorded in DOST, but that need not preclude it. In Latin turmentum / tormentum has the extended sense in the th century of () to “gun”, “fire-arm” (RMLW s.v. torment/um). On the theme of weaponry in the glossary, cf. 24 MAGONALE A GOWN, and possibly 17 … WYER. Nevertheless, a tentative solution to this gloss may be inferred om the ‘Nominale’ edited and printed om a th-century manuscript in Wright–Wülcker () (their text XIX). In XIX/. is ‘Hoc 235 A Latin-Older Scots Glossary Selim  () epitimeum, tyme’ and on XIX/., ‘Hec tormentilla, tormentyne’. One might hypothesize that either the source of the Makculloch glossary, or some earlier textual glossarial source, also had glosses close together (perhaps in contiguous lines) for thyme and tormentil or tormentyn (another possible form; see MED s.v. tormentīn(e (n.)). In medieval glossaries words might be arranged into rough lexical fields. In WW-XIX, the above examples fall under ‘Nomina arborum arabilium et florum’. In our hypothesis, the Latin word would have been matched with the wrong vernacular one and there was at the same time, or subsequently, miscopying of epitimeum and confusion of tormentil with torment. 17 HOC HERILICIUm The vernacular equivalent for this is WYER, which would seem to mean “wire” — the spelling seems to suggest a disyllabic form, common in Modern Scots. The expected Medieval Latin form for “wire” would be ferrifilum. An alternative reading of the vernacular word might be “A bolt for a cross-bow” (DOST s.v. Vyre n.). Promptorium Parvulorum has  “Bolt: petilio, –is ‥ Tribulum, –li”. 43 HEC LIRAPA : A BUTTON~ This also connects with 92 LERAPO : AS TO BUTTON~. I have not been able to find any Latin words corresponding to lirapa or lerapo. 82 HIC DENT” : A COBILL The vernacular word could mean “coble; a small flat-bottomed boat”, but there seems to be no corresponding Latin word beginning with dent– or deut– with this sense. Cf. also PP  ‘Pyk, sh: Dentrix, –cis’. However, if DENT” is intended to represent dentrix, there seems to be be no Scots word corresponding to COBILL with the sense of 236 Keith Williamson Selim  () “pike”, “dogfish” or any other fish. Another interpretation is dentaria, which MLD defines uncertainly “(?) pellitory (Parietaria)” (OED sense : “A low bus plant (Parietaria officinalis, N.O. Urticaceæ) with small ovate leaves and greenish flowers, growing upon or at the foot of walls. Commonly distinguished as pellitory of the wall.)” There is nothing to connect this interpretation with COBILL. If we reconsider the reading, taking into account the possibility of N as U and T as C, we could have here DEUT” or DEUC”. If U is then taken to be /v/, then we might posit a connexion with the verb devehere “to carry, transport” (DML s.v devehere). This has a past participle devectus. (And cf. MWB s.v. devector, –oris “perlator – Überbringer”.) Taking this route, a reading DEUT” / DEUC” might partly be unpacked as *deuect– / *deuect–, where the full word would have the sense of “something which conveys, carries”, as a cobill used as a ferry. 83 HEC LANIGO? LAN– (if the reading be accepted) suggests Latin lāna “wool” which would accord with WOW in its Scots equivalent. The word lanigo does occur in an Anglo-Norman glossary Glasgow University MS Hunter  (ca ) (Hunt  i: ). In the glossary it appears listed under a heading ‘De menbris et de visceribus’ but there it is glossed ‘prime barbe’ (Hunt  i: ). It is possible that the intended word was lanugo. This occurs in WW-XIX and -XX (see Appendix B), but none of the senses match with the Scots WOW CAYM~. 88 GERESTO : AS TO BRANK The Scots word here offers three possible senses according to DOST s.v Brank, v.¹ . intr. “To behave violently or without restraint”; “. To bear oneself proudly or extravagantly; to toss the head; to prance”; “. tr. To make fine; to dress up.” and s.v. Brank, v.² “[f. Brankis n.] tr. To punish with the branks; to put the branks on.” Brankis 237 A Latin-Older Scots Glossary Selim  () are defined (s.v. Brankis n.¹) as “A form of bridle with wooden side- pieces”; “. An iron device of the nature of a bridle and gag, used as a means of public punishment for breaches of the peace, abusive language, etc.” OED marks brank, branks as Scots. Which sense of BRANK is intended to equate with GERESTO is not possible to say as I have been unable to identi it with any Latin word. 89 PUTITIO Cf. WW-XVI/. pictacium, clowte of a schoo; XVIII/. “Hoc pictacium, Ae clowt’. But pictacium scarcely resembles PUTITIO. 92 LERAPO See above, 43. 96 SARFFO : AS TO WRET This gloss is cited in DOST s.v. Writ(e v., II. intr.. a. To form characters with an implement, usu. a pen, usu. with ink, to write letters, words, etc. so as to communicate in this fashion. b. To have the skill or ability to do this. c. To make a mark. d. To represent words or sounds orthographically, to spell. The citation is: “Sarffo [? erron. for scribo], as to wret; Makc. MS xiii ” The figura following on the ‘s’ looks like a large single- compartment ‘a’. There is a small diagonal (le-to-right and upward) cross-stroke on the downward off-stroke om the ‘a’, which suggests a correction. If the cross-stroke be relevant to the reading, was it an attempt to make a correction? But it is difficult to see what would have been intended in terms of the form in the manuscript—an attempt to correct to 〈scr〉? Yet, the figura for the fourth letter is very clearly ‘r’ and would remain unaltered. If a correction really was attempted here, it was somewhat tentative. If 238 Keith Williamson Selim  () the suggestion in DOST of an error for scribo is correct, it might be supposed that the glossary maker drew here on a manuscript source which was unclear and that he misread ‘scri–’ as ‘sar–’. However, this would imply *〈scriffo〉 with 〈ff〉 representing /v/. This would be quite possible in Older Scots, but rather odd in a Latin word. Scrivo would not be an impossible Medieval Latin form of scribo. That said, the DOST suggestion seems to me to require hypothesizing too much emendation to make a plausible argument om the specifics of the form. If the exemplar word was scribo, one would have to propose simply a serious misreading and misunderstanding by the compiler of the glossary. Identifiable words with problematic forms. 4 HOC conCUTEUM : MED-NY^T This is quite possibly an error for concubium (also Cl. Lat) “that part of the night in which the first sleep falls upon men” (Lewis and Short, s.v. ‘concubium’), which definition would accord reasonably with the vernacular equivalent, MED-NY^T “midnight”. 86 SUFFENDO : AS TO ONDer-MYND W–W equates ‘undermyne’ with Latin ‘Cunio’. PP , s.v. ‘Vndermyndyne’ cross-refers to ‘vnder Delvynge’ and s.v. ‘Vnderdelvynge’ the equation is with ‘Subfossura, ire’ and ‘Subfossio, –nis’. SUFF- certainly suggests Latin sub + f–. The second element could be taken as a form of Latin findere “to cleave, split”, so the form could be intrepreted as “to undercut” (cf. Anglo-French fendre and fyndre “to cleave, split”; AND s.v. ‘fendre¹‘). SUFFENDO could also be read as SUFFEUDO, taking the ‘n’ for ‘u’, with the sense of “subfeu”, but this seems to bear no relation to the Scots equivalent. 239 A Latin-Older Scots Glossary Selim  () Problems with equivalence of meaning. In some cases I have been unable to reconcile the meanings of the Latin words and their given Scots equivalents. Either the words mean quite different things or they do not match exactly in any of the expected senses. 21 HOC ANTIPODIUm “?for antepedia uppers of a shoe”: FORDELL “?precedence, lead; advantage, profit (DOST s.v. Fordell n. ” If one accepts the Latin form given here, it suggests antipos “diametrically opposed” or antipodes “those who dwell directly opposite to each other on the globe” (OED s.v. antipodes). ANTIPODIUM might be one such; but this does not connect with FORDELL “precedence, lead; advantage”. ANTI- might be supposed to be for ante– and so correspond to FOR- for fore– in the Scots equivalent. W–W has ‘Hoc antepedale, Ae wampe [i.e. the upper of a shoe] / Hoc pedium, idem’; DML records antepedale and antipedia both “vamp (of shoe)”. If ANTIPODIUM refers to “vamp or upper [part of a shoe]”, then FORDELL might be interpreted as fore– [“before, forward”]+ deal =“part” (cf. OSc dele “bit, part”). But cf. also Med. Latin antependium “altar ontal; curtain before the table of sacrament house” (DML s.v. antependium, where the illustrative quotation is om the Registrum Aberdonensis). 