Reflexive Pronouns in the Glosses

Reflexive Pronouns in the Lindisfarne Glosses Elly van Gelderen, 18 May 2017

Old English typically uses personal pronouns, demonstratives, and limited pro‐drop for reference to previously mentioned nouns. It uses personal pronouns reflexively but starts to use a pronoun modified by self that is identical in form with an intensive. This use of a pronoun modified by self has been attributed to Celtic influence (e.g. by Tristram 1999, Vezzosi 2005, Poppe 2009). Other changes in the pronominal system have been attributed to Scandinavian influence, e.g. the introduction of the third person plural pronoun they. This paper looks at the use of the specially marked reflexives in the glosses to the Lindisfarne Gospels, a northern text where both Celtic and Scandinavian influence may be relevant. It provides lists of all of the self– marked forms and shows, for instance, that Matthew and Mark have reflexives based on an accusative pronoun followed by self, unlike Celtic, and don’t use this form as intensifier, also unlike Celtic. Luke and John have intensives but no possessive pronouns. The paper thus examines differences between parts of the Glosses, contributing to the authorship debate.

Reflexives, intensifiers, Lindisfarne, contact, Celtic, Latin, Scandinavian

1 Introduction The early 8th century Lindisfarne Gospels have interlinear Old English glosses in the Northumbrian dialect added around 950 to the Latin original of the Gospels of Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John. A controversy surrounds the glosses because the spelling and language of e.g. John is different. Some believe Aldred is responsible for all glosses; others that he only glossed John. The language of all four gospels is Northumbrian but the script shows evidence of an awareness of what was going on in the South of England (Brookes 2016). There is also an interlinear gloss in Mercian, added in the latter part of the 10th century to a Latin original which is known as the Rushworth Glosses. Skeat in his `Preface to St. John's Gospel' (quoting Murray, cf. also Berndt 1956 and Campbell 1959: 7) argues that the language of Matthew in The Rushworth Gospels is Mercian that would differ little from the West Saxon of its time. The other Rushworth Gospel books are more similar to the Lindisfarne Gospels. In fact, they are linguistically more northern or later than Lindisfarne.

The Lindisfarne Glosses are very important to our understanding of Old English morphology and syntax. They reveal special insights, e.g. the absence of third person null subjects (Berndt 1956; van Gelderen 2000), the early loss of verbal inflection (Berndt 1956), the heavy use of the demonstrative as relative (Suárez‐Gómez 2009), and the (early) use of multiple negatives (Nagucka 1997). The role of Latin is undeniable, in e.g. the word order, the use of reflexives and other pronouns, although the Northumbrian grammar of the Glosses shines through (see also Lange 2006: 68). Currently, the influence of both Celtic and Scandinavian on the development of Middle English pronouns and inflection is debated again and the Lindisfarne Glosses are crucial in this debate (Moore & Marckwardt 1951: 95; Cole 2014ab) as is the extent of Scandinavian loanwords (Pons‐Sanz 2013). Cole (2014b) argues that The Lindisfarne Glosses provide evidence for the early appearance of the Northern Subject Rule. If so, that provides evidence for possible Celtic influence. In this paper, I examine the reflexives and emphatics in the Lindisfarne and other Glosses as well as the Latin original. Several scholars (e.g. Tristram 1999; Vezzosi 2005; Filppula et al 2008; Poppe 2009; Miller 2012: 37) have claimed that English acquires these reflexives under Celtic influence but have not looked at this specific text. Celtic has the same form for intensives and reflexives which English does too but which Germanic languages like German and Dutch do not. Examining `self' in Lindisfarne, John is remarkably different which may contribute to the debate about glossators. I also look at possible Scandinavian influence in this text, in particular the possessive reflexive. My questions about the data are (a) is the same form used for reflexives and intensifiers, (b) how are the Latin reflexives and intensives rendered, and (c) is there a difference in the number and kinds of –self marked pronouns in the four gospel books? The outline is as follows. In section 2, I present the pronominal paradigms of Latin, the reflexive and intensifier paradigms of Welsh and Irish, the pronominal paradign of Old Norse, and the pronouns in Old English. Section 3 provides some generalizations about regional use of reflexives and intensifiers and section 4 offers all instances of seolf‐forms in the Lindisfarne Glosses. In section 5, the functions are discussed and, in section 6, the morphology. The conclusion appears as section 7.

