ing the apptoximate date and an indication of the locality of the original. One other conclusion may be accepted, namely, that not one of the surviving copies has been directly copied from another of these. This statement excludes, of course, the derivation of the late copies. Royal and Hatton.
Because of the complex interrelation of the copies, it is difficult to determine the relation they severally sustain to the original. B and C are united by minute agreements, though B is the superior copy, the scribe of C being especially careless, and perhaps ignorant. Thus united, these copies are contemporary with Corpus, and linguisrically confirm the testimony of Corpus as to the character of the original. The line of transmission represented by A and L (see Appendix) apparently leads back to the original without contact with the line of the preceding copies. A is characteristically a normalized copy ; the local forms of the language of the original are almost consistently changed into the more general Late West-Saxon. It differs from the other copies by a frequent change in the order of words, and by an occasional substitution of another word; and it supplies many of the omissions of the other copies.
5. The Authorship of the Version
The locality of the Version, as has been shown, may be assumed to be indicated chiefly by Corpus; but by whom the Version was made has hitherto eluded all inquiry. This question of the authorship of the Version is the subject of a dissertation by Mr. Allison Drake.[1] He expresses the conviction (p. 45) that there are "weighty reasons for believing that the authorship of the West
- ↑ The Authorship of the West Saxon Gospels (New York, 1894).