34 HOC LORUm “thong, strap; rein, bridle; bond, restraint” : MAILzE ? There is no obvious close semantic connexion between MAILzE and LORUm. DOST s.v. Male, Mail(l, n. has “A travelling bag or portmanteau; a travelling case or trunk. Appar. usually as made of leather or cloth, but also of wood” and s.v. Mailȝe, n.¹ the senses . “One of the metal rings of which mail-armour is composed”; . “Chain-work of interlaced metal rings as a constituent of armour; mail-armour”; . “A small metal ring to be fixed to a garment to 240 Keith Williamson Selim  () take a hook, clasp, lace, or other fastening; a metal eyelet”. The best that might be made is the idea of joining things together — the links in the mail? 36 HOC DEPLETORIUm ? “utensil for emptying” : A LADILL “household ladle” I have not been able to find a noun depletorium, but it is presumably connected to Latin deplēo “to empty”. 39 HEC SAGANA “female soothsayer, witch” : SURPLIS “gown, loose garment” DOST s.v. Surples, Surplice, n. quotes the Makculloch MS and notes ‘L. sagana (= a female soothsayer, a witch) seems to have been confused with sagum or sagus a coarse woollen blanket or mantle; a garment, or sagulum a small military cloak.’ 40 HEC SECTURA “cutting; place where anything is cut or dug” : A SAIM “join between two pieces of cloth” SAIM here is a form of Scots seme. DOST s.v. Seme n. gives among the senses “. The join between two pieces of cloth or other material, effected by stitching the edges together; the part of a garment so stitched” and “. A geological layer or stratum containing mineral or ore deposits, such as coal, silver, etc.” Med. Latin sectura appears to map to the second of these senses, but not the first. PP  s.v. ‘Ceme, of cloth’ equates seam with Latin ‘Sutura, –re’. It is possible that SECTURA in the glossary is a mis-rendering of sutura. 47 HEC MASTIX “gum mastic” : MADer “madder – the plant; the dyestuff got om the plant” Equation of MASTIX with madder is found also in Alexander of Villa Dei’s Doctrinale: ‘() mastix: anglice madir (A [= BL, Arundel , a manuscript of the second half of the th century])’ (Hunt  ii: ;  i: ). The usual Latin for madder, is sandix, –dex: 241 A Latin-Older Scots Glossary Selim  () for examples see Hunt ( iii: ). 54 HIC NOTHUS “bastard; adulterer; (of animals) mongrel” : A HURSON~ “whoreson (coarse term of abuse); bastard” In fact, there is probably no problem here, but c.f. the footnote in Wright–Wülcker (: .; Appendix C, ), where it is pointed out that notus ‘south wind” was also spelled nothus. 58 HIC POLIPUS “octopus or squid or cuttlefish – cephalopod having eight or ten tentacles” : A LOPSTARe “lobster” Polypus usually refers to some kind of cephalopod. Indeed, the word is borrowed into Older Scots (DOST s.v. Polipus “A polypus, a cuttle fish or an octopus”. However, RMLW does give “lobster, crayfish” as possible definitions. The term would seem to have been extended to include certain crustaceans. 66 H FORFEX “scissors” : A PAIR TANGis “set or pair of tongs, pincers or forceps” 67 H FORPEX “pair of shears; scissors” : A PAIR SCHERis “shears” The glossary appears to identi tongs with forfex “scissors”. Perhaps, there was uncertainty and confusion with forpex, the following word, which can mean “shears” or “scissors”. Cf. PP,  s.v. ‘Sysowre, schere: fforpex, –cis; cf.  Schere, to clyp with: fforfex, –cis’. 78 HEC CARCINTIA ?polygonon = knotweed : MYNT mint, the aromatic herb The usual Latin for mint is menta, mentha. I have been unable to find carcintia. The Latin word here might be related to carcinothron “polygonon”. But this is still a different plant om mint. 242 Keith Williamson Selim  () 79 HEC SPELTA ?“species of grain (Triticum spelta)” : RYISs ?“rice; rush – the plant; rush-wheat, rush-corn; ?twigs, brushwood” 84 HEC MANELLA ?“sort of clothing” : A HUPSCHAKYLL “hobble for a horse” The second element of the Scots word seems to be shackle. Cf PP  ‘Schakyl, or schakle: Murella, –e’. MANELLA might be an error for murella or a similar form. 93 FUCO “to dye, stain with colour” : AS TO FRY ? “y” This was discussed above (§ ) in relation to the reading of FUCO. If the correct reading is FUCO, then this has the meaning “to dye or stain with colour” and makes for an apparently incorrect equivalence. 94 DEROGO “to derogate, detract om; to revile, mock” : AS TO MAK LYSs “to fabricate lies” 102 AMPULO = ?ampliāre – “to make wider, extend, enlarge” : AS TO SPRED “to spread; extend the effect of (sthg)” L F The textual relationship of the glossary to the poems. Although the text of the glossary and the texts of the poems are in the same hand, it cannot be assumed thereom that they are linguistically the same, that is, in the same scribal language. If the copying scribe tended towards representing faithfully the orthographic forms of his exemplar⒮ rather than ‘translating’ them into his own customary usage, then, if the sources were different, there would likely be different scribal languages in the present copies. There are two questions of linguistic comparison here: () how similar are the texts of the individual poems linguistically to each other?; () is the language of the glossary consonant with the 243 A Latin-Older Scots Glossary Selim  () language found in any or all of the texts of the poems? There is not space in the present paper to address the first question in this paper. That will form part of a separate paper on the poems (Williamson in prep.). Here I address the second of these questions and offer a comparison of linguistic forms found in the vernacular forms in the glossary with the forms for the functionally equivalent items in the poems as a set. An important issue in making this comparison is the relationship of the text of the glossary to the text of the poems. The poems, we can reasonably propose, came originally om different manuscript sources since they are the output of different authors. However, an important issue for a linguistic analysis of the the poems is whether they may have been copied into the Makculloch MS om a single exemplar or om more than one. Again, that is not a question for the present paper. For the purposes of linguistic comparison of the poems and the glossary, I treat the poems as a single corpus, albeit identiing the individual poems in which different features occur. Comparison of the forms of the glossary with the forms of the poems. The glossary provides a very limited subset of its compiler’s potential linguistic repertoire. Nevertheless, there are a number of salient features in the glossary that are shared amongst the poems. Indefinite article.. The glossary maker consistently has A for the indefinite article, !. In the poems, A is also the dominant form, !, comprising  ﹪ of the occurrences;  of these occur before a word beginning with a consonant and only  before a word beginning with a vowel. The poems also contain AN ! and  instances of ANE ( ﹪) and  ( ﹪) of ANE”. The glossary has A in all positions, viz. before a word beginning with a consonant, a vowel and ‘h’. In  A NOTYR (“indef 244 Keith Williamson Selim  () art + OTTER), there seems to have been a metanalysis (cf. Mod. Eng. newt < OE efeta). I have treated the indefinite article here as /A+C (i.e. before a consonant). The ‘notter’ type is recorded also in Middle English (see MED, s.v. oter), but it is not recorded for Older Scots in DOST other than for this text. Table . Indefinite Article G +C A 40, A+ 1 41 +V A 4 4 +〈h〉 A 5 5 P +C A 44 (P P P P P P P P), AN 1 (P), ANE 6 (P P P), ANE” 5 (P P P P) 56 +V A 2 (P) 2 +〈h〉 ― 0 In the poems, there are only two instances of the indefinite article before a word beginning with a spelling which implies a vowel; there are no instances in any of the poems of the indefinite article before a word beginning with 〈h〉. Overall the clear preference would seem to be for A (! out of ), although  of these instances occur in P; ‘ane’ occurs ! (ANE ! ANE” !) and ‘an’ only !. Excluding P the overall pattern is ‘a’ !, ‘an’ !, ‘ane’ !. However, only P and P offer convincing