2 Reflexives and intensifiers in Latin, Celtic, and Old English Since Latin influence is very likely, I first sketch the pronoun system of Latin with examples from Lindisfarne. I then discuss the Celtic reflexive system before turning to Old English. The Latin original has a complex set of pronouns, demonstratives, intensifiers, and reflexives. A simplified set of first and second person personal pronouns is provided in Table 1; the typical third

2 person pronoun uses a demonstrative paradigm (e.g. is, ea, id) and is shown in Table 2. There are third person reflexives, se and sibi, listed in the Table 1, and of which an example appears in (1).

1S 1P 2S 2P 3 NOM ego nos tu vos ‐ GEN mei nostri/um tui vostri/um sui DAT mihi nobis tibi vobis sibi ACC me nos te vos se Table 1: Latin personal pronouns S M F N P M F N NOM is ea id ii, ei eae ea GEN eius eius eius eorum earum eorum DAT ei ei ei iis, eis iis, eis iis, eis ACC eium eam id eos ias ea Table 2: Third person demonstratives used as third person pronouns

(1) uidens autem iesus turbas multas circum se ða gesæh uutedlice ðe hælend threatta vel hergas menigo uta ymb hine iussit ire trans fretum geheht fara vel gaa ofer luh vel stream. `Now, when Jesus saw great multitudes around him, he commanded to go to the other side.’ (Lindisfarne, Matthew 8.18)

Janssen (1957: 64) points out that particles such as ‐te, ‐met, ‐pse, ‐pte are added for greater emphasis. The form ipse is such an emphatic and used as an intensive added to nouns and (empty) pronouns, where the Old English adds he, ða ilca, as in (2), or a third person he and a seolf, as in (3).

(2) Ipse autem iohannes habebat uestimentum de pilis camelorum ða ilca soðlice iohannes hæfde gewede of herum ðæra camella `The same John had his grament of camel’s hair.’ (Matthew 3.4) (3) Ipse enim iesus testimonium perhibuit propheta in sua patria honorem non habet he seolf forðon se hælend cyðnisse ðerhtrymede witga on his oeðle in eared uorðscip aare ne hæfis. `Because Jesus himself testified that a prophet has no honor in his own country.’ (Lindisfarne, John 4.44)

The snip give a sense for the spacing in (3), quite different from the non‐intensives, as we’ll see. he seolf forðon Ipse enim (John 4.44)

The different forms of ipse are given in Table 3. In this paper, I’ll focus mainly on se and ipse. Singular Plural M F N M F N NOM ipse ipsa ipsum ipsi ipsae ipsa DAT ipsi ipsi ipsi ipsis ipsis ipsis ACC ipsum ipsam ipsum ipsos ipsas ipsa Table 3: Forms of ipse Latin has the agreeing possessive pronouns meus (1S), tuus (2S), noster (1P), and vester (2P). For the third person, it has a reflexive suus (3S and 3P) and non‐reflexive uses of a demonstrative, e.g. eius. An example appears as (4).

