Page:King Alfred's West-Saxon Version of Gregory's Pastoral Care (2).djvu/524

Rh Saxon' dictionaries are, as far as the prose language is concerned, based almost entirely on the great work of Junius. I find that all the hápax legómena of the Pastoral cited by Lye (1772) are taken direct from Junius, his definitions being copied off word for word, occasionally with some trifling interpolation (see note to 97. 17), and without the slightest attempt at verification by reference to the MSS. The most discreditable feature of the whole proceeding is, that Lye totally ignores his obligations to Junius, and does not even mention his name. Lye, again, has been pillaged by still later dictionary-makers, also without acknowledgment or revision. The most conclusive proofs are afforded by those words which were explained wrongly by Junius, of which gehydnes (see note to 387. 13) is a good example. In other cases the attempt to supply gaps in the information supplied by Junius has led to equally unfortunate results. Thus Junius gives the infinitive plion correctly from 229. 20; our lexicographers are not content with copying this, but must add a weak preterite pliode, while, if they had read the Pastoral MSS. with any attention, they would have found the strong preterite pleah (87. 7), which Junius did not recognize, because his MS. (Cotton I) shows it in the slightly disguised form of pleh. Compare also the note on eftga (421. 10). Junius has also, from various causes, missed some words altogether; hence their non-appearance in our present authorities. Some of these words - bedecian (285. 12, the original of our beg), dela (405. 1), geonre (443. 25), wealg (447. 18) - are of the highest philological interest. How long they might have remained hidden, had they not been brought to light by this edition, it is hard to say.