evidence of this. ‘a’ is also preferred in P and P, while ‘ane’ is preferred in P; but as these texts only have four occurrences each of the item, it would not be safe to draw a firm conclusion om their evidence. It is not possible to say if forms with ‘n’ (AN, ANE and ANE”) — generally the more common forms by the end of the th century — are part of the glossary copier’s active repertoire or are carry- overs om his exemplars. However, even if they are not his normal or preferred usage, forms of the ‘an(e’-type are so common in 245 A Latin-Older Scots Glossary Selim  () Older Scots texts that he must have been familiar with them and, if they were not in his active repertoire of forms, it is a reasonable assumption that they must have been part of his passive repertoire. Verbal noun inf lexion.. The glossary contains  instances of the verbal noun +YN~ ! (5 … DAWYN~), +IN ! (12 .. HEGIN) and +YNE ! (31 .. FOULLYNE, 32 .. HUNTYNE). Out of  occurrences of the verbal noun in the poems only the form +YNE is shared with the glossary, occurring !. Otherwise, the poems have +ING !, both in rhyming position, and +YNG !,  of these in rhyming position. There is one occurrence of +AND. Table . Verbal Noun Inflexion G $/vn +IN ! +YNE ! +YN~ ! 4 P $/vn +AND ! (P) +YNE ! (P, P) +YNG ! (P !, P !, P !) 12 $/vn-aj +YNG ! (P) 1 $/vn{rh} +ING ! (P !, P !) +YNG ! (P !, P !, P !, P !) 8 AS.. The glossary consistently has AS in the collocation AS TO in the list of verbal glosses. (In 90, 98 TO has been omitted; in 103 and 104 AS has been omitted.) The poems have AS ! in  poems, being ﹪ of the occurrences, and ALSs ! in  poems. All but one 246 Keith Williamson Selim  () of the occurrences of ALSs are in P, which also has  instances of AS. Table . AS G AS !  P AS ! (P !, P !, P !, P !, P !, P !, P !)  ALSs ! (P !, P !)  〈Vi〉 spellings.. 〈Vi〉 and 〈Vy〉 are common spellings for etymologically long monophthongs in th-century Older Scots texts. They begin to appear in Scots om the last quarter of the th century. Table  shows the distributions of 〈Vi〉 spellings in the glossary for the vowels in each of the poems. (Williamson in prep. will offer a wider study of the orthography and phonology of the poems.) As a reference point I use the Early Scots (late th-century) system of vowels as reconstructed by A.J. Aitken (see especially Aitken ). Both the glossary and the poems share the use of this type of marker for spelling of the long monophthongs. Distinctive here is the use of AI in reflexes of ESc /ɛː/ as well as of /aː/ and /ai/, and the use of YI in reflexes of ESc /iː/. Table . 〈Vi〉 (i.e. 〈i〉 as marker of vowel length) /iː/ /eː/ /ɛː/ /aː/ /oː/ G YI ! EI ! AI ! AI ! OI ! P YI ! EI o!⁸ EI !² AI ! OI ! EY ! AY ! P – EY !⁴ AI ! – OY ! EI ! 247 A Latin-Older Scots Glossary Selim  () P – EI !² – AI ! – EY ! AY ! P – EI ! – AI ! – EY !² AY !³ P – EI !¹ EI ! AI ! OI ! EY !¹ OY ! OY ! P – – – – – P – EI ! – AI ! – P – – EI ! AI ! – EY ! P YI ! EI !² EI ! AI ! – P – EI ! EI !¹ AI !³ – EY ! EY ! AY ! OY !¹ P – EI ! EI ! AI ! OI ! AY ! OY ! P – EI !² EI !² AI !² – AY !¹ P – EI !¹ EI ! AI ! OI ! AY !¹ P – EI ! EI ! AI !² OI ! EY !¹ AY !¹ Superscript numbers refer to the number of cases where the spellings occur in rhyming words. 〈nȝ〉 for palatal /n/ and 〈lȝ〉 for palatal /l/.. In the glossary, palatal /n/ and /l/ are indicated in spelling by 〈ȝ〉; only palatal /n/ with the palatal indicated by 〈ȝ〉-spelling occurs in 248 Keith Williamson Selim  () the poems; that is, I take the form in  CUGzE to be for cu〈n〉 gȝe (=? / kuŋjɪ/). In the poems, the only occurrences of palatal /n/ are in: P FENzIET past part adj !, DERENzE v inf !; P SEzOUR, where, as in the glossary form CUGZE, there is also nothing to express ‘n’ /n/ either in figura or abbreviation. It is possible that these forms express for the writer / copyist (sporadic) loss of /n/, i.e. /nj/  /j/, or /ɲ/  /j/. Or perhaps /n/ was not lost, but came out in nasalization of the vowel, e.g. ?[kũjɪ], ?[ˈsẽjˌʊr]. 〈ch〉 for /ʃ /.. In the glossary,  has FYCH, with 〈ch〉 for /ʃ /. This spelling occurs also in the poems: in FRECH ‘fresh’ !, FLECH ‘f lesh’ !, CHANKis ‘shanks’ !, CHILD ‘shield’ v !, WECH~ ‘wash’ (!). The poems also have regular 〈ch〉, implying [ʧ ], and 〈sch〉, implying [ ʃ ]. 〈sch〉 also occurs in the poems for etymological /sk/, implying [ ʃ ] — or even ?[sx] — viz. SCHRAIP ‘scrape’ v inf ! (P) (alongside SCRAPAND v pres part !) and SCHURGIT ‘scourge’ v past part ! (P). (See Table  for the distribution of 〈sch–〉, 〈ch–〉 and 〈sk–〉 in the poems.) Table . 〈ch〉 for /ʃ / G FYCH () P FRECH ‘fresh’ ! (P, P, P) FLECH ‘f lesh’ ! (P, P) CHANKis ‘shanks’ ! (P) CHILD ‘shield’ v ! (P) WECH~ ‘wash’ ! (P) Let .. v The glossary has LAT for ‘let’ (< OE lǣtan (ONhb lēta); OScand. láta) once in the phrase TO LAT BLUD. This verb occurs also in the poems !, as an imperative in each case. 249 A Latin-Older Scots Glossary Selim  () Table . let v G LAT ! P LAT v imper ! (P, P, P) 〈o〉 for initial etymological /u/ in .. (+), –, ,  In the glossary, under+ in 86 ONDer-MYND is spelled with initial 〈o〉. In the poems this occurs once in the poems in UNDERSTAND v pres indic ONDerSTAND in rhyme (P). For forms of UNDERSTAND, the other poems have initial 〈w〉 — P !, ! rh, P ! rh 〈w〉 being the preferred spelling, with 〈v〉 once for the initial vowel. P has WN+ for UN–. For UNDER prep P has WNDer !, P *VNDer !, but P has ONE”+ !. 〈o〉, though, occurs in the poems as the initial vowel in UNTO and UNTIL: P ONE-TO !; P ONE-TO !; P ONE”-TIL !; P ONE”-TIL !; P ONE”-TYLL !, ONE-TO !. Infinitive marker.. In the glossary, the infinitive marker is consistently TO, usually in the collocation AS TO. There is only one occurrence before a word beginning with a vowel, in 86 AS TO ONDer-MYND. In the poems there are  instances of an infinitive marker; TO is the most common form (! in  poems — +C !, +V ! +〈h〉 !). However, as minor variants are to be found TIL !, FOR-TO ! in  poems (P !, P ! and P !) and FOR-TIL ! (P). T       M MS The occurrence of these features in the glossary and in the texts of the poems support the palaeographical evidence, that the glossary was written down and the poems copied by the same person. The 250 Keith Williamson Selim  () fact that in a number of cases the forms of the glossary are to be found also in a number of the poems supports the hypothesis that they were part of the copier’s own scribal language and that therefore he tended (at least) towards being a translator rather than a literatim copier of the language of his exemplars. The poems certainly show other forms in some cases for the common items and we cannot know which of these may have been part of the glossary maker’s active or passive repertoires or were carried over om his exemplar⒮ for the poems. There are two hypotheses to consider concerning the glossary: ⒜ it was compiled by the copier of the poems; ⒝ it was simply copied as a whole into the manuscript om another source, either the same source (or one of the sources) of the poems or om a quite separate source. The words in the glossary have been collected and organized into the order in which we find them in the manuscript either by the Makculloch scribe or by an earlier compiler. With an interlinear or marginal gloss where the languages of the main text and the gloss are different, it is clear which language is the ‘source’ language and which the ‘target’ language: we conclude with certainty that the interlinear or marginal material was the ‘target’ language: the main text had to come first. With a glossa collecteana, which language is the ‘source’ language and which the ‘target’ language may not be obvious. Latin in the Middle Ages was a second, or later, learned language. Anyone coming upon such a glossary must be supposed to have acquired command of the vernacular (in this case Scots) before learning Latin. Indeed, the principal purpose of making or using such a glossary was as an aid to learning or improving competence in Latin — in the present case of Latin vocabulary and associated morphological features. In that general sense, we may think of Latin as the target language for the user. 251 A Latin-Older Scots Glossary Selim  () The present glossary seems to be an abbreviated version of a type to be found in th-century and