(4) aut quis est ex uobis homo quem si petierit filius suus vel hua is from iuh monn ðene gif he giuias sunu his panem numquid lapidem porriget ei hlaf cuiðestu ðone stan raeceð vel seles him. `Who is among you the man who, if his son asks bread, will give him a stone?’ (Matthew 7.9)

For Celtic, I will only describe the reflexive and intensifier systems since these have been claimed to influence English. Modern Welsh and Irish have the following paradigm, from Irslinger (2014: 161). The reflexives and intensifiers combine a possessive pronoun and reflexive (which is inflected for number only in South Welsh. In Irish, féin can occur on its own as intensifier or as reflexive after prepositions. North Welsh South Welsh Irish S 1 fy hun fy hunan mé féin 2 dy hun dy hunan tú féin 3 ei hun ei hunan é/í féin (M/F) P 1 ein hun ein hunain muid/sinn féin 2 eich hun eich hunain sibh féin 3 eu hun eu hunain iad féin Table 4: Reflexive/intensifier paradigm in Modern Welsh and Modern Irish

Vennemann (2013) claims Semitic influence on Celtic brought this form the double function of reflexive and intensifier. Evans (1964) shows this pattern is old and already existed in Middle Welsh. However, Old Irish uses a simple pronoun, only occasionally reinforced (Thurneysen 1946). In Old Norse, the situation was as follows (Faarlund 2004: 35‐6). The first and second person pronouns displayed very similar forms as in Old English and don’t concern us here. The singular third person pronouns are given in Table 5 with their special reflexives. For the plurals, the third person distal demonstratives are used. These plural forms are said to have influenced the introduction of `they’ in English. Masc Feminine Reflexive NOM hann hon ‐‐ GEN hans hennar sin DAT honum henni ser ACC hann hana sik Table 5: Old Norse third person singular

Turning to the Old English paradigms, personal pronouns and demonstratives are as in Tables 6 and 7, respectively. Personal pronouns are also used reflexively, as (1) shows, but could be accompanied by an inflected seolf. I will discuss the specific morphology of seolf in section 6. Singular Dual Plural First NOM ic wit we GEN min uncer ure DAT me unc us ACC mec uncet usic Second NOM þu git ge GEN þin incer eower DAT þe inc eow ACC þec incit eowic Third NOM he/heo/hit ‐‐ hi (M/F/N) GEN his/hire/his ‐‐ hira DAT him/hire/him ‐‐ him ACC hine/heo/hit ‐‐ hi Table 6: Old English personal pronouns Masculine Feminine Neuter Plural ______Nom se seo þæt þa Gen þæs þære þæs þara Dat þæm þære þæm þæm Acc þone þa þæt þa Table 7: Old English demonstratives

3 Northumbrian and Mercian reflexives and intensifiers As mentioned, Old English uses personal pronouns reflexively. This section discusses the dialect differences with respect to reflexives. In general, the further north the fewer specially marked reflexive forms. In the Lindisfarne version of Matthew, there are eight instances of `self' where there are 15 in the Rushworth version, i.e. in the Mercian variety. Where, Lindisfarne renders the Latin simple reflexive se as a simple pronoun in (5), Rushworth has it in (6) with `self'. The Rushworth scribe uses more reflexive `self'.

(5) hælend wiste smeawunga hiora cueð him eghuelc ric todæled healer knew thoughts their said them each kingdom divided bið wið him forleten bið l gewoested bið l tosliten bið be against it left will‐be and destroyed will‐be slit will‐be CONTRA SE 7 eghuelc burug l hus todæled l tosliten wið him ne stondas and every city and house divided and cut‐up against it not stands CONTRA SE `And Jesus knew their thoughts and said to them every kingdom divided against itself is brought to desolation; and every city or house divided against itself shall not stand.' (Lindisfarne, Matthew 12.25) (6) se helend þa witende þohtas heora cweþ to heom æghwilc rice gedeled wið him seolfum the healer then knowing thoughts their said to them each kingdom divided against it self destroyed awoested bið 7 æghwilc cæstre oþþa hus gedæled wið him seolfum ne stondeþ will‐be and each castle or house divided against it self not stands. (Rushworth, Idem)

The more northern text in (5) has fewer `selfs'. There are a number of indications that (6) is more analytic and later than (5): the presence of a determiner se and a preposition to to indicate Case. Verbal inflection, however, is more `modern’ in (5) with stondas. If northern texts have fewer modifications by self and if Skeat and Murray are right that Mark, Luke, and John in Rushworth are even more northern than Lindisfarne, there should be fewer `selfs' and this is indeed the case. There is only one instance as opposed to 75 in the Lindisfarne counterpart. These

6 data are summarized in Table 8. This also shows that the Gospel of John in Lindisfarne is quite different. In the table, I have also added the numbers of the Corpus MS which is West Saxon from c.1000. These numbers indicate that `selfs' increase over time. The Latin forms of the pronoun ipse have been provided for comparison.

