finger-docce

Old-English: fingerdocca, fingirdocca, fingrdocca, fingit toca, fingerdocce, fingrdoccana, fingirdoccuna, fingittocana,

Latin (Machine generated): DIGITALIUM MASCULORUM, DIGITALIUM MUNUSCULORUM, DIGITALIUM MUSCULORUM,

• →docce;

• B:
  ? -, finger-muscle, Fingermuskel
• A: plant: native
  ?? Digitalis purpurea L., foxglove, Roter Fingerhut

• Comment on (A): ?? Digitalis purpurea L., foxglove, Roter Fingerhut

  Cf. Meritt, note on 70,22 and Brown (1969,501): "The OE can be safely identified as the plantname it appears to be, if the lemma reflects Pliny, Nat. Hist.xxv 13(102)§ 160 (COTYLEDON, BUPHTHALMON) 'SUNT QUI ... VOCANT ...AUT OCULUM AUT DIGITILLUM. ALTERUM (GENUS) MINUSCULUM, etc.' (Note that BUGLOSSA corresponds to OE glōfuyrt 'Foxglove', which would appear to be nearer the desired botanical identification than BUPHTHALMON.)"

  I cannot accept this explanation, which Pheifer (note on Erf 346) supports, too. Neither COTYLEDON nor BUPHTALMON (cf. André, s.v.) can be connected to D. purpurea; the plant was hardly used for medical purposes in Antiquity or the German Middle Ages (cf. Marzell 2000,2,130). Moreover the identification of OE →foxes glofa is only based on the ModE equivalent 'foxglove' (cf. Britten / Holland 1886, s.v.) but not on the meaingn of the L lemmata in the glosses.

• Comment on (B): ? -, finger-muscle, Fingermuskel

  I prefer an identification with 'finger-muscle' (cf. HEW, s.v. docca; Wynn 1961,711; Sweet 1885,582), the gloss Dur 5 ("ACROCERIUM docca") seems to support my reasoning. What is more, the plant was hardly used in medieval medicine. The DOE, s.v. refutes this meaning, as it "takes little account of the second element of the OE compound, which is always a plant name".