the corpus, épinal, erfurt and leyden glossaries, viii - World eBook ...

104 THE CORPUS, EPINAL, ERFURT AND LEYDEN GLOSSARIES
T
41 Taxaverat : gierende (27, 14 quod...sibi usurpans tantopere taxaverat).
U
27 1 Voragine : suelgendi (60, 37 de inferni voragine reduxit ad lumina vitae).
278 Votivum : oestful (34, 35 Martha, Lazari germana, votivum Christo
humanitatis obsequium praebens).
Some of these might be claimed for Gildas too: e.g. S 10, for
sablo 'sand' is a word of Gildas as of Aldhelm, and Gildas glosses
are (like Aldhelm glosses) peculiar to the Corpus Glossary (see
above, Part I).
Not that all glosses peculiar to Corp. must come from these
two sources. For, in the first place, there were probably other
sources, not yet detected, which were peculiar to Corp. And
must have selected from the common
again the compiler of Corp.
material many an item which the other compilers passed over.
Peculiar to Corp. are, for example, two undoubted Orosius glosses,
from the same passage of Orosius:
A 676 A portis Caspiis: nomen loci (Oros. 1, 2, 40),
A 738 Armenias Pylas: nomen loci (Oros. 1, 2, 40).
These two geographical items in the Orosius 'glossae collectae*
were disdained by the other compilers. A similar Virgil gloss
(peculiar to Corpus), we may believe, stood in the margin of that
MS. of Virgil whose marginalia were used for Erf^ Aff., Corp.
and EE:
A 525 Amello :
proprium
nomen loci.
It shews us that the MS. had the reading prato instead of pratis
in Virgil Geo. 4, 271 :
Est etiam flos in pratis cui nomen amello
Fecere agricolae.
(Cf Class. Quart, xii 176.) Indeed, since the composition of what
we have called the 'second glossary' used by the compilers of
Erf ^
(and EE ii) and is Corp. not fully known, how can we limit
the
possible sources ? To return to sablo, that late Latin word
whence come Ital. sabbione, French and Spanish sablon, etc., can
we be sure that the source of S 10 must have been either Aldhelm