Rushworth Lindisfarne Corpus Latin ______Matthew 15 8 17 34 Mark 0 12 17 23 Luke 0 17 22 107 John 1 46 47 98 ______Total 16 83 103 262 Table 8: `Self' forms in Rushworth, Lindisfarne, and Corpus (adapted from van Gelderen 2000: 58)

So, there are several stages of Mercian and Northumbrian represented in this table: (a) Mercian in Matthew of Rushworth, (b) Northumbrian in Mark, Luke and John of Rushworth, (c) Northumbrian in Lindisfarne’s Matthew to Luke, and (d) Lindisfarne’s John. As Skeat notes, stage (a), the Mercian, is very close to West Saxon.

4 Forms of seolf in Lindisfarne Of the 19 instances of Latin third person reflexive se, none are glossed with `self’ in the Lindisfarne version of Matthew. They are either him, hine, or (once) hir. Of the 40 instances of a pronoun with the emphatic third person (ipsum, ipse, etc), eight are glossed with `self’, as shown in Table 9. These are direct objects except where I have marked the preposition but not subjects. In Matthew, these may be reflexives already because, if they were intensives, it would be strange for them never to modify a nominative. All have dative or accusative pronouns.

Matthew Latin Old English modern rendering 6.34 sibi ipse him seolfum itself (dative) 16.24 semetipsum hine seolfne himself (accusative) 19.12 se ipsos hia seolfa themselves (accusative) 19.19 te ipsum sua ðec seolfne yourself (accusative singular) 22.39 teipsum suæ ðeh seolfne yourself (accusative singular) 23.31 uobismetipsis iuh seolfum yourselves (dative plural) 27.40 temetipsum hæl ðec seolfne yourself (accusative singular) 27.42 seipsum hine seolfne himself (accusative) Table 9: All `self’ forms in the Matthew part of the Lindisfarne glosses.

Snips for the first two are given below. They show the pronoun is separate from seolf.

Matthew 6.34 Matthew 16.24

Lea (1894) provides 12 self‐marked forms in Mark, as shown in Table 10; here third person predominates and first person is once more absent. I have given snips for the first two and have again indicated if a preposition precedes the pronoun and –self form. Note again the absence of an intensive with a nominative.

Mark Latin Old English modern rendering 3.25 semet ipsam ofer hia seolfa itself (accusative singular) 3.26 semet ipsum on hine sulfne himself (accusative singular) 5.30 semetipso on hine seolfne himself (accusative singular) 8.34 seipsum hine seolfne / him seolfum himself (accusative and dative) 10.26 semet ipsos to him seolfum themselves (dative plural) 12.31 te ipsum suæ ðec seolfne yourself (accusative singular) 12.33 se ipsum sua hine seolfne himself (accusative singular) 13.9 uosmetipsos iuih seolfa yourselves (dative plural) 14.4 semet ipsos bituih him seolfum themselves (dative plural) 15.30 temet ipsum ðeh seolfne yourself (accusative singular) 15.31 seipsum hine seolfne themselves (accusative plural) Table 10: All `self’ forms in the Mark part of the Lindisfarne glosses.

Mark 3.25 Mark 3.26

In Luke, as Table 11 shows, the pronouns are more varied and first person also appears. There are three clear nominatives, as in (7) to (9) so it is used as an intensive. The gloss of ipse ego ‘self I’ as ic seolf `I self’ shows that it was seen as a unit rather than as parts. Note that no genitive pronouns have appeared so far only accusative and dative. Snips of the first two are again given.