earlier English manuscripts. Examples of such glossaries om manuscripts dating om the th to the th century were edited by Wright–Wülcker (). These examples are all arranged (like the Makculloch glossary) with the Latin word given first followed by the vernacular (English) equivalent. However, the opposite arrangement is to be found in Galidus’ Promptorium Parvulorum, which also provides additional morphological information, for example the declension and the gender of nouns. Appendix B cross-references the glosses in the Makculloch glossary with those in the various glossaries in Wright– Wülcker () and Appendix C cross-references the glosses with those in Promptorium Parvulorum. From a comparison with these, it is evident that many of the Makculloch glossary items were common currency among medieval glossaries, some recurring even om the Latin–Old English glossaries. It seems plausible, therefore, that the Makculloch glossary assemblage was copied om a source (perhaps more than one) which was itself a glossary and that the blank leaves of the manuscript were a convenient place to record the items. The manuscript would seem to have become, for this owner, a ‘commonplace book’. The poems and the glossary must have been assembled either () into some earlier manuscript om which the Makculloch copier copied directly (his exemplar had the glossary and poems already assembled in it, itself possibly the product of one or more removes of copying of the assembled material) or () the Makculloch copier himself assembled the vernacular pieces with the glossary and the poems om two separate sources at least. Given the different nature of the poetic texts and the glossary, they are likely to have come om separate sources and supposing the Makculloch copier to be the assembler of all the vernacular pieces offers the simpler account. 252 Keith Williamson Selim  () Adopting (), then — a separate source for the glossary as opposed to the poems — the similarities in the linguistic characteristics of the glossary and the poems suggest that the Makculloch copier tended to cast the orthographic forms in his exemplar into his own orthography. If the copier tended to translate, can we say anything about the exemplar for the glossary? There is certainly variation in the linguistic forms among the poems, which suggests that the Makculloch copier was not always a thorough-going translator — that he let through material om his exemplars. If this were the case also with the glossary, there is nothing to indicate that the immediate source for the glossary was an English one, unless perhaps a Northern Middle English one, where some forms were either the same or sufficiently similar to those of the copier — acceptable or unremarkable to him as a Scots speaker / writer. It is, of course, quite possible that the exemplar glossary was itself a Scottish one (Latin–Scots). While Latin–English glossaries om the th century have survived, the Makculloch glossary is (to my knowledge) the only Latin–Scots one to have survived. It suggests, nevertheless, that the Latin–vernacular glossary tradition extended also into Scotland in the late medieval period. While the individual forms of the vernacular words in the glossary appear to be Scots (and certainly the whole assemblage must be taken as distinctively Scots), cognates of many of the vernacular words are to be found in the surviving English glossaries. However, a few lexical items in the present vernacular set seem to be examples of distinctively Scots lexis: 1 LEID, 75 SOLAND, 68 CASTOK, 88 TO BRANK. Excluding 75, these have no recorded forms in Middle or Early Modern English (see MED, OED). 75 seems to have become known among English writers om the th century (see OED, s.v. solan). 253 A Latin-Older Scots Glossary Selim  () Given the Latin words whose forms seem to be not quite correct, the source of the glossary may have been unclear in places and this led to misrendering by the Makculloch copyist of those items. Either the source was not clearly written or it was the product of some earlier version with problematic forms. Problems in reading may also be behind some, at least, of the (so far) unidentified Latin words. It is not impossible that the assemblage of glosses in the Mackulloch glossary were originally noted down om an oral source and these were in some cases misheard and so misrendered into a ‘fair copy’ that we can suppose the Makculloch text to be (given its reasonably careful organization). This is just a speculation, but we should remember that a medieval text could be transmitted not only by copying om writing. T     M  While much of the material in the Makculloch glossary is to be found in other similar texts, is it possible to discern a purpose in the assembling of this particular subset of words? Does the content of the glossary suggest anything about the compiler or his interests? The glossary implies acquisition of Latin vocabulary. The poems found alongside it in the manuscript are of a strongly religious character, and include verse versions of a ‘Paternoster’, ‘Hail Mary’ and a ‘Creed’. A number of glosses refer to ecclesiastical items: 23 HOC MORTUARUm : A CORS PreSEND, 26 HOC ASPerSORIUm : A WATer-STYK, 27 HOC PRECONIUm : HONOWRe, 63 HIC YSOPUS : YSOP. To this set, one might be tempted to add 22 HOC PEDuM : A SCHIPCRUK, if the sense intended is “crozier” rather than ”shepherd’s crook”. That the glossary compiler had an association with some religious establishment is an obvious inference. He may have belonged to some kind of clergy or was in training towards becoming so. 254 Keith Williamson Selim  () As to the possible areas of interest, there is an emphasis on ‘Textiles’ —  of the glosses can be interpreted as having to do with textiles, their preparation and manufacture and in items of clothing. If one were to consider the whole collection of glosses as conscious choice, then one might infer that the glossary maker was connected with a religious house with agricultural interests and with a connexion to textile manufacture. The glosses which refer to aquatic creatures are interesting. 51 HIC LOTerCIUS “otter” : A NOTYR “otter” 58 HIC POLIPUS “octopus or squid or cuttlefish – cephalopod having eight or ten tentacles” A LOPSTARe : “lobster’ 59 HEC CONCA “bivalve shellfish, mussel” : WILK “whelk, buckie” 75 <[H]< GANNETA “gannet” : A SOLAND “solan, goose; gannet” 76 HEC PInNA “feather; fin of a fish” : A FYCH FYNE “fish fin” 77 HEC BRANCIA “gills of a fish” : A GYLL “gill” The solan goose — or gannet — was hunted (cf. the reference to fowling in the glossary) for its meat, feathers and the oil that could be rendered om it. An Act of Parliament () notes How proffitable the solane geis … quhilkis hantis … within the Ile of Bas … ar to the commoun weill of this realme Acta Parliamentorum Scottorum III /. Otters were hunted for their pelts. In the listing of ‘custumis’ in the Leges Burgorum, the levy for taking skins out of a burgh is ILK TYMYR AT THE OUTPASSYNG IIIJ D *OF YE TYMYR OF SKUREL IJ D” *OF j *C GRAY GRYSE & SKUREL DYCHT AND LETHERYT VIIJ D” *AND OF ILK OTYR SKYN j OBL~ (Edinburgh, National Library of Scotland, MS  ‘The Bute MS’, f. r; text om ECOS) 255 A Latin-Older Scots Glossary Selim  () Otter skins were evidently a luxury item. The Perth Guildry records (/ Jan ) refer to All vther costly geir mertrik tod or ottir (Perth Guildry MS f. ) Given the importance of fish to the medieval Scottish economy, the references to sea creatures is not surprising. There are numerous references to fish in civil and ecclesiastical as well as the parliamentary records. Wilks “whelks” (also known as buckies) were gathered for food and for their shells; they were also used to bait fishing lines. There are references to apparent use of the shells for buttons: Ane gros & ane string of buckie buttones;  Edinb. Test. XXV.  (DOST s.v. Buckie)  dusson of wilke buttones;  Oliphants  (DOST s.v. Wilk) The inclusion of gill and fin of a fish might not then be surprising, yet, curiously, in vernacular texts there is a dearth of reference specifically to gills and fins (on the evidence of DOST and ECOS). It is possible also to propose connexions between glosses. For example, are 54 HIC NOTHUS “bastard; adulterer; (of animals) mongrel” : A HURSON~ “whoreson (coarse term of abuse)” and 94 DEROGO “to derogate, detract om; to revile, mock” : AS TO MAK LYSs “to fabricate lies” connected with 88 GERESTO ? : AS TO BRANK ? This supposes that the sense of to brank here is “to punish with the branks (an iron bridle and gag used in public punishment for 256 Keith Williamson Selim  () breaches of the peace, abusive language, etc.)”. And, might there be an connexion between 68 HEC MAGUDERIS “cabbage stalk, castock, cabbage” : A CASTOK “kale stalk, castock” and 31 HOC AUCEPIUm “fowling, hawking” : FOULLYNE “fowling, hawking”? Cf. the DOST entry s.v. *Castok, n. ? — ‘For castokis to mend the Kingis halk fedderis;  Treas. Acc. IV. .’ C The aim of this paper has been to provide a new editing of the glossary text in the Makculloch manusript and to provide some analysis of its forms and of its relationship to other texts in the manuscript in which it occurs. In terms of its content, I have also offered evidence of its relationship to other similar glossaries in an attempt to place it in a wider context of medieval glossaries and vocabularies. The Makculloch glossary could be taken as just one more collection of Latin–vernacular words, but in the compilation of any glossary there are motives for the choice that results in the particular assemblage — be it more broadly didactic, as in the case of Promptorium Parvulorum, or focused on a particular area of human activity, such as plants and their uses. The material in such glossaries merits deeper semantic investigation beyond the forms and the relationships between the Latin and the vernacular. Keith Williamson University of Edinburgh 257 A Latin-Older Scots Glossary Selim  () R Abbreviations DML = Dictionary of Medieval Latin from British Sources DOST = A Dictionary of the Older Scottish Tongue IMEV = Index of Middle English Verse: Brown and Robbins () MED = Middle English Dictionary NIMEV = A New Index of of Middle English Verse: Boffey and Edwards () ODNB = Oxford Dictionary of National Biography OED = Oxford English Dictionary PP = Promptorium Parvulorum: Mayhew () RMLW = Revised Medieval Latin Wordlist from British Sources STS edn. = Stevenson () WW = Wright–Wülcker () Dictionaries Craigie, W. & Aitken, A. J. et al. –: A Dictionary of the Older Scottish Tongue from the Twelfth Century to the End of the Seventeenth.  vols. Chicago: Chigaco University Press — Aberdeen: Aberdeen University Press - Oxford: Oxford University Press [on-line as part of the Dictionary of the Scots Language, http://www.dsl.ac.uk] (= DOST). Latham, R. E. & Howlett, D. R., et al. (ed.) –: Dictionary of Medieval Latin from British Sources. London: Published for the British Academy by Oxford University Press (= DML). 258 Keith Williamson Selim  () Lewis, C.T. & Short. C. (ed.) : A Dictionary of Latin. Oxford: Clarendon Press (= Lewis and Short). Lewis, Robert E., et al. (ed.) –: Middle English Dictionary. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press (= MED). Oxford Dictionary of National Biography [on-line, http://www. oxforddnb.com] (= ODNB). Oxford English Dictionary,  (nd edn.), prepared by J.A. Simpson & E.S.C. Weiner. Oxford: Oxford University Press. [on-line, http://dictionary.oed.com] (= OED). Revised Medieval Latin Wordlist from British and Irish Sources, , ed. R.E. Latham. London: Published for the British Academy by Oxford University Press (= RMLW). Other works Aitken, A. J. : The Older Scots Vowels: a History of the Stressed Vowels of Older Scots from the Beginnings to the Eighteenth Century, ed. Caroline Macafee. Edinburgh: Scottish Text Society. Bawcutt, Priscilla : The Poems of William Dunbar.  vols. Glasgow: Association for Scottish Literary Studies. Baxter, J. W. : William Dunbar: A Biographical Study. Edinburgh: Oliver and Boyd. Bennett, J. A. W. (ed.) : Devotional Pieces in Verse and Prose, from MS. Arundel  and MS. Harleian . Scottish Text Society rd ser., no. . Edinburgh: Blackwood. Black, George F. : The Surnames of Scotland: their Origin, Meaning and History. New York: New York Public Library. 259 A Latin-Older Scots Glossary Selim  () Boffey, Julia & Edwards, A.G.S. : A New Index of Middle English Verse. London: The British Library (= NIMEV). Borland, Catherine R. : A Descriptive Catalogue of the Western Medieval Manuscripts in Edinburgh University Library. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press / T.A. Constable. Brown, Carleton & Robbins Rossel H. : The Index of Middle English Verse. New York: Columbia University Press (= IMEV). Chalmers, P., Chalmers, C. I. & Innes, Cosmo (ed.) : Registrum Episcopatus Brechinensis.  vols. Aberdeen: Bannatyne Club. Hunt, Tony : Teaching and Learning Latin in Thirteenth- Century England.  vols. Cambridge: D. S. Brewer. Kinsley, James : The Poems of William Dunbar. Oxford: Clarendon Press. Mayhew, A. L. (ed.) : The Promptorium Parvulorum: the First English–Latin Dictionary. EETS ES . London: Kegan Paul, Trench, Trübner & Co. / OUP (= PP). Moreno Olalla, David in preparation: The Scribal Inscription Plenus Amoris. A Critical Appraisal. Reynhout, Lucien : Formules Latines de Colophons.  vols. Turnhout: Brepols. Ringler, William, A. : Bibliography and Index of English Verse in Manuscript –, prepared and completed by Michael Rudick and Susan J. Ringler. London - New York: Mansell. Robbins, Rossell Hope & Cutler, John L. : Supplement to the Index of Middle English Verse. Lexington: University of Kentucky Press. 260 Keith Williamson Selim  () Smith, Gregory G. : Specimens of Middle Scots (Edinburgh: Blackwood). Stevenson, George : Pieces from the Makculloch and the Gray MSS. Scottish Text Society ser. , no. . Edinburgh: Blackwood (= STS edn.). Williamson, Keith : Spatio-temporal Aspects of Linguistic Variation in Older Scots Texts. Scottish Language : –. Wright, Thomas & Wülcker, Richard Paul (ed.) : Anglo– Saxon and Old English Vocabularies. nd edn.,  vols. London: Trübner (= W–W). ! 261 A Latin-Older Scots Glossary Selim  () Appendix A: A Glossa Collecteana in EUL MS  ‘Makculloch MS’, ff. v–r Column () contains my reference number for each gloss, used for reference elsewhere in this paper. The text of the glosses is given in columns () and (). Upper case letters represent letters seen in the manuscript. Lower case letters are expansions of abbreviations except for ‘z’ which represents ‘ȝ’ (yogh). ‘^’ before a letter indicates that it is written as superscript in the manuscript, e.g. MED-NY^T = manuscript 〈med nyt〉. ‘j’ stands for manuscript 〈 I 〉, ‘Ss’ for manuscript 〈ß〉. ‘~’ indicates a stroke over one or more letters of the word; ‘ ” ’ indicates a backward curling stroke of the letter. Columns () and () are attempts to define independently the Latin and Scots words in each Latin–Scots pairing. Dictionary sources are: DML, RMLW, Lewis and Short (L&S), DOST, OED (see references for details). CL = ‘Classical Latin’, ML = ‘Medieval Latin’. A sole ‘?’ in () indicates that I have have been unable to veri and define the Latin word. ‘?’ before a definition in () or () indicates that the definition is not certain. No. LATIN Definition of Latin SCOTS Definition of Scots f. vA 1 HOC YDEOMA language A LEID language 2 HOC NUNISMA coin, coinage CUGzE sic coin, coinage, money 3 HOC CREPUSCULUm evening, dusk A EWYNTYD evening, dusk 4 HOC conCUTEUM ? for concubium “that part of the night in which the first sleep falls upon men” (L&S) MED-NY^T midnight 5 HOC DILUCULUm dawn, daybreak DAWYN~ dawn, daybreak 6 HOC GALLACENIUm cockcrow COKCRAW cockcrow 262 Keith Williamson Selim  () 7 HOC VERTUBRUm spindle whorl A QUORILL whorl = weight on a spindle for spinning 8 HOC SAGUM bolting-cloth; woollen blanket or mantle SAY fine cloth; bolting-cloth 9 HOC SCISMA schism DISCORD discord 10 HOC IMPAME” ? TRAWELL ?travail, trouble, effort 11 HOC EPUTITIUm ? A TURMEnT ?storm; ?tor- ture; ?gun 12 HOC INCITAMEntum ? incitement HEGIN egging on; inciting 13 HOC FEMORALE breeches, drawers A BREK breek (sg form) = (pair of ) breeches, breeks 14 HOC PRACELLUM meadow A MEDOW meadow 15 HOC PIROTUM perry, pear-tree A PARIN perry, pear-tree 16 HOC PETroCELLUM parsley PerCILL parsley 17 HOC HERILICIUm ? WYER wire 18 HOC LIENTARIUm lientary, diarrhoea SCHET excrement, shit, diarrhoea 19 HOC BRACIARIUm brew-house BRWHOUSs brew-house 20 HOC ABSINTHIUm wormwood WORMOT wormwood 21 HOC ANTIPODIUm ?vamp of shoe FORDELL ?precedence, lead; ? advantage, profit (DOST s.v. Fordell n. ); ?fore-part (fore “fore–” + dele “bit, part’) 22 HOC PEDuM crozier A SCHIPCRUK sheep-crook 23 HOC MORTUARUm mortuary payment; service for the dead A CORS PreSEND gi to clergy om the goods of a householder on his / her death and burial 263 A Latin-Older Scots Glossary Selim  () 24 HOC MAGONALE mangonel; machine for casting projec- tiles; gun A GOWN” gun 25 HOC MARSUBIUm pouch, purse BIGRILD pouch, purse 26 HOC ASPerSORIUm holy water sprinkler A WATer-STYK aspergillum = utensil for sprinkling holy water 27 HOC PRECONIUm praise, worship (eccl.) HONOWRe honour, rever- ence for God 28 HOC ASETUm vinegar VENACAR vinegar 29 HOC SENAPIUm mustard MUSTar mustard 30 HOC PISTRin?Um bake-house BAKHOUSs bake-house, bakery 31 HOC AUCEPIUm fowling, hawking FOULLYNE fowling, hawk- ing 32 HOC UENATORUm ? hunting, CL vēnātiō, –ōnis A HUNTYNE hunting 33 HOC POPLICIUm garter ML prop- liliga A GARTYNE garter 34 HOC LORUm thong, strap; rein, bridle; bond, restraint MAILzE ? 