Luke Latin Old English modern rendering 4.23 te ipsum ðec seolfne yourself (accusative singular) 7.7 me ipsum mec seolfne myself (accusative singular) 7.30 in semetipsos on him seolfum themselves (dative plural) 9.23 seipsum him seolfum himself (dative singular) 9.25 se autem ipsum hine ðone seolfne himself (accusative singular) 10.27 teipsum ðec seolfe yourself (accusative singular) 10.29 seipsum hine seolfne himself (accusative singular) 11.17 se ipso in him seolfum itself (dative singular) 11.18 se ipsum in hine seolfne himself (accusative singular) 11.46 ipsi gie seolf you yourselves (nominative) 12.57 uobis ipsis from iuh seolfum yourselves (dative plural) 15.17 se autem on hine seolfne himself (accusative singular) 20.19 ipsos to ðæm / to him seolfum them/themselves (dative plural) 22.71 ipsi woe seolfo we ourselves (nominative) 23.28 uos ipsas ofer iuih seolfo yourselves (accusative plural) 23.39 temetipsum ðec seolfne yourself (accusative singular) 24.39 ipse ego ic seolf I myself (nominative) Table 11: All `self’ forms in the Luke part of the Lindisfarne glosses.

(7) soð he cuoeð & iuh æs wisestum wæ forðon gie semað menn mið seamum ðaðe gebeara ne magon & gie seolf anum fingre mið iuer ne gehrinað ðæm hondhæfum. at ille ait et uobis legis peritis uae quia oneratis homines oneribus quae portari non possunt et ipsi uno digito uestro non tangitis sarcinas `And he said, woe unto you also, you lawyers, because you burden men with burdens grievous to be borne and you yourselves don’t touch the burdens with one of your fingers … (Lindisfarne, Luke 11.46) (8) soð hia cuoedon huæd ða get forðor woe willnigas cyðnisse wittnessa woe seolfo forðon geherdon of muðe his. At illi dixerunt quid athuc desideramus testimonium ipsi enim audiuimus de ore eius. `And they said, what need we any further witness? Because we ourselves heard from his mouth.’ (Lindisfarne, Luke 22.71) (9) uidete manus meas et pedes quia ipse ego sum palpate et uidete quia spiritus carnem et ossa non habet sicut me uidetis habere geseas honda mino & foet þætte ic seolf am grapað & geseað forðon se gaast lichoma & bano ne hæfeð suæ mec gie seas habba. `Behold my hands and my feet that it is myself. Grab and see because a spirit doesn’t have body and bones as you see me have.’ (Lindisfarne, Luke 24.39)

Luke 4.23 Luke 7.7

In John, as shown in Table 12, there are 46 seolf forms. Again some modify nominative pronouns and even a noun. But, as before, no genitive pronouns appear. Snips appear below. John Latin Old English modern redering 1.22 te ipso from ðe seolfum dative second singular 2.24 semet ipsum hine seolfne accusative third singular 4.42 ipsi ue seolfa nominative first plural feminine 4.44 ipse he seolf nominative third singular 5.26 semet ipso in hine seolfne accusative third singular 5.26 semet ipso in hine seolfne accusative third singular 5.30 me ipso from mec seolfe accusative first singular 6.61 semet ipsum mið hine seolfne accusative third singular 7.4 te ipsum ðec seolfne accusative second singular 7.17 me ipso from me seolfum dative first singular 7.18 semetipso from hine seolfne … / from him seolfum accusative and dative third singular 7.28 me ipso from me seolfum dative first singular 7.35 se ipsos to him seolfum dative third plural 8.13 te ipso of ðe seolfum dative second singular 8.14 me ipso of mec seolfne accusative first singular 8.18 me ipso of mec seolfum accusative first singular 8.22 semet ipsum hine seolfne accusative third singular 8.28 me ipso from me seolfum dative first singular 8.42 me ipso from me seolfum dative first singular 8.53 quem te ipsum ðone / ðec seolfne accusative second singular 8.54 me ipsum mec seolfne accusative first singular 10.18 me ipso from me seolfum dative first singular 10.33 te ipsum ðec seolfne accusative second singular 11.33 se ipsum hine seolfa accusative third singular followed by a weak intensifier? 11.38 semet ipso on hine seolfne accusative third singular 11.51 semet ipso fron him seolfum dative third singular 11.55 se ipsos hia seolfa accusative third plural (fem P strong or masc S weak) 12.19 semet ipsos to him seolfum dative third singular 12.32 me ipsum to me seolfum dative first singular 12.49 me ipso from me seolfum dative first singular 13.32 semet ipso on hine seolfne accusative third singular 14.3 me ipsum to me seolfum dative first singular

14.10 me ipso from me seolfum dative first singular 14.21 me ipsum mec seolfne accusative first singular 14.22 te ipsum ðec seolfne accusative second singular 15.4 semet ipso from him seolfum dative third singular 16.13 semet ipso from him seolfa ? 16.27 ipse … pater ðe … feder seolf nominative 17.5 temet ipsum ðec mið seolfa l mið ðeh seolfum accusative and dative second singular 17.13 semet ipsis in him seolfum dative third plural 17.19 me ipsum mec seolfne accusative first singular 18.34 temet ipso from ðe seolfum dative second singular 20.10 semet ipsos to him seolfum dative third plural 20.11 se hia seolfe accusative third singular, feminine Table 12: All `self’ forms in the John part of the Lindisfarne glosses.

John 1.22 John 2.24

There is one interesting doublet in John 8.53 that shows demonstratives are even seen as equivalent to second person pronouns. If that is true, the use of the doublet hia/ða for `they’ need not show Scandinavian influence. Two main conclusions emerge from looking at all `self’ forms. The first is that only one translates the Latin se; the others gloss forms of ipse. The second is that Matthew and Mark have only dative and accusative pronouns accompanied by `self’ where Luke and John also have nominatives modified. Genitive pronouns are never used.

5 Functions The oldest use of `self’ is, according to Visser (1963: 420) and van Gelderen (2000: 38ff.), intensifying and modifying a prepositional object but not a direct object. That situation is quite different in Lindisfarne. I’ll first discuss intensive use and then possibly reflexive use. There is also one special reflexive possessive. In Lindisfarne’s Matthew and Mark, when the Latin original modifies nouns with ipse or a nominative pronoun, the Old English never has `self’. For instance, in (2), the Latin ipse is rendered as ða ilca `that same (one)’ and, in (10), it is he.

(10) pariet autem filium et uocabis nomen eius iesum bring.forth however son and you.shall.call name his Jesus ipse enim saluum faciet populum suum a peccatis eorum he therefore salvation make people his from sins their `And she’ll bring forth a son, which you’ll call Jesus, because he will save his people from their sins.’ (Matthew 1.21)

In the two other Gospels of Lindisfarne, there are intensives, e.g. when they appear with a noun in (11) or with a pronoun in (7) to (9).

(11) ipse enim pater amat uos quia uos me amatis et credidistis quia ego a deo exiui REFL therefore father loves you for you me have‐loved and believed that I from God came ðe forðon feder seolf lufað iuih forðon gie mec lufað (and) gie gelefdon þætte ic from gode ic foerde vel. `Because the father himself loves you because you have loved me and have believed that I came from God.’ (John 16.27)

Seolf, seolfa, seolfe, and seolfo are used as emphatics to subjects 17 times in Luke and John. However, most `selfs' modify objects. Accusative forms such as seolfne modify direct and prepositional accusative objects and are possibly reflexive, as in (12). Dative forms such as seolfum modify dative objects such as (13), and could all be reflexive.