35 HOC ALABRUm reel, spindle A REILL reel, spool or bobbin on which thread may be wound 36 HOC DEPLETORIUm ? utensil for empty- ing A LADILL household ladle f.vB 37 HIC WNCULus ? small hook A NOK small hook; hook holding the thread in a distaff 38 HEC ARMELAUSA cloak CLOK cloak 39 HEC SAGANA female soothsayer, witch SURPLIS gown, loose garment 264 Keith Williamson Selim  () 40 HEC SECTURA cutting; place where anything is cut or dug A SAIM join between two pieces of cloth 41 HEC FIMBRIA border, bordure (heraldic) A LIST hem, edging of a garment; edg- ing strip on a piece of cloth 42 HIC CLIBANus oven A ?HUOUIn oven, furnace 43 HEC LIRAPA ? A BUTTON~ ?button 44 HIC COPHINus basket A MAND woven basket, wickerwork basket 45 HEC MATAXA heckle A HEKYLL hackle, flaxcomb 46 HEC CARDIUS teasel, thistle A TASELL teasel, thistle- like plant; dried prickly flower- head of the plant, used for raising the nap on cloth 47 HEC MASTIX gum mastic, but also glossed else- where as “madder” (see § .) MADer madder – the plant; the dye- stuff got om the plant 48 HEC GAUDE woad WAID woad om the plant Isatis tinctoria, and giving a blue dye; plant om which a blue or yellow dyestuff was got 49 HEC CREOCRA crook, hook, pot- hook A EWILCRUK hook for liing flesh out of a pot, pot-hook 50 HEC FAUELLA spark A SPARK spark 51 HIC LOTerCIUS otter A NOTYR otter 52 HEC WANGA spade A SPAID spade 265 A Latin-Older Scots Glossary Selim  () 53 HEC MARRA CL hoe, weeding hook A PEIK pick 54 HIC NOTHUS bastard; adul- terer; (of animals) mongrel A HURSON~ whoreson (coarse term of abuse) 55 HEC ProAPSIS sic dish A PLAIT dish, plate 56 HIC CROCus crocus (the plant); saffron (product of the plant) SAFFERON~ crocus (the plant); saffron (product of the plant) 57 HIC *FUSTIS cudgel, knobbed stick A STAF walking pole; cudgel or club- stick used as a weapon 58 HIC POLIPUS octopus or squid or cuttlefish – cepha- lopod having eight or ten tentacles A LOPSTARe lobster 59 HEC CONCA CL bivalve shell- fish, mussel WILK whelk; buckie (a variety of small shellfish) 60 HEC *FACICULA scythe A SYTH sickle 61 HEC CALENDULA marigold A GULD marigold 62 HEC SALGEA sage SAGe sage 63 HIC YSOPUS holy-water sprinkler YSOP aromatic herb of the genus Hyssopus; holy- water sprinkler, aspergillum 64 HEC EPIFIA saddle, caparison, horse-collar A BRE[?] CHAM horse collar 65 HEC BILANX balance, scales (for weighing) A PAIR OF WEYSs (pair of ) scales 66 H FORFEX scissors A PAIR TANGis set or pair of tongs, pincers or forceps 67 H FORPEX pair of shears; scissors A PAIR SCHERis shears 266 Keith Williamson Selim  () 68 HEC MAGUDERIS cabbage stalk, castock, cabbage A CASTOK kale stalk, castock 69 HEC PLANTAGO water plantain A WABRED plantain 70 HEC PARILLA dock A DOCCAN~ dock-plant 71 HEC VRTICA nettle, stinging nettle; cloth of nettle fibres NETTYLL nettle 72 HIC CADUCIATOR herald, mediator; officer sent with a flag of truce AImBACITOWR envoy; ambas- sador 73 HIC CADUCIATOR Ibid. AImBASSITOR Ibid. 74 HEC CELTIS chisel CHESELL chisel 75 <[H]< GANNETA gannet A SOLAND gannet 76 HEC PInNA CL feather; fin of a fish A FYCH FYNE fish fin 77 HEC BRANCIA gills of a fish A GYLL ?gill 78 HEC CARCINTIA ? polygonon = knotweed MYNT mint, the aro- matic herb 79 HEC SPELTA ? species of grain (Triticum spelta) RYISs ?rice; ?rush – the plant; ?rush-wheat, rush-corn; ?twigs 80 HEC VERUCA wart A WART wart f.vC 81 HIC SPASMus spasm YE CRAMP cramp 82 HIC DENT” ? A COBILL ?coble; small flat-bottomed boat 83 HEC LANIGO ? for lanugo A WOW-CAYM~ wool-comb 84 HEC MANELLA ? sort of clothing A HUPSCHAKYLL hobble for a horse 85 HEC OCCA harrow; area of cultivated land, furrow CLOID clod of earth 267 A Latin-Older Scots Glossary Selim  () f.r 86 SUFFENDO ? for suffodio (see PP , s.v. Vnder delvyn); cf. WW-XI/. subfundit, orreteð [OE orrettan “to disgrace, put to shame”] AS TO ONDer-MYND to undermine, lit. and fig.; to excavate or tunnel beneath sthg 87 FLEBOTMO to let blood, bleed AS TO LAT BLUD to let blood 88 GERESTO ? AS TO BRANK ?to punish with the branks (an iron bridle and gag used in public pun- ishment for breaches of the peace, abusive language, etc.) 89 PUTITIO ? AS TO CLOUT ?to patch, mend 90 jNCANTO to cast a spell on, charm AS SCHARM to charm 91 COMPEDITO ? to shackl AS TO FYTTer to secure with fetters 92 LERAPO ? AS TO BUTTON~ to button 93 FUCO to dye, stain with colour AS TO FRY ?y 94 DEROGO to derogate, detract om; to revile, mock AS TO MAK LYSs to fabricate lies 95 IRRITO to irritate, annoy AS TO CRAB to annoy 96 SARFFO ? AS TO WRET ?write 97 ALABRO to reel AS TO REILL to wind (thread) on a reel 98 GRACELLO to cackle. Cf. PP –, “Cakelyne, as hennys: Gracillo” AS KEKYLL to cackle (of birds) 268 Keith Williamson Selim  () 99 MINO to drive (beasts, carts) AS TO DRYF to drive, direct the course of (animals, people) 100 MATRO Probably for mātūrō to make ripe, ripen AS TO RYP to become ripe; to make ripe, bring to ripeness 101 OCCO to harrow; to break up (stone) +AS TO CLOID to ee (land) om clods by harrow- ing (OED); to pelt with clods (DOST) 102 AMPULO ?for ampliāre – to make wider, ex- tend, enlarge AS TO SPRED to spread; extend the effect of (sthg) 103 SCATURISO CL scatturio ML scaturizo (RMLW s.v. ‘scaturi/igo’ “to gush forth” TO SPRING to spring, well up 104 AMPUTO to cut around, trim, prune TO CUT to cut 105 CARPINO to card AS TO CARD to dress (wool) with cards 106 DELUSSICO ? AS TO SAW to scatter or deposit (seed), to sow (seed) 269 A Latin-Older Scots Glossary Selim  () I Anglo–Saxon vocabulary,  C II Kentish glosses,  C III Colloquy of Ælic IV Abbot Ælic’s vocabulary,  C V Supplement to Ælic’s vocabulary, / C VI Anglo–Saxon glossary,  C VII Anglo–Saxon vocabulary,  C VIII Anglo-Saxon vocabulary,  /  C IX Anglo-Saxon vocabulary,  C X Anglo-Saxon vocabulary,  C XI Glosses, Latin and Anglo–Saxon,  C XII Miscellaneous Anglo–Saxon glosses,  C XIII ‘Semi-Saxon’ vocabulary,  C XIV Vocabulary of the names of plants,  C XV Latin and English vocabulary,  C XVI Metrical vocabularies,  C XVII Names of parts of the human body,  C XVIII English vocabulary,  C XIX Nominale,  C XX Pictorial vocabulary  C First is given the Makculloch gloss reference number, the Mackulloch gloss Latin word; these are then followed by a list of correspondences in the Wright–Wülcker texts. These are cited as text number (roman numerals), page (in fact column) number and line number; so V/. means text V, page , line . 