(12) oðero halo dyde hine seolfne ne mæge halne doa others safe made him‐ACC self‐ACC not may save do `He has saved others, but he cannot save himself.' (Lindisfarne, Matthew, 27.42) (13) ðaðe suiðor gewundradon cuoeðende to him seolfum they much wondered, saying to them‐DAT self‐DAT `They were astonished; saying among themselves....' (Lindisfarne, Mark, 10.26)

Turning to clear reflexive use, as (1) shows, simple pronouns can be used reflexively. This is true for first and second person pronouns as well. Because the special accusative case is very much alive, this form can also be used reflexively in (14).

(14) ðu huu wið inn heofnum ðu ðec ahefes you whether with in heaven 2S.NOM 2S.ACC arise `you who are exalted unto heaven.' (Lindisfarne, Matthew 11.23)

There is one instance where Latin se is glossed with a seolf‐form, namely (15) in John. This is part of a reflexive verb and not a likely candidate for an emphatically strong hia seolfe.

(15) Maria autem stabat ad monumentum foris maria uutedlice gestod to ðær byrgenne / æt ðæm byrgenne buta ute plorans dum ergo fleret inclinauit se et prospexit in monumentum gewæp miððy forðon hremende / uoepende gebeg hia seolfe & giorne sceode locade forð in ðæm byrgenne. `But Mary stood at the sepulchre away weeping and, while she wept, she stooped down and looked into the sepulchre.’ (Lindisfarne, John 20.11)

Older Germanic has a special possessive reflexive, as in Table 5, still seen in Scandinavian languages today. Lindisfarne has one, namely (16). The Latin actually lacks a pronoun altogether.

(16) Hoc iam tertio manifestatus est iesus ðis ða ðridda dægi æteuwdæ se hælend / uæs æteuwed discipulis cum surrexisset a mortuis sinum ambehtum miððy aras from deadum `This then is the third day that the savior was shown to his disciples since he arose from the dead.’ (Lindisfarne, John 21.14)

In conclusion, the typical functions of `self’ marked pronouns are direct and prepositional object, as in (12) and (13), reflexive verb in (15), and intensive, as in (7) to (9). `Self’ on its own also modifies a noun in (11) and a special reflexive possessive appears in (16).

6 Weak or strong and person preference? As to the forms in Lindisfarne and Rushworth, most have strong inflection, showing they modify a (pro)noun. There are a few weak inflections, perhaps indicating the status of the preceding pronoun as D head. The paradigms are given in Tables 13 and 14, according to Campbell (1959: 262ff.).

S 3FS 3NS P F N NOM self selfe/u self selfe selfa selfu GEN selfes selfra/e selfes selfra selfra selfra DAT selfum selfre selfum selfum selfum selfum ACC selfne selfe self selfe selfa selfu Table 13: Strong (indefinite) inflection on `self’ S 3FS 3NS P NOM selfa selfe selfe selfan GEN selfan selfan selfan selfra DAT selfan selfan selfan selfum ACC selfan selfan selfe selfan Table 14: Weak (definite) inflection on `self’

There are a number of `mistakes’ in the morphology. For instance, in (17), the –a ending is a feminine plural where the Latin is masculine.

(17) & sint unawoemdo ða ðe hia seolfa (hia) hygdiglige beheoldon et sunt eunuchi qui se ipsos castrauerunt `and (there are) are eunuchs who have castrated themselves.’ (Matthew 19.12)

In all of Lindisfarne, `self' modifies a third person 41 times, a second person 22 times, a first person 19 times, and an NP once. This is shown in Table 15 divided by gospel.