1 HOC YDEOMA V/. Idioma, proprietas linguae, agen uel gecynde spræc 2 HOC NUNISMA V/. Numisma, scylling, . Nummisma mynet; XIII/. Num[i]sm, munet 3 HOC CREPUSCULUm IV/. Crepus- culum, glomung; V/. Crepusculum, tweoneleoht uel deorcung; XX/. Hoc crepusculum a hewyntyde 5 HOC DILUCULUm V/. Diliculum, dægred 6 HOC GALLACENIUm V/. Conticin- ium, uel gallicinium, hancred; XI/ Gal- licinium, honcred-tid 7 HOC VERTUBRUm XV/. Vertebrum, ance a wherve, or a reele; XVI/. uer- tebrum warbe 8 HOC SAGUM VI/. (nomina uaso- rum), . (uestium nomina) Sagum, hwitel; WW/. (incipit de lectulo) Sagum, hwitel oþþe ry; X/. Sagum, hwytel Appendix B: Lexis shared between the Makculloch Glossary and the glossaries edited in Wright–Wülcker () The purpose of comparing the Makculloch glosses with the texts in Wright–Wülcker () and Promptorium Parvulorum (Appendix C) is to illustrate the occurrence of many, if not most, of the Makculloch vocabulary in the ‘tradition’ of English glossaries, even going back to Old English. The texts in Wright–Wülcker are cited in the order in which they are printed, which is chronological, in so far as their relative chronology can be determined, viz. 270 Keith Williamson Selim  () 12 HOC INCITAMEntum I/. Incita- menta, tyhtinne; XI/. Incitamenta, tyhtenne 13 HOC FEMORALE XV/. Femorale, ance a strapul; XVIII/. (nomina or- namentorum) Hoc Femorale, Ae breke / Hee bracce, –arum, idem; X/. Femo- ralia, bræc; XX/. Hec femoralia, Ace a quischens [f.n.  ‘More usually called cui- sses, the pieces of armour which protected the thighs’.] 14 HOC PRACELLUM IV/. Pratum, mæd; V/. Pratum, mæd; X/. Pra- tum, mæd; XIX/. Hoc pratum, a me- dowe; XX/. (nomin terrarum) Hoc pratum, Ance a medow 15 HOC PIROTUM XIX/. (nomina ar- borum et earum ucuum) Hec pirus, per- tre, Hoc pirum, a pere Hoc piretum, est locus ubi crescunt 16 HOC PETroCELLUM X/. Petrocil- lium, petersilium. XVIII/ . (nomina herbarum) Hoc petrocillum, Ae percylle; . Hoc petrocillum, persylle; . Hoc petrocillum, Ance persley 17 HOC HERILICIUm XV/. Argen- tifilum, sylver wyre; . Ferrifilum, ance wyre of yre; . Erifilum, ance Braswyre 18 HOC LIENTARIUm IV/. Lien- taria, mete utsiht; XI/. mete utsihð; XV/. Lientaria, ance the flux 19 HOC BRACIARIUm XV/. Brasiari- um, ance a brewehous 20 HOC ABSINTHIUm I/. Absinthium, wermod; WW/. (nomina herbarum, Grece et Latine) Absinthium, weremod; X/. Absintium, wermod; XI/. Absintium, wermod; XIII/. Absin- thium, wermot; XIV/. Absinthium, i. aloigne, i. wermod; XV/. Absinthium ‥, ance wermod; XVIII/. ( ) Hoc absinthium, Ae wormode; XIX/. (    ) Hoc absinthium, wormwod 22 HOC PEDuM XVIII/. (nomina ludorum) Hoc pedum, Ae cambok [f.n.  ‘Cambok, an old game at ball played with a crooked stick ‥’]; XIX/. (    ) Hoc pedum, a clappe, . Hoc pedum, a crowche; . Hoc pedum, a clubbe; XX/. Hoc pedum, Ance a scheperdes croke 24 HOC MAGONALE XV/. Mango- nale, ance a mangnel, or a gun 25 HOC MARSUBIUm IV/. Marsupium, uel marsippa, seod; X/. Marsupium, seod [f.n.  ‘The bag, or purse, carried at the girdle, called at a later period of the middle ages a gypsere (in French gibbecière) ‥’]; XIII/. Marsupium, seod; Marsu- pium, ance a pautener; WW/. (nomi- na ornamentorum) Hic loculus, Ae purse. / Hoc marsupium, idem; WW/. Mar- suppia, ceodas 26 HOC ASPerSORIUm XV/. Asper- sorium, ance an holy water stykke; XVI- II/. (  ) Hoc aspersorium, Ae strynkylle / Hic ysopus, Ae idem est; XIX/. (nomina domorum et rerum ecclesiasticarum) Hoc aspersorium, a strynkylle; XX/. Hic ysopus, Ace a sprenkylle / Hoc asperso- rium, idem est 27 HOC PRECONIUm XI/. Preconia, mærnessa 29 HOC SENAPIUm XVIII/. (   ) Hoc senapium, Ae mustarde 30 HOC PISTRin?Um IV/. Pistri- num, bæacern; VIII/. Pistrinum, cofa 271 A Latin-Older Scots Glossary Selim  () [“chamber, inner room, closet”]; X/. Pistrinum, bæcern; XIII/. Pistrinum, bakern; XV/. Pistrinum, an a ba- chous; XVI/. pistrinum, bakehouse; XIX/. (jam de edificiis domorum) Hoc pistrinum, a bakhows; /. Hoc pistrinum, Ance a bakehowse 31 HOC AUCEPIUm XIX/. Hoc au- cipium, a hawkynge; III/. aucupes fugeleras 32 HOC UENATORUm III/. uenatores, huntan, ., . uenare, huntian, . uenatione, huntnolde, . in uenationem, on huntunge . Uenator hunta, . uenatione huntunge; VIII/. Uenator, hunta; X/. Uenator, hunta; XIII/. Uenator, hunta; XIX/. Hic venator, a hunter; XV/. Venor, ance to hunty [sic] 33 HOC POPLICIUm . Popliliga, ance a gartour 34 HOC LORUm XVI/. lorum, reyne; . Hoc lorum, a brydille 35 HOC ALABRUm XV/. Alabrum ?; XVI/. alabrumque, reele 38 HEC ARMELAUSA XVI/. armi- lansa, cloke; XX/. (nomina vesti- mentorum) Hec armilansa, a cloke; . Armelausa, ance a cloke, . Armilausa, A scalvayn [MED, s.v. sclāvīn(e “⒜ a cloak, esp. a pilgrim’s cloak or mantle ‥; ⒝ a ceremonial vestment; a cope, robe ‥”]; XVI/. armilansa, cloke [f.n.  ‘Read armilausa]; XVIII/. ( ) Hec armilausa, Ae cloke; /.; . (   ) Hec armilausa, Ae cloke; I/. Armilausia, serce; VII/. Armilausia, sere; XI/. Armilausia, serce; . Armilausia, serc [f.n.  ‘So the MS. R. W[ülcker].] 40 HEC SAGANA ?X/. Sagene, sænet; XII/. Sagina, fodre 41 HEC FIMBRIA IV/. Fimbria, fna- do, uel læppan 42 HIC CLIBANus IV/. Clibanius, ofenbacen hlaf 44 HIC COPHINus IV/. Cophinus, wilige; V/. Cophinus, wilige, uel leap; XII/. Cof finus, manda; . Cophi- nus, mand; XVIII/. Hic cophinus, Ae hampere 45 HEC MATAXA V/. Mataxa, uel corductum, uel stramentum, stræl, uel bed- ding; XI/. Mataxa, wæde; XV/. Mataxa, an hychele; XVIII/. Hec Mataxa, Ae hekylle; XIX/. Hec mataxa, a hekylle; XX/. Hec mataxa, Ance a hekylle 46 HEC CARDIUS I/. Cardus, þistel; IX/. Cardus, smæl þistel; X/. Cardus, ðystel; XI/. Cardus, þistel; XV/. Cardo, ance a thystell, or a tesell, Carduus, ance a tesel, Cardus, ance a corde 47 HEC MASTIX IV/. Mastix, uel resina, cuter; IX/. Mastix, hwit cwu- da 48 HEC GAUDE XIV/. Sandix, i. waisde, i. wod 50 HEC FAUELLA I/. Scintella, spærca; IV/. Fauilla, ysle; VIII/. (  ) Scintilla, spearcal; . Fauil- la, ysle; IX/. Scintilla, spearca; . Fauilla, ysle; XI/. Fauilla, ysle 51 HEC LOTERCIUS X/. I/. Sul- lus, ottor; Lutrius, oter [f.n.  ‘read lutra’ R. W.]; IV/. Lutria, otor; XI/. Lutrus, otor 52 WANGA IV/. Uanga, spada; X/. Uanga, uel fossorium, spædu; 272 Keith Williamson Selim  () XIII/. Uanga, uel fossorium, spade; XV/. Vanga, ance a spade; XVI/. uanga – spade; XIX/. Hec vanga, a spathe; XX/. Hec vanga, a spade 53 HEC MARRA XI/. Bidubium, i. marra, bill; XI/. Marra, bill 54 HIC NOTHUS IV/. Auster, uel nothu, suðen wind; XI/. Nothus, suðan wind, oððe dooc, hornungsunu [f.n.  ‘No doubt, in the original text in which this word stood, it was notus, the south wind, and was glossed as such, but in the debased orthography of medieval Latin, another glossator seemst to have supposed it might be nothus, a bastard’]; XIX/. Hic spirius, a basterde / Hic nothus, con- trarius spirio. 55 ProAPSIS XVIII/. Hec perapsis, Ae doblere; XIX/. Hic perapsis, –dis, a dobler 56 HIC CROCus VI/. Crocus, i. lutei coloris, geolu; VIII/. Crocus, gæle, geolo; XI/. Crocus, geolu; XVIII/. Hic crocus, Ae safurroun; XIX/. (    ) Hic crocus, sapherone; . (  ) Hic crocus, saf- eron; XX/. Hic crocus, Ance sayn. 57 HIC *FUSTIS IV/. Ligo, becca, uel palus, uel fustis; X/. Fustis, sagol; XIII/. Fustis, sowel; XVIII/. ( ) Hec fustis, hic bacu- lus, idem sunt 58 HIC POLIPUS XV/. Polipus, a loppestere; XVI/. Polipus a loppyster or a crabbe; XIX/. ( ) Hic polipus Hec gorra a lopster 59 HEC CONCA I/. . Conca, mus- clan scel; XI/. Conca, musclan scil; . De conca, of muscellan; XII/. De conca, of muscellan [f.n.  ‘Read con- cha. R. W.’]; . De conca, of muscellan [f.n.  ‘Read concha. R. W.’]; XV/. Bilbus, ance a welke; . Conca, ance a loppyster; . Papula, ance a whelke; XVI/. concha whelke; XVIII/. ( ) Hec conca, Ae cochilt; XX/. Hec conca, Ace a cokylle, Hic bulbus, Ace a wylke 62 HEC SALGEA XV/. Salgea, ance sawge; XVIII/. ( ) Hec salgea, Ae sawge; XX/. Hec sal- gea, Ance sawge 63 HIC YSOPUS XIV/. Ysopus, i. ysope; XVIII/. ( ) Hic ysopus, Ae ysoppe. Ysopus est harba, ysopo spergitur unda; . ( -  ) . Hic asperso- rium, Ae strynkylle. / Hic ysopus, Ae idem est; XX/. Hic ysopus, Ace a sprenkylle / Hoc aspersorium, idem est. 65 HEC BILANX I/. Bilance, tuiheolore; IV/. Bilances, twa scale; VI/. Bi- lance, twiwæage, uel heolore; XI/. Bilance, twyfealdre heolra; XII/. Bi- lancee, twyfealdre heolra; XIX/. Hic bilanx, –cis, belans 66 H FORFEX  H FORPEX I/. Forfices, scerero, Forfex, isern sceruru; VI/. Forfices, ræglsceara; . Forpices, fexsceara;X/. Forceps, tan- ge; . Forfex, sceara; XI/. Forfex, scer 68 HEC MAGUDERIS X/. Caula, uel magudaris, caul; XIII// Caula, uel magudaris, caul; XVIII/. ( ) Hoc magudere, Ae calstok; XIX/. (    ) Hec maguderis, a calstok; XX/. Hec maguderis, a calstok 69 HEC PLANTAGO I/. Plantago, uueg- brade; IV/. Cinaglossa, uel plantago, uel lapatium, wegbræde; IX/. Plan- 273 A Latin-Older Scots Glossary Selim  () tago, wegbrade; X/. Plantago, weg- bræde; XI/. Plantago, uel sepineruia, wegbræde; XIII/. Plantago, weibre- ode; XIV/. Plantago, i. planteine, i. weibrode; XVIII/ . Hic plantago, Ae waybred; XIX/. Hec plantago, –nis, waybrede; XX/. Hec plantago, Ace weybrede 70 HEC PARILLA XV/. Parella, ance dokke. Cf. IV/. Dilla, uel acrocorium, docce; IX/. Rodinaps, ompre, docce; X/. Dilla, docca; XI/. Lappa- tium, docce. 