Matthew Mark Luke John Total 1st ps 0 0 3 16 19 2nd ps 4 3 6 9 22 3rd ps 4 9 8 20 41 noun 0 0 0 1 1 Total 8 12 17 46 83 Table 15: What `self’ modifies by gospel in the Lindisfarne Glosses

7 Conclusion The Glosses to Lindisfarne are interesting in that the simple `self' sometimes modifies a full NP as emphatic. This is unexpected if Celtic had been the reason because then complex pronouns would be expected. The main use of `self’ modifies accusative and dative pronouns, which are possibly object reflexives. Again, if the Celtic system of Table 4 had influenced the Northumbrian Glosses, it is unexpected that the accusative and dative are used instead of a genitive. As for Scandinavian influence, Old English has a reflexive possessive in very rare cases. The Lindisfarne Gloss to John has (16) and Old Norse has such forms. The Lindisfarne Glosses also use ða as `they’ but this need not show Scandinavian influence because John 8.53 has a demonstrative even with a second person pronouns. If that is true, the use of the doublet hia/ða for `they’ need not show Scandinavian influence. As for what reflexives say about author, Matthew and Mark lack the intensive use of seolf where Luke and John use it. John also translates a Latin se with hia seolfe `herself’, indicating his use of seolf is the most modern.

References Berndt, Rolf 1956. Form und Funktion des Verbums im nördlichen Spätaltenglischen. Halle: Max Niemeyer. Brookes, Stewart 2016. The Shape of Things to Come? Variation and Intervention in Aldred’s Gloss to the Lindisfarne Gospels. In Julia Fernández Cuesta & Sara Pons‐Sanz (eds). The Old English Gloss to the Lindisfarne Gospels: Language, Author and Context, 103‐150. De Gruyter Mouton. Cole, Marcelle 2014a. Where did THEY come from? A native origin for THEY, THEIR, THEM. ICEHL talk. Cole, Marcelle 2014b. Old Northumbrian Verbal Morphosyntax and the (Northern) Subject Rule. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Faarlund, Jan‐Terje 2004. The Syntax of Old Norse. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Fernández Cuesta, Julia & Sara Pons‐Sanz (eds) 2016. The Old English Gloss to the Lindisfarne Gospels: Language, Author and Context. De Gruyter Mouton. Filppula, Markku, Juhani Klemola and Heli Paulasto 2008. English and Celtic in contact. London: Routledge. Gelderen, Elly van 2000. A History of English Reflexive Pronouns. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Irslinger, Britta 2014. Intensifiers and reflexives in SAE, Insular Celtic and English. Indogermanische Forschungen 119: 159‐206. Janssen, H. 1957. Historische Grammatica van het Latijn II. Den Haag: Servire. Klemola, J. 2013. English as a contact language in the British Isles, in Schreier and Hundt (eds.), 75‐ 87. Lange, Claudia 2006. Reflexivity and Intensification in English. Frankfurt: Peter Lang. Lea, Elizabeth Mary 1894. The language of the Northumbrian Gloss to the Gospel of St. Mark, Anglia 16: 62‐206. Moore, S. & A. H. Marckwardt. 1951. Historical Outlines of English Sounds and Inflections. Ann Arbor: George Wahr. Nagucka, Ruth 1997. Glossal translation in the Lindisfarne Gospel according to Saint Matthew. Studia Anglica Posnaniensia XXXI: 179‐201. Pons‐Sanz, Sara 2013. The Lexical Effects of Anglo‐Scandinavian Linguistic Contact on Old English. Turnhout: Brepols. Poppe, Erich 2009. Standard Average European and the Celticity of English intensifiers and reflexives: Some considerations and implications. English Language and Linguistics 13: 251‐ 66. Skeat, Walter 1881‐7. (ed) The Gospel according to St. Matthew, St. Mark, St. Luke and St. John. Reprint: Darmstadt: Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft. Suárez‐Gómez, Cristina 2009. On the syntactic differences between OE dialects: evidence from the Gospels. English Language and Linguistics 13.1: 57–75. Tristram, Hildegard 1999. How Celtic is Standard English? The Annual celtic Lecture, St. Petersburg. Vezzosi, Letizia 2005. The Development of himself in Middle English: A 'Celtic' Hypothesis. In Nikolaus Ritt and H. Schendl, Rethinking Middle English : linguistic and literary approaches, 228–43. Peter Lang.