71 HEC VRTICA II/. urtice, of nete- lan; IV/. Urtica, netle; VIII/. Urtica, netele; IX/. Urtic, netle; X/. Urtica, netel; XIII/. Urtica, netle; XVIII/ . Hec vrtica, Ae nettylle; XIX/. Hec urtica, a netylle; XX/. Hec urtica, Ance a netylle 72, 73 CADUCIATOR IV/. Caducea- tores, uel pacifici, gesibbe ærandracan 76 HEC PInNA XIX/. Hec pinna, a nne 77 HEC BRANCIA XV/. Brancia, ance a gyle; . Hec brancia, Hec senecia, a gylle; . Hic branchia, Ace a gylle 78 CARCINTIA Cf. for mint: I/. Menta, minte; IV/. Menta, minte; VIII/. Mento, minte; IX/. Menta, minte; X/. Menta, minte; XI/. Mento, minte 80 HEC VERUCA XX/. Hec veruca, Ace a wrothe [f.n.  ‘Wrothe. A wart is still called a wrat in some of the northern dia- lects.’]; . Hec veruca, Ance a werte 81 HIC SPASMus IV/. Spasmos hramma, uel swiung; XV/. Spasmus, ance the Crompe; XIX/. Hec spasma, the cramppe; XX/. Hic spasmus, Ance the crampe 83 HEC LANIGO XIX/. Lanugo, wullknoppa [sic, for ?–hnoppa “wool on a fleece”]; .; . Lanugo, ance a loke of wulle; XIX/. Hec lanugo, –nis, walkyng; XX/. Hec pubes, Hic lanu- go Ance schere. 85 HEC OCCA I/. Occa, faelging [“a harrow”]; XI/. In occa, on rh; . Occa, furh, lging, walh; XII/. Occa, wealh, oþþe wyrðing 87 FLEBOTMO XI/. Flebotomo, blodseax; XII/. Flebotomo, blodseax 90 jNCANTO XV/. Incanto, ance to enchaunte 93 ?FRICO VI/. Frico, abstraho, uello, gebrytte; XI/. Frico, ic gnide [“rub”]; XV/. Frico, ance to ote 94 DEROGO Cf. IV// ic oeo [oftēon “to withdraw, deprive”] 95 IRRITO XI/. Irritat, gremede; XII/. Irritat, gremede 98 GRACELLO XV/. Gracillo, to cakele as an hen 99 MINO III/. mino ic drife 274 Keith Williamson Selim  () Appendix C: Lexis shared between the Makculloch Glossary and Promptorium Parvulorum 12 HOC INCITAMEntum : HEGIN  Eggyd, or steryd, or yntysyd to done a dede: Instigatus, –ta, –tum: Incitatus, –ta, –tum;  Eggyng, or entysyng to done welle or evyl: Incito, –as, –aui, –re: provoco, –as, –aui, –re, similiter declinatur; prime con., act. 16 HOC PETroCELLUM : PerCILL  Percyle, herbe: petrocillum, –li; ‘dic- tionarius’: uel petrocilium, –ij: uel petrocili- nium; omnia neut., , vgucio in petros. 17 HOC HERILICIUm : WYER  Wyre: ffilum, –li: uel fferifilum, –li; om- nia neut., . 20 HOC ABSINTHIUm : WORMOT  Wyrmewode, herbe: absinthium, –ij; neut., . 22 HOC PEDuM : A SCHIPCRUK  Crosse of a byshop: Pedum, –i; neut.,  ‥ 24 HOC MAGONALE : A GOWN”  Gunne: petraria, –e; fem., prime, et ‘commentarius’: Mangonale, –is; neut.  ‥ 26 HOC ASPerSORIUm : A WATer- STYK  Haly water strenkyl: Aspersorium, –i; neut., : Ysopus, –i; Masc.  ‥  Strenkyl, haly water styke: aspersori- um, –ij; neut. : Isopus, –pi; Masc., . 28 HOC ASETUm : VENACAR  Vynegre: acetum, –ti; neut.,  vinum acidum; kylwarbi: ; uel vinum acre, vini ac- ris; neut., . 29 HOC SENAPIUm : MUSTar  Mustard: Sinapium, –ij, neut., . Mus- tard, or warloke, or senwyn, herbe: Sinapis, is; Masc., . 30 HOC PISTRin?Um : BAKHOUSs  Bakehowse, or bakynhowse: Pistrina, –e; fem. prime; uel Pistrinum –i; neut. 31 HOC AUCEPIUm : FOULLYNE  ffowlyng, or takyng off byrdis: Aucu- pium, –ij; neut.,  vgucio in aueo. 32 HOC UENATORUm : A HUNTYNE  Huntyng: Venacio, –is; fem. : Venatus, Venatus, –vi; Masc.,  decl.  Huntyn: Venor, –aris, venatus, –ri; prime con., dep. 35 HOC ALABRUm : A REILL  Rele, wommanys Instrumente: ala- brum, –bri; neut., , ‘campus florum’.  Relyn with a rele: alabriso, –as, etc.; prime con., act. 36 HOC DEPLETORIUm : A LADILL  Ladyl, pot spone: Contus, –i; Masc., ; Coclear, –ris; neut., , nekkam. 37 HIC WNCULus : A NOK  Noke of a bow, or spyndyl, or oder thynge: Tenerculus, –li; Masc., , kylwarbi: Clauicula, –le; ffem., prime decl., kylwarbi. 38 HEC ARMELAUSA : CLOK  Cloke: Armilausa; fem., prime. 39 HEC SAGANA : SURPLIS  Surplice: Superpelicium, –ij; neut., . [With reference to SAGANA, cf. ‘ Mare, or wych: Magus, –i; ‥ Sagana, –e; fem., prime decl.’] 40 HEC SECTURA : A SAIM  Ceme, of cloth: Sutura, –re; fem. prime. 42 HIC CLIBANus : A ?HUOUIn  Ouyn: ffurnus, –ni; Masc., ; ffornax, cis; ffem., ; Clibanus, –ni; Masc.,  Decl. 275 A Latin-Older Scots Glossary Selim  () 44 HIC COPHINus : A MAND  Mawnd, skype: Sportula, –le; fem., prime.  Cophyme: Cophinus, –ni; Masc., ‘campus florum’. 45 HEC MATAXA : A HEKYLL  Hekele: Mataxa, fem., prime. 46 HEC CARDIUS : A TASELL  Taslyle : Carbo, –nis: uel cardo fullo- nis; ffem, : uel carduus, –ij; Masc., . 47 HEC MASTIX : MADer  Mastyke, speice: Mastrix, –cis; fem., . 48 HEC GAUDE : WAID  Wood, or wadd, for lytstaris: Gaudo, –is; fem., , kylwarbi 50 HEC FAUELLA : A SPARK  Spark of a re: Scintilla, –e; fem., prime: fauilla, –e; fem., prime, ‘catholicon.’ 52 HEC WANGA : A SPAID  Vanga, –e; fem., prime ffossorium, –ij: neut., . 55 HEC ProAPSIS : A PLAIT cf.  Platere of a yr erth: perapsis, –dis; Masc.  ‥ 56 HIC CROCus : SAFFERON~  Sayn: Crocum, –ci; neut., , ‘catholi- con’ et ‘campus florum’. 57 HIC *FUSTIS : A STAF  Baculus, –li; Masc., : ffustis, –tis; Masc., . 59 HEC CONCA : WILK  Wylk, shyll: Conca, –e; fem,. prime, ‘campus florum’ 60 HEC *FACICULA : A SYTH  Syth, Instrument of mowynge; ffalx, –cis; ffem. gen.  decl.  sykyle: ffascicula, –le; fem. prime, ‘Dictionarius’ et kylwarbi: ffasciculus, –li; Masc., . 61 HEC CALENDULA : A GULD  Goolde, herbe: solsequium, –ij; neut., , quia sequitur solem Elitropium, –ij; neut., : Calendula, –le; ffem., prime. 63 HIC YSOPUS : YSOP  Haly water strenkyl: Aspersorium, –i; neut., : Ysopus, –i Masc., , media pro- ducta, ysopus media correpta, anglice ysop, herbe; versus, Ysopus est herba, ysopp spargitur vnda.  Strenkyl, haly water styke: aspersorium, –ij; neut., : Isopus, –pi; Masc., . 64 HEC EPIFIA : A BRE[?]CHAM  Berewham, horsis colowre: Epicium, –ij, uel Epiphium, –ij; neut., , ‥ 66 H FORFEX : A PAIR TANGis  Toonge, instrumente for re: fforceps, –is 67 H FORPEX : A PAIR SCHERis  Sysowre, schere: fforpex, –cis; cf.  Schere, to clyp with: fforfex, –cis 68 HEC MAGUDERIS : A CASTOK  Calkstoke: Maguderis, –ris 69 HEC PLANTAGO : A WABRED  We[y]brede, herbe: plantago, –is 70 HEC PARILLA : A DOCCAN~  Dokke, herbe: paradella, –le 72 HIC CADUCIATOR : AImBACITOWR  Nettyl, herbe: vrtica, –ce 74 HEC CELTIS : CHESELL  Chisel, instrument: Celtis, –tis 76 HEC PInNA : A FYCH FYNE  nne of a she: Pinna, –e 77 HEC BRANCIA : A GYLL  Gylle of a she: Branchia, –e; ‥ Sene- cia, –e ‥ ‘catholicon’. 276 Keith Williamson Selim  () 78 HEC CARCINTIA : MYNT  Mynte, herbe: Menta, –te 81 HIC SPASMus : YE CRAMP  Crampe: spasmus, –i 82 HIC DENT” : A COBILL Cf.  Pyk, sh: Dentrix, –cis ‥ 84 HEC MANELLA : A HUPSCHAKYLL Cf.  Schakyl, or schakle: Murella, –e. 85 HEC OCCA : CLOID  Clodd: Gleba, –e (cf. ) 86 SUFFENDO : AS TO ONDer-MYND  Vndermyndynge, idem quod vnder Delvynge, supra. Vnderdelvynge: Subfos- sura, –re ‥ Subfossio, –nis 87 FLEBOTMO : AS TO LAT BLUD  Letyn blode: ffleobotimo, –as; vgucioin fleobotamia et kylwardi: flegbotimo, –as; kylwarbi 90 jNCANTO : AS SCHARM  Charmyn: Incanto, –as, –aui, –are ‥ Charmyn, be-gylyn, or forspoylyn: ffas- cino, –as –aui, –are 92 LERAPO : AS TO BUTTON~ Cf.  Botone Clothys: Botono, –as, –aui, –re: ffibilo, –as, –aui ‥ 93 FUCO / ?FRICO : AS TO FRY  ffryn in apan: ffrigo, –is, –xi ‥ ixo, –as, –aui 94 DEROGO : AS TO MAK LYSs Cf.  Leyng, or lyynge: Mendacium, –ij 97 ALABRO : AS TO REILL  Relyn with arele: alabriso, –as, etc. 98 GRACELLO : AS KEKYLL -Cakelyne, as hennys: Gracillo, –as, –aui, –are 99 MINO AS : TO DRYF  Dryvyn beestys: Mino, –as, –aui, –re: Gutto, –as ‥ 101 OCCO+ : +AS TO CLOID  Cloddyn, or brek cloddis: Occo, –as, –aui, –re, –andi, –do, –dum 102 AMPULO : AS TO SPRED  Spredyn: Dilato, –as, etc. ‥ Expando, –dys, –di, –re, –sum ‥ 103 SCATURISO : TO SPRING  Spryngyn, as a welle: scaturio, –is, –iui, –re; ‥ scaturiso, –as, –aui, –re 104 AMPUTO : TO CUT Cf.  Cuttyn: Scindo, –is, –idi, –re, scis- sum. Cuttyn awey: Abscindo, –is, –idi; Re- seco, –as, –aui, –are: Amputo, –as ‥ 106 DELUSSICO : AS TO SAW  Sowyn, as corn, or odyr sedis: Semino, –as etc.: Sero, –is, –vi– uel seui, –re, –sa- tum Received  Aug ; revision received  Feb ; accepted  Mar 